Attachment C: Cover Sheet Requirements

TOWN OF ORLEANS
Office of the Town Administrator
TO:
Orleans Board of Selectmen
DATE: 6/1/16
ACTION: ___x___
AGENDA ITEM:
SPECIAL ONE DAY WINE & MALT BEVERAGE LICENSE
Orleans Chamber of Commerce
BACKGROUND:
Executive Director of the Orleans Chamber of Commerce Noelle Pina has submitted an
application for a One Day Wine and Malt Beverage license for October 1, 2016 from 10:30 a.m.
- 5:00 p.m. for the Clam Barbeque to be held at Eldredge Park.
Ms. Pina has requested the Board waive the license fee ($25.00) and reduce the filing fee to
$10.00 in accordance with the Board’s Policy entitled “Non-Profit Organization License Policy”.
As previously outlined in a letter sent out to the Chamber on May 20, 2015, our office has
received the required Insurance Coverage documentation.
The license, if approved, is issued for a period of three (3) days to allow for proper delivery,
storage and disposal of all alcoholic beverages purchased.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION:
VOTE OPTIONS:
a. Vote to approve Special One Day Liquor License to the Orleans Chamber of Commerce to
serve wine and malt beverages on October 1, 2016 from 10:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. at Eldredge
Park for the Clam Barbeque with conditions and waive the license fee and reduce the filing
fee to $10.00. The license is issued subject to all licenses, bylaws, permits and approvals
and in accordance with the Massachusetts General Law Chapter 138 Sec. 14.
b. Vote to continue the hearing on the application of the Orleans Chamber of Commerce to
serve wine and malt beverages on October 1, 2016 from 10:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. at Eldredge
Park for the Clam Barbeque until ____ (insert date) at ____ (insert time)
c. Vote to deny the application of the Orleans Chamber of Commerce to serve wine and malt
beverages on October 1, 2016 from 10:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. at Eldredge Park for the Clam
Barbeque (must state why denying license)
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: Filing fee
License fee
$10.00
waived
Total Revenue $10.00
BOARD OF SELECTMEN ACTION: APPROVED: __________ DENIED: ___________
Noëlle Pina
Executive Director
Orleans Chamber of Commerce
44 Main St., P.O. Box 153
Orleans, MA 02653
May 24, 2016
Board of Selectmen and Town Administrator
Town of Orleans
19 School Rd.
Orleans, MA 02653
RE: Consideration of Chamber of Commerce request to use Eldredge Field for ClamBQ and allow
sale of alcohol
Dear Board of Selectmen and Mr. Kelly,
As Executive Director of the Orleans Chamber of Commerce, I am writing to update you on our
work to fulfil the requirements as set forth by Mr. Kelly for consideration of again hosting the
ClamBQ! at Eldredge Field.
Enclsoed with this letter you will find detailed information on our insurance coverage for the event
again, increasing our limits to the required General Liability and Property Damage ($1,000,000)
and Liquor Liability ($1,000,000 Each/$5,000,000 Aggregate) with the Town of Orleans named as
additional insured. You will also find a map of our updated Field Use Plan.
I have met with the following departments in regards to the ClamBQ as far:
1. Nauset Public Schools: I met with Tom Conrad on 4/14 and 5/20 about ClamBQ parking and
the use of Nauset Middle School. We have already named the Nauset Public Schools as
additional insured in our policies, a requirement of theirs in 2015. Finalizing the parking is
on the agenda for the Nauset Regional School Committee June 9th meeting.
2. Orleans Fire Department: Chief Tony Pike and I have had ongoing discussion about ClamBQ.
Following last year’s event we discussed having an ambulance on site and we will again
certify emergency vehicle access in the small parking lot next to Eldredge Parkway. I
received from Inspector Greg Baker updated fire code requirements to put in the rules and
regulations for vendors. We are meeting on 5/25 and will continue dialogue after.
3. Orleans Police Department: I met with Lt. Kevin Higgins on 1/29 in regards to traffic and
security at the ClamBQ. He has requested the Chamber hire three detail officers for the
event and has promised his continued work with us to maintain safety of our event
attendees as he has always done in the past.
4. Health Department: Assistant Health Agent Zachary Seabury and I have had ongoing
discussion about the ClamBQ. All restaurants will apply directly to the Health Department
for their Temporary Food Establishment permits. The Chamber will apply for our beer and
wine, clambake and barbeque vending.
5. As in 2015, I will contact the Building Department to complete their requirements.
6. As in 2015, we will abide by the Field Maintenance and Field Clean-Up Plans given to us by
the Department of Public Works.
We look forward to meeting with you on June 1st to review our request. As always, please feel free
to call or email me with any questions.
Very sincerely,
Noëlle Pina
Executive Director
FAMILY
DINING
Gate
ID Check
Kiddie Land Tables
Kiddie Games
Sponsor Display Tables
Craft Fair
Restaurant Vendors
Additional Public P
will be available at
Elementary Sch
8 min. walk
0.4 of a mile
School Buses wi
moved to Charles
Arena
Gate
ID Check
FAMILY
DINING
BEER &
Display Tables: 10 x 10
Restaurants
Chronicle
Orleans Cultural District
Orleans Dermatology
Advanced Family Dentistry
Cape Codder
Habitat for Humanity
Animal Hospital of Cape Cod
oldCape Sotheby’s
Solarcity
Cape Cod Five
Knead a Massage: 1st base line
Cape Stone Jewelery
Letters from the Cape
Nasuet Stitch
The Yardarm Restaurant
Nauset Beach Club Restaurant
Land Ho!
The Jailhouse Tavern
The Local Scoop Pop-Mobile
Nauset Fish and Lobster
Ames Pizzeria
Orleans Firebirds
WINE
MAIN
STAGE
Kiddie Land
ColeWebDev—Facepainting
Image Makers Salon—Manicures
Skee Ball
Basketball
Hooley Ball
T-Ball
Craft Table
TOWN OF ORLEANS Office of the Town Administrator TO: Orleans Board of Selectmen DATE: 6/1/16 Action: ________X_______ Information: _________ AGENDA ITEM: 2016 SEASONAL COMMON VICTUALLER LICENSE YOUNG’S FISH MARKET BACKGROUND: Our office has received a renewal application for a Seasonal Common Victualler license for Young’s Fish Market, Rock Harbor, Ron Harrison, Manager. Since Mr. Harrison did not have rights to use the land which the fish market is located on until the contract for leasing the land had been executed the license renewal could not be considered with other seasonal renewals. Mr. Harrison’s lease is for the period June 1, 2016 to May 31, 2021. Mr. Harrison will need to renew the Seasonal Common Victualler license annually. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR’S RECOMMENDATION: Vote to approve the renewal application for 2016 Seasonal Common Victualler, license for Young’s Fish Market, Rock Harbor, Ron Harrison, Manager. This license is subject to all permits, licenses and approvals and in accordance with all local, state and federal rules, regulations, bylaws and laws and expires on November 30, 2016. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: License Fee $ 50.00 BOARD OF SELECTMEN ACTION: APPROVED: __________ DISAPPROVED: ____________ SPECIAL ACT
Whereas, at the Annual Town Meeting held on May 9, 2016, the Town of Orleans
voted under Article 43 of the Warrant to authorize and instruct the Board of Selectmen to
petition the Great and General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for special
legislation authorizing the Town to consent to the amendment of a Conservation
Restriction on property located at 22 Main Street, Orleans, MA.
