Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutComprehensive Water Planning -- 2010-08-09 Minutes\\~\\\\\\1N1Utl N1 I Ilf Il11J///////j/~ >~ ~ ~' ~u ~~ ~ / / // / ! ! / I l l l f l 111111111111 1 1 1 111 \ \\ \~ Town Of Brewster 2198 Main Street Brewster, Massachusetts 02631-1898 (508) 896-3701 ext. 133 FAX (508) 896-8089 Comprehensive Water Planning Committee Date Approved: October 25, 2010 TOWN OF BREWSTER MINUTES OF ~``"=~~'`-~- -- __ COMPREHENSIVE WATER PLANNING COMMITTEE REGULAR MEETING ~~ `_" Monday, August 9, 2010 at 4:30 P.M. L- - ~ _ _u 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, Joanne Hughes, Jane Johnson, Amy Usowski, Lem Skidmore, Elizabeth Taylor and Dave Bennett. Absent: Dave Michniewicz, John Lipman Also Present: Sue Leven, Jim Gallagher, Nancy Ice CDM representatives: David Young, Bernadette Kolb and Rob Musci AGENDA A. Reorganization -Pat Hughes informed the committee that Dave Michniewicz had resigned from the committee for personal reasons. Due to this fact P. Hughes requested that the reorganization be tabled and put on the agenda for the next meeting. B. Citizen's Forum: Jim Gallagher - received a phone call from a citizen on Elbow Pond and noted that they had noticed an increase in the vegetation and was concerned. C. Meeting with CDM 1. Presentation of status of scope of work Dave Young - distributed a memo that outlined the tasks, provided their status and a discussion occurred. Task 1: Define the existing conditions (complete) Task 2: Develop and Implement Needs Analysis (90 percent complete) Task 3: Define existing and future water Management Needs (90 percent complete) Task 4: Prioritize Water Management Needs (need CWPC input on findings) Task 5: Public Input Process (ongoing) Task 6: Program Management (ongoing) P. Hughes: any questions 08-09-10 www.TOWN.BREWSTER.MA.US Page 1 of5 2. Comments on report sections Bennett: In order for CDM to proceed what was a stalling point from this committee? Young: input on the ground water, estuaries and ponds along with a prioritization of the Town goals as it relates to these three areas. P. Hughes: Over the past week, CDM has provided 5 sections in a narrative form that highlight some of the issues and challenges they have discovered. Usowski: got through 3 sections - it was helpful to see how all the information was pulled together from all the spreadsheets. It was starting to make sense. Young: feels that this committee is unique in that in has a strong technical background and it was CDM's understanding that everyone wanted to see all the data. You are now able to see how it is starting to come together in the reports. CDM has wanted to address all the needs of the committee. P. Hughes: in order to get to the next step, Pat encouraged everyone to read the sections and provide their input back to Sue as soon as possible. Leven: things are very quiet tonight and she wanted to make sure that everyone here tonight is satisfied with the information and the explanation that has been given. Skidmore: wanted to hear what everyone else said first but he was stilling looking for some context and wants to make sure that these reports say what the contract expects. He went through the scope of work and put together a spreadsheet. If everything is in the documents then that is fine but he has to go through and confirm that it meets the contract outline. He doesn't really want to have to go through to confirm. Have you done what you said you were going to do? Young: didn't go item by item - he wanted to look at the bigger picture as outlined in the memo presented to the committee tonight. He thinks what they have done provides a better work product. Skidmore: how does the committee feel about that? Leven: Would the committee like her to review and go through the spreadsheet? Bennett: the difference amongst the committee -the minutes should be a balance of the Committee. If they are going to be tasked with setting standards on the ponds then they need CDM's expertise and guidance. Bennett felt they could help the Town to establish certain goals for the ponds. Young: could come back with a draft recommendations Kolb: you are going to be compelled to do something to protect your ponds through some State regulations. It would be great if the Town was ahead of the curve. Bennett: The DPW director is walking around and mapping the drainage because he knows he is going to be required to provide a report. Bennett would love to hear CDM's recommendations and see how that fits. with the Town's goals. Not sure if this is the best use of their time to look for input from this committee when