Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutComprehensive Water Planning -- 2014-01-27 Minutes �,y,\a\\\""""'E'Iw°yj�� Town of Brewster Comprehensive Water uY to s i�s rF ip 1r.4 .,�9 2198 Main Street Planning Committee _ 1 ,Iti;; .:;= Brewster, Massachusetts 02631-1898 3 !III'i ''' H= (508)896-3701x1233 — brewplan @town.brewster.ma.us iii} efeR;; ,;ot \\ /w/0/0111111111110 R i I 11:44m Date Approved:2-24-14 Vote:5-0 TOWN OF BREWSTER MINUTES OF COMPREHENSIVE WATER PLANNING COMMITTEE (CWPC) BREW �1Oir. ``t Regular Meeting Monday,January 27, 2014 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, John O'Reilly, Adam Curtis, Dan Ryan, Elizabeth Taylor, Dave Bennett, and Bruce Evans present. Absent: Paula Miller Also Preeent: Sue Leven, Jim Gallagher, Chris Miller, Nancy Ellis Ice, Pat Hughes, Hal Minis, Bob Bersin, Mark Nelson of HWG 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." Supporting Documents: AGENDA 012714_A IkWG progress 1.Citizen Forum And status rpts 12/13 2.Review the HWG progress and status reports from December 2013 012714 B updated draft of 3.Mark Nelson of HWG to review updated draft of alternatives&rapid pond assessments alternatives•HWG 4.Discuss presentation to Board of Selectmen and Finance Committee,possibly 2/3 012714_C letters of 5.Discuss a request for letter of support—National Fish&Wildlife Foundation Grant support for grants 1)Barnstable County Extension Oyster Propagation,2)Brewster Natural Resource,C.Miller 012714_D Nelson's PowerPoint 6.Topics the Chair did not reasonably anticipate • I.Citizen Forum None 2. Review,the HWG progress and status reports from December 2013 The committee reviewed the progress and status reports. Skidmore asked for page numbers on future reports. Nelson provided an updated draft of alternatives analysis with recommended assessments. He distributed copies to the committee for final comments. Section 5 is supposed to be the implementation plan which is yet to be written. There will be more discussion regarding shellfish. There will be a meeting with the Pleasant Bay Alliance in a month. Implementation steps will be discussed after the meeting. That will be the closeout of this phase of wastewater plan. The committee • should send comments to Leven by 2/7/14. Leven will send a comments form to the committee. Commiqse Comments: Schell asked about table 5 (costs). Nelson explained the cost assumes no commercial value to shellfish. • Schell noted referred to as Oyster reefs. Acreage? 3–5 acres. Nelson noted that stormwater is in draft format. Leven has reviewed. The stormwater by-law will require a broader meeting in town with staff and board chairs to see how this will be created and implemented. Planning Board, Water Quality Review Committee, Board of Health and Conservation Commission will have roles. They are preparing flow charts with different options and finalizing the program. Nelson will send to Leven. CWPC 1-27-14.docx Page 1 of 5 Leven will schedule an internal meeting in 4—6 weeks to report on options to the CWPC. Nelson,addressed ponds work and noted the 1/11/14 meeting was very successful. 120 people in room, 20 to 30 online. Nelson commended Moore for her marketing efforts. Skidmorq asked about the Board of Health (BOH) draft. Nelson will send an updated draft in about a week to Nancy Ellis Ice and Leven. Leven will distribute. The BOH will discuss at a work meeting. Once ready(after 1 or meetings)they will hold a public hearing. The draft will be sent to the CWPC when available. Bennett asked if this draft was available. Does it follow the existing BOH regulations? They discussed further. 3. Mark Belson of HWG to review updated draft of alternatives & rapid pond assessments Ponds At the 1/11/14 meeting there was an idea to develop the right organization for pond information and work. They discussed having another meeting to discuss formation of the organization. • Looking at possibly 3/8/14 • Agenda topics? • Email campaign —no postcard mailing • Need to determine next steps and leadership • Schell asked about the coalition forming from existing groups. Nelson agreed. Evans asked about costs to remove phosphorus and expressed concern the residents may not be able to afford it. Leven stated that a pond coalition can help people learn to organize for their own pond. There might be private funding opportunities that the town cannot apply for. Minis explained that people want both independent pond organizations and a larger umbrella group. The BCT with its 501 (C), 3 status can act as a pass-through group for tax favored contributions for ponds work until a pond coalition gets