Now therefore, the Town of Orleans hereby petitions the General Court to adopt
the following special legislation:
Chapter ____ of the Acts of ______
AN ACT AUTHORIZING THE TOWN OF ORLEANS TO AMEND A CERTAIN
CONSERVATION RESTRICTION
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court assembled,
and by the authority of the same, as follows:
SECTION 1: The town of Orleans, acting by and through its board of selectmen and
conservation commission, may amend the conservation restriction granted to the town by
Snow Realty Trust and recorded on January 5, 2001 with the Barnstable County Registry
of Deeds in Book 13472, Page 176 and registered with the Barnstable Registry District of
the Land Court as Document No. 821,302, by releasing therefrom the land area shown as
“Unrestricted Area C 40,000 + S.F.” on a plan entitled “Exhibit Plan “A” being a portion
of Assessor Map 25 Parcel 59 Property of SSJ Real Estate Holdings, LLC Orleans, MA”
dated April 14, 2016, prepared by Coastal Engineering Co., Inc. and filed with the
Orleans town clerk.
SECTION 2: As consideration for the amendment to the conservation restriction to
release such land area to the owner thereof as authorized in Section 1, the owner of the
land shall pay to the town of Orleans the amount of Two Hundred Thousand and No/100
Dollars ($200,000.00), said funds to be used by the town of Orleans to purchase land to
be held under the care, custody, control and management of the conservation commission
for conservation purposes pursuant to section 8C of Chapter Forty of the General Laws.
SECTION 3: This Act shall take effect upon its passage.
To:
Board of Selectmen
From: John F. Kelly, Town Administrator
Re:
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT
Date: June 1, 2016
DECISION
Proposed Approach to Archeological Re-Examination Project Funded Under Article 46
Included in your packet is a copy of my email exchange with Mary Hartley, one of the
petitioners, outlining my proposed approach to completing this project. I have also included a
copy of the 1984 Final Report for the Phase II study that was undertaken for both the
Namskaket and Oak Road sites.
Recommendation: Vote to authorize the Town Administrator to proceed with the Request for
Proposal process as outlined in order to undertake the completion of the work funded under
Article 46 of the May 2016 Town Meeting.
MassDOT Intersection Project Non-Participating Work Contract Funding
Included in your packet is a copy of my email exchange with George Meservey and a
copy of the contract that MassDOT is requiring the Town to sign in order to proceed with the
advertisement for the intersection improvements to Main Street at both Route 28 and Rout 6A.
The issue is that the state has added an inflationary factor to the estimated cost of the nonparticipation items that the Town has requested be included in the project.
Article 3 of the October 2014 Special Town Meeting approved $482,000 to pay the costs
of the streetscape enhancements to the Main Street Intersections and the current estimated
cost in the MassDOT contract is $501,609 which exceeds the Town Meeting appropriation.
Given that the project has not yet been bid, the final cost of the non-participating work could
be higher or lower and the contract would be adjusted accordingly. In order to address the
estimated cost shortfall, the Town can allocate Chapter 90 Funds in order to sign the contract
and pay for the final non-participation project costs should it be necessary.
Recommendation: Vote to allocate $19,609 from available Chapter 90 Funds to cover the
additional estimated non-participation costs of the streetscape enhancements for the Main
Street Intersections Project and authorize the Town Administrator to sign the MassDOT contract
number 94308.
Potential Grant Funding for Nauset Beach Dune Restoration Project
Included in your packet is a copy of the grant announcement for the Coastal Resilience
Grant Program FY17 from the Executive Office of Energy & Environmental Affairs that is
administered by Coastal Zone Management. Last week Tom Daly, Nate Sears and I met with
Leslie Fields of Woods Hole Group to review the potential for a grant of up to $500,000 to help
offset the costs of the Nauset Beach Dune Restoration Project that we will begin preliminary
design and permitting in FY17 leading up to construction in the Fall of FY19. The total project
cost is estimated at $1.5 million.
The Town has historically not sought state grant funds for our beaches due to potential
conditions that could impact the Town’s management of our facilities, including the parking
lots. Mike Ford was asked to review the grant summary document and noted that there is a
reference to charging for parking under “2. C. Eligible Applicants” and recommended that we
contact Patricia Bowie at a later date for clarification. The initial application that the Town
would be applying for would cover the preliminary design and permitting cost for the project
and the 25% local match that is required would be funded from the Town’s Building and
Facilities Stabilization Fund which has funds earmarked for this project in FY17.
Recommendation: Vote to authorize the Town Administrator to file an application for funding
under the Coastal Resilience Grant Program FY17 for preliminary design and permitting
activities for the Nauset Beach Dune Restoration Project, provided that no final contract be
executed until a clarification is received on potential restrictions to the Town charging for
parking in the Nauset Beach parking lot should it accept grant funds under this program.
POCCA Request for Letter Opposing Eversource Yearly Operation Plan
Included in your packet is a letter from POCCA requesting a letter of support in
opposition to EVERSOURCE’s Yearly Operation Plan that includes the use of herbicides in the
management of their Right of Way. In addition, I have included a draft letter in opposition for
the Board to consider. The Orleans Board of Health has deferred to the Board of Selectmen as
to whether the Town should request a hearing.
Recommendation: Vote to authorize the Chairman to sign the letter of opposition requested by
POCCA with or without the request for a hearing.
Pleasant Bay Alliance Request for Letter to Cape Cod Commission
Included in your packet is a memo from the Pleasant Bay Alliance Steering Committee
concerning correspondence between the Alliance and the Cape Cod Commission regarding the
process by which watershed-based analysis of nutrient loading in Pleasant Bay would be
developed, along with a copy of the draft letter that the Alliance has requested the Board
consider approving.
Recommendation: Vote to approve the draft letter proposed by the Alliance to the Cape Cod
Commission.
2|P a g e
John Kelly
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
John Kelly
Thursday, May 12, 2016 5:23 PM
'Michael Farber'
David Dunford; Alan McClennen; Sims McGrath; Jon Fuller; Pluciennik, Doug; Peter
Kurtz; barbara OConnor; Judy Embleton; Brian Embleton; Steve Shervanian; Mark
Music; Cass, Paul; Bruce Taub; Mary Hartley
RE: Request for Information on Procurement Procedure
Mary, Procurement under this article will be handled through my office as the Chief Procurement Officer for the Town and I anticipate using an RFP process to select the consultant who will do the work. In reviewing the article, there are a number of activities proposed for completion. Funding for this work is not available until after the start of the fiscal year (July 1, 2016). The first step in the process in my view is to schedule a scoping session so that we can understand what the priority activities are and to involve the Mass Historical Commission so that we all understand the permitting process that the Town will have to go through before any further exploration of the site can take place. I will have this item on the BOS agenda for discussion at their June 1 meeting and will be in touch after that meeting to review the next steps. John John F. Kelly Town Administrator 19 School Road Orleans, MA 02653 508‐240‐3700 x 415 [email protected] From: Michael Farber [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2016 3:54 PM To: John Kelly <[email protected]> Cc: David Dunford <[email protected]>; Alan McClennen <[email protected]>; Sims McGrath <[email protected]>; Jon Fuller <[email protected]>; Pluciennik, Doug <[email protected]>; Peter Kurtz <[email protected]>; barbara OConnor <[email protected]>; Judy Embleton <[email protected]>; Brian Embleton <[email protected]>; Steve Shervanian <[email protected]>; Michael Farber <[email protected]>; Mark Music <[email protected]>; Cass, Paul <[email protected]>; Bruce Taub <[email protected]>; Mary Hartley <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Request for Information on Procurement Procedure Dear John,
I am anxious to have your response to my email below. You should be aware that I
share an email account with Michael as he is a guest in my home. I trust this is not the
reason for any delay in addressing my concerns.
