07-09 FreelandPrelimEngReport FINAL

Freeland Water and Sewer District
Preliminary Engineering Report for New Sewage Collection and Treatment System
July 2010
and Associated Firms
Freeland Water and Sewer District PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT FOR NEW SEWAGE COLLECTION AND TREATMENT SYSTEM
JULY 2010
Prepared for: Freeland Water and Sewer District 5492 S. Harbor Avenue Freeland, WA 98249 Prepared by:
In Association With: Katy Isaksen & Associates HWA Geosciences Triangle Associates ESA Adolfson Separation Processes, Inc. Long Bay Enterprises Project #135-21646-10001
Freeland Water and Sewer District Preliminary Engineering Report for New Sewage Collection and Treatment System TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title Page No.
Chapter 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................1

Background ............................................................................................................................................ 1 Project Purpose ................................................................................................................................ 1 Project Development........................................................................................................................ 1 Public Outreach Activities ............................................................................................................... 2 Project Description........................................................................................................................... 2 Preliminary Engineering Report and Related Documents...................................................................... 4
Chapter 2. Amendments to 2005 Facility Plan Recommendation.............................................7

Collection System................................................................................................................................... 7 Pressurized Sewer Type................................................................................................................... 7 Collection System Phasing .............................................................................................................. 9 Revised Population, Flow and Load Estimates .................................................................................... 11 Treatment Plant .................................................................................................................................... 13 Headworks ..................................................................................................................................... 13 MBR Treatment and Emergency Storage ...................................................................................... 14 Disinfection.................................................................................................................................... 15 Solids Handling and Disposal........................................................................................................ 16 Standby Power ............................................................................................................................... 16 Odor Control .................................................................................................................................. 17 Treatment Plant Capacity Expansion............................................................................................. 17 Reclaimed Water Reuse ....................................................................................................................... 18 2005 Recommendation .................................................................................................................. 18 Reasons for Updates ...................................................................................................................... 19 Current Recommendation .............................................................................................................. 22
Chapter 3. Current Recommended Project...............................................................................24

Project Location ................................................................................................................................... 24 Design Data .......................................................................................................................................... 24 Recommended Capital Improvements ................................................................................................. 26 STEP Collection System................................................................................................................ 26 Treatment Plant.............................................................................................................................. 26 Reclaimed Water Reuse................................................................................................................. 35 Estimated Capital Costs ................................................................................................................. 39 Short-Lived Assets ............................................................................................................................... 39 Operation and Maintenance.................................................................................................................. 40 Overview........................................................................................................................................ 40 Operation and Maintenance Costs ................................................................................................. 40 Project Implementation ........................................................................................................................ 42 Schedule......................................................................................................................................... 42 Studies, Public Outreach and Permitting ....................................................................................... 42
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter 4. Financing Plan ..........................................................................................................45

Funding Partners................................................................................................................................... 45 Sewer Funding Plan.............................................................................................................................. 45 Capital Funding.............................................................................................................................. 46 Debt Repayment/User Recovery.................................................................................................... 46 O&M, Administration and Short-Lived AssetsMonthly Sewer Rates....................................... 47 Estimated System CostInitial Phase ................................................................................................. 47 Estimated Project Cost to be Financed................................................................................................. 49 Estimated Capital Cost per ERU .......................................................................................................... 50 On-Site Costs Will Vary ................................................................................................................ 50 Estimated Monthly Rate....................................................................................................................... 50 Six-Year Sewer Operating Fund .......................................................................................................... 51 Local Improvement District ................................................................................................................. 52 LID Process and Schedule ............................................................................................................. 52 Sample LID Payment Schedule ..................................................................................................... 53 LID Debt Repayment Fund............................................................................................................ 53 Future Cost Recovery........................................................................................................................... 55
References.....................................................................................................................................56 Appendices
A. Public Outreach Information B. Hydrogeologic Report C. Commitment Letters for Use of Additional Reuse Site Land Area D. Design Data and Revised Population, Flow and Load Projections E. Cost Estimates F. LID Financial Feasibility Opinion and Draft Board Resolution G. LID Debt Repayment Fund Cash Flow
LIST OF TABLES
No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Title Page No. Cross-References for Preliminary Engineering Report Checklist....................................................... 6 Summary of Revisions to Recommended Project............................................................................... 7 Projected Population, Sewer Connections and Flows, 20142025 ................................................. 12 Summary of Geotechnical Evaluations ............................................................................................. 22 Projected Population, Sewer Connections and Flows over Project Life........................................... 24 Length of Sewer Pipes to Be Installed by Size and Phase ................................................................ 26 Proposed Reuse Facilities ................................................................................................................. 38 Estimated Capital Cost of Initial proposed facilities......................................................................... 39 Planning Level Capital and O&M Cost Estimate, 2011 2035 ............................................... after 40 O&M Cost Estimates ........................................................................................................................ 41 Existing Funding Sources ................................................................................................................. 45 Estimated System Cost...................................................................................................................... 48 Estimated System CostInitial Phase.............................................................................................. 48 Initial System Connections ............................................................................................................... 48 Estimated Project Cost to Be Financed............................................................................................. 49 Estimated Capital Cost per ERU....................................................................................................... 50 Estimated Monthly Rate per ERU..................................................................................................... 51
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
18 19 20 21 22
Six-Year Sewer Operating Fund ....................................................................................................... 52 LID Process and Schedule ................................................................................................................ 53 Sample LID Assessment Payment Schedule..................................................................................... 54 Estimated Debt Repayment Fund Six-Year Cash Flow, with 30-Percent USDA Grant................... 54 Cost Recovery Methods .................................................................................................................... 55
LIST OF FIGURES
No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Title Page No. Project Site and Vicinity Map ............................................................................................................. 3 Proposed Collection System Phasing................................................................................................ 11 Drainage Basin Surrounding Reuse Site ........................................................................................... 20 Tree Farm Property and Reuse Site................................................................................................... 21 Proposed Collection System Piping and Phasing ............................................................................. 25 Proposed Treatment Plant Site Plan.................................................................................................. 27 Proposed Liquid and Solids Treatment Process Diagram................................................................. 28 Proposed Hydraulic Profile ............................................................................................................... 29 Proposed Reuse Site Plan.................................................................................................................. 36 Proposed Project Schedule................................................................................................................ 43
iii
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 Districts 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 Districts 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 information required for a PER as outlined in USDA Rural Utilities Service Bulletin 1780-3.
BACKGROUND Project Purpose

Freeland 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 communitys 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 Freelands 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 Development
The 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.
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 Activities

During 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 Description
The 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.
Lo n
Bercot
g
bo ar H st Ea r
Reuse Area
Freeland Water & Sewer District
Reed
Honeymoon Bay
Holmes Harbor
Slocum
Watkins
Ships Haven
Twin Oaks
Diamond
Bush Point
en
Shoreview
Myrtle
Sh
or
es
e rr y
Vi nt on z Ha e n y ie w Lyn rs e t V Do san a
Ch
Stewart Ple
Layton
Main
Main Street Sewer District
Woodard
Freeland
Mutiny Sands
Timber
Treatment Plant Site

Roxlin
Joanne Dutch Hollow
Clipper
Tara
Harbor
Lotto
SR
52
Ne w
Scott
an
Vesel Cameron
Fish
Morningside
Dusty
Cattail
Osprey
M u tin y
Woodard
Hawksbeard
Pauleina Carie
Scenic
500
Apple Tree
Mutiny Bay
Hollyhill
y Ba
1,000 Approximate Scale: 1 = 2,000
135-21646-10001/DistrictBaseMap.ai
2,000
1420 Fifth Avenue, Suite 600 Seattle, Washington 98101 Tel 206.883.9300 Fax 206.883-9301
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT FOR NEW SEWAGE COLLECTION AND TREATMENT SYSTEM
Figure 1. PROJECT SITE AND VICINITY MAP
The current recommended project is as follows: Wastewater Collection SystemDevelop a pressurized STEP sewer system. Wastewater TreatmentConstruct a treatment facility using a membrane bioreactor (MBR) system (produces reliable Class A reclaimed water). DisinfectionProvide ultraviolet (UV) disinfection with chlorine addition. Effluent ReuseProvide land application and groundwater recharge by surface percolation and application to vegetation through sprinklers or an equivalent technology. Solids Handling and ReuseSolids 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 DOCUMENTS

This PER, together with the following other documents, fulfills the PER requirements outlined in USDA Rural Utilities Service Bulletin 1780-3, Preliminary Engineering ReportWastewater Facilities: 2005 Freeland Comprehensive Sewer Plan and Engineering Report/Facility PlanThis 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 DocumentsThese 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
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, WashingtonThis report includes current geotechnical information on the proposed reuse site. It is included as Appendix B of this PER. Water Rights Impairment AnalysisThis 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.
TABLE 1. CROSS-REFERENCES FOR PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT CHECKLIST USDA Rural Development Checklist Item 1. General 2. Project Planning Area a. Location b. Environmental Resources Present c. Growth Areas and Population Trends 3. Existing Facilities a. Location Map b. History c. Condition of Existing Facilities d. Financial Status of Any Existing Facilities 4. Need for Project a. Health, Sanitation and Security b. System Operation and Maintenance c. Growth 5. Alternatives Considered a. Description b. Design Criteria c. Map d. Environmental Impacts e. Land Requirements f. Construction Problems g. Cost Estimates h. Advantages/Disadvantages 6. Selection of an Alternative a. Life Cycle Cost Analysis b. Discussion of Any Non-Cost Factors 7. Proposed Project a. Project Design b. Total Project Cost Estimate c. Annual Operating Budget d. Short-Lived Assets 8. Conclusions and Recommendations a. Locationa PER Chapter 1; FP Chapters 12 FP Chapter 2; PER Chapter 2; Env; HR
FP Chapter 2, PER Chapter 1
FP Chapter 2; PER Chapters 1 and 2 FP Chapter 2 FP Chapter 2; PER Chapter 2 FP Chapters 57; PER Chapter 2
FP Chapters 57; PER Chapter 2
PER Chapters 3 and 4
FP Chapters 89; PER Chapters 3 and 4
PER = Preliminary Engineering Report (this document); FP = 2005 Facility Plan (submitted as a separate volume); Env = Environmental Documents; HR = Hydrogeologic Report (Appendix B)
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 2 and 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 Collection System Changes Since the 2005 Facility Plan Affirm selection of STEP system Revise phasing Revise phasing Revise initial flow and load projections Provide odor control for headworks and all covered tanks Provide fine screens Provide more nitrogen removal to comply with pending revisions to WAC 173219 Reclaimed Water Use regulations Reduce emergency storage capacity to 1 day for one treatment train Initially use future MBR trains 3 and 4 for emergency storage tanks Use ultraviolet disinfection with hypochlorite injection for chlorine residual Select new reuse/disposal site Provide thickener to reduce hauling and disposal costs Increase generator capacity 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
Wastewater Treatment Plant Plant-wide/General
Headworks MBR Treatment Process Emergency Storage Disinfection Solids Handling Standby Power
Reclaimed Water Reuse
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:
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 solids normally 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 retrofitted for 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 systems 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
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 Districts 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 programs 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. Washingtons 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 DOHs 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.
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 quality until 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 1Connect all users in the Districts 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 2Connect 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.
10
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 ESTIMATES

Estimates 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
11
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, 20142025 Sewer Connections (ERUs) 610 664 723 787 857 934 1,017 1,107 1,206 1,313 1,430 1,557 Flow (million gallons/day) Maximum Annual Month Average 0.18 0.19 0.21 0.23 0.24 0.26 0.28 0.30 0.33 0.35 0.38 0.41 0.13 0.14 0.15 0.16 0.17 0.19 0.20 0.22 0.23 0.25 0.27 0.29 BOD Load (pounds/day) Maximum Annual Month Average 323 352 384 418 455 495 540 588 640 697 758 826 161 176 191 209 227 247 269 293 320 348 379 413
Year 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Sewered Population 1,427 1,555 1,693 1,844 2,008 2,187 2,382 2,594 2,825 3,077 3,351 3,643
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 initial service 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 residential ERUs 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. The 2014 maximum-month flow and annual average flow0.18 million gallons per day (mgd) and 0.13 mgd, respectivelywere 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 Plan0.41 mgd and 0.29 mgd, respectively.
Wastewater flow:
12
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. The estimated maximum-month and annual average BOD loads for 2025 were taken from the 2005 Facility Plan826 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.
BOD load:
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.
13
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 173219-700 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 Freelands 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 to 20 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 for several reasons: Foul OdorsThe 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
14
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 SpaceThe 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 sellers 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 ReliabilitySince 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).
15
The current recommendation is to use an ultraviolet (UV) disinfection system. The proposed systems 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 sludgeholding 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 pergallon 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 plants 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 Recommendation
The 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.
16
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 odorseptic tank effluent at the headworks and waste solids from the MBR processwould 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.
17
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 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 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
Expansion in 2023:
Expansion in 2037:
RECLAIMED WATER REUSE 2005 Recommendation

The 2005 Facility Plan evaluated a number of alternatives for disposal of treated effluent and, based on technical, 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.
18
Reasons for Updates

In 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
19
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.
Drainage basin
Reuse site
20
Figure 3. Drainage Basin Surrounding Reuse Site
Tree Farm Property
Reuse site
Figure 4. Tree Farm Property and Reuse Site
21
TABLE 4. SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATIONS Evaluation Type Potential infiltration rates Water balance Soil storage capacity Groundwater velocity Groundwater flow Groundwater mounding Capacity for discharge at site Finding Slow-rate infiltration Capacity to accept 0.25 mgd of reclaimed water 94 days at 0.5 mgd, 235 days at 0.2 mgd 15150 days Transmission capacity of 0.7 mgd based on simplified analysis. 8-foot increase at 0.2 mgd 0.2 mgd Comment Pilot test required during final design December is critical month Sufficient to span seasonal changes in water balance at 0.2-mgd loading Average travel time is sufficient to balance seasonal flows Needs modeling during final design Acceptable Metabolized by area vegetation Additional land required for discharge > 0.2 mgd
Potential nitrate loading capacity No net increase
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 0.25mgd 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.
22
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 Districts 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 Trusts planned purchase of the tree farm site falls through. The support letter is in Appendix C of this PER.
23
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 LOCATION
The 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 DATA
Appendix D presents the design data for the recommended sewage collection, treatment and reuse facilities. 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 Connections (ERUs) 610 664 1,313 1,557 2,058 3,129 Flow (mgd) Maximum Annual Month Average 0.18 0.19 0.35 0.41 0.50 0.68 0.13 0.14 0.25 0.29 0.36 0.50 BOD Load (ppd) Maximum Annual Month Average 323 352 697 826 1022 1408 161 176 348 413 511 704
Year 2014 2015 2023 2025 2037 2055
Sewered Population 1,427 1,555 3,077 3,643 4,816 7,322
24
Lo n
Bercot
g
bo ar H st Ea r
Reuse Area
Reed
Honeymoon Bay
Holmes Harbor
52 5
Ships Haven
Slocum
SR
Watkins
Twin Oaks
Diamond
Reclaimed-Water Pipeline to Reuse Area

Shoreview
Myrtle
Bush Point
e rr y
Vi nt on z Ha e n y ie w Lyn rs e t V Do san a
en
Sh
or
es
Woodard
Ch
Stewart Ple
Freeland
Mutiny Sands
Timber

Roxlin
Joanne Dutch Hollow
Main
Lotto
Clipper
Tara
Harbor
Ne w
Scott
Layton
an
Vesel Cameron
Fish
Morningside
Dusty
Cattail
Osprey
M u tin y
Woodard
Hawksbeard
LEGEND Phase 1 service area
Phase 1 collection system piping Phase 2 collection system piping Reclaimed water conveyance pipeline (included in Phase 1)
500 0 1,000 Approximate Scale: 1 = 2,000 2,000
135-21646-10001/ProjectPhasing.ai
Phase 2 service area
Pauleina Carie
Scenic
Figure 5. PROPOSED COLLECTION SYSTEM PIPING AND PHASING
Apple Tree
Mutiny Bay
Hollyhill
y Ba
RECOMMENDED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS STEP Collection System

Wastewater 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 and generally 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) Phase 1 Phase 2 30,000 7,200 10,300 7,300 5,600 700 61,100 14,900 2,100 2,900 0 0 0 19,900
Description 2" Pressure Mains 3" Pressure Mains 4" Pressure Mains 6" Pressure Mains 8" Pressure Mains 12" Pressure Mains Total
Treatment Plant
The 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.
26
Bush Point Road
Yard Pump Station Odor Control UV Disinfection

Access Road
oa
Emergency Sewage Storage Tanks/ Future Membrane Bioreactors Headworks 1 2

d
ss R
Ac
ce
Access Road
Solids Handling Admin Bldg 3 4 1 Stormwater Pond Effluent Pump Station
Easement
Legend Road right of way Property boundary Tree Proposed facilities Proposed future facilities
50
100
200
Approximate Scale: 1 = 200
Membrane Bioreactor Mechanical
Road
rD i sp er s io n Dr a in
Bush Point Rd.
SR 52 5
Access
St o r mw ate
E. Timber Ln.
S .M
TREATMENT PLANT SITE
E. Timber Lane
ut in y y Ba R d.
135-21646-10001/TreatmentPlantSitePlan.ai
Figure 6 PROPOSED TREATMENT PLANT SITE PLAN
Aeration Blower Standby Blower WAS Transfer Pumps WAS Aerated Sludge Holding Tank Thickener Polymer Mixed Liquor Return Train 1 Membrane Basin Permeate Pump Chlorine Membrane Basin Permeate Pump Standby Pump PreAnoxic Basin PostAnoxic Basin Mixed Liquor Return Aerobic Basin PostAnoxic Basin UV Disinfection MBR Feed Channel Aerobic Basin Thickened Sludge Aerated Holding Tank
Air
Haul to Solids Reuse/ Disposal
Mixed Liquor Internal Recyle Train 2 Mixed Liquor Internal Recyle PreAnoxic Basin
Effluent Pump Station
Plant Influent Headworks with Fine Screens Train 3
Splitter Box
Effluent Reuse Field & Reclaimed Water Wet-Weather Storage
Yard Pump Station Train 4
Tanks in Trains 3 & 4 used for emergency storage and influent flow equalization for initial treatment plant at startup
Legend Process flow Air flow Pump
Flow from Process Tank Drains Aeration Air Blowers MBR Blowers Air
Blower Future (after Phase 1)
Standby Blowers
NOTES: MBR = Membrane Bioreactor WAS = Waste Activated Sludge
135-21646-10001/TreatmentProcessSchematic.ai
Figure 7 PROPOSED LIQUID AND SOLIDS TREATMENT PROCESS DIAGRAM
150'
144'
Headworks Effluent Pump Station

136'
Splitter
135 133' 132' 131' 134'
PreAnoxic Aerobic UV Disinfection Reclaimed Water Wet-weather Storage
Feed Post- Channel Anoxic 135' MBR

Chlorine
Max. 10
140'
138
Reclaimed Water Surface Application
130' Mixed Liquor Return
Mixed-Liquor Internal Recycle
120'
Tank Drainage
Air
Air
Permeate Pumps
110'
Yard Pump Station
Tank Drainage
WAS Polymer 140'
Aerated Sludge Holding Tank

136
Thickener
Thickened Sludge Aerated Holding Tank

136
130' Air Air
135-21646-10001/HydraulicProfile.ai
WAS Pumps
Figure 8 PROPOSED HYDRAULIC PROFILE
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 channels 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 opensided 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
30
3. CURRENT RECOMMENDED PROJECT
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
31
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 Ecologys 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 the reclaimed 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)
32
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 and resulting 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-site for 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 Langleys 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: ScreeningStandby mechanical screen with capacity equal to duty screen
33
MBR treatmentEmergency storage with minimum capacity for one day of maximummonth flow through one MBR treatment train; standby MBR equipment as required by regulations DisinfectionStandby UV train with capacity equal to one-half of buildout peak flow ChlorinationRedundant 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 basins for 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
34
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 Ecologys 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 Reuse

Groundwater 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 173-219700, Groundwater rechargepercolation 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.
35
Legend Road
11 0
200
12 0
Property boundary 10 topographic contour

0 10
140
150
130
180
Wetland Drainage course

90
170
160
190
Wetland/drainage course buffer 50 property line buffer Irrigation spray area
18 0
17 0
70
Former Quarry Site to Be Used for Reclaimed Water Storage Lagoons
80
75
18 0
150
300
Approximate Scale: 1 = 300
17 0
16 0
15 0
15 0
50
90
60
100
110
130
S. Bounty Rd.
120
13 0
SR 5
E. Meadowbrook Ln.
25
Ollom Dr.
S. Mu
Enramada
REUSE SITE
tiny B ay Rd .
135-21646-10001/ReuseSitePlan.ai
S. Shore Meadow Rd.
Access Easement
Bush Point Rd.

Figure 9 PROPOSED REUSE SITE PLAN
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 plants 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 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. 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 sites development.
37
TABLE 7. PROPOSED REUSE FACILITIES Item Initial Construction, 2014 Gravel access road Power to site Fiber optic cable from plant 3.5-MG storage pond To storage pond site from Bush Point Road 480 volt / 3 phase, transformer, power panel Control panel at reuse site 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 Land required Reuse distribution system (per acre) Two 15-hp pumps with controls 80 acres currently owned 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 Reuse supply pump station Land required Reuse distribution system (per acre) Description
Same as Phase 1 Add two 15-hp pumps with controls 80 acres to be acquired 60-80 acres utilized Facilities same as initial construction
Final Expansion, 2037 Land required Reuse distribution system (per acre) 40 acres to be acquired 30-40 acres utilized Facilities same as initial construction
38
Estimated Capital Costs

Estimated 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 $3,148,000 $2,009,000 $8,665,000 $1,255,000 $3,459,000 $18,536,000 $3,707,000 $2,959,000 $2,035,000 $1,935,000 $29,172,000
Collection SystemShared Costs Collection SystemOn-Site Costs Treatment System Solids Handling Reclaimed Water Reuse
Construction Cost Subtotal Contingency @ 20% Engineering Designa Construction Management @ 10% Sales Tax @ 8.7% Total Capital Cost
a. Engineering design @ 5% for onsite portion of collection system, 15% for all other elements
SHORT-LIVED ASSETS
Short-lived assets for the proposed project were identified along with estimated replacement costs. Shortlived 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.
39
TABLE 9. PROJECTED CASH FLOW

Design Year 2011 *Connected ERUs 0 Base Flow (mgd) 0.000 Max Monthly Flow 0.000 SEWAGE COLLECTION - STEP SYSTEM Capital Cost Estimate Total Estimated Capital Cost $275,264 Total Estimated Capital Cost - Onsite $94,441 Total Estimated Capital Cost - Shared $180,823 Total Annual Cost Total Annual Cost with Replacement Costs WASTEWATER TREATMENT Capital Cost Estimate Total Estimated Capital Cost Total Annual Cost Total Annual Cost with Replacement Costs SOLIDS HANDLING Capital Cost Estimate Total Estimated Capital Cost Total Annual Cost Total Annual Cost with Replacement Costs Design 2012 0 0.000 0.000 Construction Construction 2013 2014 0 610 0.000 0.086 0.000 0.000 2015 664 0.093 0.180 2016 724 0.102 0.195 2017 787 0.110 0.212 2018 858 0.120 0.230 2019 934 0.131 0.250 2020 1017 0.143 0.272 2021 1107 0.155 0.295 2022 1206 0.169 0.320 2023 1313 0.184 0.348 2024 1430 0.201 0.378 2025 1557 0.219 0.410 2026 1593 0.224 0.417 2027 1631 0.229 0.424 2028 1669 0.234 0.431 2029 1710 0.240 0.439 2030 1749 0.246 0.446 2031 1790 0.251 0.454 2032 1831 0.257 0.461 2033 1876 0.263 0.469 2034 1919 0.269 0.477 2035 1964 0.276 0.485
$275,264 $94,441 $180,823
$3,578,236 $2,147,559 $1,430,677
$3,578,236 $2,147,559 $1,430,677
$474,000 $532,000 $474,000 $532,000 $0 $0 $76,557 $85,770 $153,105 $168,550
$563,000 $563,000 $0 $95,444 $184,798
$635,000 $635,000 $0 $106,346 $203,114
$688,000 $688,000 $0 $118,016 $222,793
$758,000 $758,000 $0 $130,761 $244,343
$824,000 $824,000 $0 $144,581 $267,731
$909,000 $909,000 $0 $159,782 $293,472
$994,000 $994,000 $0 $176,212 $321,408
$1,095,000 $2,250,000 $238,000 $1,095,000 $1,191,000 $238,000 $0 $1,059,000 $0 $194,178 $213,679 $219,207 $352,018 $391,863 $400,414
$251,000 $251,000 $0 $225,042 $409,439
$251,000 $251,000 $0 $230,877 $418,464
$271,000 $271,000 $0 $237,173 $428,202
$258,000 $258,000 $0 $243,161 $437,464
$271,000 $271,000 $0 $249,457 $447,202
$271,000 $271,000 $0 $255,753 $456,940
$297,000 $297,000 $0 $262,663 $467,627
$284,000 $284,000 $0 $269,265 $477,840
$297,000 $297,000 $0 $276,175 $488,528
$779,828
$779,828
$6,171,172
$6,171,172
$0 $0 $136,110 $153,003 $218,508 $235,401
$0 $160,132 $242,530
$0 $168,166 $250,564
$0 $0 $0 $176,766 $186,158 $196,342 $259,164 $268,556 $278,740
$0 $2,654,000 $207,545 $219,653 $289,943 $302,050
$0 $232,892 $331,759
$0 $247,263 $346,130
$0 $252,093 $350,960
$0 $255,846 $354,713
$0 $259,599 $358,466
$0 $263,648 $362,515
$0 $267,500 $366,367
$0 $271,549 $370,416
$0 $275,598 $374,465
$0 $280,042 $378,909
$0 $284,289 $383,156
$0 $288,733 $387,600
$112,971
$112,971
$894,029
$894,029
$0 $66,465 $77,923
$0 $69,884 $81,206
$0 $73,474 $84,653
$0 $77,520 $88,538
$0 $81,851 $92,697
$0 $86,581 $97,238
$0 $91,710 $102,163
$0 $97,351 $107,580
$987,000 $103,449 $113,435
$0 $110,116 $119,837
$0 $117,354 $126,786
$0 $119,405 $128,756
$0 $121,571 $130,835
$0 $123,736 $132,914
$0 $126,072 $135,158
$0 $128,295 $137,292
$0 $130,631 $139,535
$0 $132,968 $141,778
$0 $135,532 $144,241
$0 $137,983 $146,594
$0 $140,547 $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 Total Annual Cost Total Annual Cost with Replacement Costs
$2,463,220
$0 $39,022 $83,546
$0 $39,545 $84,069
$0 $40,068 $84,592
$0 $40,590 $85,114
$0 $41,113 $85,637
$0 $41,636 $86,160
$0 $42,159 $86,683
$0 $42,682 $87,205
$3,088,000 $43,204 $87,728
$0 $44,127 $109,071
$0 $44,527 $109,471
$0 $44,928 $109,872
$0 $45,328 $110,272
$0 $45,728 $110,672
$0 $46,129 $111,073
$0 $46,529 $111,473
$0 $46,929 $111,873
$0 $47,330 $112,273
$0 $47,730 $112,674
$0 $48,130 $113,074
$0 $48,531 $113,474
TOTAL Rolled up Capital Cost Rolled up Annual Cost Rolled Up Annual Cost with Replacement Costs All costs are in May 2010 dollars
$1,479,342 $1,479,342 $13,106,658 $13,106,658 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$474,000 $532,000 $318,154 $348,202 $533,082 $569,226
$563,000 $369,118 $596,573
$635,000 $392,623 $627,331
$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 $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 $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
SUM OF CAPITAL COSTS, 2011 - 2035=
$48,312,000
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE Overview

The 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-outas 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 manuals contents.
Operation and Maintenance Costs

Operation 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
40
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 Collection System Treatment System Solids Handling Reclaimed Water Reuse Total O&M Annual Cost $77,000 $136,000 $66,000 $39,000 $318,000 2035 $276,000 $289,000 $141,000 $48,000 $754,000
Administration and billing costs not included; see Chapter 4
41
PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION Schedule

The proposed project schedule has been divided into three primary elementsthe 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 Permitting

The 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.
42
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
2050
2055
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
Collection System
SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT 2015 - 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
SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT 2025 - 2055 All new residential/commercial in Phase 1 and Phase 2 service areas must connect
PHASE 1 CONSTRUCTION, 2014 Phase 1 sewers built by District All residential/commercial in Phase 1 service area as of 2015 connected 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)
Treatment Plant
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: 80-acre site Add 3.5-MG storage pond Increase pumping capacity Additional 60- to 80-acre distribution system
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
Reuse Site
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 2, 2037: 40-acre site Increase storage capacity Increase pumping capacity Additional 30- to 40-acre distribution system
135-21646-10001/Schedule.ai
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
2050
2055

Figure 10 PROPOSED PROJECT SCHEDULE
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 complianceU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service Archaeology and cultural resource preservation approvalWashington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) wastewater discharge permit Washington Department of Ecology NPDES stormwater dischargeWashington Department of Ecology Water reclamation standards complianceWashington Departments of Ecology and Health Forest practices approvalWashington Department of Natural Resources Electrical permitWashington Department of Labor and Industry Permit to construct in state highway right of wayWashington Department of Transportation Air quality operating permitNorthwest Clean Air Agency Grading permitIsland County Critical areas reviewIsland County U.S. Fire Code complianceIsland County Road permitIsland County Site plan approval for an essential public facilityIsland County Building permitIsland County Traffic study and concurrency permitIsland County
44
CHAPTER 4. FINANCING PLAN

FUNDING PARTNERS
The 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 Grants Ecology Centennial Clean Water Fund Island Co. Rural Development Granta Island Co. Rural Development Granta $1,000,000 Purchase land for treatment plant & reuse area $2,500,000 Preconstruction planning & engineering $1,454,000 Future principal repayment ($100,000 annually, 20 years, assume 3.25% interest). $546,000 toward interest payments. $185,100 $91,700 $56,400 Obligated to repay with construction financing Obligated to repay with construction financing Credit to LID Assessments For repayment of USDA Rural Development loan Letter of interest, has contacted USDA-RD Amount Comment
Loans Island Co. Sewer Facility Plan, 2005 Island Co. Feasibility Study, 2008 Chamber Property Owners, 2005-08 Local Funding LID Assessments - Property Owners Interim Financing Wells Fargo 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 PLAN

The 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 shortlived asset replacement reserves. The goal of the funding plan is to seek the most advantageous funding
45
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 million for 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 an obligation 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
46
4. FINANCING PLAN
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 AssetsMonthly Sewer Rates

