Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutWater Quality Review Committee -- 2023-05-26 MinutesDate Approved: 12/22/23 Vote: 6-0-0 TOWN OF BREWSTER Water Quality Review Committee 2198 Main Street Brewster, Massachusetts 02631-1898 (508) 896-3701 x1121 FAX (508) 896-8089 TOWN OF BREWSTER MINUTES of WATER QUALITY REVIEW COMMITTEE Friday, May 26, 2023, at 9:00 AM WQRC MEETING AGENDA Attending Committee Members: Chair Cynthia Baran convened the Water Quality Review Committee meeting at 9:06AM with members Amy von Hone, Robert Michaels, Kimberley Crocker Pearson, Chris Miller and Ned Chatelain and deemed there to be a quorum. Members Absent: Davis Walters Open meeting law statement read. Guests: Two Guests from Brewster Conservation; Amy Henderson and Tino Kamarck Item 1: Viewing of Former Cape Cod Sea Camps Long Pond Property Video Video was played. Cyndi: We will now have a Presentation by Brewster Conservation Trust regarding the Hydrogeologic assessment. The presentation will be done by Amy Henderson and Tino Kamarck. Tino Kamarck: In your packet you have a copy of a hydrogeologic report that BCT commissioned. It was actually commissioned more than 18 months ago in connection with trying to understand this property which the Town was about to purchase. We pledged 1.75 million dollars to the acquisition of this property subject to there being a conservation restriction acceptable to the Conservation Trust. Initially, the report was done for the BCT's own information. We knew very little about the Long Pond property, but we did know that more than half of the property is in the Zone 2 Well Built Recharge area. It has a significant shore front on Long Pond. It seemed obvious that there might be some ecological sensitivity in terms of water quality. We wanted to establish what the facts were. Once the planning process was kicked off, a little more than a year ago, and was put in place with a discovery process first and the hiring of the Reed Hilderbrand Consultants and sub -consultants. At that point it seemed obvious to share the report with the town, which we did as you can see from the transition letter. The report was left with the town administration and how best to use the information. It was our understanding that the report was given to the consultants to be included and/or considered as part of the discovery materials. The full report is available to everyone, and it is included among the materials on the Town's Sea Camp website. It is now official and is endorsed by the Town and WQRC Meeting Minutes 5-26-2023 presumably by the consultants. We were concerned that we did not believe that some of the important facts in the report were integrated in the final discovery analysis prepared by the consultants which is in PowerPoint form on the Sea Camps website. We are trying to make sure that the public and interested parties are aware of the content of the Hydrogeologic report. Human nature being what it is, people are going to be more apt to look at the PowerPoint than read through the scientific analysis. One reason why we are here is to underscore the contents of the Hydrogeologic report. The report was prepared by a consultant, Thomas Cambararrie that was hired by the BCT. He has academic credentials and certifications and more than 40 years of experience. He is a Hydrogeologist on Cape. We feel that his qualifications speak for themselves. We think that there is one most important statement that was in the report; "All of the parcel on the Long Pond Property is important for water quality protection." The reason this is laid out in the report and is clear, there are three factors: - Topography - Geology - And together they make up the Hydrology, which is how the ground water flows. The first two are addressed in the Reed Hildabrand materials. With respect to the topography RH Consultants calls the topography for this site "dramatic". It is rare and interesting that this large piece of property of 66 acres has a very uniform topography. If compared to the Bay Property which has a lot of hills and hollows. On this property there is a 75 -foot vertical drop from the 137 frontage at the NE end of the property to the Long Pond shore at the SW end. This drop is uniform, it is consistent across the property. The slope varies, the frontage on 137 is the flattest it has about 2% slope on average. There are other parts of the property that are steeper. But uniformly from right to left there is a slope down into Long Pond. The geology is also referred to in the RH Consultant's report. It is also very familiar to anyone that has stuck a shovel in the ground on Cape Cod. It is the carver series of soils which are sand and some gravel. With the exception of some small areas around the edges of the wetland areas on this property where RH Consultants describes them as excessively