HomeMy Public PortalAboutComprehensive Water Planning -- 2010-10-25 Minutes 00"" m/ll///i//i//i
o Sr ii Comprehensive Water
4 ,oeri Ba ,Q /�
o 0 9F� Town Of Brewster Planning Committee
\_ "r iGL1!_- - `F , 2198 Main Street
3 � G�imr�q a� —
o _if,r,i�' y` Brewster, Massachusetts 02631-1898
r L4 (508) 896-3701
FCpRPOPp,t�O FAX (508) 896-8089
l i i l r i r r t i I i u
Date Approved: 1/10/11, 6-0- 1, Usowski abstain
TOWN OF BREWSTER MINUTES OF
COMPREHENSIVE WATER PLANNING COMMITTEE
REGULAR MEETING
Monday, October 25, 2010 at 4:30 P.M.
Brewster Town Office Building
Pat Hughes convened the Comprehensive Water Planning Committee meeting at 4:30 PM in
the Brewster Town Office Building with members, Elizabeth Taylor, Lem Skidmore, Dave
Bennett, Russell Schell, and Joanne Hughes.
Absent: Jane Johnson, Amy Usowski, John Lipman
Also Present: Sue Leven, Jim Gallagher, Chris Miller
P. Hughes introduced new member Russell Schell to the group. He gave an overview of his
experience. He is a civil engineer graduate and has worked with PALS, Conservation Committee
(pond monitoring), Jane Johnson, and APCC Marsh Monitoring for salinity.
Welcome to the committee from all.
Hughes, P: Any comments or questions before we start.
Meeting with Orleans Peer Review Group.
Ed Daley, Electrical Engineer
Paul Amman, Chemical Engineer
Jeff Eagles, Chemical and Hydro Geochemical Engineer
Mark Fiegel, Mathematician & Statistician
Dr. Greg Home, Geologist & Environmental Scientist
PowerPoint presentation - Pleasant Bay Key findings on Water Quality and Nitrogen
Ed and Jeff were the presenters. Ed is sending the presentation electronically to Sue Leven for
distribution to the group.
General Overview of Presentation:
Daley: In 2007 we discovered there was never a peer review of the DEP and SMAST link model.
The town consultant sent us a copy of the report and we put together a review. It was suggested
to the steering committee and BOS to form a validation committee.
CWPC 10-25-10.doe Minutes Page 1 of 11
We wanted to assure the Selectmen and the Orleans citizens that the science was adequate. At
the end of the 8 month review, we could not validate the report. Ultimately there were too many
unanswered questions.
• 8 month Review of MEP Pleasant Bay
• Woods Hole Group contracted to assist on 3 specific technical aspects
• 6 month review of MEP Rock Harbor, Namskaket, Little Namskaket Tidal salt marsh
system reports
We could not validate the science for Rock Harbor (comprehensive waste water management
plan). Our objective was to read reports and report back to the selectmen and the citizens. We are
not official members of the Town of Orleans. We have spent 100's of hours studying the MEP
process and written reports for Pleasant Bay and Cape Cod Bay. We want to ensure wastewater
investments will achieve expected water quality improvements. We can send links to the 2 studies
and the two sets of questions.
Science-based plans
No MEP peer review
Learn from Chesapeake Bay experience
$3 to $8 billion for Cape Cod
We are looking at the foundation for the waste water plan. We are looking at the science.
If you don't get the requirements right in the beginning the project is doomed to failure. So, make
sure you understand the problem before you design a solution and do it right the first time.
Eagles: MEP Mass. Estuaries Project—Collaboration between UMass and the DEP. They
produced the reports that formed the basis for the waster water management plan.
Learning from the Chesapeake Bay experience:
On the Cape we have spent about $12M through MEP program. It involves people from UMass
contractors. The data and model is not accessible (proprietary). That model is the basis for the $3
to $8 million investment on Cape. Off Cape (Bristol and Plymouth) even more.
Chesapeake— Program manager EPA Chesapeake Bay spent $500M on scientific investigation
Their models are open to the public for review. Invested 6B in infrastructure. Largest estuary in
U.S., 3rd largest in the world
Reviewed the Chesapeake Bay Program and how it works.