CDM has the knowledge and can provide the rationale for their recommendations. He felt the balance from CDM and the committee would be moving forward with recommendations from CDM. Johnson: Waiting for the recommendations. The information is great and this is wonderful. It appears that CDM is now really looking to know what our town wants and where we are but she looks to CDM for their recommendations on what we should do. 08-09-10 www.TOWN.BREWSTER.MA.US Page 2 of 5 Young: perhaps there is some confusion as to what they are looking for: what are the goals for the Town not specific goals but ideas i.e. increasing fishing, more access to the ponds? Kolb: you have the Cape Cod commission guidelines; you have your own guidelines but is this you want to do for the Town? The ponds that tend to get action are the visible ponds (i.e. fish kills, more visibility, and bad smell) or do you look at ponds that have ecological issues (poor fishing). This is what they need to know. Leven: Issues about what the ponds are used for -for example the ponds shown in red are ponds where the herring run -why is there a ban on catching herring? Gallagher: because the state says so because there is a moratorium -due to the low population P. Hughes: so the committee needs to provide some of this input for the consultant and she requested that as the group reads through they jot down notes and or input on the prioritization of the ponds. Bennett: can the group have these discussions now or at another meeting? He would like to have the group ask questions now. He would love to use soft solutions. He hasn't heard where we don't meet the infrastructure (TMDL related areas). He personally thinks that it would be useful to prioritize some of the issues (i.e. cranberry bogs or if the ponds are in the zone II). P Hughes: would like to have everyone read all 5 sections -then on Aug. 23 have that as a follow-up discussion. She would like to go back to Lem's question regarding completing the status on the spreadsheet and Sue's offer to complete this task. P. Hughes would like to have Sue to do this. Would the committee like to have a discussion now or wait until the 23~d~ Johnson: would like to discuss now. What do we think is important? For her public access is of the most important factor (ponds, sea shores). If the ponds are smelly, overgrown with weeds or there are dead fish it is a huge turn off. There are many ponds without public access that have more of a vegetation issue. Blueberry, Cobbs and Canoe Pond are examples of vegetation growth doubling or tripling. Offer recommendations on what an association might be able to do in order to save their ponds (for example: irrigation systems, dredging). The associations are very active and if they knew ways to protect them then the association may be able to address. Kolb: could you provide the ponds that have access? Leven: yes she could get that to CDM. J. Hughes: make an invitation to homeowners/associations to come to the next community meeting. Bennett: The water department bill is a good way to get the information out to everyone. Brochures are done just need to get it out. Education is the key to success. Bennett: Would like to move the question if they would like to spend the rest of the time to discuss. Seconded by Amy. We brought up and discussed the fact that there are GIS interface limitations. Are there any other recommendations or limitations relating to missing information or on what CDM needs? Kolb: identifying all the catch basins, where they are where there outfalls are would be very helpful. Peter Johnson: If I had a million dollars, should we work on a GIS interface or should I purchase Open space? P. Hughes: would it be helpful to get the Board of Health records computerized? That is not going to happen in the short term. 08-09-10 www.TOWN.BREWSTER.MA.US Page 3 of5 Leven; you are talking about making GIS capabilities better and you are talking not just about buying land but the best land to protect our water. Spending the money on GIS is important to her and encourages training for more employees. Bennett: did want to digress into the specifics -but really was just looking for CDM's limitations during their research. Could CDM summaries the coastal resources - Namskaket findings was the density of housing going to be a real problem in that area? Kolb: the amount of development is affecting the watershed -the answer is partly yes. P. Hughes left at 5:30 pm and Dave Bennett chaired the remainder of the meeting. J. Hughes: CDM mentioned something about nitrogen crediting? How does that work? Young: It was probably more so