07-09 FreelandPrelimEngReport FINAL

and Associated Firms

Freeland Water and Sewer District

Preliminary Engineering Report for New Sewage Collection and Treatment SystemJuly 2010


PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT FOR NEW SEWAGE COLLECTION AND TREATMENT SYSTEM

JULY 2010

Prepared for:Freeland Water and Sewer District

5492 S. Harbor AvenueFreeland, WA 98249

Prepared by:

In Association With:

Katy Isaksen & AssociatesHWA GeosciencesTriangle Associates

ESA AdolfsonSeparation Processes, Inc.

Long Bay Enterprises

Project #135-21646-10001

i

Freeland Water and Sewer DistrictPreliminary Engineering Report for

New Sewage Collection and Treatment System

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Title Page No.

Chapter 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................1Background ............................................................................................................................................ 1

Project Purpose ................................................................................................................................ 1Project Development........................................................................................................................ 1Public Outreach Activities ............................................................................................................... 2Project Description........................................................................................................................... 2

Preliminary Engineering Report and Related Documents...................................................................... 4

Chapter 2. Amendments to 2005 Facility Plan Recommendation.............................................7Collection System................................................................................................................................... 7

Pressurized Sewer Type................................................................................................................... 7Collection System Phasing .............................................................................................................. 9

Revised Population, Flow and Load Estimates .................................................................................... 11Treatment Plant .................................................................................................................................... 13

Headworks ..................................................................................................................................... 13MBR Treatment and Emergency Storage ...................................................................................... 14Disinfection.................................................................................................................................... 15Solids Handling and Disposal........................................................................................................ 16Standby Power ............................................................................................................................... 16Odor Control .................................................................................................................................. 17Treatment Plant Capacity Expansion............................................................................................. 17

Reclaimed Water Reuse ....................................................................................................................... 182005 Recommendation .................................................................................................................. 18Reasons for Updates ...................................................................................................................... 19Current Recommendation .............................................................................................................. 22

Chapter 3. Current Recommended Project...............................................................................24Project Location ................................................................................................................................... 24Design Data .......................................................................................................................................... 24Recommended Capital Improvements ................................................................................................. 26

STEP Collection System................................................................................................................ 26Treatment Plant.............................................................................................................................. 26Reclaimed Water Reuse................................................................................................................. 35Estimated Capital Costs ................................................................................................................. 39

Short-Lived Assets ............................................................................................................................... 39Operation and Maintenance.................................................................................................................. 40

Overview........................................................................................................................................ 40Operation and Maintenance Costs ................................................................................................. 40

Project Implementation ........................................................................................................................ 42Schedule......................................................................................................................................... 42Studies, Public Outreach and Permitting ....................................................................................... 42

…TABLE OF CONTENTS

ii

Chapter 4. Financing Plan ..........................................................................................................45Funding Partners................................................................................................................................... 45Sewer Funding Plan.............................................................................................................................. 45

Capital Funding.............................................................................................................................. 46Debt Repayment/User Recovery.................................................................................................... 46O&M, Administration and Short-Lived Assets—Monthly Sewer Rates....................................... 47

Estimated System Cost—Initial Phase ................................................................................................. 47Estimated Project Cost to be Financed................................................................................................. 49Estimated Capital Cost per ERU .......................................................................................................... 50

On-Site Costs Will Vary ................................................................................................................ 50Estimated Monthly Rate....................................................................................................................... 50Six-Year Sewer Operating Fund .......................................................................................................... 51Local Improvement District ................................................................................................................. 52

LID Process and Schedule ............................................................................................................. 52Sample LID Payment Schedule ..................................................................................................... 53LID Debt Repayment Fund............................................................................................................ 53

Future Cost Recovery........................................................................................................................... 55

References.....................................................................................................................................56

Appendices

A. Public Outreach InformationB. Hydrogeologic ReportC. Commitment Letters for Use of Additional Reuse Site Land AreaD. Design Data and Revised Population, Flow and Load ProjectionsE. Cost EstimatesF. LID Financial Feasibility Opinion and Draft Board ResolutionG. LID Debt Repayment Fund Cash Flow

LIST OF TABLESNo. Title Page No.

1 Cross-References for Preliminary Engineering Report Checklist....................................................... 62 Summary of Revisions to Recommended Project............................................................................... 73 Projected Population, Sewer Connections and Flows, 2014—2025................................................. 124 Summary of Geotechnical Evaluations ............................................................................................. 225 Projected Population, Sewer Connections and Flows over Project Life........................................... 246 Length of Sewer Pipes to Be Installed by Size and Phase ................................................................ 267 Proposed Reuse Facilities ................................................................................................................. 388 Estimated Capital Cost of Initial proposed facilities......................................................................... 399 Planning Level Capital and O&M Cost Estimate, 2011 – 2035 ...............................................after 4010 O&M Cost Estimates ........................................................................................................................ 4111 Existing Funding Sources ................................................................................................................. 4512 Estimated System Cost...................................................................................................................... 4813 Estimated System Cost—Initial Phase.............................................................................................. 4814 Initial System Connections ............................................................................................................... 4815 Estimated Project Cost to Be Financed............................................................................................. 4916 Estimated Capital Cost per ERU....................................................................................................... 5017 Estimated Monthly Rate per ERU..................................................................................................... 51

…TABLE OF CONTENTS

iii

18 Six-Year Sewer Operating Fund ....................................................................................................... 5219 LID Process and Schedule ................................................................................................................ 5320 Sample LID Assessment Payment Schedule..................................................................................... 5421 Estimated Debt Repayment Fund Six-Year Cash Flow, with 30-Percent USDA Grant................... 5422 Cost Recovery Methods .................................................................................................................... 55

LIST OF FIGURESNo. Title Page No.

1 Project Site and Vicinity Map............................................................................................................. 32 Proposed Collection System Phasing................................................................................................ 113 Drainage Basin Surrounding Reuse Site ........................................................................................... 204 Tree Farm Property and Reuse Site................................................................................................... 215 Proposed Collection System Piping and Phasing ............................................................................. 256 Proposed Treatment Plant Site Plan.................................................................................................. 277 Proposed Liquid and Solids Treatment Process Diagram................................................................. 288 Proposed Hydraulic Profile ............................................................................................................... 299 Proposed Reuse Site Plan.................................................................................................................. 3610 Proposed Project Schedule................................................................................................................ 43

1

CHAPTER 1.INTRODUCTION

The Freeland Water and Sewer District has developed a plan for building and operating sewage collection and treatment facilities to serve commercial and residential properties throughout the District’s service area. The initial plan for this project was presented in the Freeland Comprehensive Sewer Plan and Engineering Report/Facility Plan (Tetra Tech, 2005), which received the necessary approvals from state and local agencies in 2006. This Preliminary Engineering Report (PER) updates the 2005 Facility Plan. The PER was prepared to accomplish two objectives:

• It amends the 2005 Facility Plan to present the most current technical, environmental and financial information for the proposed sewage collection and treatment project.

• It supports the District’s application for U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Rural Development funding assistance for the proposed project. The PER is being submitted to Rural Development along with several other documents to provide all the informationrequired for a PER as outlined in USDA Rural Utilities Service Bulletin 1780-3.

BACKGROUND

Project PurposeFreeland is an unincorporated community on Whidbey Island. Due to its population growth and urban characteristics, Island County has designated Freeland as a Non-Municipal Urban Growth Area(NMUGA). Freeland lacks sewage collection and treatment infrastructure to support this designation;commercial and residential development relies on septic systems for waste disposal. Under Growth Management law in the State of Washington, public sewers are only allowed in urban areas, and are required to support urban level densities and zoning. The Freeland Sub Area Plan (Island County, 2007b)adopted by Island County established the zoning for the NMUGA. The development of the proposed new sewer system will allow the zoning to become effective and meet the community’s vision for the future.

The Freeland community is beginning to see the effects of reliance on septic system in a geographically confined area. Additionally, the Washington State Department of Health (DOH) established a Shellfish Protection District for the Freeland area due to high concentrations of fecal coliform bacteria in Holmes Harbor. Island County is investigating the source of this contamination; meanwhile, Freeland Park and adjacent beaches along the harbor have been closed indefinitely.

Implementation of the proposed project will protect Holmes Harbor as Freeland’s population increases and it will protect groundwater resources from pollution. The plan proposes sewage collection and treatment to produce Class A reclaimed water for disposal by land application on the opposite side of the island from Holmes Harbor.

Project DevelopmentThe applicant and owner of the proposed system will be the Freeland Water and Sewer District. The District and community have been working toward this project for a number of years and have the necessary approvals in place to provide sewer service. The Chamber of Commerce has partnered with the District to move the project forward to this point.

Preliminary Engineering Report for New Sewage Collection and Treatment System…

2

The 2005 Facility Plan analyzed alternatives for wastewater collection, effluent discharge/reuse, wastewater treatment, disinfection, and solids handling and treatment/reuse in an effort to find the best alternative to meet the needs of the service area over the long- and short-term. Alternatives considered for collection system technology included conventional gravity sewers, septic tank effluent gravity sewers, vacuum sewers, and pressurized sewers (septic tank effluent pumping (STEP), or grinder pumps). Technologies considered for treatment included membrane bioreactors, oxidation ditch with filtration, extended aeration with filtration, and sequencing batch reactors with filtration. Saltwater outfalls to Holmes Harbor or Mutiny Bay were considered for treated effluent disposal, but were removed from consideration due to a desire to protect shellfish and marine habitat and a desire on part of the community to beneficially reuse the treated effluent. Alternatives were considered for reuse to include year-round wetland enhancement, groundwater augmentation through infiltration, and industrial reuse.

The recommended project identified in the 2005 Facility Plan has been approved by the Washington State Department of Ecology, DOH, Island County and the Freeland Water and Sewer District. Since receiving the final approval for the Facility plan in 2006, the Freeland Water and Sewer District has undertaken a financial feasibility study (Tetra Tech, 2008), and sought funding to implement the project. With the current opportunity to apply for full funding through USDA Rural Development under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the District has been working hard to update the phasing, cost estimates and financial to ensure a successful project. The proposed action is in the pre-design phase, and the final design will closely follow the major elements as presented here. However, the District may refine project specifics during design to reduce costs or provide enhanced performance.

Public Outreach ActivitiesDuring the development of the 2005 Facility Plan, four public meetings were held to discuss the various components of the wastewater treatment system. Public input was received and was considered in the selection of the collection, treatment, and effluent reuse technologies. Descriptions and summaries of these meetings are within the 2005 Facility Plan. Recent public involvement activities have been conducted since the completion of the 2005 Facility Plan. Public meeting were held on June 8, 2010 and July 6, 2010 to provide opportunities for the following:

• Update the public on the status of the project

• Inform them about the funding opportunity through USDA-RD

• Discuss the updates and changes on the wastewater system which were to be included in the Preliminary Engineering Report

• Present updated cost estimates

• Discuss a Local Improvement District as a debt repayment tool.

Other recent public outreach activities included a press release, informational mailer, a meeting with the Freeland Chamber of Commerce, and development of a project website. Details of recent public outreach activities are included in Appendix A.

Project DescriptionThe sewer service area will be the portion of the NMUGA area that is not already served by other sewer providers. The Main Street Sewer District is a small independent district within the service area that will continue to operate. The Holmes Harbor Sewer District provides service to the Holmes Harbor Residential area and golf course. The District provides water service to a larger area. Figure 1 shows the location of the Freeland Water and Sewer District and the primary components of the proposed project.

Honeymoon Bay Honeymoon Bay Honeymoon Bay

Slocum Slocum Slocum

Tara Tara Tara

Stewart Stewart Stewart

SR 5

25SR

525

SR 5

25

Mai

nM

ain

Mutiny

Bay

Mutiny

Bay

Mutiny

Bay

Sce

nic

Sce

nic

East H

arbor

East H

arbor

Newman

Newman

Fish Fish Fish

Cameron Cameron Cameron

Ber

cot

Ber

cot

Ber

cot

Bus

h P

oint

Bus

h P

oint

Bus

h P

oint

Harbor Harbor Harbor

Myrtle Myrtle Myrtle

Sho

revi

ewS

hore

view

Woodard Woodard Woodard

Dus

tyD

usty

Dus

tyWat

kins

Wat

kins

Freeland Freeland Freeland

Scot

tSc

ott

Scot

t

Long

Long

Osprey Osprey Osprey

Apple Tree Apple Tree Apple Tree

Ree

dR

eed

Twin

O

aks

Twin

O

aks

Twin

O

aks

Tim

ber

Tim

ber

Layt

onLa

yton

Mai

n S

treet

Sew

er D

istri

ct

Mutiny Sands Mutiny Sands Mutiny Sands

Cat

tail

Cat

tail

Joan

neJo

anne

Lotto Lotto Lotto

Hol

lyhill

Hol

lyhill

Hol

lyhill

Rox

linR

oxlin

CherryCherryCherry

Shi

ps H

aven

Shi

ps H

aven

Shi

ps H

aven

Vinto

nVi

nton

Vesel Vesel Vesel

Hawksbeard Hawksbeard Hawksbeard

Pauleina Pauleina PauleinaCarie Carie Carie

Clipper Clipper Clipper

Dut

ch

Hol

low

Dut

ch

Hol

low

Dut

ch

Hol

low

Hol

mes

Har

bor

Hol

mes

Har

bor

Mut

iny

Bay

Mut

iny

Bay

Mor

ning

side

Mor

ning

side

Diamond Diamond Diamond


Trea

tmen

tPl

ant S

iteTr

eatm

ent

Plan

t Site

Trea

tmen

tPl

ant S

ite

Reu

seA

rea

Reu

seA

rea

Reu

seA

rea

Pleasan

t Vie

w

Pleasan

t Vie

w

Pleasan

t Vie

w

Dorse

yDor

sey

Dorse

yLy

nne

Lynn

eLy

nne

Haze

n Shores

Haze

n Shores

Haze

n Shores

Free

land

Wat

er &

Sew

er D

istri

ct

Free

land

Wat

er a

nd S

ewer

Dis

trict

PREL

IMIN

ARY

EN

GIN

EER

ING

REP

OR

T FO

R N

EW

SEW

AG

E C

OLL

ECTI

ON

AN

D T

REA

TMEN

T SY

STEM

135-21646-10001/DistrictBaseMap.ai

Figu

re 1

.P

RO

JEC

T S

ITE

AN

D V

ICIN

ITY

MA

P14

20 F

ifth

Ave

nue,

Sui

te 6

00Se

attle

, Was

hing

ton

9810

1Te

l 206

.883

.930

0 F

ax 2

06.8

83-9

301

500’

1,00

0’2,

000’

App

roxi

mat

e S

cale

:1”

= 2

,000

’

0


4

The current recommended project is as follows:

• Wastewater Collection System—Develop a pressurized STEP sewer system.

• Wastewater Treatment—Construct a treatment facility using a membrane bioreactor (MBR) system (produces reliable Class A reclaimed water).

• Disinfection—Provide ultraviolet (UV) disinfection with chlorine addition.

• Effluent Reuse—Provide land application and groundwater recharge by surface percolation and application to vegetation through sprinklers or an equivalent technology.

• Solids Handling and Reuse—Solids will be temporarily stored on-site in an aerated tank, thickened to about 3 percent, then hauled off-site for treatment and reuse.

PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT AND RELATED DOCUMENTSThis PER, together with the following other documents, fulfills the PER requirements outlined in USDA Rural Utilities Service Bulletin 1780-3, “Preliminary Engineering Report—Wastewater Facilities”:

• 2005 Freeland Comprehensive Sewer Plan and Engineering Report/Facility Plan—This plan presents the detailed project background and purpose, design criteria, alternatives analysis, and recommendation and implementation plan as of 2005. It is submitted with this PER as a separate volume but is considered to be included in the PER by reference.

• Freeland Water and Sewer District Preliminary Engineering Report for New Sewage Collection and Treatment System (this document)—The PER describes project changes since 2005 made because of new conditions and information, summarizes the current recommended plan and presents the current financing plan. The content of the PER represents the most current amendment to the 2005 Facility Plan.

• Environmental Documents—These documents include the current environmental information and fulfill National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) requirements for the recommended project. They are being submitted separately as part of the USDA Rural Development application, and include the following:

– Freeland Sewer Collection and Treatment System, Environmental Report (ESA, 2010b)—This document fulfills NEPA requirements for the project. It provides a broad review of environmental and social issues and ensures compliance with all federal environmental regulations and statutes. USDA Rural Development is serving as the NEPA lead agency.

– Freeland NMUGA Sewer Collection and Treatment System, Biological Assessment and Essential Fish Habitat Assessment (ESA, 2010a)—This document is prepared to facilitate review of the proposed project as required by Section 7(c) of the federal Endangered Species Act and the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation Act as amended by the Sustainable Fisheries Act. It evaluates potential impacts on threatened or endangered species or critical habitat. The biological assessment is reviewed by the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service, which will issue a concurrence letter if they agree that the project is not likely to adversely affect threatened or endangered species or their critical habitat.

– Freeland Sewer Collection and Treatment System, SEPA Checklist (ESA, 2010c)—This document fulfills the SEPA requirements for the proposed project. The Freeland Water and Sewer District is the SEPA lead agency. The SEPA checklist fulfills state requirements and provides an overall review of environmental issues.

…1. INTRODUCTION

5

– Section 106 Cultural Resources Report (ESA, 2010d)—This report is prepared to facilitate review of the proposed project as required by Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. It reviews the area of potential effect for the presence or likely presence of historic properties or cultural resources. The potential for impact on these resources is described, as well as the mitigation and recovery process should resources be discovered during construction. The Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation concurred with the determination of “No Historic Properties Affected,” indicating the project can proceed as proposed.

• Hydrogeological Evaluation; Freeland Water and Sewer District Wastewater System Reuse Site, Island County, Washington—This report includes current geotechnical information on the proposed reuse site. It is included as Appendix B of this PER.

• Water Rights Impairment Analysis—This report reviews potential reductions in groundwater resources that may occur when existing septic tank discharges to drainfields are eliminated in the sewer service area and routed to the proposed treatment plant and remote reuse site. It is being submitted separately as part of the USDA Rural Development application.

Table 1 shows a checklist for compliance with USDA PER requirements and the location of the relevant information within the documents that make up this submittal.


6

TABLE 1.CROSS-REFERENCES FOR PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT CHECKLIST

USDA Rural Development Checklist Item Locationa

1. General PER Chapter 1; FP Chapters 1—2

2. Project Planning Area FP Chapter 2; PER Chapter 2; Env; HRa. Locationb. Environmental Resources Presentc. Growth Areas and Population Trends

3. Existing Facilities FP Chapter 2, PER Chapter 1a. Location Mapb. Historyc. Condition of Existing Facilitiesd. Financial Status of Any Existing Facilities

4. Need for Projecta. Health, Sanitation and Security FP Chapter 2; PER Chapters 1 and 2b. System Operation and Maintenance FP Chapter 2c. Growth FP Chapter 2; PER Chapter 2

5. Alternatives Considered FP Chapters 5—7; PER Chapter 2a. Descriptionb. Design Criteriac. Mapd. Environmental Impactse. Land Requirementsf. Construction Problemsg. Cost Estimatesh. Advantages/Disadvantages

6. Selection of an Alternative FP Chapters 5—7; PER Chapter 2a. Life Cycle Cost Analysisb. Discussion of Any Non-Cost Factors

7. Proposed Project PER Chapters 3 and 4a. Project Designb. Total Project Cost Estimatec. Annual Operating Budgetd. Short-Lived Assets

8. Conclusions and Recommendations FP Chapters 8—9; PER Chapters 3 and 4

a. PER = Preliminary Engineering Report (this document); FP = 2005 Facility Plan (submitted as a separate volume); Env = Environmental Documents; HR = Hydrogeologic Report (Appendix B)

7

CHAPTER 2.AMENDMENTS TO 2005 FACILITY PLAN RECOMMENDATION

Changes to the project recommended in the 2005 Facility Plan have been implemented that reflect new technical, environmental, economic and regulatory conditions. The changes are summarized in Table 2and in the following sections. More detailed descriptions of current recommendations are presented in Chapter 3.

TABLE 2.SUMMARY OF REVISIONS TO RECOMMENDED PROJECT

Subject Area Changes Since the 2005 Facility Plan

Collection System • Affirm selection of STEP system• Revise phasing

Wastewater Treatment Plant

Plant-wide/General • Revise phasing• Revise initial flow and load projections• Provide odor control for headworks and all covered tanks

Headworks • Provide fine screens

MBR Treatment Process • Provide more nitrogen removal to comply with pending revisions to WAC 173-219 Reclaimed Water Use regulations

Emergency Storage • Reduce emergency storage capacity to 1 day for one treatment train• Initially use future MBR trains 3 and 4 for emergency storage tanks

Disinfection • Use ultraviolet disinfection with hypochlorite injection for chlorine residual

Solids Handling • Select new reuse/disposal site• Provide thickener to reduce hauling and disposal costs

Standby Power • Increase generator capacity

Reclaimed Water Reuse • Perform additional hydrogeological study of reuse site• Use slow percolation for groundwater recharge• Expand initial reuse site to 80 acres• Provide contingency to add 120 acres of reuse area in future

COLLECTION SYSTEM

Pressurized Sewer Type

2005 Recommendation

The 2005 Facility Plan recommended the use of a STEP collection system, but proposed that further evaluation be performed to consider the use of a grinder-pump collection system instead.

Reasons for Updates

Significant technical and cost issues were considered in the further comparative evaluation of STEP and grinder-pump sewer systems. The following were key technical considerations:


8

• For a STEP system, solids remain in the septic tank and clear effluent is conveyed through pressurized mains to the treatment plant. This results in lower capital costs at the treatment plant because the need for solids handling equipment is reduced.

• STEP pumps operate at higher pressures than grinder pumps because they do not have to pass solids. This eliminates the need for an intermediate pump station.

• Because a grinder pump collection system conveys solids, a minimum pressurized main diameter of 4 inches is recommended, whereas STEP systems can allow mains as small as 2 inches in diameter.

• Grinder pumps have a grinding head, which macerates solids and passes them through the pump and into the pressurized collection system. The grinder head is a rough duty piece of equipment. However, it can be subject to damage and require repair or replacement if objects other than biodegradable wastewater solids (plastic waste products or metal objects) are introduced into the system from the building plumbing. For a STEP system, most solidsnormally would remain in the tank and may risk blinding the pump screen, but this can be addressed with a maintenance call to clean the screen and/or pump the tank.

• Since solids remain in the STEP tank and are reduced to sludge, the tanks are considered part of the solids treatment and handling process for the wastewater system. Under Washington Department of Ecology Guidelines, maintenance of the STEP tanks will become the responsibility of the Freeland Water and Sewer District.

The following were key cost considerations:

• The STEP alternative has an estimated 20-year life cycle cost (combined capital, operation and maintenance costs for the collection system, treatment plant and water reuse site) approximately $2.4 million less than that of a grinder pump system. The cost savings are about evenly split between the collection system and the treatment plant/water reuse site: the estimated startup treatment plant capital cost is less for a STEP system than for a grinder system; and a grinder pump system would require a lift station in the collection system to convey flows to the treatment plant, whereas a STEP system would not.

• The life cycle cost analysis assumed that 10 percent of existing septic tanks can be retrofittedfor use in a STEP system, which potentially lowers the initial on-site capital costs. There is room for greater on-site capital cost savings if more than 10 percent of existing tanks can be reused. However, it is important to rigorously inspect existing tanks to ensure that unfit septic tanks do not contribute excessive infiltration and inflow into the system and that they are suitable to be fitted with a pumping system to work effectively in the STEP conveyance system.

• Because the onsite components of a STEP system are considered part of the treatment system, they will be owned and operated by the District and will be considered eligible for financing through Department of Ecology and USDA-RD funding programs. Grinder pump systems may not be eligible because they are only considered part of the collection system’s onsite service connection and not an element of the treatment process.

• Tank inspection and pumping for a STEP system may be contracted by the District to eligible licensed local service contractors (septic inspectors and pumpers) rather than maintained by District forces. This would help the local economy and save the District the startup expense of dedicated staff and equipment. Because Whidbey Island is primarily served by septic systems, the availability of licensed and equipped service providers is excellent.

…2. AMENDMENTS TO 2005 FACILITY PLAN RECOMMENDATION

9

Current Recommendation

The decision to implement a STEP collection system was re-affirmed and a grinder pump system is no longer under consideration. The layout of the collection system remains unchanged from the 2005 Facility Plan.

Collection System Phasing

2005 Recommendation

Under the project phasing recommended in the 2005 Facility Plan, initial (Phase 1) sewer connections consisted mainly of commercial development in the central portion of the District’s service area. Phases 2 though 5 would develop the system to full buildout. Under this scenario, the years after completion of Phase 1 would see connections being made by a combination of existing structures and new construction, and all structures in the service area would be connected by 2025.

Reasons for Updates

Boundaries of the areas that are proposed to receive sewer service as part of the initial construction were modified for reasons explained below.

Need to Accelerate Conversion from On-Site Septic Systems

The following are key reasons to accelerate the conversion from on-site septic systems by including more existing development in Phase 1 of the project:

• The Department of Ecology Marine Water Quality Monitoring Program periodically monitors water quality in Holmes Harbor. The program’s 1995-96 data indicated oxygen levels in the harbor below 5 mg/L during seven of the monthly sampling occasions. Holmes Harbor exhibits persistent stratification throughout the year. Over time and with increased development in the Freeland area, water quality in Holmes Harbor has been steadily decreasing. Washington’s 2008 Clean Water Act 303(d) list (the list of surface waters in the state in which pollutants impair beneficial uses such as drinking, recreation or aquatic habitat) includes Holmes Harbor as a Category 5 water body for low dissolved oxygen. There is an urban ditch running through Freeland to Holmes Harbor that is listed as a 303(d) Category 5 stream for fecal coliform bacteria.

• In 2006, the DOH’s Office of Shellfish and Water Protection completed a shoreline survey of Holmes Harbor and as a result of the findings closed 98 acres of south Holmes Harbor beaches, including all of Freeland Park, to shellfish harvesting and other recreational activities due to elevated bacteria levels. In 2008, the waters of south Holmes Harbor were opened for recreational activities such as swimming, but shellfish harvests remained prohibited due to the presence of fecal coliform bacteria. Existing septic systems may be contributing to the water quality problems in Holmes Harbor:

– Areas of older, higher-density development on smaller lots north of the Main Street commercial core are likely to need septic repair or replacement in the near future. These septic systems are suspected contributors to Holmes Harbor contamination.

– There are areas of low-density residential development north of the existing commercial core that will convert to expanded commercial development with NMUGA zoning. These areas are currently suspected of contributing to impaired urban drainage adjacent to Holmes Harbor.


10

– The area northwest of the existing commercial core, bound by Bercot and Honeymoon Bay Road, may develop to higher densities and is currently served by older existing septic systems that are suspected contributors to Holmes Harbor contamination.

• Many of the existing septic systems and drain fields were installed under older health regulations. Soil quality and separation from shallow groundwater in many of these systems do not meet current codes. Reserve areas for replacement drain fields may not be available for many residences. With aging systems and the demand for new construction, it will be increasingly difficult to maintain water quality.

• In July 2007, Island County revised its operation and maintenance program for septic tanks to improve performance of onsite systems and protect groundwater and surface water qualityuntil a sewer system can be constructed.

• Some areas of the District are reaching the limits of population density that can be supported by the existing drain fields.

Funding Opportunity

Additional funding is being sought from the USDA Rural Development funding program. Due to the availability of substantial funding through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, there is an opportunity to develop a larger portion of the Freeland NMUGA at startup than was proposed in the 2005 Facility Plan. The design was modified to meet the requirements of the funding program and the increased scope of construction.

One of the requirements of the funding program is that the project must benefit residential users in the initial phase, instead of just commercial entities. That requirement, combined with the need for a viable cost recovery method for the funding program, has changed the characteristics of the startup participants. Mandatory hookup to the sewer system would be required to demonstrate the ability to pay back the loans from USDA-RD needed to implement the project with the changes stated in this document. All existing structures in the new Phase 1 area will be required to connect to the new sewer facilities and participate in its financing. The ability to fund the development of the sewer system will accelerate efforts to improve water quality in the Freeland area.


The currently proposed project phasing for the collection system is as follows (see Figure 2):

• Phase 1—Connect all users in the District’s commercial core area, adjacent high-density residential zones, and waterfront properties along the south, east and west shores of Holmes Harbor (the “Phase 1 service area”). The Phase 1 service area encompasses 331 acres. The collection system is to be constructed by the end of 2014.

• Phase 2—Connect all users in outlying residential areas within the NMUGA south of SR-525 and waterfront properties along the east shore of Holmes Harbor (the “Phase 2 service area”). This report assumes that the Phase 2 collection system would be constructed in 2025, but it could be incrementally installed as needed sooner than that, through local improvement districts or developer extensions. Any construction by parties other than the District would be subject to District requirements and approval.

All existing homes and commercial structures in the Phase 1 service area will be required to connect to the sewer system constructed during Phase 1.


11

Figure 2. Proposed Collection System Phasing

Between the completion of Phase 1 and the completion of Phase 2, all new development in the Phase 1 service area will connect to the sewer system, and existing or new structures in the Phase 2 service area that are near installed sewer mains will be allowed to connect to the system. Growth in the total sewered population during this period will be a combination of new homes in the Phase 1 service area, existing homes and commercial structures in the Phase 2 service area, and new homes and commercial structures in the Phase 2 service area. By the time the Phase 2 collection system is completed in 2025, all existing structures in the NMUGA will be sewered. Further growth in sewered population after that will be only from new construction.

REVISED POPULATION, FLOW AND LOAD ESTIMATESEstimates for population, wastewater flows, and wastewater loadings through 2024 were updated to reflect the new collection system phasing, 2010 population and growth rate estimates, and revised dates for facility startup. Projections for the period from 2025 to project area buildout in 2055 (the maximum level of development allowed by current zoning) are unchanged from the 2005 Facility Plan and are


12

consistent with the Freeland Sub Area Plan and its buildable lands analysis. Table 3 summarizes projected population, number of service connections (shown as equivalent residential units, or ERUs) wastewater flows, and biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) loading from 2014 through 2025.

TABLE 3.PROJECTED POPULATION, SEWER CONNECTIONS AND FLOWS, 2014—2025

Sewer Flow (million gallons/day) BOD Load (pounds/day)

YearConnections

(ERUs)Sewered

PopulationMaximum

MonthAnnual Average

Maximum Month

Annual Average

2014 610 1,427 0.18 0.13 323 161

2015 664 1,555 0.19 0.14 352 176

2016 723 1,693 0.21 0.15 384 191

2017 787 1,844 0.23 0.16 418 209

2018 857 2,008 0.24 0.17 455 227

2019 934 2,187 0.26 0.19 495 247

2020 1,017 2,382 0.28 0.20 540 269

2021 1,107 2,594 0.30 0.22 588 293

2022 1,206 2,825 0.33 0.23 640 320

2023 1,313 3,077 0.35 0.25 697 348

2024 1,430 3,351 0.38 0.27 758 379

2025 1,557 3,643 0.41 0.29 826 413

Revised projections were developed as follows:

• Sewer connections:

– Based on the expanded Phase 1 service area, the latest population projections, and recent ERU data for District water users, the estimated number of connections in the initialservice area in 2014 is 610 (315 residential ERUs and 295 commercial ERUs).

– As calculated in the 2005 Facility Plan, the estimated number of connections in the combined Phase 1 and Phase 2 service areas in 2025 will be 1,557 (1,095 residentialERUs and 462 commercial ERUs).

– Assuming that the annual growth rate is constant, the change from 610 ERUs in 2014 to 1,557 ERUs in 2025 represents a growth rate of 8.9 percent per year.

• Wastewater flow:

– The 2014 maximum-month flow and annual average flow—0.18 million gallons per day (mgd) and 0.13 mgd, respectively—were estimated based on 610 ERUs, using the 2005 Facility Plan assumptions for household size and for unit flows of wastewater and infiltration and inflow.

– The estimated maximum-month flow and annual average flow for 2025 were taken from the 2005 Facility Plan—0.41 mgd and 0.29 mgd, respectively.


13

– Assuming that the annual growth rate is constant, the change from 0.18 mgd in 2014 to 0.41 mgd in 2025 represents a growth rate of 7.8 percent per year in maximum-month flow, and the change from 0.13 mgd in 2014 to 0.29 mgd in 2025 represents a growth rate of 7.6 percent for annual average flow.

• BOD load:

– The estimated maximum-month and annual average BOD loads for 2025 were taken from the 2005 Facility Plan—826 pounds per day (ppd) and 413 ppd, respectively.

– BOD loads for 2014 through 2024 were extrapolated backward from the 2025 value based on the 8.9 percent annual growth rate calculated for the number of sewer connections.

Projected connections, flows and loads beginning in 2014 are significantly increased from the 2005 Facility Plan startup projections, due to the increase in initial service connections. By 2025, however, the projections are unchanged from the 2005 Facility Plan.

TREATMENT PLANT

Headworks

2005 Recommendation

The 2005 Facility Plan recommended providing only basic functions for the headworks: influent flow measurement and sampling. This recommendation was based on the assumption that most of the settleable solids, rags, and other debris in wastewater are removed by settling in individual septic tanks and by the screen around the STEP pump.

No odor control was recommended because influent flow would be discharged directly into the secondary treatment process basins where odors would be removed biologically or by odor stripping in the mixed liquor.

Reasons for Updates

Additional review of operation and maintenance information for STEP collection systems indicated numerous ways that debris (e.g., hair, pieces of rags, small plastic pieces) can get into the collection system. Some solids pass through the pump screen. Other solids could make their way into the collection system through, for example, mishaps during construction (on-site or in rights-of-way), illicit connections, or modifications to components of the system (such as removal of the pump screen). MBR membranes can be susceptible to damage from such debris; therefore a mechanical fine screen is recommended.

Odor control is required because foul odors will be released when STEP effluent is discharged from the pressurized sewers to the headworks channels and fine screens. Also, the screenings collected at the headworks have the potential for odor production.


Mechanical fine screens are recommended for the headworks, with washing, compacting, and conveyance of screenings to a trash receptacle. Two screens will be provided, each sized for the buildout peak flow; one screen is the duty screen and the other is the backup. Potential sources of odor will be individually covered or be in an enclosure, to isolate them from the atmosphere and minimize the amount of air to be scrubbed. The headworks will be housed in a covered, open-sided structure.


14

MBR Treatment and Emergency Storage

2005 Recommendation

The 2005 Facility Plan recommended a membrane bioreactor treatment process with 0.085 mgd capacity, anoxic basins for nitrogen reduction, aerobic basins for oxygenation, immersed membranes for clarification, and 20 days of emergency storage for reliability.

Reasons for Updates

Larger Phase 1 Sewer Service Area

The larger Phase 1 sewer service area, coupled with the assumption that all existing residents will connect in the first year, requires more treatment capacity to be constructed initially.

Revised Nitrogen Regulations

The Washington Departments of Ecology and Health are revising the regulations for reclaimed water use, and the proposed revisions may require more nitrogen removal at the Freeland treatment plant. WAC 173-219-700 is proposed to regulate groundwater recharge through surface percolation or direct discharge. The draft regulation would require that “Total nitrogen measured in the final, disinfected reclaimed water prior to groundwater recharge must not exceed a monthly average of 10 mg/L or a sample maximum of 15 mg/L.” It also would require that enforceable limits be established at levels that will protect groundwater quality, based on state Drinking Water Standards and Water Quality Standards for groundwater. The previous draft was based on not exceeding 5 mg/L at the property line of the reuse site or possibly before discharge to the reuse site.

Additional changes to the draft regulations are expected during the public comment and finalization process. To be conservative pending final revisions of the regulations, it is proposed that the Freeland treatment plant be designed to not exceed a monthly average total nitrogen concentration of 5 mg/L, which is half of the drinking water limit. This is warranted because reclaimed water is proposed to be applied within 50 feet of the border of Freeland’s reuse site, and additional analysis is needed during design to determine how much dilution or nitrogen removal will occur between the point of application and the property line or ultimate point of compliance determined by Ecology or DOH. This recommendation will be reviewed during design to ensure that a level of nitrogen removal is provided that is consistent with the final regulations, design-level hydrogeological modeling of dilution at the reuse site, and design-level analysis of nutrient uptake by vegetation in the reuse area.

Emergency Storage Requirements

To meet state requirements for Class A treatment reliability, the 2005 Facility Plan proposed open earthen storage ponds for emergency storage of untreated or partially treated wastewater, with capacity for up to20 days of treatment plant flow. In 2005, the reliability requirements were in the 1997 Water Reclamation and Reuse Standards, and they are currently in the August 2008 Criteria for Sewage Works Design(Orange Book; Section E1-3.2). Changes to the proposed emergency storage ponds were required forseveral reasons:

• Foul Odors—The District is in the process of acquiring a 10-acre treatment plant site between Timber Lane and Bush Point Road, as shown in Figure 1; this is the same location as presented in the 2005 Facility Plan. Homes near the site, such as the existing homes on Timber Lane, would be severely impacted by odors if open storage ponds were filled with STEP effluent during a plant shutdown. This is expected to be a rare occurrence, but the District determined that this would be unacceptable and that changes are needed to prevent


15

odors from the basins. This requires covering the storage basins to capture off-gases and providing an odor scrubber system to remove the odors.

• Limited Space—The treatment plant site has a triangular configuration, with acreage similar to what was shown in the 2005 Plan, and it is not suitable for large 20-day storage basins. The change in shape of the proposed site was at the seller’s request. Changes are needed to reduce the size of the storage basins such as by reducing the detention times and using different types of basins or tanks with smaller footprints.

• MBR Reliability—Since 2005, MBR units have demonstrated good reliability. This makes it feasible to ensure reliable MBR treatment with a 1-day storage basin, extensive automatic standby equipment and controls, and plant operators on-call 7-days a week to correct breakdowns in one day or less. This approach is allowed in the current Orange Book reliability regulations. It also has lower capital and operating costs than providing a fully redundant MBR treatment train.

To address all these issues, it is assumed for design purposes that emergency storage will provide enough volume to store one day of flow through one MBR treatment train.


The current plan for the MBR and emergency storage basins includes constructing the concrete tanks for four MBR trains as part of initial construction, fitting two of the trains with MBR equipment, and using the tanks of the two unused trains for emergency storage. The proposed treatment capacity in the initial two MBR treatment trains will accommodate the increased flows from the expanded Phase 1 sewer service area, as well as projected maximum-month flows through 2023. At that time, one of the trains used for emergency storage will be converted to provide a third MBR treatment train, and supplemental emergency storage will be provided in new aerated sludge holding tanks to replace the lost emergency storage capacity. The fourth MBR treatment train is projected to be needed in 2037 to handle flows through buildout in 2055. Alternatives for maintaining adequate emergency storage after conversion of the final tank train will be evaluated at that time.

To provide the appropriate level of nitrogen removal, the MBR biological treatment process upstream of the membranes will include pre-anoxic tanks, aeration tanks, post-anoxic tanks and chemical addition of methanol or similar carbon source to facilitate advanced nitrification and denitrification.

All the MBR tanks, including those used initially for emergency storage, will have covers and odor control to prevent release of foul odors.

Disinfection

2005 Recommendation

The 2005 Facility Plan recommended using a 12-percent solution of sodium hypochlorite followed by conveyance through a chlorine contact basin for disinfection.

Reasons for Updates

The Department of Ecology no longer recommends chlorine disinfection for reclaimed water reuse, primarily due to concerns about potential toxicity of chlorine disinfection byproducts. However, chlorination of reclaimed water, at a lower dose than needed for disinfection, is required to provide a chlorine residual in the water to prevent organism regrowth in the reclaimed water pipeline distribution system (or in this case the force main to the reuse area).


16


The current recommendation is to use an ultraviolet (UV) disinfection system. The proposed system’s initial configuration will provide a duty train and a complete backup train, both sized for one-half the buildout peak flow. In about 2037, a third train will be added so that there will be two duty trains with total capacity for buildout peak flow and one train as a backup in case one of the duty trains is out of service.

A small hypochlorite feed, as noted in the 2005 Facility Plan, will used to provide the required chlorine residual in the reclaimed water force main to the reuse site. The UV system type (closed vessel or open channel; low- or medium-pressure, etc.), brand, and model will be determined during the design process.

Solids Handling and Disposal

2005 Recommendation

The 2005 Facility Plan recommended partial stabilization of treatment plant solids in an aerated sludge-holding tank, then hauling the solids to the Island County Septage Treatment Facility for final stabilization and subsequent beneficial reuse by spreading on land.

Reasons for Updates

Island County has determined that its facility will not have the long-term capacity to receive all the projected solids from the Freeland treatment plant. As an alternative, the District has held discussions with the City of Langley about using its biosolids composting facility for disposal of the treatment plant solids. The Langley facility is the only nearby facility with capacity to accept solids from the Freeland treatment plant. It has sufficient capacity to accept Freeland treatment plant thickened wastewater solids for an estimated 8 years or more. City staff have indicated interest in expanding their composting operation in the future if demand is sufficient to support the monetary expenditure.

The City of Langley charges by the gallon for solids that it receives. Costs to haul solids are also on a per-gallon basis. Therefore, there is a potential cost benefit in concentrating solids at the Freeland treatment plant to minimize disposal and hauling fees. The City of Langley prefers to receive solids at a thickened concentration of no more than about 3 percent. The treatment plant’s raw solids will have a concentration of 0.8 to 1.2 percent; so thickening to 3 percent would cut disposal and hauling costs to one-third of that for unthickened solids. Also, the Langley facility does not have the near- or long-term capacity to accept unthickened solids.


Thickened solids will be hauled to the City of Langley composting facility. A rotary drum thickener is recommended to provide solids thickening at the treatment plant. A rotary drum thickener is a relatively low-cost technology for concentrating solids to the desired level of 3 percent. Other technologies can provide more thickening, but they are more expensive, and the City of Langley prefers a concentration of no more than about 3 percent.

Standby Power

2005 RecommendationThe 2005 Facility Plan recommended a standby generator to power vital treatment plant facilities, with the standby power generation capacity to be increased over the course of the project life as power requirements increase.


17

Reasons for Updates

State and federal Class II reliability criteria for wastewater facilities state that “Capacity of backup power shall be sufficient to operate all vital components, during peak wastewater flow conditions, together with critical lighting and ventilation; except those vital components to support the secondary processes need not be included as long as treatment equivalent to sedimentation and disinfection is provided.”

The initial treatment facilities will be larger than proposed in the 2005 Facility Plan because of the change in projections for population, flows, and loads. There are also additional power-consuming processes and equipment that were not proposed in 2005, such as the headworks mechanical screen and odor control and ultraviolet light for disinfection.


The standby generator to be provided during initial treatment plant construction will have sufficient capacity for the facilities until about 2037. Depending on the actual rate of flow increase over the years and the specific equipment installed, the capacity may be sufficient beyond that year.

Odor Control

2005 Recommendation

The 2005 Facility Plan did not include odor control at the treatment plant because the primary sources of odor—septic tank effluent at the headworks and waste solids from the MBR process—would be aerated immediately and therefore result in minimal odor generation potential.

Reasons for Updates

Based on comments from local residents, the District agreed to cover or enclose all tanks and potential odor sources at the treatment plant and provide scrubbing of odors in the air from those locations. In addition, current recommendations include potential odor-generating facilities that were not included in the 2005 Facility Plan: a screening at the headworks and thickening of partially stabilized waste solids.


The plant will have an odor control system that will treat air collected from all covered tanks and other potential odors sources at the plant. The current plan is to have one centralized treatment facility that uses activated carbon as the treatment medium. Evaluation to reduce costs for controlling odors can be performed during the design process once tank and structure locations are determined.

Treatment Plant Capacity Expansion

2005 Recommendation

The 2005 Facility Plan outlined phased expansion of the collection system, with expansion of the treatment plant approximately corresponding to the collection system phasing. The proposed capacity of the plant at startup under the 2005 proposed phasing was 0.085 mgd.

Reasons for Updates

Because of the revised collection system phasing presented in this PER, flows to the treatment plant at startup in 2015 are significantly higher than startup flows estimated in the 2005 Facility Plan, and the growth rate of flows from 2015 through 2025 has changed. This means that the initial capacity of treatment plant facilities must be greater than proposed in the 2005 Facility Plan and a cost-effective plan is needed for expanding the plant as the sewered population in the District grows.


18


The current recommendation for initial and future treatment plant facility sizing is as follows:

• Startup in 2015:

– Headworks mechanical screening capacity = 1.84 mgd (buildout peak-hour flow)

– MBR treatment capacity (in two trains @ 0.17 mgd) = 0.34 mgd (approximate 2023 maximum-month flow and half of the buildout maximum-month flow)

– UV disinfection capacity = 0.92 mgd (half of buildout peak flow)

– Emergency storage capacity (in two future MBR trains @ 0.125 million gallons) = 0.25 million gallons (MG)

– Aerated sludge holding tank capacity (in two tanks @ 0.02 MG) = 0.04 MG

– Rotary drum thickener capacity = 30 gallons per minute (adequate through buildout)

– Odor control unit with capacity adequate through 2037

• Expansion in 2023:

– Convert one 0.17-mgd tank train from emergency storage to MBR treatment, for total treatment capacity = 0.51 mgd (approximate 2037 maximum-month flow)

– Add one 0.94-mgd UV disinfection train for total disinfection capacity = 1.84 mgd(buildout peak-hour flow)

– Add one 0.045-MG aerated sludge holding tank for total sludge holding capacity = 0.085 MG

– Add one 0.045-MG tank for emergency storage (and future aerated sludge holding) for total emergency storage = 0.17 MG

• Expansion in 2037:

– Convert one 0.17-mgd tank train from emergency storage to MBR treatment, for total treatment capacity = 0.68 mgd (buildout maximum-month flow)

– Evaluate alternatives for providing total emergency storage volume of 0.17 MG and implement selected alternative

– Expand odor control unit to provide capacity through buildout

RECLAIMED WATER REUSE

2005 RecommendationThe 2005 Facility Plan evaluated a number of alternatives for disposal of treated effluent and, based ontechnical, environmental and cost considerations, narrowed the options to slow-rate infiltration and surface percolation. Both options were to be evaluated further in later stages of project development. An evaluation of several potential sites near Freeland for land application resulted in selection of a former tree farm (Nolan-Benbow) site west of SR-525, approximately 2 miles from the recommended treatment plant site. A brief geotechnical evaluation was conducted at an old quarry on the tree farm site in 2005 to determine the feasibility of recharging groundwater with rapid infiltration percolation ponds in the quarry area. The evaluation was inconclusive, so further fieldwork and evaluation were recommended.


19

Reasons for UpdatesIn 2009, the District purchased 80 acres at the tree farm for use as a groundwater recharge site. The old quarry that was evaluated for the 2005 Facility Plan occupies approximately 10 acres of the property. A few acres are occupied by some small wetlands and the Enramada site (a local informal “cowboy chapel”), and the rest of the site is occupied by young trees. The District planned to locate storage and percolation ponds in the quarry area as proposed in the 2005 Facility Plan and potentially to recharge groundwater in the young forest area by applying water with sprinklers or other irrigation technology.

The 80-acre site is located in a 2200 acre drainage basin as shown in Figure 3. The basin is primarily forest and pasture with pockets of low and medium density residential areas, and it includes most of the former tree farm property shown in Figure 4. The basin drains to the south and terminates in a former saltwater wetland near Shore Meadow Road and Old Beach Road. The wetland has an extensive network of drainage ditches constructed by farmers decades ago, which now drain through a tide gate and culvert to Mutiny Bay.

A detailed geotechnical evaluation of the 80-acre site (see Appendix B) identified numerous alternating layers of glacial till and porous sand. These soil types have widely varying infiltration characteristics which make a single determination of infiltration rates and use of percolation ponds problematic. The evaluation used several types of analysis for the site, as summarized in Table 4.

According to the findings of the geotechnical evaluation, the acceptance rate of the reuse site is lower than originally expected, and it now appears necessary to recharge groundwater with slow infiltration across the entire site, primarily by applying reclaimed water to the tree areas. Furthermore it appears that the 80 acres only has capacity for 40 percent of buildout flows. Therefore, the amount of land required for design flow in later years will likely need to be expanded.

The dominant mechanism for transport of infiltrated water would be horizontal flow. Infiltrated water will likely flow long the first impermeable soil layer immediately under the sand and gravel top layers, following the slope of this contact until it reaches the surface and then flows as surface water. The slope of this contact likely follows the general topography of the site. Potential effects of this include discharge at the base of the slope in the drainage channel, wetlands or slope faces, with resulting surface water drainage issues such as increased flow to wetlands and drainages downgradient. Areas of particular concern include houses and wetlands east and south of the site.

An HSPF computer model was used to simulate potential surface runoff due to land application of the reclaimed water. The HSPF model simulates long-term surface water hydrology and considers the full extent of the hydrologic cycle, including rainfall and evapotranspiration, interception storage, and direct surface runoff. Model results suggest that groundwater recharge with an annual average application rate of 0.2 mgd can be accomplished without surface runoff from the site if storage is provided for three to five days to accommodate normal wet weather periods. Approximately two weeks of storage is needed for prolonged freezing conditions that could prevent application to the site and percolation into the ground.

The HSPF model also indicates that there may be a small increase in surface runoff from the reuse site during extreme storm events because the site will have less capacity to absorb heavy rainfall. For example during the most extreme storm event over a 50-year analysis period, the model indicates the peak runoff at the bottom of the entire 2,200 acre basin could increase 2 percent (from 105 to 107 cfs) with an average application rate of 0.2 mgd (0.31 cfs) at the reuse site,, and 3 percent with a 0.5 mgd (0.77 cfs) application rate.. During years with average or above average rainfall, the model indicates the annual volume of surface runoff at the bottom of the basin could increase 5 to 10 percent with a 0.2 mgd application rate and 10 to 15 percent with a 0.5 mgd application rate. These are approximate estimates using conservative


20

assumptions. For instance this analyais does not consider storage in the wetlands that could limit increases in wetland water levels to less than 1 inch. Further analyses will be conducted to better quantify potential changes in surface runoff and water levels.

Reuse site

Drainage basin


21

Figure 3. Drainage Basin Surrounding Reuse Site

Reuse site

Tree Farm Property

Figure 4. Tree Farm Property and Reuse Site


22

TABLE 4.SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATIONS

Evaluation Type Finding Comment

Potential infiltration rates Slow-rate infiltration Pilot test required during final design

Water balance Capacity to accept 0.25 mgd of reclaimed water

December is critical month

Soil storage capacity 94 days at 0.5 mgd, 235 days at 0.2 mgd

Sufficient to span seasonal changes in water balance at 0.2-mgd loading

Groundwater velocity 15—150 days Average travel time is sufficient to balance seasonal flows

Groundwater flow Transmission capacity of 0.7 mgd based on simplified analysis.

Needs modeling during final design

Groundwater mounding 8-foot increase at 0.2 mgd Acceptable

Potential nitrate loading capacity No net increase Metabolized by area vegetation

Capacity for discharge at site 0.2 mgd Additional land required for discharge > 0.2 mgd


Reuse Site Facilities and Future Studies

Because of the nature of the soil at the reuse site, slow-rate infiltration is now assumed as the method of application. The reuse water supply facilities at the site would consist of a storage pond, distribution pump station, and spray irrigation system or equivalent application system. The pond would have capacity to store 14 days of average annual flow to tolerate extended periods of freezing weather. It would also provide substantial storage capacity for warmer wet-weather periods.

Further study will be performed to better define the potential local and downstream effects of the proposed groundwater recharge. Study findings will be used for design and operation measures such as additional land application area, seasonal storage, timing and/or rotation of application sites, or improved drainage facilities at or near the property boundaries and further downstream as needed.

Reuse Site Capacity Expansion

Based on current geotechnical information, the initial 80-acre site has capacity for discharge of about 0.2 mgd, which is 40 percent of the 0.5-mgd annual average buildout flow. Additional property for water reuse and additional wet-weather storage will likely be required when the treatment plant is expanded:

• The initial 80-acre reuse area currently owned by the District will be completed by the end of 2014. The storage pond will have a capacity of 3.5 MG to store 14 days of the estimated 0.25-mgd average annual flow for 2023, when treatment plant expansion is expected.

• Up to 80 additional acres could be developed in 2023, depending on the performance of the initial 80 acres. The storage pond and pumping capacity would also have to be increased, to accommodate flows through 2037.


23

• Up to 40 additional acres could be developed in 2037, depending on the performance of the initial 80 acres and added acreage. The storage pond and pumping capacity would again have to be increased, to accommodate flows through buildout at 2055.

The District has a letter of support from Island County that will enable application of reclaimed water to additional areas of the tree farm if the District’s initial 80-acre site has insufficient capacity to accept all of the reclaimed water flow. The Whidbey Camano Land Trust is in the process of acquiring the rest of the tree farm site, which includes over 664 acres, and plans to deed the land to Island County to manage it as public park and open space. The District also has the opportunity to purchase additional tree farm land if the Trust’s planned purchase of the tree farm site falls through. The support letter is in Appendix C of this PER.

24

CHAPTER 3.CURRENT RECOMMENDED PROJECT

The analyses and rationales used to identify a recommendation for the Freeland sewage collection and treatment systems are presented in detail in the 2005 Facility Plan, in Chapter 2 and the appendices of this PER, and in the separately submitted environmental documents for the project. The complete recommendation resulting from these efforts is summarized in the following sections, along with a cost analysis, finance plan and discussion of issues for project implementation.

PROJECT LOCATIONThe recommended project will be built in the following locations:

• The complete sewer service area (for Phase 1 and Phase 2) is bordered by Holmes Harbor to the north, Honeymoon Bay Road to the west, Scenic Drive to the south, and Newman and Scott Roads to the east. It covers 684 acres, located in Sections 3, 10, 11, 14, and 15 Township 29 North, Range 2 East Willamette Meridian (W.M.).

• The proposed treatment plant site is a 10-acre parcel outside the Freeland NMUGA south of East Bush Point Road, located in Section 9, Township 29 North, Range 2 East W.M.

• The proposed reuse area is an 80-acre property northwest of the NMUGA, located in Section 5, Township 29 North, Range 2 East W.M.

Figure 5 shows the Phase 1 and Phase 2 service areas, the treatment plant site, and the reuse area.

DESIGN DATAAppendix D presents the design data for the recommended sewage collection, treatment and reusefacilities. Table 5 summarizes current projections for sewered population, service connections, wastewater flow and wastewater loads for key years throughout the life of the project.

