Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutComprehensive Water Planning -- 2011-02-14 Minutes \\\\\\\\1\\\\\\\\1 fl l////////// ga S //��� Comprehensive Water Planning ` �,�E D E A 9'44`� �i o .D . 9FM Town of Brewster Committee fig ! ,-: sm ; 2198 Main Street 3 u IIT'ljnr1t a; D o =p T l;i;�cl� F'y Brewster, Massachusetts 02631-1898 fir" .��� y—RjBO<•r$t\� (508) 896-3701 41,;` RPt° FAX (508) 896-8089 /iiiiur iriiimuit1u111\\\\\\\ Date Approved: 2-28-11 Vote: 6-0-0 TOWN OF BREWSTER MINUTES OF COMPREHENSIVE WATER PLANNING COMMITTEE (CWPC) REGULAR MEETING Monday, February 14, 2011 at 4:30 pm Brewster Town Office Building Pat Hughes convened the CWPC meeting at 4:30 pm in the Brewster Town Office Building with members, Lem Skidmore, Russell Schell, Dave Bennett, John Lipman, and Elizabeth Taylor, present. Absent: Joanne Hughes Also Present: Jim Gallagher, Conservation Administrator, Mark Robinson, The Compact of Cape Cod Conservation Trusts, Inc., Peter Johnson President, Brewster Conservation Trust(BCT), Charlie Sumner, Town Administrator, Chris Miller, Natural Resources Director. 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." AGENDA Citizen Forum—no comments Discussion with Brewster Conservation Trust(BCT)on land protection Peter Johnson (President, BCT and Mark Robinson (Compact of Cape Cod Conservation Trusts) Peter distributed a map. Sue Leven has a copy. He recognized water quality challenges in Brewster. Map Title:Visual Analysis of Significant Land Parcels within Brewster Zone II to Town Wells in South Brewster. Johnson: We reviewed CDM Report and feel that it is missing some comments on the value of land protection. Robinson: He has worked in Brewster since 1986 referenced the map. Snapshot of SE zone II. '/2 of the land has been protected. 1/3 developed, 1/3 protected. Less than 1/3 with use to be determined. The map does not show every vacant lot. There are still large privately owned parcels near the town wells. This would have to be developed according to new CWPC 2-14-11.doc Audio recording—CWPC_021411_audiominutes Page 1 of 9 Water Quality and Natural Resource Protection Design by-laws. At the past town meeting, open space committee recommending transferring the 20 acres in far right corner transferred to Conservation Commission. Last fall, 29 acres next to soccer fields, status changed to more generic municipal use. (Leven commented that may change) Reviewed several other lots on the map. 2010 article 97. 17.5 acres, top left, general purpose town owned. 27 acres, divided into 9 lots, Copelas subdivision. There are parcels to be worked on. Determine ownership because of lack of title. (Buying properties, sub division analysis, conservation, gifts of land, etc.) Schell: Has the town indicated area removed from protection, town use? Property in question the one mentioned at the recent BOS meeting? Leven: Original was for wind turbines, but is being reconsidered. There will be articles to return to protected status One petitioned article and from the Selectmen. Skidmore: What can we do'?What do you need from us'? Johnson: it seemed like a good time to come to you.We look to this committee and the consultants to move forward to solve water quality challenges, and protect open space particularly in Zone II areas. There is a lot of work to be done. Robinson: There are still a lot of opportunities to preserve large properties near the wells Hughes, P: Propose, consider the following recommendations to CDM, and update final report. Town wide action: Recommend continue to protecting lands adjacent to zone II near town wells. Section#1 Page 1-4 Brewster Water resources: ground water, suggest add does highlight DEP report that 3 wells on Freeman's Way are rated high in susceptibility. Land protection as a high priority. CDM highlights we have done a good job but there is more to be done. Some discussion about availability of report, Hughes says on web site, under water dept. Bennet made a Motion to that effect, Taylor Second, All Aye, Vote 6-0-0 Bennett: use of land for wind turbines? Environmental egregious, use of land for green energy, 2 turbines sited Any explanation. Robinson: industrial park land status is fixed. The other town pieces have not been determined. Bennett: A lot of land not specified for usage. Town land near wells. Question about leases Robinson: Fair point Leven:WQRC approved of the siting of 2 turbines at Commerce Park, WQ protection by-law that has significantly limited available uses in the industrial zone. Sumner: There are only a couple of lots that would not be developed. One to two lots of 3 to 6 acres. The leases are 30 to 35 years. Bennett: Someone renewed a lease recently. Appreciate the WQRC review and it is part of the plan. Land acquisition is not sole strategy; zoning and subdivision laws are also part of the plan. Renewed least, value to the town, they sit in the middle of protected well area. Sumner Good points, but they had a right to renew it In 1984 the town had 25 year lease plus a right to extend it Johnson: Fair point. We understand if we were starting from scratch there would no commerce park in this location. CWPC 2-14-11.doc Audio recording—CWPC_021411_audiominutes Page 2 