HomeMy Public PortalAboutMFWQC Minutes 2022-01-24t� h
Marine and Fresh Water Quality Committee Meeting Minutes
(Including Appendix 1: Baker Pond PowerPoint Presentation and
Addendum 1: Technical Clarifications)
January 24, 2021 (Nauset Room and via Zoom)
Attendees: Judith Bruce, Carol Etzold, Ed Hafner, Carolyn Kennedy, Richard Levy, Valerie
May, Judy Scanlon (Chair); and Robert Mullin
Others: Ed Eichner (invited speaker); Dr. Brian Howes (invited speaker); Michael Herman,
Select Board Liaison
Regrets: None
1. Call to Order.
The chair called the meeting to order at 10:01 AM.
2. Public Presentation - Baker Pond Management Plan and Diagnostic Assessment -Draft
Final Report - Ed Eichner (TMDL Solutions) and Dr. Brian Howes (Coastal Systems
Group /SMAST). " (See Appendix 1, PowerPoint Presentation)
Ed Eichner gave a formal presentation on the Baker Pond Management Plan and Diagnostic
Assessment -Draft Final Report. Baker Pond was among the four ponds prioritized for future
study in 2016/2017 A water quality database and prioritization review. In that review, all four
ponds were found to be impaired and that there were some data gaps. The review concluded
that each pond would require pond- specific management approaches. A subsequent Diagnostic
Assessment was performed on Baker Pond in 2019 to cover any data gaps, and this helped to
identify the specific drivers of impairment in Baker Pond.
Baker Pond is a Great Pond (over 10 acres), has boat ramp and public beach, and is about 20
meters deep. The Assessment demonstrated that water column clarity (measured from 2001-
2020) has been decreasing from the 6.4 meters average DEPTH since 2019. Water column
temperature readings show that Baker is regularly stratified in summer below 9 meters,
affording a year -round deep -COLD water fishery habitat (less than 20 degrees C below 9
meters depth) if dissolved oxygen was acceptable. However, dissolved oxygen profiles show
hypoxia /anoxia conditions (DO <6 mg /L) are present from June through summer, which impacts
the deep -water conditions negatively, particularly in August. Shallow water summer chlorophyll
a is greater than the ecoregion threshold, and deep water dissolved oxygen is regularly less
than MassDEP minimum STANDARD after mid -June. There were also some warning signs
based on blue -green algae (Cyanobacteria) concentrations seen in the July of 2021. Although at
one -point concentrations reach around 40,000 cells /ml, the pond is STILL well under the total
cell count of 70,000 cells /mL which is the Massachusetts State Department of Health (MDPH)
recommended recreational water upper limit.
With respect to phosphorus and nitrogen, total phosphorous levels in the Pond are increasing,
while nitrogen is holding stable. This may indicate P breakthrough or phosphorus being added
from the sediments. The Pond is teetering on the 10 ug /L ecoregion threshold for total
phosphorous in late summer (below 9 meters depth). Average total phosphorus concentrations
have doubled in the past 20 years.
In summary, according to the Assessment, Baker Pond water quality is heading in the wrong
direction.
What are the sources of phosphorous? The Assessment including establishment of a spring
and late summer phosphorus budget indicates the primary sources are the septic systems of
ten of the thirteen of the upgradient properties. The three other developed properties are too
new to contribute now (but will later). All of the houses are old enough to contribute phosphorus
to the pond in the form of surface runoff (e.g., roofs, driveways).
Stormwater from nearby roads such as Bakers Pond Road discharge into the Pond only during
intense storms; these events are infrequent, so the impact is minimal.
Review of individual years shows that some summers (under the most impaired conditions
observed) sediments are THE primary phosphorous source. That is, sediments are the primary
P source typically when water column P >10.6 kg occurs in 23% of summer water column TP
estimates (of 70 total samples).
On the regulatory side, the pond meets the requirements for being classified as impaired. Ed
recommended not looking into establishing TMDLs for Baker Pond until the Town has
addressed all of the issues and attained satisfactory water quality.
Management Plan goals were summarized. First, watershed wastewater control is both the
best short -term and long -term solution for Baker Pond. That is, mitigation of the phosphorus
input from 10 of the13 properties (and consider picking up Brewster properties) through
sewering or alternative septic systems options for wastewater treatment. If the town sewered
the 10 -13 houses (currently not planned in the CWMP), the town would meet the state
standards /target. This makes sense except for the costs. The Town should consider also
addressing future P load from 3 additional properties.
Second, consider addressing the anoxic sediments — possibly using hypolimnetic aeration,
dredging of sediments, or alum treatment. These options were further discussed (see Appendix
1, slides 23 -27).
Bottom line: There is a lot of variability in this system from year to year, but P levels remain
high. Consider cost and best outcome for reducing P inputs to the pond from the watershed.
See Table VI -1.
The Committee then discussed Page 73, Figure V -2. There appear to be lots of variability in the
individual septic systems.
3. Presentation Q &A
Valery asked about how to best cooperate with the town of Brewster? Judith has mentioned the
report to the Brewster Ponds Coalition. Ed Eichner (Ed E.) is willing to have a discussion with
Chris Miller, Director, Natural Resources and Shellfish, in Brewster, and see how they might
possibly incorporate this topic into their Brewster Comprehensive Wastewater Management
Plan (CWMP) discussions.
CWMP. The Chair reminded the Committee that we will make recommendations to the Select
Board, and then, if appropriate, the Town would engage in cross town discussions.