In discussion with MEP asked: What is success? Nutrient reduction. What does success look like?
Water quality, habitats, etc.? Goals for each. Evolving process. When have you done enough?
When have you accomplished your goal? It is a great uncertainty for citizens.
Pleasant Bay:
Largest embayment system in SE Mass.
Most complex: Lg. lagoons, tidal marsh, tidal rivers, terminal ponds, a complex and evolving inlet
system. Monitoring -All this data comes from MEP or data from the Pleasant Bay Alliance.
Caution: This information pertains only to Pleasant Bay.
*See PowerPoint Presentation for specific slides: Additional details are available on the
recording.
Declining Nitrogen Concentrations in Pleasant Bay 1987-2005
CWPC 10-25-10.doc Minutes Page 2 of 11
Declining Nitrogen Concentrations in Pleasant Bay 2000-2009
*From 2004 to 2009 level at or below MEP specification
Note: None of the towns have taken any action to reduce septic systems.
The 2007 Break off Minister's Point. 2006-2007 decline in nitrogen. Break is not the cause.
It was well on the way before this time period. It may be possible in several decades that the
barrier beach will eventually be gone and Pleasant Bay will be open to the Atlantic.
It has come down below the MEP specification. Has there been improvement in habitat quality
and water quality?
Declining Nitrogen Concentrations in Pleasant Bay 2000-2005
From MEP Report:
Pleasant Bay Septic Load is Very Small: See chart on slidel5.
Atlantic—50,500 pounds/day (98.2%)
Rainfall & Other— 723 (1.4%)
Septic Load - 200 (.4%)
Controllable load is septic and fertilizer from the land.
Nitrogen Mass Balance— How much nitrogen goes in and how nitrogen much goes out?
MEP Report: No mass balance provided.
Pleasant Bay— More than 50 times Septic Load is unaccounted for— (11k pounds per day.)
(Nitrogen in daily tidal outflow). Woods Hole Group has identified sources of input and sources of
loss that are not itemized in the MEP report. We don't have enough information in the MEP report.
*Nitrogen unaccounted for 11,000 pounds/day.
We are suggesting a truly Independent Peer Review, by the National Academy of Science (NAS)
(before a large investment is made). We have submitted 71 questions to MEP. MEP "Even for the
trained expert, some elements of the analysis that MEP has done remain unclear" — From Woods
Hole Group. They reviewed 3 specific issues.
Questions & Discussion:
Schell: A breach in outer barrier beach prior to new break?
Daley: Yes and new one in 2007 at Namequoit Point. 2 breaks
Schell: Estuary flushing from a source other than Nantucket Sound?
Eagles: Tidal flushing from Atlantic. 2007 breach increased the flushing. Now estimated 2/3 of
flushing now goes through North Beach.
Hughes, P: Who continues to monitor the data stations in Pleasant Bay?
Eagles: A group of volunteers take samples. (Pleasant Bay Alliance). We present the averages
each year. You can see in the data where the bottom sample will be higher than historically. It is
possible that the sampling was dropped sampling system on the bottom and turned up the bottom.
Samples are sent to UMass Dartmouth —They analyze the samples and return to the town.
Hughes, P: Sampling ended 2005, Alliance and others have done sampling. Also the case on the
bay side?
Eagles: Some. Very few (from audience)
CWPC W-25-10.doc Minutes Page 3 of 11
Eagles: The water quality data we have is very valuable. Carrying on and organizing the sampling
program going forward is important.
Daley: Especially after you spend money, you can show it is better, sell the system. Good
baseline of data is important. Show the improvements.
Hughes, J: Sampling since 2005 showing decrease? If not the breach what do you credit for the
decrease?
Daley: We don't know why it is coming down. The claim it is going up is wrong. It is useless to
speculate.
*See slide on page 9 of presentation. Discussion followed.
Home: prior to 87, late 18th century split, end of spit, south of Chatham, during 100 yr. period
Pleasant Bay became a repository. All the nitrogen stored in the bottom of bay. See recording.
