SHARON WATER MANAGEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE (WMAC) MEETING MINUTES FOR APRIL 15, 2004
Prepared by Paul Lauenstein
Present at meeting:
WMAC Chairman Rory McGregor; WMAC members Michael Birschbach, Richard Mandell, Jack Sulik, Roger Thibault, Len Sekuler and Paul Lauenstein; DPW Superintendent Eric Hooper; Conservation Agent Greg Meister; Conservation Commissioner Kathy Roth; Lake Management Committee Chairman Cliff Towner; Sharon High School senior Jeffrey Staruski, citizen Alice Cheyer. and Peter M. Thibodeau, PhD, PG, PH, Senior Hydrogeologist of ESS Group, Inc. of Sandwich, MA.
Summary of Minutes for the 4/15/04 WMAC Meeting
Review the minutes of the March 18, 2004 Meeting.
The minutes of the March 18 meeting were not approved pending resolution of objections by Jack Sulik and Eric Hooper.
Presentation by ESS on well site screening process for five potential well sites.
Peter Thibodeau presented ESS’s findings, which were accompanied by an audio-visual presentation and a written report.
ESS recommended the NSTAR property on Canton Street as the site with the most promise, with the MBTA property on Maskwonicut Street as first alternate. ESS did not recommend the other three sites.
Roger Thibault, co-chairman of the well site selection subcommittee, recommended further investigation at Canton Street and the Gobbi property.
He made a motion to this effect, which passed unanimously.
3) Schedule the next meeting for Thursday, May 6 at 7:30 PM and subsequent meeting for Thursday, May 20 at 7:30 PM.
Detailed Minutes for the 4/15/04 WMAC Meeting
Review the minutes of the March 18, 2004 Meeting
The minutes of the March 18 meeting were not approved pending resolution of objections by Jack Sulik and Eric Hooper.
Jack Sulik objected to the inclusion of the four appendices in the March 18 minutes on the grounds that, although they had been referenced in the meeting, they had not actually been circulated at the meeting. Paul Lauenstein explained that he included them as a convenience to the reader, and pointed out that there was precedent for this with the nitrate graphs in the January 22 minutes. Michael Birschbach offered to check Robert’s Rules of Order to see if including appendices and/or other exhibits is acceptable.
Eric Hooper objected to characterization of his comments on water levels in the Upland Road tank and replacement of the Pond Street water main as definitive, when he intended them as conditional. Paul Lauenstein said he tried to be accurate and objective when writing the minutes, and would try to be more observant of such distinctions in the future.
Eric Hooper also said that he did not intend to mislead the committee in reporting the results of the model regarding flow through 6” pipe versus 10” pipe on Morse Street, with the Massapoag Ave. tank full and the Hampton Road tank empty, which showed no significant difference in flow. He challenged Paul Lauenstein’s pressure gradient assumptions in claiming there would be a significant flow difference, and asked how Paul Lauenstein could rule out a zero or negative pressure gradient, given multiple pathways for water to reach the Hampton Road tank. Paul Lauenstein responded that he assumed water would always flow downhill from a full tank to an empty one, which would rule out zero or negative pressure gradients in the Morse Street pipe.
Greg Meister said that reporting what was said in a public meeting was fair game to be included in the minutes.
Alice Cheyer said the minutes of the WMAC are generally well written and thorough relative to those of other committees. She suggested that those who would like to make changes should be prepared to offer specific alternative wording.
Paul Lauenstein said that some town committees have been criticized for failure to post the minutes of their meetings in a timely fashion. He said waiting a month until the subsequent committee meeting for approval would be less than satisfactory.
Rory McGregor proposed that the minutes be circulated to all committee members via email to solicit input prior to posting on the town web site. Paul Lauenstein agreed to do that.
Rory McGregor also requested that the four appendices challenged by Jack Sulik and Eric Hooper be stricken from the March 18 minutes. He offered to work with Eric Hooper to come up with alternative wording for passages in the March 18 minutes to which Eric Hooper had objections.
Presentation by ESS on well site screening process for five potential well sites.
