HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-04-26 Board of Selectmen HandoutMessage
Page 1 of 4
Hechenbleikner, Peter
To: Honkonen, Karl (ENV); McIntire, Ted
Cc: Stergios, James (ENV); Gildesgame, Mike (DCR); Hutchins, Linda (DCR)
Subject: RE: revised ITA conditions
Karl
I've reviewed the proposed conditions and have the comments as noted below. In addition, Reading is
concerned that the comments made in our presentation at the last WRC meeting be included in the decision.
Pete
-----Original Message-----
From: Honkonen, Karl (ENV) [mailto: Karl. Honkonen@state.ma.us]
Sent, Monday, April 25, 2005 12:46 PM
To: Hechenbleikner, Peter; McIntire, Ted
Cc: Stergios, James (ENV); Gildesgame, Mike (DCR); Hutchins, Linda (DCR)
Subject: revised ITA conditions
Hi Peter and Ted,
1 hope you had a great vacation in the Grand Canyon- I want to hear the details sometime so I can
begin planning my own trek there someday soon!
I just left you a message to begin a quick review of the revised ITA application conditions. WRC staff
worked last week to produce the revised conditions below based on feedback received at the April
WRC meeting and subsequent public comment through April 15th.
We hope to mail this revised staff recommendation to WRC members this Thursday so please.
consider this a draft to rework between now and then. Please give me a call to discuss when you get
a chance.
Thanks, Karl
DRAFT CONDITIONS OF THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Based on the analyses and concerns expressed about this project, staff recommend
approval of Reading's application under the Interbasin Transfer Act for admission to the MWRA
System subject to the following conditions. Reading must commit in writing to abide by these
conditions.
1. (a) Reading will manage its sources so that for the months of May through October, it will limit use
of its Ipswich River Basin sources to 1 mgd and will purchase up to 219 million gallons of water
from the MWRA during that period.
f(b) As noted in the MEPA letter of March 31, 2005, "in the event that the Town of Reading should
require the withdrawal of additional water supply'from within the Ipswich River basin beyond the
proposed 1 mgd during the May 1-October 31 low flow period as described in the FEIR to
respond to an unforeseen, isolated or emergency situation, the Town would not be required to
notify the MEPA Office.
Should the Town require additional water supply from within the Ipswich River Basin in amounts
4/26/2005
Message Page 3 of 4
(d) The Town will implement each additional water conservation measure within 7
days of reaching the MWRA water use/streamflow level, and the Town may grant
waivers. If the Town determines that some other restrictions will be at least as
effective as those noted in each threshold above, the Town may petition the WRC
for modification of these restrictions.
(e) Within three business days of each Trigger Date, the Town will provide a
written report of cumulative MWRA water consumption for the calendar year
to the following entities (offices or individuals to be determined): DEP,
EOEA/MEPA, and DCR. In the same report, the Town also will report on the
current conservation restrictions in place. delete - we think this is
unnecessary and burdensome
Table X
Trigger Dates and MWRA Water Use Thresholds
Trigger Date
MWRA water use
threshold
June 15
86 mg or more
[Hechenbleikner,
Peter] Delete -the
Town has never
agreed to this
Jul 15
115 m or more
August 15
147 m or more
September 15
180 m or more
Table Y
4/26/2005
Required Town Actions Based on Streamflow
Levels
Town actions if Streamflow is below threshold for 3 consecutive
days
First
'Town will reduce hours of allowed outdoor water use by two hours
per day from the existing Town of Reading Stage 1 mandatory
restrictions.
Second
Town will reduce hours of allowed outdoor water use by four hours
per day from the existing Town of Reading Stage 1 mandatory
restrictions and will require that only hand-held watering devices
be used.[Hechenbleikner, Peter delete
Third
Town will reduce hours of allowed outdoor water use by six
(5)
Page 1 of 2
Hechenbleikner, Peter
From: Kerry Mackin [kerrymackin@verizon.net]
Sent: Friday, April 22, 2005 3:02 PM
To: Town Manager
Cc: Gina (Stream.Team); Kerry Mackin
Subject: message responding to Selectmens comments
Peter, would you please forward this message to the Selectmen as soon as possible. It is in
response to their request for information.
