Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutComprehensive Water Planning -- 2011-01-24 Minutes \\\111\111 l 1411 I I!f f 1!1!/////// eaews),. o� Comprehensive Water Planning `. Town of Brewster Committee 2198 Main Street O _OM% F Brewster, Massachusetts 02631-1898• * z •= ;r (508) 896-3701 F9.R;9 RP8p30 FAX (508) 896-8089 /1//NtgfllllllAi110 Date Approved: 2-28-11 Vote: 6-0-0 TOWN OF BREWSTER MINUTES OF COMPREHENSIVE WATER PLANNING COMMITTEE (CWPC) REGULAR MEETING Monday, January 24, 2011 at 4:30 pm Brewster Town Office Building Pat Hughes convened the CWPC meeting at 4:33 pm in the Brewster Town Office Building with members, Lem Skidmore, Russell Schell, Dave Bennett, Joanne Hughes, Elizabeth Taylor, and Amy Usowski present. Absent: Sue Leven, John Lipman Also Present: Jim Gallagher, Peter Norton, CDM Staff: David Young, Rob Musci, Bernadette Kolb. Brewster Conservation Trust(BCT) President Peter Johnson and Vice President Hal Minis. Attachments: Options Moving Forward Memo, 0124_A Comments on Brewster Final Phase Report I-Needs Assessment, 0124_B 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 with CDM, Final Report Dave Young of CDM reviewed the process of producing the final report, which will be provided in the next few weeks. He chose certain comments to elaborate on with the committee. The comments document is attached. 0124_B Summary of Young's review: Item#9 Executive Summary— He reviewed the comments that Sue Leven put together. Bennett: Explained letter to Orleans re: wastewater plan. 1) Namskaket creek, 2) Possible solution to the Town of Eastham—A request from Eastham to possibly buy water from Orleans. He mentioned this to lead a thread, or open a dialogue between the towns for a comprehensive meeting about shared resources/regional facility. Personal concerns- How does this affect the Monomoy Lens? Regionalizing all waste water and dumping it into Namskaket? Hughes, P.: We have had discussions regarding the potential for Eastham to buy water from Orleans. CWPC 1-24-11.doc Audio recording—CWPC_012411_audiominutes 1 Bennett: It is public record. Eastham's town Web site includes information on this subject matter. Young: ES Item 38, Table ES#3 Well data and sampling. Re-sampling. Further study required. Bennett provided a copy of the missing attachment (Stearns&Wheler data)for Young. Ref: 1988 Report from Joanne Hughes. Other data sources. Is there more to this as a recommendation? How it is to be done? Bennett: This is a very important part of any water quality review. You gave a fair representation of what needs to be done going forward. I am disappointed in further review. We have capitalized this in our bridge projects. Mentioned Captain's Golf Course, fertilizer plans, etc. 15 years of data. We don't need models to tell us what it should be. I don't believe there is enough information on ground water quality data Skidmore: Comment is to get the data? Bennett: The vast majority of the wells have good water quality. Young: Section 3, page 3-15, items#7 and#8 Taylor: Confirmed Orenda Wildlife Trust Land. Also a conservation parcel on Thad Ellis Rd., owned by the State Page 324, Section 3.3-11 Brewster Park, Bay side area with title V issues. Now we have further clarification from BOH, due to rehabs' or tear downs, in the bayside areas. Not failure Hughes, J: Explained further Hughes, P: asked Hughes, J: Parcels that have mounded systems? Hughes, J: Possibly Tammi might have these. Taylor: Add this to the letter to BOH. —Letter from committee? Young: Question on Section 5 of the ponds, item 3 Will add wording and mercury levels with natural fish vs. stocked fish *A lengthy discussion occurred with Kolb, Schell, Bennett, &Taylor regarding fish hatchery, mercury levels... Kolb: Sheep's Pond, Mercury TMDL, was part of a state report, explained further... Taylor: Page 3-15, definition and explanation of open space. Open space comment. She explained open protected space. Musci: He explained they took some parcels out of the study. He explained protective open space and definitions. It might not be defined as it is in your regulations. Young and Taylor discussed concept of open space. Taylor says it is 32.7 % (State#). Taylor will find web site and send it to Young. *A discussion occurred with Hughes, P., Taylor, Bennett, Young. Open Space definition Taylor: It is a review in process. Protected vs. Open space, who owns what?This is being worked on. Bennett: A range instead of an actual value. Recreation fields and golf course are not in here. Young: At one time they were included. You are doing a good job buying open space, keep doing it. `A discussion occurred with all regarding %of open space Hughes, P: Build out analysis—work with town staff Schell: Golf course and 55 acre plot. Conservation restriction. Mentioned BOS meeting, golf course, 55 acre plot on north side might be placed under conservation restriction. Young: Section 5, Page 5-21 data analysis section. CWPC 1-24-11.doc Audio recording—CWPC_012411_audiominutes 2 