Eric Hooper explained that the DEP’s site screening process is a systematic approach to selecting a well site that will help the town avoid investing large sums of money on pump tests at sites that can be ruled out in advance by the site screening process. He mentioned that ESS submitted the lowest bid ($4,800) to perform the site screening evaluation.
Peter Thibodeau then presented ESS’s findings, which were accompanied by an audio-visual presentation and a written report.
The site screening was done using MA DEP’s forms and past boring log and hydrogeological testing data. Five sites selected by the town were evaluated:
• Blair Circle
• Gobbi’s property
• Briggs Pond area
• MBTA site at Maskwonicut Street
• NSTAR site at Canton Street.
These sites were evaluated for their potential to yield at least 200,000 gpd.
They were evaluated for sensitive receptors within a 1,000 foot radius. Sensitive receptors include:
• Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs)
• Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (NHESP)
• priority habitat for rare and endangered species
• surface water such as lakes, streams, ponds, and vernal pools
• National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit sites
They were also evaluated for potential threats within 1/2 mile such as:
• hazardous waste sites
• wastewater treatment facilities
• combined sewer overflows (CSOs) or sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs)
• landfills
• agricultural uses
• junkyards
• industrial parks
• petroleum storage facilities
• public water withdrawals
• private wells
Streamstats was used to evaluate impacts of new wells on nearby streams at three sites, but two sites (Briggs Pond and Gobbi) are in the Taunton River watershed for which Streamstats analysis is not available. The impact of a new well on stream flows at each of these two sites was evaluated using methods in the MA DEP site screening worksheet. ESS estimated contributing drainage areas, 7Q10 streamflows, and August median streamflows.
General site hydrogeology and potential to provide at least 200,000 gallons daily were studied for each site using existing reports and well log data.
Site access was also weighed as a factor.
Kathy Roth expressed concern that proposed withdrawals of over 200,000 gallons daily would have a great impact on small streams nearby. Eric Hooper added that since Sharon is higher than the surrounding towns, its streams are mostly small, first order streams which would suffer a greater proportional impact from a nearby municipal well than larger streams. He said he gave ESS a 200,000 gpd threshold because a well smaller than that is not financially viable.
Peter Thibodeau commented that withdrawals in excess of the 200,000 gpd threshold at each of the five sites would exceed the 7Q10 cfsm of nearby streams, and therefore increase the duration and frequency of low flow (i.e. have an adverse environmental impact) in a nearby stream or pond.
Peter Thibodeau then proceeded to discuss each of the five sites individually, as follows:
Blair Circle
Although there appear to be no DEP-identified receptors within the 1,000’ perimeter, there is NHESP priority habitat at the northwest edge. The only potential threat identified is an industrial complex in the Zone I of the proposed site, which could pose a threat due to septic effluent.
Poor access was cited as a problem.
Eric Hooper pointed out that wetland south of the target zone could pose a problem. Richard Mandell asked if there were any data to indicate whether or not a confining layer might insulate a future well from the wetland. He also asked if the depth of permeable strata were known at this site.
Peter Thibodeau said although some data exists, it is difficult to answer these questions conclusively without boring an exploratory test well. Eric Hooper suggested that spending up to $15,000 per site to bore test wells would not be a prudent use of Water Department funds, and recommended that exploratory test wells should only be drilled at two of the five sites.
The nearest stream is approximately 1,320 feet away. Proposed withdrawal, although greater than the 7Q10 cfsm of the stream, is less than 50% of the August median flow.
The 1987 IEP report indicates high transmissivities at this site.
ESS finding: The Blair Circle site was rated NOT FAVORABLE because of the nearby industrial buildings, poor site access and potentially harmful impacts on nearby streamflow.
b) Gobbi Property
Like the Blair Circle site, there are no DEP-identified receptors within the 1,000’ perimeter. However, Peter Thibodeau noted that there are 0.13 acres of agricultural land on the northwest edge of the 1/2 mile perimeter.
Site access is good, and except for I-95 which cuts through the western side of the 1,000’ perimeter, there is little development nearby. The proposed withdrawal (0.12 cfsm) is more than the 7Q10 (0.037 cfsm) and approximately equal to 50% of August median flow (0.117 cfsm).
