The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About11-25-19 Council Workshop SPECIAL ACCOMMODATIONS: The City of Arlington strives to provide accessible meetings for people with disabilities. Please contact the ADA coordinator at (360) 403-3441 or 711 (TDD only) prior to the meeting date if special accommodations are required. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Barb Tolbert PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL Mayor Barb Tolbert - Wendy APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA Mayor Pro Tem Marilyn Oertle INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS PROCLAMATIONS WORKSHOP ITEMS – NO FINAL ACTION WILL BE TAKEN 1. Ordinance to Amend the 2019 Budget ATTACHMENT A Staff Presentation: Kristin Garcia Council Liaison: Mayor Pro Tem Marilyn Oertle 2. Ordinance to Modify the 2020 Budget ATTACHMENT B Staff Presentation: Kristin Garcia Council Liaison: Mayor Pro Tem Marilyn Oertle 3. 2020 Lodging Tax Distribution Recommendation ATTACHMENT C Staff Presentation: Kristin Garcia Council Liaison: Debora Nelson 4. New Water Source Summary and Update ATTACHMENT D Staff Presentation: Jim Kelly Council Liaison: Josh Roundy 5. Murraysmith Design Contract 2020/21 Utility-Pavement ATTACHMENT E plus Smokey Point Blvd Overlay Staff Presentation: Jim Kelly Council Liaison: Josh Roundy Arlington City Council Workshop Monday, November 25, 2019 at 7:00 pm City Council Chambers – 110 E Third Street SPECIAL ACCOMMODATIONS: The City of Arlington strives to provide accessible meetings for people with disabilities. Please contact the ADA coordinator at (360) 403-3441 or 711 (TDD only) prior to the meeting date if special accommodations are required. 6. Island Crossing Roundabout Design Contract with SCJ Alliance ATTACHMENT F Staff Presentation: Jim Kelly Council Liaison: Debora Nelson/Mike Hopson 7. Salary Schedule for Non-Represented Employees for 2020 ATTACHMENT G Staff Presentation: James Trefry Council Liaison: Mayor Pro Tem Marilyn Oertle 8. October 2019 Financial Report ATTACHMENT H Staff Presentation: Kristin Garcia 9. Miscellaneous council items ADMINISTRATOR & STAFF REPORTS PUBLIC COMMENT For members of the public who wish to speak to the Council. Please limit your remarks to three minutes. COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS REVIEW OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING EXECUTIVE SESSION RECONVENE ADJOURNMENT Mayor Barb Tolbert City of Arlington Council Agenda Bill Item: WS #1 Attachment A and to allow for public comment. Council will not be asked to take action on December 2. Council will Do not approve the proposed amendments and modifications 2) Edit proposed amendments and modifications RECOMMENDED MOTION: Workshop; discussion only. At the December 16, 2019 Council meeting, the recommended motion will be, “I move to approve the ordinance amending the 2019 budget section of the 2019-2020 biennial budget for the City of Arlington, and authorize the Mayor to sign the ordinance.” 1 2019 Budget Amendments Executive Summary There have been a few changes to the 2019 proposed budget amendments from the last review on October 28, 2019; 2019 General Fund – amendments increased by $380,000 • Increased the amount of construction sales tax to be transferred into the capital facilities building fund and public art fund. Based on 3rd quarter construction sales tax collections, initial estimates of the amount to be transferred was too low. New estimates expect a total transfer of $850,000 of construction sales tax in the capital facilities fund and $100,000 into the public art fund ($75,669 of the $100,000 has already been transferred). 2019 Other Funds – amendments increased by $253,500 • Equipment Replacement Fund - $147,000 to replace police vehicles L-88 and L-91 which were totaled due to traffic collision. The replacement vehicles will be paid for through insurance claims. • M&O Fund- $6,500 increase to the amount of ball field revenues to be transferred into the equipment replacement fund. Initial transfer was estimated to be $7,500, current revenues are projected at $14,000. • Capital Facilities Building Fund – increased $50,000 for initial design work on the new fire station, approved by council via Resolution 2019-011. • Airport CIP Fund - $50,000 for final grant closeout and retainage for 2018 Seal Coat Project. ORDINANCE NO. 2019—XXX AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 2018-008 WHICH ADOPTED THE 2019- 2020 BIENNIAL BUDGET OF THE CITY OF ARLINGTON BY PROVIDING SUPPLEMENT THERETO AND PROVIDING TRANSFER AND ADJUSTMENT AUTHORITY FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2019 WHEREAS, staff has identified the need to make certain revisions to the 2019-2020 Biennial Budget that were not foreseen when Ordinance No. 2018-008 was adopted on November 19, 2018, and WHEREAS, this ordinance was introduced with proper notice and citizens have been given the opportunity to comment, and WHEREAS, because this will require increasing the appropriation level in one or more funds, an amendment is needed, NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARLINGTON WASHINGTON AS FOLLOWS; Section 1. Pursuant to RCW 35A34.130, the 2019 Budget section of the 2019-2020 biennial budget is hereby amended to provide for adjustments to expenditures, and by providing authority for any necessary transfers of money within or between funds as indicated in the “Amendment” column on the attached document Exhibit A. Section 2. That the attached is a summary of the amended budget for the year 2019 for the City of Arlington and that copies of the detailed amended budget are available to any interested taxpayer at the Finance Department, City Hall, Arlington, Washington. Section 3. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after its passage and publication of a summary consisting of the ordinance title hereof as authorized by law. Passed b y the City Council and APPROVED by the Mayor this 16th day of December, 2019. CITY OF ARLINGTON _______________________________ Barbara Tolbert, Mayor ATTEST: ___________________________________ Wendy Van Der Meersche, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ____________________________________ Steven J. Peiffle, City Attorney EXHIBIT A 2019 ORIGINAL BUDGET AMENDMENTS AMENDED BUDGET GENERAL FUND 18,001,060$ 2,800,500$ 20,801,560$ GENERAL FUND MANDATORY RESERVE FUND 0 0 0 PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT FUND - GENERAL 102,000 0 102,000 STREETS MAINTENANCE FUND 1,188,845 152,000 1,340,845 SOCIAL SERVICES FUND 5,000 4,000 9,000 GROWTH FUND 557,225 70,000 627,225 EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES FUND 4,696,218 1,172,000 5,868,218 PUBLIC ART FUND 0 0 0 LODGING TAX FUND 154,191 0 154,191 CEMETERY FUND 206,222 27,500 233,722 TRANSPORTATION SALES TAX FUND 1,141,500 0 1,141,500 REET 1 FUND 446,046 0 446,046 REET 2 FUND 288,272 0 288,272 CAPITAL FACILITIES/BUILDING FUND 52,500 1,045,000 1,097,500 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT FUND 1,230,437 580,368 1,810,805 PARK IMPROVEMENT 683,216 744,000 1,427,216 LIBRARY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND 0 0 0 CEMETERY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND 0 0 0 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND 1,200,944 716,000 1,916,944 AIRPORT FUND 3,696,774 719,000 4,415,774 WATER FUND 4,164,542 0 4,164,542 SEWER FUND 6,062,316 0 6,062,316 WATER IMPROVEMENT FUND 3,304,681 74,000 3,378,681 SEWER IMPROVEMENT FUND 788,904 200,000 988,904 STORM WATER CIP FUND 335,000 131,000 466,000 AIRPORT RESERVE FUND 1,400,000 350,000 1,750,000 WATER/SEWER BOND RESERVE FUND 0 0 0 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FUND 1,320,348 0 1,320,348 AIRPORT CIP 1,550,000 400,000 1,950,000 MAINTENANCE & OPERATIONS FUND 1,662,179 24,100 1,686,279 CEMETERY PRE-NEED TRUST FUND 2,000 0 2,000 CEMETERY ENDOWMENT FUND 0 0 0 2019 BUDGET AMENDMENTS - ALL FUNDS City of Arlington Council Agenda Bill Item: WS #2 Attachment B November 4, 2019, council approved funding for 10 public art proposals which totaled $44,600. The Do not approve the proposed amendments and modifications 2) Edit proposed amendments and modifications RECOMMENDED MOTION: Workshop; discussion only. At the December 16, 2019 Council meeting, the recommended motion will be, “I move to approve the ordinance amending the 2020 budget section of the 2019-2020 biennial budget for the City of Arlington, and authorize the Mayor to sign the ordinance.” 1 ORDINANCE NO. 2019—XXX AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 2018-008 WHICH ADOPTED THE BIENNIEL BUDGET OF THE CITY OF ARLINGTON BY PROVIDING SUPPLEMENT THERETO AND PROVIDING TRANSFER AND ADJUSTMENT AUTHORITY FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2020 WHEREAS, staff has identified the need to make certain revisions to the 2019-2020 Biennial Budget that were not foreseen when Ordinance No. 2018-008 was adopted on November 19, 2018, and WHEREAS, this ordinance was introduced with proper notice and citizens have been given the opportunity to comment, and WHEREAS, because this will require increasing the appropriation level in one or more funds, an amendment is needed, NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARLINGTON WASHINGTON AS FOLLOWS; Section 1. Pursuant to RCW 35A.34.130, the 2020 Budget section of the 2019-2020 biennial budget is hereby modified to provide for adjustments to expenditures, and by providing authority for any necessary transfers of money within or between funds as indicated in the “Modification” column on the attached document Exhibit B. Section 2. That the attached is a summary of the modified budget for the year 2020 for the City of Arlington and that copies of the detailed amended budget are available to any interested taxpayer at the Finance Department, City Hall, Arlington, Washington. Section 3. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after its passage and publication of a summary consisting of the ordinance title hereof as authorized by law. Passed b y the City Council and APPROVED by the Mayor this 16th day of December, 2019. CITY OF ARLINGTON _______________________________ Barbara Tolbert, Mayor ATTEST: ___________________________________ Wendy Van Der Meersche, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ____________________________________ Steven J. Peiffle, City Attorney EXHIBIT B 2020 BUDGET MODIFICATIONS - ALL FUNDS ORIGINAL BUDGET MODIFICATIONS MODIFIED BUDGET GENERAL FUND 18,431,255$ 443,684$ 18,874,939$ GENERAL FUND MANDATORY RESERVE FUND - - - PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT FUND - GENERAL 10,000 250,000 260,000 STREETS MAINTENANCE FUND 1,134,894 - 1,134,894 SOCIAL SERVICES FUND 2,000 - 2,000 GROWTH FUND 1,057,225 257,000 1,314,225 EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES FUND 4,863,050 105,614 4,968,664 PUBLIC ART - 45,000 45,000 LODGING TAX FUND 149,191 - 149,191 CEMETERY FUND 212,358 1,909 214,267 TRANSPORTATION SALES TAX FUND 2,048,000 - 2,048,000 REET 1 FUND 447,641 (103,528) 344,113 REET 2 FUND 284,871 - 284,871 CAPITAL FACILITIES/BUILDING FUND 17,500 9,000 26,500 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT FUND 4,883,525 782,000 5,665,525 PARK IMPROVEMENT 224,113 121,970 346,083 LIBRARY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND - - - CEMETERY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND - - - EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND 1,443,839 320,363 1,764,202 AIRPORT FUND 3,760,453 30,000 3,790,453 WATER FUND 4,043,664 44,000 4,087,664 SEWER FUND 6,027,480 52,043 6,079,523 WATER IMPROVEMENT FUND 2,476,181 - 2,476,181 SEWER IMPROVEMENT FUND 1,092,904 500,000 1,592,904 STORM WATER CIP FUND 500,250 - 500,250 AIRPORT RESERVE FUND - 162,889 162,889 WATER/SEWER BOND RESERVE FUND - - - STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FUND 982,331 22,000 1,004,331 AIRPORT CIP 1,611,111 2,712,889 4,324,000 MAINTENANCE & OPERATIONS FUND 1,726,479 38,024 1,764,503 CEMETERY PRE-NEED TRUST FUND 2,000 - 2,000 CEMETERY ENDOWMENT FUND - - - - GRAND TOTAL ALL FUNDS 57,432,315$ 5,794,857$ 63,227,172$ City of Arlington Council Agenda Bill Item: WS #3 Attachment C not limited to; meeting council priorities, overall rating, attendance, community events, free events, economic benefit to the city and events that attract out of town visitors. The committee did not award applications should meet at least 50% of the scoring criteria to be eligible for funding. 3 applications Project Sponsor/Contractor Project Title Total Project 33% Project Match 66% Amount Requested Maximum to Award COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS Rating 100,500$ 33,165$ 66,330$ 19,000$ 19,000$ 19,000$ 88.8 113,500$ 37,455$ 74,910$ 54,900$ 54,900$ 54,900$ 81.3 9,000$ 2,970$ 5,940$ 6,000$ 5,940$ 5,940$ 80.0 9,122$ 3,010$ 6,021$ 4,000$ 4,000$ 4,000$ 78.8 15,575$ 5,140$ 10,280$ 7,375$ 7,375$ 7,375$ 77.5 16,810$ 5,547$ 11,095$ 10,730$ 10,730$ 10,730$ 75.0 11,875$ 3,919$ 7,838$ 5,500$ 5,500$ 5,500$ 70.0 22,620$ 7,465$ 14,929$ 68.8 12,250$ 4,043$ 8,085$ 66.3 10,000$ 3,300$ 6,600$ 65.0 17,000$ 5,610$ 11,220$ 63.8 8,500$ 2,805$ 5,610$ 62.5 28,550$ 9,422$ 18,843$ 60.0 7,500$ 2,475$ 4,950$ 60.0 2,240$ 739$ 1,478$ 58.8 9,000$ 2,970$ 5,940$ 31.7 10,000$ 3,300$ 6,600$ 30.0 75,000$ 24,750$ 49,500$ 23.3 Popular Music at Byrnes Performing Arts Center Downtown Business Association Downtown Arlington Show and Shine 2020 Lodging Tax Distribution Downtown Business Association Arlington Street Fair Downtown Business Association Tourism Brochure Event SeatingCity of Arlington City of Arlington Summer Entertainment Series City of Arlington Stillaguamish Eagle Festival Arlington Fly-In Airplane and Balloon Festival Stillaguamish Valley Genalogical Society Northwest Genealogy Conference Downtown Business Association Hometown Holidays Downtown Business Association Summer Kick Off Concert Stilly Valley Chamber Fourth of July Grand Parade Snohomish Motorcycle Club Park and Ride Motorcycle Raffle Run Stillaguamish Valley Pioneers Association Pioneer Days Stilly Valley Chamber Harvest Festival Downtown Business Association Eagle Festival Stilly Valley Chamber Visitor Information Center Arlington Arts Council Art in Legion Park Arlington Arts Council City of Arlington Council Agenda Bill Item: WS #4 Attachment D Screening Water Supply Alternatives Memorandum (Brown & Caldwell Aug 2016), the City evaluated enhancement of existing Haller wells, expansion of the Airport well, new wells at other off-river sites, and new wells within the City’s current permitted point of withdrawal (POW). During this time our efforts had to adapt to recent water law changes involving the Foster Decision (2015 Foster v. Ecology, City of Yelm, and Washington Pollution Control Hearings Bd), the Hirst Decision (Whatcom County vs. Hirst, Futurewise, et al.), and the recent Reclaimed Water Rule (Jan 2018). After evaluating impacts, opportunities, costs associated with all possible new water sources, it has been determined that the most secure approach that will maximize development of current water rights is the installation of a new production well at our current POW, and investigation of future wells at other downstream sites adjacent to the Stillaguamish River. Since this option will be pumping groundwater under the influence of surface water, all water will have to be treated per DOH surface water regulations. The City’s WTP is at maximum capacity and will need to be expanded to meet future demands. Work scheduled for 2020 includes: - Install two test wells Install new production well and well house -Begin design of WTP expansion ALTERNATIVES: -Project update only, no action or alternatives being considered RECOMMENDED MOTION: No action requested. This is being presented for project update and informational purposes only. DRA F T CITY OF ARLINGTON WATER SUPPLY 2019 SITE SCREENING ANALYSIS CITY COUNCIL REVIEW VERSION, NOVEMBER 2019 DRA F T DRA F T CITY OF ARLINGTON WATER SUPPLY 2019 SITE SCREENING ANALYSIS CITY COUNCIL REVIEW VERSION, NOVEMBER 2019 Prepared for: City of Arlington 154 W. Cox Avenue Arlington, WA 98228 Prepared by: Pacific Groundwater Group 2377 Eastlake Avenue East, Suite 200 Seattle, Washington 98102 206.329.0141 www.pgwg.com November 1, 2019 JZ1904 PGG Arlington Screening Report v5.doc DRA F T City of Arlington iv 2019 Site Screening Analysis TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. 1 2.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 3 3.0 WATER RIGHTS, WATER USE AND PROJECTED DEMAND ............................................ 7 4.0 HYDROGEOLOGIC CONDITIONS ........................................................................................... 9 4.1 SITE 1 ...........................................................................................................................................13 4.1.1 Target Aquifers and Completion Depths .................................................................................13 4.1.2 Anticipated Well Yields and Multi-Well Considerations .........................................................14 4.1.3 Surface-Water Interactions and GWI ......................................................................................15 4.2 SITE 12 .........................................................................................................................................16 4.3 SITE 10 .........................................................................................................................................16 4.3.1 Target Aquifers and Completion Depths .................................................................................16 4.3.2 Anticipated Well Yields and Multi-Well Considerations .........................................................17 4.3.3 Surface-Water Interactions and GWI ......................................................................................18 4.4 HALLER-NORTH SITE ...................................................................................................................18 4.4.1 Target Aquifers and Completion Depths .................................................................................18 4.4.2 Anticipated Well Yields and Multi-Well Considerations .........................................................19 4.4.3 Surface-Water Interactions and GWI ......................................................................................20 4.5 HALLER WELLFIELD SITE .............................................................................................................20 4.6 MAINSTEM STILLAGUAMISH RIVER SITES ....................................................................................21 4.6.1 Target Aquifers and Completion Depths .................................................................................21 4.6.2 Anticipated Well Yields and Multi-Well Considerations .........................................................21 4.6.3 Surface-Water Interactions and GWI ......................................................................................22 5.0 WATER-QUALITY CONSIDERATIONS ..................................................................................23 5.1 NATURALLY OCCURING CONSTITUENTS ......................................................................................23 5.2 SUSCEPTABILITY TO CONTAMINATION .........................................................................................23 5.2.1 Site 1 ........................................................................................................................................24 5.2.2 Site 12 ......................................................................................................................................25 5.2.3 Site 10 ......................................................................................................................................25 5.2.4 Haller-North Site .....................................................................................................................27 5.2.5 Haller-Wellfield Site ................................................................................................................28 5.2.6 Mainstem Stillaguamish River Sites ........................................................................................28 6.0 DRILLING STRATEGIES AND COSTS ....................................................................................28 7.0 WATER-RIGHTS STRATEGIES ................................................................................................31 7.1 ACCESSING INCHOATE WATER RIGHTS ........................................................................................31 7.1.1 Showing of Compliance ...........................................................................................................31 7.1.2 Water-Rights Changes vs. Mitigated New Water-Right Permits .............................................32 7.1.3 Consideration of Surface-Water Impacts.................................................................................33 7.2 DISCUSSIONS WITH ECOLOGY AND WDFW ....................................................................................35 7.3 WATER-RIGHT STRATEGY RECOMMENDATIONS ..........................................................................36 7.3.1 Permitting Strategies ...............................................................................................................37 7.3.2 Optimizing New Groundwater Development ...........................................................................38 7.4 TIMING AND COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH SOURCE DEVELOPMENT & WATER-RIGHT ACQUISITION 39 8.0 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...............................................................................43 8.1 PURPOSE .......................................................................................................................................43 8.2 SITE DESCRIPTIONS ......................................................................................................................43 DRA F T City of Arlington v 2019 Site Screening Analysis 8.3 WELL YIELDS ...............................................................................................................................44 8.4 WATER QUALITY ..........................................................................................................................45 8.5 DRILLING METHODS .....................................................................................................................46 8.6 WATER MANAGEMENT—FINDINGS ..............................................................................................46 8.7 WATER RIGHTS—STRATEGIES .....................................................................................................47 8.8 WATER RIGHTS—MITIGATION .....................................................................................................48 8.9 RECOMMENDATIONS.....................................................................................................................49 9.0 REFERENCES ...............................................................................................................................51 TABLES Table 3-1 City Water Rights Summary Table 2-1 Site Assessment Matrix Table 5-1 Ecology’s Confirmed and Suspected Contaminated Sites in the Arlington Water Supply Study Area Table 6-1 Planning Level Drilling Cost Estimates Table 7-2 Instream Flows for Tributaries of the Stillaguamish Mainstem and North and South Forks FIGURES Figure 1-1 Vicinity Map Figure 3-1 City of Arlington Demand Projections Figure 4-1 Thickness of Unconsolidated Deposits Figure 4-2 Cross-Section A-A’ Figure 4-3 Cross-Section B-B’ Figure 4-4 Cross-Section C-C’ Figure 4-5 Distribution of Well Specific Capacity in Arlington Vicinity Figure 4-6 Close-Up View of Haller North Site and Site 1/12 Figure 4-7 Estimated Distance-Drawdown Relationships at the Haller-North Site Figure 4-8 Estimated Distance-Drawdown Relationships at Site 1/12 Figure 4-9 Estimated Distance-Drawdown Relationships at Site 10 Figure 5-1 Upper Aquifer Groundwater Elevations & Ecology Sites Figure 7-1 Government Lots in the Haller Park Wellfield Vicinity APPENDICES Appendix A Summary of Hazardous Waste Facilities Appendix B Conceptual Mitigation Analysis Appendix C Preliminary Action Items for Each Water Source Approach for Phases 1 and 2 DRA F T City of Arlington vi 2019 Site Screening Analysis SIGNATURE This report, and Pacific Groundwater Group’s work contributing to this report, were reviewed by the undersigned and approved for release. Peter Schwartzman Associate Hydrogeologist Washington State Hydrogeologist No. 2461 DRA F T City of Arlington REVIEW DRAFT - 1 2019 Site Screening Analysis 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY November 1, 2019 Dear Reader, As the City and community of Arlington continue to grow and expand, it is crucial that the City provide a safe and secure potable water supply to support that growth. This document repre- sents the City of Arlington’s continuing efforts to fully develop its current water rights, and to secure long-term potable water sources to meet the future needs of the Arlington community. The work ef- fort contained in this document was completed by Pacific Groundwater Group, Inc. (PGG) in collab- oration with the City of Arlington. It builds on previous work completed by Brown & Caldwell, Tup- per-Mack-Wells, PLLC, and the Washington State Department of Ecology. The City of Arlington and PGG reviewed the possible new water source locations contained in the Brown & Caldwell 2017 Technical Memorandum and identified three as potential candidates deserving additional in-depth evaluation. In addition, three new sites were added to the site evalua- tion list. This report details the criteria included for evaluation and results from the evaluation (site hydrogeologic conditions, potential well yield, water quality, mitigation requirements with water right transfers, etc.). Based on the evaluation, the City is proposing to move forward with the following plan to meet the immediate ten-year projected water requirements: • Add additional wells at the Haller Well Field to maximize yield from this permitted location. • Expand the filtration capacity of Arlington’s Water Treatment Plant. • Install test wells and evaluate yield capacity at other downstream location(s) near the Stillaguamish River for future water supply (beyond the ten-year horizon). The work plan detailed in this document will allow the City of Arlington to meet the commu- nity’s current and future water needs while also ensuring that the water development is sustainable, within the Stillaguamish River ecosystem, and is compliant with Washington state water laws. ___________________________ ___________________________ James X. Kelly, PE Michael Wolanek Public Works Director Sr. Water Resources Planner City of Arlington City of Arlington DRA F T City of Arlington REVIEW DRAFT - 2 2019 Site Screening Analysis This page blank for formatting and pagination DRA F T City of Arlington REVIEW DRAFT - 3 2019 Site Screening Analysis 2.0 INTRODUCTION The City of Arlington (City) holds water rights for the annual production (Qa) of 4,224 af/yr at a maximum rate (Qi) of 3,430 gpm at its Haller and Airport well fields. However, physical limitations currently prevent the City from realizing full production from these rights. For example, of 2,850 gpm Qi at Haller wellfield, the City can only produce 1,650 gpm. Out of 580 gpm Qi at the Airport, the City can only produce approximately 250 gpm. The “untapped” and unavailable portion, referred to as inchoate water, totals 1,530 gpm, or 45% of the City’s water rights. In addition, the City fore- casts that a Qa of 3,300 af/yr and a Qi of 4,091 gpm and will be needed by 2036; and that 5,498 af/yr and 6,817 gpm will be needed by 2066 (Arlington, 2019). The City’s water sources are situated within the Stillaguamish basin, where the regulatory environ- ment includes closure to new water appropriations, minimum instream flows on the Stillaguamish River and potential mitigation on numerous tributary streams to satisfy the Foster court decision. Accordingly, the City retained Pacific Groundwater Group (PGG) to provide the City with assistance in navigating the hydrogeologic and water rights constraints in order to achieve the City’s long term water supply objectives. This technical report is a work product included under Task 2 of Pacific Groundwater Group’s (PGG’s) 2019 Water-Supply and Water-Rights Strategy Assistance contract. Task 2 includes the fol- lowing scope elements relevant to this report: • Based on a refined understanding of the City’s objectives, concerns, and preferences , PGG will update hydrogeologic elements of our prior analysis (presented in Brown & Caldwell’s 2017 tech- nical report). Updated ranking of three sites for additional groundwater supply will employ a col- laborative process between PGG and City Staff to capture the factors of greatest importance for consideration. • PGG will consult with Ecology’s Northwest Regional Office (NWRO) on an informal basis to discuss conceptual permitting and mitigation approaches and make preliminary recommendations regarding the viability of different groundwater development options. • PGG will document our findings in a report that includes a revised ranking matrix and an explan- atory narrative. The report will build upon PGG’s previous work efforts and include: identifying potential locations and completion aquifers for new sources, adjusting the ranking system to align with the City’s current expressed preferences, and providing more supporting information to ad- dress the City’s concerns. Both water-supply and water-rights considerations will be addressed. The revised evaluation will also include such considerations as: timing of execution, likelihood of success/risk, and preliminary estimates of costs related to well drilling, water-right processing and mitigation. PGG will again meet with City Staff to discuss our findings and select the preferred course(s) of action (Meeting #3). • Once the City identifies its preferred option(s), PGG will follow up with targeted recommendations for subsequent water source exploration, design, construction, and testing. Our recommendations will be included in a final version of the updated memorandum. PGG will support City staff in presenting the results of our analysis to the City Council. DRA F T City of Arlington REVIEW DRAFT - 4 2019 Site Screening Analysis During our April 30, 2019 meeting, PGG and the City agreed that site selection would occur in two phases. Phase 1 seeks to increase available water supplies by providing access to all currently incho- ate water rights. Phase 1 efforts would focus on siting and developing new supply wells in the shal- low groundwater flow system by using portions of water rights associated with the City’s Haller and Airport sites for transfer and for use as mitigation offsets. These water right and water source changes are expected to have a high likelihood of regulatory approval and to be achievable within a relatively short time frame. When Phase 1 is complete, approximately 1,500 gpm of inchoate water will be supplied via transfers and mitigation. The City’s current water rights portfolio will be put to full beneficial use—primarily through production at the Haller Wellfield—and will meet the City’s future water needs through approximately 2029.. Whereas Phase 1 will exercise all (or most) of the City’s existing water rights, Phase 2 will seek new water rights to be mitigated with reclaimed water and other sources. As discussed in the April meet- ing, Phase 2 will likely consider deep groundwater sources and other aquifers which may not be in hydraulic connection with surface waters in the basin (per the Stillaguamish Instream Flow Rule). New source locations are also anticipated adjacent to the Stillaguamish River (“near-River sites”), with fewer sites directly impacting Portage Creek and other tributaries (“near-tributary sites”). Miti- gation proposals may be more detailed, and may draw upon portions of the City’s reclaimed water production that supports flows in the Stillaguamish River. While distinct in their approaches, the two phases are not necessarily intended to be implemented separately, and may occur concurrently. PGG and the City then defined sites to be evaluated as the screening process moved forward. Out of twelve potential sites identified in the Brown & Caldwell 2017 Memo, the City and PGG selected three preferred sites. While identified fairly early in the process, these sites target deeper aquifers and are anticipated to require more complex mitigation plans, and are therefore considered Phase 2 sites. All three sites are closer to Portage Creek than the Stillaguamish River, and are referred to later in this report as near-tributary sites. These sites are shown on Figure 1-1 and include: 1) Site 1 is under Snohomish County jurisdiction on the Portage Creek Wildlife Sanctuary, and is located southeast of 59th Avenue and north of Cemetery Road. It is close to existing infra- structure but may have some easement/access restrictions due to onsite wetlands and a fed- eral conservation easement. It is situated on the Stillaguamish floodplain, but distant from the river. Proximity to mainstem Portage Creek may raise GWI concerns. 2) Site 12 is west of 59th Avenue and north of Site 1 on the west end of a small farm under pri- vate ownership. It is situated between two forks of Portage Creek, raising concerns for GWI, and may be encumbered by onsite wetlands. 3) Site 10 is located farthest “downstream” (relative to the Stillaguamish River), is least likely to be classified as GWI, and is relatively far from existing water transmission infrastructure. It is private agricultural land in active cultivation. The team also identified a fourth site north of the Stillaguamish River because it was the inspiration for the Phase 1 concept of providing access to inchoate water without requiring mitigation. It is the first of three general sites referred to later in this report as near-River sites. DRA F T City of Arlington REVIEW DRAFT - 5 2019 Site Screening Analysis 4) The “Haller-North” site is opposite the City’s Haller Wellfield on the north bank of the Stil- laguamish River. It contains the remainder of the 40-acre quarter-quarter section that defines the original POW of the Haller wellfield. Additional wells could potentially be developed as a “showing of compliance” with existing wells under Haller water rights, making full use of inchoate portions of these rights. Transmission across the Stillaguamish River could be ex- pensive and “groundwater under the influence of surface water” (GWI) concerns may apply. Subsequent conversations led the team to identify two other sites whose distinction is beneficial to the development of water supply alternatives. 5) Haller wellfield is the same site in production under most of the City’s water rights. It is a “workhorse” in terms of the City’s water supply. It consists of three wells that are listed here in order from furthest to closest to the river: Well 1R, reconstructed circa 2002; Well 2, con- structed circa 1962; and Well 3, in nearly continuous use since the early 1900s. Only wells 2 and 3 are in regular use as Well 1R is high in iron and manganese. City staff identified as a fifth site to include “Well 4”—located on or immediately adjacent to the existing wellfield footprint, but as close to the river as is Well 3. It is a Phase 1, near-River site which would avoid water right permitting through a showing of compliance under the POW of existing water rights. 6) At PGG’s recommendation, near-River locations along the Stillaguamish River downstream of the confluence (and Haller wellfield) are broadly described as the sixth site. These loca- tions, by definition, avoid impacts to smaller tributaries to the Stillaguamish, such as Portage Creek. While mitigation requirements may be complex relative to the Showing of Compli- ance, they are generally straightforward with regard to impacts on the river. Mitigation through reuse of the City’s reclaimed water to augment river flows is considered straightfor- ward on these sites. These sites could contribute to both Phase 1 and Phase 2 objectives. During a follow-up meeting on July 9th 2019, discussion focused on options that would circumvent some of the water-right challenges identified at a meeting between PGG and the Department of Ecol- ogy (Ecology) on June 28th, 2019. Groundwater development at any site near the Stillaguamish River (“near-river” sites) and at-or-downstream of the Haller wellfield would be relatively easy to permit by modifying existing Haller water rights. This could include expansion of pumping at Haller well- field, new pumping at Haller-North, or new pumping at near-river sites downstream of Haller well- field. In addition to permitting ease, supplemental analysis by PGG indicated that these development op- tions would make the most efficient use of the Haller water rights. Discussion also focused on the high value of reclaimed water to mitigate transfers of existing water rights, and to acquire new water rights with near-river points of withdrawal (POW’s). Near channel POW’s would likely require treat- ment per surface-water standards due to GWI considerations. This report addresses hydrogeologic conditions, water-supply options, and water-rights considera- tions associated with the siting options discussed above. The following elements are evaluated and addressed: DRA F T City of Arlington REVIEW DRAFT - 6 2019 Site Screening Analysis • Hydrogeologic conditions, including: o Target aquifers and completion depths o Anticipated well yields and potential considerations regarding multiple wells o Groundwater interactions with surface-water features and GWI considerations • Water quality considerations • Drilling strategies and costs • Water rights strategies • Recommendations including consideration of timing of execution, likelihood of suc- cess/risk, preliminary estimates of well drilling costs, and water right processing and miti- gation. This work was performed and this report was prepared in accordance with generally accepted hydro- geologic practices at this time and in this area for the exclusive use of the City of Arlington. Use of this report and any information or analyses contained herein for any purpose beyond interim assess- ment of local water-supply and water-rights strategies is at the sole risk of the person, persons, or or- ganization using the information or analyses. Pacific Groundwater Group is not responsible for, and makes no warranty for, any other use of the information and analyses presented herein. No other war- ranty, expressed or implied, is made. DRA F T City of Arlington REVIEW DRAFT - 7 2019 Site Screening Analysis 3.0 WATER RIGHTS, WATER USE AND PROJECTED DEMAND The City’s water rights are documented in the 2017 Amendment to its Water System Plan (WSP), which includes a full description of each water right’s attributes and in some cases re- strictions (such as period of use and interruptability). The City’s existing water rights total 3,430 gpm (Qi) and 4,223.83 af/yr (Qa). These water rights are distributed between the Haller wellfield (83 percent of Qi, 92 percent of Qa) and the Airport Well (17 percent of Qi, 8 percent of Qa). A summary of the City’s water rights is shown in Table 3-1. Non-additive quantities identified in the 1986 Airport water right allow some flexibility and mobility of withdrawals between sources. Capacities of the City’s individual water sources are described in detail in the Brown & Caldwell 2017 technical report. Based on that report, the City is not fully exercising their authorized Qi or Qa. Total production that is accessible by the City’s current water production facilities is 1,900 gpm. Relative to the City’s allocated Qi of 3,430 gpm, 1,530 gpm are currently inaccessible. This is also referred to as inchoate water throughout this report. The City reported using 1,670 ac-ft in 2018 distributed between sources as follows: Haller well- field 1,453 ac-ft, Airport Well 83.5 ac-ft, and the Snohomish PUD Intertie 133.6 ac-ft. Compared to the City’s allocated Qa, the combined 1,537 ac-ft pumped from City sources in 2018 left 2,687 af/yr unused (2,451 af/yr at the Haller wellfield). The City’s maximum day demand is predicted to reach nearly 4,100 gpm by 2036 (City of Ar- lington, May 2018), an increase of 2.5 times the 2016 maximum rate shown on Figure 3-1. The projected demand will exhaust the City’s current instantaneous water rights of 3,430 gpm by 2029. An additional 661 gpm will be required to meet the demand in 2036 (20-year planning horizon), and 3,387 gpm in water rights are needed to fully serve demand in 2066. It is also un- derstood that shortfalls between MDD and Qi can be accommodated through increased reservoir storage capacity and strategic water system operation. The City’s annual consumption will double over the same period, reaching 3,300 af/yr in 2036 (Figure 3-1). The City’s current total annual water rights of 4,224 af/yr are more durable than the instantaneous rights. The surplus of 924 af/yr held in 2036 is projected to be exhausted in 2049 (30 years), and another 1,274 afy will be required by 2066 (50-year planning horizon). Long-term, the City will require more than 11,000 gpm to service customers on a peak day in 2116 (100 years), and will need 7,650 gpm in additional water rights (323%) to meet this obliga- tion (Figure 3-1). Annual water rights will need to more than double to meet customer demand of nearly 9,000 af/yr in 100 years. The City anticipates it will be increasingly difficult to obtain wa- ter rights to meet these demands, and would like to improve its portfolio as much—and as soon—as possible. The present limitations of the City’s production wells illustrate the need for additional, alternative sources. Deficits are currently borne through wholesale purchases from PUD. The City has identified benefits of reducing its reliance on its PUD to the maximum extent DRA F T City of Arlington REVIEW DRAFT - 8 2019 Site Screening Analysis practicable, including cost savings and integrated management of its utilities within the context of the Stillaguamish and Snohomish basins. DRA F T City of Arlington REVIEW DRAFT - 9 2019 Site Screening Analysis 4.0 HYDROGEOLOGIC CONDITIONS PGG evaluated hydrogeologic conditions at the three Phase 2 groundwater sites, Site 1, Site 12, Site 10, and at the Phase 1 Haller-North site by reviewing mapped surficial geology and driller’s logs of local wells, updating a previous thickness map of unconsolidated sediments, developing three hydrogeologic cross-sections near the proposed Sites, and updating a previous map and his- togram of specific capacity (a key indicator of potential well yield). Based on this information, we identified likely water-bearing zones in the shallow groundwater flow system and potential for deep water-supply exploration at each site, potential well yields, and likely hydraulic continu- ity with nearby surface-water features. We further interpreted available data to address consider- ations regarding multiple wells per site and potential Washington Department of Health (WDOH) concerns regarding GWI. Figure 1-1 shows surficial geology mapped in the site vicinity along with the traces and wells used to construct new hydrogeologic cross sections. Key hydrogeologic units are described in the 2017 B&C Technical Report, with the shallow aquifer system occupying saturated portions of the recent alluvium (Qal), Vashon recessional outwash (Qvr) and Vashon advance outwash (Qva). In the Marysville Trough, the Qal, Qvr, and Qva are hydraulically connected and form a single shallow aquifer. Beneath the Qva is a regional silty/clayey aquitard called the Transitional Beds (Qtb), which overlies undifferentiated unconsolidated sediments (Qu) that contain both fine-grained, low-permeability sediments and coarser-grained, water-bearing sediments such as the “older gravels” (Qog). Phase 1 water-supply options will target the Qal, Qvr and/or Qva aq- uifers, whereas Phase 2 may target either shallow or deep water-bearing units. Beneath these unconsolidated geologic units (and sometimes exposed on the land surface) lies bedrock comprised of conglomerate, sandstone, siltstone and shale that presents little potential for water supply. The 2017 Technical Memo included a map of interpreted depth to bedrock (thickness of unconsolidated deposits), which is presented herein as Figure 4-1 with several mod- ifications. The thickness of unconsolidated deposits is relevant to possible future water needs in Phase 2, where opportunities for developing wells in the deeper aquifer system (Qog) may be considered. The map includes depth-to-bedrock contours interpreted on a regional scale by the USGS (Jones, 1996) and points representing unconsolidated sedimentary thicknesses per local well interpreted based on geologic descriptions in driller’s logs. Both of these interpretations contain notable inaccuracies. During development of the hydrogeologic cross sections, review of well logs indicated that local drillers use a common vernacular that sometimes confuses bedrock with unconsolidated sedimentary deposits. In some cases, sediments that are most likely sandy Qva are described as “sandstone” and sediments that are most likely rocky glacial till (Qvt) are described as “conglomerate”. These inaccurate descriptions affect some of the unconsolidated deposit thicknesses attributed to wells on Figure 4-1, and PGG has more confidence in logs de- veloped by hydrogeologists or engineers than by some local drillers. The regional depth-to-bed- rock contours are clearly incorrect in some locations, such as at the Haller wellfield (where bed- DRA F T City of Arlington REVIEW DRAFT - 10 2019 Site Screening Analysis rock was encountered at 35 feet below ground surface in Well 1R yet USGS contours imply al- most 600 feet of unconsolidated material) and along a meander in the Stillaguamish River (where bedrock is observed in the riverbed but USGS contours imply a depth of 450 feet — see Note 4 in Figure 4-1). Reliable data to characterize depth-to-bedrock are sparse and subsurface bedrock relief can be dramatic. Therefore, rather than trying to update the contours on Figure 4-1, PGG added notes to locations where reliable bedrock depths have been characterized. The following observations describe general trends in depth to bedrock supported by available data: 1) Bedrock crops out along the south and north forks of the Stillaguamish River and wells between the two streams suggest local bedrock “highs”. A lone bedrock outcrop is also noted along a meander in the Main Stem, as indicated by Note #4 in Figure 4-1. 