The Chair asked if Brian Howes has any comments? He offered to talk to the CWMP (? this
does not sound right) about sewering as long -term ultimate solution. Short -term, dredging vs.
alum — same basic issues - time bound to 10 years and you are then back to where you are
now. Interannual variability in Baker is very much likely due to bottom Oz levels over time. This
explains water column variations. Spring water and phosphorus input drive baseline.
Nanobubbles — having problems getting that to work in Falmouth and Mashpee. In this case you
don't want to mix the water column, Costs are estimates based on other programs already being
done.
Judith asked about the watershed — does not go to Pilgrim Lake. What about using a small pipe
septic system to take care of these 10 -13 systems and in so doing moving these sources to
satellite treatment site(s) outside of the area and no longer contributes to the other lakes. This
still leaves issue of nitrogen contributions to Pleasant Bay. We need to look at bigger picture,
and Ed agreed.
Judith also asked about upgradient properties in Orleans? Would they ever contribute if the
systems fail in a rainstorm or other conditions? Ed believes this is not very likely.
Valerie (and Judith) asked about the condition of these septic systems. There are not any
regulations and they are not inspected unless there is a Title 5 sale. The Chair pointed out that
these systems are not designed to remove nitrogen or phosphorus, they are for pathogen
control. If the systems are failing, owners really will need to mitigate the situation. Then
someone needs to report this. Valerie believes that the town of Brewster has a periodic septic
system evaluation process.
Judith asked about aerobic and anaerobic release of phosphorus. Anaerobic conditions usually
lead to the largest release. However, some can occur under aerobic conditions due just to just
bacterial activity.
Carol asked if the phosphorous rebinds when the water cools down and it's more oxygenated?
Ed E. said yes it does. Regarding the sediment, if you use an alum treatment, and there we no
further inputs of phosphorus, then the water stays clean. There would be no need to redo the
alum treatment or aeration periodically, even if the sediment release is higher during warm
months. Ed E. said that Alum could be a onetime treatment. In Baker Pond, if you treat the
watershed, you may not have to do the alum treatment at all.
Then she asked about the impact of increasing year -round contributions even at existing levels
of septic input? Ed E. said that the model considers this; the occupancy would have to go up
significantly (like a hotel), and then we could see an issue. Otherwise, no.
The Chair asked about the time we would have if we alum treated the pond. Similar discussion
as in Crystal and Pilgrim, except that Baker Pond has a lot of water column variability and there
will be both good and bad years ahead.
Bob asked about the timing for a sewering feasibility study for Baker and preparation of a more
complete cost estimate for sewering vs the residential connection costs estimated by the
SMAST team. Ed E. mentioned that we already have a model in place and that involves
contracting with AECOM.
Bob also asked about data availability — and Ed E. responded that all the data is with the Town.
Statistical analysis is done looking at 2 standard deviations. Linear regressions and simple
trend analysis are performed. Bob cautioned that the USGS model is a generalized
presentation of large -scale watershed conditions that does not account for smaller -scale
variations in hydrogeologic conditions that affect groundwater flow at specific locations within a
watershed, which can differ from that simulated by the model; and the empirical data are limited.
Ed E.mentioned that USGS survey models are well supported by empirical data. During the
Baker Pond assessment and diagnostic review, the SMAST team tried to bring in other data
including water table data (map) done in 1995. The model is from 2005; the MA Estuaries model
builds in conservatism and can rely on the data from the regulatory side of things. Brian said
that the SMAST team does not use a Cape wide number; SMAST looks at the empirical data
including long -term data sets. Brian also indicated that the ground water model is the same —
worry about rainfall and imported water. Typically, the consultant would recommend hooking up
entire areas with sewer, which can add a buffer of safety.
Ed E. noted that all data is local — such as Orleans specific participation — Orleans tends to have
more data than Chatham.
Ed Hafner asked why are we not worried about other properties upstream of Cliff Pond? Why
not greater than 300 feet? Ed Eichner said that there is not a significant concern at this time —
there is a travel time discrepancy (50 -60 years) - too long a period of time for water to reach
Baker Pond. He mentioned that ponds are more sensitive to phosphorous — estuaries more
sensitive to nitrogen. Different solutions for protecting each.
Ed Hafner asked about some success stories? Ed responded that you have your own local
success stories — Uncle Harvey's (alum) and the plans for sewering areas near Pilgrim and
Crystal Lakes.
Michael Herman asked: Is there going to be an executive summary for all four ponds? Ed
Eichner replied that the recommendations for each water body is different. However, long term
sewering is the long -term solution in most cases.
Michael also asked if there anything that the residents can do in the short term? Is there
anything they can focus on? Ed E. answered yes, best pond management practices. He
recommended making them aware of their impact and hope to make them advocates of the
Pond. Brian added that you should not use phosphorous fertilizers. Further education is needed
related to surface water solutions individuals may implement. Brian said that it is not talked
about a lot, but roof runoff is a problem. He also mentioned that there is nothing wrong with
alum as a shorter -term solution.
Carolyn noted that organizations like the Orleans Pond Coalition have published lists of things
property owners can do. She also mentioned that there are some conservation properties
around Baker Pond, and that these should be marked on the map (see slide 14) in the report.
Valerie asked about the Brewster properties. Which ones need to be sewered or have
phosphorous reducing systems. Ed said that Brewster right now is concentrating on alternative
solutions. He recommended that we (Orleans) do what we can, and see how it comes out.
