Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
RS_TIR_1-6-23
Civil Engineers ● Structural Engineers ● Landscape Architects ● Community Planners ● Land Surveyors Technical Information Report PREPARED FOR: Ronhovde Architects LLC 14900 Interurban Ave S, Suite 138 Tukwila, WA 98168 PROJECT: Compton Lumber Renton 2940, 2960, 2980, and 2990 East Valley Road Renton, WA 98057 2190112.10 PREPARED BY: Michael Hager, PE Project Engineer REVIEWED BY: Todd C. Sawin, PE, DBIA, LEED AP Principal DATE: April 2019 Revised: November 2019 Revised: January 2023 Technical Information Report PREPARED FOR: Ronhovde Architects LLC 14900 Interurban Ave S, Suite 138 Tukwila, WA 98168 PROJECT: Compton Lumber Renton 2940, 2960, 2980, and 2990 East Valley Road Renton, WA 98057 2190112.10 PREPARED BY: Michael Hager, PE Project Engineer REVIEWED BY: Todd C. Sawin, PE, DBIA, LEED AP Principal DATE: April 2019 Revised: November 2019 Revised: January 2023 I hereby state that this Technical Information Report for the Compton Lumber Renton project has been prepared by me or under my supervision, and meets the standard of care and expertise that is usual and customary in this community for professional engineers. I understand that City of Renton does not and will not assume liability for the sufficiency, suitability, or performance of drainage facilities prepared by me. 12/29/2022 Technical Information Report 2940, 2960, 2980, and 2990 East Valley Road Renton, WA 98057 2190112.10 Table of Contents 1.0 Project Overview ....................................................................................................................... 1 Purpose and Scope ........................................................................................................ 1 Existing Conditions ......................................................................................................... 1 Post-Development Conditions ......................................................................................... 1 2.0 Conditions and Requirements Summary ................................................................................. 2 Core Requirements ........................................................................................................ 2 2.1.1 CR 1 – Discharge at the Natural Location ........................................................... 2 2.1.2 CR 2 – Offsite Analysis ...................................................................................... 2 2.1.3 CR 3 – Flow Control ........................................................................................... 2 2.1.4 CR 4 – Conveyance System .............................................................................. 3 2.1.5 CR 5 – Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention ........................................ 3 2.1.6 CR 6 – Maintenance and Operations .................................................................. 3 2.1.7 CR 7 – Financial Guarantees and Liability .......................................................... 3 2.1.8 CR 8 – Water Quality Facilities ........................................................................... 3 2.1.9 CR 9 – Onsite BMPs .......................................................................................... 3 2.1.10 SR 1 – Other Adopted Area-Specific Requirements ............................................ 3 2.1.11 SR 2 – Flood Hazard Area Delineation ............................................................... 3 2.1.12 SR 3 – Flood Protection Facilities ....................................................................... 3 2.1.13 SR 4 – Source Controls...................................................................................... 4 2.1.14 SR 5 – Oil Control .............................................................................................. 4 2.1.15 SR 6 – Aquifer Protection Area........................................................................... 4 3.0 Offsite Analysis ......................................................................................................................... 4 Task 1 – Study Area Definition and Maps ....................................................................... 4 Task 2 – Resource Review ............................................................................................. 4 Task 3 – Field Inspection ................................................................................................ 5 Task 4 – Drainage System Description and Problem Descriptions ................................... 6 4.0 Flow Control and Water Quality Facility Analysis and Design ............................................... 7 Flow Control ................................................................................................................... 7 4.1.1 Existing Site Hydrology (Part A) ......................................................................... 7 4.1.2 Developed Site Hydrology (Part B) ..................................................................... 7 4.1.3 Performance Standards (Part C) ........................................................................ 8 4.1.4 Flow Control System (Part D) ............................................................................. 8 Water Quality System (Part E) ........................................................................................ 9 Technical Information Report 2940, 2960, 2980, and 2990 East Valley Road Renton, WA 98057 2190112.10 5.0 Conveyance System Analysis and Design .............................................................................. 9 6.0 Special Reports and Studies .................................................................................................. 10 7.0 Other Permits .......................................................................................................................... 10 8.0 CSWPPP Analysis and Design ............................................................................................... 10 9.0 Bond Quantities, Facility Summaries, and Declaration of Covenant .................................... 10 10.0 Operations and Maintenance Plan ......................................................................................... 10 11.0 Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 10 Technical Information Report 2940, 2960, 2980, and 2990 East Valley Road Renton, WA 98057 2190112.10 Appendices Appendix A Exhibits A-1 ...................Vicinity Map A-2 ...................TIR Worksheet A-3 ...................Developed Conditions Map A-4 ...................Drainage Basin Map Appendix B Exhibits B-1 ...................Geotechnical Report by Terra Associates, Inc., January 24, 2017 B-2 ...................NRCS Soil Survey B-3 ...................Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Restoration Plan by Soundview Consultants LLC, June 2017 B-4 ...................Downstream Analysis Map B-5 ...................City of Renton Sensitive Area Map B-6 ...................City of Renton Landslide Hazard Map B-7 ...................City of Renton Erosion Hazard Map Appendix C Exhibits C-1 ...................Flood Insurance Rate Map C-2 ...................Groundwater Protection Areas Map C-3 ...................Department of Ecology GULD – Oldcastle Biopod Biofilter Appendix D Exhibits D-1 ...................Flow Control Application Map D-2 ...................WWHM Flow Control Calculations D-3 ...................25-Year Conveyance Simulation D-4 ...................Oldcastle Biopod Biofilter Sizing Calculations D-5 ...................StormShed 2G Conveyance Model Appendix E Exhibits E-1 ...................Operations & Maintenance Guide Technical Information Report 2940, 2960, 2980, and 2990 East Valley Road Renton, WA 98057 1 2190112.10 1.0 Project Overview Purpose and Scope This report accompanies the civil engineering plans and documents for the Compton Lumber Renton project located at 2940, 2960, 2980, and 2990 East Valley Road in Renton, Washington. The site is divided into four parcels: 3023059091 (southwest), 3023059096 (north), 3023059098 (central), and 3023059099 (south). The project proposes to consolidate three of the four parcels into a single parcel, and then develop the site with a 50,000-square foot retail/commercial building, associated parking, and a paved lumberyard. The project site is approximately 4.28 acres in size. See Figure 1-1 for the TIR Worksheet and Figure 1-2 for a Site Location map. The site is located within the city of Renton, originally permitted in 2019 under the 2016 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual (CRSWDM) (City of Renton amended 2016 King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM)). This resubmittal updates the TIR to show the project meets the City of Renton’s new 2022 CRSWDM. Per these manuals the Peak Rate Flow Control Standard shall be met along with the Basic Enhanced Water Quality Treatment Menu. Existing Conditions The existing site is mostly impervious and developed with several separate businesses: Lumber Market located at 2940 East Valley Road, Parcel No. 3023059096; Skyway Towing located at 2960 East Valley Road, Parcel Nos. 3023059098 and 3023059099; and Milt’s Trucking & Excavation located at 2990 East Valley Road, Parcel No. 3023059091. There is an existing Category III wetland located on the eastern border of the site. Pervious surfaces consist of areas located in the existing wetland buffer. The topography across the site is very flat, with most of the project site ranging in elevation from 18 to 20 feet, with a slight slope running north to south. The site drops at the south and east borders down to the existing wetland. Slopes across the site are typically between 1 and 5 percent. According to the City of Renton Public Works Department Soil Survey, Reference 15-C of the CRSWDM, the site consists of Tukwila muck (approximately 67 percent) and urban land (approximately 33 percent). These soils were confirmed by the USDA National Resource Conservation Service Soil Survey. The existing site is split into several different subbasins, all of which are tributary to the publically owned drainage system in East Valley Road. Most of the site sheet flows to existing drainage structures or directly to the existing wetland along the east side of the site. This existing wetland overflows into a drainage ditch south of the site; this ditch conveys water west to the publicly owned drainage system in East Valley Road. The southwest parcel (3023059091) discharges south to this drainage ditch. The parking lot west of Skyway Towing and the existing Skyway Towing building discharge west directly into the East Valley Road conveyance system. The existing drainage patterns have been analyzed and are discussed in detail in the Level One Downstream Analysis (see Section 3.0). Post-Development Conditions The project proposes to construct a new 50,000-square foot building on the north side of the site with retail sales space, office space, and a lumber sales warehouse. The site also includes a parking lot and lumberyard, which will be paved with asphalt. Technical Information Report 2940, 2960, 2980, and 2990 East Valley Road Renton, WA 98057 2 2190112.10 Stormwater runoff generated on impervious pollution generating surfaces will sheet flow to proposed inlets before being conveyed via subsurface pipes to a Biopod vault for water quality treatment. This runoff will discharge west toward the publically owned drainage system in East Valley Road, matching the natural drainage path of the site. Runoff generated on the by 5,000 square feet of the proposed roof area will be piped to the edge of the wetland buffer where the water will discharge into an engineered level spreader. From there, stormwater will flow through the 56.25-foot wetland buffer and discharge into the wetland to the east and south sides of the site. This wetland drains into East Valley Road to the west; therefore, maintaining the natural drainage pattern. Under the proposed conditions, we are proposing approximately 5,000 square feet of impervious roof area to discharge into the wetland; we feel this is close to matching the current conditions of the site. The rest of the roof runoff will be directed into SDCB 03 downstream of the treatment vault where it will be conveyed into the East Valley Road stormwater system. See Appendix A for a Drainage Basin and Developed Conditions Map. 2.0 Conditions and Requirements Summary Core Requirements 2.1.1 CR 1 – Discharge at the Natural Location Stormwater runoff generated on the existing project site discharges both east to the existing wetland and west to the publically owned drainage system in East Valley Road. The existing wetland overflows into the existing drainage ditch south of the project site, which discharges to the drainage system in East Valley Road. The proposed project site follows this existing drainage path by discharging all treated runoff west to the drainage system in East Valley Road, and discharging all clean runoff from the roofs east to the wetland. This matches the existing conditions, meeting the requirement for discharging at the natural location. 2.1.2 CR 2 – Offsite Analysis AHBL staff performed a Level One Downstream Analysis for the project. The analysis included: • Defining and mapping the study area. • Reviewing available information on the study area. • Field inspecting the study area. Please refer to Section 3.0 for the full offsite analysis. 2.1.3 CR 3 – Flow Control The project is located in a Peak Flow Rate Control Standard area. This flow control standard requires the peak flow rate under developed conditions to be equal to or less than the peak flow rate under existing conditions, as stated in the 2017 CRSWDM. Flow control is discussed in further detail in Section 4.0, Flow Control and Water Quality Facility Analysis and Design. Technical Information Report 2940, 2960, 2980, and 2990 East Valley Road Renton, WA 98057 3 2190112.10 2.1.4 CR 4 – Conveyance System The proposed conveyance system has been designed to meet the requirements outlined in Section 1.2.4 of the CRSWDM. The proposed project will comply with spill control requirements by installing tee in the two most downstream catch basins of both the North and South Basins SDCB 04 and SDCB 06 respectively. Refer to Section 5.0 for more information. 2.1.5 CR 5 – Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Onsite land disturbance will consist of clearing the site, demolition of several existing onsite buildings, and regrading of the site. A Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (CSWPPP) has been prepared and is included under a separate cover. 2.1.6 CR 6 – Maintenance and Operations Maintenance and operations of all drainage facilities is the responsibility of the owner. A completed Operations and Maintenance Plan has been prepared and is included in Appendix E. 2.1.7 CR 7 – Financial Guarantees and Liability All financial guarantee and liability requirements will be met by the owner and will be provided with the final engineering design. This project will provide a Drainage Facilities Restoration and Site Stabilization Financial Guarantee. 2.1.8 CR 8 – Water Quality Facilities The project site is subject to the Enhanced Basic Water Quality Treatment Menu per the CRSWDM. Design of these water quality facilities is discussed in Section 4.0. 2.1.9 CR 9 – Onsite BMPs The Compton Lumber Renton project is classified as a Large Lot per Section 1.2.9.2 of the CRSWDM. The proposed project site meets the Large Lot Best Management Practice (BMP) Requirements outlined in Section 1.2.9.2.2 of the CRSWDM. The basic dispersion BMP will be utilized for 5,000 square foot of the overall roof area which is below the 20% threshold required by item 5 of this section. However, the overall project is meeting the LID performance standard and therefore is in compliance with Section 1.2.9.2.2 of the CRSWDM. See section 4.1 for evaluation of BMP’s. 2.1.10 SR 1 – Other Adopted Area-Specific Requirements To our knowledge, there are no adopted area-specific requirements that are applicable to the project site. 2.1.11 SR 2 – Flood Hazard Area Delineation Flood Insurance Rate Map No. 53033C0979 F, Panel 979 of 1725, was consulted for this project and shows the project site within the Zone X area, which is described as areas determined to be outside of the 500-year floodplain. Refer to Appendix C-1 for the Flood Insurance Rate Map. 2.1.12 SR 3 – Flood Protection Facilities The project site does not contain, nor is it adjacent to, any existing flood protection facilities. Project improvements do not include flood protection measures. Technical Information Report 2940, 2960, 2980, and 2990 East Valley Road Renton, WA 98057 4 2190112.10 2.1.13 SR 4 – Source Controls The proposed project is classified as a commercial site. Water quality source controls applicable to the project site shall be evaluated and applied, as described in the King County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Manual (KCSWPPM) and Renton Municipal Code IV. The proposed commercial site does not fit any of the categories listed under Special Requirement #4. Source Controls are not needed at this time. 2.1.14 SR 5 – Oil Control The project is not considered a high-use site. Therefore, it is not subject to oil control requirements. 2.1.15 SR 6 – Aquifer Protection Area According to the City of Renton Public Works Department Groundwater Protection Areas map (Reference 15-B of the CRSWDM), the site is not located within an aquifer protection area. Refer to Appendix C-2 for the above referenced map. 3.0 Offsite Analysis Task 1 – Study Area Definition and Maps Ronhovde Architects LLC proposes to construct a new commercial site along East Valley Road in Renton, Washington. AHBL staff visited the site on May 11, 2017, to perform a Level 1 Downstream Analysis. There are no upstream tributary areas contributing stormwater to the onsite basin area. The entire project site is tributary to the same threshold discharge area (TDA). This TDA is the existing publically owned, underground, piped conveyance system in East Valley Road. This conveyance system eventually discharges to Panther Creek, which is a tributary to Springbrook Creek, and then the Black River. The existing discharge point to Panther Creek is over a quarter mile from the project site. Task 2 – Resource Review The following resources were reviewed to determine if there are any existing or potential problems in the study area: • Adopted Basin Plans: The project lies within the Black River Water Subbasin. Requirements for the Black River Water Subbasin will be followed where applicable. • Offsite Analysis Reports: AHBL staff has not located offsite analysis reports for projects near the Compton Lumber Renton project site. • FEMA Map: FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map No. 53033C0979 F, Panel 979 of 1725, dated May 16, 1995, (see Appendix C-1) indicates that the project site lies outside the categorized flood zones. • Topographic survey. Technical Information Report 2940, 2960, 2980, and 2990 East Valley Road Renton, WA 98057 5 2190112.10 • Renton Sensitive Areas Map: The proposed project site is not located within a sensitive area listed on the map. (See Appendix B-5) • King County Soils Survey: The NRCS Soil Survey was reviewed for the proposed site. It found the site to be comprised of 63% Tukwila muck and 37% Urban land. The Report can be seen as Appendix B-2 • Wetlands Inventory: Per the 1990 King County Wetland Inventory the proposed site is not listed as being located with a wetland area. However per the Critical areas report done by Soundview Consultants it is clear that there is a wetland area located on the project site. • 303d List of Polluted Waters: Per the 303 d list Panther Creek is categorized as a class 4a waterbody which means it has been identified as an impaired water body that does not require a TMDL plan as it already has one in place. • City of Renton Erosion Map: The proposed property is not identified as an erosion hazard area per the City of Renton Erosion Hazard Map. (See Appendix B-7) • City of Renton Landslide Map: The proposed property is not identified as a landslide hazard area per the City of Renton Landslide Hazard Map. (See Appendix B-6) Task 3 – Field Inspection On May 11, 2017, AHBL staff performed a Downstream Analysis of the drainage system receiving stormwater runoff from the proposed Compton Lumber Renton project site. 1. Investigate any problems reported or observed during the resource review: No problems were reported or observed during the resource review. 2. Locate all existing/potential constrictions or lack of capacity in the existing drainage system: No constrictions or lack of capacity in the existing drainage system was observed. 3. Identify all existing/potential downstream drainage problems, as defined in Section 1.2.2.1: No existing/potential downstream drainage problems were observed. 4. Identify existing/potential overtopping, scouring, bank sloughing, or sedimentation: No existing/potential overtopping, scouring, bank sloughing, or sedimentation was observed. 5. Identify significant destruction of aquatic habitat or organisms (e.g., severe siltation, bank erosion, or incision in a stream): No significant destruction of aquatic habitat or organisms was observed. 6. Collect qualitative data on features such as land use, impervious surfaces, topography, and soil types for the site: Land use on the project site is commercial, similar to proposed. Impervious surfaces include asphalt, gravel, and buildings, which cover the majority of the project site outside of Technical Information Report 2940, 2960, 2980, and 2990 East Valley Road Renton, WA 98057 6 2190112.10 the existing wetland buffer. The topography is flat outside of the wetland buffer, and the soil type is Tukwila muck and urban land. 7. Collect information on pipe sizes, channel characteristics, drainage structures, and relevant critical areas (e.g., wetlands, stream, and steep slopes): Pipe sizes in the East Valley Road conveyance system are 30-inch and eventually increase to 36-inch prior to discharging to Panther Creek. There are no steep slopes located on the project site. There is a Category III wetland located on the eastern border of the property. The drainage ditch on the southern property border is non-regulated. Refer to Appendix B-3 for the Wetland Report. 8. Verify tributary basins delineated in Task 1: Based on the topography found onsite and offsite, the basin delineation based on the survey was confirmed. 9. Contract neighboring property owners or residents in the area about past or existing drainage problems, and describe these in the report (optional): This requirement is not applicable for this project. The project site does not discharge to an offsite conveyance system or to adjacent private properties. 10. Note the date and weather conditions at the time of inspection: The site visit occurred on May 11, 2017. The weather was overcast and 40 degrees. Task 4 – Drainage System Description and Problem Descriptions The site is located within the Black River Subbasin. The site is divided into two separate drainage subbasins and one TDA. The proposed TDA is the publically owned and maintained East Valley Road conveyance system. This public, piped system eventually discharges to Panther Creek. The discharge to panther creek is over one-quarter mile from the project site. The proposed project site has an existing category 3 wetland located along the eastern parcel boundary and highway 167 to the east. Per section 1.2.2.1.1 of the CRSWDM this triggers a potential Type 4 drainage problem which requires special attention. According to Section 7.1 of the Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment done by Soundview consultants potential impacts to the wetland hydrology will be minimal. In the existing condition the wetland buffer area is paved. In the proposed condition a mitigated buffer area is to be established based on Soundview’s Wetland Mitigation plan. This will increase the overall health of the existing wetland by removing the impervious surface in this area and replacing it with natural wetland vegetation. No signs of flooding, overtopping, or erosion were evident at the time of the inspection. A Downstream Analysis Map has been prepared and can be found in Appendix B-4. Technical Information Report 2940, 2960, 2980, and 2990 East Valley Road Renton, WA 98057 7 2190112.10 4.0 Flow Control and Water Quality Facility Analysis and Design Flow Control 4.1.1 Existing Site Hydrology (Part A) The existing site is developed with existing buildings, asphalt, and gravel storage areas. The site is mostly impervious, except for the existing wetland area on the east side of the site. Runoff generated on the existing site sheet flows to existing onsite catch basins before discharging east to the existing wetland east of the site. The Western Washington Hydrology Model (WWHM) was used to model the existing site and determine peak flows. 