There should not be any delay in moving forward with an archaeological examination
of the Tri Town site. After listening to the discussion of the article at TM, it is my
understanding that this is a "stand alone" project and therefore should be conducted
1
independently and without concern for other interests in the future uses of this Town
owned property.
The choice of a state licensed archaeologist should be made by our elected officials
acting in the interests of the voters--particularly the Article 47 petitioners. Persons and
organizations with an economic interest in the potential uses of this land should not be
involved in any way. After nearly 30 years, artifacts taken from the site should be
retrieved or otherwise secured from Leonard Loparto--post haste. Orleans
citizens should be assured that no more artifacts are buried on the property that might
be irretrievably lost. The actual historical importance of the land should be established
and a description of the people who occupied the land in the past should be prepared
by a licensed archaeologist.
Petitioners have grown to trust Craig Chartier and see no reason why he should not be
selected to continue his work.
Please reply to my questions regarding the procurement procedures if any.
Thank you,
Mary Hartley
From: "Michael Farber" <[email protected]>
To: "John Kelly" <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2016 4:12:41 PM
Subject: Request for Information on Procurement Procedure
Dear John,
Thank you for your help with Article 47 last night. Now that it has passed, what is the
proper procurement procedure for contracting with a third party to conduct the
reexamination of the site. In that respect what will be the timeline for securing these
services and moving forward with the retrieval of the artifacts for the Town of Orleans?
In an email from Craig Chartier today he describes his meeting yesterday with Leonard
Loparto. Mr. Loparto commented that the area of the Oak Ridge knoll was tested only
with "soil augers", not "excavated" as was done in the disturbed location of the
present Tri Town building and treatment operations:
"I was also able to meet with Lenny yesterday and he said that there was a complete
data recovery done with the whole site being excavated. He also confirmed that all he
did testing wise was soil augers on the knoll. He couldn't remember how many artifacts
were found during the data recovery but said lots of significant tools were found. He
2
also is more than happy to help get the project report finished and get the artifacts out
of his house."
Please advise.
Thanks,
Mary
3
John Kelly
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
John Kelly
Wednesday, May 18, 2016 3:54 PM
George Meservey
Tom Daley
RE: CRANBERRY HWY-NON-PARTICIPATING AGR. #94308
George, Please let Tom Currier know that I will ask the BOS to authorize the additional amount from another funding source at their June 1 meeting. Thanks. John John F. Kelly Town Administrator 19 School Road Orleans, MA 02653 508‐240‐3700 x 415 [email protected] From: George Meservey Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2016 2:22 PM To: John Kelly <[email protected]> Cc: Tom Daley <[email protected]> Subject: FW: CRANBERRY HWY‐NON‐PARTICIPATING AGR. #94308 John: I spoke with Tom Currier about the change in cost estimate. He said the estimate was done by GPI and the increase was simply cost inflation based on time. There is cost and effort required by MassDOT to change the plans and bid specs. According to Mr. Currier the cost to change the plans could exceed the difference in the cost estimates. He strongly suggested that the Town consider making up the price difference to keep the project moving forward toward a September advertising date. At this time MassDOT is still waiting on its Right of Way Division to respond with final easements. If you are willing to have the Board of Selectmen consider authorizing the additional money from an existing source, an early June decision would not cause any delay for MassDOT. Please let me know which way you’d like to go and I will keep MassDOT informed. Also according to Currier, the Town will be obligated to pay the bid price for the non‐participating work, which won’t be known until the fall. George 1
Agreement Number: 94308
Agreement made this
of
2016, by and between the MASSACHUSETTS
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, hereinafter called “MassDOT", and the MUNICIPALITY OF
ORLEANS, hereinafter called the “Municipality”.
WHEREAS, MassDOT proposes to reconstruct and improve Cranberry Highway (Route 6A) and
Main
Street & Chatham Road (Route 28) and Main Street, (hereinafter referred to as the “Project”), in the Municipality
of Orleans, in said Commonwealth, and
WHEREAS, the Municipality desires MassDOT, in conjunction with the Project, to make certain roadway
improvements. The contract items to install said improvements are listed on “Exhibit A” and hereinafter called
NON-PARTICIPATING WORK, and
WHEREAS, the plans and specifications for the said Project and the NON-PARTICIPATING WORK
desired by the Municipality, meets with approval of the Municipality and are on file in records of MassDOT.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration thereof, MassDOT and the Municipality hereby agree as to the
apportionment of the work, the expense, ownership and future maintenance of the above-mentioned NONPARTICIPATING WORK as follows:
DIVISION OF WORK
MassDOT, by its own contractor, will furnish on behalf of the Municipality necessary labor,
materials, equipment and other services for the above-mentioned NON-PARTICIPATING WORK.
Preliminary estimates of items and quantities of work prepared by MassDOT, also known as
“Exhibit A” necessary for the NON-PARTICIPATING WORK is attached hereto and made a part hereof.
The terms of this agreement incorporate by reference the Project’s construction contract special
provisions, and MassDOT’s Standard Specifications for Highways and Bridges, as amended. The Municipality
hereby agrees to be bound by any decision by MassDOT concerning the Standard Specifications and Special
Provisions referenced.
1
Any and all approvals made by MassDOT during the Project’s design review shall not relieve the
Municipality’s responsibilities for design errors and/or omissions that are related to the said Non-Participating
Work.
DIVISION OF EXPENSE
In consideration of the benefits to be derived by the Municipality from the NONPARTICIPATING WORK, the Municipality agrees to pay in amounts equal to the bid prices, of MassDOT’s
Contractor, for the actual quantities of the NON-PARTICIPATING WORK.
Pursuant to the applicable provisions of M.G.L. Chapter 44, the Municipality has appropriated or
identified the funds necessary to construct the NON-PARTICIPATING WORK
The following costs relating to the above NON-PARTICIPATING WORK shall also be borne by
the Municipality:
1. Extra work orders initiated at the request of the Municipality or its duly authorized official.
2. Claims for “changed conditions” pursuant to M.G.L. c.30§39N arising out of the NONPARTICIPATING WORK. MassDOT shall promptly notify the Municipality upon receipt of such claims.
3. Interest charges on Contractor payments levied pursuant to M.G.L. c.30§39G.
4. Any and all construction increases that are related to the NON-PARTICIPATING WORK. The
said cost increases shall include, but are not limited to (1) Extra work, (2) changed conditions, (3) traffic police, (4)
item overruns, and (5) design errors and/or omissions.
Payments to be made by the Municipality are to be made directly to MassDOT’s Contractor at such
times and in such amounts as specified in written orders from MassDOT to the Municipality.
