Shutesbury Board of Selectmen Meeting Minutes May 1, 2007 Members present: Chairman Rebecca Torres, Debra Pichanick and Ralph Armstrong. Also Present: Town Administrator David C. Dann and Leslie Bracebridge, recording. Meeting opened at 7:15 P.M. Select Board Action Item #1: The Select Board unanimously voted to: * Accept the March 1, 2007 meeting minutes as written. * Tabled approval of the March 20, 2007 meeting minutes until the fact finding type of challenge is clarified by Town Counsel. * Accept the March 24, 2007 meeting minutes as written. * Accept April 3, 2007 meeting minutes as written. * Accept the April 10, 2007 meeting minutes as written. * Accept the April 17, 2007 meeting minutes with the substitution on page 3 of “ICS – 300” for “M – 300.” Appointments Police Chief Harding was not present tonight due to his participation at a RAD class. At 7:30 P.M. Selectmen met with Hydro Geologist Jesse Schwalbaum, Board of Health (BOH) Chairman William “Bill” Elliott, Planning Board Chairman Deacon Bonnar and Planning Board members Carole Mizaur, Jeff Lacy, Jim Aaron, David Kittredge and Steve Bressler to continue the discussion started on April 18 of the hydrogeology report of the town center area commissioned of Jesse Schwalbaum by the Planning Board. Also present: Community citizens Steve Puffer, Al Springer, Hugh Harwell, Christian Frederiech and Andrea Darby-for a short period of the discussion. Becky: Requested clarification of the discrepancy of allowable parts per million (PPM) of nitrate concentration in ground water versus drinking water: Jesse and Bill in agreement: The 10 PPM standard for nitrate is for drinking water. When ground water tests are done, 5 PPM serves as a trigger for requiring more frequent testing because results can fluctuate. Hugh: Is the application of that standard for private or public water supplies? Jesse and Bill in agreement: For both, though it is not required that private wells be tested. The regulations are developed by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) for municipal wells. The DEP does not have jurisdiction over private water wells. Bill: It is left up to the local Boards of Health to decide if they will require the same standards for private wells as DEP requires for municipal wells. The model Jesse used has a Title V calculation pertaining to the average nitrate concentration in the ground water and states explicitly that a concentration of 5 PPM is the maximum nitrate level for ground water. Becky: How does a random shape of land affect that calculation? Bill: The calculation applies to a single lot with onsite well and septic system and has to do with the amount of nitrate allowed to be put into the ground by the septic system. In Zone II of a municipal water supply, nitrate concentration would be primarily due to a septic system. There are many other sources of nitrate. DEP went to a massive amount of effort to calculate the amount of nitrate that would be discharged into an area from various sources. Title V considers that the only source of nitrate is the septic system. Hugh: The Zone II concept referred to is pertinent to a public water supply – the protection area around a public water supply head. Bill: The calculation also factors in the water (and nitrates) from precipitation which is added to the sum total. The water dilutes the nitrate coming from the other sources. For the purpose of nitrogen loading, the nitrate concentration from septic systems is considered to be 35 PPM. In reality nitrate concentration in septic tank effluent varies widely based on types of actual household use. Septic systems are designed based on an average factor of 55 gallons of water used per person per day, 110 gallons per day per bedroom. With septic systems you have to consider the worst possible scenario, not the average. The Board of Health cannot control the number of persons per households. The BOH follows Title V and can allow a deed restriction. Jeff: How far do we take this model without further testing and calibration? Ralph: Following up on Jeff’s comment; likes data provided by models, but how do we calibrate the model to make it applicable to our area however we define it? Hugh: The aim is toward practical application. A 3rd dimension to consider is depth, the total soil volume. If you did a million sample points and tested and averaged you could come out with an average at that level the tests were drawn from. The natural reality of soil is that there will variations horizontally and vertically and different conditions in the bedrock. We have both shallow and bedrock wells. If the model is saying nothing definitive about depth, that’s unrealistic. We need to get actual well data from existing and future wells. Debra: Questions if the bacteria cannot survive 30 feet or deeper. Bill: The question of bacteria is a very good. The BOH and DEP do two types of well water tests: total chloroform bacteria and nitrates as indicators. Nitrate is a product of septic system behavior. There are various forms of nitrogen excreted by people. Once the septic system effluent enters the ground it enters the bio-mat that takes care of bacteria and nitrogen, with nitrate being the final form entering the environment. If the BOH sees nitrate concentration increasing, they know there is a problem. Other sources of nitrates include lawn fertilizer where well head is not adequately protected. Becky: If 5 PPM in the ground water is the DEP trigger standard for municipal wells, and the concentration in the well itself is 10 PPM, at what point must action be taken? What is the best way to determine