HomeMy Public PortalAboutComprehensive Water Planning -- 2010-09-20 Minutes`\\~\~k.,~RE yV ~~~~~//~//
0 ,r' of 9Fht.-~.
c= a• a ter` 3
_ '`~
u sr
~ ~~~ _ = f~,r~
~ ~ ,;{ ~:t
% '~
'/~/ FCORPORA E3 \~\\\
Town Of Brewster
2198 Main Street
Brewster, Massachusetts 02631-1898
(508) 896-3701 ext. 133
FAX (508) 896-8089
Comprehensive Water
Planning Committee
i~ -_'.
Date Approved: 11/8/10, Bennett/Hughes, J, 6-0-1, Skidmore abstain
TOWN OF BREWSTER MINUTES OF
COMPREHENSIVE WATER PLANNING COMMITTEE
WORKING MEETING
Monday, September 20, 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, Joanne Hughes, Amy Usowski, Elizabeth Taylor, Pat
Hughes, and Dave Bennett.
Absent: John Lipman, Lem Skidmore, Jane Johnson
Also Present: Sue Leven, Ed Lewis, Jim Gallagher, Russell Schell
Discussion of Sections 1 through 7 of Phase 1 report.
Hughes, P: Thank you for all who met and went over sections 1 - 4 last Friday. Most of the time was
spent on section 3. Amy took minutes and will send them to Sue Leven. (Sue has a version of Section 3,
with track changes included)
Taylor: Section 3
What are they calling open space? Protected as state defined? CR? Town owned ConsCom? Drummer
Boy? Museum owned land, etc.? Water department land?
Usowski: Different levels of protection?
Hughes, P: Did you list what you thought should be included in open space? CDM removed some
categories based on a recommendation from the committee. We should tell CDM what basic categories
of land should be in the open space category. This should be clearly defined.
Gallagher: Town owned, BCT owned? Town owned Permanent CR, private property with conservation
restriction, town owned? CR sub category?
Hughes, P: CR's in perpetuity
Taylor: Girl's Scout Camp at Long Pond? (Renewed each yr. Short term CR.)
Hughes, P: Water dept. land included in open space?
Hughes, J: Land with restrictions like the Golf Course?
CWPC 09-20-]0
Page 1 of 9
Lewis: Restrictions on the land? Purchased with restrictions?
Bennett: Yes, include water dept. Consultants should not consider athletic fields, water sheds, shouldn't
be considered in the build out. (non nitrogen generating)
Leven: Making sure anything considered open space, is actually legally bound that way. If considered
open space it can't be made into something else.
Lewis: The police station (behind the station) for example, would not be included
Usowski: Another category for town owned unprotected open space?
Hughes, P: Golf course and athletic fields another category. Drummer Boy Park?
Lewis: Exact wording of this park, for hearing next week.
Hughes, J: How much open space? Considered for build out? What part is permanent?
Leven: GIS map properly identifies of all town land and the purposes.
Bennett: This is a statement of what it is for now. Add footnote of assumptions. In the build out, don't
consider lots that are not going to be part of the build out. Defer into a recommendation. (Wording added
to the zone 2)
Leven: Harwich had a book, done by AmeriCorps volunteer, with aGIS layer
Hughes, P: Phase I characterization of the town needs a clear definition of open space. Defined, and for
the more detailed analysis for the land, etc. Nickerson State Park included as open space?
Gallagher: We don't know what CDM called open space -they took numbers from somewhere?
Hughes, P: Town owned land under jurisdiction of conservation, CR's, water dept.? Athletic fields? Do
we want Nickerson to be considered open space? Personally, yes.
Lewis: We have no control over Nickerson
Bennett: We are debating something that will set us back. Problem -Less than 50% open space, table
3.1 -defining criteria < 50% open space, you need to look at it. Important points, but should not dictate
final review. Anything under 50% is a problem.
Leven: Going forward, we need to know specifics
Hughes, P: Ask CDM where they got their numbers. How they define open space?
Lewis: What percentage of water shed open space?
Bennett: Table 1.1. gives percentages of open space, # of water sheds, 30% of town is open space.
Brewster has a lot of build out potential in open space
Hughes, P: Bottom line -What are the lands you are using to define open space? Let's identify
categories and make sure they are included.
Lewis: Large percentage of open space is protected.
