|
Wakarusa WRF Public Advisory Committee (PAC) Workshop #2
Attendance:
Representatives from the Public Advisory Committee, City Staff, and Consultant Team were in attendance at the second PAC workshop held in City Hall, Commission Chambers from 4:00 to 7:00 PM on January 18, 2006.
Public Advisory Committee:
§
Mary Lynn
Stuart (
§
Lavern Squier (
§
Laura Calwell (
§ Mike Campbell (Sierra Club)
§ Michael Caron (Save the Wetlands, Inc.)
§ Bobbie Flory (Lawrence Home Builders Association)
§
Warren Corman (
§ Rod Geisler (KDHE)
§ Mike Amyx (City Commissioner)
§ Michael Almon (Brook Creek Neighborhood)
§ Mike Rundle (City Commissioner)
§ Roger Pine (Pine family farms / Kansas Senate[pbs1] )
§
Charles
Hawkins (
§ Mike Bowman (Citizen at Large)
City Staff:
§ Debbie Van Saun (Assistant City Manager)
§ Lisa Patterson (Communication Manger)
§ Philip Ciesielski (Utilities Engineer)
§ Dan Warner (Planning Department)
§ Dave Wagner (Assistant Director, Wastewater)
§ Mark Hegeman (WWTP Superintendent)
§ Jeanette Klamm (Biosolids Manager)
Consultant Team:
§ Patti Banks and Lisa Briscoe (Patti Banks Associates)
§ Mike Orth, Page Surbaugh, John Keller, and Cindy Wallis-Lage (Black & Veatch Corporation)
§ Joe Caldwell (Bartlett & West)
§ John Pasley and Jennifer Johnson (HNTB)
§ Dr. Robert Kadlec (Wetlands Management Services)
Introduction and Today’s Agenda:
§ Patti Banks (Patti Banks Associates) opened the meeting and outlined the meeting’s agenda.
o Review Of Wetlands Presentations
o Review Of Updated Criteria Questionnaire Results
o Definition Of Alternatives
o Review Of Ranking Areas With Relation To Criteria
o Group Breakout Discussion
o Information Sharing
o Review Proposed Contents Of Public Meeting #2
Wetlands Discussion:
§ Dr. Robert Kadlec (Professor Emeritus of Chemical Engineering, University of Michigan) led a brief discussion about the afternoon’s Wetlands Seminar held in the Commission Chambers from 3:00 - 4:00 PM. The Committee asked him if he had experience in talking with the community about these issues and what had been the community’s acceptance of them? Kadlec answered that he was experienced in dealing with community issues and has learned that information exchange must occur in the excess to be successful.
Eco Machine Sub-group Request:
§ Mike Orth (Black & Veatch) explained that PAC member Michael Almon has requested that the PAC allow approximately 15 minutes at the beginning of the meeting to allow the Eco Machine subgroup of the PAC time to present its findings.
§ Almon stated that he represented the Eco Machine subgroup of the PAC including: himself, Laura Calwell, Michael Campbell, Michael Caron, Carey Maynard-Moody (non-PAC member[pbs2] ), and Joyce Wolfe (non-PAC member). Almon outlined the group’s issues and requests as follows:
o That the City Commission review and revise the Consultant contract and the role of the PAC to investigate Eco Machine technology on a decentralized basis.
o That the City bring professional consultants from John Todd Ecological Design or similar firm to survey and evaluate future needs and provide more specific cost figures suited to the City’s particular needs.
§ The PAC considered requesting that an additional two to three meetings be added to the scope at the City Commission’s discretion to allow adequate time to consider the Eco Machine option in terms of capacity issues, decentralization, criteria in existence for the process, and more.
§ The PAC gave a showing of hands to demonstrate a majority agreement among members present interested in pursuing the Eco-Machine sub-group requests. A majority of hands was given and discussion followed. As a result, Commissioners Amyx and Rundle agreed to place the request on the next City Commission agenda, the following week, to give consideration to the Eco Machine subgroup’s requests.
