Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutComprehensive Water Planning -- 2010-10-04 Minutes~~\ ~~~\\\~~"~~~U~u1tE Il~rurir~ii,~///i~ 0 x' O 9F fin. ~ ~? 9c ~. ti 9~r y Y ~ ~~ ~' ~i~ii i~ i! i I I~ 1 ~, n ~ ~ i u t t u 1 ~~~~~ ~~~~ Town Of Brewster 2198 Main Street Brewster, Massachusetts 02631-1898 (508) 896-3701 FAX (508) 896-8089 Date Approved: November 22, 2010 Comprehensive Water Planning Committee TOWN OF BREWSTER MINUTES OF i COMPREHENSIVE WATER PLANNING COMMITTEE - _ ,~. REGULAR MEETING " `-~-- _~ =`'£ Monday, October 4, 2010 at 3:30 P.M. Brewster Town Office Building Pat Hughes convened the Comprehensive Water Planning Committee meeting at 4:36 PM in the Brewster Town Office Building with members, Lem Skidmore, Jane Johnson, Amy Usowski, and Dave Bennett. Absent: Joanne Hughes, John Lipman, Elizabeth Taylor Also Present: Sue Leven, Jim Gallagher, Russell Schell, Chris Miller 1. Citizen Forum - no comment 2. Discussion of Sections 6 and 7 of Phase 1 report. Hughes, P: Suggested one hour on Section 6 and one on Section 7 and distributed a glossary from Jane Johnson. Leven: distributed copies of the report with comments as of last week's meeting. 6.3 Estuaries Hughes, P: Any comments or additions for this section? Johnson: Why can't the water database be tied to GIS? Leven: It can. You can map the information with a common field, (i.e. parcel ID) but it has not been done yet. Skidmore: The database cannot be directly tied to parcel GIS database. Page 6.4 bottom paragraph. Should say "has not" because it can be done at some point in the future. Hughes, P: GIS system, there is work to be done. CWPC 10-04-10.doc Minutes PdJe 1 Of 11 www.TOWN.BREWSTER.MA.US Leven and Hughes, P: 52% of 14% -additional clarification required. Pleasant Bay Watershed. Page 6-3. Leven: Most of the comments are wordsmithing. 6.3.2 -More explanation is required. Skidmore: 6.3.1. Database portion. He does not agree with the statement. "...A detailed wastewater analysis is not possible at this time..." Discussion followed with Leven and Hughes, P. Hughes, P: The water usage database is not tied to the other database. Orleans shared with the group that it is critical to tie these two databases together. Clarification of the nitrogen discussion per Sue's comments. Miller: Make it a priority for the next phase? Hughes, P: Make it a recommendation. Bring this issue to town meeting. Johnson: Is the assumption they are making based on the Orleans water flow data scientifically ok? This is more background info. Hughes, P: When the Orleans consultant did a regionalization report, they tried to estimate flow from all three towns. They had detailed information for Orleans but not Eastham and Brewster. There was some information from our water department. The town needs a good build out analysis and projections for water flow. The consultants used the best information available. Leven: A lot of the data being used to estimate growth rate is being used on info. From 2005... The body of data from the last ten years takes a serious dip. Important to do this work upfront and not use assumptions. Miller: Issue on the amount of water data they used. Hughes, P: Page. 6-5, 6.3.3. Prioritize watershed % for septic removed? Miller: Some of these are watersheds include golf courses. Some discussion followed. Dave Bennett arrived. Hughes, P: Anything else for Estuaries Section? Johnson: What is build out? Bottom 6.3.2. She added it to glossary too. Leven: Here is a lot and it accommodates a building and is based on zoning. It considers the maximum you can do on a specific lot. An example was shared with the group. There is a small real estate office in between CVS and car dealer on Rte. 137 in Harwich. This is not built out. Hughes, P: A build-out analysis examines what currently the town looks like and then based on zoning what could be. Leven: There was a Build out of Pleasant Bay water shed done 4 or 5 years ago. A build out would be necessary. Hughes, P: This would be worth doing before we go into phase II. Johnson: As you change zoning then this changes too. Leven: If you put in sewers then your build out changes completely. She shared an example. CWPC 10-04-10.doc Minutes Page 2 of 11 www.TOWN. BRE WSTER.MA.US Hughes, P: Any additional comments? Leven: 6.3.4, page 6-6 -septic nitrogen mentioned again Ponds: Priority Needs Hughes, P: Substantial comments in Section 5 would then be reflected here in this section... Sections 6 and 7 -Records from water quality review committee? Records from golf course? Are there other pollutants that may have been tested for? Chris? Miller: We test 3 x a year (select wells twice a year) for herbicide sweep, nitrogen (CDM requested this info) Skidmore: All this info. Ocean Edge, Pleasant Bay Nursing Home goes to board of health (paper files) Bennett: Mass DEP puts together waste site cleanup jobs, electronically can secure copies of the reports. This information is available just needs to be compiled. The last quarter of findings requested by Dave from Chris. Some discussion followed between Dave and Chris. Johnson: All paper files? Can they be scanned? Skidmore: Most of the updates from the departments are paper updates (memos). Yes but it would be images and not data. Hughes, P: Should we make arecommendation -trying to put data together. These records should be recorded electronically and then put into a database? Formatted for a database. Skidmore: There needs to be a recommendation that says "get the data together." This includes integrating what is automated now and identifying what is on paper now and how this can be automated. It could be spreadsheets with memos. Hughes, P: Section 7 addresses this recommendation. This is part of it. Skidmore: Think of it from a town point of view and not by department. Some discussion followed regarding where we are exactly in the report. Hughes, P: Trying to get through Section 6 and 7 by 6:30. Review comments. The pond section should be reflected here from Section 5 comments. Johnson: Ponds Prioritizing Section 6.7, The herring? criteria? A value? Hughes, P: Yes, should have a value and it is in the comments. Johnson: Recent treatment (-10)? I don't understand. Hughes, P: It has a lower value since it had some treatment. Miller: Clean ponds, higher value than dirty ponds. Leven: Less a priority to the town since it has received treatment CWPC 10-04-10.doc M~nuces Page 3 of 11 www.TOWN.BREWSTER.MA.US Hughes, P: It is not clear. Johnson: High priority -Sheep Rd. Taking Long Pond out of this category, b/c we spent half million dollars on it. Doesn't make sense to me. Miller: Re: Ranking of ponds. Has shared this with CDM. Fishing? Public Access? Boating? -public ramp? Rankings are not defined. They are not clear about it. Hughes, P: Let's be clear about the appropriate criteria. If it is a criteria then define it. Schell, R: Adaptive Management is a water management buzz word. Long Pond is in that category because it has been treated with Alum. Watch phosphate. Suspected a sufficient phosphate input is from an adjacent cranberry bog. It should be relegated to a second or third category. Miller -Long Pond special case, 3 boat ramps. No other pond has that type of access. Bennett: Long Pond allows motor boats. A recognized public beach. How is Long Pond coming along? We need to know if treatment $ of Long Pond is well spent? Especially if we consider other treatment to other ponds like this. Miller: Monitoring monthly. Has a consultant doing analysis. Free consultant. So far numbers are looking better. Don't have all analysis yet. Hughes, P: Include these comments. Highlight Long Pond, significant public access, recreation, alum findings? -10 ranking being questioned. We need definitions/clarification of boating, public access? Miller: Further clarification of definitions is required. Any public land touching the pond? Skidmore: Public access definition? Some discussion followed regarding public access. Miller: Can the public readily get access or not? If not then private pond. There is no real good definition of their priorities. Hughes, P: Propose alternatives? Miller: Owned by the state? Nickerson? All Great Ponds? We are not going to spend money to treat Cliff Pond? Leven: The town has limited control and access. The priority should be over ponds in the town that they can treat. We can write letters to the state, etc. Some discussion followed. Miller: Where do residents spend their time? Hughes, P: Where should Brewster taxpayers invest their money for pond protection? Baker Pond was mentioned. This is a first cut at what appears that we know to set some priorities. Not all inclusive. Miller: Herring are