UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WATER PLANNING DIVISION
AS PART OF THE CONTINUING WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
THIS REPORT IS BEING SENT TO AREAWIDE AGENCIES DESIGNATED UNDER SECTION
208 AND STATE PLANNING AGENCIES IMPLEMENTING SECTIONS 303 AND 208 OF
THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1972. LEGISLATED
AND COURT IMPOSED DEADLINES COMBINED WITH CHANGING TECHNOLOGY AND
WATER PLANNING METHODS MAKE THE RAPID TRANSFER OF INFORMATION ESSENTIAL
OUR PURPOSE IS TO STIMULATE THOUGHT AND AVOID UNNECESSARY DUPLICATION
BUT NOT TO IMPLY A BROAD EPA ENDORSEMENT OF METHODS OR STATEMENTS.
OUR DESIRE TO RAPIDLY DISTRIBUTE REPORTS OF POTENTIAL VALUE TO THE PLANNING
PROCESS WILL MEAN THAT SOME MATERIAL WILL BE IN AN EARLY DRAFT FORM. IT IS
HOPED THAT THIS REPORT CONTAINS INFORMATION WHICH WILL HELP ESTABLISH THl
FOUNDATION TO SUPPORT THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SPECIFIC PROGRAMS DEVELOPED
THROUGH THE WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PROCESS.
\
LU
WPD 7 76-01
CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT IN OCPC 208 PLANNING
PREPARED FOR OLD COLONY, MASSACHUSETTS
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
SUBJECT: Public Participation in Water Quality Management DATE:
FROM: o
jfT Water Planning Qiwlsion
TO: All Regional Water Division Directors Technical Guidance Memorandum: TECH-10
ATTN: All Regional WQM Coordinators
Purpose
Each State and areawide WQM agency must develop and implement an
effective program of public involvement in WQM.
The enclosed report documents the first six months of the Old Colony
Planning Commission's public participation program. It is being distrib-
uted to provide State and areawide planning agencies with a first hand
insight on developing a public involvement program. Some sections with-
out general applicability have been edited,
Guidance
This report discusses the following aspects of public participation:
- the allocation of staff time to public involvement,
- mechanisms and techniques developed by the staff to engage the
public in WQM planning, and
issues which have surfaced in the first six months of the OCPC
WQM program of public involvement.
The appendices present examples including invitational letters, meeting
minutes, news releases, and a (Questionnaire.
Enclosure
cc: All Statewide Agencies
All Areawide Agencies
Chris Beck
EPA Form 1320-6 (Rev. 6-72)
-------
anmng. \^ounci
7
il
232 MAIN STREET
BROCKTON. MASS O24OI
617-583- 1833
DANIEL M CRANE
March 17, 1976
Mr. Walter Newman, Chief, Water Quality Branch
Environmental Protection Agency, Region I
John F. Kennedy Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
Dear Mr. Newman:
The following report, entitled CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT IN OCPC 208 PLANNING:
A PROGRESS REPORT, has been prepared as part of the Old Colony Planning Council's
areawide water quality management planning process. As the report shows, the
Old Colony 208 staff is deeply committed to public involvement in every aspect
of the 208 project.
The report discusses the overall goals of the OCPC 208 public participation
program and the way in which public involvement is integral to both the technical
and decision-making elements of the study. Staff organization and involvement
has played an important role in the evolution of the 15 public participation
mechanisms used during the first eight months of the project. Each of these
mechanisms is described in detail.
Finally, the report attempts to evaluate the effectiveness of the OCPC 208
public participation program in meeting its stated objectives. Obstacles to 208
public participation, significant local issues and areawide problems as well as
208 staff response to them are analyzed.
We believe that the information contained in this report will help to further
the OCPC 208 public participation objectives by expanding awareness of and involve-
ment in the area's clean water constituency. We welcome your consideration of the
report's contents.
"Crfene
Executive Director
DMC:al
SERVING
ABINGTON AVON BRIDGEWATER BROCKTON
EAST BRIDGEWATER EASTON HANSON PEMBROKE WEST BRIDGEWATER WHITMAN
-------
Citizen Involvement in OCPC 208 Planning
A Progress Report
The preparation of this report and the other materials herein was financed
by a grant from the Environmental Protection Agency under P.L. 92-500,
Section 208.
-------
The Old Colony Planning Council is grateful to the Citizens Committee on
Clean Water for their constructive suggestions and criticisms of the OCPC
208 public participation program.
CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT IN OCPC 208 PLANNING: A PROGRESS REPORT, was prepared
by the following members of the Old Colony Planning Staff, under the
direction of Robert F. McMahon, 208 Project Manager, and Daniel M. Crane,
Executive Director.
Robert M. Kaye, Planner -preparation and
coordination
M. Ann Lundberg, Secretary -typing
Russel Brami, Graphics Coordinator -cover, map, chart
-------
Old Colony Planning Council
OFFICERS
President
Secretary
Treasurer
John J. DeMarco
Anthony P. Anacki
A. Stanley Littlefield
Avon
Bridgewater
Abington
COMMUNITY
Abington
Avon
Bridgewater
Brockton
East Bridgewater
Easton
Hanson
Kingston
Pembroke
West Bridgewater
Whitman
DELEGATES
A. Stanley Littlefield
John J. DeMarco
Anthony P. Anacki
Honorable David E. Crosby
Charles A. Benson
Richard H. Chase
Robert Allison
Herbert F. Macy
Gerard Dempsey
Merton Ouderkirk
John T. English
ALTERNATES
Rodney D. Henrickson
Robert W. Pursley
Douglas Dorr
Paul Adams
Paul Tesson
Charles L. Hattaway
Thomas F. Horan
Lawrence B. Westgate
Peter C. Conley
Ronald Snell
John C. Yaney
OLD COLONY PLANNING COUNCIL STAFF
Daniel M. Crane
Carl A. Salvo
Russel Brami
Alice C. Shepard
Land-Use Section
Charles Stevenson
Ellen Cunningham
Margaret M. Sullivan
Executive Director
Deputy Director
Graphics Coordinator
Secretary/Bookkeeper
Land Use Supervisor
Planner
Secretary
Transportation Section
Wayne W. Hill
Brendan E. Sullivan
A. Theodore Welte
Jacqueline Munson
Water Quality Section
Robert E. McMahon
Thomas M. Galvin
John Goldrosen
Robert M. Kaye
Susan K. Wilkes
Ann Lundberg
Senior Transportation Manager
Planning Assistant
Planner
Secretary
208 Project Manager
Planner
Planner
Planner
Planner
Secretary
-------
Citizens Committee on Clean Water
Richard Colbert
Jane Howe11
John Zipeto
Robert Cook
Peter Crone
Marilyn Furlong
Irving Mendelson
William Crowley
David Woodhouse
John Mullin
Jack Foley
Jean Foley
William Jordan
Donald Seablom
Elbert Clayton
Abington
Abington
Abington
Avon
Avon
Bridgewater
Brockton
East Bridgewater
Easton
Hanson
North River Watershed Assn
Pembroke
Pembroke
West Bridgewater
Whitman
OCPC LIAISONS TO THE 208 STUDY
Charles Benson Richard Chase
-------
Contents
3. Citizen Involvement Mechanisms
PAGE
1 Introduction 1-1
2. Staff Involvement 2-1
3-1
A. Citizens Committee on Clean Water 3-2
B. Clean Water Task Force Technical Committee 3-4
C. Old Colony Planning Council 3-6
D. Old Colony Water Pollution Control District 3-7
E. Water Quality Workshops 3-8
F. Discussions with Town/City Officials 3-11
G. Technical Assistance to Town Governments 3-12
H. Involvement of Local Schools 3-13
I. Public Information Program 3-14
J. Newspaper Clipping File 3-15
K. Distribution of Interim Reports 3-16
L. Visits to Problem Areas with Local Citizens 3-18
M. Involvement with Public Participation Programs
of Adjoining Regional Planning Agencies 3-19
N. Local Groups 3-20
O. Water Quality Mailing List 3-21
-------
4. Citizen Involvement Issues
4-1
A. Obstacles to 208 Public Participation in the
OCPC Area
B. Evaluation of OCPC 208 Public Participation
Objectives
4-1
4-4
Appendices
Figure
Following
Page
1. OCPC 208 Area
1-1
Table
1. OCPC 208 Professional Staffing: Public Participation
and Other Planning Responsibilities
2-1
-------
1
Introduction
Section 208 water quality planning offers several unique opportunities.
Among these opportunities in the OCPC 208 area are the following: the anal-
ysis of water quality problems on an areawide basis, the investigation of
non-point as well as point sources of pollution, the examination of ground-
water problems as well as surface water quality problems, the investigation
of non-structural as well as structural solutions, and the implementation
ability of 208 planning. Related to the last and perhaps the most challenging
opportunity of 208 planning is public participation.
Water pollution control planning activities that come under the umbrella
of the 1972 Amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act all have
public participation requirements. What makes the. public participation man-
date in Section 208 planning unique? Probably the most significant reason
is that under EPA Region I guidelines, 208 agencies have been required to
allocate a minimum of 10 percent of the total 208 budget to public partici-
pation activities. This requirement has enabled 208 agencies to commit
adequate staffing and time to a public involvement program.
Given this mandate, OCPC has in the first six months of its 208
program embarked upon an extensive public participation program. As
indicated in thr OCPC 208 Project Control Plan, the 208 public participation
program in _he Old Colony area has four primary goals:
1) develop on-going public participation
mechanisms to involve the public in 208
planning.
2) develop public awareness of water quality
issues and problems.
3) involve the public in the technical and
policy aspects of planning including goal
definition and plan selection.
4} develop public support for the imple-
mentation of the 208 plan.
The purpose of this report is to review the OCPC 208 public participation
activities aimed at achieving these goals. Section 2 briefly indicates the
OCPC staff structure that has thus far been used to implement the public
participation program. The major portion of this report is Section 3 which
details the mechanisms and techniques developed by the staff to engage the
public in the OCPC 208 program.
The final section of this report, Section 4, reviews some of the public
participation issues that have emerged in the first six months of the OCPC
208 program. These issues are discussed not only for OCPC's own evaluation
purposes but also because they might have relevance to other 208 programs
in New England.
1-1
-------
> \ - I \
\\ xW.Bridgewater
Bridgewater
Scale in Miles
4 Kingston is in the
Council Area but
not included in the
208 Study Area.
11 1 ^-^ ^-^ LJ VJLJ -^_x v_xj acaie in Miles '
Old Colony Planning Council
-------
2
Staff Involvement
During the first six months of the OCPC 208 program, the public
participation effort has evolved from a "one-person public participation
coordinator" concept to a concept whereby the entire OCPC 208 staff has
been involved in public involvement activities. This change in direction
has been necessitated not only by the amount of public participation
activities undertaken and the resulting demand on staff time, but has
also been required in order to achieve the goal of integrating the techni-
cal aspects of the planning process with the public involvement activities.
Consequently, a minimum of fifteen percent of each staff person's time has
been devoted to public participation activities. The breakdown of OCPC
staff time and public participation and other responsibilities is indicated
in Table 1.
Overall coordination and responsibility for execution of public
participation activities is retained by one person on the staff -- the
public participation coordinator. The entire staff is involved, however,
in the actual completion of activities. This involvement by other staff
members may range from the review of a workshop questionnaire to a pre-
sentation at a workshop, a staff meeting concerning public participation
strategy, attendance at a local ad hoc group meeting, or a field inspection
of a problem area mentioned by a local resident. Through this multi-staff
involvement in public participation activities, the artificial distinction
between public participation activities and the technical planning has
been broken down. Of major importance, OCPC 208 public participation is
perceived not in terms of a public relations effort but as a geniune
public involvement effort. It is not a side show activity, but an integral
portion of the planning process.
In order to insure that each staff member is apprised of another staff
members' activities at a local meeting or to insure that there is a compre-
hensive understanding of a local workshop, staff meetings, staff memorandums,
and staff briefings are all used. For instance, after a local workshop is
held, the staff may receive informal comments and queries from several
different residents. Staff briefings and the resulting written workshop
summaries insure that public comments and ideas are not forgotten but
discussed and, where appropriate, dealt with. Similarly a comprehensive
newspaper clipping file is maintained for each of the local newspapers.
Each staff member reviews the clippings to help keep abreast of local water
quality related issues and the activities of local groups.
As indicated in the next section, OCPC has used a variety of mechanisms
to reach the public and to be reached by the public. The experiences thus
far have helped the staff to make refinements in particular public participation
strategies. An attempt has been made to not only learn from our own 208
experiences, but to also review public participation activities and materials
in other 208 agencies. In addition, EPA public participation workshops have
been attended, EPA materials reviewed, and published public participation
concepts have been consulted.
2-1
-------
Table 1
OCPC 208 PROFESSIONAL STAFFING:
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND OTHER PLANNING RESPONSIBILITIES
TITLE
Project Director
Program Management .70
Management Systems -15
Public Participation .15
TOTAL
1.00
Environmental -
Planner
Land Use .35
Water-Related Land Use .30
Management Systems .20
Public Participation .15
TOTAL
1.00
Environmental
Planner
Stormwater .25
Non-Point Sources .20
Management Systems .30
Water-Related Land Use .10
Public Participation .15
TOTAL
1.00
Environmental-
Planner
Facilities Planning .30
Industrial Sources .35
Management Systems .20
Public Participation .15
TOTAL
1.00
Public Participation-
Coordinator
Public Participation .60
Non-Point Sources .40
TOTAL
1.00
Interns
Involvement in all
208 planning elements
-------
3
Citizen Involvement Mechanisms
The OCPC 208 staff has pursued many different mechanisms and techniques
in order to achieve its public participation objectives. This diversity of
mechanisms is directed to serving the broadest possible public in each
community. In addition, a special effort has been made to involve local
public officials, town/city boards, and other local groups in the public
participation program. In this way, citizens are given a choice regarding:
the kind of task to be performed; their level of personal time commitment
to the 208 planning process; the degree to which their input is technical
or non-technical; whether they take an advisory or decision-making role;
and whether they deal with local or both local and areawide issues.
The OCPC 208 public participation program is an integral component
of the entire 208 planning process. Documenting this process serves several
important functions. First, it provides the OCPC 208 staff with another
opportunity to inform the public of the areawide water quality study.
Second, it gives the public a chance to review and evaluate the public
participation effort to date, and to suggest ways in which it might be
made more effective. Finally, it gives the 208 staff a chance to both
inform and receive comments on the public participation program from EPA
and the other 208-related agencies in New England.
This documentation of public participation is condensed from lengthy
notes and files kept on every aspect of the 208 planning process. For each
public participation mechanism/technique, the following items are discussed:
Date: The date or time period for each item is reported as recorded
on the OCPC 208 master calendar.
Public Served: The target population for each mechanism/technique
is identified. Listed also are those sections of the public who benefit
indirectly from the public participation effort.
Staff Involved: This item documents the fact that the entire 208
staff has been involved in every aspect of the public participation
program.
Purpose: Each public participation mechanism/technique is conceived
as a way to achieve the objectives and work through the strategies set
forth in the OCPC 208 project control plan. The specific goal of each
public participation effort is discussed under this section.
Format: For each mechanism specific aspects of organization and
structure are discussed.
Materials generated: Each public participation mechanism/technique
has generated considerable materials and information. This section summarizes
the content and character of the materials while appendices A-J contain
examples of these materials.
Results/Input to Study: This section evaluates the results of each
mechanism and details the impact to the on-going 208 planning process.
3-1
-------
A. Citizens Committee on Clean Water
This Committee is comprised of representatives (appointed by town/
city government officials) from each OCPC 208 community. Other interested
and concerned citizens regularly attend the meetings. Further, represen-
tatives from the Old Colony Planning Council attend meetings to serve as a
liaison between the 208 Citizens Committee and the Planning Council.
Date: 10/16/75, 11/13/75, 12/11/75, 1/8/76, 2/12/76
Public Served: Elected community officials and the public at
large.
Staff Involved: The entire 208 staff prepares for and attends all
Citizens Committee meetings.
Purpose: The primary role of the Citizens Committee is to determine
on-going policy for the 208 study. Specifically, they advise the OCPC
staff of the political implications of proposed actions; of implementation
feasibility of proposed actions, and of changes that should take place in
proposed actions. The Committee provides comments and criticisms on the
interim reports of the 208 staff and the project consultants. In addition,
the Committee also suggests issues in each of the communities to explore
and the best means for dealing with them. As such, they maintain close
contact with the OCPC staff and consultants on a variety of political and
technical questions.
A second important responsibility of the Citizens Committee is to
assist OCPC in galvanizing more widespread public participation in each
of the local communities. In addition to helping the staff organize the
local community workshops, the Citizens Committee representatives make
recommendations as to the use of information techniques in their communities,
approaches to use, and people to contact.
A third primary role of the Citizens Committee is to address and help
resolve conflicts that arise in the study period. Because of its inherent
areawide nature, the Citizens Committee is a logical group to deal with
conflicting water goals and issues among the local communities.
Format: Meetings of the Citizens Committee for Clean Water usually
include the following kinds of items: a) update on status of 208 staff and
consultants work; b) presentation of new materials or information (from the
208 staff and/or consultants) for review and evaluation; c) update on status
of public participation program, discussion and evaluation of current
mechanisms, and suggestions for new approaches. Each item affords the
group an opportunity for open discussion of local and areawide issues,
conflicts, and goals.
Materials Generated: Letters requesting appointments, letters welcoming
local representatives, list of members, letters announcing meetings, agenda,
and minutes. (See Appendix A)
Results/Input to Study:
1) Initial identification of local priorities for 208 study.
3-2
-------
Suggestions for public participation program; how to organize
workshops; ways to broaden public contact with the 208 staff
and citizens committee; feedback on media releases and work-
shops .
Information concerning local arid areawjide issues: local problem
areas and areas worth preserving; local issues and conflicts
linked to water-related land use, water supply and wastewater
disposal; inter-town issues and conflicts (surface water supplies
in Pembroke, Brockton's stand-by reservoir in Avon, pollution
of Salisbury Plain, Matfield, and Taunton Rivers by Brockton
Sewage Treatment Plant, etc.).
Comments on and evaluation of 208 staff interim reports. Have
recommended that more background information be provided committee
and general public (e.g., groundwater information paper). (See
Chapter 3, Section K).
Evaluation of consultants work for the 208 project: suggestions
for redefinition of consultants contracts in order to provide
outputs of value and interest to the general public.
3-3
-------
B. Clean Water Task Force Technical Committee
This Committee is comprised of appointed representatives from the
whole range of state and federal agencies concerned with water quality
management. Membership also includes representatives from the adjoining
208-designated regional planning agencies (Metropolitan Area Planning
Council and Southeast Regional Planning and Economic Development District)
with whom OCPC has Memoranda of Understanding. (See Appendix B for
list of members). The Committee meets once a month for the entire dura-
tion of the study.
Date: 9/23/75, 10/28/75, 12/2/75, 1/20/76, 2/24/76
Public Served: The general public and public officials in the OCPC
208 area, adjoining 208-designated area, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,
and the Nation.
Staff Involved: The entire 208 staff prepares for and attends all
the Technical Committee Meetings.
Purpose: The Old Colony 208 Technical Committee plays several
important roles in the 208 study. These include:
• provision of technical advice and methodological
assistance
• coordination with adjacent and other 208 programs
• coordination with on-going state and federal
programs
• coordination with local environmental groups
• provision of a vehicle for date exchange
Format: Meetings of the Technical Committee usually include the
following kinds of items: a) update on the status of the 208 staff and
consultants work; b) presentation of new materials or information (from
208 staff and/or consultants) for review and evaluation; c) update on the
status of the public participation program. Each item affords the group
opportunities for open discussion of the technical, legal, and juris-
dictional issues and conflicts in the OCPC 208 study.
Materials Generated: Letters requesting appointments, list of
representatives, letters announcing meetings, agenda, minutes, Memoranda
of Understanding with MAPC, SRPEDD. (See Appendix B).
Results/Input to Study:
1) Reviews, and evaluates 208 consultants scope of services.
2) Evolves working relationships with agencies with which OCPC has
MOU's.
3) Reports on status of work (pertaining to the OCPC 208 project)
in state and federal offices.
3-4
-------
4) Evaluates interim outputs from OCPC 208 staff and consultants.
5) Provides data (e.g., DWPC water sampling data) necessary to the
progress of the 208 project.
6) Suggests ways to involve the public in the 208 planning process
3-5
-------
C. Old Colony Planning Council
The Old Colony Planning Council is comprised of one representative
and one alternate from each of the eleven (11) member communities. The OCPC
planning area is congruent with the 208 area except that the 208 area does
not include the community of Kingston. The Council meets monthly and
makes decisions through a majority vote procedure.
The Council is the formally designated planning agency to perform the
208 study in the Old Colony area. The Council is being kept abreast of
on-going 208 activities by monthly staff reports and by representation on
the Citizens Committee on Clean Water. Through these linkages, it is pro-
viding input into the on-going decision-making activities of the Citizens
Committee.
Date: 1/22/75, 2/26/75, 3/26/75, 4/23/75, 5/21/75, 6/25/75, 7/23/75,
8/27/75, 9/24/75, 11/5/75, 12/10/75, 1/28/76, 2/25/76.
Public Served^ Council delegates, town/city officials, Old Colony
Water Pollution Control District and the general public.
Staff Involved: The 208 project manager (or another 208 staff person)
attends every meeting of the OCPC.
Purpose: The Council will formally adopt the 208 plan. On a month-
to-month basis, the Council performs the following specific roles:
• reviewing monthly progress of the 208 study
• reviewing outputs
• approving contract and budget matters
• relating other Council work elements, 'such
as economic development and housing goals
to the water quality program
Format: 208 Staff person presents for review and evaluation such
items as: updates on 208 study progress, contractual arrangements with
consultants, staff hiring (during the initial phase of 208 work), interim
output reports, etc.
Materials Generated: Minutes from monthly meetings. (See Summary, Appendix C)
Results/Input to Study:
1) Suggests areawide considerations to be addressed by the study.
2) Reviews budgeting matters and staff hiring.
3) Provides important data on housing, land use, transportation,
and economic development for the OCPC 208 communities.
3-6
-------
D. Old Colony Water Pollution Control District (OCWPCD)
Representatives from the four member communities (Abington, Bridgewater,
West Bridgewater, and Whitman) meet once a month to plan and discuss progress
of future shared wastewater treatment facilities. Planning, design, and
construction will occur with the support of 201 funding.
Date: 5/16/75, 5/23/75, 6/12/75, 8/7/75, 10/22/75, 11/5/75, 11/20/75,
1/7/76, 1/15/76, 2/4/76
Public Served: Local officials and residents of the four member
communities, residents in non-member downstream communities in the OCPC 208
area, and residents of communities in the lower Taunton area (SRPEDD 208
area).
Purpose: 208 Staff involvement in the OCWPCD serves the following
purposes:
1) Coordination of 201/208 planning programs for maximum benefit
and efficiency.
