The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda Packet 04/11/2006 ----""'II UTILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE PUBLIC WORKS CONF"ERENCE ROOM PORT ANGELES, WA 98362 APRIL 1 1 , 2006 2:00 P.M. AGENDA I. CALL To 0 RDER II. ROLL CALL III. ApPROVAL OF" MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 28, 2006 ApPROVAL OF" MINUTES FOR MARCH 14, 2006 IV. LATE ITEMS V. STRATEGIC PLANNING SESSION VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. LANDF"ILL 0-7 REPAIR B. CONSERVATION ACQUISITION AGREEMENT WITH BPA C. SOLID WASTE RATE REVIEW D. LANDF"ILL STORMWATER CHANGE ORDER E. STORMWATER FEE DISCUSSION F. REDUCING LANDF"ILL FEES FOR CLEAN UP OF" DERELICT 8UILDINGS (VERBAL> G. WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF" FISH AND WILDLIF"E USE OF" CITY FACILITIES VII. SPECIAL MEETING - APRIL 25, 2006 - 3:00 PM (STRATEGIC PLANNING SESSION) NEXT MEETING DATE - MAY 9, 2006 VIII. AD..JOURNMENT N:\UAC\F"INAL\041 1 06.WPD L__ UTILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE .l.\ - \ \ . 0 c..p GUEST SIGN UP SHEET PRINT NAME ORGANIZATION 7 Ll'tkfJ()~t0X: C,Tf2-Eu ;V t, Sfl~o 4+ C/i-;-Z1:,J N: \PWKS \LIGHT\ CONS \ CATE \ SIGNUP.wpd UTILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE Special Meeting Port Angeles, Washington February 28, 2006 ?>~ L Call to Order: Vice Chairman Rogers called the meeting to order at 5 :45 p.m. H. Roll Call: Members Present: Vice Chairman Rogers, Betsy Wharton, Larry Williams Members Absent: Grant Munro Staff Present: Glenn Cutler Others Present: None IlL Discussion Item - Application For Appointment Vice Chairman Rogers called the meeting to order. Applications had been received from Paul R. Lamoureux and Orville~.w. Campbell. It was noted that Mr. Lamoureux had withdrawn his application earlier in the.day. A discussion of Mr. Campbell's application followed and it was determined that he was highly qualified. No other citizens had expressed interest. Councilman Williams moved to recommend City Council appoint Orville Campbell to the position of citizen-at-Iarge. Councilmember Wharton seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. IV. Next meeting date: March 14, 2006 J': Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 5:52 p.m. Vice Chairman Rogers Cate Rinehart, Administrative Specialist n N:\PWKS\LIGHT\CONS\CA TE\022806meet.wpd ,--- UTILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE Port Angeles,W ashington March 14, 2006 I. Call to Order: (); Chairman Reed called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. II. Roll Call: Members Present: Chairman Reed, Orville Campbell, Betsy Wharton, Grant Munro Members Absent: Karen Rogers Staff Present: William Bloor (3 :20), Glenn Cutler, Gary Kenworthy, Mike Puntinney, Larry Dunbar, Tom McCabe, Bill Beverford, Teresa Pierce, Lisa Hainstock (3:23), Claudia Stromski (3:23), Helen Freilich (3:23), Cate Rinehart Others Present: Brian Gawley - Daily News Paul Lamoureux - Citizen Jim Haguewood - One Group Kent Kovalenko - Waste Connections IlL Approval of Minutes: Chairman Reed asked if there were any corrections to the meeting minutes of February 14, 2006. Councilman Munro moved to approve the minutes. Councilmember Wharton seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Orville Campbell abstained. Meeting minutes for February 28,2006 were deferred to the April 11, 2006 meeting. . IV. Late Item - City of Port Angeles Strategic Planning Jim Haguewood, One Group Chairman, emphasized that there has been a lack of comprehensive planning for the city and therefore no sense of purpose. Criteria has been established to address this issue. Meetings with various groups will be scheduled to brain-storm. A special UAC meeting is scheduled for April 11 th at 2 p.m. to discuss promoting the development of visualizing what the community should be like in the future. Another special UAC meeting is scheduled for April 25th at 3 p.m. for the purpose of examining the concepts that have been brought forth. There was a brief discussion. Information only. No action taken. V. Discussion Items: 1 UTILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE March 14,2006 A. Consumer ConfidencelWater Quality Report For Calendar Year 2005 Bill Beverford, W aterlW astewater Collection Superintendent, gave a brief overView ofthe report which is required yearly by the Washington State Department of Health. It was noted that the actual water source site on the Elwha would be removed for security reasons. Information only. No action taken. B. Solid Waste Rates Larry Dunbar, Power Resources Manager, distributed a handout and gave a presentation based on that information. New curbside recycling yard waste and every other week garbage collection services were discussed along with ordinance amendments and rates. Increases are anticipated at 25% for residential weekly garbage collection service and 5% for commercial collection service. Proposed rates were also presented for the new transfer station and Blue Mountain drop-box. Tom McCabe, Solid Waste Superintendent, advised that garbage pickup every other week has been a service requested by many customers. A discussion followed. Councilman Munro moved to recommend City Council establish rates for the Transfer Station and Blue Mountain drop-box facility and amend garbage collection rates generally in accordance with the recommendations. Councilmember Wharton seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. C. Curbside Recycling And Yard Waste Collections Contract Amendment Michael Puntenney, Deputy Director of Operations, advised that in anticipation of an orderly transition to the solid waste concepts in the new transfer station contract, the City had entered into negotiations to change the termination date for its previous recycling and yard waste collections contract with Waste Management to June 30, 2006. There was no discussion. Councilmember Wharton moved to recommend City Council authorize the Mayor to sign an amendment to the contract with the new termination date. Orville Campbell seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. D. NPDES Phase II Update Gary Kenworthy, City Engineer, confirmed that the City is still on the DOE stormwater regulation list noting that becausethe first draft last year had so many controversial and numerous comments a final draft was delayed. The final publish target date is the end of the year. I 2 f). UTILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE March 14,2006 Information only. No action taken. E. PUD Wholesale Water Contract Extension Glenn Cutler, Director of Public Works and Utilities, pointed out that the City had been negotiating a new wholesale water contract with Clallam PUD with the intent to create a new, long-'term contract to serve the area in the Eastern UGA. These negotiations are nearing completion but will not be finished by the current contract extension of March 31,2006. There was a brief discussion. Councilman Munro moved to recommend City Council extend the current wholesale water contract with Clallam PUD #1 for a term of three months, expiring June 30, 2006, and authorize the City Manage to sign the contract extension. Councilmember Wharton seconded the motion, whic~ carried unanimously. VI. Adjourn to Executive session - 5:03 p.m. Return to regular session - 5:29 p.m. VII. Next meeting date: Special Meeting: April 11, 2006 April 11, 2006 - 2:00 p.m. VIII. