Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-03-15 Board of Selectmen HandoutTOWN MANAGER'S REPORT Tuesday, March 15, 2005 ♦ The Red Sox trophy was in Reading on March 9 at the Senior Center. There was a nice crowd, and a lot of smiling faces. The Lottery and Red Sox representatives were great. ® For the first time in Reading's history, we will probably top $1 million in snow and ice control costs for a single year. We get some FEMA reimbursement for some of the costs of the January blizzard. o The Board of Selectmen had a good meeting last night with the SAPAC and the School Committee on substance abuse. ® Next Monday the Board of Selectmen and School Committee will meet with the FINCOM on Health Insurance. This is an educational forum for the 3 bodies. ♦ Department Heads are meeting tomorrow with our State Rep's and Senator on a variety of issues. ® The legislative delegation is then meeting with our Insurance Advisory Committee on Health Insurance Issues. ® Town employees have suffered 3 losses in the last week - Fire Lt. Peter Marchetti's 2 year old son died - he suffered since birth with spina bifida. And then Police Officer Charlie Lentini passed away last Thursday. And most recently Accounting Administrator Lisa O'Brien's husband passed away very suddenly, at age 39. It's been a very difficult week for our employee family. ® The Fire Department has secured 2 grants - $6200 in reimbursement of our work by Police, Fire and DPW on behalf of the DNC last Summer; and $39,000 for primarily technology and training for the Department. The Fire Department is also submitting for reimbursement for the removal of the Underground Storage Tank at the High School. If all of that is not enough, The RFD is submitting our FEMA application for reimbursement for snow/ice expenses from the January blizzard. ® The Wood End working group has had 2 meetings and is meeting again on March 18. The discussions and cooperative attitude are excellent. ♦ I need a Board of Selectmen representative to meet with me and a representative of the FINCOM, and School Department representative on the Finance Director position. o Joe Duffy and Gail Wood met with me and Special Counsel as well as a representative of RCTV and T-TAC to begin the process of developing the Town's negotiation position on a CATV franchise with Verizon. We will meet again in about a month. After discussion with Town Counsel, I have asked Bill Solomon of Stoneham to submit a proposal to provide Special Counsel services on this matter. Solomon is Stoneham's counsel, and also has negotiated a number of CATV franchise agreements in the state. v (f . 6,f GARY S. BRACKETT ELAINE M. LUCAS JOAN E. LANGSAM JOHN G. GANNON M. YVONNE GONZALEZ* JAMES T. MASTERALEXIS STEVEN C. FLETCHER** ELLEN CALLAHAN DOUCETTE DONNA GORSHEL COHEN HEATHER C. WHITE *Also Admitted in CT **Also Admitted in ME and CO Patrick A. Schettini, Superintendent of Schools Reading Public Schools 82 Oakland Road Reading, MA 01867-0280 Re: Dear Mr. Schettini: March 14, 2005 8 w %n Warrant Article on Revisiting Redistricting You have asked my opinion as to the propriety of the above-mentioned Warrant Article, submitted by at least ten (10) taxpayers, being voted upon by the Town Meeting. The Article reads: To see if the Town of Reading will direct the School Committee & Superin- tendent in addressing the elementary redistricting for the '05-'06 school year in a way that would eliminate busing of children across the district who can currently walk to their neighborhood school; and allow children who currently have sidewalks for safe travel to their local school be exempt from the redistricting plan with the possibility of future changes, if necessary, when the Franklin Street sidewalks are completed; or take any other action with respect thereto. The signatures were certified by the Town Clerk on February 25, 2005. 1. Pursuant to Mass.Gen.Laws ch. 39, § 10, the Selectmen must insert the Article into the Warrant, whether it is legal or not. That statute clearly states, in pertinent part, "The selectmen shall insert in the warrant for the annual meeting all subjects the insertion of which shall be requested of them in writing by ten or more registered voters of the town (emphasis supplied) 0 BRACYETT & LUCAS COUNSELORS AT LAW 19 CEDAR STREET WORCESTER, MASSACHUSETTS 01609 508-799-9739 Fax: 508-799-9799 WINCHESTER OFFICE 165 WASHINGTON STREET WINCHESTER, MASSACHUSETTS 01890 781-729-1500 Fax: 781-729-5444 E-Mail: DGorshelCohen@BrackettLucas.com Please realy to Winchester office March 14, 2005 Page 2 2. That being said, the Moderator should rule the Motion, when made, out of order. He should do so because the Article conflicts with both local and state law. Under the Reading Home Rule Charter, § 3-3, School Committee, The School Committee shall have all of the powers and duties School Committees are given under the Constitution and General Laws of the Commonwealth and such additional powers and duties as may be authorized by the Charter, by bylaw, or' by other Town Meeting vote. The powers of the School Committee shall include, but need not be limited to, the following: (b) The School Committee shall make all reasonable rules and regulations, consistent with law, for the administration and management of the public schools of the Town. Furthermore, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 71, § 37, provides, in pertinent part, The school committee in each town shall establish educational goals and policies for the schools in the district consistent with the requirements of law and statewide goals and standards established by the board of education. It is clear from the language of both the charter and the statute that the School Committee has been given great latitude in its decision-making powers, and certainly delineating school busing districts fall within its purview. It seems to me that a Town Meeting cannot simply overturn that decision. If this were the case, there would be no need for School Committees, or any other type of Board or Committee, for that matter. I find nothing in any local or state law that provides for a Town Meeting to regulate the activities of a School Department's activities, with the possible exception of some budgetary matters. In sum, it is my opinion that (1) the Article should be placed on the Warrant and (2) the Moderator should rule the Motion out of order once it is made at Town Meeting. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, A 4ve,~ ~ ~ DONNA GORSHEL COHEN cc: Peter Hechenbleikner, Town Manager Alan Foulds, Town Moderator 0 (-ISM Hechenbleikner, Peter From: Feudo, John Sent: Monday, March 14, 2005 10:44 AM To: Hechenbleikner, Peter Subject: RE: Imagination Station Hi Peter, The Recreation Committee named Patrick Fennelly and Frank Driscoll as a task force for Imagination Station, I have done some primary research and have been in contact with Leathers and Associates (IS construction Co.). I am waiting to back from Leathers with some numbers on the timbers. I will see Frank and Patrick on Wed. I will ask them to meet with me and evaluate the needs of IS. I have also compiled a short list of residents that are interested in helping with any volunteer work that might be needed. Once we get going we can do more outreach to the community. I'll follow up this week. John From: Hechenbleikner, Peter Sent: Monday, March 07, 2005 10:56 AM To: Feudo, John Subject: Imagination Station I believe I had asked the Recreation committee with your assistance, to come up with a plan and costs for refurbishing IS - everything from the material underneath, to replacing the contact surfaces with plastic timer. What is the status of this? Pete 1 U-5- 11-1 Town of Reading 16 Lowell Street Reading; MA 01867-2686 FAX: (781) 942-9071 TOWN MANAGER Email: townmanager&l.reading.ma.us (781) 942-9043 Legal Notice (Seal) Town of Reading To the Inhabitants of the Town of Reading: The Board of Selectmen of the Town of Reading, Massachusetts will accept applications for a Cable Television License pursuant to the regulations established by the Massachusetts Cable Television Division. Applications must be filed at the Town Manager's Office, 16 Lowell Street, Reading, Massachusetts on or before 9:00 a.m. on April 19, 2005.. Applications must be filed on the Cable Television Division Form 100 and must be accompanied by a $100.00 non- refundable fee, payable to the Town of Reading. A copy of the application shall also be filed with the Massachusetts Cable Television Division. All applications received will be available for public inspection in the Town Clerk's Office during regular business hours and for reproduction at a reasonable fee. This is the only period during which applications may be filed. By Order of Peter I. Hechenbleikner Town Manager To the Editor: To be published for two days on March 17, 2005 and March 24, 2005 Please send bill and tear sheets to: Town Manager, 16 Lowell Street, Reading, MA 01867 V Report on Water Conservation Efforts 'T'own of Reading. MA Activities from Inception to Date March 2005 Public Outreach - Ongoing ■ A workshop is scheduled for March 29th at 7PM. Letters were sent to 213 multi-family property owners, condominium associations, and small business owners. The, purpose will be to encourage their participation in the audit and rebate programs by demonstrating the economic benefits of conservation. ® Currently working on developing a brochure for town-wide distribution based on the design and content of the web page. Rebate Program - Ongoing ® To date, a total of 386 customers have submitted rebate applications. These customers were eligible to receive rebates for: 98 toilets, 308 clothes washers, and 12 rain sensors. Total Total ULF Toilet Clothes Rain Sensor Customers Rebate Units Washers Units Units Units 348 377. 1 86 280 1 11 38** 41MM ( 12M* 28" I 1" 386 418 98 308 12 applications received from January 14 to March 1st that are in the pipelin e (i.e., eligible but not yet processed) Estimated Gallons Saved Per Year 5,051,000 2,416,000 2,635,000 UK LF Toilet Clothes Washer Rain Sensor $10,357.06 $56,000.00 $269.98 = $66,627.04 (rebates issued) $1.440.00 $5.600.00 825.00 = $7.065.00 (rebates in progress) $11,797.06 $61,600.00 $294.98 = $73,692.04 (Total disbursements) Residential Water Audits & Retrofit Devices Installed -Ongoing ■ Conducted water audits and provided conservation kits in 102 homes to date. %MOOPI ■ Information on residential water audits was mailed as a water bill staffer in September 2004. ■ Plan to send informational letters to the next 400 top residential water users this in March/ April 2005. Total Aerator Flip LD DP LFSH Drip GH Rain Irrig. Customers (standard) Aerat Tabs Bag gauge Nozzle Gauge Timer or (sets) 2003 70 42 ( 34 ( 158 ( 44 2004 25 2 11 52 0 2005 ( 7 I 1 5 I 17 ( 0 Program 102 45 50 227 44 To Date 42 ( 1 24 29 13 15 1 17 9 4 4 ( 0 I 1 I 2 0 61 1 42 40 17 Municipal Building Retrofit -Completed a This task was completed in September 2004. All municipal buildings were retrofitted with water-saving fixtures including toilets and faucets. Total Rebate Toilet Units Urinal Units Faucet Units Units 250 130 35 85 Estimated Gallons Saved Per Year Male 494 Gal.YR Male 260 Gal.YR 986 GPP/YR Female 1,492 Gal. YR Municipal Water Audits - Ongoing ® Water audits at one middle school and one elementary school were completed during February school vacation. Both reports are in the process of being compiled. ■ The remaining municipal buildings are expected to be completed by the end of March 2005. School Education - Ongoing ® The Town of Reading (DPW) and CDM conducted a presentation August 23, 2004 to the Superintendent and school principals to introduce the water conservation program and enlist their support for a school education program. ■ On September 10, 2004, CDM met with Dennis Richards, Assistant Superintendent of Schools, to discuss program options and he agreed to arrange a meeting with the science coordinators. CDM spoke to the high school science coordinator in November 2004 and sent her a curriculum to review. U15 2 ■ Next Steps: Meet with Science Coordinators to develop program that fits within current curriculum and plan a teacher workshop for early Summer or Fall. Leak Detection - Ongoing ■ The Town has performed annual distribution system leak detection surveys since 1999. Approximately 456 million gallons of water have been saved over the past 5 years by identifying and repairing leaks in the distribution system. It is estimated that the leak detection program has resulted in Town's savings of about $300,000. Svstem Wide Audit - Completed ■ Town of Reading completed water audit of its water distribution system in November 2004. The water audit was prepared as part of the Town of Reading's