if there is a problem? Bill: There are a couple of problems with the model. The mass balance approach is a steady state approach that does not incorporate time. It assumes that nitrate comes in and gets distributed uniformly. When a well draws water, it draws more water in from another area due to hydrostatic pressure. The DEP has done some modeling and they are not comfortable assuming that there is isolation. Even in a deep rock wells, water is coming from somewhere. The problem is of steady state versus transient behavior: Take 100 samples now and 5 years from now it can be increased because the septic systems are adding nitrate into the water, unless the effluent is being carried away. It’s not safe to assume that just because it is safe now that the concentrations will always be safe. Jesse has done a terrific job. Issues raised are very broad and very pertinent to Shutesbury because without municipal sources of well water and sewage treatment, we are very tied to our water. Jeff: Jesse did a very conservative job for the Planning Board and one assumption he made was that soils were till and he designed the model based on the lowest penetration, only 4 inches of the 44 inches of rainwater per year would enter the ground. Part of calibrating the model might be a study of the soils in the town center. Jeff referenced the Franklin County Soil Survey book of soils, listing their percentages in the town center area and their permeability rates. He said, “That requires further calibration.” Bill: Referenced the Franklin Regional Council of Governments map of Shutesbury soils grouped by septic tank limitations produced in the Master Plan process. A large part of Shutesbury has severe limitations for septic systems. Bill: has contacted the Soil Conservation Services regional engineer seeking assistance; they are the experts. (The map is based on the Franklin County Soil Survey report that Jeff referred to.) The relationship between rainfall, water in the ground and septic tank effluent dilution is not on the map, nor is it in the Franklin County Soil Survey book. Bill: believes there should be a way to make use of the site specific test data obtained from conventional percolation tests for septic systems. They are soil evaluations for high ground water level, based on soil discoloration and soil transivity as measured by how long it takes for soil to absorb water in minutes per inch (perc rate.) Septic systems cannot be installed if the rate is greater than 60 minutes per inch. It may well be that conditions in Shutesbury warrant a modification of the soil evaluation tests. Bill: Use of soil evaluation data by the BOH: The BOH has a federal grant to develop a septic system management model for western Massachusetts. Some parts of the model are still being worked on. It may be consistent with Jesse’s report. Jesse: Where to go from here? His nitrogen loading analysis is conservative. If he had a lot of numbers it’s possible he could cut the nitrogen concentration in half. More field data could get better results. We could have a permeable upper layer and then the water just sits there. He used a precipitation infiltration of 4” per year; that could be 8. Samples could be taken from all the wells in the town center and the results averaged, although the wells are mostly in bedrock and we’re looking at upper area. We could do test pits and take samples from the average field. We could average nitrate concentrations right under septic systems and 10 feet away. Jeff: The map shows severe limitations for a large part of Shutesbury. If you read through the soil book it leads you to believe you can’t do anything anywhere. The town center soil is the same as Old Orchard Road area and there was no problem “percing” there. Water does not run off, it sinks in. They tried to dig a shallow well and went down 18 feet and got no water. Jeff cautions about the severe category. Hugh: endorses that. High clarifies details of language: Transvisity, percolation rate and infiltration rate all the same? Jesse: Take transivity out. The percolation rate and the infiltration rate are the same flow rate of water in saturated soil. Another purpose of the “perc test” is to determine the depth to bedrock. There must be 4 feet of naturally occurring soil between the system and groundwater. The soil conservation service formulated the soil surveys primarily for agricultural purposes. They were then applied to other purposes. Hugh: Served on the MV Commission with very good engineers working on the very same issues: Engineers said “be careful” because once nitrate is in the groundwater, it does not transfer chemically. It is a threat to human health at a concentration of 10ppm. Dilution is the solution. Rainwater availability is important; plants take it up but not below the root zone. If it comes out into a wetland or stream channel it will be taken up by algae or plants might even produce a useful product to harvest. It takes good technical design to accomplish that. A standard well will create a cone shaped depression. The ground water table deflects downward when the well draws water out in an effective radius of plus or minus 150 feet, so don’t put any septic system systems within 150 feet. The DEP standard is 100 feet and is not adapted to variable geologic or soil conditions; it’s a uniform standard. Whether you have a safe well is entirely different. David Dann: Does the BOH grant provide for testing private wells? Bill: Yes, except homeowners have to pay about $30 for lab analysis. A lot of septic systems are within 150 and 100 feet of wells. With high density