The Commonwealth of Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900 Boston, MA 02114 Charles D. Baker GOVERNOR Tel: (617) 626-1000 Karyn E. Polito Fax: (617) 626-1181 LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR http://www.mass.gov/envir Matthew A. Beaton SECRETARY

January 4, 2019

CERTIFICATE OF THE SECRETARY OF ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL NOTIFICATION FORM

PROJECT NAME : MWRA Water Connection PROJECT MUNICIPALITY : Burlington and Lexington PROJECT WATERSHED : and EEA NUMBER : 15940 PROJECT PROPONENT : Town of Burlington/Department of Public Works DATE NOTICED IN MONITOR : November 21, 2018

Pursuant to the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) (M.G. L. c. 30, ss. 61- 62I) and Section 11.06 of the MEPA regulations (301 CMR 11.00), I hereby determine that this project requires a Mandatory Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The Proponent should submit a Draft EIR (DEIR) in accordance with the Scope below.

Project Description

The Burlington Department of Public Works (DPW) is seeking full-time membership as a water system customer of the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA) to provide a reliable and safe long-term water supply. The purchase of water from the MWRA Water Works System is proposed to supplement existing sources and provide redundancy. The project will include upgrades to and replacement of water mains. All work will be located within existing paved roadways.

The project is proposed in two phases. Phase 1 would consist of purchase of approximately 1.0 million gallons per day (MGD) of water which would be distributed through a connection on Adams Street in Lexington. It would include approximately 2,450 linear feet (lf) of new water main. Water from the MWRA would be “wheeled” through the Lexington water

EEA# 15940 ENF Certificate January 4, 2019

distribution system. It would include 2,450 lf of new water main and is estimated to cost $5.3 million (including $4.9 million MWRA connection fee). The capacity of the water main for Phase 1 has not been identified.

Phase 2 would consist of purchase of an additional 1.0 MGD (at a minimum) which would be “wheeled” through Lexington via one of two routes. Both routes would include replacement of water main within Lowell Street from the Lexington/Arlington town line to Burlington. Alternative 1 would include 16,300 lf of water main and cross the Butterfield Pond earthen dam on Lowell Street. Alternative 2 would include 19,800 lf of water main and would be routed around Butterfield Pond by extending from Lowell Street via Mueller Road to Wheeler Road in Burlington. Phase 2 water mains would be sized at for a maximum day demand of 6.45 MGD. Phase 2 would cost approximately $21.5 million (including a $4.9 million connection fee). Upon completion of Phase 2, the Phase 1 interconnection would be maintained for emergency purposes only.

The ENF identifies challenges experienced by the Town of Burlington (Town) to meet water needs. In 2018, three water main breaks dropped water supply to dangerously low levels. Burlington has previously been authorized by the MWRA to purchase emergency water supply and the Town maintains emergency connections with Woburn, Billerica, Wilmington, Lexington and Bedford. The ENF indicates that the Town is considering obtaining additional capacity from the MWRA and forfeiting its Water Management Act (WMA) registration if demand or contaminant issues require major repairs and upgrades to the Town’s sources and treatment facilities.

Project Site

The project corridor is approximately 19.3 acres. It consists primarily of paved roadways including Middlesex Avenue in Burlington, Lowell Street in Lexington (from the Burlington town line to the Arlington town line), Mueller Road in Burlington and Adams Street in Lexington (from intersection with North Street to Middlesex Turnpike).

The project is located within the Shawsheen River Basin and the Ipswich River Basin. The Shawsheen River Basin has been classified as Groundwater Withdrawal Category 5, the most impacted category. Parts of the project site are located within the Town of Burlington’s Zone II. Part of Lowell Street is located within the Horn Pond Public Water Supply Watershed and associated wetlands and tributaries. Butterfield Pond, Vine Brook and surrounding wetlands are located near Adams Street.

Environmental Impacts and Mitigation

Potential environmental impacts associated with the project include an interbasin transfer, alteration of wetland resource areas, and construction period traffic impacts. Measures to avoid, minimize and mitigate Damage to the Environment include reduction in water withdrawal from the Shawsheen River Basin, water conservation, stormwater best management practices, implementation of a traffic management plan to minimize construction period traffic impacts, and recycling of construction and demolition materials.

2 EEA# 15940 ENF Certificate January 4, 2019

Permitting and Jurisdiction

The project is undergoing MEPA review and requires preparation of an ENF pursuant to 301 CMR 11.03(4)(a)(2) because it requires an Agency Action and a New interbasin transfer of water of 1,000,000 or more gpd or any amount determined to be significant by the Water Resources Commission. It requires Admission of New Community to MWRA Water System and a Section 8(m) Permit from the MWRA and an approval pursuant to the Interbasin Transfer Act (ITA) (M.G.L. c. 21 ss. 8B-D) approval from the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) Water Resources Commission (WRC). It requires two Water Supply Permits from the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP): Distribution Modification for Systems that supply more than 3,300 people and Chemical Addition Retrofit of Water Systems Serving More than 3,300 People. The project is subject to the MEPA Greenhouse Gas Emissions Policy and Protocol (GHG Policy).

The project requires an Order of Conditions from the Burlington Conservation Commission and the Lexington Conservation Commission, or in the case of an appeal, a Superseding Order of Conditions (SOC) from MassDEP.

Because the Town is not seeking Financial Assistance from the Commonwealth for the project, MEPA jurisdiction extends to those aspects of the project that are within the subject matter of required or potentially required State Agency Actions and that may cause Damage to the Environment as defined in the MEPA regulations. In this case, MEPA jurisdiction extends to land alteration, water supply, wetlands, water quality and GHG emissions.

Review of the ENF

The ENF provided a description of the project, existing and proposed conditions plans, an alternatives analysis, and a Water Supply Evaluation – Future Water Demand Feasibility Study (Stantec, 2016). It identified potential environmental impacts and identified measures to avoid, minimize and mitigate project impacts.

The Town withdraws more than 6 million gallons per day (MGD) from its water sources which include surface waters (Mill Pond/Shawsheen River) and groundwater sources (7 wells). The water supply system includes two water treatment plants (WTP), three water storage tanks and 120 miles of water main. Surface water is treated by the Mill Pond WTP and groundwater is treated by the Vine Brook WTP. The Mill Pond WTP can produce up to 4.5 MGD on a short- term basis. On average, it produces 2.5 MGD. Because the production capacity of the Town’s wells have been reduced (Wells 3, 4 and 5 have been taken off-line to maintain compliance with MassDEP 1,4 dioxane guideline values), the Vine Brook WTP typically produces approximately 1.7 MGD. Anhydrous ammonia and sodium hypochlorite are added to the finished water at both treatment plants to create chloramines for disinfection in the water distribution system.

The ENF indicates that the Town has a Drought Management Plan and a Proposed Water Conservation Plan, which were updated in 2017. The Town has been on a mandatory even/odd outdoor water restriction since 2017.

3 EEA# 15940 ENF Certificate January 4, 2019

SCOPE

General

The DEIR should follow Section 11.07 of the MEPA regulations for outline and content, as modified by this Scope. The DEIR should clearly demonstrate that the Town has sought to avoid, minimize and mitigate Damage to the Environment to the maximum extent feasible.

The DEIR will serve as the ITA application and should address requirements identified in the WRC comment letter. The DEIR should include a description of the existing environment in accordance with 301 CMR 11.07(6)(g). The DEIR should describe proposed conditions for each project alternative to allow for an accurate assessment of potential environmental impacts including, but not limited to, the location of water, the proposed locations of pump stations and other related equipment. These descriptions should encompass all areas of potential project impact, including areas within Burlington and Lexington. The DEIR should include a more detailed discussion of potential environmental impacts and mitigation measures.