drained, and the saturated conductivity is very high. As the BCT report notes, "this type of soil transmits nitrogen and phosphorus as well as viruses rapidly into the water table without filtration. This is not something that is noted in the RH Consultant report but is characteristic of the carver soils, they do not do a good job of filtering out contaminates in the water. As the report goes on to say, "surfaces or sub -surfaces contaminates quickly drain through the soil resulting in impacts to the soil and the down gradients water resources. We know what the down gradient water resources are from the topography of Long Pond. So, the final element connecting these dots is the hydrology. I was concerned at the meeting of the Pond the Planning meeting committee where RH Consultants initially presented their discovery findings this was not mentioned. I asked the question; "you talk about the topography and the geology, but you do not connect the dots in terms of the hydrology." "What are the consequences for water flows on the property and the answer was... that's a good question." Here we are because the question is answered in our BCT report. And it is obvious that the ground water flows without filtration from 137 to Long Pond and in some conditions into the Town well fields from the Zone 2 area. With respect to Long Pond all of the properties in the Long Pond recharge area as identified by the USGS and the USEPA has characterized Long Pond as already impaired. We have not had an algae bloom in that pond yet, but it is somewhat on the edge it has low oxygen and excessive nitrogen and phosphorus and other contaminates. This is mostly due to the fact that most of the shoreline has been developed for quite some time and the primary factor affecting the water quality is the release of contaminates from those land uses. Obviously, additional development in the recharge area can only make this situation worse. As I mentioned, more than half of the property SW of 137 are in Zone 2 which means the pumps for WQRC Meeting Minutes 2 5-26-2023 the Town's number 1 and 2 wells in this case will draw from the Zone 2 aquafer in certain circumstances. Those circumstances are in drought conditions where the precipitation in the direct recharge of the well fields area is not sufficient. Generally, the rule of thumb is a 6 -month drought. The other condition is high usage where the pumps are running for a long period of time. As the BCT reports notes, with respect to this particular well field, that simply includes summer conditions when the population of our Town more than triples where there is not only more domestic use, but drastically increased irrigation use of water. In those circumstances this entire Zone 2 contributes water to the 1 and 2 wells that supply about half of the Town's drinking water. In consequence, of course, it is not only identified as Zone 2 under the Commonwealth's criteria but also with respect to actions taken by the Town it is a district of critical planning concern otherwise known as the Brewster Water Protection District which was created in 2008 as an overlay of zoning because of the concern about potential development. Further in 2009 Town Meeting adopted a by-law creating yet another zoning overlay the Natural Recourses Protection Area with the expressed purpose to protect water resources and preserve the open spaces of Brewster. Finally, in 1999 the Cape Cod Commission identified this area as suitable for future water supply development, one of the few areas left on the Cape undeveloped where additional Town water wells could be put into place. The Monomoy lands which supplies our drinking water is particularly thick under this property and as the Cape Cod Commission noted; "as a finite resource the protection of land suitable for future well development is just as critical as the protection of lands within the recharge area for existing wells. In the Hydrogeology report you will see that the consultant did the exercise of drawing the 400 -foot circles which shows no development around the immediate proximity of the wells. There are a number of sites on this property that would be suitable for new wells if we need them. This brings me to my final point which is not in the report. This is BCT editorializing on the report that is Brewster will have more development, Brewster needs more development and most particularly in community and workforce housing which is denser residential development. If done correctly would mean a substantial increase in residences and residential use of our water. Those new residents as well as our existing residents deserve clean water to swim in and pure water to drink. Our point is that protecting the Town's water quality is not inconsistent with development and certainly not with housing, but it is essential to support additional