Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-04-26 Board of Selectmen Packet1. Chronology of Reading's Recent Water Supply Planning 2. Town of Reading Registration for Water Withdrawal under the Water Management Act. 3. Recommendation - Ad-Hoc Water Supply Committee - November 2, 1999 4. Environmental Notification Form (ENF) - April 30, 2001- excerpts 5. Comments from IRWA on ENF - June 4, 2001 6. Certificate of the Secretary of Environmental Affairs on the ENF - June 8, 2001 7. Ipswich River Basin Water Conservation Report Card - August 2002 8. Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR - September 16, 2002 - excerpts 9. IRWA comments on DEIR - October 25, 2002 10. Certificate of the Secretary of Environmental Affairs on DEIR -November 1, 2002 11. Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) - September 15, 2003 - excerpts (Includes responses to IRWA on DEIR 12. Comments by IRWA on FEIR - October 23, 2003 13. Comments by Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) on FEIR. - October 29, 2003 14. Certificate of the Secretary of Environmental Affairs on FEIR - October 31, 2003 15. Letter to DEP from Peter Hechenbleikner re: Modified Water Management Act Registration Statement, Town of Reading -November 28, 2004 16. Decision of Water Resources Commission (WRC) on December 9, 2004 17. Minutes of WRC Meeting of December 9, 2004 18. Correspondence from Mike Gildesgame (DCR) - January 12, 2005 19. Memorandum to WRC from Karl Honkonen re: documents received by WRC relating to Readings Interbasis Transfer (IBT) 20. Correspondence from Karl Honkonen re: Condition of Reading's IBT - February 4, 2005 21. Correspondence from Michele Drury (DRC) dated February 15, 2005 re: WRC meeting on February 24, 2005 22. Letter from RWA to Herzfelder and Honkonen re: additional information of Reading's IBT - February 5, 2005 23. Correspondence from Karl Honkonen re: Reading IBT options - February 8, 2005 24. Correspondence between Karl Honkonen and Peter Hechenbleikner re: IBT options-March 29, 2005 25. Amended WRC Staff Recommendations with Town of Reading Comments - April 8, 2005 26. Correspondence from Kerry Mackin re: Proposed Condition 2 compromise - April 8, 2005 27. Correspondence from Kerry Mackin re: Reading revised recommendations - April 19, 2005 28. Document from WRC Draft Decision April 2005 29. Letter from Kerry Macin to Konkonen and Schubert re: Reading Application for an Interbasin Transfer of Water from MWRA - IRWA Comments and Proposal - April 18, 2005 30. Memo from Kerry Mackin to Board of Selectmen re: Reading Application for an Interbasin Transfer of Water from MWRA - April 18, 2005 Chronology of Reading's Recent Water Supply Planning Long Range Water Supply planning began in 1999 by an Ad Hoc Citizens Committee, with the objective of developing a water supply plan that best met a variety of criteria. These criteria included: The Quality Of The Source The Vulnerability Of The Source The Potential Yield Of The Source The Degree Of Local Control The Likelihood Of Implementation The Environmental Impacts Of The Option For each of the options considered, costs were developed to estimate the impact on the Town and its ratepayers. The options that were evaluated against these criteria included the continued use of the Ipswich River, the use of water from the MWRA, the use of water from Andover, development of bedrock wells in Town, and the use of an aggressive conservation program to mitigate demand. In developing the options, consideration was given to mixing sources together; thus there were options for the Ipswich alone, the Ipswich in concert with the MWRA, the Ipswich in concert with Andover, etc. In conducting its deliberations, the Committee understood that most of the other communities in the Basin would be receiving revised withdrawal "licenses" in 2000, but that Reading's "licensed" use would not be up for consideration until 2008. The Commonwealth has two forms of water withdrawal licenses - a registration amount, which reflects water use from 1981 to 1985, and a permitted amount, which reflects the amounts needed by communities above their registration amount. Permitted amounts are reviewed by DEP every 5 years. Registrations, which are considered by some as "grandfathered" are evaluated every 10 years. Since Reading has never needed more water than was available under it registration, it has never needed a permit. The committee's preferred alternative was the use of the Ipswich in combination with the use of the MWRA for partial supply, and with the implementation of an aggressive conservation program. The MWRA water, amounting to 219 million gallons per year was to be used during the dry periods of the year. This was not the cheapest option, but offered substantial additional benefits as compared to other options. The least cost option was the use of the Ipswich, coupled with aggressive conservation. The recommendations of the Committee were presented to the Board of Selectmen and reported to Town Meeting. From 2000 forward, the Town took several steps to refine the recommendations of the Committee, including: /-I The conduct of two studies on bedrock wells, to see if they offered any viable alternative, conducted between June of 2001 and February of 2003. The conduct of annual leak detection surveys (instead of every other year surveys as required by state guidance), and a water audit of municipal buildings to keep consumption down. The implementation of an aggressive conservation program consisting of a first in the Commonwealth rebate program for high efficiency washing machines and toilets. The preparation of an application to join the MWRA waterworks system, which involves the development of a variety of supporting documents including an Environmental Impact Report under the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act. The EIR is required to support the issuance of an approval of an interbasin transfer by the Water Resources Commission. The EIR process consisted of an Environmental Notification Form in 2001 to begin the process of scoping the EIR itself, the issuance of a draft EIR in September of 2002 and the issuance of a Final EIR in September of 2003. The Secretary of Environmental Affairs issued a certificate on the project in November of 2003. As issued, the Certificate opined that the Commonwealth had adequate information on which to base its permitting decisions, and directed the town to undertake to respond to comments issued by several agencies, notably DEP. As originally issued, the Draft EIR was based on an operational strategy where the Town would take 1 million gallons per day from the river from May 1 through September 30, with any additional demand coming from the MWRA. This particular strategy was developed to both alleviate excessive demand on the River, and to cater to the limitations of the existing water treatment plant. The draft indicated that the Town would revisit this strategy when the new treatment plant came on line. In response to comments on the draft EIR, the Town agreed to extend the period of taking MWRA water from September 30 to October 31, subject to the limitation of a total demand of 219 million gallons per year. In parallel, the Commonwealth issued revised Water Management Act permits to the 11 municipal permit holders in the basin in May of 2003. All of the permits contained provisions limiting the outdoor use of water through the end of September, when streamflows in the Ipswich were below certain values. All of the towns appealed the revised permits, each objecting to various conditions of the permit. These appeals are now progressing through an appeals process within DEP. Over the course of 2004 the Town entered into discussions with staff of the Water Resources Commission to refine the conditions attendant the approval of the interbasin transfer. In the course of this discussion, DEP asked to include several new conditions that they had not previously requested as part of the EIR process. This included, amongst other things, streamflow triggers to ban outdoor watering up until September 30tH Because the Town viewed the purchase of MWRA water as a far more effective way to moo alleviate stress on the Ipswich, and because the town was not proposing to relax its ongoing watering restrictions, it was suggested that the triggers would be implemented only if the Town had used more than 219 million gallons per year. And then, that the restriction, as well as the 1 mgd Ipswich river limitation would be in effect only until the end of September. The Water Resources Commission was briefed on the application several times during 2004. The option presented to the water resources commission at its December 9th, 2004 meeting reflected, for the first time, these negotiations concerning the streamflow triggers and the September cut-off date. After much discussion on this proposal, including discussions on the appropriateness of the taking water in October or not, the Commission voted 7 to 2 to approve the Interbasin Transfer. In subsequent actions, it was determined by EOEA that since the Secretary's Certificate on the EIR referenced the taking of only 1 from the River in October, that notwithstanding the Commission's deliberations, the Commission's vote was inappropriate, and that to go back to September would require the submission of a notice of project change under the MEPA process, and restudy under the EIR. process. Rather than enter into protracted studies on this issue, the Town sought to work with the Commission to develop operational strategies that involved taking water during October, but attempting to craft strategies that served to ensure that the 219 mgd would go as far into the month as practical. This is the proposal presented at the last Water Resources Commission meeting, wherein the Town would monitor its use, and implement progressively stringent outside restrictions to maximize the utility of the 219 million gallons. The Town's objective has been to be prudent stewards of its resources. Our efforts to control water demand both with respect to restrictions, incentives, and pricing, have resulted in exemplary results; so much so that the Ipswich River Watershed Association gave us an "A" on their most recent water use report card, the first time the have ever given any community an A. But attempts are being made to impose conditions on the Town that are more restrictive than conditions imposed on other Ipswich River communities, and that fail to recognize that the Town can - and has - crafted highly successful, Reading-specific solutions to lowering water use, without resorting to one- size fits all prescriptions written elsewhere. 13 29 ARGEO PAUL CELLUCCI Governor COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ONE WINTER STREET, BOSTON MA 02108 (617)292-5500 TRUDY COXE Secretary DAVID B. STRUHS Commissioner OCT 16 1997 Dear Registrant: Enclosed please find your renewed Registration Statement for water withdrawal under the Water Management Act, Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 21G. This renewed Registration Statement entitles you to continue to make your registered withdrawal for an additional 10 years and will expire on January 1, 2008. Renewal is indicated either by a renewal stamp on your original Registration Statement or by a new Registration Statement for cases which required modification of the original Statement. Compliance with, and continuation of, your registration is dependent upon your adherence to the terms of your Registration and the contents of your original application and supporting documentation. Please keep this Registration Statement for your records. Please be aware that if you increase your withdrawal by more than the threshold volume, or add a withdrawal point that withdraws in excess of the threshold volume, a water withdrawal permit is required. Very truly yours, (Z~~ - Gleim Haas, „rlec;tor Division of Watershed Management a-1 ;N Daniel S. Greenbaum Commissioner (size 4f inter Jt. eer qmwon' .,4sQC/zu~ctts O.P>np REGISTRATION STATEMENT FOR WATER WITHDRAWAL Registration under MGL c. lhofwEnvironmentalaProtectioned below is accepted by Department GENERAL INFOP~?~!TION Registration Numbex: 3-17-246.01 River Basin: Ipswich Registrant: Reading Department of Public Works 16 Lowell Street. Reading, MA 01867 Number of withdrawal points 9 Groundwater: 9 Surface water: 0 Location(sStrout Ave-Gravel We1142; Strout Ave-Gravel Well V ; Strout Ave-Gravel We11415; Strout Ave Graveln13; Strout Ave Gravel-Well T Forest; Strout Ave Gravel Welli82-20; Ave-Gravel Well n66---8; Beverly Rd-Gravel Well Revay; Strout Ave- Gravel Well B Line Use: Public Water Supply_--_ Averacfe Volume per Day (MGD): 2.57 Days of Operation: 365 Total Annual Volume (MGYI: 938.05 CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS Glenn Haas, Director Department of Environmental Protection Division of Watershed Management compliance with registration conditions is required by 310 CMR 36.08. Those applicable are described below. Meterinct install source meter(s) for all these points: All points must be metered by January 1, 1992. Calibrate all meter(s): Annually V I fil~ll~✓~~V'w.JIL~/ V b✓l~ + ~ 97& ~e~f~a~trrtertt. n~vruNr•n~rrzental ~~~'~:t~~~~ Registration renewed effective January 1, 1998. Expiration date January 1, 20011 ~-L Records withdrawal records are required to be kept as follows: Monthly: yes Other: Other information required: Other'"Conditions and Requirements: REPORTING The Registrant is required by 310 CMR 36.11 to file an annual statement of withdrawal by January 31 of each year that this registration is in force, on forms specified by the Department. The Registrant shall include withdrawal records from the previous calendar year with the annual report filing. At the request of the. Department, the registrant maybe required to report withdrawal volumes monthly, in acco dance with 310 CMR 36.08. REGISTRATION RENEWAL -This registration statement expires on January 1, 1998, unless a renewal registration request is filed with the Department prior to that date, in accordance with 310 CMR 36.10. REGISTRATION TRANSFER This statement shall be surrendered to the Department upon transfer of any withdrawal authorized by this document. Transfer of this registration is governed by the provisions of 310; C1KR 36;.:.0.9. ` NOTE: ',.,Re(au a~ions are subject to charge. The applicant is -_-K_ 're.R.ponsi.ble to use the most current regulations. Zf~ Date David Y. Terry Director Division of Water Supply emcc/verified a-3 I OVE1 BER 2, 1999 3-1 Executive Summary The Ad-Hoc Water Supply Committee has recommended the top ranked option for the Town for future water supply is a combination of the current source, the Ipswich River, and MWRA (Massachusetts Water Resources Authority) as a partial source. The Committee developed and applied several criteria which were used to evaluate water supply options including: quality, vulnerability, yield, control, likelihood of implementation, and environmental impacts. The Committee's conclusions.are that the MWRA and Ipswich River sources would both meet the demand forecast projected as part of the study. The Ipswich River source alone is the most cost-effective option for the community. The MWRA option is more expensive but rates highest in the benefit criteria evaluated by the Committee. The Ipswich River(MWRA combination option acknowledges that there are issues with the current water source-that can be addressed through a partial purchase of MWRA water. The Ipswich River has been rated by a national conservation organization as one of the twenty most threatened rivers in the United States (1997). The Ipswich River has been documented to dry up during peak demand times in the summer, causing environmental harm. The Committee hopes that the combination of the MWRA as a partial source and an aggressive conservation program will have a positive impact on the Watershed until more modeling is done to establish the parameters for future viability of the river. The Committee has attached a timeline to this recommendation that the Board of Selectmen may use in their deliberations. If the Board of Selectmen wish to change the Town's main source of supply to the MWRA or some other source, the decision should be made by 2002 to accommodate either the necessary planning for the design and construction of a renovated treatment plant to meet the new SDWA regulations in 2006. Mission The Board of Selectmen established the Ad-Hoc Water Supply Advisory Committee. to advise the Board of Selectmen on the best long term water supply options available to the Town, and to offer the Board of Selectmen a ranking of the options and the reasons for the ranking. Procedures To carry out its mission, the following guidelines were established: 1. Work with staff to scope issues, goals, and tasks and hire the necessary consulting assistance needed to cant' out its mission; 2. Develop a plan to review milestones in this process with the Board of Selectmen; 3, With staff and consultants, develop and evaluate alternatives for the long term water supply for the Town of Reading, including but not limited to water conservation, continued use of the existing water supply, development of fractured bedrock wells, connection to the MWRA, or any combination of these or other alternatives; 4. Develop the criteria by which the options will be measured; 5. Work with consultants and staff to secure community input into the choices and options available to the Town for long term water supply; 6. Recommend to the Board of Selectmen a ranking of the options for providing long term water supply to the community, with the criteria as to how the rankings were selected. Committee Membership Stephen Blewitt, Chairman (At-large) Mary Grimmer, Vice-Chair (FINCOM) George Perry, Town Forest Committee Gail Wood, Water & Sewer Advisory Committee Robert Salter*, (At-large) William Freeman, Water & Sewer Advisory Committee Richard Moore, Water & Sewer Advisory Committee Steve Oston, At-Large Camille Anthony, Board of Selectmen Dick Howard, Community Planning & Development Commission Will Finch, Conservation Commission *Robert Salter has since been appointed to the Water & Sewer Advisory Committee r Education The Committee began with a series of meetings designed to educate itself on the issues surrounding water supply. • The Committee educated itself on the current system in February, 1999. The Director of Public Works and Water Treatment Plant supervisor gave a tour of the Louanis treatment plant and explained the workings of the water source, treatment plant, and distribution system. , • The Committee heard a presentation by Steve Johnson, a scientist with the Department of Environmental Protection, who discussed issues regarding the vulnerability of Reading's water supply due to contamination in North Reading. • The Committee heard a presentation by Jonathan Yo of the MWRA regarding the Authority's requirements for community entry into the MWRA system, and a potential scenario for Reading should the Town wish to purchase water from the Authority. • The Committee heard from Kerry Mackin and the Ipswich River Watershed Assocation concerning the IRWA's activities in the watershed and its concerns for the long term viability of the River. RFQ/RFP In March, the Committee began working with staff to develop an RFQ (Request for Qualifications) for a consulting firm to conduct the study. After it was released, the Town received seven (7) responses to the RFQ and subsequently reduced the number of eligible (urns to four (4). These firms received a full RFP (Request for Proposals). At the conclusion of the RFP evaluation process, the Committee recommended the firm of Camp Dresser McKee of Cambridge to conduct the study. In their proposal, Camp Dresser had proposed to develop with the committee each of the individual water supply criteria and rate the criteria against each water supply source option that would be developed. The composite benefit ranking, exclusive of cost, would then be compared to the projected cost of each water supply option. The Committee felt this approach was best suited for the study because 1) it provided for a true cost/benefit analysis, and 2) the approach allowed for a complete rating and ranking of non-cost criteria vital to the issue of water supply, including environmental impacts and vulnerability. Development of Criteria Initially, the Committee brainstormed several "strategic" areas for the consultant to evaluate regarding water supply options. These included: 1) Source; 2) Existing Infrastructure; 3) Cost; 4) Conservation; 5) Quality; 6) Environmental Threats (Vulnerability). Camp Dresser McKee worked with the Committee and staff to refine the criteria over several meetings. Discussions centered around issues such as choosing the option based on the projected yield, and utilizing conservation as a source of supply. The Final water supply criteria were agreed to as follows: ria uescrtpuuu ty I An option's ability to meet public health related standards and to meet other consumer quality concerns An option's ability to provide consistent quantities of water meeting quality requirements in the event of catastrophic events. rental Impacts An option's potential for adverse (beneY3cial) environmental impacts. An option's ability to meet average and peak demand. Implementation) ' reasonable time period. to 's control over the source and related decision making. was added after the Committee's initial presentation to the public on 1999. 3-3 In the final development of the criteria, the concept of conservation moved from a criteria to a source of supply. This was the subject of deliberations by the committee, but the consensus showed that it was appropriate to look at the conservation of water supply as a potential source along with the Ipswich River, the MWRA, and other sources. Environmental Impacts was added as a criteria to address elements of conservation that involved the source's potential impact on the local environment. The Source criteria was modified to Yield after it was agreed that the source of water may not necessarily mean choosing one option over another, but a source that would not provide enough yield would, in all likelihood, separate one source from another. Sources of supply were then considered as options instead of criteria. The Existing Infrastructure was evaluated as a component of a source of supply (the Ipswich River) as opposed to being its own criteria. Cost was identified as the dependent variable against which all the water supply options would be measured. Each member of the Committee was asked to assign a relative weight to each water supply criteria. The weighting was done after the committee agreed to a description for each criteria and a method of applying the criteria to the water supply options (which were still to be developed). The committee members were each given a total of 18 points (3 for each option) and were asked to assign the points to each criteria in their respective weight of importance. For example, if a committee member felt quality was his/her top ranked criteria, then he/she could assign all 18 points to Quality. At the conclusion of the weighting process, the criteria were assigned the following weights based upon their score as a percentage of the total committee points (198) assigned to each criteria. Criteria Score Percentage of Total Quality 45 22.7% Vulnerability 37 18.7% Environmental Impacts 35 17.7% Yield 34 17.2% Implementability 25 12.6% Control 22 11.1% Development of Options After the criteria were assigned weights, water supply options were developed with Camp Dresser McKee. The options were developed after variables were identified, demand forecasts were complete, rates were compared, and all potential sources were assessed. One of the key components of the formation of the options was the consensus by the Committee that the main water supply source had to meet the future water demand. The consultant developed as part of the study a "Year 2020" forecasted demand of 2.269 mad based upon a variety of factors including historical use, use type, and population trends. The water supply options were identified with the goal of selecting an option that would meet the future demand. The consultant applied a sensitivity analysis to both the demand forecast and the subsequent water supply source options. After several group meetings with the consultant, the committee reached consensus on the following options as potential sources of water supply: 1. The Ipswich River Watershed (the current supply); 2. The MWRA (Massachusetts Water Resources Authority); 3. Bedrock Wells (currently in the planning stages); 4. Andover Municipal Supply (the Merrimack River); 5. Conservation For each potential source of supply, an assumed yield was developed by CDM. Those yields are highlighted below: 3-Y The Ipswich River and MWRA were identified as main water supply sources that could meet the projected 2020 demand forecast by CDM" Other source options, such as Bedrock Wells, Andover Municipal Supply, and Conservation were identified as additional or partial sources of supply but could not realistically meet the total demand forecast. The.actual yield of the Bedrock Well option cannot be known until actual well testing is performed. This is significant because it may change the assumed yield of the Bedrock Well option, and subsequently change the rating of this option. The Town of Andover operates its own treatment plant with a supply from the Merrimack River. Andover sells to other communities such as North Reading and Tewksbury, and therefore was viewed as a possible source of supply for Reading. However, it is unlikely that Andover meet Reading's demand forecast with the current demands on the Andover system. One option to implement Conservation as a source may come in the form of a rebate program aimed at encouraging the installation of low-flow, water saving devices. It is assumed that this type of aggressive program may save the Town approximately 190,000 gallons of water per day, or 8.4% of the overall projected demand. The goal of a Conservation program would be to reduce water usage from 58 gallons per capita per day to 50 gallons per capita per day. Below is the 2020 demand forecast. 2020 Base Demand Forecast 3-s NOTES: 1 - Not adjusted for sensitivity Adjusted for Sensitivity and used for planning basis JCIIbiIIY IIY A , ; hold «Lau - ~ - a rota) j opyatto? Hotzs Mg. c, . J t~ -l7sai ks f `onmestI nd ~ s ~ ~'iiY fC'~yJy~ a4 ~O y ~~yf1.ja~.~ ~t~4 ~^.LL.c •trw~ ~~aZ '2V y~ Ag ~.4lI~.1 ~ ci , N.l'~~~T(~i~^+t~ 9L ~E ~r • ax:~ ~ = 9 cry n rl, x.. „;rl~~ ~„~3.•.~:;~:a,~. F.,... --,::,r~:-:~~f~~~;-•:1..~~. - - 4 ...~..xa.~• ~ j ~ s-.~• ~..s..~. 138 ( V 58 r < . 643 1 10 3 28328 9 . . 84 2 25952 9138 58 1.505 . 2.63 24060 9148 5$ 1.395 gpcd = gallons per capita per day Source: Camp Dresser & McKee Note: The usage "rate" of 53 gallons per capita per day is considered lower than the industry standard. A sensitivity adjustment reflects differences in household composition between the state and regional population forecasts and the analysis conducted for this study. After the main water supply source options were developed and identified, Camp Dresser McKee evaluated each option and developed cost attributes for each option. The cost attributes included: operating costs, capital costs, fixed life of the assets, and average household cost. The committee then developed potential combinations of sources to evaluate based upon the primary supply options that were identified. The general format for the options involved distinguishing the source types and were identified as Main Source, Emergency Source, Additional Source (1), and Additional Source (II). The table below illustrates the eight options that were developed by the committee: Main Source Emergency Source - Additional Source ive Add`1 Source II N/A Option 1: Ipswich River RA MW Aggress Conservation MWRA Aggressive MWRA Conservation MWRA Aggressive Bedrock Conservation ive Andover MWRA Aggress Conservation ive A N/A Option 2: MWRA N/A ggress Conservation N/A Aggressive Ipswich River Conservation N/A Aggressive Bedrock Conservation N/A Aggressive Andover Conservation It was determined that the combination of impacts on the Ipswich River Watershed and the vulnerability of the supply warranted an examination of additional supplies for the Town. The main unit of measure related to the Town's water withdrawal impact on the Ipswich (according to the Ipswich River Watershed Association) is the rate of river flow. There have been several debates regarding minimum flows - the speed with which water travels through at the South Middleton gage. Flows are measured in cubic feet per second over the course of the year. Environmental groups have advocated river flow should be set at a certain level to "maximize" the health of the river. Although the Town represents approximately 9% of total withdrawals from the entire watershed, the impact is different when using the South Middleton gage as the barometer of the Town's impact. According to CDM, Reading represents about 41% of the population upstream of the South Middleton gage, 35% of the demand, and roughly 75% of the water exported. The committee made attempts through the process to ascertain the net impact of the Town 3-'(- withdrawing from the watershed. Camp Dresser McKee indicated it was likely that some flow restoration would take place if Reading were to reduce use of the watershed as a water source. The committee held lengthy deliberations regarding combinations of sources that were realistic and could be implemented. Several key points were identified: • The Ipswich River and MWRA were the only two main sources 'of supply that could meet the projected future demand; • The potential yield of the Bedrock Well option is unknown until well testing is complete on the sites contained in the D.L. Maher report - bedrock wells are likely to draw from the Ipswich basin; • The MWRA connection at the Woburn city line is currently the Town's emergency source of supply. If the MWRA was the main water source for the community, there would no longer be an identified emergency source (in effect, "the" source of supply becomes MWRA); Aggressive conservation is incorporated as an additional source of supply in each source option but a determination has to be made by the Board of Selectmen to 1) adopt a program, including the anticipated 1 million dollar program cost; and 2) set a timeline for implementation. Costs There were many cost factors addressed by Camp Dresser McKee in reviewing the options for water supply. The process included an examination of the Town's average water bill (not including sewer), and where the Town ranked relative to other communities. Below is a table highlighting that ranking: Water Bills Statewide Average $ 186 ighest $ 688 Lowest 1 $ 49 ding $ 264 42% above statewide average Reading Notes 1. Sewer bills are based on water consumption 2. Contributing factors are various: capital costs, source, demand, etc. 3. Above amounts DO NOT include sewer Source: Camp Dresser & McKee Reading water rates are reflective of the water utility recovering full cost of operation, including all capital costs. There are many variables which influence the cost of water. For example, the cost of water in Reading is influenced by the raw water quality, which is high in iron and manganese, therefore requiring significant treatment. Some water operations are part of special districts that assess member communities (such as MWRA) in a lump sum based on a consumption formula. Others may tax for a portion of their revenues while deriving the balance of their revenue from user fees. Age of the system, economies of scale, and capital financing also play a part in the total cost of water service delivery. COST SUMMARY The costs for each water supply option were developed by Camp Dresser & McKee. The cost for each option was derived using the expected yield of the source. The cost attributes contained in the analysis included 1) Estimated Yield, mgd; 2) Estimated Capital Cost, millions; 3) Average Annual Financing Costs 5) Estimated Useful Life of per mgd, 20 years; 4) Average Annual Operating Costs per mgd, 20 years; Assets, years; 6) Annual depreciation per mgd, millions. Attached as Exhibits A & B are the two summary sheets from Camp Dresser McKee summarizing the costs of each option, Cost Attributes of Alternatives 3~ and Cost Summary. As part of the analysis, a net present value was assigned to each source option to recognize the longer lives of some options, such as MWRA. Two options using the Ipswich River Watershed as a main source, including the current system and a system using a partial supply from MWRA, were more cost-effective than the MWRA solution alone (over a 20 year period). All calculated costs are for water only and do not include sewer. Primary Source Additional Sources Capital Cost, Millions Average 20-Year Household Cost, per year Net Present Value, Millions $408 $42 55 Ipswich River (Replacement) None $14.2 $345 . 30 $35 Ipswich River tion R None $6.9 . enova ( 414 42 96 MWRA 10.3 . 465 48 41 Andover 14.1 . Bedrock Wells 8.3 364 38.70 452 88 45 MWRA None 15.7 02 . 76 50 Ipswich 14..1 5 529 . 47 53 Andover 20.6 445 . 45 38 Bedrock Wells 15.6 . Source: Camp Dresser & ivtex.ee Notes: All sources include a $1 million dollar allowance in capital costs for aggressive conservation. The Net Present Value adjusts the life cycle costs to properly recognize the longer lives of some options. NOTE: The net present value of the option is the amount of money one would need in the bank today to pay a series of future payments. The lower the NPV of an option, the less expensive the option. Process of Ranking the Options A rating of the options was made by each Committee member applying the descriptions of each criteria on a 1 to 5 scale to each source option. This rating was then mulitiplied by the criteria weight. The total scores were added up and became the composite ranking of the options, exclusive of cost. Camp Dresser McKee took the rankings and placed them on a chart, comparing the benefits of each supply option against cost. Using this method, the committee was easily able to distinguish the relative costs and benefits of each of the options (See Exhibit C for the Committee's Composite Ranking of the options). Public Input The Committee conducted an extensive campaign during the process to maximize public input. The committee held three public presentations (August 12`h, September 23'd, and October 28`h) over the course of the study. All meetings of the committee were open to the public. The Chairman of the committee appeared as a guest on "Ask the Town Manager." Meetings were advertised on the local cable television station. Also, several articles were printed in the local newspapers. The Committee also undertook an extensive surveying process. Town Meeting members and general consumers were surveyed to measure resident attitudes about the current source, alternative sources, and the criteria. The returns were good and the committee found the attitudes of the Town Meeting members generally reflected the attitudes of the committee (See Exhibit D for Town Meeting Member survey results). As part of its 1999 Drinking Water Report, the Water Department sent out a survey to all consumers in the Town of Reading (approximately 8,000 surveys). This survey was a slight modification from the Town Meeting member survey and included a question about whether the "on again, off again" water restrictions caused people to water more often, less often, or about the same. Over 300 surveys were returned, and again, Quality was ranked as the highest criteria. Cost was ranked a close second. The general surveys differed from the Town Meeting member surveys in that a majority of respondents 'g 3 indicated they would not be willing to spend more money on a water supply solution that was less of an impact on the Ipswich River watershed. Committee Findings QUALITY • It is expected that each recommended water supply option'will meet the standards set forth in the Safe Drinking Water Act, including regulatory changes anticipated for 2006. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS • The Ipswich River Watershed Association is conducting a sustainability study (of which Reading is a part) over the next two years that will attempt to measure the sustainability of the Ipswich River as a water resource. The project will develop, among other things, a comprehensive Watershed Management Plan for the Ipswich River Watershed. The Association has taken a formal position on Reading's water supply issue and their correspondence dated September, 1999 is attached to the report as Exhibit E. • The Ipswich River in 1997 was declared to be one of the 20 most threatened rivers in the United States by the national conservation organization American Rivers (founded in 1973). In 1998, the Ipswich River was not on the same list. As of this writing, the Department of Environmental Protection has received a hydrological model from the USGS (United States Geologic Survey) which will allow the DEP to develop flow-based analytical models of the watershed under various circumstances. VULNERABILITY • According to Steve Johnson, a scientist with the Department of Environmental Protection, the following contamination sites in North Reading are of the most concern with respect to risk to the Reading wellfield: 1) Sterling Supply (Highest priority); 2) Roadway Express site; 3) GE site; and 4). the 1992 gas spill. See Exhibit F for a detailed discussion of these issues. • The Water Treatment Plant is currently capable of treating present levels of volatile organics from contamination plumes (PCEs) originating in North Reading which have entered the wellfield to date. In the past, PCE's have been found in the wellheads. Past levels were higher than current levels. Presently, no contamination is being detected but the process of pre-treatment continues. See Exhibit F for more information. • The Ipswich River water source continues to be vulnerable to potential contamination from the Concord Street area of North Reading and Route 93. LIKELIHOOD OF IMPLEMENTATION • Under current regulatory conditions, the Town will not be subject to the Water Management Act permit renewal process scheduled for the year 2000. The Town currently has a registered withdrawal (i.e., not subject to the Water Management Act permit renewal process) of 2.57 million gallons per day (mgd) good until 2008. It is uncertain whether the DEP, as part of the registration renewal process in 2008, will look to decrease Reading's withdrawals from the watershed. • Given current conditions in the watershed, the Town should explore the permitting and regulatory process with the MWRA to measure the Authority's real interest in selling water to the Town. The Authority has stated that Reading has a unique set of circumstances that sets the Town apart from other potential applicants. In the study, the MWRA scored low in the area of likelihood of implementation. If the Town wanted to join the MWRA, a formal application would be submitted to the Executive Director to be evaluated by the Authority. The Authority would evaluate an application using two sets of criteria: 1) Enabling Act Criteria, and 2) Other Criteria. The MWRA may grant waivers on any conditions set forth in the Policy and Procedure "if it finds that the community has. demonstrated 3~ unusual factors or extraordinary circumstances which would make imposition of the condition or requirement upon that community unfair." Final entry decisions are contingent upon the approval of the legislature and the governor. MWRA Policy ff: OP.10, "Admission of New Community to Waterworks System" is attached as Exhibit G. • Obtaining water from Andover would require an interconnection through North Reading and approval of an interbasin transfer by the Water Resources Division of the Department of Environmental Management. • The Committee has examined alternatives such as building reservoirs, elimination of interbasin transfers, and wastewater recharge in a cursory manner to enhance water supply and has found these to be impractical. CONTROL The current source (and bedrock wells) offer the maximum local control. YIELD • The yield of the water supply options recommended by the committee will meet the demand forecast on an average annual daily basis. Under current regulatory conditions, the only two sources of supply that will meet the forecasted demand in its entirety are the current source (Ipswich River Watershed) and the MWRA (Massachusetts Water Resources Authority). • Bedrock wells offer a high level of control for the Town as a source with a potential high level of quality. However, there are questions about the vulnerability of bedrock wells as contamination has been found in the bedrock in North Reading. The yield associated with.a bedrock well is highly unpredictable. However, exploration will reduce the uncertainty of the yield. Also, it is likely that the draw from a bedrock well will come from the Ipswich River basin. • The Andover system, given its current capacity, is likely to be able to supply the Town with up to .4 mgd, or 400,000 gallons per day, of the forecasted demand. COST • The replacement of the Louanis Water Treatment Facility is part of the Town's FY2001 capital plan. The cost is estimated at 59.24 million dollars in the capital plan. However, Camp Dresser & McKee has estimated the replacement of the plant at a cost of $13.2 million dollars. In addition, Camp Dresser McKee has presented an alternative to renovate the current plant *at a cost of 5.9 million dollars. The renovation will meet the expected changes in the Safe Drinking Water Act regulations scheduled for 2006. A renovated plant is expected to last 30 years. A replacement plant is expected to last 40 years. The cost of buying into the MWRA varies according to the amount of water purchased. The buy-in fee for Reading, to meet the total demand forecast of 2.269 mgd, would be $12,749,600. The table below shows a pro-rated chart indicating the buy-in fee: Amount to ;bbee Supplied (amount in m Fee 2.269 j 2,749,600 1.0 mgd 5,619,050 .6 mgd 3,371,400 3 mgd 1,685,700 Note:.6 mgd represents the committee's recommendation, by a 4-2 vote, of an amount for the Town to purchase from the MWRA. 10 If the Town wishes to buy into the MWRA, the Town would purchase a defined amount of water. For example, if the Town wished to purchase .6 mgd to offset peak demand periods during the year, it would pay the buy-in fee pro-rated for .6 mgd, and then the MWRA retail rate. The Town could utilize the amount purchased at any time during the year up to the amount purchased. It should be noted that the MWRA buy-in fee is not part of the FY2001 water fund capital improvement program. ation program has been estimated at $l million dollars. • The cost of an aggressive conserv The Andover option carries a capital infrastructure cost estimate of $13.1 million dollars for an interconnection that would run from the Andover Water Treatment Plant through North Reading. • All alternatives for water supply (including the current source of supply) encompass a cost increase to the average household over time, including an average cost of $45 per year per household to achieve the water quality enhancements anticipated by changes to the Safe Drinking Water Act in 2006. RECOMMENDATIONS Future Water Supply Options • The Board consider the following ranked options #1 - #3: 1) Combination of Ipswich River/iv1WRA (Vote 8-1-0); 2) MWRA alone (Vote 5-4), 3) Ipswich River alone (Vote 5-4). That in considering the "Partial MWRA Solution," the Board consider the initial purchase of 600,000 gallons per day from the MWRA (Vote 4-2). Under the Ipswich/MWRA option, 1.48 mgd would be taken from the Ipswich source and .60 mgd from the MWRA on an average annual daily basis. Water would be purchased from the MWRA during the June through November timeframe to reduce the peak demands from the Ipswich and increase the flow in the river during the drier months. • The Board did not consider the following combination sources of supply: Ipswich River/Andover, MWRA/Andover, and MWRA/Ipswich. All three combinations are more costly with less perceived benefit relative to the other combination source options. In addition, all three options scored lower than the remaining five options on the chart (see Plot of Scores & Costs, attached as Exhibit H). • The Town continue to pursue the development of bedrock wells as a potential source of supply. The Board should pursue the sites in Bare Meadow. The Hundred Acre Wellfield sites are not recommended because of potential vulnerability issues (this recommendation has been ratified by Camp Dresser McKee). There is a $200,000 appropriation already available for exploration. The Committee cannot fully evaluate the combination source options involving bedrock wells until it is known how much the source(s) might yield and what the raw water quality might be. A high yield bedrock well, for example, will increase the overall benefit ranking of the Ipswich Fiver/Bedrock option. • The Town implement an aggressive conservation program with the goal of saving 190,000 gallons per year at a projected cost of $10 per household per year. The committee has stated from the outset that it favors the idea of water conservation. It believes the Town should adopt a more aggressive conservation program - this may be in the form of a rebate program for the installation of low flow devices. The committee believes this will save up to 190,000 gallons per day in water. The cost of such a program has been estimated at 1 million dollars. Considerations -for Implementation • During the decision making process, the Committee recommends following the attached timeline which would allow the Board of Selectmen to make educated, informed decisions and still meet deadlines imposed by the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Town's capital planning process. • The committee recommends beginning negotiations with MWRA. This is necessary should the Board adopt the first or second ranked options of the committee. The two examples of communities 11 3.,11 connecting to MWRA the committee reviewed were the Town of Bedford and Regis College. In both situations, negotiations with the Authority were multi-year projects.. • If the Board of Selectmen wish to change the Town's main source of supply to the MWRA or some other source, the decision should be made by 2002 to accommodate the necessary planning for the design and construction of a renovated treatment plant to meet the new SDWA regulations in 2006. Other Considerations • The Town take steps, including working with the Massachusetts Highway Department to develop mutually satisfactory wellfield protection measures along Route 93, including but not limited to containment mitigation to guard against another spill like that experienced in 1992. • The Town take steps, including working with the Department of Environmental Protection to increase remediation measures currently being undertaken in the Concord Street area of North Reading. • The Town investigate with the assistance of the Ipswich River Watershed Association stormwater recharge strategies within the Ipswich River Watershed and potential funding sources to implement these strategies. • The Town remain open to a regional solution pertaining to the elimination of interbasin water transfer. Exhibits A. Camp Dresser McKee, Cost Attributes of Alternatives B. Camp Dresser McKee, Cost Summary C. Town Meeting Member Survey Results D. Letter from Kerry Mackin, Executive Director, Ipswich River Watershed Association, to Russell Dean, Reading Assistant Town Manager, re: Water Supply Study. E. Copy of Email from Jeffrey Diercks to John Gall, re: Discussion with Steve Johnson on North Reading Contamination Sites F. MWRA, Policy 9 OP. 10, "Admission of New Community to Waterworks System" G. Ad Hoc Water Supply Committee, Composite Ranking of Options H. Camp Dresser McKee, Plots of Scores & Costs 1. Camp Dresser McKee, Demand History 12 3'~Z 02/26/2001 12:13 7819429071 N p t°- p 10 C') N C~ CD N rn c m E- G ca co 0 0 0 u CL a~ • d `m CC ] Cep c oo co N E -B U) - 7+ W O m 0) CV r m te N O Q1 c C 73 CL N a r - t- o Q ° e r co co D N Q. O d n r - CD r" Q U N E L o w C d ~y m m 0 co ° a3 a3 cm N - a) t4 r c U m t - N Cl) N CD M Cn U } Q 0 E c o EEO coo iO LL p, VT ~,p VS T.. En O~ .Q ~ Cn r d N C7 1.. _ R Q O O U) am-- r t- r co c4 V E c W U-:~ cfr Ell cfr m C1 (0 (0 o o °rn tC N N N Q N rj O D CD O W C: O C O (D i> C 43 / O E C U c l O y ~ V) SL ♦A ~ C L ry-' t~ _Sd - Q3 > tl! CD CL 'O N C (U CA cn w co d d' a 3'1~ IUWN ur r=r-+Liitiu 02/26!2001 12:13 7819429071 Table 1 Cost Summary Average 20 Year Net Present Additional capital cost" Household Average Rate Value, Sources Millions Cost over the period millions Primary Source A 6 C D E F Ipswich FtivecReplacement None $ 14.2 $ 408 5.57 $ 47-55 Ipswich Rlver.Renovatlon 6.9 None $ g 345 4.72 $ 35.30 MWRA $ 10.3 $ 414 5,85 $ 42.98 Andover $ 14.1 $ 465 6.34 S 48.41 Bedrock Wells $ 8.3 S 364 4.97 $ 38.70 MWRA None 3 15.7 S 452 6.18 S 45.88 Ipswich $ 14.1 S 502 6.55 S 50.76 Andover $ 20.6 $ 529 7.22 S 53.47 Bedrock Wells $ 15.6 $ 445 6.07 S 45.38 NJ Alternatives incorporate aggressive conservation Notes: The Net Present Value adjusts the life cycle co5ts to properly recognize the l onger lives of some options. 3.iY 02/2G/2001 12:13 7819429071 TOWN OF READING PAGE 04 How a---d WATER SUPPLY SUPVBY - QUESTZONNAl1tE RESULTS READING TOWN MEETING MEMBERS (N==6 1) Please take a few minutes to answer the questions below: 1. How would you rate your understanding of water issues in the Town? 10 Excellent 24 Good 24 Fair 3 Poor 2. What is your opinion of the cost of Reading water? 29 Higher than it should be 25 About right 4 Lower than it should be 3 No response 3. What is your opinion of the quality (i.e., taste and odor) of Reading water?. 3 Excellent 32 Good 20 Fair 6 Poor 4. How would you rate the customer service of the water department? 19 Excellent 30 Good ` J 3 Fair 0- Poor 9 No response 5. If water quality was similar, would you be willing to convert froth the Town to the IvlWRA for water supply? 31 Yes 23 No 6 No response 6. Would you be willing to accept more-stringent conservation methods (such as low-flow toilets, further outdoor water restrictions, etc.) as part of a solution to maintaining a safe and adequate supply of water for the Town? 39 Yes 20 No 7. Would you be willing to pay more for a water supply that had similar quality but less of an impact on the Ipswich Wyer? 29 Yes r 26' No 5 No response 3~S 02/26/2001 12:13 7819429071 TOWN OF NLA1J1NU t f;l t n~ w a Q N L .a_. b r-. d ~ al t C ~ =a ~ c H L C1 'CI L- 0 0 a.. I- Q 4 0 03 c w ~O i 3 /b o \o ~ o Q 4 Q O rj O 4 O Q O 4C) eGE~ua~aad 02/26/2001 12:13 7819429071 TOWN OF READING PAGE 06 l- V co 0) C m NN lL a N O U y 0 c a "c ca a 0 iU J z 0 t - co lJ; Si 9 3a7 02/2G/2001 12:13 7819429071 TOWN OF READING PAGE 07 i i a cI) C O .y v C O U b0 R ~9 ~ C J V n ~ N O O O Q asuodse-d 3,18 z a yy L 4 z 02/26/2001 12:13 7819429071 TOWN OF READING PAGE 08 0 O~ 4-1 yO L/) 4-+ O P-~ cd r O cci O tU bJJ N k CJ Ci Cf) c 3w9 02/26/2001 12:13 7819429071 TOWN OF READING PACE 10 C) L u~ y 0 .L C) L) (n 0 0 C) Q Lo ^ i n ~ ce V.J U) L ~ d U) . 0 cf) 4- 0 Q 0- ~c C) .p. C) C' C \l C) m w I- c o to' (Y) ftjeLj 9AJj Ejnwn3 3PZ° 02/26/2001 12:13 7819429071 TOWN OF READING PAGE 09 urvey from whom: Reading Ad-Hoc Water upply Advisory Committee. Return Survey to: Town Clerk's Office, $:30-5:00 pm. After 5:00 pm, in the white mailbox in the Town Hall parking lot (no postage required). Return by September 30, 1999. What is the Committee's purpose? They are evaluating long-term water supply options for the 'hat are these options? Maintaining the Town'sl Irrent wells and treatment facility, connecting to the WRA, bedrock well, increasing conservation easures, searching for other regional sources of -ter, and/or combinations of the above. What's the purpose of this survey? To obtain public comment on the most current work of the Committee. Ao Please take a few minutes to answer the questions below: . What is your opinion of the cost of Reading water? Higher than it should be About right Lower than it should be No opinion 2. What is your opinion of the quality (i.e., taste and odor, color) of Reading water? Excellent Goad Fair Poor No opinion 3- If the incremental costs showed a slight increase, would you support changing water sources from the current wells to the MWRA? Excellent Good Fair Poor No opinion Below are a list of criteria that the Ad-Hoc Water Supply Advisory Committee has developed in order to evaluate these options. Please rank the criteria In order of importance to you with one (1) being the most important, and severs (7) being the least important. Control - the amount of control the Town has over the system and the source. Cost - the cost of water from source to tap. Environmental Impacts - the potential for adverse or beneficial impacts on the basin(s) supplying the Town. Impllelmentability . the ability to implement the option in a timely manner. Quality - the quality of the water coming from your tap. Vulnerability - the overall vulnerability of the Town's water system to man-made or natural disasters. Yield - the ability of the source to meet customer demands. 5. Would you be willing to accept more stringent conservation methods (such as low-flow toilets, further outdoor water restrictions, etc.) as part of a solution to maintaining a safe and adequate supply of water for the Town? Yes No No opinion 6. Would you be willing to pay more for a water supply that had.similar quality but less of an impact an the Ipswich River? Yes No No opinion 7. Does the Town's current conservation program with "on again, off again" restrictions cause you to use water... More Often Less Often About the same No opinion 4. If water quality was similar, would you support changing the Town's primary water source from the current wells to the MWRA? Yes ` No No opinion Surveya can be returned dunng business hour- to the Town Clerk's Office (8-30-5.00 pm). After 5 pm, drop oft In the white mailbox (Town Business Only) In the 'town Hall parking lot. No postage la required. Survey deadline September 30, 1959. oISTSICUTION AND/OR COMPOSITION AND/OR PRINTING PROVIDED By GLOBE SPECIALTY PRODUCTS, INC., 27 OTIS STREET, WESTBORO, MA 01581-3311.(508) 871.19(30. O- lw~p Town of Reading, Massachusetts Admission to the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority Waterworks System nvironmental Notification Form. April 30, 2001 A pplicaticm OHIO,/ CDMCamp Dresser & McKee Inc. consulting One Cambridge Place engineering 50 Hampshire Street construction Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139 operations Tel: 617 452-6000 Fax: 617 452-8000 April 30, 2001 Mr. Robert Durand, Secretary Executive Office of Environmental Affairs MEPA Unit 251 Causeway Street Suite 900 Boston, MA 02114 Subject: ENF for Admission to the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA) Waterworks System Town of Reading- Applicant Dear Secretary Durand: On behalf of our client, the Town of Reading, Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. (CDM) is. pleased to submit this Environmental Notification Form (ENF) for the above referenced project. Currently, the Town now takes all of its municipal water from its own sources in the Ipswich River Basin. The ENT will be filed in conjunction with the Town of Reading's application for membership into the MWRA's waterworks system. The project does not require any new construction since an interconnection between the Town's distribution system and the MWRA's transmission mains was constructed in 1993. The project is being proposed to continue to serve the needs of the existing population while relieving some of the withdrawal stress on the Ipswich River Basin. Please feel free to contact me at (617) 452-6361 or John Gall at (617) 452-6246 if you have any questions or require additional information. Very truly yours, CAMP DRESSER & McKEE INC. Ginger Hartman Water Resources Engineer cc: ENF Distribution List Edward D. -McIntire, Jr., Town of Reading DPW y-Z CONSERVATION LAND: Will the project involve the conversion of pu - parkland or other Article 9 ublic natural resources to any purpose not in ac rdance with Article 97 (]Yes (Specify No -4r * Will it involve the release of any ervation restriction, pr Nation restriction, agricult preservation restriction, or watershed pres tion restriction? ❑Yes (Specify ) 0 No RARE SPECIES: D s the project site include timated Habitat of Rare Sp ies, Vernal Pools, Priorit Sites of Rare Sp es, or Exemplary Natura ommunities? ) N nYes (S cify HISTORI /ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOURCES: Does the pro' site include any structur ite or district listed in a State Register of Histo Place or the inventory of toric and Archaeological ets of the Com nwealth? Yes (Specify ) 0 No 1 es, does the project inv any demolition or destru n of any listed or inventor' historic or rchaeological resources ❑Yes (Specify } © No AREAS OF CRITI L ENVIRONMENTAL C CERN: Is the project in or adjacent to an Area of Critical Environmental C cern? ❑Yes ( ecify ) No PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project description should include (a) a description of the project site, (b) a description of both on-site and off-site alternatives and the impacts associated with each alternative, and (c) potential on-site and off-site mitigation measures for each alternative (You may attach one additional page, if necessary.) This ENF is filed in conjunction with the Town of Reading's application for membership in the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority's (MWRA) Waterworks system. Application for membership entails provision of water service by a state Agency (or state authority - the MWRA) across a municipal boundary. This is subject to a mandatory EIR under 301 CMR 11.03 (4)(a) 2. This project requires no new construction since an interconnection between the Town's distribution system and the MWRA's transmission mains was constructed in 1993. The existing connection is via a 24-inch MWRA pipe, but has never been used by the Town of Reading. The construction was initiated as a result of a gasoline spill on Interstate Route 1-93, which entered the Town's well field and threatened the loss of the Town's water supply. The Town of Reading now takes all of its municipal water from its own sources, groundwater wells, in the Ipswich River Basin. Current demand is approximately 2.0 mgd (3.0 cubic feet per second), well below the Town's registered water withdrawal of 2.57 mgd, with a year 2000 residential demand of 54 gpcd. During dry years, the Town's average day high period demands (May through October) may rise to as much as 3.0 mgd (4.6 cfs Other municipalities that take water from the river above the South Middleton gauge include the Towns of Wilmington, North Reading and the Lynnfield Center Water District. There are several Tier 1A contaminant release sites in North Reading, that are in close proximity to the existing well field. While these sites are not currently impacting the Town of Reading's water supply, they remain a long-term concern. Notwithstanding the fact that the Town's demands are below its registered withdrawals, the Ipswich experiences significant periods of flow below natural conditions. Flow in the river routinely drops below its natural seven day/ten year low flow of 5.8 cfs at the South Middleton gauge, and in extreme dry years has been observed to dry up completely. A study completed by the USGS in Fall 2000 entitled "A Precipitation Runoff Model for Analysis of the Effects of Water Withdrawals on Streamflow, Ipswich River Basin, Massachusetts, indicates that cumulative groundwater withdrawals in the Ipswich River Basin substantially decrease low flows in, the Ipswich River. In 1999, the Town started a study to develop a long=term water supply strategy that was less vulnerable to threats similar to that posed by the 1992 gasoline spill, which addressed future drinking water regulations, and the Town's contribution to a reduction of flow in the Ipswich River. A report that documents the proposed alternatives and their details is provided in Attachment A of this ENF. The studies included projections of future demand, investigations of alternative sources of supply, consideration of other ways to mitigate adverse impacts associated with withdrawals from the Ipswich River and evaluations of conservation programs. The studies concluded that the Town's water supply objectives were best met by a. program that included the following components which will be implemented by the Town: • Renovation of the existing water treatment plant, and continued use of the Ipswich River as a source of supply. • Implementation of an aggressive conservation program with a goal of reducing domestic demand to 50 gallons per capita per day. This would be achieved by commitment of up to $1 million for programs such as low flow toilet and washing machine rebates, and continuation of the Town's public education programs. • Investigation of bedrock wells as potential supplemental sources of supply with less vulnerability and less impact on the Ipswich River than existing wells. • Utilization of the MWRA as a supplemental source of supply during low flow periods for as much as 219 million gallons of water per year. This will allow the Town to reduce its withdrawals from the Ipswich River Basin during dry summer periods to approximately 1 mgd (1.5 cfs), a reduction of approximately 66 % over current levels. • Aggressively pursuing improvements to the drainage system associated with 1-93 to minimize the potential for contamination of the Ipswich from these sources. Subsequent to the completion of the study, the Town conducted leak detection surveys of the entire distribution system in 1999 and 2000 and is currently in the process of planning a leak detection survey this spring. The Town has also included $1,000,000 for water conservation in its capital improvement plan (to be allocated over the next four years). At the recent town meeting on April 23, 2001 the capital improvement plan, which outlines $250,000 each for years 2002 through 2005, was approved. The funding approval for years 2002 through 2005 is expected on April 30, 2001. The Town has also initiated investigation of bedrock wells and has engaged a consultant to assist in the development of a conservation plan and a water resources management plan. The admission of the Town of Reading to the MWRA waterworks system does not require any new construction since a connection to the system already exists. Therefore, there is no impact on! land, wetlands, or rare species. This project seeks to relieve stress on the Ipswich River Basin by reducing current withdrawals from the upstream reaches of the Basin. This project is being proposed to continue to serve the needs of the existing population while relieving some of the withdrawal stress on the Ipswich River Basin. Note, the additional water supply source is not needed because of additional development or plans for future development. The Town is seeking admission to the MWRA waterworks system as a supplemental source of supply during low flow periods for as much as 219 million gallons of water per year. This will allow the Town to reduce its withdrawals from the Ipswich River Basin during dry summer periods to approximately 1 mgd (1.5 cfs), a reduction of approximately 66% over current levels. A "no action" alternative would result in existing withdrawals from the Ipswich River, which place continuous stress on the River and its resources, especially during the summer months. This ENF is filed in conjunction with the application for admission to the MWRA's waterworks system in order to obtain the summer supply from the Authority. Consistent with the requirements of the %I I Authority's enabling legislation and operating practices, the Town will be seeking approval for its application from the Legislature, the Governor, the MWRA Board of Directors, the MWRA Advisory Board, and the Water Resources Commission through the Interbasin Transfer Act. As part of these filings, the Town of Reading will be reviewing, revising or creating the following documents: • A Local Water Resources Management Plan in the form required by the Water Resources Commission • A Detailed Water Conservation Plan • Zoning Ordinances for evaluating the existing Overlay Districts for Water Supply Protection. The Town expects to closely coordinate these efforts with important stakeholders, including the EOEA Basin Team, the Ipswich River Watershed Association, the MWRA Water Supply Citizen's Advisory Committee and others. y.s CDM Can-ip Dresser & McKee Project Location Map 0 2000 4000 town of Heaamy, ivia5sdaiuzaC, Scale in Feet F pure 1 PUBLIC NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROJECT: Admission to the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA) Waterworks System LOCATION: Town of Reading, Massachusetts PROPONENT: Town of Reading The undersigned is submitting an Environmental Notification Form ("ENF") to the Secretary of Environmental Affairs on or before April 30, 2001. This will initiate review of the above project pursuant to the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act ("MEPA", M.G.L. c.30, s.s. 61, 62, 62H). Copies of the ENF may be obtained from: Ginger Hartman Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. One Cambridge Place 50 Hampshire Street Cambridge, MA 02139 (617) 452-6000 Copies of the ENF are also being sent to the Conservation Commission and the Planning & Development Commission of the Town of Reading where they may be inspected. The Secretary of Environmental Affairs will publish notice of the ENF in the Environmental Monitor, will receive public notice of the project for 20 days, and will then decide, within ten days, if an Environmental Impact Report is needed. A site visit and consultation session on the project may also be scheduled. All persons wishing to comment on the project, or to be notified of a site visit or consultation session, should write to the Secretary of Environmental Affairs, 251 Causeway Street, Suite 900, Boston, Massachusetts 02114, Attention: MEPA Office, referencing the Town of Reading Connection to MWRA Waterworks System. By Peter I. Hechenbleikner (Proponent) y.7 WATER SUPPLY SECTION 1. Thresholds / Permits A. Will the project meet or exceed any review thresholds related to water supply (see 301 CMR 11.03(4))? ,-Yes _ No; if yes, specify, in quantitative terms: The project is for application for membership in the MWRA waterworks system, which entails provision of water service by a state Agency across a municipal boundary. This is subject to a mandatory EIR under 301 CMR 11.03 (4). B. Does the project require any state permits related to water supply? %t Yes _No; if yes, specify which permit: This project requires approval under conditions of the Interbasin Transfer Act. If you answered "No" to both questions A and B, proceed to the Wastewater Section. If you answered "Yes" to either question A or question B, fill out the remainder of the Water Supply Section below. Impacts. and Permits A. Describe, in gallons/day, the volume and source of water use for`existing and proposed activities at the project site: Existing Change Total Withdrawal from groundwater 767mg/yr -219mg/y 548 mg/yr Withdrawal from surface water 0 219 mglyr 219 mg/yr Interbasin transfer 767mg/yr 0 mg/yr 767 mg/yr Municipal or regional water supply 767 mglyr 0 767 mg/yr B. If the source is a municipal or regional supply, has the municipality or region indicated that there is adequate capacity in the system to accommodate the project? _.Yes _ No Currently being reviewed by the MWRA. C. If the project involves a new or expanded withdrawal from a groundwater or surface water.source, 1. have you submitted a permit application? - Yes No; if yes, attach the application 2. have you conducted a pump test? _ Yes _ No; if yes, attach the pump test report E. What is the currently permitted withdrawal at the proposed water supply source (in gallons/day)? 2.57 mgd (registered) F. Will the project require an increase in that withdrawal?_ Yes /No F. Does the project site currently contain a water supply well, a drinking water treatment facility, water main, or other water supply facility, or will the project involve construction of a new facility? _ Yes ✓ No. If yes, describe existing and proposed water supply facilities at the project site: Existing Change Total Water supply well(s) (capacity, in gpd) Drinking water treatment plant (capacity, in gpd) Water mains (length, in miles) G. If the project involves any interbasin transfer of water, which basins are involved, what is the direction of the transfer, and is the interbasin transfer existing or proposed? A transfer from the MWRA waterworks system (Quabbin/Ware/Wachusett/Chicopee/Nashua watersheds) to the MWRA sewer system (Boston Harbor/Massachusetts Bay). Interbasin transfers from the Ipswich to Boston Harbor/Massachusetts Bay will be diminished in a like amount. H. Does the project involve 1. new water service by a state agency to a municipality or water district? or Yes -No 2. a Watershed Protection Act variance? _ Yes V No; if yes, how many acres of alteration? 3. a non-bridged stream crossing 1,000 or less feet upstream of a public surface drinking water supply for purpose of forest harvesting activities? - Yes No H. Describe the project's other impacts (including indirect impacts) on water resources, quality, facilities and services: Refer to Project Description. Ill. Consistency Describe the project's consistency with water conservation plans or other plans to enhance water resources, quality, facilities and services: Refer to Project Description. 1. Thresholds ermits A. Will th roject meet or exceed any iew thresholds related to avast ter see 301 CMR 11.03(5 . _ Yes ✓ No; if yes, sp , in quantitative terms: B. es the project require any to permits related to wastewa _ Yes No; if yes, eEif, w h permit: C. If you answered "No" t oth questions A and B, proce o the Transportation ffic Generation Section. If u answered "Yes" to either q tion A or question B, fill o he remainder of the Wastewater Se n below. 11. Impacts and Per s A. Describe, in ons/day, the volume and d proposed activi es at the project site (calcula Discharge groundwater (Title 5) Dischar to groundwater (non-Title 5) Discha e to outstanding resource wat Disc ge to surface water Mu ipal or regional wastewater fait Fal of wastewater generati for existing and ;cording to 310 CMR 15. Existing C e Total AL B. Is there suffici t capacity in the ex. istin Yes No; if , describe where capaci C. Is there sufficient sting capacity at the pro if no, describe ho apacity will be increase DI' lection system to accommo/Yes oject? till be found: wastewater disposal facility? _ No; D. Does the proj site currently contain a stewater treatment facility, sE wastewater disp al facility, or will the proj involve construction of a new If yes, de ibe as follows: Existing Chan Wastewater treatment plant (capacity, in d) Sewer mains (length, in miles) Title 5 systems (capacity, in gpd) lain, or other No. Total 4~ A letter has been sent to th IlAassachusetts Historical Comm' (MHC) requesting information on the area . istoricaI or archaeological s' is ce within the vicinity of the existing connect' . No new construction is pro d as art of the project (see Attachment B). itten response has not yet b receiv from MHC. r C. If you an ered "No" to all parts of both qu ons A and; , proceed to the Attac ents and Certifica ' s Sections. If you answered to any part of either question A or-" estion'b, fill out the re rider of the Historical and Arch ogical Resources Section below. D'. e you consulted with the Mas usetts Historical Commission? es - No; if yes, at, h correspondence E. Describe and assess the ect's other impacts, direct and ind' t, on listed or inventoried historical and archaeologic. esources: it. Consistency Descri measures that the proponent will e to comply with federal, stat regional, and local plans and licies related to preserving histori " and archaeological resource ATTACHMENTS: 1. Plan,. an appropriate scale, of existing nditions of the project s/ediate co xt, showing all known structures, r dways and parking lots, ay, wetlands a, water bodies, wooded areas, far and, steep slopes, public od major ilities. 2. Plan of proposed condmpletion of project (if con uction of the project is proposed to be phasebe a site plan showing nditions upon the completion of each phase). 3. Original U.S.G.S. ma y color copy (8-' 11 inches or larger) indicat ing the project location and b List of all agencies an om the proponent circulated the ENF, in accordance with 301 CMR 11.16(2). 5. Other: _ CERTIFICATIONS: 1. The Public Notice of Environmental Review has been/will be published in the following newspapers in accordance with 301 CMR 11.15(1): (Name) (Date) Daily Times Chronicle May 4, 2001 2. T is m has Yrcula to encies and Persons in accordance with 301 CMR 11.16(2). Date ignature of Responsible Officer Date Sign ure of p rson preparing or Proponent FK1 (if differe t than above Peter 1. Hechenbleikner John Gall Name (print or type) Name (print or type) Firm or Agency Town of Reading Street 16 Lowell Street Municipality/State/Zip Reading, MA 01867 Phone (781),942-9043 Firm or Agency Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc Street 50 Hampshire Street Municipality/State/Zip Cambridge, MA 02139 Phone (617) 452-6246 = R0P1 : I KIA FAX NO. : 978887089 June 4, 2001. Secretary Robert Durand Executive Office of Environmental Affairs 251 Causeway Street Boston, MA 02114 Jun. 04 2001 02:39PM P2 IPSWICH RIVER WATERSHED ASSOCIATION Attn: Laura Rotne, MEPA Unit Ref: Town of kending Application for Admission to MWRA Waterworks System EOEA 0 12514 Dear Secretary Durand, The. Ipswich River Watershed Association (IRWA) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Town of Reading's Application for Admission to the MWRA Waterworks System. This proposal has significant potential to relieve the stress on the Ipswich River, and IRWA supports the general direction the Town is taking in addressing the long-standing adverse impacts of its water withdrawals on the river, as well as the' commitment of resources to improve water efficiency. Remaining questions about the adequacy of the proposal and its potential impacts on growth should also be addressed. As you know, the Ipswich :River is known as one of the most stressed rivers in the nation, and impaired under the Clean Water Act, due to the severity of its low-flow problems and other factors. The Ipswich River is also classified as "stressed" under the criteria recently developed by the Commonwealth. The US Geological Sur-vey's hydrological model shows conclusively that the ;roundwater Withdrawals of communities such as Reading are a major cause of the increased dur0ion.and magnitude of low-flow events. In fact, pumping at Reading's main wellfield,.which is'iritnediately adjacent to the ma.instem of the Ipswich'River, chronically depletes the river in this locale, 'resulting in fish kills and other environmental dam..ge_ The effect -of the withdrawals is particularly severe, and is exacerbated by the export of at[ this water fro.tu the Towin and the watershed, via sewers, to the 141WRA wastewater system. The USC7S model indicates that flows would be approximately ten times higher, were it not-for the impacts of water withdrawals, water exports and land use changes, A recent companion study by USGS and'the Mass, Division. of Fisheries and Wildlife shows that the Ipswich River's biodiversity has been greatly diminished by the low=flow protilems,'resultin in the Ioss of river dependent species from the ecosystem. The study'indicates that maintaining' Qow over the riffles, such as the one just downstream 'of the Readitag well'1'ield at Mill Street, is an essential part of a restoration strategy, Thus the need to-take action to address these problems is urgent - as it has been for decades]] Now at least: we have established lioiv much damage has occurred.) IRWA applauds the T cv'~v,'n ufRepdinu for initiating the import of water, so as to reduce NOW 240 County Road - P.O_ Box 576 - Ipswich, MA 41938 - 978.356.0418 Fax: 973.356.1993 • Irwa@tiac.net ~RoM I RL -JR 1-11,711- FAX NO. : 9788870389 Jun. 04 2001 02:39Pfl P3 water withdrawals from the Ipswich River. This is a step in the right direction. Impacts of such withdrawals do the donor basin trust also be addressed. Whether the proposed purchase reduce will tem)scnot yeot knowntandrequ esefurtherts of the existing withdrawals (or only red mer, investigation. Additional modeling will wak take place in restoriwhich will st earnflows aIn in rawa the effects of the proposed reduction and addition, it is important to understand th o se P~eWeington sThis information should be additional sewers, such as are being prop water considered before completing review an e autholrizing nolower flows~tthuslpotentially affecting the imported. Sewers in Wilmington will r Water available for Reading to "harvest." IRWA's preliminary investigation, prior to-the model's completion, indicated that the proposed purchase of 600,000 gp re d (annualieed nreiraan adequate water suptply for the lieve the burden on the Ipswich River, while n g Town. of Reading. Our calculations indicated that at least twice as much water would be needed to accomplish both aims, based on current water use patterns and existing potent infrastructure. Note that our calculation imaddress pacts on future flow oo add tnozr13l sewers~alWe higher water demand, nor the potential adverse. recognize that the USGS model is a better tool than we had, and look forward to seeing the results of modeling, to address this question, The implications for growth must be considered, as this factor has the potential to use up the water imported, without benefltto t river. of the well withdrawals. Our addressed by implementation of a flow-triggered regulation star hthe sole supply when flows in the recommendation would be to use im to water ealthy fisheries. The recommended Ipswich River go below the flows needed threshold for fisheries protection is .5 cfsm during the June-September period. This figure should be applied in determining the. capacity of the wells. The question of Reading's WMA registration, and how it would be affected by the proposed purchase, should be addressed. IRWA questions the 2.57 nigd registration itself, as the average water use for the period :1981-85 in Reading was 2.12 mgd (and even that figure included 2 years of aberrantly high water use). The WM.A regulations specify that the registration should be based on water use during 19810-.85, yet Reading's registration was adjusted upward. It should never have happened, and IRWA would like to see it adjusted downward. The question of the Water Management Act authorization should consider this question. A further consideration is that Reading is a partner, along with Wilmington, North Reading, Burlington and IRWA, in the Communities Connected by Water'project funded by EOEA: Picumingg,for Growth and Pf"atershed Protection ifs the Ipswich River 9atershed. This project's key goal is restoration of the river to health, exam.aning water supply, wastewater and stormwater management options to do so. There is a particular need to look at the water issues "holistically ►n this portion of the watershed. Otherwise, the import of water may well serve only as an enabler of growth, in conjuntion with the existing sewers, which were recently expanded in Reading to serve almost the entire community. Communication and interaction. with all the project partners and the Watershed Management Council should be part of the process of evaluating local alternatives, as s-z pM„ I RWA FAX NO. 9788870.389 Jun. 84 2001 02:40PM P4 there is considerable potential for both impacts and cooperative solutions at the subregional and watershed-wide levels. Thank you very much for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, ; h s GerryMackin Executive Director Cc: Town of Reading Richard Tomczyk Louis Wagner, Massachusetts Audubon Society WSCAC. MWRA/ Advisory Board ; F A;(0900 JANE SWIFT GOVERNOR Tel. (617) 626-1000 BOB DURAND June 8 2001 Fax (617) 626-1181 SECRETARY http://vwuw.magnet.state.ma.us/envir CERTIFICATE OF THE SECRETARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL NOTIFICATION FORM PROJECT NAME :Admission to the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority Waterworks System PROJECT MUNICIPALITY :Reading PROJECT WATERSHED :Ipswicb/North Coastal EOEA NUMBER :12514 PROJECT PROPONENT :Town of Reading DATE NOTICED IN MONITOR :May 9, 2001 Pursuant to the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) (M.G.L. c. 30, ss. 61- 62H) and Sections 11.05 and 11.06 of the MEPA regulations (301 CMR 11.00), I hereby determine that this project requires the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). . As described in the Environmental Notification Form (ENF), the project involves the Town of Reading's proposed water supply connection to the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA). The purposes of the project are to ensure a safe supply of water to the Town and to reduce the stress placed on the Ipswich River by the Town's existing withdrawals. According to the ENF, the Town is seeking admission to the MWRA waterworks system as a supplemental source of supply during low flow periods for as much as 219 million gallons of water per year. The project is undergoing review and requires the preparation of an EIR pursuant to Section 11.03(4)(a)(2) of the MEPA regulations, because it involves a new interbasin transfer of water of 1,000,000 or more gallons per day (gpd). The project requires approval of the Water Resources Commission (WRC) under the Interbasin TransferAct. It also requires MWRA approval of its application to connect to the'water supply system. The project will not seek cx Printed on Recycled Stock 20Y Post Consumer Waste ENF Certificate June 8, 2001 EOEA #12514 financial assistance from a state agency. Therefore, MEPA jurisdiction is limited to significant environmental impacts related to the subject matter of the required permits. SCOPE General The EIR should follow the general guidance for the preparation of an IR reprint the Section 11.07 of the MEPA regulations, as modified by this Certificate. It P comment letters and respond to the issues raised in them, to the extent that the comments are within MEPA jurisdiction. The proponent should.circulate the EIR to those listed at the end of this Certificate and to those state agencies from which the proponent will seek permits -or approvals. The proponent should provide a copy of the EIR. to the Reading Public Library. In addition, it should make a reasonable number of copies of the EIR available on a first come, first served basis. In addition to the specific issues itemized below, the EIR should include all information that will be required under the WR.C and MWRA approval processes. As part of the admission process, the Town will be required to submit a water management plan approved by the WRC; the EIR should include, at a minimum, a drain of that plan. In an attachment to its comment letter, the WRC details the information that the proponent must provide to satisfy the WRC's requirements, and this information, also, should be included in the EIR. Alternatives The EIR should expand on the alternatives analysis included in the ENF. The purpose of the alternatives analysis is to consider what effect changing the parameters of a project will. have on the environment, keeping in mind that the objective of the MEPA review process is to avoid or minimise damage to the environment to the greatest extent feasible. In addition to the proposed alternative, the EIR should analyze the no build alternative to establish n s tubers of conditions. To provide context to assist reviewers, the EII2 should identify the MWRA water supply system and any other communities proposing to become ~A members. Water supply sources. At a minimum, the EIR should analyze the feasibility - including costs and the environmental impacts of the following alternative sources of water: expansion of existing local sources or reactivation of any abandoned wells; development of additional local sources, including bedrock wells and wells in the North Coastal basin portion of the Town; the potential for connection to any other municipal or regional water supply system; and connection to the MWRA. 2 pp EOEA #12514 ENF Certificate June 8, 2001 Ipswich River Impacts. The ENF indicates that a primary purpose of this project is to restore flow to the Ipswich River, which faces serious environmental degradation from low- and no-flow conditions. The EIR should document the impact that the project is estimated to have on the river. It should also describe other measures that the Town is, or could be, taking to restore stream flow, including measures to increase recharge locally. and coordinating with other communities in the Ipswich River basin, and analyze the impact that those activities could have on stream flow. Protection of existing sources.. Since, with admission to the MWRA, the Town is seeking only a supplemental source of water, it is essential that it maintain viable local sources of supply. The ENF indicates that the Town is concerned about the vulnerability of its existing water supply. The EIR should illustrate in what way the Town's water supply wells are at risk, and it should describe steps that the Town is currently undertaking; or may undertake in the future, to protect those sources. Impacts on the donor basins. The EIR should describe any impacts that the project will have on the donor basins, that is, the Quabbin and Wachuset Reservoirs and the Ware River, including impacts to the MWE2A system, to streamflow, and to other critical resources associated with the MWR.A. system and releases from its reservoirs. Connection and pipeline route. For any alternative source of supply that involves construction of a new connection and/or water line, the EIR should analyze potential points of connection and pipeline routes, with a goal of minimizing damage to the environment. Project Permitting The EIR should include a discussion of each state permit or agency action required for the proposed project. The EIR. should discuss how the project will meet the requirements and performance standards of each state permit. The EIR should also address the comments raised about the Town's current Water Management Act registration and any proposed change to that registration, or any other measures that the Town will take to ensure a long-term reduction in its use of local water supply sources. I note that this assurance could be achieved by transferring rights.