Project Description and Permitting

The DEIR should include a detailed description of the proposed project including a project history, project objectives and goals, and reference to and discussion of key planning initiatives and reports completed to date regarding water supply planning. The DEIR should include and describe any changes to the project since the filing of the ENF.

The DEIR should include a discussion of permitting requirements, the results of any consultation with State Agencies, and how the project will be constructed in accordance with applicable regulatory performance standards.

The DEIR should quantify all environmental impacts associated with the project, including impacts associated with water system infrastructure upgrades and effects on the donor basin. The DEIR should provide more detailed analyses with supporting data to support the selection of the Preferred Alternative and to demonstrate the need for an interbasin transfer.

Alternatives Analysis

The ENF identified 5 alternatives that were developed through the 2016 Water Supply Evaluation. The Town evaluated water supply alternatives based on the ability to protect public health, meet water demand, provide redundancy for the Town’s water supply and costs. Alternatives included consideration of maintaining the Town’s water sources, upgrading the Vine Brook WTP, taking the Vine Brook WTP off-line, developing new groundwater sources, and purchase of water supply from the MWRA. The ENF identified the following 5 Alternatives:

Alternative 1 – Treatment Train B (Wells 3, 4 and 5) of Vine Brook WTP remain offline and WTP operates at a reduced capacity of 2 MGD. The Mill Pond WTP

4 EEA# 15940 ENF Certificate January 4, 2019

continues to operate at a maximum capacity of 2.5 MGD. Connections to water distribution system are installed and 1 MGD is provided by the MWRA.

Alternative 2 - Vine Brook WTP is upgraded to provide treatment for 1,4 dioxane with capacity of 3 MGD. Mill Pond WTP continues to operate at a maximum capacity of 2.5 MGD.

Alternative 3 (Preferred Alternative) - Vine Brook WTP is taken off-line. Mill Pond WTP continues to operate at a maximum capacity of 2.5 MGD. Connections to water distribution system are installed and 2 MGD is provided by the MWRA.

Alternative 4 - Vine Brook WTP is taken off-line. Mill Pond WTP continues to operate at a maximum capacity of 2.5 MGD. New groundwater sources are identified in Burlington and water quality treatment is provided as necessary to provide 2 MGD capacity.

Alternative 5 – The Vine Brook and Mill Pond WTP are taken off-line. Connections to water distribution system are installed and 3.5 MGD is provided by the MWRA.

The ENF notes that maintaining the Town’s water sources are more cost-effective; however, the Town has selected the Preferred Alternative based on its ability to provide long- term redundancy and reliability. In addition, the ENF indicates concern with the uncertainty regarding identification of new contaminants that may require treatment and associated costs which are unpredictable.

The DEIR should include a detailed description of the Preferred Alternative. Consistent with the WRC Scope and comments from MassDEP, it should include additional analysis of maintenance of existing water sources and/or development of new water resources. The DEIR should include a comparison of the environmental impacts of alternatives in the narrative and in a tabular format. I encourage the Town to consult with WRC and MassDEP in development of the alternatives analysis to ensure it is responsive to requirements and comments.

Land Alteration

The ENF indicates that the project will occur within paved roadways. The DEIR should identify, describe, and quantify land alteration. If New land alteration is proposed, it should be clearly identified in the narrative and on project plans.

The DEIR should identify any impacts to land protected by Article 97 of the Amendments to the Massachusetts Constitution, including need for easements. If wells are abandoned, the DEIR should address how former water supply protection properties will be managed and whether land currently within the Zone 1 may be sold or transferred. If the wells will be abandoned, the Town should evaluate opportunities to preserve the land.

5 EEA# 15940 ENF Certificate January 4, 2019

Water Supply/Interbasin Transfer

The Town’s request is consistent with MWRA’s goal to advance reasonable water system expansion. MWRA comments indicate that it has sufficient capacity to provide water to additional communities without affecting its operations or creating environmental impacts. MWRA water use over the last decade has averaged 202 MGD, which is approximately 100 MGD less than the MWRA system safe yield of 300 MGD. MWRA indicates that it can supply additional communities without affecting its operations or creating environmental impacts.

Applicants for admission to the MWRA are required to develop effective demand management measures and demonstrate that no local water supplies feasible for development have been identified by either the community or MassDEP. In addition, the Proponent must demonstrate that no existing or potential water supply sources have been abandoned unless declared unfit for drinking by MassDEP and that such sources cannot be economically restored.

The ITA governs the transfer of water and wastewater between river basins within the Commonwealth. Any water transferred out of a river basin, either for water supply or wastewater treatment purposes, is no longer available to replenish the “donor” basin’s rivers, aquifers, lakes or wetlands. The purpose of the Act is to assure that an interbasin transfer does not adversely impact the resources of the donor basin.

I hereby incorporate by reference the December 27, 2018 comment letter from the WRC into the DEIR Scope. As recommended, the Town should meet with the WRC prior to the submission of the DEIR to discuss the Scope and the ITA process. This consultation will facilitate initiation of the WRC process, including a public hearing. The DEIR should include direct responses, with supporting data or graphics as necessary.

WRC recommends that the MWRA consider use of the Regional Supplier pathway, outlined in the ITA regulations (313 CMR 4.10). Use of this provision could eliminate multiple donor basin reviews, whenever a community applies for admission to the MWRA, and could streamline ITA review for future receiving area communities. If MWRA selects this pathway, they should consult with the WRC to review requirements for the analysis.

The DEIR includes multiple scenarios regarding the volume of water that will be transferred including 2 MGD, 3.47 MGD and sizing of Phase 2 water mains to provide up to 6.45 MGD. The DEIR should clarify the amount of water that will be requested by the Town for each phase and/or alternative and under what circumstances (e.g., average demand, maximum demand, emergency supply). It should identify operation and monitoring protocols or mitigation as appropriate based on total volume and phasing (e.g., how to address potential chlorine residual if Phase 2 is sized to 6.45 MGD but only distributing 2 MGD). WRC indicates that any ITA approvals granted will be based on capacity. The DEIR should clarify if any transfer amounts identified are proposed for use under an Emergency Declaration. The DEIR should provide an evaluation of how the transfer amount is consistent with long-range water resources planning.

The DEIR should clarify whether the Phase 2 water main through Lexington will be owned by Burlington, or whether water will be “wheeled” through the Lexington system.

6 EEA# 15940 ENF Certificate January 4, 2019

The DEIR should clearly identify water quality issues and/or any other limitations on existing sources. It should identify measures proposed to resolve any deficiencies, identify the party responsible for implementation and provide a schedule for implementation. In addition, the DEIR should identify proposed improvements to distribution systems, including upgrading transmission mains and associated environmental impacts.

The DEIR should clarify which existing sources will be maintained and which will be inactive, identified for emergency standby status or abandoned. If the Town intends to abandon wells and/or decommission the Vine Brook WTP, the DEIR should address consistency of the decommissioning with MassDEP’s Guidelines for Public Water Systems.

The DEIR should provide a more detailed discussion of the Town’s Water Conservation Program and a timetable for implementation of existing or proposed measures. The ITA review process will include review of compliance with the Massachusetts Water Conservation Standards, including the performance standards for unaccounted-for water (UAW) (no more than 10% of the water that enters the distribution system should be unaccounted for) and residential gallons per capita per day (RGPCD) water use of no more than 65 gallons per person. MassDEP comments confirm that Burlington’s UAW rate and RGPCD water use have both been consistently below the 10% and 65 RGPCD performance standards.