2) Bedrock is generally shallow north of the Main Stem in the central portion of Figure 4-1. 3) South and west of the South Fork and Main Stem, depth-to-bedrock increases in a south- western direction. Few well logs are available to substantiate depth-to-bedrock, but a deep water well located immediately southwest of Phase I Site 10 shows bedrock deeper than 574 feet, and two oil/gas exploration wells located further west and southwest sug- gest bedrock at depths increasing from 900 to about 1700 feet. 4) Whereas bedrock near Site 1, Site 12, and Site 10 is expected to be at least 300 to 600 feet deep, bedrock in the Haller-North Site vicinity may be variably shallow. Although the Haller Well 1R encountered bedrock at 35 feet, other nearby wells exhibit thicker un- consolidated sediments (exceeding 60-150 feet thick), which suggest dramatic topo- graphic relief in the buried bedrock surface. Hydrogeologic cross-sections were prepared through or near the Phase I Sites (Figure 1-1). The cross-sections run east-west through the Haller-North Site (Figure 4-2, as A-A’), east-west through (or near) Sites 10 and 1/12 (Figure 4-3, as B-B’), and north-south between Sites 10 and 1/12 (Figure 4-4, as C-C’). All wells near the cross-section traces that had locatable street ad- dresses or parcel ID’s were included; however, clusters of multiple wells were “thinned” to just retain the most reliable driller’s log(s). The cross-sections use color-coded “stick logs” to illus- trate the sedimentary textures and bedrock occurrence noted in driller’s logs; however, delinea- tion of geologic units was based on joint consideration of drillers logs and the surficial geology mapped on Figure 1-1. In some cases, PGG favored mapped surficial geology over driller’s de- scriptions where descriptive terminology was questionable, ambiguous, or imprecise. Particularly uncertain geologic contacts are indicated with “?” symbols in Figures 4-2 through 4-4 where in- formation was insufficient to differentiate between sandstone and Qva, between Qvr and Qva (where Qvt was absent), between Qal and other coarse-grained glacial sediments that may under- lie the Stillaguamish floodplain, and where variable depths to bedrock suggest dramatic subsur- face bedrock relief. Geologic contacts along the west side of Section B-B’ were interpreted to be DRA F T City of Arlington REVIEW DRAFT - 11 2019 Site Screening Analysis consistent with prior characterization performed by the USGS (Frans & Kresch, 2004). All geo- logic contacts are drawn with dashed lines to indicate the approximate nature of the geologic in- terpretation. Figure 4-5 shows the geographic distribution of specific capacity (SC) values derived from well testing reported on driller’s logs. SC is the ratio between rate of withdrawal (in gallons per mi- nute, or “gpm”) and the pumping drawdown (in feet). SC provides a rough indication of potential well yield, and is influenced by the transmissivity of the aquifer, the well design, and the well ef- ficiency. PGG included SC data from pumping and bailing tests, but not airlift tests. Pumping- test data are considered most accurate, bailer-test data are considered moderately accurate, and airlift data are considered poor accuracy. SC can be maximized in properly designed wells that: • employ maximum screen length relative to the saturated thickness of the aquifer but without allowing pumping water levels to fall within the screened interval; • employ larger-diameter screens or larger-diameter boreholes with “sandpacks” sur- rounding the screen; and • are properly developed to reduce “skin effects” along the borehole wall. Because many of the wells in the project area were likely constructed for domestic use without attention towards maximizing SC, associated SC values could possibly be increased for opti- mally designed and constructed wells. Nevertheless, observations regarding the distribution of specific capacity include: 1) SC values were grouped in ranges from very low (<1 gpm/ft), to low (1-5 gpm/ft) to me- dium (5-10 gpm/ft) to high (10-100 gpm/ft) to very high (>100 gpm/ft). Mapped symbol sizes are scaled between these five ranges. 2) Figure 4-5 differentiates between wells with (more accurate) pumping-test data vs. wells with (less accurate) bailer-test data, and between wells with accurate locations vs. wells located to the nearest quarter-quarter section. Wells with pumping-test data are plotted with darker symbols to emphasize their relatively higher accuracy. 3) All three Phase I Sites are located in areas with Qal exposed on the land surface. Shallow wells in these areas are likely completed in Qal, whereas deeper wells may be completed in underlying water-bearing sediments. 4) The mapped dataset includes fewer wells with pumping-test data (307) than wells with bailer-test data (653). Both of these data groupings show a slight bias towards higher SC wells in areas with Qal exposed at the land surface. The table below summarizes the dis- tributions of SC values between Qal and all other surficial geologic exposures for both pumping-test and bailer-test data. The (more accurate) pumping-test data particularly suggest higher SC’s associated with Qal surficial exposures – despite the limited number of Qal, pump-tested wells. DRA F T City of Arlington REVIEW DRAFT - 12 2019 Site Screening Analysis Specific Capacity (gpm/ft) SC from Pumping Tests SC from Bailer Tests Qal Not Qal Qal Not Qal <1 12 34% 164 60% 11 41% 386 62% 1-5 5 14% 73 27% 9 33% 171 27% 5-10 5 14% 15 6% 1 4% 22 4% 10-100 12 34% 15 6% 3 11% 12 2% >100 1 3% 5 2% 3 11% 35 6% TOTAL => 35 272 27 626 Transmissivity is a hydraulic property of an aquifer that reflects its ability to conduct groundwa- ter. Transmissivity (T) can be roughly estimated based on SC. Driscoll (1986) estimated that T = 2000*SC for confined aquifers and T=1500*SC for unconfined aquifers. For example, SC values of 10-100 gpm/ft would yield rough T estimates in an unconfined aquifer of 15,000-150,000 gpd/ft (2,000-20,000 ft2/d). PGG used this rough relationship between SC and T to estimate po- tential well yields at Phase I Sites in the subsections below. Surface-water features in the project vicinity include the Stillaguamish River and multiple small streams and ditches (Figure 1-1). Although pumping impacts to Portage Creek and Quilceda Creek have been referenced in past evaluations, other small streams may also require considera- tion. Conversations with Ecology and reviews of existing agency guidance suggest that many of these features are closed for further withdrawal and may be protected by regulation against fur- ther hydrologic impact. Any proposed shifts in the points of groundwater withdrawal from the Haller wellfield and Airport Well to new sites would have to address (and potentially mitigate) changes in the distribution of hydrologic impacts among a subset of these surface-water features. Section 7 addresses the question of protected surface-water features in more detail. Groundwater withdrawals that capture water from surface-water features are regulated by WDOH as GWI. Treatment requirements for GWI are raised when: 1) water that occupied the surface-water feature is transported into the well, and 2) aquifer filtration between the surface- water and the well is insufficient to remove associated microbes and pathogens. WDOH guid- ance defines potential GWI sources as: • All infiltration galleries, • Ranney wells, • Springs, and • Wells less than 50 feet deep that are located within 200 feet of a surface-water feature. Avoiding these screening criteria does not necessarily avoid WDOH’s evaluation of GWI. Dis- cussion with WDOH hydrogeologist Sheryl Howe 1 indicates that WDOH considers a variety of factors when assessing GWI including: lateral and vertical separation from the surface-water fea- ture, aquifer textures and hydraulic properties, groundwater flow directions with and without 1 Personal communication between Sheryl Howe (WDOH) and Peter Schwartzman (PGG) on July 2, 2019. DRA F T City of Arlington REVIEW DRAFT - 13 2019 Site Screening Analysis pumping, and whether the feature is perennial or ephemeral. DOH indicated they are less con- cerned about GWI for wells farther from surface-water features (e.g. 1,000 feet or more) and they are also less concerned about wells that are proximal to ephemeral streams. For any given site, hydrogeologic characterization would be required to assess GWI and PGG recommends consultation with WDOH to provide sufficient information for reasonable interpretation. Observations regarding hydrogeologic conditions, potential target completion aquifers, typical specific capacities, expected well yields, nearby surface-water features and potential GWI con- cerns are applied below to PGG’s assessment of the various sites identified as prospective water sources. 4.1 SITE 1 Site 1 is comprised of individual sites 1A, B, and 1C, totaling 91 acres. The area is part of the Portage Creek Wildlife Sanctuary, managed by Snohomish County Parks . Hydrogeologic analy- sis as a single site is appropriate since available data are largely insufficient to distinguish hydro- geologic conditions between them. Figure 4-6 provides a zoomed-in view of the combined site complex. Site 1 lies immediately north of Portage Creek (and associated ditches) and about 2,000 to 5,000 feet southeast of the nearest Stillaguamish River meander. Portions of the site complex are occupied by wetlands; although the wetland locations have not been surveyed and hydrogeo- logic conditions supporting wetland occurrence have not been documented. Although the prox- imity of Site 1 to existing infrastructure may provide advantages, portions of the site in immedi- ate proximity to Portage Creek (and associated ditches) may raise GWI and instream flow con- cerns. In addition, conservation easements on the wetlands (USDA Conservation Futures) and any hydrologic impacts would likely require both wetland mitigation and permitting at the Fed- eral level. 4.1.1 Target Aquifers and Completion Depths The Site 1 is located in the Stillaguamish River floodplain, where Qal is exposed at land surface (Figure 1-1). Hydrogeologic conditions near the Site 1 are best illustrated in hydrogeologic cross-section B-B’ (Figure 4-3). The western edge the site immediately borders an escarpment leading up to a Qvr terrace. Groundwater levels along the edge of the terrace are higher than ad- jacent floodplain elevations, and groundwater discharge from the terrace to the floodplain may explain local wetland features. While it is possible that shallow, lower-permeability strata be- neath the floodplain support perched groundwater and wetland conditions, well logs are unavail- able in the immediate vicinity, and logs from nearby floodplain wells do not suggest the occur- rence of shallow aquitards. Geologic logs on cross-section B-B’ show at least 50 feet of saturated coarse-grained material within the floodplain without “bottoming out” in lower permeability sed- iments. Deeper well completions were likely not pursued because sufficient yields were achieved at the depths drilled. PGG could not confidently designate the thickness of Qal deposits beneath the valley floor, as the Qal may be underlain by other coarse-grained, water-bearing sediments (e.g. Qvr, Qva). For the purpose of maximizing well yield, geologic designations matter less than the thickness and texture of water-bearing materials, which may be increased where Qal directly overlies Qvr, Qva, or other water-bearing units. The target aquifer for the Site 1 is the Qal and DRA F T City of Arlington REVIEW DRAFT - 14 2019 Site Screening Analysis possibly underlying water-bearing sandy and gravelly sediments. Well completion depths are ex- pected to exceed 60 feet; however, on-site exploration would be required to determine the devel- opable depth of water-bearing materials. The likelihood of encountering a deeper aquifer at the Site 1 Complex is difficult to predict due to lack of reliable nearby data (Figure 4-1). The site complex lies between a reliable data point at the Haller wellfield (shallow depth to bedrock) and a second data point just west of I5 (bedrock depth > 574 feet). While it is likely that several hundred feet of unconsolidated sediments under- lie the site complex, the actual thickness and likelihood of encountering Qog deposits is un- known. 4.1.2 Anticipated Well Yields and Multi-Well Considerations As noted in Section 4.0, specific capacities (SC’s) in the 10-100 gpm/ft range are slightly more common in wells completed in the floodplain (and likely tapping Qal). Assuming at least 50 feet of saturated aquifer thickness and at least 35 feet of available drawdown, a well with a SC of 15 gpm/ft could yield about 500 gpm. Some wells in the floodplain were tested at yields of several hundred gallons per minute, although these yields may not be designed to maximize yield and may be limited by the capacity of the installed pump. Older agricultural wells were sometimes constructed of larger-diameter (e.g. 3-foot) caissons, and larger diameters increase well yield. Testing of a new well is ultimately required to ascertain available yield at Site 1. Preliminary calculations suggest that the ability of Site 1 to provide the entire target Qi of 1,500 gpm is uncertain, even if multiple production wells are completed onsite. PGG used the aquifer test software AQTESOLV to provide an approximate estimate of distance-drawdown relation- ships using the method of Theis (1935). AQTESOLV assumptions included: a single hypothet- ical production well; two parallel east-west constant-head (river) boundaries at distances of 700 and 2,300 feet to represent Portage Creek and the Stillaguamish River respectively; an aquifer transmissivity of 22,500 gpd/ft (3,000 ft2/d based on an assumed SC of 15 gpm/ft in an uncon- fined aquifer 2); and sufficient pumping duration to achieve a stabilized cone of depression. Figure 4-8 shows predicted drawdown for a single well pumping at 500 gpm in the direction to- wards the closest river boundary (minimum drawdown) and towards the farthest river boundary (maximum drawdown). It also shows predicted drawdown assuming there is no hydraulic con- nection between the aquifer and Portage Creek (e.g. assuming a low hydraulic conductivity streambed consistent with low streamflow velocity). The Theis method suggests that a 100 per- cent efficient well would exhibit about 36 to 43 feet of drawdown (assuming there is and is not a hydraulic connection to Portage Creek, respectively). Both of these drawdown estimates exceed the 35 feet availability assumed above, and losses associated with well inefficiency would further increase drawdown. Thus, a single high-efficiency well might be limited to around 375 to 450 gpm, and multiple productions wells would be needed to increase wellfield yield. For example, assuming direct proportionality of drawdown to pumping rate, PGG estimated that three high- 2 Assumed SC is based on the SC distribution analysis in Section 4.0, focusing on the lower-end of the 10-100 gpm/ft range. Although still lower SC values are reported, PGG assumes that a wellfield would not likely be com- pleted in lower productivity materials. Site exploration and testing will be required to confirm transmissivity as- sumptions. DRA F T City of Arlington REVIEW DRAFT - 15 2019 Site Screening Analysis efficiency wells along an east-west line spaced 500 feet apart could yield around 1000 gpm if both streams are hydraulically connected to the aquifer and around 750 gpm if only the Stil- laguamish River is hydraulically connected to the aquifer. The calculations above assume a moderate transmissivity (3,000 ft2/d) consistent with around 50 feet of sandy aquifer materials with a hydraulic conductivity of 60 ft/d. At the upper end of the noted SC range (100 gpm/ft), transmissivity may be on the order of 150,000 gpd/ft (20,000 ft2/d), which is more consistent with mixed sands and gravels. In this case, AQTESOLV predicts that a single well pumping at 1,500 gpm would exhibit 17 feet of drawdown with the aquifer connected to both river boundaries and 19 feet with the aquifer only connected to the Stillaguamish River. Both predictions suggest that a single production well could meet the desired yield, as predicted drawdown is well below the assumed 35 feet of available drawdown. Thus, available yield at Site 1 will depend on actual hydrogeologic conditions encountered during drilling and may range from only supplying a portion of the desired 1,500 gpm to supplying the entire amount. 4.1.3 Surface-Water Interactions and GWI Surface-water features near the Site 1 include Portage Creek (and its associated east-west ditches), other small creeks/ditches on the valley floor, and the Stillaguamish River. Pumping of on-site wells would likely result in baseflow reductions in the river and multiple small streams and ditches. Section 4 (Water-Rights Strategies) addresses regulatory considerations and require- ments for mitigation of baseflow depletion on protected local streams. A shift in location from the inchoate water right at the Haller wellfield to locations farther from the Stillaguamish River and closer to multiple protected small streams may result in mitigation requirements on a number of streams. An appropriate analytical tool would be needed to estimate changes in the distribu- tion of baseflow impacts among protected streams associated with shifting a point-of-withdrawal from the Haller wellfield to Site 1. Such analysis is beyond the current scope of this investiga- tion. Water-level impacts to local wetlands could result from drawdown associated with pumping on- site wells. The potential extent of wetland impacts would depend on whether low-permeability sediments underlie the wetlands, thus creating “perched” conditions that reduce the influence of drawdown in the underlying regional aquifer. Further hydrogeologic characterization of the (e.g. drilling of exploration or test wells) would be needed to better define the potential for pumping impacts on wetlands; however, some level of wetland impact is likely to result from future groundwater withdrawals. Typical mitigation approaches include “pump-and-dump,” where a portion of the pumped volume is discharged into the wetland to offset drawdown impacts (Sec- tion 4). As noted in Section 4.0, WDOH’s concerns about GWI extend beyond the simple guidance crite- ria (200-foot lateral distance and 50-feet vertical separation) and depend on local site hydrogeo- logic conditions. Locating a well in the middle of the site complex or along the northern bound- ary of Site 1 would maintain lateral separation from nearby streams. PGG discussed potential GWI concerns with on-site wetlands with WDOH, and similar guidance exists for wetlands as for streams (distance from wetlands is WDOH’s first line of inquiry; however, supplemental hy- drogeologic assessment may be required). DRA F T City of Arlington REVIEW DRAFT - 16 2019 Site Screening Analysis 4.2 SITE 12 Site 12 is comprised of two parcels (12N, 12S) composing a privately owned farm 12.3 acres in size. Site 12 is immediately north of and abuts the eastern half of Site 1. Centroids of the two sites are about 1,000 feet apart. Site 12 is situated about 3,500 feet southeast of the mainstem Stillaguamish River. The site is located between mainstem Portage Creek (1,800 feet to the southeast) and a small “agricultural” tributary (350 feet north), raising questions about whether the site would be classified by Health as GWI, thus requiring filtration and disinfection as if it were a surface water source. Wetlands may occupy portions of the site. Because of the close proximity with Site 1, and because of the large scale of available hydrogeologic data, the hydro- geology of Site 12 is considered the same as Site 1 (see Section 4.1). Figure 4-6 provides a zoomed-in view Sites 1 and 12. 4.3 SITE 10 Site 10 is comprised of a primary agricultural parcel Site 10 (34.4 acres) and a smaller, alterna- tive 10-acre residential site to the southeast (10a) that belongs to the same family. PGG’s hydro- geologic analysis combines both sites, which is appropriate since available data are largely insuf- ficient to distinguish hydrogeologic conditions between them. Discussion with City Staff and the 2017 Technical Memo indicates that Site 10a is slightly higher in elevation, dries quicker after the rainy season, but is substantially more expensive than 10. Site 10 is distant from existing in- frastructure, but we understand the City is considering a water main in the area. There are no wetlands on Site 10, and the nearest mapped surface-water feature (South Slough) is dry or inter- mittent. Other nearby surface-water features include Portage Creek (a minimum of 900 feet to the southwest) and the Stillaguamish River (a minimum of 2,500 feet to the northeast). 4.3.1 Target Aquifers and Completion Depths Site 10 is located in the Stillaguamish River floodplain, where Qal is exposed at land surface (Figure 1). Hydrogeologic conditions near Site 10 are best illustrated in hydrogeologic cross-sec- tion B-B’ (Figure 4-3). Although the cross section appears to imply that the site is immediately adjacent to an escarpment leading up to Qvr terrace, the escarpment actually occurs about 2,000 feet to the southeast (as shown on Figure 1-1)3. Similar to Site 1, drilling at Site 10 is expected to encounter a (yet undocumented) thickness of Qal sediments underlain by stratified glacial sedi- ments. Geologic logs on cross-section B-B’ show at least 50 feet of saturated coarse-grained ma- terial within the floodplain without “bottoming out” in lower permeability sediments. Sediments identified as Qva beneath the Qvr terrace may extend beneath the valley floor, and PGG could not confidently differentiate a transition between Qal and possible Qva deposits. The target aqui- fer for Site 10 is the Qal and possible underlying coarse-grained, water-bearing glacial sedi- ments. Well completion depths are expected to exceed 60 feet; however, on-site exploration would be required to determine the developable depth of water-bearing materials. 3 Site 10 is projected on to the cross section rather than being intersected by the cross section. Thus, it is the site pro- jection that occurs close to the terrace escarpment rather than the site itself. DRA F T City of Arlington REVIEW DRAFT - 17 2019 Site Screening Analysis The likelihood of encountering a thick sequence of unconsolidated sediments beneath Site 10 is somewhat informed by a nearby well that penetrated 574 feet of unconsolidated sediments with- out encountering bedrock. The thickness of unconsolidated sediments beneath Site 10 is likely to exceed 500 feet, and could be several hundred feet thicker. Exploration would be required to de- termine the actual depth to bedrock and the occurrence of deep aquifer materials above the bed- rock surface. 4.3.2 Anticipated Well Yields and Multi-Well Considerations As noted in Section 4.0, SC’s in the 10-100 gpm/ft are slightly more common in wells completed in the floodplain (and likely tapping Qal). Assuming at least 50 feet of saturated aquifer thick- ness and at least 35 feet of available drawdown, a well with a SC of 15 gpm/ft could yield about 500 gpm. Some wells in the floodplain were tested at yields of several hundred gallons per mi- nute, although these yields may have been limited by the capacity of the pump rather than the well. Older agricultural wells were sometimes constructed of larger-diameter (e.g. 3-foot) cais- sons, and larger diameters increase well yield. Testing of a new well is ultimately required to as- certain available yield at Site 10. Preliminary calculations suggest that the ability of the Site 10 complex to provide the entire tar- get Qi of 1,500 gpm is uncertain, even if multiple production wells are completed onsite. PGG used the aquifer test software AQTESOLV to provide an approximate estimate of distance-draw- down relationships using the method of Theis (1935). AQTESOLV assumptions included: a sin- gle hypothetical production well; two parallel east-west constant-head (river) boundaries at dis- tances of 1,900 and 3,500 feet to represent Portage Creek and the Stillaguamish River respec- tively; an aquifer transmissivity of 22,500 gpd/ft (3,000 ft2/d, based on an assumed SC of 15 gpm/ft in an unconfined aquifer); and sufficient pumping duration to achieve a stabilized cone of depression. Figure 4-9 shows predicted interference drawdown for a single well pumping at 500 gpm in the direction towards the closest river boundary (minimum drawdown) and towards the farthest river boundary (maximum drawdown). It also shows predicted interference drawdown assuming no hydraulic connection between the aquifer and Portage Creek (e.g. assuming a low hydraulic con- ductivity streambed consistent with low streamflow velocity). The Theis method suggests that a 100 percent efficient well pumping at 500 gpm would exhibit about 41 to 46 feet of drawdown (assuming there is and is not a hydraulic connection to Portage Creek, respectively). Both of these drawdown estimates exceed the 35 feet availability assumed above, and losses associated with well inefficiency would further increase drawdown. Thus, a single high-efficiency well might be limited to around 350 to 400 gpm, and multiple productions wells would be needed to increase wellfield yield. For example, assuming direct proportionality of drawdown to pumping rate, PGG estimated that three high-efficiency wells along an east-west line spaced 500 feet apart could yield around 825 gpm if both streams are hydraulically connected to the aquifer and around 660 gpm if only the Stillaguamish River is hydraulically connected to the aquifer. The calculations above assume a moderate transmissivity (3,000 ft2/d) consistent with around 50 feet of sandy aquifer materials with a hydraulic conductivity of 60 ft/d.. At the upper end of the noted SC range (100 gpm/ft), transmissivity may be on the order of 150,000 gpd/ft (20,000 ft2/d), which is more consistent with mixed sands and gravel. In this case, AQTESOLV predicts that a DRA F T City of Arlington REVIEW DRAFT - 18 2019 Site Screening Analysis single well pumping at 1,500 gpm would exhibit 19 feet of drawdown with the aquifer connected to both river boundaries and 20 feet with the aquifer only connected to the Stillaguamish River. Both predictions suggest that a single production well could meet the desired yield, as predicted drawdown is well below the assumed 35 feet of available drawdown. Thus, available yield at Site 10 will depend on actual hydrogeologic conditions encountered during drilling and may range from only supplying a portion of the desired 1,500 gpm to supplying the entire amount. 4.3.3 Surface-Water Interactions and GWI Surface-water features near Site 10 include Portage Creek and the Stillaguamish River. During the April 2019 meeting, PGG understood from the City that South Slough (located immediately north of Site 10) is dry or intermittent. Other small streams and ditches occur at greater distance from Site 10. Pumping of on-site wells would likely focus baseflow reductions on Portage Creek and the Stillaguamish River, with much smaller impacts on the more distant small streams and ditches. As discussed in Section 4.1.3, an appropriate analytical tool would be needed to estimate changes in the distribution of baseflow impacts among protected streams associated with shifting a point of withdrawal from the Haller wellfield to Site 10. Such analysis is beyond the current scope of this investigation. As noted in Section 4.0, WDOH’s concerns about GWI extend beyond the simple guidance crite- ria (200-foot lateral distance and 50-feet vertical separation) and depend on local site hydrogeo- logic conditions. In general, WDOH has a lower level of concern when surface-water features are more than 1,000 feet away, and very low concern for intermittent features. 4.4 HALLER-NORTH SITE Figure 4-6 provides a zoomed-in view of the Haller-North Site. Whereas the existing Haller wellfield (a separate and distinct site in this report) is located south of the Stillaguamish River, the Haller-North site is north of the river and extends as much as 1,000 feet from the river’s edge. Together they occupy the 40-acre Quarter-Quarter section that describes the Haller well- field POW in the earliest water right documents. Future development of a water supply well at the Haller-North Site as far as possible from the river should access groundwater for develop- ment while minimizing the potential for GWI and associated treatment requirements. However, if needed, this site is about a half mile from the City’s WTP, which currently treats GWI condi- tions at the Haller wellfield and is a candidate for expansion. 4.4.1 Target Aquifers and Completion Depths The Haller-North Site is located in the Stillaguamish River floodplain, where Qal is exposed at land surface (Figure 1). Hydrogeologic conditions at the Site are best illustrated in hydrogeologic cross-section A-A’ (Figure 4-2). The section shows that Haller Well 1R (and presumably Wells 2 and 3) are completed in Qal (sand and gravel with variable silt content). Well 1R encountered bedrock at a depth of 35 feet, and Well 2 reportedly encountered bedrock at a similar depth (all three wells are similarly shallow). The bedrock surface near the Haller-North Site is shown as uncertain (delineated with “?” symbols on Figure 4-2) based on the high degree of variability in neighboring wells, some of which do not fully penetrate the unconsolidated sediments. A new DRA F T City of Arlington REVIEW DRAFT - 19 2019 Site Screening Analysis well drilled at the Haller-North Site as far as 1,700 feet northeast of the existing Haller wellfield, could demonstrate a significantly different depth to bedrock. The target aquifer for the Haller- North Site is expected to be saturated Qal sediments; however, data are insufficient to predict the aquifer thickness and associated well completion depth. If bedrock is sufficiently deep, the Qal could be underlain by glacial water-bearing materials (e.g. Qvr or Qva) or silty aquitard (Qtb) materials. Exploratory drilling would be needed to better determine subsurface conditions. Given the relatively shallow bedrock encountered at the existing Haller wellfield and in other surrounding areas, the likelihood of encountering a deep aquifer (Qog) at the Haller-North Site is relatively low. 4.4.2 Anticipated Well Yields and Multi-Well Considerations Quotes from prior reports and communications summarized in the City’s “Haller wellfield Docu- mentation” spreadsheet (Wolanek, 2019) suggest that older test wells encountered yields ranging from about 100 to 1,600 gpm. The existing Haller Well 1R has a 6-foot long screen completed in sand and gravel and was tested at 570 gpm with 6 feet of drawdown (SC = 95 gpm/ft) (PGG, 2002). Drawdown during testing approached the maximum recommended available drawdown for the well. Interference drawdown analysis by PGG suggested that three production wells at the Haller wellfield could jointly produce up to 2,500 gpm 4, although a wellhead elevation survey and additional water-level measurements were recommended to confirm PGG’s findings (Brown & Caldwell, 2011). Significant textural variability is expected in Qal deposits, and prior communications noted tex- tures ranging from silt to gravels/cobbles. If drilling at the Haller-North Site encountered similar conditions as at the Haller wellfield, similar well and wellfield yields would be anticipated. If similar sediments are encountered with deeper penetration (i.e. more available drawdown), pro- portionally higher yields could be anticipated (e.g. twice the available drawdown would provide twice the well yield). However, lower yields are also possible if sedimentary textures are finer grained, and slightly lower yields may occur if a new well at the Haller-North Site is signifi- cantly farther from the Stillaguamish River than the Haller Park wells (proximity to the river re- duces pumping drawdown). Testing of a new well is ultimately required to ascertain available yield on the Haller-North Site. If all groundwater development to fully exercise the City’s existing water rights were to occur on the Haller-North Site, multiple wells might be needed to achieve the desired Qi of 1,500 gpm. PGG used the aquifer test software AQTESOLV (HydroSOLVE Inc., 2007) to estimate the dis- tance-drawdown relationship based on the method of Theis (1935) for a single hypothetical pro- duction well on the Haller-North Site. AQTESOLV assumed a single constant-head (river) boundary 850 feet from the well, an aquifer transmissivity of 700,000 gpd/ft (94,000 ft2/d) based on aquifer testing documented by PGG (2002), and sufficient pumping duration to achieve a sta- bilized cone of depression. The Theis method suggests that a 100 percent efficient well would exhibit about 3.8 feet of drawdown when pumping at 1,500 gpm. Losses associated with well in- efficiency would further increase drawdown, which could potentially be limited as it is at the Haller wellfield. Depending on aquifer conditions and well construction, a single large-diameter 4 Current production from the Haller wellfield is limited to Wells 2 and 3, with a combined capacity of 1,140 gpm) DRA F T City of Arlington REVIEW DRAFT - 20 2019 Site Screening Analysis well at the North-Haller Site could theoretically meet the desired 1,500 gpm capacity. However, if available drawdown is limited, two wells operating at reduced pumping rates could be used to meet the desired yield. Figure 4-7 shows predicted drawdown for a single well pumping at 750 gpm in the direction towards the river (minimum drawdown) and away from the river (maximum drawdown). AQTESOLV predicts that a single 100 percent efficient well pumping at 750 gpm would exhibit about 1.8 feet of drawdown and that a second well located 100 feet away (also pumping at 750 gpm) would cause about 0.7 feet of interference drawdown. Thus, the required 1,500 gpm could likely be achieved with 1-2 production wells at the North-Haller Site. 4.4.3 Surface-Water Interactions and GWI The Haller-North Site is bounded by the North Fork Stillaguamish River on the east and the Main Stem Stillaguamish River to the south (Figure 4-6). Given the proximity of river bounda- ries, pumping from the site is expected to affect baseflows in the adjacent rivers. However, be- cause the Site would be developed under existing water rights and within (or near) the quarter- quarter section designated for groundwater withdrawals, pumping impacts on river baseflows have already been accepted by Ecology. Baseflow depletion associated with pumping does not necessarily imply that the wells will cap- ture surface water from the river. Baseflow depletion can also occur when pumping captures groundwater flowing towards the river, thus reducing the total amount of groundwater gained by the river. WDOH’s concerns regarding GWI would depend on whether (under pumping condi- tions) groundwater is flowing from the river into the wells. Site-specific hydrogeologic charac- terization would be needed to evaluate how the groundwater/surface-water system functions and responds to pumping. Sampling for micro-particulate analysis (MPA) during site exploration might be useful in assessing GWI under current conditions, but WDOH may still require addi- tional information. 4.5 HALLER WELLFIELD SITE Haller wellfield provides the lion’s share of the City’s potable water supply. It contains three wells: Well 1R, reconstructed circa 2002 is about 125 feet south of the south riverbank; Well 2, constructed circa 1962 is about 75 feet south of the river; and Well 3, in nearly continuous use since the early 1900s, is about 55 feet from the river (Figure 4-6). Water quality decreases with increasing distance from the river, even at these small distances. Only wells 3 and 2 are in regu- lar use as Well 1R is high in iron and manganese. City staff identified as a fifth site to include a new “Well 4”—located on or immediately adjacent to the existing wellfield footprint, but as close to the river as is Well 3. It is a Phase 1, near-River site which would avoid water right per- mitting through a showing of compliance under the POW of existing water rights. Because of the close proximity with Haller-North, the hydrogeology of the Haller wellfield is ad- equately addressed by that site. See Section 4.4. DRA F T City of Arlington REVIEW DRAFT - 21 2019 Site Screening Analysis 4.6 MAINSTEM STILLAGUAMISH RIVER SITES At PGG’s recommendation, near-River locations along the Stillaguamish River down-stream of the confluence (and Haller wellfield) are broadly described as the sixth site. These locations, by definition, avoid impacts to smaller tributaries to the Stillaguamish, such as Portage Creek. While mitigation requirements may be complex relative to the Showing of Compliance, they are generally straightforward with regard to impacts on the river. Mitigation through reuse of the City’s reclaimed water to augment river flows is considered straightforward on these sites. 4.6.1 Target Aquifers and Completion Depths The Haller-North Site is located in the Stillaguamish River floodplain, where Qal is exposed at land surface (Figure 1). Hydrogeologic conditions at the Site are best illustrated in hydrogeologic cross-section A-A’ (Figure 4-2). The section shows that Haller Well 1R (and presumably Wells 2 and 3) are completed in Qal (sand and gravel with variable silt content). Well 1R encountered bedrock at a depth of 35 feet, and Well 2 reportedly encountered bedrock at a similar depth (all three wells are similarly shallow). The bedrock surface near the Haller-North Site is shown as uncertain (delineated with “?” symbols on Figure 4-2) based on the high degree of variability in neighboring wells, some of which do not fully penetrate the unconsolidated sediments. A new well drilled at the Haller-North Site as far as 1,700 feet northeast of the existing Haller wellfield, could demonstrate a significantly different depth to bedrock. The target aquifer for the Haller- North Site is expected to be saturated Qal sediments; however, data are insufficient to predict the aquifer thickness and associated well completion depth. If bedrock is sufficiently deep, the Qal could be underlain by glacial water-bearing materials (e.g. Qvr or Qva) or silty aquitard (Qtb) materials. Exploratory drilling would be needed to better determine subsurface conditions. Given the relatively shallow bedrock encountered at the existing Haller wellfield and in other surrounding areas, the likelihood of encountering a deep aquifer (Qog) at the Haller-North Site is relatively low. 4.6.2 Anticipated Well Yields and Multi-Well Considerations Quotes from prior reports and communications summarized in the City’s “Haller wellfield Docu- mentation” spreadsheet (Wolanek, 2019) suggest that older test wells encountered yields ranging from about 100 to 1,600 gpm. The existing Haller Well 1R has a 6-foot long screen completed in sand and gravel and was tested at 570 gpm with 6 feet of drawdown (SC = 95 gpm/ft) (PGG, 2002). Drawdown during testing approached the maximum recommended available drawdown for the well. Interference drawdown analysis by PGG suggested that three production wells at the Haller wellfield could jointly produce up to 2,500 gpm 5, although a wellhead elevation survey and additional water-level measurements were recommended to confirm PGG’s findings (Brown & Caldwell, 2011). Significant textural variability is expected in Qal deposits, and prior communications noted tex- tures ranging from silt to gravels/cobbles. If drilling at the Haller-North Site encountered similar conditions as at the Haller wellfield, similar well and wellfield yields would be anticipated. If 5 Current production from the Haller wellfield is limited to Wells 2 and 3, with a combined capacity of 1,140 gpm) DRA F T City of Arlington REVIEW DRAFT - 22 2019 Site Screening Analysis similar sediments are encountered with deeper penetration (i.e. more available drawdown), pro- portionally higher yields could be anticipated (e.g. twice the available drawdown would provide twice the well yield). However, lower yields are also possible if sedimentary textures are finer grained, and slightly lower yields may occur if a new well at the Haller-North Site is signifi- cantly farther from the Stillaguamish River than the Haller Park wells (proximity to the river re- duces pumping drawdown). Testing of a new well is ultimately required to ascertain available yield on the Haller-North Site. If all groundwater development to fully exercise the City’s existing water rights were to occur on the Haller-North Site, multiple wells might be needed to achieve the desired Qi of 1,500 gpm. PGG used the aquifer test software AQTESOLV (HydroSOLVE Inc., 2007) to estimate the dis- tance-drawdown relationship based on the method of Theis (1935) for a single hypothetical pro- duction well on the Haller-North Site. AQTESOLV assumed a single constant-head (river) boundary 850 feet from the well, an aquifer transmissivity of 700,000 gpd/ft (94,000 ft2/d) based on aquifer testing documented by PGG (2002), and sufficient pumping duration to achieve a sta- bilized cone of depression. The Theis method suggests that a 100 percent efficient well would exhibit about 3.8 feet of drawdown when pumping at 1,500 gpm. Losses associated with well in- efficiency would further increase drawdown, which could potentially be limited as it is at the Haller wellfield. Depending on aquifer conditions and well construction, a single large-diameter well at the North-Haller Site could theoretically meet the desired 1,500 gpm capacity. However, if available drawdown is limited, two wells operating at reduced pumping rates could be used to meet the desired yield. Figure 4-7 shows predicted drawdown for a single well pumping at 750 gpm in the direction towards the river (minimum drawdown) and away from the river (maximum drawdown). AQTESOLV predicts that a single 100 percent efficient well pumping at 750 gpm would exhibit about 1.8 feet of drawdown and that a second well located 100 feet away (also pumping at 750 gpm) would cause about 0.7 feet of interference drawdown. Thus, the required 1,500 gpm could likely be achieved with 1-2 production wells at the North-Haller Site. 4.6.3 Surface-Water Interactions and GWI The Haller-North Site is bounded by the North Fork Stillaguamish River on the east and the Main Stem Stillaguamish River to the south (Figure 4-6). Given the proximity of river bounda- ries, pumping from the site is expected to affect baseflows in the adjacent rivers. However, be- cause the Site would be developed under existing water rights and within (or near) the quarter- quarter section designated for groundwater withdrawals, pumping impacts on river baseflows have already been accepted by Ecology. Baseflow depletion associated with pumping does not necessarily imply that the wells will capture surface water from the river. Baseflow depletion can also occur when pumping captures groundwater flowing to- wards the river, thus reducing the total amount of groundwater gained by the river. WDOH’s concerns regarding GWI would depend on whether (under pumping conditions) groundwater is flowing from the river into the wells. Site-specific hydrogeologic characterization would be needed to evaluate how the groundwater/surface-water system functions and responds to pumping. Sampling for micro-particulate analysis (MPA) during site exploration might be useful in assessing GWI under current conditions, but WDOH may still require additional information. DRA F T City of Arlington REVIEW DRAFT - 23 2019 Site Screening Analysis 5.0 WATER-QUALITY CONSIDERATIONS Water quality considerations included naturally occurring constituents, aquifer susceptibility to contamination, and known or potential risks to water quality from land use activities and facili- ties. GWI considerations are discussed for each site in Section 4. 5.1 NATURALLY OCCURING CONSTITUENTS PGG’s analysis does not include consideration of problematic naturally occurring water-quality constituents such as iron, manganese and arsenic. Requests of WDOH for water quality data as- sociated with drinking water wells were unfruitful. City Staff may want to request water-quality exceedance data for drinking water wells in the WDOH Sentry database. 