Judith asked about relocating leach fields. Could this be an option for Brewster properties
which tend to be larger lots? Judith also reminded that the Committee's recommendation to the
Select Board regarding Uncle Harvey's Pond was to alum treat now, and then connect the six
properties which contribute to the phosphorus loads to the to the Meetinghouse Pond sewer
lines as soon as possible. Ed mentioned that a lot of the properties in the watershed are already
on their second septic treatment systems, and that might limit flexibility.
Carol asked if the data analysis (of the 2001 -2019 temperature values) takes into account
projected rises into the future? Ed answered yes, that overall air and water temperature is
pretty stable; other parameters tend to vary more. Groundwater and air temperature impact
water temperature the most. Summer seems to be the same; spring seems to be warmer.
Judith liked the expanded alternative treatment analysis in the plan.
John Ostman, who lives on Bakers Pond Road, commented that it's been 15 years since Ed
predicted this report would come to fruition. Nickerson is not developed much. Ponds are
mixing zones. Hundreds of years. There is a wide fluctuation in water height — appears to be on
a twenty -year cycle; the lowest in 2002 and highest is in 2019 — very close to 2 feet swing.
What impact does that have on the analysis?
Is the 8.2 kg an annual number — is it yearly loading and is it cumulative? Ed answered that it
is, and that phosphorous in the water column is the issue — and the residence time is one year.
The Ecoregion threshold is 10 ug /L. Ponds are extremely sensitive to even low values of
phosphorous for instance.
The Chair asked if the Friends of Baker Pond is still active. John said that they meet annually
(except 2020 due to Covid). He noted that they do some coliform testing every other year in the
Pond. Good results so far. Judith mentioned that the Brewster Ponds Coalition has monitored
Baker Pond for cyanobacteria for at least a year now.
Clerk's Note: After the Minutes of January 24, 2022 were approved, the Committee received
technical clarifications in Sections 2 and 3 from the invited speaker, Ed Eichner. The clarified
text is noted as track changes in text in Addendum 1.
4. Water Quality Related Conversation with Dr. Brian Howes and Bill Brotherton
Regarding Mill Pond, and the Mill Pond Race -Brief Summary
Carol Etzold had to leave at noon.
The Chair updated the Committee that William (Bill) Brotherton and the Chair met informally
with Brian Howes to discuss questions he had about Mill Pond. Brian had some suggestions,
and some caveats. You need to know what the issue is you intend to address. The bottom
waters of Mill Pond are the main issue -what can you do? It is a deep hole (10 meters) and a
big sediment trap. The bottom waters do not get mixed and go anoxic. Simple tidal attenuation
studies can be done to determine if tidal restrictions are occurring, and if so, whether removal of
the old mill race rocks would possibly improve tidal exchanges. There is no data that says it
would or would not improve the pond. Focus the discussion on management. Land use change
can be addressed in the short-term as it's a small area.
William Brotherton — There are 250 people in Mill Pond Association. Bill will be circulating a
report on their meeting this week. He then asked about the dredging to improve the navigation
— Woods Hole Group did not provide any data on removing the old mill race rocks. There is no
data yet on red tide cysts. The Association will present a petition to the Town to consider
sewering properties in the Mill Pond area as it's the best solution.
The Chair asked about what else the Association wants to know about water quality? Dr.
Howes was not sure if the rocks are occluding (restricting) the circulation, and he told Bill how to
determine this. Bill wants to remove the rocks to improve the navigation anyway, but the Chair
reminded everyone that our focus is on water quality and this Committee does not get involved
in waterways navigation.
Judith asked if a flow hydrodynamics study was done as part of entire Nauset Estuary? Brian
said yes, however the focus had been the whole Nauset Estuary system, they did not have a
high data density in that specific Mill Pond system — there is just not much Mill Pond data in
MEP data. We (SMAST) can still run the Nauset hydrodynamic model. If the Nauset Inlet is not
flowing at optimal levels, then that could help improve Mill Pond as well. It's both a local
watershed (more immediate relief) and circulation and entire estuarine system issue. Bill
thanked Ed and Brian and the MFWQ Committee for their assistance. Judith thought that the
hiring of the Town consultant on water quality might also help focus on the water quality in the
Mill Pind watershed. Ed cautioned that hard numbers are key to choosing any mitigation
choices.
5. Approval of Draft Meeting Minutes: December 20, 2021
The Clerk reviewed changes requested by Committee members. All those changes were made.
The Clerk was handed some very minor corrections from Carolyn Kennedy which were
incorporated into the draft now. The Committee voted to approve the draft December 20U,
Meeting Minutes with her changes. Motion to approve as amended by Judith. Seconded by
Carolyn.
Vote: Approved 5 -0 -0.
6. Public Comment and Announcements
The Chair will be participating remotely in both February and March and Ed Hafner has agreed
to lead those meetings.
There were no other public comments.
7. Adjourn
Motion to Adjourn by Carolyn Kennedy at 12:25 PM. Seconded by Ed Hafner. Approved 5 -0 -0
* Note: The Baker Pond Management Plan and Diagnostic Assessment, Draft Final Report,
November 2021, may be found on the Town website using the following link:
https: / /www.town.orleans. ma. usIDocumentCenterNiew /2547 /Baker - Pond - Management -Plan-
PDF
These Minutes were approved with suggested changes at Committee Meeting on April
251h. Vote: 7 -0 -0
0604vAv-
Future MFWQC Meeting Dates: YR 2022 - May 23, June 27.
Appendix 1. The Baker Pond Management Plan and Diagnostic Assessment, Draft Final
Report, November 2021. Presentation to MFWQC. January 24, 2022.