Thanks,
Kerry
Dear Selectmen,
Following your request last week, I have prepared a spreadsheet that summarizes all the
water withdrawals from the Ipswich River Watershed. Please bear in mind the spreadsheet
has quite a lot of information, and may require some time to go through it. I have made some
explanatory comments for each community as notes, and would be happy to discuss the
information and answer any questions you may have. The spreadsheet also notes whether
wastewater is- discharged through septic systems (recharging aquifers) or out-of-basin (net
loss to basin).
I have not included all the requirements of the Water Management.(WMA) permits, but
please be aware that these communities are being required to implement a number of strict
water conservation measures, including outdoor watering restrictions, caps on total summer
use, aggressive leak detection, metering, enhanced water conservation programs such as
rebates, education and outreach, water banks and other measures. I have not included all
these measures in the spreadsheet. All the permits are under appeal, and DEP has not
required any community to implement the provisions until the appeals are settled. However, all
legal rulings issued thus far have found that DEP has the authority to impose these conditions.
DEP also has issued a policy under the WMA requiring strict conditions including flow-
triggered outdoor restrictions in stressed basins.
The spreadsheet includes the most current information on the status of triggers for outdoor
water use restrictions. Every permit required mandatory restrictions on "non-essential" outdoor
water use when flows fall below 0.42 cfsm for 3 consecutive days. (This is exactly the same
restriction that was applied to Reading's draft interbasin transfer approval in July, which
Reading opposed.) Danvers-Middleton and Ipswich, which use reservoirs for their main
supply, have agreed to a settlement including flow-triggers in their drought management
plans. Wilmington has been operating under an emergency declaration requiring these
restrictions. Peter Tassi's notes indicate that North Reading doesn't plan to contest this
provision because they do not think it is winnable.
IRWA appreciates your comments in favor of equitable treatment among the communities,
and on this basis we urge Reading to reconsider its opposition to this condition. If we could
agree on this, the dispute could. be resolved. I think that you will see that there is no
unfairness toward Reading. Many of the towns pump less than 1 mgd from the Ipswich in
summer, and quite a few discharge via septic systems to recharge the watershed's aquifers.
4/22/2005' (9
m
L
U
a
E
m
c
ri.
4'S
a
E
E
U
`o
c
N
m
O
U
.I
I
m
N
'
a
IF
a
o
m
E
.
N
r
m
N
- N
tDU,;10
E
m
=
w S ❑
m
m
0
e
~~ii~'',Em III Z
~
m
-m
°
FIO o .i =
m
m
c
o
m
~
U
O
=
y E 'D 1'
~ 0
p
y
Y
N
F.
a
O
C
, 4 -
i
1
m
J
EZ~
m
a
a
E
~
c''cm
N o'E
~
~
u
i `m
E
$
o ti
c
mI
.
~s -S
E
>
3
3 m
E
1
2
(
0
m o
.2
~o E E E'k
E'y E E E
a
=
Z
c m
m m
a~
.
m
;rn
S
3
'
°
N
m
c
a
E
a
?
3
~3
•
E
Em
w S SN
°
'
m
a
m
N
g
fE~~~E EE.E EI
Efv~EEE
a
y
m
ti
,-t
3
w
~'1'i i° E E t 'C> 'G 'G
m r °
GEE i 'G Ti
I
N
m
~3 o
3 G
a 3
M
A
c v
m
N
N N N tV I
(N i
!v v v m v~
N I N ry
N
.t v v u
~
m
o
p
E c
c
=
v m
o Q
~
ro
q, aoaor
q
o;._ oo°
my
C4
.
EE
E~
E
_
c
m m
c
o d
°
m
m °c
c
c
c
°c
0
m
m
m m
a
m
m v
c E
c
e
c
'
=
`
0m
`°'G
i
°
m
-
m
'
m
;
3
m
. v
N m
y
G
a
.
