HomeMy Public PortalAboutComprehensive Water Planning -- 2010-07-12 MinutesO ~~ c 9F+r
' >'e l~~
~~ ~3
2 ~~-~ a _
~ m~ ~
'° rn
o .~ ~ ~ =
~ ~~
////~~~~~~~~~/l~Q~ R P9 R ~'~1~~A\\\\\\\~~~\\\\\
1~11flIlUlU11
Town Of Brewster
2198 Main Street
Brewster, Massachusetts 02631-1898
(508) 896-3701 ext. 133
FAX (508) 896-8089
Date Approved: August 23, 2010
TOWN OF BREWSTER MINUTES OF
COMPREHENSIVE WATER PLANNING COMMITTEE
REGULAR MEETING
Monday, July 12, 2010 at 4:30 P.M.
Brewster Town Office Building
Comprehensive Water
Planning Committee
Pat Hughes convened the Comprehensive Water Planning Committee meeting at 4:50 pm in the
Brewster Town Office Building with members Joanne Hughes, Jane Johnson, Lem Skidmore,
Elizabeth Taylor, John Lipman.
Also Present: Sue Leven, Jim Gallagher, Peter Johnson, Scott Collum, Paul Anderson, Bob McClellan
A. Citizen's Forum:
Peter Johnson, Conservation Trust: Just submitted to Bernadette Kolb the latest Conservation Trust
newsletter. Their intent has been to share water education pieces. Any thought as to what is being
done with the recently posted flyer. Felt it was informative and should be shared with the Brewster
citizens. If the committee would like to have something in their next newsletter then it needs to be to
them within the next 10 days otherwise it will have to be the following newsletter.
B. Meeting with CDM/Present from CDM:
Dave Young, Project Manager
Bernadette Kolb, Project Engineer
Rob Musci, P.E, Project Engineer
Change to Agenda: Review of the Request for proposal/Scope of work -status and timeframes
P. Hughes: felt that the committee and CDM were not in sync and that they needed to step back and
see where they are at. The challenge for Pat has been the need for more integration of the data and
how it was compiled. From a review of the minutes from the last meeting she got the feeling that we
needed to step back and review the RFP -see where we are and what we have accomplished and
where the holes are. She recognized that CDM has done and reviewed a tremendous amount of
information but looks like they need to see where we are at in conjunction with the original proposal.
Lipman: 2 general areas of concern: 1. Huge range of factors or criteria that we have looked at in
relation to water; thought maybe there are too many criteria to understand the outcomes, 2. The
weighting is a concern -thought that CDM could help in providing guidance in this ranking. Leaving
the committee with just a handful of criteria to help evaluate.
Skidmore: Thought we were once again in the weeds and really need to take a step back. Where are
we, what are we suppose to have done, is there something we haven't done yet and are we on
schedule and the impact on the timeframe.
07-12-]0 www.TOWN.BREWSTER.MA.iJS Page I of6
Johnson: A September 10 timeframe for the next community meeting is disappointing because she
felt that we would lose the opportunity for reaching our nonresident taxpayers. Our population is 3
times larger with the nonresidents and we will miss hitting them if we stick with a September
timeframe.
P. Hughes: Some of the challenges may be that we have not received a summary report. Would open
the floor to comments/suggestions.
Young: First everyone got 2 schedules: the second schedule was agreed to in March; the latest
schedule was for discussion only. They have provided a lot of spreadsheets and perhaps they should
have submitted text copies of summaries. There are no cookie cutter solutions; they may have thrown
too much data at this committee but they did that because of the technical expertise of the committee.
They were hoping for the MEP reports on the Herring River.
A table of contents were submitted
P. Hughes: What is an example of a technical memo?
Young: Technical memo #1 was submitted to lay out everything that they had gathered. The next
ones were the PowerPoints. And you are actually getting more than the original RFP -because you
are getting the PowerPoints and they had thought they would be sending just the memos.
P. Hughes: Felt that the committee was probably looking for the write ups to help them understand the
data. What we are missing is the overview and the integrated part...what is Brewster and what do we
know about it? Thought we should focus on that before we go forward. Help the committee to provide
constructive comments. We are missing the bigger picture.
J. Hughes: She thinks in more concrete ways -under the existing conditions in the RFP it says to
summarize the existing regulations. Are we close to doing that? Recommendations for new
regulations?
Young: This scope of work is different than the RFP. He would have to go back and review but he just
got to look at what the proposal says and what they have actually done. They will look back and figure
that out and submit to the committee. Part of the regulations issue is part of the gathering information
-they have touched upon the ones that apply to water.