Monthly 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 COSTINITIAL PHASE

Table 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 years 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 onetime 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 anticipated for 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.
47
TABLE 12. ESTIMATED SYSTEM COST System Cost ($2013) 2015-22 2023 2024 2,943,000 1,094,000 3,424,000 7,461,000
2011-2014 Common/Shared Costs Wastewater Treatment Solids Handling Reclaimed Water Storage & Reuse CollectionShared Common/Shared Subtotal Cumulative On-Site Connection Costs Cumulative ERUs On-Site Connection/STEP System Total Cost (Common/Shared + On-Site) 610 4,961,000 32,177,000 15,326,000 2,220,000 6,117,000 3,553,000 27,216,000
2025 1,174,000 1,174,000
27,216,000 27,216,000 34,677,000 34,677,000 35,851,000 1,206 5,969,000 5,969,000 1,313 1,430 1,557 11,020,000 12,140,000 13,200,000 18,481,000 12,140,000 14,374,000
TABLE 13. ESTIMATED SYSTEM COSTINITIAL PHASE 2010-2014 Costs ($2013a) Common/Shared System Wastewater Treatment Solids Handling Reclaimed Water Storage & Reuse CollectionShared Subtotal Common/Shared On-Site Connections On-Site Connection/STEP System Total (Common/Shared + On-Site) a. 4,961,000 $32,177,000 $15,326,000 2,220,000 6,117,000 3,553,000 $27,216,000
Costs in May 2010 dollars (from Table 9) escalated to $2013 at 3.5% per year
TABLE 14. INITIAL SYSTEM CONNECTIONS Customer Type Existing Homes Existing Businesses Total Connections ERUs 315 94 409 315 295 610
48
4. FINANCING PLAN
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST TO BE FINANCED

Table 15 shows known and anticipated costs and reductions to arrive at the net project cost to be financed for two scenarios: Without USDA GrantUSDA Rural Development offers a loan package only. 30% USDA GrantUSDA 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

Estimated Common/Shared Costs 2005 Facility Plan 2008 Financial Feasibility Study Land Acquisition Pre-Construction Planning & Eng Design/Construction Common/Shared Less: Grants Centennial Clean Water Fund Island Co. Rural Development Grant Island Co. Rural Development Grant
30% USDA Grant Comments

Loan from Island County Loans from Island County & Chamber Centennial Clean Water Fund Grant Island Co Econ Development Grant (current effort) Table 13 Subtotal Common/Shared Cost
185,000 128,000 1,000,000 1,081,000 27,216,000 29,610,000
Subtotal Common/Shared Cost 29,610,000
(1,000,000) (2,500,000) (1,454,000)
Lump sum 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 Add: Financing Cost @ 20% 4,931,000 Add: Initial On-Site Costs Existing Homes/Business On-Site Add: Financing Cost @ 20% 17,259,000 3,452,000 Interim financing, establish LID, financing Assume 90% of existing choose to finance 90%*(315 homes @10,500 + 94 Comm @12,400)
Common/Shared Expense Total $29,587,000 $20,711,000 4,026,000 805,000 $4,831,000
Subtotal Initial On-Site Cost $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 include planning, 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. The resulting 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.
49
ESTIMATED CAPITAL COST PER ERU

In 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 $19,100 without 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 Estimated Common/Shared Initial Capital Cost ($2013) Initial Capacity ERUs Est. Common/Shared Initial Capital Cost per ERU + Initial Residential On-Site per ERU Est. Common/Shared + On-Site Initial Capital Cost per ERU $29,587,000 1,557 $19,100 $10,500 $29,600 30% USDA Grant $20,711,000 1,557 $13,400 $10,500 $23,900
On-Site Costs Will Vary

The 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 order to 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 RATE

The 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&MAnnual 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
50
4. FINANCING PLAN
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 TaxThese 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 ReplacementA portion of the monthly rate is specified to fund the shortlived 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 Chapter 3 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 Billing/Collection/State Tax/Administration Short-Lived Asset Replacement Reserve Estimated Monthly Rate per ERU $50.00 $10.00 $4.00 $64.00
SIX-YEAR SEWER OPERATING FUND

Table 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.
51
TABLE 18. SIX-YEAR SEWER OPERATING FUND Sewer Operating Fund Estimated Sewer Revenue O&M Billing/Collection/State Tax/Admin Year 1-10 Short-Lived Assets Est. Annual Revenue Estimated Sewer Expense O&M Billing/Collection/State Tax/ Admin Year 1-10 Short-Lived Assets Est. Sewer Expense Annual Increase/(Use) of Reserves Estimated Ending Balance 2015 366,000 73,200 29,280 468,480 365,089 73,200 22,800 461,089 7,391 7,391 2016 398,400 79,680 31,872 509,952 399,570 79,680 32,800 512,050 (2,098) 5,294 2017 434,400 86,880 34,752 556,032 423,571 86,880 42,800 553,251 2,781 8,075 2018 472,200 94,440 37,776 604,416 450,544 94,440 52,800 597,784 6,632 14,707 2019 514,800 102,960 41,184 658,944 479,374 102,960 62,800 645,134 13,810 28,517 2020 560,400 112,080 44,832 717,312 510,804 112,080 70,000 692,884 24,428 52,945
LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT

In 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 Schedule

The 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 Districts intent to move forward with this funding mechanism. Table 19 presents the LID process and schedule as it is envisioned.
52
4. FINANCING PLAN
TABLE 19. LID PROCESS AND SCHEDULE Task Resolution of Intent to Form LID Response from USDA Rural Development Public Informational Meeting(s) Formation Hearing LID is formed Final design and construction Close out project costs Final assessment roll and financing First assessments one year later Time 7/12/2010 8/31/2010 Fall 2010 1/10/2011 2/2011 2011-2014 Early 2015 Spring 2015 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 Schedule

Table 20 provides a sample payment schedule to demonstrate how LID payments would work for the following examples: $19,100 PrincipalCommon/shared costs without USDA Rural Development grant $13,400 PrincipalCommon/shared costs with 30-percent USDA Rural Development grant $23,900 PrincipalIncludes 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 longterm 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 Fund

Property 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.
53
TABLE 20. SAMPLE LID ASSESSMENT PAYMENT SCHEDULE Sample Assessment Calculation Principal = $13,400 Principal = $23,900 1,396 1,362 1,329 1,295 1,262 1,228 1,195 1,161 1,128 1,094 1,061 1,027 994 960 927
$17,420
Principal = $19,100 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Total Payments 1,990 1,942 1,894 1,846 1,799 1,751 1,703 1,655 1,608 1,560 1,512 1,464 1,417 1,369 1,321
$24,830
2,490 2,430 2,370 2,310 2,251 2,191 2,131 2,071 2,012 1,952 1,892 1,832 1,773 1,713 1,653
$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 Revenue Island Co. Rural Development Grant ($100,000/year) LID Principal Payments (15-year schedule) LID Interest Payments (3.75%) Investment Interest (2.0%) Total Estimated Revenue USDA-RD LOAN BALANCE: $25,542,000 Estimated Expense USDA-RD Loan Repayment (40 yrs, 3.25%) LID Administration (0.5%) Total Estimated Expense Annual Increase/(Use) of Reserves Estimated Ending Balance 1,150,104 127,710 1,277,814 1,492,811 1,492,811 1,150,104 119,196 1,269,300 1,457,327 2,950,138 1,150,104 110,682 1,260,786 1,431,132 4,381,270 1,150,104 102,168 1,252,272 1,404,414 5,785,684 1,150,104 93,654 1,243,758 1,377,161 7,162,845 100,000 1,702,800 957,825 10,000 2,770,625 100,000 1,702,800 893,970 29,856 2,726,626 100,000 1,702,800 830,115 59,003 2,691,918 100,000 1,702,800 766,260 87,625 2,656,685 100,000 1,702,800 702,405 115,714 2,620,919
54
4. FINANCING PLAN
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 30percent 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 RECOVERY

Table 22 summarizes how the various cost elements will be funded and recovered from users over the 20year planning period and beyond. The initial common/shared capital costs (2011-2014) plus the initial onsite costs for existing homes and businesses are the only capital costs included in this funding proposal.
TABLE 22. COST RECOVERY METHODS Cost Element Common/Shared Initial Treatment plant & storage expansion Phase 2 collection system Outside initial LID & in sewer service area On-Site Initial Other Annual O&M, Admin, Short-Lived Asset Replacement Ongoing Monthly rates 2011-2014 Self or LID 2015+ Self 2011-2014 LID Assessment 2023 2025 Connection charge now or debt service later Future LID, developer extension In-lieu-of fee, connection charge, latecomer fee Period Recovery Method
55
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.
APPENDIX A. PUBLIC OUTREACH INFORMATION

July 2010
Public Involvement Plan

New Sewage Collection and Treatment System
Prepared by Triangle Associates as part of the Tetra Tech Team 7/9/2010
Public Involvement Plan Contents 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 3 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 2 2.1 2.2 3 3.1 3.2 3.3 4 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 Project Overview .............................................................................................................. 3 Expected Benefits............................................................................................................. 3 Project History.................................................................................................................. 4 Service Area...................................................................................................................... 5 Funding............................................................................................................................. 5 Goal .................................................................................................................................. 6 Guiding Principles............................................................................................................. 6 Primary Stakeholders ....................................................................................................... 7 Secondary Stakeholders................................................................................................... 7 Database of Names and Stakeholder List ........................................................................ 8 Primary and Secondary Stakeholder Group Briefings...................................................... 9 Media Relations................................................................................................................ 9 Informational Documents .............................................................................................. 11 Project Website.............................................................................................................. 11 Public Meetings.............................................................................................................. 12 Public Notices and Hearings........................................................................................... 13 Public Notice of Environmental Assessment .......................................................... 13 Public Notice and Hearing on LID Formation.......................................................... 13 Beyond the LID Public Hearing................................................................................ 13
Goals and Guiding Principles of Public Involvement .............................................................. 6
Stakeholder Groups ................................................................................................................ 7
Strategies for Encouraging Public Involvement...................................................................... 9
4.6.1 4.6.2 4.6.3 4.7 4.8
Meeting Announcements............................................................................................... 14 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
Public Involvement Plan 1.1.1 Introduction Public involvement is a key component of the Freeland Water and Sewer Districts (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 publics 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 Freelands 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
Public Involvement Plan 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 Freelands services and parks
1.4
Project History
To preserve the rural character of Whidbey Island while meeting Washingtons Growth Management Act (GMA) obligations, Island Countys 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 the designated 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 plans land use element is based on the Island Countys Buildable Lands Analysis, upon which future zoning and detailed infrastructure plans for new sanitary sewer systems are based. Currently, almost all of Freelands 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 facility plans 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
Public Involvement Plan 1.5 Environmental Assessments have been submitted to federal and state environmental agencies. A project namethe New Sewage Collection and Treatment Systemhas been adopted 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 publics 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
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 Freelands 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. T 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 publics 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
3
3.1
Stakeholder Groups
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 residents o Property owners inside the NMUGA, outside the proposed sewer service area o 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 Agencies o Island County Public Health Department and Environmental Health Services o Island County Planning and Community Development o Island County Planning Commission o Island County Council of Governments o Island County Public Works Department o Island County Public Health Department o Island County Assessor o Port of South Whidbey State Agencies o Puget Sound Partnership Local Associations o Freeland Chamber of Commerce
Public Involvement Plan o Whidbey Environmental Action Network o Whidbey Camano Land Trust o Friends of Freeland Public o Any citizen interested in the Freeland sewer planning process o 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. Database of Names and Stakeholder List
3.3
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.
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 ..2 ..3 ..4 ..5 ..6 ..7 ..8 4.1 Primary and Secondary Stakeholder Group Briefings Media Relations Informational Documents Project Web Site Public Meetings Public Notices and Hearings Meeting Announcements Responding to Public Comment 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
Public Involvement Plan 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 NewsTimes 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 Actaided community development, and 4) how Freelands 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 Teams 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.
10
Public Involvement Plan 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, cafs, 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,
11
Public Involvement Plan 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 Freelands future. Two public meetings have been scheduled prior to FWSDs 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 activitiesspecifically the formation of an LIDand 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.
12
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 1 Public 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 Date Public meetings/hearings are highlighted in blue
Year 2010 2010 Date May 13 May 4, 26, 27, 28 June 15, 19, 21 2010 2010 May 27 May 28 Public Meeting Announcement Media Relations Type of Outreach Briefing Interviews Description Meeting of business owners sponsored by the Chamber of Commerce Conducted 16 interviews with Freeland residents/business owners to test awareness/perception of issue, anticipate questions in advance of public meetings Flyers distributed in locations throughout Freeland Press release sent to South Whidbey Record and Whidbey Examiner Focus Sewer proposal update Sewer proposal, funding Status as of July 2010 Completed Competed Notes
June 8 public meeting Sewer proposal, public meeting announcement
Completed Completed Related articles published in South Whidbey Record on June 1 and June 5. Notice published in Whidbey Examiner on June 1. Approximately 28 citizens attended meeting. For overview and Q&A see Appendix 5
2010
June 8
Public Meeting Trinity Lutheran Church
Project review/comment period
Sewer proposal/funding
Completed
2010
June 16
Project Website
Website launched
Sewer
Completed

Year Date Type of Outreach Description Updated with Public Hearing PowerPoint 2010 2010 June 16 July 2 Public Meeting Announcement Information materials Public Meeting Announcement Flyers distributed Fact sheet/FAQ/meeting announcement inserted into FWSD billing statement and distributed to email distribution lists Press release and flyers distributed Focus proposal/funding overview July 6 public meeting Sewer proposal, meeting notice July 6 public meeting Status as of July 2010 Notes
Completed Completed
2010
June 16June 28
Completed
Notice published in Whidbey Examiner on June 30. Article in South Whidbey Record on July 2.
2010
July 6
Information materials Public Meeting Trinity Lutheran Church
Fact sheet/FAQ distributed at July 6 public meeting and posted on website Project review/comment period
2010
July 6
Sewer proposal/funding overview Sewer update/cost estimated/Financing Plan/LID
Completed
Scheduled
Approximately 78 citizens attended meeting. For meeting overview see Appendix 5 .
2010 2010
July 8 July 10**
Information materials Media relations
Website updated with new documents generated by/for Jul 6 meeting Press release
2010
July
Information materials Stakeholder briefings Media Relations
LID FAQ developed and posted on website, emailed to stakeholders. Work with District staff to identify and schedule meetings with groups to inform and obtain input News story pitched to major media in Western Washington
Recap of July 6 Public Meeting Announce USDA grant application-include LID requirement LID
In progress Not yet started July 31 anticipated date Ongoing Triangle to draft prior to July 9 and embargo
2010
July - Sept
All components of project Freelands economic development/Puget Sound Action
2011
July
Action to be decided
16

Year Date Type of Outreach Description Focus Agenda/Saving Holmes Harbor/ARRA funding Announcement of USDA RD decision regarding loan/grant application Announcement of USDA RD decision regarding loan/grant application Announcement of USDA RD decision regarding loan/grant application Status as of July 2010 Notes
2010
Aug 31**
Information materials
Newsletter
Not yet started
2010
Aug 31 **
Media Relations
Press release and/or editorial board meeting
Not yet started
2010
Aug **
Information Materials
Copies of press release/editorial sent to primary stakeholders
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.) Sewer and LID Public meeting Sewer and LID Sewer and LID Not yet started Action to be decided Action to be decided Action to be decided Action to be
2010
Sept
Information materials Briefings Briefing
2010 2010
Sept Oct
Insert updated FAQ/fact sheet into September FWSD billing statement. Notify people of October public meeting Small group meetings with local officials, neighborhood/business/civic groups Small group meetings with local officials, neighborhood/business/civic groups Press release/Flyers distributed
2010
Oct
2010
Oct
Public Meeting (Workshop) Announcement Public Meeting
LID
Sewer funding workshop
LID
17

Year Date Type of Outreach Public Meeting Media Relations Property Owner Notice Description 1:1 Q &A Sewer funding workshop 1:1 Q &A Press Release/Editorial Board/Flyers announcing the Jan 10 2011 Public Hearing. 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. Submit to South Whidbey Record for publication Wed/Sat Dec 11, 15 Submit to South Whidbey Record for publication Wed/Sat, Dec 27, 29 Formal Public Hearing before FWSD Board of Commissioners Press release Focus Status as of July 2010 decided Action to be decided Not yet started Not yet started Notes
2010 2010 2010
Nov Nov Dec
LID LID LID
2010 2010 2011 2011
Dec 9 Dec 23 Jan 10 Jan 21
Public Notice Public Notice Public Hearing Media Relations Stakeholder communication Information materials
Notice of LID Public Hearing Notice of LID Public Hearing LID Formation LID status (post 10 day protest period) LID status Treatment facility design
Not yet started Not yet started Scheduled Not yet started Action to be decided
Sandy Duncan will send Sandy Duncan will send
2011 2011**
Jan 21 Jan/Feb
Email to stakeholder list Design alternatives, fact sheet
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/ Materials/ Meetings
2011
Feb/Mar
Information & notice about start of design for septic tank inspection/evaluation and easement process. Information/meetings to follow up on LID formation and procedures to follow.
Collection System STEP Onsite LID
18

Year 2011** Date Type of Outreach Public meeting Description Public meeting on design elements Emphasis 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. Meet with businesses County and other stakeholder groups to provide overview of construction schedule and how they can minimize disruptions to their businesses/lives Focus Treatment facility design Status as of July 2010 Action to be decided Notes
2012**
Briefings
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**
2012** 2013
Public meeting
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. 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. A potential meeting at or near the end of construction that would explain the change over from septic to sewer, billings, payments, etc. News story pitched to major media in Western Washington
Construction updates, related issues
2014**
2014
Media Relations
Freelands economic development
19
Appendix 2 Stakeholder Interview Recap May 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 Yes. Everyone knows theres a problem, but some people dont 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. 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 possibletownhomes, apartments and condos over retail, and small parcels. We Environmental Concerns 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). Fouling drinking water is a real concern. Costs/Funding Two-thirds of residents are on fixed income and theyre scared to death of how this will impact their finances. Recommendations for FWSD 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. 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.
Need fed funds. Would likely support LID

Awareness and Perception of Issue need 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 area Aware of issues. Most people have some awareness, but for most people this just isnt on their radar, except for business owners. Environmental Concerns Costs/Funding Recommendations for FWSD
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.
Businesses see a huge need. Everyone else is either 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 shouldnt be growthin areas that should be wetlands. The sewer, rather than be built large to accommodate projected future population, should be built incrementally 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
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/townhomesplaces with views. You can get people living in town and walking down the street at night and eating in cafes.
Fed funding critical
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 atfor example, composting toilets. Planners need to do their land use homework. They need to convince people of economic benefits. There should be one systemcombining with HH. HH has a very good system.
Holmes Harbor is a non-flushing harbor and has been shut down for fishing/swimming/shellfish because of pollution.
Dont mix water and sewer chargesthat was the promise.
Maintain the beauty of the area
22

Awareness and Perception of Issue Most people know something is going on but very fuzzy on details. Environmental Concerns 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. Very concerned about wastewater issues. If you live in Freeland youre part of a community and its the communitys responsibility to keep our water safe and clean. Im concerned about the sort of reputation Freeland will get if it doesnt do whats needed to keep Holmes Harbor clean. If septic systems are well-maintained, it shouldnt be a problem. Im more concerned about wastewater runoff from roads, parking lots, and more construction thats taking away the ability for the ground to naturally filter the water. There is pollution in Holmes Harbor but Im not convinced residential septic systems are causing the problem. Nichols Bros (boat builders) may be culprit. Costs/Funding Would support LID Recommendations for FWSD 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.
It would be nice to have sewer...but I dont want to be forced into it. No ones told me the cost.
Freeland Water & Sewer District needs to explain how this will work. Wont 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.
Fed funding critical. Would support LID Community doesnt like info being doled out bit by bit. Answer the tough questions.
Not keen on growth. Dont see sewers benefits to Freeland except for some businesses.
Costs are key. Costs a few years ago were prohibitive so additional funding is necessary
FWSD shouldnt 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 dont 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 Whidbey Record are about itmany people dont trust the Record. Freeland is fastest growing area on Islandits the commercial hub of So. Whidbey. Without sewer the area will
Ill 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. Theres been problems in Holmes Harbor but theyve been tracked to a couple of septic tank problemsits not like there
A lot of retirees are on fixed income. Do we really need this? A lot more information is needed.
Concerned about increased taxes on Freeland residents and
The newspaper is a terrible way to communicate. People dont trust Whidbey Record. Bulletin boards in grocery stores are more effective.
23

Awareness and Perception of Issue stagnate. Sewer is needed so business core can develop 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. A system will allow for housing for young families Newspaper is the most important communication tool. The Web isnt used as much but it would be good to have something on the Web anyway This could change the possibilities for the downtown area will make the area more usable. We need the businesses Environmental Concerns some systemic failure; there is no evidence of it. Dont know that septic is really causing a problem except for some businesses. Costs/Funding businesses Fed funding critical. Recommendations for FWSD
I think theres a tremendous need for public outreach. We only get little blurbs of information. They need to answer the hard questions. . We need a major educational effort to raise awareness.
Getting rid of septic system, a problem in areas with hard pan.
Would need to know more about the LID approach to comment
Water quality is important. Holmes Harbor is a concern.
Dont know about LID. Dont want to pay for something that only benefits some business owners. Fixed income residents will be where the major cost concerns come from
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. Some awareness Most information from South Whidbey Record
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
Make sure that no properties that want to be included are left out.
People are concerned about Holmes Harbor closure. Restaurants and Payless have undersized systems so that causes problems. However, most people have functioning septic systems. Its not residential septic causing the problemsits 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
24

Awareness and Perception of Issue I 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 Environmental Concerns Beaches have been closed and there have been shellfish restrictions. Used to be able to harvest lots of clams from the Harbor Costs/Funding 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. Concerned about initial cost and long-term maintenance. Recommendations for FWSD 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.
We need the brightest people on thispeople 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 were on board. All these entitieswater commission; port, etc. need to be talking to each other.
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).
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 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.
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. 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
More grant/low interest loan money available now
25
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 What are the boundaries for the system? Where do the solids get sent to? Funding How much will it cost? Project General What is the timeline for action? Rationale Why not partner with Holmes Harbor sewer system? Why should residents subsidize something that will primarily benefit businesses? Is there a benefit to residents outside not having to pay for yearly inspection? What is the benefit for homeowners?
How will homeowners/businesses be assessed?
How will this project impact the Shellfish Protection Zone in Holmes Harbor? Are septic systems in the NMUGA functioning? What if a property owner has a brand new on-site septic system? Will everyone have to connect to sewer? Can I opt out? Whats the impact of roads and clearing will be to the Trillium property?
What happens to all the existing septic systems? Will the system be nimble enough for retrofitting?
What if I cant afford it?
Are we going to have to pay for sewer AND still have to pump out solids?
What is a Local Improvement District?
Why these alternatives and not others?
How do property owners get a say in whether to form an LID? How will this affect fixed income residents?
Appendix 4 Subject Matter Expert Database -DRAFTTo ensure that stakeholders 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 General overview System specifics Environmental issues Costs/funding LID general LID assessments Facility design Construction impacts Septic tank removal Residential specific concerns Business specific concerns First Contact Gary Hess Jim Santroch Lisa Adolfson Katy Isaksen Katy Isaksen Bob McCauley Jim SantrochKevin Dour Gary Hess To be determined Sandy Duncan Chet Ross Contact Info Second Contact Sandy Duncan Kevin Dour/Gary Hess Kevin Dour/Arnie/Gary Hess Gary Hess/Sandy Duncan Gary Hess/Sandy Duncan Gary Hess/Sandy Duncan Gary Hess Jim Santroch/Kevin Dour Gary Hess Gary Hess Sandy Duncan /Richard/Gary Reys Contact Info
Appendix 5 June 8 and July 6 Public Meeting Overviews and Comments and Question Summaries
Public Meeting Overview, June 8, 2010 Citizens 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 NonMunicipal 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 Districts 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 communitys vision. He then outlined
Public Involvement Plan the projects 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 the Freeland 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.
29
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 and explained 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.
30
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 the other. 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.
31
Public Involvement Plan 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.
32
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 cant 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?
33
Public Involvement Plan An equivalent residential unit, or ERU, is a metric that is often used in sewer planning to designate a common base of sewage flow, 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 4 single 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 Freelands 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 doesnt 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?
34
Public Involvement Plan 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 Countys 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 systems to 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.
35
Public Meeting, July 6, 2010 Citizens 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 NonMunicipal 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
36
Public Involvement Plan 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 Districts 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 communitys vision. He then outlined the projects 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 sites 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.
37
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 the Freeland 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 are administered by the Island County Assessors office and one by the state. The County exemption program freezes the homes assessed
38
Public Involvement Plan 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 Assessors 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.
39
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.
Freeland Water and Sewer District Come to the Public Meeting on Tuesday, July 6!
June 2010
NEW SEWAGE COLLECTION AND TREATMENT SYSTEM

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
Hear about funding options, including the formation of a Local Improvement District (LID) Ask questions and share your thoughts about the proposed 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 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 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 of Whidbey Island by focusing growth in the Freeland NMUGA. The development of sewer capacity is a key component of the formation of the Freeland NMUGA. Freeland must be served by public sewer to support future growth as called for in Island Countys 1998 Comprehensive Plan. In 2002, Island County began working to develop the Freeland Comprehensive Sewer Plan and Facility Plan/Engineering Report and in December 2005, it was approved by the Island County Board of County Commissioners. A New Sewage Collection and Treatment System in Freeland will address: Pollution in Holmes Harbor due in part to failing septic systems Potential groundwater contamination caused by failing septic systems Promoting economic and job vitality in Freeland Meeting development requirements to match the planned densities Achieving Freelands community vision approved in the Island County Comprehensive Plan
What is the Freeland Water and Sewer District doing to find funding for the project?
The Freeland Water and Sewer District is committed to making the wastewater system both fiscally and ecologically 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 In addition to the U.S. Department of Agriculture Rural Development grant and loan application, the Freeland Water and Sewer Districts consultant team, is pursuing other grant and low interest loans. Additional funding sources to help reduce the cost to individuals and businesses include: A $1 million grant has already been secured from the Washington State Department of Ecology. Establishing a Local Improvement District (LID) a financing 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 members and to ask for input. 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.
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 opportunity is due by July 9, 2010, the Freeland Water and Sewer District is, updating the 2005 Freeland Sewer Comprehensive Plan recommendations for collection, treatment, and reuse; and analyzing costs, funding options, and environmental impacts.
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 Districts 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/

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: Hear updates and review the Sewage Collection and Treatment System Hear about funding options, including the formation of a Local Improvement District (LID) Ask questions and share your thoughts about the proposed Sewage Collection and Treatment System
What is this meeting about?

Freeland Water and Sewer Districts July 6 meeting is the second of two public meetings in advance of the Freeland Water and Sewer Districts 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 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 within 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 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.
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.
7/2/2010
Ho m e ~ Re ading Room ~ District Boundarie s ~ Rule s and R e gulations ~ Engine e ring Spe cifica tions ~ Paym e nts ~ C ontact ~ Link s
New Sewage Collection and Treatment Page
Mission Statement:
The Freeland Water and Sewer District's mission is to provide high quality potable water at reasonable 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 Freeland Water and Sewer District - Tuesday, July 6, 2010, 5 PM 7:30 PM (presentation begins at 5:30 p.m.), Trinity Lutheran Church, 18341 State Route 525, Freeland. For information about the 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 and download time may be long depending on connection speed, you can alternately use this link to download 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-adopting district 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
http://www.freelandwsd.com/
1/2
7/2/2010

C opyright (c) 2008 Fre e land W ate r and Se we r District . 5492 S. Harbor Ave . P.O . Box 222 Fre e land, W A 98249 . 360-331-5566 contact W e bm aste r
http://www.freelandwsd.com/
2/2
7/7/2010
Freeland Water Sewage and Treatmen
Freeland Water and Sewer District New Sewage Collection and Treatment System
New Sewage Collection and Treatment System Documents and Contact Info
Freeland Water and Sewer District Pursues U.S. Department of Agriculture Rural Development Grant and Loan Funding
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 to help fund a New Sewage Collection and Treatment System in Freeland. Because the application for this competitive grant and loan Maps opportunity is due by July 9, 2010, the Freeland Water and Sewer District is currently, Freeland updating the 2005 Freeland Sewer Comprehensive Plan recommendations for collection, treatment, and reuse; Water and and Sewer District analyzing costs, funding options, environmental impacts Boundaries A New Sewage Collection and Treatment System in Freeland will address: Freeland Non- Pollution in Holmes Harbor Municipal Potential groundwater contamination Growth Area Economic and job viability Development to planned urban densities Freeland Freelands community vision approved in the Island County Comprehensive Plan Service Area and Project Public Meetings held on June 8 & July 6 Phasing The Freeland Water & Sewer District is actively enlisting the input of citizens, local government officials, business Map of and interest groups to develop a cost effective and environmentally sound sewer system. In advance of the July 9 Freeland application deadline, the District has held public meetings on June 8 and July 6. Water and Sewer District The June 8 and July 6 meeting offered Service Area the public an opportunity to: Boundaries Hear updates and to review the wastewater system proposal, hear 2005 Sewer about funding options Comprehensive Learn about the process for forming Plan: a local improvement district to help Full Report with local funding (25 MB) Provide feedback and to ask Executive questions about the proposed Summary (1.4 wastewater system MB) A PDF of the June 8 meeting Have a project PowerPoint is available to download. question or Additionally, an overview of the meeting and project questions and comments are available to review. want to make a comment? A PDF of the July 6 meeting PowerPoint is available for download. Please click here to email us. For More Information, please contact: Sandy Duncan, Freeland Water and
freelandwsd.com/FreelandWSD_Sewer
1/2
7/7/2010 Sewer District, (360)3315566

Freeland Water and Sewer District Home Page
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 Districts 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 Districts 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/ -###-
7/1/2010
Freeland sewer plans to be reviewed -
Pow ered by
SAVE THIS | EMAIL THIS | Close
related stories South Whidbey Record County says yes to Freeland sewer plan County sets hearing on Freeland sewer comp plan Sewer forum in Freeland brings out supporters Freeland panel OKs first step in sewer plan Whidbey Island None at this time. News blogs Crime Time The latest from South Whidbeys police blotter and the Records siren chasers The Newsroom Get the inside scoop on what the newsroom is working on at The South Whidbey Record
Freeland sewer plans to be reviewed

Jun 01 2010 The Freeland Water and Sewer District will hold a meeting next week to give details on the proposed wastewater system thats 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 to begin at 5:30 p.m. District officials will give an update and review the wastewater system proposal, plus talk about funding options including grant and loan opportunities, and the process for forming a local improvement district to help with local funding. People will be able to give feedback and ask questions about the proposed sewer system. Next weeks meeting is the first of two that will be held before the Freeland Water and Sewer Districts application to the U.S. Department of Agriculture Rural Development funding program. Officials say funding from the 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 at 5 p.m. Tuesday, July 6.
www.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?a 1/2
7/1/2010
Freeland sewer plans to be reviewed -
Find this article at:

http://w w w .pnw localnew s.com/w hidbey/sw r/new s/95366074.html SAVE THIS | EMAIL THIS | Close Check the box to include the list of links referenced in the article.
Copyright 2008 Black Press. All rights reserved.
www.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?a
2/2
7/1/2010
Freeland wastewater plan to be aired -

Subscribe | Advertise | Submit News | About | Submit Letters
home
events
community
blogs
special sections
Featured Employers
Adv anced Search
search...
search sponsored by
top stories island time neighbors sports & schools opinion business crime watch events blogs photo galleries advertise submit news special sections more blogs classified ads e-editions extras
home : top stories : top stories
Share
July 01, 2010
<
July
>
6/1/2010 9:08:00 PM
SMTWT FS
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
Freeland wastewater plan to be aired

