Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutComprehensive Water Planning -- 2010-04-12 Minutes~; ~; ';i: ~ ~~ ` \~~~~~~~~\\~~au~ulllllrurrp/uil,~~ii ~\Q ~~Ed41 ~~'Q~°i~ ~= 4~Q~ F~r~ ~ N ~~~ ~~; D ~ ~ a~ - 1G ~~cwn 4 - - w~ vI '//////~ ~~ FCORP OR Atog Y~ ~\\~\ /~/~~~//1,lIl111!!f III1111111111\~1\\\\~~~~~ Town Of Brewster 2198 Main Street Brewster, Massachusetts 02631-1898 (508) 896-3701 ext. 133 FAX (508) 896-8089 Date Approved as written May 24, 2010; Vote: All Aye ~.-; ~ ~~ --~ +-j- p~_ ~:~:: ur Comprehens~ Wate~~; Planning Cor,~nittee r-~~ TOWN OF BREWSTER MINUTES OF COMPREHENSIVE WATER PLANNING COMMITTEE REGULAR MEETING Monday, April 12, 2010 at 4:30 P.M. Brewster Town Office Building Pat Hughes convened the Comprehensive Water Planning Committee meeting at 4:35 pm in the Brewster Town Office Building with members Dave Michneiwicz, Dave Bennett, Amy Usokowski and Elizabeth Taylor. Also Present: Sue Leven, Ed Lewis, Jim Gallagher, Chris Miller, Peter Johnson 1. Citizen's Forum Hughes: opened to the public - no comments 2. Follow-up with CDM (David Young, Mary Barry, Rob Musci, Bernadette Kolb): timeline, status and Community Meeting A. Over view Young: Provided a brief overview of the status of the project. Young felt the community meeting went well. It was nice to see the attendance especially given the short timeframe. Checking to see if the video is available to post on the web. Leven: noted that it is running on the cable. Gallagher: noted that the video is constantly running. Public Relations: Mary Barry is trying to meet with Kathy, IT Dept. regarding website capabilities. Discussing establishing 2 posting sites: town hall and possibly the town library. Blue Water Satellite is under contract with CDM. CDM anticipated the data for the first pass should be received within 2 weeks. It is underway and it is good news. A list was sent to Blue Water and requested the specific dates in relation to the data that existed. An additional date would be requested once the group looks at the first set of information has been analyzed. Bennett: asked if the second pass would be based on the weather impacts. Kolb: felt that might be helpful but it would be important to have a dry period before and then the rain/stormwater runoff. This way they might see something that would validate the impact of development around the ponds. Bennett thought this would be very helpful and recognized that you can only have a few variables. Kolb thought they should also consider data obtained in the summer time. Hughes: timeframe? Musci: thought they should have something by the end of the week. Young: felt they would be able to share the findings in May. 4-12-10 www.TOWN.$REWSTER_MA.US Page 1 of5 Project Status: Musci: Moved into phase 2. They are starting to look at the town in terms of the watersheds and determine how to rank the information. First Step: Take the information and divide the town up in a way to locate the watersheds and to protect the ponds and these watersheds. Looked all over town. MEP watersheds are not designated over the entire town. MEP has established 3 areas: Pleasant Bay, Namskaket and Quivet Creek. Musci showed a map of the town and what CDM has uncovered. In addition, he presented a spreadsheet with the details of the first pass look. Bennett: how does the pervious area impact the watershed? Bernadette: Here on the cape the pervious area does not impact as much but they look more at the development density for the areas. Hughes: At the next level would you look at the water use? Musci: has some water data but not sure if they can tie the data together yet. They haven't given up on it yet but right now they haven't obtained any useable data. Musci: Provided the criteria for each of the watersheds and the ranking. He showed a nitrogen removal map. Bennett: where did the data come from? Musci: the MEP reports - he could show the reports to Bennett. Young: noted that the reports did not reflect the impact on each different town it just showed the data as a whole. Another map was shown that defined the ponds and the atrophic status of the ponds. Kolb: Looked at the atrophic status along with the pond reports (chlorophyll). An additional map showing the surface water and the development around the pond area was presented. Kolb looked at the pond reports and the atrophic ponds and the impact of development. Another map showing the poorly drained soil in towns -well drained in green and poorly drained in red - a large portion of the red areas were close to the bay. Taylor asked if CDM knew what the specific soil types were. Kolb: could provide that info if requested. Bennett: the red area could be a higher level of vegetation area. The next map showed the Zone 2 and looked at the percentage of the watershed in the Zone 2. Musci spoke to the Water Dept. regarding the development of Well #5. Next map showed the depth to ground water - it correlates to the soils. The data was taken from the USGS models. Another map shows the building density -the number of buildings per acre - it doesn't take into account the size of the buildings. The map showed only 2 areas that are red. The 2 red areas are small and are condensed. Kolb noted that she has been thinking about the ponds a lot and is wondering if what we are finding is something that happened before and is now having a phosphorus impact on the ponds. She questioned what happened to these ponds that are eutrophic -especially on the ponds that are underdeveloped and have flushing capabilities. Taylor thought the historical society might be able to help provide some of the unknown information. P. Hughes: would like to be able to apply different layers to see how it impacts the ponds. Kolb will look into what might be available for the committee. 