Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutWWMSC MINUTES 2005-12-15 WMSC ASTEWATER ANAGEMENT TEERING OMMITTEE Minutes of December 15, 2005 A meeting of the Wastewater Management Steering Committee was called to order at 9:30 a.m. in Members Present: Meeting Room A, Orleans Town Hall. Augusta McKusick (Board of Health); Ann Hodgkinson (Board of Water Commissioners); John Hinckley (Board of Selectmen); Judith Bruce (Conservation Commission); Sims McGrath (Planning Board); George Meservey (Planning Director); Also Present: Mike Giggey and Heather Merriman (Wright-Pierce); Dave Dunford (Board of Selectmen); John Hodgkinson (Citizen's Advisory Committee); Andree Yager (Citizen's Advisory Absent: Committee); Sherman Reed; Mary Hartley (Friends of Namskaket Marsh). Gail Meyers Lavin (Finance Committee). APPROVAL OF MINUTES:November 17, 2005 MOTION: Judith BruceAnn Hodgkinson On a motion by , seconded by , the Committee voted to approve the minutes of November 17, 2005. VOTE: 4-0-1 The motion passed by a majority (Sims McGrath abstained). ANNOUNCEMENTS: McKusick requested and received a consensus of the Wastewater Management Steering Committee to contact the Chairman of the Water Resources Committee, Carl Weiss, in Eastham regarding a wastewater presentation. Meservey informed the Wastewater Management Steering Committee that there is a Watershed Working Group in Pleasant Bay which met with Brian Howes and representatives from other towns, including Brewster. The anticipated release date for the Pleasant Bay, Massachusetts Estuaries Project, Water Quality Report to the Department of Environmental Protection is January 19, 2006 for an internal review and the towns will receive the report by February 19, 2006 for internal review within those towns, and shortly thereafter there will be a PowerPoint presentation in the various towns in the spring of 2006. McKusick stated that there will be a 6-week period after the town gets the Pleasant Bay, Massachusetts Estuaries Project, Water Quality Report where a number of committees will have a chance to review it and have time for workshops to try to understand it, and send comments back and then the Town of Brewster has offered to have a public hearing on the report. Giggey told the Wastewater Management Steering Committee that he had a very positive meeting with Brewster representatives on November 28, 2005. Meservey stated that Wright-Pierce is under contract to the Town of Orleans for Scoping and Needs Assessment. As of December 14, 2005, the Town of Orleans has been billed for $59,000, which is 59% of the Scoping contract amount, but only 31% of the Needs Assessment amount which matches the deliverables received from Wright-Pierce to date. Since the long-term contract is for $400,000, providing funding is made available by town meeting, Meservey asked whether the Wastewater Management Steering Committee wanted to approve each bill as it is received or whether they were comfortable with the bills being approved and paid by the Planning Department with a report given to the Wastewater Management Steering Committee on a regular basis by George Meservey. Wastewater Management Steering Committee Minutes – December 15, 2005 Page 1 of 5 MOTION: Ann Hodgkinson Judith Bruce On a motion by , seconded by, the Committee voted to allow the Planning Department to pay the ongoing bills from Wright-Pierce regarding the Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan and provide regular reports to the Wastewater Management Steering Committee. VOTE: 5-0-0 The motion passed unanimously. OLD BUSINESS Discussion with Mike Giggey and Heather Merriman (Wright-Pierce) Wright-Pierce letter dated December 8, 2005 entitled, “Budgeting for Evaluation of Regional  Alternatives” Review Proposed CWMP Scope of Services  Outline of Scope of Services o Detailed Scope of Services dated December 9, 2005 o Wright-Pierce letter dated December 14, 2005 entitled, “Summary of Title 5 Variances”.  Wright-Pierce letter date December 12, 2005 entitled, “Estimates of Wastewater Flow:  Determining Consumptive Use and peaking Factors” Wright-Pierce “Summary of Orleans Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Letters.”  Table 2 – Environmental Significance Rating System dated December 14, 2005.  Giggey noted that the status of the Massachusetts Estuaries Project technical reports – supplement to the February 19, 2006 is that we expect that the so-called Marsh Model (the supplemental work that’s being done to look at Cockle Cove Creek in Chatham) is expected to be delivered to the Department of Environmental Protection by January 1, 2006 and at some point Brian Dudley will pass it on to Orleans. Giggey noted that due to a lot of outside agency sensitivities, the term “peer review” will no longer be used and noted that this means finding a way for towns to acquire and use the Massachusetts Estuaries Project Linked Watershed Embayment Model. A direct result of that would be a much easier and more thorough peer review – which means gaining the models to use them as part of the Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan and parallel with that, using those models to do a better peer review than we would be doing if we didn’t have the models. Giggey noted that on November 14, 2005 he met with Augusta McKusick, George