Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutComprehensive Water Planning -- 2010-06-14 Minutes;'4 ~r s'~ z ~r ~,~ 3 ~~ p ~ ~~ /!//~////// F Q R P9 R g0 0 \\~~\\\\\\\~ //I ~ I f/ I 1 I f A l I I U l I} l 1 U 1 N\\\ ~..,.~ ~:r_, Town Of Brewster ~r~; ,.. 2198 Main Street ' :~ Brewster, Massachusetts 02631-1;~~8 (508) 896-3701 ext. 133 FAX (508) 896-8089 Date Approved: October 25, 2010 ;,~; ~..i'.~ ,,..., c_a c~°, Comprehensive Water Planning Committee ~~ ,,..:, TOWN OF BREWSTER MINUTES OF COMPREHENSIVE WATER PLANNING COMMITTEE REGULAR MEETING Monday, June 14, 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 Jane Johnson, Lem Skidmore, Elizabeth Taylor. Dave Bennett arrived at 4:45pm Also Present: Sue Leven, Chris Miller, Nancy Ice, Ed Lewis, Peter Johnson, Joanne Hughes Hughes: Welcomed Lem Skidmore, Board of Health Representative, as the newest member of the Committee. Lem provided an overview of his background. Skidmore: Saw retirement on the horizon and decided to obtain a Masters in Public Health. He didn't want to slow down. A. Citizen's Forum No comments were received B. Meeting with CDM Present from CDM: Dave Young, Project Manager Bernadette Kolb, Project Engineer Rob Musci, P.E, Project Engineer Hughes: Asked if Ms. Leven would open this discussion. Leven: Introduced the topic of follow up to the community meeting. The committee held an informal discussion last week and came up with more questions than answers (i.e. the ability to look at certain factors and the ability to see how certain factors were established). The committee felt there was a need to have some facilitation to examine how everyone is looking at the data. Hughes: CDM has provided an enormous amount of information. The Committee would like to know how the rankings were established. Other pieces of information may be helpful in the needs assessment. The committee had questions they needed clarified on how CDM came up with the rankings. If the committee has a better understanding then they will all be more comfortable with the process. Young: Agreed that they had provided a lot of information and that this will take some time. He recognized that everyone is coming at the reports from a different angle and that will help with the end 06-14-10 www.TOWN.BREWSTER.MA.US Page I of8 result. Internally, CDM has had some discussion and felt that perhaps they have thrown too much information at the Committee. Try to keep the information in 3 buckets: estuaries; watersheds; fresh water ponds. Hughes: Actually, don't agree that we should break up the information into just 3 groups. There are some broader information areas and perhaps they will get to the 3 groups but let's not establish that at the front end. Receptor waters, shellfish waters, storm water, drinking water. Young: They are looking at that information but they are just trying to categorize the data. CDM would like to have a discussion focused tonight just on the ponds. Ultimately they will look at the 3 areas and all the data they have on that grouping. Look at the data, the results and determine where we are today. Then they would like to come back on July 12 with information on another group (estuaries, watersheds). Leven: Would this impact the end date of the project? Young: Yes, but it is important to base the needs assessment on information everyone is comfortable with. Kolb: Let's back up and look how the data was put together and explain how CDM got to certain points. Figure out where the questions are and get everyone on the same page. Johnson: wanted to know if this is the same amount of time they have spent with other towns on gathering the information and compiling the data? Young: Every town is different and it is really based on what information is available. They go through all the data and try to help with the needs assessment. In Brewster, the emphasis is more on ponds focused program. CDM is trying not to ignore any components but every town is different. Kolb: Want to make sure that everyone understands what the CWPC objectives are and make sure they are in fine with CDM's. Kolb provided an overview of IWRMP as shown at the Community Meeting. She then went through a PowerPoint presentation and highlighted the following drivers for action; 1. Estuaries; 2. Groundwater; 3. Ponds; 4. TMDL's; 5. Title 5; 6. Storm water; 7. Community Goals. Hughes: should we follow the Commission's criteria on the thresholds or should we be more protective? Taylor: Questioned some of the information on the shallower ponds and should we try to fight nature... some of the issues in ponds occur naturally. Miller: The issue with the ponds and the impact has really been happening over the past 50 years. Human impact is affecting the ponds. Do we want more swamps or do we want more ponds to fish etc. Bennett: We are seeing that things that we do are impacting the ponds. We need to understand what the Brewster residents want from their ponds. Was it human impact and why are these ponds being effected (i.e. the upper Mill ponds where there is an issue but it is surrounded by undeveloped land). Kolb: the objective at this stage is to assess priorities. Then you figure out what the goals are for the ponds, what do we/the town want the ponds to be? Then you figure out what you want for the pond and how do' you get there? We are at the very beginning right now. Bennett: Drinking water is a main concern for the town. We have multiple regulations for this issue. He has heard that the drinking water is under control based on our current conditions. 