HomeMy Public PortalAboutWater Quality Advisory Minutes 2014-07-16 ORLEANS TOWN CLERK
Town of Orleans Water Quality Advisory Panel
115 JAN 22 2:43PM
Meeting One
Wednesday July 16,2014
9:30 am-12:30 pm
Orleans Town Hall
19 School Road, Orleans,.Massachusetts 02653
Approved Meeting Minutes
Next Meeting: The next meeting was scheduled for Wednesday,August 13, 2014. However, this
meeting has now been postponed until Wednesday September 10, 8 am-12 pm at
Orleans Town Hall.
ACTION ITEMS
The following action items were captured during the meeting:
CBI /Water Resources Associates
• Distribute July 16 meeting summary
• Distribute future meeting materials by the Friday before meetings
• Create a draft meeting schedule,with consideration of conflicting meetings
• Develop draft list of criteria for success, drawing from Panel comments, as starting point for
additional Panel discussion
• Seek additional input from participants about process protocols
• Request Town Counsel to provide a concise guide on conforming to Open Meeting Law
• Make available the PDF of Microsoft Project schematic, along with MSP files
• Add a risk management task to the program
• Review Cape Cod Commission Scenarios for scope and specificity
• Provide information on how to access the State's course on the Open Meeting law
WELCOME AND INTRODUCTION OF PANEL
Dave Dunford, Chair of the Board of Selectmen, welcomed the members of the Orleans Water Quality
Advisory Panel and called the meeting to order. All meeting documents and presentations for the
Town of Orleans Water Quality Advisory Panel will be located here:
http://www.town.orleans.ma.us/Pages/OrleansMA WQAP/index
Ms. Stacie Smith, facilitator from the Consensus Building Institute (CBI), reviewed the agenda and
outlined ground rules for the meeting. She requested that the conversation remain among panelists
until time for public comment, and stated that members of the public may pass written notes to
those seated at the table. Ms. Smith explained that the goal of the first meeting was to introduce the
frameworks of collaboration that will underlie the Panel's work, begin to examine the technical scope
of work, consider what a successful process and potential pitfalls might look like, identify criteria for
future evaluation of options, and discuss communication protocols and scheduling.
Town of Orleans Water Quality Advisory Panel 1
Meeting One(7/16/14):Revised Meeting Summary
- j
such as public-private partnerships and various financing mechanisms, early in the process, rather
than waiting until the end to address cost. He also acknowledged the importance of regional
synergies and economies of scale across three towns (Orleans, Eastham, and Brewster) and the
region, which will require both hard engineering and a building of trust. While the Panel is itself a
public engagement mechanism, Ms. Smith added that each panelist has a responsibility to expand the
public visibility of this conversation by serving as ambassadors between community and Panel.
Mr. Domenica discussed the wastewater and septage consultant scope of work. GHD was identified
as the top choice consultant, in part due to their strong financial team, which includes Chris
Woodcock and Doug Gardner of Pioneer Consulting Group. The consultant's first task will be to
compile and summarize the existing technical information and produce an annotated summary and
bibliography for the Panel. Also among their tasks, the consultant will: assess regulatory issues and
requirements, conduct a septage and food waste market study, examine Tri-Town plant options,
conduct decentralized treatment and disposal site investigations, conduct specialized assessment of
technical options like HDD and STEP/STEG, and evaluate non-traditional Nitrogen-control technology
(PRBs, I/A Nitrogen systems, aquaculture, stormwater, fertilizer and other 208 options). The
consultant will also conduct financial modeling & analysis and work closely with the Panel throughout
their scope. Mr. Domenica explained that the Panel's job is to ask the right questions and direct the
consultants, in order to create a final "revised CWMP" document and adaptive management plan
that synthesizes information and reflects the Panel's consensus.
Panelists offered the following comments and questions after the review of the task and scope of
work. Responses from the facilitator are italicized.
• A panelist voiced a perception that because GHD was involved in a big system in Chatham,
they might have a bias toward traditional technology and less skill for examining the
alternative technologies. Mr. Domenico responded that GHD is a large, international firm with
many pockets of specialization, including a green stormwater management team. They also
bring sub-contractors with all the areas of expertise that the project requires.
• A panelist suggested that it could be valuable to incorporate a risk register into the scope of
work, so that the Panel can evaluate the range of risks involved in the project. Mr. Domenico
agreed that a risk register is a powerful tool, and would add this to the scope.
• A panelist inquired as to whether the Panel will coordinate with the Cape Cod Commission to
produce an Orleans-scale model for monitoring. Mr. Domenico affirmed the importance of
creating rigorous protocols for several levels of monitoring, and stated that part of the
consultant's scope is to customize the Commission's protocol to Orleans.
