Call Girls In Gorakhpur Escorts ☎️8617370543 🔝 💃 Enjoy 24/7 Escort Service En...
January 13 City Council Workshop
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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