06-14-10 www.TOWN.BREWSTER.MA.US Page 2 of 8 Young: CDM has looked at the nitrate data which they believe shows there is not an issue. Bennett: we understand the pond information - do we want to prioritize and how do we do that? Orleans is using MEP's and state regulations. Kolb: Brought the discussion back to the drivers: the state has established the TMDL's. Based on that report: DEP has established the water designations with the impairments as follows: 1. Namskaket - no issue; 2. Sheep Pond; Mercury; 3. Pleasant Bay: Nitrogen. She felt that Sheep's Pond does not belong on the list -based on all their data it should not be. Kolb recommended that the Town write a letter requesting that this pond be taken off the list. 4. Division of Fisheries: have cleaned out the ponds and have put in the fish they want. They have limed the ponds and they thought that this may be impacting the trout. Kolb explained why a pond is limed and the timeframe that lime lasts. Bennett: How does the lime affect a flow through pond? Kolb: unsure on the answer but would look into that. Bennett: it is a shame that we do not understand what the alum has done to Long Pond. Miller: they are doing ongoing monitoring of Long Pond. Wagner has been giving free consulting. The monitoring has been going on since the treatment. Concern was expressed as to where the water samples are tested because Kolb felt you shouldn't use a commercial lab. Lewis: when you talk about all the nutrients is that caused by humans, storm water runoff, activities? He has a concern about the fisheries going out and killing fish because they don't like that type of fish. Is this a natural process or is this something we can control? Kolb: Nutrients are on large part from humans but it happens over a long period of time (decades). Where do you want the pond to be? Are there sources that can be controlled, are we happy with the state of the ponds? Addressing the Fisheries issue: one of the reasons they did what they did is because people want fish to be there. People brought the fish in the pond because they want to fish. This is a really complicated biological system. Young: that is why we don't always want to just rely on the CCC thresholds Kolb: What it comes down to is: 1.Resources, 2. prioritization and 3. what someone/state requires. Miller: in the 1950s the gull population increased dramatically due to the landfill and the gulls got their food there and stayed. Bennett: Is this (TMDL reports) an accurate list of major water bodies and the areas we should pay attention to? Kolb: no, there are others but you don't want to point them out to the state. The town should just focus on the ponds. Kolb: why did you get TMDL's? A slide was shown of the pathogen sampling and why certain areas got put on the list. Hughes: it would be interesting to know the sampling on the areas where there is storm water runoff direct into the bay. Miller: stated that the Town is working on the discharge areas and that the DPW has the information 06-14-]0 www.TOWN.BREWSTER.MA.US Page 3 of 8 Taylor: it is ridiculous that we are draining the Consodine drain into the bay. Miller: Felt it isn't as big of an issue, we need to concentrate on the ponds -the bay discharge is cleaned by the tides. Kolb: the Title 5 driver, everyone is aware and we don't need to dwell on that. Miller: Title 5 should not always be allowed a tight tank is an option. Just because you had it before doesn't mean you can have it again. The Town needs to look what regulations need to be established Ice: The state might not let you do a tight tank. Johnson: Determine how strict the town wants to be? If there is some good data then it would be easier to say what we can do and what we can't. Joanne Hughes: they have had people come before the BOH needing solutions that are on the waterfront that Title 5 solutions may not always be the way to address. Hughes: how are the records kept in the Health Department? Would this information be available? Ice: Files are by map and lot. Bennett: Ice knows where the variances are and could provide the information. Kolb: They have a building layer file but they don't know where the septic is. Johnson: On the reports they had reviewed for the ponds report. They had the information on where the septic was, when it was installed and whether the owners were a seasonal or year round. BOH really helped pull all this information together. Young: You are starting to talk about the solutions -Let's keep looking at the data. Kolb: tapping on a need -are there pond front properties that are requiring variances and if so is that information