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 5:31 p.m. Chairman Reed Cate Rinehart, Administrative Specialist n N :\PWKS\LIGHl\CONS\CA TE\marI 4meet. wpd 3 ~ THE CITY OF ....\.' WAS H I N GT 0 N, U.S. City of Port Angeles Strategic Planning Committee Meeting Outline/Agenda 1. Introduction a. What and why of strategic planning b. Timeline and schedule 2. Process steps a. Foundation b. Assessment c. Prioritization d. Preparation 3. Vision a. What should the community look like in 20 yrs? b. Mental model- tour-what does it look like? i. Morse Creek to McDonalds ii. Front Street iii. Downtown, look and feel, business type iv. Harbor/waterfrontlEdiz Hook v. Airport vi. Airport to Hwy 101 vii. Boulevard, from Cherry to Peninsula College viii. Race Street ix. 8th Street x. People, look and actions xi. Economy, industry, jobs xii. Education, K-12, private, Peninsula College xiii. Reputation, What do people say? xiv. Committee specific topics, department elements 1. City Government 4. Core values and principles a. What principles and values need to be present to achieve the vision? 5. Vision measurement a. How do we measure ifwe are successful reaching the vision? 6. Presentation of Strategic Plan Chapters and Vision 7. Issues facing each chapter vision 8. SWOT analysis of each chapter a. Strengths: attributes that help reach the vision b. Weaknesses: attributes that are harmful to reach vision c. Opportunities: external conditions that are helpful to reach vision d. Threats: external conditions that are harmful to reach vision 9. Strategies for each issue 10. Key indicators to measure progress/success of strategies Items in italics will capture input from committee members Meeting #1 Meeting #2 ~ DATE: To: FROM: SUBJECT: FORTANGBLBS WAS H I N G TON, U.S. A. UTILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMO April 5, 2006 UTILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE William G. McKenzie, Fleet Manager Repair of Track Assembly on Landfill D:-7R Caterpillar Dozer Summary: . The D- 7R Caterpillar Dozer at the landfill needs its track assembly repaired. The estimated cost of repairs is estimated to not exceed $42,000. This includes all parts, labor, and transportation. NC machinery will be performing the repairs. Recommendation: Send a favorable recommendation to City Council for the repair of the D-7R Cate illar bulldozer b NC Machine . Background/Analysis: The Solid Waste Division's leased D-7R Caterpillar bulldozer used at the landfill to maintain roads and to move and spread garbage has recently had a service inspection by NC Machinery. This inspection identified that the bulldozer's track assembly wear surfaces have worn beyond allowable tolerances and needs to be fixed now. This type of repair is typically required by industry standards at around 3,000 hours of use and the landfill's bulldozer currently has 3800 hours on it. The repair of the bulldozer is critical to landfill operations. This equipment also serves as a backup for the landfill's compactor. The equipment will be down approximately 3 to 5 days for this repair. The Solid Waste Division has sufficient funds in the landfill cash reserves to cover the cost. PW 0101_06. [Revised 07/24/03] FORTNGBLES WAS H I N G TON, U. S. A. UTILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMO DATE: April 11, 2006 To: UTILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE FROM: Larry Dunbar, Power Resources Manager SUBJECT: Conservation Acquisition Agreeement Summary: Acceptance ofthe Conservation Acquisition Agreement would enable the City to continue to provide rebates to its commercial and industrial customers for energy efficient improvements. Recommendation: Recommend to the City Council that the Public Works and Utilities Director be authorized to enter into the Conservation Acquisition Agreement with the Bonneville Power Administration. Background/Analysis: The Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) recently offered the City participation in the Conservation Acquisition Agreement. The proposed agreement is similar to BPA's Purchase of Conservation Agreement, which the City accepted on June 18,2001 and terminates on September 30, 2006. Under the proposed agreement, the City could provide $575,000 for energy conservation work in progress at Port Angeles Hardwoods, Nippon Paper Industries USA, and K-Ply. Additional BPA funding is anticipated to be available through September 30,2009. The proposed agreement offers commercial and industrial customers a schedule of rebates for lighting conservation projects. Lighting rebates include modification or replacement of existing interior and exterior fixtures and controls. Commercial and industrial customers seeking rebates for other energy conservation improvements would work with the City and BP A to prepare a project proposal. The project proposal includes an energy analysis, method for determining and verifying energy savings, and estimated cost. Each project proposal will be submitted to BP A for review and acceptance. By entering into the proposed agreement, additional BP A funding for commercial and industrial energy conservation projects may be available through September 30,2009. N:\UAC\Final\Conservation Acquisition Agreement.doc DATE: To: FROM: SUBJECT: poRWGELES WAS H I N G TON, U. S. A. UTILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMO April 11, 2006 UTILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE Larry Dunbar, Power Resources Manager Tom McCabe, Solid Waste Superintendent Solid Waste Rates Summary: City Council held a public hearing on the proposed solid waste rates on April 4, 2006. Several comments were made that need to be carefully considered. Staff will present changes to the proposed rates and ordinances at the meeting and request guidance from the Utility Advisory Committee. Recommendation: Provide guidance on changes to the proposed solid waste rates and ordinance amendments in res onse to the comments made at the ublic hearin . Background/Analysis: City Council held a public hearing on the proposed solid waste rate adjustments on April 4, 2006. On April 18, 2006 City Council will be requested to close the public hearing and consider adoption of rate ordinance amendments. A summary of the comments (not in any order of importance} that were made during the public hearing is summarized below. Staffwill carefully consider the comments and provide recommendations on the issues for discussion at the Utility Advisory Committee meeting. 