Stow Conservation Commission
Minutes
November 16, 2010
A meeting of the Stow Conservation Commission was held at the Stow Town Hall,
375 Great Road, Stow, Massachusetts, on November 16, 2010 at 7:30 in the evening.
There were present: Rebecca Mattison, Chair
David Coppes
Ingeborg Hegemann Clark
Doug Moffat
Kathy Sferra
Absent: Helen Castles, Vice-Chair
comprising a quorum of the Commission; also
Patricia R. Perry, SCC Coordinator
Maureen Trunfio, SCC Secretary
The Conservation Commission meeting was called to order at 7:30 PM.
October 19, 2010 Minutes
Doug Moffat made a motion to approve the minutes of October 19, 2010 as drafted and amended. Kathy Sferra seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously.
Certificate of Compliance Request
Order of Conditions File No. 299-0454
109 Barton Road (U-2 #61)
Ingeborg Hegemann Clark reported that she had conducted a site inspection and based her review on the plan referenced in the order of Conditions and compared it to the As-Built Plan. She also reviewed the calculations regarding compensatory flood storage submitted with the request for a Certificate of Compliance. The garage appears to be as shown in the as-built plan, except that the As-Built Plan does not show the deck which was approved in the Order.
The compensatory flood storage was not constructed as proposed and conditioned in the Order. The plan accompanying the Order indicated that compensatory flood storage was to be constructed in the backyard. The calculations submitted with the request for a Certificate of Compliance make reference to compensatory flood storage being created by lowering the driveway. However, in comparing the topography of the proposed plan and the As-Built Plan, there appears to be no change in grades along the driveway or sideslope to the wetlands. The applicant has been asked to submit an As-Built that shows the new elevations along the driveway to ensure that an appropriate amount of compensatory flood storage was provided. The request for a Certificate of Compliance will be reviewed again at a future meeting once the
Commission receives the requested elevations.
Notice of Intent/Local Bylaw Hearing
Order of Conditions File No. 299-0490
Lake Level Drawdown
At 7:45 PM Becky Mattison opened the public hearing for a Notice of Intent subject to the Town of Stow Wetland Protection Bylaw filed by the Lake Boon Commission (LBC) to conduct an annual lake-level drawdown of Lake Boon for the management of aquatic vegetation. Mattison made the following statement regarding the public hearing:
This hearing is being conducted under the Stow Wetlands Protection Bylaw, which protects the following interests:~
~
Public and Private Water Supply
Groundwater
Flood Control
Erosion and Sedimentation Control
Storm Damage Prevention
Pollution Control
Fisheries
Shellfish
Wildlife (Wild Plants and Wild Animals)
Recreation
Performance standards for work in wetlands are listed in Section 5 of the Stow Wetland Protection Bylaw.
~
When this project was first heard, the Commission denied the permit under both the Stow Wetlands Protection Bylaw and the state Wetlands Protection Act as a result of lack of information.~ The Lake Boon Commission appealed the state denial to Mass DEP and appealed the Bylaw denial to Superior Court, where no action has yet occurred.
~
Under the MA Wetlands Protection Act, MA DEP issued a Superseding Order of Conditions allowing the drawdown with conditions, after additional information was provided to MassDEP staff by the Lake Boon Commission.~ That Superseding Order has been appealed and will be heard and addressed at a Pre-Screening Conference and Hearing on November 18th in the DEP Central Regional Office in Worcester.
~
The Lake Boon Commission has submitted additional information to the Conservation Commission with the goal of obtaining a local bylaw Order of Conditions and then withdrawing the appeal to Superior Court.
~
The process for the hearing will be that the Lake Boon Commission will provide introductory comment, and present the additional information.~ The hearing will then be opened to a presentation by the Lake Boon Groundwater Team and then to the general public. All persons must come to the microphone, give your name and address and direct all questions to the chair.~
The Commission will either continue this hearing to a later date if additional information is warranted, or will close the hearing tonight and deliberate on issuance of a decision.~ A decision is required within 21 days of the close of the public hearing.~ All deliberations will be conducted as part of a public meeting (versus a hearing) held and posted by the Commission.~ Once the hearing is closed, the Commission can not receive additional information.