TABLE 5.PROJECTED POPULATION, SEWER CONNECTIONS AND FLOWS OVER PROJECT LIFE

Sewer Flow (mgd) BOD Load (ppd)

YearConnections

(ERUs)Sewered

PopulationMaximum

MonthAnnual Average

Maximum Month

Annual Average

2014 610 1,427 0.18 0.13 323 161

2015 664 1,555 0.19 0.14 352 176

2023 1,313 3,077 0.35 0.25 697 348

2025 1,557 3,643 0.41 0.29 826 413

2037 2,058 4,816 0.50 0.36 1022 511

2055 3,129 7,322 0.68 0.50 1408 704

Honeymoon Bay Honeymoon Bay Honeymoon Bay

Slocum Slocum Slocum

Tara Tara Tara

Stewart Stewart Stewart

SR 5

25SR

525

SR 5

25

Mai

nM

ain

Mutiny

Bay

Mutiny

Bay

Mutiny

Bay

Sce

nic

Sce

nic

East H

arbor

East H

arbor

Newman

Newman

Fish Fish Fish

Cameron Cameron Cameron

Ber

cot

Ber

cot

Ber

cot

Bus

h P

oint

Bus

h P

oint

Bus

h P

oint

Harbor Harbor Harbor

Myrtle Myrtle Myrtle

Sho

revi

ewS

hore

view


Dus

tyD

usty

Dus

tyWat

kins

Wat

kins

Freeland Freeland Freeland

Scot

tSc

ott

Scot

t

Long

Long

Osprey Osprey Osprey

Apple Tree Apple Tree Apple Tree

Ree

dR

eed

Twin

O

aks

Twin

O

aks

Twin

O

aks

Tim

ber

Tim

ber

Layt

onLa

yton

Mutiny Sands Mutiny Sands Mutiny Sands

Cat

tail

Cat

tail

Joan

neJo

anne

Lotto Lotto Lotto

Hol

lyhill

Hol

lyhill

Hol

lyhill

Rox

linR

oxlin

CherryCherryCherry

Shi

ps H

aven

Shi

ps H

aven

Shi

ps H

aven

Vinto

nVi

nton

Vesel Vesel Vesel

Hawksbeard Hawksbeard Hawksbeard

Pauleina Pauleina PauleinaCarie Carie Carie

Clipper Clipper Clipper

Dut

ch

Hol

low

Dut

ch

Hol

low

Dut

ch

Hol

low

Hol

mes

Har

bor

Hol

mes

Har

bor

Mut

iny

Bay

Mut

iny

Bay

Mor

ning

side

Mor

ning

side

Diamond Diamond Diamond


Trea

tmen

tPl

ant S

iteTr

eatm

ent

Plan

t Site

Trea

tmen

tPl

ant S

ite

Reu

seA

rea

Reu

seA

rea

Reu

seA

rea

Pleasan

t Vie

w

Pleasan

t Vie

w

Pleasan

t Vie

w

Dorse

yDor

sey

Dorse

yLy

nne

Lynn

eLy

nne

Haze

n Shores

Haze

n Shores

Haze

n Shores

Rec

laim

ed-W

ater

Pip

elin

eto

Reu

se A

rea

Rec

laim

ed-W

ater

Pip

elin

eto

Reu

se A

rea

Rec

laim

ed-W

ater

Pip

elin

eto

Reu

se A

rea

500’

1,00

0’2,

000’

App

roxi

mat

e S

cale

:1”

= 2

,000

’

0

Pha

se 1

col

lect

ion

syst

em p

ipin

gP

hase

2 c

olle

ctio

n sy

stem

pip

ing

Rec

laim

ed w

ater

con

veya

nce

pipe

line

(incl

uded

in P

hase

1)

Pha

se 1

ser

vice

are

aP

hase

2 s

ervi

ce a

rea

LEG

END

Free

land

Wat

er a

nd S

ewer

Dis

trict

PREL

IMIN

ARY

EN

GIN

EER

ING

REP

OR

T FO

R N

EW

SEW

AG

E C

OLL

ECTI

ON

AN

D T

REA

TMEN

T SY

STEM

135-21646-10001/ProjectPhasing.ai

Figu

re 5

.P

RO

PO

SE

D C

OLL

EC

TIO

N S

YS

TEM

P

IPIN

G A

ND

PH

AS

ING

1420

Fift

h A

venu

e, S

uite

600

Seat

tle, W

ashi

ngto

n 98

101

Tel 2

06.8

83.9

300

Fax

206

.883

-930

1


26

RECOMMENDED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS

STEP Collection SystemWastewater will be collected from each structure using a STEP system that will transport septic tank effluent to the treatment plant. The District will own the system components on each property, with property access easements for installation and maintenance of the equipment. The STEP pump/piping system connecting the septic tank to the system sewer mains will have a check valve to prevent backflow from the collection system and a shut-off valve to allow complete isolation so the pump can be removed for servicing. A large portion of the raw wastewater solids settle or are screened out and stay in the septic tank, requiring periodic pumping for removal; some solids enter the collection system by passing through the pump screen or other means.

The sewers associated with the STEP system will be force mains installed at relatively shallow depths andgenerally follow the ground contours. Proposed sewer locations are shown in Figure 5. Collection system pipes will include 1.5-inch service laterals and pressure mains 2 to 12 inches in diameter. Table 6 lists the lengths of each size of pressure main to be installed. There do not need to be any booster pump stations in the collection system because the STEP pumps provide sufficient pressure to push the flow to the wastewater treatment plant.

TABLE 6.LENGTH OF SEWER PIPES TO BE INSTALLED BY SIZE AND PHASE

Length of Sewers to Be Installed (feet)Description Phase 1 Phase 2

2" Pressure Mains 30,000 14,900



6" Pressure Mains 7,300 0

8" Pressure Mains 5,600 0

12" Pressure Mains 700 0

Total 61,100 19,900

Treatment PlantThe treatment plant facilities will include raw wastewater screening, removal of BOD and nitrogen, advanced filtration, disinfection, effluent chlorination, effluent pumping, solids handling, and support facilities such as odor control. The proposed layout for the treatment plant site is shown in Figure 6. Figures 7 and 8 show the process schematic and hydraulic profile for the proposed treatment and reuse facilities. Individual processes are described in the following sections.

1

1

2

2

3

3

4

4

Adm

inBl

dgAd

min

Bldg

Adm

inBl

dgHe

adwo

rks

Head

work

sHe

adwo

rks

Mem

bran

eBi

orea

ctor

Mem

bran

eBi

orea

ctor

Mem

bran

eBi

orea

ctor

Emer

genc

ySe

wage

Stor

age T

anks

/Fu

ture

Mem

bran

eBi

orea

ctor

s

Emer

genc

ySe

wage

Stor

age T

anks

/Fu

ture

Mem

bran

eBi

orea

ctor

s

Emer

genc

ySe

wage

Stor

age T

anks

/Fu

ture

Mem

bran

eBi

orea

ctor

s

Mech

anica

lMe

chan

ical

Mech

anica

l

Stormwater Dispersion Drain



Stor

mwa

ter

Pond

Solid

sHa

ndlin

gSo

lids

Hand

ling

Solid

sHa

ndlin

g

Yard

Pum

p St

atio

nYa

rd P

ump

Stat

ion

Yard

Pum

p St

atio

n

Access

Road

Acce

ss R

oad

Access Road

Access Road

Easement

Bus

h P

oint

Roa

d

E. T

imbe

r Lan

e

Efflu

ent

Pum

p S

tatio

n

Efflu

ent

Pum

p S

tatio

n

Efflu

ent

Pum

p S

tatio

n

Odor

Con

trol

Odor

Con

trol

Odor

Con

trol

UV D

isinf

ectio

nUV

Disi

nfec

tion

UV D

isinf

ectio

n

50’

100’

200’

App

roxi

mat

e S

cale

:1”

= 2

00’

0

Lege

nd

Roa

d rig

ht o

f way

Pro

perty

bou

ndar

y

Tree

Pro

pose

d fa

cilit

ies

Pro

pose

d fu

ture

faci

litie

s

Bus

h P

oint

Rd.

TREA

TMEN

TPL

AN

TSI

TE

SR 525

S. Muti

ny Bay

Rd.

E. T

imbe

r Ln

.

135-21646-10001/TreatmentPlantSitePlan.ai

Figu

re 6

PR

OP

OS

ED

TR

EAT

ME

NT

PLA

NT

SIT

E P

LAN

1420

Fift

h A

venu

e, S

uite

600

Seat

tle, W

ashi

ngto

n 98

101

Tel 2

06.8

83.9

300

Fax

206

.883

-930

1

Free

land

Wat

er a

nd S

ewer

Dis

trict

PREL

IMIN

ARY

EN

GIN

EER

ING

REP

OR

T FO

R N

EW

SEW

AG

E C

OLL

ECTI

ON

AN

D T

REA

TMEN

T SY

STEM

Hea

dwor

ksw

ith F

ine

Scr

eens

Split

ter

Box

Aer

ated

Slu

dge

Hol

ding

Ta

nk

Thic

kene

d S

ludg

eA

erat

edH

oldi

ng

Tank

Thic

kene

r

Aero

bicBa

sinPo

st-An

oxic

Basin

Pre-

Anox

icBa

sinMe

mbra

neBa

sin

Effl

uent

Pum

p St

atio

nU

VD

isin

fect

ion

Effl

uent

R

euse

Fie

ld&

Rec

laim

edW

ater

Wet

-Wea

ther

Sto

rage

Mixe

d Liq

uor

Inte

rnal

Recy

le

Mixe

d Liq

uor R

etur

n

Mixe

d Liq

uor R

etur

n

Air

Air

Air

WAS

Plan

tIn

fluen

t

Chlor

ine

Polym

er

Yard

Pum

pS

tatio

n

WA

S T

rans

fer

Pum

ps Per

mea

te P

ump

Per

mea

te P

ump

Aero

bicBa

sinPo

st-An

oxic

Basin

Pre-

Anox

icBa

sinMe

mbra

neBa

sin

MBR Feed Channel

Mixe

d Liq

uor

Inte

rnal

Recy

leS

tand

byP

ump

Hau

l to

Sol

ids

Reu

se/

Dis

posa

l

Aer

atio

nB

low

erS

tand

byB

low

er

Sta

ndby

Blo

wer

s

MB

RB

low

ers

Aer

atio

nB

low

ers

Train

1

Train

2

Train

3

Train

4

Flow

from

Pr

oces

sTa

nkDr

ains

Tank

s in T

rains

3 &

4 use

d for

emer

genc

y stor

age

and i

nflue

nt flo

w eq

ualiz

ation

for in

itial

treatm

ent p

lant a

t star

tup

Figu

re 7

PR

OP

OS

ED

LIQ

UID

AN

D S

OLI

DS

TR

EAT

ME

NT

PR

OC

ES

S D

IAG

RA

M

135-21646-10001/TreatmentProcessSchematic.ai

Free

land

Wat

er a

nd S

ewer

Dis

trict

PREL

IMIN

ARY

EN

GIN

EER

ING

REP

OR

T FO

R N

EW

SEW

AG

E C

OLL

ECTI

ON

AN

D T

REA

TMEN

T SY

STEM

1420

Fift

h A

venu

e, S

uite

600

Seat

tle, W

ashi

ngto

n 98

101

Tel 2

06.8

83.9

300

Fax

206

.883

-930

1

Pro

cess

flow

Air

flow

Pum

p

Blo

wer

Futu

re (a

fter P

hase

1)

Lege

nd

NO

TES

:

MB

R =

Mem

bran

e B

iore

acto

r

WA

S =

Was

te A

ctiv

ated

Slu

dge

110'

120'

130'

150'

140'

130'

140'

138’

135’

133'

132'

135'

131'

134'

136'

144' Max. 10’

Split

ter

136’

Aera

ted

Slud

geHo

ldin

g Ta

nk13

6’

Thick

ened

Slud

ge A

erat

ed

Hold

ing

Tank

WAS

Pum

ps

Thick

ener

Pre-

Anox

ic

Yard

Pum

p St

atio

n

Aero

bic

Post

-An

oxic

Feed

Chan

nel MB

R

Perm

eate

Pum

ps

UVDi

sinfe

ctio

n

Efflu

ent

Pum

p St

atio

n

Recla

imed

Wat

er

Wet

-wea

ther

St

orag

e

Recla

imed

W

ater

Sur

face

Ap

plica

tion

Head

work

s

Air

Air

Air

Air

Polym

er

Chlor

ine

Mixe

d-Liq

uor

Inte

rnal

Recy

cle

Mixe

d Liq

uor R

etur

n

Tank

Dra

inage

Tank

Dr

ainag

e

WAS

Figu

re 8

PR

OP

OS

ED

HY

DR

AU

LIC

PR

OFI

LE

135-21646-10001/HydraulicProfile.ai

Free

land

Wat

er a

nd S

ewer

Dis

trict

PREL

IMIN

ARY

EN

GIN

EER

ING

REP

OR

T FO

R N

EW

SEW

AG

E C

OLL

ECTI

ON

AN

D T

REA

TMEN

T SY

STEM

1420

Fift

h A

venu

e, S

uite

600

Seat

tle, W

ashi

ngto

n 98

101

Tel 2

06.8

83.9

300

Fax

206

.883

-930

1


30

Headworks

The headworks will include the following:

• Flow measurement

• A sample collection site

• Mechanical fine screen (two units)

• Screenings washer and compactor, associated conveyance to a trash receptacle

• Odor control

Upon entering the plant, wastewater will be routed through the headworks, where the flow rate will be measured continuously, most likely using a Parshall flume, and samples of the influent will be collected for analysis.

A mechanical fine screen (2-mm hole size or other size depending on the specific MBR equipment ultimately chosen) will remove solids from the liquid stream that may damage the membranes or collect at the bottom of the process tanks. A second screen will be provided to meet reliability requirements; for a plant that produces Class A reclaimed water, it is necessary to have a standby screen to screen the wastewater should the primary screen be out of service. Both screens will have capacity for the projected buildout peak flow of 1.84 mgd.

The removed debris, called screenings, will be washed to remove fecal and other matter, compacted to squeeze out water and reduce the volume, then conveyed to a trash receptacle. The wash water will be routed back into the influent flow stream for treatment.

Potential sources of odor will be individually covered or be in an enclosure, to isolate them from the atmosphere and minimize the amount of air to be scrubbed. The influent channel will be covered with a solid cover (not a grating) and air will be pulled through the channel’s airspace, collected, and routed to an odor control facility.

The headworks will be housed in a covered structure for weather protection. The structure will be open-sided to minimize safety concerns about explosive gases and associated design requirements. Having raw sewage open to the atmosphere in the same enclosed space as mechanical or electrical equipment (the screen in this case being the largest piece) would result in that space being classified as hazardous under fire and other codes, thus requiring equipment to be specially designed to address those codes or other enclosed-space design elements to be incorporated. These extra design requirements could result in significant added costs.

Membrane Bioreactor

The District will use an MBR system for wastewater treatment to provide Class A reclaimed water. The MBR process combines the extended aeration activated sludge process (advanced secondary treatment) with a physical separation process using membranes immersed in the aerated basins (tertiary treatment).

After fine screening in the headworks, the wastewater will be piped to a series of tanks where the advanced secondary treatment process will take place. To be conservative pending final revisions of the regulations, it is proposed that the Freeland treatment plant be designed to produce effluent that will not exceed a monthly average total nitrogen concentration of 5 mg/L, which is half of the drinking water limit. To provide the appropriate level of nitrogen removal, the process upstream of the membranes will include pre-anoxic tanks, aeration tanks, post-anoxic tanks and chemical addition of methanol or similar carbon source to facilitate advanced nitrification and denitrification. In this process, aerobic bacteria

…3. CURRENT RECOMMENDED PROJECT

31

oxidize ammonia into nitrite and nitrite into nitrate, and anoxic bacteria subsequently reduce the nitrates to nitrogen gas, which bubbles off, reducing the total nitrogen concentration in the fluid. During design,the biological process will be confirmed to ensure that is it appropriate for 1) the applicable nitrogen limits in the state reclaimed water regulations, 2) nitrogen uptake by vegetation at design application rates, and 3) hydrogeologic analysis of dilution at the reuse site. If design analysis or operating experience shows that less nitrogen removal is needed at the treatment plant because, for example, there is significant nitrogen removal or dilution at the reuse site, then the biological treatment process can be simplified and run more economically by omitting chemical addition, similar to the biological process proposed in the 2005 Facility Plan.

Following the advanced secondary treatment, the wastewater will go to a set of tanks containing membranes for solids separation. The membranes are plates or hollow filaments immersed in the wastewater and perforated with many tiny pores, about 0.4 microns in diameter. Water flows through the pores and out of the tank by gravity or by vacuum pumping. The pore sizes are so small that water can pass through them but nearly all remaining solids as well as algae, most bacteria, and some viruses cannot. In addition, some substances that would otherwise pass through the pores (e.g., some forms of metals) adsorb to solids and are thus captured with the solids. Substances dissolved in the water, such as some forms of metals and organic compounds, can pass through the pores. By providing a positive barrier to remove virtually all particulate, colloidal and dissolved solids, the membranes produce an exceptional effluent quality, superior to that of extended aeration of activated sludge followed by conventional clarifiers and filters.

MBR equipment, including blowers, pumps, chemical addition facilities, motor control centers and control panels, will be housed in a mechanical building next to the MBR tanks. Tanks may be covered for odor control.

Treatment capacity will increase over the life of the project as follows:

• Initial construction will be completed at startup at the beginning of 2015 and will provide treatment capacity of 0.34 mgd, half of the buildout maximum-month flow.

• By 2023, the projected maximum-month flow will exceed the 0.34-mgd treatment capacity, so a third treatment train will be put in service to provide total capacity of 0.51 mgd.

• By 2037, the projected maximum-month flow will exceed the 0.51-mgd treatment capacity, so a fourth treatment train will be put in service to provide capacity for the maximum-month buildout flow of 0.68 mgd.

Emergency Storage

Emergency storage for untreated or partially treated wastewater will provide enough volume to store one day of flow through one MBR treatment train, or 0.17 MG. The current plan for emergency storage is to construct the concrete tanks for all four MBR trains during initial construction and use two unused trains for emergency storage. Each train will have a volume of 0.125 MG, providing a total storage capacity of 0.25 MG.

In 2023, one of the trains initially used for storage will be converted to MBR treatment. At that time, supplemental emergency storage will be provided in a new 0.45-MG aerated sludge-holding tank to retain a total emergency storage capacity of 0.17 MG.

The fourth train will be converted from emergency storage to MBR treatment in 2037. Alternatives for making up for that lost emergency storage capacity will be evaluated at that time (e.g. build concrete tank


32

that can be converted to treatment later, build earthen pond, or combination of treatment process upgrades or revisions to free up one tank train plus add an additional tank/pond).

During design, other options for providing emergency storage will be examined to determine if there is a more economical storage approach, such as by constructing a permanent storage tank, instead of interim use of MBR and sludge tanks for storage. Because emergency storage will retain odorous STEP effluent, it will be necessary to cover the tanks and treat the foul air in the odor control system.

Disinfection

After passing through the membranes, treated water will be subjected to disinfection as a final treatment step. The disinfection process kills pathogens in the water to a level that complies with Class A reclaimed water discharge permit requirements.

The plant will use an ultraviolet (UV) disinfection system. The UV system type (closed vessel or open channel; low- or medium-pressure, etc.), brand, and model will be determined during the design process.To address regulations for water reuse, a complete standby UV treatment train will be provided. Each UV treatment train will consist of two UV units in series, commensurate with requirements in Ecology’s Orange Book (August 2008). The UV process needs to have a peak-flow capacity of 1.84 mgd for the buildout condition. The configuration and schedule are as follows:

• Initial treatment plant (2015)—Two UV trains, each with a peak-flow capacity of 0.92 mgd (one duty, one standby)

• Treatment plant expansion (2023)—Three UV trains, each with a peak-flow capacity of 0.92 mgd (two duty, one standby)

The applicable regulations are currently being revised, so the configuration will be reviewed during the design phase to evaluate whether a less expensive configuration could meet the updated regulations.

Effluent Chlorination and Pumping

After disinfection, the final effluent will be routed to a pump station that will pump the effluent to thereclaimed water reuse site. In accordance with Ecology regulations, the final effluent (Class A reclaimed water) will be chlorinated to maintain a required chlorine residual throughout the reclaimed water piping system and prevent organism regrowth in the pipelines. The required chlorine dose will be much lower than would be required for disinfection. Hypochlorite is proposed for the source of chlorine. To meet reliability requirements, a redundant chlorine feed system will be provided.

Solids Handling

Solids will be removed from the wastewater liquid stream by regularly removing waste activated sludge (WAS) from the MBR tank. The removed WAS will be pumped to the solids handling process, consisting of the following components:

• Aerated sludge holding tank (0.02-MG capacity)

• Equipment building

• Sludge aeration blowers

• Sludge transfer pumps

• Polymer addition system

• Rotary drum thickener (30-gallon-per-minute capacity)


33

• Thickened sludge aerated holding tank (0.02-MG capacity)

• Pumping to tanker truck and hauling to Langley for treatment and reuse/disposal.

The WAS will be at a typical concentration of 0.8 to 1.2 percent solids. Decant thickening (stopping aeration in the sludge holding tank for several hours so that heavier solids can settle to the bottom andresulting supernatant can be removed from the top of the tank and returned to the MBR process) may be used, but it would increase solids concentration only slightly. The lack of aeration during decanting can create foul odors, so the sludge tank will be equipped with covers and an odor scrubber system to capture and remove odors. The aeration during storage partially stabilizes the solids (similar to but less extensive than an aerobic digester) and helps prevent the formation of foul odors.

Mechanical thickening to concentrate the waste sludge further will include pumping, polymer addition, and the rotary drum thickener. This process will increase the concentration of the WAS to about 3-percent solids and significantly reduce the volume of sludge and cost of sludge holding, hauling and disposal. The thickener system will be enclosed in a building equipped with foul air collection ductwork to capture and route odors to the odor treatment facility.

The thickened sludge will be stored in a separate, aerated sludge-holding tank for days to weeks,depending on the amount of sludge produced and how the system is operated, until it is trucked off-sitefor treatment and disposal. The thickened sludge is still a liquid (97 percent water), so a tanker truck is used for transport.

In the initial years of plant operation, thickened solids will be trucked to the City of Langley composting facility for further processing and subsequent reuse. Other options can be considered later, such as a combination of hauling to the City of Langley facility and the Island County Septage Facility, or contracting with a private firm that is permitted to handle and provide beneficial use of the biosolids or disposal. At the City of Langley’s facility, wastewater solids are aerobically digested, dewatered to about 16-percent solids, mixed with other materials such as yard waste, and composted. The finished product meets federal (40 CFR Part 503) and Washington State (Chapter 173-308 WAC) standards for use by the general public. The finished compost is made available to the public.

The only additional construction for solids handling facilities in the first 20 years will be the addition of two 0.045-MG aerated sludge-holding tanks and associated equipment in 2023. One will be used for additional temporary sludge storage and the other will be used to replace emergency storage lost when the third MBR treatment process train comes on line.

Potential possibilities for longer-term solids disposal after the first eight to 10 years of operation include an expanded City of Langley facility; a future Oak Harbor wastewater treatment facility, which is currently in the planning stages; and hauling off-island to other facilities. The possibility that Island County could expand its septage receiving facility or that a regional sludge/septage processing facility could be built may be explored.

Reliability and Redundancy

The treatment plant will incorporate measures to minimize the potential for overflows or production of effluent not meeting Class A reclaimed water requirements. State regulations require that the plant include redundancy for major equipment (e.g. screens, pumps, blowers, disinfection, etc.). The required redundancy is incorporated into the current recommendations as described in this chapter and summarized below:

• Screening—Standby mechanical screen with capacity equal to duty screen


34

• MBR treatment—Emergency storage with minimum capacity for one day of maximum-month flow through one MBR treatment train; standby MBR equipment as required by regulations

• Disinfection—Standby UV train with capacity equal to one-half of buildout peak flow

• Chlorination—Redundant hypochlorite feed system for effluent chlorine residual injection

District staff will perform regular maintenance of equipment and monitoring of unit processes. Appropriate staff will be on call 24 hours per day to correct any problems that may occur.

The plant will include a standby generator large enough to operate all vital treatment functions (pumping, aeration, instrumentation, control, etc.) during peak flow conditions, commensurate with EPA/Ecology Class II reliability criteria. Enough diesel fuel to run the generator for about three days will be stored in an above-ground fuel tank at the treatment plant. The generator will be housed in a sound-attenuating enclosure. The standby generator installed during initial treatment plant construction will have sufficient capacity until roughly 2037, depending on the actual rate of flow increase over the years and the specific equipment installed.

Treatment Plant Infrastructure and Ancillary Equipment

Operations Building

An operations building will be provided including a water quality laboratory, office space and restrooms for the plant operators, and a small maintenance work area. The laboratory will be equipped to perform routine monitoring needed for monthly reports to Ecology and to operate the plant. These facilities will be located in a separate building or in the mechanical building associated with the MBR treatment process.

Odor and Noise Control

Odor-producing processes and all outdoor tanks will be covered or otherwise enclosed, and air from these plant elements will be passed through odor treatment equipment before being released to the atmosphere. The current plan is to have one central location to situate the odor control equipment, with duct work constructed to capture foul air at the various odor sources. An activated carbon odor control system is proposed. During the design phase, the decision to use activated carbon and provide one central location can be reviewed in an effort to reduce cost and improve operation. Initial capacity will be adequate for odor control needs through 2037; additional capacity will be added at that time.

Equipment that produces excessive noise will be isolated or the noise reduced to meet local codes and District requirements. Methods typically used include noise-attenuating enclosures, placement inside structures, placement in an underground vault, or use of a different type of equipment.

Plant Drain System

All the treatment and stormwater basins will be equipped with drain pipes that discharge to a plant drain pump station, which will pump flows to the headworks for treatment. This will expedite draining basinsfor maintenance. The pump station will be used to convey STEP effluent from emergency storage back to the headworks.

Access Roads

The proposed primary access to the treatment plant will be from Bush Point Road via a property easement to the northeast corner of the plant. A secondary access, for emergency use, is proposed to be via Timber


35

Lane at the southwest corner of the plant property. The roads will be designed to Island County standards and to accommodate emergency vehicles and expected truck traffic.

Utilities

Construction and operation of the treatment plant will require extension of electric, communications and water utilities to the interior of the property where the treatment plant facilities will be situated.

Stormwater Management

Stormwater at the treatment plant site will be treated for quantity and quality in accordance with the Department of Ecology’s 2005 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (Ecology 2005) and Island County regulations.

A 1-acre-foot combination detention/water quality facility (200-by-80-foot acres in size and 6 feet deep)will use the bottom 0.2 acre-feet of storage for water quality treatment and the upper 0.8 acre-feet for detention storage. This pond is designed to meet the basic water quality treatment standard and the flow duration control standard, assuming a forested predeveloped condition for a 2.7-acre developed site with 2.1 acres of new impervious area contributing runoff to the stormwater facility.

Access roads to the plant will not drain toward the proposed stormwater pond. Water quantity control for runoff from the access roads will be treated through dispersion on undeveloped land on the property downstream of the road. Water quality treatment for the access roads will be provided by a filter strip with existing vegetation.

Use of low-impact development techniques to treat runoff and designs to reduce proposed impervious surfaces will be investigated in subsequent phases of the project.

Landscaping and Property Buffers

The developed areas of the plant property will be located to provide buffers commensurate with Island County regulations and to meet requirements that Freeland Water and Sewer District agrees to with District ratepayers or other parties. Landscaping will be provided in similar fashion, at a minimum.

Reclaimed Water ReuseGroundwater recharge by slow infiltration is the recommended approach for reclaimed water reuse. The reuse site includes storage basins and irrigation systems to apply the reclaimed water to the surface and allow it to percolate into the groundwater. The proposed layout for the site is shown in Figure 9.

Slow infiltration would consist of spray or drip discharge systems similar to those used for irrigation or land application, applied over large areas, in both sandy and till soil areas. Typically these systems use multiple dosing areas, which are rotated to allow each area to absorb and dissipate the applied water.Reclaimed water infiltrates through the soil to the groundwater below. The level of wastewater treatment required for groundwater percolation is Class A reclaimed water.

The reuse site will be designed to comply with rules in force at the time of facility design (WAC 173-219-700, Groundwater recharge—percolation to groundwater). For planning purposes, the more stringent draft rule has been used. The treated effluent will be used to recharge groundwater beneath the site and will meet Class A requirements as adopted by the time of initial operations in 2015. Monitoring wells will be installed at the property boundary and other locations.

110

110

110

100100100

909090

909090100100100110

110110120120120

130130130

130

130

130

150

150

150

150

150

150

160

160

160

170

170

170

170

170

170

180

180

180

180

180

180

808080707070

606060505050

120

120

120

130

130

130

140

140

140

150

150

150

160

160

160

170

170

170

180

180

180

190

190

190

200200200

Former Quarry Siteto Be Used

for ReclaimedWater

StorageLagoons

Enramada

AccessEasement

AccessEasement

AccessEasement

75’ 150’ 300’

Approximate Scale:1” = 300’

0

Legend

Road

Property boundary

10’ topographic contour

Wetland

Drainage course

Wetland/drainage course buffer

50’ property line buffer

Irrigation spray area

S. Bounty Rd.

Bush Point Rd.

E. MeadowbrookLn.

Ollom

Dr.

S. S

hore Meadow

Rd.

REUSESITE

S. Mutiny Bay R

d.

SR 525

Freeland Water and Sewer DistrictPRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT FOR NEW SEWAGE COLLECTION AND TREATMENT SYSTEM

135-21646-10001/ReuseS

itePlan.ai

Figure 9PROPOSED REUSE SITE PLAN1420 Fifth Avenue, Suite 600

Seattle, Washington 98101Tel 206.883.9300 Fax 206.883-9301


37

Reclaimed water will be pumped from the effluent pump station at the treatment plant to the storage pond at the reuse site through a force main about 10 inches in diameter. The pipeline is currently proposed to be placed in the treatment plant’s primary access road, then west on Bush Point Road, then north on Shore Meadow Road, then in an access easement to the reuse site.

The reuse water supply facilities at the site will consist of a 3.5-MG storage pond and distribution pump station. The distribution system will use impact-type sprinklers on 4- to 6-foot-tall risers, arranged to follow the contours of the land and maximize lateral spreading. Each group of sprinklers will be activated by a control valve receiving its signal from the treatment plant. A low-pressure alarm/valve shutoff will be provided in the event of pipe failure to avoid flooding. The piping will be flexible high-density polyethylene (HDPE) lying on the ground surface to avoid disruption of site vegetation. Automatic drain lines to various pipe segments will be provided for freeze protection.

The distribution system will operate to serve individual parcels of the site separately, according to reuse application rates to be determined from further geotechnical evaluation and modeling during design. Watered areas will be rotated to allow applied water to be absorbed and dissipated prior to the next application. As actual experience is obtained, application rates will be adjusted and the parcels may be reconfigured by relocating some of the control valves.

Further study will be performed to better define potential effects of the proposed groundwater recharge. Study findings will be used for design and operation measures such as additional land application area, seasonal storage, timing and/or rotation of application sites, or improved drainage facilities at or near the property boundaries and further downstream as needed.

Based on current geotechnical information, the initial 80-acre site has capacity for discharge of about 0.2 mgd, which is 40 percent of the 0.5-mgd annual average buildout flow. Additional property for water reuse and additional wet-weather storage will be required when the treatment plant is expanded:

• The initial 80-acre reuse area currently owned by the District will be completed by the end of 2014. The storage pond will have a capacity of 3.5 MG to store 14 days of the estimated0.25-mgd average annual flow for 2023, when treatment plant expansion is expected.

• Up to 80 additional acres could be developed in 2023, depending on the performance of the initial 80 acres. The storage pond and pumping capacity would also have to be increased, to accommodate flows through 2037.

• Up to 40 additional acres could be developed in 2037, depending on the performance of the initial 80 acres and added acreage. The storage pond and pumping capacity would again have to be increased, to accommodate flows through buildout at 2055.

Table 7 summarizes reuse site elements included in each step of the site’s development.


38

TABLE 7.PROPOSED REUSE FACILITIES

Item Description

Initial Construction, 2014

Gravel access road To storage pond site from Bush Point Road

Power to site 480 volt / 3 phase, transformer, power panel

Fiber optic cable from plant Control panel at reuse site

3.5-MG storage pond 14 days capacity at 2023 average annual flow (0.25 mgd)

Earthen embankment with 3:1 side slopes

Approximate dimensions 255 x 255 x 12 feet

Chain link fence around pond perimeter

Reuse supply pump station Two 15-hp pumps with controls

Land required 80 acres currently owned

Reuse distribution system (per acre) 60 acres utilized

Sprinkler control valve with control at pump station / treatment plant

Low pressure alarm/shutoff if pipe failure

Four impact sprinklers with 50 foot radius per acre

Exposed HDPE piping system to avoid impact on vegetation

Automatic dewatering at end of cycle (freeze protection)

First Expansion, 2023

3.5-MG storage pond Same as Phase 1

Reuse supply pump station Add two 15-hp pumps with controls

Land required 80 acres to be acquired

Reuse distribution system (per acre) 60-80 acres utilized

Facilities same as initial construction

Final Expansion, 2037

Land required 40 acres to be acquired

Reuse distribution system (per acre) 30-40 acres utilized

Facilities same as initial construction


39

Estimated Capital CostsEstimated capital costs in 2010 dollars for the initial proposed facilities are shown in Table 8. The capital cost represents the total cost for implementation of the recommended project. It includes equipment costs; installation costs for piping, electrical and controls; site work; mobilization, demobilization and bonding; contractor overhead and profit; planning-level contingency; engineering design and construction management; and Washington state sales tax. Table 9 shows capital costs for each year through 2035 (20 years after startup). Appendix E presents details of the cost estimates.

TABLE 8.ESTIMATED CAPITAL COST OF INITIAL PROPOSED FACILITIES

Facility Cost

Collection System—Shared Costs $3,148,000Collection System—On-Site Costs $2,009,000Treatment System $8,665,000Solids Handling $1,255,000 Reclaimed Water Reuse $3,459,000

Construction Cost Subtotal $18,536,000

Contingency @ 20% $3,707,000Engineering Designa $2,959,000Construction Management @ 10% $2,035,000Sales Tax @ 8.7% $1,935,000

Total Capital Cost $29,172,000

a. Engineering design @ 5% for onsite portion of collection system, 15% for all other elements

SHORT-LIVED ASSETSShort-lived assets for the proposed project were identified along with estimated replacement costs. Short-lived assets are equipment and structures with estimated life spans of 5, 10, and 15 years. Their replacement costs are estimated without inflation to provide an estimate of the reserves needed to ensure adequate funding to replace these assets when needed. A list of identified short-lived assets is presented in Appendix E. These short-lived assets were identified from the capital cost estimate spreadsheets also located in Appendix E.

Replacement costs for short-lived assets were estimated by applying a percentage of replacement value that would be needed for each asset in the 1- to 5-year, 5- to 10-year, and 10- to 15-year time horizons. These percentages were applied to the base cost (from the capital cost estimate spreadsheets) to estimate a reserve amount needed for each item at the indicated time period. For example, a travelling bridge crane has an estimated 50-percent replacement cost needed in the 10-15 year time horizon, and no estimated replacement cost needed in the prior time horizons. This is because it is estimated that the hoist and motor assembly may need to be replaced after 10-years of service, but the steel framework and overhead bridge assembly will not need to be replaced because it has a service life longer than 20 years. This evaluation was completed for all identified short lived assets.

Design Design Construction ConstructionYear 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

*Connected ERUs 0 0 0 610 664 724 787 858 934 1017 1107 1206 1313 1430 1557 1593 1631 1669 1710 1749 1790 1831 1876 1919 1964Base Flow (mgd) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.086 0.093 0.102 0.110 0.120 0.131 0.143 0.155 0.169 0.184 0.201 0.219 0.224 0.229 0.234 0.240 0.246 0.251 0.257 0.263 0.269 0.276

Max Monthly Flow 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.180 0.195 0.212 0.230 0.250 0.272 0.295 0.320 0.348 0.378 0.410 0.417 0.424 0.431 0.439 0.446 0.454 0.461 0.469 0.477 0.485SEWAGE COLLECTION - STEP SYSTEMCapital Cost Estimate

Total Estimated Capital Cost $275,264 $275,264 $3,578,236 $3,578,236 $474,000 $532,000 $563,000 $635,000 $688,000 $758,000 $824,000 $909,000 $994,000 $1,095,000 $2,250,000 $238,000 $251,000 $251,000 $271,000 $258,000 $271,000 $271,000 $297,000 $284,000 $297,000Total Estimated Capital Cost - Onsite $94,441 $94,441 $2,147,559 $2,147,559 $474,000 $532,000 $563,000 $635,000 $688,000 $758,000 $824,000 $909,000 $994,000 $1,095,000 $1,191,000 $238,000 $251,000 $251,000 $271,000 $258,000 $271,000 $271,000 $297,000 $284,000 $297,000

Total Estimated Capital Cost - Shared $180,823 $180,823 $1,430,677 $1,430,677 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,059,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Total Annual Cost $76,557 $85,770 $95,444 $106,346 $118,016 $130,761 $144,581 $159,782 $176,212 $194,178 $213,679 $219,207 $225,042 $230,877 $237,173 $243,161 $249,457 $255,753 $262,663 $269,265 $276,175Total Annual Cost with Replacement Costs $153,105 $168,550 $184,798 $203,114 $222,793 $244,343 $267,731 $293,472 $321,408 $352,018 $391,863 $400,414 $409,439 $418,464 $428,202 $437,464 $447,202 $456,940 $467,627 $477,840 $488,528

WASTEWATER TREATMENTCapital Cost Estimate

Total Estimated Capital Cost $779,828 $779,828 $6,171,172 $6,171,172 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,654,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Total Annual Cost $136,110 $153,003 $160,132 $168,166 $176,766 $186,158 $196,342 $207,545 $219,653 $232,892 $247,263 $252,093 $255,846 $259,599 $263,648 $267,500 $271,549 $275,598 $280,042 $284,289 $288,733Total Annual Cost with Replacement Costs $218,508 $235,401 $242,530 $250,564 $259,164 $268,556 $278,740 $289,943 $302,050 $331,759 $346,130 $350,960 $354,713 $358,466 $362,515 $366,367 $370,416 $374,465 $378,909 $383,156 $387,600

PROJECTED CASH FLOWTABLE 9.

SOLIDS HANDLINGCapital Cost Estimate

Total Estimated Capital Cost $112,971 $112,971 $894,029 $894,029 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $987,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Total Annual Cost $66,465 $69,884 $73,474 $77,520 $81,851 $86,581 $91,710 $97,351 $103,449 $110,116 $117,354 $119,405 $121,571 $123,736 $126,072 $128,295 $130,631 $132,968 $135,532 $137,983 $140,547Total Annual Cost with Replacement Costs $77,923 $81,206 $84,653 $88,538 $92,697 $97,238 $102,163 $107,580 $113,435 $119,837 $126,786 $128,756 $130,835 $132,914 $135,158 $137,292 $139,535 $141,778 $144,241 $146,594 $149,056

RECLAIMED WATER STORAGE AND REUSE (incl. Conveyance to Disposal Site)Capital Cost Estimate

Total Estimated Capital Cost $311,280 $311,280 $2,463,220 $2,463,220 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,088,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Total Annual Cost $39,022 $39,545 $40,068 $40,590 $41,113 $41,636 $42,159 $42,682 $43,204 $44,127 $44,527 $44,928 $45,328 $45,728 $46,129 $46,529 $46,929 $47,330 $47,730 $48,130 $48,531Total Annual Cost with Replacement Costs $83,546 $84,069 $84,592 $85,114 $85,637 $86,160 $86,683 $87,205 $87,728 $109,071 $109,471 $109,872 $110,272 $110,672 $111,073 $111,473 $111,873 $112,273 $112,674 $113,074 $113,474

TOTALRolled up Capital Cost $1,479,342 $1,479,342 $13,106,658 $13,106,658 $474,000 $532,000 $563,000 $635,000 $688,000 $758,000 $824,000 $909,000 $7,723,000 $1,095,000 $2,250,000 $238,000 $251,000 $251,000 $271,000 $258,000 $271,000 $271,000 $297,000 $284,000 $297,000Rolled up Annual Cost $0 $0 $0 $0 $318,154 $348,202 $369,118 $392,623 $417,746 $445,136 $474,791 $507,360 $542,518 $581,314 $622,823 $635,633 $647,787 $659,940 $673,022 $685,485 $698,566 $711,648 $725,967 $739,667 $753,985Rolled Up Annual Cost with Replacement Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $533,082 $569,226 $596,573 $627,331 $660,291 $696,298 $735,317 $778,200 $824,621 $912,685 $974,250 $990,001 $1,005,259 $1,020,516 $1,036,947 $1,052,595 $1,069,026 $1,085,456 $1,103,451 $1,120,663 $1,138,658

All costs are in May 2010 dollars SUM OF CAPITAL COSTS, 2011 - 2035= $48,312,000


40

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

OverviewThe District will be responsible for operation and maintenance of all the wastewater facilities. The District can retain its own local staff or contract with independent contractors and operations specialists.

The collection system sewer pipes and appurtenances within the rights-of-way and, in general, those same components within District utility easements, will be owned, operated, and maintained by the District. The septic tanks, effluent pumps, and piping between the pump and the connection to the collection system sewers whether on private or public property will also be owned, operated, and maintained by the District, with a few exceptions. Only components installed at the direction of and approved by the District for use will be accepted for District ownership, maintenance, and operation. Any existing or future septic system not installed under District direction will be the responsibility of the property owner unless the District accepts ownership. These systems will be required to meet District standards for construction and service life.

For STEP collection systems, the most frequent maintenance is regular inspection, cleaning of pump screens, minor servicing of pumps, and removal of accumulated solids from septic tanks. The District will pump out about 20 percent of the septic tanks every year so that all tanks connected to the collection system are pumped about once every five years. Heavily loaded commercial systems will require more frequent pump-out—as frequently as once every year. Experience with existing STEP systems indicates that this level of preventive maintenance will eliminate most expensive after-hour service calls for breakdowns or failures. Clogging of pipes can sometimes occur, but it should not be frequent.

The wastewater treatment plant, reclaimed water conveyance pipeline to the reuse site, and the facilities at the reuse site will be owned, operated, and maintained by the District. Operation and maintenance of these facilities is expected to initially require 1.5 full-time equivalent (FTE) staffing for lab work and operations 7 days a week and during vacation, holidays, sick leave, etc. This will likely require a lead operator with a Level 4 certification and a part-time Level 3 operator. Preparation of an operation and maintenance manual is a standard task during construction of a plant. The Washington Department of Ecology has specific requirements for the manual’s contents.

Operation and Maintenance CostsOperation and maintenance (O&M) costs were estimated for the proposed facilities for each year through 2035 (20 years from plant startup). All dollar values used were current year (2010) dollars. O&M costs for facilities constructed after the initial construction were added to the cash flow stream starting in the years proposed for construction of those facilities.

Separate O&M cost estimates were developed for the collection system, treatment plant (liquids stream plus most other treatment plant facilities), solids handling (at the treatment plant), and reclaimed water conveyance, storage, and reuse. O&M estimates for the collection system include the following elements:

• Labor

• Septic tank pumping

• Power

• Structural Maintenance

• Equipment replacement

• Miscellaneous expenses allowance


41

O&M estimates for wastewater treatment, solids handling, and reclaimed water categories include the following elements:

• Labor

• Membrane Replacement

• Solids haul and disposal

• Diesel fuel

• Carbon Filter replacement

• Chemicals (including, membrane cleaner, magnesium hydroxide for pH adjustment, hypochlorite, polymer, and a carbon source such as methanol for the final step of MBR treatment)

• Power

• Structural Maintenance

• Equipment replacement

• Miscellaneous expenses allowance

O&M cost estimates for this PER were based on the O&M calculations performed for the 2005 Facility Plan. Specific line items and quantities were revised to reflect the current recommended project, and unit costs were updated to reflect current (2010) economics, while considering likely changes to occur as the country emerges from the recession. Details of unit costs and allowances used can be found in the cost calculation spreadsheets in Appendix E. The estimated O&M costs for the first year of operation (in 2015) and for 2035 are summarized in Table 10 (in 2010 dollars with no inflation). Table 9 shows O&M costs for each year through 2035 (20 years after startup).

TABLE 10.O&M COST ESTIMATES

2015 2035

Collection System $77,000 $276,000

Treatment System $136,000 $289,000

Solids Handling $66,000 $141,000

Reclaimed Water Reuse $39,000 $48,000

Total O&M Annual Cost $318,000 $754,000

Administration and billing costs not included; see Chapter 4


42

PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION

ScheduleThe proposed project schedule has been divided into three primary elements—the collection system, the wastewater treatment plant, and the effluent (reclaimed water) reuse facilities. Each element has its own phasing based on its unique characteristics. This division was done to reduce the monetary outlay for construction of initial facilities and to add facilities in manageable increments as population, flows, and loadings increase. The implementation schedules for the treatment plant and reuse elements are directly dependent upon the schedule for the collection system construction and connection of users to the system. Since future population growth is difficult to anticipate accurately, most of the facilities can be phased as needed to account for growth as it occurs. Figure 10 summarizes the proposed project phasing based on current projections.

Studies, Public Outreach and PermittingThe following sections describe studies, outreach efforts and permitting activities that will be conducted in furtherance of this project through design and construction.

Hydrogeological Study

To complete the design level understanding of the reuse site, infiltration pilot testing, long-term monitoring, and hydrogeological modeling need to be performed. Hydrogeological modeling will provide a better understanding of interflow between shallow ground water and surface water in the project area. Also further study is needed of the capacity of on- and off-site drainage systems to accept additional flows.

Special Benefits Analysis

A special benefits analysis will be conducted in support of the formation of a local improvement district (LID) as a mechanism to repay debt for the new system. The special benefits analysis will be conducted prior to the final formation hearing (currently scheduled for January 2011). This study is prescribed by statute to ensure that special benefits received by properties because of the construction of a sewer system exceed the costs assigned to the properties to construct the sewers.

Public Involvement

A public involvement plan has been developed for the design and construction phases of this project. The plan lays out a road map of public relations activities and goals throughout the design, construction, and LID formation process. This plan is in Appendix A.

Septic Tank Condition Assessment

An important future study will be a preliminary condition assessment of existing septic tanks to estimate the percentage of tanks that can be retrofitted rather than removed and replaced. All tanks within the construction limits will be assessed during construction and either retrofitted or removed and replaced.

Col

lect

ion

Syst

emTr

eatm

ent P

lant

Reu

se S

ite

2015

2015

2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055

2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055

PHASE 1 CONSTRUCTION, 2014• Phase 1 sewers built by District• All residential/commercial in Phase 1 service area as of 2015 connected

PHASE 1 CONSTRUCTION, 2014• Phase 1 sewers built by District• All residential/commercial in Phase 1 service area as of 2015 connected

• •

PHASE 2 CONSTRUCTION, 2025• Phase 2 sewers built by District• All residential/commercial in Phase 1 and Phase 2 service areas as of 2025 connected

PHASE 2 CONSTRUCTION, 2025• Phase 2 sewers built by District• All residential/commercial in Phase 1 and Phase 2 service areas as of 2025 connected

SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT2015 - 2025

All new residential/ commercial in Phase 1 service area must

connect•

New or existing residential/ commercial in Phase 2 service

area may connect; likely under LID or developer extension

INITIAL CONSTRUCTION, 2013 - 2014 (18 months):• 3 acres developed• Roads, stormwater ponds, infrastructure• Headworks including two mechanical screens• Two MBR trains• Two trains for emergency storage (and future use for MBR)• Two UV trains• Chlorination• Effluent pumping• Rotary drum thickener• Two aerated sludge tanks• Odor control

INITIAL CONSTRUCTION, 2013 - 2014 (18 months):• 3 acres developed• Roads, stormwater ponds, infrastructure• Headworks including two mechanical screens• Two MBR trains• Two trains for emergency storage (and future use for MBR)• Two UV trains• Chlorination• Effluent pumping• Rotary drum thickener• Two aerated sludge tanks• Odor control

EXPANSION 1, 2023 (9 months):• 1 additional acre developed• Convert one emergency storage train to MBR treatment (3 total)• Add one UV train (3 total)• Add one tank for aerated sludge holding• Add one tank for emergency storage (and future use for sludge holding)

EXPANSION 1, 2023 (9 months):• 1 additional acre developed• Convert one emergency storage train to MBR treatment (3 total)• Add one UV train (3 total)• Add one tank for aerated sludge holding• Add one tank for emergency storage (and future use for sludge holding)

EXPANSION 2, 2037 ( 9 months):• 1 additional acre developed• Convert one emergency storage train to MBR

treatment (4 total)• Identify and implement preferred alternative for

providing required emergency storage• Increase odor control capacity

EXPANSION 2, 2037 ( 9 months):• 1 additional acre developed• Convert one emergency storage train to MBR

treatment (4 total)• Identify and implement preferred alternative for

providing required emergency storage• Increase odor control capacity

INITIAL CONSTRUCTION, 2014 (7 months):• 80-acre site• 3.5-MG storage pond• Gravel access road• Power to site• Fiber-optic cable from plant• Reuse supply pump station 60-acre distribution system

INITIAL CONSTRUCTION, 2014 (7 months):• 80-acre site• 3.5-MG storage pond• Gravel access road• Power to site• Fiber-optic cable from plant• Reuse supply pump station 60-acre distribution system

EXPANSION 1, 2023:• 80-acre site• Add 3.5-MG storage pond• Increase pumping capacity• Additional 60- to 80-acre distribution system

EXPANSION 1, 2023:• 80-acre site• Add 3.5-MG storage pond• Increase pumping capacity• Additional 60- to 80-acre distribution system

EXPANSION 2, 2037:• 40-acre site• Increase storage capacity• Increase pumping capacity• Additional 30- to 40-acre distribution system

EXPANSION 2, 2037:• 40-acre site• Increase storage capacity• Increase pumping capacity• Additional 30- to 40-acre distribution system

SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT2025 - 2055

All new residential/commercial in Phase 1 and Phase 2 service areas must connect

Freeland Water and Sewer DistrictPRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT FOR NEW SEWAGE COLLECTION AND TREATMENT SYSTEM

135-21646-10001/Schedule.ai

Figure 10PROPOSED PROJECT

SCHEDULE1420 Fifth Avenue, Suite 600Seattle, Washington 98101Tel 206.883.9300 Fax 206.883-9301


44

Permitting/Environmental

Permitting, easement acquisition, and related environmental support will be provided during design. The following is a list of identified permits and regulatory approvals:

• Environmental Species Act compliance—U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service

• Archaeology and cultural resource preservation approval—Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation

• National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) wastewater discharge permit—Washington Department of Ecology

• NPDES stormwater discharge—Washington Department of Ecology

• Water reclamation standards compliance—Washington Departments of Ecology and Health

• Forest practices approval—Washington Department of Natural Resources

• Electrical permit—Washington Department of Labor and Industry

• Permit to construct in state highway right of way—Washington Department of Transportation

• Air quality operating permit—Northwest Clean Air Agency

• Grading permit—Island County

• Critical areas review—Island County

• U.S. Fire Code compliance—Island County

• Road permit—Island County

• Site plan approval for an essential public facility—Island County

• Building permit—Island County

• Traffic study and concurrency permit—Island County

45

CHAPTER 4.FINANCING PLAN

FUNDING PARTNERSThe District has been successful at obtaining funding for planning, land acquisition and preliminary engineering to bring the proposed project to its current level of development. Funding partners have included Island County, the Washington Department of Ecology Centennial Clean Water Fund (thanks to involvement from Senator Mary Margaret Haugen), and the Freeland Chamber of Commerce. The funding to date has been a combination of grants and loans. Table 11 summarizes existing funding sources to date.

TABLE 11.EXISTING FUNDING SOURCES

Funding source Amount Comment

Grants

Ecology Centennial Clean Water Fund $1,000,000 Purchase land for treatment plant & reuse area

Island Co. Rural Development Granta $2,500,000 Preconstruction planning & engineering

Island Co. Rural Development Granta $1,454,000 Future principal repayment ($100,000 annually, 20 years, assume 3.25% interest). $546,000 toward interest payments.

Loans

Island Co. Sewer Facility Plan, 2005 $185,100 Obligated to repay with construction financing

Island Co. Feasibility Study, 2008 $91,700 Obligated to repay with construction financing

Chamber Property Owners, 2005-08 $56,400 Credit to LID Assessments

Local Funding

LID Assessments - Property Owners For repayment of USDA Rural Development loan

Interim Financing

Wells Fargo Letter of interest, has contacted USDA-RD

a. Source: Rural Counties Sales Tax

The remaining funds are being sought through this application for a combination grant and loan package from USDA Rural Development. The grant/loan combination would provide the remainder of project costs. The District will form a local improvement district (LID) to finance the repayment of the loan portion by special assessment.

SEWER FUNDING PLANThe sewer funding plan is a plan for obtaining system design and construction funding, for ensuring debt repayment and user recovery, and for funding ongoing operation, maintenance, administration and short-lived asset replacement reserves. The goal of the funding plan is to seek the most advantageous funding


46

for the ultimate ratepayers, to plan for proper security for the funds borrowed and to ensure a successful system for many years into the future.

Capital Funding

Grants

Senator Mary Margaret Haugen was instrumental in securing a $1 million grant from the Department of Ecology Centennial Clean Water Fund for land acquisition. The land for the treatment plant and the reuse area has been purchased. Island County provided a lump sum Rural Development grant of $2.5 millionfor preconstruction planning and engineering. A portion of this grant will be available for engineering design efforts.

Loans

Island County has been supportive of the sewer planning efforts in conjunction with the establishment of the NMUGA. The County provided $185,100 for the 2005 Facility Plan and $91,700 for the Freeland Water and Sewer District Wastewater Facilities Financial Feasibility Study (Tetra Tech, 2008), with anobligation for repayment to the County with construction financing.

The Freeland Chamber of Commerce has also been supportive and signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the District. One element of the Memorandum of Understanding was a loan of $56,400 for the planning efforts in 2005-08 that will be credited to the participating property owners through LID assessments after project construction.

Local Funding

Local funding will be provided by the property owners in the initial sewer service area. See Debt Repayment/User Recovery below for more discussion.

Interim Financing

The Freeland Chamber of Commerce has been discussing the project with local banks. Wells Fargo has expressed interest in providing interim financing and has contacted USDA Rural Development.

Debt Repayment/User Recovery

Establish LID

The cost of the new sewer system is substantial and not would not be affordable if initial connections were required to make the full debt service payments with monthly sewer rates. By establishing a local improvement district, the debt repayment can be spread among the property owners in the Phase 1 service area through special assessments. Once paid off, the special assessments would end. The special assessments would be added to the property tax statements by Island County. The revenue would be deposited into a restricted fund of the District, and the District would make the debt payments to USDA Rural Development from the fund. Chapter 57.16 of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW 57.16) allows special assessments to be spread over a maximum of 20 years, although 15 years is more common.

The advantage to the existing homeowners is to spread the cost over a broader base (the entire Phase 1 service area) instead of the more common method of having the initial connections make the debt service payments through monthly rates. The advantage to the District is that the LID is backed by the property owners and the debt repayment is not reliant on high monthly rates. The advantage to USDA-RD is that the repayment will be spread over a broader base. In addition, it is likely that some properties will change

…4. FINANCING PLAN

47

hands and the assessments will be paid off early, strengthening the ability of the District to make timely payment.

