This document summarizes an Oak Harbor Facilities Plan workshop regarding options for upgrading the city's wastewater treatment plant. It discusses the project goals, schedule, and planning process to date including public and stakeholder input. Eight preliminary treatment alternatives are presented combining potential treatment technologies, sites, and outfall locations. The alternatives will be evaluated against criteria such as costs, environmental and neighborhood impacts, and water quality. The next steps are to refine the alternatives matrix and select a proposed alternative.

1. Oak Harbor Facilities Plan City Council Workshop January 13, 2011

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

3. Existing RBC Facility

4. Blaine, WA MBR Facility

6. Use a sustainable process to select a sustainable treatment alternative

8. Overall Project Schedule

9. Planning and Preliminary Engineering Milestones Short List 4 Alts Identify Proposed Alt Approval to Submit Plan

10. Summary of Input to Date

11. Public Process Schematic

12. Summary of U.S. Navy FeedbackKickoff 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

13. Summary of U.S. Navy FeedbackKickoff 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

14. Summary of Stakeholder FeedbackS2 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

15. Summary of Stakeholder FeedbackS2 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

16. Summary of Public FeedbackInterviews, 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

17. Potential Treatment Plant Sites Proposed by PublicDecember 6, 2010 Public Forum

18. Basis of Planning Highlights

19. Total Population Projection Assumed a straight line growth rate from 2020 through 2060 for facilities plan population projections

20. Basis for Alternative Analysis, Site Selection, and Project Phasing

21. Basis for Alternative Analysis 3.9 mgd Facility 20-yr PeriodAlternative Analysis

22. Basis for Site Selection 5.6 mgd Facility 50-yr PeriodSite Selection

23. Basis for Project Phasing ? ? ? Growth ScenariosEstablish Project Phasing

24. Effluent Quality Goals

25. ProcessOption 1 MBR

26. ProcessOption 2 AS

28. Local use of Class A product

29. Small footprint (<.25 Acre)

30. High operating cost

31. Natural gas consumption

32. Option 1B: Treat solids off-site at a composting facility

33. Local use of Class A product

34. Large footprint (± 2 Acres)

35. Moderate operating cost

36. Bulking materials

38. Summary of Potential Treatment Options

39. Collection System Layout

40. 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

41. 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

42. Shellfish Harvest Classifications Impact Future Diffuser Placement

43. 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

44. Preliminary Alternative Development Status

46. Ease ofConstruction

47. Overall SystemEfficiency

48. Protect PublicHealth & Safety

49. Preserve/Enhance Local Public Amenities

50. Minimize Local Neighborhood Impact

51. Produce BestWater Quality

52. Protect Environmentally Sensitive Areas

53. Minimize CarbonFootprint

54. Low Capital $

55. Low O&M Cost

57. Treatment Options for Preliminary Alternatives Analysis

58. Potential Treatment Plant Sites Proposed by PublicDecember 6, 2010 Public Forum

59. 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

60. Technical Considerations Avoid the following: Earthquake Faults On-site Toxic Releases/Hazards Landfill Sites Slopes > 10% Design for: Poor soils/Liquefaction 5% < Slopes < 10%

61. Environmental Considerations(Critical Areas per OHMC 20) Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas Wetlands/Wetland Buffer Streams Shoreline EstuarineZone 100-yrFloodplain

62. Initial December 14, 2010 Alternatives Matrix

63. Suggested Refinements to Matrix

64. Proposed Preliminary Alternatives

65. Proposed Sites Blend Public Input withTechnical Requirements

66. Summary and Next Steps