~
Because there are a number of people here tonight, we request that you be concise and focused in your comments in order to allow everyone an opportunity to be heard.~ The Commission would also appreciate receipt of any comments in written format, if you have it with you.
~
Theresa O’Riorden, 12 Davis Road, spoke as the volunteer representative for the LBC and explained that the LBC found that Lake Boon was on the state’s list of endangered waterways and were able to receive a 319 grant. The LBC has put forth efforts with the residents of the lake to submit a total lake management plan. They have coordinated lake residents to work together on issues such as earth-friendly landscaping and bi-annual discounted septic pumping. They consider the drawdown the final piece in executing the total lake management plan.
After the Commission denied the first proposal for drawdown, the LBC revised their plans. The most significant of these revisions involved $10,000 pledged by the Lake Boon Association for mitigation for loss of well water. The new plan exhibits a strategy for bringing in water and storage tanks within 24 hours of a well going dry. The drawdown will be stopped if any well goes dry.
Another significant change in the revised plan was the proposal for a much slower drawdown--a change from the originally proposed 24 inches during first year to six inches during the first year, drawing down only three inches at a time. The new plan includes a voluntary well information poll conducted by LBC. They found 92 residents with shallow wells and 21 residents with deep wells.
The Conservation Commission asked if there are no problems with a six–inch drawdown will you still continue until a 40-inch drawdown is complete. O’Riorden answered by saying LBC would love to achieve 40 inches, but if at any point during the drawdown someone has problems with their well, the drawdown will be stopped immediately and boards will be reinstalled at 3 inches above the point at which the well went dry. She stated, “If residents do not want to dig deeper wells, we cannot force that.”
The Conservation Commission requested that O’Riorden read aloud some of the special conditions for Superceding Order of Conditions October 4, 2010 issued by Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) relating to the drawdown. There were no further questions from the Conservation Commission for the LBC.
Don Hawkes, 9 Dawes Road, representative for the Lake Boon Groundwater Protection Team (LBGPT), a group of 23 members of lake residents who have appealed the Superceding Order of Conditions issued by DEP, presented to the Conservation Commission. He stated that he is not unconditionally opposed to the drawdown but has concerns. He stated that the drawdown approach to weed management has been studied for 30 years and there is no proof that it is effective. The group is concerned about wildlife that may be affected and the potable water supply. After looking at both sides of the issue, LBGPT has come to oppose the drawdown.
Richard Bleau, 70 Pine Point Road, gave a summary of negative impact of the drawdown. He stated that he is pro drawdown but suggested that it might not be viable for an area with many shallow wells. He stated there are 94 shallow wells that could be affected. He cited a GEIR study from 2004 that stated draw downs on lakes with shallow wells in Duxbury, Westford and Pembroke were halted before completion. Full statement on record.
Susan Tamker, 132 North Shore Drive, summarized her concerns about the proposed contingency plan. Tamker stated support for the drawdown but not for the contingency plan as it now stands. She read quotes of, $7,000 for 5,000 gallons of water plus the cost of the tank and pipes, as the cost of providing a home with water. She cited additional costs such as forklift, excavation, installation and routine maintenance, cleaning of equipment before it is returned, etc. She mentioned that the customer must provide property insurance for the equipment. She questioned what happens if after 12 days the lake level does not rise. She also questioned whether the Conservation Commission will approve trenching if it proves necessary to pipe water to houses. She wanted to know who would incur the costs if wells go dry and the $10,000 has already been
spent. She questioned how the $10,000 would be replenished if it was fully spent during the first year of the drawdown. She also wondered who would determine if a well problem is the result of the drawdown. Tamker mentioned potential benefits for homeowners, aside from killing of weeds, such as the ability to perform wall repair/maintenance and removal of exposed weeds and shoreline debris. She listed many questions but mainly would like an answer to the question of who will pay for additional costs that have not been considered in the LBC plan. She stated clearly that the LBGPT does not support the contingency plan. Full statement on record.