5.2 SUSCEPTABILITY TO CONTAMINATION The Upper Aquifer in the Arlington area is a valuable source of water supply; however, it is sus- ceptible to potential contamination from land-use impacts because in many areas, including the Marysville Trough, there are no confining layers between the land surface and the regional water table. Shallow groundwater flow directions and potential sources of contamination are discussed in general below, followed by site-specific discussions. Potential sources were identified based on Ecology databases along with consideration of zoning, hazardous material transport on major roads (i.e. Interstate 5, State Route 9, State Route 530) and petroleum conveyance in the Olym- pic Pipeline Groundwater contours and flow directions in the Upper Aquifer from a previous PGG investiga- tion (PGG, 2007) are presented in Figure 5-1. Note that the groundwater contours and associated flow directions on Figure 5-1 are regional and approximate; local characterization is required to understand local groundwater flow directions. In general, the regional groundwater contours mimic topography except that the groundwater surface is more subdued than topographic relief. As shown in Figure 5-1, groundwater flows from upland areas to lowland areas. Groundwater in the Stillaguamish River Valley (lowland) may flow down-valley or may discharge to the river and other small streams. The Marysville Trough (lowland) includes a groundwater divide south of the Airport. Groundwater north of this divide flows toward the Stillaguamish River and groundwater south of the divide flows toward Quilceda Creek and the Lower Snohomish Basin. Potential contaminant risks in the vicinity of the City’s prospective water source sites were in- vestigated and mapped primarily using data from Ecology’s Confirmed and Suspected Contami- nated Sites (CSCS) database and their Facility / Site Identification (FSID) database. These data- bases are separate and include different information; however, the sites in the CSCS database are actually a subset of sites in the FSID database. Sites in both databases are assigned FSID num- bers, which are used in the following text, on Table 5-1, and in Figure 5-1. For screening pur- poses, the CSCS are considered of higher potential risk than the FSID sites because a release is known or suspected. The CSCS database includes details about the types of contaminants-of- concern at a given site and the impacted or potentially impacted media; therefore, the CSCL sites are more informative for purposes of understanding groundwater impacts. The CSCS database DRA F T City of Arlington REVIEW DRAFT - 24 2019 Site Screening Analysis also includes rankings for many sites. Ecology ranks sites after the agency gathers enough infor- mation to complete a site hazard assessment, and these ranks guide how Ecology allocates cleanup resources. The rank is not the same as a risk assessment; rather it is an estimation of the potential threat posed by a site relative to all other ranked sites in the state. The FSID tracks “in- teraction types” that indicate the Ecology program(s) associated with the sites and give some in- sights about why Ecology is involved with the facility or sites, typically related to activities that require permits. The FSID does not specify what potential chemicals of concern are at a given facility, but the Ecology program associated with the site offers some clues (e.g. Air Quality, Toxics Cleanup, Hazardous Waste, Solid Waste). The FSID sites are considered a lower priority for the purposes of evaluating potential water-quality impairment because they represent sites where releases could potentially occur, rather than sites where releases have or are suspected of having occurred. CSCS in the Arlington study area are summarized in Table 5-1 and presented in Figure 5-1. The Facility Site ID (FSID numbers) in Table 5-1 correspond to CSCS labels in Figure 5-1. The left half of the CSCS symbols in Figure 5-11 represent groundwater quality and the right half repre- sent soil quality. The colors of the symbols indicate Ecology’s status of contamination with pri- ority in decreasing order of environmental threat (i.e. confirmed > suspected > concentrations be- low cleanup level > no information). For example, if one contaminant at a given site is confirmed in groundwater and three other contaminants are suspected, the left half of the CSCS symbol for that site is plotted red on Figure 5-1. There are 31 CSCS in the study area, 6 of which that have been ranked by Ecology according to risk (Table 1). The JH Baxter Site on 188th Street NE (FSID 2709) is the only site with the highest assessed risk (1); the Unocal Bulk Plant Site at 211th Place and Lebanon Street (FSID 2810) has a moderate-high risk, and the remaining ranked sites have the lowest assessed risk (Arlington Marysville Landfill FSID 2701, Bryant Landfill FSID 2705, Christianson Co FSID 2787, and the S & T Mini Mart FSID 85995713). Ecology’s FSID database includes hazardous waste generators, solid waste facilities, and under- ground storage tanks (USTs). For previous wellhead protection plans throughout Washington, PGG has applied professional judgement to identify FSID interaction types that may pose risks to groundwater if they are within capture zones for potable supply wells (Appendix A). The FSID locations that meet PGG’s potential risk criteria identified in Appendix A are also plotted in Figure 5-1. For legibility, the FSID sites are not labeled by number in Figure 5-1. It is apparent from Figure 5-1 that the majority of the CSCS and FSID sites are located east and northeast of the airport in an industrially-zoned area, in the downtown vicinity, and near I5 inter- changes. 5.2.1 Site 1 Of the three sites being screened for this investigation, Site 1 is closest to upgradient sites of po- tential concern for contamination. Groundwater in the Upper Aquifer near Site 1 is expected to flow from southeast to northwest (Figure 5-1). Site 1 is zoned agricultural. The area anticipated to be immediately upgradient is zoned residential. Roughly 0.6 miles to the southeast in a gener- ally upgradient direction are areas zoned commercial and industrial (Figure 5-1). Based on the anticipated flow direction, there are two CSCS approximately 0.6 and 0.9 miles upgradient of Site 1: Northwest Hardwoods (FSID 36489214) and the Christianson Co (FSID 2787). There are DRA F T City of Arlington REVIEW DRAFT - 25 2019 Site Screening Analysis also multiple upgradient FSID Sites that are not included in this discussion due to their number. The relatively high density of FSID sites corresponds to the industrially- zoned areas to the southeast. Note that the groundwater contours and associated flow directions on Figure 5-1 are regional and approximate, and that capture zones for a potential well at this site complex were not estimated for this investigation. More local mapping of groundwater flow directions and as- sociated capture-zone delineation (including consideration of on-site groundwater withdrawals) may suggest that additional or fewer sites of concern occur upgradient of the site. The Northwest Hardwoods site has a status of “Cleanup Started” and has not been ranked by Ecology (Table 5-1). Based on the CSCS database: no groundwater contamination is suspected or confirmed; soil concentrations of petroleum compounds are less than cleanup levels; and soil contamination by benzene and organic compounds is suspected. The only document available on Ecology’s CSCS website for Northwest Hardwoods is an Ecology opinion letter from 2013 on a proposed remedial action for the site. The opinion letter states that additional actions were re- quired to address potential commingling of contaminants in groundwater, to evaluate a suspected location of buried drums, to evaluate potential contamination from the septic systems, to identify current and historic potential sources of contamination and pathways, and to provide appropriate information about five USTs. Documents available on Ecology’s CSCS website for Northwest Hardwood do not indicate if the proposed remedial action was modified based on Ecology’s in- put, or if the proposed remedial action was performed. The Christianson Co Site is awaiting cleanup according to the CSCS database and has been as- signed a rank of 5 – the lowest assessed risk by Ecology (Table 5-1). Contamination of metals, petroleum, and organics are suspected in groundwater; and concentrations of metals and petro- leum above cleanup levels have been confirmed in soil. There are no documents associated with the Christianson Co site available on Ecology’s CSCS website to further summarize the environ- mental status or conditions. The nearest major road upgradient of the site is SR9, which is located approximately 1.5 miles to the southeast in an upgradient direction. SR530 is located approximately 0.2 to 0.25 miles to the north. Wellhead protection analysis would be required to estimate whether the capture zone for on-site pumping would potentially underlie either of these highways. If so, spills from transpor- tation of hazardous material along the highways represent a potential source of contamination to water supply wells developed at Site 1. 5.2.2 Site 12 Water quality considerations for Site 12 are the same as for Site 1 since the two sites are immedi- ately adjacent to each other. See Section 5.2.1. 5.2.3 Site 10 Based on Figure 5-1, groundwater in the Upper Aquifer is likely flowing toward Site 10 from multiple directions, including northeast from the greater airport area and north from the area around 188th Street NE. Site 10 and areas anticipated to be immediately upgradient are zoned ag- ricultural. There are commercially and industrially zoned areas approximately 0.6 and 1 miles to the south and southeast and adjacent to Site 10 to the west. Wellhead protection analysis would DRA F T City of Arlington REVIEW DRAFT - 26 2019 Site Screening Analysis be required to estimate whether the capture zone for on-site pumping would potentially underlie these properties. There are a number of potential CSCS that may be upgradient of Site 10 as summarized below. Distances from the CSCS to Site 10 range from about 1.6 to 2.6 miles. In addition, there are mul- tiple FSID sites in the vicinity of the airport (about 1.5 miles away) and between the airport and Site 10 that are potentially upgradient. Note that the groundwater contours and associated flow directions on Figure 5-1 are regional and approximate, and that capture zones for a potential well at this site complex were not estimated for this investigation. More local mapping of groundwa- ter flow directions and associated capture-zone delineation (including consideration of on-site pumping withdrawals) may suggest that additional or fewer sites of concern occur upgradient of the site complex. FSID CSCS Name Rank Status Groundwater Contamination from Alt. Site 10 & 2701 Arlington Marysville Landfill 5 (lowest as- sessed rank) Awaiting Cleanup Confirmed SE 2709 JH Baxter Site 1 (highest as- sessed rank) Awaiting Cleanup Confirmed SE 7583272 Alpha Aviation -- Cleanup Started Confirmed SE 95987863 Arlington City Air- port -- Cleanup Started Suspected SE 51332889 US Marine Bayliner -- Cleanup Started Confirmed SE 63296179 Welco Lumber -- Cleanup Started Confirmed SE 63317244 Poeschel & Schultz Site -- Cleanup Started Suspected S Ecology’s Cleanup Site Details indicate that the agency has been involved with the Arlington Marysville Landfill since 1998. Groundwater contamination above cleanup levels is confirmed for metals, solvents, and some organics; and suspected for unspecified organic matter and other reactive wastes. All of these contaminant categories are suspected in soil. The additional Site Hazard Assessment available on Ecology’s CSCS website states that the site is an old closed landfill covered by two feet of soil. The JH Baxter Site is regulated by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), although it does not qualify for the National Priorities List based on existing information and EPA’s website indicates the current status is No Further Remedial Action Planned (NFRAP). Given the high site ranking, PGG explored information available from the EPA website, which was limited to a 2004 Documentation of Environmental Indicator Determination (EPA, 2004). At that time, EPA found that pentachlorophenol was present in soil and groundwater in concentrations above health-based cleanup levels; that “current human exposures” were considered under control; and DRA F T City of Arlington REVIEW DRAFT - 27 2019 Site Screening Analysis that off-site wells show contaminated groundwater had not migrated offsite although that risk had not been eliminated. Based on the Cleanup Site Details for the Alpha Aviation site, Ecology has been involved since at least 1994. Many of the Ecology activities have been related to Leaking UST notifications, cleanup action plans, and reporting. Ecology’s most recent involvement at the site according to the Cleanup Site Details was an Initial Investigation in 2014 when aviation fuel leaked from an aircraft that was on a concrete apron near the runway. Arlington Fire Department, and the City’s Stormwater and Water department representatives including Mike Wolanek responded to the spill. As a result of the spill, Ecology suspected petroleum and lead contamination of groundwa- ter and soil. Groundwater at the US Marine Bayliner site is contaminated with tetrachloroethene (PCE) at concentrations above cleanup standards according to the Cleanup Site Details. A cleanup remedy involving monitoring natural attenuation and institutional controls has been proposed on behalf of the responsible party, but documents available on Ecology’s CSCS website do not reflect the agency’s opinion on this remedy. The institutional controls prohibit groundwater withdrawals at the site for water supply and limit groundwater withdrawals to purposes of temporary dewater- ing, monitoring, investigation, or remediation (Stantec, 2018). Multiple investigations and voluntary cleanup actions have been performed at the Welco Lumber site to address groundwater and/or soil contamination of metals, pentachlorophenol (PCP) and volatile organic compounds (VOC) (URS, 2014). Reportedly, soil has been remedied by excava- tion and off-site disposal. Multiple rounds of in-situ treatment of groundwater have resulted in declined or stabilized PCP and VOC concentrations, although they still exceed cleanup levels in portions of the site. The responsible party has sought Ecology’s opinion on a no further action with institutional controls; however, documents available on Ecology’s CSCS website do not re- flect the agency’s opinion. The Olympic Pipeline is approximately 0.1 to 0.2 miles to the west of Site 10. The closest major roads are I-5, which is located about 0.2 to 0.3 miles west of Site 10, and SR530, which is lo- cated approximately 0.25 miles to the north. Wellhead protection analysis would be required to estimate whether the capture zone for on-site pumping would potentially underlie the pipeline and highways. 5.2.4 Haller-North Site Based on Figure 5-1, groundwater flow in the Upper Aquifer near the Haller-North Site is antici- pated to be from the upland toward the lowland (south to southwesterly flow). Groundwater flow beneath the lowland (Stillaguamish River floodplain) is undefined; however, characterization at the City’s engineered wetland (across the river) shows that groundwater typically flows parallel with and towards the river, with flow away from the river during flood events. The area antici- pated to be upgradient of Haller-North is zoned industrial and residential. There are no CSCS in the area anticipated to be upgradient of the North Haller Site. There are a few FSID Sites located within the Haller-North Site and within 0.4 to 0.6 miles from the center of the site to the north- DRA F T City of Arlington REVIEW DRAFT - 28 2019 Site Screening Analysis east in the area anticipated to be upgradient, including: the Cadman Materials Inc. facility, CE- MEX sand and gravel operation, WSDOT SR9 Bridge over the Stillaguamish River, Van Slageren Dairy, and Alpha Technologies. State Route 9 transects Haller-North in a north-south alignment (Figure 5-1). Spills from trans- portation of hazardous material along the highway represent a potential source of contamination to water supply wells developed at Haller-North. 5.2.5 Haller-Wellfield Site Water quality considerations at the Haller wellfield are similar to those for Haller-North (Section 5.2.4). Groundwater flow beneath the City’s Stormwater Wetland Park (downstream of the Hal- ler wellfield on the same south bank of the river) typically flows parallel with and towards the river, with flow away from the river during flood events. The area immediately adjacent to and upgradient of Haller wellfield is zoned for parks and recreation, and residential. There are no CSCS upgradient of the site. There are a few FSID Sites located within or adjacent the Haller wellfield, including: Haller Park, Centennial Trail, and the City’s water reclamation facility (WRF) outfall. 5.2.6 Mainstem Stillaguamish River Sites Water quality considerations for the mainstem Stillaguamish River sites are similar to those for Haller-North (Section 5.2.4). Groundwater flow beneath the City’s Stormwater Wetland Park (the upstream-most location for this linear collection of near-river locations) typically flows par- allel with and towards the river, with flow away from the river during flood events. Much of the area along the river is under Snohomish County jurisdiction and is zoned agricultural. The Stormwater Wetland Park is within city limits and is intended to provide treatment or polishing to raw stormwater, high quality WTP backwash water, and Class B reclaimed water. The area is heavily used for summer recreation and fishing. There are no CSCS upgradient of the site. There are a few FSID Sites located within the floodplain and adjacent to the river associated with agri- cultural operations. The water reclamation facility (WRF) outfall is in the river thalweg adjacent to the constructed wetland. 6.0 DRILLING STRATEGIES AND COSTS PGG identified four drilling approaches to evaluate water-supply potential at each prospective water source site and solicited preliminary costs from local drillers. For cost purposes, we as- sumed that the total drilling depth at the Haller-North, Haller wellfield, and Mainstem Stil- laguamish River sites would be 75 feet below ground surface. Drilling depths at Site 1, Site 12, and Site 10 would each be 200 feet below ground surface. All drilling costs assume that site ac- cess will be arranged by the City, water will be made available by the City, site preparations will be performed by the City in advance of drill rig mobilization. The drilling approaches are de- scribed below, and preliminary drilling costs are presented in Table 6-1. DRA F T City of Arlington REVIEW DRAFT - 29 2019 Site Screening Analysis Drilling approach #1 involves using a small, track-mounted sonic drilling rig to drill 6-inch di- ameter exploration boreholes to total depths at each site and installing 2-inch diameter PVC monitoring wells completed (screened) in the target aquifers. The 2-inch diameter monitoring wells could be used to assess seasonal trends in water levels, to collect water-quality samples, and/or could be used as observation wells during testing of a future production or test well in- stalled at the same site. Sonic drilling provides good information on subsurface materials because the drill cuttings are retrieved in continuous cores that are relatively undisturbed. This drilling approach is the most affordable of those considered; however, drilling 6-inch diameter boreholes and 2-inch monitoring wells does not support hydraulic testing that would facilitate estimation of aquifer parameters and potential well yields. Drilling approach #2 is to use sonic drilling methods to advance 8-inch diameter exploration boreholes to total depths at each site, installing temporary well screens for preliminary aqui- fer testing, and installing permanent 2-inch monitoring wells after testing. Upon reaching total drilling depths, 6-inch diameter PVC well screen assemblies would be installed in the boreholes. The sonic core barrel would be retracted just enough to expose the screens and allow the aquifer material to collapse against the screens. The temporary screens would be developed to remove fine-grained material from the aquifer surrounding the screens, followed by installation of a test pump using the 8-inch sonic core barrel as a pump chamber for hydraulic testing. Given the shal- low anticipated depth to water at all three Phase 2, near-tributary groundwater sites, a pump in a 6-inch temporary well may be capable of producing on the order of 100-150 gpm assuming the aquifer can support that yield. The tests could be used to roughly estimate aquifer parameters and potential well yields. Following testing, the 6-inch temporary screen assemblies would be left in place and 2-inch diameter permanent monitoring wells would be installed within the 6-inch screen assemblies. The annual space between the 2-inch and 6-inch screens would be backfilled with sand pack and the remainder of the annular space would be sealed with bentonite. The 2- inch monitoring wells could be used to assess seasonal trends in water levels, to collect water quality samples, and/or to be used as observation wells during future testing of production wells at the individual sites. Drilling approach #3 uses cable tool methods to drill 12-inch diameter permanent test wells at each of the Phase 2,near-tributary groundwater sites. This is the same drilling methodology used to install Well 1R at the Haller wellfield but with a smaller diameter (12 inches vs. 20 inches). Cable-tool drilling produces excellent drill cuttings to understand the subsurface materials and also allows for observation of groundwater levels and responses to drilling/bailing that help eval- uate water-bearing zones. Upon reaching total depths, stainless steel well screens would be in- stalled in the boreholes and possibly surrounded by sand packs. The screens would be developed to remove fine-grained material from the surrounding aquifer formation. Temporary pumps would then be used to perform well tests to estimate aquifer parameters and well yield. Assum- ing the aquifer can support it, pumps installed in 12-inch casing can produce higher yields (on the order of 500 gpm) than pumps in 6-inch casings. The test wells would be completed with 16- inch surface seals, constructed in accordance with WAC 173-160, and could be used by the City for future supply if testing and water quality results are favorable. Drilling approach #4 again uses cable tool methods, but to drill 24-inch diameter permanent production wells at the Phase 2,near-tributary groundwater sites. Upon reaching total depths, DRA F T City of Arlington REVIEW DRAFT - 30 2019 Site Screening Analysis stainless steel well screens would be installed in the boreholes and possibly surrounded by sand packs. The screens would be developed to remove fine-grained material from the surrounding aquifer formation. Temporary pumps would then be used to perform well tests to estimate aqui- fer parameters and well yield. Assuming the aquifer can support it, pumps installed in 24-inch casing can produce higher yields (on the order of 2,000 to 4,000 gpm) than pumps in 12-inch casings. The test wells would be completed with 30-inch surface seals, constructed in accordance with State requirements, and could be used by the City for future supply if testing and water quality results are favorable. Approximate drilling costs are summarized in Table 6-1. For cost purposes we have assumed that each drilling approach will be used to drill at three of six Phase 1 and Phase 2 sites in a sin- gle mobilization: one 75 foot well at Haller-North and one 200 foot well at each of the two site complexes. These costs can be updated to reflect the City’s preferred drilling program as re- quested. Reducing the borehole diameter for the test well option (Drilling approach #3) from 12- inches to 8-inches would save approximately $55,000 (roughly 20 percent); however, the maxi- mum yield of the test well would be reduced from approximately 500 gpm to about 200 gpm. For reference, we have included rough costs in Table 6-1 to install 24-inch diameter production wells at each of the sites with the same assumed depths (75 feet at Haller-North and 200 feet at each at either Site 1 or 12, and Site 10. The production well costs are based on a bid received by PGG recently for another project that we have modify to reflect anticipated drilling depths at the City, and therefore should be considered preliminary and minimum costs. DRA F T City of Arlington REVIEW DRAFT - 31 2019 Site Screening Analysis 7.0 WATER-RIGHTS STRATEGIES This section discusses strategies to make use of the City’s remaining unused (inchoate) water rights in a two phased approach. Phase 1 is considered a 10 year supply window and Phase 2 is for longer term water needs. The Phase 2 additional water right acquisitions will begin concur- rently with Phase 1 in order to assure adequate supply for the latter portion of the 20-year hori- zon (2036) and the 50-year horizon (2066). 7.1 ACCESSING INCHOATE WATER RIGHTS 7.1.1 Showing of Compliance The simplest way to access the City’s inchoate water rights is to add new and/or replacement wells in the point of withdrawal permitted for each water source for which water rights are held. This process is referred to as filing a “Showing of Compliance” under RCW 90.44.100. The ad- vantage to this approach is that it would not require permitting by Ecology, but rather a simple form that is filed with Ecology that is accompanied by logs for the additional or replacement wells. Showing of Compliance is suitable for the Haller Wellfield because it is considered a longterm source with space for expansion. It is not a tool for the Airport Well since the City desires to cease production at that site. The specific language of RCW 90.44.100, however, provides that the construction of the addi- tional well or wells must be at the location of the original well or wells, and then defines that site to be the "location of the original well or wells" as the area described as the point of withdrawal in the original public notice published for the application for the water right for the well. In PGG’s discussions with Ecology’s Northwest Regional Office (NWRO), we requested verifi- cation that using a Showing of Compliance to authorize Haller North was viable. Ecology leaned toward use of the 1965 application, where Ecology (then Conservation) modified the POW de- scription from the City’s “SE ¼ of the NW ¼ of Section 2” (QQS) to “Government Lot 7 of Sec- tion 2”. Figure 7-1 shows the locations of the existing Haller wellfield, the referenced quarter- quarter section and the government lots in the Haller-North vicinity. It is Ecology’s position that the ability to use a Showing of Compliance would be limited to Gov- ernment Lot 7. We have prepared a response since our meeting that should refute that argument and establish the POW as the complete quarter-quarter-section. The original POW describing the Haller well field was created in 1924, not 1965. Water right applications and public notices made in 1924, 2009, 2011, and 2012 referenced the full 40-acre QQS, not the smaller Govern- ment Lot 7. Ecology apparently presumes that Government Lot 7 was reduced in size since 1965 by an avulsion of the Stillaguamish River. However, Government Lot 7 was delineated as one parcel in 1875, which was then bisected by a river avulsion prior to railroad construction in about 1890. There have been no large-scale river changes since that time. DRA F T City of Arlington REVIEW DRAFT - 32 2019 Site Screening Analysis PGG recommends further discussion with Ecology to determine the applicable footprint for the existing POW under Showing of Compliance. The Showing of Compliance strategy was devel- oped with Haller North (north side of the river) in mind, but also applies to additional or alternate wells in closer proximity to existing Haller well field infrastructure. Even if Ecology does not accept a Showing of Compliance for a future Haller North site, we could instead file a formal Application for Change of Water Right as a permitting mechanism to authorize the new site. 7.1.2 Water-Rights Changes vs. Mitigated New Water-Right Permits Authorization to operate any well(s) not in the Haller Wellfield POW will require a permitting action from the Department of Ecology. During our prior discussions with the City, PGG did not specify a preferred mechanism for securing new permits. Instead, two mechanisms have been discussed interchangeably: • Applications for Change (transfers) • Securing a new mitigated water right permit. Applications for Change are the standard mechanism to transfer water rights to new production wells via a request to add/change a point of withdrawal. The process is based on the presumption that the impacts at the original site will be, for the most part, the same at the new site. Operation of the Haller wellfield predominantly impacts the Stillaguamish River, and Ecology would have difficulty authorizing changes to new locations that shift hydrologic impacts to other protected surface-water bodies (e.g. Portage Creek). This same concept applies to a proposed transfer of the Airport well, which, despite its location near the watershed divide, influences several small streams (Portage Creek, Quilceda Creek and others). In fact, the proximity of the WRIA 7/WRIA 5 basin boundary itself complicates transfers of the Airport water right. An additional concern regarding direct transfer from the Haller wellfield to a new site is the fact that most of the (combined) Haller water rights were originally issued as a surface-water right. Surface-water rights are unique because the 1917 Surface Water Code (RCW 90.03), unlike the 1945 Ground Water Code (RCW 90.44), does not provide for the transfer of inchoate rights. In 2018, the inchoate portion of the Haller water rights was 2,451 af/yr (Section 3). Table 3-1 shows that the water-right authorizations for Haller include the PSPL surface-water right (which is oldest of the water rights), the 1965 groundwater right, and a mix of several other smaller surface and groundwater rights. Since the “base” PSPL surface-water right allows for the appropriation of 3,619.84 acre-feet and current use of the Haller wellfield is approximately 1,453 acre-feet, a direct transfer of Surface Water Certificate 194 would be challenging. If we elect to pursue modifying the City’s existing water rights via the filing of an Application for Change, the quantity available for transfer would be limited to the Klein claim and the Neunzig groundwater certificate (805 gpm and 432 af/yr as additive quantities), and the non-additive groundwater cer- tificate associated with the Haller wellfield (1,700 gpm and 1,344 ac-ft allocated by GWC 5169). The surface-water rights would be left “in place”. However, this approach would not provide ac- cess to the remaining 1,107 af/yr of currently inchoate water rights at the Haller wellfield. DRA F T City of Arlington REVIEW DRAFT - 33 2019 Site Screening Analysis The potential complications associated with transferring water rights from the Haller wellfield and Airport well to new sites could possibly be overcome by requesting a new permit that is mit- igated by using a portion of the City’s existing water rights. This approach would include mitiga- tion to offset new hydrologic impacts to protected surface-water features, making the new water right “water-budget neutral”. The simplest version of this approach is to file for a new non-addi- tive (a.k.a. Supplemental or Alternate) water right permit. Under this approach, the City would file for a new permit and request that it be issued solely as an Alternate source. As such, a new water right permit would create a relationship between the older surface and groundwater rights associated with the Haller wellfield, such that the total Qi and Qa were not exceeded. Ecology’s NWRO is more comfortable with the use of the Application for Change route as a means to modify the City’s water right authorizations, however they are open to reviewing other requests if we can make them specific and explain the nuances of the proposal. 7.1.3 Consideration of Surface-Water Impacts Regardless of the permitting approach, the need to address how new sources will affect surface water is a key factor in permitting effort. In the Stillaguamish Watershed, mitigation require- ments are dictated by Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 173-505, which established in- stream flows and closures for the surface water-bodies in WRIA 5 – including all hydraulically connected groundwater. Per the WAC, mitigation would be required for approval of any pro- posed withdrawal that would affect the flow or level of protected rivers and streams. Phase 2 sites (i.e. Sites 1, 12, and 10) are located in the Stillaguamish River floodplain which is threaded with natural creeks and man-made drainage ditches. Potential hydrologic impacts to these surface-water features pose both legal and regulatory concerns for new water-right permit- ting efforts. WAC 173-505-070 states that: “The department [Ecology] determines that, based on historical and current low flows and uses, no water is available for additional year-round appropriation from the streams and tributaries in the Stillaguamish River basin. All unappropri- ated water from the streams and rivers is hereby appropriated for purposes of protecting and preserving fish and wildlife and other instream values, as of the date of this chapter. Therefore, the department closes all the rivers and streams in the Stillaguamish River basin to any further appropriations. This includes all groundwater hydraulically connected to those surface waters, the withdrawal of which will have an effect on the flow or level of the rivers and streams.” The language of WAC 173-505-070 serves as a “general closure” essentially stating that new water is no longer available in the watershed. In addition to determination that new water is not available, the WAC establishes minimum instream flow requirements for the Stillaguamish River, its North and South Forks, and most tributary streams including Portage Creek, Armstrong Creek, Glade-Bekken Creek, Fish Creek, and the Pilchuck River. Minimum instream flow re- quirements for several referenced tributaries are summarized on Table 7-1. DRA F T City of Arlington REVIEW DRAFT - 34 2019 Site Screening Analysis The combination of a “general closure” coupled with specifically identified instream flow re- quirements make it difficult to interpret how Ecology would assess the adequacy of a mitigation plan. From reviewing WAC 173-505 and its supporting information, PGG notes several areas that may be relevant to developing a water-right mitigation strategy for the City: 1. The WAC 173-505 includes language specific to Applications for Change. Section 173- 505-140 (“Future Changes and Transfers”) states that no changes or transfers to existing surface or groundwater rights in the Stillaguamish River basin shall hereafter be granted that conflict with the purposes or provisions of this chapter. Any change or transfer pro- posals can be approved only if there is a finding that existing rights, including instream flows hereby established, will not be impaired. 2. Section WAC 173-505-110 (“Future Permitting Actions”) provides a list of circum- stances under which new surface and groundwater permits may be issued. These include: (a) The proposed use is non-consumptive, and compatible with the intent of this chapter. (b) The applicant elects to submit a scientifically sound mitigation plan, as defined in WAC 173-505-030(7), and it is approved by the department. (c) The proposed groundwater use will not impair senior water rights. Based on the hydrogeology of the basin, and the location and depth where groundwater with- drawals generally occur, future groundwater withdrawals have a high likelihood of capturing water that would result in impacts to surface water flows and levels in the Stillaguamish River basin. Therefore, a groundwater permit that is not sub- ject to the instream flows or closures may be approved only if an applicant can demonstrate, through studies and technical analysis, and to the satisfaction of the department, that the proposed use will not cause impairment to existing water rights, including the instream flows set in this chapter. 3. Finally, the WAC’s definition of terms specifies that a "Mitigation plan" means a scien- tifically sound plan voluntarily submitted by a project proponent to offset the impacts of a proposed water use and approved by the department. A mitigation plan can be submitted to the department for a stream, basin, reach, or other area. A mitigation plan must show that the withdrawal with mitigation in place will not impair existing water rights, includ- ing instream flow rights, or diminish water quality. The plan must provide mitigation for the duration of the water use. PGG notes that in each of the above relevant sections, Ecology specifically references the in- stream flows set in this chapter. This choice of wording could be interpreted to mean that pro- posed mitigations should address established instream flow requirements as opposed to attempt- ing to address the general closure status of the watershed. The ramification of targeting our im- pairment and mitigation analysis to address established flows is that it may be possible that our requested modifications to where and how the City produces its water under its existing water DRA F T City of Arlington REVIEW DRAFT - 35 2019 Site Screening Analysis rights could be different in terms of overall depletion signature, but not actually impair the flows established in WAC. We suggest this issue needs further exploration with Ecology, however. Based on conversations with staff at the NWRO, we understand that this issue is not straight-for- ward, and it may not be possible to completely resolve it without first presenting Ecology with a tangible mitigation proposal. As an additional factor, case law, especially the findings of the recent Foster v. the City of Yelm (2015) case, further limits how streamflow depletions can be offset and mitigated. Ecology’s Water Resources Program is continuing to work with applicants to find creative ways to secure new water rights, but the process is evolving and some of the mitigation tools of the past no longer work. The ramifications for the Foster Case are that for new water rights or change appli- cation to be issued under today’s guidance, mitigation plans must account for potential effects to surface water both in time and in place — which could potentially be a more challenging stand- ard than one might interpret from a review of WAC 173-505. While challenging, the City does have mitigation resources and the ability to both route water to areas that may need direct mitigation and to manipulate its pumping at it currently authorized sites so as to minimize the amount of required offsets. Portage Creek, for example, drains though several areas targeted by the City as well sites, and impacts to it resulting from a new point of withdrawal will likely need to be addressed. Impacts to Portage Creek can be mitigated by a di- rect streamflow augmentation (i.e. pump-and-dump), where makeup water is introduced to the creek upstream of the impacted reach from the City’s distribution system or from a reclaimed water source. Portage Creek however drains a large area and it may be difficult to ensure that water is introduced in areas that Ecology finds acceptable 7.2 DISCUSSIONS WITH ECOLOGY AND WDFW PGG met informally with staff from Ecology’s Northwest Regional Office (NWRO) on June 28, 2019 to discuss conceptual approaches to redistributing the City’s withdrawal points. The salient elements of that meeting are summarized below. 1) Ecology understands current withdrawal limitations of the Haller wellfield (treatment re- quirements under GWI) and the City’s desire to shift production away from the Airport (potential water-quality concerns). Ecology supports the City taking actions to better uti- lize their currently-held water rights. 2) For ease of permitting and to reduce the amount of mitigation needed, NWRO strongly encourages the City to consider withdrawal points that are located in close proximity to the Stillaguamish River and downgradient of the Haller wellfield. 3) NWRO suggests that an Application for Change is likely to be the preferred permitting tool. However, they are willing to consider other options (e.g. mitigated new water right) if presented with clear rational as to how other option would work. 4) The City will need to determine the impacts the new site has on surface-water bodies in the watershed and develop mitigation to offset those impacts. The “tools” to estimate DRA F T City of Arlington REVIEW DRAFT - 36 2019 Site Screening Analysis pumping impacts on streams could range from numerical models to simple analytical methods, but the choice must be justifiable and appropriate given the request. 5) NWRO feels that the Foster v. Yelm Case has ramifications to how impairment is ad- dressed, but has no clear guidance on what Ecology might find acceptable. 6) ALL streams in the watershed need to be protected; however, Ecology is not clear as to what constitutes a protected stream. Ecology noted that some ditches and drainage fea- tures may not need to be addressed and suggests review the background documentation developed for the WAC. Ecology liked our idea of consulting directly with Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife (WDFW) records and using the SalmonScape database as a means of identifying important stream reaches. 7) The Airport Well was discussed in connection with how NWRO generally deals with groundwater impacts near WRIA boundaries, but no clear guidance was provided. We understand that the Airport Well is located in WRIA 7, but that some groundwater in the Airport vicinity flows towards the Stillaguamish River. Ecology acknowledges that more work will be needed to assess which surface water bodies are affected by the operation of the Airport Wells. 8) Ecology suggests early consultation with both the Tribes and the WDFW. 9) Ecology hasn’t finalized their position on the applicability of reclaimed water generated with inchoate water rights for future mitigation. Our discussion NWRO Staff was useful but not particularly instructional. We believe that since we are proposing options based on using existing water rights, Ecology will be cooperative pro- vided our proposal does not include unmitigated new impacts to protected surface-water bodies. Ecology was adamant in their desire to see a more tangible proposal as to where the well would be constructed, how pumping impacts would be determined, and how mitigation would be achieved. PGG reached out to Steve Boessow (WDFW) who noted that local ditches and short reaches of small streams provide fish habitat and would therefore warrant protection from groundwater pumping impacts (Boessow, July 15, 2019). For new groundwater development, he suggested: 1) focusing new water-resource development on near-river sites that won’t significantly impact small streams, and/or 2) mitigation of small-stream impacts from near-tributary sites using groundwater infiltration in a centralized “upper-basin” location within the Portage Creek drain- age. 7.3 WATER-RIGHT STRATEGY RECOMMENDATIONS The following subsections present preliminary recommendations for water-right strategies for gaining access to the City’s currently unused (inchoate) water rights. The recommendations are based on PGG’s evaluation of alternative source locations and scoping interviews with the De- partments of Ecology and Fish and Wildlife. Permitting strategies are presented for the six sites DRA F T City of Arlington REVIEW DRAFT - 37 2019 Site Screening Analysis identified in this report. In addition, PGG performed a conceptual mitigation strategy analysis to assess how new groundwater development at the referenced sites would affect the City’s ability to make use of its current water rights (Appendix B). The conclusions derived from the mitigation analysis are considered to be applicable to develop- ing useful mitigation strategies for the City; however, the quantitative values estimated below are hypothetical and would require refinement with rigorous hydrogeologic analysis (e.g. groundwa- ter modeling). This analysis focuses on optimizing annual allocated quantities (Qa’s). Separate analysis would be required to optimize instantaneous allocations (Qi’s), but similar conclusions are expected regarding the efficiency of various groundwater development strategies. Impacts to Quilceda Creek, if any, can potentially be mitigated by the Airport Well water rights. 7.3.1 Permitting Strategies Permitting new withdrawals at Haller-North and Haller wellfield could be accommodated as Showing of Compliance provided the new site is located within Government Lot 7 or the quar- ter-quarter section on the original application (per Ecology’s determination). Alternatively, if the wells are outside Ecology’s approved POW, the City could file an Application for Change to modify Haller wellfield water rights. We believe that since the Haller-North Site is located downgradient and in close proximity to the Stillaguamish River, and because pumping from the Site will cause similar streamflow impacts as pumping from the Haller wellfield, Ecology will be supportive. Permitting at Sites 1, 12, and 10 could be authorized either by the filing of a mitigated non-addi- tive water-right permit, or transfer of the existing Airport water right. The process for supporting the request, regardless of the permitting mechanism would involve assessing which streams are affected by the currently authorized sources, and which streams would be affected by the pro- posed change. Once the changes to where depletion occurs is determined, we will assess the best ways to offset the impacts. Haller Well Field and Stormwater Wetland Park. The two groundwater development options identified during recent discussions with the City include additional wells at the Haller wellfield and new wells near the channel of the Stillaguamish River downstream of the wellfield, particu- larly at the City owned Stormwater Wetland Park. Construction of additional wells at the Haller wellfield could simply be accomplished using Showing of Compliance. Prior analysis by PGG indicated that three active wells at the Haller wellfield could jointly provide up to 2,500 gpm (Section 4.1.2). PGG recommends updating this analysis to include consideration of four wells and to confirm that the hydraulic influence of the Stillaguamish River is properly represented. Construction of new wells along the Stillaguamish River downstream of Haller wellfield, includ- ing at the City’s Stormwater Wetland Park, could either be accomplished using an Application for Change (if requested quantities remain within the groundwater portion of the Haller water rights, as discussed in Section 7.1.2) or by applying for a new mitigated non-additive water-right permit (to access inchoate portions of the Haller surface-water right). DRA F T City of Arlington REVIEW DRAFT - 38 2019 Site Screening Analysis 7.3.2 Optimizing New Groundwater Development PGG performed a conceptual mitigation analysis to assess the best use of existing water rights among four possible POW’s for new groundwater development (Appendix B). POW’s consid- ered included “Haller” (Haller wellfield plus the Haller-North Site), the Airport Site, new sites along the Stillaguamish River downstream of Haller (near-river site at the Stormwater Wetland Park) and new sites in the vicinity of the small streams near-tributary Site 1, Site 12, and Site 10). PGG’s analysis was based on hypothetical distributions of surface-water depletion associ- ated with pumping (“streamflow depletion profiles”) which were generated using best profes- sional judgment. In order to be used for water-rights processing, the assumptions of this analysis would need to be refined based on more rigorous methods and consultation with Ecology. PGG worked with these assumptions to optimize access to the inchoate portions of existing water rights, further assuming that all applicable water-right operations (i.e. Application for Change, Showing of Compliance, use for mitigation of a new non-additive permit) are equally acceptable to Ecology. PGG developed the following broad-based conclusions, which are applicable to the City’s current effort towards optimizing their water rights among existing (and possible future) POW’s: 1. The City’s Haller water rights are best used at POW’s that present similar streamflow de- pletion profiles as from pumping at the Haller wellfield. New pumping at the “Haller” and “near-river” POW’s fit that criteria, should not be subject to minimum instream flows or closures, and are therefore considered “no-loss” groundwater development strategies that would not incur new mitigation requirements. 