12/14/2021 - PacketUtilities Committee Meeting Agenda
December 14, 2021, 5:00 p.m.
Pursuant to the Governor's "Stay Home - Stay Safe " Order, the City is prohibited from conducting
meetings unless the meeting is NOT conducted in person and instead provides options for the public to
attend through telephone access, internet or other means of remote access, and also provides the ability for
persons attending the meeting (not in person) to hear each other at the same time. Therefore;
Remote access only
Link:
https://us02web.zoom.us/m/87003190438
Webinar ID: 870 0319 0438
• 2020 Water System Plan — Update
o DOH Approval
• DWSRF Well #11 Design - Update
• 660 Reservoir Design - Update
• 580 Reservoir & Distribution Main — Update
o Reservoir P-Bond Release
o Water Main - 95%
• Pottery Sewerage LS Emergency Repair — Update
o Closeout with PWB
• ARPA Funds - Update
o 390 — 580 Zone Old Clifton Road Intertie
o Well 13 and PRVs
• Foster Pilot Project - Update
• Cross Connection/FOG/Stormwater Source Control — Update
o Draft Job Description
• 2022 Work Plan
Next Meeting: January 12, 2022
Future Agenda Items:
• McCormick Sewer PS #1 Repairs - Update
• Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan - Update
• Splash Pad — Update
• McCormick Water Campus (580 Res, Well #12 & Main) - Update
• 2022 (Consumer Confidence) Water Quality Report
• 2021 NPDES Phase II Annual Report
• Option to Levy Excise Taxes on W/S
• Bay Street - Street Lighting & Marquee
• Water System Fluoridation
0 Sanitary Side Sewer Policy
Nell 11 Final Design update - 121612021
Erika Schuyler Erika.Schuyler murraysmith.us>
To 0 Ja€ki Brown
C€ Adam Schuyler.: 0 Mark Dorsey
Hi Jacki,
Reply ] Reply All Forward • • •
Mon 12/6/2021 5;52AM
Following is a bi-weekly update on the Well 11 Final Design project; I have included all tasks below, and shaded back the
tasks that have no effort associated with them at this time. Please let me know if you have any questions.
Task 1— PM
• Ongoing subconsultant coordination
Task 2 — Pre I i m inary Desi gn
• Continuing work on the Preliminary Design Report, including 30 drawings
• City met internally to disc Liss existing Well 3 and future use thereof. Well 3 to remain a monitoring well.
• Decision to incorporate cI&arwvelI foIIovaing well pumping made; existing clearwelIs condition assessment
required, coordination with CG Engineering underway, Currently determining impacts to project.
• Geotechnical Report complete
Task 3— Perrnitting
Task 4— CuPtural Resources Review
Task 5 — Public Outreach
Task 6 — 60 Percent Design
Task 7 — 90 Percent Design
Task 8 —100 Percent Design
1 I 2 3 I 4 5 I 6 7
aa'caN I �. /
/\se'coh -542 — —('7Y"caul\ '1 za cox
0 PE D /r — \ za'coN/' /z cary / 30'CON /' \ ✓
TO 580A RESERVOIR
2+'Cory /' / / y /* 20'CON 30' oN
/
/ \
PROPOSED Co./ / ^
FENCE RELOCATION I ri 30"CDN r /� 9ON / /'// h�� c�
zO"CON
o' \ `
SEE SHEET C1-04 _ _
\\�• \\ \ �-- / �c=--CO -� '/ ' S8T36_21"E 1283.94' PROPERTY � PROPERTY CORNER /,I / /// /' ,c�"�0'/ I
--- ---- ----- ( ) Ia"coN� N189633.34 'IFUUN IP / // / / 2+"coN o'coN \
9— Ell
75036.42 / / ' I / / r/, \ zo'coN
zz0oxI� /' / :1', / / rjl��l� j
S / / / 4803 SNYOLD CLIFJOiJ RD. /y� ) za'cory \ \ 11'00N '
0C — T� V v v---5af / / /
PROPOSED \ PROPOSED ACCESS ROAD / / PORT ORCHARD, 98367 /
/ AND PERIMETER SWALE
\ \ / / / WETLAND CATEGOR\ III -1,56Q SF
\'q �\ / /i / \ 660 RESERVOIR TANK \ SEE SHEET CI-04 ydOz I �/ // / , rr Y,
\ \ �`/ \ \ \ / SEE SHEET C1-O6 \ I I
R lI I / / ' // // / / zy.c PORT ORCHARD)
REG�ILATE IBY
\ 4 �.
RIM EL 538.@0 / / / /
S30 ! \ \ 660 RESERVOIR \ PROPOSED ,630 I Q / I /\\ '' / / // / / / 14'11N
/ I HIGH POINT CENTER OF TANK f
_ EL 539.5 N 189576.53 \ \ FUTURE WATER RI 533. 4 \ ,\ / / / / �\ zz'coN
PUMP STATION
iii / -
\>/C —525� '>\ a odc� / / / / ^' ` \ INSIDE 660 TANK TREATMENT BUILDINGS
l6" y / \� \ \ E 1174862.82 y �,\ \ REFERENCE ONLY \ I / J I az"coN
_ I l I I I I / l/ / \ \ \ u ,� ,( ) (REFERENCE ONLY) / \l
ti\ J I I b'\
,529'
EXISTING \ \ \ 11 0ti P,P
\ 1 a ia'oEc \ �, ,,t l SQ
5eoe RESERVOIR /
,l (EXISTING) u"
1' lyl I h I, I I � � I .I b I I I � 1 1 I � \ \ \ / ( � � / I �/ I // e �/ --- F �\ I I \'\ /1 \� I`.'/✓ � /
2a'.NOec qh f ti
a /
y Rlil l 1 ly 141 PbltdT i / \/' ' �J \ /. % /
3'39,1 y \ \\ \ \ RIM EL 53�.91 rv� / /2y ACCESS ROADRIIvT�i5387,173fi iM ALOES
FUTURE WELL 12 \ / '/'
\�\ \ V A \ \ V HIGH /IE=527.39
(REFERENCE ONLY) RM EL 535. 5 \
1• \i EL540.5 I
PROPOSEDFIRE HYDRANT ASSEMBLY AND PP
ABOVE GROUND SAMPLING STATION
SEE SHEETCl-05 5^'°j// '/wi./' \ //j IiG aGW
i �µ RIry11'L 529.74 _
\� \.\'\ \\ \ \ — — �' X X X / — — — —' PROPOSED MCCORMICK 580/660 AND /' v ' v . v zz"cory 12" CMP
BREMERTON 580AIMCCORMICK 660 /i / ' \ /
\ \ TIR 1FI>t \ 1 \ \ \ \ \ .- _ _ v x ' / /. RIM EL 529.95 \ : 1 ... / \
NTERTIE PRV VAULTS. SEE SHEET C1-05 f52�P
25' WETLAND FOyND IP ON / / y / / / / /
BUFFER \ \ '-�� _ — ^' / C LCULATED / WETLAND CATEGORY III -586 SF — — _ /� . //` / : {/ \ \ =526A6
4 }'� (NO BUFFER - NOT REGULATED ./ 3
q BY PORT ORCHARD
CTION LIN /
' ) �V ON I
_—_ _�/ F I III'.
