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.

January 13, 2011 City Council Workshop


Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

January 13, 2011 City Council Workshop

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