' Baker Pond
Management Plan and
Diagnostic Assessment Draft
Town of Orleans
Marine and Fresh Water Quality Committee
January 24, 2022
D Ed Eichner
PrincipaMiter Scientist. T11DL Solutions
Coastal System: Psogsam
SM Schoot for Manne Science rind Technology
Umsersty etMa : :achu :ttt Dair wutr
Baker Pond Prioritization
2016'17 Database and Prioritization Review:
■ Review water column monitoring for 17 years
■ Review other factors such as area (Great Pond'), public
beach, blue -green algae closings, etc.
Key fmdines '
All ponds were impaired
rata gaps/needs were relatively similar
uifferent characteristics of each pond requires
management approaches
Baker Pond
Management Plan/Diagnostic Assessment
Diagnostic Assessment Summary
1. Water Column Data Review
2. 2019 Data Gap Surveys
i. PhytoplariMon/Continuous WQ
ii Direct Stormwater Rimoff
iii. Bathymetry/Rooted
Plants/Mussels
iv. Sediments Corrs/P Release
3. Nutrient and Water Budgets:
Watershed Review
lI Review Water Quality Goals and
Management Options
III Summary and Recommended Plan
Decreasing clarity since 2009/2011
+0.36 m/yr2001 -2011
-0.28 m/yr 2012 -2019
2019 Data
6.4 m average
Relatively stable
5
7 a
Decreasing clarity since 2009/2011
+0.36 m/yr2001 -2011
-0.28 m/yr 2012 -2019
2019 Data
6.4 m average
Relatively stable
([
6Y
FA
WIx R�nf Mw�y�M laity lxw�A��(U
+M
rP
4YrM %t�l��xxv�
♦�raV
s
11
9
10
wa)watr. wl9 moi vn vy rnlvf cn
Mlo u'Nl l
0 IJ !J �..J U U !0 {0 a) L�
0
) 61
1 )!11
a 1(((t\\\
I 4J • 1 /fl
IJ lI {II1l _
Y � I1N
la 1 - . -teVa
U
11 4lsAlm
w 1aMatl
Y M . mlg9 Yap'•alla
•4+wwl.uav
e { v u p
e
1'
Y I
4
Y
p
t•Y�Mpte aYar W.•abNON'•IeA •Ip.+.14 TI
e
.I
tlQ
• moat � �v�co...ro of a+
FDA
"V[t
+a/4
.. yy
y
Low biomass, low cell counts: no issues except BePM
Blue greens dominant m July, Greens dominant m August
Mass Dept of Public Health criteria
• A swb{e cyawructena sc® or rot a evdeot;
• Total cell count of cyawbwwu needs 70,000 cahlotl.;
• Cmcm"nm of the to= mtaocysms exceed• 8 gr/L, w
• Concmnrtton of the loon cybndtospwtnoyvn weeds 15 gr/L.
Long Tenfu WQ: Increasing P: Stable N
TRAJECTORY
Avg late summer S
TP has doubled in
go yrs
Late summer S TP
now around 10
pg/L Ecofegion
Threshold
P MGMT IS KEY
N: P ratio shows T.
is key for water
quality
management
13
14
14
Stonnwater Disc
Three stornc: 0.17 iq 0.9 in, 0.48 in
Discharge to pond only when precipitation is intense (0.25 in/ 1.5
or greater) or very large ( >2.8 inchesWW.
Sediment Additions to Water Column:
)w sediments generally retain P (lugs amounts of P present)
sediments releaswg P under aruerobx conditions with two (C2 and C3)
mg P under acrobat confitions
atai release (breaking Pe .P bonds) did not occur antd l8 days after anaet
bons began; 47 days to consplete chemical release (sagnificant mtrate -N i
DO coodlbons: anaerobic condabons began at 16 m depth on Sept 11;
taken until Oct 28 to complex them release phase
Phosphonis Budget
SPRING: Septic Wastewater is majority of P load
SUMMER Septic Wastewater and Sediments are nearly equal
Review of individual years shows that some summers sediments
primary P source, other years wastewater is primary P source
Sediments are primary source typically when water column P >10.6
(23% of summer water column TP estimates) -.266. _
Water Quality Sunurlary (Impaired WQ):
Long Tenn: loss of clarity, significant increase in
phosphorus concentrations, regular summer
hypoxia and anoxia in deep waters, significant
increasing trend in August TP mass
2019: deep sumtner hypoxia and anoxia, shallow
TP acceptable, deep TP impacted by sediment
additions, shallow summer chlorophyll a
>Ecoregion threshold
Regulatory: deep water dissolved oxygen
regularly less than MassDEP minimum
Baker Pond
Management Plan/Diagnostic Assessment
Diagnostic Summary:
1. Shallow waters often have acceptable conditioi
(low phyto), but deep regularly impaired (loss i
cold water fishery)
2. Variable conditions, but trends show increasing
impaired conditions
3. Wastewater is usually primary P source, but
sediments become primary during the most
impaired conditions
4. Acceptable conditions usually at water column
TP mass of 8.2 kg or less
Baker Pond
Management Plan/Diagnostic Assessment
Phosphorus management is key to addressing
impairments; 8.2 kg water column TP as initial
goal
Address impairments to attain MassDEP water
quality standards (DO and narrative standards)
File TP TMDL once MassDEP water quality
standards attained (currently listed as "Category
4a — TMDL completed" for Hg; needs TP
Baker Pond
Management Plan/Diagnostic Assessment
