Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutComprehensive Water Planning -- 2011-04-25 Minutes .r Q U1I{ IIIfS g Eo�4 F Comprehensive Water r Planning _ � •_� _u i. �O` GF Town of Brewster ter Committee 11j * 2198 Main Street t ( t9i Dy o - Brewster, Massachusetts 02631-1898 (508) 896-3701 "E ooAti ��o� FAX (508) 896-8089 orinntriiii100\\\��� Date Approved: 5/23/11 Vote: 7-0-0 TOWN OF BREWSTER MINUTES OF COMPREHENSIVE WATER PLANNING COMMITTEE (CWPC) REGULAR MEETING Monday, April 25, 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, Elizabeth Taylor, Bruce Evans, Joanne Hughes, and Dave Bennett present. Absent: John Lipman Also Present: Sue Leven, Ed Lewis, Jim Gallagher, Chris Miller, Peter Johnson (BCT) Dave Young & Mary Barry from CDM. Peter Johnson introduced Dr. Mary Chafee and Dr. Jose Fernandez both running for the Board of Health. 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 audio tape this meeting they are required to inform the chair." Documents: 042511_A Private wells map; Skidmore, 042511_8 MEP Linked Watershed Embayment Model Citizen Forum — No comments. Leven gave an update on the Hincklev's Pond Proposal. We have received 4 proposals. The group is meeting in Harwich tomorrow regarding scope and budget. P. Hughes provided a brief summary of the Brewster/Harwich project for the audience. Cooperative project with Harwich, RFQ reviews. For Brewster Seymour and Long Pond. More information to come. Dave Young & Mary Barry from CDM They presented a summary of the meeting with Leven and P. Hughes. It was a review of Phase I work and Phase II. They wanted to find out if there are any other issues and next steps. In Summary the committee is looking for: • CDM to provide more direction at the meetings • CDM to provide more guidance and control of the process o Facilitate the meetings, build consensus o Simplify the presentations CWPC 4-25-11.doc Page 1 of 7 Audio recording—CWPC 042511_audiominutes o Educate the committee o Improve production document presentation Leven: This is a good opportunity to give your feedback. Barry: How do we improve the process?What needs improvement? Taylor: Is this a review or is this for new work? Leven explained that this is a good opportunity to get issues addressed. Possibility of another RFP? Committee Feedback: Taylor: In regard to the two or three public presentations. The public participation in Orleans is much larger. We don't have much of a presence in town. Where does that come from? Public relations from the committee? We need a much larger presence in town. More awareness in Orleans? How do we get the public involved? Evans: Orleans is facing a larger sewer proposal. In Brewster there aren't a lot of big problems. Next step is to talk to people in the pond areas. Approach the associations?Then, more people might show up. Lewis: Wastewater planning in Orleans has been going on for 7 years. They did not get a large turnout until they told people how much it would cost. Hughes, P: It is a challenge to increase visibility and produce useful material for people in town. Leven: Large poster area. People are taking information. People are slowly getting to this. Taylor: We should place information downstairs near the Chamber of Commerce. Bennett: There was too much time between second draft and final draft of the Phase I report which lead to a loss of momentum and clear objective of the Phase I. Continuity and leadership with this committee is very important to stay focused on Brewster's TMDL requirements in the Pleasant Bay watershed and 2) Brewster Ponds. The consultants should lead us. We lost people on this committee because of frustration with the process. Hughes, P: Bridge projects addressed a number of short term recommendations. Skidmore: It was difficult for me to tell where we were at any given time. More of this would be helpful. Young: Explained report. We doubled the amount of meetings. We tried to keep things moving. We tried to do this. We did not provide detailed progress reports. Schell: Re: water shed. Pleasant Bay is a prospective problem, Namskaket Marsh, Herring River portion, and 3 ponds in Stony Brook water shed. I would like to see an agreement between the committee and consultant of separate outlines for each of these. Define logical steps for where we are to where we have to be (compliance standpoint). Flexibility with the timing. The timing is sometimes dependent on other towns and funding. Three or four separate outlines would be helpful. Young: Excellent suggestion, each water shed is unique. Herring River— Not issued. Pleasant Bay— Nitrogen issues, Namskaket& Pleasant Bay— impacts your discussions with Orleans; DEP. Namskaket is an asset to you. There are potential regional solutions. We would love to help find those solutions with you. Evans: Question to Sue. Decline in population in Brewster? Like Orleans (7%)? Leven: We are level. There is some decline in the lower cape. There are more deaths than births. She explained (build out) is to see what is possible. It is an opportunity to set things in the right direction. Lewis: Yes decline, that is why there is re-districting. There is not the same amount of people moving to the Cape as in the 1990's. There was a discussion regarding build out. Hughes, 3: I agree with Bruce and Ed. The public meetings were well done. You are eager to please the committee and that might be a short coming. You did suffer from a lot of wordsmithing from the committee. Some of it was good. We need fewer choices and more direction. CWPC 4-25-11.doc Page 2 of 7 Audio recording—CWPC_042511_audiominutes Barry: Every client is a lithe different. We can help prioritize choices but it has to be your decision. We can do that. Young: We are more than happy to do this. We will work more closely with Pat and Sue so that everyone understands the consensus and the action items between each meeting. Hughes, 3: The nitrogen issue in Pleasant Bay is far from being resolved. Actual TMDL's. Young: You should look into Brewster's contribution. Look at the"build out"analysis, next 20 years, look at what type of development that you want to encourage in certain areas? What type of development does zoning allow? Inventory? Encourage other uses of this land, etc. What is the risk to having those continue? Leven: CDM direct interaction with the committee is encouraged. Lewis: Any consultant takes some time to get used to each other. It may have taken longer than expected. This type of meeting to clear the air is excellent. It is important for a consultant to narrow things down and learn from it. I agree with Joanne. It is the committee's decision. From the town stand point, Phase II, more money will be requested. The committee and the consultant have to be comfortable with each other. There should be"give and take more often". Johnson: Shared an example of the Planning Board and Whitten consulting. Mr. Whitten had to lead them through it. I would ask CDM —We want you to lead us. How are you going to do this? Find out from them today. Taylor: Where do you think we are with Namskaket Marsh (time constraints)? Legal position? Federal position?We should come up with a unified front. Pleasant Bay— Lawsuit with Conservation Law Foundation. What do we need to do?The ponds are a priority but there are some things we have to do to show we are working on reducing our nitrogen. Young: Do your homework on all three water sheds. Commitments to reduce nitrogen. Which battles you want to take on? It might not be a reason to go to the table with DEP? Meetings with Orleans might be an alternative. Leven: I had conversation with George Meservey recently. We want Orleans to understand that we want to be included. We want participation in the process. There was a discussion about Namskaket. Hughes, P: We have not pushed for a response. We need to meet with Brian Dudley. We have been cc: DEP. Leven's conversations with Meservey are a good idea. Next Steps: From Barry Namskaket—What is Brewster contributing? Pleasant Bay—What is Brewster contributing? Herring River— Not out yet Brewster needs to have a seat at the table in the Orleans waste water program Johnson: Critique about the committee: You are talking about minutia. Talk about process with CDM. There are too many people jumping in. I would say to the committee bring me the 6 things we need to work on. Consultant should provide this. We want the consultant to lead us. Hughes, P: The six questions are part of Phase II. I agree. Your point is important. Young: Agrees with Johnson. He explained the process including the bridge projects. The committee has the list. That is how they developed their list of bridge projects. Water sheds discussions are a time sensitive issue. Johnson: The committee has not let the consultant lead. Schell: Win/win solution — Orleans/Namskaket. We have to do more than talk about it. Do we have a case? Can we recruit other organizations to support us to build a case? CWPC 4-25-11.doc Page 3 of 7 Audio