HomeMy Public PortalAboutComprehensive Water Planning -- 2009-10-27 Minutes~~\`\~\ui~4ulll Ilulrruu~~i~,/i~
``\~o~ tae wsT'~~°'~
F~
~~
c''Q'
=2 r a~3=_
1 O V 'JJN
/// /////~ / / / / ~ ~ ~ ~ I I r ! l f ! I I I I 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 \ \ \ \ \ `\ \ \\\\\\,\
Town Of Brewster
2198 Main Street
Brewster, Massachusetts 02631-1898
(508) 896-3701 ext. 133
FAX (508) 896-8089
Date Approved with modifications: November 23, 2009; All Aye; Vote 7-0-0
TOWN OF BREWSTER MINUTES OF
COMPREHENSIVE WATER PLANNING COMMITTEE
Review Committee
Tuesday, October 27, 2009 at 1:00 P.M.
Brewster Town Office Building
Comprehensive Water
Planning Committee
Dave Michniewicz convened the RFP review sub-committee meeting on behalf of the
Comprehensive Water Planning Committee meeting at 1:00 pm in the Brewster Town Office
Building with members Pat Hughes, Joanne Hughes, Dave Bennett and Elizabeth Taylor.
Also Present: Sue Leven and Chris Miller. Jim Gallagher arrived at 1:15pm.
Consultant Interviews for Integrated Water Resource Management Plan proposals
1. Stone Environmental, Inc.
Present: Bruce Douglas, Lead Technical Person, Craig Swanson, Applied Science Associates, Inc.;
Rosemary Blaccquier, Woodard & Curran; Tom Flannigan, South Coast Community Design
Collaborative, Amy Macrellis, Project Manager
Douglas: Provided an overview of their presentation and gave an introduction of the group. The
team has been picked based on Brewster's need.
Macrellis: Discussed the importance of involving the public. They felt it was a critical aspect to the
success of the process. Their approach is to emphasize the involvement.
Flannigan: Transparent plans for groups to respond to -Get people to agree on first and then keep
the process going. Their service is an optional service (add on) but Stone felt it was important to
the success.
Macrellis: Provided an overview of the types of water in Brewster. She then discussed the map
that they had prepared relating to Brewster's water.
Swanson: Discussed some of the estuaries that Brewster has. They would review the data and
determine if it was appropriate to Brewster's challenges.
Macrellis: At the end of the characterization phase they would discuss with Brewster to determine
how to match with Brewster's goals. They would hold public forums to make sure that everyone was
in agreement. Once everyone was in agreement then they would move to the assessment phase.
1027b-09 www.TOWN.BREWSTER.MA.US Page 1 of 10
Douggas: Provided an example in Kingston of the tools (soil water) they would utilize for the
assessment. Based on the model they would be able to predict the outcome of the soil. They do
not reinvent the wheel but utilize existing information and their overall knowledge. Data driven, fact
driven.
Blacquier: Works to make sure that everything Brewster does is within state regulations ie want to
make sure that the plan will take the benefits of the O'Leary legislature.
Macrellis: At the end of the assessment phase they will have an idea of the present and where
gaps are in the future. Again at the end of this phase they will make sure that everyone is in
agreement of where they are.
Douglas: At the end it is Brewster's project -they have the tools, and want to help Brewster. They
have a strength in water resource management and want to help Brewster with their
knowledge/experience.
Questions:
What is your public involvement?
Base meetings to get the information; then additional meetings as needed to get the public
involved. The key is to get the drivers to the plate and hear their input and get their buy in. Tom -
added that it is important to get the community involved (i.e. some part of town developed vs. open
space). Communities involved with wastewater management are important -front end process;
reorganized based on the priorities. Work with the steering committee to hear from the stake
holders.
Amy and Bruce will be at meetings regularly. The goal is continuity and respect for each person
point/concerns. The consulting team and the WCPC need to build the trust of the residence.
1. Firm global: How do you think that will help you in this project? Not asked
2. What does your firm think are the best solutions to the water and wastewater issues on Cape
Cod?
They are open -they come without a predetermined outcome. They believe the data should drive
the solution. Each community has its own issues and should be figured out based on the facts.
They felt it was a wise choice that Brewster doesn't say upfront what the issues are but to wait and
see what the experts uncover.
3. Let's say you are at a public meeting. Explain the differences between a standard Title 5 system
and a denitrification system to the audience.
Standard does not treat for nitrogen. A denitrificaiton system is an innovative alternative. It is
almost like having a treatment facility on site. Requires operational and engineering costs. There is
a higher cost.