The proposed wastewater system planned for the Freeland Non-Municipal Urban Growth Area will be discussed at a public 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 system proposal, learn about funding options, including grant and loan opportunities, and learn about the process for forming a local 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 Districts application for funding through the United States Department of Agriculture rural development program, which would help pay for the design 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.
Interactive Poll
With the county budget in trouble, what are you willing to do to ensure basic services remain in place? Please select one: I'm willing to pay more taxes to pay staff to get the work done. I'm willing to do without services such as road repairs and public health services. I'd be glad to volunteer on a regular basis. Where do I sign up? I'd be happy to donate to a nonprofit that provides services like animal control or meals on wheels.
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 site editor, who may edit content for appropriateness. There may be a delay of 24-48 hours for any submission while the web 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 to your comment.
Submit an Article Comment

First Name:
Required Required Required
Last Name: Phone: 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
http://whidbeyexaminer.com/main.asp
1/2
7/1/2010
Freeland wastewater plan to be aired -
user agreement
privacy policy
2010 Harborside Parade, Freeland
Your Brain on Pandas
The Whidbey Examiner Whidbey Islands 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
2/2
7/1/2010
Officials hope to land federal money f
Pow ered by
SAVE THIS | EMAIL THIS | Close
related stories South Whidbey Record County says yes to Freeland sewer plan Sewer forum in Freeland brings out supporters Freeland boosters have fingers crossed for federal sewer funds Concerns linger over funding plan for Freeland sewer system Whidbey Island None at this time. News blogs Crime Time The latest from South Whidbeys police blotter and the Records siren chasers The Newsroom Get the inside scoop on what the newsroom is working on at The South Whidbey Record
Officials hope to land federal money for Freeland sewers

By BRIAN KELLY South Whidbey Record Editor Jun 05 2010 Officials of the Freeland Water and Sewer District are increasingly optimistic about their chances of landing federal 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 Agricultures Rural Development funding program. Gary Hess, engineer for the sewer district, said the consulting firm of Tetra Tech had been hired to help prepare the application. Theyre working fast and furiously on getting all of our requirements together the preliminary engineering report and the environmental report, public involvement and finance all those pieces put together to complete
7/1/2010
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 slim to 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 downtown Freeland, the South Ends commercial core. The sewer district has already purchased an 80-acre piece of property formerly owned by the Trillium Corporation for the wastewater treatment project, a multi-phase effort that 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 to the property in February. The sewer district is hosting a meeting next week in Freeland to talk about the sewer project. The meeting, the first of two, will include an update on the wastewater system proposal, a review of funding options, and a discussion 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 the project. There will be a loan of some magnitude, Hess said. The payback for that will have to be through some secured funding stream in Freeland. The plan is to create an LID comprised of property owners who benefit from the new sewer system and pay assessments to help retire the debt on the project. Its too soon to say what the LID costs might be, Hess said, and that information may not be ready by the June 8 meeting. Even though thats the first question out of everyones mouth: Whats it going to cost me? Hess said. Were trying to get there, but we dont want to put information out thats 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 district representatives said there is already state and federal support for the project. They want this one to go, Chet Ross, the sewer districts 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
7/1/2010
since March 2006 because of pollution. We just cant continue to go ahead with having septic systems in Freeland without ultimately, you know, larger problems in Holmes Harbor and in groundwater, Hess said. South Whidbey Record Editor Brian Kelly can be reached at editor@southwhidbeyrecord.com.
email letter print follow
Find this article at:

http://w w w .pnw localnew s.com/w hidbey/sw r/new s/95657124.html SAVE THIS | EMAIL THIS | Close Check the box to include the list of links referenced in the article.
Copyright 2008 Black Press. All rights reserved.
www.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?a
3/3
7/1/2010
Deadline nears for $30 million Freelan

Thursday, 7/1/2010 3:26 pm
Search New s
Home Jobs
News Autos
Election Homes
Blogs Rentals
Sports
Entertainment Classifieds
Business Coupons
Lifestyles
Community
Opinion
About Us Legal Notices Contests
Foreclosures
Business Directory
Special Sections
NO COMMENTS
EMAIL
LETTER
PRINT
FOLLOW
SHARE
Deadline nears for $30 million Freeland sewer-grant application

By ROY JACOBSON South Whidbey Record Reporter Jun 21 2010, 1:04 PM
Freeland sewer backers may know in August if theyll get as much as $30 million from the federal government to build a new system. Its not 100-percent certain, but its encouraging at this point, Chet Ross, president of the Freeland Area Chamber of Commerce and a prime mover of the sewer plan, said Thursday. Proponents and their consultants are pushing hard to meet a July 15 application deadline set by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Ross said. The application will be submitted through the Freeland Water and Sewer District, which will oversee the project. The Freeland office of Davido Consulting Group is doing most of the preliminary engineering required for the application. The engineers are working feverishly, Ross said. Were moving forward. He said a decision whether or not to award the grant is expected from the USDA by mid-August. Ross said the plan, originally outlined in four phases, has been reconfigured to two, but still includes the same area.
RELATED STORIES South Whidbey Record County says yes to Freeland sewer plan Sewer forum in Freeland brings out supporters Freeland sewer plans to be reviewed Whidbey Island None at this time. NEWS BLOGS Crime Time The latest from South Whidbeys police blotter and the Records siren chasers The New sroom Get the inside scoop on what the newsroom is working on at The South Whidbey Record
He said Phase One would include 90 percent of the potential customers all the commercial and most of the residential areas of Freeland 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 that construction 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 wont be known until preliminary 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 Freelands commercial core and 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 extensive planning, legal wrangling and a quest for elusive funding. The water and sewer district currently encompasses about 1,050 acres, and serves 442 commercial and residential customers in the Freeland area. The district already has moved ahead with property acquisition to accommodate an outfall for the sewer system 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
pnwlocalnews.com//96825544.html
1/3
7/1/2010
Deadline nears y p Road, for $275,000, using a grant from the state Department of Ecology.
for $30 g ymillion Freelan y y
The treatment plant would be installed in a building about the size of a large house. The water reclamation facility 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 the developer 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 the Freeland 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 set for 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 at rjacobson@southwhidbeyrecord.com or 360-221-5300.
NO COMMENTS EMAIL LETTER PRINT FOLLOW SHARE
Langley Yellow Pages

A pa r t m en t s A t t or n ey s A u t o Dea ler s A u t o Pa r t s A u t o Repa ir Bea u t y Sa lon s Ca r Ren t a l Den t ist s Doct or s Flow er s Hot els In su r a n ce Loa n s Mor t g a g es Mov er s Pizza Rea lt or s Rest a u r a n t s St or a g e Tax Pr epa r a t ion T r a v el Mor e...
COMMENTING RULES: We encourage an open exchange of ideas in the PNWLocalNews.com community, but we ask you to follow our guidelines for respecting community standards. In a nutshell, don't say anything you wouldn't want your mother to read.
FULL RULES
Add New Comment
Showing 0 comments
Sort by Oldest first Subscribe by email Subscribe by RSS
Trackback URL http://disqus.com/forum
Most Read Stories South Whidbey Record

South Whidbey residents warn theyll vote no on school bond Man visiting Freeland survives 20-foot fall at Fort Casey Highway backed up as ferry goes off line
This week | Last week
Some on South Whidbey stressed over noise, danger from illegal Fourth of July fireworks Weekend vandals trash restrooms at Freeland Park again Weve passed our Whidbey goal for marijuana reform measure | LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Whidbey Island
One man seriously injured, another in jail after a dirt-bike accident on North Whidbey Man rescued from Deception Pass Bridge may face prosecution Snakes complicate drug raid in Oak Harbor South Whidbey residents warn theyll vote no on school bond Judge ignores plea bargain, gives Whidbey Marine who choked wife max sentence Oak Harbor husband-wife are first to silmultaneously run for Island County offices
Washington
Dog shot in backyard; family takes action to alert Kirkland neighborhood Drivers to get a new lane as SR 520 project reaches milestone Kirkland man charged with rape after being beaten, put in coma by victim's husband Feces smeared on Muslim van near Bellevue mosque One man seriously injured, another in jail after a dirt-bike accident on North Whidbey Man rescued from Deception Pass Bridge may face prosecution more local news from around Washington
2/3
7/1/2010
Deadline nears for $30 million Freelan
South Whidbey Record New s Election Blogs Sports Entertainment Business Lifestyles Community Calendar Opinion Letters Obituaries Weather Comics Horoscopes Puzzles About Us Contact Us Subscribe Advertise Advertiser Svcs. Other Tow ns Work With Us Terms of Use Site Map RSS
Marketplace Jobs Autos Homes Rentals Foreclosures Classifieds Coupons Business Directory Special Sections Legal Notices Contests
Our Products Work With Us

Sound Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserv ed.
3/3
7/1/2010
Meeting set on Freeland sewer - The

home
events
community
blogs
special sections
Featured Employers
Adv anced Search
search...
search sponsored by
home : top stories : top stories
Share
July 01, 2010
<
July
>
6/29/2010 10:23:00 PM
SMTWT FS
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
Meeting set on Freeland sewer

The new sewer collection and treatment system for the Freeland Water and Sewer District will be the focus of an open 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 whats happening with the project, including information about funding options such as grants and loans. The process for forming a local improvement 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 districts application for money from the United States Department of Agriculture Rural Development grant and loan program. The money would help support the design and construction of sewer collection and treatment system. Learn about on the Freeland Water and Sewer District online at freelandwsd.com.
Interactive Poll
With the county budget in trouble, what are you willing to do to ensure basic services remain in place? Please select one: I'm willing to pay more taxes to pay staff to get the work done. I'm willing to do without services such as road repairs and public health services. I'd be glad to volunteer on a regular basis. Where do I sign up? I'd be happy to donate to a nonprofit that provides services like animal control or meals on wheels.


First Name:
Required
Message:
Required
Passcode:
Required
1/2
7/1/2010
Meeting set on Freeland sewer - The

Submit
Reset
user agreement
privacy policy
2/2
7/1/2010
Community Calendar - The Whidbey E

home
events
community
blogs
special sections
Featured Employers
Adv anced Search
search...
search sponsored by
home : island time : island time
Share
July 01, 2010
<
July
>
6/30/2010 1:08:00 PM
SMTWT FS
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
Community Calendar
Soil Evaluation Workshop, 8 a.m.-4:30 p.m. Wednesday, June 30, Skagit Valley College, Hayes Hall, Room 137, 1900 SE Pioneer Way, Oak Harbor. Learn to evaluate soils for planning sewage systems and low-impact development. Fee; field and classroom components. Register at whidbeycd.org; 360-678-4708; stacy@whidbeycd.org. Classes for Kids at Oak Harbor Library, beginning July 1, 1000 SE Regatta Drive, Oak Harbor. Movies, arts and crafts, science, pizza and more for kids and teens. 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 Climate Stewards and Kelly Keilwitz of Whidbey Sun and Wind present an educational event on renewable energy; 360-678-7131; sylvia@whidbeysunwind.com.
Submit calendar events online

Submit calendar items online via The Whidbey Examiner Web site, www.whidbeyexaminer.com. Click on "Calendar" and complete the online form. Items will be posted online, and may be used in the print version of the paper.
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 election ballot. Dinner $12; RSVP to info@discoverclintonwa.com. 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 wine in the vineyard. $10 advance purchase, $15 at door. Adults only. Admission includes glass of wine; whidbeyislandwinery.com. Childrens Book Signing, 3-6 p.m. Friday, July 2, Caffeine Effect (formerly Heidis Coffee House), 504 N. Main, Coupeville. Meet Martha Martin and Sally Jacobson, local author and illustrator of How Bonny Little Bear Got Her Tutu. 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 Schouten Gallery, Artworks Gallery and Raven Rocks Gallery. Greenbank Cheese Shop offers samples of artisan cheeses and Whidbey Pies Caf 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., 121 Second 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, Windjammer Park, SE City Beach Street, Oak Harbor. Parade Saturday followed by games, rides, food and more. Fireworks begin at 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 Elementary School, 6 S. Main St. Tools, furniture, toys and more. Supports Coupeville Lions Club Foundation, local programs and Camp Horizon for kids. Art Gallery Reception, 5-7 p.m. Saturday, July 3, Brackenwood Gallery, 301 First St., Langley. Patterns, Natural and 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 NW Alexander St. Fine art and fun art by eight talented Whidbey artists; denis@whidbeypanoramas.com. Tilth Market Music Festival, 10:30 a.m.-4 p.m. Saturday, July 3, South Whidbey Tilth Farmers Market, Thompson Road. and Hwy. 525, Langley. Acoustic guitarist Quinn Fitzpatrick performs from 10:30 a.m. to noon, followed by local performers. Food, fun, produce and crafts; market@southwhidbeytilth.org; 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 drivers ed. students and parents. No late admittance; 360-672-8219; idipic.org.
1/5
7/1/2010

Celebrate America, 2 p.m.-after dark Saturday, July 3, Freeland Park, Shoreview Drive, Freeland. Family-friendly fun, kids activities, food booths, live music and the Reptile Man. Fireworks display after dark. Free shuttle begins at 4:30 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. Free event and parking, overflow parking with free shuttle from Little Brown Church at Maxwelton and French/Sills. Family fun with games and fun races. Refreshments available for sale; 360-579-2030; maxweltonclub@whidbey.com. 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 basic karate 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; kandrews@coupeville.k12.wa.us. 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, whidbeyteaparty@gmail.com; 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 Freeland Non-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, 18341 Hwy. 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. Coupeville Peace and Reconciliation hosts documentary inspired by historian and political activist Howard Zinn. Jerome Rosen: 360-678-7721; jrosen@whidbey.net. Energy Independence Day Party, 5:30-8:30 p.m. Wednesday, July 7, Tilth Sustainability Campus, Hwy. 525 and Thompson Road. If raining: Langley United Methodist Church, Fellowship Hall, Third and Anthes, Langley. Celebrate with Transition Whidbey. Music, raffle, auction, potluck; 360-221-0506; transition@whidbey.net; 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 Classical Designs. 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 Harbor Lions Club sells Wenatchee-grown cherries; 360-279-2802; jim-sharon@verizon.net. Island Artists Annual Show, July 9-July 11, Coupeville Recreation Hall, 901 NW Alexander, Coupeville. Show runs 12-8 p.m. Friday; 10 a.m.-8 p.m. Saturday, 10 a.m.-5 p.m. Sunday. Donations from food and coffee sales go to Central 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. 34th annual event with dressage, cross-country jumping and stadium jumping. Spectators admitted free. Dogs must be leashed; 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; 360-3214145. Circuit City Muscle Conditioning, 6-7 p.m. Mondays and Wednesdays, July 12-Sept. 1, Coupeville Elementary School, 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; kandrews@coupeville.k12.wa.us. Crop Sharing, 5:30-6:30 p.m. Tuesday, July 13, Oak Harbor City Hall, 865 SE Barrington, Oak Harbor. Cary Peterson, coordinator of Good Cheer Food Bank Community Garden, explains how gardeners with extra produce can contribute 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; kandrews@coupeville.k12.wa.us. Tai Chi in the Park, 9-10 a.m. Monday, July 12-Friday, July 16, South Whidbey Community Park, 5495, Maxwelton Road, Langley. Week long introduction to Cheng Man-Ching style of Tai Chi Chuan which emphasizes the principles of softness, naturalness, and relaxation. $50. Pre-registration required. Simon Leon; 360-661-7298; dosho56@hotmail.com. 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 their babies. Must apply and be interviewed before training. Kristin, 360-730-1264; mothermentors@whidbey.com. 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; kandrews@coupeville.k12.wa.us. 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 primary ballot. 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; info@bravenewwords.org; 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.,
2/5
7/1/2010

Oak Harbor. On display will be sketchbooks, handmade books and multimedia artwork created by students; 360-2792105; gail@gailcreativestudies.com. 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 and younger. Shirley Bennett, s9ben11@comcast.net; 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 grief process and develop coping skills; 360-814-5589. Oak Harbors Highly Evolved Literary League, 5:30 p.m. Thursday, July 22, Oak Harbor Library, 1000 SE Regatta Dr., 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; 360331-7099; 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, 765 Wonn 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 on the Cove presents John Holtes Radio Rhythm Orchestra. Tickets $10 in Coupeville at Linds Pharmacy, Bayleaf, Local Grown, 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: 2herons@whidbey.net; 360221-6296. 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, 360341-2533; Claudia Fuller, 360-579-7052 to donate items. Freeland Chamber Open Golf Classic & Silent Auction Dinner, Sunday, Aug. 29, Useless Bay Golf & Country Club, 5725 Country Club Dr., Langley. Registration opens at 11:30 a.m.; shotgun start at 1:30 p.m.; dinner $35 or free for golfers. Team fee $500, individual fee $125. Win cash, car or trip. 360-331-1980; freeland-wa.org.
Ongoing events & activities Coupeville Farmers Market, 10 a.m.-2 p.m. Saturdays, Community Green, Coupeville; coupevillemarket@aol.com, 360 678 4288. Meet Feet on Whidbey, 1-3 p.m. occurs every Saturday, 2326 Newman Rd. Freeland. All walkers and dogs on leash welcome. Volunteer-led rambles on Whidbey Island trails and beaches; woods@whidbeywalks.com, 360-3210533. Alcoholics Anonymous, 7-8:30 p.m. Wednesdays, Board Room, Whidbey General Hospital, 101 N Main, Coupeville. Alzheimers Association Telephone Caregiver Support Group, 7:30-9 p.m. third Tuesday of each month Toll-free teleconference group at 1-800-848-7097; contact linda.whiteside@alz.org . Chess and Go Group, 6-10 p.m. Mondays, South Whidbey Senior Center, 14594 Hwy. 525, Langley. All ages and abilities 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 Whidbey Island since WWII. Gates are open to visitors. Admission by donation; Richard Rezabek, w4rez@whidbey.net. Click Conservatory Jazz Band, 3:30 p.m. Mondays, Click Music, 1130 NE 7th, Oak Harbor. Free; jazz musicians invited to join; 360-675-5544, avi@clickmusic.biz. Click Conservatory Clarinet Choir, 7 p.m. Thursdays, Click Music, 1130 NE 7th, Oak Harbor. Free; Whidbeys answer to Benny Goodman; 360-675-5544. Compassionate Friends of Whidbey Island, a self-help organization offering friendship and understanding to bereaved parents, siblings and grandparents. Meets 7 p.m. the fourth Tuesday of the month. Odd month meetings held at the Coupeville Methodist Church, 608 N. Main St., Coupeville. Even-month meetings held at First United Methodist 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, Oak Harbor. For those experiencing separation and divorce. Join at any time. Child care available. Fee, $25 for book; 360679-3579, joulegirl79@comcast.net. 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. Informal discussion about the impact of loss and grief. Open to anyone coping with a death. Group welcomes new participants; 360-814-5589, whubenthal@skagitvalleyhospital.org. 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, rogerc@co.island.wa.us. 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
3/5
7/1/2010

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., for seniors or those under age 65, including family coverage; Whidbey General Hospital, 360-678-7656, ext. 4005 or Bayview 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 with impromptu 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 program for women and men veterans to honor stories of experiences in the armed forces through telling and writing. Steve Durbin, 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 can learn 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 and sing familiar folk songs.; 360-639-5075, songcircle@whidbey.com. 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


First Name:
Required
Message:
Required
Passcode:
Required
Submit
Reset
user agreement
privacy policy
4/5
7/1/2010
5/5
APPENDIX B. HYDROGEOLOGIC REPORT

July 2010
July 6, 2010 HWA Project No 2010 034 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
2010-034 rpt 7 6 10r.doc
HWA GEOSCIENCES INC.
July 6, 2010 HWA Project No 2010 034 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.
2010-034 rpt 7 6 10r.doc
July 6, 2010 HWA Project No 2010 034 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 tills dense nature is the result of consolidation beneath a heavy mass of glacial ice.
2010-034 rpt 7 6 10r.doc
July 6, 2010 HWA Project No 2010 034 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
2010-034 rpt 7 6 10r.doc
July 6, 2010 HWA Project No 2010 034 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.
2010-034 rpt 7 6 10r.doc
July 6, 2010 HWA Project No 2010 034 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 (). 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 W N = W cos s W sin Potential failure plane Glacial Till
2010-034 rpt 7 6 10r.doc
July 6, 2010 HWA Project No 2010 034 Where: W = weight of soil per unit area of hillside; = angle of slope of hillside; W sin = downslope component of soils weight per unit area of hillside; N = W cos = component of the soils 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 soils 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 - ) tan where: c = cohesion (not a strength component in granular soils) N = component of water in voids of the soil = pressure of water in the voids of the soil = 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: =32 degrees Bulk Density of Saturated Soil: sat= 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 Where: s = (N - ) tan , = ((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 = (124 pcf *10 feet) * sin 9.5o , reducing to; 1240 psf * 0.165 = 204 psf Resulting in: F = 379.6 / 204.6 = 1.86
2010-034 rpt 7 6 10r.doc
July 6, 2010 HWA Project No 2010 034 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 sites 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 sites 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 sites 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.
2010-034 rpt 7 6 10r.doc
July 6, 2010 HWA Project No 2010 034 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 Precip PET Balance 3.78 0.67 3.12 Feb 3.18 0.66 2.52 Mar 2.90 1.35 1.55 Apr 2.35 1.93 0.42 May 1.94 3.23 -1.30 Jun 1.73 3.53 -1.81 Jul 0.95 4.53 -3.58 Aug 1.18 3.98 -2.80 Sep 1.72 2.42 -0.70 Oct 2.78 1.10 1.68 Nov 4.26 0.58 3.68 Dec 4.27 0.51 3.77 Annual 31.05 24.50 6.55
Water Surplus Tetra Tech
Water Deficit
Water Surplus
Precip Average monthly precipitation, from Western Washington Hydrology Model (WWHM), provided by 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 manmade 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
2010-034 rpt 7 6 10r.doc
10
July 6, 2010 HWA Project No 2010 034 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 sites 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)
Jan Precip, in/mo PET, in/mo Perc, in/mo Loading rate*, in/mo Acres Loading rate, kgpd 3.78 0.67 7.3 4.18 80 299.0 Feb 3.18 0.66 7.3 4.78 80 341.8 Mar 2.90 1.35 7.3 5.75 80 410.9 Apr 2.35 1.93 7.3 6.88 80 491.6 May 1.94 3.23 7.3 8.60 80 614.1 Jun 1.73 3.53 7.3 9.11 80 650.7 Jul 0.95 4.53 7.3 10.88 80 777.5 Aug 1.18 3.98 7.3 10.10 80 721.9 Sep 1.72 2.42 7.3 8.00 80 571.6 Oct 2.78 1.10 7.3 5.62 80 401.4 Nov 4.26 0.58 7.3 3.62 80 258.5 Dec 4.27 0.51 7.3 3.53 80 252.5 5,791.5 Total 31.05 24.50 87.6 81.05
* Loading rate = reclaimed water application rate = (PET + Perc) - Precip
2010-034 rpt 7 6 10r.doc
11
July 6, 2010 HWA Project No 2010 034 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
2010-034 rpt 7 6 10r.doc
12
July 6, 2010 HWA Project No 2010 034 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 Darcys law. Darcys 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.
2010-034 rpt 7 6 10r.doc
13
July 6, 2010 HWA Project No 2010 034 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.
2010-034 rpt 7 6 10r.doc
14
July 6, 2010 HWA Project No 2010 034 TABLE 3 NITRATE LOADING MODEL PARAMETERS
Parameter Nitrate concentration in precipitation Total nitrogen concentration in wastewater Denitrification rate in subsurface Depth of mixing in the aquifer Area Width of the aquifer Hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer Hydraulic gradient Amount of recharge Nitrate concentration of upgradient ground water Volume of wastewater Value 0.24 5 10% 8 80 2,640 10 0.08 6.6 Unit mg/l mg/l % ft acres ft ft/day ft/ft in/yr Source From Ecology guidance Provided by Tetra Tech From guidance Maximum predicted saturated zone thickness during site operation Although reclaimed water will not be applied to the entire site, the entire 80 acres or more will be available for subsurface mixing Length of the site perpendicular to gradient HWA grain size data; used low end of 10-100 ft/day range for sandy soils, to approximate mixing over entire site Estimated from topography Site precipitation PET (from Table 1 water balance) 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 Full project build-out volume, provided by Tetra Tech
mg/L
500,000
Gpd
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
2010-034 rpt 7 6 10r.doc
15
July 6, 2010 HWA Project No 2010 034 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
2010-034 rpt 7 6 10r.doc
16
July 6, 2010 HWA Project No 2010 034 to better estimate the sites 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
2010-034 rpt 7 6 10r.doc
17
July 6, 2010 HWA Project No 2010 034 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.
2010-034 rpt 7 6 10r.doc
18
80-ACRE REUSE SITE
HYDROGEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION FREELAND WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT FREELAND, WASHINGTON
VICNINTY MAP
PROJECT NO.:
2010-034
FIGURE: 1
APPENDIX A TEST PIT AND BORING LOGS
RELATIVE DENSITY OR CONSISTENCY VERSUS SPT N-VALUE

COHESIONLESS SOILS Density Very Loose Loose Medium Dense Dense Very Dense N (blows/ft) 0 to 4 4 to 10 10 to 30 30 to 50 over 50 Approximate Relative Density(%) 0 15 35 65 85 15 35 65 85 100 Consistency Very Soft Soft Medium Stiff Stiff Very Stiff Hard COHESIVE SOILS N (blows/ft) 0 to 2 2 to 4 4 to 8 8 to 15 15 to 30 over 30 250 500 1000 2000 Approximate Undrained Shear Strength (psf) <250 500 1000 2000 4000
TEST SYMBOLS
%F AL CBR CN DD DS GS K MD MR PID PP SG TC TV UC Percent Fines Atterberg Limits: PL = Plastic Limit LL = Liquid Limit
>4000
USCS SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM

MAJOR DIVISIONS Gravel and Gravelly Soils More than 50% of Coarse Fraction Retained on No. 4 Sieve Sand and More than 50% Retained on No. 200 Sieve Size Sandy Soils 50% or More of Coarse Fraction Passing No. 4 Sieve Silt and Clay GROUP DESCRIPTIONS
California Bearing Ratio Consolidation Dry Density (pcf) Direct Shear Grain Size Distribution Permeability Moisture/Density Relationship (Proctor) Resilient Modulus Photoionization Device Reading Pocket Penetrometer Approx. Compressive Strength (tsf) Specific Gravity Triaxial Compression Torvane Approx. Shear Strength (tsf) Unconfined Compression
Coarse Grained Soils
Clean Gravel (little or no fines)
GW GP GM GC SW SP SM SC ML
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
Gravel with Fines (appreciable amount of fines)
SAMPLE TYPE SYMBOLS

2.0" OD Split Spoon (SPT) (140 lb. hammer with 30 in. drop) Shelby Tube 3-1/4" OD Split Spoon with Brass Rings Small Bag Sample Large Bag (Bulk) Sample Core Run Non-standard Penetration Test (3.0" OD split spoon)
Clean Sand (little or no fines)
Sand with Fines (appreciable amount of fines)
Fine Grained Soils
Liquid Limit Less than 50%
CL OL
50% or More Passing No. 200 Sieve Size
Silt and Clay
MH
Liquid Limit 50% or More
CH OH
GROUNDWATER SYMBOLS
Groundwater Level (measured at time of drilling) Groundwater Level (measured in well or open hole after water level stabilized)
Highly Organic Soils
PT
COMPONENT DEFINITIONS
COMPONENT Boulders Cobbles Gravel Coarse gravel Fine gravel Sand Coarse sand Medium sand Fine sand Silt and Clay Larger than 12 in 3 in to 12 in 3 in to No 4 (4.5mm) 3 in to 3/4 in 3/4 in to No 4 (4.5mm) No. 4 (4.5 mm) to No. 200 (0.074 mm) 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) Smaller than No. 200 (0.074mm) SIZE RANGE
COMPONENT PROPORTIONS
PROPORTION RANGE < 5% 5 - 12% 12 - 30% 30 - 50% Clean Slightly (Clayey, Silty, Sandy) Clayey, Silty, Sandy, Gravelly Very (Clayey, Silty, Sandy, Gravelly) DESCRIPTIVE TERMS
Components are arranged in order of increasing quantities.
NOTES: Soil classifications presented on exploration logs are based on visual and laboratory observation. Soil descriptions are presented in the following general order: Density/consistency, color, modifier (if any) GROUP NAME, additions to group name (if any), moisture content. 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 more complete description of subsurface conditions.
DRY
MOISTURE CONTENT
Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to the touch. MOIST WET Damp but no visible water. Visible free water, usually soil is below water table.