Island County Rural Development Grant $100,000 Annual Contribution

Island County has promised a Rural Development grant of $100,000 per year for 20 years for debt repayment. Because this funding will be toward future debt service payments including interest, the amount has been split between $1,454,000 toward principal repayment and $546,000 toward interest.These estimates are based on the assumed rate of interest for the USDA-RD loan at 3.25 percent. The source of funding for the Rural Development Grant is the Rural Counties Sales Tax designated for infrastructure improvements..

O&M, Administration and Short-Lived Assets—Monthly Sewer RatesMonthly sewer rates will be established to include estimated O&M costs, administration including billing and state tax, and a short-lived assets replacement reserve. The monthly rates will be paid by all connections to the system. The District will include the sewer charges on water bills for the majority of the sewer customers. It is anticipated that there will be a few sewer customers that do not receive water service from the District as they are served by wells.

ESTIMATED SYSTEM COST—INITIAL PHASETable 9 in Chapter 3 shows the estimated distribution of capital costs over the initial construction period from 2011 through 2014; the estimated total capital cost for the initial phase shown in Table 8 is a total for that four-year period. These costs are all in May 2010 dollars. For the financing plan analysis, each year’s estimated expenditure was escalated at a rate of 3.5 percent per year up to 2013 (the midpoint of construction). This escalation provides a better estimate of the anticipated cost when the project goes to bid and the associated amount of financing required.

Costs were estimated for the common/shared system (sewer mains, treatment plant, reuse site, etc.) and for on-site connections at individual properties. With a STEP system, the on-site septic tank and equipment are considered part of the treatment system, with solids being treated on-site and liquids being pumped to the treatment plant. The District will own and manage the system, including the individual pumps and tanks. The District will obtain maintenance easements to be able to effectively manage and maintain the system. For these reasons, it is proposed that existing homes and businesses have the one-time option of obtaining financing with the overall project. Any connections beyond 2014 would be required to finance the on-site costs on their own.

Table 12 shows the estimated system costs through 2025 in 2013 dollars. The initial phase of the system is planned to be designed and constructed from 2011 through 2014. Existing homes and businesses in the Phase 1 service area are anticipated to be connected as part of the initial project. Additional connections will be made throughout the following years. The next common/shared system expansion is anticipatedfor the treatment plant and reuse site in 2023; the Phase 2 collection system is planned to be completed in 2025. This funding application focuses on the initial system costs, shown in Table 13.

Table 14 shows the initial system connections in 2014. In addition to the number of connections, the equivalent residential units (ERUs) are also shown to put all connections on a more equal basis. The number of ERUs has been used in planning, sizing and financial plan development. For residential, each dwelling unit is considered one ERU. For non-residential, one ERU is equal to 563 cubic feet of water per month, based on the design criteria of 60 gallons per day and 2.34 persons per home.


48

TABLE 12.ESTIMATED SYSTEM COST

System Cost ($2013)2011-2014 2015-22 2023 2024 2025

Common/Shared CostsWastewater Treatment 15,326,000 — 2,943,000 — —Solids Handling 2,220,000 — 1,094,000 — —Reclaimed Water Storage & Reuse 6,117,000 — 3,424,000 — —Collection—Shared 3,553,000 — — — 1,174,000

Common/Shared Subtotal 27,216,000 — 7,461,000 — 1,174,000

Cumulative 27,216,000 27,216,000 34,677,000 34,677,000 35,851,000

On-Site Connection Costs

Cumulative ERUs 610 1,206 1,313 1,430 1,557On-Site Connection/STEP System 4,961,000 5,969,000 11,020,000 12,140,000 13,200,000

Total Cost (Common/Shared + On-Site) 32,177,000 5,969,000 18,481,000 12,140,000 14,374,000

TABLE 13.ESTIMATED SYSTEM COST—INITIAL PHASE

2010-2014 Costs ($2013a)

Common/Shared System

Wastewater Treatment $15,326,000

Solids Handling 2,220,000

Reclaimed Water Storage & Reuse 6,117,000

Collection—Shared 3,553,000

Subtotal Common/Shared $27,216,000

On-Site Connections

On-Site Connection/STEP System 4,961,000

Total (Common/Shared + On-Site) $32,177,000

a. Costs in May 2010 dollars (from Table 9) escalated to $2013 at 3.5% per year

TABLE 14.INITIAL SYSTEM CONNECTIONS

Customer Type Connections ERUs

Existing Homes 315 315

Existing Businesses 94 295

Total 409 610


49

ESTIMATED PROJECT COST TO BE FINANCEDTable 15 shows known and anticipated costs and reductions to arrive at the net project cost to be financed for two scenarios:

• Without USDA Grant—USDA Rural Development offers a loan package only.

• 30% USDA Grant—USDA Rural Development offers an additional 30-percent grant and a loan for the remainder.

TABLE 15.ESTIMATED PROJECT COST TO BE FINANCED

Without USDA Grant

30% USDA Grant Comments

Estimated Common/Shared Costs2005 Facility Plan 185,000 Loan from Island County2008 Financial Feasibility Study 128,000 Loans from Island County & ChamberLand Acquisition 1,000,000 Centennial Clean Water Fund GrantPre-Construction Planning & Eng 1,081,000 Island Co Econ Development Grant (current effort)Design/Construction Common/Shared 27,216,000 Table 13 Subtotal Common/Shared Cost

Subtotal Common/Shared Cost 29,610,000 29,610,000

Less: Grants Centennial Clean Water Fund (1,000,000)Island Co. Rural Development Grant (2,500,000) Lump sumIsland Co. Rural Development Grant (1,454,000) Future principal repayment from $100,000/year,

20 years, 3.25%. $546,000 toward interest

Subtotal Grants in Hand (4,954,000) (4,954,000)USDA Additional 30% Grant — (7,397,000) Design/Construction less grants available x 30%

Subtotal to be Financed 24,656,000 17,259,000Add: Financing Cost @ 20% 4,931,000 3,452,000 Interim financing, establish LID, financing

Common/Shared Expense Total $29,587,000 $20,711,000

Add: Initial On-Site Costs Assume 90% of existing choose to financeExisting Homes/Business On-Site 4,026,000 90%*(315 homes @10,500 + 94 Comm @12,400)Add: Financing Cost @ 20% 805,000

Subtotal Initial On-Site Cost $4,831,000 $4,831,000

Total Net Cost to be Financed $34,418,000 $25,542,000

The estimated common/shared project expense is $29.6 million without a USDA Rural Development grant or $20.7 million with a 30-percent grant. Project costs through completion of construction includeplanning, land and preconstruction costs to date and estimated probable costs. Grants in hand have been subtracted. Financing costs are estimated at 20 percent, to include establishing and managing the LID, interim financing, borrowing a debt service reserve (10 percent), and permanent financing costs.

Because financing costs would have to be added, it is assumed that only 90 percent of existing homes and businesses would choose to include their on-site costs in the funding. This would add $4.8 million. Theresulting total project cost to be financed is estimated to be $34.4 million without a USDA Rural Development grant, or $25.5 million with a 30-percent USDA grant.


50

ESTIMATED CAPITAL COST PER ERUIn this section, the overall project costs are allocated to ERUs to indicate the average cost per residential unit. Table 16 shows the capital cost per ERU in two steps: The estimated common/shared cost is $19,100without and $13,400 with a 30-percent USDA grant. An existing home would also pay the on-site cost of $10,500. The total capital cost per ERU for an existing home would be $29,600 without and $23,900 with a 30-percent USDA grant.

TABLE 16.ESTIMATED CAPITAL COST PER ERU

No USDA Grant 30% USDA Grant

Estimated Common/Shared Initial Capital Cost ($2013) $29,587,000 $20,711,000

Initial Capacity ERUs 1,557 1,557

Est. Common/Shared Initial Capital Cost per ERU $19,100 $13,400+ Initial Residential On-Site per ERU $10,500 $10,500

Est. Common/Shared + On-Site Initial Capital Cost per ERU $29,600 $23,900

On-Site Costs Will VaryThe actual on-site costs will vary by property, depending on the dimensions, location of existing tank, ability to retrofit, site restoration and existing tank replacement/abandonment. Three examples are provided for different property types:

• Existing residential, estimated $10,500

• Commercial, estimated $12,400

• Raw land with new development, estimated $6,600

It is proposed that initial on-site costs be included in the financing. With this approach, it would be possible to develop a contract that would spread the costs equally among the existing residences, in orderto be cost-efficient and to ensure proper system installation. This would avoid inconsistency in determining whether the existing tank could be retrofit by putting the decision in the hands of the system installation team. For existing commercial properties, the tanks will vary by size, and an average-cost method may or may not be appropriate. Further analysis to be completed during design may include consideration of newer, more sophisticated systems that already include required elements, which have been described at the public meetings.

ESTIMATED MONTHLY RATEThe Freeland Sewer System will use the revenue from monthly sewer rates to pay only for ongoing costs. All initial capital costs and associated debt repayment will be paid for through the LID. This will result in lower monthly rates than for a comparable jurisdiction with debt service included in the monthly rates.The estimated monthly rates include three elements:

• O&M—Annual system O&M cost estimates from Chapter 3 were escalated by 3.5 percent per year for four years to establish an estimate for the initial year of operation (2015). O&M costs include replacement of MBR filters, which is an essential element of the treatment


51

plant. The cost of pumping on-site systems is also included. The O&M portion of monthly rate was determined by dividing the escalated estimate by the initial 610 ERUs.

• Administration/Billing/State Tax—These are necessary costs of managing a system and have been estimated to be 20 percent of O&M costs, based on past experience for new utilities.

• Short-Lived Asset Replacement—A portion of the monthly rate is specified to fund the short-lived asset replacement reserve. This element will bring the system through the 6- to 10-year period by stepping up the contributions over the years. The 11- to 15-year replacement should be evaluated after the 1- to 5-year contribution ends. These costs are as estimated in Chapter3 per anticipated USDA-RD methodology.

Table 17 summarizes the estimated $64.00 per ERU monthly rate by element. All monthly rates should be reviewed annually and adjusted as necessary based on actual experience. A rate study should be completed in Years 5-6.

TABLE 17.ESTIMATED MONTHLY RATE PER ERU

2015 Monthly Rate per ERU

Operation & Maintenance of System & Facilities $50.00

Billing/Collection/State Tax/Administration $10.00

Short-Lived Asset Replacement Reserve $4.00

Estimated Monthly Rate per ERU $64.00

SIX-YEAR SEWER OPERATING FUNDTable 18 shows the proposed six-year operating fund, based on the monthly rate discussed above. The short-lived asset replacement reserve contribution is shown as it is stepped up over the years. This has been structured to help ensure that the initial connections are not overburdened and that the replacement reserve grows appropriately to meet the needs.

The proposed operating fund shows that the rates are sufficient to meet the annual expenses and contribution to short-lived assets replacement. The second year, 2016, is $2,100 short due to the stepping up of short-lived asset replacement, but there would be a fund balance from the previous year to cover this amount. The District will build up a reserve of approximately $53,000 by the end of the sixth year, using the assumptions described.


52

TABLE 18.SIX-YEAR SEWER OPERATING FUND

Sewer Operating Fund 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Estimated Sewer RevenueO&M 366,000 398,400 434,400 472,200 514,800 560,400Billing/Collection/State Tax/Admin 73,200 79,680 86,880 94,440 102,960 112,080Year 1-10 Short-Lived Assets 29,280 31,872 34,752 37,776 41,184 44,832

Est. Annual Revenue 468,480 509,952 556,032 604,416 658,944 717,312

Estimated Sewer ExpenseO&M 365,089 399,570 423,571 450,544 479,374 510,804Billing/Collection/State Tax/ Admin 73,200 79,680 86,880 94,440 102,960 112,080Year 1-10 Short-Lived Assets 22,800 32,800 42,800 52,800 62,800 70,000

Est. Sewer Expense 461,089 512,050 553,251 597,784 645,134 692,884

Annual Increase/(Use) of Reserves 7,391 (2,098) 2,781 6,632 13,810 24,428

Estimated Ending Balance 7,391 5,294 8,075 14,707 28,517 52,945

LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTIn establishing the LID, capital costs will be allocated to all properties within the LID boundary, assumed to be the Phase 1 service area. Special assessments will be filed with Island County, which will include them on property tax statements for the specified period (common is 15 years, maximum is 20 years). As the special assessments are collected, they will be deposited into a restricted District fund to be used for debt payments.

LID Process and ScheduleThe LID process for water and sewer districts is specified in state law (RCW 57.16). The following experts are available to assist the District as necessary in the formation and procedures:

• Attorney, LID Specialist, Steve DiJulio, Foster Pepper, LLC

• Attorney, Bond Counsel, Foster Pepper, LLC

• Special Benefits Analysis & Appraisal, Macaulay & Associates, Ltd.

A preliminary special benefits review was completed for the commercial area (approximately 50 percent of the property) in 2007. The District recently met with the LID team to discuss the current proposed project and review the phasing, overall costs and average cost per ERU. The team concluded that the project is feasible assuming a 30-percent grant from USDA Rural Development. More detailed review will be necessary if a grant is not offered. A copy of the draft opinion letter is included in Appendix F.

A substantial amount of detailed work will be necessary in order to form the LID. The District Board of Commissioners is scheduled to pass a Resolution of Intent to Form the Sewer LID at its meeting on July 12, 2010. A draft copy of the resolution is included in Appendix F; the final resolution will be separately provided to USDA Rural Development upon adoption. This resolution demonstrates the District’s intent to move forward with this funding mechanism. Table 19 presents the LID process and schedule as it is envisioned.


53

TABLE 19.LID PROCESS AND SCHEDULE

Task Time

Resolution of Intent to Form LID 7/12/2010

Response from USDA Rural Development 8/31/2010

Public Informational Meeting(s) Fall 2010

Formation Hearing 1/10/2011

LID is formed 2/2011

Final design and construction 2011-2014

Close out project costs Early 2015

Final assessment roll and financing Spring 2015

First assessments one year later Spring 2016

In addition to the schedule shown in Table 19 and the regularly scheduled monthly meetings of the District Board of Commissioners, there have been two public meetings (June 8 and July 6) to discuss this proposed sewer project and application being submitted to USDA Rural Development.

Sample LID Payment ScheduleTable 20 provides a sample payment schedule to demonstrate how LID payments would work for the following examples:

• $19,100 Principal—Common/shared costs without USDA Rural Development grant

• $13,400 Principal—Common/shared costs with 30-percent USDA Rural Development grant

• $23,900 Principal—Includes initial on-site for existing residential and with 30-percent USDA Rural Development grant

A fourth example would be a customer who pre-pays the assessment in full and therefore has no long-term financing.

These examples are based on a 15-year repayment, assuming a loan from USDA Rural Development at 3.25 percent; it is typical to include an additional 0.5-percent interest to fund ongoing LID administration. The payments do not work like a typical mortgage where the annual amount is the same. Instead, it is based on equal annual principal payments with interest on the declining balance. Thus, any early payment would reduce the overall amount. When a property is sold, it is typical for lenders to require that special assessments be paid in full as part of the transaction. When a property with an outstanding assessment is subdivided, the assessment would be divided as appropriate and recorded with the new parcels.

LID Debt Repayment FundProperty owners in the LID will make payments with their real estate taxes. The revenue will be deposited into a debt fund for the District. The District will use this fund to make debt payments on the USDA loan.An additional source of revenue will be the Island County Rural Development grant with an annual contribution of $100,000 for 20 years toward debt repayment. Investment interest will be earned on the fund balance and remain in the fund. Expenses will include the USDA loan payments and administrative fees, estimated at 0.05-percent interest on the outstanding LID principal. Table 21 provides the six-year cash flow for the debt repayment fund assuming a 30-percent grant from USDA Rural Development.


54

TABLE 20.SAMPLE LID ASSESSMENT PAYMENT SCHEDULE

Sample Assessment CalculationPrincipal = $19,100 Principal = $13,400 Principal = $23,900

Year 1 1,990 1,396 2,490

Year 2 1,942 1,362 2,430

Year 3 1,894 1,329 2,370

Year 4 1,846 1,295 2,310

Year 5 1,799 1,262 2,251

Year 6 1,751 1,228 2,191

Year 7 1,703 1,195 2,131

Year 8 1,655 1,161 2,071

Year 9 1,608 1,128 2,012

Year 10 1,560 1,094 1,952

Year 11 1,512 1,061 1,892

Year 12 1,464 1,027 1,832

Year 13 1,417 994 1,773

Year 14 1,369 960 1,713

Year 15 1,321 927 1,653

Total Payments $24,830 $17,420 $31,070

Assumptions:Annual payments: 15; Payments per yr: 1; Annual interest: 3.75% (includes 0.5% for admin.)

TABLE 21.ESTIMATED DEBT REPAYMENT FUND SIX-YEAR CASH FLOW,

WITH 30-PERCENT USDA GRANT

Debt Repayment Fund Cash Flow 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

LID PRINCIPAL BALANCE: $25,542,000 23,839,200 22,136,400 20,433,600 18,730,800 17,028,000

Estimated RevenueIsland Co. Rural Development Grant ($100,000/year) 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000LID Principal Payments (15-year schedule) 1,702,800 1,702,800 1,702,800 1,702,800 1,702,800LID Interest Payments (3.75%) 957,825 893,970 830,115 766,260 702,405Investment Interest (2.0%) 10,000 29,856 59,003 87,625 115,714

Total Estimated Revenue 2,770,625 2,726,626 2,691,918 2,656,685 2,620,919

USDA-RD LOAN BALANCE: $25,542,000

Estimated ExpenseUSDA-RD Loan Repayment (40 yrs, 3.25%) 1,150,104 1,150,104 1,150,104 1,150,104 1,150,104LID Administration (0.5%) 127,710 119,196 110,682 102,168 93,654

Total Estimated Expense 1,277,814 1,269,300 1,260,786 1,252,272 1,243,758

Annual Increase/(Use) of Reserves 1,492,811 1,457,327 1,431,132 1,404,414 1,377,161

Estimated Ending Balance 1,492,811 2,950,138 4,381,270 5,785,684 7,162,845


55

The detailed debt repayment fund cash flow table included in Appendix G shows anticipated revenue and expenses over the 40-year anticipated term of the USDA loan, both with and without an additional 30-percent grant. The principal borrowed from the USDA loan will be spread among the property owners, who will make payments over 15 years (scenario shown). The USDA loan however, is anticipated to be on a 40-year term. This would put the revenue and expense out of balance due to the excess interest on a 40-year term. The USDA loan should be restructured and managed with the early assessment pay-off schedule to ensure a balanced payment schedule, particularly in the latter years where there is a shortfall.

FUTURE COST RECOVERYTable 22 summarizes how the various cost elements will be funded and recovered from users over the 20-year planning period and beyond. The initial common/shared capital costs (2011-2014) plus the initial on-site costs for existing homes and businesses are the only capital costs included in this funding proposal.

TABLE 22.COST RECOVERY METHODS

Cost Element Period Recovery Method

Common/Shared

Initial 2011-2014 LID Assessment

Treatment plant & storage expansion 2023 Connection charge now or debt service later

Phase 2 collection system 2025 Future LID, developer extension

Outside initial LID & in sewer service area In-lieu-of fee, connection charge, latecomer fee

On-Site

Initial 2011-2014 Self or LID

Other 2015+ Self

Annual

O&M, Admin, Short-Lived Asset Replacement Ongoing Monthly rates

REFERENCES

Ecology. 2008. Criteria for Sewage Works Design (Orange Book). Washington Department of Ecology. Publication No. 98-37 WQ. Olympia, WA 98504. Revised August 2008.

Ecology. 2005. Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. Washington Department of Ecology. Olympia, WA. April 2005.

ESA. 2010a. Freeland NMUGA Sewer Collection and Treatment System, Biological Assessment and Essential Fish Habitat Assessment. ESA Adolfson. Seattle, WA.

ESA. 2010b. Freeland Sewer Collection and Treatment System, Environmental Report. ESA Adolfson. Seattle, WA.

ESA. 2010c. Freeland Sewer Collection and Treatment System, SEPA Checklist. ESA Adolfson. Seattle, WA.

ESA. 2010d. Section 106 Cultural Resources Report. ESA Adolfson. Seattle, WA.

Island County. 2007a. Island County On-Site Sewage System Management Plan, Island County Public Health. May 2007.

Island County. 2007b. Final Update to the Freeland Sub Area Plan; An Element of the Island County Comprehensive Plan. Island County Department of Planning and Community Development. October 2007

Tetra Tech. 2005. Freeland Comprehensive Sewer Plan and Engineering Report/Facility Plan. Tetra Tech, Inc. Seattle, WA. February 2005.

Tetra Tech. 2008. Freeland Water and Sewer District Wastewater Facilities Financial Feasibility Study. Tetra Tech, Inc. Seattle, WA. April 2008.

Freeland Water and Sewer DistrictPreliminary Engineering Report for New Sewage Collection and Treatment

System

APPENDIX A.PUBLIC OUTREACH INFORMATION

July 2010


Public InvolvementPlanNew Sewage Collection and Treatment System

Prepared by Triangle Associatesas part of the Tetra Tech Team7/9/2010

Public Involvement Plan

2 New Sewage Collection and Treatment System

Contents

1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 3

1.1 Project Overview.............................................................................................................. 3

1.2 Expected Benefits............................................................................................................. 3

1.3 Project History.................................................................................................................. 4

1.4 Service Area...................................................................................................................... 5

1.5 Funding............................................................................................................................. 5

2 Goals and Guiding Principles of Public Involvement .............................................................. 6

2.1 Goal .................................................................................................................................. 6

2.2 Guiding Principles............................................................................................................. 6

3 Stakeholder Groups ................................................................................................................ 7

3.1 Primary Stakeholders ....................................................................................................... 7

3.2 Secondary Stakeholders................................................................................................... 7

3.3 Database of Names and Stakeholder List ........................................................................ 8

4 Strategies for Encouraging Public Involvement...................................................................... 9

4.1 Primary and Secondary Stakeholder Group Briefings...................................................... 9

4.2 Media Relations................................................................................................................ 9

4.3 Informational Documents .............................................................................................. 11

4.4 Project Website.............................................................................................................. 11

4.5 Public Meetings.............................................................................................................. 12

4.6 Public Notices and Hearings........................................................................................... 13

4.6.1 Public Notice of Environmental Assessment .......................................................... 13

4.6.2 Public Notice and Hearing on LID Formation.......................................................... 13

4.6.3 Beyond the LID Public Hearing................................................................................ 13

4.7 Meeting Announcements............................................................................................... 14

4.8 Responding to Public Comments ................................................................................... 14

Appendix 1 Public Involvement Schedule..................................................................................... 15

Appendix 2 Stakeholder Interview Recap..................................................................................... 21

Appendix 3 Key Questions to be Addressed................................................................................. 26

Appendix 4 Subject Matter Expert Database ............................................................................... 27

Appendix 5 June 8 and July 6 Public Meeting Overviews, Q&A ................................................... 28



1.1.1 Introduction

Public involvement is a key component of the Freeland Water and Sewer District’s (FWSD) preliminary and final design activities for a New Sewage Collection and Treatment System. By drawing input from a wide range of interested parties FWSD maximizes the prospect of an appropriate project design and stakeholder commitment.

This Public Involvement Plan (PIP) is intended to provide FWSD with a guide to conducting public outreach and obtaining public input. It identifies key stakeholders and planned or recommended public involvement activities for project phases, including planning, grant/loan application process, Preliminary Engineering Report, Local Improvement District (LID) formation, treatment facility design and construction. While details of public outreach are not included for latter stages of the project, ideas are included in this document. It is suggested that updates to the PIP be made for the design and construction phases. The PIP does include a schedule of planned and recommended public outreach activities (Appendix 1)

Implementation of the PIP is intended to provide FWSD with an understanding of the public’s questions, concerns and sentiment about the project and outline approaches for addressing community concerns. As guidance, FWSD should see this as a dynamic document that will need to be modified as specific situations present themselves. Nonetheless, this document should provide FWSD with the basic tools, approaches and schedule for public outreach.

1.2 Project Overview

The New Sewage Collection and Treatment System will be designed to address current wastewater contamination issues and preserve the rural character of Whidbey Island by focusing growth in the Freeland area. The development of sewer capacity is a key component of Freeland’s status as a Non-Municipal Urban Growth Area (NMUGA). A public sewer is necessary to support future urban growth.

The New Sewage Collection and Treatment System would replace septic systems with a pressurized collection system, a water reclamation facility, and a reuse area located on property owned by the FWSD.

It is essential that the sewer plan be fiscally as well as environmentally sound. Major grants and low interest loans are being sought to reduce the financial burden on property owners.Options for local funding, such as the formation of an LID, will be explored with property owners who would be served by the sewer system.

1.3 Expected Benefits

Building a wastewater system could help the Freeland area: Improve water quality in the urban drainages and Holmes Harbor



o Remove septic contamination from Homes Harbor in the Freeland Shellfish Protection District

o Reduce or eliminate the potential for groundwater contamination in the Freeland basin from the high concentration of septic systems

Provide a framework for residential and business growth in the Freeland area Allow for the development of higher density affordable housing within walking

distance of Freeland’s services and parks

1.4 Project History

To preserve the rural character of Whidbey Island while meeting Washington’s Growth Management Act (GMA) obligations, Island County’s 1998 Comprehensive Plan designated areas where growth should be concentrated. It limited growth in the non-urban areas of the county thus protecting the island from unchecked urban sprawl. Freeland is one of thedesignated growth centers.

After adopting the countywide Comprehensive Plan in 1998, Island County initiated the process of developing a Comprehensive Sub-Area Plan for the Freeland Area. A group called the Freeland Sub-Area Planning Committee was appointed to work with Island County Planning and Community Development. The committee worked over the course of four years to produce the Draft Sub-Area Plan. The plan’s land use element is based on the Island County’s “Buildable Lands Analysis,” upon which future zoning and detailed infrastructure plans for new sanitary sewer systems are based. Currently, almost all of Freeland’s population is served by septic systems.

In 2002, Island County contracted with Tetra Tech/KCM to prepare the Freeland Comprehensive Sewer Plan and Facility Plan/Engineering Report, (Freeland CSP) a single document that meets the Washington Administrative Code requirements for comprehensive sewer plans and engineering reports. The Freeland CSP also meets the requirements for facilityplans established in the Code of Federal Regulations. In December 2005, the Freeland CSP was approved by the Island County Board of County Commissioners. The Freeland CSP was approved by the Washington State Departments of Ecology and Health in 2006.

Additional activities since the completion of the Freeland CSP include: A financial analysis was prepared for project funding and construction A Memorandum of Understanding for sewer plan implementation was agreed upon by

FWSD and Freeland Chamber of Commerce Properties have been purchased for a wastewater treatment plant and reclaimed water

reuse site Island County and Washington State granted FWSD $3.5 million for project planning and

property purchase Additional federal and state grants and loans are being pursued Options for local funding are being explored



Environmental Assessments have been submitted to federal and state environmental agencies.

A project name—the New Sewage Collection and Treatment System—has been adopted

1.5 Service Area

The original sewer plan envisioned five phases for development of the sewer system, with Phase One centered primarily on the business core of Freeland. However, in the application process for grants and loans from U.S. Department of Agriculture Rural Development (USDA RD) the agency suggested a large scale implementation. The rationale is that 1) a sewer system serving a larger area would be both environmentally and cost effective; 2) by expanding the service area FWSD could maximize grant/loan opportunities thus minimizing the cost to property owners; 3) a greater environmental benefit could be realized by improving the impaired water quality in Holmes Harbor; and 4) rezoning to meet the Freeland Sub-Area Plan land use designations could proceed with sewers. FWSD therefore determined that it would establish just two phases for the system and include a much greater area for the initial phase.

The revised Phase One sewer area includes the core business district, other business areas adjacent to the core area, and residential areas, especially those that are adjacent to Holmes Harbor. Anticipating the public’s desire to provide input on the revised service area boundaries; FWSD has scheduled two public meetings in advance of its grant/loan application to the USDA RD (June 8 and July 6, 2010).

1.6 Funding

In addition to pursuing federal and state grants, FWSD is exploring the use of a Local Improvement District (LID) as a mechanism to recover costs and pay back loans incurred during the design and construction process. The FWSD wants to hear public input on the process of establishing an LID.

An LID would:

Create a local funding mechanism to pay back potential USDA RD loans (a precondition for USDA-RD loans)

Guarantee a payback of low interest construction loans over a long period of time Provide for loan funding for side sewer and on-site connections to the sewer system

2 Goals and Guiding Principles of Public Involvement

FWSD is actively enlisting the input of citizens, local government officials, business and interest groups to develop a cost effective sewer system that will comply with the requirements associated with Freeland’s Non-Municipal Urban Growth Area (NMUGA) status.

2.1 Goal

The goal of public involvement is to allow residential and commercial property owners within NMUGA boundaries to make informed choices about developing and funding a sewage collection and treatment system.

Additionally, public involvement is a requirement for the state and federal environmental review process, the USDA RD loan program, the Washington Department of Ecology water quality programs, and as a requirement for forming an LID.

2.2 Guiding Principles

Public involvement includes the promise that the public’s input will influence decisions

Public involvement activities will be aligned with specific stages of the planning process and will have a clearly articulated focus for participation

Participants will be provided with the information they need to participate in a meaningful way

Stakeholders will be encouraged to provide comments that are pertinent to the topic of the meeting

All participants will be treated with respect and dignity

T

3 Stakeholder Groups

3.1 Primary Stakeholders

Primary stakeholders are defined as those who will be directly affected by the New Sewage Collection and Treatment System and/or those who have significant influence on the project.

FWSD commissioners and staff Homeowners/residents and residential property owners inside the proposed LID Commercial and industrial property owners inside the proposed LID Local government officials of Island County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) USDA Rural Development WA Dept. of Ecology WA Dept. of Health

3.2 Secondary Stakeholders

Secondary stakeholders are defined as those who have an interest or play an intermediary role in the project.

Neighboring businesses and residentso Property owners inside the NMUGA, outside the proposed sewer service areao Homeowners/residents and business/property owners outside the NMUGA o Those who live or work adjacent to the proposed facility locations, including the

treatment plant site, treated water reuse site, pump stations if any, and along sewer collection/interceptor lines

County Agencieso Island County Public Health Department and Environmental Health Serviceso Island County Planning and Community Development o Island County Planning Commissiono Island County Council of Governmentso Island County Public Works Department o Island County Public Health Departmento Island County Assessoro Port of South Whidbey

State Agencieso Puget Sound Partnership

Local Associationso Freeland Chamber of Commerce



o Whidbey Environmental Action Networko Whidbey Camano Land Trusto Friends of Freeland

Publico Any citizen interested in the Freeland sewer planning processo Property owners on Whidbey Island whose interests and property values are

protected by the Freeland NMUGA land use planning that reduces sprawl. o Residents and visitors who benefit from improved water quality in Holmes

Harbor.o Citizens who will benefit from the economic opportunities created by the

project.o Citizens of Washington State who will benefit from improving the environment

and water quality of Puget Sound.

3.3 Database of Names and Stakeholder List

The Sewer Project Team will maintain a contact list of email addresses for primary stakeholders as well as secondary stakeholders who have provided email contact information. As appropriate, persons, organizations, and agencies on this list would receive notices of public meetings, fact sheets, newsletters and other public information materials.

4 Strategies for Encouraging Public Involvement

To convey information related to the New Sewage Collection and Treatment System, respond to questions and solicit input from the public, an array of outreach strategies will be used:

..1 Primary and Secondary Stakeholder Group Briefings

..2 Media Relations

..3 Informational Documents

..4 Project Web Site

..5 Public Meetings

..6 Public Notices and Hearings

..7 Meeting Announcements

..8 Responding to Public Comment

4.1 Primary and Secondary Stakeholder Group Briefings

Briefings with national, state and local government officials and/or neighborhood/civic groups, business groups, or other interested groups or organizations will be used to keep stakeholders informed and respond to questions, suggestions and concerns. Such meetings help maintain a continuous line of communication between FWSD and stakeholders.

Briefings may be held at the request of the stakeholder group or may be initiated by members of the Sewer Project Team. For example, a civic group may request a briefing to get a status update on funding scenarios.

Informal neighborhood meetings are an excellent way to share information and hear concerns. Usually organized by a community member who invites neighbors and project leaders to his or her home, the meetings offer the kind of personal, comfortable environment conducive to good conversation. Neighborhood meetings are a good way to connect with people who are not likely to attend public meetings. The sewer or LID project team can support neighborhood meetings by encouraging individuals to host a meeting and schedule a representative to attend.

We recommend stakeholder briefings be held in connection with key project developments, such as the possible USDA RD grant award, LID formation, design and construction phases, and LID assessments. (See Appendix 1 for details.)

4.2 Media Relations

Local newspapers are a key tool for reaching stakeholder audiences. The Freeland area is served by three local newspapers; the South Whidbey Record is the newspaper of record for the Freeland Water and Sewer District. It is based in Coupeville and is published on



Wednesdays and Saturdays. It has a circulation of approximately 4,300. The Whidbey Examiner is also based in Coupeville. Its primary focus is Central Whidbey Island although it does cover Island County governance issues and matters of county-wide concern. The Whidbey News-Times primarily covers central and north Whidbey Island although it will also cover county-wide environmental and governmental issues.

Official public notices will be sent to the South Whidbey Record since it is the newspaper of record for FWSD.

General press releases, public meeting announcements should be sent to all local media including:

South Whidbey Record Whidbey Examiner Whidbey News-Times KWPA radio

Additionally, an editorial board meeting will be requested with the South Whidbey Record and possibly with the Whidbey Examiner and Whidbey News-Times to provide an update on the sewer project, projected costs and funding options.

Press or editorial coverage can be given wider exposure by e-mailing the article, or link to the article to members of the stakeholder database noted in Section 3.3 above.

If deemed appropriate, contact may be made with major media outlets in Western Washington(i.e. Seattle Times, Everett Herald, Bellingham Herald, and Seattle PI.com). Potential story angles include 1) the sewer project as a means of addressing environmental concerns, 2) planning for growth while retaining rural character, 3) Freeland as an example of Recovery Act-aided community development, and 4) how Freeland’s infrastructure investment is making the area more attractive place to live and work.

Social media (blogs, Twitter feeds, Facebook pages and the like) are a potential avenue for public outreach. Although blogs or web forums such as the Freeland Community Forum have been used in the past by Freeland residents organizing around various issues, currently there does not appear to be an active online hub serving the Freeland community.

For social media sites to be successful, they need to be updated regularly, which requires time and resources currently beyond the Project Team’s means. Therefore, while a social media strategy may be worth exploring at some point, we do not presently recommend it as part of the PIP.



4.3 Informational Documents

To provide answers to some of the most frequently asked questions (FAQs) posed by the public, FAQ and fact sheets will be prepared.

An overall FAQ document is in development. It is a dynamic document that will expand as public input and new information are obtained. This document will be updated on the sewer website and should be sent to the residents at some point; we recommend right after the USDA RD application is made (July/August 2010).

In the event that the USDA RD grant/loan is awarded (an answer is anticipated August 15 -31, 2010), we recommend preparing and distributing a newsletter (August 15 - 31) to share the news and keep the community apprised of next steps.

Informational documents will be distributed by any or all of the following methods: Posted on the project website Hardcopies inserted into FWSD billing statement envelopes Hardcopies available as handouts at briefings, public meetings and other public

involvement events. Hardcopies available at FWSD offices Emailed to the stakeholder distribution list Emailed to local media Posted at various popular business establishments such as grocery and hardware stores,

cafés, the recreation center, churches, the community center, gas station, etc.

Our recommendation is to produce one or two informational documents (newsletter and/or FAQ/fact sheet) for each of the various phases of the project (e.g. LID formation, design phase, construction phase).

4.4 Project Website

A project website will be set up by FWSD to help keep the public informed about the project and provide another avenue for public input. The website for the project will be updated as needed with public meeting and public hearing announcements, public hearing transcripts, informational materials, maps, and other pertinent information that becomes available. We expect that updates in the planning and funding phases of the project will be necessary every two-three weeks because activities will be occurring frequently. After that it might be acceptable to update the website on a monthly basis for other phases of the project through construction.

A project website will provide timely information to interested stakeholders and provides contact information so stakeholders can send an email directly and their questions/comments can be properly routed. While a website can be made to be interactive with the community,



we are not recommending that at this time because the volume of traffic to the site does not warrant the time and staff resources needed to create and manage an interactive website.

4.5 Public Meetings

Public meetings are informal opportunities for the public to learn more about an issue or component of the project, and ask questions and share comments with staff and other interested members of the public.

From initial planning through construction, various forms of public meetings will be held to inform and involve interested parties in project planning, funding, design and construction. Independent, professional facilitators will be used to ensure full participation and productive, focused discussions.

The purpose of involving the public early and often in the planning, funding, design and construction phases of the project is to 1) help project planners identify and take into account the concerns of those who would be served by the New Sewage Collection and Treatment System, 2) keep community members informed, and 3) help build a sense of ownership and shared accountability for Freeland’s future.

Two public meetings have been scheduled prior to FWSD’s July 9, 2010 grant application to the USDA RD loan program. Those meetings are scheduled for June 8 and July 6, 2010 at the Trinity Lutheran Church. The meetings are intended to provide an overview of the proposed sewage collection and treatment system, an update on planning and funding activities—specifically the formation of an LID—and solicit and respond to questions and comments from community members.

Still to be scheduled are public meetings in advance of a January 10, 2011 public hearing on formation of an LID. Additionally, the Public Involvement Schedule (Appendix 1) identifies other potential public meeting dates and subject matter. Some of the meetings may serve a dual purpose, for example: a meeting on both project design updates and LID formation.

To ensure that the full range of issues related to the New Sewage Collection and Treatment System are identified and taken into account, comments and suggestions will be solicited from all interested parties. All comments will be reviewed and incorporated as appropriate.

4.6 Public Notices and Hearings

Public notices and public hearings are statutory requirements. A public hearing is a formal opportunity to gather information from the public on a proposed action. A record is kept of the proceedings and all comments, whether presented orally or in written form, become part of the hearing record. The public hearing is not an opportunity for general discussion.

4.6.1 Public Notice of Environmental Assessment

A Notice of Availability of the Environmental Assessment (EA) documents prepared for the National Environmental Protection Agency (NEPA) and State Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA) documents will be published in the local papers. The notice would identify where the EA would be available for public review, how the public can provide input, and who to contact with comments or for additional information. Copies of the EA would be available for public inspection at the Freeland Public Library and FWSD offices. The EA would also be available on FWSD project website. Input from the public comment period will be incorporated into the overall study prior to completion of the EA and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) (if appropriate).

The SEPA/NEPA process does not require an official public hearing. That said FWSD may consider a public meeting if the level of community interest in the matter warrants it.

4.6.2 Public Notice and Hearing on LID Formation

Should FWSD Board of Commissioners adopt a resolution of its intent to form an LID, a public hearing (Formation Hearing) must be held at which the Board will decide whether to go forward with the LID. If it votes to proceed, property owners will have a 10 day period within which they must file written protests to the formation of the LID. The hearing and the protest are the only formal avenues for property owners to formally object to the LID.

Prior to holding a public hearing, FWSD must publish a notice in at least two consecutive issues of the newspaper of record (in this case, the South Whidbey Record) with the date of the first publication being at least 15 days prior to a public hearing. At least 15 days before the date of hearing a notice of adoption of resolution of intention is to be mailed to property owners both within and adjacent to the proposed LID.

4.6.3 Beyond the LID Public Hearing

The process of forming an LID is complex and sometimes contentious. It is recommended that questions and objections property owners have about an LID be brought forward well in advance of the required public hearing. A comprehensive public involvement strategy should include informational materials, stakeholder briefings, and public meetings. We recommend LID workshops where property owners can hear focused presentations about LIDs, ask questions and hear responses, and meet one on one with someone who can help guide community members through the LID process. FWSD will need to develop a clear set of guidelines for responding to property owner questions.

Appendix 1Public Involvement Schedule

The following table provides an overview of public involvement activities that might occur in connection with key project phases. The proposed actions anticipate, but do not presume, certain outcomes (e.g. USDA RD grant award, LID formation, sewer construction).

**Proposed/Tentative DatePublic meetings/hearings are highlighted in blue

Year Date Type of Outreach

Description Focus Status as ofJuly 2010

Notes

2010 May 13 Briefing Meeting of business owners sponsored by the Chamber of Commerce

Sewer proposalupdate

Completed

2010 May 4, 26, 27, 28

June 15, 19, 21

Interviews Conducted 16 interviews with Freeland residents/business owners to test awareness/perception of issue, anticipate questions in advance of public meetings

Sewer proposal, funding

Competed

2010 May 27 Public MeetingAnnouncement

Flyers distributed in locations throughout Freeland

June 8 public meeting Completed

2010 May 28 Media Relations

Press release sent to South Whidbey Record and Whidbey Examiner

Sewer proposal, public meeting announcement

Completed Related articles published in South Whidbey Record on June 1 and June 5. Notice published in Whidbey Examiner on June 1.

2010 June 8 Public Meeting Trinity Lutheran Church

Project review/comment period Sewer proposal/funding

Completed Approximately 28 citizens attended meeting. For overview and Q&A see Appendix 5

2010 June 16 Project Website Website launched Sewer Completed





Notes

Updated with Public Hearing PowerPoint proposal/fundingoverview

2010 June 16 Public Meeting Announcement

Flyers distributed July 6 public meeting Completed

2010 July 2 Information materials

Fact sheet/FAQ/meeting announcement inserted into FWSD billing statement and distributed to email distribution lists

Sewer proposal, meeting notice

Completed

2010 June 16June 28

Public MeetingAnnouncement

Press release and flyers distributed July 6 public meeting Completed Notice published in Whidbey Examiner on June 30. Article in South Whidbey Record on July 2.


Fact sheet/FAQ distributed at July 6 public meeting and posted on website

Sewer proposal/funding overview

Completed

2010 July 6 Public Meeting Trinity Lutheran Church

Project review/comment period Sewer update/cost estimated/Financing Plan/LID

Scheduled Approximately 78 citizens attended meeting. For meeting overview see Appendix 5 .


Website updated with new documents generated by/for Jul 6 meeting

Recap of July 6 Public Meeting

In progress

2010 July 10** Media relations Press release Announce USDA grant application-include LID requirement

Not yet started

Triangle to draft prior to July 9 and embargo

2010 July Information materials

LID FAQ developed and posted on website, emailed to stakeholders.

LID July 31 anticipated date

2010 July - Sept Stakeholder briefings

Work with District staff to identify and schedule meetings with groups to inform and obtain input

All components of project

Ongoing

2011 July Media Relations

News story pitched to major media in Western Washington

Freeland’s economic development/Puget Sound Action

Action to be decided





Notes

Agenda/Saving Holmes Harbor/ARRA funding

2010 Aug 31** Information materials

Newsletter Announcement of USDA RD decision regarding loan/grantapplication

Not yet started

2010 Aug 31 ** Media Relations

Press release and/or editorial board meeting Announcement of USDA RD decision regarding loan/grant application

Not yet started

2010 Aug ** Information Materials

Copies of press release/editorial sent to primary stakeholders

Announcement of USDA RD decision regarding loan/grant application

Not yet started

2010 Aug/Sept Information/Meetings

Brief the Phase 1 property owners about STEP system design and issues around existing septic tank inspecting/repair/replacement and interim measures for new or failing systems.

(Key milestone for Island County Health to provide specific answers to the public on how interim measures will be handled.)

2010 Sept Information materials

Insert updated FAQ/fact sheet into September FWSD billing statement. Notify people of October public meeting

Sewer and LIDPublic meeting

Not yet started

2010 Sept Briefings Small group meetings with local officials, neighborhood/business/civic groups

Sewer and LID Action to be decided

2010 Oct Briefing Small group meetings with local officials, neighborhood/business/civic groups

Sewer and LID Action to bedecided

2010 Oct Public Meeting (Workshop)Announcement

Press release/Flyers distributed LID Action to bedecided

2010 Oct Public Meeting Sewer funding workshop LID Action to be





Notes

1:1 Q &A decided2010 Nov Public Meeting Sewer funding workshop

1:1 Q &ALID Action to be

decided2010 Nov Media

RelationsPress Release/Editorial Board/Flyers announcing the Jan 10 2011 Public Hearing.

LID Not yet started

2010 Dec Property Owner Notice

Mail notice of Jan 10 2011 Public Hearing to property owners within LID area, plus property owners within 300 feet of LID area. Notify lending agencies also.

LID Not yet started

2010 Dec 9 Public Notice Submit to South Whidbey Record for publication Wed/Sat Dec 11, 15

Notice of LID Public Hearing

Not yet started

Sandy Duncan will send

2010 Dec 23 Public Notice Submit to South Whidbey Record for publication Wed/Sat, Dec 27, 29

Notice of LID Public Hearing

Not yet started

Sandy Duncan will send

2011 Jan 10 Public Hearing Formal Public Hearing before FWSD Board of Commissioners

LID Formation Scheduled

2011 Jan 21 Media Relations

Press release LID status (post 10 day protest period)

Not yet started

2011 Jan 21 Stakeholder communication

Email to stakeholder list LID status Action to be decided

2011** Jan/Feb Information materials

Design alternatives, fact sheet Treatment facility design

In advance of design finalization, a communication strategy meeting should be held with members of Project Team and the PIP updated.

2011 Jan/Feb Information Materials

Information & notice about start of design for septic tank inspection/evaluation and easement process.

Collection System—STEP Onsite

2011 Feb/Mar Information/Materials/ Meetings

Information/meetings to follow up on LID formation and procedures to follow.

LID





Notes

2011** Public meeting Public meeting on design elementsEmphasis on how design elements affect the community and individual participants, such as need for new septic tank for STEP system, whether existing tanks can be retrofitted. Discussion of aesthetics, architecture, landscaping, etc.

Treatment facility design


2012** Briefings Meet with businesses County and other stakeholder groups to provide overview of construction schedule and how they can minimize disruptions to their businesses/lives

Pre-construction planning


Well in advance of construction, a communication strategy meeting should be held with members of Project Team and the PIP updated.

2012** Information materials

Notices of road closures, service interruptions, 24 hour hotline (monitored with responses within 24 hours). Emergency contact in case of service information. Door hangers to inform neighborhoods of pending construction in that area.Updates during construction through utility billing mailings, website updates.

Construction updates, related issues


2012** 2013

Public meeting A public meeting at the beginning of the construction to explain about expectations during construction, how communications will be handled, how to report an emergency, access issues, etc.


2014** Informationmaterials

A potential meeting at or near the end of construction that would explain the change over from septic to sewer, billings, payments, etc.

2014 Media Relations

News story pitched to major media in Western Washington

Freeland’s economic development


Appendix 2

Stakeholder Interview RecapMay and June 2010

Triangle Associates, on behalf of the FWSD, questioned 16 individuals whose home or business lies within the area that would be served by the New Sewage Collection and Treatment System. The purpose of the interviews was to gauge current awareness and anticipate issues and concerns to be addressed in ongoing communications. The interviews were conducted on May 4, 26 – 28 and June 15, 19 and 21, 2010. Most interviews were conducted by phone. In three instances responses to questions were emailed.

Of the 16 people questioned 12 expressed support for the project, five wished to withhold opinion until the costs were known, and one was opposed.

The following table represents randomized comments organized by theme. The comments are randomized to support anonymity.

Awareness and Perception of Issue Environmental Concerns Costs/Funding Recommendations for FWSDYes. Everyone knows there’s a problem, but some people don’t even know how their septic works. People are up in arms about the grinder systems because of expense. STEP makes more sense.

Freeland is not approaching this in as cost effective way as possible.

This feels like a runaway train.

I am concerned that the County does not continue to redirect runoff into Holmes Harbor and away from traditional filtering bodies of water. The wetlands provide essential water quality filtering for us all, and also provide habitat for wildlife that depend on the small ponds and wetlands that remain in our area. (Example: Maple Ridge Senior Center).

Two-thirds of residents are on fixed income and they’re scared to death of how this will impact their finances.

Freeland should be partnering with Holmes Harbor. HH has a STEP system and wastewater treatment and is only at 50% capacity. We should be joining HH in the interim while we take time to develop the right system/funding for Freeland. Whatever politics in the past that kept HH separate from Freeland is old history. We should be talking with them about common ground. Makes no sense to have two systems under two separate management teams.

Even though this is coming at a difficult time for our business, we have to do this. South Whidbey needs affordable housing and sewer is the most powerful tool to help that happen. Sewer makes density possible…townhomes, apartments and condos over retail, and small parcels. We

Fouling drinking water is a real concern. Need fed funds.

Would likely support LID

There should be fliers at public meetings that state what the issues are if no action is taken and outline all that is being done to develop a cost effective system.



Awareness and Perception of Issue Environmental Concerns Costs/Funding Recommendations for FWSDneed Freeland to be a viable place to live for all ages,

I support purple pipes, even though more expensive.

Sewer project could be a real economic stimulus for So. Whidbey. Not only would it bring workers in for the project, but it would stimulate a mini building boom and spark a lot of economic development in the areaAware of issues. Most people have some awareness, but for most people this just isn’t on their radar, except for business owners.

There are water pollution issues but I think the problem is the focus on sewer rather than wastewater treatment.

Consider Industrial Development Bonds

Thinks 2/3 to 3/4 funds could come from federal grants.

They should think about how to leverage emerging technologies now and years from now. They should be thinking of not just properly disposing waste, but using the waste as a byproduct that can be used to benefit the environment. There are alternatives to septic and sewer that are not being looked at…for example, composting toilets.

Businesses see a huge need. Everyone else iseither resistant to growth or concerned about cost. Common sentiment: Why should I subsidize the movers and shakers?

I see the sewer system promoting growth where there shouldn’t be growth…in areas that should be wetlands.

The sewer, rather than be built large to accommodate projected future population, should be built incrementally

Right now 1/3 of the ground is taken up with septic drain fields. If you put in sewers you free up the land for other use. You can build 2 or 3 story condos/townhomes…places with views. You can get people living in town and walking down the street at night and eating in cafes.

Fed funding critical Planners need to do their land use homework. They need to convince people of economic benefits.

There should be one system…combining with HH. HH has a very good system.

Key benefits: Properties can be developed Higher density Recoup septic set aside areas Shellfish might come back Protection of groundwater Reuse of treated wastewater Finance over a period of time Opportunity costs

Holmes Harbor is a non-flushing harbor and has been shut down for fishing/swimming/shellfish because of pollution.

Don’t mix water and sewer charges…that was the promise.

Maintain the beauty of the area



Awareness and Perception of Issue Environmental Concerns Costs/Funding Recommendations for FWSDMost people know something is going on but very fuzzy on details.

Worried about assisted living facility on sewer in Freeland; prescription drugs going right out into Holmes Harbor. Concerned about wastewater leeching into aquifer and contaminating drinking water.

Would support LID District has to be explicit about boundaries, timeline, and costs and funding. People need details about cost, options, funding, benefits

Somewhat familiar with issue.I read the Whidbey Record online. And I got the Chamber of Commerce letter.

Very concerned about wastewater issues. If you live in Freeland you’re part of a community and it’s the community’s responsibility to keep our water safe and clean.

I’m concerned about the sort of reputation Freeland will get if it doesn’t do what’s needed to keep Holmes Harbor clean.

It would be nice to have sewer...but I don’t want to be forced into it. No one’s told me the cost.

Freeland Water & Sewer District needs to explain how this will work. Won’t we still have to pump septic tanks in a STEP system?

Vaguely aware.A lot of uncertainty among community members, confusion over the type of sewer system.

If septic systems are well-maintained, it shouldn’t be a problem. I’m more concerned about wastewater runoff from roads, parking lots, and more construction that’s taking away the ability for the ground to naturally filter the water.

Fed funding critical.

Would support LIDCommunity doesn’t like info being doled out bit by bit. Answer the tough questions.

Not keen on growth.

Don’t see sewer’s benefits to Freeland except for some businesses.

There is pollution in Holmes Harbor butI’m not convinced residential septic systems are causing the problem. Nichols Bros (boat builders) may be culprit.

Costs are key. Costs a few years ago were prohibitive so additional funding is necessary

FWSD shouldn’t be overly ambitious in setting boundaries. Confine it to the areas most readily defined as Freeland. My biggest concern is that if we make the sewer district too large, and start including property owners that have large parcels with plenty of area for drain fields and don’t need sewers. Those people could block the effort.

Very aware. Involved in initial development of plan.Most people are only vaguely aware. This is a tough community to get the word out. The Whidbey Examiner and South WhidbeyRecord are about it…many people don’t trust the Record.

I’ll probably support the sewer because of the environmental benefits. It allows higher population density which is better than people spread out all over the island.

A lot of retirees are on fixed income. Do we really need this? A lot more information is needed.

Freeland is fastest growing area on Island…it’s the commercial hub of So. Whidbey. Without sewer the area will

There’s been problems in Holmes Harbor but they’ve been tracked to a couple of septic tank problems…it’s not like there

Concerned about increased taxes on Freeland residents and

The newspaper is a terrible way to communicate. People don’t trust Whidbey Record. Bulletin boards in grocery stores are more effective.



Awareness and Perception of Issue Environmental Concerns Costs/Funding Recommendations for FWSDstagnate. Sewer is needed so business core can develop

some systemic failure; there is no evidence of it.

businesses

Freeland is the commercial center of S. Whidbey. Important to keep the “rural” feel of Freeland while providing for the convenience of a larger city.

Don’t know that septic is really causing a problem except for some businesses.

Fed funding critical. I think there’s a tremendous need for public outreach. We only get little blurbs of information. They need to answer the hard questions.

A system will allow for housing for young families

Newspaper is the most important communication tool. The Web isn’t used as much but it would be good to have something on the Web anyway

Getting rid of septic system, a problem in areas with hard pan.

Would need to know more about the LID approach to comment

. We need a major educational effort to raise awareness.

This could change the possibilities for the downtown area – will make the area more usable. We need the businesses

Water quality is important. Holmes Harbor is a concern.

Don’t know about LID.

Don’t want to pay for something that only benefits some business owners.

Maintain the beauty of the area

Very aware, has been closely tracking since the beginning of the project.

Most information received from Chamber of Commerce and more recently FWSD.

Thinks issue is a big question mark for most people in the community and much more needs to happen to educate people about the project, project benefits, and cost of doing nothing.

There is a big concern for Holmes Harbor water quality issues from both contaminated groundwater and storm water runoff. There have been a lot of septic tanks that have failed

Fixed income residents will be where the major cost concerns come from

Make sure that no properties that want to be included are left out.

Some awareness

Most information from South Whidbey Record

People are concerned about Holmes Harbor closure. Restaurants and Payless have undersized systems so that causes problems. However, most people have functioning septic systems. It’s not residential septiccausing the problems…its more likely Payless and Nichols Bros.