Roger Thibault commented on the proximity of the nearest stream, which is only 200’ from the site.
Peter Thibodeau said aquifer test results obtained from two exploratory test wells drilled in the vicinity by GZA were not promising, and noted the threat posed by the nearby highway.
Richard Mandell asked where the two exploratory test wells were drilled and how deep they went. Eric Hooper said one was along South Walpole Street just west of I-95. The other was beside Old Post Road beside a cranberry bog. They were both drilled more than 1,000’ from the site. Eric Hooper said they were each about 40’ deep.
Alice Cheyer asked about the likelihood that soil conditions could be significantly different at the site, given the distance between the two test wells and the site. She emphasized that the committee is looking for an unbiased, objective opinion. Peter Thibodeau repeated that the GZA results were not promising, but he allowed that conditions could be different at the actual site.
Roger Thibault pointed out that the 1987 IEP report indicates very good local transmissivity at the Gobbi site, and commented that the ESS document itself cites the IEP report as an indication that site hydrology could support the proposed withdrawal.
Richard Mandell asked about the direction of sub-surface flow at the site. Eric Hooper said the Gobbi property lies near the top of a watershed, and that groundwater at the site drains south toward the Taunton River.
Michael Birschbach asked Peter Thibodeau if he had walked the site himself. Peter Thibodeau said that he had not done so, but that he had studied aerial ortho photos, boring logs and topographical maps.
Richard Mandell asked if poor results at the South Walpole Street test well site could be attributable to fill from construction of I-95. Eric Hooper said that site was unaffected by fill from the highway.
ESS finding: The Gobbi site was rated NOT FAVORABLE because of the GZA test well results indicating poor hydrogeologic conditions, and the potential for adverse environmental impacts on nearby streamflow.
Briggs Pond/Puds Pond area near Mountain Street and Bay Road
Peter Thibodeau explained that his site is all NHESP priority habitat. There are 26.5 acres of ponds within a 1,000’ radius from the site, which is only 100’ from Briggs Pond. Site access is good. Like all five sites, 7Q10 is lower than the proposed withdrawal, but 50% of August median flow is slightly more than the proposed withdrawal. There are 11 acres of agricultural land within 1/2 mile of the site.
Roger Thibault asked if priority habitat and the presence of endangered species are weighted equally in evaluating a site. Peter Thibodeau confirmed they are.
Jack Sulik noted that private wells in the vicinity are a concern.
ESS finding: The Briggs Pond site was rated NOT FAVORABLE because of NHESP priority habitat, proximity to surface water, and poor soil transmissivities based on data in the 1987 IEP report.
MBTA property at Maskwonicut Street
Peter Thibodeau cited a number of problems at this location:
• The Zone II of a well at this site would overlap with the Zone II of Well #4.
• Nearby Beaver Brook is a stocked trout stream.
• Ponds cover 1.9 acres within the 1,000’ buffer zone.
• Three vernal pools are located just over 1,000’ to the northwest.
• There are 12.4 acres of agricultural land and 3.8 acres of industrial property within 1/2 mile of the site.
• Deposit of coal fines could lead to heavy metal contamination.
• Increasing nitrate levels could threaten this site in the future.
• Proposed withdrawals exceed both 7Q10 and 50% August median flow.
• There is a NPDES permit site within 1/2 mile of this location.
Site access is good. The 1987 IEP report indicates soil transmissivities are generally good, but highly variable at different depths.
Michael Birschbach pointed out that there are train tracks running within just a few hundred feet of the well site, which is a risk factor.
Roger Thibault asked where the coal fines came from. Eric Hooper said they were discovered during a routine perk test, and the one-foot thick deposit probably dates back to the early 1900’s. Roger Thibault asked if poly-aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) of the coal fines were tested. Eric Hooper said the tests did not indicate a problem.
Jack Sulik suggested that the coal fines could be removed.