(as suggested in WSCAC's comment letter), by a Water Management Act permit containing a restriction, or by another mechanism proposed by the proponent. Water Supply and Water Conservation The EIR should demonstrate that the Town is taking all necessary actions to lessen overall demand, conserve existing supplies, minimize impacts on critical resources, and plan 3 EOEA #12514 ENF Certificate June 8, 2001 prudently for new supplies. The proposed scope attached to the WRC's comment letter, MWRA Policy Op. 10 (attached to its comment letter), and the comment letters from DEP and the Water Supply Citizens Advisory Committee, describe in considerable detail the information that should be included in the EIR. The EIR shall describe the Town's water needs and historic and potential conservation. measures, including its recent funding of a rebate program for low flow toilets and washing machines. The EIR. should respond in detail to the issues raised in those letters. Wastewater The EIR. should describe the proposed project's impacts on the local and regional wastewater infrastructure. It should indicate whether any upgrades to wastewater infrastructure, including an increase in capacity, will be required and who will be responsible for those upgrades. Executive Order 385/Planning~for Growth The Planning for Growth Executive Order (E.O.385) requires that, in making their permitting decisions, state agencies seek to minimi?e unnecessary loss or depletion of environmental quality and resources that might result from a permitting decision, to consider local and regional growth management plans, including regional and watershed plans, and to make an express finding as to the consistency of their decisions with the provisions of the Executive Order. It also requires that the EIIt discuss the consistency of the project with the regional policy plan and any other applicable local -and regional growth management plans. Proposed Section 61 Findings To assist the permitting agencies, the EIR should contain proposed Section 61 Findings, which summarize the various mitigation commitments, including timetables, and identify responsible parties. 6/8/01 Date 4 - ~E i EOEA #12514 ENF Certificate June 8, 2001 Comments received: 5/29/01 Water Supply Citizens Advisory Committee 5/29/91 Massachusetts Water Resources Authority 5/30/01 Water Resources Commission 5/30/01 M'WRA Advisory Board 5/31/01 Department of Environmental Protection, Northeast Regional Office 614101 Ipswich River Watershed Association 6/4/01 Reading/North Reading Ipswich River Stream Team BDILER/lr `-S RECEIVED DEPT. O) PZB IC WORKS DATE o z TIME TOWN OF READING IPSWICH RIVER BASIN WATER CON'SERVATION' REPQRT CARD Grading the Communities of the Ipswich River Basin on Water Conservation and Water Use Ef j"iciency Prepared By: Kerry Mackin, Executive Director, Ipswich River Watershed Association Lou Wagner, Conservation Scientist, Massachusetts Audubon Society August 2002 701 ;Ipswich Rzver Basin Water Conservation Report Card August, 2002 c ~ Summary and Background I' e, Ipswich River Watershed Association (IRWA) and the Massachusetts Audubon Society (Mass Audubon)-have p.repared.tl is seventh annual Ipswich River Basin Water Conservation Report Card to highlight the need and opportunities for more efficient use of the water resources of -the Ipswich River watershed. The ongoing drought highlights the importance and value of water conservation and efficient water use to the Ipswich River and the communities that depend upon it for water supply. While the current drought is not severe by historical standards; several Ipswich watershed communities faced the prospects of water shortages this summer due to an inability to fill their water supply reservoirs. A failure to conserve limited water supplies during the summer of 2001 resulted in low reservoir levels when the drought began last fall. Below normal precipitation since that time left some reservoirs at unusually low levels in the early spring of 2002. During the drought, the Ipswich River has remained at relatively low flow levels for extended periods, and on several occasions during the. fall of'2001 and the winter and early spring of 2002, record low flows for date were recorded. Water withdrawals for public water supply are the major cause of unnaturally low and no, flow conditions in the Ipswich River,. according to studies by the United States Geological Survey (USGS). In the summers of 1995, 1997, and 1999, the upper half of the river ran dry or was reduced to isolated pools. In recent years the communities that have water supply sources in the Ipswich watershed have used an average of about 40 million gallons of water per day. About two thirds of this water comes directly from the Ipswich River or wells within the Ipswich watershed. While public water supply withdrawals are the most significant cause of the river drying up, they are not the only factors causing the Ipswich River's flow problems. Twenty to 25 million gallons a day of the water supply is discharged out of the watershed, resulting in a major water deficit. Additional millions 'of gallons of stormwater and groundwater leak or flow into sewers, and that water is also removed from the watershed. The USGS studies found that diversions of wastewater out of the upper reaches of the Ipswich watershed also significantly contribute to low flow conditions. The rapid pace of development in some portions of the watershed results in further disruption of the natural hydrology of the Ipswich watershed. Stormwater rushes across pavement, buildings, and other impervious surfaces; instead of soaking into the soil and recharging underground aquifers. The result is increased flooding in periods of high rainfall and snowmelt and decreased flow in dry periods. This deprives rivers and streams of the critical base flow that under natural conditions keeps them flowing and healthy in summer. These problems must be addressed through comprehensive planning, resource protection measures, and more efficient use of the Ipswich watershed's limited water resources. In 1999, IRWA initiated two projects to meet this need. The first is a joint effort with the communities of Wilmington, Burlington, Reading and North Reading called "Planning for Growth and Watershed Protection," which seeks long-term solutions to improve the water balance in our region, while protecting water quality and other resource values and providing the basis for a sustainable economy. The second, called "Communities Connected by Water," is developing a watershed management plan to better manage and protect regional water resources, and has resulted in the 2 7-w~ August, 2002 Ipswich River Basin Water Conservation Report Card creation of the Ipswich River Watershed Management Council. These efforts are funded by the Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs. The Massachusetts Audubon Society is working to' develop measures to address development pressures that threaten the Ipswich and many other Massachusetts watersheds. Mass Audubon's. Endicott Regional Center in Wenham and The. North Shore Alliance for Green Neighborhoods have developed a model bylaw and regulations for open Space Residential Design (OSRD), also known as Conservation Subdivision Design. OSRD is an innovative. tool communities can use to reduce stormwater runoff and outdoor water use and to protect their water supplies, aquatic wildlife , habitat, and upland areas. In addition, Mass. Audubon is working to educate individuals and communities across the state on measures they can implement to conserve water and protect the Ipswich and other rivers. This effort is funded by the Massachusetts Environmental Trust. Recently, Mass Audubon launched a river protection website that provides information on effective measures for conserving water. This site can be accessed at www.massaudubon.org/rivers. Despite the serious low-flows in the Ipswich River, there ate some noteworthy points of progress: • The Town of Reading achieved as A- overall grade - the highest overall grade obtained so far by any community in the watershed. Congratulations to Reading for the commitment they have made to improve water efficiency in their community! • IRWA is developing a comprehensive water conservation program for the region, funded by the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs Massachusetts Watershed Initiative. This project will work with common-hies to establish realistic ix-oals and In addition sIRfor WAwater will provide technical applied consistently throughout the watershed. assistance to municipalities and businesses, and will implement several pilot projects. on water conservation. The Towns of Reading and Wilmington are negotiating to purchase water from the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA): If implemented, this approach could reduce water withdrawals from the towns' wells adjacent to the Ipswich River during low-flow periods. • The Town of North Reading is working to address its wastewater disposal needs with facilities .that treat and return wastewater, within the Ipswich basin,. rather than approaches that would result in further transfers of water out of the Ipswich watershed. North Reading has also increased its purchases of water from Andover in summer, thus reducing the need to pump water from the wells adjacent to the Ipswich River. • The USGS, with funding support from the Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, conducted additional modeling of management alternatives to improve streamflows. This modeling found that the low-flow problems of the Ipswich River can be solved by reducing the use of stseamside wells, improving water conservation, and reducing the amount of water transferred out of the watershed. 3 Ipswich River Basin Water Conservation Report Card August, 2002 e USGS, in collaboration with the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife, completed a study of how low-flows affect aquatic habitat i{ the Ipswich River. The study found that Ipswich Rivet has excellent habitats when flows are adequate, but these habitats are lost during low-flow periods. As a result, the river's fish community has lost important species. A task force of fisheries experts convened by IRWA has developed recommendations for restoring a healthy fish community to the Ipswich River. • In 2001, the Massachusetts Water Resources Commission designated the Ipswich a Stressed Watershed. While highlighting the impacts of low-flow conditions in the Ipswich River, this designation will help to ensure a high degree of review of proposals that might further reduce flows in the Ipswich River, and encourage restoration and water conservation efforts. "An Act Establisbing a Water Resources Conservation and Ef fxciency Program, (S.20401H.2212) filed by Senator Bruce Tarr (Gloucester) and Representative Douglas Petersen (Marblehead) is currently before the Massachusetts legislature. This bill would provide funding, technical assistance and guidelines to improve water efficiency statewide and in the Ipswich River watershed. This bill is important to the protection of the Ipswich River and all rivers and watersheds in the Commonwealth. Over the past decade, per capita water use in the watershed has declined slightly, by about eight percent. Unfortunately, this good news is offset by an eight percent increase in population in Ipswich watershed communities. The combination of a.slight improvement in water efficiency and an increased population resulted in overall annual water use remaining about the same over the past decade. • A Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan is nearing completion, and will identify measures to restore flow while protecting water quality. The Ipswich River Watershed Management Council, which advises the state environmental agencies about regional issues and priorities, is working to identify priority actions. The Council invites participation of all those interested in working together toward protecting the Ipswich River. Yet other projects threaten to worsen the flow situation in the Ipswich River. For example, if the Town of Wilmington moves forward with a proposal to expand its sewer system, it would result in further water losses from the critically stressed upper Ipswich watershed. Several communities have requested that the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection PEP) consider reducing protection of the Ipswich River in response to the recent drought A proposal for a new golf course, in Ipswich has the potential to adversely impact the Ipswich River by pumping millions of gallons of irrigation water during low flow periods. In addition, the region's growth threatens to outstrip the progress in water conservation, especially with the trend toward large, water-demanding lawns. These potential projects and trends could undermine any progress being achieved to restore the Ipswich River to health. 4 ~Y Ipswich River Basin Water Conservation Report Card August, 2002 Recommendations 1. Implement a strict "no net loss of water" (net gain) policy in the Ipswich .River watershed. This approach would measure the effect of projects on the "water budget," and require that proposals that would result in further loss of water be mitigated by water imports, water efficiency or other practices to restore flow to the river. 2. Enact S.20401H.2212, :"An Act Establishing a Water Resources Conservation and Efficiency Program". This legislation will provide communities with the technical assistance and financial aid they need to reduce water demand region-wide-Rivers across the Commonwealth will receive more consistent protection against low-flow problems. 3. Adopt more effective water conservation standards throughout the region. a. Revise rate structures to encourage water efficiency and discourage waste. only five communities have inclining block water rates, where the price per gallon increases as water use increases. Most communities have rate structures that are flat (same cost per gallon regardless of use) except for the lowest volume customers, who are charged a minimum fee regardless of use. These customers, who may include elderly and single-person households; pay the most per gallon. This practice should be changed so that these low- volume customers are rewarded, rather'than penalized. b. Implement more effective measures to reduce summer water use. Even-odd watering restrictions are generally not very effective, and in some cases are counterproductive, resulting in more watering. Requirements for hand-watering only, very restricted hours of outdoor water use (such as late evening/early morning), and of course watering bans, are much more effective. Whatever water use restrictions. are used, they must be enforced to be effective. Automatic sprinkler systems should be better managed so that they operate only when soils are dry, and during restricted hours, if at all. Second meters, used in some communities with sewers to measure water used but not returned to the sewer system as wastewater, should be prohibited or billed at significantly higher rates. Communities should work with garden clubs to create demonstration water efficient lawns and landscapes and award programs for water-efficiency. Communities should implement seasonal rate structures that charge a premium for high summertime water use. These measures will not only assist communities in -reducing summer use, which causes frequent drying up. of portions of the river, but also may help to avoid costly water supply capacity expansions such as the construction of new wells and new or larger water treatment facilities. c.. Implement comprehensive water efficiency programs in each community. Every community should develop and implement a comprehensive water efficiency program, with goals, timetables, budgets and accountability. Goals should include specific targets for reductions in water use in residential, commercial, industrial and municipal sectors, and plans for how to achieve these goals. Priorities should be set based on areas where most water savings can be achieved; however, no key area should be neglected. Water efficiency programs should include replacement of inefficient plumbing fixtures; replacement of inefficient and unreliable large meters with improved models; revision of Ipswich River Basin Water Conservation Report Card August, 2002 water rates to encourage water. conservation and penalize water waste; leak detection and repair as part! of routine operations; indoor and landscape water audit services to customers; year-round, effective education and outreach; improved drought/low-flow response and water restriction measures. Every community should establish a goal of reducing per capita water use by at least 20 percent over the next decade. This should include a special emphasis on reducing water use in summer when the Ipswich River is most severely stressed. d. Improve the detail and accuracy of water system accounting. An important element of improving water system operational efficiency and water use efficiency is a comprehensive and accurate accounting of water use. Communities should increase their efforts to collect and compile accurate water use statistics. IDEP should audit water supply statistics during the five year review of Water Management Act permits and require improved data collection and reporting where needed. 4. Adopt development controls that reduce outdoor water use and stormwater runoff. Communities should adopt the Open Space Residential Design bylaw and regulations being developed by the North Shore Green Neighborhoods Alliance to make new development more water efficient, reduce stormwater runoff, and protect important habitat. 5. Support and participate in the Ipswich River. Watershed Management Council and Ipswich Basin Team. These groups are working to forge creative and effective solutions to the problems facing the region and the Ipswich River. Cooperation and coordination of efforts among all those who share this resource is essential to' ensure its health and vitality as an environmental, economic and recreational resource for generations to come. 6. Everyone has a role to play. We all use water - none of us can live without it. Nor can businesses and the economy thrive without a dependable and clean source of water. The Ipswich River is truly the "lifeblood" of the region's economy and its ecology. We can all use water more efficiently in our homes, yards, schools and businesses. If every person in the region saved just three gallons a day, that would save a million gallons a day, or 365 million gallons a year! Given that the average water use in the region is 75 gallons per person per day; such a modest savings is truly 'achievable - in fact, people could realistically save much more water on a daily basis by installing water efficient plumbing fixtures and changing water wasting practices. We can let our local officials know how important it is to use the Ipswich River carefully and to protect it for our sustainable use now and in the future. For more information about how to save water or how to protect the Ipswich River, please call the Ipswich River Watershed Association at 978-356-0418, or contact Richard Tomczyk, Ipswich River Basin Team Leader for the Executive Of juice of Environmental Affairs, at 978- 661-7817. For information on rivers, low flow, and water conservation on the Internet, visit www.massaudubon.org/rivers. Ipswich River Basin Water Conservation Report Card August, 2002 Introduction In 1997, the Ipswich River was listed as one of the nation's most threatened rivers because of its severe low-flow problems. Much of the upper half of the river dried up or was reduced to isolated stagnant pools in the summers of 1995, 1997, and 1999. In 1999, the river experienced record low-flows in .May, June, July and August. While the river did not experience extreme low flows during the summer of 2001, the drought that began in late summer of 2001 resulted in record low flows during late 2001 and early 2002, and extremely low flows continued into the spring season. This situation raises real concerns that the river will dry up again this summer. For years, the Ipswich River has been recognized as severely stressed . by water withdrawals by municipalities located within and outside of the Ipswich watershed. The Ipswich River basin provides all or part of the public water supply for 14 communities: Beverly, Danvers, Hamilton, Ipswich, Lynn, Lynnfield, Middleton, North Reading, Peabody, Reading, Salem, Topsfield, Wenham, and Wilmington. In early 2000, the USGS completed the development of a model of the hydrology of the Ipswich watershed that documented the magnitude of the impact of these water withdrawals on low flows.in the Ipswich River-The USGS found that groundwater withdrawals in the upper reaches of the watershed are the main factor reducing summer flows by up to 90 percent. The diversion of wastewater to treatment plants outside the watershed also significantly reduces flow. The results of the USGS study highlight the need to increase water conservation and water efficiency efforts. A companion study by USGS and the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife, completed in late 2001, found that the Ipswich River's fisheries have been seriously degraded by low-flow problems. The river's biodiversity has been diminished, with the loss of most "river dependent" species. The study identified several management objectives needed to restore the river to health. IRWA convened a workgroup of fisheries experts to develop a "target fish community," representing the fish species expected to be present in the Ipswich River were it not subject to excessive water withdrawals. and diversions. In 2001, this workgroup developed recommendations for fisheries restoration goals for the Ipswich River. The Ipswich River Watershed Association and the Massachusetts Audubon Society have prepared this seventh annual report card to assist communities in assessing their own water conservation efforts and identifying ways to improve water efficiency. A major goal of this evaluation is to point out where improved water conservation and more efficient operation of water supply systems could be implemented to reduce water withdrawals, and thereby to reduce stress on the Ipswich River and its tributary streams. The 2002 Report Card reviews water use in 2001, as reported by community water departments to the DEP in their Public Water Supply Annual Statistical Reports. The 2002 Report Card also reports on water efficiency trends in the Ipswich River basin over the past decade. The Ipswich River Watershed Association and Massachusetts Audubon Society are committed to the protection and preservation of the Ipswich River. The. Ipswich River Watershed Association serves as the voice of the Ipswich River and the ecosystems it supports by advocating for the protection, conservation, and sustainable management of the vibrant, vital natural resources within the river's watershed. IRWA works to ensure adequate stream flows, clean water, healthy natural habitats, necessary drinking water, and recreational opportunities for future generations. As the river's advocate, the Association is dedicated to using sound science and management tools to work with a variety of stakeholders to achieve a careful balance of human uses of the river with the needs of healthy terrestrial -24 Ipswich River Basin Water Conservation Report Card August, 2002 and aquatic habitat, so that the riverine system is able to function as naturally as.possible. Where the river has been compromised, IRWA seeks to restore it; where it remains pristine, IRWA seeks to protect it. The Massachusetts . Audubon Society is the largest conservation organization in New England, concentrating its efforts on protecting the nature of Massachusetts for people and wildlife. Mass Audubon protects more than 29,000 acres of conservation land, conducts educational programs for 250,000 children and adults annually, and advocates for sound environmental policies at the local, state, and federal levels. Established in 1896 and supported by 65,000 member households, Mass Audubon maintains 41 wildlife sanctuaries that are open to the public and serve as the base for its conservation, education, and advocacy work across the state: The Mass Audubon's largest sanctuary is the 2,800-acre Ipswich River Wildlife Sanctuary located in the Towns of Topsfield, Hamilton, and Wenham on the banks of the Ipswich River. Protecting and restoring the freshwater habitats of Massachusetts, including the Ipswich and other rivers and streams threatened by excessive water withdrawals, is a key conservation, goal of the Massachusetts Audubon Society. The Need for Water Conservation and Efficiency Because the Ipswich River is so vulnerable to the impacts of water withdrawals, it is imperative that the communities using the basin as. a source of water supply use water as efficiently as possible. Failure to do so threatens not only the ability of the river to support fish, wildlife and recreation, but also the region's economic viability and future. Increased water demand in summertime is a' particular problem, because it occurs at the same time the river is lowest, and can quickly result in pumping the river, dry. Lawn watering is the chief reason for high summer water demand, which can be double or triple winter use. In recent years, many basin communities have experienced rapid residential growth, primarily in the form of single. family homes with large lawns. Many of these lawns are watered frequently in an effort to keep them green, even during the hottest and driest part of the summer. The hotter and drier the summer, the more lawn watering. The water is taken up by lawn grasses or lost to evaporation. The result is very high summer water demand, driving water suppliers to pump more water at the very time that the river is at its lowest, and most vulnerable to water withdrawals. This peak summer water demand is also the motivation to build new wells or reservoirs, at great expense, which might be avoided if peak water demand were reduced. Another reason the Ipswich River is so susceptible to low-flows is that 80% of the water which is taken for water supply is transported out of the watershed and discharged elsewhere. The communities of Beverly, Burlington, Danvers, Lynn, Reading, Peabody, Salem and parts of Andover and Wilmington transport. their wastewater out of the basin for treatment and disposal. As a result, wastewater from these communities is not returned to the Ipswich basin to maintain streamflow. This results in a direct loss of about 20 to 25 million gallons of water per day, and a loss of additional millions of gallons daily due to "infiltration and inflow" - water which flows into the sewers through cracks and connections with storm drains. At times, infiltration and inflow can exceed the volume of wastewater in sewers, dramatically increasing the loss of water from .the watershed. Accelerating watershed development in Ipswich River basin communities also threatens the river with increased pollution from stormwater runoff and disruption of the basin's hydrology that may increase August, 2002 Ipswich River Basin Water Conservation Report Card flooding and decrease groundwater reserves. Groundwater reserves are nneedT dto Prime summer st streamflow and recharge munYpal water supply wells during the ee pronounced in the upper and middle portions of the Ipswich River watershed. According to recent data ities of from the 2000 U.S. Census, the population of the up per er the teashdecade The opulationmof anmidd- North Reading grew by 21% and 15% respectively p watershed community of Middleton grew by 57%. Threats associated with watershed development generally cannot be addressed by municipal water departments. These threats must be addressed though comprehensive planning and resource protection measures. Water Use Trends in Ipswich Basin Communities In preparing this annual report card over the past seven years, we have collected water use statistics for the communities that use the Ipswich River basin as a, source of water supply. With data collected for the 11 year period from 1991 through 2001, this year we have analyzed the overall water use trend in .the Ipswich watershed. To do this, we evaluated changes in per capita water use over the decade. We looked at five year averages of per capita water use to reduce the year-to-year variations that occur as the-result of wet. or dry summers. This provided us with per capita water use for seven, 5 year periods: 1991-1995, 1992-1996, 1993-1997,1994-1998, 1995-1999, 1996-2000, and 1997-2001. The results of this analysis are presented in Figure 1. 9 7-9 Ipswich River Basin Water Conservation Report Card August, 2002 Throughout the past decade, per capita water use in the Ipswich basin communities dropped by about eight percent, from an average pf 128 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) during the period from 1991 through 1995, to 118 gpcd during the most recent five year period, 1997 through 2001. While this is good news, it does not mean that there has been a reduction in total water use of eight percent. The actual amount of water used has stayed about the same over the past decade due to a population increase of about eight percent, according to data from the 2000 U.S. Census. Due -to the increased regional population, the total amount of water used by the communities that take water from the Ipswich River has remained about the same. While it is indeed good news that water efficiency is improving in many of the communities that use the Ipswich River basin as a source of water supply, a much greater improvement could be achieved. Over the last decade, improvements in efficiency have only slightly outpaced the increase in water use due to growing populations. To meet future water needs and to restore the Ipswich River, increased water efficiency is needed. The Report Card To prepare the Report Card, IRWA and the Mass Audubon evaluate Public Water Supply Annual Statistical Reports, submitted by each water department to the Massachusetts DEP. The reports, filed on DEP forms, require information on total water use, disaggregated water use (water use broken down into categories such as residential, commercial, industrial, etc), and information on water supply sources. All information is self reported by water suppliers. There is no verification or audit process by DEP for the information provided by water suppliers. IRWA and the Massachusetts Audubon Society obtained copies of the water supply statistics filed by the communities that use the Ipswich River basin for all or a significant portion of their water supply for the years 1991 through 2001. This information was obtained from the files of the DEP in Boston. The data provided by water suppliers were then used to develop the report card. Six factors were evaluated and graded: water use trend; residential water use; seasonal water use; non- account water; record keeping and reporting; and water rates. Each of these factors is described in detail in the methodology section of this report. Data for Middleton are included with Danvers, which provides water to Middleton. An overall'water conservation grade for each community was also developed based on the average of their individual grades. The Grades Based on the grading criteria described in the section on methodology, the 14 communities that use the Ipswich River basin for all , or a substantial portion of their water supply received the grades shown in the . table below. Again, we wish to emphasize that the data on which these grades are based was supplied by the communities in their annual reports of water supply statistics to DEP. 10 Sao Ipswich River Basin Water Conservation Report Card August, 2002 2002 IPSWICH RIVER WATERSHED WATER CONSERVATION REPORT CARD (covering water use for 2001) Water ll Use Community Grade Tea Beverly C+. D Danvers/Middletont B B Hamilton B+ A Ipswich B+ A Lynn B- A Lynnfield C+ B. North Reading B- B Peabody B- A Reading A- A+ Salem B- A Topsfield B B Wenham C+ F Wilmington B A Season al Non- Re o s Residential Water Account & Slater Water Use Use Water Reports Rates B B D A D B+ C A+' A C B+ D A+ A B A+ B B A C B+ B D- A D B- F B+ A C D- C C+ A B B- B C+ C C A+ C A+ A C D- B B+ A C B- B A+ A D D- A B A B B-. C A+ B C Since the Report Card was first issued in 1996, progress in implementing water efficiencies has been slow; despite the river drying up in 1995, 1997 and 1999. In general, grades for year 2001 water use were about the same as for year 2000: However, Reading achieved an A- overall - the highest overall grade achieved to date. Five communities improved their grades, six received lower grades, and two remained the same. Overall, the summer of 2001 was slightly warmer and considerably drier than the summer of 2000. This increased outdoor water use, resulting in higher grades.for residential water use and seasonal water use in a number of communities. Although annual variations in the amount and distribution of rainfall make grades fluctuate somewhat from year to year, we do believe . that improvement has occurred as a direct result of action by many communities to conserve water and achieve increased efficiency. This view is supported by the overall water use trend for the basin presented in Figure 1. We support and congratulate these successes, while recognizing that much more could and should be done to conserve water to protect, preserve, and restore the Ipswich River and its tributaries. The dangerously low conditions of several area reservoirs and low groundwater levels in the Ipswich Watershed during the winter and spring of 2002 highlight the need for increased efforts to conserve water and use it efficiently. A failure to effectively conserve water during the summer of 2001 left water supply reservoirs at low levels by September; just as the drought began. Below normal precipitation since that time was insufficient to refill these reservoirs during the fall and winter months. Some relief occurred_ due to rains in March, April, and May, but total precipitation over the past year remains below normal, threatening the river and the sustainability of several water supplies during the corning peak demand season. I The Town of Danvers provides water to the Town of Middleton. Reports filed with the DEP indicate that residential water use in Middleton is significantly higher than residential water use in Danvers. For this reason, Danvers grade for residential water use was, adjusted upward. We note the need for Middleton to take immediate action to reduce high water use. Measures to increase water conservation and efficiency in Middleton are especially important given the very high rate of population growth in Middleton as indicated in the 2000 U.S. Census. soft 11 ®j 0 Ipswich River Basin Water Conservation Report Card August, 2002 Methodology The criteria used to assign grades are described below. Wherever possible the grading criteria were based on Massachusetts standards or guidelines for water conservation and water system management as established by state water resource agencies and the Massachusetts Water Resources Commission. It should be noted, however, that because the Ipswich River is severely affected by municipal water withdrawals, all communities using the Ipswich basin as a source of water supply should be actively seeking to keep water use below state standards and to exceed state guidelines for efficient water system management. Overall Grades Overall grades were given to each community by averaging grades for the six individual grade categories. As noted, the Town of Reading achieved an A , the highest overall grade yet obtained. Two communities achieved a "B+", the same number as last year. Water Use Trend Water use trend shows whether a community's per capita water use is increasing or decreasing. Per capita water use should be decreasing because of water efficiency requirements and increased awareness of conservation needs and practices. As new homes are constructed and older ones renovated, the amount of water used by each person should decrease as modem, water-efficient plumbing fixtures are installed. Communities should also be saving water through leak detection and repair and other system improvements. In addition,, as communities have become more aware of the stressed condition of the Ipswich River since. 1995, they should have implemented public education efforts and other measures to encourage conservation and taken steps to reduce public water use, such as conservation and efficiency measures in schools and other public facilities. Water use trend is calculated by comparing per capita water use in the most recent five years, 1997-2001 with per capita water use in the period 1991-1995. Grades were calculated based on the percentage change in water use between the periods 1991 to 1995 and 1997 to 2001. Grade categories: A+ = Water use decreased > 20% A = Water use decreased > 5%; 20% B = Water use decreased 5% C = Water use increased 5% D = Water use increased > 5%, < 10% F = Water use increased > 10%, < 20% F- = Water use increased > 20% Residential Water Use This grade measures the average household water use by each person in a community each day. The current "state standard" is 65-70 gallons per capita per day (gpcd); however, a figure of 35 gpcd is now considered achievable. A recent study by the American Water Works Association found that typical single family indoor water use averages 73 gpcd in homes that do not practice water conservation, but less than 50 gpcd in homes using readily available measures such as high efficiency toilets 'and showerheads.2 2 WaterWiser 1999. Residential Water Use Survey. American Water Works Association, Denver, CO. httpJ/www.waterwiser.org. 12 747, Ipswich River Basin Water Conservation Report Card August, 2002 In many municipalities around the nation, including New York City, Los Angeles, San Diego, Seattle, and Tampa, water utilities have establishgd rebate programs and other incentives to encourage the replacement of old water- wasting plumbing fixtures with nevi water-efficient fixtures. These programs have been successful in reducing water use and avoiding the need for costly new water supply and wastewater infrastructure. The residential water grade is calculated by dividing the average daily residential water use in the community by the number of people served by the public water system. The grades were based on residential water use levels reported for 2001. Letter grades were modified with a if 2001 residential water use was below the average residential use for the community for the years 1991 through 1995 or with a if 2001 residential water use was above the average residential water use for the community for the years 1991 through 1995. Grade categories: A = < 60 gpcd B = > 60 gpcd but < 70 gpcd C = > 70 gpcd but 80 gpcd D = > 80 gpcd but < 90 gpcd F = > 90 gpcd Seasonal Use Seasonal use is the increase in water use that typically occurs during summer when large quantities of water are used for lawn watering and other outdoor uses. This is an important measure because the Ipswich River is particularly vulnerable to the impacts of water withdrawals during the summer, when river water levels are naturally low. The grade for seasonal use reflects the progress each community has made in managing seasonal use. Each community is graded against its own historical seasonal water use, rather than against a single standard. This approach reflects the diverse nature of the communities that take water from the Ipswich River watershed, which range from urban areas like Lynn, Beverly, and Salem, to relatively rural communities such as Topsfield and Wenham. Grades were developed by comparing seasonal water use from the period 1991-1995 with the period 1997-2001. For each year, the ratio of the highest month water use to the lowest month water use was calculated. Average ratios for each 5 year period were then developed for each community and grades were assigned as follows. Grade categories: A = Seasonal use reduced more than 5% since 1991-1995 B = Seasonal use no more than 5% higher than in 1991-1995 C = Seasonal use increased 5% to 15% since 1991-1995 D = Seasonal use increased 15% higher to 25% since 1991-1995 F = Seasonal use increased more than 25% since 1991-1995 . Non-Account Water Non-account water is that portion of the total amount of water used by a community in a year that was not sold to customers. Non-account water includes water lost through distribution system leaks and breaks, water that goes unmetered and unbilled due to meter slippage, water used for main flushing, water used for fighting fire, and other "unbilled" water. "Non-account water" does not include water classified as "municipal" on the Annual Statistical. Reports. Non-account water provides an important indicator of how efficiently water is being used. For most water systems, a non-account water level of 10%' of total water pumped is achievable. 13 7.i3 Xpswicb River Basin Water Conservation Report Card. August, 2002 Grade categories: A = Non-account water 10% B = Non-account water > 109/6, S 15% C = Non-account water > 15%, <.20% D = Non-account water > 20%, < 25% F = Non-account water > 250/6 (or not reported) Letter grades for non-account water have a if 2001 non-account water was below the average for the community for 1991 through 1995, and with a if greater than-the average for the community or 1991 through 1995. Record Keeping Reporting' Record keeping and reporting is important because accurate information is. needed to efficiently manage water supply systems. Disaggregated water use data (total water use broken down by the type of user) is particularly important since it provides information on how water is being used. Without this information, major problems such as excessive water loss through distribution system leakage may go undetected. When disaggregated water use is known, it is possible to target water conservation and efficiency efforts most effectively. Two factors were evaluated to develop grades for record keeping and reporting.. whether a community provided disaggregated water use information, and the consistency of the data provided. Data consistency was judged to be either good, fair, or poor. Grades were based on reports for 2001 only. Grade categories- A = Disaggregated data with good data consistency B = Disaggregated data with fair data consistency C = Disaggregated data with poor data'consistency or disaggregated data estimated D = Data not disaggregated F = No report filed Most water suppliers. provided detailed information on water use in 2001; however, the accuracy of the information is not specified. We cannot assess the accuracy of the data provided since there is no independent audit or verification process. DEP should address the need for independent verification of municipal water supply statistics. Water Rates Water rates are important because the cost of water influences how much water people use. Three factors were used to grade water rates: rate structure, billing ftrqueny, and the marginal cost of water for residential customers using relatively large amounts of water. The evaluation of rate structure considered both the actual rate structure (declining block,. flat, or increasing block) and the progressivity of the rate structure if an increasing block stricture is used. Individual grades for each of these three factors were developed and averaged to determine the final grade for water rates. Rate Structure: All communities evaluated used either an increasing block or a flat rate structure. Under an increasing block rate structure, the. cost of each gallon of water, increases in steps as water use goes up. The first block is usually billed at a relatively low rate per thousand gallons or hundred cubic feet (approximately 750 owns 14 Ipswich River Basin Water Conservation Report Card August, 2002 have gallons). In the next block each unit of water is billed more thata higher an the one teecerding it Bock many blocks with each block billed at a higher pr expensive as more is used, there is an incentive to use less. Under a true flat rate structure, all water use is billed at the same rate, no matter how much water is used. Flat rates provide less of an incentive to conserve. In a flat rate stracture,'customers who use water only for basic human needs such as drinking, cooking, waste disposal, and bathing may subsidize the cost of water for those who use much larger quantities. of water for lawn watering or other.non-essential uses. Some communities have a minimum charge per billing period, even if water use is below the assumed minimum- This minimum charge may penalize households that use very little water, by billing them at a higher rate per gallon than larger volume users. Water rate progressivity (how quickly the unit cost of water increases as the amounfused goes up) was assessed because an increasing block rate structure will only encourage conservation if the block rates are set at levels where most customers who use large quantities of water will begin to pay noticeably higher prices. If there is little difference between the cost of the first and subsequent blocks, or if the volume of water allowed under the first block is so. high that most customers will never reach a higher block, the value of increasing block rates in encouraging water conservation will be reduced. Rate progressivity was evaluated by comparing the cost of water for households using large quantities versus those using smaller amounts. The cost of water for two hypothetical households, one using 60,000 gallons per year and one using 150,000 gallons per year, were compared. In a flat rate structure; the household using 150,000 gallons per year would pay 2.5 times the amount the household using' 60,000 gallons would pay. Costs for these two hypothetical households were calculated for each community with increasing block rates. To obtain a rate progressivity factor, the cost of water for the household using 150,000 gallons per year was first divided by 2.5 and then again divided by the cost of water for the household using 60,000 gallons per year. In communities with flat rates, this progressivity factor always equals 1; whereas in increasing block rate communities, the factor is always greater than 1 and becomes larger as rate progressivity increases. Grades for rate structure were developed as follows. A Increasing block rate structure, progressivity factor > 1.50 B = Increasing block rate structure, progressivity factor > 1.25 to 1.50 C = Increasing block rate structure, progressivity factor > 1.00 to 1.25 D = Flat rate structure F = Declining block rate structure Billing Frequency.' All communities bill for water at least semiannually or quarterly. When all other. factors were equal, communities with quarterly billing were given higher grades than those with semiannual billing. Quarterly billing provides more rapid feedback on water costs to water users and thus tends to encourage conservation. Grade categories: A = Monthly billing B = Monthly billing for large users/quarterly billing for small users C - Quarterly billing D . = Semiannual billing F = Annual billing Marginal Cost of Water. Marginal cost of water was calculated by determining the water rate paid for the last thousand gallons (TG) by a residential customer using 150,000 gallons per year. This volume of use was selected to assess the marginal cost of water to a residential customer engaged in a high level of luxury water use, such as lawn watering or filling a swimming pool. Grades were assigned as followed 15 Ipswich River Basin Water Conservation Report Card August, 2002. Grade categories: A - > $7.50/TG B = > $6.00/TG to $7.50/TG C = > $4.50/TG to $6.00/TG D = > $3.00TG to $4.50/TG F = $3.00/TG Following the calculation of grades for rate structure, billing frequency, and marginal cost of water, final water rate grades for each community, were calculated by averaging these-three individual grades. An Important Note It is not our intent to. blame :communities, or specific individuals, for inefficient use of the limited water resources of the Ipswich River basin. The residents of the communities that use the Ipswich basin for water supply, may not realize that inefficient water use has extreme consequences for the Ipswich River and its tributaries. Water managers. -may .wish. to improve water system operations and efficiency, and may also wish to institute comprehensive water conservation programs, but are often constrained by limited budgets that are largely beyond. their,-control. The intent of this. report card is to draw public attention to the problem, to encourage support for water conservation, and by so doing to preserve and restore the Ipswich River. 16 746 i d Town of Reading, Massachusetts Admission to the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority Waterworks System Environmental Impact Report (D 0A r/-) E®EA No. 12514 September 16, 2002 Report C !L V. g-I CDM One Cambridge Place, 50 Hampshire Street Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139 tel: 617 452-6000 .fax: 617 452-8000 September 16, 2002 Mr. Robert Durand, Secretary Executive Office of Environmental Affairs MEPA Unit 251 Causeway Street Suite 900 Boston, MA 02114 Subject: EIR for Admission to the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA) Waterworks System Town of Reading- Applicant EOEA No. 12514 Dear Secretary Durand: On behalf of our cl ient, the Town of Reading, Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. (CDM) is pleased to submit this Draft. Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the above-referenced project. As described in the EIR, the Town currently takes all of its municipal water from its own sources in the Ipswich River Basin, which negatively. impacts the river; particularly during summer months. The Town proposes to lessen its dependence on its existing wells by joining the MWRA Waterworks System to obtain additional water during low flow periods, while actively pursuing an aggressive water conservation program. The project requires only limited new construction (possible valve replacement) since an interconnection between the Towns distribution system and the MWRA's transmission mains was constructed in 1993. Therefore, construction impacts are insignificant. The primary project impact is beneficial - reducing reliance on the existing wells will help to restore flow on the Ipswich River. This EIR has been distributed to all individuals and entities listed in Appendix F. 0 0 8=z consulting • engineering • construction • operations Secretary Durand September 16, 2002 Page 2 Please feel free to contact me at (617) 452-6361 if you have any questions or require additional information. Very truly yours, CAMP DRESSER & McKEE INC. j4jj&~ %aAA-~ Ginger Hartman Water Resources Engineer cc: EIR Distribution List (Appendix F) Edward D. McIntire, Jr., Town of Reading DPW contents Section 1- Project Summary 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 Project Background 1-1 Need for the Description of the Recommended Plan .........................................1-1 Summary of project Alternatives ............1-2 EIR Issues ......................1-4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures .........................................................................1-5 Organization of This Document .............................................................................1-5 Project Description Section 2 l 2.1 Description of Ming Transfer System 2-1 Proposed hAttbasin Transfer 2-2 2.2 2.3 Schedule. 2-2 2.4 Current and Proposed Members of the MWRA Waterworks System 2-3 Section 3 - Alternatives to the Project 3-1 1 3 Introduction . of ~sting Local Sources/ Reactivation of Abandoned Wells i 3-2 3,2 on . Expans 3-3 3 3 Bedrock Wells.,............................... . 3-3 1 Ba(uxoun 3 3 . . ations ld I ti f Fi 3-5 nves e g ~'~1tb 3.2 R o 3 . Pir'ate' from Andover/ North Reading 3-6 4 3 Purchase of . 3-8 3.5 Conservatic"t-' 3-8 6 3 No Action . . R'+ WYRA i 3-8 3.7 on Connect Section 4 - Existing Envitlonment 4.1 Reading Wat Supply/ Ipswich River 4-1 4.1.1 Tuft'i •on ....................................................................:..........................4-1 4.1.2 g Reading Water Supply 4-1 Risks to Reading Water Supply 4-3 4.1.3 C,, 4.1.4 ''River Streamflow Conditions 4-4 River Habitat Conditions 4-4 4.1.5 I~y,,~t„S Baem 4-6 4.2 Donor gip Section 5 - Assessment of cts 'I i 5-1 5.1 Ipswich. RiNW 5.1.1 In~ 5-1 5.1.2 VSGS Modeling Efforts 5-1 5.1.3 Inau~ of Proposed Alternative 5-2 5.1.4 qr-, River Streamflow Analyses. 5-4 lt~ 5.1.5 Conclusii ' ...................................................................................................5-6 i ' CDU Table of Contents Reading Environmental Impact Report 5-11 on Local and Regional Wastewater Infrastructure t 5-12 s 5.2 Impac 5.3 Impacts on Donor Basins 3.1 Demand Levels 5 5-13 . 3.2 Impacts to Hydrological Resources 5 5-19 . Customers 5.4 Impacts to Member Comiinunities/ to Distribution System. t 5-19 s Hydraulic Analyses and Impac 1 4 5 5-21 . . and impacts 5.4.2 Long-term Reservoir Analyses an 5-26 5:5 Impact on Water Dependent Users f Withdrawal 5-26 the Point o 1 Effect on Streamflow Below th 5 5 .......5-27 . . 'c Characteristics 5.5.2 Effects on Hydrauh 5-28 5.5.3 Effect on Anadromous Fisheries 5-28 5.5.4 Effect on Resident Fisheries Flora and Fauna.....•.••••• Dep Dependent Wetlands 5-29 5.5.5 Effect on Uses and Aesthetic Recreational al Effects on Water Qu ty, 5.5.6 d under Article 97, and t e Values, ACECs, Areas Protec . 5-30- Designated Scenic Rivers 5.5.7 Effect on Hydropower Production........... ble Water Withdrawals 5_30 . Effect on Present and Foreseea 8 5 5 5-31 . . 5,5.9 Effect on other Water-Dependent Users and Regulatory Standards and Requirements Fi"1 6 - Statutory Section . 6.1' Introduction T nsfer Act Regulations (313 CMR i 4.05).:. 6- ra n 2 Applicable Criteria of Interbas 6 i 6-1 ew . Environmental Rev 1 Compliance with i n 6.2. All Viable Sources in the Receiving Bas Evidence That 2 6- 6.2.2 Have Been investigated nce That All Practical Water Conservation Measures id E 6-3 e v 6.2,3 Have Been Taken 3 Water Management Act Registration......... 6 6-7 . Executive Odor 385/Planning for Growth 6-7 . 6.4 Introduction 6.4.1 6-7 2 Planning for Growth Project 4 6 6-8 . . Ipswich River Management Plan 6.4.3 (USGS) Studies ve l S 6-9 y ca ur 6.4.4 United States Geologi . 6.4.5 Conclusions ' ation Measures Section 7 Ming 7-1 1 Introduction 7 7- . ater Conservation 7.2 Water Supply and W urces S -1 7-1 o 7.3 Protection of Existing 0 14 CDM G10610 Table of Contents Reading Environmental Impact Report Section 8 - Proposed Section 61 Findings 8.1 Introduction 8-1 8.2 Project Schedule 8-1 8.3 History of MEPA Review 8-1 8.4 Intent of These Section 61 Findings 8-1 8.5 Discussion of Mitigation Measures and Implementation Schedule 8-2 8.6 Summary of Impacts and Findings of Limitations of Impacts 8-3 Section 9 - Comment Letters 9.1 Introduction 9-1 9.2 Water Supply Citizens Advisory Committee (WSCAC) 9-1 9.3 Massachusetts Water Resources Authority 9-3 9.4 Water Resources Commission 9-4 9.5 MWRA Advisory Board 9-4 9.6 Department of Environmental Protection 9-5 9.7 Ipswich River Watershed Association 9-5 9.8 Reading/ North Reading Ipswich River Stream Team 9-6 Appendices Appendix A - Secretary's Certificate on the ENF and Comment Letters Appendix B - Ad Hoc Water Supply Advisory Committee Appendix C - Water Conservation Plan Appendix D - Local Water Resources Management Plan Appendix E - Annual Yield Data for Quabbin and Wachusett Reservoirs Appendix F - Distribution List CDM iii GIo61o 8~ Figures 1-1 Project Location Map ...............................................................................................1-3 4-1 Town Wells 4-2 4-2 USGS Streamflow Gages .........................................................................................4-5 5-1 Flow Duration Curves for Various Ipswich/MWRA Alternatives 5-10 5-2 MWRA System Demand, 1948,2001 5-14 5-3 Flow Duration Curve Showing Swift River Releases at Winsor Dam Limited Ware Operating Scenario, 1990-2000 5-16 5-4 Ware River Daily Hydrograph 5-18 5-5 Quabbin's Maximum Pool Descent - Limited Ware Operating Scenario, 1948-2000 5-23 5-6 Comparison of Water Levels in Quabbin Reservoir 5-24 5-7 Time Spent in Drought Emergency - Limited Ware Operating Scenario, 1948-2000 5-25 CDM iv 610626. 8? i l Tables 2-1 Reading Distribution System Storage 2-1 2-2 MWRA Fully Supplied Users 2-3 i 2-3 MWRA Partially Supplied Users 2-4 5-1 Reading Finished Water Average Use 5-5 5-2 Description of Scenarios for Ipswich River/ MWRA Alternative 5-5 5-3 Annual Summary of Water Drawn from MWRA (Scenarios 1-5) 5-7 5-4 Annual Summary of Water Drawn from MWRA (Scenarios 3a-5a) 5-8 5-5 Annual Summary of Water Drawn from MWRA (Scenarios 6-8) 5-9 5-6 Average Yield of Quabbin and Wachusett Watersheds 5-15 5-7 Modeled Swift River Spills with the Addition of Reading 5-17 5-8 Ware River Diversions 547 5-9 Demand Inputs 5-19 5-10 Ranges of Hydraulic Grade Line Elevations at NIHS Meters 5-20 5-11 Number of Months Spent in All Drought Management Plan Categories...... 5-26 6-1 Summary of Leak Detection Surveys 64 6-2 Comparison of Reading's Average Price Water Rate to Highest Block Rates in MWRA Communities 6-6 CDM V G10627 Section 1 Project Summary 1.1 Project Background This Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR), EOEA No. 12514, is filed in conjunction with the Town of Reading's application for membership into the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA) Waterworks System. Application for membership entails provision of water service by a state agency (or state authority, the MWRA) across a municipal boundary, thus requiring an EIR. s Environmental Notification Form (ENF) was filed on the project on April 30, 2001. A ; . n The Secretary's Certificate, requiring an EIR and outlining scope items, was issued on June 8, 2001. The Certificate and comment letters are provided in Appendix A. k s As described in the ENF, the Town is seeking admission to the MWRA Waterwor System as a supplemental source of supply during low flow periods for as much as allons of water per year. During Ipswich River low flow, residents on illi 219 on g m the Town's water distribution system will receive water from MWRA with the proposed project. The project will ensure a safe supply of water to the Town and will ti i ' ng s ex s also reduce the stress placed on the Ipswich River by the Town withdrawals. 1.2 Need for and Description of the Recommended Plan Y The Town of Reading currently takes all of its municipal water from its own sources, groundwater wells, in the Ipswich River Basin. Current finished water demand is 4^ approximately 2.0 mgd (3.0 cubic feet per second), well below the Town's registered raw water withdrawal volume of 2.57 mgd, with a year 2001 residential demand of 54 gallons per capita per day (gpcd). During dry years, the Towns maximum day high period demand (May through October) may rise to as much as 3.8 mgd. Average day high period demands for 1995-2001 averaged. 2.2 mgd (3.3 cfs). South th b h Ri e ove ver a Other municipalities that take water from the Ipswic Middleton gage include Wilmington, North Reading and the Lynnfield Center Water District. There are several Tier 1A contaminant release sites in North Reading. that are tl y in dose proximity to the existing wellfield. While these sites are not curren impacting the Town of Reading's water supply, they remain a long-term concern. Although the Town's demands are below its registered withdrawals, the Ipswich River experiences significant periods of flow below natural conditions. Flow in the ' w river routinely drops below its natural seven day/ ten year low flow (7Q10) of 5.8 cfs at the South Middleton gauge, and in extreme dry years has beenobserved to dry up " A Precipitation completely. A study completed by the USGS in Fall 2000 entitled Runoff Model for Analysis of the Effects of Water Withdrawals on Streamflow, - Ipswich River Basin, Massachusetts," indicates that cumulative groundwater withdrawals in the Ipswich River Basin substantially decrease flows in river. CDM 1-1 G10601 Section 1 Project Summary In 1999, the Town commenced a study to develop a long-term water supply strategy that was less vulnerable to contamination than the existing supply. The study addressed future drinking water regulations and the Town's contribution to a reduction of flow in the Ipswich River. The 1999 study included projections of future demand, investigations of alternative sources of supply, consideration of other ways to mitigate adverse impacts associated with withdrawals from the Ipswich River and evaluation of conservation programs. The alternatives evaluated in the 1999 study included: continuation of current withdrawal rates from the Ipswich River, purchasing water from the MWRA to meet all of the Town's demands, purchasing water from the MWRA during periods of low flow in the Ipswich River, purchasing water from Andover, investigating bedrock wells in Town Forest, and implementing an aggressive water conservation program to reduce water usage by 190,000 gpd. The study concluded that the Town's water supply objectives were best met by a program that includes a number of components, one of which is utilization of the MWRA as a supplemental source of supply during low flow periods for as much as 219 million gallons of water per year. This will allow the Town to reduce its withdrawals from the Ipswich River Basin during dry summer periods to approximately 1 mgd (1.5 cfs), a reduction of approximately 54 percent over current levels. The goal of the proposed transfer is to continue to serve the needs of the existing population while relieving some of the withdrawal stress on the Ipswich River Basin. The additional water supply is not needed because of additional development or plans for future development. More detail on the alternatives evaluated in the 1999 study is included in Section 3. This project requires minimal construction (possible valve replacement) since it will utilize an emergency interconnection between the Towns distribution system and the MWRA's transmission mains that.was constructed in 1993 (see Figure 1-1). The existing connection is via a 24-inch pipe, but has never been used by the Town of Reading. The construction was initiated as a result of a gasoline spill on Interstate Route I-93, adjacent to the Town's wellfield, that threatened the loss of the Town's water supply. 1.3 Summary of Project Alternatives As described further in Section 3 of this DEIR, alternatives to the recommended plan (connecting to the MWRA system) include: ■ No, Action - Continued reliance on the existing nine groundwater supply wells will place continuous stress on the Ipswich River and its resources, especially during the summer months. g-rD C®M GI060/ 1-2 ir. a b 4 ` ~ItdT ^,C {gFduE I~f p Pumping Sill NORTH \ t v `fir. I 1 l.f r J' \ igfi` h ^ ! ~ ' 309 = ~ 1 \ _ i / '1 ~,UStin Sch \ q • _ / Lau: el + v /251 1~ ice""' ~;~"v...;' ~ c3• - ' . V Parker Sch ~aR d tt m. Z, \ "t A Gravel Pas } ✓ Ptosp 'St'y" . 3M 23. glop ` 29, r i ~4ry n x p~ ® Hf oApO 5Q0. Hl J d.t .S7 -i' ~.~nnS y 1, --`5 '•,e.~ t SCOnrµoOAK - !b RTH 00 a ~ a: m4 _ `rf : I St i ) •;r ::r., ~ - ® ;,.Subs ~ - _ _ ~e;rrans Mom sch.. urges h \ ~7 ® tl --cE~ \ I'Park -souni icf ~ yl4 1 ,fao '~r ~ ~ t ~ an.n y zsu• , "'a a>a`t ®Ua ~c-. rN&ffCHANGF 4.1 37 ( J s _ f l,arve i ~ I ALA ~ - . i ` ' ~ ~ 1'& 3SH4 ' J f. ® it 'Cog fp Forest 1'. art. 1' . Parts It ~ t ~ :a.~ r" . ` yid. _ 17/ T-j ~ ~ ~ - . ~ ,y, Gravel ~ . ' V f PT(~lnping. r(^Pit ® = C" 's tion ( ` ~a @ ff- ch 230 s 1 _ to. i r Jr High Sc~ _ \ t o o ml y (•i' Town of Reading, Massach sett 1 Figure 1-1 Project Location Map Section 1 Project Summary ■ Expansion of Existing Local Sources/Reactivation of Abandoned Wells - Expansion of existing local sources is not a feasible option as current withdrawal rates from existing wells in the Hundred Acres wellfield place stress on the Ipswich River. Of the two wells in the Revay wellfield, one is officially abandoned, while the other is at risk from a contaminated site in Wilmington and the Massachusetts Highway Department in Reading. ® Development of Additional Sources - The Town is currently assessing the feasibility of developing deep bedrock wells in the Town Forest and Bare Meadow areas. Preliminary results from the investigations indicate that bedrock wells are not likely to supply a significant quantity of water. ■ Connection to Other Water Supply Systems (Andover) - The Town of Andover operates its own treatment plant with a supply from the Merrimack River. Andover sells water to other communities including North Reading and Tewksbury, and was therefore viewed as a possible source of water for Reading. However, the cost of such a connection is quite high and it is unlikely that Andover could meet Reading's demand forecast with the current demands on the Andover system. ® Conservation - The goal of a conservation program is to reduce water usage by 190,000 gpd. This is expected to be achieved by an aggressive education and rebate program designed to encourage the installation of low-flow, water saving devices. An Ad Hoc Water Supply Advisory Committee, established by the Reading Board of Selectmen in 1999, evaluated these and other alternatives and recommended that the Town continue to use its Ipswich River wellfield, while also joining the MWRA Waterworks System, investigating bedrock wells, and pursuing an aggressive water conservation program to reduce water demand on the Ipswich River watershed. A copy of the Ad Hoc Water Supply. Advisory Committees recommendations is included in Appendix B. 1.4 EIR Issues The Secretary's Certificate on the ENF stated that the following issues should be addressed in the DEIR: ■ All information that will be required under the Water Resources Commission (WRC) and MWRA approval processes; ® A draft water resources management plan for WRC approval; ® Expanded discussion of alternatives; ® Project permitting, including a discussion of each state permit or agency action required for the project; z CDM 1-4 G10601 Section 1 Project Summary I ■ Water supply and water conservation, including demonstrating that the Town is taking all necessary actions to lessen overall demand, conserve existing supplies, minimize impacts on critical resources, and planning prudently for new supplies; ■ A description of the project's impacts on the local and regional wastewater infrastructure; ■ Discussion of the project's consistency with regional policy plans and any other applicable local and regional growth management plans (pursuant to Executive Order 385/ Planning for Growth); and ■ Proposed Section 61 Findings. 1.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures Because the project requires minimal construction. (a possible valve replacement), there are no construction related impacts associated with its implementation. The most significant impact is beneficial - a 54 percent reduction in withdrawals from the Ipswich River Basin during dry summer periods. The project will provide an additional source of water to Reading residents, while mitigating impacts on the Ipswich River. Impacts on the donor river basin (Chicopee and Ware Rivers), associated with the interconnection to the MWRA system were evaluated by MWRA. Additional demand imposed by Reading on the MWRA system will not cause the MWRA to modify its existing controlled releases in any of its three donor river basins. 1.6 Organization of This Document The remainder of this Draft EIR is organized as follows: ■ Section 2 - Project Description ■ Section 3 - Alternatives to the Project ■ Section 4 - Existing Environment (Donor River. Basin and Ipswich River Basin) ■ Section 5 - Assessment of Impacts ■ Section 6 - Statutory and Regulatory Standards and Requirements (including Interbasin Transfer Act regulations, Water Management Act registration; and EO 385/Planning for Growth) ■ Section 7.- Mitigation Measures (including water supply and conservation and protection of existing sources) ■ Section 8 - Proposed Section 61 Findings ■ Section 9 - Responses to Comments on the ENF ■ Appendices C®M G10601 1-5 3 g-( Section 2 Project Description 2.1 Description of Existing Transfer System This project may require minimal construction (possible valve replacement) since an interconnection between the Towns distribution system and the MWRNs transmission mains was constructed in 1993. The existing connection from MWRNs transmission mains is via a 24-inch pipe, which, to date, has never been used. MWRA water will be supplied to Reading from the Northern Intermediate High System (NIHS) through meter 240 in Woburn. The connection is located on the Reading/ Woburn line at Washington Street and Mishawum Road. The current operating procedure requires manual operation of the valve in case of an emergency. From Meter 240, water is carried approximately Y2 mile via a 24-inch main to a 12-inch loop in the Reading Water Distribution System. Meter 240 is served by the 36-inch diameter Section 89 of the MWRA system, which is supported by the Bear Hill Covered Reservoir and the Gillis (Spot Pond) Pump Station. The Bear Hill Covered Reservoir, located in Stoneham, provides storage for the NIHS. The capacity of this reservoir is 6 mg, and the normal operating range is between 318 and 325 feet BCB. /VA/ S The Gillis Pump Station supplies both the NIHS and the Northern High Service NH) areas. The water level in the Bear Hill Covered Reservoir is used to control pumping to the NII IS. Five pumps at the Gillis Pumping Station are designed to supply the NIHS, each of which is rated to provide approximately 18 mgd at 100 ft total dynamic head (TDH) or 10 mgd at 175 ft TDH. Reading owns and maintains two storage facilities: a standpipe and an elevated tank; further detail on each is provided in Table 2-1. Table 2-1 Reading Distribution System Storage . l- Facility I Volume, mg I_ Elevated tank 0.75 at Auburn St. Standpipe at 1.00 Bear Hill Total 1.75 Diameter, ft Height, ft - - 70 25 56 64 overflow Elevation, ft BCB - - 298 301 C®M 2-1 G10602 Section 2 Project Description There are no withdrawal constraints of the transfer system within the limits of the proposed transfer capacity. One problem with the existing transfer is that currently there are no automatic control devices at the MWRA connection to the Reading distribution system. A valve replacement would most likely be required to initiate the transfer on an ongoing basis. _ 2.2 Proposed Interbasin Transfer The Town of Reading seeks to use the proposed transfer as a means to supplement the local water supply, groundwater wells in the Ipswich River basin, during low river flow periods. The Town seeks to purchase up to 219 mg of water annually, which will be transferred from the MWRA system during the months of May to September, in an effort to lessen the impact on the Ipswich River by pumping from groundwater wells during this time period. The expected average daily transfer (during summer months) is approximately 1.2 mgd (average daily transfer, May-September). As the existing transfer system is configured, the flow from the MWRXs system to Reading would need to be manually activated and controlled. In order for the proposed transfer to occur on an ongoing basis, the connection to MWRA supply should consist of both automatic and manual control devices that would open the supply to Reading automatically either during periods of low flow or in case of an emergency. Such devices could be responsive to preset water levels in the Reading distribution system storage facilities to promote the transfer'of MWRA water to the Reading system during these periods. 2.3 Schedule As mentioned previously, the Town s average day demands (2.0 mgd) are below its registered raw withdrawal volume (2.57 mgd). The major reason for the application to the 1, IMRA Waterworks System is to relieve stress on the Ipswich River Basin. In an effort to reduce the amount of water withdrawn from the Ipswich River during low river flow periods, the approximate timetable for the proposed transfer to commence would be as early as late spring 2003. Various operating schedules are being investigated for the proposed Interbasin transfer. The Louanis Water Treatment Plant currently is staffed from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. daily, and with the proposed transfer, the operating hours of this plant are being reviewed. Water will be transferred during low river flow periods only (May-September). The maximum amount to be purchased annually is approximately 219 million gallons. Section 5.1.3 describes streamflow analyses conducted to evaluate the effects of taking water from the MWRA based on various streamflow thresholds in the Ipswich River. c®M Z-2 G10602 ~iq r 0 :r d f ~ Section 2 Project Description 2.4 Current and Proposed Members of the MWMA Waterworks System MWRA Waterworks System are divided into two categories, h e Current members of t There are 21 fully supplied users of fully supplied users and partially supplied users. m the ities the MWRA Waterworks System (commun o l f the demand on the system ii k MWRA). Fully supplied users make up ersus 251 mgd average annual d v (average annual demand from 1996-2000 of 208 mg stem for same period). Tables 2-2 and 2-3 present a l MWRA s y demand on tota summary of current NIWRA users. Table 2-2 MWRA Fully Supplied Users (MWRA Water System Supply and Demand - Draft May 2002) AveraOe pemand A,eraye Demand C Community ommunity= :.9 197 2pQ1 (mgd)_s 1997-2001 m; d) ~ - - 4.47 Nahant 0.357 Arlington . . 179 10 - . Belmont 2.628 Newton 386 Norwood 3259 85 . BWSC Brookline 6.311 Quincy 9.715 Chelsea 3.248 Revere 4.284 304 3 . Chicopee 6.722 Saugus 049 Somerville 6.691 2 - : Clinton 4.8 So. Hadley FD #1 1.458 Everett Framingham 8.026 Southborough 1.086 Lexington 4.454 Stoneham 3.586 853 1 . Lynnfeld W.D. 0.481 Swampscott ltham 7.927 W a 5.65 Malden 055 3 - . Marblehead 2.025 Watertown 1.617 IM 5.164 Weston Medford 167 1 . Melrose 2:633 Wilbraham 468 1 . 2.652 Winthrop Milton q optb 2-3 C®M,. G10602 1 ~ Section 2 Project Description Table 2-3 MWRA Partially Supplied Users (MWRA Water System Supply and Demand - Draft, May 2002) Community Bedford Cambridge Canton Average Demand 1.9.97-2001 (mgd) 1.315 7.644 1.899 Leominster 0 0.36 Lynn Marlborough 3,541 Needham 1.042 Northborough 0.397 Peabody 0.716 Wakefield 2.14 Wellesley 0.727 Winchester 1.196 Woburn 3.085 Worcester 0.239 Total 24.301 In addition to the Town of Reading, proposed users of the MWRA Waterworks system include Stoughton, Wilmington, and the Dedham-Westwood Water District. As of June 2002, Stoughton completed the MEPA process and submitted a letter to MWRA requesting admission. Wilmington is currently in the process of evaluating the use of MWRA as a supplemental source of supply during seasonal high demands/ low river flow periods. Preliminary discussions have taken place between the Dedham-Westwood Water District and MWRA. The District is considering joining the system but only for water during dry.summer periods. In 1998, the MWRA conducted the Southern High Service Area Extension study, which was a comprehensive analysis of providing supplemental water service to Avon, Brockton, Braintree, Canton, Holbrook, Randolph, Stoughton, and Weymouth. Since the time of the study, Brockton, cos or Braintree, have foundlex~ existing resou res to be Weymouth are pursuing other arrangements sufficient. i ~ n rr• O r_ n 0 v r Cn n rt "J Wii 07 n rt o• w -v _ 0 a CDM G10602 Cn r9 n cn 2-4 i~ Section 5 Assessment of Impacts 5.1 Ipswich River Basin 5.1.1 Introduction As mentioned previously, the proposed interbasin transfer will allow the Town to reduce its withdrawals from the Ipswich River Basin during dry summer periods to approximately 'l mgd (1.5 cfs), a reduction of approximately 54 percent over current levels. The goal of the proposed transfer is to continue to serve the needs of the existing population while relieving some of the withdrawal stress on the Ipswich River Basin. It is important to note that the positive effects on the river will only be seen if the volume of water not withdrawn by the Town from the river is maintained within the river, and not withdrawn by another community. As noted in the study "Assessment of Habitat, Fish Communities, and Streamflow Requirements for Habitat Protection, Ipswich River, Massachusetts, 1998-99," streamflow in the Ipswich River is substantially impacted by water supply withdrawals that place stress on aquatic communities and limit the rivers value as a biological, recreational, and scenic resource. The study concludes that, although more information is needed to determine the time periods over which streamflow requirements should be applied, maintaining adequate flows will have a positive impact on the river's ecological integrity. 5.1.2 USGS Modeling Efforts A study completed by the USGS in Fall 2000, entitled "A Precipitation Runoff Model for Analysis of the Effects of Water Withdrawals on Streamflow, Ipswich River Basin, Massachusetts," indicates that cumulative groundwater withdrawals in the Ipswich River Basin substantially decrease flows in the Ipswich River. A second study, also completed by the USGS, investigated the effects of various water management alternatives on the Ipswich River. This most recent study, "Effects of Water- Management Alternatives on Streamflow in the Ipswich River Basin, Massachusetts" evaluated the following scenarios with the existing HSPF model to evaluate their effect on the Ipswich River: ■ No seasonal withdrawals from May 1 to October 31; ■ Reduction in seasonal withdrawals from May 1 to October 31 by 50 percent; ■ Reduction in seasonal withdrawals from June 1 to September 30 by 20 percent; ■ No streamflow depletion when simulated flow at reach 19 (South Middleton stream gaging station) is below 22 cfs; ■ Increasing withdrawals by 20 percent; ■ Returning 1.1, 1.5 and 1.7 mgd of wastewater to basin; and Oi 5-1 ML0688 'MR Section 5 Assessment of Impacts CDM ML0688 ■ No septic-effluent inflow in residential areas on public water and private septic (to simulate effects of going to public sewer). The effects of the various management alternatives were evaluated at two reaches;, one in the upper part of the basin at reach 8 in the model (a critical habitat reach near the Town of Reading's wellfield) and downstream at reach 19, near the South Middleton gaging station. The study concluded that, with the exception of simulations of increased withdrawals and no septic-effluent inflow, all management options resulted in some level of low- flow restoration. In comparison with simulations of no water withdrawals, simulations with no seasonal withdrawals and simulations with threshold-limited withdrawals resulted in slightly lower minimum flows. For simulations with reduced seasonal demands of 20 percent and 50 percent, average flows for July and August were 0.6 and 0.75 cfs respectively, in comparison with average flow of 3.8 cfs for no withdrawals. Based on the relationship of cumulative-withdrawal volume to cumulative streamflow volume for the simulations with 20 and 50 percent reductions in withdrawal, the study concluded that decreases in withdrawals within this range do not significantly change the streamflow depletion rate for the summer months. Analysis of flow duration curves indicates that for the simulations with 20 and 50 percent reductions in withdrawal volumes, model reach 8 would stop flowing for at least a 7-day period every other year. However, simulation results with no seasonal withdrawals indicate that flow would be maintained in model reach 8 at all times (Zariello, 2002). 5.1.3 Impacts of Proposed Alternative The purpose of the MWRA alternative is to reduce reliance on wells during low flow periods in the Ipswich River, in lieu of continued withdrawals from the Ipswich River basin, The establishment of the quantity of water taken from the river or the Authority, and the operating rules associated with the use of the MWRA connection reflect a balance between several competing issues, as follows: ■ ' The need to lessen impacts of groundwater withdrawals on the Ipswich River basin; The need to minimize the potential adverse impacts on the donor basins, consistent with the requirements of the Interbasin Transfer Act and the MWRA enabling legislation; ■ The need to develop a practical operating schedule for the Towns existing facilities, taking into consideration the staffing and operating requirements of the treatment facilities; and 5-2 jWk Pi' 0 Section 5 Assessment of Impacts o Cost of the alternatives and their effects on water rates The existing treatment plant is rated at a maximum throughput of approximately 4,200 gpm, and a minimum throughput of approximately 2,000 gpm. The former. number reflects the design criteria of the existing facilities, while the lower number reflects the operating level necessary to maintain adequate chemical dose/response relationships among process units. Under current conditions, the facility is staffed for two shifts per day, from 6 a.m. until 10 p.m. The production throughput is varied between the lower and upper limits to match the anticipated daily demand, taking into consideration available tank storage and other factors. At the end of the night shift, the facility is idled until the next morning when it is restarted. To evaluate alternative operational approaches a scenario resulting in production of 1 rngd of water from Ipswich sources in the summer (May 1 to September 30) was developed. All other demand would be satisfied with water from the MWRA. This production scenario reflects essentially one operational shift at plant minimum throughput rates. Water production would occur during the second shift, with daytime staff. duties assigned to maintenance of the plant. This scenario presents an opportunity for improved staff management and increased maintenance activities, but will present some labor and management related issues. Consideration has been given to shutting down the facility for an extended period each summer, essentially putting the Town on the MW.RA system for the entire summer (May 1- September 30). While theoretically possible, it raises a number of serious practical concerns, including: a The time, expense, and water necessary to decommission the facility at the beginning of the summer and to recommission it in the fall; ■ In recognition of the recommissioning time, the loss of redundancy in the event of an interruption in MWRA service; ■ The difficulty in staffing a facility for only nine months of the year, and the difficulty in staffing the facility in the event of an emergency; s The loss of operational flexibility, in that the facility could not be run, even in the wettest years when withdrawing all of Reading's water supply needs from the Ipswich would be both environmentally acceptable and economically practical; and ■ The accelerated depreciation of equipment resulting from repeated cycling of the equipment from active to standby status. The 1 mgd production scenario, when applied to calendar 1999 water requirements, resulted in a total demand on the MWRA system of approximately 212 million gallons. On an annual basis, this equates to 0.58 mgd, which was subsequently 5-3 ff,Ab MLOM C a e ~ 'fit Section- 5 Assessment of impacts n Ci rounded to 0.6 mgd, for a total of 219 million gallons per year, the base alternative used in system evaluations. in order to assess the impacts of this proposed scenario as well as alternative approaches, various streamflow analyses were performed as discussed in the following section. 5.1.4 Ipswich River Streamflow'Analyses Streamflow analyses were conducted to evaluate the effects of specific thresholds for withdrawing water from the Ipswich River and, thebalances mhe epurpose of the analyses was to determine an appropriate threshold impact on the river, cost to the Town of Reading, and the feasibility of operating the existing water treatment plant under reduced conditions. Various thresholds were used in the analyses, ranging from 5.8 cfs to 22.5 cfs. The lowest threshold, 5.8 cfs, represents the natural 7Q10 flow at the South Middleton gage. The annual 7Q10 is defined as the streamflow that occurs over 7 consecutive days and has a 10-year recurrence interval, or 1 in 10 chance of occurring every year. Daily stream flows in the 7Q10 range are general indicators of prevalent drought conditions that normally cover large areas. The higher threshold value, 22.5 cis, is equivalent to the aquatic baseflow (ABF) default minimum flow threshold (0.5 cfsm) at the Sou Middleton Fish and Wildlife Service default minimum flow threshold was developed by the to determine instream flow needs for varying seasonal periods. The August median flow was used to represent flow for the summer period. A threshold value of 20.2 cfs was also used, which corresponds to 0.42 cfsm at the South Middleton gage (18.7 cfs) plus an additional 1.5 cfs to represent a draw of 1.0 mgd from the Ipswich. The 0.42 cfsm is the average of the four methods used in calculating the required flow necessary to maintain aquatic habitat. ("Assessment of Habitat, Fish Communities, and Streamflow Requirements for Habitat Protection, Ipswich River, Massachusetts, 1998-99"). Streamflow used in.this analysis was daily data. from the USGS gage at South Middleton, obtained from the. USGS website. Two sets of analyses were conducted, one using daily streamflow data for thresholds, and the second using a 7-day moving average to determine the streamflow at which Ipswich River withdrawals should be reduced or stopped altogether. Daily finished water volumes were obtained from the Town. Water use for the past 7 years is shown in Table 5-1. 