2. Use of the City’s Haller water rights to mitigate for new groundwater withdrawals at “near-tributary” POW’s, except perhaps the portion that may be used in non-additive fashion to increase withdrawals from the Airport wellfield, requires that a significant por- tion of the inchoate water rights be used to mitigate pumping impacts on small streams. This strategy results in significant loss of availability for existing water rights to be used for water supply. 3. The Airport water rights are additive, but also include access to up to 376 af/yr of “non- additive” water with a corresponding decrease in production at Haller wellfield. The ad- ditive portion is best used to mitigate new withdrawals at near-tributary sites, because both the Airport POW and near-tributary POW’s are expected to cause significant pump- ing impacts on small streams. A small portion of the Airport water right would be lost to mitigate for changes in the streamflow depletion profile. Using the non-additive portion to mitigate new near-tributary withdrawals would result in the same small loss of use due to mitigation requirements; however, this could be avoided by retiring the non-additive portion and instead managing it as part as the Haller water-right package. Any use of the non-additive portion (e.g. for actual pumping or for mitigation) requires a commensurate reduction in pumping at Haller. Thus, retiring the non-additive portion maximizes water availability at Haller (where no-loss groundwater development strategies are available). 4. These conclusions assume that mitigation is sourced directly from the City’s water rights (e.g. by foregoing pumping; infiltration of reclaimed water to augment streamflows; or “pump-and-dump” direct discharge of reclaimed water to streams). If reclaimed water is DRA F T City of Arlington REVIEW DRAFT - 39 2019 Site Screening Analysis used for mitigation, loss of access to the City’s inchoate water rights for water-supply purposes could be substantially reduced and development from near-tributary sites might be more appealing. However, routing reclaimed water to mitigation sites in the small stream network could be prohibitively expensive, and use of reclaimed water for mitigat- ing significant changes in streamflow depletion profiles (i.e. between Haller and near- tributary POW’s) is a much less efficient strategy than using the existing linkage between reclaimed water and the Stillaguamish River to mitigate new near-river POW’s at down- stream locations along the river. 7.4 TIMING AND COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH SOURCE DEVELOPMENT & WATER-RIGHT ACQUISITION Once the City has selected its preferred option(s) for new water-supply development, the follow- ing tasks would likely be included in efforts to bring the new source(s) online: 1. Arrange Property Access: For all POW’s besides adding new wells to the Haller well- field, the City will need to contact land owners and arrange terms for access and possible property acquisition. Access for exploratory drilling and testing prior to purchase is pre- ferred. Such arrangements could take 2 to 6 months, with services performed largely by City Staff. Costs depend on property values and negotiated arrangements. 2. Exploratory Drilling and Testing: PGG recommends that selected sites first be evaluated with exploratory drilling and aquifer testing prior to installation of large production wells. With some degree of assistance from the City, PGG would assemble technical specifica- tions and bid packages for the drilling. Once the project is advertised and a driller is se- lected, several months may be required before the driller is available to mobilize to the site(s). During this period, the City would be responsible for preparing the site(s) for drilling. Depending on the drilling method selected by the City, drilling/testing of each well could require several days to multiple weeks. As noted in Section 6, drilling contrac- tor costs per exploration well could range from around $15,000 to $100,000. Additional costs would include PGG fees for developing the bid package, overseeing the drill- ing/testing, analyzing the results, and recommending water-supply options. PGG fees for a single well are on the order of $15,000 to $20,000, with each subsequent well costing about $10,000 to $12,000. 3. Drilling Production Wells: Once hydrogeologic exploration (recommended for any pre- ferred site besides Haller Park) is complete and new production well locations are se- lected, PGG would develop technical specifications for a bid package. Similar to #2 above, several months would likely be required for the selected drilling contractor to mo- bilize to the site. During this period, the City would be responsible for preparing the site(s) for drilling. Drilling and testing would likely require 1 to 3 months per well, de- pending on drilling conditions and well design. Once drilling/testing is complete, PGG would likely require another month to analyze the data and produce a hydrogeologic re- port to support source approval and water-right acquisition. The total time required for a single production well is estimated to range from 5 to 8 months depending on driller DRA F T City of Arlington REVIEW DRAFT - 40 2019 Site Screening Analysis availability. Drilling contractor costs s per production well are expected to be on the or- der of $200,000, whereas hydrogeologic consulting costs on the order of $50,000. Water- quality testing costs for WDOH approval would also be borne by the City. 4. Water-Right Acquisition: The actions required to acquire water rights for new groundwa- ter sources would be ongoing throughout Tasks 1-3 and beyond. Depending on the pro- duction well locations selected, additional discussions with Ecology may be required to assess mitigation options and methods to estimate mitigation requirements. Whereas near-river sites would require minimal supporting analysis to determine mitigation re- quirements, near-tributary sites could require significant effort to determine mitigation requirements. Such effort might include: identifying which streams require mitigation and associated geographic/timing constraints; developing a groundwater model to esti- mate the timing/quantity of mitigation applications; and engineering calculations to ad- dress the design/cost of mitigation infrastructure. Whereas identifying mitigation require- ments for the near-river source at Stormwater Wetland Park could likely be achieved in less than two months (predominantly associated with Ecology’s review time), the com- plexity of hydrologic impacts associated with near-tributary sites dictates that approxi- mately 6 to 12 months (or more) may be needed to address all considerations required to confirm the feasibility of a mitigation approach. Once a feasible mitigation approach is confirmed, obtaining a water right can range from a month (for Showing of Compliance at the Haller Park or Haller-North sites) to 6 to 12 months (for water-right transfers or mitigated new non-additive water rights) at new sites. Just as the range in timelines for water-right acquisition is large (e.g. immediate for a Haller Park/Haller-North site under Showing of Compliance vs. several years for more complex near-tributary sites), the range in costs is also large. PGG’s fees for water-right acquisition under Showing of Compliance would likely cost several thousand dollars; whereas, working with Ecology, WDFW and the Tribes to identify mitigation require- ments, developing and applying a groundwater model to estimate mitigation timing/quan- tities, and working with the City’s engineer to address design and operation of mitigation infrastructure could require $50,000 to $200,000 based on PGG’s prior experience with mitigation plans of varying levels of complexity and regulatory/tribal review. 5. Source Approval: PGG would complete the hydrogeologic requirements of a source ap- proval package for submittal to WDOH. The hydrogeologic elements include source ca- pacity, source vulnerability, wellhead protection, contaminant source inventory and water rights. Infrastructure for pumping, conveyance and treatment elements would be com- pleted by the City’s engineer. Typical costs for PGG’s tasks range from $5,000 to $12,000, and are largely determined by the complexity of aquifer protection and contami- nant source inventory required. PGG can typically fully complete a wellhead protection plan in 1 to 3 months (depending on the complexity of the site and potential contaminant sources). 6. Design and Development of Water-Supply Infrastructure: PGG will assist the City or their consulting engineer by providing well performance input towards infrastructure de- DRA F T City of Arlington REVIEW DRAFT - 41 2019 Site Screening Analysis sign. Consideration of infrastructure requirements should begin once test sites are identi- fied and continue throughout the process outlined above. Most of these efforts would be performed by the City and/or their consulting engineer. DRA F T City of Arlington REVIEW DRAFT - 42 2019 Site Screening Analysis This page blank for formatting and pagination DRA F T City of Arlington REVIEW DRAFT - 43 2019 Site Screening Analysis 8.0 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS Key findings of this investigation are summarized below. In addition, PGG developed a matrix sum- marizing key considerations for new water source candidate sites (Table 2-1). 8.1 PURPOSE 1) The City of Arlington (City) operates potable water production facilities at its Haller and Air- port groundwater sources. Water rights currently allow production of 3,430 gpm, but physical variables limit production capacity to 1,900 gpm, leaving 1,530 gpm inaccessible and incho- ate (not fully developed or perfected). 2) During peak production in 2018, the City utilized 56 percent of its water rights capacity, and 101 percent of its operational capacity. 3) Access to the City’s current inchoate water rights is needed immediately, and the City’s wa- ter demand forecast projects all 3,430 gpm will be fully utilized by 2029. In addition, the flow rate expected of the City will: increase nearly 20 percent by 2036; double by 2066; and more than triple by 2116. 4) Regulatory constraints on water management in the Stillaguamish basin are numerous. In ad- dition, the City wants to relocate its Airport source, and it seeks to minimize its reliance on wholesale water purchased from Snohomish PUD. 5) In early 2019, the City retained Pacific Groundwater Group (PGG) to identify locations and strategies for realizing its water supply objectives. 8.2 SITE DESCRIPTIONS 6) Near-tributary sites. Three sites contained in an earlier technical report (Brown & Caldwell 2017) were further evaluated for future water sources in this effort. All three sites are: on the Stillaguamish floodplain but distant from the river; close enough to Portage Creek to reduce its streamflow; prospective groundwater sites that could access water at various depths; lo- cated in an attempt to avoid the treatment requirements of GWI wells (groundwater under the influence of surface water); considered new water appropriations requiring full mitigation; and are under Snohomish County jurisdiction. They include: a. Site 1—former farmland on three parcels now preserved as Portage Creek Wildlife Sanctuary; located north of Cemetery Rd and southeast of 59th Ave. b. Site 12—small, private farm in pasture on two parcels located north of, and border- ing, Site 1 east of 59th Ave; because of their juxtaposition with regard to hydrogra- phy, hydrogeology, and land use, Sites 1 and 12 share the same technical evaluation in this report. DRA F T City of Arlington REVIEW DRAFT - 44 2019 Site Screening Analysis c. Site 10—active, private, agricultural parcel on the northeast corner of Smokey Point Blvd and 204th St; also includes, as an alternative, a 10 acre, residential parcel owned the same family. 7) Near-river sites The PGG and City of Arlington team also identified three additional sites for potential water sources, all of which are: on the Stillaguamish floodplain and “close” to the river bank; far enough from Portage Creek and other streams to not reduce tributary streamflows; targeting shallow groundwater; almost certainly GWI; additional points of withdrawal (POWs) under existing water rights (two sites), or a POW that could utilize a change of existing water right (one site); and are situated such that mitigation of water right impairment(s) will either be avoided or relatively easily addressed. d. Haller-North— a subset of the 40-acre POW identified in Haller wellfield water rights, located on the north bank of the river opposite the wellfield; contains approxi- mately seven, private parcels accessed from SR9 and Schloman Road; in agricultural and residential land use under Snohomish County jurisdiction. e. Haller wellfield— additional wells could be located in the 3,100 ft2 footprint of the City’s primary water source, and/or in any perimeter areas within Haller Park; all par- cels owned by the City and under City jurisdiction. New groundwater development at the existing Haller wellfield POW. f. Mainstem Stillaguamish—collectively, all areas adjacent to the Stillaguamish River downstream of the confluence and upstream of, perhaps, I-5; these are primarily pri- vate agricultural and commercial parcels; the first parcel on the south bank is owned by the City and under City jurisdiction—Stormwater Wetland Park; although hydro- geologically similar to Haller-North and Haller wellfield, these areas are different in that they are outside of the Haller wellfield POW. 8.3 WELL YIELDS 8) Groundwater development at all six sites would target the shallow aquifer system. Estimates of site production capacity are helpful for preliminary planning, but advanced planning will be based on exploratory drilling/testing of any new site. a. Site 1 is expected to supply about 350±200 gpm to a single production well and 750- 1000 gpm to multiple (3) wells. Site 1may also raise GWI concerns due to onsite wet- lands and its proximity to Portage Creek. b. Site 12 is expected to supply about 350±200 gpm to a single production well and 750-1000 gpm to multiple (3) wells. Site 12 may also raise GWI concerns due to on- site wetlands and its proximity to Portage Creek. c. Site 10 is expected to supply about 350±200 gpm to a single production well and 660-825 gpm to multiple (3) wells. Site 10 presents a lower level of concern for GWI due to its distance from local surface-water features. DRA F T City of Arlington REVIEW DRAFT - 45 2019 Site Screening Analysis d. Haller-North is expected to easily supply the City’s inchoate Qi of 1,500 gpm using one or two production wells, but its proximity to surface-water features may require treatment due to GWI concerns. e. Prior analysis by PGG suggests that the Haller wellfield could theoretically yield up to 2,500 gpm from three production wells (current capacity 1,650 gpm). PGG recom- mends additional analysis to assess wellfield capacity with four production wells. Proximity to the Stillaguamish River dictates water-quality treatment for GWI. f. Downstream near-river sites are expected to support similar yield and GWI treatment requirements as the Haller wellfield. 8.4 WATER QUALITY 9) PGG’s analysis does not include consideration of problematic naturally occurring water-qual- ity constituents such as iron, manganese and arsenic. City Staff may want to request water- quality exceedance data for drinking water wells in the WDOH Sentry database. 10) The Upper Aquifer in the Arlington area is susceptible to potential contamination from land- use impacts because in many areas there are no confining layers between the land surface and regional water table. PGG utilized regional databases to assess potential anthropogenic water- quality concerns for the candidate water source sites: a. Site 1 is generally 0.6 to 0.9 miles down-gradient of two confirmed or suspected con- taminated sites. Both Northwest Hardwoods and Christianson Co. have closed opera- tions. Based on Ecology’s database, there is no groundwater contamination at North- west Hardwoods, and Ecology assigned the Christianson Co. the lowest possible rank for risk. Wellhead protection analysis would be required to estimate whether high- ways SR9 and SR530 are within the capture zone for pumping at Site 1. b. Site 12 is subject to the same water quality concerns as Site 1. c. Site 10 - There are several confirmed or suspected contaminated sites about 1.6 to 2.6 miles in what is anticipated to be the upgradient direction from Site 10. Groundwater contamination has been confirmed at five of these sites. The Olympic Pipeline bisects Site 10, and Interstate 5 (I5) and SR530 are approximately 0.25 miles to the west and north respectively. Wellhead protection analysis would be required to estimate whether the capture zone for on-site pumping would potentially underlie the pipeline and highways. d. Haller-North Site - There are no confirmed or suspected contaminated sites in the area anticipated to be upgradient of Haller-North. State Route 9 transects Haller- North and spills from transportation of hazardous material along the highway repre- sents a potential source of contamination. In addition, though currently inactive, a sand/gravel mine is situated 1,000 to 3,600 feet upgradient of the site, immediately east of SR9. DRA F T City of Arlington REVIEW DRAFT - 46 2019 Site Screening Analysis e. Haller Wellfield – The greatest risk to water quality at Haller wellfield is the up- stream rivers, particularly the South Fork Stillaguamish. State Route 530 crosses the South Fork 2,800 feet upstream, and spills from transportation of hazardous material along the highway represents a potential source of contamination. Public recreation associated with Haller Park and the Centennial Trail is considered a real but minor risk. All known underground storage tanks in downtown Arlington were removed circa 2007 with Olympic Avenue reconstruction. f. Stormwater Wetland Park – The greatest risk to water quality at the Stormwater Wet- land Park site is the discharge of untreated stormwater conveyed from 280 acres of Old Town Arlington. The constructed wetland is designed to remove contaminants associated with sediment, and to sequester some fraction of dissolved contaminants in the vegetation of and soils below the unlined wetland. The wetland covers just under half the City-owned site, with open space areas available for drilling both up-gradient and down-gradient of the wetland. Both State Route 9 and State Route 530 are upgra- dient of this site, and spills from transportation of hazardous material along the high- way represents a potential source of contamination. 8.5 DRILLING METHODS 11) PGG evaluated the costs of drilling and testing for both exploratory purposes and installation of new production wells. We found that: a. Sonic methods would be quickest and most economical for groundwater exploration. Drilling costs range from about $15,000 per well without aquifer testing to $33,300 per well with aquifer testing. b. Cable-tool methods would provide more comprehensive testing of exploration wells to assess potential yield; however, drilling costs increase to about $100,000 per well. c. PGG recommends cable-tool methods for installing large-diameter production wells. Given associated drilling costs of about $200,000 per well, PGG recommends prior exploration with lower-cost, smaller-diameter exploration or test wells at new sites. We do not recommend using large-diameter drilling for geologic exploration and pre- liminary testing. 8.6 WATER MANAGEMENT—FINDINGS 12) Ecology and WDFW both note that nearly all regulatory uncertainty associated with new sources can be eliminated by choosing near-channel site(s) downstream of Haller Park. This approach simplifies the required water-rights strategy since the pumping impacts would closely mirror those from the Haller wellfield, and mitigation requirements would either be avoided or easier to address. DRA F T City of Arlington REVIEW DRAFT - 47 2019 Site Screening Analysis 13) New supply wells along the Stillaguamish River would likely require treatment for GWI by WDOH. The cost of treatment should be compared to the cost of losing considerable portions of existing water rights for mitigation when transferred to off-channel locations. 14) Regulatory stream closures and instream flow requirements dictate that new pumping im- pacts to protected surface-water features be mitigated to maintain water-budget neutrality. In addition to mitigation for the Stillaguamish River, mitigation may be required on local (WRIA 5) small streams and streams in neighboring WRIA 7. Ecology did not provide defin- itive expectations for mitigating impacts to small streams (i.e. granularity of water-budget neutrality in space and time).Several methods could be used to mitigate new pumping im- pacts by augmenting stream baseflows, including: reduced groundwater withdrawals, infiltra- tion (managed aquifer recharge), and “pump-and-dump” (direct discharge into streams). Infil- tration and pump-and-dump could be sourced from potable water or reclaimed water. 15) The following additional clarifications are needed from Ecology: a. Confirming the legal description of the Haller wellfield which governs the oppor- tunity for the City to simply file a limited-risk “Showing of Compliance” and not a risk-intensive Application for Change. b. Improving the definition of which tributary streams (and possibly man-made ditches) are protected from pumping impacts under WAC 173-505. c. Assessing whether the wording of WAC 173-505 requires mitigation for impacts to all protected streams in the WRIA (i.e. general closures) vs. just those streams with specified minimum instream flow requirements. We assume Ecology’s intent is max- imum protection afforded to all streams. 8.7 WATER RIGHTS—STRATEGIES 16) Access to the City’s inchoate water rights at new wells can generally be achieved through three approaches: a. by filing Showing of Compliance with RCW 90.44.100 statements (for locations within currently designated POW’s); b. by water-right transfer to new locations with pumping impacts similar to existing POW’s; or c. by using existing City water rights to mitigate withdrawals at new locations where pumping impacts differ significantly from existing POW’s 17) Water-rights processing to develop new near-river supply wells would be relatively straight- forward and timely, whereas processing the Airport water rights to develop new near-tribu- tary supply wells would involve considerable regulatory complexity (particularly due to lack of definitive mitigation guidance) and would take significantly longer. PGG envisions the following two options for pursuing new supply wells. DRA F T City of Arlington REVIEW DRAFT - 48 2019 Site Screening Analysis a. Resources can be first invested in submitting a hypothetical mitigation proposal to Ecology before site-specific drilling and testing, and further refining the proposal to- wards Agency approval based on their input. This approach has the advantage of ob- taining reliable guidance from Ecology about their expectations and increasing the likelihood that they would approve a proposed approach before the City invests in a drilling program. However, if the proposed site does not provide the desired well yield, some of the effort in exploring the mitigation approach may be wasted. b. Otherwise, resources can be first be invested in drilling and testing at a given site to define development potential (i.e. well yield, connectivity with surface-water fea- tures, GWI, source protection considerations) prior to formulating a mitigation pro- posal. This approach has the advantages of confirming groundwater availability be- fore investing in the mitigation planning required by Ecology, and of having reliable aquifer parameters for use in estimating mitigation requirements. However, if Ecol- ogy is unlikely to accept available mitigation options, the site exploration is for naught. 8.8 WATER RIGHTS—MITIGATION 18) PGG performed a conceptual analysis to identify strategies to optimize existing water rights at new supply wells. Our analysis used best professional judgment to develop hypothetical pumping impacts from possible production wells, our conclusions are considered usable to guide water-rights strategies. We found that: a. The most efficient means for utilizing water rights is to develop them to their maxi- mum potential at existing points of withdrawal (POW). b. Inchoate water rights for the Haller wellfield can be most efficiently put to use by pumping from near-river sites including: additional wells at Haller Park, new wells at Haller-North, and/or new wells at Stormwater Wetland Park. Such groundwater de- velopment would incur no reduction to Haller water rights. c. The City’s ability to fully develop its inchoate Haller water rights might be impacted if new wells requiring significant mitigation requirements are developed in near-trib- utary locations (i.e. near the network of small streams south of the Stillaguamish River). d. The additive portion of the Airport water right could be most efficiently put to use at a near-tributary location in the vicinity of Portage Creek. The water right losses re- quired to mitigate for pumping impacts to the small streams are anticipated to be small. Losses would similarly be incurred for the non-additive portion of the Haller water right which may be used at the Airport; however, no loss would be incurred if entire annual volume of the Haller water right was instead developed at alternative POW’s for that water right. DRA F T City of Arlington REVIEW DRAFT - 49 2019 Site Screening Analysis e. The City of Arlington’s reclaimed water is a significant resource that can be used to- wards meeting mitigation requirements. Delivering reclaimed water to the Stil- laguamish River could be used to mitigate pumping impacts to the river from new near-river production wells. Similarly, delivering reclaimed water to small streams could effectively mitigate pumping impacts; however, conveyance of reclaimed water to the small streams may be cost prohibitive. 19) Assuming that some portion of the Airport water rights will ultimately be used to mitigate new near-tributary POW’s, the City could begin exploration of candidate sites and associated mitigation options while developing near-river sites to meet more immediate needs. 8.9 RECOMMENDATIONS PGG presented a draft of this screening report to the City for its deliberation of a menu if multiple water supply options from which it may choose. In a subsequent teleconference, the City indicated its preferences, which are consistent with PGG’s recommended alternatives. 20) Phases. The City needs a lot of water, so the acquisition effort should follow a two-phased effort. The primary objective of Phase 1 will be to make full use of the City’s existing water rights by accessing all currently inchoate water so that instantaneous rates necessary for water supply on peak days (Qi) will not exceed that authorized by the State. Phase 1 will supply the City through 2029. Phase 2 will increase the City’s water supply to meet demands 50 years and more into the future (target year 2066). While there is a temporal component to the two phases, they need not— and should not—be consecutive in their implementation. Securing water flow rates for a horizon 50 years or more into the future should be a near-term goal. a. Phase 1—Haller Wellfield. Expansion of the Haller wellfield will be a primary focus in Phase 1 as efforts here should provide access to the greatest quantity of inchoate water for the least regulatory effort. Mitigation should be easier and may even be avoided at Haller. Infrastructure improvements will be necessary, including one to three new wells, water treatment plant expansion, a possible new treatment facility, and possible raw water trans- mission mains. b. Phase 1—Airport Wellfield. The City desires to relocate the existing Airport well even though doing so would reduce inchoate water supplies and shorten the horizon at which the City can no longer meet peak day demands. The transfer destination will determine the quantity of water lost in the move because each location will have a different mitigation requirement. Coordination with Ecology to quantify the impairment for each of several water transfer alternatives will be required. The City should confirm there are no suitable, alternative locations specified by the water right that are off the airport. c. Phase 2 will increase the City’s water supply to meet demands 50 years and more into the future (target year 2066). A long term strategy is necessary because of the complex and unsettled regulatory environment. Phase 2 will likely include: multiple wells in different hydrogeologic settings (e.g., on different landforms and at different depths) with an in- creased emphasis on groundwater; one or more additional treatment facilities dedicated to DRA F T City of Arlington REVIEW DRAFT - 50 2019 Site Screening Analysis groundwater sources; and re-use of the City’s reclaimed water for both mitigation (a con- cept promulgated by the City for some time now) and reduction of potable demand through use as an alternative water source. 21) Water Rights/Mitigation. Specific steps for each of the following strategies have been preliminarily identified and placed in Appendix C. a. Maximize use of existing Haller water rights (2,850 gpm Qi) at Haller using a Showing of Compliance water right strategy to remain within published point of withdrawal (POW). This approach would begin by evaluating candidate locations in the Haller wellfield and Haller-North sites, and installing test wells using sonic methods to evaluate aquifer prop- erties. The most successful sites could yield much or all of the inchoate water in the City’s water rights portfolio without the need for mitigation. b. Maximize use of existing Airport water rights (580 gpm Qi) at a new transfer destination by identifying a transfer location that minimizes mitigation requirements. In theory, the need to mitigate water supply impacts is less likely to occur at a near-tributary location than it is at a near-river location. However, mitigation costs should also be evaluated against the infrastructure costs of providing finished water to the distribution system from the transfer destination. If water quality treatment is considerably less at a near-channel location, that may be the preferred transfer destination. c. Evaluate one or more new source locations near the Stillaguamish River. This approach could be used to meet Phase 1 objectives of accessing and putting to use currently inchoate water rights by transferring water downstream from the Haller wellfield without need for mitigation. This approach could also help meet Phase 2 objectives for the development of new source locations. A mitigation plan would be required for each new proposed POW. DRA F T City of Arlington REVIEW DRAFT - 51 2019 Site Screening Analysis 9.0 REFERENCES Boessow, Steve. 2019. Personal communication between Steve Boessow (Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife) and Jill Van Hulle (Pacific Groundwater Group) on July 15, 2019. Brown & Caldwell, 2011. Arlington Long Range Water Supply Alternatives Feasibility Study. Consultant’s report prepared by Brown and Caldwell (with Appendix A by Pacific Groundwater Group) dated April 11, 2011. Brown & Caldwell, 2017. Technical Memorandum 2: Summary of Water Supply Alternatives Evaluation Phase 1. Prepared in collaboration with Pacific Groundwater Group. Dated August 31, 2017, City of Arlington, 2017. City of Arlington 2017 Amendment to the 2015 Comprehensive Water System Plan. Prepared by City of Arlington, RH2 Engineering and FCS Group. Dated October 2017. https://www.ar- lingtonwa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/1231/Arlington-2017-Final-Amendment-to-2015-Comprehen- sive-Water-Service-Plan Driscoll, F., 1986. Groundwater and Wells (2nd Edition). Johnson Filtration Systems, Inc., St. Paul, Minne- sota, 1089p. EPA, 2004 Frans, L.M., and Kresch D.L. 2004. Water Resources of the Tulalip Indian Reservation and Adjacent Area, Snohomish County, Washington. Scientific Investigations Report 2004 – 5166. HydroSOLVE Inc. 2007 AQTESOLV for Windows. http://www.aqtesolv.com/ Jones, M.A., 1996, Thickness of Unconsolidated Deposits in the Puget Sound Lowland, Washington and Canada: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 94-4133. PGG, 2002. Construction and Testing Replacement Well No. 1 (Well 1R) Haller Park Wellfield. Consult- ant’s report prepared by Pacific Groundwater Group for City of Arlington dated November 2002. PGG, 2007. Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model Summary Report. Consultant’s report prepared by Pacific Groundwater Group for City of Arlington dated January 2007. Stantec, 2018 Theis, C.V., 1935. The Relation Between the Lowering of the Piezometric Surface and the Rate and Dura- tion of Discharge of a Well Using Groundwater Storage. Am. Geophys. Union Trans., vol. 16, pp. 519- 524. Thomas, B.E., J.M. Wilkinson and S.S. Embrey, 1997. The Ground-Water System and Ground-Water Qual- ity in Western Snohomish County, Washington. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 96-4312. URS, 2014 Wolanek, Mike. 2019. Personal communication between Mike Wolanek (City of Arlington) and Peter Schwartzman (Pacific Groundwater Group) in 2019. DRA F T City of Arlington REVIEW DRAFT - 52 2019 Site Screening Analysis This page blank for formatting and pagination DRA F T TABLE 2-1 MATRIX OF HYDROGEOLOGIC AND WATER-RESOURCE FINDINGS Site 1 Site 12 Site 10 Haller North PGG 2019 ELEMENTS: Ease of Water Rights Moderate to Difficult Moderate to Difficult Moderate to Difficult Easy. Showing of compliance site uncertain. Could require new POW. Ease/Expense of Infrastructure Connection Existing Infrastructure Not Far Existing Infrastructure Not Far? Existing Infrastructure Distant Difficult, pipeline must cross river @ bridge, expensive Current Land Use Open Space Agricultural 10a - Private, 10b - Agricultural Agricultural Site Development Challenges Wetlands Probably Not Wetlands (not well surveyed)N/A N/A Target Aquifer Shallow Aquifer Shallow Aquifer Shallow Aquifer Shallow Aquifer Aquifer Thickness Moderate Moderate Moderate Could be Thin??? Depth to Bedrock Moderate - Deep Moderate - Deep Moderate - Deep Could be Shallow??? Expected Well Yield (gpm)Roughly 350 ± 200, but could be higher with favorable site conditions Roughly 350 ± 200, but could be higher with favorable site conditions Roughly 350 ± 200, but could be higher with favorable site conditions Up to 1,500 gpm depending on site conditions encountered Multiple Wells Needed for 1500 gpm re m nary es ma es sugges we s would yield 750-1000 gpm, but could be higher depending on site re m nary es ma es sugges we s would yield 750-1000 gpm, but could be higher depending on site re m nary es ma es sugges we s would yield 660-825 gpm, but could be higher depending on site If site provides limited available drawdown, two 750 gpm wells could be employed Mitigation Required to Offset New Surface Water Impacts To Small Streams and Possibly Wetlands To Small Streams and Possibly Wetlands To Small Streams Little to None Potential for GWI Southern Boundary Along Portage Creek Ditch. Possible wetland GWI. Northern Boundary Along Portage Creek Tributary Ditch. Less likely wetland GWI. Lower level of concern Uncertain - will depend on distance achieved from Stilliguamish River Upgradient WQ Considerations Site zoned agricultural, but commercial/industrial zones potentially upgradient. CSCS sites 1.6-2.6 miles away, multiple FSID sites near Airport. Olympic Pipeline ~ 0.1-0.2 miles to west. I5 and Upgradient area zoned industrial & residential. No CSCS sites, few FSSID sites (0.4-0.6 miles), SR-9 immediately upgradient Ease of Land Acquisition (County, Private, Institutional, City)County Private Private N/R Constructability (Forested, wet, dry, access ease)Open land, existing access limited Farmland with access, dry (12B wetter)Farm land with access N/R Distance to Water Infrastructure (ft) 2000 700 2000 (new main) N/R Distance to Power Infrastructure (ft) ~2000 from ROW ~1000 from ROW Near ROW N/R Water Quality/Distance to Contamination Potential (ft)None in site vicinity 5000 ft (cleanup started)3000 ft (no cleanup started) N/R O&M - Energy for Pumping (pressure Outside, Near 342 Outside, Near 342 Outside, Near 342 N/R Flexibility for Future Expansion/Site Size (acres)31.1 2.7 34.4 N/R Environmental Permitting (known issues) NRCS wetland nearby floodplain agricultural site N/R N/A = not applicable. N/R = not reported in Brown & Caldwell, 2017. Closest to potential sites of concern. Site zoned agricultural, but commercial/industrial 0.6-0.9 miles upgradient which includes several CSCS sites, multiple FSID sites. SR530 ~ 0.2 miles to north (may not be in capture zone). INFRASTRUCTURE ELEMENTS (BROWN & CALDWELL, 2017): DRA F T Table 3-1 City Water Rights Summary City of Arlington 2019 Site Screening Analysis DRA F T Table 5-1. Ecology's Confirmed and Suspected Contaminated Sites in the Arlington Water Supply Study Area Cleanup Site ID Facility Site ID Site Name Address City Zip Code Responsible Unit Site Status Site Rank Contaminant Name Groundwater Soil Surface Water Sediment Air 4293 2701 Arlington Marysville Landfill ARLINGTON AIRPORT ARLINGTON 98223 ECY‐Northwest Awaiting Cleanup 5 ‐ Lowest Assessed Risk Conventional Contaminants; Organic S S S Halogenated Organics C S Metals Priority Pollutants C S Non‐Halogenated Solvents C S Other Reactive Wastes S S S 4159 2705 Bryant Landfill 6306 GRANDVIEW RD ARLINGTON 98223 ECY‐Solid Waste Prgm Awaiting Cleanup 5 ‐ Lowest Assessed Risk Conventional Contaminants; Inorganic C S Conventional Contaminants; Organic S S Metals Priority Pollutants C S 4768 2709 JH Baxter Arlington 6520 188TH ST NE ARLINGTON 98223 EPA Awaiting Cleanup 1 ‐ Highest Assessed Risk Arsenic C Base/Neutral/Acid Organics C C S Phenolic Compounds C C S Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons C C S C 3772 2787 CHRISTIANSON Co 7415 204TH ST NE ARLINGTON 98223 ECY‐Northwest Awaiting Cleanup 5 ‐ Lowest Assessed Risk Halogenated Organics S S Metals Priority Pollutants S C S Petroleum Products‐Unspecified S C S 3832 2810 UNOCAL BULK PLANT ARLINGTON 211TH PL & LEBANON ST ARLINGTON 98223 ECY‐Northwest Cleanup Started 2 ‐ Moderate‐High Risk Metals ‐ Other S S Metals Priority Pollutants S S Non‐Halogenated Solvents C C Petroleum Products‐Unspecified C C 12219 3545 Sime Property 9917 200TH ST NE ARLINGTON 98223 ECY‐Northwest Awaiting Cleanup Metals ‐ Other C 12294 5591 Smokey Point Retail Center 2707 171ST PL NE MARYSVILLE 98271 ECY‐Northwest Cleanup Started Petroleum‐Gasoline C 13137 10723 Smokey Point Cleaners 3323 169TH PL NE ARLINGTON 98223 ECY‐Northwest Cleanup Started Halogenated Solvents C 12880 18744 Kerstetter Property 9720 186TH ST NE ARLINGTON 98223 ECY‐Northwest Awaiting Cleanup Metals ‐ Other C Petroleum‐Other B Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons S 7450 1842364 Arlington R O W Tank F 5TH ST & N OLYMPIC AVE ARLINGTON 98223 ECY‐Northwest Cleanup Started Petroleum‐Diesel C 11904 4886943 Arlington BP 140 OLYMPIC AVE S ARLINGTON 98223 ECY‐Northwest Awaiting Cleanup Petroleum‐Diesel S 3950 5992035 North Olympic Avenue 300 N OLYMPIC AVE ARLINGTON 98223 ECY‐Northwest Cleanup Started Petroleum Products‐Unspecified S C 7737 7335837 WA DOT Arlington Maintenance 521 S OLYMPIC ST ARLINGTON 98223 ECY‐Northwest Cleanup Started Benzene S Petroleum‐Diesel C Petroleum‐Gasoline C Petroleum‐Other S 5439 7583272 Alpha Aviation 18218 59TH DR NE ARLINGTON 98223 ECY‐Northwest Cleanup Started Benzene C C Petroleum‐Gasoline C C Petroleum‐Other C C 5471 8894437 Texaco 121117 3315 172ND ST NE ARLINGTON 98223 ECY‐Northwest Cleanup Started Benzene C C Non‐Halogenated Solvents C C Petroleum‐Gasoline C C 7938 12421282 Arlington SD 16 Bus Yard 410 GIFFORD ARLINGTON 98223 ECY‐Northwest Cleanup Started Petroleum‐Other C 5819 28658971 Smokey Point Chevron 2804 172ND ST NE MARYSVILLE 98271 ECY‐Northwest Cleanup Started Benzene C C Non‐Halogenated Solvents C C Petroleum‐Gasoline C C 12176 36489214 Northwest Hardwoods Arlington 20015 67TH AVE NE ARLINGTON 98223 ECY‐Northwest Cleanup Started Benzene S Other Non‐Halogenated Organics S Petroleum‐Diesel B Petroleum‐Gasoline B Petroleum‐Other B 1641 37466747 RITE AID 5235 17226 Smokey Point Blvd ARLINGTON 98223 ECY‐Northwest Cleanup Started Petroleum Products‐Unspecified C C 9282 45456544 Frontier Bank 525 N OLYMPIC AVE ARLINGTON 98223 ECY‐Northwest Cleanup Started Petroleum‐Diesel C 4208 51332889 US Marine Bayliner Marine 17825 59TH AVE NE ARLINGTON 98223 ECY‐Headquarters Cleanup Started Arsenic B Halogenated Organics C B Metals Priority Pollutants B B 6210 51947866 Chevron 99574 2233 SR 530 NE ARLINGTON 98223 ECY‐Northwest Cleanup Started Benzene C C Methyl tertiary‐butyl ether C C Petroleum‐Gasoline C C 2019 Site Screening Memo (DRAFT) City of Arlington Page 1 / 2 DRA F T Table 5-1. Ecology's Confirmed and Suspected Contaminated Sites in the Arlington Water Supply Study Area Cleanup Site ID Facility Site ID Site Name Address City Zip Code Responsible Unit Site Status Site Rank Contaminant Name Groundwater Soil Surface Water Sediment Air 11617 63296179 Welco Lumber 6615 172ND ST NE ARLINGTON 98223 ECY‐Northwest Cleanup Started Benzene C Other Halogenated Organics C Phenolic Compounds C C 9955 63317244 Poeschel & Schultz 19203 Smokey Point Blvd Hwy 99 ARLINGTON 98223 ECY‐Northwest Cleanup Started Benzene S S Other Non‐Halogenated Organics S Petroleum‐Diesel S Petroleum‐Gasoline S C Petroleum‐Other S C 10172 68627865 Midway Tavern 15205 HWY 99 MARYSVILLE 98201 ECY‐Northwest Cleanup Started Petroleum‐Other C C 10759 84798158 MARY'S MARKE 15218 SMOKEY PT BLVD MARYSVILLE 98270 ECY‐Northwest Cleanup Started Benzene C C Petroleum‐Gasoline C C Petroleum‐Other C C 6778 85995713 S & T MINI MART 2216 STATE ROUTE 530 NE ARLINGTON 98223 ECY‐Northwest Awaiting Cleanup 5 ‐ Lowest Assessed Risk Benzene C C Non‐Halogenated Solvents C C Petroleum‐Gasoline C C 10849 86188681 Odie & Sons 15314 SMOKEY PT BLVD MARYSVILLE 98271 ECY‐Northwest Cleanup Started Petroleum‐Other C C 7149 94987959 Tesoro Station 62162 2324 STATE RD 530 ARLINGTON 98223 ECY‐Northwest Cleanup Started Benzene C C Petroleum‐Gasoline C C 7322 94987959 Tesoro 62162 2324 STATE RD 530 ARLINGTON 98223 ECY‐Northwest Awaiting Cleanup Benzene C C Non‐Halogenated Solvents C C Petroleum‐Diesel C C Petroleum‐Gasoline C C Petroleum‐Other C C 777 95987863 Arlington City Airport 18204 59TH DR NE ARLINGTON 98223 ECY‐Northwest Cleanup Started Metals Priority Pollutants S C Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons C 11303 98294127 Vans Tavern Snoh Cnty Public Works 172ND ST NE & SMOKEY PT BLVD ARLINGTON 98223 ECY‐Northwest Cleanup Started Benzene S S Petroleum‐Diesel C RB Petroleum‐Gasoline C RB Petroleum‐Other S S Contaminant Key: B=The contaminant was tested and found below cleanup levels. C = The contaminant is confirmed to be present above cleanup levels. S = The contaminant is suspected to be present based on some knowledge about the history of the site, knowledge of regional contaminants, or based on other contaminants known to be present. RA = The contaminant was remediated, but remains on site above the cleanup standards, such as under a cap, building, or in a containment cell. If media are Remediated‐Above, the site must have institutional controls. RB = The contaminant was remediated, and no area of the site contains this contaminant above cleanup standard. Contaminant Types:• Arsenic: A toxic heavy metal that may be absorbed via ingestion, inhalation, or by permeating skin or mucous membranes. • Base/Neutral/Acid Organics: Hazardous substances typically included in the EPA's priority pollutant compound list. • Benzene: known human carcinogen for all routes of exposure. •Conventional Contaminants, Inorganic: Non‐metallic inorganic substances or indicator parameters that may indicate the existence of contamination if present at unusual levels. • Conventional Contaminants, Organic: Unspecified organic matter that imposes an oxygen demand during its decomposition. • Halogenated Organic Compounds: Organic compounds, typically solvents, with one or more of the halogens incorporated into their structure. • Metals ‐ Other: Metals other than those on EPA's priority pollutant list (see preceding item). • Metals Priority Pollutants: Metals included in EPA's priority pollutant compounds list ‐‐ may include any of these 13 metals ‐‐ antimony (Sb), arsenic (As), beryllium (Be), cadmium (Cd), chromium (Cr), copper (Cu), lead (Pb), mercury (Hg), nickel (Ni), selenium (Se), silver (Ag), thallium •Methyl tertiary‐butyl ether (MTBE): MTBE is a volatile oxygen‐containing organic compound that was formerly used as a gasoline additive to promote complete combustion and help reduce air pollution. MTBE is now being detected in groundwater throughout the United States. Its • Non‐Halogenated Solvents: Organic solvents, typically volatile or semi‐volatile, not containing any halogens. • Other Reactive Wastes: Unstable under "normal" conditions. They can cause explosions, toxic fumes, gases, or vapors when heated, compressed, or mixed with water. •Petroleum Products: Crude oil and any fraction thereof. Each of these materials may consist of many specific chemical compounds. • Phenolic Compounds: Hazardous substances typically included in the acid extractable fraction of EPA's priority pollutant compound list. • Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH): Hydrocarbons composed of two or more benzene rings. 2019 Site Screening Memo (DRAFT) City of Arlington Page 2 / 2 DRA F T Table 6-1. Planning Level Drilling Cost Estimates Sonic Drilling ‐ Exploration Boreholes Cable Tool Production Wells 3 x 6‐inch OD (No Testing) 3 x 8‐inch OD (Prelim. Testing) 3 x 12‐inch Test Wells 3 x 24‐inch Production Wells Drilling and Well Installation (2 x 200 feet and 1 x 75 feet) $ 45,000 $ 104,000 $ 300,000 $ 606,000 Note: costs are preliminary and provided for comparison purposes only Assumptions: ‐ All wells completed with 20‐foot long screen ‐ Cable Tool Production Well costs based on recent bid for a different project; this cost estimate should be Cable Tool Test Wells ‐ Drilling will be performed at all three Alternative Phase I Sites; costs can be updated to reflect City's ‐ City will arrange site access ‐ City will perform all site preparations (roads, clearing, etc.) prior to drilling mobilization ‐ All drilling will be performed in a single mobilization ‐ Water will be made available to the drillers by the City 2019 Site Screening Memo (DRAFT) City of Arlington DRA F T City of Arlington 2019 Site Screening Analysis Table 7-2 Instream Flows for Tributaries of the Stillaguamish Mainstem and North and South Forks Month Day RM 3.0 RM 0.5 RM 7.0 RM 2.0 RM 1.1 RM 1.5 Glade- Bekken Creek Fish Crk. Rock Crk. Jan. 1-31 24 10 11 16 29 19 Feb. 1-29 24 10 11 16 29 19 Mar. 1-15 43 21 22 30 53 36 Mar. 16-31 43 21 22 30 53 36 Apr. 1-30 43 21 22 30 53 36 May 1-31 43 21 22 30 53 36 Jun. 1-15 28 14 14 20 35 24 Jun. 16-30 28 14 14 20 35 24 Jul. 1-31 28 14 14 20 35 24 Aug. 1-31 10 4 4 6 12 8 Sep. 1-30 10 4 4 6 29 19 Oct. 1-31 24 10 11 16 29 19 Nov. 1-15 24 10 11 16 29 19 Nov. 16-30 24 10 11 16 29 19 Dec. 1-31 24 10 11 16 29 19 (in cubic feet per sec- ond) (RM = River Mile) DRA F T Í!