Len Sekuler asked if the Maskwonicut Street site should be considered as a backup site to build a new well to replace Well #4 in case it fails. He raised the question of whether the Water Department should purchase the land with this in mind.
Eric Hooper answered that Well #4 is deep and he hopes it will last a long time. He said building a new well at Maskwonicut Street while Well #4 is still in service would not make sense, but he said there are other reasons for buying the Maskwonicut property. He said if a private developer builds a 40-B development there, it would probably involve a large number of dwelling units. On the other hand, if the Water Department purchased the land, it could limit development to just a few dwellings (such as a Habitat for Humanity site) or no dwellings at all.
Alice Cheyer asked whether the Maskwonicut Street site, if it were developed as a 40-B, would pose a potential threat to Well #4. Eric Hooper said it is downstream of Well #4, and would therefore pose no threat to it. However, effluent from a development at the Maskwonicut Street site could pose a threat to the Canton Street site.
Roger Thibault asked how big the Maskwonicut site is. Eric Hooper replied that it includes a 28 acre parcel and a 1.5 acre parcel. Roger Thibault said some of this land is within 200 feet of Beaver Brook and therefore is off-limits to development.
Greg Meister said there is still a significant amount of developable land even after setting aside land too close to the stream.
ESS finding: The Maskwonicut Street site, considered by ESS to be the second best of the five locations, was rated LESS FAVORABLE.
NSTAR property at Canton Street
This site was studied several years ago by Weston & Sampson as part of the evaluation process that led to the selection of the Islamic Center site. A test conducted then indicated a potential yield of 355 gpm (about 500,000 gpd).
Peter Thibodeau mentioned that there is a 1/3 acre agricultural site and a 9.5 acre industrial site within 1/2 mile of the proposed well site.
Access is good. Transmissivities are high. A nearby well at Knollwood Cemetery produces 500 gpm, indicating a productive aquifer in this area. As part of the Beaver Brook aquifer, nitrate contamination is a potential issue.
ESS finding: The Canton Street site, considered by ESS to be the best of the five locations, was rated FAVORABLE.
f) General comments about the five sites
Rory McGregor asked Peter Thibodeau if ESS recommends that Gobbi, Blair Circle and Brigss Pond be eliminated from further consideration. Peter Thibodeau acknowledged that ESS does not consider any of these three sites to be viable.
Rory McGregor pointed out that the two remaining sites are both in the Beaver Brook valley where a disproportionate percentage of Sharon’s water comes from already. He expressed concern that the town relies so heavily on one aquifer, especially since railroad traffic and increasing nitrate concentrations represent risk factors for the entire aquifer.
Eric Hooper commented on the surficial geology of the Beaver Brook valley, and said railroad tracks usually follow the lay of the land.
Roger Thibault said, as co-chairman of the site selection subcommittee, he preferred to focus on the Canton Street and Gobbi sites. He wanted more information on wetlands at the Canton Street site. He commented that studies by both IEP and USGS suggest a good aquifer at the Gobbi site in spite of the poor results obtained by the two GZA test wells.
Paul Lauenstein said even a small well at the Gobbi site might have disproportionate value. Due to the fact that the Gobbi site is upstream of most septic systems, nitrate levels might be very low, and serve to dilute water with higher nitrate levels from wells in the Beaver Brook valley.
Eric Hooper suggested reconsidering the Islamic Center well at the 200,000 gpm level, saying it might be better than the Canton Street site. He questioned whether the Atlantic White Cedar Swamp could ever be restored to its former habitat role, and if not, perhaps it should not be considered an impediment to building a well at the Islamic Center.
Paul Lauenstein mentioned the iron/manganese problem at the Islamic Center site. Eric Hooper said this only occurred at 600 gpm flows. Greg Meister countered that iron and manganese were in evidence at all flow levels.
Eric Hooper said iron and manganese showed up immediately in 2.5” test wells at Well #6, but took longer to appear in 2.5” test wells at the Islamic Center. Greg Meister said the important point was that the 2.5” test wells at the Islamic Center showed evidence of iron and manganese too.