FUTURE MAINTENANCE
2
The Municipality’s representative shall be made available to attend MassDOT’s final inspection of
the Project. When all punch items identified as part of the final inspection are addressed to the satisfaction of
MassDOT, MassDOT shall notify the Municipality in writing that the Project has been completed. Upon such date
of notification, the Municipality shall be responsible hereafter for the maintenance and preservation for said NONPARTICIPATING WORK including any additional work items undertaken in accordance with this Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the day and year
first above written.
MASSACHUSETTS
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
THOMAS TINLIN
HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR
MUNICIPALITY OF ORLEANS
(Signature)
(Name-Printed)
(Title)
3
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENERGY & ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Matthew A. Beaton, Secretary
Grant Announcement
Request for Responses (RFR) ENV 17 CZM 03
Dated: April 25, 2016
COASTAL RESILIENCE GRANT PROGRAM FY17
1. Grant Opportunity Summary
A. PROPOSALS SOUGHT FOR: Financial and technical assistance to municipalities as well as
eligible non-profit entities to advance a broad range of coastal resilience and climate change
adaptation efforts, including implementation of non-structural (or green infrastructure) measures
that enhance natural resources to provide coastal storm damage protection.
B. OVERVIEW AND GOALS: The Executive Office of Energy & Environmental Affairs (EEA),
through its Office of Coastal Zone Management (CZM), requests responses for the FY17
Coastal Resilience Grant Program. The Coastal Resilience Grant Program provides financial and
technical assistance to increase awareness and understanding of climate impacts, identify and
map vulnerabilities, conduct adaptation planning, redesign vulnerable public facilities and
infrastructure, and implement non-structural measures to increase natural storm damage
protection, flood and erosion control, and community resilience.
C. ELIGIBLE PROJECTS: Projects must advance one (or more) of the following climate adaptation
actions: (1) Vulnerability and Risk Assessment; (2) Public Education and Communication; (3)
Local Bylaws, Adaptation Plans, and Other Management Measures; (4) Redesigns and Retrofits;
or (5) Natural or Nature-Based Storm-Damage Protection Techniques. (See further detail on
eligible projects in Section 2B.)
D. ELIGIBLE APPLICANTS: The Coastal Resilience Grant Program is open to the 78 cities and
towns located within the Massachusetts coastal zone. Certified 501(c)(3) non-profit
organizations with vulnerable coastal property that is open and accessible to the public are
eligible for funding for natural storm-damage protection (or green infrastructure) projects. (See
further detail on eligible applicants in Section 2C and Attachment A.)
E. APPLICATION DEADLINE: Applications are due by 4:00 p.m. Monday, June 6, 2016. (See
further detail on deadlines and the grant program calendar in Section 4.)
F. FUNDING AVAILABILITY: CZM expects to award up to $2,000,000 in total funding for
projects. Applicants may request up to $500,000 in funding. Exceptions may be made at the
Secretary’s discretion. (See further detail on funding availability in Section 2D.)
G. MATCH REQUIREMENT: Applicants must provide at least 25% of the total project cost. The
25% match may be cash or in-kind contributions or a combination of the two. (See further detail
on the match requirement in Section 2E.)
H. TOTAL ANTICIPATED DURATION OF CONTRACT(S): The contract period will begin on the
date that EEA signs the contract. Contracts issued pursuant to this RFR must expend 100% of
costs associated with the approved project on or before June 30, 2017 in order to be eligible for
the total grant reimbursement amount. Applicants must establish a project time-line that meets
the end date. (See further detail on anticipated duration of contract(s) in Section 2G.)
I. REGULATIONS, STATUTES, OR AUTHORIZATION GOVERNING THIS GRANT PROGRAM: This
RFR is issued according to bond authorization language in Chapter 286 Section 2A, line item
2000-7026 of the acts of 2014 and by 301 CMR 21.00.
J. CONTACT INFORMATION:
Patricia Bowie, Coastal Resiliency Specialist
Executive Office of Energy & Environmental Affairs
Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management
251 Causeway Street, Suite 800
Boston, MA 02114
[email protected] (email preferred)
617-626-1186
2. Performance and Contract Specifications
A. OVERVIEW: Each year, Massachusetts coastal communities experience erosion, flooding, and
coastal storm damages to property, infrastructure, and natural resources, along with associated
economic impacts. These impacts are projected to worsen and broaden with the effects of
climate change. To help address these issues, on behalf of the Executive Office of Energy and
Environmental Affairs, the Office of Coastal Zone Management (CZM) is pleased to be able to
issue this Request for Responses for the FY17 Coastal Resilience Grant Program. With the
Coastal Resilience Grant Program, CZM has combined two previous grant opportunities—the
Coastal Community Resilience grants and the Green Infrastructure for Coastal Resilience
grants—into a single grant program. Administered through CZM’s StormSmart Coasts program,
this grant program provides financial and technical assistance to advance innovative and
transferable local efforts to increase awareness and understanding of climate impacts, identify
and map vulnerabilities, conduct adaptation planning, and implement non-structural (or green
infrastructure) measures to enhance natural storm-damage protection and coastal resilience (i.e.,
the ability to endure impacts associated with coastal storms and the effects of erosion, flooding,
and sea level rise and to respond, recover, and adapt to consequences). Grants are available for a
range of coastal resilience approaches—from planning, public outreach, feasibility assessment,
and analysis of shoreline vulnerability to design, permitting, construction, and monitoring.
B. ELIGIBLE PROJECTS: Projects must implement one (or more) of the five StormSmart climate
adaptation actions below. All applicants are encouraged to provide opportunities for community
engagement in project tasks and to develop transferable deliverables and communicate lessons
learned.
1. Vulnerability and Risk Assessment – Projects that map and evaluate vulnerable critical
facilities, public infrastructure, other development, and natural resources using best
available techniques and climate projections. Proposals to model current and future coastal
storms including wave run-up and sea level rise and evaluate the socioeconomic impacts of
these dynamic water levels are strongly encouraged.
2. Public Education and Communication – Projects that increase public understanding of climate
impacts and develop support for management measures and other actions to address
coastal impacts. Creative communication products that provide ongoing benefits and can
be adopted by other communities are strongly encouraged.
3. Local Bylaws, Adaptation Plans, and Other Management Measures – Projects to review, draft, and
implement recommended new or amended community-based resilience plans, local
ordinances, bylaws, standards, and other management measures to reduce coastal storm
damages. Projects that include plans for formal local adoption are strongly encouraged.
4. Redesigns and Retrofits – Engineering and construction projects that produce designs and
plans and retrofit municipal facilities and infrastructure (e.g., wastewater treatment plants,
pump stations, and critical roadways) and other public assets to function properly given
higher tides, greater storm surges, and more intense precipitation. Projects that evaluate
and implement relocation of facilities outside of hazardous areas, where feasible, are
strongly encouraged.