of 9 Hughes, P: Thank you. Discussion with Charles Sumner, Town Administrator on contracting Hughes, P: CDM report, projects to be worked on in Phase II. The committee needs to understand our options, amend existing agreement with CDM? Out to bid with all work? General sense of flexibility. Sumner: You have a lot of flexibility. Waste water planning does not have to go through RFP process. We thought it was a good idea since new committee and project. You exceeded the requirements of the law. I think it was a wise decision. If you are dissatisfied with CDM, then find another firm. We are so far behind with the process and our ability to influence Orleans. RFP process takes time. (lose 6 months) You should do that if you are not happy with the vendor. Some phases of the work you could go through CDM or do independently. Sue can run it by town counsel and me. Whatever path you choose. Bennett: The interim projects (bridge projects) are far behind. Should we be thinking about the larger project rather than interim projects? Sumner: Deferred to Sue Hughes, P: Bridge projects identified to provide us with information to help us start next phase. Bennett: Should we move concurrently along with the next phase. Catch up game? Should we be concerned about the speed we are progressing? Sumner: We are concerned. Anxious. Bennett: Do you need more information to move forward regarding discussions about regionalization. Miller: Deadline for what Orleans is doing. Brewster will be affected. Consultant? Now is the only time left to get advice. Schell: A great majority of the tasks (20 out of 28) identified in the CDM report are joint tasks between the town and CDM. The town portion is mainly formatting data and information. This will be useful to CDM. I wonder if it would be helpful if the town portion is broken out as a sub task, and the meter for consultant would not start until town tasks are completed. Sumner: I am concerned whether we have capacity to get these done without sub tasking out? Town staff is overwhelmed. Schell: The reason I propose this is because I know you are conscious about the budget. Don't waffle around after the consultant meter has started. Hughes, P: If we were to cont. with CDM, bridge projects, we could develop a scope of work that would put a high—priority on bridge projects and continue the other work. Sumner: Sue and I could sit down with staff and get Yes, No, Maybe re the projects. I am nervous about ability to react to what other towns are doing. Schell: I am concerned about the maybe. Leven: Heard from Orleans this morning to find out build out information. They are looking to plug in numbers. There are a lot of people out there who own property in Namskaket and are in panic mode. Over time we have asserted our rights regarding Namskaket. Hughes, P: The state has been unresponsive. John Lipman arrived 5:13 pm Hughes, P: Secretary's findings are silent, letter from State, shared letter. CWPC 2-14-11.doc Audio recording—CWPC_021411_audiominutes Page 3 of 9 Leven: There is a CCC meeting 3/1. I plan to attend. Hughes, P: Could we re-draft letter to Orleans and have the BOS sign at next meeting? One of use could read the letter at the meeting. Sumner: BOS meeting 2/28. Good idea. We would appreciate that. Hughes, P: Send to Orleans and DEP. Bennett Made a Motion to draft letter for selectman for the 28th meeting, Skidmore Second, All Aye Vote—6-0-0 Discussion—Miller: I know the Conservation Commission through a local by-law did have issues with a prior plan. There is history and you could add some of this into the letter. Hughes, P: Can I come in and look at those records? Miller: Yes. Bennett: Is Namskaket under ACEC? Miller: Discharge into CC Bay or marsh —A discussion continued with Bennett, Schell, Miller, and Gallagher. Bennett: Open dialog with how Federal government is treating wastewater in Namskaket? Schell: No, not true. That is considered estuary. No sub tidal area that includes eel grass. In fauna, existing nit concentration is compatible with the habitat requirements in fauna. My understanding. Hughes, P: Motion on the floor, re-read and committee voted. Thanks Charlie. Bennett: Re: Bridge Projects. CDM has somewhat different agenda than our bridge project list. CDM offers one stop shopping. I framed a question as to ask if they could be a lead consultant with small components issued as RFP's. I am more convinced now that we should be moving concurrently with bridge projects and Phase II. I like the idea of continuity with out sole ownership of the job. We don't need to exclude input from other sources. Discuss next steps on consultant services, public education &outreach strategy Hughes,P: Continue with CDM?What do we want them to do? Separate requests? Diversity? Miller: It would be best before you decide on CDM to determine what the next phase should include. Prepare an outline. Hughes, P: We did write a scope of work. Part of the challenge was the original scope of work vs. contract. Data work is very specialized for example. Possible recommendations from others towns. Pond work, additional opportunities. Schell: Ed Eichner has suggested SMAST would be a lower cost option to town vs. doing it commercially. Relationship