2) Exchange of information on problem septic tank areas, potential
sewer service areas, future development priorities in each of
the member communities.
3) Representation of issues and conflicts in non-member communities
that pertain to the efforts of the OCWPCD.
Format: 208 staff people present for review and consideration information
on: 208 study progress, and work with 208 and 201 consultants. 208 staff
has provided information on population, land use, water supply, natural
features, as well as technical assistance on organizations, bugetary matters,
and relationship to EPA and other agencies.
Materials Generated: Memorandum of Understanding (See Appendix B).
Results/Input to Study:
• 208 staff and 208 area as a whole kept apprised
of OCWPCD planning
- In future, OCWPCD will present plans for sewer
service areas, design and construction of treatment
facilities, and eventual removal capacities to the
208 staff for evaluation
3-7
-------
E. Water Quality Workshops
Water Quality Workshops have been held in each of the ten area communities
to inform the general public and town/city officials of the scope and progress
of the 208 study as well as to identify the issues and priorities specific to
each community.
Date: Easton, 12/4/75, 7:30 P.M., Easton Town Hall
Avon, 12/8/75, 7:30 P.M., Avon High School
Abington, 12/9/75, 8:00 P.M., Abington Town Hall
rembroke, 12/10/75, 8:00 P.M., Pembroke Town Hall
Whitman, 12/15/75, 7:30 P.M. Whitman Town Hall
Brockton, 1/21/76, 7:30 P.M., Brockton Public Library—Main Branch
West Bridgewater, 1/22/76, 7:30 P.M., West Bridgewater Town Hall
Bridgewater, 1/28/76, 7:30 P.M., Bridgewater Academy Building
East Bridgewater, 2/5/76, 7:30 P.M., East Bridgewater Middle School
Hanson, 2/11/76, 8:00 P.M., Indian Head School
Public Served: The general public and public officials.
Staff Involved: Entire 208 staff
Purpose: The water quality workshops were conceived to serve many
purposes:
1) Introduce the community to its representative on the Citizens
Committee for Clean Water.
2) Introduce the 208 water quality staff (and on some occasions
its consultants) to the community.
3) Explain the nature and purpose of the 208 planning process.
4) Report on the progress of the 208 study.
5) Elicit public opinion on 208 planning and water quality and
other issues of major concern to citizens.
6) Explain the importance of public participation and suggest
specific ways in which citizens can get involved in the 208
project.
Format: Format of the workshops includes: a) introduction to
Citizens Representatives and 208 Staff; b) explanation of the 208 process
and how it differs from other planning efforts; c) slide show to dramatize
water quality issues/conflicts in the communities and the region; d) question-
naire to elicit opinion on wide range of water quality-related issues;
e) open discussion of the 208 project, water quality issues important to
local citizens, and other issues raised by the questionnaire.
Materials Generated: (See Appendix E for materials organized by town).
1) Media releases - sent to the 15 newspapers and three radio
stations serving the area to inform general public of time,
place, and purpose of the workshops.
3-8
-------
2) Letters to town/city officials and boards—sent to each community
to inform of workshop; officials were consulted in selection of
date and time for workshop so as to minimize conflicts with
scheduled meetings.
3) Letters to local citizens groups—sent to many environmental and
and other concerned citizen groups in each community.
4) Letters to high school science teachers--sent to each local and/
or regional high school. Letters included background information
on 208 and water quality management in general. Science teachers
asked to announce to their classes and encourage their collegues
to attend.
5) Flyers/posters were designed and printed for each community. These
were distributed to and posted in many public places in each com-
munity (town hall, library, post office, banks, stores, bulletin
boards, etc.).
6) Name sheet handout--for each workshop, a sheet was prepared listing
the home of the local Citizens for Clean Water representative, the
OCPC 208 staff, and the 208 consultants. These were distributed
at each workshop.
7) Introduction to 208 handout—a brief explanation of 208 planning
was prepared and distributed at each workshop.
8) Sign-in sheet--each person attending the workshop was asked to
sign-in and to list his/her address and/or affiliation as they
entered. (See workshop summary, #10).
9) Questionnaire tabulation—the results of the questionnaire for each
town were tabulated on a master sheet. Often questionnaire results
varied considerably from opinion expressed in discussion. Thus
the questionnaire and the discussion were compared to get a better
picture of opinions of those present.
10) Workshop summary—during the discussion period, 208 staff people
took detailed notes on questions, comments, suggestions made as
well as responses to them. The notes on the discussions were
checked and summarized in debriefings following each workshop.
Summaries also include: a) date, time, and place of workshop b) list
of people in attendance with address/affiliation; and c) format of
workshop.
Results/Input to Study:
1) Identify the issues and priorities specific to each community.
2) Meet citizens interested in getting involved in the 208 planning
process.
3) Strengthen working contacts with local officials.
4) Identify and visit problem areas, prime resource and recreation
areas that should be reclaimed or protected.
3-9
-------
5) Discover the level of awareness of local citizens and officials
regarding water quality management so that future reports and
general information can more closely suit their needs.
3-10
-------
F. Discussions with Town/City Officials
The 208 staff consults constantly with local officials (selectmen,
planning board, conservation commission, water superintendent, sewer super-
intendent, board of health) regarding town and areawide water quality issues
Date: 58 meetings from May, 1975 to February, 1976 (See
Master calendar, Appendix F, for complete listing) .
Public Served: Local officials and the community at large.
Staff Involved: Entire 208 staff.
Purpose: The purpose of the discussions is to establish and maintain
solid working relationships with local officials and to deal with such
specific issues as:
1) Informing officials of 208 study and enlisting their support.
2) Selecting sites for the water sampling program.
3) Compiling local land use/zoning controls.
4) Assessing local water supply situation.
5) Collecting information on activities and priorities of each
of the boards.
6) Inventorying local sewerage facilities and plans for future
wastewater disposal options.
Format: 208 Staff travels to local community offices. Formality of
meetings varies with the specific situation.
Materials Generated:
1) Sites for water sampling
2) Information on land use/water quality issues
3) Information on water supply
4) Intra-office background sheets on status of town boards, people
to contact, issues to study further, potential problems and
conflicts.
Results/Input to Study: See Materials Generated. Have established
excellent working contacts with most town officials in each community.
3-11
-------
G. Technical Assistance to Town Governments
The 208 Staff regularly attends meetings of town committees to advise
on technical matters and to coordinate efforts with the main body of the
208 study.
Date: Abington High School Sewerage Study Committee - 1/7/76, 1/21/76,
1/21/76, 2/6/76
Bridgewater Board of Health (septage disposal situation)- 1/21/76
Easton Sewer Study Committee - 1/5/76, 2/2/76
Hanson Town Counsel (Rockland Landfill situation) - 2/17/76,
2/23/76, 2/26/76
Pembroke Board of Health (Landfill) - 1/8/76, 1/26/76, 2/2/76
Public Served: Local citizens and officials.
Staff Involved: The entire 208 Staff.
Purpose:
' To help communities deal with immediate, pressing water
quality issues/problems.
To build short-term problem solving capability into the
long-term structure of the 208 planning process.
" To inform citizens of the importance of 208 planning in
their community and to build support for it.
Format: 208 Staff researches the problems, prepares summary technical
papers, and reports on findings as requested by the local committees.
Materials Generated: (See Appendix G)
Technical background papers
Intra-office memos on status of situation as it develops
Letters from citizens
Results/Input to Study:
• Short-term problems effectively dealt with prevent evolution
into larger, long-term issues.
• 208 Staff has become more deeply aware of water quality-
related issues in communities.
• Awareness and credibility of 208 planning process enhanced
3-12
-------
H. Involvement of Local Schools
OCPC 208 area high schools and colleges are involved in the water
quality project.
Date: September, 1975 to present time.
Public Served: Citizens of the OCPC 208 Area.
Staff Involved: Entire 208 Staff.
Purpose:
" To build through education and work training an awareness
of the importance of water resources and a commitment to
protecting and preserving them.
' To inform younger citizens of the role of 208 planning in
water resource management.
Format:
1) Background information on 208, notice of water quality workshops,
and invitation for students and teachers to participate sent to
science teachers in all local and regional high schools.
2) Students and teachers from Project QUEST (Brockton High School)
attend technical committee meetings and use 208 materials in
classroom and field work.
3) Students from Bridgewater State College Department of Earth
Sciences and Geography work (part-time) as interns with the OCPC
208 planning Staff. Interns involved in nearly every 208 task.
Assignments include: land use survey and mapping; water quality
data compilation and display; basic research on historical uses
of water and former land use/water quality relationships; public
participation (preparation for water quality workshops).
4) Students and professors from Bridgewater State College Department
of Earth Sciences and Geography are executing the OCPC 208 con-
sulting contract for water quality sampling. This involves field
work (sample collecting); testing of water samples; and data
analysis and interpretation.
5) Assist local students with water quality-related term projects.
Materials Generated: Letters to High School Science Teachers (See
Appendix E), Bridgewater State College Scope of Services (See Appendix H)
Results/Input to Study:
' Information about local communities.
• Assistance in certain tasks in the study.
3-13
-------
I. Public Information Program
The 208 staff has established effective working contacts with all
15 newspapers and three radio stations that serve the Old Colony 208 area.
Date: July, 1975 to present time.
Public Served: All citizens of the OCPC 208 Area.
Staff Involved: The entire OCPC 208 Staff.
Purpose: f
' Educate and inform public about the 208 project.
' Report on the progress of the 208 work
' Notify the public of special events (e.g., water quality
workshops)
' Suggest specific ways that the public can get involved
in the 208 project.
Format: Press releases and radio public service announcements
Materials Generated: (See Appendix I for examples). List of area
newspapers with communities served, letters to editors/correspondents/
station managers with background information, press releases and public
service announcements (See Appendix E for additional examples).
Results/Input to Study:
Greater public awareness of 208 water quality project
and associated events (See Page 6, Questionnaire tabu-
lations, Appendix E).
' Positive coverage of all aspects of study by area media.
3-14
-------
J- Newspaper Clipping File
A comprehensive file of area newspaper articles pertaining to water
quality-related issues at the local, areawide, state, and federal level
is maintained.
Date: June, 1975-present time.
Public Served: All citizens of the OCPC 208 Area.
Staff Involved: The entire 208 Staff.
Purpose:
' To keep abreast of water quality news in the area, state,
and nation as it occurs.
' To assess the information about water quality reported
to the public.
• To check on the effectiveness of the OCPC-208 public infor-
mation program.
• To check on the coverage afforded OCPC 208 water quality
news.
Format: Not Applicable.
Materials Generated: Newspaper clippings (See Appendix J for examples)
Results/Input to Study:
' Public information program modified to best communicate
information about the 208 study.
• 208 Staff kept up-to-date on local water quality-related
issues.
3-15
-------
K. Distribution of Interim Reports
Information developed by the 208 staff and consultants is made
available to the public for immediate inspection and evaluation.
Date: Water Supply and Water Use in the OCPC 208 Area
Citizens Committee: summary 1/8/76, copies recieved 1/8/76
Technical Committee: summary 9/23/75, copies received 1/20/76
OCPC: summary 3/24/76, copies received 1/28/76
Mailing to town boards, state and federal agencies 1/19/76 -1/23/76
Land Use and Water Quality in the OCPC 208 Area
Citizens Committee: summary 1/8/76
Technical Committee: summary 9/23/75
OCPC: summary 2/25/76
Mailing to town boards, state and federal agencies anticipated
4/76
Phase I Groundwater Maps
Citizens Committee: 12/11/75
Technical Committee: 12/2/75
DWPC Summer Sampling Data
Citizens Committee: 3/11/76
Technical Committee: 12/2/75
Public Served: Federal, state, areawide, and local officials and
representatives and the general public.
Staff Involved: Entire 208 Staff
Purpose:
Make information available to the public for immediate use.
Inform citizens of the progress of the 208 study.
Seek evaluation of the work.
Assess the level of public awareness on water-quality issues.
3-16
-------
Format: Results of 208 Staff and consultant work presented to the
Citizens Committee on Clean Water, the Technical Committee and the Old
Colony Planning Council. These Committees also receive copies of printed
materials. Discussion and evaluation is encouraged. All local boards in
each community are mailed copies of reports. Comments and criticism are
actively sought. Revisions to the interim reports are made as deemed
necessary. For example, in discussion of the report on the Phase I
groundwater study (done by consultants) at the Citizens and Technical
Committees, it was found that all concerned wanted more background infor-
mation on groundwater and more specific information on how the study was
conducted. 208 Staff response: 1) the groundwater consultant was asked
to prepare another summary report with expanded sections on methods and
interpretation; 2) the OCPC 208 Staff is preparing a background paper on
groundwater resources (not part of the original OCPC 208 Work Plan).
Materials Generated: Citizens Committee Minutes, (See Appendix A);
Technical Committee Minutes (See Appendix B); revisions/supplementary
reports (in progress).
Results/Input to Study:
' Greater public awareness of progress of 208 study
• 208 information can be incorporated into community
management and decision-making.
• Interim reports revised to better suit needs of officials
in all involved levels of government as well as needs of
local citizens.
• Staff identifies topics for future public information
efforts.
3-17
-------
L. Visits to Problem Areas with Local Citizens
The 208 Staff encourages citizens to take them to inspect, first-
hand, sites of real or potential threats to water quality, or resource
areas not presently endangered but worth preserving for all to enjoy.
Date: Field examination of cranberry bogs, ponds, and related land
uses in Pembroke, Hanson, and Halifax - 12/16/75, 1/7/76.
Inspection of septic systems in Bridgewater with Board of
Health - 1/21/76.
Staff Involved: The entire 208 Staff is involved in examining and
analyzing these specific local issues.
Purpose:
* Learning more about the issues and priorities specific to
e ach commun i ty.
' Identifying and documenting for later reference problem areas
and important water resources.
" Explaining to citizens the role of 208 planning in water
quality improvement, and seeking their support.
Format: Field Work.
Materials Generated:
Photos and notes to document the situation observed.
Updates to land use maps.
Names of other people to contact for further information.
Results/Input to Study:
• Documentation of existing problems for future checks on
water quality change.
• Improved accuracy of land use and other maps.
• Greater awareness of local problems areas.
• Increased contact with local citizens.
3-18
-------
M. Involvement with Public Participation Programs of adjoining Regional
Planning Agencies
The OCPC 208 staff keeps up-to-date on the progress of the 208
projects and the public participation programs in the Metropolitan
Area Planning Council (MAPC) and the Southeast Regional Planning and
Economic Development District (SRPEDD).
Date: June, 1975 - Present time.
Public Served: All the citizens in the OCPC, MAPC, and SRPEDD 208
areas.
Staff Involved: Public participation coordinator and the entire
208 Staff.
Purpose:
' To coordinate public participation and general planning
efforts between OCPC and the adjoining 208-designated
Regional Planning Agencies.
' To share experiences and ideas among public participation
staff as to effectiveness of different approaches to
public involvement in 208 planning.
' To coordinate public participation efforts in towns (e.g.,
Pembroke) with joint OCPC and MAPC membership.
Format: Formal and informal meetings with public participation
staff from MAPC, SRPEDD, and the North River Watershed Association (viz.,
Pembroke).
Materials Generated^ Memoranda of Understanding with MAPC, SRPEDD (See
Appendix B); intra-office memos for 208 files.
Results/Input to Study:
" Ideas for public participation efforts (both ideas to try
and ones to avoid).
• Elimination of duplication of effort in Pembroke.
" Commitment to dealing with water quality issues that
cross 208-designated Regional Planning Agencies boundaries.
3-19
-------
N. Local Groups
The 208 staff has attended meetings of local groups in the Old Colony
area.
Date: Brockton League of Women Voters - 11/18/75.
Staff Involved: 208 Project Manager
Purpose: To apprise citizens groups of the progress of the 208 study,
ask for suggestions and comments on the work, seek on-going involvement in
and support of the 208 planning process.
Format: variable; short presentation on 208 planning, importance to
the community, ways that citizens can get involved.
Materials Generated: List of citizens interested in fuller involvement
in the 208 process.
Results/Input to Study:
• 208 Staff learns more about local priorities for water
quality management.
• Informs citizens of the 208 project and seeks their
participation.
3-20
-------
°- Water Quality Mailing List
The 208 Staff is compiling a comprehensive list of area citizens
and groups interested in (or currently working on) the OCPC water quality
project.
Date: Not applicable.
Public Served: All citizens of the OCPC 208 Area.
Staff Involved: Entire OCPC 208 Staff.
Purpose:
' To facilitate communications between area citizens and the
OCPC planning staff and its consultants.
•To notify citizens of future events, seek review of on-going
work, distribute other information, seek local input and
assistance.
Format: Individuals and groups organized by towns.
Materials Generated: Comprehensive mailing list
Results/Input to Study: Contacts with local citizens and information
on issues of local and areawide concern.
3-21
-------
4
Citizen Involvement Issues
As indicated in Section 3, OCPC has been quite active in organizing
means by which the public can participate in the 208 study. Similarly,
208 agencies across New England are busy churning out public participation
materials and organizing meetings to engage public interest. Undoubtedly,
there is a considerable amount of energy being expended in the OCPC 208
effort and other 208 agencies to get the attention of the public. To what
extent have 208 public participation efforts been successful thus far in
the Old Colony area? Is it possible to forsee any potential public partici-
pation problems down the road in the 208 process?
It is probably too early to give a frank evaluation of OCPC's 208 public
participation effort. While the 208 staff has been quite successful in gain-
ing the public's ear and involving officials and residents in the 208 planning
process thus far, the 208 staff expects even greater energy will be required
to maintain the public's interest over the two-year period and into implemen-
tation phases. The 208 staff is quite aware of previous water pollution control
public participation efforts that have often resembled expensive charades. To
avoid the pitfalls of other public participation efforts, OCPC has been con-
tinually evaluating its own public participation program. This section examines
some of the public participation issues involved in the OCPC 208 program thus
far.
Before evaluating our public participation goals, it is useful to review
the obstacles that OCPC has faced in its public participation program. Some
of these obstacles were perceived prior to the program; others have cropped
up as the study has proceeded.
A. Obstacles to 208 Public Participation in the OCPC Area
Each 208 agency has probably surveyed the resources and problems of its
study area and devised a public participation program in light of them. In
the Old Colony area, several obstacles have faced the OCPC in involving the
public in 208 planning:
Existing Water Resources - Lying at the headwaters of the Taunton River
Basin, most of the streams in the OCPC 208 area are extremely small and in
low flow periods resmeble mere drainage ditches. Only in the Bridgewaters
does one begin to see the formation of "real rivers" in the form of the
Town River, the Satucket River, the Matfield River, and the Taunton River.
In Hanson and Pembroke, (which primarily drain into the North River Basin)
local residents are fortunate in having many beautiful lakes and ponds to
supplement the North River, the Drinkwater River, and the Indian Head River.
Outside of Hanson, Pembroke, and Bridgewater, however, usable and large
water resources are the exception.
It is difficult to get the public excited about water quality management
when the region lacks highly visible water resources or a large unifying
river. Indeed, to some officials, water quality management in the OCPC 208
area may only be important in terms of cleaning up and preserving downstream
areas. Many of the streams and rivers that do offer potential aesthetic
enjoyment to residents have been ignored by poor land use planning. This is
4-1
-------
particularly true in the Taunton River Basin communities where factories
and commercial areas back up to streams. In the less populated areas of
the Taunton River Basin, public enjoyment of water resources is often pre-
cluded by lack of public access. In the lakes and ponds of Hanson and
Pembroke, the problem has been somewhat different. Private residences have
often clustered around a water body, but again public access for some water
bodies is a problem.
To combat the general low awareness of water resources by most of the
population in the area, the OCPC 208 study has made a substantial effort
to link water supply issues to the 208 study. In particular, the necessity
for preserving small streams from pollution where the streams are hydrolo-
gically connected to groundwater aquifers has been stressed. All of the
communities in the area depend on unpolluted groundwater in one way or
another. The recreational value and potential of small lakes and ponds in
each of the communities has also been stressed. Finally, in some communities,
like Abington, Whitman, and Bridgewater, it has been possible to gain the
public's ear through sewage-related problems.
Water Pollution Control Planning - One problem that the 208 staff has
faced in the water quality project has been the problem of relating 208
planning to other water pollution control efforts. For the average citizen,
as well as many local officials, the different planning elements of the
1972 Federal Water Pollution Control Amendments (P.L. 92-500) are a con-
fusing bureaucratic maze. Sections 208, 201, 401, and 303(e) have been
arrayed before them and it is difficult to sort out their differences, their
purposes, and their relationships. Add to that the complicated net of state,
regional, local, and federal involvement and it is easy to understand the
comprehension problems. In the OCPC 208 area, the legacy of the SEME study
is an additional complicating factor.
OCPC, through its handouts, workshops, and visits to local officials,
has been conscious of this obstacle and made an effort to relieve the
confusion. The complexity of various water quality efforts has the poten-
tial to remain as an obstacle throughout the study, however, as various
Section 201 planning efforts are completed. In order to minimize the
potential conflicts with these efforts and to insure public perception of
208 as an integrated planning process, OCPC has taken great pains to involve
208 planning with current 201 efforts in the region. Memoranda of Under-
standing have been executed with Avon and the Old Colony Water Pollution
Control District (OCWPCD) whereby a portion of the work is being performed
under 208. In addition, 208 is funding the industrial wastewater recovery
portion of the Brockton 201 work. Finally, 208 is supplying much of the
original input for a 201 Step I study just getting underway in West
Bridgewater. Similarly, on the other side of the ledger, the OCPC 208 study
will be using many of the 201 outputs rather than duplicating the work.
On a broader scale, it is also somewhat difficult for the public
to perceive the relationship of 208 planning to other water-related planning
efforts, i.e., wetlands protection, environmental health, water supply
planning, recreation planning. It is frankly confusing even to the planners
in attempting to sort out jurisdiction questions. To dramatize this
4-2
-------
entanglement, a section in the Water Supply and Water Use in the OCPC 208
Area report reveals the complicated relationships and issues possible in a
hypothetical pollution problem in the area. To some extent, the OCPC 208
Technical Advisory Committee will help to keep the different planning
relationships in perspective.
208 Planning Schedule - While 208 planning offers a vehicle for
integrating various water pollution control programs, it is a complex
program. Combined with the EPA-mandated two-year planning period, the
208 planning process offers a potentially overwhelming job of integrating
many planning elements. OCPC, like all of the 208 agencies, is already
behind schedule to some extent in its planning schedule. As the study
period progresses, there is the very real danger that the public will
suffer from "planning shock" as alternatives and recommendations are
churned out.
Water Resources Constituency - Allied to the first obstacle discussed
is the lack of a viable broad-based watershed association in the Taunton
River Basin portion of the OCPC 208 area. The existing watershed group,
the Taunton River Watershed Association/ has a small but dedicated membership.
Several of the key people from the watershed group are associated with
the 208 study. In the North River area of the 208 study area, there is
a very active and capable North River Watershed Association. Several
members of this group are also allied to the OCPC 208 study.