The transfer will significantly reduce withdrawals from the head waters of the Shawsheen River Basin. Comments from MassDEP indicate that the transfer will result in a significant reduction in water withdrawals in the head waters of the Shawsheen River Basin. The MWRA will provide an analysis of the effects of the Town’s demand, as well as cumulative demands of other potential new communities on safe yield, the watershed System, the donor basin, and MWRA system reliability. MWRA comments indicate that it will demonstrate that reasonable instream flow in the rivers from which water is transferred will be maintained, and will follow the Water Resources Commission’s EIR Scope for Communities Seeking Approval Under the Interbasin Transfer Act to join the MWRA Water Supply System. The Town should coordinate with the MWRA regarding submission of this information.

MWRA comments indicate that the Town’s disinfection practices are consistent with the MWRA’s and that water quality is compatible. Although MWRA and Burlington use chloramine for residual disinfection and have low levels of lead and copper corrosion which meet Lead and Copper Rule standards, the two systems use different approaches for corrosion control. The blending of MWRA and Burlington water will require a corrosion control evaluation prepared by a Massachusetts Professional Engineer. This evaluation must be submitted to MassDEP for review and approval before or during the permitting phase. The evaluation must include, but is not limited to, review of secondary contaminant data (such as pH, alkalinity, chloride, sulfate, and hardness) for both sources of water. Burlington is currently required to conduct lead and copper monitoring once every three years. Burlington will be required to increase its lead and copper sampling because of the long-term change in treatment that this project represents.

Section 8 (m) of Chapter 372 of the Acts of 1984, MWRA’s Enabling Legislation, allows the MWRA to issue permits to build, construct, excavate, or cross within or near an easement or

7 EEA# 15940 ENF Certificate January 4, 2019 other property interest held by the MWRA, with the goal of protecting Authority-owned infrastructure. An 8 (m) Permit from MWRA will be required for the project including the connection to the MWRA water system and installation of new water main.

Wetlands

The local conservation commissions will review the project to determine its consistency with the Wetlands Protection Act (WPA), the Wetlands Regulations (310 CMR 10.00), and associated performance standards, including the Stormwater Management Standards (SMS). In the event a local Order is appealed, the project will require a SOC from MassDEP. The DEIR should include an update on consultation or filings with the conservation commissions.

The DEIR should identify all work and activities within wetland resource areas and buffer zones, identify required permits and approvals, describe and quantify associated impacts (temporary and permanent), assess consistency with regulatory standards and identify measures to avoid, minimize and mitigate impacts to wetlands and water quality.

Climate Change

Executive Order 569: Establishing an Integrated Climate Change Strategy for the Commonwealth (EO 569) was issued on September 16, 2016. EO 569 recognizes the serious threat presented by climate change and directs state agencies to develop and implement an integrated strategy that leverages state resources to combat climate change and prepare for its impacts. The Order seeks to ensure that Massachusetts will meet GHG emissions reduction limits established under the Global Warming Solution Act of 2008 (GWSA) and will work to prepare state government and cities and towns for the impacts of climate change. As noted in the Scope, the DEIR should address the potential effects of climate change on the project site.

The GHG Policy and requirements to analyze the effects of climate change through EIR review is an important part of this statewide strategy. These analyses advance proponents’ understanding of a project’s contribution and vulnerability to climate change. The Proponent should consider cross-cutting measures, such as incorporation of renewables and inclusion of LID measures in site design, which can improve the project’s resiliency, reduce GHG emissions and conserve and sustainably employ the natural resources of the Commonwealth

Adaptation and Resiliency

The project is proposed to provide resiliency and redundancy to the municipal water supply system. Burlington is participating in the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA) Municipal Vulnerability Preparedness (MVP) Program and has been awarded a MVP planning grant to develop vulnerability assessments.

The DEIR should provide an analysis and discussion of vulnerabilities of the project area and water supply resources to the potential effects associated with climate change including increased frequency and intensity of precipitation events and extreme heat events. The DEIR should evaluate the effectiveness of the project and infrastructure to address identified

8 EEA# 15940 ENF Certificate January 4, 2019 vulnerabilities and should evaluate alternatives to enhance protection over the design life of the project.

To assist in this evaluation, the Proponent should review review data available through the Climate Change Clearinghouse for the Commonwealth at http://www.resilientma.org/ and the 2018 Massachusetts State Hazard Mitigation and Climate Adaptation Plan at https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2018/10/26/SHMCAP-September2018-Full-Plan- web.pdf.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

The project is subject to the MEPA Greenhouse Gas Emissions Policy and Protocol (“the Policy”). The Policy requires projects to quantify carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and identify measures to avoid, minimize or mitigate such emissions. The Town will be required to quantify the direct and/or indirect CO2 emissions associated with the project's stationary source energy usage (e.g., building energy use, process-related energy use, pump stations, etc.) and transportation-related emissions (mobile sources), if applicable. To facilitate this evaluation, the GHG analysis should include a comparison of CO2 emissions associated with an established project baseline to estimated CO2 emissions associated with a final build condition that incorporates feasible mitigation measures to reduce CO2 emissions.

The DEIR should include a GHG analysis that calculates and compares GHG emissions associated with: 1) a Baseline, or Business As Usual case (direct and indirect emissions from energy consumption based upon a typical pumping and treatment design and operations) and 2) the proposed Preferred Alternative (direct and indirect emissions from energy consumption based upon the implementation of equipment and operations that achieve reduced GHG emissions compared to the Baseline). The GHG analysis should specifically evaluate proposed pumping and treatment equipment and/or operations protocols to determine if indirect GHG emissions can be reduced compared to the Baseline case. The Town should identify the model or methodology used to analyze GHG emissions, clearly state modeling assumptions, and explicitly note which GHG reduction measures have been modeled and will be implemented within the system.

MEPA, MassDEP, and Department of Energy Resources (DOER) staff members are available to assist with these efforts and I encourage the Proponent to consult with agency staff regarding the GHG analysis prior to submission of the DEIR.

Construction Period

The DEIR should identify the anticipated construction schedule and work hours. It should provide a construction phasing figure and identify staging areas. The DEIR should describe the construction methods to be used for each component of the project and describe any mitigation measures that will be used to avoid, minimize and mitigate impacts including traffic control, sedimentation and erosion controls, and noise mitigation. The project must comply with MassDEP’s Solid Waste and Air Pollution Control regulations, pursuant to M.G.L. c.40, s.54 during construction.

9 EEA# 15940 ENF Certificate January 4, 2019

Mitigation/Draft Section 61 Findings

The DEIR should include a separate chapter summarizing proposed mitigation measures. The DEIR should include draft Section 61 Findings for each anticipated Agency Action. The DEIR should contain clear commitments to implement these mitigation measures, estimate the individual costs of each proposed measure, identify the parties responsible for implementation, and a schedule for implementation in a tabular format.

Responses to Comments/Circulation

The DEIR should contain a copy of this Certificate and a copy of each comment letter received. In order to ensure that the issues raised by commenters are addressed, the DEIR should include direct responses to comments to the extent that they are within MEPA jurisdiction. This directive is not intended, and shall not be construed, to enlarge the scope of the DEIR beyond what has been expressly identified in this certificate.

The Town should circulate the DEIR to those parties who commented on the ENF and to any State Agencies from which the Town will seek permits or approvals, and to any additional parties specified in section 11.16 of the MEPA regulations. To save paper and other resources, the Town may circulate copies of the DEIR to commenters other than State Agencies in a digital format (e.g., CD-ROM, USB drive) or post to an online website. However, the Town should make available a reasonable number of hard copies to accommodate those without convenient access to a computer to be distributed upon request on a first come, first served basis. The Town should send a letter accompanying the digital copy or identifying the web address of the online version of the DEIR indicating that hard copies are available upon request, noting relevant comment deadlines, and addresses for submission of comments. The DEIR submitted to the MEPA Office should include a digital copy of the complete document. A copy of the DEIR should be made available for review at the Burlington and Lexington public libraries.

