The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal AboutComprehensive Water Planning -- 2011-05-09 Minutes • ��\�aua� iwrrii ,,�� \`\� lock Lp�Ra Si._ Comprehensive Water Plan�[ing ' , o`� E '4 Town of Brewster Committee 1111 2198 Main Street 0 _iltirr_ Brewster, Massachusetts 02631-1898 v- t` '-�'' (508) 896-3701 Fs oa reo �\�� FAX (508) 896-8089 Date Approved:6/13/11 Vote: 5-0-0 TOWN OF BREWSTER MINUTES OF COMPREHENSIVE WATER PLANNING COMMITTEE (CWPC) REGULAR MEETING Monday, May 9, 2011 at 4:30 pm Brewster Town Office Building 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, Joanne Hughes, and Dave Bennett present. Absent: John Lipman Also Present: Sue Leven, Jim Gallagher, Chris Miller, Ed Lewis 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: 050911_A Email from Sue Leven to Pat Hughes regarding RFP decision, 050911_B Data Synthesis and GIS Training from Sue Leven 1. Citizen Forum 2. Namskaket Marsh Discussion 3. Update: Tri Town Data, Dave Bennett 4. Decision regarding issuance of RFP for Phase II 5. Companies for build-out/GIS 6. Changes to the SMAST Scope of work 7. Review minutes from 4/04/11 8. Topics the Chair did not reasonably anticipate CWPC 5-09-11.doc Page 1 of 7 Audio recording—CWPC_050911_audiominutes Citizen Forum Skidmore: CDM report— BOH enforcing the 300 ft. setback requirement. There are four variances on BOH agenda that have to do with the 300 ft. setback requirements. I will vote for all of them. The committee discussed further. Hughes, 3: There have been a couple of instances where we have required people to move the septic system. Taylor: I suggest the committee get involved with rain barrels for the town. New England Rain Barrel Company I have talked to Paul Anderson and he is interested. $129 for a barrel. $74.95 in bulk. Bio Orbs to make your own fertilizer are also available. ,�� s 'e� �..s ,!,t N` ipts, Decision regarding issuance of RFP for Phase II Do we want to stay with CDM for Phase II? Hughes, 3: There is less incentive for them to"over do"in Phase II. Since they over spent in Phase I Taylor: I am not supportive of using CDM again. Do a RFP. Skidmore: I agree with Taylor. We owe it to the town to do a RFP. Schell: Referenced Sue's email to Pat(handout). What is the committee's opinion? Hughes, P: I agree with Taylor and Skidmore. CDM did an adequate job for us. We could streamline the process to get a good review to choose a company. (RFP process)This would lower the cost for those who respond. Schell: What is your vision for Phase II scope? Is it similar to Phase I? Leven: Phase II looks at a different aspect of Phase I. Phase I created data for going forward. Phase II is about the town's wastewater mgmt, ground water, surface water protection and how the town can meet goals. (Sue shared an example) How best to mitigate the town's issues. Hughes, P: Bridge projects are important to refine the basic analysis CDM did for us. We will have a build out and water use will be tied to our assessor's database.Then we can do detailed analysis of water use, potential wastewater flow in our larger water sheds and sub water sheds. This helps us define wastewater plans. Sue is working with DPW to get a better idea about storm water. Leven: By the end of Phase II we have a set of options for the committee to prioritize. (Sue shared several examples) Hughes, J: Should we limit scope of work for their (CDM) proposal? Leven: That is what we did with CDM for Phase I. The committee discussed what CDM did before and how to handle the process going forward. Leven: We received 9 proposals last time. CDM, Horsely Whitten and Stearns and Wheeler were the top 3. We have the option to limit the RFP to the three front runners only. Hughes, P: Let's make it efficient for the bidders and for us. The committee discussed options for a scope of work, RFP. Lewis: Phase I is completed. Are you going to issue a report to the BOS or the Town regarding Phase I? I recommend a report stating what has been accomplished. A high level summary that is factual. Hughes, P: Final decision? Stay with CDM? Skidmore made a Motion to submit an RFP for Phase II, not limiting the committee to one vendor. Taylor, Second, Vote, 7-0-0, All Aye CWPC 5-09-11.doc Page 2 of 7 Audio recording—CWPC_050911_audiominutes The committee discussed limiting the RFP (# of pages, etc.) for the vendors. Bennett: I agree with Ed. We need a mission statement for what we will have at the end of Phase II. 1) Wastewater, 2) Pond Restoration. I would like to see Sue draft the RFP and the mission. You can request electronic versions only. Leven: Should we limit the release of the RFP or to everyone? Bennett: Let's go back to our finalists. Leven: I will send a list of who submitted last time and what we ranked them, comments, etc. (Phase I) Anyone can come to the office to look at the original proposals. (*Members who were not on the committee last time) Leven will send the RFP document to the committee. Bennett: I am in favor of limiting the list. Hughes, P: We will limit the solicitation. Changes to the SMAST Scope of work Russ and Sue have talked to Ed Eichner. There have been some revisions to the scope. Leven explained that there