application for admission to the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA) Waterworks System and request for an Inter-Basin Water Transfer. The water audit examined water data for the years 2000 through 2003. The purpose of the audit was to evaluate 1) Towns water withdrawal from the source supply; 2) the amount of water produced and supplied to the Town; 3) the amount of water consumed by the customers; 4) the calibration of meters; and 5) potential water losses (unaccounted-for water) in the distribution system. Water loss (or unaccounted-for water) in Reading's distribution system ranged from 2 to 7 percent. nc, SUMMARY OF PROGRAM WATER SAVINGS (ESTIMATED) Town of Reading MA PROGRAM ■ Rebates ESTIMATED WATER SAVINGS (GALLONS) 5,000,000 Per year ■ Leak Detection ■ Municipal Building Retrofits ■ Residential Water Audits & Retrofits 45,000,000 -138,000,000 per year since 1999 5,000,000 per year TBD 6 Ifl Per Capita Consumption Average Per Capita Water Use in Nearby Communities (2001) COMMUNITY Gallons Per Capita Per Day Reading '54 Stoneham 57.4 Burlington 58.9 Wilmington 79.9 Saugus 82.9 Wakefield ( 85.4 Bedford 85.7 Reading's historical per capita use: YEAR Gallons Per Capita Per Day 2000 54 2001 54 2002 56 2003 I 54 2004 I 53 4 D ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND EFFORTS EPA Grant The Town has partnered with the Department of Conservation and Recreation, Ipswich River Watershed Association and the Towns of Wilmington and North Reading on a pilot program for an irrigation control system to be used in some of our parks and residential properties. The local vendor, AquaSave, predicts annual savings of 50% water use compared to our present odd/ even program. If the results of the pilot program are effective, the Town will consider incorporating the units in the rebate program. The Town has also committed to the WRC the following conditions: • Increase the frequency of water bill inserts; ■ Advertise residential water audits more widely; ■ More aggressive advertisement of retrofit kits; ■ More aggressive advertisement of rebate program; ® Evaluate replacing turf fields with artificial fields; a In order to extend the 219 Million gallons from the MWRA into the month of October, if the Town has purchased 150 Million gallons of water from the MWRA by July 31St, the Town will implement more stringent outside watering restrictions such as reducing the number of hours allowed for outside watering, as well as issuing a low flow advisory notice. 7 D ~3 8 Water Rates. The central issue of rates is that rates send an economic signal to the user of the true cost of water, which will thus use market forces to minimize consumption. It has been assumed that an inclining block rate is far superior than a flat rate. An example of this is the Town of North Reading, which has an inclining block rate, vs. Reading, which has a flat What often gets lost in the discussion is the difference in water bills between communities. It is the bill that delivers the incentive, not the rates In North Reading, where there is no domestic sewerage service, the water bill for the prototypical 90,000 gallon per year customer is $631. The same user in Reading - where the town is essentially fully sewered - gets a bill of $1,204 - almost twice the size of the bill in North Reading. From an economic perspective, Reading's system actually sends a much stronger conservation signal than does that of North Reading, notwithstanding the fact that the rates are not inclining block rates. Indeed, when sewer costs are included, Reading's water utility bills are among the highest in Eastern Massachusetts ( see figure below) WVF 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 Annual Water Utility Bill 9 Summer Usage ratios There has been discussion on summer usage ratios, that showed, amongst other things that Reading didn't comport with the State's stressed basin performance standards. Taking monthly consumption data from MWRA serviced communities, and limiting the universe of communities to Reading-like communities we compared summer to winter ratios for the period 1997 through 2003. We excluded urban cities such as Boston, Somerville, etc where irrigation will be a very small fraction of use and rural communities where agricultural usage may be significant. This analysis tells us that: On average over the period, Reading's summer to winter usage ratio was 1.25, 161h lowest of the 20 Reading-like communities. The usage ranged from 1.13 in wet years to 1.34 in 1999,'a dry year. Even in the dry year of 1999, Reading's ratios were 20 percentage points below the average of the cohort communities. As shown in figure below, Reading's summer to winter ratio always stays below the average usage. Average Summer to Winter Usage Ratios 190% p 180% 170% 160% 150% - Reading w 140% .-Average E 130% E 120% - W 110% 100% 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 The fact that Reading's usage ratio are low even though per capita consumption is low attests to the fact that the combination of high rates, continuous implementation of odd-even water bans and aggressive conservation efforts are serving to strongly dampen outside use. If outside use were not being curtailed, then the ratios would be expected to be higher than the average, since the base winter usage is lower. Supporting data 10 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 Average Arlington 153.6% 122.3% 129.6% 108.6% 120.9% 127.6% 117.4% 125.7% Belmont 167.6% 115.7% 147.7% 129.2% 128.8% 138.8% 119.8% 135.4% Brookline 154.8% 122.1% 135.0% 122.1% 123.0% 134.5% 124.7% 130.9% Framingham 173.2% 130.6% 146.9% 124.3% 138.2% 137.6% 125.7% 139.5% Lexington 192.6% 171.2% 161.0% 129.9% 124.8% 154.3% 130.6% 152.1% Lynnfield 234.8% 175.8% 178.4% 156.1% 163.7% 176.6% 163.4% 178.4% Marblehead 244.3% 151.6% 183.3% 147.4% 174.7% 178.7% 152.9% 176.1% Melrose 156.9% 114.5% 135.1% 118.1% 132.8% 138.9% 126.2% 131.8% Milton 165.5% 130.7% 145.1% 120.3% 138.9% 140.3% 126.9% 138.2% Nahant 172.6% 140.9% 183.2% 147.2% 164.9% 158.4% 142.4% 158.5% Newton 170.6% 129.1% 145.3% 120.8% 139.7% 146.1% 131.7% 140.5% Norwood 148.1% 119.8% 128.6% 117.7% 124.8% 126.8% 113.6% 125.6% Saugus 159.3% 127.7% 141.2% 126.3% 139.7% 134.1% 127.7% 136.6% Stoneham 165.3% 124.9% 129.7% 115.9% 113.5% 121.6% 104.4% 125.0% Swampscott 180.2% 124.2% 158.3% 129.0% 132.7% 136.3% 125.0% 