5-4 CDM FOPL4 MLMB r i i i i Section 5 Assessment of Impacts Table 5-1 Reading Finished Water Average Use in Million Gallons per day. _ 4 u r nnual~ an.,~~-xI?e~31),t3r aJfn~%/LGl¢ .j Z,re ~111u _ t[ 1995, 1.92 2.07 1996 1.82 1.96 1997 1.98 2.23 1998 1.99 2.2 1999 2.05 2.39 2000 1.84 2.08 2001 1.94 2.25 A total of eight scenarios was analyzed, as summarized in Table 5-2. Table 5-2 Description of Scenarios for Ipswich River/MWRA Alternative. 11Farrie 5StrIR;IM Power Descr!ptro~it~r ~f t ` ~4 l ait 4 q r r ~ ..kt r. . i ` . t_..: e,h e . ~ r_{L f." i C,. Y 1 l v 0.i t...., :.C S' Scenario 1 None Withdraw 1.0 mgd of water from the Ipswich from May 1 - September 30, regardless of flow in Ipswich Scenario 2 None Withdraw 1.5 mgd of water from the Ipswich from May 1 - September 30, regardless of flow in Ipswich Scenario 3 7.35 cfs When streamflow in Ipswich drops below 7.35 cfs (equivalent to 7Q10 of 5.8 cfs plus 1.5 cfs to represent 1.0 mgd draw from Reading) withdraw 1.5 cfs (1.0 mgd) from Ipswich and the remainder of demand from MWRA Scenario 4 20.2 cfs When streamflow in Ipswich drops below 20.2 cfs (equivalent to 18.7 cfs plus 1.5 cfs (1.0 mgd); 18.7 cfs represents 0.42 cfsm at South Middleton gage) withdraw 1.5 cfs (1.0 mgd) from Ipswich and the remainder of demand from MWRA Scenario 5 23.75 cfs . When streamflow in Ipswich drops below 23.75 cfs (equivalent.to 22.5 cfs plus 1.5 cfs (1.0 mgd); 22.5 cfs represents 0.5 cfsm at South Middleton gage, ABF default minimum flow) take 1.5 cfs (1.0 mgd) from Ipswich and the remainder of demand from MWRA Scenario 6 5.8 cfs When streamflow in Ipswich drops below 5.8 cfs (equivalent to 7Q10) stop withdrawals from Ipswich and take all. demand from MWRA Scenario 7 18.7 cfs When streamflow in Ipswich drops below 18.7 cfs (equivalent to 0.42 cfsm at South Middleton gage) stop withdrawals from Ipswich and take all demand from MWRA Scenario 8 . 22.5 cfs When streamflow in Ipswich drops below 22.5 cfs (equivalent to 0.5 cfsm at South Middleton gage, ABF default minimum flow) stop withdrawals from Ipswich and take all demand from MWRA Scenarios 3a, 4a, and 5a are the same as Scenarios 3, 4, and 5, with the exception that instead of daily streamflow values being used as the trigger for when the streamflow threshold is reached, the 7-day moving average of streamflow was used. 5-5 Section 5 Assessment of Impacts Operating rules for each scenario with a streamflow threshold are described as follows. If the flow in the Ipswich River at the South Middleton gage reaches or drops below the specified threshold, Reading would begin to draw water from the MWRA to supplement its own sources. For scenarios 3, 4, and 5, once this streamflow threshold is reached, Reading would maintain a withdrawal rate of 1.0 mgd from its own wells in the Ipswich River basin, and supplement the remainder of the Town's demand with MWRA. For scenarios 6, 7, and 8, once the specified streamflow threshold is reached, Reading would stop all withdrawals from the Ipswich River and draw water from MWRA to meet all of the Town's demand. All scenarios were evaluated using daily streamflow values, with the exception of Scenarios 3, 4, and 5. These three scenarios were also evaluated using a 7-day moving average for determining streamflow, and are denoted as such in Scenarios 3a, 4a, and 5a. Analysis of historic streamflow and finished water data shows the total volume of MWRA water taken an on annual basis for each operating scenario. Tables 5-3 to 5-5 summarize the total volume of MWRAwater used by Reading under each scenario, both on an annual basis and if water was only taken from the MWRA during summer months (May 1- September 30). Analysis of flow duration curves (Figure 5-1) indicates that at low flows (less than 10 cfs), flow durations calculated for Scenarios 1 and 5 are similar. Therefore, taking 1.0 mgd during summer months, regardless of streamflow, has nearly the same impacts on the Ipswich River as does using a threshold of 23.75 cfs. Average annual withdrawal volumes from MWIZA, listed in Table 5-3, show that on average, Reading would buy approximately 60 mg per year more under Scenario 1(1.0 mgd withdrawal, all summer months). than using a threshold of 23.75 cfs for withdrawing water. 5.1.5 Conclusions Results of the flow analyses, along with previous studies on streamflow requirements and aquatic habitats, were used in deriving the proposed alternative in an attempt to arrive at a solution that will meet the Town's water supply demands while providing the most positive degree of low flow restoration on the Ipswich River (and the smallest negative effect on the MWRA donor basin and existing customer communities). As mentioned in the previous section, streamflow analyses attempt to balance environmental impact on the river, cost to the Town, and the feasibility of operating the existing water treatment plant under reduced conditions. Addressing streamflow problems and allocating of resources in the Ipswich River basin began as early as 1989, with the Ipswich River Basin Plan. In Volume III of this 8.z3 C®M 5-6 Assessment oSection 5 f Impacts plan (Recommended Alternatives to Meet Projected Water Demand), the minimum streamflow requirement to meet various instream uses was 0.22 cfsm, or approximately 10 cfs at the South Middleton gage. The 1998-1999 USGS Aquatic Habitat study (See Section 4.1.4) further refined flows necessary to maintain aquatic habitat, and recommended a minimum streamflow requirement of 0.42 cfsm (approximately 18.7 cfs) at the South Middleton gage. This is the average value calculated using four different methods for determining streamflow requirements to sustain aquatic habitat. As summarized in Section 5.1.2, additional USGS studies evaluating management alternatives on the Ipswich River used the minimum aquatic baseflow (0.5 cfsm, or 22 cfs at the South Middleton gage). These management alternatives evaluated the effects of no seasonal withdrawals, 20 percent and 50 percent reduction in withdrawals upstream of Reach 8 (near Reading's wellfields). The impacts on flow restoration as demonstrated by these management scenarios will only be seen if other Ipswich River basin communities follow similar paths as Reading. A concerted watershed effort to restore flows in the Ipswich River is the optimal solution in this case, and not encouraging Reading to solve the low flow problems of the Ipswich to the maximum extent possible. Reading currently has one of the lowest per capita residential water uses in the region (54 gpcd) and is taking a proactive approach in seeking supplemental water sources when the Town currently utilizes only three-quarters of its registered withdrawal volume on an average daily basis. The proposed alternative was derived by considering all of the above mentioned factors and by relying on other communities in the upper reaches of the Ipswich River basin to take a similar proactive approach to water conservation and efficiency as Reading has done in recent years. CDM KwBs oval and Infr w. The of Reading's wast ter collection system se s approximately 90 C'enl, o e population of 23,70 000 U.S. Census). The s em consists of appr ately$ 0 miles o/the astewater from Rea is conveyed to the Deer Island Watment Facility via (1) Haynes Pump' , Station and the Readinewer, (2) the Wob Extension Sewer, (3) one small section floto the Woburn er. Treated waste er is discharged from Deer Island achusetts Ba is a 9.5-mile outfall el. App iinately 350 onsite vast ater disposal syste e located throughout r'ene*rallY g, with the highest co entration found nor f Lowell and Salem Str within the Ips River Watershed). The ro'ec have no ne ati proposed P 1 gpact on local or region astew; the proposed pur ` se of water from is not to support ad "oval as ZVI,; 5-11 1 Section 8 Proposed Section 61 Findings 8.1 Introduction These Section 61 Findings. for the proposed project have been prepared to comply with the requirements of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 30, Section 61. Under M.G.L. c.30, s.61, state agencies and authorities are required to review, evaluate, and determine the impacts on the natural environment of all work, projects, or activities conducted by them and to undertake all feasible means and measures to minimize and prevent damage to the environment. As part of any determination made, this law requires that state agencies and authorities issue a "finding" describing any impacts of the project and certifying that all feasible measures have been undertaken to either avoid or minimize these impacts. These findings address the Town of Reading's entrance into the MWRA Waterworks System. 8.2 Project Schedule Because there is very minimal construction (possible valve replacement) required to initiate the transfer, it can be implemented shortly after approval from the required regulatory agencies and the MWRA. Various operating schedules are being investigated for the proposed interbasin transfer. The Louanis Water Treatment Plant currently is staffed from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. daily, and with the proposed transfer, the operating hours of this plant could be reduced. Water will be transferred during low river flow periods only (May-September). The maximum amount to be purchased annually is approximately 219 million gallons, which equates to 0.6 mgd on an annual basis. 8.3 History of MEPA Review An Environmental Notification Form (ENF) was filed on the project on April 30, 2001. The Secretary's Certificate, requiring an EIR and outlining scope items, was issued on June 8, 2001. A copy of the Secretary's Certificate on the ENF is included in Appendix A. 8.4 Intent of These Section 61 Findings These Section 61 Findings have been prepared to comply with the Town of Reading's responsibilities under Massachusetts General Law Chapter 30, Section 61. This Section requires that an overview of the mitigation program for the project be completed and be made available to the public. These Section 61 Findings describe measures to avoid, minimize and/or mitigate identified impacts to the maximum C®MI cioeoa 8-1 Section 6 Proposed Section 61 Findings . um i MONFF7 LE ~m extent practicable, and discusses an implementation schedule to ensure that mitigation measures will be implemented at the appropriate times. 8.5 Discussion of Mitigation Measures and Implementation Schedule A connection to the MWRA Waterworks System already exists through the Town of Woburn; therefore only a valve replacement is necessary to implement the proposed project. As a result, no construction mitigation measures are needed. Mitigation focuses on means to enhance water supply conservation and protection efforts, as summarized below. As for long-term mitigation following the commencement of the proposed transfer, the Town of Reading already has various conservation measures in place to conserve water and maintain unaccounted-for water of less than 10 percent. These measures include: 7 e Continuation of leak detection and repair program a Continuation of annual master meter calibration program and meter maintenance and repair/ replacement program; n . A multi-year meter changeout program is being initiated in FY 2004; ® Public education program - ongoing and as discussed in the Towns Water Conservation Plan; ® Aggressive conservation efforts for residential retrofits - toilet and washing machine rebate program. The Town is currently in the process of developing the rebate program; and. ® Emergency planning and restrictions. The current bylaw empowers the Selectmen to implement water restrictions as needed. The Town is also pursuing a more aggressive conservation program to reduce residential usage by 190,000 gallons per day. Elements of this program include education and an aggressive residential retrofit/rebate program for installation of low-flow toilets and water saving washing machines. Other potential elements of the conservation program include xeriscaping education, and municipal and residential water audits. In terms of water supply protection, the Reading Zoning Bylaws established an Aquifer Protection District to protect, preserve and maintain its existing and future water supply. Within the District, activities that could be detrimental to water supply are prohibited. 00 CDM 610608 8-2 Section 8 Proposed Section 69 Findings 8.6 Summary of Impacts and Findings of Limitations of Impacts The Town of Reading finds that the environmental'impacts resulting from implementation of the proposed project are beneficial, related to decreased reliance on the Ipswich River during low-flow periods. With implementation of the water conservation measures described above and in the Water Conservation Plan, all feasible means and measures will have been taken to enhance the benefits gained by project implementation. CDM GION8 Section 9 Comment Letters 9.1 Introduction As part of the MEPA process, the Town received numerous comment letters on the Environmental Notification Form (ENF). Responses to the comments received on the ENF are provided to the extent that the comments are within MEPA jurisdiction. Comments were received from the following entities: ® Water Supply Citizens Advisory Committee (WSCAC) ® Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA) ® Water Resources Commission (WRC) ® MWRA Advisory Board. ® Department of Environmental Protection, Northeast Regional Office (DEP - NERO) ® Ipswich River Watershed Association (IRWA) ® Reading/North Reading Ipswich River Stream Team Copies of all comment letters are provided in Appendix A. 9.2 Water Supply Citizens Advisory Committee (WSCAC) WSCAC divides its comments into two parts - the.first identifies significant areas of state policy affected by Reading's application to join the MWRA Waterworks System; the second identifies information needed to better evaluate Reading's system and alternative supply options. WSCAC believes that allowing the ENF and EIR to constitute an "application" to both the ITA process and to MWRA may be "over-streamlining" the process given the many initiatives currently underway and that there should not be a rush to provide MWRA water without a thorough look at Wilmington's and Reading's resources and potential future water supplies. Both the Water Resources Commission and MWRA will fully evaluate the project in terms of its ability to meet regulatory requirements; there will be no relaxing or streamlining of the approval processes. In addition, results of any ongoing initiatives or investigations will be evaluated in terms of their effect on Reading's proposed project. The results of such studies will only serve to enhance the benefits derived from purchasing out-of-basin water, which i~ is only a partial solution to the problems facing the Ipswich River. Reading is CDM n , Section 9 Comment Letters concurrently pursuing aggressive water conservation, source protection, and bedrock wells as means to protect the river and enhance their water supply. The Town is also actively involved in watershed-wide planning efforts in regards to watershed coordination on such issues as reducing stress on the Ipswich River and a watershed wide conservation plan. WSCAC comments that the State has over-allocated the river's flow and that Reading submitted a request for a 5 mgd WMA permit.in 1991. The Town did not submit such a request, as indicated in a June 11 response (in Appendix A) to the WSCAC comment letter. WSCAC questions statutory need for the project, given Reading's water use is "not pressing against its Water Management Act (WMA) registered withdrawal of 2.57 mgd and is not projected to do so." WSCAC further suggests that Reading agree to "cancel, retire, or otherwise eliminate" its WMA allowance that exceeds need. In both the ENF and this DEIR, the Town reiterates the point that current finished water demand (which averages 2.0 mgd) is well below the Town's registered raw water withdrawal volume of 2.57 mgd. Clearly, the Town does not use all of its registered volume. Since the goal of this project is to lessen the impacts on the Ipswich River, the Town believes that maintaining its current registration volume will protect the positive effects the proposed project will have on the Ipswich River. WSCAC's calculation of summer water use is inaccurate, as noted in the June 11, 2001 response. As noted in the ENF, Reading's summer water use may rise to "as high as 3.0 mgd" and does not average 3.0 mgd. For the period of 1995-2001, average finished water demand (May 1- September 30) is approximately 2.2 mgd. 1. 1 IRA ffm WSCAC incorrectly states that Reading is partially within the Merrimack River WEE Watershed. Because it is outside the watershed, obtaining water from Andover would trigger the need for ITA approval. Reading is pursuing local sources for supplementing its supply (bedrock wells) and is also undertaking an aggressive conservation program. Reactivation of abandoned wells is not feasible, as addressed in Section 3. WSCAC expresses concern that it is unclear whether the project will supplement existing sources, or serve as substitution for them. WSCAC also notes that Reading and Wilmington should not be considered separately without regard for the impact of one community's withdrawals on the other. The Town stresses that the goal of the proposed project is to supplement its own local sources with MWRA water to lessen the impacts on the already stressed Ipswich River Basin. The Town does not intend to utilize the MWRA as its sole source of water, which clearly would not be practical from an economical standpoint when local sources are present. The 6 percent unaccounted-for-water is questioned by WSCAC. A response is provided in the June 11, 2001 memo. CDM G10600 9-2 Section 9 Comment Letters WSCAC suggests more aggressive conservation and new demand projections, noting that conservation savings of 0.19 mgd seems low and that more outdoor usage controls are needed. WSCAC also questions which source protection programs are in place. A discussion of source protection is presented in Section 7. Reading currently has one of the lowest per capita residential water uses in the region (2001 residential water use of 54 gpcd). The Town already has conservation programs in place and has approved $500,000 in funding for an even more aggressive approach at water conservation. Furthermore, in the Ipswich River Watershed Associations 2001 Report Card, Reading received the highest overall rating (A) and an A+ for water use trend and residential water use, based on annual reports of water supply statistics provided to DEP. WSCAC questions the alternatives analysis. Alternatives evaluated, and the reasons for their dismissal, are discussed in Section 3. In summary, joining the MWRA Waterworks System, in conjunction with conservation and source protection, was the most cost-effective and feasible approach. The Town recognizes the importance of ongoing leak detection and repair, as noted by WSCAC. Annual leak detection surveys have been conducted since 1999, and to date a total of 109 million gallons of water have been saved by identifying and repairing leaks in the distribution system. WSCAC expresses concern over the implications of this project on MWRA's current user communities. The addition of Reading to the Waterworks System will not result in any significant impacts to the basin or to other customers, according to MWRA's analysis, which is summarized in Section 5. 9.3 Massachusetts Wafer Resources Authority The MWRA's major comments on the ENF address the admission requirements for a new community into the Waterworks System. For admission of a new community, the MWRA must find that a local water supply feasible for development has not been identified, nor has an existing or potential water supply been abandoned. The outcome of the 1999 Ad Hoc Water Supply Advisory Committee (described in detail in Section 3 and provided in Appendix B) is a comprehensive list of potential sources of supply for.the Town, all of which have been investigated and ruled out as infeasible options. The most recent option that was investigated, bedrock wells in the North Coastal basin, simply will not yield enough water to meet the current demands of the Town. Regarding abandoned sources of supply, Reading does have one abandoned well due to contamination. The Revay Brook wellfield was taken out of continuous service in the mid 1970's due to sodium contamination. Iron and manganese were also reportedly increasing at the time of reduced service, but these compounds were removed during treatment at the WTP. One of these two wells has been officially A CDIM 9-3 GIDW9 8-3° Section 9 Comment Letters abandoned, and the second is characterized by high levels of sodium and has only been used when necessary. The MWRA also notes that the development of a water resources management plan is a critical piece of an application for a new member. A copy of Reading's Draft Local Water Resources Management Plan is included in Appendix D. The impact on the MWRA water supply system and the impact on customer community service are two other key issues that the MWRA and Advisory Board analyze when reviewing.a new membership application. In the comment letter, the MWRA describes the modeling tools and performance measures they use to evaluate the effects a new user community would have on the system and its existing customers. The results of their analyses are provided in Section 5. 9.4 Water Resources Commission The Water Resources Commission's (WRC) comment letter on the ENF included a draft scope for the requirements of the Interbasin Transfer Act and stated that the Town should use the EIR to address these requirements. Other issues commented on by the WRC included Reading's pursuit of an aggressive water conservation program. The active pursuit and implementation of this program clearly demonstrates the Town's efforts to show that "all practical measures to conserve water have been taken in the receiving area. " The Town currently has very high full cost recovery water rates, practices mandatory outdoor water restrictions and is engaged in public education. These existing conservation efforts presumably contribute to the Town's low per capita water usage. In addition, the implementation of a more comprehensive and aggressive water conservation program has begun, with the approval of $500,000 of funding at Town Meeting. The Town is currently developing plans for a rebate program for toilets and washing machines. A second issue raised by the WRC is the land area in the Mystic River and North Coastal basins. The Town is nearing completion of a bedrock well investigation. in the North Coastal basin. To date, results of this investigation show that yield from bedrock wells in this area is not sufficient to meet the demand, as discussed in Section 3. 9.5 MWRA. Advisory Board The MWRA Advisory Board discusses in its comment letter that any new community must follow the procedures outlined in MWRA Policy OP.10, Admission of a New Community to the Waterworks System. Requirements outlined in this policy are as follows: ■ Any expansion of the MWRA system shall result in no negative impact on the existing user communities, water quality, and the interests of watershed communities; CDM G10609 'Oft 0 V03 1 9-4 r Section 9 Comment Letters n Any expansion of the MWRA system will attempt to achieve economic benefit for existing user communities; and u For acceptance of a new community into the system, the safe yield of the MWRA's system must be found sufficient to meet the new community's demand. The analysis of impacts on the donor basin (Section 5) indicates that there will be no impact on existing user communities or water quality of the proposed transfer. The economic benefit for existing user communities is ensured by the $3.1 million buy in fee that the Town will be responsible for as part of their application for admission. Modeling analyses by the MWRA described in Section 5 indicate that the safe yield of the MWRA's system (300 mgd) is sufficient to meet the additional 0.6 mgd of demand for Reading if the proposed transfer is to occur. 9.6 Department of Environmental Protection DEP's comment letter on the ENF supports the proposed interbasin transfer due to the positive effects the proposed transfer will have on the hydrologically stressed Ipswich River. The Department believes that any impacts on the donor basin would be substantially less than the impacts on the Ipswich River if Reading continues to withdraw from its wells at the current rate. The comment letter also mentions the vulnerability of Reading's existing wellfield due to the proximity of Tier 1 contaminant release sites in North Reading. 9.7 Ipswich River Watershed Association The Ipswich River Watershed Association also took the opportunity to comment on the ENF. Among the issues raised in IRWA's letter was the need to address low-flow episodes and their effect on habitat with a sense of urgency. While the Town is moving forward as expeditiously as possible, the time required to obtain regulatory approvals is outside of the Town's control. A second concern of the IRWA is that the implications for growth if this secondary source of water is achieved. Reading reiterates the point that the use of the proposed transferred water is simply to reduce the effects of withdrawal effects on the Ipswich River and not to accommodate any plans for proposed development. The question of Reading's Water Management Act (WMA) registration was also discussed in the IRWA's comment letter. The IRWA questions the validity of the amount. Reading's response is this is clearly an issue to be addressed by DEP, and maintaining the current registered volume would help to prevent another user from withdrawing the water currently registered to Reading. Section 9 Comment Letters 9.8 Reading/North Reading Ipswich River Stream Team A representative of the Stream Team expresses concern that the additional water resources from the MWRA be used to offset the water withdrawals from the Ipswich River. This is the intent of the proposed project - to lessen the existing stresses on the river during low-flow periods by purchasing water from the MWRA. CDM G10609 g-;3 9-6 0 IPSWICH RIVER WATERSHED ASSOCIATION October 25, 2002 Secretary Bob Durand Executive Office of Environmental Affairs 251 Causeway St., Suite 900 Boston, MA 02114 ATTN: Nicholas Zavolas, MEPA Unit RE: APPLICATION OF THE TOWN OF READING TO JOIN THE MASS. WATER RESOURCES AUTHORITY WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM, EOEA 912514 Dear Secretary Durand: The Ipswich River Watershed Association (IRWA) would like to submit the following comments on The Town of Reading's Environmental Impact Report for Admission to the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority Waterworks System (EOEA 912514). IRWA supports the Town of Reading's application to purchase water seasonally from the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority Waterworks System (MWRA), if the import of water will result in a reduction in water withdrawals from streamside wells, and thereby restore streamflow in the Ipswich River during critical summer and fall low- and no-flow periods. However, it is important to note that this support is contingent on institutional controls to ensure two things - that the water import will indeed benefit the Ipswich River and not enable growth or increased lawn watering, and that downstream communities will not simply pump the water out again, .leaving the river as depleted as ever farther downstream. The United States Geological Survey's hydrological model of the Ipswich River Watershed identified groundwater withdrawals in Reading as a major cause of streamflow depletion. A subsequent study of management alternatives found that decreases in these water withdrawals reduced the number of no-flow days in the river each year. This and a related watershed management planning project identify a combination of options, including effective water conservation, import, of water, improvement of groundwater recharge, and reduction in water exports, to restore healthy flows to the Ipswich River. The Town of Reading has already greatly improved water conservation, receiving the first A-level grade on the Ipswich River Water Conservation Report Card in 2002. The Town has also committed substantial funding to ensure that these efforts and successes continue. IRWA commends these efforts. However, the town's main wellfield will continue to dewater the Ipswich River, even with effective water conservation programs. The wellfield is located immediately adjacent to the river reach most severely impacted by dewatering. This site experiences chronic and severe environmental damage, including massive kills of fish and aquatic macro invertebrates and other disruption of ecosystem function. This type of damage has been occurring for decades - even when the amount of water pumped was much lower than today. The most recent fish kill occurred just last month; this fsh kill was noteworthy in that the fish are not even surviving to maturity anymore. Thousands of small fish - about 1 inch long -died congregated in the cracks in the mud where the last remnants of water offered brief but inadequate refuge. These are all "macrohabitat generalists," or species that can tolerate warn, ponded conditions with low dissolved oxygen - the flow-dependent river species have long since been extirpated from this area. The aquatic ecosystem is in complete crisis. q-1 q-a ~J Thus the need for relief for the environment is huge. IRWA recognizes that reducing the use of the streamside wells is essential; in fact, we believe that the current plan to reduce, but not stop, pumping these wells will be inadequate to solve the problem, unless other companion measures to "balance the water budget" are also taken by Reading and other communities. The town is moving in the right direction with its improved water efficiency and financial commitment to water conservation, but further measures are needed. The import of water to reduce seasonal pumping is one of these measures. Yet there is no doubt that the import of water is "robbing Peter to pay Paul," just the type of action that the. Interbasin Transfer Act was intended. to limit. The legal and regulatory hurdles are.formidable, especially in relation to the issue of "viable local sources." To overcome these hurdles, IRWA believes that the Town must willingly retire the portion of its Ipswich River water withdrawal registration, equal to the amount of water it Ll 3 l intends to import. Only by so doing can the issue of viable local sources be resolved, and assurance given that the water imported will not simply fuel growth, so that the Ipswich River will indeed benefit from the MWRA purchase. Other issues must be addressed, including how/when to trigger the import of water. IRWA would support either a seasonal approach (purchase from May-October) or having the purchase be triggered by low-flow -y. conditions, measured at the river reach adjacent to the wellfield. We note that the EIR refers to importing MWRA water from May-September. However, this period may be inadequate, as extremely low streamflows often persist into October and even later in the year. The USGS modeling of water import used a May-October pumping window for the seasonal import scenario, which this proposed purchase of water should reflect; otherwise, the low-flow trigger approach would be preferable. This issue raises the associated question of whether the proposed purchase of 600,000 gallons per day on an annualized basis will be sufficient to alleviate the impacts on the Ipswich River.. IRWA believes that this volume will not be sufficient to eliminate the dewatering problem caused by Reading's wells. The town should be r~LV~ prepared to continue water restrictions, including bans on irrigation water (more effective than the even-odd ' restrictions Reading has relied on) during drought periods. Yet the public perception may be that purchase of MWRA water will mean an end to watering restrictions - and could result in higher water demand. IRWA remains concerned about the public perception, the sufficiency of the .6 mod purchase and the impact of continued pumping of 1. mgd from the wells adjacent to the Ipswich River. not er concern is that communities such as Danvers will simply pump the water out of the river G downstream. Reading has no control over this action, but IRWA believes that state regulatory action is needed tc ensure that the benefits of Reading's actions accrue to the river. ~APti'~ The watershed management plan being developed for the Ipswich River identifies other actions that will be needed io truly balance the water budget and restore the Ipswich River to health. These actions include improving stormwater management and groundwater .recharge, and reducing the amount. of water exported from the watershed via sewers (to MWRA's wastewater system). The current focus on Reading's water supply alternatives should be evaluated in the context of a comprehensive and integrated water resources management ' to restore the river's hydrology in Reading and elsewhere. In the long run, keeping water local, and solvinc,, local water pro , is frefernhle to shuntigg water (and wastewater) across watershed boundaries' In summary, IRWA supports the seasonal purchase of water by.Reading, so long as the town willingly . L _(o i'retip~ an equivalent amount of its water withdrawal registration to address concerns about the legal requirements of the Interbasin Transfer Act and to provide surety that the purchase will help restore streamflow to the Ipswich River. We believe that iggeri g_mechanism, sufficiency of the water purchase volume and y otential for continu" water re rictions need further evaluati or elaboration. While an imperfect solution, the r`cFas'e of aters e management plan developed for the"Ipswich River water from MYRA is consistent with the regiona lit: Watershe s one piece of a larger strategy to bal ce the region's water budget. Thank you for the opportunity to comme 1 on this project. 3~,-GGt~%t Sincerely, i`J~Jr7~VG~ Kerry Mackin Kerry Mackin Executive Director 240 County Road, PO Box 576, Ipswich, MA 01938 Phone 978-356-0418 Fax 978-356-1993 ?d . 0 Im y ~'r P (."V~'GL✓.ij Q./. 0,;1 ,l'i!~- ~i dal JANE SWIFT GOVERNOR Tel. (617) 526-1000 BOB DURAND Fax (617) 526-1131 SECRETARY November 1, 2002 http:il/rwvw.magnet.state.ma.us/envir CERTIFICATE OF THE SECRETARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PROJECT NAME: PROJECT MUNICIPALITY PROJECT WATERSHED EOEA NUMBER PROJECT PROPONENT DATE NOTICED IN MONITOR : Admission to the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority Waterworks System : Reading : Ipswich/North Coastal :12514 Town of Reading September 25, 2002 As Secretary of Environmental Affairs, I determine that the.Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) submitted on the above project adequately and properly complies with the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MGL, c. 30, ss. 61-62H) and with its implementing regulations (301 CMR 11.00). However, significant issues remain to be addressed during the Final EIR (FEIR) preparation process. My recent work with the Community- Preservation Initiative has shown the importance of the need to secure a sustainable water future for our communities and our environment. This must involve a comprehensive and proactive approach: We must protect-the sources we have, use water more efficiently, identify and protect the additional sources we'll need to meet, reasonable future demands, and balance our water budgets within our watersheds to protect environmental. resources. As part of this effort, we must restore areas such as the Ipswich River that have been adversely affected by past practices. Although it is too early to know what will be the right mix of actions that will attain these goals for the Ipswich River watershed, this effort by the Town of Reading to restore the River, if undertaken in a wider watershed context, could be an important first step. All the communities in the watershed will need to work together, to develop a comprehensive long-term plan to securing water while protecting the environment. Existing local water withdrawals from Reading and other communities are causing severe stresses on the ecosystem of the Ipswich River basin. In response, the Ipswich River Watershed Management Plan is being developed by the Ipswich River /0 eQ Printed on Receded Slmk 20% Post Consumer Waste --I EOEA #12514 DEIR Certificate November 1, 2002 Management Council to restore the river's hydrology throughout the watershed. In order to balance the water flow and restore the Ipswich River to.health, the Plan has identified a wide range of actions: improving stormwater management and groundwater recharge, reducing the amount of wastewater exported out of the basin for treatment, and supplementing or replacing existing water supplies. This project should be further developed in the context of the Plan. The FEIR should document how the final preferred alternative. is consistent with. the Plan, and with an overall watershed strategy to restore the river. As described in the DEIR, the preferred alternative would involve the Town of Reading's proposed water supply connection to the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA). The Town proposes drawing on MWRA water supplies as a supplemental out-of-basin source, to ensure an adequate supply of water to the Town while reducing the stress placed on the Ipswich River by the Town's existing withdrawals during seasonal low flow periods. According to the DEIR, the Town would use as much as 219 million gallons of MWRA water per year (an average of 1.45 mgd), during the seasonal low-flow May thru September period. The in-stream flow restored by the Town's purchase of MWRA water is to be retained in the Ipswich River, where it. is critically needed to support healthy aquatic ecosystems and other in-stream functions and values, including recreation and pollution dilution. I appreciate the proactive approach that the proponent has taken to addressing the problems of the Ipswich basin. At the same time, this project raises significant issues of statewide policy that will need to be adequately addressed in the FEIR. These include: A commitment to the full range of effective local water conservation measures that reduce demand on water supplies to the maximum practicable extent. Such measures will be a required element of any preferred alternative. • A hard look at alternative water supply sources to meet the need for supplemental water during seasonal low flow periods:, both local bedrock wells, and inter-basin transfers from the Merrimack River, as well..as.from the,MWRA..The preferred alternative may involve a combination of supplemental sources. • Detailed information regarding impacts on.river basins within the MWRA system, to meet all regulatory requirements under the Interbasin Transfer Act (ITA). • A commitment that the relief offered by out"of-basin sources will be offset by reducing allowable local withdrawals, to ensure that the Ipswich River ecosystem truly benefits from the project. A commitment by state, regional, and local agencies to use this project as a precedent for all parties whose actions affect the Ipswich watershed, through the implementation of consistent basin-wide practices and regulatory conditions. 2 °1 EOEA #12514 DEIR Certificate November 1, 2002 MEPA Jurisdiction and EIR Scope The project is undergoing review and requires the preparation of an EIR pursuant to Section 11.03(4)(a)(2) of the MEPA regulations, because it involves a new interbasin transfer of water of 1,000,000 or more gallons per day (gpd). The project requires approval of the Water Resources Commission (WRC) under the interbasin Transfer Act. It also requires MWRA approval of its application'to connect to the water supply system. The proponent will not seek financial assistance from a state agency. Therefore, MEPA jurisdiction is limited to significant environmental impacts related to the subject matter of the required permits. The scope of the EIR, established in the ENF Certificate issued June 8, 2001, required that the EIR include all of the information necessary for the project to complete the MWRA and Water Resources Commission (WRC) approval process. It required the proponent to expand the alternatives analysis to include a detailed description of alternative local water supply sources, the impacts of the proposed project on the Ipswich River, the Quabbin and Wachusett Reservoirs and the Ware River, and the Town's efforts to protect its existing local water supply sources. The proponent was also asked to include in the EIR a description of the Town's water conservation efforts, the proposed project's impacts on the local and regional wastewater infrastructure, and a discussion of the project's potential impacts on Executive Order 385, Planning for Growth, and any *other applicable local and regional growth management plans. . The DEIR has provided an initial response to those requirements. However, as described below, significant issues remain to be addressed early in the FEIR preparation process. The FEIR should also reprint and respond to the detailed comments that I have received on the DEIR, and it should include a copy of this Certificate. Project Permitting The FEIR should include a detailed discussion of each state permit and approval necessary for the project, and should demonstrate that the project design meets applicable regulatory and performance standards. The FEIR should include a chapter on the proposed project's consistency with the Water Management Act, the MWRA enabling legislation, and the Interbasin Transfer Act. In response to comments received from the WSCAC, WRC, and others, the FEIR should propose an approach to reduce the Town's current Water Management Act registration, and/or other. measures the Town could adopt to ensure a long-term reduction in the use of its existing local water supplies. /0-3 EOEA #12514 DEIR Certificate November 1, 2002 Local Water Resources Conservation Plan According to the DEIR, the Town of Reading has adopted a four-year, $1 million water conservation program designed to reduce water demand by 190,000 gpd through town- wide efforts to restrict and conserve water use. The FEIR should provide a detailed description of the water restriction and conservation measures that have been approved, and those measures that have been funded and implemented to date: The FEIR should respond to comments and commit to program funding, outdoor water use restrictions, and water use rates. In particular, the FEIR should respond.to DEP's request to consider a number of additional tools to improve water conservation, including: the use of a water bank, implementing stormwater recharge measures in accordance with the Stormwater Phase II Program, accelerating the schedule to retrofit municipal buildings with low flow devices, enactment of a bylaw regulating automatic sprinklers and/or clearing of land for grass lawns, and promotion of the use of cisterns for outdoor watering. The FEIR should include the report of the recent town-wide water audit and indicate whether the audit includes water use by public facilities. It should indicate the public buildings in the Town that have been retrofitted with water saving devices, and a proposed schedule for which that work will be completed for all other public buildings. The FEIR should clarify the frequency of leak detection surveys, and should explain the 7% decrease in unaccounted for water in 2001. The. FEIR should discuss interconnections with other communities, and watershed/wellhead protection programs. In an appendix, the FEIR should provide complete DEP Statistical Reports for the past 5 years. Alternatives Analysis Amount of Supplemental Flows According to the DEIR, the primary purpose of the project is to provide additional incremental flow (an average of 1.45 mgd) to the Ipswich River during seasonally low flow periods. The FEIR should consider more fully other amounts of supplemental water that could be used, and the resulting increase in incremental flows in the river.. The FEIR should describe the basis on.which the final amount of supplemental water was chosen. Local Sources The FEIR should provide a more detailed evaluation of potential local water supply sources and their ability to provide approximately 1.45 mgd between May and October. The FEIR should provide documentation from DEP that the expansion of Reading's existing sources and/or reactivation of abandoned sources is not viable. In response to comments received from the Water Resources Commission (WRC) and the Water Supply Citizens Advisory Committee (WSCAC), the FEIR should look further at the 4 AS& EOEA.#12514 DEIR Certificate November 1, 2002 development of the bedrock well sites located in the Town Forest and the Bare Meadow areas in Reading. (I note that. other water supply wells have been successfully developed in Article 97 protected areas.) It should include a.summary of all potential local water source studies that have been completed and their findings. The FEIR should also include information on potentially viable water supply sources in Reading that may be located within the North Coastal basin and the Mystic River subbasin of the Boston Harbor basin areas.. . Transfer from the Merrimack River Basin. The FEIR should respond to WSCAC's comments regarding the potential interbasin transfer of water from the Merrimack River, through Andover, to provide the needed supplemental flow to the Ipswich River during seasonally low-flow periods. Discussion of this alternative should compare its environmental impacts and its financial and legal feasibility with that of the MWRA alternative. Impacts of the Preferred Alternative The FOR should provide all necessary information for the proponent's submission under the ITA. The comment letters from the WRC and others document the need for additional information regarding the preferred alternative that needs to be included in the FEIR. Impacts on the Donor Basin/Customer Communities The FEIR should provide a detailed analysis of the project's impacts to the MWRA system, taking into account the recent WRC decision regarding the addition of Stoughton to the MWRA system. The FEIR should clarify the proponent's estimates given for assumed water supply demands for Reading, Stoughton, and Wilmington, as those estimates. appear to vary from estimates included in Stoughton's recent MWRA application. The:•FEIR should describe the operations of the Quabbin and Wachusett Reservoir. As requested by the WRC, the FEIR should compare the daily measured releases to the Swift River at the Winsor Dam with the simulated monthly flowslor the period of record. It should also describe any potential impacts on the Nashua River Basin. The FEIR should also estimate what effect the project will have on releases at the spillway. The FEIR should provide detailed information concerning improvements to the fisheries habitats/flows downstream of the Winsor Darn on the Swift River and the Wachusett Dam on the Nashua River. It should discuss the protection of the Ware River from the effects of diversions to the Quabbin Reservoir. Data Clarification and Additions The FEIR should clarify the amount of water to be supplied by the MWRA and the 5 10-1 EOEA #12514 DEIR Certificate November, 1, 2002 resulting average and maximum daily demands on the MRWA system, as those figures appear to-vary within the DEIR. The FEIR should clarify the maximum amount of water that could be transferred through the existing connection with the MWRA without causing a significant decrease in pressure for other portions of the MWRA Northern Intermediate High Service Area. Use of MWRA Supply The FEIR should provide a detailed description of the process the Town proposes to employ to activate the purchase of MWRA water during low flow conditions while concurrently limiting withdrawals from its existing local wells to 1 mgd. As requested in the comments, the FEIR should more fully explore the use of trigger mechanisms to activate receipt of MWRA water, including gauged stream flow (.45 cfsm) and seasonal low-flow period (May - September). Legal Issues The letter from WSCAC raises potential legal issues arising under the ITA and MWRA enabling legislation, which must be satisfied if this project is to proceed. I strongly encourage the proponent to consult with the relevant agencies early in the FEIR preparation process, and to discuss these issues in the FEIR. Water Withdrawal Registration Under the Town of Reading's water withdrawal registration, the Town is permitted to withdrawal an average daily volume of 2.57 million gallons per day (mgd) from the Ipswich River. Although Reading has not withdrawn more than an average daily volume of 2.05 mgd, it is proposing to purchase MWRA water without reducing its registration. The proposed project could therefore have the.effect of making more water, not less, available to Reading, raising concerns over Reading's ability to maintain an aggressive water conservation program, or prevent future growth. The proponent should address these concerns. Specifically, I strongly support the recommendation made in many comment letters that the Town reduce a portion of its registration, at least equal to the amount of Water it proposes to. purchase from the MRWA. The FEIR should examine amending the Town's registration to also include requirements for water conservation performance measures. The FEIR should discuss placing a portion or all of the Town's authorized water use volume under the jurisdiction of a Water.Management Act permit that would subject the Town to the same conservation requirements applicable to similarly situated permittees in the Ipswich Basin. Regional .Strategies I commend the proponent for making great strides for improving water conservation in 6 EOEA #12514 DEIR Certificate November 1, 2002 Reading and helping to address the strearnflow issues impacting the Ipswich -River. However, according to.the comments I have received, Reading's efforts will be inadequate unless other measures are taken by the state regulatory agencies, and other Ipswich watershed communities to ensure a balanced water budget in the Ipswich Basin: The Ipswich River Watershed Management Plan, which is being developed by the Ipswich River Management Council, should provide the framework for this discussion-... I ask the Town of Reading to work closely with DEP, WRC, and others to address the issues of improving stormwater management and groundwater recharge, and reducing the amount of wastewater exported out of the basin for treatment, in a separate chapter in the FEIR. The FEIR should address the comments received from the.Riverways Program pertaining to the preferred alternative's impacts to streamflow in the Ipswich River. Proposed Section 61 Findings To assist the permitting agencies, the FEIR should include a separate chapter on proposed Section 61 Findings, which summarize the various mitigation commitments, including timetables, and identifying responsible parties. Circulation The FEIR should be circulated in compliance with Section 11.16 of the MEPA regulations and copies should also, be sent to the list of "comments received" below, and Ipswich officials. A copy of the FEIR should be made available for public review at the Reading Public Library. November 1, 2002 _ Date Bob Durand Comments received: 10/24/02 Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA) 10/24/02 MA DFWELE - Riverways Programs 10/25/02 Water Supply Citizens Advisory Committee 10/25/02 Ipswich River Watershed Association 10/28/02 Massachusetts Water Resources Commission 10/28/102 Department of Environmental Protection - NERO D12514 BD/NCZ/nz 1171 Volume 1-Report 1r( M,q Contents Volume 1 Section 1- Project Summary 1.1 Project Background and MEPA History ...............................................................1-1 1.2 Need for and Description of the Recommended Plan ........................................1-1 1.3 Summary of Project Alternatives ...........................................................................1-3 1.4 Final EIR Issues 1-5 1.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures .........................................................................1-6 1.6 Organization of This Document ....................................:........................................1-6 Section 2 - Project Descriptions 2.1 Project Description.................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Proposed Interbasin Transfer 2-2 2.3 Schedule ..................................................................................................:..................2-3 2.4 Current and Proposed Members of the MWRA Waterworks System 2-4 Section 3 -Water Conservation and Source Protection 3.1 Town-wide Water Conservation Program 3-1 3.1.1 Introduction 3-1 3.1.2 Residential Water Audits 3-2 3.1.3 Rebate Program 3-2 3.1.4 Water Conservation Retrofits 3-3 3.1.5 Municipal Building Retrofits 3-3 3.1.6 General Public Education and Outreach 3-3 3.1.7 Public Education and Outreach - Schools 3-4 3.1.8 Public Education and Outreach - Large Users 3-4 3.1.9 System-wide Water Audit 3-4 3.1.10 Leak Detection 3-5 3.2 Water Restriction and Conservation Measures 3-5 3.2.1 Outdoor Water Use and Restrictions 3-5 3.2.2 Water Bank 3-6 3.2.3 Stormwater Recharge in Accordance with Phase II 3-6 3.3 Results of Town-wide Water Audit 3-7 3.3.1 Schools 3-7 3.3.2 Municipal Buildings 3-7 3.3.3 Parks and Cemeteries 3-8 3.3.4 Summary of Water Audit 3-8 3.4 Leak D etection and Unaccounted-for Water 3-9 3.4.1 Leak Detection 3-9 3.4.2 Unaccounted-for Water 3-10 3.5 Interconnections with Other Communities 3-11 3.6 Watershed/ Wellhead Protection Programs 3-11 ML1917 U rt r C ,"t" 11 Table of Contents - Volume 1 Town of Reading, MA Admission to the MWRA Waterworks System Final Environmental Impact Report Section 4 - Alternatives Analysis 4.1 Introduction 4-1 4.2 Recommendation of the Ad-Hoc Water Supply Committee 4-1 4.3 Amount of Supplemental Flows 4-5 4.3.1 Basis for Determining Supplemental flows 4-5 4.3.2 Future Considerations - Upgrades to Water Treatment Plant......... 4-12 4.4 Expansion of Existing Local Sources/ Reactivation of Abandoned Wells 4-14 4.5 Bedrock Wells 4-15 4.5.1 Background 4-15 4.5.2 Results of Investigations 4-18 4.6 Additional Sources from Other Basins 4-20 4.6.1 North Coastal Basin and Mystic River Sub-basin of Boston Harbor Basin (within Reading) 4-20 4.6.2 Transfer from Merrimack River Basin 4-20 4.7 Conservation 4-24 4.8 No Action 4-24 4.9 Connection to MWRA 4-24 Section 5- Impacts of the Preferred Alternative 5.1 Ipswich River Basin 5-1 5.2 Impacts on Donor Basins/Customer Communities 5-1 5.2.1 Introduction 5-1 5.2.2 Reservoir Operation 5-1 5.2.3 Demand Level 5-3 5.3 Analyses on Releases and Reservoir Performance 5-5 5.4 Winsor Dam Release Comparisons 5-5 5.5 Demand Effects on Ware River Streamflows 5-5 5.6 Long-term Reservoir Analyses and Impacts 5-9 5.7 Data Clarifications and Additions 5-14 5.8 Legal issues 5-14 5.9 Water Withdrawal Registration 5-14 Section 6 - Regional Strategies 6.1 Overview 6-1 6.2 Stormwater Management 6-1 6.2.1 Best Management Practices 6-2 6.3 DEP Wastewater Reuse Policy - Reclaimed Water 6-7 6.4 Infiltration and Inflow 6-8 6.5 Summary 6-8 K4 Table of Contents - Volume 9 Town of Reading, MA Admission to the MWRA Waterworks System Final Environmental Impact Report Section 7- Project Permits and Approvals 7.1 Introduction 7-1 7.2 Applicable Criteria of Interbasin Transfer Act Regulations (313 CMR 4.05)... 7-1 7.2.1 Criterion #1- MEPA Compliance 7-2 7.2.2 Criterion #2 - Develop All Viable Sources in the Receiving Basin.... 7-2 7.2.3 Criterion #3 - Must Have Implemented All Practical Water Conservation Measures 7-3 7.2.4 Criterion #4 - Have Implemented a Forestry Management Program 7-7 7.2.5 Criterion #5 - Maintain Reasonable Instream Flow 7-8 7.2.6 Criterion #6 - Provide Results of the Pumping Test 7-8 7.2.7 Criterion #7 - Develop a Local Water Resources Management Plan 7-8 7.2.8 Criterion #8 - Consider the Impacts of All Past, Authorized, or Proposed Transfers or Streamflows in the Donor Basin 7-8 7.3 Water Management Act Registration 7-8 7.4 MWR A Enabling Legislation 7-10 7.4.1 Sufficient Safe Yield of the Watershed System 7-10 7.4.2 No Abandonment of Local Body Water Supply 7-11 7.4.3 A Water Management Plan has been Adopted 7-11 7.4.4 Effective Demand Management Measures have been Established. 7-11 7.4.5 No Local Water Supply Source for Development has been Identified 7-12 7.4.6 A Water Use Survey has been Completed 7-12 7.5 Executive Order 385/Planning for Growth 7-12 `7.5.1 Introduction 7-12 7.5.2 Planning for Growth Project 7-12 7.5.3 Ipswich River Management Plan 7-13 7.5.4 United States Geological Survey,(USGS) Studies 7-14 7.5.5 Conclusions 7-14 7.6 Meetings with Appropriate Regulatory Agencies 7-14 Section 8 - Proposed Section 61 Findings 8.1 Introduction 8-1 8-2 Project Schedule 8-1 8-3 History of MEPA Review 8-1 . 8.4 Intent of These Section 61 Findings 8-2 8.5 Discussion of Mitigation Measures and Implementation Schedule 8-2 8.6 Summary of impacts and Findings of Limitations of Impacts 8-3 s ML1917 Table of Contents - Volume 9 Town of Reading, MA Admission to the MWRA Waterworks System Final Environmental Impact Report Section 9 - Responses to Comments on Draft EIR 9-1 Section 10 MEPA Certificate and Comment Letters on Draft EIR ...........................10-1 i ML1917 0 iv Figures 1-1 Project Location Ma ...............:.....................................................1-4 4-1 Flow Duration Curves 4-11 4-2 Simulated Hydrograph of Ipswich River at South Middleton Gage 4-13 4-17 4-3 Favorable Sites. for Bedrock Groundwater Development .4-4 Andover Water Supply Alternative Water Main Route 4-23 5-1 Flow Duration Curve 5-6 5-2 Quabbin's Maximum Pool Descent 5-11 5-3 Comparison of Water Levels in Quabbin Reservoir 5-12 5-4 Time Spent in Drought Emergency 5-13 l E i I . I . i cm V ML1918 Tables 2-1 Reading Distribution system Storage 2-1 2-2 MWRA Fully Supplied Users 2-4 2-3 MWRA Partially Supplied Users 2-5 3-1 Summary of Leak Detection Surveys 3-9 3-2 Unaccounted-for Water 1997-2002 3-10 4-1 Description of Rating Criteria Used by Ad-Hoc Water Supply Advisory Committee, Ad-Hoc Water Supply Advisory Committee Report, 1999.......... 4-2 4-2 Weighting Factors associated with rating criteria for water supply options, Ad- Hoc Water Supply Advisory Committee Report, 1999 4-3 4-3 Potential Water Supply Options, Ad-Hoc Water Supply Advisory Committee Report, 1999 4-4 4-4 Description of Scenarios for Ipswich River/MWRA Alternative 4-6 4-5 Million Gallons/Year Drawn from MWRA (Scenarios 1-5) 4-8 4-6 Million Gallons/Year Drawn from MWRA (Scenarios 3a-5a) 4-9 4-7 Million Gallons/Year Drawn from MWRA (Scenarios 6-8) 4-10 4-8 Test Well Results for Town Forest Bedrock Well Exploration 4-18 5-1 Seasonal Demand Pattern 5-4 5-2 Swift River Release at Winsor Dam 5-7 5-3 Modeled Swift River Spills 5-8 5-4 Ware River Diversions 5-9 5-5 Number of Months Spent in all Drought Management Plan Categories over 624 Month Record 5-14 7-1 Summary of Leak Detection Surveys 7-5 7-2 Comparisons of Reading's Average Price Water Rate to Highest Block Rates in MWRA Communities (per 100 cubic feet) 7-7 0 vi ML1619 Contents - Volume 2 - Appendices Appendix A Final EI[Z Distribution List Appendix B Ad Hoc Advisory Committee Report Appendix C Water Conservation Plan Appendix D Annual Statistical Reports (1997-2002) Appendix E 2003 Leak Detection Survey Appendix F Local Water Resources Management Plan Appendix G DEP Letter on Wellhead Protection, 12/ 27/ 02 Appendix H Executive Summary of WTP Feasibility Study Appendix I Town Forest Bedrock Well Exploration Study Appendix J DEP Letter on Town Forest Bedrock Wells, 1/03 Appendix K Bare Meadow Bedrock Well Evaluation Appendix L Life Cycle Cost Evaluation of Bare Meadow Wells Appendix M Meeting Minutes Re. Town Vote on Bedrock Wells Appendix N Sample Water Bill Appendix O Planning. for Growth Report U~F ML1929 Section. I Project Summary 1.1 Project Background and MEPA History This Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR), EOEA No. 12514, is filed in conjunction with the Town of Reading's Application for Membership into the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA) Waterworks System. Application for membership entails provision of water service by a state agency (or state authority, the MWRA) across a municipal boundary, thus requiring an EIR. An Environmental Notification Form (ENF) was filed on the project on April 30, 2001. The Secretary's Certificate, requiring an EIR and outlining scope items, was issued on June 8, 2001. A Draft EIR was filed on September 16, 2002. The Secretary issued a Certificate on the Draft EIR on November 1, 2002. The Certificate on the Draft EIR is provided in Section 10, along with comment letters on the Draft EIR. As described in the ENF and Draft EIR, the Town is seeking admission to the MWRA Waterworks System to replace a portion of its existing source of supply during low flow periods, up to a maximum of 219 million gallons of water per year. This figure equals 0.6 million gallons per day (mgd), averaged over a full year. The purchase would, however, only occur during the period when low flows in the Ipswich River typically occur, May through October. On this basis, the maximum of 219 million gallons per year averages to 1.2 mgd. As a general operating rule, the Town would typically produce 1 mgd from its wells in the Ipswich River Basin throughout the May-October period. The remainder of the water needed would be purchased from MWRA. The Town's projected maximum day demand is 3.8 mgd. Because of the possibility of contamination affecting the Towns wells again, as happened in 1992, the proposed maximum day purchase from MWRA is 3.8 mgd. The project will ensure a safe supply of water to the Town and will also reduce the stress placed on the Ipswich River by the Towns existing withdrawals. 1.2 Need for and Description of the Recommended Plan The Town of Reading currently takes all of its municipal water from its own sources, groundwater wells, in the Ipswich River Basin. Current finished water average day ' s demand is approximately 2.0 mgd (3.0 cubic feet per second), well below the Town with a year 2002 residential 57 mgd wal volume of 2 ithd , . ra registered raw water w ' s demand of 56 gallons per capita per day (gpcd). During dry years, the Town maximum day demand may rise to as much as 3.8 mgd. Average day high period f 15 3 d c s). . ( (May through October) demands for 1995-2002 averaged 2.1 mg 1-1 ML1687 Pin I'd Section 9 Project Summary Other municipalities that take groundwater from the Ipswich River Basin above the South Middleton gage include Wilmington, North Reading and the Lynnfield Center Water District. There are several Tier 1A contaminant release sites in North Reading that are in close proximity to the existing wellfield. While these sites are not currently impacting the Town of Reading's water supply, they remain a long-term concern. Although the Town's demands are below its registered withdrawals, the Ipswich River experiences significant periods of flow below natural conditions. Flow in the river routinely drops below its natural seven day/ ten year low flow (7Q10) of 5.8 cfs at the South Middleton gauge, and in extreme dry years has been observed to dry up completely. A study completed by the USGS in Fall 2000 entitled "A Precipitation Runoff Model for Analysis of the Effects of Water Withdrawals on Streanlflow, Ipswich River Basin, Massachusetts," indicates that cumulative groundwater withdrawals in the Ipswich River Basin substantially decrease flows in the river. In 1999, the Town commenced a study to develop a long-term water supply strategy that was less vulnerable to contamination than the existing supply. The study addressed future drinking water regulations and the Town's contribution to a reduction of flow in the Ipswich River. The 1999 study included projections of future demand, investigations of alternative sources of supply, consideration of other ways to mitigate adverse impacts associated with withdrawals from the Ipswich River and evaluation of conservation programs. The alternatives evaluated in the 1999 study included: continuation of current withdrawal rates from the Ipswich River, purchasing water from the MWRA to meet all of the Town's demands, purchasing water from the MWRA during periods of low flow in the Ipswich River, purchasing water from Andover, investigating bedrock wells in Town Forest, and implementing an aggressive water conservation program with the goal of reducing water usage by 190,000 gpd. The study concluded that the Towri s water supply objectives were best met by a program that includes a number of components, one of which is utilization of the MWRA as a source of supply during low flow periods for as much as 219 million gallons of water per year. This will allow the Town to reduce its withdrawals from the Ipswich River Basin during dry summer periods to approximately 1 mgd (1.5 cfs), a reduction of approximately 54 percent over current levels. The goal of the proposed transfer is to continue to serve the needs of the existing population while relieving some of the withdrawal stress on the Ipswich River Basin. The additional water supply is not needed because of additional development or plans for future development. More detail on the alternatives evaluated in the 1999 study is included in Section 4. This project requires minimal construction including a possible valve replacement and installation of instrumentation equipment, since it will utilize an emergency interconnection between the Town's distribution system and the MWRA's 1-2 ML1887 Section 1 Project Summary transmission mains that was constructed in 1993 (see Figure 1-1). The existing connection is via a 24-inch pipe, but has never been used by the Town of Reading. The construction was initiated as a result of a gasoline spill on Interstate Route I-93, adjacent to the Town's well field, that threatened the loss of the Town's water supply. 1.3 Summary of Project Alternatives As described further in Section 4 of this Final EIR, alternatives to the recommended plan (connecting to the MWRA system) include: 19 ■ No Action - Continued reliance on the existing nine groundwater supply wells will place continuous stress on the Ipswich River and its resources, especially during the months which typically experience low river flows. ® Expansion of Existing Local Sources/Reactivation of Abandoned Wells - Expansion of existing local sources is not a feasible option as current withdrawal rates from existing wells in the Hundred Acres wellfield place stress on the Ipswich River. Of the two wells in the Revay,wellfield, one is officially abandoned, while the other is at risk from a contaminated site in Wilmington and the Massachusetts Highway Department in Reading. ■ Development of Additional Sources - The Town assessed the feasibility of developing deep bedrock wells in the Town Forest and Bare Meadow areas. Results from the investigations indicate that bedrock wells would not supply a significant quantity of water and/or are prohibitively costly. The studied well locations were in the Ipswich River Basin, thus withdrawals would still affect the flows in the Ipswich River. ® Connection to Other Water Supply Systems (Andover) - The Town of Andover operates its own treatment plant with a supply from the Merrimack River. Andover sells _ water to other communities including North Reading and Tewksbury, and was therefore examined as a possible source of water for Reading even though it is not a contiguous community. However, the cost of such a connection is quite high and it is unlikely that Andover could meet Reading's demand forecast with the current demands on the Andover system. s Conservation - The goal of a conservation program is to reduce water usage by 190,000 gpd. This is expected to be achieved by an aggressive education and rebate program designed to encourage the installation of low-flow, water saving devices. 71 .11 ML1887 1-3 C- RD \ bum (ng.. \ ,C r~~asch a c , . 1 I ITERCH-I NGE p&ia= 1 G -12 NORTH 26 35 1 In Sc 6M 7t9.b V 1 y r-` Im C-1 . t w m ~Z\ X t( 0 ~ 1 Sr` as 't~" 7 L` i j +y O i . \ t it it o - 't-' V',_j BJ12al L fi' Rr p ® ` 1 ; y< O~ i \ P,arker sch + / J I e 1 \ ) dcll BM 23. h J 1 .Gravel P~t$ 7': ! o3pt > St i f ~ it? f 1 ~O1v OA S1 / ~~vtu~~ 1 ~ •~c~' f / ~~r~ d' !ter / m ~ ..I. ~~F~'TH Lip 1'+i ~ erg m~ ~ ~ ~~y.;:, \ t 1i • Substa 1~ .=.q~.,. 7 4d - ~ ' _ r..: 1 ~ ~ o X7.5 f", (t \1 gtlcrans~m-~"'~ •~i•r r -.,~•i'' ':V r r. 1 t J • t ; { _ . 't..~''.. _ iI r •t \ • ,1• t..J+ . j n'': •y ~/'y ` ' ~ ' r•.~ ' ! ~ .r~~ ~ j ~~a~ r .SOUTH Sol ki~ 4, OU ~ r6 Forest ' r h l,'~i5.- ~n:~ ~ - _ - LIM 1 ennedv t; 77, rk s l O1 I Btit r ` o' ' 0 2000 4000 Scale in Feet 60 Figure 1-1 Project Location Nap Section 1 Project Summary An Ad Hoc Water Supply Advisory Committee, established by the Reading Board of Selectmen in 1999, evaluated these and other alternatives and recommended that the Town continue to use its Ipswich River wellfield, while also joining the MWRA Waterworks System, investigating bedrock wells, and pursuing an aggressive water conservation program to reduce water demand on the Ipswich River watershed. A copy of the Ad Hoc Water Supply Advisory Committee's recommendations is summarized in Section 4 and included in Appendix B. 1.4 Final EIR Issues The Secretary's Certificate on the Draft EIR stated that the following issues should be addressed in the Final EIR. Reference to the appropriate section where each issue is addressed is provided in parentheses: ■ Commit to the full range of effective local water conservation measures that reduce demand on water supplies (Section 3); ® Explore alternative water supply sources to meet the need for supplemental water during seasonal low flow periods (Section 4); ■ Describe impacts on river basins within the MWRA system to meet all regulatory requirements under the Interbasin Transfer Act (Section 5); • Describe the process that will be employed to activate purchase of MWRA water during low flow conditions (Section 2); s Commit that relief offered by out-of-basin sources will be offset by reducing allowable local withdrawals to ensure that the Ipswich River ecosystem truly benefits from the project (Section 7); ® Document how the final preferred alternative is consistent with the Ipswich River Watershed Management Plan (Section 7); ■ Discuss each.state permit and approval necessary for the project and demonstrate that the project design meets applicable regulatory and performance standards (Section 7); and ® Present proposed Section 61 Findings (Section 8). Information provided in the Draft EIR is re-presented and updated in this Final EIR, if relevant to issues raised in the Secretary's Certificate and comment letters on the draft document. If there were no specific comments raised on a particular topic, information on that topic is not repeated herein. For example, Section 4 of the Draft EIR, which addresses the Existing Environment, is not repeated in this Final EIR since there were no specific comments raised on that section and there are no relevant updates to present. The reader is referred to the Draft EIR for more information on the existing conditions in the Ipswich River basin and donor river basin. 1-5 ML1887 Section 1 Project Summary 1.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures Because the project requires minimal construction, a possible valve replacement and installation of instrumentation equipment, there are no construction-related impacts associated with its implementation. The most significant impact is beneficial - a 54 percent reduction in Reading's withdrawals from the Ipswich River Basin during typical low river flow periods. The project will provide a sufficient source of water to Reading residents, while mitigating impacts on the Ipswich River. Impacts on the donor river basin (Chicopee and Ware Rivers), associated with the interconnection to the M.WRA system were evaluated by MWRA. Additional demand imposed by Reading on the MWRA system will not cause the MWRA to modify its existing controlled releases in any of its three donor river basins. 1.6 Organization of This Document The remainder of this Final EIR is organized as follows: ® Section 2 - Project Description a Section 3 - Water Conservation and Source Protection ® Section 4 - Alternatives Analysis s Section 5 - Impacts of the Preferred Alternative s Section 6 - Regional Strategies ■ Section 7 - Project Permits and Approvals a Section 8 - Proposed Section 61 Findings ■ Section 9 - Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR ' ■ Section 10 - MEPA Certificate and Comment Letters on the Draft EIR ■ Appendices (in a separate volume) 1®0 1 1-6 ML1887 , I;I Section 5 Impacts of the Preferred Altemative residential and commercial e ncies). The moderate e 'late of service area demand in 2025 is 246 m_ . A lower estimate of de d was also developed that assumes even greater ges of efficiency and er levels of leak detection correction. Altern ely, on the other end of . spectrum is the EOEA b . -out analysis that es tes water demand if ev.- ' available lot in MWRA unities was develo - . There is no time frame ched to the build-out sis. At the e of the Stoughton anal s the build-out report ha ' of been completed. It was able for the analysis o eading's demands and u d by MWRA staff to ev ate impacts to the don asin. For the purpose s analysis impacts we e luated using the conse five demand estimate o 64 mgd. The low es ' e and uild-out analysis are c • idered extremes that never occur. In the Draft E , M analyzed impacts u g annualized /ddeemanndd read over each month usin system-wide annual d : d curve. Conraised by commentors o s approa ch. For the F' EIR, MWRA revrvoir model to allow ne ommunities to be adde specific mom For the analyses MWRA assumed a base emand of 265 mgd. This number includes Stoughtor's demand of 1.15 mgd. The best estimates currently available for Reading, Wilmington, and Dedham-Westwood demands are summarized in Table 5-1 below. Table 5-1 Seasonal Demand Pattern - `~~Mon'tiis~ Readnkgr~'Denand~> - ~'tN+ittirngton D.emand' _ ~Uetlh'atn WestWood, ; pernan& Tofa"'l Demands January 0 -74 0 T.74 February 0 .74 0 .74 March 0 .74 0 .74 April 0 .74 0 .74 May 1.44 .74 .24 2.42 June . 1.44 1.52 .24 3.2 July 1.44 1.52 .24 3.2 August 1.44 1.52 .24 3.2 September 1.44 1.52 .24 3.2 October 0 .74 0 .74 November 0 .74 0 .74 December 0 .74 0 .74 Annualized 0.6 1.0 0.1 1.7 77d -ror the purpose of the Pint Pm, tnts aemana estimate was taicenlrom the most recent Wilmington Comprenhensive Water Resources Management Plan (CWRMP) being prepared by SEA Consultants, Inc. z Since the DEIR submittal MWRA has had preliminary discussion with the Dedham-Westwood Water District regarding summer period supply. An estimate 'of demand has been included for analysis. 110015 5-4 ML1891 19 Section 9 Responses to Comments on Draft EIR would be required, as we an Interbasin Transfer Ac roval and MEP approval. Because thes dies and improvements e not needed to chase water from the , the Town selected . connection to the in conj on with an aggressive r conservation am aimed a trther r cing water usage by 190 gallons per day e preferred ernative. DEP supports the T s decision not to pursue connection with Andover further, as indicated in their comment letter tb~ 3-17) Town of Reading believes (Draft EIR p. 6-7) that "maintaining its current registered volume will protect the positive effects the proposed project will have on the Ipswich River." Presumably this means that so long as Reading does not in fact take more of its allowed registration, (but there is no retirement of the admittedly over- registered amount), then the DEP will have difficulhj permitting increased withdrawals elsewhere in the basin. If so, this is certainly a fragile and unduly optimistic substitute for a comprehensive solution. The Town has considered a reduction in its registered volume, and has had discussions with DEP regarding such. The Town is in receipt of DEP's letter, dated June 16, 2003, which includes recommended modifications to the Town's existing registration. However, the Town intends to retain its current registered raw water withdrawal volume of 2.57 mgd with the proposed alternative. As discussed in Section 7.3, the Town proposes several alternatives to address the concern that the sum of the Ipswich River withdrawals and purchase from MWRA could exceed its existing registered volume. These include: enhanced reporting, an Interbasin Transfer Permit Condition and/or a Memorandum of Understanding. Please refer to Section 7.3 for a full discussion of the Towns proposed approach. 4-1) The United States Geological Survey's hydrological model of the Ipswich River Watershed identified groundwater withdrawals in Reading as a major cause of streamflow depletion. A subsequent study of management alternatives found that decreases in these water withdrawals reduced the number of no flow days in the river each year. No response required. 4-2) The Town of Reading has already greatly improved water conservation, receiving the first A-level grade on the Ipswich River Water Conservation Report Card in 2002. The -17 ML1857 Section 9 Responses to Comments on Draft EIR Town has also committed substantial funding to ensure that these efforts and successes continue. IRWA commends these efforts. -However, the town's main wellfield will continue to dewater the Ipswich River, even with effective water conservation programs. The wellfield is located immediately adjacent to the river reach most severely impacted by dewatering. This site experiences chronic and severe environmental damage, including massive kills offish and aquatic macroinvertebrates and other disruption of ecosystem function. No response required. 4-3) IRWA believes that the Town must willingly retire the portion of its Ipswich River water withdrawal registration, equal to the amount of water it intends to import. Only by doing so can the issue of viable local sources be resolved, and assurance given that the water imported will not simply fuel growth, so that the Ipswich River will indeed benefit from the MWRA purchase. See response to Comment 3-t7, 4-4) Other issues must be addressed, including how/when to trigger the import of water. IRWA would support either a seasonal approach (purchase from May-October) or having the purchase be triggered by lozv flozv conditions, measured at the river reach adjacent to the wellfield. As described in the Draft EIR, the proposed alternative is for the Town to withdraw 1 mgd from its wells in the Ipswich River basin, as a general operating rule during the period from May to September. In response to comments on the Draft EIR, the Town has re-evaluated the timeframe for purchasing water from the MWRA (and concurrently reducing pumping from its wells in the Ipswich River basin) and proposes the following. The Town is seeking admission to the MWRA Waterworks System to replace a portion of its existing source of supply during low flow periods, up to a maximum of 219 million gallons of water per year. This figure equals 0.6 million gallons per day (mgd), averaged over a full year. The purchase would, however, only occur during the period when low flows in the Ipswich River typically occur, May through October. On this basis, the maximum of 219 million gallons per year averages to 1.2 mgd. As a general operating rule, the Town would typically produce 1 mgd from its wells in the Ipswich River Basin., throughout the May-October period. The. remainder of water needed to satisfy demand would be purchased from MWRA. As discussed in detail in Section 4.3.2, upgrades to the Towns existing water treatment facility, if constructed, would provide the Town with enhanced operation flexibility and the potential for enhanced automated control of well 9-18. 1117 ML1857 Section 9 Responses to Comments on Draft EIR withdrawals based on streamflow triggers. An upgraded water treatment facility will allow the Town to operate the plant at reduced flow conditions. The Town will re-evaluate the purchase of MWRA water based on streamflow triggers on a daily basis if upgrades to the water treatment plant are constructed. 45) This issue raises the associated question of whether the proposed purchase of 600,000 gallons per day on an annualized basis will be sufficient to alleviate the impacts on the Ipswich River. IRWA believes that this volume will not be sufficient to eliminate the dewatering problem caused by Reading's wells. The town should be prepared to continue water restrictions, including bans on irrigation water (more effective than the even-odd restrictions Reading has relied on) during drought periods. Yet the public perception may be that purchase of AMRA water will mean an end to watering restrictions - and could result in higher water demand. IRWA remains concerned about the public perception, the sufficiency of the .6 mgd purchase and the impact of continued pumping of 1 mgd from the wells adjacent to the Ipswich River. The Town of Reading is committed to aggressive water conservation measures, both in terms of municipally funded measures and aggressive public education and outreach to encourage residents to actively conserve water. As of July 2003, the Town is currently under contract with its consultant to implement the four-year, $1 million water conservation program. A public meeting is scheduled for September 17, 2003. See Section 3 for further information on the water conservation program currently being implemented by the Town. CQ7i`unete5~ fie psycRy~~a1~tlE 14"ageni tour 5-1) Council supports the Town of Reading's application to be connected to and obtain some of its water supply from the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority Waterworks System because we believe that it will enable and result in a reduction in water withdrawals from streamside wells and thereby restore stream/low in the Ipswich River during critically dry.periods. We believe that the admission of the Town of Reading to the A4K7RA system will enable and should stipulate that the Town of Reading use MRWA water to supplement its water supply in order to reduce its pumping from streamside wells by the saine amount during low flow periods. No response required. 