Cost of further testing
Peter Thibodeau discussed the cost of the next phase of well site evaluation. He said a typical site would entail a 2.5” exploratory test well and a short-term aquifer yield test, together costing around $15,000 to $20,000.
He said he would recommend installing one or two such test wells and running the short-term aquifer yield test(s) at the Canton Street site. He said if these wells were located appropriately they could be re-used in the large scale pump test, which would save money.
He estimated that the full scale 8” pump test including permits, a site visit by a hydrogeologist, and a report would cost around $50,000 to $60,000. He said the $15,000 to $20,000 invested in the exploratory test wells would count toward the cost of the full pump test. He said it would be important to locate the 8” well properly so it would not have to be re-drilled at a different spot, and underscored the importance to doing the exploratory test wells to gain a better understanding of the underlying hydrogeologic structure.
Rory McGregor asked if the price would vary with the depth of the well. Peter Thibodeau said that would not make much difference, since the setup cost was such a large percentage of the total cost.
Roger Thibault and Jack Sulik both thought Peter Thibodeau’s cost estimates were too low. Jack Sulik thought the actual cost would be double Peter Thibodeau’s estimates.
Peter Thibodeau said contractors are hungry these days due to the economy, so prices have come down.
Roger Thibault said there is a long list of related items that will add greatly to the total cost of permitting a new well, such as a MEPA permit, Water management Act ENF, aquifer test plan, hydrologic analysis, geologist site visit, formal DEP site screening worksheet, order of conditions for pump test waste water disposal, Zone II delineation, local approvals, etc.
Greg Meister asked what the total cost to complete the pump test with all these additional items would be. Peter Thibodeau said he thought if everything went smoothly, the cost might be in the low six figures. He said if the pump test had to be repeated the total cost to approve the site might conceivably reach $500,000.
Rory McGregor asked Roger Thibault as co-chairman of the site selection subcommittee what he thought the next action should be. Roger Thibault replied that he would like to see an overlay map showing wetlands and the USGS-mapped high and medium yield aquifers in the vicinity of the Gobbi site. Peter Thibodeau generously offered to perform this extra task for the committee at no extra cost.
Roger Thibault said if favorable soils were mapped at the Gobbi site, he would recommend proceeding with a 2.5” exploratory test well there.
Peter Thibodeau said it would be more cost effective if the Water Department would complete test wells at both the Gobbi site and the Canton Street site concurrently so the equipment would only have to be sent to Sharon once for both jobs.
Eric Hooper and Rory McGregor both thought separate bids for each site might be necessary. Eric Hooper said he would check with the Selectmen.
Jack Sulik said it might be less expensive for Sharon to contract directly with the driller instead of going through ESS. Peter Thibodeau recommended D. L. Maher and Sullivan as two reliable drilling contractors.
Rory McGregor asked if the drilling could be completed before the next WMAC meeting. Eric Hooper said it would probably take two months. Jack Sulik recommended that drilling be delayed until results of water quality testing of samples from the cemetery well have been reviewed.
Roger Thibault agreed to wait for these water quality test results, but requested that Eric Hooper begin immediately to make arrangements for the exploratory test wells so work can begin promptly once the water quality test results have been reviewed.
Eric Hooper requested clarification of the specifics of the work to be performed, suggesting one to two test wells with split spoons every 1 to 2 feet to evaluate substrate, a short term yield test, FE/MN and nitrate analyses, and a final report.
Peter Thibodeau and Roger Thibault both thought substrate samples every five feet would be satisfactory.
Peter Thibodeau said a hollow-stem auger would be preferable to a drive-and-wash approach. Eric Hooper recommended leaving that up to the contractor.
Paul Lauenstein requested that the WMAC be notified of the date and location of the drilling in case any members would like to observe and learn.
MOTION: Roger Thibault moved to recommend to the Selectmen that exploratory testing at the Gobbi and Canton Street sites proceed pending preparation of an overlay map for the Gobbi site and water quality testing at the Canton Street site.
This motion passed unanimously.
3) Schedule the next meeting for Thursday, May 6 at 7:30 PM and subsequent meeting for Thursday, May 20 at 7:30 PM.
| 