the DEP says 50 feet is the absolute minimum. Any wells between 50 and 100 of a septic system are required to have annual testing. Annual testing is difficult to enforce. Becky: Can we take advantage of town meeting to put out information to get testing of town center area wells? Bill: The total cost for the two tests is $30. Becky: How deep would you dig to do test wells? Jesse: A hard and fast rule to get to the water table is 10 – 15 feet; bedrock is 30 feet. Testing the middle 10 to 15 feet would be fairly inexpensive”: thousands of dollars. You’d need some kind of technical support hydro geologist saying where to drive the test wells. The sampling at $30 is not so bad. You would need someone qualified to get a handle on the actual infiltration rate: have do that kind of thing; he suggests a graduate student at UMass. Infiltration has to do with the slope of the ground. That’s a big factor in this calculation. Becky: That’s the number that could cut this nitrate concentration in half. Bill: Procedures for putting in a monitoring well are specified by DEP: drive a 2 inch pipe into ground with a screen, taking water from a known depth. There are various ways of taking a sample once given time for the water to stabilize. When the large septic system was installed at Wyola Park the BOH required monitoring wells down gradient from that septic system. The Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) is also required to take beach water samples at water edge. Bill takes samples further out and gets mixed results. Once or twice a year, DCR takes nitrate samples from the monitoring wells. Jeff: There is a shallow well on town common and deeper wells at the highway garage and town hall. Bill: The highway lavatory and the town hall kitchen taps were tested for more than the standard package last fall. Nitrate levels were not over 2. Analysis for organics, done regularly is $200 to $300. Bill: Tests from a monitoring well are done every several months initially, then back off to annual; things generally don’t change unless there is a source of contamination. Becky: How many monitoring wells would be needed to look at the study area? Jesse: Recommends screening wells, not monitoring wells. Screening wells are driven by a hydraulic hammer. They are not meant to last as long…a few years for a quick analysis. You would need at least 10 wells to show what is happening. If you find “hot spots” you put in some monitoring wells. Steve Bressler: It’s a little troubling using a model based on a municipal water supply in the proposed town center district. This could be a major expense based on these three variables. If we extended the perimeter it could have gone down to 4. This is expensive testing based on a lot of assumptions. It’s not quite adding up to warrant major actions. Becky: We’re trying to “zero in” on a way to follow up on if there is a cause for alarm and to be able to answer that question. The other question is quantity. Hugh: The town center district is the model; the tests can be run over again for whatever area we choose. The first area of concern is the concentration of development, the Town Center and at Lake Wyola. Check the drainage slope and soil conditions, and look at wetlands as well. Run the model and see if we need to expand the scope beyond the town center. The Planning Board recommends higher density in the town center and in cluster development on a spot basis. How would this whole issue be applied by the Planning Board in a review of those sub-division proposals? What kinds of investigation and data collecting would you ask the land owner when applying for a sub-division? Jeff: The Planning Board is watching this to see how it turns out and how it might affect 2, 3, and 4, family units and clustering. The Board could wait a few years to approve revisions. Jeff listed possible test probes to be done. Bill: The BOH has declined to take a position with respect to zoning and the distribution of residences except that there must be adequate infrastructure for wastewater treatment and drinking water. So far there are only onsite provisions for both. The BOH is responsible for wells and septic systems. Whether 12 testing wells would be convincing he’s not sure. Right now the BOH is relying on onsite wells and septic systems for data. Deacon: What do screening wells cost? Jesse: The last time he checked, drillers were charging $2-3 thousand dollars per day. Shutesbury could do ten wells in a day if they didn’t hit large rocks. Becky: Noted the time and thanked everyone for coming to the meeting. Topics 1. Annual Town Meeting motions will be rotated amongst the Select Board members. 2. The Select Board made no conclusive decision concerning Assessors lot M-30. Select Board Action Items 1. See approval of minutes at the start of these minutes above. 2. Selectmen signed vendor warrants totaling $43,509.01 and payroll warrants totaling $76,500.99 by unanimous consent. 3. Selectmen unanimously voted to sign a Chapter 90 Local Transportation Aid funding contract for Fiscal Year 2008 for $104,111.00, about $20,000 more than the previous year. New Topics 1. David distributed copies of the Power Point presentation concerning the Lake Wyola Dam for the Special Town Meeting and asked that any further recommendations be forwarded to Ralph Armstrong. 2. Finance Committee member Al Beswick sent a letter of resignation to Becky; she will contact Al. A motion was made, seconded and unanimously voted to adjourn at 9:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Leslie Bracebridge Administrative Secretary 070501 long Selectboard 1