Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutComprehensive Water Planning -- 2011-03-28 Minutes 0011"""11/80/iiiiii�,�� \\� oft pE i. Comprehensive Water Planning o ,o :F'�� Town of Brewster Committee Z ,�' i( i�__ %' 2198 Main Street 2 3 i p in;t,i,1i - D 2 13 o thin f E. Brewster, Massachusetts 02631-1898 -="--=:_::;-- ----06. (508) 896-3701 1'z --“ c, FAX (508) 896-8089 Date Approved: 4/25/11 Vote: 5-0-1, Hughes,J abstain TOWN OF BREWSTER MINUTES OF COMPREHENSIVE WATER PLANNING COMMITTEE (CWPC) REGULAR MEETING . Monday, March 28, 2011 at 4:30 pm Brewster Town Office Building JS Pat Hughes convened the CWPC meeting at 4:35 pm in the Brewster Town Office Building with members, Lem Skidmore, Russell Schell, Elizabeth Taylor, Bruce Evans (new member, conservation committee representative) present. Absent: John Lipman, Joanne Hughes, Dave Bennett Also Present: Sue Leven, Jim Gallagher, Chris Miller, Peter Johnson (BCT) 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." Documents: 032811_A Scope of Work from SMAST, Ed Eichner dated 3/22/11, 032811_B Yarmouth build out document, AGENDA 1. Citizen Forum —no comments. Pat introduced Bruce Evans to the group as the new member representing the Conservation Commission. Evans: I have been on the Conservation Commission for a year. I am a retired software engineer. I have the time to spend on this committee. I have an engineering background but not specific to this area. Hughes explained the status of the IWRMP report from CDM report for Mr. Evans. She reviewed current projects and tonight's agenda. Scope of work for Mill Ponds and the Brewster Build out. Discuss scope of work for Mill Ponds provided by SMAST Ed Eichner has submitted a scope of work. Russell has submitted comments to Sue. Leven: Any specific comments? Chris and I met with Ed. Certain aspects will take a whole year. We discussed having useable information in a short amount of time. More generalized status for other ponds. We can t do 40k of work for each pond. This project would give us a good starting point. Most important: Task 1 —Sediment Phosphorus Regeneration/Loading. (analysis of core samples, % of budget) CWPC 3-28-11.doc 1 Audio recording—CWPC_032811_audiominutes Hughes, P: 3 stations in each Upper, Walker, Lower and Mill pond? Leven: Yes, 3 stations in each. She explained Task 1 further Task 2 Bird Phosphorus Loading —This will be done by volunteers at the museum. Other major piece is the Task 3 between pond Phosphorus Loading. Impact on what we treat and how. Task 4 Stormwater Phosphorus Loading. See page#7 —We asked for Task 1, 2, 3, and 4 earlier. Does everyone find the scope adequate for what we are looking for? Hughes, P: Russ has technical questions and they will be passed on to Ed Eichner. Leven: I have the comments and I have not sent them to Ed yet. Schell: Comments. Re: work scope— 1) Task 1, Obtaining sediment samples and a technical description of how they are incubated. Typically this is done in a lab. They are proposing that the regeneration process be done in place or locally. I anticipate a longer duration, more manpower and more expensive. I question whether that additional effort is warranted and whether it will contribute significantly to the results. 2) Task 3 They suggest 12 months of obtaining outflow for Upper Pond. That is good but there is no indication that meaningful flow data will be obtained unless pond stage data is supplemented with a profile of each pond's outlet overflow crest. These kettle ponds do not have a single well-defined outlet channel for their entire flow range. Was there anything more that would take 12 months? Leven: Bird loading is also 12 months. Schell: If you do want to accelerate bird counting, the Audubon people do it at Christmas time. The summer is ducks and swan. This might be abbreviated to get information earlier. Preliminary water budget flow data for each Stony Brook pond may be calculated as the product of each pond's subwatershed area (CDM Report, Table 3-1) and flow per unit area data, recorded at the adjacent Herring River watershed at USGS Gaging Station 01105880 from 1966-1988 and 2008-2010. Task 3 and 4—Ground water and storm water sheds differ. Slough and Elbow are in the storm water shed. Pine Pond is not. It would be appropriate to substitute Pine for Elbow. Hughes, P: How do you know the "ground water" watershed vs. "storm water" watershed? Schell: Refer to map, last page. Continuing issue -- Storm water from Elbow Pond to Walkers Pond. This has been recognized by Mass. MEP. They have requested help from residents to obtain samples to determine the Phosphorous concentration is from Elbow Pond to Walker's Pond. This is documented in the recent CDM report. Hughes, P: I appreciate the review. These questions need to be reviewed by Ed Eichner. Sue will send comments from everyone to Ed tomorrow. Hughes, P: Re—the bird counts. I think the point of doing it for a year is to get a good picture of the number and species of birds contributing phosphorus to pond over a consistent timeframe. (Instead of using the Audubon's numbers.) Schell: It is a conservative approach to get one year of data. If committee feels a sense of urgency I have suggested alternatives. There was a discussion regarding options. Leven: Chris and I talked to Ed about what we would have once a Phase II is started. Miller: Birds—A full year makes a lot of sense. They are probably a small amount of the controlled Nitrogen. Sediments will be higher number. (8 and 15%) Stream flow— I will send Ed a comment. Herring Run: meter CWPC 3-28-11.doc 2 Audio recording—CWPC_032811_audiominutes Miller: placement, good channel between Upper and Mill Pond. Doing it off site saves money. Digesting samples here to save costs. We did ask him how we can save money. He will use our boats, bird counts, samples here. I am shocked by some of the costs. If there is a lab doing analysis, it is the SMAST lab. There was a discussion about state certified labs. County labs? Schell: Intermittent storm flow Elbow and Slough to Walker pond? Miller: Yes. Flow, focus on the three ponds. (Upper\ Lower, Elbow, Walkers) Hughes, P: Direct some effort of the DPW consultant area to this ponds project? Leven: We discussed SEA and SMAST over lap. We would like them to be talking about it early. Skidmore: There are a lot of tasks. Re: Chart . What I don't see is what are they going to produce and how do we know if is done? There is nothing in there about status reporting or milestones. Leven: Read Task 5: memo about projects completed. You are looking for something more detailed than that. Skidmore: I would like to see more of regular status reporting. After a year's effort and considerable amount of money, my bias is towards tighter project management. Miller: Re: The field work, they will be using our boats with volunteers so you will get project reports. We did talk about hiring a consultant. (Technical memos.) There is nothing on sediments until after summer. He will have an idea half way through. He can write extra reports. Ed is good about providing details. We can certainly ask for more. Skidmore: It is nice to have status reports. Let's include it in the proposal. Hughes, P: I understand your view. Perhaps we ask for an email report. Re: sampling dates, delays, sense of progress. No data analysis. The group agreed that a status report via email. Taylor: Question for Chris. How much of the work will we be able to do? Miller: We can provide boats. The bird survey is entirely us with the museum bird group, cc bird club. The rest is lab and his staff. His original proposal was much higher. He has done his best to cut it down and still give us meaningful data. Schell: I agree with the need for a phosphorus budget for Walker's pond. The language raises alarm bells because it seems to me that the wording is compatible with an unsymmetrical effort. Maximum yield from the sediments?Walker's Pond has the least volume and sediment exposed to low oxygen concentrations because it is shallow, etc. Concurrent oxygen concentrations - you end up with standard factors. The additional cost and expense of getting this into place is wasted. Hughes, P: The sampling will include at six ponds. It sounds like water chemistry measurements. They are going to be taking water chemistry measurements. Russ is talking long term. Miller: Conditions (digestion?) Are you suggestion we should put in a meter and run it for a month. A discussion occurred over maximum and minimum, measurements....Schell, Miller, Hughes. Schell: The county has an automated unit that can be put in place to monitor. Miller: To Russell -Write up a suggestion like this and we will make sure Ed gets it. CWPC 3-28-11.doc 3 Audio recording—CWPC_032811_audiominutes Hughes, P: We want to move forward with this scope of work?We can add comments and some Technical questions to be addressed. Leven: I will write this up and