4.1.2 Developed Site Hydrology (Part B) The project site has been split into two separate drainage basins. The South Basin includes the proposed parking area on the south side of the project site as well as the new sidewalk area that is being added to the ROW. This basin will collect stormwater runoff via a series of inlets and convey the water via subsurface pipes to one of two BioPod vaults, before discharging to the City of Renton stormwater system located within East Valley Road. Stormwater in the ROW will sheet flow from the new sidewalk over a grass buffer and into the existing East Valley Road drainage system. This design is an improvement from the existing condition where the sidewalk is located adjacent to the road and stormwater runoff flows directly from the sidewalk to the road. The North basin includes the lumber sales areas and the retail/warehouse building. A 5,000 square foot portion of the roof will be collected and conveyed to the dispersal trench located on the east side of the property. Here the stormwater will travel through the 56-foot flow path before dispersing into the wetlands located to the east and south of the property, and will eventually be conveyed to the storm drainage system located in East Valley Road. The rest of the roof will be tight lined to SDCB 03 and conveyed to the East Valley Road drainage system. The lumber sales yard will be collected via a series of inlets and convey the water via subsurface pipes to one of two BioPod vaults, before discharging to the City of Renton stormwater system located within East Valley Road. The project site is located within a Peak Rate Flow Control Standard area (see Appendix D-1 for the Flow Control Application Map). This standard requires that developed peak flows match existing flows for the 2-, 10-, and 100-year return period stormwater events. Under proposed conditions, net impervious area is planned to decrease, thus lowering peak flow rates and meeting the Peak Rate Flow Control Standard. WWHM peak flow calculations have been prepared and can be found in Appendix D-2. The annual peak flows and durations for the proposed site were determined using the existing and developed surface areas shown below. Table 1 – Existing vs. Developed Site Hydrology Description Impervious Area (Acres) Pervious Area (Acres) Wetland Area (Acres) Total Areas (Acres) Existing 4.15 0.09 0.16 4.40 Developed 2.86 1.38 0.16 4.40 Technical Information Report 2940, 2960, 2980, and 2990 East Valley Road Renton, WA 98057 8 2190112.10 4.1.3 Performance Standards (Part C) Area-Specific Flow Control Facility Standard The project site is located within a Peak Rate Flow Control Standard area. This standard requires that the proposed project site match existing peak flow rates for the 2-, 10-, and 100-year stormwater events. Under the proposed conditions, peak flow rates will decrease for all of the above stormwater events, meeting the flow control requirements of Core Requirement #3 of the 2017 CRSWDM. Since the flow rate for each of the storms is decreased this project also meets the Peak Rate Flow Control Target Surface Exception requirements as listed for redevelopments under Section 1.2.3.1 because there will not be an increase in flow of more than 0.15cfs and it will not significantly impact a critical area. There for the facility requirement is exempt. The flow control calculations can be found in Appendix D-2. Conveyance System Capacity Standards The onsite stormwater network was sized to convey all runoff during a 25-year peak storm event. The pipe network conveyance was analyzed using Flow Master and the peak 25-year flow rate as determined by WWHM. See Appendix D-3 for the pipe flow conveyance calculations. Water Quality Treatment Menu In accordance with the 2016 CRSWDM, onsite flows will be treated to specifications provided by the Enhanced Basic Water Quality standards. The goal of this treatment menu is to reduce total suspended solids (TSS) by 80 percent and to reduce zinc concentration by 60 percent for a typical rainfall year. This goal will be accomplished by providing Oldcastle BioPod Biofilter vault structures for target pollution generating impervious surfaces, satisfying Enhanced Basic Option 5 – Proprietary Facility, found in Section 6.1.2 of the CRSWDM. The proposed filter vault has been sized and will be maintained per the Department of Ecology (DOE) General Use Level Designation (GULD). The DOE’s GULD has been included in Appendix C-3. Water Quality Treatment Menu In accordance with the 2016 CRSWDM, onsite flows will be treated to specifications provided by the Enhanced Basic Water Quality standards Source Controls The proposed project consists of new parking, retail and warehouse buildings, and outdoor storage areas. Source control and erosion and sediment control measures during construction are included in a CSWPPP, which is provided under a separate cover. Oil Controls Not applicable. 4.1.4 Flow Control System (Part D) The proposed project site will have a greater percentage of pervious surface coverage than the existing site. This increase in pervious surfacing will decrease peak flows and satisfy the Peak Rate Flow Control Standard. WWHM calculations are provided in Appendix D-2, showing that the proposed peak flow rates are less than the existing conditions. Below is a review of each On-Site BMP and whether it is suitable for the proposed development. Technical Information Report 2940, 2960, 2980, and 2990 East Valley Road Renton, WA 98057 9 2190112.10 • Full Dispersion – Full dispersion is infeasible for this site because a 100-foot flow path of native vegetative surface does not exist on the property. Therefore, full dispersion is not an option for the proposed project. • Full Infiltration – The existing soil within the project area is high in silt content and has a high groundwater table (as evidenced by the wetland on the east side of the site). Infiltration of stormwater is not feasible on this site. The property is also covered in Fill material which is listed as an infeasibility criteria in Section C.2.2.2 of the CRSWDM. • Limited Infiltration – The existing soil within the project area is high in silt content and has a high groundwater table (as evidenced by the wetland on the east side of the site). Infiltration of stormwater is not feasible on this site. The property is also covered in Fill material which is listed as an infeasibility criteria in Section C.2.2.2 of the CRSWDM. • Bioretention – The proposed project site has a groundwater table that is less then 3 feet below the finished grade of the project. Per C2.6 of the CRSWDM infeasibility criteria #20 a minimum of 3 feet of separation must be maintained in order to use biorentention. Therefore, biorentention is infeasible. • Permeable Pavement – Due to the high content of silt in the existing soils onsite, the geotechnical engineer recommends capping the existing soils and providing positive drainage away from the proposed building to stabilize the soils onsite. Introducing surface water into the soils beneath the parking area would decrease the structural integrity of the soils and is not recommended. • Basic Dispersion – Basic dispersion is an option for non-pollution generating hard surfaces on this site. The topography of the site and the hydrogeological makeup of the site will not allow for stormwater to be treated and dispersed under the basic dispersion criteria. However, non-pollution generating surfaces can utilize basic dispersion on the project. In order to use basic dispersion on the proposed project a gravel dispersion trench will be used to disperse 5,000 square feet of roof runoff into the wetland buffer area. The facility was sized as a 50 foot long trench because that is the maximum length for a single trench with a basin area of 5,000 square feet. • Perforated Stub-out Connection – Roof drains connect to the CB3 at the northeast of the site at an invert elevation of 13.5 ft. Groundwater was determined to be at 13.0 elevation. This project would not be able to meet the minimum 1’ separation to groundwater per 2022 CRSWM C2.11.1.7. Water Quality System (Part E) The new pollution generating impervious surfaces for the proposed site will be treated using three new BioPod vaults to provide Enhanced Basic Treatment. Ninety-one percent of influent runoff will be treated via these vaults before discharging in the municipal storm system. The system was modeled in WWHM as a sand filter, as instructed by DOE’s GULD. Screenshots showing the designed system meeting the 91 percent treatment requirement can be found in Appendix D- 4. 5.0 Conveyance System Analysis and Design The conveyance for the storm drainage system was analyzed using Flow Master and WWHM. Using WWHM it was determined that the 25-year peak flow rate for the developed site in the north basin is 0.45 and in the south basin Is 0.73 cfs. Using these flow rates, the normal depth of an 8-inch diameter pipe running at 0.5 percent slope was determined. The normal depths of these Technical Information Report 2940, 2960, 2980, and 2990 East Valley Road Renton, WA 98057 10 2190112.10 pipes are 0.29 feet and 0.39 feet respectively. Therefore, the conveyance system of 8-inch pipe has adequate capacity to serve this site. For calculations, see Appendix D-3. StormShed 2G was also used to model stormwater conveyance on the proposed project site. Using the SCS Type 1A method both the 25 year and 100 year storm events were modeled. In both cases pipe capacity was good and there was no overtopping of any structures observed. This model verifies that the 100 year storm event will not create or aggravate any stormwater issues that could be in the area. It also confirms that the system will not backflow and is adequate for the proposed site. See Appendix D-5 for the StormShed 2G calculations. 6.0 Special Reports and Studies A Geotechnical Report by Terra Associates, Inc., dated January 24, 2017, is included in Appendix B-1. A Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Restoration Plan by Soundview Consultants LLC, dated June 2017, is included in Appendix B-3. 7.0 Other Permits Required permits for the project will include a Construction Stormwater NPDES Permit for the proposed construction, and a City of Renton commercial building permit. 8.0 CSWPPP Analysis and Design A CSWPPP has been prepared and is included in this submittal package under a separate cover. 9.0 Bond Quantities, Facility Summaries, and Declaration of Covenant A bond quantity worksheet has been prepared and is included in this submittal package. 10.0 Operations and Maintenance Plan The drainage facilities detailed in this report will be privately owned and maintained. Maintenance instructions have been prepared for all onsite drainage facilities; these can be found in Appendix E. 11.0 Conclusion This site has been designed to meet the 2016 King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM), as amended by the City of Renton, the 2016 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual (CRSWDM). The site utilizes water quality facilities to treat stormwater draining from the site. It was determined using these criteria that: • The site will meet the Peak Rate Flow Control Standard for Flow Control. • Water quality facilities have been designed to meet the required Enhanced Basic Water Quality Treatment Level for the site. Technical Information Report 2940, 2960, 2980, and 2990 East Valley Road Renton, WA 98057 11 2190112.10 • Pipe networks will be designed to be of adequate size to effectively convey the 25-year storm event and to contain the 100-year storm event. This analysis is based on data and records either supplied to or obtained by AHBL. These documents are referenced within the text of the analysis. The analysis has been prepared utilizing procedures and practices within the standard accepted practices of the industry. We conclude that this project, as schematically represented, will not create any new problems within the downstream drainage system. This project will not noticeably aggravate any existing downstream problems due to either water quality or quantity. AHBL, Inc. Michael Hager, PE Project Engineer MCH/lsk March 2019 Revised January 2023 Q:\2019\2190112\10_CIV\NON_CAD\REPORTS\TIR\Resubmittal\20230104 Rpt (TIR) 2190112.10.docx $1,uQ a...t4T—' Technical Information Report 2940, 2960, 2980, and 2990 East Valley Road Renton, WA 98057 2190112.10 Appendix A Exhibits A-1 .................... Vicinity Map A-2 .................... TIR Worksheet A-3 .................... Developed Conditions Map A-4 .................... Drainage Basin Map 2215 North 30th Street, Suite 300, Tacoma, WA 98403 253.383.2422 TEL 253.383.2572 FAX JOB NO: DATE: RENTON EAST VALLEY ROAD VICINITY MAP SCALE: 1" = 1/4 MILE (1320')EX-1 2/20/17 2160915.10 SW 34TH ST SW 27TH ST SW 23RD ST LIND AVE SWSW 19TH ST 167 167OAKESDALE AVE NW515 515 515 E VALLEY RDSITE TALBOT RD SSW 29TH ST CITY OF RENTON SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL 2022 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual 6/22/2022 8-A-1 REFERENCE 8-A TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Part 1 PROJECT OWNER AND PROJECT ENGINEER Part 2 PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION Project Owner _____________________________ Phone ___________________________________ Address __________________________________ _________________________________________ Project Engineer ___________________________ Company _________________________________ Phone ___________________________________ Project Name __________________________ CED Permit # ________________________ Location Township ________________ Range __________________ Section _________________ Site Address __________________________ _____________________________________ Part 3 TYPE OF PERMIT APPLICATION Part 4 OTHER REVIEWS AND PERMITS Land Use (e.g., Subdivision / Short Subd.) Building (e.g., M/F / Commercial / SFR) Grading Right-of-Way Use Other _______________________ DFW HPA COE 404 DOE Dam Safety FEMA Floodplain COE Wetlands Other ________ Shoreline Management Structural Rockery/Vault/_____ ESA Section 7 Part 5 PLAN AND REPORT INFORMATION Technical Information Report Site Improvement Plan (Engr. Plans) Type of Drainage Review (check one): Date (include revision dates): Date of Final: Full Targeted Simplified Large Project Directed __________________ __________________ __________________ Plan Type (check one): Date (include revision dates): Date of Final: Full Modified Simplified __________________ __________________ __________________ Compton Lumber Co 3847 1st Ave S, Seattle, WA 98134 Todd Sawin AHBL, Inc. 253.383.2422 2940, 2960, 2980, & 2990 E Valley Rd Renton, WA 98057 Compton Lumber Renton 30 23 N 05 E February 2016 February 2016 C19003341 REFERENCE 8: PLAN REVIEW FORMS AND WORKSHEET TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET 6/22/2022 2022 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual 8-A-2 Part 6 SWDM ADJUSTMENT APPROVALS Type (circle one): Standard / Blanket Description: (include conditions in TIR Section 2) ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ Approved Adjustment No. ______________________ Date of Approval: _______________________ Part 7 MONITORING REQUIREMENTS Monitoring Required: Yes / No Start Date: _______________________ Completion Date: _______________________ Describe: _________________________________ _________________________________________ _________________________________________ Re: SWDM Adjustment No. ________________ Part 8 SITE COMMUNITY AND DRAINAGE BASIN Community Plan: ____________________________________________________________________ Special District Overlays: ______________________________________________________________ Drainage Basin: _____________________________________________________________________ Stormwater Requirements: _____________________________________________________________ Part 9 ONSITE AND ADJACENT SENSITIVE AREAS River/Stream ________________________ Lake ______________________________ Wetlands ____________________________ Closed Depression ____________________ Floodplain ___________________________ Other _______________________________ _______________________________ Steep Slope __________________________ Erosion Hazard _______________________ Landslide Hazard ______________________ Coal Mine Hazard ______________________ Seismic Hazard _______________________ Habitat Protection ______________________ _____________________________________ Black River Water Subbasin The City of Renton Peak Flow Rate Control Standard and Enhanced Basic Water Quality Existing Category III Wetland east of site REFERENCE 8-A: TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET 2022 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual 6/22/2022 Ref 8-A-3 Part 10 SOILS Soil Type ______________________ ______________________ ______________________ ______________________ Slopes ________________________ ________________________ ________________________ ________________________ Erosion Potential _________________________ _________________________ _________________________ _________________________ High Groundwater Table (within 5 feet) Other ________________________________ Sole Source Aquifer Seeps/Springs Additional Sheets Attached Part 11 DRAINAGE DESIGN LIMITATIONS REFERENCE Core 2 – Offsite Analysis_________________ Sensitive/Critical Areas__________________ SEPA________________________________ LID Infeasibility________________________ Other________________________________ _____________________________________ LIMITATION / SITE CONSTRAINT _______________________________________ _______________________________________ _______________________________________ _______________________________________ _______________________________________ _______________________________________ Additional Sheets Attached Part 12 TIR SUMMARY SHEET (provide one TIR Summary Sheet per Threshold Discharge Area) Threshold Discharge Area: (name or description) Core Requirements (all 9 apply): Discharge at Natural Location Number of Natural Discharge Locations: Offsite Analysis Level: 1 / 2 / 3 dated:__________________ Flow Control (include facility summary sheet) Standard: _______________________________ or Exemption Number: ____________ Conveyance System Spill containment located at: _____________________________ Erosion and Sediment Control / Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention CSWPP/CESCL/ESC Site Supervisor: _____________________ Contact Phone: _________________________ After Hours Phone: _________________________ Maintenance and Operation Responsibility (circle one): Private / Public If Private, Maintenance Log Required: Yes / No Financial Guarantees and Liability Provided: Yes / No Tu 0-1%Moderate Ur N/A N/A Existing Category III Wetland East Valley Road public stormwater system 1 12.22.2016 TBD TBD Peak Rate Flow Control Standard REFERENCE 8: PLAN REVIEW FORMS AND WORKSHEET TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET 6/22/2022 2022 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual 8-A-4 Part 12 TIR SUMMARY SHEET (provide one TIR Summary Sheet per Threshold Discharge Area) Water Quality (include facility summary sheet) Type (circle one): Basic / Sens. Lake / Enhanced Basic / Bog or Exemption No. _______________________ On-site BMPs Describe: Special Requirements (as applicable): Area Specific Drainage Requirements Type: SDO / MDP / BP / Shared Fac. / None Name: ________________________ Floodplain/Floodway Delineation Type (circle one): Major / Minor / Exemption / None 100-year Base Flood Elevation (or range): _______________ Datum: Flood Protection Facilities Describe: Source Control (commercial / industrial land use) Describe land use: Describe any structural controls: Oil Control High-Use Site: Yes / No Treatment BMP: _________________________________ Maintenance Agreement: Yes / No with whom? _____________________________________ Other Drainage Structures Describe: Commercail Conveyance pipes, catch basins, Filterra units, etc. REFERENCE 8-A: TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET 2022 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual 6/22/2022 Ref 8-A-5 Part 13 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL REQUIREMENTS MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS DURING CONSTRUCTION Clearing Limits Cover Measures Perimeter Protection Traffic Area Stabilization Sediment Retention Surface Water Collection Dewatering Control Dust Control Flow Control Control Pollutants Protect Existing and Proposed BMPs/Facilities Maintain Protective BMPs / Manage Project MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS AFTER CONSTRUCTION Stabilize exposed surfaces Remove and restore Temporary ESC Facilities Clean and remove all silt and debris, ensure operation of Permanent BMPs/Facilities, restore operation of BMPs/Facilities as necessary Flag limits of sensitive areas and open space preservation areas Other _______________________ Part 14 STORMWATER FACILITY DESCRIPTIONS (Note: Include Facility Summary and Sketch) Flow Control Description Water Quality Description On-site BMPs Description Detention Infiltration Regional Facility Shared Facility Other _____________ _____________ _____________ _____________ _____________ _____________ _____________ _____________ _____________ _____________ _____________ Vegetated Flowpath Wetpool Filtration Oil Control Spill Control Other _____________ _____________ _____________ _____________ _____________ _____________ _____________ _____________ _____________ _____________ _____________ Full Dispersion Full Infiltration Limited Infiltration Rain Gardens Bioretention Permeable Pavement Basic Dispersion Soil Amendment Perforated Pipe Connection Other _____________ _____________ _____________ _____________ _____________ _____________ _____________ _____________ _____________ _____________ _____________ OldCastle Biopod REFERENCE 8: PLAN REVIEW FORMS AND WORKSHEET TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET 6/22/2022 2022 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual 8-A-6 Part 15 EASEMENTS/TRACTS Part 16 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS Drainage Easement Covenant Native Growth Protection Covenant Tract Other ____________________________ Cast in Place Vault Retaining Wall Rockery > 4′ High Structural on Steep Slope Other _______________________________ Part 17 SIGNATURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER I, or a civil engineer under my supervision, have visited the site. Actual site conditions as observed were incorporated into this worksheet and the attached Technical Information Report. To the best of my knowledge the information provided here is accurate. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Signed/Date VAN VAN WASHINGTON STATE ROUTE 167EXISTING WETLAND BOUNDARY LUMBER SALES T EAST VALLEY ROADEAST VALLEY ROADSW 27TH ST43,322 SF PROPOSED BUILDING PARCEL BOUNDARY LINE 400 SF LUMBER RACKS (TYP) PARCEL BOUNDARY LINE S89° 45' 25"E 406.80' S89° 39' 04"E 167.06'S1° 49' 52"W108.04'S89° 39' 04"E 452.25'S1° 49' 52"W658.54'S89° 45' 25"E 361.01'S1° 49' 52"W658.54'S89° 45' 25"E 321.19'S9° 28' 54"E628.23'EXISTING BUILDING TO BE REMOVED EXISTING BUILDING TO BE REMOVED EXISTING BUILDING TO BE REMOVED ROOF OVERHANG 10' BUILDING SETBACK 400 SF LUMBER RACK PROPOSED 15' WATER EASEMENT LEGEND EXISTING PROPOSED TAX PARCEL NUMBER: PROJECT ADDRESS: ZONING: JURISDICTION: PARCEL ACREAGE: 3023059099 2980 EAST VALLEY RD RENTON, WA 98057 CA CITY OF RENTON 80,199 S.F. LEGAL DESCRIPTION BASIS OF BEARING VERTICAL DATUM PROJECT INFORMATION IF WORKERS ENTER ANY TRENCH OR OTHER EXCAVATION FOUR OR MORE FEET IN DEPTH THAT DOES NOT MEET THE OPEN PIT REQUIREMENTS OF WSDOT SECTION 2-09.3(3)B, IT SHALL BE SHORED AND CRIBBED. THE CONTRACTOR ALONE SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR WORKER SAFETY AND AHBL ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY. ALL TRENCH SAFETY SYSTEMS SHALL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE WASHINGTON INDUSTRIAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ACT, CHAPTER 49.17 RCW. THE LOCATIONS OF EXISTING UNDERGROUND UTILITIES ARE APPROXIMATE ONLY AND HAVE NOT BEEN INDEPENDENTLY VERIFIED BY THE OWNER OR ITS REPRESENTATIVE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL DETERMINE THE EXACT LOCATION OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES BEFORE COMMENCING WORK AND AGREES TO BE FULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY AND ALL DAMAGES THAT HAPPEN DUE TO THE CONTRACTOR'S FAILURE TO LOCATE EXACTLY AND PRESERVE ANY AND ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. AHBL ASSUMES NO LIABILITY FOR THE LOCATION OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. FILL MATERIAL SHALL NOT CONTAIN PETROLEUM PRODUCTS, OR SUBSTANCES WHICH ARE HAZARDOUS, DANGEROUS, TOXIC, OR WHICH OTHERWISE VIOLATE ANY STATE, FEDERAL, OR LOCAL LAW, ORDINANCE, CODE, REGULATION, RULE, ORDER, OR STANDARD. UTILITY NOTE FILL SPECIFICATION TRENCH NOTE THE EXISTING CULTURAL AND TOPOGRAPHIC DATA SHOWN ON THESE DRAWINGS HAS BEEN PREPARED, IN PART, BASED UPON INFORMATION FURNISHED BY OTHERS. WHILE THIS INFORMATION IS BELIEVED TO BE RELIABLE, AHBL CANNOT ENSURE ACCURACY AND THUS IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACCURACY OF THAT INFORMATION OR FOR ANY ERRORS OR OMISSIONS WHICH MAY HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED INTO THESE DRAWINGS AS A RESULT. TOPOGRAPHIC NOTE N GRAPHIC SCALE 0 40 80 1" = 40 FEET 20 ARCHITECT: SURVEYOR: AHBL 2215 N 30TH ST TACOMA, WA 98403 PHONE: 253.383.2422 CONTACT: DEAN ROBINSON, PLS RONHOVDE ARCHITECTS LLC 14900 INTERURBAN AVE S, SUITE 138 TUKWILA, WA 98168 CONTACT: LES SEIFERT PHONE: 206.859.5500 EMAIL: les@ronhovdearchitects.com OWNER/APPLICANT: COMPTON LUMBER CO 3847 1ST AVE S SEATTLE WA 98134 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER: TERRA ASSOCIATES, INC. 1220 113TH AVENUE NE, STE. 130 KIRKLAND, WA 98034 PHONE: 425.821.7777 CONTACT: TED SCHEPPER EMAIL: TSCHEPPER@TERRA-ASSOCIATES.COM 3023059091 2990 EAST VALLEY RD RENTON, WA 98057 CA CITY OF RENTON 18,042 S.F. 3023059098 2960 EAST VALLEY RD RENTON, WA 98055 CA CITY OF RENTON 88,299 S.F. 3023059096 2940 EAST VALLEY RD RENTON, WA 98057 CA CITY OF RENTON 68,220 S.F. PER FIRST AMERICAN TITLE COMPANY ORDER NO. NCS-827513-WA1 DATED DECEMBER 8, 2016 PARCEL A: THE NORTH 200 FEET OF THAT PORTION OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, LYING WEST OF PRIMARY STATE HIGHWAY NO. 5 AS ESTABLISHED BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 5346369; EXCEPT THE WEST 30 FEET THEREOF CONVEYED TO THE STATE OF WASHINGTON FOR ROAD PURPOSES BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 1079782. PARCEL B: THE SOUTH 230 FEET OF THE NORTH 430 FEET OF THAT PORTION OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, LYING WEST OF PRIMARY STATE HIGHWAY NO. 5 AS ESTABLISHED BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 5346369; EXCEPT THE WEST 30 FEET THEREOF CONVEYED TO THE STATE OF WASHINGTON FOR ROAD PURPOSES BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 1079782. PARCEL C: THE NORTH HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, LYING WEST OF PRIMARY STATE HIGHWAY NO. 5 AS ESTABLISHED BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO.5346369; EXCEPT THE WEST 30 FEET THEREOF CONVEYED TO THE STATE OF WASHINGTON FOR ROAD PURPOSES BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 1079782; AND EXCEPT THE NORTH 430 FEET THEREOF; AND EXCEPT THE EAST 167 FEET OF THE WEST 197 FEET OF THE SOUTH 108 FEET OF SAID NORTH HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION. PARCEL D: THE EAST 167 FEET OF THE WEST 197 FEET OF THE SOUTH 108 FEET OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. NAVD 1988 VERTICAL DATUM ON ORTHOMETRICALLY CORRECTED GPS OBSERVATIONS USING WSRN AND GEOID 2012A. VERIFIED CITY OF RENTON 230 (CASE MONUMENT AT S 23RD ST AND WILLIAMS AVE CUL DE SAC) ELEV: 230.75 NAD 1983 WASHINGTON STATE PLANE NORTH PROJECTION, BASED ON GPS OBSERVATIONS USING WSRN AND GEOID 2012A. UNITS OF MEASUREMENT ARE US SURVEY FEET. VERIFIED CITY OF RENTON 230 (CASE MONUMENT AT S 23RD ST AND WILLIAMS AVE CUL DE SAC) P T W W FOUND MONUMENT AS NOTED NAIL AND WASHER SET REBAR AND CAP FOUND PROPERTY CORNER BOLLARD MAIL BOX SIGN AS NOTED SOIL BORE SANITARY SEWER CLEANOUT SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE STORM CLEANOUT STORM CATCH BASIN STORM MANHOLE GAS VALVE UTILITY POWER POLE JUNCTION BOX POWER MANHOLE POWER METER LUMINAIRE COMMUNICATIONS MANHOLE TELEPHONE RISER TELEPHONE VAULT BLOW OFF VALVE FIRE HYDRANT HOSE BIB IRRIGATION CONTROL VALVE WATER METER WATER MANHOLE POST INDICATOR VALVE WATER VALVE WATER VAULT U-UNKNOWN DECIDUOUS TREE POWER VAULT HB STORM LINE SEWER LINE WATER LINE GAS LINE ELECTRICAL LINE COMMUNICATION LINE OVERHEAD UTILITIES FENCE ASPHALT CONCRETE WETLAND FIRE SERVICE LINE ROOF DRAIN LINE SW 27TH ST E VALLEY RDSW 23RD ST OAKESDALE AVE SWLIND AVE SWHIGHWAY 167515 515 TALBOT RD SS 23RD ST S 31ST ST SITE N VICINITY MAP SCALE: 1" = 1/4 MILE (1320') AHBL, INC. 2215 NORTH 30TH STREET - SUITE 300 TACOMA, WA 98403 PHONE: 253.383.2422 CONTACT: TODD SAWIN, P.E. EMAIL: TSAWIN@AHBL.COM CIVIL ENGINEER: LANDSCAPE AREA Know what's below. before you dig.Call R SOUNDVIEW CONSULTANTS LLC 2907 HARBORVIEW DRIVE, SUITE D GIG HARBOR, WA 98335 PHONE: 253.514.8952 CONTACT: JEREMY DOWNS EMAIL: JEREMY@SOUNDVIEWCONSULTANTS.COM WETLAND BIOLOGIST: CITY OF RENTON IN COMPLIANCE WITH CITY OF RENTON STANDARDSTED-40-4084COMPTON LUMBER RENTON R-408401 TEL FAX www.ahbl.comWEBTELFAXwww.ahbl.comWEBTELFAXwww.ahbl.comWEB 2215 North 30th Street, Suite 300 Tacoma, WA 98403 253.383.2422TEL 253.383.2572FAX www.ahbl.comWEB TACOMA SEATTLE SPOKANE TRI-CITIES EXISTING PARCEL TO BE MAINTAINED DURING CONSTRUCTION C0.1 1 SITE PLAN COVER SHEET 15' BUILDING SETBACK PARCEL NO. 3023059103 PARCEL NO. 3023059085 PARCEL NO. 3023059091 PARCEL NO. 3023059098 PARCEL NO. 3023059096 PARCEL NO. 3023059099 WETLAND BUFFER BOUNDARY Sheet List Table Sheet Number Sheet Title C0.1 SITE PLAN COVER SHEET C0.