recording—CWPC_042511_audiominutes Bennett: In response to the original question, should you bid on Phase II? Yes, you should bid on Phase II. We need assistance in getting through the bridge projects. We have four bridge projects. Continuity and leadership is important. You have a clear understanding of what we need to do. We need CDM to be more direct and move us forward. Your services have been valuable and you are welcome to participate regardless of what you have heard or read in the minutes. Young: As part of education of the committee, out for proposal, out to bid, we spend a significant amount of money. $20k, early $120K paid for report but did $150k of work. We would spend another $20k to provide another proposal. This is a very difficult decision. Hughes, P: We understand and that is not the reason we would decide or not decide. Bennett: What is Phase II? Leven: Assumes completion of bridge projects. Actual needs assessment. Phase II—starts needs assessment for the town. Issues and what do we need to fix. Young: Phase II -- Immediate needs (bridge) GIS work, data talking to one another, 3 water sheds MEP basis, nitrogen needs, analysis and screening, ground water for non conforming uses, build out, looking at the ponds (SMAST) Hinckley's, and then public input. (Cobbs Pond and other associations). Sampling. The summary prepares you for regional discussions so you know what you are looking at. Hughes, P. distributed Phase II update from Leven to Bennett. Bennett: Most critical? Young: Water sheds (Pleasant Bay and Namskaket) plus GIS work Lewis: CDM and committee— Phase I was gathering information. Then come up with a plan in how it relates to water protection. For the Town -- Your recommendation of what the town has to do. It is a difficult task. Hughes, P: The Town of Brewster raised issues when tri town was being proposed. The questions are old. It is a long time concern of the town. Hughes, 3: Putting together a response to a RFP is a big expense. Considering our relationship you would like to continue without a RFP? Young: Yes. Hughes,]: How would you lead us differently? Young: We would direct these meetings, (agenda, purpose and action items, what is next) Barry: Working sessions with action items. Young: Mary would have more of an active role. She would be here to facilitate meetings. Sue and I would touch base more frequently. We will layout a long term schedule and drive the process. Bennett: Orleans Update. The meeting was a wonderful opportunity to talk about Namskaket. Hughes, P: Written testimony and verbal contribution at CCC Meeting. Orleans Comprehensive Waste Water Plan. Charlie and Sue attended as well as Pat. Leven explained participation. Bennett: We should communicate our willingness to work with regional partners on a solution. This was a TV opportunity to share our view. We should communicate that we are concerned about the impact. Tri town plan has 11 years of data. We have spreadsheets, ground water surface stations, (Weiskel presentation) He says measure water quality at seeps. Bennett provided further explanation. CWPC 4-25-11.doc Page 4 of 7 Audio recording—CWPC_042511_audiominutes There is some good data here. Bennett explained their model. Agenda item once we review Peter's presentation. Hughes, P and Miller contributed to the discussion. Group should review the presentation that Sue emailed to the committee today. Miller: Assuming we sign on —what happens if they are wrong? Bennett: In a scientific investigation there is no certainty ever. This is a best guess, 11 years of data. You are fighting public policy (State and TMDL's). Ask more questions and participate in more studies. We need to get to the table. Use information gained in Phase I. Schell: I agree. I think it is necessary to have a hydrological specialist review the 11 years of data. What % of nitrogen released in present plant goes into creek and marsh? It seems implausible to me—this mound in water table (above any clay or silt layers) that somehow it will go under. There should be substantial support for that hypothesis. Hughes, P: We would benefit from the consultant's review of the data. Hughes, J: Namskaket on next AGENDA with some action items Bennett: I need permission from someone to ask Jay Burgess for the spreadsheets, 11 yrs. ground water monitoring—tri town plant public record. Bennett will give email address to Sue. *Bennett will create graphs for the group by the next meeting. Evans: Question about Brewster septic pumping and where