P. Hughes: The work plan is the last appendix.
J. Hughes: The committee was expecting CDM to review the existing Regulations that afford us
protection and ones that need further protection and establish priorities.
Young: agreed and they have reviewed the applicable regulations -some of the solutions may be part
of the recommendations. They agreed to review the items listed in their contract and see where they
stand.
Johnson: Anxious to get to the recommendations.
Leven: Part of the issue here is that we were expecting some of the information gathering to be
easier to obtain (i.e. failed septic systems, marry the information from the BOH and the water
department).
Young: Has been working with DPW on stormwater systems map -they do not have a stormwater
map yet.
07-12-10 www.TOWN.E3REWSTER.MA.i.7S Page 2 ofb
P. Hughes: look at the tasks defined in the RFP and the contract?
Young: they can do this now and CDM can go back and review and provide a summary to the
committee.
P. Hughes: We can wait but would be hesitatant to look at further data until we know where CDM is
now. Is this something we could do quickly in order to have the community meeting in August.
Leven: It is really important to the committee and Leven that the presentation be available to the
Committee at least 1 week ahead in order to be at ease in reviewing.
Young: Based on that he has some concern -the reason they had proposed the September date was
due to this fact. They could get a draft to committee by the 26th
Peter Johnson: On August 14th at 10 am is the annual meeting for the nonresident taxpayers. Usually
they have about 60 attendees. The agenda is set but they could defer some of their time.
Paul Anderson: In August they send out a water bill, if the committee has something not to big it could
be included.
P. Hughes: That might be 2 good options in order to reach everyone if we can't do an August
community meeting. Question to CDM: do they want more specifics as to what they want or do they
think they have what they want.
Young: Kolb is the farthest along -the next step would be to prioritize.
P. Hughes: An overview for the town is needed by the 5 major watersheds in town What do we know
about the water and then we will have a framework to work off of. This will give you a picture of where
we are.
Kolb: listed how she would break out the categories - It was agreed
P. Hughes: coastal, ponds i.e. 30% of the density is in this area.
Allin Thompson: has CDM done a set of overlays to define the town?
Young: Yes
P. Hughes: Helpful to have a narrative in order to have an appreciation of the data.
J. Hughes: Are you asking CDM to provide this for the citizens -Hasn't CDM already done that?
P. Hughes: generally for people who do not have a full understanding of the data
Allin Thompson: it is a product of what you get from all the data
Hughes: yes, but it is helpful for the citizens
Young: Is the goal of the next meeting to show the Existing conditions?
P. Hughes: It might be but that is a lot of information to have ready - if we go for August. That may be
what we present. It does not have to be ready for non-resident meeting and CDM does not need to be
there but perhaps someone from the committee could be there and provide an overview.
07-t 2-10 www.TOWN.BREW STER.MA. US Page 3 of h
Young: Talk with the committee on the 9th with the goal of a 26th Community meeting.
Johnson: Something she grabbed on to in the narrative was the impervious areas in town and the
impact in Brewster.
Young: you need to take the time to understand the needs and establish the existing conditions in
Brewster.
Hughes: Should we talk about schedule?
Young: they have added in 3 meetings more than what was proposed and moved the community to
Sept based on the magnitude of the project. They can revise the schedule and add an additional final
community meeting.
Johnson: a Saturday meeting?
Leven: impact the bottom line on the budget ... if we added an additional community meeting
Young: Because the calendar is pushed out CDM needs to realize the impact on the budget. CDM
will need to look at get back to the committee.
Johnson: It may not be a critical need to meet in August because some owners are renting in August
and come back in September.
Leven: could get the flyer out for the non resident taxpayers and could email if they could get it
electronic.
Peter Johnson: could defer their time at the non resident meeting if the committee would like to use it.
Hughes: given this can we wait until September.
Johnson: If we can speak at the non-resident taxpayers meeting - it might be difficult to get them to
attend another meeting a week later. And a Sept. meeting might be appropriate.
Leven: If we had some handouts available
P. Hughes: OK with September but would like to see some prioritization presented in September. This
is our problem and this is what we are working on.
A discussion of options for dates followed. The group agrees to Saturday, September 11, 2010 from
10am to noon.
Peter Johnson: As a citizen, what to know, what the problems are and what we need to do and what
can we do now?
Young: lets confirm the next CDM meetings timeframe: the 9th and the 23rd
Hughes, P: have one meeting that is a little bit longer?
Hughes, J: keep the scheduled meetings 9th - 23~d.
Hughes, P: start a meeting earlier?