Outside financing is critical.

.

Public meetings will reach some people but need to tap into different groups within the community. Consider going to groups that are already assembled



Awareness and Perception of Issue Environmental Concerns Costs/Funding Recommendations for FWSDI have been aware of this project for a number of years, since it was first proposed.

Info sources: Friends of Freeland newsletters, personal research, meetings of organizers

Beaches have been closed and there have been shellfish restrictions. Used to be able to harvest lots of clams from the Harbor

Familiar with LID and supportive of it.

The support this project gets from federal, state, and county adds legitimacy to the effort. People more likely to support.

I would like to see streams that are open to the surface remain so, not buried in culverts and underground pipes. (Example: Payless Foods site, along with other examples more recent.)

Hard to keep people informed about local issues. So Whidbey Record is so bad we discontinues.

I believe wastewater pollution is a big problem for Freeland that will only get worse (more stinky) without proper management.

Concerned about initial cost and long-term maintenance.

We need the brightest people on this—people who know where and how to get the federal dollars” “When the engineers go away, it will be us residents who have to live with the system and pay for the system. They need to be making sure we’re on board.”

For my place of work, it would probably be easier to be part of a sewer system than continued maintenance of a septic system

Cleaning up the ground water through channeled sewage treatment will have a positive impact on our wetlands that surround and run through Freeland. We are not managing them instead of filling them (like the Shell Station).

Outside financing is critical. Even though my business has taken a hit with the recession and any added cost is pretty scary right now, I still think we have to do this project.

All these entities…water commission; port, etc. need to be talking to each other.

I see a number of financial benefits. It will open up the development potential of a lot of small parcels with inadequate space for a septic and drain field, in addition to commercial parking requirements for a small commercial building.

Freeland will be more attractive with a clean water park instead of a fouled, dead, stinky mess due to better ground water management and replacing old leaky failing drain fields

LID is a fine approach. Whatever it takes.

We need to secure federal money.

I feel Freeland needs to become incorporated as soon as possible, ready to direct the growth that will come based on the availability of sewers. The County does not represent Freeland residential or business interests, and therefore we have no voice. That concerns me deeply

I do have a concern regarding sewers and their completion, and that is that Freeland is not yet incorporated, and has no say in how the build-out will happen.

More grant/low interest loan money available now

Appendix 3

Key Questions to be Addressed

Based upon interviews with Freeland residential and commercial property owners (see Appendix 2), and upon comments from the June 8 public meeting, the following questions can be anticipated as this process moves forward:

System Specifics Funding Project General Rationale

What are the boundaries for the system?

How much will it cost? What is the timeline for action? Why not partner with Holmes Harbor sewer system?

Where do the solids get sent to? How will homeowners/businesses be assessed?

How will this project impact the Shellfish Protection Zone in Holmes Harbor?

Why should residents subsidize something that will primarily benefit businesses?

What happens to all the existing septic systems?

What if I can’t afford it? Are septic systems in theNMUGA functioning?

Is there a benefit to residents outside not having to pay for yearly inspection?

Will the system be nimble enough for retrofitting?

Are we going to have to pay for sewer AND still have to pump out solids?

What if a property owner has a brand new on-site septic system?

What is the benefit for homeowners?

What is a Local Improvement District? Will everyone have to connect to sewer? Can I opt out?

Why these alternatives and not others?

How do property owners get a say in whether to form an LID?

What’s the impact of roads and clearing will be to the Trillium property?

How will this affect fixed income residents?

Appendix 4

Subject Matter Expert Database-DRAFT-

To ensure that stakeholder’s questions are answered in a timely and accurate manner, the Subject Matter Expert (SME) database will serve as a guide for directing incoming questions and requests for information from the public and media. The database can also be consulted when stakeholder briefings are requested.

Subject First Contact Contact Info Second Contact Contact Info

General overview Gary Hess Sandy DuncanSystem specifics Jim Santroch Kevin Dour/Gary HessEnvironmental issues Lisa Adolfson Kevin Dour/Arnie/Gary

HessCosts/funding Katy Isaksen Gary Hess/Sandy DuncanLID general Katy Isaksen Gary Hess/Sandy DuncanLID assessments Bob McCauley Gary Hess/Sandy DuncanFacility design Jim SantrochKevin Dour Gary HessConstruction impacts Gary Hess Jim Santroch/Kevin DourSeptic tank removal To be determined Gary HessResidential specific concerns

Sandy Duncan Gary Hess

Business specific concerns

Chet Ross Sandy Duncan /Richard/Gary Reys

Appendix 5

June 8 and July 6 Public Meeting Overviews and Comments and Question Summaries

Public Meeting Overview, June 8, 2010Citizens and Project Team Discuss New Sewer Collection and Treatment System and Next Steps

On Tuesday, June 8, 2010, Freeland Water and Sewer District hosted a public meeting at the Freeland Trinity Lutheran Church Sanctuary to provide information and answer questions about the New Sewer Collection and Treatment System and to discuss the next steps for sewer design and financing. The Sewer Collection and Treatment System will help Island County plan for growth in the Freeland Non-Municipal Urban Growth Area. Approximately 28 members of the community attended the public meeting.

During an informal open house period from 5:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m., large boards were posted around the room with information about the sewer planning and design process, the Freeland Water and Sewer District sewer service area, and potential financing options. Public meeting attendees were encouraged to view the information and talk with members of the consultant team as well as the Freeland Water and Sewer District Board members and staff.

At 5:30 p.m. Freeland Water and Sewer District President Rocky Knickerbocker welcomed meeting participants and offered some background information about the project. He then introduced meeting facilitator, Bob Wheeler from Triangle Associates who asked meeting participants to go around the room and introduce themselves. He then introduced members of the Tetra Tech consultant team, including Jim Santroch, Lisa Adolfson, and Katy Isaksen, who will complete the application for grant and loan funding to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Rural Development. Mr. Wheeler then explained that the June 8 and July 6 public meetings were part of a project on a very tight timeframe to meet the grant and loan application deadline. The public meetings are part of the application requirements to inform the public and engage them in the project.

Bob Wheeler then introduced Gary Hess, who is the District’s Engineer. Mr. Hess presented information about the rationale and need for the New Sewer Collection and Treatment System noting that sewers will address pollution in Holmes Harbor, potential groundwater contamination, economic and job viability, development to planned urban densities, and fulfill the community’s vision. He then outlined



the project’s timeline and discussed the one-time opportunity provided by the USDA Rural Development Program to potentially receive full funding through a combination grant and loan package.

Jim Santroch from Tetra Tech then provided a presentation on the technical aspects of the project. He explained that the project phase one is now larger than what was initially proposed in 2005. He reported that this will be a pressurized sewer system and would have a treatment plant located at the top of Bush Point Road. Currently the project team is considering two different types of pressurized sewers: a grinder pump system and a septic tank effluent pump, or STEP, system. The grinder pump system includes an on-site grinder and then the sewage would be pumped up to the treatment plant. The STEP system would use a septic tank to allow solids to settle, so that the remaining clear effluent could be pumped to the treatment plant. Both types of systems would require certain elements (STEP tank or grinder pump basin) to be located on each property served.

Mr. Santroch then presented details surrounding the treatment system and reuse site. He explained that the treatment plant would use a membrane bioreactor (MBR) system to treat wastewater. MBR technology was recommended in the 2005 Comprehensive Sewer Plan to protect groundwater as it treats water to Class A water quality standards. The membrane bioreactor treatment system would offer environmental benefits including the opportunity to use reclaimed water to recharge local groundwater through infiltration and/or apply on forest land. The reuse site – the location where the treated water will be dispersed – is located on an 80 acre parcel near the Trillium property. There, the Class A reclaimed water will be applied to the forest to recharge the local groundwater, or possibly used for irrigating forest land.

Katy Isaksen then presented information about funding the New Sewer Collection and Treatment System. The opportunity that theFreeland Water and Sewer District is now applying for has come from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which is sending money through to USDA Rural Development Program. This is a unique opportunity to obtain funding from one source for the initial project. In order to develop a strong application, she explained that it was important to develop cost estimates and financing strategies as a way to identify the most advantageous financing option(s) available to launch the sewer system.

She explained that the consultant team would use conservative cost estimating assumptions to help make sure that the project could be financed within the estimated amount. Ms. Isaksen also provided information about developing a local improvement district (LID), which is a financing mechanism that allows for sewer improvements to be financed by property owners over a specified period, for example 15 years. This funding tool is guided by state law and stipulates that the costs cannot exceed the special benefits of the project. The law also specifies specific options for opting out of the LID. She noted that there is a specific process for LID formation that requires formal notice of all property owners and also includes meetings and mail notices. This will be more fully discussed at the July 6 public meeting.



For the July 6 public meeting, the project team will be updating the estimate of onsite costs to provide a range of what it will likely cost individual residents and businesses. Additionally, the consultant team will continue work to confirm and refine the construction costs and operations and maintenance costs in order to provide better cost estimates per equivalent residential unit.

The public asked many questions related to the decision-making process about the sewer, the facility plan, facility siting, and the cost estimate and financing strategies. The consultant team, along with Gary Hess and District President Rocky Knickerbocker, provided responses based on available information. At 7:30 p.m. Mr. Wheeler thanked meeting attendees for their time and questions andexplained that the project team would continue to develop more information for the July 6 public meeting in advance of the July 15 USDA Rural Development grant and loan application completion. The consultant team described the next steps in the decision-making process and opportunities for public involvement.



Freeland Water and Sewer District New Sewer Collection and Treatment System: June 8, 2010 Public Meeting Questions and Responses

The following is a summary of questions from the public that the project team received at the June 8, 2010 public meeting held at Trinity Lutheran Church regarding the Freeland Water and Sewer District New Sewer Collection and Treatment System. Brief responses to each topic are presented.

Sewer Collection and Treatment System

The collection system planned will be a pressurized system. What is the difference between the types (grinder pump and the septic tank effluent pump, or STEP, system) that are under consideration?

The key difference between the two systems is how the solids are handled. The grinder pump system includes an onsite grinder that pulverizes the solids so that all of the sewage, both liquid and ground solids is pumped to the treatment plant. The STEP system uses a septic tank, which allows for the solids to settle before the remaining clear effluent is pumped to the treatment plant. Because the STEP system uses a septic tank, it requires periodic pumping like a normal septic system does. Both systems require a pumping pit and chamber to be located onsite.

Does the system need to only be grinder or STEP, or can both technologies be used for the New Sewer Collection and Treatment System?

While it is technically possible to incorporate both technologies, the current recommendation is to use one technology or theother. Whether solids remain on-site in a septic tank or are pumped to the treatment plant has wastewater process and capital equipment implications at the treatment plant.

Can I use my existing septic tank if a STEP system is built? Assuming your septic tank is in good condition, is “water tight”, and can be retrofitted with a pumping system, it should be fit to

convert to a STEP system. Tests will be conducted during the sewer design phase to determine individual septic tank quality. Very often septic tanks leak and are not in good enough condition for reuse with a pressurized system and need to be repaired or replaced.



State Route 525 is a scenic highway and it sounds as though a booster pump station might be required on that Road if the Water and Sewer District builds a grinder pump system. Will this affect the scenic qualities of the roadway?

While the District has considered installing a 10-foot by 10-foot structure to house the booster pump station, there are ways to design around the aesthetics to make sure that the pump station is not aesthetically intrusive for the scenic roadway.

How will the wastewater be treated at the treatment plant? Wastewater will undergo a series of steps in treatment including, preliminary treatment/screening for solids, pre-aeration mixing,

aeration, post-aeration mixing, Membrane Bioreactor (MBR) filtration, and ultraviolet (UV) disinfection before being pumped out for slow infiltration/forest application. For a diagram of the process, please see slide #17 from the June 8 public meeting PowerPoint presentation.

Could you explain the phasing plan that is now recommended for the New Sewer Collection and Treatment System? Why are there two phases instead of the five previously recommended in the 2005 Comprehensive Sewer Plan?

The recommendation is now to develop the system in two phases. The first phase includes the areas of highest density, as well as those locations where a concern about failing septic systems exist. The second phase contains areas that are lower density and are the locations within the Non-Municipal Urban Growth Area projected to develop later. The phasing recommendation changed largely because of the U.S. Department of Agricultural Rural Development grant and loan opportunity and because of the environmental concerns recognized around Holmes Harbor.

Will Holmes Harbor residential area be served by the New Sewer Collection and Treatment System? No. Holmes Harbor already has sewer service provided by Holmes Harbor Sewer District.

Will the Village at Maple Ridge be served by the New Sewer Collection and Treatment System? No. The Village at Maple Ridge already has sewer service provided by the Main Street Sewer District.

I keep hearing about high density zoning. How was this developed? I thought density was slated to be 4 units per acre throughout Freeland?

The zoning for the Freeland Non-Municipal Urban Growth Area was adopted in the 2007 Freeland Sub-Area Plan. The average density in the Freeland Non-Municipal Urban Growth Area is about four units per acre, but this varies – in some cases zoning has slated areas for higher density and in others less.



How many septic failures are there within the Freeland Non-Municipal Urban Growth Area? I have not heard a number from the Island County Health Department, could you tell me how many have failed?

While the numbers are not immediately available, Island County Health Department and the Homes Harbor Shellfish Protection District have an on going surface water quality sampling program to tell where there are areas of concern that indicate failing septic systems exist. It is hard to track down which systems are failing, but these areas within the Freeland area have been included in phase one of the New Sewer Collection and Treatment System for this reason.

Cost & Financing

How is a special assessment related to a Local Improvement District (LID)? A LID is a financing method for public improvement such as streets, water systems, sidewalks and sewers that is codified in

Washington State law. The improvement benefits (increases the value) each property within a LID. The amount of assessment to the property is

determined by that benefit and by law can’t exceed the amount of benefit. A LID allows the improvements to be financed and paid over a specified period (for example 15 years). Assessments to each property are paid over the same period. When the improvements are paid, the assessments end.

Is a vote required to form a LID? Will all property owners be notified of the LID? Formation of a Local Improvement District does not require a vote. There is a notification process and public hearing required to form a LID. There will be legal notices published in the South

Whidbey Record, and each property owner in the proposed LID will receive a letter announcing the date and time of the Formation Hearing.

Will the Main Street Sewer District be included in this LID? No. It is its own district and will not be included in this LID.

I keep hearing the term ERU, or Equivalent Residential Unit. What does that mean if I have a vacant piece of property? Will my property be assessed even though it is Vacant?



An equivalent residential unit, or ERU, is a metric that is often used in sewer planning to designate a common base of sewageflow, commonly using 1 ERU as a typical single family residential home. Other sewer users are then compared to this basic unit of sewage contribution and defined in terms of the number of ERUs that entity contributes, e.g. 4 ERUs means the equivalent of 4single family residential homes.

An ERU is also used to help estimate the number of developable homes on a given piece of property based on zoning adopted in the 2007 Freeland Sub-Area Plan.

The property will be assessed even if there is no development currently onsite because it is assumed that one could immediately develop the site as soon as sewers are installed.

Are there examples to show where building this type of sewer project has added to the value of a community? These types of projects are very area-specific and it is hard to compare different projects. However, the special benefits analysis

appraises the benefit that accrues to the property. The process has been used for many years with numerous successful projects.

What are the benefits of adding a sewer to the community? Many benefits can be assumed by the project, including: improving the environment by addressing pollution in Holmes Harbor

and avoiding potential groundwater contamination, improving the community for economic and job viability, developing infrastructure to meet the to planned development densities, and achieving Freeland’s community vision approved in the Island County Comprehensive Plan.

A benefit to the property owner may be the avoided cost of repairing or replacing a failed septic system, or the ability to develop a property that “doesn’t perk.”

Environmental and Siting Questions

Will there be construction impacts to Bush Point Road? Yes, construction will affect the roadway, but one lane will be able to be open at all times to allow for traffic to pass through.

How much noise will the treatment plant produce?



The treatment plant will be designed with noisy equipment in sound enclosures to minimize noise heard off site. It is also intended that the trees around the treatment plant site will be left in place to further buffer noise and light at the property boundary.

Will the treatment plant produce light pollution in the neighborhood? The treatment plant will be designed to meet the County’s lighting ordinance. The trees and added landscaping around the site

will further control light at the property line.

Where will treatment plant traffic enter the site? The main entrance to the facility will be on an easement at Bush Point Road, but there will likely be another access location along

E. Timber Lane.

Will you need to expand the treatment site in the future? The treatment plant site layout is designed to meet the community needs out to its full system build-out in 2055, based on the

growth projections that were included in the Freeland Sub-Area Plan. It will be built in appropriate increments to meet capacity, and expanded when demand requires it.

What will you do if a pipe breaks? I could see untreated water going toward Holmes Harbor. How are redundancies included in the New Sewer Collection and Treatment System?

The Washington State Department of Ecology has established a number of reliability standards that the Freeland Water and Sewer District New Sewer Collection and Treatment System must employ. For example, if equipment at the plant were to break there will be enough storage and spare parts to help contain additional wastewater while the system is repaired. For either the grinder or STEP systems there are a number of reliability and redundancy measures designed into the control and alarm systemsto alert the homeowner and the District of failure. Pumps are modular and can be removed and replaced quickly. In the event that a pipe would break, the expectation would be that a crew would be sent out immediately to fix it. This is typical for any water or sewer utility.



Public Meeting, July 6, 2010Citizens and Project Team Discuss New Sewer Collection and Treatment System and Next Steps

On Tuesday, July 6, 2010, Freeland Water and Sewer District hosted a public meeting at the Freeland Trinity Lutheran Church Sanctuary to provide information and answer questions about the New Sewer Collection and Treatment System and to discuss the next steps for sewer design and financing. The Sewer Collection and Treatment System will help Island County plan for growth in the Freeland Non-Municipal Urban Growth Area. Approximately 70 members of the community attended the public meeting.

During an informal open house period from 5:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m., large boards were posted around the room with information about the sewer planning and design process, the Freeland Water and Sewer District sewer service area, and potential financing options. Public meeting attendees were encouraged to view the information and talk with members of the consultant team as well as the Freeland Water and Sewer District Board members and staff.

At 5:30 p.m. Freeland Water and Sewer District President Rocky Knickerbocker welcomed meeting participants and offered some background information about the project. He then introduced meeting facilitator, Bob Wheeler from Triangle Associates who asked meeting participants to go around the room and introduce themselves. He then introduced members of the Tetra Tech consultant team, including Jim Santroch, Arnie Sugar, and Katy Isaksen, who are completing the application for grant and loan funding to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Rural Development. Mr. Wheeler then explained that the June 8 and July 6 public meetings were part



of a project that is on a very tight timeframe to meet the USDA grant and loan application deadline, which is due on July 9, 2010. The public meetings are part of the application requirements to inform the public and engage them in the project.

Bob Wheeler then introduced Gary Hess, who is the District’s Engineer. Mr. Hess presented information about the rationale and need for the New Sewer Collection and Treatment System noting that sewers will address pollution in Holmes Harbor, potential groundwater contamination, economic and job viability, development to planned urban densities, and fulfill the community’s vision. He then outlined the project’s timeline and discussed the one-time opportunity provided by the USDA Rural Development Program to potentially receive funding through a combination grant and loan package. Mr. Hess also described the Phase 1 area proposed to be sewered with this project and the reasons for setting the current boundary

Jim Santroch from Tetra Tech then provided a brief presentation on the technical aspects of the project. He explained that the project phase one is now larger than what was initially proposed in 2005. He reported that this will be a pressurized sewer system and would have a treatment plant located at the top of Bush Point Road. Currently the project team is recommending a septic tank effluent pump, or STEP, system as part of the pressurized sewer system. The STEP system uses a septic tank to allow solids to settle, so that the remaining clear effluent could be pumped to the treatment plant. The STEP system would require certain elements (e.g., a STEP tank) to be located on each property served and an easement for the District to maintain the system.

Mr. Santroch then presented details surrounding the treatment system and reuse site. He explained that the treatment plant would use a membrane bioreactor (MBR) system to treat wastewater. MBR technology was recommended in the 2005 Comprehensive Sewer Plan to protect groundwater as it treats water to Class A water quality standards. The membrane bioreactor treatment system would offer environmental benefits including the opportunity to use reclaimed water to recharge local groundwater through infiltration and/or apply on forest land. The reuse site – the location where the treated water will be dispersed – is located on an 80 acre parcel near the Trillium Forest property. There, the Class A reclaimed water will be applied to the forest to recharge the local groundwater, or possibly used for irrigating forest land.

Arnie Sugar then presented on the technical aspects and hydrogeological conditions of the reuse site and how reclaimed water would be applied to the forest to promote ground water recharge. He explained that the current plan for the reuse site on a parcel owned by the Freeland Water and Sewer District (formerly Trillium Forest land) would maintain the existing site’s recreational uses (e.g. horseback riding, hiking, etc.) and natural ecosystem, and the reclaimed water application would promote forest growth by irrigation and support fire prevention. Additionally, remaining nitrogen in the reclaimed water would be utilized by forest growth. Mr. Sugar reported on the recent sampling done on the site to date, as well as the site specific conditions analyzed.



He then recapped the environmental review completed for the USDA Rural Development Program application, which includes a Biological Assessment for Endangered Species Act Compliance, an Environmental Report as required by the National Environmental Policy Act, a SEPA Checklist for the State Environmental Policy Act, as well as a Section 106 Cultural Resources Report.

Katy Isaksen then presented information about funding the New Sewer Collection and Treatment System. The opportunity that theFreeland Water and Sewer District is now applying for has come from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which is sending money through to USDA Rural Development Program for economic stimulus. The loan and grant package through USDA offers a unique opportunity to obtain funding from one source for the initial project. A potential 30 percent grant match would equal a $5,500 savings per equivalent residential unit (ERU). In order to develop a strong application, she explained that it was important to develop cost estimates and financing strategies as a way to identify the most advantageous financing option(s) available to launch the sewer system. She explained that the consultant team is using conservative cost estimating assumptions to help make sure that the project could be financed within the estimated amount.

As part of the funding plan to be used in conjunction with the USDA RD grant and loan opportunity, Ms. Isaksen also provided information about developing a local improvement district (LID), which is a financing mechanism that allows for sewer improvements to be financed by property owners over a specified period, for example 15 years. She then provided an example of a sample assessment calculation noting that, unlike a typical mortgage where your payment is the same each period, the assessment payment goes down every year over a 15-year period with fixed principal payments and interest paid on the declining balance.

She noted that the LID is a funding tool guided by state law and stipulates that the costs cannot exceed the special benefits of the project. The law provides a specific process for LID formation that requires formal notice of all property owners and also includes a formal public hearing and mail notices prior to formation. The first step is for the Board of Commissioners to adopt a Resolution of Intent to Form an LID at their regular scheduled meeting on July 12. This would begin the process, set the formation hearing for January 2011 and become part of the application package submitted to USDA RD. A lot of technical work including determining preliminary assessments will be required before the meeting notices are mailed to the property owners in December. This work is scheduled to begin after receiving a funding offer from USDA RD in August.

Because of inquiries about assistance for low- income, seniors and disabled residents, the Island County Assessor, David M. Mattens, provided meeting attendees information on exemption and deferral programs available to eligible residents. Three programs areadministered by the Island County Assessor’s office and one by the state. The County exemption program freezes the home’s assessed



value if one qualifies as a senior or disabled citizen. A homeowner continues to be assessed at that value for seniors. Another County program is a property tax deferral for senior citizens and disabled persons where the Department of Revenue pays the property taxes, but these payments become a lien in favor of the state. The third program offered by the County is a deferral for homeowners with limited income who use the property as a primary residence and have owned the home for five years. With this program, the State makes the second half tax payment. Taxes deferred cannot exceed 40 percent of the value of your property and it results in a lien in favor of the state. Finally, the state program offers property tax assistance program for widows or widowers of Veterans. More detailed information and applications are available on Island County Assessor’s website.

The public asked many related to the decision-making process about the sewer, existing septic tanks, water reuse issues, and the cost estimate and financing strategies. The consultant team, along with Gary Hess, board members Eric Hansen and Rocky Knickerbocker and provided responses based on available information. At 7:45 p.m. Mr. Wheeler thanked meeting attendees for their time and questions and explained that the District Board would look to approve the formation of the LID at its upcoming meeting on July 12. The consultant team described the next steps in the decision-making process and opportunities for public involvement.

Public Involvement Materials Factsheets

• Project factsheet and mailer sent in the June 2010 Freeland Water and Sewer District billing statement

Meeting Fliers

• June 8, 2010 Public Meeting Poster • July 6, 2010 Public Meeting Poster

Website

• Freeland Water and Sewer District Home Page • Freeland Water and Sewer District project page for the New Sewage Collection

and Treatment System Press Releases

• Press release for the June 8, 2010 Public Meeting • Press release for the July 6, 2010 Public Meeting

Articles and notices

• “Freeland sewer plans to be reviewed,” South Whidbey Record, June 1, 2010. • Freeland wastewater plan to be aired, Whidbey Examiner, June 1, 2010. • Kelly, Brian. “Officials hope to land federal money for Freeland sewers,” South

Whidbey Record, June 5, 2010. • Roy Jacobson. “Deadline nears for $30 million Freeland sewer-grant application,”

South Whidbey Record, June 21, 2010. • “Meeting set on Freeland sewer,” Whidbey Examiner, June 29, 2010. • Community Calendar, Whidbey Examiner, June 30, 2010.

What is the Freeland Sewage Collection and Treatment System?Freeland Water and Sewer District is pursuing funding for design and construction of a New Sewage Collection and Treatment System that would replace septic systems with a pressurized collection system, a water reclamation facility on Bush Point Road, and a reuse area located on property owned by the District in the Trillium Forest to recharge the local aquifer with reclaimed water.

The New Sewage Collection and Treatment System will serve most residences and businesses located within the recently-created Freeland Non-Municipal Growth Area (NMUGA) and will be built out in two phases (see map below). The first phase includes the areas of highest density, as well as those locations where a concern about failing septic systems exist. The second phase contains areas that are lower density within the Freeland NMUGA and are projected to develop later. The System will not serve current customers of the Holmes Harbor or Main Street Sewer Districts.

Freeland Water and Sewer DistrictNEW SEWAGE COLLECTION AND TREATMENT SYSTEM

June 2010

Come to the Public Meeting on Tuesday, July 6!5:00 - 7:30 p.m. (presentation at 5:30 p.m.) - Trinity Lutheran Church Sanctuary,

18341 State Route 525, Freeland

• Hear updates and review the Sewage Collection and Treatment System • Hearaboutfundingoptions,includingtheformationofaLocalImprovementDistrict

(LID)• AskquestionsandshareyourthoughtsabouttheproposedSewageCollectionand

Treatment System

Freeland and Sewage Collection and Treatment System. The above map depicts the phased expansion of the sewer system that feeds into the treatment plant site located near Bush Point Road. The reuse, or water and irrigation, area, seen in the upper left corner of the map, is located on property owned by the District in the Trillium Forest to recharge the local aquifer with reclaimed water.

Why build a sewage collection and treatment system in Freeland?

The New Sewage Collection and Treatment System is designed to address current wastewater contamination issues and preserve the rural character ofWhidbeyIslandbyfocusinggrowthintheFreelandNMUGA.

Thedevelopmentofsewercapacityisakeycomponent of the formation of the Freeland NMUGA. Freeland must be served by public sewer to support futuregrowthascalledforinIslandCounty’s1998ComprehensivePlan.In2002,IslandCountybeganworkingtodeveloptheFreelandComprehensiveSewer Plan and Facility Plan/Engineering Report and inDecember2005,itwasapprovedbytheIslandCounty Board of County Commissioners.

A New Sewage Collection and Treatment System in Freeland will address:

• PollutioninHolmesHarbordueinpartto failing septic systems

• Potentialgroundwatercontaminationcaused by failing septic systems

• Promotingeconomicandjobvitalityin Freeland

• Meetingdevelopmentrequirementsto match the planned densities

• AchievingFreeland’scommunity visionapprovedintheIslandCounty Comprehensive Plan

Where are we now?

Currently the Freeland Water and Sewer District is pursuing a one-time loan and grant opportunity from the U.S. Department of Agriculture Rural Development Program to help fund a New Sewage Collection and Treatment System in Freeland. Because the application for this competitive grant and loan opportunityisduebyJuly9,2010,theFreelandWaterand Sewer District is,

• updatingthe2005FreelandSewer Comprehensive Plan recommendations for collection, treatment, and reuse; and

• analyzingcosts,fundingoptions,and environmental impacts.

What is the Freeland Water and Sewer District doing to find funding for the project?

The Freeland Water and Sewer District is committed tomakingthewastewatersystembothfiscallyandecologically sound. To these ends, the Freeland Water and Sewer District is assessing the costs of different design options and is preparing cost estimates for the project to ensure the system is both effective and beneficial to the community.

More information will be presented at the July 6 public meeting, and will be posted to the project website at: http://www.freelandwsd.com/FreelandWSD_Sewer_Collection.html

InadditiontotheU.S.DepartmentofAgricultureRuralDevelopment grant and loan application, the Freeland WaterandSewerDistrict’sconsultantteam,ispursuingother grant and low interest loans. Additional funding sources to help reduce the cost to individuals and businesses include:

•A$1milliongranthasalreadybeensecuredfromthe Washington State Department of Ecology.

•EstablishingaLocalImprovementDistrict(LID)–afinancing method for public improvements that allows the improvements to be financed and paid by landowners over a specified period of time (for example 15 years).

How can I be involved?

The Freeland Water and Sewer District is actively enlisting the input of citizens, local government officials, business and interest groups to develop a cost effective and environmentally sound sewer system.

Because it is important to hear from community members, the District is holding public meetings over the course of the project to update community membersandtoaskforinput.

The next scheduled public meeting is Tuesday, July 6, 2010 at the Trinity Lutheran Church Sanctuary from 5:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. (presentation to begin at 5:30 p.m.).

Please visit www.freelandwsd.com for updates, meeting information, and project documents.

For more information

Please visit the Freeland Water and Sewer project website at http://www.freelandwsd.com/ or contact Sandy Duncan at (360) 331-5566.

PLEASE COME TO A PUBLIC MEETING AND

TELL US WHAT YOU THINK!

Public Meeting on the Proposed Wastewater System for the Freeland Non-Municipal Urban Growth Area

Tuesday, June 8, 2010, 5 PM – 7:30 PM

Trinity Lutheran Church 18341 State Route 525, Freeland

Freeland Water and Sewer District invites you to learn more about a proposed wastewater system planned for the Freeland Non-Municipal Urban Growth Area (NMUGA). The meeting offers community members an opportunity to:

• Hear updates and to review the wastewater system proposal • Hear about funding options • Learn about the process for forming a local improvement district

to help with local funding • Provide feedback and to ask questions about the proposed

wastewater system Doors open at 5 p.m. and presentations begin at 5:30 p.m. The June 8 public meeting is the first of two meetings in advance of the Freeland Water and Sewer District’s application to the United States Department of Agriculture Rural Development funding program. Funding from this program would help support the design and construction of the Freeland Wastewater System. The second meeting, which will provide more detailed information about the project, will be held at Trinity Lutheran Church on Tuesday, July 6 at 5 p.m. For more information, please contact Sandy Duncan (360) 331-5566, or to learn more about the Freeland Water and Sewer District, please visit http://www.freelandwsd.com/

What is this meeting about?Freeland Water and Sewer District’s July 6 meeting is the second of two public meetings in advance of the Freeland Water and Sewer District’s application to the United States Department of Agriculture Rural Devel-opment funding program. Funding from this program would help support the design and construction of the Freeland Sewage Collection and Treatment System.

What is the Freeland Sewage Collection and Treatment System?Freeland Water and Sewer District is pursuing funding for design and construction of a New Sewage Collection and Treatment System that would replace septic systems with a pressurized collection system, a water reclamation facility on Bush Point Road, and a reuse area located on property owned by the District in the Trillium Forest to recharge the local aquifer with reclaimed water.

The New Sewage Collection and Treatment System will serve most residences and businesses located with-in the recently-created Freeland Non-Municipal Growth Area (NMUGA) and will be built out in two phases. The first phase includes the areas of highest density, as well as those locations where a concern about fail-ing septic systems exist. The second phase contains areas that are lower density within the Freeland NMU-GA and are projected to develop later. The System will not serve current customers of the Holmes Harbor or Main Street Sewer Districts.

For more information

Please visit the Freeland Water and Sewer project website at http://www.freelandwsd.com/ or contact Sandy Duncan at (360) 331-5566.


Come to the Public Meeting on Tuesday, July 6 and tell us what you think!

5:00 - 7:30 p.m. (presentation at 5:30 p.m.) - Trinity Lutheran Church Sanctuary, 18341 State Route 525, Freeland

The meeting offers community members an opportunity to:

• HearupdatesandreviewtheSewageCollectionandTreatmentSystem• Hearaboutfundingoptions,includingtheformationofaLocalImprovementDistrict(LID)

• Ask questions and share your thoughts about the proposed Sewage Collection and Treatment System

Home ~ Reading Room ~ District Boundaries ~ Rules and Regulations ~ Engineering Specifications ~ Payments ~ Contact ~ LinksNew Sewage Collection and Treatment Page

Mission Statement:The Freeland Water and Sewer District's mission is to provide high quality potable water atreasonable rates within the service area of the Freeland Water and Sewer District.

Latest News:

Public Meeting on the New Sewer Collection and Treatment System for the FreelandWater and Sewer District - Tuesday, July 6, 2010, 5 PM – 7:30 PM (presentation begins at5:30 p.m.), Trinity Lutheran Church, 18341 State Route 525, Freeland. For information aboutthe meeting, please see the New Sewer Collection and Treatment System page

Public Notice: Commissioner Position Open - read the announcement

Harbor Hills rate proposal has been postponed until August 9th, 2010

Next Meeting:Freeland Water and Sewer District next meeting will be Monday July 12th, 2010 at 5:45 PM.

Fletcher Petition for Annexation was approved by the district on May 10, 2010

Download the Freeland Comprehensive Sewer Plan. Because it is a large 25MB file anddownload time may be long depending on connection speed, you can alternately use this link todownload the Comprehensive Sewer Plan executive summary, which is a smaller 1MB file.

State Audit Report for 2006-2008 can be read here...

Sign up for the Freeland Water and Sewer District email list

Freeland Water and Sewer District passes 09-03 Resolution on amending and re-adoptingdistrict rules and regulations 9/21/2009 - read more...

Read the FWSD 2010 newsletter and consumer confidence report

2010 Meeting Schedule:Click here to see the complete 2010 meeting schedule.

Previous Meeting Minutes: Click here to see the meeting minutes

7/2/2010 Freeland Water and Sewer District

http://www.freelandwsd.com/ 1/2

Copyright (c) 2008 Freeland Water and Sewer District . 5492 S. Harbor Ave.P.O. Box 222

Freeland, WA 98249 . 360-331-5566contact Webmaster

7/2/2010 Freeland Water and Sewer District

http://www.freelandwsd.com/ 2/2

Freeland Water and Sewer District New Sewage Collection and Treatment System

New SewageCollectionandTreatmentSystemDocumentsand ContactInfo

Maps

FreelandWater andSewer DistrictBoundaries

Freeland Non-MunicipalGrowth Area

FreelandService Areaand ProjectPhasing

Map ofFreelandWater andSewer DistrictService AreaBoundaries

2005 SewerComprehensivePlan: Full Report(25 MB) ExecutiveSummary (1.4MB)

Have a projectquestion orwant to make acomment? Please clickhere to emailus.

For MoreInformation,please contact:Sandy Duncan,FreelandWater and

Freeland Water and Sewer District Pursues U.S. Department of Agriculture RuralDevelopment Grant and Loan Funding

Currently the Freeland Water and Sewer District ispursuing a one-time loan and grant opportunity fromthe U.S. Department of Agriculture RuralDevelopment to help fund a New Sewage Collectionand Treatment System in Freeland. Because theapplication for this competitive grant and loanopportunity is due by July 9, 2010, the FreelandWater and Sewer District is currently,• updating the 2005 Freeland Sewer Comprehensive Plan recommendations for collection, treatment, and reuse;and• analyzing costs, funding options, environmental impacts

A New Sewage Collection and Treatment System in Freeland will address:• Pollution in Holmes Harbor• Potential groundwater contamination• Economic and job viability• Development to planned urban densities• Freeland’s community vision approved in the Island County Comprehensive Plan

Public Meetings held on June 8 & July 6

The Freeland Water & Sewer District is actively enlisting the input of citizens, local government officials, businessand interest groups to develop a cost effective and environmentally sound sewer system. In advance of the July 9application deadline, the District has held public meetings on June 8 and July 6.

The June 8 and July 6 meeting offeredthe public an opportunity to:• Hear updates and to review thewastewater system proposal, hearabout funding options • Learn about the process for forminga local improvement district to helpwith local funding• Provide feedback and to askquestions about the proposedwastewater system

A PDF of the June 8 meetingPowerPoint is available to download.

Additionally, an overview of the meeting and project questions and comments are available to review.

A PDF of the July 6 meeting PowerPoint is available for download.

7/7/2010 Freeland Water Sewage and Treatmen…

freelandwsd.com/FreelandWSD_Sewer… 1/2

Sewer District,(360)331-5566

FreelandWater andSewer DistrictHome Page

7/7/2010 Freeland Water Sewage and Treatmen…

freelandwsd.com/FreelandWSD_Sewer… 2/2


News Release

Date: May 28 2010

Contacts: Sandy Duncan, (360) 331-5566 Gary Hess, (360) 331-4131

June 8 Public Meeting on the Proposed Wastewater System

for the Freeland Non-Municipal Urban Growth Area

Freeland – The public is invited to a June 8 public meeting at Trinity Lutheran Church, 18341 State Route 525 Freeland, to learn more about a proposed wastewater system planned for the Freeland Non-Municipal Urban Growth Area (NMUGA). Sponsored by the Freeland Water and Sewer District, the Tuesday evening meeting will begin at 5 p.m. with a presentation scheduled to begin at 5:30 p.m. The meeting will end at 7:30 p.m. The meeting offers the public opportunity to hear updates and to review the wastewater system proposal, hear about funding options - including grant and loan opportunities, and to learn about the process for forming a local improvement district to help with local funding. Importantly, the meeting will offer community members an opportunity to provide feedback and to ask questions about the proposed wastewater system. The June 8 public meeting is the first of two meetings in advance of the Freeland Water and Sewer District’s application to the United States Department of Agriculture Rural Development funding program. Funding from this program would help support the design and construction of the Freeland Wastewater System. The second meeting, which will provide more detailed information about the project, will be held at Trinity Lutheran Church on Tuesday, July 6 at 5 p.m. More information on the Freeland Water and Sewer District is available on the Web at http://www.freelandwsd.com/

-###-


News Release

Date: June 25 2010

Contacts: Sandy Duncan, (360) 331-5566 Gary Hess, (360) 331-4131

July 6 Public Meeting on the New Sewer Collection and Treatment System for Freeland Water and Sewer District

Freeland – The public is invited to a July 6 public meeting at Trinity Lutheran Church, 18341 State Route 525 Freeland, to learn more about a New Sewer Collection and Treatment System planned for the Freeland Water and Sewer District. Sponsored by the Freeland Water and Sewer District, the Tuesday evening open house will begin at 5 p.m. with a meeting presentation scheduled to begin at 5:30 p.m. The meeting will end at 7:30 p.m. The meeting offers the public opportunity to hear updates and to review the New Sewer Collection and Treatment System, hear about funding options - including grant and loan opportunities, and to learn about the process for forming a local improvement district to help with local funding. Importantly, the meeting will offer community members an opportunity to provide feedback and to ask questions about the New Sewer Collection and Treatment System. The July 6 public meeting is the second of two meetings in advance of the Freeland Water and Sewer District’s application to the United States Department of Agriculture Rural Development grant and loan program. Funding from this program would help support the design and construction of the New Sewer Collection and Treatment System for Freeland. More information on the Freeland Water and Sewer District is available on the Web at http://www.freelandwsd.com/

-###-

Pow ered by

SAVE THIS | EMAIL THIS | Close

related storiesSouth Whidbey Record

County says yes to Freeland sewer planCounty sets hearing on Freeland sewer comp planSewer forum in Freeland brings out supportersFreeland panel OKs first step in sewer plan

Whidbey Island

None at this time.

News blogs

Crime TimeThe latest from South Whidbey’s police blotter and the Record’s siren chasersThe NewsroomGet the inside scoop on what the newsroom is working on at The South Whidbey Record

Freeland sewer plans to be reviewedJun 01 2010

The Freeland Water and Sewer District will hold a meeting next week to give details on the proposedwastewater system that’s planned for the Freeland Non-Municipal Urban Growth Area.

The meeting is at 5 p.m. Tuesday, June 8 at Trinity Lutheran Church in Freeland. A presentation is scheduled tobegin at 5:30 p.m. District officials will give an update and review the wastewater system proposal, plus talkabout funding options — including grant and loan opportunities, and the process for forming a local improvementdistrict to help with local funding. People will be able to give feedback and ask questions about the proposedsewer system.

Next week’s meeting is the first of two that will be held before the Freeland Water and Sewer District’sapplication to the U.S. Department of Agriculture Rural Development funding program. Officials say funding fromthe program would help support the design and construction of the Freeland Wastewater System.

The second meeting, which will provide more detailed information about the project, will be held at TrinityLutheran Church at 5 p.m. Tuesday, July 6.

7/1/2010 Freeland sewer plans to be reviewed -…

www.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?a… 1/2

Find this article at: http://w w w .pnw localnew s.com/w hidbey/sw r/new s/95366074.html


Check the box to include the list of links referenced in the article.

Copyright ©2008 Black Press. All rights reserved.

7/1/2010 Freeland sewer plans to be reviewed -…


Subscribe | Advertise | Submit News | About | Submit Letters

home events community blogs special sections Featured Employers

top storiesisland timeneighborssports & schoolsopinionbusinesscrime watcheventsblogsphoto galleriesadvertisesubmit newsspecial sectionsmore blogsclassified adse-editionsextras

Interactive PollWith the countybudget in trouble,what are you willingto do to ensurebasic servicesremain in place?

Please select one:

I'm willing topay moretaxes to paystaff to get thework done.

I'm willing to dowithoutservices suchas road repairsand publichealthservices.

I'd be glad tovolunteer on aregular basis.Where do Isign up?

I'd be happy todonate to anonprofit thatprovidesservices likeanimal controlor meals onwheels.

home : top stories : top stories Share July 01, 2010

6/1/2010 9:08:00 PM

Freeland wastewater plan to be aired

The proposed wastewater system planned for the Freeland Non-Municipal Urban Growth Area will be discussed at apublic meeting set for 5 p.m. Tuesday, June 8 at Trinity Lutheran Church, 18341 Hwy. 525, Freeland.

Sponsored by the Freeland Water and Sewer District, is an opportunity to hear review the wastewater systemproposal, learn about funding options, including grant and loan opportunities, and learn about the process for forming alocal improvement district to help with local funding.

The meeting is an opportunity to provide feedback and ask questions about the proposed wastewater system.

The June 8 meeting is the first of two meetings in advance of the Freeland Water and Sewer District’s application forfunding through the United States Department of Agriculture rural development program, which would help pay for thedesign and construction of the wastewater system.

The second meeting, which will provide more detailed information about the project, is set for 5 p.m. Tuesday, July 6,also at Trinity Lutheran Church.

Information on the Freeland Water and Sewer District is available online at freelandwsd.com, or call Sandy Duncan,360-331-5566, or Gary Hess, 360-331-4131.

Article Comment Submission Form

Please feel free to submit your comments.

Article comments are not posted immediately to the Web site. Each submission must be approved by the Web siteeditor, who may edit content for appropriateness. There may be a delay of 24-48 hours for any submission while theweb site editor reviews and approves and posts it.

Note: All information on this form is required. Your telephone number is for our use only, and will not be attached toyour comment.

Submit an Article CommentFirst Name:Required

Last Name:Required

Phone:Required

Email:Required

Message:Required

Passcode:Required

Click here to see a new mix of characters.

This is an anti-SPAM dev ice. It is not case sensitiv e.

Submit Reset

Adv anced Search

search...

search sponsored by

< July >S M T W T F S 1 2 34 5 6 7 8 9 10

11 12 13 14 15 16 1718 19 20 21 22 23 2425 26 27 28 29 30 31

7/1/2010 Freeland wastewater plan to be aired -…

http://whidbeyexaminer.com/main.asp… 1/2

user agreement privacy policy 2010 Harborside Parade, Freeland Your Brain on Pandas

The Whidbey Examiner

Whidbey Island’s only locally owned, independent community newspaper.

6 NW Coveland Street, P.O. Box 445 • Coupeville, WA 98239

Phone 360-678-8060 • Fax 360-678-6073

news - subscriptions - advertising

Software © 1998-2010 1up! Software, All Rights Reserved

7/1/2010 Freeland wastewater plan to be aired -…


Pow ered by


related storiesSouth Whidbey Record

County says yes to Freeland sewer planSewer forum in Freeland brings out supportersFreeland boosters have fingers crossed for federal sewer fundsConcerns linger over funding plan for Freeland sewer system

Whidbey Island

None at this time.

News blogs

Crime TimeThe latest from South Whidbey’s police blotter and the Record’s siren chasersThe NewsroomGet the inside scoop on what the newsroom is working on at The South Whidbey Record

Officials hope to land federal money forFreeland sewersBy BRIAN KELLYSouth Whidbey Record EditorJun 05 2010

Officials of the Freeland Water and Sewer District are increasingly optimistic about their chances of landingfederal stimulus funds to help pay for a new sewer system in Freeland.

Representatives from the sewer district met this week with Island County commissioners, and said there was a“full-court press” to complete an application to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Rural Development fundingprogram.

Gary Hess, engineer for the sewer district, said the consulting firm of Tetra Tech had been hired to help preparethe application.

“They’re working fast and furiously on getting all of our requirements together — the preliminary engineeringreport and the environmental report, public involvement and finance — all those pieces put together to complete

7/1/2010 Officials hope to land federal money f…


our application package,” Hess said.

The sewer district faces a July 15 deadline.

“This is a really important milestone for us to hit,” Hess said, noting that prospects for future applications are slimto none for federal stimulus money.

“Their ability to fund us to a larger degree is now or never,” he said.

The proposed sewer system would serve the Freeland Non-Municipal Urban Growth Area, including downtownFreeland, the South End’s commercial core. The sewer district has already purchased an 80-acre piece ofproperty formerly owned by the Trillium Corporation for the wastewater treatment project, a multi-phase effortthat has been estimated to cost $38 million.

District officials have been talking for months about securing a

$30 million grant for the project from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and federal officials made a site visit tothe property in February.

The sewer district is hosting a meeting next week in Freeland to talk about the sewer project. The meeting, thefirst of two, will include an update on the wastewater system proposal, a review of funding options, and adiscussion about forming an LID, or local improvement district, to help with local funding.

The meeting is 5 p.m. Tuesday, June 8 at Trinity Lutheran Church in Freeland.

Hess told county commissioners this week that a combination of grant and loan funding is expected to pay for theproject.

“There will be a loan of some magnitude,” Hess said. “The payback for that will have to be through somesecured funding stream in Freeland.”

The plan is to create an LID — comprised of property owners who benefit from the new sewer system and payassessments — to help retire the debt on the project.

It’s too soon to say what the LID costs might be, Hess said, and that information may not be ready by the June 8meeting.

“Even though that’s the first question out of everyone’s mouth: ‘What’s it going to cost me?’” Hess said.

“We’re trying to get there, but we don’t want to put information out that’s half-baked,” he added.

That information is expected to be ready by the second public meeting on July 6.

Appropriations for 2011 federal recovery funds are expected to be made Aug. 15, and sewer districtrepresentatives said there is already state and federal support for the project.

“They want this one to go,” Chet Ross, the sewer district’s point man on the project, told county commissioners.

The sewer system is expected to help clean up Holmes Harbor, which has been closed to shellfish harvesting



since March 2006 because of pollution.

“We just can’t continue to go ahead with having septic systems in Freeland without ultimately, you know, largerproblems in Holmes Harbor and in groundwater,” Hess said.

South Whidbey Record Editor Brian Kelly can be reached at [email protected].

emailletterprintfollow

Find this article at: http://w w w .pnw localnew s.com/w hidbey/sw r/new s/95657124.html


Check the box to include the list of links referenced in the article.

Copyright ©2008 Black Press. All rights reserved.



Home News Election Blogs Sports Entertainment Business Lifestyles Community Opinion About Us

Jobs Autos Homes Rentals Foreclosures Classifieds Coupons Business Directory Special Sections Legal Notices Contests

Deadline nears for $30 millionFreeland sewer-grant applicationBy ROY JACOBSONSouth Whidbey Record Reporter Jun 21 2010, 1:04 PM

Freeland sewer backers may know in August if they’llget as much as $30 million from the federalgovernment to build a new system.

“It’s not 100-percent certain, but it’s encouraging atthis point,” Chet Ross, president of the Freeland AreaChamber of Commerce and a prime mover of thesewer plan, said Thursday.

Proponents and their consultants are pushing hard tomeet a July 15 application deadline set by the U.S.Department of Agriculture, Ross said.

The application will be submitted through the Freeland Water andSewer District, which will oversee the project. The Freeland office ofDavido Consulting Group is doing most of the preliminary engineeringrequired for the application.

“The engineers are working feverishly,” Ross said. “We’re movingforward.”

He said a decision whether or not to award the grant is expectedfrom the USDA by mid-August.

Ross said the plan, originally outlined in four phases, has beenreconfigured to two, but still includes the same area.

He said Phase One would include 90 percent of the potentialcustomers — all the commercial and most of the residential areas ofFreeland — and that $30 million from the USDA should cover construction of both phases.

Gary Hess, engineer for the water and sewer district and a consultant with Davido, said recently thatconstruction on the project could begin within two years, once funding is set.

Ross said the cost to individual customers to hook up to and maintain the system won’t be known untilpreliminary engineering is complete. A detailed engineering report must be submitted with the application.

“We hope to have that information available by July 15,” Ross said.

Proponents have worked for years to create a sewer system that would serve Freeland’s commercial coreand surrounding residences, the center of economic activity on the South End.

A sewer system is a prerequisite for Freeland incorporation, another goal of the group.

The project, originally expected to cost about $38 million, has been slowed through the years by extensiveplanning, legal wrangling and a quest for elusive funding.

The water and sewer district currently encompasses about 1,050 acres, and serves 442 commercial andresidential customers in the Freeland area.

The district already has moved ahead with property acquisition to accommodate an outfall for the sewersystem and for a future sewage treatment plant.

Earlier this year, the district purchased 10 acres off Bush Point Road between Highway 525 and Mutiny Bay

Thursday, 7/1/2010 3:26 pm

Search New s

NO COMMENTS EMAIL LETTER PRINT FOLLOW SHARE

RELATED STORIESSouth Whidbey Record

County says yes to Freeland sewer planSewer forum in Freeland brings outsupportersFreeland sewer plans to be reviewed

Whidbey IslandNone at this time.

NEWS BLOGS

Crime TimeThe latest from South Whidbey’s policeblotter and the Record’s siren chasersThe NewsroomGet the inside scoop on what thenewsroom is working on at The SouthWhidbey Record

7/1/2010 Deadline nears for $30 million Freelan…

pnwlocalnews.com/…/96825544.html 1/3

y p g y y yRoad, for $275,000, using a grant from the state Department of Ecology.

The treatment plant would be installed in a building about the size of a large house. The water reclamationfacility would have no outdoor ponds, and would be designed to be odor-free, engineers say.

In December, the district closed on 80 acres in the former Trillium Woods north of Freeland after thedeveloper of the property forfeited to Shoreline Bank.

The sale price was $560,000, drawn from $2.5 million in Island County sales-tax revenues set aside for theFreeland sewer project as part of a rural development program.

The Whidbey Camano Land Trust is attempting to buy and preserve the remaining 664 acres of the property,the largest single-owner forest on Whidbey Island.

Ross said sewer proponents and consultants will provide a project update at another community meeting setfor early next month.

The meeting will be at 5 p.m. Tuesday, July 6, at Trinity Lutheran Church in Freeland. For more information,call Ross at 331-1980 or 331-4409, or the sewer district at 331-5566.

South Whidbey Record Reporter Roy Jacobson can be reached [email protected] or 360-221-5300.

COMMENTING RULES: We encourage an open exchange of ideas in the PNWLocalNews.comcommunity, but we ask you to follow our guidelines for respecting community standards. In anutshell, don't say anything you wouldn't want your mother to read.

Add New Comment

Showing 0 comments

Sort by Subscribe by email Subscribe by RSS

Trackback URL http://disqus.com/forum

Most Read Stories This week | Last week

South Whidbey RecordSouth Whidbey residents warn they’ll vote no on school bond

Man visiting Freeland survives 20-foot fall at Fort Casey

Highway backed up as ferry goes off line

Some on South Whidbey stressed over noise, danger from illegal Fourth of July fireworks

Weekend vandals trash restrooms at Freeland Park again

We’ve passed our Whidbey goal for marijuana reform measure | LETTER TO THE EDITOR

Whidbey IslandOne man seriously injured, another in jail aftera dirt-bike accident on North Whidbey

Man rescued from Deception Pass Bridgemay face prosecution

Snakes complicate drug raid in Oak Harbor

South Whidbey residents warn they’ll vote noon school bond

Judge ignores plea bargain, gives WhidbeyMarine who choked wife max sentence

Oak Harbor husband-wife are first tosilmultaneously run for Island County offices

WashingtonDog shot in backyard; family takes action toalert Kirkland neighborhood

Drivers to get a new lane as SR 520 projectreaches milestone

Kirkland man charged with rape after beingbeaten, put in coma by victim's husband

Feces smeared on Muslim van near Bellevuemosque

One man seriously injured, another in jail aftera dirt-bike accident on North Whidbey

Man rescued from Deception Pass Bridgemay face prosecution

more local news from around Washington »

A pa r tm en tsA ttor n ey sA u to Dea ler sA u to Pa r tsA u to Repa irBea u ty Sa lon sCa r Ren ta lDen tists

Doctor sFlow er sHotelsIn su r a n ceLoa n sMor tg a g esMov er sPizza

Rea ltor sResta u r a n tsStor a g eTa xPr epa r a t ionTr a v elMor e. . .

Langley Yellow Pages

NO COMMENTS EMAIL LETTER PRINT FOLLOW SHARE

FULL RULES

Oldest f irst



New sElectionBlogsSportsEntertainmentBusinessLifestyles

CommunityCalendarOpinionLettersObituariesWeatherComics

HoroscopesPuzzlesAbout UsContact UsSubscribeAdvertiseAdvertiser Svcs.

Other Tow nsWork With UsTerms of UseSite MapRSS

South Whidbey Record

JobsAutosHomesRentalsForeclosuresClassif ieds

CouponsBusinessDirectorySpecial SectionsLegal NoticesContests

Marketplace

Our ProductsWork With Us

© Sound Publishing, Inc.All Rights Reserv ed.