5. Natural or Nature-Based Storm-Damage Protection Techniques – Coastal green infrastructure
projects that evaluate, design, permit, and implement natural or nature-based (hybrid)
approaches by enhancing or creating natural systems that provide increased storm damage
protection, flood control, and community resilience, including:
a. Beach, berm, and dune building, enhancement, or restoration with compatible sediment and native
vegetation – Beaches, berms, and dunes that provide natural buffers to coastal storm
waves, tides, and sea level rise. Projects that add compatible sediment from an
offsite source can improve the ability of these natural buffers to provide storm
damage protection and flood control to landward areas.
b. Bio-engineering with coir rolls (on coastal banks or for salt marsh restoration/creation), natural
fiber blankets, and other organic, biodegradable materials combined with planting/vegetation –
Bio-engineering approaches with native salt-tolerant vegetation that trap and
stabilize sediment on coastal banks providing increased protection against storms
and erosion. Using natural fiber blankets and coir rolls in combination with
vegetation can help stabilize soils while the root systems get established.
c. Natural oyster or mussel reef creation, enhancement, or restoration – Shellfish reefs that serve
as natural barriers to help reduce the amount of wave energy that reaches the
shoreline.
d. Salt marsh creation or restoration – Creation of fringing tidal marshes (without
structures) and salt marsh restoration that reduce beach, dune and coastal bank
erosion and storm damages by dissipating wave energy and absorbing floodwaters.
The width and elevation of the marsh relative to current and future tidal ranges
and habitat zones are critical to the success of the project. Proposed restoration
projects must specifically address documented coastal storm damage problems that
impact public facilities, infrastructure and other resources.
e. Natural enhancement of existing coastal structures – Added sediment placed over existing
revetments and other coastal structures serve as more natural erosion buffers by
contributing to the littoral system and decreasing scour that results from structures.
Note: Green infrastructure projects to manage inland flooding, such as stormwater
wetlands (i.e., constructed wetlands for pollutant removal) and bio-retention systems, and
other Smart Growth and Low Impact Development techniques are not eligible. Wetland
and aquatic ecological restoration projects are also not eligible unless they are specifically
designed to reduce documented coastal storm damages impacting public resources by
attenuating waves, retaining floodwaters, and buffering erosion, for example.
For retrofits and construction of green infrastructure projects, proposals must address one (or
more) of the following stages of implementation:
•
Planning, feasibility assessment, and siting – Work to identify and assess alternative strategies
and determine the most suitable strategy for a particular coastal area or site. Includes
evaluation of erosion rates and trends, flooding impacts, sea level rise, and other efforts to
analyze and assess site conditions such as elevations, coastal storm exposure, wave and
current regimes, sediment types, existing habitat types, and vulnerable development.
•
Design – Work to engineer and design the project, including plans for site preparation and
installation as well as project monitoring for effectiveness. Design work should build on
completed planning, feasibility assessment, and siting analysis.
•
Permitting – Work to prepare and file federal, state, and local permit applications for
proposed activities. Permits do not have to be obtained as part of the scope of work.
•
Construction, installation, and monitoring – Work to prepare the project site, construct and
install eligible technique(s), and to monitor and evaluate projects to assess project efficacy
and inform and improve future efforts. Proposals for project construction should
demonstrate that planning, feasibility assessment, siting analysis, and design have been
completed, and that all permits are secured.
Note: Due to the short duration of the contract period (less than 12 months), applicants are
strongly encouraged to focus on one or two stages of construction projects. It is highly
unlikely that most projects from planning, design, permitting, and construction could be
completed within the contract period.
CZM encourages applicants to review the following information when developing a proposal for
this grant program:
•
Massachusetts Climate Change Adaptation Report
(www.mass.gov/eea/docs/eea/energy/cca/eea-climate-adaptation-report.pdf) - This 2011
report provides a broad overview of climate change impacts and includes a coastal chapter
with a range of potential strategies to address sea level rise and coastal storms. Applicants
are encouraged to demonstrate that one (or more) of the coastal zone recommendations
have been considered when developing a potential project.
•
Sea Level Rise: Understanding and Applying Trends and Future Scenarios for Analysis and Planning
(www.mass.gov/eea/docs/czm/stormsmart/slr-guidance-2013.pdf)- This 2013 document
provides background information on local and global sea level rise trends, summarizes sea
level rise projections, and provides general guidance in the selection and application of sea
level rise scenarios for coastal vulnerability assessments, planning, and decision making for
areas that may be at present or future risk from the effects of sea level rise. Applicants
should specify which sea level rise scenario(s) they are utilizing in their proposed projects.
•
StormSmart Coasts (www.mass.gov/eea/agencies/czm/program-areas/stormsmart-coasts) This website includes information on assessing the vulnerability of coastal properties to
erosion and flooding, tools for local officials to improve coastal floodplain management,
and more. Applicants are encouraged to familiarize themselves with tools, resources, pilot
projects, and other support and guidance available to communities.
•
StormSmart Properties Fact Sheets (www.mass.gov/eea/agencies/czm/programareas/stormsmart-coasts/stormsmart-properties) - These fact sheets provide information
on a range of measures that can effectively reduce erosion and storm damage while
minimizing impacts to shoreline systems. The six techniques currently covered
are: artificial dunes and dune nourishment, controlling overland runoff to reduce coastal
erosion, planting vegetation to reduce erosion and storm damage, bioengineering - coir
rolls on coastal banks, bioengineering - natural fiber blankets on coastal banks, and sand
fencing.
•
Beach Nourishment: MassDEP’s Guide to Best Management Practices for Projects in Massachusetts
(www.mass.gov/eea/agencies/massdep/water/watersheds/beach-nourishment-massdepguide-to-best-management-practices-for-projects-in-massachusetts-.html) - This 2007
guidance document provides best management practices for minimizing erosion,
maximizing longevity, and minimizing adverse impacts of beach nourishment projects.
C. ELIGIBLE APPLICANTS: This solicitation and eligible projects (#1-5 above) are open to all 78
cities and towns located within the Massachusetts coastal zone. See Attachment A or
www.mass.gov/eea/agencies/czm/about-czm/czm-regions-and-communities for a list of the 78
eligible coastal communities. Certified 501 (c)(3) non-profit organizations with vulnerable coastal
property that is open and accessible to the public are eligible for funding for natural stormdamage protection (or green infrastructure) projects (category #5). (Note: The visiting public
may be required to pay a parking, membership, or other fee to use the land.) Other nonprofit
organizations and regional planning agencies are encouraged to partner with municipal
applicants.
D. AVAILABLE FUNDING: CZM expects to award up to $2,000,000 in grants for FY 2017 Coastal
Resilience projects. Applicants may request up to $500,000 in funding. Exceptions may be made
at the Secretary’s discretion. Costs eligible for reimbursement include all approved project costs
incurred on or after a selected Applicant’s contract execution date and on or before June 30,
2017.
In previous funding years, grant awards have ranged from approximately $45,000 to $350,000
for vulnerability and risk assessments; $63,000 to $155,000 for public education and
communication projects; $52,000 to $300,000 for local bylaws and other management measures;
$23,000 to $255,000 for redesigns and retrofits; and $20,000 to $400,000 for natural stormdamage protection projects. These ranges serve as a general guide; future FY17 award amounts
may vary.
All contracts are subject to available funding, whether through the appropriation and
authorization of sufficient funds. If available funding ceases for any reason, a contract shall be
deemed under suspension and contract performance must halt. A contractor will not be entitled
to compensation for any performance provided during the period of contract suspension. EEA
may lift the suspension if available funding is received. In the absence of foreseeable available
funding, EEA may terminate the contract.