07-12-t0 www."TOWN.E3REWSTER.MA.US
Page 4 of 6
Leven: keep the same start times
Hughes, P: keep the Stn and the 23~d -any materials for the Stn please get to the committee prior to the
Stn in order to help everyone focus.
Peter Johnson: Are copies going to be provided?
Leven: If there are things you want copied then please let her know and she can provide.
Johnson: the letter on the Sheep Pond -are there any comments
Leven: Any changes/edits could be provided to Sue and she would compile and send out.
Kolb: provided a quick overview on the Sheep Pond letter
J. Hughes: Are we missing any opportunities on grants/funding sources available -the faster the
towns respond the more likely the towns will get the money
Young: that is the next phase
Leven: If you are done with that discussion do you Young want to discuss the Hinckleys Pond issue in
Harwich?
P. Hughes: the joint meeting with Harwich -questioned the status
Young: is waiting to hear back on the date -targeting an end of August date.
P. Hughes: Does the committee want to discuss the 2 narratives they provided now? Her preference
is to wait.
Hughes, J: the Elbow Pond section narrative -there was a further study of the pond.
Kolb: should add "recommended". She has a concern on that pond due to the nature of the pond
especially because there are cranberry bogs nearby. The question is where do the cranberry bogs
discharge water -there are potential ways to add phosphorus to the watersheds.
Russ Schell: To make the transition from the 5 groups and the detail just discussed -would be to have
a Gantt or a bubble chart (the x axis is time -identify current problems and where there is potential
buildout and what might be the possible cause and finally the perspective corrective actions -best
management practices). If you had something like this for the 5 groups it might help with the finer
details. He knows where there are 5 potential areas that have problems -Long Pond and Walker's
Pond are areas of particular concern).
Leven: Mentioned that Chris Miller was scuba diving in Upper Mill Pond - he was saying that it was
interesting to find the difference in sight distance. Once you past through the temperature layer then
you could only see 4 inches ....sand, sand then muck.
P. Hughes: She has further comments on the 2 sections that she will pass through to Leven and
encourages other members to do the same.
Leven: Brewster has been approached by Harwich on Hinckley's Pond to obtain a joint scope on the
pond. Hinckley's pond shares the watershed with Brewster. The thought was that there was a good
amount of information that could be obtained for both Towns. Harwich is coming to Brewster to add to
07--2-10 www.'TOWN.BREWSTER.MA.IJS Page ~ of6
their RFP or because CDM is also working with Harwich you could go through CDM. Next step would
be to go meet with Harwich and see what is to be gained.
Young: Harwich already went out for RFP -they received 2 and they rejected both.
Johnson: what do they want to do?
Kolb: MEP is focused on nitrogen; not phosphorus. Harwich is looking to obtain general information
on pond problems and just a mid level of data collection.
Hughes, P: the ponds study is similar
Kolb: once you find a pond with a problem then you need to get to the next level of data -get a
phosphorus balance.
Young: to get what both communities need then Young thought this would be a good opportunity to
figure out what you both need and get more by sharing the cost.
Hughes, P: this is a good opportunity to find out more information.
Lipman: thinks regionalization is a good thing and would want to find out more.
Johnson: the cranberry bog that goes right into Hinckley's - Allin Thompson, noted that the bogs have
been looked at and are participating with best management practices.
Johnson: they flew over 4 years ago and saw green in the ponds -she hasn't seen that stop and
doesn't understand how they can allow this to continue.
Allin Thompson: doesn't agree with Johnson's perception on the ponds - he was raised here and
been on all the ponds. The development has impacted the ponds.
Hughes: Action Items: the original RFP and the cranberry bog association will be sent -general
consensus to explore the joint review of the ponds -asked everyone to provide comments on the
Sheep Pond and the 2 narrative sections.
Young: the 3 kiosks have been put out - 2 in Town Hall and the Library. Barry has been working with
Kathy Lambert to get the information posted on the Web.
Leven and Lipman left at 6:30 pm
Hughes, J: Could you also provide the recommendations on the revising regulations (i.e. impervious
vs. Fire Dept need for paved roads)
Allin Thompson (member of citizen advisory committee in Harwich): Recognized this is a huge
undertaking and that there is an enormous amount of data to understand and digest. Good luck to the
committee and will try to stop in when time is available.
Hughes, J: Motioned to adjourn. Seconded by Skidmore. Vote: All Aye.
Re pe fitted, ~ „ ,.~,
j-r~
::r_ ~ `y~
~-.__ i
iy ~I "r7
:~r,
Dave tt :' nne i, Senior Department Assistant
~_~:~ :_
07-12-10 www.'T~.~JN.}3 Y WSTER.MA.US Page 6 of6
'~__.