January 4, 2019 ______Date Matthew A. Beaton

Comments Received:

12/27/18 Water Resources Commission (WRC) 12/28/18 Massachusetts Water Resources Authority 12/28/18 Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP)/Northeast Regional Office (NERO)

MAB/CDB/cdb

10

Charles D. Baker Matthew A. Beaton Governor Secretary

Karyn E. Polito Martin Suuberg Lieutenant Governor Commissioner

December 28, 2018

RE: Burlington MWRA Water Connection Matthew A. Beaton, Secretary Lowell Street, Lexington/Burlington Executive Office of (Burlington System to Arlington Town line Energy & Environmental Affairs including Summer Street (Rte. 2A))

100 Cambridge Street Adams Street, Burlington/Lexington Boston MA, 02114 (Middlesex Turnpike to Mill Brook Road)

EEA #15940 Attn: MEPA Unit

Dear Secretary Beaton:

The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) has reviewed the Environmental Notification Form (ENF) submitted by Town of Burlington, for a proposed MWRA Water Connection for the Town of Burlington which includes construction of a new water main and connections from Lexington to Burlington. MassDEP provides the following comments.

Background

The Town of Burlington presently obtains its public water supply from seven municipal wells and two surface water sources. The seven wells are located in three areas, all near Vine Brook, and are collectively treated at the Vine Brook Water Treatment Plant. The Mill Pond Reservoir is used to store water pumped from the Shawsheen River, which is then treated before use at the Mill Pond Water Treatment Plant. The Mill Pond plant produces an average of approximately 2.5 million gallons per day (MGD). Three of Burlington’s wells are presently shut down, as discussed below; the remaining four wells are producing a capacity of roughly 2.0 MGD.

The Town is proposing to connect to the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA) water system, and to use the MWRA water in place of its wells. Burlington will seek approval to purchase 2 MGD from MWRA. As Phase 1 of this project, Burlington will construct an

This information is available in alternate format. Call Michelle Waters-Ekanem, Diversity Director, at 617-292-5751. TTY# MassRelay Service 1-800-439-2370 MassDEP Website: www.mass.gov/dep Printed on Recycled Paper

interconnection to the Town of Lexington at Adams Street, and will purchase 1 MGD of MWRA water via Lexington. Phase 2 will include construction of a direct connection to the MWRA water system at the Arlington-Lexington Town line, with the water main running up Summer Street and Lowell Street through Lexington into Burlington. This main will either connect to the Burlington distribution system at the intersection of the Middlesex Turnpike and Adams Street, or proceed up Muller Road and connect to the distribution system at Wheeler Road. When the direct connection to the MWRA system is completed, Burlington will increase its purchase of MWRA water to an average of 2 MGD. The interconnection and water main will be sized so that if the Mill Pond Water Treatment Plant is temporarily shut down for maintenance or due to emergency, the MWRA connection can provide all of Burlington’s water needs, based on a projected 2041 Maximum Day Demand of 6.45 MGD. The diameters of the water mains for the new interconnections have not yet been determined, and will be selected based upon hydraulic modeling.

It is not clear from reviewing the ENF whether the Phase 2 water main through Lexington will be owned by Burlington, or whether this second MWRA connection will also be water that is wheeled through the Lexington system. Based on the Stantec 2016 “Water Supply Evaluation” report that is included in the ENF appendices, in these comments MassDEP is considering the Phase 2 main to be a direct connection of Burlington to the MWRA system. This should be clarified in the EIR.

Drinking Water

Burlington’s seven wells are treated at the Vine Brook Water Treatment Plant to remove naturally occurring iron and manganese, and to remove volatile organic contamination that originated at several nearby facilities. In 1989, Burlington and MassDEP entered into a Consent Decree with 11 parties, in which the parties contributed toward the cost of water treatment to remove the volatile organics. At the time, 1,4-dioxane was known to be present at the wells, at below the Practical Quantitation Limit (PQL) that laboratory methods were then consistently able to achieve. 1,4- Dioxane is a non-volatile organic chemical, and cannot be removed by the packed tower aeration treatment used at the plant to remove the volatile organics. The drinking water guideline established by the MassDEP Office of Research and Standards (ORSG) for 1,4-dioxane was 50 micrograms per liter (µg/L) in 1989, which was also the PQL. By 2008, the ORSG for 1,4-dioxane had dropped to 3 µg/L and laboratories were able to meet a detection limit of 1 µg/L. 1,4-Dioxane was detected above 1 µg/L in Wells #3 and #4, located behind the treatment plant, but after the water from all seven wells was blended together at the plant, 1,4-dioxane was not detected in the water coming from the plant. In 2011, the ORSG for 1,4-dioxane was dropped again, to 0.3 µg/L, and Burlington began having the water tested by a new analytical method that could reach a detection limit of 0.067 µg/L. With this more sensitive method, 1,4-dioxane was now regularly detected in the blended water from the plant, with an occasional sample reaching the new ORSG. Wells #3 and #4, and the adjacent Well #5, were shut down in 2013 to ensure that the water from the Vine Brook plant would remain below the 0.3 µg/L ORSG. Table 11-1 in the ENF indicates that the closure of these three wells has resulted in 0.9 MGD of lost capacity.

2

Burlington is concerned that in the same way that 1,4-dioxane gradually became a contaminant of greater concern, due to the pervasive historic contamination of the aquifer, in the future other chemicals that are difficult to treat may also be identified as significant threats to its groundwater supply. Therefore, Burlington is proposing to use the MWRA water to replace the use of its wells, rather than construct treatment that would remove the 1,4-dioxane.

As noted in the ENF, a BRPWS32 permit (Distribution System Modification for System Serving More Than 3,300 People) will be required from MassDEP to approve the design for construction of the new interconnections to Lexington and the MWRA.

Burlington is currently adding orthophosphate at its water treatment plants for corrosion control. The MWRA water does not receive orthophosphate treatment. MassDEP recognizes that both Burlington and MWRA have met the Action Levels for Lead and Copper based on the results of the most recent sampling round. However, the change in water quality, specifically the change in orthophosphate levels, could (if not properly mitigated) result in disturbances to the orthophosphate coating in Burlington, which in turn could result in increased lead levels at consumers’ taps. To address this issue, MassDEP will at a minimum require Burlington to add orthophosphate to water received from MWRA at or near the point of connection for any non- emergency use of MWRA water. The construction design for the orthophosphate feeds will require a BRPWS29 permit from MassDEP.

Based on the project as proposed in the ENF, there will be two interconnections that require MassDEP permitting, and two orthophosphate feeds that require MassDEP permitting. Depending on the time frame in which the construction designs are completed, Burlington is welcome to consolidate these designs into a smaller number of permit submittals.

In addition, the changeover from its own water to a blend of MWRA and Burlington water will require a corrosion control evaluation to be prepared by a Massachusetts Professional Engineer. This evaluation must be submitted to MassDEP for review and approval before or during the permitting phase. The evaluation must include, but not be limited to, review of secondary contaminant data (such as pH, alkalinity, chloride, sulfate, and hardness) for both the MWRA and Burlington water. Burlington is currently required to conduct lead and copper monitoring once every three years. Burlington will be required to increase its lead and copper sampling because of the long-term change in treatment that this project represents.

The use of significant volumes of MWRA water will require the submittal to MassDEP of a revised disinfection byproducts monitoring plan by Burlington. This may require a phased approach as changes are made and new data is generated over a period of time. Because both Burlington and MWRA use chloramines, it is anticipated that the change should not create a disinfection byproducts problem; however, selection of the appropriate monitoring sites is important from a routine compliance monitoring standpoint.