TLAND CATEGORY IV-13.927 SF --- -- _ ' � �� _�--_� \� y , , / ' vy p
NOT DELINEATED OFF SITE) — — — — _21
— " �\ o•Flx \ y / �/; v , p �l .`6`' // \�'/. A
�525- _—_-- _—_
zo'Flx� /2a"FIR ry \ \
/ y f � o �✓I l q� �)/. A'�' /' dc�'�
\' "'�`, 2TNN1
" j '/: 12"CONIC
\ {�4\ / //—/\\ �\__ 1— -� \\—\ �\ ( \ \ \�^ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ / a ' N a '� 3 ,�,�' /./ / ^�' G' 1 IE=52582
/�87'38'19"E 1286.08' QNN/ /'j / b`\'. /i / -_/
/
PROPERTY CORNER N189303.39
I�E117502�35
/
PROJECT MANAGER L. NOLAN
CIVIL ENG I J. KNOLL
WATER ENG T. CHAN
STRUCTURAL ENG M. HIJAZI
ELECTRICAL ENG L. KIRMEYER
DRAWN BY
PLAN
0 15 30 60
SCALE IN FEET
PRELIMINARY
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
OR
RECORDING
Im
MiCORMICK
CLOSE TO WHAT COUNTS
PORT ORCHARD 660 RESERVOIR
CALL 48 HOURS
BEFORE YOU DIG
1-800-424-5555
PROPOSED SITE PLAN
O p• p•• FILENAME C1-03.d,, SHEET 8 of XX
SCALE 1" = 30' C 1-03
R
C
B
A
ISSUE DATE DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NUMBER 110172116
Ll
I LL
46F le
pp
it
1p"
Id
je
40
P7 I d
it
M� -.i
, wd.
OF
LN
a
rl
91
Back to Agenda
ROBINSON
NOBLE
November 15, 2021
Mr. Mark Dorsey
Public Works Director
City of Port Orchard
mdorsey@cityofportorchard.us
Subject: City of Port Orchard Well Testing and Hydrogeologic Modeling; Responses to Technical
Comments
Dear Mark:
You asked us to prepare a written response to the several comment letters received regarding our
draft Well Testing and Hydrogeologic Modeling Report dated August 9, 2021. What follows is a
reproduction of the comments received and our responses relating to technical issues within our
expertise. Reponses to other questions from the Suquamish Tribe and Squaxin Island Tribe have
been referred to Tom Pors and Jacki Brown, who I understand are assisting you with additional
response letters.
Joel Purdy, Kitsap Public Utility District
Comment 1: It's McCormick Woods Golf Course, not McCormick golf course (V paragraph) or
McCormick Hills Golf Course (last footnote on p. 4.)
Response: The text was changed to reflect the correct name of the golf course.
Comment 2, draft report page 23: Period missing between "Bainbridge Island" and "Because"
in the second to last line on p. 23.
Response: This was fixed in the text.
Comment 3, draft report page 42: "than impacts" should be "then impacts" in last sentence of
first paragraph on p. 42.
Response: This was fixed in the text.
Comment 4, tables 1 and 2: 1 found the water right summary tables 1 and 2 kind of cumbersome
since they have ALL the info on the rights. They almost beg for a summary table of just the Qi
and Qa for all the new rights and changes, similar in format to tables 3 and 4.
Response: Tables 1 and 2 were designed to be the same format as is used in the Report
of Examination template used by Ecology. We've added the new and change applications
to Table 3 to provide a more digestible summary.
Comment 5, general: For the baseline scenario, McCormick Well 4B is pumped 645 afy, the wa-
ter right Qa. For all the other scenarios, 225 afy is used. Is 225 afy based on current or projected
usage? Why I am asking is that it seems that MWGC is currently using the minimum amount of
water on the course. About 25 to 40% of the area is brown or under -watered grass (to golf course
standards). They apparently use much less water than the other courses in the area such as Tro-
2105 South C Street 17625 1301h Avenue NE, Suite 102
Tacoma, Washington 98402 www.robinson-noble.com Woodinville, Washington 98072
P: 253.475.7711 1 F: 253.472.5846 P: 425.488.0599 1 F: 425.488.2330
Back to Agenda
Mark Dorsey, City of Port Orchard
Responses to Technical Comments
Page 2
phy Lake, Whitehorse and even Rolling Hills. If in the future MWGC upgrades their irrigation sys-
tem to cover the other parts that aren't irrigated, they would likely increase their usage. Would this
be an issue?
Response: None of the City's requested water rights would be for golf course irrigation.
Existing permit G1-26647 was originally applied for by McCormick Woods Water Company
for community supply and golf course irrigation, and was later assigned to the City subject
to agreement that up to 225 AFY would remain available for irrigation of the McCormick
Woods Golf Course and 400 gpm and 420 AFY for municipal purposes. The well is located
on golf course property and is not owned by the City, but the water right was assigned to
the City in 2015. In 2016 the City filed a change application to administratively divide the
water right into its irrigation and municipal parts, and to add Wells 11 and 12 to the munici-
pal portion of this water right.
Matt Rakow, Washington State Department of Ecology
Comment 1, draft page 25: When estimating the required streamflow augmentation amounts,
certain streams were excluded from analysis. I believe this was done since those streams did not
have any flow data. If this is correct, can this be explicitly stated in the text?
Response: That is not correct. The streams not listed for possible augmentation were ex-
cluded because augmentation of those streams was, at the time of the modeling, not be-
lieved to be reasonably attainable.
Comment 2, draft page 26: Remove any use of the terms "best available science" or revise the
applicable text to not include it.
Response: The term "best available science" was used twice in the report, both in the
same paragraph referenced in the comment. We revised the paragraph to remove the
term.
Comment 3, Table 11: There is a note about augmentation being "reasonably attainable". I did
not see any discussion of what metrics were used in this determination.
Response: The term "reasonably attainable" is in reference to the tiered mitigation pro-
vided for Foster pilot projects. Here it is only being used informally, as this report deals
with the definition of impairment to be mitigated, rather than the mitigation plan itself. Defi-
nition of what is considered reasonably attainable will be provided in the mitigation plan.