PROJECT NO.:
LEGEND 2010-034.GPJ 6/16/10
LEGEND OF TERMS AND SYMBOLS USED ON EXPLORATION LOGS

2010-034
FIGURE:
A-1
DRILLING COMPANY: Holocene Drilling, Inc DRILLING METHOD: CME 850 Track-mounted Hollow Stem Auger SAMPLING METHOD: SPT SURFACE ELEVATION: 199.00 feet
LOCATION: See Figure 2 DATE STARTED: 5/10/2010 DATE COMPLETED: 5/10/2010 LOGGED BY: P. Pearson
PEN. RESISTANCE (blows/6 inches)
USCS SOIL CLASS
SAMPLE NUMBER
GROUNDWATER
SAMPLE TYPE
OTHER TESTS
Standard Penetration Test (140 lb. weight, 30" drop) Blows per foot DEPTH (feet) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
SYMBOL
DEPTH (feet)
DESCRIPTION
10
20
30
40
50
SM
SP SM
Very dense, olive-gray, silty SAND trace gravel, moist, Diamicton. Trace rust mottling. Driller notes cobbley to 3.5 feet. [GLACIAL TILL] Very dense, gray, slightly silty SAND, dry. Trace gravel. Fine sand. Driller notes hard/cobbley drilling at 6.5' and 9'
S-1
11-16-23
S-2
19-24-26
10
ML
Hard, olive-gray, sandy SILT, moist. Some gravel.
S-3
23-50/6
>>
15
SM
Very dense, olive-gray, silty SAND, moist, Diamicton. Fine to medium sand. Some silt pockets. Driller notes cobble at 15'.
S-4
5-12-38
20
SM
Very dense, olive-gray, silty SAND, dry to moist. Trace gravel. Fine sand.
S-5
17-50/4
>>
25
Very dense, olive-gray, silty SAND, moist, Diamicton. Fine sand. Rust mottled.
S-6
14-23-37
>>
30
ML
Hard, olive-gray, sandy SILT, dry to moist. Rust mottled. Fine sand. [GLACIO-LACUSTRINE]
S-7
28-33-43
>>
35
Hard, olive-gray, sandy SILT, moist. Fine sand. Rust mottled. Fine laminations. Slickensides at 36'.
S-8
23-26-40
>>
40
NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations.
For a proper understanding of the nature of subsurface conditions, this exploration log should be read in conjunction with the text of the geotechnical report.
20
40
60
80
100
Water Content (%) Plastic Limit Liquid Limit Natural Water Content

PROJECT NO.:
BORING 2010-034.GPJ 6/16/10
BORING:
BH-1
PAGE: 1 of 3
2010-034
FIGURE:
A-2
USCS SOIL CLASS
SAMPLE NUMBER
GROUNDWATER
SAMPLE TYPE
OTHER TESTS
SYMBOL
DEPTH (feet)
DESCRIPTION Stiff, olive-gray, sandy SILT, slightly clayey, moist. Fine sand. Rust mottled. Laminated to blocky. Vertical sand dyke at 41'.
40
10
20
30
40
50
S-9
8-8-17
45
Hard, olive-brown, sandy SILT,slightly clayey, moist. Fine sand. Trace slickensides.
S-10 14-27-35
>>
50
Hard, olive-gray, sandy SILT, moist. Fine sand Slickensides/sand dykes. Rust mottled.
S-11 15-22-28
55
Hard, olive-gray, sandy SILT, moist. Rust mottled.
S-12 16-27-29
>>
60
Stiff, olive-gray to gray, slightly sandy SILT, moist. Rust mottled. Driller notes gravel at 62 feet.
S-13
7-9-22
65
ML
Hard, olive-gray, sandy SILT, moist. Gravel. Rust mottled.
S-14 29-35-29
>>
70
ML
Hard, olive-gray, sandy SILT, moist. Rust mottled.
S-15 14-24-32
>>
75 SP SM
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 ground surface.
S-16
80
20
40
60
80
100

PROJECT NO.:
BORING 2010-034.GPJ 6/16/10
BORING:
BH-1
PAGE: 2 of 3
2010-034
FIGURE:
A-2
USCS SOIL CLASS
SAMPLE NUMBER
GROUNDWATER
SAMPLE TYPE
OTHER TESTS
SYMBOL
DEPTH (feet)
DESCRIPTION No ground water observed while conducting this exploratory boring.
80
10
20
30
40
50
85
90
95
100
105
110
115
120
20
40
60
80
100

PROJECT NO.:
BORING 2010-034.GPJ 6/16/10
BORING:
BH-1
PAGE: 3 of 3
2010-034
FIGURE:
A-2
DRILLING COMPANY: Holocene Drilling, Inc SAMPLING METHOD: SPT LOCATION: See Figure 2
SURFACE ELEVATION: 150.00 DRILLING METHOD: CME 850 Track-mounted Hollow Stem Auger CASING ELEVATION
feet feet
DATE STARTED: 5/11/2010 DATE COMPLETED: 5/11/2010 LOGGED BY: P. Pearson
USCS SOIL CLASS
SAMPLE NUMBER
SAMPLE TYPE
OTHER TESTS
Standard Penetration Test PIEZOMETER SCHEMATIC (140 lb. weight, 30" drop) Blows per foot DEPTH (feet) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
SYMBOL
DEPTH (feet)
DESCRIPTION
10
20
30
40
50
SM
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 to medium sand. Some coarse sand and gravel. Some broken rock fragments. Cuttings wet at 7'. SP SM Very dense, olive-gray, slightly silty SAND, wet. Some gravel. [ADVANCE OUTWASH) Cuttings become silty.
S-1
3-4-5
S-2
14-16-11
10
S-3
16-27-27
>>
15
Dense, olive-gray, slightly silty to silty SAND, wet. Fine sand.
S-4
15-19-25
20
SP
Very dense, light yellow-brown, SAND with trace silt, wet to moist. Fine to medium sand.
S-5
21-33-36
>>
25
Very dense, dark yellow-brown, slightly silty SAND, moist. 3" silty fine sand layer at 26'. Cobbley drill action at 27 feet.
S-6 25-38-50/6
>>
30
S-7
31-50/4
>>
35
SP SM
Very dense, olive-gray, slightly silty SAND with gravel, moist.
S-8
50/5
>>
40
20
40
60
80
>>
100
Water Content (%) Plastic Limit Liquid Limit Natural Water Content NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations.

PROJECT NO.:
PZO 2010-034.GPJ 6/16/10
BORING:
BH-2
PAGE: 1 of 2
2010-034
FIGURE:
A-3
SURFACE ELEVATION: 150.00 DRILLING METHOD: CME 850 Track-mounted Hollow Stem Auger CASING ELEVATION
feet feet
USCS SOIL CLASS
SAMPLE NUMBER
SAMPLE TYPE
OTHER TESTS
SYMBOL
DEPTH (feet)
DESCRIPTION Very dense, olive-gray, slightly silty SAND, moist. Trace coarse sand and gravel. Fine to medium sand.
40
10
20
30
40
SP
S-9
50/5
>>
50
45
Very dense, dark yellow-brown SAND, moist. Fine to medium sand. Trace silt.
S-10
50/2
>>
50
SP SM
Very dense, brown, slightly silty SAND, moist. Some gravel. Boring terminated at 76.5 feet below the existing ground surface. Ground water observed at approximately 7 feet below the existing ground surface while conducting this exploratory boring.
S-11
50/2
>>
55
60
65
70
75
80
20
40
60
80
100

PROJECT NO.:
PZO 2010-034.GPJ 6/16/10
BORING:
BH-2
PAGE: 2 of 2
2010-034
FIGURE:
A-3
USCS SOIL CLASS
SAMPLE NUMBER
GROUNDWATER
SAMPLE TYPE
OTHER TESTS
SYMBOL
DEPTH (feet)
DESCRIPTION
10
20
30
40
50
SP SM Medium dense, brown, slightly silty SAND, moist to wet. Fine to medium sand. Some fine gravel. Trace rust mottling. [RECESSIONAL OUTWASH] Stiff, olive-brown, sandy SILT, moist, Diamicton. Some gravel and broken rock fragments. [GLACIAL TILL] S-1 3-6-7
SM
S-2
8-30-16
10
SP SM
Very dense, olive-gray, gravelly, silty SAND, moist. Fine to coarse sand. Broken rock fragment in sampler tip. 16% fines.
S-3
38-50/6
>>
15
Very dense, olive-gray, silty SAND, moist. Some coarse sand and gravel. Some broken rock fragments.
S-4
46-50/4
>>
20
SP SM
Very dense, dark yellow-brown, slightly silty SAND, moist. Fine to medium sand. [ADVANCE OUTWASH]
S-5
20-31-42
>>
25 ML SP
Very dense, dark gray SAND, wet. Perched ground water layer from 24.5'. Very dense, olive-gray, sandy SILT, moist. Trace gravel. Very dense, olive-gray, slightly silty SAND, moist. Fine sand.
S-6a 26-46-50/6 S-6b S-6c
>>
30
Very dense, olive-gray, slightly silty to silty SAND, moist. Fine sand with scattered silt laminae.
S-7
28-50/6
>>
35
Very dense, light yellow-brown/olive gray, slightly silty to silty SAND, moist. Fine sand. Laminated. Boring terminated at 35.5 feet below ground surface. Perched ground water observed at approximately 4 feet below ground surface.
S-8
50/6
>>
40
20
40
60
80
100

PROJECT NO.:
BORING 2010-034.GPJ 6/18/10
BORING:
BH-3
PAGE: 1 of 1
2010-034
FIGURE:
A-4
SURFACE ELEVATION: DRILLING METHOD: CME 850 Track-mounted Hollow Stem Auger CASING ELEVATION
88.00
feet feet
USCS SOIL CLASS
SAMPLE NUMBER
SAMPLE TYPE
OTHER TESTS
SYMBOL
DEPTH (feet)
DESCRIPTION Hard drilling through road fill to 3'.
10
20
30
40
50
SP SM
Medium dense, brown, slightly silty to silty SAND, moist to wet. Graded laminations. Fine to medium sand. [RECESSIONAL OUTWASH]
S-1
9-11-14
10
SM
Dense, brown, silty SAND, wet. Fine to medium sand. Laminated. Trace gravel and rock fragments.
S-2
11-19-19
15
SP
Dense, dark gray-brown, slightly silty SAND, moist. 6" of gravel over sand. Hard drilling.
S-3
25-22-23
20
Dense, dark gray-brown, slightly silty SAND, moist. Trace laminations. [ADVANCE OUTWASH] Boring terminated at 21.5 feet below ground surface. Ground water observed at approximately 5 feet below ground surface.
S-4
16-30-42
>>
25
30
35
40
20
40
60
80
100

PROJECT NO.:
PZO 2010-034.GPJ 6/16/10
BORING:
BH-4
PAGE: 1 of 1
2010-034
FIGURE:
A-5
USCS SOIL CLASS
SAMPLE NUMBER
GROUNDWATER
SAMPLE TYPE
OTHER TESTS
SYMBOL
DEPTH (feet)
DESCRIPTION
10
20
30
40
50
SM 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. [RECESSIONAL OUTWASH]
S-1
12-16-20
10
SM
Very dense, olive-gray, silty SAND, moist, Diamicton. Some gravel and broken rock fragments. Gravelly drilling to 15'. [GLACIAL TILL]
S-2
50/6
>>
15
Very dense, olive-gray, silty SAND, moist. Some gravel and broken rock fragments. Fine to medium sand. Sand layer at 16'.
S-3
26-30-32
>>
20
Very dense, olive-gray, silty SAND, moist. Trace gravel. Bottom 3" consists of clean, fine to medium sand. Drilling action suggests cobbles below 21'.
S-4
50/6
>>
25
Very dense, olive-gray, silty SAND, moist. Some coarse sand and gravel. Low recovery.
S-5
50/5
>>
Boulder at 28'. 30 Very dense, olive-gray, silty SAND, moist. Some coarse sand and gravel. S-6 50/3
>>
35
Very dense, olive-gray, silty SAND, moist. Some coarse sand and gravel.
40
20
40
60
80
>>
100

PROJECT NO.:
BORING 2010-034.GPJ 6/18/10
BORING:
BH-5
PAGE: 1 of 2
2010-034
FIGURE:
A-6
USCS SOIL CLASS
SAMPLE NUMBER
GROUNDWATER
SAMPLE TYPE
OTHER TESTS
SYMBOL
DEPTH (feet)
DESCRIPTION Very dense, olive-gray, silty SAND, moist. Some gravel and broken rock fragments.
40
10
20
30
40
S-8
50/6
>>
50
45
ML
Hard, olive-gray, slightly sandy SILT, moist. Some fine, sandy, rust mottled interbeds. Laminated. Smoother drilling. [GLACIO-LACUSTRINE]
S-9 29-41-50/5
>>
50
SM
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 below ground surface.
S-10 16-26-46
>>
55
60
65
70
75
80
20
40
60
80
100

PROJECT NO.:
BORING 2010-034.GPJ 6/18/10
BORING:
BH-5
PAGE: 2 of 2
2010-034
FIGURE:
A-6
EXCAVATION COMPANY: Island County EXCAVATING EQUIPMENT: JD 410G Backhoe SURFACE ELEVATION:
LOCATION: 48.02575, 122.57448 DATE COMPLETED: 8/13/03 LOGGED BY: G. Emens
115
Feet
USCS SOIL CLASS.
SAMPLE NUMBER
GROUNDWATER
SAMPLE TYPE
OTHER TESTS
MOISTURE CONTENT (%)
DEPTH (feet)
SYMBOL
SKETCH OF SIDE OF PIT

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE (feet) 0 3 6 9 12 15
DESCRIPTION Light brown, silty with organics (roots), dry. Light brown, silty, sandy fine to coarse gravel with occasional cobbles, dry. Unit is highly stratified with occasional 1-2 in. silt lenses/beds and occasional 2-4 in. fine to medium sand beds.
ML GM
9
SM Gray, silty, gravely fine to medium sand, moist. Gravel is fine to coarse with variable content. 2 5
12
15
NOTE: For a proper understanding of the nature of subsurface conditions, this exploration log should be read in conjunction with the text of the geotechnical report. This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations.

PROJECT NO.:
TP15 2010-034.GPJ 6/16/10
LOG OF TEST PIT
TP- 7
PAGE: 1 of 2
2010-034
FIGURE:
A-7
DEPTH (feet)
12
15
115
Feet
USCS SOIL CLASS.
SAMPLE NUMBER
GROUNDWATER
SAMPLE TYPE
OTHER TESTS
DEPTH (feet)
SYMBOL

DESCRIPTION
15
Distinct color change to brownish gray.
18
21
24
27
30

PROJECT NO.:
TP15 2010-034.GPJ 6/16/10
LOG OF TEST PIT
TP- 7
PAGE: 2 of 2
2010-034
FIGURE:
A-7
DEPTH (feet)
15
18
21
24
27
30
EXCAVATION COMPANY: Island County EXCAVATING EQUIPMENT: JD 410G Backhoe SURFACE ELEVATION: Feet
LOCATION: 48.02965. 122.58058 DATE COMPLETED: 9/30/03 LOGGED BY: A. Sugar
USCS SOIL CLASS.
SAMPLE NUMBER
GROUNDWATER
SAMPLE TYPE
OTHER TESTS
DEPTH (feet)
SYMBOL

DESCRIPTION Light gray, brown and rust mottled silty sand with roots, dry (topsoil)
SM
Light gray rust motled silty sand with gravel and cobbles, few roots, dry (weathered till)
SM
Light gray rust mottled silty sand with gravel, dry. Less silt than above (weathered till)
SM
Dense gray silty sand with gravel, dry (till). Few massive gray silt layers
12
15

PROJECT NO.:
TP15 2010-034.GPJ 6/16/10
LOG OF TEST PIT
TP-14
PAGE: 1 of 1
2010-034
FIGURE:
A-8
DEPTH (feet)
12
15
EXCAVATION COMPANY: Island County EXCAVATING EQUIPMENT: JD 410G Backhoe SURFACE ELEVATION: Feet
USCS SOIL CLASS.
SAMPLE NUMBER
GROUNDWATER
SAMPLE TYPE
OTHER TESTS
DEPTH (feet)
SYMBOL

DESCRIPTION Light brown rust mottled silty sand with roots, dry (topsoil)
0
SM
Dense, light gray/brown rust mottled silty sand with gravel, dry (weathered till)
3
SP SM Light gray silty fine sand, few small gravel, dry
SM
Light gray rust mottled silty sand with gravel and cobbles, dry (till)
12
15

PROJECT NO.:
TP15 2010-034.GPJ 6/16/10
LOG OF TEST PIT
TP-15
PAGE: 1 of 1
2010-034
FIGURE:
A-9
DEPTH (feet)
12
15
134
Feet
USCS SOIL CLASS.
SAMPLE NUMBER
GROUNDWATER
SAMPLE TYPE
OTHER TESTS
DEPTH (feet)
SYMBOL

DESCRIPTION Brown silty sand with roots, dry (topsoil)
0
SP SM SP SM
Light brown silty sand and clean sand, few roots, dry Dense, cemented, light brown rust mottled silty sand with gravel and cobbles, dry. Diamict stuctutre with faint layering (weathered till) S-4 8.5% fines. 4
6
Dense light gray silty sand with gravel and cobbles, moist (weathered till)
Seepage at 9.5', 3-5 gpm
12
15

PROJECT NO.:
TP15 2010-034.GPJ 6/18/10
LOG OF TEST PIT
TP-16
PAGE: 1 of 1
2010-034
FIGURE:
A-10
DEPTH (feet)
12
15
143
Feet
USCS SOIL CLASS.
SAMPLE NUMBER
GROUNDWATER
SAMPLE TYPE
OTHER TESTS
DEPTH (feet)
SYMBOL

DESCRIPTION Light brown rust mottled sand with gravel and roots, dry (topsoil)
0
SP
Light brown fine to coarse sand, gravel and cobbles with roots to 4', dry
3
SP Tan fine to medium sand, dry. 4-4.5' has light gray color
SP SM
Light gray silty fine to medium sand with gravel and cobbles, moist
S-8
Getting denser.
19% fines.
12
15

PROJECT NO.:
TP15 2010-034.GPJ 6/18/10
LOG OF TEST PIT
TP-17
PAGE: 1 of 1
2010-034
FIGURE:
A-11
DEPTH (feet)
12
15
130
Feet
USCS SOIL CLASS.
SAMPLE NUMBER
GROUNDWATER
SAMPLE TYPE
OTHER TESTS
DEPTH (feet)
SYMBOL

DESCRIPTION Light brown silty sand with gravel and roots (topsoil)
0
SP
Light brown rust mottled fine to coarse sand with gravel and cobbles, dry. Roots to 3'
3
SP SM Very dense, light gray silty fine sand, dry.
SM
Very dense light gray silty fine sand and silt, dry (till)
12
15

PROJECT NO.:
TP15 2010-034.GPJ 6/16/10
LOG OF TEST PIT
TP-18
PAGE: 1 of 1
2010-034
FIGURE:
A-12
DEPTH (feet)
12
15
EXCAVATION COMPANY: Island County EXCAVATING EQUIPMENT: JD 310 SC Backhoe SURFACE ELEVATION:
LOCATION: 48.027833, 122.573528 DATE COMPLETED: 10/18/04 LOGGED BY: A. Sugar
107
Feet
USCS SOIL CLASS.
SAMPLE NUMBER
GROUNDWATER
SAMPLE TYPE
OTHER TESTS
DEPTH (feet)
SYMBOL

DESCRIPTION Reddish brown sandy soil with organics, roots, forest duff, moist
0
SP
Loose (easy excavating) yellowish orange, fine to coarse SAND with gravel, few cobbles, moist. Gravel rounded. 9.5% fines. S-1 2 4
SM
Loose, light brown/tan fine to coarse SAND with gravel, some thin (3") denser silty layers, moist to dry. Faint stratification. 27% fines.
S-2
6
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. S-3 9
12
ML
Dense, olive gray, laminated SILT, moist to dry.
No ground water encountered to 12.5 feet total depth.
15

PROJECT NO.:
TP15 2010-034.GPJ 6/18/10
LOG OF TEST PIT
TP-22
PAGE: 1 of 1
2010-034
FIGURE:
A-13
DEPTH (feet)
12
15
LOCATION: 48.026889, 122.573306 DATE COMPLETED: 10/18/04 LOGGED BY: A. Sugar
96
Feet
USCS SOIL CLASS.
SAMPLE NUMBER
GROUNDWATER
SAMPLE TYPE
OTHER TESTS
DEPTH (feet)
SYMBOL

DESCRIPTION Brown sandy soil with organics, roots, moist to dry
GP
Loose to medium dense (easy excavating) yelowish orange fine to coarse SAND with gravel, few cobbles to 4", moist to dry. Gravel rounded. Color change to brown, less oxidation 6" fine sand layer
GP
GP
Tan/light brown fine gravel and coarse sand layer Light brown fine to coarse SAND with gravel, few cobbles, moist to dry
SP
ML SM
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.
12
ML ML
Stiff gray rust mottled plastic SILT / clay, moist. Massive structure. Stiff gray laminated SILT, dry. [glaciolacustrine]
15

PROJECT NO.:
TP15 2010-034.GPJ 6/16/10
LOG OF TEST PIT
TP-23
PAGE: 1 of 1
2010-034
FIGURE:
A-14
DEPTH (feet)
12
15
89
Feet
USCS SOIL CLASS.
SAMPLE NUMBER
GROUNDWATER
SAMPLE TYPE
OTHER TESTS
DEPTH (feet)
SYMBOL

DESCRIPTION Medium-brown silty SAND with organics Medium gray, medium to coarse silty SAND with trace fine to coarse gravel Light gray SILT with trace sand and gravel (Glacial Till)
0
SM ML
3
SP Light brownish gray medium SAND with trace silt and fine gravel (sand coarsening downward - from fine to medium). 12% fines.
S-1
SP SM
Light gray, fine, silty SAND with trace gravel, moist
12
15

PROJECT NO.:
TP15 2010-034.GPJ 6/18/10
LOG OF TEST PIT
TP-24
PAGE: 1 of 1
2010-034
FIGURE:
A-15
DEPTH (feet)
12
15
192
Feet
USCS SOIL CLASS.
SAMPLE NUMBER
GROUNDWATER
SAMPLE TYPE
OTHER TESTS
DEPTH (feet)
SYMBOL

DESCRIPTION Dark brown to medium brown organic SILT grading to silt with fine sand and trace fine to coarse gravel Light brownish gray SILT with fine to medium sand and gravel (Weathered Glacial Till) hard digging
OL
ML
3
ML Dense, light gray SILT, with gravel. Gravel breaking during excavation.
12
No ground water encountered to 12 feet total depth.
15

PROJECT NO.:
TP15 2010-034.GPJ 6/16/10
LOG OF TEST PIT
TP-25
PAGE: 1 of 1
2010-034
FIGURE:
A-16
DEPTH (feet)
12
15
144
Feet
USCS SOIL CLASS.
SAMPLE NUMBER
GROUNDWATER
SAMPLE TYPE
OTHER TESTS
DEPTH (feet)
SYMBOL

DESCRIPTION Dark brown organic SILT with roots
GW GM
Dense, well graded, fine to coarse Gravel with fine to coarse sand and silt, orangish brown cobbles to 8 feet (hard digging)
3
Color grades to light brown
Color grades to brownish gray
9
12
15

PROJECT NO.:
TP15 2010-034.GPJ 6/16/10
LOG OF TEST PIT
TP-26
PAGE: 1 of 1
2010-034
FIGURE:
A-17
DEPTH (feet)
12
15
165
Feet
USCS SOIL CLASS.
SAMPLE NUMBER
GROUNDWATER
SAMPLE TYPE
OTHER TESTS
DEPTH (feet)
SYMBOL

DESCRIPTION Medium brown top soil Dense, light brownish gray, fine sandy SILT with trace gravel, with some iron oxide staining (Weathered Glacial Till)
0
ML
3
(Glacial Till) Fine sand lens Silt becomes light gray
SP SM
Silt grades to light gray silty medium SAND with silt and fine grained diamicton (Glacial Till)
9
12
15

PROJECT NO.:
TP15 2010-034.GPJ 6/16/10
LOG OF TEST PIT
TP-27
PAGE: 1 of 1
2010-034
FIGURE:
A-18
DEPTH (feet)
12
15
170
Feet
USCS SOIL CLASS.
SAMPLE NUMBER
GROUNDWATER
SAMPLE TYPE
OTHER TESTS
DEPTH (feet)
SYMBOL

DESCRIPTION Dark brown organic SILT
0
ML
Dense, light brownish gray SILT with fine sand and gravel, diamicton (Weathered Glacial Till)
3
Light gray (Glacial Till)
9
No ground water encountered to 9 feet total depth
12
15

PROJECT NO.:
TP15 2010-034.GPJ 6/16/10
LOG OF TEST PIT
TP-28
PAGE: 1 of 1
2010-034
FIGURE:
A-19
DEPTH (feet)
12
15
EXCAVATION COMPANY: Diamond Construction EXCAVATING EQUIPMENT: Komatsu PC120 Excavator SURFACE ELEVATION:
LOCATION: See Figure 2 DATE COMPLETED: 5/18/10 LOGGED BY: P. Pearson
76
Feet
USCS SOIL CLASS.
SAMPLE NUMBER
GROUNDWATER
SAMPLE TYPE
OTHER TESTS
DEPTH (feet)
SYMBOL

DESCRIPTION Loose, red brown to brown, silty SAND, moist. Fine to medium sand. Some gravel. [TOPSOIL] Stiff, gray, slightly sandy SILT, moist. Trace gravel. [LACUSTRINE]
SM ML
3
SP SM Very dense, gray, slightly silty SAND, moist. Some gravel and cobbles. Seepage at 5' in NE corner. (SANDY GLACIAL TILL)
9
18% fines. S-1 4
12
Test pit terminated at 11 feet below ground surface. No ground water observed at time of exploration.
15

PROJECT NO.:
TP15 2010-034.GPJ 6/18/10
LOG OF TEST PIT
TP-29
PAGE: 1 of 1
2010-034
FIGURE:
A-20
DEPTH (feet)
12
15
75
Feet
USCS SOIL CLASS.
SAMPLE NUMBER
GROUNDWATER
SAMPLE TYPE
OTHER TESTS
DEPTH (feet)
SYMBOL

DESCRIPTION Wood debris, duff, topsoil.
SW
Medium dense, red brown to gray, slightly silty, gravelly SAND, moist. Fine to coarse sand. Some organics, roots. [RECESSIONAL OUTWASH]
S-1
6
SP Dense, gray, slightly silty SAND, moist. Fine sand.
12
15

PROJECT NO.:
TP15 2010-034.GPJ 6/16/10
LOG OF TEST PIT
TP-30
PAGE: 1 of 1
2010-034
FIGURE:
A-21
DEPTH (feet)
12
15
49
Feet
USCS SOIL CLASS.
SAMPLE NUMBER
GROUNDWATER
SAMPLE TYPE
OTHER TESTS
DEPTH (feet)
SYMBOL

DESCRIPTION [TOPSOIL] Stiff, gray, slightly sandy SILT, moist. Some rust mottling. Rootlets. [LACUSTRINE]
0
ML
3
SP Dense, brown, slightly silty SAND, moist to wet. Seepage at 7'. [RECESSIONAL OUTWASH]
S-1 s-2
ML
Hard, gray, slightly sandy SILT, moist. Trace gravel and rust mottling. [GLACIO-LACUSTRINE]
12
Test pit terminated at 12 feet below ground surface. Ground water seepage observed at 7 feet below ground surface.
15

PROJECT NO.:
TP15 2010-034.GPJ 6/16/10
LOG OF TEST PIT
TP-31
PAGE: 1 of 1
2010-034
FIGURE:
A-22
DEPTH (feet)
12
15
68
Feet
USCS SOIL CLASS.
SAMPLE NUMBER
GROUNDWATER
SAMPLE TYPE
OTHER TESTS
DEPTH (feet)
SYMBOL

DESCRIPTION [TOPSOIL] Medium dense, red brown, gravelly SAND, moist. Fine to coarse sand. [RECESSIONAL OUTWASH] Medium dense, gray, silty SAND, moist.
0
SW
SM
SP
Dense, gray, slightly silty SAND, moist. Fine sand.
SM
12
Very dense, olive-gray, silty SAND, moist. Trace gravel. [GLACIAL TILL]
15

PROJECT NO.:
TP15 2010-034.GPJ 6/16/10
LOG OF TEST PIT
TP-32
PAGE: 1 of 1
2010-034
FIGURE:
A-23
DEPTH (feet)
12
15
140
Feet
USCS SOIL CLASS.
SAMPLE NUMBER
GROUNDWATER
SAMPLE TYPE
OTHER TESTS
DEPTH (feet)
SYMBOL

DESCRIPTION [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. Some gravel. Seepage from 4 to 5.5'.
0
SP ML SM
SM
Very dense, olive-gray, silty SAND, moist. Gravel. [GLACIAL TILL]
12
15

PROJECT NO.:
TP15 2010-034.GPJ 6/16/10
LOG OF TEST PIT
TP-33
PAGE: 1 of 1
2010-034
FIGURE:
A-24
DEPTH (feet)
12
15
130
Feet
USCS SOIL CLASS.
SAMPLE NUMBER
GROUNDWATER
SAMPLE TYPE
OTHER TESTS
DEPTH (feet)
SYMBOL

DESCRIPTION Medium dense, red brown, silty SAND, moist. Gravel and rootlets. [RECESSIONAL OUTWASH]
SM
SM
Very dense, olive-gray, silty SAND, moist. Gravel. [GLACIAL TILL] S-1
6
12
15

PROJECT NO.:
TP15 2010-034.GPJ 6/16/10
LOG OF TEST PIT
TP-34
PAGE: 1 of 1
2010-034
FIGURE:
A-25
DEPTH (feet)
12
15
146
Feet
USCS SOIL CLASS.
SAMPLE NUMBER
GROUNDWATER
SAMPLE TYPE
OTHER TESTS
DEPTH (feet)
SYMBOL

DESCRIPTION [TOPSOIL] Medium dense to dense, red brown, silty SAND, moist. Some gravel. [WEATHERED TILL] Very dense, olive-gray, silty SAND, moist. Gravel and cobbles. Boulder at 3'. [GLACIAL TILL]
0
SM SM
6
12
15

PROJECT NO.:
TP15 2010-034.GPJ 6/16/10
LOG OF TEST PIT
TP-35
PAGE: 1 of 1
2010-034
FIGURE:
A-26
DEPTH (feet)
12
15
115
Feet
USCS SOIL CLASS.
SAMPLE NUMBER
GROUNDWATER
SAMPLE TYPE
OTHER TESTS
DEPTH (feet)
SYMBOL

DESCRIPTION [TOPSOIL]
0
SM
Dense to very dense, olive-gray, silty SAND, moist. Gravel. Rust mottled. [GLACIAL TILL]
Test pit terminated at 10 feet below ground surface.
12
No ground water observed at time of exploration.
15

PROJECT NO.:
TP15 2010-034.GPJ 6/16/10
LOG OF TEST PIT
TP-36
PAGE: 1 of 1
2010-034
FIGURE:
A-27
DEPTH (feet)
12
15
112
Feet
USCS SOIL CLASS.
SAMPLE NUMBER
GROUNDWATER
SAMPLE TYPE
OTHER TESTS
DEPTH (feet)
SYMBOL

DESCRIPTION Medium dense, red brown to olive gray, silty, gravelly SAND, wet. Organics and roots. [RECESSIONAL OUTWASH]
SM
SP
Medium dense to dense, light yellow-brown, slightly silty SAND, moist. Trace seepage from 8 to 9' in NW corner.
S-1
SM
Dense to very dense, olive-gray, slightly silty to silty SAND, moist. Gravel. [SANDY GLACIAL TILL] 34% fines. S-2 10
12
15

PROJECT NO.:
TP15 2010-034.GPJ 6/18/10
LOG OF TEST PIT
TP-37
PAGE: 1 of 1
2010-034
FIGURE:
A-28
DEPTH (feet)
12
15
113
Feet
USCS SOIL CLASS.
SAMPLE NUMBER
GROUNDWATER
SAMPLE TYPE
OTHER TESTS
DEPTH (feet)
SYMBOL

DESCRIPTION Dense, olive-brown to red brown, silty SAND, moist. Gravel. [WEATHERED TILL]
SM
SM
Very dense, olive-gray, silty SAND, moist. Gravel and cobbles. [GLACIAL TILL]
S-1
12
15

PROJECT NO.:
TP15 2010-034.GPJ 6/16/10
LOG OF TEST PIT
TP-38
PAGE: 1 of 1
2010-034
FIGURE:
A-29
DEPTH (feet)
12
15
112
Feet
USCS SOIL CLASS.
SAMPLE NUMBER
GROUNDWATER
SAMPLE TYPE
OTHER TESTS
DEPTH (feet)
SYMBOL

DESCRIPTION [TOPSOIL] Dense, dark yellow-brown, gravelly SAND, moist. Fine to coarse sand. Some silt. [RECESSIONAL OUTWASH] Very dense, light yellow-brown, slightly silty SAND, moist. Fine to medium sand. Some gravel.
0
SW
SP
SM
Very dense, olive-gray, slightly silty to silty SAND, moist. Gravel. [GLACIAL TILL]
12
15

PROJECT NO.:
TP15 2010-034.GPJ 6/16/10
LOG OF TEST PIT
TP-39
PAGE: 1 of 1
2010-034
FIGURE:
A-30
DEPTH (feet)
12
15
180
Feet
USCS SOIL CLASS.
SAMPLE NUMBER
GROUNDWATER
SAMPLE TYPE
OTHER TESTS
DEPTH (feet)
SYMBOL

DESCRIPTION [TOPSOIL] Dense, olive-gray, silty, gravelly SAND, moist. Rust mottled at 3'. [RECESSIONAL OUTWASH]
0
SP
S-1
ML
Hard, gray, sandy, SILT, moist. Fine sand. Trace gravel. [LACUSTRINE] S-2
12
15

PROJECT NO.:
TP15 2010-034.GPJ 6/18/10
LOG OF TEST PIT
TP-40
PAGE: 1 of 1
2010-034
FIGURE:
A-31
DEPTH (feet)
12
15
178
Feet
USCS SOIL CLASS.
SAMPLE NUMBER
GROUNDWATER
SAMPLE TYPE
OTHER TESTS
DEPTH (feet)
SYMBOL