The Phase 2 water main will be sized to provide Burlington with 6.45 MGD, which would be Burlington’s projected 2041 Maximum Day Demand with the Mill Pond Water Treatment Plant turned off. In the near term, though, this main will be oversized for the 2 MGD average that Burlington will be obtaining from the MWRA. This may result in long residence times for the

3 water during the miles of transit from the MWRA interconnection to Burlington, and a decrease in the chloramine residual, especially during months when the MWRA water is seasonally warm. (Once the water in MWRA’s warms in summer, it does not tend to cool until November.) A drop in chloramine residual can in turn lead to detections of coliform bacteria in the water. The EIR should address this potential issue.

The ENF states that once the Phase 2 connection to the MWRA is constructed and Burlington’s municipal wells are taken out of service, the wells will be maintained as an emergency backup supply. MassDEP presumes that this means the wells will be downgraded to “Emergency” status. Emergency sources may only be used with MassDEP approval during a declared State of Water Supply Emergency. Water quality monitoring of emergency sources is not required until such time as their use is proposed to alleviate an emergency. MassDEP recommends that the pumps and valves of emergency wells be exercised on a regular basis to help ensure that the wells will be operational if an emergency arises. The EIR should clarify whether Burlington intends to downgrade its wells to “Emergency” status.

The ENF does not discuss the disposition of the Vine Brook Water Treatment Plant; for example, whether it will be maintained in an operational status for any period of time after the Phase 2 connection is completed. If the plant is at some point dismantled, it may be useful to maintain a smaller pump station at which at least emergency disinfection can be provided, as the Town of Reading did when it connected to the MWRA water supply.

Page 8 of the ENF states that parts of the project site “are located within the MassDEP Zone II for the Towns of Burlington and Lexington, MA.” The Zone II is only for the Town of Burlington’s wells, and extends upstream along the Vine Brook valley into Lexington. Lexington is a full user of the MWRA water supply, and does not have any public supply wells.

Water Management

The Water Management Program finds that this ENF, which proposes to take Burlington’s groundwater sources off-line and instead replace those volumes by purchasing the water from the MWRA, will result in a significant reduction in water withdrawals in the head waters of the Shawsheen River Basin, which has been classified as a Groundwater Withdrawal Category 5, the most impacted category. The project proposes shifting much of Burlington’s demand to MWRA’s significantly larger surface water system, which includes operational and management controls to minimize the hydrologic stress of water withdrawals.

Burlington is currently authorized to withdraw 3.90 MGD from the Shawsheen River Basin in accordance with its Water Management Act registration. Burlington is also permitted in the basin; the permit does not authorize any increase in overall withdrawal volume, but instead authorizes Burlington to withdraw a portion of its registered volume from two new wells (Well #10 and Well #11). Compliance with this volume is based on the average day withdrawal over a year. Since 2008, the highest annual average daily raw water demand for Burlington was 3.42 MGD in 2015.

4

Burlington’s proposal to take the Vine Brook WTP off-line and maintain all of its groundwater sources as emergency backup supplies would allow the town to rescind its Water Management Act permit. While this may eliminate the conditions of its WMA permit, Burlington correctly noted that this project will require an Interbasin Transfer permit (IBT) from the Massachusetts Water Resources Commission. The IBT review process will include reviewing Burlington’s compliance with the Massachusetts Water Conservation Standards, including the performance standards for unaccounted-for water (no more than 10% of the water that enters the distribution system should be unaccounted for) and residential gallons per capita per day (RGPCD) water use of no more than 65 gallons per person.

Burlington’s unaccounted-for-water rate and RGPCD water use have both been consistently below the 10% and 65 RGPCD performance standards outlined in the Massachusetts Water Conservation Standards of July 2018 (https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2018/09/11/ma-water-conservation- standards-2018.pdf).

All WMA permit renewals may include revised or new permit conditions as outlined in the WMA regulations (310 CMR 36.00).

The MassDEP Northeast Regional Office appreciates the opportunity to comment on this proposed project. Please contact [email protected] at (978) 694-3226 for further information on Drinking Water issues. Please contact [email protected] at (617) 292-5706 for further information on Water Management Act issues. If you have any general questions regarding these comments, please contact me at [email protected] or at (978) 694-3304.

Sincerely,

John D. Viola Deputy Regional Director

cc: Brona Simon, Massachusetts Historical Commission Eric Worrall, Tom Mahin, MassDEP-NERO Duane LeVangie, MassDEP - Boston

5

December 28, 2018

Matthew Beaton, Secretary Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs MEPA Office – Attention Deirdre Buckley 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900 Boston, MA 02114

Subject: EOEEA # 15940, Environmental Notification Form MWRA Water Connection, Burlington MA

Dear Secretary Beaton:

The Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Environmental Notification Form (ENF) submitted by the Town of Burlington Department of Public Works (the Proponent) for MWRA Water Connection (The Project). The Project consists of the Town of Burlington’s phased plan to pursue an alternative drinking water supply source from MWRA and to ultimately become a fully supplied MWRA water system community. Burlington currently draws water from seven ground water wells and one surface reservoir. Water from the wells is treated at the Vine Brook Water Treatment Plant (WTP) and water from the Mill Pond Reservoir is treated at the Mill Pond WTP. Together, these sources have historically provided Burlington with an Average Finished Daily Demand (ADD) of 3.02 million gallons per day (mgd) and a Maximum Finished Water Daily Demand (MDD) of 5.62 mgd. However, since 2011 three of the seven wells have been taken out of service in an effort to maintain compliance with Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) 1,4 dioxane guideline value. This has reduced finished water capacity in Burlington’s water system by about 1 mgd.

The Project is expected to be completed in two phases. Phase 1 will supplement Burlington’s current water system by providing approximately 1 mgd through a connection with Lexington and approximately 2,450 linear feet of new water main. Phase 2 would provide capacity for Burlington to be fully supplied by MWRA with ADD of 3.47 mdg and MDD of 6.45 mgd. Phase 2 contains two alternatives which would involve upgrading and replacing either a) approximately 16,300 feet of water main on Lowell Street in Lexington from the Arlington Town line to Adams Street in Burlington or b) approximately 19,800 feet of water main on Lowell Street in Lexington and North Street and Muller Road to Wheeler Road in Burlington. MWRA’s comments below relate to Water System Expansion, Water Quality, and MWRA Enabling Statute Section 8(m) Permitting.

Water System Expansion

Burlington currently maintains emergency connections with multiple surrounding MWRA water communities including Woburn, Wilmington, Lexington, and Bedford. The Town has purchased water from MWRA, consistent with MWRA’s operating policy for emergency water supply withdrawals, when emergency declarations have been issued by MassDEP. Over the past 5 years Burlington has had difficulty meeting demand even in winter months, for example the Town needed to purchase water from MWRA through the Lexington connection in January 2018 after experiencing three local water main breaks. Burlington’s proposal is consistent with MWRA’s goal to advance reasonable water system expansion. MWRA is in a position to serve communities, given that the Authority’s current use over the last decade has averaged 202 mgd almost 100 mgd less than the MWRA system safe yield of 300 mgd. This means there is a large volume of available water for MWRA to add new communities, without impairing the ability of MWRA to operate its water system to optimize water quality without negatively affecting the environment and to assure customers a reliable and continuous water supply now and in the future.

MWRA has a policy for admission of new communities, Operating Policy #10, Admission of New Community to MWRA Water System which builds on the requirements described in Section 8 (d) of MWRA’s Enabling Act. Applicants for admission are required to have developed effective demand management measures and need to demonstrate that no local water supplies feasible for development have been identified by either the community or MassDEP. Further, the applicant must show that no existing or potential water supply sources have been abandoned unless declared unfit for drinking by MassDEP and that such sources cannot be economically restored. As stated in Burlington’s ENF, the Town recently updated its Drought Management Plan and Proposed Water Conservation Program in 2017. Additionally, the Water Supply Evaluation – Future Water Demand Feasibility Study included in the ENF recommends connection to the MWRA water system.