Comment 4, draft page 42: The report states that any of the 6 scenarios would require using the
highest impact values for each stream to calculate [impairment]. It goes on to say that scenarios
4A and 5-2-13 could be used to minimize the mitigation requirements. Is the city proposing to use
only these because they have the lowest average predicted impacts to closed water? What is the
justification for using these scenarios? Ecology generally takes on the conservative approach when
evaluating and quantifying modeled impacts. Does the model inherently have a built in "safety fac-
tor"?
Response: Yes, the City is proposing to only operate the wells along the lines of modeled
scenarios 4A and 5-2-13 in order to minimize impairment to closed and regulated waters.
This will be part of the mitigation plan.
While other potential pumping scenarios exist than those investigated, the scenarios se-
lected for the analysis were chosen by professional opinion using hydrogeologic principals
within the conceptual model of the study area to represent the full range of impacts under
the proposed water rights. For example, some scenarios more heavily use Well 13, others
Back to Agenda
Mark Dorsey, City of Port Orchard
Responses to Technical Comments
Page 3
rely more on Wells 11 and 12. And ultimately, the results do show a significant range of
impacts.
We do believe the model has an inherent, built-in safety factor. Recent analysis completed
by Aspect Consulting for the Kitsap Public Utility District indicates that the Kitsap Model
over -predicts drawdown in the shallow aquifer units, which will increase the amount of im-
pact modeled compared to the real world. Additionally, the model does not reflect the ef-
fect of an increase in return flow that will result from the proposed water use by the City.
The City's water service area is larger than its sewer area, so much of the new water use
will be subject to septic return flows that are not modeled. Further, the portion of the wa-
ter service area not within the sewer service area is generally higher up in the various
stream basins, where return flow will have a more positive impact on streamflow, than the
portion within the sewered area. Further, the model also does not include return flows
from pipeline losses (both existing and the increase in loss under full buildout) nor from in-
creased outdoor irrigation under the new proposed water rights.
Comment 5, draft page 42: The report states that the city can operate under the pumping scenar-
ios of 4A or 5-2-13. Ecology wants to have the city provide assurance that this pumping scenario, if
used, can and will be maintained into the future. Reporting requirements will likely be built into a
permit(s) and possibly into any certificates.
Response: So noted.
Comment 6, general: None of the modeled scenarios comply with Tier A Avoidance mitigation. Tier
A requires compliance with the applicable rule (WAC 173-515) and consequently requires no mitiga-
tion since there is no impairment of closed waters or flows below minimum flows.
Response: Though the report does mention mitigation, its primary purpose is to define the
impairment that needs to be mitigated, not describe the mitigation plan. Obviously, if there
is impairment, then Tier A avoidance cannot be fully achieved. However, we contend that
by using pumping scenarios that reduce impairment, Tier A is partially achieved by reducing
impairment through restrictions on how the wells can be used. This will be more fully de-
scribed in the mitigation plan and can be made as provisions when the Reports of Examina-
tion are written.
Comment 7, general: Is the 410 ac-ft shortfall on top of the 1600 and 1080 ac-ft requested by the
two new apps or is it just over what the city already has? How is the 250-260 ac-ft of mitigation
water (under model scenarios 4A and 5-2-13) accounted for in the water rights?
Response: The 410 acre-feet is not on top of the amount requested in the applications.
The water demand analysis indicates the City's shortfall is 410 afy, so the full 1,600 and
1,080 of requested on the water right applications will not be needed. However, should the
mitigation plan fully use the stream augmentation values derived by the modeling analysis,
the City will need a total Qa under the two new water rights of 670 afy. This amount may
modestly increase if the final mitigation plan uses higher levels of stream augmentation.
Comment 8, general: In the final summary, the report states that there will be a 143 ac-ft shortfall
without the requested new water rights. Why is this different than the 410 ac-ft shortfall?
Response: This was a typographical error and is corrected in the final report.
Back to Agenda
Mark Dorsey, City of Port Orchard
Responses to Technical Comments
Page 4
Nam Siu, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
Comment 1, general: Fish use of impacted streams. A number of streams with projected impacts
are critical habitat for one or more ESA -listed salmonid species. WDFW would like to raise aware-
ness of the documented fish and fish use of the streams that will potentially be impacted as a re-
sult of this project. The following list of streams was provided on page 45 of the technical memo,
below we provide the fish that has been documented in those streams which would likely be im-
pacted by changes to water availability.
• Gorst Creek — Fall Chinook Salmon, Fall Chum Salmon, Coho Salmon, Winter Steelhead
Trout, Resident Coastal Cutthroat Trout
• Parrish Creek — Coho Salmon, Resident Coastal Cutthroat Trout
• Ross Creek — Fall Chum Salmon, Coho Salmon, Winter Steelhead Trout, Resident Coastal
Cutthroat Trout
• Blackjack Creek — Fall Chinook Salmon, Summer Chum Salmon, Fall Chum Salmon, Coho
Salmon, Winter Steelhead Trout, Resident Coastal Cutthroat Trout
• Salmonberry Creek — Coho Salmon, Winter Steelhead Trout, Resident Coastal Cutthroat
Trout
• Curley Creek — Fall Chinook Salmon, Summer Chum Salmon, Fall Chum Salmon, Coho
Salmon, Winter Steelhead Trout, Resident Coastal Cutthroat Trout
• Olalla Creek — Fall Chinook Salmon, Fall Chum Salmon, Coho Salmon, Winter Steelhead
Trout, Resident Coastal Cutthroat Trout
• Purdy Creek — Coho Salmon, Winter Steelhead Trout, Resident Coastal Cutthroat Trout
• Burley Creek — Fall Chinook Salmon, Summer Chum Salmon, Fall Chum Salmon, Coho
Salmon, Winter Steelhead Trout, Resident Coastal Cutthroat Trout
• Huge Creek — Coho Salmon, Winter Steelhead Trout, Resident Coastal Cutthroat Trout
These streams are rain fed and are now regularly experiencing below average flows. Fish use of
these streams are frequently limited by these low flow conditions which impact availability of refu-
gia and rearing habitats for juvenile fish that remain in the streams over summer such as coho
salmon, steelhead trout, and cutthroat trout. Any reduction in water availability in these streams
will further exacerbate these declining conditions.
Response: So noted. This information will be useful to our team as we develop the mitiga-
tion plan and the net ecological benefit analysis.
Comment 2, general: Consideration of Climate Change. The impacts to water availability and fish
in the above streams as a result of this project will undoubtably be exacerbated by the effects of
climate change. It is unclear how climate change impacts might alter the timing or magnitude of
the projected streamflow impacts, please provide information regarding how projected climate
change impacts were incorporated into the analyses.