Hughes, P: Synthesize data in tabular form. A way for someone not on the committee to grasp the information. For example if we go to the Finance Committee we could show the table and reference the report. Young: More examples on how to use these tables. Young: Section 7 First comment. Identify MS4. Storm water requirements Schell: If someone comes to chapter 7 without being a part the of earlier discussions it might be a struggle to understand. A supplemental organization by compliance for Nitrogen for water sheds that is tributary to Pleasant Bay, compliance with TMDL. For ponds isn't it really compliance with DEP surface water quality standards, Contamination of the Bay beaches isn't it really compliance with storm water MS4 compliance? How much different would your recommendations be if you had to comply with these three areas. How much of this is mandatory? Important consideration when it comes to seeking general recommendation of the cost. Young: One idea is if we went back to ES 3, Page ES15 add a column or*, **to each recommendation and denote whether it is a clean water act or storm water item (located in the Executive Summary) Schell: That pretty much covers it. Hughes, P: Highlighting what is meeting a requirement is a good idea. I am glad that you mentioned it. Young: Section 6 item 10, Rob, Section 6.6 All MS4 permit requirements must be met. We are not in charge of your storm water permitting. I am hesitant to issue a report that you are not in compliance. We go with what Bob Bersin gives us. Hughes, P: Work with DPW and get the mapping done. Rob will leave this comment along. Bennett agrees. Young: Most of the other comments are pretty self explanatory. Question regarding a preference of the glossary. Glossary of terms (order) near acronyms or near the back? Bennett and Hughes, P: The back. Abbreviations vs. acronyms Hughes, J: Reverse order? Hughes, P: Any other questions or comments? Taylor: There is a 1000 acres difference in open space— I will get a list to him. Was your list based on assessor's data? Bennett: Imperative for the build out. Young: Please get us what you want us to use for the report. Hughes, P: The bridge project list you have has our priorities. She summarized priorities for CDM. See attachment 0124_A—OPTIONS MOVING FORWARD. Bennett: We developed this list from their report. Do they agree? Young: We brought a GIS person down to talk to department heads. He analyzed what the town has. Determine the basic minimum you need. Young reviewed the options memo and provided feedback. Water use, Storm water issues, Zoning and Planning, Non- conforming uses (map). There is a draft storm water permit under review. EPA. He provided overview of the process. Your focus, #3 is correct. That you are in agreement with best management practices. Kolb: Storm water pipe network. Go ahead and expand it. Knowing where the storm water sheds are is useful. Not just the location of the outfalls. Young: Item#3 and #4, right on. CWPC 1-24-11.doc Audio recording—CWPC_012411_audiominutes 3 He explained that he met with Pat and shared information about work done in Harwich. (mapping for water sheds) MEP work for build out Ponds: Discussions with Harwich. Monitoring network of ponds. Hughes, P: Explained priorities based on current financial limitations. Stony Brook system important to the town. Hinckley Pond important joint project with Harwich. Kolb: Recommendations: Stony Brook water shed—contact the cranberry growers association and do inventories of practices. Re: high quality ponds—How much easier it is to help protect a HQ pond then to take a pond and bring it back. Pay attention to Sheep Pond. Look at parcels and see what else can be done. Sheep Pond interests me because of mound and ground water table. Look at ground water models and understand why it is the way it is. Young: Orleans topic, waited a year before asking for money to implement their CWWMP. Part of their solutions moving forward? (addressed to D. Bennett) Factor in the timing to maximize value. Namskaket asset discussions, Contribution for Brewster(Nitrogen) Pleasant Bay, MEP report. Hughes, P: Orleans CWWMP, noted these are important factors. Young: Part of your build out analysis. Bennett: We report to the BOS, are we tasked with contacting other towns, similar committees? Hughes, P: BOS the point of contact with setting up the meetings, we provide technical support to those discussions. Bennett: Point is well taken. Issues identified. Are there actual plans or tabular listings with highest nitrogen values?Water sheds? Young: SMAST data disc. It is coded by assessor sheet and water use He explained how it is interpreted. The group continued a technical discussion regarding report output based on water use. Musci: Kilograms per day is possible. You can see the level of treatment for different facilities Schell: Orleans plan, technically you have an inervasive transfer? Monomony Lense and Cape Cod Bay Young: Model details discussed further. Hughes, P: Options moving forward memo, See