4. For firms not working on the Cape: What are the positives and negatives?
They have worked on the islands -Martha Vineyard and the south coast. Advantage: there is
some concern with consultants working on the Cape that they may already have an outcome in
mind. They are open. Rosemary also addressed -previous company worked on the
comprehensive wastewater management company on Nantucket. She has a house in Yarmouth
1027b-09 www.TOWN.BREWSTER.MA.US Page 2 of 10
and has been involved with the Cape Cod Collaborative and is very familiar with what is happening
on the cape. Is happy that Brewster is looking at an integrated wastewater management solution.
Craig -worked on the estuaries project and had worked with Chatham on a project. From the
science side they have a long history of working with communities on the cape.
5. Brewster is one of three towns that shares ownership of the Tri-town septage treatment plant.
To what degree should this arrangement play a part in our water management plans?
When the plant was originally designed it was designed to be a wastewater treatment plant but it
ended up being a septage only. They would look at the whole picture and seeing what the need for
Brewster was and make recommendations.
6. Does your proposed work include independent evaluation/peer review of nutrient assimilation of
the Namskaket River/Marsh currently and relative to the proposed expansion of the Tri-Town
Treatment Facility? Please explain why or why not.
Mass estuaries project -they have conducted 2 studies. They would review the information and
determine if there were any data gaps and then discuss with Brewster the results. Again they
would review the data not the modeling criteria.
Their focus would be on developing/assessing the need for Brewster.
7. Based on a previous project of similar scope please provide some detail on the public
outreach/participation element of the project -for example what forms of communication engaged
the most number of citizens and, did you change your approach base on initial meetings/feedback
with the public and/or the committee you work with?
In general, it begins with the committee with having an established process. The committee leads
the meetings and the consultants back up the committee. If the town finds specific groups that
have issues then holding separate meetings designed for them would be appropriate.
in addition, a forum meeting has been effective in order to gather preliminary information. Design
meetings - to develop a shared view for the community. They found in Nantucket that there are
neighborhood associations and they had organization meetings with the association. They also
incorporated the web in the strategy.
Between meetings what other ways would they address the community?
Handouts and web would be important. Noted that live meetings have been put up on the web and
they would like to incorporate that if possible.
8. What do you see as to the similarities and differences in the CWMP development in Brewster
relative to that work already conducted in the abutting towns?
The emphasis is on the prioritization first. We need to get to this end result in this area and how do
we get there.
One of the biggest problems is that people bring in the solution prior to understanding the issues
first.
9. Do you anticipate the need for re-evaluating nutrient source contributions to named estuaries
with TMDL's....
1027b-09 www.TOWN.BREWSTER.MA.US Page 3 of ]0
Discussed before
10. Does your proposed work include groundwater modeling calibration and validation of variables
to current conditions? Explain...
There will be no groundwater modeling. It is very complex and need to know why you are doing it..
They felt it was more important to characterize their need and go from there. The modeling is
outside the scope of the estimate.
2. Fuss ~ O'Neill:
Present: Dean Audet, PE; Kurt Mailman, Engineer; Mickey Marcus, MS; Jim Riordan, Project
Manager; Dianne Mas, PhD
Audet: Spoke briefly about their strength as a wastewater and stormwater management experts.
Discussed the 3 key elements to the success: Holistic approach; comprehensive assessment; risk
based decision making.
Riordan: Provided an overview of the process; kickoff meeting -with workshops and involvement
of public participation. Assessment meeting; determine management needs and analyze priorities.
They utilized the media (radio station), fact sheets, articles, newspapers and of course workshops
for the public participation. In addition, Jim highlighted the 5 step risk based approach to solving
the issues. He also sited examples of how they handled for other towns.
Marcus: Provided an overview of their unique characteristics and why they should be chosen. They
look at the wetlands, invasive species, recreational activities, habitat and how they all affect the
water. They have incorporated field visits to their budget - it is important to get a hands on feel for
what is actually happening in the areas and then provide their recommendations. Sited an example
in Shutsbury how they integrated their wastewater systems.
Mas: They interpret the data and make it user friendly to bring home the message. Then they
determine where you are going based on some of the modeling. Discussed the powerful planning
tools and communication tools that they utilize in order to understand the data. They will use a land
based use loading approach and can customize the tool to Brewster's unique characteristics.
Audet: They are unique because of the 3 following: Getting you the comprehensive database of
water resources; risk assessment based approach; expertise in identify the water resource needs.
Questions:
1. Firm local: How do you think that will help you in this project?
Local and familiar with the issues.
2. What does your firm think are the best solutions to the water and wastewater issues on Cape
Cod?
