Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutComprehensive Water Planning -- 2013-03-11 Minutes ----- 0001000/ 10,aftEws? Town of Brewster Comprehensive Water * c•40., 2198 Main Street Planning Committee 5 u op,p , g Brewster, Massachusetts I 0 _It!!ri -=" e• 02631-1898 (508) 896-3701 x1233 //thP6. no, 101 W0018111111111{10\ FAX (508) 896-8089 BREWSTER TOWN CLERK Date Approved: 4-8-13 '13 APR25 11:46 Vote: 7-0 TOWN OF BREWSTER MINUTES OF COMPREHENSIVE WATER PLANNING COMMITTEE (CWPC) Regular Meeting Monday, March 111 2013 at 4:30 pm Brewster Town Office Building Chairman Lem Skidmore convened the CWPC meeting at 4:34 pm in the Brewster Town Office Building with members, Russell Schell, Elizabeth Taylor, Dave Bennett, Dan Ryan, John O'Reilly, and Joanne Hughes • present. Absent: Pat Hughes, Bruce Evans, • Also Present: Sue Leven, Jim Gallagher, Chris Miller, Ben DeRuyter (FinComm Liaison) Recording or Taping Notification The Chair read "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 record this meeting they are required to inform the chair." Supporting Documents: AGENDA 031113_A HWG Memo 3-1-13 Phase III Scope of Work, 1. Citizen Forum Brewster's IWRMP 2. MVP and other CCC wastewater planning tools 031113_B Comments on HWG Phase III Scope, P. Hughes Discuss questions&action items for a meeting with 031113_C Email from Mark Nelson to Sue Leven re:604(b) HWG and CCC 3. Discuss Phase III Scope from HWG 4. Discuss 604(b) grant options 5. Review Minutes of 1-28-13 6. Topics the Chair did not reasonably anticipate I 1. Citizim 'Forum None 2. MVPiand other CCC wastewater planning tools DiscusSquestions and action items for a meeting with HVVG & CCC Leven gave an update. Cape Cod Commission (CCC) will be setting up meetings with the towns in the next few weeks. Leven has invited Mark Nelson from HWG and will invite the Board of Selectmen (BOS). Leven is trying to talk to the CCC. Leven stated they would talk to the CCC first, then other towns. She offered to contact Harwich and Orleans to setup a discussion regarding regionalization. Bennett asked if this was framed under the CCC's work. Leven and Bennett discussed. Bennett explained that we are in Phase III and with the recent CCC announcement we should discuss further with other towns. Schell asked about the Orleans committee that includes a Brewster seat. Leven is the contact. Leven explained they have not met yet. Hughes, J asked if it is a formal committee. Who is the chair? Status? CWPC 3-11-13.docx Page 1 of 6 It was determined by the committee that Orleans is possibly not ready to form a committee. Bennett made a Motion for Sue Leven to contact Orleans and Harwich, to seek out discussions relative to watershed planning, noting the CCC watershed planning efforts, Hughes, 3 Second, All Aye, Vote 7-0. Skidmore acknowledged the comments received by Pat Hughes. He asked the members to send any comments regarding the HWG Phase III Scope of Work by Friday 3-15 to Leven. 13. Dismiss Phase III Scope from HWG The committee discussed the memo from HWG dated 3-1-13 from Mark Nelson regarding the Phase III Scope of Work. Hughes, P submitted comments to the committee. Skidmore asked for comments. Commgnts: Hughes, J asked for clarification for Task D2 Rapid Watershed Assessment second half for one pond. She referenced comments received from Hughes, P. Second half, $50k, questioned cost. Leven stated the entire D2 is different. Miller explained there are 3 to 5 ponds for $11k each. He likes the task in D2. (rapid assessment) Ryan asked if HWG is seeking funds for Ed Eichner's study on the Mill Ponds Complex. There is a lot of data Do we need more analysis? Skidmore explained this change is based on Eichner's request for sediment sampling. Miller stated both are addressing the same work. Mill ponds are key ponds to the town. It does make sense to finish work with them. He added it is a likely solution since there is too much phosphorus in the sediments. We will need to inactivate the sediments. They discussed further. Hughes, 3 asked about how many studies are needed. Leven explained rapid assessment from HWG allows them to come to a conclusion for short money then they can apply the methodology for other ponds. (vs. a yearlong study) Miller suggested Nelson address this again. Miller provided an example using Blueberry Pond. Alum treatment has to be addressed separately. Skidmore noted smaller studies are quicker. Hughes, 3 asked about who does the analysis of data gathered from Mill Ponds. Contractors? Leven stated not sure and the committee does not have the money. Hughes, 3 asked who is doing the analysis. She referenced task D2 again. Bennett asked if the group asked Eichner for a cost estimate. Grant money for Eichner's work? Leven, No He added the committee has the data but what is the data leading us to? Bennett summarized the progress. He questioned how the committee dedicates the money. He suggested reserving the money. Landscape plans, retention pond plans could be taken on by private firms with a competitive bid process. Solicit bids from local companies. Scope of work is mostly storm water work. Schell believes that there should be resolution with SMAST regarding the 2009 Ponds Report. He is in favor of continuing work with them. They are leading up to the ability to develop both an annual water budget which quantifies a phosphorus budget. He asked Miller if he agreed. Miller explained the original proposal was too much, so they cut back. They now have data and we need to follow through. They have the data and history of studying Brewster ponds. It is a logical choice. He asked about what level of study is needed before remediation. He suggested doing short assessments so it is easy to move forward with remediation. CWPC 3-11-13.docx Page 2 of 6 Taylor asked if they can use 604(b), or are state funds available. Miller, yes. 604(b) and 319. 