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS C1.0 TESC C1.1 TESC NOTES AND DETAILS C2.0 HORIZONTAL CONTROL C2.1 HORIZONTAL CONTROL NOTES AND DETAILS C2.2 HORIZONTAL CONTROL NOTES AND DETAILS C3.0 STORM DRAINAGE AND GRADING C3.1 STORM DRAINAGE PROFILES C3.2 STORM DRAINAGE PROFILES C3.3 STORM DRAINAGE NOTES AND DETAILS C3.4 STORM DRAINAGE NOTES AND DETAILS C4.0 UTILITY SHEET C4.1 UTILITY PROFILES C4.2 UTILITY PROFILES C4.3 UTILITY PROFILES C4.4 UTILITY NOTES AND DETAILS C4.5 UTILITY NOTES AND DETAILS C4.6 UTILITY NOTES AND DETAILS C5.0 FRONTAGE IMPROVMENTS IL-01 ILLUMINATION PLAN IL-02 ILLUMINATION DETAILS IL-03 ILLUMINATION DETAILS IL-04 PHOTOMETRIC CALCULATIONS WL 1 WETLAND RESTORATION PLAN WL 2 RESTORATION NOTES WL 3 RESTORATION NOTES DATE: October 31, 2019 FILENAME: Q:\2019\2190112\10_CIV\CAD\2190112-SH-COVER.dwg PROPOSED 8' ACCESS EASEMENT IMPERVIOUS TO PERVIOUS CONVERSION AREA SURFACE AREA TABLE IMPERVIOUS AREA PERVIOUS AREA TOTAL AREA EXISTING SITE 4.03 0.09 4.12 PROPOSED SITE 2.75 1.37 4.12 TEAST VALLEY ROAD EAST VALLEY ROAD SW 27TH ST VANVANWASHING T O N S T A T E R O U T E 1 6 7 1 9 19 SDCB 05 SDCB 04 SDCB 09 SDCB 07 SDCB 10 SDCB 08 SDCB 06 50' DISPERSION TRENCH SDCB 02 SDCB 01 SDCB 03 74 LF 8" ADS @ 0.50% 66 LF 8" ADS @ 0.50% 60 LF 8" CPEP @ 0.50% 66 LF 8" ADS @ 0.50% 25 LF 8" CPEP @ 0.50% 6 LF 8" CPEP @ 0.50% 71 LF 12" CPEP @ 0.50% 34 LF 12" CPEP @ 3.43% 62 LF 8" ADS @ 0.50%111 LF 8" ADS @ 0.50%1919 15 LF 12" CPEP @ 20.00% 58 LF 8" CPEP @ 0.50% FG: 19.42 FG: 19.38 FG: 19.71 FG: 19.44 FG: 19.11 FG: 19.04 FG: 19.44 FG: 19.75 FG: 19.01 FG: 19.69 FG: 19.38 FG: 20.12 FG: 19.77 FG: 19.03 FG: 19.34 FG: 19.03 FG: 18.66 FG: 19.76 FG: 19.06 FG: 18.69 FG: 18.76 FG: 19.07 FG: 19.30 FG: 19.04 FG: 18.46 FG: 18.30 FG: 19.10 FG: 19.90 FG: 19.51 FG: 19.29 FG: 18.78 FG: 18.92 FG: 18.88 FG: 18.31 FG: 19.67 FG: 19.54 FG: 18.31 FG: 18.23 FG: 18.98 FG: 19.09 FG: 19.24 FG: 19.131.00%1.00%1.00%1.00%1.00%1.00%1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00%1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00%1.00%2.06%1.00%2.06%1.00%1.00%1.00%1.00%0.03%2.06%1.00%1.00%2.06%1.00%1.00%1.00%1.00%2.06%1.00%3.15%1.41%1.89%0.47%0.82%0.50%0.23%0.46%1.12%3.04% 1.00% 0.50% FG: 19.69 FG: 19.69 FG: 19.18 FG: 19.89 FG: 19.69 FG: 19.38 FG: 19.79 FG: 19.91 FG: 20.21 FG: 20.00 FG: 19.75 FG: 19.70 FG: 19.62FG: 19.85 2 2 3 3 1 1 FG: 19.04 FF: 19.90 SDCO 01 A MAXIMUM OF 5,000 SQUARE FEET OF ROOF DRAINAGE AREA SHALL BE DIRECTED TO THE 50' DISPERSION TRENCH. FG: 18.25 FG: 18.27 FG: 18.17 FG: 18.13 FG: 19.86 FG: 19.69 FG: 18.87 CONNECT TO STMH 506 BPU-IB-412 OUTLET 191 9 191918 19 18 18 191919CONNECT TO STCB 514 SEE SHEET C3.1 FOR NORTH BASIN PROFILE SEE SHEET C3.2 FOR SOUTH BASIN PROFILE FG: 19.71 FG: 19.52 FG: 19.07 FG: 19.16 FG: 19.41 FG: 19.32 FG: 19.35 20 87 LF 8" ADS @ 0.50%71 LF 8" CPEP @ 0.50% SDCB 12 SDCB 11 20 191919 CONNECT ROOF DRAINAGE SYSTEM TO SDCB 03 9 LF 12" CPEP @ 0.50% STORM STRUCTURE TABLE STRUCTURE NAME 50' DISPERSION TRENCH CB TYPE 1 STA: 0+57.70, 0.04 L BPU-IB-412 INLET 5' X 13' BIOPOD INLET CONNECTION STA: 8+34.47, 0.00 BPU-IB-412 OUTLET 5' X 13' BIOPOD OUTLET CONNECTION STA: 8+29.47, 0.00 R BPU-IB-612 INLET EXISTING TYPE 1 CB STA: 0+31.99, 0.09 R BPU-IB-612 OUTLET EXISTING TYPE 1 CB STA: 0+24.99, 0.20 R CONNECT TO STCB 514 EXISTING TYPE 1 CB STA: 0+00, 0.00 CONNECT TO STMH 506 EXISTING TYPE 2 CB STA: 7+00, 0.00 SDCB 01 CB TYPE 1 STA: 7+15.32, 0.00 R SDCB 02 CB TYPE 1 STA: 7+48.90, 0.00 L SDCB 03 CB TYPE 1 STA: 8+20.34, 0.09 R SDCB 04 CB TYPE 1 STA: 8+96.33, 0.01 R SDCB 05 CB TYPE 1 STA: 10+94.29, 0.01 R SDCB 06 CB TYPE 1 STA: 0+38.05, 0.00 L SDCB 07 CB TYPE 1 STA: 0+97.91, 0.04 R SDCB 08 CB TYPE 1 STA: 0+97.92, 66.03 R SDCB 09 CB TYPE 1 STA: 2+41.90, 0.01 L SDCB 10 CB TYPE 1 STA: 3+07.90, 0.02 R SDCB 11 W/ SOLID LOCKING LID STA: 1+68.41, 0.02 R SDCB 12 W/ SOLID LOCKING LID STA: 9+83.56, 0.00 R SDCO 01 ROOF DOWNSPOUT CONNECTION STA: 0+00, 0.00 STRUCTURE DETAILS RIM = 19.45 IE = 16.79 (8" W) RIM = 19.41 IE = 15.67 (8" E) RIM = 14.25 IE = 13.51 (12" W) RIM = 19.62 IE = 15.60 (8" E) RIM = 19.24 IE = 13.44 (8" W) RIM = 17.63 IE = 13.32 (8" E) RIM = 10.44 IE = 8.89 (12" E) RIM = 17.30 IE = 11.95 (12" E) IE = 11.95 (12" W) RIM = 17.51 IE = 13.10 (12" S) IE = 13.10 (12" W) RIM = 18.70 IE = 13.46 (12" E) IE = 13.46 (12" N) RIM = 18.00 IE = 15.98 (8" E) IE = 15.98 (8" W) RIM = 18.70 IE = 16.97 (8" W) RIM = 19.13 IE = 15.63 (8" E) IE = 15.63 (8" W) RIM = 18.38 IE = 15.93 (8" E) IE = 15.93 (8" W) IE = 15.93 (8" S) RIM = 18.73 IE = 16.26 (8" N) RIM = 18.35 IE = 16.65 (8" S) IE = 16.65 (8" W) RIM = 18.70 IE = 16.98 (8" N) RIM = 19.08 IE = 16.28 (8" E) IE = 16.28 (8" W) RIM = 19.22 IE = 16.42 (8" E) IE = 16.42 (8" W) RIM = 19.76 IE = 17.08 (8" E) CITY OF RENTON IN COMPLIANCE WITH CITY OF RENTON STANDARDSTED-40-4084COMPTON LUMBER RENTON R-408401 TEL FAX www.ahbl.comWEBTELFAXwww.ahbl.comWEBTELFAXwww.ahbl.comWEB 2215 North 30th Street, Suite 300 Tacoma, WA 98403 253.383.2422TEL 253.383.2572FAX www.ahbl.comWEB TACOMA SEATTLE SPOKANE TRI-CITIES GRAPHIC SCALE 0 30 60 1" = 30 FEET 15 NPARCEL NO. 3023059103 PARCEL NO. 3023059085 PARCEL NO. 3023059091 PARCEL NO. 3023059098 PARCEL NO. 3023059096 DATE: November 1, 2019 FILENAME: Q:\2019\2190112\10_CIV\CAD\2190112-SH-STRM.dwg STORM DRAINAGE AND GRADING PARCEL NO. 3023059099 KEYNOTES MATCH EXISTING GRADE. ADA-COMPLIANT PARKING STALL. SLOPE SHALL NOT EXCEED 2.0% IN ANY DIRECTION. ADA LEVEL LANDING. SLOPE SHALL NOT EXCEED 2.0% IN ANY DIRECTION. 1 2 3 LEGEND SLOPE VALLEY RIDGE TYPE 1 CATCH BASIN TYPE 2 CATCH BASIN STORMWATER CLEANOUT 1.0%3:1OR 3 C3.3 4 C3.3 4 C3.4 2 C2.2 1 C3.4 1 C3.3 1 C3.4 ALL DISTURBED SOILS SHALL BE RESTORED PER COR STANDARD PLAN 264 2 C3.3 C3.0 8 2 C3.4 2 C3.4 8 C3.4 8 C3.4 SITE COVERAGE AREAS NORTH BASIN = .70 AC SOUTH BASIN = 1.15 AC PERVIOUS AREA = 1.37 AC WETLAND = 0.16 AC ROOF = .90 AC ROW SIDEWALK = .12 AC TOTAL = 4.40 AC Technical Information Report 2940, 2960, 2980, and 2990 East Valley Road Renton, WA 98057 2190112.10 Appendix B Exhibits B-1 .................... Geotechnical Report by Terra Associates, Inc., January 24, 2017 B-2 .................... NRCS Soil Survey B-3 .................... Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Restoration Plan by Soundview Consultants LLC, June 2017 B-4 .................... Downstream Analysis Map B-5 .................... City of Renton Sensitive Area Map B-6 .................... City of Renton Landslide Hazard Map B-7 .................... City of Renton Erosion Hazard Map SITE Environmental Earth Sciences Terra Associates, Inc. Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering Geology and Figure 1 VICINITY MAP 0 2000 4000 APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET REFERENCE: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/data/tools/geoportal/ ACCESSED 1/20/17 Proj.No. T-7563 Date: JAN 2017 RENTON, WASHINGTON E VALLEY ROAD INDUSTRIAL © 2017 Microsoft Corporation © 2010 NAVTEQ © AND B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 B-5 B-6 REFERENCE: REFERENCE ONLY AND SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR DESIGN OR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. DIMENSIONS ARE APPROXIMATE. IT IS INTENDED FOR NOTE: THIS SITE PLAN IS SCHEMATIC. ALL LOCATIONS AND LEGEND: 0 100 200 APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET APPROXIMATE BORING LOCATION SITE PLAN PROVIDED BY BING MAPS. Environmental Earth Sciences Terra Associates, Inc. Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering Geology and EXPLORATION LOCATION PLAN Figure 2Proj.No. T-7563 Date: JAN 2017 RENTON, WASHINGTON E VALLEY ROAD INDUSTRIAL NOT TO SCALE 1. NOTES: 2. 4. 3. 5. 7. 6. 8. 9. PLASTIC COUPLINGS. PLASTIC PROTECTIVE SLEEVE SHOULD EXTEND AT LEAST 1" ABOVE TOP OF FILL SURFACE. STEEL MARKER ROD SHOULD EXTEND AT LEAST 6" ABOVE TOP OF PLASTIC PROTECTIVE SLEEVE. ADDITIONAL SECTIONS OF PLASTIC PROTECTIVE SLEEVE CAN BE CONNECTED WITH PRESS-FIT ADDITIONAL SECTIONS OF STEEL ROD CAN BE CONNECTED WITH THREADED COUPLINGS. PLASTIC TUBING. SLEEVE IS NOT ATTACHED TO ROD OR BASE. PROTECTIVE SLEEVE SURROUNDING MARKER ROD SHOULD CONSIST OF 2" DIAMETER MARKER ROD IS ATTACHED TO BASE BY NUT AND WASHER ON EACH SIDE OF BASE. MARKER ROD IS 1/2" DIAMETER STEEL ROD THREADED AT BOTH ENDS. BEDDING MATERIAL, IF REQUIRED, SHOULD CONSIST OF CLEAN COARSE SAND. BASE CONSISTS OF 3/4" THICK, 2'x2' PLYWOOD WITH CENTER DRILLED 5/8" DIAMETER HOLE. SURCHARGE OR FILLOR FILL SURCHARGE PROTECTIVE SLEEVE STEEL ROD HEIGHT VARIES (SEE NOTES) Environmental Earth Sciences Terra Associates, Inc. Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering Geology and SETTLEMENT MARKER DETAIL Figure 3Proj.No. T-7563 Date: JAN 2017 RENTON, WASHINGTON E VALLEY ROAD INDUSTRIAL 12" COMPACTED STRUCTURAL FILL EXCAVATED SLOPE (SEE REPORT TEXT FOR APPROPRIATE INCLINATIONS) SLOPE TO DRAIN 12" MINIMUM 3/4" MINUS WASHED GRAVEL 3" BELOW PIPE 12" OVER PIPE 4" DIAMETER PERFORATED PVC PIPE SEE NOTE 6"(MIN.) NOT TO SCALE NOTE: MIRADRAIN G100N PREFABRICATED DRAINAGE PANELS OR SIMILAR PRODUCT CAN BE SUBSTITUTED FOR THE 12-INCH WIDE GRAVEL DRAIN BEHIND WALL. DRAINAGE PANELS SHOULD EXTEND A MINIMUM OF SIX INCHES INTO 12-INCH THICK DRAINAGE GRAVEL LAYER OVER PERFORATED DRAIN PIPE. Environmental Earth Sciences Terra Associates, Inc. Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering Geology and TYPICAL WALL DRAINAGE DETAIL Figure 4Proj.No. T-7563 Date: JAN 2017 RENTON, WASHINGTON E VALLEY ROAD INDUSTRIAL Soil Map—King County Area, Washington Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 5/10/2017 Page 1 of 352558505255870525589052559105255930525595052559705255990525601052560305256050525607052560905256110525613052558705255890525591052559305255950525597052559905256010525603052560505256070525609052561105256130558920558940558960558980559000559020559040559060559080 558920 558940 558960 558980 559000 559020 559040 559060 559080 47° 27' 21'' N 122° 13' 6'' W47° 27' 21'' N122° 12' 57'' W47° 27' 12'' N 122° 13' 6'' W47° 27' 12'' N 122° 12' 57'' WN Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 10N WGS84 0 35 70 140 210 Feet 0 10 20 40 60 Meters Map Scale: 1:794 if printed on B portrait (11" x 17") sheet. Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Map Unit Polygons Soil Map Unit Lines Soil Map Unit Points Special Point Features Blowout Borrow Pit Clay Spot Closed Depression Gravel Pit Gravelly Spot Landfill Lava Flow Marsh or swamp Mine or Quarry Miscellaneous Water Perennial Water Rock Outcrop Saline Spot Sandy Spot Severely Eroded Spot Sinkhole Slide or Slip Sodic Spot Spoil Area Stony Spot Very Stony Spot Wet Spot Other Special Line Features Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background Aerial Photography The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000. Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: King County Area, Washington Survey Area Data: Version 12, Sep 8, 2016 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Aug 31, 2013—Oct 6, 2013 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Soil Map—King County Area, Washington Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 5/10/2017 Page 2 of 3 Map Unit Legend King County Area, Washington (WA633) Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI Tu Tukwila muck 4.1 63.6% Ur Urban land 2.4 36.4% Totals for Area of Interest 6.5 100.0% Soil Map—King County Area, Washington Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 5/10/2017 Page 3 of 3 WETLAND AND FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT ASSESSMENT AND RESTORATION PLAN EAST VALLEY ROAD JUNE 2017 WETLAND AND FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT ASSESSMENT AND RESTORATION PLAN EAST VALLEY ROAD JUNE 22, 2017 PROJECT LOCATION 2960 EAST VALLEY ROAD RENTON, WA 98057 PREPARED FOR LATITUDE DEVELOPMENT 1801 WEST VALLEY HIGHWAY NORTH, SUITE 101 AUBURN, WA 98001 PREPARED BY SOUNDVIEW CONSULTANTS LLC 2907 HARBORVIEW DRIVE, SUITE D GIG HARBOR, WA 98335 (253) 514-8952 Soundview Consultants LLC i June 22, 2017 1413.0004 East Valley Road - Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Executive Summary Soundview Consultants LLC (SVC) has been assisting Latitude Development (Applicant) with wetland delineation and fish and wildlife habitat assessment efforts for a proposed 35,000 square foot lumber distribution facility and retail center at 2960 East Valley Road in Renton, Washington. The subject property is composed of four parcels and is currently developed with a lumber distribution facility, a car storage and wrecking yard, and associated structures for a towing company. The subject property is situated in the Southwest ¼ of the Northwest ¼ of Section 30, Township 23 N, Range 05 E, W.M. (King County Tax Parcel Numbers 3023059096, 3023059098, 3023059099, and 3023059091). SVC investigated the subject property for the presence of potentially-regulated wetlands, waterbodies, fish and wildlife habitat, and priority species in winter of 2016. The site investigations identified one wetland (Wetland A) located on the eastern border of the subject property and one non-regulated drainage ditch (Drainage Z) located on the southern property boundary. Wetland A is classified as a Category III wetland and requires a standard 75-foot buffer which can be reduced by 25 percent to 56 feet through restoration measures. Wetland A extends offsite to the north and south along the eastern boarder of the subject property. Drainage Z is an intentionally created feature which is non- regulated per Renton Municipal Code (RMC) 4-3-050.G.7.b, which exempts waters that are considered “intentionally created”, as supported by historical imagery. The proposed development is separated from the critical areas onsite by a pre-existing, intervening, lawfully created structure and other substantial improvement (paved surface and 6-foot high solid fence, existing industrial uses) along the eastern and southern border of the subject property, and should be except from critical area buffers per RMC4-3-050.B.1.g; however, the applicant is proposing buffer restoration. There is an additional wetland approximately 275 feet from the subject property across Highway 167 which the project will not affect and the critical areas buffer is separated by Highway 167. The project was carefully designed in order to avoid and minimize impacts to sensitive areas to the greatest extent feasible. The proposed project must develop a stormwater pond in order to satisfy state and local requirements. The proposed stormwater pond will be located outside of any critical areas in the southeast corner of the subject property, further separating Wetland A from the proposed building. The buffer for Wetland A must be reduced to accommodate this stormwater pond’s spatial needs. The project proposes a reduced wetland buffer of 25 percent to 56 feet with restoration actions to the buffer area to offset this reduction while providing adequate protection of the wetland. As the current condition of the buffer consists of paved surfaces, the buffer restoration measures will provide better protection for the wetland and overall ecological benefit to the watershed to result in a net increase in habitat and water quality functions. These restoration actions would not occur without the buffer reduction. The summary table below identifies regulation by different agencies. Wetland/ Drainage Name Size (Onsite) Category1 /Type Regulated Under Renton Municipal Code 4-3-0502 Regulated Under RCW 90.48 Regulated Under Clean Water Act Wetland A ~8,333 sq. ft. onsite Category III Yes Yes Likely Drainage Z ~141 linear ft. N/A No No Not Likely Notes: 1 Current Washington State Department of Ecology (Hruby, 2014) and RMC 4-3-050.G.2 wetland rating. 2 Per RMC 4-3-050. Soundview Consultants LLC ii June 22, 2017 1413.0004 East Valley Road - Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Table of Contents Chapter 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1 Chapter 2. Proposed Project ........................................................................................................................... 2 2.1 Project Location ................................................................................................................................ 2 2.2 Project Description ........................................................................................................................... 2 Chapter 3. Methods .......................................................................................................................................... 4 Chapter 4. Existing Conditions....................................................................................................................... 5 4.1 Landscape Setting .............................................................................................................................. 5 4.2 Historical Landscape Setting ........................................................................................................... 5 4.3 Topography and Drainage Basin .................................................................................................... 6 4.4 Wetland Inventories .......................................................................................................................... 6 4.5 Soils ..................................................................................................................................................... 6 4.6 Vegetation .......................................................................................................................................... 7 4.7 Priority Habitats and Species ........................................................................................................... 7 4.8 Precipitation ....................................................................................................................................... 7 Chapter 5. Results ............................................................................................................................................. 8 5.1 Wetlands ............................................................................................................................................. 8 5.2 Drainages .......................................................................................................................................... 11 5.3 Off-Site Critical Areas .................................................................................................................... 12 Chapter 6. Regulatory Considerations ......................................................................................................... 13 6.1 Local Regulations .................................................................................................................................. 13 6.2 State and Federal Considerations .................................................................................................. 13 Chapter 7. Buffer Reduction and Restoration Plan ................................................................................... 15 7.1 Description of Impacts ........................................................................................................................ 15 7.2 Sequencing ............................................................................................................................................. 15 7.3 Restoration Strategy .............................................................................................................................. 16 7.4 Measures to Minimize Impacts ........................................................................................................... 17 7.5 Restoration Goals, Objectives, and Performance Standards .......................................................... 17 7.6 Plant Materials and Installation ........................................................................................................... 18 7.7 Conceptual Maintenance & Voluntary Monitoring Plan ................................................................ 22 7.8 Voluntary Reporting ............................................................................................................................. 23 7.9 Contingency Plan .................................................................................................................................. 23 Chapter 8. Closure .......................................................................................................................................... 25 Chapter 9. Qualifications ............................................................................................................................... 26 Chapter 10. References .................................................................................................................................. 27 Figures Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map. ................................................................................................................. 2 Figure 2. Aerial Photograph of Subject Property. .................................................................................. 5 Soundview Consultants LLC iii June 22, 2017 1413.0004 East Valley Road - Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Tables Table 1. Precipitation Summary ................................................................................................................ 7 Table 2. Wetland Summary. ....................................................................................................................... 8 Table 3. Wetland A Summary ................................................................................................................... 9 Table 4. Functions and Values of Wetland A. ...................................................................................... 10 Table 5. Drainage Z Summary. ............................................................................................................... 12 Appendices Appendix A — Methods and Tools Appendix B – Background Information Appendix C – Site Plans Appendix D – Data Forms Appendix E – Wetland Rating Form Appendix F – Qualifications Soundview Consultants LLC June 22, 2017 1413.0004 East Valley Road - Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Page 1 Chapter 1. Introduction Soundview Consultants LLC (SVC) has been assisting Latitude Development (Applicant) with wetland delineation and fish and wildlife habitat assessment efforts for a proposed 35,000 square foot lumber distribution facility and retail center at 2960 East Valley Road in Renton, Washington. The subject property is composed of four parcels and is currently developed with a lumber distribution facility, a car storage and wrecking yard, and associated structures for a towing company. The subject property is situated in the Southwest ¼ of the Northwest ¼ of Section 30, Township 23 N, Range 05 E, W.M. (King County Tax Parcel Numbers 3023059096, 3023059098, 3023059099, and 3023059091). The purpose of this wetland delineation and fish and wildlife habitat assessment report is to document the presence of potentially-regulated wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat, and/or priority species on or near the subject property; assess potential impacts to any such critical areas and/or species from the proposed project; and provide impact avoidance and management recommendations. This report provides conclusions and recommendations regarding: • Site description, project description, and area of assessment; • Identification, delineation, and assessment of potentially-regulated wetlands and other hydrologic features within the vicinity of the proposed project; • Identification and assessment of potentially-regulated fish and wildlife habitat and/or priority species located on or near the subject property; • Standard buffer recommendations, building setbacks, and development limitations; • Existing conditions site map detailing identified critical areas and standard buffers; • Proposed site plan with proposed project details; • Documentation of impact avoidance and minimization measures; • Buffer reduction plan with buffer restoration actions; and • Supplemental information necessary for local regulatory review. Soundview Consultants LLC June 22, 2017 1413.0004 East Valley Road - Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Page 2 Chapter 2. Proposed Project 2.1 Project Location The proposed project is located at 2960 East Valley Road in Renton, Washington. The subject property is situated in the Southwest ¼ of the Northwest ¼ of Section 30, Township 23 N, Range 05 E within the City of Renton (King County Tax Parcel Numbers 3023059096, 3023059098, 3023059099, and 3023059091). To access the site from Highway 405 East, take Exit 2 East and continue for 0.1 miles. Keep left at the form and then follow signs for WA-167 North/Renton and merge onto WA-167 North and proceed for 0.5 miles. Use the left two lanes to stay on WA-167 and continue for 0.2 miles. Turn left onto Southwest Grady Way and proceed for 0.3 miles. Turn left onto Lind Avenue Southwest and continue for 0.3 miles. Turn left at the 2nd cross street onto Southwest 16th Street and proceed for 0.2miles. Continue onto East Valley Road for 0.8 miles. The site destination will be on the left. Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map. 2.2 Project Description The project proposes to provide a new lumber distribution and retail facility and utilize an existing lumber retail and distribution facility onsite near West Valley Highway consistent with the City of Renton zoning and nearby uses. The proposed project includes demolition of existing structures, Subject Property (Approximate) Soundview Consultants LLC June 22, 2017 1413.0004 East Valley Road - Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Page 3 removal of scrap and debris associated with the previous land use, and clearing and grading for construction of one 35,000-square foot distribution and retail building with associated infrastructure including parking areas, utilities, and stormwater facilities. The project was carefully designed in order to avoid and minimize impacts to sensitive areas to the greatest extent feasible. The proposed project must develop a stormwater pond in order to satisfy state and local requirements. The proposed stormwater pond will be located outside of any critical areas in the southeast corner of the subject property. The buffer for an onsite wetland (Wetland A) must be reduced to accommodate this stormwater pond’s spatial needs. The project proposes restoration actions to the buffer area to offset this reduction while providing adequate protection of the wetland. As the current condition of the buffer consists of paved surfaces that were established and maintained under a prior land use, the buffer restoration measures will provide better protection for the wetland and overall ecological benefit to the watershed to result in a net increase in habitat and water quality functions. These restoration actions would not occur without the buffer reduction. A buffer reduction and restoration plan is discussed in Chapter 7 of this Report. Soundview Consultants LLC June 22, 2017 1413.0004 East Valley Road - Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Page 4 Chapter 3. Methods SVC investigated, assessed, and delineated wetlands, drainages, and other potentially-regulated fish and wildlife habitat within the subject property and identified potentially-regulated features within 200 feet of the subject property during December of 2016. All wetland determinations were made using observable vegetation, hydrology, and soils in conjunction with data from the U.S. Geographic Survey (USGS) topographic maps, the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey, National Wetlands Inventory (NWI), King County Geographic Information Services (GIS) data, City of Renton GIS data, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR), the Soil Survey of King County (Snyder et al., 1973), local precipitation data (NOAA), and various orthophotographic resources Wetland boundaries were determined using the routine approach described in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Wetlands Delineation Manual (USACE, 1987) and modified according to the guidelines established in the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region, Version 2.0 (USACE, 2010). Qualified SVC wetland scientists marked boundaries of onsite wetlands with orange surveyor’s flagging labeled alpha-numerically and tied to 3-foot lath or vegetation along the wetland boundary. Pink surveyor’s flagging was labeled alpha-numerically and tied to 3-foot lath or vegetation at formal sampling locations to mark the points where detailed data was collected. Additional tests pits were excavated at regular intervals inside and outside of the wetland boundaries to further confirm each delineation. SVC classified all wetlands using both the hydrogeomorphic (Brinson, 1993) and Cowardin (Cowardin, 1979) classification systems, and assessed wetlands using the Wetland Functions Characterization Tool for Linear Projects (WSDOT, 2000). Following classification and assessment, WSDOE-trained scientists rated and categorized all wetlands using the Washington State Wetlands Rating System for Western Washington (Hruby, 2014) and the definitions established in RMC 4-3-050.G.9. Drainages and surface water features were classified using the DNR Water Typing System as described in the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) Section 222-16 and the guidelines established in RMC 4-3-050.G.7. The fish and wildlife habitat assessment was conducted during the same site visits by qualified fish and wildlife biologists. Experienced biologists made visual observations using stationary and walking survey methods for both aquatic and upland habitats noting any special habitat features or signs of fish and wildlife activity. Soundview Consultants LLC June 22, 2017 1413.0004 East Valley Road - Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Page 5 Chapter 4. Existing Conditions 4.1 Landscape Setting The subject property is a highly disturbed industrial site that has been scraped, graded and paved under a prior land use. The site is currently a retail lumber and distribution facility, auto wrecking site, and storage yard, and contains four industrial service buildings. The subject property is bordered to the north by a large commercial office building, to the east by Highway 167, to the south by a vacant lot zoned for commercial use, and to the west by East Valley road with two large warehouse buildings beyond. Figure 2. Aerial Photograph of Subject Property. 4.2 Historical Landscape Setting Historical photographs were examined in order to determine the past uses of the subject property. The subject property has been in agricultural use since at least the 1930s. Aerial photographs from 1936 and 1940 indicate the subject property as agricultural farmland with row crops and plowing shown throughout the subject property, as well as the surrounding valley landscape. A road is depicted directly west of the subject property in the same orientation as the current East Valley Road. A 1964 aerial photograph depicts the subject property as cleared land with Highway 167 apparently under construction to the east. A potential linear drainage feature is depicted on the southern border of the subject property (see discussion of Drainage Z in Chapter 5 of this Report). A 1998 aerial photograph depicts the subject property as it appears in its current state with several industrial buildings, vehicle storage yards, and a wetland located on the eastern border. Historical aerial photographs are provided in Appendix B2. Subject Property (Approximate) Soundview Consultants LLC June 22, 2017 1413.0004 East Valley Road - Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Page 6 The King County hydrographic and topographic map (Appendix B3) depicts Panther Creek traversing through Wetland A in a west and then north direction; however, this feature is not depicted on the City of Renton GIS data, DNR stream typing map, or WDFW SalmonScape map. It is conceivable that this feature had continuous flow past the subject property historically, however, now it flows east of Highway 167 to the north. Maps and data are provided in Appendix B. 4.3 Topography and Drainage Basin The topography of the site is generally flat and at an elevation of approximately 20 feet above mean sea level. The subject property is located within Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 9 - Duwamish-Green River Watershed. WRIA 9 is situated in southern Puget Sound and comprises most of southern King county. On its west side, it is bounded by Puget Sound and its east side includes portions of the Cascade Mountain range. WRIA 9 has a large amount of urban development and high population density on its west side. This watershed includes only one major river, the Duwamish- Green River which originates in the Cascade Mountains. The Green River is the source for much of the drinking water for the Tacoma area and includes the Howard A. Hanson Dam, which is used for flood control and reservoir purposes. The watershed includes various smaller streams such as Jenkins, Little Soos, Newaukum and Boundary creeks. 4.4 Wetland Inventories The City of Renton GIS map (Appendix B4) and USFWS NWI map (Appendix B5) identify a linear wetland located offsite along the eastern subject property boundary. Potential wetland areas are also documented greater than 200 feet east of the subject property, on the opposite side of Highway 167. 4.5 Soils The NRCS Soil Survey of King County identifies two soil series present on the subject property: Tukwila Muck (Tu) and Urban Land (Ur). The soil map is provided in Appendix B6. Below is a detailed description of the soil profiles. Tukwila muck (Tu) Tukwila muck occurs on zero to one percent slopes and is considered to have very poor drainage. It forms on floodplains with a parent material consisting of herbaceous organic material. In a typical profile, the surface layer consists of muck from 0 to 19 inches below ground surface (bgs). The subsurface layer consists of stratified diatomaceous earth to muck from 19 to 60 inches bgs. Tukwila Muck is listed as hydric on the King County Hydric Soils List (NRCS, 2001). Urban Land (Ur) According to the soil survey, urban land soil type exhibits high anthropogenic disturbance. The natural soil layers are disturbed and have three to twelve feet of added fill material to accommodate large commercial, industrial, and residential developments. The soil varies from gravelly sandy loam to gravelly loam in texture (NRCS, 1973). This is not listed as hydric soil on the King County Hydric Soils List (NRCS, 2001), nor the Hydric Soils List of Washington State (NRCS, 1995). While the NRCS soil survey depicts Tukwila Muck presence on the subject property and throughout the region of development to the north and south of the subject property, it is highly unlikely that this Soundview Consultants LLC June 22, 2017 1413.0004 East Valley Road - Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Page 7 soil is currently present in these locations due to the intensive development and historic manipulation in the area. 4.6 Vegetation Upland landscape consists of over-scraped, paved, and graded areas with the invasive Himalayan blackberry scattered throughout the site. Onsite wetland areas were characterized by red alder, red- osier dogwood, black cottonwood saplings, red-tinged bulrush, and cat tails with sparse reed canarygrass. The onsite drainage feature is dominated by invasive species such as field bindweed and Himalayan blackberry with lesser amounts of red alder. 4.7 Priority Habitats and Species The City of Renton GIS data does not identify any streams on the subject property. A Type F stream is located to the east of Highway 167 approximately 400 feet away from the subject property (Appendix B8). The DNR Stream Typing map does not identify any streams on or near the vicinity of the subject property (Appendix B7). The WDFW SalmonScape map does not identify any streams located on the subject property. 4.8 Precipitation Precipitation data was obtained from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) weather station at the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport in order to obtain percent of normal precipitation during and preceding the investigation. A summary of data collected is provided in Table 1. Table 1. Precipitation Summary Date Day of1 Day Before1 1 Week Prior1 2 Weeks Prior1 Month To Date3 (Observed/ Normal) Water Year to Date 4 (Observed/ Normal) Percent of Normal (MTD/Water Year)5 12/15/16 T2 0.00 0.76 1.73 1.63/2.70 18.16/12.75 60/142 Notes: 1. Data obtained from the NOAA weather website at SeaTac International Airport http://w2.weather.gov/climate/xmacis.php?wfo=sew 2. Trace amounts. 3. Month-to-date value obtained from the first day of the onsite date visit month to the onsite date. 4. Water Year is precipitation from October 1 to the onsite date. 5. Percent of Normal shown for both the Month-to-Date and the Water Year. Precipitation for the December 2016 onsite visit was 60 percent of normal for the month-to-date and 142 percent of normal for the 2016/2017 water year. This precipitation data suggests that significantly high precipitation for the 2016/2017 water year may have caused some areas that are not normally wet to become saturated and/or inundated at the time of the site investigations due to higher than normal precipitation. Such conditions were considered in making professional wetland boundary determinations. Soundview Consultants LLC June 22, 2017 1413.0004 East Valley Road - Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Page 8 Chapter 5. Results 5.1 Wetlands The site investigation identified one potentially-regulated wetland (Wetland A) located on the eastern border of the subject property extending offsite to the north and south. One additional offsite wetland was also observed across Highway 167 approximately 275 from the subject property. SVC’s site investigation in the spring of 2017 consisted of walk-through surveys of all accessible areas on or within 300 feet of the subject property per RMC 4-3-050. The identified wetland contained indicators of wetland hydrology, hydric soils, and a predominance of hydrophytic vegetation according to current wetland delineation methodology. Wetland data forms are provided in Appendix D, and a wetland rating form is provided in Appendix E. Table 2 summarizes the wetland identified on the subject property, Table 2. Wetland Summary. Wetland Predominant Wetland Classification / Rating Wetland Size (acres) Buffer Width (feet)E CowardinA HGMB WSDOEC City of RentonD A PSS/EMH Depressional III III 0.23 56 Notes: A. Cowardin et al. (1979) and Federal Geographic Data Committee (2013), or National Wetland Inventory (NWI) Class based on vegetation: PEM = Palustrine Emergent; PSS = Palustrine Scrub-Shrub; Modifiers (-H) = Water Regime or Special Situations for a permanent flooding hydroperiod. B. Brinson, M. M. (1993). C. Ecology rating per Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington – Revised Hruby (2014). D. RMC 04-03-050.G.9. definition (verified with Ecology 2014 rating forms). E. RMC 4-3-050.G.2. buffer width standards. F. RMC 4-3-050. I.1. buffer width reduction by 25 percent. Wetland A is located on the eastern boundary of the subject property extending offsite. Wetland A is 8,333 square-feet (0.17 acre) in size onsite, and has a permanently flowing outlet. Hydrology for Wetland A is provided by a seasonally high groundwater table, direct precipitation, and stormwater runoff from adjacent high intensity land uses with excess impervious surfaces. The dominant vegetation in this wetland is red alder saplings, Pacific willow, red osier dogwood, black cottonwood saplings, red-tinge bulrush, and reed canarygrass. Wetland A is a Palustrine Scrub-Shrub/Emergent, Permanently Flooded wetland. Under RMC 4-3-050.G.9, Wetland A is a Category III depressional wetland with a habitat score of 4 points. Under RMC 4-3-050.G.2 and RMC 4-3-050.I.1, Category III wetlands with a habitat score of 3-4 points and with a land uses other than low impact uses require a standard buffer of 75 feet which can be reduced by 25 percent through restoration measures. This rating is consistent with an accepted wetland rating for Wetland A for the adjacent property to the north for an application as recent as December 2016 (Appendix B10). Table 3 provides a detailed summary of Wetland A. Soundview Consultants LLC June 22, 2017 1413.0004 East Valley Road - Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Page 9 Table 3. Wetland A Summary Table 3. Wetland A Summary WETLAND A – INFORMATION SUMMARY Location: Along the eastern property boundary. Local Jurisdiction Renton WRIA 9 – Duwamish - Green Ecology Rating (Hruby, 2014)A III City of Renton RatingB III City Buffer WidthC 75 foot standard buffer Building Setback 15 feet Wetland Size 8,333 square feet (0.17 acres) onsite Cowardin ClassificationD PSS/EMH HGM ClassificationE Depressional Wetland Data Sheet(s) DP-1 Upland Data Sheet (s) DP-2 Boundary Flag color Orange Dominant Vegetation The dominant vegetation in this wetland are red alder saplings, Pacific willow, red osier dogwood, black cottonwood saplings, cattails, red-tinge bulrush, and reed canarygrass. Soils Mapped as Tukwila Muck. Hydric soil indicator A4 observed. Hydrology Hydrology for Wetland A is provided by surface sheet flow, direct precipitation, a seasonally-high groundwater table, and excess stormwater runoff from surrounding development Rationale for Delineation Wetland boundaries were determined by topographic drop and a transition to hydrophytic plant community. Rationale for Local Rating Wetland A is rated according to the Washington State Wetlands Rating System for Western Washington – Washington State Department of Ecology Publication No. 14-06-029, published October 2014 (Hruby, 2014) and guidelines established in the Renton Municipal Code 4-3-050.G.9. Wetland Functions Summary Water Quality Wetland A has the opportunity to retain sediments and pollutants from stormwater runoff associated with the nearby road and development. As this wetland is located in close proximity to a 303(d) waterway, it has relatively moderate capabilities of supporting water quality functions onsite. Wetland A’s score for Water Quality Functions using the 2014 method is moderate (6). Hydrologic Storage capacity is moderate due to its permanently ponded hydroperiod, therefore hydrologic function is limited to moderate reductions of surface flows during storm events. Wetland A’s score for Hydrologic Functions using the 2014 method is moderate (6). Habitat Habitat functions provided by the wetland may include limited small bird foraging and wetland associated amphibians and mammals due to its permanent ponding hydroperiod; however, minimal other habitat functions are provided due to the wetland being surrounded by development. Wetland A’s score for Habitat Functions using the 2014 method is low (4). Buffer Condition The buffer surrounding Wetland A is substantially impacted by adjacent industrial development and Highway 167. The onsite buffer is paved and maintained under a prior land use. Vegetation that partially surrounds consists primarily of Himalayan blackberry. The buffer provides no screening of the wetland from outside disturbances and little or no water quality enhancement. Notes: A. WSDOE rating according to Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington – Hruby (2014). B. RMC (4-3-050.G.9), as amended. C. Recommended wetland buffer width with reduction modification according to RMC 4-3-050.D.5.c.iv. D. Cowardin et al. (1979) Federal Geographic Data Committee (2013) or NWI Class based on vegetation: PEM = Palustrine Emergent; PSS= Palustrine Scrub-Shrub Modifier (-H) = Water Regime or Special Situations for Permanent ponding. E. Brinson, M. M. (1993). Soundview Consultants LLC June 22, 2017 1413.0004 East Valley Road - Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Page 10 Wetland A Functions The wetland on the subject property may provide some water quality and hydrologic functions, such as limited stormwater retention and infiltration, water quality enhancement, and wildlife habitat. Wetland functions were evaluated using the Wetland Functions Characterization Tool for Linear Projects (BPJ) (WSDOT, 2000) in conjunction with the Western Washington Wetland Rating System - Revised (Hruby, 2014). Wetland A is moderately vegetated with two Cowardin classifications (scrub-shrub and emergent strata) and as such provides general habitat suitability due to the increased diversity in strata. Storage capacity is moderate due to the size of the wetland unit; therefore, hydrologic function is limited to minor reductions of surface flows during storm events. The wetland has the potential to retain sediments and pollutants and has the potential to provide moderate biofiltration. Habitat capacity is limited to small bird foraging and amphibian refugia, but lacks plant richness and quality functioning buffers. The wetland unit is long durational seasonally flooded and therefore provides the potential habitat for wetland-associated aquatic invertebrates, as well as habitat for amphibians. This wetland does not provide general fish habitat as there are no documented fish species associated with Wetland A. Table 4. Functions and Values of Wetland A. Function / ValueA Wetland A Water Quality Functions Sediment Removal x Nutrient and Toxicant Removal x Hydrologic Functions Flood Flow Alteration - Erosion Control and Shoreline Stabilization - Habitat Functions Production and Export of Organic Matter - General Habitat Suitability x Habitat for Aquatic Invertebrates x Habitat for Amphibians x Habitat for Wetland-Associated Mammals - Habitat for Wetland-Associated Birds - General Fish Habitat - Native Plant Richness - Special Characteristics Educational or Scientific Value - Uniqueness and Heritage - Notes: 1. “-“ Is the function is not present; “x” means that the function is present is of lower quality; and “+” means the function is present and is of higher quality. Soundview Consultants LLC June 22, 2017 1413.0004 East Valley Road - Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Page 11 Wetland A Buffer The upland buffer surrounding Wetland A is dominated by Himalayan blackberry, bull thistle, Canadian thistle, and morning glory. Non-native invasive species make up approximately 30 percent of the vegetative cover of the narrow and degraded onsite buffer. Most of the onsite buffer area consists of paved surfaces maintained under a prior land use. The eastern offsite border of Wetland A abuts Washington State Route 167. Wetland A is a Category III wetland with a low habitat score. Wetland A requires a 75-foot standard buffer based on high intensity land uses. An additional 15-foot building setback is also required from the edge of the wetland buffer (RMC 4-3-050.G.2 and RMC 4-3-050.I.1). This buffer and wetland rating is consistant with a prior accepted wetland rating for Wetland by a prior (2016) application (Appendix B10). 5.2 Drainages The site investigation identified one non-regulated unnamed drainage ditch located on the southern border of the subject property (Drainage Z). Drainage Z flows along the southern border of the subject property, traversing in an east to west direction and flowing into an approximate 24 inch culvert under East Valley Road, continuing west under other developments west of East Valley Road. Drainage Z is not recognized by the City of Renton GIS data, DNR stream typing map, or WDFW’s SalmonScape map. Historical photographs were examined to identify when Drainage Z was created. An aerial photograph from 1964 depicts a linear feature on the southern border of the subject property and in the same location and orientation as Drainage Z. Highway 167 is also apparently under construction in this 1964 historic aerial, suggesting that Drainage Z was artificially constructed to provide drainage for the new highway. Drainage Z provides a permanently flowing outlet for Wetland A but does not likely drain the entire Wetland A unit as Wetland A continues south and north along the west side of Highway 167. Drainage Z primarily drains adjacent uplands. According to RMC 4-3-050.G.7.b, waters that are considered “intentionally created” are not regulated, including irrigation ditches, grass-lined swales, and canals that do not meet the criteria for Type S, F, Np, or Ns waterbodies. As background data shows, purposeful creation is documented through historical aerial photograph research as the 1936 and 1940 historical aerial photographs illustrate the current drainage alignment in agricultural production, and the 1964 aerial photograph depicts the drainage intentionally created concurrently with the construction of Highway 167 (See Appendix B2 for historical aerial photographs). Therefore, Drainage Z should be considered an intentionally created feature. A summary of Drainage Z is provided in Table 5 below. Soundview Consultants LLC June 22, 2017 1413.0004 East Valley Road - Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Page 12 Table 5. Drainage Z Summary. STREAM INFORMATION SUMMARY Feature Name Drainage Z WRIA 9 – Duwamish - Green Local Jurisdiction City of Renton DNR Stream Type N/A Local Rating1 N/A Intentionally-created feature Buffer Width1 N/A Intentionally-created feature Building Setback N/A Documented Fish Use None Location of Feature Drainage Z is located on the southern border of the subject property, traversing in an east to west direction. Connectivity (where water flows from/to) Drainage Z likely originates from the east and flows west under East Valley Road. Documented Fish Species N/A Riparian/Buffer Condition The onsite buffer of the drainage is highly disturbed and dominated by invasive vegetation including reed canarygrass and Himalayan blackberry. The drainage is surrounded by paved surfaces under a prior land use. Notes: 1. RMC 4-3-050.G.7.b. 5.3 Off-Site Critical Areas Off-Site Wetlands Wetland A extends offsite of the subject property to the north and south along the eastern border of the subject property. One additional offsite wetland was observed 275 feet to the east of the of the subject property across Highway 167. The proposed development is separated from the offsite wetlands by a pre-existing, intervening, lawfully created structure and other substantial improvement (paved surface, Highway 167 and 6-foot high fencing) along the eastern and southern border of the subject property, and should be except from critical area buffers per RMC4-3-050.B.1.g; however, the applicant is proposing buffer restoration out of an abundance of caution. The potential offsite buffers would not encroach onto the subject property, and the proposed development should not affect any offsite critical areas. Soundview Consultants LLC June 22, 2017 1413.0004 East Valley Road - Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Page 13 Chapter 6. Regulatory Considerations The results of the investigation identified one potentially-regulated Category III wetland (Wetland A) and one non-regulated drainage ditch (Drainage Z) located on the subject property. The project proposes a reduced wetland buffer with restoration actions to the buffer area to compensate for the reduction. To optimize site use while conforming to development standards set forth by the City of Renton, a stormwater pond is proposed in the southeastern portion of the subject property. This chapter discusses the regulatory implications and considerations of the proposed project development. 6.1 Local Regulations The proposed project is designed to meet the City of Renton Critical Areas Regulations as outlined in RMC 4-3-050 for an enhanced buffer plan to compensate for the proposed buffer reduction and enhancement. The following section details how these codes are being met. 6.1.1 Wetland Buffer Requirements and Modifications Wetland A is a Category III with a low habitat score and requires a standard buffer width of 75 feet with an additional building set back of 15 feet (RMC 4-3-050.G.2). Per RMC 4-3-050.I.1, a buffer reduction is allowed by 25 percent, provided requirements are met pursuant to RMC 4-3-050.I.3, which would reduce the Wetland A buffer width to 56 feet. This is consistent with a prior accepted wetland Rating for Wetland A by the City of Renton (Appendix B10). A buffer restoration plan is outlined in Chapter 7 of this Report in order compensate for the reduction. The buffer restoration plan, as described in detail in Chapter 7, proposes removal of paved surfaces from the wetland buffer to provide an undulating topography revegetated with native plant species to help re-establish a more natural buffer area adjacent to the wetland. In fact, the value and benefit of the buffer restoration actions proposed will greatly exceed any minor impacts associated with reduction of the buffer. The buffer being restored is currently paved surface and only contains a few trees adjacent to the wetland. As a result, the proposed buffer reduction will result in no net loss of buffer or habitat functionality and the restoration actions will enhance buffer functions and values to better protect the wetland. 