up and running. Bennett stated it is important for the pond coalition to know what the other committees are doing. Any update on direct discharges? Leven and Bersin addressed Daisy Lane, and talked about Sheep Pond Landing and Fisherman's Landing. Nelson updated the committee on pond work assessments. Possibly re-think the scope. • Schoolhouse—in-lake analysis, sediment samples (better overall picture to finalize assessment) • Sheep and Slough ponds—watershed assessment. • Sediment depths through ice? • Sheep Pond— more water coming in from rain than groundwater. May account for better water quality. • Watershed delineations—provide a way to know which properties are being impacted. Minimizing input to ponds: *4-500 lots to move septic systems, BOH regulations *Fertilizer by-law Taylor asked if they are looking to the county for funding (re: moving the septic systems). Nelson stated he made it clear on 1/11 that changes will impact pond front owners and will cost money. There may be alternatives to moving all systems. Curtis asked about timeframes. (Proposed five years) Bennett asked about differentiating ponds (fishing, etc.) Nelson—have not discussed yet. They discussed further. Nelson looked at Waterloo biofilter test at Otis. $5k installation cost. Bennett asked about DEP pilot approval. Paperwork is in. Nelson explained they have done most of the source removal with BOH regulations, state fertilizer ban and local fertilizer by-law. Instead of rapid assessment for Sheep and Slough pond, do we want to do watershed information on more of the ponds? Nelson suggested options: CWPC 1-27-14.docx Page 2 of 5 • Pond by pond maps • Stormwater requirements—build priority list for upgrades • Clearer watershed maps, stormwater inventory, BOH outreach Schell commented on Phase I, large table of upstream watershed areas and dwelling densities. The area times density number fOr Sheep and Slough is low. This supports the fact that these ponds are pristine. Skidmore;asked if they would learn the same things or better things by changing the approach. Nelson explained without knowing sediment quality in more detail, watershed modeling is helpful but not the full picture. We could do another watershed model but maybe after you have the data. Sheep or Slough sediment numbers will be low. Bersin noted the contribution of Daisy Lane to pond is small. There are direct discharges (3 or 4)to Schoolhouse Pond. Nelson aided that the landing is also a straight shot. They discussed location of direct discharges, what will do the most and who may need septic upgrades. Taylor asKCed if it is feasible to consider connecting some septic systems to Brewster Woods when it goes in (possible). Bennett commented on the state of catch basins. Regulations need accountability (piloting)for stormwater runoff. pennett thinks it is unjustifiable to make people move septic systems. He was in favor of making the state fix the direct discharges. He thought the pond rapid assessments would be used to decide which ponds to focus on. Hughes supported what Nelson was suggesting. The Town could highlight areas around pond that need to be addressed. They can develop a plan with priorities. The town commits to projects where private owners are also being asked to make changes.',She thought what Nelson is suggesting makes sense. Bersin expressed concern about tying into a Brewster Woods treatment facility Bennett did not agree with Hughes. He stated there should be a demonstration of other alternatives before telling people they need to move septic systems. Nelson explained the watershed mapping helps towns see the priorities as well as pond property owners. The BOH is dealing with the upgrades. Ellis Ice noted that the BOH is looking at variance regulations. They discussed further. Skidmore asked if they should change the scope of current contract from two additional rapid assessments to a different approach. Nelson will write proposed changes to scope for review. He added this is a place where the pond coalition could get involved. Miller-C noted there is still a"ticking time bomb"—phosphorus from septic systems. Bennett made a Motion to ask Mark Nelson of HWG to draft a revision of the scope before the next meeting, Curtis Second, All Aye, Vote 8-0. Hughes asked about the status of the Mill Ponds. Nelson explained some field work is done. SMAST has been held up the contracts and they are behind. Schell stated quantification of release of phosphorus from sediment. In a shallow pond there is extensive macrophyte growth, and on a bright day they are super saturated with oxygen. At dawn or after, it is at a lower