Response: Climate change was not specifically incorporated into the analysis. The model-
ing analysis used the same historic precipitation records as used by the USGS in their
model development. Any changes due to climate change would be overlaid upon the im-
pacts modeled. However, based on studies completed to date, it is unlikely climate change
Back to Agenda
Mark Dorsey, City of Port Orchard
Responses to Technical Comments
Page 5
will significantly impact stream baseflows in the study area. The baseflow to these streams
is provided by groundwater, not by snow melt, and groundwater recharge in the area is
provided mostly by October through June precipitation. Climate change studies for the Pu-
get Sound lowlands indicate that while summer precipitation may decrease with climate
change, spring precipitation is increasing and the total annual precipitation is remaining
steady or perhaps slightly increasing (Climate Impacts Group, College of the Environment,
University of Washington, 2015). With summer precipitation decreasing and spring precipi-
tation increasing, climate change may actually increase the amount of groundwater re-
charge and, therefore, increase baseflows.
Comment 3, general: Mitigation Sequence. Given that the mitigation sequences outlined in RCW
90.94.090 places an emphasis on the avoidance of impacts, could near -term impacts to stream -
flow be further avoided by waiting until a Qa shortfall is imminent (or even projected)? The tech-
nical memo suggests that there is likely 50 years of capacity within the City of Port Orchard's cur-
rent water rights portfolio to meet projected annual demands. The technical memo describes an
obvious instantaneous challenge, are there other ways to address that challenge outside of in-
creasing withdrawals?
Response: To get an idea when impacts would actually occur as the rights are developed
over time, we conducted three 67-year modeling scenarios as described in the report. That
analysis shows that impacts in some streams occur even in the first year of using Wells 12
and 13 (decades before the present level of Qa is surpassed). This is a result of the change
applications moving production from the existing production wells to the new production
wells. So at least some near -term impacts cannot be avoided if Wells 12 and 13 are to be
used instead of the presently used wells.
The projected Qi deficiency without the new water rights starts in 2030. While small defi-
ciencies in the required instantaneous rates can be handled through increased storage, that
will be impractical within several years after the Qi deficiency starts.
Comment 4, water demand section: Available Water Rights. It is unclear why the City of Port Or-
chard would not require the transfer of West Sound Utility District's (West Sound) water rights as
a condition of the annexation of the parcels within the UGA currently served by West Sound.
Could impacts be further avoided by requiring a transfer of the water rights currently used to serve
those connections?
Response: Because the annexation is occurring in the future and the details of how it will
be accomplished are not yet available, we proceeded with a conservative assumption in
terms of required water demand (maximum demand with only half the water rights). There
are several reason why the City may not be able to fully transfer the rights from West
Sound. First, the City will not be annexing the entire West Sound service area, so some
rights will need to remain with West Sound. Second, when the annexation occurs, the wa-
ter rights should come with the annexed area; however, if the point of withdrawal for a par-
ticular water right is not included in the annexed area, a water right change application will
be needed to move the right. In that case, the Qi and Qa may be decreased through the
change process.
Back to Agenda
Mark Dorsey, City of Port Orchard
Responses to Technical Comments
Page 6
Erica Marbet, Squaxin Island Tribe Department of Natural Resources
Comment 2, general: The pump test data do not yet indicate that Wells 12 and 13 will produce
2,173 gpm indicated as the City's Qi shortfall in the year 2068, nor 2,000 gpm in water right appli-
cations G1-28476A and G1-28162A. Why is the City asking for 2,000 gpm associated with those
two wells?
Response: The City's applications for new water request 1,000 gpm each at the Well 12
and 13 sites. At the time the applications were made, the full Qi shortfall of 2,173 gpm was
not known, and the intent is to amend one of the applications to include the additional 173
gpm shortfall.
Currently, based on testing results, Well 13 cannot produce the entire Qi requested for the
site totaled from both the new and change applications. However, testing does indicate
that the addition of a second well at the site can supply the total requested Qi.
No testing has occurred at the Well 12 site. However, based on the geophysical signature
of the QA4 aquifer at the location, the results of testing at Well 13, and the depth of the
aquifer providing a large quantity of available drawdown, the requested Qi should be fully
available at the Well 12 site, either through a single well or multiple wells.
Comment 8, draft page 26: Methods Used to Project Results to QA4 - We understand why Rob-
inson Noble used a novel approach to overlay new hydrogeologic information onto the existing
model. We request that for future iterations of impact estimates, the new QA4 aquifer be incorpo-
rated into the numerical model.
Response: So noted. The City recognizes the need for a revision of the USGS Kitsap
Model to add the QA4 aquifer, as well as fix other problems, and will participate in any ef-
fort to revise the current model, or construct a new model, when proposed by a regional
coalition of stakeholders.
Comment 10, Table 17: Focusing on Table 17, Robinson Noble proposes to dismiss all impacts
(to creeks) of less than 0.5% of baseflow. This appears conservative in favor of negating impacts,
and it is different from other groundwater modeling approaches to error by other consulting firms.
USGS has used 0.02 to 0.05% of baseflow as a cutoff when estimating impact with the Kitsap
Groundwater Model. While Robinson Noble dismisses these impacts as negligible, their sum total
across the modeling area indicates that a significant portion of the City's well pumping takes water
that would have gone to creeks.
Response: To be fair, the report suggests impacts below the truncation error should not
require mitigation, while those below the approximation error (0.5% of baseflow) may or
may not require mitigation. Specifically, the report paragraph above Table 17 states:
"Values below the truncation model error limit should not require mitigation be-
cause of great uncertainty in model results; these values are listed in Table 17 with
a small italics font. Additionally, consideration should be given to whether values
below the approximation error limit of 0.5% of baseflow require mitigation."
Of the creeks of main concern to the Squaxin Island Tribe (see comment 11), only Rocky
Creek is fully underneath the truncation error limit and Purdy is partially below the trunca-
tion error limit. Further, the mitigation plan has yet to be developed. When it is, as stated in
the report, consideration will be given to modeled impacts below the approximation error
limit of 0.5%, which includes all the streams of interest to the Squaxin Island Tribe except
for Rocky Creek.
Back to Agenda
Mark Dorsey, City of Port Orchard
Responses to Technical Comments
Page 7
Additionally, it is somewhat misleading to state the USGS used 0.02 to 0.05% of baseflow
as a cutoff when estimating impacts with the Kitsap Groundwater Model. The USGS mod-
eling report (Frans and Olsen, 2016) does not give a model error limit. The model limita-
tions section of the report, rather than giving an error limit, discusses the causes of approx-
imation error and warns against using the model for uses beyond that for which it was de-
signed. The section states the model "is most applicable to analysis of regional -scale
groundwater problems." It specifically states that "lack of information on streambed hy-
draulic conductivity values resulted in these values being poorly constrained, which may
limit the accuracy of groundwater/surface-water exchanges." It also states "interpretations
of simulation results should be limited to scales several times greater than the model spa-
tial and temporal resolutions of 500 ft and 1 month." Based on the USGS's limitation dis-
cussion, results should be discussed seasonally at best, if not annually, rather than
monthly, and their guidance against relying on local -scale results should apply to numeri-
cally small reported impacts, such as those below the truncation error limit.
