Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutComprehensive Water Planning -- 2010-09-27 MinutesHughes, J: This seems reasonable. Don't want to impose a deadline on the comments deadline back to CDM. They could give us a hard deadline for our feedback. Skidmore: What is the timeframe? We don't have one. Johnson: Do you think CDM wants to be finished with us? Leven: They don't feel that way. Let's do it right, instead of fast Johnson: There is so much information to digest and understand and value. I don't have a problem that it has taken longer. I want to make sure we have what we need. Leven: I will ask CDM and let the group know. Their answer is going to be based on how quickly we can turn around the comments back to them. Skidmore: Encouraged the group to review and get back to Sue. Task 1.3, Contract Skidmore: Task 1.3: Has anyone commented on this? Written comments? (in contract) CC Commission, SMast? Bennett: Is there going to be dialogue between DEP, CC Commission, US GS, EST Mass and CDM? Skidmore: Have they done this? Has this been taken into consideration Bennett: Status of insufficient data? A letter distributed? Leven: Talked to Chris. Sent to group. Believe it went to CDM Bennett: Questions about whether this other information is going to be included in this report? Johnson: Department's response to Tom Cambareri? Did we know of this request? Some of the other ponds were in more trouble than others. Has CDM commented? Taylor: Did we get a copy from the Commission? Hughes: Has anyone seen the article in the Cape Codder about Freeman's Pond? Gallagher: This is about Paines Creek Landing. There is a culvert before the parking lot, beyond Lower Road, Six Penny area (salt pond). That is a culvert replacement. Continued Discussion: Paines Creek Landing Hughes: One amount of money to Paines Creek, one amount of money to Freeman's Pond. Johnson: To increase tidal flow? Gallagher: Yes tidal flow Skidmore: Does CDM have this info? Is there information we don't have? We are not clear if CDM has this information? Some discussion of Freeman's Pond followed. Bennett: Was this designated for remediation? CWPC 09-27-10 www.TOWr1.BREWSTER.MA.US Paget of9 Gallagher: This is all part of a grant -salt marsh restoration, culvert project, shellfish, storm water, restoration. Group discussion continued regarding this project. Hughes: This should be part of the report Leven: Requested a brief summary for CDM from Jim -Sue will ask Chris Johnson: This project was part of the grants. Could Chris brief this group? A list of his projects that have to do with water quality. Skidmore: Good idea. What has Chris told CDM? We should see this in the report. Taylor: Is a listing of the tidal restrictions in the CDM report? This should be part of the CDM report. Leven: Section 7 -Key technical environmental factors. Skidmore: All get comments to Sue. Re: CDM Status contained in method of payment, contract: Who sees the % complete? Leven: I receive the invoices. Skidmore: Dave and Lem would like to see the invoices. Leven: We have received three invoices. They won't file for an extension. I think we are about 75% or higher complete. Skidmore: When is CDM coming here? Leven: We haven't scheduled them again. They won't be back until after the final draft is submitted. Skidmore: Are we happy with sections 1 - 5? Taylor: We will know better once we get back a draft with all the changes. Bennett: Agrees. We can't gauge this yet. Let's get through 6 and 7 and return a draft. 4. Offer from Orleans Peer Review Committee to meet with CWPC (skipped to # 4 since Sue needed to make some copies of Section 6 and 7) Skidmore: Pleasant Bay findings from Ed Daley. He read the letter from Ed. He would like to meet and share findings with the group. Hughes: The group voted yes before. Let's hear what they have done. Bennett: We want to hear both sides of the story. Let's seek a date. Motion to have them come to the meeting on October 25t". Hughes 2~d All Aye Johnson: They did this presentation in the spring in Orleans. Is this the same information? Can we get some publicity? Is that appropriate? Skidmore: He thinks they have new info. Town departments may come. No publicity. He will contact Ed Daley and cc: Ed Lewis. CWPC 09-27-10 www.TOWN.BREWSTER.MA.US Page 3 of9 3. Discussion of Sections 6 and 7 of Phase 1 report. Section 6: Bennett: Handed out GIS maps from Google, Pleasant Bay area. In summary: The ground water quality conditions are not part of the report. There is a need to have some real information. I am encouraging an inventory of those wells to be formalized. There was free water testing available through Barnstable County Freeman's Way #39 and #28 Bennett reviewed this map with the group. He also reviewed the criteria. In the report. Table 6.2: Wastewater recommended treatment in this area. Page 63: Not sure this is a real concern. Decentralized sewer system. This is a sparsely developed area. Doesn't seem equitable that