• Save
January 13 City Council Workshop
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

January 13 City Council Workshop

on

  • 289 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
289
Views on SlideShare
289
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

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 City Council Workshop January 13 City Council Workshop Presentation Transcript

    • Oak Harbor Facilities Plan City Council Workshop January 13, 2011Oh910i1-8594.pptx/1
    • Agenda • Project Goal/Schedule • Summary of Input to Date • Basis of Planning Highlights • Preliminary Alternative Development Status • Summary/Next StepsOh910i1-8594.pptx/2
    • Existing RBC FacilityOh910i1-8594.pptx/3
    • Blaine, WA MBR FacilityOh910i1-8594.pptx/4
    • 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)Oh910i1-8594.pptx/5
    • Project Schedule UpdateOh910i1-8594.pptx/6
    • Overall Project ScheduleOh910i1-8594.pptx/7
    • Planning and Preliminary Engineering Milestones STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 DEVELOP/EVALUATE ALTERNATIVES REFINE/SELECT PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE COMPLETE FACILITIES PLAN 2010 2011 2012 Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec JanTASK 100 - PROJECT MGMTTASK 200 - PRELIM ALTSTASK 300 - FINAL ALTS Short List 4 AltsTASK 400 - OUTFALLTASK 500 - REUSETASK 600 - FACILITIES PLAN IdentifyTASK 700 - ENVIRONMENTAL Proposed AltTASK 800 - PUBLIC PROCESSTASK 900 - MGMT. RESERVE Approval to Submit Plan Oh910i1-8594.pptx/8
    • Summary of Input to DateOh910i1-8594.pptx/9
    • Public Process SchematicOh910i1-8594.pptx/10
    • Summary of U.S. Navy Feedback Kickoff 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 requiredOh910i1-8594.pptx/11
    • Summary of U.S. Navy Feedback Kickoff 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 ActionOh910i1-8594.pptx/12
    • Summary of Stakeholder Feedback S2 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 staffOh910i1-8594.pptx/13
    • Summary of Stakeholder Feedback S2 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 effortOh910i1-8594.pptx/14
    • Summary of Public Feedback Interviews, 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 appropriateOh910i1-8594.pptx/15
    • Potential Treatment Plant Sites Proposed by Public December 6, 2010 Public ForumOh910i1-8594.pptx/16
    • Basis of Planning HighlightsOh910i1-8594.pptx/17
    • Total Population Projection City Comprehensive Comprehensive Facility Plan, Plan, 2009 Sewer Plan, 2008 2010 2000 19,795 19,800 19,795 2005 22,200 22,022 2010 24,249 24,249 2011 24,200 24,795 2020 29,704 29,704 2025 28,700 32,432 2030 35,159 Assumed a straight line growth rate from 2020 through 2060 for facilities plan population projectionsOh910i1-8594.pptx/18
    • Basis for Alternative Analysis, Site Selection, and Project Phasing 6.0 5.5 5.0 Max. Monthly Flow (mgd) 4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2065Oh910i1-8594.pptx/19
    • Basis for Alternative Analysis 6.0 5.5 5.0 Max. Monthly Flow (mgd) 4.5 4.0 3.9 mgd Facility 3.5 3.0 2.5 20-yr Period Alternative Analysis 2.0 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2065Oh910i1-8594.pptx/20
    • Basis for Site Selection 6.0 5.6 mgd Facility 5.5 5.0 Max. Monthly Flow (mgd) 4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 50-yr Period Site Selection 2.0 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2065Oh910i1-8594.pptx/21
    • Basis for Project Phasing 6.0 5.5 5.0 Max. Monthly Flow (mgd) 4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 Growth Scenarios Establish Project Phasing 2.5 2.0 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2065Oh910i1-8594.pptx/22
