Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutComprehensive Water Planning -- 2011-01-10 Minutes \\p\\\\\UH111111 I I!f f!Ill j%ji Com rehensive Water Planning P o "F - Town of Brewster Committee 3 =' !G h!__,. "m,;' 2198 Main Street y ?No,� i a y j_ 0 illfEiil„�f:u Brewster, Massachusetts 02631-1898 — — (508) 896-3701 FEQ 9 iBO, ��� FAX (508) 896-8089 Date Approved: 2/14/11, 5-0-0, Lipman abstain TOWN OF BREWSTER MINUTES OF - COMPREHENSIVE WATER PLANNING COMMITTEE REGULAR MEETING Monday, January 10, 2011 at 4:30 pm = _ Brewster Town Office Building Pat Hughes convened the Comprehensive Water Planning Committee meeting at 4:31 pm in the Brewster Town Office Building with members, Lem Skidmore, Russell Schell, Dave Bennett, Joanne Hughes, Elizabeth Taylor, and Amy Usowski present. Absent: Jane Johnson, John Lipman Also Present: Sue Leven, Jim Gallagher, Chris Miller, Peter Johnson Recording or Taping Notification "As required by the Open Meeting Law we are informing you that the Town will be audio taping this public meeting. In addition, if anyone else intends to either video or audio tape this meeting they are required to inform the chair.” Citizen Forum – No comments Group Discussion of CDM Final Report CDM is coming to the meeting on 1/24/11. Sue is compiling all edits and will send the revised document to CDM. She plans on sending this next week. The group discussed the executive summary, glossary, use of acronyms, etc. Elizabeth thought the summary is not well written and the grammar is poor. She questions the amount of acreage for Brewster. She is sending her edits to Sue. Lem thought a change log with revisions would have been helpful. Pat told the group that CDM is treating this version as the final document. Lem commented on the Board of Health (BOH) recommendation to develop an electronic database. This does not say what we mean it to say. He mentioned the planned BMSI installation at Town Hall. Pat suggested "complete the electronic database project" Page ES 15, #7. Page 7-2, #7 (Report reference) Jim explained the permitting software from BMSI is for the whole town. Training is coming soon. It is hooked up to GIS. It is a way for the town to share data electronically. It is all about what is being put into it. He is not sure how it is being constructed or what it can do. Kathy in IT and a BMSI rep. requested permits from the Conservation Department. Each department is meeting at the end of the month. Joanne is concerned with the database project. We have been told we need it. We are not sure what we are getting. Lem referenced the report—They have said that we need a database with septic information. Jim explained that each department will have to tell BMSI what they want the software to do. This is only the software that connects us. Each department will have to define their requirements. Ex. BOH pumping records CWPC 1-10-11.doc Minutes Audio recording—CWPC_11011_audiominutes.doc 1 Pat thinks we have made a list of what we want from the BOH records. Joanne recommends sharing the list with the BOH. Elizabeth thinks we should talk to the BMSI consultants. Want to be able to do sample searches, like all parcels on a pond. A discussion continued with the group regarding the BOH, BMSI, data, process, etc. Sue said that BMSI is not in charge of defining the type of data we require. Pat agrees. We should generate a list of the information we want(a memo) to be included in BMSI software for the BOH. Storm water Discussion: Russell—Topic: Storm water control under the BOH. No action has been taken over the last 5 to 6 years. He has the impression that no one is dealing with storm water issues. He has commented to Sue and Pat regarding his concerns. Do you expect DPW to work with BOH? Pat's Response-The DPW owns storm water remediation. Please provide the info to Sue Leven so we can learn and have a better discussion. Storm water remediation has been done, resource management, setting priorities by Natural Resources department. (Paine's Creek) A lengthy discussion continued with Russell and Pat. Amy commented that in Eastham's case if you have not completed action items you cannot move forward. Chris commented about a grant for Stony Brook Rd, North of 6A, and a recent storm water grant submitted. We are actively seeking grants. Not sure about locating catch basins. Bob Bersin has worked on it. Sue followed up to say that she will be catching up with Bob Bersin to hear more about this. Pat requested that Russell send the link to the group for follow up BMSI Software: BOH Each department has individual records. What has been requested so far? Lem will draft a summary recommendation for CDM. (End of the week) The group recommends the following being included in the permitting software: Location of septics Wells Variances Ponds DCPC? Location of leaching facility Requiring GPS coordinates for system components? (Up to BOH) Reserve area? Pumping records? How