140.8% Waltham 157.3% 126.4% 129.7% 122.7% 125.2% 132.2% 119.8% 130.5% Watertown 143.3% 117.0% 119.6% 101.1% 111.0% 121.7% 111.5% 117.9% Weston 323.9% 215.3% 317.4% 220.8% 287.3% 287.0% 234.7% 269.5% Winthrop 144.6% 123.4% 128.7°l0 110.7% 117.0% 115.3% 109.1% 121.3% Reading 123.8% 119.1% 134.0% 123.9% 133.1% 132.2% 113.6% 125.7% Average 179.4% 136.0% 154.9% 129.9% 142.2% 147.7% 132.0% 146.0% 11 0 Town of Reading 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867-2683 Phone: 781-942-9043 I-93 / I-95 INTERCHANGE TRANSPORTATION STUDY TASK FORCE March 14, 2005 Governor Mitt Romney Office of the Governor, Commonwealth of Massachusetts State House, Room 360, Boston, MA 02133 Secretary Douglas I. Foy Office for Commonwealth Development, Commonwealth of Massachusetts 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 1010, Boston, MA 02114 Secretary Daniel A. Grabauskas Executive Office of Transportation, Commonwealth of Massachusetts 10 Park Plaza, Suite 3170, Boston, MA 02116 Dear Governor Romney, Secretary Foy, and Secretary Grabauskas: We are the representatives from the Town of Reading serving on the Executive Office of Transportation sponsored I-93 / I-95 Interchange Transportation Study Task Force. We are writing to you with an urgent request that you prevent the MBTA's imminent sale of the Mishawum Station property in Woburn to a private developer for commercial/industrial re-use. As you know, the I-93 / I-95 Interchange Transportation Study Task Force is working with the EOT MI1D Planning Department in its study of the I-93 / I-95 Interchange located in the Towns of Reading, Stoneham and the City of Woburn. The members of this task force are currently engaged in the early stages of the study. The primary goals of this planning study are to examine and propose ways to improve safety and traffic flow at the interchange while minimizing impacts in surrounding communities. With these goals in mind, the task force is working hard to define the problem, analyze the data and prog6sc a-viabl-e soliM6tFtlya-t wor cl s for the surrounding communities, the taxpayers and commuters throughout the Commonwealth. The MBTA-owned Mishawum Station property is located within the heart of the study area and has unique attributes that may prove critical to the Commonwealth in achieving the goals of the I-93 / I-95 Interchange Transportation Study. We understand the pressure on the MBTA to generate non-fare revenue, but if the state gives up ownership of this particular "surplus" property, particularly before the impact of the decision can be fully evaluated, it would result in significantly higher costs and consequences for any future project at the interchange. These higher costs would be measured not only in tax dollars, but also in the cost of greater adverse impacts to the surrounding communities and/or the cost of less-than-effective improvements in safety and traffic flow. If private development were allowed on the property, it would simultaneously eliminate some solutions for the interchange and bring additional congestion to an area that is already overwhelmed by intense residential and commercial development. At the last meeting of the task force on March 5, 2005, there was a general consensus among the members as to the potential that the Mishawum Station property offers. While the planning study is still in the early stages, it is clear that the following attributes of this property make it an important component in possible solutions to congestion in the I-93 / I-95 Interchange study area: • Size and Location: Nearly 7 acres with significant frontage on I-95 and Mishawurn Road. This site could be used to relocate the Washington / Mishawum Interchange further west along I-95 away from the I-93 / I-95 Interchange and help relieve the chokepoint resulting from inadequate weaving distances between multiple interchanges that are too close together. • Access to transit: All the structures and components of the Mishawum Station on the MBTA's Lowell Line are still in place. With the expected future growth in the area, this station, in addition to the Anderson Regional Transportation Center, could provide a valuable transit option. The Boston MPO's 2004 Congestion Management System Report clearly states the importance of transit and other multi-modal solutions in addressing issues of congestion and safety. Highway projects alone will not solve these issues for today or for the future. • No current development: The property is currently undeveloped, providing a wide range of options. • State ownership: No other property within the interchange study area is owned by a state agency. Remembering the firestorm that resulted from MHD's previous proposal for the interchange requiring the taking of over 70 homes and businesses, it would not make sense to put this property into private ownership at this time. There is an understanding in government that development needs to be viewed within the context of the greater good. The state is doing its part by promoting such programs as Fix-It-First, Smart Growth, Transit Oriented Development, Communities First and other initiatives designed to build - or rebuild - a better Commonwealth. But the "greater good" view of the significantly larger I-93 / I-95 Interchange issue would suggest that the Mishawum Station property play a role in solving that higher priority problem rather than setting it apart on its own. The recently released long-range vision for statewide transportation reiterates the Governor's pledge to fix perceived chokepoints and dangerous roads within the Commonwealth. By including the I-93 / I-95 Inter-change-as--a-high-priorit-y,-it -is-eltar-that-our-work-on-the--task -force-is-critical- in-order-for-th€ Governor's goal to be achieved. While we recognize that coming to any conclusion this early in the process is not appropriate, we still believe the Mishawum Station property is uniquely well suited to play an integral part in any solution. The elimination of this important option at this time, without further consideration of the consequences and its value as a part of the long-term solution for the Commonwealth, would be imprudent. Given the constraints, complexity and importance of the issues at the I-93 / I-95 Interchange, we feel it would be shortsighted to sell the Mishawum Station property as currently planned. We request that you take the necessary actions to insure that the Mishawum Station property remains in the care, custody and control of the state until the future of the 1-93 / I-95 Interchange is known. This will ultimately provide the maximum benefit not only to the surrounding communities but also to all taxpayers and commuters in the Commonwealth. Thank you for your time and consideration.