Sources of pollution of on site wastewater management systems; phosphorus is getting into the
ponds and probably a result of stormwater issues (fertilizers). Internal cycling could be going on
and needs to be addressed due to the low depth of the ponds.
Their job is to find the best solution for Brewster.
1027b-09 www.TOWN.BREWSTER.MA.US Page 4 of 10
3. Let's say you are at a public meeting. Explain the differences between a standard Title 5 system
and a denitrification system to the audience.
Standard Title 5 program is put together to reduce the impact to the sensitive areas -they require
testing. The denitrification systems are composed of different components with specific nitrogen
reducing components built within them.
4. For firms working on the Cape: What are the positives and negatives of also working with
nearby/neighboring towns?
No disadvantages of not being on the Cape. They are not colored by an existing relationship, not
predirected to sewering. The disadvantage may be that they have some learning but they know a
lot of the players and are ready to make the "learning" investment.
5. Brewster is one of three towns that shares ownership of the Tri-town septage treatment plant.
To what degree should this arrangement play a part our water management plans?
They don't have a lot of knowledge -they would need to learn more about that.
6. Does your proposed work include independent evaluation/peer review of nutrient assimilation of
the Namskaket River/Marsh currently and relative to the proposed expansion of the Tri-Town
Treatment Facility? Please explain why or why not.
They plan to review and look at the data. If something pops out that it is wrong or challengeable
then they would point it out. If it is something Brewster wants them to do they can discuss it is
outside the scope of the estimate.
7. Based on a previous project of similar scope please provide some detail on the public
outreach/participation element of the project -for example what forms of communication engaged
the most number of citizens and, did you change your approach base on initial meetings/feedback
with the public and/or the committee you work with?
They have used interviews with local DJ, press packets before each meeting held -they had 'h
dozen meetings, having a stakeholder group, press packets and presentation to the BOS,
consensus sharing (dot voting), utilize different ways of communication in order to accommodated
individuals preferences; Overall what they have found that is important is a 3 step process: 1.
engage people; 2. bring on educational materials; 3. consensus building.
8. What do you see as to the similarities and differences in the CWMP development in Brewster
relative to that work already conducted in the abutting towns?
Need to interview/review some of the public information and understand the proposals and how
they would influence the town of Brewster.
9. Do you anticipate the need for re-evaluating nutrient source contributions to named estuaries
with TMDL's relative to recent zoning changes?
Not aware that the TMDLs would need to be re-evaluated. However, they would look at the
information and address if necessary.
10. Does your proposed work include groundwater modeling calibration and validation of variables
to current conditions? Explain...
No.
1027b-09 www.TOWN.BREWS"1'ER.MA.US Page 5 of 10
3. AECOM
Present: Bob Scherpf, Principal in charge -hands on with the project -will be pro-bono to the
"city"; Greg Taylor, Local Office Manager; Betsy Shreve-Gibb, Project Manager; Aaron Weieneth,
Planning; Mark Owen, Hydrogeology; Karla King, Wastewater Management; Marsh Greenblatt,
MEP Model Review.
Scherpf: Provided an overview of AECOM -they consist of Earth Tech ENSR and Metcalf & Eddy.
Also he provided a brief introduction of some of the key players. He emphasized the fact that
although they are a large company there history is working with smaller companies.
Shreve-Gibb: Provided an overview of what they believed to be the objectives before the town.
Identified some of the concerns before the town based on the preliminary review of the information.
Noted that one of their technical specialists, Ken Wagner a senior engineer could not be here but
had done some recent work with the town.
Weieneth: Provided a brief history of his experience with AECOM.
Owen: Provided a history of his local experience - 20 years on the cape
King: Provided overview of her background. In addition, she would be responsible for the public
outreach portion of the project.
M. Greenblatt: Would be bringing to the town her expertise on the estuaries study. She reviewed
for DEP in Orleans. She also pointed out how the assumptions were made on some of the reports
and thought 2 points should be brought forward one of which is that UMass actually made
assumptions of the buildout by the town. These build outs may or may not be accurate.
Shreve-Gibb: Discussed the approach as taking a 6 month timeframe.
Identified the key elements to the success of task 1 -Needs Assessment; 1. Develop a project
web page - on line survey; 2. Develop a Town Hall type forum (this would be totally at AECOM's
expense). This is important because it develops the trust that you would need to go through the
whole process 3. Additional meetings - as necessary. They have a long relationship with the town
and think that is a benefit to the Town -they have the national expertise that is part of the team.
They are doing everything in house. They can provide an independent resource. Have developed
a sound approach - 6 months and understood by the public. Dedicated staff for each of the areas.