Interactive PollWith the countybudget in trouble,what are you willingto do to ensurebasic servicesremain in place?

Please select one:

I'm willing topay moretaxes to paystaff to get thework done.

I'm willing to dowithoutservices suchas road repairsand publichealthservices.

I'd be glad tovolunteer on aregular basis.Where do Isign up?

I'd be happy todonate to anonprofit thatprovidesservices likeanimal controlor meals onwheels.

home : top stories : top stories Share July 01, 2010

6/29/2010 10:23:00 PM

Meeting set on Freeland sewer

The new sewer collection and treatment system for the Freeland Water and Sewer District will be the focus of anopen house and presentation set for 5 to 7:30 p.m. Tuesday, July 6 at Trinity Lutheran Church, 18341 Hwy. 525,Freeland.

The open house begins at 5 p.m., with a presentation scheduled to begin at 5:30 p.m.

The meeting, sponsored by the Freeland Water and Sewer District, offers people a chance to hear what’s happeningwith the project, including information about funding options such as grants and loans. The process for forming a localimprovement district to help with local funding also will be discussed.

People are encouraged to ask questions and provide feedback on the project.

The meeting is the second of two meetings in advance of the district’s application for money from the United StatesDepartment of Agriculture Rural Development grant and loan program. The money would help support the design andconstruction of sewer collection and treatment system. Learn about on the Freeland Water and Sewer District onlineat freelandwsd.com.






Last Name:Required

Phone:Required

Email:Required

Message:Required

Passcode:Required


Adv anced Search

search...

search sponsored by

< July >S M T W T F S 1 2 34 5 6 7 8 9 10

11 12 13 14 15 16 1718 19 20 21 22 23 2425 26 27 28 29 30 31

7/1/2010 Meeting set on Freeland sewer - The …



Submit Reset





Phone 360-678-8060 • Fax 360-678-6073



7/1/2010 Meeting set on Freeland sewer - The …


Submit calendar eventsonlineSubmit calendar items online viaThe Whidbey Examiner Website,www.whidbeyexaminer.com.

Click on "Calendar" andcomplete the online form. Itemswill be posted online, and maybe used in the print version of thepaper.




home : island time : island time Share July 01, 2010

6/30/2010 1:08:00 PM

Community Calendar

Soil Evaluation Workshop, 8 a.m.-4:30 p.m. Wednesday, June 30, Skagit ValleyCollege, Hayes Hall, Room 137, 1900 SE Pioneer Way, Oak Harbor. Learn toevaluate soils for planning sewage systems and low-impact development. Fee; fieldand classroom components. Register at whidbeycd.org; 360-678-4708;[email protected].

Classes for Kids at Oak Harbor Library, beginning July 1, 1000 SE RegattaDrive, Oak Harbor. Movies, arts and crafts, science, pizza and more for kids andteens. Schedule at sno-isle.org; 360-675-5115.

Renewable Energy on Whidbey Island, 12:15-1:15 p.m. Thursday, July 1,Coupeville Library, 788 N.W. Alexander St., Coupeville. WSU Extension ClimateStewards and Kelly Keilwitz of Whidbey Sun and Wind present an educationalevent on renewable energy; 360-678-7131; [email protected].

Clinton Chamber of Commerce Meeting, 5:30-7 p.m. Thursday, July 1, Hong Kong Gardens, 9324 Hwy. 525,Clinton. Commissioner Helen Price Johnson talks about the proposed levy lid lift on the August primary electionballot. Dinner $12; RSVP to [email protected].

Artworks Gallery Exhibit, 5-8 p.m. Friday, July 2, Greenbank Farm, 765 Wonn Road, off Hwy. 525, Greenbank.Artist Gaylen Whiteman combines impressionistic realism with fantasy and humor in “Sea and Sand.”artworkswhidbey.com; 360-222-3010.

Night of Wine, 7:30 p.m. Friday, July 2, Whidbey Island Winery, 5237 Langley Road, Langley. Live music and winein the vineyard. $10 advance purchase, $15 at door. Adults only. Admission includes glass of wine;whidbeyislandwinery.com.

Children’s Book Signing, 3-6 p.m. Friday, July 2, Caffeine Effect (formerly Heidi’s Coffee House), 504 N. Main,Coupeville. Meet Martha Martin and Sally Jacobson, local author and illustrator of “How Bonny Little Bear Got HerTutu.” Children welcome; 360-678-6494.

First Friday Wine & Art Walk, 5-8 p.m. Friday, July 2, Greenbank Farm Wine Shop, 765 Wonn Road, off Hwy. 525,Greenbank. Features award-winning local wines. Tickets $10, includes tasting wines at wine shop, Rob SchoutenGallery, Artworks Gallery and Raven Rocks Gallery. Greenbank Cheese Shop offers samples of artisan cheeses andWhidbey Pies Café opens for dinner; greenbankfarm.com; at 360-678-7700.

Langley Summer Concerts, 11 a.m.- 2 p.m. Saturday & Sunday, July - September, Useless Bay Coffee Co., 121Second St., Langley. Saturday, July 3: Trio Nouveau; Sunday, July 4: Bahia; uselessbaycoffee.com.

Old-Fashioned Fourth of July, 11 a.m.-5 p.m. Saturday, July 3 and 11 a.m.- 8 p.m. Sunday, July 4, WindjammerPark, SE City Beach Street, Oak Harbor. Parade Saturday followed by games, rides, food and more. Fireworks beginat 10:30 p.m. Sunday.

Biggest Garage Sale Ever, 9 a.m.-4 p.m. Saturday, July 3 and 9 a.m.-2 p.m. Sunday, July 4, Coupeville ElementarySchool, 6 S. Main St. Tools, furniture, toys and more. Supports Coupeville Lions Club Foundation, local programs andCamp Horizon for kids.

Art Gallery Reception, 5-7 p.m. Saturday, July 3, Brackenwood Gallery, 301 First St., Langley. “Patterns, Naturaland Otherwise,” featuring sculptor Georgia Gerber and her daughter, painter Laura Hudson. On display through July;360-221-2978.

Summer Art Show, 10 a.m.-5 p.m. Saturday, July 3 and Sunday, July 4, Coupeville Recreation Hall, 901 NWAlexander St. Fine art and fun art by eight talented Whidbey artists; [email protected].

Tilth Market Music Festival, 10:30 a.m.-4 p.m. Saturday, July 3, South Whidbey Tilth Farmers Market, ThompsonRoad. and Hwy. 525, Langley. Acoustic guitarist Quinn Fitzpatrick performs from 10:30 a.m. to noon, followed bylocal performers. Food, fun, produce and crafts; [email protected]; 360-678-3569

DUI/Underage Drinking Prevention Panel, 12:45 p.m. Saturday, July 3, Trinity Lutheran Church, Grigware Hall,Hwy. 525, Freeland; and Saturday, July 10, Skagit Valley College, Hayes Hall, 1900 SE Pioneer Way, Oak Harbor.Required for both driver’s ed. students and parents. No late admittance; 360-672-8219; idipic.org.

Adv anced Search

search...

search sponsored by

< July >S M T W T F S 1 2 34 5 6 7 8 9 10

11 12 13 14 15 16 1718 19 20 21 22 23 2425 26 27 28 29 30 31

7/1/2010 Community Calendar - The Whidbey E…


Celebrate America, 2 p.m.-after dark Saturday, July 3, Freeland Park, Shoreview Drive, Freeland. Family-friendlyfun, kids’ activities, food booths, live music and the Reptile Man. Fireworks display after dark. Free shuttle begins at4:30 p.m. from park-and-ride lot at Trinity Lutheran Church and Chase Bank in Freeland.

95th Annual Maxwelton Independence Day Parade, 1 p.m. Sunday, July 4, Maxwelton Beach, Clinton. Freeevent and parking, overflow parking with free shuttle from Little Brown Church at Maxwelton and French/Sills. Familyfun with games and fun races. Refreshments available for sale; 360-579-2030; [email protected].

Arts and Crafts Festival Volunteer Meeting, 7 p.m. Monday, July 5, Whidbey General Hospital conference room,101 N. Main St., Coupeville. New volunteers welcome! 360-678-5116; coupevilleartsandcraftsfestival.org.

Seibukan Karate, 6-7 p.m. (beginners), 7-7:30 p.m. (returning students) Tuesdays and Thursdays, July 6-Aug. 30,Coupeville Elementary School, 6 S. Main, Coupeville. Physical conditioning and self defense techniques through basickarate exercise. Adults, teens and children 7 and older. Cost: $100 adults; $60 students. $20 Seibukan testing fee.Register through Coupeville School District; coupeville.k12.wa.us; [email protected].

Whidbey Island Tea Party Meeting, 6:30-8:30 p.m. Tuesday, July 6, CenterPoint Christian Fellowship, 16604 Hwy.20, Coupeville. Meet candidates for local and state office. Terresa Hobbs, [email protected];whidbeyislandteaparty.com.

Freeland Wastewater System Meeting, 5 p.m. Tuesday, July 6, Trinity Lutheran Church, 18341 Hwy. 525,Freeland. Freeland Water and Sewer District hosts a presentation on a wastewater system proposed for the FreelandNon-Municipal Urban Growth Area. A second meeting is at 5 p.m. Tuesday, July 6. freelandwsd.com.

Island County Commissioner Forum, 6 p.m. Wednesday, July 7, Trinity Lutheran Church, Grigware Hall, 18341Hwy. 525, Freeland. Commissioners hear concerns, discuss proposed levy lift on August primary ballot.

Film “The People Speak,” 5 p.m. Wednesday, July 7, Coupeville library, 788 NW Alexander, Coupeville. CoupevillePeace and Reconciliation hosts documentary inspired by historian and political activist Howard Zinn. Jerome Rosen:360-678-7721; [email protected].

Energy Independence Day Party, 5:30-8:30 p.m. Wednesday, July 7, Tilth Sustainability Campus, Hwy. 525 andThompson Road. If raining: Langley United Methodist Church, Fellowship Hall, Third and Anthes, Langley. Celebratewith Transition Whidbey. Music, raffle, auction, potluck; 360-221-0506; [email protected]; transitionwhidbey.org.

Central Whidbey Republican Women, 6-8 p.m. Thursday, July 8, Coupeville Library, 788 NW Alexander,Coupeville. General meeting and potluck. RSVP to Reece Rose: 360-579-5880 or Charlona Sawyer: 360-222-3022.

Celebrate the Arts, 5:30-8:30 p.m. Thursday, July 8, Holmes Harbor Cellars, 4591 Honeymoon Bay, Greenbank.Musical group Trio Nouveau with photographer Andrea Comsky and wood artist Jack Comsky of Encore ClassicalDesigns. Tickets $15 at door, or in advance at BrownPaperTickets.com. $50 for season pass;HolmesHarborcCellars.com.

Cherry Sales, 9 a.m.-6 p.m. through Friday, July 9, Rite Aid parking lot, 31645 Hwy. 20, Oak Harbor. Oak HarborLions Club sells Wenatchee-grown cherries; 360-279-2802; [email protected].

Island Artists Annual Show, July 9-July 11, Coupeville Recreation Hall, 901 NW Alexander, Coupeville. Show runs12-8 p.m. Friday; 10 a.m.-8 p.m. Saturday, 10 a.m.-5 p.m. Sunday. Donations from food and coffee sales go toCentral Whidbey Fire & Rescue. Janet Marshall-McConnell, 360-222-3338.

Whidbey Island Pony Club Horse Trials, 8 a.m.-5 p.m. Friday, July 9, arena at Zylstra and Sweet Briar. 34thannual event with dressage, cross-country jumping and stadium jumping. Spectators admitted free. Dogs must beleashed; Roberta Piercy, 360-929-3607.

Cool Bayview Nights Car Show, 11 a.m.- 3 p.m. Saturday, July 10, Bayview Hall, 5642 Bayview Road, Langley.Sponsored by Bayview Hall and Goosefoot. $15 entry fee per vehicle, $20 day of event. Free admission; 360-321-4145.

Circuit City Muscle Conditioning, 6-7 p.m. Mondays and Wednesdays, July 12-Sept. 1, Coupeville ElementarySchool, 6 S. Main, Coupeville. Adult cardio and weight training workout together with high intensity training. Cost $65.Register through Coupeville School District; coupeville.k12.wa.us; [email protected].

Crop Sharing, 5:30-6:30 p.m. Tuesday, July 13, Oak Harbor City Hall, 865 SE Barrington, Oak Harbor. CaryPeterson, coordinator of Good Cheer Food Bank Community Garden, explains how gardeners with extra produce cancontribute to the needy; 360-279-4762.

Kids Can Cook Camp, 10 a.m-1 p.m. Monday-Friday, July 12-16 and August 9-13, Coupeville Middle School, 501 S.Main, Coupeville. Camp is open to both boys and girls, ages 9-14, no cooking experience required. Cost: $75 plus$25 materials fee. Register through Coupeville School District; coupeville.k12.wa.us; [email protected].

Tai Chi in the Park, 9-10 a.m. Monday, July 12-Friday, July 16, South Whidbey Community Park, 5495, MaxweltonRoad, Langley. Week long introduction to Cheng Man-Ch’ing style of Tai Chi Chuan which emphasizes the principlesof softness, naturalness, and relaxation. $50. Pre-registration required. Simon Leon; 360-661-7298;[email protected].

Training for Mother Mentors, 9 a.m.-4 p.m. Monday, July 12 and Sept. 27, United Methodist Church fireside room,Third & Anthes, Langley. New program to provide volunteer mentors to help new parents in their homes with theirbabies. Must apply and be interviewed before training. Kristin, 360-730-1264; [email protected].

Step Aerobics, 9:30-11 a.m. Tuesdays and Thursdays, July 13-Sept. 4, Coupeville Elementary School, 6 S. Main,Coupeville. Use weights, bands and balls for muscle toning, flexibility and balance. Ongoing class. Cost: $48.Register through Coupeville School District; coupeville.k12.wa.us; [email protected].

Island County Commissioners Forum, 6 p.m. Tuesday, July 13, Skagit Valley College, Hayes Hall, Room 137,1900 SE Pioneer Way, Oak Harbor. Commissioners hear concerns, discuss proposed levy lift on August primaryballot.

Brave New Words, 7 p.m. Saturday, July 17, Rob Schouten Gallery, Greenbank Farm, 765 Wonn Road, Greenbank.James Bertolino and Anita K. Boyle read their poetry; [email protected]; 360-331-7099; 360-222-3070.

Art & Design Exhibition, 10 a.m.-5 p.m. Saturday, July 17. Gail Harker Creative Studies Center, 569 Technical Dr.,



Oak Harbor. On display will be sketchbooks, handmade books and multimedia artwork created by students; 360-279-2105; [email protected].

Island County Democrats Summerfest, Saturday July 17, home of Grethe Cammermeyer and Diane Divelbess,4632 Tompkins, Langley. Music by Janie Cribbs and band. Tickets $20 at the door for adults and $10 for kids 12 andyounger. Shirley Bennett, [email protected]; 360-678-6028.

Grief Support Group, 1-2:30 p.m. Monday, July 19, Oak Harbor Senior Center, 51 S.E. Jerome St., Oak Harbor.Wendy Hubenthal, bereavement coordinator, helps participants share experiences and feelings, learn about the griefprocess and develop coping skills; 360-814-5589.

Oak Harbor’s Highly Evolved Literary League, 5:30 p.m. Thursday, July 22, Oak Harbor Library, 1000 SE RegattaDr., Oak Harbor. Pick up a copy of “The Book Thief” by Markus Zusak and join in a lively discussion.

Interactive Poetry, 7 p.m. Saturday, July 24-Sunday, July 25. Rob Schouten Gallery, 765 Wonn Road, Greenbank.A.K. Mimi Allin fuses poetry with visual and performance art for Brave New Words; info@ BraveNewWords.org; 360-331-7099; 360-222-3070.

Loganberry Festival, 10 a.m.-7 p.m. Saturday, July 24 and 10 a.m.-5 p.m. Sunday, July 25, Greenbank Farm, 765Wonn Road, off Hwy. 525, Greenbank. Food, fun, arts, crafts and loganberry pie. Interested vendors contact Peter,360-678-7710; greenbankfarm.com.

Summer Swing Dance, 7:30-10 p.m. Saturday, July 24, Crockett Barn, Fort Casey Road, Coupeville. Concerts onthe Cove presents John Holte’s Radio Rhythm Orchestra. Tickets $10 in Coupeville at Linds Pharmacy, Bayleaf, LocalGrown, Coupeville Auto Repair; in Oak Harbor at Wind & Tide Bookstore and Click Music; in Freeland at BookBay;Langley at Moonraker Books; brownpapertickets.com. $15 at door. Under 18 free with adult.

Crane Frolic Qigong, 9:30 a.m.-12:30 p.m. Saturday, July 31, near Greenbank. Cultivate agility, lightness, balance,focus and stillness with Tai Chi and Qigong instructor Bob Shapiro. $45. Shirley Jantz: [email protected]; 360-221-6296.

Friends of Friends Garage Sale, 9 a.m.-3 p.m. Saturday, Aug. 7, Economy Self Storage, 5946 Langley Road,Langley. Fundraiser to help people with unpaid medical expenses. Christi Ruscigno, 360-579-2623; Dana Kelly, 360-341-2533; Claudia Fuller, 360-579-7052 to donate items.

Freeland Chamber Open Golf Classic & Silent Auction Dinner, Sunday, Aug. 29, Useless Bay Golf & CountryClub, 5725 Country Club Dr., Langley. Registration opens at 11:30 a.m.; shotgun start at 1:30 p.m.; dinner $35 or freefor golfers. Team fee $500, individual fee $125. Win cash, car or trip. 360-331-1980; freeland-wa.org.

Ongoing events & activitiesCoupeville Farmers Market, 10 a.m.-2 p.m. Saturdays, Community Green, Coupeville; [email protected],360 678 4288.

Meet Feet on Whidbey, 1-3 p.m. occurs every Saturday, 2326 Newman Rd. Freeland. All walkers and dogs onleash welcome. Volunteer-led rambles on Whidbey Island trails and beaches; [email protected], 360-321-0533.

Alcoholics Anonymous, 7-8:30 p.m. Wednesdays, Board Room, Whidbey General Hospital, 101 N Main, Coupeville.

Alzheimer’s Association Telephone Caregiver Support Group, 7:30-9 p.m. third Tuesday of each month Toll-freeteleconference group at 1-800-848-7097; contact [email protected] .

Chess and Go Group, 6-10 p.m. Mondays, South Whidbey Senior Center, 14594 Hwy. 525, Langley. All ages andabilities are welcome. Go is a board game of Asian origin; 360-341-3230.

Aviation History Exhibit, 11 a.m.-5 p.m. Thursdays-Saturdays, Aviation Museum, old administration building,Seaplane Base, Oak Harbor. Displays honoring the crews, squadrons and aircraft that flew out of NAS WhidbeyIsland since WWII. Gates are open to visitors. Admission by donation; Richard Rezabek, [email protected].

Click Conservatory Jazz Band, 3:30 p.m. Mondays, Click Music, 1130 NE 7th, Oak Harbor. Free; jazz musiciansinvited to join; 360-675-5544, [email protected].

Click Conservatory Clarinet Choir, 7 p.m. Thursdays, Click Music, 1130 NE 7th, Oak Harbor. Free; Whidbey’sanswer to Benny Goodman; 360-675-5544.

Compassionate Friends of Whidbey Island, a self-help organization offering friendship and understanding tobereaved parents, siblings and grandparents. Meets 7 p.m. the fourth Tuesday of the month. Odd month meetingsheld at the Coupeville Methodist Church, 608 N. Main St., Coupeville. Even-month meetings held at First UnitedMethodist Church, 1050 S.E. Ireland St., Oak Harbor. 360-675-6424.

DivorceCare Support Group, 7 p.m. Tuesdays through March 30, Whidbey Presbyterian Church, 1148 SE 8th, OakHarbor. For those experiencing separation and divorce. Join at any time. Child care available. Fee, $25 for book; 360-679-3579, [email protected].

Food and Schmooze Senior Support Group, 1-2:30 p.m. first and third Mondays, Cam-Bey Apartments, 50 N.Main, Coupeville; Katlaina Rayne, 360-678-0804 or Jan Pickard, 360-678-8800.

Grief Support Group, 1-2:30 p.m., first and third Mondays, Senior Center, 51 SE Jerome, Oak Harbor. Free. Informaldiscussion about the impact of loss and grief. Open to anyone coping with a death. Group welcomes newparticipants; 360-814-5589, [email protected].

Island County Community Health Advisory Board, 5:30-7:30 p.m. third Tuesdays, Commissioners Hearing Room,1 NE 6th, Coupeville. Information at 360-240-5575, [email protected].

Ladies’ Bible Study, 10 a.m. Thursdays, CenterPoint Christian Fellowship, 16604 Hwy. 20, south of Coupeville.Childcare provided. Workbook, $20; 360-678-6372.

Life Transitions Classes, Skagit Valley College. Free monthly classes for those seeking support and direction in



career or educational needs; 1-877-385-5360.

Loss of a Child Support Group, 5:30-7 p.m. 2nd and 4th Tuesdays, Skagit Hospice, 819 S. 13th St., Mount Vernon.Support for those who have lost a child at any age; 360-814-5550, 1-800-894-5877.

State Health Insurance Benefits Advisors (SHIBA), free one-on-one health insurance counseling, by appt., forseniors or those under age 65, including family coverage; Whidbey General Hospital, 360-678-7656, ext. 4005 orBayview Senior Center, 360-321-1600.

Toastmasters, 6:30-8:30 p.m. first and third Tuesdays, CPO Club, 1080 W. Ault Field Road, Oak Harbor. Help withimpromptu speaking ability and preparing and giving speeches; 360-679-0945

Vets Only Group, 7 p.m. first and third Fridays, Trinity Lutheran Church, 18341 Hwy. 525, Freeland. Informal programfor women and men veterans to honor stories of experiences in the armed forces through telling and writing. SteveDurbin, 360-678-2928, or Chuck McIntyre, 360 579-1059, or drop by; 360-321-7226, vetsresourcenter.org.

The Village Hearth, 1-3 p.m. Wednesdays, Community Bible Church, 6th and Otis, Coupeville. Young women canlearn old-fashioned domestic skills from others who share their experience. Childcare available; 360-678-4778.

Whidbey Song Circle, 5-7 p.m. first Sunday, Flyers Restaurant & Brewery, 3229 5 Hwy.. 20, Oak Harbor. Play andsing familiar folk songs.; 360-639-5075, [email protected].

Young Adult Grief Support Group, 5:30-7 p.m. 1st and 3rd Tuesdays, Skagit Hospice, 819 S. 13th, Mount Vernon.For people ages 18 to mid-20s who have lost a loved one; 360-814-5550, 1-800-894-5877.

Related Links:• Submit calendar events online






Last Name:Required

Phone:Required

Email:Required

Message:Required

Passcode:Required



Submit Reset







Phone 360-678-8060 • Fax 360-678-6073






System

APPENDIX B.HYDROGEOLOGIC REPORT

July 2010

July 6, 2010 HWA Project No 2010 034

2010-034 rpt 7 6 10r.doc 2 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC.

Reporting - prepared draft report presenting the results of our investigation, and

our conclusions and recommendations. Following these preliminary studies, additional investigations will be conducted to characterize the site for final design, including:

Aquifer Testing. Aquifer testing may be conducted in shallow saturated zones, to characterize aquifer properties beneath the reuse site. Slug or short term pumping tests may be conducted on monitoring wells to provide estimates of hydraulic conductivity.

Analytical Laboratory Testing. Ground water samples from shallow monitoring

wells will be collected for analysis of conventional inorganic parameters, including nutrients, to evaluate background water quality. Samples will be analyzed by a Washington Department of Ecology-accredited analytical laboratory.

Time Series Ground Water Elevation Measurements. These measurements

will be collected at regular intervals from site monitoring wells or surface water features to establish seasonal and long-term variations in surface and ground water levels. Measurements may be collected manually or via datalogging pressure transducers. A recording rain gauge will also be installed at the site.

Pilot Infiltration Test. Pilot infiltration testing for slow rate infiltration will be

conducted by applying water to a one to two acre area over a period of several days and monitoring soil moisture, shallow perched ground water levels, surface discharge, etc.

Modeling. Analytical or numerical unsaturated and saturated flow modeling will

be conducted to estimate infiltration rates; ground water mounding; ground water flow and discharge; and water balance parameters, to support design of the reuse facility, as well as potential hydrogeologic conditions downstream of the site.

INTRODUCTION The Freeland Water and Sewer District plans to design and construct a wastewater reclamation system, including collection, conveyance, treatment, and reclaimed water reuse by ground water recharge. HWA previously performed an area-wide geologic reconnaissance to identify suitable infiltration sites (HWA 2003a), followed by preliminary geologic assessment of the several candidate sites, including the proposed



reuse area, formerly known as the Nolan-Benbow Tree Farm property (HWA, 2003b, 2005). SITE DESCRIPTION, TOPOGRAPHY AND SURFACE WATER The 80 acre proposed reuse site is located west of Freeland, Washington, in the east half of the southeast quarter of Section 5, T29N R2E. Figure 1 shows the site vicinity. Figure 2 shows an exploration plan with boring and test pit locations, and approximate location of nearby domestic water wells. Land use downslope (east and south) of the site is mostly rural residential or undeveloped. Land use north and west of the site is undeveloped and wooded. The site lies on the east facing flank of a north-south trending glacial ridge. There are no named streams or obvious surface water drainages in this area. Surface water or drainage features observed on the site include the following (see Figure 2):

A drainage (observed to be dry during the spring and summer) running from northwest to southeast across the north-central portion of the site.

An elongate, approximately four acre closed depression, mapped as wetlands, possibly a glacial kettle, west of TP-35.

Wetlands and a small (less than one foot wide and deep) drainage ditch along the eastern margin of the site, at the base of the slope.

A small wetlands and a west-to-east small (less than one foot wide and deep) drainage ditch along the southern site margin. The drainage ditch appears to feed into a small, ornamental, constructed pond, lined with PVC, situated on the adjoining property to the south.

Several sub-drainages exist on the property, which likely drain to: 1) the central drainage swale/channel described above, and then the wetlands east of the site, 2) the wetlands east of the site via interflow along the predominant easterly slope of the site, likely discharging at the downhill till/sand contact 3) west, to the southwestern closed depression/wetlands, and eventually back to the east, following the main topographic slope and ultimate drainage path, and 4) south, to the wetlands, drainage ditch, and constructed lined pond on the adjoining south property. Water from the entire area at and surrounding the site likely drains to the southeast, into a broad, low-lying valley situated in the west half of Section 9 (see Figure 1). This area is mostly pasture land, with several small ponds, and channeled drainage ditches. Surface water drainage from this area likely continues further downslope to the Shore Meadow wetlands located to the south between Mutiny Bay Road and Shore Meadow Road. The Shore Meadow wetlands are subject to seasonal inundation, and drain through a culvert into Mutiny Bay.



AREA GEOLOGY

Our interpretation of subsurface conditions observed within the site was supplemented by a review of readily available geotechnical and geological data for the project area. Geologic information for the project area was obtained from the Geologic Map of the Port Townsend 30-Minute Quadrangle, by Pessl et al., 2002 and from more recent mapping conducted by Polenz, et al 2006 of the Freeland and Northern Part of the Hansville 7.5 Minute Quadrangles. According to these maps, the near-surface deposits in the vicinity of the subject property consist primarily of Vashon-aged glacial deposits along upland surfaces and bluffs that may be overlain locally by glaciomarine drift materials deposited in the sea along grounded ice sheets, or fan or deltaic deposits in low lying valley areas during sea level rise and landward incursion of marine water (Polenz, et al, 2006).

Major stratigraphic units mapped in the area of interest include marsh deposits, recessional outwash/meltwater deposits, Vashon till, and Advance outwash deposits (Pessl et al, 2003, Polenz et al, 2006). Marsh Deposits Isolated marsh deposits are found throughout the area surrounding the reuse site, mostly in small (< 10 acre) pockets. Marsh deposits typically consist of sand, silt and clay mixed with decomposing organics that have accumulated in a depression or low lying area. Marsh deposits are generally saturated and constitute a poor infiltration medium. Recessional Outwash These soil units typically contain stratified sand and gravels, with variable silt content and some silt layers deposited by meltwater flowing from the retreating ice margins. Typically, recessional outwash deposits exhibit moderate to high permeabilities and infiltration rates depending on silt content. Recessional outwash was deposited as the glaciers retreated, and is loose to medium dense, typically overlying the till. Vashon Till The site is mapped as Vashon Till by Pessl (1989). Vashon Till, commonly referred to as “hardpan” or “boulder clay”, consists of very dense, massive, unsorted deposits of sand, gravel, and boulders firmly encased in a compact matrix of silt and clay. Scattered sand and gravel lenses may be present. Glacial till’s dense nature is the result of consolidation beneath a heavy mass of glacial ice.



Till generally does not provide a favorable infiltration medium. Till acts as an aquitard that inhibits the flow of ground water, perches water on top of it in the overlying recessional outwash (where present), and also confines water below it in the advance outwash. In general, the permeability of till ranges from low in weathered surficial deposits to relatively impermeable in very dense non-weathered materials. In the project area, the mapped till includes extensive areas of compact sand interpreted by Polenz (2006) as possible advance outwash, as well as ablation till, which is similar to lodgment till but looser. These sandy outwash or loose glacial till facies are generally more permeable. Advance Outwash Deposits These soil units typically contain stratified sand and gravels, with variable silt content and some silt layers deposited by meltwater flowing from the advancing ice margins. Typically, advance outwash deposits exhibit moderate to high permeabilities and infiltration rates depending on silt content. Advance outwash was deposited ahead of, and then overridden by, the advancing glaciers, hence its high density and stratigraphic position below the till. Ground Water Water well logs in the area and published sources indicate an aquifer is present beneath the site, at elevations approximately coincident with sea level. The aquifer is known as aquifer C, in the Possession Advance Outwash / Whidbey formation, in the Whidbey Island Ground water Management Plan (EES, 1989). This aquifer is likely greater than 50 feet beneath the site, and appears to be under confined conditions based on the well logs reviewed. SITE EXPLORATIONS Under subcontract to HWA, Holocene Drilling advanced five hollow-stem auger soil borings at the reuse site on May 10-11, 2010. Under subcontract to HWA, Diamond Construction completed 14 trackhoe test pit excavations on May 18, 2010. Figure 2 shows the approximate soil boring and test pit locations. Soil boring and test pit logs are included in Appendix A. The objective of the explorations study was to map the surficial soils over the site, and further define the areal extent and depths of previously identified potentially suitable infiltration receptor soils. Ground water, where observed, is noted on the logs. We observed soil mottling in several test pits, indicating the likelihood of seasonally-saturated or perched water conditions. Perched ground water occurs when water percolating downward through the



soil encounters less permeable soil such as silt, clay, or till, and temporarily mounds, slowly spreading laterally. Soil moisture/ground water conditions will likely change in response to rainfall, time of year, and other factors. LABORATORY TESTING Laboratory tests were conducted on selected soil samples to characterize relevant properties of the on-site soils. Laboratory testing included determination of moisture content and grain size distribution. All testing was conducted in accordance with appropriate ASTM standards. The test results and a discussion of laboratory test methodology are presented in Appendix B. SITE GEOLOGY Explorations conducted at the reuse site indicate several soil types are present. A relatively permeable outwash sand and gravel unit is exposed in the eastern portion of the site, over an approximately 25 to 30 acre area. This unit consists of slightly silty to silty sand with gravel and cobbles and occasional silty interbeds. This sandy outwash deposit was mined for construction aggregate in the past, remnants of which are still present at and surrounding the former quarry site located at the east-central portion of the reuse site. Thickness of this unit ranges from 8 to more than 17 feet thick within the outcrop area, and was over 30 feet thick in boring BH-2, just north of the outcrop area. Perched ground water was observed within this unit at depths of approximately 10 to 13 feet below ground surface in the two wells that were installed near the base of the slope in May 2010 (BH-4 and BH-2, respectively). Most of the western portion of the site (approximately 50 acres) is underlain by 2 to 6 feet of a combination of weathered till, and a till-like material which is compact and dense, but sandier than typical lodgment till, and more permeable. The northwest and southwest corners of the site contain 10 feet of sandy outwash-type soils. A dense, massive silt of very low permeability, interpreted as glaciolacustrine (deposited in lakes), was encountered at the eastern margin of the site (TP-29 and TP-30), near the wetlands area. This silt was encountered below sandy soils in the northern portion of the site, and at BH-5 in the southwest corner (below 10 feet of sand). In summary, most of the site contains 5 to over 10 feet of sandy outwash soils or sandy till soils. Figure 2 depicts the approximate limits within which the sandy outwash deposit was found to be at least 8 feet thick. Figures 3, 4, 5 and 6 depict geologic cross sections through the site.



SLOPE STABILITY Part of the site is classified as Steep Slopes under the Island County critical areas regulations. HWA performed a slope stability analysis, described below. Next to gravity, water is the most important factor in slope stability. However in cohesionless soils, water does not affect the angle of internal friction (ф). The effect of water on cohesionless soils below the water table is to decrease the intergranular (effective) pressure between soil grains which decreases the frictional shearing resistance. The proposed application of reclaimed water on site could result in local areas where permeable surficial soils become saturated. The stability of a slope is usually expressed in terms of a factor of safety, F where: F = Sum of Resisting Forces / Sum of Driving Forces; Where the forces promoting stability are exactly equal to the forces promoting instability F=1; where F<1 the slope is in a condition of failure; where F>1 the slope is likely to be stable. Typically a factor of safety of 1.5 under static loading conditions (not seismic) is regarded as the minimum overall safety factor for hillslopes. For the purposes of this evaluation we assume that the most likely mode of slope failure would be shallow translational sliding of the saturated surficial outwash soils over less permeable till soils. Translational slides are usually analyzed by the “infinite slope” method which is a two-dimensional analysis of a soil block on the sides of which the forces are being taken as being equal and opposite in direction and magnitude. It is assumed that the block is uniform in thickness and rests on a slope of constant angle and infinite extent as depicted below.

Unit Area of hillside

Outwash Soil

Glacial Till s

W sin α

W

N = W cos α

∟α

Potential failure plane



Where: W = weight of soil per unit area of hillside; α = angle of slope of hillside; W sin α = downslope component of soils weight per unit area of hillside; N = W cos α = component of the soil’s weight per unit area acting normal to the potential failure plane (normal stress); s = resistance of the soil to shear; a force per unit area of the hillside (the shear strength of the soil). In soils containing water, the shear strength is strongly affected by the water pressure in voids between grains or blocks. This pressure supports a portion of the soil’s weight and therefore reduces the normal stress that is effective in producing friction. The relationship of shear strength to its controlling factors is summarized by the following equation:

s = c + (N - μ) tan ф where: c = cohesion (not a strength component in granular soils) N = component of water in voids of the soil μ = pressure of water in the voids of the soil Ф = angle of internal friction, which reflects the degree of interlocking and surface friction within the soil material. For the project site conditions assume: Friction angle soil: Loose to Med. Dense, SP-SM: Ф=32 degrees Bulk Density of Saturated Soil: γsat= 124 pcf Slope angle= Average Slope 16.7 percent (9.5 degrees) Height of Soil: Hs = 10 feet Height of Water: Hw = 10 feet The gross stability of the granular soils along the site slopes when saturated can be calculated by using the flowing equation: F = s / W sin α Where: s = (N - μ) tan ф, = ((124 pcf * 10 feet *cos 9.5) – (10 feet * 62.4* cos 9.5o )) * tan 32o, reducing to; (1223-615.4 psf)* 0.625 = 379.6 psf and, W sin α = (124 pcf *10 feet) * sin 9.5o , reducing to; 1240 psf * 0.165 = 204 psf Resulting in: F = 379.6 / 204.6 = 1.86



Based upon this analysis, we conclude that it does not appear likely that the site slopes will exhibit appreciable instability due to a general increase in soil moisture content resulting from the proposed application of reclaimed water. PRELIMINARY INFILTRATION ANALYSIS Due to the presence of shallow infiltration receptor soils over much of the site (i.e., absence of a deep unsaturated soil zone into which reclaimed water can be infiltrated), topographic slope of the site, and resulting concern for potential surface discharge of the infiltrated water (e.g., at the base of slope, into drainage swales, channels, ditches, or wetlands), estimation of the surficial soil infiltration rates alone does not provide a reliable estimate of the site’s ability to accept reclaimed water. Although the sandy soils present over much of the site have high infiltration rates, the presence of underlying low permeability perching layers, along with the topographic slope and discharge relationships described above, will result in design application rates lower than the soils’ infiltration capacity. For this reason, the recommended reuse application method for this site is slow rate infiltration, rather than rapid infiltration/surface percolation recommended in the 2005 Freeland Comprehensive Sewer Plan and Engineering Report/Facility Plan. Slow infiltration could consist of spray or drip application systems similar to those used for irrigation or land application, applied over large areas, in both outwash and till soil areas. Typically these systems use multiple dosing areas which are rotated to allow each area to absorb and dissipate the applied water. Estimation of the site’s capacity for slow rate infiltration will be accomplished during the design phase of the project, and will include field pilot testing and numerical flow modeling. Pilot infiltration testing for rapid infiltration typically consists of adding water to an excavation or large ring (50 to 100 square feet) over time to approximate rapid infiltration rates for design of infiltration facilities. Pilot infiltration testing for slow rate infiltration can be accomplished by applying water to a larger area (1-2 acres) over a longer time period (several days) and monitoring soil moisture, shallow, perched ground water levels, surface discharge, etc. Evaluation of the site’s capacity to absorb and release added water could best be evaluated and regulated during initial operation of the system. Soil moisture, shallow ground water and surface drainages could be monitored during water application in each dosing zone, and the capacity of each zone measured relative to seasonal precipitation and application rates. Instrumentation, control, and telemetry for these types of systems are available and used in agricultural applications. Preliminary site capacity estimates are provided below, using several general estimates of site water balance and hydrogeology. HWA evaluated several parameters to estimate site discharge and flow to evaluate the overall capacity of the site to receive reclaimed water.



Water balance A preliminary water balance, Table 1, was prepared for the site. It compares the average monthly precipitation to potential evapotranspiration (PET) for the project area. Evapotranspiration includes water loss by evaporation and transpiration (loss directly through vegetation leaf surfaces). Potential evapotranspiration includes the capacity to lose water, which exceeds water availability for several months. Precipitation and evapotranspiration data were obtained from the Western Washington Hydrology Model (WWHM). Precipitation exceeds PET in October through April indicating a water surplus. The greatest amount of ground water recharge, surface water discharge, and possibly runoff, occurs during these months. During dry summer and fall months (May through September), PET removes moisture stored in the soil in addition to utilizing all available precipitation, creating a water deficit or under-saturated soil conditions. Forested sites are generally capable of using all available water deficit, if additional water is supplied.

Table 1

Baseline Water Balance (all values in inches) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual

Precip 3.78 3.18 2.90 2.35 1.94 1.73 0.95 1.18 1.72 2.78 4.26 4.27 31.05

PET 0.67 0.66 1.35 1.93 3.23 3.53 4.53 3.98 2.42 1.10 0.58 0.51 24.50

Balance 3.12 2.52 1.55 0.42 -1.30 -1.81 -3.58 -2.80 -0.70 1.68 3.68 3.77 6.55

Water Surplus Water Deficit Water Surplus

Precip – Average monthly precipitation, from Western Washington Hydrology Model (WWHM), provided by

Tetra Tech

PET - Average monthly potential evapotranspiration, from WWHM, provided by Tetra Tech, shown an

positive numbers, although subtracted from precipitation for the water balance

Positive water balance values represent ‘surplus’ water that either infiltrates into the ground or becomes runoff (surface flow). For a natural forest system with well developed, relatively permeable soils such as found at the reuse site, it is expected that runoff is minimal, or limited to extreme precipitation events, and most of the precipitation falling on the site infiltrates into soils. Water infiltrating into the ground then either infiltrates to deeper layers, or travels horizontally in shallow saturated zones. This shallow flow (interflow) may continue to travel laterally in the subsurface, or reappear as surface water at points of discharge, such as breaks in slope, natural or man-made drainage features (streams or ditches). Negative water balance values represent a ‘deficit’ that would theoretically be consumed by PET if a new a source of water was added. For an assumed 80 acre site, the deficit water volumes available for PET from



May through September range from 4,000 to 21,000 gpd. Application of added water in excess of deficit then relies on soil infiltration capacity. A water balance approach for sizing land treatment facilities is described below (Georgia, 2006). Land treatment of wastewater also requires an evaluation of a site’s capacity to accommodate additional water, with the added considerations of nutrient loading and treatment of effluent provided by site soils and vegetation (which is not required for reclaimed water). In this method, water balance is given as follows: Design application rate = (PET + Percolation rate) - Precipitation where the soil percolation rate is assumed to be 10 % of the most limiting layer within the upper 5 feet of soil. For this site, we assumed an initial percolation rate of 0.1 in/hour, x 10% x 730 hours/month = a rate of 7.3 in/month. The percolation rate was estimated based on average site saturated hydraulic conductivities for weathered or sandy till soils of around 2 ft/day, reduced by 10% for the vertical hydraulic conductivity (a typical ratio of horizontal to vertical hydraulic conductivities for stratified sedimentary deposits). It should be noted that saturated hydraulic conductivities are not the same as unsaturated infiltration or percolation rates, although the same units (length/time) are used. Table 2 shows this rate applied to a monthly water balance. For this analysis, we assumed the full 80 acres, as wetland and buffer areas still receive precipitation, experience PET, and will likely receive added reclaimed water flow via lateral transport in shallow soils. The month with the resulting lowest hydraulic loading rate is the critical water balance month, which is used to size the facility, assuming storage of water is only for heavy precipitation/natural runoff events, equipment failure, freezing conditions, etc. In this analysis, December appears as the critical water balance month, with a predicted loading rate (i.e., site capacity to accept reclaimed water) by this method of approximately 250,000 gpd.

Table 2 Preliminary Reuse Facility Sizing

Water Balance (all values in inches)

* Loading rate = reclaimed water application rate = (PET + Perc) - Precip

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total Precip, in/mo 3.78 3.18 2.90 2.35 1.94 1.73 0.95 1.18 1.72 2.78 4.26 4.27 31.05

PET, in/mo 0.67 0.66 1.35 1.93 3.23 3.53 4.53 3.98 2.42 1.10 0.58 0.51 24.50

Perc, in/mo 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.3 87.6 Loading rate*, in/mo 4.18 4.78 5.75 6.88 8.60 9.11 10.88 10.10 8.00 5.62 3.62 3.53 81.05

Acres 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 Loading rate, kgpd 299.0 341.8 410.9 491.6 614.1 650.7 777.5 721.9 571.6 401.4 258.5 252.5 5,791.5



As described in the initial water balance example, this analysis assumes the added water has three main routes:

Infiltration into shallow soils. For the proposed reuse site most of the added water will infiltrate into shallow soils.

Loss via PET. Estimates of deficit PET are given above, and are a relatively minor component of an assumed added flow of 200,000 gpd.

Infiltration into deeper layers. Recharge to deeper aquifers is also a relatively minor component, estimated at 2 inches/year, or 12,000 gpd for an assumed 80 acre site (Daniels et al., 1991).

Soil Storage Unsaturated surficial soil at the site will have some capacity to hold or store applied reuse water. Assuming a porosity of 0.3 (typical for sandy soils and weathered surficial till soils), a volume of 60 acres (subtracting for wetland areas which are likely already saturated) by an average 8 feet depth, yields a volume of around 47 million gallons. Thicker deposits of sand at the eastern portion of the site will likely result in a higher overall storage volume. At the full build-out average annual application rate of 500,000 gpd, this amounts to around 94 days of flow capacity. At 200,000 gpd flow, the soil storage is equivalent to around 235 days, long enough to span the seasonal changes in the water balance described above. This simplifying analysis does not account for the steep gradient, and possible discharges to surface water. Ground Water Velocity In order to verify the applicability of the soil storage capacity described above, HWA estimated the travel time of ground water in shallow soils that might get saturated by the discharge. Ground water particle velocity is described by the following relationship: V = K i / P, where: V= particle velocity

K= hydraulic conductivity i = gradient P = porosity

Based on estimates of horizontal hydraulic conductivity of 1 to 10 feet/day for till soils, and 10 to 100 feet/day for sandy soils (estimated from grain size testing results) an assumed effective porosity of 0.3 (typical of sands), and assumed gradients of 0.08 to 0.1 (estimated on the high side based on topography), estimated horizontal ground water particle flow velocity may range from approximately 0.3 to 3 feet per day for the till soils, and 3 to 33 feet per day for the sandy soils. Travel times for an average 500 foot



distance from application areas to site boundaries therefore range from 15 to 150 days for sandy soils, and up to many years for till soils. Although this represents a large range due to the uncertainty of the input variables, average travel times greater than a few months suggests residence times are long enough to balance seasonal flows, i.e., water will be stored in the soils long enough to span wet to dry seasons. Ground Water Flow Another method of estimating the soils capacity to transmit and store water is the discharge relationship described by Darcy’s law. Darcy’s law states that discharge through a porous medium is proportional to the cross-sectional area through which the discharge occurs, the hydraulic gradient (the change in head for a unit of length), and the hydraulic conductivity of the medium. Symbolically, Q = KiA, where: Q = flow

K = is the coefficient of permeability (hydraulic conductivity) i = is the hydraulic gradient A = is the cross-sectional area through which the discharge occurs

For the site, we assumed:

K = 50 ft/day (approximated from grain size testing of sandy soils) i = 0.09 (estimated based on topographic slope) A= 21,120 square feet (cross-sectional area of eastern site boundary x assumed 8

feet thick) which yielded an approximate discharge of Q = 700,000 gpd, well above the proposed application rate at full build-out. This represents the quantity of water that shallow soils could transmit, although does not provide an estimate of how much water will be discharged as surface water, e.g., east of the site. This estimate is very sensitive to the hydraulic conductivity assumed; a one order of magnitude change in hydraulic conductivity will yield a corresponding order of magnitude change in the estimated discharge. For this analysis we assumed a relatively high horizontal hydraulic conductivity (in the middle of the range described in the preceding section) for the sandy soils present in the eastern portions of the site. Discharge relationships for application of reclaimed water would be best estimated using more sophisticated numerical modeling, which is planned for the design phase of the project.



Ground Water Mounding

Ground water mounding is a local raising of the ground water table due to infiltrating water from the surface. If a ground water mound reaches the infiltration facility, infiltration rates are greatly reduced, and facility failure may occur, depending on flow rates and storage volume. If a ground water mound reaches the surface or a surface water feature, the water will enter the surface water system (stream, ditch, wetlands, etc.) Evaluation of ground water mounding is best accomplished by understanding ground water levels, gradient, and aquifer characteristics. Mounding potential can be predicted by measuring shallow ground water levels during pilot infiltration testing, or performing predictive ground water flow modeling. The potential for ground water mounding beneath proposed reclaimed water infiltration areas is a function of the recharge (infiltration receptor inputs) rate and the hydraulic properties of the infiltration receptor. To evaluate mounding potential, HWA performed preliminary analytical flow modeling based on Hantush (1967) to simulate the maximum height of the water table beneath a rectangular recharge area. The following is a list of assumptions and model input variables used in the flow model:

Hydraulic conductivity = 25 in/hr (50 ft/day) Specific yield = 0.25, typical for unconfined sand aquifers Initial saturated thickness = 1 ft (model not very sensitive to this parameter) Area = 80 acres Time 365 days (1 year)

For the assumed site variables, the aquifer mounding predicted with full build-out flows was greater than the available unsaturated soils thickness. Predicted mounding of 8 feet (the assumed available unsaturated soils thickness) was reached at 200,000 gpd. As with the previous analyses, this analysis does not account for the steep gradient, and likely discharges to surface water.

NITRATE LOADING

In order to evaluate potential impacts to ground water from reclaimed water application at the reuse site, an analytical nitrate loading model was initially used to estimate nitrate concentrations (Ecology, 2005). The model estimates nitrate-nitrogen loads infiltrating from surface sources and then estimates the nitrate-nitrogen concentration in ground water when nitrate from the infiltrating source is added to the background concentration.

The nitrate concentration in ground water beneath an area is calculated assuming all infiltrating loads are evenly mixed in a volume of water composed of underground flow and rainfall infiltration. Table 3 summarizes the model input variables.



TABLE 3 NITRATE LOADING MODEL PARAMETERS

Parameter Value Unit Source

Nitrate concentration in

precipitation 0.24 mg/l From Ecology guidance

Total nitrogen concentration

in wastewater 5 mg/l Provided by Tetra Tech

Denitrification rate in

subsurface 10% % From guidance

Depth of mixing in the aquifer 8 ft Maximum predicted saturated zone thickness during site operation

Area 80 acres Although reclaimed water will not be applied to the entire site, the entire 80 acres or more will be available for subsurface mixing

Width of the aquifer 2,640 ft Length of the site perpendicular to gradient

Hydraulic conductivity of the

aquifer 10 ft/day

HWA grain size data; used low end of 10-100 ft/day range for sandy soils, to approximate mixing over entire site

Hydraulic gradient 0.08 ft/ft Estimated from topography

Amount of recharge 6.6 in/yr Site precipitation – PET (from Table 1 water balance)

Nitrate concentration of

upgradient ground water 1 mg/L

Assumed (pending ground water sampling at site in future studies). Although the site is undeveloped, it is used for horse trail riding, which may result in elevated nitrate concentrations in shallow ground water

Volume of wastewater 500,000 Gpd Full project build-out volume, provided by Tetra Tech

The results of the model indicate that the full build-out volume of 500,000 gpd of reclaimed water treated to 5 mg/L nitrogen applied to the 80 acre site could cause nitrogen concentrations in ground water to increase by approximately 2.6 mg/L over background concentrations.

Organic and ammonia nitrogen can be taken up by plants, nitrified by soil bacteria, lost to the atmosphere through denitrification, or leached into the ground water. The simple mixing model described above may not accurately assess nitrate mixing and dilution, due to the application of reclaimed water in a forested site, which has a high capacity to take up nitrogen.

Western Douglas Fir forests have reported average annual nitrogen uptake rates of 134 to 223 lb/acre/year (Georgia, 2006). Rates for mixed hardwoods and pine are similar, ranging from 100 to 300 lb/acre/year (Georgia, 2006). The total nitrogen loading at the reuse site at full build-out (500,000 gpd average annual flow) assuming reclaimed water



treated to 5 mg/L nitrogen is 95 lbs/acre/year. At 200,000 gpd, total nitrogen loading at the reuse site is 38 lbs/acre/year. Based on this analysis, most or all of the nitrogen during the growing season will be taken up by forest vegetation. This may present opportunities to decrease the nitrogen removal treatment requirements at the reclamation plant.

The typical growing season in the Pacific Northwest is May through October, although a high proportion of yearly photosynthesis in evergreen coniferous forests actually occurs outside the “growing season” in these ecosystems (Waring & Franklin, 1979). The worst case, or most conservative assumption would be that around half of the total annual nitrogen load will be metabolized. Using the simple mixing model described above, reducing the assumed nitrogen loading by half results in a predicted increase of 0.9 mg/L. More than half of the nitrogen will likely be metabolized due to 1) the longer actual growing season, and 2) much of the nitrogen leached to shallow ground water during the non-growing season will likely be available for uptake during the next growing season, due to storage in the ground based on the ground water velocity estimates described above.

DISCUSSION / SUMMARY Due to the relatively thin receptor soil layer and underlying perching layer, the dominant mechanism for transport of infiltrated water would be horizontal flow. Infiltrated water will likely flow along the first perching layer at the base of the sand and gravel receptor unit, following the slope of this contact until it reaches the surface and becomes surface water. The slope of this contact likely follows topography to some degree. Potential consequences of this include discharge at the base of the slope, in the drainage channel, wetlands, or slope faces, and resulting surface water drainage issues, such as increased flow to wetlands and drainages downgradient from the source. Areas of concern include the houses and wetlands east and south of the site, and to a lesser degree, other downstream areas. Further study will better define these potential effects and recomnmend design and operational measures such as additional land application area, seasonal storage, timing and/or rotation of application sites, or improved drainage facilities at or near the property boundaries. Based on the analytical estimates described above, preliminary estimates of the 80 acre site (accounting for buffers and wetlands) capacity to accept additional flows without runoff at or adjoining the site may be on the order of 200,000 gpd (average annual flows), although these estimates are preliminary, conservative, and not well constrained at this point. This amount represents 40% of the full build-out average annual application rate of 500,000 gpd. Due to the accelerated pre-design schedule, a conservative pre-design assumption at this point would therefore be to have another approximately 120 acres available if needed to accommodate full build-out flows. Additional studies and analyses



to better estimate the site’s capacity and ground water conditions downstream of the site include:

Field pilot testing of slow-rate infiltration. This may be accomplished by applying water over a test area for several days and monitoring soil moisture, saturation, discharge, etc.

Modeling to better predict the amount and timing of interflow or shallow ground water discharge to surface water. Due to the unsaturated flow, slope, and surface discharge/interflow critical design parameters, traditional ground water flow modeling is not anticipated to be a useful predictor of site capacity. A three dimensional, finite element numerical model that simulates unsaturated flow, water balance factors, and drainage may be recommended.

Evaluation of the capacity of on- and off-site drainage systems to handle additional flows from impacts of increased ground water levels.

Evaluation of the feasibility of constructing drainage improvements to handle additional flows from impacts of increased ground water levels.

Evaluation of the effects of increasing the planned reclaimed water storage capacity, which might allow for greater overall reclaimed water application volumes. Storage should be designed at a minimum to retain flows during equipment failures, freezing conditions, heavy rain events, etc. Additional storage capacity might increase the system capacity by retaining flows over portions of the wet season.

Ground water and surface water quality and elevation monitoring for at least one year, particularly through one wet season.

As stated above, the capacity of the site to absorb and release added water could best be evaluated and regulated during initial operation of the system. Shallow (perched) ground water, surface drainages, and unsaturated soil moisture could be instrumented and monitored during water application in separate dosing zones, and the capacity of each zone measured relative to seasonal precipitation and application rates. Information from the first wet-season application could be scaled to future planned system discharges and resulting land requirements better estimated. LIMITATIONS The conclusions expressed by HWA are based solely on material referenced in this report. Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, HWA attempted to execute these services in accordance with generally accepted professional principles and practices in the area at the time the report was prepared. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made. Experience has shown that subsurface soil and ground water conditions can vary significantly over small distances. HWA's findings and conclusions must not be considered as scientific or engineering certainties, but rather as our professional opinion



concerning the significance of the limited data gathered and interpreted during the course of the assessment. This study and report have been prepared on behalf of Tetra Tech, Inc. Engineering & Architecture Services and the Freeland Water and Sewer District, for the specific application to the subject property. We are not responsible for the impacts of any changes in environmental standards, practices, or regulations subsequent to performance of services. We do not warrant the accuracy of information supplied by others, nor the use of segregated portions of this report. The scope of our work did not include environmental assessments or evaluations regarding the presence or absence of wetlands, hazardous substances in the soil, or surface water at this site. REFERENCES Daniels, Darrell., et al. 1991. Estimating Recharge Rates Through Unsaturated Glacial Till by Tritium Tracing, GROUND WATER, Vol. 29, No. I, February 1991. Ecology, Washington State Department of, July 2005. Water Quality Program Permit Writer's Manual, Publication Number 92-109 EES, 1989. Island County Ground Water Management Program, Appendix A, Technical

Memorandum, Hydrogeologic Characterization and Background Data Collection Relative to Ground Water Protection and Management, September, 1989.