During the next MEPA phase, the development of an Environmental Impact Report, MWRA will provide documentation on the analysis of the effects of Burlington’s demand as well as cumulative demands of other potential new communities, on safe yield, the watershed system and donor basin, and MWRA system reliability. The analysis will demonstrate that reasonable instream flow in the rivers from which water is transferred will be maintained, and will follow the Water Resources Commission’s EIR Scope for Communities Seeking Approval Under the Interbasin Transfer Act to join the MWRA Water Supply System.

Water Quality

Burlington currently adds anhydrous ammonia and sodium hypochlorite to finished water at both of its WTPs to create chloramines for disinfection in the water system. This is consistent with MWRA’s disinfection practices and appears to be compatible with MWRA’s water quality as demonstrated in cases of the use of existing emergency connections to adjacent MWRA water communities. Although both MWRA and Burlington use chloramine for residual disinfection, and have low levels of lead and copper corrosion meeting current Lead and Copper Rule standards, the two systems use different approaches for successful corrosion control. Final

determination about any regulatory implications of mixing MWRA water and Burlington’s will be based on input by the town’s engineering consultant and direction from MassDEP.

Section 8 (m) Permitting

Section 8 (m) of Chapter 372 of the Acts of 1984, MWRA’s Enabling Legislation, allows the MWRA to issue permits to build, construct, excavate, or cross within or near an easement or other property interest held by the MWRA, with the goal of protecting Authority-owned infrastructure. An 8 (m) Permit from MWRA will be required for this work including the new connection to the MWRA water system and new water main. The Town of Burlington should coordinate with Mr. Ralph Francesconi at (617) 305-5827 for assistance in this process.

On behalf of the MWRA, thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on this Project. Please do not hesitate to contact me at (617) 788-4958 with any questions or concerns.

Sincerely,

Beth Card Director Environmental and Regulatory Affairs

cc: John Sanchez, Burlington Public Works Joseph Favaloro, MWRA Advisory Board Vandana Rao, MA Water Resources Commission Thomas Mahin, MassDEP Eric Worral, MassDEP John Viola, MassDEP Holly Johnson, MassDEP

THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

WATER RESOURCES COMMISSION

100 CAMBRIDGE STREET, BOSTON MA 02114

December 27, 2018

Matthew Beaton, Secretary Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs Attention: Deidre Buckley, MEPA Office EOEA #15940 100 Cambridge Street Boston, MA 02114

Dear Secretary Beaton:

Staff for the Water Resources Commission (WRC) has reviewed the Environmental Notification Form (ENF) for the Town of Burlington’s Connection to the MWRA’s Water Works System, an action that triggers Interbasin Transfer Act (ITA) review. The WRC uses the MEPA-required Environmental Impact Report (EIR) as its ITA application. I have attached the scope to be used in the development of the ITA application section of the Draft EIR for a request for admission to the MWRA under the ITA. The proponent should pay particular attention to the requirements for Criteria 2 and 3, in the scope for admission to the MWRA and should provide copies of the DEIR (electronic preferred, unless otherwise indicated) to all those on the distribution list at the end of this scope.

Staff met with representatives of the Town and MWRA to discuss the process on July 2, and December 17, 2018, however, it would be useful for the Town to meet with WRC staff again, prior to submitting the DEIR. I urge the Town to contact Michele Drury of WRC staff at 617-626-1366 to arrange a meeting to discuss the scope and the pathway through the ITA prior to developing the DEIR/ITA application. This will minimize requests by the WRC for additional information during and after the MEPA process and, we hope, lead to an expeditious review under the ITA.

I also urge the MWRA to consider taking advantage of the Regional Supplier pathway, outlined in the ITA regulations 313 CMR 4.10. Using this provision will eliminate multiple donor basin reviews, whenever a community applies for admission to the MWRA, and will streamline ITA review for future receiving area communities. If MWRA chooses to take this pathway, I urge them to meet with me and the staff to review the requirements of the regional donor basin analysis.

After review of the ENF, we have the following comments that should be addressed in the DEIR/ITA application:

It is unclear how much water is being requested from the MWRA. Attachment 11 to the ENF states that the recommended alternative is to make a connection to the MWRA for 2 mgd, but then goes on to discuss Phase 2 as obtaining 3.47 mgd from the MWRA, but sizing the water

mains to provide up to 6.45 mgd, in the event the Town needs to obtain all its water supply from the MWRA. The DEIR/ITA application should clarify the transfer amount being requested. The ITA regulates on capacity, so if the Town wishes to someday use the full 6.45 mgd, without a DEP Water Supply Emergency Declaration or additional ITA review, it should request the full 6.45 mgd. If this full amount would only be used under an Emergency Declaration, the DEIR/ITA application should describe the engineering or institutional controls (e.g. a legally binding contract limiting the amount to be transferred) that will be implemented to limit the transfer amount, which should be specified (2 mgd or 3.47 mgd?).

In order to demonstrate compliance with Criterion 2 of the Interbasin Transfer regulations (313 CMR 4.09(3)(c) - Viable Sources), Burlington should provide a discussion of the water quality issues and/or other limitations facing its existing sources, compelling the Town to turn to MWRA as its full source of water. The Town should also provide an update on discussions with DEP regarding continued use of these sources and if any decisions have been made concerning keeping the sources on inactive or emergency standby status or abandoning these sources altogether.

More information should be provided on the Town’s Proposed Water Conservation Program. The DEIR/ITA application should discuss how this program will conform to the 2018 Water Conservation Standards (https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2018/09/11/ma-water- conservation-standards-2018.pdf) and address the ITA Performance Standards (https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2017/08/31/Performance%20Standards%20Guidance%2 0Document.pdf). The Act requires “that all practical measures to conserve water have been taken in the receiving area” prior to allowing an interbasin transfer, so the water conservation measures should have been implemented by the time the DEIR/ITA application is submitted. If this is not possible, the DEIR/ITA application should provide a timetable for implementation. If the WRC ultimately approves the ITA request, the water conservation measures must be implemented before the transfer can occur.

The DEIR should also provide an evaluation of how this transfer supports the long-range water resources planning of the applicant.

The Town should work closely with the MWRA to provide the information needed to evaluate the impacts of this transfer on the donor basins, in particular, providing up-to-date information to address 313 CMR 4.09(3)(e) and (g) - Criterion 5: Reasonable Instream Flow and Criterion 7: Cumulative Impacts. Information should include a reservoir management plan or operating information, including updated drought and demand management plans; leakage/seepage analysis during non-spill periods, if available; a narrative description of seasonal flow characteristics downstream of the reservoirs and the under proposed operating conditions. Effects on flood flows, intermediate flow, and low flows for the Swift, Nashua, and Ware Rivers should be included. Updated demand and withdrawal information should be provided, including an analysis of the impact of the community’s demands together with the long-term demand of existing member communities and potential future users during drought scenarios that reflects updated increased usage during drought.

In comments on a previously submitted ITA request for admission to the MWRA, the Watershed Association requested that the MWRA conduct a comprehensive study of the effects of manipulated flows (due to management of the Wachusett Reservoir) in the South Branch of the Nashua River on fish, wildlife, water use and water quality. These comments were

forwarded to the MWRA. We urge the MWRA to work with the Watershed Association to address this concern.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 617-626-1248 or Michele Drury at 617-626-1366.

