The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal AboutComprehensive Water Planning -- 2013-10-28 Minutes oummillillo ckE Ws 0 7•A,, idt`64PIA.›. Town of Brewster Comprehensive Water os • t 11\43 AD; 2198 Main Street Planning Committee =13 • Brewster, Massachusetts g-0t rI 02631-1898 •; • (508) (508)896-3701 x1233 BREWSTER TOWN CLERK FAX 896-8089 oionligitoo Date Approved: 11-12-13 Vote:8-0 • TOWN OF BREWSTER MINUTES OF '13 DEC 2 10:09AM COMPREHENSIVE WATER PLANNING COMMITTEE (CWPC) Regular Meeting Tuesday, October 28, 2013 at 4:30 pm Brewster Town Office Building Chairman Lem Skidmore convened the CWPC meeting at 4:30 pm in the Brewster Town Office Building with members, Russell Schell, Paula Miller, Dave Bennett, Elizabeth Taylor, and Bruce Evans present. Absent: Dan Ryan, Adam Curtis Also Present: Sue Leven, Jim Gallagher, Chris Miller, Nigel Pickering from HWG, Pat Hughes 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 he or she is required to inform the chair." AGENDA supporting Documents: 1. Citizen Forum 2. Discussion of letter to Town Administrator and DPW re: direct discharges 102813_AI Draft letter to Town Administrator 3. Discuss committee organization and DPW 4. Horsley Witten Group discussion of Schoolhouse Pond Report 102813_B IWRMP Update 10-24-13 5. Review minutes of 9-23-13 and 10-15-13 102813_C HWG Map and pond list 6. Discussion of 208 Plan 102813_D HWG Flyers 7. Topics the Chair did not reasonably anticipate Nalt1026.180T08Dilik:X4040031600MIW''.° ' 1',140H-1110A100=6 ,,v'''41011h1,01t; LtigNOWSIW4VOIt4-:' None , Leven provided a draft letter for the committee. Information was provided by Kleinfelder. Discus$ion: ; Taylor asked if a letter would be sent to DPW regarding the catch basin mentioned in the Schoolhouse Pond Report. i• Miller C talked to Bersin. Catch basins will be reviewed. 1' Miller P asked about a list attached to the letter. Leven did not include the list. She will email the list. Miller P thought the letter was lacking in urgency. Bennett agreed. Leven read Bennett's comment. CWPC requests the town creates a reserve to fund projects as they are very important to water protection and ponds... Skidmore agreed with some of the statement but not a funding mechanism. They discussed further. Leven read a suggestion and the committee was in favor. ; Bennett thought the demonstration projects at Town Hall were already discussed with the Board of Selectmen. (BOS) Leven noted these projects are not in this letter. Bennett thought it was important to include the focus on projects to improve pond quality (specific improvements that have direct impact on water quality). CWPC 10-28-13.docx Page 1 of 5 4even and the committee discussed the letter further. Bennett';made a Motion to direct Leven to submit the letter to the Board of Selectmen, Miller-P Second, All Aye,,Vote 7-0. *Letter will be sent to the committee with the spreadsheet. " il�lllll�ll yl 71;II u II �I�III�IAR ��en�..7�IW��'�`';'�CIC �w�S '��I11t .i�"'ll��a�h�Mk�IR��•.f`�C�k�11 '�I�1!'1�"��II I�a�I G Iti, '�I II�F �IIII,hIN�I II 4 I � I�� Il � r�'"�'�� ,VIII w w,fll I"II Nigel Pickering from HWG was present. He stated he was not here to talk about the report. He was interested in choosing the next two ponds for rapid assessment, plus an announcement of a ponds meeting. Skidmore stated it was important to share comments. He asked for comments from the committee. The committee received the Schoolhouse Pond Report at the last meeting. Discussion: Miller-P I'stated that numerous parts need to be discussed. She recommended forming a subcommittee. She will',submit her comment in writing to Leven. In general, she commented regarding the final recommendation, remediation of ponds and cost, plus another study required regarding vegetation. She stated it seemed like a generic study. She questioned the level of detail. Pickering explained these are rapid assessments. Some details need further work. The sediments are a big unknown. They were trying to come up with a systematic process to address all ponds. Bennettaddressed the rapid pond assessment process. Has HWG given consideration to vertical separate and dimensional requirements? He discussed further with Pickering. (Setbacks) A vertical as well as horizontal component necessary? Miller-P stated she was confused regarding this issue. Watershed vs. capture area? Pickering discussed further with Miller-P. They discussed the model. Bennettlquestioned the model inputs. Skidmore asked for other comments. Schell asked if his comment had been reviewed regarding phosphorus contribution to the sediments. His comment was included in the comments sent to HWG. He questioned the model. Schell and Pickering discussed the proposed process and methods of evaluation for the pond. Pickering suggested adding sondes. Miller-C asked about the field work done. Pickering stated they did not do field work. Evans asked about implementation of suggestions, aeration and taking out of vegetation. How long would it take Until we knew if it worked? 