• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
January 13, 2011 City Council Workshop
 

January 13, 2011 City Council Workshop

on

  • 1,649 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,649
Views on SlideShare
281
Embed Views
1,368

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

4 Embeds 1,368

http://www.oakharborcleanwater.org 1316
http://localhost 25
http://oakharborcleanwater.org 15
http://www.oakharborcleanwater.org.asp1-29.dfw1-2.websitetestlink.com 12

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    January 13, 2011 City Council Workshop January 13, 2011 City Council Workshop Presentation Transcript

    • Oak Harbor Facilities Plan
      City Council Workshop
      January 13, 2011
    • Agenda
      Project Goal/Schedule
      Summary of Input to Date
      Basis of Planning Highlights
      Preliminary Alternative Development Status
      Summary/Next Steps
    • Existing RBC Facility
    • Blaine, WA MBR Facility
    • Project Goal and Objectives
      Recognizing that Oak Harbor is connected to the pristine waters of Puget Sound, specifically Oak Harbor and Crescent Harbor Bay, the City’s goal is to obtain the highest level of water quality practical while recognizing the limitations of the rate payers of the City to fund the improvements.
      • Meet treatment goals identified in the Puget Sound Action Plan developed by the Puget Sound Partnership
      • Use a sustainable process to select a sustainable treatment alternative
      • Implement the alternative according to the City’s schedule (Startup/Commissioning in 2017)
    • Project Schedule Update
    • Overall Project Schedule
    • Planning and Preliminary Engineering Milestones
      Short List 4 Alts
      Identify Proposed Alt
      Approval to Submit Plan
    • Summary of Input to Date
    • Public Process Schematic
    • Summary of U.S. Navy FeedbackKickoff Meeting, S1 Workshop
      Candidate sites exist on Seaplane Base
      Areas South of Train Wreck, North of Lagoon, and near Capehart Housing were proposed
      “Train Wreck” site not favored by NAS Whidbey staff
      Stepwise process starts with local offices and continues through US Sec. of Navy
      Cultural resources are a potential issue, particularly near the shoreline
      Close coordination with local/regional planning and real estate staff is required
    • Summary of U.S. Navy FeedbackKickoff Meeting, S1 Workshop (cont.)
      Options to site a facility on U.S. Navy property
      Long-term Lease (preferred by Navy)
      Requires approval from Sec. of Navy
      2 to 3 year process
      Terms similar to current lagoon site agreement
      Acquisition through surplus
      Extensive process includes NEPA process by Navy
      3 to 4 year process
      Other federal, non-governmental entities may pursue property
      Congressional Action
    • Summary of Stakeholder FeedbackS2 Workshop
      Invitations went out to over a dozen agencies / individuals
      Stakeholder Workshop attendance:
      U.S. Navy (NAS Whidbey)
      Department of Ecology
      NPDES/planning; reclaimed water; biosolids
      Department of Health
      Outfall/shellfish harvesting; reclaimed water
      WA Senator Haugen’s staff
    • Summary of Stakeholder FeedbackS2 Workshop (cont)
      Dept. of Ecology Feedback
      New reclaimed water standards due mid-2011
      Be aware of water rights issues
      Favor regional biosolids solution
      Existing lagoon not viable long-term option
      Dept. of Health Feedback
      Potential impact on shellfish will be evaluated
      Penn Cove is particular concern
      Sen. Haugen Feedback
      Public education/awareness key to planning effort
    • Summary of Public FeedbackInterviews, Website, 12/6/10 Public Forum
      Interviews
      8 interviews conducted over past 2 months
      Project Website Feedback
      Comments welcomed online
      Public Forum
      Summary document completed following meeting
      Feedback has been consistent:
      Existing service is good
      Need to control costs and implement long-term fix
      Avoid open space/public impact
      Evaluation process/criteria are appropriate
    • Potential Treatment Plant Sites Proposed by PublicDecember 6, 2010 Public Forum
    • Basis of Planning Highlights
    • Total Population Projection
      Assumed a straight line growth rate from 2020 through 2060 for facilities plan population projections