There may be some confusion concerning modeling results presented by the USGS versus
modeling error. We spoke with Andy Long, a groundwater modeler with the USGS, about
this perception of a low error limit with the Kitsap Groundwater Model. He said that while
the USGS does not present a discussion of specific error limits or present any results with
error bars, they do present specific results that are in the range of 0.02 to 0.05% of
baseflow and this may be a cause of confusion. For example, Figure 15 in the USGS report
shows monthly data points within this range. But this figure also illustrates the model error
within the Kitsap Groundwater Model results. Without model error, the data points on that
figure should follow the same trend, yet it is obvious that one data point in late 2007, two
in mid-2010, and one in late 2011 fall considerably off -trend. These off -trend points demon-
strate errors of about 0.1 to 0.15% of baseflow.
The comment also suggests the approximation error limit used in our analysis "is different
from other groundwater modeling approaches to error by other consulting firms." We have
not reviewed all other consulting firm reports that have used the Kitsap Groundwater
Model, but it is possible the method we used to estimate the approximation error may be
different than methods used by other consultants. That does not make it wrong. To our
knowledge, only one other water right application to -date has been processed using the
Kitsap Groundwater Model, a right for the Bloedel Reserve on Bainbridge Island.' The im-
pairment analysis for that right was conducted by Aspect Consulting in 2019. While the
setting for that right is different than for the Port Orchard rights, Aspect reported impacts
in streamflows of -0.35% to +0.38% and concluded "there is no impact to the regulated
streams that is greater than the resolution of the Kitsap Model." Ecology issued a water
right permit for that application without a mitigation provision.
Comment 11, Table 17: While Robinson Noble dismisses the impacts in Table 17 as negligible,
they are still our best estimate of the impacts to each creek. We look forward to discussing the
City's mitigation proposals for these creeks:
Annual Impact
Creek (afy)
Purdy 8.3
' We inquired with Doug Wood, from Ecology's Northwest Regional Office, if other water rights have been
processed with the model. He stated he is not aware of any others than the one for the Bloedel Reserve.
Back to Agenda
Mark Dorsey, City of Port Orchard
Responses to Technical Comments
Page 8
Burley
74.1
Huge
12.4
Minter
12.3
Rocky
3.4
Coulter
14.3
Response: So noted. We agree that the method used gives our best estimate of impacts.
We also look forward to mitigation discussions with the Squaxin Island Tribe.
Comment 12, general: The Tribe has been collecting quality controlled streamflow data at Coulter
Creek for fifteen years. We offer that up to any future modeling and analyses.
Response: We appreciate the offer of data sharing.
Alison O'Sullivan, Suquamish Natural Resources Department
Comment 6, general: Climate change is not addressed. We are already seeing impacts with
longer, hotter summer dry periods and the Kitsap Public Utility District (KPUD) has seen a signifi-
cant increase in pumping in the late summer period for the last couple of years. These increases
over time will lead to reductions in available groundwater and affect streamflows.
Response: See response to WDFW Comment 2. Additionally, while the KPUD has been
increasing their withdrawals, their pumping is constrained by their water rights.
Comment 9, general: It has not been demonstrated that the requested water for Well 13 is availa-
ble. The combination of the requested instantaneous limit (Qi) and annual limit (Qa) for Well 13
would require the well be operated at a rate of 1,000 gallons per minute (gpm) for 24 hours per
day, 365 days per year to achieve the Qa value of 1,600 afy. This is not likely feasible and is not
demonstrated by data.
Response: The City's applications requests 1,000 gpm and transfers of an additional 850
gpm (from Wells 6 and 10) at and to the Well 13 site. We modeled a maximum of 2,023
gpm from the Well 13 site; this total includes the projected shortfall of 173 gpm that is not
yet included on an application. The total new and transferred Qa is 2,966 afy; however, as
stated in the response to Comment 8, that full amount of Qa is not needed, and the maxi-
mum Qa believed to be required from the Well 13 site is 1,651 afy (scenario 4A). That an-
nual production can be achieved by pumping at an average 1,023 gpm.
Based on testing results, Well 13 can produce a Qa of 1,651 afy since it is rated for a pro-
duction rate of 1,500 gpm. By itself, it cannot produce the entire Qi of 2,023 gpm. How-
ever, testing indicates that by adding a second well at the site, the site's total production
can be 2,600 gpm, an amount above the total Qi.
Comment 10, general: Based on the pumping test results at Well 13 and the fact that the aquifer
at Well 12 is approximately 1/3 the thickness of that at Well 13 it is not likely that a well at this lo-
cation would provide the requested water.
Response: Well production is not solely dependent on aquifer thickness but rather on the
transmissivity of the aquifer (which is equal to the thickness multiplied by the average hy-
draulic conductivity) and the amount of available drawdown (the distance between the
static water level and the top of the well screen). We currently don't know the transmissiv-
ity of the aquifer at the Well 12 site, but it could easily be equal to or greater than the trans-
missivity of the aquifer at Well 13. This is because a large portion of the aquifer thickness
Back to Agenda
Mark Dorsey, City of Port Orchard
Responses to Technical Comments
Page 9
at Well 13 includes sediments with relatively low hydraulic conductivities (the average hy-
draulic conductivity of the screened portion of the aquifer at Well 13 is 16 ft/d, but the aver-
age over the entire aquifer thickness is only 6.5 ft/d). If the aquifer at Well 12 has an aver-
age hydraulic conductivity of 18 ft/d (and typical sand and gravel aquifers have hydraulic
conductivities be about 10 and 100 ft/d), its transmissivity will be the same as at Well 13.
And even if the aquifer transmissivity is lower, the well will have more than 500 feet of
available drawdown. With this much available drawdown, high production rates are availa-
ble even for wells completed in aquifers with relatively modest transmissivities. Based on
the amount of available drawdown and the geophysical signature observed for the aquifer,
the highest requested Qi and Qa for the Well 12 site (1,750 gpm and 688 afy, in Scenario
4A) should be easily available, especially if more than one well is completed at the site.
Comment 11, general: Although an additional deeper aquifer was found it is not expected that it
would require utilization of a potentially unsound and unproven extrapolation. The differences in
impacts between the QA3 and QA4 aquifer are expected to be quite small. The direct use of the
KGM model provides a transparent approach with already accepted practices.
Response: The comment says that direct use of the model is an already accepted practice.