is a pipe that connects Elbow to Walkers Pond that was done after the Civil War, 1860's. This presents some issues with the flow of the two ponds. Flow analysis (+$1,100) The committee discussed this subject further. $40,193 adjusted contract amount for SMAST Hughes, P: Summary of changes to scope: This new connection, cranberry bogs, creates added work for Chris and others for monitoring. • Access to private property. Russ's concerns - Dissolved oxygen, sediment cores, incubation for Phosphorus, changed to do sampling during core collection Monthly email updates Change date of completing process to May Reminded the committee - We do have a limited amount of money. We can't do everything we want to do with the Mill Pond complex. However, this will give us solid information to move forward. Schell: I find it puzzling that his statements appear to be contradictory. Yes, there are limited funds but whatever steps we take should be complete so we can build on them. The business of doing phosphorus regeneration from the sediments but not getting oxygen at the same time you get incomplete or misleading results. If it can't be done completely then you should not do it at all. Hughes, P: This has been changed. "...oxygen measurements at the time of the core samples..." Schell: In our contract we should identify a deliverable that he will provide a relationship between phosphorus regeneration and oxygen concentration in the water column adjacent to the sediments at the time that the regeneration is occurring. That should be stated. Bennett: You made the comment, he acknowledged it was incomplete and made the adjustments. Schell: Disagrees. It is very important that in the contract with SMAST you clearly identify the deliverables. Hughes, P: To Chris - Can you work with Sue to finalize wording to be sensitive to the wording in the contract. Schell: I would like to review our expectations for the SMAST deliverables. Hughes, P: Russ, please provide Sue and Chris with the specific deliverables and wording for the contract. Schell asked for clarification of Miller's role in this project. Hughes, P: This work is done with Town Staff. CWPC 5-09-11.doc Page 3 of 7 Audio recording—CWPC_050911_audiominutes Bennett: Pond Study: Phase I identified these ponds as having water quality issues not related to developmental considerations. The study has the objective to determine if the phosphate load in the sediments contributes to the water quality. Coring will determine this. Hughes, P: We need further clarification of primary sources of phosphorus. Regeneration in the sediments could be one major source. We want to understand the inter connections/flow between the ponds. We chose Mill Ponds because of the Herring. Miller: 1)This is really a condensed version of the Ponds report. 2) We are running out of time or we will miss the season. Bennett: I understand that and Schell's concern. Thank you Russ for these comments. Hughes, P:_Russ will provide the language before next meeting —done this week. Leven will take care of the contract. Hughes, J made a Motion to approve additional funds, commensurate upon final wording. Skidmore Second All Aye Vote 7-0-0 ;d + Namskaket Marsh Discussion Jim Gallagher provided a summary. In the 80's the Conservation Commission (CC) amended a by-law to say if they perceive something will alter a wetland, they can take jurisdiction. Until an alteration occurs you don't have jurisdiction (State of MA) The thought the effluent going in to ground would alter it. Hearing Summary: Orleans submitted a request for determination —questioning whether CC had jurisdiction They also submitted a notice of intent (the actual application) They were being cooperative but still fighting it at same time. CC said that yes, this effluent into ground will eventually get to wetland resources and then to Brewster. Orleans appealed that claim. The state said you don't' have jurisdiction until it gets there. A permit was issued and that was appealed. Key points • 45,000 gal per day input was permitted (700,000 today) • Association to preserve Cape Cod wrote a paper—"this is part science part art, they really don't know..." • State gave ground water discharge permit, expired 1991, Renewed? Questions? Schell: Doesn't the state ACEC extend up to elevation 10? Elevation to leaching field? Gallagher, Yes, not sure. Did not write down elevation. 30 ft. or so above sea level. Above 10. The committee had further discussion about ACEC, height level review, etc. Schell: Designation of ACEC defines an area of pristine characteristics. Gallagher: There is further information about ACEC. A lot of discussion in the transcripts. I have not finished reviewing. Update: Tri Town Data Bennett: There is a lot of data. We did not get what we asked for. All data is available on Excel spreadsheet. Jay Burgess said it will be released. Charlie Sumner sits on the Board. Nobody has looked at the data. I hope it will be available. It is important for us to look at real data. The ACEC—the state has already weighed in on this. There rationale is they like the plan. Sue requested data and we got a PDF(cannot manipulate) It was not the information that we