critical are they? Lem and Elizabeth will talk and get a final list to Sue. The group discussed private wells and local requirements. BOH?Dave said that houses with private wells were in an environmentally sensitive area. That no longer exists. (State standards.) Further discussion continued regarding setbacks. Dave said there is not enough recognition of conservation work and BOH regulations (ahead of other towns) in the CDM report. BOH and conservation commission bylaws are more intensive than state regulations. They gave the sand and gravel regulation and DCPC recognition. They did not talk about the local bylaws. Pat's comments: We talked to CDM about reviewing our DCPC zoning bylaws and commenting. Elizabeth please get a list to Sue to include in the document. Draft a memo to Nancy Ellis Ice. Executive Summary Item #6 Sampling. CWPC 1-10-11.doc Minutes Audio recording—CWPC_11011_audiominutes.doc 2 Dave commented and can rewrite this and send it to Sue. Include all the data they have including Lem's data from Barnstable County. (Re-sampling.) He mentioned 1988 project, water resource investigation. Water quality data is important. Page 7.2, Section 7. Dave will email his comments to Sue. Recommendations: County lab—all these records should be part of the BOH system. Nitrogen concentrations identified in the town. They started out with 4 or 5 wells, Great Fields Rd., (manure management problem) this gives a negative bias to the town. They did not have the benefit of all the information. Is there a value to re-sampling wells? (Asked by Pat) Eastham has a good program. They give you color coded maps. i.e. Nitrogen >5 is red. Then you can determine where to focus on ground water quality. There was a lengthy group discussion regarding#6. Section #7. Joanne, Lem, Dave, Sue, Pat Sue wants to send CDM one version by next Friday 1/14/11. Dave will send her something this Wed. 1/12/11. Lem will provide list for BOH, permitting software project. Rewriting #7. All comments otherwise have been sent to Sue. Sue— Bridge Projects— See attachment#1 Build Out—Will be based on cost. Hinckley Pond Project—Participation with Harwich Evaluation of Stony Brook Pond System (Committee's choice) Data Synthesis (info. into useful form) Water use Septic records (some electronic data, depends on how far we want to go back) Storm water; add outfall locations to the existing maps, map those places where there is no formal drainage Chris asked to add the effectiveness of storm water catch basins. There are a lot in place. We are going to run into a big issue here with private roads. There was a group discussion about Private Roads— Impacting bodies of water, erosion. Town will need to impress upon them. Peter Johnson—Is it still of value if does not include Private Roads? Sue said private roads might be done in a second pass. She mentioned the possibility of homeowners fixing roads, not the town. Ask for estimate on all roads and public roads only. Chris: Not including catch basins at Nickerson State Park. Chris suggests a discussion with Bob Bersin regarding private roads. Joanne mentioned that"3C" and "4" overlap. Pat stated that there will be one RFP for data management, formatting, GIS mapping. Sue will add "assure GIS compatibility." Russ: Build Out—conservation easements on golf course. What kind of guidance for build out? Leven: It would show development of lots and some open space....Or not every lot built out. Sue explained options. Russ: Worse case, 50%, 75%... Pat: Full build out would be the worse case scenario. The group discussed the golf course. Chris& Joanne: Maybe golf could have a conservation restriction in exchange for some cash. BOS discussed this option. They did not hear this argument here against build out. Long term, may cost less. Russell : Ponds. I have problems with (2b) Stony Brook. 1) Hinckley Pond is covered by SMAST report. Ila, sub III, IV should be prerequisite to number III under Stony Brook. Leven: I would take out 3. When we talked to Ed Eichner we discussed the ability to do some measure of work to show before asking for more money. We are following Ed's recommendation regarding sediment core samples. Sediment core samples are part of a developing Phosphorus budget. All are necessary prerequisites to developing a general remediation. Best management practices. CWPC 1-10-11.doc Minutes Audio recording—CWPC_11011_audiominutes.doc 3 Pat mentioned that Ed said at a minimum do these 2 things. It would lead to remediation opportunities. We can build on later when there is more money available. Russell thinks it is not an appropriate way to address these projects. Pat and Sue discussed the Hinckley Pond project being shared with Harwich and Brewster. When we asked Ed he agreed with these priorities. Russell confirmed that hopefully you acknowledge the need to do the same thing for Stony Brook that you are doing for Hinckley once you have adequate funding. Pat