Questions:
Michniewicz: A statement that said'/ of the Town is in the Pleasant Bay watershed -that is
incorrect and can you explain? 50% is a geographic standpoint and that was what they were
referring too.
1. What does your firm think are the best solutions to the water and wastewater issues on Cape
Cod?
They don't have a predisposition to a certain solution. They are not working with neighboring
towns. They have some similar experiences that can be applied to Brewster. There is still some
work to be done.
10276-09 www.TOWN.BREWSTER.MA.US Page 6 of 10
2. Let's say you are at a public meeting. Explain the differences between a standard Title 5
system and a denitrification system to the audience.
Not a lot of experience with denitrification. They would want to see the benefits before they
discussed with the public.
3. For firms working on the Cape: What are the positives and negatives of also working with
nearby/neighboring towns? Not asked
4. Brewster is one of three towns that shares ownership of the Tri-town septage treatment plant.
To what degree should this arrangement play a part in our water management plans?
Key component to the planning and would be reviewed.
5. Does your proposed work include independent evaluation/peer review of nutrient assimilation of
the Namskaket River/Marsh currently and relative to the proposed expansion of the Tri-Town
Treatment Facility? Please explain why or why not.
They did not include peer review it was not called out as part of the RFP.
6. Based on a previous project of similar scope please provide some detail on the public
outreach/participation element of the project -for example what forms of communication engaged
the most number of citizens and, did you change your approach base on initial meetings/feedback
with the public and/or the committee you work with?
The Great Bay project -multi media; developing a web site; a day long community event; They
learned a lot during the event, it was the best opportunity to gain information and they have been
able to apply that to the planning. In addition, for Brewster they would use an on-line web survey
for the seasonal people to provide input.
7. What do you see as to the similarities and differences in the CWMP development in Brewster
relative to that work already conducted in the abutting towns?
Brewster is working in the broader scale and the CWMP is working local. Not one size fits all.
Benefits are great because there are different ways to handle. SRF funding is not cast in stone and
has some leeway as long as certain points are addressed.
8. do you anticipate the need for re-evaluating nutrient source contributions to named estuaries
with TMDL's....
They would be part of the planning growth and needs to be evaluated. The second break -could
give you an opportunity. Pleasant Bay is not an area that flushes the water greatly but the
increasing in the flushing can have an impact on the nutrient loading. They have the capabilities to
be able to go in and do some modeling to accommodate the change.
9. Does your proposed work include groundwater modeling calibration and validation of variables
to current conditions? Explain...
No -they would do the modeling in the nutrient load for the watershed. The USGS has developed
a model that has been accepted. They could potentially recalibrate that model for a certain area
and determine the outcomes.
]027b-09 www.TOWN.BREWSTER.MA.US Page 7 of 10
Bennett: the modeling that USGA has provided was done back several years and had a date that
information would be valued to -lets say it says it was good until 2010..can you retook at the
information to see if it was accurate? AECOM explained the ability to recalibrate the model and
make it more accurate to the current conditions of the environment.
Other Business:
General Comments:
References:
Leven: Regarding yesterday's three consultants there were no outstanding questions. The only
thing that did rise was that you get what you pay for with Stearns & Wheler and they are expensive.
Interesting thing to point out is that with AECOM everyone worked with a different company.
AECOM -based on the work Nantucket committed to a 100 million dollar contract and they are'/2
way through. You called they came they did the work and they were very happy.
J. Hughes: What questions were asked and were your questions consistent?
Leven: She checked the components that the committee was looking for: how are they to work
with; public outreach; on time on budget? Fuss & O'Neill she had the most problems with one of
the references had an incorrect name and number. She ended up talking with someone else
regarding a wastewater management plan that they worked on and F&O did not do the public
participation piece. The town did that portion themselves and F&O showed up to support.
P. Hughes: How many references did you call for each consultant?
Leven: Based on the first reference she would have called more if necessary.
Bennett: You had a rather negative report for one of the consultants - is that what you want to
report.
Leven: Information was inaccurate and was concerned that they gave a reference that the
consultant had not done the public participation portion. Stone Environmental received a high
praise because they came in midstream and had to get up to date which they did and are on
schedule for completion.
Michniewicz: Let's discuss impressions of today's interviews.
Bennett: what is the goal of the discussion -how are we going to resolve. Has anyone ranked the
interviews?
Leven: This group picks 3 in order and the committee opens the top estimate. If the budget is
concerning then you look at #2.