available? She would love to gather that information and incorporate it into the needs assessment. She has to look at a common layer but again let's look back at the needs. If you have any input then they would incorporate. Let's continue: Storm water: MS4 -highlighted the requirements on property owners with > 2 acres of impervious area. "Be responsible for your storm water management". Kolb: this is probably a good time to get back to the question on how do we define your needs? Committee agreed to continue and move on to the Focus on Ponds. Established the goals of the Phase: 1. Evaluation process; 2. Assessment Steps; 3. Data review and analysis; pointed out the difference on how phosphorus and nitrogen react: Phosphorus is more bound in the soil where Nitrogen flows through the soil and goes to the receiving water body; 4. Watershed inputs; 5. Ponds Classification Kolb: this is where we should engage in hearing your comments on the data? Johnson: very little data on Elbow Pond 06-14-10 www.TOWN.BREWSTER.MA.US Page 4 of8 Kolb: Based on the information she found Elbow Pond has high phosphorus in relationship to the depth. The cranberry bog next to the pond has a 6 inch pipe that flows into Walkers Pond. That could be a contributor. They would like to obtain feedback on the categories and the information presented. How do you define the Town's goals: 1. good health; 2. fishing; 3. swimming; 4. aesthetics?. J. Hughes: left at 6:30pm. Miller: we have an Alewife committee that controls the herring runs. The other issue is that cranberry bog owners can regulate the water in/out - no permits are required. Kolb: She has heard that there are interactions between cranberry bog owners and the DEP -that is encouraging. She then provided slides on some initial ideas on what is causing the problems for the different categories. Kolb: really need some dialogue -regarding criteria and the rankings CDM has established. Does that make sense? Is there another criterion that would fit into the list i.e. Number of houses that fit within the buffer? Bennett: Liked the halo that was put around the ponds but was disappointed that the end result didn't determine anything. The halos around the ponds might be a better way to determine the internal loads with the density. Need to identify where the municipal discharge areas are...thinks it is a huge source of phosphorus and we don't know where they collect. Along the line of the cranberry bogs and the need to determine if it is a contributing factor. The work on 6A is going to direct our attention to an area that we will be able to address. Taylor: Is there a way to figure out the contribution on the bog and Elbow Pond? Could that bog have contributed to all the ponds in the Upper Mill Pond area's poor quality? Miller: some of our municipal discharge pipes are set up poorly and we should look carefully. Bennett: What he would like to possibly see is to put a red x showing the discharge pipe; halo showing the density with the water quality you have already determined. Young: Would need to have the discharge pipes shown is some way. Johnson: when the cranberry bogs dug out the trench then they would dump all the muck on the edge of the pond. They found that those ponds were loaded with phosphorus. Can't the town regulate this somehow? Bennett: don't think we need to exclude the bogs from best management practices. We should be able to address in some fashion. Hughes: would like to go through the questions the committee had submitted Kolb: Addressed the questions: 1. definitions on how the maps were made; * A discussion occurred regarding the Conservancy Soils in town. A Map is available and needs to be incorporated because technically you can't build in these areas and it is a large area in town. CDM would look to see if they have the information and if not then it would be provided by Leven and incorporated. * Depth to groundwater: CDM used 5 feet - it is up to the Town as to how deep you base the information. Skidmore: thought that 10 feet would be more appropriate. Bennett: didn't see it as a strong indicator and was ok with the 5 foot. 06-14-10 www.TOWN.BREWSTER.MA.US Page 5 of8 * Buildings/acre: noted that there are a lot of properties that contain small houses/buildings. CDM would suggest that they remove buildings less than 200 SF because they are probably sheds/garages and no impact. Skidmore: took the SF from the assessors data base went parcel by parcel to determine the buildable size on the property. Bennett: how to determine the intensity of development from 2000 - 2010? Leven: probably not that hard to find -she could check with Victor and see the basic information and pass it along. Kolb: the data needs to be tied to a map/lot. Bennett: lets determine it if is a large number and the potential impact. Leven: would get the information to CDM. Bennett: Google Earth is free -can we overlay the data? Not sure, CDM would look into it. Taylor: the pictorial data has been updated and could be a way to get the information. Kolb: Open land/data -CDM needs help from the committee. The