§
As a part of the overall
discussion, Orth recommended that the PAC tour the
Missouri Department of Conservation’s building in
Review Updated Criteria Questionnaire Results:
§
Mike Orth (Black & Veatch
Corporation) reviewed results of the blended PAC and Staff primary criteria and
sub-criterion with the
The primary criteria are weighted as a percent of importance on siting the new facility.
Primary Criteria
o Survey 1:
ü Community 17%
ü Environment 45%
ü Technology 38%
o Survey 2:
ü Community 25%
ü Environment 23%
ü Land 29%
ü Process 14%
ü Schedule 9%
Orth reminded the group that the sub-criteria are scored with lower numbers being more important.
Community Sub-Criteria
o Survey 1:
ü Odor Control 3.12
ü
Fit with
ü Aesthetics 4.07
ü Prevailing Winds 4.38
o Survey 2:
ü Odor Control 2.47
ü
Fit with
ü Noise Control 4.25
ü
Fit with
Environment Sub-Criteria
o Survey 1:
ü Stream Impacts 1.15
ü Existing Wetlands Impacts 2.48
ü Rare or Endangered Species Impacts 3.15
o Survey 2:
ü Stream Impacts 1.72
ü Existing Wetlands Impacts 3.19
ü Rare or Endangered Species Impacts 3.53
Land Sub-Criteria
o Survey 1:
ü Potential Service Area by Gravity 1.73
ü Usability/Shape 2.52
ü Maximize Use of Existing Infrastructure 4.02
ü Displacement of Housing 4.03
o Survey 2:
ü Potential Service Area by Gravity 1.36
ü Maximize Use of Existing Infrastructure 2.64
ü Usability/Shape 2.69
Process Sub-Criteria
o Survey 1:
ü Proven Treatment Technology 1.72
ü Future Regulatory Compliance 2.83
ü Expandability 2.89
o Survey 2:
ü Future Regulatory Compliance 2.00
ü Proven Treatment Technology 2.19
ü Expandability 2.78
Schedule Sub-Criteria
o Survey:
ü Land Acquisition 1.33
ü Permitting 2.39
ü Design/Construction 2.28
In summary, the PAC’s suggested edits to the primary and secondary criteria further segmented the issues, but the items that were initially important to us in making a decision remained important.
Define Alternatives:
§ Orth referred the PAC to the January 12, 2006 Memorandum which outlines the review process to be conducted at today’s meeting and described the three major footprint alternatives to be considered; he also referred the PAC to the January 6, 2006 Memorandum-Ultimate Build-Out Acreage.
§ Orth said that alternatives should be defined in terms of ultimate build-out acreage. He noted that by using various forecasting methods, a potential treatment capacity ranging from 30 to 115 maximum gallons per day (mgd) could be considered. The 115 mgd projection assumes a mostly commercial/industrial based level of development, which should not be considered because the City’s future land use plans for the Urban Growth Area (UGA) do not support these land uses. As a result, reasonable planning estimates support a mix of land uses that would result in an estimate of 30 to 60 mgd. When the more practical projection is considered in conjunction with a 50-year planning period and corresponding population forecasts, the minimum plant capacity that should be considered to acquire property for would be about 50 mgd.
§ Based on the 50 mgd estimate, Orth outlined the advantages and disadvantages of small, medium, and large footprint alternatives.
Small Footprint Alternatives
o A membrane bioreactor (MBR) is an example of a small footprint alternative. Small alternatives generally require 235 acres and consist of applying a high-end technology process to accomplish the treatment goals.
ü Advantages
· Less property to acquire due to a smaller footprint
· Potentially improved aesthetics
· High-end technology produces high quality, consistent effluent
· Suitable for remote operation
ü Disadvantage
· Higher capital cost
· Higher operations and maintenance costs
· Energy intensive technology compared to other alternatives
· Reduced availability to handle peak wet weather flows
· Higher level of process controls
Medium Footprint Alternatives
o The City’s existing wastewater treatment plant is an example of a medium footprint alternative. Such alternatives typically require 300 acres and are characterized as “conventional” mechanical plants.