29
0q
a
y
01
0
a
C
L
°
O
°
A :2
0 j
0
°
Z
in
u°
'E
E-~
3
x
5~
N
o
a
N
u~
O]
M
M
O
if/
n
m
dM
O
=
=
9E
jo
raZ
c
m
E3
m
oc
°m
E
e
~
m
c
3
N
M
E
°
o
O
o
o
o
vi
n
o
°
>
a
v
3
~ 3
~
N u
°
c
'
n
-
B
.
V;
.
.
U,
s
o
a
a
E
c
E!
e
c~
o
om
c°
N
'
v
uri
o
`
o
~
x
E
y
w
°
o
E
E
3
m
N
y
0 0 M
C
V C
v
!q;:
M
0
O E
e
E
m
m
m
~
a
-
a
0
Q
~
3
E
'
ma
'D
m
-Om
Z
.L
°
a1N.
E
O
~c
q 1D
r M
-t
O
~
DN
M
1°
o
V m
° H
l
N
C
m
.0..
a
N
c
m'S C
N
N
s?
_
~
M
O
~
~
°
.
`
~
m
C_
E
s
m
m
m
>M
m
3
~
°
c
°
d
a
m
m
u
o
m
`c
y
m
3 m
o .
a°
sN
m
w
m
m
3o
m
L1
N
0
3
m
c
N
u
i
~
y
y3
m
cL ti
c
V
p`
e
Q
cL
m
o
a
om
i9 O
Z
m
V€
m
'o
m
~
m
N
m
E
'S
`m
=
E
cm
m `
- m
$
o.
K
o
m
m
'0
'
°
t
'T
L
N
mo E'
~v
v
'G
~
u
m
s
3ay
my
3
NM
m
t
€
a
,c
.
°V
'E
3•
•3 •
N
m
°
- 2 m
'
m G
m
Em
r"
O
'3
mc_
c
v
=
y
-
-
m
d
0
NZ
I
0
m -
N
-
-
-
-
-
_
0
x
x
N
o y m,
m
y?•
v
y
a V1
m m
N
m
a
m
m
m
E
m
c-m
sa
o
e
0a
E
5
m
v~
0
w
m
3
0
0
O
a
E
°
m
e
e
3
m
m
°
m
c
m
3
N
N N
.7 EE
m
N
y
N
N
N .
_
1
C
p .
2
-
.C
e
C m
3
U
N
m
[
p
m
6
0
0
y
C
m
m
Z.
~ a
Z~
m
c
c
m 3
'
E `
=
ac `m
=
S
m 3
3
y
°
`m
9
E
v `m
L E
°
E
'.DE
e
O
3
m
3
m 3
v m
>
E
e
m
m
3
0
N
3
°
N
a
o
N
$
e'O
o v
~
N N
N
N
$
N
m
0
E
r„,.
y c
m= 0
m 3
N'~
-
C
m
a
a
m v
G=
v
=
m
m
o
•
o m
m
m
m
`m
c
.n
o e
e
° m
y
y
-
m
m
_
E e
o
v
c
0
3
e'
a
2
e
mE
3
>
3
3
3
z
m
a
m
a
m a
5
ma
m
~m
o
o
v
o
M:
a m
v
0
v
o
3m
m
a
y
m m o
e
e
m
;
m
o
m
o
m'
s
t
='SL'
s
c°
8
,
>
>
>
m
m
m
m
EO
v
E
y
E
e
N
L°
o
N
m>
3
> e
m
o
N
e
e
E
m
~
.
c yvmi
0
a
'O
m
w
a
v
=
3
m
m m 2
~ m
~
~
m
m
o
O
m
1O
D)
N
m
a
.0
~
9
~
N L
~ N N
y a
'C C
y
.m=
C
~ V
>
N
m N
? ;N
N
N
H
C
B
`
/
$
N
M
m m
`O
m
o
m
m
m
m=r~
m
a
0
m,
K
o
o5
mv
E ~
E
t
c
e
o
E
m
~
m
c
m
a
c
$
•
<
am•
o
°
m
E
>
E
m
-6
~
t
a
c
.
o
mc
m
cE3
m m N
c
'ri'~
o
Za
m
m m
~
m
m o
co
m
E
E
c
t°
O
E
=
c
mm
m
m
m
m
N
'
c
m
~
-
`
0
U
0
O
= m
-
J
JZo
m m
6. K
m
V1
o
I•-
~
S
S
Q
Z~-
NM
O
v)
I
~tO
D/~
s
-
~
(5)
Ipswich River:
In Critical Condition
Environmental Impacts of
Low-flows on the Ipswich River
• River becomes a series of ponds
• Water recedes from streambanks
• Fish kills, loss of macroinvertebrates
• Loss of river dependent species of fish
• Decreased biodiversity
• Higher water temperature
• Low dissolved oxygen
• Decreased water quality
• Long-term impacts on wetlands?