604(b) watershed planning. The 319 is for implementation. Use for Alum treatment? Miller concerned about deadlines for grant submissions. Skidmore, Taylor, and Miller discussed further. Taylor questioned the bird counts and the Alum treatment process. She asked the group if they know where changes are coming from Miller added the Mill Ponds area is built up. Other ponds are not and he is not sure if that is the issue. Taylor and Miller discussed further. Miller explained that small, quick assessments are important. Eastham just did three Alum treatments. Hughes, 3 - What is SMAST asking for? Leven explained they don't have enough money for the entire HWG contract. The committee discussed further. Skidmore summarized reallocating money to SMAST from HWG. He asked if the group has enough information to go through the Phase III Scope. Skidmore thinks it makes sense to move some money around. They could solicit a proposal from SMAST. Skidmore asked Leven to get a quick proposal from Eichner. Logical next steps? Miller agreed with Leven and suggested focusing on priorities regardless of the costs. 1) Pleasant Bay, 2) Ponds Schell shared two priorities. Pleasant Bay - nitrogen, HWG Mill Ponds, SMAST How to allocate the limited funds between those two to accomplish priorities? Taylor referenced Section A, HWG, what does the CCC have in mind? What is the CCC going to do for the town? Leven stated the CCC has no money for the town. Miller explained the reason we want to pay is consultant is on our side. (Brewster's best interests). Phase III cost went up. There was a discussion regarding the amount of money available. Sept - $130k to cover half. Now up to $149,305 after changes. 2nd half - $116k $264,305 is more than the $255,000 put in for Jan Now 248,725 264,305 Bennett asked which projects we want and what do we have questions on The committee reviewed the memo from HWG by task. A: Wastewater, (Skidmore suggested keeping) Al: Confirmation of alternatives to analyze no comment A2: Conceptual Design of Each Alternative, none A3: Development of Ranking Criteria, none A4: Analysis of Alternatives, none A5: Ranking of alternatives, none A6: Selection of Recommended Alternative, none A7: Implementation Plan for Recommended Alternative, none A8: Alternatives Analysis Report, none A9: Septic System Management in Areas of Poor Soils or High Groundwater CWPC 3-11-13.doc x Page 3 of 6 Bennett stated we have enough information and should defer to the Board of Health (BOH). This is done internally through the BOH modifications. Skidmore explained the BOH is looking for additional guidance. Hughes, J likes the second half. Miller stated they don't have to recreate the wheel. They should look at other towns that have pond issues. Hughes, J wants more specific recommendations. Bennett explained other towns have these issues. How much of $63k is being spent on that item? Is there a way to scope it down? Leven explained it is there to address septage management problems and potential sewering. Skidmore asked if they are dealing more with properties with septic systems. Leven, Skidmore, Miller, and Bennett discussed further. Leven asked if there should be further regulations for septic systems. B: Water Supply, none C: Stormwater C1: Develop Regulatory Language for Stormwater Management Miller asked if it is suitable. Leven will invite Nelson back to discuss further. C2: 100% Design for Town Hall Rain Garden Retrofit Project Hughes, J stated this is not a priority, and could be funded by grants. The committee agreed. C2: Second half Miller stated $65 to $70 seems like a lot. Schell agreed. This is a secondary priority. Bennett added a lot of this work is already being done by DPW. Bennett asked if SEA (Kleinfelder) is under contract. Leven confirmed. Bennett was in favor of $30k to stop illicit discharges rather than studying it more He added it is important to have projects that demonstrate this is working. Town Hall wetlands are not valuable. O'Reilly agrees with storm water management. He was in favor of the money better spent, $64 going back to the ponds? Miller suggested fixing stormwater directly impacting a pond vs. coming up with more regulations. D1: Design of Pond Front Vegetated Buffer - low priority, suggest removing Miller shared examples from other towns. D2: Rapid Watershed Assessment for One Pond, Second half. Probably important? Bennett and Leven discussed contract process. HWG does not want to wait until May to start. E: Annual Buildout Update Hughes, J questioned this task and cost. Leven explained the Town has not bought the