6.1.2 Non-Regulated Drainages Drainage Z is a linear drainage ditch intentionally created in an upland area. Drainage Z flows along the southern border of the subject property, traversing in an east to west direction and flowing into a culvert under East Valley Road. Historical aerials clearly depict that Drainage Z was artificially created sometime between 1940 and 1964, in concurrence with the construction of Highway 167. The drainage feature was likely intentionally created to direct stormwater away from the highway. Historical aerials of the subject property are provided in Appendix B2.According to RMC 4-3- 050.G.7.b, intentionally created irrigation ditches, grass-lined swales, and canals are not regulated features. 6.2 State and Federal Considerations The onsite Wetland A has a surface and/or subsurface connection to waters of the United States; therefore, this features is regulated under Section 404 of the CWA. However, as no direct impacts to Soundview Consultants LLC June 22, 2017 1413.0004 East Valley Road - Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Page 14 wetlands are proposed, permitting under USACE is not required at this time. The WSDOE also regulates wetlands and natural surface waters under RCW 90.48. The WSDOE does not, however, recognize non-wetland drainage swales and ephemeral/stormwater ditches excavated from uplands as features typically subject to regulation under RCW 90.48. Soundview Consultants LLC June 22, 2017 1413.0004 East Valley Road - Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Page 15 Chapter 7. Buffer Reduction and Restoration Plan The proposed buffer restoration plan for the project attempts to provide adequate protection of the wetland functions while allowing a 25 percent reduction of the buffer under RMC 4-3-050.I.3.a. Removal of paved surfaces will develop restored wetland function with increased hydraulic function and storage capacity, and planting of native vegetation and placement of large woody debris (LWD) will augment nature processes. All work is proposed with the goal of improving hydrologic, water quality, and habitat functionality of Wetland A and associated buffer. 7.1 Description of Impacts The project proposes a buffer reduction and restoration for Wetland A which will reduce the standard buffer by 25 percent to 56 feet. To optimize site use while conforming to the City of Renton’s development standards, the project proposes to construct the stormwater pond in the southeastern portion of the subject property between Wetland A and the proposed building, outside of the reduced Wetland A buffer. Impacts are expected to be minimal. Potential temporary minor impacts may occur with the removal of paved surfaces for buffer restoration or due to the development of the stormwater pond. As such, these developments add function and value by increasing water quality while also facilitating the growth for a healthy wetland buffer. Further, the current condition of the buffer consists of paved surfaces. Construction of the stormwater feature will further buffer the wetland from the proposed development, and without the proposed development the buffer would remain in its current state which is paved and maintained. Temporary impacts include potential minor excavation within the Wetland A buffer to facilitate nature buffer processes, as well as excavation outside of the reduced buffer for stormwater pond development. During construction activities, the project will implement all appropriate best management practices (BMPs) and temporary erosion and sediment control (TESC), which are measures to reduce potential temporary impacts due to grading actions. 7.2 Sequencing To meet the need of the proposed development, a new approximate 35,000 square foot building needs to be constructed. In addition, local building, fire, and site development regulations require additional parking access, storm, and fire services. The Wetland A buffer which is currently paved and maintained under a prior land use will need to be reduced to allow adequate infrastructure. The stormwater pond will be developed outside of the reduced buffer. Impacts to critical areas are being avoided through careful design, and the implementations of the restoration actions will result in an ecological lift from the current conditions of paved surfaces. Other than the proposed restoration actions, the project was carefully designed to avoid direct impacts to all onsite critical areas and buffers. Wetland A is constrained by Highway 167 to the east and paved surfaces onsite to the west, exhibiting no functional buffer within the surrounding areas onsite or offsite. Through careful planning efforts the proposed project avoids on-site impacts by locating the development away from Wetland A and provides buffer restoration actions to restore the currently non-existent buffer functionality of Wetland A. The restoration actions will achieve a net gain in critical area protections and improvement Soundview Consultants LLC June 22, 2017 1413.0004 East Valley Road - Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Page 16 in watershed functions. The buffer for Wetland A will be protected and restored per the specifications and plans presented herein. In addition, the project itself has been designed specifically to protect hydrology and water quality by locating stormwater treatment ponds between the project’s developed areas and Wetland A, thus providing additional buffering distance from facility operations and increasing buffer functionality over existing conditions. The proposed project provides comprehensive stormwater treatment and flow control to minimize impacts on hydrology, and silt fences and other TESC measures will be installed and maintained on the site to minimize construction impacts on sedimentation and water quality. 7.3 Restoration Strategy Buffer restoration is proposed to restore wetland habitat functionality and increase hydrologic function and storage capacity in an area currently degraded by industrial use. This restoration plan proposes to offset potential impacts associated with construction and to significantly expand storage capacity by removing paved surfaces, improve conveyance, facilitate natural processes, improve wildlife habitat complexity, and restore native vegetation and habitat structures and associated onsite buffers. The proposed actions to the buffer of Wetland A buffer will involve extensive removal of paved surfaces and fill to provide an undulating topography, removal of trash and non-native invasive plant species, planting native plant species using the plant list provided in Table 6-8 and Appendix C, and installation of a protective fence along the outer buffer edge. An approximate 2:1 cut will then be used to meet the existing grade adjacent to the stormwater pond. All grading will be rough to mimic natural topography, and upland hummocks will be strategically located to provide additional wildlife habitat areas. As some trees are currently located adjacent to the wetland, deciduous trees will be preserved where possible on hummocks. Additional wildlife habitat features, such as standing snags and LWD will be installed in select locations. These features will effectively screen Wetland A from disturbances and protect the wetland functions and values. The proposed project has been carefully designed to avoid direct impacts to Wetland A as a result of the proposed development and/or during wetland buffer restoration activities. As the buffer surrounding Wetland A is comprised of paved surfaces and existing anthropogenic impacts, the proposed restoration actions are anticipated to improve wetland buffer protections and internal wetland functions by establishing an overall net gain in buffer functionality, allowing for improvement over existing wetland protections and will function at a higher level than the standard buffer. Light intrusion into Wetland A will be minimized by directing lights away from the wetland, and traffic will be routed outside the adjusted wetland buffer to mitigate vehicle light intrusion. A selection of native plants will be installed along the outer perimeter of the wetland buffer to reduce the opportunity for physical intrusion into the buffer, and a fence will be installed along the perimeter of the critical area buffer. No unauthorized pesticide use will be permitted within the wetland or wetland buffer. As part of the construction plan, BMPs will be applied during construction to control dust and surface runoff. These measures demonstrate that construction and post-construction efforts are designed to maintain the buffer in a natural vegetative state while minimizing further impacts from the development or adjacent land use. Soundview Consultants LLC June 22, 2017 1413.0004 East Valley Road - Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Page 17 Restoration actions for the wetland buffer include, but may not be limited to, the following recommendations: • Removal of paved surfaces and trash and debris within the wetland buffer; • Pre-treat invasive plants with an herbicide approved by Washington Department of Agriculture, then grub to remove the invasive plants, and replant all cleared areas with using the native species outlined in Table 6-8 and Appendix C. Pre-treatment of the invasive plants should occur a minimum of two weeks prior to removal; • Replant all areas with native trees, shrubs, and groundcovers listed in Section 7.6.3, or substitutes approved by the responsible wetland scientist, to help retain soils, filter stormwater, and increase biodiversity; • An approved native seed mix will be used to seed the disturbed areas after planting; • Maintain and control invasive plants annually, at a minimum, or more frequently if necessary. Maintenance to reduce the growth and spread of invasive plants is not restricted to chemical applications but may include hand removal, if warranted; • Provide dry-season irrigation as necessary to ensure native plant survival; • Direct exterior lights away from the wetlands wherever possible; • Place all activities that generate excessive noise (e.g., generators and air conditioning equipment) away from the wetlands where feasible. 7.4 Measures to Minimize Impacts The proposed restoration plan is intended to provide increased wetland protections by maintenance or improvement of wetland buffer functions. Impacts to the wetland buffer are being minimized through careful planning efforts and project design. Restoration actions of disturbed areas within the wetland buffer should occur immediately after grading is complete. A concrete wash water collection basin should also be installed away from any onsite buffers prior to commencement of any construction activities requiring additional concrete work. TESC measures will be implemented that consist of high visibility fence installed around native vegetation along the perimeter of the reduced buffer, silt fencing between the graded areas and undisturbed buffer, plastic sheeting on stockpiled materials, and seeding of disturbed soils. These TESC measures should be installed prior to the start of development or restoration actions and actively managed for the duration of the project. All equipment staging and materials stockpiles should be kept out of the buffer, and the area will need to be kept free of spills and/or hazardous materials. Equipment will be kept in good working order free of leaks. All fill material and road surfacing should be sourced from upland areas onsite or from approved suppliers, and will need to be free of pollutants and hazardous materials. Construction materials along with all construction waste and debris should be effectively managed and stockpiled on paved surfaces and kept free of the remaining wetland buffer area. Following completion of the residence, the entire site should be cleaned and detail graded using hand tools wherever necessary, and TESC measures will need to be removed. 7.5 Restoration Goals, Objectives, and Performance Standards Approximately 32,577-square feet of wetland buffer will be reduced and restored in accordance to standards set forth in RMC 4-3-050.I.3.a. Restoration actions for the wetland buffer include, but may not be limited to, the following voluntary recommendations: Soundview Consultants LLC June 22, 2017 1413.0004 East Valley Road - Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Page 18 Goal 1 – Restore buffer function for Wetland A by establishing an approximately 56-foot wide functional buffer with associated habitat features. Objective 1 – Establish approximately 32,577 square feet of functional buffer area adjacent to Wetland A through the removal of paved surfaces. Performance Standard 1 – As measured from wetland boundary onsite, the total size of functional buffer area onsite will measure 32,577 square feet (0.61 acres) in size. Goal 2 – Improve habitat functions within Wetland A by reducing presence of invasive species and increasing presence of native vegetation and habitat features and diversity within the buffer areas Objective 2 – Effectively control and/or eliminate invasive species from the buffer restoration area. Performance Standard 2 – Non-native invasive plants will be removed from the restoration area. Objective 3 – Establish areas of differing forest and scrub-shrub communities and various habitats to create diverse horizontal and vertical vegetation structure and additional wildlife habitat. Performance Standard 3 – By the end of Year 5, the restoration area will have a least 3 species of native trees, 3 species of native shrubs, and 3 species of native vegetation; native volunteer species will be included in the count. 7.6 Plant Materials and Installation 7.6.1 Planting Plan The planting plan is approximate and subject to field verification prior to installation. All plantings are intended to establish a variety of native forested and scrub-shrub communities within the buffer. The proposed plant lists (Tables 6 through 8) and planting details are provided in Appendix C. The plant lists are based on a variety of factors such as habitat functions, availability of plant material, anticipated hydrology, and likelihood of survival and are intended to be adaptive under the direction of the Project Biologist. All areas will be planted with native shrubs and trees after seeding with the approved seed mixes to help prevent growth of invasive and noxious plants and after site stabilization and confirmation of site hydrology with the Project Biologist. In addition, a three-inch layer of mulch with a two-foot diameter will be placed around each tree or shrub to help maintain moisture around the plants and reduce competition from herbaceous species. Riparian and wetland seed mixes will be seeded throughout the restoration area. The intent of these mixes is to allow natural germination and adaption of herbaceous plants and prevent erosion. 7.6.2 Planting Materials All plant materials to be used on the site will be nursery grown stock from a reputable, local source. Only native species are to be used; no hybrids or cultivars will be allowed within the restoration area. Plant material provided will be typical of species or variety; if not bare root or cuttings, all plants will Soundview Consultants LLC June 22, 2017 1413.0004 East Valley Road - Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Page 19 exhibit normal, densely-developed branches and vigorous, fibrous root systems. Plants will be sound, healthy, vigorous plants free from defects, and all forms of disease and infestation. Container stock shall have been grown in its delivery container for not less than six months but not more than two years. Plants shall not exhibit root bound conditions. Seed mixture used for hand or hydroseeding shall contain fresh, clean, and new crop seed mixed by an approved method. The mixture is to be mixed to the specified proportions indicated in Table 6 by weight and tested to minimum percentages of purity and germination. Fertilizer will be in the form of Agroform plant tabs or an approved like form. Mulch will consist of sterile wheat straw or clean recycled wood chips approximately 1/2 inch to 1 inch in size and 1/2 inch thick. If free of invasive plant species, the mulch material may be sourced from woody materials salvaged from the land clearing activities. 7.6.3 Plant Scheduling, Species, Size, and Spacing Plant installation should occur as close to conclusion of clearing and grading activities as possible to limit erosion and limit the temporal loss of function provided by the buffer. All planting should occur between September 1 and May 1 to ensure plants do not dry out after installation, or temporary irrigation measures may be necessary. All planting will be installed according to the procedures detailed in the following subsections using the species and densities outlined in Tables 7 and 8 below. Table 6. Wetland Buffer and Wetland Seed Mix (substitutions allowed with Project Biologist approval) Species Name Common Name Plant Status Percentage by weight Meadow barley Hordeum brachyantherum FACW 50 Redtop Agrostis gigantea FAC 5 Spreading bluegrass Agrostis stolonifera FAC 5 Water foxtail Alopecurus geniculatus FACW 5 Slough sedge Carex obnupta OBL 5 Tufted hairgrass Deschampsia cespitosa FACW 5 Creeping spike rush Eleocharis palustris OBL 5 Reed managrass Glyceria grandis FACW 5 Slender rush Juncus tenuis FAC 5 Big trefoil Lotus pendunculatus FAC 5 Small tufted bulrush Scirpus microcarpus OBL 5 Soundview Consultants LLC June 22, 2017 1413.0004 East Valley Road - Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Page 20 Table 7. Tree Restoration Plan Plant Species Plant Name Spacing Size Scientific Common Plant Status Quantities Tree 32,577 SF Abies grandis Grand fir FACU 4 10 - 12 ft Bare root Acer macrophyllum Big leaf maple FACU 5 10 - 12 ft Bare root Alnus rubra Red Alder FAC 6 8 - 10 ft Bare root Betula papyrifera Paperbark birch FAC 18 8 - 10 ft Bare root Crataegus douglasii Douglas hawthorn FAC 6 4 - 5 ft Bare root Fraxinus latifolia Oregon ash FACW 3 8 - 10 ft Bare root Picea sitchensis Sitka spruce FAC 18 12 - 15 ft Bare root Pinus monticola Western white pine FACU 5 10 - 12 ft Bare Root Populus tremuloides Quaking aspen FACU 5 10 - 12 ft Bare root Populus trichocarpa Black cottonwood FAC 8 10 - 12 ft Bare root Prunus emarginata Bitter cherry FACU 18 10 - 12 ft Bare root Pseudotsuga menziesii Douglas fir FACU 18 10 - 12 ft Bare root Thuja plicata Western red cedar FAC 8 10 - 12 ft Bare root Tsuga heterophylla Western hemlock FACU 8 10 - 12 ft Bare root Table 8. Shrub Restoration Plan Plant Species Acer circinatum Vine maple FAC 40 4 - 5 ft Bare root Amelanchier alnifolia Service berry FACU 50 4 - 5 ft Bare root Cornus sericea Red-twig dogwood FACW 70 4 - 5 ft Bare root Corylus cornuta Western hazlenut FACU 40 4 - 5 ft Bare root Holodiscus discolor Oceanspray FACU 50 4 - 5 ft Bare root Lonicera involucrata Black twinberry FAC 50 4 - 5 ft Bare root Malus fusca Western crabapple FACW 24 8 - 10 ft Bare Root Oemleria cerasiformis Indian plum FACU 24 4 - 5 ft Bare root Physocarpus capitatus Pacific ninebark FACW 36 4 - 5 ft Bare root Rhamnus purshiana Cascara FAC 36 4 - 5 ft Bare root Ribes sanguineum Red-flowering currant (NL) UPL 40 4 - 5 ft Bare root Rosa nutkana Nootka rose FAC 40 4 - 5 ft Bare root Soundview Consultants LLC June 22, 2017 1413.0004 East Valley Road - Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Page 21 Rosa pisocarpa Clustered wild rose FAC 40 4 - 5 ft Bare root Rubus spectabilis Salmonberry FACU 36 4 - 5 ft Bare root Salix hookeriana Hooker's willow FACW 12 4 - 5 ft Stakes Salix lucida Pacific willow FACW 12 8 - 10 ft Stakes Salix scolleriana Scouler's willow FAC 12 4 - 5 ft Stakes Salix sitchensis Sitka willow FACW 12 4 - 5 ft Stakes Sambucus racemosa Red elderberry FACU 40 4 - 5 ft Bare root Symphoricarpos albus Snowberry FACU 40 4 - 5 ft Bare root 7.6.4 Quality Control for Planting Plan All plant material shall be inspected by the Project Biologist upon delivery. Plant material not conforming to the specifications above will be rejected and replaced by the planting contractor. Rejected plant materials shall be immediately removed from the site. Under no circumstances shall container stock be handled by their trunks, stems, or tops. The Landscape Contractor shall provide the Project Biologist with documentation of plant material that includes the supplying nursery contact information, plant species, plant quantities, and plant sizes. 7.6.5 Product Handling, Delivery, and Storage All seed and fertilizer should be delivered in original, unopened, and undamaged containers showing weight, analysis, and name of manufacturer. This material should be stored in a manner to prevent wetting and deterioration. All precautions customary in good trade practice shall be taken in preparing plants for moving. All plant materials to be used on the site will be nursery grown stock from a reputable, local source. Workmanship that fails to meet industry standards will be rejected. Plants will be packed, transported, and handled with care to ensure protection against injury and from drying out. If plants cannot be planted immediately upon delivery they should be protected with soil, wet peat moss, or in a manner acceptable to the project biologist. Plants, fertilizer, and mulch not installed immediately upon delivery shall be secured on the site to prevent theft or tampering. No plant shall be bound with rope or wire in a manner that could damage or break the branches. Plants transported on open vehicles should be secured with a protective covering to prevent windburn. Only native species are to be used; no hybrids or cultivars will be allowed. 7.6.6 Preparation and Installation of Plant Materials The Landscape Contractor shall verify the location of all elements of the restoration plan with the Project Biologist prior to installation. The responsible Project Biologist reserves the right to adjust the locations of landscape elements during the installation period as appropriate to the restoration actions outlined above. If obstructions are encountered that are not shown on the drawings, planting operations will cease until alternate plant locations have been selected by and/or approved by the Project Biologist. Soundview Consultants LLC June 22, 2017 1413.0004 East Valley Road - Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Page 22 Circular plant pits with vertical sides will be excavated for all container and bare root stock. The pits should be at least 12 inches in diameter, and the depth of the pit should accommodate the entire root system. The bottom of each pit will be scarified to a depth of 4 inches. Broken roots should be pruned with a sharp instrument and root-balls should be thoroughly soaked prior to installation. Set plant material upright in the planting pit to proper grade and alignment. Water plants thoroughly midway through backfilling and add Agroform tablets. Water pits again upon completion of backfilling. No filling should occur around trunks or stems. Do not use frozen or muddy mixtures for backfilling. Form a ring of soil around the edge of each planting pit to retain water, and install a 4 to 6 inch layer of mulch around the base of each container plant. 7.6.7 Temporary Irrigation Specifications While the native species selected for restoration are hardy and typically thrive in northwest conditions, and the proposed restoration actions are planned in areas with sufficient hydroperiods for the species selected, some individual plants might perish due to dry conditions. Therefore, a temporary irrigation system shall be installed to facilitate and help ensure watering will be provided for the duration of the first two growing seasons, as a minimum, while the native plantings become established. Temporary irrigation will be made available for a minimum of the first two growing seasons depending on plant vitality as determined by the Project Biologist. Weekly irrigation may be required between June 1 and October 30. The Landscape Contractor will be responsible for ensuring adequate irrigation is provided to help ensure plant survival. Unusual weather conditions (i.e. drought or lower than normal precipitation) may warrant extended irrigation for periods beyond those specified above. 7.6.8 Invasive Plant Control and Removal Invasive species to be removed include Himalayan blackberry and all listed noxious weeds. Non- native invasive plant species, specifically Himalayan blackerry are established within the on-site section of the buffer and require an effective control strategy. To ensure non-native invasive species do not expand following the restoration actions, non-native invasive plants within the entire restoration area will be pretreated with a root-killing herbicide approved for use in aquatic sites (i.e., Rodeo) a minimum of 2 weeks prior to being cleared and grubbed from the restoration area. A second application is strongly recommended. The pre-treatment with herbicide should occur prior to all planned restoration actions, and spot treatment of surviving non-native invasive vegetation should be performed again each fall prior to senescence for a minimum of 5 years. All Himalayan blackberry patches within the wetlands, ditches, or associated buffers on-site will be fully removed from the site. 7.7 Conceptual Maintenance & Voluntary Monitoring Plan Conceptual Maintenance and Voluntary Monitoring Plans are described below in accordance with RMC 4-3-050.L. The Applicant is committed to compliance with the restoration plan and overall success of the project. As such, the Applicant will continue to maintain the project, keeping the site free from of non-native invasive vegetation, trash, and yard waste. The wetland restoration actions will require continued voluntary monitoring and maintenance to ensure the actions are successful. Therefore, the buffer restoration area will be voluntarily monitored Soundview Consultants LLC June 22, 2017 1413.0004 East Valley Road - Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Page 23 for a period of 5 years with formal inspections by a qualified Wetland Scientist. Monitoring events will be scheduled at the time of construction, 30 days after planting, early in the growing season and the end of the growing season for Year 1, twice during Year 2, and annually in Years 3 and 5. Monitoring will consist of percent cover measurements at permanent monitoring stations, walk- through surveys to identify invasive species presence and dead or dying plantings, photographs taken at fixed photo points, wildlife observations, and general qualitative habitat and wetland function observations. To determine percent cover, observed vegetation will be identified and recorded by species and an estimate of areal cover of dominant species within each sampling plots. Circular sample plots, approximately 30 feet in diameter (706 square feet), are centered at each monitoring station. The sample plots encompass the specified wetland areas and terminate at the observed wetland boundary. Trees and shrubs within each 30-foot diameter monitoring plot are then recorded to species and areal cover. Herbaceous vegetation is sampled from a 10-foot diameter (78.5 square feet) within each monitoring plot, established at the same location as the center of each tree and shrub sample plot. Herbaceous vegetation within each monitoring plot is then recorded to species and includes an estimate of percent areal cover. A list of observed tree, shrub, and herbaceous species including percent areal cover of each species and wetland status is included within the monitoring report. 