This is true, but only for the aquifers that are represented in the model. The existence of a
deeper aquifer not included in the numerical model indicates the conceptual model upon
which the numerical model is not valid. According to Anderson and Woessner (1992), "a
valid and complete conceptual model is essential for making accurate predictions." Instead
of blindly using the results from the QA3 as if it also represented QA4, which are assuredly
wrong, we used a method which complies with the revised conceptual model to make a
better estimation of impacts and minimize error and uncertainty to the extent possible
within the constraints of the current numerical model. Conceptually, pumping from a
deeper aquifer should spread the impacts laterally, so that impacts near the well are
smaller than pumping from a shallower aquifer and impacts more distant to the well in-
crease. Indeed, when looking at the difference in modeled impacts from pumping in the
upper aquifers does show this trend, and there is no reason to believe the trend would not
continue with yet a deeper aquifer. Indeed, the method used shows this trend for most
streams investigated.
Comment 12, general: In the analysis all impacts less than 0.5% are set equal to zero. The KGM
recognizes impacts of 0.02%. The error associated with negating calculated impacts less than
0.5% of the base flow is likely much larger than the error associated with accepting the KGM
model result. All models contain errors and uncertainties and this should be minimized to the ex-
tent possible.
Response: The comment states that in our analysis all impacts less than 0.5% of baseflow
are set to zero. This is not true. Results are reported for all modeled impacts except for
those below 0.05 acre-feet per month (see Table 17). While the results on Table 17 are re-
ported in acre-feet per month, when converted to percent of baseflow, the reported results
are as low as 0.03%.
The comment also states the "KGM recognizes impacts of 0.02% [of baseflowl." It's true
the USGS reported results as low as 0.02% of baseflow, but that is not a statement of
model error or reliable model precision (see response to Squaxin Island Tribe comment 10.)
As stated above, we also report results considerably below 0.5% of baseflow.
Back to Agenda
Mark Dorsey, City of Port Orchard
Responses to Technical Comments
Page 10
The comment further states that neglecting impacts less than 0.5% of baseflow is likely
larger than the error in accepting the results from QA3 without projecting those results to
the QA4. This statement is pure conjecture without a basis in analysis or fact.
Comment 13, general: The KGM model has been subject to rigorous peer review where the pro-
posed extrapolation has not. The calibrated model is an appropriate tool to estimate components
of the groundwater budget for Kitsap Peninsula and the response of the groundwater system to
changes in future pumpage and recharge conditions. Water -resource managers can use the model
to inform decisions about future groundwater management. (Frans and Olsen, page 36).
Response: The subject technical memorandum was reviewed by at least three licensed
hydrogeologists outside of Robinson Noble. None objected to the extrapolation method
used. When Frans and Olsen wrote the quote provided in the comment, it is unlikely they
were referring to an as -yet undiscovered deeper aquifer that is not present in their model.
Closing Comment: Considering the Tribal concerns outlined above that include amount of water
requested, model approach, and inappropriate mitigation options the Tribe requests that the num-
bers be re -run using the KGM model and in kind, in time and in place mitigation options be ex-
plored.
Response: The Kitsap model was specified for use by Ecology in the preliminary permits
for Wells 12 and 13, and discussions with Ecology about modifications to the model were
made during the modeling process. Ecology now considers the preliminary permits satis-
fied, subject to the submittal of a mitigation plan. During the development of the mitigation
plan, various in -kind, in -time, and in -place mitigation options will be explored.
Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns with regards to these responses to
comments.
Sincerely,
Robinson Noble, Inc.
Joseph E. Becker, LHG
Principal Hydrogeologist
Cc Jacki Brown, City of Port Orchard
Alison O'Sullivan, Suquamish Natural Resources Department
Erica Marbet, Squaxin Island Tribe DNR
Matt Rakow, Doug Woods, Ria Berns, WDOE-NWRO
Joel Purdy, Kitsap Public Utility District
Nam Siu, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
Tom Pors, Law Office of Thomas M. Pors
Dr. Joel Massmann, Keta Waters
'MIson
Co-un y
16 \..
IBM
14tue - -K"h c er-_d under mmthJy Ix rx �e Ge R - rrp3r1[H o eied seas aJ _-A --0l . -fd IT nra re - mrnEh{or ed nvxfthlr but I ! _ ea l
is 31 30 K m 11 31 X 11 x 31 )m
U3
0 02
0.02
a 61
4.62
0 51
0.01
6 52
0.02
0.02
0.02
9142
0.0.2
0.15
0 15
OAF.
0115
0.14
0 i8
0.14
013
0.15
0 is
0.17
8.18
0."
0.04
0.93
0 04
0.04
13 03
0."
0.04
0."
_7
i -an
el
'a
0166
0.05
0."
0.05
0.06
9.05
0.14
0.04
0.65
v D5
0."
1.17
ni
!!PL,dv
0.02
d
0.10
4.11
0.01
0.10
0.16
0.13
0.11
10
JHLUG
0.02
0.020.02
0.02
0.01
0.41
O.Dj
0.0252,
102
0 0'
Back to Agenda:
t
r I: -r
13.1
dL1
11.1
ZIS
iLmg Lako
a. ps
CW
1.2
_a2
'ailh Y ar.
fts
04
09
ill
E eaver
L, I
D&
00
IL 0
C LF1 y
7.4
C4_q1s
14A
6L3
14.3
9-8
C resc. act
FBI J'.
$.I
1 1.1
1 ! .
1_4
I kjlr.
ZI I
1200
31.i
L7
H-j. P-
33
1.9
56
1-0
Hinter
Lr .
- L
h b
I I
P. Ody
ra
U6
16
I
AIL!thFv4-n%
IbO
13.2
FT
GOM
P&R-41
O-Q
0.01
0.02
0.02
Flack 64
Als
OAS
C14
10.17
S,;Om-}r1-zefr-
Am
(03
0.(W
Q.Od
L'. ... - - --1
.'. C17
LC4%) Lake
100
aoilivan
0.00
P ea-�ar
m
0.
.'i,; LF I q
0
0.02
'Aalla
a. art
Q. 06
0.06
a0s
rasC &W
Furj
U
0.41
6.02
E Isloy
fflff
0.10
0.10
0.11
I Hug.;
&D2
0.02
0.02
0.02
Back to Agenda
JOB UESCRIPTION[
Job Title
Utilities Compliance Specialist
Non-exempt
Department
Public Works ivil Service
No
Reports To
Utility Manager I
None
October 2021 Work hours
40 hours per week
IV
Major Function and Purpose
This position is responsible for adminis the City's Utilities Compliance Program,
which consolidates the following equired inspection and compliance
requirements:
• Cross Connection Control Program, in accordance with WAC 246-290-490
• Control and elimination of Fats, Oil and Grease from the sanitary sewer system
in accordance with the Uniform Plumbing Code Sections 1009.6 and 1014.2
• Maintenance and inspection program for private businesses with stormwater
management systems connected to the City's Municipal Separate Storm
Sewer System (MS4)
General Function
The incumbent is responsible for administering the Utilities Compliance Program
intended to regulate and inspect activities for private businesses and commercial
activities within the City jurisdiction, as well as residential connection with activities
that Fpv�-may be harmful to the City's infrastructure. The program consolidates three
required compliance programs (Cross Connection Control, FOG and MS4 Private
Business Compliance) under the general title of Utilities Compliance Program. This
program is intended to combine each of these required programs into one holistic
program to minimize the inspection pressures on local businesses and harmonize
regulatory compliance. This program will reduce regulatory pressures on local
businesses by reducing the number and frequency of inspections and the amount
of paperwork associated with each program.
