Loading...
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