7.8 Voluntary Reporting Following each monitoring event, a brief voluntary monitoring report detailing the current ecological status of the mitigation actions, measurement of performance standards, and management recommendations will be prepared. 7.9 Contingency Plan If annual monitoring results indicate that the voluntary performance standards are not being met, it may be necessary to implement all or part of the contingency plan. Careful attention to maintenance is essential in ensuring that problems do not arise. Should any portion of the site fail to meet the success criteria, a contingency plan will be developed and implemented with regulatory approval. Such plans are adaptive and should be prepared on a case-by-case basis to reflect any failed restoration characteristics. Contingency plans can include additional grade control, plant installation, and/or plant substitutions including type, size, and location. Contingency/maintenance activities may include, but are not limited to: 1. Using plugs instead of seed for emergent vegetation coverage where seeded material does not become well-established; 2. Replacing plants lost to vandalism, drought, or disease, as necessary; 3. Replacing any plant species with a 20 percent or greater mortality rate after 2 growing seasons with the same species or native species of similar form and function; 4. Irrigating the restoration areas only as necessary during dry weather if plants appear to be too dry, with a minimal quantity of water; 5. Reseeding and/or repair of restoration areas as necessary if erosion or sedimentation occurs; 6. Spot treat non-native invasive plant species; 7. Removing all trash or undesirable debris from the wetland areas as necessary, and Soundview Consultants LLC June 22, 2017 1413.0004 East Valley Road - Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Page 24 8. Removing additional shrub species to ensure better light penetration to herbaceous groundcover. Soundview Consultants LLC June 22, 2017 1413.0004 East Valley Road - Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Page 25 Chapter 8. Closure The findings and conclusions documented in this report have been prepared for specific application to this project. They have been developed in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill normally exercised by members of the environmental science profession currently practicing under similar conditions in the area. Our work was also performed in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in our proposal. The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are professional opinions based on an interpretation of information currently available to us and are made within the operation scope, budget, and schedule of this project. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made. In addition, changes in government codes, regulations, or laws may occur. Due to such changes, our observations and conclusions applicable to this project may need to be revised wholly or in part. All wetland boundaries identified by Soundview Consultants LLC are based on conditions present at the time of the site inspection and considered preliminary until the flagged wetland boundaries are validated by the jurisdictional agencies. Validation of the wetland boundaries by the regulating agency provides a certification, usually written, that the wetland boundaries verified are the boundaries that will be regulated by the agencies until a specific date or until the regulations are modified. Only the regulating agencies can provide this certification. As wetlands are dynamic communities affected by both natural and human activities, changes in wetland boundaries may be expected; therefore, wetland delineations cannot remain valid for an indefinite period of time. Local agencies typically recognize the validity of wetland delineations for a period of five years after completion of a wetland delineation report. Development activities on a site five years after the completion of this wetland delineation report may require revision of the wetland delineation. In addition, changes in government codes, regulations, or laws may occur. Due of such changes, our observations and conclusions applicable to this site may need to be revised wholly or in part. Soundview Consultants LLC June 22, 2017 1413.0004 East Valley Road - Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Page 26 June 22, 2017 Chapter 9. Qualifications All field inspections, habitat assessments, and supporting documentation, including this Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report prepared for Latitude Development were prepared by, or under the direction of Jeremy Downs and Jon Pickett of Soundview Consultants LLC with the assistance of Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland Scientist Emily Swaim and Staff Scientist, Melissa Cole. Jeremy Downs is an approved Wetlands Specialist and Environmental Planner and Jon Pickett is a project manager and environmental planner. Any deviations and/or alterations to this document must be approved by the aforementioned parties at Soundview Consultants LLC. Please see Appendix F for a description of professional qualifications. Jeremy Downs Date Senior Biologist/Environmental Planner Soundview Consultants LLC 2907 Harborview Drive Gig Harbor, Washington 98335 (253) 514-8952 Office (253) 514-8954 Fax jeremy@soundviewconsultants.com Jon Pickett Date Senior Scientist and Environmental Planner Soundview Consultants LLC 2907 Harborview Drive Gig Harbor, Washington 98335 (253) 514-8952 Office (253) 514-8954 Fax jon@soundviewconsultants.com June 22, 2017 Soundview Consultants LLC June 22, 2017 1413.0004 East Valley Road - Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Page 27 Chapter 10. References Brinson, M. M., 1993. “A Hydrogeomorphic Classification for Wetlands,” Technical Report WRP DE-4, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Cooke, S.S. 1997. Wetland Plants of Western Washington. Seattle Audubon Society. Seattle, Washington. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Washington D.C. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y- 87-1, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. Federal Geographic Data Committee. 2013. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. FGDC-STD-004-2013. Second Edition. Wetlands Subcommittee, Federal Geographic Data Committee and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. Granger, T., T. Hruby, A. McMillan, D. Peters, J. Rubey, D. Sheldon, S. Stanley, E. Stockdale. April 2005. Wetlands in Washington State - Volume 2: Guidance for Protecting and Managing Wetlands. Washington State Department of Ecology. Publication #05-06-008. Olympia, WA. Hruby, T. 2014. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington – Revised. Washington State Department of Ecology Publication # 14-06-029. King County iMap, 2017. Parcel Map and Topographic Map. Data accessed from website: http://gismaps.kingcounty.gov/iMap/?center=-13606090%2C6012570&scale=2256.994353&. Lichvar, R.W., D.L. Banks, W.N. Kirchner, and N.C. Melvin. 2016. The National Wetland Plant List: 2016 wetland ratings. Phytoneuron 2016-30: 1-17. Published 28 April 2016. ISSN 2153 733X Munsell Color. 2000. Munsell Soil Color Charts. New Windsor, New York. Natural Resources Conservation Service. 1995. Hydric Soils of Washington. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Washington D.C. Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2001. Hydric Soils List: King County, Washington. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Washington D.C. Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2016. The Plants Database. Data accessed from website: http://plants.usda.gov/java/. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), 2016. Soil Survey. Data accessed from website: https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Null, William, Skinner, Gloria, and Leonard, William. 2000. Wetland Functions Characterization Tool for Linear Projects. Washington State Department of Transportation. Soundview Consultants LLC June 22, 2017 1413.0004 East Valley Road - Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Page 28 Sheldon, D., T. Hruby, P. Johnson, K. Harper, A. McMillan, T. Granger, S. Stanley, and E. Stockdale. March 2005. Wetlands in Washington State - Volume 1: A Synthesis of the Science. Washington State Department of Ecology. Publication #05-06-006. Olympia, WA. Snyder, Dale E., Gale, Philip S., and Pringle, Russell F. 1973. Soil Survey of King County Area, Washington. Soil Conservation Service. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0), ed. J. S. Wakeley, R. W. Lichvar, and C. V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-10-3. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2016. National Wetlands Inventory – V2. Data accessed from website: https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper.html. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2008. Priority Habitat and Species List. Olympia, Washington. 177 pp. Washington Natural Heritage Program. Data published 07/24/15. Endangered, threatened, and sensitive plants of Washington. Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Washington Natural Heritage Program, Olympia, WA. Data accessed from website: http://www1.dnr.wa.gov/nhp/refdesk/datasearch/wnhpwetlands.pdf Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2017. Priority Habitats and Species. Data accessed from website: http://apps.wdfw.wa.gov/phsontheweb/. Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2016. SalmonScape. Data accessed from website: http://apps.wdfw.wa.gov/salmonscape/map.html. Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR), 2017. Forest Practices Application Mapping Tool Stream Typing. Data accessed from website: https://fortress.wa.gov/dnr/protectiongis/fpamt/. Washington State Legislator. 2016. Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 222-16-030. DNR Water typing system. Data accessed from website: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=222- 16-030. Soundview Consultants LLC June 22, 2017 1413.0004 East Valley Road - Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Appendix A — Methods and Tools Table A-1. Methods and tools used to prepare the report Parameter Method or Tool Website Reference Wetland Delineation USACE 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual USCAE 2010 WMVC Regional Supplement http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpu bs/pdf/wlman87.pdf Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0), ed. J. S. Wakeley, R. W. Lichvar, and C. V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR- 10-3. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development. NWI https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/D ata/Mapper.html. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2016. National Wetlands Inventory – V2. Wetland Classification USFWS / Cowardin Classification System http://www.fws.gov/nwi/Pubs_R eports/Class_Manual/class_titlepg. htm Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Federal Geographic Data Committee. 2013. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. FGDC-STD-004-2013. Second Edition. Wetlands Subcommittee, Federal Geographic Data Committee and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. Hydrogeomorphic Classification (HGM) System http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/wetla nds/pdfs/wrpde4.pdf Brinson, M. M. (1993). “A Hydrogeomorphic Classification for Wetlands,” Technical Report WRP-DE-4, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Wetland Functions Characterization Tool for Linear Projects http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/nr/rdo nlyres/b92be0d4-9078-4efc-99da- 3c0ea4805e2f/0/bpjtool.pdf Null, William, Skinner, Gloria, and Leonard, William. 2000. Wetland Functions Characterization Tool for Linear Projects. Washington State Department of Transportation. Wetland Rating Washington State Wetland Rating System https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/public ations/SummaryPages/1406029.ht ml Hruby. 2014. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington –Revised. Publication # 14-06-029. City of Renton Municipal Code, Wetlands http://www.codepublishing.com/ WA/Renton/ Renton Municipal Code 4-3-050. Drainage Classification Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Water Typing System Forest Practices Water Typing: http://www.stage.dnr.wa.gov/fore stpractices/watertyping/ WAC 222-16-030: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/WAC/defa ult.aspx?cite=222-16-030 Water Type Mapping: http://www3.wadnr.gov/dnrapp5/ website/fpars/viewer.htm Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 222-16-030. DNR Water typing system. City of Renton Stream Classification http://www.codepublishing.com/ WA/Renton/ Renton Municipal Code 4-3-050.G.2 Plants USDA Plant Database http://plants.usda.gov/ Website (see Appendix A) Wetland Plants of Western Washington http://soundnativeplants.com/wp- content/uploads/References_and_ Resources.pdf http://wetland- plants.usace.army.mil/nwpl_static/ Cooke, S.S. 1997. Wetland Plants of Western Washington. Seattle Audubon Society. Seattle, Washington. Lichvar, R.W., D.L. Banks, W.N. Kirchner, and N.C. Melvin. 2016. The National Wetland Plant List: 2016 wetland ratings. Phytoneuron 2016-30: 1-17. Published 28 April 2016. ISSN 2153 733X Soundview Consultants LLC June 22, 2017 1413.0004- East Valley Road- Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Parameter Method or Tool Website Reference 2016 Regional Wetland Plant List data/DOC/lists_2016/Regions/pd f/reg_WMVC_2016v1.pdf Soils Data NRCS Soil Survey http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov /app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx Snyder, Dale E., Gale, Philip S., and Pringle, Russell F. 1973. Soil Survey of King County Area, Washington. Soil Conservation Service. Soil Color Charts Munsell Color. 2000. Munsell Soil Color Charts. New Windsor, New York. Hydric Soils Data King County Hydric Soils List http://www.wa.nrcs.usda.gov/tech nical/soils/hydric_lists/hydsoil-wa- 653.pdf Natural Resources Conservation Service. 1995. Hydric Soils of Washington. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Washington D.C. Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2001. Hydric Soils List: King County, Washington. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Washington D.C. Threatened and Endangered Species Washington Natural Heritage Program http://www1.dnr.wa.gov/nhp/ref desk/datasearch/wnhpwetlands.pd f Washington Natural Heritage Program (Data published 07/24/15). Endangered, threatened, and sensitive plants of Washington. Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Washington Natural Heritage Program, Olympia, WA Washington Priority Habitats and Species http://wdfw.wa.gov/hab/phspage. htm Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) Program (Data requested 02/01/17). Map of priority habitats and species in project vicinity. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Washington SalmonScape http://apps.wdfw.wa.gov/salmons cape/map.html SalmonScape (Data requested on 11/30/16). Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. NOAA fisheries species list and maps http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/ESA- Salmon-Listings/Salmon- Populations/Index.cfm and http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sp ecies/ Website Species of Local Importance WDFW GIS Data http://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/sal monscape/ and http://apps.wdfw.wa.gov/phsonth eweb/. Website Report Preparation King County iMap. http://gismaps.kingcounty.gov/iM ap/ Interactive Mapping Tool Renton Municipal Code http://www.codepublishing.com/ WA/Renton/ Website Soundview Consultants LLC June 22, 2017 1413.0004- East Valley Road- Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Appendix B – Background Information This Appendix includes a King County Parcel Map (B1), Historical Aerial Photographs (B2), King County Hydrography and Topographic Map (B3), Renton Wetlands, Streams, and Flood Zones Map (B4), USFWS NWI map (B5), NRCS Soil Survey map (B6), DNR Stream Typing map (B7), WDFW SalmonScape map (B8), WDFW PHS map (B9) and Prior Accepted Wetland Rating and Application (B10). Soundview Consultants LLC June 22, 2017 1413.0001 – East Valley Road - Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Appendix B1. King County Parcel Map Subject Property (Approximate) Soundview Consultants LLC June 22, 2017 1413.0004 – East Valley Road - Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Appendix B2. Historical Aerials King County 1936 Aerial Photograph Subject Property (Approximate) Soundview Consultants LLC June 22, 2017 1413.0004 – East Valley Road - Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment HistoricalAerials.com 1940 Aerial Photograph Subject Property (Approximate) Soundview Consultants LLC June 22, 2017 1413.0004 – East Valley Road - Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment HistoricalAerials.com 1964 Aerial Photograph Subject Property (Approximate) Soundview Consultants LLC June 22, 2017 1413.0004 – East Valley Road - Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment King County 1998 Aerial Photograph Subject Property (Approximate) Soundview Consultants LLC June 22, 2017 1413.0004 – East Valley Road - Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Appendix B3. King County Hydrography and Topographic Map Subject Property (Approximate) Soundview Consultants LLC June 22, 2017 1413.0004 – East Valley Road - Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Appendix B4. Renton Wetlands, Streams, and Flood Zones Map Subject Property (Approximate) Soundview Consultants LLC June 22, 2017 1413.0004 – East Valley Road - Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Appendix B5. USFWS NWI Map Subject Property (Approximate) Soundview Consultants LLC June 22, 2017 1413.0004 – East Valley Road - Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Appendix B6. NRCS Soil Survey Map Subject Property (Approximate) Soundview Consultants LLC June 22, 2017 1413.0004 – East Valley Road - Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Appendix B7. DNR Stream Typing Map Subject Property (Approximate) Soundview Consultants LLC June 22, 2017 1413.0004 – East Valley Road - Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Appendix B8. WDFW SalmonScape Map Subject Property (Approximate) Soundview Consultants LLC June 22, 2017 1413.0004 – East Valley Road - Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Appendix B9. WDFW PHS Map Subject Property (Approximate) Soundview Consultants LLC June 22, 2017 1413.0004 – East Valley Road - Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Soundview Consultants LLC June 22, 2017 1413.0004 – East Valley Road - Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Appendix B10. Prior Accepted Wetland Rating and Application Permit Details https://permitsearch.mybuildingpermit.com/...ails.aspx?permitnumber=PRE16-000978&permitstatus=Complete&parcelnumber=302305-9103[6/22/2017 1:34:30 PM] Permit Details Activities Inspections Conditions Fees INFORMATION ON PERMIT PRE16-000978 Permit Status: Complete (status definition)Description: People Data: (click for applicant/owner/contractor details)2,372 sq. ft. expansion of the north end of the existing building located at 2500 East Valley Road. Expansion would add two fully enclosed truck bays. Site Address: 2500 East Valley Rd Application Date: Dec 30, 2016 Parcel Number: 302305-9103 (property map & information) City Staff: Angelea Weihs Activities Plan Added City Staff: Alex Morganroth Status: Applied Date: Dec 30, 2016 Notes: PLAN Added Inspections Conditions Fees Item Fee Amount Fee Remaining Other permits associated with this parcel Permit Number Status Description LUA17-000324 In Review The applicant is requesting Environmental Review, an Urban Design Modification, a Street Modification, and a Minor Modification to an approved Site Plan for a proposed 2,673 square foot addition to the existing 28,065 square foot building located at 2500 E Valley Rd (Parcel number 3023059103). The subject site is 3.07 acres (134,074 sf) and is zoned Commercial Arterial (CA). The building is currently used as administrative offices for US Bank. The expansion would enlarge the building’s footprint from 28,065 square feet to 30,738 square feet. Existing access is gained via East Valley Road. The proposed development would include two enclosed truck bays, removal of parking stalls, and a new landscape planter strips along the sides of the building expansion. Seismic hazards are mapped on the project site. A Category III wetland is mapped off-site within 50 feet of the property. The applicant has requested and received an administrative determination that the project is exempt from the required wetland buffer setbacks, due to the existing separation from the wetland by pre-existing, intervening, and lawfully created substantial existing improvements, per RMC 4-3-050B.1.g. B17002305 Plan Check/In Review REMODEL OF EXISTING OFFICE SPACE FOR US BANK. 12,780 SQ FT PRE16-000978 Complete 2,372 sq. ft. expansion of the north end of the existing building located at 2500 East Valley Road. Expansion would add two fully enclosed truck bays. E16005396 Finaled A (Nonresidential Alteration) project installing (Temporary Service). Additional Info (). Work Site Location () E16005035 Issued A (Nonresidential Alteration) project installing (Temporary Service). Additional Info (). Work Site Location () E15007386 Expired A (Nonresidential Alteration) project installing (Security system). Additional Info (). Work Site Location () Permit Details https://permitsearch.mybuildingpermit.com/...ails.aspx?permitnumber=PRE16-000978&permitstatus=Complete&parcelnumber=302305-9103[6/22/2017 1:34:30 PM] E15007203 Finaled ELEC- LOAD BANK TEST 250 KW GENERATOR FOR US BANK E15002857 Finaled A (Nonresidential Addition) project installing (Security system; Door Locks). Additional Info (). Work Site Location () E14004966 Finaled A (Nonresidential Alteration) project installing (Panel). Additional Info (). Work Site Location () E14002643 Finaled US BANK - LOW VOLTAGE - INSTALL CABLE SUPPORT ABOVE CEILING E14001094 Finaled A (Nonresidential Alteration) project installing (Data cable system). Additional Info (). Work Site Location () E13004903 Finaled US BANK - LOADBANK GENERATOR TEST F13003885 Finaled REPLACE SCAN UNIT WITH AES RADIO E13003755 Expired A (Multifamily Residential Alteration) project installing (Fire Alarms). Additional Info (NE Corner Phone Room). Work Site Location (Building C) E111220 Finaled INSTALL 300 KW GENERATOR FOR US BANK DATA CENTER-OTC PER AS E110898 Finaled US BANK-INSTALL 1 LS-15R RECEPTACLE IN DEMARC RM E110703 Finaled INSTALL 4 IN CONDUIT AND DS-3 COAX FOR US BANK E110276 Finaled INSTALL LOW VOLT. VOICE & DATA CABLE AT US BANK T.I. E110222 Finaled INSTALL POWER MODIFICATIONS TO BRANCH CIRCUITS AT US BANK - SUITE C B110044 Finaled CONSTRUCT INTERIOR T.I. FOR US BANK E101525 Finaled MOVE OUTLET FOR MONITOR AT RENTON DATA CENTER E101527 Finaled INSTALL CIRCUITS FOR U S BANK P09-052 Recorded 3 LOT SHORT PLAT WITH EXISTING BUILDINGS LUA09-042 Recorded The applicant is proposing to subdivide an existing parcel into 3 lots which contains an existing three building office development to be retained. The proposed lots would range in size from 10,335 square feet up to 27,723 square feet; each of the lots would contain one of the three existing commercial buildings. The subject property is located on the east side of East Valley Road just north of SW 27th Street. The project site totals 5.59 acres in area and is zoned Commercial Arterial (CA). Access for the proposed lots would be provided via existing driveways along East Valley Road. An addendum to the existing SEPA Determination of Non- Significance-Mitigated, issued for the construction of the office development (ECF- 053-87), is also being requested in order to recognize the proposed lot lines. 5/19/09 - Appeal and reconsideration received. 7/1/09 - Planning Director responded to reconsideration upholding the approval of the plat with a revision to condition 2 of the initial report & decision dated 5/5/09. New appeal period ends 7/15/09. 7/15/09 - Appeal of Planning Director's reconsideration decision received. Appeal scheduled to be heard by the Hearing Examiner on 7/28/09. 7/28/09 - Hearing Examiner opened and continued heaing to a date TBD. 8/13/10 - Stipulation & Order agreement removing condition #1 of the Administrative Report & Decision dated 5/5/09 was signed by the applicant, City Attorney, & Hearing Examiner - appeal withdrawn. PRE08-030 Complete 3 LOT SHORT PLAT WITH THREE EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS. 4/1/08 - APPLICANT REQUESTED THE LANDSCAPING IMPROVEMENTS BE WAIVED AS PART OF THE SHORT PLAT. NEIL WATTS DETERMINED THAT THE LANDSCOING WOULD NOT BE WAIVED. 4/3/08- APPLICANT REQUESTED A WETLAND STUDY, PROVIDED BY DOT FOR A HWY 167 PROJECT, TAKE THE PLACE OF THE STREAM STUDY REQUIRED FOR PROJECT REVIEW. NEIL WATTS DETERMINED THAT A STREAM STUDY DONE FOR THE SITE IS NECCESSARY AND THE STUDY DONE BY DOT WOULD NOT SATISFY THIS REQUIREMENT. E071243 Finaled INSTALL WIRING TO REPLACE HVAC UNITS AT US BANK M070370 Finaled REPLACEMENT OF EQUIPMENT (3 UNITS) AT US BANK P06-214 Expired CONVERT COMMERCIAL BLDG TO CHURCH USE LUA06-130 Expired The applicant is requesting a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use Permit to operate the Oasis Seattle Church on a 244,807 square foot (5.6 acre) site located within the Commercial Arterial (CA) zoning designation and the Employment Area Valley (EAV) Overlay. The Oasis Seattle Church has approximately 400 members. Services are held on Thursdays from 6-9 pm and on Sunday from 8 am-2 pm. Parking would be Permit Details https://permitsearch.mybuildingpermit.com/...ails.aspx?permitnumber=PRE16-000978&permitstatus=Complete&parcelnumber=302305-9103[6/22/2017 1:34:30 PM] provided within the existing parking lot located on the project site. No building or landscaping improvments are proposed at this time. PRE06-071 Complete PREAPP MEETING TO DISCUSS THE FEASIBILITY OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CHURCH IN THE CA ZONE. F050109 Finaled INSTALL FIRE ALARM SYSTEM F040248 Finaled FIRE PANEL REPLACEMENT E040985 Finaled INSTALL (1) NEW PROGRAMMABLE THERMOSTAT/U.S. BANK M040314 Finaled INSTALL ROOF TOP HEAT PUMP AT US BANK E040712 Finaled ADD NEW LTG PANEL, RELOCATE LTG BRANCH CKTS, NEW UPS FEEDER/U.S. BANK SUITE C E020045 Finaled INSTALL VIDEO CABLE TO PROJECTOR-MANUFACTURE INDUSTRIAL OFFICE B000634 Finaled ADD NEW OFFICE FOR FAA WITHIN EXISTING BUILDING E001305 Finaled INSTALL ELECT.FOR TENANT IMPROVEMENT/FAA E000231 Finaled INSTALL LOW VOLTAGE SECURITY SYSTEM/#C2 B980437 Expired TI FOR US BANCORP/EXPIRED TOSSED PLANS E980867 Finaled CONNECT ELECTRIC TO HVAC EQUIPMENT B980352 Finaled CONSTRUCT STRUCTURAL MODIFICATIONS FOR MECH. M980266 Finaled 1 ROOFTOP GAS A/C UNIT 150,000 BTU/2 RELIEF SYST./2 GAS PIPE.REV.FOR US BANK.ALTER.3EXIST.SYST.8/3 E980816 Finaled ADD 1 LOW VOLT.T-STAT FOR US BANK E980738 Finaled INSTALL LOW VOLTAGE DATA CABELING - SUITE C E980732 Finaled ADD TELE POWER POLES & MISC CLEAN UP OF CIRCUITS B980257 Finaled REMOVE PARTITION WALLS S970080 Finaled INSTALL RAISED LETTER SIGN FOR AEROTEK E971237 Finaled INSTALL VOICE & DATA CABLE FOR FAA TI P970422 Finaled INSTALL PLUMBING FOR FAA TI F970208 Finaled INSTALLATION OF FIRE SPRINKLERS E971195 Finaled INSTALL LIGHTING & POWER FOR FAA TI M970536 Finaled INSTALL 1 3 TON A/C UNIT/2 5 TON AC UNITS & 5 EXH.FANS FOR FAA TI. E971193 Finaled INSTALL 3 24 VOLT THERMOSTATS FOR FAA TI B970512 Finaled CONSTRUCT OFFICE TENANT IMPROVEMENT FOR FAA E970280 Finaled INSTALL TELEPHONE WIRING FOR AEROTEC TI E970215 Finaled WIRE 9 POWER INTERIOR POWER POLES IN AEROTEC TI F970024 Finaled INSTALLATION OF FIRE SPRINKLERS E970078 Finaled INSTALL ELECTRICAL IN AEROTEC TI BLG.