Supervision Responsibilities
This position has no supervision responsibilities.
Job Duties and Responsibilities
This iob description reflects aeneral details as necessary to describe the orincioal
functions of this job, the level of knowledge and skill required, and the scope of
responsibility, but should not be considered an all-inclusive listing of work
requirements. These listed duties and responsibilities in no way imply these are the
JOB DESCRIPTION: Utility Compliance Specialist - October 2021 PAGE 1 OF 4
Back to Agenda
only duties to be performed. Individuals may perform other duties as assigned,
including, but not limited to: working in other function areas to cover absences or
provide relief, to equalize peak work periods, or to otherwise balance the workload.
Accordingly, individuals occupying this position will be required to follow any job -
related instructions, tasks, or other duties as assigned by the Director or designee,
and must be able to proficiently_ perform all assigned duties.
• Administer the City's Cross Connection Control Program_
o +hGt RetifiocNotify customers utilizing backflow assemblies thGtof annual
inspections must be r-.,Rd „ ted,
o Collect Aannual QGlleGfiGR .,f Cross Connection inspection data from any
water customer utilizing backflow prevention devices,:
o Enter 9GtG onfr„ Gf testing results into database.
o ERSY Fpg- nsure compliance with regulations per WAC and U.P.C.
o ram. Rdt GtiRg Conduct routine physical inspections of premises to ascertain
the need for cross connection control
o Write procedural documents for backflow and cross connection
enforcement
o Assist with review of plans and permit application documents for
compliance with backflow and cross connection needs
o Werk Coordinate with Utility Billing to review, add and code accounts
correctly
o PrepGrGtien ef GnPrepare annual report as required by WAC
• Administer a Fats, Oils and Grease (FOG) Program that reduces the risks of
unnecessary blockages to municipal sanitary sewer system due to improper
practices or improper maintenance of grease traps and interceptors used by
Food Service Establishments (FSE's)
o Schedule and Rperform site visits and inspections te-of FSE's
o Conductipg routine physical inspections of premises to ascertain the need
for installation of or maintenance on FOG reduction/elimination
equipment
o Develop educational materials to distribute to FSE's on proper
maintenance and operation of FOG
o Assist with review of building plans and permit application documents for
new FSE's to ensure proper design of FOG management systems
• Administer a mMaintenance and iinspection pi'-rogram for businesses and
privately owned stormwater systems that connect to the City's Municipal
Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4).
o Develop and maintain an inventory of local businesses and privately
owned stormwater facilities
o Administer GInConduct inspections and related enforcement pregmm for
regulatory compliance of privately owned and local businesses that
connect to the City's MS4 that meets the requirements of the City's
JOB DESCRIPTION: Utility Compliance Specialist - October 2021 PAGE 2 OF 4
Back to Agenda
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Permit
• Must be able to perform duties as assigned in a timely fashion.
• Reliable, punctual and regular attendance is required.
• Other duties as assigned
Knowledge, Skills and Abilities
Knowledge of the Phase II NPDES Municipal Permit, federal, state and local laws,
rules and regulations related to regulatory compliance, Port Orchard Municipal
Codes relating to inspection and enforcement for water, sewer and stormwater
utilities, and Washington Administrative Code as it applies to cross connection
control, sanitary sewer regulations, and stormwater management.
Ability to read and understand blueprints and plans, work independently with
limited oversight, manage several tasks and/or projects concurrently,
communicate effectively with business owners, city staff, consultants, and the
general public tactfully and courteously in person and on the telephone, operate
office equipment including computers and applicable software applications
such as word processing, spreadsheets, databases and specialized engineering
software programs, operate monitoring and sampling equipment utilized in
stormwater monitoring, sewer monitoring and drinking water sampling, give
attention to detail through excellent written and verbal communication skills,
ability to perform field work in less -than -ideal weather conditions or settings while
utilizing safe work practices, and establish and maintain positive, effective
working relationships with those contacted in the course of work.
Contacts and Relationships
The Utilities Compliance Specialist has frequent contact with state, county and
municipal government officials, and outside consultants, and other business -related
individuals or agencies. In the normal course of business, the Utilities Compliance
Specialist will have contact with other Public Works employees, contractors, other
city personnel and the public. These contacts involve a wide variety and range of
purpose, including the need to provide or collect information, coordinate projects
or activities and to solve or negotiate solutions to problems. Communication may
be either by telephone, in person or through written message.
Working Conditions
The Utilities Compliance Specialist may work either indoors or outdoors as required.
The incumbent must be capable of working in confined spaces, on ladders, inclines
and/or in noisy work areas. Position may be exposed to extremes in temperature,
chemicals or noxious fumes, and to insect stings and may be required to walk in, or
around construction sites to perform the essential functions of the position. Exposure
to hazards is commonplace. Among the hazards encountered are dampness,
direct sunlight, communicable disease, dust, pollen, epoxy chemicals, machinery
or its moving parts, cleaning fluids, chemicals, pesticides, insecticides, paints,
JOB DESCRIPTION: Utility Compliance Specialist - October 2021 PAGE 3 OF 4
Back to Agenda
cleaning agents or similar solutions, insect stings, liquid chemicals, noisy work area,
noxious odors, fumes or chemicals, and smoke. Hazardous areas may be
encountered, including open ditches, vaults, manholes, heavy machinery,
hazardous gases, excessive noise, and vehicle traffic. Protective clothing may be
required in the performance of some job duties. Attendance at evening or
weekend meetings or other off -duty events may be required. Incumbent may also
be called back to work before or after regularly scheduled work hours, or on
scheduled days off.
Physical Requirements
The Utilities Compliance Specialist must have the overall stamina and ability to
perform moderate to strenuous physical activity, including the ability to stand or
walk for extended periods of time, traversing rough terrain, working in or over water,
working at heights or on scaffolding, and lifting or carrying up to 50 pounds. Job
requirement may include the ability to climb up to 20 feet off the ground; bend
and/or work in tight or confined areas. The incumbent must be able to hear alarms
and have the ability to audibly identify the presence of a danger or hazard. Must
have the ability to sit at a desk and operate a computer for extended periods of
time as necessary to complete work responsibilities.