prudent development. Whatever uses are ultimately approved by the Town on this property our very strong feeling at BCT is they should consider the particular sensitivity of this particular property to maintaining our water quality. Cyndi: Thank you. That was an amazingly done outline of a complicated subject. Thank you for keeping it brief. Ned: You remarked that the Town has endorsed the BCT's report, and I would characterize that a little differently. I would say that the Town is still very much in the fact-finding stage of the engagement phase. There have been no policy decisions made, less than a week ago on Saturday we had our first public information session and that is the process by which any decisions are going to be made about what happens on the parcels on the property. We are grateful for the report that the BCT has provided, and we are grateful for the report that the Audubon has provided which is also included in today's packet. As well as any input from other stakeholder organizations that may be listening in and the public. To say endorsed is maybe a little stronger than I would have put it, and it is more of a case to add to the material that we are using to help guide the Town with regards to its decisions on this property. Tino Kamarck: The more accurate statement would be that the factual findings of the BCT report have not been challenged by anyone. It is also worth noting as a clarification that ultimately the Town has committed, and the voters approved on the acquisition of this property that a majority WQRC Meeting Minutes 3 5-26-2023 of the property would be subject to a conservation restriction. The terms of the conservation restriction are not going to be determined in the planning process. The planning process would be inputs to the Select Board which has the authority to determine the ultimate terms of the conservation restrictions. Ned: In exchange for the very generous pledge that you folks have made to the project. Thank you again. Kimberley: In reading through the hydrology report and the eco system services report. I was wondering if there is any part of this property that has been considered not only for conservation but for preservation. In other words, when we say we have a conservation restriction on something, it still means it's touched by human hands. Where if we were to have any part of it preserved it seems like it's very important when you look at the NAGSP results and the drinking water risk. Has the question been asked, should we be taking a look at some part of the property being kept separate and preserved for nature and just untouched. Ned: Yes, every question about the possible future of these parcels is being asked as we speak. As I said the public information process started on Saturday and it will continue for close to a year and it will be iterative. The survey went out yesterday. If you were not able to attend the session in person on Saturday, you will be able to provide input through the survey. The survey is on the Town's website. And yes, preservation as well as any other use is being reviewed. Amy: The Ecological assessment was completed by MA Audubon. Cyndi: I think I need to echo the BCT's concerns that the hydrology was not fully vetted in the RH Consultant report. I think it is important to consider in the future and I know it is hard for RH Consultants to come up with every option, but only provided the two options for one or the other and not the whole thing. That is something that should be clarified going forward. For example, keeping some of it as preserved was not an option that was provided. Kimberley: A nice additive would be to do some drought scenario modeling using the hydrology report. We are going to have more droughts, that is just the way it is, and they may be more significant than 6 months. We want to see where the hydrology goes if we have another drought like the one we just experienced. Ned: Has the Water Department and the Water Commissioner taken a look at this and taken it within consideration of the modeling we do have in town already? Cyndi: We just received it at our last meeting of the Ponds Committee. I did put it on our agenda just as an FYI and I was going to invite BCT to our next Water Commission meeting. The Water Commission has the report however it has not been discussed. Ned: I would like to hear what Paul would say. Cyndi: Agreed. I think there is a master plan that we need to look at and I think this raises a lot of questions that we need to follow-up on more carefully. Chris: I know the Water Commissioner has done studies over time on Town areas for future water supply. We just purchased a parcel in Southwest Brewster that we have dedicated for a future well site. The area near the pond has been developed as cranberry bogs for over a hundred years. Cyndi: Would that area