overlay CDM has shows all the municipal land as open. Leven: will double check the layer and see where it came from. P. Hughes asked Ms. Leven to check with Mr. Robinson to also confirm the information. * Wetlands -uplands vs. watershed based information -does that have an impact? Musci: they don't show a wetlands layer. Hughes: a wetland complex is a significant resource and should be considered. Musci: the wetlands would affect the density and would have to be pulled out. Young: would look at a wetlands layer Leven: the extent of non-conforming uses in zoning district? She would like to look at the larger size lots of non-conforming uses and see if there is an impact. Leven would take this action item. " Storm drains to wetlands: a lot of talking to people would need to occur. Hughes: Allen Trazyck (sp?)-would he be available to come in and discuss. -Leven, would check with Bob/Charlie. * Density of development -look at the sub watershed and put that underneath the layer. * Weighting factors -everything has been weighted evenly and if it needs to be weighted differently then they need input from the committee. Bennett: Motion that we have CDM draft a letter exempting Sheep's Pond from the State's list water quality impairment so that the Town could submit to the State. Seconded by Johnson. Discussion: CDM would draft and the committee could refer to the Selectmen. 06-14-10 www.TOWN.BREWSTER.MA.US Page 6 of8 Bennett: What is the downside? Kolb: Nothing, it is bad science and unnecessary for the State to focus on this pond. Skidmore: are there any other issues that should also be brought forward in the letter. Kolb: not right now based on the information we have. VOTE: all aye (5-0-0). Bennett: Also on the agenda tonight is to discuss the letter from the town of Orleans requesting a review by the National Academy of Sciences. Yarmouth is in favor, Harwich's water quality task force is recommending against. Bennett: Motion to write a letter to the selectmen to support the Town of Orleans for a third party to review the methodology -National Academy of Sciences to review. Seconded by Taylor. Discussion: Young: Actually recommended to Harwich that it not be done. Unless there is some real scientific reason for it to be done then CDM didn't believe it needed to be redone. They were not given the model but they were familiar with how the model works. They agreed with how the work was done -the model is not a one time thing and it is going to be implemented over years. Leven: read the letter from Harwich and why they were not in support of another review. Skidmore: this has been reviewed and it appears that Orleans is looking for one more reason to slow down the process. He didn't think we needed to jump in and if Orleans wants to review then let them do it on there own. Taylor: concerned that they have not been able to replicate the SMAST information. When you do science then you should be able to replicate and other people should be able to review. Since they won't it questions the model used. Bennett: Doesn't want to support dragging our feet - as a scientist he is unclear whether this is legitimate or not. Leven: It becomes a question, when have you asked the same question enough and gotten the answer you are looking for? Bennett: very concerned about some of the results; nitrogen was not a parameter in Pleasant Bay; Rock Harbor and Namskaket results. He made the motion because he wasn't aware the 3~d party reviewed. Kolb: a 3~d party from another advisory board may be a tactic. Doing this from a scientist perspective is not easy -you have to make assumptions based on certain data and it is very complex. Bennett: his opinion is a letter may be valuable -would consider withdrawing his motion. But Johnson didn't want to withdraw completely. P. Hughes: Recommend to the selectmen that they say something about the way in which things have been handled with SMAST and the community. She would recommend that they draft a letter. She and Leven would go to the meeting. Bennett: Amended the motion -write letter to the selectmen to support the independent review of the report of the methodology used in the MEP process by an independent 3~d party and acknowledging the review by the Woods Hole Group. Seconded by: Johnson. P. Hughes and Leven will draft and get out the committee. Vote: All Aye (5-0-0). Other Business from CDM: Confirming next meeting with CDM is July 12. 06-14-10 www.TOWN.BREWSTER.MA.US Page 7 of8 Young: met with the Town of Dennis -and he provided an update on Brewster's status. That actually brought up a good point that the committee needs to meet with the other neighboring towns. The Committee agreed. Bennett: Motioned interested in joining a meeting with Harwich to hear the results. Seconded by Johnson. Vote: all Aye. Other Business: Minutes from March 25, 2010: Bennett: Motioned to approve as written. Seconded by Taylor. Vote: 4-0-1 Bennett: Motioned to adjourn. Seconded by Johnson. Vote: All Aye. Respectfully submitted, av nn ann Sci/Senior epartment Assistant 06-14-10 www.TOWN.BREWSTER.MA.US Page 8 of8