1. Comments that the proposed adjustments to the transfer station minimum fees are too high (from $8.00 to $10.00 for municipal solid waste and $10.00 for yard waste). 2. Concerns about the increased likelihood of illegal dumping of yard waste were shared. 3. Comments were made that a rate option for monthly garbage collection should be provided. 4. A comment was made about bundling the yard waste fee in the garbage collection rate. 5. A comment that rocks, concrete, dirt, and yard debris are not allowed in refuse containers. 6. A comment was made about snowbirds and proposed fees for resuming yard waste service.A suggestion that restricted commercial refuse containers should be charged the full rate. 7. Comments to increase educational efforts and establish a recycling advisory committee. 8. A suggestion to weigh each collection customer's waste and charge accordingly was made. 9. A concern was shared that discontinuing curbside collection of glass may reduce glass recycling. N:\UAC\Final\Solid Waste Rates Changes.doc I _ .. Public Works & Utilities Utility Advisory Committee Presentation Solid Waste Rates April 11, 2006 Larry Dunbar Power Resources Manager 417-4710 h;'!...lJnQ.;jrlgI;Lt.vofp_q.,.~L? Tom McCabe Solid Waste Superintendent 417 -4872 t.r0,i;:~gQ..:;:.@~~Iti!.91.R.9.i.~ Overview and Purpose of the Presentation 1. Public hearing comments 2. Recommended changes based on public hearing 3. Other recommended changes 4. UAC comments on ordinance amendments 1 public Hearing comments 1. Transfer station minimum fees are \:00 high 2. possible increased illegal yard waste dumping. 3. Rate option for monthly garbage collection. 4. Bundling yard waste fee into rate. 5. ROC\<.S, concrete, dirt, and yard debriS are not allowed in refuse containers. public Hearing comments 6. snowbirds and proposed fees for resuming yard waste service. 7. Restricted commercial refuse containers should be charged the fuU rate. 8. Recycling educational efforts & adviSOry committee. 9. weigh each collection customer's waste and charge according\y. 10. Discontinuing curbside collection of glasS may reduce glasS recycling. ~ Public Hearing Comments 1. Transfer station minimum fees are too high Considerations: y Reduce transfer station tickets y Encourage larger loads y Weight reductions allowed (not less than minimum fee) ~ 2005 ticket data RESIDENTIAL SELF HAUL MSW MINIMUM FEE -2005 (55,024 tickets) 100% 90% /!! 80% w '" ~ 70% <i :> ~ 60% .. ffi 50% u '" W G. 40% ~ 1= S 30% :> :;; G 20% 10% 0% 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.10 0.11 0.12 0.13 0.14 0.15 TONNAGE " :J r! 80'10 ~ ~ 70'10. :i ~ 80'10 a ... \Ii 50'10 u III p. 400/0 '.!! ; 30'10 i U 200,(, 100'10 RESIDENTIAL SELF HAUL YARD WASTE _2oo5l13.783 ticl<elS) 90'10 0.25 . . 0.30 10'10 0.20 0.10 0.15 TOtltl",GE 0'10 0.00 0.05 public Hearing continents 1. Transfer station minimum fees are too high Recommendat\ons: )- APprove minimum fee increase from $8.00 to $10.00 for mun\c\pa\ solid waste )- Reduce proposed minimum fee for yard waste from $10.00 to $5.00 Public Hearing Comments 2. Possible increased illegal yard waste dumping. Considerations: ~ Chapter 19.20 Clallam County Code ~ Chapter 8.30 Port Angeles Municipal Code Recommendations: ~ Joint Solid Waste Advisory Committee ~ Solid Waste Advisory Committee Public Hearing Comments 3. Rate option for monthly garbage collection. Considerations: :r Rate equity, customer options & complexity :r Every other week participation & potential issues :r Potential equipment services & personnel savings >- Adjustments to weekly & every other week proposed rates Recommendations: >- Provide guidance on rate alternative A 5 collection Cost Breakdown .- Collection personnel Supplies I 1% . City A&G 4% Charges & Sen^ces 7% curbside Recycling 8% curbside commercial Cardboard Recycling 1% Curbside Yard Waste 11% ~. Equipment ~ Sen^ces 13% Utility TallBS 13% Transfer Stalion MSW DiSPOsal 28% Every 4th Week Collection Rate Alternative A Weekly Service Every Other Week Service Every Fourth Week service Yard Waste Service $- $20 Monthly Charge $30 $0 $10 II! January 2006 Rate . Proposed Rate JIiIy 1. 2006 G Alternative A Rate July 1, 2006 ", ~ Public Hearing Comments 4. Bundling yard waste fee into rate. Considerations: y Prior 80% recycling participation assumption y Prior yard waste unbundled rate , Rate impacts, customer options & equity '}; Creates need to monitor participation Recommendations: " Provide guidance on rate alternative B Bundled Refuse/ Recycling/Yard Waste Rate Alternative B (including A) ~o $31.45 $28.50 Every Fourth Week Service Yard Waste Service $- $7.0 $0 $10 $20 $30 Monthly Charge II January 2006 Rate . Proposed Rate July 1, 2006 o Alternative B Rate July 1, 2006 'j $37130 i j ! ! 7 :! Public Hearing Comments 5. Rocks, concrete, dirt, and yard debris are not aiiowed in refuse containers. Considerations: >- Overloaded containers >- Damage to mechanized vehicle Recommendations: >- Maintain existing requirements Public Hearing Comments 6. Snowbirds and proposed fees for resuming yard waste service. Considerations: ;. Snowbirds terminate water servicel wastewater servicel garbage/recycling/yard waste service ;. City costs can be reduced Recommendations: >- No fee if water/wastewater/refuse stops & electric maintained 8 . Public Hearing Comments 7. Restricted commercial refuse containers should be charged the full rate. Considerations: >- 90 gallon needed, only 300 gallon shared possible >- 1-300 instead of 2-90's due to space limits > 2j3rd full due to volume or weight > Equity & simplicity Recommendations: > Clarify definition & flexibility needed by Director Public Hearing Comments 8. Educational efforts and establish a recycling advisory committee. . Recommendations: > Continued Grassroots efforts ./ Publications, advertisements, education, services )0- Approach SWAC April.20th - Citizen Advocacy Group ./ Waste reduction, reuse and recycling emphasis ./ Assist with booths, special events, education ./ "Master Recyclers" program ./ Waste Reduction Coordinator support 9 <.