for the Pleasant Bay area -Brewster doesn't have a lot of frontage on Pleasant Bay. You may help to sewer some of the neighboring areas needs in order to reduce your percentage nitrogen removal. Taylor: what is Brewster's responsibility for neighboring ponds? Are we going to be held accountable? Kolb: In the next phase, you recognize the fact that ponds fall outside your borders and in the contract you send out. From the last meeting she was at, it sounded like this committee was going to be cooperative (i.e. research on Long Pond, Seymour Pond). Bennett: is anybody of the opinion that the waterways are for protection of Brewster only? Or the environmental interests of the neighboring towns? J. Hughes: All in favor of being regionalized -but we do have to prioritize. Leven: we have opportunities to do work with other towns -also if Brewster works with the other towns it may help. Bennett: would the committee like to go down through each of the watersheds? Leven: before you go there did CDM hope to accomplish other items before we leave tonight? Young: they were prepared to provide a brief overview of what the committee has found in each of the sections. Would you like to run through that briefly? It was agreed to review. Johnson: Section 1 -talks about the number of farms? Where are they and how big are they? Kolb: the turkey farm and some people don't realize that sand on the streets has phosphorus and that impacts the ponds Bill Greenwood, Owl Pond/Robinwood association: their pond is one of the challenged ponds. He was looking for solutions or at least one product that would come from this committee a resource on ways to improve the pond quality. They have a pipe leading into their pond? Where does that come from and what is it doing? Bennett: the controllable sources: phosphorus and nitrogen impacts are what the committee is focusing on. Education is key -lawns up to the pond may be contributing to the demise of the pond. The association may want to put up a 50 foot no build buffer. There is a great storm water management manual that is a great resource for easy ways to protect the pond. Would like to move on and see what CDM had ready to present. 08-09-1o www.TOWN.BREWSTER.MA.US Page 4 of5 Musci: Provided an overview of the 6 major watersheds in Brewster. There is relatively low density, and it appears that there are not any major concerns that they have uncovered. There are going to be some regulations because of the MEP. Bennett: Noted that there are 2 sand gravel pits out in the Pleasant Bay Watershed and 2 stump dumps. These are major areas of concern that need to be noted and controlled. Taylor: CDM mentioned that there are great soils in the Pleasant Bay? However, it isn't really great because it gets to the ground water fast. Musci: he is looking at it from a Title 5 perspective -that area produces water and it does drain fast which keeps the effluent from bubbling up and allowing bacteria on the surface. CDM did an analysis of the characteristics and then looked at the criteria. A discussion regarding the criteria and the protection of the watersheds occurred. Musci: the Estuaries section: the 50 watersheds and the MEP status. A discussion/overview of the table occurred. There is a small section in the lower corner of Brewster that may be regulated by the MEP (Bass River area). J. Hughes: any creditability to the recent report by the Cape Codder regarding the peer review on the model? Young: They believe the models are sound. They have reviewed for other communities and they appear to be valid and well documented. Jane Johnson left at 6:40 pm. Kolb: She discussed the ponds heath assessment and which ones may need to have extra protection. They also included additional criteria they felt should be looked at and or answered. Of the 29 ponds studied; 17 ponds were judged to be impaired. She prioritized what might be the next steps. Bennett: Clearly the Board needs to read through the material and rely on what CDM's recommendations are. Young: any feedback on the community board poster or the press release. Leven: The committee has been given some space on the agenda for the part time residents meeting this Saturday- anyone is welcome to come and address the group. She plans to attend and give a brief overview. Has received some changes to the minutes she will make and review at the next meeting. Skidmore: the water data that was distributed is what the county tested for the last 7 months. J. Hughes: Motioned to adjourn at 7:OOpm. Seconded by Taylor. Vote: All Aye. Ja a ne ci, Sr. Department Assistant 08-09-10 www.TOWN.BREWSTER.MA.US Page 5 of5