E. MATCH REQUIREMENT: Applicants must provide at least 25% of the total project cost. The
25% match may be cash or in-kind contributions or a combination of the two provided by the
applicant and direct project partners. Any applicant money (e.g., local, state, federal, or other/
private) that is not currently being used to match other government programs can be included as
match. All match must be directly related to the proposed project and tasks and documentation
will be necessary to substantiate this. Costs incurred prior to the contract start date including
application preparation costs will not be considered as part of the match requirement. Cash
match spending details must be provided. Cash contributions are those funds that will be used
to purchase goods or services associated with the project. In-kind contributions represent the
value of non-cash contributions provided by the applicant and project partners. In-kind
contributions may be in the form of charges for real property and non-expendable personal
property and the value of goods and services directly benefiting and specifically identifiable to
the project.
Applicants must include a signed statement from the authorized signatory of the municipality or
eligible non-profit entity acknowledging and accepting the following:
•
The municipality or non-profit entity commits to match 25% of total project cost using
cash or in-kind contributions (or a combination of the two) and acknowledges that
funding is provided on a reimbursement basis.
•
All matching funds provided by the applicant or direct project partners have been
approved and/or appropriated (or are in the process of being approved).
F. PROJECT TERMS: A final contract is subject to successful negotiation of a final scope of
services. Please note that EEA does not guarantee that any contracts may result from this RFR
or that any particular funding level will be awarded. It is anticipated that projects could
commence immediately upon EEA's decision. The awarded contracts will be reviewed during
their course and, upon request by the Contractor, may be extended or otherwise amended at the
sole discretion of EEA for a period appropriate to the circumstances. Requests for extension are
strongly discouraged and will be considered only under extraordinary circumstances. Any
extensions granted will not necessarily change, or increase, the monetary value of the contract.
G. ANTICIPATED DURATION OF CONTRACTS: Contracts will end on June 30, 2017. Extension
of the contract is at the sole discretion of EEA.
H. REPORTING: Necessary progress and final reports and other deliverables are project specific
and will be identified at the time of contract award and project scoping.
I. DELIVERABLES, OWNERSHIP, AND CREDIT DUE: Resulting products of projects shall be
public property. All materials, software, maps, reports, and other products produced through the
grant program shall be considered in the public domain and thus available at the cost of
production.
J. INVOICING: The payment procedure for projects is reimbursement for costs incurred for the
project during the contractual period. Only those tasks/deliverables completed after contract
execution and identified in the scope of work are eligible for reimbursement. Reimbursement is
generally made within 42 days subsequent to the receipt of a correctly executed invoice with
appropriate backup and completed match certification. No payments shall be made for
Massachusetts sales tax.
3. Instructions for Application Submission
A. EVALUATION CRITERIA: CZM will evaluate all proposals on a competitive basis and select
projects across CZM’s regions (i.e., North Shore, Boston Harbor, South Shore, Cape Cod and
Islands, and South Coastal), provided that successfully completed applications that meet the
criteria are submitted. CZM reserves the right to reject any or all proposals that do not meet the
goals and terms of this RFR. Each proposal will be reviewed based on the following criteria and
point value (total of 100):
1. Coastal Hazards Management - Brief description of current vulnerability and approach to
management of erosion and flooding hazards including any climate adaptation efforts.
(5 points)
2. Problem and Climate Adaptation - Description of climate impact(s) or problem(s). Include
an explanation of potential future vulnerability and risk to public safety, coastal
infrastructure, and natural resources from sea level rise, storm surge, and precipitation, as
well as the primary drivers (e.g., economic, environmental, political, or other) for
engaging in climate adaptation activities. (5 points)
3. Need for Assistance - Description of current financial and technical capacity to advance
resilience efforts and need for assistance. Preference will be given to communities with
environmental justice populations and proposed projects that increase resilience within
environmental justice neighborhoods. MassGIS provides an online Environmental
Justice Viewer at http://maps.massgis.state.ma.us/map_ol/ej.php to help identify
environmental justice neighborhoods. (10 points)
4. Project Description and Public Benefit - Detailed description of the proposed resilience project
within the context of the five StormSmart climate adaptation action(s) listed in Section
B, as well as the selected sea level rise scenario(s) if applicable. If the project addresses
one (or more) of the coastal zone and ocean adaptation recommendations contained in
the Massachusetts Climate Change Adaptation Report, please describe. If the project utilizes,
transfers, or builds-on the pilot projects, tools, or resources of CZM’s StormSmart
Coasts program, please describe. If the project utilizes innovative techniques to address
coastal hazard or climate impact(s), please describe. Also describe how the project will
improve coastal resilience at, adjacent to, and beyond the project site; and how the
outcomes will benefit the public and public interests. Preference will be given to
proposed projects that fit into larger, comprehensive resilience plans or efforts. (30
points)
5. Transferability - Description of transferability of proposed project (i.e., how the project
approach, techniques, and products can be used by or serve as models for other coastal
communities facing similar issues) including details of education and outreach efforts.
(10 points)
6. Timeline - Detailed timeline with anticipated (and realistic) completion dates for the
project. (10 points)
7. Budget - Detailed budget and explanation of how the funding and other support provided
by project partners will ensure success of the project. The 25% in-kind and cash match
that has not been used for other projects must be documented (please complete and
include Attachment B). (10 points)
8. Project Management - The name of a qualified individual with proven capacity to serve as
the local project manager and point of contact, along with resumes for the local project
manager and other staff and pre-qualified or selected consultants who will work on the
project. (10 points)
9. Partners - Signed support letters from all relevant local boards, departments,
commissions, and other partners with a commitment for these entities to participate, as
necessary, in the project. (10 points)
B. APPLICATION SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS: Submit one original proposal, one digital copy,
and five double-sided copies of the proposal of no more than 12 pages plus a cover sheet, maps,
photos, resumes, and letters of support (which are not counted in the 12-page limit) to Patricia
Bowie (see Contact Information below). Please minimize the use of non-recyclable binders,
folders, and covers.
The response must clearly identify the RFR number on the cover page (see Attachment C) of
the response and on the shipping container used in delivering the response. A postmark will
NOT be accepted for verification of date of submission, though Responses will be accepted by
regular mail and courier in advance of the submission date and time. Fax and electronic
submissions and postmarks will NOT be accepted for the purpose of meeting the submission
deadline.
C. CONTACT INFORMATION:
Patricia Bowie, Coastal Resiliency Specialist
Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management
251 Causeway Street, Suite 800
Boston, MA 02114
[email protected]
617-626-1186
D. ADDITIONAL REQUIRED DOCUMENTATION: If selected and not already on file, the Applicant
may be required to submit the following forms to complete a contract:
•
•
•
•
•
Commonwealth Terms and Conditions filled out and signed by the Applicant
Commonwealth W-9 tax information form filled out and signed by the Applicant with
DUNS number and Federal Tax ID
Authorized Signatory Listing Form
Prompt Payment Discount Form
Electronic Funds Transfer (EFT) set-up form
Applicants are encouraged to review these forms prior to submission of a Response.
4. Deadlines and Procurement Calendar
A. RELEASE OF RFR: April 25, 2016
B. QUESTION AND ANSWER PERIOD: Questions may be directed in writing to Patricia Bowie by
4:00 p.m. Monday, May 9, 2016. See Contact Information in Section 3C above. Responses to
questions, if any, will be posted to CommBuys.
