5. Project Timeline Spans 7 Years To-Date Date Action Mid 2005 Sewer Comprehensive Plan Commissioned Sep 2006 Ad Hoc Sewer Committee Formed Nov 2007 Ad Hoc Cmt. recommends new facility at Sea Plane Base Mar 2008 Crescent Harbor Lagoon Outfall Failure
7. Location of Crescent Harbor Outfall Failure Failure occurred where old pipe (approx. 1000 feet, installed in 1950s) meets new pipe (approx. 300 feet, installed in 1990s). Pipe 60 years old Pipe 20 years old
8. Project Timeline Spans 7 Years To-Date Date Action Mid 2005 Sewer Comprehensive Plan Commissioned Sep 2006 Ad Hoc Sewer Committee Formed Nov 2007 Ad Hoc Cmt. recommends new facility at Sea Plane Base Dec 2008 Sewer Comp Plan Adopted-identifies need for new facility Sep 2009 Crescent Harbor Restoration Project Mar 2008 Crescent Harbor Lagoon Outfall Failure
11. Project Timeline Spans 7 Years To-Date Date Action Mid 2005 Sewer Comprehensive Plan Commissioned Sep 2006 Ad Hoc Sewer Committee Formed Nov 2007 Ad Hoc Cmt. recommends new facility at Sea Plane Base Dec 2008 Sewer Comp Plan Adopted-identifies need for new facility Sep 2009 RFQ for WWTP Design Advertised Feb 2010 Carrollo, Inc. Selected Sep 2009 Crescent Harbor Restoration Project May 2010 RBC Outfall Failure Mar 2008 Crescent Harbor Lagoon Outfall Failure
14. Project Timeline Spans 7 Years To-Date Date Action Mid 2005 Sewer Comprehensive Plan Commissioned Sep 2006 Ad Hoc Sewer Committee Formed Nov 2007 Ad Hoc Cmt. recommends new facility at Sea Plane Base Dec 2008 Sewer Comp Plan Adopted-identifies need for new facility Sep 2009 RFQ for WWTP Design Advertised Feb 2010 Carrollo, Inc. Selected Aug 2010 City Approval to Start Clean Water Facility Planning Project Aug 2011 New NPDES Permit- Facility Plan Submittal Req’d by 12/2012 Sep 2009 Crescent Harbor Restoration Project May 2010 RBC Outfall Failure Mar 2008 Crescent Harbor Lagoon Outfall Failure
15. Direction Will Keep Project On-Schedule Planning Phase has been Extended 6 months to collect additional input
16. Direction Will Keep Project On-Schedule Duration of Environmental Phase highly dependent on final proposed site
17.
18. Activities Leading to Current Recommendation Date Action Oct 2010 City meets with Navy to discuss siting options on Navy Base Dec 2010 Over 20 potential sites identified by community members Jan 2011 Planning team recommends narrowing initial list to 13 sites Feb 2011 Additional technical and cost analysis completed Mar 2011 Planning team recommends further narrowing list to 5 sites Apr 2011 Additional community input gathered through meetings, survey Jun 2011 City meets with Navy to discuss short-listed sites Jul 2011 Planning team presents refined analysis of 5 sites to Council Aug 2011 Additional community input gathered through meetings, web Sep 2011 Planning team recommends further narrowing list to 3 sites
20. MBR Process Best Reflects Public Input Smallest Footprint More easily blends with surrounding area Produces cleanest water to protect Oak Harbor Fully enclosed / covered to protect health Best able to meet future regulations
Eric The lagoon at the Navy’s Seaplane Base treats about 80% of the City’s wastewater and handles 100% of the outfall. The facility meets current standards but is approaching capacity and would need a major upgrade/expansion to meet future water quality standards. The facility is surrounded by a saltwater marsh. Building a major expansion in this environmentally sensitive area would be very difficult.
Brian When planning a new wastewater treatment facility, all municipal agencies must identify several possible site locations or alternatives and weigh the pros and cons of each alternative.
Brian Whatever site is selected a membrane bio reactor treatment process will be used. Based on feedback from the public and the City it was determined that an MBR best meets the criteria that both the public and the City identified as being important to them.
Brian Whichever site is selected the outfall location will be Oak Harbor. This is because Oak Harbor provides: A good mixing to protect water quality. New outfall can be installed within or near the existing outfall alignment. No impact to shellfish harvesting.
Brian After those three processes the City applied their technical filter and narrowed the list to the five sites shown here in green.
Brian After reviewing the triple bottom line objectives and input from the public and agencies, three sites best meet the features identified as being the most important. Those sites are Crescent Harbor, the Old City Shops site and Windjammer Park. There are pluses and minuses to each site and the next few slides will describe in more detail the three sites that appear to best meet the Ideal Alternative criteria.
Brian Please note that for all the potential sites we have outlined the total possible area that could be used. The facility will be built somewhere inside the outlined area, but the facility may not need the whole outlined area. There is wiggle room. For example, we can situate the facilities more within any of the site areas identified, to have the best fit for any given site location. One of the advantages of the Windjammer Park site is it’s efficient use of infrastructure. The challenge is that we’d be placing the facility in in or near a park.
Brian The Old City Shops site has relatively efficient use of existing infrastructure and avoids park space.
Brian An advantage of the Crescent Harbor Site is that the site is not located in areas near parks or neighborhoods.
![Agenda ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]]()