Possible explanation
Home: MEP after 2005 does not track anymore. Water Quality Task Force. Data is still collected
but not reanalyzed. (Daley)
Daley: Our concern, 2005 we have already met the spec without doing anything. This is why we
are concerned about the science.
Home: It wasn't until we got involved that this data was available.
Pie chart, slide on pagel4 in presentation
Septic load is so low. Effect concentration very much? Brewster's has a small part, watershed —
SE part of Brewster. You might not influence the water quality at all.
Eagles: Contributed to decline discussion.
Hughes, J: slide page 16, 11,000 not accounted for?
Eagles: Explained further for J. Hughes.
Home: This points out that the model does not work.
Eagles: RE: old text book. "Fade of Nutrients in Environment": One of the fundamental tools in
model analysis is conservation of mass or mass balance. How do you conclude that removing 100
lbs is going to fix it?
Home: Their model represents small fraction of the total nitrogen.
Eagles: Discussion of MEP model continued. Pleasant Bay alone they used bioactive nitrogen
(created by MEP)this is only used in MEP reports.
Daley: This is part of our 35 questions. We need to try to get the answers to the questions.
Taylor: Where can we go with this now? Obvious holes in the logic. DEP so closely invested?
Politics? SMAST is here. CLF? Is this information going to end up in court? NAS?
Daley: A lot of good questions. Get a group together to look at the reports.
CWPC 10-25-10.doc Minutes Page 4 of 11
You are welcome to use any of our data. We will share the data. We can add your questions to
our list. The same questions may not apply to your town. You should get a group together and
have them look at your area.
NAS is coming Friday to Orleans Town Hall. We have recommended that they do an independent
review. Your BOS have supported it. 8 other towns have supported it. Hopefully Congressman
Delahunt's office will get congressional funding. EPA will be the sponsor.
Horne: Consider CC Bay reports, Namskaket Marsh— NEP findings. Namskaket. If they go ahead
all the sewage will go into Namskaket Marsh. Read those two reports.
Peter Johnson: If the town's wanted to they can file a brief? The town might consider this.
Some discussion followed regarding data, NAS (total SE coast)
Daley: NAS - This will be useful. An independent review with the best experts in the country.
It may go court first...
Schell: Newspaper Article—MEP question resolved by DEP? The DEP seeking independent
validation of the model being used by MEP for estuary. The two seem to be working together?
Daley: After it was know we requested a peer review from NAS. Barnstable County said they
would do their own peer review. It will cost $25k.
Schell: Good input but not related to my question.
Horne: Continued discussion regarding MEP, contract with Woods Hole Group...
Eagles: To give this to NAS gets it out of the local arena. EPA will probably get involved as a
sponsor. I would think the EPA would be interested since the lawsuit.
Hughes, P: Interesting to see what happens next. Fair to say the law firm representing the county
puts a lot of the responsibility back on the EPA.
Hughes, J: Modules you were not privy to? MEP was privy to?
Daley: Explained link model. UMass won't release the data. It is not available to the county since
they claim it is proprietary information. County commissioners say it should be released to the
public.
Eagles: A peer review does not involve the people in the program. It has to be done independently
Schell: Aren't' there ways to protect proprietary interests?
Daley: non-disclosure, pay royalty. Or you pay for access before making decisions. My suggestion
is to pay them to get access first.
Horne: &Audience discussion — UMass research should be available to the public. All the towns
in SW MA contribute to UMass research.
Peter Johnson: It is great you came to present to us. General informal discussion continued...
Hughes, J: How did you guys get together?
CWPC 10-25-10 doe Minutes Page 5 of 11
Daley: Started 2007, Paul Amman and I worked on building the town hall project. We could not
believe they did not have a peer review. We studied the reports and went to selectman. BOS
advertised and picked us to do the review. They wanted a technical committee.
Leven: A lot of towns working with a lot of consultants. Some consultants have seen these
reports. What is the opinion from the consultants?
Daley: The consultants are the designers. We are looking to make sure the requirements are
correct. Your town could select the right group of scientists for your town.