C. APPLICATION DEADLINE: Applications are due by 4:00 p.m. Monday, June 6, 2016.
D. ESTIMATED AWARD DATE: Awards are estimated to be announced by July 15, 2016 with
contract negotiations to begin immediately thereafter.
E. ESTIMATED CONTRACT START DATE: August 1, 2016. Notwithstanding any verbal
representations by the parties, or an earlier start date listed in the Standard Contract Form, and
only after an award is issued and a final scope of services has been negotiated, the effective start
date of a contract shall be the latest of the following dates: the date the Standard Contract Form
has been executed by an authorized signatory of the contractor and the procuring department;
the date of secretariat or other approval(s) required by law or regulation; or a later date specified
in the Standard Contract Form.
5. Miscellaneous
A. TYPE OF PROCUREMENT: Grant
B. USE OF THIS PROCUREMENT BY SINGLE OR MULTIPLE DEPARTMENTS: This RFR is a
single department procurement. All contracts awarded under this RFR will be utilized solely by
EEA.
C. REQUEST FOR SINGLE OR MULTIPLE CONTRACTORS: Multiple contracts may be awarded
under this RFR.
D. RFR DISTRIBUTION METHOD: This RFR/bid has been distributed electronically using the
COMMBUYS system. It is the responsibility of every Applicant to check COMMBUYS for any
addenda or modifications to an RFR/bid to which they intend to respond. The Commonwealth
of Massachusetts and its subdivisions accept no liability and will provide no accommodations to
applicants who fail to check for amended RFR/bid and submit inadequate or incorrect
responses. Any amendments or updates will be posted to CommBuys. It is recommended that
applicants register with the CommBuys system to be alerted about updates to bids.
E. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS:
A. Eligible Coastal Municipalities
B. Budget Template
C. Cover Sheet Requirements
Attachment A: Eligible Coastal Municipalities
The 78 cities and towns that are located within the Massachusetts Coastal Zone are eligible for Coastal
Community Resilience grant funding. This includes the following municipalities:
North Shore: Amesbury, Beverly, Danvers, Essex, Gloucester, Ipswich, Lynn, Manchester,
Marblehead, Nahant, Newbury, Newburyport, Peabody, Revere, Rockport, Rowley, Salem,
Salisbury, Saugus, and Swampscott
Boston Harbor: Boston, Braintree, Chelsea, Everett, Milton, Quincy, Weymouth, and Winthrop
South Shore: Cohasset, Duxbury, Hanover, Hingham, Hull, Kingston, Marshfield, Norwell,
Pembroke, Plymouth, and Scituate
Cape Cod and Islands: Aquinnah, Barnstable, Bourne, Brewster, Chatham, Chilmark, Dennis,
Eastham, Edgartown, Falmouth, Gosnold, Harwich, Mashpee, Nantucket, Oak Bluffs, Orleans,
Provincetown, Sandwich, Tisbury, Truro, Wellfleet, West Tisbury, and Yarmouth
South Coastal: Acushnet, Berkley, Dartmouth, Dighton, Fairhaven, Fall River, Freetown,
Marion, Mattapoisett, New Bedford, Rehoboth, Seekonk, Somerset, Swansea, Wareham, and
Westport
Attachment B: Budget Template
Project Task
Brief Description
1
2
3
4
5
TOTAL
* Indicate if the match is in-kind or cash and include the source.
Deliverable
Due Date
Grant
Award
Match
Amount*
Total
Cost
Attachment C: Cover Sheet Requirements
COASTAL RESILIENCE GRANT PROGRAM FY17
RFR ENV 17 CZM 03
Applicant (name of coastal community or non-profit entity):
Address:
Local Project Manager:
Name:
Department:
Email:
Phone:
Fax:
Type of Resilience Project:
Project Title:
Total Project Cost:
Match Amount (at least 25% of TOTAL project cost):
Grant Amount Requested:
Project Summary (brief description of the proposed project in one or two short paragraphs):
June 1, 2016
Michael McClean
Director of Rights of Way Program
Department of Food and Agriculture
251 Causeway Street, Suite 500
Boston, MA 02114-2151
Dear Mr. McClean:
Thank you for your notification of Eversource Energy’s Yearly Operation Plan to apply herbicides
along ROW 346E beginning in September 2016.
The Orleans Board of Selectmen recognizes that safe drinking water plays an essential role in the
protection of public health. The town has developed Private Well Regulations to safeguard the
wells from various forms of contamination, and has also adopted comprehensive Fertilizer Nitrogen
and Phosphorous Bylaw and Nutrient Management Regulations to protect its surface and
subsurface groundwater resources. While application of these safeguards is difficult and often
creates hardships, the town stands firm on its commitment to protect the resource.
The use of herbicides to control vegetation on the power lines poses an unnecessary risk to Cape
Cod drinking water, surface water, local residents, and sensitive plant and animal habitats.
Recognizing that effective, non-toxic alternatives for vegetation management are readily available,
the Orleans Board of Selectmen is opposed to the application of herbicides on the power line right
of ways.
Based on the above, the Orleans Board of Selectmen formally requests that the Department of
Agriculture Resources deny the Eversource request to use pesticides/herbicides on the Utility Right
of Ways in Orleans (Cape Cod).
OR
Based on the above, the Orleans Board of Selectmen formally requests that the Department of
Agriculture Resources deny the Eversource request to use pesticides/herbicides on the Utility Right
of Ways in Orleans (Cape Cod). The Board of Selectmen also requests a hearing with the
Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources to express our concerns and objections.
Yours truly,
Sims McGrath, Jr.
Chairman, Orleans Board of Selectmen
Memorandum
To:
Fr:
Date:
Re:
Christopher Clark, Harwich Town Administrator
Michael Embury, Brewster Town Administrator
Jill Goldsmith, Chatham Town Manager
John Kelly, Orleans Town Administrator
Pleasant Bay Alliance Steering Committee c/o Carole Ridley
May 19, 2016
Draft Letter for Selectmen’s Consideration
The Towns of Orleans, Brewster, Chatham and Harwich formed the Pleasant Bay Alliance in 1998 to
promote shared watershed interests following state-approval of the Bay as an Area of Critical
Environmental Concern. Over the past two decades, the Alliance has been working to pursue watershedbased solutions to nutrient management in Pleasant Bay. These efforts include comprehensive water
quality monitoring that has been used by each town for wastewater planning; and coordination of the
Massachusetts Estuaries Project and Total Maximum Daily Load reports for Pleasant Bay. The Alliance
also generated the analysis that led to Chatham’s and Harwich’s decision to construct the Muddy Creek
bridge, which is the first nutrient management project implemented in the Pleasant Bay watershed, and will
significantly reduce the amount of sewering needed in the sub-watershed.
The Pleasant Bay Resource Management Plan Update (2013) approved by Town Meetings in each
member town, and by the state, directs the Alliance to continue this work concerning watershed-based
nutrient management. To meet this charge, the Alliance has been working to develop a response to the
Cape-wide 208 Plan requirement for a watershed plan.
Last week, Town Selectmen and Administrators/Managers from the Alliance member towns met with our
Steering Committee for an update on this work. The update included a discussion of recent
correspondence between the Alliance and Cape Cod Commission regarding the process by which
watershed-based analysis of nutrient loading in Pleasant Bay would be developed.