~ ,; Public Hearing Comments 9. Weigh each collection customer's waste and charge accordingiy. Considerations: >- Increased cost & improved equity >- Complexity Recommendations: >- Not recommended at this time . Public Hearing Comments 10. Discontinuing curbside collection of glass may reduce glass recycling. Considerations: y Based on Waste Connections contract y Suppressed resale market ~ Plastics replacing glass y Local recycling Recommendations: ~ No changes recommended at this time 10 Other Comments A. Commercial hauler charges for work under the service agreement Recommendations: :r City pays transfer station charges for Blue Mountain drop-box :r City pays transfer station charges for yard waste collection Staff Comments B. Compost charges (retail & wholesale) Recommendations: :r $12.00 per cubic yard retail >- Wholesale contract 11 Staff Comments C. Curbside recycling request Considerations: );. Current program flat rate );. New program subscription based Recommendations: );. Upon request Staff Comments D. Curbside recycling @ commercial multi-family Considerations: >- Current contract multi-family up to 4 units >- Commercial recycling @ School District only Recommendations: >- Extend commercial recycling in ordinance >- Seek extension from Waste Connections 12 r-- ~ Staff Comments E. Revise "Commercial hauler" title Considerations: ~ Confusing to existing commercial self-haulers Recommendations: ~ Replace title with "Collection Entity" UAC Comments on Ordinance Amendments . 1. 2. 3. 13 DATE: To: FROM: SUBJECT: FORTANGBLBS WAS H I N G TON, U. S. A. UTILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMO APRIL 11, 2006 UTILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE Gary W. Kenworthy P.E., Deputy Director of Public Works/City Engineer Landfill Stormwater Proj ect 05-18, Changes Orders Summary: One completed and a pending change order will be adding over $100,000 to the Landfill Stormwater Improvements Project. The second charge order will require Council approval since the cumulative change orders will exceed $100,000. UAC. Background/Analysis: The project to construct the stormwater improvements required to handle the runoff from the landfill, transfer station, water treatment plant, and associated facilities is nearing completion. During construction changes have been required to accommodate plan deficiencies and unanticipated site conditions. Construction Change Order No.1, in the amount $49,600 (8% increase) has been approved (Less than 15% or under $100,000). This change order covered the following design related items: a. The diameter of a manhole was increased to allow sidewall clearance for the new 30- and 18-inch HDPE drain lines. b. There was not enough room in the existing recirculation line vault to install a new 6- inch check valve in the HDPE recirculation line. It was necessary to construct the valve at a new location that included adding a new concrete vault and two new gate valves in addition to the 6-inch check valve. c. The planned gabion wall at the Dry Creek road section was inadequate to protect the bank and prevent undercut. The consultant designed a new gravity wall section that could be used for gabions or rock riprap. The new wall required twice as much material as the original wall. Proposals were requested for both alternates. The rock riprap was the lower cost alternative by approximately $26,000. The cost ofthe new revetment was over twice the original estimate. N:\UAC\Final\P ALF Stonnwater CCO.doc Landfill Change Orders Aprilll, 2006 Page 2 A second change will be needed to addresses the following items: 1. The contractor uncovered a layer of unsuitable soil (old trash) while excavating for 730 feet of storm drains and twp deep manholes. The depth of this layer varied from 10 to 40 feet. The unsuitable soil affected the line excavation and the placement of two deep junction boxes. Corrective measures qualifying as additional contract expenses are: a. Over-excavation and removal of reject soils b. Placement of a two foot thick layer of pea gravel at the bottom of the trench. This was undertaken to stabilize the trench bottom. c. Importing structural trench fill from the beach sand replenishment stockpile. d. Excavation and removal of all unsuitable material to a 40 foot depth in order to construct . junction box 5. The junction box base was 26 feet deep. e. Construction of a wide base for junction box 4 in order to lessen the footprint load. Work was done on a time and materials basis. The estimated cost of this item ranges from $60,000 to $80,000. 2. The design of the large catch basin next to Dry Creek had no provision for energy dissipation due to a possible "hydraulic jump" created when the stormwater exiting the steep pipeline from above enters structure. Changes are require additional thrust blocking ofthe structure and anchor the structure lid. The Estimated costs for this item ranges from $5,000 to $8,000. The estimated total of these items is from $65,000 to $88,000. This change order will require Council approval. Once the total costs have been negotiated, Construction Change No 2., due to the cumulative total cost ofthe change orders, will be presented to Council for approval. No further change orders are anticipated at this time. DATE: To: FROM: SUBJECT: FORTNGBLBS WAS H I N G T 0 N~ u. S. A. UTILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMO April 11, 2006 UTILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE Gary W. Kenworthy P.E., Deputy Director of Public Works/City Engineer Stormwater Utility Rates Summary: It has been three years since formation ofthe Stormwater Utility and direction is needed in development of programs and funding. Recommendation: Discuss Stormwater Utili Pro ram and Fundin 0 tions. Background! Analysis: The Stormwater Utility was created (Ordinance 3151) in 2003. During the discussions regarding the Stormwater Utility it was noted that the rates would be reevaluated in three years, our normal utility review period. The current monthly Stormwater Utility Rates are $3.00 per month ($36 Annually) for single-family and duplex property and $3.00 per 4,000 square feet unit of impervious area, with a ten unit/$30.00 cap ($360 Annually), for commercial/multiple property. These fees are collected by the County along with property taxes and in 2005 generated revenues of$357,000 (1490 commercial properties, $124,500, 35%; 6510 residential properties, $232,500, 65%). It was directed by City Council that the funds for the Stormwater Utility be utilized primarily for Capital Improvement Projects to reduce flooding and Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO)impacts along with endangered species act (ESA) training for staff. The charges for services (County processing fees (1 %), utility taxes (8%), training, assessments, professional services) reduce the projected annual funds available for capital projects, in 2006 dollars, to approximately $310,000. This is the same value noted in the 2003 Council Memo for the Stormwater Utility formation. The major stormwater project completed using Stormwater