    • Basis for Alternative Analysis, Site Selection, and Project Phasing
    • Basis for Alternative Analysis
      3.9 mgd Facility
      20-yr PeriodAlternative Analysis
    • Basis for Site Selection
      5.6 mgd Facility
      50-yr PeriodSite Selection
    • Basis for Project Phasing
      ?
      ?
      ?
      Growth ScenariosEstablish Project Phasing
    • Effluent Quality Goals
    • ProcessOption 1
      MBR
    • ProcessOption 2
      AS
    • MBR Solids Treatment Options
      • Option 1A: Treat solids on-site with a dryer
      • Local use of Class A product
      • Small footprint (<.25 Acre)
      • High operating cost
      • Natural gas consumption
      • Option 1B: Treat solids off-site at a composting facility
      • Local use of Class A product
      • Large footprint (± 2 Acres)
      • Moderate operating cost
      • Bulking materials
      • Materials handling
    • AS Solids Treatment Options
      Option 2A: Treat solids on-site with a dryer
      Option 2B: Treat solids on-site with anaerobic digesters
      Trucked disposal of Class B product
      Moderate footprint (± 1.5 Acres)
      Energy recovery (Methane)
      Option 2C: Treat solids on or off-site at a composting facility
      Local use of Class A product
      Follows anaerobic digestion
    • Summary of Potential Treatment Options
    • Collection System Layout
    • Collection System Considerations
      100% of City flow currently reaches RBC plant
      Sites near RBC are most efficient
      Reduce/eliminate pump station and forcemain
      ± 50% of City flow passes by Old City Shops site
      Sites further from the RBC site will require extensive (expensive) conveyance improvements
      Treating flow from Navy Housing with a small, satellite facility may reduce conveyance costs
    • Outfall/Discharge Considerations
      Existing outfall to Oak Harbor no longer useable
      Existing outfall to Crescent Harbor requires improvements for long-term use
      Oak Harbor, Crescent Harbor, West Beach are options (depending on treatment plant location)
      All locations provide adequate mixing
      Shellfish harvesting evaluated by Dept. of Health and Dept. of Natural Resources
      Several agencies have moved outfall to avoid mitigation payments for lost resources
    • Shellfish Harvest Classifications Impact Future Diffuser Placement
    • Opportunities for Beneficial Reuse
      In addition to these outfall locations, team will evaluate beneficial reuse opportunities, including:
      Landscape/open space irrigation
      Groundwater recharge
      Habitat creation/improvement
    • Preliminary Alternative Development Status
    • Objectives for Evaluating Alternatives
      Financial
      Social
      Environmental
      Technical
      • ReliablePerformance
      • Ease ofConstruction
      • Overall SystemEfficiency
      • Protect PublicHealth & Safety
      • Preserve/Enhance Local Public Amenities
      • Minimize Local Neighborhood Impact
      • Produce BestWater Quality
      • Protect Environmentally Sensitive Areas
      • Minimize CarbonFootprint
      • Low Capital $
      • Low O&M Cost
      • Low Life-Cycle Cost
    • December 14 Workshop Goal:Matrix of up to Eight (8) Preliminary Alternatives
      Alternative components
      WWTP Process Option
      Candidate Site
      Outfall/discharge Option
      Candidate Sites
      WWTP Process
    • Treatment Options for Preliminary Alternatives Analysis
    • Potential Treatment Plant Sites Proposed by PublicDecember 6, 2010 Public Forum
    • Land Use Considerations (OHMC 19.20)
      Prohibited in CBD Zoning
      Principally Permitted in PF Zoning
      Conditionally Permitted in Most Zonings
      Some Areas not Specifically Addressed
    • Technical Considerations
      Avoid the following:
      Earthquake Faults
      On-site Toxic Releases/Hazards
      Landfill Sites
      Slopes > 10%
      Design for:
      Poor soils/Liquefaction
      5% < Slopes < 10%
    • Environmental Considerations(Critical Areas per OHMC 20)
      Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas
      Wetlands/Wetland Buffer
      Streams
      Shoreline
      EstuarineZone
      100-yrFloodplain
    • Initial December 14, 2010 Alternatives Matrix
    • Suggested Refinements to Matrix
    • Proposed Preliminary Alternatives
    • Proposed Sites Blend Public Input withTechnical Requirements
    • Summary and Next Steps