An option prior to the start of the OCPC 208 program was the possibility
of using the watershed groups as the primary sole vehicles for the OCPC 208
public participation effort. While this option has a lot of merit and is
being done in other 208 areas, it was discarded in the OCPC 208 area for two
important reasons. Neither group has sufficient broad-based membership to
insure that opposing viewpoints could be aired. To channel OCPC's 208
public participation program primarily in the hands of two groups with
strong environmental views offered the potential of precluding pro-development
factions from airing their opinions. More importantly, as explained later
in this Section, the OCPC 208 program has attempted to establish ties with
those with local implementation ability in an effort to involve many
different "publics" in the 208 study. To limit the major thrust of its
208 public participation program to a watershed group, would have placed
an additional layer between the technical planning effort and the many
"publics" in the OCPC 208 area.
Previous Water Pollution Control Planning - Unfortunately. 208 planning,
like any planning effort, has to live and deal with previous planning efforts
that are suspect in the eyes of the public. In the Old Colony area, there
is a strong skepticism on the part of the Bridgewaters, for instance, con-
cerning the Brockton Treatment Plant discharge. For a variety of reasons,
planning efforts have not yet resulted in an implemented remedy for this
pollution source. Since it has had a harmful water quality impact for
several years, downstream communities are understandably skeptical about
getting involved with another water quality program. In particular, the
public is skeptical about dealing with pollution sources in their community
when nothing has been apparently done to remedy the worst offender in the
region.
4-3
-------
OCPC has had to carefully explain the Brockton situation and what is
being done about it to the downstream communities. As the Brockton facility
goes to Step 2 and Step 3 phases, OCPC will have to insure that, for the
first time, downstream communities are kept informed of the progress. More
importantly, OCPC will have to insure that there is no compromise in the
upgrading effort such that water quality objectives are compromised.
Some communities are also skeptical about previous planning related
to the establishment of the OCWPCD. In particular, East Bridgewater residents
and officials are reluctant to participate in the 208 study because they
believe that the 208 study is a trojan horse for sewering the town. OCPC
has attempted to tailor the technical aspects of the 208 study to deal with
the issues that East Bridgewater is concerned about (namely, upstream
pollution, groundwater, water supply, land use impacts), but has thus far
met with a healthy suspicion on the part of the community.
Home Rule Influence - The OCPC 208 area has had mixed success with
regionalism. While there are many examples of regional cooperation (the
Brockton Water System, the Abington-Rockland Water System, the OCPWCD, and
regional school districts), there is still a strong feeling on the part of
some communities that problems can and should be solved locally. OCPC has
made a concerted effort in its workshops to dramatize the hydrologic relation-
ships between communities and to stress the importance of planning together
to resolve water quality problems. One of the mechanisms to air inter-
community conflicts and problems is the Citizens Committee on Clean Water.
As alternatives and recommendations are formulated, this Committee will be
confronting many conflicts in an attempt to balance differing community
viewpoints.
B. Evaluation of OCPC 208 Public Participation Objectives
While it is premature to fully evaluate OCPC's success in meeting its
public participation objectives, it is possible to briefly review the
experiences involved in addressing those objectives.
Objective #1; Develop on-going public participation mechanisms to
involve the public in 208 planning.
As summarized in Section III, a variety of mechanisms have been
developed by OCPC to involve the public in the 208 planning process.
Recognizing that the "public" in the Old Colony area cannot be reached
by two or three mechanisms, the OCPC staff has agressively worked in the
first few months of the program to develop several public participation
mechanisms. The diversity of mechanisms also recognizes the fact
that not only are there different publics to be served—local officials,
ad hoc and special interest groups, and the general public; but several
mechanisms allow public participation with varying intensities. The
Citizens Committee on Clean Water and the Technical Advisory Committee, for
example, meet monthly; local workshops will be held three or four times with-
in the planning process; meetings with local officials and groups are held
continually on an as-needed basis.
Of all the OCPC 208 public participation objectives, this is perhaps
the easiest to measure. Prior to June, 1975, the opportunities for the
general public to influence water quality planning in the Old Colony area
were relatively limited. Occasional public hearings on NPDES permits were
4-4
-------
the only official mechanisms. In addition, two local watershed groups offered
a vehicle for dealing with specific issues. The 208 planning process has
greatly expanded opportunities for public participation in water quality plan-
ning in the Old Colony area. The number of new mechanisms now available is
not the only important measure; rather, OCPC's public participation program
has gone beyond the simple "public relations" aspect of public participation.
Indeed, much more effort has been placed on receiving public input than in
"selling" 208 planning.
One of the more important mechanisms for getting public input and feedback
in the early stages of OCPC's 208 program has been the local Water Quality
Workshops. The local workshop was conceived with the notion that 208 planning
would only be successful in the Old Colony area if local issues were emphasized
as well as areawide interrelationships. The public had to be convinced that
208 was not just another fuzzy areawide study. In addition, credibility for
OCPC's role would be enhanced by meeting the public on their own turf. In
each workshop, local benefits of 208 planning were highlighted. The workshops
have also acted as a catalyst in terms of promoting the other public partici-
pation mechanisms. The local Citizens Committee on Clean Water representative
was introduced and the representative's role explained. In addition, the work-
shops have resulted in citizens and officials requesting OCPC participation in
local water quality-related groups of OCPC assistance with local issues.
In terms of the latter activity, OCPC has thus far been responsive to
local requests for participation in or technical assistance for on-going and
immediate issues. As indicated in Section 3r OCPC has responded to requests
to deal with a proposed landfill site in Pembroke and a new landfill site in
Rockland. In addition, it has committed staff time to the Easton Sewer Study
Committee, the Abington High School Sewerage Study Committee, the Bridgewater
Board of Health, and the Abington Park and Recreation Department for specific
issues. These additional activities are viewed with mixed emotions by OCPC.
On the one hand, they drain staff time from scheduled 208 tasks. This has
resulted in missing certain work accomplishment deadlines. On the other hand,
they have given OCPC an opportunity to get additional credibility in the local
communities and to receive additional information and ideas from local residents
and officials. OCPC will continue to respond to local requests for assistance
and participation as much as possible.
Despite the number and variety of mechanisms available for public participatioi
OCPC has yet to reach certain sectors of the public. The interests of developers,
industrialists, agriculturalists, and cranberry bog owners have not been fully
represented in the first phase of the water quality project. As the 208 study
begins to deal more directly with these interests in the next phases of the
study, ad hoc mechanisms for participation will be developed.
Objective #2: Develop public awareness of water quality issues and problems.
Given the lack of major rivers in many parts of the Old Colony area,
OCPC anticipated a major effort in developing public interest in water
quality issues. As previously mentioned, one strategy developed by
OCPC was to broaden the focus on stream and river water quality to the
more comprehensible issues of water supply protection and water-related
recreation. It is relatively difficult to determine whether the 208
4-5
-------
effort has succeeded in elevating the water quality consciousness of the
general Old Colony public. There have been a few indicators that at least
reveal some hopeful signs.
First of all, the opportunities for greater public awareness of water
quality issues have been expanded by the increased coverage given to the
OCPC 208 effort by the local media. The circulation of the newspapers that
regularly cover OCPC 208 activities is given in Appendix I. Examples of
the media coverage are given in Appendicies E and J. The workshops, as well, have
served an important education function. Each workshop featured a verbal
presentation, a visual presentation, and a written handout of water quality
issues and the 208 program.
The workshop discussion periods and the questionnaire results offer
to some extent indicators of overall public perception of water quality
issues. In some workshops, discussion with residents indicated that resi-
dents were indeed more sophisticated about some water quality issues and
relationships than previously thought. Perception by residents of sewerage
impacts on land use and water supply existed in most workshops. The written
responses in the workshop questionnaires also revealed a greater knowledge
of certain water quality issues than expected.
Objective #3: Involve the public in the technical and policy aspects
of 208 planning including goal definition and plan selection.
The true indicator of a successful public participation program is the
extent to which public ideas and comments are integrated into the planning
process. Public participation mechanisms and water quality publicity in and
of themselves are' only means to the goal of incorporating public viewpoints
in 208 planning. Thus far, the OCPC public participation program has
helped to provide technical and policy guidance on the following specific
issues:
•public participation strategies
.sampling locations
•water supply issues
•sewerage impact issues
•groundwater issues
•upstream pollution sources
•specific sources of non-point pollution
•local sources of technical information
At this stage of the 208 study, the transmittal of information and
policy between OCPC and the public has been relatively smooth. It is
expected, however, that as specific proposals emerge from the 208 planning
process that conflicts will emerge. As these proposals are generated, the
true strength of the OCPC public participation mechanisms in resolving con-
flicts will be tested. It has become evident already in the workshops and in
the meetings with the Citizens Committee on Clean Water that each community
has clear priorities which the 208 study should address. Conversely,
the message in some communities has been equally clear in terms of what
constraints will face the 208 planning process. For example, there is
great skepticism in East Bridgewater about public sewerage. Consequently,
alternative non-structural solutions are being considered in greater earnest
for those communities with sewage problems. In Avon, it has become quite
clear that public sewerage will be inacceptable if it will worsen the
already difficult water supply situation in town.
4-6
-------
Objective #4: Develop public support for the implementation of the
208 plan.
The bottom line of the OCPC 208 public participation program is, of
course, the implementation of an acceptable water quality management plan
for the Old Colony region. The OCPC 208 public participation program has
been designed to maximize the implementation ability of the 208 planning
process. The on-going Citizens Committee on Clean Water is comprised of
representatives of the governing authority from each community. This
direct tie to local implementation authority is important. Equally impor-
tant, has been the involvement of local conservation commissions, water
superintendents, and planning boards. By working with these local imple-
mentation authorities, OCPC hopes to build strong local support with those
community officials who can do something to implement 208 proposals. Not
only have all of these local boards been consluted for technical information
and local priorities, but each major community board will be receiving
appropriate outputs as they are published for review and comments.
OCPC has worked hard to establish formal ties with the 208 programs in
the area. Formal memoranda of understanding of contracts with the Brockton,
Avon, and the Old Colony Water Pollution Control District 201 efforts. By
integrating the 208 process with the local 201 efforts, OCPC is attempting
to ally itself with local implementation programs.
Finally, the workshops and the Citizens Committee on Clean -Water have
been effective in delineating the political limitations of 208 planning
efforts. In short, the public has enlightened OCPC as to what issues and
proposals to avoid as well as steering us into issues that will enhance
208 credibility and implementation ability.
4-7
-------
Appendix A
Citizens Committee on Clean Water
-------
(jld (Colony cv lanning. (Council
232 MAIN STREET
BROCKTON. MASS O24OI
617 583-1833
DANIEL M CRANE
IIICUTIVE DIRECTOR
July 28, 1975
Mr. John Duggan, Chairman
Pembroke Selectmen
Town Hall
Pembroke, MA 02359
Dear Mr. Duggan:
As you are probably aware, the Old Colony Planning Council is in the process of
initiating an areawide water quality study in the Brockton area. In this study
we will be identifying and addressing the major water pollution sources in each
of the communities. This water quality study is funded under Section 208 of the
1972 Amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
One of the primary requirements of Section 208" and one of the major goals of the
Old Colony water quality study is the development of an active public participa-
tion process. Too often, plans have been ignored because the planning process
lias only relied on the technical alternatives of planners. I believe the water
quality/sewerage issues in Pembroke are too important for the town not be be
represented in the water quality study. Consequently, I am writing to your Board
to request your assistance in appointing a Pembroke resident to the Citizens
Advisory Committee for the study.
The Citizens Advisory Committee will be responsible for directing the course of
the study and for insuring that the issues in each community are adequatley ad-
dressed. I would appreciate your sending us the name of your appointment by
September 2.
The water quality study will be important to Pembroke for a number of reasons.
First of all, it will identify all pollution sources in Pembroke—not just
sewage related ones. For example, the extent to which runoff from cranberry
bogs and agricultural areas impact Pembroke's ponds and lakes will be studied.
Secondly, the impact of development on Pembroke's well system and Silver Lake
will be outlined and methods developed to deal with potential problems. Finally,
the study will help Pembroke to clarify its future sewerage needs. To what
extent is there a need for sewers in Pembroke? To what extent will sewers induce
unwanted growth in Pembroke?
EAST BRIDGEWATER
SERVING
ABINGTON AVON BRIDGEWATER
EASTON HANSON PEMBROKE
BROCKTON
WEST BRIDGEWATER
WHITMAN
-------
Page 2
Mr. John Duggan
July 28, 1975
Because of the variety of issues, I hope you will not find it too difficult to
find an interested citizen. I have enclosed a section from the water quality
study work plan which describes the objectives of the study.
I look forward to hearing from you. If you have any further questions, please
do not hesitate to call this office.
Very truly yours,
Daniel M. Crane
Executive Director
mal
Enclosure
CC: Pembroke Planning Board
Pembroke Conservation Commission
Pembroke Sewer Study Committee
-------
(jid Colony LI tanning (Council
232 MAIN STREET
BROCKTON MASS O24O1
617-583. 1833
DANIEL M CRANE
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
October 10, 1975
Ms. Jean Foley
Brick Kiln Lane
Pembroke, MA 02359
Dear Ms. Foley :
Thank you for agreeing to serve on the Citizens Committee on Clean Water for
the Town of Pembroke. This important committee will be responsible for directing
the course of an areawide water quality study that the Old Colony Planning Council
is performing in the Old Colony area. Your participation in this study will insure
that the issues in Pembroke are adequately addressed.
The Pembroke Board of Selectmen is officially responsible for appoint the
town's member on the Citizen's Committee. Please let your selectmen know of
your interest in serving on the Committee so that they can make your appointment
official.
This water quality study is funded by the Environmental Protection Agency under
Section 208 of the 1972 Amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
Enclosed is a brochure put out by the Environmental Protection Agency which ex-
plains in general terms the purpose of areawide waste treatment management. The
first meeting of the Citizens Committee will be held Thursday, October 16, 1975
at 7:30 P.M. at the offices of the Old Colony Planning Council, 232 Main Street,
Brockton, Massachusetts (second floor above Ganley's Store).
At this first meeting, members of the Old Colony Planning Council staff will
briefly review the major functions of the areawide water quality study. Most
importantly, representatives, like yourself, will discuss some of the local water
quality concerns in your community.
I hope the date and time for this first meeting will be convenient for you. If
you will be unable to attend, please let me know. At the first meeting, we will
try and establish a monthly meeting date convenient for the group.
I look forward to seeing you at the first meeting.
Very truly yours,
Robert F. McMahon
RFM:al
Enclosure
EAST BRIDGEWATER
SERVING
ABINGTON AVON BRIDGEWATER
EASTON HANSON PEMBROKE
BROCKTON
WEST BRIDGEWATER
WHITMAN
-------
CITIZENS COMMITTEE ON CLEAN WATER
OLD COLONY 208 AREA
ABINGTON
Selectman Richard Colbert
64 Bay State Circle
No. Abington, MA 02351
Home: 878-2638
Ms. Jane Howell
21 Thicket Street
Abington, MA 02351
Home: 878-2954
Mr. John Zipeto
267 Walnut Street
Abington, MA 02351
Home: 871-0263
Work: 223-7213
223-7214
(EPA, Boston — Construction Grants)
AVON
Mr. Robert Cook
100 South Street
Avon, MA 02322
Home: 587-2862
Mr. Peter Crone
532 W. Main Street
Avon, MA 02322
BRIDGEWATER
Ms. Marilyn Furlong
1160 South Street
Bridgewater, MA 02324
Home: 697-6688
Work: 697-8321 , X 321
(Bridgewater State College--
Dept. of Earth Sciences and
Geography)
BROCKTON
Mr. Irving Mendel son
18 Sagamore Road
Brockton, MA 02401
Home: 586-1969
Work: 482-3587 (Boston)
EAST BRIDGEWATER
Mr. William Crowley
109 Amber Drive
East Bridgewater, MA 02333
Home: 378-3811
Work: 378-3161 (EB High School)
EASTON
Mr. David Woodhouse
104 Randall Street
North Easton, MA 02356
Home: 238-7212
NORTH RIVER WATERSHED ASSOCIATION
Mr. Jack Foley
Brick Kiln Road
Pembroke, MA 02359
Home: 826-3652
HANSON
Mr. John Mull in
44 Jean Street
Hanson, MA 02341
Home: 293-3184
PEMBROKE
Ms. Jean Foley
Brick Kiln Road
Pembroke, MA 02359
Home: 826-3652
U Mass (Boston): 825-7499
Mr. William Jordan
Box 6
Marshfield, MA 02050
Home: 826-5683
-------
WEST BRIDGEWATER WHITMAN
Mr. Donald Seablom Mr. Elbert Clayton
131 South Street 535 Plymouth Street
West Bridgewater, MA 02379 Whitman, MA 02382
Home: 587-5267 447-3787
OCPC LIAISON
Mr. Charles Benson Mr. Richard Chase
139 Summer Street 5 Coolidge Circle
East Bridgewater, MA 02333 So. Easton, MA 02375
Home: 587-4396 Home: 238-6362
Work: 423-5959 (Boston)
-------
Appendix B
Clean Water Task Force Technical Committee
-------
L/olony LI tanning (Council
232 MAIN STREET
BROCKTON. MASS O24O1
617.383.1833
DANIEL M CRANE
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
September 5, 1975'
Mr. Richard Young, 208 Coordinator
Division of Water Pollution Control
100 Cambridge Street
Boston, MA 02202
Dear Mr. Young:
The 0]d Colony Planning Council has recently been awarded a grant from the
Environmental Protection Agency to conduct an areawide water quality study
in the Brockton area. This study is being conduct
-------
CLEAN WATER TASK FORCE
TECHNICAL COMMITTEE
OLD COLONY 208 AREA
Mr. Paul 'Anderson
DWPC
P.O. Box 545
Westboro, MA 01581
(617) 366-9181
Mr. Gerald Beals/Kris Carlson/John Goolsky
Project QUEST
Brockton High School
470 Forest Street
Brockton, MA 02401
(617) 588-7800
Mr. Paul Blackford
(North River Watershed Association)
Earth Sciences Department
Bridgewater State College
Bridgewater, MA 02324
(617) 697-8321
Mr. John Craig
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Building 114 South
424 Trapello Road
Waltham, MA 02154
(617) 894-2400, X513
Mr. Roger Duwart
EPA
J.F.K. Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
(617) 223-5137
Mr. John Harrington
MAPC
44 School Street
Boston, MA 02108
(617) 227-0176
Mr. Edward G. Konieczny
Soil Conservation Service
153 Broadway
Raynham, MA 02767
(617) 823-5376
Mr. Robert Leland
Plymouth Co. ASCS
9 North Main Street
West Bridgewater, MA 02379
(617) 584-7398
Mr. Daniel McGillicuddy
DEQE
Saltonstall Building
100 Cambridge Street
Boston, MA 02202
(617) 727-7770
Mr. Al McNiff
OSP
McCormack Building, 21st floor
One Ashburton Place
Boston, MA 02108
(617) 727-8990
Mr. Mike Sikora
Plymouth Co. Exten. Service
High Street
Hanson, MA 02341
(617) 293-3541
Mr. John Skypeck/KentTaylor
SRPEDD
7 Barnabas Road
Marion, MA 02738
(617) 748-2100
Mr. Paul Stralitz
DWPC
Saltonstall Building
Room 1901
100 Cambridge Street
Boston, MA 02202
(617) 727-3855
(617) 727-4635
Ms. Terry Ann Vigil
Bureau of Transportation
Dept. of Public Works, 5th floor
190 Portland Street
Boston, MA 02114
Mr. Paul White
DWR
Saltonstall Building
Room 1901
100 Cambridge Street
Boston, MA 02202
(617) 727-3267
-------
OLD COLONY CLEAN WATER TASK FORCE
TECHNICAL COMMITTEE
MINUTES OF THE MEETING
SEPTEMBER 23, 1975
The first meeting of the Old Colony Clean Water Task Force Technical Committee
was held on Tuesday, September 23, 1975 in the offices of the Old Colony Planning
Council, 232 Main Street, Brockton, Massachusetts.
Present Were:
John Skypeck SRPEDD
Roger Duwart EPA
Dan McGillicuddy DEQE
Paul Stralitz DWPC
Carl Salvo OCPC
Bob McMahon OCPC
John Goldrosen OCPC
Susan Wilkes OCPC
Ann Lundberg OCPC
The meeting was convened at 2:00 P.M. by Bob McMahon. Mr. McMahon introduced
the Old Colony Planning Council 208 staff to the other technical committee members
and explained that two additional professional planners would be on board at OCPC
by October 6.
Mr. McMahon explained that additional agencies had appointed representatives
to the Technical Committee but had been unable to attend today's meeting. The
Office of State Planning, Soil Conservation Service, and the Metropolitan Area
Planning Council will have representatives at future meetings. The Committee also
decided that representatives from Bridgewater State College, the Corps of Engineers,
the Division of Water Pollution Control/Westboro, the Division of Water Resources,
and watershed associations should be invited. Mr. McMahon advised the group that
the U.S. Geological Survey had regretfully declined membership but that they would
participate on an ad hoc basis.
Mr. McMahon then gave a status report on several items:
Project Control Plan: As a result of the PCP meeting with the Division and the
EPA, several items in the PCP are being revised. The major holdups for getting final
approval of the PCP are the Public Participation element, MOU's with the Old Colony
Water Pollution Control District, MAPC, Westboro, and SRPEDD.
OCPC/OCWPCD MOU: An MOU has been agreed to by the consultants for OCPC and the
OCWPCD and is awaiting formal approval by the Council and by the District. This should
take place by October 3.
OCPC/MAPC MOU: MAPC is presently reviewing the MOU that OCPC drafted.
-------
September 23, 1975 - 2 - "Minutes"
Summer Sampling Program: The actual sampling and analysis for the summer sampling
program conducted by the Division has been completed and the Division will be for-
warding the reports to OCPC in October.
Citizens Advisory Committee: Eight of the ten communities in the 208 study area
have appointed representatives to the Committee. Hanson and Pembroke have yet to
name representatives. A lengthy discussion ensued relative to voting procedures and
the Committee. The pros and cons of having formalized voting was discussed and it
was pointed out that it might be more appropriate to try and reach a consensus in
meetings rather than to take a formal vote. Mr. McGillicuddy also suggested that
Technical Committee members be sent an agenda of the citizen's meetings.
Groundwater Contract: A proposed Phase I contract with Goldberg-Zoino for
$15,500 has received tentative clearance from EPA and DEQE. OCPC will now execute
this Phase I contract.
The meeting then turned to a discussion of some pending issues in OCPC's 208
program. Mr. McMahon pointed out that in a meeting at Westboro with the Division
on September 19, 1975, the Division verbally agreed to make the Taunton River Basin
Model available to OCPC for use in the 208 program. At that September 19 meeting,
Mr. Coopermari of DWPC/Westboro pointed out that the Taunton River Model would be
ready for use in December and that there was sufficient money available in Westboro's
budget to run the model. Mr. Duwart reiterated that it will be wise for OCPC to get
Westboro's commitment in writing.