Critical Habitats:
Channel Margins
W As river level drops, water recedes front edges of channels, which
are essential habitat to juvenilefish and other aquatic creatures
Effects of pumping wells
Critical Habitats: Ri es
:z
r
r 4
When riffles dry up, key habitat and oxygenation
zones are lost, and river breaks apart into isolated
puddles
River no lodger flows continuously - becomes
segmented and stagnant
Generalist or "Pond" Fish
S
Black Crappie
,N\\ ~
f
Largemouth Bass
Pumpkinseed Bluegill Yellow Perch
Fluvial or "River" Fish
B !l T
Fall(~sL
Creek Chubsucker Tesseldted Darter Common Shiner
Lawn Watering kills fish
#I PROBLEM
• Lawn irrigation water is -100% loss to atmosphere
• -15 million gallons a day on watering lawns -this is
roughly equivalent to the Ipswich River's summer flow
deficit
• Need better management of in-ground irrigation
systems AND private wells
• Landscaping guidelines
• Tried and true: water bans and effective restrictions
MEPA
• FEIR and MEPA Certificate specified lmgd
limit on use of Reading's wells from May
through October
• Original WRC decision set 1 mgd limit only
May - September or until Reading reaches
self-imposed 219 mg MWRA purchase
limitation - didn't comply with MEPA
Existing and Target
Fish Communities
FD FS
3
l
I I
MG,' 93%
rD 20%
i
'--rS 51°1.
Application
Legal Issues
- MEPA Compliance
- Viable source: use of Reading's wells during
low flow periods
- All practical conservation measures
- Public notice and due process
- Adverse legal precedent
- Contrary to state policy and standards
Viable Source
• Regulatory definition requires preservation
of reasonable flows in the receiving basin
• This is to be evaluated according to the
same criteria that apply to the donor basin
• USGS findings of hydrological model,
aquatic habitat study and management
alternatives study are highly relevant
Viable Source
• WRC decision is based on finding that use
of Reading's wells during low-flow periods
is not viable at current levels
• DEP found that use of Reading's wells is
not viable during low flow periods
- <0.42 efsm June-Oct; <1.5 cfsm in May
• DCR legal counsel advised that a source is
not viable if it causes damage (adverse
impacts) to the environment
ITA Requirement: All practical water
conservation measures have been taken
Performance Standard: Outdoor water use
restrictions tied to streamflows
- Reading's restrictions allow 10-30% more
summer water use than flow-triggered
restrictions, per Reading's consultant
- These restrictions allow 28.5 mg more water
use on average and up to 47 mg more use in dry
summers
- They are not "increasingly stringent" in
practice, nor equivalent in their impact
Reach 8: In Critical Condition:
No "increasingly stringent" restrictions triggered
in 1995, 1997 orrr 1999
r t
i
MWRA Limit
• 219 mg annual limit was not based on
analysis of flows in the Ipswich River -
didn't meet required analysis for "viable
source"
• FEIR says that purchase will be less than
219 mg except in rare instances
• IRWA proposes that Reading buy less water
in "wet" years and more water in "dry"
years, using 219 mg/y on a 5-yr average
(once new treatment plant is on-line)
New WRC Conditions
• Condition 3: sets flow-triggered restrictions like
those applying to other communities
• But: Condition 2 exempts Reading from these
restrictions almost all the time*
• IRWA believes that Superior Court would find
this exemption to be overly broad, excessive and
impermissable (negating statutory requirement)
*100% of the time from 2000-2004
85% of the time from 1999-2003
No increasingly stringent
restrictions tri
ggered in 2002
F
Requirement:
All practical water conservation
measures have been taken
• Reading's water rate is a flat rate, and does
not meet the standard for conservation rates,
such as
- Inclining block rate
- Seasonal rate
- Fee/bate rate structure
Other Legal Issues
• Due process failures, including inadequate
public notice, private negotiations with
proponent and voting irregularities
• Adverse precedent: new class of "do good"
interbasin transfers not meeting regulations
and performance standards
• Non-compliance with numerous state
policies and guidelines
DEP Modeling: Impacts of
Reading's wells on Reach 8
t~ ,I
Requirement: Accurate Metering
• Reading's raw water meters are inaccurate
and unreliable
• Evaluation of Reading's use of its wells
frequently confuses raw with finished water
volumes
• WMA Registration based on flawed data
USGS Findings re Scenarios at Reach 8 and Reach 19
AWalei& pl Simulafims
40
30 -keW1! 7dhYaa14T3rm
-16:a.'a0xltlri,hFElar1
- Fl.rhavf7hm:ra]d.Ckm~rtanov:..