confirmed. The group discussed Stony Brook and the Hinckley projects with Ed Eichner's recommendations. Russell's objections are noted in these minutes. The question is how frequently the oxygen concentration affects the phosphorus.... He wants a Phosphorus budget on the pond. Identify large source of run off(Elbow Pond)wetland adjacent to the pond. He does not want this ignored. He stated that this is not the way to go. Pat said that we don't know if your statement is correct. There was a disagreement between Pat and Russell regarding the concept of a phosphorus budget. Russell said we should not continue with this discussion. Pat acknowledged that the process is important. Russell feels that it should be part of a phosphorus budget for the pond. He feels that core samples by themselves have no significance. Pat explained that due to budget constraints we can only do a few things at a time. She is not negating the importance of a phosphorus budget. Stony Brook is important water shed for us. Russell thinks this should not be done without a phosphorus budget. Pat thinks it is recognized in the pond study. We know we need to do a lot more detailed analysis. These are the first few steps. Chris said these are important steps but we need to do more. A phosphorus budget is recommended in the Pond Report. (Walker, Upper and Lower Mill Pond) It is recommended to setup a budget. ($35k for$40k per pond. $120k total.) That is why we can't do all the ponds at once. We need to take small steps first. Joanne: If we do core samples this year will they still be valuable next year? Russell: Yes. Dave: Data Synthesis— item "b" changed to BOH records. Elizabeth: Core measurements are done as a precursor to developing a phosphorus budget. It looks like you are not doing anything for Stony Brook. Motion to accept this list?—This is where we want to spend the money. Delegate to write RFP's and solicit bids and write RFP's. The group discussed the process. Sue will add in the comments and resend the list to the group. Vote: Motion: Joanne: Sue considers our comments; go ahead with the immediate future considerations Dave: Second Discussion: Dave: Input on scopes of work as we go along? Pat: Careful thought and technical expertise to develop these scopes of work. I would ask members of the committee to draft scopes and work with staff to hand over the RFP's. All Aye The group reviewed the schedule of meeting dates for 2011. The group reviewed and discussed the letter regarding the Orleans CWMP, attachment#2 Chris mentioned that we have not raised an objection about nitrogen effluent....Brewster(Pleasant Bay Study) He asked about responses from town? It would be great to come from the BOS. Concerns regarding potential discharge into Namskaket. Nothing has gone beyond this committee. Joanne asked if CDM comments on Namskaket. 7.5.3 Dave: It is time to prepare a statement for BOS? Regional recommendations.... "Namskaket as an asset to the town" CWPC 1-10-11.doc Minutes Audio recording—CWPC_11011_audiominutes.doc 4 Pat: A letter from the committee to the CCC before this public hearing. Russell: In order to have standing in these matters you have to take every opportunity to document your position. Page ES 6, Maps, Begins— Pat read from the report. Sue will write letter. Raise objections. Chris commented about the tri town plan. Dave: 1)Treated wastewater in Namskaket is our concern. 2) Regional transfer of water out of the Monomoy lense. There is a Plan in the works for Eastham to buy Orleans water to solve water problems... **The group discussed Eastham's plans and Brewster's concerns. They also discussed at length what to include in this letter. A majority of the % is Brewster's (Namskaket) The group will get a letter together, cc: DEP, document land use and planning has affected this system. Dave mentioned the Water flow to Pleasant Bay. He thinks it is a big talking point in regionalization. Russ—If you read the Namskaket TMDL, you come away with the realization that there is not a nitrogen problem at all. Eel grass criteria... The group agreed that the Namskaket issue is very important Dave: Offered further explanation of the waste water treatment plan for Orleans. Nitrogen credits for dollars = a regional deal. Pat: I am not in a position to agree or disagree. Regarding the public hearing, next Tuesday 1/18/11; Chris and Sue are correct. The most important thing for us to do is to preserve our right to Namskaket. We need to make it clear that we consider that excess Nitrogen is a very important resource to us. Russell: We anticipate an element in a larger regional sharing proposal. The group does not want to address the regional proposal yet. Sue will draft a letter. Pat, Sue and Elizabeth will go to the meeting and read the letter. Dave asked to include that we know we have additional work to do with Orleans, including but not limited to Namskatet, Pleasant Bay, and interbasin transfer of drinking water. If we can save money and take care of our needs by regionalization then we need to look at it. Sue will share letter with Ed Lewis and Charlie Sumner. Other Business: Review Minutes from 10/25/10 Dave Bennett—Motion to accept as written Joanne Hughes --Second All Aye Amy Usowski -abstain Next meeting: January 24, 2011 at 4:30 pm Motion to adjourn: Pat Hughes Lem Skidmore -Second All Aye tii.gen .