The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal AboutComprehensive Water Planning -- 2013-11-12 Minutes � �Ap0,01u llggdiiii ,I3, -:t ,, Town of Brewster Comprehensive Water '�'� 2198 Main Street Planning Committee ,rl ,tlIij a= Brewster, Massachusetts °61 —i'I`�'� �_, 02631-1898 � (508) 896-3701 x1233 -Nomniiniioo FAX (508) 896-8089 ERBETtirwLERI.. Date Approved: 11-25-13 }_I_13 3;1 RPM Vote# 9-0. TOWN OF BREWSTER MINUTES OF COMPREHENSIVE WATER PLANNING COMMITTEE (CWPC) Regular Meeting Tuesday, November 12, 2013 at 4:30 pm Brewster Town Office Building Chairmn Lem Skidmore convened the CWPC meeting at 4:30 pm in the Brewster Town Office Building with membeits Russell Schell, Dan Ryan, Elizabeth Taylor, Paula Miller, John O'Reilly, Adam Curtis, and Dave Bennettj present. Absent:II Bruce Evans Also Prdsent: Sue Leven, Chris Miller, Jim Gallagher, Bob Bersin, HWG - Mark Nelson, Geraldine Camilli, Gemmaj Keife Recording or Taping Notification The Chai•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 1. Citizen Forum 1 2. Horsley Witten Group, Mark Nelson 11213_ HWG PowerPoint Presentation Discuss criteria for ranking alternatives for Pleasant Bay watershed 111213_ HWG Spreadsheet, ranking HWG response to Schoolhouse Pond Report comments, if available 111213_ HWG Memo 11-5-13 3. Approval of minutes from 10-28-13 111213_0 HWG, Pleasant Bay Nitrogen 4. Topics the Chair did not reasonably anticipate Management Alternatives Analysis 1. Citizen Forum None 2. Horsley Witten Group, Mark Nelson Discuss criteria for ranking alternatives for Pleasant Bay watershed HWG response to Schoolhouse Pond Report comments, if available (postponed) Mark N [son and Geraldine Camilli from HWG presented a PowerPoint Presentation for the Ranking of Alterna ives for the Pleasant Bay watershed. They will come back on 11-25-13 to discuss the rankings. (See Po erPoint slide handouts) 111213_A. These topics of discussion are covered extensively in the HWG memo 11213_C and the HWG PowerPoint. There are seven criteria for nine alternatives. 1) Cost 2) Time rame for implementation 3) Distance from Pleasant Bay 4) Public Perception 5) Long;term 0 & M 6) Nitrogen Reduction CWPC 10-�8-13.docx Page 1 of 4 7) Ability to address build-out The committee asked questions about the ranking criteria. Schell a ked if shellfish and seaweed used to take up nitrogen - are they reasonable numbers. Nelson - Yes. Schell asked if it was scalable. Nelson - Yes. They discussed further. The shellfish grant would involve oysters and would be 2 to 9 acres. He explained that with fertilizer reductions they may not need other opportunities. Miller-P asked about the winter season. Nelson and Miller-P discussed further. It was decided this topic would be taken up again later. 2) Timeframe for implementation: Nelson oted that they have already reduced fertilizer at the Captains Golf Course (10 pts.) If a fertilizer management by-law passes there would be an immediate short term effect. Skidmo�e questioned the 3 increments used for ranking and asked if it was flexible enough. .nelson stated it was an objective approach to something subjective. Schell asked about timing and was referred to the HWG Memo, Handout, 111213_C. 3) Distince from Pleasant Bay:. No committee comments. 4) Pub is Perception: Nelson xplained challenges. He provided examples. Eco-toilets may have a negative association. The impact f sewers was another example of a negative association. Schell noted that they either have town meeting votes in favor or against alternatives. Bennett asked about a ranking for the reliability of the technology. Does this include an analogy of the dependability of a project? Some technologies are proven. elson stated these are two separate criteria. (Public opinion vs. reliability or track record) Bennett Skidmore, Nelson and Miller-C discussed further. Miller-C asked about the categories, initial costs, maintenance? - are they too narrow? Miller-P questioned telling the public what is unacceptable. Get feedback. Oven explained that it is our work, the 208 plan, and the county's work. They are not putting anything forward that is too new. This will be vetted before DEP. Consider all the alternatives. Nelson noted that reliability could be added. He shared an example about composting toilets. Schell expressed concern that IA's could impact the town's organizational structure. How would it be adminis ered? • It • suggested holding off on this discussion. Leven s ggested they rename "public perception" to "ease of acceptance" ►. - • and Skidmore discussed including public perception or not. How do you measure it? i• • - asked about the technical ranking and wondered if the town will accept this? It is political analysi- not technical