- +:p:2'IIEVtlYl:lt~iCd7d]Ifi~'YJUI
ID -Struslrt.Cd:tasP>:drdl
1e
ANNE ~ AMT MWV9T SEFIE.~A ~ OCr00FA
W]
Re: October
Frequency of flows below OA2 cfsm by month
1800 - 80%
E 1600 - - 80% ~
1400 -
0 1200 , 60% a
,000 1 - 60%
y 800 - 40%
30%
E 400 20%
200 ll t. ,L ` 10%
~~r-✓ ' - ` -1 c%
o
Jan Fab Mor Apr Moy Jon Jul Avg Sep Oct Nov Dec
Month, over period at record
lrvrtJ: FmTUenn ofilom hioe:eJ.<Wn.tl l~Se55.w~liA4JJlnona4samilnRtlauvs. ]um le]]a]a .W F-VSU30s.m1-
zao~ -
lL I Onr011bbM1n0
~ aA[vU.w)
mmm - I it
i
ell I _ I i
3003 3avz 3004 ,~e
M-a Amrre 0+y3kmv:d naR V:ar~.nN,caa.lmn-Maa
Summer: Winter Comparison
Sunnier vs Winter Months, 1999.2008
300D000
2500000
2000000 -
is M _ _ v5summer month og
1000000 D 5 wlmar month a,g
r N
Note high WINTER use in 2003
resulted in a lower summer:winter ratio that year
Summary
• Use of Reading's wells is not viable during low-
flow periods, per DEP
• A source is not viable if it causes damage to the
environment: DCR legal counsel
• Withdrawals cannot exceed 1 mgd May-October
per MEPA
• Reading's water restrictions, rates and metering do
not meet statutory requirements
- Need effective outdoor water restrictions iflow-
triggered)
- Need inclining block, seasonal or fee-bate rate structure
- Management cannot be based on flawed meter data
Residential gped is good
but overall gped does not show an
improving trend
weamv w.ur as. m v.,wns p.r p.noe wr e.y
,ao
~ - - - ~
oT~~
c~.a.M1wlcrm
30[13 2003 300, 3000 ,800
Water savings from effective
outdoor restrictions
Water Savings from streandbw-triggeted restrictions over
Reading's restrictions
50.
0
40
40.0 -
o 35.0
- _ Oerilm0led vgleraavryn•MmJ
q 00.0 Sept
m 250
e 20.0 Onl eaarye In mm mMtf
150 -
160 -
50
0.0 T -
2m3 ?On2 2]Oi 21tlI 1~9 eiempe
Reading ADD:
No discernable trend
w.amv nnr.v. wramaa.a,w..a nnbn.a
SIGN-IN SHEET FOR THE BOARD OF SELECTMEN MEETING
DATE:
NAME
(Please print)
e
~t 5r' ti ~
J-11ftr ~a
ADDRESS
i TZZ
) v. ~
i'ci.G~LItiFA ~U1n~S CQ ~
~..n to t~
.-5
~YI V C CK
13 PG A" jr)