•42 p m tted tie ') I I_ A1 . Iti.. D W17, Clerk Kell T oore, Sr.jePt. Assi 'tant Planning CWPC 1-10-11.doc Minutes Audio recording—CWPC_11011_audiominutes.doc 5 Attachment# 1 Immediate future considerations 1. Build out: Choice is based on cost. a. Town-wide: i. Buildout potential based on highest use under zoning ii. Total and ""logical" buildout for traditionally open land such as Sea Camps, Golf Course, and other large non-conservation land iii. Look at options for land currently zoned Industrial and land that could be b. Pleasant Bay and Namskaket watersheds i. Buildout potential based on highest use under zoning ii. Total and ""logical" buildout for traditionally open land such as Sea Camps, Golf Course, and other large non-conservation land iii. Look at options for land currently zoned Industrial and land that could be 2. Ponds a. Hinckley's Pond project with Harwich i. Compile all existing reports and data from sources referred to above. ii. Develop a water budget including all surface, groundwater, and direct precipitation for the ponds in the watershed. iii. Develop a phosphorus budget considering watershed loads, direct precipitation and sediment load; a budget shall be prepared for the conditions after the Long Pond alum project. iv. Identify data gaps and indicate the extent to which such additional data would or would not improve the findings. b. Stony Brook pond system i. Sediment core samples to determine phosphorous levels ii. Flow measurement to assess need for increased flow between ponds iii. Develop general remediation opportunities, depending on outcome. 3. Data Synthesis a. Water Use i. Evaluate quality of electronic data ii. Determine number of years required based on available data and quality of data iii. Convert data to GIS format b. Septic Records i. Evaluate quality of electronic data ii. Determine number of years required based on available data and quality of data iii. Convert data to GIS format c. Stormwater i. Add shapefile based on completion of project to locate outfalls ii. Include direct outfall to ponds and beaches from road 4. Stormwater: Extent of work(all catch basins, those appearing to discharge to sensitive areas) depending on cost a. Determine location of catch basins b. Determine outfall for all catch basins c. Locate direct outfall of runoff to ponds and beaches d. Prioritize outfall to be remediated Attachment#2 Secretary Ian Bowles Executive Office of Environmental Affairs 100 Cambridge Street Boston, MA 02114 Mr. Paul Niedzwiecki CWPC 1-10-11.doc Minutes Audio recording—CWPC_11011_audiominutes.doc 6 Executive Director Cape Cod Commission PO Barnstable, MA 02630 Re: Orleans Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan, MEPA File#14414 Dear Secretary Bowles and Mr. Niedzwiecki: The Pleasant Bay Alliance is writing to comment on the Single/Final Environmental Impact Report filing for the above referenced project. The Alliance is the inter-municipal organization of Orleans, Chatham, Harwich and Brewster formed to facilitate implementation of the resource management plan for the Pleasant Bay Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) and the Pleasant Bay watershed. The completion of a final Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan is a critical step in the Town of Orleans' on-going efforts to protect water resources while enhancing the quality of life and economic vitality of the community. The reduction of nitrogen loads from watershed sources is a priority objective outlined in the Pleasant Bay Resource Management Plan and subsequent updates. The Town and all who participated in the development of the CWMP are to be commended for preparing a thorough, effective and adaptable plan for minimizing the threat of nutrient loading to coastal, freshwater and groundwater resources. On May 22, 2009 the Alliance submitted comments on the Draft CWMP. The responses to these comments provided in the final CWMP and highlighted in the letter from Mr. Michael D. Giggey to Secretary Bowles (December 9, 2010) adequately address the issues raised. The following comments are provided for further consideration by EEA, Cape Cod Commission and the Town of Orleans. Phasing and Regionalization The proposed phasing of sewering outlined in the CWMP will allow time for wastewater planning to evolve in the Towns of Brewster and Harwich, and provide on-going opportunities to reassess options for multi-town efforts. In section 11.6, Adaptive Management, the CWMP asks whether the Pleasant Bay