Utility funds since the establishment was the Crown Park Stormwater Improvements CSO reduction project completed in 2005. This year the Lincoln Street-Storm Drain (4th to 7th) CSO reduction project, Aerial Mapping, Catch Basin Improvements, and Valley Creek Erosion Control are the scheduled projects. Theprojects for 2007 have not been selected. A matrix of proposed projects prepared in 2003 for the formation ofthe Stormwater Utility is attached along with the proposed 2006-20012 Capital Facilities Project (CFP) list for Stormwater. Stormwater Utility Rates Aprilll,2006 Page 2 DOE will decide on the looming specter ofNPDES Municipal Stormwater Phase II this year. The City of Port Angeles is currently included as a Phase II community. Ifwe are not successful in being excluded this will result in the need for additional staff to implement, inspect, monitor, and report in accordance with the DOE requirements whichwill include all those in the Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. This unfunded mandate will be a significant impact to the City and developers. We are currently reviewing the final draft of the Phase II permits and will be providing comments to DOE prior the May 19, 2006 deadline. Our Stormwater residential monthly rates are low in comparison to similar Cities in western Washington as shown in the following table: City Monthly Residential Rate System Development Charge Port Angeles $3.00 None Anacortes $3.00 $1,126.00 Blaine $4.00 $200.00 Bainbridge $5.00 None Shelton $5.00 None Mount Vernon $6.00 None Port Townsend $6.00 None Gig Harbor $7.00 None Friday Harbor $7.00 $286.00 Edmonds $7.00 $428.00 Poulsbo $8.00 None The rates and system development charges shown in the table above are based on A WC 2004 Survey. The A WC survey is updated every two years and the 2006 survey will be available this coming August. It is clear that with NPDES Phase II additional administration, engineering and planning staff will be needed. Initially one FTE position ($100,000) will be required. Over the next 6 years the 2007-20012 CFP has identified $8,000,000 in projects to be completed. These equate to approximately $1,350,000 per year. Our current rate distributions generate approximately $120,000 of revenue for each dollar collected. To fully fund the annual $1,350,000 would require a rate of$11.25 per month. This $8.25 increase is not a reality and priorities within the staffing and CFP program will need adjustments. In addition we may need to review the commercial (35%) and residential (65%) contributions to the overall revenues. Based on impervious areas for commercial (52%) and residential (48%) an adjustment may be needed to be more equitable. Currently monthly contributions from contiguous commercial properties are capped at 10 equivalent residential units (ERU) or $30.00. Adjusting or removing the cap limits and/or modifying the ERU impervious area from 4000 s.f. are alternate methods to bring the commercial and residential rates to equity. Removing the cap would provide an estimated additional 2600 ERUs or $90,000 in annual revenues at the current $3.00 ERU rate. Reducing the ERU areas from 4,000 s.f. to 3,500 s.f. would not increase the residential revenues but would N:\UAC\Final\stormwater rates 2006.doc Stonnwater Utility Rates Aprill!, 2006 Page 3 raise the commercial revenues by $142,200 with cap or $390,000 without cap at the current $3.00 ERU rate. These options are shown in the following table: Alternates Residential Commercial Total 1. No change (Current) $232,500, 65% $124,500,35% $357,000, 100% 2. Remove ERU cap $232,500, 52% 214,500,48% 447,000, 100% 3. Reduce ERU to 3500 s.f. $232,500,47% 266,700, 53% 499,200, 100% . with ERU cap 4. Reduce ERU to 3500 s.t: $232,500, 36% 414,500,64% 647,000, 100% without ERU cap Impervious areas 48% 52% 100% These proposals are for opening the discussion with the UAC on Stormwater Utility Rate adjustments need to meet the CFP program as well as pending NPDES Phase II unfunded requirements. At minimum, a stormwater engineer/manager position is desired to meet current stormwater design, construction management, consultant management, pursuit of funding opportunities, and monitoring of DOE and other agency pending programs and impacts. N:\UAC\Final\stonnwater rates 2006.doc . r' :::r.:,..~~~:"r "."i"_::>'.::. '~',:',-, NovcmbeiclIll, 2003 City Council RE: Sto,mwater Utility, Fonnation Page~i' ' ...';;" . STOR.MW A TER PROJECT MATRIX Project Description. Estimated Project Type , Project Cost , Econ. Other ; Flooding 'CSO : & Eros. Red. Dev. LLaurel & US 101 i '; X : $500,000* X , ' : Canyon Edge & Ahlvers : $500,000* X ! Rose!Thistle area : $500,000* , . X X' i CampbelllPorter Area 1$500,000* X X 'j "C" Street Extension Area : $500,000* X X ! ' , . lOver Bluff Disch. (N, 10th, P, McD) ~ $ 1 00,000 ea. X X : Lincoln Park/Big Boy Pond' : $250,000 X X : . ! Downtown CSO : $500,000** X X . i'Lincoln Stonn 4th - 61h ; $200 000** X X ! . , ! Lincoln' Stom 61h _7th ; $ JOO~OOO** X : X i, AlbertlEunice Stonn : $250,000** .l'- ; lOth &' Milwaukee Area : $400,000* X I : Milwaukee & "P" Area : $800,OQO* , ; X ; Upper Golf Course Road Area ' $500,000* X " lOth : $300,000 X & "N" Regional Detention : Lincoln Street Culvert Repairs : $100,000 X : (City's Share) , Street Outfalls to StreamslMarine : $SO,OOOfyr X X _ S,!earn Rehabilitation (Matchin~ $) $50,000 X ....---.----------.--...-.---- * Placeholder Estimates until Preliminary Engineering can be completed **CSO related work can be funded fully or partially from Wastewater Fund N:\CCOUNCIL\FINAL\Slonnwaler Ulilily Fonnalion, Public HearinLA.wpd . 84 2006 - 2012 CAPITAL FACiliTIES PROJECTS PRIORITY ORDER PROJECT TITLE 2006 PROJ. COST 2006 CITY GF COST 1 WW01-06 Francis SI. Sewer Main 2,900,000 2,900,000 500,000 . 2,400,000 0 0 0 0 0 2,900,000 2,300,000 y 2 WW03-06 CSO Storage Tank 4,100,000 4,100,000 1,500,000 400,000 2,200,000 0 0 0 0 4,100,000 2,200,000 N 3 WW26-99 III CSO Reduction 775,000 775,000 150,000 100,000 0 0 0 0 0 250,000 y 4 WW27-99 Annual Replacements Lines 675,000 675,000 0 100,000 0 275,000 0 300,000 0 675,000 N 5 WW03-05 Plant Headworks Improvements 375,000 375,000 0 375,000 0 0 0 0 0 375,000 N 6 WW07-04 Install Vortex Ring Mixer 35,000 35,000 0 35,000 0 0 0 0 0 35,000 N 7 WW02-06 Force Mains For New PS #4 6,500,000 6,500,000 0 0 . 450,000 6,OSO,OOO 0 0 0 6,500,000 5,600,000 Y 8 WW02-05 Plant De-watering Improvements 1,000,000 1,000,000 0 0 1,000,000 0 0 0 0 1,000,000 . N 9 WW06-04 Rotary Blowers 80,000 80,000 . 