not mentioned in this at all. Hughes, P: Should be included. We have mentioned this in our comments. Johnson: The money brought to the town from Nickerson; it should be a high priority. CWPC 10-04-IO.doc Minutes Page 4 of 11 www.TO WN.BREWSTER.MA.US Johnson: I don't know anything about their wastewater treatment? Leven: Let's focus town committee resources on town ponds. Hughes, P: We recognize the state park resource, and a potential contributor to pond and ground water quality. It is a priority pond for action but not a taxpayer focus (first cut of this proposal.) Schell: It is important to partner with other state agencies. Identify the problem and leverage our efforts. Hughes, P: Good point, will can add to recommendation. Section 7 Miller: Wastewater -Build Out, GIS system up, Consider contribution Nickerson makes. We can't ignore this. We will have to generate the data. Bennett: Was it considered in the model? -10 now? Leven: Eliminating negative numbers for now. There is a limit to the town's ability to changes things. Bennett: We are not going to spend the money on Nickerson, but the state will. Eliminate the -10's for Long Pond and ponds in the Nickerson Park. Dave agrees with eliminating the negative numbers. They are action items. Skidmore: What about private ponds? Miller: Rank ecologically and once for public use. Hughes, P: Instead of negative numbers, Have a "0" for state, keep it in the positive? Bennett: Take the minus 10's out to see the real scores? Usowski: VBM. Where does this number come from? Protocol for rankings? Bennett: A number in parenthesis with footnote explaining why they were corrected? Hughes, P: Pond Ownership -Not all ponds are in public ownership. Riparian rights? Not managed by state or town, how is this determined? i.e. Coastal Martha's Vineyard ponds. Miller: Any great pond is publically own? Assessor maps. Leven: Not all great ponds have public access. An example of ownership shared. With great ponds as soon as you are in the water, you are on state land. Some discussion followed with the group regarding public, private ownership Johnson: Homeowner Associations, Questions? They don't own the water, discussion followed... Hughes, P: How do they define ownership of the ponds? Factors? Bennett: Ground water impacts had a table of criteria. Ponds, criteria table? Leven: Page 5.7 cwPC ~o-oa-io.do~ na~nUces Page 5 of 11 www.TO WN. BREWSTER.MA.US Skidmore: page 6.9. 3 categories with 6 ponds. Questions about the ranking. Miller: Equal ranking Hughes, P: These ponds had the same numerical ranking. (suggested wording) Bennett: Table 6.4 nice representation of what they did use. Shows a -10 for Long Pond, Little Cliff, discussion followed... Skidmore: He made a comment about prioritizing pond health (in Section 5 and here). Table 6.4. It is category 1 A, etc. Add what is it used for primarily? i.e. Owl Pond: Swimming. The primary use should be included with the category. Hughes, P: Combine the two tables. Clarified the question Miller: Swimming not listed for all the ponds. Questioning the categories. They looked at the ranking but did not pick up the usage. Semi public swimming vs. public swimming? Ranking both? Hughes, P: There are a lot of ways to look at the information we have. Define what is a public pond? Miller: Raising good questions. Miller: The county Dept. of health defines a public pond. Johnson: public access, not public access, no formal access... ex. Black and Cahoon Hughes, P: Criteria needs to clear and definable. Miller: 3 major side beaches, boat ramps, Long Pond for example. More than any other pond. Hughes, P: We as a committee, need to clearly define parameters, this is a first cut. We want to be in control of this. These are good points. Bennett: Table 6.4 note errors and send comments. (Johnson included this in her written comments.) Leven: Written comments have been sent to CDM. Johnson: A discussion of public vs. private access ownership of ponds followed... Blueberry Pond comments. Smith Pond has a path. Discussion followed. Bennett: Is Conservation Trust -land into passive recreation use? Size and formal public access will drive this point. Miller: Some issues with the rankings. There was a brief break for pizza. Leven: It should be all on site and decentralized. Not off-site. CWPC 10-04-10.doc Minutes Page 6 of 11 