Mr. McMahon reviewed the status of the stormwater proposal for the OCPC 208
study. He indicated that OCPC will probably be going with a phased approach with
its stormwater consultant because of the unresolved questions surrounding the water
quality response modelling portion of the stormwater proposal.
Mr. McMahon reported that OCPC was still weighing the merits of using Bridgewater
State College or the DWPC/Westboro for its additional sampling program. Mr. Duwart
indicated that EPA would be developing a quality control program for all the sampling
programs done under 208. A policy paper will be distributed shortly on this.
For the remainder of the meeting, Susan Wilkes and John Goldrosen of the OCPC
208 staff reviewed extensively the work they have been doing in land use and water
supply respectively. As a result of these presentations, Mr. McGillicuddy suggested
that there be some arrangement for exchanging the outputs from each of the 208 agencies.
In response to Mr. Goldrosen's questions about the possibility of including Kingston
in the 208 area, Mr. McGillicuddy indicated that if a case could be made for its in-
clusion and Kingston was agreeable, then OCPC should formally request the Governor
to add Kingston to the OCPC 208 area.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:30 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Robert F. McMahon
208 Project Manager
-------
CITIZEN'S COMMITTEE ON CLEAN WATER
MINUTES OF THE MEETING
OCTOBER 16, 1975
A meeting of the Citizen's Committee on Clean Water was held on Thursday,
October 16, 1975 in the offices of the Old Colony Planning Council, 232 Main Street,
Brockton, Massachusetts.
Present were:
Daniel Crane OCPC Executive Director
Robert McMahon OCPC 208 Project Manager
Marilyn Furlong Bridgewater
Irving Mendel son Brockton
Peter Crone Avon
Robert Cook Avon
Elbert Clayton Whitman
Richard Colbert Abington
Donald Seablom West Bridgewater
John Zipeto Abington
John Goldrosen OCPC 208 Staff
Susan Wilkes OCPC 208 Staff
Thomas Galvin OCPC 208 Staff
Robert Kaye OCPC 208 Staff
The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. by Robert McMahon. On behalf of
the OCPC staff, Daniel Crane welcomed the members of the Citizen's Committee to
the meeting.
Robert McMahon explained the origins of the OCPC 208 study and discussed several
key provisions of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972. Under Section 208
of that act, planning is to be undertaken on an areawide basis; both point and non-
point pollution sources are to be considered. The goal of such planning is to be
not just restoration, but also preservation of water quality.
Mr. McMahon discussed the subjects to be covered in the study: facilities
(sewerage) planning, land use/water quality, water-related Idnd use, stormi drainage,
nonpoint sources, industrial sources and management systems. He gave examples of
local water quality problems in the OCPC 208 communities and explained how these
problems would be studied in 208 planning. He pointed out the importance of creating
greater public awareness of local water quality issues.
Susan Wilkes outlined some possible ways to ensure public participation in
208 planning. The Citizen's Committee could, through its meetings, develop a
regional viewpoint, while allowing each community's interests to be expressed by
its representatives. The Committee could also serve as a catalyst for local activities
which would increase public awareness and allow involvement by a wider range of
citizens. The OCPC staff plans to hold workshops in each community every six
months to address the special concerns of each municipality. The staff will also
be available for special informational meetings with local boards and
private interest groups. Areawide public hearings will be held to discuss planning
proposals and water quality standards.
-------
October 16, 1975 - 2 - "Minutes"
Ms. Wilkes ?lso mentioned that a Technical Advisory Committee has been formed,
consisting of representatives of state and federal agencies and of watershed
associations.
Several of the representatives mentioned the water quality issues and pollution
sources which are of greatest importance in their communities and the degree of
public concern over these problems. The impacts of pollution on recreational acti-
vities and drinking water quality were among these issues.
Questions were posed to the OCPC staff concerning the relation between the
208 study and the Old Colony Water Pollution Control District 201 study, and the
steps being taken to avoid overlap and duplication of effort. It was decided that
the next meeting would focus on the work the OCPC 208 staff proposes to do and the
work which will be done for the 208 study by private consultants. Anderson-Nichols,
the consultant for facilities planning, will be asked to send a representative to
the next meeting. Copies of the work proposals submitted to the OCPC by the con-
sultants will be sent to the members of the Citizen's Committee.
It was decided that the most convenient date for regular meetings of the
Citizen's Committee would be the second Thursday of each month, and that the OCPC
office was the most convenient location for the committee meetings. The next
meeting was scheduled for November 13, 1975.
The following items were distributed to those present at the meeting: a
list of the Citizen's Committee members and their addresses; a list of the OCPC
208 staff; and a handout titled "An Introduction to the OCPC 208 Project," describing
the general purposes and scope of 208 planning and the content of the OCPC 208 work
program.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:35 P.M.
Respectfully Submitted,
John Goldrosen
JG:al
-------
Appendix D
Old Colony Water Pollution Control District
-------
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BY AND BETWEEN THE OLD COLONY PLANNING COUNCIL AND THE
OLD COLONY WATER POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT RELATING TO SEWERAGE PLANNING IN THE
OLD COLONY PLANNING COUNCIL DISTRICT.
WHEREAS the Old Colony Planning Council, hereinafter called the OCPC, and the Old
Colony Water Pollution Control District, hereinafter called the OCWPCD, are engaged
in sewerage planning, more commonly referred to as facilities planning, in the com-
munities of Abington, Bridgewater, East Bridgewater, Easton, Hanson, Pembroke, West
Bridgewater, and Whitman, hereinafter called the Planning Area, under Section 208
and Section 201 respectively of the 1972 Amendments to the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act (P.L. 92-500): and
WHEREAS the statutory mandates of the OCPC under Section 208 and the OCWPCD under
Section 201 identify areas of potential duplication of effort and conflict; and
WHEREAS the establishment of cooperative and coordinated procedures involving sewerage
planning under Section 208 and Section 201 in the Old- Colony Planning Council District
is the stated goal of the participants, and of the United States Environmental Pro-
tection Agency hereinafter called the EPA, according -to "Program Guidance #47" attached
to this Agreement, and of the Massachusetts Division of Water Pollution Control,
hereinafter called the DWPC, according to "201 Facilities Planning and 208 Planning"
Memorandum of April 23, 1975; and
WHEREAS the goal of the OCPC and the OCWPCD is to achieve an expeditious 208 planning
process within the context of the more comprehensive 208 planning process:
NOW THEREFORE, the OCPC and the OCWPCD agree to the following:
1. That the OCPC and the OCWPCD formalize their coordination on matters of sewerage
planning in the Old Colony Planning Council District. Such areas may include, but
are not limited to, the items listed below. Such formal coordination is to be carried
out in the following manner:
Existing Regional and Local Planning Documents
The OCPC shall make available to the OCWPCD for review requested copies-of all existing
regional and local planning and engineering documents presently available prior to
the commencement of the Section 201 facilities planning process.
Water Quality Data
The OCPC shall provide copies of the most recent water quality data collected in
the Section 208 planning process to the OCWPCD for stream analysis by November, 1975.
Existing Sewerage Systems
The OCWPCD shall provide access to the OCPC for review any existing local sewerage
plans, sewage flow data, wastewater treatment evaluations relating to the Bridgewater
and Abington sewerage facilities collected in the Section 201 facilities planning
process by Month three of the Section 201 planning process.
-------
Industrial Wastewater Inventory
The OCWPCD shall provide access to the OCPC for review industrial wastewater data
collected relating to existing and projected flows, waste characteristics, water
consumption, operating schedules and other pertinent data by Month six of the
Section 201 planning process for the Planning Area.
Environmentally Sensitive Areas
The OCPC shall provide access to the OCWPCD for the Planning Area data and maps
for the following environmental categories:
wetlands; flood plain information where available; soils information; ground-
water information (aquifers, recharge areas, groundwater contours); forest and
vegetation information; and hydrologic characteristics for major streams, rivers,
ponds, and lakes by December, 1975.
Land Use and Demographic Information
The OCPC shall provide access to the OCWPCD by November, 1975 for review within
the Planning Area the following information:
-existing land use maps and data
-existing zoning maps and regulations
-existing (1970 and 1975) population
-projected population to 2,000 by five year increments
-employment projections for manufacturing firms by two-digit SIC code for
1978, 1980, 1983, and 1985.
Water Supply, and Consumption
The OCPC shall provide access to the OCWPCD by November, 1975 for review the
following information for the Planning Area:
-safe yield for existing water supply sources
-proposed water supply sources
-water rate structure
-average day demand figures for each year since 1960
-maximum day demand figures for each year since 1960
-per capita consumption figures for residential users since 1970
-# of service connections
-commercial water usage for 1970 and 1974.
Sewerage Need
The OCPC shall provide access to the OCWPCD by January , 1976 for review data
and maps for the Planning Area in the following categories:
-adequacy of existing on-lot subsurface disposal systems
-documentation of sewer need.
Sewer Service Areas
The OCPC shall provide access to the OCWPCD by February, 1976 for review potential
sewer service areas and projected wastewater flows for the communities of East
Bridgewater, Hanson, and Pembroke. Any preliminary data for East Bridgewater
available prior to February, 1976 shall be used by OCWPCD until more complete in-
formation is available.
The OCWPCD shall make available to the OCPC by Month four of the Section 201
planning process proposed sewer service areas and projected wastewater flows for
the communities of Abington, Bridgewater, Easton, West Bridgewater, and Whitman.
-------
Wastewater Disposal System Options
The OCPC shall make available to the OCWPCD by March, 1976 preferred alternative
wastewater disposal system options for East Bridgewater, Hanson, and Pembroke in
order for OCWPCD to proceed with some basis for accomodating or not accomodating
these non-member communities.
The OCWPCD shall make available to the OCPC by Month six of the Section 201 planning
process preliminary selection of proposed wastewater treatment process and prelimi-
nary wastewater treatment plant site selection.
Recommended Wastewater Disposal System
The OCWPCD shall make available to the OCPC by Month ten of the Section 201 planning
process the following information:
-cost estimate of treatment facilities
-final design criteria
-final site selection
-final layout of wastewater treatment plant
The OCPC shall make available to the OCWPCD by Month eleven preferred alternatives
and areas to be sewered for East Bridgewater, Hanson, and Pembroke.
Facilities Plan Report
The OCWPCD shall provide the OCPC with a draft copy of the final Facilities Plan
report during Month eleven of the Section 201 planning process.
2. OCPC and OCWPCD shall meet at least monthly to review the progress of the two
planning efforts and to resolve on-going coordination problems.
3. OCPC and OCWPCD shall coordinate public participation programs with respect to
all facilities planning tasks in the Planning Area. The results of all public
participation programs shall be made available to each party.
4. If additional communication or coordination between the OCPC and the OCWPCD is
deemed pertinent to the terms of this agreement by OCPC or the OCWPCD, further
coordination shall be executed between OCPC and OCWPCD under this agreement. Except
that under no circumstances, however, shall the confidentiality of any correspondence,
phone calls, memorandas, and meetings deemed as confidential under statute be
compromised.
5. This memorandum shall be executed by the signatures on the memorandum of both
parties.
6. This Memorandum of Understanding may be amended at any time at the initiation of
either party. Such amendment shall be deemed effective upon mutual agreement in
writing of the parties and by consent of the Environmental Protection Agency and
the Massachusetts Division of Water Pollution Control. In instances of conflict
between OCPC and OCWPCD in executing this memorandum, either party shall appeal to
the EPA or the DWPC for resolution. In any case, this memorandum shall be reviewed
jointly by both parties six months after its execution and recommendations may be
made for deletions or additions.
-------
7. This memorandum may be terminated by either signatory upon consent of the EPA
and the DWPC, provided that two (2) months written notice is given.
President
Date: 9/23/75
Joh
Old
DeMar«
Dlony Planning Council
Chairman
-?
U
/ / •"' A''
'/-.:&
Date: 10/22/75
Charles A. Dyke ^
Old Colony Water Pollution Control District
/
n
-------
Appendix E
Water Quality Workshops
-------
OLD COLONY PLANNING COUNCIL
232 MAIN STREET
BROCKTON, MA 02401
Robert M. Kaye
Regional Planner
583-1833
PRESS RELEASE: January 7, 1976
Citizens Workshop on Water Quality
A Water Quality Workshop will be held in Hanson on Wednesday, February 11,
1976 at 8:00 P.M. in the Indian Head School. The purpose of the workshop is
to introduce and discuss the Old Colony Planning Council's new areawide water
quality study. The workshop is being sponsored by the Citizens Committee on
Clean Water, which is responsible for directing the study. Mr. John Mullin
has been appointed by the Hanson Selectmen to represent Hanson on the Citizens
Committee.
The Workshop is open to all interested citizens, and the Citizens Committee
on Clean Water hopes that a large number of Hanson residents will attend and
present their views on the key water quality issues facing Hanson.
The workshop offers an opportunity for Hanson residents to meet their
representative on the Citizens Committee and the members of the Old Colony
Planning Council staff who are working on the water quality planning program.
At the workshop, the purpose and content of the program will be explained in
detail. Most of the workshop will be devoted to an open discussion of the
important water quality issues in Hanson. Among the issues which are likely
to arise at the workshop are the use of ponds and rivers in Hanson for recrea-
tion, the protection of local water supplies and wetland conservation areas,
water quality problems caused by septic tank failures, potential plans for
sewers and wastewater treatment facilities, and the possible impacts of the
water quality planning program on the future development of Hanson.
The water quality study is funded by the Federal Government under
Section 208 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972. The study
began last July and will be completed by November, 1977. The Environmental
Protection Agency has stated that it will follow the recommendations made in
the final 208 plan in allocating federal funds for wastewater treatment
facility construction over the next decade and in issuing discharge permits.
Therefore, the final 208 plan will be an important influence on water quality
in Hanson and on the town's growth and development for years to come. Parti-
cipation in the workshop is one way for citizens and officials of Hanson to
ensure that their viewpoints are fully considered at an early stage in the
preparation of the 208 plan.
Refreshments will be served.
-------
OLD COLONY PLANNING COUNCIL
232 MAIN STREET
BROCKTON, MA 02401
Robert M. Kaye
Regional Planner
583-1833
PRESS RELEASE: January 13, 1976
WATER QUALITY WORKSHOP
Hanson's Citizens Workshop on Water Quality will be held on Wednesday.
February 11,1976 at 8:00 P.M. in the Indian Head School. At the workshop,
the Old Colony Planning Council's water quality study will be discussed.
This is an opportunity for all interested citizens to express their views
on the key water quality issues facing Hanson.
-------
OLD COLONY PLANNING COUNCIL
232 MAIN STREET
BROCKTON, MA 02401
Robert M. Kaye
Regional Planner
583-1833
COMMUNITY SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT
A Water Quality Workshop will be held in Hanson on Wednesday,
February 11, 1976 at 8:00 P.M. in the Indian Head School. All interested
Hanson residents are invited to come and learn more about plans for im-
proving and protecting water quality in Hanson. The workshop is a chance
for you to express your views on the important growth and water quality
issues facing Hanson. Refreshments will be served. That's the Hanson Water
Quality Workshop, Wednesday, February 11, 1976 at 8:00 P.M. in the Indian
Head School.
-------
anmnq
tr
P 7
Council
232 MAIN STREET
BROCKTON. MASS O24OI
617.583- 1833
DANIEL M CRANE
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
December 2, 1975
Mr. George Hines, Chairperson
Science Department
Whitman-Hanson Regional High School
Franklin Street
Whitman, MA 02382
Dear Mr. Hines:
As you are probably aware, the Old Colony Planning Council (OCPC) has
initiated an areawide water quality study under Section 208 of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act of 1972. In this study, we will be identifying
and addressing the major water pollution sources and water quality-related
issues in each community as well as for the area as a whole. The enclosed
background information paper describes the scope of our work in greater
detail.
One of the major requirements of Section 208 and. one of the major goals of
the Old Colony Water Quality Study is the development of an active public
role in the planning process. Hanson's waters will not be cleaned or
stay clean without the informed allegiance of an involved public. It is
our hope to involve many of Hanson's students and teachers in the planning
process. This is where you can be of vital assistance to the project. By
making your colleagues and students aware of our progress, schedule of meetings,
and local events, you can make a significant contribution to citizen awareness
and participation.
The first Water Quality Workshop will be held in Hanson on Wednesday,
February 11, 1976 at 8:00 P.M. in the Indian Head School. All interested
Hanson residents are invited to come and learn more about plans for improving
and protecting water quality in Hanson. The Workshop is a chance for you,
your colleagues, and students to express your views on the important growth
and water quality issues facing Hanson.
Enclosed are some flyers announcing the meeting.
circulate this information to your colleagues.
Please post them and
The Water Quality study will be important to Hanson for a number of
reasons. First, we will examine the complicated issue of wastewater dis
posal in Hanson. Are sewers needed? If so, what areas need them most?
EAST BRIDGEWATER
SERVING
ABINGTON AVON BRIDGEWATER
EASTON HANSON PEMBROKE
BROCKTON
WEST BRIDGEWATER
WHITMAN
-------
December 2, 1976
Mr. George Hines
Page 2
What potential impact if any might sewers have on land use and groundwater
supplies? Second, we will be working with Pembroke to protect Hanson's
water supply at Silver Lake. Finally, we will work to preserve traditional
swimming areas and other water-related recreation areas.
I will be sending you additional information and materials in the weeks and
months to come. Your ongoing support through the two-year planning phase
and the eight-year implementation phase of this project will mean a great
deal to the citizens of your community and the Old Colony Area.
Sincerely,
Robert M. Kaye I
Regional Planner
RMK:al
Enclosures
-------
HANSON
Hanson Citizens Groups
4-H Club
Plymouth County Ext. Service
High Street
Hanson, MA 02341
Hanson Boards
Patricia L. Stearns, Chairwoman
Board of Selectmen
Town Hall
Hanson, MA 02341
N. River Watershed Association
P.O. Box 411
Marshfield, MA 02051
Ms. Susan Webster
Bi-Centennial Commission
State Street
Hanson, MA 02341
Mrs. Edward Carney
Hanson Historical Society
89 E. Washington Street
Hanson, MA 02341
Mr. Neal Ross
Hanson Housing Authority
46 Wagon Trail
Hanson, MA 02341
Ms. Zena Little field, Canrnander-
American Legion
Whitman Street
Hanson, MA 02341
Mr. Peter Nawezelski, Chairman
Conservation Commission
Town Hall
Hanson, MA 02341
Mr. Thomas M. Barr, Chairman
Planning Board
Town Hall
Hanson, MA 02341
Mr. Edward Gronlund, Chairman
Board of Health
Town Hal 1
Hanson, MA 02341
Mr. William Dunston
Industrial Development Commission
Town Hall
Hanson, MA 02341
Mr. Wallace Darsch
Water Superintendent
Town Hall
Hanson, MA 02341
-------
& tanning Council
232 MAIN STREET
BROCKTON MASS 024OI
617-583-1833
DANIEL M CRANE
CXCCUTIVC DIRECTOR
January 14, 1976
To the Citizens Groups of Hanson:
I would like to take this opportunity to invite you to a very important
meeting which will take place in Hanson. The Old Colony Planning Council
is conducting an Areawide Water Quality Study in the Old Colony region.
This study is funded by the Environmental Protection Agency under the pro-
visions of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972,
Section 208. In order to insure maximum public involvement, we are holding
a workshop in each community early in the study process. The first Hanson
Water Quality Workshop will be held at the Indian Head School , Wednesday,
February 11, 1976 at. 8:00 P.M.
The purpose of the meeting is threefold:
1.) Review the general scope of the water quality study
2.) Summarize initial work done in Hanson and in the study area
3.) Get comments and opinions from Hanson officials and citizens
on water quality and land use issues in Hanson.
Hanson's representative on the Citizens Committee for Clean Water (the
on-going citizens' group directing the course of the study), Mr. John
Mull in, will be on hand with OCPC representatives to answer questions and
receive comments. The workshop, as mentioned, will be open to all Hanson
residents.
I certainly hope that you can attend this workshop. The results of this
water quality study will guide potential federal and state funding for con-
struction should Hanson decide to build sewers. In addition, this study
presents an opportunity to protect Hanson's water supply at Silver Lake
(Pembroke) and to clean up Hanson's streams and ponds for future generations
The success of the study depends on your ideas and participation!
Very truly your
1
Daniel M/ Crane
Executive Director
DMC:al
SERVING
ABINGTON AVON BRIDGEWATER BROCKTON
EAST BRIDGEWATER EASTON HANSON PEMBROKE WEST BRIDGEWATER WHITMAN
-------
PI ay - p 7
Uo/o/n/ cJ tannin Council
/n/ c anning
232 MAIN STREET
BROCKTON MASS O24OI
61 7-583-1833
DANIEL M CRANE
CKICUTIVE DIRCCTOR
January 14, 1976
To the Selectmen, Planning Board, Conservation Commission, Board of Health,
Water Superintendent, and Industrial Development Commission:
I would like to take this opportunity to invite you to a very important
meeting which will take place in Hanson. As you are probably aware, the
Old Colony Planning Council is conducting an areawide water quality study
in the Old Colony area. In order to insure maximum public involvement, we
are holding a workshop in each community early in the study process. The
first Hanson Water Quality Workshop will be held at the Indian Head School,
Wednesday, February 11, 1976_at 8:00 P.M.
The purpose of the meeting is threefold:
1.) Review the general scope of the water quality study
2.) Summarize initial work done in Hanson and in the study area
3.) Get comments and opinions from Hanson officials and citizens
on water quality and land use issues in Hanson.
Hanson's representative on the Citizens Committee for Clean Water (the
on-going citizens' group directing the course of the study), Mr. John Mullin,
will be on hand with OCPC representatives to answer questions and receive
comments. The workshop, as mentioned, will be open to all Hanson residents,
and I have enclosed a flyer that will be distributed throughout the community
I certainly hope that you can attend this workshop. The results of this
water quality study will guide potential federal and state funding for con-
struction should Hanson decide to build sewers. In addition, this study
presents an opportunity to protect Hanson's water supply as Silver Lake
(Pembroke) and to clean up Hanson's streams and ponds for future generations.
The success of the study depends on your ideas and participation!
Ver/y truly your
Executive Director
DMCral
Enc.