Bennett: He rated all the interviews based on the following 4 criteria: Planning, engineering,
innovation, and public relations. He likes the idea of narrowing it down to 3.
Miller: would like to weed out the bottom 3. He was looking at the people and how they would
present to the public.
Michniewicz: who would be the most advantageous for the town.
Bennett: If the project manager didn't speak and if the consultant misspoke then that those were a
huge negative for him.
1027b-09 www.TOWN.BREWSTER.MA.US Page 8 of 10
Fuss & O'Neil: Positives -walk out and physically look at the ponds; willingness to challenge the
numbers, great experience (PhD's), resource assessments, good tool for analyzing the data;
Negatives: references, poor response to one of the questions, consensus building at the end,
develop plan to get the buy-in, Dean was doing to much cleaning up, there were 3 or 4 questions
they couldn't address (tri-town).
Bennett: Motion to remove F&O from consideration. No second the discussion was continued.
Stone Environmental
Positives: Felt they had a good team except for Tom. Technically they could do as good a job as
the others. Made an attempt to show that they had an understanding of Brewster with the Map.
Felt they did very well for not having any experience on the cape. Outsider.
Negatives: What was Tom's involvement and how does the Collaborative play into picture?, How
do you get the people in the room? Wasn't really addressed and they only heard the public
information sessions. Concerned about how they would present to the town. Namskaket/tri-town
not acknowledged. So many firms involved- each one could have come in and done it themselves.
Bennett: Are we going to pay to have someone else come in to speak? Are we really trying to go
with the experience? Personally the independence of thought is more important than the. "kind of
knowing what is happening.
AECOM:
Positives: Presentation was good,
Negatives: not impressed -they didn't answer a lot of questions. Project manager was very soft
spoken and may not be the best representation in a large group. The 2 technical people only gave
some credibility. Ken Wagner, one of the lead contacts was not available.
CDM:
References: Leven, spoke with Harwich and didn't feel there would be any conflicts -there may be
some overlap and that may be a good thing for Brewster. They have a local office and that would
be helpful. They had a data issue that the Town had supplied bad information that cost a lot of
money and time. Everything is working out well now. She did point out that they had lost someone
from the team relatively early in the project and was replaced. A positive about working with them
was they were thorough and liked working with David Young. Mr. Young speaks very well. Had not
been able to reach Mansfield or Yarmouth references. Would like Sue to check the other
references as well.
Stearns & Wheler:
References: Sue worked with them early on here in Brewster for help with an evaluation for the
Orleans on the SWMP -worked well but seemed expensive. Nate is a teacher and can make
complex issues simple for the average person. He is the one that shows up and does the
presentations. He does the research and stays up to date and informed. Nate is the project manager.
Horsley Witten:
References: Sue checked 2 references: they were fantastic. One said Phase 1 would be done in
December if they had an option to rehire they would do it in a heart beat. Did well at public
meetings Tighe & Bond -marvelous, very professional, come to meetings willingly, have
videoconferencing capabilities, on time, on budget, speak "down to earth".
Bennett: Motioned to eliminated Fuss & O'Neill and AECOM from further consideration.
Seconded by P. Hughes.
DISCUSSION: Miller: liked the pond discussion from Fuss 8 O'Neill but hadn't done all their
homework
1027b-09 www.TOWN.BREWSTER.MA.i1S Page 9 of 10
Vote: 4-1-0(Aye- Bennett, J. Hughes, P. Hughes, Taylor; No -Michniewicz)
J. Hughes: Motioned to eliminate Stone Environmental from further consideration.
Seconded by D. Michnniewicz.
DISCUSSION: J. Hughes felt they used a lot of PR words. Public outreach seemed
secondary and an optional piece. Felt they had a hard time connecting with the committee
and a hard time answering some of the questions.
Vote: 5-0-0
Would like Ms. Leven to check the references by the end of the week and then be able to make a
decision.
Bennett: would like a straw vote on who each member liked:
Taylor: CDM, Horsley Witten, Stearns &Wheler
J. Hughes: first Horsley Witten; liked their presentation, the combination of the 2 companies -the
others closely behind
Bennett: CDM, Horsley Witten ,Stearns &Wheler
Michniewicz: CDM, Horsley Witten, AECOM, Stearns &Wheler
P. Hughes: CDM, liked the team and their presentation; Horsley & Witten;
Next meeting: Monday November 9th at 5 pm
Additional information: Leven will check the references and get the information to the committee.
Bennett: Motioned to adjourn. Seconded by P. Hughes. All Aye.
I
ann Sci/Administrative Clerk
1027b-09 www.TOWN.BREWSTER.MA.US Page 10 of ]0