require an archeologic study? Chris: It would depend on what is being proposed. Kimberley: USGS might be the group that would be most interested in looking at this as a potential study or model. Ned: Both, looking at other resources that could do a deep dive analysis and this might not cost the Town. Maybe a college or university that is looking for this type of project. Cyndi: It is important to have the information on all levels. The Cape Cod Commission did accept the DCPC that's called the Brewster Water Protection District. It not only included Zone WQRC Meeting Minutes 4 5-26-2023 1 and Zone 2, a ground water protection district but also the Pleasant Bay Water Shed. This may have some barring on nutrient load. Chris: This property is about halfway between this water protection district and Long Pond. There is a small Nauset ground water flow running to it. Ned: What is the process for adjusting the DCPC? As mentioned, it covers half the parcel. Chris: It was done by hydrology on the extensive studies to replace these wells- they do a lot of hydrology to determine that maximum extent of the pumping of the water wells. Ned: Are the studies readjusted based on hydrology and the flows? Chris: Typically, they have not. However, if there are changes in drought conditions where we have different precipitation then they might change for DCPC. That would be a big step for them to take. Amy: If a new well were to be installed at the Long Pond site, which is ideal for a new well, would that change the Zone 2 line. This would then trigger the change. Chris: It would not be a district planning concern unless the Town determines that would be required. Cyndi: It sounds like we have some work to do. Is there anything else? Tino Kamarck: No Item 2: Continued for Approval Certificate Renewal- Dream Day Cape Cod — M132 L9 165 Nan - Ke -Rafe Path Amy: We haven't approved the three -certificate renewal because of how they answer the question on fertilizer that was being used on their one grassy baseball field. However, it was determined that they do not have any more of the fertilizer in stock and they will not be doing anything inappropriate in the future with regards to the fertilization of that field. They have a copy of the fertilizer regulations for reference. Cyndi: Confirmation they are no longer using the fertilizer. Chris: If they do have issues in the future, the recommendation is to do a soil test. MOTION to approve Dream Day Cape Cod Water Quality Renewal Certificate. MOVED by Amy Von Horn. Kimberley Pearson second. Roll Call Vote: Amy von Hone — yes, Kimberley Pearson — yes, Ned Chatelain — yes, Robert Michaels — yes, Chris Miller — yes, Chair Baran- yes VOTE: 6 -yes 0 -no Item 3: WQRC Certificate Renewal — Camp Witton Crossroads- M38 L36 46 Featherbed Road Amy: Nothing has changed as far as their use. It is a seasonal camp. They have not opened yet. No issues with septic or well water results. This needs to be done as part of their application process. Cyndi: Is the camp required to pump their septic. Amy: If there are any issues with the septic, the Health Department would know about this very quickly. The process has been enhanced over the past year. The Department of Health does get the pumping records and monitors them closely. Ned: Do people provide the results of the well test and septic pump? Do they have a receipt? Amy: They are checked yes because they have tested. Ned: Should we update the form to be more specific? The proposal is to update the form and change the wording. Cyndi: I think this is a good idea. Amy: There is definitely room for improvement, and this would be a good project for the group. Chris: Maybe the Board of Health has a section that states they are in compliance. WQRC Meeting Minutes 5 5-26-2023 Motion to approve the WQRC Certificate Renewal — Camp Milton Crossroads. Moved by Robert Michaels. Ned Chatelain second. Roll Call Vote: Amy von Hone — yes, Kimberley Pearson — yes, Ned Chatelain — yes, Robert Michaels — yes, Chris Miller — yes, Chair Baran- yes VOTE: 6 -yes 0 -no Item 4: Approval of Minutes — 2/24/23 & 3/24/23 _ MOTION to approve the 2/24/23 and 3/24/23 Meeting Minutes as written. MOVED by Kimberley Pearson. Ned Chatelain second. Roll Call Vote: Amy von Hone — yes, Kimberley Pearson — yes, Ned Chatelain — yes, Robert Michaels — yes, Chris Miller — yes, Chair Baran- yes VOTE: 6 -yes 0 -no Item 5: Next Meeting — 6/23/23 9AM MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 9:49AM. MOVED by Ned Chatelain. Chris Miller second. Roll Call Vote: Amy von Hone — yes, Kimberley Pearson — yes, Ned Chatelain — yes, Robert Michaels — yes, Chris Miller — yes, Chair Baran - yes VOTE: 6 -yes 0 -no Respectfully Submitted by: Joanne Boland -Weeden Packet of additional documents available on the website for public review WQRC Meeting Minutes 6 5-26-2023