9-19 11,18 ML1857 IPSWICH RVER WATERSHED ASSOCIATION PO Box 576, Ipswich, MA 01938 October 23, 2003 Secretary Ellen Roy Herzfelder Executive Off ce of Environmental Affairs Attn: MEPA Office Anne Canady, MEPA Analyst, 251 Causeway Street Boston, MA 02114 1%LU G OCT 2 7 2003 EPA RE: EOEA No. 12514, Town of Reading Admission to MWRA Waterworks System Dear Secretary Herzfelder, The Ipswich River Watershed Association (IRWA) respectfuly submits the following comments on Reading's FEIR for admission to the MWRA Waterworks System. This MEPA decision is particularly important, as.it can help determine whether EOEA in effect sanctions continued environmental damage, or Whether the Town of Reading will be required to take reasonable and feasible actions to fully mitigate its water withdrawalimpacts and restore the river to health. IRWA urges you to use this opportunity and the authority of MEPA to achieve actual restoration of the Ipswich River. IRWA agrees with the Town of Reading that a comprehensive approach to is needed to restore and maintain the river's health, and that effective regulatory controls are necessary to ensure that the benefits of Reading's actions accrue to the river. IRWA especially wishes to commend Reading for its commitment to improving water conservation, and particularly its allocation of substantial funding toward this purpose. The FEIR has many positive aspects, but fails to propose an effective comprehensive approach and is particularly deficient in crucial areas of analysis. IRWA therefore recommends that a Supplemental EIR (SEIR) be required. [or you can say that the Secretary must mandate certain conditions] Balancing the water budget is key to restoring the Ipswich River. The Ipswich River Management Plan identifies a goal of 5-6 million gallons a day (mgd) needed to augment streamflow during the low-flow, season in the headwaters communities of Reading and Wilmington, where the Ipswich River is most stressed. This is not mentioned anywhere in the Reading FEIR, a major omission which leads to a lack of any clear goal for streainflow restoration. Instead, the FEIR recommends pumping 1.0 mgd from the Ipswich sources in summer "regardless of the flow in the river," and does not identify the volume of water that can be safely pumped from the Ipswich River sources without drying up/ damaging the river. The FEIR proposes that Reading will purchase 1.2 mgd during the May -October period (0.6 mgd on an annual basis) to meet a projected average day demand of 2.2 mgd during that time of year: IRWA comments on Readi ig FEIR, Admission to AffRA Waterlvorks System / Zap I Remarkably, the 1.0 mgd figure is not based on any evaluation whatsoever of the "carrying capacity" of the Ipswich River to provide water during the low-flow season. The "justification" presented for this number is the need to keep the treatment plant rumiing and the staff employed. Despite its many fine qualities, the FEIR has to be rejected as incomplete, because it fails to evaluate the key question of how much water the Ipswich River can safely provide to the Town of Reading without experiencing damage. This is the most important consideration of the entire project. That the report recommends a withdrawal volume without any substantiation that it will not continue to cause serious damage is simply unacceptable. In fact, we know, based on U.S. Geological Survey's modeling, that the proposed volume of withdrawal will continue to dry up the upper reaches of the river and cause serious ecological damage. We also know that Reading's proposed purchase of water is not adequate to mitigate the damage to the environment caused by the Town of Reading to the Ipswich River. Background: The FEIR gives short shrift to the background conditions of the Ipswich River, and particulary fails to mention the extremely severe impact of the Reading wells on the river. This part should be rewritten to include a more accurate and complete description of the condition of the river, especially an assessment of the damage resulting from the use of Reading's wells. The Ipswich River is now recognized as the third most endangered river in the nation (American . Rivers, 2003), reflecting the worsening trend since it was named one of the 20 most threatened rivers of 1997. The Ipswich River is also listed as impaired on the 303(d) list of waters impaired under the Federal Clean Water Act, and it is a highly stressed basin by all criteria established by the Massachusetts Water Resources Commission. Nowhere is the condition of the Ipswich River worse than in the reach adjacent to the Town of Reading' wellfields, which have pumped the river dry for decades. I have personally witnessed numerous fish kills numbering tens of thousands of fish at that location, as well as other serious environmental damage. Photos taken in the river reach adjacent to the Reading wellfield are attached for yourreference. The United States Geological Survey has studied the Ipswich River since at least the 1950's, when it identified the Town of Reading's wellfields as a significant cause of reduced flows. After 40 years of increased damage, USGS undertook additional studies in the late 1990's, concluding that groundwater withdrawals significantly reduce flows in the Ipswich River. These withdrawals, combined with land use change and out-of-basin wastewater transfers, cause flow reductions of more than 90% at the South Middleton streamflow gauge. As bad as this is, the situation upstream in Reading is even worse. There, zero flows occur more than 10% of the time, primarily due to the Reading wells. These no-flow conditions directly cause frequent, massive kills of fish, macro invertebrates and other creatures dependent on the aquatic environment. Over time, these events have drastically altered the river's fish community, extirpating flow-dependent fish species. At the same time, the loss of groundwater baseflow results in higher temperatures in the river, which some organisms cannot tolerate. The increased temperatures are associated with extremely low dissolved oxygen, typically below 3 ppm in summer and often 0-1 ppm - obviously inhospitable to aquatic life. Low oxygen is also a factor in the release of pollutants from soils into the water column. Last year, ATV's and dirt Mlfel comments on Reading FEIR, Admission to AtT RA Waterworks Sustetn , ~ bikes tore up the riverbed, again adjacent to the Town of Reading's wellfields. These effects result in the failure of the Ipswich River to meet its designated uses under the Clean Water Act, and the failure of Massachusetts citizens to receive the protections guaranteed under the Massachusetts Constitution and other law. It is against this background that Reading's proposal to purchase water from MWRA must be evaluated. Comments on proposal and FEIR: 1) IRWA supports Reading's efforts to purchase water from MWRA to enable the town to reduce the use of its sreamside wells during the May-October period. However, the purchase of 0.6 mgd will not be sufficient to restore the flows needed in the river, even without additional growth. The FEIR notes that this volume will only enable summer withdrawals from the Ipswich River sources to be reduced by 54%. However, USGS reported that: "Simulations of reduced seasonal withdrawals by 50 percent resulted in a modest increase in low flow in a critical habitat reach (model reach 8 near the Reading town well field); log-Pearson Type III analysis of simulated daily-mean flow indicated that under these reduced withdrawals, model reach 8 would stop flowing for a period of seven consecutive days about every other year, whereas under average 1989-93 withdrawals this reach would.stop flowing for a seven consecutive day period almost every year.... Simulations of no seasonal withdrawals, and simulations that stopped stream/7ow depletion when flow in model reach 19 was below 22 cubic feet per second, indicated flow would be maintained in model reach 8 at all times."' (emphasis added) The proposal in effect is to continue to destroy the Ipswich River in that location biannually instead of annually[?}; this is not good enough. Reading can and should be required to do more to mitigate the extreme damage it has caused to the river. While IRWA is sensitive to the town's desire to keep water treatment facility staff employed over the summer, this cannot justify continuing damage to the environment. In the SEIR, the Town should be required to determine what threshold of well pumping will result in no significant reduction in flows in the Ipswich River, and should be limited via a summer cap to that withdrawal volume. The current study does things in reverse - it assumes that 1.0 mgd from the Ipswich sources will be satisfactory - with absolutely no justification of that number whatsoever - and then bases the volume to be, imported on that figure. On the contrary, the "carrying capacity" or safe yield of the river should be determined first, in order to identify how much of a water shortfall must be met. How much water can be pumped from the wells without drying up the river? That amount needs to be identified and imposed as the summer cap figure. 2) In order to gain admission to MWRA, Reading should: a. Reevaluate Reading's registration, which was based on data that conflicted with the Annual Statistical Reports submitted by Reading during the 1981-85 base period; thus the registration was artificially inflated in the first place; Zarriello, Phillip J., Effects of Water-Management Alternatives on Streamflow in the Ipswich River Basin, Massachusetts, United States Geological Survey, Open-File Report 01-483, 2001. ~2-3 IRYYA comments on Reading FEIR, Admission to MFVRA Waterworks System b. Retire a portion of Reading's registration, proportional to the volume purchased; i. without retiring the registration, Reading's application to MWRA is susceptible to challenge because of existing viable sources ii. the reduction in the registration will help ensure that new water demand does not put additional demand on the Ipswich River 111. c. Be held to standards at least as stringent as those required of other Ipswich basin communities in their modified Water Management Act permits. (In some cases, Reading is already achieving those performance standards, and its current conservation program should allowfurther gains). IRWA believes that given Reading's extreme impact on the river, the following conditions should be applied to the MWRA authorization, at a minimum: i. Mandatory water bans on non-essential uses when flows are below 0.49 cfsm threshold (even-odd restrictions are inadequate; no sprinklers) ii. A summer cap for the May-October period; IRWA believes the summer cap should be based on restoring the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the river as described .above; but in no case should it exceed .52 mgd, which is the cap which was applied to North Reading iii. An offset or mitigation requirement in a ratio of 2.5: 1 Improved performance standards on residential per capita water use and and unaccounted for, or non- account, water iv. Enhanced Industrial/ Commercial/ Institutional (ICI) water conservation program v. Monitoring of streamflows in Reading, adjacent to the well field or at Mill Street, to regulate withdrawals and/or mandatory restrictions vi. Making private irrigation wells subject to streamflow restrictions; or having mandatory restrictions become total bans d. implement an inclining block rate structure and seasonal pricing 3) The FEIR makes note of additional demand, based on projects "in the pipeline," of at least 250,000 gallons per day. Appendix F cites MAPC's estimate of an additional 2050 people at buildout, implying increases in residential water use of about 123,000 gpd. The commercial figures are not available, but certain types of ICI development would result in significant water usage. The analysis of future demand does not include contingency, such as the possibility of "4013" or other dense development. Based on the information in various sections of the report, anticipated and projected demand will offset at least half of the proposed gain from the purchase of MWRA water. Given the need for a higher than 1:1 mitigation ratio to actually achieve gains for the river, the 0.6 mgd MWRA purchase can really only be considered mitigation for projected development, and does not offer substantial gains for the river. This is not good enough, given the extreme stress on the river. 4) The stormwater management section is extremely vague and suggests no numeric values for the amount of groundwater recharge that can be achieved. At the least, the report should evaluate and recommend ratios for stormwater mitigation that will substantially improve groundwater recharge, and how they will be incorporated into town regulations. 5) Wastewater treatment and reuse is dismissed without adequate consideration due to costs, yet the costs may indeed be on a par with options that are being recommended in the FEIR. For example, 40 lRlfrt comments on Reaclirzg FElR, Admission to .LlIG'R:1 Waterworks Ss%stem iar despite all the contamination issues and threats, the report recommends rehabilitation or replacement of the Water Treatment Plant, along with maintenance of wells estimated to cost tens of millions of dollars. Certainly there are wastewater reuse options within this ballpark in terms of costs. Further, the costs could be substantially reduced if DEP were to allow the use of alternate means of discharge of treated effluent, such as injection or wicking-wells, which have been used elsewhere in Massachusetts. Considering wastewater reuse is particularly important, because wastewater volumes are available every day, regardless of the weather. USGS's evaluation of management alternatives found that flows equal to or even exceeding natural baseline conditions could be achieved by a combination of reduced use of streamside wells along with in-basin wastewater treatment and discharge. This option may indeed be preferable to some of the proposals being advanced in the FEIR. Additional specific comments: 1) Flow duration curves should be added representing flows at Mill Street reach (#8 in USGS study), as this shows the impacts of Reading's wells more accurately than the use of the South Middleton gauge flow duration curves in Figure 4-1 2) In Figure 4-1, flow duration curves representing scenarios 6-8 (no withdrawal) were omitted. They should be added, along with an intermediate amount of withdrawal from the Ipswich sources (such as .5 mgd instead of 1 mgd for the low-flow season). 3) While the report uses 1997 as representative of a "normal" precipitation year, that year the river experienced the lowest flows ever) recorded (to that time), breaking a record which had held for 40 years.2 4) The "fee-based developer program" for I/I removal seems like a good model for the water bank concept, and could potentially be expanded to include water conservation and stormwater BMP's. 5) Redirecting illicit discharges to storm drains is better than having them go in the sewers, but it would be even more effective to use them to recharge groundwater or to be stored in small- scale storage devices. 6) Wilmington has concluded that 1.0 mgd purchase will be insufficient to meet its needs, and is currently considering at least 1.5 mgd. This should be reflected in the analysis; and Reading should include an evaluation with a higher volume water purchase. In conclusion, the benefit of importing 0.6 mgd to Reading falls far short of what is needed to avoid, minimize or mitgation damage to the environment to the greatest extent feasible and to achieve real improvement in the condition of the river. The FEIR. proposal is inadequate to meet the goal of the Federal Clean Water Act to "restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity" of the Ipswich River. The Town of Reading has the ability both the to reduce and to mitigate its impact on the Ipswich River to a much greater extent than it proposes to do in the FEIR. IRWA specifically asks that Reading be required in the SEIR to evaluate and discuss how much water can be withdrawn from its wells without causing the Ipswich River to dry up (based on a severe drought scenario, as required under the Water Management Act). This number should be the basi.s-for determining how much water the town should import. Firm limits, based on the capacity of the water resource rather than treatment plant operational issues, should be established for the Ipswich River withdrawals during the low-flow season. The town's registration should be reduced in proportion to the water imported, and stringent conditions imposed on its withdrawal, including a 2 The 1997 record was itself broken in 2002, also not a significant drought year. Based on USGS strearaflow gauge data. IRPYA comments on Reacting FEIR, A&WSSiO17 tO MTMI Waterworks Svstem ! L a- S water offset program for new demand that provides for saving or returning at least 2 gallons for every new gallon of demand. Both legally and from a fairness perspective, Reading, which has the largest impact of any community on the Ipswich River's flows, must be required to minimize and effectively mitgate its impacts in order to purchase water from the MWRA. The FEIR is inadequate in this respect and fails to comply with MEPA. Thank you very much for your consideration. Sincerely, Kerry Mackin Kerry Mackin Executive Director IRtlrrt comment..s on Reading FFIR; Admission to MWRA Waterworks Svslen7 /1-04 Ipswich River Photo Album 1995 ® "There's no problem; use all the water you want." ® Led to formation of Ipswich River Task Force (later Management Council) 1997 ® Set new all-time low-flow records (.05 cfs, compared to prior record of. I cfs which had held for 40 years ® On 63, days (>2 months) flows were lower than at any time during the drought of record (1965-66) I L400) River in Sad Shape; No Sign of Life Photo by Kerry Mackin Photo by Mary Jane Morrin 1999 Mussels can't make it in Massachusetts Photos by Dave Armstrong, U. S. Geological Survey • USGS Studies found that water withdrawals and other alterations of the watershed result in low-flows only 1/10 of what they would be naturally at South Middleton e Fish community has been decimated by low-flow problems, resulting in the loss of flow-dependent species like brook trout it-15 i, ~t u n 2002 Worst Low-flows in History Adding insult to injury: Dead fish and ATV/Dirt Bike. tracks in the Ipswich River Photos by Gina. Snyder Broke the all-time low-flow record that had been set in 1997 ® New low-flow record is only 1/l0 of what it had been from prior to 1997 and only one-fift of the 1997 extreme low-flow 2-OV 'I The Ghost Fish Photo by Gina Snyder Young-of the-Year Photo by Lou Wagner • ATVs and dirt bikes used.the river as a off-road vehicle track, causing additional damage Mill Road Bridge, Ipswich Photo by Keny Mackin • USGS studies show that the Ipswich River can be restored to health, with streamflows at or, even exceeding natural baseline flows • The Ipswich River Management Plan recommends a series of actions to restore healthy streamflows • Implementing this Plan is the key to restoring the Ipswich River r Jl I. ..1. LI)1). i; a NIU. 349 I 1 J COMMONWEALT.-H OF MASSACHUSETTS BxECUTIvE OFFICE bF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ME+ TROPOLITAiNT BOSTON - NORTHEAST REGIONAL OFFICE MITT rtwvw IY . ELLEN ROY'.TmrZVELr) ER Governor Secsetsry KERR'Y' HEALEy ROBERT W. QOLT4DGE, Jr. Lieutenant Governor CorpaSe$iotaer CT_ 3 0.2003 Ellen Roy Herzfelder,*Secretary i Executive Office of Environmental Affairs 251 Causeway Street, Suite 900 Boston MA, 02114 October 29, 2003 RE: Reading Admission to the MWRA. Waterworks System EOEA # 12514 Attn: N IEPA Unit Dear Secretary Herzfelder. The Department of Environmental Protection Northeast Regional Office has reviewed the Final Environmental Impact Report gFE[R) submitted by the Town of Reading regarding the Toum's request for adrz)ission to the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, waterworks system (EOEA# 12514). Tk e Department provides the following comments. The gravity of the low flow situation" in the headwaters of the Ipswich River Basin is captured in the Ipswich River Watershed Management Plan -.(2002), "On average, no-flow events occur over 101116 of the time (more than 36.5 days a year) in the Reading area. In drought years, low-flow events can extend for six months--" Solving a problem of this magnitude and restoring riverine flow conditions to .the Ipswich requires an unprecedented level -of cooperation arnong communities that accept their responsibility for correcting a fair share of the problem. The Town's proposed water purchase of water from the MWRA reflects that cooperation. To contribute to a solution to the Ipswich River's low flow problems, the Town proposes to limit the use of its Ipswich River Basin sources to one million gallons per day from May 1 through October 31', the portion of the year when seasonal flows are the lowest and thus the most likely to have the greatest impact on the viability of aquatic life. Based on the USGrS studies, the Department is confident that flow conditions in the Ipswich River will improve as a result of the Reading's import of water and the many other actions being taken by water suppliers and others ira the Ipswlbh River Basin. This informallon is avatlahlc in alternate format by calling our ADA Coordinator at (617) $74.6M Onc Winter Street, Boaton, MA 02108- Phone (817) 65"SW - Fax (617) SS6-1049 ft TOD 4 (800) 7.98.2207 DEP on tho WoMd Wlde Web; http://wWw.s1ate.ma.us/dap Primed on Recycled Paper 134 F-~ ,,i r i \dtnissio.a ca be L~!A-' p ~Var.ervrorks System EO~A # 1281.4 The Town's effort to purchase water, tea improve conditions in the Ipswich River follows a history of proactive conservation efforts that enable the Town co exceed :he Water Resource Commission standards by keeping residential per capita water use at less than 65 gallorfs per day and unaccounted for water use at or below 1095. Reading proposes to continue its conservation efforts after the Town begins purchasing water from the NTVVRA. Accordingly, Reading's proposal includes a commitment to beep its overall water use, including water purchased from the MWRA and water from its own sources, to the 2.57 mgd Currently in its Registration. Reading has also pledged to continue its conservation efforts including its rebate program for 1cw flow toilets, high efficiency washing machines and moisture sensors for irrigation, annual leafs detection through 2006 and outdoor watering restrictions. The Town has also agreed to improve conditions in the Ipswich River by reducing infiltration and inflow and by promoting stormwater recharge. In its comments on the DEIR, , the Department noted that Reading'; registered volume exceeds its current and anticipated future needs. The Department asked Reading to consider retiring ' a portion of its registered volume or placing a portion of its authorized volume under a Water Management Act Permit. The Town rejected these approaches. .Subsequent to the filing of the FEIR, the Department met with Reading to resolve this issue and to identify an appropriate vehicle for memorializing the Town's commitrr:cnts. As a result of this meeting, the Department and the Town agreed that the Town would include in its Interbasin Transfer Act application a revised Water Management Act registration that would set out certain conditions that would take effect in the event that the Interbasin Transfer Act application is approved. The Department proposes the following draft conditions for the MCPA Certificate. The Town has agreed conceptually to revise its Registration per these conditions. However, the Town reserves the right to have its legal counsel review and approved the wording of the revised Registration before agreeing to specific conditions, and the Department will consider public input throughout the permitting process. 1. Until January-l-, 2008 when Reading's exisdag Registration expires, Reading's -overall. water use (including water purchased from the NTVVRA and water withdrawn from the Town's registered sources) shall not e;tceed an annual average of 2.57 million gallons per day plus the 100,000 gallons per day threshold allowed in the Water Management Act. Reading shall not have the right to use a greater volume of water by virtue of the purchase of water from the MW-RA. 2. On January 1, 2008, when Reading's existing Registration expires; the Department will make no distinction between the amount withdrawn from the Town's in-basin sources and the amount purchased from the MWRA. Reading's actual purchases of water from the MV-`RA shall not by itself, be a ground for reducing the Town's right to withdraw water from the Ipswich River Basin under its Registration. 3. In any year that Reading exercises its right to purchase water from the MVIRA under the Interbasin Transfer Act approval, Reading shall implement the conservation measures and manage its. own sources as set forth in its Interbasin Transfer Act application and in accordance with the conditions required in that approval and the Performance Standards of the Water Resources Commission. The Department believes that the conditions outlined above balance the need to protect and preserve the Ipswich River as well as the Quabbin and Waehusetr Reservoirs as viable habitats for aquatic life and as drinking water sources. These conditions allow the Town to ensure that the citizens of Reading have a'continued source of safe drinking water while taking proactive measures 2 1 r:dniiesion to the MV/RA WateMn*S System ROEA 412514 to improve conditions in the Ipswich River so that it may function as a valuable environmental resource and a treasured place for active and passive recreation for fuwre generations. The DEP Northeast Regional Office appreciates the opportunity to comment on this proposed project. Please contact Kellie O'Keefe at (617) 654-6522 for further information- incerel , ohn Felix, Deputy Regional Director cc: Madelyn Morris, DEP-NERD DuaneLeVangie, DEP-Boston Eric Worrall, DEP-Boston Brona. Simon, Massachusetts Historical Commission Kellie O'Keefe, DEP-NERO Michelle Drury, DEM 3 130-15 W ol 6}*el ol &m al~t~ 251 '6aw4~ Y4ea gai& 900 02,174-2779 MITT ROMNEY GOVERNOR Tel. (617) 626-1000 KERRY HEALEY Fax (617) 626-1181 LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR httpJ/www.mass.gov/envir ELLEN ROY HERZFELDER . SECRETARY October 31, 2003 CERTIFICATE OF THE SECRETARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS ON THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PROJECT NAME : Admission to the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA)Waterworks System PROJECT MUNICIPALITY : Reading PROJECT WATERSHED : Ipswich/North Coastal EOEA NUMBER :12514 PROJECT PROPONENT : Town of Reading DATE NOTICED IN MONITOR : September 24, 2003 As Secretary of Environmental Affairs; I herby determine that the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) submitted on the above project adequately and properly complies with the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA, M.G. L., c. 30, ss. 61-62M and Section 11.06 of the MEPA regulations (301 CMR 11.00). Project Description The project involves the Town of Reading's proposed water supply connection to the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA). The purposes of the project are to ensure a safe supply of water to the Town and to reduce the stress placed on the Ipswich River by the Town's existing withdrawals. The Town is seeking admission to the MWRA Waterworks System to replace a portion of its existing source of supply during warm weather, when the Ipswich River experiences low flow problems. To contribute to a solution to the river's low flow problems, the Town proposes to limit the use of its Ipswich River basin groundwater sources to one million gallons per day from May 1 through October 31 the portion of the year when seasonal flows are the lowest and thus the most likely to have the greatest impact on the viability of aquatic life. 0 Printed onRecydedStock 20%Post ConsumerWaste 14-I EOEA# 12514 FEIR Certificate 10/31103 As the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has stated in its comment letter on the FEIR, solving the severe seasonal low flow problems of the Ipswich River will require an unprecedented level of cooperation among communities that accept their responsibility for correcting a fair share of the problem. Reading's proposal to reduce its use of Ipswich Basin water is only one measure among many that will be necessary to restore the Ipswich River to health, but it is an important step. I note that the Town of Wilmington has just completed its Draft Comprehensive Water Resource Plan, and anticipate that it will propose additional actions that will work toward the important goal of addressing low flow conditions. The Town of Reading's effort to purchase water to improve conditions in the Ipswich River follows a history of proactive conservation efforts that enable the Town to exceed the Water 'Resource Commission (WRC) standards by keeping residential per capita water use at less than 65 gallons per day and unaccounted for water use at or below 10%. Reading proposes to continue its conservation efforts after the Town begins purchasing water from the MWRA. Accordingly, Reading's proposal includes a commitment to keep its overall water use, including water purchased from the MWRA and water from its own sources, to the 2.57 mgd currently in its registration. Reading has also pledged to continue its conservation efforts, including its rebate program for low flow toilets, high efficiency washing machines, and moisture sensors for irrigation; and, annual leak detection through 2006 and outdoor watering restrictions. The Town has also agreed to improve conditions in the Ipswich River by reducing infiltration and inflow to sewer lines and by promoting Ntormwater recharge. Permits and Jurisdiction This project is subject to MEPA review and requires the preparation of an EIR pursuant to Section 11.03(4)(a)(2) of the MEPA regulations, because it involves a new interbasin transfer of water of 1,000,000 or more gallons per day (gpd). The project requires approval of the WRC under the Interbasin. Transfer Act (ITA). It also requires MWRA approval of its application to connect to the water supply„sysxem, The proponent will not seek financial assistance from a state agency. Therefore, MEPA jurisdiction is limited to significant environmental impacts related to the subject matter of the required permits. The scope for the EIR, established in the ENF Certificate issued June 8, 2001, required that the EIR include all of the information necessary for the project to complete the MWRA and WRC approval process: It required the proponent to expand the alternatives analysis to include a detailed description of alternative local water supply sources, the impacts of the proposed project on the Ipswich River, the Quabbin and the Wachusett Reservoirs and the Ware River, and the Town's efforts to protect its existing local water supply sources. The proponent was also asked to include in the EIR a description of the Town's water conservation efforts, the proposed project's compliance with Executive Order 385, Planning for Growth, and any other applicable local and regional growth management plans. 2 Ll A. EOEA# 12514 FEIR Certificate 10/31/03 The DEIR provided an initial response to those requirements. The FEIR has generally responded adequately and resolved many of the remaining issues outlined in the Certificate on the DEIR. DEP has indicated that it is satisfied with the additional information presented in the FEIR. Interbasin Transfer Act (ITA) . In its comment letter, the WRC expresses general satisfaction with the adequacy of the information in the FEIR, but identifies several issues that need clarifying. The WRC will require the proponent to provide information to fully evaluate this proposal against ITA Criteria #2 (identify all viable water supply sources in the regeiving area of the proposed interbasin transfer), Criteria #3 (all practical measures to conserve water have been taken in the receiving area) and Criteria #5 (reasonable instream flow in the river from which the water is transferred is maintained) during the ITA permitting. I strongly encourage the proponent to work closely with WRC because the VJRC cannot find the Reading ITA application complete until the information requests are adequately addressed. Application to Join MWRA As described in the MWRA's comment letter, certain information in the FEIR is a prelude to the information the MWRA will consider as part of a completed application and request for admission to the MWRA Waterworks System. The criteria for admission as a new community into the MWRA Waterworks System are set forth in the MWRA's Operating Policy #10 (OP. 10, Admission of a New Community to the MWRA Water System under the MWRA.'s Water and Wastewater System Expansion Policies). The MWRA notes that the FEIR provided further clarification on the status of conservation programs undertaken by the Town, which is an important step in addressing the requirements of OP. 10 related to water conservation and water accountability. The MWRA will continue to seek information on implementation of the Water Conservation Plan including the Town's evolving plans to manage outdoor water use. MWRA's review will also include other findings and requirements, including the submission of a Local Water Supply Management Plan that identifies all water supply options. Prior to a submission of a completed application to the MWRA, the MWRA must review Reading's request under the ITA. The MWRA is coordinating with the WRC on stream flows and habitat concerns in the donor basins that are not specific to Reading's application but that the WRC has requested the MWRA to consider. Water Withdrawal Registration According to DEP's comment letter, the proponent has met with DEP and agreed that the Town will include in its ITA application a revised Water Management Act registration that would set out certain conditions that would take effect in the event that the ITA application is ry-3 EOEA#12514 FEIR Certificate 10/31/03 approved. The Town has agreed conceptually to revise its registration in accordance with those conditions. I adopt DEP's comments as my own and ask the proponent to address those issues to DEP's satisfaction in project permitting. DEP's proposed conditions include: 1. Until January 1, 2008, when Reading's existing registration expires, Reading's overall water use (including water purchased from the MWRA and water withdrawn from the Town's registered sources) shall not exceed an annual average of 2.57 million gallons per day plus the 100,000 gallons per day threshold allowed in the Water Management Act. Reading shall not have the right to use a greater volume of water by virtue of the purchase of water from the MWRA. 2. Oil January 1, 2008, when Reading's existing registration expires, DEP will make no distinction between the amount withdrawn from the Town's in-basin sources and the amount purchased from the MWRA. Reading's actual purchases of water from the MWRA shall not by itself be a ground for reducing the Town's right to withdraw water from the Ipswich River Basin under its registration. 3. In any year that Reading exercises its right to purchase water from the MWRA under the Interbasin Transfer Act approval, Reading shall implement the conservation measures and manage its own sources as set forth in its Interbasin Transfer Act application and in accordance with the conditions required in that approval and the Performance Standards of the Water Resources Commission. The Town has agreed to reserve the right to have its legal counsel review and approve the wording. of the revised registration before agreeing to specific conditions, and. DEP has agreed to consider public input throughout the permitting process. I am satisfied that the project has avoided and mitigated environmental impacts to the extent feasible, and that the state permitting agencies have adequate information to base their permit decisions, and sufficicnt permitting authority to ensure that any remaining issues are adequately addressed. October 31, 2003 Date Ellen Roy feld Comments received: 10/06/03 MWRA Advisory Board 10/23/03 The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Water Resources Commission 10/24/03 Massachusetts Water Resources Authority 4 /y-4 EOEA# 12514 FEIR Certificate 10/24/03 Reading, North Reading Stream Team 10%24/03 Commonwealth of Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries 10/27/03 Water Supply Citizens Advisory Committee 10/27/03 Ipswich River Watershed Association 10/29/03 Department of Environmental Protection, NERO FEIR 12514 .BAD/ACC/acc 5 10/31/03 FAX: (781) 942-9071 Email: townmanager@ci.reading.ma.us November 28, 2004 Ms. Madelyn Morris Department of Environmental Protection Northeast Regional Office One Winter Street Boston, MA, 02108 Re: Modified Water Management Act Registration Statement, Town of Reading Dear Ms. Morris: TOWN MANAGER (781) 942-9043 On October 31, 2003, the Secretary of Environmental. Affairs issued a Certificate on the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Town of Reading's proposal to become a member of the MWRA's Waterworks System. The Secretary's Certificate requires that the Town address certain conditions associated with our current Water Management Act Registration Statement proposed by your offices. These conditions are expected to be added to the Town's current Water Management Act Registration Statement in the event that the Town's Interbasin Transfer Act application is approved. The conditions included in the Certificate are as follows: That until January 1, 2008, when Reading's existing registration expires, Reading's overall water use (including water purchased from' the MWRA and water withdrawn from the Town's registered sources) shall-not exceed an annual average of 2.57 million gallons per day plus the 100,000. gallons per day threshold allowed in the Water Management Act. Reading shall not have the right to use a greater volume of water by virtue of the purchase of water from the MWRA: That on January 1, 2008, when Reading's existing registration expires, DEP will make no distinction between the amounts withdrawn from the Town's in-basin sources and the amount purchased from the MWRA. Reading's actual purchase of water from the MWR.A shall not by itself be a ground for reducing the Town's right to withdraw water from the Ipswich River Basin under its registration. Town of Reading 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867-2685 That in any year that Reading exercises its right to purchase water from the MWRA under the Interbasin Transfer Act approval, Reading shall. implement conservation measures as set forth in its Interbasin Transfer Act application and in accordance with the conditions required in that approval and the performance standards of the Water Resources Commission. We hereby request that our existing Water Management Act Registration Statement be modified to include these conditions, and that the Department issue a revised Registration Statement to the Town to this effect, once the Water Resources Commission has approved the Interbasin Transfer Act application. We believe that the first two conditions are self-explanatory. We also believe, based on our review of material being presented to the Water Resources Commission, that the approval of the Interbasin Transfer Act application by the Water Resources Commission will contain the requirements and performance standards necessary to comply with the third condition. Should you have any questions on these matters, please contact Ted McIntire at 781-942- 9077. U truly yours, Peter I. )C,chenbleikner Town Manager cc: Ted McIntire Peter Tassi Water, Sewer & Storm Water Advisory Committee Kellie O'Keefe, DEP Michelle Drury, DRC Linda Marler, DRC John Gall, CDM Steve Estes-Smargiassi, MWRA Pamela Heidell, MWRA ,V THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS Oft WATER RESOURCES COMMISSION REPORT OF THE FINDINGS, JUSTIFICATIONS AND DECISION OF THE WATER RESOURCES COMMISSION Relating to the Approval of the. Town of Reading's Request for an Interbasin Transfer Pursuant to M.G.L. Chapter 21 § 8C DECISION On December 9, 2004, by a seven to two vote, the Water Resources Commission (WRC) approved Reading's request, under. the Interbasin Transfer Act, to join the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA) Water. Works System. This vote was taken after review of the facts provided by the applicant, analysis of the associated data, and consideration of public and agency comments concerning the proposal. BACKGROUND On September 20, 2002, the Massachusetts Water Resources Commission received a request for approval of an.action to increase the present rate of interbasin transfer under the Interbasin Transfer Act (M.G.L.'Chapter 21 813-813) from. the Town of Reading. The Town is applying for admission to the MWRA Water Works System to purchase up to 219 million gallons (mg) to supplement its existing water supply sources. (Figure 1) The WRC accepted Reading's application as complete on April 8, 2004. Two required public hearings were field on May 18 and May 19, 2004. On June 10, 2004, a Staff Recommendation to approve Reading's application was presented to the WRC. A public hearing on this Staff Recommendation was held on June 23, 2004. Responses to comments received through the public hearing process are available in a separate report. The merits of the proposal'were discussed at the July 8, 2004 WRC meeting. Because of concerns with some of the conditions-of the Staff Recommendation, Reading requested an extension of the decision date. (Reading's concerns are discussed later in this Decision). On December 9, 2004, by a seven to two vote, the Water Resources Commission approved Reading's request, under the Interbasin Transfer Act, to join the MWRA Water Works System. 100 Cambridge Street, Boston, MA 02114 1 ne 900% RECYCLED PAPER 100 Cambridge Street, Boston, MA 02114 2 16-2- FACTS PERTAINING TO THE APPLICATION 1. The, application was part of the DEIR submitted to MEPA. The WRC requested that additional information be provided through the FEIR. The FEIR was filed on September 15, 2003. Most of the requested information was provided. The Secretary issued a Certificate on the FEIR on October 31, 2003. 2. The outstanding information to evaluate the project under the Interbasin Transfer Act was provided in December 2003. 3. Reading has land area in the Ipswich River basin, the Mystic River subbasin of the Boston Harbor basin and the North Coastal basin. 4. The Town has nine existing water supply sources in the Ipswich River basin. Estimated capacity for these sources is 8.36 mgd. 5. The MWRA Water. Works System's sources are located in the Chicopee River basin and the Nashua River basin. 6. Reading has determined that use of its sources during certain times of the year causes impacts to the Ipswich River and is proposing to purchase water to supplement its existing water supply sources during these periods. 7.. Two required public hearings were held to take comment on this application, one in Reading, the receiving basin, on May 18, 2004, and one at the Quabbin Reservoir, in the donor basin on May 19, 2004. EVALUATION OF THE PROPOSED INTERBASIN TRANSFER, This In'terbasin Transfer application was reviewed on its own merits. The Decision is made on`facts relevant to the Interbasin Transfer Act and its regulations. The application was evaluated against the eight criteria outlined in the regulations (313 CMR 4.05), as well as the Interbasin Transfer Act Performance Standards, and with consideration of comments received through the public comment process. SYNOPSIS OF THE EVALUATION CRITERIA. (313 CMR 4.05) Criteria Application Meets? Criterion. #1: MEPA Compliance Yes Criterion #2: Viable In-Ba`sin*Sources Yes. Criterion #3: Water Conservation Yes Criterion #4: Watershed Management Not Applicable Criterion #5: Reasonable Instream Flow Yes Criterion #6: Groundwater/Pumping Test Not Applicable Criterion #7: Local Water Resources Yes Management Plan Criterion #8: Cumulative Impacts Yes 100 Cambridge Street, Boston, MA 02114 3 A0-3 BASIS FOR THE DECISION This application was reviewed by the Department of Conservation and Recreation's (DCR) Office of Water Resources, The Department of Environmental Protection's (DEP) Division of Watershed Permitting and Northeast Regional Office, and the Department of Fish and Game's (DFG) Division of Fisheries and Wildlife and the Riverways Program. This WRC Decision was made after an extensive evaluation of the project and of Reading's compliance with the six applicable criteria of the Interbasin Transfer Act regulations.. The following section describes in detail compliance with the criteria. Attachment 1 goes into greater detail concerning compliance with the criteria and performance. standards. Criterion #1: MEPA Compliance The Interbasin Transfer application was part of the DEIR, submitted on September 20, 2002. The WR.C requested additional information through the MEPA process. The Secretary's Certificate on the DEIR was issued on November 1, 2002. The certificate directed Reading to address the WRC's Request for Additional Information through the FEIR. The FEIR was submitted on September 15, 2003 and contained most of the information requested by the WRC. The Secretary's Certificate on the FEIR was issued on October 31, 2003. Criterion #2: Viable In-Basin Sources The Interbasin Transfer Act requires that "that all reasonable efforts have been made to identify and develop all viable sources in the receiving area of the proposed interbasin transfer" (MGL Ch. 21 §8D). It is unlikely that a new water supply source developed in the Ipswich River Basin section of Reading would be able to meet the permitting requirements of the various agencies. However, because Reading also has land in the Mystic River subbasiu of the Boston Harbor basin and North Coastal basin, the town was directed to describe its efforts to "identify and develop all viable sources" in these areas of town. Mystic River Subbasin of the Boston Harbor Basin The geology of the Mystic River subbasin consists primarily of exposed bedrock and dense till. Medium and high-yielding sand and gravel aquifers are not present within Reading's land area in this basin (MAGIS). Due to the dense development in this area, it was deemed by Reading's consultants not to offer suitable locations for high-yielding wells. A small area within Conservation Trust Land was tested in 1997 to determine if a, shallow unconsolidated wellfield could be developed at this location. The results were not favorable. The town-wide Fracture Trace Study, conducted in 1997 to assess the potential for bedrock wells in Reading, did not identify areas for bedrock well investigation in this basin. This, combined with the existence of groundwater contamination in neighboring Woburn, eliminated this area from further consideration. ib-Y 100 Cambridge Street, Boston, MA 02114 4 North Coastal Basin This area of Reading is heavily developed. Zone 'I protection for any well that might be developed here cannot be obtained. The only undeveloped lands in this section of town with potential aquifer formation are wetlands. Furthermore, this area is the headwaters of the Saugus River, which has also historically experienced low flow problems during summer months. Although the North Coastal basin was not classified with respect to flow stress, Saugus River impacts were documented in a June 2002 report, "Saugus River Water Budget and Instream Flow Study" by Gomez and Sullivan Engineers and Environmental Scientists. "The findings indicate that the Saugus River flow is affected during low flow periods in the summer and during certain periods in the fall and spring, when water suppliers are attempting to refill their storage reservoirs." This area of Reading is also upstream of the Reedy Meadows wetland in Wakefield and Lynnfield. Reedy Meadows is a National Natural Landmark recognized for its wetland habitat. ' Additional water withdrawals that may impact Reedy Meadows and further exacerbate impacts to the Saugus River should be avoided. Ipswich River Basin Reading considered bedrock well development within the Ipswich River basin. A fracture trace analysis was used to identify potential bedrock well sites and was followed by test drilling at the Town Forest area (the site of the town's existing wells). Although two wells with a potential yield of 75 gallons per minute each were identified, the approvable yield of the two wells would be limited to less than 200,000 gallons per day. The bedrock wells were found not to be viable and DEP concurred in a letter dated . January 22, 2003 that, "based on the test wells installed to date, the available yield is not sufficient to justify conducting the New Source Approval. process for the wells." Also, additional withdrawals from this area would contribute to water depletion from the Ipswich River basin even if the hydrologic impacts were delayed or minimized by withdrawing from the bedrock aquifer. Reading has nine existing water supply sources in the Ipswich River basin. Estimated capacity for these sources, is 8.36 mgd. Reading's average day demand (2.0 mgd) is well under the capacity of its sources and of its Water Management Act registration (2.57 mgd). The spirit of the Interbasin Transfer Act requires that local sources be maximized before a water supplier looks out-of-basin to address its needs. However, the regulations define a "viable source" as one "which can be used while preserving reasonable instream flow as determined by the same criteria provided to evaluate impacts on the donor basin' (313 CMR 4.02). All of the town's sources are located in the Ipswich River basin. In 2003, the Ipswich River was named the third most endangered river in the nation by American Rivers, a non-profit river advocacy group, in large part due to public water supply withdrawals. In addition, the USGS study, "A Precipitation-Runoff Model for Analysis of the Effects of Water Withdrawals on Streamflow, Ipswich River Basin, Massachusetts" (Zarriello and Ries, 2000, Water-Resources Investigation Report 00- 4029) found that cumulative ground water withdrawals substantially decrease the magnitude, and increase the duration and frequency of low flows in the Ipswich River. Water withdrawals have little effect on moderate to high flows. 100 Cambridge Street,~Boston, MA 02114 5'~ Reading acknowledges that use of its public water supply sources during certain low flow times of the year contributes to the severe impacts to the river and so is proposing to restrict' use of its sources to no more than 1 mgd from May through September. To meet its remaining demands during these months,. the Town is proposing to purchase the balance of its water from MWRA. Reading demonstrates in its application that reducing use of its wells during the targeted low-flow months (May through September) will increase flows in the Ipswich River during those periods (as measured at the Middleton gage). DEP is also concerned about the impacts of Reading's wells on low flow conditions. within the Ipswich River. In comments provided on the ITA application, DEP notes that "the portion of the river at Reading's streamside wells is the most impacted stream segment. Under Reading's present pumping regime, the Department has observed that during the summer period, streamflow is frequently depleted to a dry riverbed. Since Reading's pumping contributes to this severe impact, the Department has determined that continued pumping of the Reading wells at existing levels is not a viable option. An alternative is necessary to protect the ability of the Ipswich River to function as a reliable source of safe drinking water, a suitable habitat for aquatic life and wildlife that are adapted to riverine conditions, and an area for primary and secondary contact recreation." In addition, DEP has expressed concern about use of Reading's existing sources at current levels. The Department notes that the Town's existing water sources are highly susceptible to contamination. Several businesses that use hazardous materials, generate hazardous waste, or store oil or hazardous material in above ground or underground tanks are within the Zone II of the Town's wells. Interstate Highway 93 crosses the west side of the protective Zone I area around Well No.15 and Well No. 13. Enhanced Water Conservation As an additional source of water, Reading has begun to implement a four-year, $1 million conservation program to reduce water usage by 190,000 gallons per day (gpd). This program is discussed in more detail in the next section of this Decision. Criterion #3: Water Conservation Reading has an existing water conservation program which meets all of the 1992 Water Conservation Standards for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and most of the 1999 I13T Performance Standards for Criterion #3. Reading does not meet the Performance Standard for retrofitting all public buildings or for having a mechanism in its drought/emergency plan to tie water use restrictions to strearriflow levels; however, the Performance Standards acknowledge that in certain cases, local conditions may prevent a proponent from meeting a standard.or there may be alternative means of meeting a standard. Retrofit programs were identified as a priority through the 2001 water audit. Because of the way projects are funded at the town level, these programs were underway, but not completed at the time of the application. Most were scheduled to be completed by mid- August 20.04. All public buildings, with the exception of the High School and Barrows 100 Cambridge Street, Boston, MA 02114 /4..(o Elementary School, had been retrofit by September 30, 2004. In a letter dated October 25, 2004, Reading informed the WRC that the retrofit program for all other public buildings had been completed. The High School and Barrows Elementary School are undergoing a total renovation. The Barrows Elementary School renovation is expected to be completed by September 2005. The contract for the High School renovation project was awarded in May 2004. As part of this renovation, all plumbing fixtures will be replaced with low flow devices. The renovation is scheduled to be completed by June 2007. The Town has a three-stage outdoor water use.restriction by-law, with the ability to levy fines for violation. Stage 2, which restricts outdoor watering to odd or even days (depending on house number)-and restricts time of day watering, has been in place since 1992. Reading's by-law, which outlines a set of increasingly stringent water use restrictions and gives the Town the ability to implement mandatory water use restrictions, is based on water supply indicators, such as threats to sources or system deficiencies, not on streamflow levels,. as required by the Performance Standards. The WRC notes that these restrictions are indirectly tied to an environmental indicator. Although Reading does not meet the "letter" of this Performance Standard, it does meet the "spirit" of the Standard. Reading's ratio of summer to winter water use is 1.2. DEP's recently implemented Water Management policy recognizes that communities with a ratio of 1.2 or lower are doing a good job of controlling peak water use and only requires that this ratio be .maintained. In addition, the analysis conducted to demonstrate the benefits to the Ipswich River from restricting use of local sources during the months of May through September showed that there was almost no difference between using the wells at I mgd and tying use of the wells to streamflow. The WRC has determined that Reading is adequately addressing the Performance Standard for retrofit and that water use restrictions outlined in the Town's by-laws, together with their overall water conservation program and the proposed well use restrictions, are protective of streamflow resources. Thus, Reading meets this criterion. As a condition of this Decision, the WRC is requiring that Reading notify the Commission when the High School and Barrows School renovations have been completed, with documentation of the retrofit devices installed,. and provide annual MGL Chapter 21 §$D: "that all practical measures to conserve water have been taken in the receiving area, including but not limited to the following: (a) the identification of distribution system sources of lost water, and where cost effective, the implementation of a program of leak detection and repair; (b) metering of all water users in the receiving area and a program of meter maintenance; (c) implementation of rate structures which reflect the costs of operation, proper maintenance and water conservation and encourage the same; (d) public information programs to promote water conservation, including industrial and commercial recycling and reuse; and (e) contingency plans for limiting use of water during seasonal or drought shortages" .1107 100 Cambridge Street, Boston, MA 02114 7 reports detailing the water conservation actions taken as part of the $1 million program discussed below. This should include an accounting of the money spent and the successes of the program, including the estimated amounts of water conserved. Reading has implemented a four-year, $1 million conservation effort in order to reduce water usage by 190,000 gallons per day (gpd). Programs being implemented include: • Residential water audits: 64 audits were completed in 2003. The program is ongoing. • A rebate program for low flow toilets, washing machines and irrigation sensors began in March 2004. Approximately 90 rebates ($17,000) have been processed through April N04. • Reading is currently conducting a system-wide water audit, to be completed by December 31, 2004. The last system-wide water audit was conducted in April 2001. This led to the retrofit program now underway. Table l lists Reading's water conservation accomplishments with respect to all of the standards. 100 Cambridge Street, Boston, . MA 02114 8' CT N O N c O a) .G N ttf c o U) .0 CCf W i A+..r a) c ` r+ (1) cu U C z W co `a (D c . :3CU-j ~ m oca (n w` _ L7 Uj V) O C = ca _E ca 2 to ca Q n (D U _ co C N . = Q. to w (L V) 0 ca r- CU (a 0 cu cu U) Jo ~o U) C) O a) 0 C p O.: }x v +r O O O N O aoa3UO~c~al-o~-ocs?+ca C: U) 3*-oE Z" z; o15 cm c co E 5 o c OS o ca 40 $ ~v co a~ oc~ o w -7 0 voi1-:~ Eaz (Df E a F- 002 Q ` LtJ'; ' z'. C 'J, N :1 ca CDc ~cl) 06 V) ccuC: (D I V > V co N O ca .0 L O O' L Q a) n Z o ca E m im. Lll " Q a) D a) 0 co cu (D a) d; , z w 0 c ID O a) to Q "rU~ o 0 cLi< E O rn co a)v E Q c Y E c O w v i 02 c E 0) _ Co 0 (D co 0 C.) C 'o O ca E i~ co CJ c 2SI N N N W Q a) ai ca F- N' O C co C L V) N cm O j L O U N 0 ` i ~ v- . t to p O O C C a7 C co U~ O E U O c a) a O O O O CY) Ca a "0 0 p 0 0 c ca 0 V' cu 0)> O a) :3 1 a) ` U (D Co Cl) d co a)' N U o c N o~ ~~.a 4) E~ N +o O w LL a) 5 a) ai a) n. E C 'p) N ~ to ' a) N ` 0 •C C E CD U_ O ~ C L- O Q - C CD O - 0 E (o .0 Co C') U O co O O O o. Cl) to w D ocnm ~U 9cnacL 3U L ~U - C o= z 0' o > > r: 0 wa . w W Z U - O ' o V LL d' rl ri N O c O a..+ N 0 m N L Ul) cll L V 0 r--I O M C1 W Q y LU Z a) > i a y "o o m m m m ~ca 03 oo E cn E ccLno ca m o v m o via Z N t9 m Cl a) O N C O) , a) 2 LL O a: Z. co O B m O 12 Lo C W J~ C-~ ••U c Y v NO O'map pC .cum 0 aCL 0) C. ~CC'Oa Em mw E 'O~'a CD- -a-~ V. f ~ 6 = U 'O y v - v- (q cu 0 a) m fO p Ocm c E m O m ° ca m N( c A U N~ m O V E E i G. wm 0-6 - E T ac m x a a) p c c i X- to o cyca cu a 3 CD CM 0) ca ` o L O m c m m m cu o c m a; m Co MW- .a vim= 0~ Co •m0 V m c»r ~m o m m c ~c ~ ° 0 m c c CU a m ~ C" 'D ~ `T E- >.E o Q ~m Etg N . a8at° o i i u i v ~cuc~c 3.a a i a C0) - oco~ 75 mo m aci m m o o m o w m'co ~ ~ N o~ N N d~ _ wmo -0:9 IXw0 r- 2WwWE as CYEEo ~wm Y S O V) (u O m m O .Z CO co m. _ CUrn 0 a a co OE ~(u u 0 a in, m ~o . mm CL mLm ma 4- = :3 oom :3 •OC (D 0 C13 Q .Q L a ca c 0 cu C O - ~ ca U C U- C3 a O (D 0 0 co U.) Z ca 0 -0 0 _ E z L p;Q V O G om E-'v N >1 75 c m •L 2 C mv) a C ° O) w 0 =my E ~ca)m mU) O"'~c a) 'a a; ca oc o ovm vm - mD ~a~o ~ 0, =*0 amp EE ;0) J Q (m-' E'er aE~ v o c`u 2v ~ w mcum a a C O~ 0 ° ro °v ~w ~m•co ~cc c ti m C m~o ~UaG <CE CFEa) scam i co m T m G a ~ O m. :Q U) C m C cu = (0 N Iz .0 a to C ca 0) r D) co C m :5 .Q F" 4 co V C d - U ca C m E p ?m, N (u Y A m a'' m cud 0 E c ~E m ~ m E>, (D a) '0 O ° . 12 2 9 O) i csa a m -ffi cu o cc w a U- w U S C) ° ' 5: m o cmi C m Q E O +r 0 co C co . ccu O c H W m D o . , ~ a U a ' L ) Z~ ~'m p m, n T-i T-i N O c 0 4-J V) lW m L U O O r-I I to 41D M O N a Q Wp . to a a a ill N p r a 4= a y co O U o O N C: C O .OC U Z W: U - - a- a) w :3 O w 0-0) 0) CY) C N ~ = ` EU - 23 CA N C Co Co 'D r. L a) C ca o) tB ao O N ca CL > O - . L CD L to 'a 0) ' h . a) N w. oy W o"a c U a E a E co c c o ao cy L ° m O U J. CL, o o m m O m aN c a) U) CO CO W co w m Q tll 0).r 0 Co O= a) 1 C 0) 0 'p. C m L C L rn I va a 0) a O .a i o -042.2 37 Vi a a». O a) .0 m E -a o V: Q Ern C ~ o 64 U ~rn 2 c.mE C c cmo~~ O a"a C3 C ca aa.. Q i U 0 0. a O V L a C D r d aC c r a03 ) > O a) Q) m= O ca Co O p a 'S ca Q) a) p N ci 0 lL'm tYm:E . F-Ot0 CC mN L s'U (Y U !L'Q OE . IL- .V.. _ 'a O Z in a) iaCU o o icy` (D cam 0 c 0) 0 O N p C U~ O ` E ' = O ' U O vaa N -L •a °c -`oia a'vca• >mm0 m O L u.. a o E 4 a <L p p Ear t~U . a a CA L = to ` CD m a) > o E °CD W Z Q~:Q c O . a) tU j C QtrSa C m O O U :3 C U)a (Da caa) d U p _C ' "a O .N C O L m y C [ U) C U (D O 0) C ca E a L E to y O L S O m C C D O" N O C C 'O C to .O U X _ ; rn :3 co 12 h C L 0 r L N L CA - ' m E a Z°~°> °c m a) (D a O p U U O a - U C c o a) o p a a a a L a- o a a 0 y U L 15 0 U) Q E C o a) U > m O- pr O . L D Q M C 0 IY w m L L' - a L E O O a m aA cu ~ C O O Q) ' 0 CD a) U = C;) CA O U U to Q) a c a m a~ a' D cLa m ` ca a c o c > E 0) o m D' o c to Q S ~ N'~U aN L° Q m a m LtUca m"O~ o0 sue' • An L a t]oa a) V/ 0) C ~ 0 CL CU ? _ rna Ea) ~E 75 U- c W a L Lr y ca Q o O o O L m N c wQ C n W .2 rn C: - a Q ? U a O a or: :3 d' .-4 ri N O 57 C O 4-J O co N N L U) O O L ro u 0 0 /4-0/1 N (1) 0 O W >1 N O L. W O p O O > O a) N C (0 C : O W Q O_> O W C O Rf 3 N `'t W N O` O a) = 2 N a0'0•->U m0.-U=m ~ o= c = Z y i c a> E ' W fA E c 0 a C - W W } . co U O O ti3 . ` U a) C C - (D CL } c N U 0) L N C ~'G w 0 16 = C flf cu O 'O 3 ~ ' 0 '(D ~ Gas ~ m m Qom c M o~ m 0 2 ' .p O Q' 0 N N = L 4= U= •C Q G > W lU L O . p t). N U W 'O a) O L E U O> p tB a) C a' G W a) a) a) m ' C W a) C . O a) p > O a) m U ZC.WEEaEm.~~a)tnw3~'acuEo;~tA ? O r W C) 0 rn C o L m cu (D tA' N_-~_N andoo ` Via) 0a) = =d~•'a). ;cOp ~ W` E mo U) m m'a)" ) E'E L3 > C W O a)E~ Q a er w 0-0 a) U a) W (lf O C .OQ N C C (D CO 4- 0 (6 CO M O C (D U) a .0 to - .0 W co p O t~,' m .0 rn W c CU C O C E >,.2 64 C m a: Q' - d = a) C-0 O Q cam, a) 0 O D a) . T ~S < ` 3 ~ c N o a o L a) _ Co O W + ~m a 4c i F -luc . "iii ' via m . : a) (D Q a) a) tU 075 Z . Q? 1 -0 0 U) c V Lv) p p 4> CL W Q ~ ! _ o, yM= c Q.'O U Q C.0 co Ole W W co .i] ca w-~ N Q:lr~,: a.Z W 0' U W ~ O a) Q C W ~ ~ L 0 aC ~ nc r _'a o v: 0~ c C ' 0-0 +'S C W U O p O" t0 1~ N tC O O O 'O E CL 0 'a a) a) Z d E 0) O a- UHL'CLC W (D U)" ca (D (D 0 Q' N 0 (D m Do) V > O C L Co 0 a) '0 W O. ~ lU O' C C O : may,' U N O cU O L W U 5 m . } 5 w 0 O Q) W 2 D. <tca0 L Q) Q C >c6 O; w m =D o W,a a +Z 'c),, a m U a d' N C) C O' d-J O co L. U) a~ ~C G (O U 0 0 r-1 /(Vool . 7.00 M L _ ° O 0co 0 m E 10 ,gym ac no ca c c o d :3= " m me m o m z N O U A OL ;Z5 V m O° co Q o) n o >m 'r m:c n mi ~ ~ (D 0 a o m F- E c. m c co O a) O CU F,- L w m O D= B ° ~L 0 C a) m G m > 3mcnmm.c mUcoam Eo U Lv N N L m C a. vi ww3aa) m m"m C N E w L .C mc°:L 0 h W. m0 ca ca O m O a) > Cc m Co m o •0 O U O ca ° 2 C L :E~o 3 c o m m> me aci~c. 0 m m Ern m t0mY ~ o a) m a 3 ~ co ~=m m y m cr ~ U) co 3 ~ C c~ o a) C w o m m ° a~Y (1) = m $ ca v r- cco O m owl m ~a D> m0~ T m 0 mv r- mo= Co 0) a : .C m y C L N O .C m E _ . to O L C o L 3 Co ) r a 8 0.=_~ ' Eon • 5m=6 1 =~-m - Q Em . p O O m co a a3 m o U c ca m C m a) D 1) m o m 0.2 'Nw a mi o m p N m= E= m O cn E a) o m O a= o m co o O . W._ cn2 L wow a oo w U UU U2 L) 0 0 .0 "a o m m C 0 .V::.'. Z.' a) cu (1) Cl) (D j~' ' •Q C CU U a) C C O 'C m O m C a L C C. m Z :Q ~ma) ° n c 0r vv)m~m s w DCL m.-m UOmOE c m mcno Q. . ts'. °v °-°-'am in0w 0 0 ° m`->c~ V 0 0. Z o. ; <7 u:aa re > w ma ~ v - O co a= c m m y (D c m 3 m 3 ` m v Co 0) > w U L E'a) 0 tl y C a) -CD ~0 3 0 V) > 3 o a) 'L' _ c` L a o y m 0)m v - c m 0 CU y o > U . a oo . i =3 M a) 0 -ca a E o ~ m o v i cn m c - cLoCu.o °=~3 3 m a ic ~ c mmL ~ L m Co m> 0 m N 03 E cL 00 O o Ex0 m •6 U mC E 0 . m~cc E ?j Co LO U rn O a) m rnE'ELc. rcn3o._ 0 , ca oY2-Na CL O cp)cvcE E 2 co o n 1 u cL 2 :03 0) a) ¢ Q.° Eoa 0 co ¢ Q-rcAU~- ' O m • , m 3 • cu m SG L C m -0c 75 L = F-; m m° ` 0 a%0 m 0 0 ` U)< C m $ m m co 0 3 ° co E G m co a) -CL V) o co Y m 0 > O m.. E 00 a~ m mr cu CD p•J 'O' 'd D L u O ri C m , ut Q D E CO E a) a) cu (D cc M O ,I- T-4 N 0 C O d-J V) . O m 4.J N N d-J U) N. L tB U O Q x`,13 M~ M~ cn _ O .t L f o L U O w c5 3 m p ca ca 0 co cu c C: V) cnc>, CU c cnoEo ~pQ40) La. c 0 m 0 ~°CI-~'c D N ) c Z m ~ aT. C c:- E L-ca)•r w vcn4) , r •L y.. N U ~ O CU ~ Q,(D • S. co L= ~ = W E i O U C M R3 c0 p 0 C p U L ~ co .C. U D Y O D N p RS C O c~0 C _ O Q: cu« Q t- O 0- p W a Co U ~ O 0 0- II L i` 0 to O 7 L 0 C O a° s O Q - 0 L C "O C 0. N ca ca ` L O C 0 E = 0 . O O. CU O C . (D ca ~ 4) " co 0. w C Q>O C'~- ca O C C U ca C: >i N co- CD a) a 0) CU 4) L = G = 0 L N a) cu w 0 a) co C: rr 0 > O 0 C 2 v m co O- C N G E ca EPO -co 0 0 O 0 0 0 o~ E~ V C y N~ 0 ci3 0 C N 0 p c E c 0 ti> ' E p O N E O O U 0 ~c0w mE O ` U> C j ' p D N 0 C_ C C cu 0. C E ° - ca O ` - O V C 1 2 Q Co ~ 0 L 0 to - . :3 0 C O 0 E 0 O ` 'II 0 cu Q E '0 tB E • o ` 6 . 0) C:- v - ` ~ c to G C O .75 E O c CL O g cu 0 O = O 7, 0 0 N N CD 0 U w to E 0 w to 0 a c 0 0 0 0:3 CU L 0 C O O O c L w d E U t0 tq O O c U co 0.. ca C d F« a) c0 sy O (D • C 0 C~ (D µ } C CC {1;M cu J J U . r t~lA ,I- T-4 r-•1 N 0 E O V) O co 4-J ^A W L 4-1 U) a) pl .fl C U 0 0 r-1 Criterion #4: Watershed Management This criterion is not applicable to this proposal. Reading's sources are ground water sources. Criterion #5: Reasonable Instream Flow and Criterion #8: Cumulative Impacts Reading is proposing to purchase up to 219 million gallons of water from the MWRA from May through September. This is an average of 1.44 mgd. The Town proposes to operate its wells at a rate limited to 1 mgd during these months and to supplement its needs with MWRA water. This would enhance flow in the Ipswich River basin. MWRA's sources are the Quabbin Reservoir in the Chicopee River Basin and the Wachusett Reservoir in the Nashua River basin: Reading is located in the Boston Harbor Basin (Mystic River subbasin), the North Coastal basin, and the Ipswich River basin. Most of Reading's wastewater. (90% of the population) is sewered to the Massachusetts Coastal Basin via MWRA's Deer Island Treatment Facility. Appr6ximately'350 on-site wastewater disposal systems.are present in Reading, most of which are located in the Ipswich River basin. The Interbasin Transfer Act regulations (313 CMR 4.05) direct the WR.C to.consider that "reasonable instream flow in the river from which the water is transferred is maintained" in making its decision to approve, or deny an Interbasin Transfer request. In this case, VWR.C, Staff evaluated the impacts of transferring 1.44 mgd during the months of May through September on the operations of the MWRA Water Works System, which include impacts to reservoir levels, drought levels, uncontrolled releases (spills) and the MWRA's mandated downstream releases. In addition, the cumulative impacts of the Reading transfer and other potential transfers (Wilmington and Dedham-Westwood) were evaluated on a monthly basis. ' These other potential transfers could result in an additional annual average of 1.7 mgd and an additional maximum of up to 3.2 mgd being transferred (during the months of June through September). The safe yield of the MWRA reservoir system is approximately 300 mgd. Demands on the MWRA water supply system peaked in 1980 at 343 mgd. Subsequent demand management programs reduced demand. The average annual baseline demand for the past five years on the MWRA water supply has been 251 mgd. The Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC) future water demand estimates for the system indicated additional demands of 13 mgd through 2025 (prior to Stoughton's connection to the system). This results in a future system demand of 264 mgd. With the addition of Stoughton, the future system demand is 265 mgd. (Stoughton began receiving water from the MWRA in October 2003). The future monthly demands for Reading, Wilmington, and Dedham-Westwood were added to this amount to simulate total impacts on the MWRA reservoir system. MWRA System The construction of Winsor Dam on the Swift River was completed in 1939, creating the Quabbin Reservoir. In addition to the water impounded by Winsor Dam, Quabbin Reservoir can receive water from the Ware River in the Chicopee River basin. The. ;MWRA system also includes the Wachusett Reservoir in the Nashua River basin. 100 Cambridge Street, Boston, MA 02114. 15 / 4-444~ According to the FEIR for the Reading proposal (CDM, September 2003), "The MWRA reservoir system is operated with the. primary objective of ensuring high quality adequate' water supply. Secondary operational objectives include maintaining an adequate flood protection buffer particularly during the spring melt and hurricane seasons and maintaining required minimum releases to both the Swift and Nashua River." Quabbin Reservoir has a storage capacity of 412 billion gallons and is fed by a well- protected watershed. The Wachusett Reservoir has a storage capacity of 65 billion gallons and is fed by a slightly more developed watershed. The MWRA controls Wachusett Reservoir elevation through transfers from Quabbin. Reservoir to Wachusett Reservoir. The objective is to operate, Wachusett Reservoir over a narrow operating range (between elevation 390 and 391.5 feet) while allowing Quabbin Reservoir to freely fluctuate. The Quabbin Reservoir elevation at the spillway is 528 feet. The structural controls of the MWRA/DCR water system also allow Quabbin Reservoir to receive water from the Ware River watershed through diversions in the Quabbin Tunnel. The operation of Quabbin Reservoir includes maintenance of a flow threshold in the Swift River at Bondsville (5 miles downstream of Winsor Dam) of 20 mgd or 30 cubic feet per second (cfs). This threshold was mandated in Chapter 321 in the 1927 Acts of Massachusetts. Releases from Quabbin through its bypass at the Winsor Dam are used to meet this requirement, supplemented by intervening drainage between Quabbin and the Bondsville gage that contributes flow. An Army Corps of Engineers permit also requires seasonal: releases to maintain flow for navigability on the Connecticut River. The seasonal releases, which are in effect June 1 through November 30, are 70 cfs (45 mgd) if the flow in the Connecticut River, as measured at the Montague gage, falls below 4,900 cfs, and 110 cfs (70 mgd) if the flow iri the Connecticut River falls below 4,650 cfs. During its normal operation, the Quabbin Reservoir maintains the required thresholds stated above through controlled releases via the by-pass. The by-pass has a capacity of approximately,l00 MGD (155 cfs). Iii addition, uncontrolled releases, or spills, occur, periodically over the spillway. Uncontrolled releases are avoided due to downstream flooding impacts and the rapid. increase of high flow these cause. While a high spring . flow is normally considered beneficial for channel maintenance, the sudden high flows caused by Quabbin spills can be detrimental to downstream aquatic habitat. In addition, warm water spills from the surface of the reservoir during the summer have negative temperature impacts on both instream aquatic habitat and a downstream fish hatchery that uses Swift River water. Flow thresholds are also part of the operation of the Wachusett Reservoir on the South Branch of the Nashua River. Chapter 488 of the 1895 Acts of Massachusetts requires a release of 12 mg per week or 1.71 mgd. Although uncontrolled releases, or spills, can also happen over the Wachusett Dam, they rarely occur. Transfers from the Ware' River to Quabbin. Reservoir are only allowed at flows above 85 mgd, and must be limited to the period from October 15 to June 15. In addition, permission must be obtained from the Army Corps of Engineers to transfer water during 100 Cambridge Street, Boston, MA 02114 16 WAV the periods of June 1 - June 15'and October 15 - November 30. Historically, transfers from the Ware River have been made only on a limited basis for flood control or to help fill the Quabbin under drought conditions. Hydrologic Analysis Several types of data are available to evaluate the potential impact of the Reading transfer, as well as any planned or proposed transfers, on the Quabbin Reservoir. Streamflow in the Swift River is measured at a gage in West Ware. The gage is located 1.4 miles downstream from Winsor Dam and has a period of record from 1913 to present. Other available data include modeled reservoir releases, spills and drought levels. Strearnflow data, or a hydrograph-showing the impact of the proposed transfer on the donor river basin, is usually evaluated as part of the interbasin transfer review. However, several factors make the use of downstream flow data difficult. First, the Quabbin Reservoir has a huge storage capacity, which is used to maintain a constant minimum flow. Second, the current MWRA system demand is significantly lower than its historic demand; therefore superimposing the transfer on a historic. downstream hydrograph would not be realistic. For. these reasons, other types of data, including releases, spills and drought levels, are being used to evaluate these.criteria. To account for the change in system demand, some of the analyses have used a shortened period of record on which to superimpose the transfer. The period of record chosen for the analysis of the impact of the proposed transfer is 1990 to 2000, which reflects current demands. Because the Quabbin has met the mandated flow requirements, even during periods when demands were nearly 100 mgd (155 cfs) over the current level, it is assumed that those thresholds will continue to be met under the proposed transfer scenarios, which are significantly less than the historic use. Therefore the analyses focus on the impact to the reservoir in meeting required releases and the impact to uncontrolled releases. Several key facts have been considered in the review of the data: • An instream flow requirement for the Swift River, as measured at Bondsville, of 30 cfs (20 mgd) has always been met. . • A_ seasonal 70 to 110 cfs flow release, based on levels in the Connecticut River, has also always been met Junethrough November, as needed to supplement Connecticut River flow. • The instream flow requirements listed above are intended to maintain pre-existing mill operation on the Swift River and navigation on the Connecticut River, but do not take into account the other instream uses which are evaluated when determining a reasonable instream flow. • The flow in the Swift River was significantly impacted when the Quabbin Reservoir was built. • An Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration (IHA) analysis of pre-1939 flows compared to post-1939'flows indicates that in general, streamflows in the Swift 100 Cambridge Street, Boston, MA 02114 17 River have been significantly reduced. The mean annual flow has gone from 313 cfs to 100 cfs. In addition: 1. All monthly flows have been reduced. 2. The timing and duration of high flow events have changed significantly. 3. The duration of low flow events. has increased. Uncontrolled Releases Uncontrolled releases from the Quabbin Reservoir, hereafter referred to as spills, have been evaluated for potential changes over the base 1990-2000 period, due to the proposed transfer. These spills represent the annual peaks on the Swift River hydrograph. The addition of the potential future demands from Reading, Wilmington, and Dedham- Westwood are projected to significantly decrease the amount of annual spills by- an average of 18.4%.2 Table 2 shows the amount of water that would have spilled from Quabbin for each year from 1990 through 2000 at a demand of 265 mgd. The additional demand from Reading and the other communities would have decreased the annual amount of water spilled by 0% to 100%. The highs of 85% and 100% would have occurred in 1998 and 1992, which appear to be years with relatively low amounts of snow, which likely resulted in little spring runoff. The issue of uncontrolled releases and spring flows, are further discussed under the section Impacts to Other Uses, Fisheries. . Table 2 - Modeled Swift River Spills with the addition of Reading, Wilmington, and Dedham-Westwood Year Demand 265 G Demand 265+Future G Difference (MG) Difference (MG/day) Difference 1990 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 1991 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0% 1992 973.6 0.0 973.6 2.6 -100.0% 1993 11,242.9 10,283.1 959.8 2.63 -8.5 1994 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0% 1995 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0% 1996 28,654.13 26,583.61 2,070.5 5.67 -7.2% 1997 22,843.3 22,416.2 427.1 1.17 -1.9% 1998 729.71 107.41 622.3 1.7 -85.3% 1999 0.0 0.0 0:0 0.00 0:0°/ 2000 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0% Average for the Period 1.2 -18.4 2 This value is different than the value of 7.8 percent presented in the FEIR only as a result of the method used to determine the average. While -the FOR used the reduction in the sum of the volume of the spills over the period, WRC staff calculated the average of each year's percent difference for an overall average for the period. 100 Cambridge Street, Boston, MA 02114 18 Total Releases The amount of water that is released from Quabbin to maintain the instream flow requirements, through both controlled and uncontrolled releases, can be impacted by increasing demands. Increased amount and frequency of releases can impact the reservoir level. The total amount of water released was estimated for: 1. actual historical releases (1990-2000), 2. current system's future demand at 265 MGD, and 3. demand 265 MGD plus Reading and other potential future transfers (Wilmington and Dedham-Westwood). The flow duration curve for the three scenarios is shown as Figure 2. There was almost no difference in the flow releases necessary for the Reading and other future transfers (3) as compared to the current system's future demand scenario (2). However, both of these scenarios depict a decrease in the frequency and magnitude of high flow releases from the Winsor Darn to the Swift River compared with the actual historical releases (scenario 1). Quabbin Levels/Drought _Analysis Quabbin Reservoir levels fluctuate by design, but minimum percent full values have been established and are the basis for drought designations. The applicant evaluated maximum pool level reductions at various demands and hydrologic conditions simulated for 1948 through 2000. The results of the analysis are that at the base withdrawal plus Reading and future community demands, the maximum pool descent does not vary considerably and does not decline below the minimum acceptable pool descent of 470 feet elevation. An analysis was done to determine the impact of the proposed transfer on the Quabbin Reservoir during a drought. Increasing demands can impact the frequency with which a reservoir system reaches various drought levels.' This analysis is useful to determine impacts to levels in the reservoir as well as impacts to other communities currently on the MWRA system. Finally, this analysis supplements the data presented from 1990-2000, which includes several dry years but does not include any prolonged dry periods such as the 1960's drought. Analyses of the increase in demand due to the proposed Reading transfer and future community transfers show that the MWRA system would result in an.insignificant increase the frequency and duration of drought:levels. Specifically,, modeling showed that compared with a base demand of 265 mgd, the system would be in a Drought Warning for two additional months, and would be in a Drought Emergency stage 1 for two additional months, with the addition of Reading, Wilmington, and Dedham Westwood. This analysis was based on a period of 1948 to 2000. If the 1960's drought is removed from the analysis,, drought Emergency level would not be reached. Impacts to Flow Characteristics The September 2003 "Overview of Water Use and Transfer in the Chicopee River Basin" (Gomez and Sullivan Engineers, P.C.) evaluated Swift River flows and 100 Cambridge Street, Boston, MA 02114 19 0 L 0 N C CD L". .w . Q N N t' M M L r L ~R n. E V a) E C O cn ,I II I tV ~ G 0 ~ c 0 i i 'I n ~ m~ I 1 10, 0 m w O E =i 4) 010 0 i 0 l 1 ~ + m 2 O N E , ' 41 I i ~ I I l t I ' 1 I If I 1 ~ I i ~ I i 1 3 i 1 1 - IMacwS3 hr. i •1• ~ C CL O O N N r O (WJW) Moil 6 O C N 0 0 0 0 0 d o-. O 0 co ~O. 0 a 'a d .a o d a k cc w `o N o ~ q 'a o w w o 0 0 0 M O O N e 0 c Q O /6..ia concluded, "The operation of Quabbin Reservoir significantly alters the timing and magnitude of streamflow in the Swift River.... This diversion of water from Quabbin Reservoir results in alterations to the timing and magnitude of flows within the Swift River watershed, which may result in adverse impacts to downstream aquatic biota. Alterations in flow are particularly evident during the typical spring high flow period, when flows are drastically reduced in the Swift River because of flood skimming and water storage operations at the Quabbin....MRWA is required to release a minimum flow of 20 mgd (32 cfs) from Quabbin Reservoir to the Swift River. There are also additional release requirements, when flows in the Connecticut River drop below certain thresholds. This flow release has beneficial effects such as maintaining Swift River flows, during late summer/early fall 2001." The study recommended, "Evaluate alternative schedules for minimum flow releases from Quabbin Reservoir to the Swift River to mimic natural flow patterns to the extent possible... It may be possible to minimize the potential impact of these water withdrawals on downstream aquatic biota through alternative reservoir management practices." Impacts to the Swift River Aquatic Base Flow (ABF), 95% flow duration, flood flows, and flow velocity will be minimal compared to existing conditions. The estimated natural 7Q10 flow and the 95% flow duration are less than the required controlled releases from Quabbin Reservoir. Therefore they will be maintained by the current operations and will not be affected by the proposed transfer. The frequency of the summer aquatic base flow (ABF) of 0.5 cfsm (94 cfs at the Winsor dam or 1,830 MGM) based on simulated releases will not be reduced due to the Reading transfer and other planned or proposed future community withdrawals, when compared with the current system's future demand of 265 MGD. Flood flows will not be reduced based on the data. It should also be noted that since 1990, the annual 1-day, 3-day, 7-day, 30-day and 90- day maximum flows have increased. In addition the timing of the annual 1-day maximum (i.e. the Julian date of the 1-day. maximum flow) improved frorn.a median value of July 15 to June ll between 1990 and 2000. This is an improvement because the timing of this 1-day maximum value has moved closer to the spring season; when natural high flows typically occur. Although flow characteristics are not expected to change significantly over current conditions, it is worth re-stating that the Swift River has had large impacts from the construction of Quabbin Reservoir, which overshadow the addition of the Reading transfer. Also, the future demands of the existing water supply system will have a more significant impact than the Reading transfer. hnpaets to Other Uses Fisheries According to'the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife.(DFW), the Swift River below Winsor Dam down to the confluence with the Ware River contains significant fisheries habitat. In addition, the river is one of only two rivers in Massachusetts which receive a cold-water release that significantly benefits habitat, such as the catch and release trout fishery directly below the dam. The current required flow releases are beneficial to the fishery, as they provide a continuous source of fresh cold 100 Cambridge Street, Boston, MA 02114 21 water. However, DFW has stated that the amount of the controlled releases,, although beneficial in terms of quality, have not been determined to be optimum in terms of quantity for the cold water fishery. In addition, DFW operates a trout hatchery downstream of the Winsor Dam on the Swift River, which uses river intakes as part of its water supply. Relatively warm-water spills from the surface of Quabbin Reservoir are detrimental to both the instream cold-water fishery and the fish hatchery operation. An Incremental Flow Instream Method (IFIM) study of the Swift River in 1997 by Normandeau Associates indicates that the current flow releases are adequate. However this study concedes that fish may have to seek refuge in pools when bank to bank flows are not present and further recommends that "provision of higher flows ...would enhance habitat ...as long as highly cyclic flows are avoided". DFW, MWRA and DCR Division of Water Supply Protection (as defined by MGL. Chapter 92A1/2, and hereinafter referred to as "the Watershed Agency") have been. discussing habitat improvements that could be made within the limitations of existing permits. Through a Memorandum of Understanding with MWRA, the Division of Water Supply Protection acts as "the Watershed Agency" responsible for developing policies and procedures to be followed during wet weather or flood periods, to enable MWRA. to determine how much water (above statutory requirements) shall be discharged through MWRA controlled waterworks facilities into-the Nashua, Swift, Ware, or Sudbury Rivers. During winter and spring months when the Quabbin Reservoir is filling, it may be possible to i4crease.releases to the Swift River (using the Winsor Dam by-pass and/or other future improvements) and avoid late spring/early summer spills when it appears the reservoir is filling at an acceptable rate. Winter/spring diversions from the Ware River (in accordance with permitted.limitations) may be used to supplement Qiiabbin and allow for enhancement of higher controlled Swift River releases in the spring months. Similarly, Quabbin releases may be reduced during summer months if it appears that the. flow targets at Bondsville can be maintained with inputs from the intervening drainage area. This approach would allow for a more natural seasonal hydrograph for the Swift .River, and avoid late spring spills. The WRC recommends that DFW, MWRA and the Watershed Agency continue to cooperate to establish and implement enhanced releases to the Swift River from the Quabbin Reservoir. Hydropower A hydropower turbine was in use at the Winsor Dam until 1991, when it was damaged by a fire.. The Normandeau study was commissioned to determine suitable flow levels for fisheries during drought periods. This. information would directly impact the feasibility of generating hydropower while maintaining a trout fishery. As stated above, the report concluded that the current releases are adequate for the trout fishery. However, no action has been taken to re-implement the hydropower production. There are no plans at this time to reactivate the hydropower station at the Winsor Dam. 100 Cambridge Street, Boston, MA 02114 22 /10001*7- Recreation Aside from the sport fishery addressed above, there is some boating recreation on the . impoundments in Bondsville. Again, these uses will not be affected because operation of Quabbin reservoir will not change with the Reading transfer. Wetlands Other than Quabbin Reservoir itself, the only significant wetland in the Chicopee River basin that could be affected by the transfer is in Ware, along the Swift River. The area is 70 acres of open water impounded by a. dam in Bondsville. Because this area is open water and is part of the river, current minimum flow requirements appear to be adequate to protect the wetland area. Judgment of the WRC that a Reasonable Instream Flow will be Maintained The analyses of release data indicate there will be no significant change in the operation of the Quabbin Reservoir in response to the proposed Reading transfer. Current resources will be unaffected by the transfer. Obviously, current conditions represent an impacted environment. Proposed modifications to the timing and magnitude of Swift River releases in the spring months would benefit the downstream aquatic habitat. This recommendation attempts to achieve a balance between water supply needs and aquatic habitat needs of flow, water quality and water temperature in the Swift River through minor release modifications. Criterion #6 Groundwater/Pumping Test This.criterion is not applicable-to this proposal. MWRA's sources are surface water sources. Criterion #7 Local Water Resources Management Plan A Draft Local Water Resources Management Plan was submitted with Reading's Interbasin Transfer Act application. The Plan addresses the issues identified in the 1999 Interbasin Transfer Act Performance Standards Appendix B Local Water Resources Management Plan Outline. Therefore the WRC approved Reading's Local Water Resources Management Plan on December 9y 2004.. OTHER ISSUES CONSIDERED Alternative.Out-of-Basin Source . Reading investigated another potential water supply, not within the receiving basin, namely, a connection to the Andover water system. This action would also require Interbasin Transfer review and approval. As stated in a previous decision, the WRC does not advise a proponent to pursue one out-.of-basin source over another. The proponent must make this judgment. Any proposed transfer will need to meet the applicable criteria of the Act and its regulations in order to be approved. After studying the infrastructure improvements needed and the costs of this alternative, Reading decided that application for admission to the MWRA Water Works System was in its best interests. A0 100 Cambridge Street, Boston., MA 02114 23. Timing of the Application An issue raised through the public comment period was that this application should not be considered until a larger plan for the Ipswich River headwaters is coordinated and underway. The WRC cannot unilaterally choose to delay rendering a decision on this application until completion of the larger Ipswich River Plan. The WRC is required by the regulations to make a decision within 60 days of the final public hearing3, unless both the WRC and the proponent agree in writing to extend the deadline (313 CMR 4.04(5)(8)). In addition, the WRC has been unsuccessful in the past in coordinating the actions of different communities. The Ipswich River Plan and Wilmington's proposed Interbasin Transfer application are still many months from completion. The WRC believes it is not good public policy to hold up one community's application until another community has done the work necessary to enter the process. Downstream Flow Improvements. Another issue considered during this review was streamflow downstream of the MWRA's reservoirs. When the WRC approved Stoughton's request for admission to the MWRA's Water Works System in 2002; it noted that the Swift River is one of only two rivers in Massachusetts which receive a cold-water release that significantly benefits fishery habitat, and that there was potential for improving the fisheries habitat downstream of the Quabbin Reservoir and restoring the natural variability of flow. in the Swift River. DFW stated that modifications to downstream habitat and to the flow release scheduling (even without increasing the overall amount of releases) could significantly benefit the fishery resource below the Winsor Dam. The WRC acknowledged that any potential changes to operations or any downstream improvements would involve multi-party, multi-year discussions and negotiations. Therefore, the WRC recommended that before the MWRA entered into negotiations with additional communities wishing to apply for admission into the Water Works. System, the Authority should enter into discussions with DFW and other, interested parties to determine if any changes could be made to improve habitat or flows downstream of both Winsor and Wachusett Dams. The MWItA has stated that any actions that would impact compliance with its existing permits are not negotiable, however, since the time of the Stoughton Decision, DFW; MWRA.and the Watershed Agency have been discussing habitat improvements. MWRA and the Watershed Agency have either completed or offered to undertake the following actions: • MWRA and the Watershed Agency have no authority over and do not own the Bondsville Dams, which DFW would like to see removed to improve habitat by mitigating temperature issues, however, the Authority and the Watershed Agency 3 313 CMR 4.04(5)(e) states "The Commission shall, within sixty (60) days of completing said (public) hearings complete its review and approve or deny the requested action to increase the present rate of interbasin transfer." (emphasis added) 24 /G- ~.y 100 Cambridge Street, Boston, MA 02114 have stated that they have no objection to removal of the dams by a third party, if this would not impact permit requirements to monitor flow at Bondsville. • Operations of the turbines at Winsor Dam, which resulted in pulsing flows, no longer occur. Flows since 1991 have been steadier. As stated earlier, there are no plans at this time to reactivate the hydropower station at the Winsor Dam. • MWRA and the Watershed Agency have a history of working with DFW on downstream channel improvements including removal of debris. The Watershed Agency will continue to consult with DFW and provide mechanical assistance when possible, to improve habitat in the channel downstream of Winsor Dam. • DFW has stated that the ramping rates used to reach permit requirements, are too high. As a result, MWRA and the Watershed Agency will decrease to a rate of approximately 93=186 cfs per hour. DFW has stated that releases in summer should only be cold water, not warm water spills from top of the reservoir. MWRA and the Watershed Agency have stated that operation of the Quabbin and Wachusett Reservoirs requires maintenance of water quality criteria for drinking water. In maintaining these criteria it was necessary to allow Quabbin to fill in the spring resulting in some uncontrolled spills during the summer. The Watershed Agency will work with MWRA to transfer water to Wachusett Reservoir, and so reduce the number of uncontrolled spills in the spring, as water quality concerns permit. This may be facilitated by the MWRA's Walnut Hill Treatment Plant in Marlborough coming on line in 2005. Discussions between DFW, the Watershed Agency, and MWRA are ongoing. Concerns with the June Staff Recommendation After the issuance of the June 10, 2004 Staff Recommendation on this proposal, the Town expressed concerns that the conditions recommended would not allow flexibility in the way they managed their sources-. In particular, Reading was concerned that the requirement under Criterion #2 which stated "Reading must limit use of its existing local sources to no more than 1 mgd (total) during the months from May through October" would not allow the Town to address public health and safety concerns that could arise if the interbasin transfer limit of 219 mg had been 'purchased from the MWRA before the end of this time period. Reading's original proposal outlined in the DEIR was to limit use of its sources for the months of May through September, but was extended to October based on comments received through the DEIR process. Reading was confident that it could meet its demand under the original scenario, but was not sure that it could restrict use of its sources through October under this condition because of operational reasons. Over the summer of 2004, discussions between WRC Staff and the Town took place. Reading requested a return to their original position of reducing use of its sources from May through September. After review of the revised data, the WRC has concluded that the currently proposed plan has no significant change to impacts on the donor basin compared with the May through October transfer from MWRA that was initially reviewed. Concern remains over low flows that occur in'the Ipswich River, the receiving basin, during the month of October. Reading's historical demands have generally been 100 Cambridge Street, Boston, MA 02114 25 between 1.6 mgd and 1.7 mgd during October, and the growing season and outdoor water use is largely over at this time in Massachusetts.. Another condition in the June Staff Recommendation that caused Reading concern was the requirement to revise its drought/emergency plan to tie water use restrictions to streamflow levels in the Ipswich River under Criterion #3. As stated in the revised July 8, 2004 Staff Recommendation, this is a Performance Standard for Interbasin Transfer Act compliance. However, the Performance Standards allow for alternative methods to address the criteria of the Act. As discussed earlier in this document, Reading has since demonstrated that the current water use restrictions areas protective of streamflow resources. Reading has committed to applying Ipswich River streamflow thresholds to outdoor water use in the event that it exceeds its Interbasin Transfer purchase amount of 219 mg from the MWRA prior to the end of September. EO 385 This Decision is consistent with Executive Order 385, which has the dual objective of resource protection and sustainable development. This Decision does not encourage growth in areas without adequate infrastructure nor does it cause a loss of environmental quality or resources. CONDITIONS OF THE DECISION Based on the analyses and concerns expressed about this project, the approval of Reading's application under the Interbasin Transfer Act for admission to the MWRA Waterworks System is subject to the following conditions. Reading must commit in writing to abide by these conditions. If, for any reason other than a DEP emergency declaration, Reading amends its contract with the MWRA to increase the amount of water purchased, the Town will need to apply for additional ITA review. In order to demonstrate compliance with Criterion #2 that all reasonable efforts have been made to identify and develop all viable sources in the receiving area of the proposed interbasin*transfer. 1. Reading will manage its sources so that for the months of May through September, it will limit use of its Ipswich River Basin sources to 1 mgd, as long as its purchases from the MWRA are less than 219 mg per calendar year. Further, Reading will limit its purchase of MWRA water to no more than 219 mg per calendar year. If the Town purchases 219 million gallons in a calendar year, Reading shall institute voluntary restrictions on nonessential outside water use whenever the streamflow in the Ipswich River is at or below 24.9 cfs (0.56 cfsm) for three consecutive days at the United States Geological Survey (USGS) South Middleton Gauge, and mandatory restrictions on nonessential outside water use whenever the streamflow falls below 18.7 cfs (0.42 cfsm) for three consecutive ~`r26 100 Cambridge Street, Boston, MA 02114 . 26 days at the USGS South Middleton Gauge. The restrictions shall remain in place until the streamflow exceeds the applicable streamflow threshold value for seven consecutive days, or until the end of September, whichever comes first. At a minimum, the mandatory restrictions shall require hand held hoses only and limit the hours for outside watering to exclude the hours from 9 a.m. through 5 p.m. Nonessential outside water uses are uses that have no health or safety impact, are not required by regulation and are not needed to meet the core functions of a business or other organization. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Reading may permit the irrigation of public parks or recreational fields by automatic sprinklers equipped with moisture sensors or similar control technology outside of the hours between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. It is expressly recognized that the threshold levels reflect the levels as proposed in the water withdrawal permits issued to permittees in the Ipswich River Basin in May 2003 and that these thresholds may be further modified in the future. If the thresholds set forth in the waterwithdrawal permits issued to permittees in the Ipswich River Basin change, the Town may request that the WRC amend these thresholds to be consistent with the thresholds applicable in other communities with sources in the Ipswich River Basin. 2. If, after the new water treatment plant is on-line in Reading, an alternative purchase and withdrawal scenario is proposed, Reading must consult with WRC Staff to determine if this meets the requirements' of this hiterbasin Transfer Act approval. 3. Reading must provide annual reports to WRC Staff detailing how much water was pumped from its own sources and how much water was purchased from the MWRA for the first five (5) years after the town begins to receive MWRA water. After this period, Reading must furnish these reports to WRC Staff if requested. 4. Reading must work with DEP to condition its registration statement to address the three registration issues presented in the Secretary's Certificate on the FEIR dated October 31, 2003. In order to fully comply with Criterion #3, that all practical measures to conserve water have been taken in the receiving area: 1. Reading must continue effective demand management programs that meet the Interbasin Transfer Performance Standards for Criterion #3, Water Conservation. 2. Reading must provide the DEP Annual Statistical Reports to the WRC for the first five (5) years after the town begins to receive MWRA water to determine if the programs in place are successful in keeping unaccounted-for water at or below 10% and residential gallons per capita per day (gpcd) at 65 or less. 3.. If the amount of unaccounted-for water increases to greater than 10%, Reading must either provide an explanation of why this has occurred (e.g. water main break, large fire, etc.) or provide a plan, for WRC approval, to reduce unaccounted-for water to acceptable levels. 4. If residential.gpcd increases above 65, the Town must implement a comprehensive residential conservation program that seeks to reduce residential, water use through a retrofit, rebate or other similarly effective program for encouraging installation of household water saving devices, such as faucet 100 Cambridge Street, Boston, MA 02114 27 aerators, showerheads and toilets and through efforts to reduce excessive outdoor water use. If this occurs, the Town must provide a plan for this program to the WRC for approval. 5. Reading must notify the WRC when the High School and Barrows Elementary School renovations have been completed, with documentation of the retrofit devices installed. 6. Reading must provide annual reports detailing the water conservation actions taken as part of the four-year, $1 million program. This should include an accounting of the money spent and the successes of the program. Jet. 100 Cambridge Street, Boston, MA 02114 28 U S) 'o ca a i- > 40- CL U E U W a C: co a C: Q) cn ,C a co v > O O co a z v .Q co z O > N W Q N U CO v ~Cl) Q. g t- a aai 13 cf) ro > cu a) QY~ Q ( Q Q. 0WW Z cm 0.. LL 0 LL Q cps a c6 z Z~Z V' O -C Z OWE Q v U J W a U .Q Z F- CL e < _0 Q CL w - o 4- E c New ca C= lt~ 0 a u. Q• bwz F- =3 z=. Q Q F- CL > W cu UJ F- _ o cfO ~ a w a co Q) U L- 10 0 N C13 Q. a cu CY) a E a`') Q) C O C O' O ca ~0 a a) C C L d Co .00 <L r M N j N Z I .co Z W F- 0- F_ U-~ C? 4•.. co ~ .0 C O O O O N co O a) w co Z3 > _ ~ p U N 0 co R co f p Q) C.2 r- co -Q N 3 cu ' . t 7 Q Cr3 Ca L- .0 Q L QC*0 O a O :3 tY S CU co co a) cn :c c CO C co a)~ CO coo, p~ CU -0 -0 C)~ a 0- Q aio W~ C) co 4-COc Ica ;:3 to C a to o cts U aa) U ~ O O 0 CL ~ '0 S -o~~a,oQOOa) ciso~ onccto mQ)o C .-c .O ca 0 'a O cts •co c? N -a .a .C co o C cis O C-O 4- Q) 0 La) - co co CLc~n~-cjcu~?c`: a) oz C o0~a0m-0 ,0, Ua CL > C CO M, 4- 0 ca ca O Q Cl) O O ca co o 0 to coca- rZ~--o m Za o c ~oCO~ cu~(D ~a ~ c = m m C a CO a) co V i6 O D U a) co .Q) co c0 0. a) O CL U) a v ca V -Lu. V ~ a) cn.o7-; U o~ > o a) >,c-CO ca . °o'M0 oov~•C o 0,0 a) 0 v I~cor- moo) c~a o L C-a) -0 ( ,a? :3 Cl) aa) N 4-- 0 co E L a o s O O 0 Q) 4 O O CU a % O L) U C co > O 0- U IL' cQ O 'a C a m ` N a E Q. Q O .O C 0 O L- 4- CU -0 'o 42 0 o -O o O a a C 4) Q_ co Q O M Co U U tt) N a O E a) .E j R5 U tti c oID~C,0,Cm~v1Ocn U) > E' .c ai a a ~ ' q) ) ~L)o0 ~~Qo .oCrn.~~o - cu E Qca.C~aio~c(D 0amw a co cn 0) h,z C F,z 't3 8L F- Q) Q~ tl, -C C) C co c: Q -0 "O a- (Ya 0 0 O 0 0 U C -0 ~aCc a v a c t 0 a a U -0 4- O Q) b O ,Q . F= ,co ,C M ~ O 4 ca N 42 fa C) c CD a) C Q) a C ca zzz Q) t~6 a) -p a' M > Q) a5 aN ccu C O O ca C -D N Q- a) C ca U O Q O E o a a o `C o. co 0 ° U Co co .0) m r-D CO E .Oc .c a ca a) tiz m aoE c, 4- o ~ E ca co to co i, Q) CL ca ca ai ' ,O 4N a C Q Co -0 q3 O ce) CL O ) it :3 O v Z ` co c W Q ~s C) • ca W F- Co. 0~ L- • • 0` U u_ C O a) a) a) ai F•• O aa)) ~ V L o U O CY) co 0 ~C O CL Co C\l 4:~ C(3 CL ai C:) C O ~ O CU a) U Q ' o Cv o a~ •r. cn v V :3 `0 C 0 ca co 0 -o p S ti a) :S. La) N a) ~ O N Z3 C O Qa) C O O C Q L N O V O (a CO `~O -Z ca a) -0 co Q- O O O ca 0 C Co to a) Co 0 co 0 V C O O 0) CU 0 L M a)~a Qa~' > cu o 00, C a 0 Co ZZ: Q) a) S 0 N 0 4_.. a O c (U E cu -z -~c a) a) CO a Ct; co :3 >,0- 02 a) .o c a a)a oo ~a,fic CO 4- C) Z3 0 o o - ~ - a) v U Q O 'p O O a) '0'O O a) :3 O U Co a) ca Co 0 a a) j Cl) a)- aCU o Q) ) O.C C -0 co Q O. 0 - • e • • CL cn E o N O co ca CL C O Q ca Q m a) v r O E Q o O ` C a) co O YC., cCL Co co I a) ZZ co E m o .Q o a -0O p ca 2: a M ° MIS) A) -Q :L:! ca 21 as - =3 r Q o U C L- 4-- _ 'O CO cf7 w0, U CP U Q cz:> 0 O (1) 0 N Z3 Ei =3 Q- > a) U 0- O ~ O 0 C CU N Q C C3 C u co .U N 0 ~ O sue, a G L) v 4? Q CO co C C V O N. O a) Q) O L 0 0) a) O C2 Q u U C E c13 'C co CL-0 U 0 a C '(D 0 a v i r .0 c 0 C 2 i ca Q) cn ,C. Ca 0 O C O .0 cn 0 cu a r o co ca s E i Q ~ ~ Qc E•~ E a °o o,QCca 0 -0 o Co z" ° o v cn = CO Q) co Z Q .0 OQ'0 Q) -C C co c~ 4--. 07 O L O is `a a' 'zs .0 a) Ca b- O O a) V. N O N 0 a) E- • • • e • a co a) N E~ ` 4- O O O cn 0 O C O o t" U _x C Co C: 4- CL 0- c Q O W.- M cc C = a> ~a) _ - A 54- a c T-i 0-0 -O Co ca N O 0 o a <t rL CL a> L O Co cn O L "O C N yM. O C CO O C CO a4-)j C)- M-0 Q. Q L- _ =Ec: a) O C a) i co a) w O 40- ru o M N U o°~ C) ) . ~ ~ O o _°cc~ac c a)E~ a) _ O 0 to ` :30 O "a 00 O r. U c+~ ca c O C CO Q 0) U ~ C O) N t' .0 •l Z7 ~ o O t" > 0 ,C a) to o O cri C •O Q c R3 ~ 2 C6 E O p L -0 1- Q) •Q co t.0 s c , ~O i U co a E a m c o-a~ o o ~ (Z) co a) O N C \ ~ O V p- O 'co c ca 0) o m ~ cz. ~ rr m CO c ~ Q. o ~ a) M (a • J a) Q) p~ Q'NN c tf) Rj co C (D ( © CO CU N O a) co U O U U CJ (L E ~ _ c4 L ca 0 • ar (D LLB. a) L Q C (o ca N Co co O U CD CO O N N E C' > O OL' ~ o _E 0 cn • O U Q 0 ca 0 0 -C O c a) N Z3 • U O-Q ~ p . L to CL Q Cc$ aci c co c O t3 ~ tB ~ (q .c a) c co ~ 0 :5 E o .4- 3: % co O CL (D ~ 'a tin o O 't3 Cti a) ci. ate) a C = o O 0 co a i Co CU L- = (0 V1 C N o co ::3 v; O ~ N +-O ca p .C m -v co E :c ca ca c~ -ON o ~ N p' cu %Z O U Co Q) U O 0* > cc .C O Co co cn U O ? CU C~ 4. c rn -r- co -c co, 'C 0) (D C •C3 0 :3 JZ: O C:pm O O E ~ H c • • • • o N W O U) a) co a) 2 m O Q) O CL Cl) a) N _O CD O' ~ ~ vi o O o)•C: co Q. cu E o ) 0) O S .C: C. E u G co &Z to cu C 'tLF co a) 0 U 0 C,) 0 i to C' Co Co -0,0) c _ ca U a) Q m -I- cn ~ L v- v - o Q m 4 ~ O a) 0) coca Q v c -Q (n > i a) ;c w O Co ~ a) a) to ca V y_ a) E fem. z Cl) a) to CO 0 -4- U ~ .Q O ' Cf) U 3 ~ Z3 a U a) ; CO CO O 4- ' CO 0 w ~ 00 'co - E ca a) a) C: - cu v .2 rz ' -O Q 0 C a) t3 Q N N' 0 to O E Ll ~ m Q co . r\ C L Lo p ' a) a) .0 U) -0 = L U O (n ~ o (D a) Z7 a) L 0 CU O c N O O L > ~ v cA V) C O N CU J 1- .'t7. ~ N a) c cr- 0mE.O co Q " C C O Q a) U) cn,-o 0 =3 C U) U = U) O L U O V O a(D ' Cu is rr a) aa)) .c ~ .c I- rZ U a) ai as CU ~ C 3..o ~O M ca a) Cu CU C ~ O ) w o C' CU C Cu _cn 4 0. tP U- :2 a)cccu E-L cu ca o O • aj 0. 0' cu cu c v~E(D ca co L- 0) 0 Cu a) o E _ C Z) O U ca 'O a) 0 C cn mss N N . O N cII ca 0) to co U C cu O. f- N co -C 4- CL 00) 0) :3-4- r a) ca ca O C N. C a) E Z) o a) c~ Co < (D C: • cn E a) M d- .--I N O C O d-J 0 co •I -J 0 Q) 4-J U) a) C .O ru u C) O 16-31 C L Q a .C N a; v 70 CO O O y .C RS ~ ~ i•, Q" O ~ O V CZ C ~ •O C co 'v q_- ca S C 1 0 CO (D a) v o a CO o Q) -0 ca U) -R p co 0 > E Q u p C) G) (D C (a CO _0 Ca z C\l Q) co o 75 , p C) ~ •OC2 Co CO 0 N N ~ CO •O a) ~O_ CU co C ~ ^Q > C O N CO C O LQ) 4- C. 0 4) . O N Z a) U ca co Q C a) ca E , co .0 ` . ~CO ~ Q O.~ Q • N (0y a) Q C C r cO O E + CO z . C tO 0 M Ca o v b.° o ~.N Q> Q) moo); o~cai Q ~~~„a co .:zs, ` EO c6 Q ,lz Cr3 O 0 p U C 4- v. a 0 E CO U O Q) U O a) . co co c t3 a) CO - g- trj~ C a O O y o Co a co ~ °C) co ca V .O t= ca Q a W 0 i U O E -o O co O co U co C co . , ~1 v C U t7 ~ ~ O Q)j v O O Q ~s a) CU CO N co co 4D.~ O N . t. O V 'Q U U r-T3 LO O 4- co CO 0 0 U Co CO tt:~ ca m ca "T Q) o 0) (a cu • ` L 0).1 4-- y ' O v .O 1 v Q o Vl< E v0 0` Q k -r Z L6 C •p p co s~ oo W o o. Q Ei - 'D o°a -0 ca v 4 ::a O C co cz C: t77 v OL O Q C O~ -Q p O QS E 6 0 zzz -F Q). aN~ Ecv cO0Om..a? ca a) > v v Qvv v. a) v v. > v O C -C .C c0 • o F-= .ca 1- co t-- Q a"oi q O O L c- cn co 0 ~ N ~ N C M 0 co ° N 0). a) CU -Ca 0 23 I-- O -Q ~-L 4-• p C a) = 0 a) N tr- y(6 CO .C U) .Q E1- aLt:~ = Q.~•E ° - of aC N Eca~ CA CD- CO ' vac 0)' Uca)C -0:3 ,c E~cE. "D Lo N ti+ O O E 0 E a) t0 O ca. CU .O .C a) > -O U co w a) . O a). :3 U) O . CU 4- C 1-C: 0 45 - a) ° CU a) E " CO 2 -CU (Ln- C: Co co Q. a) N O E :3 C 0 O L > 0) a to O °O m O CT- C a) = .0 = O N L V C CU 0uvi:3 vd ~j0'S o 0 0) to a) a) L a) 0 a) z a O a) U) ,C U) C0 4-J n O X F- Q E v p 0 COQ I COi t0 O 0 U) ~ O co (D CU 4- M M O, 0Nca c) -C as CO .0 O ca Eo)L-. a -~~0U) L aC) O U) ca co .S o m a). ca co a) -Q U Cam''' ~ ~ : §~-Q E a) E F- co CO ci U) a) L. U CO [x. 0- :01 O E O) 0) to L Q C U Cl) O C Q) 0 -Ei 16 G Q N Q- 'O v O O _O «r a) C m co CL C CL C U co O :)I. Cu C V... .-i cO tO L. O Q) C Cn co _ p C 4- 0 L CA (D CU (D M 4- C 0 L .0 ~ p :3 n O C O U C N O a) o 0 p m ca CZ a) m to :p CL co U to U CO aa)) > °4-1 Qa -c Cram `a co CL 2 co C -0 co - w~~m . a).Em0 Q a) O c C Q C) co M,w "Q C CO E w s? CO ~ cO CC U W L- -0 -0 Co 0 (D ' a) N W o Co~ -:zt O O a) a) a)~~ ° E O CL E < CU W. ~5 -C *0 E Co. a) O a). C3 00w °~EUE C cu co co ^ a CID C O cu co, aN co Z • a) 4- C O - 0 0 = CL co ~ ) :3 3 cu 0 a) a) o 0 o cu a) ±3 CL L. :3 0) a) E cu co p U) N L- cu 0) CL ~p p L F. E a) co a) - a) 0 .0) cn 0..1-- U C ~ a) O O L o a) y ca a) a) fD C C -p a 3: E O E p 2: 'a 0) a) U ,-0 o C C: - (a Q) w r a) a) cu -0 Q) (n (D ~ 0 0cn c O) tt o - co m C C o Q~ oc:a) o . iu QCC' c C~ ~ a tea) s~ v CU L ~ a) `~`u~"- 0 O O 4-, O tin cu L. m C C a) N cu a) m a) ca 16 a) 'O - co Eo='Coo. ) "O 0 C cu s 0 0) 0 CZ ~ U L- ~s.- ` L ° aa)) A:~4- Co U) p 0 a co ~ a) o 0, o o a) w a) c) cr Ct) o Q ~ co 3 E =3 C CO «C p `E Q 0c 0 0 O-0 4- 0 c ~ N O U O c M M C 1 cu~~ a) 0 w M c n 0a)0ca) 0 CL = C - ca a) a) 0 ac C C o C 4- co Eo a5 o - C> co 0- 0OCC E -0 a) Z3 "D Q O C 0 •RT L., C L C cl) •X Co ay 0 a.-..0 cTf O C •0 co o . 0 Z3 -.0 4- z 'L: to co O a- m y a) -4.- 0 t2 C -p ' C co Q E a) E cis N 4 2 cn Q) to a) 0- C.) CU Q3 C ~a ~ O C a 2 p - Co 0) (D > 4.1 C C -C M a) O C U ~ ' - Q) ~ E n) p ~ co 0- ° . a) = C CO C 4- 0 4 , cr3 ' 1 p 0 a) N U 2 4? c Q / ♦ ~ ~ rt DoT but a) ~N( e 0 ` U L/ a) ~ / -0 -4- O W ~ Y t;z O •V `v `v a 12: LZ ~ A r,, (a wJ p co fn 4- U .C Yy c /U a) -0 ~ .p C / ~ ~ W :3 C ~ ~ 6{ C C O LZW 3 'j CL > O U s. O cn O O N O c u ~ " 0 O "3 ~ E cQ p cu S a M a) ~y ° cn 4- ° . ~ :3 a) C co ya) O cu cu ° o O a~j 00 ca co C) coC - `O X o. 4- a. 0 cu . rn~a) c n . a) E cu . 0 Co 0 r-' (b o 04 0, C a) O C _ 0 C L & U) E a) ca :3 Q. cc :3 t6 0) 0 f-. co N. co O ~ p w ~ p Q N :3 O (r3 C M 0 0 ~ C s a) ~ L O -M t' ) a) c ) ~ C ~ y - ca p -a 0)w CU O -ca as -E Z o- " C a 0 0 c cu . CU C E u) C -C a) ca Q o m C to 0 i - a) V ~ o a) O - C O O y O 4- co a) `C a) a) O C U `o o E'Z3 ~ a) ov,vo ECl) . 4-a)a) 'G . cu CT o L a) a N °a) cu w-• L C zs m a c° _ O 4- cz -o to C crj Z °)`'w Qc a a)p. ti a L . a)a) E Q (ma i 4a co E5its3a)~ Q0 a) ) - Q Q 5 C E - N Q ' cc = c Cis v) Fes- Q V to ' a) O a) • • a) o- • •5 ~ -I u • • m = c } C 0 T-~~ C r~ ~5a2coa¢a. C Q co U m ~a m t-- a a) Oj co o a) :a Co cr- O V Q C v W ~ O C 0 q C E Q) ~U 0 m cis ~ O co co aco 0 I C I.O 0 Co a) CO a U 01- (D WR tV N 0) CU V co ca "0 •z3 a) C cu E c6 J O, c cu C C) vim) N 4) C ~ M M "t T-1 N, O C 0 -Lj N O m 4-J a) .{J U) a) rn //L~~ . m u O C) T-'I A060,33 E V) C . 0- _o c 4~ •p L o a) cu :c O 'C E N 3.0 a) c co co 0 a ~ (a cu (D Co C:5, co C O C • 'O U O E O a= O i L F, >,O O cu ~c 0) E N cu o ~ CU r C a) L, -p i . (a CL cu •00cua). c= a) E a) 0. Co Q .0 ii~ o . coc o !C: CU (D ESca. Ea)U v ~c4- a) to ..co a) a) O O CU E Co 0) Co a) CU CU C R L C C O r E o p Erns ~ 4- :3 co c E ~OF t3 cuO`-'c. =3 CU z (D 0 a) C). C CL E cu. CL O cu > ~ N O QQ a> cn a) O a) CL = . ia) a) ErLO CF) O T3. 'Q o =CD cn0. CO CU i c Co ~Ncu a)cna) a) ~ o 'Q 0) •c co Q a) O Q. :3 :3 0 =C3 cu E 1,,. -O - 2 'S c a) L ~ Q Q (D o 4- co cu CO U 0 cu > ''a) cu Co E a) a) ~ 0 :3 0 cu COO ~C >E-cco 0- 'p CO U cu 16 0).+ 6 4- co cf) a) a) O -Q ~•-a) ca eta Q>wv) •a . 0 m =3 p 'Q Lo- C -C cl, c C 4- 0 c 0- ca a) cu a . 0) cu O a) c cu "C E L _ a) a) A) a CO Cr3 6- - co c ° C a) C: c 0 a`a a) Q> O c cn Q F, L CE Ea)q-c Ecu0. E-0 4- E 75 Cf) • O 0 • Ucu~o U2 - U L M ° o cri C D 0 o a cc -0 i tL co S' Q 0 V Co co Lys ~ C C c j, cu Q) C CO 'N O O 'fC Z3 :3 p O C C m N c .a OQ p Fa p U z 'y Q 0 c `O C Q yr ti+ co z z O N cA U O C w., U o o m c a (D a; ° o i c C11-1 Q, U O N Co O a)c cn i Q C O -O -C c0 d' 0) a) -C cLu . Q O O p C •O Q C en 42 ~ a) N O co a) O a) CO .C2 O cu `a a c .o C L. c CO c a 3;7 0 cu co ~ ~Q cu ~ a) co a) c .c it p z) 0 N a) co Co i ~p CO 1 V E o 4~ O U Q) CO O C O h c O` V E -Cl O C N Cl) Q. pp p C X02 O C (D .0 o n 4.. -0 U) P cu > co CF) -(D o cu ai o a) 0c co Or ~s 0 cu N a) O N 4-- :p C: CO cu Ca a) Z .0 ::3 E a) N ~ ro O O ~ 0 IQ.) N E 0 C co a) O Q a) cu CD Co Q) C CO ~s a) . Qy€:`+ o c -ct V U C3' Q co Q co t) to N. N cu cr E© E 'E cc a co - Q c cA 'r• U C Q) Q' . E i. Q. O O L N O (D W RS 0 p v) U cu D) a) 3 O Q) -Z U O p Q 3 C cr cu CO .6.4 tB O . iFa j 1 Co O 0 • cri ca a) rz 0 Q) CO co C13 0 4- OC LZ (D cts Z. Q'0 Q vi O) co CU Z v) C Q i o o E cu CU (b L a> Co 0 o C ap ~ WQ W ~~Q E ~C °'Q Eti.c H'.. 0- • ~ o f • e s • o Ito I L N CO ~ E k `o aa., ~ c Az ca a a~ O t~ QCj "00 'p N C: C: ° E Q N N Q ° U a pro.. CF) a L CU V v o`er cu .C Q uQ, co c 0 ro ° LEI ,rz: •r-- U i 3 O• cu'l CC CD (D co M, C5 CU 0. Q- R3 L -C U -C2 ° O 0 CL tB CU Q. 4 p ` Z7 j c C 4.. O co 0 Q: NBC N O C`' N CO ° c0 yC.. •p 0 N ° 'O Rs CU r-L O > ~ O C U -p 1S CCtf ca C ,i .OC 5 CU co ca U C tq t' aj co 0 tr) 0) 'C3 co a) Q- •p co p) C D) Z3 a~ Ei co i. CU •Q y .4? qOj O 03 _O v- 'k U O N V O Rf C/I ~ 0 C O Qtly. N ~y O (ts i to O • , Cl) O U (D 00 co (D Co 4_ a U ca Q O CZ t;:~.0 v C O tU cB N C .~-4- > ca a) C- CU CO 0 rj) C13 p ~ -b N cB ° V > t3 'r v O Q j 'CS ~ tN C1 ~ L co C cz 'o 0 CU CO Co a~ c) cz . CC v ° Z.0 cu a co x C a 0 CU ca.aaio mCO co mc~ o0o t)) co 4t.42 0 CO Z3. r a) CU °c p y o :J cu Z C 05 :3 ro. o Q) Q> V) Cl) co C) -61 co C) a) a) Ca co co Z a Q Z id ~ ~C_ .oQa~ o co tom- v° `a i cu U CU a t-- ° a ° to c •o Q) as .a? ct: 0 Z "r - -0 - ° .W~Q. -°J~Cca co )dr- Loma) Z~ CU Z ca CL A Z •C,:- 4 O ~ p p p o, co Z3 jr~ c) E2 t1J .0 W ui CU 0 :3 to UL o0 E C: CU Cl) V 0 U Q to • • • h M d- N C) C O N O co .I 4-J tU in N O) •L .i] fQ co 0 IG•~S a - L fsisu 4r THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS f;4 WATER RESOURCES COMMISSION " 100 CAMBRIDGE STREET, BOSTON MA 02114, Meeting Minutes for December 9, 2004 Members in Attendance: John Clarkeson Designee, EOEA Marilyn Contreas Designee, DHCD Glenn Haas Designee, DEP Gerard Kennedy Designee, DAR Mark Tisa Designee, DFG Mike Gildesgame Designee, DCR .Joseph Pelczarski Designee,' CZM David Rich Public Member Matthew Rhodes Public Member Gary Clayton Public Member Bob Zimmerman Public Member Others in Attendance: Linda Marler DCR Michele Drury . -DCR Sara Cohen DCR Ron Sharpin DCR Steve Garabedian USGS Ted McIntire Town of Reading Peter Tassi Town of Reading John Gall CDM David Brew MWRA Margaret Kearns Riverways Jessica Stephens Siler ELM Duane LeVangie DEP Martha Stevenson League of Women Voters Kerry Mackin IRWA Eileen Simonson WSCAC Agenda Item #1: Executive Director's Report Gildesgame stated that he had been asked to chair the meeting as Honkonen was away. Clarkeson was representing EOEA. Tisa suggested that letters of appreciation should be sent to the former members thanking them for their years of service. Simonson added that she had mentioned this to Jim Stergios as well. 7001 Massachusetts Water Resources Commission • December 9, 2004 • Page 2 of 17 Marler provided an update on the hydrologic conditions: • Conditions are good. November's precipitation appears to be near normal. The two-month precipitation statistics are on the low side, as a result of October's precipitation being below normal. December, so far, is ahead of schedule for normal and it looks like there will be another inch of rain over the weekend. • Ground water and streamflow levels in November were normal throughout the state. • . Reservoir levels are refilling after the summer decline. • The precipitation forecast for December is for above normal. The long-range forecast for January, February and March is showing below norm precipitation, but it is too early to tell. Drury noted for the Executive Director's Report that the required public hearings for the Cummingsville Interbasin Transfer are scheduled for next Thursday, December 16th. She hoped that the Commissioners would attend. Gildesgame said that he had been asked to take the Reading discussion out of turn, due to scheduling issues of a few Commissioners. Agenda Item #3: Vote - Staff Recommendation Regarding Reading's Request under the ITA to Join the MWRA Waterworks System Gildesgame urged that discussion of this topic be focused and that any remarks made be concise. Drury reminded the Commission that this proposal had been discussed in detail at the July WRC meeting and during the Executive Director's report in November. A summary of the changes from the July Staff Recommendation was included as a cover sheet to the Draft Decision sent out for this meeting. A list of the conditions, as they appear in the December Draft Decision and as they appeared in the July Staff Recommendation, was distributed. In July, Staff reported that Reading had concerns with the June Staff Recommendation. The town was concerned that the conditions of the June Staff Recommendation would restrict the flexibility it had in operating their system. Staff and the Town had several meetings over the summer to negotiate conditions that would meet the requirements of the Interbasin Transfer Act, but still address the Town's concerns. The town officials in the audience were acknowledged. In addition, as discussed last month, Reading has met many of the conditions that were in the June Staff Recommendation, so these have been eliminated from the December document. Drury noted that there has been a lot of interest in this Draft Decision, but many of the issues that have been raised with this draft were raised earlier and responded to through the formal response to comments, which was provided to the WRC in August. Drury redistributed this document. Issues: • One issue raised is that the WRC is not regulating the use of Reading's existing sources. Drury explained that this is beyond the jurisdiction of the Interbasin Transfer Act. This is a transfer from the Chicopee and Nashua River basins into the Ipswich River basin, therefore our authority over the use of Reading's local sources is limited. In fact, the Interbasin Transfer Act requires maximizing the use of local sources before a transfer can be approved. It is hard not to acknowledge the fact that water withdrawals in the Ipswich basin, especially in the headwaters where Reading is located, are having an impact on streamflows in the Ipswich River. Reading is being required as a condition of approval to use its sources as originally proposed, limiting withdrawals to 1 mgd from May through September. Reading has committed to this. 1 lav2w Massachusetts Water Resources Commission • December 9, 2004 • Page 3 of 17 • Another concern that was raised was that streamflow requirements of the Performance Standards are being waived. Drury said that these are not being waived but that the Performance Standards allow a proponent to show that there are alternate means to meet a standard. This is discussed on pages 7, 25 and 26 of the Draft Decision. Reading has demonstrated to Staff that the restrictions and water conservation programs in place provide the same results as having streamflow restrictions in their drought/emergency management plan. Drury reminded the Commission that these are performance standards, not regulations. Reading has agreed to impose streamflow restrictions in the event that they reach the limit of the Interbasin Transfer approval. This is outlined in Condition 1 under Criterion #2, on page 26 of the Draft Decision. • Another issue that has been raised is that a more lenient approach is being taken to Reading than to other Ipswich River basin communities. Drury pointed out that Reading's application was subject to the criteria of the Interbasin Transfer Act, not the Water Management Act. Reading was evaluated in a manner consistent with all other Interbasin Transfer Act applications. The requirements of the Water Management Act are beyond the jurisdiction of the Interbasin Transfer Act. Reading is under its Water Management Act registration, and therefore they are not subject to the requirements of a Water Management Act permit. Reading has agreed to include conditions on their registration as a result of their purchase from MWRA. One of those conditions agreed to is that MWRA water will not be used to increase the amount of water Reading can use. Reading will be limited to their registration amount from any combination of their sources and MWRA water. Drury distributed a letter from the town to DEP agreeing to modify their registration statement. This was also required by the Secretary's certificate on the FEIR. Tisa asked if amendment of the registration extended Reading's registration, or will it still expire in 2008. LeVangie replied that this did not extend the registration. Reading's registration will expire on January 1, 2008, unless they request to renew it before then. • Another comment was that the WRC should require Reading to purchase more water from the MWR.A, rather than use its own sources, in the event it reached the Interbasin Transfer approval limit before the end of September. Drury replied that Reading is not under any obligation at all to purchase water from the MWRA. The WRC doesn't have the authority to make the Town purchase more. Reading wanted to have operational flexibility. Purchasing water is always an option under an emergency declaration or an additional Interbasin Transfer Act review, in the event Reading decided it needed to purchase more in the future. Reading recognized a problem and volunteered to come up with a solution. They are not under any obligation to do this. The Town is under its Water Management Act registration. They are looking to the future. This will not solve all of the Ipswich River's problems, but it is a start. Zimmerman wanted to know how long the public had to review all these changes. Drury said that public hearings were held in May; and Zimmerman said that there are lots of changes and letters that he had only just seen. Drury responded that the Commission was apprised of what was going on last month, so it has been public knowledge since then. The Draft Decision came out with the December WRC mailing, but this has been a topic of conversation at the WR.C meetings since July. Zimmerman said, but still, there are a lot of changes. He referred to a letter from the town of Reading dated November 28, 2004. Drury replied that the letter in question was to the Department of Environmental Protection concerning the Water Management Act registration. The information in the letter had been outlined as a requirement of the Certificate o-3 Massachusetts Water Resources Commission • December 9, 2004 • Page 4 of 17 on the FEIR, which came out in 2003. Gildesgame stated that he was not sure what impact the letter to DEP would have on an Interbasin Transfer Act decision. Drury added that it has also been discussed at Commission meetings that Reading would be amending its registration statement. Drury stated that the public had gotten all notifications as required under the Interbasin Transfer Act and its regulations. Zimmerman said that this didn't answer his question. Gildesgame again asked how the November 28`h letter would affect the decision today, noting that it simply was Reading's agreement to abide by the Secretary's certificate of 2003. Zimmerman responded that he wasn't sure if Reading is limiting its withdrawal to its current withdrawal, and there was no commitment from the town _in the past to do so. He felt that this information would have a pretty significant impact on the decision. Drury noted that the Secretary's Certificate had come out in September 2003. If one compares the letter with the certificate, it goes through the same points that the Secretary required. So this has been in the public realm for a while. It is a follow-up to the requirements of the Secretary's Certificate. Mackin stated that she had received her WRC package with the revised Staff Recommendation two days ago. This was the first time she had seen these changes. To give the public two days to react to these changes, she said, undermines the confidence of the public to the openness of this process. She respectfully requested that the WRC entertain a continuance to give the public and others the opportunity to review these changes. Drury repeated that this had been discussed at the WRC meeting last month, specifically because of these changes. Staff wanted to make sure that the WRC was aware of them and had time to consider them. This has been public knowledge for a month. Simonson said that she didn't understand why the WRC couldn't require the town to buy more water from the MWRA to meet the Ipswich River streamflow requirements, which, she stated, are a part of the Act. Gildesgame reminded Simonson that the streamflows of concern under the Act are in the donor basin (Chicopee and Nashua). The Act does not give the Commission jurisdiction over the streamflows in thexeceiving basin (Ipswich). Simonson claimed that the reason the WRC accepted this application was under the guise of improving streamflows in the Ipswich basin. She said "You have to look at the whole package! It seems to me, we should get a cost estimate from the MWRA or the town of what it would mean for them to buy more water through October." Marler gave a presentation of the technical analyses. Reading will continue to use its existing sources, wells in the headwaters of the Ipswich basin. The Town is proposing to limit the use of these wells to 1 mgd for the time period of May through September. This is a change from the June Staff Recommendation, when the proposal was to limit withdrawals and purchase water from May through October. Reading is proposing to supplement its water needs during these months with a purchase of 219 million gallons (mg) from the MWRA. On average, this represents 1.44 million gallons per day (mgd). The Town has agreed to include N1WRA water within the "cap" of their Water Management Act registration, rather than as an add-on. The existing sources are nine wells in the Ipswich River basin. The capacity of these wells (combined) is 8.36 mgd, considerably above Reading's registration of 2.57 mgd and average day demand of 2.0 mgd. However; the wells are located near industrial sources, which have experienced ground water contamination and contamination from nearby Route 93. The Town's wells are vulnerable to that contamination. These wells also contribute to streamflow depletion in the Ipswich River. 10).3/ Massachusetts Water Resources Commission • December 9, 2004 • Page 5 of 17 Marler noted some of the changes in the proposal since July: • Reading has modified the period when they will purchase MWRA water back to May through September, as originally proposed in the DEIR. This changes the amounts used in the analyses. For the May through October time period, discussed under the initial ITA review, Reading would have purchased, on average 1.2 mgd (1.8 cfs). If Reading was to take the 1 mgd proposed from their own sources plus the average 1.44 mgd now proposed from the MWRA, the summer demand would be 2.44 mgd. This results in a summer to winter ratio of 1.22, which meets the DEP WMA policy for communities doing a good job of conservation. This seemed reasonable to Staff. This will allow Reading to have enough water to meet their current demands. Many communities had ratios much higher in 2003. Reading will be held to this amount. Zimmerman noted that in 2003 we had an exceptionally wet summer where demand on public potable water supply for irrigation of lawns was way down. Drury added that Reading had water restrictions in place since 1992. Clayton asked about the ratio. Drury responded that under DEP's Water Management Act policy, when communities are at certain ratio levels, DEP requires a certain percentage reduction in water use. At 1.2, DEP does not require water use reduction. Mackin stated that her numbers for Reading during the last few years were much higher. Marler said that Staff looked at a summer use of 2.44 mgd and Drury asked how Mackin was calculating the numbers. When WRC staff looked at this, they used DEP's formula. Marler said that staff looked at the impacts of taking October out of the analysis. Reading's October average demand is 1.72 mgd (or 2.7 cfs). DEP's streamflow requirements for the Ipswich River Water Management Act permits are discontinued in October. Given this and the impacts to the donor basin and the fact that the growing and lawn watering season is over in October, it was felt that it was equitable to take October out of the purchase period. • Flows in the Ipswich River were also examined under this scenario. Marler stated that at the South Middleton gage, the mean October streamflow is 51 cfs. This is much higher than in July, August and September, as shown on the graph she presented. Marler reminded the WRC that under the Interbasin Transfer Act, the Comm'ission's charge is to protect the donor basin from unacceptable environmental impacts. The Commission is under no obligation to look at impacts to the Ipswich River, the receiving basin, from a transfer. Zimmerman differed: "Except the whole reason that Reading is before us is because of impacts to the Ipswich River basin." Marler continued that the criteria Staff is charged with advising the Commission on do not include results in the Ipswich River. Zimmerman interjected: "But the Ipswich River is why they're here. So we have to take that into consideration as we look at the impacts to the Swift River." Marler continued that after Reading apprised Staff that they wanted to change the transfer schedule from October to September, the analyses of the impacts to the donor basin were examined to determine if they changed. There was no significant change in any of the impacts. • The issue of tying water use to streamflow restrictions in a drought/emergency management plan, which is a requirement of the Performance Standards-, was also examined. Reading has demonstrated that the current water use restrictions in place and restricting use of their wells to 1 rngd through the summer months are as protective of the streamflow in the Ipswich River as using the DEP streamflow restrictions applicable under the Water Management Act. Reading has also agreed to tie their well use to DEP's streamflow restrictions in the event that they exceed the Interbasin Transfer limit meaning that if the Town does have to use its own wells. during the May-September time period at levels greater than 1 mgd, it will be subject to the streamflow thresholds. Marler showed a graph from the DEIR, where the May through Massachusetts Water Resources Commission • December 9, 2004 • Page 6 of 17 September time period was originally proposed. It is a flow duration curve which outlines a number of scenarios. The curves which demonstrate impacts from using the Reading wells as proposed and in imposing streamflow restrictions are virtually identical. She concluded that this- demonstrates that there is not a significant difference in either requirement. Under Reading's proposed scenario, they will keep the operational flexibility they need to keep their treatment plant running. Tisa asked which streamflow thresholds were used in the graph. Marler replied that these were the thresholds that DEP was using in their Water Management Act permits for the Ipswich River. Zimmerman asked if there's no difference then why doesn't the proponent accept the threshold. Marler said that it was because of operational considerations, so Reading wasn't constantly turning their water treatment plant on and off all summer. Zimmerman replied: "But there's no difference." Marler answered that the Performance Standards allow Reading to demonstrate that there is an alternate means to realize the same protections. She stated that in looking at this graph, she thought it was clear that Reading's proposal provides the same protections. Zimmerman said: "I respectfully disagree. If the streamflow thresholds are there and if they're triggered, that's more protective than behaving as if 1 mgd is fine.... I'm not sure we are seeing the appropriate reach. But if the science suggests they're the same, to have the more protective thresholds there doesn't change what everybody knows. That's essentially what the science is saying so we would keep the more protective thresholds." Marler suggested that this was for the Commissioners to decide. She continued that she had looked at this graph at different scales--the 75 percentile and higher flow durations, the lowest of the low flows--to see if she could ascertain any greater difference and she could not. Reading's proposal looks like it is equally protective at all levels. Garabedian asked which point of the Ipswich River the flow duration curve represented. Marler was unsure but thought it was the South Middleton gage. Zimmerman and Mackin felt that staff should use the USGS HSPF model and analyze the flow duration data for Reach 8 of the Ipswich River, where the Reading well impacts are most pronounced. Mackin asked if the 1 mgd and the even/odd restrictions are in place. Drury answered that these assume the same conservation restrictions will be in place. Mackin repeated: are those even/odd? What are the restrictions? Drury answered that these have described in detail in the EIR and are repeated in Table 1 in all the Staff Recommendations and the Draft Decision. The restrictions are in the Town's bylaw. Gildesgame said that the conservation restrictions that are in place are acceptable and the restriction of pumping will provide the protection we are looking for. Mackin said that there will be less protection for the Ipswich once the MWRA water purchase is exhausted. Gildesgame repeated that under the Interbasin Transfer Act, the Commission doesn't have the authority to make Reading purchase more water. Drury added that the conditions require Reading to continue with its conservation program. Simonson said "I didn't see that they were required to continue the same level of constraint on outdoor water use that they have had in place in 1992." She asked McIntire if this was true. McIntire said that this was not true. In fact, he said, the Selectmen had recently eliminated voluntary restrictions. Now mandatory restrictions are required. Simonson continued "But don't you now have a hand-held requirement?" She asked if this would be eliminated once this approval was given. McIntire said no, it will now be more restrictive. Drury pointed out that on page 27 of the Draft Decision, there was a requirement that said: "Reading must continue effective demand management programs that meet the Interbasin Transfer Performance Massachusetts Water Resources Commission • December 9, 2004 • Page 7 of 17 Standards for Criterion #3, Water Conservation." Simonson said: "I agree that the Staff of the Commission is constrained to consistently look at the law as it has been looked at historically. I object to the statement that you condition conservation programs or something else that's not in the legislation. The implication is that you can't force certain actions. You can force certain . actions by having retained the through October 31st use of 1 mgd. You can take those things in your jurisdiction and configure them in a way that really means a better standard for streamflow protection and conservation. So I think its kind of a red herring to say that the Ipswich is not in your jurisdiction." Marler repeated that Reading had agreed to amend its registration statement to limit the amount of'water used from all sources, including the MWRA, to the current registered amount. They have also agreed to apply the streamflow thresholds if the amount of water purchased from MWRA if the Town reaches the Interbasin Transfer limit before the end of September. The presentation of new information was concluded. A re-cap of the initial analysis could be continued, but it was suggested that the Commission may wish to discuss the application at this time, and forego the information presented at previous meetings. Rich stated that if the WRC voted to approve this transfer, the town of Reading will withdraw only 1 mgd from its wells in the summer months and if it doesn't approve this, the town of Reading will be withdrawing about 2.44 mgd during the summer months from its own wells. He said that it was pretty clear to him which decision would have the most negative effect on the Ipswich River. He agreed that it might be a good idea for Reading to purchase more water, but he viewed this as an operational issue that should be left up to the town of Reading. The Commission has two options, he said; "Which protects the Ipswich River more?" Rich felt that a vote against this proposal would be a vote against the Ipswich River. Zimmerman moved to continue the vote to the January 13, 2005 meeting to allow for greater public review and comment on the. WRC staff recommendation and to allow the WRC staff to run the hydrologic model for segment 8 for the Ipswich River under the proposed water use regimes. It was seconded by Clayton. Drury stated that the Commission is required to make a decision 60 days after the close of the last public hearing, unless both the Commission and the proponent agree in writing to extend it. This has been extended twice already. Reading would need to agree to extend the vote a third time. Zimmerman asked Reading's representatives if they would be willing to extend it another month. McIntire said the Town respectfully requested a decision today. Zimmerman then said "There are other venues to decide this." Gildesgame asked him to explain what he meant. Zimmerman answered "There's the courts in the State of Massachusetts the last I . looked." Rich said that he did not want the Commission to intimidate people. "This concerns me. There are options, let them play out. I really have a concern that we sit here as voluntary public servants and make statements that in fact intimidate applicants." Zimmerman responded that he had "...no intention of intimidating the proponent. However there is new information that's been presented to this Commission that the public has had two days to review, some of which it hasn't reviewed at all. It's very important in terms of our making this decision and not to allow the public an opportunity to review and comment on this is unconscionable. And I will do whatever is necessary to make certain the public gets that opportunity." Gildesgame said that without a joint agreement to extend the vote, the Commission is required to vote today. Zimmerman asked when the last extension had been. Drury replied that the vote had a~ Massachusetts Water Resources Commission • December 9, 2004 - Page 8 of 17 been extended until today. Zimmerman asked to see the letter extending the vote. Drury replied that she did not have the letter. Honkonen had sent it and he was not present. She pointed out the clause in the regulations which requires the vote within the time frame discussed. Zimmerman said he thought this was ridiculous. Simonson said the WRC was supposed to vote on this on November 4th; then the town asked for an extension because there was more work to be done. She stated that the town should allow this to be extended until the January meeting. She didn't understand what was meant by the term `calendar year', with respect to MWRA water purchases by Reading. She said she thought there is too much confusion here. Drury replied that Reading asked for an extension until November 4th. They provided Staff with additional information to support their proposal to purchase water only until September. Staff did not have enough time to evaluate this and bring it in its final form to the November meeting, so Staff asked Reading for an extension. An overview of the new information and the opinion of Staff concerning the analysis of this information were presented to the Commission last month. This was presented to the WRC so that they would understand why they were not voting in November. The issue of the calendar year is explained by the MWRA's contracts which run in the calendar year (January 1St to December 31S). Reading has committed to restrict its withdrawals during the summer months unless it meets the 219 mg cap on the transfer. Gildesgame reminded the Commission that there was a motion on the table. He asked if it is a valid motion, noting that without the Town's concurrence to extend the decision, it is not a valid motion. Zimmerman said that if the motion was voted on, it would act as a poll of the Commission. Gildesgame said a poll of the Commission could betaken, but the motion was not valid. Clayton suggested that the motion be withdrawn, as it was not valid. Drury added that if the Commission did not vote on the application today, according to opinions she's had in the past from legal counsel, the application is approved by default. Zimmerman insisted that before withdrawing the motion, that a poll of the Commission be taken. Clarkeson said that according' to Roberts Rules of Order, either there is a motion, or there is not. He said that according to the discussion, the motion is likely invalid, so it should be withdrawn. Once the motion is withdrawn, a poll of the WRC can be taken. Zimmerman retorted "I think Roberts Rules are wrong, but I'd be happy to withdraw the motion." The motion was withdrawn. Gildesgame then took a poll of the Commission. Clayton said that depending on the outcome of the poll, the Commission might ask the Town to reconsider its position on the vote. Tisa said he was hoping that the Town would grant an extension because over the last couple of days he has been trying to digest this information and has been discussing it with staff. He is uncomfortable with his understanding about a certain number of things and would like another month to consider. Zimmerman said he'd like the minutes to show this statement: "We don't know what segment of the river we were shown today whether it's South Middleton or North Timbuktu. We certainly don't know whether it's that segment of the river, which we could run with the hydrologic model to show the impact of this plan on segment 8, which is the one nearest the Ipswich River wells for the town of Reading. It seems to me that there are a number of questions about the recommendation itself that need to be clarified. It seems to me that are a number of things that we don't know about impacts to the Ipswich River with streamflow etc. and yet we are being asked to move forward with this vote. Under those circumstances, I don't think the 107 wo- Massachusetts Water Resources Commission • December 9, 2004 • Page 9 of 17 Commission has any choice but to vote this down." Gildesgame then took the poll that had been requested by Zimmerman. Only three Commissioners were in favor of extending the vote. Mackin stated the point was not really whether or not Reading would withdraw 1.0 mgd or 2.44 mgd from the Ipswich basin in the summer months. It also has to do with the conditions the WRC has the authority has to impose. Staff is making the point that the WRC has no authority over protection of streamflow in the Ipswich River, however, she said, the whole basis for approving the Interbasin Transfer is the fact that the Ipswich River sources are not considered viable during the summer months because of the damage to the River. So, she said, the whole viability issue is based on streamflows in the Ipswich River. That is where the WRC has the authority over streamflows in the Ipswich River, she said. It was stated that the WRC's authority is under the ITA, not the WMA. She said the Performance Standards require the use of streamflow triggers. "Why are you waiving this authority?" she asked. Mackin said that Reading is having the biggest impact on the river. According to the USGS study, if Reading reduces its summer withdrawals by 50%, this results in some improvement. The river will dry up only approximately ever other year instead of every year as it does on average currently. This is certainly an improvement, but things could be better. If this transfer is approved, and the river dries up, Reading will not be subject to any streamflow triggers, whereas every single town around them will be. This is terribly unfair, she said. Mackin said "We (IRWA) will emphasize to the press, we will say the Water Resources Commission exempted Reading from the requirement that was made of every other single community in the basin." She added that October flows are very low. She said that the numbers she had for flows were different from Staff's. She said that the WRC should require Reading to restrict use of their sources in October and buy more water from MWRA. She said that she had contacted Staff to obtain the most updated Staff Recommendation a month ago and was told at that time that the latest Staff Recommendation was July's. To receive the revised Staff Recommendation two days before the meeting, she said, is not reasonable. She asked Reading to reconsider their opinion and allow a vote in January. Haas asked if anyone had any comments concerning impacts to streamflow in the donor basin, which is the Commission's charge under the Act. It seemed to him that the argument was about whether or not this proposal helps the receiving basin enough, which is not the Commission's charge under the Act. If this is not approved, Reading will be pumping more water from the receiving basin. If this is approved, they will be pumping less. He said the opponents seem to be saying to Reading, thank you for your offer but it is not good enough, so go away. There have been no changes to the impacts to the donor basin, which the Commission is charged to consider, under this scenario. No one is commenting on this. If the donor basin is not impacted, he did not understand the concern that the benefits to the receiving basin were not good enough. Gildesgame asked if there were specific changes in the December Staff Recommendation which substantially altered the Staff Recommendation. Mackin answered that the "waiver" was a change that substantially altered the Staff Recommendation. Drury answered that the July Staff Recommendation _contained a_condition concerning the drought management plan which required that Reading alter its drought/emergency plan to tie water use restrictions to streamflow levels in the Ipswich River or demonstrate that the proposed reduction of well use and the outdoor water use restrictions currently in place in its drought plan and by-laws provide an equivalent amount of protection for environmental resources. This is allowed by the Performance Standards. Over the summer, Reading demonstrated to Staff's satisfaction that the e 07 Massachusetts Water Resources Commission - December 9, 2004 - Page 10 of 17 outdoor water use restrictions currently in place in its drought plan and by-laws provide an equivalent amount of protection for environmental resources. So this is not a waiver. We are working within the framework of the Performance Standards which do allow for a proponent to provide alternate means to meet the criteria. Zimmerman retorted "That's called the `.trust me' argument". Drury responded that Staff had data that showed that Reading's proposal would meet this criterion. Zimmerman replied angrily "No you don't! What you showed us we don't know what stream segment it was. You do not have the data to prove that. You do not!" Drury answered that this information had been presented in the DEIR. This information has been public for more than a year. Simonson said that the analysis shows that somewhere between 7-20% of the spillage flow from the Quabbin Reservoir would be reduced by the Reading withdrawal. The Swift River downstream of the reservoir, she said, receives the August median flow practically in perpetuity by law. But in no way, she emphasized, can anyone say that the downstream Swift River is getting its due. She referred to the issues with DFW, which would prefer to have warm water spills curtailed, but in fact, she claimed, the donor basin is severely impacted by a lack of spillage. She stated that this is because MWRA's water demand is down. Gildesgame asked if WSCAC had commented on this earlier. Simonson answered that WSCAC had commented on this at every public hearing. Simonson still did not understand how the term calendar year was used. She added that October was a critical month for the Ipswich River; therefore; Reading should extend its purchase from MWRA until this time. She said Reading does not want to do this and she wants to know why. She said that if this transfer was to be approved she thought it should benefit the Ipswich River to the maximum extent. Clayton had to leave at this point due to a prior commitment. Drury explained that the analysis indicated that if Reading went to the scenario where they were shutting off their wells, they may need to purchase more water from the MWRA. This would require additional ITA review and approval. This resulted in the condition requiring that, after the new water treatment plant is on-line in Reading, if an alternative withdrawal scenario is proposed, Reading must consult with WRC Staff to determine if this meets the requirements of this Interbasin Transfer Act approval. Gall said that under the Water Management Act, streamflow triggers end by September 30th, so it is wrong to say that Reading is being treated differently than all other communities in the basin. Marler added that Reading only had a registration, not a permit, so the fact that they are not being subject to the same Water Management Act requirements as all the other towns is a matter of regulation. DEP does not have the authority to impose streamflow requirements on Reading. Zimmerman asked "Under the Water Management Act when registered volumes were first submitted, what was the question towns had to answer when they said this is what we use, this is what our registered volume should be?" Staff answered it was the average of withdrawals from 1981 to 1985. Zimmerman stated that Reading has never used anything even close to its registration. Mackin stated that the Town's annual statistical reports (ASR) for this time period showed water use of 2.07 mgd, but DEP gave Reading a registration of 2.57 mgd. The ASRs were significantly below what they are registered for. Mackin said that this is true for the whole Ipswich basin. LeVangie said that he did not know the details for Reading, but this was not true / 00; Massachusetts Water Resources Commission , December 9, 2004 • Page 11 of 17 for the whole Ipswich basin. He added that it was not clear that the streamflow thresholds would be required of everybody else in the basin, as the permits were under appeal. Tassi said that when the ASRs were submitted for registration, there was confusion as to raw and finished water. The original figure provided finished water volume. The town resubmitted the data to reflect raw water pumpage. This is the reason why the registration is 2.57 mgd, which reflects raw water pumpage. Tisa said he had asked some questions of Staff prior to the meeting, but he would feel more comfortable if he could hear the answers directly from the Town. Why did Reading initiate this action in the first place, given the fact that it has a registered volume of water and doesn't need to do this; and why now? McIntire answered that the Reading Board of Selectmen has always been pro-active and understood the stress in the basin. The Town wanted to do something to address that problem. It conducted a long term water supply study that looked at a number of options. It was decided that purchasing a portion of Reading's supply from the MWRA was the best option and this was brought to town meeting, which appropriated the money. Town meeting has authorized more than $3.1 million for the MWRA connection, and the Town has spent another $200,000 in consultant fees. Reading had a contamination incident in 1993 when an oil truck overturned on Route 93, he said. This was the original impetus for imposing outdoor water use restrictions. The Town decided to keep these restrictions in place on a regular basis, after the site was cleaned up. Reading has been trying to reduce its water use. The initial proposal for purchasing MWRA water was for a May to September time period. Tisa stated that DEP had expressed concerns about future well operations. There is concern that the MWRA connection is for lawn watering. McIntire said Reading intends to continue use of their wells, but they have agreed to revise their registration statement to include the water obtained from MWRA. Tisa asked LeVangie what will happen when the Town's registration expires--will they come in for a permit? LeVangie answered that there would be a registration renewal process. Tisa asked if the registration renewal process would give DEP the authority to impose restrictions, such as streamflow triggers. LeVangie said it was being discussed with DEP legal counsel. Tisa then followed up with the statement from the Staff Recommendation that DEP stated that continued pumping of the Reading wells at existing levels is not a viable option. Drury replied that Staff asked DEP's opinion because Reading has a local source capacity of 8.36 mgd. The question was why do they need more water? DEP said that at current rates, the wells are not viable during certain.times of the year. The emphasis was on "current rates". Tisa asked the Town that if the 1 mgd limit is equivalent to streamflow triggers, why is the Town not willing to accept the streamflow triggers. Tisa said his understanding is that the Town wants to be pro-active and that they are doing something to help the stream. So why not adopt the streamflow triggers? McIntire answered that Reading doesn't have the operational flexibility with the treatment plant now in place. Tisa asked, if this is the case now, would the town of Reading be willing to accept the condition when the new water treatment plant comes on line? McIntire said that the Town would need to look at that, once the new treatment plant was on- line. Zimmerman asked about the flexibility issue. Tassi answered that the treatment plant is a 6 mgd plant and to operate it at such a low rate, on and off, is impossible to do, due to the design of the facility. Tisa said that he's been wrestling with all the questions that have been raised here, on both sides, but he is uncomfortable with supporting this proposal without the streamflow triggers because the Staff has made tremendous strides in the past few years relative to the ad Massachusetts Water Resources Commission • December 9, 2004 • Page 12 of 17 stressed basin policy and working on the streamflow policy and he feels that if streamflow triggers are not imposed in the most single stressed basin in the state, when would they be applied? Rhodes asked when DEP would review Reading's Water Management Act registration. LeVangie said all registrations will expire on January 1, 2008, so at some point in 2007 DEP will be reviewing the registration. Rhodes asked if there was anything to prevent the MWRA contract from being withdrawn. Simonson said once a contract is drawn, they can take whatever they need for 5 years. Rich stated that Reading's.proposal reduces its demand on the Ipswich basin by 60%, even without the streamflow triggers. Tisa said that he felt that streamflow triggers were the best science we have now and he'd feel more comfortable if streamflow triggers were imposed. Kennedy said he has come to rely on the technical analyses of the Staff. He sees no reason to doubt the accuracy of the analyses. He said he would be voting to support the transfer because the Interbasin Transfer Act very clearly looks at the impacts to the donor basin. The registered amount under the Water Management Act will not change as a result of this transfer. Zimmerman asked if the letter from Reading to DEP regarding amending the registration statement was legally binding. Could a third party go to court on this, he asked. Gildesgame answered that Reading was quoting the Secretary's Certificate on this. Drury said that the letter was between the Town and DEP, so she would defer to DEP. Gildesgame pointed out to Zimmerman that this letter requests that DEP include the language of the Secretary's Certificate in the Town's registration statement. Simonson said if this remains an annual purchase from MWRA, the streamflow thresholds will rarely be triggered. She suggested that the WRC put back the October 31St restriction. She asked why the 219 mg was a "magic number". McIntire said the town had analyzed their demand from May through September and subtracted 1 mgd and came up 219 mg. Simonson said that what she characterized as a "somewhat arbitrary cutoff' is not being made on the river's need. She went on to say that October can be an important month in terms of low flows. The amount of money Reading would have to spend to buy a little bit more water from MWRA in October would not have a significant impact on their water rates, so they should be made to do that. Gildesgame pointed out that the analyses had been done for May through September, as well as May through October and showed that impacts to streamflow in the receiving basin were not very much different. Zimmerman restated his position that Staff's data was garbage. He then asked that the term calendar year be changed. Drury responded that the MWRA contracts run on a yearly basis. The Town plans on purchasing the water during the months of May through September however, if they don't use it all by September, they could then continue to purchase it through the end of the year. Haas added that if they did use it all before September, the Town would have to abide by the streamflow restrictions. Simonson said that "this is nonsense the way it's written". Reading can buy up to 219 mg but they can't buy more! Marler answered that the nature of the Interbasin Transfer Act was to limit the amount of transfer, not increase it. Gildesgame pointed out that Simonson wanted Reading to buy more, yet she was unhappy with the impacts on the donor basin from the purchase of the amount requested by this application. Simonson answered angrily that the Draft Decision said that Reading will limit its purchase to no more than 219 mg per calendar year. "You are restricting what this town chooses to do outside the jurisdiction of the Commission! And I 17,x-17-o Massachusetts Water Resources Commission • December 9, 2004 • Page 13 of 17 would like to know how you have the right to do that?" Drury answered that Reading's proposal was to purchase up to 219 mg. So they are restricted to what they had proposed, because that is what the analyses of the impacts to the donor basin were conducted on. To allow for a larger transfer would require additional analyses on the full transfer amount. Simonson responded that since the current analyses had determined that the impact on the donor basin is insignificant, why couldn't the Commission require Reading to buy more water from the MWRA? Gildesgame said he didn't know how the WRC had this authority. Contreas said that the town of Reading proposed to purchase this amount and we have to honor that. Simonson said that the Ipswich River is not getting optimum benefit from this proposal. As much as she opposed the entire request, her opinion is that if this was going to be approved, the Ipswich River should get the October benefit. V Clarkeson moved with a second by Contreas to accept the Staff Recommendation of O December 9, 2004 to approve Reading's application for admission to the MWRA under the T Interbasin Transfer Act. E The vote was 7 to 2 in favor of the motion. Zimmerman asked if the purchase of 219 mg was an on-going calculation, so that the Commission wily know as soon as the Town hits the limit, or is only annual reporting required, so the WRC won't know about it until next year. McIntire answered that the Town would be reporting to the MWRA from May through September. Marler said that DEP and MWRA would be watching them. Zimmerman requested a complete transcript of the tape and the tape itself be sent to Margaret van Deusen of the Charles River Watershed Association: Gildesgame said he would endeavor to get that done. Drury added that the Town's Local Water Resources Management Plan (LWRMP) was discussed in June and July. It was provided to the WRC and it was also an appendix to the EIR. It was developed in accordance to the outline for these plans in the Performance Standards and in June, Staff recommended that the LWRMP be approved. V Contreas moved with a second by Rich to approve the Local Water Resources Management O Plan as presented in June and July T E The vote was 7 to 1 in favor of the motion, with one abstention. Agenda Item #4: Vote - Proposed changes to the Water Management Act Regulations Zimmerman requested that Agenda Item #4 be taken out of turn because he had to leave soon. Haas reminded the Commission that this had been discussed last month. At that time, the changes were provided and explained. There has been one change on 310 CMR 36.31 which referred to the old DEM basin plans. Because this is too narrowly defined, it was decided to change this to allow for any information provided and developed by DCR and the WRC. Other than this, the regulations are the same as presented last month. Zimmerman asked if safe yield remains the same. Haas replied that nothing had changed on this. Haas clarified that since last month it hadn't changed. Zimmerman stated that all the language concerning safe yield from the 17.13 Massachusetts Water Resources Commission • December 9, 2004 • Page 14 of 17 previous regulations had been deleted and asked why. LeVangie replied that the definition was unworkable. Zimmerman stated that it had been unworkable for 12 years; why change it now? He asked "Are you concerned about a lawsuit?" Zimmerman suggested that the definition not be changed until the WMA advisory committee came up with new language concerning the calculation of safe yield. Gildesgame reminded the WRC that these regulation changes had been reviewed by the WMA advisory committee. Mackin said yes, but not all the recommendations had been adopted. She also noted that the committee hasn't been officially appointed. Haas replied that earlier this year, the new Water Management Act policy had been adopted. He added that there was no interest in revisiting the policy. The reason to delete the obsolete language in the regulations, he said, is for consistency with the new policy, which is a much better tool. Permits have to be issued and it is acknowledged that the old method doesn't work He also reminded the WRC that the new definition of safe yield in the regulations was the statutory definition. LeVangie said that they are still issuing permits and they cannot put everything on hold while a new definition is being worked out. Simonson said that all the new USGS studies and the new WMA and other policies indicated that there was "a better day around the corner." If DEP makes a commitment to implement the policies in their permitting, then she is comfortable with the regulation changes. She said that the state needed to fund the studies necessary to obtain the data needed for permitting. LeVangie said that DEP was committed to looking long-term at these issues, as expressed through the Preamble proposed to be added to the regulations. Rich said that his only minor concern is that he hopes this does not lead to a point where every basin in the Commonwealth becomes considered a stressed basin. This will take more control away from local officials. He understands that there are very stressed basins that need to be addressed, so he will vote to approve these regulation changes. This is a step forward. Tisa asked Margaret Kearns to make some comments on behalf DFG. Kearns said that DFG thinks that the removal of a quantitative method for determining safe yield results in less . protection for stream flow; whether DEP intends for this to happen or not. She said that because DEP is not near to developing a new quantitative methodology to determine safe yield, it is going to be years before this is remedied. She said DFG understood that the current definition doesn't work, but if the language in the definition requiring the consideration of environmental protection and cumulative impacts are removed, a huge hole will be left. New regulations should include a date by which a new quantitative method will be put in place. The term "acceptable degree of risk" should remain. Tisa asked LeVangie if DEP considered the cumulative impact issue when revising the regulations. LeVangie said that DEP had considered this, and he did not agree that eliminating the definition would result in there being a gaping hole in environmental protection through the WMA. Kearns said that the existing regulations did require that cumulative impacts be considered. The proposed regulations have no requirement to look at cumulative impacts. The final regulations, she said, should define 'safe yield' to sustain the. physical, chemical and biological integrity of surface waters, in keeping with the federal Clean Water Act. She suggested that if these regulations are approved, two changes be made: insertion of the date by which DEP will come up with a new safe yield methodology; and Section 36.31(1) should be changed to use the word "shall" instead of "may", when listing the items to be considered in determining safe yield. /7 y Massachusetts Water Resources Commission • December 9, 2004 • Page 15 of 17 Mackin said "it gets old to be the token citizen on a group where your opinions are considered and then just ignored. This is another case of that..." Regarding 36.31(2), she said, the reason why it has been ineffective is because there is no consensus about what streamflow value should be used in the safe yield calculations. Now, she said, we are finally on the verge of coming close to an agreement and we are getting rid of the formula. The concept of safe yield as a quantity can't even be agreed upon. It seems maddening. The changes proposed do not clarify how safe yield will be determined. These changes are not as well thought out as they should be, she claimed. Haas said that the WMA advisory committee had discussed this in depth. Zimmerman proposed a sunset clause for these changes. Haas said that any changes would need to go back to the WMA advisory board and that DEP had said last month it would not be accepting any new, changes. Zimmerman said "The Water Resources Commission really hasn't changed that much in the last 13 years. It tends to interpret things narrowly, it tends to vote in lock-step with whatever a particular agency determines is the thing for the moment and outside public comment is basically spurned by this group." V Rich moved with a second by Clarkeson to accept the changes to 310 CMR 36.00 as O presented and dated December 1st. T E Zimmerman made a motion to amend the motion, to add a line to sunset the revisions to the regulations in section 36.31(2) by January 1, 2007. There was no second. Tisa made a motion to amend the motion to add to section 36.31(1) that "may" be changed to "shall". It was seconded by Zimmerman. Haas said that using "may" versus "shall" had been discussed in depth by the advisory the committee. Gildesgame questioned the authority of the WRC to amend DEP's regulations. Kearns asked why DEP did not want to adopt the word "shall". Haas said there may be cases where the data is not available or the thing being considered is not appropriate to the situation, where, if the word "shall" was adopted, DEP would be required to conduct an analysis on that topic. Discussion went back and forth about the meaning of "considered" as used in the context of "may" and "shall". Mackin said that the Act says that DEP shall not exceed the safe yield. In deleting Section 2 under 36.3 1, she said, you remove the use of the word "shall". Gildesgame called for a vote on the amendment. He would check on the legality of having the WRC amend DEP's regulations. LeVangie said that the Act said the WRC must review and approve DEP's regulation changes, but not rewrite them. Zimmerman asked if that meant that the WRC had to either accept the regulation revisions in their entirety or reject them. Haas said the Commission had been given plenty of time to propose changes. Zimmerman said that attempts had been made to make these changes, and Haas responded that it was decided not to add the proposed changes. This has gone back and forth for months, he said. Zimmerman replied "Maybe the water resources commission doesn't want to accept that decision!" Haas replied that if that was the case, the Commission could reject the proposed regulation changes. 107-4s Massachusetts Water Resources Commission • December 9, 2004 • Page 16 of 17 Gildesgame again called for a vote on the amendment. He would verify with counsel the language in the Water Management Act and the authority of the WRC to amend the regulations. Tisa said that after listening to the discussion concerning the amendment he offered, if the information to consider something wasn't available, he suggested that the amendment be amended to say "shall, if the information is available". Gildesgame suggested that the WRC vote on the amendment before them: the vote was 7 to 2 to defeat the amendment. Zimmerman then asked "Do you guys all wear red coats?" He then said "this Commission is a joke!" It was suggested by some other Commissioners that if he felt that way, he could resign. V Gildesgame called for a vote on the original motion to accept the regulation revisions as O presented. T E The vote was 7 to 2 in favor Stevenson said that not everyone could make every meeting. The minutes were not timely, so it was impossible for those who could not attend to know what had gone on at the previous meeting. She said it was a disservice to the public and other members of the Commission. She acknowledged that the WRC was trying to catch up with. transcribing the minutes, but she said that having up to date minutes would serve both the public and the Commission well. Gildesgame agreed and said that WRC staff was working to catch up with transcribing the WRC minutes. He suggested that another way to find out information on a previous meeting was to call or email him, Drury, Marler or any members of the Commission who were at the meeting. Simonson said that the issue of cumulative impacts is not eliminated by virtue of the language not being in the revised regulations because DEP could include whatever it wants to consider when issuing permits. She asked the WRC 'to make a motion to vote to provide guidance to DEP to consider cumulative impacts when it looks at impacts that might arise from issuing a new permit. This will help DEP in terms of potential lawsuits. Zimmerman said that he would like to point out "that if this Commission actually did its job, which I respectfully represent that it does not, that if you go back in the record 13 years at least that I've voted on this Commission, the breakdown in votes on this Commission has been identical that entire time.... So if this Commission learns to do its job, there would be no reason to use the courts of the state of Massachusetts to try to get relief from the decisions of this Commission, the Department of Environmental Protection and the Department of Conservation and Recreation." Gildesgame reminded Zimmerman that the decisions of the WRC had only gone to court twice. "Well that might change", retorted Zimmerman. Agenda Item #2: Vote - Meeting Minutes for January, April, May and June 2004 Clarkeson asked if the minutes were posted on the WRC website. Gildesgame replied that they were not yet, but it was planned. Clarkeson said this might address the concerns of those who could not attend all the meetings. Gildesgame said the minutes would be posted. It was asked if they could be posted ahead of time as drafts, so that people would know what had transpired at a previous meeting before they attended the current meeting. /744 Massachusetts Water Resources Commission • December 9, 2004 • Page 17 of 17 V The minutes of the January 2004 meeting were accepted with three abstentions. O The minutes of the April 2004 meeting were accepted with two abstentions. T The meeting minutes for May 2004 were accepted with two abstentions. E The meeting minutes for June 2004 were accepted with two abstentions. Meeting adjourned 1-7-47 Page 1 of 1 McIntire, Ted From: Gildesgame, Mike (DCR) [Mike.Gildesgame@state.ma.us] Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 1:19 PM To: wscac@rcn.com; Pam Heidell; kerrymackin@verizon.net; McIntire, Ted; Tassi, Peter; zimmerman, Bob; Clayton, Gary; Contreas, Marilyn; Giles, Cynthia (DEP); Honkonen, Karl (ENV); Kennedy, Gerard (AGR); Pelczarski, Joe (ENV); Rhodes, Matt; Rich, David; Tisa, Mark (FWE); Vandana Rao Cc: Drury, Michele (DCR); Marler, Linda (DCR); Hartig, Frank (DCR); LaRosa, Thomas (DCR); Griffin, Mary (ENV) Subject: WRC notice Mike G6ldesgame, Director Office of Water Resources Department of Conservation and Recreation 251 Causeway Street Boston MA 02114-2104 617-626-1371; fax 617-626-1455 This notice is being sent to you on behalf of Karl Honkonen, Executive Director of the Water Resources Commission. Members of the Water Resource Commission: The Secretary of Environmental Affairs and the Executive Director of the Massachusetts Water Resources Commission have received a letter from the Ipswich River Watershed Association dated January 5, 2005, requesting the Commission reconsider and rehear the final decision of the Commission on December 9, 2004, to approve the Interbasin Transfer Application of the Town of Reading. The Executive Director intends to ask the Commission Members at the regularly scheduled meeting on January 13, 2005, whether the Commission wishes to entertain this matter and consider this request for rehearing at a future meeting of the Commission, recognizing that this would be a discretionary action of the commission that is not required. Masse Gildesgarne, Director Office of Water Resources Department of Conservation and Recreation 251 Causeway Street Boston MA 02114-2104 617-626-1371; fax 617-626-1455 18-1 3/31/2005 MEMORANDUM THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS WATER RESOURCES COMMISSION TO Water Resources Commission - FROM: Karl W. Honkonen,. Executive Direc or v RE: Reading Interbasin Transfer Act inform DATE: January 13, 2005 I have received the enclosed documents regarding the Town of Reading's Request for an Interbasin Transfer. I. am passing them on to you for your review. Date Author Item subject) 011205 Kerry Mackin Email and four page attachment (addendum to petition for rehearing) .01 1005 Kerry Mackin Email and attached two page attachment (petition for rehearing re Reading Interbasin Transfer 010501 Kerry Mackin Email and 12-page attachment (petition for rehearing) 010505 Kerry Mackin Email and two-page attachment (figureI for petition for rehearing) 010505 Kerry Mackin Email and seven-page attachment (remaining figures and tables for petition for rehearing) 011205 Paul Lauenstein Two-page email (Reading's impact on the Ipswich River 011105 WSCAC Two-page email WSCAC ExComm memo on Reading) Al W 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900, Boston MA 02114 Page 1 of 1. 