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 Presentation 7-27-11


Published on

Published in: Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

C5 Council Workshop Presentation 7-27-11

  1. 1. Oak Harbor Facilities Plan<br />City Council Workshop<br />July 27, 2011<br />
  2. 2. Agenda<br />Project Schedule Update<br />Brief Review of Proposed Alternatives<br />Alternative Refinement and Evaluation Summary<br />Proposed Final Alternatives and Sites<br />Summary/Next Steps<br />
  3. 3. Project Schedule Update<br />
  4. 4. Original Planning and Preliminary Engineering Milestones<br />Short List 4 Alts<br />Identify Proposed Alt<br />Approval to Submit Plan<br />
  5. 5. Updated Planning and Preliminary Engineering Milestones<br />Short List 5 Alts<br />Short List 3 Alts<br />Identify Proposed Alt<br />Identify Proposed Alt<br />Approval to Submit Plan<br />
  6. 6. Schedule Extended to Increase Public Input <br />
  7. 7. Review of Preliminary Alternatives / Sites<br />
  8. 8. 2 WWTP Process Options<br />
  9. 9. Sites Selected For Further EvaluationMarch 22 Council Meeting<br />
  10. 10. 3 Candidate Outfall Locations<br />Crescent HarborMitigate Shellfish Impact With Deep Diffuser<br />Oak HarborLimited Shellfish Impact<br />West BeachMitigate Shellfish Impact With Deep Diffuser<br />
  11. 11.
  12. 12.
  13. 13.
  14. 14.
  15. 15.
  16. 16. Technical/Environmental Site Refinements<br />
  17. 17. Steps Taken to Refine Alternatives<br />Completed technical analysis at each site<br />Field wetlands investigation<br />Cultural “paper survey”<br />Geotechnical “paper survey”<br />Confirmation of land use, zoning, and acquisition complexity<br />Met with DOE/DOH to discuss outfall options<br />Refined of conveyance/pumping assumptions and layouts for each alternative<br />
  18. 18. Wetlands Limit Use of Most Sites<br />Marina / Seaplane Base<br />Beachview Farm<br />Old City Shops<br />Crescent Harbor<br />
  19. 19. Cultural Resources Risk at All Sites<br />Particular concern at Windjammer, Crescent Harbor, Marina/Seaplane Base sites<br />Additional field investigation is recommended once the sites have been narrowed<br />
  20. 20. Geotechnical Issues Confirmed at 2 Sites<br />
  21. 21. Zoning/Land Use & Acquisition Complexity<br />Beachview Farm Site<br />Property outside of UGA; annexation of “island” area and change in Island County Zoning<br />Marina/Seaplane Base Site<br />Current Marina must remain so per deed; acquisition or lease from US Navy<br />Crescent Harbor Site<br />Acquisition or lease from US Navy<br />Old City Shops Site<br />Acquisition of private property<br />
  22. 22. Summary of Discussion with DOE/DOHApril 13 Meeting<br />Oak Harbor Outfall<br />Adequate mixing with highest effluent quality<br />No impact on shellfish harvesting<br />Crescent Harbor/West Beach Outfalls<br />Better mixing<br />Potential impact on shellfish harvesting<br />Mitigating this impact is very expensive<br />Meeting confirmed original assumptions regarding cost/risk of outfall locations<br />
  23. 23. Proposed Outfall Location<br />Crescent HarborMitigate Shellfish Impact With Deep Diffuser<br />Oak HarborLimited Shellfish Impact<br />West BeachMitigate Shellfish Impact With Deep Diffuser<br />
  24. 24. Conveyance Piping/Pumping Refinements<br />
  25. 25. Refinements to Pipe Alignments<br />Most sites require costly improvements to existing pipes for Navy Crescent Capehart flow<br />Fewer improvements required for Crescent Harbor site<br />All sites will require infrastructure (pump stationor WWTP) at Windjammer Park<br />Windjammer Park site has lowest conveyanceimpact (cost)<br />Beachview Farm site has highest conveyanceimpact (cost)<br />Piping effluent to West Beach very costly due to geographic, environmental constraints<br />
  26. 26. Pump station at Windjammer ParkPhotos of similar facilities in public view<br />
  27. 27. Summary of Public Input<br />
  28. 28. Sources of Public Input<br />Initial phone survey<br />Input received through email and website posting<br />Public Forums 1 and 2<br />On-line survey completed in April<br />Survey ran for over 6 weeks<br />109 respondents provided input<br />Written correspondence (letters) received by City and forwarded to project team<br />
  29. 29. While cost is important, majority of public favor features best provided by MBR technology<br />
  30. 30. Other trends are clearly apparent from feedback<br />Very little support for Windjammer Park<br />Community has expressed health concerns, particularly associated with Old City Shops<br /><ul><li>Valid concerns must be addressed
  31. 31. Starts by redefining “WWTP”
  32. 32. Fully-enclosed facility
  33. 33. Complete air capture/scrubbing
  34. 34. Designed for high level of public interaction</li></li></ul><li>Based on feedback, MBR process option is appropriate for evaluating remaining sites<br /><ul><li>Best water quality
  35. 35. Most flexibility to meet future NPDES permit limits
  36. 36. Least impact on surrounding area
  37. 37. Smallest footprint
  38. 38. Only viable option at several sites
  39. 39. A common comparison to illustrate site tradeoffs
  40. 40. Process decision may be revisited once a pending final site selection</li></li></ul><li>Cost Refinements<br />
  41. 41. Financial analysis refined, used to compare relative cost of alternatives<br />“Conceptual level”(1) costs developed for 3 major components:<br />Outfall2% - 5% of total<br />Conveyance3% - 20% of total<br />Treatment Plant80% - 90% of total<br />NOTES:<br />Expected accuracy is -50% to +30%<br />Estimated Construction Cost ranges from $85 to $100 million in 2011 $<br />
  42. 42. Financial Comparison of Alternatives (Sites)EstimatedProject (Capital) Cost Difference in 2016 $<br />NOTES:<br />Costs based on MBR Process<br />Difference in cost (low to high) represents ~$8M<br />
  43. 43. Summary and Recommendations<br />
  44. 44. Summary and Recommendations<br />MBR recommended as basis for alternatives selection<br />Consistent with feedback received to-date<br />Appropriate for all sites (does not limit selection) <br />All 5 sites remain “technically viable”<br />Challenges exist at all sites<br />Technical team recommends narrowing to 3 sites<br />Preferred outfall location remains in Oak Harbor<br />
  45. 45. TBL+ Summary of Refined Alternatives<br />NOTES:<br />Comparison based on MBR Process with outfall to Oak Harbor<br />
  46. 46. Sites Proposed by Technical Team for Further Evaluation<br />Crescent Harbor<br />Old City Shops<br />Windjammer Park<br />
  47. 47. Next Steps<br />
  48. 48. Upcoming Schedule<br />August 24 Public Forum No. 3<br />Summarize refinements<br />Collect additional feedback<br />September 20 City Council Meeting<br />Seeking resolution to proceed with alternatives on three (or fewer) sites<br />Final site/alternative selection anticipated in late 2011 / early 2012<br />Maintain flexibility in public process between August and December<br />
  49. 49. Questions?<br />