( Í!( Í!( Í!( Í!( Í!( Í!( Í!( Í!( Í!(Í!( Í!( Í!( Í!(Í!( Í!( Í!( Í!(Í!(Í!( Í!(Í!( Í!( Í!( Í!( Í!( Í!( Í!( Í!( Í!(Í!( Í!(Í!( Í!( Í!( Í!( Í!( Í!( Í!( Í!( Í!(Í!(Í!( Í!( Í!( BedrockOutcropElev = 40ft Portag e C r e e k Test Well B A C B' A' C' Airport Well Haller Park Wellfield§¨¦5 SR 9 N E BUR N R D 172ND ST NE JORDANRD 67 T H A V E N E SR530NE 252ND ST NEPIONEERHWY SM O K E Y P O I N T B L V D SIL L R D SR530 11 5 T H A V E N E 3R D A V E N E 228TH ST NE 51 S T A V E N E NORMANRD LAKEWOODRD 236TH ST NE HA P P Y V A L L E Y R D PIONEER HWY E 19 T H A V E N E AIRP O R T B L V D SR 9 N E LARSONRD CEMETERY RD 188TH ST NE 204TH ST NE ARLINGTON HEIGHTSRD 47 T H A V E N E 236TH ST NW 95 T H A V E N E 211TH P L N E E HIGHLAND DR 233RD ST NE N O L Y M P I C A V E E BURKE AVE 196TH ST NW 212TH ST NE 212TH ST NW SR 530 NE SR 9 N E -3 -1 76095 78101 78459 92833 75352 81168 82178 82240 7924581914 87684 76109 86082 81809 815628662680571 95538 395708 438391 374069 344838 303770 441243 414162 344856 493355929576403935 403461430273 386490 394290 438391 419846 303762 342268 332749 303761 1708695 1556588 1627427 Haller N 110b 12 10a Port a g e C r e e k Stilla g u a m i s h R i v e r Fish C r e e k Jim Cr e e k Pil c h u c k C r e e k Miller Creek Ed g e c o m b e C r e e k South Slough Jac k s o n G u l c h North F o r k S t i l l a g u a m i s h R i v e r March Creek Ha y h o C r e e k Bjorn Creek Kac k m a n C r e e k Sta r C r e e k Fish C r e e k Ji m C r e e k South Slough South F o r k S t i l l a g u a m i s h R i v e r ditc h di t c h Eag l e C r e e k Armstrong C r e e k Arm s t r o n g C r e e k Wes t F o r k Q u i l c e d a C r e e k Olaf S t r a d C r e e k Gl a d e B e k k e n ( T r i b 3 0 ) Í!( Wells Used in Cross Section with Ecology database ID Surficial Geology (24k) K Figure 1-1 Vicinity Map City of Arlington 2019 Site Screening Analysis DRA F T City of Arlington 2019 Site Screening Analysis Figure 3-1 City of Arlington Demand Projections DRA F T ^_ ^_ Stillaguamish River Sou t h F o r k S t i l l a g u a m i s h R i v e r North F o r k S t i l l a g u a m i s h R i v e r Port a g e C r e e k Miller Creek Jac k s o n G u l c h Fish C r e e k South Slough Jim C r e e k ditc h North F o r k S t i l l a g u a m i s h R i v e r Ea g l e C r e e k Ha y h o C r e e k Ha r v e y C r e e k Bjorn Creek Olaf S t r a d C r e e k Sta r C r e e k Kackm a n C r e e k ditch Fish C r e e k §¨¦5 SR 9 N E SR 532 BURNRD 172ND ST NE SR 53 0 N E JORDANRD PIONEERHWY 67 T H A V E N E NORMAN RD LAKEWOOD RD 252ND ST NE SM O K E Y P O I N T B L V D STA NWOOD BRYANT RD 152ND ST NE SIL L R D SR530 11 5 T H A V E N E 228TH ST NE FOR T Y F I V E R D 3R D A V E N E 51 S T A V E N E 236TH ST NE 220TH ST NW HA P P Y V A L L E Y R D PIONEER HWY E ELAKEGOODWIN RD W L A K E G O O D W I N R D 19 T H A V E N E AIRP O R T B L V D SR 9 N E LARSONRD CEMETERYRD 188TH ST NE GRANDVIEWRD 204TH ST NE ARLINGTON HEIGHTSRD 40 T H A V E N W 47 T H A V E N E 28 T H A V E N W 236TH ST NW 15 T H A V E N E HAPPY HOLLOW RD 95 T H A V E N E 50 T H A V E N W 16 T H A V E N W 32 N D A V E N W JIM CREEK RD 196TH ST NW 211TH P L N E E HIGHLAND DR SU N D A Y L A K E R D 233RDST NE N O L Y M P I C A V E E BURKE AVE 19T H D R N E 12 T H A V E N W 156TH ST NE 212TH ST NE 172ND ST NW TVEIT RDSR 530 NE SR 9 N E 19 T H A V E N E Haller N 110 12 10a 900 600 1200 300 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 10 0 0 100 0 100100 0 100 100 0 0 300 0 0 0 7 9 7 97 95 65 12 46 20 15 70 12 75 60 91 63 47 52 90 32 30 21 94 18 22 18 46 16 16 58 6945 30 47 44 44 44 60 59 45 91 82 58 70 29 11 76 99 53 84 28 20 35 130 260 200 116 154 142 110 161 135 211 132 135140 203 368 172 174 152 117 330 123129 218 117 127 170 222 123 122 164160 125 202 250 107 105 180 196 160 125 139 >76 >58 >37 >35 >76>60 >88 >60 >74 >55 >58 >55 >55 >57 >58 >56 >56 >59 >60 >88 >40 >40 >44 >85 >62>40 >30 >60 >30 >80 >88 >58 >60 >41 >40 >80 >55>70 >27 >60 >70 >58 >42 >94 >57 >65 >83 >36 >77 >78>60 >95 >50 >79 >73 >62 >37 >60 >60 >52 >60 >60 >97 >80 >62 >37 >97 >57 >57 >38 >50 >90>90 >91>80 >38 >138 >117 >114 >120 >135 >160 >113 >229 >420 >155 >234 >254 >346 >116 >340 >305 >310 >216 >165 >305 >225 >100 >118 >300 >260 >200 >185 >574 >340 >281 >100 >353 >100 >110 >110 >138 >334 >235 >472 >160 >563 >275 >401 >205 >118 >381 >267 >300 >140 >310 >211 >145 >540 >355 >105 >146 >152 >240 >144 >100 >100 >100 >233 >402 >420>420 >500 >404 >284 >296 >292 >415 >328 >114>153 >160 >168 >120 >135 >218 >160 >150 >140 >191 >380 >203 >131 >204 >278 >213 >240 >83.5 >22.5 >60.5 >29.5 >53.5 >52.5 >100.5 Sti l l a g u a m i s h R i v e r Pilchuck C r e e k Sou t h F o r k S t i l l a g u a m i s h R i v e r Edg e c o m b e C r e e k Armstr o n g C r e e k Marc h C r e e k Glad e B e k k e n ( T r i b 3 0 ) West F o r k Q u i l c e d a C r e e k Rock C r e e k Middle Fork Quilceda Creek Siberia CreekJi m C r e e k North Fork Stillaguamish River >57 >16 >65 >27 >67 >62 >59>64>62 >69 >278>278 >120 >243 >222>215 >435 >110 >109.4 >175.5 Thickness of Unconsolidated deposits (Jones, 1996) ^_Oil/gas Wells Mapped Bedrock Outcrops CWSP and Service Area Alternative Sites 0 4,000Feet K Figure 4-1 Thickness of Unconsolidated Deposits City of Arlington 2019 Site Screening Analysis Located Well Log (withUnconsolidated Deposit Thickness) Does not encouter bedrock Encounters Bedrock K: \ P e t e r \ A r l i n g t o n \ G I S \ T h i c k n e s s . m x d 6 / 2 8 / 2 0 1 9 ¬«1 ¬«2 ¬«6 ¬«5 ¬«4 ¬«3 Notes: 1: Lake Goodwin oil test 1 Tertiary sandstone encountered possibly from 1700 feet down and definitely from 2500 feet (from Newcomb (1952)) 2: Silvana-Community 12-1 suggests possible bedrock contact at 900 feet 3: Deepest well in area suggests bedrock deeper than 574 feet 4: Bedrock exposed in river bed, mapped contours incorrect 5: Bedrock encountered 35 feet below land surface, mapped contours incorrect 6: Incorrectly mapped bedrock exposure DRA F T 9 99 9 9 9 99 9 9 9 9 9 9 999 9 9 9 99 9 9 9 9 9 999 9 9 99 9 9 999 9 999 9 99 9 9 9 9 999999 999 999 9 99 9 9 9 9 9 99 99 9 9 9 999 9 9999999 99 9 9 99 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 99 9 9 9 9 9 999 9 9 #*8 #*8 #*8 #*8 #*8 #*8 #*8 #*8 #*8#*8 #*8 #*8 #*8 #*8 #*8 Haller Site |-----| C- C ' Qal ? Qva Qvr Qtb Qu Qvt BR A West A' East Qvr BR BR BRBR ? ? ? Qvt Qva Qvr Qvt ?Qva Qvt Qvr 87 6 8 4 82 2 4 0 82 1 7 8 81 9 1 4 81 1 6 8 79 2 4 5 40 3 4 6 1 92 9 5 7 6 49 3 3 5 5 41 9 8 4 6 39 5 7 0 8 34 2 2 6 8 33 2 7 4 9 30 3 7 6 2 30 3 7 6 1 43 0 2 7 3 40 3 9 3 5 0 300 100 200 -400 -300 -200 -100 -500 45 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 30 0 0 0 Well Logs (with Ecology Database ID) 1a - Gravel 1b - Sand + Gravel 1c - Sand 2a - Coarser Mixtures 2b - Medium Mixtures 2c - Finer Mixtures 3 - Silts + Clays 4 - Till/Hardpan 5a - Sandstone (or Cemented Sand) 5b - Shale 5c - Conglomerate (or Till?) 6 - Fine-grained Peaty Sediments Screened Interval #*8 Water Level 30x Vertical Exaggeration Interpreted Geologic Contact Figure 4-2 Cross Section A-A' City of Arlington 2019 Site Screening Analysis Geologic Units (See Figure x) Qal - Alluvium Qvr - Vashon Recessional Outwash Qgt - Till Qva - Vashon Advance Outwash Qtb - Transitional Beds Qu - Undifferentiated sediments BR - Bedrock DRA F T 9 9 9 9 9 999 9 9 9 99 9 99 999 9 99 9 99 99999 9 9 99 999 9 999 9 9 9 99 9 9 9 9 99 9 9999 99 9 99 9 9 9 9 9 999 9 99 99 99 999 9 9999 99 9 9 99 99 9 9 99 99 99 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 99 9 99 99 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 99 99 9 9 99 99 9 99 99 999999 999999 9 9 99999 9 9 9 999 9 9 99 99 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 999 99 99999 9 99 9 #*8 #*8 #*8#*8 #*8 #*8 #*8 #*8 #*8 #*8 #*8#*8 #*8 #*8 #*8 #*8 B West B' East Qvr Qvt Qvr Qvr Qvt Qvt Qvt Qal Qal Qva Qva Qva Qtb Qu BR Qtb Qu Site 10 |--------| Site 11 & 12 |-----------------|C- C ' ? ?? ?? ? ? ? ? Qva ?? 95 5 3 8 92 8 3 3 86 6 2 6 86 0 8 2 81 8 0 9 80 5 7 1 ( U S G S 3 1 N / 0 5 E - 1 8 C 0 1 ) 76 1 0 9 76 0 9 5 43 8 3 9 1 44 1 2 4 3 41 4 1 6 2 37 4 0 6 9 30 3 7 7 0 16 2 7 4 2 7 15 5 6 5 8 8 81 5 6 2 39 4 2 9 0 38 6 4 9 0 17 0 8 6 9 5 0 300 100 200 -400 -300 -200 -100 -500 45 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 30 0 0 0 Well Logs (with Ecology Database ID) 1a - Gravel 1b - Sand + Gravel 1c - Sand 2a - Coarser Mixtures 2b - Medium Mixtures 2c - Finer Mixtures 3 - Silts + Clays 4 - Till/Hardpan 5a - Sandstone (or Cemented Sand) 5b - Shale 5c - Conglomerate (or Till?) 6 - Fine-grained Peaty Sediments Screened Interval #*8 Water Level 30x Vertical Exaggeration Interpreted Geologic Contact Figure 4-3 Cross Section B-B' City of Arlington 2019 Site Screening Analysis Geologic Units (See Figure x) Qal - Alluvium Qvr - Vashon Recessional Outwash Qgt - Till Qva - Vashon Advance Outwash Qtb - Transitional Beds Qu - Undifferentiated sediments BR - Bedrock DRA F T 99 9 9999999 999 9 999 9 99 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 999 99 9 9 99 9 9 99 9 9 #*8#*8 #*8 #*8 #*8 #*8 #*8 Sites |--------| B- B ' C North C' South Qva QalBR Qu Qtb ? Qvr Qvr Qva Qvt Qvr Qva ? ? Qvr Qtb Qva Ai r p o r t W e l l Te s t W e l l 0 300 100 200 -400 -300 -200 -100 -500 45 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 30 0 0 0 78 4 5 9 78 1 0 1 75 3 5 2 39 5 7 0 8 34 4 8 5 6 43 8 3 9 1 Well Logs (with Ecology Database ID) 1a - Gravel 1b - Sand + Gravel 1c - Sand 2a - Coarser Mixtures 2b - Medium Mixtures 2c - Finer Mixtures 3 - Silts + Clays 4 - Till/Hardpan 5a - Sandstone (or Cemented Sand) 5b - Shale 5c - Conglomerate (or Till?) 6 - Fine-grained Peaty Sediments Screened Interval #*8 Water Level 30x Vertical Exaggeration Interpreted Geologic Contact Figure 4-4 Cross Section C-C' City of Arlington 2019 Site Screening Analysis Geologic Units (See Figure x) Qal - Alluvium Qvr - Vashon Recessional Outwash Qgt - Till Qva - Vashon Advance Outwash Qtb - Transitional Beds Qu - Undifferentiated sediments BR - Bedrock DRA F T Haller N §¨¦5 110 12 10a SR 9 N E 172ND ST NE BURNRD SR 53 0 N E 67 T H A V E N E JORDANRD 252ND ST NE SM O K E Y P O I N T B L V D PIONEERHWY STANWOOD BRYANTRD FOR T Y F I V E R D 152ND ST NE 51 S T A V E N E SIL L R D SR 530 11 5 T H A V E N E SR 532 3R D A V E N E 236TH ST NE PIONEER HWY E 19 T H A V E N E AIRP O R T B L V D SR 9 N E 228TH ST NE CEMETERYRD 188TH ST NE GRANDVIEWRD 204TH ST NE ARLINGTON HEIGHTSRD LAKEW OODRD NORMAN RD 47 T H A V E N E 23 R D A V E N E 236TH ST NW 15 T H A V E N E 95 T H A V E N E 16 T H A V E N W 211TH P L N E E HIGHLAND DR SU N D A Y L A K E R D 233RD ST NE N O L Y M P I C A V E E BURKE AVE 19T H D R N E 12 T H A V E N W 156TH ST NE 212TH ST NE 172ND ST NW TVEIT RDSR 530 NE 19 T H A V E N E SR 9 N E Por t a g e C r e e k Stilla g u a m i s h R i v e r Pil c h u c k C r e e k ditc h South Slough Fish C r e e k Ha y h o C r e e k Jac k s o n G u l c h Ea g l e C r e e k Arm s t r o n g C r e e k Sta r C r e e k March Creek Ha r v e y C r e e k Bjorn Creek Olaf S t r a d C r e e k Kac k m a n C r e e k Fish C r e e k ditch South F o r k S t i l l a g u a m i s h R i v e r North F o r k S t i l l a g u a m i s h R i v e r North Fork Sti l l a g u a m i s h R i v e r Ed g e c o m b e C r e e k Jim C r e e k West F o r k Q u i l c e d a C r e e k Middle Fork Quilce d a C r e e k Miller C r e e k Rock C r e e k Little P i l c h u c k C r e e k St i l l a g u a m i s h R i v e r Alternative Sites Surficial Geology (24k) Figure 4-5 Distribution of Well Specific Capacity in the Arlington Vicinity City of Arlington 2019 Site Screening Analysis 0 5,000Feet K K: \ P e t e r \ A r l i n g t o n \ G I S \ S p e c i f i c C a p a c i t y . m x d 6 / 2 8 / 2 0 1 9 Specific Capacity Pump Test Parcel Located Pump Test QQ Located Bailer Test Parcel Located Bailer Test QQ LocatedTe s t T y p e a n d Lo c a t i o n Q u a l i t y Range in SpecificCapacity (gpm/ft)<= 1 1 - 5 5 - 10 10 - 100 >100 DRA F T Figure 4-6 Close-Up View of Haller North Site and Site 1/12 City of Arlington 2019 Site Screening Analysis Haller-North Site Site 1/12 Haller Park Wellfield Quarter-Quarter Section from Original Water-Right Application DRA F T City of Arlington 2019 Site Screening Analysis Figure 4-7 Estimated Distance-Drawdown Relationships at the Haller-North Site Pumping Rate = 750 gpm DRA F T City of Arlington 2019 Site Screening Analysis Figure 4-8 Estimated Distance-Drawdown Relationships at Site 1/12 Pumping Rate = 500 gpm DRA F T City of Arlington 2019 Site Screening Analysis Figure 4-9 Estimated Distance-Drawdown Relationships at Site 10 Pumping Rate = 500 gpm DRA F T ±0 5,000Feet Figure 5-1 Upper Aquifer Groundwater Elevations & Ecology Sites City of Arlington 2019 Site Screening Analysis Alternative Sites CWSP and Service Area Other WHPA Site of Concern Olympic Pipeline Rivers Water Level Contour* Water Level Contour* G Groundwater Flow Direction Zoning (Arlington & County) Commercial Industrial Residential Agriculture Native American Land Public/Semi-Public K: \ P e t e r \ A r l i n g t o n \ G I S \ U p p e r A q u i f e r . m x d 7 / 8 / 2 0 1 9 G G G G G G G G G G ! ! ! !!!! !! ! ! ! !!!!!! !!! ! < < < <<<< << < < < <<<<<< <<< < = = = ==== == = = = ====== === = !<= ! !!! !! ! ! !!!!!! !! < <<< << < < <<<<<< << = === == = = ====== ==! !! !! ! !!! !!!! !!! !!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!! !!!!! ! !! < << << < <<< <<<< <<< <<<<<< <<<<<<<<<<<<< <<<<< <<<<< < << = == == = === ==== === ====== ============= ===== ===== = == < <<< < < << < = === = = == = <<< <<< < === === = <<== << <<<<< << << << < << < << == ===== == == == = == = == << < << << < <<< <<< <<<<<< <<<<<<<<<<<<< < << << << < < <<<< < < < < == = == == = === === ====== ============= = == == == = = ==== = = = = Stillaguamish River Sou t h F o r k S t i l l a g u a m i s h R i v e r North F o r k S t i l l a g u a m i s h R i v e r 5591 3545 2810 2787 2709 2701 18744 8894437 7583272 7335837 59920354886943 1842364 98294127 95987863 94987959 85995713 63317244 63296179 51947866 51332889 36489214 28658971 10723 37466747 12421282 68627865 84798158 2705 86188681 Port a g e C r e e k Stilla g u a m i s h R i v e r Jim Cr e e k ditc h Fish C r e e k Pil c h u c k C r e e k Ar m s t r o n g C r e e k Ea g l e C r e e k Ha y h o C r e e k North F o r k S t i l l a g u a m i s h R i v e r March Creek South Slough West For k Q u i l c e d a C r e e k Bjorn Creek Sta r C r e e k Kack m a n C r e e k Ja c k s o n G u l c h Fish Creek di t c h Sou t h S l o u g h §¨¦5 SR 9 N E BU R N R D 172ND ST NE JORDANRD 67 T H A V E N E SR 53 0 N E 252ND ST NE SM O K E Y P O I N T B L V D 152ND ST NE SIL L R D SR 530 11 5 T H A V E N E FOR T Y F I V E R D 51 S T A V E N E 3R D A V E N E 228TH ST NE 236TH ST NE PIONEER HWY E 19 T H A V E N E AIRP O R T B L V D SR 9 N E CEMETERY RD 188TH ST NE 204TH ST NE ARLINGTON HEIG HTSRD 47 T H A V E N E PION E E R H W Y 23 R D A V E N E 236TH ST NW 211TH P L N E E HIGHLAND DR 233RD ST NE N OLYMPI C AVE E BURKE AVE 19T H D R N E 156TH ST NE 212TH ST NE 212TH ST NW TVEIT RDSR 530 NE SR 9 N E 19 T H A V E N E Haller N 110b 12 10a 100 50 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 30 0 30 0 15 0 100 200 10 0 250 20 0 25 0 150 150 20 0 Sout h F o r k S t i l l a g u a m i s h R i v e r Ed g e c o m b e C r e e k Olaf S t r a d C r e e k Middle Fork Q u i l c e d a C r e e k Middle Fork Quilceda CreekMiddle Fork Quilceda Creek Arm s t r o n g C r e e k *Elevations in feet (NAVD 88) Grou n d w a t e r Soil !<= !<= !<= !<= !<=Concentrations Below Cleanup Levels !<=Confirmed Contamination !<=Suspected Contamination !<=No Information Ecology Confirmed/SuspectedContaminated Sites DRA F T ± 0 500Feet FIGURE 7-1 Government Lots in the Haller WF Vicinity 2019 Ste Screening Analysis Haller Park Parcel GL-7 From 1875 BLM Map (approximate) POW for Haller Water Rights &-Haller Park Wellfield Current River Location K: \ P e t e r \ A r l i n g t o n \ G I S \ H a l l e r _ W R . m x d 9 / 1 3 / 2 0 1 9 &- !. Stillaguam i s h R i v e r North F o r k S t i l l a g u a m i s h R i v e r South Fork S t i l l a g u a m i s h R i v e r WWTP Outfall!. 1875 River Location DRA F T DRA F T Appendix A Hazardous Waste Facilities Page A-1 Appendix A Summary of Hazardous Waste Facilities DRA F T Appendix A Hazardous Waste Facilities Page A-2 This page blank for formatting and pagination DRA F T Table A‐1. Ecology Facility Site Database Interaction Types and Potential Hazard Posed to Groundwate WHPA Risk? Hazardous Materials? Cleanup Site? UST/ LUST? All Programs ENFORFNL Enforcement Final An Enforcement action (i.e. Penalty, Order, Notice) was finalized and issued to the respective party, indicating the enforcement action was taken. The start and end date listed in the database are both the date the action was issued to the responsible party. Y NONENFNL Non Enforcement Final A Non‐Enforcement action (i.e. permit, notice of construction, etc.) was finalized, issued to the respective party, indicating the non‐enforcement action was taken. AQARS Air Qual Annual Reg Source Facilities with actual or potential emissions that are less than thresholds identified for federal and state operating permit program. (These sources are smaller than operating permit program sources). See WAC 173‐400‐100 AQGSR Air Qual Gas Sta Reg Gas stations and gasoline storage facilities. See Ch. 173‐491 WAC. AQLA Air Qual Local Authority Reg Small sources governed only by local air authorities. AQOPS Air Qual Oper Permit Source Facilities with actual or potential emissions that are greater than 100 tons of (or 10 tons any one hazardous air pollutants or 25 tons per year of a combination of hazardous pollutants) fugitive air emissions per year. (These are generally large industrial facilities governed by the federal and state operating permit program.) See Ch. 173‐401 WAC AQPR Air Qual Periodic Reg These businesses are the smallest sources required to report their emissions under the federal and state operating permit program. (These sources are generally smaller than registration sources). See WAC 173‐400‐102 AQPS Air Qual Permit Source Facilities that as part of their process will emit air pollutants and are seeking construction permits for either a new source or changes to their existing facility. See WAC 173‐400‐110 or ‐114 AQPSD Air Qual PSD Source All facilities that emit more than 250 tons per year of air pollutants, or 100 tons per year if the pollutants are within 28 listed categories. AQSYNMNR Air Qual Synth Minor Source Facilities that would be regulated under the operating permit program but have opted to keep their emission limits lower than the threshold for the program Their enforceable emission limits keep them out of the operating permit program. See WAC 173‐400‐03 Hazardous Waste and Toxics Reduction (HAZWASTE) TIER2 Emergency/Haz Chem Rpt TIER2 Businesses that store 10,000 pounds or more of a hazardous chemical or 500 pounds or less, depending on the chemical, of an extremely hazardous chemical on site at any one time must report annually. Reports are sent to the State Emergency Response Commission [represented by Ecology] Local Emergency Planning Committees, and local fire departments for emergency planning. [product, not waste] Y Y TRI Toxics Release Inventory Facilities in specific industries that manufacture, process or use more than the threshold amount of one or more of 600 listed toxic chemicals. Most threshold amounts are 10,000 or 25,000 pounds per year. Some chemicals have much lower thresholds. Y Y Ecology Program Ecology Interaction Type Code Ecology Interaction Type Name Ecology Interaction Type Description Potential Groundwater Hazards Air Quality (AIRQUAL) 2019 Site Screening Memo (DRAFT) City of Arlington Page 1 / 7 DRA F T Table A‐1. Ecology Facility Site Database Interaction Types and Potential Hazard Posed to Groundwate WHPA Risk? Hazardous Materials? Cleanup Site? UST/ LUST? Ecology Program Ecology Interaction Type Code Ecology Interaction Type Name Ecology Interaction Type Description Potential Groundwater Hazards HWP Hazardous Waste Planner Under Chapter 173‐307 WAC, facilities that report under Section 313 of the Emergency Planning/Community Right‐To‐Know Act (EPCRA), or that generate more than 2,640 pounds of hazardous waste per year, must prepare Pollution Prevention Plans. Y Y LSC Local Source Control The site has received a technical assistance visit from a Local Source Control Specialist. UW Urban Waters The site has received an inspection by an Ecology Urban Waters Inspector. RSVP Revised Site Visit Program The Hazardous Waste and Toxics Reduction Program engages in a variety of field work, site visits, and contacts with sites. While most compliance related activity is recorded into the EPA's RCRAInfo system, the other types of activities are recorded into the Revised Site Visit Program (RSVP). HWG Hazardous Waste Generator Facilities that generate any quantity of a dangerous waste. They may be classified as SQG, MQG, or LQG depending on hazardous waste generated for a given month. Y Y HWOTHER Haz Waste Management Activity Facilities that are required to have a RCRA Site ID# but who do not generate and/or manage hazardous waste (XQG generator status). This includes transporters, used oil recycler's, and dangerous waste fuel marketers and burners. Y Y HWTRNSFR Haz Waste Transfer Facility Transfer facility is a site, owned, leased or operated by a transporter of regulated hazardous waste shipments where any of the following occurs: 1) receives wastes from another transporter, 2) transfers wastes from one transport vehicle to another, 3) transfers waste from one container to another, and 4) stores waste within a vehicle or on property for 10 days or less. Examples of transfer facilities include a parking lot, warehouse, truck terminal, barge or steamship loading and unloading facility, or railroad spur loading or unloading facility. Y Y HWTSDF Haz Treatment Storage Facility Facilities that treat store or dispose hazardous waste.Y Y SEAPROJ SEA Project Site A SEA Project Site is a location where a proposed activity has triggered an Ecology action, on or after January 1, 2004, based on its authority from Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, Coastal Zone Management Act, and/or the State Water Pollution Control Act (90.48 RCW). The activity may be pending or Ecology has taken some action (denied or approved a permit, conducted an enforcement action, etc.). Examples of projects include: commercial, residential, or industrial developments involving fill of wetlands; dredging and other in‐ water activities; bridge crossings; etc. SEAMIT SEA Mitigation Site A SEA Mitigation Site is in most cases associated with a SEA Project Site. It is a compensatory mitigation site required as permit conditions for activities occurring at the SEA Project Site. Compensatory mitigation sites are required for impacts to the state’s water bodies, including wetlands. Compensatory mitigation generally involves restoration, creation, enhancement, or preservation of aquatic resources and their buffers. Compensatory mitigation sites are typically protected for the long term with a site protection mechanism such as a deed restriction, conservation covenant, or conservation easement. Shorelands and Environmental Assistance (SEA) 2019 Site Screening Memo (DRAFT) City of Arlington Page 2 / 7 DRA F T Table A‐1. Ecology Facility Site Database Interaction Types and Potential Hazard Posed to Groundwate WHPA Risk? Hazardous Materials? Cleanup Site? UST/ LUST? Ecology Program Ecology Interaction Type Code Ecology Interaction Type Name Ecology Interaction Type Description Potential Groundwater Hazards SEAPROJOLD SEA OLD Project Site A SEA OLD Project Site is a location where a proposed activity has triggered an Ecology action, prior to January 1, 2004, based on its authority from Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, Coastal Zone Management Act, and/or the State Water Pollution Control Act (90.48 RCW). The activity may be pending or Ecology has taken some action (denied or approved a permit, conducted an enforcement action, etc.). Examples of projects include: commercial, residential, or industrial developments involving fill of wetlands; dredging and other in‐ water activities; bridge crossings; etc. SEAMITOLD SEA OLD Mitigation Site A SEA OLD Mitigation Site is in most cases associated with a SEA OLD Project site. It is a compensatory mitigation site required as permit conditions for activities occurring at the SEA OLD Project site. Compensatory mitigation sites are required for impacts to the state’s water bodies, including wetlands. Compensatory mitigation generally involves restoration, creation, enhancement, or preservation of aquatic resources and their buffers. Compensatory mitigation sites are typically protected for the long term with a site protection mechanism such as a deed restriction, conservation covenant, or conservation easement. CLASS1 Class 1 Facility Applies to large, fixed shore‐side facilities such as refineries, refueling terminals, and oil pipelines. This definition includes facilities that transfer to tank vessels and pipelines. Full definition can be found in Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 173‐180‐020. Y CLASS2 Class 2 Facility Applies to mobile equipment such as tank trucks, railcars, and portable tanks that transfer to any non‐ recreational vessel of any size. Full definition can be found in Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 173‐180‐020. Y CLASS3 Class 3 Facility Applies to small tank farms and terminals that transfer oil to non‐recreational vessels that have a fuel capacity of 10,500 gallons or more. Full definition can be found in Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 173‐180‐020. Y CLASS4 Class 4 Facility Applies to marinas and other small fueling facilities that transfer oil to non‐recreation vessels that have a fuel capacity of less than 10,500 gallons. Full definition can be found in Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 173‐180‐020. Y CPLAN Oil Facility Contingency Plan Oil handling facilities that are required to file oil spill contingency plans. An oil handling facility can be classified as a structure, equipment, pipeline, or device located on or near navigable waters of the state that transfers oil in bulk to or from a tank vessel or pipeline and is used for producing, storing, handling, transferring, processing, or transporting oil in bulk. Y NERTS Reported in NERTS A facility that was reported in the Environmental Reports Tracking System Y FCS Federal (Superfund) Cleanup St A federal cleanup site listed in CERCLIS where Ecology has been or is currently involved with the cleanup process or has knowledge of the site from another process. Y Y Spill Prevention, Preparedness, and Response (SPILLS) Toxics Cleanup (TOXICS) 2019 Site Screening Memo (DRAFT) City of Arlington Page 3 / 7 DRA F T Table A‐1. Ecology Facility Site Database Interaction Types and Potential Hazard Posed to Groundwate WHPA Risk? Hazardous Materials? Cleanup Site? UST/ LUST? Ecology Program Ecology Interaction Type Code Ecology Interaction Type Name Ecology Interaction Type Description Potential Groundwater Hazards FUDS Formerly Used Defense Site The Department of Defense (DoD) is responsible for cleaning up properties that were formerly owned, leased possessed, or operated by DoD. Such properties are known as Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS). The Army is the executive agent for the program and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is the organization that manages and executes the program. Information about the origin and extent of contamination, land transfer issues, past and present property ownership, and program policies must be evaluated before DoD considers a property eligible for Defense Environment Restoration Account (DERA) funding under the FUDS program. Y Y INDPNDNT Independent Cleanup Any remedial action without department oversight or approval and not under an order or decree.Y Y IRAP Independent Remedial Action Program Ecology staff reviewed IRAP reports and provide written determination indicating whether the cleanup meets Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA) standards. Y Y LUST LUST Facility A leaking underground tank cleanup site being cleaned up with Ecology oversight or review. Y Y Y SCS State Cleanup Site A site is being cleaned up under state regulations. Regulations include Model Toxics Control Act or its predecessors. Y Y SEDIMENT Sediments A sediment site is a location of interest at which sediment chemical and/or biological data has been obtained and evaluated for potential impacts to human health or the environment. Sediment sites may exist beneath or be associated with freshwater, marine and estuarine bodies of water. Sediment sites may or may not be linked to a known land‐based facility. VOLCLNST Voluntary Cleanup Sites For a fee, Ecology staff will review an independent cleanup report(s) and provide a written decision about the adequacy of the cleanup actions taken and described in the report. Y Y SCI Source Control Inspection Source Control Inspection conducted by Ecology or other agency for TCP Cleanup Sites. UST Underground Storage Tank Any one or combination of tanks (including connecting underground pipes) that is used to contain regulated substances and has a tank volume of ten percent or more beneath the surface of the ground. This term does not include any of the exempt UST systems specified in WAC 173‐360‐ 110(2) or any piping connected thereto. See WAC 173‐360 Y Y INDUSTRL Industrial Sites The Industrial Section focuses on three major industries of Washington State: Aluminum Smelters, Oil refineries and Pulp and Paper Mills. The Section's staff is trained to handle the complexities of these industries and is responsible for environmental permitting, site inspections, and compliance issues. They regulate air, water, hazardous waste, and cleanup management activities at pulp and paper mills and aluminum smelters. They also regulate water, hazardous waste, and cleanup management activities at state oil refineries. Y BIOSOLIDS BIOSOLIDS Biosolids Y COMPOST Composting Compost facilities turn organic wastes into compost under controlled conditions without attracting pests or creating human or environmental health problems. Y Solid Waste Management (SOLIDWASTE) 2019 Site Screening Memo (DRAFT) City of Arlington Page 4 / 7 DRA F T Table A‐1. Ecology Facility Site Database Interaction Types and Potential Hazard Posed to Groundwate WHPA Risk? Hazardous Materials? Cleanup Site? UST/ LUST? Ecology Program Ecology Interaction Type Code Ecology Interaction Type Name Ecology Interaction Type Description Potential Groundwater Hazards LANDAPP Land Application An area of land, under the same ownership or operator, where solid waste that has beneficial use for its agronomic or soil‐amending properties is applied under controlled amounts and conditions. Y LANDFILL Landfill A disposal facility or part of a facility at which solid waste is placed in or on land and which is not a land treatment facility. Y MRW Moderate Risk Waste A solid waste handling facility that is used to collect, treat, recycle, exchange, store, consolidate and/or transfer moderate risk waste (MRW). MRW is limited to conditionally exempt small quantity generator (CESQG) waste and household hazardous waste (HHW). Y RECOVERY Energy Recovery Energy recovery facilities that recover energy in a useable form from the burning (incineration) of solid waste. These include energy‐recovery facilities that burn municipal solid waste and paper manufactures who burn wood waste at a rate of more than twelve tons of solid waste per day. Y RECYCLE Recycling Recycling facilities are those that transform or remanufacture waste materials into usable or marketable materials for use other than landfill disposal or incineration. Requirements do not include the collection, compacting, repackaging and sorting for the purpose of transport. Y STRHAND Storage & Handling Various types of facilities that handle solid waste on an interim basis. These include piles of solid waste, surface impoundments holding liquids, drop boxes where solid waste is collected for future transportation, areas storing over 800 tires, and transfer stations where solid waste is collected, compacted, sorted and loaded for transport to a recycling facility or final disposal at a landfill or incineration. Y WQDAIRY Dairy Any farm licensed to produce milk under chapter 15.36 RCW. This definition is further restricted to include only those facilities that are producing bovine milk (as opposed to goat milk), and excludes other dairy related operations such as replacement heifer rearing farms. It should be noted that some dairies have more than one milking parlor and therefore have more than one license. Y APALGAEGP AP Aquatic Plant and Algae Management GP General permit to regulate application of herbicides and other products used in lakes to treat plants or algae in order to protect state waters. Y APFISHIP AP Fish Management IP Individual permit issued to WA State Fish and Wildlife (WFDW) that regulates the discharge of 2 fish eradication chemicals (rotenone and antimycin A used to control undesirable fish species) in order to protect waters of the state. Y APFISHRMGP AP Fisheries Resource Management GP Fisheries Resource Management Permit issued to WA WDFW Rotenone permit Y APINVAQG AP Aquatic Invasive Species Ma General permit issued to regulate the application of chemicals (used to control non‐native invasive aquatic animals and non‐native invasive marine algae) in order to protect state waters. Y APMOSQGP AP Aquatic Mosquito Control GP General permit issued to regulate mosquito control districts and government entities that apply specified control chemicals (used to control mosquitoes and mosquito larvae) in order to protect state waters. Y Water Quality (WATQUAL) 2019 Site Screening Memo (DRAFT) City of Arlington Page 5 / 7 DRA F T Table A‐1. Ecology Facility Site Database Interaction Types and Potential Hazard Posed to Groundwate WHPA Risk? Hazardous Materials? Cleanup Site? UST/ LUST? Ecology Program Ecology Interaction Type Code Ecology Interaction Type Name Ecology Interaction Type Description Potential Groundwater Hazards APMOTHIP AP Invasive Moth Control IP Individual permit issued to WA State Dept of Agriculture to regulate insecticides (used to control invasive moths) applied to vegetation within and overhanging surface waters in order to protect state waters. Y APNXWEEG AP Aquatic Noxious Weed Manage The general permit covers the indirect discharge of herbicides, adjuvants, and marker dyes into estuaries, marine areas, wetlands, along lake shorelines, rivers, streams, and other wet areas to manage Spartina and freshwater noxious weeds in Washington. An indirect discharge occurs when there may be incidental overspray or dripping of a chemical from the treated plants into waters of the state. Y APOYSTERIP AP Oyster Growers IP Individual permit issued to Willapa Bay/Grays Harbor Oyster Growers and to Farm and Forest Helicopter Service Inc. to regulate application of carbaryl (used to control burrowing shrimp) to state waters. Y APWEEDGP AP Irrigation System Aquatic Weed Control GP General permit issued to regulate applicators of herbicides to control aquatic weeds in irrigation water conveyance systems Y BOATGP Boatyard GP General permit issued to boatyards to regulate discharges of pollutants to state waters from boatyard construction, maintenance and repair activities Y BRIDGEWASHGP Bridge Washing GP General Permit for bridge washing DOT counties cities etc CAFOGP CAFO GP General permit issued to regulate operators of concentrated animal feeding operations that discharge to state waters. Y CAFOIP Cafo NPDES IP Individual NPDES permit issued to regulate operators of concentrated animal feeding operations that discharge to state waters. Y CONSTSWGP Construction SW GP General permit issued to owner/operators of construction projects that disturb 1 or more acres of land through clearing, grading, excavating, or stockpiling of fill material that discharge stormwater to state waters. DAIRY Dairy Unpermitted Unpermitted Dairy (Facility Site Place Holder)Y FISHGP Upland Fish Hatchery GP General permit issued to operators of upland fin‐ fish hatching and rearing operations to regulate discharges to state waters FISHNETPENS Fish Net Pens In water structures that raise or hold fish. This separates these facilities from upland hatchery/fish rearing structures. They will all have NPDES permit. Some are in fresh water and some marine, but all will be located in a waterbody, not on land. Y FRUITGP Fruit Packer GP General permit issued to fruit packers to regulate discharges of process wastewater and stormwater to state waters. Y IND2GROUNDSWDP Industrial to ground SWDP IP Industrial to ground SWDP IP Y IND2POTWPRIVSWDP Industrial to POTW/Private SWD Industrial state waste discharge permit for facility that discharges pretreated wastewater to a public or privately owned treatment works (POTW). Y INDNPDESIP Industrial NPDES IP Individual NPDES and State permits issued to industries to regulate discharges of process wastewater to state waters. Y INDSWGP Industrial SW GP General permit issued to industries to regulate the discharge of contaminated stormwater to state waters. MARIJUANA Marijuana Growers This interaction is used for marijuana growers that fill out the checklist Ecology provides when they call and ask whether they will need a permit. Y 2019 Site Screening Memo (DRAFT) City of Arlington Page 6 / 7 DRA F T Table A‐1. Ecology Facility Site Database Interaction Types and Potential Hazard Posed to Groundwate WHPA Risk? Hazardous Materials? Cleanup Site? UST/ LUST? Ecology Program Ecology Interaction Type Code Ecology Interaction Type Name Ecology Interaction Type Description Potential Groundwater Hazards MS4P1GP Municipal SW Phase I GP General permit issued to municipalities with populations greater than 100,000 to regulate stormwater discharges from municipal stormwater collections systems to state waters. MS4P2EASTGP Municipal SW Phase II Eastern WA GP General permit issued to all operators of regulated small municipal stormwater collection systems to regulate stormwater discharges to state waters in eastern WA. MS4P2WESTGP Municipal SW Phase II Western WA GP General permit issued to operators of small municipal stormwater collection systems to regulate stormwater discharges to state waters in western WA. MUNI2GROUNDSWDP Municipal to ground SWDP IP Municipal to ground SWDP IP Y MUNINPDESIP Municipal NPDES IP Individual NPDES and State permits issued to municipalities and other public entities to regulate discharges of treated domestic wastewater to state waters. Y NONPOINT NONPOINT A Facility or Site that is discharging polluted runoff from urban, agriculture, forestry or other practices and does not have a water quality permit. Y RECLAIMSWDP Reclaimed Water IP Individual permit issued to a generator of reclaimed water that regulates the location, the rate, the quality, and the purpose of use of the reclaimed water. Y SANDGP Sand and Gravel GP General permit issued to sand and gravel mining operators to regulate the discharge of pollutants to state waters. Y VESSELDECONSGP Vessel Deconstruction GP Vessel Deconstruction GP Y WATERCOLLECTGP Tributary Wastewater Collection System GP General permit issued to operators of tributary domestic wastewater collection systems not regulated under an individual permit. Y WATERTREATGP Water Treatment Plant GP General permit issued to water treatment plants to regulate the discharge of backwash (generated during potable water production) to state waters. Y WINEGP Winery GP General permit issued to regulate wineries that discharge process wastewater to state waters.Y WSDOTMSWGP WSDOT Municipal SW GP General permit issues to the WA State Department of Transportation to regulate its discharge of stormwater (runoff from state highways, rest areas, park and ride lots, ferry terminals, and maintenance facilities) to state waters. DAM Dam Site Under state law, the Department of Ecology is responsible for regulating dams that capture and store at least 10 acre‐feet of water or watery materials such as mine tailings, sewage and manure waste. Ecology's Dam Safety Office currently oversees about 870 dams across the state through plan reviews and construction inspections of new dams as well as conducting inspections of existing dams to assure proper operation and maintenance. Note: Professional judgement was applied in creating this list of potential groundwater hazards. It assumes that groundwater and surface water are in direct continuity, and therefore applications of pesticides or herbicides to surface waters could impact groundwater. General stormwater discharge permits were not included as potential hazards since stormwater from all sites within WHPAs potentially drain to state waters, and therefore stormwater pollution risks are not limited to only permitted sites . Water Resources (WATRES) 2019 Site Screening Memo (DRAFT) City of Arlington Page 7 / 7 DRA F T DRA F T Appendix B Conceptual Mitigation Analysis Page B-1 Appendix B Conceptual Mitigation Analysis DRA F T Appendix B Conceptual Mitigation Analysis Page B-2 This page blank for formatting and pagination DRA F T Pacific Groundwater Group Appendix B ‐ Draft #4 (9/13/19) Page 1 Appendix B Conceptual Mitigation Analysis The following conceptual mitigation analysis uses hypothetical assumptions (based on best professional judgement) to evaluate the relative merits of different strategies to access the City’s currently unused (inchoate) water rights. The conclusions derived from this analysis are applicable to developing useful mitigation strategies for the City; however, the quantitative values estimated below are hypothetical and would require refinement with rigorous hydrogeologic analysis (e.g. groundwater modeling) and confirmation of certain assumptions with Department of Ecology. This analysis focuses on optimizing the City’s annual allocated quantities (Qa’s). Separate analysis would be required to optimize instantaneous allocations (Qi’s), but similar conclusions are expected regarding the relative merits of various groundwater development strategies. Introduction 1. The City wishes to develop new Qi up to 1,500 gpm and some portion of their remaining Qa (2,687 af/yr) at potential sites identified in the main report. 2. For the purposes of this analysis, any groundwater developed to meet this demand is assumed to be withdrawn from the Shallow Aquifer system. New pumping could come from points of withdrawal (POW’s) at “off‐channel” or “near‐channel” sites. Off‐channel sites refer to those sites not immediately adjacent to the Stillaguamish River (e.g. Site 10 and Site 1/12). Near‐channel sites include: Haller‐North, the Haller Park Wellfield, and any other site immediately adjacent to the Stillaguamish River downstream of the Haller Park Wellfield. 3. “Small Streams” are herein defined as the small streams in the lowland topography (e.g. geologic exposures of Qal and Qvr) of the Stillaguamish River Valley. These include multiple small streams and connected drainage ditches, as shown on Figure 1‐1 of the main report. Streams outside WRIA 5 (e.g. Quilceda Creek in WRIA 7) are considered handled separately 4. Foster v. Yelm requires mitigation in kind, in place, and in time. It is unclear which small streams will be subject to Foster‐based mitigation as required by Ecology. Mitigating all small streams combined would be simpler and more cost‐effective than if Ecology requires the City to mitigate each small stream on a reach‐by‐reach basis. 5. Steve Boessow (Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife) informed PGG that local ditches and short reaches of small streams provide fish habitat, and would therefore warrant protection from groundwater pumping impacts. For new groundwater development, he suggested: 1) focusing new water‐resource development on near‐channel sites that won’t significantly impact small streams, and/or 2) using groundwater infiltration in a centralized “upper‐basin” location within the Portage Creek drainage to mitigate small‐stream impacts from off‐channel sites. As demonstrated below, the groundwater‐infiltration mitigation approach may not be efficient relative to other options. 6. Past discussions have considered mitigation requirements for pumping impacts on Portage Creek and Quilceda Creek (WRIA 7). Figure 1‐1 shows multiple small streams and ditches – both connected to Portage Creek and independent. If Ecology required mitigation on a reach‐by‐reach basis for all small streams, use of direct “pump‐and‐dump” to multiple discharge points would be onerous and expensive. If Ecology allows all small streams to be grouped together for mitigation, feasible options DRA F T Pacific Groundwater Group Appendix B ‐ Draft #4 (9/13/19) Page 2 might include: centralized groundwater infiltration, direct pump‐and‐dump to a few limited locations, or targeted infiltration very close to channels. 7. This analysis assumes that any new groundwater withdrawals would be approved either as a new POW from the Haller water right (using an Application for Change of Water Rights or Showing of Compliance with RCW 90.44.100) or as a new water right permit that would use existing water rights for mitigation. Mitigation options for new water right permits include: reduced or discontinued pumping at the Airport and/or Haller sites, direct pump‐and‐dump, and groundwater infiltration at either centralized or targeted near‐channel locations. Pump‐and‐dump and groundwater infiltration could be sourced by water from the City’s distribution system or by reclaimed water produced and owned by the City. 8. Pumping impacts (i.e. streamflow depletion) from new POW’s may distribute differently among local streams than pumping impacts associated with the City’s existing sources and water rights. The distribution of pumping impacts among multiple streams or stream reaches is herein called the “depletion profile.” Using existing water rights to mitigate for pumping from a new POW often does not provide a 1:1 offset on a stream‐by‐stream basis and is therefore less‐than 100% efficient. This inefficiency means that using water rights from existing POW’s to mitigate pumping from new POW’s can result in some reduction of overall groundwater availability. From a water‐quantity perspective, the most efficient use of existing water rights is to increase pumping capacity in‐place or at new POW’s that require no additional mitigation. These options combined will herein be called the “No‐Loss” Alternative. Using the Haller water right to mitigate for a downstream, near‐channel POW would result in no loss of groundwater availability; however, using the Haller or Airport water rights to mitigate for a new off‐channel POW would result in some loss of groundwater availability due to mitigation inefficiency. 