www.TOWN.BREWSTER.MA.US Email from Sue: Info. From Tom Canberari -Looking to add Seymour, Canoe and Blueberry pond to a list. 303... Question - To recommend these ponds added to the list? Leven: Procedural. Tom -Get on the list you can request funding for projects. Are there other ponds that we would rather have on the list? Is there a specific reason to add these? Hughes, P: DEP come back to the commission and say that the ponds report was not sufficient information to list them? Some discussion followed regarding the ponds studied. Hughes, P: We sent a letter to the state to delist Sheep Pond. Johnson: Why did Tom choose Canoe and Blueberry? The data was not sufficient? I don't understand why he chose Canoe and Blueberry. Can understand Seymour, it is a mess. Hughes, P: Did the data indicate this choice? Tom and his staff? Good question. What does the state want? What is acceptable? Questions discussion, Johnson and Hughes. Re: Tom's data. Hughes, P: Given these questions we do not recommend at this time. Bennett: Funding proposal? Cape Cod Commission takes over? Why doesn't our consultant and the CC Comm. Know about this? Miller: State might just be reviewing this data now. May have been submitted years ago. If Tom follows up then will be on the list. Leven: Might want to add ponds to the list later. Discussion followed about reports. Miller: Let the selectman decide, they will say what do you recommend? Bennett: Local rule should take precedence here. If we think there is not enough information. Etc. We should draft letter to say we are reviewing this information. We have not seen what you submitted. Seymour ponds keeps coming up over and over again. Leven: Can reserve judgment on any ponds. This committee should vote to recommend to selectman. Bennett -Motion that a memo be sent to Brewster selectman deferment of all but Seymour pond 303D listing to the state. At this time we don't have enough information to make a recommendation. We agree Seymour should go on the list. Pat will review the letter from Sue. 2"d Skidmore Aye Section 7: Leven: Discussing about Mapping man-made connections to the ponds? CWPC LO-04-IO.doc Minutes Page 7 Of 11 www.TOWN. BREWSTER.MA.US Hughes, P: Identify them. Discussion: Almost every section is about communicating with our neighboring towns. Hughes, P: Do we want to be so specific about wastewater planning? (planning is appropriate) Skidmore: Take it out of the section. Regional ones are not time specific. Augment perhaps. Leven: Regional recommendation can be referred to as ongoing. Hughes, P: Any comments, changes? Leven: # 2 Storm water education program -town wide? A town dept.? Town based? Johnson: Discuss first bullet. Hughes, P: A town wide citizen storm water education program. For citizens? (2 bullets) A town action and a citizen program. Miller: The main bullet was aimed at DPW then citizens Discussion of what they are talking about here. For town or citizens or both? Hughes, P: First -town infrastructure (bullets) Second -Town wide citizen education program Bennett: Tie into storm water management. Compliance program? Storm water practices are published. Retention ponds, low phosphorus. Leven: #2 Educate town depts. and citizens. Miller: Intended audience questioned. Discussion followed about storm water compliance, bylaws, etc. Hughes, P: Recommendation: Take out what is here. Don't be so specific with working with DPW and others Leven & Bennett: Implement a town wide storm water education and management program. No bullets. Miller: The town has a road betterment program. Define standards to include storm water. Bennett: Bylaw under planning board manages this? Discussion Leven: Public hearing from the planning board. Leven: Road betterment issue. Bennett will find reference (state standard) and share with Sue. Leven: Page 7-1 #5 - Do we have a town by-law, connectors to storm drains? Bennett: Clarified...discussion followed with Miller and Leven. CWPC ]0-04-IO.doc Minutes Page 8 of it www.TOWN.BREWSTER.MA.US Leven: Brewster does not have storm drains. Bennett: Does this have to do with shallow injection wells? UIC closure? (Leven to confirm) Identify and register potential sources of pollution under UIC program. Town is registering dry wells now. Discussion followed with Miller, Bennett, Leven and Johnson Bennett: Page 3 compiling water