• Following up on the previous comment, one panelist noted that non-traditional technologies
require conversations about different levels of monitoring, and that the region would benefit
from sharing information about monitoring protocols. The Cape Cod Commission
representative noted that there will likely be some regional role for monitoring and data
management.
Mr. Domenica outlined additional parallel projects that would need to be integrated into the Panel's
deliberations. These projects include: a utility survey of downtown; an assessment of landfill plume;
the Namskaket Marsh Restoration/Protection Plan; an aquaculture survey and case studies; Planning
Town of Orleans Water Quality Advisory Panel 3
Meeting One(7/16/14): Revised Meeting Summary
a
for Rock Creek Harbor and Cedar Pond, and discussions about the Tri-Town Plant Intermunicipal
Agreement and permit timeline. A panelist asked how the Cedar Pond decision will impact the Panel's
work. Mr. Domenica responded that it's unclear at this point. Another panelist stated that Cedar
Pond Water Quality Management Plan recommended use of a low-salinity option for the pond and
that the plan was approved by the Orleans Board of Selectmen.
Mr. Domenica presented a high-level schematic outlining how the Panel will proceed from July
through April 2015. The July meeting (today) was focused around convening the group and
understanding the tasks and scope. The next meeting, in August, would focus on identifying the
needs, and would draw on the MEP, CWMP, WQTF and other data. Data gaps that can not be
resolved within this initial planning timeframe will be integrated into the Adaptive Management Plan.
The regulatory direction from CCC, DEP, and EPA must inform the process to ensure that it will meet
regulatory requirements. Mr. Domenica suggested using the illustrative scenarios from the 208 Plan
as a starting point in September, which the Panel can alter to provide direction to the technical
consultants' review tasks - the Cape Cod Commission developed non-traditional and traditional
"book-end" scenarios, which they are currently discussing with regulatory partners, and the Panel
could use these approaches as initial "straw men" which they can then customize and apply, thus
allowing the Panel to begin early analysis and cost estimates.
Panelists had a number of questions about the initial approach suggested above. Responses from the
facilitation team are italicized.
• A panelist noted that, in the context of Orleans, it is important to differentiate between salt
and freshwater ponds.
• A panelist expressed discomfort with describing what comes out of the 208 as "scenarios," as
these had not been presented as actual proposals during the 208 process. Mr. Domenico
agreed, and clarified that the scenarios will simply serve as a starting point with no inherent
mark of approval from the Panel. Ms. Smith added that the scenarios will provide a starting
point for tailoring options, rather than beginning with an entirely blank slate.
• A panelist observed that this may be an issue of semantics, and perhaps "options to pursue"
would be better phrasing than "scenarios." Mr. Domenico stated that the 208 Plan suggests
possible locations for aquaculture and other systems, which the committee could either choose
to investigate or determine are completely incompatible with community's needs. Mr.
Domenico responded that the Panel hasn't yet seen the 208 in its final form, but will ask the
consultant to take the 208 and add definition in order to extract starting alternatives. He
emphasized the importance of functioning in a spirit of inventing options without committing.
The Panel is not committed to an option simply because it's on the table as a starting point. He
hopes that the Panel will create a space to be creative and throw a variety of rough ideas on
the table.
• A panelist commented that the existing CWMP looks at alternative measures as interim steps,
and specifies decentralized treatment. The panelist asked whether there are opportunities to
look at piloting in those areas while the other process continues. Mr. Domenico agreed that it
would be valuable to identify funding or other opportunities to get started with any actions
that seemed ripe and acceptable along the way.
Town of Orleans Water Quality Advisory Panel 4
Meeting One(7116/14): Revised Meeting summary
a
• A panelist remarked that it would be useful to have potential "straw man' solutions in
September, but expressed uncertainty that this could be found in the 208. Mr. Domenico
affirmed that the Panel will have the opportunity to tinker with some starting options in
September. He reiterated that this is a creative process, and underscored the value of having
representatives from DEP and the Cape Cod Commission at the table. He stated that the Panel
will approach the scenarios carefully and with creativity.
• A panelist commented that the Panel is discussing options, and thus all options should be on
the table.
• Another panelist added that the starting options represent hypothetical approaches to
implementing different technologies.