Copelas land yet. It was voted on and passed at Town Meeting. It is not part of the current build out analysis. Leven and Bennett discussed how it will affect the build out Leven explained an annual update is probably not necessary. The committee agreed to wait. E2, $4,090 - The committee agreed to remove. F: Public Outreach and Education, $15k total Skidmore stated public outreach is important. Leven would like to see a different subject for second half public outreach video. G: Meetings, $28k Skidmore stressed communication is important. Leven reminded the committee that they like face time with HWG. They need to plan for enough meetings in Phase III. The committee agreed. Total savings equaled approximately $23k. CWPC 3-11-13.docx Page 4 of 6 Ben DeRuyter asked how close they are to doing remediation for ponds. Skidmore explained there is some consensus about the problems. He asked if the information in Task D would allow them to begin planning remediation. Miller reminded the group that five years ago they remediated for Long Pond. Leven explained the vast majority of ponds are privately owned. The work done on Town ponds will help to inform the private pond owners. They are trying to find a quicker way to figure out problems. It is cheaper to do Alum treatment on five ponds at once instead of individually. DeRuyter asked if the process in Task D would help to understand what to do with other ponds. Leven explained it is looking at rapid assessment. This will help us to address the majority of ponds. Bennett made a Motion for Leven to ask Ed Eichner for a bid from SMAST, Taylor Second, All Aye, Vote 7-0. Skidmore announced there is a volunteer beach cleanup in Brewster 3-16-13. They are looking for volunteers. Schell asked a question regarding Task Al. When will the committee learn about the alternatives? Leven explained Mark Nelson will come and discuss with the committee within thirty days of executing the contract. f 4. Discuss 604(b) grant options Leven referred to Nelson's email. She explained this might be a way to get funds to pay for a rain garden, depending on the grant. 604 - design. 319 - build. Miller interested in pond work. HWG might write grant. CCC sent an example to Leven. Proposals $30 to $35k each. Miller and Leven discussed further. The committee reviewed the bulleted list in the email. There are six bullets. Miller, #2 and #6 but #6 might be early. O'Reilly suggested HWG write a grant for #2 and #6, Bennett Second, ($ cover one or the other) Which of 2 are top priorities? O'Reilly made a Motion for #2 pond monitoring, Taylor, Second, All Aye, Vote 7-0. 5. Reviw Minutes of 1-28-13 Ryan made a Motion to approve the minutes of 1-28-13 as written, Bennett Second, Five Aye, Vote 5-0-2. O'Reilly, Hughes, J abstain. 6. Topics the Chair did not reasonably anticipate Taylor asked if anyone had comments on Blueberry Pond. Miller and Gallagher stated they are regulators for the Conservation Commission. The committee can submit something to the Conservation Commission and/or attend a meeting. Docks for recreational use are fine. Leven suggested they review the plans. Hughes, J asked the committee if building a beach was counterintuitive to their consultant's advice The committee discussed further. There was no motion made. Hughes, J made a Motion to adjourn, Bennett Second, All Aye, Vote 7-0. The meeting ended at 6:15 pm. Ne eti, l 3-25-13 @ 4:30 pm (possibly with HWG) Re --: 1 is!�i;. emitted44/11•1:=4, , 0 III •IMV et , Cler Kel y Moore, .nior .epart ment Assistant Planning CWPC 3-1 -.'ocx Page 5 of 6 CWPC Action Items, Post 3-11-13 Meeting Updated 3-13-13, action items were not reviewed at the 3-11-13 meeting. Consultant Action Items Meeting Comments Due Date Status /Member/staff Date (estimate) HWG Phase 1I—10%design on storm 2-11-13 Royal Bank of Canada tbd Ongoing water retro fit projects,Walker's denied grant request for Pond, Breakwater Beach,Town Hall Town Hall rain garden. rain garden Committee considering removing from Phase III and creating RFP for local firms. Phase II—Final Report 2-11-13 Final copies distributed to Done the committee. Bridge Project, Data Synthesis 1-28-13 Waiting for installation of Ongoing and GIS—maps accessible from People GIS(K. Lambert) Web site Bridge Project, Build out Report 2-11-13 Committee gave comments Owe Ongoing to Leven 2-11-13 committee set of GIS maps Phase III Scope 3-11-13 Committee gave comments HWG has to Leven 2-11-13 comments Committee may send and will be additional comments by 3-15 at 3/25 meeting Phase III,Joint meeting with the 1-28-13 Ed Lewis suggested it would tbd Planning Board to discuss Phase III be a good idea. Phase III, Meeting with HWG and 2-11-13 Leven following up with tbd CCC HWG and CCC SMAST Mill Ponds Complex Project 2-11-13 Leven to investigate the Ongoing (Pond Study) grant writing of the 604(b) Ed Eichner Technical Memo 1-16 with either SMAST or CCC for the management strategy of the Mill Ponds Com•lex Miscellaneous Kleinfelder MS 4 Compliance Update 1-28-13 Ongoing HWG Bennett Reports by Peter Weiskel for the Tri 2-27-12 early 2013 Pending Town Treatment Plant Hughes, J Ponds testing process,final report 9-10-12 12-31-12 Pending from the State CWPC 3-11-13.docx Page 6 of 6