1471 dot Page 1 of 1 Honkonen, Karl (ENV) From: Kerry Mackin [kerrymackin@verizon.net] Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 4:45 PM To: Honkonen, Karl (ENV); Royherzfelder, Ellen (ENV) Subject: addendum to petition for rehearing Dear Secretary Herzfelder and Mr. Honkonen, Attached please find an addendum to the petitions for rehearing previously submitted in the matter of the Town of Reading's application for an Interbasin Transfer. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Kerry Mackin IC/.-2w 1/13/2005 IPSWICH RIVER WATERSHED `•MI ASSOCIATION PO Box 576, Ipswich, MA 01938 978-887-2313 fax 978-887-2208 January 12, 2005 Karl Honkonen, Executive Director Water Resources Commission 100 Cambridge Street Boston, MA Addendum to Petitions for Rehearing filed by the Ipswich River Watershed Association ("IRWA") and a group of (more than) ten Citizens ("Citizens").' Dear Mr. Honkonen, IRWA and the Citizens who previously filed a Petition for Rehearing pertaining to the Water Resources Commission's decision in the matter of the Town of Reading Application for an Interbasin Transfer respectfully request to amend their Petitions for Rehearing to incorporate the following information: 1) The Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) on page 1 states that "The purchase would ...only occur dunAg the period.when low flows in the Ipswich River typically occur, May through October." The FEIR is replete with additional references indicating that May-October.is the period evaluated for purchase of MWRA water and restricted use of the Ipswich River wells. This aspect of the project cannot be substantially changed at this late stage without a Notice of Project Change. 2) The WRC decision is based on an inapt comparison of water use scenarios. The decision is based on comparing the recommended scenario with several scenarios that allow greater use of the Ipswich wells (Scenarios 4 and 5), instead of a comparison to the scenario which shuts off use of the Ipswich wells based during low-flow periods (Scenario 7). This comparison, which is the relevant one in the matter at hand, indicates that, contrary to the staff analysis and WRC decision, streamflow-triggered regulation of use of the wells is not equivalent to the use of 1 mgd from the wells "regardless of flow in the river." A much higher purchase of water from MWRA during dry periods is needed to mitigate the low-flow conditions-of the river. In particular, during the years 1995, 1997, 1999 and 2002, when the Ipswich River was pumped dry adjacent to the ' The Ipswich River Watershed Association filed a Petition for Rehearing on January 5, 2005; and a group of more than 10 Citizens of the Commonwealth filed a Petition for Rehearing on January 10, 2005. This document is an addendum to those Petitions for Rehearing. Reading wells, a purchase of 247-315 million gallons is needed from MWRA to effectively reduce the damage to the environment caused by use of Reading's wells. This indicates that the MWRA purchase should be increased by that amount in those years to reduce adverse impacts to streamflows. Amount needed from MWRA to meet demand (million gallons) Scenario 1 Scenario 7* Difference (recommended) (purchase deficit) 1995 185 259 74 1997 212 316 103 1999 234 311 77 2002 197 247 50 *Stops use of Ipswich wells during low flow periods (<0.42 cfsm) 3) The WR.C decision in this matter found that Reading's water use restrictions are equivalent in water-saving effect to streamflow-triggered restrictions requiring, among other things, that non-essential outdoor water use is restricted to hand-held hoses only . from 5 p.m. to 9 a.m. when streamflows fall below 0.42 cfsm in the Ipswich River. This finding is erroneous, as described in the Petition previously submitted and the additional information below, a. The Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) filed by Reading in this matter states that odd/even day watering restrictions have been in place continuously since October 1992. If so, the water use savings that Reading achieved in summer 2003 cannot be the result of these restrictions; if so, those savings would have occurred continuously since 1992, which they have not. That is, the change in water use in one year cannot be the result of restrictions that were continuously in effect for 12, years.. The analysis is this regard was erroneous. b. The FEIR also states that a Phase III ban on outdoor water use has never been implemented, except briefly after the gasoline spill in September 1992. Several residents of Reading recently confirmed that there have been no watering restrictions imposed by the Town beyond the odd/even day restrictions, even during the extreme no-flow events of 1995, 1997, 1999 or 2002. That is, the Phase III level was not triggered, even when the Ipswich River was pumped dry immediately adjacent to the Town's wellfield, causing major fish kills, loss of aquatic macroinvertebrates and other creatures, and other damage to the environment. The fact that Phase III bans were not triggered when severe damage to the environment was occurring within sight of the Reading wells is further, proof that the analysis showing that Reading's water restrictions are equivalent to the streamflow-triggered restrictions is erroneous. c. Streamflow triggered restrictions based on the 0.42 cfsm threshold identified by the United States Geological Survey would have occurred as shown in the following table. In comparison, additional restrictions above the Phase II. odd/even day restrictions took place on zero days in all these years. /9-4 Frequency-of streamflow triggered restrictions vs Reading Phase 111, 1997-2002 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 days flow <0.42cfsm" days Reading Phase III triggered 112 0 50 0 114 0 60 0 72 0 91 0 based on USGS streamflow data, South Middleton gauge DEP Streamflow-triggered restrictions are in effect only May-September. However, flows below 0.42 cfsm persisted into October every year during the 1997-2002 period 'Based on DEP measure, restrictions would be generally be in effect 3-5 fewer days per year due to 3-day delay in imposing restrictions d. The FEIR states: "...Reading uses both an odd/even system and time restrictions for residential outdoor water use. However, recent studies have shown that the odd/even system does not realize significant water savings, and may actually increase water use by causing residents to believe that they need to water their lawn every other day. Reading may wish to evaluate its existing water restrictions and consider changing to a method that encourages watering once every five days." FEIR, Vol. II, Appendix C, p. 5-4 Even Reading's FEIR acknowledges that their restrictions are not as effective as other approaches. Therefore the WRC decision to exempt Reading from streamflow-triggered restrictions fails to meet the requirements under the Interbasin Transfer Act, first because the imposition of streamflow-triggered restrictions is feasible as stated in the original Petition, and second because Reading's restrictions are not an equivalent alternative. 4) The Town of Reading claimed that the decision to continue pumping 1 mgd from its Ipswich River basin wells is based in part on the fact that its mater treatment plant must be operated at a minimum of 1 mgd during the restricted period. Reading's water treatment plant is currently in the design stage. According to the Town's consultants at a site visit with the Conservation Commission that took place within the last two weeks, the design is only 30% complete. I spoke with several water treatment plant engineers, including Bill Musiak of Ionics, Inc. of Watertown, MA, who is familiar with the specifics of the Town of Reading water treatment plant issues. He indicated that water treatment plants do not require fixed flows but can be operated at a range of flows that vary on a daily basis. He also stated that the plant could be designed with a number of treatment trains of lower volumes, which could be used singly or in combination, allowing the Town considerable flexibility in how much water is treated on a daily basis. For example, a treatment train of 0.50 mgd could be used as. part of the overall design, t allowing treatment of much lower volumes than Reading proposes. Based on this information, the assumption that the plant must operate at a minimum of 1 mgd is inaccurate and misleading. The plant could be designed and operated to accommodate flows lower than 1 mgd. 5) I recently spoke with a member of the Reading Ad Hoc Water Supply Advisory Committee, who told me that the selection of 0.60 mgd (or 219 mg/year) purchase volume from MWRA was not based on any evaluation of the amount of water needed to achieve reasonable streamflows in the Ipswich River. In fact, this volume was recommended prior to the completion of the USGS Hydrological Model. He further stated that since the .6 mgd figure was decided upon, the Town has negotiated with several businesses to provide them with additional water in exchange for payments toward the cost of entry into the MWRA Waterworks system. This is confirmed in the FEIR, which indicates that the Town has committed to at least 258,000 gallons of additional daily demand, and is charging businesses a portion of the MWRA entry fee based on this projected demand. However, the Town did not increase the amount of water to be purchased from MWRA accordingly. This increased demand in effect diminishes the benefit of the MWRA purchase in achieving viable use levels for the Ipswich wells. At a minimum, the additional demand should have resulted in an increase in the volume of water to be purchased. The 0.60 mgd (219 mg) figure is arbitrary in this respect and must be reevaluated in the context of viable use of the Ipswich wells. IRWA and the Citizens respectfully request that the WRC consider this information regarding the Town of Reading's proposed interbasin transfer. Thank you for your attention to the concerns that we have raised. Sincerely, K,eA17 /1/(Q'Gklc-~*- Kerry Mackin Executive Director, IRWA Citizen Representative 141.-4 Page 1 of 1 Honkonen, Karl (ENV) From: Kerry Mackin [kmackin@ipswichriver.org] Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005.10:36 AM To: Honkonen, Karl (ENV); Royherzfelder, Ellen (ENV) Cc: Kerry Mackin Subject: petition for rehearing re Reading Interbasin Transfer Dear Secretary Herzfelder and Mr. Honkonen, Attached is a request to intervene and petition for rehearing in the matter of Reading's Application for an Interbasin Transfer. Please advise me when the WRC will take up this issue. Thank you very much, Sincerely, Kerry Mackin for the Citizen petitioners 1/13/2005 January 10, 2005 Secretary Ellen Roy Herzfelder, Chair Massachusetts Water Resources Commission 100 Cambridge Street Boston, MA 02114 Mr. Karl Honkonen, Executive Director Massachusetts Water Resources Commission 100 Cambridge Street Boston, MA 02114 Re: Town of Reading Interbasin Transfer Application Dear Secretary Herzfelder and Mr. Honkonen, On December 9, 2004, the Water Resources Commission ("WRC") voted to approve the Town of Reading's Application for an Interbasin 'T'ransfer ("Application"). On January 5, 2005, pursuant to M.G.L. Ch 30A, §14(1), the Ipswich River Watershed Association (IRWA) submitted a Petition for reconsideration and rehearing ("Petition") by the WRC regarding Reading's Application. The following group of citizens of the Commonwealth ("Citizens") hereby respectfully requests to intervene and petitions for rehearing in this matter, pursuant to M.G.L. Ch 30A, § 10A. The 'Citizens making this request to intervene and petitioning for rehearing are as follows: 1) Alexander K. Buck, Jr., 1 Hill Street, Topsfield, MA 01983 2) Ann E. Buck, I Hill Street, Topsfield, MA 01983 3) Kerry Mackin, 76 Little Neck Road, Ipswich, MA 01938 4) James S. MacDougall, 29 Camp Meeting Road, Topsfield, MA 01983 5) James Whithed, 77 Railroad Avenue, Rowley, MA 01969 6) Campbell Steward, 65 Asbury Street, Topsfield, MA 01983 7) Stephen Lewis, 40 Catherine Ave., Reading, MA 01867 8) April Bowling, 2 John Wise Avenue, Essex,.MA 9) Donald M. Greenough, 32 Fellows Road, Ipswich, MA 01938 10) Harvey Schwartz, 11 Marshview Road, Ipswich, MA 01938 11) Michael N. Wood, 15 Linden Street, Wenham, MA 01984 1 12) Trina H. Smith, 11 Dodges Row, Wenham, MA.01984 13) Suzanne M.. Sullivan, 60 Lawrence Road, Wilmington, MA 01887 The Citizens reiterate and adopt as their own the considerations and arguments stated in IRWA's Petition. The Citizens request to intervene and petition for rehearing because damage to the environment is at issue. In particular, the WRC decision authorizes water withdrawals from Reading's wells that will result in extremely low streamflows and at times, no flow at all in the river reach adjacent to these wells (called Reach 8). These low- and no-flow conditions directly result in death of fish, macroinvertebrates and other creatures dependent upon maintenance of reasonable flows in the Ipswich River, as well as dessication of wetlands, loss of the physical, chemical and biological integrity of the Ipswich River and loss of its instream uses that depend upon maintenance of reasonable instream flows. The reduction in streamflows caused by the use of Reading's wells authorized and required as a condition of the WRC decision also result in reduced flows downstream, loss of critical habitats including riffles and stream margins, segmentation of the river, diminishment of dissolved oxygen below the Massachusetts Water Quality Standard, and loss of instream uses of the Ipswich River, among other adverse impacts. The rights of the Citizens, individually and as a group, are affected by Reading's water withdrawals and the WRC decision authorizing continued use of the Ipswich River wells during low-flow and even no-flow periods. The Citizens individually enjoy the Ipswich River and the benefits it provides, including enjoyment of the river's ecosystem, fisheries, water-based recreational opportunities and scenic values. A number of the Citizens (Ann E. Buck, Alexander K. Buck, Jr., Campbell Steward and James S. MacDougall) own property abutting the Ipswich River, and their riparian rights and enjoyment of their property and the Ipswich River are adversely affected by the VWRC decision. Kerry Mackin will serve as the Citizens' representative. Contact information is as follows: Kerry Mackin PO Box 576 Ipswich, MA 01938 Phone: 978-887-2313 Fax 978-887-2208 kerrymackin@verizon.net or kmackin@ipswichriver.org. Thank you very much for your consideration of this Petition. Please advise us as soon as possible when the WRC will take up this matter. Sincerely, K 4147 Kerry Mackin For the Citizens l9-9 2 Page 1 of 1 Honkonen, Karl (ENV) From: Ker y_Mackin [kerrymackin@verizon.net] Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2005 7:32 PM To: Honkonen, Karl (ENV); Royherzfelder, Ellen (ENV) Cc: Kerry Mackin Subject: Petition for Rehearing Dear Secretary Herzfelder and Mr. Honkonen, Attached please find a petition from the Ipswich River Watershed Association for a rehearing in the matter of the Town of Reading's Application for an Interbasin Transfer. The attachments referenced will be sent by a separate email. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Kerry Mackin, Executive Director Ipswich River Watershed Association / fs- AD 1/13/2005 WATERSFED AssocL&MoN PO Box 576, Ipswich, MA 01938 978-887-2313 fax 978-887-2208 January 5, 2005 Secretary Ellen Roy Herzfelder, Chair Massachusetts Water Resources Commission 100 Cambridge Street Boston, MA 02114 Mr. Karl Honkonen, Executive Director Massachusetts Water Resources Commission 100 Cambridge Street Boston, MA 02114 Re: Town of Reading Interbasin Transfer Application Dear Secretary Herzfelder and Mr. Honkonen, On December 9, 2004, the Water Resources Commission ("WRC") voted to approve the Town of Reading's Application for an Interbasin TrAsfer ("Application"). Pursuant to M.G.L. Ch 30A, §14(1), the Ipswich River Watershed Association (IRWA) hereby petitions for reconsideration. and rehearing by the Water Resources Commission ()h'RC) regarding the Town of Reading's Application. IRWA's petition is based on the following two independent considerations: 1. The conditions of approval of the transfer do not comply with the requirements of the Massachusetts Interbasin Transfer Act (G.L. c. 21 8B-8D, "the Act" or "ITA") and its regulations (313 CMR 4.00, "regulations") in three major respects: a. The WRC decision fails to include an appropriate viability analysis on effects of the Town of Reading's ("Reading") proposed use of its five groundwater wells from May through September at a 1 mgd capped rate on the.preservation of reasonable instream flows in the Ipswich River (see 313 C.M.R. 4.05(2) & 4.02). b. The WRC decision is arbitrary and capricious and contrary to law to the degree that it eliminates limits on Reading's proposed use of its groundwater wells in October that are necessary to preserve reasonable instream flows in the Ipswich (Id.). c. The WRC decision improperly waives or disregards requirements in its regulations and mandatory policies requiring, inter alia, have a mechanism in place to tie water use restrictions to streamflow levels in the Ipswich River (see WRC Performance Standards Guidance at (3)6.),. have a rate structure.that encourages conservation (Id. At (3)4.), and, have adequate and accurate public metering (Id. at (3)2.) 2. The conditions of approval do not comply with the requirements of the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (G.L. c. 30, §§61, 62-62H) and its regulations in that they are inconsistent with the Secretary's Certificate on the Final Environmental Impact Report ("Secretary's Certificate") issued in this matter. The IRWA provides the following argument in support of its petition. 1. The conditions of approval of the transfer do not comply with the requirements of the Massachusetts Interbasin Transfer Act (G.L. c. 21 813-81), "the Act" or. "ITA") and its regulations (313 CMR 4.00, "regulations"). a. The WR.C decision fails to conduct an appropriate viability analysis on effects of Reading's proposed use of its Groundwater wells on the preservation of reasonable instream flows in the Ipswich River. The WRC decision authorizes and requires Reading to continue to use these groundwater sources year-round, with restrictions- on their usage to 1 mgd only during the May- September period, regardless of flow in the Ipswich River. The Ipswich River has been recognized as the third most endangered river in America due to the severity of its low-flow problems (American Rivers, 2003), is designated as "highly stressed" by the WRC (Stressed Basins in Massachusetts Report, WRC, 2001), and impaired under the Clean Water Act. Reading's wells have the most severe impact on the rnainstem of the river of any withdrawal. The damage to the environment caused by Reading's wells is shown in Figure 1, attached. These photos are taken at "Reach 8," the severely degraded river section where Reading's wells are located. The pumping of Reading's wells is largely responsible for dessicating the river and bordering wetlands at this location. To reduce withdrawals from these wells, Reading proposed to buy 219 million gallons of water annually from the MWRA. IRWA supports the conclusions of the-Secretary, WRC and its staff in acknowledging that Reading's use of its groundwater wells contributes to the extremely degraded condition of Reach 8 of the Ipswich River. IRWA.also conceptually supports the notion that an interbasin transfer may be appropriate in these conditions in order to alleviate the seasonal low-flow conditions of the Ipswich. However, it is incumbent upon the WRC to ensure that the transfer supports the interests of both the donor and the recipient basin. The WRC here erred in failing to adequately consider information about the effects of this specific action on streamflows in the Ipswich River basin, improperly claiming that it did not have jurisdiction to evaluate impacts of Reading's proposal on the Ipswich River's flow conditions.) The WRC decision states: In comments provided on the ITA application, DEP notes that "the portion of the river at Reading's streamside wells is the most impacted stream segment. Under Reading's present pumping regime, the Department has observed that during the Reading arrived at the 219 mg figure based on the economic costs associated with the MWRA purchase, as well Reading's desire to keep the water treatment plant operating throughout the year. These factors are not sufficient grounds to overcome the requirement to maintain reasonable instream flow in the receiving (Ipswich) basin. If the Town increased its purchase of water from the MWRA, it would be able to avoid impacts on Ipswich River streamflow that cause non-attainment of the standard for reasonable streamflow protection. 2 summer period, streamflow is frequently depleted to a dry riverbed. Since Reading's pumping contributes to this severe impact, the Department has determined that continued pumping of the Reading wells at existing levels is not a viable option." (WRC Decision, p. 6) The usage of the Ipswich wells as is mandated by the WRC decision as a condition of approval of the interbasin transfer, however,.will continue to cause damage to the fisheries, habitat and ecological integrity of the Ipswich River, its instream uses, physical and chemical integrity, in violation of the. Act and regulations. Indeed, it is accurate to state that under many conditions of low stream flow that are experienced on an all-too-frequent basis in Reach 8 during the May to September period, the WRC condition that Reading draw 1 mgd a day from its wells as a condition precedent to drawing MWRA water has the effect of causing the very injury to the Ipswich River that its ,decision is supposed to preclude.. This consideration should have been brought forth to the WRC as an integral part of the viability analysis of Reading's proposal. The Act requires "that all reasonable efforts have been made to identify and develop all viable sources in the receiving area of the proposed interbasin transfer." (G.L. c.'21 §8D) The regulations and performance standard guidelines implementing the Act explicitly require that the WRC must assure itself that the proposed recipient basin source will meet drinking water quality standards, can be developed at a reasonable productions cost, and will preserve reasonable instream flows in the recipient basin. See 313 CMR 4.05(2) and 4.02 (definition of "viable source"); ITA Performance Standards Guidance at (2)(9/13/01 Update at p. 3). The mandatory guidance goes on to state that the "reasonable stream flows" analysis for purposes of the viability decision must include all the factors that area considered in Criterion (5) of the donor basin reasonable stream flow analysis. Id This analysis was not performed by the WRC or its staff in reaching its decision, despite considerable information that is already available through the USGS studies, as well as the availability of the USGS hydrological model to use for further analysis. While the draft decision explitly authorizes and requires usage of the local wells as a condition of approval of the transfer, the WRC staff did not conduct the required evaluation of Ipswich River streamflows specified in the regulations to establish when and to what extent the Ipswich wells can be used viably, without causing damage to the Ipswich River or the environment of the watershed. While an evaluation of these factors as applied to the MWRA source watersheds is summarized in pages 15-22 of the draft decision, there is no comparable evaluation of impacts on the Ipswich River that will occur if the 1 mgd groundwater draw condition is implemented. Indeed, the WRC vote authorizes and requires Reading to continue to use these. groundwater sources year-round, with restrictions on their usage to 1 mgd only during the May- September period, regardless of flow in the river. The conditions of approval contained in the z The Office of Water Resources (OWR) of the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR), which also serves as staff to the WRC, was a cooperating partner in the following USGS studies, which I incorporate herein by reference: A Precipitation-Runoff Model for Analysis of the Effects of Water Withdrawals on Streamflow, Ipswich River Basin, Massachusetts, (2000) ("USGS Hydrological Model"). Assessment of Habitat, Fish Communities, andStreamflow Requirements for Habitat Protection, Ipswich River, Massachusetts, 1998-99 ("Aquatic Habitat Study") Effects of Water Management Alternatives on Streamflow in the Ipswich River Basin, Massachusetts (2002) ("Management Alternatives Study") 'q,43 draft decision for Reading's Application for an Interbasin Transfer will continue to result in the elimination or serious impairment of existing uses, which include fishing, canoeing, kayaking, swimming, public water supply, habitat for fish, other aquatic life and wildlife and associated wetland functions and other uses, in the Ipswich River basin, in violation of the Interbasin Transfer Act as well as other state laws and regulations, including the anti-degradation provisions of the Massachusetts Water Quality Standards.3 This decision is arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, and not in accordance with law. The decision in this respect should be reconsidered by the WRC. b. The WRC decision is arbitrary and capricious and contrary to law to the degree that it eliminates limits on Reading's proposed use of its groundwater wells in October without the required consideration of the preservation of reasonable instream flows in the Ipswich (M). The changes in the staff recommendation that were made prior to the December vote included elimination of October from the period during which use of the Ipswich wells is restricted to 1 mgd. This change in effect authorizes Reading to use more water than they could do under the scenario that was described in the Secretary's Certificate. This change results in non-compliance with 313 CMR 4.05(1) requiring MEPA compliance, 313 CMR 4.05(3), which requires that all practical water conservation measures have been taken, and 313 CMR 4.05(2), applying the instream flow analysis to the receiving basin as is required under the viability provision. The staff change and WRC decision to alter the finding of the Secretary's MEPA Certificate constitutes a significant potential impact on the Ipswich River as a result of the additional water that it authorizes Reading to pump during October. Under the Secretary's Certificate, the May-October restriction on the Ipswich wells would allow Reading to pump 184 million gallons (mg) from the Ipswich sources, which --combined with 219 mg from MWRA - represented a total water consumption of 403 mg. By eliminating the restriction on usage for October, the total amount of water pumping allowable in those months increases to 453 mg, based on Reading's registered volume of 2.57 mgd. Even if Reading's usage of the wells in October usage were limited to the projected use of 1.7 mgd (which it is not under conditions of the approval), the total for those months would be still be 426 million gallons. Thus, this condition approved by the WRC allows an excess of 23-50 million gallons of water to be used compared to the original scenario of restricted use from May to October. An additional amount of water in this amount could be purchased from MWRA to meet this additional usage without any impact on reasonable stream flows in the donor basins, according to the analysis. However, Reading has declined to increase its purchase of MWRA to a sufficient level to meet this demand. The result, which has now been sanctioned by the WRC, is that they will increase use of the Ipswich wells to a level which fails to provide reasonable instream flow, and thus does not comply with the statutory and regulatory requirements of the Act. The Commission's decision to approve the transfer on these terms was apparently based in part on misleading information presented to the Commission by WRC staff about streamflows 3 The Ipswich River and its tributaries are Class 13 waters above the tidally-influenced section, except for public water supply reservoirs and tributaries .thereto, which are Class A waters. The tidal portion of the river is designated Class SA. / X14 ~Y in the Ipswich River in October. WRC staff presented information about monthly mean flows that inadequately represents actual low-flow conditions in the Ipswich River. Statistics other than monthly mean must be evaluated because "...monthly mean streamflows... can be substantially skewed by a small number of intense storm events, causing mean values to be higher than the medians the median is a more useful statistic than the mean for describing the central tendency of data with skewed distributions."4 A range of low-flow statistics must be evaluated in accordance with the WRC's ITA Performance Standards. USGS's Management Alternatives Study explicitly modeled the usage of Reading's Ipswich wells at a level of 1.78 mgd in October, almost equivalent to Reading's projected October use. The results of this modeling indicate that the Ipswich River would continue to experience severe low-flows and no-flows at Reach 8 at this pumping volume, but would have continuous flows if withdrawals were further restricted. Graphs of these results are shown in Figures 2 and 3, attached. Figure 4 is a.graph depicting the frequency of extreme low-flow events by month at the South Middleton gauge; this indicates that flows below the 0.42 cfsm threshold identified by USGS in the Aquatic Habitat Study occur 66% of the time in October. Based on other USGS hydrological model findings, the impacts are even more extreme at Reach 8. Figures 5 and 6 are charts from data provided by Phillip Zarriello and David Armstrong of US GS as part of their investigations. Figure 5 shows that monthly medians in October are only 0.32 cfsm, well below the 0.42 cfsm aquatic habitat protective threshold. Figure 6 shows that monthly means during October are higher than monthly medians. This information taken together indicates that actual flows in October are substantially depleted by water withdrawals, and that October is one of the worst months of the year in terms of the extremity of low flows and the frequency with which they occur. The failure to condition the transfer of the MWRA in a way that insured that reasonable stream flows were maintained in Reach 8 of the Ipswich River and downstream, and without record information that demonstrated compliance with the Commission's regulations and policy guidance is arbitrary, capricious and in violation of law. The decision in this respect should be reconsidered by.the Commission. c. The WRC decision improperly disregards requirements in its regulations and mandato policies requiring that Reading has a mechanism in place to tie water use restrictions to streamflow levels in the Ipswich River (see WRC Performance Standards Guidance at (3)6) has a rate structure that encourages conservation (Id. At (3)4.), and has adequate and accurate public metering (Id. at Q2. The WRC analysis of Reading's water conservation program is incomplete and omits important data indicating that the program has not yet achieved the necessary standards. Table 1 is a compilation of Reading's water use statistics from 1999-2003, based on data reported by the Town on its Annual Statistical Reports. Figures 7-9 are a series of charts showing Reading's water usage trends from 1999-2003. The data and charts show that since 2000 there has been little or no reduction in water use according to a number of statistics, notably overall water usage. 4 Ries, Kernell G. III, August Median Streamflows in Massachusetts, USGS Water-Resources Investigations Report 97-4190, p 3 (quoting Kulik). The Office of Water Resources was a cooperator in this study. / q,' The Act requires that all practical water conservation measures have been taken in the receiving basin. Reading has recently made a number of significant improvements to its water conservation.program and dedicated substantial funding to further improvements, for which IRWA commends the Town. However, these initiatives have not yet resulted in significant decreases in water usage, and do not yet meet the statutory requirement that all practical measures have been taken; nor will the conditions of the WR.C decision result in all practical measures being taken. 1. Streamflow-triggered water use restrictions must be in place as a condition of transfer. The criteria for interbasin transfer approval include a provision that water use restrictions should be tied to streamflows or surface water levels: Interbasin Transfer Act Criteria for Evaluating an Application; Criterion 3: All practical measures to conserve water have been taken in the receiving area. For a water supply transfer, the WRC performance standards require: 6) A drought/emergency contingency plan ...should be in place. This plan should include seasonal use guidelines and measures for voluntary and mandatory water use restrictions and describe how these will be implemented. There should be a mechanism in place to tie water use restrictions to streamflow and/or surface water levels in the affected basin(s)... (emphasis added) 'Notwithstanding this clear and critical guidance, the staff recommendation and WRC decision exempted Reading from this requirement. Staff asserted that Reading's current water restrictions would result in equivalent water savings to those achieved by the streamflow- triggered restrictions. The analysis presented by staff in December is erroneous and misleading, ignores the WRC's own findings about the ineffectiveness of even-odd day watering restrictions, undermines, state water policy, guidelines and decisions regarding restrictions on non-essential water use, and will result in higher water use, contrary to the regulatory requirements and performance standards. Reading's 3-stage water restriction program is shown in Table 2. The Stage 2 water restrictions allow even-odd day watering during 7 hours in the morning and 3 hours in the evening. Watering will take place every day, regardless of streamflow. A Stage 3 ban is only triggered during a water supply emergency, when "only enough water is available for essential public health and safety purposes." IRWA has no objection to Reading maintaining these provisions, in addition to a streamflow-triggered water use restriction that prohibits the use of sprinklers or sprinkler systems during low-flow periods.5 However, Reading's current restrictions are not equivalent to and cannot substitute. for the performance standard specifying that water use restrictions should be based on streamflow triggers. The .WRC's own Guide to Lawn and Landscape Water Conservation (2002) indicates that odd/even day watering is generally not effective in reducing overall watering demand: Odd/even day watering and off peak watering generally does not reduce overall 5 Other Ipswich basin communities, including three abutting communities, have a streamflow-triggered water restriction in their Water Management Act permits, requiring voluntary restrictions at 0.56 cfsm and mandatory restrictions limiting nonOessential water use to hand-held hoses between the hours of 5 p.m. and 9 a.m. when flows fall below 0.42 cfsm for 3 consecutive days. water demand (and may actually increase overall demand), but can reduce peak demands. Such a restriction is only useful when the system generally has sufficient water quantity, but has system limitations in meeting peak demands. This WRC Guide also specifies more effective water use restrictions, including the following: While hand held hoses are a relatively inefficient means of irrigation compared to other methods, the fact that it is comparatively labor intensive results in greatly reduced amounts of water that are used for lawns and landscapes. . (Source: Guide to Lawn and Landscape Water Conservation, WRC, May 2002) DEP has frequently commented on the ineffectiveness of odd/even restrictions in reducing water demand, and has found that streamflow-triggered restrictions that prohibit sprinkler use are much more effective. Duane LeVangie of DEP recently testified in the Matter of Town of North Reading, Dkt. No: 2003-069, dated December 22, 2004: "While the impact of North Reading's water withdrawals on the Ipswich River and Martin's Brook is the primary focus of this permit, the Department believes that requiring the implementation of outside water use restrictions when streamflow falls below 0.42 cfsm, regardless of the sources of supply, is consistent with our overall conservation message and is necessary to our basin-wide approach to improving streamflow conditions. That approach includes applying a consistent set of standards to all permitted users withdrawing from the Ipswich River Basin, including the implementation of water use restrictions at an identified streamflow threshold. This prevents not only neighboring towns, but also on a smaller scale, individual neighbors from being subject to entirely different operating conditions." (emphasis added) While made in the context of discussing North Reading's permit, the Department's rationale is equally true for the neighboring Town of Reading: In fact, the WRC decision will do the opposite of what Mr. LeVangie indicates that DEP recommends - the decision will in fact allow the neighboring town of Reading (whose impacts on the river are the most severe of any community) to be subject to "entirely different operating conditions." Over the period of record at the South Middleton streamflow gauge, flows have been below the 0.42 cfsm threshold about 56% of the time during the 5-month irrigation season. Restrictions requiring hand-held hoses only, based on this threshold, would be expected to occur up to 50% of the time during the irrigation season. In comparison, Reading's odd/even day water use restrictions will not come close to achieving the same water savings. In fact, Reading's continued use of 1 mgd from its local wells during these periods will exacerbate low-flow conditions, depleting flows and triggering restrictions in other towns. Nor is Reading's Stage 3 authority to impose bans equivalent to streamflow-triggered restrictions under the terms. of the WRC conditions. Reading's Stage 3 authority to impose total bans on outdoor usage and limits on indoor use is based on water system indicators of a water supply emergency where there is not enough water available for public health and safety. This provision is unlikely to be triggered during the outdoor watering season, because Reading will be importing.1.44 mgd from MWRA in addition to its use of the local wells. This is strong insurance against ever triggering Stage 3, regardless of strearriflow conditions in the Ipswich. Certainly such a severe water supply emergency is far less probable than streamflows falling 17 '7 below the 0.42 cfsm threshold, which happens more than 50% of the time during the summer, season. Thus the conditions of the draft decision are not an equivalent alternative to streamflow- triggered restrictions, will result in more non-essential water use than the streamflow-triggered restrictions that were proposed, and do not meet the performance standard. This abrupt policy shift is wholly inconsistent with the WRC's own rules. The WRC's Policy Statement of August 9, 2001 sets forth the conditions under which it may approve conditions that do not comply with the Performance Standards: "It is the policy of the Water Resources Commission that: A. The WRC may approve applications when the criteria, as measured by the Performance Standards, have not been fully met under these conditions: 2) If local conditions make it infeasible to meet a particular performance standard In these cases, the proponent should explain why that standard cannot be met, demonstrate an alternate method of meeting the intent of the criteria, and document any efforts that have been undertaken in order to comply with the standard. ()WRC Policy Statement (August 9, 2001) (emphasis added)) There is no evidence that local conditions render this performance standard infeasible. In Reading's case, it is certainly feasible for the Town to meet the performance standard requiring streamflow-triggered water use restrictions since every other municipality in the basin is being required by DEP to do so through their permits. While Reading does not want to meet the standard because it claims that it has more operational flexibility if it does not have to meet the standard, this preference is not sufficient grounds to enable the WRC to exempt Reading from the requirement for streamflow-triggered restrictions specified in the performance standard. Some members of the WRC claimed that because Reading meta 5-month (winter :summer) seasonal ratio of 1.2, that this is indicative that its program of water restrictions is adequate and that further measures are unnecessary. However, it is important to note that Reading only met that ratio in 2003. (a relatively wet summer); in prior years the seasonal ratio was significantly higher (see Figure 9). Glenn Haas stated at the December meeting that imposing streamflow-triggered restrictions when Reading already meets the 1.2 seasonal ratio was contrary to DEP's Water Management Act (WMA) Policy. This is incorrect. In fact, the DEP Policy (BRP/DVW DW/P04-1) states that DEP will require "streamflow thresholds that trigger mandatory limits on nonessential outdoor water use, including but not limited to lawn and landscape irrigation." The WMA Guidance6 specifically ties failure to meet the seasonal ratio to a requirement for a seasonal cap, not to streamflow- triggered restrictions. Reading's exemption from streamflow- 6DEP Guidance #BRP/DWM/DW/G04-1, Guidance Document for Water Management Act Permitting Policyq Permit and Permit Amendment Applications and 5-Year Reviews,. (April 2, 2004): 4. Limrrs ON NONESSENTIAL OUTDOOR WATER USE ...The permit condition will require a PWS, or the municipality in which the water is used, to implement. and enforce mandatory restrictions on nonessential outside water use whenever streamflow falls below the value identified by the Department for three consecutive days in the period from May 1 S` through September 30a'. Those restrictions will include, at a minimum, limiting outside water use to hand-held hoses only and prohibiting outside watering between 9 AM and 5 PM, when evapotranspiration is typically the highest... / triggered restrictions will undermine DEP's policy, particularly since it is well-established that Reading's withdrawals are the most damaging to the Ipswich River. To paraphrase Mark Tisa's comment at the WRC December meeting, if the WRC is not going to require application of streamflow-triggers for water use restrictions in the Ipswich basin, which is known to be the most stressed basin in Massachusetts and for which there is extensive documentation of the damaging effects of water withdrawals - especially Reading's - then when would the WRC ever apply these standards? The WRC's Stressed Basins in Massachusetts Report and the new Massachusetts Water Policy's "Stress Framework" both indicate that highly stressed basins should be subject to higher levels of protection - not waivers and exemptions from Performance Standards. '8 The WRC decision exempting Reading from the streamflow-trigger requirement is arbitrary and capricious and contrary to law. The decision in this respect should be reconsidered by the Commission. 2. The Town of Reading must have a conservation rate structure as a condition of approval. The ITA statute and Performance Standards state that water rate structure must encourage water conservation. E.g., G.L. c. 21 §81). On this requirement, the WRC decision states as follows.:.-"Reading has a flat rate structure, but the rates are high $3.66/cult [sic; should read $3.66/1.00 cu ft]." Decision at pp. I I & 31. There is no evidence in the record nor in the.WRC's policy guidance that would suggest that either this rate as a factual matter is sufficient to encourage conservation in Reading or as a legal matter meets the required standard. The Town of Reading's water rate structure does not meet the water conservation performance standard because it is a flat rate rather than an inclining block, seasonal rate, rebate/fee-bate structure or other proven conservation pricing method. The assertion that the rate in itself is high enough to promote conservation is unsubstantiated, and ignores the well- documented water conservation benefits that occur by charging higher rates for higher usage or for peak summer usage.9 In fact, those water customers with the lowest usage are likely to be penalized because of minimum costs typically charged in flat rate structures. Reading's water rates are approximately equal to those of the neighboring community of North Reading for the first 11,000 gallons of use, but North Reading's rates above 11,000 gallons increase by 46% IRWA recognizes that Reading has a registration, not a permit, under the WMA. Conditioning the registration statement is a specific condition of the WRC decision. According to the WRC's Stressed.Basins in Massachusetts Report, "The stressed basin classification is intended to flag areas which may require a more comprehensive and detailed review of environmental impacts or require additional mitigaon." It further states that "For a full application for an interbasin transfer, a stressed classification could also result in arequirement for stream monitoring and resource surveys as part of the information provided in the application. Stressed classifications would also be a factor in reviewing alternatives." ' Several WRC publications refer to the benefits of water conservation rate structures. For example, the WRC's Guide to Lawn and Landscape Water Conservation (2002) states: . Conservation Rate Structures: According to a study by Johns Hopkins University, outdoor residential water demand is far more responsive to price than indoor residential water demand. Therefore, water suppliers should encourage the implementation of increasing block structures to deter inefficient outdoor water use and should consider using seasonal rates, excessive use rates, drought rates, and second meter rates that encourage outdoor water conservation. Further information on conservation rates can be found in the American Water Works , Associations Manual of Water Supply Practices: Water Rates Structures and Pricing, (AWWA M34): 9 this rate discourages high water use without penalizing those who conserve. In Ipswich, summer (May-October) usage is billed at a rate of $5.85 per 100 cubic feet - almost four times the winter rate. Ipswich reports that this rate has been very effective in reducing summer demand. The WRC's decision tacitly approving the Town of Reading's flat rate structure as a rate that "encourages" conservation is unsupported by the record, is arbitrary and capricious, and is contrary to law. 3. The Town of Reading lacks accurate water metering as required for a transfer and as necessary for the registration statement condition in the Decision. The ITA and the WRC's implementing regulations and policy require metering of public water systems and programs to insure that the metering of water is accurate. See O.L. c.21, §8D(2)(b). While the Town of Reading has 100% metering of its water distribution system, it has a long history of chronic metering. problems and failures at its production meters. Reading acknowledges that it has been unable to provide accurate accounting of its withdrawals because of technical problems with metering raw water, and that there is always a significant discrepancy between its reporting of raw water pumped from individual sources, versus finished water produced by the water treatment plant. WRC Executive Director Karl Honkonen, in his comments on the Final EIR, stated that "Concern remains about the discrepancy between raw and finished water. The yearly (1997- 2002) differences range from 3.44% to 27.02%. Monthly differences for this time period range from -14.44% to 59.64%." (Letter to Secretary Herzfelder, October 24, 2003). Based on the past five years Annual Statistical Reports, this discrepancy averages 246,000 gallons per day, or 11.4% of the raw water; this is in addition to unaccounted-for water. . The persistent inaccuracies and lack of reliability of the production meters is a significant issue for this transfer as a number of the conditions in the approval are based in part on volumes. of water drawn from Reading's production wells. This issue is also critical to the amendment of the Town's Water Registration Statement, another condition of the WRC'Decision. The approval should be conditioned on development and implementation of a program by the Town of Reading that will produce accurate and reliable results from the Town's production wells on a continuing basis. If that is impossible, a different method of accounting for local withdrawals must be devised, and the registration statement must be amended accordingly to reflect accurate, verifiable water use. The failure to condition the approval on such terms is an abuse of discretion and contrary to law. The decision in this respect should be reconsidered by the Commission. 4. Water Bank: The ITA requires that all practical measures to save water have been implemented in the receiving basin. A key missing element of the water conservation program is a standard by which to measure water savings in comparison to increased demand due to future development. A water bank provides a means of accounting for water savings, to be credited against increased water usage due to new development and expansion projects. This approach, as applied in other communities, requires a 2:1 ratio of savings compared to increased demand. That is, two gallons of water savings are required for every one gallon of new demand. The water savings could be achieved through low flow devices or increased efficiency, improved recharge of the aquifers, and/or reduction in the amount of water exported from the basin. Since Reading already has a funding mechanism for water conservation, a water bank could be used. lAft primarily to account for the actual savings achieved to offset increased demand due to development with the overall aim being to ensure that water demand does not increase overall. 2. The conditions of approval do not comply with the requirements of the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (G.L. c. 30, §§61, 62-62H) and its regulations in that they are inconsistent with the Secretary's Certificate issued in this matter and constitute a significant project change. As demonstrated above, the WRC decision to exempt the Town of Reading from the October limits on pumping rates from its groundwater wells constitutes a significant change to the project that was evaluated through the MEPA process as well as being at variance with the Secretary's MEPA Certificate. Pursuant to 301 C.M.R. § 11.10.(1), a notice of project change must be filed to reflect this changed circumstance. The failure to publish a project change and process the same through the MEPA process undercuts the role that the process and the Secretary's Certificate plays in determining that the WRC has complied with the substantive requirements of MEPA and violates one of the prime purposes of MEPA, which is to provide a meaningful public review of the project as it will actually be implemented. Due Process: The public participation process that is at the heart of MEPA and the ITA was further damaged by certain activities that took place in this proceeding. Specifically, the failure to, provide IRWA with the information that I specifically requested on November 4`r' about the status of the staff recommendation and proceedings, and closed-door negotiations that took place between Town of Reading and state officials in this matter, excluded IRWA and others from participation in key aspects of the deliberative process, even though our interests in this matter were well known by the agencies in question. The failure to give adequate public notice and accurate information, a cornerstone of due process, in .and of itself warrants a rehearing by the WRC. This process that occurred calls into question the objectivity of the WRC staff and the information conveyed to the WRC, and undermines public confidence in the fairness of the review process and approval. Furthermore, neither the WRC nor its staff or members are authorized to negotiate the terms of an interbasin transfer with the applicant, as seems to have occurred here. We note that Reading made it clear that it was not willing to accept certain conditions in the original staff recommendation and Secretary's Certificate, and those conditions were removed from the final staff recommendation. 19, 4 11 In closing, while the Town of Reading is to be commended for many of the activities they have undertaken to deal with the severe situation that exists with the Ipswich River, the basin . studies of the Ipswich River watershed indicate that Reading's withdrawals are a significant factor in the River's present degraded condition, and will continue to degrade the river subsequent to the interbasin transfer. The Water Resources Commission has an important statutory and trust responsibility when it authorizes the transfer of waters from basin to basin in the Commonwealth. That responsibility extends to the recipient basin just as surely as it extends to the donor basin. For the reasons stated above, IRWA believes that the legal requirements and public interest regarding Reading's Application for an Interbasin Transfer were not served by the WRC proceedings and the vote that occurred in December. Based on the foregoing arguments,. we respectfully petition the WRC to reconsider and rehear this proceeding, in accordance with M.G.L. Ch. 30A s 14(1). I would appreciate the opportunity to meet with you to discuss this matter further prior to the January WRC meeting. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Kz4,1 Kerry Mackin Executive Director Attachments Cc: Katherine Abbott, Commissioner, Department of Conservation and Recreation Robert Golledge, Commissioner, Department of Environmental Protection David Peters, Commissioner, Department of Fish and Game Jane Walis Gumble, Commissioner, Dept. of Housing and Community Development Douglas Gillespie,.Commissioner, Department of Agricultural Resources MWRA Board of Directors Peter Shelley, Conservation Law Foundation 19-ZZ 12 Page 1 of 1 Honkonen, Karl (ENV) From: Kerry Mackin [kerrymackin@verizon.net] Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2005 7:33 PM To: Honkonen, Karl (ENV); Royherzfelder, Ellen (ENV) Cc: Kerry Mackin Subject: Attachment 1 for Petition for Rehearing This is figure 1 for Petition for Rehearing. t g -z3 1/13/2005 Figure I Photos of Ipswich River, Reach 8 1999, Photos by Dave Armstrong, U.S. Geological Survey #3 #4: dead mussel 19--2Y 19-Z.t #6: Photo by Lou Wagner #5: Photo by Gina Snyder #7: Photo by Gina Snyder #8: Photo by Gina Snyder Pagel of 2 Honkonen, Karl (ENV) From: Kerry Mackin [kerrymackin@verizon.net] Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2005 8:13 PM To: Honkonen, Karl (ENV); Royherzfelder, Ellen (ENV) Cc: Kerry Mackin Subject: Remaining figures and tables for Petition for Rehearing Dear Secretary Herzfelder and Mr. Honkonen, These are the remaining figures and tables for the Petition for Reheating. Paper copies of these materials will also be provided. I also incorporate the following studies by reference and provide the web addresses for your convenience. While I am sure that these materials are on file with the Water Resources Commission, I Will be happy to provide a paper copy of them for your reference. Zarriello, Phillip J. and Kernell G. Ries III, A Precipitation-Runoff Model for Analysis of the Effects of Water .Withdrawals on Streamflow, Ipswich River Basin, Massachusetts, USGS Water Resources Investigation Report 00-4029 (2000) hftp://water.usgs.gov/pubs/wri/Wri004029/Whole report.pdf Armstrong, David S, Todd A. Richards and Gene W. Parker, Assessment of Habitat,Fish Communities, and Streamflow Requirements for Habitat Protection, Ipswich River, Massachusetts, 1998-99, USGS Water-Resources Investigations Report 01-4161, (2001) http://ma.water.usgs.gov/publications/wrir/wri014161/reportbody. PA http://ma water usgs Qov/publications/wrir/wri014l6l/appendixa.pdf http://ma water usgs gov/publications/wrir/wri014l6l/appendixb-d:pdf Zarriello, Phillip J., Effects of Water Management Alternatives on Streamflow in the Ipswich River Basin, Massachusetts, USGS (2002) hftp://water.usgs.gov/pubs/of/ofrOl483/pdf/ofrOl483.pdf Ipswich River Fisheries Restoration Task GroupIpswich River Fisheries: Current. Status and Restoration Approach, June 2002 http://www.ipswichriver.org/FishRestReport. pdf Lang, Vernon et.al., Ipswich River Target Fish Community, May 2001 hftp://www.ipswichriver.or-q/FishRestRepod&.pdf Horsley & Witten Inc., Ipswich River Watershed Management Plan, 2002 Q-2G 1/13/2005 Page 2 of 2 f httD://www.horsleywiften.com/ipswich/REPORT.pd Stressed Basins in Massachusetts, Water Resources Commission, 2001 http://www.mass.gov/envir/mwrc/pdf/Massachusetts Stressed Basins.PDF Guide to Lawn and Landscape Water Conservation, Water Resources Commission, 2002 http://www *.mass.gov/envir/mwrc/pdf/LawnGuide. pdf Thank you again for your consideration. Kerry Mackin 1/13/2005 IRWA Petition for Rehearing Tables 1-2 and Figures 2-9 40 A. water-Supply Simulations r- I T-T No withdrawals (LT-NoDem) Average 1985-93 vlrithdrawais (LT-Demd) No seasonal v tttdrawais (NSea-dmd) Flow.ttuuesshold limited stream depletion (QMin-drnd) 20-percent reduced seasonal withdrawals (Dec-dmd) 50-percent reduced seasonal withdrawals (RSea-dm<i 20-percent increased withdrawals (Inc-drnd) 30 20 10 0 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 A. water-5uppry blITIU ttons F T No vrithdravrWs (LT NoDern) Average 1939-93 withdrawals (LT-DOW) No seasonal wittxirnw l s (NSea-dmd) Flaw threshold limited stream depletion (QMin-dmd) 20-percent reduced seasonal withdrawals (Dec-dmd) 50-percent reduced seasonal vthdrawals (RSea-dmd) 20-percent increased withdrawals (Inc-dmd) s 10 20 30 10 20 31 10 20 31 10 20 30 10 20 31 JUNE JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER ( OCTOBER 1993 Figure 2. Daily flow at model reaches 8 and 19 simulated under management alternatives for (A) water supply, June through October 1993 19.7t MODEL REACH 8 1,000 100 10 1 0.1 A. Water-Supply Simulations -T-TT 11 i~ 1,000 100 10 1 MODEL REACH 19 withd (L rawals {l"r-Nobem) Average 1989-93 withdrawals (Lt-demo) \T~ . - FJo seasonal withdrawals (NSea4lrr4 Flow threshold lurked stream de, pbUon (Win-dmd) 20-percent reduced seminal withdmvals(?tadmd) - - 541-percent reduced seasonal withdrawals (RSea md) - 20-percent ina ' wi "s (lc-dn ) 0.51 2 5 10 20 30 50 70 80 90 95 98 99 99.8 0.5 1 2 5 10 20 30 50 70 80 90 95 98 99 99.8 Percent chance that flow is equaled or exceeded Figure 3: Flow duration curves for Reach 8, Mill Street Reading (reach with .Reading wellfield) and Reach 19 (South Middleton Gauge). Graph shows percent of time flows are equaled or exceeded under a range of scenarios modeled by USGS. Graph is from USGS Water- Management Alternatives Study, p 17. Frequency of flows below 0.42 cfsm by month 1800 90% E 1600 80% N 70% y 1400 N v 60% N C1200' N 1000 50% CDv 17 800 40% o 600 30% m d E 400 20% 0 C 200 - fig 10% 0 0% Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Month, over period of record Figure 4: Frequency of flows below 0.42 cfsm at USGS South Middleton streamflow gauge, June 1938-May 2003. From USGS streamflow data. 19-0&9 Monthly Median Flows, South Middleton Gauge 3.5 3 2.5 E 2 v 1.5 .1 0.5 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Figure 5: Monthly median flows, South Middleton gauge (in cfsm). Data from USGS. Simulated vs Actual Flow Statistics, South Middleton Gauge 1.80 1.60 1.40 1.20 E 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 ■Simulated monthly median cfsm *Simulated monthly mean cfsm DActual monthly medians May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Figure 6: Comparison of simulated monthly means and medians to actual (recorded) monthly medians at South Middleton gauge (in cfsm). 1 q- 3o Table 1: Reading Water Use Statistic, 1999-2003 Reading Water Statistics Source: Reading Annual Statistical Reports 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 Jan 52189000 51999000. 56364000 52782000 58173000 Feb 53428000 44060000 46928000 48349000 52500000 Mar 55994000 49589000 53738000 51962000 57995000 Apr 52242000 49645000 52836000 50780000 61210000 May 62374000 59936000 74233000 62188000 71085000 Jun 61854000 59448000 69313000 65865000 91894000 Jul 73023000 74873000 67916000 69926000 74032000 Aug 63156000 77590000 70017000 62298000 69399000 Sep 57289000 57875000 62247000 57734000 58619000 Oct 52165000 51567000 55283000 52158000 52554000 Nov 54689000 48588000 47954000 48180000 48932000 Dec 59723000 52003000 49848000 52135000 51192000 Total usage, gallons (finished) 698126000 677173000 706677000 674357000 747585000 ADD (finished) 1912674 1855268 1936101 1847553 2048178 - ADD (raw) 2121112 2076338 2154484 2120949 2357780 Difference 208498 221069 218383 273396 309602 MDD 3063000 3081000 3058000 2810000 3597000 Population- 23600 23800 23693 23500 22770 Residential 466409416 489802368 524029352 464781768 529494240 Total GPCD 81 78 82 79 90 Residential GPCD 54 56 61 54 64 UAW 62543000 .38105156 28903071 74380408 86825484 UAW percentage 8.96% 5.6% 4.1% 11.0% 11.6% Peak Demand Indices: 5 month Seasonal Ratio 1.15 1.34 1.35 1.25 1.36 Max Month/Min Month* 1.40 1.59 1.43 1.40 .1.88 MDD/ADD 1.60 1.66 1.58 1.52 1.76 Average summer (5mo) 2076444 2155046 2246575 2078503 2385810 /9-3 Pleading Average Day Demand, Raw and Finished 2500000 2000000 1500000 `m CL co r- 0 1000000 v► 500000 0 Figure 7: Average Day Deinand, Raw and Finished Water, 1999-2003 Reading water use in gallons per person per day 100 90 80 U Q 70 10 60 N CL o 50 40 m CL M 30 0 M co 20 10 0 ® ADD (finished) ® ADD (raw) BTotal GPCD ® Residential GPCD / 4?-M3 2. 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 Figure 8: Gallons per person per day, residential and total, 1999-2003 Figure 9: Reading 5 month seasonal ratio, 1999-2003 Table 2: Reading Water Use Restrictions Stage 1 is implemented because of an impending water shortage. Voluntary conservation of water is requested of all users. Mandatory regulations exist for filling swimming pools. Stage 2 provides for mandatory water conservation, subject to penalties in accordance with law for violations of these restrictions. Water may be used for outdoor purposes only from 4:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m., Monday through Sunday. Even-numbered addresses may use outdoor water on even-numbered days of the month; odd-numbered addresses may use outdoor water on odd-numbered days of the month. There are no restrictions for hand-held watering devices. Violation of the restrictions is punishable by a $300 fine. Stage 3 is provided for conditions when only enough water is available for essential public health and safety purposes. No outdoor water use of any type is permitted.. Water use is restricted to domestic home use only for purposes including normal bathing, laundry, and sanitary uses. /q-33 Reading's Impact on the Ipswich River Pagel of2 Honkonen, Karl (ENV) From: Lauenstein [lauenstein@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 3:20 PM To: Royherzfelder, Ellen (ENV) Cc: Karl Honkonen; Vandana Rao; Kerry Mackin; Ian Cooke; Susan Speers; Margaret Van Deusen; Ralph Abele; Russ Cohen; Margaret Kearns; Mark Smith; Lee Breckenridge; Pine Dubois; Lou Wagner, Eileen Simonson; Tom and Linda Palmer; Taber Keally Subject: Reading's Impact on the Ipswich River January 12, 2005 Secretary Ellen Herzfelder Executive Office of Environmental Affairs ellen.royherzfelder@state.ma.us Dear Secretary Herzfelder, As a board member of the Neponset River Watershed Association, I am watching to see what, if anything, will be done to restore flow in the Ipswich River, often referred to as the "poster child" for stressed rivers in Massachusetts. After the heavy media coverage, the scientific analysis by the USGS, and the new EOEA water policy, if nothing can now be done to restore the Ipswich River, what hope can there be for less publicized but nonetheless seriously degraded rivers like the Neponset? With all the fanfare and high-minded rhetoric associated with the new EOEA policy on water, I was hopeful that we were at the dawn of a new era of effective, determined leadership at the state level toward responsible, sustainable management of Massachusetts' water resources. The core principles of the new EOEA policy: 1. Keep water local and seek to have municipalities live within their water budget by addressing issues from a watershed perspective; 2. Protect clean water and restore impaired waters; 3. Protect and restore fish and wildlife habitat; and 4. Promote development strategies consistent with sustainable water resources. . promised to address the damage being done to rivers like the Ipswich and the Neponset by suburban sprawl. Consequently I was dismayed to hear that the Water Resources Commission voted to approve the Town of Reading's application for an interbasin transfer without requiring groundwater pumping thresholds to be based on stream flow levels in order to adequately restore stream.flow to the Ipswich River. Also, the VWRC failed to limit streamside pumping in October, a historically low flow month. These WRC decisions effectively allow the Town of Reading, which is recognized as one of the leading perpetrators of the Ipswich River's lack of water in summer, to be held to less stringent requirements-than are required in the recent Water Management permits for other Ipswich basin communities. Reading's i9- 3y 1/13/2005 Reading's Impact on the Ipswich River Page 2 of 2 excessive withdrawals of groundwater from the headwaters of the Ipswich River violate the core principles listed above, yet when presented with the opportunity to do something about it, the WRC abdicated its responsibility. to help restore stream flow in the Ipswich River. Instead, the WRC decided to allow Reading to continue to withdraw environmentally harmful amounts from its streamside wells in summer and fall when it is most needed in the Ipswich River. Equally ominous, the WRC heavy= handedly excluded concerned citizens from the decision-making process. The Ipswich River Watershed Association has filed a petition for rehearing of the WR.C decision, which I hope the WRC will approve. Those of us who voluntarily spend our time and energy working toward a sustainable future in Massachusetts are hoping that the WRC will not betray their own core principles and require Reading to purchase a sufficient volume of water from MVWRA to restore adequate stream flow in the Ipswich River through October, and to cease pumping its Ipswich sources when flows in the Ipswich River fall dangerously low. Failure to do so will demoralize. citizen activists across the state, undermine the EOEA's new water policy, and call into question the commitment of state leadership to restore the rivers and streams of Massachusetts for everyone to enjoy. Sincerely yours, Paul C. Lauenstein 4 Gavins Pond Road Sharon, MA 02067 781-784-2986 lauensteiri@c'orncast.net cc: Karl Honkonen Vandana Rao Kerry Mackin Ian Cooke Susan Speers Margaret Van Deusen Raloh Abele Russ Cohen Margaret Kearns Mark Smith Lee Breckenridge Pine DuBois Lou Wagner Eileen Simonson Tom Palmer Taber Keally S' 19 0035 1/13/2005 Honkonen, Karl (ENV) From: Sent: To: Subject: January 11, 2005 wscac@rcn.com Tuesday, January 11, 2005 2:48 PM Honkonen, Karl (ENV) WSCAC ExComm memo on Reading TO: Ellen Roy Herzfelder, As She Is --Secretary of Environmental Affairs --Chair, Water Resources Commission (WRC) --Supervisor, MEPA Office --Chair, Board of Directors, Mass Water Resources Authority FROM: WSCAC Executive Committee RE: Reading Application for Admission to MWRA Water'Supply System After discussion of the complex circumstances surrounding Reading's Application, the Executive Committee of WSCAC voted on January 10 as follows: We support the Petition for Rehearing filed with the WRC by the Ipswich River Watershed Association and ask that you give serious attention to this Petition at the next WRC meeting. Although our concerns are not necessarily identical to those of the IRWA, their .material raises extremely serious issues, particularly with relation to the period during which the Town's wells are to limit their taking of water, in order to benefit.the Ipswich River. The IRWA was created for the purpose of protecting and benefiting this River, and it represents the state citizens' interest in this important resource., We would also like to add a brief precis of our own concerns. The otherwise sensible use of the MEPA Environmental Impact Report process as'the basis for WRC consideration of Interbasin Transfer Act (ITA) applications has led to some confusion in the relation of these two separate laws which you (as lead party in both agencies) are uniquely situated to appreciate. This confusion, in the instance at hand, is focused around the key the question of whether the Town's use of its wells should be limited during October (as the MEPA document states) or only from May through September.(as the WRC Findings state). The MEPA EIR is not just another written report that the WRC can chose to follow or ignore. As the basis for ITA review, it must guide the WRC decisions at least unless there is other evidence to the contrary. As you know, there is evidence that, in Reach 8, limiting water takings in October is very important. Yet the only justification given in the WRC Findings for choosing the September date is that other towns on the River are not constrained in October. This is relevant neither to the MEPA guidance nor to the ITA review. No doubt there are other debatable practices along this and other rivers, but the WRC's review should focus only on MEPA's specific guidance and the narrow window for acceptance under the ITA. The MEPA Certificate, as well as offering the basis of WRC review, stands alone if not challenged as a limitation to state and town action. If the WRC,or the Town choose. not to follow the time schedule upon which your final Certificate on the EIR premises its approval, a Notice of Project Change must be filed with the MEPA Office to justify this deviation. This is the standard MEPA process and allowing changes to be made without an NPC will dangerously weaken MEPA authority. In addition, while applauding the Town's efforts towards.water conservation, we agree with the IRWA that the ITA program looks to current conditions and not to future plans. Many of the conservation proposals have not been enforced and tested. As an example of the value of action prior to approval, we ask that the WRC consider the design of'the treatment plant, now at about 30% stage. Why has not the WRC asked the Town to determine whether a slightly different design would allow for the use of less than 1 million gallons a.day during the period of limitation? 1 !9.3` . For these and other reasons, we ask that you agree to a rehearing on this important application. Alexandra Dawson, on Behalf of WSCAC EXCOMM Attachments: WSCAC 12/7/04 letter and 12/16/04 memo Cc Karl Honkonen, EOEA director of Water Policy Jim Hunt, Director, MEPA Office Peter Heckenbleikner, Town Manager, Reading Frederick Laskey, Executive Director, MWRA Joseph Favaloro, Executive Director, MWRA Advisory Board WSCAC ExComm mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . 2 /9-37 Message McIntire, Ted From: Honkonen, Karl (ENV) [Karl. Hon ko nen @state. ma. us] Sent: Friday, February 04, 2005 1:03 PM To: town manger@ci. read i ng. ma. us; McIntire, Ted Cc: Stergios, James (ENV); Gildesgame, Mike (DCR); Drury, Michele (DCR) Subject: Reading ITA options Hi Peter and Ted, As per our discussions today, please consider the following: FOR POLICY CONSIDERATION ONLY 1. Reading will purchase up to 219MG of MWRA water May 1-Oct. 31 Page 1 dEff 2. Limit existing in-basin sources to 1 MGD total May 1-Oct. 31 as long as purchases from MWRA are less than 219MG 3. The state would like Reading to consider putting some additional water conservation measures in place in the case where the town exhausts it's 219MG MWRA water before the end of Oct 31. (this afternoon DCR staff will send some possible water conservation measures for your consideration). 4. Another option is for Reading to establish a point of its consumption of the 219MG of MWRA water at which more stringent water conservation measures can be put in place to ensure more effective demand management (perhaps at 70% use point, or 150MG). 5. To deal with a scenario where Reading receives little precipitation in the spring and summer but heavy rains in late summer/early fall, the state would also consider the impact of seasonal rains on the use of in-basin sources after the 219MG is exhausted (per Peter H's comments to Jim Stergios 020405). 6. All other conditions of December draft decision are in place, except criteria 2, condition 1 (limits to Sept and installs streamflow triggers). Thanks, Karl Karl W. Honkonen Director of Water Policy Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900 Boston, MA 02114 617/626-1138 617/626-1181 FAX karl.honkonen state. ma. us www.mass.gov/emir 3/31/2005 February 24th WRC meeting McIntire, Ted Page 1 of 1 From: Mclntir ,Ted Sent: Tu day, February 15, 05 11:13 AM To: rury, Michele (D Subj /VRE. February 2 h WRC meeting le, forward Ker 's letter to me. You can Ted to 781-942-908 From: Drury, Michele (DCR) [mailto: Michele. Drury@state.ma. us] Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2005 9:39 AM To: McIntire, Ted; Tassi, Peter; Kovacs, Robert; Pamela. Heidell@mwra.state.ma. us; David. brew@mwra.state.ma. us; sraymond@fstinc.com; Gall, John Subject: February 24th WRC meeting luck with the surgery. This is to confirm that the WRC will be meeting on February 24th at 1 PM in the Saltonstall Building (2nd floor). There is a updated agenda, but the only thing that has been changed is the date. If you want a copy of this, let me know and I will fax it to you (it is not availbale electronically). For the Reading people, attached to the new agenda is Kerry Mackin's letter of Feb 5, 2005 to Secretary Herzfelder and Karl Honkonen. I thought you received a copy, but if not, let me know and I will forward it to you. I regret that I will not be able to make this meeting, as I will be recovering from foot surgery, but Linda Marler will be doing an excellent job of filling in for me. zl -I 3/31/2005 IPSVACH RIVER ATERSHED .ASSOCIATION PO-Box 576, Ipswich, MA 03938 978-887-2313 fax 978--887-2208 February 5, 2005 Secretary Ellen Roy Herzfelder Karl Honkonen, Executive Director Water Resources Commission 100 Cambridge Street Boston, MA 02114 Ref: Town of Reading. Application .for. an Interbasin Transfer of Water from the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority Additional information regarding Petitions for Rehearing filed by the Ipswich River Watershed Association ("IRWA")` and a group of Citizens ("Citizens"). Dear Secretary Herzfelder and Mr. Honkonen, IRWA and the Citizens petitioning for rehearing in the above-referenced matter submit the following additional information, obtained during public records reviews, for consideration by the Water Resources Commission ("Commission" or "WRC") in further support of our Petitions for Rehearing and reconsideration of the December 2004 WRC decision ("WRC decision"): 1) Viable sources: The WRC decision disregards the Department of Environmental Protection's ("DEP") explicit finding. that Reading's use of its Ipswich River wells is not viable during low-flow periods: "The Interbasin Transfer Act Regulations define a viable source to mean. a source which can provide drinking water meeting current water quality standards at a reasonable cost, while-preserving reasonable-instream flow. Consistent with this definition, the Department has reviewed studies completed by. the USGS and concluded that the Ipswich River is not a viable source when streamf low falls below. 0.42 cfsm between.Ane 1'r and October 3P'.or below X1.5 cfsm in May." (Letter from John Felix, DEP to then-Secretary of Environmental Affairs Bob Durand, dated October 28, 2002, attachment A) (emphasis added) Furthermore, Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) staff requested an opinion from legal counsel. regarding this question in December 2002, and were advised that a source is not viable if it causes damage to the environment ' The Ipswich River Watershed Association filed a Petition for Rehearing on January 5, 2005; and a group of more than 10 Citizens of the Commonwealth filed a Petition for Rehearing on January 10, 2005. This.document is a supplement to those Petitions for Rehearing, based on information obtained through public records reviews. 2 iRWA requested public records from DEP, the Commission, the Department of Conservation and Recreation and the Town of Reading on December 10. 2004. IRWA has still not received all the records requested Nevertheless, the WRC decision authorizes and requires use of Reading's wells in the Ipswich Basin regardless of streamflow during those periods when DEP explicitly, found that the Ipswich River is not a viable source and when use of the wells results in damage to the environment. This condition is in violation of the ITA Regulations (313 CMR 4.05(2) and 4.02). At a minimum, the WRC decision should be amended to require that, once Reading's new water treatment plant comes on line, the Town shall stop.use of the wells during low now periods or use them at a level less than I mgd that does not result in damage to the environment.3 2) Restricted use of wells: In addition, Condition 1 of the WRC decision fails to properly condition the use of the wells because the limit to 1 mgd only applies until the town's 219 mgd MWRA purchase limit is met. By the current wording of this condition, if Reading were to use up its MW1eA water in July, the town would be allowed to use its Ipswich.wells without the 1 mgd restriction for the rest of the year. This condition does not meet.the intent of the FEIR or MEPA Certificate, and at the. least needs to be rewritten to clarify that Reading may not pump. more than 1 mgd raw water from its Ipswich basin sources anytime between May 1 and October 31~`. According to the Town's records, Reading agreed to extend the period of restricted use of the Ipswich wells to October 31st. (See Attachment B.) As noted previously, the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) and MEPA Certificate state that the use of the wells would be restricted from May through October. However, Reading's records show that during the summer of 2004, the Town decided to "go back to May to Sept. and met privately with DEP and DCR staff, who then allowed Reading to rewrite the conditions of its permit to accommodate the Town's reversal of position on this issue and other conditions, including the streamflow-triggered restrictions discussed below. Several documents referencing the town's rewrite of the WRC draft decision are included in Attachment C. 3) Adequacy of purchase volume: Reading's proposal is to purchase a maximum of 0.6 mgd in any year, but the purchase would average only 179 mg per year, or 0.49 mgd, (based on 1995-2001 water use). IRWA is concerned that the analysis of importing 0.6 mgd overstates the benefits of Reading's proposal to the Ipswich River, because Reading actually proposes to purchase less water in most years.. At the very least, the 0.6 mgd should be treated as a 5-year average, allowing a purchase of higher than 0.6 mgd during dry years to offset the lower import during wet years. This would provide more benefit to the Ipswich River without changing the impact on the donor basin. DEP conducted an analysis of the effects of Reading's purchase of 0.6 mgd from the MWRA. Their analysis corroborated USGS's findings that the proposed import of water would result in only marginal improvements to the Ipswich River. Graphs DEP produced and an email corroborating the applicability of USGS' findings are included in Attachment D. These graphs in combination with USGS' findings indicate that the Ipswich River will continue to experience severely depleted streamflows with the 0.6 mgd purchase proposed by Reading, and indicate that the findings of the WRC decision in this regard are incorrect "The WRC did not conduct the hydrologic analysis required under the -TTA regulations for the receiving basin. However, the USGS studies cited previously (Hydrological Model, Aquatic Habitat Study and Water-Management Alternatives Study), along with the Ipswich River Fisheries Task Group Report, provide some of the required analysis, and are incorporated herein by reference. Z and do not meet the requirements of the ITA Regulations. DCR staff erroneously concluded that USGS's modeling was not relevant to this proceeding (email from M. Drury to M. Gildesgame, 12/08/04); in fact, a hydrological analysis and evaluation of impacts in the receiving basin equivalent to the analysis of the donor basin impacts are required by regulation (313 CMR 4.05(2) and 4.02). USGS'. work is specifically relevant. CDM's streamflow analysis referenced in the WRC decision is not to the point because it compares the proposed water transfer to a "straw man" proposal to transfer less water from MWRA and less restrictive use of the Ipswich wells, rather than a legitimate comparison of purchasing more water with more restricted well use. The most apt comparison is to Scenario 7 in the FEIR, not Scenarios 4 or 5 a Linda Marler's records indicate that she noted this discrepancy and indicated that Scenarios 6-8 should be included in the comparison and graphs; but that analysis was not presented nor referenced in the WRC decision. On the contrary, the inapt "straw man" comparison was cited as rationale for the WRC approval with weaker conditions than were originally drafted. 