9. Determining the most effective approach to optimize the City’s existing water‐right portfolio depends on whether the City is willing to consider near‐channel sites. Because the Airport water right is a fixed asset to mitigate pumping impacts on the small streams, new, off‐channel POW’s (that also affect small streams) would make best use of this mitigation asset. Because the Haller water right predominantly impacts the Stillaguamish River, new, near‐channel POW’s (that also focus impact on the Stillaguamish) are best suited for maximizing the value of the Haller water rights. The value of available mitigation resources can be optimized by choosing solutions that maximize the ratio of new water accessed (gain) to water rights used to achieve this gain. Herein this is referred to as the“gain ratio”. A gain ratio of 1.0 means that no portion of the water right is lost in the process of mitigating a new groundwater withdrawal. 10. The Airport water right includes both an additive component (320 af/yr) and a non‐additive component (376 af/yr). The additive component is currently fixed to the Airport POW whereas the non‐additive component can be used at either the Airport or the Haller Wellfield. In order to maximize the value of their existing water rights, the City can choose whether they attribute the non‐additive portion to the Airport POW (best used to mitigate an off‐channel site) or to the Haller POW (best used for transfer to a new near‐channel site). DRA F T Pacific Groundwater Group Appendix B ‐ Draft #4 (9/13/19) Page 3 Conceptual Mitigation Approach 11. A conceptual mitigation approach might be developed along the following lines. Assumptions and calculations are summarized on Tables B1, B2, and B3. While PGG’s assumptions are hypothetical, they are considered reasonable based on best professional judgment. a. For this analysis, depletion profiles have been divided between — 1) the Stillaguamish River, 2) the small streams, and 3) WRIA 7 streams — rather than being estimated and tracked on a stream‐by‐stream or reach‐by‐reach basis. Ecology’s willingness to lump depletion profiles in a similar manner or split them is currently unknown. In either case, a (preferably simple) groundwater model would be needed to update these hypothetical estimates with more rigorously‐derived values. b. The following depletion profiles have been assumed: i. Pumping impacts associated with the Airport Well is split between WRIA 7 streams, small streams, and the Stillaguamish as 40% / 40% / 20%, respectively. ii. Pumping impacts associated with the Haller water right is split between WRIA 7 streams, small streams, and the Stillaguamish as 0% / 2% / 98%, respectively. iii. Pumping impacts associated with off‐channel sites is split between WRIA 7 streams, small streams, and the Stillaguamish as 10% / 50% / 40%, respectively. iv. Mitigation benefits associated with centralized infiltration in one‐or‐more locations within the upper reaches of the small streams is split between WRIA 7 streams, small streams, and the Stillaguamish as 5% / 60% / 35%, respectively. c. Note that the reason pumping impacts from off‐channel sites are assumed similar between small streams and the Stillaguamish River (see 11.b.iii above) despite the fact that Sites 10 and 1/12 are located in the middle of the small streams is because: i. The Stillaguamish is much wider than the small streams, however there are many more small streams. The footprint (wetted area) of the Stillaguamish may ultimately be about the same or slightly less than the small streams. ii. As a larger river, the riverbed of the Stillaguamish is expected to be more coarse‐ grained and therefore more hydraulically conductive for groundwater/surface‐water exchanges. Small streams are expected to have finer‐grained, less conductive streambeds. iii. A similar impact distribution (“augmentation profile”) is assumed for centralized infiltration within the small streams region. However, infiltration is assumed to have less impact on WRIA 7 streams due to the shallow nature of associated groundwater flowpaths. d. Calculations in this analysis are based on average annual pumping and mitigation quantities. If seasonal variation in groundwater withdrawals must be addressed, additional (more complex) analysis would be required. DRA F T Pacific Groundwater Group Appendix B ‐ Draft #4 (9/13/19) Page 4 Mitigation Analysis – Assuming No Near‐Channel POW’s Are Developed e. If the City is NOT interested in pursuing new near‐channel POW’s, the entire Airport water right (696 af/yr combined additive and non‐additive) can be used as a mitigation asset for a new off‐channel POW. Table B1 shows that the estimated pumping impacts (streamflow depletion) from the airport well are 139 af/yr to the Stillaguamish River, 278 af/yr to combined small streams north of the WRIA 7 boundary and 278 af/yr to combined streams south of the WRIA 7 boundary. Therefore, fully discontinuing Airport pumping hypothetically provides a small‐stream mitigation offset to support 557 af/yr new pumping from the off‐channel POW. In addition to mitigation for the small streams, water rights for these new off‐channel POW’s would also require 83.5 af/yr mitigation for the Stillaguamish River, which is assumed to be provided by the Haller water right. The associated gain ratio is 0.71 (the City would gain access to 557 af/yr new pumping by using 780 af/yr as mitigation). The cost of this mitigation scheme is foregoing the use of the Airport water right. In this scenario, discontinued pumping at the Airport water right leaves a substantial unused benefit (“mitigation credit”) to WRIA 7 streams (223 af/yr). This credit could potentially be sold to other entities requiring local mitigation in WRIA 7 or could be used to offset WRIA 7 impacts associated with additional off‐channel POW’s developed by the City at a later date. f. Again, assuming that the City is NOT interested in pursuing near‐channel POW’s and has used up the Airport mitigation asset as described above, additional pumping from a new off‐ channel POW could be mitigated using Haller water rights delivered by the City’s distribution system. Mitigation could be delivered to the small streams using pump‐and‐ dump or groundwater infiltration. Pumping impacts to the Stillaguamish would not require mitigation because the Haller water right already allows nearly 100% pumping depletion on the Stillaguamish River at the original Haller POW. Pumping impacts to WRIA 7 could be offset by surplus unused benefits from the Airport mitigation (above) – though IF this is used up, alternative mitigations would be required. Table B2 illustrates how pump‐and‐dump and centralized infiltration could be used to mitigate a hypothetical 500 af/yr of new off‐channel pumping where mitigation from the Airport water right is unavailable. Rather low gain ratios are estimated because a significant portion of the new pumping must be used for mitigation via pump‐and‐dump or centralized infiltration. i. For targeted pump‐and‐dump (or localized infiltration immediately adjacent to targeted streams), a gain ratio of 0.5 could hypothetically be achieved. The cost of pump‐and‐dump would depend on whether Ecology allows mitigation to key stream segments or requires mitigation on a reach‐for‐reach basis. ii. Centralized infiltration is less efficient than direct pump‐and‐dump because infiltration benefits do not pinpoint the small streams, but instead are also distributed to the Stillaguamish and WRIA 7. Centralized infiltration might be less costly than reach‐by‐reach pump‐and‐dump, but its hypothetical gain ratio is only 0.17. DRA F T Pacific Groundwater Group Appendix B ‐ Draft #4 (9/13/19) Page 5 Mitigation Analysis – Assuming Near‐Channel POW’s Are Developed g. If the City IS willing to develop near‐channel sites, then the most efficient use of Airport mitigation assets is to reserve the additive portion of the Airport Water Right to offset a future new off‐channel water right, and to exercise the non‐additive portion (which is supplemental to the Haller water rights) to developing new near‐channel POW’s. Table B3 illustrates this approach and includes separate accounting for the additive and non‐additive portions of the Airport water right. i. A new water right from an off‐channel POW pumping at 256 af/yr could potentially be awarded using the 320 af/yr additive Airport water right as mitigation. This would require further mitigation on the Stillaguamish of 38.4 af/yr, which could be supplied by the Haller water right. This alternative provides a gain ratio of 0.71 (similar to described in “e” above). This scenario also provides an unused mitigation benefit of 102.4 af/yr to WRIA 7 streams, which could be useful to the City in the future. ii. Because the non‐additive 376 af/yr is originally a Haller water right, transferring it to downstream near‐channel sites on the Stillaguamish provides a gain ratio of 1.0. iii. Optimization of the entire Airport water right using both approaches combined, provides a combined gain ratio of 0.86 (assuming mitigation for Stillaguamish impacts for off‐channel site withdrawals comes from the Haller water right). iv. Once both components of the Airport water right are used up, remaining inchoate Haller water rights could also be applied to pumping from new near‐channel sites and would provide a 1:1 gain ratio. 12. Although the hypothetical analyses above is not derived by rigorous quantitative analysis (such as groundwater flow modeling), its conclusions demonstrate concepts that are expected to be applicable to the City’s water rights strategy. Specifically: a. The most efficient use of Airport additive water rights is as mitigation for a new off‐channel site and provides a gain ratio of 0.71 when impacts to the Stillaguamish are mitigated with Haller water rights. b. The most efficient use of non‐additive Airport water rights and inchoate Haller water rights is to use these rights at near‐channel POW’s (e.g. at the Haller Park Wellfield, the Haller‐ North Site, transfer to downstream in‐channel sites) which provides gain ratios of 1.0. c. Applying separate strategies to the additive and non‐additive portions of the Airport water rights increases the overall gain ratio for the Airport water rights from 0.71 (combined) to 0.86 (separated). d. The least efficient use of non‐additive Airport water rights and inchoate Haller water rights is creating a new off‐channel POW, which provides gain ratios of 0.5 (pump‐and‐dump and/or localized infiltration) and 0.17 (centralized infiltration). DRA F T Pacific Groundwater Group Appendix B ‐ Draft #4 (9/13/19) Page 6 Summary of Findings 13. Table B4 summarizes potential pumping at four POW’s under current conditions and under four different future pumping/mitigation scenarios. The POW’s include:  Haller – including the Haller Park Wellfield and the Haller North Site (accessed under Showing of Compliance)  Airport  New off‐channel POW’s, such as Sites 1/12 and 10  New near‐channel POW’s along the Stillaguamish River, downstream of Haller The pumping/mitigation scenarios include: a. Current water rights, assuming that all existing water rights could be accessed at the Haller and Airport POW’s b. The “No‐Loss” scenario, where Airport water rights remain accessible, but the inchoate portion of Haller water rights may be either developed at new Haller POW’s or used to directly mitigate new near‐channel POW’s. c. The “Airport Combined” scenario, where the entire Airport water right (additive plus non‐ additive) is used to mitigate pumping from an off‐channel site, and the inchoate portion of Haller water rights may be either developed at new Haller POW’s or used to directly mitigate new downstream near‐channel POW’s. d. The “Airport Split” scenario, where only the additive Airport water right is used to mitigate pumping from an off‐channel site, and the inchoate portion of Haller water rights may be either developed at new Haller POW’s or used to directly mitigate new downstream, near‐ channel POW’s. e. A scenario where the unused portion of the City’s water rights (Haller inchoate plus Airport additive) are used to mitigate pumping from new off‐channel POW’s using pump & dump mitigation. Haller inchoate (2,451 af/yr) is assumed equal to the 3,904 af/yr total Haller allocation minus 1,453 pumped from Haller in 2018. Available pumping at the off‐channel site is the sum of pumping supported by the Airport additive water right (Table B3) plus the remaining unused portion of Haller water right times the gain ratio shown on Table B2. f. A scenario where the unused portion of the City’s water rights (Haller inchoate plus Airport additive water rights) are used to mitigate pumping from new off‐channel POW’s using infiltration mitigation. Assumptions for this calculation are the same as “13 e” above. Based on the hypothetical gain ratios discussed above and compared to the City’s current total water‐right Qa of 4,224 af/yr, Table B4 suggests that the City could access most of their allocated Qa if all Haller water rights are maintained as near‐channel POW’s. No loss to the City’s total Qa is incurred if portions of the Haller water right are spread to Haller‐North or to new downstream near‐ channel POW’s. Small losses (2% to 5% of total Qa) are incurred when Airport water rights are used to mitigate pumping from an off‐channel POW. Large losses (31% to 50% of Qa) are incurred when both Airport additive and Haller inchoate water rights are used to mitigate pumping from an off‐ channel POW. DRA F T Pacific Groundwater Group Appendix B ‐ Draft #4 (9/13/19) Page 7 14. Although the above comparison assumes that mitigation applications associated with new off‐ channel POW’s are deducted from the City’s existing water‐right portfolio – use of reclaimed water for mitigation would reduce predicted losses of the City’s allocated Qa. Reclaimed water could easily be used to mitigate scenarios “13c” and “13d,” where mitigation requirements occur on the Stillaguamish River. Greater losses associated with scenarios “13e” and “13f” could be significantly offset by mitigating the small streams with reclaimed water; however, lack of purple‐pipe conveyance to the small streams would make such mitigation difficult and expensive. 15. Once existing water rights have been thoroughly optimized, it should be noted that reclaimed water represents an ongoing mitigation resource for new water rights where depletion profiles are coincident with the City’s ability to convey reclaimed water to impacted streams. For example, a significant portion of a new near‐channel water right could be mitigated by discharging the reclaimed water generated from this water right to an upstream location on the Stillaguamish River. 16. The hypothetical analyses above are based on Ecology lumping impacts and mitigation benefits to small streams as a single grouping. If Ecology requires reach‐by‐reach mitigation, mitigation efficiencies (and gain ratios) for off‐channel sites could be substantially reduced. This would push the City towards further considering near‐channel sites where mitigation strategies are relatively simple and straightforward. 17. If some level of reach‐by‐reach mitigation is required, more information about the nature of some small streams and ditches might be helpful to discern between slow‐velocity representations of the regional water table and faster‐velocity streams that drain the aquifer. For slow‐moving water bodies, mitigation requirements may be best assessed based on drawdown rather than change in flow. DRA F T DRA F T Table B1 ‐ Conceptual Mitigation Calculations Using Entire Airport Right as Mitigation for New Off‐Channel Point of Withdrawal on Haller Water Righ Stillaguamish River Small Streams N of WRIA Boundary WRIA 7 Streams Notes Impact of Haller GW Pumping 98% 2% 0% Impact of Off‐Channel Site Pumping 40% 50% 10% Impact of Airport Well Pumping 20% 40% 40% Benefit of Infiltration Near Portage Crk. 35% 60% 5% Airport Water Right Sum of additive plus non‐additive portions Impacts of Airport Pumping 139.2 278.4 278.4 Pumping from New Off‐Channel Site Adjusted to achieve water budget neutrality on small streams. Impacts of Off‐Channel Pumping 222.7 278.4 55.7 Net Impact w/ Airport WR as Mitigation ‐83.5 0.0 222.7 Impact to Stilly covered by Haller WR. Unused benefit in WRIA 7. Airport water right plus 83.5 af/yr mitigation on Stilly from Halle Price for 1:1 access to Haller WR @ new location is Airport W All values in acre‐feet/year unless otherwise specifie As s u m p t i o n s Assumed Ai r p o r t W R Tr a n s f e r 696 556.8 Gain in New Pumping 556.8 Water Rights Used for Mitigation 779.5 Gain Ratio 0.71 DRA F T Table B2 ‐ Conceptual Water‐Right Calculations for Changing Haller Water Rights to Off‐Channel Site without Benefit of Airport Mitigatio Stillaguamish River Small Streams N of WRIA Boundary WRIA 7 Streams Notes Impact of Haller GW Pumping 98% 2% 0% Impact of Off‐Channel Site Pumping 40% 50% 10% Impact of Airport Well Pumping 20% 40% 40% Benefit of Infiltration Near Portage Crk. 35% 60% 5% Pumping from New Off‐Channel Site Alternate point of withdrawal under Haller WR Impacts of Off‐Channel Pumping 200 250 50 Mitigation on Stilly not required, since using Haller WR Required pump & dump to small streams Deducted from new off‐channel pumping. WRIA 7 unmitigated. Total Haller WR Used Net gain in available water Pumped water minus pump & dump returned to small streams Pumping from New Off‐Channel Site Alternate point of withdrawal under Haller WR Impacts of Off‐Channel Pumping 200 250 50 Mitigation on Stilly not required, since using Haller WR Mitigation Portion of Q Infiltrated to GW Assumed infiltrated to mid floodplain site near Portage Creek Benefit of Infiltration Near Portage Crk. 145.8 250.0 20.8 Adjusted to achieve water budget neutrality on small streams. Net Impact of Pumping + Mitigation* ‐54.2 0.0 ‐29.2 Small unmet impact in WRIA 7. Impact on Stilly offset @Haller Total Haller WR Used Net gain in available water Pumped water minus water used for infiltration doesn't include unmet mitigation requirement on WRIA 7 doesn't include unmet mitigation requirement on WRIA 7 All values in acre‐feet/year unless otherwise specifie As s u m p t i o n s Assumed Mi t i g a t i o n b y Ta r g e t t e d Pu m p & D u m p 500 250 500 250 Gain Ratio for Infiltration Mitigation 0.17 Mi t i g a t i o n w i t h C e n t r a l i z e d In f i l t r a t i o n 500 416.7 500.0 83.3 Gain Ratio for Pump & Dump Mitigation 0.50 DRA F T Table B3 ‐ Conceptual Mitigation Calculations Using Airport Additive Right to Offset New Haller Withdrawals from Off‐Channel Site and Using Non‐Additive Portion for Near‐Channel Sit Stillaguamish River Small Streams N of WRIA Boundary WRIA 7 Streams Notes Impact of Haller GW Pumping 98% 2% 0% Impact of Off‐Channel Site Pumping 40% 50% 10% Impact of Airport Well Pumping 20% 40% 40% Benefit of Infiltration Near Portage Crk. 35% 60% 5% Airport Water Right (additive) Impacts of Airport Pumping 64 128 128 Pumping from New Off‐Channel Site Adjusted to achieve water budget neutrality on small streams. Impacts of Off‐Channel Pumping 102.4 128.0 25.6 Net Impact of Airport Transfer* ‐38.4 0.0 102.4 Impact to Stilly comes out of Haller water right New pumping from off‐channel site Airport water right plus 38.4 af/yr mitigation on Stilly from Haller Non‐additive pumping reverts from Airport to Haller Haller water right used at new near‐channel POW As s u m p t i o n s Assumed Ai r p o r t A d d i t i v e WR T r a n s f e r 320 256.0 Additive: Access to New Pumping 256.0 Additive: Water Right Used for Mitigation 358.4 Additive: Gain Ratio 0.71 Non‐Additive: Access to New Pumping 376.0 Non‐Additive: Amount of Haller WR Used for Access 376.0 Non‐Additive: Gain Ratio 1.0 Total: Access to New Pumping 632.0 Total: Amount of Haller WR Used for Access 734.4 Total: Ratio of Gain to Use 0.86 DRA F T Table B4 ‐ Summary of Available Pumping (Qa) Under Various Mitigation Options a) Current b) No Loss c) Airport Combined d) Airport Split e) All Unused to Off‐Channel (Pump & Dump Mitigation) f) All Unused to Off‐ Channel (Infiltration Mitigation) Haller POW 3,904‐Y 3,904 ‐ X ‐ Y 3,444‐Xa 3,866‐Xb 1,453c 1,453c Airport POW 320+Y 320+Y 0 0 0 0 Off‐Channel POW 0 0 557d 256e 1,462 658 Near‐Channel POW 0 X X X 0 0 TOTAL 4,224 4,224 4,001 4,122 2,915 2,111 REDUCTION N/A 0 223 102 1,309 2,113 PERCENT REDUCTION N/A 0% 5% 2%31%50% Notes: All values are in acre‐feet/year (af/yr) X = inchoate portion of Haller water right used at potential downstream near‐channel locations. Y = portion of Haller water right allowed to be used at Airport (<=376 af/yr) a3,444 = 3,904 (total Haller) ‐ 376 (Airport non‐additive) ‐ 84 (mitigation on Stilliguamish River ‐ see Table B1) b3,866 is 3,904 (total Haller) ‐ 38 (mitigation on Stilliguamish River ‐ see Table B3) cPumping from Haller POW assumed 2018 volume (1,453 af/yr) dMitigated off‐channel pumping from Table B1 eMitigated off‐channel pumping from Table B3 Pumping from off‐channel POW calculated is mitigation gain ratio times unused Haller & Airport water rights DRA F T Appendix C Preliminary Action Items Page C-1 Appendix C Preliminary Action Items for Each Water Source Approach for Phases 1 and 2 DRA F T Appendix C Preliminary Action Items Page C-2 This page blank for formatting and pagination DRA F T Appendix C Preliminary Action Items Page C-3 A. Maximize use of existing Haller water rights (2,850 gpm Qi) at Haller using a Show- ing of Compliance water right strategy to remain within published point of with- drawal (POW). 1. Continue withdrawal of 1,650 gpm Qi from Haller wells 2 and 3 as per demand. 2. With initial Ecology and Health approvals, immediately begin planning for demolition of old WTP and expansion of existing WTP facilities, especially the filtration bays and clearwell. The selected design WTP capacity should consider horizons of: 2029 (3,430 gpm); 2036 (4,091 gpm); 2066 (6,817 gpm); and beyond. WTP design capacity can be refined as the results of investigative drilling become available. 3. Use a sonic drilling method to investigate a new well within or immediately adjacent to the existing Haller wellfield footprint. Consider a vertical angle (non-plumb) directing the well screen toward river. A diameter of 8 inches should allow preliminary evaluation of pump rate, well interference, and water quality. The production goal for the new wells(s) is a minimum of 1,200 gpm Qi, and a maximum that can be produced efficiently (with limited well interference) and sustainably. If Step 3 is fully successful (at least 1,200 gpm from a new well) or moderately successful (at least 600 gpm from a new well), proceed to Step 4. If estimated production from this well is less than 600 gpm, continue to Step 5. 4. Immediately begin conversion of the 8 inch exploratory well into a completed production well necessary to achieve the identified production rate. Consider whether revisions to WTP expansion plans might be appropriate. 5. If Haller wellfield production remains significantly less than 2,850 gpm Qi after consid- eration of additional wells in the existing wellfield footprint, proceed to Step 6. If Haller wellfield production is at or very near 2,850 gpm Qi, proceed to Step 7. 6. Investigate a Haller North location where the Showing of Compliance water right strat- egy still does not engage Ecology or place the City at risk of bearing mitigation costs for any identified impairment. a. Secure access and permission to drill on one (or more) parcels within the 40-acre POW published for the PSPL water right that are situated in Haller North (either elsewhere in Haller Park or on the north side of the Stillaguamish River). b. Use sonic drilling method to evaluate a new well at a Haller North location well- field footprint (or immediately adjacent). A diameter of 8 inches should allow preliminary evaluation of pump rate, well interference, and water quality. c. A production goal for Haller North would be the difference in achievable produc- tion at the Haller wellfield and water rights held there, which total 2,850 gpm. A maximum rate at this point would not exceed 1,200 gpm (i.e., if no additional wa- ter is taken from the existing Haller wellfield footprint). The quantity should be able to be produced efficiently (with limited well interference) and sustainably. d. Estimate the costs of transmitting raw water that may be obtained from the Haller North site to the City’s Water Treatment Plant (WTP) at Haller. e. Consider whether revisions to WTP expansion plans might be appropriate. DRA F T Appendix C Preliminary Action Items Page C-4 f. Table any Haller North water development efforts for a cost/benefit analysis once water supplies from other sources are evaluated. Continue to Step 7. 7. Successful development of all 2,850 gpm Qi reduces inchoate water to zero and makes full use of all water provided in the Haller water rights. This is a significant portion (83 percent) of all 3,430 gpm Qi currently held by the City, but provides all of Arlington’s potable water demand only through 2022. 8. Evaluate water supplies from other sources. While working on Steps A1-A8 (above), the Phase 1 objective specifically requires the concurrent evaluation of water rights currently held at the Airport. See Steps B1-B9. Phase 2 objectives of moving beyond existing wa- ter rights into the acquisition of additional water supplies from new sources should also begin to be addressed at the same time as inchoate water rights. See Steps C1-C10. DRA F T Appendix C Preliminary Action Items Page C-5 B. Maximize use of existing Airport water rights (580 gpm Qi). The City desires to dis- continue water production on the Airport, and understands it will incur, as a cost, the reduction of the water right. This is because some fraction of the water right must be retired/reduced to offset (mitigate) the impacts of pumping at the new location on vari- ous other hydrographic features in the vicinity. 1. Continue withdrawal of 220 to 250 gpm Qi from the Airport well as indicated by demand and well condition until final decisions are implemented. 2. Understanding the opportunity costs of abandoning the Airport source, evaluate the pub- lished POW for the Airport well to identify whether any alternative POWs may exist off the Airport on which a Showing of Compliance water right strategy may apply. If found, continue to Step 3. If/assuming none exist, skip to Step 4 3. Prepare a cursory hydrogeologic review of the proposed POW, and estimate costs to move the water right to the new location. Table any on-Airport water development efforts for a cost/benefit analysis once water supplies from other sources are evaluated. Continue to Step 4. 4. Develop one or more logic rubrics for evaluating, in the absence of data-intensive groundwater models, the effects of moving the Airport water right to a new POW. For example, PGG conceptual mitigation scenarios suggest smallest mitigation volume re- quired would occur where xxx…. Also, consider whether rationale for impacts on Qi dif- fer from Qa. Since the City needs Qi sooner than Qa, perhaps there is a means for some reduction in Qa, but little to no reduction in Qa when moving the Airport water right to a new POW. 5. Meet with Ecology to identify a mutually acceptable resolution for changes to the airport water right. The ideal “new” location would be one which maximizes Qi, minimizes re- quired mitigation, has known well yields and water quality (no additional testing), and contributes to an adequately sized source that is efficient to operate. If it contains all of these attributes, skip to Step 7. Otherwise continue with Step 6. 6. Use a sonic drilling method to investigate a new well at a proposed location mutually agreed to with Ecology. A diameter of 8 inches should allow preliminary evaluation of pump rate, well interference, and water quality. The production goal for the new wells(s) is dependent on the net Qi of the water right transfer (<=580 gpm), and the anticipated well yields at the location (i.e., does the site also have potential for contributing to Phase 2 water supply needs?). Adjust the anticipated well yields for the site accordingly. Con- tinue to Step 7. 7. Estimate the costs of moving the Airport water right to the proposed new location. Con- duct a cost/benefit analysis that includes the benefits of transferred water, the costs of wa- ter for mitigation, the capital investment in the new facility, and the benefit of additional water that may be withdrawn at this same location. Table any further development at the location until water supplies from other sources are evaluated. Continue to Step 8. 8. Successful transfer of all 580 gpm Qi from the Airport reduces inchoate water to zero and makes full use of all water provided in the Airport water rights. This would amount to 17 DRA F T Appendix C Preliminary Action Items Page C-6 percent of all 3,430 gpm Qi currently held by the City, and would assure the City’s exist- ing portfolio would provide Qi to all for all of Arlington’s potable water demand through 2029. Transfer of half of Airport Qi (290 gpm) would result in a total of 3,140 gpm, and would assure adequate supply of Qi through 2026. Abandonment of the Airport source would limit Qi to the Haller water rights, with an adequate supply only through 2022. 9. Evaluate water supplies from other sources. While working on Steps B1-B9, the Phase 1 objective specifically requires the concurrent evaluation of water rights currently held at the Haller wellfield. See Steps A1-A8. Phase 2 objectives of moving beyond existing water rights into the acquisition of additional water supplies from new sources should also be addressed at the same time as inchoate water rights. See Steps C1-C10. DRA F T Appendix C Preliminary Action Items Page C-7 C. Evaluate one or more new source locations near the Stillaguamish River. This ap- proach could be used to meet Phase 1 objectives of accessing and putting to use currently inchoate water rights by transferring water downstream from the Haller wellfield without need for mitigation. This approach could also help meet Phase 2 objectives for the devel- opment of new source locations. A mitigation plan would be required for each new pro- posed POW. 1. The spatial limits for this approach would generally be downstream of the Puget Sound Power and Light POW identified in SWC 194 and applied to the Haller wellfield, and consistent with all water right transfers to the wellfield since 2007. A downstream limit may be considered to be the crossing of the Stillaguamish River at Interstate 5, although the City’s water service area (WSA) extends downstream almost to Silvana. Limiting prospective source locations to those clearly drawing from the Stillaguamish River with little or no effect on Portage Creek or other tributaries would simplify the mitigation al- gorithm. 2. Preferred locations under this approach would be those with many of the following char- acteristics: generous well yields and high specific capacities; groundwater is not influ- enced by surface water (is not GWI), thereby reducing treatment requirements; reasona- ble acquisition costs; minimal distance to City treatment facilities, or to locations where package WTPs may be installed; minimal distance to water distribution mains; minimal pumping costs; potential interference with other existing wells is minimized; impairment of tributaries such as Portage Creek are avoided, and mitigation requirements are limited to the mainstem Stillaguamish River; mitigation potential with reclaimed water is clearly demonstrated; and/or mitigation opportunities are provided with other water rights appur- tenant to lands in the area. 3. Quantities of water supplies required under Phase 2 are great enough that delineation of a study area and screening of potential locations is warranted. 4. The City owns more than 20 acres of riverfront directly west of its WTP, Haller wellfield, and other treatment facilities. Approximately half of the site is a constructed treatment wetland known as the Stormwater Wetland Park. The other half is open space in tracts of pasture and hardwood forest. A levee helps protect the site from flooding. A well on the site is served by a City irrigation right first obtained by dairyman C.D. Hammer. (The City has been anticipating a transfer of the water right to the Haller wellfield.) The site holds obvious advantages with many of the characteristics identified in Step 2. 5. Use a sonic drilling method to investigate a new well on the City’s property outside of the Stormwater Wetland Park. A diameter of 8 inches should allow preliminary evaluation of pump rate, well interference, and water quality. The production goal for the new wells(s) is the maximum that can be produced efficiently (with limited well interference) and sus- tainably. 6. For the City’s open space site (and for each site identified in a near-river location), esti- mate the well yield. Identify (describe) the location and extent of impacts on the river. 7. Develop a mitigation proposal(s) for the proposed location. DRA F T Appendix C Preliminary Action Items Page C-8 8. Quantify the costs of developing the well source and providing adequate mitigation. Con- duct a cost/benefit analysis for the source. Compare the cost/benefit ratios with those identified for Haller sources that may be developed with a showing of compliance, and those identified for transfer of the Airport water right to a new location. Benefits per unit cost are anticipated to be greatest for locations within the Haller wellfield POW, and should generally decline from locations near the river and near existing treatment facili- ties, to those further down river, to those further from the river and closer to tributaries. Each location should be evaluated independently, with consideration given to the confi- dence in the production and cost estimates. 9. Evaluate water supplies from other sources. Give preference to the Phase 1 objective of fully utilizing existing water rights by working on Steps A1-A8 and B1-B9. Phase 2 wa- ter source development (acquisition of additional water supplies from new sources) will occur over a longer, extended period of time. 10. Phase 2 will also consider potential water sources that are off-river and near-tributaries. Other than the initial transfer of the Airport water rights to a new location, these opportu- nities should, at first, be given a lower priority. Increased complexity in the development and implementation of mitigation plans, and corresponding increases in costs, are the pri- mary reason. Nevertheless, opportunities to pursue these sources with greater chances for success not unlikely, particularly where treatment requirements are minor. These sources will likely increase the diversity of the City’s water supply portfolio after discontinuing the Airport well. City of Arlington Council Agenda Bill Item: WS #5 Attachment E roads are resurfaced. Design and construction work has been completed for years 2018 and 2019 and we are ready to complete design work for years 2020 and 2021. Murraysmith consultants have prepared the initial design work (to 30% level) and we would like to contract with them to complete the design work and prepare bid documents. Funding for this work will be divided among Utility CIP Funds and TBD funds. The City received a $726,000.00 grant for the resurfacing of Smokey Point Blvd from south City Limits to 174th St., this work is scheduled to be completed in 2021. The City would like to have the design completed by - - City of Arlington MURRAYSMITH Utility Imp. & Pavement Pres. Project November 2019 2020-2021 and Smokey Point Blvd - 1 EXHIBIT A SCOPE OF SERVICES Utility Improvement & Pavement Preservation Project – 2020-2021 and Smokey Point Blvd City of Arlington Project Background Murraysmith, Inc. (Murraysmith) was retained by the City of Arlington (City) to provide engineering services for the Utility Improvement & Pavement Preservation Project – 2020-2021 and Smokey Point Blvd Pavement Preservation. The following scope of services and accompanying fee estimate has been developed based on our understanding of the project and discussions with City staff. 2020-2021 Utility Improvement and Pavement Preservation Project This part of the project focuses on replacing non-ductile iron water main, minor improvements to existing sanitary sewer and stormwater structures, pavement preservation, and curb ramp replacement within project sites identified by the City and shown on the 30% design plans. Preliminary design for years 2020 and 2021 was completed by Murraysmith in July 2018 under a separate contract. Final design for Year 2020 will begin in 2019 and construction will occur in 2020. Final design for Year 2021 will begin in 2020 and construction will occur in 2021. It is understood that this project will cross the City of Arlington’s biennium budgeting years of 2019-2020 and 2021- 2022, budget estimates will be provided to accommodate funding through the City’s biennium budgeting cycles. Smokey Point Blvd Pavement Preservation Project This part of the project focuses on Smokey Point Boulevard pavement preservation and curb ramp replacement from the southern City limits (approximately 770 feet south of 166 th Pl NE) to the 174th Pl NE intersection (approximately 3,600 feet). Other work includes channelization design, to match existing, and development of temporary traffic control plans. Improvements will not occur within the SR 531 intersection. The City received Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) administered Surface Transportation Program (STP) federal funding for this project. Contract documents will be developed according to the WSDOT Local Agency Guidelines (LAG) Manual to comply with federal funding requirements. Design will begin in 2020 and construction will occur in 2021. This project’s design budget estimates will also be provided to accommodate funding through the City’s biennium budgeting cycles. City of Arlington MURRAYSMITH Utility Imp. & Pavement Pres. Project November 2019 2020-2021 and Smokey Point Blvd - 2 G:\PDX_BD\Clients\Arlington, WA\2020-2021 Utility Imp & Pavt Pres\Scope-Fee-Contract\Exh A - UPP 2020-2021 SPB_Scope - 20191115.docx Per City direction, the curb ramp construction improvements will include:  166th Pl NE: proposed curb ramps will be located in the southeast and northeast corners for pedestrian crossing of 166th Pl NE (two curb ramps).  168th St NE: proposed curb ramps will be located in the southeast and northeast corners for pedestrian crossing of 168th St NE (two curb ramps).  169th Pl NE: ramp improvements are being developed and constructed by the Affinity at Arlington development (not included in project).  173rd Pl NE: proposed curb ramps will be located in the southwest and northwest corners for pedestrian crossing of 173rd Pl NE (two curb ramps).  174th Pl NE: The overlay project will end at the radius of the southeast intersection corner. Improvements to the intersection and curb ramps are not included in the project. Curb ramp replacement is not anticipated at the Tractor Supply Co. and Rite Aid entrances since they are private entrances. Project Approach For fund tracking purposes, separate tasks and subtasks are used to distinguish the services performed for the different construction projects as well as the utility improvements and pavement preservation design services. Construction will be accomplished through three separate bid packages (Year 2020, Year 2021 and Smokey Point Blvd). The City will be responsible for all permitting, potholing, easement acquisition, bidding and construction management. Also, the City will be responsible for coordinating project elements with key stakeholders, franchise utilities, and public affected by the project. Scope of Services Tasks 101 & 102 - Project Management Project management services related to 2020-2021 Utility Improvement and Pavement Preservation (UPP) Project will be performed under Task 101. Project management services related to Smokey Point Blvd (SPB) Pavement Preservation Project will be performed under Task 102. Provide overall leadership and team strategic guidance aligned with City of Arlington staff objectives. Coordinate, monitor, and control the project resources to meet the technical, communication, and contractual obligations required for developing and implementing the project scope. City of Arlington MURRAYSMITH Utility Imp. & Pavement Pres. Project November 2019 2020-2021 and Smokey Point Blvd - 3 G:\PDX_BD\Clients\Arlington, WA\2020-2021 Utility Imp & Pavt Pres\Scope-Fee-Contract\Exh A - UPP 2020-2021 SPB_Scope - 20191115.docx 101.1 & 102.1 Project Status Reporting Report status of work activities, data needs and issues requiring City input through weekly project status e-mails and phone calls to City Project Manager. 101.2 & 102.2 Staff Management Manage project staff to ensure all services are in conformance with the scope of services, budget, and schedule. 101.3 & 102.3 Invoices and Budget Oversight Monitor project costs and manage budget and billing tasks, including preparation and submission of monthly invoices and progress reports. 101.4 & 102.4 Project Schedule Prepare and update project schedule for use throughout the project. 101.5 & 102.5 Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) Manage and coordinate in-house quality assurance reviews of all deliverables. 101.6 & 102.6 Project Management Meetings Meet with City Project Manager to discuss project schedule and budget. Murraysmith Deliverables 1. Phone calls and emails regarding project status 2. Monthly invoices and progress reports 3. 2020-2021 UPP project schedule (draft and final) and one (1) update (PDF format) 4. SPB project schedule (draft and final) and one (1) update (PDF format) 5. 2020-2021 UPP project management meeting (as necessary) 6. SPB project management meeting (as necessary) City Responsibilities 1. Review project status reports, invoices, and schedules and provide comments to Murraysmith. City of Arlington MURRAYSMITH Utility Imp. & Pavement Pres. Project November 2019 2020-2021 and Smokey Point Blvd - 4 G:\PDX_BD\Clients\Arlington, WA\2020-2021 Utility Imp & Pavt Pres\Scope-Fee-Contract\Exh A - UPP 2020-2021 SPB_Scope - 20191115.docx Assumptions 1. Anticipated notice to proceed will be on or about December 3, 2019. 2. Project duration will be 17 months as shown in the preliminary schedule at the end of this scope. Therefore, it is assumed there will be up to 17 monthly invoices and progress reports. 3. Project schedules will be developed and maintained using MS Project, or other common scheduling software package. 4. Project management meetings will be attended by up to two Murraysmith staff. Tasks 201 & 202 – Data Collection and Utility Coordination Data collection and utility coordination services related to 2020-2021 UPP will be performed under Task 201. Data collection and utility coordination services related to SPB will be performed under Task 202. This task will include coordination with City staff and utilities to gather information necessary to develop the contract documents for bidding and construction. 201.1 & 202.1 Data Request List Prepare a list of supplemental data needed for the project, submit list to the City, and coordinate with the City during the data collection process. This includes preparing additional lists of supplemental data needed for the project, as necessary. 201.2 & 202.2 Review Data and Information Review data and information provided by the City and extract relevant information for the project. This will include record drawings, previous studies or reports, GIS, aerial photographs, construction photos, and other data related to the project sites. 201.3 & 202.3 Utility Coordination and Analysis Confirm previously received utility system mapping from Fall 2017 and included in the 2020 and 2021 30% design packages, request potential updates from all utilities located within the Year 2020 and Year 2021 project areas. Perform a utility conflict analysis for the preliminary water main alignments to identify potential utility conflicts. Develop a list of potential conflict locations to obtain specific utility information, including dimensions, location and depth, identifying areas to be potholed by the City to confirm existing utilities at critical locations of planned improvements. Perform a utility conflict analysis for the Smokey Point Blvd preliminary curb ramp improvements to identify potential conflicts. Develop a figure displaying the potential conflict locations for the City to gather information on utility location and dimensions. City of Arlington MURRAYSMITH Utility Imp. & Pavement Pres. Project November 2019 2020-2021 and Smokey Point Blvd - 5 G:\PDX_BD\Clients\Arlington, WA\2020-2021 Utility Imp & Pavt Pres\Scope-Fee-Contract\Exh A - UPP 2020-2021 SPB_Scope - 20191115.docx Murraysmith Deliverables 1. Electronic copies of formal “Data Request”. 2. Documentation of utility conflict analysis and recommendations for utility potholing, if required, for Year 2020, Year 2021 and Smokey Point Blvd. City Responsibilities 1. Provide all available documentation for City facilities, as requested. 2. Provide edits, changes, updates and corrections to the Murraysmith 2020 and 2021 30% design packages 3. City crews to perform potholing and locating as determined by the utility conflict analysis and on an as-needed basis. Assumptions 1. Up to six (6) data requests will be developed and submitted to the City. Task 301 – Final Design for 2020 & 2021 UPP (90% Design Completion Level) This task will include coordination with City staff and development of years 2020 and 2021 UPP 90% design plans, specifications and engineer’s opinion of probable construction cost for City review. Elements of this task will include the following. 301.1 Final Design (90%) – Utility Improvement 1. The 30% Review and Site Visits with City Staff – Prepare for and attend 30% design review meetings to discuss final design development for the utility improvements. Prepare meeting agenda and meeting summary (draft and final). Following review meetings, meet with City engineering and operations staff in the field to review the water main alignments and storm and sanitary sewer structure improvements at each site. Prior to the review meetings, the City will complete their technical review of the 30% design completion submittals and provide one compiled written set of comments for each submittal. 