-Please feel free to contact us for any further information. Sincerely, Richard W. Schubert 4 Reading Board of Selectmen, Chair onat~an E. Barnes Reading Community Planning and Development Commission 043111le W o Reading Board of Selectmen i George Kdsouf f s Reading Citizen Cc: Senator Richard R. Tisei Representative Bradley H. Jones, Jr. Representative Patrick M. Natale Reading Board of Selectmen Senator Steven A. Baddour, Joint Committee on Transportation Representative Joseph F. Wagner, Joint Committee on Transportation Michael H. Mulhern, MBTA General Manager John Cogliano, M1ID Commissioner )mac e Photos of s ~,~,c Jacent® p ad,.Og ' Read S e #3 1999, Photos by Dave -ftrryistrang tj-S, ti _ - r2~ T- > > 1 r r r ~ ~s I^ Survey #4: dead mussed 2002: Record-setting low-flows ATVs and Dirt Bike Tracks Young-of-year dead i cracks in mud p x" L _ ~ y}- Z 1 0 , tM. f 96: Photo by Lou Wagner r n, 7 77 k #8: Photo by Gina Snyder #5: Photo by Gina Snyder #7: Photo by Gina Snyder IPSWICH RIVER WATERSHED ASSOCIATION by April Bowling and Kerry Mackin Funded by I~'3 MASSACHUSETTS ENVIRONMENTAL TRUST The Ipswich River in Context The Ipswich River rises in headwater streams in Andover, Wilmington and Burlington, and winds through many other communities on its way to meet the sea in Ipswich. The lifeblood of the region's ecology, the Ipswich River also provides drinking water to over 330,000 residents in 15 communities, vitally contributing to the regions economy and high quality of life. For ,r `may centuries, the Ipswich Y rte':' played a major role in° p the culture and history in the area by supporting an M economically important fishery, and providing, power to many mills. The Ipswich River is „ `r - - about 45 miles long, and drains an area, or watershed, of 155 square miles. The River itself is home to many animals, including fish and shellfish, aquatic insects, shorebirds and waterfowl, turtles, and mammals such as beavers and otters. Equally important, the River shapes a rich diversity of non-aquatic ecosystems such as wetlands, flood plains, and lowland forests. The Ipswich is popular for fishing, swimming, canoeing, kayaking and boating, and its watershed is a favorite area for hiking, biking and other outdoor activities, and supports a number of recreation-oriented businesses. The Ipswich River is also a resource in peril. Recent studies conducted by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) confirm that water withdrawals, transport of wastewater out of the watershed, and loss of groundwater due to development literally drain the Ipswich River dry. Up to half of the 45 mile river ran dry in 1995, 1997, 1999, and 2002, and new low-flow records were set during these years. In 2003, American Rivers designated the Ipswich River as third on the list of Most Endangered Rivers in America. Why? Consider trends in communities such as Beverly, where population decreased between 1970 and 1990, yet over 750 acres of additional land were developed.' This trend, seen across the Ipswich watershed, means more large lawns - receiving more water than what remains in the river itself in summer to keep fish and other creatures alive. The developed areas prevent water from 'replenishing aquifers that provide the river's flow. At the same time, more water leaves the watershed via sewers, resulting in a major water deficit. While there is enough water to meet drinking water needs, it is clear that there is not enough to support lawnscapes, leaky pipes, and wasteful water use. - There is hope, however. Through good science, evolving technology, strong partnerships and public education, strides are being made towards fording and implementing solutions to the Ipswich River's problems. While the facts included here can only provide snapshots of the complex history of the Ipswich River, this report seeks to inform watershed residents and others about the environmental trends in the Ipswich River watershed, and to provide a vision for continuing positive trends, and reversing negative ones. The State of Land in the Ipswich River Watershed Rivers are only as healthy as the land in their watersheds, since water we must flow over and through that land on its path to the river and then Ill ca" the sea. For this reason, monitoring changes in land uses is key to rive understanding the state of the Ipswich River. eas This report focuses on changes in four 300 250 - -+-Fo , Forest different kinds of land use categories: /developed (also called urban) land, 200 - wetlands, agriculture, and forests. 150 Urban These serve as indicators of regional 100 Agdaillue changes in the watershed landscape. 50 Before colonial times, this region was 0 - - ' ` almost entirely forested. During 1900 1920 1910 1960 1980 2000 colonial times, however, most of the forests were cleared for agriculture. So major land use changes have already occurred that affected the Ipswich River. Today, however, the most pressing land use issue is sprawl, or the conversion of open space and natural environments into developed, built-upon parcels - without effective planning and management to protect water resources and community character. "Sprawl" developments, together with the roads and infrastructure they require, segment and eliminate wildlife habitat, increase stormwater and pollutant runoff, replace diverse ecosystems with built structures and mono-cultures such as lawns, and perhaps most important to the Ipswich River, require additional water for domestic, commercial, industrial, and landscape uses. Consider these trends: • Between 1980 and 2000, the population in of the watershed increased by 9 percent, yet residential land use increased by 35 percent.3 etlatid? I, nm. ,~ital to the functi,lns ol- is. an ttal riecr, is tvptcal in w•, 1, it, aic:rshcd t,'rilZ,i '[ill of ;Vctl III th? small ctrl+ation cl.an~~u and rclatiti~l. pLy, aAandS art; Jo mild ill the l.t,.ns1t tca,, t ]ILtcent To the ri% ul, as ",I,rll Is dt' `n the fp,wich', influmnez. There are ()j, ITT t112 watersbed; iiicluding ticrnal pools (cPhcutcr;l pool, that dry up must vu.irs and arc hnmc'to ntarn' Ltnjqu_. and endanger-d ,p~ciesj, utller ftc,hwatci %VCtland, ( warrips, belt; and ,mai,lic.:, flowdp'laiils and LLIld under v,aICras 11 as salt nc1F1'es in i11c- Ipst'icil River's estuary and barrier beaches. 