send to Ed. To Russell - Summarize your comments and send them to Sue and Chris. Hughes, P: The final details can be settled by our staff and we can authorize them to initiate the work once the questions are answered. Leven: I won't be at the 4/11 meeting. Evans: Where does the money come from? Leven: Addressed Evans question. The Town has appropriated funds. (water planning, IWRMP) CDM work was $135k, there is an additional $180k that is all articles combined. Evans: Measurement process? Leven: The Mill Ponds complex of ponds has some challenges. We wanted to find out what causes these problems. Evans: A Study with the possibilities of treatment? Leven: Definition of issues. No one knows what is causing what is going on. Where does the Phosphorus come from? A discussion occurred about Phosphorus and options, addressing questions from Evans. Hughes, P: Meet on the 4th instead of the 11th? Joanne, John, and Bruce cannot meet. You would have 5 members with Bennett. Leven: 4/11 in Boston APA National Conference. If Dave can meet, then move meeting to the 4th Hughes, P: Scope of Work, coming back on 4/4. Ed is looking to start in April. Does it need to come back to the committee? Leven—Take it to the Selectmen. Sue will check with Charlie. (Soon after the 4th.) There was a discussion with Leven and Hughes regarding process. Discuss draft RFP for Brewster Build out and Phase II outline Sue produced a Basic primer for the group and a scope of work that Yarmouth did with the Cape Cod Commission. Leven is asking for Build out information from the CCC and Karen Green, Yarmouth, Leven will follow up. The group discussed the Yarmouth outline. Leven: Yarmouth is more "sewer" focused than we are. Skidmore: Method 1 and Method 2? Leven: Build out—We are looking for basic information: what is left?What can be built out? Estimated flows? Based on existing conditions which areas do we have issues? Better or worse as we approach build out? Ocean Edge. There are probably areas of the Pleasant Bay water shed that could be affected. CWPC 3-28-11.doc 4 Audio recording—CWPC_032811_audiominutes Schell: Question for Sue. What type of study or data regurgitation between completion of build out and some quantitative response to Gigi report? It suggested Brewster up radiant area has contributed nitrogen to Pleasant Bay. Leven: The build out will be able to tell us what we are looking at now with existing development and water use. What is likely to happen in the next twenty years? Re: Mike Giggey presentation: It is hard to take at face value. 200 wells in Brewster? Take Orleans information and see if that makes sense... Hughes, P: We have had a significant zoning change in Pleasant Bay water shed area. That could be significant in terms of estimates of impervious surface, potential water use and waster water flow. Schell: I share both your reservations about that report. A build out analysis by itself probably won't solve issues? Leven: It won't. Pleasant Bay watershed in Zone 2. How much of what is out there will still be out there? Build out analysis shows—what is on the ground now, wouldn't be built today, add it into planning. Doesn't prove or disprove what Orleans is saying. It gives us a good snapshot of where we are today and what will the town look like in many years. You will get consultant input and that might help you suggest changes to go to town meeting. Schell: You have provided a good justification for a build out analysis. How do you go from build out analysis to something that will contradict Giggey report? There was further discussion about build out and benefits. Leven shared examples. Hughes offered comments and options once we have a build out for the town. (Recalculations of nitrogen for example.) Schell: Does the committee consider one of its missions to come up with an independent estimate of Brewster nitrogen contribution to Pleasant Bay? Leven: Byproduct of the process. Estimates from build out process will help us determine. Shared an example. Discussion continued with Leven and Hughes. Hughes, P: We are not answering your question. Schell: yes Taylor: Does Jillian have the prior build out map? Leven will find out. Taylor: When you do build out how do you factor in 40B's? That can negate NRPD. Leven: You consider open land in town, affordable housing, additional units the town needs to produce to get to 10%. 