analysis. even noted this needs to be considered and not ignored. Taylor asked if these alternatives will be viewed equally by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). Nelson explained the alternatives will be accepted since they are part of the 208 plan discussions. Taylor and Nelson discussed why money to Orleans regarding sewering was not included on the list. suggested this topic should be covered at the next meeting. amilli explained that Brewster will have other cost efficient options. Camilli discussed estimated hosts and flow with Bennett. The committee discussed some possible solutions with Orleans. (plans/costs/funding, etc.) Bennett was in favor of keeping as an alternative. Miller-Psuggested adding proven technologies. Bennett noted that reliability is essential. They discussed using the word conventional. CWPC 10-218-13.docx Page 2 of 4 Schell explained that the CCC spoke about three variations for the eco toilets at the 208 plan meetings. They alto discussed cluster neighborhood treatment with a possible connection to Orleans (5 variations exist) He posed a question to the committee. Don't we have to anticipate that a group will say the committee did not focus on one specific alternative? Skidmolre asked the committee to focus on rankings. ClJL0 & • elson provided examples. Rank level of effort, town staff, and management. He shared examples. he Town either has a staff person or hires a contractor. Fertilizer management at golf course requires management staff. 6) Nitrggen Reduction: Miller-P(asked why is it a negative if it can't do it on its own. rylelson discussed points. Fertilizer by-law does not do it on its own. 7) Abil y to address build-out: The by-law was discussed and examples were shared. Nelson summarized for the committee. • Fublic perception not ranking criteria • eliability and conventionality. Nelson reviewed with Bennett and discussed further. Fertilizer rinanagement Bennett suggested proven performance = reliability stated they would add proven performance or something similar Skidmo a and Bennett discussed further. Sennett;expressed concern about big investment without a proven track record. Miller-P asked about feasibility of implementation. Different issue. explained that if they have a fertilizer by-law then the town gets credit. amilli noted there would be a management source for innovative alternatives (IA's). DEP requires it. Nelson discussed further with Bennett. Nelson reviewed next steps. • Members will review alternatives analysis memo • HWG will rank the alternatives • Meet on 11-25-13 to discuss results of the ranking analysis. Skidmore asked the committee for consensus. No one had an objection. • #4, remove from public perception, add reliability, "proven performance" Miller-Phad an exception "ability to achieve through total... - not technical criteria." This should not be driving 0 decision. Nelson suggested lowering it or removing it •'• -i 'suggested keeping it but lowering the points. They will weight option #6 down to (3). -v-• will send an updated by spreadsheet by 11-13. (for ranking) - •I stated they will review and discuss 11-25-13. The co mittee reviewed the spreadsheet from HWG. distributed a handout. 111213_D HWG, Pleasant Bay Nitrogen Management Alternatives nalysis Next steps continued • Work to select final alternatives • Finalize alternatives report • Prepare implementation plan for selected alternatives Miller-Pand Camilli discussed pounds of nitrogen removed. $ per pound. HWG tired to cost out. CWPC 10-28-13.docx Page 3 of 4 Schell expressed concern about the reliability of the alternatives. Issues with power outages? elson explained there is backup power and it is a design issue. (part of the detailed design) Schell sated that IA's were vulnerable and discussed further with Nelson. 3. Apprpvai of minutes from 10-28-13 Bennettllimade a Motion to approve the minutes from 10-28-13 as written, O'Reilly Second, All Aye, Vote 8-0. 4. Top! $ the Chair did not reasonably anticipate The co mittee discussed adding WQRC to the agenda. Leven - topic asked if anyone attended the BOS meeting that addressed the Tri Town plant. even and Bennett discussed recent emails from Mr. Farber. Bennett and Curtis agreed that there should be a discussion about the tri town plant. Bennett expressed interest in an update. Skidmore asked for Leven to contact Charlie Sumner and to invite him to a meeting. Miller-P expressed interest in discussing the subject further. Taylor made a Motion to adjourn, Miller-P Second, All Aye, Vote 8-0. The meting ended at 5:50 pm. Next Meeting: Monday 11-25-13 0 4:30 pm Respectfully submitted, tr4�, Da ar!noett ice Chair & Clerk Kelly MoOre, Senior Dept. Assistant, Planning CWPC 10-28-13.docx Page 4 of 4