Eagles: A consultant will refer to what the groups of scientists are providing. Our concern is to
spend 3 to 8 billion dollars, and 30 yrs. down the road and the water quality isn't any better. We
want some level of confidence going into this that the foundation is right for the program.
Daley: Chesapeake Bay spent 6 billion and the water quality is worse than when they started. We
don't want to see this situation.
Eagles: They have experienced Improvements but not haven't achieved what they set out to do.
Home: Great political and financial interests. All SE Mass is interested. We were immediately cast
as the opposition. You are anti sewer. Local consultants? Does anyone not have a vested interest
with one of these groups? Unbiased opinion you have to go out of state.
Resident of Orleans —Audience: This group is extremely thorough, diligent, and they back up
what they say. They are not on an ego trip. Ed and the group have said in public if our numbers
are wrong, then we will accept that. No one has proved them wrong on anything. This is an awful
amount of money to spend if we don't get the results that everyone is expecting.
Hughes, P: How long has it been since you submitted your questions to DEP?
Daley: 2009, (Pleasant Bay) Oct. 2010 (Cape Cod Bay)
Eagles: We sat down with DEP in pubic meeting. You raise some interesting issues. They
volunteered to send us a response. We asked for backup information. They sent 7 or 8 pages of
the same stuff in the Pleasant Bay Report
Daley: We met with Eastham recently. They have a committee like yours. We share Rock Harbor.
Their conclusions are very close to our conclusions. We gave them a copy of our questions. Other
questions will be added from them to the DEP. I invite your committee to add to our questions. We
are happy to add them.
Hughes, P: Thank You.
Schell: Question -- stirred up sediment and question of bioactive nitrogen vs. nitrogen. Have you
thought about sampling and analysis to resolve the unaccounted for nitrogen?
Home: Addressed questions. Flush was questioned in the model. We hired Jeffrey Cornwell (from
Chesapeake Study) and had a lot of questions and reservations. We did not resolve this
satisfactorily. Jeff Eagles agreed. My guess is that the bay bottom has been a repository over 50
or 60 years. Maybe that is why the MEP model could not calibrate total nitrogen? It is Unknown.
There are lots of possibilities. We can't answer these questions.
CWPC 10-25-10.doc Minutes Page 6 of 11
Daley: If you look at old photos (100 yrs. ago) of Orleans you could see to Nauset Beach from
middle of town. Now there are a lot of trees that are depositing into these ponds. What is the
effect of debris of leaves?
Home: Pleasant Bay in the summertime. Pleasant Bay explanation addressed. (South facing
shorelines) There are mounds of dead eel grass. It rots and goes back into the water. This is part
of the natural process. More than half of the bottom is covered with eel grass. Grass fixes nitrogen
and recycles back into the soil. MEP did not consider this.
Eagles: There is a large seal population in Pleasant Bay. They produce nitrogen. If you guess
1000 seals, estimate -- 90Ib a day of nitrogen. 2000 seals in PB produce as much as all human
population, people and shoreline. Inlet system pre 1987 position remove people stop fertilizing
and still would not be able to do what DEP is proposing.
Hughes, P: You raise fundamental issues. What is and what is not in the MEP report. I appreciate
the analysis and the points you have raised. Brewster has an interest. A TMDL. CC bays report.
Waiting for Herring River from Harwich. We have been concerned with Namskaket and extent of
the watershed in Brewster. Waste Water facility?
Daley: Brewster owns 86% of that marsh. USGS should define the plume. What is the risk?
Skaket beach risk? Human risk? Tell us the potential risk so the selectman can make a decision.
Monumental increase to loading into that marsh.
Hughes, P: BOS Orleans agrees to fund USGS?Authorized?
Eagles: They authorized one study. ACEC. Cape Cod Bay— Namskaket and Rock Harbor.
We have not seen the second study. Don't know what this designation means.
Hughes, P: USGS —They have limited data. A portion a portion of the plume could be going under
the marsh?
Daley: What if it does not?We wanted more data and more wells. Beaches, marshes risk? Make
sure you know what you are doing before you do anything.
Bennett: Question regarding calibration of the link model? Reproduce the last ten years?
Projected nitrogen?
