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 Plan City Council Workshop July 27, 2011

2. Agenda Project Schedule Update Brief Review of Proposed Alternatives Alternative Refinement and Evaluation Summary Proposed Final Alternatives and Sites Summary/Next Steps

3. Project Schedule Update

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

5. Updated Planning and Preliminary Engineering Milestones Short List 5 Alts Short List 3 Alts Identify Proposed Alt Identify Proposed Alt Approval 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 Locations Crescent HarborMitigate Shellfish Impact With Deep Diffuser Oak HarborLimited Shellfish Impact West BeachMitigate Shellfish Impact With Deep Diffuser

16. Technical/Environmental Site Refinements

17. Steps Taken to Refine Alternatives Completed technical analysis at each site Field wetlands investigation Cultural “paper survey” Geotechnical “paper survey” Confirmation of land use, zoning, and acquisition complexity Met with DOE/DOH to discuss outfall options Refined of conveyance/pumping assumptions and layouts for each alternative

18. Wetlands Limit Use of Most Sites Marina / Seaplane Base Beachview Farm Old City Shops Crescent Harbor

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

20. Geotechnical Issues Confirmed at 2 Sites

21. Zoning/Land Use & Acquisition Complexity Beachview Farm Site Property outside of UGA; annexation of “island” area and change in Island County Zoning Marina/Seaplane Base Site Current Marina must remain so per deed; acquisition or lease from US Navy Crescent Harbor Site Acquisition or lease from US Navy Old City Shops Site Acquisition of private property

22. Summary of Discussion with DOE/DOHApril 13 Meeting Oak Harbor Outfall Adequate mixing with highest effluent quality No impact on shellfish harvesting Crescent Harbor/West Beach Outfalls Better mixing Potential impact on shellfish harvesting Mitigating this impact is very expensive Meeting confirmed original assumptions regarding cost/risk of outfall locations

23. Proposed Outfall Location Crescent HarborMitigate Shellfish Impact With Deep Diffuser Oak HarborLimited Shellfish Impact West BeachMitigate Shellfish Impact With Deep Diffuser

24. Conveyance Piping/Pumping Refinements

25. Refinements to Pipe Alignments Most sites require costly improvements to existing pipes for Navy Crescent Capehart flow Fewer improvements required for Crescent Harbor site All sites will require infrastructure (pump stationor WWTP) at Windjammer Park Windjammer 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 Input Initial phone survey Input received through email and website posting Public Forums 1 and 2 On-line survey completed in April Survey ran for over 6 weeks 109 respondents provided input Written 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

31. Starts by redefining “WWTP”

32. Fully-enclosed facility

33. Complete air capture/scrubbing

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

41. Financial analysis refined, used to compare relative cost of alternatives “Conceptual level”(1) costs developed for 3 major components: Outfall2% - 5% of total Conveyance3% - 20% of total Treatment Plant80% - 90% of total NOTES: 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 Process Difference in cost (low to high) represents ~$8M

43. Summary and Recommendations

44. Summary and Recommendations MBR recommended as basis for alternatives selection Consistent with feedback received to-date Appropriate for all sites (does not limit selection) All 5 sites remain “technically viable” Challenges exist at all sites Technical team recommends narrowing to 3 sites Preferred outfall location remains in Oak Harbor

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

46. Sites Proposed by Technical Team for Further Evaluation Crescent Harbor Old City Shops Windjammer Park

47. Next Steps

48. Upcoming Schedule August 24 Public Forum No. 3 Summarize refinements Collect additional feedback September 20 City Council Meeting Seeking resolution to proceed with alternatives on three (or fewer) sites Final site/alternative selection anticipated in late 2011 / early 2012 Maintain flexibility in public process between August and December

49. Questions?