Alliance could play a role in facilitating multi-town cooperation. The Pleasant Bay Alliance will continue to facilitate the sharing of information on wastewater management as well as coordination of related regional projects and studies. Our watershed workgroup meets monthly to address the status of local planning efforts, state regulations, regional developments, and opportunities for joint modeling, monitoring and research. Examples of regional action range from studies such as the Fertilizer Management Study described below, to projects such as the assessment of a potential culvert redesign for Route 28 at Muddy Creek. The Alliance's role as a facilitator of a watershed-based dialogue on nutrient management plans and projects will continue, and we invite all member towns to bring forth issues and proposals of mutual interest for discussion and coordinated action. Satellite Treatment We appreciate the greater detail provided in the CWMP regarding the interim treatment of wastewater in the Pleasant Bay watershed. The proposed location of satellite treatment plants at the headwaters of Paw Wah, Arey's and Lonnie's Ponds will provide some progress in achieving TMDLs prior to phase 5 when sewer installation would occur. We note that the final CWMP establishes target nitrogen effluent concentrations of 5 or 10 mg/I for the satellite plants. Non-Structural Alternatives The final CWMP lists a number of non-structural management alternatives that, if successful, could reduce infrastructure needs in later phases of the implementation. Fertilizer management is listed among the action areas that could help to reduce watershed nutrient load. The Alliance recently completed a watershed Fertilizer Management Study (Horsley Witten, 2010) that outlines specific steps to achieve a reduction in watershed nutrient load. Special consideration was given to include actions that could yield measurable results with the potential to be credited toward TMDL compliance. The report demonstrates that the recommended measures would reduce watershed nutrient load in the Pleasant Bay watershed by 5%. Broader application of these actions could yield reductions in other watersheds. Implementation of the recommended measures will be among the Alliance's priorities this year, and will require coordination among the towns, golf course managers, and homeowners. Compliance Monitoring CWPC 1-10-11.doc Minutes Audio recording—CWPC_11011_audiominutes.doc 7 Section 11.7 outlines a monitoring program for TMDL compliance reporting. Monitoring is among the areas where regional coordination can be very cost effective. A prime example of this is the Alliance's citizen water quality monitoring program. The Alliance will be continuing this comprehensive water quality monitoring program focused on nutrient related parameters. These data will continue to be available to all towns for compliance reporting. In addition, the Alliance has been in communication with MassDEP regarding standards for monitoring of eelgrass and bethic infauna. The Alliance will continue to pursue further guidance from MassDEP on standards for efficient and cost effective compliance monitoring. As compliance monitoring standards develop, full consideration should be given to whether aspects of monitoring and reporting can be accomplished more cost effectively on a regional basis. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Sincerely, cc: Laurie Burt(Ken Kimmel) Commissioner, MassDEP Brian Dudley, DEP SERO Orleans Board of Selectmen John Kelly, Town Manager George Meservey, Town of Orleans CWPC 1-10-11.doc Minutes Audio recording—CWPC_11011_audiominutes.doc 8 Action Items: Updated 1/14/11 Action Items: CWPC Meeting 1/10/11 Topic/Owner: Comments: Status: CDM REPORT, FINAL VERSION • Submit CDM Final version of Brewster Leven organizing all comments from In process, Due 1/20/11 IWRMP Needs Assessment from CDM committee • Draft summary recommendation for CDM Lem Skidmore Due end of week to Sue, 1/14/11 • Final list to Sue, Memo to Nancy Ellis Ice, Elizabeth and Lem —Comments to Sue 1/14/11 BOH • #6 Sampling, Executive Summary CDM Dave Bennett to send comments to Sue 1/14/11 report Follow up with the Cranberry Growers Association. Leven Information has been requested. Who are the Brewster Members? Will try to get status before next meeting. Pending Talk to Tom Cambareri, Bob Bersin (Chris Miller) Maps and paper vs. what is on computer? Waiting for them to collect Berms? Storm water?Working vs. non information before meeting. Have working catch basins, Discharge to the also been in touch with Paul ponds? Private Roads, Other budgets. Anderson. Will meet after 12/13. Pending Leven Letter to E. Director, Paul Niedzwiecki, CCC and Group working on letter Pending Secretary Ian Bowles, Executive Office of Send and bring letter public hearing Environmental Affairs on 1/18/11 CWPC 1-10-11.doc Minutes Audio recording—CWPC_11011_audiominutes.doc 9