Don Hawkes spoke again regarding the impact of the drawdown on wildlife. He claimed that the 2008 Notice of Intent (NOI) was completed based on the 2000 wildlife study before the GEIR. He consulted with the Fish and Game commission who stated that 40 inches would significantly effect wildlife. He felt the situation should be reported and submitted to the National Heritage Endangered Species Program (NHESP) and reference the 2008 map. He mentioned concern for fisheries, two active beaver lodges and address the possibility of underwater beaver tunnels freezing during a drawdown. He stated that the third and fourth basin were subject to protection. He questioned wither the NOI should have been submitted to Natural Heritage with reference to endangered species.
George Lord, 128 Barton Road voiced his concerns regarding the fact that when the lake was drawdown years ago, it was found to have carcinogens. He stressed the importance of realizing that there is a difference between lake water and ground water.
Daisy Dearborn, 34 Meeting House Lane #312, stood to state her concerns regarding guarantees that DEP supports the drawdown and supports the contingency plan. She has little faith that in the case of need DEP will actually be available to help.
Janet Stiles, 58 Pine Point Road, spoke to her opinion that the mitigation plan is not adequate. She stated that she felt an indemnity clause was needed to protect homeowners with shallow wells.
Thomas Winters, 208 Barton Road, relayed information that his cistern, located ten feet from the lake, took in air when the lake dropped two feet. His opinion is that this project seems like an experiment with a high risk-to-benefit ratio. The benefit, if successful, will be weed removal. If unsuccessful this could prove to be a public health risk. Full statement on record.
Laura Marseglia, 9 Hale Road, spoke and said that as a resident with a shallow well she is not sure of how she feels about the drawdown, but she did reside in Weston, MA during the recent MWRA problem that left them without water for over a week. She said it was a situation where everyone worked together to get through the week. She also mentioned that as a person with a shallow well on the lake, she never drinks water from her well.
Richard Lombardi, 206 Barton Road, reported that he has a shallow well and the Stow Board of Health (BOH) informed him when he purchased his house that he must test water and submit the results to the BOH on an annual basis. He questioned whether BOH would want water tests when there is no water.
Kent Seith, 11 Hale Road, President of the Lake Boon Association wanted to state that he wants people to have water and to enjoy the lake. However, he does have a concern that there is a risk and might be a loss of well function. He commended LBC on their fine work and the donation of their time. He feels that a drawdown at a rate of six inches per year, three inches at a time, is a good plan and he supports it.
Dan Walker, 95 Kingland Road, stated that he has been a resident since 1950 and wanted to say, “It’s a great pond: if you want a swimming pool, get a swimming pool.”
Barry Price, 22 North Shore Drive, stood to speak to the comment that “this project is an experiment.” He said that drawdown is an established practice throughout the country as a way to manage lake weeds. Reducing weeds is only part of what drawdown achieves, if carried out over a significant period of time it’s part of lake management and serves to flush out the water.
Conray Wharff, 16 Gately Ave., Hudson, MA, LBC Chair, addressed the point of well repair. He cited a well that had problems, the pipe was extended five feet and it was a simple fix. He wanted to remind people that this is the last piece of the puzzle regarding total lake management. He said that people realize that there’s no “silver bullet” that will solve weed problems in the lake, but everyone has worked together to come so far that it’s the last piece and he hopes it can be achieved. He reiterated that LBC understands that they may never get to a 40-inch drawdown. They may need to stop at 12 inches and that still counts as a drawdown and a total lake management plan. He noted that only one well has gone dry, to his knowledge, during the dry fall when wetlands and swamps had dried. He asked people please to
consider doing the right thing for the lake.
Allen Rogers, 72 Pine Point, stated that he has a shallow well and was very skeptical in the beginning, but after hearing all the comments he feels LBC’s plan seems like a reasonable approach. He stressed that his support is contingent upon the belief that there’s a plan to act quickly if problems occur. He also stated that he would like to see the town step up and add to the contingency funding.
