The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal AboutComprehensive Water Planning -- 2010-04-26 MinutesUsowski: The Zone 2 map is important Michniewicz: Felt the map should have a graphic importance. He likes the saltwater estuaries, the ponds and the zone 2 maps. - Leven: the aerial she has shows the Zone 2 with the ponds. Taylor: can we show the ponds and the impact of the invasive species on the ponds. People don't even realize the fact that the stuff off the bottom of someone's shoes can destroy the ponds faster than the phosphorus. Bennett: Have to be careful of how much info we give. This is the perfect opportunity to distribute the handouts..ie disposal of medications. Leven: Would it be helpful to have Paul Anderson set up a table like he did at the Community Meeting? Yes. Peter Johnson: felt it was important that the information is easy to focus in on and see the message very clearly. Graphic presentation review is critical - it needs to be instantly understood at this point. Most of the citizens don't understand...thinkthat we are in elementary school not middle school or high school. Keep it simple. Miller: Handout looks generic and doesn't feel like it is from Brewster. Leven: will talk with CDM about setting up the posters -use what she has and a pond map. Taylor: can we simplify the handout -set up bullets Bennett: Do we have a mission statement? Leven: Yes, there are parts that might work but it is rather long. She would review and see what might be appropriate. Johnson: Agreed with Miller to keep it simple; include the who, what, where, why. This is not intended to sell the $100,000 it is just information. Leven: agreed Miller: Recommended that the $500,000 - $750,000 not be listed at this point. 3. Discussion of letter re fertilizer use: Leven: Felt she wasn't the best person to write a letter to the editor because she doesn't know enough about fertilizer. Would the committee be interested in writing something after Town Meeting? Bennett: is this working towards a bylaw? 4-26-10 www.TOWN.BREWSTER.MA.US Page 2 of 5 Leven: no, the concept of monitoring what people put on their lawns would be terrifying. The intent was just to give people a chance to think about what they are doing to their lawns has an impact on the ponds...i.e. if you put this much fertilizer on the lawn it doesn't help to double the amount of fertilizer. Michniewicz: This is sort of a research exercise and not reinventing the wheel. Cape Cod extension service should have information. Leven: knows someone who sells product to golf courses who has a wealth of information and she could pick their brain. Johnson: emphasize Cape Cod as Cape Cod. You should have a Cape Cod lawn and not New Jersey lawns. We don't need the perfect green lawn here. Leven: would ideally like to see the lawn in front of Town hall set an example and show 3 different types of lawn and how it can work. Lipman: would like to see the committee keep on track and not go to far afield. This could be a very complex and controversial subject. Bennett: Agreed and felt that this may not be getting the right kind of attention the committee needs. Amore general approach; phosphorous impacts fresh water; these are detergents that have less impact; fertilizers' impacts and not to use within 100 feet of the ponds. This information is readily available somewhere. Peter Johnson: seems like the committee isn't ready to make a stand on the fertilizer and -this committee should become a part of the Orleans Water committee. Start with the Mission statement and then start to tackle what the committee is going to work on. Everything needs to be personalized for Brewster. 1St what are the problems 2"d what are the solutions 3~ then you need to market the solution. Leven: will look to ways to maximize ways to improve the handout. Feeding your lawn this spring... remember to limit the amount; phosophrus impacts on freshwater. She reminded the group that CDM has been doing this for a long time and the information needs to be simple. Bennett: would "Google" to see what information he can find to distribute. Leven: would confirm that the information from Horsley Whitten is available to distribute. Michniewicz: Confirm that the committee will have a poster display and some sort of take-aways. P. Johnson: the Conservation Trust is wiling t work with the committee and whenever they put out a newsletter they would be happy to add any content. Michniewicz: All set with what will be available for Town Meeting? Yes. Leven: will send out a revised handout to the committee to review asap. 4-26-10 www.TOWN.BREWSTER.MA.IJS Page 3 of 5 Other Business: - Review Minutes: March 8, 2010; Joanne Hughes motioned to approve as written. Seconded by Jane Johnson. Vote: 4-0-2 - Any other business that may come before this committee Bennett: Validation committee discussion -doesn't want to see us drop that. He felt they raised some good points. Leven: the Peer review group? It was agreed that the committee wanted to discuss with Orleans first and then look at the Peer review. Joanne Hughes: What is the difference between the 2 groups? The peer review is just the 4 people who are working on their own. The Validation committee was a hired group but they have been disbanded. Michniewicz: The more information we can get upfront the better position we will be in. Bennett: Felt the peer group had a credible position. Would like to make a motion to have the peer group invited in to discuss. Seconded by Joanne Hughes. Discussion: J. Johnson: thought the peer group was waiting for the information from the MEP model. Bennett: thought some of the points were note worthy but would like to have a meeting with them to discuss in order to keep everything balanced -thought there were some disparities on how they made their calculations. He would like to understand the data. Peter Johnson: make sense for them to come and talk to the committee but wonder what was the right time to discuss. Joanne Hughes: thought it was never too soon to get information. Leven: could send out the report again for the committee to review and wanted to remind them that they have a motion out there that needs avote -the end of May/June timeframe VOTE: All Aye. Jane Johnson: thought we should also reach out the Dennis and Harwich. Leven: Harwich might be appropriate to have a meeting because we have an overlap with 1 of the ponds. Eastham has expressed an interest in meeting with the group and she would see where they are at. She has not had much contact with Dennis. Bennett: Would like to reach out to Harwich and would like to see the committee dedicate a meeting a month to a neighboring town. Leven: the Harwich group is probably 15 people and it might be easier to go to them. She agreed to find out when they meet and what might be the best approach. Harwich is not as far into the process because they have been waiting for the TMDLS -they might only be a phase ahead. She doesn't think they have a map that shows where they need to sewer and people may be surprised has to where the sewers would be required. 4-26-10 www.TOWN.BREWSTER.MA.US Page 4 of 5 Next Meeting: May 10 -CDM will be at the meeting. Michniewicz will not be there. Bennett: The cost comparison document may be a useful comparison to discuss at a future meeting. Citizens Forum: Russ Schell: agreed with the journalistic approach and felt it was important to understand the what and the why... Propose in addition to the white map and the ponds but also show the 2 areas that have the phosphors problem and the nitrogen problem. Michniewicz: Thanked Mr. Schell for his comments. He noted that we are still in the data gathering phase and not in the findings stage. The committee needs to wait until the report from CDM is presented. Joanne Hughes: motioned to adjourn. Seconded by Taylor. All Aye. mitted, ett S~/Senior Department Assistant 4-26-10 www.TOWN.BREWSTER.MA.US Page 5 of5