Baker Pond Primary Applicable Options
;had Wastewater reductions: replace or
systems
sediment P control.•
• Hypolimnetic Aeration: add air /oxygen in deep waIRP
to address sediment oxygen demand and reduce P regen
• Dredging ofsediments: remove source of sediment P
regeneration
Phosphorus Inactivation /Alum Treatment addition of
aluminum salt mix to permanently bind available
sediment P
Wastewater P Reduction:
Sewerutg: 100% remova
• Sewer 10 of 13 houses in watershed currently contributing P (not
currently planned CWMP areas; —1.5 miles to Overland Rd W W
site)
• Address future P load from 3 additional properties
• Attain Baker Pond WQ Goal under average conditions
• Would occasionally not attain Baker Pond WQ Goal in high seda
load conditions ( -7% of time)
Waterloo 1:C: -P system
- Consumable Fe electrode to
Precipitate P
PhosRid system
Upelow duvugh Fe -nch
.� media to Prec"tate P
Replace septic systems for all 10 houses currently contnbmong P
Plan fox fmure P loads fiom esssnng development (3 Future P sources)
Both P removal systems currently assigned to "Pdobng" category by MassDEP
(regnue field teshug; regular monitonog. hooted to 15 mahllabous)
Alum Baker Pond WQ Goal under asvage condotiom
Would occassonalty not art= Baker Pond WQ Goal to high sedomeut load
conditions ( -71/e of hoe)
11}po6mnehc Aeration
Sediment P Reduction: Hrvolimnetic Aeration, Alum Treatment
• Alum & Hypolimnetic Aeration will attain WQ Goal across most of
likely performance range under avg conditions, unlikely to meet goal
under max sediment release
• Hypolimnelic aeration operation May to October (tumover),
generally works test wlren P regen is largest source, will need to
operate forever
• Alum treatment: single application good for at least one decade,
generally works test when P regen is largest source; will need to be
redone periodically if watershed P load is not addressed
2s
WAR,(UWMNMNSUIfMFIn
N.
Ay R
AWU6F AUGUST SFUUdFNn
AU,Un +I(A OW.F
AI.t +a'um
Ay ,t m1 ,c.,~
A,NA , dre0A ^6
MFJNFUM AUGUST MDW FNn
MMA.Mt•.Here,
Mu AU,mt+ VA U1d.%
M. A.Mt +a'.
Mat Av 9. hI6 m,YkxWH
26
Baker Pond: Water Column V(kg)
A 6 a FU F} Ia
w
Table VI 1 Beka Pond NUatt n ent Opooas Su w y
xg- ?O YM Issues
'.,Opnm Cog
S ".000 • IA.lr bna b reP +aeW paay Sa o mm mutsr�
AN. b AfaAe palavaa a! �➢ amu R UK. ba prlavm ai to
'I<aa�s 443.000 c UU my am TP wyta .A be<t prl®aa ata as <a6va raua acm
d Mad <mbtm aal a.. . Pnda,ha
I.������ a `Mdt �'. fw« (mtmvu P. M, a OcbAo
*P' SS9100 b lfa palm .0. in a IP mltR b paSo —1 a
Mlam c R\9 mtp m TP r "p bar P.<fi. t✓ va <.�t �Jrr am
A Rated <.M". a8 awabad Pn
496]100
%DtWyrs b SI 5 6 iJalr lna b t4a vita N Iva ba o veom ma�aau
c Adam vp n➢ tttm l9 rapt mJ. neap mi m® udmet P abar
d Atvd <m6vm � asrbad P etdaaa
YaaamiCRlPp`a.
SMOOW b AfWmal cae<(a,_" __ ppt
4110,000 a au.... rvrapt eaa nvprE®aa nb...w.,aa m.c><r�m..�
pc.ml <®baam .a ayaa m
�' °ate` ♦ W W7PP la ypoW P�dagp bgbt <Iar® fa Pomp er eW, w m trail Red a
n Mw, ('A l4ttYlsae tr vuBtem ud maaaP <aa
b W
artm c aSH aue TP mpr odr nanp rdmvrWa. bat rnlb vai rvdt<ma�
rd ®t ttia»
d Pad <adatam a6 bymd rm
Baker Pond
Management Plan/Diagnostic Assessment
1. Select 8.2 kg TP as a preliminary water quality tab
threshold, but avoid a TMDL designation until
attainment of satisfactory water quality
2. Develop and implement a water column P reducti
strategy for the Baker Pond
3. Wastewater reduction best in long run, but seweri
and piloting septic systems will require coordinate
with CWMP /public discussion
4. Develop and implement an adaptive management
monitoring program to track progress
Coastal Systems Program
University of Massachusetts
Dartmouth
Science for Management
Questions & Discussion
Coastal Systerm Program
Brian Howes Sara Sa opien
Ed Eichner Jen Benson
Roland Sannrry
Da%id SchlezuriM
Da%id White
Dale Toner
Contact
Ed Eichner
T MDL Solutions LLC
eichnefAtmdlsolutions. et
Cell 508-737-5991
Addendum 1. Technical Clarifications to MFWQC Meeting Minutes of January 24, 2022.
2.••Public•Presentation -- Baker• Pond• Management• Plan•and•Diagnostic•Assessment - Draft•
Final• Report -- Ed•Eichner•(TMDL•Solutions)• and• Dr .•Brion•Howes•(Coastal•Systems -
GroupISMAST).'«+
«+
Ed .Etchnergave-a -feana4presentation -on-the-Baker-Pond-Management-Plan -and-Diagnostic.
Assessment - Draft Final• Report .(See -Appendix•1).•Baker•Pond was-among-the-four-ponds-
priodtized-for-future-study-in -the 2016 / 2017 -A water-quality-database-and pdoritizafion•review.••
In-that• review ,.all•four- ponds-were-found-to be- impaired and• that -there-were -some-data-gaps.