DESCRIPTION Very dense, red brown to olive gray, silty, gravelly, SAND, moist. Fine to medium sand. [RECESSIONAL OUTWASH]
SM
S-1
SM
Very dense, olive-gray, silty, SAND, moist. Gravel. [GLACIAL TILL]
SP
9
SM
Dense, gray, slightly silty, SAND, moist to wet. Fine to medium sand lens. S-2 Very dense, olive-gray, slightly silty to silty, SAND, moist. Gravel and cobbles. Not cemented. [ADVANCE OUTWASH]
12
15

PROJECT NO.:
TP15 2010-034.GPJ 6/16/10
LOG OF TEST PIT
TP-41
PAGE: 1 of 1
2010-034
FIGURE:
A-32
DEPTH (feet)
12
15
87
Feet
USCS SOIL CLASS.
SAMPLE NUMBER
GROUNDWATER
SAMPLE TYPE
OTHER TESTS
DEPTH (feet)
SYMBOL

DESCRIPTION Loose, dark brown, silty, SAND, moist. Organics. [TOPSOIL] Medium dense, red brown, gravelly, SAND, moist. Fine to medium sand. Some roots, organics. [RECESSIONAL OUTWASH]
SM SP
S-1
3
ML Stiff, gray, slightly sandy, SILT, moist. Trace gravel. Trace rust mottling. [LACUSTRINE] S-2
9
ML Hard, gray, gravelly, SILT, moist. [GLACIAL TILL]
12
15

PROJECT NO.:
TP15 2010-034.GPJ 6/16/10
LOG OF TEST PIT
TP-42
PAGE: 1 of 1
2010-034
FIGURE:
A-33
DEPTH (feet)
12
15
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.
GRAVEL
Coarse
3/4" 5/8"
SAND
Fine Coarse Medium Fine
SILT
CLAY
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES

3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200
3" 100 90 80
1-1/2"
PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT
70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 50 10 5 1 0.5 0.1 0.05 0.01 0.005 0.001 0.0005
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

SYMBOL SAMPLE BH-2 BH-2 BH-3 S-3 S-4 S-3 DEPTH (ft) 10.0 - 11.5 15.0 - 16.5 10.0 - 11.0 CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL- ASTM D2487 Group Symbol and Name (SM) Light olive brown, silty SAND (SM) Grayish brown, silty SAND (SP-SM) Light olive brown, poorly graded SAND with silt and gravel % MC 15 19 6 LL PL PI Gravel Sand Fines % % % 14.2 0.0 39.0 71.4 71.2 53.1 14.5 28.8 7.9

HWAGRSZ 2010-034.GPJ 6/18/10
PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS METHOD ASTM D422

PROJECT NO.:
2010-034
FIGURE:
B-1
GRAVEL
Coarse
3/4" 5/8"
SAND
SILT
CLAY

3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200
3" 100 90 80
1-1/2"
70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 50 10 5 1 0.5 0.1 0.05 0.01 0.005 0.001 0.0005

SYMBOL SAMPLE BH-5 TP- 7 TP-16 S-1 S-2 S-4 DEPTH (ft) 5.0 - 6.5 10.0 - 10.3 4.0 - 5.0 CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL- ASTM D2487 Group Symbol and Name (SM) Light olive brown, silty SAND (SM) olive-gray, silty SAND with gravel (SW-SM) Reddish brown, well graded sand with silt and gravel % MC 18 5 4 LL PL PI Gravel Sand Fines % % % 7.1 18.3 25.4 72.5 59.8 66.0 20.4 21.9 8.5

HWAGRSZ 2010-034.GPJ 6/18/10

PROJECT NO.:
2010-034
FIGURE:
B-2
GRAVEL
Coarse
3/4" 5/8"
SAND
SILT
CLAY

3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200
3" 100 90 80
1-1/2"
70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 50 10 5 1 0.5 0.1 0.05 0.01 0.005 0.001 0.0005

SYMBOL SAMPLE TP-17 TP-22 TP-22 S-8 S-1 S-2 DEPTH (ft) 8.0 - 9.0 2.0 - 3.0 3.0 - 4.0 CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL- ASTM D2487 Group Symbol and Name (SM) Gray, silty sand with gravel (SP) Yellowish brown, poorly graded SAND with gravel (SM) Yellowish brown, silty SAND with gravel % MC 6 2 4 LL PL PI Gravel Sand Fines % % % 21.4 23.2 23.8 59.3 65.2 49.4 19.3 9.5 26.8

HWAGRSZ 2010-034.GPJ 6/18/10

PROJECT NO.:
2010-034
FIGURE:
B-3
GRAVEL
Coarse
3/4" 5/8"
SAND
SILT
CLAY

3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200
3" 100 90 80
1-1/2"
70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 50 10 5 1 0.5 0.1 0.05 0.01 0.005 0.001 0.0005

SYMBOL SAMPLE TP-22 TP-23 TP-24 S-3 S-1 S-1 DEPTH (ft) 10.0 - 11.0 2.0 - 3.0 4.5 - 5.5 CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL- ASTM D2487 Group Symbol and Name (SM) Yellowish brown, silty SAND (GP) Light reddish brown, poorly graded GRAVEL wiht sand (SP) Olive brown, poorly graded SAND with silt and gravel % MC 9 2 6 LL PL PI Gravel Sand Fines % % % 14.5 64.3 17.2 42.9 34.0 70.8 42.6 1.7 12.0

HWAGRSZ 2010-034.GPJ 6/18/10

PROJECT NO.:
2010-034
FIGURE:
B-4
GRAVEL
Coarse
3/4" 5/8"
SAND
SILT
CLAY

3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200
3" 100 90 80
1-1/2"
70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 50 10 5 1 0.5 0.1 0.05 0.01 0.005 0.001 0.0005

SYMBOL SAMPLE TP-29 TP-37 TP-37 S-1 S-1 S-2 DEPTH (ft) 10.0 - 11.0 3.0 - 4.0 10.0 - 11.0 CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL- ASTM D2487 Group Symbol and Name (SM) Grayish brown, silty SAND with gravel (SP-SM) Light olive brown, poorly graded SAND with silt (SM) Light olive brown, silty SAND % MC 4 8 10 LL PL PI Gravel Sand Fines % % % 39.5 0.1 1.3 42.5 91.4 64.6 18.0 8.5 34.2

HWAGRSZ 2010-034.GPJ 6/18/10

PROJECT NO.:
2010-034
FIGURE:
B-5
GRAVEL
Coarse
3/4" 5/8"
SAND
SILT
CLAY

3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200
3" 100 90 80
1-1/2"
70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 50 10 5 1 0.5 0.1 0.05 0.01 0.005 0.001 0.0005

SYMBOL SAMPLE TP-40 S-1 DEPTH (ft) 2.0 - 3.0 CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL- ASTM D2487 Group Symbol and Name (GM) Yellowish brown, silty GRAVEL with sand % MC 5 LL PL PI Gravel Sand Fines % % % 55.9 31.6 12.5

HWAGRSZ 2010-034.GPJ 6/18/10

PROJECT NO.:
2010-034
FIGURE:
B-6
APPENDIX C. LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR USE OF ADDITIONAL REUSE SITE LAND AREA
July 2010
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 Initial Construction
1,557 3,643
2023 Expansion #1
2,058 4,816
2037 Expansion #2
3,129 7,323
ITEM CAPACITY
ERUs POPULATION EQUIVALENTS WWTP INFLUENT FLOW (MGD) AVERAGE ANNUAL (AA) MAXIMUM MONTH (MM) MAXIMUM DAY (MD) PEAK HOUR (PH) 5-DAY BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (BOD) (PPD) AA MM MD TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS (TSS) (PPD) AA MM MD TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN (TKN) (PPD) AA MM MD TREATMENT FACILITIES HEADWORKS MECHANICAL FINE SCREEN HOLE SIZE, MILLIMETERS NUMBER DUTY STANDBY CAPACITY PEAK FLOW, MGD DUTY STANDBY EMERGENCY STORAGE MBR BASINS USED FOR EMERGENCY STORAGE VOLUME, EACH (MG) SLUDGE TANKS USED FOR EMERGENCY STORAGE VOLUME, EACH (MG) DEDICATED EMERGENCY STORAGE TANK VOLUME, EACH (MG) VOLUME, TOTAL (MG) DAYS STORAGE (FOR ONE TRAIN AT MM 0.17 MGD) (HOURS) MEMBRANE BIOREACTORS TEMPERATURE FOR BIOLOGICAL PROCESS CALCS, deg. C AA MM NUMBER OF TREATMENT TRAINS PRE-ANOXIC BASINS NUMBER OF BASINS SIDE WATER DEPTH (FT.) VOLUME, EACH (MG) VOLUME, TOTAL (MG) AEROBIC BASINS NUMBER OF BASINS SIDE WATER DEPTH (FT.) VOLUME, EACH (MG) VOLUME, TOTAL (MG) POST-ANOXIC BASINS NUMBER OF BASINS SIDE WATER DEPTH (FT.) VOLUME, EACH (MG) VOLUME, TOTAL (MG) MBR MEMBRANE BASINS NUMBER OF BASINS SIDE WATER DEPTH (FT.) VOLUME, EACH (MG) VOLUME, TOTAL (MG) TOTAL VOLUME OF ACTIVE MBR PROCESS TRAINS (MG) HYDRAULIC DETENTION TIME, PRE-ANOXIC ZONE (HOURS) AA MM HYDRAULIC DETENTION TIME, AEROBIC BASIN(HOURS) AA MM HYDRAULIC DETENTION TIME, POST-ANOXIC ZONE (HOURS)
0.25 0.34 0.45 0.92 352 704 880 147 387 513 106 177 211
0.38 0.51 0.67 1.38 528 1,056 1,319 220 580 770 158 265 317
0.50 0.68 0.89 1.84 704 1,408 1,759 293 773 1,026 211 353 422
2 1 1 1.84 1.84 2 0.125
2 1 1 1.84 1.84 1 0.125 1 0.045 0 0.170 24
2 1 1 1.84 1.84 0 0 1 0.170 0.170 24
0 0.250 35
15 10 2 2 16 0.030 0.060 2 15 0.065 0.130 2 14 0.020 0.040 2 17 0.010 0.020 0.250
15 10 3 3 16 0.030 0.090 3 15 0.065 0.195 3 14 0.020 0.060 3 17 0.010 0.030 0.375
15 10 4 4 16 0.030 0.120 4 15 0.065 0.260 4 14 0.020 0.080 4 17 0.010 0.040 0.500
5.8 4.2 12.5 9.2
5.8 4.2 12.5 9.2
5.8 4.2 12.5 9.2
Tt/KCM Seattle, WA
3.8 2.8 1.9 1.4 24 18 4.8 x MMF 2.0 x MMF 20 4,760 5,720 5,710 8,560 5,930 73% 4,329 0.041 0.081 16,320 32,640 10.4 1 CENTRIFUGAL 125
2023 Expansion #1
2037 Expansion #2
ITEM
AA MM HYDRAULIC DETENTION TIME, MEMBRANE TANK (HOURS) AA MM HYDRAULIC DETENTION TIME, TOTAL (HOURS) AA MM MIXED LIQUOR INTERNAL RECYCLE:- AEROBIC TO PRE-ANOXIC MIXER LIQUOR RETURN: MEMBRANE TANK TO AEROBIC TANK SRT AT MM (DAYS) MLSS (MG/L)_PRE-ANOXIC TANKS @MM MLSS (MG/L)_ AERATION TANKS @MM MLSS (MG/L)_ POST-ANOXIC TANK @MM MLSS (MG/L)_ MEMBRANE TANK @MM MLSS INVENTORY (LBS), PER TRAIN RATIO MLVSS / MLSS , % VOLATILE SOLIDS INVENTORY (LBS.), PER TRAIN F/M RATIO (PPD BOD/LB MLVSS) AA MM FLAT PLATE MEMBRANE DESIGN MEMBRANE AREA, per treatment train (SF) TOTAL MEMBRANE AREA (SF) MEMBRANE FLUX RATE (Gallons/sq.ft./day) MMF WAS PUMPS NUMBER OF DUTY PUMPS (1 STANDBY PUMP) TYPE OF PUMPS PUMP CAPACITY. ALL DUTY PUMPS ON (GPM) SOLIDS HANDLING UNIT GROSS SLUDGE YIELD (LBS TOTAL SOLIDS / LB WWTP INFLUENT BOD) WASTE ACTIVATED SLUDGE (WAS) LOADINGS (Lbs Total Solids/Day) AA MM WASTE ACTIVATED SLUDGE LOADINGS (GPD) @ 1.0% AA MM WAS THICKENED TO 3.0% (GPD) AA MM AERATED RAW SLUDGE HOLDING TANK NUMBER SIDE WATER DEPTH (FT.) VOLUME, EACH (GAL) NUMBER SIDE WATER DEPTH (FT.) VOLUME, EACH (GAL) VOLUME, TOTAL (GAL) DAYS STORAGE AT MM FLOW AERATED THICKENED (TO 3%) SLUDGE HOLDING TANK NUMBER SIDE WATER DEPTH (FT.) VOLUME, EACH (GAL) DAYS STORAGE AT MM THICKENED SLUDGE FLOW SOLIDS THICKENING CAPACITY (GPM) TIME (HRS) TO PROCESS 1 DAY OF MM WAS FLOW UV DISINFECTION TYPE TOTAL CAPACITY, PEAK FLOW, MGD IF CLOSED SYSTEM, NUMBER OF REACTORS DUTY STANDBY IF OPEN CHANNEL REACTOR, NO. OF LAMP BANKS DUTY
0.84 295 590 3,540 7,070 1,180 2,360 1 15 20,000
0.84 443 860 5,310 10,310 1,770 3,440 1 15 20,000 1 15 45,000 65,000 6.3 1 15 20,000 5.8 ROTARY DRUM 30 5.7
0.84 590 1,180 7,070 14,150 2,360 4,720 To be determined in concert with MBR emergency storage evaluation
20,000 2.8 1 15 20,000 8.5 ROTARY DRUM 30 3.9
To be determined in concert with MBR emergency storage evaluation ROTARY DRUM 60 3.9
1.84 1 train of 2 in series 1 train of 2 in series
1.84 2 trains of 2 in series 1 train of 2 in series
1.84 2 trains of 2 in series 1 train of 2 in series
1 train with 2 banks in 2 trains with 2 banks in 2 trains with 2 banks in series series series
Tt/KCM Seattle, WA
3rd bank in duty train 12.5% NaOCl 2 METERING PUMPS SUBMERSIBLE 1 1 2 350
2023 Expansion #1
3rd bank in each duty train 12.5% NaOCl 2 METERING PUMPS SUBMERSIBLE 1 1 2 350
2037 Expansion #2
3rd bank in each duty train 12.5% NaOCl 2 METERING PUMPS SUBMERSIBLE 1 1 2 350
ITEM
STANDBY CHLORINATION SYSTEM TYPE TYPICAL DOSE (MG/L) FEED YARD PUMP STATION TYPE OF PUMPS NUMBER DUTY STANDBY TOTAL CAPACITY, EACH (GPM) - TWO PUMPS RUNNING EFFLUENT PUMP STATION NUMBER DUTY STANDBY TOTAL CAPACITY, EACH (GPM) - TWO PUMPS RUNNING STANDBY POWER TYPE CAPACITY (kW) DAY TANK RUN TIME CAPACITY, HOURS FUEL STORAGE CAPACITY (GAL) FUEL TANK RUN TIME, IN ADDITION TO DAY TANK (HOURS) ESTIMATED FUEL USAGE RATE FLOW MEASUREMENT INFLUENT TYPE SIZE (IN.) NUMBER RANGE (GPM) EFFLUENT TYPE SIZE (IN.) NUMBER RANGE (GPM) SLUDGE RAS/WAS FLOW TYPE NUMBER YARD PUMP STATION TYPE NUMBER SIZE (IN.) ODOR SCRUBBERS NUMBER CAPACITY EACH (CFM) CAPACITY TOTAL (CFM) WATER REUSE FACILITIES RECLAIMED WATER APPLICATION SITE BUFFERS AND UNUSABLE AREA (ACRES) APPLICATION AREA (ACRES) TOTAL AREA (ACRES) RECLAIMED WATER WET WEATHER STORAGE NUMBER OF BASINS VOLUME, EACH (MG) DEPTH - MAXIMUM (FT) VOLUME, TOTAL (MG) DAYS STORAGE AT AA FLOW (DAYS) RECLAIMED WATER APPLICATION SYSTEM NUMBER DUTY STANDBY TOTAL CAPACITY, EACH (GPM)
1 1 2 350 DIESEL GENSET 1000 12 5000 85 59
1 1 2 350 DIESEL GENSET 1000 12 5000 67 75
1 1 2 350 DIESEL GENSET To Be Determined 12 To Be Determined To Be Determined To Be Determined
Same 6 1 0.1-2.0 MAGNETIC 8 1 0-2000
Same 6 1 0.1-2.0 MAGNETIC 8 1 0-2000
Same 6 1 0.1-2.0 MAGNETIC 8 1 0-2000
MAGNETIC 2 MAGNETIC 1 4 1 6000 6000
20 60 80 1 3.5 10 3.5 14
40 120 160 2 3.5 10 7.0 19
50 150 200 2 3.5 10 7.0 14
1 1 2 300
2 2 4 300
1 1 2 300
Tt/KCM Seattle, WA
2010 Population and Flow Estimate Updates

Phase 1 Year Residential DU Non-Res. DU Phase 2 Residential DU Non-Res. DU Total P1 & P2 Dwelling Units Residential Non. Resid Connected to Sewer ERU's Pop. Growth Percent New Connections Abandoned Tanks MMF (mgd) AAF (mgd) Comments
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
249 261 273 287 300 315
252 260 268 277 286 295 304 314 324 334 345 356 367 379 391 403 415 425 435 445 455 466 476
200 213 228 243 260 277 296 316 337 360 384 410 438 467 499 532 568 582 597 612 628 643 660
22 23 24 25 27 28 29 31 32 34 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 48 49 50 52 53 54
449 474 501 530 560 592 626 662 700 740 782 827 875 925 979 1035 1095 1121 1147 1174 1202 1231 1260
274 283 292 302 312 323 334 345 356 368 380 393 406 419 433 448 462 473 484 495 507 518 530
Phase 1 Dwelling units estimated from water meter data., Phase 2 numbers estimated from buildable lands analysis.
2014
610
664 724 788 858 935 1018 1109 1207 8.9% 8.9% 8.9% 8.9% 8.9% 8.9% 8.9% 8.9% 8.9% 8.9% 8.7% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 54 59 64 70 76 83 91 99 108 117 125 37 37 38 39 40 41 30 34 38 43 48 53 59 66 74 82 89 -
0.18
0.19 0.21 0.22 0.24 0.26 0.28 0.30 0.33
0.13
0.14 0.15 0.16 0.17 0.19 0.20 0.22 0.24
Beginning population Initial Startup
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Phase 1 Collection System
2015
330 346 363 380 398 417 437 458 480 503 527 538 550 562 575 587 600
2023
2024
1315
1432
0.35
0.38
0.25
0.27
First treatment plant expansion
2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031
Phase 1 + Phase 2 Colllection Systems
2025
1557
1594 1631 1669 1709 1749 1790
0.41
0.417 0.424 0.43 0.44 0.45 0.45
0.29
0.295 0.301 0.31 0.31 0.32 0.32
Estimated total population from County data

Phase 1 Year Residential DU 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 613 626 640 654 668 683 698 713 728 744 761 777 794 812 829 847 866 885 904 924 944 Non-Res. DU 487 499 510 522 534 547 560 573 586 599 613 628 642 657 672 688 704 720 737 754 772 Phase 2 Residential DU 676 694 711 729 747 766 786 806 826 847 868 890 913 936 959 984 1008 1034 1060 1087 1114 Non-Res. DU 55 57 58 59 61 62 63 65 66 68 70 71 73 75 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 Total P1 & P2 Dwelling Units Residential Non. Resid 543 555 568 581 595 609 623 637 652 667 683 699 715 732 749 766 784 802 821 840 860 Connected to Sewer ERU's Pop. Growth Percent 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 50 51 52 53 54 56 57 58 60 61 63 64 66 67 New Connections Abandoned Tanks MMF (mgd) AAF (mgd) Comments
1289 1320 1351 1383 1416 1449 1483 1519 1554 1591 1629 1667 1707 1747 1789 1831 1874 1919 1964 2011 2058
1832 1875 1919 1964 2011
0.46 0.47 0.48 0.49 0.49
0.33 0.34 0.34 0.35 0.35
2037
2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051 2052
2058
2106 2156 2207 2259 2312 2366 2422 2479 2537 2597 2658 2721 2785 2851 2918
0.50
0.51 0.52 0.53 0.54 0.55 0.56 0.56 0.57 0.58 0.59 0.60 0.61 0.62 0.64 0.65
0.36
0.37 0.37 0.38 0.39 0.39 0.40 0.41 0.42 0.42 0.43 0.44 0.45 0.46 0.46 0.47
Second treatment plant expansion

Phase 1 Year Residential DU 2053 2054 964 985 1007 Non-Res. DU 790 808 827 Phase 2 Residential DU 1143 1171 1201 Non-Res. DU 90 92 94 Total P1 & P2 Dwelling Units Residential Non. Resid 880 900 921 Connected to Sewer ERU's Pop. Growth Percent 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 69 70 72 New Connections Abandoned Tanks MMF (mgd) AAF (mgd) Comments
2107 2157 2208
2987 3057
0.66 0.67
0.48 0.49
2055
3129
0.68
0.50
Estimated total population from County data
APPENDIX E. COST ESTIMATES

July 2010
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 used are 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, $/lb Methanol (carbon source) ....................................... Magnesium Hydroxide (pH adjustment)................. Sodium Hypochlorite .............................................. Polymer ................................................................... $1.50 $0.80 $1.50 $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 ANALYSIS
The 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-1
CURRENT YEAR (2010) DOLLARS

All costs shown in the spreadsheets in this appendix are year 2010 dollars.
CONSTRUCTION PERIOD
For 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 RATE

This rate is estimated at $45 per hour with fringe costs.
DIESEL OIL COST

The current rate is approximately $3.50 per gallon.
POWER COST
A 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 COST
Estimated 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 REPLACEMENT COSTS

To 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 of 2 percent per year was used..
CONTINGENCY
Contingency 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.
E-2
APPENDIX E. COST ESTIMATING CRITERIA
ENGINEERING DESIGN
Allowances 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 MANAGEMENT
Similarly, 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 TAX
The 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 ALLOWANCES
For equipment, an allowance is applied to the equipment costs to provide for installation, electrical wiring 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 Installation and Miscellaneous Mechanical Electrical Instrumentation and Control Contractor Overhead and Profit Mobilization, demobilization, & bond Allowance 30 percent of Equipment Cost 15 percent of Equipment Cost 10 percent of Equipment Cost 15 percent of Subtotal Costa 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.
E-3
Worksheet: Cash Flow (STEP)
Page 1
Project: Subject: By : Date :
Freeland Wastewater Facilities Plan 2010 Amendment All costs are in May 2010 dollars Cost Estimate: STEP Collection System, Wastewater Treatment, and Reclaimed Water Reuse Tetra Tech, Inc. 9-Jul-10
PROJECTED CASH FLOW

Year *Connected ERUs Base Flow (mgd) Max Monthly Flow Item Description SEWAGE COLLECTION - STEP SYSTEM Capital Cost Estimate Total Estimated Capital Cost Total Estimated Capital Cost - Onsite Total Estimated Capital Cost - Shared Total Annual Cost Total Annual Cost with Replacement Costs WASTEWATER TREATMENT Capital Cost Estimate Total Estimated Capital Cost Total Annual Cost Total Annual Cost with Replacement Costs SOLIDS HANDLING Capital Cost Estimate Total Estimated Capital Cost Total Annual Cost Total Annual Cost with Replacement Costs Design 2011 0 0.000 0.000 Cost, $ Design 2012 0 0.000 0.000 Cost, $ Construction 2013 0 0.000 0.000 Cost, $ Construction 2014 610 0.086 0.000 Cost, $ 2015 664 0.093 0.180 Cost, $ 2016 724 0.102 0.195 Cost, $ 2017 787 0.110 0.212 Cost, $ 2018 858 0.120 0.230 Cost, $ 2019 934 0.131 0.250 Cost, $ 2020 1017 0.143 0.272 Cost, $ 2021 1107 0.155 0.295 Cost, $ 2022 1206 0.169 0.320 Cost, $ 2023 1313 0.184 0.348 Cost, $ 2024 1430 0.201 0.378 Cost, $ 2025 1557 0.219 0.410 Cost, $ 2026 1593 0.224 0.417 Cost, $ 2027 1631 0.229 0.424 Cost, $ 2028 1669 0.234 0.431 Cost, $ 2029 1710 0.240 0.439 Cost, $ 2030 1749 0.246 0.446 Cost, $ 2031 1790 0.251 0.454 Cost, $ 2032 1831 0.257 0.461 Cost, $ 2033 1876 0.263 0.469 Cost, $ 2034 1919 0.269 0.477 Cost, $ 2035 1964 0.276 0.485 Cost, $
$275,264 $94,441 $180,823
$275,264 $94,441 $180,823
$3,578,236 $2,147,559 $1,430,677
$3,578,236 $2,147,559 $1,430,677
$474,000 $474,000 $0 $76,557 $153,105
$532,000 $532,000 $0 $85,770 $168,550
$563,000 $563,000 $0 $95,444 $184,798
$635,000 $635,000 $0 $106,346 $203,114
$688,000 $688,000 $0 $118,016 $222,793
$758,000 $758,000 $0 $130,761 $244,343
$824,000 $824,000 $0 $144,581 $267,731
$909,000 $909,000 $0 $159,782 $293,472
$994,000 $994,000 $0 $176,212 $321,408
$1,095,000 $1,095,000 $0 $194,178 $352,018
$2,250,000 $1,191,000 $1,059,000 $213,679 $391,863
$238,000 $238,000 $0 $219,207 $400,414
$251,000 $251,000 $0 $225,042 $409,439
$251,000 $251,000 $0 $230,877 $418,464
$271,000 $271,000 $0 $237,173 $428,202
$258,000 $258,000 $0 $243,161 $437,464
$271,000 $271,000 $0 $249,457 $447,202
$271,000 $271,000 $0 $255,753 $456,940
$297,000 $297,000 $0 $262,663 $467,627
$284,000 $284,000 $0 $269,265 $477,840
$297,000 $297,000 $0 $276,175 $488,528
$779,828
$779,828
$6,171,172
$6,171,172
$0 $136,110 $218,508
$0 $153,003 $235,401
$0 $160,132 $242,530
$0 $168,166 $250,564
$0 $176,766 $259,164
$0 $186,158 $268,556
$0 $196,342 $278,740
$0 $207,545 $289,943
$2,654,000 $219,653 $302,050
$0 $232,892 $331,759
$0 $247,263 $346,130
$0 $252,093 $350,960
$0 $255,846 $354,713
$0 $259,599 $358,466
$0 $263,648 $362,515
$0 $267,500 $366,367
$0 $271,549 $370,416
$0 $275,598 $374,465
$0 $280,042 $378,909
$0 $284,289 $383,156
$0 $288,733 $387,600
$112,971
$112,971
$894,029
$894,029
$0 $66,465 $77,923
$0 $69,884 $81,206
$0 $73,474 $84,653
$0 $77,520 $88,538
$0 $81,851 $92,697
$0 $86,581 $97,238
$0 $91,710 $102,163
$0 $97,351 $107,580
$987,000 $103,449 $113,435
$0 $110,116 $119,837
$0 $117,354 $126,786
$0 $119,405 $128,756
$0 $121,571 $130,835
$0 $123,736 $132,914
$0 $126,072 $135,158
$0 $128,295 $137,292
$0 $130,631 $139,535
$0 $132,968 $141,778
$0 $135,532 $144,241
$0 $137,983 $146,594
$0 $140,547 $149,056
RECLAIMED WATER STORAGE AND REUSE (incl. Conveyance to Disposal Site) Capital Cost Estimate Total Estimated Capital Cost $311,280 Total Annual Cost Total Annual Cost with Replacement Costs
$311,280
$2,463,220
$2,463,220
$0 $39,022 $83,546
$0 $39,545 $84,069
$0 $40,068 $84,592
$0 $40,590 $85,114
$0 $41,113 $85,637
$0 $41,636 $86,160
$0 $42,159 $86,683
$0 $42,682 $87,205
$3,088,000 $43,204 $87,728
$0 $44,127 $109,071
$0 $44,527 $109,471
$0 $44,928 $109,872
$0 $45,328 $110,272
$0 $45,728 $110,672
$0 $46,129 $111,073
$0 $46,529 $111,473
$0 $46,929 $111,873
$0 $47,330 $112,273
$0 $47,730 $112,674
$0 $48,130 $113,074
$0 $48,531 $113,474
TOTAL Rolled up Capital Cost Rolled up Annual Cost Rolled Up Annual Cost with Replacement Costs $1,479,342 $0 $0 $1,479,342 $0 $0 $13,106,658 $0 $0 $13,106,658 $0 $0 $474,000 $318,154 $533,082 $532,000 $348,202 $569,226 $563,000 $369,118 $596,573 $635,000 $392,623 $627,331 $688,000 $417,746 $660,291 $758,000 $445,136 $696,298 $824,000 $474,791 $735,317 $909,000 $507,360 $778,200 $7,723,000 $542,518 $824,621 $1,095,000 $581,314 $912,685 $2,250,000 $622,823 $974,250 $238,000 $635,633 $990,001 $251,000 $647,787 $1,005,259 $251,000 $659,940 $1,020,516 $271,000 $673,022 $1,036,947 $258,000 $685,485 $1,052,595 $271,000 $698,566 $1,069,026 $271,000 $297,000 $284,000 $297,000 $711,648 $725,967 $739,667 $753,985 $1,085,456 $1,103,451 $1,120,663 $1,138,658
File Name: 20100707 - Cash Flow - STEP - PER AppendixE v2.xls
Printed 7/15/2010
Worksheet: Short lived Assets
Page 2
Freeland Wastewater Facilities Plan 2010 Amendment Planning Cost Analysis for Wastewater Treatment and Solids Handling - STEP Collection System Tetra Tech, Inc. 28-Jun-10
SHORT-LIVED ASSETS
Project Component Base Cost % General and Site Headworks Building Mechanical Building Misc Metals (Handrailing, Covers, etc.) Site Process Piping and Valving Indoor Process Piping and Valving Laboratory Equipment Furniture Sewage Process Equipment MBR Process Equipment Traveling Bridge Crane Headworks Screens Recirculation Pumps Magnetic Flow Meters Yard Pump Station Pumps Plant Water Pumps Hydro Tank $60,000 $374,400 $168,905 $150,000 $120,000 $50,000 $10,000 $1,100,000 $100,000 $170,000 $16,000 $15,000 $17,566 $11,710 $4,684 $8,000 $20,000 $10,000 $272,000 $230,000 $231,000 $20,000 $75,000 $100,000 $9,368 $17,000 $35,000 $330,000 $36,000 $30,000 $20,000 $580,489 $148,555 $239,908 $206,622 $200,901 $43,320 $466,624 $211,350 $132,094 $105,675 $9,715 $1,366,053 $366,891 $105,675 $264,188 1% 1% 1% 1% 1.0% 1.0% 1% 1% 5% 3% 3% 1 to 5 Year
Short Lived Asset Cost by Years 5 to 10 Year $ % %
10 to 15 Year $ $6,000 $37,440 $20,269 $15,000 $12,000
$4,500 $3,600
5% 5% 8% 5% 5% 50%
$3,000 $18,720 $13,512 $7,500 $6,000 $50 $55,000 $17,000 $1,600 $1,757 $1,171 $800 $2,000 $1,000 $54,400 $4,600 $23,100 $2,000 $937 $1,360 $1,750 $16,500 $3,600 $9,000 $2,000 $5,805 $1,486 $2,399 $2,066 $2,009 $433 $4,666 $4,227 $2,642 $2,114 $194 $27,321 $7,338 $2,114 $5,284
10% 10% 12% 10% 10% 100% 10% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 20% 20% 20% 10% 20% 20% 10% 10% 50% 12% 10% 10% 50% 30% 50% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5.0% 10.0% 10% 5%
$10,000 $110,000 $50,000 $85,000 $8,000 $7,500 $8,783 $5,855 $2,342 $4,000 $4,000 $2,000 $54,400 $23,000 $46,200 $4,000 $7,500 $10,000 $4,684 $2,040 $3,500 $33,000 $18,000 $9,000 $10,000 $29,024 $7,428 $11,995 $10,331 $10,045 $2,166 $23,331 $10,568 $6,605 $5,284 $486 $68,303 $36,689 $10,568 $13,209
1%
$11,000
5% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 20% 2% 10% 10% 10% 8% 5% 5% 10% 30% 10% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%
Samplers Carbon source feed system Magnesium Hydroxide feed system UV disinfection in-vessel units Odor Control - Carbon Scrubber & fan
Standby Generator Above ground Fuel Tank, Pumps Motor Control Centers/Variable Freq Drives Programmable Logic Controller Hypochlorite Pumps & controls Solids Stabilization Misc Metals (Handrailing, Covers, etc.) Site Process Piping and Valving Building Space for Solids Equipment Blowers Sludge Storage Tank Diffusers Sludge Transfer Pumps 2"PVC Pressure Mains 3"PVC Pressure Mains 4" PVC Pressure Mains 6" PVC Pressure Mains 8" PVC Pressure Mains 12" PVC Pressure Mains AC Surface Restoration STEP On-Site Facilites 1.5" HDPE Pressure Laterals - STEP 1.5" HDPE Pressure Laterals - extra for existing houses Lateral Kits Native Surface Restoration Septic Tank w/ Pump (Installed) Septic Tank w/ Pump - extra for ex. houses (new tank) Site Electrical - STEP Site Electrical - STEP, extra for existing houses
1%
$2,310
$468
3%
$1,050
30%
$9,000
STEP Common Facilites
$2,114 $1,321 $1,057 $97 $13,661 $3,669 $1,057 $2,642
2% 2% 2% 2% 2.0% 2.0% 2% 2%
Slow Infiltration Facilites Electrical Conduit, Sitework, Lighting Irrigation pumps Distribution Piping & Equipment Conveyance to Rapid Infiltration 10" PVC Pressure Mains - to Discharge Pump Station - from Treatment to Discharge $45,000 $50,000 $690,000 $672,000 $625,000 1%
5% 10% 5% 1% $6,250 5%
$2,250 $5,000 $34,500 $6,720 $31,250
5% 50% 5% 5% 8%
$2,250 $25,000 $34,500 $33,600 $50,000
TOTAL
63,795
398,174
1,004,894
Printed 7/15/2010
Worksheet: MBR 2010 PHASE 1
Page 3
Freeland Wastewater Facilities Plan 2010 Amendment Cost Estimate: STEP Collection System, Wastewater Treatment, and Reclaimed Water Reuse Tetra Tech, Inc. 9-Jul-10
Membrane Bioreactors - Phase 1