Minimum Requirements
High school graduation or GED and two years of experience working with any
combination of surface water management, wastewater management, municipal
water management, or relevant related programs. Must possess or be able to
acquire Cross Connection Control Specialist Certification within three months of
employment, FOG inspection and confined space entry training within six months
of employment, a Washington state driver's license within one (1) month of hire.
Associates or bachelor's degree with major course work in the physical or
environmental sciences, or a closely related area is highly desirable.
Any combination of experience and training that provides the desired skills,
knowledge and abilities may be considered.
Requirements outlined in this job description may be subject to modification to
reasonably accommodate individuals with disabilities who are otherwise qualified
for employment in this position. However, some requirements may exclude
individuals who pose a direct threat or significant risk to the health and safety of
themselves or other employees.
This job description does not constitute an employment agreement between the
Employer and employee and is subject to change as the needs of the Employer
and requirements of the job change.
JOB DESCRIPTION: Utility Compliance Specialist - October 2021 PAGE 4 OF 4
Back to Agenda
Business Line # of Projects
City$
Loan$
Grant$
Unfunded$
Total$
Total Facilities 2
$ 23,540,000
Total Streets 8
$ 25,662,300
Total Storm 4
$ 20,211,385
Total Water 5
$ 17,551,000
Total Sewer 2
$ 14,423,000
[Grand Total 21
$ 101,387,685
Project
Number
Phase
City$
Loan$
Grant$
Unfunded$
Total$
2022
2023
2024
2025
Comments
Facilities:
Community Events Center
DN
$1,500,000
$ 1,500,000
$12M KPFD
ROW
$300,000
$2,200,000
$ 2,500,000
$1.5M Legislature
CN
$9,800,000
$3,200,000
$ 13,000,000
2026 early start, CN Est. _ $13M
Total
$ 17,000,000
City Hall Renovations
DN
$555,000
$ 555,000
Rice Furgus Miller
CN
$ 5,985,000
x
CN Est = $5M, CA Est = $215K
Total
$ 6,540,000
WA DOC Grants?
Facilities Totals
$ 23,540,000
Back to Agenda
Project
Number
Phase
City$
Loan$
Grant$
Unfunded$
Total$
2022
2023
2024
2025
Comments
Streets:
Bay Street Pedestrian Pathway
ROW
$650,000
M
$ 650,000
Additional appropirations needed
CN
$ 3,000,000
x
Current funding for CN
Total
$ 3,650,000
Bay Street Reconstruction
DN
$ 650,000
x
2021/22 budget = $200K for study
Geiger to Frederick
ROW
$ 50,000
x
ITempororary Constrcution Easements
CN
$ 2,750,000
CN Est = $2,500,00
total
$ 3,450,000
Bethel Phase Sa
DN
$800,000
$ 800,000
TIF
Lincoln/ Lundberg
CN
$900,000
$2,670,000
$ 3,570,000
HSIP w/ 0% match, TIB w/ 15% match
Total
$1,700,000
$2,670,000
$ 4,370,000
CN Est= $3,370K w/ 20% Contengency
Bethel Phase 1
DN
$250,000
$969,000
$ 1,219,000
TIF, Developer contribution
Blueberry to Salmonberrry
ROW
$483,000
$ 493,000
x
RAISE w/ 0% match, TIB, STP
CN
$4,836,300
$ 4,836,300
x
Total
$ 6,548,300
Lippert Road and Sidewalk
Total
$311,420
$244,580
$ 556,000
CDBG, DN in house, CN $ only
City $ from roads preservation
Old Clifton/Anderson RAB
DN
$258,000
$ 258,000
TIF
CN
$1,680,000
$ 1,680,000
x
STP w/ 13.5% match
Total
$1,938,000
$ 1,938,000
x
Old Clifton Non -Motorized
DN
$225,000
$225,000
$ 550,000
McWds Dr. to McVillage
CN
$2,000,000
$ 2,000,000
Total
$2,225,000
$ 2,550,000
Pottery Sidewalk Gap Infill
Total
$ 350,000
x
CDBG, DN in house, CN $ only
& water main extention
Annual Pavemnet Repair
Total
$600,000
$2,000,000
$ 2,600,000
DN in house, CN $ only
Streets Totals
$ 25,662,300
7
Back to Agenda
Project
Number
Phase
City$
Loan$
Grant$
Unfunded$
Total$
2022
2023
2024
2025
Comments
Stormwater:
Sidney Regional Storm
DN
$ 1,400,000
x
ECY w/ 25% match
East of SR16
ROW
$ 1,200,000
Appraisal = $900K
CN
$ 12,600,000
x
Total
$ 15,200,000
Sidney Rd. Fish Pass Culvert
DN
$ 161,528
x
RCO w/ 15% match
at Ruby Creek
CN
$ 1,749,858
x
Total
$ 1,911,385
Sedgwick Balancing Culvert
DN
$ 45,000
x
RCO w/ 15% match
West of Sidney Rd.
CN
$ 405,000
x
Tied project with Sindey @ Ruby?
Total
$ 450,000
Annapolis Creek Culvert
DN
$ 130,000
x
RCO w/ 15% match
at mouth
CN
$ 1,170,000
x
Total
$ 1,300,000
Downtown Retrofit
DN
$ 350,000
Waterfront H turn -over park
CN
$ 1,000,000
Tied to Bay St Recontruction
Total
$ 1,350,000
Stormwater Totals
$ 20,211,385
Back to Agenda
Project
Number
Phase
City$
Loan$
Other$
Unfunded$
Total$
2022
2023
2024
2025
Comments
Water:
Well#13, 90% DN -> CN (#2)
DN
$ 150,000
ARRA DN, PWTF CN
Building & Aparatus, PRV Sta
CN
$ 4,076,000
EEL -
Total
$ 4,226,000
CN w/ Cont. _ $3,976,000
Well #11 (#3)
DN
$ 1,000,000
DWSRF Pre -Construction Loan
CN
$ 7,000,000
DWSRF Construction Loan
Total
$ 8,000,000
Old Clifton Interie (#7 & #8)
DN
$ 750,000
ARPA DN
main extention & booster
CN
$ 1,325,000
ARPA or DWSRF CN
Total
$ 2,075,000
Melcher PS Rebuild (#10)
DN
$ 100,000
PWTF
CN
$ 400,000
Total
$ 500,000
Sedgwick Booster Sta (#23)
DN
$ 750,000
PWTF
CN
$ 2,000,000
x
Total
$ 2,750,000
Water Totals
$ 17,551,000
Project
Number
Phase
City$
Loan$
Other$
Unfunded$
Total$
2022
2023
2024
2025
Comments
Sewer:
Marina Lift Station
DN
$ 1,500,000
CN
$ 12,132,000
x
Total
$ 13,623,000
CWSRF
Lift Station Controls (6)
Total
(DN/BLD)
$ 800,000
PWTF
& Generator(1)
Sewer Totals
$ 14,423,000