Georgia, State of, Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection Division,

Watershed Protection Branch, 2006. Guidelines for Slow-Rate Land Treatment of Wastewater.

Hantush, M. S. (1967). Growth and Decay of Groundwater Mounds in Response to Uniform Percolation. Water Resources Research, 3: 227-234. HWA GeoSciences Inc., May 1, 2003a, Hydrogeological Evaluation, Wastewater Infiltration Feasibility, Freeland Comprehensive Sewer Plan, Freeland, Washington. HWA GeoSciences Inc., October 16, 2003b, Preliminary Infiltration Evaluation, Freeland Comprehensive Sewer Plan, Freeland, Washington. HWA GeoSciences Inc., January 7, 2005. Preliminary Infiltration Plan, Freeland Comprehensive Sewer Plan, Freeland, Washington. Pessl, F, Jr., et al., 1989, Surficial Geologic Map of the Port Townsend 30- by 60- Minute

Quadrangle, Puget Sound Region, Washington, Folio of the Port Townsend Quadrangle, Washington, Map I-1198-F, USGS.

HYDROGEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION FREELAND WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT

FREELAND, WASHINGTON

PROJECT NO.: 2010-034 FIGURE: 1

VICNINTY MAP

80-ACRE REUSE SITE

.

APPENDIX A

TEST PIT AND BORING LOGS

A-12010-034FREELAND, WASHINGTON

FREELAND WATER AND SEWER DISTRICTHYDROGEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION

SYMBOLS USED ONEXPLORATION LOGS

LEGEND OF TERMS AND

SIZE RANGE

Larger than 12 in

Smaller than No. 200 (0.074mm)

Gravel

time of drilling)

Groundwater Level (measured in well or

AL

CBR

CN

Atterberg Limits:LL = Liquid Limit

California Bearing Ratio

Consolidation

Resilient Modulus

Photoionization Device Reading

Pocket Penetrometer

Specific Gravity

Triaxial Compression

Torvane

3 in to 12 in

3 in to No 4 (4.5mm)

Coarse sand

Medium sand

No. 4 (4.5 mm) to No. 200 (0.074 mm)

COMPONENT

DRY Absence of moisture, dusty,

dry to the touch.

MOIST Damp but no visible water.

WET Visible free water, usually

soil is below water table.

Boulders

Cobbles

Coarse gravel

Fine gravel

Sand

MOISTURE CONTENT

COMPONENT PROPORTIONS

Fine sand

Silt and Clay

5 - 12%

PROPORTION RANGE DESCRIPTIVE TERMS

Clean

Slightly (Clayey, Silty, Sandy)

30 - 50%

Components are arranged in order of increasing quantities.

Very (Clayey, Silty, Sandy, Gravelly)

12 - 30% Clayey, Silty, Sandy, Gravelly

open hole after water level stabilized)

Groundwater Level (measured at

3 in to 3/4 in

3/4 in to No 4 (4.5mm)

No. 4 (4.5 mm) to No. 10 (2.0 mm)

No. 10 (2.0 mm) to No. 40 (0.42 mm)

No. 40 (0.42 mm) to No. 200 (0.074 mm)

PL = Plastic Limit

DD

DS

GS

K

MD

MR

PID

PP

SG

TC

TV

Dry Density (pcf)

Direct Shear

Grain Size Distribution

Permeability

Approx. Shear Strength (tsf)

Percent Fines%F

Moisture/Density Relationship (Proctor)

Approx. Compressive Strength (tsf)

Unconfined CompressionUC

(140 lb. hammer with 30 in. drop)

Shelby Tube

Small Bag Sample

Large Bag (Bulk) Sample

Core Run

Non-standard Penetration Test

2.0" OD Split Spoon (SPT)

NOTES: Soil classifications presented on exploration logs are based on visual and laboratory observation.

Density/consistency, color, modifier (if any) GROUP NAME, additions to group name (if any), moisturecontent. Proportion, gradation, and angularity of constituents, additional comments.(GEOLOGIC INTERPRETATION)

Please refer to the discussion in the report text as well as the exploration logs for a morecomplete description of subsurface conditions.

Soil descriptions are presented in the following general order:

< 5%

3-1/4" OD Split Spoon with Brass Rings

(3.0" OD split spoon)

TEST SYMBOLS

SAMPLE TYPE SYMBOLS

GROUNDWATER SYMBOLS

COMPONENT DEFINITIONS

Clean Gravel

(little or no fines)

More than

50% of Coarse

Fraction Retained

on No. 4 Sieve

Gravel with

SM

SC

ML

MH

CH

OH

RELATIVE DENSITY OR CONSISTENCY VERSUS SPT N-VALUE

Very Loose

Loose

Medium Dense

Very Dense

Dense

N (blows/ft)

0 to 4

4 to 10

10 to 30

30 to 50

over 50

ApproximateRelative Density(%)

0 - 15

15 - 35

35 - 65

65 - 85

85 - 100

COHESIVE SOILS

Consistency

Very Soft

Soft

Medium Stiff

Stiff

Very Stiff

Hard

N (blows/ft)

0 to 2

2 to 4

4 to 8

8 to 15

15 to 30

over 30

ApproximateUndrained Shear

Strength (psf)

<250

250 -

No. 4 Sieve

Sand with

Fines (appreciable

amount of fines)

amount of fines)

More than

50% Retained

on No.

200 Sieve

Size

Sand and

Sandy SoilsClean Sand

(little or no fines)

50% or More

of Coarse

Fraction Passing

Fine

Grained

Soils

Silt

and

Clay

Liquid Limit

Less than 50%

50% or More

Passing

No. 200 Sieve

Size

Silt

and

Clay

Liquid Limit

50% or More

500

500 - 1000

1000 - 2000

2000 - 4000

>4000

DensityDensity

USCS SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM

Coarse

Grained

Soils

Gravel and

Gravelly Soils

Highly Organic Soils

GROUP DESCRIPTIONS

Well-graded GRAVEL

Poorly-graded GRAVEL

Silty GRAVEL

Clayey GRAVEL

Well-graded SAND

Poorly-graded SAND

Silty SAND

Clayey SAND

SILT

Lean CLAY

Organic SILT/Organic CLAY

Elastic SILT

Fat CLAY

Organic SILT/Organic CLAY

PEAT

MAJOR DIVISIONS

GW

SP

CL

OL

PT

GP

GM

GC

SW

COHESIONLESS SOILS

Fines (appreciable

LEGEND 2010-034.GPJ 6/16/10FIGURE:PROJECT NO.:

SM

SPSM

ML

SM

SM

ML

11-16-23

19-24-26

23-50/6

5-12-38

17-50/4

14-23-37

28-33-43

23-26-40

Very dense, olive-gray, silty SAND trace gravel, moist,Diamicton. Trace rust mottling. Driller notes cobbley to 3.5feet.

[GLACIAL TILL]

Very dense, gray, slightly silty SAND, dry. Trace gravel. Finesand. Driller notes hard/cobbley drilling at 6.5' and 9'

Hard, olive-gray, sandy SILT, moist. Some gravel.

Very dense, olive-gray, silty SAND, moist, Diamicton. Fineto medium sand. Some silt pockets. Driller notes cobble at15'.

Very dense, olive-gray, silty SAND, dry to moist. Tracegravel. Fine sand.

Very dense, olive-gray, silty SAND, moist, Diamicton. Finesand. Rust mottled.

Hard, olive-gray, sandy SILT, dry to moist. Rust mottled.Fine sand.

[GLACIO-LACUSTRINE]

Hard, olive-gray, sandy SILT, moist. Fine sand. Rustmottled. Fine laminations. Slickensides at 36'.

S-1

S-2

S-3

S-4

S-5

S-6

S-7

S-8

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

BORING 2010-034.GPJ 6/16/10FIGURE:PROJECT NO.: 2010-034

FREELAND, WASHINGTONFREELAND WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT

HYDROGEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION

DRILLING COMPANY: Holocene Drilling, Inc

DRILLING METHOD: CME 850 Track-mounted Hollow Stem Auger

SAMPLING METHOD: SPT

LOCATION: See Figure 2

DATE STARTED: 5/10/2010

DATE COMPLETED: 5/10/2010

LOGGED BY: P. PearsonfeetSURFACE ELEVATION:

For a proper understanding of the nature of subsurface conditions, thisexploration log should be read in conjunction with the text of thegeotechnical report.

199.00

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

DE

PT

H(f

eet)

DE

PT

H(f

eet)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

BH-1PAGE: 1 of 3

(blo

ws/

6 in

ches

)

A-2

GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

R

OT

HE

R T

ES

TS

Plastic Limit

BORING:

and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations.

Standard Penetration Test

PE

N. R

ES

IST

AN

CE

0 10 20 30 40 50

0 20 40 60 80 100

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SA

MP

LE N

UM

BE

R

Natural Water Content

US

CS

SO

IL C

LAS

S

Water Content (%)

NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated

(140 lb. weight, 30" drop)

DESCRIPTION

Blows per foot

Liquid Limit

SY

MB

OL

ML

ML

SPSM

8-8-17

14-27-35

15-22-28

16-27-29

7-9-22

29-35-29

14-24-32

0

Stiff, olive-gray, sandy SILT, slightly clayey, moist. Finesand. Rust mottled. Laminated to blocky. Vertical sanddyke at 41'.

Hard, olive-brown, sandy SILT,slightly clayey, moist. Finesand. Trace slickensides.

Hard, olive-gray, sandy SILT, moist. Fine sandSlickensides/sand dykes. Rust mottled.

Hard, olive-gray, sandy SILT, moist. Rust mottled.

Stiff, olive-gray to gray, slightly sandy SILT, moist. Rustmottled. Driller notes gravel at 62 feet.

Hard, olive-gray, sandy SILT, moist. Gravel. Rust mottled.

Hard, olive-gray, sandy SILT, moist. Rust mottled.

Stiff, olive-gray, sandy SILT, moist. Sampler fell into hole -no blows.

Dense, gray, slightly silty SAND, dry to moist. Laminated.[ADVANCE OUTWASH]

Boring terminated at 76.5 feet below the existing groundsurface.

S-9

S-10

S-11

S-12

S-13

S-14

S-15

S-16

>>

>>

>>

>>












199.00

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

DE

PT

H(f

eet)

DE

PT

H(f

eet)

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

BH-1PAGE: 2 of 3

(blo

ws/

6 in

ches

)

A-2

GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

R

OT

HE

R T

ES

TS

Plastic Limit

BORING:



PE

N. R

ES

IST

AN

CE

0 10 20 30 40 50

0 20 40 60 80 100

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SA

MP

LE N

UM

BE

R


US

CS

SO

IL C

LAS

S

Water Content (%)



DESCRIPTION

Blows per foot

Liquid Limit

SY

MB

OL

No ground water observed while conducting this exploratoryboring.












199.00

80

85

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

DE

PT

H(f

eet)

DE

PT

H(f

eet)

80

85

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

BH-1PAGE: 3 of 3

(blo

ws/

6 in

ches

)

A-2

GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

R

OT

HE

R T

ES

TS

Plastic Limit

BORING:



PE

N. R

ES

IST

AN

CE

0 10 20 30 40 50

0 20 40 60 80 100

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SA

MP

LE N

UM

BE

R


US

CS

SO

IL C

LAS

S

Water Content (%)



DESCRIPTION

Blows per foot

Liquid Limit

SY

MB

OL

S-1

S-2

S-3

S-4

S-5

S-6

S-7

S-8

SM

SPSM

SP

SPSM

3-4-5

14-16-11

16-27-27

15-19-25

21-33-36

25-38-50/6

31-50/4

50/5

Medium dense, brown, silty SAND, moist. Some gravel.Trace organics.

[FILL / DISTURBED NATIVE OUTWASH]Refusal ar 5' on boulder. Move hole 3' north.Medium dense, red brown, silty SAND, moist. Fine tomedium sand. Some coarse sand and gravel. Some brokenrock fragments.Cuttings wet at 7'.

Very dense, olive-gray, slightly silty SAND, wet. Somegravel.

[ADVANCE OUTWASH)

Cuttings become silty.

Dense, olive-gray, slightly silty to silty SAND, wet. Finesand.

Very dense, light yellow-brown, SAND with trace silt, wet tomoist. Fine to medium sand.

Very dense, dark yellow-brown, slightly silty SAND, moist.3" silty fine sand layer at 26'.

Cobbley drill action at 27 feet.

Very dense, olive-gray, slightly silty SAND with gravel,moist.

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

PZO 2010-034.GPJ 6/16/10FIGURE:PROJECT NO.: 2010-034






DRILLING METHOD: CME 850 Track-mounted Hollow Stem AugerDATE STARTED: 5/11/2010

LOGGED BY: P. PearsonDATE COMPLETED: 5/11/2010

SURFACE ELEVATION:CASING ELEVATION

150.00 feet

feet

0 20 40 60 80 100

Water Content (%)

Plastic Limit


Blows per foot

(blo

ws/

6 in

ches

)

US

CS

SO

IL C

LAS

S

DESCRIPTION SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SA

MP

LE N

UM

BE

R

PE

N. R

ES

IST

AN

CE

OT

HE

R T

ES

TS

PIE

ZO

ME

TE

R


A-3

SY

MB

OL

SC

HE

MA

TIC

0 10 20 30 40 50

Liquid Limit

NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicatedand therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations.

BORING:BH-2

PAGE: 1 of 2

Water Content (%)


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

DE

PT

H(f

eet)

DE

PT

H(f

eet)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

S-9

S-10

S-11

SP

SPSM

50/5

50/2

50/2

Very dense, olive-gray, slightly silty SAND, moist. Tracecoarse sand and gravel. Fine to medium sand.

Very dense, dark yellow-brown SAND, moist. Fine tomedium sand. Trace silt.

Very dense, brown, slightly silty SAND, moist. Some gravel.

Boring terminated at 76.5 feet below the existing groundsurface. Ground water observed at approximately 7 feetbelow the existing ground surface while conducting thisexploratory boring.

>>

>>

>>










150.00 feet

feet

0 20 40 60 80 100

Water Content (%)

Plastic Limit


Blows per foot

(blo

ws/

6 in

ches

)

US

CS

SO

IL C

LAS

S

DESCRIPTION SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SA

MP

LE N

UM

BE

R

PE

N. R

ES

IST

AN

CE

OT

HE

R T

ES

TS

PIE

ZO

ME

TE

R


A-3

SY

MB

OL

SC

HE

MA

TIC

0 10 20 30 40 50

Liquid Limit


BORING:BH-2

PAGE: 2 of 2

Water Content (%)


40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

DE

PT

H(f

eet)

DE

PT

H(f

eet)

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

SPSM

SM

SPSM

SPSM

MLSP

3-6-7

8-30-16

38-50/6

46-50/4

20-31-42

26-46-50/6

28-50/6

50/6

Medium dense, brown, slightly silty SAND, moist to wet.Fine to medium sand. Some fine gravel. Trace rustmottling.

[RECESSIONAL OUTWASH]

Stiff, olive-brown, sandy SILT, moist, Diamicton. Somegravel and broken rock fragments.

[GLACIAL TILL]

Very dense, olive-gray, gravelly, silty SAND, moist. Fine tocoarse sand. Broken rock fragment in sampler tip. 16%fines.

Very dense, olive-gray, silty SAND, moist. Some coarsesand and gravel. Some broken rock fragments.

Very dense, dark yellow-brown, slightly silty SAND, moist.Fine to medium sand.

[ADVANCE OUTWASH]

Very dense, dark gray SAND, wet. Perched ground waterlayer from 24.5'.

Very dense, olive-gray, sandy SILT, moist. Trace gravel.

Very dense, olive-gray, slightly silty SAND, moist. Finesand.

Very dense, olive-gray, slightly silty to silty SAND, moist.Fine sand with scattered silt laminae.

Very dense, light yellow-brown/olive gray, slightly silty tosilty SAND, moist. Fine sand. Laminated.Boring terminated at 35.5 feet below ground surface.

Perched ground water observed at approximately 4 feetbelow ground surface.

S-1

S-2

S-3

S-4

S-5

S-6aS-6bS-6c

S-7

S-8

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>












80.00

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

DE

PT

H(f

eet)

DE

PT

H(f

eet)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

BH-3PAGE: 1 of 1

(blo

ws/

6 in

ches

)

A-4

GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

R

OT

HE

R T

ES

TS

Plastic Limit

BORING:



PE

N. R

ES

IST

AN

CE

0 10 20 30 40 50

0 20 40 60 80 100

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SA

MP

LE N

UM

BE

R


US

CS

SO

IL C

LAS

S

Water Content (%)



DESCRIPTION

Blows per foot

Liquid Limit

SY

MB

OL

S-1

S-2

S-3

S-4

SPSM

SM

SP

9-11-14

11-19-19

25-22-23

16-30-42

Hard drilling through road fill to 3'.

Medium dense, brown, slightly silty to silty SAND, moist towet. Graded laminations. Fine to medium sand.


Dense, brown, silty SAND, wet. Fine to medium sand.Laminated. Trace gravel and rock fragments.

Dense, dark gray-brown, slightly silty SAND, moist. 6" ofgravel over sand.

Hard drilling.

Dense, dark gray-brown, slightly silty SAND, moist. Tracelaminations.

[ADVANCE OUTWASH]Boring terminated at 21.5 feet below ground surface.

Ground water observed at approximately 5 feet belowground surface.

>>










88.00 feet

feet

0 20 40 60 80 100

Water Content (%)

Plastic Limit


Blows per foot

(blo

ws/

6 in

ches

)

US

CS

SO

IL C

LAS

S

DESCRIPTION SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SA

MP

LE N

UM

BE

R

PE

N. R

ES

IST

AN

CE

OT

HE

R T

ES

TS

PIE

ZO

ME

TE

R


A-5

SY

MB

OL

SC

HE

MA

TIC

0 10 20 30 40 50

Liquid Limit


BORING:BH-4

PAGE: 1 of 1

Water Content (%)


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

DE

PT

H(f

eet)

DE

PT

H(f

eet)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

SM

SM

12-16-20

50/6

26-30-32

50/6

50/5

50/3

Cuttings consist of brown, silty sand.

Dense, dark gray-brown, slightly silty to silty SAND, wet.Fine to medium sand. Trace laminations. Trace gravel.20% fines.


Very dense, olive-gray, silty SAND, moist, Diamicton. Somegravel and broken rock fragments. Gravelly drilling to 15'.

[GLACIAL TILL]

Very dense, olive-gray, silty SAND, moist. Some gravel andbroken rock fragments. Fine to medium sand. Sand layer at16'.

Very dense, olive-gray, silty SAND, moist. Trace gravel.Bottom 3" consists of clean, fine to medium sand. Drillingaction suggests cobbles below 21'.

Very dense, olive-gray, silty SAND, moist. Some coarsesand and gravel. Low recovery.

Boulder at 28'.

Very dense, olive-gray, silty SAND, moist. Some coarsesand and gravel.

Very dense, olive-gray, silty SAND, moist. Some coarsesand and gravel.

S-1

S-2

S-3

S-4

S-5

S-6

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>












137.00

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

DE

PT

H(f

eet)

DE

PT

H(f

eet)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

BH-5PAGE: 1 of 2

(blo

ws/

6 in

ches

)

A-6

GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

R

OT

HE

R T

ES

TS

Plastic Limit

BORING:



PE

N. R

ES

IST

AN

CE

0 10 20 30 40 50

0 20 40 60 80 100

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SA

MP

LE N

UM

BE

R


US

CS

SO

IL C

LAS

S

Water Content (%)



DESCRIPTION

Blows per foot

Liquid Limit

SY

MB

OL

ML

SM

50/6

29-41-50/5

16-26-46

Very dense, olive-gray, silty SAND, moist. Some gravel andbroken rock fragments.

Hard, olive-gray, slightly sandy SILT, moist. Some fine,sandy, rust mottled interbeds. Laminated. Smoother drilling.

[GLACIO-LACUSTRINE]

Very dense, olive-gray, silty SAND, moist. Fine sand.Laminated.

Boring terminated at 52 feet below ground surface.

Ground water observed at approximately 5 feet belowground surface.

S-8

S-9

S-10

>>

>>

>>












137.00

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

DE

PT

H(f

eet)

DE

PT

H(f

eet)

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

BH-5PAGE: 2 of 2

(blo

ws/

6 in

ches

)

A-6

GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

R

OT

HE

R T

ES

TS

Plastic Limit

BORING:



PE

N. R

ES

IST

AN

CE

0 10 20 30 40 50

0 20 40 60 80 100

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SA

MP

LE N

UM

BE

R


US

CS

SO

IL C

LAS

S

Water Content (%)



DESCRIPTION

Blows per foot

Liquid Limit

SY

MB

OL

1

2

MLGM

SM

Light brown, silty with organics (roots), dry.

Light brown, silty, sandy fine to coarse gravel with occasionalcobbles, dry. Unit is highly stratified with occasional 1-2 in. siltlenses/beds and occasional 2-4 in. fine to medium sand beds.

Gray, silty, gravely fine to medium sand, moist. Gravel is fine tocoarse with variable content.

5

0

3

6

9

12

15

0

3

6

9

12

15

EXCAVATION COMPANY: Island County

EXCAVATING EQUIPMENT: JD 410G Backhoe

SURFACE ELEVATION: Feet

DE

PT

H (

feet

)

SY

MB

OL

US

CS

SO

IL C

LAS

S.

DESCRIPTION SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SA

MP

LE N

UM

BE

R

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

OT

HE

R T

ES

TS

GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

R

0 3

LOCATION: 48.02575, 122.57448


LOGGED BY: G. Emens

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE (feet)

TP- 7

115

6 9 12 15 DE

PT

H (

feet

)

SKETCH OF SIDE OF PIT

LOG OF TEST PIT

PAGE: 1 of 2

A-7

NOTE: For a proper understanding of the nature of subsurface conditions, this exploration log shouldbe read in conjunction with the text of the geotechnical report. This log of subsurfaceconditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore maynot necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations.

2010-034PROJECT NO.:TP15 2010-034.GPJ 6/16/10

FIGURE:

HYDROGEOLOGIC INVESTIGATIONFREELAND WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT


Distinct color change to brownish gray.

15

18

21

24

27

30

15

18

21

24

27

30




DE

PT

H (

feet

)

SY

MB

OL

US

CS

SO

IL C

LAS

S.

DESCRIPTION SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SA

MP

LE N

UM

BE

R

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

OT

HE

R T

ES

TS

GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

R

0 3

LOCATION: 48.02575, 122.57448


LOGGED BY: G. Emens


TP- 7

115

6 9 12 15 DE

PT

H (

feet

)


LOG OF TEST PIT

PAGE: 2 of 2

A-7


2010-034PROJECT NO.:TP15 2010-034.GPJ 6/16/10

FIGURE:



SM

SM

SM

Light gray, brown and rust mottled silty sand with roots, dry(topsoil)

Light gray rust motled silty sand with gravel and cobbles, few roots,dry (weathered till)

Light gray rust mottled silty sand with gravel, dry. Less silt thanabove (weathered till)

Dense gray silty sand with gravel, dry (till).Few massive gray silt layers

0

3

6

9

12

15

0

3

6

9

12

15




DE

PT

H (

feet

)

SY

MB

OL

US

CS

SO

IL C

LAS

S.

DESCRIPTION SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SA

MP

LE N

UM

BE

R

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

OT

HE

R T

ES

TS

GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

R

0 3

LOCATION: 48.02965. 122.58058


LOGGED BY: A. Sugar


TP-14

6 9 12 15 DE

PT

H (

feet

)


LOG OF TEST PIT

PAGE: 1 of 1

A-8


2010-034PROJECT NO.:TP15 2010-034.GPJ 6/16/10

FIGURE:



SM

SPSM

SM

Light brown rust mottled silty sand with roots, dry (topsoil)

Dense, light gray/brown rust mottled silty sand with gravel, dry(weathered till)

Light gray silty fine sand, few small gravel, dry

Light gray rust mottled silty sand with gravel and cobbles, dry (till)

0

3

6

9

12

15

0

3

6

9

12

15




DE

PT

H (

feet

)

SY

MB

OL

US

CS

SO

IL C

LAS

S.

DESCRIPTION SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SA

MP

LE N

UM

BE

R

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

OT

HE

R T

ES

TS

GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

R

0 3

LOCATION: 48.02556. 122.57994


LOGGED BY: A. Sugar


TP-15

6 9 12 15 DE

PT

H (

feet

)


LOG OF TEST PIT

PAGE: 1 of 1

A-9


2010-034PROJECT NO.:TP15 2010-034.GPJ 6/16/10

FIGURE:



S-4

SPSM

SPSM

Brown silty sand with roots, dry (topsoil)

Light brown silty sand and clean sand, few roots, dry

Dense, cemented, light brown rust mottled silty sand with graveland cobbles, dry. Diamict stuctutre with faint layering (weatheredtill)

8.5% fines.

Dense light gray silty sand with gravel and cobbles, moist(weathered till)

Seepage at 9.5', 3-5 gpm

4

0

3

6

9

12

15

0

3

6

9

12

15




DE

PT

H (

feet

)

SY

MB

OL

US

CS

SO

IL C

LAS

S.

DESCRIPTION SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SA

MP

LE N

UM

BE

R

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

OT

HE

R T

ES

TS

GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

R

0 3

LOCATION: 48.02228. 122.57738


LOGGED BY: A. Sugar


TP-16

134

6 9 12 15 DE

PT

H (

feet

)


LOG OF TEST PIT

PAGE: 1 of 1

A-10


2010-034PROJECT NO.:TP15 2010-034.GPJ 6/18/10

FIGURE:



S-8

SP

SP

SPSM

Light brown rust mottled sand with gravel and roots, dry (topsoil)

Light brown fine to coarse sand, gravel and cobbles with roots to 4',dry

Tan fine to medium sand, dry. 4-4.5' has light gray color

Light gray silty fine to medium sand with gravel and cobbles, moist

Getting denser. 19% fines.

6

0

3

6

9

12

15

0

3

6

9

12

15




DE

PT

H (

feet

)

SY

MB

OL

US

CS

SO

IL C

LAS

S.

DESCRIPTION SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SA

MP

LE N

UM

BE

R

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

OT

HE

R T

ES

TS

GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

R

0 3

LOCATION: 48.02678. 122.57509


LOGGED BY: A. Sugar


TP-17

143

6 9 12 15 DE

PT

H (

feet

)


LOG OF TEST PIT

PAGE: 1 of 1

A-11


2010-034PROJECT NO.:TP15 2010-034.GPJ 6/18/10

FIGURE:



SP

SPSM

SM

Light brown silty sand with gravel and roots (topsoil)

Light brown rust mottled fine to coarse sand with gravel andcobbles, dry. Roots to 3'

Very dense, light gray silty fine sand, dry.

Very dense light gray silty fine sand and silt, dry (till)

0

3

6

9

12

15

0

3

6

9

12

15




DE

PT

H (

feet

)

SY

MB

OL

US

CS

SO

IL C

LAS

S.

DESCRIPTION SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SA

MP

LE N

UM

BE

R

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

OT

HE

R T

ES

TS

GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

R

0 3

LOCATION: 48.02430. 122.57440


LOGGED BY: A. Sugar


TP-18

130

6 9 12 15 DE

PT

H (

feet

)


LOG OF TEST PIT

PAGE: 1 of 1

A-12


2010-034PROJECT NO.:TP15 2010-034.GPJ 6/16/10

FIGURE:



S-1

S-2

S-3

SP

SM

ML

Reddish brown sandy soil with organics, roots, forest duff, moist

Loose (easy excavating) yellowish orange, fine to coarse SANDwith gravel, few cobbles, moist. Gravel rounded. 9.5% fines.

Loose, light brown/tan fine to coarse SAND with gravel, some thin(3") denser silty layers, moist to dry. Faint stratification. 27%fines.

Roots down to 7 feet

Loose, brown/tan fine to coarse SAND with gravel, some thin (3")denser silty layers, moist to dry. Faint stratification, dipping east(downslope).

Moisture increasing. 43% fines.

Dense, olive gray, laminated SILT, moist to dry.

No ground water encountered to 12.5 feet total depth.

2

4

9

0

3

6

9

12

15

0

3

6

9

12

15


EXCAVATING EQUIPMENT: JD 310 SC Backhoe


DE

PT

H (

feet

)

SY

MB

OL

US

CS

SO

IL C

LAS

S.

DESCRIPTION SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SA

MP

LE N

UM

BE

R

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

OT

HE

R T

ES

TS

GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

R

0 3

LOCATION: 48.027833, 122.573528


LOGGED BY: A. Sugar


TP-22

107

6 9 12 15 DE

PT

H (

feet

)


LOG OF TEST PIT

PAGE: 1 of 1

A-13


2010-034PROJECT NO.:TP15 2010-034.GPJ 6/18/10

FIGURE:



GP

GP

GP

SP

MLSM

MLML

Brown sandy soil with organics, roots, moist to dry

Loose to medium dense (easy excavating) yelowish orange fine tocoarse SAND with gravel, few cobbles to 4", moist to dry. Gravelrounded.

Color change to brown, less oxidation

6" fine sand layer

Tan/light brown fine gravel and coarse sand layer

Light brown fine to coarse SAND with gravel, few cobbles, moist todry

Dense, tan/rust mottled SILT, dry. Blocky texture.

Dense, Tan silty SAND, few gravel, dry. Some stratifictaion.

Dense rust mottled gray SILT, few gravel, moist to dry. Till-like,with blocky / fractured texture.

Stiff gray rust mottled plastic SILT / clay, moist. Massive structure.

Stiff gray laminated SILT, dry.[glaciolacustrine]


2

0

3

6

9

12

15

0

3

6

9

12

15




DE

PT

H (

feet

)

SY

MB

OL

US

CS

SO

IL C

LAS

S.

DESCRIPTION SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SA

MP

LE N

UM

BE

R

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

OT

HE

R T

ES

TS

GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

R

0 3

LOCATION: 48.026889, 122.573306


LOGGED BY: A. Sugar


TP-23

96

6 9 12 15 DE

PT

H (

feet

)


LOG OF TEST PIT

PAGE: 1 of 1

A-14


2010-034PROJECT NO.:TP15 2010-034.GPJ 6/16/10

FIGURE:



S-1

SM

ML

SP

SPSM

Medium-brown silty SAND with organics

Medium gray, medium to coarse silty SAND with trace fine tocoarse gravel

Light gray SILT with trace sand and gravel (Glacial Till)

Light brownish gray medium SAND with trace silt and fine gravel(sand coarsening downward - from fine to medium). 12% fines.

Light gray, fine, silty SAND with trace gravel, moist


6

0

3

6

9

12

15

0

3

6

9

12

15




DE

PT

H (

feet

)

SY

MB

OL

US

CS

SO

IL C

LAS

S.

DESCRIPTION SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SA

MP

LE N

UM

BE

R

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

OT

HE

R T

ES

TS

GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

R

0 3

LOCATION: 48.024944, 122.573444


LOGGED BY: G. Emens


TP-24

89

6 9 12 15 DE

PT

H (

feet

)


LOG OF TEST PIT

PAGE: 1 of 1

A-15


2010-034PROJECT NO.:TP15 2010-034.GPJ 6/18/10

FIGURE:



OL

ML

ML

Dark brown to medium brown organic SILT grading to silt with finesand and trace fine to coarse gravel

Light brownish gray SILT with fine to medium sand and gravel(Weathered Glacial Till) hard digging

Dense, light gray SILT, with gravel. Gravel breaking duringexcavation.

No ground water encountered to 12 feet total depth.

0

3

6

9

12

15

0

3

6

9

12

15




DE

PT

H (

feet

)

SY

MB

OL

US

CS

SO

IL C

LAS

S.

DESCRIPTION SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SA

MP

LE N

UM

BE

R

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

OT

HE

R T

ES

TS

GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

R

0 3

LOCATION: 48.027278, 122.577250


LOGGED BY: G. Emens


TP-25

192

6 9 12 15 DE

PT

H (

feet

)


LOG OF TEST PIT

PAGE: 1 of 1

A-16


2010-034PROJECT NO.:TP15 2010-034.GPJ 6/16/10

FIGURE:



GWGM

Dark brown organic SILT with roots

Dense, well graded, fine to coarse Gravel with fine to coarse sandand silt, orangish brown cobbles to 8 feet (hard digging)

Color grades to light brown

Color grades to brownish gray


0

3

6

9

12

15

0

3

6

9

12

15




DE

PT

H (

feet

)

SY

MB

OL

US

CS

SO

IL C

LAS

S.

DESCRIPTION SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SA

MP

LE N

UM

BE

R

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

OT

HE

R T

ES

TS

GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

R

0 3

LOCATION: 48.025889, 122.575250


LOGGED BY: G. Emens


TP-26

144

6 9 12 15 DE

PT

H (

feet

)


LOG OF TEST PIT

PAGE: 1 of 1

A-17


2010-034PROJECT NO.:TP15 2010-034.GPJ 6/16/10

FIGURE:



ML

SPSM

Medium brown top soil

Dense, light brownish gray, fine sandy SILT with trace gravel, withsome iron oxide staining (Weathered Glacial Till)

(Glacial Till)Fine sand lensSilt becomes light gray

Silt grades to light gray silty medium SAND with silt and finegrained diamicton (Glacial Till)


0

3

6

9

12

15

0

3

6

9

12

15




DE

PT

H (

feet

)

SY

MB

OL

US

CS

SO

IL C

LAS

S.

DESCRIPTION SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SA

MP

LE N

UM

BE

R

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

OT

HE

R T

ES

TS

GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

R

0 3

LOCATION: 48.026056, 122.575750


LOGGED BY: G. Emens


TP-27

165

6 9 12 15 DE

PT

H (

feet

)


LOG OF TEST PIT

PAGE: 1 of 1

A-18


2010-034PROJECT NO.:TP15 2010-034.GPJ 6/16/10

FIGURE:



ML

Dark brown organic SILT

Dense, light brownish gray SILT with fine sand and gravel,diamicton (Weathered Glacial Till)

Light gray (Glacial Till)

No ground water encountered to 9 feet total depth

0

3

6

9

12

15

0

3

6

9

12

15




DE

PT

H (

feet

)

SY

MB

OL

US

CS

SO

IL C

LAS

S.

DESCRIPTION SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SA

MP

LE N

UM

BE

R

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

OT

HE

R T

ES

TS

GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

R

0 3

LOCATION: 48.023361, 122.579472


LOGGED BY: G. Emens


TP-28

170

6 9 12 15 DE

PT

H (

feet

)


LOG OF TEST PIT

PAGE: 1 of 1

A-19


2010-034PROJECT NO.:TP15 2010-034.GPJ 6/16/10

FIGURE:



S-1

SM

ML

SPSM

Loose, red brown to brown, silty SAND, moist. Fine to mediumsand. Some gravel.

[TOPSOIL]

Stiff, gray, slightly sandy SILT, moist. Trace gravel.[LACUSTRINE]

Very dense, gray, slightly silty SAND, moist. Some gravel andcobbles. Seepage at 5' in NE corner.

(SANDY GLACIAL TILL)

18% fines.

Test pit terminated at 11 feet below ground surface.

No ground water observed at time of exploration.

4

0

3

6

9

12

15

0

3

6

9

12

15

EXCAVATION COMPANY: Diamond Construction

EXCAVATING EQUIPMENT: Komatsu PC120 Excavator


DE

PT

H (

feet

)

SY

MB

OL

US

CS

SO

IL C

LAS

S.

DESCRIPTION SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SA

MP

LE N

UM

BE

R

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

OT

HE

R T

ES

TS

GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

R

0 3



LOGGED BY: P. Pearson


TP-29

76

6 9 12 15 DE

PT

H (

feet

)


LOG OF TEST PIT

PAGE: 1 of 1

A-20


2010-034PROJECT NO.:TP15 2010-034.GPJ 6/18/10

FIGURE:



S-1SW

SP

Wood debris, duff, topsoil.

Medium dense, red brown to gray, slightly silty, gravelly SAND,moist. Fine to coarse sand. Some organics, roots.


Dense, gray, slightly silty SAND, moist. Fine sand.

Test pit terminated at 13 feet below ground surface.No ground water observed at time of exploration.

0

3

6

9

12

15

0

3

6

9

12

15




DE

PT

H (

feet

)

SY

MB

OL

US

CS

SO

IL C

LAS

S.

DESCRIPTION SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SA

MP

LE N

UM

BE

R

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

OT

HE

R T

ES

TS

GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

R

0 3





TP-30

75

6 9 12 15 DE

PT

H (

feet

)


LOG OF TEST PIT

PAGE: 1 of 1

A-21


2010-034PROJECT NO.:TP15 2010-034.GPJ 6/16/10

FIGURE:



S-1

s-2

ML

SP

ML

[TOPSOIL]

Stiff, gray, slightly sandy SILT, moist. Some rust mottling. Rootlets.[LACUSTRINE]

Dense, brown, slightly silty SAND, moist to wet. Seepage at 7'.[RECESSIONAL OUTWASH]

Hard, gray, slightly sandy SILT, moist. Trace gravel and rustmottling.

[GLACIO-LACUSTRINE]


Ground water seepage observed at 7 feet below ground surface.

0

3

6

9

12

15

0

3

6

9

12

15




DE

PT

H (

feet

)

SY

MB

OL

US

CS

SO

IL C

LAS

S.

DESCRIPTION SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SA

MP

LE N

UM

BE

R

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

OT

HE

R T

ES

TS

GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

R

0 3





TP-31

49

6 9 12 15 DE

PT

H (

feet

)


LOG OF TEST PIT

PAGE: 1 of 1

A-22


2010-034PROJECT NO.:TP15 2010-034.GPJ 6/16/10

FIGURE:



SW

SM

SP

SM

[TOPSOIL]

Medium dense, red brown, gravelly SAND, moist. Fine to coarsesand.


Medium dense, gray, silty SAND, moist.

Dense, gray, slightly silty SAND, moist. Fine sand.

Very dense, olive-gray, silty SAND, moist. Trace gravel.[GLACIAL TILL]



0

3

6

9

12

15

0

3

6

9

12

15




DE

PT

H (

feet

)

SY

MB

OL

US

CS

SO

IL C

LAS

S.

DESCRIPTION SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SA

MP

LE N

UM

BE

R

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

OT

HE

R T

ES

TS

GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

R

0 3





TP-32

68

6 9 12 15 DE

PT

H (

feet

)


LOG OF TEST PIT

PAGE: 1 of 1

A-23


2010-034PROJECT NO.:TP15 2010-034.GPJ 6/16/10

FIGURE:



SP

MLSM

SM

[TOPSOIL]

Loose, red brown, slightly silty SAND, moist. Fine to medium sand.Some gravel and cobbles. Roots.[RECESSIONAL OUTWASH]

Stiff, gray, sandy SILT, moist. Some gravel. Rust mottled.

Dense, olive-gray, slightly silty to silty SAND, moist to wet. Somegravel. Seepage from 4 to 5.5'.

Very dense, olive-gray, silty SAND, moist. Gravel.[GLACIAL TILL]


Ground water seepage observed at 4 feet below ground surface.

0

3

6

9

12

15

0

3

6

9

12

15




DE

PT

H (

feet

)

SY

MB

OL

US

CS

SO

IL C

LAS

S.

DESCRIPTION SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SA

MP

LE N

UM

BE

R

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

OT

HE

R T

ES

TS

GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

R

0 3





TP-33

140

6 9 12 15 DE

PT

H (

feet

)


LOG OF TEST PIT

PAGE: 1 of 1

A-24


2010-034PROJECT NO.:TP15 2010-034.GPJ 6/16/10

FIGURE:



S-1

SM

SM

Medium dense, red brown, silty SAND, moist. Gravel and rootlets.[RECESSIONAL OUTWASH]

Very dense, olive-gray, silty SAND, moist. Gravel.[GLACIAL TILL]



0

3

6

9

12

15

0

3

6

9

12

15




DE

PT

H (

feet

)

SY

MB

OL

US

CS

SO

IL C

LAS

S.

DESCRIPTION SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SA

MP

LE N

UM

BE

R

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

OT

HE

R T

ES

TS

GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

R

0 3





TP-34

130

6 9 12 15 DE

PT

H (

feet

)


LOG OF TEST PIT

PAGE: 1 of 1

A-25


2010-034PROJECT NO.:TP15 2010-034.GPJ 6/16/10

FIGURE:



SM

SM

[TOPSOIL]

Medium dense to dense, red brown, silty SAND, moist. Somegravel.

[WEATHERED TILL]

Very dense, olive-gray, silty SAND, moist. Gravel and cobbles.Boulder at 3'.

[GLACIAL TILL]



0

3

6

9

12

15

0

3

6

9

12

15




DE

PT

H (

feet

)

SY

MB

OL

US

CS

SO

IL C

LAS

S.

DESCRIPTION SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SA

MP

LE N

UM

BE

R

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

OT

HE

R T

ES

TS

GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

R

0 3





TP-35

146

6 9 12 15 DE

PT

H (

feet

)


LOG OF TEST PIT

PAGE: 1 of 1

A-26


2010-034PROJECT NO.:TP15 2010-034.GPJ 6/16/10

FIGURE:



SM

[TOPSOIL]

Dense to very dense, olive-gray, silty SAND, moist. Gravel. Rustmottled.

[GLACIAL TILL]



0

3

6

9

12

15

0

3

6

9

12

15




DE

PT

H (

feet

)

SY

MB

OL

US

CS

SO

IL C

LAS

S.

DESCRIPTION SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SA

MP

LE N

UM

BE

R

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

OT

HE

R T

ES

TS

GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

R

0 3





TP-36

115

6 9 12 15 DE

PT

H (

feet

)


LOG OF TEST PIT

PAGE: 1 of 1

A-27


2010-034PROJECT NO.:TP15 2010-034.GPJ 6/16/10

FIGURE:



S-1

S-2

SM

SP

SM

Medium dense, red brown to olive gray, silty, gravelly SAND, wet.Organics and roots.


Medium dense to dense, light yellow-brown, slightly silty SAND,moist. Trace seepage from 8 to 9' in NW corner.

Dense to very dense, olive-gray, slightly silty to silty SAND, moist.Gravel.

[SANDY GLACIAL TILL]

34% fines.

Test pit terminated at 13 feet below ground surface.Ground water seepage observed at 8 feet below ground surface.

8

10

0

3

6

9

12

15

0

3

6

9

12

15




DE

PT

H (

feet

)

SY

MB

OL

US

CS

SO

IL C

LAS

S.

DESCRIPTION SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SA

MP

LE N

UM

BE

R

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

OT

HE

R T

ES

TS

GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

R

0 3





TP-37

112

6 9 12 15 DE

PT

H (

feet

)


LOG OF TEST PIT

PAGE: 1 of 1

A-28


2010-034PROJECT NO.:TP15 2010-034.GPJ 6/18/10

FIGURE:



S-1

SM

SM

Dense, olive-brown to red brown, silty SAND, moist. Gravel.[WEATHERED TILL]

Very dense, olive-gray, silty SAND, moist. Gravel and cobbles.[GLACIAL TILL]



0

3

6

9

12

15

0

3

6

9

12

15




DE

PT

H (

feet

)

SY

MB

OL

US

CS

SO

IL C

LAS

S.

DESCRIPTION SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SA

MP

LE N

UM

BE

R

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

OT

HE

R T

ES

TS

GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

R

0 3





TP-38

113

6 9 12 15 DE

PT

H (

feet

)


LOG OF TEST PIT

PAGE: 1 of 1

A-29


2010-034PROJECT NO.:TP15 2010-034.GPJ 6/16/10

FIGURE:



SW

SP

SM

[TOPSOIL]

Dense, dark yellow-brown, gravelly SAND, moist. Fine to coarsesand. Some silt.


Very dense, light yellow-brown, slightly silty SAND, moist. Fine tomedium sand. Some gravel.

Very dense, olive-gray, slightly silty to silty SAND, moist. Gravel.[GLACIAL TILL]



0

3

6

9

12

15

0

3

6

9

12

15




DE

PT

H (

feet

)

SY

MB

OL

US

CS

SO

IL C

LAS

S.

DESCRIPTION SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SA

MP

LE N

UM

BE

R

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

OT

HE

R T

ES

TS

GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

R

0 3





TP-39

112

6 9 12 15 DE

PT

H (

feet

)


LOG OF TEST PIT

PAGE: 1 of 1

A-30


2010-034PROJECT NO.:TP15 2010-034.GPJ 6/16/10

FIGURE:



S-1

S-2

SP

ML

[TOPSOIL]

Dense, olive-gray, silty, gravelly SAND, moist. Rust mottled at 3'.[RECESSIONAL OUTWASH]

Hard, gray, sandy, SILT, moist. Fine sand. Trace gravel.[LACUSTRINE]



5

0

3

6

9

12

15

0

3

6

9

12

15




DE

PT

H (

feet

)

SY

MB

OL

US

CS

SO

IL C

LAS

S.

DESCRIPTION SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SA

MP

LE N

UM

BE

R

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

OT

HE

R T

ES

TS

GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

R

0 3





TP-40

180

6 9 12 15 DE

PT

H (

feet

)


LOG OF TEST PIT

PAGE: 1 of 1

A-31


2010-034PROJECT NO.:TP15 2010-034.GPJ 6/18/10

FIGURE:



S-1

S-2

SM

SM

SP

SM

Very dense, red brown to olive gray, silty, gravelly, SAND, moist.Fine to medium sand.


Very dense, olive-gray, silty, SAND, moist. Gravel.[GLACIAL TILL]

Dense, gray, slightly silty, SAND, moist to wet. Fine to mediumsand lens.

Very dense, olive-gray, slightly silty to silty, SAND, moist. Graveland cobbles. Not cemented.

[ADVANCE OUTWASH]



0

3

6

9

12

15

0

3

6

9

12

15




DE

PT

H (

feet

)

SY

MB

OL

US

CS

SO

IL C

LAS

S.

DESCRIPTION SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SA

MP

LE N

UM

BE

R

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

OT

HE

R T

ES

TS

GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

R

0 3





TP-41

178

6 9 12 15 DE

PT

H (

feet

)


LOG OF TEST PIT

PAGE: 1 of 1

A-32


2010-034PROJECT NO.:TP15 2010-034.GPJ 6/16/10

FIGURE:



S-1

S-2

SMSP

ML

ML

Loose, dark brown, silty, SAND, moist. Organics.[TOPSOIL]

Medium dense, red brown, gravelly, SAND, moist. Fine to mediumsand. Some roots, organics.


Stiff, gray, slightly sandy, SILT, moist. Trace gravel. Trace rustmottling.

[LACUSTRINE]

Hard, gray, gravelly, SILT, moist.[GLACIAL TILL]



0

3

6

9

12

15

0

3

6

9

12

15




DE

PT

H (

feet

)

SY

MB

OL

US

CS

SO

IL C

LAS

S.

DESCRIPTION SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SA

MP

LE N

UM

BE

R

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

OT

HE

R T

ES

TS

GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

R

0 3





TP-42

87

6 9 12 15 DE

PT

H (

feet

)


LOG OF TEST PIT

PAGE: 1 of 1

A-33


2010-034PROJECT NO.:TP15 2010-034.GPJ 6/16/10

FIGURE:



asugar

Typewritten Text

asugar

Typewritten Text

G

asugar

Typewritten Text

asugar

Typewritten Text

.

APPENDIX B

LABORATORY TESTING

Representative soil samples obtained from the borings were returned to the HWA laboratory for further examination and testing. Laboratory tests were conducted on selected soil samples to characterize certain properties of the on-site soils. Laboratory tests, as described below, included determination grain size distribution.

MOISTURE CONTENT

The natural moisture contents of selected samples were determined in general accordance with ASTM D 2216. The results are plotted at the sampled intervals on the exploration log as appropriate.

GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS

The grain size distribution of selected soil samples was determined in general accordance with ASTM D 422. Grain size distribution curves for the tested samples are presented in figures B-1 through B-6.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.0010.010.1110

GRAVEL

% MC LL PL PI

15

19

6

3/8"

5

Coarse

#60#40

90

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS0.05

5/8"

70

#4 #200

SYMBOL Gravel%

Sand%

Fines%

BH-2

BH-2

BH-3

30

CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL- ASTM D2487 Group Symbol and Name

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES

SAND

10

3"

14.2

0.0

39.0

1-1/2"

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R B

Y W

EIG

HT

50

SAMPLE

S-3

S-4

S-3

B-1

0.00050.005

CLAY

#100

0.5

50

SILT

3/4"

PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSISOF SOILS

METHOD ASTM D422

#10

71.4

71.2

53.1

(SM) Light olive brown, silty SAND

(SM) Grayish brown, silty SAND

(SP-SM) Light olive brown, poorly graded SAND with silt and gravel

DEPTH (ft)

10.0 - 11.5

15.0 - 16.5

10.0 - 11.0

#20

Fine Coarse Medium Fine

14.5

28.8

7.9

2010-034PROJECT NO.:HWAGRSZ 2010-034.GPJ 6/18/10

FIGURE:



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.0010.010.1110

GRAVEL

% MC LL PL PI

18

5

4

3/8"

5

Coarse

#60#40

90


5/8"

70

#4 #200

SYMBOL Gravel%

Sand%

Fines%

BH-5

TP- 7

TP-16

30



SAND

10

3"

7.1

18.3

25.4

1-1/2"

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R B

Y W

EIG

HT

50

SAMPLE

S-1

S-2

S-4

B-2

0.00050.005

CLAY

#100

0.5

50

SILT

3/4"


METHOD ASTM D422

#10

72.5

59.8

66.0


(SM) olive-gray, silty SAND with gravel

(SW-SM) Reddish brown, well graded sand with silt and gravel

DEPTH (ft)

5.0 - 6.5

10.0 - 10.3

4.0 - 5.0

#20


20.4

21.9

8.5


FIGURE:



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.0010.010.1110

GRAVEL

% MC LL PL PI

6

2

4

3/8"

5

Coarse

#60#40

90


5/8"

70

#4 #200

SYMBOL Gravel%

Sand%

Fines%

TP-17

TP-22

TP-22

30



SAND

10

3"

21.4

23.2

23.8

1-1/2"

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R B

Y W

EIG

HT

50

SAMPLE

S-8

S-1

S-2

B-3

0.00050.005

CLAY

#100

0.5

50

SILT

3/4"


METHOD ASTM D422

#10

59.3

65.2

49.4

(SM) Gray, silty sand with gravel

(SP) Yellowish brown, poorly graded SAND with gravel

(SM) Yellowish brown, silty SAND with gravel

DEPTH (ft)

8.0 - 9.0

2.0 - 3.0

3.0 - 4.0

#20


19.3

9.5

26.8


FIGURE:



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.0010.010.1110

GRAVEL

% MC LL PL PI

9

2

6

3/8"

5

Coarse

#60#40

90


5/8"

70

#4 #200

SYMBOL Gravel%

Sand%

Fines%

TP-22

TP-23

TP-24

30



SAND

10

3"

14.5

64.3

17.2

1-1/2"

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R B

Y W

EIG

HT

50

SAMPLE

S-3

S-1

S-1

B-4

0.00050.005

CLAY

#100

0.5

50

SILT

3/4"


METHOD ASTM D422

#10

42.9

34.0

70.8

(SM) Yellowish brown, silty SAND

(GP) Light reddish brown, poorly graded GRAVEL wiht sand

(SP) Olive brown, poorly graded SAND with silt and gravel

DEPTH (ft)

10.0 - 11.0

2.0 - 3.0

4.5 - 5.5

#20


42.6

1.7

12.0


FIGURE:



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.0010.010.1110

GRAVEL

% MC LL PL PI

4

8

10

3/8"

5

Coarse

#60#40

90


5/8"

70

#4 #200

SYMBOL Gravel%

Sand%

Fines%

TP-29

TP-37

TP-37

30



SAND

10

3"

39.5

0.1

1.3

1-1/2"

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R B

Y W

EIG

HT

50

SAMPLE

S-1

S-1

S-2

B-5

0.00050.005

CLAY

#100

0.5

50

SILT

3/4"


METHOD ASTM D422

#10

42.5

91.4

64.6

(SM) Grayish brown, silty SAND with gravel

(SP-SM) Light olive brown, poorly graded SAND with silt


DEPTH (ft)

10.0 - 11.0

3.0 - 4.0

10.0 - 11.0

#20


18.0

8.5

34.2


FIGURE:



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.0010.010.1110

GRAVEL

% MC LL PL PI

5

3/8"

5

Coarse

#60#40

90


5/8"

70

#4 #200

SYMBOL Gravel%

Sand%

Fines%

TP-40

30



SAND

10

3"

55.9

1-1/2"

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R B

Y W

EIG

HT

50

SAMPLE

S-1

B-6

0.00050.005

CLAY

#100

0.5

50

SILT

3/4"


METHOD ASTM D422

#10

31.6(GM) Yellowish brown, silty GRAVEL with sand

DEPTH (ft)

2.0 - 3.0

#20


12.5


FIGURE:




System

APPENDIX C.LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR

USE OF ADDITIONAL REUSE SITE LAND AREA

July 2010


System

APPENDIX D.DESIGN DATA AND

REVISED POPULATION, FLOW AND LOAD PROJECTIONS

July 2010

ISLAND COUNTY - Freeland Comprehensive Sewer Plan

WWTP and Reuse Site Design Data Sheet

2015 2023 2037Initial

Construction Expansion #1 Expansion #2CAPACITYERUs 1,557 2,058 3,129POPULATION EQUIVALENTS 3,643 4,816 7,323

WWTP INFLUENTFLOW (MGD)

AVERAGE ANNUAL (AA) 0.25 0.38 0.50MAXIMUM MONTH (MM) 0.34 0.51 0.68MAXIMUM DAY (MD) 0.45 0.67 0.89PEAK HOUR (PH) 0.92 1.38 1.84

5-DAY BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (BOD) (PPD)AA 352 528 704MM 704 1,056 1,408MD 880 1,319 1,759

TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS (TSS) (PPD)AA 147 220 293MM 387 580 773MD 513 770 1,026

TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN (TKN) (PPD)AA 106 158 211MM 177 265 353MD 211 317 422

TREATMENT FACILITIESHEADWORKS MECHANICAL FINE SCREEN

HOLE SIZE, MILLIMETERS 2 2 2NUMBER

DUTY 1 1 1STANDBY 1 1 1

CAPACITY PEAK FLOW, MGDDUTY 1.84 1.84 1.84STANDBY 1.84 1.84 1.84

EMERGENCY STORAGE MBR BASINS USED FOR EMERGENCY STORAGE 2 1 0

VOLUME, EACH (MG) 0.125 0.125SLUDGE TANKS USED FOR EMERGENCY STORAGE 1 0

VOLUME, EACH (MG) 0.045DEDICATED EMERGENCY STORAGE TANK 0 0 1

VOLUME, EACH (MG) 0.170VOLUME, TOTAL (MG) 0.250 0.170 0.170DAYS STORAGE (FOR ONE TRAIN AT MM 0.17 MGD) (HOURS) 35 24 24

MEMBRANE BIOREACTORSTEMPERATURE FOR BIOLOGICAL PROCESS CALCS, deg. C

AA 15 15 15MM 10 10 10

NUMBER OF TREATMENT TRAINS 2 3 4PRE-ANOXIC BASINS

NUMBER OF BASINS 2 3 4SIDE WATER DEPTH (FT.) 16 16 16VOLUME, EACH (MG) 0.030 0.030 0.030VOLUME, TOTAL (MG) 0.060 0.090 0.120

AEROBIC BASINSNUMBER OF BASINS 2 3 4SIDE WATER DEPTH (FT.) 15 15 15VOLUME, EACH (MG) 0.065 0.065 0.065VOLUME, TOTAL (MG) 0.130 0.195 0.260

POST-ANOXIC BASINSNUMBER OF BASINS 2 3 4SIDE WATER DEPTH (FT.) 14 14 14VOLUME, EACH (MG) 0.020 0.020 0.020VOLUME, TOTAL (MG) 0.040 0.060 0.080

MBR MEMBRANE BASINSNUMBER OF BASINS 2 3 4SIDE WATER DEPTH (FT.) 17 17 17VOLUME, EACH (MG) 0.010 0.010 0.010VOLUME, TOTAL (MG) 0.020 0.030 0.040

TOTAL VOLUME OF ACTIVE MBR PROCESS TRAINS (MG) 0.250 0.375 0.500

HYDRAULIC DETENTION TIME, PRE-ANOXIC ZONE (HOURS)AA 5.8 5.8 5.8MM 4.2 4.2 4.2

HYDRAULIC DETENTION TIME, AEROBIC BASIN(HOURS)AA 12.5 12.5 12.5MM 9.2 9.2 9.2

HYDRAULIC DETENTION TIME, POST-ANOXIC ZONE (HOURS)

ITEM

Tt/KCM Seattle, WA



2015 2023 2037Initial

Construction Expansion #1 Expansion #2ITEMAA 3.8 3.8 3.8MM 2.8 2.8 2.8

HYDRAULIC DETENTION TIME, MEMBRANE TANK (HOURS)AA 1.9 1.9 1.9MM 1.4 1.4 1.4

HYDRAULIC DETENTION TIME, TOTAL (HOURS)AA 24 24 24MM 18 18 18

MIXED LIQUOR INTERNAL RECYCLE:- AEROBIC TO PRE-ANOXIC 4.8 x MMF 4.8 x MMF 4.8 x MMFMIXER LIQUOR RETURN: MEMBRANE TANK TO AEROBIC TANK 2.0 x MMF 2.0 x MMF 2.0 x MMF

SRT AT MM (DAYS) 20 20 20

MLSS (MG/L)_PRE-ANOXIC TANKS @MM 4,760 4,760 4,760MLSS (MG/L)_ AERATION TANKS @MM 5,720 5,720 5,720MLSS (MG/L)_ POST-ANOXIC TANK @MM 5,710 5,710 5,710MLSS (MG/L)_ MEMBRANE TANK @MM 8,560 8,560 8,560

MLSS INVENTORY (LBS), PER TRAIN 5,930 5,930 5,930RATIO MLVSS / MLSS , % 73% 73% 73%VOLATILE SOLIDS INVENTORY (LBS.), PER TRAIN 4,329 4,329 4,329F/M RATIO (PPD BOD/LB MLVSS)

AA 0.041 0.041 0.041MM 0.081 0.081 0.081

FLAT PLATE MEMBRANE DESIGNMEMBRANE AREA, per treatment train (SF) 16,320 16,320 16,320TOTAL MEMBRANE AREA (SF) 32,640 48,960 65,280MEMBRANE FLUX RATE (Gallons/sq.ft./day)

MMF 10.4 10.4 10.4WAS PUMPS

NUMBER OF DUTY PUMPS (1 STANDBY PUMP) 1 2 2TYPE OF PUMPS CENTRIFUGAL CENTRIFUGAL CENTRIFUGAL

PUMP CAPACITY. ALL DUTY PUMPS ON (GPM) 125 210 210SOLIDS HANDLING

0.84 0.84 0.84WASTE ACTIVATED SLUDGE (WAS) LOADINGS (Lbs Total Solids/Day)

AA 295 443 590MM 590 860 1,180

WASTE ACTIVATED SLUDGE LOADINGS (GPD) @ 1.0%AA 3,540 5,310 7,070MM 7,070 10,310 14,150

WAS THICKENED TO 3.0% (GPD)AA 1,180 1,770 2,360MM 2,360 3,440 4,720

AERATED RAW SLUDGE HOLDING TANKNUMBER 1 1 To be determinedSIDE WATER DEPTH (FT.) 15 15 in concert withVOLUME, EACH (GAL) 20,000 20,000 MBR emergencyNUMBER 1 storageSIDE WATER DEPTH (FT.) 15 evaluationVOLUME, EACH (GAL) 45,000VOLUME, TOTAL (GAL) 20,000 65,000DAYS STORAGE AT MM FLOW 2.8 6.3

AERATED THICKENED (TO 3%) SLUDGE HOLDING TANKNUMBER 1 1 To be determinedSIDE WATER DEPTH (FT.) 15 15 in concert withVOLUME, EACH (GAL) 20,000 20,000 MBR emergencyDAYS STORAGE AT MM THICKENED SLUDGE FLOW 8.5 5.8 storage evaluation

SOLIDS THICKENING ROTARY DRUM ROTARY DRUM ROTARY DRUM

CAPACITY (GPM) 30 30 60TIME (HRS) TO PROCESS 1 DAY OF MM WAS FLOW 3.9 5.7 3.9

UV DISINFECTIONTYPETOTAL CAPACITY, PEAK FLOW, MGD 1.84 1.84 1.84IF CLOSED SYSTEM, NUMBER OF REACTORS

DUTY 1 train of 2 in series 2 trains of 2 in series 2 trains of 2 in seriesSTANDBY 1 train of 2 in series 1 train of 2 in series 1 train of 2 in series

IF OPEN CHANNEL REACTOR, NO. OF LAMP BANKS

DUTY1 train with 2 banks in

series2 trains with 2 banks in

series2 trains with 2 banks in

series

UNIT GROSS SLUDGE YIELD (LBS TOTAL SOLIDS / LB WWTP INFLUENT BOD)

Tt/KCM Seattle, WA



2015 2023 2037Initial

Construction Expansion #1 Expansion #2ITEM

STANDBY 3rd bank in duty train3rd bank in each duty

train3rd bank in each duty

train

CHLORINATION SYSTEMTYPE 12.5% NaOCl 12.5% NaOCl 12.5% NaOClTYPICAL DOSE (MG/L) 2 2 2FEED METERING PUMPS METERING PUMPS METERING PUMPS

YARD PUMP STATIONTYPE OF PUMPS SUBMERSIBLE SUBMERSIBLE SUBMERSIBLENUMBER

DUTY 1 1 1STANDBY 1 1 1TOTAL 2 2 2CAPACITY, EACH (GPM) - TWO PUMPS RUNNING 350 350 350

EFFLUENT PUMP STATIONNUMBER

DUTY 1 1 1STANDBY 1 1 1TOTAL 2 2 2CAPACITY, EACH (GPM) - TWO PUMPS RUNNING 350 350 350

STANDBY POWERTYPE DIESEL GENSET DIESEL GENSET DIESEL GENSETCAPACITY (kW) 1000 1000 To Be DeterminedDAY TANK RUN TIME CAPACITY, HOURS 12 12 12FUEL STORAGE CAPACITY (GAL) 5000 5000 To Be DeterminedFUEL TANK RUN TIME, IN ADDITION TO DAY TANK (HOURS) 85 67 To Be Determined

ESTIMATED FUEL USAGE RATE 59 75 To Be DeterminedFLOW MEASUREMENT

INFLUENTTYPE Same Same SameSIZE (IN.) 6 6 6NUMBER 1 1 1RANGE (GPM) 0.1-2.0 0.1-2.0 0.1-2.0

EFFLUENTTYPE MAGNETIC MAGNETIC MAGNETICSIZE (IN.) 8 8 8NUMBER 1 1 1RANGE (GPM) 0-2000 0-2000 0-2000

SLUDGERAS/WAS FLOW

TYPE MAGNETIC MAGNETIC MAGNETICNUMBER 2 2 2

YARD PUMP STATIONTYPE MAGNETIC MAGNETIC MAGNETICNUMBER 1 1 1SIZE (IN.) 4 4 4

ODOR SCRUBBERSNUMBER 1 2 2CAPACITY EACH (CFM) 6000 6000 6000CAPACITY TOTAL (CFM) 6000 12000 12000

WATER REUSE FACILITIESRECLAIMED WATER APPLICATION SITE

BUFFERS AND UNUSABLE AREA (ACRES) 20 40 50APPLICATION AREA (ACRES) 60 120 150TOTAL AREA (ACRES) 80 160 200

RECLAIMED WATER WET WEATHER STORAGE NUMBER OF BASINS 1 2 2VOLUME, EACH (MG) 3.5 3.5 3.5DEPTH - MAXIMUM (FT) 10 10 10VOLUME, TOTAL (MG) 3.5 7.0 7.0DAYS STORAGE AT AA FLOW (DAYS) 14 19 14

RECLAIMED WATER APPLICATION SYSTEMNUMBER

DUTY 1 2 1STANDBY 1 2 1TOTAL 2 4 2CAPACITY, EACH (GPM) 300 300 300

Tt/KCM Seattle, WA

2010 Population and Flow Estimate Updates

Year

Phase 1 Phase 2Total P1 & P2 Dwelling Units

Connected to SewerNew

ConnectionsAbandoned

Tanks MMF AAFComments

Residential DU

Non-Res. DU

Residential DU

Non-Res. DU

ResidentialNon. Resid

ERU'sPop.

Growth Percent

(mgd) (mgd)

2009 249 252 200 22 449 274

Phase 1 Dwelling units estimated from water meter data., Phase 2 numbers estimated from buildable lands analysis.

2010 261 260 213 23 474 2832011 273 268 228 24 501 2922012 287 277 243 25 530 3022013 300 286 260 27 560 312

2014

Ph

ase

1 C

olle

ctio

n S

yste

m

315 295 277 28 592 323 610

0.18

0.13 Beginning population

2015 330 304 296 29 626 334 664 8.9% 54 30

0.19

0.14 Initial Startup

2016 346 314 316 31 662 345 724 8.9% 59 34

0.21

0.15

2017 363 324 337 32 700 356 788 8.9% 64 38

0.22

0.16

2018 380 334 360 34 740 368 858 8.9% 70 43

0.24

0.17

2019 398 345 384 35 782 380 935 8.9% 76 48

0.26

0.19

2020 417 356 410 37 827 393 1018 8.9% 83 53

0.28

0.20

2021 437 367 438 39 875 406 1109 8.9% 91 59

0.30

0.22

2022 458 379 467 41 925 419 1207 8.9% 99 66

0.33

0.24

2023 480 391 499 43 979 433 1315 8.9% 108 74

0.35

0.25 First treatment plant expansion

2024 503 403 532 45 1035 448 1432 8.9% 117 82

0.38

0.27

2025

Ph

ase

1 +

Ph

ase

2 C

olll

ecti

on

Sys

tem

s 527 415 568 47 1095 462 1557 8.7% 125 89

0.41

0.29 Estimated total population from County data

2026 538 425 582 48 1121 473 1594 2.4% 37 -

0.417

0.295

2027 550 435 597 49 1147 484 1631 2.4% 37 -

0.424

0.301

2028 562 445 612 50 1174 495 1669 2.4% 38 -

0.43

0.31

2029 575 455 628 52 1202 507 1709 2.4% 39 -

0.44

0.31

2030 587 466 643 53 1231 518 1749 2.4% 40 -

0.45

0.32

2031 600 476 660 54 1260 530 1790 2.4% 41 -

0.45

0.32


Year





Residential DU

Non-Res. DU

Residential DU

Non-Res. DU


ERU'sPop.

Growth Percent

(mgd) (mgd)

2032 613 487 676 55 1289 543 1832 2.4% 42 -

0.46

0.33

2033 626 499 694 57 1320 555 1875 2.4% 43 -

0.47

0.34

2034 640 510 711 58 1351 568 1919 2.4% 44 -

0.48

0.34

2035 654 522 729 59 1383 581 1964 2.4% 45 -

0.49

0.35

2036 668 534 747 61 1416 595 2011 2.4% 46 -

0.49

0.35

2037 683 547 766 62 1449 609 2058 2.4% 47 -

0.50

0.36 Second treatment plant expansion

2038 698 560 786 63 1483 623 2106 2.4% 48 -

0.51

0.37

2039 713 573 806 65 1519 637 2156 2.4% 50 -

0.52

0.37

2040 728 586 826 66 1554 652 2207 2.4% 51 -

0.53

0.38

2041 744 599 847 68 1591 667 2259 2.4% 52 -

0.54

0.39

2042 761 613 868 70 1629 683 2312 2.4% 53 -

0.55

0.39

2043 777 628 890 71 1667 699 2366 2.4% 54 -

0.56

0.40

2044 794 642 913 73 1707 715 2422 2.4% 56 -

0.56

0.41

2045 812 657 936 75 1747 732 2479 2.4% 57 -

0.57

0.42

2046 829 672 959 76 1789 749 2537 2.4% 58 -

0.58

0.42

2047 847 688 984 78 1831 766 2597 2.4% 60 -

0.59

0.43

2048 866 704 1008 80 1874 784 2658 2.4% 61 -

0.60

0.44

2049 885 720 1034 82 1919 802 2721 2.4% 63 -

0.61

0.45

2050 904 737 1060 84 1964 821 2785 2.4% 64 -

0.62

0.46

2051 924 754 1087 86 2011 840 2851 2.4% 66 -

0.64

0.46

2052 944 772 1114 88 2058 860 2918 2.4% 67 -

0.65

0.47


Year





Residential DU

Non-Res. DU

Residential DU

Non-Res. DU


ERU'sPop.

Growth Percent

(mgd) (mgd)

2053 964 790 1143 90 2107 880 2987 2.4% 69 -

0.66

0.48

2054 985 808 1171 92 2157 900 3057 2.4% 70 -

0.67

0.49

2055 1007 827 1201 94 2208 921 3129 2.4% 72 -

0.68

0.50 Estimated total population from County data


System

APPENDIX E.COST ESTIMATES

July 2010

E-1

APPENDIX E.COST ESTIMATING CRITERIA

Some facilities have been changed, added, or deleted since the 2005 Facility Plan, for reasons described in the body of this Preliminary Engineering Report (PER). Estimates of costs for the current recommended facilities were updated for this PER. The estimation process included consideration of both capital and operating and maintenance (O&M) costs. The cost estimating criteria and formulas usedare described in this appendix. A summary of proposed criteria is presented in Table 1.

TABLE 1.COST ESTIMATING CRITERIA

Period of analysis, years........................................... 25 (2011 through 2035)

Construction date, initial facilities ........................... 2013-2014

Operations labor, $/hr (with fringes)........................ $45

Diesel oil, $/gal ........................................................ $3.50

Power cost, $/kWh................................................... $0.07

Chemical Cost, $/lbMethanol (carbon source) ....................................... $1.50Magnesium Hydroxide (pH adjustment)................. $0.80Sodium Hypochlorite .............................................. $1.50 Polymer ................................................................... $3.00

Activated Carbon (Odor Control), $/lb .................... $3.00

Structural Maintenance Cost, percent per year ........ 1 percent

Equipment Maintenance Cost, percent per year....... 2 percent

Contingency, percent ............................................... 20 percent

Engineering design, percent..................................... 15 percent

Construction management, percent.......................... 10 percent

Sales tax, percent ..................................................... 8.7 percent

PERIOD OF ANALYSISThe planning period was chosen to approximate the life of the major equipment installed during the initial construction of the capital facilities. Cost estimates were developed for the period starting with 2011, continuing through the major phases of capital facilities construction and subsequent expansion, and through to buildout (approximately 2055). In addition, to provide sufficient information for a financial analysis to estimate connection fees and monthly user fees, a year-by-year estimate of capital costs and O&M costs was developed for the 24-year period 2011 through 2035. A minimum of 20 years is the planning period required in EPA Facilities Planning (Federal Register, 40 CFR Part 35 Paragraph 35.2030 (b) (3)).


E-2

CURRENT YEAR (2010) DOLLARSAll costs shown in the spreadsheets in this appendix are year 2010 dollars.

CONSTRUCTION PERIODFor facilities in which construction would occur for more than one year, cost estimates were distributed across the anticipated years in which construction would occur. Costs for facilities to be added in later years were placed in the associated years.

OPERATIONS LABOR RATEThis rate is estimated at $45 per hour with fringe costs.

DIESEL OIL COSTThe current rate is approximately $3.50 per gallon.

POWER COSTA placeholder value of $0.07/kW-hr was used. Power costs can differ for various uses. For example, rates for pump stations may be higher than for treatment because demand charges play a more significant role in determining the annual charge.

CHEMICAL COSTEstimated costs for chemicals commonly used at the wastewater treatment plants and for chemicals specific to this proposed treatment plant (methanol and polymer) are shown in the table. These costs have been estimated based on historical experience.

STRUCTURAL MAINTENANCE AND EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENTCOSTSTo estimate the cost of structural maintenance of new facilities and replacement of equipment an allowance was made based on the construction costs. For structural maintenance (e.g., painting, repairs, addressing general wear and tear) the allowance was applied to the structural components of the facilities, such as concrete tanks, buildings, and hand-railings. For this report an allowance of 1 percent per year is used for structural maintenance. For equipment maintenance and replacement, an allowance of2 percent per year was used..

CONTINGENCYContingency allowances are made to reflect uncertainty in engineering estimates for construction. Higher contingency allowances are appropriate for projects earlier in the cycle of planning, design, and construction. For a project with a construction bid in hand, for example, a contingency amount of 5 percent may be appropriate to cover unanticipated changes in the project which occur during construction. For projects where a detailed engineering design is complete, but bids are not yet in hand, an allowance of 10 to 15 percent may be appropriate. For a planning projects such as this Freeland project, where a detailed engineering design has not been completed but some pre-design has been done, uncertainty in the estimate is greater. Tetra Tech used a contingency of 20 percent for this PER.

…APPENDIX E. COST ESTIMATING CRITERIA

E-3

ENGINEERING DESIGNAllowances must be made for project costs including engineering design and other owner costs during the process of design. Based on the experience of similar projects, an allowance of 15 percent is proposed for this project.

CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENTSimilarly, an allowance must be made for the costs of construction administration, on-site inspection of construction projects, engineering review of construction submittals, preparation of operating and maintenance manuals, start-up services, and other owner costs occurring during construction, over and above the contractor bid price. Based on the experience of similar projects, Tt recommends an allowance of 10 percent for construction management costs.

SALES TAXThe implementing agency is liable for sales tax on construction projects in the State of Washington. The current (2010) sales tax rate applicable to the Freeland project location is 8.7 percent.

TYPICAL ALLOWANCESFor equipment, an allowance is applied to the equipment costs to provide for installation, electricalwiring and hookup, and instrumentation costs.

Allowances are also incorporated for contractor overhead and profit, mobilization, demobilization, and construction bonds. Thse allowances are applied to the subtotal of the construction costs including the equipment allowances noted above..

Values used for this report are presented in Table 2.

TABLE 2.TYPICAL COST ESTIMATING ALLOWANCES

Construction Element Allowance

Installation and Miscellaneous Mechanical 30 percent of Equipment Cost

Electrical 15 percent of Equipment Cost

Instrumentation and Control 10 percent of Equipment Cost

Contractor Overhead and Profit 15 percent of Subtotal Costa

Mobilization, demobilization, & bond 6 percent of Subtotal Cost

a. “Subtotal” equals the sum of structural and equipment costs plus the allowances related to equipment costs as noted in the table.

Worksheet: Cash Flow (STEP) Page 1

Project: Freeland Wastewater Facilities Plan 2010 Amendment All costs are in May 2010 dollarsSubject: Cost Estimate: STEP Collection System, Wastewater Treatment, and Reclaimed Water ReuseBy : Tetra Tech, Inc.Date : 9-Jul-10

Design Design Construction ConstructionYear 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

*Connected ERUs 0 0 0 610 664 724 787 858 934 1017 1107 1206 1313 1430 1557 1593 1631 1669 1710 1749 1790 1831 1876 1919 1964Base Flow (mgd) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.086 0.093 0.102 0.110 0.120 0.131 0.143 0.155 0.169 0.184 0.201 0.219 0.224 0.229 0.234 0.240 0.246 0.251 0.257 0.263 0.269 0.276

Max Monthly Flow 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.180 0.195 0.212 0.230 0.250 0.272 0.295 0.320 0.348 0.378 0.410 0.417 0.424 0.431 0.439 0.446 0.454 0.461 0.469 0.477 0.485Item Description Cost, $ Cost, $ Cost, $ Cost, $ Cost, $ Cost, $ Cost, $ Cost, $ Cost, $ Cost, $ Cost, $ Cost, $ Cost, $ Cost, $ Cost, $ Cost, $ Cost, $ Cost, $ Cost, $ Cost, $ Cost, $ Cost, $ Cost, $ Cost, $ Cost, $SEWAGE COLLECTION - STEP SYSTEMCapital Cost Estimate

Total Estimated Capital Cost $275,264 $275,264 $3,578,236 $3,578,236 $474,000 $532,000 $563,000 $635,000 $688,000 $758,000 $824,000 $909,000 $994,000 $1,095,000 $2,250,000 $238,000 $251,000 $251,000 $271,000 $258,000 $271,000 $271,000 $297,000 $284,000 $297,000

Total Estimated Capital Cost - Onsite $94,441 $94,441 $2,147,559 $2,147,559 $474,000 $532,000 $563,000 $635,000 $688,000 $758,000 $824,000 $909,000 $994,000 $1,095,000 $1,191,000 $238,000 $251,000 $251,000 $271,000 $258,000 $271,000 $271,000 $297,000 $284,000 $297,000Total Estimated Capital Cost - Shared $180,823 $180,823 $1,430,677 $1,430,677 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,059,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Total Annual Cost $76,557 $85,770 $95,444 $106,346 $118,016 $130,761 $144,581 $159,782 $176,212 $194,178 $213,679 $219,207 $225,042 $230,877 $237,173 $243,161 $249,457 $255,753 $262,663 $269,265 $276,175

Total Annual Cost with Replacement Costs $153,105 $168,550 $184,798 $203,114 $222,793 $244,343 $267,731 $293,472 $321,408 $352,018 $391,863 $400,414 $409,439 $418,464 $428,202 $437,464 $447,202 $456,940 $467,627 $477,840 $488,528

WASTEWATER TREATMENTCapital Cost Estimate

Total Estimated Capital Cost $779,828 $779,828 $6,171,172 $6,171,172 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,654,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0



SOLIDS HANDLINGCapital Cost Estimate

Total Estimated Capital Cost $112,971 $112,971 $894,029 $894,029 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $987,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0



RECLAIMED WATER STORAGE AND REUSE (incl. Conveyance to Disposal Site)Capital Cost Estimate

Total Estimated Capital Cost $311,280 $311,280 $2,463,220 $2,463,220 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,088,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0



TOTAL

Rolled up Capital Cost $1,479,342 $1,479,342 $13,106,658 $13,106,658 $474,000 $532,000 $563,000 $635,000 $688,000 $758,000 $824,000 $909,000 $7,723,000 $1,095,000 $2,250,000 $238,000 $251,000 $251,000 $271,000 $258,000 $271,000 $271,000 $297,000 $284,000 $297,000

Rolled up Annual Cost $0 $0 $0 $0 $318,154 $348,202 $369,118 $392,623 $417,746 $445,136 $474,791 $507,360 $542,518 $581,314 $622,823 $635,633 $647,787 $659,940 $673,022 $685,485 $698,566 $711,648 $725,967 $739,667 $753,985

Rolled Up Annual Cost with Replacement Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $533,082 $569,226 $596,573 $627,331 $660,291 $696,298 $735,317 $778,200 $824,621 $912,685 $974,250 $990,001 $1,005,259 $1,020,516 $1,036,947 $1,052,595 $1,069,026 $1,085,456 $1,103,451 $1,120,663 $1,138,658

PROJECTED CASH FLOW

File Name: 20100707 - Cash Flow - STEP - PER AppendixE v2.xls Printed 7/15/2010

Worksheet: Short lived Assets Page 2

Project: Freeland Wastewater Facilities Plan 2010 Amendment

Subject: Planning Cost Analysis for Wastewater Treatment and Solids Handling - STEP Collection SystemBy : Tetra Tech, Inc.

Date : 28-Jun-10

Base Cost% $ % $ % $

General and Site Headworks Building $60,000 5% $3,000 10% $6,000Mechanical Building $374,400 5% $18,720 10% $37,440

Misc Metals (Handrailing, Covers, etc.) $168,905 8% $13,512 12% $20,269

Site Process Piping and Valving $150,000 3% $4,500 5% $7,500 10% $15,000Indoor Process Piping and Valving $120,000 3% $3,600 5% $6,000 10% $12,000Laboratory Equipment $50,000 50% $50 - -Furniture $10,000 - 100% $10,000

Sewage Process Equipment

MBR Process Equipment $1,100,000 1% $11,000 5% $55,000 10% $110,000

Traveling Bridge Crane $100,000 50% $50,000Headworks Screens $170,000 10% $17,000 50% $85,000Recirculation Pumps $16,000 10% $1,600 50% $8,000Magnetic Flow Meters $15,000 - - 50% $7,500Yard Pump Station Pumps $17,566 10% $1,757 50% $8,783Plant Water Pumps $11,710 10% $1,171 50% $5,855Hydro Tank $4,684 50% $2,342Samplers $8,000 10% $800 50% $4,000Carbon source feed system $20,000 10% $2,000 20% $4,000Magnesium Hydroxide feed system $10,000 10% $1,000 20% $2,000UV disinfection in-vessel units $272,000 20% $54,400 20% $54,400Odor Control - Carbon Scrubber & fan $230,000 2% $4,600 10% $23,000Standby Generator $231,000 1% $2,310 10% $23,100 20% $46,200

Above ground Fuel Tank, Pumps $20,000 10% $2,000 20% $4,000

Motor Control Centers/Variable Freq Drives $75,000 - 10% $7,500

Programmable Logic Controller $100,000 - - - - 10% $10,000Hypochlorite Pumps & controls $9,368 5% $468 10% $937 50% $4,684

Solids Stabilization Misc Metals (Handrailing, Covers, etc.) $17,000 8% $1,360 12% $2,040Site Process Piping and Valving $35,000 3% $1,050 5% $1,750 10% $3,500Building Space for Solids Equipment $330,000 5% $16,500 10% $33,000Blowers $36,000 10% $3,600 50% $18,000Sludge Storage Tank Diffusers $30,000 30% $9,000 30% $9,000 30% $9,000Sludge Transfer Pumps $20,000 10% $2,000 50% $10,000

STEP Common Facilites

2"PVC Pressure Mains $580,489 1% $5,805 5% $29,024

3"PVC Pressure Mains $148,555 1% $1,486 5% $7,4284" PVC Pressure Mains $239,908 1% $2,399 5% $11,9956" PVC Pressure Mains $206,622 1% $2,066 5% $10,3318" PVC Pressure Mains $200,901 1% $2,009 5% $10,04512" PVC Pressure Mains $43,320 1% $433 5% $2,166AC Surface Restoration $466,624 1% $4,666 5% $23,331

STEP On-Site Facilites 1.5" HDPE Pressure Laterals - STEP $211,350 1% $2,114 2% $4,227 5% $10,568

1.5" HDPE Pressure Laterals - extra for existing houses

$132,094 1% $1,321 2% $2,642 5% $6,605

Lateral Kits $105,675 1% $1,057 2% $2,114 5% $5,284Native Surface Restoration $9,715 1% $97 2% $194 5% $486Septic Tank w/ Pump (Installed) $1,366,053 1.0% $13,661 2.0% $27,321 5.0% $68,303Septic Tank w/ Pump - extra for ex. houses (new tank)

$366,891 1.0% $3,669 2.0% $7,338 10.0% $36,689

Site Electrical - STEP $105,675 1% $1,057 2% $2,114 10% $10,568

Site Electrical - STEP, extra for existing houses $264,188 1% $2,642 2% $5,284 5% $13,209

Slow Infiltration Facilites

Electrical Conduit, Sitework, Lighting $45,000 5% $2,250 5% $2,250Irrigation pumps $50,000 10% $5,000 50% $25,000Distribution Piping & Equipment $690,000 5% $34,500 5% $34,500

Conveyance to Rapid Infiltration

10" PVC Pressure Mains - to Discharge $672,000 1% $6,720 5% $33,600

Pump Station - from Treatment to Discharge $625,000 1% $6,250 5% $31,250 8% $50,000

TOTAL 63,795 398,174 1,004,894

Short Lived Asset Cost by YearsProject Component 1 to 5 Year 5 to 10 Year 10 to 15 Year

SHORT-LIVED ASSETS


Worksheet: MBR 2010 PHASE 1 Page 3

Project: Freeland Wastewater Facilities Plan 2010 AmendmentSubject: Cost Estimate: STEP Collection System, Wastewater Treatment, and Reclaimed Water ReuseBy : Tetra Tech, Inc.Date : 9-Jul-10

Capital Cost Estimate 2010 2010Item Description Quantity Unit Unit cost, $ Cost, $MBR Administration/Lab Area (in Mech bldg) 0 SF $200 $0

Headworks Building-open on two sides 600 SF $100 $60,000Mechanical Building above grade 2,496 SF $150 $374,400Mechanical Building basement stairwells, room partitions, HVAC, doors, lighting etc2,496 SF $100 $249,600MBR Slab Concrete and Rebar 538 CY $500 $269,244MBR Wall Concrete and Rebar 881 CY $650 $572,650MBR Elevated Slab concrete (walkways and channels) 66 CY $1,000 $66,000Membrane tank coating 2160 SF $13 $28,080Mech bldg basement Slab Concrete and Rebar 201 CY $500 $100,741Mech bldg basement Wall Concrete and Rebar 160 CY $650 $104,000Mech bldg elevated ground floor Slab 126 CY $1,000 $125,926HW Concrete and Rebar 40 CY $650 $26,000MBR & Mech Bldg Excavate and haul 6,333 CY $15 $95,000MBR & Mech Bldg Struct backfill & compaction 1,667 CY $20 $33,333HW & Excavate and haul 830 CY $15 $12,444Handrailing 555 LF $55 $30,525Misc Metals (Stairs, Grating, etc.) 1 LS $10,000 $10,000Tank covers 2,720 SF $50 $136,000Checker plate channel covers (HW, MBR splitter & feed), 509 SF $45 $22,905Yard PS wet well and vaults 1 LS $50,000 $50,000Site Process Piping and Valving 1 LS $150,000 $150,000Indoor Process Piping and Valving 1 LS $120,000 $120,000Concrete Slab & Mounting Hdwre: Generator, Abv-Ground Diesel Fuel Tank1 LS $10,000 $10,000Laboratory Equipment 1 LS $50,000 $50,000Furniture 1 LS $10,000 $10,000

Sitework Clear & Grub 3 Acre $5,000 $15,000Emerg. storage for raw ww - use MBR trains 3 & 4.Stormwater Storage from WWTP Ponds sheet 1 LS $109,726 $109,726Stormwater Pond Piping and MH's 600 LF $50 $30,000Stormwater French drain dispersion trench 500 LF $50 $25,000Asphalt Road Paving 5,556 SY $30 $166,667Gravel dike roads 500 SY $20 $10,000Painting 1 LS $50,000 $50,000Fencing 2,000 LF $35 $70,000Landscaping 1 LS $70,000 $70,000Misc Sitework 1 LS $50,000 $50,000

Subtotal Structural $3,303,242

MBR Equipment 1 EA $1,100,000 $1,100,000 membranes, process & scour blowers & diffusers,mixers, permeate pumps, chemical cleaning, MBR I&C, spare units, design and startup assistance $0 process air blowers and diffusers, WAS pumps, control valves, chemical cleaning (excluding MCC, VFD's recirc pumps)$0Traveling Bridge Crane for membranes 1 EA $100,000 $100,000Influent Screen - 2mm. 2 EA $85,000 $170,000Washer Compactor 0 LS $40,000 $0Parshal Flume 1 LS $5,000 $5,000Slide gates 7 LS $2,500 $17,500Sluiice gates 4 LS $5,000 $20,000Recirculation pumps 2 EA $8,000 $16,000

Membrane Bioreactors - Phase 1




Capital Cost Estimate 2010 2010Item Description Quantity Unit Unit cost, $ Cost, $


Magnetic Flow Meters 3 EA $5,000 $15,000Yard Pump Station Pumps 2 EA $8,783 $17,566Plant Water Pumps 2 EA $5,855 $11,710Strainer (Manual duplex) 1 EA $2,342 $2,342Hydro Tank 1 EA $4,684 $4,684Samplers 2 EA $4,000 $8,000Carbon source feed system (MicroC, methanol, etc.) 1 EA $20,000 $20,000Magnesium Hydroxide feed system 1 EA $10,000 $10,000UV disinfection in-vessel units 4 EA $68,000 $272,000Odor Control - Carbon Scrubber Facility, Fan(6000cfm), local piping1 LS $230,000 $230,000Odor Control - Ducting 6"-30" 550 LF $61 $33,440Standby Generator (1000 kW) 1 LS $231,000 $231,000 incl AutoTransferSwitch, Silencer, Enclosure, 12hr day tank,controls…0 $0Above Ground Diesel Fuel Tank (4,999 gal), dbl wall, incl safety features1 LS $20,000 $20,000Motor Control Centers/Variable Frequency Drives 1 LS $75,000 $75,000Plant PLC & SCADA 1 LS $100,000 $100,000

NaOCl Storage Tank (2-55 gal drums) 1 EA $234 $234Pumps w/ installation (hypo) 1 EA $2,928 $2,928Tank Mixers 1 EA $1,171 $1,171Feed Pacing Controller 1 EA $2,928 $2,928Chemical Flow Meter 1 EA $2,342 $2,342

Subtotal Equipment $2,488,845

Installation, Miscellaneous Mechanical 30% of Equip $746,653Electrical 15% of Equip $373,327Instrumentation and Control 10% of Equip $248,884

Subtotal Structural, Mechanical, Elect, I&C $7,160,951

Contractor O&P 15% of Sub Cost $1,074,143Mobilization, demobilization, bond 6% of Sub cost $429,657

Total estimated current construction cost $8,664,751

Escalation to time of construction 0.00% $0

Total estimated construction cost $8,664,751

Contingency 20% $1,732,950Engineering Design 15% $1,559,655Construction Management 10% $1,039,770Sales Tax 8.7% $904,600

Total Estimated Capital Cost $13,902,000

Op and Maint Cost Est (per yr)-2010 estimate for 1557 eru connected per JAS ) 2010 2010Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Annual Cost

Labor - Secondary Process and Odor Control 2,106 HR $45 $94,770Labor - Disinfection 0 hr $45 $0Labor - Solids Handling 0 HR $45 $0Membrane Replacement 343 panel $60 $20,571Contract Haul Solids @ 3.0% 0 GAL $0Diesel fuel 4100 GAL $3.50 $14,350






Carbon Filter replacement 11,250 LB $3.00 $33,750Chemicals - membrane cleaning 1 LS $2,000 $2,000Methanol 14600 GAL $1.50 $21,900Magnesium Hudroxide 32850 GAL $0.80 $26,280Hypochlorite 1522 lb $1.50 $2,283Sodium Bisulfite 0 GAL $0.20 $0Polymer 0 LB $3.00 $0Misc expenses 1 allowance $6,000 $6,000Power - Secondary Process 244,000 kWh $0.07 $17,080Power - Disinfection 20278 kWh $0.07 $1,419Power - Solids Handling 0 kWh $0.07 $0Power - Odor Control 97,985 kWh $0.07 $6,859Structural Maintenance 1% $33,032Equipment replacement 2% $49,365

Total Annual Cost $329,661




Capital Cost Estimate 2010 2010Item Description Quantity Unit Unit cost, $ Cost, $MBR Administration/Lab Building 0 SF $200 $0

Headworks Building-open on two sides 0 SF $100 $0Mechanical Building above grade 0 SF $150 $0Mechanical Building basement stairwells, room partitions, HVAC, doors, lighting etc0 SF $100 $0MBR Slab Concrete and Rebar 0 CY $500 $0MBR Wall Concrete and Rebar 0 CY $650 $0MBR Elevated Slab concrete (walkways and channels) 0 CY $1,000 $0Membrane tank coating 1080 SF $13 $14,040Mech bldg basement Slab Concrete and Rebar 0 CY $500 $0Mech bldg basement Wall Concrete and Rebar 0 CY $650 $0Mech bldg ground floor elev. Slab 0 CY $650 $0HW Concrete and Rebar 0 CY $1,000 $0MBR & Mech Bldg Excavate and haul 0 CY $15 $0MBR & Mech Bldg Struct backfill & compaction 0 CY $20 $0HW & Admin Bldg Excavate and haul 0 CY $15 $0Handrailing 0 LF $55 $0Misc Metals (Stairs, Grating, etc.) 0 LS $10,000 $0Tank covers 0 SF $50 $0Checker plate channel covers (HW, MBR splitter & feed), 0 SF $45 $0Yard PS wet well and vaults 0 LS $50,000 $0Site Process Piping and Valving 0 LS $100,000 $0Indoor Process Piping and Valving 1 LS $75,000 $75,000Generator, Above Ground Diesel Fuel Tank Slab and Mounting Hardware0 LS $18,000 $0Laboratory Equipment 0 LS $50,000 $0Furniture 0 LS $10,000 $0

Sitework Clear & Grub 0 Acre $5,000 $0Emerg. Storage for raw ww: Use MBR train 4 & sludge tanksStormwater Storage 0 LS $109,726 $0Stormwater Pond Piping and MH's 0 LF $50 $0Stormwater French drain dispersion trench 0 LF $50 $0Asphalt Road Paving 0 SY $30 $0Gravel dike roads 0 SY $20 $0Painting 1 LS $20,000 $20,000Fencing 0 LF $35 $0Landscaping 0 LS $50,000 $0Misc Sitework 1 LS $10,000 $10,000

Subtotal Structural $119,040

MBR Equipment 1 EA $425,000 $425,000 membranes, process & scour blowers & diffusers,mixers, permeate pumps, chemical cleaning, MBR I&C, spare units, design and startup assistance $0 process air blowers and diffusers, WAS pumps, control valves, chemical cleaning (excluding MCC, VFD's recirc pumps)$0Traveling Bridge Crane for membranes 0 EA $100,000 $0Influent Screen - 2mm. 0 LS $80,000 $0Washer Compactor 0 LS $40,000 $0Parshal Flume 0 LS $5,000 $0Slide gates 0 LS $2,500 $0Sluiice gates 0 LS $5,000 $0Recirculation pumps 1 EA $8,000 $8,000

Membrane Bioreactors - WWTP Phase 2






Magnetic Flow Meters 0 EA $5,000 $0Yard Pump Station Pumps 0 EA $8,783 $0Plant Water Pumps 0 EA $5,855 $0Strainer (Manual duplex) 0 EA $2,342 $0Hydro Tank 0 EA $4,684 $0Samplers 0 EA $5,000 $0Carbon source feed system (MicroC, methanol, etc.) 0 EA $20,000 $0Magnesium Hydroxide feed system 0 EA $20,000 $0UV disinfection in-vessel units 2 EA $68,000 $136,000

Odor Control - Carbon Scrubber Facility, Fan(6000cfm), local piping1 LS $230,000 $230,000Odor Control - Ducting 6"-30" 100 LF $61 $6,080Standby Generator (1000 kW) 0 LS $231,000 $0 incl AutoTransferSwitch, Silencer, Enclosure, 12hr day tank,controls…0 $0Above Ground Diesel Fuel Tank (4,999 gal), dbl wall, incl safety features0 LS $20,000 $0Motor Control Centers/Variable Frequency Drives 0 LS $75,000 $0Plant PLC & SCADA 0 LS $100,000 $0

NaOCl Storage Tank (2-55 gal drums) 0 EA $234 $0Pumps w/ installation (hypo) 0 EA $2,928 $0Tank Mixers 0 EA $1,171 $0Feed Pacing Controller 0 EA $2,928 $0Chemical Flow Meter 0 EA $2,342 $0

Subtotal Equipment $805,080

Installation, Miscellaneous Mechanical 30% of Equip $241,524Electrical 15% of Equip $120,762Instrumentation and Control 10% of Equip $80,508

Subtotal Structural, Mechanical, Elect, I&C $1,366,914

Contractor O&P 15% of Sub Cost $205,037Mobilization, demobilization, bond 6% of Sub cost $82,015

Total estimated current construction cost $1,653,966


Total estimated construction cost $1,653,966

Contingency 20% $330,793Engineering Design 15% $297,714Construction Management 10% $198,476Sales Tax 8.7% $172,674


Op and Maint Cost Est (per yr)-2010 estimate for 3129 eru connected per JAS ) 2010 2010Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Annual Cost

Labor - Secondary Process and Odor Control 2,652 HR $45 $119,340Labor - Disinfection 0 hr $45 $0Labor - Solids Handling 0 HR $45 $0Membrane Replacement 686 panel $60 $41,143Contract Haul Solids @ 3.0% 0 GAL $0.07 $0Diesel fuel 4,100 GAL $3.50 $14,350






Carbon Filter replacement 22,500 LB $3.00 $67,500Chemicals - membrane cleaning 1 LS $4,000 $4,000Methanol 29,200 GAL $1.50 $43,800Magnesium Hudroxide 65,700 GAL $0.80 $52,560Hypochlorite 3,044 lb $0.60 $1,826Sodium Bisulfite 0 GAL $0.20 $0Polymer 0 LB $3.00 $0Misc expenses 1 allowance $10,000 $10,000Power - Secondary Process 488,000 kWh $0.07 $34,160Power - Disinfection 40,556 kWh $0 $2,839Power - Solids Handling 0 kWh $0 $0Power - Odor Control 187,805 kWh $0.07 $13,146Structural Maintenance 1% $34,223Equipment replacement 2% $64,644



Worksheet: WWTP Ponds Page 9



Access Road 0 LF $50 $0Power to Site 0 LF $30 $0Controls to Site 0 LF $10 $0Electrical Sitework 0 LS $35,000 $0Sewage Emergency Storage Pond Excavation / Hauling 0 CY $15.00 $0Sewage Emergency Storage Pond Import / Backfill / Compaction 0 CY $20.00 $0Sewage Pond Inlet / Outlet Structure 0 LS $25,000 $0Sewage Pond Fencing 0 LF $31.50 $0Site Drainage Pond Excavation / Hauling 2,000 CY $15.00 $30,000Site Drainage Pond Import / Backfill / Compaction 2,120 CY $20.00 $42,400Site Drainage Pond Inlet / Outlet Structure 1 LS $15,000 $15,000Site Drainage Pond Fencing 560 LF $31.50 $17,640Site Drainage Discharge Trench 110 CY $42.60 $4,686


Irrigation Pumps 0 LS $15,000 $0Sprinkler Irrigation System 0 AC $6,000 $0

Subtotal Equipment $0

Contractor O&P 15% $16,459Mobilization, demobilization, bond 6% $6,584

Total estimated current construction cost $132,768


Total estimated construction cost $132,768


Total Estimated Capital Cost $213,000

Operations and Maintenance Cost Estimate (per year) 2010 2010Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Annual Cost (1st year - 2014)

Labor 50 HR $45 $2,250EA

Diesel oil GALPower 0 kWh $0.07 $0Structural Maintenance 1%Equipment replacement 2%Chemicals 0 LSHypochlorite 0 LBSodium Bisulfite 0 GALPolymer LBMisc expenses allowance


WWTP Ponds Phase 1 - 2014


Worksheet: SOLIDS Initial Page 10


Capital Cost Estimate 2010 2010 2010Item Description Quantity Unit Unit cost, $ Cost, $Solids Stabilization

Solids Processing - GeneralMisc. conduit, site piping, valves,appurtenances… 1 LS $20,000 $20,000Misc. related Sitework 1 LS $10,000 $10,000Aerated Sludge Holding TanksExcavation, includes bldg with basement 2250 CY $10 $22,500Disposal of Unsuitable Soils, incl. bldg with basement 2250 CY $5 $11,250Imported Backfill,includes bldg with basement 160 CY $20 $3,200Slab Concrete and Rebar 170 CY $550 $93,500Straight Wall Concrete and Rebar 219 CY $700 $153,301Handrailing 56 LF $55 $3,080Misc Metals (Stairs, Grating, etc.) 1 LS $10,000 $10,000Covers 140 SF $50 $7,000Thickener/Mechanical/Elec/Controls BldgExcavation - included in tank calcs above CY $10 $0Disposal of Unsuitable Soils included in tank calcs above CY $5 $0Imported Backfill - included in tank calcs above CY $20 $0Slab Concrete and Rebar CY $550 $0Straight Wall Concrete and Rebar CY $700 $0Equipment/Mechanical/Elec/Control Building 1320 SF $250 $330,000Aerated Sludge Holding Tanks

Excavation 0 CY $10 $0Disposal of Unsuitable Soils 0 CY $5 $0Imported Backfill 0 CY $20 $0Slab Concrete and Rebar 0 CY $550 $0Straight Wall Concrete and Rebar 0 CY $700 $0Handrailing 0 LF $55 $0Misc Metals (Stairs, Grating, etc.) 0 LS $8,000 $0Covers 0 SF $50 $0


MBR Equipment 0 EA $492,800 $0 (membranes, cleaning tanks, vacuum pumps) $0 (process air blowers and diffusers) $0Hoist for Membrane Racks 0 EA $25,000 $0Influent Screen - 1/8 in. 0 LS $117,104 $0Washer Compactor 0 LS $29,276 $0WAS Pumps 0 EA $8,783 $0Magnetic Flow Meters 0 EA $5,000 $0Yard Pump Station Pumps 0 EA $8,783 $0Plant Water Pumps 0 EA $5,855 $0Strainer (Manual duplex) 0 EA $2,342 $0Hydro Tank 0 EA $4,684 $0Odor Control - Carbon Adsorber, Fans, Piping 0 LS $58,552 $0Standby Generator 0 kW $175 $0 Generator Silencer, Enclosure, Acoustics 0 LS $8,783 $0

Not in this phase -Build add'l aerated sludge holding tanks in 2023 (MBR process's Phase 2, but Solids Handling's Phase 1) to be used for emergency storage in MBR process's Phase 2

Solids - Phase 1 (years 2015-2036)






Underground Fuel Storage Tank, Pumps 0 LS $17,566 $0Automatic Transfer Switch 0 LS $17,566 $0Motor Control Centers/Variable Frequency Drives 0 LS $43,914 $0PLC 0 LS $117,104 $0

NaOCl Storage Tank (2-55 gal drums) 0 ea $234 $0Pumps w/ installation (hypo) 0 ea $2,928 $0Tank Mixers 0 ea $1,171 $0Feed Pacing Controller 0 ea $2,928 $0Chemical Flow Meter 0 ea $2,342 $0

Solids EquipmentStabilization Solids Processing

Aerated Sludge Holding TankBlower 2 EA $18,000 $36,000Tank Diffusers 1 LS $30,000 $30,000Mixer 2 EA $18,000 $36,000Sludge Transfer Pumps 2 EA $10,000 $20,000Process Piping and Valving 1 LS $20,000 $20,000Drain to Plant LS 1 LS $5,000 $5,000Thickener, with integrated Flocculation TankThickener, 30 gpm 1 EA $55,000 $55,000Polymer feed system 1 EA $6,000 $6,000Process Piping and Valving 1 LS $12,000 $12,000Gravity piping to Aerated Sludge Holding Tanks 0 LS $5,000 $0Drain to Plant LS 1 LS $5,000 $5,000Washwater ("3W") 1 LS $3,000 $3,000Aerated Sludge Holding Tanks

Blower 0 EA $18,000 $0Tank Diffusers 0 LS $45,000 $0Mixer 0 EA $18,000 $0Sludge Transfer Pumps 0 EA $12,000 $0Process Piping and Valving 0 LS $25,000 $0Drain to Plant LS 0 LS $8,000 $0Truck Loading PadLoading Arm 1 LS $6,000 $6,000Washwater ("3W") 1 LS $3,000 $3,000Drain to Plant LS 1 LS $1,000 $1,000Lighting at Loading Station 1 LS $3,000 $3,000

$0Subtotal Equipment $241,000

Installation, Miscellaneous Mechanical 30% of Equip $72,300Electrical 15% of Equip $36,150Instrumentation and Control 10% of Equip $24,100Subtotal Structural, Mechanical, Elect, I&C $1,037,381

Not in this phase -Build add'l aerated sludge holding tanks in 2023 (MBR process's Phase 2, but Solids Handling's Phase 1) to be used for emergency storage in MBR process's Phase 2






Contractor O&P 15% of Sub Cost $155,607Mobilization, demobilization, bond 6% of Sub cost $62,243Total estimated current construction cost $1,255,231Escalation to time of construction 0.00% $0Total estimated construction cost $1,255,231

Contingency 20% $251,046Engineering Design 15% $225,942Construction Management 10% $150,628Sales Tax 8.7% $131,046Total Estimated Capital Cost $2,014,000

Operations and Maintenance Cost Estimate (per yr) 2010 2010 2010Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Annual Cost

Labor - Secondary Process 0 HR $45 $0Labor - Disinfection 0 hr $45 $0Labor - Solids Handling 365 HR $45 $16,425Contract Haul Solids @ 3.0% 244,550 GAL $0.05 $12,228Solids Tipping Fee 244,550 GAL $0.10 $24,455Diesel Fuel 0 GAL $3.50 $0Power - Secondary Process 0 kWh $0.07 $0Power - Disinfection 0 kWh $0.07 $0Power - Solids Handling 157,659 kWh $0.07 $11,036Structural Maintenance 1% $6,638Equipment replacement 2% $4,820Chemicals - membrane cleaning 0 LS $1,000 $0Hypochlorite 0 lb $0.60 $0Sodium Bisulfite 0 GAL $0.20 $0Polymer 274 LB $3.00 $821Misc expenses 1 allowance $1,500 $1,500Total Annual Cost $77,923


Worksheet: SOLIDS 2023 Add MBR Page 13



Solids Processing - GeneralMisc. conduit, site piping, valves,appurtenances… 0 LS $20,000 $0Misc. related Sitework 0 LS $10,000 $0Aerated Sludge Holding TanksExcavation, includes bldg with basement 0 CY $10 $0Disposal of Unsuitable Soils incl. bldg with basement 0 CY $5 $0Imported Backfill,includes bldg with basement 0 CY $20 $0Slab Concrete and Rebar 0 CY $550 $0Straight Wall Concrete and Rebar 0 CY $700 $0Handrailing 0 LF $55 $0Misc Metals (Stairs, Grating, etc.) 0 LS $10,000 $0Covers 0 SF $50 $0Thickener/Mechanical/Elec/Controls BldgExcavation - included in tank calcs above CY $10 $0Disposal of Unsuitable Soils included in tank calcs above CY $5 $0Imported Backfill - included in tank calcs above CY $20 $0Slab Concrete and Rebar CY $550 $0Straight Wall Concrete and Rebar CY $700 $0Equipment/Mechanical/Elec/Control Building 0 SF $300 $0Aerated Sludge Holding Tanks

Excavation 1708 CY $10 $17,080Disposal of Unsuitable Soils 1708 CY $5 $8,540Imported Backfill 579 CY $20 $11,586Slab Concrete and Rebar 91 CY $550 $50,266Straight Wall Concrete and Rebar 141 CY $700 $98,413Handrailing 240 LF $55 $13,200Misc Metals (Stairs, Grating, etc.) 1 LS $8,000 $8,000 Covers 630 SF $50 $31,500

Subtotal Structural $238,585MBR Equipment 0 EA $492,800 $0

(membranes, cleaning tanks, vacuum pumps) $0 (process air blowers and diffusers) $0Hoist for Membrane Racks 0 EA $25,000 $0Influent Screen - 1/8 in. 0 LS $117,104 $0Washer Compactor 0 LS $29,276 $0WAS Pumps 0 EA $8,783 $0Magnetic Flow Meters 0 EA $5,000 $0Yard Pump Station Pumps 0 EA $8,783 $0Plant Water Pumps 0 EA $5,855 $0Strainer (Manual duplex) 0 EA $2,342 $0Hydro Tank 0 EA $4,684 $0Odor Control - Carbon Adsorber, Fans, Piping 0 LS $58,552 $0Standby Generator 0 kW $175 $0 Generator Silencer, Enclosure, Acoustics 0 LS $8,783 $0Underground Fuel Storage Tank, Pumps 0 LS $17,566 $0Automatic Transfer Switch 0 LS $17,566 $0Motor Control Centers/Variable Frequency Drives 0 LS $43,914 $0PLC 0 LS $117,104 $0

NOW(2023) -Build 2 aerated sludge holding tanks in 2023 and fit with aeration equipment to be used for emergency storage in MBR process's Phase 2

Solids - Phase 2 (years 2023 to 2037)






NaOCl Storage Tank (2-55 gal drums) 0 ea $234 $0Pumps w/ installation (hypo) 0 ea $2,928 $0Tank Mixers 0 ea $1,171 $0Feed Pacing Controller 0 ea $2,928 $0Chemical Flow Meter 0 ea $2,342 $0

Solids EquipmentStabilizationSolids Processing

Aerated Sludge Holding TankBlower 0 EA $18,000 $0Tank Diffusers 0 LS $30,000 $0Mixer 0 EA $18,000 $0Sludge Transfer Pumps 0 EA $10,000 $0Process Piping and Valving 0 LS $20,000 $0Drain to Plant LS 0 LS $5,000 $0Thickener, with integrated Flocculation TankThickener, 30 gpm 0 EA $55,000 $0Polymer feed system 0 EA $6,000 $0Process Piping and Valving 0 LS $12,000 $0Gravity piping to Aerated Sludge Holding Tanks 0 LS $5,000 $0Drain to Plant LS 0 LS $5,000 $0Washwater ("3W") 0 LS $3,000 $0Aerated Sludge Holding Tanks

Blower 2 EA $18,000 $36,000Tank Diffusers 1 LS $45,000 $45,000Mixer 2 EA $18,000 $36,000Sludge Transfer Pumps 2 EA $12,000 $24,000Process Piping and Valving 1 LS $25,000 $25,000Drain to Plant LS 1 LS $8,000 $8,000Truck Loading PadLoading Arm 0 LS $6,000 $0Washwater ("3W") 0 LS $3,000 $0Drain to Plant LS 0 LS $1,000 $0Lighting at Loading Station 0 LS $3,000 $0