Capital Cost Estimate Item Description Quantity Unit MBR Administration/Lab Area (in Mech bldg) 0 SF Headworks Building-open on two sides 600 SF Mechanical Building above grade 2,496 SF Mechanical Building basement stairwells, room partitions, HVAC, 2,496 doors, lighting SF etc MBR Slab Concrete and Rebar 538 CY MBR Wall Concrete and Rebar 881 CY MBR Elevated Slab concrete (walkways and channels) 66 CY Membrane tank coating 2160 SF Mech bldg basement Slab Concrete and Rebar 201 CY Mech bldg basement Wall Concrete and Rebar 160 CY Mech bldg elevated ground floor Slab 126 CY HW Concrete and Rebar 40 CY MBR & Mech Bldg Excavate and haul 6,333 CY MBR & Mech Bldg Struct backfill & compaction 1,667 CY HW & Excavate and haul 830 CY Handrailing 555 LF Misc Metals (Stairs, Grating, etc.) 1 LS Tank covers 2,720 SF Checker plate channel covers (HW, MBR splitter & feed), 509 SF Yard PS wet well and vaults 1 LS Site Process Piping and Valving 1 LS Indoor Process Piping and Valving 1 LS Concrete Slab & Mounting Hdwre: Generator, Abv-Ground Diesel 1 Fuel Tank LS Laboratory Equipment 1 LS Furniture 1 LS Sitework 2010 Unit cost, $ $200 $100 $150 $100 $500 $650 $1,000 $13 $500 $650 $1,000 $650 $15 $20 $15 $55 $10,000 $50 $45 $50,000 $150,000 $120,000 $10,000 $50,000 $10,000 2010 Cost, $ $0 $60,000 $374,400 $249,600 $269,244 $572,650 $66,000 $28,080 $100,741 $104,000 $125,926 $26,000 $95,000 $33,333 $12,444 $30,525 $10,000 $136,000 $22,905 $50,000 $150,000 $120,000 $10,000 $50,000 $10,000
MBR
Clear & Grub 3 Acre $5,000 $15,000 Emerg. storage for raw ww - use MBR trains 3 & 4. Stormwater Storage from WWTP Ponds sheet 1 LS $109,726 $109,726 Stormwater Pond Piping and MH's 600 LF $50 $30,000 Stormwater French drain dispersion trench 500 LF $50 $25,000 Asphalt Road Paving 5,556 SY $30 $166,667 Gravel dike roads 500 SY $20 $10,000 Painting 1 LS $50,000 $50,000 Fencing 2,000 LF $35 $70,000 Landscaping 1 LS $70,000 $70,000 Misc Sitework 1 LS $50,000 $50,000 Subtotal Structural $3,303,242 Equipment 1 EA $1,100,000 $1,100,000 membranes, process & scour blowers & diffusers,mixers, permeate pumps, chemical cleaning, MBR I&C, spare $0 units, desig process air blowers and diffusers, WAS pumps, control valves, chemical cleaning (excluding MCC, VFD's recirc $0 pumps) Traveling Bridge Crane for membranes 1 EA $100,000 $100,000 Influent Screen - 2mm. 2 EA $85,000 $170,000 Washer Compactor 0 LS $40,000 $0 Parshal Flume 1 LS $5,000 $5,000 Slide gates 7 LS $2,500 $17,500 Sluiice gates 4 LS $5,000 $20,000 Recirculation pumps 2 EA $8,000 $16,000
Printed 7/15/2010
Page 4

Capital Cost Estimate Item Description Quantity Magnetic Flow Meters 3 Yard Pump Station Pumps 2 Plant Water Pumps 2 Strainer (Manual duplex) 1 Hydro Tank 1 Samplers 2 Carbon source feed system (MicroC, methanol, etc.) 1 Magnesium Hydroxide feed system 1 UV disinfection in-vessel units 4 Odor Control - Carbon Scrubber Facility, Fan(6000cfm), local piping 1 Odor Control - Ducting 6"-30" 550 Standby Generator (1000 kW) 1 incl AutoTransferSwitch, Silencer, Enclosure, 12hr day tank,controls 0 Above Ground Diesel Fuel Tank (4,999 gal), dbl wall, incl safety 1 features Motor Control Centers/Variable Frequency Drives 1 Plant PLC & SCADA 1 NaOCl Storage Tank (2-55 gal drums) Pumps w/ installation (hypo) Tank Mixers Feed Pacing Controller Chemical Flow Meter Subtotal Equipment Installation, Miscellaneous Mechanical Electrical Instrumentation and Control Subtotal Structural, Mechanical, Elect, I&C Contractor O&P Mobilization, demobilization, bond Total estimated current construction cost Escalation to time of construction Total estimated construction cost Contingency Engineering Design Construction Management Sales Tax Total Estimated Capital Cost 1 1 1 1 1 30% 15% 10% 15% 6% 0.00% Unit EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA LS LF LS LS LS LS EA EA EA EA EA of Equip of Equip of Equip of Sub Cost of Sub cost 2010 Unit cost, $ $5,000 $8,783 $5,855 $2,342 $4,684 $4,000 $20,000 $10,000 $68,000 $230,000 $61 $231,000 $20,000 $75,000 $100,000 $234 $2,928 $1,171 $2,928 $2,342 2010 Cost, $ $15,000 $17,566 $11,710 $2,342 $4,684 $8,000 $20,000 $10,000 $272,000 $230,000 $33,440 $231,000 $0 $20,000 $75,000 $100,000 $234 $2,928 $1,171 $2,928 $2,342 $2,488,845 $746,653 $373,327 $248,884 $7,160,951 $1,074,143 $429,657 $8,664,751 $0 $8,664,751 $1,732,950 $1,559,655 $1,039,770 $904,600 $13,902,000 2010 Unit Cost $45 $45 $45 $60 $3.50 2010 Annual Cost $94,770 $0 $0 $20,571 $0 $14,350
20% 15% 10% 8.7%
Op and Maint Cost Est (per yr)-2010 estimate for 1557 eru connected per JAS ) Item Description Quantity Labor - Secondary Process and Odor Control 2,106 Labor - Disinfection 0 Labor - Solids Handling 0 Membrane Replacement 343 Contract Haul Solids @ 3.0% 0 Diesel fuel 4100
Unit HR hr HR panel GAL GAL
Printed 7/15/2010
Page 5

Capital Cost Estimate Item Description Carbon Filter replacement Chemicals - membrane cleaning Methanol Magnesium Hudroxide Hypochlorite Sodium Bisulfite Polymer Misc expenses Power - Secondary Process Power - Disinfection Power - Solids Handling Power - Odor Control Structural Maintenance Equipment replacement Total Annual Cost Quantity 11,250 1 14600 32850 1522 0 0 1 244,000 20278 0 97,985 1% 2% Unit LB LS GAL GAL lb GAL LB allowance kWh kWh kWh kWh 2010 Unit cost, $ $3.00 $2,000 $1.50 $0.80 $1.50 $0.20 $3.00 $6,000 $0.07 $0.07 $0.07 $0.07 2010 Cost, $ $33,750 $2,000 $21,900 $26,280 $2,283 $0 $0 $6,000 $17,080 $1,419 $0 $6,859 $33,032 $49,365 $329,661
Printed 7/15/2010
Page 6
Membrane Bioreactors - WWTP Phase 2

Capital Cost Estimate Item Description Quantity Unit MBR Administration/Lab Building 0 SF Headworks Building-open on two sides 0 SF Mechanical Building above grade 0 SF Mechanical Building basement stairwells, room partitions, HVAC, 0 doors, lighting SF etc MBR Slab Concrete and Rebar 0 CY MBR Wall Concrete and Rebar 0 CY MBR Elevated Slab concrete (walkways and channels) 0 CY Membrane tank coating 1080 SF Mech bldg basement Slab Concrete and Rebar 0 CY Mech bldg basement Wall Concrete and Rebar 0 CY Mech bldg ground floor elev. Slab 0 CY HW Concrete and Rebar 0 CY MBR & Mech Bldg Excavate and haul 0 CY MBR & Mech Bldg Struct backfill & compaction 0 CY HW & Admin Bldg Excavate and haul 0 CY Handrailing 0 LF Misc Metals (Stairs, Grating, etc.) 0 LS Tank covers 0 SF Checker plate channel covers (HW, MBR splitter & feed), 0 SF Yard PS wet well and vaults 0 LS Site Process Piping and Valving 0 LS Indoor Process Piping and Valving 1 LS Generator, Above Ground Diesel Fuel Tank Slab and Mounting 0 Hardware LS Laboratory Equipment 0 LS Furniture 0 LS Sitework 2010 Unit cost, $ $200 $100 $150 $100 $500 $650 $1,000 $13 $500 $650 $650 $1,000 $15 $20 $15 $55 $10,000 $50 $45 $50,000 $100,000 $75,000 $18,000 $50,000 $10,000 2010 Cost, $ $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $14,040 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $75,000 $0 $0 $0
MBR
Clear & Grub 0 Acre $5,000 $0 Emerg. Storage for raw ww: Use MBR train 4 & sludge tanks Stormwater Storage 0 LS $109,726 $0 Stormwater Pond Piping and MH's 0 LF $50 $0 Stormwater French drain dispersion trench 0 LF $50 $0 Asphalt Road Paving 0 SY $30 $0 Gravel dike roads 0 SY $20 $0 Painting 1 LS $20,000 $20,000 Fencing 0 LF $35 $0 Landscaping 0 LS $50,000 $0 Misc Sitework 1 LS $10,000 $10,000 Subtotal Structural $119,040 Equipment 1 EA $425,000 $425,000 membranes, process & scour blowers & diffusers,mixers, permeate pumps, chemical cleaning, MBR I&C, spare $0 units, desig process air blowers and diffusers, WAS pumps, control valves, chemical cleaning (excluding MCC, VFD's recirc $0 pumps) Traveling Bridge Crane for membranes 0 EA $100,000 $0 Influent Screen - 2mm. 0 LS $80,000 $0 Washer Compactor 0 LS $40,000 $0 Parshal Flume 0 LS $5,000 $0 Slide gates 0 LS $2,500 $0 Sluiice gates 0 LS $5,000 $0 Recirculation pumps 1 EA $8,000 $8,000
Printed 7/15/2010
Page 7

Capital Cost Estimate Item Description Quantity Magnetic Flow Meters 0 Yard Pump Station Pumps 0 Plant Water Pumps 0 Strainer (Manual duplex) 0 Hydro Tank 0 Samplers 0 Carbon source feed system (MicroC, methanol, etc.) 0 Magnesium Hydroxide feed system 0 UV disinfection in-vessel units 2 Odor Control - Carbon Scrubber Facility, Fan(6000cfm), local piping 1 Odor Control - Ducting 6"-30" 100 Standby Generator (1000 kW) 0 incl AutoTransferSwitch, Silencer, Enclosure, 12hr day tank,controls 0 Above Ground Diesel Fuel Tank (4,999 gal), dbl wall, incl safety 0 features Motor Control Centers/Variable Frequency Drives 0 Plant PLC & SCADA 0 NaOCl Storage Tank (2-55 gal drums) Pumps w/ installation (hypo) Tank Mixers Feed Pacing Controller Chemical Flow Meter Subtotal Equipment Installation, Miscellaneous Mechanical Electrical Instrumentation and Control Subtotal Structural, Mechanical, Elect, I&C Contractor O&P Mobilization, demobilization, bond Total estimated current construction cost Escalation to time of construction Total estimated construction cost Contingency Engineering Design Construction Management Sales Tax Total Estimated Capital Cost 0 0 0 0 0 30% 15% 10% 15% 6% 0.00% Unit EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA LS LF LS LS LS LS EA EA EA EA EA of Equip of Equip of Equip of Sub Cost of Sub cost 2010 Unit cost, $ $5,000 $8,783 $5,855 $2,342 $4,684 $5,000 $20,000 $20,000 $68,000 $230,000 $61 $231,000 $20,000 $75,000 $100,000 $234 $2,928 $1,171 $2,928 $2,342 2010 Cost, $ $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $136,000 $230,000 $6,080 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $805,080 $241,524 $120,762 $80,508 $1,366,914 $205,037 $82,015 $1,653,966 $0 $1,653,966 $330,793 $297,714 $198,476 $172,674 $2,654,000 2010 Unit Cost $45 $45 $45 $60 $0.07 $3.50 2010 Annual Cost $119,340 $0 $0 $41,143 $0 $14,350
20% 15% 10% 8.7%
Op and Maint Cost Est (per yr)-2010 estimate for 3129 eru connected per JAS ) Item Description Quantity Labor - Secondary Process and Odor Control 2,652 Labor - Disinfection 0 Labor - Solids Handling 0 Membrane Replacement 686 Contract Haul Solids @ 3.0% 0 Diesel fuel 4,100
Unit HR hr HR panel GAL GAL
Printed 7/15/2010
Page 8

Capital Cost Estimate Item Description Carbon Filter replacement Chemicals - membrane cleaning Methanol Magnesium Hudroxide Hypochlorite Sodium Bisulfite Polymer Misc expenses Power - Secondary Process Power - Disinfection Power - Solids Handling Power - Odor Control Structural Maintenance Equipment replacement Total Annual Cost Quantity 22,500 1 29,200 65,700 3,044 0 0 1 488,000 40,556 0 187,805 1% 2% Unit LB LS GAL GAL lb GAL LB allowance kWh kWh kWh kWh 2010 Unit cost, $ $3.00 $4,000 $1.50 $0.80 $0.60 $0.20 $3.00 $10,000 $0.07 $0 $0 $0.07 2010 Cost, $ $67,500 $4,000 $43,800 $52,560 $1,826 $0 $0 $10,000 $34,160 $2,839 $0 $13,146 $34,223 $64,644 $503,532
Printed 7/15/2010
Worksheet: WWTP Ponds
Page 9
WWTP Ponds Phase 1 - 2014

Capital Cost Estimate Item Description Access Road Power to Site Controls to Site Electrical Sitework Sewage Emergency Storage Pond Excavation / Hauling Sewage Emergency Storage Pond Import / Backfill / Compaction Sewage Pond Inlet / Outlet Structure Sewage Pond Fencing Site Drainage Pond Excavation / Hauling Site Drainage Pond Import / Backfill / Compaction Site Drainage Pond Inlet / Outlet Structure Site Drainage Pond Fencing Site Drainage Discharge Trench Subtotal Structural Irrigation Pumps Sprinkler Irrigation System Subtotal Equipment Contractor O&P Mobilization, demobilization, bond Total estimated current construction cost Escalation to time of construction Total estimated construction cost Contingency Engineering Design Construction Management Sales Tax Total Estimated Capital Cost Operations and Maintenance Cost Estimate (per year) Item Description Labor Diesel oil Power Structural Maintenance Equipment replacement Chemicals Hypochlorite Sodium Bisulfite Polymer Misc expenses Total Annual Cost Quantity 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,000 2,120 1 560 110 0 0 Unit LF LF LF LS CY CY LS LF CY CY LS LF CY LS AC 2010 Unit cost, $ $50 $30 $10 $35,000 $15.00 $20.00 $25,000 $31.50 $15.00 $20.00 $15,000 $31.50 $42.60 $15,000 $6,000 2010 Cost, $ $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $30,000 $42,400 $15,000 $17,640 $4,686 $109,726 $0 $0 $0 $16,459 $6,584 $132,768 $0 $132,768 $26,554 $23,898 $15,932 $13,861 $213,000 2010 Unit Cost $45 2010 Annual Cost (1st year - 2014) $2,250
15% 6% 0.00%
20% 15% 10% 8.7%
Quantity 50
0 1% 2% 0 0 0
Unit HR EA GAL kWh
$0.07
$0
LS LB GAL LB allowance $2,250
Printed 7/15/2010
Worksheet: SOLIDS Initial
Page 10
Solids - Phase 1 (years 2015-2036)

Capital Cost Estimate 2010 2010 2010 Item Description Quantity Unit Unit cost, $ Cost, $ Solids Stabilization Solids Processing - General Misc. conduit, site piping, valves,appurtenances 1 LS $20,000 $20,000 Misc. related Sitework 1 LS $10,000 $10,000 Aerated Sludge Holding Tanks Excavation, includes bldg with basement 2250 CY $10 $22,500 Disposal of Unsuitable Soils, incl. bldg with basement 2250 CY $5 $11,250 Imported Backfill,includes bldg with basement 160 CY $20 $3,200 Slab Concrete and Rebar 170 CY $550 $93,500 Straight Wall Concrete and Rebar 219 CY $700 $153,301 Handrailing 56 LF $55 $3,080 Misc Metals (Stairs, Grating, etc.) 1 LS $10,000 $10,000 Covers 140 SF $50 $7,000 Thickener/Mechanical/Elec/Controls Bldg Excavation - included in tank calcs above CY $10 $0 Disposal of Unsuitable Soils included in tank calcs above CY $5 $0 Imported Backfill - included in tank calcs above CY $20 $0 Slab Concrete and Rebar CY $550 $0 Straight Wall Concrete and Rebar CY $700 $0 Equipment/Mechanical/Elec/Control Building 1320 SF $250 $330,000 Aerated Sludge Holding Tanks 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 Excavation 0 CY $10 $0 Disposal of Unsuitable Soils 0 CY $5 $0 Imported Backfill 0 CY $20 $0 Slab Concrete and Rebar 0 CY $550 $0 Straight Wall Concrete and Rebar 0 CY $700 $0 Handrailing 0 LF $55 $0 Misc Metals (Stairs, Grating, etc.) 0 LS $8,000 $0 Covers 0 SF $50 $0
MBR
Subtotal Structural Equipment (membranes, cleaning tanks, vacuum pumps) (process air blowers and diffusers) Hoist for Membrane Racks Influent Screen - 1/8 in. Washer Compactor WAS Pumps Magnetic Flow Meters Yard Pump Station Pumps Plant Water Pumps Strainer (Manual duplex) Hydro Tank Odor Control - Carbon Adsorber, Fans, Piping Standby Generator Generator Silencer, Enclosure, Acoustics
EA
$492,800
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
EA LS LS EA EA EA EA EA EA LS kW LS
$25,000 $117,104 $29,276 $8,783 $5,000 $8,783 $5,855 $2,342 $4,684 $58,552 $175 $8,783
$663,831 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Printed 7/15/2010
Page 11

Capital Cost Estimate Item Description Solids Stabilization Underground Fuel Storage Tank, Pumps Automatic Transfer Switch Motor Control Centers/Variable Frequency Drives PLC NaOCl Storage Tank (2-55 gal drums) Pumps w/ installation (hypo) Tank Mixers Feed Pacing Controller Chemical Flow Meter 2010 Quantity 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unit LS LS LS LS ea ea ea ea ea 2010 Unit cost, $ $17,566 $17,566 $43,914 $117,104 $234 $2,928 $1,171 $2,928 $2,342 2010 Cost, $ $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Solids Stabilization
Equipment Solids Processing Aerated Sludge Holding Tank Blower 2 EA $18,000 $36,000 Tank Diffusers 1 LS $30,000 $30,000 Mixer 2 EA $18,000 $36,000 Sludge Transfer Pumps 2 EA $10,000 $20,000 Process Piping and Valving 1 LS $20,000 $20,000 Drain to Plant LS 1 LS $5,000 $5,000 Thickener, with integrated Flocculation Tank Thickener, 30 gpm 1 EA $55,000 $55,000 Polymer feed system 1 EA $6,000 $6,000 Process Piping and Valving 1 LS $12,000 $12,000 Gravity piping to Aerated Sludge Holding Tanks 0 LS $5,000 $0 Drain to Plant LS 1 LS $5,000 $5,000 Washwater ("3W") 1 LS $3,000 $3,000 Aerated Sludge Holding Tanks 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 Blower 0 EA $18,000 $0 Tank Diffusers 0 LS $45,000 $0 Mixer 0 EA $18,000 $0 Sludge Transfer Pumps 0 EA $12,000 $0 Process Piping and Valving 0 LS $25,000 $0 Drain to Plant LS 0 LS $8,000 $0 Truck Loading Pad Loading Arm 1 LS $6,000 $6,000 Washwater ("3W") 1 LS $3,000 $3,000 Drain to Plant LS 1 LS $1,000 $1,000 Lighting at Loading Station 1 LS $3,000 $3,000 $0 Subtotal Equipment $241,000 Installation, Miscellaneous Mechanical 30% of Equip $72,300 Electrical 15% of Equip $36,150 Instrumentation and Control 10% of Equip $24,100 Subtotal Structural, Mechanical, Elect, I&C $1,037,381
Printed 7/15/2010
Page 12

Capital Cost Estimate Item Description Solids Stabilization Contractor O&P Mobilization, demobilization, bond Total estimated current construction cost Escalation to time of construction Total estimated construction cost Contingency Engineering Design Construction Management Sales Tax Total Estimated Capital Cost Operations and Maintenance Cost Estimate (per yr) Item Description Labor - Secondary Process Labor - Disinfection Labor - Solids Handling Contract Haul Solids @ 3.0% Solids Tipping Fee Diesel Fuel Power - Secondary Process Power - Disinfection Power - Solids Handling Structural Maintenance Equipment replacement Chemicals - membrane cleaning Hypochlorite Sodium Bisulfite Polymer Misc expenses Total Annual Cost 2010 Quantity 15% 6% 0.00% Unit of Sub Cost of Sub cost 2010 Unit cost, $ 2010 Cost, $ $155,607 $62,243 $1,255,231 $0 $1,255,231 $251,046 $225,942 $150,628 $131,046 $2,014,000 2010 Unit Cost $45 $45 $45 $0.05 $0.10 $3.50 $0.07 $0.07 $0.07 2010 Annual Cost $0 $0 $16,425 $12,228 $24,455 $0 $0 $0 $11,036 $6,638 $4,820 $0 $0 $0 $821 $1,500 $77,923
20% 15% 10% 8.7%
2010 Quantity 0 0 365 244,550 244,550 0 0 0 157,659 1% 2% 0 0 0 274 1
Unit HR hr HR GAL GAL GAL kWh kWh kWh
LS lb GAL LB allowance
$1,000 $0.60 $0.20 $3.00 $1,500
Printed 7/15/2010
Worksheet: SOLIDS 2023 Add MBR
Page 13
Solids - Phase 2 (years 2023 to 2037)

Capital Cost Estimate Item Description Solids Stabilization Solids Processing - General Misc. conduit, site piping, valves,appurtenances Misc. related Sitework Aerated Sludge Holding Tanks Excavation, includes bldg with basement Disposal of Unsuitable Soils incl. bldg with basement Imported Backfill,includes bldg with basement Slab Concrete and Rebar Straight Wall Concrete and Rebar Handrailing Misc Metals (Stairs, Grating, etc.) Covers Thickener/Mechanical/Elec/Controls Bldg Excavation - included in tank calcs above Disposal of Unsuitable Soils included in tank calcs above Imported Backfill - included in tank calcs above Slab Concrete and Rebar Straight Wall Concrete and Rebar Equipment/Mechanical/Elec/Control Building Aerated Sludge Holding Tanks 2010 Quantity Unit 2010 Unit cost, $ 2010 Cost, $
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
LS LS CY CY CY CY CY LF LS SF CY CY CY CY CY SF
$20,000 $10,000 $10 $5 $20 $550 $700 $55 $10,000 $50 $10 $5 $20 $550 $700 $300
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $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 Excavation 1708 CY $10 $17,080 Disposal of Unsuitable Soils 1708 CY $5 $8,540 Imported Backfill 579 CY $20 $11,586 Slab Concrete and Rebar 91 CY $550 $50,266 Straight Wall Concrete and Rebar 141 CY $700 $98,413 Handrailing 240 LF $55 $13,200 Misc Metals (Stairs, Grating, etc.) 1 LS $8,000 $8,000 Covers 630 SF $50 $31,500
MBR
Subtotal Structural Equipment (membranes, cleaning tanks, vacuum pumps) (process air blowers and diffusers) Hoist for Membrane Racks Influent Screen - 1/8 in. Washer Compactor WAS Pumps Magnetic Flow Meters Yard Pump Station Pumps Plant Water Pumps Strainer (Manual duplex) Hydro Tank Odor Control - Carbon Adsorber, Fans, Piping Standby Generator Generator Silencer, Enclosure, Acoustics Underground Fuel Storage Tank, Pumps Automatic Transfer Switch Motor Control Centers/Variable Frequency Drives PLC
EA
$492,800
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
EA LS LS EA EA EA EA EA EA LS kW LS LS LS LS LS
$25,000 $117,104 $29,276 $8,783 $5,000 $8,783 $5,855 $2,342 $4,684 $58,552 $175 $8,783 $17,566 $17,566 $43,914 $117,104
$238,585 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Printed 7/15/2010
Page 14

Capital Cost Estimate Item Description Solids Stabilization NaOCl Storage Tank (2-55 gal drums) Pumps w/ installation (hypo) Tank Mixers Feed Pacing Controller Chemical Flow Meter Equipment Solids Stabilization Solids Processing Aerated Sludge Holding Tank Blower Tank Diffusers Mixer Sludge Transfer Pumps Process Piping and Valving Drain to Plant LS Thickener, with integrated Flocculation Tank Thickener, 30 gpm Polymer feed system Process Piping and Valving Gravity piping to Aerated Sludge Holding Tanks Drain to Plant LS Washwater ("3W") Aerated Sludge Holding Tanks 2010 Quantity 0 0 0 0 0 Unit ea ea ea ea ea 2010 Unit cost, $ $234 $2,928 $1,171 $2,928 $2,342 2010 Cost, $ $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
EA LS EA EA LS LS EA EA LS LS LS LS
$18,000 $30,000 $18,000 $10,000 $20,000 $5,000 $55,000 $6,000 $12,000 $5,000 $5,000 $3,000
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $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 Blower 2 EA $18,000 $36,000 Tank Diffusers 1 LS $45,000 $45,000 Mixer 2 EA $18,000 $36,000 Sludge Transfer Pumps 2 EA $12,000 $24,000 Process Piping and Valving 1 LS $25,000 $25,000 Drain to Plant LS 1 LS $8,000 $8,000 Truck Loading Pad Loading Arm 0 LS $6,000 $0 Washwater ("3W") 0 LS $3,000 $0 Drain to Plant LS 0 LS $1,000 $0 Lighting at Loading Station 0 LS $3,000 $0 $0 Subtotal Equipment $174,000 Installation, Miscellaneous Mechanical 30% of Equip $52,200 Electrical 15% of Equip $26,100 Instrumentation and Control 10% of Equip $17,400 Subtotal Structural, Mechanical, Elect, I&C $508,285 Contractor O&P 15% of Sub Cost $76,243 Mobilization, demobilization, bond 6% of Sub cost $30,497 Total estimated current construction cost $615,024 Escalation to time of construction 0.00% $0 Total estimated construction cost $615,024 Contingency Engineering Design Construction Management Sales Tax Total Estimated Capital Cost 20% 15% 10% 8.7% $123,005 $110,704 $73,803 $64,209 $987,000
Printed 7/15/2010
Page 15

Capital Cost Estimate 2010 2010 2010 Item Description Quantity Unit Unit cost, $ Cost, $ Solids Stabilization USED BUILDOUT CONDITION AND INTERPOLATION TO CALC O&M FOR THE YEARS BETWEEN STARTUP AND 2055. SEE THE Cash Flow worksheet Operations and Maintenance Cost Estimate (per yr) 2010 2010 2010 Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Annual Cost Labor - Secondary Process 0 HR $45 $0 Labor - Disinfection 0 hr $45 $0 Labor - Solids Handling 0 HR $45 $0 Contract Haul Solids @ 3.0% GAL $0.05 $0 Solids Tipping Fee GAL $0.10 $0 Diesel Fuel 0 GAL $3.50 $0 Power - Secondary Process 0 kWh $0.07 $0 Power - Disinfection 0 kWh $0.07 $0 Power - Solids Handling kWh $0.07 $0 Structural Maintenance 0% $0 Equipment replacement 0% $0 Chemicals - membrane cleaning 0 LS $1,000 $0 Hypochlorite 0 lb $0.60 $0 Sodium Bisulfite 0 GAL $0.20 $0 Polymer 0 LB $3.00 $0 Misc expenses 1 allowance $0 Total Annual Cost $0
Printed 7/15/2010
Worksheet: SOLIDS Build Out
Page 16
Solids - Phase 2 (years 2037 to buildout in 2055)