Meservey, John Kelly, David Withrow and Board of Selectmen regarding the re-permitting of the Tri-Town site. John Kelly raised the question what if we get to the normal renewal point for the Tri-town permit and haven’t finished the Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan? If we haven’t figured out yet whether we want to have any wastewater facilities at that site, how do we deal with the Department of Environmental Protection if they are ready to issue a renewal permit? Giggey suggested working with the Department of Environmental Protection and get them to delay the issuance of the Tri-Town permit until summer of 2007 for a period of time until we can link together what the Tri-Town upgrading needs are and what the towns’ wastewater needs are. Giggey stated that a follow-up telephone call to Brian Dudley indicated they are willing to be flexible. Giggey stated that this is a good example of the town working with the district and the Department of Environmental Protection. Wastewater Management Steering Committee Minutes – December 15, 2005 Page 2 of 5 1) Giggey stated that wastewater can be handled in two categories. Ones that might be large enough 2) alone (or two of them) to handle a large amount of wastewater (town-wide centralized solution) and Find as many small sites as possible that would be suitable for 50,000 - 100,000 gallons per day which would go far in the important goal of keeping water in the watershed where it is generated. We would like to find as many of those small sites in as many watersheds as possible. 1) Giggey stated that Meservey has been given lists of criteria for two-phased screening: Staying outside 2) the zones of contribution, wetland buffers, etc. Availability of two-phased power, and public vs. private roads. Meservey stated that they started with a previously compiled list of 21 sites which are all still valid. Meservey expressed concerns regarding artificially eliminating sites too early in the process, for example in Zone 2 where there might be a good piece of property where properly treated effluent might be the best course of action. Meservey suggested more inclusion rather than exclusion of sites in the beginning of this process. Giggey talked about a presentation he made on November 28, 2005 regarding the Tri-Town to representatives from the Town of Brewster, including the Board of Selectmen and received positive feedback from them. Kevin Olsen is scheduled to make a presentation to the Town of Eastham representatives on December 21, 2005. The Wastewater Management Steering Committee discussed with Giggey various ways to include other towns in wastewater discussions affecting all the towns. McGrath noted that regarding the Tri-Town’s long term maintenance needs or upgrade needs, when it comes to a renewal of the Operating Agreement, the other towns may realize that they have a financial interest in a project that could be of further benefit to them. Giggey stated his opinion that one of the impediments to better wastewater planning cooperation among the three towns is the way two of the towns view the handling of the re-issuance of Tri-Town permit. The committee discussed the fact that Eastham refuses to accept any water offered by the Town of Orleans, despite problems caused by storms interrupting their water flow. Hinckley suggested an educational proposal to Eastham and Brewster regarding the advantages and/or disadvantages of regionalization of water issues. Hinckley noted that there is an opportunity with the recent establishment of the Water Resources Collaborative by the County to look at that regional entity so that we can be as seamless as possible in terms of maximizing the work that is being done for all 15 towns and the opportunities that are being provided and emphasizing at the discretion of the 15 towns to decide whether they use it or not. Giggey stated that when looking at the alternatives, we are going to consider each alternative’s adaptability to changing conditions related to either the Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) or regional wastewater plans. If there are two alternatives and one of them has the advantage of giving you a hedge against the fact that TMDLs may change in the future or Eastham and/or Brewster decide they would like to join, that would be a more desirable alternative. It makes sense to give more consideration to alternatives that have flexibility for the town. 1) Giggey stated that there are several possible regional solutions: The option of sending sewers into 2) nearby towns to a treatment and disposal facility in Orleans; or A Wastewater treatment facility in another town to take wastewater from Orleans. Giggey noted that Wright-Pierce will devote staff time to research additional wastewater treatment sites using information from the Orleans in-house GIS program. Giggey stated that the Wastewater Management Steering Committee has made it clear that they want more research done by Wright-Pierce and Orleans representatives regarding how to provide information to Eastham and Brewster for wastewater issues including financial and other regional opportunities. Giggey stated that there is an existing load for all of the embayments and the Department of Environmental Protection has agreed to attribute the existing load to the source town. The