10 years? Pickering stated the aeration is usually within a season. Taking out of vegetation - adds 3 to 14 years before they come back. The ponds are usually treated every 3 to 4 years. There can be early signs of improvement within 1 to 2 years. Taylor asked about relying on the Cape Cod Bird Club annual water fowl surveys. How often? Pickering was not sure about how frequently they survey. (Water fowl numbers increased by 50%) Pickering explained it is a difficult thing to sample and the more often the better. Schell commented regarding remediation harvesting of the macrophytes. Each year as they die, at end of season, pond covered with ice, nutrient content being recycled each year, if harvested like that, how would you quantify the phosphorus removal? Pickering noted it was a complex question. It is hard to do. Schell stated it was an obligation to make an estimate regarding the effect. They discussed further. Miller-Plasked what the most important source in this pond is. l ickerinq - Nitrogen is the big one. They discussed further. They talked about storm water. Miller-P suggested it be made clearer what the major sources are. (i.e. not septic systems) Make thle corrective measure obvious. Skidmore agreed. Skidmore asked about page #4, 2nd to last paragraph, last sentence. Clarification - Nitrogen's from septic systems? Pickering stated phosphorus is more important. Fresh water is more sensitive to phosphorus. He suggested deemphasizing the nitrogen input. Be aware but note it is involved. CWPC 10-28-13.docx Page 2 of 5 Hughes,. P asked about the woman from the Cranberry Station who wrote to Dr. Zevon. It may be important to review? Skidmore stated there will be more discussion. Nelson will be at next meeting 11-12-13. Additional comments should be sent to Leven by 11-1-13. Leven will send comments from the meeting today and email them to Nelson and Pickering. Pickering addressed the committee. 1.) Outreach: He shared three examples of a flyer for the citizen's pond information meeting on 12-14-13 The meeting might be a webinar. Topic - Present pond issues to pond property owners. Some ponds have associations. Some towns have pond committees that take care of town owned ponds. (Walpole has one) Discussion: Skidmore asked the committee to review and send comments to Leven by 11-1-13. Miller-P stated she was excited they are doing this and asked them to share examples of what has been done. Skidmore mentioned the Orleans Pond Coalition. 2) Selecting Ponds: Pickering shared a map. He asked the committee for input. Discussion: There Was a discussion about the map and list from HWG. (102813_C) The committee reviewed the list with Pickering and took suggestions from Chris Miller before making a decision to choose three ponds for the rapid assessment program. The committee was in favor of public ponds With access. (2) - problem ponds and (1) - good shape pond). Public access was a priority. *Ponds with Public access Review* Led by Chris Miller POND PUBLIC ACCESS Ponds in Nickerson State Park Yes, but they are doing own evaluation Schoolhouse Yes, current report Lower and Upper Mill Part of a Mill Ponds Study Black No, half in Brewster, half in Harwich, access only by Crowell's Bog road, Miller not in favor of the access Mill No Smith No Seymour Yes, different assessment, half in Harwich Cobbs I No (private) Eel Nickerson State Park Girl Scout No (private) Griffiths No (private) Owl Part public, no town landing ownership Pine Yes (trails) Smalls No Sols 0. Edge Blueberry 1/2 public and 1/2 private, no public access Elbow I No Flax Nickerson Greenlalnd No public access Higgins Nickerson Sheep Yes, substantial Slough Yes, public landing Discussion A second priority was 1 eutrophic pond, 1 mesotrophic pond, and 1 oligotrophic pond. The committee discussed the current conditions and locations of the ponds on the list. CWPC 10-28-13.docc Page 3 of 5 Pickering identified the ponds chosen by HWG. Slough, Sheep, Pine, Schoolhouse Skidmore was in favor of Sheep, Pine; Schoolhouse (thought Slough was too close to Pine) Leven suggested if they say you can only do Sheep then look at Slough or another small pond. Bennett asked about recommendation of sediment coring at Schoolhouse. The amount of load from runoff from septic systems couldn't account for the condition of pond. 'ickerinq stated yes. Bennett explained this was important. Qualification and calibration of model as a tool, by doing phosphorus testing would be important. Skidmore asked for a vote of the ponds. Schoolhouse, Pine, Sheep O'Reilly'',made a Motion to select the following ponds for rapid assessment, Sheep, Pine, and Schoolhouse, Taylor Second DiscusSion: Schell questioned Sheep Pond? The answer was they want to look at a pond that is in better shape. Bennett stated Sheep Pond has high value, since there is high density surrounding it. The up gradient side of the pond is developed. The down gradient is the rural side. It is an anomaly. (High visibility pond) Back to Schoolhouse, to do sediment testing. Confirmed - yes. HWG will get back to the committee. All Aye, Vote 7-0. The committee thanked Pickering. �%_ 4 ilflll if I I ',I� `I I .II iII I I - III I' II I ,III. !1,1111;11,11 f I � I I^ I� I I I, I S"I ��,��"��°I �nm�iltt� a�g�l�i�al '��wna I�i i�� I I � I I �� I II �I i I.I I� - CI The committee discussed committee organization after having a discussion with Nigel Pickering. The Chair changed the order of discussion. Skidmore stated if we form subcommittees, then that means public meetings, with posted agendas and minuted. Bennett explained that there was a lot of information coming through. He was hoping to have different