0 0 80,000 0 0 0 0 80,000 N 10 WW04-06 Railroad Ave.lLincoln SI. Greavitv Sewer 3,300,000 3,300,000 0 0 0 500,000 2,800,000 0 0 3,300,000 2,800,000 N 11 WW02-04 Replace Pumo Station No.4 10,500,000 10,500,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 10,500 000 10,500,000 N 12 WW04-04 Treatment Plant for CSO Flows 14,000,000 14,000,000 0 0 1,000,000 10,000,000 3,000,000 0 0 14,000,000 12,500,000 Y 13 WW05-06 Sewer Trestle at Francis & 8th 475,000 475,000 0 0 0 0 75,000 400,000 0 475,000 N 14 WW03-00 Lindberg Rd. Sewer 1,200,000 1,200,000 0 0 0 125,000 1,075,000 0 0 1,200,000 N 15 WW02-00 Airport Industriel Sewer 1,300,000 0 0 0 0 lSO,ooo 575,000 575,000 0 1 300,000 1,300,000 N 16 WW05-99 Golf Course Road Sewer Interceptor 1,000,000 1,000,000 0 0 0 140,000 860,000 0 0 1,000,000 N WASTEWATER PROJECTS TOTAL OF MANDATED WASTEWATER PROJECTS TOTAL OF ALL WASTEWATER PROJECTS 1 DR04-99 Lincoln Street Storm Drain (4th to 7th SI.) 400,000 400,000 400,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 400,000 Y 2 DR02-99 City-Wide Catch Basin Modifications 740,000 740,000 80,000 85,000 90,000 95,000 100,000 105,000 110,000 665,000 N 3 DR65-99 10lh And "N" Street Reaional Storm Detenti 300,000 300,000 50,000 2SO,000 0 0 0 0 0 300,000 N 4 DR01-04 Stormwater Outfalls to Streams & Manne 300,000 300,000 0 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 SO,OOO 300,000 Y 5 DR53-99 Stormwater Discharaes Over Bluff 670,000 670,000 0 70,000 120,000 120,000 120,000 120,000 120,000 670,000 Y 6 DR14-99 Peabody Creek/Lincoln St Culvert Rehab 100,000 100,000 0 100,000 0 0 0 0 0 100,000 Y 7 DR04-04 Stormwater at Canyon Edae & Ahlvers 500,000 500,000 0 SO,OOO 200,000 250.000 0 0 0 SOO,OOO N 8 DR08-04 Lincoln ParklBia Bov Pand 300,000 300,000 0 30,000 270,000 0 0 0 0 300 000 N 9 DR06-04 Stormwater at Campbell & Porter 500,000 500,000 0 0 SO,OOO 200,000 2SO,OOO 0 0 500,000 N 10 DR07 -04 Stormwater at "C" Street Extension 500,000 500,000 0 0 0 50,000 200,000 250,000 0 500,000 N 11 DR05-04 Stormweter at Rose & Thistle 500,000 500,000 0 0 0 0 50,000 200,000 2SO,OOO 500,000 N 12 DR03-04 Stormwater at Laurel & US101 500,000 500,000 0 0 0 0 50,000 200,000 2SO,000 500,000 N 13 DR02-04 Upper Golf Course Rd. Area Stormwater 500,000 500,000 0 0 0 0 SO,OOO 200,000 2SO,000 500,000 N 14 DR03-99 Milwaukee Dr. Stormwater Imorovements 1 ,200 000 1,200,000 0 0 . 0 0 SO,OOO 150,000 500,000 700,000 N 15 DR01-01 First SI. Stormwater Separation 250,000 250,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 SO,ooo SO,OOO y STORMWATER PROJECTS TOTAL OF MANDATED STORMWATER PROJECTS TOTAL OF ALL STORMWATER PROJECTS 1,720,000 7,260,000 400,000 530,000 170,000 170,000 780,000 765,000 TOTAL MANDATED UTILITY PROJECTS 29,495,000 TOTAL OF ALL UTILITY PROJECTS 81,866,000 3245,000 570,000 220,000 28,645,000 13,040,000 5,530,000 12,730,000 77,996,000 1 1 PBX. Voice Mail Uparade 100 100 25 25 2 2 Multipurpose SOL Server 80 80 20 20 3 3 HTE AS/4oo Production Reolacement 105 105 35 35 4 4 Data Storage & Tape Backup Upgrade 48 48 48 48 .. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES PROJECTS . Note: All costs are 40% General Fund and 60% Utilities to be funded by Operating Budgets. Items 1.2 & 3 are leases, Item 4 is purchase. 06-00Prior Page 4 41712005 1 FORTANGELES WAS H IN G TON, U. S. A. UTILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMO DATE: April 11, 2006 To: UTILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE FROM: Scott McLain, Deputy Director for Power Systems SUBJECT: Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife use of City Facilities Summary: The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) would like to utilize City property for fish pens during the demolition of the Elwha River dams. Recommendation: Consider the concept proposed by the WDFW and whether staff should work toward a formal agreement for allowing WDFW to utilize City property to raise Elwha Chinook salmon durin!! demolition of the Elwha dams. Background/Analysis: The Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife (WDFW) is developing a strategy to preserve the Elwha River Chinook salmon during the demolition of the Elwha River dams. This strategy includes rearing Elwha fall Chinook in Morse Creek until about 2014, at which time the fish would be reintroduced in the Elwha River. To accomplish the rearing and releasing offish into Morse Creek, WDFW is proposing the installation of several fish rearing pens and associated equipment on City property near the Morse Creek Hydroelectric generation facility. This site would allow the WDFW to utilize water from the Morse Creek diversion pipeline to feed water the pens. This water use would preclude the use ofthat water for generating power, for which the City would need to be compensated. At this time, theWDFW is looking for general agreement on the concept, and that the City would work toward a formal agreement at a later time. The letter outlining the WDFW proposal is attached, and provides more detail ofthe concept they would like the City to consider. Attachment: WDFW proposal PW OHl]_06 [Revised{)7/24/03] State of Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Mailing Address: 600 Capitol Way N . Olympia WA 98501-1091 . (360) 902-2200; TDD (360) 902-2207 Main Office Location: Natural Resources Building . 1111 Washington Street SE . Olympia WA March 23, 2006 RECE\\lEO Mr. Glenn A. Cutler, P .E. Director of Public Works and Utilities City of Port Angeles 321 E. Fifth Street Post Office Box 1150 Port Angeles, W A 98362-0217 M~R 2 7 2006 1'l Of POR1 ANGELES C\ PVBlIC WORKS RE: Morse Creek Hydropower site Dear Mr. Cutler: In December 2005, Mr. Scott McLain, Deputy Director of Public Works for the city of Port Angeles escorted Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) employees to several locations including city-owned sites such as the Morse Creek hydropower plant. We explored the concept of building a temporary Elwha River Chinook fish rearing station near this plant as part of a strategy to maintain survival ofthis stock when the Elwha River's dams are removed. Mr. McLain was receptive to this concept and suggested I make a more formal proposal to you. In order to continue planning for the implementation of this critical project, and prior to expending any funds, the Department needs to meet with the city to discuss the feasibility of the project. I am optimistic thatthe outcome of this meeting would give us both a clear agreement on project design, intent, expectations, and any constraints for the WDFW. Prior to this meeting I hope the city will be able to provide a written response agreeing to the concepts provided below, pending a formal agreement after negotiation of details, in the coming months. The WDFW, the National Park Service, the city and others are partners in the restoration of the Elwha River. One ofWDFW's goals is to maintain the existence ofthe Elwha River Fall Chinook stock if the removal of the dams makes the environment unsuitable for spawning and rearing of this