25% affordable makes it a 40B. Taylor: Affordable housing district overlay?A discussion of 40B continued... Use CCC for the build out? Leven: Possibility- CDM does build out and the GIS piece. Sue discussed with Kathy Lambert. Hughes, P: Let's continue this discussion when we have a rough draft of the build out. Discuss letter in support of CVEC application to Rural Utility Service Leven provided a summary— CVEC is still moving forward with a funding request. A member has requested if this group will support by supplying a letter? CWPC 3-28-11.doc 5 Audio recording—CWPC_032811_audiominutes Evans and Hughes— Is this appropriate for this committee? Leven: Advantages to the town, water quality, etc. Miller: One of the steps of becoming a Green Community? There was a discussion of whether Brewster is working to becoming a Green Community. Leven: Explained. There is resistance. Hughes, P: I will consider it. Word it specific to our issues. Water quality. Leven: Cleaner energy— impact on resources in Brewster. Discussion continued on this subject. Skidmore: We need a letter to look at. Or direct someone to write a letter. Leven : The deadline is 3/30. Miller: It can be the committee's own statement. Hughes, P: CWPC's goal is to maintain and improve water quality in Brewster and ways to reduce pollution from fossil fuel burning is an advantage to the town. In support in anything that meets this goal... Evans: Mentioned setback concerns. Hughes, P: Idea continued support to investigate and support use of renewable energy. Discussion of CCC, setbacks, etc. Leven: CVEC is looking for letters of support for their project to be funded. Further discussion continued regarding the CVEC project. Schell stated that it protects a clean water supply. It is a good industrial project for this area. (vs. a chemical plant in that area.) Evans: Setbacks and ice throw concerns. Schell made a Motion for the CWPC to submit a letter unequivocal support for the proposed project in the Brewster Industrial area (Freeman's Way), Hughes Second, 1 Aye, 2 Opposed, and 2 Abstain. Discussion: Hughes: I would like to see renewable energy in Brewster. As a committee member I don't have enough of an understanding of the project. I don't want the committee to send a letter. Miller: The letter states this should be financed not approved. Someone else will approve or deny. A letter will not be sent in support of CVEC funding. CWPC 3-28-11.doc 6 Audio recording—CWPC_032811_audiominutes Other Business: Review Minutes from 3/14/11 Skidmore made a Motion to accept as written Taylor Second All Aye Vote, 4-0-0 Evans Abstain Evans needs a copy of the CDM report, online or PDF on CD Discussion of status with CDM. Pat and Sue meeting with Dave Young next week. Hughes provided a brief overview of the CWPC projects for Evans. Ask CDM to create a proposal for water dept. linking records to the assessor's database? Discuss next meeting. Next Meeting: 4/4/11 or 4/11/11 Skidmore made a Motion to adjourn Evans Second All Aye Vote, 5-0-0 Next meeting is Monday 4/11/11 @ 4:30 pm. OR 4/4/11 Sue will check to see if Dave Bennett is available. Meeting ended 6:20 pm R: sp- tfully -A., itted, re/MP ;) Da - 3►37, Clerk Kell V o• 'Dept. Assistant Planning CWPC 3-28-11.doc 7 Audio recording—CWPC_032811_audiominutes Action Items: Updated 411111 CWPC Meeting 3/28/11 Action Item: Comments: Status: Due CDM Leven Pending Sue and Pat to meet with Dave Young week of 4/7/11. *Ask CDM to create a proposal for water dept.linking records to the assessors database?Discuss next meeting. BRIDGE PROJECTS AND PHASE II: Leven Yes,also checking with the CCC. Does Jillian have the prior build out map? Leven 4/4/11 Scope of work for Mill Ponds provided by SMAST Schell comments received and forwarded Send comments from committee to Ed Eichner comments to Ed Eichner. *Russell to send Sue and Chris his comments *Ask Ed about status reports via email. Leven 414/11 Ask George Meservey for a copy of what Orleans did for build out.They did it in-house. Leven 4/4/11 Follow up with CCC(IT contacts)re:build out information Leven Pending Draft scope for Brewster Build out, Info.sent outline to the committee 3/16/11 Leven, Hughes 4/4/11 Sign off on the scopes for the bridge Projects MISC: Cranberry Growers Association Leven Pending Check on the availability of PowerPoint presentations from the Waiting to hear re:meetings with the last meeting CGA,Taylor and Leven attended in 2010 growers,will ask for presentations. CWPC 3-28-11.doc 8 Audio recording—CWPC_032811_audiominutes