4-12-t0 www.TOWN.BREWSTER.MA.US Page 2 of5 P. Hughes: What are the long term goals for the ponds? This is something that should be addressed moving forward and needs to be looked at with the state guidelines/requirements. Does Brewster have a phase 2 stormwater? Young: Brewster has a phase 1 plan that DPW/Bersin has worked on. Some communities are starting to implement a stormwater utility because towns are being required to meet certain requirements and they have no funding to take care of the problem (ie the state is requiring the towns sweep the streets 2 times a year - but towns have cut back to 1 time and just don't have the money for the second sweep). Miller: suggested we focus on certain ponds that may be in jeopardy and that the Town manages in order to fix those given areas. Bersin should have a GIS map - it was questioned whether he had a GIS map or paper documents. Musci: presented another map that showed the percentage of open space in the watersheds. Some questions regarding the map arose. It probably is working off some old data. CDM gathered this information from a state report. Another map showed the flood zones. CDM not sure how this layer impacts or how they will use this information yet; groundwater contours (drawn as a static map and doesn't show the fluidity of the water); number of buildings in the watersheds -just shows the number of buildings not the density; zoning map -shows the zones and the historic districts in town. Next Steps: Define the matrix. Determine what is important; how it impacts the ponds and establish a ranking system. This information would be presented to the committee and they would like to obtain the committee's input. Young: Goal to get this to the committee prior to the meeting and then have the May 10t" meeting be a workshop and work on prioritization. Kolb questioned how to gather buildout information. Leven: state classification information may be available -can't look at developed vs. undeveloped because you would get poor information. State Class would show single family vs. multifamily etc. Young: when you did the NRPD -did you look at the number of lots were impacted? Leven: had the information for the zone 2 area only. Bennett: questioned whether it would be important to look at the developed lots vs. undeveloped lots on the maps. A buildout analysis for the Pleasant Bay watershed? Where is the information and, should we do an independent analysis of the information? Bennett: would like to see the houses/impervious area on the maps. Young: This is a starting point and it is a useful tool for analysis. P. Hughes: Next steps CDM to review and rank. The information will be sent to the committee for a workshop. Leven: Questioned how much time would be required for the meeting? Should they meet earlier? To be determined 4-12-1U www.TOWN.BREWSTER.MA.US Page 3 of5 P. Hughes: requested Leven to send out an email to the whole committee to give them an alert. Other Items: Regional meetings status: Young has checked in and had a discussion with the Commission. The Herring River is being addressed and they are determining how to calibrate the area. Hopefully within 2-4 weeks they would have the information. Young would check with Orleans to see how the impact/contribution is in Orleans. P. Hughes: Thanked CDM for their work. Leven: thought she could make a few calls to see if she could find out anything for the Mill Pond area. Bennett: Mentioned that there was aerial/data that was available for the past 50-60 years. He had used it for some of his work. Young: Was anything else needed for Town Meeting? Hughes: $100,000 is being asked for under a larger capital item -would the committee need to address? A handout necessary? Leven: probably don't need to point out the $100,000 but perhaps they could update the next community meeting date -June 10t"? And provide a project status handout? P. Hughes: what about having the map from the community meeting available? Bennett: Thought the ponds map was pretty dynamic and valuable. The committee agreed to think about the most appropriate map. Need to show the zone 2 maps. Next meeting: May 10, 2010 3. Regionalization discussion. P. Hughes: thought this was not alive. Leven: thought it needed to wait until after Town Meeting. Citizens Comments: Russ Schell: This is the Comprehensve Water Planning Committee and he felt that attention should be given to the fact that there are a number of other standards out there. It appears that right now this committee is addressing the ponds/watersheds to conform to those goals. At this stage it would be desirable that on the western portion of the watershed you need to bring it into compliance with the States TMDLS. The eastern portion qualifies for the 200 foot buffer of non water way -resource protection district. DEP TMDLS; DEP water standards; Fishery standards -not all will be high priority but should be looked at now. Otherwise it will be too late if you look at it later on. This is an opportunity to document those things more broadly now. For example phosphorus on Walkers Pond -there is an opionion that storm events have impacted the pond from Elbow Pond and the run off from cranberry bogs. Things like this should be identified and documented. 4-12-10 www.TOWN.BREWSTER.MA.US Page 4 of5 P. Hughes: Are there other studies that should be done now? Exactly, if grants become available then the committee would be ready to jump on it. Other Business: - Review Minutes: February 8 and February 22, 2010 February 8, 2010; Michniewicz motioned to approve. Taylor seconded. Vote: 4-0-1 (Bennett abstained). February 22, 2010 Usowski motioned to approve. Taylor seconded. Vote: 5-0-0. - Any other business that may come before this committee Bennett: motioned to adjourn. Seconded by Michniewicz. All Aye. Reully,~ubmitted, ;~ Sci Senior Department Assistant www.TOWN.I3REWSTER.MA.IJS Page 5 of5 4-12-10