Minutes
Wastewater Planning Committee
DRAFT Meeting Minutes
October 21, 2014
7:30 pm Town Hall Hearing Room
Attendance:
Alex Hay, Curt Felix, Ned Hitchcock, Janet Drohan, Patrick Winslow, and Lezli Rowell.
Status of CWMP:
Alex emphasized conscientious planning of fiscal responsibilities. He noted that from the draft
Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan (CWMP) submitted by the project consultants, there have not been any comments received from DEP. The ‘Interim Report’ has been posted to the Town website since August 2012. Documents that Paul of EPG notes as ‘pending’ to become incorporated as appendices Curt plans to follow up in providing, and he noted that there is a separate process for the Provincetown Center for Coastal Studies water quality monitoring to proceed formally through peer review. Presentations to the Cape Cod Water Protection Collaborative by Anamaria Frankic and Deniz Bertuna of the Oyster Project and by Amy Costa from PCCS meeting were discussed, noting that both the water quality results and biology metrics were presented at that public meeting. Critical comments reported to Ned by Cape Cod National Seashore staff were relayed.
Mashpee and Falmouth have filed plans under the 208 process and with UMass Estuaries Project TMDLs. While itwas last reported that the Wellfleet Estuaries Project report was due by June 1, 2013 [see meeting minutes of 5/28/13] and have not yet been produced, it was agreed that a path forward should be planned. Ned wished the next Committee meeting to include Town Administrator, Harry Terkanian, to lay out the public hearing and comment period process to take a ‘draft’ toward a ‘final’ plan.
Curt discussed the TMDL as an obsolete benchmark in light of 208 project water quality specifics, indicating his preference to follow Clean Water Act federal guidelines for water quality metrics, testing and management practices. Ned expressed his concerns over the politics of state agency jurisdiction. Curt’s response is that the DEP is held up on the novelty of how to permit a 208-like plan, how to manage, monitor and oversee implementation.
Lezli considered the current draft useful with ‘footnotes’ toward the TMDL as a parameter in use for seriously impaired waters that could be expanded as needed in the event that MEP Plan comes in with any areas requiring attention not otherwise accounted for in the plan. Curt agreed that the plan when ready for filing will be ‘bracketed’ by adaptive management strategies.
Alex emphasized the Committee should continue to fine-tune the content of the plan and process while minimizing consultancy expense. Lezli agreed that like the NRAB’s ‘Harbor Management Plan’ process the committee could document public hearing attendance, receipt of and responses to comments, reducing those line items in the original consultancy budget. Ned clarified that the final plan submitted to DEP would either be approved, modified or rejected; an approved or modified plan would then have to pass Town Meeting approval.
It was discussed that the emphasis of using TMDLs by those communities seems tied to deciding how many sewer project household hookups and convincing Town Meetings to appropriate funding. With ‘soft’ water quality management plans, the task in generating Town Meeting support and funding may be geared toward staffing and monitoring expenses. Curt noted that some components of the plan, especially the Herring River Restoration, are fully pledged through grants and give the Town nitrogen remediation credit without an expense to the taxpayers.
Curt also reports that the state highway department may be looking at increasing tidal flushing through their culverts.
Alex suggested that after a next meeting with Harry, a meeting with EPG should decide a timeline for the process.
It was agreed what will be most important is the determination of what watersheds will be monitored with sampling for project performance.
Update of the oyster reef project:
tabled to next meeting.
Mayo Creek Restoration:
Patrick discussed concerns raised by the latest hydrology study indicating that the tidal mean will increase with restoration, raising existing groundwater elevations and possibly causing new noncompliant conditions in existing septic system installations. Lezli explained the current Title V code calls for 5’ vertical separation between the bottom of the SAS and the groundwater resource, but on inspection will accept the older code as compliant with 4’ provided. Variances to allow less than four feet of protection are not generally tolerated, so upgrades to comply result in ‘mounded’ systems and the loss of productive use of those areas of property. In Patrick’s example of a commercial property the impact would be significant. The Committee discussed what alternatives and arrangements might have to be made piecemeal for those impacted locations.
Patrick mentioned that the hydrology study will also look at the option of dredging in the creek to reduce the built-up sediments. Curt noted that the Woods Hole study contrasted impacts between removing the clapper and the duck bill to analyze impacts. Patrick and Ned discussed the general depositional nature of the harbor’s bathymetry and that the seemingly counterintuitive response to increased flushing is greater tidal flooding and more silting accumulation. Ned felt that the ‘jury is still out’ whether a Duck Creek restoration project will actually reduce the frequency of harbor dredging expense for commercial accommodation, and Curt feels firmly thatimproved flushing will reduce the contribution that is detritus build-up.
Cape Cod Commission 208 Plan update:
Ned reported that Sophia Fox, CCNS ‘people’, John Portnoy and John Riehl of the NRAB, and members of the Conservation Commission are “not impressed” with the oyster water quality project and restoration plans as having data to support reductions to the different N species. Janet noted the Committee’s responsibility to back such statements to the public with the evidence. Alex replied that there is proven and quantifiable nitrogen reduction in oyster populations and that the project and plans are ‘parts of the toolbox’. Hillary Greenberg, Health and Conservation Agent, had relayed the ConsCom impression of the draft plan as not containing the referenced reports, presented in a hypothesis/conclusion format. Alex responded that part of the due diligence is identifying all the strategies to sustain water quality standards.
Patrick summarized that no one is against restoring natural environmental systems, but felt that in targeting certain point projects, that is where resistance occurs, and the value of the impacts may be questioned.
Ned reported attending all but the last of the 208 meetings of the regional body and that the initiative started out well attended by town representatives, but participation has dwindled. While the process was already developed it has been responsive to including the new technologies. He found the CCC staff helpful as facilitators. Ned provided copy of the ‘Draft 208 Cape Cod area Wide Water Quality Management Plan Update’ to be included with the instant minutes. He referred the Committee to the Executive Summary, feels that it is unclear whether data supports all of the options offered and noted the ongoing public comments period [see
Curt characterized the 208 not as a ‘plan’ but more a menu of options that will have approved values. He reported from the Water Protection Collaborative unhappiness with the 208 language, agreeing some statements are not supported by scientific data. The Collaborative is voted as the ultimate representative of the towns, the final reviewing authority, to which 208 Executive Director Paul Niedzwiecki agrees. The Collaborative has concerns over implementation of approved values in water quality management plans, yet feels the effort is better than anything any other jurisdiction has presented to date in forward thinking adaptive management strategies. With the final plan to be formally submitted in February, there are still a few items to be defined … most significantly, ‘watershed’. The varying uses of this term by different agencies and in different documents was discussed. Curt suggested that as DEP ultimately accepts or rejects filings, it may be that these “planning numbers” from 208 work for, or are not accurate for, specific water bodies.
EPG update (By email from Paul Gabriel of Environmental Partners):
Here is the status as we see it: we submitted the draft report late 2013 or early 14. I do not believe we have received comments yet. We were also waiting for the science reports for that year from UMASS and PCCS to include in the write up as appendices. Have not seen them yet.
At that time the 208 process was also kicking in, so we understood that the project should pause while that process unfolded and see where things stood for Wellfleet and the basin plan. The Town was also very hopeful for a grant with all the work Curt put into that app, and it would have been a game changer, but they blanked the Town again. It sounds like the estuary plan may be getting finished - again very soon... We should discuss process and schedule to get our report in the condition the Town needs for submittal under the current circumstances.
Other business
: None reported.
Next Wastewater committee meeting TBD. Meeting adjourned around 9:00 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Lezli Rowell