Eagles —Static model, not predictive model. Further explanation followed. It does not forecast.
1987 — Reset the model for the tidal conditions of that time. You can't use that model to see what
it looked like in 1995.
Bennett: Discussion followed around the model and options.... With Eagles
The nitrogen source as a predicted model? Change input parameters?
Daley: Now that the input data has changed. Recalibrate the model (2005-2009)
A different TMDL. Nature has already knocked the nitrogen numbers down.
Eagles: Need calibration data for the year. We don't know what it is.
Daley: DEP and SMass should recalibrate model. They would have to do it again for 2009, 2010.
It would produce a different TMDL. Natured has knocked down the nitrogen levels.
Bennett: Model affected by the amount of flushing?
CWPC 10-25-1O.doc Minutes Page 7 of 11
Daley: We don't know. When we went through this with Woods Hole, explanation followed as to
what they looked at. We had them estimate bias. (Discussion with Bennett.) Even the expert from
Woods Hole did not know....Multi variable parameters? What does it do to the water quality?
They do not know. Someone needs access to the model.
Horne: Commented on the flushing before the break.
Bennett: My question was about a multi variable analysis if you change some parameters.
Calibrate your model to be predictive to show it is actually valid. Wondering if there had been any
calibration.
Eagles participated in the discussion about models, etc. nitrogen concentrations....
You would have reset the tidal conditions, etc.
Bennett: Need real information on what groundwater quality is. Impaired or not impaired. Actual
conditions.
Home and other audience member: Re: water wells. No one has ever bothered to look at ground
water data in Orleans. Today everything is about the models. The state of science today. Reality
does not matter.
Home & Bennett, discussion cont. Pull information on the S. Orleans well field. Discussion
followed about wells, nitrogen, testing, and location of S. Orleans well field. Sparrows Place,
spring water, etc. (informal)
Schell: How does MEP support 0.16? Function of salinity, temperature, algae species?
Amman: Audience Members: MEP DEP—Start with the premise that problems in the bay is
caused by nitrogen. (Not temp, chlorophyll, septic, etc.)
They are interested in monitoring nitrogen. What do we do to tackle the nitrogen? Not MEP's
interest.
Eagles: This is why I pointed out the Chesapeake Bay project. Look at water quality targets.
Scientifically what will grant those improvements?
Taylor: If they are not looking at things that cause nitrogen to come out of the sediment?
Do temp. and soil affect it? Have they looked at all the parameters?
Amman: Jeff talked about this. If you decrease nitrogen in PB, bioactive nitrogen improves
dissolved oxygen...eel grass comes back....that rationale.
Taylor: Increase in temperature, less oxygen. Less eel grass, ocean temps. Ocean salinity
changing.
Hughes, J: Raises important issues. You have given us a lot to think about.
Daley: Will send all reports. Thank you for inviting us.
Hughes, J: Thank you for all the work you have done. We will continue to interact.
The Orleans group left at 6:15PM.
CWPC 10-25-10 doe Minutes Page 8 of 11
Other Business:
Hughes, J: Our next meeting is the 11/8/10. Will CDM be here?
Leven: Checking with Dave @ CDM.
Hughes, P: I would not mind having a group meeting. We could talk about recommendations that
came from this discussion. What work to contract?
Leven: Why assume something based on other information when you can get the real data and
figure it out. Update on Finances: After paying CDM, we have about 210k. That will get us through
the bridge work between edge of Phase I and beginning of Phase II. We need to look at the
possibilities. How do we want to get that work done?
Hughes, P: Decide if we would need to request money in the Spring?
Leven: Yes. Ask for additional allocation in the Spring. We cannot ask for more money now when
we have money. We are lucky to be in this position.
Miller: We should revisit recommendations from the pond study. It takes a year or more for results.
Hughes, P: Agree. The Pond Study and develop a pond strategy.
Miller: Specific recommendations. Flux, samples, etc.
Bennett: Do we know how much each of these items will cost?
Hughes, P: No. We need to identify key bridge projects we want to get funded because they are
valuable for the next phase.
Bennett: Frame top six wish list.