CWPC 09-20-]0
Page 2 of 9
Hughes, P: Section 3 or 4: Over 5,000 acres in town ground water discharge for CC Bay. We need
some recognition and discussion of that area. Ground water or Estuary section? CC Bay not regulated by
NEP, sizable portion of town. Center of town is in that ground water section.
Lewis: Namskaket?
Bennett: 4,679 acres Table 1. Section 1. Agrees. Need to have actions or not have actions should be
framed by density of impact. Some further discussion is required
Hughes, P: Ground water or Estuary section?
Hughes, J: Town should continue to manage more densely populated areas like this
Hughes, P: paragraph required, further definition
Lewis: How does this affect ground water? Related to drinking water?
Bennett: Cape Cod Bay flushes the area so well, there is no problem. (High density, poor soils)The issue
is not really mentioned in Section 6. Are we going to limit nitrogen in that area?
Hughes, P: This area needs to be included. Storm water or Title 5 issues may exist. There should be a
discussion of the area. (Included in either ground water or estuary). Let's agree to have a discussion in
that area.
Taylor: Estuary
Hughes, J: Chlorophyll could be anything
Bennett: No one has paid attention to the ground water data we have. Lem got data from Barnstable.
Real water quality data! Scientific justification. Pharmaceuticals? Nothing has been said re: independent
evaluation. 2% of samples had more than 5 parts per million....Orleans and Eastham have done this.
People test their wells, map the data. Data is not in Section 2 as a resource.
Hughes, J: In Section 6? Random well testing listed.
Bennett: Target water test at Pleasant Bay. Elevated numbers at Brewster Sand and Gravel
You need ground water data. This is a huge over sight. Barnstable county wells -- % over 5 and % over
10.
Schell, R: Namskaket salt marsh, Paines Creek and Stony Brook, marine recharge areas.
Inappropriate for the north part of Cape that discharges to the Bay, to be estuarine -not correct
Hughes, P: Agree. There should be a discussion of that area of town in this report. Russ agrees.
Taylor: Section 3, 3.3.9, Ground water problem areas. Mentioning Namskaket plume anywhere?
Hughes, P: Town of Orleans is paying for monitoring since the fall? Good Point
Sue has Amy's minutes and Elizabeth's comments about maps.
Ponds:
CWPC 09-20-10
Page 3 of9
Hughes, P: There has been a thorough discussion of pond water quality. (The big ponds) One criteria
important to include is fish runs, Stony Brook watershed, herring. This is key to maintain water quality,
habitat, etc. We should add Lower Mill Pond to the high priority ponds for remediation and protection.
Ref: Table 5.2 on 5.7 page 5 - 8, Additional pond health factors
Additional criteria to assess the ponds.
Bennett: Where do they talk about cranberry bogs?
Leven: 10/1 Cranberry Growers Association meeting "Best Management Practices." Sue and Elizabeth
are going.
Taylor: 5 - 8 Additional pond health factors
Hughes, P: Essential fish habitat. 5.3.2 (Herring Run). Add new factor (new bullet) essential fish habitat
river herring. (Economically and environmentally important). Section 5 additional comments?
Gallagher: Impossible to read, Individual ponds, categories, impossible to digest
Hughes, J: Page 5 - 2 , 2"d paragraph. Kettle Ponds. Present an example here. Phosphate transports,
fertilizer runoff, give more specifics. From fertilizing, dishwashing may still be delivering phosphates many
years out.
Hughes, P: 30 years to travel 100 feet, (or something similar) The summary of the Brewster 6 ponds was
a good example to suggest as a format.
Gallagher: Page 5 -11 Category 3 Ponds paragraph, list ponds/categories/jump back and forth?
Give each category a table?
Usowski: Category #3 needs a table, Jim agrees.
Bennett: A table for category 3 vs. written since it is hard to understand
Hughes, J: Final draft page cuts include headings please plus a typo. Confused 5.3.1 third bullet, page
5 - 5. She doesn't understand statement. Plant growth? More nitrogen? Less nitrogen? Add to the blue
green algae?
Leven: Has sent communication to correct this. Is there a better way to say this?
Bennett: Excess nitrogen with excess phosphate can be a factor
Hughes, P: Good point
Bennett: Page 5 -11, Larger table with categories? Ratings, etc. How it relates to the category
Hughes, P: One table that could cover all the categories, a matrix? Category 3 is confusing. A table
might help summarize the data. Matrix with all ponds? We can make a suggestion.