Sincerely,

Vandana Rao, Ph.D. Executive Director

cc: Water Resources Commission Michele Drury, DCR Erin Graham, DCR Anne Carroll, DCR Bethany Card, MWRA Steve Estes-Smargiassi, MWRA John Sanchez, Burlington DPW Amy Coppers Constantino, Wright-Pierce Collin Stuart, Wright-Pierce Robert Williamson, Wright-Pierce

THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS WATER RESOURCES COMMISSION

EIR Scope for Communities

Seeking Approval Under the Interbasin Transfer Act

TO JOIN THE MWRA WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM

This scope replaces the WRC application form (1986/1992) “Application for Approval of an Action to Increase Over the Present Rate of Interbasin Transfer” and is required for transfers considered “significant” under the Act. The information requested here should be incorporated into the EIR required by the MEPA regulations, 301 CMR 11.03. Wherever possible, the applicant should provide this information in an electronic format.

This scope is only for that portion of the EIR that pertains to the INTERBASIN TRANSFER ACT. There may be other issues which need to be addressed in the EIR for a particular project. The MEPA program should be contacted to determine a comprehensive scope.

The Interbasin Transfer Act governs the transfer of water and wastewater between river basins within the Commonwealth. Any water transferred out of a river basin, either for water supply or wastewater treatment purposes, is no longer available to replenish the “donor” basin’s rivers, aquifers, lakes or wetlands. The purpose of the Act is to assure that if an interbasin transfer does occur, the resources of the donor basin are not adversely impacted.

Admission to the MWRA, requires approval under the Interbasin Transfer Act. The following scope outlines the Interbasin Transfer Act issues to be addressed in the EIR for admission to the MWRA. Consultation with DCR’s Office of Water Resources (617-626-1366) is strongly recommended to tailor this scope to a specific proposal.

SUMMARY OF PROJECT  Project Name  Location  Proponent Name, Address, Phone Number  Primary Contact’s Name, Address, Phone Number, Fax Number, Email Address

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED INTERBASIN TRANSFER  Describe and explain the reasons for the proposed interbasin transfer.  Provide the approximate timetable for the proposed transfer, including the estimated commencement date and the estimated completion date.  Where applicable, describe the existing transfer system, including out-of-basin conveyance capacity, storage capacity, withdrawal constraints or other limiting factors.  Describe, in detail, the proposed interbasin transfer, including the maximum capacity, in millions of gallons per day (mgd) of the transfer facilities and the expected average daily transfer. Provide supporting information showing how the capacity of the conveyance was determined. Describe any proposed changes in existing structures and/or changes in operating rules of the water supplier or changes in transfer constraints.  Describe the operating schedule of the proposed interbasin transfer, including the time periods, amounts to be transferred and the duration of the transfer.  Provide the name, exact location and river basin of the source(s) of the proposed transfer of water, including the subbasin(s).  List the communities, sections of communities, water districts or other areas that will use the water proposed to be transferred.  Provide a precise description of the location, including river basin, of the wastewater discharge point.  List the known users of this and associated resources, including agricultural operations and nurseries, whose use could be affected by the proposed transfer.  Include a map of appropriate scale that clearly and accurately illustrates the information requested in this section. Wherever possible, MASSGIS data layers should be used.

OTHER PERMITS REQUIRED  List the local, State or Federal agencies/commissions from which permits have been obtained or will be sought

INFORMATION NEEDED TO EVALUATE THIS PROJECT AGAINST THE SEVEN APPLICABLE CRITERIA OF THE INTERBASIN TRANSFER REGULATIONS, 313 CMR 4.05 Below, in bold the criteria for approval of an interbasin transfer are listed, as they appear in the regulations (313 CMR 4.05). In some cases, the WRC’s interpretation of certain terminology appears in italics. Unless otherwise noted, the applicant must respond to all points listed under each criterion.

1. That an environmental review pursuant to M.G.L. c. 30, §§61 and 62H, inclusive, has been complied with for the proposed increase.  Information needed for Interbasin Transfer review should be provided within the context of the EIR.  Provide a copy of the ENF, including copies of comments received.  When issued, provide a copy of the Secretary of Environmental Affairs certificate stating that the EIR properly complies with MEPA and its regulations.

2. That all reasonable efforts have been made to identify and develop all viable water supply sources in the receiving area of the proposed water supply interbasin transfer Viable source means a source which can provide drinking water and meet the current water quality standards set by DEP, at a reasonable production cost compared to recently incurred costs for similar projects within the Commonwealth. Further, a viable source is one which can be used

while maintaining a reasonable instream flow. Reasonable instream flow is evaluated by the same criteria as impacts on the donor basin. Receiving area is defined as the area which makes use of the water supply that has been transferred between basins.

Describe in detail the efforts made to identify and develop all viable sources in the receiving area. Discuss water supply alternatives considered, but rejected. State reasons for rejection. The discussion should include:  Assessment of the development of abandoned (temporary or permanent), existing and potential in-basin water supply sources. Clearly and accurately locate these sources on a map of appropriate scale.  Discuss and list studies and reports evaluating in-basin sources in the receiving area. Copies of studies should be made available upon request.  Describe the costs of developing existing and proposed in-basin sources in the receiving area.  If cost is a reason given for rejection of an inbasin source, compare these costs with the production costs recently incurred elsewhere in the Commonwealth for similar water supply sources. Refer to the Performance Standards from DCR’s website: https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2017/08/31/Performance%20Standards%20Guidance% 20Document.pdf  Describe the impact on in-basin streamflow that would result from the development of any viable in-basin sources in the receiving area. Refer to 313 CMR 4.05 (5)(a) through (j).  Discuss the feasibility of obtaining additional water supply from water supply agencies in cities, towns or districts within the same basin as the receiving area. Are interconnections in place? If not, are such interconnections feasible?

3. That all practical measures to conserve water have been taken in the receiving area  Provide an updated Water Conservation Questionnaire (available from DCR's Office of Water Resources or at DCR’s website: https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2017/08/31/Water%20Conservation%20Questionnaire %20for%20Public%20Water%20Suppliers.pdf). If a Conservation Plan or Questionnaire is on file with DEP, provide a copy, updated to the present. Refer to Massachusetts Conservation Standards for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (WRC, 2018) and the Interbasin Transfer Performance Standards (1999), both available from DCR’s website: https://www.mass.gov/service-details/ita-application-materials.  Describe the current leak detection and system repair program. Discuss the methodology used (refer to the Interbasin Transfer Act Performance Standards, available from DCR’s website: https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2017/08/31/Performance%20Standards%20Guidance% 20Document.pdf ). What was the date of the most recent leak detection survey? What is the date of the next scheduled leak detection survey?  Describe the on-going meter installation, maintenance, and replacement program. State the percentage of the system that is metered. Provide documentation of the annual master meter calibration program and a description of that program. Provide data to show that all permanent water supply services (including public buildings) in the receiving area are metered.  Describe the amount of unaccounted-for water (in gallons and percent) in the receiving area for the past five (5) years. Refer to the Interbasin Transfer Act Performance Standards for the definition of “Unaccounted-for Water”. Describe on-going programs to reduce or keep the amount of unaccounted-for water at reasonable levels (less than 10%).  Describe the current rate structure: (1) Does the rate structure reflect the cost of operation, proper maintenance, proposed capital improvements and water conservation. Does it encourage water conservation? If so, how? (2) Is the rate flat, increasing or decreasing? Is it