wanted. There was concerned about information being manipulated. CWPC 5-09-11.doc Page 4 of 7 Audio recording—CWPC_050911_audiominutes There was further discussion about monitoring. Bennett, Hughes, P, Hughes, J Hughes, J: Can we send a formal request, a written letter? Be specific. Leven: Dave, send me something. Bennett: Go to Charlie, ground water data and surface testing in Excel format. Sue will ask Charlie There was a discussion about Peter Weiskel's remarks....calibrated models vs. existing data. Thank you to Jim and Dave. There is a lot of information about the 1980's files regarding CC. (3 boxes) Lewis: Meeting tonight in Orleans, how it will affect this? Hughes, P: I am focused on getting formal acknowledgement of the shared resources. There was discussion about the Orleans Town Meeting agenda. Additional discussion continued about Weiskel's presentation There was discussion about a shared regional resource and the need for more data.There was also discussion about support of the Orleans plan. Leven: Namskaket is a resource and asset to Brewster (CDM Report) Hughes, J: We want to assert our rights to Namskaket. How can we more formally assert our rights? Leven: Charlie sent a letter to the commission. When will someone ask our permission for use of our resource? The Orleans documents talk about what they are going to do. There is nothing in the documents about meeting with Brewster and sharing the resource. Hughes, P: We need the State DEP to formally acknowledge that it is a shared resource. CCC has organized a meeting with DEP and the two towns to initiate these conversations. 5/12/11 @ 9:30am. Taylor: Has anyone talked to town counsel? Do we have a legal basis? Leven: Yes, that will happen. It is our land. Hughes, P: We are talking about managing a resource for nutrient loading. 80% resides in Brewster. The state needs to say here is how we will allocate and manage this resource between the two towns. Miller: Same analogy as Pleasant Bay. The committee discussed the topic further. Evans: From the Conservation Committee - Plume into the Bay? Discharge into Namskaket?True or not true? Taylor: 700k gallons a day— mounding, possible break through? Bennett: Yes, that would be predicted modeling. Peter wanted to continue this. He has data to support at 45k non significant amounts into marsh. Bennett explained further and mentioned the PowerPoint presentation. Waters owned by the Commonwealth are owned for the common good of all. We own the marsh not the water under it. Further description of water flow continued. We should work together to solve their wastewater needs and our needs. Taylor and Bennett discussed the subject matter further. Water flow, treatment of effluent, ground water, mounding, etc. Schell: Chatham project—Sewage Treatment Plan -Talked about mounding due to the increase in the plant. It seems appropriate as to what will happen at Namskaket Marsh. Companies for build-out/GIS Sue Leven (handout) Data Synthesis and GIS Training Email me comments. I have a list of qualified companies to send this to. CWPC 5-09-11.doc Page 5 of 7 Audio recording—CWPC_050911_audiominutes *The committee members may send any recommended companies to include. The committee reviewed the handout and offered comments to Leven. Firms: VHB, Horsely Whitten, CDM, SEA, (will send storm water mapping discussion to committee), GHD, Stearns and Wheeler **Comments to Sue by Friday 5/13/11. Bennett made a Motion to direct Sue to solicit the RFP for Data Synthesis and GIS Training subject to receipt and distribution of comments from the committee. Skidmore Second There was some discussion. All Aye Vote 7-0-0 F,.5:5 _ Other Business: Review the Minutes of April 4, 2011 Page 3 of 9 Bennett will give edits in paper. Re: find people who live on the pond to do some sampling. 4/4/11 Skidmore made a Motion to accept minutes as amended. Bennett Second All Aye Vote 5-0-2 Hughes, J and Evans abstain. Appreciation was expressed by the committee of the award from NOAA to Chris Miller! Skidmore made a Motion to adjourn, Bennett, Second, All Aye, Vote, 7-0-0 Meeting ended 6:30 pm Next Meeting: 5/23/11 Respectfully submitted, '1 i"a d9■0 ir/Lfre la Dar e t, I ler Kelly M ore, S . ept. Assistant Planning CWPC 5-09-11.doc Page 6 of 7 Audio recording—CWPC_050911_audiominutes Action Items: Updated 5/12/11 CWPC Meeting 5/9/11 • Action Item: Comments: Status: Due BRIDGE PROJECTS AND PHASE II: Send comments re: Data Synthesis and GIS Training Comments to Leven 5/13/11'' Scope of Services Contact Jay Burgess regarding tri town Leven will ask Sumner to request data in Excel 5/23/11 records/spreadsheet format Bennett will create some graphs for the group for the Bennett Pending next meeting. SMAST Scope of Work Schell 5/13/11 Schell provide Sue and Chris the specific deliverables and wording for the contract Find companies to ask to bid on build out/GIS project Leven Pending MISC: Cranberry Growers Association Check on the availability of PowerPoint presentations Leven Pending from the meeting Taylor and Leven attended in 2010 with the CGA. 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 5-09-11.doc Page 7 of 7 Audio recording—CWPC_050911_audiominutes