Nancy Arsenault, 267 Red Acre Road, reporter for the Stow Independent, asked LBC when the drawdown was scheduled to start. She wondered why a drawdown would start in October when there are no freezing temperatures.
Theresa O’Riorden said It would begin in October and would be lowered six inches and stay that low until freezing weather occurred for a duration of 2-3 week, so that the weeds plus seeds would die.
Lori Hawkes, 9 Dawes Road, spoke of studies that cited a potential drawdown that would cost between $6,000 to $14,000 for monitoring and permitting costs. The Stow Selectmen approved $500 for monitoring. She stated that the year 2000 Lycott drawdown study is considered by some to be a feasibility study, it was mainly a tool for implementing drawdown. The Lycott study does not meet today’s standards using the current GEIR guidelines and NHESP. She also mentioned that photo monitoring was requested.
Ingeborg Hegemann Clark of the Conservation Commission replied that DEP asked only for photo monitoring points and that’s why there’s such a difference in cost.
Theresa O’Riorden spoke to address questions and concerns that had been raised during the open comment time. The first issue that she wanted to clarify was the thought that in the event of a well going dry, someone from the LBC would appear and determine if the failed well was a result of the drawdown. She wanted to be certain everyone understood that this would not be the case at all. LBC has intentions of showing up to help the homeowner: check for a loose gasket, check for a cracked pipe, etc.
She spoke to the question of monitoring costs. The Board of Selectmen (BoS) agreed to pay for costs of water samples, etc. because the Town supports the drawdown.
The discussion regarding digging trenches in order to pipe tank water to houses, O’Riorden explained, that would not be an issue because the process they use to pipe water to homes is to plumb the water into the house through an outdoor spigot. DEP, who has seen this done many times, has looked into this and they approve the method.
The question regarding the $10K escrow account being completely spent in the first year was addressed by O’Riorden explaining that before the drawdown could proceed the following year, the $10K would need to be replenished.
O’Riorden apologized for subitting the incorrect Natural Heritage map and said she was willing to resubmit information in accordance with the most current map.
She closed by explaining the the main reason that the drawdown needs to occur is because of the development of homes in and around the lake. Development leads to the heavy load of phosphorous that induces the weed growth. Left untreated, the lake will become heavily weeded.
Cheryl Wharff, 15 Gately Lane, Hudson, stood and stated her support for the drawdown. If the lake goes to weeds, homeowners values will go down, the town’s property tax revenue will decrease and the residents will not have the enjoyment they now have from the lake.
Ingeborg Hegemann Clark of the Conservation Commission questioned the LBC. She asked if you consider the impact of the drought from September and the water level is 5 inches below the board, how does that correlate if the LBC were to drawdown the first 12 inches?
Conray Wharff addressed this question. We often get complaints about high water in winter causing damage to docks, etc. Typically each winter one six-inch board is taken out. This year when we removed that six-inch board, the lake was down an additional 2 inches. Fort Meadow had dropped. By order of DEP the board has been replaced this fall and DEP has instructed us that the board cannot be removed this year.
Ingeborg Hegemann Clark spoke and said she was interested in the person who spoke regarding the BOH requiring tests for wells on annual basis. She wondered if anyone else had been asked for well tests?
Jack Wallace, Stow Board of Health Agent, stood and addressed the question regarding well testing on an annual basis. He explained that in instances where if a well is less than 100 feet from the septic leaching area, BOH requires homeowners to provide the BOH with an annual test of their drinking water.
Wallace stated the BOH’s support of the lake management program. When considering the risk vs. benefit, the BOH will continue to weigh that as this continues. The plan, from the BOH perspective, appears conservative and safe. He said throughout the process the BOH will continue to corroborate with the Lake Boon Commission, Highway Department, Conservation Commission and the Lake Boon Association. He said that citizens’ comments at the present meeting will be weighed heavily.
David Coppes of the Conservation Commission questioned whether any other wells had gone dry when the board was removed in anticipation of Hurricane Earl.
