This document summarizes Oak Harbor's facilities plan update, which evaluated alternatives for upgrading the city's wastewater treatment plant and outfall. It discusses refinements to the project schedule and evaluation of 5 potential sites. Based on technical analysis and public input, it recommends further evaluation of the Crescent Harbor, Old City Shops, and Windjammer Park sites using a membrane bioreactor process with the preferred outfall location in Oak Harbor. The next steps are a public forum in August and seeking City Council approval in September to narrow the alternatives to 3 sites for final selection by early 2012.

1. Oak Harbor Facilities PlanCity Council WorkshopJuly 27, 2011

2. AgendaProject Schedule UpdateBrief Review of Proposed AlternativesAlternative Refinement and Evaluation SummaryProposed Final Alternatives and SitesSummary/Next Steps

3. Project Schedule Update

4. Original Planning and Preliminary Engineering MilestonesShort List 4 AltsIdentify Proposed AltApproval to Submit Plan

5. Updated Planning and Preliminary Engineering MilestonesShort List 5 AltsShort List 3 AltsIdentify Proposed AltIdentify Proposed AltApproval to Submit Plan

6. Schedule Extended to Increase Public Input

7. Review of Preliminary Alternatives / Sites

8. 2 WWTP Process Options

9. Sites Selected For Further EvaluationMarch 22 Council Meeting

10. 3 Candidate Outfall LocationsCrescent HarborMitigate Shellfish Impact With Deep DiffuserOak HarborLimited Shellfish ImpactWest BeachMitigate Shellfish Impact With Deep Diffuser

16. Technical/Environmental Site Refinements

17. Steps Taken to Refine AlternativesCompleted technical analysis at each siteField wetlands investigationCultural “paper survey”Geotechnical “paper survey”Confirmation of land use, zoning, and acquisition complexityMet with DOE/DOH to discuss outfall optionsRefined of conveyance/pumping assumptions and layouts for each alternative

18. Wetlands Limit Use of Most SitesMarina / Seaplane BaseBeachview FarmOld City ShopsCrescent Harbor

19. Cultural Resources Risk at All SitesParticular concern at Windjammer, Crescent Harbor, Marina/Seaplane Base sitesAdditional field investigation is recommended once the sites have been narrowed

20. Geotechnical Issues Confirmed at 2 Sites

21. Zoning/Land Use & Acquisition ComplexityBeachview Farm SiteProperty outside of UGA; annexation of “island” area and change in Island County ZoningMarina/Seaplane Base SiteCurrent Marina must remain so per deed; acquisition or lease from US NavyCrescent Harbor SiteAcquisition or lease from US NavyOld City Shops SiteAcquisition of private property

22. Summary of Discussion with DOE/DOHApril 13 MeetingOak Harbor OutfallAdequate mixing with highest effluent qualityNo impact on shellfish harvestingCrescent Harbor/West Beach OutfallsBetter mixingPotential impact on shellfish harvestingMitigating this impact is very expensiveMeeting confirmed original assumptions regarding cost/risk of outfall locations

23. Proposed Outfall LocationCrescent HarborMitigate Shellfish Impact With Deep DiffuserOak HarborLimited Shellfish ImpactWest BeachMitigate Shellfish Impact With Deep Diffuser

24. Conveyance Piping/Pumping Refinements

25. Refinements to Pipe AlignmentsMost sites require costly improvements to existing pipes for Navy Crescent Capehart flowFewer improvements required for Crescent Harbor siteAll sites will require infrastructure (pump stationor WWTP) at Windjammer ParkWindjammer Park site has lowest conveyanceimpact (cost)Beachview Farm site has highest conveyanceimpact (cost)Piping effluent to West Beach very costly due to geographic, environmental constraints

26. Pump station at Windjammer ParkPhotos of similar facilities in public view

27. Summary of Public Input

28. Sources of Public InputInitial phone surveyInput received through email and website postingPublic Forums 1 and 2On-line survey completed in AprilSurvey ran for over 6 weeks109 respondents provided inputWritten correspondence (letters) received by City and forwarded to project team

29. While cost is important, majority of public favor features best provided by MBR technology

30. Other trends are clearly apparent from feedbackVery little support for Windjammer ParkCommunity has expressed health concerns, particularly associated with Old City ShopsValid concerns must be addressed

31. Starts by redefining “WWTP”

32. Fully-enclosed facility

33. Complete air capture/scrubbing

34. Designed for high level of public interactionBased on feedback, MBR process option is appropriate for evaluating remaining sitesBest water quality

35. Most flexibility to meet future NPDES permit limits

36. Least impact on surrounding area

37. Smallest footprint

38. Only viable option at several sites

39. A common comparison to illustrate site tradeoffs

40. Process decision may be revisited once a pending final site selectionCost Refinements

41. Financial analysis refined, used to compare relative cost of alternatives“Conceptual level”(1) costs developed for 3 major components:Outfall2% - 5% of totalConveyance3% - 20% of totalTreatment Plant80% - 90% of totalNOTES:Expected accuracy is -50% to +30%Estimated Construction Cost ranges from $85 to $100 million in 2011 $

42. Financial Comparison of Alternatives (Sites)EstimatedProject (Capital) Cost Difference in 2016 $NOTES:Costs based on MBR ProcessDifference in cost (low to high) represents ~$8M

43. Summary and Recommendations

44. Summary and RecommendationsMBR recommended as basis for alternatives selectionConsistent with feedback received to-dateAppropriate for all sites (does not limit selection) All 5 sites remain “technically viable”Challenges exist at all sitesTechnical team recommends narrowing to 3 sitesPreferred outfall location remains in Oak Harbor

45. TBL+ Summary of Refined AlternativesNOTES:Comparison based on MBR Process with outfall to Oak Harbor

46. Sites Proposed by Technical Team for Further EvaluationCrescent HarborOld City ShopsWindjammer Park

47. Next Steps

48. Upcoming ScheduleAugust 24 Public Forum No. 3Summarize refinementsCollect additional feedbackSeptember 20 City Council MeetingSeeking resolution to proceed with alternatives on three (or fewer) sitesFinal site/alternative selection anticipated in late 2011 / early 2012Maintain flexibility in public process between August and December

49. Questions?