ü Advantages
· Improved handling of peak wet weather flows
· Proven treatment technology
· Operational familiarity by staff
· Process flexibility for future expansions
· Lower installed capital costs
· Lower operational costs
· Consistent quality effluent
ü Disadvantage
· Require more space to accommodate the same volume of treatment
· Increased actual or perceived aesthetics concerns due to the dispersed site layout
Large Footprint Alternatives
o Large footprint alternatives tend to require 1,000 acres and consist of medium treatment processes followed by a treatment wetland.
ü Advantages
· Natural solutions
· Provides opportunities for public wetlands treatment education
· Improved handling of peak wet weather flows
· Proven treatment technology
· Operational familiarity by staff
· Potential aesthetic acceptance gained with wetlands
ü Disadvantage
· Large area required relative to degree of treatment
· Reduced performance during colder weather
· Additional maintenance requirements for wetlands
· Public health concerns with mosquitoes, etc.
Review Ranking Process:
§ Orth explained that the Committee had been provided with a color aerial map showing the areas to be considered, a preliminary alternative attributes form, and a preliminary rankings scorecard for reference. The attributes form provided a list of the sub-criteria considered, along with an abbreviated comment relating to the considered alternative. The color-coded scorecard illustrated the Consultant Team’s up-to-date scoring of all criteria with a one to five ranking, where a score of five/darkest color represents the least impact (best), while one/lightest color demonstrates the highest impact (worst).
Group Breakout:
§ The Consultant Team explained that the Committee would be divided into two groups to review the community and environment scoring. Then they would be asked to indicate the areas of concern that they had with the scoring as part of a larger group discussion.
Open Discussion of Group Results:
§ Results of the environment and community groups are outlined below.
Environment Issues
o Discharge Location
ü Scoring based on perception inappropriate
o Rare or Endangered Species
ü Need to look at connections as part of the analysis
ü Thought process that farming equals less disturbance may not be appropriate
ü Biodiversity
o Archeology
ü Need to take a larger deduction on larger footprint
ü Historic significance impacted by context
· May not be reflected in scoring
o Wetlands/Floodplain
ü Shouldn’t hydric soil areas be scored higher if we are using wetland treatment?
o Discharge
ü The score for downstream may be too high
· Effluent from collection system may get into wetlands more rather than less
o Rare and Endangered Species
ü Any credit for wetland increasing habitat?
Community Issues: Group A
o Aesthetics
ü What is the definition of aesthetics? A wetland could be beautiful.
o Noise Control
ü What are the noise generators?
o Odor
ü Why do white sites receive the best scores?
ü This evaluation process is excellent! However, the process is backwards!
· “The Eco Machine” makes this process moot.
· This process is based on a traditional model which does not include criteria or issues associated with the Eco Machine.
o Prevailing Winds
ü Do the number of day’s impact criteria?
ü Will there be more new residents in the south area?
o Lighting
ü Will down lighting be utilized?
o Traffic
ü Why do “blue” sites tend to receive “1” rankings?
Community Issues: Group B
o Aesthetics
ü What is the impact of large green areas? What informs your choice?
ü Aesthetics makes all the difference in the world. Just look at downtown as an example. Should criteria weight be increased for select issues?
ü Noted absence of “marketing” – what is the value of impacts?
ü Location and topography are also factors
o Land Use
ü
Planned
improvements to
ü
Need draft right-of-way (ROW)
alignment for
o Lighting Control
ü What’s the differentiator here? Can there be cost savings?
o Traffic
ü What’s the difference between white and yellow?
Public Meeting #2:
§
Banks said
that the second public meeting would be January 23, 2006 from 7:00 – 8:30 PM at
o Results of the stakeholder interviews
o Criteria for selection and results
o Public input on criteria considerations
o Next steps
Next PAC Meeting:
§ Orth said the date, time, and location for the next PAC meeting have yet to be determined.