'I hc;e vretlancls perform ,urns oh The most `important 1tlnCHOn1, in ,1 watcrtihe.d. i'hcv improve %v: ilcr quality b\ filtering 1 it sediments and pollutants, help miiipatc or prcveut iln~xliti~ 61' idiaccnt land h%, ~torin and slowly releasing flood water;, anll Ow-V provide ,torus anJ natural'trc,ttruiilt`~TOF ;tunmvatcr rlttlofl'. I'Miaps most' itnpltrfantly, fu>~~,cvcr, ihc_y arc 110111C to) .In I ,ama~lrih ~ LIFT,I of aninrrl and pl,mt lilc. 11to variety ofthi§14,e,;cal1Cd hi0o iVL:l°ity, 1', ~rea(er;terc flir 1CrC in wetlands than in any ether envirtmmrnt in Massadhn.L tis. becausc thcs~ P✓Cth dI~ Lire sn ilnptlrlant, a rCC~:111 Mlssac.hus:fis Auduhui~ 5ncict~ e1nd~: c•;lim:rlel) that each. acic of %v(:dmd->m Mas,achus~its is worth approXimatcly 10000 flo the functions :t pcilbrnl5 This mains thc, aloe oftllc ich Ri%,er watershed,.-w,etlands i4.over$S btlLon! • Between 1971 and 1999, the area of forested land in the Ipswich River watershed is estimated to have decreased by more than 15 percent .4 • This decline in forested land included an estimated 25 percent decline in forested wetlands.5 • The area of developed land has increased an estimated 20 percent since 1960.6 • One area of good news is that the area of non-forested wetlands is estimated to have largely held constant since 1971.7 • Developed land throughout Massachusetts now has less than half the population density (4.97 persons/acre) than it had in 1950 (11.19 persons/acre).' 1971 Plum Island Sound Watershed Landuse O CmpfPaslure fAM F.-I Raeidential/UMan q;!.;•y{ Wananmwamr 8.6- Kilometers 1955 Plum Island Sound Watershed Landuse Rg;m Forest Rea(dannamo,bn Em W'It" W'10, soda" Kilometers The State of Flows, Wastewater Exports, and Water Use in the Ipswich River Watershed The Ipswich River's water deficit is increasing, due to unsustainable management, development and landscaping practices. Two areas where the trend is worsening are summertime lawn watering (where 15 million gallons a day are lost to evapotranspiration), and sanitary sewers, which export both dirty wastewater and clean groundwater from the watershed. The result? The Ipswich River is one of the most flow-stressed rivers in the United States, going dry roughly every other year the past decade. Basin" Restoration on Science In 1996, IRWA formed the Ipswich River Task Force to address the alarming' decline in Ipswich River flows. IRWA worked with the Task Force and state environmental agencies to commission the United States Geological Survey (USGS) to do a series of cutting-edge studies of the river; to identify the causes, environmental impacts and potential solutions to low-flow problems. IRWA participated on the advisory board and review panel for these studies. The Task Force has now been formalized as'the Watershed Management Council.'. Four USGS studies were conducted from 1997-2002,.giving stakeholders the answers and tools to begin addressing restoration of the Ipswich in the most cost-effective,,scientifically sound manner possible. Some of the major findings include: • Water withdrawals, wastewater diversions and land development have reduced°low flows to 1/1,0`h of what they would be naturally • Fish populations and species diversity have been severely impacted by low and no flows, resulting in the loss of flow- dependent species such as brook trout and fallfish. • Summer flows need to beat least double the previous regulatory threshold, to protect the river's habitat; and year-round flows should ` approximate natural conditions • Healthy flows can be restored by using a combination of alternatives, including water conservation, less export of wastewater, and reduced pumping of "streamside" wells The USGS studies are available on-line at httD://ina.water.tises.Lov/basins/ inswichoub.htm. These reports can also be accessed ,through the IRWA website at www. in swiclu-iver. org. Fortunately, positive steps are being taken to restore the Ipswich River's flows. These steps include the completion of several studies by the United States Geological Survey (see sidebar) that have established the links between wastewater export, water withdrawals, and the severe low and no-flow events in the Ipswich. These studies have also produced several technically sound management scenarios that have coalesced into the first ever Ipswich River Watershed Management Plan, released in 2002. Consider these trends: • In 1997 the Ipswich. River was designated as one of the "20 Most Threatened Rivers in America", as determined by American Rivers. In 2003 that designation was upgraded to one of the "10 Most Endangered Rivers in America" due to worsening flow conditions. • In the late 1800's, before the first sewers were built in Ipswich River communities, most of the water withdrawn from the watershed was returned as wastewater to the basin. In 2002, it is estimated that about 80% of the total wastewater produced in the basin (about 8.8 billion gallons per year) is exported out of the basin.9 • Up to half of the 45-mile Ipswich River went dry in 1995, 1997, 1999, and 2002,10 resulting in major fish kills and other environmental damage. • The Ipswich River's all-time low-flow record of 0.1 cubic feet per second, set in 1957, was tied or broken on 18 days in 1997, with a new low of 0.05 cubic feet per second being set in September of 1997.11 That record was broken in 2002, with a new extreme of 0.04 cubic feet per second. 12 • Communities are permitted to withdraw a combined 32.5 million gallons per day from the Ipswich River watershed. In 1999, actual withdrawals averaged 30.3 million gallons per day. 13 • On average, water use doubles (or worse) in many communities in the Ipswich River Watershed in summer. This means that the most water is used when the River's flows are naturally lowest. 