between town and consultant, integrate it more economically, into contract . Hughes, P: Is SMAST being considered for Harwich work? Leven: They are out there as an option. It is possible. Harwich will be issuing an RFQ. Can remind Frank to include SMAST. Miller: Agree. Widely distributed. Personally would love for SMAST to get it. We have so many reports with them. It would be easier for me. I know it comes down to cost and qualifications. Bennett: Availability? Ask for outline for Phase II, CDM write RFP for bridge costs? Hughes, P: I would like the committee with staff to develop what we want in Phase II? CWPC 2-14-11.doc Audio recording—CWPC_021411_audiominutes Page 4 of 9 Bennett: My recommendation is different. We are laymen. We may lose some traction in timing and moving. See changes courses midstream and leaving technical questions wide open for comment. They should comment on what they think is appropriate. Leven: The steps are well spelled out in a variety of places. Phase II, needs assessment becomes what does the town need in terms of impacts on ponds, wastewater. Then move forward on how we do it. Logical next step is pretty clear. How it is done should be worked out with the consultant. Hughes, P: Sue, let's put together a one page for basic elements of the next phase of water maintenance plan, then Discuss at next meeting. Leven: Specific details on how that gets done gets worked out. Schell: I am confused. I though the question for discussion was whether the town would prepare an outline for CDM or CDM would prepare one for our review. I don't have a clear picture on what is being proposed. Hughes, P: I am not sure we should commit to CDM and continue. If we ask them to outline Phase II, we are indicating we may continue with them. As a committee are we prepared to do this? I don't know the next steps for Phase II. They have gone over the amount we agreed on. Schell: Is it accurate to say you expect the consultant will be preparing a proposal for Phase II that the committee will review?The committee was review as a whole. Hughes, P: No, the opposite. We will create outline, come to conclusion next meeting for Phase II and beyond. Look at other consultants. Continue with same consultant? Bennett: Anything we do will be discussed at subsequent meetings. Any updates with bridge projects? Leven: I talked with Bob Bersin. See contract with SEA, see handout, storm water discharges. Leven reviewed with the group. Timing? Can we talk directly with SEA? Hughes, P: Lem and Elizabeth did a nice memo/summary to Nancy Ellis Ice. Computer database for BOH. Skidmore: BOH meeting 2/15/11. Leven and Hughes, P: Revised recommendations to CDM, one page handout, will be sent to CDM. 2/15 Email from Joe Garfield. Leven: You will start to see them at meetings. Mike Farber, active in Orleans, their perceived threat to Namskaket, from the Tri Town facility. They have gone to a variety of places asking for help. I have talked to them, re: Namskaket, Tri Town, understands potential impact and the amount of discharge into marsh. Bennett: This group does not have validity with you?Technical knowledge? Leven: I had someone come to the office. I showed them the letter we sent and they wanted to know what we are doing about it. Taylor: Legal basis? Do we know? Hughes, P: We are part of Tri Town permit for septic treatment facility Leven: Orleans wants to go off on their own. Hughes, P: We don't know nitrogen levels? From the state? In terms of working regionally, has the state helped to foster this? Gallagher: This group has been to the Conservation Commission. They were less than satisfied. We can't do anything, so we sent them here. CWPC 2-14-11.doc Audio recording—CWPC_021411_audiominutes Page 5 of 9 Hughes, P: Looking for estimate of Nitrogen loading, discharge pipe, plant? Gallagher: Miller: Not mentioned Schell: Namskaket TMDL report: Not outfall pipe. Effluent into the ground. The nitrogen concentration is less than what would affect the end fauna. There are numbers that support that. Sue—Our share? Metaphorically right? No one has defined what our share is. Hughes, P: 80% of water shed is within the boundaries of Brewster. Namskaket is well below its tipping point. There is an excess nitrogen capacity. Discussion occurred about Brewster's Namskaket share. Leven : CDM defined this as an asset. Hughes, P: We don't know the estimated nitrogen loading. It would be helpful to know. If we don't know that, it takes away our future ability to manage nitrogen in that water shed. Schell: That is true. Quantify this with a geological survey report. (Nitrogen load, under clay, impermeable layer, surfacing in the bay) Poses a challenge, how will this be quantified'? Bennett: Either argue reports/approvals are wrong or approach on an equity standpoint--We own a portion, so goes against everyone working together. We better stand behind equity or technology arguments. We should have further discussion, part of Phase II. Hughes, P: Our public comments have indicated we want to work with Orleans and DEP to understand better the management of nitrogen in Namskaket marsh watershed. We are not as far along as Orleans. We have a significant interest. It is