Capital Cost Estimate Item Description Solids Stabilization Solids Processing - General Misc. conduit, site piping, valves,appurtenances Misc. related Sitework Aerated Sludge Holding Tanks Excavation, includes bldg with basement Disposal of Unsuitable Soils incl. bldg with basement Imported Backfill,includes bldg with basement Slab Concrete and Rebar Straight Wall Concrete and Rebar Handrailing Misc Metals (Stairs, Grating, etc.) Covers Thickener/Mechanical/Elec/Controls Bldg Excavation - included in tank calcs above Disposal of Unsuitable Soils included in tank calcs above Imported Backfill - included in tank calcs above Slab Concrete and Rebar Straight Wall Concrete and Rebar Equipment/Mechanical/Elec/Control Building Aerated Sludge Holding Tanks NOW (2037) -Build 2 add'l aerated sludge holding tanks Excavation Disposal of Unsuitable Soils Imported Backfill Slab Concrete and Rebar Straight Wall Concrete and Rebar Handrailing Misc Metals (Stairs, Grating, etc.) Covers 2010 Quantity Unit 2010 Unit cost, $ 2010 Cost, $
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
LS LS CY CY CY CY CY LF LS SF CY CY CY CY CY SF
$20,000 $10,000 $10 $5 $20 $550 $700 $55 $10,000 $50 $10 $5 $20 $550 $700 $300
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
1708 1708 579 91 141 240 1 630
CY CY CY CY CY LF LS SF
$10 $5 $20 $550 $700 $55 $8,000 $50
$17,080 $8,540 $11,586 $50,266 $98,413 $13,200 $8,000 $31,500
MBR
Subtotal Structural Equipment (membranes, cleaning tanks, vacuum pumps) (process air blowers and diffusers) Hoist for Membrane Racks Influent Screen - 1/8 in. Washer Compactor WAS Pumps Magnetic Flow Meters Yard Pump Station Pumps Plant Water Pumps Strainer (Manual duplex) Hydro Tank Odor Control - Carbon Adsorber, Fans, Piping Standby Generator Generator Silencer, Enclosure, Acoustics Underground Fuel Storage Tank, Pumps Automatic Transfer Switch Motor Control Centers/Variable Frequency Drives PLC Storage Tank (2-55 gal drums) Pumps w/ installation (hypo)
EA
$492,800
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
EA LS LS EA EA EA EA EA EA LS kW LS LS LS LS LS ea ea
$25,000 $117,104 $29,276 $8,783 $5,000 $8,783 $5,855 $2,342 $4,684 $58,552 $175 $8,783 $17,566 $17,566 $43,914 $117,104 $234 $2,928
$238,585 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
NaOCl
Printed 7/15/2010
Page 17

Capital Cost Estimate Item Description Solids Stabilization Tank Mixers Feed Pacing Controller Chemical Flow Meter Solids Stabilization Equipment Solids Processing Aerated Sludge Holding Tank Blower Tank Diffusers Mixer Sludge Transfer Pumps Process Piping and Valving Drain to Plant LS Thickener, with integrated Flocculation Tank Thickener, 30 gpm Polymer feed system Process Piping and Valving Gravity piping to Aerated Sludge Holding Tanks Drain to Plant LS Washwater ("3W") Aerated Sludge Holding Tanks NOW (2037) -Build 2 add'l aerated sludge holding tanks. Blower Tank Diffusers Mixer Sludge Transfer Pumps Process Piping and Valving Drain to Plant LS Truck Loading Pad Loading Arm Washwater ("3W") Drain to Plant LS Lighting at Loading Station Subtotal Equipment Installation, Miscellaneous Mechanical Electrical Instrumentation and Control Subtotal Structural, Mechanical, Elect, I&C Contractor O&P Mobilization, demobilization, bond Total estimated current construction cost Escalation to time of construction Total estimated construction cost Contingency Engineering Design Construction Management Sales Tax Total Estimated Capital Cost Operations and Maintenance Cost Estimate (per yr) Item Description 2010 Quantity 0 0 0 Unit ea ea ea 2010 Unit cost, $ $1,171 $2,928 $2,342 2010 Cost, $ $0 $0 $0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
EA LS EA EA LS LS EA EA LS LS LS LS
$18,000 $30,000 $18,000 $10,000 $20,000 $5,000 $55,000 $6,000 $12,000 $5,000 $5,000 $3,000
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
2 1 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 0
EA LS EA EA LS LS LS LS LS LS
$18,000 $45,000 $18,000 $12,000 $25,000 $8,000 $6,000 $3,000 $1,000 $3,000
$36,000 $45,000 $36,000 $24,000 $25,000 $8,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $174,000 $52,200 $26,100 $17,400 $508,285 $76,243 $30,497 $615,024 $0 $615,024 $123,005 $110,704 $73,803 $64,209 $987,000
30% 15% 10% 15% 6% 0.00%
of Equip of Equip of Equip of Sub Cost of Sub cost
20% 15% 10% 8.7%
2010 Quantity
Unit
2010 Unit Cost
2010 Annual Cost
Printed 7/15/2010
Page 18

Capital Cost Estimate Item Description Solids Stabilization Labor - Secondary Process Labor - Disinfection Labor - Solids Handling Contract Haul Solids @ 3.0% Solids Tipping Fee Diesel Fuel Power - Secondary Process Power - Disinfection Power - Solids Handling Structural Maintenance Equipment replacement Chemicals - membrane cleaning Hypochlorite Sodium Bisulfite Polymer Misc expenses Total Annual Cost 2010 Quantity 0 0 730 959,950 959,950 0 0 0 326,617 1% 2% 0 0 0 1077 1 Unit HR hr HR GAL GAL GAL kWh kWh kWh 2010 Unit cost, $ $45 $45 $45 $0.05 $0.10 $3.50 $0.07 $0.07 $0.07 2010 Cost, $ $0 $0 $32,850 $47,998 $95,995 $0 $0 $0 $22,863 $2,386 $3,480 $0 $0 $0 $3,230 $4,000 $212,802
LS lb GAL LB allowance
$1,000 $0.60 $0.20 $3.00 $4,000
Printed 7/15/2010
Worksheet: STEP1 common
Page 19
STEP System - Phase 1 Common Facilities

Capital Cost Estimate 2007 Item Description Quantity 2" Pressure Mains (PVC or HDPE) 13,131 3" Pressure Mains (PVC or HDPE) 1,465 4" Pressure Mains (PVC or HDPE) 2,612 6" Pressure Mains (PVC or HDPE) 3,607 8" Pressure Mains (PVC or HDPE) 4,556 10" Pressure Mains (PVC or HDPE) 800 12" Pressure Mains (PVC or HDPE) 0 1.5" HDPE Pressure Laterals - STEP 0 1.5" HDPE Pressure Laterals - extra for existing houses 0 Lateral Kits 0 Clean Out Installation 25 Air Release Valve Installation 3 Dewatering 1 AC Surface Restoration 8,956 Native Surface Restoration 0 Abandon Septic Tank 0 Subtotal Structural Septic Tank w/ Pump (Installed) Septic Tank w/ Pump - credit for ex. houses (reuse tank) Septic Tank w/ Pump - extra for ex. houses (new tank) Site Electrical - STEP Site Electrical - STEP, extra for existing houses Subtotal Equipment Total estimated current construction cost Escalation to time of construction Total estimated construction cost Contingency Engineering Design Construction Management Sales Tax Total Estimated Capital Cost Operations and Maintenance Cost Estimate (per year) Item Description Labor Septic tank pumping Diesel oil Power Structural Maintenance Equipment replacement Chemicals Hypochlorite Sodium Bisulfite Polymer Misc expenses Total Annual Cost 2010 Quantity 29,956 7,187 10,317 7,270 5,554 0 722 Unit LF LF LF LF LF LF LF EA EA EA EA EA LS SY SY EA 2010 Unit cost, $ $19 $21 $23 $28 $36 $52 $60 $517 $323 $258 $1,938 $2,584 $6,459 $16 $3 $969 2010 Cost, $ $580,489 $148,555 $239,908 $206,622 $200,901 $0 $43,320 $0 $0 $0 $100,766 $15,502 $6,459 $466,624 $0 $0 $2,009,147 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,009,147 $0 $2,009,147 $401,829 $361,647 $241,098 $209,755 $3,223,000 2010 Unit Cost $45 $400 $3.50 $0.07 2010 Annual Cost $0 $0 $0 $0 $20,091 $0 $0 $0 $0 $20,091
52 6 1 30,100
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
EA EA EA EA EA
$3,230 ($2,584) $1,292 $258 $646
0.00%
20% 15% 10% 8.7%
2007 Quantity 0 0 0 0 1% 2% 0 0 0 0
2010 Quantity 0 0 0 0
Unit hr ea gal kWh
0 0 0 0
lb gal lb allowance
$0.60 $0.20 $3.00
Printed 7/15/2010
Worksheet: STEP2 common
Page 20
STEP System - Phase 2 Common Facilities

Capital Cost Estimate Item Description 2" Pressure Mains (PVC or HDPE) 3" Pressure Mains (PVC or HDPE) 4" Pressure Mains (PVC or HDPE) 6" Pressure Mains (PVC or HDPE) 8" Pressure Mains (PVC or HDPE) 10" Pressure Mains (PVC or HDPE) 12" Pressure Mains (PVC or HDPE) 1.5" HDPE Pressure Laterals - STEP 1.5" HDPE Pressure Laterals - extra for existing houses Lateral Kits Clean Out Installation Air Release Valve Installation Dewatering AC Surface Restoration Native Surface Restoration Abandon Septic Tank Subtotal Structural Septic Tank w/ Pump (Installed) Septic Tank w/ Pump - credit for ex. houses (reuse tank) Septic Tank w/ Pump - extra for ex. houses (new tank) Site Electrical - STEP Site Electrical - STEP, extra for existing houses Subtotal Equipment Total estimated current construction cost Escalation to time of construction Total estimated construction cost Contingency Engineering Design Construction Management Sales Tax Total Estimated Capital Cost Operations and Maintenance Cost Estimate (per year) Item Description Labor Septic tank pumping Diesel oil Power Structural Maintenance Equipment replacement Chemicals Hypochlorite Sodium Bisulfite Polymer Misc expenses Total Annual Cost 2010 Unit Cost $45 $400 $3.50 $0.07 2010 Quantity 14,827 2,035 2,899 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 48 4 1 9,900 0 0 Unit LF LF LF LF LF LF LF EA EA EA EA EA LS SY SY EA 2010 Unit cost, $ $19 $21 $23 $28 $36 $52 $60 $517 $323 $258 $1,938 $2,584 $6,459 $16 $3 $969 2010 Cost, $ $287,319 $42,063 $67,412 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $93,015 $10,335 $6,459 $153,474 $0 $0 $660,078 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $660,078 $0 $660,078 $132,016 $118,814 $79,209 $68,912 $1,059,000 2010 Annual Cost $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,601 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,601
0 0 0 0 0
EA EA EA EA EA
$3,230 ($2,584) $1,292 $258 $646
Unit hr ea gal kWh
lb gal lb allowance
$0.60 $0.20 $3.00
Printed 7/15/2010
Worksheet: 2014 (commercial)
Page 21
STEP System - Onsite 2014 - Existing Commercial Entities

Capital Cost Estimate 2010 Item Description Quantity 1.5" HDPE Pressure Laterals - STEP 94 1.5" HDPE Pressure Laterals - extra for existing houses 94 Lateral Kits 94 Native Surface Restoration 3,760 Abandon Septic Tank 85 Subtotal Structural Pump Basin - 1-2 ERU's (reuse tank) Septic Tank w/ Pump - 1-2 ERU's (installed, new tank) Pump Basin - 3-5 ERU's (reuse tank) Septic Tank w/ Pump - 3-5 ERU's (installed, new tank) Pump Basin - 6-30 ERU's (reuse tank) Septic Tank w/ Pump - 6-30 ERU's (installed, new tank) Pump Basin - 31+ ERU's (reuse tank) Septic Tank w/ Pump - 31+ ERU's (installed, new tank) Site Electrical - STEP Site Electrical - STEP, extra for existing houses Subtotal Equipment Total estimated current construction cost Escalation to time of construction Total estimated construction cost Contingency Engineering Design Construction Management Sales Tax Total Estimated Capital Cost Operations and Maintenance Cost Estimate (per year) Item Description Labor Septic tank pumping Power Structural Maintenance Equipment replacement Misc expenses Total Annual Cost Unit EA EA EA SY EA 2010 Unit cost, $ $517 $323 $258 $2.58 $969 2010 Cost, $ $48,574 $30,359 $24,287 $9,715 $82,357 $195,292 $15,600 $263,553 $9,100 $120,724 $40,950 $77,024 $13,000 $0 $24,287 $60,718 $624,956 $820,248 $0 $820,248 $164,050 $49,215 $49,215 $85,634 $1,168,000 2010 Unit Cost $45 $500 $0.07 2010 Annual Cost $4,653 $9,400 $5,373 $1,129 $12,499 $0 included in 2014 worksheet
6 55 2 18 7 4 2 0 94 94
EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA
$2,600 $4,792 $4,550 $6,707 $5,850 $19,256 $6,500 $0 $258 $646
0.00%
20% 5% 5% 8.7%
2010 Quantity 103.4 19 76755 1% 2% 0
Unit hr ea kWh
allowance
Printed 7/15/2010
Worksheet: 2014
Page 22
STEP System - Onsite 2014

Capital Cost Estimate 2010 Item Description Quantity 2" PVC Pressure Mains 0 3" PVC Pressure Mains 0 4" PVC Pressure Mains 0 6" PVC Pressure Mains 0 8" PVC Pressure Mains 0 10" PVC Pressure Mains 0 1.5" HDPE Pressure Laterals - STEP 315 1.5" HDPE Pressure Laterals - extra for existing houses 315 Lateral Kits 315 Clean Out Installation 0 Air Release Valve Installation 0 Dewatering 0 AC Surface Restoration 0 Native Surface Restoration 12,600 Abandon Septic Tank 284 Commercial Entities 1 Subtotal Structural Septic Tank w/ Pump (Installed) Septic Tank w/ Pump - credit for ex. houses (reuse tank) Septic Tank w/ Pump - extra for ex. houses (new tank) Site Electrical - STEP Site Electrical - STEP, extra for existing houses Commercial Entities Subtotal Equipment Total estimated current construction cost Escalation to time of construction Total estimated construction cost Contingency Engineering Design Construction Management Sales Tax Total Estimated Capital Cost Operations and Maintenance Cost Estimate (per year) Item Description Labor Septic tank pumping Septic tank pumping (commercial) Diesel oil Power Structural Maintenance Equipment replacement Chemicals Hypochlorite Sodium Bisulfite Polymer Misc expenses Total Annual Cost 2010 Quantity 449.9 63 19 0 162492 2010 Unit Cost $45 $400 $500 $3.50 $0.07 Unit LF LF LF LF LF LF EA EA EA EA EA LS SY SY EA LS 2010 Unit cost, $ $19 $21 $23 $28 $36 $52 $517 $323 $258 $1,938 $2,584 $6,459 $16 $2.58 $969 $195,292 2010 Cost, $ $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $162,776 $101,735 $81,388 $0 $0 $0 $0 $32,555 $275,169 $195,292 $848,914 $1,102,500 ($80,096) $366,891 $81,388 $203,470 $624,956 $2,299,109 $3,148,023 $0 $3,148,023 $629,605 $188,881 $188,881 $328,654 $4,484,000 2010 Annual Cost $20,246 $25,200 $9,400 $0 $11,374 $4,914 $45,982 $0 $0 $0 $2,045 $119,161
315 31 284 315 315 1
EA EA EA EA EA LS
$3,500 ($2,584) $1,292 $258 $646 $624,956
Unit hr ea ea gal kWh
0 0 0 409
lb gal lb allowance
$0.60 $0.20 $3.00
Printed 7/15/2010
Worksheet: 2015
Page 23

Capital Cost Estimate 2010 Item Description Quantity 2" PVC Pressure Mains 0 3" PVC Pressure Mains 0 4" PVC Pressure Mains 0 6" PVC Pressure Mains 0 8" PVC Pressure Mains 0 10" PVC Pressure Mains 0 1.5" HDPE Pressure Laterals - STEP 54 1.5" HDPE Pressure Laterals - extra for existing houses 30 Lateral Kits 54 Clean Out Installation 0 Air Release Valve Installation 0 Dewatering 0 AC Surface Restoration 0 Native Surface Restoration 2,160 Abandon Septic Tank 27 Subtotal Structural Septic Tank w/ Pump (Installed) Septic Tank w/ Pump - credit for ex. houses (reuse tank) Septic Tank w/ Pump - extra for ex. houses (new tank) Site Electrical - STEP Site Electrical - STEP, extra for existing houses Subtotal Equipment Total estimated current construction cost Escalation to time of construction Total estimated construction cost Contingency Engineering Design Construction Management Sales Tax Total Estimated Capital Cost Operations and Maintenance Cost Estimate (per year) Item Description Labor Septic tank pumping Diesel oil Power Structural Maintenance Equipment replacement Chemicals Hypochlorite Sodium Bisulfite Polymer Misc Expenses (Parts) Total Annual Cost 2010 Quantity 59.4 11 0 14698 2010 Unit Cost $45 $400 $3.50 $0.07 Unit LF LF LF LF LF LF EA EA EA EA EA LS SY SY EA 2010 Unit cost, $ $19 $21 $23 $28 $36 $52 $517 $323 $258 $1,938 $2,584 $6,459 $16 $2.58 $969 2010 Cost, $ $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $27,904 $9,689 $13,952 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,581 $26,160 $83,287 $189,000 ($7,751) $34,881 $13,952 $19,378 $249,460 $332,747 $0 $332,747 $66,549 $19,965 $19,965 $34,739 $474,000 2010 Annual Cost $2,673 $4,320 $0 $1,029 $571 $4,989 $0 $0 $0 $270 $13,852
54 3 27 54 30
EA EA EA EA EA
$3,500 ($2,584) $1,292 $258 $646
Unit hr ea gal kWh
0 0 0 54
lb gal lb ea
$0.60 $0.20 $3.00 $5
Printed 7/15/2010
Worksheet: 2016
Page 24

Capital Cost Estimate 2010 Item Description Quantity 2" PVC Pressure Mains 0 3" PVC Pressure Mains 0 4" PVC Pressure Mains 0 6" PVC Pressure Mains 0 8" PVC Pressure Mains 0 10" PVC Pressure Mains 0 1.5" HDPE Pressure Laterals - STEP 60 1.5" HDPE Pressure Laterals - extra for existing houses 34 Lateral Kits 60 Clean Out Installation 0 Air Release Valve Installation 0 Dewatering 0 AC Surface Restoration 0 Native Surface Restoration 2,400 Abandon Septic Tank 31 Subtotal Structural Septic Tank w/ Pump (Installed) Septic Tank w/ Pump - credit for ex. houses (reuse tank) Septic Tank w/ Pump - extra for ex. houses (new tank) Site Electrical - STEP Site Electrical - STEP, extra for existing houses Subtotal Equipment Total estimated current construction cost Escalation to time of construction Total estimated construction cost Contingency Engineering Design Construction Management Sales Tax Total Estimated Capital Cost Operations and Maintenance Cost Estimate (per year) Item Description Labor Septic tank pumping Diesel oil Power Structural Maintenance Equipment replacement Chemicals Hypochlorite Sodium Bisulfite Polymer Misc Expenses (Parts) Total Annual Cost 2010 Quantity 66 12 0 16331 2010 Unit Cost $45 $400 $3.50 $0.07 Unit LF LF LF LF LF LF EA EA EA EA EA LS SY SY EA 2010 Unit cost, $ $19 $21 $23 $28 $36 $52 $517 $323 $258 $1,938 $2,584 $6,459 $16 $2.58 $969 2010 Cost, $ $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $31,005 $10,981 $15,502 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,201 $30,036 $93,725 $210,000 ($7,751) $40,048 $15,502 $21,962 $279,761 $373,486 $0 $373,486 $74,697 $22,409 $22,409 $38,992 $532,000 2010 Annual Cost $2,970 $4,800 $0 $1,143 $637 $5,595 $0 $0 $0 $300 $15,445
60 3 31 60 34
EA EA EA EA EA
$3,500 ($2,584) $1,292 $258 $646
Unit hr ea gal kWh
0 0 0 60
lb gal lb ea
$0.60 $0.20 $3.00 $5
Printed 7/15/2010
Worksheet: 2017
Page 25

63 4 34 63 38
EA EA EA EA EA
$3,500 ($2,584) $1,292 $258 $646
Unit hr ea gal kWh
0 0 0 63
lb gal lb ea
$0.60 $0.20 $3.00 $5
Printed 7/15/2010
Worksheet: 2018
Page 26

71 4 38 71 42
EA EA EA EA EA
$3,500 ($2,584) $1,292 $258 $646
Unit hr ea gal kWh
0 0 0 71
lb gal lb ea
$0.60 $0.20 $3.00 $5
Printed 7/15/2010
Worksheet: 2019
Page 27

76 5 43 76 48
EA EA EA EA EA
$3,500 ($2,584) $1,292 $258 $646
Unit hr ea gal kWh
0 0 0 76
lb gal lb ea
$0.60 $0.20 $3.00 $5
Printed 7/15/2010
Worksheet: 2020
Page 28

83 5 48 83 53
EA EA EA EA EA
$3,500 ($2,584) $1,292 $258 $646
Unit hr ea gal kWh
0 0 0 83
lb gal lb ea
$0.60 $0.20 $3.00 $5
Printed 7/15/2010
Worksheet: 2021
Page 29

Capital Cost Estimate 2010 Item Description Quantity 2" PVC Pressure Mains 0 3" PVC Pressure Mains 0 4" PVC Pressure Mains 0 6" PVC Pressure Mains 0 8" PVC Pressure Mains 0 10" PVC Pressure Mains 0 1.5" HDPE Pressure Laterals - STEP 90 1.5" HDPE Pressure Laterals - extra for existing houses 59 Lateral Kits 90 Clean Out Installation 0 Air Release Valve Installation 0 Dewatering 0 AC Surface Restoration 0 Native Surface Restoration 3,600 Abandon Septic Tank 53 Subtotal Structural Septic Tank w/ Pump (Installed) Septic Tank w/ Pump - credit for ex. houses (reuse tank) Septic Tank w/ Pump - extra for ex. houses (new tank) Site Electrical - STEP Site Electrical - STEP, extra for existing houses Subtotal Equipment Total estimated current construction cost Escalation to time of construction Total estimated construction cost Contingency Engineering Design Construction Management Sales Tax Total Estimated Capital Cost Operations and Maintenance Cost Estimate (per year) Item Description Labor Septic tank pumping Diesel oil Power Structural Maintenance Equipment replacement Chemicals Hypochlorite Sodium Bisulfite Polymer Misc Expenses (Parts) Total Annual Cost 2010 Quantity 99 18 0 24496 2010 Unit Cost $45 $400 $3.50 $0.07 Unit LF LF LF LF LF LF EA EA EA EA EA LS SY SY EA 2010 Unit cost, $ $19 $21 $23 $28 $36 $52 $517 $323 $258 $1,938 $2,584 $6,459 $16 $2.58 $969 2010 Cost, $ $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $46,507 $19,055 $23,254 $0 $0 $0 $0 $9,301 $51,352 $149,469 $315,000 ($15,502) $68,469 $23,254 $38,110 $429,331 $578,800 $0 $578,800 $115,760 $34,728 $34,728 $60,427 $824,000 2010 Annual Cost $4,455 $7,200 $0 $1,715 $981 $8,587 $0 $0 $0 $450 $23,388
90 6 53 90 59
EA EA EA EA EA
$3,500 ($2,584) $1,292 $258 $646
Unit hr ea gal kWh
0 0 0 90
lb gal lb ea
$0.60 $0.20 $3.00 $5
Printed 7/15/2010
Worksheet: 2022
Page 30

Capital Cost Estimate 2010 Item Description Quantity 2" PVC Pressure Mains 0 3" PVC Pressure Mains 0 4" PVC Pressure Mains 0 6" PVC Pressure Mains 0 8" PVC Pressure Mains 0 10" PVC Pressure Mains 0 1.5" HDPE Pressure Laterals - STEP 99 1.5" HDPE Pressure Laterals - extra for existing houses 66 Lateral Kits 99 Clean Out Installation 0 Air Release Valve Installation 0 Dewatering 0 AC Surface Restoration 0 Native Surface Restoration 3,960 Abandon Septic Tank 59 Subtotal Structural Septic Tank w/ Pump (Installed) Septic Tank w/ Pump - credit for ex. houses (reuse tank) Septic Tank w/ Pump - extra for ex. houses (new tank) Site Electrical - STEP Site Electrical - STEP, extra for existing houses Subtotal Equipment Total estimated current construction cost Escalation to time of construction Total estimated construction cost Contingency Engineering Design Construction Management Sales Tax Total Estimated Capital Cost Operations and Maintenance Cost Estimate (per year) Item Description Labor Septic tank pumping Diesel oil Power Structural Maintenance Equipment replacement Chemicals Hypochlorite Sodium Bisulfite Polymer Misc Expenses (Parts) Total Annual Cost 2010 Quantity 108.9 20 0 26946 2010 Unit Cost $45 $400 $3.50 $0.07 Unit LF LF LF LF LF LF EA EA EA EA EA LS SY SY EA 2010 Unit cost, $ $19 $21 $23 $28 $36 $52 $517 $323 $258 $1,938 $2,584 $6,459 $16 $2.58 $969 2010 Cost, $ $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $51,158 $21,316 $25,579 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,232 $57,165 $165,450 $346,500 ($18,086) $76,220 $25,579 $42,632 $472,845 $638,295 $0 $638,295 $127,659 $38,298 $38,298 $66,638 $909,000 2010 Annual Cost $4,901 $7,920 $0 $1,886 $1,083 $9,457 $0 $0 $0 $495 $25,741
99 7 59 99 66
EA EA EA EA EA
$3,500 ($2,584) $1,292 $258 $646
Unit hr ea gal kWh
0 0 0 99
lb gal lb ea
$0.60 $0.20 $3.00 $5
Printed 7/15/2010
Worksheet: 2023
Page 31

Capital Cost Estimate 2010 Item Description Quantity 2" PVC Pressure Mains 0 3" PVC Pressure Mains 0 4" PVC Pressure Mains 0 6" PVC Pressure Mains 0 8" PVC Pressure Mains 0 10" PVC Pressure Mains 0 1.5" HDPE Pressure Laterals - STEP 107 1.5" HDPE Pressure Laterals - extra for existing houses 73 Lateral Kits 107 Clean Out Installation 0 Air Release Valve Installation 0 Dewatering 0 AC Surface Restoration 0 Native Surface Restoration 4,280 Abandon Septic Tank 66 Subtotal Structural Septic Tank w/ Pump (Installed) Septic Tank w/ Pump - credit for ex. houses (reuse tank) Septic Tank w/ Pump - extra for ex. houses (new tank) Site Electrical - STEP Site Electrical - STEP, extra for existing houses Subtotal Equipment Total estimated current construction cost Escalation to time of construction Total estimated construction cost Contingency Engineering Design Construction Management Sales Tax Total Estimated Capital Cost Operations and Maintenance Cost Estimate (per year) Item Description Labor Septic tank pumping Diesel oil Power Structural Maintenance Equipment replacement Chemicals Hypochlorite Sodium Bisulfite Polymer Misc Expenses (Parts) Total Annual Cost 2010 Quantity 117.7 21 0 29123 2010 Unit Cost $45 $400 $3.50 $0.07 Unit LF LF LF LF LF LF EA EA EA EA EA LS SY SY EA 2010 Unit cost, $ $19 $21 $23 $28 $36 $52 $517 $323 $258 $1,938 $2,584 $6,459 $16 $2.58 $969 2010 Cost, $ $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $55,292 $23,577 $27,646 $0 $0 $0 $0 $11,058 $63,948 $181,521 $374,500 ($18,086) $85,263 $27,646 $47,153 $516,477 $697,997 $0 $697,997 $139,599 $41,880 $41,880 $72,871 $994,000 2010 Annual Cost $5,297 $8,560 $0 $2,039 $1,176 $10,330 $0 $0 $0 $535 $27,935
107 7 66 107 73
EA EA EA EA EA
$3,500 ($2,584) $1,292 $258 $646
Unit hr ea gal kWh
0 0 0 107
lb gal lb ea
$0.60 $0.20 $3.00 $5
Printed 7/15/2010
Worksheet: 2024
Page 32

Capital Cost Estimate 2010 Item Description Quantity 2" PVC Pressure Mains 0 3" PVC Pressure Mains 0 4" PVC Pressure Mains 0 6" PVC Pressure Mains 0 8" PVC Pressure Mains 0 10" PVC Pressure Mains 0 1.5" HDPE Pressure Laterals - STEP 117 1.5" HDPE Pressure Laterals - extra for existing houses 82 Lateral Kits 117 Clean Out Installation 0 Air Release Valve Installation 0 Dewatering 0 AC Surface Restoration 0 Native Surface Restoration 4,680 Abandon Septic Tank 74 Subtotal Structural Septic Tank w/ Pump (Installed) Septic Tank w/ Pump - credit for ex. houses (reuse tank) Septic Tank w/ Pump - extra for ex. houses (new tank) Site Electrical - STEP Site Electrical - STEP, extra for existing houses Subtotal Equipment Total estimated current construction cost Escalation to time of construction Total estimated construction cost Contingency Engineering Design Construction Management Sales Tax Total Estimated Capital Cost Operations and Maintenance Cost Estimate (per year) Item Description Labor Septic tank pumping Diesel oil Power Structural Maintenance Equipment replacement Chemicals Hypochlorite Sodium Bisulfite Polymer Misc Expenses (Parts) Total Annual Cost 2010 Quantity 128.7 23 0 31845 2010 Unit Cost $45 $400 $3.50 $0.07 Unit LF LF LF LF LF LF EA EA EA EA EA LS SY SY EA 2010 Unit cost, $ $19 $21 $23 $28 $36 $52 $517 $323 $258 $1,938 $2,584 $6,459 $16 $2.58 $969 2010 Cost, $ $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $60,460 $26,483 $30,230 $0 $0 $0 $0 $12,092 $71,699 $200,963 $409,500 ($20,670) $95,598 $30,230 $52,967 $567,625 $768,588 $0 $768,588 $153,718 $46,115 $46,115 $80,241 $1,095,000 2010 Annual Cost $5,792 $9,360 $0 $2,229 $1,293 $11,353 $0 $0 $0 $585 $30,611
117 8 74 117 82
EA EA EA EA EA
$3,500 ($2,584) $1,292 $258 $646
Unit hr ea gal kWh
0 0 0 117
lb gal lb ea
$0.60 $0.20 $3.00 $5
Printed 7/15/2010
Worksheet: 2025
Page 33