Following Panel discussion on initial alternatives scenarios, Mr. Domenica resumed his presentation
on the process and timeline schematic. In October, the Panel will direct the consultants to begin
conducting technical and engineering studies and begin early development of the financial model, in
order to identify key financial parameters. In November, the Panel will conduct alternatives
evaluation and adjustment, and develop a process for resolving uncertainty. Alternatives evaluation
and adjustment will continue into January, by which time the Panel will begin to narrow options. The
Panel will continue to answer any outstanding questions, conduct environmental and financial
evaluation in February, and in March or April will produce a consensus-recommended plan. Some
questions will remain at this stage, hopefully the Panel will be able to agree on a set of actions to
begin solving water quality problems in Orleans.
Mr. Domenica stated that the schematic he just presented, along with the consultant's scope of work,
is captured in a Microsoft Project timeline, which he will share with the Panel as a PDF and MSP
document,
A panelist commented that the work plan calls for a huge number of studies and inputs, more than
can be covered in nine meetings, and asked whether the Panel needs to schedule more meetings. Mr.
Domenica responded that the Panel will likely host interim workshops focused on specific topics such
as financial or design/build/operate. He described the process as taking the shape of an S-curve: the
group needs enough information to make decisions,yet also needs to know when to move on.
PANEL EXPECTATIONS: DEFINING SUCCESS,ANTICIPATING PITFALLS
Ms. Smith led panelists in an exercise to identify what success would look like to them. She asked
panelists to imagine that it is June 2015 and the process has been wildly successful. What would
newspaper headlines say about the success of the process? Panelists wrote and posted their success
headlines in front of the room. Ms. Smith synthesized the general themes, which include: consensus
is reached; voters approve the plan; the plan successfully addresses water quality challenges;
Brewster and Eastham are included in agreements; Orleans is prepared to implement pilot projects;
the plan utilizes new technologies; and the plan contains business and growth opportunities. One
comment card described a failed process. When asked, the panelist who submitted this headline
explained that there's a danger that they might be the next generation that fails to address the
problem of water quality.
Town of Orleans Water quality Advisory Panel 5
Meeting One(7/16/14): Revised Meeting Summary
Ms. Smith then asked panelists to identify more specific components of a highly successful agreement.
Responses included:
Broad and wide consensus • Fosters stewardship of water as a resource
• Passed by town meetings and regulators • Creates jobs
• Results in clean water • Perceived as and is good value for money
• Solutions support a master planning vision • Clear and transparent finances
for the future of the town • Regional agreement and awareness
• Heals divisions in town • Compliant with federal, state, and local
• Approach is understood by all requirements ,
• -Adaptable to nature and other change • Creates model for others
• Economically and environmentally holistic • Improves relationships
and sustainable • Three towns pass
• Supports economic vitality for the town • Necessary funding and legislation
• Solves the problem we all agree is the • Sensitive to different social and economic
problem situations
• Solves the problem for today and • Logical
tomorrow • Reliable
• Affordability for all residents to continue to • Promotes understanding of the value of
live in Orleans water as a resource
• Builds on knowledge of all of the options • Risks incorporated and understood
• Financing that is sensitive to young
working families and seniors on fixed
incomes
Ms. Smith then invited the group to do a "pre-mortem," and asked participants to go around and
name potential pitfalls that could lead to a failed process. Responses included:
• Plan is too expensive or costs not explained / • Loss of self-determination—solution is
finances not transparent externally imposed
Process doesn't reach out to community • Public acceptance of low water quality
• Cost of inaction not articulated • Decisions driven by misinformation
• Trust/belief in the process fails • Water quality will continue to decline, real
• Divides/fails to reach consensus estate values plummet, residents leave
• Regulators not on board • Low-hanging success precludes long-term
• Not abiding by consensus model/ not success
committed to good process • Insufficient definition of success
• Parties block consensus • Doesn't communicate the link between
• Failure to reframe issue in a way that will environment and economy
gain public support • Missed opportunity to take zero interest
Band-Aid for a more serious issue;outcome loans and other influxes of money
doesn't offer a long-term solution • Implementation is ineffective
Town of Orleans Water quality Advisory Panel 6
Meeting One(7/16/14):Revised Meeting Summary
l
• Failure to shift focus to talking about big quality
picture cause and effect regarding water
Ms. Smith explained that the Panel's definition of success, encompassing individual panelist's
definition of success, will be used to evaluate the alternatives and options that the Panel develops.
Drawing from this conversation, she offered to develop an initial list of criteria for the Panel to refine
in a future meeting.
COMMUNICATION PROTOCOLS
Given time constraints, full discussion of the process and communication protocols were postponed
to a future meeting. In the meanwhile, Ms. Smith would collect input from participants about these
protocols. She informed meeting attendees that all materials—including agendas, meeting
summaries, workshop materials, technical study information, and a link to meeting videos—would be
posted online on the Town's website (see link on page 1). All meeting summaries would be sent in
draft to Panel members and revised based on input before being posted.