Department of Environmental Protection has not agreed to attribute the buildout load, but have notified the towns that Wastewater Management Steering Committee Minutes – December 15, 2005 Page 3 of 5 they are on their own with respect to the responsible for assimilating the capacity. Giggey stated that Orleans should take the Department of Environmental Protection attribution of existing load by town and use that as the first cut on the allocation of responsibility, but only as the first cut, no further. Giggey noted if it is coming from the Department of Environmental Protection and not coming from one of the parties, it has more clout and/or credibility. Giggey noted that if we are able to get the models and run them to run a scientific appraisal of what the allocation of responsibility ought to be, that doesn’t see the light of day in the proposed protocol we put forth, unless Dr. Brian Howes acknowledges and agrees with it. McGrath questioned getting TMDLs that break out watersheds, by town, in today’s contribution in pounds, in a given watershed between town lines, can we assume there is going to be significant differences in attenuation attributes? Giggey answered in the affirmative, and stated that the attribution to town that is going to come from the technical reports will be attribution of attenuated load. Hinckley expressed a concern regarding adjacent towns that have a buildout of 200% over the next couple of years; we need to know what the impact will be. Giggey stated that we should come up with a scientific allocation of assimilative capacity, and each town is responsible for current and future buildout conditions that exceed that. Hinckley noted that Orleans needs to know how watersheds are being impacted by adjacent towns. Giggey gave a list of Wright-Pierce letters written to date, and reminded committee members that the final report will be compilation of all of the interim letters they will have already received, and in essence the report is in the process of being written via these letters. Giggey noted that Wright-Pierce is making use of the Orleans water use records (known as consumptive use) through the Health and Water Departments and it is important to get this information to Dr. Brian Howes for his use in the Pleasant Bay study. Heather Merriman stated that two consecutive year’s worth of water use information (2002 - 2003 and 2003 - 2004) was studied using Assessor’s data. Merriman noted that consumptive use between the two years can vary as much as 15% - 20% from year to year and can include watering lawns in the summertime. In a really wet year, consumptive use can be as small as 4% - 6% and in a dry year, consumptive use can be as high as 25% - 30%. McGrath suggested that the transient rental housing population has a big impact on wastewater. Hinckley noted the high number of motel rooms that have been converted to fewer condominiums and/or rental units, thus affecting the wastewater issues differently from motel demands, and also there are a large number of seasonal homes that have been converted to year round use. Giggey noted the need to identify Orleans properties that may require off-site wastewater disposal for sanitary reasons (as opposed to nitrogen needs, water supply protection needs, and community development needs). Merriman reported that Wright-Pierce has collected ten years worth of information regarding variances that have been granted in Orleans, and have set up a rating system for the various types of variances. Giggey noted that part of the scope of Wright-Pierce will be to study how the local version of Title 5 could be changed to be more appropriate for the issues. Meservey stated that there is one area where we could wind up having to ask for more money to finish the report, due to the fact that the Environmental Notification Form (ENF) is filed before the final Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan. It may be necessary to do the Environmental Impact Report at a cost of $50,000 - $100.00, which is not part of the scope and wasn’t intended to be part of the scope. Meservey stated that the hope is that we can load up the ENF so well, and work with state officials ahead of time, that the Environmental Impact Report won’t be necessary. Hinckley noted that since this expense would be in a different budget cycle, it should be noted in the town’s Capital Plan which extends over the next two years. Giggey noted that the MEPA process, there are some categorical inclusions Wastewater Management Steering Committee Minutes – December 15, 2005 Page 4 of 5 (i.e. if you are generating excess traffic, treating excess wastewater, etc). Giggey explained that the Environmental Impact Report can be quite expensive if it is not focused. Giggey explained that one of the common requirements for additional funds, typically not part of the planning (but falls in the gap between planning and design), if you were to find eleven sites in town that appear to be suitable for dispersed effluent disposal approach, there is no money in the budget for getting groundwater discharge permits or doing the detail confirming hydrogeology. 11:45 The meeting adjourned at a.m. Respectfully submitted, Karen C. Sharpless Recording Secretary Wastewater Management Steering Committee Minutes – December 15, 2005 Page 5 of 5