SERVING
ABINGTON AVON BRIDGEWATER BROCKTON
EAST BRIDGEWATER EASTON HANSON PEMBROKE WEST BRIDGEWATER WHITMAN
-------
HANSON
Water Quality Workshop
Help Protect and Preserve Water Resources in Your Community
Have your say on:
* Ponds and rivers for recreation
* Ground and surface water supplies
* Wetland conservation areas
* Flooding and erosion
* Septic tank failures
* Sewers and treatment facilities
* Your community's future development
Where? INDIAN HEAD SCHOOL
When? WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 1976 8:00 P.M.
who? Citizens Committee for Clean Water
and
Old Colony Planning Council
583-1833
Don't Leave it to the Experts
QUALITY
-------
HANSON REPRESENTAVE
CITIZENS,COMMITTEE FOR CLEAN WATER
Mr. John Mull in
208 WATER QUALITY STAFF
Bob McMahon
208 Project Manager
Tom Galvin
Sewerage Planning
Industrial Wastewater Management
John Goldrosen
Non-Point Pollution
Stormwater Runoff
Groundwater
Bob Kaye
Public Participation Coordinator
Land Use
Ann Lundberg
Secretary
Susan Hi Ikes
Land Use
Water-related Land Use
OLD COLONY PLANNING COUNCIL
232 MAIN STREET
BROCKTON, MA 02401
(617) 583-1833
MATER QUALITY CONSULTANTS
Anderson - Nichols, Inc. (Boston, Ma.) - Sewerage Planning
Bridgewater State College (Bridgewater, Ma.) - Mater Sampling Program
Energy Environment Analysis, Inc. (Boston, Ma.) - Urban runoff and other non-point sources
Fay, Spofford and Thorndike, Inc. (Boston, Ma.) - Industrial Wastewater in Brockton
Goldberg-Zoino, Associates, Inc. (Newton, Ma.) - Groundwater
-------
AN INTRODUCTION TO THE OCPC 208 PROJECT
I. The Purpose of 208 Planning
Over the past few years, citizens of communities in the Old Colony area have
become increasingly aware of local problems caused by present and potential water
pollution. They are concerned about protection of water bodies used for recrea-
tion, protection of surface and groundwater sources of drinking water, and prevention
of environmental damage from various types of growth and development.
In 1972, Congress passed the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. The Act
sets forth a national goal of eliminating pollutant discharges into national waters
by 1985 and an interim goal of achieving by July 1, 1983 a level of water quality
sufficient for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and
the use of water for recreational activities. In passing this law, Congress recog-
nized that agencies which were most responsive to local concerns and were best able
to involve local citizens in their activities should be responsible for examining
pollution sources in great detail and defining the steps required to improve and
preserve local water quality. Section 208 of the Act provided for the funding
of such areawide planning efforts.
In June, 1975, the Old Colony Planning Council received a grant of $650,000
under Section 208 for water quality planning in ten OCPC communities: Abington,
Avon, Bridgewater, Brockton, East Bridgewater, Easton, Hanson, Pembroke, West
Bridgewater, and Whitman. No local matching funds are involved. The funding is
for a two-year period which began June 16, 1975.
Many people wonder why the 208 planning program is necessary. What, they
ask, will the 208 plan accomplish that is not already provided for in state and
federal anti-pollution programs? One answer is that once a 208 plan is adopted,
other programs will operate in coordination with it, thus providing for a greater
local role in water pollution control. The following description of these other
programs should help to explain the purpose of, and the need for , 208 planning.
The 1972 Act established a system of permits for so-called "point sources" -
those which discharge pollution into a stream through a definite pipe or channel.
Under this permit program existing and new "point sources" must, as a condition for
being allowed to discharge into surface waters, agree to adopt certain pollution
control techniques and follow a definite abatement schedule so that the national
water quality goals can be met. These permits are issued jointly by the state and
federal governments under the "National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System"
(NPDES), which was established by Section 402 of the 1972 Act.
Often the principal point sources of pollution are municipal treatment plants.
Many older plants were not designed to provide the level of treatment now considered
desirable, and others lack the capacity to handle increased loads generated by
recent growth. Newly urbanized areas may be without any public sewage treatment,
and private systems may not treat domestic or industrial wastes adequately. To
expedite the elimination of pollution from inadequate sewage treatment systems,
federal aid is available under Section 201 of the Act for the Planning, design, and
construction of municipal wastewater treatment facilities. Currently, the federal
government pays up to 75 percent of the project costs; the state of Massachusetts
also contributes to the cost, so that the local share is only 10 percent.
-------
Prior to the 1972 Act, older federal legislation directed states to classify
streams according to the current and potential uses of the water, and to establish
applicable water quality standards for each classification. Where the adoption by
point sources of the technologies required under the 1972 Act will not be sufficient
to bring the receiving stream's water quality up to the relevant standards, more
stringent limitations may be imposed on the sources of pollution. Section 303 (e)
of the 1972 Act directs states to prepare plans for entire river basins describing
the point source abatement procedures which will be followed to improve and main-
tain water quality in the basin.
Even if all of the point sources of pollution are identified and compelled
to adopt better pollution control technologies, the national goal of making our
waters suitable for recreational uses by 1983 might still not be attained. This
is because there are pollution sources not covered by the NPDES program. These
so-called "nonpoint sources" are not considered in the statewide basin planning,
which considers only the improvement in stream quality attainable if point source
pollution is abated; nor are these sources considered in local 201 facilities
planning, which deals only with the design of treatment plants and interceptors
for those communities desiring centralized public sewerage systems. Some common
non-point sources are agricultural runoff, septic tanks, sanitary landfills, urban
stormwater runoff, and sand-and-gravel operations.
In writing the 1972 Act, the Congress therefore saw a need for an intermediate
level of planning, covering a geographical level larger than the area covered under
201 planning and smaller than that covered in 303(e) basin planning, and charged
with the examination of both point and nonpoint problems. Section 208 of the Act
provides for such "areawide waste treatment management planning."
In setting up its 208 planning program, the Old Colony Planning Council has
taken steps to ensure that its activities will be coordinated with the state's
water pollution control program and with other 208 planning efforts. A technical
advisory committee has been formed, consisting of representatives from numerous
public agencies which are involved in water resources management. The Metropolitan
Area Planning Council (MAPC) and the Southeastern Regional Planning and Economic
Development District (SRPEDD), the agencies responsible for 208 planning in the
communities adjacent to the OCPC 208 area, have representatives on this committee.
II. The Scope of 208 Planning
According to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, plans prepared by the
regional 208 agency are to include, at a minimum, the following:
A. The identification of treatment works necessary to meet the anticipated
municipal and industrial waste treatment needs of the area over a twenty-
year period.
B. The establishment of priorities and time schedules for the construction
of such treatment works.
C. The establishment of a regulatory program to:
1) Implement waste treatment management programs to control or'
treat point and nonpoint pollution sources;
2) Regulate the location, modification, and construction of any
facilities which may result in discharges in the area;
-------
3) Assure that any industrial or commercial wastes discharging
into treatment works in the area meet applicable pretreatment
requi rements.
D. The identification of the agencies which will construct and operate
facilities required by the plan.
E. The identification of the measures necessary to carry out the plan
(including financing), the time that will be required, the costs
involved, and the economic, social, and environmental impacts of
carrying out the plan.
F. A process to:
1) Identify the following types of nonpoint sources and
2) set forth procedures and methods (including land use requirements)
to control them:
a) Agricultural and si 1vicultural sources, including
runoff from manure disposal areas and from land
used for livestock and crop production;
b) Mine-related sources;
c) Sources related to construction activity.
G. A process to control the disposal of residual wastes and all pollutants
on land or in subsurface excavations so as to protect ground and sur-
face water quality.
Ill. Public Involvement in 208 Planning
The OCPC planning staff will make every effort to create greater public
awareness of local water quality issues, and to involve the public at large
in the formation and implementation of the 208 plan. One mechanism for such
participation is the Citizens Committee on Clean Water, a special committee
established to oversee the 208 program. The members of this committee were
officially appointed by the governments of each community in the OCPC 208
area.
More than just one or two people from each community must become involved
if the 208 planning effort is to be successful. The OCPC staff will'strive-to
keep the public informed through workshops, hearings, newsletters, newspaper
articles, and other means. In return, we seek public response, suggestions, and
criticisms so that all points of view can be heard and considered. The Old
Colony area's waters will not be cleaned or stay clean without the informed
allegiance of an involved public.
IV. The Implementation of 208 Plans
All too often, plans are prepared and presented, but never carried out. One
may well ask how the 208 plans are to avoid this pitfall—what makes them different
'from other planning efforts?
-------
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act sets forth procedures for the
official adoption of each 208 plan. In the spring of 1977, the plan recommended
by the Citizens Committee on Clean Water will be presented at public hearings for
discussion and comment; also, each municipal government will consider the plan
and approve it, disapprove it, or approve it with modifications. The Citizens
Committee on Clean Water will revise the plan based on the comments of the public
and local officials, and recommend a final plan to the OCPC. When the OCPC
approves the final plan, it will be sent to the Governor. If he likewise approves
of it, he will certify it and send it to the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency, and at the same time designate the waste treatment agency or
agencies which will carry out the plan.
Quite possibly, legal and institutional changes may be necessary before
the plan can be put into effect: the plan may depend for its success on volun-
tary grants of powers to the designated waste management agency from municipalities
and the state. Consequently, if the plan is to be effective, those who prepare
it must strive for a realistic plan which is acceptable to the communities involved
This is but one reason why citizen involvement is essential in the preparation of
the plan throughout the planning period.
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act stipulates that, once a region's
208 plan has been approved by the EPA Administrator, certain important, federal
activities in that region must conform with the plan:
1) Section 201 grants for the design and construction of waste treatment
facilities in the area may go only to the designated waste management
agency, and grants may be made only for works in conformity with the
plan.
2) No NPDES point source discharge permit may be issued if it conflicts
with the approved plan.
In short, acceptance of the 208 plan by EPA means that that agency judges
implementation to be feasible and will itself adhere to the plan. Implementation
is an inherent part of 208 planning, not merely a desirable adjunct to it.
For further information contact:
The Old Colony Planning Council
232 Main Street
Brockton, MA 02401
(617) 583-1833
-------
Hanson-15 Questionnaires
Old Colony Planning Council
232 Main Street
Brockton, MA 02401
208 WATER QUALITY PROJECT
CITIZEN QUESTIONNAIRE
We are working with local citizens and officials in your communitv
to protect and preserve water resources. This questionnaire is one way
to find out what residents think are the important issues facing your
town. Since no one knows all there is to know about your town, we
don't expect that you will be able to answer all the questions. The
information and opinions you provide will form the basis of our work.
1. What community do you live in?
street name)
(Please include section of town or
2. How long have you lived in this community?
Where did you live before coming to this community?
3. What kind of residential growth (if any) would you like to occur
in your town?
11 one- and two-family houses
1 apartments and condominiums
mobile homes
publicly assisted housing for the elderly
publicly assisted housing for low income families
other
I do notwantfurther residentialgrowthin my town
4. I feel that new residential growth in my town will...
d provide more jobs
take care of problem of inadequate housing
pollute the town's water supply
increase, the town's tax base
seriously deplete the town's water supply
make available more cultural opportunities
5 end up costing the town more money than the increased tax
revenue
6 lead to future pollution of the town ponds and streams
5eliminate open space and scenic recreation areas
4change the character of the town. If so, in what ways will
it change?
1 other
-------
5. What kind of commercial or industrial growth (if any) would you
like to occur in your town?
shopping centers
new shops and restaurants along roads in town
more or better stores in existing buildings in the town center
new construction of stores in the town center
other__
I do not wantfurther commercialgrowthin my town
8 light industry
5 industrial park
1 establishments scattered through town
0 heavy industry
0 industrial park
1 establishments scattered through town
5 offices
2 office park
0 establishments scattered through town
2 I do not want further industrial growth in my town
6. I feel'that new commercial and industrial growth in my town will...
provide more jobs
_3 _ pollute the town's water supply
_6 _ increase the town's tax base
_- _ seriously deplete the town's water supply
6 strengthen the town economy
end up costing the town more than the increased tax revenue
eventually make available more cultural opportunities
_ _
_2 _ eliminate open space and scenic recreation areas
_4 make shopping more convenient
lead to future pollution of town ponds and streams
change the character of the town. If so, in what ways will
it change the town?
other
7. What is the source of your drinking water?
13 public water supply
0 town well
3 town surface source
_3 individual private well
_0 bottled water
_0 other
0 don't know
-------
8. Are you satisfied with the water supply you use now?
8 YES
5 NO
_0 _ water supply is running low
J _ water source is becoming polluted
_3 _ water doesn't taste good
_2 _ water looks unclear, stains laundry, etc.
_water is too expensive
0 other
Do you or your family use the lakes, ponds, rivers, streams, or
marshes of your or other towns for recreation? If so, please
indicate town or body of water. Not yet!
12 YES
_9 walking, picnicing, enjoyment _of scenic natural beauty.
0
n
8
9
6
3
2
NO
Where?
swimming. Where?
fishing. Where?
skating. Where?
boating, canoeing. Where?
hunting. Where?
other .
Where?
10. Do you feel that the quality of the water recreation areas in your
community has changed in recent years?
1
IMPROVED
because of zoning, subdivision, conservation, and other
restrictions on development
because of public awareness of need to protect water
resources
1 other
0 Don't know why
10 DECLINED
_7 because of local pollution sources
~6 because of over-use
_6 because of general neglect
~2because of upstream pollution sources in other towns
_3 other
1 Don't know why
NO CHANGE
DON'T KNOW
-------
11. What kind of residence do you live in?
14 one-family house
0 two- or three-family house
0 apartment
0 condominium
0 mobile home
0 other
12. Where does the wastewater from your home go?
TO septic tank
cesspool
_0 sewage treatment plant
0 other
Q Don't know
13. Does your town need sewers?
3 YES (Selected locations)
5 will increase property values
3 will improve quality of rivers and ponds for recreation
3 will encourage new construction and development
2 will increase taxes
2 will reduce chance of flooding
2 will protect drinking water supplies
2 will eliminate health hazzards from failing septic systems
1 will deplete town water supply
0 other i feel with continued growth—towns in areas with ponds and
lakes will require town sewers to prevent possible pollution
of these waters.
7 NO
current disposal system is OK
will encourage new construction and development
will increase taxes
will deplete town water supply
other Some planning for a future systpm is raTl_pfi for
] No opinion
14. Where does the solid waste material (garbage/trash) go?
landfill in town
landfill in another town; regional collection and disposal
other Transfer station 3, Hansnn Dump, f.nmpartnr ?t nnf ^M^P,
Don't know think.it is burned, out of town site.
-------
15. Does your town have any problems with solid waste disposal?
YES
not enough places to dump trash
landfill is polluting local ponds, rivers, and/or water
supplies
trash disposal is too expensive for the town
poor or no pick-up service
other
_4 NO
5 DON'T KNOW
16. In general, what is the major issue or problem your town faces?
(For example, transportation, unemployment, pollution, crime,
rapid growth, inadequate public services and facilities, taxes,
lack of recreational areas, etc.) Please explain.
All of the above 2, High taxes 2, lack of recreational facilities 3,
j^pid grov/th 1, lack of adequate housing, public transportation 2, unemployment,
Inadequate public services, rapid growth, too many people have moved In too
rapidly for town to cope with problems. Many homes being built on questionable
_1and--in my opinion on land that is too wet. Lack of recreational areas a big
problem too. Rapid growth, which will increase taxes, lack ot industry, '
Inadequate public services, order of priorities, recreation carries more weight
Than upgrading fire department. Housing being built in such standard mess.
Housing for the young, elderly, and low income. • _'
17. What are the major water quality problems in your town that
should be studied by a water quality improvement program? If
you check more than one, please circle the most important one.
protection of town water supplies
5 rapid growth in areas unsuitable for septic systems
7 protection of water recreation areas
4 improvement of polluted surface waters for eventual swimming
and fishing
2 pollution from surface mining, agriculture, industry, waste-
water disposal (Underline the important sources of pollution)
3 upstream pollution from other towns. Which town or towns?
2 other
Q no opinion
18. How might your town benefit from a water quality improvement
program?
7 increased property values
12 improved recreational opportunities
6 improve the town's scenic beauty
5preserve the town's heritage
fulfill the 1972 Federal Water Pollution Control Act
other T would think all of the ahnve, insure a future for our water bodies
don't know
-------
19. How did you hear about tonight's Water Quality Workshop?
_2 Newspaper Silver Lake News 3, Brockton Ent. 5. So. (Name of Paper)
__0 Radio Shore News, 1 (Station)'
6 Posters and flyers
Q From a friend
3 other OCPC meeting in Brockton, Selectman's meeting, letter from OCPC
20. If a citizens group were organized to deal with the major
water quality questions facing your town, would you consider
getting involved with the group?
7 YES, and I might consider...
Q talking at schools to inform children of the issues
4 distributing information to neighbors
2 taking pictures or making drawings to dramatize the
problems
Q working on a newsletter
Q talking with other citizens groups to enlist their
support
5 serving on an advisory committee to direct progress
of the study in town
Services as required. If YES,
_NO
name
5 UNCERTAIN address
21. Are there other people in your town who should be notified of
future meetings? Who? Anyone who lives and owns property around the
water, beach association, water department, water commissioners, apathy is,
rampant as is visible by attendence tonite. Board of Health.
Thank you very much for your time and thought in answering this
questionnaire. If you have other comments or questions, please feel
free to contact me.
Robert M. Kaye
Regional Planner
Old Colony Planning Council
583-1833
-------
HANSON
1) E. Washington, Indian Head, Pleasant 2, Old Ham Pond, State 3, Union,
Woodbine, Monponsett, Beechwood 2, Karen School.
2) a) 7 months, 5, 6, 6, 6 1/2, 7, 8, 10, 10, 20, 20, 22, 28
b) Avon, Hanover, city, Boston, Holbrook, Bridgewater 2, Quincy 2,
Pembroke 2, Freetown, Wareham, Salem
4) Poor planning or the lack of it creates serious problems in land use,
normal growth or established streets will give the town added revenue
without a lot of extra headaches -- pollution, drainage etc., from a semi-
rural area to an over crowded suburb like Braintree, may infringe on many
wetland areas of town, it won't be as pleasant to live in for future generations
5) Too many shopping centers now exist—they must be restricted to insure con-
trolled growth in given areas, light industry.
6) Bring more people to the town. Bringing further problems of overcrowded
schools etc. increased population will bring increased problems which the
town, at this point, is not prepared to handle.
8) High iron content is eating away at brass valves and faucets at times it
becomes unclear; would like a local source of water testing.
9) a) town lakes, Oldham, conservation area Indian Head (2) Monponsette,
Everywhere not posted.
b) Stetson Pond, Maquan Pond (3), Lakes and ponds, Cranberry Cove (3),
c) Indian Head (2),
d) Factory Pond (2),Dwelley Wampatuck Pond
e) Factory Pond, Wampatuck Pond (2), Indian Head, all ponds and rivers.
f)
g) horseback riding, conservation Land.
10) state aid to clean up lake, water runoff, raising of lake level by damming,
housing built on high water table land adjacent to ponds, the pond in my.
estimation is polluted and has been for the past 6-8 years. My reason
for stating such is that I have been on Maquan Pond as a summer resident
and permanent resident since 1941.
12) Thought to be given in times of drought which with the population growth
could be serious. Damming up of Monponsette Lake, causing land erosion,
Rockland, Whitman, levels of water.
-------
16) Public transportation is a major factor, we are sandwiched between
2 major highways 24 and 3, unemployment due to not to many local industries.
Inadequate services on all accounts. High taxes with no betterments.
Recreational areas are the same they were 30 years ago. There is no
bus service. The nearest bus is 6 miles away.
Uncertain
John E. McNally, Jr.
32 School Street
Hanson, MA 02341
George Hempel
563 E. Washington St.
Hanson, MA 02341
Yes
Joan Robeiro1 Bob Kenyon
691 Pleasant St. 68 Beechwood Rd.
Hanson, MA 02341 Hanson, MA 02341
John Mullin Michael Sikora, Jr.
44 Jean St. 52 Beechwood Rd.
Hanson, MA 02341 Hanson, MA 02341
Bernice R. Pierce John and Susan Webster
399 Woodbine Ave. 499 State St.
Hanson, MA 02341 Hanson, MA 02341
Richard Pierce
399 Woodbine Ave.
Hanson, MA 02341
-------
OLD COLONY PLANNING COUNCIL
MEMO
SUBJECT: HANSON WATER QUALITY WORKSHOP (ROUND #1) 2/11/76
FROM: 203 STAFF
TO: HANSON 208 FILE
DATE: 2/17/76
The following is a summary of the Hanson Water Quality Workshop
held by the Old Colony Planning Council 208 staff at the Indian
Head School on Wednesday, February 11, 1976 from 8:00 P.M. to
10:45 P.M. This summary should be read in conjunction with a
summary of the Water Quality Questionnaire administered at the
Hanson Workshop.
ATTENDEES
Be mice R. Pierce
Richard F. Pierce
Peter Nawezelski
Jack McNally
Ken Masse
E.A. Miller
Susan Webster
J. Webster
Ed Spinney
John Mull in
George Hempel
Bob Kenyon
John Goldrosen
Bob Kaye
Tom Galvin
Dave Wai bourne
Michael Sikora
Presentation Format:
399 Woodbine Ave.
399 Woodbine Ave
359 Indian Head Rd.
(Conservation Com.)
School St.
25 Karen St.
84 Union St.
499 State St.
449 State St.
408 State St.
Citizens Committee Rep.
563 E. Washingtor St.
(Conservation Com.)
OCPC Delegate
Assessor
OCPC
OCPC
OCPC
OCPC
Plymouth County Ext. Ser/ice
High St. Hanson
-Introduction to 208 Water Quality Planning
-Water Quality Slide Show
-Questionnaire
-Discussion Period
-------
Comments Before, During, and After Discussion Period
-Monponsett area residents (Woodbine St.) are concerned about problems with
the rising water level of the pond. Much of their property (for which they
are taxed) has been claimed by rising waters subsequent to the mid-60's
drought. Residents say the rise is due to impoundment for the Brockton
Water Supply (diversion to Silver Lake). Cranberry bogs relieve the problem
somewhat when they pump water from the pond to the bogs.
Other Problems (Monponsett Pond):
Increase of nutrients has lead to excessive "weed" (algae) growth
in the pond. Pond "turns over" every 2-3 weeks in summer.
Some neighbors pump laundry wastewater directly into pond. Cran-
berry bogs might contribute nutrients, too. In summer, 1975 Mass.
treated the pond (with CuSO^) to control algae growth.
Fauna of the pond is changing. Snapping turtles have become a
nuisance as have leaches.
Lack of regulation of power boats (# or speedlimit) stirs bottom,
poses hazard for boaters and swimmers.
Flooding of basements a regular spring problem. Fire Department
called to pump them out.
More mosquitoes and no-see-ems than ever.
-If the 208 plan recommends that cranberry bog spraying stop, would that
put an economic ha'rdshop on the town? Response - the 208 Staff will inves-
tigate improved agricultural practices so as not to jeopardize Hanson's
economic base.
-Bass and Pickerel fishing is good in Monponsett except near the outflows
of the bogs. Also, you never see birds or frogs near the bogs.
-Is there an aquifer near Franklin Street? A water engineering study was
done for Hanson recommending Franklin Street area as a well site. A test
well was bored, but 1967 town mtg. turned down proposal to buy the land.