Lewis: You could reference back to see each pond.
Gallagher: Page 5 - 9, table 5.4 results to guidelines, blue font, don't print in color. Underline or bold
would be better.
Bennett: Significance of this table?
CWPC 09-20-10
Page 4 of 9
Hughes, P: Committee and CDM -how to define pond health, by the CC Commission guidelines?
Gallagher: Parameters where all depths meet the guidelines?
Hughes, P: They met the guidelines when they passed.
Gallagher: Table includes ponds that met guidelines one time. (Tested twice a year) Met guidelines
once? What does this mean?
Bennet: Needs clarification
Hughes, P: Is this helpful? Re: water quality status of ponds?
Taylor: A paragraph on each pond would be helpful. Asked Russ.
Schell: Met the criteria once that were a problem once.
Gallagher: At least once, it was bad. Meeting the guidelines is a good thing? Or a bad thing?
Bennett: Meeting the guidelines is a good thing.
Lewis: Met the guidelines usually sound positive
Usowski: Clarify what "met the guidelines" really means?
Gallagher: Paragraph for each pond (81)
Hughes, P: Pond summary in the Brewster Pond summary is a good format. Recommend -tables in
back and make reference to them.
Bennet: Value in 5 - 4? Tabulation if they met parameters.
Hughes, P: Remove table? Meeting the guidelines means what exactly?
(Ed Lewis left 5:36)
Gallagher: Met the criteria for impairment instead of met a guideline. The result registered impaired.
Hughes, P: Recommend: Take out 5 -4 table, keep summary, clear definition of what it means to meet a
guideline. Suggesting 5 - 11 Category 3 ponds, a table that summarizes, rewrite that paragraph based
on that table. No tables in the back of the report. (Yes)
Hughes, J: Page 5 - 9 last line, last paragraph, ZZ -appendix?
Bennett: 5 - 5 remove blank column
Gallagher: Put an N/A in the blank box or eliminate column
Taylor: What do those numbers mean? 5 -2 attached to 5 - 5. "3" means? "3" means avg. dissolved
oxygen (discussion of value of the numbers assigned)
Hughes, P: Important reference (a key, or legend)
Gallagher: High numbers good or bad? High totals are bad. High total is good or bad?
CWPC 09-20-10
Page 5 of9
Low values identify higher water quality -Perhaps, add this sentence to this table.
Leven: 5 - 2, different trophic status, lower numbers are higher quality
Hughes, J: Giving a value of 1 to all ponds that have over 6 milligrams of DO Avg. gets a "3"
Gallagher: Ponds that don't have data?
Hughes, P: This is not clear. Repeating key definitions should be suggested. Oligotrophic?
Mesotrophic?
Where is the appendix?
Section 5 continued Data Analysis
Gallagher: Grammar and spelling will be corrected, Sue sending to CDM. Big words? Jargon? Who is
going to read it?
Usowski: Just state results and analysis should follow results. Separate better or worse format? It is a
lot of information in one section.
Hughes, P: The writing is always a challenge when writing for a varied level of audience. She thinks if
someone who is not involved in the project, with a basic understanding of ponds, read this and suggests
edits, Bernie would understand this suggestion.
Leven: Did Mary read it? Suggest to CDM: Make this more available to a wider audience.
Hughes, J: 5 -15, typo last paragraph. 5 rows from bottom "used." They did not mark sand pits
"impervious" nothing has changed. Section 6; Mention Water quality committee work done to bring
businesses into compliance
Taylor: Dirt road no vegetation, impervious? 5-15 first paragraph
Hughes, P: No answer
Continued discussion of 5 - 15, Does everyone understand this data?
Gallagher: impervious cover, from MASS GIS, that is how it is defined.
Hughes, P: Good support for the use of the data in this analysis -required
Taylor: %, trouble areas, (impervious cover) why can't they correct this? Mining areas?
Leven: Mass GIS defines mining areas as impervious? Yes
Hughes, P: Flag this information. Sizable areas in an environmentally sensitive area of town.
Highlight the industrial areas, stand outside the definition MASS GIS uses.
Gallagher: Having more pervious area a good thing? The mining areas are impervious. Is this a
negative?
Hughes, J: Impervious land under 10% is good.