At that meeting, the Alliance was tasked with developing a draft letter that could be sent jointly by the
Boards of Selectmen of the member towns to the Commission to confirm the following points:
• The Alliance member towns are WMAs and retain all decision-making responsibility for a
watershed plan and for implementing wastewater projects.
• The Alliance is charged by its member towns to undertake watershed-based analysis of the
nutrient management efforts on their behalf for Pleasant Bay.
• The towns have made substantial progress and the Alliance technical approach is comprehensive,
utilizes the extensive work already undertaken by town consultants, and is more appropriate for the
level of assessment currently being undertaken in the watershed than the Commission’s approach.
• The Commission is requested to work with the towns and the Alliance to complete this work within
the 208 process and make available to the towns all available opportunities for expedited
permitting and financing.
A draft letter addressing these points is attached for the Board’s consideration. We respectfully request
that the Boards discuss this letter at the earliest possible date and either approve the draft letter in its
current form, or suggest modifications deemed appropriate.
Please let me know if you have any questions or need any additional information.
Mr. Paul Niedzwiecki
Executive Director
Cape Cod Commission
PO Box 226
3225 Main Street
Barnstable, MA 02630
Dear Mr. Niedzwiecki:
We are writing as the member towns of the Pleasant Bay Alliance (Alliance) in
response to recent correspondence between the Alliance and the Cape Cod
Commission (Commission) regarding our goals, approach and progress toward a
watershed plan.
Our letter has two main purposes.
First, we find it important to respond to comments in your letter to the Alliance
(April 29th) that we believe mischaracterize and discount the significant progress
our towns have made in working together through the Alliance to meet the goals of
the 208 process for Pleasant Bay.
Second, we want to address the data sources, timeline and methods by which this
work will be undertaken, and how this work advances the goals of the 208 Plan
update.
We believe there are ways to work out differences in approach that will provide
maximum benefit for our four towns and meet the goals of the Commission and the
208 process.
As you know, watersheds are not confined by town boundaries and the Pleasant Bay
Alliance is our long-standing regional body charged to assist the member
towns/Wastewater Treatment Management Agencies (WMAs) by providing analysis
of nutrient management opportunities within the Pleasant Bay watershed. Each of
our towns has made significant progress in developing town-wide nutrient
management plans that address multiple watersheds and account for a variety of
town-wide needs and priorities. For the shared Pleasant Bay watershed, the
Alliance is supporting these efforts by integrating that part of each town’s plan into
a watershed-wide composite, to identify gaps and/or overlaps, streamline
evaluation through the linked water quality-watershed model, and identify
opportunities for savings and efficiency. With the benefit of this information, each
town may choose to modify its plan, pursue joint projects or enter into negotiations
with one or more towns to take advantage of efficiencies. All decision-making and
responsibility for implementation remains with the towns, however the analysis
provided by the Alliance will assist us in identifying regional opportunities that
otherwise might be overlooked.
1
Any recommendations resulting from the Alliance’s work will be vetted and
approved by the towns and will be submitted for regulatory review by the
towns/WMAs.
We appreciate your assessment that the approach presented by the Alliance in their
letter to you is comprehensive. However, it is important that we address your
concerns about the Alliance’s ability to meet the June 30th reporting deadline, and
the use of a Watershed Team.
The June 30 deadline, as described in your correspondence to EPA (K. Moraff,
8/25/15), provides an opportunity to review progress toward watershed plan
development in a joint meeting. While we have not received clear guidance from
you about this reporting requirement, the towns, either as individual WMAs or
acting jointly, can provide the Commission with an update on our substantial
progress in assessing, planning, and implementing measures to address nutrient
loading within the Pleasant Bay watershed.
Further, you have noted in your letter to the Alliance that if a WMA does not submit
a watershed report, the “…Commission will issue a report that will stand as each
WMA’s plan for that watershed unless and until study is completed by the WMA.”
Clearly, any report developed by the Cape Cod Commission or the towns on June
30th will be an initial document and will not represent a plan. We believe that the
work we are undertaking with the support of the Alliance will lead to a watershed
plan that meets the goals of the 208 Plan, even if it does not follow the same path as
other watersheds that are not as far along in the planning process, or do not have
the same regional tradition of watershed collaboration.
You describe the value of a Watershed Team composed by the Cape Cod
Commission as providing technical assistance and blended participatory review.
We believe the technical support available through the Commission is better suited
to a watershed at a much earlier stage of planning. The Alliance has identified a
number of questions that suggest that the Commission’s Multi-Variant Planner
(MVP) tool used by the Watershed Team is not the appropriate tool for the level of
assessment currently being undertaken in the Pleasant Bay watershed. We
understand that there are significant discrepancies between load reduction
requirements calculated by the MVP and those reductions developed by the more
rigorous engineering work employed by the towns and their consultants. Your letter
suggests an approach that would have the towns take a step back in the process by
developing bookend scenarios, or to adapt to use of the MVP, rather than continuing
to explore scenarios that blend already developed traditional and non-traditional
approaches throughout the watershed. To require use of the MVP over the Alliance’s
technical approach for compliance with the 208 Plan seems to elevate process over
desired outcomes.
2
There are ways to resolve the differences in approach. We see no reason why the
blended participatory review offered by the Commission could not be incorporated
with the analysis being developed by the Alliance on behalf of the towns. As four
communities that have been working collaboratively to address wastewater issues
in Pleasant Bay long before the 208 Plan update process began, we object strongly
to the statement in your letter that the approach outlined by the Alliance and
expanded upon above, is deemed by you to be outside of the 208 process and,
therefore, ineligible for expedited permitting and access to financial incentives. We
welcome your suggestions for a more conciliatory and productive dialogue to
advance our shared goal of preserving the health of Pleasant Bay.
In closing, we believe the differences can be resolved and hope to move forward in a
cooperative manner with the Commission on this vital work.
Sincerely,
Brewster Board of Selectmen
Chatham Board of Selectmen
Harwich Board of Selectmen
Orleans Board of Selectmen
Cc:
Sen. Daniel Wolf
Rep. Sarah Peake
Brian Dudley, DEP
3
BOARD OF SELECTMEN LIAISON ASSIGNMENTS (FY17)
ALAN McCLENNEN
DAVE DUNFORD
MARK MATHISON
*Community
Preservation
Committee
Architectural Review
Committee
Affordable Housing
Committee
Marine & Fresh Water
Quality Task Force
Cultural Council
Council on Aging
Cape Cod Regional
Technical High School
Committee
Conservation
Commission
Historical Commission
Commission on
Disabilities
Orleans Elementary
School Committee
Planning Board
Snow Library
Shellfish & Waterway
Improvement Advisory
Committee
Zoning Bylaw Task
Force
Water & Sewer
Commission
4th of July Committee
Nauset Regional
School Committee
Bike & Pedestrian
Committee
*Water Protection
Collaborative
Finance Committee
Board of Health
Human Services
Advisory Committee
*CCC MPO
Dept. of Public Work
Agricultural Advisory
Council
Renewable Energy
Committee
Police Station Building
Committee
Open Space
*Voting Member
Undetermined
SIMS McGRATH
Police and Fire
Oversight
Revised: May 26, 2016