What will 208 do about this? Response: first examination of Goldberg-
Zo.ino groundwater maps confirms presence of aquifer. We're sampling the
spring in that area (& are considering sampling the capped test well) for
possible leachate effects from the town landfill (transfer station) near
the site.
-Has G-Z consulted Hanson's water engineering study. Response.-G-Z talked
with water superintendent and consulted 10,000 sources of data. We're
sure the report was examined.
Comments on Water Quality and the Rockland Landfill:
-The SENE study said that the Indian Head and Drinkwater Rivers should be
considered for potential water supply areas. Will 208 look into effects
of Rockland dump on these waters? Response: OCPC 208 project concerned
with surface and groundwater effects of the dump. We have a sampling site
on the brook that drains the landfill into Factory Pond. We'll recommend
that Rockland be required to maintain a monitor well. OCPC has an MOD with
MAPC so that jurisdictional conflicts can be dealt with.
-------
-Why doesn't 208 put one of its test wells near there on the Hanson side?
Response: good idea. We will work with local residents in selection of
boring sites.
-Can 208 deal with these immediate problems? Response: yes, we can provide
technical support for the town, and thru sampling and other field work docu-
ment water quality changes (if any). Hanson residents can help us by taking
us to suspected problem areas.
-A person at the North and South Rivers Watershed Association says that 12
families in Hanson and Hanover have private wells near the dump. (Other
private wells in Hanson on Pleasant Street and Woodbine Streets, and others
in the Monponsett section of town). Could these sources be tested? Also
Goldberg-Zoino is the groundwater consultant for Rockland in its dump
feasibility study. Can you recommend a groundwater engineering firm? Response:
selection of sample areas for groundwater hasn't been worked out yet, but
citizen input will be very important. We will work with you to deal with the
Rockland landfill situation.
-Until! 6 months ago, the Rockland landfill site was used as a dump for
septage.
-Why is it so hard to get water samples tested? Does the Plymouth County
Agricultural Office perform tests? Response: (from audience) - tests
done in Lawrence. Plymouth County Extension does soil tests.
-What about future water supply? Response: this isn't officially part of
the 208 study, but we've begun to look at it. (See John's report, WATER
SUPPLY AND WATER USE IN THE OCPC 208 AREA). Also, we're working with the
Army Corps of Engineers on a long term water supply project which will
examine non-structural as well as structural alternatives.
-Will 208 do anything about new development, especially where it should
go? Response: for the 208 plan to be successful, it must deal with
Hanson's priorities for growth and development (type, rate, and location).
We'll recommend techniques (land use controls, zoning, etc.) to regulate
future development so that water quality standards are achieved and main-
tained while allowing for growth (or lack thereof) desired by the town.
-Is there money to implement non-structural solutions to such problems as
septic tank failure areas. Response: funding picture looks bad for non-
structural solutions, but we'll investigate other funding avenues and
report to the town.
-Hanson can sometimes drag its heels. Are we losing out on ever having
sewers in Hanson? How are sewers funded? Response: Hanson is up to date
on the Phase I planning work. Anderson-Nichols is making a major effort
in Hanson to define problem septic areas and suggest a whole range of
alternatives to the town»sewers included. For regional sewer construction,
funding is 90 percent federal and state, 10 percent local. For local solu-
tions (e.g., package treatment facilities) the town must pay 100 percent
of the cost.
-------
-Will the 208 staff be working with the Hanson growth policy committee?
Will there be a duplication of effort between OSP and the 208 project?
Can we ask 208 staff for information needed to fill out the OSP question-
naire? Response: OCPC will analyze and summarize local questionnaires, but
its going to be tough to avoid duplication of effort. 208 staff should
be able to provide technical information where needed.
-The Rockland Treatment Plant is polluting the Drinkwater River. The
North and South River Watershed Association has tested the North River and
found very high coliform counts. Will 208 be able to take care of this
problem? Response: Rockland and Abington (both have treatment facilities
on French Stream, a tributary of the Drinkwater River) are preceding with
Phase I, 201 planning for improvement of treatment: Rockland will reduce
inflow and infiltration and increase capacity of plant—secondary treatment.
Abington might hook in to this system, or it might tie in to OCWPCD.
-See Chet Cross at the Wareham Experimental Station for information on cranberry
bogs.
-------
December 15, 1975
Dan Crane, Executive Director
Old Colony Planning Council
Dear Dan:
Just wanted to drop you a note and tell you that I
recently attended a "Water Quality Workshop" held
by your "208 Planning Staff." I was most impressed
by the professionalism of your staff and the effec-
tiveness' of their presentation.
I want to compliment you and other members of the
Council for your selection of the planning staff. I
am quite certain that if similar workshops are
conducted in the future, the staff, the council, and
all of the participating towns will benefit from the
"208 Study."
Send my personal thanks to Bob Kaye for a job well
done.
'R. 'j.'" Crawford
-'Selectman - Pembroke
RJCrVRB ; '
-------
Appendix G
Technical Assistance to Town Governments
-------
U/a Colony V lanmny (Council
232 MAIN STREET
BROCKTON MASS O240I
617.963-1633
DANIEL M CRANE
September 18, 1975
Mrs. Agnes Kievenaar, Chairwoman
East Bridgewater Conservation Commission
East Bridgewater, MA 02333
Dear Mrs. Kievenaar:
Thank you again for helping me with the selection of water quality sampling
sites in East Bridgewater at your September 19 meeting. This type of parti-
cipation by each of our communities is extremely helpful to our study.
I have taken the liberty of doing some preliminary checking on the possibility
of getting state and/or federal funds for the acquisition of land at Robbins
Pond by the Conservation Commission. As I mentioned the other night, Massachusetts,
through the Division of Conservation Services (formerly the DNR) of the Executive
Office of Environmental Affairs administers federal money (Bureau of Outdoor
Recreation's Land and Water Conservation Fund) for the purchase and development
of recreation sites in Massachusetts. The BOR money funds 50 percent of the
costs through reimbursement to the community. The Division of Conservation
Services also administers the state's Self-Help Program. In cases where active
and passive recreation is planned for a site, the BOR and Self-Help money can
be piggbacked providing the local community with up to 75 percent reimbursement.
It is my opinion that the Robbins Pond land acquisition proposal would receive
favorable attention by the Division of Conservation Services. I think, also,
that the 1974 East Bridgewater Open Space Plan would enhance your chances of
getting state financial assistance. Incidentally, however, this proposal would
have to be added to that Plan since it was not formally recommended in that Plan.
If the Conservation Commission would like- to pursue this any further, I would
be glad to meet with you at your next meeting and go over the procedures with
you. We could then perhaps arrange a meeting in Boston with the Division of
Conservation Services to present the proposal in preliminary form.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Very truly yours,
Robert F. McMahon
208 Project Manager
RFM:al
EAST BRIDGEWATER
ABINGTON
EASTON
SERVING
AVON BRIDGEWATER
HANSON PEMBROKE
BROCKTON
WEST BRIDGEWATER
WHITMAN
-------
olony cJ tanning,
232 MAIN STREET
BROCKTON MASS O24OI
6 1 7.583- 1833
DANIEL M CRANE
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
September 18, 1975
Mr. Philip Tuck, Chairman
West Bridgewater Conservation Commission
West Bridgewater Town Hall
West Bridgewater, MA 02379
Dear Mr. Tuck:
I have done some initial research to determine what leverage the West
Bridgewater Conservation Commission may use to rectify the stormwater pol-
lution problem from the J.P. Noonan site on West Street. The two primary
mechanisms for dealing with surface water pollution in Massachusetts are
Chapter 21 of the Massachusetts General Laws and the 1972 Amendments to the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act (P.L. 92-500). The Division of Water
Pollution Control (DWPC) administers the Massachusetts law and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administers the Federal law. The
two agencies have joined forces in Massachusetts by using a permit pro-
gram to regulate point sources of pollution in the state. The permit
program primarily covers point sources such as an industrial discharge or
a sewage treatment plant. It also covers sources like the Noonan one,
however, in certain cases where the discharge is particularly harmful.
While I believe that the Noonan situation could be covered under the permit
program, I believe that it would be administratively easier to use the
provisions of Chapter 21 of the Massachusetts General Laws that I have
enclosed. They seem to bear most directly on this particular situation.
You should contact Mr. William Marhoffer, Division of Water Pollution
Control, P.O. Box 537, N. Pembroke, MA 02358, and make a formal complaint
and request his assistance in arranging a field investigation of the Noonan
site.
I plan to attend your October 2 meeting to discuss water quality sampling
locations as part of our water quality study. Perhaps, we can talk further
about the Noonan situation at that time.
Very truly yours,
Robert F. McMahon
208 Project Manager
RFM:al
Enclosure SERVING
ABINGTON AVON BRIDGEWATER BROCKTON
EAST BRIDGEWATER EASTON HANSON PEMBROKE WEST BRIDGEWATER WHITMAN
-------
Telephone
293-2718
OFFICE OF
BOARD OF HEALTH
PEMBROKE, MASSACHUSETTS
O2359
January 6, 1976
To: Gerard W. Dempsey, Delegate
Old Colony Planning Council
From: Pembroke Board of Health
The Board of Health would be happy to
hear the thoughts of the Old Colony
Planning Council on the snnitary land-
fill proposal by Clean Communities
Corp. at our next meeting on January 12
at 8:00 p.m.
pb
-------
January 5, 1976
Board of Health
Town Hall
Pembroke, Massachusetts
Chairman,
fie: Proposed Sanitary Land Fill Area
North Penbrokae, Moss*
This is to inform you. that befor your board renders a decision on
granting of assignment concerning the above subject, I respectfully request
that you await an opinion from the Old! Colony Planning Council.
As you know the council has an ongoing study in progress as respect the
"Federal Water Pollution Control Act" SECTION 208.
It is my opinion that the council would like to have an opportunity to express,
there thought* on the matter and I hope your board would not act on & matter
of such regional importance with out the imput of the regional planning council.
BespeapTully submitted,
-*~-~y3*<3^i~^4s~**
Gerard W. Dempaey ' f
Delegate- Town of Pembroke:
Old Colony Planning Council
cc. Mr. John DeMarco-Pres, Old Colony Council
Mr. Daniel Grain- Exec. Director, Old Colony Planning Council
Board of Selectaen- Pembroke Mass.
Planning Board- Pembroke, Maos.
Mrs. Jean Foley- OCPC, Citizens Committee on Clean Water
-------
OLD COLONY PLANNING COUNCIL
MEMO
SUBJECT! PROPOSED SANITARY LANDFILL, NORTH PEMBROKE
FROM! JOHN GOLDROSEN, OCPC STAFF
TO! PEMBROKE BOARD OF HEALTH
DATE! FEBRUARY 2, 1976
The following memo has been prepared at the invitation of the
Pembroke Board of Health. It is meant as a comment upon the proposed
landfill operation and not as a detailed evaluation of it. The information
presented to the Board so far by Clean Communities Corporation (CCC) leaves
unanswered many questions about the suitability of the proposed activities
for the site off Oak Street. We wish to point out some issues which should
be investigated further before the Board assigns the site for a landfill.
I. Present Condition of the Site
Members of the OCPC staff have visited the site on several
occasions, most recently on January 29, 1976. The parcel of land to the
west of Pudding Brook has been extensively excavated during sand and
gravel removal. The area west of Pudding Brook is approximately bisected
by a tributary which originates in springs near the western boundary of the
site and flows eastward through the site into Pudding Brook. Standing
water can be seen north and south of the unnamed tributary and adjacent to
it for about the last half of its course into the Brook. There are
additional wet areas to the south of the tributary in the western part
of the property. On January 30th, Bill Jordan, one of Pembroke's
representatives to the Citizens Committee on Clean Water which is advising
the OCPC on water quality issues, took two borings at the site. At a
point 0.1 mile north of the spring at which the tributary originates, the
depth to water table was 2 feet 3 inches. At a point 0.1 mile south of
the spring, the depth to water table was 2 feet. Where the land has not
been excavated, sand and gravel mounds stand 10 to 15 feet above the
excavated surface. Before the site could meet State requirements of four
feet of fill above the water table, much of the available fill at the site
would have to be used to bring the base level' of the land to this four-foot
level.
The Pudding and Huldah Brooks drain the site. Huldah Brook flows
into Pudding Brook, which in turn flows into the Reservoir, a body of water
used for the irrigation of cranberry bogs. The Reservoir empties into
Herring Brook. Any contamination of Pudding and Huldah Brooks would there-
fore have an impact on recreational and agricultural activities in the town.
At the January 26th meeting of the Board, CCC presented plans for
the site which identified the areas which would be used for the landfill
and other facilities. The plans did not show the present surface contours,
the contours as they would exist after the conclusion of landfill operations
or the elevation of ground and surface waters. The plans did indicate the
areas along Pudding and Huldah Brooks presently included in Pembroke's
-------
-2-
Flood Plain and Watershed Protection District. However, the plans did
not show additional wet areas (including the tributary mentioned above)
indicated on the map prepared for the Pembroke Cons' • ation Commission
in the summer of 1975 by Mr. Keith Geller, nor the st.^11 more extensive wet
areas visible during the January 29th inspection. Since the Wetlands
Protection Act requires the approval of the Conservation Commission for
alteration of these areas, CCC's plans to use the entire area to the west
of Pudding Brook for a landfill should be questioned.
II. Potential Problems During Site Preparation
CCC proposes to use the site for disposal of up to 250 tons, per day
once Board of Health assignment and State approvals are granted, before
the preparation of the environmental impact study required for State
approval of higher rates of disposal. The Board of Health should therefore
consider problems which could arise during site preparation.
CCC has stated that it will bring to the site enough clay to
provide an impermeable base and cover material for landfill operations
during the first 2.5 years of operation. It has not stated how the clay
would be stored or what steps would be taken to prevent erosion and
sedimentation. The Board should ensure that safeguards are taken to
prevent such problems.
CCC has not provided a figure on the truck traffic expected
-during this preparatory period. If the Board considers the issue of
traffic within its jurisdiction, it should ask CCC to provide traffic
volume estimates for this period.
III. Potential Problems Associated With Operation of the Landfill
1. A critical concern with any landfill is the potential of
landfill leachate entering ground and surface waters around the site.
CCC has outlined plans to prevent leachate pollution through the
construction of impermeable barriers and a pipe collection system.
At the January 26th meeting, Mr. Jortberg stated that the collected
leachate would be treated in a "water treatment plant." No information
has been provided on the details of such a plant. It is our judgement
that it would be expensive and difficult to remove all harmful materials
(toxic metals, organic wastes, iron, etc.) from concentrated leachate.
The Board of Health should require more detailed information on the
treatment methods CCC intends to use, to ensure that the plant will
provide the degree of treatment needed.
2. CCC has stated that it will construct a surface drainage
collection system to prevent pollution from water running across the
surface of the landfill and into streams. The water would pass into a
sedimentation basin and then be discharged. Detention in such a basin
may serve to remove suspended solids, but it will have no effect on
dissolved solids. Consequently, the water discharged from the holding
basin would not be "clean," contrary to the statement of the CCC
representative at the January 26th meeting.
3. Should the site be used for a landfill and covered with
impermeable material, water which formerly percolated into the ground and
-------
-3-
entered the streams by inflow from the groundwater will now run across
the surface and into the streams directly. The use of sedimentation
basins may alleviate changes in rates of flow. However, the shift from
groundwater to surface water inflow may affect the temperature of water
in the affected streams, and the impact of this change on life in those
streams has not been considered.
4. As a check on the success of the leachate and stormwater collection
systems, the Board might require CCC to install and monitor observation
wells on all sides of the site—including Marshfield, whose public wells
are located to the east of the site. Also, CCC might be required to
conduct a regular program of stream sampling and analysis.
5. Abutters to the property have expressed concern about potential
noise pollution. CCC's plans show only a 100-foot buffer zone, the
minimum width required by the zoning ordinance. The ordinance also
provides that no noise or vibration be normally perceptible at any point more
than 350 feet from the "premises." In the Hillcrest Drive area, the
proposed landfill site is lower in elevation than the adjacent homes
and the lots to the north of Hillcrest Drive which are still undeveloped;
this would increase any noise problem, since the buffer zone would be less
effective in shielding the houses from the site. No information has
been presented to show that abutters would not be affected by noise
from landf 1 operations; a 100-foot buffer certainly seems too little.
IV. The Waste Disposal Capac y_ of the Site
r.".ie rjnount of noise pollution would depend not just on the topo-
graphy and distance of separation, but also on the intensity of activity
at the site. According to CCC's plans, the disposal rate would be about
200 tons per day (10% of 2000 tons per day) when the area of the parcel
adjacent to Hillcrest Drive is opened for use, since the resource recovery
plant will be in operation by that time. However, if that area is reached
before the building of the plant, the disposal rate will be 750 tons per
day. Therefore, some estimate of the "life" of the site needs to be made.
At the January 26th meeting, Mr. Jortberg was unable to estimate the
tal tonnage of solid waste which this site could accommodate. He did
.timate an average fill depth (solid waste and cover) of 30 feet.
Based on the information from the site inspection presented above,
this seems very optimistic—even fifteen feet would be a liberal
estimate, unless fill is to be hauled in from elsewhere, an unlikely and
expensive proposition.
For the sake of estimation, assume that fifteen feet of fill is the
average final depth. EPA estimates that 20% of the volume in a landfill
is cover and 80% disposed waste; thus, 12 feet of depth would be available
for the wastes. Using an EPA-suggested figure of 1000 pounds per cubic
yard, a ton would occupy two cubic yards. One acre-foot (one acre, one
foot deep) corresponds to roughly 1600 cubic yards; consequently, one
acre-foot could accommodate 800 tons, and thus one acre filled to a 12-foot
depth could accommodate 9600 tons. If the.disposal rate at the proposed
landfill site is 750 tons per day during the time before the building of
the resource recovery plant, the total tonnage per year would be 195,000
(750 tons per day X 5 days per week X 52 weeks per year). At 9600 tons
per acre of surface at the site, about 20 acres would be used per year.
-------
-4-
The total area of the site is 143 acres. When the floodplain areas and
the land between Pudding and Huldah Brooks are excluded, and when
'additional wetlands, land needed for access roads, and land set aside for
the resource recovery plant and related firms are subtracted from the
total acreage, it seems unlikely that more than 80 acres would actually
be available for waste disposal. At 20 acres per year, then, the entire
area to the west of Pudding Brook would be filled within 4 years, before
the resource recovery plant begins operating. If this estimate is accurate,
the landfill would be operating at 750 tons per day when it reached the
Hillcrest Drive area, not at 200 tons per day, and the noise problem might
therefore be greater than presently anticipated.
If the area to the west of Pudding Brook is filled before the
construction of the resource recovery plant, residue from the plant would
have to be hauled elsewhere—or else the area between the two brooks would
have to be considered for disposal at an early date. The Board should
require CCC to substantiate its estimate of 16 years for the life of the
site west of Pudding Brook, so that the Board can consider noise (and
traffic) impacts.
V. Operation of the Resource Recovery Plant
Even if the Board believes that the desireability and feasibility of the
proposed resource recovery plant are outside the Board's purview at this
time, unanswered questions about the resource recovery plans have raised
some doubts as to CCC1s intentions in seeking a landfill permit, and thus
do seem to have a bearing on the present case.
1. No information has been presented on anticipated disposal procedures-
for liquid wastes generated by the resource recovery plant and related firms,
There is presently no public sewerage in Pembroke, so on-site disposal would
be necessary. Conceivably, problems with disposal could limit the type and/or
size of firms at the site. EPA and State approvals might be necessary.
2. No information has been presented, not even in the most general
of terms, on other potential environmental impacts from the resource
recovery operation: air pollution, noise, and "aesthetic pollution"
from transmission lines built in connection with the proposed power plant.
3. Mr. Jortberg stated at the January 26th meeting that, when the
Pembroke landfill site is full, residue from the resource recovery center
will have to be trucked elsewhere, perhaps to Plainville. He did not say,
nor was he asked, what route such trucks would follow.
4. The economic feasibility of the resource recovery plant remains
an open question. Mr. Jortberg estimated the cost which communities will
be charged for disposal at $6-$7 per ton. Presently, the East Bridgewater
resource recovery center charges up to $10.75 per ton. This does not include
the charge for operating transfer stations or hauling the material to the
site, which in the case of the East Bridgewater facility has brought the
total cost to $13.25. Faced with such rates, it is not surprising that
communities prefer, where possible, to dispose of solid waste locally.
Therefore, while it is true that the towns in the Boston area generate
enough waste to support the proposed facility, there is no reason to be
sure that CCC will be able to contract with enough communities to make
-------
-5-
a facility feasible. If average waste generation is estimated at 6 pounds
per person per day (a figure slightly higher than that suggested in a
recent EPA study), CCC would need to collect waste from 250,000 people
to supply its facility with 750 tons per day, and from 666,667 people
to supply 2000 tons per day. CCC has not, to our knowledge, reached
agreements with any communities for disposing their wastes when the
Pembroke site is in operation. We bring up this issue only to point
out that the economics of the situation could force CCC to operate the
site solely as a landfill, with the corresponding rates of disposal.
VI. The Role of the Board of Health
State legislation gives local boards of health the responsibility to
make the initial review of plans for sanitary landfills. The State
Department of Public Health conducts its own investigation once local
approval is granted. Since the State will usually have greater expertise
for judging technical matters of landfill operation, what is the purpose
of initial local review?
One explanation is that a local board is able to consider wider issues
than might be apparent to the State. The State generally focuses its
attention on the design and operating procedures for the site to ensure that
there is no health hazard from operations at the site itself. The local
board of health is authorized to consider a landfill proposal from a wider
viewpoint: the board is bound to protect the "public health, comfort, and
convenience." This language is even broader than the "public health,
safety, and welfare" clause commonly found in state laws and municipal
ordinances. The Board is perfectly within its authority, then, in
considering long-range environmental impacts of a landfill operation and in
addressing the concerns of abutters and citizens at large who might be
affected by the operation.
A point of view which has been stated at public meetings of the Board
is that the town can rely on the State to prevent environmental damage.
If this were entirely the case, there would be no reason to have initial
assignments of sites made by the boards of health. In our view, it would
be unwise for the town to turn over to the State the responsibility for
evaluating the impacts of the CCC proposal. State budgets are tight and
State employes are often overworked; there is no guarantee that the CCC
proposal will receive as detailed an investigation as the town hopes for.
The assignment of the site will create a -presumption that the property is
a suitable location for a landfill and shift the burden of proof to those
opposing the CCC plans.