quality data on GIS database; make a suggestion here or next page? To do isotherms of water quality data. Leven: Include historic information. (in this database) Skidmore: There is a huge problem of not having all the information. Hughes, P: One recommendation. (An integrated system with bulleted areas.) Miller: Going forward. We want to make sure we capture the right data. Consider what we want from each data source? Leven: We are talking about getting the data we have now on a layer and then pick and choose and create a base map Hughes, P: We are trying to capture key points. There is a lot of detail after the fact. Some of this work will require town meeting approval before phase II. Bennett: Incorporation of information into a GIS and then list bullets (examples) Not happy about the water quality mapping - (Testing 5 wells only is not satisfactory.) Suggested -Incorporating data layers within the GIS overlay for evaluation of water quality.... Skidmore: It is much more than GIS. What do you need? It is organizing across town departments Hughes, P: Identify key areas of #3 water use, #7 rewording, #4, Water Quality She asked Lem to please provide one or two sentences -what do we need? Integrated System. Skidmore: All the water quality data needs to be part of that information management system. Bennett: In an integrated data management system -spreadsheets that map Hughes, P: Integrate health dept. records of well monitoring in the town. We need a comprehensive water quality picture for the town. Leven: #6 -Five wells sampled. Take another look at them. Leave 6 and integrate well data into a GIS layer. Skidmore: Problem with 6 -These are private wells. We would need to approach homeowners. Bennett: Testing 5 wells is narrow minded. Discussion followed...very little water quality data. Bennett: Need a broader base. Recommend further testing. CWPC ]0-04-10.doc M~nuccs Page 9 of 11 www.TOWN. BREWSTER.MA.US Hughes, P: It comes out for now. Skidmore: 39 tests Last nitrate reading was >5 -Some discussion followed with Miller and Bennett. Bennett: Ground water data need to collect more data. (Wellfleet and Eastham -free testing for wells.) In Brewster there are not really that many wells. Hughes, P: We have captured the information management needs. Lot more work to do. Any other recommendations or changes to comments? Hughes, P: Page 7-4: golf course mention/Ocean Edge? Recommendation? This is under Pleasant Bay, #2. She is referring to the comments. Leven: Take it out? Leave recommendation, send comments? Hughes, P: It we include this, put it at 5 years and beyond. Bennett: Off site solution for waste water treatment and disposal? In Brewster? Why speculate? Leven has Bennett's comments. Johnson: 7-4 ponds, top of page, #27? Develop guidance for all ponds in Brewster. Hughes agreed. Hughes: By-law for Cranberry bogs? Gallagher and Leven: Cannot have by-laws for agriculture. Meet with growers and try to have them act as intermediary between the town and growers. Some growers are not members. They are both interested in proper fertilizer use and increased yield. Hughes: Reword #26 page top 7-4? Leven: Recommends leaving it. We are asking them to help us get that information. Work with the association. (Sue and Jim went to the Cranberry Growers Association meeting last week. ) Leven: Under 7.5 -regional recommendations: Addressed on an ongoing basis or add "ongoing" Hughes, P: Agrees. Town wide recommendations. Leven: Make that 7.2 Hughes, P: Pleasant Bay Alliance collaboration-good to acknowledge Brewster is part of the PBA. Leven: #10, 7.2 Use info. from that study for education? Miller: We are dealing more with fresh water than Orleans is Other Business: Eastham -Meet with them first meeting in November. CWPC 10-04-IO.doc Minutes Page 10 of 11 www.TOWN.BREWSTER.MA.US Leven: Will offer first meeting in November and will ask them to recommend a meeting they are having that we can go to. Hughes, P: When is Dave Young coming to talk to us? Dave Young or Eastham group at the first meeting in November Not both. Find out CDM's schedule Next meeting: October 25, 2010 at 4:30PM Motion to adjourn: Johnson Bennett: 2"d All in favor -Aye Meeting ended 7:07pm Kelly Moor Sr. Dept. A istant/Planning & Zoning CWPC 10-04-10.doc Minutes Page 11 of 11 www.TOWN.BRE WSTER.MA.US Respectfully submitted,