    • Effluent Quality Goals Lagoon Plant RBC Plant NPDES New Facility, NPDES Permit Permit Limit Target/Goal Limit Total Suspended 30 mg/L 75 mg/L 10 mg/L Solids 85% removal 85% removal 95% removal 25 mg/L 25 mg/L 10 mg/L CBOD5 85% removal 85% removal 95% removal Turbidity Not applicable Not applicable 1 NTU Chlorine Residual 0.114 mg/L 0.5 mg/L No discharge 200/100 mL 200/100 mL Fecal Coliform <100/100 mL (monthly) (monthly) (monthly) Nitrogen Not applicable Not applicable 8 mg/L Pathogen Barrier No No YesOh910i1-8594.pptx/23
    • ProcessOption 1MBROh910i1-8594.pptx/24
    • ProcessOption 2ASOh910i1-8594.pptx/25
    • 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 handlingOh910i1-8594.pptx/26
    • 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 digestionOh910i1-8594.pptx/27
    • Summary of Potential Treatment Options Liquid Stream Process Solids Process MBR AS Drying (Class A) 1A 2A Composting (Class A) (1) 1B Digestion (Class B) 2B Digestion + Composting (Class A) (2) 2C NOTES: (1) Solids processed at off-site composting facility (2) Solids processed at on or off-site composting facilityOh910i1-8594.pptx/28
    • Collection System LayoutOh910i1-8594.pptx/29
    • 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 costsOh910i1-8594.pptx/30
    • 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 resourcesOh910i1-8594.pptx/31
    • Shellfish Harvest Classifications Impact Future Diffuser PlacementOh910i1-8594.pptx/32
    • 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/improvementOh910i1-8594.pptx/33
    • Preliminary Alternative Development StatusOh910i1-8594.pptx/34
    • Objectives for Evaluating Alternatives Technical Financial Social Environmental  Reliable  Low Capital $  Protect Public  Produce Best Performance Health & Safety Water Quality  Ease of  Low O&M Cost  Preserve/Enhance  Protect Construction Local Public Environmentally Amenities Sensitive Areas  Overall System  Low Life-Cycle Efficiency Cost  Minimize Local  Minimize Carbon Neighborhood Footprint ImpactOh910i1-8594.pptx/35
    • December 14 Workshop Goal: Matrix of up to Eight (8) Preliminary Alternatives • Alternative components – WWTP Process Option – Candidate Site – Outfall/discharge Option Candidate Sites 1 2 3 4 5 6 X Process WWTP Y ZOh910i1-8594.pptx/36
    • Treatment Options for Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Liquid Stream Process Solids Process MBR AS Drying (Class A) 1A 2A Composting (Class A) (1) 1B Digestion (Class B) 2B Digestion + Composting (Class A) (2) 2C NOTES: (1) Solids processed at off-site composting facility (2) Solids processed at on or off-site composting facilityOh910i1-8594.pptx/37
    • Potential Treatment Plant Sites Proposed by Public December 6, 2010 Public ForumOh910i1-8594.pptx/38
    • Land Use Considerations (OHMC 19.20) • Prohibited in CBD Zoning • Principally Permitted in PF Zoning • Conditionally Permitted in Most Zonings • Some Areas not Specifically AddressedOh910i1-8594.pptx/39
    • Technical Considerations • Avoid the following: – Earthquake Faults – On-site Toxic Releases/Hazards – Landfill Sites – Slopes > 10% • Design for: – Poor soils/Liquefaction – 5% < Slopes < 10%Oh910i1-8594.pptx/40
    • Environmental Considerations (Critical Areas per OHMC 20) • Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas • Wetlands/Wetland Buffer • Streams • Shoreline • Estuarine Zone • 100-yr FloodplainOh910i1-8594.pptx/41
    • Initial December 14, 2010 Alternatives MatrixOh910i1-8594.pptx/42
    • Suggested Refinements to MatrixOh910i1-8594.pptx/43
    • Proposed Preliminary AlternativesOh910i1-8594.pptx/44
    • Proposed Sites Blend Public Input with Technical RequirementsOh910i1-8594.pptx/45
    • Summary and Next StepsOh910i1-8594.pptx/46