a shared resource. Bennett: I understand.We have not been receiving comments back answering our questions nor is DEP giving us any credibility to our position. It seems to me that we are losing opportunity. Chris pointed this out. We need to do this letter that we voted on and have our BOS understand. Miller: State has clearly shown if estuary is affected (TMDL generated) they will seek out across town lines. Brewster Look at Pleasant Bay. Brewster does not want to get into this area ever. We bought the marsh and we reduced our build out. We are very conservation. We physically own the marsh. Some unknown plume? . Good argument. Significant assurances. Taylor: ACEC protection? Legal basis? Miller: I think it is going to be how the state has ruled in other cases. We will need consultant. Taylor: Attorney that deals with this all the time. Hughes, P: County lawyer? Leven: We can't be left in a position where we have nowhere to go?Where is our plume going? Group discussion cont. about options, suggestions.... Miller: I stood up in town meeting years ago about Namskaket.What if it all comes up in one area? Hughes, P: Plume could surface in CC Bay. We see increases in nitrogen in summer time far off shore. Bennett: Pathogens'? Problem immediate health. *Group discussion continued bout Namskaket issues CWPC 2-14-11.doc Audio recording—CWPC_021411_audiominutes Page 6 of 9 Pat to Sue—Contact George Meservey re current contract agreement with USGS monitoring plan. Request copies when they get reports. Hughes, P: Work with BOS to setup a Meeting with DEP. Equity issue. Miller: This group we mentioned earlier is convinced marsh is dying. This "new thing" (expansion of Tri-Town) is seen as an open sewer...This is how they talk about it. Bennett: Letter to Orleans from BOS. Could we maybe speak about questions not answered. Reinstating USGS. A reason (or speaking point)for us to question the technology. We don't want to appear that we are against regionalization. The opportunity is a prime time to voice regionalization issues and concerns. Miller: If we had a professional consultant researching this. He might say the effluent limit is too high, or for example there has to be certain monitoring. Something like that....Dealing with a time issue. Hughes, P: CC Commission Staff Report on Orleans plan? Leven: There is a staff report that I can get easily. Schell: Deadline? Hughes, P: Yes, we met it. We submitted comments prior to the closing date before this decision was issued. Leven to Russ—They do not comment on Brewster's issue. Hughes, P: Summarized. • Letter before commission letter 3/1 • Info from G. Meservey, monitoring • One page outline, basic outline of phase II WRMP On 2/28/11 discussion, next steps with consulting services Schell: I am surprised all that is said, "received comments". Usually any contention it is included as appendices to the report. Leven: No further comments were appended. Other Business: Review Minutes from 11/22/10, 12/13/10, 1/10/11 11/22/10 Bennett made a Motion to accept as written Skidmore, Second All Aye Vote 5-0-0, Abstain John Lipman 12/13/10 Taylor: copy of Ed Eichner's PowerPoint presentation or handouts? Taylor Made a Motion to accept as written Skidmore Second All Aye Vote, 5-0-0, Abstain, John Lipman abstain 01/10/11 Skidmore made a Motion to accept as written Bennett, second CWPC 2-14-11.doc Audio recording—CWPC_021411_audiominutes Page 7 of 9 All Aye Vote 5-0-0 Abstain John Lipman Next meeting: February 28, 2011 at 4:30 pm Skidmore made a Motion to adjourn Second: Lipman All Aye, Vote 6-0-0 Meeting ended 6:06 pm Respectfully submitted, L!IM •• Dam'', erk Kelly Moore, Sr. ipt. Assistant Planning CWPC 2-14-11.doc Audio recording—CWPC_021411_audiominutes Page 8 of 9 Action Items: CWPC Meeting 2/14/11 Action Items: Updated 2/18/11 Topic/Owner: Comments: Status: COM REPORT, FINAL VERSION: Taylor to send a Web site address to Young re: Taylor Pending open space numbers. REF: 32.7%, State numbers... Follow up with the Cranberry Growers Association. Leven Information has been requested. Will try to get status Who are the Brewster Members? 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 information before meeting. Berms? Storm water?Working vs. non Have also been in touch with Paul Anderson. Will working catch basins, Discharge to the meet after 12/13. ponds? Private Roads, Other budgets. Pending Leven Hughes, P: Send around a Web site address for Hughes, P. Pending the Blue Book. Bring a hard copy to the next meeting. NEW, 2/14 Update CDM report Leven Protect lands adjacent to Zone II near town wells. Letter to Orleans from BOS Hughes, P—Leven BOS to sign 2/28, CWPC member to read at the CCC 3/1 meeting Hughes to check Conservation files (history) One page outline of next steps, water maintenance Hughes, P— Leven 2/28/11 plan Follow up with Bersin re: SEA, timing and can we Leven 2/28/11 talk to them directly Send recommendations (one page handout) to Leven 2/28/11 CDM Legal basis, Namskaket? Taylor question Leven 2/28/11 Talk to George Meservey re: current contract Leven 2/28/11 agreement, USGS. Can we get on mailing list when they get reports? CWPC 2-14-11.doc Audio recording—CWPC_021411_audiominutes Page 9 of 9