The - review• concluded -that•each•pond-would•require pond- specificmanagement•approaches.
Data collection was completed in 20191h
on Raka�.PQPGI OA-2019 to Govw-aRy data-gaps,-and-this-information was synthesized in the
Diagnostic Assessment portion of the Management Plan
-¶
Baker pen4d-Ppnd is-a-gmat•Great paaA�.Pond (over-10-acres),•has bo2I ;ampand publicbeach,-
and is-about-20 meters-deep. eview of historical water column•clarity data•( measured -from-2001- 2020)-showed it has-been-decreasing by -0.3 m per -
year-since-2011 -and that it averaged fremdhw6.4 -meters _ 'n 2019.-Water•
column temperature - readings show-that Bakeris regulady-stratified in summerwkh.
temperatures below-9-meters, affording supportive of•a• year- round•deep- COLD-water fishery .
-dissolved-oxygen was-acceptable
However, •dissolved oxygen profiles-show-hypoxia/anoxia conditions-and unacceptable
concentrations (DO.<6 mg /L)-awpresent fromJune•through summer, mpads-tlm
Review of sShallow-watersummer
chlorophyll-a concentrations show that deep impairments are impacting shallow wateraualibf-
2019 shallow chlorophyll a concentrations exceeded is- greater_ tbaalbs:ecoregion-lhresholds in-
July. August. and October, and deep water dissolved OXYgOA'01;-r@gU'ady'lors'thaA'Magr
--There were-also -some warning signs based on -blue-
23
green • algae (Cyanobacteria)- dominance of the phytoplankton population Ceoncentrations•
measured in July 2021 showed cyanobacteria were 92% of the phytoplankton population but
cell counts were only around 40 cells /ml well below the 70.000 cells/mL Massachusetts State
Devartment of Health (MDPH) limit
it.¶
Trend analysis of l4Gltjzresp - -shallow-phosphorus-and-nitrogen concentrations between
2001 and 2019 showed that;- total• phosphorous - levels imthe Pond •are - increasing, while-nhrogen-
is holding• stable. -This •may- indicate-P-breakthrough from watershed sources-or-phosphorus
being - added-from •the- sediments.
verage total- phosphorus-
concentrations• have - doubled in -the past-20-years.1
In-summary, -according to-the-Assessment, -Baker-Pond water- quality- is- heading•in•the-wrong-
dlrection.--¶
What-are-the-sources-of-phosphorous?- The AssessmentinsludiAgincludePriablighmeAll-af-2 -
spring- and -late• summer - phosphorus budgets. In -the spring before the sediments - activate,
indicates -the primary-seumo& -s urce of phosphorus is arathe•septic-systems•of- ten- of•the
thirteen -of•the•upgradient-properties. •The three- other - developed -propertles•are-too-new-to-
contribute- now-(but-wiil• later).-- All-of-the-houses- are- old-enough to•contribute phosphorus-to-the-
pond-in-the-form of- surface- runoff•(e.g.,- roofs, -driveways). ¶
Stormwater - from- nearby-roads•such -as- Bakers - Pond - Road - discharge into -the Pond -only - during
intense-storms; -these-events -are infrequent,-so the impact-Is- minimal. -Q
During the summers sediments become an almost equal source of phosphorus and rReview-of.
Individual-years-shows-that- hen -the most-Impaired-conditions occur
during-the -;ummer4)b&owo4-,:sediments-a;@-beLome THE primary-phosphorous•source.--That-
is,- sediments -are-the- pdmary•P-source- typically•when- watercolumn•P >10.6.kg.-and this
occurred durina essufs- in- 23 % -of- summer• water - column TP•estimates-(of•70 -total samples).¶
On-the-regulatory-side, .the-pond meets -the requirements -for•being-classified -as- impaired.• -Ed•
recommended - not-looking into- establishing- TMDLs- for -Baker- Pond-until-the-Town has -
addressed•all-of -the issues- and• attained - satisfactory- waferquality.•¶
Management-Plan•goalswere- summarized. First,- watershed- wastewater•control•is•both -the-
best - short-term• and - long - term-solugon- for- Baker-Pond. -- Thai-is, - mitigation •of-the-phosphorus-
input -from -10 of-the 13• properties- (and-consider-picking•up Brewsterproperties)•through-
sewering-or• alternative - septic systems - options •forwasteavaterwastewater •treatment. -If-the town -
sewered the- 10 -13- houses -( currently -not-planned-in-the-CWMP), the town would -meet -the state -
waterauality standards/ target. Ed noted-that this will require - additional discussions-about costs
including design and installation far .- The - Town- should-
consideralso -addressing -future-P load- from -3- additional properties.-%
24
Second, in -lake treatments were discussed to address summer-phosphorus addition from the
War 2ddFor anoxic- sediments -- possibly- using- hypolimnetic•aeration,-dredging of-
sediments,-or -alum treatment.-These- options -were-further• discussed -(see-Appendix•1,- slides-
23-27).¶
Bottom line:-There•is•a- lot- of- vadability-in -this- system - from- year-to -year,-but-P-levels•remaim
high. •Consider- cost -and best - outcome -for-reducingRinputs•to the pond-from-the-watershed.-
See-Table-VI-1. Baker Pond Management Options- Summary in the Management Plan.¶
The Committee then-discussed Page 73 Figure-V -2. which shows the range of potential
outcomes related to each of the management options _-Thew appear io-be-Iols-gf-variability 1
Me 'iAdiwidual -septic
This figure shows that watershed and in -lake managementoptions
generally attain water quality goals during average August conditions, but most do-not-attain the
goals during worst case sediment additions. -¶
1 ••Presentation •ClUo
Valeriey- asked - about -how to best - cooperate with the -town of-Brewster?. Judith has- mentioned-
the -report-to-the-Brewster-Pond-Coalition. - Ed-Eichner willing to- have -a discussion with- Chris-
Miller-(wbo isthis ?Brewster Natural Resources Director),- and-how it might be integrated into-
heir•CWMP-discussions. The-Chairreminded-the-Commhtee-that-
we -will make-recommendations-to -the Select-Board, and.— then,-if-appropdate, the Town- would-
engage-in- crosstown discussions. - -¶
The-Chair-asked-if-Brian -Howes-has-any -comments?-.He noted thatolfwad to-talk to-the CWMR.
