1. Oak Harbor Facilities Plan
City Council Workshop
January 13, 2011
Oh910i1-8594.pptx/1

2. Agenda
• Project Goal/Schedule
• Summary of Input to Date
• Basis of Planning Highlights
• Preliminary Alternative Development Status
• Summary/Next Steps
Oh910i1-8594.pptx/2

3. Existing RBC Facility
Oh910i1-8594.pptx/3

4. Blaine, WA MBR Facility
Oh910i1-8594.pptx/4

5. 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

6. Project Schedule Update
Oh910i1-8594.pptx/6

7. Overall Project Schedule
Oh910i1-8594.pptx/7

8. 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 Jan
TASK 100 - PROJECT MGMT
TASK 200 - PRELIM ALTS
TASK 300 - FINAL ALTS
Short List 4 Alts
TASK 400 - OUTFALL
TASK 500 - REUSE
TASK 600 - FACILITIES PLAN
Identify
TASK 700 - ENVIRONMENTAL
Proposed Alt
TASK 800 - PUBLIC PROCESS
TASK 900 - MGMT. RESERVE
Approval to
Submit Plan
Oh910i1-8594.pptx/8

9. Summary of Input to Date
Oh910i1-8594.pptx/9

10. Public Process Schematic
Oh910i1-8594.pptx/10

11. 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 required
Oh910i1-8594.pptx/11

12. 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 Action
Oh910i1-8594.pptx/12

13. 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 staff
Oh910i1-8594.pptx/13

14. 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 effort
Oh910i1-8594.pptx/14

15. 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 appropriate
Oh910i1-8594.pptx/15

16. Potential Treatment Plant Sites Proposed by Public
December 6, 2010 Public Forum
Oh910i1-8594.pptx/16

17. Basis of Planning Highlights
Oh910i1-8594.pptx/17

18. 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 projections
Oh910i1-8594.pptx/18

19. 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 2065
Oh910i1-8594.pptx/19

20. 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 2065
Oh910i1-8594.pptx/20

21. 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 2065
Oh910i1-8594.pptx/21

22. 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 2065
Oh910i1-8594.pptx/22

23. 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 Yes
Oh910i1-8594.pptx/23

24. Process
Option 1
MBR
Oh910i1-8594.pptx/24

25. Process
Option 2
AS
Oh910i1-8594.pptx/25

26. 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 handling
Oh910i1-8594.pptx/26

27. 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 digestion
Oh910i1-8594.pptx/27

28. 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 facility
Oh910i1-8594.pptx/28

29. Collection System Layout
Oh910i1-8594.pptx/29

30. 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 costs
Oh910i1-8594.pptx/30

31. 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 resources
Oh910i1-8594.pptx/31

32. Shellfish Harvest Classifications Impact Future
Diffuser Placement
Oh910i1-8594.pptx/32

33. 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/improvement
Oh910i1-8594.pptx/33

34. Preliminary Alternative Development
Status
Oh910i1-8594.pptx/34

35. 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
Impact
Oh910i1-8594.pptx/35

36. 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
Z
Oh910i1-8594.pptx/36

37. 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 facility
Oh910i1-8594.pptx/37

38. Potential Treatment Plant Sites Proposed by Public
December 6, 2010 Public Forum
Oh910i1-8594.pptx/38

39. Land Use Considerations (OHMC 19.20)
• Prohibited in CBD Zoning
• Principally Permitted in PF Zoning
• Conditionally Permitted in Most Zonings
• Some Areas not Specifically Addressed
Oh910i1-8594.pptx/39

40. 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

41. Environmental Considerations
(Critical Areas per OHMC 20)
• Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas
• Wetlands/Wetland Buffer
• Streams
• Shoreline
• Estuarine
Zone
• 100-yr
Floodplain
Oh910i1-8594.pptx/41

42. Initial December 14, 2010 Alternatives Matrix
Oh910i1-8594.pptx/42

43. Suggested Refinements to Matrix
Oh910i1-8594.pptx/43

44. Proposed Preliminary Alternatives
Oh910i1-8594.pptx/44

45. Proposed Sites Blend Public Input with
Technical Requirements
Oh910i1-8594.pptx/45

46. Summary and Next Steps
Oh910i1-8594.pptx/46