Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

C5 council workshop 111128_final

5,283 views

Published on

Published in: Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

C5 council workshop 111128_final

  1. 1. Oak Harbor Facilities Plan City Council Special Meeting November 28, 2011
  2. 2. Agenda <ul><li>Project Need </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Why does Oak Harbor need a new sewer system? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>When does the planning team need direction? </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Summary of Prior Work </li></ul><ul><ul><li>What is the basis for the planning team’s recommendation? </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Requested Direction </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Eliminate 2 sites from consideration </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Continue analysis of 3 remaining sites based on MBR process and Oak Harbor outfall </li></ul></ul>
  3. 3. Existing Rotating Biological Contactor (RBC) Facility <ul><li>Served the City for over 50-years </li></ul><ul><li>Major parts and equipment starting to fail </li></ul><ul><li>Meets current permit, but will not meet future standards for clean water </li></ul>
  4. 4. <ul><li>System nearing capacity; must now handle 100% of City’s wastewater </li></ul><ul><li>Meets current permit, but will not meet future standards for clean water </li></ul><ul><li>Options for expansion and/or improvement limited by surrounding wetlands  </li></ul>Existing Seaplane Base Lagoon Facility
  5. 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
  6. 6. Crescent Harbor Outfall Failure
  7. 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. 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
  9. 9. Flooding at Crescent Harbor Lagoon
  10. 10. Flooding at Crescent Harbor Lagoon
  11. 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
  12. 12. Excerpts from Outfall Inspection
  13. 13. Location of Outfall Failure
  14. 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. 15. Direction Will Keep Project On-Schedule Planning Phase has been Extended 6 months to collect additional input
  16. 16. Direction Will Keep Project On-Schedule Duration of Environmental Phase highly dependent on final proposed site
  17. 17. Direction Will Keep Project On-Schedule <ul><li>Schedule required by Department of Ecology </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Submit Facilities Plan for approval on/before 12/31/12 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Submit Final Design Documents for approval on/before 12/31/14 </li></ul></ul>
  18. 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
  19. 19. Wastewater Alternative Components Alternative
  20. 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
  21. 21. Oak Harbor Outfall Provides Cost, Regulatory Benefits <ul><li>Mixing/dilution protects water quality </li></ul><ul><li>New outfall can be installed within/near the existing outfall alignment </li></ul><ul><li>No impact to shellfish harvesting </li></ul><ul><li>Lowest cost </li></ul>
  22. 22. Recommended Final Sites September 20, 2011
  23. 23. Recommendation Based on TBL+ Evaluation <ul><li>NOTE: </li></ul><ul><li>Comparison based on MBR Process with clean water outfall to Oak Harbor </li></ul>
  24. 24. Reasons to Eliminate Sites From Consideration <ul><li>Marina/Seaplane Base Site </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Wetland impacts on open space </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Other areas not favored by US Navy </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Listed advantages found at other sites for lower cost </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Beachview Farm Site </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Social advantages questionable based on public feedback </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Listed advantages found at other sites for lower cost </li></ul></ul>
  25. 25. Reasons to Consider 3 Remaining Sites <ul><li>Updated and refined information will help City make the best decision </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Key differentiators have yet to be identified </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Ability to phase project, reclaimed water benefits, etc. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Public input will aid in evaluating ways to address site-specific challenges </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Cost information will improve for the shortened list of alternatives </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Cost analysis will identify rate impacts based on phasing scenarios </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Ecology, EPA require rigorous evaluation of alternatives for plan approval and future funding </li></ul>
  26. 26. Summary <ul><li>Project needed to replace aged and failing system </li></ul><ul><li>Direction on final sites will keep project on regulatory schedule </li></ul><ul><li>Current recommendation reflects significant input from community, stakeholders, and technical team </li></ul><ul><li>Requested direction: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Eliminate 2 sites from consideration </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Continue analysis of 3 remaining sites based on MBR process and Oak Harbor outfall </li></ul></ul>
  27. 27. Questions?
  28. 28. Windjammer Park Site <ul><li>Distinguishing Advantages </li></ul><ul><li>Lowest initial cost (F1) </li></ul><ul><li>Lowest annual cost (F2) </li></ul><ul><li>No commercially zoned property (F3) </li></ul><ul><li>No private property acquisition (T2) </li></ul><ul><li>Most efficient use of infrastructure (T3) </li></ul>Conceptual rendering and site layout of treatment facility shown for reference. <ul><li>Distinguishing Challenges </li></ul><ul><li>Impact on amenities (S2) </li></ul><ul><li>Impact on neighborhood (S3) </li></ul><ul><li>Potential cultural resources (E2) </li></ul>
  29. 29. Old City Shops Site <ul><li>Distinguishing Advantages </li></ul><ul><li>Low initial cost (F1) </li></ul><ul><li>Low annual cost (F2) </li></ul><ul><li>Private property currently for sale (T2) </li></ul><ul><li>Efficient use of infrastructure (T3) </li></ul><ul><li>Preserves amenities (S2) </li></ul>Conceptual rendering and site layout of treatment facility shown for reference. <ul><li>Distinguishing Challenges </li></ul><ul><li>Impact on neighborhood (S3) </li></ul><ul><li>Potential cultural resources (E2) </li></ul>
  30. 30. Crescent Harbor Site <ul><li>Distinguishing Advantages </li></ul><ul><li>Preserves amenities (S2) </li></ul><ul><li>Little neighborhood impact (S3) </li></ul><ul><li>Low initial cost (F1) </li></ul><ul><li>Low annual cost (F2) </li></ul><ul><li>No commercially zoned property (F3) </li></ul>Conceptual rendering and site layout of treatment facility shown for reference. <ul><li>Distinguishing Challenges </li></ul><ul><li>Potentially lengthy acquisition (T2) </li></ul><ul><li>Least efficient use of infrastructure (T3) </li></ul><ul><li>High potential cultural resources and wetlands (E2) </li></ul>
  31. 31. Basis of MBR Recommendation <ul><li>MBR offers a number of advantages: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Better effluent quality </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Smaller footprint </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Only feasible option at 2 proposed sites </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Better ability to control odors </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Better ability to blend with surrounding environment </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Better ability to meet future regulations </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Enhanced opportunities for reuse </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Primary disadvantage: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Cost is approximately 8 to 10% ($5 to $6 million) higher than AS </li></ul></ul>
  32. 32. Basis of Outfall Recommendation <ul><li>Oak Harbor offers a number of advantages: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Good mixing to protect water quality </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Least cost option </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Limited risk of shellfishing impact </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Primary disadvantage: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Although Oak Harbor offers good mixing, slightly better mixing at Crescent Harbor </li></ul></ul>

×