this is a 25% contribution to Pleasant Bay. He is questioning the math. Looking for more of an explanation. It is a large area with a small amount of homes. Johnson: Figures: MEP we have to reduce 52% of Nitrogen in Pleasant Bay, Brewster's part is of the 52% is 14%. Some discussion followed regarding the formula. Bennett: Page. 6.3 Those water sheds in Brewster. (Reading from the text) It is not clear Johnson: Brewster is responsible for 14% of the total. The figure is not clear. Group considering these numbers Bennett: Clarify Brewster's numbers. Page 6.5 overall. Numbers don't add up. Johnson and Usowski agree. Skidmore: These numbers don't add up. First point was about Brewster's contribution. Bennett: There might be a misinterpretation of the data. We just went through major revision to Title 5 Septic System review in the mid 1990's. I am curious as to the input of the models? Nitrogen questions. Let's make sure we are taking this into account. Contributing source to Title V? Wastewater treatment plants in this area? Skidmore: Is this a question for CDM? Bennett: CDM was supposed to talk to these other groups who have this information. What is the number that is being used? (there may be easily a 14% reduction by updating cesspools and old Title V to new systems, rather than a 100 plants of miles of pipeline to Orleans.) Skidmore: For CDM -What is the nitrogen number? Bennett: Clarification of Brewster's contributions and how were they derived. Hughes: The Orleans Wastewater report was easier to understand. I would like to see the information presented in this way. The % is confusing. Leven: They did not have any data. They made assumptions. C WPC 09-27-10 www.TOWN.BREWSTER.MA.US Page 4 of9 Johnson: Can CDM give us more data? Bennett: Do we need to be saying that we recommend decentralized sewer in this area? Leven: I don't think that they did. I asked that they use the word "may" not "will". 6.1 or 6.4 or 6.2 says offsite and should say on site Skidmore: From the community meeting -Report communicates that we will need sewers, etc. If you read this report it says that you will need them. Ref: Page 6.2 category 2 -more explanation, May need further study? What needs to be studied? Explanation is required. Nothing in category #3 needs sewers. Bennett, D: We said we were not ready to say decentralized solution or sewers. We need to know if this is a requirement or not? Ground water quality in the area now...? Taylor: Based on estuary information or ground water? We are being told we have to treat areas that don't have any houses on them. This does not make sense. Bennett: 2"d photo (Great Ponds) High density developments along ponds that have questions. Why excluding Long Pond? Was it treated? Taylor: Has anyone been checking Long Pond? Ponds that we share. We need to know what is going on. I don't know how we do it. Skidmore: We are trying to make specific comments. There are some major questions and comments here. Our discussion is going from very specific to some major questions. Concern shared by the group. 6.1. Bennett: Completely rewrite? No. We need clarification in certain areas. Brewster's contribution? (Pleasant Bay area). Compared to the whole. Where do sources come from Total flow in area? Is that just for Brewster? Did they consider Pleasant Bay Nursing? Please provide clarification of the input parameters for that contribution. Questions about consideration were addressed. Taylor: Risk for impacts positive or negative? Risk for impacts? What does this say? At risk? Hughes: Stop at risk. Bennett: They have not done ground water analysis. They have done a risk or priority analysis. Skidmore: (based on a set of criteria, same paragraph) The set of criteria sounds weak. Did we ever agree on criteria? Hughes: It is in the pond section. There is a list of criteria. Skidmore: This needs to be clear. Leven: In the ground area section there is a set of criteria. She read rewritten paragraph to the group and the committee liked it. Will send all Dave's comments to CDM. Gallagher: Intro: (health and threat assessments are...) Vague. Better define. CWPC 09-27-10 www.TOWN.BREWSTER.MA.US Page 5 of9 ss Hughes: 6.2.1, after paragraph, some mention should be made about the actions of the sand pits Skidmore: Which 5 wells? Taylor: Campgrounds, homes? Bennett: Manure management problems on Great Fields Rd. Taylor: garden fertilization? Bennett: What was the number of wells that were tested? Data should be explained. Stump dumps information. Taylor: Do we know which wells they saw? Bennett: We have the data and it needs to be explained. Skidmore: Last test was over 5 (30 wells) Hughes: Is this what they are referring to? Johnson: What can we insert here. Bennett: Frame the importance of this data. An increase above 5 designates a problem. Ground water study should be inserted here. Trend analysis. Orleans and Eastham has gone through this. Eastham has done a great job. Big problem along route 6. What is the