critical stock. Installation of a site to rear, acclimate, and release Elwha Chinook yearlings is part of the strategy to preserve the genetic integrity of this stock. At the yearling life-stage, the Chinook would be.transported to proposed ponds at the city's hydropower site on Morse Creek. There they would be reared for a few months and released in early May. Having been reared in Morse Creek water, they will return as adults to Morse Creek rather than the Elwha River. There, their eggs will be harvested and the cycle will begin again. Once the river environment is conducive to spawning, these yearlings will be reared and released at the Elwha River facility to re-establish the stock, and the rearing ponds at the hydropower site will no longer be required. We expect the rearing ponds at the hydropower site to be used through 2014. , . ( . , Mr. Glenn A. Cutler March 23, 2006 Page 2 At this conceptual stage, we anticipate the proposed project would consist of the following elements: . Use of approximately 4.5 cubic feet per second (CFS) of Port Angeles' water in the months of January through early May of each year. WDFW proposes to tap the waterline using the existing 8" blind flange on the penstock supplying the hydropower. station. From there, an underground pipeline would lead to the rearing pond site immediately downstream of the parking area. We understand that using of this water for rearing fish rather than power generation, will be a cosHo the city. WDFW is anxious to discuss this Issue. . Four or five above ground fiberglass or vinyl fishponds for rearing the Chinook. The ponds will be 8 to 10 feet wide x 80 to 100 feet long x 4-1/2 feet tall, and brown in color. These ponds will have water supplied by the pipeline and will drain by pipe to a ditch- like channel draining to the creek. Obviously, the precise location of the ponds has not yet been determined. They could be located very close to the existing road or a bit further downstream at a flat area very near the creek. The fish waste in the ponds would be removed while the ponds are in use in accordance with a governing National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit. A small, approximately 10' x 20' x 4' structure may be necessary for this. The area in which the ponds are sited will receive compacted gravel surfacing. . A pad for a travel trailer for a person to live in at the site while fish are present. In addition, a trailer or storage container will be used for feed and tool storage. Drinking water will be supplied by bottled water, toilet facility will be a Sanican provided by a local company. . Six foot tall chain link fencing will surround the fish facility and the site will be well-lit in order to provide safety. . Metered electrical power and telephone services are needed, but availability has yet to be determined. . . A gravel road from the existing road to the actual pond site. This may be as short as 50 feet or as long as necessary to reach the flatter area nearer the creek. . This development will require earthwork to accommodate these features. The work will require cutting and removal of trees and stumps and limbing of other trees. Exposed soils will receive seeding to control erosion and during construction proper sediment and erosion control measures will be taken to avoid impacts to the stream. . ) Mr. Glenn A. Cutler March 23, 2006 Page 3 This work will require environmental permits. WDFW will apply for all necessary County, State and Federal permits that may be necessary. In addition, as the design progresses we will submit our design, including the pipe tap, electrical and telephone connections to the appropriate party in the city for review of those features that may pertain to the operation or reliability of your facility. After the Chinook are once again established in the Elwha (expected to be in the year 20.14), the ponds, , fencing and trailers will be removed and the site restored and vacated by WDFW. This project does not involve any work on the city's intake upstream. The operation will require permission from the city for access to the site through the locked gate on the existing road. Based on this general outline, I hope you will be able to write a return letter agreeing to the concept, pending a formal agreement at a later date. Such a letter will give us reasonable confidence in the viability of the project and we can start expending the necessary time and funds. We hope to be able to negotiate the details of the facility's impacts and operation in a timely manner. If you have questions about the project or would like to discuss it with me, please feel free to contact me at warrerrw@dfw.wa.gov via e-mail or by phone at 360-249-1204. ~ Ron Warren, Region 6 Fish Program Manager cc: Sue Patnude John Kerwin Jo Wadsworth Terry Legg 'Brian D. Winter, Ph.D. Denis Popochock Raymond Berg Bill Freymond !~ . DATE: To: FROM: SUBJECT: FORT~GBLBS WAS H I N G TON, U. S. A. UTILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMO April 11, 2006 UTILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE Scott McLain, Deputy Director for Power Systems Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife use of City Facilities Summary: The Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife (WDFW) would like to utilize City property for fish pens during the demolition ofthe Elwha River dams. Recommendation: Consider the concept proposed by the WDFW and whether staff should work toward a formal agreement for allowing WDFW to utilize City property to raise Elwha Chinook salmon durin!! demolition of the Elwha dams. Background/Analysis: The Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife (WDFW) is developing a strategy to preserve the Elwha River Chinook salmon during the demolition of the Elwha River dams. This strategy includes rearing Elwha fall Chinook in Morse Creek until about 2014, at which time the fish would be reintroduced in the Elwha River. To accomplish the rearing and releasing offish into Morse Creek, WDFW is proposing the installation of several fish rearing pens and ass()ciated equipment on City property near the Morse Creek Hydroelectric generation facility. This site would allow the WDFW to utilize water from the Morse Creek diversion pipeline to feed water the pens. This water use would preclude the use of that water for generating power, for which the City would need to be compensated. At this time, the WDFW is looking for general agreement on the concept, and that the City would work toward a formal agreement at a later time. The letter outlining the WDFW proposal is attached, and provides more detail of the concept they would like the City to consider. Attachment: WDFW proposal PW 0101_06 [Revised 07/24/03] i State of Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Mailing Address: 600 Capitol Way N . Olympia WA 98501-1091 . (360) 902~2200; TDD (360) 902-2207 Main Office Location: Natural Resources Building . 