it goes. Joanne explained the process. If we had complete build out we would not want sewers? Hughes, P: We need existing information to be looked at and tied to our water records. We need to assess the situation and then answer that question. Leven: The report was less specific of sewering the town. Taylor: Second commission meeting for the Orleans Waste Water Plant meeting. Issues addressed in the staff report. There is still nothing in the report. Where should this come from? BOS? Send to Paul at the CCC. Leven: I will follow up with Ed Lewis. Companies for build-out/GIS Leven: I have the old maps. I talked to firms in Boston. There are 4 I would consider. We should give the build out and GIS work to the same group. Before next meeting—work on GIS scope and should go out before build out. For next meeting. Other Business: Cape Cod Water Protection Collaborative (county group) is having a public hearing 4/26/11 at 4 or 4:30 pm Town of Orleans independent peer review of the MA Estuaries Project, Number of town's has expressed interest, National Academy of Sciences. Meeting is to solicit comments and views on their idea. (a handout was distributed) MEP Linked Watershed Embayment Model Scientific Peer Review, Framework for Review. There was discussion about the collaborative and its associations, etc. Lem's graph: Nitrogen in drinking water, last test done at county lab. Some are not included. 28 wells tested above 5 mg/per liter(yellow) we can match this to GIS. Nitrogen levels. Lewis: How many wells in Brewster? Skidmore: 496 approximate since 1999. Some wells might not be there. Leven &Hughes, 3: This is why we need the water dept. data. The properties not receiving water bills have a well. We won't see irrigation wells. Lewis: Inspection? There is no enforcement of rentals. CWPC 4-25-11.doc Page 5 of 7 Audio recording—CWPC_042511_audiominutes Bennett: CCC did build out study (98)the book that Joanne has, 3-400 wells with street addresses. There was a discussion about testing. Done at the real estate transfer, rentals but no way to enforce this. Hughes, P: We have some data to work on. I am stepping down as chair at the end of May. Miller: SMAST contract update? Leven: Yes, I am working on it this week. To Russ - Message from Ed?Talk to Ed? Schell: I will follow up with Sue. Taylor: Comments about RFP with CDM. Pat recommends going out for RFP. Dave and Mary addressed the process and how to improve it. Is this the consultant team we want to work for the next three years? What are the important qualities of a consultant for us? The committee will discuss this decision at the next meeting. Bennett: Do we need professional consulting for the bridge projects? Phase II...Let's discuss. They could be advisory to us. We need an open discussion. Hughes, P: RFP? Stay with CDM? Evans: Another study or are we at a point to take action? Can they get involved with Orleans? Leven: Clarified the bridge projects concept. They merge Phase I with Phase II. Minutes for Review: 3/28/11 Bennett made a Motion to accept minutes as corrected Hughes, 3 Second All Aye Vote, 5-0-1 Hughes, 3 abstain Next Meeting: 5/09/11 Hughes, 3 made a Motion to adjourn Skidmore Second All Aye Vote, 6-0-0 Meeting ended 6:45 pm esp-m ull 9 fitted, rr Ao.la ?i. .4.4em ,./ C - . a eft, Jerk Kelly Moor , Sr. D Assistant Planning - L t-- _ :-_-' CWPC 4-25-11.doc Page 6 of 7 Audio recording—CWPC_042511_audiominutes Action Items: Updated 4/29/11 CWPC Meeting 4125/11 Action Item: Comments: Status: Due BRIDGE PROJECTS AND PHASE II: Contact Mr. Lincoln to see if we can get a volunteer to Bennett to follow up. Pending take water samples. Call Dr.Sandy Zevon. *Elizabeth called and left message 4/8. Phone: 385.9478 Dave left message and has not heard back. Contact Jay Burgess regarding tri town Leven will contact and give data to Bennett 519/11 records/spreadsheet Bennett will create some graphs for the group by the Bennett 519/11 next meeting. Hinckley's Pond Update Leven 5/9/11 GIS Scope Leven 519/11 Review Peter Weiskel Presentation Committee 5/9/11 Leven sent via email Find companies to consider build out project Leven Pending MISC: Cranberry Growers Association Check on the availability of PowerPoint presentations Leven Pending from the last meeting CGA, Taylor and Leven attended in 2010 Contact CGA and ask if they might talk to the bog Leven Pending owners and find out when discharging into the bog—to take samples. CWPC 4-25-11.doc Page 7 of 7 Audio recording—CWPC342511_audiominutes