sewedng-as- long-term ultimate- solution -would be best, but
would require some further discussion in order-to considerits piace in the CWMP..- -Short-term, -
dredging-vs.-alum--.same-basic-issues --- time-bound -to -10 years -and-you-are-then-back to where
you-are-now.. Interannual -vadability- in- Bakeris- very-much likely due•to- bottom -OA ssolved
oxvgen.levels over -time. - This-explains- water - column- variations . -Spring-water- and-phosphorus-
input - drive- baseline.--Nanobubble- aerations having-problems-getting- that-to- work- in-Falmouth
and- Mashpee.-In this- case,- you.don't-want•to mix -the watercolumn,. Costs- are•estimates-based
on•other- programs - already -being -done. -¶
Judith-asked-about -the watershed -- does not- go- to•Pilgdm-Lake.- What- aboutusing- a- small-pipe.
septic - system- to-take-care of- these•10 -13 systems-and-in-so-doing- moving - these - sources to-
satellite-treatment - site( s)- outside-of- the- area - and -no longercontdbutes•to•the-other-lakes.--This-
still- leaves -issue of- nitrogen contributions -to Pleasant-Bay.--We•need to•look-at-bigger-picture,-
and- Ed-agreed. - -Q
Judith -also- asked -about upgFadien4downgradientproperties •in•Odeans ?-- Would-they -ever-
contribute- if- the-systems- fail -in -a- rainstorm -or other- conditions ? - -Ed- believes this-is not -very
likely.¶
Valerie( and - Judith ) - asked- about-the-condition•of -these septic- systems. -There-are not any -
regulations- and- they-are not- inspected - unless -there is-a-Ti0w 5 ralachange of ownership. -The•
25
Chair-pointed-out - that- these -systems -are -not designed to•remove nitrogen -or- phosphorus, -they.
are -for pathogen- control. -If the- systems -are failing,- owners-really -will need -to mitigate -the-
situation.-- Then - someone -needs-to-report-this. Valede-believes -that- Brewster-has-a periodic.
septic-system- evaluation process.¶
Judith-asked-about-aerobic-and-anaerobic-release-of phosphorus.•Anaerobic-conditions usually -
lead-to the largest- release. -. However, - some-can- occur - under- aerobic-conditions due-just-to -just-
bacterial-activity.. Q
Carol asked -if -the- phosphorous - rebinds - when -the watercools-down- and - it's- more-oxygenated ?-
Ed•E.- said -yes it -does. -Regarding the- sediment, -if you- use -an- alum -treatment,-and -there we no-
further- inputs -of-phosphorus,•then- the-water- stays - clean.. -There would-be no- need -to -redo the.
alum treatment -or- aeration- periodically, - even -if- the•sediment•release is•higher- dudng-warm.
months.- Ed E.- said -that Alum -could be-a-onetime- treatment. -In- Baker -Pond, -if-you-treat-the-
watershed, -you-may-not-have-to do-the•alum- treatment-at-all. ¶
Then-she-asked-about-the-impact-of increasing year- round - contributions -even-at-existing-levels-
of-septic- input ? --Ed said- that- the - model- considers- this; -the occupancy-would-have-to'go'up-
significantly- (like -a- hotel), -and -then -we-couid see-an- issue. Otherwise,•no.%
The-Chair-asked-about-the-lime-we-would-have-if we•alum•treated the pond. -- Similar - discussion
as-in - Crystal- and - Pilgdm, - except - that - Baker -Pond•has a- lot- of- watercolumn- variability-and-there-
will- be•both good -and- bad - years - ahead. - -¶
Bob•asked•about- the•timing for- a- sewering- feasibility- study - for -Baker.--Ed-mentioned-that-we
already - have -a model -in-p► ace - and -that would- have -to involves-contracting•wilh-
A€COMwastewaterengineering firm to develop a cost estimate, same as is-being-done-for-
Pilgrim and Crystal.¶
Bob-also- asked - about -data-availabilky --- and- Ed-E.- that - all -the data-is with -the Town.--Statistical-
analysis-is- done - looking -at-2- standard deviations -oieveq cnthforoutliers and trend analysis
was simple - Linear- regressionsaad.&4mplo. -- Bob - cautioned that -the model -is -a- general -one;
and the- empirical- data-is- limited..Ed-mentioned that- the -USGS- groundwater suwey- models -are-
well supported -by- empirical -data. --During-the-Baker- Pond - assessment -and diagnostic-review,
the 2Adthe-SMAST- ro'ect team- tried -to• bring- in-otherdata- including- water-table -data (map)
done- in-1995. The groundwater- model- resu @s were used in the- Massachusetts Estuaries Project
and results have been incorporated into EPA and MassDEP regulatory decisions. isTrorrr2005:
Bdan -said we-don't-use-a Cape- wide• number; -we look-at -the empirical data including-long-term-
data• sets. -. The - ground- water-model-is- the - same - . worry -about rainfall-and-imported-water.--
Typically ,- the-consuhant-would-recommend hooking-up entire -areas which•can -add a-buffer-of-
safety. -%
Ed- Eichnernoted that-all-precipitation data-is local. -such as Orleans spaGific participatiop
Odeans - tends -to have -more data - precipitation thamChatham. %
Ed-Hafnerasked- why -are we- not - worried- about-oiherproperties-upstream•of Cliff-Pond?-•Why-
not-greaterthan-300 •feet ?- Ed- Eichnersaid-that- there -is• not -a-significant concern -at this time -
phosphorus travel over300 ft takes place overtimeframes -where you'd -be likely to replace your
lggGbftIl j before the phosphorus
reaches Baker Pond. -He- mentioned• that - ponds - are -more sensitive•to.