2. Plans, Specifications and Estimate – 90% Design Completion Level a. Preliminary design drawings (30% design completion level) will be revised and further developed to incorporate comments from the City’s review of the preliminary design. Develop design plans to approximately the 90% design completion level. City of Arlington MURRAYSMITH Utility Imp. & Pavement Pres. Project November 2019 2020-2021 and Smokey Point Blvd - 6 G:\PDX_BD\Clients\Arlington, WA\2020-2021 Utility Imp & Pavt Pres\Scope-Fee-Contract\Exh A - UPP 2020-2021 SPB_Scope - 20191115.docx b. Murraysmith will prepare technical specifications and appendices to support the design and to be included in the project Contract Documents. Specifications will be prepared based on the City’s standard special provisions to the most current WSDOT Standard Specifications. The City's front-end specifications will be reviewed for consistency between technical specifications and contractual documents. c. The engineer’s opinion of probable construction cost (30% design completion level) will be revised per the design revisions and will include a schedule of estimated quantities, current unit prices, and total construction cost. Develop engineer’s opinion of probable construction cost estimate to approximately the 90% design completion level. d. Submit 90% design packages for 2020 and 2021 construction years, including near complete plan set, specifications, and engineer’s opinion of probable construction cost for all utility improvements, to the City for review and comment. Combine 90% package with pavement preservation improvements package from Task 301.2. 301.2 Final Design (90%) – Pavement Preservation 1. The 30% Review and Site Visits with City Staff – Prepare for and attend 30% design review meetings to discuss final design development for the pavement preservation and curb ramp improvements. Prepare meeting agenda and meeting summary (draft and final). Following review meetings, meet with City engineering and operations staff in the field to review pavement preservation and curb ramps improvements at each site. Prior to the review meetings, the City will complete their technical review of the 30% design completion submittals and provide one compiled written set of comments for each submittal. 2. Plans, Specifications and Estimate – 90% Design Completion Level a. Preliminary design drawings (30% design completion level) will be revised and further developed to incorporate comments from the City’s review of the preliminary design. Develop design plans to approximately the 90% design completion level. Murraysmith’s 30% design included two (2) project specific typical curb ramp details and also referenced WSDOT standard plans for the curb ramp replacement types. The City will confirm the proposed curb ramp replacement types and perform field measurements to calculate the necessary length for each ramp. The City will provide curb ramp lengths to Murraysmith for incorporation into the 90% design plans. b. Murraysmith will prepare technical specifications and appendices to support the design and to be included in the project Contract Documents. Specifications will be prepared based on the City’s standard special provisions to the most current WSDOT Standard Specifications. The City's front-end specifications will be reviewed for consistency between technical specifications and contractual documents. City of Arlington MURRAYSMITH Utility Imp. & Pavement Pres. Project November 2019 2020-2021 and Smokey Point Blvd - 7 G:\PDX_BD\Clients\Arlington, WA\2020-2021 Utility Imp & Pavt Pres\Scope-Fee-Contract\Exh A - UPP 2020-2021 SPB_Scope - 20191115.docx c. The engineer’s opinion of probable construction cost (30% design completion level) will be revised per the design revisions and will include a schedule of estimated quantities, current unit prices, and total construction cost. Develop engineer’s opinion of probable construction cost estimate to approximately the 90% design completion level. d. Submit 90% design packages for 2020 and 2021 construction years, including near complete plan set, specifications, and engineer’s opinion of probable construction cost for all pavement preservation improvements, to the City for final review and comment. Combine 90% package with utility improvements package from Task 301.1. Murraysmith Deliverables 1. 2020 UPP 30% design review meeting and site visit with the City to review utility improvement, pavement preservation, and curb ramp improvement information, questions, and comments necessary to advance the design to 90%. 2. 2021 UPP 30% design review meeting and site visit with the City to review utility improvement, pavement preservation, and curb ramp improvement information, questions, and comments necessary to advance the design to 90%. 3. Agenda and summary of all meetings (draft and final). 4. 2020 UPP 90% plans at half size (11x17), specifications and engineer’s opinion of probable construction cost will be prepared and submitted to the City in electronic format (PDF and Word) for review and comment. 5. 2021 UPP 90% plans at half size (11x17), specifications and engineer’s opinion of probable construction cost will be prepared and submitted to the City in electronic format (PDF and Word) for review and comment. City Responsibilities 1. Coordinate with project team, assist with scheduling meetings, and attend meetings. 2. Review meeting agendas, meeting summaries, and provide comments to Murraysmith. 3. Attend site visits with Murraysmith staff and provide input on final design improvements. 4. Determine the necessary lengths for each curb ramp and provide lengths to Murraysmith for incorporation into the 90% design completion plans. 5. Prepare and provide electronic files, and periodic updates, of text, forms, schedules and other components of the contract documents, including preferred “front-end” sections. City of Arlington MURRAYSMITH Utility Imp. & Pavement Pres. Project November 2019 2020-2021 and Smokey Point Blvd - 8 G:\PDX_BD\Clients\Arlington, WA\2020-2021 Utility Imp & Pavt Pres\Scope-Fee-Contract\Exh A - UPP 2020-2021 SPB_Scope - 20191115.docx 6. City to provide AutoCAD drawings of standard details to be incorporated into the Contract Plans. 7. Complete technical review of the 30% and 90% design completion submittals and provide one compiled written set of comments for each submittal. 8. City will be responsible for preparing permits, easements, and coordinating project elements with key stakeholders, including franchise utilities and public as affected by the project. Assumptions 1. The 2020 and 2021 UPP 30% review meetings, at the City’s office, will be attended by up to three (3) Murraysmith team members. 2. The 2020 and 2021 UPP site visits will be performed immediately after the 30% review meetings and will be attended by up to two (2) Murraysmith team members. 3. Plan format will be the same as preliminary design, using City provided GIS mapping, aerial imagery and LiDAR. 4. City will provide information on storm and sanitary sewer main improvements, fire hydrants to remain, and a list of water services for each construction project. 5. Curb ramp typical details will include sufficient detail for quantity take-off and initial field layout purposes; generally, basic ramp dimensions and type. It is assumed final ramp limits will be field verified during construction based on measurement of formwork and that no right-of-way will be required. 6. Pavement preservation needs will be defined by the City and are anticipated to include 2- inch overlay with taper grind, full depth asphalt replacement (not including subgrade material), curb and gutter replacement along Park Hill Drive, and no other curb or sidewalk beyond the curb ramp limits. 7. Utility trench restoration will be according to City standard details beyond the pavement preservation limits. 8. Murraysmith will use the 4-Year Utility Improvement & Pavement Preservation Program – Year 2019 contract provisions as the basis of the specification and detail development for this project. The special provisions will be updated to reference the 2020 WSDOT Standard Specifications. 9. City review period is assumed to be 2 weeks. 10. Review comments will be received in a complete, single submittal. City of Arlington MURRAYSMITH Utility Imp. & Pavement Pres. Project November 2019 2020-2021 and Smokey Point Blvd - 9 G:\PDX_BD\Clients\Arlington, WA\2020-2021 Utility Imp & Pavt Pres\Scope-Fee-Contract\Exh A - UPP 2020-2021 SPB_Scope - 20191115.docx 11. Contractor shall be responsible for the development of traffic control and erosion control plans. 12. No Critical Areas Study is required. 13. The City has determined geotechnical services are not necessary for the project based on known suitable soil conditions for the project site. City to provide direction on desired pavement section for trench restoration and pavement preservation. 14. Design plans are anticipated to include up to 32 sheets and 24 sheets for 2020 and 2021 construction years, respectively, as indicated in the preliminary drawing list included with this scope of work. 15. City standard details will be included in the Contract Plans, not in the Contract Provision Appendices. Task 302 – Final Design for 2020 & 2021 UPP (Signed Bid Package) This task will include coordination with City staff and development of years 2020 and 2021 UPP final bid ready plans, specifications and engineer’s opinion of probable construction cost for City review. Final bid ready plans will incorporate all prior review comments and will be suitable for bidding. Elements of this task will include the following. 302.1 Final Design (Signed Bid Package) – Utility Improvement 1. The 90% Review and Coordination Meetings with City Staff – Prepare for and attend 90% design review meetings with City engineering and operations staff to discuss review comments and gather input on key issues related to utility improvements. Prepare meeting agenda and meeting summary (draft and final). 2. Final Bid Ready Plans and Specifications a. The 90% design packages will be revised to incorporate comments from the City’s review of the 90% design. Develop design plans, specifications and engineer’s opinion of probable construction cost that are ready for bidding. Revise bid proposal quantities to reflect a bid-ready design package. b. Submit stamped and signed bid-ready Contract Documents, for 2020 and 2021 construction years, to the City for distribution. 302.2 Final Design (Signed Bid Package) – Pavement Preservation 1. The 90% Review and Coordination Meetings with City Staff – Prepare for and attend 90% design review meetings with City engineering and operations staff to discuss review comments and gather input on key issues related to pavement preservation and curb ramp improvements. Prepare meeting agenda and meeting summary (draft and final). City of Arlington MURRAYSMITH Utility Imp. & Pavement Pres. Project November 2019 2020-2021 and Smokey Point Blvd - 10 G:\PDX_BD\Clients\Arlington, WA\2020-2021 Utility Imp & Pavt Pres\Scope-Fee-Contract\Exh A - UPP 2020-2021 SPB_Scope - 20191115.docx 2. Final Bid Ready Plans and Specifications a. The 90% design packages will be revised to incorporate comments from the City’s review of the 90% design. Develop design plans, specifications and engineer’s opinion of probable construction cost that are ready for bidding. Revise bid proposal quantities to reflect a bid-ready design package. b. Submit stamped and signed bid-ready Contract Documents, for 2020 and 2021 construction years, to the City for distribution. Murraysmith Deliverables 1. 2020 UPP 90% design review meeting to discuss utility improvement, pavement preservation, and curb ramp improvement information, questions, and comments necessary to advance the design to bid ready. 2. 2021 UPP 90% design review meeting to discuss utility improvement, pavement preservation, and curb ramp improvement information, questions, and comments necessary to advance the design to bid ready. 3. Agenda and summary of all meetings (draft and final). 4. 2020 UPP final stamped and signed plans at half size (11x17) and full size (22x34), specifications, and engineer’s opinion of probable construction cost will be prepared and submitted to the City in electronic format (PDF and Word). 5. 2021 UPP final stamped and signed plans at half size (11x17) and full size (22x34), specifications, and engineer’s opinion of probable construction cost will be prepared and submitted to the City in electronic format (PDF and Word). City Responsibilities 1. Coordinate with project team, assist with scheduling meetings, and attend meetings. 2. Review meeting agendas, meeting summaries, and provide comments to Murraysmith. 3. Prepare and provide electronic files, and periodic updates, of text, forms, schedules and other components of the contract documents, including preferred “front-end” sections. 4. City to provide AutoCAD drawings of standard details to be incorporated into the Contract Plans. 5. City to coordinate and submit bid-ready contract documents to SolicitBid or similar service. City of Arlington MURRAYSMITH Utility Imp. & Pavement Pres. Project November 2019 2020-2021 and Smokey Point Blvd - 11 G:\PDX_BD\Clients\Arlington, WA\2020-2021 Utility Imp & Pavt Pres\Scope-Fee-Contract\Exh A - UPP 2020-2021 SPB_Scope - 20191115.docx Assumptions 1. The 2020 and 2021 UPP 90% review meetings, at the City’s office; will be attended by up to three (3) Murraysmith team members. 2. Murraysmith shall apply a Washington Professional Engineer’s stamp with signature and date on the final bid-ready edition of the design plans and specifications. 3. Final bid packages for 2020 and 2021 will include two schedules, one for utility improvements and another for pavement preservation. Task 401 – Preliminary Design for Smokey Point Blvd This task will include City coordination and development of SPB preliminary design documents to approximately 30% design completion level. Elements of this task will include the following. 401.1 Preliminary Design (30%) – Pavement Preservation 1. Pavement Preservation and Curb Ramp Plans (30% Design Completion Level) – Using the project information gathered in the previous tasks, prepare preliminary design drawings to the 30% design completion level. The preliminary drawings will show plan views with hatching to indicate pavement preservation needs, proposed curb ramp replacement types referencing two (2) project specific typical curb ramp details and WSDOT standard plans. The typical curb ramp details will be included with the submittal. Channelization, traffic control, and remaining details will be deferred until the 90% design. 2. Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Construction Cost – A preliminary engineer’s opinion of probable construction cost, to 30% design completion level, will be developed for the pavement preservation and curb ramp improvements and include a schedule of estimated quantities, current unit prices, and total preliminary construction cost. Murraysmith Deliverables 1. SPB 30% preliminary plans, at half size (11x17), will be prepared and submitted to the City in electronic format (PDF) for review and comment. 2. SPB Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Construction Cost in electronic format (PDF) for review and comment. City of Arlington MURRAYSMITH Utility Imp. & Pavement Pres. Project November 2019 2020-2021 and Smokey Point Blvd - 12 G:\PDX_BD\Clients\Arlington, WA\2020-2021 Utility Imp & Pavt Pres\Scope-Fee-Contract\Exh A - UPP 2020-2021 SPB_Scope - 20191115.docx City Responsibilities 1. City will send Murraysmith survey basemapping for design and plan development. 2. Complete review of the preliminary design drawings, engineer’s opinion of probable construction cost and all supporting documentation and provide one compiled written set of comments prior to the 30% review meeting. 3. The City will perform field measurements to calculate the necessary length for each curb ramp. The City will provide ramp lengths to Murraysmith for incorporation into the 90% design plans. Assumptions 1. Pavement preservation needs will be defined by the City and are anticipated to include 2- inch overlay with taper grind and full depth asphalt replacement (not including subgrade material) in select locations. 2. Plan sheets will be developed using City provided survey. 3. Plans will be developed at 1 inches = 30 feet scale in AutoCAD electronic format. 4. Curb and sidewalk improvements beyond the curb ramp limits are not included in this scope of services. 5. Utility improvements are limited to adjusting castings to grade and relocating catch basins as necessary for the curb ramp improvements. 6. City review period is assumed to be 2 weeks. 7. Review comments will be received in a complete, single submittal. 8. The complete Project Contract Document packages (front end, specifications, appendices, etc.) will not be prepared for the preliminary design phase. 9. The curb ramp replacements will occur at the locations listed in the Project Background, at the beginning of this scope of services. 10. Curb ramp typical details will include sufficient detail for quantity take-off and initial field layout purposes; generally, basic ramp dimensions and type. It is assumed final ramp limits will be field verified during construction based on measurement of formwork and that no right-of-way will be required. City of Arlington MURRAYSMITH Utility Imp. & Pavement Pres. Project November 2019 2020-2021 and Smokey Point Blvd - 13 G:\PDX_BD\Clients\Arlington, WA\2020-2021 Utility Imp & Pavt Pres\Scope-Fee-Contract\Exh A - UPP 2020-2021 SPB_Scope - 20191115.docx Task 402 – Final Design for Smokey Point Blvd (90% Design Completion Level) This task will include coordination with City staff and development of SPB 90 percent design plans, specifications and engineer’s opinion of probable construction cost for City review. Elements of this task will include the following. 402.1 Final Design (90%) – Pavement Preservation 1. The 30% Review and Site Visit with City Staff – Prepare for and attend 30% design review meeting to discuss final design development for the pavement preservation and curb ramp improvements. Prepare meeting agenda and meeting summary (draft and final). Following review meeting, perform a site visit with the City to review pavement preservation and curb ramps improvements and confirm utility locations and adjustment needs. 2. Plans, Specifications and Estimate – 90% Design Completion Level a. Preliminary design drawings (30% design completion level) will be revised and further developed to incorporate comments from the City’s review of the preliminary design. The 90% design will include channelization, temporary traffic control and pedestrian access routes, project specific details, and City standard details. b. Murraysmith will prepare technical specifications and appendices to support the design and to be included in the project Contract Documents. Specifications will be prepared based on the City’s standard special provisions to the most current WSDOT Standard Specifications. The City's front-end specifications will be reviewed for consistency between technical specifications and contractual documents. c. The engineer’s opinion of probable construction cost (30% design completion level) will be revised per the design revisions and will include a schedule of estimated quantities, current unit prices, and total construction cost. Develop engineer’s opinion of probable construction cost estimate to approximately the 90% design completion level. d. Submit 90% design package, including near complete plan set, specifications, and engineer’s opinion of probable construction cost to the City for final review and comment. Murraysmith Deliverables 1. SPB 30% design review meeting and site visit with the City to review pavement preservation, curb ramp improvement, and utility adjustment information, questions, and comments necessary to advance the design to 90%. 2. Meeting agenda and summary (draft and final). City of Arlington MURRAYSMITH Utility Imp. & Pavement Pres. Project November 2019 2020-2021 and Smokey Point Blvd - 14 G:\PDX_BD\Clients\Arlington, WA\2020-2021 Utility Imp & Pavt Pres\Scope-Fee-Contract\Exh A - UPP 2020-2021 SPB_Scope - 20191115.docx 3. SPB 90% plans at half size (11x17), specifications and engineer’s opinion of probable construction cost will be prepared and submitted to the City in electronic format (PDF and Word) for review and comment. City Responsibilities 1. Coordinate with project team, assist with scheduling the meeting, and attend the meeting. 2. Review meeting agenda, meeting summary, and provide comments to Murraysmith. 3. Determine the necessary lengths for each curb ramp and provide lengths to Murraysmith for incorporation into the 90% design completion plans. 4. Prepare and provide electronic files, and periodic updates, of text, forms, schedules and other components of the contract documents, including preferred “front-end” sections. 5. City to provide AutoCAD drawings of standard details to be incorporated into the Contract Plans. 6. Complete technical review of the 90% design completion submittal and provide one compiled written set of comments. 7. City will be responsible for preparing permits, easements and coordinating project elements with key stakeholders, franchise utilities, and public as affected by the project. Assumptions 1. The SPB 30% review meeting, at the City’s office, will be attended by up to three (3) Murraysmith team members. 2. The SPB site visit will be performed immediately after the 30% review meeting and will be attended by up to two (2) Murraysmith team members. 3. Murraysmith will use the WSDOT LAG Manual, 4-Year Utility Improvement & Pavement Preservation Program – Year 2019 and 67th Ave Pavement Preservation contract provisions as the basis of the specification and design development for this project. The special provisions will be updated to reference the 2020 WSDOT Standard Specifications. 4. City review period is assumed to be 2 weeks. 5. Review comments will be received in a complete, single submittal. 6. Contractor shall be responsible for the development of erosion control plans. 7. No Critical Areas Study is required. City of Arlington MURRAYSMITH Utility Imp. & Pavement Pres. Project November 2019 2020-2021 and Smokey Point Blvd - 15 G:\PDX_BD\Clients\Arlington, WA\2020-2021 Utility Imp & Pavt Pres\Scope-Fee-Contract\Exh A - UPP 2020-2021 SPB_Scope - 20191115.docx 8. Design plans are anticipated to include up to 23 sheets as indicated in the preliminary drawing list included with this scope of work. 9. City standard details will be included in the Contract Plans, not in the Contract Provision Appendices. Task 403 – Final Design for Smokey Point Blvd (Signed Bid Package ) This task will include development of Smokey Point Blvd. final bid ready plans, specifications and engineer’s opinion of probable construction cost. Final bid ready plans will incorporate all WSDOT and City review comments and will be suitable for bidding. Elements of this task will include the following. 403.1 Final Design (Signed Bid Package) – Pavement Preservation 1. The 90% Review and Coordination Meeting with City Staff – Prepare for and attend 90% design review meetings with City engineering and operations staff to discuss review comments and gather input on key issues related to pavement preservation and curb ramp improvements. Prepare meeting agenda and meeting summary (draft and final). 2. Final Bid Ready Plans and Specifications a. The 90% design package will be revised to incorporate all WSDOT and City review comments. Develop design plans, specifications and engineer’s opinion of probable construction cost that are ready for bidding. Revise bid proposal quantities to reflect a bid-ready design package. b. Submit stamped and signed bid-ready Contract Documents to the City for distribution. Murraysmith Deliverables 1. SPB 90% design review meeting to discuss pavement preservation, curb ramp improvement, and utility adjustment information, questions, and comments necessary to advance the design to bid ready. 2. Meeting agenda and summary (draft and final). 3. Final stamped and signed plans at half size (11x17) and full size (22x34), specifications, and engineer’s opinion of probable construction cost will be prepared and submitted to the City in electronic format (PDF and Word). City Responsibilities 1. Coordinate with project team, assist with scheduling the meeting, and attend the meeting. City of Arlington MURRAYSMITH Utility Imp. & Pavement Pres. Project November 2019 2020-2021 and Smokey Point Blvd - 16 G:\PDX_BD\Clients\Arlington, WA\2020-2021 Utility Imp & Pavt Pres\Scope-Fee-Contract\Exh A - UPP 2020-2021 SPB_Scope - 20191115.docx 2. Review meeting agenda, meeting summary, and provide comments to Murraysmith. 3. City to coordinate and submit bid-ready contract documents to SolicitBid or similar service. Assumptions 1. One (1) 90% review meeting will be attended by up to three Murraysmith team members. 2. Murraysmith shall apply a Washington Professional Engineer’s stamp with signature and date on the final bid-ready edition of the design plans and specifications. Task 404 – Federal Funding Related Coordination Murraysmith will coordinate with WSDOT to adhere to federal funding requirements for the Plans, Specifications, and Estimates LAG Project Development Checklist elements. 404.1 WSDOT Submittals and Coordination 1. Submit the following Plans, Specifications, and Estimates to WSDOT for review and project record in accordance with federal funding requirements: a. 30% preliminary design plans and engineer’s opinion of probable construction cost b. 90% design completion level plans, specifications and estimate c. Final stamped, signed and dated plans, specifications and estimate 2. Coordinate with WSDOT staff as required and provide written responses to comments received from WSDOT’s review of the documents. City Responsibilities 1. The City will be responsible for satisfying the remaining requirements identified in the LAG, including but not limited to developing and submitting the Environmental Processes Categorical Exclusion (CE). 2. The City will be responsible for WSDOT coordination related to LAG requirements beyond the Plans, Specifications and Estimates items identified in 405.1. City of Arlington MURRAYSMITH Utility Imp. & Pavement Pres. Project November 2019 2020-2021 and Smokey Point Blvd - 17 G:\PDX_BD\Clients\Arlington, WA\2020-2021 Utility Imp & Pavt Pres\Scope-Fee-Contract\Exh A - UPP 2020-2021 SPB_Scope - 20191115.docx Tasks 501 & 502 – Bidding Assistance Bidding assistance services related to 2020-2021 UPP will be performed under Task 501. Bidding assistance services related to SPB will be performed under Task 502. This task will include supporting the City on an as-needed basis in providing assistance during bidding of the projects. 501 & 502.1 Bidder Inquiries With direction from the City, respond to questions from bidders, subcontractors, equipment suppliers and other vendors regarding the project plans and specifications. Maintain a written record of communications during bidding process. 501 & 502.2 Addenda Assist the City in the preparation of any addenda as necessary to clarify the contract documents. Murraysmith Deliverables 1. Written responses to bidder’s questions as required. 2. Draft addenda as required for the City to distribute to plan holders. City Responsibilities 1. The City will be responsible for tasks associated with printing bid documents, document distribution, bid advertisement, addenda distribution, plan holder administration, bid evaluation, bid tabulation, etc. Assumptions 1. Murraysmith’s support services during bidding will be performed up to the extent of the fee estimate. 2. Up to nine (9) responses to bidder inquiries will be prepared for the City. 3. Up to six (6) draft addenda will be prepared for the City. City of Arlington MURRAYSMITH Utility Imp. & Pavement Pres. Project November 2019 2020-2021 and Smokey Point Blvd - 18 G:\PDX_BD\Clients\Arlington, WA\2020-2021 Utility Imp & Pavt Pres\Scope-Fee-Contract\Exh A - UPP 2020-2021 SPB_Scope - 20191115.docx Preliminary Estimated Schedule Murraysmith shall begin work immediately upon receipt of Notice to Proceed from the City. Murraysmith will proceed according to the preliminary estimated schedule shown below, however the schedule may change due to design collaboration efforts with the City. Factors beyond Murraysmith’s control may also require schedule modifications. 2020 Utility Improvement & Pavement Preservation Project 30% Review Meeting & Site Visit January 2020 90% Complete Submittal January 2020 – March 2020 Bid-Ready Documents Submittal April – May 2020 Bidding and Award May – June 2020 Construction July – September 2020 2021 Utility Improvement & Pavement Preservation Project 30% Review Meeting & Site Visit October 2020 90% Complete Submittal November – December 2020 Bid-Ready Documents Submittal January – February 2021 Bidding and Award March – April 2021 Construction May – August 2021 Smokey Point Blvd Pavement Preservation Project Preliminary Design (30%) Submittal June – July 2020 90% Complete Submittal August – October 2020 WSDOT Review of 90% Design November – December 2020 Bid-Ready Documents Submittal January – February 2021 Bidding and Award March – April 2021 Construction May – August 2021 City of Arlington MURRAYSMITH Utility Imp. & Pavement Pres. Project November 2019 2020-2021 and Smokey Point Blvd - 19 G:\PDX_BD\Clients\Arlington, WA\2020-2021 Utility Imp & Pavt Pres\Scope-Fee-Contract\Exh A - UPP 2020-2021 SPB_Scope - 20191115.docx Preliminary Drawing Lists 2020 Utility Improvement & Pavement Preservation Project Sheet Drawing Name 1 G1 Title Sheet, Vicinity Maps and Drawing Index 2 G2 Abbreviations and Legends 3 G3 General Notes 4 U1 Utility Improvements Sheet Layout 5 U2 Utility Improvements-1 6 U3 Utility Improvements-2 7 U4 Utility Improvements-3 8 U5 Utility Improvements-4 9 U6 Utility Improvements-5 10 U7 Utility Improvements-6 11 U8 Utility Improvements-7 12 UD1 Water Meter Matrix 13 UD2 Utility Details-1 14 UD3 Utility Details-2 15 P1 Pavement Preservation Sheet Layout 16 P2 Pavement Preservation-1 17 P3 Pavement Preservation-2 18 P4 Pavement Preservation-3 19 P5 Pavement Preservation-4 20 P6 Pavement Preservation-5 21 P7 Pavement Preservation-6 22 P8 Pavement Preservation-7 23 P9 Pavement Preservation-8 24 P10 Pavement Preservation-9 25 P11 Pavement Preservation-10 26 PD1 Pavement Details-1 27 PD2 Pavement Details-2 28 PD3 Pavement Details-3 29 PD4 Pavement Details-4 30 CH1 Channelization Plan-1 31 CH2 Channelization Plan-2 32 CH3 Channelization Plan-3 City of Arlington MURRAYSMITH Utility Imp. & Pavement Pres. Project November 2019 2020-2021 and Smokey Point Blvd - 20 G:\PDX_BD\Clients\Arlington, WA\2020-2021 Utility Imp & Pavt Pres\Scope-Fee-Contract\Exh A - UPP 2020-2021 SPB_Scope - 20191115.docx 2021 Utility Improvement & Pavement Preservation Project Sheet Drawing Name 1 G1 Title Sheet, Vicinity Maps and Drawing Index 2 G2 Abbreviations and Legends 3 G3 General Notes 4 U1 Utility Improvements Sheet Layout 5 U2 Utility Improvements-1 6 U3 Utility Improvements-2 7 U4 Utility Improvements-3 8 U5 Utility Improvements-4 9 U6 Utility Improvements-5 10 U7 Utility Improvements-6 11 UD1 Water Meter Matrix 12 UD2 Utility Details-1 13 UD3 Utility Details-2 14 P1 Pavement Preservation Sheet Layout 15 P2 Pavement Preservation-1 16 P3 Pavement Preservation-2 17 P4 Pavement Preservation-3 18 PD1 Pavement Details-1 19 PD2 Pavement Details-2 20 PD3 Pavement Details-3 21 PD4 Pavement Details-4 22 CH1 Channelization Plan-1 23 CH2 Channelization Plan-2 24 CH3 Channelization Plan-3 City of Arlington MURRAYSMITH Utility Imp. & Pavement Pres. Project November 2019 2020-2021 and Smokey Point Blvd - 21 G:\PDX_BD\Clients\Arlington, WA\2020-2021 Utility Imp & Pavt Pres\Scope-Fee-Contract\Exh A - UPP 2020-2021 SPB_Scope - 20191115.docx Smokey Point Blvd Pavement Preservation Project Sheet Drawing Name 1 G1 Title Sheet, Vicinity Maps and Drawing Index 2 G2 Abbreviations and Legends 3 G3 General Notes 4 P1 Pavement Preservation-1 5 P2 Pavement Preservation-2 6 P3 Pavement Preservation-3 7 PD1 Pavement Details-1 8 PD2 Pavement Details-2 9 PD3 Pavement Details-3 10 PD4 Pavement Details-4 11 CH1 Channelization Plan-1 12 CH2 Channelization Plan-2 13 CH3 Channelization Plan-3 14 TC1 Traffic Control Plan-1 Phase 1 15 TC2 Traffic Control Plan-2 Phase 1 16 TC3 Traffic Control Plan-3 Phase 1 17 TC4 Traffic Control Plan-4 Phase 2 18 TC5 Traffic Control Plan-5 Phase 2 19 TC6 Traffic Control Plan-6 Phase 2 20 TC7 Traffic Control Plan-7 Pedestrian 21 TC8 Traffic Control Plan-8 Pedestrian 22 TC9 Traffic Control Plan-9 Pedestrian 23 TC10 Traffic Control Plan-10 Pedestrian EXHIBIT A Utility Improvement & Pavement Preservation Project - 2020-2021 and Smokey Point Blvd CITY OF ARLINGTON PROPOSED FEE ESTIMATE ESTIMATED FEES Principal Engineer II Professional Engineer IX Professional Engineer VI Engineering Designer II Engineering Designer I Technician IV Administrative II Administrative I Hours Labor Expenses Total GEC NPH JLTA SEO NCB HCM BG IR Task 101 - Project Management for 2020 & 2021 Task 101.1 - Project Status Reporting 20 20 991$ -$ 991$ Task 101.2 - Staff Management 10 24 34 1,783$ -$ 1,783$ Task 101.3 - Invoices and Budget Oversight 6 15 10 31 1,401$ -$ 1,401$ Task 101.4 - Project Schedule 2 6 8 416$ -$ 416$ Task 101.5 - Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC)20 20 40 2,537$ 20$ 2,557$ Task 101.6 - Project Management Meetings 2 3 5 267$ 50$ 317$ Task 101 Subtotal 20 40 68 0 0 0 10 0 138 7,396$ 70$ 7,466$ Task 102 - Project Management for Smokey Point Blvd Task 102.1 - Project Status Reporting 16 16 793$ -$ 793$ Task 102.2 - Staff Management 8 21 29 1,515$ -$ 1,515$ Task 102.3 - Invoices and Budget Oversight 3 11 7 21 935$ -$ 935$ Task 102.4 - Project Schedule 2 4 6 317$ -$ 317$ Task 102.5 - Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC)16 16 1,080$ 20$ 1,100$ Task 102.6 - Project Management Meetings 2 3 5 267$ 50$ 317$ Task 102 Subtotal 16 15 55 0 0 0 7 0 93 4,907$ 70$ 4,977$ Task 201 - Data Collection and Utility Coordination for 2020 & 2021 Task 201.1 - Data Request List 1 3 4 8 274$ -$ 274$ Task 201.2 - Review Data and Information 4 12 24 40 1,342$ -$ 1,342$ Task 201.3 - Utility Coordination and Analysis 3 6 12 21 721$ -$ 721$ Task 201 Subtotal 0 0 8 21 40 0 0 0 69 2,337$ -$ 2,337$ Task 202 - Data Collection and Utility Coordination for Smokey Point Blvd Task 202.1 - Data Request List 1 1 2 4 145$ -$ 145$ Task 202.2 - Review Data and Information 2 6 12 20 671$ -$ 671$ Task 202.3 - Utility Coordination and Analysis 1 2 3 6 209$ -$ 209$ Task 202 Subtotal 0 0 4 9 17 0 0 0 30 1,025$ -$ 1,025$ Task 301 - Final Design for 2020 & 2021 (90% Design Completion Level) Task 301.1 - Final Design (90%) - Utility Improvements Task 301.1.1 - 2020 Task 301.1.1.1 - 30% Review and Site Visit with City Staff 2 6 10 18 754$ 50$ 804$ Task 301.1.1.2 - Plans, Specifications and Estimate 30 65 130 60 4 289 10,283$ 1,080$ 11,363$ Task 301.1.2 - 2021 Task 301.1.2.1 - 30% Review and Site Visit with City Staff 2 6 10 18 754$ 50$ 804$ Task 301.1.2.2 - Plans, Specifications and Estimate 28 60 120 56 4 268 9,540$ 1,008$ 10,548$ Task 301.2 - Final Design (90%) - Pavement Preservation Task 301.2.1 - 2020 Task 301.2.1.1 - 30% Review and Site Visit with City Staff 2 6 10 18 754$ 50$ 804$ Task 301.2.1.2 - Plans, Specifications and Estimate 30 65 130 60 4 289 10,283$ 1,080$ 11,363$ Task 301.2.2 - 2021 Task 301.2.2.1 - 30% Review and Site Visit with City Staff 2 6 10 18 754$ 50$ 804$ Task 301.2.2.2 - Plans, Specifications and Estimate 20 40 80 40 4 184 6,569$ 720$ 7,289$ Task 301 Subtotal 0 8 132 270 460 216 0 16 1102 39,691$ 4,088$ 43,779$ Task 302 - Final Design for 2020 & 2021 (Signed Bid Package) Task 302.1 - Final Design (Signed Bid Package) - Utility Improvement Task 302.1.1 - 2020 Task 302.1.1.1 - 90% Review and Coordination Meeting with City Staff 2 4 8 14 587$ 50$ 637$ Task 302.1.1.2 - Plans, Specifications and Estimate 14 30 60 24 3 131 4,626$ 432$ 5,058$ Task 302.1.2 - 2021 Task 302.1.2.1 - 90% Review and Coordination Meeting with City Staff 2 4 8 14 587$ 50$ 637$ Task 302.1.2.2 - Plans, Specifications and Estimate 12 28 56 22 3 121 4,253$ 446$ 4,699$ Task 302.2 - Final Design (Signed Bid Package) - Pavement Preservation Task 302.2.1 - 2020 Task 302.2.1.1 - 90% Review and Coordination Meeting with City Staff 2 4 8 14 587$ 50$ 637$ Task 302.2.1.2 - Plans, Specifications and Estimate 14 30 60 24 3 131 4,626$ 432$ 5,058$ Task 302.2.2 - 2021 Task 302.2.2.1 - 90% Review and Coordination Meeting with City Staff 2 4 8 14 587$ 50$ 637$ Task 302.2.2.2 - Plans, Specifications and Estimate 8 18 36 16 3 81 2,850$ 288$ 3,138$ Task 302 Subtotal 0 8 64 138 212 86 0 12 520 18,704$ 1,798$ 20,502$ City of Arlington November 2019 G:\PDX_BD\Clients\Arlington, WA\2020-2021 Utility Imp & Pavt Pres\Scope-Fee-Contract\Exh A - UPP 2020-2021 & SPB_Fee Est - 20191115 Murraysmith Utility Improvement & Pavement Preservation Project – 2020-2021 and Smokey Point Blvd. Page 1 EXHIBIT A Utility Improvement & Pavement Preservation Project - 2020-2021 and Smokey Point Blvd CITY OF ARLINGTON PROPOSED FEE ESTIMATE ESTIMATED FEES Principal Engineer II Professional Engineer IX Professional Engineer VI Engineering Designer II Engineering Designer I Technician IV Administrative II Administrative I Hours Labor Expenses Total GEC NPH JLTA SEO NCB HCM BG IR Task 401 - Pavement Preservation & Preliminary Design for Smokey Point Blvd Task 401.1 - Preliminary Design (30%) - Pavement Preservation Task 401.1.1 - Plans (30% Completion Level)8 20 40 30 98 3,557$ 540$ 4,097$ Task 401.1.2 - Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost 2 4 8 14 480$ -$ 480$ Task 401 Subtotal 0 0 10 24 48 30 0 0 112 4,038$ 540$ 4,578$ Task 402 - Final Design for Smokey Point Blvd (90% Design Completion Level) Task 402.1 - Final Design (90%) - Pavement Preservation Task 402.1.1 - 30% Review and Site Visit with City Staff 4 6 12 22 973$ 50$ 1,023$ Task 402.1.2 - Plans, Specifications and Estimate (90%)20 40 80 68 4 212 7,740$ 1,224$ 8,964$ Task 402 Subtotal 4 0 26 52 80 68 0 4 234 8,712$ 1,274$ 9,986$ Task 403 - Final Design for Smokey Point Blvd (Signed Bid Package) Task 403.1 - Final Design (Signed Bid Package) - Pavement Preservation Task 403.1.1 - 90% Review and Coordination Meeting with City Staff 4 6 12 22 973$ 50$ 1,023$ Task 403.1.2 - Plans, Specifications and Estimate 12 24 50 48 3 137 5,020$ 864$ 5,884$ Task 403 Subtotal 4 0 18 36 50 48 0 3 159 5,993$ 914$ 6,907$ Task 404 - Federal Funding Related Coordination Task 404.1 - WSDOT Submittals and Coordination 6 12 18 703$ -$ 703$ Task 404 Subtotal 0 0 6 12 0 0 0 0 18 703$ -$ 703$ Task 501 - Bidding Assistance for 2020 & 2021 Task 501.1 - Bidder Inquiries Task 501.1.1 - 2020 2 6 2 10 363$ -$ 363$ Task 501.1.2 - 2021 2 6 2 10 363$ -$ 363$ Task 501.2 - Addenda Task 501.2.1 - 2020 2 4 4 2 2 14 487$ 36$ 523$ Task 501.2.2 - 2021 2 4 4 2 2 14 487$ 36$ 523$ Task 501 Subtotal 0 0 8 20 12 4 0 4 48 1,701$ 72$ 1,773$ Task 502 - Bidding Assistance for Smokey Point Blvd Task 502.1 - Bidder Inquiries 2 6 2 10 363$ -$ 363$ Task 502.2 - Addenda 2 4 4 2 2 14 487$ 36$ 523$ Task 502 Subtotal 0 0 4 10 6 2 0 2 24 850$ 36$ 886$ TOTAL - ALL TASKS 44 71 403 592 925 454 17 41 2547 96,056$ 8,862$ 104,918$ $2,970 $4,216 $19,967 $19,998 $28,462 $18,985 $513 $945 $ 96,056 $8,991 $12,762 $60,447 $60,542 $86,164 $57,476 $1,554 $2,861 $ 290,797 $10,070 $14,293 $67,701 $67,807 $96,504 $64,373 $1,740 $3,204 $ 325,693 $ 8,862 $ 334,555 $ 13,028 $ 13,028 $ 347,582 Labor Expenses Total 2020 - 2021 UPP:$246,234 $6,028 $252,262 Smokey Point Blvd:$92,486 $2,834 $95,320 Total Fee Total Labor Cost (Overhead on DSC), 202.74% Subtotal Direct Salary Cost (DSC) Total Fee (Total Labor Cost), 12% Profit plus Expenses 4% Murraysmith Labor Rate Adjustment (majority of work performed in 2020) City of Arlington November 2019 G:\PDX_BD\Clients\Arlington, WA\2020-2021 Utility Imp & Pavt Pres\Scope-Fee-Contract\Exh A - UPP 2020-2021 & SPB_Fee Est - 20191115 Murraysmith Utility Improvement & Pavement Preservation Project – 2020-2021 and Smokey Point Blvd. Page 2 City of Arlington Council Agenda Bill Item: WS #6 Attachment F COUNCIL MEETING DATE: November 25, 2019 SUBJECT: Contract with SCJ Alliance for Island Crossing Roundabout Design ATTACHMENTS: - Scope of Work and Fee from SCJ Alliance for Island Crossing Roundabout Design - Island Crossing Roundabout Conceptual Plan DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN Public Works; Jim Kelly, Director – 360-403-3505 EXPENDITURES REQUESTED: $268,025.00 BUDGET CATEGORY: Transportation Improvement Fund BUDGETED AMOUNT: N/A LEGAL REVIEW: DESCRIPTION: Staff is requesting to enter into contract with SCJ Alliance for design work on the roundabout for the Island Crossing intersection near the Pilot Truck stop. HISTORY: In 2011, SCJ was hired by the Stillaguamish Tribe to plan a roundabout in Island Crossing at the SR-530 and Smokey Point Blvd (SPB) Intersection. Following extensive growth in vehicle traffic on SR-530, the City contracted with SCJ in Feb 2019 to design a channelization plan and temporary signal for the SR-530 and SPB intersection; this temporary signal will provide safe vehicle movement while concerned parties continue working toward a permanent solution. The City of Arlington, Snohomish County and the Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians have partnered together to work with WSDOT to construct a roundabout at this intersection; the City of Arlington is taking the lead Workshop; discussion only. At the December 2, 2019 Council meeting the recommended motion will be, “I move to approve the SCJ Alliance scope of work and fee, and authorize the Mayor to sign the contract with SCJ Alliance, pending final approval by the City Attorney.” SR 530/Smokey Pt Blvd Intersection Improvement Project 11/18/2019 Exhibit A - Scope of Work Page 1 of 14 EXHIBIT A DRAFT - SCOPE OF WORK SR 530 / Smokey Point Blvd Intersection Improvement Project Preliminary and Final Design For City of Arlington Prepared for: James Kelly, PE Prepared By: Dan Ireland PE, Principal Date prepared: November 18, 2019 Overview This project will provide preliminary/final design engineering and environmental services associated with the roadway improvements to SR 530 and Smokey Point Boulevard. The Triangle Area is bounded by SR 530 to the north and Smokey Point Boulevard Roadway to the east and west, and lies within a portion of the city limits of Arlington (City) to the west and south, and Snohomish County (SNOCO) to the north. The scope of work includes a roundabout intersection design that includes the realignment of Smokey Point Boulevard (east spur) and also provide access to property north of SR 530 owned by the Tribe. Included is the preparation of preliminary and final contract documents for the intersection and roadway improvements, preparing and obtaining approval for environmental documents and permit applications, and coordination with utility companies for any relocation of dry utilities (power and communications). It is the City’s desire to move the design approval expeditiously as quickly as possible. The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) typically requires an Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) in accordance with the WSDOT Design Manual Chapter 1300. It is understood the City has had preliminary discussions with WSDOT regarding the appropriate intersection control treatment for the realignment of Smokey Point Boulevard onto SR 530 and was receptive to a roundabout. City staff will be leading all negotiations with the Tribe for properties and rights of access. This estimate and task items is based upon the project receiving no federal funding. 11/18/2019 Page 2 of 14 SR 530/Smokey Pt Blvd Intersection Improvement Project Exhibit A - Scope of Work Phase 1 Project Management This phase includes tasks to plan, manage, and administer the work; attend project meetings provide quality assurance/quality control. Task 1 Management 1) Overall Management: Manage the project by directing and supervising staff and reviewing work for the duration of the project. This management is for the overall work rather than specific tasks. 2) Schedule and Budget: Develop a critical path project schedule to match the scope of work. Identify task durations, predecessors, Agency reviews, deliverables, and milestones. Review and update the schedule on a monthly basis. Monitor earned value and actual costs on a bi-monthly basis. 3) Coordination: Coordinate with other consultants hired by the City (e.g. geotechnical, wetland, surveyors, etc.). Task 2 Administration 1) Progress Reports: Prepare and submit a monthly progress report. Progress reports will show: (1) prior work performed, (2) current work planned, (3) schedule and budget status (including a 3-line earned value chart), (4) a summary of scope changes/added value, and (5) items needed from the City or others. 2) Progress Billings: Prepare a monthly progress bill with monthly progress reports attached. 3) Subcontractor Contracting: Coordination with subcontractors on project contracting and billing. Understanding · Project management will be provided through 2020 (over 12 months), and the estimated number of meetings and project coordination is reflected in the budget. · Progress billings will be submitted monthly. · Timelines and milestones will be outlined in a master schedule using Microsoft Project. Deliverables · Bi-Monthly (Every 2 weeks) Progress Report · Progress billings submitted monthly · MS Project schedule/updates · Miscellaneous correspondence 11/18/2019 Page 3 of 14 SR 530/Smokey Pt Blvd Intersection Improvement Project Exhibit A - Scope of Work Phase 2 Project Meetings To keep the project moving at an accelerated rate, SCJ will push for in person and remote meetings at a set frequency with each major stakeholder (City, Tribe, County, WSDOT). We will be efficient with our methodology by using online formats when appropriate. Meeting for the following phases in this scope of work are included and are specifically identified under Phase 2 tasks. Meeting summaries are included. Task 1 City Meetings 1) City Management Meetings: The number of meetings is based on meeting an average of one time a month within a 12-month duration. We estimate that these meeting will be a conference call with a shared web screen. In person meetings will be conducted in the following meetings listed below. (12 meetings) These meetings include participation with WSDOT, the Tribe, and SNOCO. The City will also be participants in these meetings and are separate from meetings identified under Task 1. 2) Channelization Review Meeting: This is a WSDOT required meeting to start the roundabout geometric phase. The meeting will review initial channelization with AutoTurn exhibits. This meeting will be one of the first meetings and will occur during Phase 3. 