level. Is this an open question',that SMAST is pursuing? Is there enough data to answer the questions? Nelson noted that in many shallow ponds, there is still sediment release. Bennett asked if the alternatives have been verified independently by DEP. They discussed further. Curtis asked if shellfish idea is based on other towns giving us access. Nelson stated it is viable but requires work. Nelson explained that the alternatives have been discussed with DEP except for fertigation. They have incorporated 208 plan data. Nelson explained that in implementation they would need to look at how to prove that nitrogen removal is actually taking place. There was a discussion of shellfish information and implementation. Schell asked if the watershed areas upstream and downstream are defined precisely enough to do a parcel by parcel identification. Nelson stated they are good for what they are doing. CWPC 1-27-14.docx Page 3 of 5 4. Discuss;presentation to Board of Selectmen and Finance Committee, possibly 2/3/14 There will be a BOS—FinComm meeting next week. They discussed content and the funding request for Town Meeting. Nelson will do a brief presentation of alternatives analysis and the cost/value. He will also cover where the group is with the ponds work, the success of the 1/11 meeting, BOH regulations, and fertilizer by-laws importance. Nelson explained that money will keep them working through the fall town meeting. O'Reilly asked if they should discuss money for pond work. Miller-C stated they could use HWG to do additional presentations this summer, Conservation Day. (Pond focus) O'Reilly suggested they continue the public"ball rolling." Get coalition running. They asked about a"drop dead date"for funding. Hughes stated "the sooner the better" They discussed the marketing efforts used to get people to the 1/11 meeting. (Direct mail, email, Channel 18, web site, WCAI announcement, and flyers distributed to town offices, Cape Codder-Brewster Page) Skidmore,asked about the proposal from Nelson. They will look at remaining funds and money for additional presentations. Bennett added to emphasize the need to have money to address direct discharges on private roads? DPW letter. Include in the presentation (emphasize) No money in budget to take action. Leven will look into adding a requirement to a betterment regarding fixing direct discharges. Who would be involved? Planning!Board? Board of Selectmen? Private roads were discussed. f 5. Discus'a request for letter of support-National Fish &Wildlife Foundation Grant I)Barns able County Extension Oyster Propagation, 2) Brewster Natural Resource,C. Miller Miller-C drafted a letter. He provided a summary for the committee. (Coastal issues) Sandy grant for coastal resilience. (Asking for$250k for planning) Schell stated he was surprised to see the letter addressed to the DC address. He thinks it should be sent to NFWA Regional Office, CT Valley. Miller-C explained this is a federal grant and this is who is handling it. National Fish and Wildlife Administration. O'Reilly made a Motion to authorize Skidmore sign the letter of support from the CWPC, Taylor Second, All Aye, Vot2 8-0! They discussed oyster grant support, $1.5m for an oyster propagation program. Leven and Nelson provided a summary of the request from Curtis Felix in Wellfleet. Miller-C explained that a letter of support is ok. It won't hurt Brewster but thinks it might be too far reaching. They had a discussion regarding grant funding availability. Schell expressed concern with supporting other towns. Hughes was in support of the program. O'Reilly Made a Motion to authorize Skidmore to sign the letter of support for the oyster propagation program, Taylor Second, 7 Aye, Vote 7-0-1. Schell was not in favor. Skidmore suggested adding an oyster interest in Brewster to the letter. 6.Topics the Chair did not reasonably anticipate Schell noted a recent article in the Cape Codder newspaper regarding dumping shells in Harwich. Could the town of Brewster',offer to accept shells here? Bersin stated that Orleans had a shell pile and it attracted too many seagulls. Miller-C Stated they started a program for used shells in the Punkhorn. After aging the shells are brought to the beaches. They are working with AmeriCorps to get shells from restaurants. It can attract rats in large scale. Taylor made a Motion to adjourn, Bennett Second, All Aye, Vote 8-0. CWPC 1-27-14.docx Page 4 of 5 The meeOng ended at 6:30 pm. Next Meeting: Monday 2-10-14 @ 4:30 pm Re •ectfull submitted, IN'fit ''n= t, Vice Chair& Clerk Kelly Moore,Senior Dept.Assistant,Planning Vt CWPC 1-27-14.docx Page 5 of 5