people on the committee focus on certain aspects. He thought when they were negotiating for additional money for Phase III; there might be a better chance that everything is fully reviewed. Skidmore thought it could be helpful in specific instances. (Large projects with responsibilities for specific sections) An example - when receive a report with a lot of technical information we could assign pieces of the report to individuals. This may create problems. Bennett understood that they may only get individual perspectives instead of group perspectives. Skidmore was hesitant to do so. Miller-Pllwas concerned that they don't get answers when submitting information through Leven to HWG. She would like to see others comments. Skidmore agreed it would be nice to see everyone's comments. It would help with the discussion at the next meeting. Leven stated the comments are setup the way they are because they are returned by HWG line by line. She explained they had a miscommunication with Pickering. The comments were not addressed here. Hughesl'Istated it is a dilemma to be on a committee with a lot of work to do. All members have to stay on task. She suggested asking for executive summaries. Time is no longer a luxury for this committee. Leven referenced Phase I. She suggested being specific about comments. The point is to get comments, get them addressed and unless there is something that jumps off the pages, It is, done. Schell Was in favor of assigning portions to committee members but not if it is used to stifle comment, then it would be a serious mistake. Bennett asked if they could adopt a request for executive summaries. Leven stated it was the first comment on Schoolhouse Pond comment summary. Bennett thought the input parameters alteration was not clear. 5. Review minutes of 9-23-13 and 10-15-13 O'Reilly made a Motion to accept the minutes of 9-23-13 as amended, Evans Second, All Aye, Vote 6-0. Taylor abstains. Bennett made a Motion to accept the minutes of 10-15-13 as written, O'Reilly Second, All Aye, Vote 7-0. CWPC 10-28-13.docx Page 4 of 5 rh 11 ' lM sl o roL2O8 PIa I# ,.. f III I i ul l��d�� ."'h �� liii 'i Ah C4 i�iill ' I4III I I14 V i iG ��L iti I= 'I`II li,`v ". (even announced the Cape 2.0 initiative game. She distributed a flyer from the CCC. Last week the second phase of meetings began. Leven and Schell attended Pleasant Bay, Nauset, Namskaket and Herring River. The purpose was to outline the technology matrix. (See handouts last week) They discussed the technologies at the meetings. The Cape Cod Bay Group meets next week and then more meetings in December are scheduled to discuss solutions. Bennett stated there is a lot of brainstorming going on. When does this actually go from public comment to consideration of policy? When does this happen? Leven was unsure. She has been discussing this subject with George Meservey, Town Planner for Orleans, for years. Leven stated Harwich has completed their report, Chatham has built sewers and Orleans is Working on several projects to refine data from their CWMP? Leven is hoping that the county has a unified voice and says to DEP and others that we are looking to have these technologies on a list of usable technologies on Cape Cod. There are 28 alternates total. Bennett asked about the Orleans plans. Oyster group and dredging.... Leven has talked to Meservey about the permeable reactive barriers. Orleans will be undertaking a very large, multi-phased project. It might be nice to initially work on a small project that both towns can work on together. Leven and Bennett discussed this topic further. Brewster has a distinct advantage of being able to approach things differently with more options than the south facing towns. Leven wants to look at what the town needs to address. Schell shared the same concern as Leven as far as the desirability of DEP to approve a longer list of options'',for addressing TMDL's. Will the CCC be the champion to accomplish this? He asked at the last meeting and got a tepid reply. Miller-Plasked about regionalization. What is being discussed? ,even stated that initially it was Brewster, Orleans, and Eastham. We have done a lot of outreach to the towns. CDM Smith has been selected to do the first phase work in Dennis. Hughes,stated that by the end of the year they will have some information on the alternatives. (even will provide periodic updates on the 208 Plan to the committee. Hughes announced that Wednesday night the three boards of selectmen are meeting at Town Hall to discuss the decommissioning of the Tri Town Plant. (10-30) Skidmore asked the Committee to review the IWRMP status spreadsheet. Schell stated the graphics for the 208 plan correspond to the MEP plan. He stated if nitrogen does not go through estuary embayments, no one worries about it. Re: Nitrogen counts discussed earlier -- for them it does not count unless it goes through an estuary embayment. '.even stated that only estuaries have TMDL's. Hughes was concerned about the Cape Cod Bay watershed. She stated the Town can champion that. HWG is doing work on this. Evans rtiade a Motion to adjourn, Taylor Second, All Aye, Vote 7-0.The meeting ended at 6:25 pm. Next Meeting: Tuesday 11-12-13 @ 4:30 pm Respectfully submitted, FiAI Nap Day- nett Vice Chair & Clerk Kelly Moore, Senior Dept. Assistant, Planning CWPC 10-28-13.docx Page 5 of 5