3) Traffic Forecast Meeting: Meet with the CITY, WSDOT, SNOCO and the Tribe to discuss the applicability of volume forecasts to the SR 530 Smokey Point Boulevard Intersection project. This meeting will occur during Phase 3. 4) ICE Meeting: Meet with WSDOT to review the draft traffic analysis under Phase 3. Confirm alternative methods for inclusion in the alternatives analysis and right-sized approach to ICE report. 5) Agency Review Meetings: Attend up to four (4) other meetings with WSDOT, SNOCO, Tribe, and the CITY for the purpose of discussions reviews comments during preliminary and final design. 6) Public Utility Company Meetings: Meet with the public utility companies up to two (2) times to provide project awareness and to access potential conflicts and impacts. A second meeting will be conducted for final coordination efforts and notification. Task 2 Meeting Preparation and Summaries 1) Meeting Preparation and Summaries: Prepare meeting agendas and summaries for each meeting identified under Tasks 1 and 2, twenty (20) meetings total. Deliverables · Meeting Agendas and Summaries Phase 3 Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) This phase consists of an alternatives analysis to determine the preferred method for intersection control at SR 530 and Smokey Point Boulevard, and preparation of an Intersection Control Evaluation technical memorandum to document the alternatives analysis work. 11/18/2019 Page 4 of 14 SR 530/Smokey Pt Blvd Intersection Improvement Project Exhibit A - Scope of Work Task 1 Traffic Analysis 1) Data Review: Collect and review available traffic volume forecasts prepared. 2) Forecast Meetings: Confirm with the CITY, WSDOT, and the Tribe time to discuss the applicability of volume forecasts to the project (see meeting Phase 2, Task 1). 3) Traffic Volume Forecasts: Based on meetings with the key stakeholders prepare a technical memorandum for inclusion in the Intersection Control Evaluation Report. The memorandum will document the basis for traffic volume forecasts at the intersection for AM and PM peak periods. 4) Operational Analysis: Prepare intersection operational analysis for current year, interim horizon and design year horizon with existing intersection geometry and control. Prepare design year horizon intersection analysis for proposed intersection geometry and control. The following intersections types will be included: · Existing (as is) · Traffic Signal · Roundabout (may include a bypass lane) Prepare a technical memorandum describing the operational analysis methods and results for inclusion in the Intersection Control Evaluation Report. 5) Signal Warrant Analysis: The recently approved ICE for the SR530/Smokey Point Blvd will be the basis of the signal warrant required for the Roundabout ICE. Task 2 Alternatives Analysis 1) ICE Meeting: Meet with the Tribe, CITY and WSDOT Northwest Region to review the traffic analysis performed under Task 1 (see meeting Phase 2, Task 1). 2) Intersection Layout: SCJ will reconfirm geometric design used for the 2014 conceptual layout. This will reconfirm footprint and repair 20-scale drawings to a preliminary Channelization Plan for Approval level to illustrate the alternative designs. 3) Environmental Scan: Conduct a site visit to evaluate the project considering anticipated SEPA documentation and permitting requirements. Identify the appropriate level of SEPA documentation and the environmental permits required. Prepare a technical memorandum documenting environmental opportunities and constraints. 4) Alternative Evaluation: Compare alternatives using the following criteria: · Operations – delay, level of service, queuing · Right of way impacts · Environmental impacts · Access management/property access · Accommodation of bicycles and pedestrians · Cost 5) Prepare an Intersection Control Evaluation Report based on WSDOT Design Manual Chapter 1300 using the data and work performed under this Phase 30. Sections will include: 11/18/2019 Page 5 of 14 SR 530/Smokey Pt Blvd Intersection Improvement Project Exhibit A - Scope of Work · Existing Conditions · Delay Analysis · Operational Considerations · Benefit/Cost Analysis · Bicycle/Pedestrian Facilities · Alternatives Analysis Summary · Public Involvement · Identification of the recommended intersection design alternative · Traffic volume forecasting (appendix) · Signal warrant analysis (appendix) · Operational analysis methodology (appendix) Include appendices for technical memorandums prepared for traffic volume forecasting, operations analysis, and signal warrant analysis. Understanding · Task 1 does not include work to refine and/or adjust existing travel demand models. · Traffic counts from Temporary Traffic Signal ICE will be usable for report. If additional are required, an amendment to this contract will be required to gain additional data. · Design year is 2040 per WSDOT. · City will provide new traffic data counts and projections. Deliverables · Technical memorandum documenting the environmental scan · Intersection Control Evaluation Report Phase 4 Preliminary Engineering It is assumed that the preferred intersection control treatment will be a roundabout intersection similar to that shown on the attached exhibit. The object of this phase is to prepare preliminary roadway, drainage, roundabout, channelization and grading designs to a level of enough detail to establish the basis for final design and project footprint. Task 1 Preliminary Design The preliminary design phase will be run 1) Base Map: SCJ will continue with the topographic survey base map developed from 2014 by Axis Surveying. If additional survey is required due to site changes, SCJ will acquire an amendment from Axis Surveying to collect additional topographic data and merge it with the existing surface. 2) Site Visit: Walk the site and provide photo documentation of the project. Verify base map identified in (1). 3) Preliminary Layout: Update the concept roundabout to discuss with the CITY and WSDOT staff. Concept shall include: 11/18/2019 Page 6 of 14 SR 530/Smokey Pt Blvd Intersection Improvement Project Exhibit A - Scope of Work · Lane Widths · Entry and Exit angles and radii · Taper Lengths and queuing for all entry approaches · Splitter Island Design · Bicycle and Pedestrian amenities · Existing roadway alignments, topography and known environmental constraints 4) Design Vehicle Analysis: Re-confirm the design vehicle for each leg of the intersection and provide truck turning movements through preliminary RAB layout. 5) Preliminary Grading: Prepare a preliminary grading concept identifying proposed roadway, roundabout grades as well as catch slopes and approximate earthwork quantities. 6) Smokey Point Boulevard Realignment Design: establish a horizontal centerline and vertical alignment for the realignment of Smokey Point Boulevard. Identify catch slopes and determine right-of-way requirements. 7) 27th Avenue Realignment Design: establish a horizontal centerline and vertical alignment for the realignment of 27th Avenue owned by Snohomish County. Identify catch slopes and determine right-of-way requirements. Task 2 Preliminary Right of Way Plan: 1) Prepare a preliminary right of way plan identifying existing and required right of way impacts. Plan shall include right of way dedications necessary for all grading activities and proposed stormwater facilities. 2) Coordination between SCJ and Right of Way consultant. Task 3 Summary of Design: 1) Prepare a Summary of Design memorandum which shall contain a compilation and summary of key decisions and results of each task completed as part of the preliminary design effort. WSDOT’s Summary of Design packet for Local Programs Reviewed Projects on State Route. Task 4 Preliminary Lighting: 1) Prepare preliminary lighting plan. Includes lighting calculations using AGI32 software. Task 5 Preliminary Utility Plan 1) Identify all private utility stakeholders 2) Setup a plan sheet to identify joint utility trench alignments for coordination for power, telephone, and fiber utilities. Other utilities (water, sewer, gas) will be designed by others or can be included into this scope of work by an amendment. 3) Coordinate infrastructure sizes and number of conduits. The contract plans developed by SCJ will identify the conduit schedule and vaults to be placed by the contractor. Fiber and power lines will be designed, detailed, and installed by the utility owner. 11/18/2019 Page 7 of 14 SR 530/Smokey Pt Blvd Intersection Improvement Project Exhibit A - Scope of Work Task 6 Intersection Channelization Plan for Approval The following is the content required to achieve an approved WSDOT Intersection Channelization Plan. These plan sheets are not the same as construction document drawings. These plans are in a different format and identify the basis of geometric design for WSDOT approval. This approval allows SCJ to confirm the footprint of the design and begin construction documents. 1) Roundabout Geometric Data: Prepare the following for submittal: · Identify approach design speeds for all approach legs, per the conceptual RAB review meeting. · Identify the design vehicle for all approach legs, per the conceptual RAB review meeting. · Prepare a table summarizing the roundabout design details, including inscribed diameter, central island diameter, truck apron width, fastest path (radius and speed) for each approach, and super elevation of the circulating roadway. · Provide detailed drawings showing the fastest paths for each movement. · Provide a table summarizing stopping and intersection sight distance on each leg. · Provide auto turn paths showing design vehicle, WB-67 and largest oversize vehicle movements. 2) Splitter Island Details: Prepare detailed drawings of the splitter geometry on each leg of the intersection. 3) Preliminary Channelization: Prepared preliminary drawings of the proposed roadway striping. This channelization includes the approach roads of Smokey Point Boulevard east and west leg. 4) Preliminary Signing: Prepare preliminary permanent signing plan. 5) Preliminary Curb Plan: Identify type of concrete curbing to be used on the RAB. 6) Central Island Design: Prepare preliminary drawings of the central island geometry. 7) Bicycle and Pedestrian Design: Prepare preliminary drawings of the bicycle and pedestrian amenities including ADA requirements. 8) Review Checklist: Prepare a WSDOT RAB review checklist. 9) Submittal #1: Submit Geometric Approval Package to WSDOT for review and comment. 10) Submittal #2: Incorporate WSDOT comments and submit second round of PFA and Geometric Approval Data for review. 11) Final Submittal: Incorporate 2nd round of WSDOT comments and resubmit final PFA and Geometric Approval Data for review and approval. Task 7 Preliminary Cost Estimate 1) Cost Estimate · Develop quantities based on the preliminary plans. 11/18/2019 Page 8 of 14 SR 530/Smokey Pt Blvd Intersection Improvement Project Exhibit A - Scope of Work · Assign unit costs for quantified items and assign lump sum costs to other items based on professional judgment. · Develop a preliminary construction estimate. Understanding · A topographic base map in AutoCAD will be provided by others. · It is assumed the alternatives analysis for the intersection will determine that a RAB is the appropriate control for the intersection. · The RAB planning and design tasks will follow the prescribed WSDOT approval process outlined in Chapter 1320 of the WSDOT Design Manual. · Utility improvement plan will · Right of way services for negotiation, appraisal, review, and acquisition will be by others. · Preliminary Design of any retaining wall structures will not be required. · Preliminary stormwater design will be based either on SCS Soil Maps and knowledge of the area; or actual geotechnical investigations if completed at the time of this phase of work. · Roadway Structural Design will not be completed at this time. A standard pavement section matching the existing section of SR 530 and Smokey Point Boulevard will be assumed for the purposes of the cost estimate. Final roadway structural design will be completed by the geotechnical engineer, or surfacing depths provided by WSDOT. · Formal Right-of-Way plans will be performed by others. Deliverables · RAB PFA and Geometric Approval Package · Preliminary Design Concepts Including: o Preliminary Grading and Drainage o Preliminary Right of Way Plan o Preliminary Utility Plan o Preliminary Cost Estimate · WSDOT Summary of Design Package · Preliminary Smokey Point Boulevard Roadway plans Phase 5 Environmental Permitting Several environmental permits will be required for construction of the project to commence. The northern approach is a Snohomish County roadway. Environmental permitting effort is included under the following tasks. Task 1 State Environmental Protection Act (SEPA) 1) SEPA Permit: It is assumed the City will be the permitting authority for SEPA. A draft and final SEPA application will be prepared and submitted for approval. 2) Assist with graphic exhibits for project. 3) Comment review and responses to comments. 11/18/2019 Page 9 of 14 SR 530/Smokey Pt Blvd Intersection Improvement Project Exhibit A - Scope of Work 4) Depending on feed back from the SEPA determination and responses by the public, additional environmental studies may be required outside this scope of work. Task 2 Shoreline Substantial Development 1) Shoreline Permit: The proposal lies within a rural shoreline environment and is subject to compliance with Chapter 30.44 SCC and the applicable policies and regulations. The Shoreline permit will satisfy the shoreline completeness criteria under SCC 30.44.210. A biological assessment will be prepared and as part of the permit effort. Attached to the Shoreline permit is a secondary, albeit separate, permit called a Flood Hazard Permit. A flood hazard permit will be obtained pursuant to SCC 30.65.200 and SCC 30.65.210 for work that will be taking place in the floodway fringe. SCJ will determine if there is a federal nexus for this project and a Section 7 consultation. If there is no federal nexus then a Habitat Management Plan (pursuant to SCC 30.62.110 & SCC 30.62A.460) will be submitted to outline avoidance, minimization and mitigation measures for impacts on primary association areas of ESA-listed species. Task 3 Land Disturbing Activity 1) LDA Meeting: The substantial body of guidance for Land Disturbing Activities within the Snohomish SNOCO Drainage Manual requires A Land Disturbing Activity Permit (LDA) that applies to grading and drainage for projects. The permit application is initiated through an in-person meeting with SNOCO staff. A representative from the City will be invited to the meeting (see Phase 2, Task 1). 2) SCJ will coordinate with SNOCO staff to assure that all permit approval criteria for a LDA Permit listed at 30.63B.050 (1) are met. Included with the LDA will be a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) pursuant to SCC 30.63A and 30.63B for an erosion control certification by the SNOCO, and also an NPDES application. Task 4 DOE NOI Permit SCJ will submit to WSDOE the notice of intent for construction stormwater permit on behalf of the City. Understanding · Permit Fees are not included. The City will pay permitting fees. · NEPA requirements are not included as part of this scope due to no federal nexus. · City is the acting SEPA lead agency. · If National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) requires Section 7 consultation, that work will be estimated under a separate scope of work. · An Environmental Assessment (EA) or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will not be required. · Flood zone compensatory storage is available within the project footprint. · The re-alignment of 27th Avenue does not extend far enough north to trigger Snohomish County regulatory review. · A hazardous material or environmental justice report will not be required. 11/18/2019 Page 10 of 14 SR 530/Smokey Pt Blvd Intersection Improvement Project Exhibit A - Scope of Work Deliverables · Land Disturbing Activity Permit (LDA) (includes Land Erosion Control Certification/SWPPP/NPDES) · Substantial Shoreline Development Permit (includes Flood Hazard Permit and Biological Assessment) · SEPA Permit · City will identify the compensatory property if outside the project limits and will need to be assessed if additional environmental permitting or process is required to this scope of work. Phase 6 Cultural Resources Task 1 Area of Potential Effect SCJ will develop the Area of Potential Effect (APE) identifying the project footprint and impact area. This exhibit will be submitted to WSDOT and the Tribe for initial review to determine if any further action is required. A cultural resources survey will be provided by a City selected consultant. Phase 7 Hydraulic Report The project is located within the 100-year flood plain. Stormwater management will be a critical component of the design of the roundabout and realignment of Smokey Point Boulevard. This phase includes the preparation of a drainage report and supporting design documents. Task 1 Stormwater Scoping 1) Background Data: Confirm FEMA flood zones area and impacts as it relates to the updated project footprint. Meet with WSDOT, CITY and Tribe to discuss location of stormwater treatment facility location. 2) Stormwater Modeling: Prior to beginning modeling of the proposed improvements, meet with WSDOT, CITY and Tribe to determine the appropriate criteria and modeling software to be used for the project. Once the criteria for analysis has been determined, perform a hydrologic model of the existing and proposed land use conditions for the limits of disturbance to determine the treatment and flow control requirements. Determine preliminary footprint size of water quality and flow control facilities. 3) Stormwater Layout: Prepare plan and profile sheets to a preliminary design level for the stormwater improvements. Show the plan view footprint of water quality and flow control facilities. 4) Stormwater Scoping Package: Prepare a Stormwater Scoping Package per City of Arlington Stormwater Standards, WSDOT Highway Runoff Manual Chapter 2-3.4.1 and submit to SNOCO, CITY and WSDOT for review. Revise once per SNOCO, CITY and WSDOT comments. The package will describe stormwater design, document major design decisions, and serve as a preliminary drainage report. Task 2 Final Hydraulic Report 1) Collection and Conveyance: Update collection and conveyance system to address previous comments. 11/18/2019 Page 11 of 14 SR 530/Smokey Pt Blvd Intersection Improvement Project Exhibit A - Scope of Work 2) Treatment and Flow Control: Finalize the analysis design of water quality facilities and flow control facilities including landscaping. 3) Final Hydraulic Report: Prepare a Type A Hydraulic Report per the WSDOT Highway Runoff Manual, Chapter 1-3.1. Submit once for SNOCO, CITY and WSDOT review. Address comments and prepare a final hydraulic report. Understanding · Stormwater design will be based on the City or Arlington Stormwater Standards, Snohomish SNOCO Drainage Manual/ Standards, WSDOT Standard Plans, and the WSDOT Highway Runoff Manual (2014). · WSDOT will be the approving authority of the Drainage Report. Deliverables · Stormwater Scoping Package · Preliminary Stormwater Plans · Final Hydraulic Report Phase 8 Survey (Future Amendment) Task 1 Topographic Survey This task will be scoped and amended to this contract after SCJ has reevaluated the project footprint. SCJ will provide the Surveyor with an exhibit that will identify the additional areas to survey and merge with the existing surface. Task 2 Right of Way This task will be scoped and amended to the contract after the preliminary right of way impact is assessed. This task will include work required by a licensed surveyor to complete a boundary line adjustment and/or right of way delineation. Phase 9 Geotech (Future Amendment) This phase will be further described after initial design is further advanced and stormwater facilities are identified by SCJ. Phase 10 PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS & COST ESTIMATE (PS&E) Final design consists of finalizing Plans, Specifications, and Cost Estimate (PS&E) for the project and include the following design components. Task 1 Roadway Modeling 1) Horizontal Layout: Finalize the horizontal layout of SR 530 and Smokey Point Boulevard. 11/18/2019 Page 12 of 14 SR 530/Smokey Pt Blvd Intersection Improvement Project Exhibit A - Scope of Work 2) Vertical Layout: Determine final centerline grade; develop final curb return profiles and intersection grading for the roundabout, detail ADA ramps, roadway intersections, and planned access points. 3) Final modification to the Roadway Corridor modeling. 4) Driveway grade modeling. 5) Curb Ramp Grading for ADA compliance. Task 2 Channelization and Signing 1) Striping: Revise pavement marking plans to incorporate any horizontal design changes. 2) Signing: Develop a signing plan to meet the requirements of the MUTCD, WSDOT and SNOCO. Identify sign type, size and location. Identify existing signs to be relocated or removed. Task 3 Roundabout Plans 1) Finalize preliminary roundabout plans and prepare associated details sheets. Task 4 Landscaping/Irrigation Plan 1) Landscaping Plan: Landscaping within the roundabout center island and behind the sidewalks approximately 200-ft down the approach legs away from the roundabout. Planting for stormwater treatment facilities is included with Hydraulic Landscaping estimate does not include sculptures or up lighting. Landscaping is for restoration of exposed slopes. 2) Irrigation Plan: Irrigation will be a permanent in ground system being fed by a water service connection identified in water line plans developed by others. Task 5 Illumination 1) Lighting Layout: Revise lighting layout and calculations using AGI32 software based on any horizontal / vertical changes. 2) Electrical Connection: Coordinate power sources with SNOCO PUD. 3) Line Loss: Perform line loss calculations. 4) Breaker Calculations: Perform breaker calculations. Task 6 Final Plans The following plans will be prepared and obtained approval from WSDOT, SNOCO, or CITY: 1) Cover Sheet (Utility Contacts/Sheet Index/Vicinity Map) (1 Sheet) 2) Summary of Quantities Sheet (1 Sheet) 3) General Notes/Existing Legend/Abbreviations (1 Sheet) 4) Horizontal Alignment Plans (3 Sheets) 5) Roadway Sections (2 Sheets) 6) Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control Plans (4 Sheets) 11/18/2019 Page 13 of 14 SR 530/Smokey Pt Blvd Intersection Improvement Project Exhibit A - Scope of Work 7) Removal and Utility Plans (4 Sheets) 8) Drainage Plan and Profiles (6 Sheets) 9) Utility Plan and Details (4 sheets) 10) Roundabout Plan and Profiles (2 Sheets) 11) Roadway Plan and Profiles (4 Sheets) 12) Paving Plans (4 Sheets) 13) Paving Details (2 Sheets) 14) Illumination Plans (3 Sheets) 15) Illumination Details (2 Sheets) 16) Pavement Marking Plans (3 Sheets) 17) Signing Plans (3 Sheets) 18) Sign Specification Sheet (1 Sheet) 19) Landscaping Plan (4 sheets) 20) Irrigation Plan (4 sheets) 21) Work Zone Traffic Control Plans/ Staging Plans (6 Sheets) Task 7 Engineer’s Estimate of Probable Construction Costs 1) Engineer’s Estimate: Develop quantities based on the plans. Assign unit costs for quantified items and assign lump sum costs to other items based on professional judgment. Develop a construction cost estimate. Task 8 Special Provisions to the Standard Specifications 1) Special Provisions: Identify non-standard items. Prepare an outline identifying key requirements to include in the specifications. Develop per the 2020 WSDOT and APWA methodology. Task 9 Agency Comment Resolution 1) Comment Resolution: Respond to WSDOT and SNOCO review comments. Attend two meetings each with WSDOT and SNOCO to resolve respective comments (see meeting Phase 2, Task 2). Task 10 WSDOT Permitting 1) General Permit: Coordinate and prepare for WSDOT General Permit. Understanding 1) Removals are not included with the inside boundaries of the Triangle area. 2) Construction staging Plans will not be required. 3) Scope does not include estimate for design justifications or deviation approvals by WSDOT. 11/18/2019 Page 14 of 14 SR 530/Smokey Pt Blvd Intersection Improvement Project Exhibit A - Scope of Work 4) Public utility design (e.g. water, sewer, etc.) to be provided by others. These sheets will be in pdf format and not have to be formatted by SCJ. 5) SCJ Utility plan consists of Snohomish PUD, Tribe, Frontier, Wave, and City of Arlington conduit for the purpose of fiber. Deliverables 1) Final Plans 2) Final Specifications 3) Final Engineer’s Estimate 4) Final Design Documentation 5) WSDOT General Permit Phase 40 PRECONSTRUCTION SERVICES (FUTURE) This phase includes preparing bid documents, providing bidding services and/or support, and attending a preconstruction meeting. A formal scope of work and fee estimate will be provided at a later date once the City determines construction funding and a target date for bid advertisement. Phase 50 CONSTRUCTION SERVICES (FUTURE) This phase includes providing engineering services during construction. The extent of construction services provided can vary significantly depending on the scope of services requested. A formal scope of work and fee estimate will be provided at a later date once the City determines what the formal scope of work will be. Phase 99 REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES Direct expenses for SCJ project-related items, such as travel, printing, , etc., will be billed as a separate reimbursable expense per SCJ’s General Conditions of Contract. END OF SCOPE OF WORK SR530 / Smokey Pt Blvd Roundabout Int Improv.Project #: P# Phase # Phase Title SCJ Hours SCJ Direct Labor Total Cost SCJ Labor Phase 1 Project Management 116.0 $20,240 $20,240 Phase 2 Project Meetings 98.0 $17,870 $17,870 Phase 3 Intersection Control Evaluation 148.0 $21,270 $21,270 Phase 4 Preliminary Engineering 456.0 $60,060 $60,060 Phase 5 Environmental Permitting 146.0 $19,220 $19,220 Phase 6 Cultural Resoureces 23.0 $3,210 $3,210 Phase 7 Hydraulic Report 138.0 $17,980 $17,980 Phase 10 Final PSE 851.0 $106,875 $106,875 Subtotal 1976.0 $266,725.00 $266,725.00 Subconsultants Phase 8 Axis Surveying $0 Phase 9 Geotech $0 Subconsultant Markup:$0 Subtotal $0.00 Reimbursable Expenses Phase 99 Reimbursable Expenses $1,300 Management Reserve Fund (MRF) Phase 98 Management Reserve Fund (MRF)$0 Total $268,025.00 PHASE SUMMARY TABLE Consultant Billing Rate Schedule SCJ Alliance Client:Hourly Rate Table Format: Billing Rate Schedule Project:Allowable Overhead Rate: N/A Job #:Negotiated Fixed Fee: N/A File Name:Labor Estimate.xlsm Labor Template Version: 9/27/2019 Total Hourly Total Hourly --Billing Rates Billing Rates Minimum NTE - - $250.00 $350.00 - - $185.00 $270.00 - - $160.00 $210.00 - - $125.00 $170.00 - - $120.00 $150.00 - - $110.00 $140.00 - - $190.00 $275.00 - - $160.00 $190.00 - - $115.00 $160.00 - - $100.00 $135.00 - - $80.00 $110.00 - - $90.00 $125.00 - - $110.00 $160.00 - - $80.00 $115.00 - - $70.00 $90.00 - - $125.00 $175.00 - - $100.00 $130.00 - - $120.00 $175.00 - - $95.00 $140.00 - - $155.00 $170.00 - - $75.00 $110.00 - - $95.00 $125.00 - - $80.00 $105.00 - - $100.00 $130.00 - - $85.00 $135.00 - - $125.00 $145.00 - - $85.00 $135.00 - - $120.00 $140.00 - - $170.00 $180.00 - - $95.00 $115.00 - - $120.00 $170.00 - - $70.00 $80.00 City of Arlington SR530 / Smokey Pt Blvd Roundabout Int Improv. Enter Project Number Billing Rate Schedule Job Classifications Graphic Designer Senior Planner Principal Landscape Architect Principal Senior Project Manager Project Manager Project Engineer II Project Engineer I Senior Consultant Construction Inspector Project Coordinator II Design Engineer Project Accountant Information Technology Specialist Technician Senior Transp. Planner Transportation Planner Planner Environmental Scientist Administrative Assistant Senior Principal Consultant Marketing Coordinator Project Coordinator I Communications Director Information Services Manager Landscape Architect I Landscape Designer Senior Designer Project Landscape Architect Senior Design Engineer Senior Marketing Coordinator Designer Consultant Labor Hour Estimate SCJ Alliance Client:City of Arlington Template Version: 9/27/2019 Project:SR530 / Smokey Pt Blvd Roundabout Int Improv.Contract Type: Billing Rate Schedule No. of Sheets: N/A Job #:Enter Project Number No. of Lots: N/A File Name: Labor Estimate.xlsm 185 190 140 130 110 125 100 160 105 90 Template Version:Dan Ireland Brad Shea Ryan Shea Employee Name Employee Name Employee Name Employee Name Employee Name Employee Name Employee Name Phase & Task No.Principal Senior Project Manager Senior Transp. Planner Project Engineer I Design Engineer Senior Planner Landscape Designer Principal Landscape Architect Project Accountant Project Coordinator I Total Direct Labor Hours & Cost Total Cost Phase 1 Task 1 1 8.0 24.0 32.0 $6,040 2 10.0 4.0 14.0 $2,610 3 16.0 16.0 4.0 36.0 $6,400 5 Subtotal Hours: 34.0 44.0 4.0 82.0 $15,050 Task 2 1 12.0 12.0 $2,220 2 8.0 8.0 2.0 18.0 $2,500 3 1.0 1.0 2.0 4.0 $470 4 Subtotal Hours: 21.0 9.0 4.0 34.0 $5,190 Total Phase Hours: 55.0 44.0 4.0 9.0 4.0 116.0 116.0 Total Phase Direct Labor: $10,175.00 $8,360.00 $400.00 $945.00 $360.00 $20,240.00 $20,240.00 Phase 2 Task 1 1 4.0 12.0 16.0 $3,020 2 6.0 6.0 12.0 $1,980 3 2.0 6.0 6.0 14.0 $2,350 4 16.0 16.0 32.0 $6,000 Subtotal Hours: 22.0 40.0 12.0 74.0 $13,350 Task 2 1 4.0 8.0 12.0 $2,260 2 4.0 8.0 12.0 $2,260 Subtotal Hours: 8.0 16.0 24.0 $4,520 Total Phase Hours: 30.0 56.0 12.0 98.0 98.0 Total Phase Direct Labor: $5,550.00 $10,640.00 $1,680.00 $17,870.00 $17,870.00 Phase 3 Task 1 1 8.0 8.0 $1,120 2 4.0 4.0 $560 3 2.0 8.0 10.0 $1,500 4 8.0 16.0 24.0 $3,760 5 8.0 8.0 $1,120 Subtotal Hours: 10.0 44.0 54.0 $8,060 Task 2 1 4.0 8.0 16.0 28.0 $3,560 2 4.0 8.0 12.0 $1,560 3 4.0 8.0 4.0 4.0 20.0 $2,840 4 2.0 8.0 24.0 34.0 $5,250 5 Subtotal Hours: 2.0 16.0 36.0 12.0 20.0 8.0 94.0 $13,210 Total Phase Hours: 2.0 26.0 80.0 12.0 20.0 8.0 148.0 148.0 Total Phase Direct Labor: $370.00 $4,940.00 $11,200.00 $1,560.00 $2,200.00 $1,000.00 $21,270.00 $21,270.00 Phase 4 Task 1 1 8.0 8.0 $880 2 6.0 6.0 12.0 $1,800 3 4.0 8.0 12.0 $1,800 4 1.0 1.0 2.0 $320 5 4.0 24.0 28.0 $3,880 6 4.0 8.0 16.0 28.0 $3,560 7 4.0 8.0 16.0 28.0 $3,560 8 Subtotal Hours: 23.0 49.0 46.0 118.0 $15,800 Task 2 1 2.0 8.0 4.0 24.0 38.0 $5,050 2 2.0 2.0 4.0 $600 3 4.0 4.0 8.0 $1,200 4 Subtotal Hours: 2.0 14.0 4.0 30.0 50.0 $6,850 Project Management Coordination Management Overall Management Base Map Preliminary Design Forecast Modeling Trafffic Volume Forecast Operational Analysis Signal Warrant Analysis Alternative Analysis Intersection Layout Environmental Scan Alternative Evaluation ICE Report Schedule and Budget Administration Progress Reports Preliminary Engineering Progress Billings Subcontractor Contracting Meeting Preperation Phase & Task Title Design Vehicle Review Preliminary Right of Way Plan Prepare right of way layout Submittal for preliminary review SCJ Support Agency Review Meeting Project Meetings Meetings City Meetings (12) Traffic Forecast Meeting ICE Meeting 27th Ave Realignment Smokey Point Realignment Preliminary Grading Meeting Preperation Meeting Summaries Intersection Control Evaluation Traffic Analysis Data Review Site Visit Preliminary Layout 2 of 6 11/18/2019 Consultant Labor Hour Estimate SCJ Alliance Client:City of Arlington Template Version: 9/27/2019 Project:SR530 / Smokey Pt Blvd Roundabout Int Improv.Contract Type: Billing Rate Schedule No. of Sheets: N/A Job #:Enter Project Number No. of Lots: N/A File Name: Labor Estimate.xlsm 185 190 140 130 110 125 100 160 105 90 Template Version:Dan Ireland Brad Shea Ryan Shea Employee Name Employee Name Employee Name Employee Name Employee Name Employee Name Employee Name Phase & Task No.Principal Senior Project Manager Senior Transp. Planner Project Engineer I Design Engineer Senior Planner Landscape Designer Principal Landscape Architect Project Accountant Project Coordinator I Total Direct Labor Hours & Cost Total CostPhase & Task Title Task 3 1 1.0 8.0 9.0 $1,230 2 1.0 2.0 3.0 $450 3 Subtotal Hours: 2.0 10.0 12.0 $1,680 Task 4 1 8.0 8.0 $1,040 2 4.0 4.0 $520 3 4.0 4.0 $520 4 4.0 4.0 $520 5 Subtotal Hours:20.0 20.0 $2,600 Task 5 1 2.0 8.0 16.0 26.0 $3,180 2 2.0 2.0 4.0 8.0 $1,080 3 2.0 2.0 4.0 8.0 $1,080 4 1.0 2.0 4.0 7.0 $890 5 4.0 8.0 16.0 28.0 $3,560 6 2.0 4.0 8.0 14.0 $1,780 7 1.0 1.0 4.0 6.0 $760 8 1.0 4.0 16.0 21.0 $2,470 9 2.0 2.0 4.0 8.0 $1,080 10 8.0 8.0 8.0 24.0 $3,440 11 4.0 8.0 8.0 20.0 $2,680 12 2.0 8.0 8.0 18.0 $2,300 Subtotal Hours: 31.0 57.0 100.0 188.0 $24,300 Task 7 1 2.0 1.0 8.0 11.0 $1,380 2 8.0 1.0 8.0 17.0 $2,490 3 4.0 4.0 $520 4 5 Subtotal Hours: 10.0 6.0 16.0 32.0 $4,390 Task 6 1 4.0 8.0 24.0 36.0 $4,440 Subtotal Hours: 4.0 8.0 24.0 36.0 $4,440 Total Phase Hours: 12.0 74.0 154.0 216.0 456.0 456.0 Total Phase Direct Labor: $2,220.00 $14,060.00 $20,020.00 $23,760.00 $60,060.00 $60,060.00 Phase 5 Task 01 1 2.0 2.0 12.0 16.0 $2,130 2 2.0 2.0 $250 3 4.0 4.0 $500 4 2.0 2.0 4.0 8.0 $1,130 5 Subtotal Hours: 4.0 4.0 22.0 30.0 $4,010 Task 02 1 4.0 8.0 16.0 60.0 88.0 $11,520 2 Subtotal Hours: 4.0 8.0 16.0 60.0 88.0 $11,520 Task 3 1 2.0 4.0 12.0 18.0 $2,390 2 6.0 6.0 $780 3 4.0 4.0 $520 4 5 Subtotal Hours: 2.0 14.0 12.0 28.0 $3,690 Task 4 1 2 3 4 5 Subtotal Hours: Total Phase Hours: 10.0 8.0 18.0 16.0 94.0 146.0 146.0 Total Phase Direct Labor: $1,850.00 $1,520.00 $2,340.00 $1,760.00 $11,750.00 $19,220.00 $19,220.00 Phase 6 Task 1 1 2.0 4.0 8.0 14.0 $1,820 2 4.0 1.0 4.0 9.0 $1,390 3 Subtotal Hours: 6.0 1.0 4.0 12.0 23.0 $3,210 Total Phase Hours: 6.0 1.0 4.0 12.0 23.0 23.0 Total Phase Direct Labor: $1,140.00 $130.00 $440.00 $1,500.00 $3,210.00 $3,210.00 Preliminary Cost Estimate Cost Estimate Intersection Channelization Plan for Approval Roundabout geometric data Basis of Design WSDOT Basis for Design application/package Resubmittal after changes to comments Preliminary Lighting Light placement AGi32 modeling Memorandum for WSDOT submittal PUD coordination on service WSDOT RAB Checklist Bicycle and Pedestrian path design Curb Plan Preliminary Signing Preliminary Channelization of approach roadways Submittal #1 Land Distrubing Activity Permit Permit Application SWPPP DOE Notice of Intent Fastest Path exhibits AutoTurn path exhibits Splitter Island details Final Submittal Submittal #2 Environmental Permitting SEPA SEPA Application Submittal Public Posting Comment Review Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Shoreline Permit Preliminary Utility Plan Setup sheet and initial joint trench align Review/Coordinate with PUD and other Private Utilities Coordination with RH2 utilities Area of Potential Effect APE Exhibit support 05-05 Form to DAHP Cultural Resoureces 3 of 6 11/18/2019 Consultant Labor Hour Estimate SCJ Alliance Client:City of Arlington Template Version: 9/27/2019 Project:SR530 / Smokey Pt Blvd Roundabout Int Improv.Contract Type: Billing Rate Schedule No. of Sheets: N/A Job #:Enter Project Number No. of Lots: N/A File Name: Labor Estimate.xlsm 185 190 140 130 110 125 100 160 105 90 Template Version:Dan Ireland Brad Shea Ryan Shea Employee Name Employee Name Employee Name Employee Name Employee Name Employee Name Employee Name Phase & Task No.Principal Senior Project Manager Senior Transp. Planner Project Engineer I Design Engineer Senior Planner Landscape Designer Principal Landscape Architect Project Accountant Project Coordinator I Total Direct Labor Hours & Cost Total CostPhase & Task Title Phase 7 Task 01 1 8.0 8.0 $1,040 2 16.0 16.0 $2,080 3 4.0 16.0 16.0 36.0 $4,600 4 2.0 16.0 18.0 $2,460 5 Subtotal Hours: 6.0 56.0 16.0 78.0 $10,180 Task 02 1 4.0 4.0 8.0 $960 2 2.0 8.0 4.0 14.0 $1,860 3 2.0 16.0 18.0 $2,460 4 8.0 4.0 12.0 $1,480 5 8.0 8.0 $1,040 Subtotal Hours: 4.0 44.0 12.0 60.0 $7,800 Total Phase Hours: 10.0 100.0 28.0 138.0 138.0 Total Phase Direct Labor: $1,900.00 $13,000.00 $3,080.00 $17,980.00 $17,980.00 Phase 10 Task 01 1 1.0 4.0 5.0 $630 2 1.0 4.0 5.0 $630 3 2.0 8.0 12.0 22.0 $2,740 4 4.0 4.0 16.0 24.0 $3,040 5 1.0 2.0 12.0 15.0 $1,770 Subtotal Hours: 9.0 14.0 48.0 71.0 $8,810 Task 02 1 2.0 2.0 16.0 20.0 $2,400 2 2.0 4.0 6.0 $700 5 Subtotal Hours: 2.0 4.0 20.0 26.0 $3,100 Task 3 1 4.0 8.0 12.0 $1,400 2 1.0 2.0 4.0 7.0 $890 3 1.0 2.0 4.0 7.0 $890 4 5 Subtotal Hours: 2.0 8.0 16.0 26.0 $3,180 Task 4 1 16.0 4.0 20.0 $2,240 2 24.0 8.0 32.0 $3,680 3 24.0 8.0 32.0 $3,680 4 16.0 4.0 20.0 $2,240 5 Subtotal Hours:80.0 24.0 104.0 $11,840 Task 5 1 12.0 12.0 $1,560 2 4.0 4.0 $520 3 1.0 4.0 5.0 $570 4 1.0 2.0 3.0 $350 5 1.0 4.0 5.0 $570 Subtotal Hours:19.0 10.0 29.0 $3,570 Task 6 1 1.0 2.0 3.0 $350 2 1.0 4.0 4.0 9.0 $1,145 3 1.0 2.0 3.0 $350 4 1.0 2.0 3.0 $350 5 4.0 8.0 12.0 $1,400 6 4.0 8.0 12.0 $1,400 7 2.0 4.0 8.0 14.0 $1,780 8 4.0 16.0 24.0 44.0 $5,480 9 4.0 8.0 16.0 28.0 $3,560 10 4.0 8.0 24.0 36.0 $4,440 11 4.0 8.0 32.0 44.0 $5,320 12 4.0 24.0 28.0 $3,160 13 4.0 4.0 8.0 $960 14 2.0 4.0 6.0 $700 15 4.0 2.0 4.0 10.0 $1,460 16 2.0 8.0 10.0 $1,140 17 8.0 8.0 $880 18 8.0 2.0 10.0 $1,120 19 8.0 2.0 10.0 $1,120 20 4.0 8.0 24.0 36.0 $4,440 21 4.0 4.0 8.0 32.0 48.0 $6,060 Subtotal Hours: 5.0 30.0 89.0 238.0 16.0 4.0 382.0 $46,615 Task 7 1 2.0 2.0 8.0 16.0 4.0 1.0 33.0 $4,110 Final Plans Cover Sheet Summary of Quantities General Notes Horizontal Plan Staging Plan Roadway Modeling Channelization and Signing Final Channelization Horizontal Vertical Corridor Model Driveway Modeling Curb Ramp Grading Engineer Estimate Cost Estiamte Sign Table Illumination Lighting layout/pole selection PUD coordination/service application Line Loss Breaker calculations Work Zone Traffic Control Irrigation Plan Landscaping Plan Sign Spec Sheet Siging Plans Utility Plan and Details Colleciton and conveyance Treatment and flow control Final Hydraulic Report Revisions per WSDOT Stormwater Modeling Stormwater Layout Preliminary package for review Hydraulic Report Stormwater Scopint Background Data Final PSE Roundabout Plans Curbing details splitter island details Center island details Conduit sizing Landscaping/Irrigation Plans Landscaping Concept Plan Landscaping Plan Irrigation layout Details Resubmittal Final Hydraulic Report Pavement marking plans Illumination Details Illumination Plans Paving Details Roadway Sections Paving Sheets Roadway Plan and Profile Drainage Plans and Profiles Removal Plans and Utility Plans TESC 4 of 6 11/18/2019 Consultant Labor Hour Estimate SCJ Alliance Client:City of Arlington Template Version: 9/27/2019 Project:SR530 / Smokey Pt Blvd Roundabout Int Improv.Contract Type: Billing Rate Schedule No. of Sheets: N/A Job #:Enter Project Number No. of Lots: N/A File Name: Labor Estimate.xlsm 185 190 140 130 110 125 100 160 105 90 Template Version:Dan Ireland Brad Shea Ryan Shea Employee Name Employee Name Employee Name Employee Name Employee Name Employee Name Employee Name Phase & Task No.Principal Senior Project Manager Senior Transp. Planner Project Engineer I Design Engineer Senior Planner Landscape Designer Principal Landscape Architect Project Accountant Project Coordinator I Total Direct Labor Hours & Cost Total CostPhase & Task Title Subtotal Hours: 2.0 2.0 8.0 16.0 4.0 1.0 33.0 $4,110 Task 8 1 4.0 4.0 $520 2 2.0 8.0 2.0 12.0 $1,740 3 4.0 4.0 $520 4 4.0 2.0 8.0 14.0 $2,160 5 Subtotal Hours: 4.0 4.0 24.0 2.0 34.0 $4,940 Task XX 1 2.0 4.0 2.0 8.0 $1,390 2 2.0 4.0 2.0 8.0 $1,390 3 2.0 8.0 12.0 24.0 4.0 50.0 $6,490 4 8.0 12.0 24.0 44.0 $5,720 5 4.0 8.0 8.0 20.0 $2,680 Subtotal Hours: 6.0 28.0 36.0 56.0 4.0 130.0 $17,670 Task 03 1 16.0 16.0 $3,040 2 Subtotal Hours: 16.0 16.0 $3,040 Total Phase Hours: 17.0 93.0 202.0 404.0 104.0 31.0 851.0 851.0 Total Phase Direct Labor: $3,145.00 $17,670.00 $26,260.00 $44,440.00 $10,400.00 $4,960.00 $106,875.00 $106,875.00 Total Hours All Phases 126.0 317.0 92.0 487.0 688.0 114.0 108.0 31.0 9.0 4.0 1,976.0 1976.0 Total Direct Labor Estimate All Phases $23,310.00 $60,230.00 $12,880.00 $63,310.00 $75,680.00 $14,250.00 $10,800.00 $4,960.00 $945.00 $360.00 $266,725.00 $266,725.00 Indirect Costs Subconsultants: Axis Surveying -$ Geotech -$ Subconsultant Total:-$ Subconsultant Markup:-$ Subtotal:-$ Copies, Printing, etc.-$ Mileage 1,300.00$ Management Reserve:-$ Total Indirect Costs:1,300.00$ Total:268,025.00$ WSDOT Permit Coordination WSDOT permit coordination for design approval WSDOT/SNOCO comment resolution WSDOT/SNOCO comment resolution 2 Final Submittal Agency Comment Resolution WSDOT submittal coordination SNOCO submittal coordination Special Provisions Develop Run List Develop Project Specific Specials Coordinate WSDOT items Review for WSDOT Submittal 5 of 6 11/18/2019 SCJ Alliance Client: Project: Job #:Template Version: File Name: Labor Estimate.xlsm Contract Type: Consultant Fee Determination DIRECT SALARY COST Classification Hours Fully Burdened Rate Amount Principal 126.0 $185.00 $23,310 Senior Project Manager 317.0 $190.00 $60,230 Senior Transp. Planner 92.0 $140.00 $12,880 Project Engineer I 487.0 $130.00 $63,310 Design Engineer 688.0 $110.00 $75,680 Senior Planner 114.0 $125.00 $14,250 Landscape Designer 108.0 $100.00 $10,800 Principal Landscape Architect 31.0 $160.00 $4,960 Project Accountant 9.0 $105.00 $945 Project Coordinator I 4.0 $90.00 $360 TOTAL SALARY COST Total Salary Cost $266,725 SUBCONSULTANTS Yes Select Phase $0 Select Phase $0 x Subconsultant Fee $0 Q Subconsultant Markup: 10%$0 Total Subconsultant Cost $0 REIMBURSABLES Copies, Printing, etc. 0.0% of the Total Salary Costs $0 Mileage 2,000 miles at $0.650 per mile $1,300 Total Expenses $1,300 SUBTOTAL (SALARY, SUBCONSULTANTS AND EXPENSES) Subtotal (Salary, Subconsultants and Expenses)$268,025 MANAGEMENT RESERVE FUND (MRF) Management Reserve: $0 $0 Total Estimated Budget: $268,025 Phase 8 Geotech Phase 9 Axis Surveying Consultant Fee Determination Summary City of Arlington SR530 / Smokey Pt Blvd Roundabout Int Improv. 9/27/2019Enter Project Number Billing Rate Schedule 11/18/2019 Page 6 City of Arlington Council Agenda Bill Item: WS #7 Attachment G COUNCIL MEETING DATE: November 25, 2019 SUBJECT: Salary Schedule for Non-Represented Employees for 2020 ATTACHMENTS: 2020 Non-Represented Employees Salary Schedule DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN Administration; James Trefry, Administrative Services Director – 360-403-3443 EXPENDITURES REQUESTED: N/A BUDGET CATEGORY: N/A LEGAL REVIEW: DESCRIPTION: Human Resources is proposing the adoption of a revised salary schedule for the City’s non-represented employees not covered by a collective bargaining agreement. The proposed schedule provides the same 12-step pay structure as lasted adopted by Council on October 7, 2019 with a 3.0% market adjustment for 2020 Pay Grades B-AA and an increase in the rate of Pay Grade A to a maximum rate of $17.00/hour. This change does not result in any current budget impact. HISTORY: The attached revised salary schedule reflects an annual market adjustment in the amount of 3.0% for non-represented employees not covered by a collective bargaining agreement beginning January 1, 2020, already approved as part of the 2020 budget. ALTERNATIVES RECOMMENDED MOTION: Workshop; discussion only. At the December 2, 2019 Council meeting, the recommended motion will be, “I move to approve the proposed Salary Schedule for Non-Represented Employees for 2020.” Pay Grade Position Title Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5M Step 6 Step 7 Step 8 Step 9 Step 10 Step 11 Step 12 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% A Seasonal Maintenance Laborers 15.10 15.56 16.02 16.50 17.00 Finance Intern B 3,897 4,013 4,134 4,258 4,386 4,473 4,563 4,654 4,747 4,842 4,939 5,038 46,759 48,162 49,607 51,095 52,628 53,680 54,754 55,849 56,966 58,105 59,268 60,453 G Executive Analyst 5,170 5,325 5,485 5,649 5,819 5,935 6,054 6,175 6,298 6,424 6,553 6,684 G Deputy Clerk 62,037 63,899 65,816 67,790 69,824 71,220 72,645 74,097 75,579 77,091 78,633 80,205 H 5,583 5,751 5,923 6,101 6,284 6,410 6,538 6,669 6,802 6,938 7,077 7,218 H 67,000 69,010 71,081 73,213 75,410 76,918 78,456 80,025 81,626 83,258 84,923 86,622 I City Clerk/Executive Assistant 6,030 6,211 6,397 6,589 6,787 6,923 7,061 7,202 7,346 7,493 7,643 7,796 I Communications Mgr 72,360 74,531 76,767 79,070 81,442 83,071 84,733 86,427 88,156 89,919 91,717 93,552 I Finance Accountant I PW Accountant J Community Revitalization Project Manager 6,512 6,708 6,909 7,116 7,330 7,476 7,626 7,778 7,934 8,093 8,255 8,420 J Finance Supervisor 78,149 80,494 82,909 85,396 87,958 89,717 91,511 93,341 95,208 97,112 99,055 101,036 J GIS Manager J M&O Supervisor K Police Services Manager 7,033 7,244 7,462 7,686 7,916 8,075 8,236 8,401 8,569 8,740 8,915 9,093 K Airport Operations Manager 84,401 86,933 89,541 92,228 94,994 96,894 98,832 100,809 102,825 104,881 106,979 109,119 K Water Utility Supervisor K WW Utility Supervisor L Assistant Finance Director 7,596 7,824 8,059 8,300 8,549 8,720 8,895 9,073 9,254 9,439 9,628 9,821 L M&O Manager 91,153 93,888 96,705 99,606 102,594 104,646 106,739 108,873 111,051 113,272 115,537 117,848 L Building Official L Development Services Manager L Natural Resources/ SW Manager L Utilities Manager L M 8,204 8,450 8,703 8,965 9,233 9,418 9,606 9,799 9,995 10,194 10,398 10,606 98,446 101,399 104,441 107,574 110,801 113,017 115,278 117,583 119,935 122,334 124,780 127,276 N City Engineer 8,696 8,957 9,226 9,502 9,787 9,983 10,183 10,387 10,594 10,806 11,022 11,243 N IT Manager 104,352 107,483 110,707 114,029 117,450 119,799 122,194 124,638 127,131 129,674 132,267 134,913 N Permit Center Manager O Deputy Fire Chie 10,048 10,350 10,660 10,980 11,309 11,536 11,766 12,002 12,242 12,487 12,736 12,991 O Deputy Police Chie 120,579 124,197 127,922 131,760 135,713 138,427 141,196 144,020 146,900 149,838 152,835 155,891 O Information Technology Director O Human Resources Directo P Airport Director 10,551 10,867 11,193 11,529 11,875 12,112 12,355 12,602 12,854 13,111 13,373 13,641 P Administrative Services Director 126,608 130,406 134,319 138,348 142,499 145,349 148,256 151,221 154,245 157,330 160,477 163,686 Q CED Directo 11,078 11,411 11,753 12,105 12,469 12,718 12,972 13,232 13,496 13,766 14,042 14,323 Q Public Works Director 132,939 136,927 141,034 145,266 149,623 152,616 155,668 158,782 161,957 165,196 168,500 171,870 Q Finance Director R Fire Chief 11,582 11,930 12,288 12,656 13,036 13,297 13,563 13,834 14,111 14,393 14,681 14,974 R Police Chie 138,987 143,157 147,452 151,875 156,431 159,560 162,751 166,006 169,326 172,713 176,167 179,690 R AA City Administrator 13,088 13,481 13,885 14,302 14,731 15,025 15,326 15,632 15,945 16,264 16,589 16,921 157,056 161,767 166,620 171,619 176,767 180,303 183,909 187,587 191,339 195,166 199,069 203,050 2020 Non‐Represented Employees City of Arlington Council Agenda Bill Item: WS #8 Attachment H General Fund Operating Statement Revenue Charts