attachment#0124_A Schell: (Comments received via email) Pat Hughes opened discussion of Options Moving Forward, dated January 20, 2011. Schell advocated for retention of the current consultant, CDM, and implementation of Option 1 with the flexibility to accommodate parallel work effort by Town and Consultant. It is proposed that at a pre-Phase 2 work session, representatives from CDM, CWPC and the Town Administrator concur on a matrix for an RFP, or direct contract, which includes provisions that, (1) Phase 2 Consultant Tasks and a specific deliverable marking completion of each Consultant Task be identified, (2) progress payment be made by the Town to the Consultant after receipt of the task completion deliverable, in proportion to the ratio of the task value to the total contract value, (3)for each Consultant Task the Town may approve the Consultant-proposed task start date or request that the task start date be deferred, (4) for each Consultant Task, the Consultant will identify,(a)the proposed task start date, (b)the ratio of task value to total contract value, (c) for sub-tasks to be performed by the Town or other Town partner, the sub-task completion deliverable and its required completion date, expressed as the number of weeks subsequent to the start of the associated Consultant Task. Hughes, P: Some of that work is the responsibility of the committee in preparation of taking the next steps. Good suggestions, setting priorities, who might own some of this work. Committee has a lot of work to do in defining this. Schell: I would hope I can get committee concurrence to progress in this direction Young: Good point. We want a long term relationship. We enjoy this project and would like to continue working with this committee. The committee and the consultant and need to develop the plan closely together. Town budget cuts, staffs are stressed thinner. All of this needs to be factored in. A lot of these tasks say"both" break down responsibility between town and consultant. One of the reasons he brought down GIS person to meet department heads. CWPC 1-24-11.doc Audio recording—CWPC_012411_audiominutes 4 Schell: People accept tasks. If they determine they don't have the resources they should have the flexibility to contract it out. Young agrees. Hughes, J: How comfortable are you to draft a scope with what you have now? Not having a dollar amount. Young: Happy to do this. Told Sue and Pat. Hughes, P: What can be done?We need to speak to Charlie. How do you go about having work done without a competitive process? Hughes, J: We as a committee have not discussed these options. Bennett: There are several roles. Link item, task. It is whether or not we want the consultant to do this. 1090 Question— Do you comfortable going forward with bridge projects RFP or do the work too? Young: 1)You have chosen a firm that has the resources to 90%+ of the work. When you selected CDM this is what you were looking at. We certainly can supplement out pieces of work. Sub consultants. We would like to manage and bring this project to fruition. Skidmore: Bridge projects or next phase? Hughes, P: Could be both. Bennett: Good question. The Consultant monitors the work. He makes sure the right person gets the work. The consultant interprets the data. RFP example. What would CDM do?The work or put together the RFP and manage the workload. Young: We can do it either way. We can define the project and can work with you to stretch the dollars. We understand this. Bennett: Let's not discuss hypothetically how we want to move forward. Counter productive to our consultants. Hughes, P: The basis was to ask CDM questions. Let's talk to Charlie to find out what we can do going ahead. Procurement, etc. To CDM -Thank you for your work. You may be interested in hearing about the BCT. Brewster Conservation Trust: (BCT) Peter Johnson — President Hal Minis-VP Ellen Davies— President Brewster Park Association Johnson: Summary: BCT is a private land trust. Our role is to work with the town to save open space and to work with zoning and planning. We have always felt we should work with this committee. Important work includes preserving pond parcels; water shed protection land, etc. We protected 75 acres this past calendar year. We can help with educational outreach with our newsletter(twice a year) It is mailed to the whole town. As we go forward It is important for people to understand why spending the money is important. We would love to cooperate with joint meetings, possible a museum event—Water quality 101, lot of education is required. Monomoy Lense questions, It would be wonderful to have strong town support. Question to Kolb—Re: Sheep's Pond What can we do? Kolb: Protect land and tributaries leading into it. Undeveloped land. If there are homes which have lawns that reach the pond, work with the homeowners to make sure they are doing good things for the pond. Keep up with the monitoring CWPC 1-24-11.doc Audio recording—CWPC_012411_audiominutes 5 Johnson: We mailed to 300 people with land