14 • Primarily due to low flows, almost 50% of the native river fish species have been eliminated from the river, or greatly reduced in numbers." The State of Water Quality in the Ipswich River Overall, water quality is the good news story of the Ipswich River and its watershed. The river was spared some of the virulent pollution problems that have plagued other rivers, due to lack of industrialization and fairly low density development in many areas, at least until the mid-20th Century. The use of the river for water supply also led to pollution prevention measures. And in some areas where pollution did exist, such as in downtown Ipswich, pollution remediation has been very effective. Nevertheless, there are some serious pollution problems in the watershed that threaten public health and affect environmental quality. Primary among these are hazardous waste problems in a number of communities and low dissolved oxygen, which affects fish and wildlife and causes pollutants to be released into the river. Consider these trends: • In 1926, the economically vital shellfish beds in the Ipswich River mouth were closed due to bacterial contamination associated with human and animal waste. Those same beds, some of the most productive on the entire eastern seaboard, remained closed until 2000, when improvements in stormwater and wastewater management allowed valuable shellfish beds to open again for the first time in 74 years! Since reopening, the Ipswich River clam flats have brought millions of dollars into the local economy, and have helped save the local shellfish industry. 16 • However, hazardous waste has contaminated public water supply wells in Wilmington, Reading, North Reading, Peabody, Danvers, Hamilton, and Topsfield.17 • In 1995, sampling by the MADEP showed that dissolved oxygen levels were well below the EPA standard at most sites in the Ipswich River. In 2001, IRWA's volunteer monitors found dissolved oxygen levels below EPA standards at 22 out of 30 sites along the mainstem and tributaries. 18 • In 2001, water samples R w ' `ea from 41% of the Ipswich Muwenrioadi g'• gu. W1 basin sites exceeded the:.; reference standard for - 1 j fill nitrates of 0.31 mg/l set by a ` US EPA. The percentage of failure was even higher in :p tC; the upper basin, with 45 ` L3T ba W ria.I percent of sites averaging ua,n~w•d~. yia~mntia above the standard.19 /"'T Fl-.n • In 1996, the Department of UW en, mncmb.llm. Environmental Protection ® aTa.u~vrs~ (DEP) reported that the mean mercury concentration measured in fish tested in the Ipswich River was 0.361 parts per million (ppm). The mean concentration in the species chain pickerel was 0.964 ppm. Recent investigations by USGS indicate that their Ipswich River sampling location has among the highest { mercury concentrations in New England. Pregnant women are advised not to eat fish with concentrations above 0.5 ppm, while the general standard for human consumption is 1.0 ppm.2° hti;h need to hrerrttic Co 011e of the bi~-gesi ~tiater quality problems facitrg the Ipsy\icl1 River is 111c low Icvcl ol, dissolve:d s osy~(cn that occur5_. pin ticutarlti durim t1TC. summer Tnonths oxygen aisso[vea m me water,. cohzTim for respiration. ~ For a lvirm water fi5hary, like the I Ipswich River, EPA°s water quality standard for'dissolved oxygen (DO) is 5.0'mg/1; dissolved oxygen began on a regular basis in 1997, DO levels of less than S.0 mg/l have been common in the upper basin during ' the srunmer. Such low levels are fatal to fish and other creatures. Y~- BrooTc trout Because many factors contribute to DO levels in rivers, it is often difficult to discern the exact causes of low DO. For this reason, IRWA recently completed 'a study of factors potentially' influencing dissolved oxygen in the Ipswich River. This study indicates increased water temperature, which is associated with stormwater, loss of shade, reduced groundwater inflow and overall reduced water volume, is a large factor. This study was funded by New England Biolabs Foundation. For more information, the full report is available on the IRWA website at www'.inswichriver.org. The State of Aquatic Life in the Ipswich River What is a maO inverts brutt I E Bcnthie macroirnvertebralcs arc orglllisrus witiunit a backbone (invertebrate); that can br ticenwitli the 70) and live onthe'rivel- in the water column (benthic). Sucli organisms, include la rvaldamselilics, rlM`(onfliesmid~--cs and other insect. that live in the stwamhcds ot• lresh water rn\%ers like. the Ipswich. In short-- macroinvenchratcs are lisp food': Thcy are also c.;cellenl indicator omanisllls of overall river kcalth, because of ~v11at we kao.w:about their . prcfcic-nces ;ind lolCrances. By'findin~~ 01-It wliat macrolii crtebrates are hreserii at different sites, we can learn a (,scat deal aboutihe hcaltli ol'ihe Ipswich Rivcr. For this reason, IRWA has monitored macroirnvertcbrates at least W iue per year, since 1997. L Our greatest reason to restore the Ipswich River often lies below its surface: the fish, insects, turtles; salamanders, otters, and myriad of other wildlife that depend on the River to provide them homes, food, and life. Unfortunately, the trends we are seeing in the health of many of these populations, particularly fish and aquatic insects, indicate that the low flows, low dissolved oxygen levels, and development of the watershed of the Ipswich River are having a devastating effect. Consider these trends: Y At least 67 percent of the fish in the Ipswich River should be species that require flowing waters - that is, river fish. A recent study conducted by the Massachusetts Department of Fisheries and Wildlife and the United States Geological Survey found that instead, over 90 percent of the fish in the Ipswich River are "macrohabitat generalist", or pond species that can 21 survive without flowing water and in stagnant. conditions. ® Since monitoring began in 1999, the most river herring observed in the Ipswich River was 77 fish in 2001. By contrast, at the Ipswich River's neighbor, the Parker River, ' e-"< almost 8,000 herring migrated up the river that ' same year.zz e Out of 8 sites monitored since 1997, macroinvertebrate monitoring results have shown 6 of those sites to have moderate or severe impairment every year they were monitored.zs • Photographs and anecdotal evidence of fish kills in 1995, 1997, 1999, and 2002 show that average fish size and age is dropping radically, indicating that the frequency of massive kills may be preventing most fish from reaching reproductive age. 44 Existing Fish Community Target Fish Community 5% 28% 18 ® Macrohabitat Generalists ® Fluvial Specialists 0 Fluvial Dependent 0 Other 91% 49% At least 14 species