trend? Some discussion followed about analysis Skidmore: They funded nitrate testing (Eastham) explanation followed. Taylor: Private homes tested? Bennett: Ground water protection: Note what we have and any trends if there are any. If there is not enough data, get more data. Hughes: Not near 10ppm threshold. Never come close to parameters for drinking water. Skidmore: Is there a trend? Bennett: Let's know where the areas are and which ones need clean up. We need real data. Lem brought in some data. Let's incorporate it in the report. Skidmore: 6.2.1 third paragraph --Should receive additional attention? What kind of attention? Taylor: 6.2.3 Cape Cod bay watersheds. Essentially saying the same thing. They don't have a TMDL. A lot of these properties are really close to the ground water. Skidmore: Additional attention? What does this mean exactly? Hughes: Is this in the recommendation? CWPC 09-27-10 www.TOVb'N.BREWSTER.MA.US Page 6 of9 Gallagher: 6.4.2. Will require some attention....what does this mean? Hughes: Watch the build out, specific action? Johnson: Questioning go through line by line...some discussion followed. Additional study sounds good. Clarify "additional attention?" Taylor: 6.2.1 third paragraph -rephrase this paragraph? Gallaher: Include the categories. Taylor: Add "are still at risk." Hughes: Dave pointed out that it is still an area of risk. Bennett: All other areas that do not have Nitrogen TMDL's are still considered to be at risk for adverse impacts to ground water in a sole source aquifer. (ending sentence) 6.3 All: Cape Cod Bay watershed can....fourth paragraph Eliminate the first sentence. Discussion followed by the group Bennett: Based on the high flushing rate of the Cape Cod bay this area has not been determined to be nitrogen sensitive. We don't' like it -Not in MEP, not important? Not an estuary. Taylor: It is not being studied. Discussion about what we know and don't know. Bennett: The state has determined that CC bay is not a sensitive receptor. Hughes: & Skidmore: Take out first sentence. There is no existing TMDL....(discussion.....) CC Bay can remain with onsite septic systems. Taylor: & Skidmore: The town should continue to manage. Gallagher: bottom paragraph. Spell out first use, then (IA) Add to the glossary. Jane will add it to the list. Discussion about a recommendation of an off site solution. Bennett: 52% Johnson: Again, confusing. 52% of Pleasant Bay. Hughes: explanation of what Brewster's % is to the whole. (pie example). Orleans has 8, Harwich #, Brewster 1. Only attack half of the Brewster 1 piece. Brewster's contribution might only be 14% of the whole. Perhaps add a diagram here? Bennett: Either recommend decentralize or not...This is not clear. 52% Johnson: Existing TMDL is mandating a reduction of nitrogen in these Pleasant Bay water sheds. Leven: Wants a better explanation of the numbers. CWPC 09-27-10 www.TOWN.BREWSTER.MA.US Page 7 of9 Hughes: Some of it is fertilization too. Taylor: 80% is from septic. It's the septic, not the fertilizer...recent example shared Skidmore: 90% of locally controllable nitrogen comes from waster water, (septic systems). An offsite solution is recommended. Bennett: Decentralize or not? Contribute to Orleans? Leven: It is not about if we go with Orleans or do it ourselves. Hughes: Off site, decentralized, centralized systems. Why would you use them both? It is confusing. Taylor: Reduce Pleasant Bay water shed, little population in that area. How are we going to do this? Hughes: That is phase III. Bennett: We don't understand if we don't need sewers or we do? Let's give the comments and go from there. Enough density there at Pleasant Bay, an off-site sewer makes sense..... Skidmore: Similar issue, with Namskaket Creek. No TMDL. Leven: No existing or pending TMDL. Bennett: They could assimilate all the nitrogen. Some discussion followed:...what this really means Bennett: Investigation to find the plume. They modeled something without real water quality data. Reference that testing is "on going" at this time. Orleans is doing it on a grant from state that Brewster endorsed. (Add after the first sentence.) Hughes: Add "however" Bennett: However, there is a state grant investigating the existing plume. Further evaluation of the existing plume is necessary. 6.4 top Taylor: Namskaket area as a needs area? Skidmore: & Hughes: Namskaket water shed should be considered by the town as an asset. Bennett: Initiated topic. Some discussion followed re: Orleans treated effluent going to Namskaket. Asset definition for Brewster. Taylor: First sentence run on and very strange. Leven: Pretty accurate. Bennett: In other areas of Brewster? Leven: Not in the original comment, general discussion followed... 6.3.1 -left off. CWPC 09-27-10 www.TOWN.BREWSTER.MA.US Page 8 of9 Bennett: Motion to adjourn Johnson: 2nd All Aye Meet again: 10/4 @ 3:30 PM Dave will bring pizza elly oore CWPC 09-27-10 www.TOWN.BREWSTER.MA.US Page 9 of9 Respectfully submitted,