Bennett: A dirt road is not impervious. Silt mobilizes after rain. Sand pits, areas of muck where it rains. A
Sand pit is pervious, it allows silt (Phosphorus) washed into the sand. No natural filter. (Introducing Silt
into groundwater immediately.) Criteria to monitor impairment.
CWPC 09-20-ZO
Page 6 of9
Pat, Joanne, Sue: Flags on maps, mining areas removed or defined in some way
Bennett: "they also include these areas" Maybe add in "Result in siltation, considered impervious
factor..."
Taylor: Impervious considered negative. Until graded down and re-vegetated they are sinks.
Gallagher: There is another pit, on Great Fields
Taylor: Underpass Rd. too
Hughes, J: Page 5 -16 -Specify abandoned vs. working cranberry bogs
Gallagher: following page 5 - 17, ponds with water quality data, cranberry bogs again. Suggest adding
a cranberry bog heading
Hughes, P: mix of active and historic? Vegetation and soils determine this?
Gallagher: Yes it does.
Taylor: "A positive correlation....."? Not strong enough. "There appears to be..."
Gallagher: Remove positive to take a step back to what is causing it
Bennett: Need more data. Positive (keep) accurate statement
Hughes, P: May have old bogs hydraulically connected. Still some unknowns
Taylor: Page 5-17" Just "off' the directly adjacent ponds.....
Gallagher: Page 5 -18, 5.4.5 first sentence "The goal of this ......" Run on sentence. Suggest making it
two sentences, Joanne agrees.
Hughes, P: They did some basic screening for ponds we don't have data on.
Taylor: "Making assumptions," verb usage changes throughout the document.
Gallagher: "potential threat"
Hughes, P: Only used impervious cover and cranberry bogs (2 of the 4 threat factors)
Gallagher: Flag grammar inconsistencies
Hughes, P: Data needs to be more clearly presented, reorganization, key elements together,
Gallagher: third bullet on this page, "non supporting"?
Hughes, P: Non supporting has a regulatory definition in water quality. There are specific criteria.
Different wording, perhaps? So does not trigger regulatory definition.
Gallagher: Jane has glossary terms. Add footnote. Include technical words.
Hughes, P: Summary, Next Steps:
CWPC 09-20-]0
Page 7 of 9
Providing guidance concerning the ponds
Other categories
Inventory of storm water
Better handling Phosphorous regeneration, deeper ponds
Minor text and grammar editing continued...
Any overall comments?
Bennett: Point 11 -- Ponds with poor water quality. 300' setbacks "more vigorous enforcement...."
Hughes, J: We have not been requiring upgrades. This helps the Board of Health, less generous with
variances
Bennet, D: Storm water management issue missing here. Missing requirements like:
drywalls, gutters, no run off on roadway, properties maintain own drainage, no net gain in drainage to
roadways. Hard thing to do, septic inspections give a great opportunity to review these uses. Impervious
surface is a contributor. Give consideration to the primary contributors. How does the Board of Health
deal with this and update this? If 300 ft. is now this golden rule -- a local bylaw? Conservation filing that
extends beyond 100 ft.? Discussion followed... We are missing the opportunity to make improvements to
properties at the time of real estate transfer. Shouldn't we be looking into these environmental
performance options in a certain area? Subject to review by the board of the health? Automatic review,
perhaps. Suggests adding storm water management to point 11
Taylor: Conservation Commission, not Board of Health
General discussion of above followed...
Bennett: Number of feet? If shore front, at RE transfer, came under better practices, no fertilized lawn to
edge of pond. Etc. We need to talk about an element that involves residential uses.
Hughes, P: Number13 talks about the education but not the storm water management
Taylor: Grandfathered uses? Zoning? Discussion continued with all.
Bennett: There is precedent set with septic inspections.
Hughes, P: Look into this in the future. Area that is right for management.
Leven: Send notes by 10am tomorrow AM, Sections 1 - 5 changes.
Hughes, P: 9/25 Eastham. Police department, dispose of unwanted medications 10-2pm
Bennett, D: Motioned to adjourn at 6:30pm. Seconded by Hughes, J. Vote: All Aye.
CWPC 09-20-10
Page 8 of 9
CWPC 09-20-10
Page 9 of 9
Kel y Mo Senior Department Assistant
... _ v ~ .