of fish once lived or spawned in the freshwater portion of the Ipswich River, but they have not been found in the River or its tributaries during recent surveys. Among those species are johnny darters, white perch, zs rainbow smelt, and Atlantic salmon. The State of Public Involvement in the Ipswich River Watershed This is the best news story of this report. Since the Association began as a committee in 1976, we have been a platform for an explosion in public awareness of and interest in environmental issues facing the Ipswich River. . Such public participation, whether in the form of volunteering, working with local boards, voting to support important programs and bylaws, helping in environmental education, or becoming members of IRWA, has been the catalyst for halting and in some cases reversing negative environmental trends in the watershed. Indeed, any restoration efforts can only be effective if the citizenry of the watershed supports them and becomes involved in ensuring their success. Consider these trends: • IRWA membership has tripled in the past three years, and now exceeds 700 family memberships, as well as many individuals and a growing number of businesses. • When our first water quality monitoring programs began in the early 1990's, IRWA had about 10 volunteers. We now have first rate biological and water quality programs conducted by over 75 committed volunteers! Sources • Since the Adopt-a-Stream Program began in 1987, IRWA has helped form 7 Stream Teams in 9 communities in the watershed. Stream Teams are groups of local citizens who work within their towns to promote protection of the River's resources. • In 1996 IRWA formed the Ipswich River Task Force. Comprised of representatives of water supply departments in all the watershed communities, other local officials, state and federal agency representatives, environmental and citizen groups, and researchers, this group has evolved into the Ipswich River Watershed Management Council, and is charged with fording sound, coalition-based solutions to the flow issues in the Ipswich River. 'Grow Smart North Shore, Harvard Graduate School of Design. 2Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, The State of Our Environment, 2000. 3Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Ipswich River Watershed Assessment Report, 2001. 4Marine Biological Laboratories, Woods Hole and MassGIS. 5Marine Biological Laboratories, Woods Hole and MassGIS. 6Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Ipswich River Watershed Assessment Report, 2001. Marine Biological Laboratories, Woods Hole and MassGIS. 8Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management National Clay Pipe Institute, Clay Pipe Engineering Manual; Horsley and Witten,'Inc, Ipswich River Mngmnt Plan, 2002. 10Horsley and Witten, Inc, Ipswich River Watershed Management Plan, 2002. "United State Geological Survey, South Middleton Flow Gage Records. 12 United State Geological Survey, South Middleton Flow Gage Records. 13 Horsley and Witten, Inc, Ipswich River Watershed Management Plan, 2002. 14 Department of Environmental Protection, Annual Public Water Supply Statistical Reports, 1991-2000 151pswich River Watershed Association, Freshwater Fish: A Guide to the Fishes of the Ipswich River, 2001. 16 Wayne Castonguay, Ipswich Shellfish Board/ Regional Ecologist, The Trustees of Reservations 17 Horsley and Witten, Inc., Ipswich River Watershed Management Plan, 2002 18 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Ipswich River Watershed Assessment Report, 2001. 19 Ipswich River Watershed Association, 2001 Annual Monitoring Report, 2002. 20 United States Geological Survey NAWQA/NE Coastal Basins Project; Mass. Dept. of Env. Protection and Fisheries and Wildlife 21 Ipswich River Watershed Association, Freshwater Fish: A Guide to the Fishes of the Ipswich River, 2001. 22 Ipswich River Watershed Association, 2001 Annual Monitoring Report, 2002. 23 Ipswich River Watershed Association, 2001 Annual Monitoring Report, 2002. 24 Ipswich River Watershed Association, Field Surveys, 2001 and 2002. 21 Ipswich River Watershed Association, Freshwater Fish: A Guide to the Fishes of the Ipswich River, 2001. IPSWICH RIVER Non-profit Org. WATERS U.S. Postage ASSOCIATION PAID Peabody, MA PO Box 576, Ipswich, MA 01938-0576 Permit No. 92 978-356-0418 www.ipswichriver.org f eknowledgenients: IffWAr 'Zlnoprc r trrrrk:,'ti1 our Volunteer Monitors and Strearrr-7atnu member , thr l ec7i~ iMT Nivisory on gratefirll~' "Czmitzee, and April Bowling, Dann 1< 1 cur rrnc, 1,rancestDoy1e, Kate A1!orkeslci and./c,s i(<< Morriscui. tt 2lso i.,ir ru ackribwledge,the coritr•ibulions"of th'e Ecosystems Center/Marine Buological I aboratory at Woods, th, Unh r-m! - ;FNe.• Hampshire EMPACT Proyeet the, United States Geological Survey; the Tp wtch River FisheriE~s R sror aiion 1 ask Uroup; the lps wc {a River Watershed Managetnent Council; thelpswicli River. Restoration 1'~tr-~nership, the MassaJ;ua, a L.cutive Office of Er}vii?onrttental Affairs arzd its agencies; the Massachusetts Enyzronmental Trttist and all our »tFrr~t~~t suRporter ujzd niultteer'I State of the Ipswich River, 2012: Most Improved River in America VISION: The Ipswich River is healthy, beautiful and productive. Clean water flows year-round, and the river system abounds with native fish and other creatures. Ponds and lakes are clean and healthy. There is a network of open space and protected land that provides habitat, recreational opportunities and scenic beauty. There is a balance of small village, suburban and urban development that provides for peopleis needs while protecting the environment. The sustainable regional economy is closely tied to protecting its natural resources. Community governments, businesses, environmental organizations and regulatory agencies work cooperatively to manage natural resources effectively. The Ipswich River Watershed Management Plan recommends these six measures to restore the Ipswich River§ streamflows to healthy levels: • Improve water conservation • Purchase water from out-of-basin sources • Reduce exports of water via sewers • Enhance stormwater infiltration • Increase water storage • Improve land use policies and practices For more information about the Management Plan, the Ipswich River Restoration Partnership or this report, go to wwwd-Dswichrivenom, or call the IRWA office at 978-356-0418.