charged according to water use, or some other method? (3) Are the funds dedicated in an enterprise account or is some other accounting procedure used? Describe. Refer to Appendix D of the Performance Standards.  How often are customers billed? Is billing based on actual meter readings? Provide an example of the bill sent to customers.  Provide the existing contingency plan(s) for adequately handling water supply emergencies, such as contamination of water supply sources or seasonal or drought related shortages of water supply. (See 313 CMR 4.02(4) for a definition of ‘contingency plan’.) Explain, if not stated in the plan, how and when water use will be curtailed, when trigger points require action, which water users will be reduced by what measures, and over what period of time, what emergency sources will be utilized, such as interconnections with nearby communities, reactivated sources or new emergency sources.  Do all public buildings under the control of the proponent have low flow plumbing fixtures? Describe the types of fixtures in these buildings.  When was the last audit of public facilities? Provide a copy of the report. Has a system-wide water audit ever been conducted? When? Provide a copy of the report.  Describe any past or current programs to supply low flow plumbing fixtures to residential customers. What is the residential gallons per capita per day (gpcd) figure for the water supply system? What is the overall gpcd for the system? Provide the Annual Statistical Reports, required by DEP, for the past five years.  If residential gpcd is greater than 65, describe the comprehensive residential water conservation program that is or will be implemented to reduce this use. If this program is not in place, describe the timetable for implementation. Refer to the Performance Standards.  Describe the current and proposed public information programs to promote water conservation, the use of water conserving devices, and industrial and commercial recycling and reuse. These programs should include a program which identifies, ranks and works with all commercial, industrial and institutional customers according to amount used in order to determine areas where the greatest potential for water savings exists, should be in place. Are public education programs on-going or intermittent? Explain.  Describe the measures in place to protect the water supply sources currently serving the receiving area that meet the requirements of the Department of Environmental Protection published in 310 CMR 22.20 and Wellhead Protection regulations 310 CMR 22.21. Include in this description all watershed or aquifer lands, even if not under the direct control of the water supply agencies.  Is the plumbing code strictly enforced? By whom? Describe.

4. That a comprehensive forestry management program which balances water yields, wildlife habitat and natural beauty on watershed lands of surface water supply sources, presently serving the receiving area and under control of the proponent has been implemented.  If the receiving community does not have existing surface water sources, this criterion is not applicable. If the community does, describe existing and proposed watershed forestry management programs on watershed lands currently serving the receiving area and under the control of the proponent. Submit a copy of any applicable forestry watershed plans. Refer to the Interbasin Transfer Performance Standards for the information to be included in a Forestry Management Plan.

5. That reasonable instream flow in the river from which the water is transferred is maintained. This part should describe the hydrologic characteristics of the river basins from which the water is to be diverted and any interdependent ground water regimens. The MWRA employs modeling tools to evaluate the impact of any withdrawals on the MWRA/DCR system and the impact on service to existing customer communities. Proponents are directed to work with MWRA, so that MWRA can provide appropriate documentation to respond to the requested information.  Describe the proposed operating schedule for the interbasin transfer. This description should include variations throughout the seasons, the months, and the hours during a 24 hour period.  Document that the safe yield of the MWRA watershed system is sufficient to meet the community’s demands. This should evaluate the monthly performance of the Quabbin Reservoir over an extended period of years using observed hydrological data that includes the worst drought of record. It should also include an analysis of the impact of the community’s demands together with the long-term demand of existing member communities during drought scenarios. The analysis must include the possibility of increased usage of MWRA supplies by partially supplied communities due to drought conditions. Impacts to service to other MWRA community connections under drought conditions and to MWRA supplies (including the Wachusett Reservoir) and the downstream environments must be evaluated. Provide the frequency or number of months that each MWRA reservoir level referenced in MWRA's Drought Management Plan is reached, beginning with the “Below Normal” stage under existing demands and with the addition of the proposed transfer.  Provide graphs and tables that show the following: (a) The historic monthly Quabbin Reservoir levels from 1990 to the present. (b) On the graph, superimpose the resulting reservoir levels after the proposed withdrawal, had the community been an MWRA customer since 1990. (c) On the table, show the Quabbin Reservoir levels which would have been realized had the proponent been an MWRA customer since 1990.  Provide a table of the modelled uncontrolled releases (spills) from the Quabbin Reservoir from 1990 to the present including what the releases would have been with the theoretical demand of the community, had the community been an MWRA customer. Show any changes in the frequency and duration of uncontrolled releases that will occur with the addition of the community’s proposed withdrawal.  Provide information and data to demonstrate that the MWRA will be able to meet all of its mandated controlled flow releases with the addition of the proposed demand.  If new member communities have been added to the MWRA Water Works system since 1990 or if there are other communities in the process of applying for membership, include the demands for these communities in the analyses required in this section.  Provide a discussion of the operation of the Wachusett Reservoir. Will this additional withdrawal have an impact on the resources of the Nashua River basin? Describe.  Analyze and evaluate, in detail, the impact of the proposed interbasin transfer on water- dependent uses including: (1) Effect on the hydraulic characteristics in the stream below the point of withdrawal, including but not limited to flood flows, the aquatic base flow, the 7Q10 flow if used in a pollution abatement program, stage, velocity, sediment regimen, any flow values set for the donor basin by the WRC in DEM River Basin reports, etc. (2) Effect on anadromous fisheries. (3) Effect on resident fisheries. (4) Effect on wetlands and dependent flora and fauna.

(5) Effects on water quality, recreational uses and aesthetic values, areas of critical environmental concern, areas protected under Article 97 of the Amendments to the Massachusetts Constitution, and designated scenic rivers. (6) Effect on existing and planned future uses dependent on reservoir levels. (7) Effect on hydropower production. (8) Effect on present and foreseeable water-dependent uses within the donor basin. (9) Effect on water use by agricultural operations, including nurseries.

6. In the case of groundwater withdrawals, the results of pumping tests will be used to indicate the impact of the proposed withdrawal on static water levels, the cone of depression, the potential impacts on adjacent wells and lake and pond levels, and the potential to affect instream values as listed in 313 CMR 4.09(2)(g). This criterion is not applicable to MWRA’s sources.

7. The Commission shall consider the impacts of all past, authorized or proposed transfers on streamflows, groundwater, lakes, ponds, reservoirs or other impoundments in the Donor Basin and relevant subbasins.  List and describe the impact of all past, authorized and other proposed transfers on the streamflow in the donor basins.  In addition, the WRC considers that the addition of a community to the MWRA Water Works System could have potential cumulative impacts on the system’s operations. Provide information to demonstrate that there will be no negative impacts to the operations of the MWRA Water Works System. The proponent should work with the MWRA to provide this documentation.

MITIGATION  Describe any proposed flow augmentation provisions, flow protection thresholds, or other measures proposed to protect instream flow.

EO 385

Provide information to demonstrate that this proposal seeks to minimize unnecessary loss or depletion of environmental quality and resources.

Electronic copies (unless otherwise specified) of all Interbasin Transfer EIRs should be sent to the following people. This is only a listing of those people who will be reviewing the EIR specifically under the Interbasin Transfer Act and is not meant to be all inclusive.

Vandana Rao Bethany Card Executive Director MWRA Water Resources Commission 100 First Ave EOEEA Charlestown, MA 02129 100 Cambridge Street [email protected] Boston, MA 02114 [email protected]

Michele H. Drury (1 bound copy in addition to Clapp Memorial Library the electronic copy) P.O. Box 627 DCR Office of Water Resources Belchertown, MA 01007-0627 251 Causeway Street One bound copy Boston, MA 02114 [email protected]

Duane LeVangie Bigelow Free Public Library DEP 54 Walnut Street 1 Winter Street Clinton, MA 01510-2926 Boston, MA 02108 One bound copy [email protected]

Todd Richards The public library of the receiving DFW community 1 Rabbit Hill Road One bound copy Westborough, MA 01581 [email protected]

Michelle Craddock WSCAC DFG 485 Ware Rd. Division of Ecological Restoration Belchertown, MA 01007 251 Causeway Street [email protected] Boston, MA 02114 [email protected]