1111 Washington Street SE . Olympia WA March 23,2006 RECE\\lEO Mr. Glenn A. Cutler, P.E. Director of Public Works and Utilities City of Port Angeles 321 E. Fifth Street Post Office Box 1150 Port Angeles, W A 98362-0217 MAR 2 7 2006 1'i Of POR1 ANGElES CI PUBLIC WORK.S RE: Morse Creek Hydropower site Dear Mr. Cutler: In December 2005, Mr. Scott McLain, Deputy Director of Public Works for the city of Port Angeles escorted Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) employees to several locations including city-owned sites such as the Morse Creek hydropower plant. We explored the concept of building a temporary Elwha River Chinook fish rearing station near this plant as part of a strategy to maintain survival ofthis stock when the Elwha River's dams are removed. Mr. McLain was receptive to this concept and suggested I make a more formal proposal to you. In order to continue planning for the implementation of this critical project, and prior to expending any funds, the Department needs to meet with the city to discuss the feasibility of the project. I am optimistic thatthe outcome of this meeting would give us both a clear agreement on project design, intent, expectations, and any constraints for the WDFW. Prior to this meeting I hope the city will be able to provide a written response agreeing to the concepts provided below, pending a formal agreement after negotiation of details, in the coming months. The WDFW, the National Park Service, the city and others are partners in the restoration of the Elwha River. One ofWDFW's goals is to maintain the existence of the Elwha River Fall Chinook stock if the removal of the dams makes the environment unsuitable for spawning and rearing of this critical stock. Installation of a site to rear, acclimate, and release Elwha Chinook yearlings is part of the strategy to preserve the genetic integrity of this stock. At the yearling life-stage, the Chinook would be transported to proposed ponds at the city's hydropower site on Morse Creek. There they would be reared for a few months and released in early May. Having been reared in Morse Creek water, they will return as adults to Morse Creek rather than the Elwha River. There, their eggs will be harvested and the cycle will begin again. Once the river environment is conducive to spawning, these yearlings will be reared and released at the Elwha River facility to re-establish the stock, and the rearing ponds at the hydropower site will no longer be required. We expect the rearing ponds at the hydropower site to be used through 2014. , .' " Mr. Glenn A. Cutler March 23, 2006 Page 2 At this conceptual stage, we anticipate the proposed project would consist of the following elements: . Use of approximately 4.5 cubic feet per second (CFS) of Port Angeles' water in the months of January through early May of each year. WDFW proposes to tap the waterline using the existing 8" blind flange on' the penstock supplying the hydropower. station. From there, an underground pipeline would lead to the rearing pond site immediately downstream of the parking area. We understand that using of this water for rearing fish rather than power generation, will be a cost to the city. WDFW is anxious to discuss this Issue. . Four or five above ground fiberglass or vinyl fishponds for rearing the Chinook. The ponds will be 8 to 10 feet wide x 80 to 100 feet long x 4-1/2 feet tall, and brown in color. These ponds will have water supplied by the pipeline and will drain by pipe to a ditch- like channel draining to the creek. Obviously, the precise location of the ponds has not yet been determined. They could be located very close to the existing road or a bit further downstream at a flat area very near the creek. The fish waste in the ponds would be removed while the ponds are in use in accordance with a governing National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit. A small, approximately 10' x 20' x 4' structure may be necessary for this. The area in which the ponds are sited will receive compacted gravel surfacing. . A pad for a travel trailer for a person to live in at the site while fish are present. In addition, a trailer or storage container will be used for feed and tool storage. Drinking water will be supplied by bottled water, toilet facility will be a Sanican provided by a local company. . Six foot tall chain link fencing will surround the fish facility and the site will be well-lit in order to provide safety. . Metered electrical power and telephone services are needed, but availability has yet to be determined. . . A gravel road from the existing road to the actual pond site. This may be as short as SO feet or as long as necessary to reach the flatter area nearer the creek. . This development will require earthwork to accommodate these features. The work will require cutting and removal of trees and stumps and limbing of other trees. Exposed soils will receive seeding to control erosion and during construction proper sediment and erosion control measures will be taken to avoid impacts to the stream. \' . ' Mr. Glenn A. Cutler March 23, 2006 Page 3 This work will require environmental permits. WDFW will apply for all necessary County, State and Federal permits that may be necessary. In addition, as the design progresses we will submit our design, including the pipe tap, electrical and telephone connections to the appropriate party in the city for review of those features that may pertain to the operation or reliability of your facility. After the Chinook are once again established in the Elwha (expected to be in the year 2014), the ponds, fencing and trailers will be removed and the site restored and vacated by WDFW. This project does not involve any work on the city's intake upstream. The operation will require permission from the city for access to the site through the locked gate on the existing road. Based on this general outline, I hope you will be able to write a return letter agreeing to the concept, pending a formal agreement at a later date. Such a letter will give us reasonable confidence in the viability of the project and we can start expending the necessary time and funds. We hope to be able to negotiate the details of the facility's impacts and operation in a timely manner. If you have questions about the project or would like to discuss it with me, please feel free to contact me at warrerrw(ci>,dfW.wa.gov via e-mail or by phone at 360-249-1204. a Ron Warren, Region 6 Fish Program Manager cc: Sue Patnude John Kerwin Jo Wadsworth Terry Legg 'Brian D.Winter, Ph.D. Denis Popochock Raymond Berg Bill Freymond ..~