Bridge Projects to Request Funding:
• Pond study, cont. monitoring
• Improve connectivity of computer records. (assessor's and water dept.) Integrated
information Infrastructure
• Full build out analysis for town
• Analysis of conforming and non conforming uses in our zoning
Leven: Underpass Rd. State class codes in assessor's db are not correct. We may want to look
at certain areas. (Industrial zone, Zone 2) Class codes definitions incorrect, findings, and then it
becomes the assessor's office priority to get the money to fix it.
Hughes, J: In-house projects, contract out, RFP?
Leven: There are recommendations made that we need to do immediately if we expect to put
together a believable next phase. CDM was clear where a lot of the holes are. Data, GIS, etc.
Hughes, J: Do we need a consultant?
Leven: If we want it done this year we need a consultant. We have Spoken to other departments.
(Jim, Chris, Bob) Where drains are? Can we do this with an AmeriCorps volunteer? Eagle Scout?
CWPC 10-25-10.doc Minutes Page 9 of 11
Hughes, P: Get the key projects together and then determine internally and then contracted out
projects.
Miller: If we go to DPW and ask them to map storm basins. They don't have staff to do this We
need a list of recommendations from this committee. DPW, etc. Give to Selectman. There has to
be funding sources.
Hughes, P: Hopefully we can accomplish some of this with the money we have.
Leven: Possibility of using CC Commission.
Bennett: Generate jobs?
Hughes, J: i.e. does DPW have OT funds to have someone do this work?
Leven: We are asking other departments to update their data. We might be able to give them
incentive to do it now.
Bennett: Prioritize. Get it done professionally. Land surveyor example for GIS maps.
Miller: Find the storm water basins. We have not funded the last part. Why not?
Leven: I have photographs from Chris. (Rain photographs, examples of storm water)
Hughes, P: For next meeting. On agenda —A list of what has been identified to setup for next
phase. What work has to be done? Eastham and Hinckley's Pond?
Leven: Told Sandy this is a winter project. We did not meet with Harwich. I will touch base. What
do we want to get out of that study at next meeting?
Minutes:
June 3 Minutes-done already
June 14 2010 Minutes
Bennett: Motion to accept as written
Skidmore second, All Aye.
Schell and Hughes, J: abstain.
*Taylor—Cranberry meeting docs. On their website? Distribute to group.
August 9 2010 Minutes
Hughes, J: Motion to accept as corrected
Bennett, second, All Aye.
August 23 2010 Minutes
Bennett: Motion to accept as corrected
Skidmore, second, All Aye
Other Business:
November Meetings: 11/8 and 11/22
Skidmore: Standardize file naming conventions on the Web site. (Minutes)
CWPC 10-25-10.doc Minutes Page 10 of 11
Bennett: NAS Friday meeting in Orleans. Is it open to residents? Have they agreed to take this
on?
Leven: The purpose is to be an informational meeting.
Bennett: Letter drafted from all communities to NAS?
Leven: It has been shared with them that there is interest from other communities.
Taylor: Chances of getting money?
Leven: Delahunt Office will need to provide congressional funding.
Bennett: Support further movement?
Leven: Yes. Issue—See what everyone has to say.
Hughes, J: Selectman signed letter?
Leven: Orleans sent a formal request? Sent to county?
Bennett: People want this to be done. Let's not let this get lost.
Leven: Sarah Peake initiated.
Hughes, P: Whoever goes, follow up at next meeting.
Bennett: Ask where does this request stand now?
Leven: Why are they here and what are next steps?
The town is looking for their input.
Pat and Sue will be going to Friday meeting in Orleans.
Bennett: Lawsuit update: papers filed? Notice of intent to sue?
Leven: They just submitted their response.
Next meeting: November 8, 2010 at 4:30PM
Motion to adjourn: Skidmore, Hughes, J. Second
All Aye
Meeting ended 7:07PM
-sp:ct ilk- submitted,•
krboh'04 iy! 040 sa*,01144
4 4,1°.
.
'a:`=nnett Kelly Moore
Sr. Dept. Assts-nt/Planning -
CWPC 10-25-10.doc Minutes Page 11 of 11