The law places no limit on the amount of information which the town
can require of a landfill operator before it grants an assignment. The law
authorizes the State Department of Public Health to offer technical assistance
to local boards before the assignment; this again indicates that the boards
are both authorized and expected to investigate matters as thoroughly as
necessary and to reach their own judgment on a proposal, rather than leave
"technical" matters to review by the State. It has been argued that it is
unreasonable to expect the developer to prepare an environmental impact
statement, or even detailed site plans, until after the assignment is
granted. CCC argues that it cannot afford to prepare such plans on mere
"speculation." This position lacks merit. CCC will have to prepare such
-------
-6-
plans in order to gain State approval, and since that approval is an open
question, any money spent at that stage would likewise be spent on
"speculation". Before assigning the site, the town of Pembroke should
require of CCC just as much information as the State would require before
granting final approval of the landfill operation. The town has the authority
to do so, and if it is to fulfill its responsibility to protect the
"public health, comfort, and convenience," it has the obligation to do so.
It is not required to act according to the convenience of the developer.
CCC has stated its intention to operate the site at up to 250 tons
per day while it is preparing the environmental impact statement required
for larger rates of disposal. This is contrary to the spirit, if not the
letter, of the state law which requires impact statements for significant
projects. Preparing such a statement is an overhead cost which any firm
or public agency engaged on such projects must be prepared to absorb, with
the cost reflected in the charge for services offered by the firm or in the
agency budget. If CCC lacks the financial capability to prepare such a
statement before operating the site, then it is not unreasonable to question
the ability of the firm to finance the larger facilities it proposes to
construct later. If CCC is allowed to operate the site in advance of the
impact statement preparation, the possibility exists that the low rate
of fill will be continued indefinitely without an impact statement being
filed. Since the resource recovery plant would have a solid waste
residue under 250 tons per day, it is conceivable that CCC could avoid
the impact statement requirement entirely by operating the site at a
low rate until the plant is completed.
Several residents have suggested that the Board undertake its own
environmental assessment of this proposal. The Board has stated its view
that such an expenditure of town funds would be unjustifiable: a piece
of private property is involved, and there could be no limits to the times
when such studies might be desirable. We cannot disagree with the Board's
position on this matter. The environmental impact statement required under
state law for significant projects is prepared at the developer's expense.
The law places the burden of proof on the party seeking public approval;
it must satisfy the public that the project is suitable. If the Board
feels that it lacks sufficient information to answer all its questions
about the suitability of the project, it has the authority to require CCC
to provide as much information as the Board thinks it needs—including, if
the Board is so inclined, an environmental impact study.
VII. Conclusion
We cannot judge at this point the suitability of the site off Oak Street
for the landfill proposed by CCC. CCC has not provided enougn information
to make such a judgment, either pro or con. The burden of proof lies with
CCC, not the Board; consequently, we would advise that an assignment not
be made at this time. Once the Board grants the assignment, its decision
can be overturned by the State, but it probably cannot be changed by the
Board, even if new information emerges at later stages. By contrast, should
the Board now decline to assign the site, its decision is not irreversible;
CCC is free to bring forward additional information to convince the Board
that thethe landfill operation would not harm the public health, comfort, and
convenience. Any assignment which is_ made should be subject to whatever
conditions are necessary to prevent environmental damage; the promises which
have been made by CCC should be placed in writing, and others should be added.
-------
s'-
CONSERVATION COMMISSION
PEMBROKE MASSACHUSETTS O 2 3 5 9
. VO
-------
February 4, 1976
Don Crane, Executive Director
Old Colony Planning Council
Main Street
Brockton, Massachusetts
Re: Old Colony Planning Staff
Dear Don:
Once again I want to compliment you and all the members of
the council on your selection of a planning staff and partic-
ularly on the appointment of John Goldrosen.
Recently, a proposal was filed in Pembroke to use a 143 acre
former gravel pit as a commercial sanitary landfill and solid
waste recovery area. Indeed, this was a very complex proposal
which raised many technical and environmental issues. John
Goldrosen was asked to provide our local Board of Health with
some input to the proposal in an extremely short time frame.
The input he did provide was in the form of a written report
which not only drew attention to the technical problems in-
volved, but, also offered solutions in the forms of conditions
that the Board of Health might consider imposing on the de-
veloper should the proposal be accepted. The professionalism
and depth of this report was an aid to the local community
even though the proposal was denied.
John could well have taken the approach that there was in-
sufficient time to offer a detailed report. Those of us at
all levels of government are familiar with that approach.
Fortunately he took what time was available and offered his
help to the community. His choice was a benefit to the Town
of Pembroke, a credit to his personal integrity and a com-
pliment to the Old Colony Planning Council.
Please extend my personal thanks and those of the Pembroke
Citizens to John for a job well done.
Very truly yours,
ry rruiy yours
-•'9/'? /I * /'
- •• ,-, /
. J. Crawford,>0r.
cc: John Demarco, President
Gerard Dempsey, Representative
-------
"O i ."u;i
February 9, 19?6
Mr. John Goldrosen
Old Colony Planning Council
Main Street
Brockton, Massachusetts
Dear John:
Your report to the Pembroke Board of Health
concerning the sanitary landfill proposed for
this Town by Clean Communities Corporation
provided a very clear presentation of the
potentially hazardous situation to the environment
that such an operation could create.
Thank you for investing what must have been a
considerable amount of time. Your efforts
proved valuable and are most appreciated.
Very truly yours,
Ff Thompson
Hillcrest Drive
Pembroke, Massachusetts 02359
-------
OLD COLONY PLANNING COUNCIL
MEMO
SUBJECT! Town of Rockland Landfill
FROM! Robert McMahon/Robert Kaye
TO; Secretary Evelyn Murphy, Environmental Affairs
DATE: February 26, 1976
1. Background
The Old Colony Planning Council is presently preparing an areawide
water quality management plan for the greater Brockton area under Sec-
tion 208 of the 1972 Amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act. Under the advisement of the Federal Environmental Protection
Agency and the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality Engineering
(Daniel McGillicuddy's office), we have been urged to closely examine
existing and potential pollution problems from so-called non-point
sources of pollution (landfills, agricultural areas, major highways, etc).
At a recent 208 water quality workshop held in the Town of Hanson,
residents and local officials invited OCPC to examine the proposed
Rockland landfill as a potential water quality threat to Factory Pond
and to the Indian Head River. The following memo has been prepared at
the request of local Hanson officials. It is intended to raise some
issues for the Secretary's consideration; in particular, we believe
the possibility of requiring an environmental impact statement for the
landfill merits strong consideration. This memo is not intended as
a detailed evaluation of the site and the landfill's plans. While we
have visited the site on two occasions, our recent formal involvement
in the landfill situation has not given us the opportunity as yet to
review all of the planning and engineering documents for the landfill.
In asking the Secretary to consider the requirement of an
environmental impact statement for the Rockland landfill, we realize
the precedent nature of such a decision. On the one hand, Rockland
has invested considerable money into land costs, engineering costs,
and development costs for its new landfill site. In additi'on, the
Division of General Environmental Control of the Department of Environmental
Quality Engineering has spent considerable time in reviewing the plans
for the landfill site. On the other hand, the stakes are high. The
North River Watershed is of significant environmental and recreational impor-
tance for all of the South Shore area.
2. The Site and its Relationship to the North River Watershed
The Rockland landfill site and a portion of the North River
watershed is shown on the accompanying map. The entire site covers
92 acres in the southeast corner of Rockland. Presently, about 45
acres of the site has been assigned by the Rockland Board of Health
and approved by the state. The assigned portion of the site drains
-------
Memo
Town of Rockland Landfill
Page 2
basically in two directions—northerly into a tributary of the French Stream
which drains into the Forge Pond/Drinkwater River/Factory Pond water system
and southeasterly into an unamed stream which drains directly into Factory
Pond.
The site itself is characterized by two major wetland areas—Beech
Hill Swamp and the wetlands in the southeastern corner of the site. As
presently proposed on the site plan for the landfill, none of the landfill
sections will occur in the major wetland areas. In addition, however, to
the major wetland areas, there are large portions of the assigned portion
of the site where the groundwater table is at or near the surface. The
site sits on top of a groundwater aquifer that extends into Hanson and
Hanover. The groundwater flow below the site is generally northeasterly.
Standing water is present in many portions of the site. In order to comply
with state regulations requiring a minimum of four feet between the ground-
water table and any landfill refuse, the plans propose to provide the fill
from other portions of the site.
The surficial geology of the assigned portions of the site is generally
of two types. Sections A-l and A-2 of the site are basically characterized
by loose, sandy, silty gravel'where the permeability of the soil is quite
high. In most of the rest of the site, the soil is basically till in
nature and far less permeable.
3. Advocating an Environmental Impact Statement
While the Rockland landfill proposal is now a reality (it has been
operating for 2 1/2 weeks) and theoretically the review and comment period
has expired, we would like to advocate the initiation of an environmental
impact statement process for the site. We realize that under state landfill
regulations and Section 62 of Chapter 30 of the General Laws landfills under
250 tons/day are categorically exempt from the requirement for the pre-
paration of an environmental impact statement. We believe this exemption
should be waived by the Secretary because of the environmental sensitive
area that the landfill is in. Section 62 provides for this discretionary
authority.
In advocating the environmental impact statement, we base our argument
on two points: 1.) the Factory Pond/Indian Head River/North River system
is an area of environmental and recreational significance, and 2.) there
are sufficient issues relative to the site and the landfill operation that
do not preclude the possibility of the landfill operation being a water
quality threat to the watershed system.
4. The Importance of the North River Watershed
The North River below Curtis Crossing.in Pembroke is saline and subject
to tidal influence. The present water quality condition of this portion of
the river is Class A for the most part and presently provides considerable
enjoyment for swimmers, boaters, and fishermen. Above the Curtis Crossing
-------
Memo
Town of Rockland Landfill
Page 3
Dam, the river is freshwater and for the most part the existing water
quality is Class C. Municipal treatment plants in Rockland and in North
Ahington discharge to the French Stream and are primarily responsible for
the Class C conditions of the river all the way to Curtis Crossing.
Massachusetts has recognized the importance of restoring the upper
part of the North River system by the current planning efforts of the
Massachusetts Division of Water Pollution Control. The latter published
in 1975 the North River Basin Plan designed to provide a framework for
cleaning up the river. Since then, they have issued permits to dischargers
in the river and have put them on a timetable to eliminate or upgrade
their discharges. The effort to eliminate the sanitary pollution problems
from North Abington and Rockland alone will require 17.8 million dollars in
public investment. The Environmental Protection Agency has approved this
plan and will be sharing the cost of the investment with the state and the
local communities. The EPA approval is based on the provision, however, that
non-point sources of pollution be given more serious consideration in the
future. A copy of John McGlennon's approval letter and comments are enclosed
In addition, the local communities of Hanson, Hanover, and Pembroke
have already made significant public investments in acquiring conservation
and park land along the North River system. As indicated on the enclosed
map, several hundred acres of land have been purchased abutting the major
water bodies in the North River Waterhsed. These land purchases represent
several hundred thousand dollars in additional public investment designed
to provide aesthetic enjoyment along the watershed water bodies.
Finally, local homeowners, primarily in Hanover, have invested several
thousand dollars in private wells along King Street near the landfill site.
In summary, while the Town of Rockland has made a considerable public
investment in its landfill site, the public investment to restore and pre-
serve the water quality of the watershed that the landfill drains into is
considerably greater. We are not necessarily advocating an abandonment
of the site. We are merely recommending that an additional investment be
made in an environmental impact statement to insure that the site is suitable
and that the proper limitations on the'site have been made. We believe this
investment is warranted due to the importance of the North River area and
the public investment being made to preserve and restore the river.
5. Issues Concerning the Landfill Site and its Operation
While Hanover and Hanson residents may legitimately have complaints
about the proposed landfill site because of noise impacts, we have limited
ourselves to water quality-related issues. In particular, our concern is
-------
Memo
Town of Rockland Landfill
Page 4
the leachate that will result from the landfill will not degrade the water
quality of Factory Pond and the Indian Head River. The easiest path for
the leachate to pollute these water bodies is via the wetlands and unamed
stream that flows out of the southeastern portion of the site. One of the
basic considerations of a landfill site is to insure that there is sufficient
fill between the landfill and the water table. Theoretically, the leachate
is purified by its contacts with the soil particles before it reaches
the groundwater table. It is generally recognized, however, that the
chloride, sodium, and calcium portions of leachate are not subject to
biodegradation in the soil and will eventually reach the groundwater table.
Additionally, the leachate normally has high oxygen-demanding substances and
iron that often reach the groundwater table.
Because of the potential leachate problems, the following questions
are raised:
Have the groundwater studies that have been done for the landfill
considered the impact of the leachate beyond the site? e.g. the
landfill is located over an aquifer that extends into an adjacent
area of Hanson that has been considered as a possible site for a town
well. The pumping from this well could affect the existing water
table and groundwater flow in the landfill area. While it is un-
realistic to ask Rockland and its engineers to consider every hypothetical
situation in the area of the landfill, a comprehensive environmental
impact statement could simulate probable and likely groundwater
conditions and better address the leachate issue.
Were the groundwater computations for water table height based on
average conditions? What time of year are they from? Are these
maximum groundwater table values? Will the groundwater table be
higher than those given in particular times of the year or in years
when there are greater rainfalls?
Our inspection of the site indicated that there were several areas
with standing water, i.e., the groundwater table at the land surface.
Is there sufficient cover and fill material on the site to provide a minimum
4' distance of fill over the groundwater table? We note that many
areas of the site being considered for fill material are the sandy,
silty gravel areas that have high permeability. 'Is this the most
desirable fill material to purify the leachate before it gets to the
groundwater table?
6. Summary
Once a landfill site is assigned and begun, it is difficult to change
the site. Site selection is a time-consuming and expensive process. We
realize that Rockland has committed considerable money for this site. We
believe, however, that the potential water quality threats of the landfill
to the North River Watershed and the importance of the North River Area make
the additional effort of an environmental impact statement not just an
academic exercise. In addition to an environmental impact statement,
-------
Memo
Town of Rockland Landfill
Page 5
we believe the following proposals should also be considered:
•The Town's engineers be required to perform water quality
samples in the two streams draining out of the landfill
area on a quarterly basis.
•The landfill inspection reports of DEQE and of the Town's en-
gineers be submitted as well to Hanson and Hanson officials.
We hope these comments will be useful in your consideration of the
Rockland landfill situation. We would appreciate being advised of any
further findings that you may have.
-------
North River Basin: Rockland Landfill Impact Areas
•*• PRIVATE WELLS
PUBLIC LAND
PONDS
POCK LA NO LANDFILL
SCALE IN ','! L E S
-------
Appendix H
Involvement of Local Schools
-------
208 STUDENT INTERNS
Dennis Arouca Temple University: Law School
Toni Coyne Bridgewater State College
Bill Ferguson Bridgewater State College
Gregory LaFlamme Bridgewater State College
Sherin O'Brien Bridgewater State College
Warren Phillips Bridgewater State College
David Walbourne Bridgewater State College
-------
BRIDGEWATER STATE COLLEGE WATER QUALITY
SAMPLING PROPOSAL FOR THE OLD COLONY PLANNING COUNCIL
I. Description of Work Products
A. The College will be responsible for the collection of water quality samples
from sixty locations located in the Upper Taunton River Basin and Upper North
River Basin in the communities of Abington, Avon, Bridgewater, Brockton, East
Bridgewater, Easton, Hanson, Pembroke, West Bridgewater, and Whitman. The
sampling locations will be determined by the Old Colony Planning Council in
conjunction with the local communities and the Division of Water Pollution
Control. The sampling will be done as soon as practical after the execution
of the contract and will be done in a three-week period to start no later than
December 1.
The College will be responsible for the analysis of all samples collected.
All analysis will be performed in accordance with the Quality Assurance Plan
which is part of this proposal. Water quality analysis of these samples
will include the following parameters:
1. Dissolved oxygen
2. Biochemical Oxygen Demand
3. PH
4. Ammonia-Nitrogen
5. Nitrate-Nitrogen
6. Kjeldahl, Total
7. Orthophosphate
8. Chlorides
9. Cadmium
10. Chromium
11. Lead
12. Manganese
13. Coliform Bacteria
14. Turbidity
15. Pesticides
Depending on the location involved, OCPC will make a joint determination with
the College relative to which parameters will be tested for.
The product for this task will be a technical memorandum with the results of
the analysis.
The Cost for Work Product I.A. is $5,825.
B. The College will collect water and mud samples for the purpose of determining
biological indicators from the same sixty (60) sites in Work Product I.A. The
sampling will be done simultaneously with the sampling in Work Product I. The
sampling procedures will include seining and bottom-sampling. Macroscopic
species of flora and fauna as an indication of water qual-ity will be identified
and evaluated. Finally, a diversity index will be calculated.
The product of this task will be a technical memorandum with the results of
the analysis.
-------
The cost for Work Product I.B. is $2,231
The College will collect water quality samples from the same sixty locations
in Work Product I.A. during Spring, 1976. The sampling will take place between
March 15 and April 30 with the exact time period to be mutually determined by
OCPC and the College. The College will be responsible for the analysis of all
samples.
The testing parameters will be the same as those in Work Product I.A. except
where a determination has been made jointly by OCPC and the College to alter
the parameters.
The product for this task will be a technical memorandum with the results of
the analysis.
The cost for Work Product I.C. is $5,825.
The College will prepare a Technical Report which will provide a detailed
examination and interpretation of the data collected from the Fall 1975 and Spring
1976 samplings. Included in this report will be an analysis of the chemical and
biological testing, interpretation of the results, and a documentation of all
precedures and methods used.
The cost for Work Product I.D. is $2,000
II. Quality Assurance Plan
The following measures have been instituted to assure that the work will be of the
highest quality.
A. Organization of the Program
The faculty members involved in this Program include: Kenneth Sumner, Ph.D.,
Associate Professor of Chemistry; John Jahoda, Ph.D., Associate Professor of
Zoology; Harold Schaefer, PH.D., Assistant Professor of Botany; Henry Daley,
Ph.D., Professor of Chemistry; Vahe Marganian, Ph.D., Professor of Chemistry.
All of these participants are faculty members at Bridgewater State College.
Mr. Richard Benton is an Instructor in Chemistry at the Massachusetts Maritime
Academy.
Mr. Benton is in charge of the quality control program, as well as other aspects
involving the chemical procedures. Doctors Sumner, Daley and Marganian will be
responsible for training the technical personnel in the chemical procedures
and overseeing the quality control program as it pertains to their area. All
the technical personnel have several year's experience in chemical laboratory
work.
-------
Dr. Schaefer will act as consultant for the "coliform bacteria" test and in
those other occasions where microbiological expertise is required.
Dr. Jahoda will be in charge of the collection of the samples and will follow
the quality control procedures as given in Federal Register, Vol. 39, No. 168
(Wednesday, August 28, 1974).
B. Quality Control Program
Initial Standardization: Where applicable, eight standards covering the range
of analysis will be used to establish the standardization curve. Verification
of the curve will be made by replicate determination of the standards.
For other measurements, such as turbidity, etc., the standardization provided
by the manufacturer will be observed.
Initial Precision and Accuracy Data: Precision data will be acquired for each
method by analyzing natural water samples of high, intermediate, and low concen-
trations. The replicate determinations will be made at each concentration level.
The standard deviations will be calculated from this data.
Accuracy data will be acquired by spiking the low and intermediate samples from
the precision study in sufficient amount to double the low concentration and to
bring the intermediate sample to 75% of the upper limit of the test employed.
Ten replicate determinations will be made of each spiked sample. The percent
recovery will be calculated for each concentration from this data.
Evaluation of Daily Performance: From the initial precision and accuracy data,
daily control charts will be constructed employing the Shewhart quality control
technique.
Duplicate and spiked samples will be run once for every ten sample determinations
This date will be applied to the Shewhart quality control charts to confirm that
the analytical method is under control.
Verification of the standardization curve will be established by the inclusion
of a blank, low, and high standard with each analytical run.
C. Test Methods and Prodedures
EPA approved methods shall be used. The procedures utilized in the following
tests are described in the Federal Register, Vol 38, No. 199 (Tuesday, October
16, 1973). The particular methods to be used are:
Dissolved Oxygen Probe Method
Biochemical Oxygen Demand Probe Method
Ammonia Nitrogen Distillation-Nesslerization or Probe Method
Kjeldahl Nitrogen Digestion, Distillation-Nesslerization
Nitrate Nitrogen Brucine sulfate
Orthophosphate Direct Single reagent
Chloride Mercuric nitrate"
Metals Atomic Absorption
Coliform Bacteria Membrane Filter
-------
Coliform Bacteria
Turbidity
Pesticides
PH
Membrane Filter
Hach Turbidimeter
Gas Chromatography
Probe Method
Reference manuals to be used include Standard Methods, 13th Edition (APHA);
ASTM; EPA "Methods for the Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes" and "Biological
Field and Laboratory Methods."
D. Monitoring and Validation erf Qua!i ty Control Program
The College agrees that documents describing the precision and accuracy of the
actual measurement system in use at the laboratory on the parameters of interest
shall be available for review by EPA.
The College agrees that an on-site visit may be made by EPA and state officials
to evaluate the laboratory's capability to perform tests on the parameters of
interest.
The College agrees that the laboratory will adhere to a performance check
sample program which will be administered by either the State or EPA and will
include the major parameters of interest. Test samples will be provided to the
laboratory at a frequency determined by EPA and the State. Results of the test
analysis will be sent to OCPC, EPA, and the State.
-------
pendix I
Public Information Program
-------
(Jld Colony v lanning (Council
232 MAIN STREET
BROCKTON MASS O24OI
617.563-1833
DANIEL M CRANE
tKfCUTIVC DIRECTOR
November 7, 1975
Ms. Helen Enright
21 North Main Street
Avon, MA 02322
Dear Ms. Enright:
Enclosed is some background information on the Old Colony Planning Council's
water quality study. In the future, I will be sending you press releases
dealing with various phases of the study.
In this study, we will be identifying and addressing the major water pollution
sources and water quality-related issues in each community as well as for the
area as a whole. The enclosed Bakcground Information paper describes the
scope of our work in greater depth.
One of the primary requirements of Section 208 and one of the major goals of
the Old Colony water quality study is the development of an active public
role in the planning process. Achieving this goal will necessitate constant
exchange of information between our staff and individual citizens, citizen
groups, and overall communities. This is where you can be of vital assis-
tance to the project. By publishing/airing announcements concerning our
progress, schedule of meetings, local events, as well as the response of your
subscribers/audience, you can make a significant contribution to citizen
awareness and participation.
Each community in the area has appointed a representative to the Citizen's
Committee on Clean Water. This Committee is responsible for directing the
course of the study and ensuring that issues in each community are adequately
addressed. Avon's representative is: Mr. Robert Cook, 100 South Street,
Avon, MA 02322.
The Water Quality Study will be important to Avon for a number of reasons.
Because of Avon's critical dependence on the Trout Brook area groundwater
supply, we will be very concerned in the 208 study with ways to protect the
groundwater supply. At the present time, Trout Brook receives wastes from
failing septic tanks and industries. A second major concern in Avon for
the 208 study will be working with the Avon Sewer Commission in planning for
sewers and in providing financial assistance for the sewerage study.