$0Subtotal Equipment $174,000Installation, Miscellaneous Mechanical 30% of Equip $52,200Electrical 15% of Equip $26,100Instrumentation and Control 10% of Equip $17,400Subtotal Structural, Mechanical, Elect, I&C $508,285Contractor O&P 15% of Sub Cost $76,243Mobilization, demobilization, bond 6% of Sub cost $30,497Total estimated current construction cost $615,024Escalation to time of construction 0.00% $0Total estimated construction cost $615,024

Contingency 20% $123,005Engineering Design 15% $110,704Construction Management 10% $73,803Sales Tax 8.7% $64,209Total Estimated Capital Cost $987,000

NOW(2023) -Build 2 aerated sludge holding tanks in 2023 and fit with aeration equipment to be used for emergency storage in MBR process's Phase 2







Labor - Secondary Process 0 HR $45 $0Labor - Disinfection 0 hr $45 $0Labor - Solids Handling 0 HR $45 $0Contract Haul Solids @ 3.0% - GAL $0.05 $0Solids Tipping Fee - GAL $0.10 $0Diesel Fuel 0 GAL $3.50 $0Power - Secondary Process 0 kWh $0.07 $0Power - Disinfection 0 kWh $0.07 $0Power - Solids Handling - kWh $0.07 $0Structural Maintenance 0% $0Equipment replacement 0% $0Chemicals - membrane cleaning 0 LS $1,000 $0Hypochlorite 0 lb $0.60 $0Sodium Bisulfite 0 GAL $0.20 $0Polymer 0 LB $3.00 $0Misc expenses 1 allowance $0Total Annual Cost $0

USED BUILDOUT CONDITION AND INTERPOLATION TO CALC O&M FOR THE YEARS BETWEEN STARTUP AND 2055. SEE THE Cash Flow worksheet


Worksheet: SOLIDS Build Out Page 16



Solids Processing - GeneralMisc. conduit, site piping, valves,appurtenances… 0 LS $20,000 $0Misc. related Sitework 0 LS $10,000 $0Aerated Sludge Holding TanksExcavation, includes bldg with basement 0 CY $10 $0Disposal of Unsuitable Soils incl. bldg with basement 0 CY $5 $0Imported Backfill,includes bldg with basement 0 CY $20 $0Slab Concrete and Rebar 0 CY $550 $0Straight Wall Concrete and Rebar 0 CY $700 $0Handrailing 0 LF $55 $0Misc Metals (Stairs, Grating, etc.) 0 LS $10,000 $0Covers 0 SF $50 $0Thickener/Mechanical/Elec/Controls BldgExcavation - included in tank calcs above CY $10 $0Disposal of Unsuitable Soils included in tank calcs above CY $5 $0Imported Backfill - included in tank calcs above CY $20 $0Slab Concrete and Rebar CY $550 $0Straight Wall Concrete and Rebar CY $700 $0Equipment/Mechanical/Elec/Control Building 0 SF $300 $0Aerated Sludge Holding Tanks NOW (2037) -Build 2 add'l aerated sludge holding tanks Excavation 1708 CY $10 $17,080Disposal of Unsuitable Soils 1708 CY $5 $8,540Imported Backfill 579 CY $20 $11,586Slab Concrete and Rebar 91 CY $550 $50,266Straight Wall Concrete and Rebar 141 CY $700 $98,413Handrailing 240 LF $55 $13,200Misc Metals (Stairs, Grating, etc.) 1 LS $8,000 $8,000 Covers 630 SF $50 $31,500


MBR Equipment 0 EA $492,800 $0 (membranes, cleaning tanks, vacuum pumps) $0 (process air blowers and diffusers) $0Hoist for Membrane Racks 0 EA $25,000 $0Influent Screen - 1/8 in. 0 LS $117,104 $0Washer Compactor 0 LS $29,276 $0WAS Pumps 0 EA $8,783 $0Magnetic Flow Meters 0 EA $5,000 $0Yard Pump Station Pumps 0 EA $8,783 $0Plant Water Pumps 0 EA $5,855 $0Strainer (Manual duplex) 0 EA $2,342 $0Hydro Tank 0 EA $4,684 $0Odor Control - Carbon Adsorber, Fans, Piping 0 LS $58,552 $0Standby Generator 0 kW $175 $0 Generator Silencer, Enclosure, Acoustics 0 LS $8,783 $0Underground Fuel Storage Tank, Pumps 0 LS $17,566 $0Automatic Transfer Switch 0 LS $17,566 $0Motor Control Centers/Variable Frequency Drives 0 LS $43,914 $0PLC 0 LS $117,104 $0

NaOCl Storage Tank (2-55 gal drums) 0 ea $234 $0Pumps w/ installation (hypo) 0 ea $2,928 $0

Solids - Phase 2 (years 2037 to buildout in 2055)






Tank Mixers 0 ea $1,171 $0Feed Pacing Controller 0 ea $2,928 $0Chemical Flow Meter 0 ea $2,342 $0

Solids EquipmentStabilization Solids Processing

Aerated Sludge Holding TankBlower 0 EA $18,000 $0Tank Diffusers 0 LS $30,000 $0Mixer 0 EA $18,000 $0Sludge Transfer Pumps 0 EA $10,000 $0Process Piping and Valving 0 LS $20,000 $0Drain to Plant LS 0 LS $5,000 $0Thickener, with integrated Flocculation TankThickener, 30 gpm 0 EA $55,000 $0Polymer feed system 0 EA $6,000 $0Process Piping and Valving 0 LS $12,000 $0Gravity piping to Aerated Sludge Holding Tanks 0 LS $5,000 $0Drain to Plant LS 0 LS $5,000 $0Washwater ("3W") 0 LS $3,000 $0Aerated Sludge Holding Tanks NOW (2037) -Build 2 add'l aerated sludge holding tanks.Blower 2 EA $18,000 $36,000Tank Diffusers 1 LS $45,000 $45,000Mixer 2 EA $18,000 $36,000Sludge Transfer Pumps 2 EA $12,000 $24,000Process Piping and Valving 1 LS $25,000 $25,000Drain to Plant LS 1 LS $8,000 $8,000Truck Loading PadLoading Arm 0 LS $6,000 $0Washwater ("3W") 0 LS $3,000 $0Drain to Plant LS 0 LS $1,000 $0Lighting at Loading Station 0 LS $3,000 $0

$0Subtotal Equipment $174,000

Installation, Miscellaneous Mechanical 30% of Equip $52,200Electrical 15% of Equip $26,100Instrumentation and Control 10% of Equip $17,400Subtotal Structural, Mechanical, Elect, I&C $508,285

Contractor O&P 15% of Sub Cost $76,243Mobilization, demobilization, bond 6% of Sub cost $30,497Total estimated current construction cost $615,024Escalation to time of construction 0.00% $0Total estimated construction cost $615,024

Contingency 20% $123,005Engineering Design 15% $110,704Construction Management 10% $73,803Sales Tax 8.7% $64,209Total Estimated Capital Cost $987,000







Labor - Secondary Process 0 HR $45 $0Labor - Disinfection 0 hr $45 $0Labor - Solids Handling 730 HR $45 $32,850Contract Haul Solids @ 3.0% 959,950 GAL $0.05 $47,998Solids Tipping Fee 959,950 GAL $0.10 $95,995Diesel Fuel 0 GAL $3.50 $0Power - Secondary Process 0 kWh $0.07 $0Power - Disinfection 0 kWh $0.07 $0Power - Solids Handling 326,617 kWh $0.07 $22,863Structural Maintenance 1% $2,386Equipment replacement 2% $3,480Chemicals - membrane cleaning 0 LS $1,000 $0Hypochlorite 0 lb $0.60 $0Sodium Bisulfite 0 GAL $0.20 $0Polymer 1077 LB $3.00 $3,230Misc expenses 1 allowance $4,000 $4,000Total Annual Cost $212,802


Worksheet: STEP1 common Page 19


Capital Cost Estimate 2007 2010 2010 2010Item Description Quantity Quantity Unit Unit cost, $ Cost, $

2" Pressure Mains (PVC or HDPE) 13,131 29,956 LF $19 $580,4893" Pressure Mains (PVC or HDPE) 1,465 7,187 LF $21 $148,5554" Pressure Mains (PVC or HDPE) 2,612 10,317 LF $23 $239,9086" Pressure Mains (PVC or HDPE) 3,607 7,270 LF $28 $206,6228" Pressure Mains (PVC or HDPE) 4,556 5,554 LF $36 $200,90110" Pressure Mains (PVC or HDPE) 800 0 LF $52 $012" Pressure Mains (PVC or HDPE) 0 722 LF $60 $43,3201.5" HDPE Pressure Laterals - STEP 0 EA $517 $01.5" HDPE Pressure Laterals - extra for existing houses 0 EA $323 $0Lateral Kits 0 EA $258 $0Clean Out Installation 25 52 EA $1,938 $100,766Air Release Valve Installation 3 6 EA $2,584 $15,502Dewatering 1 1 LS $6,459 $6,459AC Surface Restoration 8,956 30,100 SY $16 $466,624Native Surface Restoration 0 SY $3 $0Abandon Septic Tank 0 EA $969 $0

Subtotal Structural $2,009,147

Septic Tank w/ Pump (Installed) 0 0 EA $3,230 $0Septic Tank w/ Pump - credit for ex. houses (reuse tank) 0 0 EA ($2,584) $0Septic Tank w/ Pump - extra for ex. houses (new tank) 0 0 EA $1,292 $0Site Electrical - STEP 0 0 EA $258 $0Site Electrical - STEP, extra for existing houses 0 0 EA $646 $0

Subtotal Equipment $0Total estimated current construction cost $2,009,147Escalation to time of construction 0.00% $0Total estimated construction cost $2,009,147


Operations and Maintenance Cost Estimate (per year) 2010 2010Item Description 2007 Quantity 2010 Quantity Unit Unit Cost Annual Cost

Labor 0 0 hr $45 $0Septic tank pumping 0 0 ea $400 $0Diesel oil 0 0 gal $3.50 $0Power 0 0 kWh $0.07 $0Structural Maintenance 1% $20,091Equipment replacement 2% $0Chemicals

Hypochlorite 0 0 lb $0.60 $0Sodium Bisulfite 0 0 gal $0.20 $0Polymer 0 0 lb $3.00 $0

Misc expenses 0 0 allowanceTotal Annual Cost $20,091

STEP System - Phase 1 Common Facilities


Worksheet: STEP2 common Page 20


Capital Cost Estimate 2010 2010 2010Item Description Quantity Unit Unit cost, $ Cost, $

2" Pressure Mains (PVC or HDPE) 14,827 LF $19 $287,3193" Pressure Mains (PVC or HDPE) 2,035 LF $21 $42,0634" Pressure Mains (PVC or HDPE) 2,899 LF $23 $67,4126" Pressure Mains (PVC or HDPE) 0 LF $28 $08" Pressure Mains (PVC or HDPE) 0 LF $36 $010" Pressure Mains (PVC or HDPE) 0 LF $52 $012" Pressure Mains (PVC or HDPE) 0 LF $60 $01.5" HDPE Pressure Laterals - STEP 0 EA $517 $01.5" HDPE Pressure Laterals - extra for existing houses 0 EA $323 $0Lateral Kits 0 EA $258 $0Clean Out Installation 48 EA $1,938 $93,015Air Release Valve Installation 4 EA $2,584 $10,335Dewatering 1 LS $6,459 $6,459AC Surface Restoration 9,900 SY $16 $153,474Native Surface Restoration 0 SY $3 $0Abandon Septic Tank 0 EA $969 $0

Subtotal Structural $660,078Septic Tank w/ Pump (Installed) 0 EA $3,230 $0Septic Tank w/ Pump - credit for ex. houses (reuse tank) 0 EA ($2,584) $0Septic Tank w/ Pump - extra for ex. houses (new tank) 0 EA $1,292 $0Site Electrical - STEP 0 EA $258 $0Site Electrical - STEP, extra for existing houses 0 EA $646 $0

Subtotal Equipment $0Total estimated current construction cost $660,078Escalation to time of construction $0Total estimated construction cost $660,078

Contingency $132,016Engineering Design $118,814Construction Management $79,209Sales Tax $68,912Total Estimated Capital Cost $1,059,000

Operations and Maintenance Cost Estimate (per year) 2010 2010Item Description Unit Unit Cost Annual Cost

Labor hr $45 $0Septic tank pumping ea $400 $0Diesel oil gal $3.50 $0Power kWh $0.07 $0Structural Maintenance $6,601Equipment replacement $0Chemicals

Hypochlorite lb $0.60 $0Sodium Bisulfite gal $0.20 $0Polymer lb $3.00 $0

Misc expenses allowance $0Total Annual Cost $6,601

STEP System - Phase 2 Common Facilities


Worksheet: 2014 (commercial) Page 21



1.5" HDPE Pressure Laterals - STEP 94 EA $517 $48,5741.5" HDPE Pressure Laterals - extra for existing houses 94 EA $323 $30,359Lateral Kits 94 EA $258 $24,287Native Surface Restoration 3,760 SY $2.58 $9,715Abandon Septic Tank 85 EA $969 $82,357


Pump Basin - 1-2 ERU's (reuse tank) 6 EA $2,600 $15,600Septic Tank w/ Pump - 1-2 ERU's (installed, new tank) 55 EA $4,792 $263,553Pump Basin - 3-5 ERU's (reuse tank) 2 EA $4,550 $9,100Septic Tank w/ Pump - 3-5 ERU's (installed, new tank) 18 EA $6,707 $120,724Pump Basin - 6-30 ERU's (reuse tank) 7 EA $5,850 $40,950Septic Tank w/ Pump - 6-30 ERU's (installed, new tank) 4 EA $19,256 $77,024Pump Basin - 31+ ERU's (reuse tank) 2 EA $6,500 $13,000Septic Tank w/ Pump - 31+ ERU's (installed, new tank) 0 EA $0 $0Site Electrical - STEP 94 EA $258 $24,287Site Electrical - STEP, extra for existing houses 94 EA $646 $60,718


Total estimated current construction cost $820,248


Total estimated construction cost $820,248



Operations and Maintenance Cost Estimate (per year) 2010 2010 2010Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Annual Cost

Labor 103.4 hr $45 $4,653Septic tank pumping 19 ea $500 $9,400Power 76755 kWh $0.07 $5,373Structural Maintenance 1% $1,129Equipment replacement 2% $12,499Misc expenses 0 allowance $0

Total Annual Cost included in 2014 worksheet

STEP System - Onsite 2014 - Existing Commercial Entities


Worksheet: 2014 Page 22



2" PVC Pressure Mains 0 LF $19 $03" PVC Pressure Mains 0 LF $21 $04" PVC Pressure Mains 0 LF $23 $06" PVC Pressure Mains 0 LF $28 $08" PVC Pressure Mains 0 LF $36 $010" PVC Pressure Mains 0 LF $52 $01.5" HDPE Pressure Laterals - STEP 315 EA $517 $162,7761.5" HDPE Pressure Laterals - extra for existing houses 315 EA $323 $101,735Lateral Kits 315 EA $258 $81,388Clean Out Installation 0 EA $1,938 $0Air Release Valve Installation 0 EA $2,584 $0Dewatering 0 LS $6,459 $0AC Surface Restoration 0 SY $16 $0Native Surface Restoration 12,600 SY $2.58 $32,555Abandon Septic Tank 284 EA $969 $275,169Commercial Entities 1 LS $195,292 $195,292

Subtotal Structural $848,914Septic Tank w/ Pump (Installed) 315 EA $3,500 $1,102,500Septic Tank w/ Pump - credit for ex. houses (reuse tank) 31 EA ($2,584) ($80,096)Septic Tank w/ Pump - extra for ex. houses (new tank) 284 EA $1,292 $366,891Site Electrical - STEP 315 EA $258 $81,388Site Electrical - STEP, extra for existing houses 315 EA $646 $203,470Commercial Entities 1 LS $624,956 $624,956

Subtotal Equipment $2,299,109Total estimated current construction cost $3,148,023Escalation to time of construction $0Total estimated construction cost $3,148,023



Labor 449.9 hr $45 $20,246Septic tank pumping 63 ea $400 $25,200Septic tank pumping (commercial) 19 ea $500 $9,400Diesel oil 0 gal $3.50 $0Power 162492 kWh $0.07 $11,374Structural Maintenance $4,914Equipment replacement $45,982Chemicals

Hypochlorite 0 lb $0.60 $0Sodium Bisulfite 0 gal $0.20 $0Polymer 0 lb $3.00 $0

Misc expenses 409 allowance $2,045Total Annual Cost $119,161

STEP System - Onsite 2014





2" PVC Pressure Mains 0 LF $19 $03" PVC Pressure Mains 0 LF $21 $04" PVC Pressure Mains 0 LF $23 $06" PVC Pressure Mains 0 LF $28 $08" PVC Pressure Mains 0 LF $36 $010" PVC Pressure Mains 0 LF $52 $01.5" HDPE Pressure Laterals - STEP 54 EA $517 $27,9041.5" HDPE Pressure Laterals - extra for existing houses 30 EA $323 $9,689Lateral Kits 54 EA $258 $13,952Clean Out Installation 0 EA $1,938 $0Air Release Valve Installation 0 EA $2,584 $0Dewatering 0 LS $6,459 $0AC Surface Restoration 0 SY $16 $0Native Surface Restoration 2,160 SY $2.58 $5,581Abandon Septic Tank 27 EA $969 $26,160


Septic Tank w/ Pump (Installed) 54 EA $3,500 $189,000Septic Tank w/ Pump - credit for ex. houses (reuse tank) 3 EA ($2,584) ($7,751)Septic Tank w/ Pump - extra for ex. houses (new tank) 27 EA $1,292 $34,881Site Electrical - STEP 54 EA $258 $13,952Site Electrical - STEP, extra for existing houses 30 EA $646 $19,378

Subtotal Equipment $249,460Total estimated current construction cost $332,747Escalation to time of construction $0Total estimated construction cost $332,747

Contingency $66,549Engineering Design $19,965Construction Management $19,965Sales Tax $34,739Total Estimated Capital Cost $474,000


Labor 59.4 hr $45 $2,673Septic tank pumping 11 ea $400 $4,320Diesel oil 0 gal $3.50 $0Power 14698 kWh $0.07 $1,029Structural Maintenance $571Equipment replacement $4,989Chemicals


Misc Expenses (Parts) 54 ea $5 $270Total Annual Cost $13,852












Labor 66 hr $45 $2,970Septic tank pumping 12 ea $400 $4,800Diesel oil 0 gal $3.50 $0Power 16331 kWh $0.07 $1,143Structural Maintenance $637Equipment replacement $5,595Chemicals














Labor 99 hr $45 $4,455Septic tank pumping 18 ea $400 $7,200Diesel oil 0 gal $3.50 $0Power 24496 kWh $0.07 $1,715Structural Maintenance $981Equipment replacement $8,587Chemicals














Labor 108.9 hr $45 $4,901Septic tank pumping 20 ea $400 $7,920Diesel oil 0 gal $3.50 $0Power 26946 kWh $0.07 $1,886Structural Maintenance $1,083Equipment replacement $9,457Chemicals








2" PVC Pressure Mains 0 LF $19 $03" PVC Pressure Mains 0 LF $21 $04" PVC Pressure Mains 0 LF $23 $06" PVC Pressure Mains 0 LF $28 $08" PVC Pressure Mains 0 LF $36 $010" PVC Pressure Mains 0 LF $52 $01.5" HDPE Pressure Laterals - STEP 36 EA $517 $18,6031.5" HDPE Pressure Laterals - extra for existing houses 0 EA $323 $0Lateral Kits 36 EA $258 $9,301Clean Out Installation 0 EA $1,938 $0Air Release Valve Installation 0 EA $2,584 $0Dewatering 0 LS $6,459 $0AC Surface Restoration 0 SY $16 $0Native Surface Restoration 1,440 SY $2.58 $3,721Abandon Septic Tank 0 EA $969 $0


Septic Tank w/ Pump (Installed) 36 EA $3,500 $126,000Septic Tank w/ Pump - credit for ex. houses (reuse tank) 0 EA ($2,584) $0Septic Tank w/ Pump - extra for ex. houses (new tank) 0 EA $1,292 $0Site Electrical - STEP 36 EA $258 $9,301Site Electrical - STEP, extra for existing houses 0 EA $646 $0




Labor 39.6 hr $45 $1,782Septic tank pumping 7 ea $400 $2,880Diesel oil 0 gal $3.50 $0Power 9798 kWh $0.07 $686Structural Maintenance $316Equipment replacement $2,706Chemicals





Worksheet: Slow Inf 2014 Page 44



Access Road 2,500 LF $60 $150,000Power to Site 2,500 LF $30 $75,000Controls to Site 9,600 LF $10 $96,000Electrical Sitework 1 LS $45,000 $45,000Storage Pond Excavation / Hauling / Backfill 30,000 CY $20 $600,000Pond Inlet Structure 1 LS $20,000 $20,000Pond Fencing 1,200 LF $35 $42,000

Subtotal Structural $1,028,000Irrigation Pumps 1 LS $50,000 $50,000Irrigation System 60 AC $11,500 $690,000

Subtotal Equipment $740,000Contractor O&P 15% $265,200Mobilization, demobilization, bond 6% $106,080Total estimated current construction cost $2,139,280Escalation to time of construction 0.00% $0Total estimated construction cost $2,139,280


Operations and Maintenance Cost Estimate (per year) 2010 2010 2010Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Annual Cost (1st year - 2014) Annual Cost (final year - 2023)

Labor 520 HR $45 $23,400 $23,400EA

Diesel oil GALPower 12,248 kWh $0.07 $857 $3,429Structural Maintenance 1% $10,280 $10,280Equipment replacement 2% $14,800 $14,800Chemicals 0 LSHypochlorite 0 LBSodium Bisulfite 0 GALPolymer LBMisc expenses 1 allowance $1,000 $1,000 $1,000Total Annual Cost $50,337 $52,909

Slow Infiltration - Phase 1 / Year 2014


Worksheet: Slow Inf 2023 Page 45



Access Road 0 LF $60 $0Power to Site 0 LF $30 $0Controls to Site 0 LF $10 $0Electrical Sitework 0 LS $45,000 $0Storage Pond Excavation / Hauling / Backfill 25,000 CY $20 $500,000Pond Inlet Structure 1 LS $20,000 $20,000Pond Fencing 1,200 LF $35 $42,000


Irrigation Pumps 1 LS $50,000 $50,000Sprinkler Irrigation System 60 AC $11,500 $690,000


Contractor O&P 15% $195,300Mobilization, demobilization, bond 6% $78,120Total estimated current construction cost 1575420Escalation to time of construction 0.00% 0Total estimated construction cost 1575420

Contingency 20% 315084Engineering Design 15% 283575.6Construction Management 10% 189050.4Sales Tax 8.7% 164473.848Additional Land Purchase 80.00 AC $7,000 $560,000Total Estimated Capital Cost 3088000

Operations and Maintenance Cost Estimate (per year) 2010 2010Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Annual Cost (1st year - 2023) Annual Cost (Final year - 2037)

Labor 520 HR $45 $23,400 $23,400EA

Diesel oil GALPower 48,992 kWh $0.07 $3,429 $5,716Structural Maintenance 1% $15,900 $15,900Equipment replacement 2% $29,600 $29,600Chemicals 0 LSHypochlorite 0 LBSodium Bisulfite 0 GALPolymer LBMisc expenses 1 allowance $1,400 $1,400 $1,400Total Annual Cost $73,729 $76,016



Worksheet: More Land 2037 Page 46



Access Road 0 LF $60 $0Power to Site 0 LF $30 $0Controls to Site 0 LF $10 $0Electrical Sitework 0 LS $45,000 $0Storage Pond Excavation / Hauling / Backfill 0 CY $20 $0Pond Inlet Structure 0 LS $15,000 $0Pond Fencing 0 LF $35 $0

Subtotal Structural $0

Irrigation Pumps 1 LS $25,000 $25,000Irrigation System 30 AC $11,500 $345,000


Contractor O&P 15% $55,500Mobilization, demobilization, bond 6% $22,200Total estimated current construction cost $447,700Escalation to time of construction 0.00% $0Total estimated construction cost $447,700

Contingency 20% $89,540Engineering Design 15% $80,586Construction Management 10% $53,724Sales Tax 8.7% $46,740Additional Land Purchase 40 AC $7,000 $280,000Total Estimated Capital Cost $998,000

Operations and Maintenance Cost Estimate (per year) 2010 2010 2010Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Annual Cost (1st year - 2037) Annual Cost (final year - 2055)

Labor 520 HR $45 $23,400 $23,400EA

Diesel oil GALPower 48,992 kWh $0.07 $3,429 $5,716Structural Maintenance 1% $15,900 $15,900Equipment replacement 2% $37,000 $37,000Chemicals 0 LSHypochlorite 0 LBSodium Bisulfite 0 GALPolymer LBMisc expenses 1 allowance $1,600 $1,600 $1,600Total Annual Cost $81,329 $83,616



Worksheet: To Freeland (tree farm) Page 47



10" Ductile Iron Pressure Mains - to HHSD 0 LF10" Ductile Iron Pressure Mains - to Discharge 9,600 LF $70 $672,000Dewatering 1 LS $10,000 $10,000AC Surface Restoration 0 SYNative Surface Restoration 4,800 SY $2.58 $12,384


Pump Station - from Collection to Treatment 0 EAPump Station - from Treatment to Discharge 1 EA $625,000 $625,000Odor Control 0 LS

Subtotal Equipment $625,000Total estimated current construction cost $1,319,384Escalation to time of construction 0.00%Total estimated construction cost $1,319,384


2010 2010Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Annual Cost (1st year - 2014) Annual Cost (Final year - 2055)

Labor 250 hr $45 $11,250 $11,250Septic tank pumping eaDiesel oil galPower 24496 kWh $0.07 $1,715 $11,432Structural Maintenance 1% $6,944 $6,944Equipment replacement 2% $12,500 $12,500ChemicalsHypochlorite 0 lbSodium Bisulfite 0 galPolymer lbMisc expenses 1 allowance $800 $800 $800Total Annual Cost $33,209 $42,925

Conveyance to Freeland (Discharge to tree farm)



System

APPENDIX F.LID FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY OPINION

AND DRAFT BOARD RESOLUTION

July 2010

ERROR! UNKNOWN DOCUMENT PROPERTY NAME.

FREELAND WATER AND SEWER DISTRICTISLAND COUNTY, WASHINGTON

RESOLUTION NO. 10 - 6

A RESOLUTION of the Board of Commissioners of the Freeland Water and Sewer District, Island County, Washington, declaring its intention to order the improvement of the Freeland Non-Municipal Urban Growth Area with a system of sewage collection, treatment and disposal and to create Local Improvement District No. 2010-1 to assess all or a part of the cost and expense of carrying out those improvements against the properties specially benefited thereby; declaring its official intent to reimburse capital expenditures in connection with the improvements from proceeds of a future borrowing; and, notifying all persons who desire to object to the improvements to appear and present their objections at a hearing before the Board of Commissioners to be held on January 10, 2011.

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE FREELAND

WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT, ISLAND COUNTY, WASHINGTON, as follows:

Section 1. RECITALS AND FINDINGS.

1.1 Public water service is provided to the Freeland Non-Municipal Urban Growth

Area (NMUGA) on Whidbey Island by the Freeland Water and Sewer District, Island County,

Washington (the “District”). That area is not served by a public sewer system, except for those

areas currently served by the Holmes Harbor Sewer District and the Main Street Sewer District.

1.2 As part the development of the Freeland Sub-Area Plan, which is an element of

the Island County Comprehensive Plan, Island County contracted with Tetra Tech/KCM (Tetra

Tech) on October 14, 2002 to prepare a single document that meets both the requirements for a

comprehensive sewer plan and engineering report under State law, and for a sewer facilities plan

under Federal law.

1.3 Following a public process, the District adopted the Freeland Comprehensive

Sewer Plan Engineering Report/Facility Plan (“Comprehensive Sewer Plan”), as prepared by

Tetra Tech, by Resolution No. 05-03 on September 16, 2005.


1.4 The Island County Board of Commissioners adopted the Comprehensive Sewer

Plan by Resolution C-149-05/R-58-05 on March 20, 2006. The Comprehensive Sewer Plan was

approved by and the Washington State Department of Health on October 18, 2006, and the

Washington State Department of Ecology on November 30, 2006.

1.5 Water quality in Holmes Harbor is deteriorating due in part to reliance on septic

systems. In 2006 the Washington State Department of Health ordered formation of the Holmes

Harbor Shellfish Protection District due to high concentrations of fecal coliform in Holmes

Harbor, resulting in the indefinite closure of Freeland Park and adjacent beaches. Under the

Clean Water Act, the 2008 “303(d)” list identified Holmes Harbor as a Category 5 water body

for low dissolved oxygen. An urban ditch running through Freeland to Holmes Harbor is

identified on the 303(d) list as a Category 5 stream for fecal coliform bacteria.

1.6 Implementing the Comprehensive Sewer Plan will eliminate Freeland’s on-site

sewage systems as a source of fecal contamination and nitrogen loading, to which is a cause of

oxygen depletion and sewage related pollution in Holmes Harbor.

1.7 The Island County Board of Commissioners, in Resolution C-12-08 (adopted

February 11, 2008) stated, “prior to full implementation, a sewer treatment plant must be

constructed and sewer lines installed that will serve the levels of density and intensity that are

allowed under the Freeland Sub Area Plan.”

1.8 The District has received grant funding for property acquisition, engineering and

supporting study for the design and construction of a water reclamation facility and sewer

collection system to serve the Freeland Non-Municipal Urban Growth Area.

1.9 It is the intent of this Resolution to begin the process for the formation of a local

improvement district for the continued development, construction and financing of the necessary


improvements for the betterment of the Freeland community and the properties within the

proposed district, shown on Exhibit A as “Phase 1 Project Area.”

Section 2. THE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT.

2.1 It is the intention of the Board of Commissioners (the “Board”) of the District, to

order the improvement of the properties within the area described in Exhibit A, attached hereto

and by this reference made a part hereof. The improvements consist of a system of sewage

(waste water) collection, transmission and disposal , as more particularly described in Exhibit B

attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof (the, “Improvements”).

2.2 All of the foregoing Improvements shall be in accordance with the Freeland

Comprehensive Sewer Plan Engineering Report/Facility Plan (2005) as may be modified by the

District as long as that modification does not affect the purpose of the Improvements.

Section 3. ESTIMATED COST. The total estimated cost and expense of the

Improvements is declared to be $34,418,000. All or a portion of the cost and expense of the

Improvements shall be borne by and assessed against the property specially benefited by the

Improvements. A portion of the cost and expense of the Improvements may be paid by federal,

state and county grants and loans, or other sources. The property specially benefitted is to be

included in Local Improvement District (“LID”) No. 2010-1 to be established by the District.

LID No. 2010-1 is to embrace as nearly as practicable all the property specially benefited by the

Improvements. Actual assessments may vary from estimated assessments as long as they do not

exceed a figure equal to the increased true and fair value the Improvements add to the property.

Section 4. PUBLIC NOTICE.

4.1 The District Administrator is authorized and directed to give notice of the

adoption of this resolution and of the date, time and place fixed for the public hearing to each


owner or reputed owner of any lot, tract, parcel of land or other property within the proposed

local improvement district. Notice shall be by mailing at least fifteen (15) days before the date

fixed for public hearing to the owner or reputed owner of the property as shown on the rolls of

the Island County Assessor at the address shown thereon, as required by law. The District

Administrator also is authorized and directed to give notice of the adoption of this resolution and

of the date, time and place fixed for the public hearing to each owner or reputed owner of any

lot, tract, parcel of land or other property outside of the proposed local improvement district that

is required by the Federal Housing Administration as a condition of loan qualification to be

connected to the proposed Improvements, by mailing such notice at least fifteen (15) days before

the date fixed for the public hearing to the owner or reputed owner of the property as shown on

the rolls of the County Assessor at the address shown thereon, as required by law.

4.2 This Resolution, or notice thereof, also shall be published in at least two

consecutive issues of a newspaper of general circulation in LID No. 2010-1, the date of the first

publication to be at least fifteen (15) days prior to the date fixed for the public hearing.

4.3 The notices shall refer to this Resolution and Local Improvement District

No. 2010-1. The notices also shall set forth the nature of the proposed improvement, the total

estimated cost, the proportion of total cost to be borne by assessments, and the date, time, and

place of the hearing before the Board. The notice also shall: (1) state that all persons desiring to

object to the formation of the proposed district must file their written protests with the Secretary

of the Board acting through the District Administrator no later than ten (10) days after the public

hearing; (2) state that if owners of at least forty percent of the area of land within the proposed

improvement district file written protests with the Secretary of the Board acting through the

District Administrator, the power of the Board to proceed with the creation of the proposed


improvement district shall be divested; (3) provide the name and address of the Secretary of the

Board acting through the District Administrator; and, (4) state the hours and location within the

District where the names of the property owners within the proposed improvement district are

kept available for public perusal. In the case of the notice given each owner or reputed owner by

mail, the notice shall set forth the estimated amount of the cost and expense of such

improvement to be borne by the particular lot, tract, parcel of land, or other property.

Section 5. PUBLIC HEARING. All persons who may desire to object to the

Improvements are notified to appear and present those objections at a hearing before the Board

to be held in the sanctuary of Trinity Lutheran Church, 5614 Woodard Road, Freeland,

Washington, at 5:45 p.m. on Monday, January 10, 2011, which time and place are fixed for

hearing all matters relating to the Improvements and all objections thereto and for determining

the method of payment for the Improvements. All persons who may desire to object thereto

should appear and present their objections at that hearing. Any person who may desire to file a

written protest with the Board may do so within ten (10) days after the date of the public hearing.

The written protest should be signed by the property owner and should include the legal

description of the property for which the protest is filed and that protest should be delivered to

the District Administrator, at the District offices, 5492 Harbor Avenue, (PO Box 222) Freeland,

Washington 98249. The District’s office hours are Monday – Friday, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.,

excluding holidays.

Section 6. REIMBURSEMENT AUTHORIZATION.

6.1 The District intends to make expenditures for the Improvements from funds that

are available but that are not (and are not reasonably expected to be) reserved, allocated on a

long-term basis, or otherwise set aside for those expenditures, and reasonably expects to be


reimbursed for those expenditures from proceeds of bonds or other obligations (“bonds”) issued

to finance those expenditures.

6.2 Certain federal regulations (the “federal reimbursement regulations”) relating to

the use of proceeds of tax exempt bonds to reimburse the issuer of the bonds for expenditures

made before the issue date of the bonds require, among other things, that not later than 60 days

after payment of the original expenditure the District (or any person designated by the District to

do so on its behalf) declare a reasonable official intent to reimburse those expenditures from

proceeds of bonds. The District intends to make (and/or, not more than sixty (60) days before

the date of this declaration, has made) expenditures, and reasonably expects to reimburse itself

for those expenditures from proceeds of bonds, for the Improvements.

6.3 The District expects that the maximum principal amount of bonds that will be

issued to finance the Project will be $34,418,000.

6.4 The Board has reviewed its existing and reasonably foreseeable budgetary and

financial circumstances and has determined that the District reasonably expects to reimburse

itself for expenditures for the Improvements from proceeds of bonds because the District has no

funds available that already are, or are reasonably expected to be, reserved, allocated on a long-

term basis, or otherwise set aside by the District for those expenditures on the Project.

6.5 The District will not, within one year after the expected reimbursement, use

amounts corresponding to proceeds received from bonds issued in the future to reimburse the

District for previously paid expenditures for the Project in any manner that results in those

amounts being treated as replacement proceeds of any tax exempt bonds, i.e., as a result of being

deposited in a reserve fund, pledged fund, sinking fund or similar fund (other than a bona fide

debt service fund) that is expected to be used to pay principal of or interest on tax exempt bonds.


Nor will the District use those amounts in any manner that employs an abusive arbitrage device

to avoid arbitrage restrictions.

6.6 This declaration of official intent shall be dated as of the date of adoption of this

resolution.

Section 7. INFORMATION TO BE FILED. The District’s engineers, including

Gary Hess, P.E. of Davido Consulting Group, Inc., and James Santroch, P.E. of Tetra Tech, Inc.,

are directed to submit to the Board on or prior to November 19, 2010, all data and information

required by law to be submitted.

Section 8. RATIFICATION AND CONFIRMATION. Any actions of the District or

its officers and agents prior to the Effective Date and consistent with the terms of this Resolution

are ratified and confirmed.

Section 9. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect

from and after its adoption and approval.

The foregoing resolution was ADOPTED by the Board of Commissioners of the Freeland

Water and Sewer District, Island County, Washington, at a regular open public meeting thereof

this 12th day of July, 2010.

Nolen Knickerbocker, Commissioner and President

Eric Hansen, Commissioner and Secretary

ATTEST:

Sandra J. Duncan, District Administrator


CERTIFICATION

I, the undersigned, District Administrator of the Freeland Water and Sewer District, Island County, Washington (the “District”), hereby certify as follows:

1. The attached copy of Resolution No. 10 – 6 (the “Resolution”) is a full, true and correct copy of an Resolution duly adopted at a regular [special] meeting of the Board of Commissioners of the District held at the regular meeting place thereof on July 12, 2010, as that Resolution appears on the minute book of the District; and the Resolution will be in full force and effect immediately following its adoption; and

2. A quorum of the members of the Board of Commissioners was present throughout the meeting and a majority of those members present voted in the proper manner for the adoption of the Resolution.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this _____ day of July, 2010.

FREELAND WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT, ISLAND COUNTY, WASHINGTON

Sandra J. Duncan, District Administrator

EXHIBIT A TO RESOLUTION NO. 10 – 6

LID NO. 2010-1 PROPERTY

The LID 2010-1 area is described by section as follows:

In Section 3, Township 29 North, Range 2 East W.M. the LID area is bordered to the north by Bercot Road; to the east by Homes Harbor; to the south the LID area is contiguous with the Section 10 area described below; and to the west by Honeymoon Bay Road.

In Section 10, Township 29 North, Range 2 East W.M. the LID area is bordered to the north by the Section 3 LID area and Holmes Harbor; to the east by Fish Road and the Section 11 LID area described below; to the south by the Section 10 southern boundary; bounded to the west by the properties west and contiguous to Cameron Road including those contiguous to Vesel Court, extending north to State Route 525 then west to the Honeymoon Bay Road intersection, then north on Honeymoon Bay Road to the Section 3 LID area described above.

In Section 11, Township 29 North, Range 2 East W.M. the LID area is bordered to the north by Holmes Harbor; to the east by the properties on the east side of Vinton Avenue, East Harbor Road, Pleasant View Lane, and Cherry Street to the east end of Layton Road, extending east to Newman Road, extending south to Scott Road, then continuing east to the Scott Road-State Route 525 intersection; to the south bordered by State Route 525 extending east to the Fish Road-Main Street Intersection. The LID area described in this section excludes the Main Street Sewer District which lies northwest of the Main Street-Newman Road-Scott Road intersection and exclusively serves the Maple Ridge Community.

A graphic of the LID 2010-1 area is attached to this Exhibit A, and is entitled, “Freeland Water and Sewer District / New Sewer Collection and Treatment System / Service Area and Project Phasing.” The LID No. 2010-1 area is identified on that graphic as “Phase 1 Project Area”, exclusive of the Main Street Sewer District.

EXHIBIT B TO RESOLUTION NO. 10 - 6

LID No. 2010-1 PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS

The project Improvements are as follows:

• Wastewater Collection System — a pressurized STEP sewer systemwith Phase 1 capacity to serve approximately 1,557 equivalent residential units, and a maximum month flow rate of 0.34 million gallons per day. Wastewater Treatment — a treatment facility using a membrane bioreactor (MBR) system (produces reliable Class A reclaimed water) including biological nitrogen removal.

• Disinfection — a system of ultraviolet (UV) disinfection with chlorine addition.

• Effluent Reuse — a system for land application of treated effluent and groundwater recharge by surface percolation and application to vegetation through sprinklers or an equivalent technology.

• Solids Handling and Reuse.— an on-site facility for temporary handlingand treatment in an aerated tank, for subsequent transport for treatment and reuse.

• Plan Improvements - such appurtenances, property and other facilities to carry out the Freeland Comprehensive Plan Engineering Report / Facilities Plan (2005) and the Improvements.

The Phase 1 sewer service area, the proposed treatment plant site, and the proposed reuse area are shown on the graphic attached to Exhibit A to Resolution No. 10 - 6.

Hon

eym

oon

Bay

Hon

eym

oon

Bay

Hon

eym

oon

Bay

Slo

cum

Slo

cum

Slo

cum

Tara

Tara

Tara

Ste

war

tS

tew

art

Ste

war

t

SR 525SR 525SR 525

MainMain

Mutiny Bay

Mutiny Bay

Mutiny Bay

ScenicScenic

East H

arbor

East H

arbor

East H

arbor

Newman

Newman

Newman

Fish

Fish

FishC

amer

onC

amer

on

BercotBercotBercot

Bush PointBush PointBush Point

Har

bor

Har

bor

Myr

tleM

yrtle

ShoreviewShoreview

Woo

dard

Woo

dard

Woo

dard

DustyDustyDusty

WatkinsWatkins

Free

land

Free

land

ScottScottScott

LongLong

Osp

rey

Osp

rey

Osp

rey

App

le T

ree

App

le T

ree

App

le T

ree

ReedReed

Twin OaksTwin OaksTwin Oaks

TimberTimberLaytonLayton

Mut

iny

San

dsM

utin

y S

ands

Mut

iny

San

ds

CattailCattail

JoanneJoanne

Lotto

Lotto

Lotto

HollyhillHollyhill

RoxlinRoxlin

Cher

ryCh

erry

Cher

ry

Ships HavenShips HavenShips Haven

VintonVinton

Ves

elV

esel

Haw

ksbe

ard

Haw

ksbe

ard

Haw

ksbe

ard

Pau

lein

aP

aule

ina

Pau

lein

aC

arie

Car

ieC

arie

Clip

per

Clip

per

Clip

per

Dutch HollowDutch HollowDutch Hollow

Holmes HarborHolmes Harbor

Mutiny BayMutiny Bay

MorningsideMorningsideD

iam

ond

Dia

mon

d

Woo

dard

Woo

dard

Woo

dard

TreatmentPlant SiteTreatmentPlant SiteTreatmentPlant Site

ReuseArea

ReuseArea

ReuseArea

Plea

sant View

Plea

sant View

Plea

sant View

DorseyDorseyDorseyLynneLynneLynneHazen

Sho

res

Hazen S

hore

s

Hazen S

hore

s

Main StreetSewer District

Reclaimed-Water Pipelineto Reuse Area



Phase 1 collection system piping

Phase 2 collection system piping

Reclaimed water conveyance pipeline

Phase 1 project area

Phase 2 project area

LEGEND

Sewer service area andNon-Municipal Urban Growth Area(NMUGA), excluding Holmes Harbor

Main Street Sewer District

500’ 1,000’ 2,000’

Approximate Scale

0

The project area is generally described as the Freeland NMUGA excluding the Holmes Harbor Sewer District and the Main Street Sewer District, located in all or part of Sections 3, 10, 11, 14, and 15 Township 29 North, Range 2 East Willamette Meridian. The treatment plant is located in Section 9, T29N, R2E W.M. The reclaimed water reuse site is located in Section 5, T29N, R2E W.M.

Exhibit A.SERVICE AREA AND PROJECT PHASING



System

APPENDIX G.LID DEBT REPAYMENT FUND CASH FLOW

July 2010

Debt Repayment

Freeland Sewer ProjectKI&A Projections DRAFT 7/7/10

Caution: Assume assessment payments over 15 years and USDA-RD loan over 40 years - USDA loan should be structured/managed with early pay-off to avoidadditional interest charges and ensure a balanced repayment (see latter years).SCENARIO: WITHOUT ADD'L USDA-RD GRANT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14Debt Repayment Fund Cash Flow 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029

LID PRINCIPAL BALANCE: $34,418,000 32,123,467 29,828,933 27,534,400 25,239,867 22,945,333 20,650,800 18,356,267 16,061,733 13,767,200 11,472,667 9,178,133 6,883,600 4,589,067 2,294,533 Estimated RevenueIsland Co. Rural Development Grant ($100k/yr, P+I) 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 LID Principal Payments (15 yrs sched) 2,294,533 2,294,533 2,294,533 2,294,533 2,294,533 2,294,533 2,294,533 2,294,533 2,294,533 2,294,533 2,294,533 2,294,533 2,294,533 2,294,533 LID Interest Payments 3.75% 1,290,675 1,204,630 1,118,585 1,032,540 946,495 860,450 774,405 688,360 602,315 516,270 430,225 344,180 258,135 172,090 Investment Interest 2.0% 10,000 39,467 78,032 115,876 152,987 189,347 224,944 259,761 293,783 326,994 359,378 390,918 421,597 451,399

Total Estimated Revenue 3,695,208 3,638,630 3,591,150 3,542,950 3,494,015 3,444,331 3,393,882 3,342,655 3,290,632 3,237,798 3,184,136 3,129,631 3,074,266 3,018,022 USDA-RD LOAN BALANCE: $34,418,000

Estimated ExpenseUSDA-RD Loan Repayment 40 yrs, 3.25% 1,549,772 1,549,772 1,549,772 1,549,772 1,549,772 1,549,772 1,549,772 1,549,772 1,549,772 1,549,772 1,549,772 1,549,772 1,549,772 1,549,772 LID Administration 0.5% 172,090 160,617 149,145 137,672 126,199 114,727 103,254 91,781 80,309 68,836 57,363 45,891 34,418 22,945

Total Estimated Expense 1,721,862 1,710,389 1,698,916 1,687,444 1,675,971 1,664,498 1,653,026 1,641,553 1,630,080 1,618,608 1,607,135 1,595,662 1,584,190 1,572,717 Annual Increase/(Use) of Reserves 1,973,347 1,928,241 1,892,234 1,855,506 1,818,044 1,779,832 1,740,857 1,701,102 1,660,551 1,619,190 1,577,001 1,533,969 1,490,076 1,445,305

Estimated Ending Balance 1,973,347 3,901,588 5,793,822 7,649,328 9,467,372 11,247,204 12,988,061 14,689,163 16,349,714 17,968,904 19,545,905 21,079,874 22,569,951 24,015,256

Caution: Assume assessment payments over 15 years and USDA-RD loan over 40 years - USDA loan should be structured/managed with early pay-off to avoidadditional interest charges and ensure a balanced repayment (see latter years).SCENARIO: WITH 30% USDA-RD GRANT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14Debt Repayment Fund Cash Flow 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029

LID PRINCIPAL BALANCE: $25,542,000 23,839,200 22,136,400 20,433,600 18,730,800 17,028,000 15,325,200 13,622,400 11,919,600 10,216,800 8,514,000 6,811,200 5,108,400 3,405,600 1,702,800 Estimated RevenueIsland Co. Rural Development Grant ($100k/yr, P+I) 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 LID Principal Payments (15 yrs sched) 1,702,800 1,702,800 1,702,800 1,702,800 1,702,800 1,702,800 1,702,800 1,702,800 1,702,800 1,702,800 1,702,800 1,702,800 1,702,800 1,702,800 LID Interest Payments 3.75% 957,825 893,970 830,115 766,260 702,405 638,550 574,695 510,840 446,985 383,130 319,275 255,420 191,565 127,710 Investment Interest 2.0% 10,000 29,856 59,003 87,625 115,714 143,257 170,244 196,664 222,506 247,758 272,408 296,444 319,854 342,626

Total Estimated Revenue 2,770,625 2,726,626 2,691,918 2,656,685 2,620,919 2,584,607 2,547,739 2,510,304 2,472,291 2,433,688 2,394,483 2,354,664 2,314,219 2,273,136 USDA-RD LOAN BALANCE: $25,542,000

Estimated ExpenseUSDA-RD Loan Repayment 40 yrs, 3.25% 1,150,104 1,150,104 1,150,104 1,150,104 1,150,104 1,150,104 1,150,104 1,150,104 1,150,104 1,150,104 1,150,104 1,150,104 1,150,104 1,150,104 LID Administration 0.5% 127,710 119,196 110,682 102,168 93,654 85,140 76,626 68,112 59,598 51,084 42,570 34,056 25,542 17,028

Total Estimated Expense 1,277,814 1,269,300 1,260,786 1,252,272 1,243,758 1,235,244 1,226,730 1,218,216 1,209,702 1,201,188 1,192,674 1,184,160 1,175,646 1,167,132 Annual Increase/(Use) of Reserves 1,492,811 1,457,327 1,431,132 1,404,414 1,377,161 1,349,363 1,321,010 1,292,089 1,262,589 1,232,500 1,201,809 1,170,504 1,138,574 1,106,004

Estimated Ending Balance 1,492,811 2,950,138 4,381,270 5,785,684 7,162,845 8,512,208 9,833,218 11,125,306 12,387,896 13,620,396 14,822,205 15,992,710 17,131,283 18,237,287

Appendix G_KI&A Detailed Debt Repayment Fund 070710.xls, 7/8/2010, Page 1

Debt Repayment

Freeland Sewer ProjectKI&A Projections

Caution: Assume assessment payments over 15 years aadditional interest charges and ensure a balanced repaySCENARIO: WITHOUT ADD'L USDA-RD GRANTDebt Repayment Fund Cash Flow

LID PRINCIPAL BALANCE: Estimated RevenueIsland Co. Rural Development Grant ($100k/yr, P+I)LID Principal Payments (15 yrs sched)LID Interest PaymentsInvestment Interest

Total Estimated RevenueUSDA-RD LOAN BALANCE:

Estimated ExpenseUSDA-RD Loan RepaymentLID Administration

Total Estimated ExpenseAnnual Increase/(Use) of Reserves

Estimated Ending Balance

Caution: Assume assessment payments over 15 years aadditional interest charges and ensure a balanced repaySCENARIO: WITH 30% USDA-RD GRANTDebt Repayment Fund Cash Flow






15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 292030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 2,294,533

86,045 480,305 508,298 489,468 470,262 450,672 430,690 410,309 387,519 364,274 340,564 316,380 291,712 266,551 240,887 214,709

2,960,883 608,298 589,468 570,262 550,672 530,690 410,309 387,519 364,274 340,564 316,380 291,712 266,551 240,887 214,709

1,549,772 1,549,772 1,549,772 1,549,772 1,549,772 1,549,772 1,549,772 1,549,772 1,549,772 1,549,772 1,549,772 1,549,772 1,549,772 1,549,772 1,549,772 11,473

1,561,244 1,549,772 1,549,772 1,549,772 1,549,772 1,549,772 1,549,772 1,549,772 1,549,772 1,549,772 1,549,772 1,549,772 1,549,772 1,549,772 1,549,772 1,399,639 (941,474) (960,303) (979,509) (999,099) (1,019,081) (1,139,463) (1,162,252) (1,185,497) (1,209,207) (1,233,391) (1,258,059) (1,283,220) (1,308,885) (1,335,063)

25,414,895 24,473,421 23,513,118 22,533,609 21,534,509 20,515,428 19,375,965 18,213,713 17,028,215 15,819,008 14,585,616 13,327,557 12,044,337 10,735,452 9,400,389

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 292030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 1,702,800

63,855 364,746 386,201 372,923 359,380 345,565 331,475 317,102 300,442 283,449 266,116 248,436 230,402 212,008 193,247 174,109

2,231,401 486,201 472,923 459,380 445,565 431,475 317,102 300,442 283,449 266,116 248,436 230,402 212,008 193,247 174,109

1,150,104 1,150,104 1,150,104 1,150,104 1,150,104 1,150,104 1,150,104 1,150,104 1,150,104 1,150,104 1,150,104 1,150,104 1,150,104 1,150,104 1,150,104 8,514

1,158,618 1,150,104 1,150,104 1,150,104 1,150,104 1,150,104 1,150,104 1,150,104 1,150,104 1,150,104 1,150,104 1,150,104 1,150,104 1,150,104 1,150,104 1,072,783 (663,902) (677,180) (690,724) (704,538) (718,629) (833,002) (849,662) (866,655) (883,988) (901,668) (919,701) (938,095) (956,857) (975,994)

19,310,070 18,646,168 17,968,988 17,278,264 16,573,726 15,855,097 15,022,095 14,172,433 13,305,778 12,421,790 11,520,122 10,600,421 9,662,326 8,705,469 7,729,474


Debt Repayment

Freeland Sewer ProjectKI&A Projections

Caution: Assume assessment payments over 15 years aadditional interest charges and ensure a balanced repaySCENARIO: WITHOUT ADD'L USDA-RD GRANTDebt Repayment Fund Cash Flow






Caution: Assume assessment payments over 15 years aadditional interest charges and ensure a balanced repaySCENARIO: WITH 30% USDA-RD GRANTDebt Repayment Fund Cash Flow






30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 402045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051 2052 2053 2054 2055

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

188,008 160,773 132,993 104,657 75,755 46,274 16,204 - - - - 188,008 160,773 132,993 104,657 75,755 46,274 16,204 - - - -

1,549,772 1,549,772 1,549,772 1,549,772 1,549,772 1,549,772 1,549,772 1,549,772 1,549,772 1,549,772 1,549,772

1,549,772 1,549,772 1,549,772 1,549,772 1,549,772 1,549,772 1,549,772 1,549,772 1,549,772 1,549,772 1,549,772 (1,361,764) (1,388,999) (1,416,779) (1,445,115) (1,474,017) (1,503,497) (1,533,567) (1,549,772) (1,549,772) (1,549,772) (1,549,772)

8,038,625 6,649,626 5,232,847 3,787,732 2,313,715 810,218 (723,349) (2,273,121) (3,822,893) (5,372,664) (6,922,436)

30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 402045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051 2052 2053 2054 2055- - - - - - - - - - -

154,589 134,679 114,371 93,656 72,527 50,976 28,993 6,571 - - - 154,589 134,679 114,371 93,656 72,527 50,976 28,993 6,571 - - -

1,150,104 1,150,104 1,150,104 1,150,104 1,150,104 1,150,104 1,150,104 1,150,104 1,150,104 1,150,104 1,150,104

1,150,104 1,150,104 1,150,104 1,150,104 1,150,104 1,150,104 1,150,104 1,150,104 1,150,104 1,150,104 1,150,104 (995,514) (1,015,424) (1,035,733) (1,056,448) (1,077,577) (1,099,128) (1,121,111) (1,143,533) (1,150,104) (1,150,104) (1,150,104)

6,733,960 5,718,536 4,682,803 3,626,355 2,548,779 1,449,651 328,540 (814,993) (1,965,096) (3,115,200) (4,265,304)


07-09 FreelandPrelimEngReport FINAL

Documents

Transcript of 07-09 FreelandPrelimEngReport FINAL