She described how Open Meeting Law impacts communication among panel members.The Panel
may not communicate (deliberate) between meetings. Instead, all Panel-wide communication should
come through the process managers (Ms. Smith and Mr. Domenica),who may send materials to the
Panel and solicit Panel input between meetings. She suggested that the Town's legal counsel provide
a short guide on Open Meeting Law for the Panel, to help ensure that they understand and meet
legal requirements. A participant suggested letting the Panel know how they could access the State's
course on the Open Meeting law.
SCHEDULING FUTURE MEETINGS
Panel members discussed the day and time for the next meeting, as well as the possibility of
establishing a standing monthly meeting time. Ms. Smith acknowledged the pros and cons of daytime
versus nighttime meetings, and the attempt to balance participant availability, mental energy, and
meeting length. Given the work that lay ahead, she recommended meetings of four hours, which
could only happen if meetings included at least some working hours. The next meeting was proposed
for August 13, 2014.
Panelists offered the following comments regarding future meeting times:
• A panelist noted that the Cape Cod Water Protection Collaborative has a standing meeting on
second Wednesdays,which would potentially conflict with the proposed August 13 meeting.
• Another panelist commented that Selectmen may be better able to attend evening meetings.
• A Selectman suggested that the Panel not schedule itself around accommodating Selectmen,
as they have varied schedules and can watch the meetings online.
• A panelist noted that some Panel members attend the meetings as part of their job, and
would be less available for evening meetings.
• A panelist suggested a combination of daytime and evening meetings.
Based on a show of hands, Ms. Smith determined that morning meetings would be acceptable for
panelists.The Panel agreed to hold its next meeting on Wednesday, August 13,from 8 am to 12 pm.
Town of Orleans Water Quality Advisory Panel 7
Meeting One(7/16/14): Revised Meeting Summary
The group may adjust meeting times as needed in the future, and after the August meeting the Panel
will work to avoid conflicting with other meetings and water sampling mornings.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Panelists and the public offered the following comments and questions. Responses from the
facilitator are italicized.
• A panelist requested that the facilitators distribute meeting materials one week before
meeting. Facilitators agreed to try to distribute or post meeting materials by the Friday
preceding each meeting.
• Another panelist requested that the facilitators indicate on the schedule any month with more
than one meeting. Facilitators responded that they will develop a draft list of meeting dates
for the Panel to discuss.
• A panelist inquired about subcommittees. Facilitators responded that subcommittees would
only be formed at the agreement of the Panel.
Town of Orleans Water Quality Advisory Panel B
Meeting One(7/16/14):Revised Meeting Summary
Appendix A
Attendance
Stakeholder Representatives and Alternates:
Category I Name
Selectman Dave Dunford 11
Selectman Alan McClennen 1
Former CWMP Committee Judith Bruce
Former Peer Review Committee I Ed Daly(alternate)
Orleans CAN Doug Fromm I
Orleans Chamber of Commerce Sid Snow I
Orleans Community Partnership Joy Cuming
Orleans Pond Coalition I Jim McCauley
Orleans Taxpayer Association I Gordon Smith I
Orleans Water Alliance I Gary Furst Il
Liaisons and Alternates: 1
Category Name
Cape Cod Commission I Patty Daley
DEP I Brian Dudley
EPA Karen Simpson (alternate)
Orleans Conservation Commission I Steve Phillips I
Orleans Finance Committee I Joshua Larson 11
Orleans Shellfish and Waterways I Suzanne (Phil) Phillips 1
Orleans Water and Sewer Board I Robert Rich (alternate) I
Orleans Water Quality Task Force I Judy Scanlon Il
Town of Brewster Representative I Sue Leven 11
Town of Eastham Representative I Sandy Bayne 11
Tri-Town Board of Managers I John Kelly
Brewster Conservation Commission I Virginia (Ginny) lannini 1
Town of Orleans water Quality Advisory Panel y
Meeting One(7/16/14):Revised Meeting Summary
Alternates and Public:
Bev Carney
Bob Donath
Bruce Taub
Carolyn Kennedy
Charles Harris
Chuck Ketchuck
Dale Fuller
Doug Gardner
Fran McClennen
Ginia Pati
James Gallagher
Jeff Eagles
Jim Robertson
Kevin Gal Iigan
Laura Kelley
Len Short
Lynne Bruneau
Mark Fiegler
Paul Ammann
Paul Kelleker
Steven Kleinberg
Susan Chandler
Todd Thayer
Town of Orleans Water Quality Advisory Panel 10
Meeting One(7/16/14):Revised Meeting Summary