EAST BRIDGEWATER
SERVING
ABINGTON AVON BRIDGEWATER
EASTON HANSON PEMBROKE
BROCKTON
WEST BRIDGEWATER
WHITMAN
-------
November 7, 1976
Ms. Helen Enright
Page 2
I will be sending you additional information and materials for publication
in the weeks and months to come. Your ongoing cooperation and support
through the two-year planning phase and the eight-year implementation phase
of this project will mean a great deal to citizens of your community and
the Old Colony Area.
Sincerely,
Robert M. Kaye
Regional Planner
RMK:al
Enclosure
-------
NEWS RELEASE: 11/25/76
John Goldrosen, Old Colony Planning Council, 583-1833
"Old Colony Planning Council, Bridgewater State College
Announce Water Quality Sampling Program"
It was announced today that a program of surface water quality sampling
and analysis will be conducted over the next several months by Bridgewater
State College under a contract between the College and the Old Colony Planning
Council. The sampling program will cost $15,881 and will be financed from
federal funds granted to the OCPC by the Environmental Protection Agency for
the OCPC's Section 208 water quality management program.
The purpose of the sampling program is to identify nonpoint sources
of pollution, including septic tank overflows, agricultural runoff, highway
runoff, landfill leachates, and construction-related sediment. The informa-
tion gathered will be used in.the preparation of the OCPC areawide water quality
management plan scheduled for completion by July, 1977. The communities
participating in the OCPC Section 208 program are Abington, Avon, Bridgewater,
Brockton, East Bridgewater, Easton, Hanson, Pembroke, West Bridgewater, and
Whitman.
Samples will be taken from lakes and streams at approximately sixty
sites in the 208 region during the first three weeks of December. The sites
were selected after consultation with the local conservation commissions and
a review of existing information on problem areas. Tests will be performed
on the samples to identify chemcial and biological pollutants. Also, an
analysis will be make of the biological species present in the bottom deposits
at the sampling sites. This analysis will help to indicate the long-term
impacts of pollution on life in the water bodies. The sites will be sampled
again early next spring.
The sampling program will involve the participation of several faculty
members in the chemistry and biology departments at Bridgewater State College.
Dr. Kenneth Sumner, Associate Professor of Chemistry, will act as principal
project coordinator. Dr. John Jahoda, Associate Professor of Zoology, will
be in charge of sampling and biological testing. Mr. Richard Benson, Assistant
Professor of Chemistry at Massachusetts Maritime Academy, will direct the
chemical testing. Other faculty involved will be Dr. Fahe Marganian, Professor
of Chemistry, Dr. Henry O. Daley, Professor of Chemistry, and Dr. Harold
Schaefer, Assistant Professor of Botany, all of Bridgewater State College.
Three technicians and nine undergraduate students will also be employed on the
project.
The contract for the sampling program was signed Monday, November 24,
in the office of Adrian Rondileau, President of Bridgewater State College.
Daniel Crane, Executive Director of OCPC, said, "We are looking forward to
working with members of the Bridgewater State College faculty on the 208
program. The sampling.project gives us the opportunity to create closer
working ties between the OCPC and our local educational institutions." Dr.
Sumner said, "Besides the unique opportunity for the College to be of service
to the local community, the project offers practical experience and valuable
learning opportunities for the undergraduates involved."
President Rondileau also pointed to the educational benefits from
the project, stating, "The project will allow students and faculty members to
become more familiar with programs for environmental protection being carried
out in their communities."
-------
OLD COLONY PLANNING COUNCIL
AREA NEWSPAPERS
ASSOCIATED NEWSPAPERS
Avon Messenger (587-340l!
Easton Bulletin
Stoughton Chronicle
Whitman Times
9 Pearl Street
Stoughton, MA 02072
(617) 344-2100
Editor
Publication Day
Deadline
Paid Circulation
Avon
Easton
Stoughton
Whitman
Patsy Murray
Thursday
Tuesday, Noon
825
2,250
3,650
1,625
Bridgewater Independent
East Bridgewater Star
West Bridgewater Times
17 Central Square
Bridgewater, MA 02324
(617) 697-2881
Bridgewater State Comment
Bridgewater State College
Bridgewater, MA 02324
(617) 697-8321
Editor :
Publication Day :
Deadline :
Paid Circulation:
Editor :
Publication Day :
Deadline :
Paid Circulation:
Murray Mitchell
Thursday
Tuesday, Noon
Apprcx. 1,500 total
Sue Lawson
Thursday
Tuesday
4,000
Brockton Enterprise
60 Main Street
Brockton, MA 02401
(617) 586-6200
Editor
Publication Day
Deadline
Paid Circluation
Avon
Abington
Bridgewater
Brockton
East Bridgewater
Easton
Hanson
Pembroke
West Bridgewater
Whitman
Joseph O'Brien
Daily, except Sunday
Preceding day
1,131
2,513
2,700
39,000
2,393
3,200
1,450
1,400
1,650
3,200
-------
Brockton Enterprise Local Correspondents
(Note: channel general releases through the City Editor to avoid duplication)
Abington
Alice Frame
20 Walnut Street
Abington, MA 02351
(617) 878-2085
Avon
Helen Enright
21 North Main Street
Avon, MA 02322
(617) 686-2585
Bridgewater
Paul O'Brien
Plymouth Street
Bridgewater, MA
(617) 697-2375
02324
Brockton
Joseph O'Brien (City Editor, B.E.)
Office: 60 Main Street
Brockton, MA 02401
(617 586-6200
East Bridgewater
Cynthia Eastman
2 Hobart Street
East Bridgewater,
(617) 378-2563
MA 02333
Easton
Priscilla Verdi
24 Day Street
Easton, MA 02334
(617) 238-2819
Hanson
Barbara Ferguson
East Washington Street
Hanson, MA 02341
(617) 876 4576
Pembroke
Emily Lee
Pleasant Street
North Pembroke, MA
(617) 826-4596
02359
West Bridgewater
Barbara Roulstone
17 Spring Street
West Bridgewater,
(617) 586-4531
MA 02379
Whitman
Eleanor Smith
404 Washington Street
Whitman, MA 02382
(617) 447-2123
-------
Easton Today
Hockomock Publishing Company
P.O. Box 87
No. Easton, MA 02356
FRANKLIN PUBLISHING COMPANY
Lincoln News
67 Grove Street
Rockland, MA 02370
586-2250
Editor
Publication Day
Deadline
Circulation
Abington
Bridgewater
East Bridgewater
West Bridgewater
Ron Raposa
Wednesday
Preceding Thursday, Noon
(Free to all households)
3,511
3,571
2,658
2,167
Southshore News
65 Grove Street
Rockland, MA 02370
878-5100
Massasoit Further
290 Thatcher Street
Brockton, MA
588-9100
Quincy Patriot Ledger
13 Temple Street
Quincy, MA 02169
472-7000
Editor
Publication Day
Deadline
Circulation
Abington
Hanson
Whitman
Editor :
Publication Day :
Deadline :
Paid Circulation:
Editor :
Publication Day :
Deadline :
Paid Circulation:
Ron Raposa
Wednesday
Preceding Thursday, Noon
(Free to all households)
3,511
2,325
3,644
John Kennedy
Every 2 weeks (2nd & 4th)
Friday of preceding week
5,000
City Desk
Daily Except Sunday
Lead varies on importance of
story (Mtg-1 week, Page 1-1/2 day)
3 editions (city, south, west)
total 77,000
Delivery Service to
Avon - city
AbingtonN
Hanson J
Pembroke\south
Whitman J
-------
Patriot Ledger Local Correspondents
(Note: Channel general releases through the main office to
avoid duplication).
Abington
Kathleen Kelly
3 Wyman Road
Abington, MA 02351
(617) 878-9009
Avon
Contact Patriot Ledger Newsroom
1-800-972-5070
Hanson
Contact Patriot Ledger Newsroom
1-800-972-5070
Pembroke
Mary Birchmore
20 Belle Road
Pembroke, MA 02359
(617) 293-7118
Whitman
Betty Poole
58 Harvard Street
Whitman, MA 02382
(617) 447-3165
Silver Lake News
P.O. Box 458
Pembroke, MA 02359
(617) 293-3522
Editor :
Publication Day :
Deadline :
Paid Circulation:
Colin Stewart
Thursday
Tuesday, Noon
4,000 total
Hanson
Halifax
Kingston
Pembroke
Plympton
Stonehill College Summit
320 Washington Street
North Easton, MA 02356
(617) 238-2052
Editor :
Publication Day :
Deadline :
Paid Circulation;
Gloria Jean Masciorotte
Wednesday
Preceding Week
2,000
-------
MEDIA CONTACTS
Tom Roulstone
WOKW Radio Station
288 Linwood Street
Brockton, MA 02401
587-1410
Larry Ghiorse
WBET Radio Station
60 Main Street
Brockton, MA 02401
586-1460
Jack Correa (Program and News Direc.)
WBIM-FM
Student Union Building
Bridgewater State College
Bridgewater, MA 02324
or (for, O'Brian, Cathy
Winslow or 4:00 News ED)
697-8321
News Director
WSHL-FM
Stonehill College
No. Easton, MA 02356
-------
Appendix
Newspaper Clipping File
-------
Brockton Enterprise, 12/8/75
7085
Brockton Enterprise. 11/21/75
EASTON
Prucillo Verdi 238-2819
OCPC Is Preparing Report
On Water Pollution Sources
EASTON - The Old Colony
Planning Council's water quali-
ty study is presently preparing
to identify the major water
pollution sources and water
quality - related issues in each
community.
Officials said one of the
primary requirements of Sec-
tion 208 and one of the major
goals of the Old Colony water
quality study is the develop-
ment of an active public role in
the planning process.
Easton's representative to
the Citizen's Committee on
Clean Water is Walter
Tonaszuck, Director of Public
Works.
The committee will be
working with the OCPC to
protect Easton's groundwater
supplies from septic tank
leachate. They will examine the
viability of a proposed Easton
sewer system and its potential
affect on growth and develop-
ment in the town. Plans to
preserve Easton's unique ponds
and streams for the
recreational and aesthetic en-
joyment of its citizens will also
be developed.
The OCPC received a grant of
$650,000 under Section 208 of the
Federal Water Pollution
Control Act of 1972. The grant
received in June, 1975, will
finance a two year, water
quality planning project in the
OCPC communities of
Abington, Avon, Bridgewater,
Brockton, East Bridgewater,
Easton, Hanson, Pembroke,
West Bridgewater and Whit-
man.
The Federal Water Pollution
Control Act outlined national
water quality goals. It was en-
visioned that the most complete
examination of pollution
sources and planning for the
assurance of water quality
would be undertaken at the
local level by agencies which
were responsive to local
concerns and were able to in-
volve local citizens in defining
the steps required to clean up
and preserve the area's waters.
Section 208 of the Act
provides funding for area wide
integrated planning and control
over water quality - associated
activities. A plan which is
intended to deal with both point
and nonpoint pollution sources,
and with both present and
potential future conditions,
must obviously cover a wide
range of topics. There are a
number of planning elements
that the O.C. 208 study will be
covering including: facilities
planning, the timing and se-
quence of construction,
management arrangements,
recommended sewer service
areas, interceptor locations,
and facilities, locations and
sludge management programs.
Land use, water quality, water
related land use, storm
drainage, non point sources,
management system and public
participation.
Old Colony Sponsoring
Water Quality Workshop
ABINGTON - A Water
Quality Workshop to help
protect and preserve water
resources in the community has
been scheduled by the Old
Colony Planning Council and
the Citizens Committee for
clean Water for tomorrow at 8
p.m. at the Town Hall.
The meeting will give
Abmgton residents an oppor-
tunity to speak on ponds and
rivers for recreation; ground
and surface water supplies,
•wetland conservation areas,
flooding and erosition, septic
tank failures, sewers and treat-
ment facilities and the com-
munity's future developments
Selectmen Richard Colbert
and John Zipeto have been ap-
pointed by Abmgton Selectmen
to represent Abinglon on the
Citizens committee and they
will be in charge of the
workshop meeting
The workshop offers an op-
portunity for Abington
residents to meet their
representatives on the Citizens
Committee and the members of
the Old Colony Planning Coun-
cil staff who are working on the
water Duality planning
program At the workshop, the
purpose and content of the
program will be explained in
detail Information collected'
during recent OCPC studies of
land use and water supplies will
be presented.
Most of the workshop will be
devoted to an open discussioh of
the important water quality
issues in Abington. Among the
issues which are likely to arise
at the workshop are the use of
ponds and rivers in Abington for
recreation, the protection of
local water supplies and
wetland conservation areas,
water quality problems caused
by septic tank failures, plans
for sewers and wastewater
treatment facilities, and the
possible impacts of the water
quality planning program on
the future development of
Abington.
The water quality study is
funded by the Federal Govern-
ment under Section 208 of the
Federal Water Pollution
Control Act of 1972 The study
began last July and will be com-
pleted by July, 1977.
The Environmental Protec-
tion Agency has stated that it
will follow the recommen-
dations made in the final 208
plan in allocating federal funds
for wastewater treatment
facility construction over the
next decade and in issuing dis-
charge permits Therefore, the
final 208 plan will be an impor-
tant influence on water quality
in Abington and on the town's
growth and development for
years to come. Participation in
the workshop is one way for
citizens and officials of
Abington to ensure that their
viewpoints are fully considered'
at an early stage in the prepara-
tion of the 208 plan
Refreshments will be served.
-------
Brockton Enterprise, 12/9/75
Helen EnngM, 586-2585
Water Problems Mulled
AVON - The Citizens Com-
mittee for Clean Water and the
Old Colony Planning Council
met with the Avon Sewer Com-
mission Monday night and
presented slides and discussion
on the water problems of Avon
and the area.
In June, 1975, the OCPC
received a grant of $650,000 to
conduct a water study and to
give Avon information and
recommendations in a number
of areas.
The studies have an areawide
approach and will seek to deter-
mine non point and point
sources of water pollution.
This is the first program to
undertake determination of
point and non - point sources of
pollution John Goldrosen,
planner for OCPC and
moderator for the evening, ex-
plained that a point of water
pollution might be an iden-
tifiable source of pollution such
as a pipe pouring in pollutants
to a water body, while a non -
point pollution could be surface
run - off from a parked car or
salt run - off from the road.
The study will determine
structural and non - structural
solutions to the pollution
problem. A structural solution
could be the building of a sewer
system. A non - Structural solu-
tion could be regulations or re-
quirements laid down by town
boards.
The Avon Water Board, for
instance, requires that an in-
dustry give the town an es-
timated usage before tying into
the-water-supply r This is the-
only town which requires this.
Chairman Charles McCarthy
told the OCPC that so far in-
dustry has been very
cooperative and has given good
estimates of water usage.
The study will map ground
water and judge groundwater
and surface water conditions. A
groundwater study done by
Goldberg Zoino Assocates,
Inc., Newton, has been com-
pleted and the results will be
turned over to Avon represen-
tatives on the Citizens for Clean
Water (CCW) Robert Cook of
the Sewer Commission and
Peter Crone of the Conserva-
tion Commission
By following the highs and
lows of the ground water, the
committee be able to determine
the course water takes.
1 Finally, the study will deter-
mine the ability to implement
the recommendations, keeping
in mind the cost.
The areas of study will
include updating landuse maps;
a look at water supply and
water consumption;
groundwater study, including
water table data; water
sampling (a study is now being
conducted by Bridgewater
State College); economic and
population data of the com-
munities; meetings with town
officials and the public.
In the water study being done
by the OCPC by Bridgewater
State College, the Conservation
Commissions will select the
water sites.
Bob Kay, public participation
coordinator whose field is land
use, showed a slide which il-
lustrated the beauty and utility
of clean water. The barrenness
and hazard of polluted water.
Sources of pollution can be
from natural sources such as
the sediment running down
from hills or from salt put down
by the state to cut the ice in
winter.
Carl Lundgren of the Avon
Sewer Commission commented
on the problems of sewering the
entire town of Avon. Lundgren
pointed out that the main
problem in sewering the town
was in the resultant loss of
water to the town.
Avon's well system depends
on water cycling through the
ground, cleaning itself and
returning to the wells as clean
water. If sewers are used, the
water is sent out of town and
there is no way of replacing the
water that is lost.
In addition, he said, sewers
mean an increase in water use,
both by current users, no longer
concerned about on-site sewer
malfunctionings, and by attrac-
ting additional industry because
of the sewers.
Chairman Charles McCarthy
of the Avon Water Board
reported that the search for
water, to date, has been
negative. Lundgren asked there
was any chance of Avons' being
able to use the body of water in
Avon which is the Brockton
auxiliary supply at Waldo Pond.
He was told'that the City of
Brockton was given use of that
water even before Avon was a
town, by an act of the
Legislature and it would take
an act of the legislature to
restore it to Avon.
A questionnaire was dis-
tributed to those present to see
how they felt about future
development of the town,
residentially, industrially, and
commercially. The questions
also included queries about
what the people felt were
problems in the town, whether
it was pollution of water, tran-
sportation, unemployment,
crime, rapid growth, inade-
quate public services and
facilities, taxes, lack of
recrational areas, etc.?
People were also asked if
they wished to take part in the
program as speakers, or
workers taking photos, working
on a newsletter, talking with
other citizens or serving on an
advisory committee.
In addition, the OCPC
planners would like to have peo-
ple telephone or write to them
in Brockton to tell them of
areas in the town which might
have sewer problems, or areas
of the towj]_wjvich_should_j5e
~presef ve(I. ^"
Representing the OCPC were
planners: Tom Galvin,
sewerage planning, industrial
watewater management; John
Goldrosen, non - point pollution,
stormwater runoff, ground
water; Bob Kaye, public par-
ticipation coordinator, land
use; Susan Wilkes, land use,
water related land use.
Avon town officials attending
included, Water Com-
missioners, Philip Pillarella,
and McCarthy, Sewer Com-
missioners, Robert Cook and
Lundgren, Chairman Industrial
Financing Commission,
Richard McCormick; John
Mclntee and Peter Crone, Avon
Conservation Commission,
Earl Peterson and Loren
DeWitt. Avon Health Board.
Peter Lpmbardo represented
the engineering firm of
Anderson Nichols.
-------
West Bridgewater Times
VOLUME Z, NO 2
BKIDGEWATER. MASS. Thursday, January 8, 1976
Ten Cent* Per Copy
Citizens WorKshop
On Water Quality
A Water Quality Workshop
will be held in Bridgewater
on Thursday. January 28,
at 7.30 P M in the Acade-
my Building The purpose
of ihe workshop is to intro-
duce and discuss the Old
OJony Planning Council's
new areawide water quality
to arise at the workshop are
the use of ponds and rivers in
Bridgewater for recreation
the protection of local water
supplies and wetland con-
servation areas, water qual-
ity problems caused by the
septic tank failures, plans
for sewers and wastewater
study The workshop is being "treatment facilities, and the
sponsored by the Citizen
Committee on Clean Water
which is responsible for di-
recting the study Ms. Mari-
lyn Furlong has been ap-
pointed by the Bndgewater
Selectmen to represent the
town of Bridgewater un the
Citizens Committee.
The workshop is open to
all interested citizens, and
the Citizens Committee on
Clean Water hopes that a
large number of Bndgewa- ^
ter residents will attend and
present Lheir views on the
key water quality issues
facing Bridgewater
The workshop offers an
opportunity for Bndgewater
residents to meet their rep-
resentatives on the Citizens
Committee and the memb-
ers of the Old Cafcmy Plan-
ning Council sta-ff wtio are
working on the water quali-
ty planning program
At the workshop, the pur-
pose and content of the pro-
gram will be explained in
detail. Most of the workshop
will be devote'd to an open
discussion of the important
water quality issuer i» tte-
town of Bridgewater. Among
the issues which are likely
possible impacts of the wa-
ter quality planning pro-
gram on the future develop-
ment of Bridgewater
The water quality study
is funded by the Federal
Government under Section
203 of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act of 1972
The study began last July
and will be completed by
November, 1977
The Environmental Pro-
tection Agency has stated
that it will .follow the rec-
ommendations made in the
final 208 plan in allocating
federal funds for wastewa-
ter treatment facility con-
struction over the next dec-
ade and in issuing discharge
permits Therefore, the final
208 plan will be an import-
ant influence on water quali-
ty in Bndgewater and on
the town's grawllfr- imj de-
velopment fur yespyt^rcome
Participation in the work-
shop is one way for citizens
and officials of Bridgewater
to ensure that their view-
points are fully considered
at an early itage in the
ptgporatiep o4 tto 20t pton.
Refreshments will b«
served.
-------
Brockton Enterprise, 2/7/76
EAST BRIDGEWATER &-*•,./,
Cynlhio Eastman 378-2563
Selectmen Urge Change in Pact
On Study for Water Quality
EAST BRIDGEWATER -
Representatives of the Old
Colony Planning Council, Water
Quality Study Committee, Bob
McMahan. Bob Kaye, Tom
Galvin and John Goldrosen and
local representative William
Crowley met with the Board of
Selectmen this week to further
discuss the 208 Study for Water
Quality.
McMahan reviewed the
status of the study explaining
the work that has already been
done in East Bridgewater
r3garding the need for in depth
• tudy of individual waste
o •• o b 1 e m s, agricultural
-oilution, land fill, ground
water, highway run off and sep-
tic problems.
The town at the annual town
meeting when the study was
first presented voted it down
because of the stipulation that
after making the study if it was
determined that sewerage was
needed the group has a, "blank
check" to go ahead in im-
plementing such sewerage. The
town did not like the idea of
sewers at this time and ob-
jected to. the wording that
would allow the implementa-
tion which would be beyond
their control.
Selectman Gilbride explained
that he and the board were in
favor of such a water quality
study, as it would aid the town
in protecting and preserving
what they have before
problems arise, but the wording
giving the authority to the study
committee to implement the
sewerage plan was the whole
objection.
He further explained that the
study would be welcome if the
resolution which the group
must have signed by the towns
taking part were to be changed
he feels sure that the town
would then agree.
McMahan introduced the idea
of holding a workshop within
the town, tentatively on Feb. 5,
open to the public to allow
citizens to "work with the study
and actually get involved". He
said he and his group feel that
by talking to residents and
asking them for advise and
determining the priorities of
such a study they could get
townspeople more interested in
the study.
He explained that the study
originally raised many issues in
East Bridgewater because of
ground water problems and
growth and many of the studies
were geared to their town's
potential problems.
Also mentioned were the
pollution problems created by
the two major streams which
empty into and run through the
town.
At this point. Gilbride pointed
out that unless the group could
assure the town that the Mat-
field River problem coming in
from Brockton could be solved,
they may as well forget it.
The study group agreed that
perhaps some changes in the
resolution could be made to
cooperate with the wishes of
the town and make the study a
valuable investigation for
future solutions to problems
before they beset the town.
The group said it will set up a
date for the open workshop and
hope the town will turn out in
good numbers with many
questions and suggestions.
------- |