around ponds. We can contact and invite people to come to a meeting regarding important subjects. Bennett: Please let us know when you will be at Museum of Natural History. Johnson: We will host a meeting with Brewster Chamber of Commerce. No public presentation. April 7 The Chamber's annual meeting. Bennett: Linkage between the chamber and Museum, BCT Johnson encourages a table of information if possible. Mentioned the Blue Water book for Brewster. Plug in Brewster information. Chris Miller thinks it would be a good idea. Schell: How much revision necessary to make it available for Brewster? Johnson: $15k for Orleans. Add Brewster maps. Orleans gave us the disk. Hughes, P: AmeriCorps volunteer?Talk to Chris. Gallagher: She does land use work right now Bennett: You sell advertising to cover printing costs. Orleans Pond Coalition sold advertising to offset costs. It is like a guide book Hughes, P: Originally done for Puget Sound. Vineyard and Nantucket also. Young: Continue education process. Mentioned Cobbs Pond Representative Association. Meet with people and help organize. Minis: Good tools we can work with you. CPC can help you with that strategy. Hughes, P:We have not talked about public education. Johnson: There is a real lack of education. Hughes, P: Thank you. Hughes, J: Add to next agenda to discuss further. Johnson: Project: Go through all town owned lands and review protection. Deeds, etc. Taylor is aware of this project. Ellen Davies: I am working to distribute information in Brewster Park.We are modeling this on the Cobbs Pond literature. It will include basic things that people can do. Hughes, P: Great. We can share our Cobbs pond info if you need it. Taylor: Orleans CC Commission meeting last week: Commission approved letter sent to MEPA—commission approved— DRI through commission. Orleans has an active pond group in town. I wish we could get as many people to the meetings. Map of the plumes—all in Orleans, none of it was showing Brewster. Taylor questioned USGS particle estimate. How accurate are these? Young explained the mapping process to the group. Hughes, P: Amy is leaving, Jane Johnson is resigning. Bennett: They have received the funding?The meeting you attended in Orleans. USGS or town of Orleans? Hughes, P and Taylor: The Town of Orleans providing funding. CWPC 1-24-11.doc Audio recording—CWPC_012411_audiominutes 6 There was a group discussion. Dave requests clarification of this from someone?What is being developed? Hughes, P: Memo to Health director from Skidmore and Taylor regarding towns permit and tracking system BMSI. The memo has been drafted and will be updated by Lem and Pat. Taylor: Adding mounded systems. Memo will be sent to Kelly for distribution. Other Business: Review Minutes from 11/08/10 Dave submitted written edits for his response to Ed Lewis on Page 2. Amy corrected completed year 8 of a ten year study on Page 2. Elizabeth corrected the spelling of Bryan to Brian on Page 1. Lem Skidmore made a motion to accept as amended. Dave Bennett, Second. All Aye 7-0-0 Next meeting: February 14, 2011 at 4:30 pm Next agenda: Next steps with the consultant, Meet with Charles Sumner. Public education and outreach strategy. Article for BCT twice a year? Blue Book discussion. - Send around link and share hard copy. Motion to adjourn: Elizabeth Taylor Second: Dave Bennett All Aye Meeting ended 6:45 pm Respectfully submitted, ff1") ON15/rIA- D- - won,t, Clerk Kelly Moore, . ept. Assistant Planning CWPC 1-24-11.doc Audio recording—CWPC_012411_audiominutes 7 Attachment#1 0124_A TO Brewster CWPC FROM: Pat Hughes Date: January 20, 2011 RE: Options moving forward At Monday's meeting, we will likely begin a discussion with CDM about what their role might be in the future work of the Committee. Sue and 1 prepared this list and hope it is useful as each of us thinks about the next steps in the Committee's work. Option 1: Continuing with current consultant: 1. Committee and consultant can draft and negotiate the scope, creating a contract where expectations are clear up front. 2. Consultant can begin work on bridge projects 3. No time period needed for consultant to get up to speed on the Town and prior work. 4. Working relationship with Committee already developed. Option 2: Committee produces scope and issues RFP 1. Ability to reach out to other interested parties if there is a desire to change the direction of the project or seek additional or different expertise 2. Entering into a working relationship with a new group—learning curve, acclimation to Town and Committee, reviewing previous data and products. 3. Committee/staff conduct interviews, choose consultant, negotiates contract Option 3: Cape Cod Commission writes scope, Committee issues RFP 1. Committee may have less control over content of scope 2. Possible time constraint—based on staff availability 3. Not as much work required of Committee 4. Committee/staff conduct interviews, choose consultant, negotiates contract CWPC 1-24-11.doc Audio recording—CWPC_012411_audiominutes 8