4) Projected demand: The determination that Reading would buy .6 mgd from MWRA was not based on an analysis of the amount needed to achieve reasonable instream flows in the Ipswich basin, and does not comply with the ITA Regulations. In fact, Reading's Ad Hoc Water Supply Committee arrived at the proposed purchase of. 6 mgd prior to completion of the USGS model, and prior to Reading's commitment to sell .258 mgd to businesses that agreed to pay part of the N1WRA entry fees. Also, an economic analysis included in Reading's public documents indicates that the cost per thousand gallons is actually cheaper for MWRA water than for Reading water, thus raising questions about whether even as a matter of economics, the Ipswich sources are less than viable over the long term. (See Attachment E) 5) Water use restrictions: Amy Vickers, one of the nation's foremost experts on water conservation, writes of odd/even day restrictions: "Communities sometimes establish every other-day watering schedules... but watering schedules of this frequency are generally discouraged now because experience has shown that they often lead to overwatering.." (Vickers, Amy, Handbook Of Water Use And Conservation. Amherst, MA: WaterPlow Press, 2001. p. 206) Reading did not compare the effectiveness of its water use restrictions with flow-triggered restrictions. Instead, the town's consultant compared its inaccurate and unsubstantiated estimate of water savings from flow-triggered restrictions with the volume of water imported from MWRA. In addition, Reading's consultant claimed that flow-triggered restrictions would not benefit the Ipswich River. This is untrue. Flow-triggered restrictions will reduce water use a The WRC decision references a comparison oftee proposed-scenario-with one which allows l mgd pumping during low flow periods and unrestricted pumping at other times: This is a "straw man" comparison that, not surprisingly, indicates almost identical results to the proposed scenario of limiting the wells to 1 mgd seasonally. The comparison is not on point. The -apt analysis should compare the proposed scenario to one with more restrictive use of the Ipswich basin wells, such as Scenario 7 of the FEIR, or to the findings of the USGS Water-Resource Management Alternatives Study evaluating the results of a 501/6 reduction in summer pumping from these wells. The Town proposes a 54% reduction in summer use. substantially during the summer, thus allowing the town to make its 219 mg'MWRA purchase last longer, which will enable Reading to keep the limits on, its Ipswich wells for a longer period of time. This will definitely benefit the Ipswich River. I conducted an analysis comparing the effectiveness ofReading's existing water use restrictions with streamflow-triggered restrictions specified in the July 2004 draft WRC decision (See Appendix). I found that from 1999-2003, streamflow-triggered restrictions would have saved an estimated 28.5 million gallons (mg) more than Reading's existing restrictions on average, and during, dry years such as 1999 and 2002, the. savings would have been even greater - 47 and 34 mg respectively. (See Appendix). DEP corroborated IRWA's contention that Reading's water use restrictions are not equivalent to the streamflow-triggered restrictions that were specified in Condition 5 of the July 2004 draft WRC decision. DEP found that: "....the Department notes that Reading is currently not in compliance with the Performance Standard requiring `water use restrictions (tied) to strearn Zow and/or surface water levels in the affected basin'... [Reading's] restrictions allow more non:essential outside water [use] when streani low is low than the restrictions tied . to streamflow included in the May 2003 water withdrawal permits (letter of May 28, 2004 from Madelyn Morris, DEP, to Michele Drury-and Secretary Herzfelder, Attachment F) DEP.'s finding and my analysis indicate that Reading's restrictions allow higher use than these streamf low-triggered restrictions, refuting the WRC decision which states but does not substantiate that Reading's restrictions are equivalent Reading's restrictions also fail to conform to the Lawn and Landscape Water Conservation Standards (WRC, 2002) which require "increasingly stringent water use restrictions" triggered by environmental indicators. The massive fish kills and dire, bone dry condition of the Ipswich River next to Reading's wells in 1993, 1995, 1997, 1999 and 2002 did not trigger more stringent restrictions - so what would? Yet DCR staff literally allowed Reading to dictate the terms of the WRC approval, including deletion of Condition 5 requiring the DEP streamflow-triggered restrictions, from the draft WRC decision. The WRC decision will set an adverse precedent in three ways if this decision stands. First, you will undermine your own and other state policy indicatingthat odd/even day restrictions are not as effective as streamflow-triggered restrictions. Second, you will lower the bar for the quality of analysis that is required to evaluate such questions, by allowing unsubstantiated assertions that support false conclusions. Third, you will set the expectation that proponents can change conditions they don't like. A letter from Reading's Town Manager to the WRC dated June 22, 2004 indicates that Reading's objection to being held to this requirement is based in part on the fact that WMA permits containing this condition are under appeal, and, in his words, "It is not reasonable or fair to expect the Town of Reading to accept or be bound by restrictions that others in the basin are not." ii-y To thisI wouid`reply thatthe converse is -reallythe. issue -here-Reading;wbijse withdrawals are. so extremely damaging, should not. be-held: to less stringent: standards than.other' communities;: as the V RC decision allows... Also; .there is. no. indicati'li that.the ViT.MA conditions requiring streamflow-triggered water use restrictions will be weakened'as a result of.the:appeals cases In-fact, Ms:.Tassi.noted: that North.Reading'.s attorney. .informed hiin that "they. are not appealing.the streamflow triggers as he.feelsit is not winnable (emphasis. in,original;-See.-Attachment G); The last.sentence-of.Condition I seemsto-adequately- address Reading's concern, but the WRC still exempts the town from the streamflow- triggered restrictions requirement; in violation of the Performance Standards. This email record also indicates that Reading:was,aware that.agreeing to impose han&heid hose restrictions when-its purchase: reaches 219: mg:would be- inconsequential., because these restrictions-would likely, not-be triggered:.untifafter.the: peakwatering-.season; andahus would-have little impact on water usage, (See Attachment G) 6) . Summer ratio: Glenn Haas -ofDEP stated."atthe.December 2004'WRC meeting that it.would.conflict with DEP. Policy:to hold Reading.to. streamflow=triggered restrictions because Reading met the l :2` 1 summer water use ratio: Leaving aside for the moment the fact that this is not what DEP Policy says; Tom Lamonte.of DEP found tba "According to our seasonal summer cap-protocol... Reading's summer to-winter ratio is 1.29.- thus not meeting the 1.2:1 ratio (email from T. L. amonte, 6/17/04; Attachment H): Cynthia Giles of DEP pointed out that the summer ratio issue was, not. the same as the issue .of summer water use restrictions: ...I still think there is a significant problem with sprinklers going when stream flow is very low... While I think we.might be able to agree that rati(o of 1.2:1 is OK_ ..I don't think that translates to OK to have sprinklers going when the river is low:.." (email from Cynthia Giles, DEP; 6/16/04; . Attachment H) As noted previously, the summer ratio and streamflow-triggered restrictions are separate provisions of DEP's WMA.Policy. 7) Registration Statement: The proposed language of the registration statement appears to violate the Water Management Act because it. authorizes. water use from more than one watershed in a single registration statement and fails to impose conditions necessary to achieve the purposes of the Act. It suggests a' questionable binding condition that will be applied in the future and is based on:seriously flawed data, as discussed further'below. However, IRWA recognizes Reading's concern that the MWRA purchase is contractual and may not be permanently guaranteed, and would not:object to a properly worded provision regarding Reading's use of its wells if the MWRA water were unavailable. 8) Unreliable information: The ITA Performance Standards require adequate and accurate metering, but Reading's documents are replete with references to the fact that its raw water figures are inaccurate and unreliable due to technical problems that the town has not been able to solve. Numerous documents; including the FEIR and November 2004 Water Audit; indicate that-Reading's raw water meters significantly overregister the amount of water pumped. (See Attachment I.) Yet the WMA registration of 2'.57 mgd is based on this unreliable data. The problems with Reading's numbers don't end there. Reading has changed. its Annual Statistical Report after-the-fact on several occasions, typically reducing the amount of raw water from what was originally reported (however, note that with.the registration statement it was the oppogite - Reading revised the number upward by.3 mgd). Despite Reading's continuing efforts to solve the metering problems, they are chronic. Also troubling is the fact that Reading failed to correct inaccurate information in the FEIR (Table 2-3 of Volume H, Appendices), which indicated that Reading's residential water use in 2001 was 54 gpcd, the lowest among the communities being compared. Reading's actual gpcd in 2001 was 61. The Town was aware that this figure was incorrect, but failed to correct the error, giving. a false impression of Reading's water use in comparison to the other communities in 2001. (Attachment J.) There is an ongoing. issue of whether Reading'.s water withdrawals should be evaluated based on raw or finished water. The town's consultant indicates that regulation of the well withdrawals under the ITA approval should to be based on finished water volumes instead of raw. (See email from John Gall, CDM, Attachment K). IRWA disagrees. The same. measure must be used for compliance as is used for the registration.. Perhaps the best compromise is to use finished water plus treatment plant volume for all purposes, adjusting the registration accordingly. This measure seems to be the only one which is accurate. It is time for the state agencies to stop accepting Reading's inaccurate and unreliable data as the basis for authorizing. water withdrawals that damage the environment and allowing Reading to avoid compliance with WMA and ITA Regulations and Performance Standards that are required under the law. IRWA and the Citizens also wish to respond to Reading's January 12, 2005 letter, which among other things accuses us, of having. filed a "frivolous lawsuit." IRWA and the Citizens hope'to amicably resolve the issues raised in our petition through the rehearing process allowed under the Administrative Procedures Act (M.G.L. Ch. 30A). We hope that the WRC and Town share our desire to avoid potential litigation. At the same time, we intend to do whatever is necessary to protect and preserve the rights of our organization and the people and interests we represent. Reading's characterization of our petition as frivolous is unwarranted and counter-productive, and suggests Reading's unwillingness to take seriously the extreme damage its water withdrawals cause to the environment. In fact, the Town implies that if they don't get the terms they demand, they will simply„forego the interbasin transfer and continue their damaging.water withdrawal practices, assuming that they will continue to be unregulated due to the town's registration under the WMA. The authority to make such a decision may rest with the Reading.Town Meeting,.and what it would decide is unknown; but in any case Reading's actiodis outside of the purview of the WRC and should not sway your own decision. IRWA also disputes the assumptions that Reading can continue to damage the environment without consequences and that its water withdrawal will continue to be unregulated in the future. These assumptions are debatable, and should not influence the Commission to allow more lenient conditions for the Town of Reading's interbasin transfer. On the contrary, the WRC decision must be based squarely on the ITA, its regulations and mandatory policies, or it will undermine state policy, weaken the array of protective measures to ensure that interbasin transfers are a "last resort," 2. 0-~4 set unacceptable precedents for standards-of review-andallowable tiansfers;:and'be subject-tolegal challenge. WRC and DEP staff initially took the position that. if Reading-.wanted the inwrbasin transfer;:they had:to:meetall.the:regulatory.requirements-and.-Performance:Standards.. However, after.meeting with Readirigaast summer;.their position-shiffed to allowing.more-lenient conditionsbecause Reading: isn't: required to%buy'water:from MWRA and might: abandon the plan•ifthe-.conditions;were too: stringent:. WRG.and DEP.Staff.took.to:referring-to the:proposedaransfer:as:"optional;' "purely voluntary," and even done "out. of the goodness. of [Reading's] .heart;" (as iexpressed: in a•number of DEP - and'.DCR :staff.emai l : messages): Interbasintransfers are -not mandatory, allowed.-when.-there :areno: other viable -options. The: WRC decision:explicitly foundtliat:to. be the case regarding:continuation-of the-current-use of Reading's wells: But Reading-.andAhe.WRC 'staff. seem towant td characterize the proposed transfer. both-:ways- optional.so.it.doesn't have-to stri&tlj`conf6rin -with -the -legal: standards, but not so optional that it doesn't meet the "no-viable sources" standard: "Viable` so Reading. can -use the wells up to:I mgd-regardless offlow; but "not viable" so-they: canget the MWRA water- This is really the: heart of our dispute° you. can't-haveat:both :ways: Michele Drury was. right when she.Wrote. .."This .i' not good:..how amI going to. explain what:we've done with-Reading...?" (email;:.9/28104; Attachment L): DCR and DEP staff bent'over backwards to rationalizethe approval of the. Reading. application; allowing:the town to meet weakened standards of analysis; review and approval,. and even to dictate their own conditions. IRWA strenuously objects to weakening:key requirements:of the Interbasin-Transfer Act to accommodate Reading's demands. While we support an interbasin transfer that addresses the severe damage to the. environment caused.by Reading's water: withdrawals; we: do not believe the transfer should be approved unless it meets the strict standards of the law. The WRC'must hold to the position'that if the town wants the water, it has to comply.with all the requirements; if it won't.do so, it can't have the water Doing otherwise in essence allows a new class of "d'g96od" interbasin transfers that: are approved with more lax-review. and conditions in exchange for Some reduction. in: damage:to.the environment; however. marginal. and- inadequate. This-is a-slippery slope and a terrible precedent. We join WSCAC's concern -that. the MWRA water should not,be used.. under the guise-ofrestoration- if iris going.to-be-used; it mush really achieve that purpose: We. respectfully request that the WRt consider this information regarding the Town of Reading's proposed.interbasin transfer as.-an -.addendum and amendment to the Petitions for. rehearing. Thank you for your consideration of these facts and issues: Sincerely, K, AAf Kerry Mackin Executive- Director, IRWA Citizens' Representative Attachments 7o 2w",-7 Appendix: Water savings from streamflow-triggered restrictionscompared-to Reading's existing water use restrictions Reading Estimated: Nort: Essential Summer Water. Use;1 NS4003 . 1.400 1.200 M 1.000 U) p 0.800 m 0.600 6 0.400 g 0.200 0.000 ©summer average - rest:of year average 0 maximum more avg -rest of Year avg Chart 1: The blue bars show how muah-more water was used on average in the May-September.period compared to remaining.-months. The maroon bars show how much more water was. used-in the peak month compared to the January-April and October; IDeeember.period.. Water .use.in January-April: and Ociober- December indicates baseline demand. without outdoor water use, and the increased demand in May- September is largely attributable to outdoor water use. Data source: Town ofReading Annual Statistical Reports Water. Savings from- streamflow-triggered restrictions over Reading's restrictions 50.0 45.0 U) Off r- 35.0 w 30.0 cn 25.0 C., 20.0 15.0 E IOff 5.0 0.0 .0 estimated water savings' May- Sept . ®est savings.in.max month' Chart 2: This chart "evaluates how muchwater would be saved using.streamflow-triggered water use ' restrictions compared to Reading's existing water use restrictions. It shows that the average savings over the May-September period.is 28.5 million gallons (mg), and the average savings in the maximum demand month is 12.2 mg. This chart also shows that the streamflow-triggered restrictions are much more effective than Reading's restrictions during years with relatively dry summers, such as 1999 and 2002. The water savings achieved in those years was 47.1 and 34:1: mg,. respectively. This water savings would result.in the 2.19 mg purchase from MWRA being available to meet Reading's water demand for a longer periodof time than would occur with Reading's existing water use restrictions: The period of streamflow triggered restriction is based on USGS South Middleton streamflow gage data and terms of "Condition 5" from 7/04 drafl WRC decision. A, 2003' 2002 . 2007. 2000 1999 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 average Attachments A. Letter of October 28,.2002 from John Felix, DEP to.Bob Durand,.then-Secretary.of Environmental Affairs B. Memo from Ginger. Croom of CDM to Reading. with handwritten notes by. Peter Tassi,.and chart of proposed scenarios showing proposal to restrict wells through October C. Email records and attachments regarding Reading_edits of draft WRC decision. D. Email from Richard Tomczyk of DEP regarding the applicability of the HSPF model findings and graphs showing effect of purchase of .6 mgd,.from files of Thomas Lamonte,,DEP E. Chart comparing Reading and MWRA cost per thousand gallons, with email from G. Hartman of CDM to Reading F. letter of May. 28,,2004 from Madelyn Morris,.DEP,.to Michele Drury. and Secretary.Herzfelder G. Email of 7/9/04 from John Gall of CDM with attached document and annotations by Peter Tassi H. ` Email chain including, messages from Torn Lamonte and Cynthia Giles of DEP regarding.summer ratio and water use restrictions 1. November 2004 Water Audit and pages from FEIR regarding inaccuracy of Reading's raw water. figures J. Page from FEIR with annotations from Peter Tassi, Reading Water Superintendent, indicating that the Reading water use figure for 2001 was 61 gpcd rather than 54 gpcd, noting to leave the number unchanged on Mr. McIntire's instruction ("Leave per Ted 1/10/03'). K. Email of 9/24/04 from John Gall, CDM re using finished water volumes for compliance with 1 mgd . limit instead of raw water. L. Email of 9/28/04 from Michele Drury, about changes to Reading, draft decision. ZZ'9 rmchggraphs_jpg (JPEG'bnage -124U1755'jiiiiels) . fiIe•JC/C/Doc~mnentis'Yo2band9~°ZOSettings/A'Il%°20Users:R~ll3I+YT/i~e 1 aft 2/7/2005 3:271 Nd ZV SOUZn.Iz zJ Gooz -o, vt/T ►T&"Ak •ci~c~rvmim~rc9irni~nn-mi•nrrvnmicnn~irmnnrrr~iirnm f-*'A n....-.. . -..4.,.....-..-..,,% 4.7f A-.Irz...,.C,....,,.~ Message McIntire, Ted From: Honkonen, Karl (ENV) [Karl.Honkonen@state.ma.us] Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2005 11:53 AM To: McIntire, Ted; Hechenbleikner, Peter Subject: FW: Reading ITA options Hi Peter and Ted, Page 1 of 2 I'll give you a call on item #3 below in a few minutes as well as determine next steps for Thursday's meeting. I've attached DCR (Michele Drury's) proposed water conservation measures again for your reference, which you should have received last Friday. Thanks, Karl Karl W. Honkonen Director of Water Policy Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900 Boston, MA 02114 617/626-1138 617/626-1181 FAX kart. honkonen@state.ma. us www.mass.gov/envir -----Original Message----- From: Honkonen, Karl (ENV) Sent: Friday, February 04, 2005 1:03 PM To: 'town manger@ci.reading. ma.us'; 'tmcintire@ci. reading. ma. us' Cc: Stergios, James (ENV); 'Gildesgame, Mike (DCR)'; 'Drury, Michele (DCR)' Subject: Reading ITA options Hi Peter and Ted, As per our discussions today, please consider the following: FOR POLICY CONSIDERATION ONLY 1. Reading will purchase up to 219MG of MWRA water May 1-Oct. 31 2. Limit existing in-basin sources to 1MGD total May 1-Oct. 31 as long as purchases from MWRA are less than 219MG 3. The state would like Reading to consider putting some additional water conservation measures in place in the case where the town exhausts it's 219MG MWRA water before the end of Oct 31. (this afternoon DCR staff will send some possible water conservation measures for your consideration). 4. Another option is for Reading to establish a point of its consumption of the 219MG of MWRA water at which more stringent water conservation measures can be put in place to 23-/ 3/31/2005 Message Page 2 of 2 ensure more effective demand management (perhaps at 70% use point, or 150MG). 5. To deal with a scenario where Reading receives little precipitation in the spring and summer but heavy rains in late summer/early fall, the state would also consider the impact of seasonal rains on the use of in-basin sources after the 219MG is exhausted (per Peter H's comments to Jim Stergios 020405). 6. All other conditions of December draft decision are in place, except criteria 2, condition 1 (limits to Sept and installs streamflow triggers). Thanks, Karl Karl W. Honkonen Director of Water Policy Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900 Boston, MA 02114 617/626-1138 617/626-1181 FAX karl.honkonen( Dstate.ma.us www.mass.gov/emir 3/31/2005 Reading's Conservation Status Suggestions for "more stringent" implementation means measures to be implemented either when certain percentages of the total MWRA transfer amount have been purchased or if the 219 mg has been exhausted before October 31St and Reading needs to increase pumpage from local sources CONSERVATION READING'S PROGRAM SUGGESTIONS FOR "MORE MEASURE STRINGENT" IMPLEMENTATION Public Education Once per year, Reading sends out bill inserts. As limits of ITA approval approach, increase the frequency of bill inserts There are daily PSAs. Water conservation information is available at multiple locations, including the library, Town Hall and Water Treatment Plant. Tours of water treatment plant are offered. Newspaper articles. appear at least annually. The town website is updated monthly with conservation information. The town seeks to specifically contact its largest users and provide educational programs. Leak Detection and Annual leak detection. Last survey conducted in No other suggestions Repair June 2003 Included in full cost pricing Reading has provided documentation of its leak detection surveys and of leaks identified and repaired Reading's leak detection surveys are conducted in a manner as comprehensive as the MWRA's regulations Metering 100% Metered No other suggestions Meters were changed over in '88; a phased replacement program is scheduled to begin in FY'05. Reading has an ongoing maintenance & repair program. All public buildings are metered and billed for water use. Quarterly billing, based on actual meter readings; considering monthly billing; second meters charged full price Master meters are calibrated annually. Documentation of annual master meter calibration was provided Pricing Documentation of full cost pricing was provided No other suggestions Reading has an Enterprise account Reading has a flat rate structure, but the rates are high $3.66/cuft The rate structure evaluated annually - last change was 8/01 as CONSERVATION READING'S PROGRAM SUGGESTIONS FOR "MORE MEASURE STRINGENT" IMPLEMENTATION Residential water Reading's residential gpcd averaged 59 from 1999 to use 2001. As limits of ITA approval approach: Reading began providing water audits to residential Advertise residential water audits more customers in 2003. widely, with a focus on outdoor water use More aggressive advertisement of the kits Reading offers retrofit kits to residential customers at no cost. More aggressive advertisement of the rebate program Reading began a rebate program for the installation of low-flow toilets and purchase of low flow washing machines. (The problem with these suggestions is that I don't know how aggressively these are advertised currently) The plumbing code is strictly enforced by the building inspector Public sector water All public buildings are metered and billed for water No other suggestions use use The High School and Barrows Elementary School are currently being renovated. Low flow devices will be installed as part of this renovation. All other public buildings requiring retrofits have been completed. Hydrants used for pipe flushing and construction are metered; there is a charge for use A system-wide water audit is currently being conducted. The last water audit was conducted in April 2001. This led to the retrofit program now underway Water Supply Reading has a By-law to restrict outdoor water use Reading has been under Stage 2 since System and a DEP-approved handbook to deal with all water 1992; Need to get more information on the Management supply emergencies. The by-law has a 3-tiered selectmen's vote to implement "mandatory system of outdoor water use: restrictions" Stage 1: voluntary water conservation & mandatory Depending on WHEN Reading approaches regulations for filling swimming pools or exceeds the 219 mg limit, the town could Stage 2:Odd/even; time of day restrictions; No choose from this menu of more stringent restrictions on hand-held devices restrictions: Stage 3: total ban - Limit number of days per week that outdoor watering will be allowed - Limit watering to mornings or evenings only - Put time/day restrictions on hand held devices - Total ban on outdoor water use (Stage 3) Unaccounted-for water averaged 10% over the past five years; Reading's UAW has generally declined over this period. Reading has emergency interconnections with Woburn, Stoneham, Wakefield and the MWRA. as-y CONSERVATION MEASURE READING'S PROGRAM SUGGESTIONS FOR "MORE STRINGENT" IMPLEMENTATION Other Reading's land use controls meet DEP's Guidelines. No other suggestions Reading has an aquifer protection by-law. Reading has a long-term water conservation program which complies with the 1992 Water Conservation Standards for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Lawn and Reading has a water conservation by-law tied to See suggestions under Water Supply Landscape Water water supply indicators which outline a set of System Management Conservation increasingly stringent water use restrictions Reading has a by-law, which gives the Town the ability to implement mandatory water use restrictions. 42 ft Message Tassi, Peter From: Hechenbleikner, Peter Sent: Tuesday, March_29, 2005 4:48 PM To: 'Honkonen, Karl (ENV)'; Stergios, James (ENV) Cc: McIntire, Ted; Tassi, Peter Subject: RE: streamflow threshold levels We could manage the water supply if it were all am, but are very sensitive that that favors those with inground sprinklers. If you don't have one of can't afford one, then your option is to get up at 4 am and put your hose and sprinkler out, or try to run around and do it before work. We feel that the way it is worded gives us the flexibility to do that, (am watering only) or any other option that seems to be best at that time. Yes we would like a few minutes - maybe 10 to speak, and then respond to questions. Pete -----Original Message----- From: Honkonen, Karl (ENV) [mailto:Karl. Honkonen@state.ma.us] Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2005 4:28 PM To: Hechenbleikner, Peter; Stergios, James (ENV) Cc: McIntire, Ted; Tassi, Peter Subject: RE: streamflow threshold levels Hi Peter, I've had a chance to run these concepts by a few agency staff and in general they are OK with the thresholds below-consumption limits coupled with streamflow thresholds of 0.42 cfsm at the USGS S. Middleton gage. Their universal comment is that will this be too complicated to implement/enforce from your end? I realize right now your stage 1 restrictions are 4-9AM and 5-8 PM or eight hours a day so a 25% reduction would be two hours and a 50% reduction would be four hours. Would it be easier to just say you would reduce outdoor watering by a specific time period either two or four hours? If I were watering in Reading I'd water in the early AM and skip the PM since AM watering will reduce fungus and disease spreading (which PM watering in the evening may promote overnight). Can you manage your system effectively if everyone waters in the AM and not the PM? Please give this some thought so we can get final language to you early tomorrow AM and then send to WRC members well in advance of the 04-08 meeting. Also- will the Town like time on the agenda for brief remarks to the WRC that day? Thanks, Karl Karl W. Honkonen Director of Water Policy Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900 Boston, MA 02114 617/626-1138 617/626-1181 FAX kart honkonen astate.ma.us WWW.mass.gov/envir 2Y'l 4/1/2005 Message Page 2 of 3 -----Original Message----- From: Hechenbleikner, Peter [mailto: phechenbleikner@ci.read ing.ma.us] Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2005 2:59 PM To: Honkonen, Karl (ENV); Stergios, James (ENV) Cc: McIntire, Ted; Tassi, Peter Subject: RE: streamflow threshold levels Jim and Karl Here's the language we came up with which gives us some flexibility, but should be specific enough to meet everyone's needs: "If the MWRA water purchase for any calendar year exceeds the following levels by the dates noted, and the streamflow triggers are also met, then the Town would implement additional water restrictions as noted for each threshold. July 15th 115 MG August 15th 147 MG September 15th 180 MG 1st Threshold - If on July 15 the MWRA water use exceeds 115 MG, the Town will reduce hours of allowed outdoor water use by 25% from the existing Town of Reading Stage 1 restrictions; the Town will notify all users within 7 days of the new restrictions; and the Town may grant waivers. 2nd Threshold - If on August 15th, the MWRA water usage level exceeds 147 MG, and the use on July 15 did not exceed 115 MG the Town will reduce hours of allowed outdoor water use by 25% from the existing Town of Reading Stage 1 restrictions; the Town will notify all users of the new restrictions within 7 days; and the Town may grant waivers. 3rd Threshold - If on August 15th, the MWRA water usage level exceeds 147 MG, and the use on July 15 exceeded 115 MG the Town will reduce hours of allowed outdoor water use by 50% from the existing Town of Reading Stage 1 restrictions; the Town will notify all users of the new restrictions within 7 days; and the Town may grant waivers. 4th Threshold - If on September 15th the MWRA water usage level exceeds 180 MG, the Town will implement it's Stage 2 water restrictions; the Town will notify all users of the restrictions within 7 days; 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 the restrictions. If water purchased from the MWRA is below the levels identified above on July 15, August 15 and/or September 15, no thresholds will be activated or continued. Stage 1 and 2 refer to outdoor water use regulations as approved by the Town of Reading, Board of Selectmen on January 4,'2005." The Town will want to see and review final language of the decision prior to action by the WRC on April 8. Thanks for your assistance. Pete -----Original Message----- From: Honkonen, Karl (ENV) [mailto:Karl. Honkonen@state.ma.us] Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2005 11:54 AM To: Stergios, James (ENV); Hechenbleikner, Peter 4/1/2005 Message Page 3 of 3 Subject: streamflow threshold levels Hi Jim and Peter, Here is the language from the older WRC staff rec, slightly modified for clarity-1 hope: It is expressly recognized that streamflow threshold levels reflect the levels as proposed in water withdrawal permits issued by DEP to permittees in the Ipswich River basin in May 2003, and that these thresholds may be further modified in the future. If the thresholds set forth in the water withdrawal permits issued to permittees in the Ipswich River basin change, the Town may request that the WRC amend the thresholds in this Interbasin Transfer Act document to be consistent with the thresholds applicable in other communities with sources in the Ipswich River basin. Thanks, Karl Karl W. Honkonen Director of Water Policy Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900 Boston, MA 02114 617/626-1138 617/626-1181 FAX karl. honkonen@state. ma. us www.mass.gov/envir 2 y-3 4/1/2005 Summary of Town of Reading Comments Amended Staff Recommendation Interbasin Transfer Application by the Town of Reading for Admission to the MWRA System April 8, 2005 The Town of Reading appreciates all of the hard work by WRC and DEP staff in trying to bring to an acceptable conclusion Reading's application for an "Interbasin Transfer Application by the Town of Reading for Admission to the MWRA System." We have been working on this since 2000, and hope we are near an end to this long process. The Town of Reading has applied to purchase water from the MWRA on a purely voluntary basis. We are not required to do so by any regulatory action or by any other circumstances other than our interest in being good stewards to the Ipswich River Basin as one community in a fairly large basin. In doing so, we want to be treated fairly and equitably, with recognition of the efforts we are making to conserve water as a community. Our efforts include: ♦ Funding and implementation of a $1 million water conservation program including town building retrofits, homeowner rebates, water audits, etc. o Conducting annual leak detection, and following up to repair all leaks ♦ With among the highest water/sewer rates around, we have a built in incentive to conserve water ♦ We are on permanent odd/even water restrictions for outdoor water use, meeting all of DEP's recommendations as to hours of water use; o The Town of Reading owns all of the Ipswich River frontage in the community, and has protected it as open space; ♦ We have agreed to participate in an EPA sponsored pilot program for outdoor water sprinkler management using a "weather station" type of technology. If that system has promise, the Town will consider using the system for our own playing-fields, and for providing rebates to homeowners for using such a system; ♦ As a result of the above, Readings water use for the past 4 years is 55 GCPD per day - a very low rate of use. We have comments on the following sections of the draft decision prepared by staff- + Page 1- Clarification needed to correspond with MEPA letter of March 31, 2005 ♦ Page 5 - Important to establish the Town's position vis-a-vis this being a voluntary action. ♦ Page 7 - Again clarifying the situation to correspond with the MEPA letter ♦ Page 8 - Clarifies the status of Reading's current Water Conservation regulations ♦ Page 9 - Clarifies that Reading's regulations and rates are effective conservation measures - puts the Town's GPCD use in perspective, and acknowledges the effect that this has on seasonal use ♦ Page 27 - The proposed language was new to the Town in the draft - we would suggest substituting the language from the last two paragraphs of the MEPA letter of March 31, 2005 ♦ Page 28 and 29 - clarifies that the stream flow needs to be at the lower level for 3 consecutive days which include the July, August, or September 15`h date;. moves the P paragraph (page 29) to be part of the P threshold paragraph on page 28, to make it clear what restrictions apply in that instance. Eliminates the P paragraph as a separate paragraph. 1050 April 8, 2005 Page 1 of 40 Massachusetts Water Resources Commission Amended Staff Recommendation for Reading's Interbasin Transfer Application INTRODUCTION On April 8, 2005, the Water Resources Commission (WRC) will review and vote on the merits of Reading's request, under the Interbasin Transfer Act, to join the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA) System. On December 9, 2004, the WRC voted to approve Reading's request, under the Interbasin Transfer Act, to join the MWRA System. After that vote, the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) unit of the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs (EOEA) determined that the project should have obtained a Notice of Project Change (NPC) because Reading's request had changed from purchasing MWRA water from May through October back to May through September, as originally proposed in the DEIR. Although analysis on this scenario had also been conducted through the MEPA process, it deviated from the Secretary's Certificate on the FEIR, and thus represented a material change under MEPA. Reading decided that rather than filing a NPC, the Town would revert to the project presented in the FEIR: purchasing up to 219 million gallons of water annually from the MWRA between the months of May through October, while limiting withdrawals from its Ipswich River basin sources to an average of 1 million gallons per day during that period. HOWEVER, IF THE TOWN OF READING HAS PURCHASED 219 MG FROM THE MWRA PRIOR TO OCTOBER 31sT, IT WILL USE THE IPSWICH RIVER BASIN AS ITS SOLE SOURCE OF WATER SUPPLY. T BACKGROUND On September 20, 2002, the WRC received a request for approval of an action to increase the present rate of interbasin transfer under the Interbasin Transfer Act (M.G.L. Chapter 21 813-81)) from the Town of Reading. The Town is applying for admission to the MWRA System to purchase up to 219 mg of water annually to supplement its existing water supply sources. (Figure 1) The WRC accepted Reading's application as complete on April 8, 2004. Two required public hearings were held on May 18 and May 19, 2004. On June 10, 2004, a Staff Recommendation to approve Reading's application was presented to the WRC. A public hearing on this Staff Recommendation was held on June 23, 2004. Responses to comments received through the public hearing process are available in a separate report. The merits of the proposal were discussed at the July 8, 2004 WRC meeting. Because of concerns with some of the conditions of the Staff Recommendation, Reading requested an extension of the decision date. (Reading's concerns are discussed later in this Staff Recommendation). In late Figure 1 25'3 April 8, 2005 Page 3 of 40 Massachusetts Water Resources Conzznission Amended Staff Recommendation for Reading's Interbasin Transfer Application 2s'y April 8, 2005 Page 4 of 40 Massachusetts Water Resources Commission Amended Staff Recommendation for Reading's Interbasin Transfer Application September 2004, Reading requested to change the time period of the water purchase from May through October back to May through September, as originally proposed in the DEIR. The WR.C voted to approve the revised proposal on December 9, 2004. After the vote, MEPA responded to inquiries concerning the need for a NPC, invalidating the December 9th vote. Discussions since then have focused on the conditions under which Reading will use its Ipswich Basin sources. T FACTS PERTAINING TO THE APPLICATION 1. THE PROPOSED ACTIONS ON THE PART OF THE TOWN OF READING ARE ENTIRELY VOLUNTARY. 2. The application was part of the DEIR submitted to MEPA. The WRC requested that additional information be provided through the FEIR. The FEIR was filed on September 15, 2003. Most of the requested information was provided. The Secretary issued a Certificate on the FEIR on October 31, 2003. 3.The outstanding information to evaluate the project under the Interbasin Transfer Act was provided in December 2003. -3 4. Reading has land area in the Ipswich River basin, the Mystic River subbasin of the Boston Harbor basin and the North Coastal basin. 4-.5. The Town has nine existing water supply sources in the Ipswich River basin. Estimated capacity for these sources is 8.36 mgd. -5 6. The M VRA Water Works System's sources are located in the Chicopee River basin and the Nashua River basin. €r. 7. Reading has determined that use of its sources during certain times of the year causes impacts to the Ipswich River and is proposing to purchase water to supplement its existing water supply sources during these periods. 8. Two required public hearings were held to take comment on this application, one in Reading, the receiving basin, on May 18, 2004, and one at the Quabbin Reservoir, in the donor basin on May 19, 2004. EVALUATION OF THE PROPOSED INTERBASIN TRANSFER This Interbasin Transfer application was reviewed on its own merits. The Staff Recommendation is made on facts relevant. to the Interbasin Transfer Act and its regulations. The application was evaluated against the eight criteria outlined in the regulations (313 CMR 4.05), as well as the Interbasin Transfer Act Performance Standards, and with consideration of comments received through the public comment process. SYNOPSIS OF THE EVALUATION CRITERIA (313 CMR 4.05) Criteria Application Meets? Criterion #1: MEPA Compliance Yes Criterion #2: Viable In-Basin Sources Yes Criterion 93: Water Conservation Yes Criterion #4: Watershed Management Not Applicable Criterion #5: Reasonable Instream Flow Yes Criterion #6: Groundwater/Pumping Test Not Applicable Criterion #7: Local Water Resources Management Plan Yes Criterion #8: Cumulative Impacts Yes April 8, 2005 Page 6 of 40 Massachusetts Water Resources Commission Amended Staff Recommendation for Reading's Interbasin Transfer Application BASIS FOR THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION DCR's Office of Water Resources, DEP's Drinking Water Program and Northeast Regional Office, and DFG's Division of Fisheries and Wildlife and the Riverways Program reviewed this application. This WRC Staff Recommendation is being made after an extensive evaluation of the project and of Reading's compliance with the six applicable criteria of the Interbasin Transfer Act regulations. The following section describes in detail compliance with the criteria. Attachment 1 goes into greater detail concerning compliance with the criteria and performance standards. Criterion #l: MEPA Compliance The Interbasin Transfer application was part of the DEIR, submitted on September 20, 2002. The WRC requested additional information through the MEPA process. The Secretary's Certificate on the DEIR was issued on November 1, 2002. The certificate directed Reading to address the WRC's Request for Additional Information through the FEIR. The FEIR was submitted on September 15, 2003 and contained most of the information requested by the WRC. The Secretary's Certificate on the FEIR was issued on October 31, 2003. Criterion #2: Viable In-Basin Sources The Interbasin Transfer Act requires that "that all reasonable efforts have been made to identify and develop all viable sources in the receiving area of the proposed interbasin transfer" (MGL Ch. 21 §81)). It is unlikely that a new water supply source developed in the Ipswich River Basin section of Reading would be able to meet the permitting requirements of the various agencies. However, because Reading also has land in the Mystic River subbasin of the Boston Harbor basin and North Coastal basin, the town was directed to describe its efforts to "identify and develop all viable sources" yin these areas of town. Mystic River Subbasin of the Boston Harbor Basin The geology of the Mystic River subbasin consists primarily of exposed bedrock and dense till. Medium and high-yielding sand and gravel aquifers are not present within Reading's land area in this basin (MAGIS). Due to the dense development in this area, it was deemed by Reading's consultants not to offer suitable locations for high-yielding wells. A small area within Conservation Trust Land was tested in 1997 to determine if a shallow unconsolidated wellfield could be developed at this location. The results were not favorable. The town-wide Fracture Trace Study, conducted in 1997 to assess the potential for bedrock wells in Reading, did not identify areas for bedrock well investigation in this basin. This, combined with the existence of ground water contamination in neighboring Woburn, eliminated this area from further consideration. North Coastal Basin This area of Reading is heavily developed. Zone I protection for any well that might be developed here cannot be obtained. The only undeveloped lands in this section of town with potential aquifer formation are wetlands. Furthermore, this area is the headwaters of the Saugus River, which has also historically experienced low flow problems during summer months. Although the North Coastal basin was not classified with respect to flow stress, Saugus River -fool April 8, 2005 Page 7 of 40• Massachusetts Water Resources Commission Amended Staff Recommendation for Reading's Interbasin Transfer Application impacts were documented in a June 2002 report, "Saugus River Water Budget and Instream Flow Study" by Gomez and Sullivan Engineers and Environmental Scientists. "The findings 'indicate that the Saugus River flow is affected during low flow periods in the summer and during certain periods in the fall and spring, when water suppliers are attempting to refill their storage reservoirs." This area of Reading is also upstream of the Reedy Meadows wetland in Wakefield and Lynnfield. Reedy Meadows is a National Natural Landmark recognized for its wetland habitat. Additional water withdrawals that may impact Reedy Meadows and further exacerbate impacts to the Saugus River should be avoided. Ipswich River Basin Reading considered bedrock well development within the Ipswich River basin. A fracture trace analysis was used to identify potential bedrock well sites and was followed by test drilling at the Town Forest area (the site of the town's existing wells). Although two wells with a potential yield of 75 gallons per minute each were identified, the approvable yield of the two wells would be limited to less than 200,000 gallons per day. The bedrock wells were found not to be viable and DEP concurred in a letter dated January 22, 2003 that, "based on the test wells installed to date, the available yield is not sufficient to justify conducting the New Source Approval process for the wells." Also, additional withdrawals from this area would contribute to water depletion from the Ipswich River basin even if the hydrologic impacts were delayed or minimized by withdrawing from the bedrock aquifer. Reading has nine existing water supply sources in the Ipswich River basin. Estimated capacity for these sources is 8.36 mgd. Reading's average day demand (2.0 mgd) is well under the capacity of its sources and of its Water Management Act registration (2.57 mgd). The spirit of the Interbasin Transfer Act requires that local sources be maximized before a water supplier looks out-of-basin to address its needs. However, the regulations define a "viable source" as one "which can be used while preserving reasonable instream flow as determined by the same criteria provided to evaluate impacts on the donor basin". (313 CMR 4.02). All of the town's sources are located in the Ipswich River basin. The USGS study, "A Precipitation-Runoff Model for Analysis of the Effects of Water Withdrawals on Streamflow, Ipswich River Basin, Massachusetts" (Zarriello and Ries, 2000, Water-Resources Investigation Report 00-4029) found that cumulative ground water withdrawals substantially decrease the magnitude, and increase the duration and frequency of low flows in the Ipswich River. Water withdrawals have little effect on moderate to high flows. Reading acknowledges that use of its public water supply sources to meet its full demand during certain low flow times of the year contributes to the severe impacts to the river and so is proposing to purchase up to 219 mg from MWRA and restrict use of its sources to 1 mgd from May through October. HOWEVER, IF THE TOWN OF READING HAS PURCHASED 219 MG FROM THE MWRA PRIOR TO OCTOBER 31sT, IT WILL USE THE IPSWICH RIVER BASIN AS ITS SOLE SOURCE OF WATER SUPPLY. Reading demonstrates in its application that reducing use of its wells during the targeted low-flow months (May through October) will increase flows in the Ipswich River during those periods (as measured at the USGS South Middleton stream gage). DEP is concerned about the impacts of Reading's wells on low flow conditions within the Ipswich River. In comments provided on the ITA application, DEP notes, "the portion of the '701P 8 April 8, 2005 Page 8 of 40 Massachusetts Water Resources Cominission Amended Staff Recommendation for Reading's Interbasin Transfer Application river at Reading's streamside wells is the most impacted stream segment. Under Reading's present pumping regime, the Department has observed that during the summer period, streamflow is frequently depleted to a dry riverbed. Since Reading's pumping contributes to this severe impact, the Department has determined that continued pumping of the Reading wells at existing levels is not a viable option. An alternative is necessary to protect the ability of the Ipswich River to function as a reliable source of safe drinking water, a suitable habitat for aquatic life and wildlife that are adapted to riverine conditions, and an area for primary and secondary contact recreation." In addition, DEP has expressed concern about use of Reading's existing sources at current levels. The Department notes that the Town's existing water sources are highly susceptible to contamination. Several businesses that use hazardous materials generate hazardous waste, or store oil or hazardous material in above ground or underground tanks are within the Zone II of the Town's wells. Interstate Route 93 crosses the west side of the protective Zone I area around Well No. 15 and Well No. 13. Enhanced Water Conservation As an additional source of water, Reading has begun to implement a four-year, $1 million conservation program to reduce water usage by 190,000 gallons per day (gpd). This program is discussed in more detail in the next section of this Staff Recommendation. Criterion #3: Water Conservation Reading has an existing water conservation program which meets all of the 1992 Water Conservation Standards for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and most of the 1999 Interbasin Transfer Act (ITA) Performance Standards for Criterion #3. Reading does not meet the Performance Standard for retrofitting all public buildings or for having a mechanism in its drought/emergency plan to tie water use restrictions to streamflow levels; however, the Performance Standards acknowledge that in certain cases, local conditions may prevent a proponent from meeting a standard or there may be alternative means of meeting a standard. Retrofit programs were identified as a priority through the 2001 water audit. Because of the way projects are funded at the town level, these programs were underway, but not completed at the time of the application. Most were scheduled to be completed by mid-August 2004. All public buildings, with the exception of the High School and Barrows Elementary School, had been retrofit by September 30, 2004. In a letter dated October 25, 2004, Reading informed the WRC that the retrofit program for all other public buildings had been completed. The High School and Barrows Elementary School are undergoing a total renovation. The Barrows Elementary School renovation is expected to be completed by September 2005. The contract for the High School renovation project was awarded in May 2004. As part of this renovation, all plumbing fixtures will be replaced with low flow devices. The renovation is scheduled to be completed by June 2007. y The Town has a two-stage outdoor water conservation REGULATIONS by-law passe MODIFIED in January 2005, with the ability to levy a $300 fine for violations. THE MODIFICATION REMOVED ALL VOLUNTARY OUTDOOR WATER USE Aft RESTRICTIONS AND INCORPORATES ONLY MANDATORY OUTDOOR USE 0Z IroAl RESTRICTIONS. Stage 1 provides for mandatory outdoor watering restrictions on odd or even days (depending on house number) and restricts time of day watering (4:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and April 8, 2005 Page 9 of 40 Massachusetts Water Resources Commission Amended Staff Recommendation for Reading's Interbasin Transfer Application 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.). Stage 2 is provided for the eventuality that only enough water is available for essential public health and safety purposes. In this event, no outdoor water use of any type is permitted. READING'S USE OF AN ODD-EVEN WATERING RESTRICTIONS IS UNIQUE IN THAT IT HAS BEEN IN EFFECT CONTINUOUSLY SINCE 1992, EVEN THOUGH STREAMFLOW, DROUGHT CONDITIONS, OR OTHERWISE, DO NOT REQUIRE THESE RESTRICTIONS. THE TOWN BELIEVES THAT THE CONTINUED APPLICABILITY OF THE BAN, COUPLED WITH THE VERY HIGH WATER AND SEWER BILLS SERVES TO HEIGHTEN COMMUNITY AWARENESS OF THE NEED FOR WATER CONSERVATION AND SIGNIFICANTLY DAMPENS SUMMER DEMAND. THIS LATTER CLAIM CAN BE SUPPORTED BY COMPARISON OF READING'S SUMMER TO WINTER DEMAND PATTERNS COMPARED TO SIMILAR COMMUNITIES IN THE METROPOLOTIAN BOSTON AREA. READING PROPOSES TO CONTINUE THE ODD/EVEN RESTRICTIONS AT ALL TIMES, EVEN WITH THE PURCHASE OF MWRA WATER. Reading's water conservation by-law is not based on streamflow thresholds, as MAY BE required by the Performance Standards. However, the conditions of this interbasin transfer approval do require a linkage of outdoor water use and streamflows. THE TOWN HAS DEMONSTRATED THAT THROUGH THE REDUCTION IN USE OF ITS IPSWICH SOURCES COMBINED WITH THE PURCHASE OF MWRA WATER, IMPACTS TO THE STREAMFLOW ARE AT LEAST AS PROTECTIVE OF STREAMFLOW IN THE IPSWICH RIVER AS OTHER SUGGESTED MEASURES. Reading's outdoor water use restrictions are deemed adequate for most years, and Reading's reduction in pumping its wells during the summer months will reduce impacts to the Ipswich River. If it appears that Reading's purchase of water from MWRA will exceed 219 mg prior to the end of October in any year, additional outdoor water use restrictions are appropriate. If the 219 mg purchase occurs prior to the end of September in any year (expected only as a result of drought conditions), more restrictive limits on non-essential water use are appropriate to reduce impacts of pumping Reading's wells on the Ipswich River. The requirements of this condition are consistent with those issued by DEP in its 2003 Water Management Act permits for the Ipswich River basin. Refer to the Conditions section at the end of this document for specific requirements. DEP's recently implemented Water Management policy recognizes that communities with a summer to winter water use ratio of 1.2 to 1 or lower AND 65 GPCD DOMESTIC DEMAND are doing a good job of controlling peak water use and only requires that this ratio be maintained. Reading's ratio of summer to winter water use was 1.2 for the years 1998 to 2002, AT AN AVERAGE GPCD OF 59. THE LOWER GPCD USAGE IN READING SERVES TO MAKE AN OTHERWISE ACCEPTABLE SITUATION APPEAR TO EXCEED THE 1.2 TO 1 NOMINATIVE REQUIREMENT. In addition, the analysis conducted to demonstrate the benefits to the Ipswich River from restricting use of local sources during the months of May through October showed that there was almost no difference between using the wells at 1 mgd and tying use of the wells to streamflow. The WRC has determined that Reading is adequately addressing the Performance Standard for retrofit, and that water use restrictions outlined in the Town's by-laws, together with their overall April 8, 2005 Page 10 of 40 Massachusetts Water Resources Commission Amended Staff Recommendation for Reading's Interbasin Transfer Application water conservation program and the proposed well use restrictions, are protective of streamflow resources. Thus, Reading meets this criterion.) Approval of this Staff Recommendation by the WRC will require that Reading notify the Commission when the High School and Barrows School renovations have been completed, with documentation of the retrofit devices installed, and provide annual reports detailing the water conservation actions taken as part of the $1 million program discussed below. This should include an accounting of the money spent and the successes of the program, including the estimated amounts of water conserved. Reading has implemented a four-year, $1 million conservation effort in order to reduce water usage by 190,000 gallons per day (gpd). Programs being implemented include: Residential water audits: 64 audits were completed in 2003. The program is ongoing. A rebate program for low flow toilets, washing machines and irrigation sensors began in March 2004. Approximately 90 rebates ($17,000) have been processed through April 2004. Reading completed a system-wide water audit in December 2004. The last system- wide water audit was conducted in April 2001. This led to the retrofit program now underway. Table 1 lists Reading's water conservation accomplishments with respect to all of the standards. 1 MGL Chapter 21 §8D: "that all practical measures to conserve water have been taken in the receiving area, including but not limited to the following: (a) the identification of distribution system sources of lost water, and where cost effective, the implementation of a program of leak detection and repair; (b) metering of all water users in the receiving area and a program of meter maintenance; (c) implementation of rate structures which reflect the costs of operation, proper maintenance and water conservation and encourage the same; (d) public information programs to promote water conservation, including industrial and commercial recycling and reuse; and (e) contingency plans for limiting use of water during seasonal or drought shortages" ss-n April 8, 2005 Page 11 of 40 42 x. H a w h v° h m h a O q 0 v a w "CS d PTO a w N Cl) C .Q N tti ~ O U C r• 0 ¢ 0 z ¢ N w w U) c 0 c 6 ca co co -0 m -o E a) Fu (n E 15 CD 0 r- CU W CL 0 0 n Q) o co o ° CL Qo) C : 0> co ° a> 0 C: ca ca Lc o Sao Y C- (D Ca 0caa? ro~,mUC ~ ~mcoi O BCD a)cco~m - " a~=c c_ o-r c 9) o c c ° En c cw V C 14- a) Q_ m U co C= a) 09 p N 'S co cu ~ ° ° c ~ 0 co : 'S V N ¢ t aD 0 c:3 cu c°io o mmL0° Loo O o.t-'> L n t- F- i- co z t- E c: I- v w z L) z ¢ L C14 L (D = N L L r iU O V -0 W • L 'n .0 0 4- C ca C -p a) w Q U~: j (~D:, U m N O (U > ° p i s ' N O U-~ n0 Z mL.~ - D 0 am 'o~ o o w w o E 0 v 'O aa) U) w4 n. aa)i0aa)ia`niL U O " `n3 c o c ~Nacic c L LM o Q L o L 0 0 0 0 ~ m 0 ns Cl) ~ m co C 1 + 0 "O E co to u) ° 0 O L O c E to ~ O U > - 7- 5 N > CO U p V E• - Q) In L 0 ) -0 a) " Q a> co a) f- m m Q ° co ns o C 'c ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ❑ L= ;i = O C C U p> (III L U NC 4) U) O O z N L O o E c U c ,U cnn C U ' ¢ 0CLo a~v°'i m° °tm v Z U w c s o N rn ~o>'~ c- CO E ~Q00 c c ' r IL E - 0-0 LnJ v= o co 0 0 0~2 O.. (n 0 n ~ w o c n U co 'so > U) CO 3 ¢ v U c CO a n. c ° ° v . c Q a- cn z O w M o > w w cn z~ U c IL 09 Pl 0 t~j bJD MS 0 0 N w C H d Q v i O m w° 0 RI "O a O v w RT b b cn a• 0 0 z w w mo U) c c L a o ° m(D t°~ a~c~cE a) c m Z o O o c N C "0 >O E O ai 0 a) 'n = "O .o ° U LU oc ° NOC(D c cco)coccoi (D me aia>>,~ ct°icai a a) o >4- cn o 0 D ~ov cc 0>~ o U w m a) E J Q. O U U - 0 a) Q C a) L r o O s a) U c tII +J C p pj t0 o C 'O- N U) V N S~ O Y p O 4- 7 C cn a) U _(A co N N a) U) U) O E a) 7 O - N LA 0) E y N Z O V C: M tea) O N r u r L6 c CL O L E a~ E E o Q = a>i c _ a c a>i c~ C o ~~.o E c n 0 C~ w o a) ~ ) c~ o m aoi o a) °o moo off- ca -0 c (n C~ it c 3 :3 U o w.2 o c c co ~ Q o as cn E E ~CO o o a. Q ca 0 cif U (n Q N c6 S o -p n o o U.1 U o) L p c• n) Y (D o . co N O Q N- Z > o o a > (D ca 0) Q. V v c U) °o o - O Q a Q O O ,m a) L ~L w~ p O - Q O O Q O 'a L a) cn a) c O U m Q O O~ O O C c p) O co O c M CD c U O c c L cn ~'O o c c Co L ,ro a) Q U. C O n Co 0 0 c N p c 0.- C d a cn ° O c 6 N N p ) da a) o N of P C >,o O m c C ~ V) N.~ + cu C.) t- I-~ DCL Via) O ~mE Q a) U m -pc E o Q- p cn a)po m y a) U CU G o U) N i c o° `n o a) o lp E E U > a) a) L E E SE CD Q J C ~ M E O. O U \ u 7 E E O a) O 0 a~ o E C (tf O =3 Co a' Co :3 CD c U E U (D a) c) O d).- 07 07 a) N O O Q a) CO ~ O to =3 U= 7 O c c c c Co 11 'S L O U m U O Q <L E 0 co to U ~ ca co a>i a) o a D ~ i N C a U Q c C N U) ) o c O L C 0 O m c 0) a N Z o c E c o ~ E U N ~ (D a) c O- N C = 3- N 04 c> e O c o a) g O E C) O ~E a)> O y. . aE o um ) C C) - a) U < 0 co 16 0 co m cc LL a) a . Z O m Q o ~ = U W ¢ 6 m U) U.1 ° G ~ z ~ O N C 1 0 0 M ti ao h O O N Q'~ it O O Oyi i M v ?r W b O b O d W CCt b b b h C%. ° Q ° z U) U) Cl) w W C 2) 4- Q) CD p 4 co m ro stn (D ui a 3E °o cC U U Z N O U 'Q L ro = CL p C) N g Co N U s L W L N U) y ro(D 0 > 0) 0) ro -O U p) U 4 •Q ro Q, tp co O = v- N C d) cu -T i ro 2 a) cn -O E E C: a) O j W C CD C 2 V a) E Q. C ca C 0) C Q .Q U N J d. C p p L Q ro 4 ro- F, U N C a) C N O- co O_ 2 N cu .C 4N C . p) C - M En to m N O U ca O 0 U CY) L N cn to Lo CD C 0 Ca C ro .C .C C) to 2 to .O .Q O ro 'Q +O >S - L -0-0 V a) E cm 0) C C rn9) o C a) ro l 0) cm0 0) .r- mE a) C C ro O O C C c a) o U U Q O C U U O p ro U a U CD ro 0 II O a) C O . (n C) O tL0 T d O p L 4- co a) O ro O N cu N ro i Q- N p 0 cl. a Q' 'Co (n6 H ro © mN ~ co c U ao O H a).~ W C) Q) C tT! a) O Z a O ° C o co ro Q ~ to L aA N 0 ) > C 0) a o a 0 a ~cL E"m ° - O w o " 0c o - L p a) C M cn ro• O Co ca v- a) O U) J Q) u) Q LL o :3 E~ E 0) 0) a) E o c E U) a~>> t6tna) La)c 'a i~ ' uj s C p N L cu Lr V5 = V C.0 a> C O 6) ro :5 s 0 to . F- C p C L C E C O a O U U E -p C U) Q . ) = m C N j 0 - E a) C X a a) a) N a) .0 J- -6 0 co O (n O CD C) L) > co C to O L a) 0 O - w > O N a) 0- :3 Q V7 Y 0- U O W.9 a) T O •C 0 O. ~N/ (j6 LL > (CJ .C O O a) +~ro p C O a) a) O O O) O) O D U O 'S L N o .C 'p ro L m N Q n c O > E ' z c 0) ro o c (nn ro U) 9 C U Q to >C) U C7 L cf) U co cu a) m O U a a) > CD cn Ca :3 o ro 0)~ E -,,e E ~i U E O U- C W a) (nn co m a Co a z O m W aD a Ca w C Cl) Z W E c :2 to ldft .90 4 0 O h ao 0 0 N y Lk w cl H .b b r-i 0 .N C V oyi sv, M h ~i h t3 ~-I w° d b O d a d h Cl. N to N N O cn * N U .C 0 G 4- > C + OL fi U) O N N O) r,L 0 ,C p N > N 3 Q . ~ co o) a 6 N a) tpn C O m m 0 0 o fl E C U 3 C> p O 4= t/1 L C to C E FQ" a) O N OL a) N m a) .U m a) c E i (6 N C0 U- E4= ac - L o > C E p F- C p m a) p 0)(n U C >i a) a U CL -0 0, a) ' ) O O WC a) p a 0- C O C C CL r_ 0 C " G 0 - p mw= G ) L p a O O ~ O a) Z~: r z a~ U CLW afEj o aE 3 c: a) H (D _ ~0 <t m ¢ z .0 V) Nc ' 0 W=CO CL v m r- ED w c ~n> 0 .2 0) -C m p N = •cn ° -p 4) = _0 a) CD m 0) c' ca p C= C> 0 (D a) a) O C a) 0 C cCU a) ~r a N 7 C C -0 _F a C E m J-00 cc) fl 0 N U "y (D - (nn -a O E- C N Q, M U) N = L V a) N L p W C - ' WD O C O '0 ' O N U o p y m cn 4? U U N ns L C 0) «J p cn C 4- N N U N~ E V Q =o _ o CL E E 2)>L~ ~cLa Q N = m v C N N= p O _ U CO = 5 p Q E O F- m m 'Q a 0 U _ N U <Q U m N a W a) _ E vi -v ca Z -0 -0 0 'Ei 0) O L 7 C > V 4:0 4- C O N a p o-0 C O m ' C Q WZ .a =a1) a cu m + V 4v 0(1)0-. a~ac a.~ 0 . Q> wmC 00cu F- W 0 a) U) cn 0- U) 4- T a 1 0. 2 OU C~ >,O 1$ 0 Q E a a c a.S; 0 2 0) ~L N ~ C cn L L C CY) V .U > 'p O W 0) - z C m = - a) ' 0 CO C .C a) > ~ p U ~ O C fII U p U a) a o m~F- cLa C: .2 U) U LEi li= - .C L co L 0- _0 2 cn <c co W a° z O C, O U) U W'W m U z .v O a Zs,,s O .d, O In ti ~D h 0 N w b c~ H b cat a ~n Z V v y o~ v C w w° b 0 b W V w cC b 'C7 d h O C -C .C a) Q Z O N N C -N ~ p O 0 > .Q co co v- a) O a) Y Q° Q Q O° O C cn M 5o~~- 0 W X1110 o o a~ z EN:M _M ~o~ ° ° W a) a) co j - co L 4= V •7 - 75 c G a) 0 = C O E v~. 3: 0oo0-"- a cu a O= to to N cn 3 a) cn .0 -0 E C: C: W cu .2 40- a) O C ~S m O t7 L ° L cu N cn co to c 1 4~ a p O E N ) 0 O N O O L O O cn Q Q U .0 0 'oQ'4L- O N C - co C c a) r L a) L -C tO S N cn W (1) E Q O U U) (0> ~ = -0 .c O L _U cE ~ 0 `Z O N O O ) L a) Q U m _L C cn O E (n N N O L G O 6 Co m Y a) > (n co L O r- .O W 2) a) C E o 0) N O 3: J m cn a) L a) >O a) U O. O O O O ° L c a O 0 c6 c 6o a) 6 E U N O o D C N a (D 0 L (f1 co aG C -C U CO co m L 00 ~ U a) M U N O O Ca 0 - O N V CDO v 0 -0 m mOL p) Q W °)O M c cu C;) c 0 N Q o o co ' U (L° >~LO o L c~ m 0 m voi Q(n E E y S Q 2 O N w C a) N C.O Q cu 4-- m a. 0 R> w f CO m N O O W E Q' a O O C V °U U O U w 0 0OOOa 0 -0 O 0 cn = a) c Z Q o) aa))n, a) a~.~ma0i 0 c 't- c o 0° o 0 c o n1 0 L ~ CaW~~ co 4- 0 o 0~ ~ c c 0 .0 c o 0 c ~EwwE°cnm 0 . U~m°E cari~OE 0 ~ ° Oaan`oar> J O cn a) w >.co ' 0.0 mo a) °C O 0 0) O ~ .O E 0 'O 4) co c ' a) ° ° iy V a) W U a a ) .U a)- 0 a30 cn W z o.F ~ cn= )o 00 a) S °)-0 0 c- ° o a) 3 O o 0 2.~ 4- m0•~ o C= UU L ~ U) m a) O co E O O~ 0~ 0 M N EU0OM E a) a) O U) Q~ 4-"G O L~ Es0 U) L .C U _ C) E m a) 0 a) N •w O m 0 C 0° 2 a) cn E O E N m co o E E P i ~m.5 U~ o U N a0i c) EN ° a) ai 00 C C: 0-2 O°a) a) E -220M Ca 4- N p Q D w < 00cn EoCL Q acn o Y c0 Y U c Q a) ca C Q a) L O V a) a 0 0- a) a) co (n Z c a i -0 rn 0 0 L° 2- c E o a) Q m L(n ('Q O a) (6 . ' ~j ~ 0 L cn C _ rn r - 0) C m a o o cn U o r 75 O C co - E L co "O O R) 0- U) c > C N • Q vJ _ _ ~ Z 0 W N ~ Q I .f. >1 " •4~ ^ ` / J 0) Q W CL W4 U) 0 Z m 0 a) a) ns ca 0 0 j'T al &V O O b ti m 0 N w b H b ce a H w v y G L 0 h m h v y w w O 'N b b O V W EO b m b C d r• Q z (n (n F- w w w -C C: C L m cn I- o .O C'; s m z w (1) U) •Y) U) L o ° o L w v C con O N ° m ° m C 'S . 2 O o G cu C cn O o Co C~cv cvi , 0'Z=3 a) 0' Eu) Q ~cC ~cnaD p c a) CO ca +L, m m a) > a cn U 'S O cn w V z a ~o oQ ~o UJz o. H cn m C~ M e- ° C cn O y- (n (n O N O m a) O C O CL C O) L U) a) Q :3 m 0 p m O 0 CL cm C m = F O o a) `O O a) =3 O m O cco O C O CO C 'S O z Q m m C CL L Q) w a) In to U OL 'O ~ > ~ ~ Co 'n o c ; c ° _m •C C a to 3: O O co a) ° ° a) a~ c mwo 0 c `n ° v~ a ° ° o c c i a) w~ E 35 tdow M :3 Omv~ Ucac c: 0 a i i a cca)-- S o°o°aa) > N C7 te a a) Oo - co "F L a) O O) C C C m L U= C E m c a)oo ` L O U m 2 C a L Q) O L Cn CL co V- 0- oca~ca°i0 o mco o 0-a -0 o~~ = CL 0 U) ooC an cooo CL E a)°oc u°iccoo n-oE??co~om.r~ a m w U co in Ucov~ ~o~vcn°31-cno3coE z 0 .2 a= o ~ip v al c va) i ~ m o V 0 ® / 0 0 a 0 0 N i ~„4r Criterion #4: Watershed Management This criterion is not applicable to this proposal. Reading's sources are ground water sources. Criterion #5• Reasonable Instream Flow and Criterion #8: Cumulative Impacts Reading is proposing to purchase up to 219 mg of water from the MWRA from May through October. This is an average of 1.2 mgd. The Town proposes to operate its Ipswich River basin wells at a rate limited to 1 mgd during these months and to supplement its needs with MWRA water. This would enhance flow in the Ipswich River basin. MWRA's sources are the Quabbin Reservoir in the Chicopee River Basin and the Wachusett Reservoir in the Nashua River basin. Reading is located in the Boston Harbor Basin (Mystic River subbasin), the North Coastal basin, and the Ipswich River basin. Most of Reading's wastewater (90% of the population) is sewered to the Massachusetts Coastal Basin via MWRA's Deer Island Treatment Facility. Approximately 350 on-site wastewater disposal systems are present in Reading, most of which are located in the Ipswich River basin. The Interbasin Transfer Act regulations (313 CMR 4.05) direct the WRC to consider that "reasonable instream flow in the river from which the water is transferred is maintained" in making its decision to approve or deny an Interbasin Transfer request. In this case, WRC Staff evaluated the impacts of transferring 1.2 mgd during the months of May through October on the operations of the MWRA Water Works System, which include impacts to reservoir levels, drought levels, uncontrolled releases (spills) and the MVVRA's mandated downstream releases. In addition, the cumulative impacts of the Reading transfer and other potential transfers (Wilmington and Dedham-Westwood) were evaluated on a monthly basis. These other potential transfers could result in an additional annual average of 1.7 mgd and an additional maximum of up to 2.96 mgd being transferred during the months of June through October. The safe yield of the MWRA reservoir system is approximately 300 mgd. Demands on the MWRA water supply system peaked in 1980 at 343 mgd. Subsequent demand management programs reduced demand, and MWRA water demand continued its decline to 220 mgd in 2004, the lowest in 50 years. The average annual baseline demand for the past five years on the MWRA water supply has been 251 mgd. Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC) future water demand estimates for the system indicated additional demands of 13 mgd through 2025 (prior to Stoughton's connection to the system). This results in a future system demand of 264 mgd. With the addition of Stoughton, the future system demand is 265 mgd. (Stoughton began receiving water from the MWRA in October 2003). The future monthly demands for Reading, Wilmington, and Dedham-Westwood were added to this amount to simulate total impacts on the MWRA reservoir system. MWRA System The construction of Winsor Dam on the Swift River was completed in 1939, creating the Quabbin Reservoir. In addition to the water impounded by Winsor Dam, Quabbin Reservoir can receive water from the Ware River in the Chicopee River basin. The MWRA system also includes the Wachusett Reservoir in the Nashua River basin. According to the FEIR for the Reading proposal (CDM, September 2003), "The MWRA reservoir system is operated with the primary objective of ensuring high quality adequate water supply. Secondary operational objectives include maintaining an adequate flood protection buffer particularly during the spring melt and hurricane seasons and maintaining required minimum releases to both the Swift and Nashua River." Quabbin Reservoir has a storage capacity of 412 billion gallons and is fed by a well-protected watershed. The Wachusett Reservoir has a storage capacity of 65 billion gallons and is fed by a slightly more developed watershed. The MWRA controls Wachusett Reservoir elevation '04 April 8, 2005 Page 19 of 40 Massachusetts Water Resources Commission Amended Staff Recommendation for Reading's Interbasin Transfer Application through transfers from Quabbin Reservoir to Wachusett Reservoir. The objective is to operate Wachusett Reservoir over a narrow operating range (between elevation 390 and 391.5 feet) while allowing Quabbin Reservoir to freely fluctuate. The Quabbin Reservoir elevation at the spillway is 528 feet. The structural controls of the MWRA/DCR water system also allow Quabbin Reservoir to receive water from the Ware River watershed through diversions in the Quabbin Tunnel. The operation of Quabbin Reservoir includes maintenance of a flow threshold in the Swift River at Bondsville (five miles downstream of Winsor Dam) of 20 mgd, or 30 cubic feet per second (cfs). This threshold was mandated in Chapter 321 in the 1927 Acts of Massachusetts. Releases from Quabbin through its bypass at the Winsor Dam are used to meet this requirement, supplemented by intervening drainage between Quabbin and the Bondsville stream gage that contributes flow. An Army Corps of Engineers permit also requires seasonal releases to maintain flow for navigability on the Connecticut River. The seasonal releases, which are in effect June 1 through November 30, are 70 cfs (45 mgd) if the flow in the Connecticut River, as measured at the Montague stream gage, falls below 4,900 cfs, and 110 cfs (70 mgd) if the flow in the Connecticut River falls below 4,650 cfs. During its normal operation, the Quabbin Reservoir maintains the required thresholds stated above through controlled releases via the by-pass. The by-pass has a capacity of approximately 100 MGD (155 cfs). In addition, uncontrolled releases, or spills, occur periodically over the spillway. Uncontrolled releases are avoided due to downstream flooding impacts and the rapid increase of high flow these cause. While a high spring flow is normally considered beneficial for channel maintenance, the sudden high flows caused by Quabbin spills can be detrimental to downstream aquatic habitat. In addition, warm water spills from the surface of the reservoir during the summer have negative temperature impacts on both instream aquatic habitat and a downstream fish hatchery that uses Swift River water. Flow thresholds are also part of the operation of the Wachusett Reservoir on the South Branch of the Nashua River. Chapter 488 of the 1895 Acts of Massachusetts requires a release of 12 mg per week or 1.71 mgd. Although.uncontrolled releases, or spills, can also happen over the Wachusett Dam, they rarely occur. Transfers from the Ware River to Quabbin Reservoir are only allowed at flows above 85 mgd, and must be limited to the period from October 15 to June 15. In addition, permission must be obtained from the Army Corps of Engineers to transfer water during the periods of June 1 through June 15 and October 15 through November 30. Historically, transfers from the Ware River have been made only on a limited basis for flood control or to help fill the Quabbin under drought conditions. Hydrologic Anal Several types of data are available to evaluate the potential impact of the Reading transfer, as well as any planned or proposed transfers, on the Quabbin Reservoir. Streamflow in the Swift River is measured at a gage in West Ware. The gage is located 1.4 miles downstream from Winsor Dam and has a period of record from 1913 to present. Other available data include modeled reservoir releases, spills and drought levels. April 8, 2005 Page 20 of 40 Massachusetts Water Resources Commission Amended Staff Recommendation for Reading's Interbasin Transfer Application Streamflow data, or a hydrograph showing the impact of the proposed transfer on the donor river basin, is usually evaluated as part of the interbasin transfer review. However, several factors make the use of downstream flow data difficult. First, the Quabbin Reservoir has a huge storage capacity, which is used to maintain a constant minimum flow. Second, the current MWRA system demand is significantly lower than its historic demand; therefore superimposing the transfer on a historic downstream hydrograph would not be realistic. For these reasons, other types of data, including releases, spills and drought levels, are being.used to evaluate these criteria. To account for the change in system demand, some of the analyses have used a shortened period of record on which to superimpose the transfer. The period of record chosen for the analysis of the impact of the proposed transfer is 1990 to 2000, which reflects current demands. Because the Quabbin has met the mandated flow requirements, even during periods when demands were nearly 100 mgd (155 cfs) over the current level, it is assumed that those thresholds will continue to be met under the proposed transfer scenarios, which are significantly less than the historic use. Therefore the analyses focus on the impact to the reservoir in meeting required releases and the impact to uncontrolled releases. Several key facts have been considered in the review of the data: • An instream flow requirement for the Swift River, as measured at Bondsville, of 30 cfs (20 mgd) has always been met. • A seasonal 70 to 110 cfs flow release, based on levels in the Connecticut River, has also always been met June through November, as needed to supplement Connecticut River flow. • The instream flow requirements listed above are intended to maintain pre-existing mill operation on the Swift River and navigation on the Connecticut River, but do not take into account the other instream uses which are evaluated when determining a reasonable instream flow. • The flow in the Swift River was significantly impacted when the Quabbin Reservoir was built. • An Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration (IHA) analysis of pre-1939 flows compared to post-1939 flows indicates that in general, streamflows in the Swift River have been significantly reduced. The mean annual flow has gone'from 313 cfs to 100 cfs. In addition: 1. All monthly flows have been reduced. 2. The timing and duration of high flow events have changed significantly. 3. The duration of low flow events has increased. Uncontrolled Releases Uncontrolled releases from the Quabbin Reservoir, hereafter referred to as spills, have been evaluated for potential changes over the base 1990-2000 period, due to the proposed transfer. These spills represent the annual peaks on the Swift River hydrograph. The addition of the potential future demands from Reading, Wilmington, and Dedham-Westwood are projected to ?S-Z/ April 8, 2005 Page 21 of 40 Massachusetts Water Resources Commission Amended Staff Recommendation for Reading's Interbasin Transfer Application significantly decrease the amount of annual spills by an average of 18.4%.2 Table 2 shows the amount of water that would have spilled from Quabbin for each year from 1990 through 2000 at a demand of 265 mgd. The additional demand from Reading and the other communities would have decreased the annual amount of water spilled by 0% to 100%. The highs of 85% and 100% would have occurred in 1998 and 1992, which appear to be years with relatively low amounts of snow, which likely resulted in little spring runoff. The issue of uncontrolled releases and spring flows are further discussed under the section Impacts to Other Uses, Fisheries. Table 2 - Modeled Swift River Spills with the addition of Reading, Wilmington, and Dedham-Westwood Year Demand 265 (MG) Demand 265+Future (MG) Difference (MG) Difference MG/da ) . Difference 1990 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0% 1991 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0% 1992 973.66 0.00 973.66 2.67 -100.0% 1993 11,242.98 10,283.14 959.84 2.63 -8.5 1994 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0% 1995 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0% 1996 28,654.13 26,583.61 2,070.52 5.67 -7.2% 1997 22,843.36 22,416.26 427.10 1.17 -1.9% 1998 729.71 107.41 622.30 1.70 -85.3% 1999 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0% 2000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0% Average for the Period 1.26 -18.4 Total Releases Increasing demands can impact the amount of water that is released from Quabbin to maintain the instream flow requirements, through both controlled and uncontrolled releases. Increased amount and frequency of releases can impact the reservoir level. The total amount of water released was estimated for: 1. actual historical releases (1990-2000), 2. current system's future demand at 265 MGD, and 3. demand at 265 MGD plus Reading and other potential future transfers (Wilmington and Dedham-Westwood). The flow duration curve for the three scenarios is shown as Figure 2. There was almost no difference in the flow releases necessary for the Reading and other future transfers (3) as . compared to the current system's future demand scenario (2). However, both of these scenarios depict a decrease in the frequency and magnitude of high flow releases from the Winsor Dam to the Swift River compared with the actual historical releases (scenario 1). 2 This value is different than the value of 7.8 percent presented in the FEIR only as a result of the method used to determine. the average. While the FEIR used the reduction in the sum of the volume of the spills over the period, WRC staff calculated the average of each year's percent difference for an overall average for the period. April 8, 2005 Page 22 of 40 Massachusetts Water Resources Connmissiou Amended Staff Recommendation for Reading's Interbasin Transfer Application Quabbin Levels/Drought Analysis Quabbin Reservoir levels fluctuate by design, but minimum percent full values have been established and are the basis for drought designations. The applicant evaluated maximum pool level reductions at various demands and hydrologic conditions simulated for 1948 through 2000. The results of the analysis are that at the base withdrawal plus Reading and future community demands, the maximum pool descent does not vary considerably and does not decline below the minimum acceptable pool descent of 470 feet elevation. An analysis was done to determine the impact of the proposed transfer on the Quabbin' Reservoir during a drought. Increasing demands can impact the frequency with which a reservoir system reaches various drought levels. This analysis is useful to determine impacts to levels in the reservoir as well as impacts to other communities currently on the MWRA system. Finally, this analysis supplements the data presented from 1990-2000, which includes several dry years but does not include any prolonged dry periods such as the 1960s drought. Analyses of the increase in demand due to the proposed Reading transfer and future community transfers show that the MWRA system would result in an insignificant increase the frequency and duration of drought levels. Specifically, modeling showed that compared with a base . demand of 265 mgd, the system would be in a Drought Warning for two additional months, and would be in a Drought Emergency stage 1 for two additional months, with the addition of Reading, Wilmington, and Dedham Westwood. This analysis was based on a period of 1948 to 2000. If the 1960's drought is removed from the analysis, a drought Emergency level would not be reached. Impacts to Flow Characteristics The September 2003 "Overview of Water Use and Transfer in the Chicopee River Basin" (Gomez and Sullivan Engineers, P.C.) evaluated Swift River flows and concluded, "The operation of Quabbin Reservoir significantly alters the timing and magnitude of streamflow in the Swift River.... This diversion of water from Quabbin Reservoir results in alterations to the timing and magnitude of flows within the Swift River watershed, which may result in adverse impacts to downstream aquatic biota. Alterations in flow are particularly evident during the typical spring high flow period, when flows are drastically reduced in the Swift River because of flood skimming and water storage operations at the Quabbin....MRWA is required to release a minimum flow of 20 mgd (32 cfs) from Quabbin Reservoir to the Swift River. There are also additional release requirements, when flows in the Connecticut River drop below certain thresholds. This flow release has beneficial effects such as maintaining Swift River flows, during late summer/early fall 2001." The study recommended, "Evaluate alternative schedules for minimum flow releases from Quabbin Reservoir to the Swift River to mimic natural flow patterns to the extent possible... It may be possible to minimize the potential impact of these water withdrawals on downstream aquatic biota through alternative reservoir management practices." •Z3 April 8, 2005 Page 23 of 40 t3 L O cn ~ o 0 ~ N Gs O ~ ~ LL O ~ d ~ H C 0 P .L 3 N N C G - cf6 tC E E 0 a) 0 ~ y ~ N N W N V E E °N' fn (D U) N 1 o c a c V E E _ N . i 1 i ~ r i 1 0 9 P g1~ 1 1 l' 9 i r~} o o t r~ C) Cl O N O to N r ~ IWJW) M01J 0 O O O 0 O O Of O O O 0 0 h 9 CD o d co w 0 'C a~ o ~ O rr o w Lo (D c 0 o ,0 E F- 0 0 0 O M O O N O O r O O ys_zy 0 0 N dq to 0 0 N Qa Massachusetts Water Resources Commission Amended Staff Recommendation for Reading's Interbasin Transfer Application Impacts to the Swift River Aquatic Base Flow (ABF), 95% flow duration, flood flows, and flow velocity will be minimal compared to existing conditions. The estimated natural 7Q10 flow and the 95% flow duration are less than the required controlled releases from Quabbin Reservoir. Therefore they will be maintained by the current operations and will not be affected by the proposed transfer. The frequency of the summer aquatic base flow (ABF) of 0.5 cfsm (94 cfs at the Winsor dam or 1,830 MGM) based on simulated releases will not be reduced due to the Reading transfer and other planned or proposed future community withdrawals, when compared with the current system's future demand of 265 MGD. Flood flows will not be reduced based on the data. It should also be noted that since 1990, the annual 1-day, 3-day, 7-day, 30-day and 90- day maximum flows have increased. In addition the timing of the annual 1-day maximum (i.e. the Julian date of the 1-day maximum flow) improved from a median value of July 15 to June 11 between 1990 and 2000. This is an improvement because the timing of this 1-day maximum value has moved closer to the spring season, when natural high flows typically occur. Although flow characteristics are not expected to change significantly over current conditions, it is worth re-stating that the Swift River has had large impacts from the construction of Quabbin Reservoir, which overshadow the addition of the Reading transfer. Also, the future demands of the existing water supply system will have a more significant impact than the Reading transfer. Impacts to Other Uses Fisheries According to the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife, the Swift River below Winsor Dam down to the confluence with the Ware River, contains significant fisheries habitat. In addition, the river is one of only two rivers in Massachusetts, which receive a cold-water release that significantly benefits habitat, such as the catch and release trout fishery directly below the dam. The current required flow releases are beneficial to the fishery, as they provide a continuous source of fresh cold water. However, DFW has stated that the amount of the' controlled releases, although beneficial in terms of quality, have not been determined to be optimum in terms of quantity for the cold water fishery. In addition, DFW operates a trout hatchery downstream of the Winsor Dam on the Swift River, which uses river intakes as part of its water supply. Relatively warm-water spills from the surface of Quabbin Reservoir are detrimental to both the instream cold-water fishery and the fish hatchery operation. An IFIM study of the Swift River in 1997 by Normandeau Associates indicates that the current flow releases are adequate. However this study concedes that fish may have to seek refuge in pools when bank to bank. flows are not present and further recommends that "provision of higher flows ...would enhance habitat ...as long as highly cyclic flows are avoided". DFW, MWRA and DCR Division of Water Supply Protection (as defined by MGL Chapter 92A1/2, and hereinafter referred to as "the Watershed Agency") have been discussing habitat improvements that could be made within the limitations of existing permits. Through a Memorandum of Understanding with MWRA, the Division of Water Supply Protection acts as "the Watershed Agency" responsible for developing policies and procedures to be followed during wet weather or flood periods, to enable MWRA to determine how much water (above statutory requirements) shall be discharged through MWRA controlled waterworks facilities into the Nashua, Swift, Ware, or Sudbury Rivers. During winter and spring months when the Quabbin Reservoir is filling, it may be possible to increase releases to the Swift River (using the Winsor Dam by-pass and/or other future improvements) and avoid late spring/early summer April 8, 2005 Page 25 of 40 Massachusetts Water Resources Commission Amended Staff Recommendation for Reading's Interbasin Transfer Application spills when it appears the reservoir is filling at an acceptable rate. Winter/spring diversions from the Ware River (in accordance with permitted limitations) may be used to supplement Quabbin and allow for enhancement of higher controlled Swift River releases in the spring months. Similarly, Quabbin releases may be reduced during summer months if it appears that the flow targets at Bondsville can be maintained with inputs from the intervening drainage area. This approach would allow for a more natural seasonal hydrograph for the Swift River, and avoid late spring spills. The WC recommends that DFW, MWRA and the Watershed Agency continue to cooperate to establish and implement enhanced releases to the Swift River from the Quabbin Reservoir. Hydropower A hydropower turbine was in use at the Winsor Dam until 1991, when it was damaged by a fire. The Normandeau study was commissioned to determine suitable flow levels for fisheries during drought periods. This information would directly impact the feasibility of generating hydropower while maintaining a trout fishery. As stated above, the report concluded that the current releases are adequate for the trout fishery. However, no action has been taken to re- implement the hydropower production. There are no plans at this time to reactivate the hydropower station at the Winsor Dam. Recreation Aside from the sport fishery addressed above, there is some boating recreation on the impoundments in Bondsville. Again, these uses will not be affected because operation of Quabbin reservoir will not change with the Reading transfer. Wetlands Other than Quabbin Reservoir itself, the only significant wetland in the Chicopee River basin that could be affected by the transfer is in Ware, along the Swift River., The area is 70 acres of open water impounded by a dam in Bondsville: Because this area is open water and is part of the river, current minimum flow requirements appear to be adequate to protect the wetland area. Judgment of the WRC that a Reasonable Instream Flow will be maintained The analyses of release data indicate there will be no significant change in the operation of the Quabbin Reservoir in response to the proposed Reading transfer. Current resources will be unaffected by the transfer. Obviously, current conditions represent an impacted environment. Proposed modifications to the timing and magnitude of Swift River releases in the spring months would benefit the downstream aquatic habitat. This recommendation attempts to achieve a balance between water supply needs and aquatic habitat needs of flow, water quality and water temperature in the Swift River through minor release modifications. Criterion #6 Groundwater/Pumping Test This criterion is not applicable to this proposal. M 0 R 's sources are surface water sources. _Criterion #7 Local Water Resources Management Plan A Draft Local Water Resources Management Plan was submitted with Reading's Interbasin Transfer Act application. The Plan addresses the issues identified in the 1999 Interbasin Transfer Act Performance Standards Appendix B Local Water Resources Management Plan Outline. The WRC approved Reading's Local Water Resources Management Plan on December 9, 2004. ov April 8, 2005 Page 26 of 40 Massachusetts Water Resources Commission Amended Staff Recommendation for Reading's Interbasin Transfer Application OTHER ISSUES CONSIDERED Alternative Out-of-Basin Source Reading investigated another potential water supply, not within the receiving basin, namely, a connection to the Andover water system. This action would also require Interbasin Transfer Act review and approval. As stated in a previous decision, the WRC does not advise a proponent to pursue one out-of-basin source over another. The proponent must make this judgment. Any proposed transfer will need to meet the applicable criteria of the Act and its regulations in order to be approved. After studying the infrastructure improvements needed and the costs of this alternative, Reading decided that application for admission to the MWRA Water Works System was in its best interests. Timing of the Application An issue raised through the public comment period was that this application should not be considered until a larger plan for the Ipswich River headwaters is coordinated and underway. The WRC cannot unilaterally choose to delay rendering a decision on this application until completion of the larger Ipswich River Plan. The WRC is required by the regulations to make a decision within 60 days of the final public hearing3, unless both the WRC and the proponent agree in writing to extend the deadline (313 CMR 4.04(5)(g)). In addition, the WRC has been unsuccessful in the past in coordinating the actions of different communities. The Ipswich River Plan and Wilmington's proposed Interbasin Transfer application are still many months from completion. The WRC believes it is not good public policy to hold up one community's application until another community has done the work necessary to enter the process. Downstream Flow Improvements Another issue considered during this review was streamflow downstream of the MWRA's reservoirs. When the WRC approved Stoughton's request for admission to the. MWRA's Water Works System in 2002, it noted that the Swift River is one of only two rivers in Massachusetts which receive a cold-water release that significantly benefits fishery habitat, and that there was potential for improving the fisheries habitat downstream of the Quabbin Reservoir and restoring the natural variability of flow in the Swift River. DFW stated that modifications to downstream habitat and to the flow release scheduling (even without increasing the overall amount of releases) could significantly benefit the fishery resource below the Winsor Dam. The WRC acknowledged that any potential changes to operations or any downstream improvements would involve multi-party, multi-year discussions and negotiations. Therefore, the WRC recommended that before the MWRA entered into negotiations with additional communities wishing to apply for admission into the Water. Works System, the Authority should enter into discussions with DFW and other interested parties to determine if any changes could be made to improve habitat or flows downstream of both Winsor and Wachusett Dams. The MWRA has stated that any actions that would impact compliance with its existing permits are not negotiable; however, since the time of the Stoughton decision, DFW; MWRA and the Watershed Agency have been discussing habitat improvements. s 313 CMR 4.04(5)(e) states ".