phosphorous--.estuaries more- sensitive-to nitrogen.- Different -solutions-for•protecting- each.¶
Ed Hafner- asked- about-some- success -stories?- Ed•responded -that- you•have your -own -local-
success-stories -- Uncle-Harveys-( alum) - and- the-plans- for- sewedng-areas- nearPilgdm-and-
Cryslal-Lakes.%
Michael -Herman -asked: Is- there• going -to be -an- executive - summary- for-all- fourponds ?- -Ed-said•
they - are -each different. 6eagtermaSewedng-is• the• long - term -soludon•in•most•cases. but-alum-
or-aeration may provide a couple decades to plan.¶
Michael-also-asked-if-there-anything-that-the-residents-can do-in -the •short-term ?•-Anything they
can -focus-on ?. Yes, - best - pond -management practices. -Make ro ertyowners -along the -
shoreline -aware of- their- impact-and- hope -to- make -them-advocates•of-the Pond. Brian added•that-
you-should-not-use-phosphorous- fertilizers. Further- education -is- needed - related- to- surface-water-
solutions- individuals -may - implement. - -Brian• said - that -it-is-not-talked•about-a-lot, •but•roof-runoff-is-
a• problem. - He-also-mentioned- that•there is- nothing wrong -with-alum as -a- shorter - term - solution.¶
Carolyn-noted that• organizations -like- the - Odeans- Pond- Coaliflon have -published - lists -of things -
property•owners- can-do. -- She -also mentioned -that- there- are•some- conservation properties•
around - Baker -Pond,-and•that-these-should be• marked -on- the- map•(see•slide•14) in- the•report.•¶
Valede•asked•about -the- Brewster •properties ? - Which -ones -need to- be- sewered�or•have-
phosphorous- reducing systems. -Ed -said that- Brewster- right-now-is- concentrating- on- alternative-
solutions.•.He•recommended• that -we-(Odeans) do what•we can, -and-see-how-it-comes-out. - ¶
Judith-asked-about-relocating-leach-fields?-.Could-this-be-an -option -for-Brewster-properties-
which tend- to•be-larger lots?.-Judith also-reminded-that-the-Committee's recommendation-to-the-
Select-Board regarding- Uncle -Harveys-Pond-was-to•alum-treat -now, -and•then connect-the-six-
properties- which•contdbute to- the•phosphorus- loads- to- the•to the- Meetinghouse Pond•sewer-
lines -as -soon -as possible. Ed- mentioned-that- a- lot-of- the - properties -in-the watershed-are-already-
on • their - second - septic - treatment - systems, • and - that- might•limit- flexibility.¶
Carol- asked-if-the-data •analysis-(of-the- 2001- 2019-temperature •values)•takes-into-account-
projected rises- into- the•future ?- •Ed-answered-yes,- that- overall-air- and- watertemperature•is-
pretty- stable , -other-parameters-tend•to-vary more.- Ground - water -and-airtemperature- impact-
water - temperature - the- most.•Summer-seems- to•be-the same;- spring - seems- to•be- warmer.¶
Judith -liked-the-expanded-alternative -treatment. analysis-in-the-plan.%
John• Ostman, - who - lives- on- Bakers•Pond•Road,•commented that -it's - been -l5- years- since•Ed-
predicted- this-report-would- come -to- fruition.-- •Nickerson-is- not - developed much.-- Ponds -are-
mixing-zones.• Hundreds- of•years.-•There-is-a wide• fluctuation- in-water- height - -- appears -to-be -on,
27
a-twenty- year-cycle;-the lowestin•2002•and-highest-is im2019 -- very close to•2•feet-swing.--
What- impactdoes -thathave-on-the-analysis ?••¶
Is-the-8.2-kg-anannual number-- is•ityeady-toading-and is itcumulative ?-.Ed•answered that it•
is,-and that•phosphorousis.im( the• water - column?)-- callimn is the issue--and-the-residence-time-
is one-year- -The-Ecoregion phosphorus threshold is-10-ug/L.•Ponds•are extremely-senshive to-
even•low-values-of hoc horusfop4astanea.-1
The Chair-asked•if•the•Fdends of- Baker -Pond-is-still-active.-.John •said- that�they- meetannually•
(except2020 due-to- Covid). He noted-thatthey-do some-coliform-testing •every-other year•in the -
Pond.--Good results- so -far.•-Judith-mentioned•thatthe Brewster-Pond Coalftiomhas monitored
Baker•Pond for-cyanobacteda-for-atleast a year-now.¶
End of proposed clarifications.
F