Capital Cost Estimate 2010 Item Description Quantity 2" PVC Pressure Mains 0 3" PVC Pressure Mains 0 4" PVC Pressure Mains 0 6" PVC Pressure Mains 0 8" PVC Pressure Mains 0 10" PVC Pressure Mains 0 1.5" HDPE Pressure Laterals - STEP 127 1.5" HDPE Pressure Laterals - extra for existing houses 90 Lateral Kits 127 Clean Out Installation 0 Air Release Valve Installation 0 Dewatering 0 AC Surface Restoration 0 Native Surface Restoration 5,080 Abandon Septic Tank 81 Subtotal Structural Septic Tank w/ Pump (Installed) Septic Tank w/ Pump - credit for ex. houses (reuse tank) Septic Tank w/ Pump - extra for ex. houses (new tank) Site Electrical - STEP Site Electrical - STEP, extra for existing houses Subtotal Equipment Total estimated current construction cost Escalation to time of construction Total estimated construction cost Contingency Engineering Design Construction Management Sales Tax Total Estimated Capital Cost Operations and Maintenance Cost Estimate (per year) Item Description Labor Septic tank pumping Diesel oil Power Structural Maintenance Equipment replacement Chemicals Hypochlorite Sodium Bisulfite Polymer Misc Expenses (Parts) Total Annual Cost 2010 Quantity 139.7 25 0 34567 2010 Unit Cost $45 $400 $3.50 $0.07 Unit LF LF LF LF LF LF EA EA EA EA EA LS SY SY EA 2010 Unit cost, $ $19 $21 $23 $28 $36 $52 $517 $323 $258 $1,938 $2,584 $6,459 $16 $2.58 $969 2010 Cost, $ $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $65,627 $29,067 $32,814 $0 $0 $0 $0 $13,125 $78,481 $219,114 $444,500 ($23,254) $104,642 $32,814 $58,134 $616,836 $835,950 $0 $835,950 $167,190 $50,157 $50,157 $87,273 $1,191,000 2010 Annual Cost $6,287 $10,160 $0 $2,420 $1,406 $12,337 $0 $0 $0 $635 $33,244
127 9 81 127 90
EA EA EA EA EA
$3,500 ($2,584) $1,292 $258 $646
Unit hr ea gal kWh
0 0 0 127
lb gal lb ea
$0.60 $0.20 $3.00 $5
Printed 7/15/2010
Worksheet: 2026
Page 34

Capital Cost Estimate 2010 Item Description Quantity 2" PVC Pressure Mains 0 3" PVC Pressure Mains 0 4" PVC Pressure Mains 0 6" PVC Pressure Mains 0 8" PVC Pressure Mains 0 10" PVC Pressure Mains 0 1.5" HDPE Pressure Laterals - STEP 36 1.5" HDPE Pressure Laterals - extra for existing houses 0 Lateral Kits 36 Clean Out Installation 0 Air Release Valve Installation 0 Dewatering 0 AC Surface Restoration 0 Native Surface Restoration 1,440 Abandon Septic Tank 0 Subtotal Structural Septic Tank w/ Pump (Installed) Septic Tank w/ Pump - credit for ex. houses (reuse tank) Septic Tank w/ Pump - extra for ex. houses (new tank) Site Electrical - STEP Site Electrical - STEP, extra for existing houses Subtotal Equipment Total estimated current construction cost Escalation to time of construction Total estimated construction cost Contingency Engineering Design Construction Management Sales Tax Total Estimated Capital Cost Operations and Maintenance Cost Estimate (per year) Item Description Labor Septic tank pumping Diesel oil Power Structural Maintenance Equipment replacement Chemicals Hypochlorite Sodium Bisulfite Polymer Misc Expenses (Parts) Total Annual Cost 2010 Quantity 39.6 7 0 9798 2010 Unit Cost $45 $400 $3.50 $0.07 Unit LF LF LF LF LF LF EA EA EA EA EA LS SY SY EA 2010 Unit cost, $ $19 $21 $23 $28 $36 $52 $517 $323 $258 $1,938 $2,584 $6,459 $16 $2.58 $969 2010 Cost, $ $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $18,603 $0 $9,301 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,721 $0 $31,625 $126,000 $0 $0 $9,301 $0 $135,301 $166,926 $0 $166,926 $33,385 $10,016 $10,016 $17,427 $238,000 2010 Annual Cost $1,782 $2,880 $0 $686 $316 $2,706 $0 $0 $0 $180 $8,550
36 0 0 36 0
EA EA EA EA EA
$3,500 ($2,584) $1,292 $258 $646
Unit hr ea gal kWh
0 0 0 36
lb gal lb ea
$0.60 $0.20 $3.00 $5
Printed 7/15/2010
Worksheet: 2027
Page 35

38 0 0 38 0
EA EA EA EA EA
$3,500 ($2,584) $1,292 $258 $646
Unit hr ea gal kWh
0 0 0 38
lb gal lb ea
$0.60 $0.20 $3.00 $5
Printed 7/15/2010
Worksheet: 2028
Page 36

38 0 0 38 0
EA EA EA EA EA
$3,500 ($2,584) $1,292 $258 $646
Unit hr ea gal kWh
0 0 0 38
lb gal lb ea
$0.60 $0.20 $3.00 $5
Printed 7/15/2010
Worksheet: 2029
Page 37

41 0 0 41 0
EA EA EA EA EA
$3,500 ($2,584) $1,292 $258 $646
Unit hr ea gal kWh
0 0 0 41
lb gal lb ea
$0.60 $0.20 $3.00 $5
Printed 7/15/2010
Worksheet: 2030
Page 38

39 0 0 39 0
EA EA EA EA EA
$3,500 ($2,584) $1,292 $258 $646
Unit hr ea gal kWh
0 0 0 39
lb gal lb ea
$0.60 $0.20 $3.00 $5
Printed 7/15/2010
Worksheet: 2031
Page 39

41 0 0 41 0
EA EA EA EA EA
$3,500 ($2,584) $1,292 $258 $646
Unit hr ea gal kWh
0 0 0 41
lb gal lb ea
$0.60 $0.20 $3.00 $5
Printed 7/15/2010
Worksheet: 2032
Page 40

41 0 0 41 0
EA EA EA EA EA
$3,500 ($2,584) $1,292 $258 $646
Unit hr ea gal kWh
0 0 0 41
lb gal lb ea
$0.60 $0.20 $3.00 $5
Printed 7/15/2010
Worksheet: 2033
Page 41

45 0 0 45 0
EA EA EA EA EA
$3,500 ($2,584) $1,292 $258 $646
Unit hr ea gal kWh
0 0 0 45
lb gal lb ea
$0.60 $0.20 $3.00 $5
Printed 7/15/2010
Worksheet: 2034
Page 42

43 0 0 43 0
EA EA EA EA EA
$3,500 ($2,584) $1,292 $258 $646
Unit hr ea gal kWh
0 0 0 43
lb gal lb ea
$0.60 $0.20 $3.00 $5
Printed 7/15/2010
Worksheet: 2035
Page 43

45 0 0 45 0
EA EA EA EA EA
$3,500 ($2,584) $1,292 $258 $646
Unit hr ea gal kWh
0 0 0 45
lb gal lb ea
$0.60 $0.20 $3.00 $5
Printed 7/15/2010
Worksheet: Slow Inf 2014
Page 44
Slow Infiltration - Phase 1 / Year 2014

Capital Cost Estimate Item Description Access Road Power to Site Controls to Site Electrical Sitework Storage Pond Excavation / Hauling / Backfill Pond Inlet Structure Pond Fencing Quantity 2,500 2,500 9,600 1 30,000 1 1,200 Unit LF LF LF LS CY LS LF 2010 Unit cost, $ $60 $30 $10 $45,000 $20 $20,000 $35 2010 Cost, $ $150,000 $75,000 $96,000 $45,000 $600,000 $20,000 $42,000
Subtotal Structural Irrigation Pumps Irrigation System Subtotal Equipment Contractor O&P Mobilization, demobilization, bond Total estimated current construction cost Escalation to time of construction Total estimated construction cost Contingency Engineering Design Construction Management Sales Tax Total Estimated Capital Cost Operations and Maintenance Cost Estimate (per year) Item Description Labor Diesel oil Power Structural Maintenance Equipment replacement Chemicals Hypochlorite Sodium Bisulfite Polymer Misc expenses Total Annual Cost
1 60
LS AC
$50,000 $11,500
$1,028,000 $50,000 $690,000 $740,000 $265,200 $106,080 $2,139,280 $0 $2,139,280 $427,856 $385,070 $256,714 $223,341 $3,432,000
15% 6% 0.00%
20% 15% 10% 8.7%
Quantity 520
12,248 1% 2% 0 0 0 1
Unit HR EA GAL kWh
2010 Unit Cost $45
2010 Annual Cost (1st year - 2014) $23,400
2010 Annual Cost (final year - 2023) $23,400
$0.07
$857
$3,429
$10,280 $14,800
LS LB GAL LB allowance
$10,280 $14,800
$1,000
$1,000 $50,337
$1,000 $52,909
Printed 7/15/2010
Worksheet: Slow Inf 2023
Page 45

Capital Cost Estimate Item Description Access Road Power to Site Controls to Site Electrical Sitework Storage Pond Excavation / Hauling / Backfill Pond Inlet Structure Pond Fencing Quantity 0 0 0 0 25,000 1 1,200 Unit LF LF LF LS CY LS LF 2010 Unit cost, $ $60 $30 $10 $45,000 $20 $20,000 $35 2010 Cost, $ $0 $0 $0 $0 $500,000 $20,000 $42,000
Subtotal Structural Irrigation Pumps Sprinkler Irrigation System Subtotal Equipment Contractor O&P Mobilization, demobilization, bond Total estimated current construction cost Escalation to time of construction Total estimated construction cost Contingency Engineering Design Construction Management Sales Tax Additional Land Purchase Total Estimated Capital Cost Operations and Maintenance Cost Estimate (per year) Item Description Labor Diesel oil Power Structural Maintenance Equipment replacement Chemicals Hypochlorite Sodium Bisulfite Polymer Misc expenses Total Annual Cost
1 60
LS AC
$50,000 $11,500
$562,000 $50,000 $690,000 $740,000 $195,300 $78,120 1575420 0 1575420 315084 283575.6 189050.4 164473.848 $560,000 3088000 2010 Annual Cost (1st year - 2023) $23,400
15% 6% 0.00%
20% 15% 10% 8.7% 80.00
AC
$7,000
Quantity 520
48,992 1% 2% 0 0 0 1
Unit HR EA GAL kWh
2010 Unit Cost $45
Annual Cost (Final year - 2037) $23,400
$0.07
$3,429
$5,716
$15,900 $29,600
$15,900 $29,600
$1,400
$1,400 $73,729
$1,400 $76,016
Printed 7/15/2010
Worksheet: More Land 2037
Page 46

Capital Cost Estimate Item Description Access Road Power to Site Controls to Site Electrical Sitework Storage Pond Excavation / Hauling / Backfill Pond Inlet Structure Pond Fencing Quantity 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unit LF LF LF LS CY LS LF 2010 Unit cost, $ $60 $30 $10 $45,000 $20 $15,000 $35 2010 Cost, $ $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Subtotal Structural Irrigation Pumps Irrigation System Subtotal Equipment Contractor O&P Mobilization, demobilization, bond Total estimated current construction cost Escalation to time of construction Total estimated construction cost Contingency Engineering Design Construction Management Sales Tax Additional Land Purchase Total Estimated Capital Cost Operations and Maintenance Cost Estimate (per year) Item Description Labor Diesel oil Power Structural Maintenance Equipment replacement Chemicals Hypochlorite Sodium Bisulfite Polymer Misc expenses Total Annual Cost
1 30
LS AC
$25,000 $11,500
$0 $25,000 $345,000 $370,000 $55,500 $22,200 $447,700 $0 $447,700 $89,540 $80,586 $53,724 $46,740 $280,000 $998,000 2010 Annual Cost (1st year - 2037) $23,400 2010 Annual Cost (final year - 2055) $23,400
15% 6% 0.00%
20% 15% 10% 8.7% 40
AC
$7,000
Quantity 520
48,992 1% 2% 0 0 0 1
Unit HR EA GAL kWh
2010 Unit Cost $45
$0.07
$3,429 $15,900 $37,000
$5,716 $15,900 $37,000
$1,600
$1,600 $81,329
$1,600 $83,616
Printed 7/15/2010
Worksheet: To Freeland (tree farm)
Page 47
Conveyance to Freeland (Discharge to tree farm)

Capital Cost Estimate Item Description 10" Ductile Iron Pressure Mains - to HHSD 10" Ductile Iron Pressure Mains - to Discharge Dewatering AC Surface Restoration Native Surface Restoration Subtotal Structural Pump Station - from Collection to Treatment Pump Station - from Treatment to Discharge Odor Control Subtotal Equipment Total estimated current construction cost Escalation to time of construction Total estimated construction cost Contingency Engineering Design Construction Management Sales Tax Total Estimated Capital Cost Quantity 0 9,600 1 0 4,800 Unit LF LF LS SY SY 2010 Unit cost, $ $70 $10,000 $2.58 2010 Cost, $ $672,000 $10,000 $12,384 $694,384 0 1 0 EA EA LS $625,000 $625,000
$625,000 $1,319,384 0.00% $1,319,384 20% 15% 10% 8.7% $263,877 $237,489 $158,326 $137,744 $2,117,000 2010 Unit Cost $45 2010 Annual Cost (1st year - 2014) $11,250
Item
Description Labor Septic tank pumping Diesel oil Power Structural Maintenance Equipment replacement Chemicals Hypochlorite Sodium Bisulfite Polymer Misc expenses Total Annual Cost
Quantity 250
24496 1% 2% 0 0 1
Unit hr ea gal kWh
Annual Cost (Final year - 2055) $11,250
$0.07
$1,715 $6,944 $12,500
$11,432 $6,944 $12,500
lb gal lb allowance
$800
$800 $33,209
$800 $42,925
Printed 7/15/2010
APPENDIX F. LID FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY OPINION AND DRAFT BOARD RESOLUTION

July 2010
FREELAND WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT ISLAND 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. 1.1 RECITALS AND FINDINGS.
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.
ERROR! UNKNOWN DOCUMENT PROPERTY NAME.
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 Freelands 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. 2.1 THE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT.
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. 4.1 PUBLIC NOTICE.
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 Districts office hours are Monday Friday, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., excluding holidays. Section 6. 6.1 REIMBURSEMENT AUTHORIZATION.
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 longterm 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 resolution. Section 7. INFORMATION TO BE FILED. The Districts engineers, including This declaration of official intent shall be dated as of the date of adoption of this
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 StreetNewman 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 system with 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 handling and 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.
Exhibit A. SERVICE AREA AND PROJECT PHASING

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.
Lo n
g
Bercot
Honeymoon Bay
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.
Reuse Area
Reed
H st a E
b ar
or
Holmes Harbor
SR
Slocum
52
Watkins
Twin Oaks
Ships Haven
Diamond
Reclaimed-Water Pipeline to Reuse Area

Mutiny Sands
Bush Point
Myrtle
en
Shoreview
Woodard
Freeland
Stewart Ple
Ch
e rr y
nt on z a H e n y ew i Lyn s r ent V o D sa a
Layton
Sh
or
Vi
es
Main Street Sewer District
Timber

Roxlin
Joanne Dutch Hollow
Clipper
Main
Vesel Cameron Tara
Harbor
Lotto
Osprey
Ne
Scott
wm
an
Pauleina Carie
Apple Tree
Morningside
Woodard
Hawksbeard
Fish
Dusty
Cattail
ut M in
Mutiny Bay
Hollyhill
y y Ba
Scenic
LEGEND
500
1,000
2,000
Approximate Scale
Sewer service area and Non-Municipal Urban Growth Area (NMUGA), excluding Holmes Harbor Main Street Sewer District
Phase 1 collection system piping Phase 2 collection system piping Reclaimed water conveyance pipeline
Phase 1 project area Phase 2 project area
APPENDIX G. LID DEBT REPAYMENT FUND CASH FLOW

July 2010
Debt Repayment
Freeland Sewer Project KI&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 avoid additional interest charges and ensure a balanced repayment (see latter years). SCENARIO: WITHOUT ADD'L USDA-RD GRANT 1 2 3 4 5 6 Debt Repayment Fund Cash Flow 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 LID PRINCIPAL BALANCE: $34,418,000 32,123,467 29,828,933 27,534,400 25,239,867 22,945,333 20,650,800 Estimated Revenue Island Co. Rural Development Grant ($100k/yr, P+I) 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 LID Interest Payments 3.75% 1,290,675 1,204,630 1,118,585 1,032,540 946,495 860,450 Investment Interest 2.0% 10,000 39,467 78,032 115,876 152,987 189,347 Total Estimated Revenue 3,695,208 3,638,630 3,591,150 3,542,950 3,494,015 3,444,331 USDA-RD LOAN BALANCE: $34,418,000 Estimated Expense USDA-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 LID Administration 0.5% 172,090 160,617 149,145 137,672 126,199 114,727 Total Estimated Expense 1,721,862 1,710,389 1,698,916 1,687,444 1,675,971 1,664,498 Annual Increase/(Use) of Reserves 1,973,347 1,928,241 1,892,234 1,855,506 1,818,044 1,779,832 Estimated Ending Balance 1,973,347 3,901,588 5,793,822 7,649,328 9,467,372 11,247,204
7 2022 18,356,267 100,000 2,294,533 774,405 224,944 3,393,882
8 2023 16,061,733 100,000 2,294,533 688,360 259,761 3,342,655
9 2024 13,767,200 100,000 2,294,533 602,315 293,783 3,290,632
10 2025 11,472,667 100,000 2,294,533 516,270 326,994 3,237,798
11 2026 9,178,133 100,000 2,294,533 430,225 359,378 3,184,136
12 2027 6,883,600 100,000 2,294,533 344,180 390,918 3,129,631
13 2028 4,589,067 100,000 2,294,533 258,135 421,597 3,074,266
14 2029 2,294,533 100,000 2,294,533 172,090 451,399 3,018,022
1,549,772 103,254 1,653,026 1,740,857 12,988,061
1,549,772 91,781 1,641,553 1,701,102 14,689,163
1,549,772 80,309 1,630,080 1,660,551 16,349,714
1,549,772 68,836 1,618,608 1,619,190 17,968,904
1,549,772 57,363 1,607,135 1,577,001 19,545,905
1,549,772 45,891 1,595,662 1,533,969 21,079,874
1,549,772 34,418 1,584,190 1,490,076 22,569,951
1,549,772 22,945 1,572,717 1,445,305 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 avoid additional interest charges and ensure a balanced repayment (see latter years). SCENARIO: WITH 30% USDA-RD GRANT 1 2 3 4 5 6 Debt Repayment Fund Cash Flow 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 LID PRINCIPAL BALANCE: $25,542,000 23,839,200 22,136,400 20,433,600 18,730,800 17,028,000 15,325,200 Estimated Revenue Island Co. Rural Development Grant ($100k/yr, P+I) 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 LID Interest Payments 3.75% 957,825 893,970 830,115 766,260 702,405 638,550 Investment Interest 2.0% 10,000 29,856 59,003 87,625 115,714 143,257 Total Estimated Revenue 2,770,625 2,726,626 2,691,918 2,656,685 2,620,919 2,584,607 USDA-RD LOAN BALANCE: $25,542,000 Estimated Expense USDA-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 LID Administration 0.5% 127,710 119,196 110,682 102,168 93,654 85,140 Total Estimated Expense 1,277,814 1,269,300 1,260,786 1,252,272 1,243,758 1,235,244 Annual Increase/(Use) of Reserves 1,492,811 1,457,327 1,431,132 1,404,414 1,377,161 1,349,363 Estimated Ending Balance 1,492,811 2,950,138 4,381,270 5,785,684 7,162,845 8,512,208
7 2022 13,622,400 100,000 1,702,800 574,695 170,244 2,547,739
8 2023 11,919,600 100,000 1,702,800 510,840 196,664 2,510,304
9 2024 10,216,800 100,000 1,702,800 446,985 222,506 2,472,291
10 2025 8,514,000 100,000 1,702,800 383,130 247,758 2,433,688
11 2026 6,811,200 100,000 1,702,800 319,275 272,408 2,394,483
12 2027 5,108,400 100,000 1,702,800 255,420 296,444 2,354,664
13 2028 3,405,600 100,000 1,702,800 191,565 319,854 2,314,219
14 2029 1,702,800 100,000 1,702,800 127,710 342,626 2,273,136
1,150,104 76,626 1,226,730 1,321,010 9,833,218
1,150,104 68,112 1,218,216 1,292,089 11,125,306
1,150,104 59,598 1,209,702 1,262,589 12,387,896
1,150,104 51,084 1,201,188 1,232,500 13,620,396
1,150,104 42,570 1,192,674 1,201,809 14,822,205
1,150,104 34,056 1,184,160 1,170,504 15,992,710
1,150,104 25,542 1,175,646 1,138,574 17,131,283
1,150,104 17,028 1,167,132 1,106,004 18,237,287
Appendix G_KI&A Detailed Debt Repayment Fund 070710.xls, 7/8/2010, Page 1
Debt Repayment
Freeland Sewer Project KI&A Projections Caution: Assume assessment payments over 15 years a additional interest charges and ensure a balanced repay SCENARIO: WITHOUT ADD'L USDA-RD GRANT Debt Repayment Fund Cash Flow LID PRINCIPAL BALANCE: Estimated Revenue Island Co. Rural Development Grant ($100k/yr, P+I) LID Principal Payments (15 yrs sched) LID Interest Payments Investment Interest Total Estimated Revenue USDA-RD LOAN BALANCE: Estimated Expense USDA-RD Loan Repayment LID Administration Total Estimated Expense Annual Increase/(Use) of Reserves Estimated Ending Balance Caution: Assume assessment payments over 15 years a additional interest charges and ensure a balanced repay SCENARIO: WITH 30% USDA-RD GRANT Debt Repayment Fund Cash Flow LID PRINCIPAL BALANCE: Estimated Revenue Island Co. Rural Development Grant ($100k/yr, P+I) LID Principal Payments (15 yrs sched) LID Interest Payments Investment Interest Total Estimated Revenue USDA-RD LOAN BALANCE: Estimated Expense USDA-RD Loan Repayment LID Administration Total Estimated Expense Annual Increase/(Use) of Reserves Estimated Ending Balance
15 2030 0 100,000 2,294,533 86,045 480,305 2,960,883
16 2031 0 100,000
17 2032 0 100,000
18 2033 0 100,000
19 2034 0 100,000
20 2035 0 100,000
21 2036 0
22 2037 0
23 2038 0
24 2039 0
25 2040 0
26 2041 0
27 2042 0
28 2043 0
29 2044 0
508,298 608,298
489,468 589,468
470,262 570,262
450,672 550,672
430,690 530,690
410,309 410,309
387,519 387,519
364,274 364,274
340,564 340,564
316,380 316,380
291,712 291,712
266,551 266,551
240,887 240,887
214,709 214,709
1,549,772 11,473 1,561,244 1,399,639 25,414,895
1,549,772 1,549,772 (941,474) 24,473,421
1,549,772 1,549,772 (960,303) 23,513,118
1,549,772 1,549,772 (979,509) 22,533,609
1,549,772 1,549,772 (999,099) 21,534,509
1,549,772 1,549,772 (1,019,081) 20,515,428
1,549,772 1,549,772 (1,139,463) 19,375,965
1,549,772 1,549,772 (1,162,252) 18,213,713
1,549,772 1,549,772 (1,185,497) 17,028,215
1,549,772 1,549,772 (1,209,207) 15,819,008
1,549,772 1,549,772 (1,233,391) 14,585,616
1,549,772 1,549,772 (1,258,059) 13,327,557
1,549,772 1,549,772 (1,283,220) 12,044,337
1,549,772 1,549,772 (1,308,885) 10,735,452
1,549,772 1,549,772 (1,335,063) 9,400,389
15 2030 100,000 1,702,800 63,855 364,746 2,231,401
16 2031 100,000
17 2032 100,000
18 2033 100,000
19 2034 100,000
20 2035 100,000
21 2036 -
22 2037 -
23 2038 -
24 2039 -
25 2040 -
26 2041 -
27 2042 -
28 2043 -
29 2044 -
386,201 486,201
372,923 472,923
359,380 459,380
345,565 445,565
331,475 431,475
317,102 317,102
300,442 300,442
283,449 283,449
266,116 266,116
248,436 248,436
230,402 230,402
212,008 212,008
193,247 193,247
174,109 174,109
1,150,104 8,514 1,158,618 1,072,783 19,310,070
1,150,104 1,150,104 (663,902) 18,646,168
1,150,104 1,150,104 (677,180) 17,968,988
1,150,104 1,150,104 (690,724) 17,278,264
1,150,104 1,150,104 (704,538) 16,573,726
1,150,104 1,150,104 (718,629) 15,855,097
1,150,104 1,150,104 (833,002) 15,022,095
1,150,104 1,150,104 (849,662) 14,172,433
1,150,104 1,150,104 (866,655) 13,305,778
1,150,104 1,150,104 (883,988) 12,421,790
1,150,104 1,150,104 (901,668) 11,520,122
1,150,104 1,150,104 (919,701) 10,600,421
1,150,104 1,150,104 (938,095) 9,662,326
1,150,104 1,150,104 (956,857) 8,705,469
1,150,104 1,150,104 (975,994) 7,729,474
Debt Repayment
Freeland Sewer Project KI&A Projections Caution: Assume assessment payments over 15 years a additional interest charges and ensure a balanced repay SCENARIO: WITHOUT ADD'L USDA-RD GRANT Debt Repayment Fund Cash Flow LID PRINCIPAL BALANCE: Estimated Revenue Island Co. Rural Development Grant ($100k/yr, P+I) LID Principal Payments (15 yrs sched) LID Interest Payments Investment Interest Total Estimated Revenue USDA-RD LOAN BALANCE: Estimated Expense USDA-RD Loan Repayment LID Administration Total Estimated Expense Annual Increase/(Use) of Reserves Estimated Ending Balance Caution: Assume assessment payments over 15 years a additional interest charges and ensure a balanced repay SCENARIO: WITH 30% USDA-RD GRANT Debt Repayment Fund Cash Flow LID PRINCIPAL BALANCE: Estimated Revenue Island Co. Rural Development Grant ($100k/yr, P+I) LID Principal Payments (15 yrs sched) LID Interest Payments Investment Interest Total Estimated Revenue USDA-RD LOAN BALANCE: Estimated Expense USDA-RD Loan Repayment LID Administration Total Estimated Expense Annual Increase/(Use) of Reserves Estimated Ending Balance
30 2045 0
31 2046 0
32 2047 0
33 2048 0
34 2049 0
35 2050 0
36 2051 0
37 2052 0
38 2053 0
39 2054 0
40 2055 0
188,008 188,008
160,773 160,773
132,993 132,993
104,657 104,657
75,755 75,755
46,274 46,274
16,204 16,204
1,549,772 1,549,772 (1,361,764) 8,038,625
1,549,772 1,549,772 (1,388,999) 6,649,626
1,549,772 1,549,772 (1,416,779) 5,232,847
1,549,772 1,549,772 (1,445,115) 3,787,732
1,549,772 1,549,772 (1,474,017) 2,313,715
1,549,772 1,549,772 (1,503,497) 810,218
1,549,772 1,549,772 (1,533,567) (723,349)
1,549,772 1,549,772 (1,549,772) (2,273,121)
1,549,772 1,549,772 (1,549,772) (3,822,893)
1,549,772 1,549,772 (1,549,772) (5,372,664)
1,549,772 1,549,772 (1,549,772) (6,922,436)
30 2045 -
31 2046 -
32 2047 -
33 2048 -
34 2049 -
35 2050 -
36 2051 -
37 2052 -
38 2053 -
39 2054 -
40 2055 -
154,589 154,589
134,679 134,679
114,371 114,371
93,656 93,656
72,527 72,527
50,976 50,976
28,993 28,993
6,571 6,571
1,150,104 1,150,104 (995,514) 6,733,960
1,150,104 1,150,104 (1,015,424) 5,718,536
1,150,104 1,150,104 (1,035,733) 4,682,803
1,150,104 1,150,104 (1,056,448) 3,626,355
1,150,104 1,150,104 (1,077,577) 2,548,779
1,150,104 1,150,104 (1,099,128) 1,449,651
1,150,104 1,150,104 (1,121,111) 328,540
1,150,104 1,150,104 (1,143,533) (814,993)
1,150,104 1,150,104 (1,150,104) (1,965,096)
1,150,104 1,150,104 (1,150,104) (3,115,200)
1,150,104 1,150,104 (1,150,104) (4,265,304)

07-09 FreelandPrelimEngReport FINAL

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

07-09 FreelandPrelimEngReport FINAL

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Freeland Water and Sewer District

and Associated Firms

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

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

Chapter 3. Current Recommended Project...............................................................................24

Chapter 4. Financing Plan ..........................................................................................................45

BACKGROUND Project Purpose

Public Outreach Activities

Main Street Sewer District

Treatment Plant Site

Joanne Dutch Hollow

1,000 Approximate Scale: 1 = 2,000

Freeland Water and Sewer District

Figure 1. PROJECT SITE AND VICINITY MAP

PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT AND RELATED DOCUMENTS

FP Chapter 2, PER Chapter 1

FP Chapters 57; PER Chapter 2

PER Chapters 3 and 4

FP Chapters 89; PER Chapters 3 and 4

CHAPTER 2. AMENDMENTS TO 2005 FACILITY PLAN RECOMMENDATION

Wastewater Treatment Plant Plant-wide/General

Reclaimed Water Reuse

COLLECTION SYSTEM Pressurized Sewer Type

Reasons for Updates

2. AMENDMENTS TO 2005 FACILITY PLAN RECOMMENDATION

Collection System Phasing

Reasons for Updates

Need to Accelerate Conversion from On-Site Septic Systems

2. AMENDMENTS TO 2005 FACILITY PLAN RECOMMENDATION

Figure 2. Proposed Collection System Phasing

REVISED POPULATION, FLOW AND LOAD ESTIMATES

2. AMENDMENTS TO 2005 FACILITY PLAN RECOMMENDATION

TREATMENT PLANT Headworks

Reasons for Updates

MBR Treatment and Emergency Storage

Reasons for Updates Larger Phase 1 Sewer Service Area

Revised Nitrogen Regulations

Emergency Storage Requirements

2. AMENDMENTS TO 2005 FACILITY PLAN RECOMMENDATION

Reasons for Updates

Solids Handling and Disposal

Reasons for Updates

2. AMENDMENTS TO 2005 FACILITY PLAN RECOMMENDATION

Reasons for Updates

Reasons for Updates

Treatment Plant Capacity Expansion

Reasons for Updates

RECLAIMED WATER REUSE 2005 Recommendation

2. AMENDMENTS TO 2005 FACILITY PLAN RECOMMENDATION

Reasons for Updates

2. AMENDMENTS TO 2005 FACILITY PLAN RECOMMENDATION

Figure 3. Drainage Basin Surrounding Reuse Site

Tree Farm Property

Figure 4. Tree Farm Property and Reuse Site

Potential nitrate loading capacity No net increase

Reuse Site Capacity Expansion

2. AMENDMENTS TO 2005 FACILITY PLAN RECOMMENDATION

CHAPTER 3. CURRENT RECOMMENDED PROJECT

Year 2014 2015 2023 2025 2037 2055

Sewered Population 1,427 1,555 3,077 3,643 4,816 7,322

Reclaimed-Water Pipeline to Reuse Area

Treatment Plant Site

Joanne Dutch Hollow

LEGEND Phase 1 service area