`The Commission shall, within sixty (60) days of completing said (public) hearings complete its review and approve or deny the requested action to increase the present rate of Interbasin transfer." (emphasis added) -25 April 8, 2005 Page 27 of 40 Massachusetts Water Resources Commission Amended Staff Recommendation for Reading's Interbasin Transfer Application MWRA and the Watershed Agency have either completed or offered to undertake the following actions: • MWRA and the.Watershed Agency have no authority over and do not own the Bondsville Dams, which DFW would like to see removed to improve habitat'by mitigating temperature issues, however, the Authority and the Watershed Agency have stated that they have no objection to removal of the dams by a third party, if this would not impact permit requirements to monitor flow at Bondsville. • Operations of the turbines at Winsor Dam, which resulted in pulsing flows, no longer occur. Flows since 1991 have been steadier. As stated earlier, there are no plans at this time to reactivate the hydropower station at the Winsor Dam. • MWRA and the Watershed Agency have a history of working with DFW on downstream channel improvements including removal of debris. The Watershed Agency will continue to consult with DFW and provide mechanical assistance when possible, to improve habitat in the channel downstream of Winsor Dam. • DFW has stated that the ramping rates used to reach permit requirements, are too high. MWRA and the Watershed Agency will decrease to a rate of approximately 93-186 cfs per hour. • DFW has stated that releases in summer should only be cold water, not warm water spills from top of reservoir. MWRA and the Watershed Agency have stated that operation of the Quabbin and Wachusett Reservoirs requires maintenance of water quality criteria for drinking water. In maintaining these criteria it was necessary to allow Quabbin to fill in the spring resulting in some uncontrolled spills during the summer. The Watershed Agency will work with MWRA to transfer water to Wachusett Reservoir, and so reduce the number of uncontrolled spills in the spring, as water quality concerns permit. This may be more possible once the Walnut Hill Treatment Plant is put on line. Discussions between DFW, the Watershed Agency, and MWRA are ongoing. Concerns with the June Staff Recommendation After the issuance of the June 10, 2004 Staff Recommendation on this proposal, the Town expressed concerns that the conditions recommended would not allow flexibility in the way they managed their water sources. In particular, Reading was concerned that the requirement under Criterion #2 which stated "Reading must limit use of its existing local sources to no more than 1 mgd (total) during the months from May through October" would not allow the Town to address public health and safety concerns that could arise if the interbasin transfer limit of 219 mg had been purchased from the MWRA before the end of this time period. Reading's original proposal outlined in the DEIR was to limit use of its sources for the months of May through September, but was extended to October based on comments received through the DEIR process. Reading was confident that it could meet its demand under the original scenario, but was not sure that it could restrict use of its sources through October under this condition. Over the summer of 2004, discussions between WRC Staff and the Town took place. Reading requested a return to their original position of reducing use of its sources from May through September. The WRC agreed to this request because review of the data indicated no significant change to impacts on the donor basin'compared with the May through October transfer from MWRA. However, as stated earlier, the WRC and the Town subsequently learned from MEPA that this change would require a NPC, so. Reading rescinded its request. April 8, 2005 Page 28 of 40 Z s.z$ Massachusetts Water Resources Commission Amended Staff Recommendation for Reading's Interbasin Transfer Application Another condition in the June Staff Recommendation that caused Reading concern was the requirement to revise its drought/emergency plan to tie water use restrictions to streamflow levels in the Ipswich River under Criterion #3. As stated in the revised July 8, 2004 Staff Recommendation, this is a Performance Standard for Interbasin Transfer Act compliance. However, the Performance Standards allow for alternative methods to address the criteria of the Act. As discussed earlier in this document, Reading has since demonstrated that restriction of local sources to 1 mgd from May through October and the current water use restrictions are as protective of streamflow resources. In addition, the conditions of this interbasin transfer approval include a linkage of outdoor watering with streamflows. T ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENTS At the June 23, 2004 public hearing on the June 10, 2004 Staff Recommendation, the Town of Reading requested an extension of the comment period to July 31, 2004. During this extended comment period, public comments were received from WSCAC and the Watershed Action Alliance. These comments reflect comments made earlier by others. The additional written public comments have been provided to the WRC in a separate document. Since the December meeting of the WRC, additional comments were received from the IRWA, the WAA and several citizens regarding the WRC's approval of Reading's application. As noted previously, these comments, and those provided by EOEA have led the WRC to reconsider of Reading's application under the Act. Copies of comments received have been distributed to the WR.C and discussed at the January 2005 WRC meeting and via mailings. Since January, several additional comments have been received, and these will be distributed in an upcoming mailing from the WRC. EO 385 This Staff Recommendation is consistent with Executive Order 385, which has the dual objective of resource protection and sustainable development. This Staff Recommendation does not encourage growth in areas without adequate infrastructure nor does it cause a loss of environmental quality or resources. 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. HOWEVER, IF THE TOWN OF READING HAS PURCHASED 219 MG FROM THE MWRA PRIOR TO OCTOBER 31sT, IT WILL USE THE IPSWICH RIVER BASIN AS ITS SOLE SOURCE OF WATER SUPPLY. (b) Should the Town require addRional water supply from within the Ipswich River Basin be3 meet its water supply needs more than onee in a yeaw period, the Town wifl be April 8, 2005 Page 29 of 40 avow Massachusetts Water Resources Commission Amended Staff Recommendation for Reading's Interbasin Transfer Application required to submit a Notice of PFojeet Change to the AIEPA 0 (c) If, for any reason other than a DEP emergency declaration, Reading amends its contract with the MWRA to increase the amount of water purchased, the Town will need to apply for additional ITA review. 2. In order to ensure that the water purchased from the MWRA will last through October, and that restrictions on Reading's water use are linked to streamflow in the Ipswich River, the following conditions apply: If the Town purchases water from the MWRA during any calendar year in volumes that equal or exceed the following levels by the dates noted, and on those dates, if the streamflow as measured at the USGS South Middleton gage is at or below 18.7 cfs (0.42 cfsm) ("the threshold") FOR 3 CONSECUTIVE DAYS WHICH INCLUDE JULY 15, AUGUST 15, AND/OR SEPTEMBER 15, then the Town will implement additional outdoor water use restrictions as noted for each threshold. These additional restrictions will remain in place until Septet-fiber- 30 OCTOBER 31sT or until streamflows are above the threshold for seven consecutive days, WHICHEVER OCCURS FIRST. 1st Threshold - If on July 15th the Town has used 115 million gallons or more of MWRA water, and the streamflow is at or below the threshold FOR 3 CONSECUTIVE DAYS AS INDICATED ABOVE, the Town will reduce hours of allowed outdoor water use by fwff TWO hours per day from the existing Town of Reading Stage 1 mandatory restrictions. The Town will notify all users within 7 days of the new restrictions, and the Town may grant waivers. 2nd Threshold - If on August 15th, the Town has used 147 million gallons or more of MWRA water, and the streamflow is at or below the threshold FOR 3 CONSECUTIVE DAYS AS INDICATED ABOVE, the Town will reduce hours of allowed outdoor water use by four hours per day from the existing Town of Reading Stage 1 mandatory restrictions. The Town will notify all users of the new restrictions within 7 days, and the Town may grant waivers. 3rd Threshold - If on September 15th the Town has used 180 million gallons or more of MWRA water, and the streamflow is at or below the threshold FOR 3 CONSECUTIVE DAYS AS INDICATED ABOVE, the Town will. implement its Stage 2 water restrictions (a ban on all outdoor water use). The Town will notify all users of the restrictions within 7 days, and the Town may grant waivers. At a minimum, these mandatory restrictions shall limit non-essential outside water use to hand held hoses only and-inulude hourly avoid f!estr-ietions non-essential outside water- use. At a minimum, hourly r-estgetions. water s during the hours of o a. m_ to 5 Notwithstanding the foregoing, irrigation of public parks and recreational fields by means of automatic sprinklers equipped with moisture sensors or similar control technology may also be permitted outside of the hours 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. The term non-essential outside water use is defined to include those uses that do not have health or safety impacts, are not required by regulation and are not needed to meet the core functions of a business or other organization. April 8, 2005 _AV OR dr"P JP ZZIP Page 30 of 40 Massachusetts Water Resources Commission Amended Staff Recommendation for Reading's Interbasin Transfer Application 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. If water purchased from the MWRA is below the levels identified above on July 15, August 15 and/or September 15, no additional thresholds will be activated or continued beyond Stage 1. Stage 1 and 2 refer to outdoor water use regulations as approved by the Town of Reading, Board of Selectmen on January 4, 2005*. h l t i ti i i d l limit non essential outside water- use to hand a ons s f e ater-y r-es 3. AA a m n mum, man h fl t i ti i l d At a ssential outside water- use e oti y res f e ons hoses only and ne u d t h ll id i i , . on non e Notwithstanding to 5 m the hours of 9 a m i u ef use wa a ave ens s hetK-ly r-estf et p. . . . r ng t ith i d i a4se be ma - similar- eontxel teehnolo ufe sensors mo s ppe w spr-inlder-s equ 5 t 9 f h h id y gy or The tefm non essential outside water- use is p a.m. o oufs t e e o pefmitted outs t h t d n th h d .m. uir-ed by are not r-e ts alth or- sa-f,60, --e h o e ese uses a e t defined te inelu t th d t d d q , .Y .1-- ave e Pdaetions of a business or other- organization e e o mee e afe not nee regulation an . or-e 4. It is expressly recognized that the streamflow threshold noted above reflect the levels as proposed in the DEP Water Management Act water withdrawal permits issued to permittees in the Ipswich River basin in May 2003 and that these thresholds may be further modified in the future. If the thresholds set forth in the water withdrawal permits issued to permittees in the Ipswich River basin change, the Town may request that the WRC amend the thresholds in this Interbasin Transfer Act document to be consistent with the thresholds in withdrawal permits applicable to other communities with sources in the Ipswich River basin. 5. If, after the new water treatment plant is on line in Reading, an alternative purchase and withdrawal scenario is proposed, including linkage to streamflows, Reading must consult with WRC Staff to determine if this meets the requirements of this Interbasin Transfer Act approval. 6. Reading must provide annual reports to WRC Staff detailing how much water was pumped from its own sources and how much water was purchased from the MWRA for the first five years after the town begins to receive MWRA water. After this period, Reading must furnish these reports to WR.C Staff if requested. 7. Reading must work with DEP to condition its registration statement to address the three registration issues presented in the Secretary's Certificate on the FEIR dated October 31, 2003. (Note that this was done via a letter from the Town to the DEP of November 28, 2004.) 8. Reading must continue effective demand management programs that meet the Interbasin Transfer Performance Standards for Criterion #3, Water Conservation. 9. Reading must provide the DEP Annual Statistical Reports to the WRC for the first five years after the town begins to receive MWRA water to determine if the programs in place are successful in keeping unaccounted-for water at or below 10% and residential gallons per capita per day (gpcd) at 65 or less. April 8, 2005 Page 31 of 40 Massachusetts Water Resources Commission Amended Staff Recommendation for Reading's Interbasin Transfer Application 10. If the amount of unaccounted-for water increases to greater than 10%, Reading must either provide an explanation of why this has occurred (e.g. water main break, large fire, etc.) or provide a plan, for WRC approval, to reduce unaccounted-for water to acceptable levels. 11. If residential gpcd increases above 65, the Town must implement a comprehensive residential conservation program that seeks to reduce residential water use through a retrofit, rebate or other similarly effective program for encouraging installation of household water saving devices, such as faucet aerators, showerheads and toilets and through efforts to reduce excessive outdoor water use. If this occurs, the Town must provide a plan for this program to the WRC for approval. 12. Reading must notify the WRC when the High School and Barrows Elementary School renovations have been completed, with documentation of the retrofit devices installed. Reading must provide annual reports detailing the water conservation actions taken as part of the four-year, $1 million program. This should include an accounting of the money spent and the successes of the program. 2 5"005 z April 8, 2005 Page 32 of 40 Massachusetts Water Resources Commission Amended Staff Recommendation for Reading's Interbasin Transfer Application *Section 4.9 Town of Reading Water Conservation Program [verbatim] Stage I Stage 1 provides for mandatory water conservation, subject to penalties in accordance with law for violation of these restrictions. Water may be used for outdoor purposes only from 4:00 A.M. to 9:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. to 8:00 P.M. Monday through Sunday, and only in accordance with the following schedule: • Even numbered addresses: Outdoor use is permitted on even-numbered days of the month only during the hours specified above. e •Odd-numbered addresses': Outdoor war use is permitted on odd-numbered days of the month only during the hours specified above. There is no restriction on hand held devices. In addition, the following regulation on filling swimming pools is mandatory: Swimming pools shall be filled in accordance with the above schedule only, unless a waiver is granted by the Town manager. Stage 2 Stage 2 is provided for the eventuality that only enough water is available for essential public health and safety purposes. In this event, no outdoor water use of any type is permitted. Water use is restricted to domestic home use only for purposes including normal bathing, laundry, and sanitary uses. Violation of these regulations is punishable by a $300.00 fine. Adopted 4-25-89, 11104, Revised 1-4-05 T ZS-33 April 8, 2005 Page 33 of 40 Massachusetts Water Resources Commission Amended Staff Recommendation for Reading's Interbasin Transfer Application ATTACHMENT 1 READING'S APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION TO THE MWRA WATER WORKS SYSTEM INTERBASIN TRANSFER ACT CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING AN APPLICATION CRITERION #1: An environmental review pursuant to MGL, c. 30, 61 and 62H, inclusive has been complied with for the proposed IBT. • The Interbasin Transfer application was part of the EIR. The Secretary's Certificate on the Final EIR for this project was issued on October 31, 2003. CRITERION #2: All reasonable efforts have been made to identify and develop all viable sources in the receiving area. The WRC performance standard for a water supply source directs a proponent to discuss the water supply alternatives considered, but rejected. Reason for the rejection of these alternatives should be clearly stated. This information should be included as part of the Local Water Resources Management Plan required under Criterion #7. In addition, as stated in the regulations, a local source must not cause unacceptable environmental damage. • Reading has investigated several potential local water supply sources including: o The development of bedrock wells in the Town Forest area. These potential wells were low yielding. DEP has stated that development of these sources is not viable because of the low yield. o The expansion of existing sources and reactivation of abandoned sources. DEP has stated that development of these sources is not viable because of impacts to the Ipswich River and existing sources of potential contamination. o The possible development of bedrock wells in the Bare Meadow area.. This source was rejected because of environmental impacts, permitting difficulties and cost. o Reading has investigated potential sources in the North Coastal and Mystic River. Due to the nature of the geologic material, potential contamination and development density, no suitable public water supply sources have been found there. o DEP concurs that development of local sources within Reading is not viable. It should be noted that any local source developed by Reading would result in an Interbasin Transfer of wastewater, as Reading is sewered to the MWRA. DEP has determined that continued pumping of the Reading wells at existing levels is not a viable option due to impacts on streamflows. CRITERION #3: All practical measures to conserve water have been taken in the receiving area... April 8, 2005 Page 35 of 40 Massachusetts Water Resources Conunission Amended Staff Recommendation for Reading's Interbasin Transfer Application For a water supply transfer, the WRC performance standards require: 1) A full leak detection survey should have been completed within the previous two years of the application. The proponent should provide documentation regarding repair of leaks identified during the survey. Leak detection surveys should be carried out in accordance with the MWRA's leak detection regulations (360 CMR 12.00). • Reading conducts an annual leak detection survey. The last survey was completed in June 2003. • Surveys are included in the full cost pricing system. • Documentation of the leaks identified and repaired has been provided. • The surveys are conducted using methods at least as comprehensive as the MWRA's regulations for leak detection. 2) The water supply system should be 100% metered, including public facilities served by the proponent. A program of meter repair and/or replacement must be in place. Documentation of annual calibration of master meters and a description of the calibration program should be included in the application. • The system is 100% metered, including public buildings. • Reading has a regular maintenance, calibration, testing and repair program; documentation of the program was included in the application. • Reading will begin a phased meter replacement program in 2005. • Documentation of annual master meter calibration was provided. • Reading has problems with iron and manganese that cause faulty readings at the production meters. The Town is piloting a new cleaning technique and the use of a magnetic meter to begin to address this issue. 3) Unaccounted-for water should be 10% or less. The proponent should provide documentation of unaccounted-for water, in both gallons and percentage of the total water pumped and withdrawn, for each of the past five years. The definition of accounted-for and unaccounted-for water for use in Interbasin Transfer applications is given in Appendix C of the Performance Standards. The plan by which the community intends to maintain or reduce this level should be included in the water resources management plan required under Criterion #7. • Unaccounted-for water averaged 10% over the 5 years prior to this application: 15 % in 1998; 11 % in 1999 and 2000, in 2001 it dropped to 4% and in 2002 it was 6%. • DEP reports that in 2003, Reading's unaccounted-for water was 8.96%. 4) The proponent should provide documentation to show that there are sufficient sources of funding to maintain the system, including covering the costs of operation, proper maintenance, proposed capital improvements, and water conservation. The rate structure must encourage water conservation.4 • Reading's water rates are high, $3.66 per 100 cubic feet. The rate is flat, but the . high cost encourages conservation. 4► • Reading has an enterprise account. • The rate structure is evaluated annually. It was last changed in August 2001. April 8, 2005 Page 36 of 40 Massachusetts Water Resources Commission Amended Staff Recommendation for Reading's Interbasin Transfer Application • Documentation of full cost pricing was provided. 5) The proponent should bill its customers at least quarterly based on actual meter readings. Bills should be easily understandable to the customer (e.g. providing water use in gallons and including comparison of the previous year's use for same period). • Reading bills its customers quarterly, based on actual meter readings.. • Reading is considering monthly billing. • Second meters are charged for the full price of water. • Bills are easily understandable to the customer and include a comparison of the previous year's use for same period. 6) A drought/emergency contingency plan, as described in 313 CMR 4.02, should be in place. This plan should include seasonal use guidelines and measures for voluntary and mandatory water use restrictions and describe how these will be implemented. There should be a mechanism in place to tie water use restrictions to streamflow and/or surface water levels in the affected basin(s) where this information is available. The plan should be part of the Local Water Resources Management Plan required under Criterion #7. • Reading has a written drought/emergency plan. • Reading has a water conservation by-law tied to water supply indicators. • Reading's by-law outlines a set of increasingly stringent water use restrictions and gives the Town the ability to implement mandatory water use restrictions. Reading has shown that these restrictions, combined with restriction of its local sources to 1 mgd from May through October provide an equivalent level of environmental protection as restrictions based on streamflow levels. #G • Additional outdoor water use restrictions are appropriate during drought years, as specified in the conditions. 4 7) All government and other public buildings under the control of the proponent should have been retrofit with. water saving devices. • Not all public buildings had been retrofit at the time of the application. • The contract for the high school renovation was awarded in May 2004. Renovations are scheduled for completion by June 30, 2007. Retrofit will be completed in conjunction with the renovation. • The Barrows Elementary School is also undergoing renovation. This renovation is expected to be completed by September 2005. • The retrofit of the remaining public buildings was completed by September 30, 2004. Documentation of the retrofit was provided on October 25, 2004. 8) Proponents should provide records of water audits conducted on public facilities. The most recent audit should have occurred within two years prior to the application for Interbasin Transfer approval. • A water audit on public facilities was conducted in April 2001. Results have been provided. 9) If the community's residential gallons per capita/day is greater than 65, the proponent should be implementing a comprehensive residential conservation program that seeks April 8, 2005 Page 37 of 40 ~-37 Massachusetts Water Resources Commission Amended Staff Recommendation for Reading's Interbasin Transfer Application to reduce residential water use through a retrofit, rebate or other similarly effective program for encouraging installation of household water saving devices, including faucet aerators, showerheads and toilets and through efforts to reduce excessive outdoor water use. • Residential gpcd averaged 59 from 1998 to 2002. The range was from 54 in 2000 to 62 in 1999. • DEP reports that in 2003, Reading's, residential gpcd was 54. 10) A broad-based public education program, which attempts to reach every user at least two times per year, through such means as mailings, billboards, newspaper articles, cable television announcements or programs, or the use of other media, should be in place.. Water suppliers should refer to the WRC's 1992 "Water Conservation Standards for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts" and the Massachusetts Water Works Association for recommended public education measures. • Reading provides mailings once per year. • Public service announcements on cable TV are sponsored once/day. • Newspaper articles are sponsored at least annually. • Water conservation information is available at the public library. • Handouts are distributed during tours of water treatment plant. 11) A program which identifies and ranks all commercial, industrial and institutional- customers according to amount of use, and requires regular contact with the largest users to promote water conservation, should be in place. The water supplier should make regular contact with these users to promote water conservation. Materials on water reuse and recirculation techniques should be provided, where appropriate. • The Town has provided a list of the top ten water users. There is no specific outreach program, as most of these are residential complexes. Outreach is conducted in conjunction with Reading's normal water conservation programs. 12) A program of land use controls to protect existing water supply sources of the receiving area that meet the requirements of the Department of Environmental Protection. • Reading's program of land use controls to protect existing water supply sources meets the requirements of the Department of Environmental Protection. • Reading has an aquifer protection by-law. 13) As part of the local water resources management plan, there should be a long-term water conservation program, which complies with the 1992 Water Conservation Standards for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, in place. This plan should reflect the goal of maintaining unaccounted-for at 10% or less of all water used, and of reducing future residential water use through a comprehensive residential water conservation program, if residential gpcd is greater than 65. The water conservation program should also have a goal of operating the system to balance water supply with other environmental needs. If the transfer is approved, the proponent will need to submit a copy of its Public Water Supply Annual Statistical Report (required by DEP) to the Commission annually to demonstrate the continued effectiveness of the program. April 8, 2005 Page 38 of 40 Massachusetts Water Resources Commission Amended Staff Recommendation for Reading's Interbasin Transfer Application • Reading has a long-term water conservation program, which complies with the 1992 Water Conservation Standards for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Reading's residential gpcd is under 65. 14) In 2002, the WRC amended the 1992 Water Conservation Standards for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to include standards for Lawn and Landscape Water Conservation: Communities and public and private water suppliers should develop drought management plans that identify water supply and environmental indicators to serve as drought stage triggers and that outline a set of increasingly stringent water use restrictions that are designed to protect public health and the environment and that can be implemented through bylaw, ordinance or regulation. • Reading has a water conservation by-law tied to water supply indicators which outline a set of increasingly stringent water use restrictions. Communities and public and private water suppliers should implement a water use restriction bylaw, ordinance or regulation that provides the community or water supplier with the ability to implement mandatory water use restrictions. These restrictions should be tied to environmental and water supply indicators as outlined in a drought management plan. • Reading has a by-law that gives the Town the ability to implement mandatory water use restrictions. CRITERION #4: A comprehensive forestry management program which balances water yields, wildlife habitat, and natural beauty on watershed lands presently serving the receiving area and under control of the proponent has been implemented. All of Reading's public water supply sources are ground water sources. Therefore this criterion is not applicable to this project. CRITERION #5: Reasonable instream flow in the river from which the water is transferred is maintained. • An instream flow requirement for the Swift River below the Quabbin Reservoir, as. measured at Bondsville, of 30 cfs (20 mgd) is always met. • A seasonal 70 to 110 cfs flow release from Quabbin Reservoir, based on levels in the Connecticut River, is always met. • A flow release of 12 mg per week from the Wachusett Reservoir on the South Branch of the Nashua River is required. Analyses of the increase in demand due to the proposed Reading transfer show that the MWRA system would have minimal impacts on the frequency or duration. of drought levels. • The analyses of release data indicate there will be no significant change in the operation of the Quabbin Reservoir in response to the proposed Reading transfer. Current resources will be unaffected by the transfer. • April 8, 2005 Page 39 of 40 Massachusetts Water Resources Commission . Amended Staff Recommendation for. Reading's Interbasin Transfer Application CRITERION #6: The results of the pump test have been used to indicate the potential impacts of this project on other environmental resources and adjacent wells. • Not applicable - the donor sources are surface water sources. CRITERION #7: Communities have adopted or are actively engaged in developing a local water resources management plan. • A Draft Local Water Resources Management Plan was submitted with the application. • The Plan addresses the issues identified in the 1999 Interbasin Transfer Act Performance Standards Appendix B Local Water Resources Management Plan Outline. CRITERION #8: The Commission shall consider the impacts of all past, authorized or proposed transfers in the donor basin. • Although the Reading request would not adversely impact existing conditions downstream of the Quabbin and Wachusett Reservoirs, current conditions represent an impacted environment. • Issues surrounding the amount of flow released, timing of releases, timing of spills (which are indirectly determined by system operation) and maintaining steady flow could become significant if demand increases. • DFW, DCR Division of Water Supply Protection ("the Watershed Agency" as defined by MGL Chapter 92A112) and MWRA. have been discussing these issues. EO 385 • This Staff Recommendation is consistent with Executive Order 385, which has the dual objective of resource protection and sustainable development. This Staff Recommendation does not encourage growth in areas without adequate infrastructure nor do they cause a loss of environmental quality or resources. April 8, 2005 Page 40 of 40 Page 1 of 1 McIntire, Ted From: _-,Kechenbleikl4Efr, Peter / Thurs April 21 053:10 P To: ntire, Ted Subie : FW. pro sed con 2 compromise -----Original Message----- From: Kerry Mackin [mailto:kmackin@ipswichriver.org] Sent: Friday, April 08, 2005 7:47 AM To: Town Manager Subject: Fw: proposed condition 2 compromise Peter, I hope that there will be an opportunity to consider this compromise re condition 2. Kerry Original Message From: Kerry Mackin To: Stergios, James (ENV) ; Honkonen _Karl ENV) Cc: Bob Zimmerman ; Gary Clayton ; Mark.Tisa state.ma.us ; Gerard. Kennedystate. ma. us ; Dou _Gillespiestate.ma.us ;Peter Shelf ; Margaret Van Deusen ; 'Kearns, Margaret FWE ' ;Haas, Glenn (DEP) ;Duane LeVangie ; Lamonte, Thomas (DEP} ; Gildesgame, Mike (DCR). ; Eileen Simonson.; Martha Stevenson ; Kerry Mackin Sent: Friday, April 08, 2005 7:43 AM Subject: proposed condition 2 compromise Jim and Karl, After studying the draft recommendation and statistics, it is clear that the volumes incorporated into Condition 2 are based on the one outlier year among the last six. These numbers are far above any water usage by Reading at the benchmark dates, except in 1999. This outlier year should not be used as the basis for long-term regulatory conditions that will govern Reading's interbasin transfer for years to come. IRWA proposes the attached compromise, which preserves the basic concept of Condition 2 but establishes more effective milestone dates and volumes that are based on Reading's actual water use over the past five years. I hope that you and the WRC will seriously consider this compromise alternative. Thank you, Kerry Mackin 0404 4/21/2005 Proposed Conditon 2 Compromise: These are Reading's water use statistics for the May-October period for the past 5 years. IRWA proposes that these form the basis for regulation under Condition 2. If Reading exceeds its average monthly total water use by the end of May, June or July, it would be subject to flow-triggered restrictions allowing hand-held hoses only during the following month. If it exceeds the limits by the end of August or September, these would trigger Stage 2 bans. 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 5-yr avg May 1.87 2.01 1.93 2.39 2.01 2.04 Jun 2.04 2.06 1.92 2.24 2.12 2.06 Jul 1.99 2.36 2.42 2.19 2.26 2.24 Aug 1.93 2.04 2.50 2.26 2.01 2.15 Sep 1.81 1.91 1.87 2.01 1.86 1.88 Oct 1.68 1.68 1.66 1.78 1.68 1.70 May 31" trigger: 2.04 mgd 1.04 mgd from MWRA 1 mgd from Ipswich sources June 30t" trigger: 2.06 mgd 2.06 mgd from MWRA 1 mgd from Ipswich sources July 30ti, trigger: 2.24 mgd 1.24 mgd fiom MWRA 1 mgd fiom Ipswich sources August 31" trigger: 2.15 mgd 1.15 mgd from MWRA 1 mgd from Ipswich sources September 30t" trigger: 1.88 mgd .88 mgd fiom MWRA 1 mgd from Ipswich sources These could be converted to cumulative mg totals for each date. Exceeding May-July milestones trigger Stage 1 restrictions Exceeding August or September milestone triggers Stage 2 ban 2 6-2.. Page 1 of 2 McIntire, Ted -----Original Message----- From: Hechenbleikner, Peter Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2005 6:59 PM To: 'Kerry Mackin' Subject: RE: re Reading revised recommendations From: chehblei r; Peter , i Sent Thurs April 2 005 3:0 . M mire, Te ' Subjec FW: re R ding r ' d rec endations The BOS is not discussing substantive issues related to MWRA this evening. There gets to be so much back and forth emails that I'll wait until we are closer tote h meeting at which it will be discussed -probably May 10. Pete -----Original Message----- From: Kerry Mackin [mailto:kmackin@ipswichriver.org] Sent: Monday, April 18, 2005 12:17 PM To: Town Manager Subject: Fw: re Reading revised recommendations Peter, would you please forward this to Selectmen prior to Tuesday night meeting. Thank you, Kerry Mackin Original Message - From: Kerry- Mackin To: Honkonen, Karl (ENV) Cc: Peter Sher ; Stergios, James (ENV) ;Reading/North Reading Stream Team Sent: Monday, April 18, 2005 11:35 AM Subject: re Reading revised recommendations Karl, IRWA has already submitted comments regarding specific concerns that we have with the previous and revised draft decisions for Reading's interbasin transfer. I wish to add to those, and incorporate those comments by reference herein. I want to respond briefly to the revised draft decision and Reading's comments presented at the April 8th WRC meeting regarding it. 1) The draft decision states on page 9 that Reading's summer:winter ratio was 1.2 for the 1998-2002 period. This is incorrect. The ratio was 1.29 for that period, and was 1.3 for the past three year period (which is the period specified in DEP's policy that is being referenced in this section of the draft decision). As I have stated before, the WRC is using the assertion that Reading is meeting this ratio as grounds for exempting the town from flow-triggered restrictions. Thus it is an important fact that Reading is not meeting the 1.2 ratio, and this should be corrected. In addition, IRWA does not agree that achievement of the ratio is sufficient grounds to exempt Reading from water conservation requirements specified in the performance standards. There is nothing in the Interbasin Transfer Act, its regulations or performance standards (nor in the WMA policy cited) to indicate that this ratio substitutes for meeting the requirement for flow-triggered restrictions on outdoor water use. 2) It is my understanding that Reading agreed to delete references in its comments to using its Ipswich 27-/ 4/21/2005 Page 2 of 2 sources as its sole supply if it used its full MWRA purchase before October 31st. IRWA agrees that these comments should not be included in the WRC decision. 3) It is my understanding that Reading agreed that flows triggering water use restrictions would be measured on an instantaneous basis rather than an average basis. IRWA agrees with the use of instantaneous flows based on 3-consecutive days; however, we believe this should apply to any three consecutive days in the month period beginning on the milestone date. 4) IRWA does not support the language proposed by Reading (page 5) stating that "The proposed actions on the part of the Town of Reading are entirely voluntary." This statement appears to imply that Reading could continue to use its wells. If so, IRWA believes that the mandatory requirement that there be no viable sources in the receiving basin cannot be met, and that inclusion of this statement would leave the decision subject to legal challenge on that basis. 5) IRWA agrees with Reading's comment that the language of the last two paragraphs of the MEPA letter (March 31, 2005) should be substituted for the provisions in Condition 1 b. 6) IRWA does not agree with Reading's comments on page 9 regarding the effectiveness of odd-even day restrictions. The fact that these restrictions have been in pace continuously since 1992 indicates that the reduction in summer water use in just the past several years is not attributed to these restrictions, but to other factors that have changed in the past several years. If the odd-even restrictions were the cause, the use would have consistently been low during the entire period the restrictions have been in effect (since 1992). 7) IRWA believes that condition 2 and 3 should remain as separate conditions. 8) IRWA continues to assert that condition 3 is required under the ITA and its performance standards, and that condition 2 should not be included because it represents an almost wholesale exemption of Reading from the requirements of condition 3. The ITA requirement to take all practical water conservation measures does not limit itself to staying within the 219 mg MWRA purchase limit nor is it applicable to only the MWRA water. In addition, the FEIR specifically indicates that Reading intends to purchase less than 219 mg except in rare circumstances; thus the 219 mg limit should not be used as an assumed target for all years. Finally, in the interest of seeking a resolution to this situation ONLY, IRWA proposes the attached proposal to revise condition 2, for consideration of the WRC and Reading. I would be happy to meet with WRC staff and/or Reading town officials to discuss this proposal further. I would appreciate it if you would distribute this to those parties who should receive it. Thank you for your consideration. Kerry Mackin, Executive Director Ipswich River Watershed Association 978-887-2313 202-2- 4/21/2005 FROM WATER RESOURCES COMMISSION DRAFT DECISION, APRIL, 2005 READING ITA CONDITIONS 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. (b) Should the Town require additional water supply from within the Ipswich River Basin beyond the proposed 1 million gallons during the May 1 to October 31 period to meet its water supply needs more than once in a five year period, the Town will be required to submit a Notice of Project Change to the MEPA Office. (c) If, for any reason other than a DEP emergency declaration, Reading amends its contract with the MWRA to increase the amount of water purchased, the Town will need to apply for additional ITA review. 2. In order to ensure that the water purchased fiom the MWRA will last through October, and that restrictions on Reading's water use are linked to streainflow in the Ipswich River, the following conditions apply: If the Town purchases water from the MWRA during any calendar year in volumes that equal or exceed the following levels by the dates noted, and on those dates, if the streamflow as measured at the USGS South Middleton gage is at or below 18.7 cfs (0.42 cfsm) ("the threshold"), then the Town will implement additional outdoor water use restrictions as noted for each threshold. These additional restrictions will remain in place until September 30"' or until streamflows are above the threshold for seven consecutive days. 1st Threshold - If on July 15th the Town has used 115 million gallons or more of MWRA water, and the streamflow is at or below the threshold, the Town will reduce hours of allowed outdoor water use by four hours per day from the existing Town of Reading Stage 1 mandatory restrictions. The Town will notify all users within 7 days of the new restrictions, and the Town may grant waivers. 2nd Threshold - If on August 15th, the Town has used 147 million gallons or more of MWRA water, and the streamflow is at or below the threshold, the Town will reduce hours of allowed outdoor water use by four hours per day from the existing Town of Reading Stage 1 mandatory restrictions. The Town will notify all users of the new restrictions within 7 days, and the Town may grant waivers. 3rd Threshold - If on September 15th the Town has used 180 million gallons or more of MWRA water, and the streanzflow is at or below the threshold, the Town will implement its Stage 2 water restrictions (a ban on all outdoor water use). The Town will notify all users of the restrictions within 7 days, and the Town may grant waivers. V%?. 1 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. If water purchased from the MWRA is below the levels identified above on July 15, August 15 and/or September 15, no additional thresholds will be activated or continued beyond Stage 1. Stage 1 and 2 refer to outdoor water use regulations as approved by the Town of Reading, Board of Selectmen on January 4, 2005*. At a minimum, mandatory restrictions shall limit non-essential outside water use to hand held hoses only and include hourly restrictions on non-essential outside water use. At a minimum, hourly restrictions shall avoid water use during the hours of 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Notwithstanding the foregoing, irrigation of public parks and recreational fields by means of automatic sprinklers equipped with moisture sensors or similar control technology may also be permitted outside of the hours 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. The terra non-essential outside water use is defined to include those uses that do not have health or safety impacts, are not required by regulation and are not needed to meet the core functions of a business or other organization. 4. It is expressly recognized that the streamflow threshold noted above reflect the levels as proposed in the DEP Water Management Act water withdrawal permits issued to permittees in the Ipswich River basin in May 2003 and that these thresholds may be fin-ther modified in the future. If the thresholds set forth in the water withdrawal permits issued to permittees in the Ipswich River basin change, the Town may request that the WRC amend the thresholds in this Interbasin Transfer Act document to be consistent with the thresholds in withdrawal permits applicable to other communities with sources in the Ipswich River basin. If, after the new water treatment plant is on line in Reading, an alternative purchase and withdrawal scenario is proposed, including linkage to streamflows, Reading must consult with WRC Staff to determine if this meets the requirements of this Interbasin Transfer Act approval. 6. Reading must provide annual reports to WRC Staff detailing how much water was pumped from its own sources and how much water was purchased from the MWRA for the first five years after the town begins to receive MWRA water. After this period, Reading must firnish these reports to WRC Staff if requested. 7. Reading must work with DEP to condition its registration statement to address the three registration issues presented in the Secretary's Certificate on the FEIR dated October 31, 2003. (Note that this was done via a letter from the Town to the DEP of November 28, 2004.) 8. Reading must continue effective demand management programs that meet the Interbasin Transfer Performance Standards for Criterion #3, Water Conservation. 28-z 9. Reading must provide the DEP Annual Statistical Reports to the WRC for the first five years after the town begins to receive MWRA water to determine if the programs in place are successful in keeping unaccounted-for water at or below 10% and residential gallons per capita per day (gpcd) at 65 or less. 10. If the amount of unaccounted-for water increases to greater than 10%, Reading must either provide an explanation of why this has occurred (e.g. water main break, large fire, etc.) or provide a plan, for WRC approval, to reduce unaccounted-for water to acceptable levels. 11. If residential gpcd increases above 65, the Town must implement a comprehensive residential conservation program that seeks to reduce residential water use through a retrofit, rebate or other similarly effective program for encouraging installation of household water saving devices, such as faucet aerators, showerheads and toilets and through efforts to reduce excessive outdoor water use. If this occurs, the Town must provide a plan for this program to the WRC for approval. 12. Reading must notify the WRC when the High School and Barrows Elementary School renovations have been completed, with documentation of the retrofit devices installed. Reading must provide annual reports detailing the water conservation actions taken as part of the four-year, $1 million program. This should include an accounting of the money spent and the successes of the program. a? Am 3 April 18, 2005 Karl Honkonen, Executive Director Massachusetts Water Resources Commission 100 Cambridge Street Boston, MA 02108 Chairman Richard W. Schubert Reading Board of Selectmen Town Hall Reading, MA 01867 Re: Reading Application for an Interbasin Transfer of Water from MWRA IRWA Comments and Proposal The Ipswich River Watershed Association (IRWA) once again expresses our appreciation for the tremendous efforts and perseverance of the Water Resources Commission and its staff, the Town of Reading and its officials, and others who have worked to address the concerns that IRWA has raised regarding Reading's proposed interbasin transfer. IRWA submits the following comments and proposal for your consideration. IRWA continues to assert that exempting Reading from streamflow triggered restrictions does not meet the requirements of the Interbasin Transfer Act, its regulations and performance standards. In the interest of exploring a possible compromise only, IRWA sets forth the following proposal for consideration of the WRC and the Town of Reading, while reserving all our, rights to take actions necessary to achieve full implementation of the requirements of the Interbasin Transfer Act. In evaluating this proposal, please consider that the frequency of flow-triggered restrictions is likely to decrease, given similar precipitation, if Reading and Wilmington pump less water from the Ipswich basin and other limits on withdrawals and flow-restoration measures are implemented throughout the watershed. Please also recognize that the exemption provision (condition 2) is rather complex; a straight-forward flow-triggered restriction (such as implementing condition 3 without condition 2) would be a much simpler approach, which IRWA would certainly prefer. DRAFT PROPOSAL FOR CONDITIONS APPL ZING TO READING'S INTERB.ASIN TRANSFER Proposed Redrafted Conditions: 1) IRWA reiterates the comments submitted previously regarding revised conditions 1 and 2) Condition 2: The following proposal is based on Reading's water use statistics for the May-September period for the past five years. IRWA proposes that these form the basis for regulation under Condition 2, allowing Reading to impose less stringent outdoor restrictions than those required in condition 3, if its water use is lower than its average use over the past five years. If its water use is below these levels, IRWA proposes that sprinklers be allowed on a limited (eg. one-day per week) basis during low-flow periods. Restrictions on outdoor water use would be activated at any time that flows in the Ipswich River fell below 0.42 cfsm for three consecutive days, based on instantaneous measurements reported on the USGS web-site for the South Middleton streamflow gage. Restrictions would be lifted if flows above 0.42 cfsm occurred for 7 consecutive days. These thresholds and time periods constitute what is meant by "low-flow periods" in this proposal. IRWA proposes that if this measure is approved by the WRC, Reading should also be required to notify the public of low-flow events in the Ipswich River to further limit sprinkler use, even if mandatory restrictions allowing hand-held hoses only and/or total bans under the provisions of Condition 2 are not triggered. This notification would ask the public's cooperation in conserving water and require limiting sprinkler use to one day a week. IRWA proposes that regulation under Condition 2 be based on end-of-month water use statistics (rather than mid-month statistics as previously proposed) for three reasons: 1) Water- use statistics are currently reported at the end of the month on the Annual Statistical Reports (ASRs), and the available historical water use data are based on end-of-month usage, not mid-month usage. Using mid-month data would involve another layer of reporting and analysis, not in conformance with the ASRs. Water suppliers have complained frequently to DEP about added reporting requirements. Thus basing Condition 2 on end-of-month data would be easier because it involves less additional reporting. 2) While flows below 0.42 cfsm are rare in May (because ahigher flow threshold is warranted in the spring), measuring total water use at the end of May would result in imposition of flow-triggered restrictions in June, if May water use were high and flows were low. Based on the available data, this would have occurred one year out of the 2000-04 period. 3) Basing the Stage 2 requirements on the August 31St water use figure would allow for regulation through most of September and October, making this provision more meaningful and effective. While water use typically declines in these months, they are highly susceptible to low-flows. If Reading exceeds its 5-year average monthly total water use by the end of May, June or July, it would be subject to flow-triggered restrictions, allowing hand-held hoses only during any low- DRAFT PROPOSAL FOR CONDITIONS APPLYING TO READING'S INTERBASIN TRANSFER .w flow period during the following month. If it exceeds the limits by the end of August, this would trigger Stage 2 bans -until the end of October. If it does not exceed its average use for the past five years, it could allow sprinkler use for up to four hours one day a week during low-flow periods. The existing Reading bylaw would govern use during periods when flows exceed 0.42 cfsm. The following chart highlights the months in yellow when Reading's water use exceeded the 5- year averages during the 2000-2004 period. While I have not included October statistics in the chart, if the proposed action date (August 31S) resulting in a Stage 2 ban, this would extend until the end of October. Reading stated in its continents that it agreed to implementing the ban through the end of October. 5-yr 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 avg May 31 1.87 2.01 1.93 2.39 2.01 2.04 Jun-30 2.04 206 1.92 2.24 2.12 2.06 Ju131 1.99 236 2.42 2.19 2.26 2.24 Aug 31 1.93 2.04 2.50 2.26 2.01 2.15 The effect of these trigger dates is similar overall to the mid-month dates originally proposed - they would each trigger the more stringent restrictions a little less than half the time, based on the last 5-years data. However; as noted above, there are additional advantages of the end-of-month trigger dates suggested here. May 31St trigger: 2.04 mgd or 63.24 million gallons total in May 1.04 mgd from MWRA 1 mgd limit from Ipswich sources June 30th trigger: 2.06 mgd or 125 mg by the end of June (two-month period) 1.06 mgd from MWRA 1 mgd limit from Ipswich sources July 30th trigger: 2.24 mgd or 195.5 mg by the end of July (three-month period) 1.24 mgd from MWRA 1 mgd limit from Ipswich sources August 31St trigger: 2.15 mgd or 263 mg by the end of August (four-month period) 1.15 mgd from MWRA 1 mgd limit from Ipswich sources Exceeding the May-July milestones triggers Stage 1 restrictions during low-flow periods; water use below the action levels would allow use of sprinklers one day a week during low-flow periods. Reading's existing restrictions would be in effect at other times. 0?4?00 0% Ili DR4FT PROPOSAL FOR CONDITIONS APPLYING TO READING'S INTERBASIN TPNNSFER Exceeding the August milestone triggers Stage 2 ban. Non-exceedence allows use of sprinklers one day a week during low-flow periods. Reading's existing restrictions would be in effect at other times. IRWA appreciates the hard work and perseverance of all involved in this case, and would welcome the opportunity to discuss this proposal with the WRC, its staff, and/or the Town of Reading's Selectmen and other officials at a mutually convenient time. IRWA reserves all its rights regarding the issues it has raised in the proceedings regarding Reading's interbasin transfer. Thank you for your consideration and patience with this challenging process. Sincerely, Kerry Mackin, Executive Director Ipswich River Watershed Association DRAFT PROPOSAL FOR CONDITIONS.APPLYING TO READING'S INTERB.ASIN TRANSFER 42 dy vat To: Reading Board of Selectmen From: Kerry Mackin, Ipswich River Watershed Association Re: Reading application for an interbasin transfer of water from MWRA. Date: April 18, 2005 Thank you so much for your decision to take action to improve protection of the Ipswich River, your consideration of IRWA's concerns, and your perseverance with what has been a challenging process. I received a request from a member of the Reading/North Reading Stream Team to provide some background information about the concerns that the Ipswich River Watershed Association has raised about the terms that will govern Reading's interbasin transfer of water fiom the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA). I have prepared this brief sununary, and would appreciate the opportunity to discuss these matters in more detail with you. As you know, I attended the March 15, 2005 Selectman's meeting, and was very heartened by the vote of the Board in regard to these issues. I understood the Board to state that it did not believe that withdrawing the application for an interbasin transfer was in the Town's best interests, and that: 1) 'the new water treatment plant should be designed so that it can be used flexibly (with reduced water volumes) based on flow triggers; 2) Reading should implement stricter controls on outdoor water use, including flow triggers; and 3) Reading should implement aggressive, effective water conservation measures I believe that your statements and vote were completely compatible with IRWA's position, and that it may be possible to come to an agreement on terms that would meet the Town's and IRWA's objectives, while complying with the statutory requirements. I hope that this discussion can take place within the next week, if possible. (Unfortunately, I have aboard meeting on Tuesday, April 19th and it is unlikely that I can get to the Reading Selectmens' meeting that night.) Background: The Town of Reading's wells have been identified as a significant factor causing flow depletion of the Ipswich River. The loss of flow results in death of fish and other creatures, impaired water quality, loss of critical aquatic habitats and biodiversity, dessication of protected wetlands, reduced water available for downstream areas and uses, and other environmental degradation and diminished values of the Ipswich River. Photos of the damage that occurs chronically adjacent to Reading's wells is shown on IRWA's web site at www.ipswicl-iriver.org/IpswichRiverPhotoAlbum.pdf. This situation diminishes the environment in Reading and all downstream communities. Reading proposed to purchase water from the MWRA to meet its long-term water supply needs and allow reductions in the use of its "streamside" wells during the May-October period. The proposal set forth in the Final Environmental Impact Report limits use of Reading's wells to 1 DRAFT PROPOS 2L FOR CONDITIONS APPLYING TO READING'S INTERBASIN TRANSFER 3C;NW1 million gallons a day (mdg) from May-October, and limits the purchase from MWRA to 219 million gallons a year, with an average purchase below 0.5 mgd. For more than a decade, the Ipswich River Watershed Association (IRWA) has spearheaded efforts to identify the causes and environmental impacts of the Ipswich River's extreme low-flow problems, and to identify potential solutions and work toward their implementation. Modeling by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) found that groundwater withdrawals are a principal cause of the depletion of flows in the river; and that "Reach 8" where Reading's wells are located is the most severely impacted section of the river. USGS also found that shutting Reading's wells off during low-flow periods would be highly beneficial to restoring adequate streamflows in the Ipswich River, resulting in continuous flow in "Reach 8." Reducing use of these wells by 50% would be somewhat beneficial, but would continue to result in pumping the river dry adjacent to the wells roughly every other year, rather than almost every year. The depletion of the river in the Reading area also results in diminished flows in all reaches downstream; and similarly, improving flows in Reading would benefit all the reaches downstream. Reading's water withdrawal is not currently regulated under the Water Management Act (WMA), as are those of many other communities, because Reading has a "registration" that in effect allows the Town to use the same amount of water that it reported in a baseline period from 1981-1985, without fin-ther regulation. Reading's original registration statement for 2.27 mgd was amended in 1991, increasing the volume of water that Reading was allowed to pump from its Ipswich wells to 2.57 mgd, based on certain raw water data presented by the Town. This information was the basis for allowing Reading to continue to pump the wells without a WMA permit. However, recent information submitted by the Town indicates that its raw water data is extremely inaccurate and unreliable. On this basis and because of the documented damage to the environment occurring adjacent to Reading's wells, IRWA believes that it cannot be assumed that Reading's withdrawals from its Ipswich River wells will continue to be allowed or unregulated in the future. Thus while the iinport of water from MWRA is not mandated, it reflects an acknowledgement by Reading that it needs to take action to stop the damage to the environment which its water withdrawals cause. IRWA commends this initiative. IRWA has repeatedly supported an interbasin transfer of water to Reading from MWRA, but has also consistently stated that a larger purchase volume would be necessary during drought years to avoid pumping the river dry. Once the new water treatment plant is operational, IRWA would be interested in working with the Town to identify a pumping plan whereby Reading could pump more water from its Ipswich River sources. during higher-flow periods, and less during low-flow periods. IRWA has also advocated improved water conservation measures in Reading, many of which have been successfully implemented during recent years, which IRWA has publicly praised. However, Reading continues to employ "odd-even day" restrictions on outdoor water use, which are not an effective approach to reducing lawn irrigation. Limiting water use to hand-held hoses/devices only during low-flow periods is an important water conservation approach to effectively limit non-essential outdoor water use. This provision is required of all other communities withdrawing water from the Ipswich basin under the WMA permits, so in the interest of equitable treatment, IRWA urges Reading to accept this requirement without exemption. This is the main issue in dispute at this time. DRIFT PROPOS 1 L FOR CONDITIONS APPL PING TO READINGS INTERBASIN TRANSFER 30 Conditions of Interbasin Transfer Approval: In 2004, the Water Resources Commission's WRC) technical staff drafted the terms of approval of Reading's interbasin transfer. These terms specifically included a limit on use of the Ipswich basin wells to 1 mgd from May-October, and mandatory prohibitions of sprinkler use during low-flow periods. The outdoor restriction including in the July draft interbasin transfer approval was the same condition that was imposed on every other community withdrawing water from the Ipswich River Watershed. These communities include a number of towns that have far less impact on the Ipswich River than Reading will continue to have, even after Reading imports water from the MWRA. Following negotiations with Reading town officials that occurred last summer and fall, the WRC staff amended the conditions of approval of Reading's interbasin transfer so that use of Reading's wells in October would not be limited to 1 mgd. The revised conditions also exempted Reading from flow-triggered outdoor water use restrictions. These conditions were approved at the December WRC meeting. However, IRWA and others filed a Petition for Rehearing, alleging that.the decision failed to meet the statutory and regulatory requirements of the Interbasin Transfer Act, and that the decision was based on ntunerous errors of fact, analysis and law. Subsequently, the WRC decision was declared null and void because it did not comply with MEPA, the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act. Recently, the conditions approving Reading's interbasin transfer have been redrafted (see attached). The new conditions limit use of the Ipswich wells from May-October, but allow Reading to exceed that limit one year out of five. IRWA believes that this provision continues to conflict with the MEPA requirement. In addition, the draft conditions include flow-triggered restrictions as required under the Interbasin Transfer Act regulations and performance standards (Condition 3). IRWA strongly supports this condition, and requests that the Selectmen adopt it without the exemptions contained in Condition 2. Condition #2 exempts Reading from compliance with the Condition #3 requirement almost all the time (85-100% of the time in a five-year period, based on 1999-2004 data). Flow-triggered restrictions are required under the Interbasin Transfer Act, and have been applied to all the other communities in the Ipswich Basin, including many with less impacts on the river than Reading. IRWA also believes the exemption in Condition 2 is so broad that it would not stand up to a legal challenge. Based on the discussion at the April WRC meeting, these issues are the main barriers that remain in reaching an agreement about Reading's proposed interbasin transfer. DRAFT PROPOSAL FOR CONDITIONSAPPLYING TO READING'S INTERB. SIN TRANSFER 3UGM5 Robert J. Silva Grief of Police 15 Union Street, Reading, Massachusetts 01867 Emergency Only: 911 All Other Calls: 781-944-1212 Fax: 781-944-2893 E-Mail: BSilva@ci.reading.ma.us r%I 8 yta ^v F3 Board of Selectmen CD Chairman Richard Schubert Q1 16 Lowell Street Reading, Mass 01867 Dear Mr. Schubert. April 14, 2005 Please accept my resignation as a member of the Human Relations Advisory Committee effective April 22, 2005. I want to thank the Board of Selectmen for allowing me the opportunity to serve on the committee. I would also like to thank the committee for all their hard work. It has been a pleasure working with these members and I wish them continued success in the future. Respectfully Yours, Robert J. Silva Chief of Police aa- ft b /C go( ( A, 54U MASSACHUSETTS WATER POLLUTION ABATEMENT TRUST Timothy P. Cahill, Chair April 8, 2005 Mr. Peter Hechenbleikner " Town Manager Town of Reading .p Town Hall 16 Lowell Street Reading MA, 01876 ca► Dear Mr. Hechenbleikner: I write to congratulate you on your selection for a State Revolving Fund (SRF) loan through the Massachusetts Water Pollution Abatement Trust. The Trust is a true success story, combining federal, state, and local resources to provide more than $2.9 billion in low-interest financing for Massachusetts water infrastructure projects. A joint effort of the State Treasury, the Executive Office for Administration and Finance, and the Department of Environmental Protection, I am proud to serve as Chairman of the Trust, and with Executive Director Scott Jordan; I am eager to ensure the success of your project. Successful financing of SRF-approved projects requires coordination between local finance staff, local project management staff, the Water Pollution Abatement Trust, and the Department of Environmental Protection. To better facilitate this coordination, we will be scheduling informational meetings at which WPAT and DEP will provide important information on the steps necessary to advance your SRF-approved projects and receive financing through our subsidized loan programs. We urge you to encourage both your project management and financial management personnel to attend one of these sessions, as information relevant to both of those roles will be provided. Your staff will be notified in a separate mailing of the schedule for these meetings. I look forward to providing support to your project. Through the Water Pollution Abatement Trust as well as the State Lottery, the School Building Assistance Authority, the Qualified Bond Program, and the Massachusetts Municipal Depository Trust, I have made support to local governments a core mission of the State Treasury. If you should have any questions or concerns, I am available to you at 617-367-6900. Ehy P. ahill nd Receiver-General, ur 9pll , Massachusetts Water Pollution Abatement Trust One Ashburton Place, 12th Floor, Boston, MA 02108 a Phone: (617) 367-3900 Fax: (617) 227-1773 R Reading Municipal Light Department j~/~ RELIABLE POWER FOR GENERATIONS 230 Ash Street P.O. Box 150 Reading, MAO 1867-0250 Tel: (781) 944-1340 Fax: (781) 942-2409 Web: www.rmld.com April 11, 2005 Mr. Joseph Duffy Selectman Liaison to the RMLD/ Member Subcommittee for the Payment to the Town of Reading Town of Reading 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867 SUBJECT: Reading Town Payment - Correction of Payment Month Dear Selectman Duffy: Z-%+~ I / (ISe / 215 APR 13 Am 9: 13 In my letter dated April 7, 2005 regarding the Reading Town Payment, it stated, "the first payment to the Town of Reading is due June, 2005". This is an error. The first payment will be made in July, 2005, not June. If you have any questions or comments, please contact me at 781-942-6415. Sincerely, i Yincept F. Ca ron, Jr. General Manager c: Citizens' Advisory Board Peter Hechenbleikner, Reading Town Manager RMLD Board of Commissioners Robert Fournier, Accounting/Business Manager 2 t,c CUs ~,oBUgti city of Woburn, Wassachusetts O u1 ~ o'~~QBPRRAS~~`6bry City Council City Hall 10 Common Street Woburn, MA 01801 April 5, 2005 P+3 S3 Reading Board of Selectmen ' Town of Reading Town Hall ~n 16 Lowell Street Reading MA 01867-2601 C3 Dear Members of the Board, C:) In a recent article appearing in the Woburn Daily Times dated March 18, 2005, it was reported that two members of your Board, Selectman Schubert and Selectman Anthony, along with Reading Planning Commissioner Barnes and a Reading citizen sent a letter to Governor Romney urging him to stop the sale of a parcel of land in Woburn owned by the MBTA. Ili the text of the letter it is stated that with "nearly 7 acres with significant frontage on I-95 and Mishuwain Road ...this site could be used to relocate the Washington/Mishuwam Interchange further 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". Earlier in the letter it stated that "At the last meeting of the Task Force on March 5, 2005, there was a general consensus among members as to the potential that the Mishuwam. station property offers." As the City Council of the City of Woburn we take exception to this letter on two grounds. First, the letter to the Governor implies that there is consensus among members of the I-93/I-95 Study Task Force regarding potential solutions to the interchange traffic issues. This task force, as you mention in the letter, is in the earlier stages of study. Therefore, we find it to be premature and divisive that Reading members of the study task force send communications regarding the interchange to the Governor's office. The primary goal of this tri-community task force is for affected communities to work together "to examine and propose ways to improve safety and traffic flow at the interchange while minimizing impacts in surrounding communities". The letter sent by a subset of the task force violates this goal. Secondly, we are taken aback that Reading officials would make recominendations to the Governor regarding a parcel in Woburn without discussing it first with the City of Woburn. As a community we are very concerned about future use and development of the MBTA site. The Woburn City Council, the Woburn Planning Board, the Mayor's 6a r Reading Board of Selectmen Re: I-93/I-95 Interchange April 5, 2005 Page Two office and MBTA officials have spent tremendous amounts of time discussing optimal uses for this site. Given its proximity to residential neighborhoods we are very concerned about potential negative impacts from development. From our viewpoint, the greatest negative impacts would arise from relocation of the Washington/Mishawum interchange to this location. There are too many neighborhoods in this area to even consider such a proposal. It is the opinion of the City Council of the City of Woburn that any and all recommendations for solutions to the I-93495 traffic problems be presented formally to the Study Task Force, and only after due process, be presented to Reading, Stoneham and Woburn officials for review. S' per ly, Paul A. Medeiros City Council President Alde7M~z Paul J. Large G James E. McSweeney Aldennan, Ward 2 William N. Booker Alderman, Ward 4 Th s L. McLaughlin "lderman, Ward 7 Gonsalves an-at-Large Alderman, Ward 3 O,dz~ Scott D. Galvin OFRF9~/,~, ~S y ~ Town of Reading h 16 Lowell Street s,9, o Reading; MA 01867-2685 1NC0tz4 FAX: (781) 942.9071 Email: townmanager&l.reading.ma.us April 21, 2005 Dana Henigar, Chairman Reading Ice Arena Authority, Inc. 24 Juniper Road Reading, MA 01867 Dear Members of the RIAA Board: TOWN MANAGER (781). 942-9043 Once again I want to thank you for your contribution to the Town of Reading pursuant to the agreement between the Town and the Reading Ice Arena Authority. This relationship between the Town and RIAA is an excellent one,. and one that many other communities want to model. We appreciate your ongoing support for the Town of Reading, as well as meeting your primary mission of providing an outstanding facility for the community. inc rely, Peter I. Hechenbleikner Town Manager PIH/ps Apr-20-05 02.36pm From- 7RC Customer-Focused Solutions April 20, 2005 Peter Hechenbleikner, Town Manager Town of Reading Town Hall 16 Lowell Street Reading; MA 01867-2601 T-811 P.02/02 RE: Notice of Implementation of Release Abatement Measures Under the MCA' Camp Curtis Guild, 25 Haverhill Street, Reading, MA MA DEP Release Tracking Number - to be determined Dear Mr. Hechenbleikner: F-399 n C Tj J,/ C On behalf of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Division of Capital Asset Management (DC,A and pursuant to 31.0 CMR 40.1403 of the Massachusetts Contingency Plan (MCP), TRC Environmental Corporation (TRC) has prepared this letter to infoim you of the implementation of a Release Abatement Measure (RAM) at the Camp Curtis Guild Rifle Ranges C & D Site located at 25 Haverhill Street, Reading, MA. The RAM that will be performed at this location involves excavation and treatment of soil containing metals contaminants including lead, arsenic, antimony and copper from an area that includes two former rifle ranges. Approximately 5,900 cubic yards of impacted soil will be treated and entombed unsite while approximately 39,000 cubic yards of material is re-graded to prepare the site for construction. TRC anticipates performing the excavation beginning on April 25, 2005. The work is expected to take approximately eight weeks to complete. A RAM flan, as required by 310 CMR 40.0440 of the MCP, is being provided to the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MA DEP) during the week of April 18, 2005. Also, the Project has obtained approval from the Lynnfield Conservation Commission to conduct this work at the site. If you have any questions concerning this letter, please do not hesitate to contact John O'Donnell, Deputy Director, DCAM at (617) 727-405, ext. 207. Sine rely, ~76 re Smyth, LS)•' Senior Project Manager CC. Trim Plunkett/DCAM BOOtt Mills SOUth, Foot of John Street • Lowell, Massachusetts 01852 Telephone 978-970-5600 . Fax 978-453-1995 Town of Reading, Massachusetts General Fund Revenues and Other Resources (Cash Basis) Month Ending March 31, 2005 Actual Variance Prior Year Current Year Favorable % Actual to . Actual Over (Under) Budget Actual (Unfavorable) Budget Year to Date Prior Year Revenues: Property taxes: Current 41,859,706 31,506,603 (10,353,103) 75.27% 28,467,802 3,038,801 Delinquent 151,945 151,945 161,896 (9,951) Deferred 36,293 (36,293) Tax liens 133,493 133,493 150,785 (17,292) Payments in lieu of taxes 230,000 124,900 (105,100) 54.30% 160,897 (35,997) Excise taxes . 2,700,000 2,465,518 (234,482) 91.32% 2,300,350 165,168 Penalties on taxes and excise 160,000 112,179 (47,821) 70.11% 117,391 (5,212) Charges for services 1,360,000 1,064,665 (295,335) 78.28% 884,414 180,251 Licenses and permits 60,000 71,493 11,493 119.16% 55,731 15,762 Special assessment 5,000 4,885 (115) 97.70% 6,389 (1,504) Fines 130,000 102,998 (27,002) 79.23% 87,898 15,100 Investment income: Unrestricted 525,000 748,735 223,735 142.62% 306,979 441,756 Stabilization fund 10,507 10,507 1,945 8,562 Intergovernmental: Medicaid reimbursement 75,000. 256,244 181,244 341,66% 256,244 State aid 11,617,950 8,921,975 (2,695,975) 76.79% 9,088,809 (166,834) Other 2,893 2,893 27,719 24,826 Total revenues 58,722,656 45,679,033 13,043,623 77.79% 41,855,298 3,823,735 Operating transfers and available funds: Cemetery sale of lots 47,737 47,737 100.00% 10,000 37,737 Sale of real estate funds 300,000 300,000 300,000 Reading Ice Arena Authority 107,256 107,256 100.00% 116,074 (8,818) Earnings distribution - light 1,894,829 1,894,829 100.00% 1,826,062 68,767 Abatement surplus 94,674 94,674 100.00% 201,820 (107,146) Reserved for debt service 150,000 (150,000) Certified "free cash" 1,203,000 1,203,000 1,203,000 Total operating transfers and available funds 3,647,496 3,647,496 100.00% 2,303,956 1,343,540 Total revenues and other resources 62,370,152 49,326,529 13,043,623) 79.09% 44,159,254 5;167,275 ~y Town of Reading, Massachusetts Enterprise Funds Revenues and Other Resources (Cash Basis) Month Ending March 31, 2005 Variance Favorable % Actual to Budget Actual (Unfavorable) Budget Water Fund Revenues: Charges for services 2,889,732 2,349,878 (539,854) 81.32% Earnings on investments 20,000 15,119 (4,881) 75.60% Accrued interest 551 551 Water main (Johnson Woods) 187,000 187,000 MWRA buy-in (Walker Brook) 202,000 202,000 Total revenues 3,096,732. 2,754,548 342,184 88.95% Operating transfers and available funds: Water surplus Total revenues and other resources 3,096,732 2,754,548 (342,184 88.95% Sewer Fund Revenues: Charges for services 4,046,823 2,631,143 (1,415,680) 65,02% Earnings on investments 10,000 19 (9,981) 0.19% Special assessments 10,000 20,878 10,878 20878% Sewer Ill (Walker Brook) 25,534 25,534 Sewer Ill (Walker Brook) 57,048 57,048 Total revenues 4,066,823 2,734,622 1,332,201 67.24% Operating transfers and available funds: Sewer surplus Total revenues and other resources 4,066,823 2,734,622 1,332,201 6724% a9 ~ Ilao r.S 0 N LL C/) W CO J Q CD ..1 LL O V z r~ V L NrLO000U) 00rrrrr ' ' V- 4) O 00 00 00 N '-t' ) LC) LC) LC) 1` U ) U ~ ~ t-- co to ItNC'0 73 coC~MC~cMCM M i- O M 00 (3) rl r td t0 p 00 h- CO L7 L17 O) Il d Cf C1 ct It d' "t %t "I l E f T- 69. 6F3 H9' 69 69 69. 69. 69~ 69 69 6px N Q 4 d 00 O LO N O LO 00 LO U) LO Ln LO > It CC) CO CO M O r ct d' "t "t It LO 00 LO 1` O O m co CO Cfl cc Co N C6OrOC6Cio O 69 N Co d' Lo Lo I 10 1.600000 a) 1` t-- r r- ti 64 VI- Q ~ 69- e9- 10 U 0!9~ 69~ 69 69 69.69 O U 00 r Co 1` 00 0 L6 co ti 0 U') Ct m m CO ti O V- N It d 0 M W T- N 00 rn It co 1- CO C (D M69. T-~-~ LO r 11~ 69 69 69 64 69- 69 Ch co co co Cv) Ch 00 co C+0 co m m M 00 CO Z3 co 00 00 00 00 00 m 00 00 00 00 00 00 0) C)) CU L6 L6 1.f) 1.6 L6 L6 d L6 L6 L6 LO LC) U) C)) ' 0 , . , fC m O m m m m 1- m m m rn rn C~ r. 4 0 69 0=1 V)} 64 69 69 0 64 69. e9- 69 64 63 LO G 69- r Q ~ L. y„co rN00 000COCOCOCD -t 4 mF-F N i v 0Nm LO LO LO LO LO LO > cq It 't 't It 3: E O > ^ C) o 0° ^oopOo Cr~j It It It 't o C) CO m ~I + O 00 CO r r r r r CD 0 0 0 0 0 v ,rrrrr E U ~t L > +Oe+O pO 0 0 0 0 d N LC) .a . V r C v r co O N r p 0 ==2, viCvj006NC O mIt r :co Co-~ ,1 C~ O ] N 1.6 It C'5 (D m iD = co co 1- ti T . . (v L- M 1.f) M L6 1.n LO , M M L6 M 1.f) LC) r O C O V MMC+'iCMC9C6 0 chMcyiC7ciCvi 0 p 000 00 00 00 00 00 LO mw 00m000o L6 r 0= Q ~ L V CU (D a) L Q u c _ U) E C ~ O 0 Q tO > U L- N Q 'i -0 :3 O - Qc)OZLl . ca C LL <:2--) I- ~ C~-4 1-leas ~ED STq jFs A \ You to Attend 7 Public Information MeetingT '9L pROIEG to discuss the. Multiple Source Groundwater Response Plan Remedial Investigation Report for the Industri-Flex Superfund Site, Operable Llnit 2 including the Aberjona River Study Area Thursday, April 28, 200 7:00 to 9:00 p.m. at the Malcolm White Elementary School; 36 Bow Street, Woburn The meeting space is fully accessible. Should you have special needs or questions about the meeting, please contact Angela Bonarrigo at 617-918-1034.. 4