BOH was aware of the one well on Dawes Road that had gone dry when the board was removed earlier this year. Two other shallow wells reported having gone dry due to the drought. These other two wells were not directly on the lake. One was on Homestead Lane and one was on Sudbury Road. Well drillers from Massachusetts and New Hampshire have reported that many wells, including drilled wells, have gone dry this year.
Ingeborg Hegemann Clark of the Conservation Commission addressed the concern about the $10K being enough money to cover the cost of multiple homes. She cited the comment that if each home were to cost $7K plus additional expenses, how would a situation with multiple homes be financed.
O’Riorden said the whole idea of going slowly is that the LBC will be able to catch wells before they go dry. There should be signs such as low water pressure, air in the lines, etc. that will alert residents. In the event there is a problem, it should just be one well at a time. The way the two water companies explained the process is that one tank set up and installed could serve six homes along a half-mile stretch of road. The quote was $500 each time water is delivered to the tank. Both water supply companies assured O’Riorden that $10K should be plenty of money for this scenario.
She wanted to remind the public that if the LBC needed to do a chemical treatment in lieu of a drawdown, the next treatment would need to be a very large, very expensive chemical treatment within a few years. Conray Wharff added that at present LBC is holding off from the last major chemical treatment.
Ingeborg Hegemann Clark of the Conservation Commission asked if it’s accurate to say that it would take 12 days for the lake to return to “normal” depth when a board is replaced in the dam.
O’Riorden stated that Lycott Environmental reported an estimate of 2-3 weeks for the lake water to raise back to the point where a well was not affected. That was when they were talking about the original, more aggressive drawdown plan. LBC is hoping that with a six-inch drawdown, a well would come back much quicker than two weeks. Conray Wharff spoke and said that when the board was recently replaced it came up very quickly even with the drought.
Doug Moffat of the Conservation Commission stated that the Commission heard that the lake was already down.
Don Hawkes addressed statistics of the lake refilling after a board has been removed. In the LBGPT submittal provided to the Conservation Commission, Hawkes showed that it took up to 12 days for the lake to recover six inches of water after the board was replaced in the fall of 2010. He stated that this indicates that it could take up to 84 days for the lake to re-fill in the spring.
Ingeborg Hegemann Clark of the Conservation Commission asked Hawkes to confirm that he was stating that in 12 days the lake would rise approximately four to six inches. Hawkes confirmed.
Kathy Sferra of the Conservation Commission followed up on the expectation that a home would be without water for 12 days at the most and would have bottled water delivered within a 24-hour period. Sferra asked how long would it take to have a water tank system set up.
O’Riorden answered, “ As soon as possible.” Our paperwork says “within 48 hours”. She added her opinion that this fall could probably be considered an atypical year because of the dry conditions.
David Coppes of the Conservation Commission followed up by asking if the tank would then stay until the well recovers and O’Riorden confirmed.
Dave Siewierski,178 Barton Road, stood and said he understands the position of both the LBC and the LBGPT. He has sympathy for the residents with shallow wells but doesn’t want to see more chemicals going into the lake than necessary.
Becky Mattison, Chair of the Conservation Commission, asked if the Commission required any additional information. Ingeborg Hegemann Clark questioned if once the hearing closes, they could accept any further public comment. The Commission decided to allow written comments to be accepted by the Conservation Commission office by Noon on the following day,
November 17, 2010.
Doug Moffat made a motion to close the public hearing for the Notice of Intent filed for lake drawdown at Lake Boon with the acceptance of written comments to the Conservation Commission by Noon on November 17, 2010. Kathy Sferra seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously.
The Commission explained to the public the process that would occur. The Conservation Commission is required to issue a decision within 21 days. The next meeting of the Conservation Commission will take place on December 7, 2010. Residents can refer to the agenda, which will be posted online and at Town Building, to confirm at what time this issue will be discussed. This will be a discussion for the Conservation Commission only. There will be no audience comments permitted.
Kathy Sferra made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:25 PM. David Coppes seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously.
The Commission adjourned at 9:25 PM.
Resepectfully submitted,
Patricia R. Perry
SCC Coordinator
Maureen Trunfio
SCC Secretary
| 