#C P970026 Finaled INSTALL PLUMBING IN AREOTECH TI BLDG.#C M970022 Finaled INSTALL 3 HEAT PUMPS(3 TON)/4 EXHAUST FANS (100 CFM)/1 HEAT PUMP (7 1/2 TON) E970054 Finaled INSTALL 4 THERMOSTATS E970034 Finaled INSTALL SERVICE AND FEEDER B960830 Finaled AEROTEC TENANT IMPROVEMENT FOR BLDG C E961125 Finaled ADD 2 CIRCUIT FOR ACCESS CONTROL #7-84 E961126 Finaled INSTALL 2 DOOR ACCESS CONTROL SYSTEM (LOW VOLT.) #7-84 E960979 Finaled INSTALL LOW VOLTAGE CONTROL OF HVAC FOR U.S.BANK F960153 Finaled RELOCATE 5 HEADS, PLUG 2 E960949 Finaled RELOCATE ALARM IN US BANK OF WASHINGTON E960900 Finaled INSTALL LOW VOLTAGE DATA CABLING FOR U.S.BANK M960423 Finaled RELOCATE EXISTING DIFFUSERS & R.A.G.S FOR RENTON DATA CTR. E960875 Finaled NSTALL ELECTRICAL TO WIRE OFFICES FOR US BANK TI B960470 Finaled INTERIOR DEMOLITION FOR U.S.BANK TI B960468 Finaled U.S.BANK TENANT IMPROVEMENT F940193 Finaled INSTALL SPRINKLERS FOR TI (#B940313) Soundview Consultants LLC June 22, 2017 1413.0004 East Valley Road - Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Appendix C – Site Plans T EAST VALLEY ROADEAST VALLEY ROADPROPERTY BOUNDARY56' REDUCEDWETLAND BUFFER15' BUILDING SETBACKVVVVVVVVVVDITCH Z(UNREGULATED)141 LF ON-SITE75' STANDARDWETLAND BUFFER56'E A S T V A L L E Y R O A DWETLAND ACATEGORY III(8,333 SF ON-SITE)OFF-SITEWETLAND AAPPROX. 25,874 SF(NOT DELINEATED)STORMWATERPONDS R - 1 6 7DITCH Z(UNREGULATED) 145 LF OFF-SITEPROPERTY BOUNDARYOFF-SITEWETLAND AAPPROX.BOUNDARY(NOT DELINEATED)EAST VALLEY ROAD - EXISTING CONDITIONS 1SCALE: SEE GRAPHICSOURCES: EAST VALLEY ROAD 2960 EAST VALLEY ROAD RENTON, WASHINGTON 98057 THE NE 1 4 OF SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 23N, RANGE 05E, W.M.DATE: 3/22/2017BY: DSJOB: 1413.0004SHEET OF 32215 North 30th Street, Suite 300 Tacoma, WA 98403 253.383.2422 TEL 253.383.2572 FAX www.ahbl.com WEB TACOMA SEATTLE SPOKANE TRI-CITIES PRELIMINARYINFORMATION ONLYNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONSOUNDVIEW CONSULTANTS, LLC. ASSUMESNO LIABILITY OR RESPONSIBILITY FORCONSTRUCTION, IMPROVEMENTS, ORESTIMATES BASED ON THIS PLAN SETDRAFT FOR REVIEW T EAST VALLEY ROADEAST VALLEY ROADPROPERTY BOUNDARY56' REDUCEDWETLAND BUFFER15' BUILDING SETBACKVVVVVVVVVVDITCH Z(UNREGULATED)141 LF ON-SITE75' STANDARDWETLAND BUFFER56'NO IMPROVEMENTSIN THIS PARCELWETLAND APROPOSED BUFFERRESTORATION AREA(32,577 SF)PROPOSED LUMBERDISTRIBUTION ANDRETAIL FACILITYPROPOSEDHUMMOCK WITHEXISTING TREESPROTECTEXISTING TREETO REMAIN (TYP.)LARGE WOODYDEBRIS (TYP.)HUMMOCKS TO PRESERVEEXISTING TREES TOREMAIN56' REDUCEDWETLAND BUFFERNOTE:SEE SHEET 4 FOR DETAILS, PLANT SCHEDULE ANDADDITIONAL PLANTING INFORMATION,E A S T V A L L E Y R O A DWETLAND ACATEGORY III(8,333 SF ON-SITE)OFF-SITEWETLAND AAPPROX. 25,874 SF(NOT DELINEATED)STORMWATERPONDDITCH Z(UNREGULATED) 145 LF OFF-SITEPROPERTY BOUNDARYEAST VALLEY ROAD - PROPOSED PROJECT 2SCALE: SEE GRAPHICSOURCES: EAST VALLEY ROAD 2960 EAST VALLEY ROAD RENTON, WASHINGTON 98057 THE NE 1 4 OF SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 23N, RANGE 05E, W.M.DATE: 3/22/2017BY: DSJOB: 1413.0004SHEET OF 32215 North 30th Street, Suite 300 Tacoma, WA 98403 253.383.2422 TEL 253.383.2572 FAX www.ahbl.com WEB TACOMA SEATTLE SPOKANE TRI-CITIES PRELIMINARYINFORMATION ONLYNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONSOUNDVIEW CONSULTANTS, LLC. ASSUMESNO LIABILITY OR RESPONSIBILITY FORCONSTRUCTION, IMPROVEMENTS, ORESTIMATES BASED ON THIS PLAN SETDRAFT FOR REVIEW EAST VALLEY ROAD - PLANT DETAILS 3SCALE: SEE GRAPHICSOURCES: EAST VALLEY ROAD 2960 EAST VALLEY ROAD RENTON, WASHINGTON 98057 THE NE 1 4 OF SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 23N, RANGE 05E, W.M.DATE: 3/22/2017BY: DSJOB: 1413.0004SHEET OF 32215 North 30th Street, Suite 300 Tacoma, WA 98403 253.383.2422 TEL 253.383.2572 FAX www.ahbl.com WEB TACOMA SEATTLE SPOKANE TRI-CITIES SCALE: 1" = 20' - 0"WETLAND BUFFER RESTORATION SAMPLE PLANTING PLANPLANT SCHEDULENOTES:1 - PROTECT EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN.2 - PLANT TREES AND SHRUBS IN GROUPINGS OF 3 TO 11 PLANTS.3 - ALTHOUGH PLANTS MAY BE STAKED OR LAID OUT IN REGULAR TRIANGULAR SPACING PRIOR TOPLANTING, ADJUST PLANT LAYOUT AND GROUPINGS BEFORE PLANTING TO AVOID STRAIGHT LINESAND TO PROVIDE NATURAL-LOOKING PLANT COMMUNITIES.PROPOSED HUMMOCK WITH EXISTINGAND PROPOSED TREES AND SHRUBS56' REDUCEDWETLAND BUFFERLARGEWOODYDEBRISSTREAM BUFFER SEED MIXTHROUGHOUT BUFFERPROPERTY BOUNDARYWETLAND ANOT TO SCALEHUMMOCK DETAIL (TYPICAL)HUMMOCKNOTES:1. PLANT SHRUBS OF THE SAMESPECIES IN GROUPS OF 3 to 6 ASAPPROPRIATE.2. EXCAVATE PIT TO FULL DEPTH OFROOT MASS AND CANOPYDIAMETER. SPREAD ROOTS TOFULL WIDTH OF CANOPY.3. MIDWAY THROUGH PLANTING ADDAGROFORM TABLET AND WATERTHOROUGHLY.4. BACKFILL TO BE COMPACTEDUSING WATER ONLY.5. WATER IMMEDIATELY AFTERINSTALLATION.LOCATOR LATH (IF SPECIFIED)3 to 4 INCH LAYER OF MULCHNOT TO SCALETREE & SHRUB PLANTING DETAIL (TYPICAL)PRELIMINARYINFORMATION ONLYNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONSOUNDVIEW CONSULTANTS, LLC. ASSUMESNO LIABILITY OR RESPONSIBILITY FORCONSTRUCTION, IMPROVEMENTS, ORESTIMATES BASED ON THIS PLAN SETDRAFT FOR REVIEW EAST VALLEY ROAD - SITE DETAILS 4SCALE: SEE GRAPHICSOURCES: EAST VALLEY ROAD 2960 EAST VALLEY ROAD RENTON, WASHINGTON 98057 THE NE 1 4 OF SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 23N, RANGE 05E, W.M.DATE: 3/22/2017BY: DSJOB: 1413.0004SHEET OF 32215 North 30th Street, Suite 300 Tacoma, WA 98403 253.383.2422 TEL 253.383.2572 FAX www.ahbl.com WEB TACOMA SEATTLE SPOKANE TRI-CITIESNOT TO SCALEHUMMOCK DETAIL (TYPICAL)HUMMOCKNOTES:1. PLANT SHRUBS OF THE SAMESPECIES IN GROUPS OF 3 to 6 ASAPPROPRIATE.2. EXCAVATE PIT TO FULL DEPTH OFROOT MASS AND CANOPYDIAMETER. SPREAD ROOTS TOFULL WIDTH OF CANOPY.3. MIDWAY THROUGH PLANTING ADDAGROFORM TABLET AND WATERTHOROUGHLY.4. BACKFILL TO BE COMPACTEDUSING WATER ONLY.5. WATER IMMEDIATELY AFTERINSTALLATION.LOCATOR LATH (IF SPECIFIED)3 to 4 INCH LAYER OF MULCHNOT TO SCALETREE & SHRUB PLANTING DETAIL (TYPICAL)NOT TO SCALEANCHOR LARGE WOODY DEBRIS WITHDUCK-BILL ANCHOR WITH GALVANIZED CABLEOR APPROVED EQUIVALENT TO BEDETERMINED BY PROJECT ENGINEER.LARGE WOODY DEBRIS DETAILAT STREAM BANK (TYPICAL)BANKFULL WIDTHDRAFT FOR REVIEW Soundview Consultants LLC June 22, 2017 1413.0004 – East Valley Road - Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Appendix D – Data Forms US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: 1413.0004 East Valley Road City/County: Renton/King Sampling Date:12-15-2016 Applicant/Owner: Latitude Development- Donovan Brothers State: WA Sampling Point: DP-1 Investigator(s): J. Pickett and E. Swaim Section, Township, Range: T23N, R5E, Section 30 Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): slope Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 3 Subregion (LRR): A2 Lat: 47.45495 Long: -122.21672 Datum: WGS 84 Soil Map Unit Name: Urban Land / Tukwila Muck (inaccurately mapped) NWI classification: N/A Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation x, Soil x, or Hydrology x significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: All three wetland criteria observed. Area highly developed and heavily disturbed from adjacent land uses. Precipitation 144 percent of normal for the water year to the date of the site visit. VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. Salix lucida 50 Y FACW 2. Alnus rubra 30 Y FAC 3. 4. 80 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft) 1. Rubus armeniacus 25 Y FAC 2. Cornus alba 5 N FACW 3. 4. 5. 30 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft) 1. Polystichum munitum 1 Y FACU 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 1 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 99 Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 4 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 75 (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation criteria observed. Bare ground observed due to permanent ponding. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP-1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-5 2.5Y 2.5/1 100 - - - - GSL/FILL Fill/Gravel 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:________________________________ Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: Hydric soil indicator A4 observed- Hydrogen sulfide aroma. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): +12 Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): surface Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): surface (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: 144 percent of normal for the water year to the date of the site vist (10/01/2016-12/15/16). Remarks: Primary hydrologic indicators A1-A3 and C1 observed as well as secondary hydrologic indicators B9, B10, D2, and D5. GRAVEL / FILL 5 inches below ground surface US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: 1413.0004 East Valley Road City/County: Renton/King Sampling Date:12-15-2016 Applicant/Owner: Latitude Development- Donovan Brothers State: WA Sampling Point: DP-2 Investigator(s): J. Pickett and E. Swaim Section, Township, Range: T23N, R5E, Section 30 Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Developed terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): None Slope (%): 0 Subregion (LRR): A2 Lat: 47.454741 Long: -122.216764 Datum: WGS 84 Soil Map Unit Name: Urban Land NWI classification: N/A Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation x, Soil x, or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: No wetland criteria observed in the developed location of DP-2. Area highly developed and heavily disturbed from adjacent land uses. Precipitation 144 percent of normal for the water year to the date of the site visit. Disturbance noted due to development. VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0 Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: No vegetation located in area of data plot. Located in area of gravel fill development. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP-2 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks - - - - - - - GSL/FILL Fill/Gravel 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:________________________________ Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: No hydric soil indicators observed. Fill and gravel are not actual soil textures. Hard and compacted gravel fill. Not applicable to soil testing. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: 144 percent of normal for the water year to the date of the site vist (10/01/2016-12/15/16) according to the SeaTac Airport NOAA data. Remarks: No primary nor secondary indicators of wetland hydrology observed. Soundview Consultants LLC June 22, 2017 1413.0004 – East Valley Road - Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Appendix E – Wetland Rating Form Wetland name or number A Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 1 WSDOT Adapted Form - March 2, 2015 Name of wetland (or ID #):Date of site visit:12/15/2016 Rated by Trained by Ecology? Yes No Date of training 3/31/2016 HGM Class used for rating Wetland has multiple HGM classes? Yes No NOTE: Form is not complete with out the figures requested (figures can be combined ). Source of base aerial photo/map OVERALL WETLAND CATEGORY III (based on functions or special characteristics ) 1. Category of wetland based on FUNCTIONS Category I - Total score = 23 - 27 Score for each Category II - Total score = 20 - 22 function based X Category III - Total score = 16 - 19 on three Category IV - Total score = 9 - 15 ratings (order of ratings is not important ) L M 9 = H, H, H H L 8 = H, H, M M L Total 7 = H, H, L 7 = H, M, M 6 = H, M, L 6 = M, M, M 5 = H, L, L 5 = M, M, L 4 = M, L, L 3 = L, L, L 2. Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland XNone of the above Coastal Lagoon Interdunal Value Score Based on Ratings 6 6 4 16 H CHARACTERISTIC Category Estuarine Wetland of High Conservation Value Bog Mature Forest Old Growth Forest Depressional & Flats RATING SUMMARY – Western Washington List appropriate rating (H, M, L) HydrologicImproving Water Quality LSite Potential Landscape Potential Habitat M FUNCTION Wetland A 1413.0004 J. Downs and E.Swaim Google Earth 2016 Wetland name or number A Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 2 WSDOT Adapted Form - March 2, 2015 Wetland name or number A Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 3 WSDOT Adapted Form - March 2, 2015 Maps and Figures required to answer questions correctly for Western Washington Depressional Wetlands Map of: Figure # Cowardin plant classes Hydroperiods Location of outlet (can be added to map of hydroperiods ) Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure ) Map of the contributing basin 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) Riverine Wetlands Map of: Figure # Cowardin plant classes Hydroperiods Ponded depressions Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure ) Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants Width of unit vs. width of stream (can be added to another figure ) Map of the contributing basin 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) Lake Fringe Wetlands Map of: Figure # Cowardin plant classes Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure ) 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) Slope Wetlands Map of: Figure # Cowardin plant classes Hydroperiods Plant cover of dense trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants Plant cover of dense, rigid trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants (can be added to another figure ) Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure ) 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat To answer questions: D 1.3, H 1.1, H 1.4 D 1.4, H 1.2 D 1.1, D 4.1 D 2.2, D 5.2 D 4.3, D 5.3 H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 D 3.1, D 3.2 D 3.3 To answer questions: H 1.1, H 1.4 H 1.2 R 1.1 R 2.4 R 1.2, R 4.2 R 4.1 R 2.2, R 2.3, R 5.2 H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 L 1.2 L 2.2 L 3.1, L 3.2 L 3.3 H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 R 3.1 R 3.2, R 3.3 To answer questions: L 1.1, L 4.1, H 1.1, H 1.4 S 4.1 S 2.1, S 5.1 To answer questions: H 1.1, H 1.4 H 1.2 S 1.3 H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Wetland name or number A Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 4 WSDOT Adapted Form - March 2, 2015 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) S 3.1, S 3.2 S 3.3 Wetland name or number A Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 5 WSDOT Adapted Form - March 2, 2015 For questions 1 -7, the criteria described must apply to the entire unit being rated. 1. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides except during floods? NO - go to 2 YES - the wetland class is Tidal Fringe - go to 1.1 1.1 Is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)? NO - Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine)YES - Freshwater Tidal Fringe NO - go to 3 YES - The wetland class is Flats If your wetland can be classified as a Flats wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands. 3. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? NO - go to 4 YES - The wetland class is Lake Fringe (Lacustrine Fringe) 4. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual ), The water leaves the wetland without being impounded. NO - go to 5 YES - The wetland class is Slope 5. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? The overbank flooding occurs at least once every 2 years. NO - go to 6 YES - The wetland class is Riverine NOTE: The Riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not flooding. If hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated, you probably have a unit with multiple HGM classes. In this case, identify which hydrologic criteria in questions 1 - 7 apply, and go to Question 8. At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m). HGM Classification of Wetland in Western Washington If your wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands. If it is Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is an Estuarine wetland and is not scored. This method cannot be used to score functions for estuarine wetlands. The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any plants on the surface at any time of the year) at least 20 ac (8 ha) in size; The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks. NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these type of wetlands except occasionally in very small and shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3 ft diameter and less than 1 ft deep). The unit is in a valley, or stream channel, where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that stream or river, 2. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is the only source (>90%) of water to it. Groundwater and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit. Wetland name or number A Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 6 WSDOT Adapted Form - March 2, 2015 NO - go to 7 YES - The wetland class is Depressional NO - go to 8 YES - The wetland class is Depressional NOTES and FIELD OBSERVATIONS: 7. Is the entire wetland unit located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbank flooding? The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to be maintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural outlet. 8. Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM classes. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small stream within a Depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENT AREAS IN THE UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify the appropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within the wetland unit being scored. 6. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the surface, at some time during the year? This means that any outlet, if present, is higher than the interior of the wetland. Riverine Treat as ESTUARINE Slope + Lake Fringe Depressional + Riverine along stream within boundary of depression Depressional + Lake Fringe Riverine + Lake Fringe NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the HGM class listed in column 2 is less than 10% of the unit; classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the total area. HGM classes within the wetland unit being rated Slope + Riverine Slope + Depressional Depressional Depressional If you are still unable to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or if you have more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the rating. Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other class of freshwater wetland HGM class to use in rating Riverine Depressional Lake Fringe Wetland name or number A Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 8 WSDOT Adapted Form - March 2, 2015 D 1.1. Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland: points = 3 points = 2 points = 1 points = 1 Yes = 4 No = 0 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants > 95% of area points = 5 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants > ½ of area points = 3 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants > 1/10 of area points = 1 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants < 1/10 of area points = 0 D 1.4. Characteristics of seasonal ponding or inundation: This is the area that is ponded for at least 2 months. See description in manual. Area seasonally ponded is > ½ total area of wetland points = 4 Area seasonally ponded is > ¼ total area of wetland points = 2 Area seasonally ponded is < ¼ total area of wetland points = 0 Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes above 4 Rating of Site Potential If score is: 12 - 16 = H 6 - 11 = M 0 - 5 = L Record the rating on the first page D 2.1. Does the wetland unit receive stormwater discharges?Yes = 1 No = 0 1 Yes = 1 No = 0 D 2.3. Are there septic systems within 250 ft of the wetland?Yes = 1 No = 0 0 Source Yes = 1 No = 0 Total for D 2 Add the points in the boxes above 2 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 3 or 4 = H 1 or 2 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page Yes = 1 No = 0 Yes = 1 No = 0 Yes = 2 No = 0 Total for D 3 Add the points in the boxes above 3 Rating of Value If score is: 2 - 4 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page D 3.3. Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality (answer YES if there is a TMDL for the basin in which the unit is found )? D 1.2. The soil 2 in below the surface (or duff layer) is true clay or true organic (use NRCS definitions ). D 1.3. Characteristics and distribution of persistent plants (Emergent, Scrub-shrub, and/or Forested Cowardin classes): D 2.4. Are there other sources of pollutants coming into the wetland that are not listed in questions D 2.1 - D 2.3? D 3.1. Does the wetland discharge directly (i.e., within 1 mi) to a stream, river, lake, or marine water that is on the 303(d) list? D 2.2. Is > 10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate pollutants? D 3.2. Is the wetland in a basin or sub-basin where an aquatic resource is on the 303(d) list? D 3.0. Is the water quality improvement provided by the site valuable to society? 1 0 2 0 3 DEPRESSIONAL AND FLATS WETLANDS 1 0 Water Quality Functions - Indicators that the site functions to improve water quality D 1.0. Does the site have the potential to improve water quality? 1 Wetland has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet that is permanently flowing Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream or ditch, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet. Wetland is a depression or flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key) with no surface water leaving it (no outlet). Wetland is a flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key), whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch. 0 D 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the water quality function of the site? Wetland name or number A Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 10 WSDOT Adapted Form - March 2, 2015 D 4.1. Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland: points = 4 points = 2 points = 1 points = 0 Marks of ponding are 3 ft or more above the surface or bottom of outlet points = 7 Marks of ponding between 2 ft to < 3 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points = 5 Marks are at least 0.5 ft to < 2 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points = 3 The wetland is a “headwater” wetland points = 3 Wetland is flat but has small depressions on the surface that trap water points = 1 Marks of ponding less than 0.5 ft (6 in)points = 0 The area of the basin is less than 10 times the area of the unit points = 5 The area of the basin is 10 to 100 times the area of the unit points = 3 The area of the basin is more than 100 times the area of the unit points = 0 Entire wetland is in the Flats class points = 5 Total for D 4 Add the points in the boxes above 3 Rating of Site Potential If score is: 12 - 16 = H 6 - 11 = M 0 - 5 = L Record the rating on the first page D 5.1. Does the wetland unit receive stormwater discharges?Yes = 1 No = 0 1 D 5.2. Is > 10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate excess runoff? Yes = 1 No = 0 Yes = 1 No = 0 Total for D 5 Add the points in the boxes above 3 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 3 = H 1 or 2 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page points = 2 points = 1 Flooding from groundwater is an issue in the sub-basin.points = 1 points = 0 1 1 D 5.3. Is more than 25% of the contributing basin of the wetland covered with intensive human land uses (residential at >1 residence/ac, urban, commercial, agriculture, etc.)? The existing or potential outflow from the wetland is so constrained by human or natural conditions that the water stored by the wetland cannot reach areas that flood. Explain why 1 3 D 4.2. Depth of storage during wet periods: Estimate the height of ponding above the bottom of the outlet. For wetlands with no outlet, measure from the surface of permanent water or if dry, the deepest part. D 4.3. Contribution of the wetland to storage in the watershed: Estimate the ratio of the area of upstream basin contributing surface water to the wetland to the area of the wetland unit itself. D 6.1. The unit is in a landscape that has flooding problems. Choose the description that best matches conditions around the wetland unit being rated. Do not add points. Choose the highest score if more than one condition is met. Hydrologic Functions - Indicators that the site functions to reduce flooding and stream degradation D 4.0. Does the site have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? 0 Wetland is a depression or flat depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) Wetland has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet that is permanently flowing Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream or ditch, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet Wetland is a flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key), whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch 0 D 5.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support hydrologic function of the site? D 6.0. Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuable to society? The wetland captures surface water that would otherwise flow down-gradient into areas where flooding has damaged human or natural resources (e.g., houses or salmon redds): Flooding occurs in a sub-basin that is immediately down- gradient of unit. Surface flooding problems are in a sub-basin farther down- gradient. DEPRESSIONAL AND FLATS WETLANDS Wetland name or number A Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 11 WSDOT Adapted Form - March 2, 2015 There are no problems with flooding downstream of the wetland.points = 0 Yes = 2 No = 0 Total for D 6 Add the points in the boxes above 1 Rating of Value If score is: 2 - 4 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page D 6.2. Has the site been identified as important for flood storage or flood conveyance in a regional flood control plan? Wetland name or number A Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 12 WSDOT Adapted Form - March 2, 2015 HABITAT FUNCTIONS - Indicators that site functions to provide important habitat H 1.0. Does the site have the potential to provide habitat? Aquatic bed 4 structures or more: points = 4 Emergent 3 structures: points = 2 Scrub-shrub (areas where shrubs have > 30% cover)2 structures: points - 1 Forested (areas where trees have > 30% cover)1 structure: points = 0 If the unit has a Forested class, check if : H 1.2. Hydroperiods Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present: points = 3 Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present: points = 2 Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present: points = 1 Saturated only 1 types present: points = 0 Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland Lake Fringe wetland 2 points Freshwater tidal wetland 2 points H 1.3. Richness of plant species If you counted:> 19 species points = 2 5 - 19 species points = 1 < 5 species points = 0 H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats None = 0 points Low = 1 point Moderate = 2 points All three diagrams in this row are 1 Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover more than 10% of the wetland or ¼ ac to count (see text for descriptions of hydroperiods ). 1 Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ft2.Different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold and you do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian milfoil, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, Canadian thistle 1 Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion among Cowardin plants classes (described in H 1.1), or the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, moderate, low, or none. If you have four or more plant classes or three classes and open water, the rating is always high. These questions apply to wetlands of all HGM classes. The Forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub-canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, moss/ground-cover) that each cover 20% within the Forested polygon 1 H 1.1. Structure of plant community: Indicators are Cowardin classes and strata within the Forested class. Check the Cowardin plant classes in the wetland. Up to 10 patches may be combined for each class to meet the threshold of ¼ ac or more than 10% of the unit if it is smaller than 2.5 ac. Add the number of structures checked. Wetland name or number A Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 13 WSDOT Adapted Form - March 2, 2015 HIGH = 3 points Wetland name or number A Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 14 WSDOT Adapted Form - March 2, 2015 H 1.5. Special habitat features: Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (> 4 in diameter and 6 ft long) Standing snags (dbh > 4 in) within the wetland Total for H 1 Add the points in the boxes above 7 Rating of Site Potential If Score is: 15 - 18 = H 7 - 14 = M 0 - 6 = L Record the rating on the first page H 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the habitat function of the site? H 2.1 Accessible habitat (include only habitat that directly abuts wetland unit ). Calculate: 0 % undisturbed habitat + (0.29 % moderate & low intensity land uses / 2 ) = 0.145% If total accessible habitat is: > 1/3 (33.3%) of 1 km Polygon points = 3 20 - 33% of 1 km Polygon points = 2 10 - 19% of 1 km Polygon points = 1 < 10 % of 1 km Polygon points = 0 H 2.2. Undisturbed habitat in 1 km Polygon around the wetland. Calculate: 5 % undisturbed habitat + (2.3 % moderate & low intensity land uses / 2 ) = 6.15% Undisturbed habitat > 50% of Polygon points = 3 Undisturbed habitat 10 - 50% and in 1-3 patches points = 2 Undisturbed habitat 10 - 50% and > 3 patches points = 1 Undisturbed habitat < 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0 H 2.3 Land use intensity in 1 km Polygon: If > 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity land use points = (-2) ≤ 50% of 1km Polygon is high intensity points = 0 Total for H 2 Add the points in the boxes above -2 Rating of Landscape Potential If Score is: 4 - 6 = H 1 - 3 = M < 1 = L Record the rating on the first page Site meets ANY of the following criteria:points = 2 It has 3 or more priority habitats within 100 m (see next page) It is mapped as a location for an individual WDFW priority species Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points. It has been categorized as an important habitat site in a local or regional comprehensive plan, in a Shoreline Master Plan, or in a Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2 m) and/or overhanging plants extends at least 3.3 ft (1 m) over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the wetland, for at least 33 ft (10 m) Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (> 30 degree slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet weathered where wood is exposed ) At least ¼ ac of thin-stemmed persistent plants or woody branches are present in areas that are permanently or seasonally inundated (structures for egg-laying by amphibians ) 3 It is a Wetland of High Conservation Value as determined by the Department of Natural Resources 0 Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in every stratum of plants (see H 1.1 for list of strata ) 0 0 -2 H 3.0. Is the habitat provided by the site valuable to society? H 3.1. Does the site provide habitat for species valued in laws, regulations, or policies? Choose only the highest score that applies to the wetland being rated . It provides habitat for Threatened or Endangered species (any plant or animal on the state or federal lists) Wetland name or number A Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 15 WSDOT Adapted Form - March 2, 2015 Site has 1 or 2 priority habitats (listed on next page) with in 100m points = 1 Site does not meet any of the criteria above points = 0 Rating of Value If Score is: 2 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page watershed plan Wetland name or number A Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 16 WSDOT Adapted Form - March 2, 2015 Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 1 ac (0.4 ha). Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock. Cliffs: Greater than 25 ft (7.6 m) high and occurring below 5000 ft elevation. Priority habitats listed by WDFW (see complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which they can be found, in: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2008. Priority Habitat and Species List. Olympia, Washington. 177 pp. Oregon White Oak: Woodland stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component is important (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 158 – see web link above ). Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other. Westside Prairies: Herbaceous, non-forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wet prairie (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 161 – see web link above ). Instream: The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources. Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearshore, and Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WDFW report – see web link on previous page ). Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of > 20 in (51 cm) in western Washington and are > 6.5 ft (2 m) in height. Priority logs are > Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.5 - 6.5 ft (0.15 - 2.0 m), composed of basalt, andesite, and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs. Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils, rock, ice, or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human. WDFW Priority Habitats Count how many of the following priority habitats are within 330 ft (100 m) of the wetland unit: NOTE : This question is independent of the land use between the wetland unit and the priority habitat. Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report ). Old-growth/Mature forests: Old-growth west of Cascade crest – Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi-layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha) > 32 in (81 cm) dbh or > 200 years of age. Mature forests – Stands with average diameters exceeding 21 in (53 cm) dbh; crown cover may be less than 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old-growth; 80-200 years old west of the Cascade crest. http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00165/wdfw00165.pdf or access the list from here: http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/phs/list/ Wetland name or number A Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 17 WSDOT Adapted Form - March 2, 2015 12 in (30 cm) in diameter at the largest end, and > 20 ft (6 m) long. Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list because they are addressed elsewhere. Wetland name or number A Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 18 WSDOT Adapted Form - March 2, 2015 Wetland Type Category Check off any criteria that apply to the wetland. List the category when the appropriate criteria are met. SC 1.0. Estuarine Wetlands Does the wetland meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands? The dominant water regime is tidal, Vegetated, and With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt Yes - Go to SC 1.1 No = Not an estuarine wetland SC 1.1. Yes = Category I No - Go to SC 1.2 SC 1.2.Is the wetland unit at least 1 ac in size and meets at least two of the following three conditions? Yes = Category I No = Category II SC 2.0. Wetlands of High Conservation Value (WHCV) SC 2.1. Yes - Go to SC 2.2 No - Go to SC 2.3 SC 2.2.Is the wetland listed on the WDNR database as a Wetland of High Conservation Value? Yes = Category I No = Not WHCV SC 2.3.Is the wetland in a Section/Township/Range that contains a Natural Heritage wetland? http://www1.dnr.wa.gov/nhp/refdesk/datasearch/wnhpwetlands.pdf Yes - Contact WNHP/WDNR and to SC 2.4 No = Not WHCV SC 2.4. Yes = Category I No = Not WHCV SC 3.0. Bogs SC 3.1. Yes - Go to SC 3.3 No - Go to SC 3.2 SC 3.2. Yes - Go to SC 3.3 No = Is not a bog SC 3.3. Yes = Is a Category I bog No - Go to SC 3.4 SC 3.4. NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory, you may substitute that criterion by measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16 in deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the plant species in Table 4 are present, the wetland is a bog. Is an area with peats or mucks forested (> 30% cover) with Sitka spruce, subalpine fir, CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Is the wetland within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area Preserve, State Park or Educational, Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332-30-151? The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing, and has less than 10% cover of non-native plant species. (If non-native species are Spartina , see page 25) At least ¾ of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un- grazed or un-mowed grassland. The wetland has at least two of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or contiguous freshwater wetlands. Has WDNR identified the wetland within the S/T/R as a Wetland of High Conservation Value and listed it on their website? Has the WA Department of Natural Resources updated their website to include the list of Wetlands of High Conservation Value? Does the wetland (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key below. If you answer YES you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions . Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soil horizons, either peats or mucks, that compose 16 in or more of the first 32 in of the soil profile? Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soils, either peats or mucks, that are less than 16 in deep over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on top of a lake or pond? Does an area with peats or mucks have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, AND at least a 30% cover of plant species listed in Table 4? Wetland name or number A Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 19 WSDOT Adapted Form - March 2, 2015 Yes = Is a Category I bog No = Is not a bog p ( ) p , p , western red cedar, western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Engelmann spruce, or western white pine, AND any of the species (or combination of species) listed in Table 4 provide more than 30% of the cover under the canopy? Wetland name or number A Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 20 WSDOT Adapted Form - March 2, 2015 SC 4.0. Forested Wetlands Yes = Category I No = Not a forested wetland for this section SC 5.0. Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wetland in a coastal lagoon? Yes - Go to SC 5.1 No = Not a wetland in a coastal lagoon SC 5.1. Does the wetland meet all of the following three conditions? The wetland is larger than 1/10 ac (4350 ft2) Yes = Category I No = Category II SC 6.0. Interdunal Wetlands In practical terms that means the following geographic areas: Long Beach Peninsula: Lands west of SR 103 Grayland-Westport: Lands west of SR 105 Ocean Shores-Copalis: Lands west of SR 115 and SR 109 Yes - Go to SC 6.1 No = Not an interdunal wetland for rating SC 6.1. Yes = Category I No - Go to SC 6.2 SC 6.2.Is the wetland 1 ac or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is 1 ac or larger? Yes = Category II No - Go to SC 6.3 SC 6.3. Yes = Category III No = Category IV Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics If you answered No for all types, enter “Not Applicable” on Summary Form The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing), and has less than 20% cover of aggressive, opportunistic plant species (see list of species on p. 100). At least ¾ of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un- grazed or un-mowed grassland. Is the wetland west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its habitat functions. Is the wetland 1 ac or larger and scores an 8 or 9 for the habitat functions on the form (rates H,H,H or H,H,M for the three aspects of function)? Is the unit between 0.1 and 1 ac, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and 1 ac? The wetland lies in a depression adjacent to marine waters that is wholly or partially separated from marine waters by sandbanks, gravel banks, shingle, or, less frequently, rocks The lagoon in which the wetland is located contains ponded water that is saline or brackish (> 0.5 ppt) during most of the year in at least a portion of the lagoon (needs to be measured near the bottom ) Does the wetland have at least 1 contiguous acre of forest that meets one of these criteria for the WA Department of Fish and Wildlife’s forests as priority habitats? If you answer YES you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. Old-growth forests (west of Cascade crest): Stands of at least two tree species, forming a multi-layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha) that are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 32 in (81 cm) or more. Mature forests (west of the Cascade Crest): Stands where the largest trees are 80- 200 years old OR the species that make up the canopy have an average diameter (dbh) exceeding 21 in (53 cm). Soundview Consultants LLC June 22, 2017 1413.0004 – East Valley Road - Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Appendix F – Qualifications Jeremy Downs, Principle Scientist/Environmental Planner Jeremy Downs is a Principal Scientist and Environmental Planner with professional training and extensive experience in land use, site planning and design, project coordination, permitting and management, marine and wetland ecology, habitat restoration, wetland, stream, and benthic delineations and assessments, stream assessments, underwater and terrestrial monitoring programs, and mitigation planning and design since 1987. Mr. Downs earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Biology from the University of California, Davis. In addition, he studied under the Environmental Risk and Recovery program at the Australian Institute of Marine Science. Mr. Downs also holds graduate-level professional certifications in various advanced wetland science and management programs from both Portland State University and San Francisco State University, and he has received professional training in Salmonid Biology from the University of California Extension. Jeremy is a certified wetlands delineator under US Army Corps of Engineers guidelines. He has been formally trained in the use of the Washington State Wetland Rating System, Determination of Ordinary High Water Mark, Designing Compensatory Mitigation and Restoration Projects, and Reviewing Wetland Mitigation and Monitoring Plans from the US Army Corps of Engineers and Washington State Department of Ecology, and in conducting Biological Assessments from the Washington Department of Transportation. Mr. Downs is also a Pierce County Qualified Wetland Specialist and Fisheries Biologist, and he holds similar qualifications from other jurisdictions. Jon Pickett, Senior Scientist/Environmental Planner Jon Pickett is a Senior Scientist/Environmental Planner with diverse professional experience in habitat development as a Regional Biologist and Environmental Project Manager, with an emphasis in wetland restoration and enhancement. Jon has extensive experience successfully planning, developing, securing funding, managing and implementing numerous large-scale wetland habitat projects aimed at restoring the biological and physical functions of wetlands throughout California’s Central Valley and Southern California. He worked to ensure the projects were designed and implemented to achieve habitat restoration goals, including reclamation of wetland and floodplain habitats, reintroduction of aquatic complexity and habitat, and reestablishment of riparian corridor. Jon also managed regulatory coordination to ensure projects operated in compliance with Federal, State and local environmental regulations, preparing permit documentation, coordinating with all pertinent agencies and stakeholders, and developing and maintaining appropriate permitting timelines to ensure timely approvals. He oversaw earthwork construction components and revegetation efforts, as well as post- project monitoring, with an emphasis in native vegetation establishment and natural channel morphology. Jon managed a 2,200 acre private wetland and upland habitat complex as a public trust resource for conservation and consumptive use. Jon has worked with Federal and State agencies and private entities on land acquisitions for conservational habitat and public use, including prioritizing acquisitions relative to value and opportunity and funding. Soundview Consultants LLC June 22, 2017 1413.0004 – East Valley Road - Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Emily Swaim, Wetland Scientist/Field Geologist Emily Swaim is a Wetland Scientist and Field Geologist with a background in delineating and assessing wetland and aquatic systems, conducting Phase I, II and III Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs), underground natural gas pipeline and overhead electrical transmission line project assessment and environmental inspections, construction oversight, stormwater compliance inspections, soil sampling, and stormwater, floodplain, and wetland permitting. Ms. Swaim’s expertise focuses on projects involving sensitive wetland and stream habitats where extensive team coordination and various regulatory challenges must be carefully and intelligently managed from project inception to completion. Emily earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Geology from Illinois State University and is also educated in Environmental Science from Iowa State University. She also studied Wetland Science and Management at the University of Washington in the Professional Continuing Education Certification Program to further enhance her professional capabilities and wetland science knowledge. Her education and experience has provided her with extensive knowledge on soils, wetland science, restoration and field botany, hydrogeology, sedimentology, environmental and wetland law, environmental geology, landscape ecology, and structural geology. Ms. Swaim has been formally trained in the use of the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington, determination of the Ordinary High Mark, identification of Wetlands of High Conservation Value, Grass, Sedge, and Rush identification, and how to choose Mitigation Sites based on a Watershed Approach. She is also formally trained in Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response (HAZWOPER) and is also Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) 30-hour Construction and 10-hour Construction certified. She also has extensive experience in environmental compliance monitoring involving final site restoration efforts. Her former 115-mile 345 kV Electrical Transmission Line construction project won the Trumbull County Soil and Water Conservation District’s Project and Contractor of the Year Award in 2014 in regards to environmental compliance efforts that ensured regulatory compliance and successful project implementation. Ms. Swaim is a Pierce County Qualified Wetland Specialist. Melissa Cole, Staff Scientist Melissa Cole is a Staff Scientist with a background in research writing, project management, peer review, executing scopes of work, budgeting and financing, organizing and attending technical science seminars, public outreach, data entry and analysis, Phase I and Phase II environmental site assessments, soil sampling, soil vapor sampling, soil excavation monitoring, field classification of soils, stormwater surveying, water sampling, asbestos sampling, lead in water sampling, lead in paint sampling, noise monitoring, radon sampling, tree height / width and condition measurements, tree density measurements, seedling and sapling counting, analyzing grazing conditions, statistical analysis, and research presentation. Melissa received a Bachelor of Science degree from San Jose State University in Environmental Studies with a minor in Biology. This program provided her with a strong background in natural resource management, environmental laws and regulations, habitat conservation, and environmental restoration. Melissa’s interest in habitat conservation drove her to minor in Biological Science where she had courses in botany, zoology, computer literacy, biostatistical analysis, and ecology. DOWNSTREAM ANALYSIS MAP PROJECT SITE FLOW ARROWS STORMWATER EXITS SITE HERE 1/4 MILE DOWNSTREAM. STORMWATER IS STILL IN EAST VALLEY ROAD DRAINAGE SYSTEM k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k kk k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k HoquiamAveNEE Valley Hwy84thAveSNEParkD r SW 7th St SE 128th St SE 192nd StLind Ave SWMainAveSS 132nd St Factory PlN Talbot Rd SN 3rd St RainierAveS 164thAveSETukwila Pk w y SPuget Dr NE 4th St S 3rd St S 1 2 9 thS t68thAveSSWSunsetBlvd SW 16th St 116thAveSEN 4th St I n t e r u r b a n Av e S WilliamsAveNBronsonW a y N NE7thSt 124thAveSES 7th St SERenton IssaquahRd Rai ni er AveNNewcastle Way CoalCr e e k PkwySESW 41st St T a y l o r P l NW NESunsetBlvdWellsAveNUnionAveNENE 3rd St Ha r die A v eSWS180th St Maple V a l l e y H w y 140thAveSES G radyWayS 2 1 s tSt BensonRdSRe nt o n AveS87thAveS128thAveSE148thAveSESW 43rd St SEC arrR d SE 168th St Beaco n A v e S 68thAveSLoganAveN108thAveSEForestDr SE S2ndSt 141 s tAve S ERainierAveS 156thAveSES E 183rd StBenson D r S S 124th StS 43rd St Airport Way S W G radyW a y S E J o n e s RdSunsetBlvdN Puget Dr SESE 204th Way SW 34th StMo n s ter RdSW SE 142nd Pl WestValleyHwySSEMay ValleyRd SunsetBlvdNS C a r r RdHouserWayNNewcastle GolfClubRd S 133rd St WilliamsAveSWellsAveSEMercerWay154thPlSEDuvallAveNELoganAveSMonroeAveNESunsetBlvdNEEdmondsAveNEStevens AveNWRai ni er AveSTalbotRdSOakesdaleAveSWTaylorAveNW164thAveSERainierAveSWestVal leyHwyWestValleyHwyParkAveN108thAveSE6 6 t h Av e SWMercerWayWMercer W ay Lakemont BlvdSE132ndAve SELakeWashingtonBlvdNE140thWaySE East Valley Rd68thAveS³City of RentonSensitive Areas 0 0.5 10.25 Miles Information Technology - GISmapsupport@rentonwa.govPrinted on: 11/12/2014 Data Sources: City of Renton, King County This document is a graphic representation, not guaranteedto survey accuracy, and is based on the best informationavailable as of the date shown. This map is intended forCity display purposes only. Renton City Limits k Education Fire Station K Valley Medical Center Coal Mine Hazards Severity HIGH MODERATE UNCLASSIFIED Coordinate System: NAD 1983 HARN StatePlane Washington North FIPS 4601 FeetProjection: Lambert Conformal ConicDatum: North American 1983 HARN k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k kk k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k HoquiamAveNEE Valley Hwy84thAveSNEParkD r SW 7th St SE 128th St SE 192nd StLind Ave SWMainAveSS 132nd St Factory PlN Talbot Rd SN 3rd St RainierAveS 164thAveSETukwila Pk w y SPuget Dr NE 4th St S 3rd St S 1 2 9 thS t68thAveSSWSunsetBlvd SW 16th St 116thAveSEN 4th St I n t e r u r b a n Av e S WilliamsAveNBronsonW a y N NE7thSt 124thAveSES 7th St SERenton IssaquahRd Rai ni er AveNNewcastle Way CoalCr e e k PkwySESW 41st St T a y l o r P l NW NESunsetBlvdWellsAveNUnionAveNENE 3rd St Ha r die A v eSWS180th St Maple V a l l e y H w y 140thAveSES G radyWayS 2 1 s tSt BensonRdSRe nt o n AveS87thAveS128thAveSE148thAveSESW 43rd St SEC arrR d SE 168th St Beaco n A v e S 68thAveSLoganAveN108thAveSEForestDr SE S2ndSt 141 s tAve S ERainierAveS 156thAveSES E 183rd StBenson D r S S 124th StS 43rd St Airport Way S W G radyW a y S E J o n e s RdSunsetBlvdN Puget Dr SESE 204th Way SW 34th StMo n s ter RdSW SE 142nd Pl WestValleyHwySSEMay ValleyRd SunsetBlvdNS C a r r RdHouserWayNNewcastle GolfClubRd S 133rd St WilliamsAveSWellsAveSEMercerWay154thPlSEDuvallAveNELoganAveSMonroeAveNESunsetBlvdNEEdmondsAveNEStevens AveNWRai ni er AveSTalbotRdSOakesdaleAveSWTaylorAveNW164thAveSERainierAveSWestVal leyHwyWestValleyHwyParkAveN108thAveSE6 6 t h Av e SWMercerWayWMercer W ay Lakemont BlvdSE132ndAve SELakeWashingtonBlvdNE140thWaySE East Valley Rd68thAveS³City of RentonSensitive Areas 0 0.5 10.25 Miles Information Technology - GISmapsupport@rentonwa.govPrinted on: 11/12/2014 Data Sources: City of Renton, King County This document is a graphic representation, not guaranteedto survey accuracy, and is based on the best informationavailable as of the date shown. This map is intended forCity display purposes only. Renton City Limits k Education Fire Station K Valley Medical Center Landslide HazardSeverityVery HighHighModerateUnclassified Coordinate System: NAD 1983 HARN StatePlane Washington North FIPS 4601 FeetProjection: Lambert Conformal ConicDatum: North American 1983 HARN k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k kk k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k HoquiamAveNEE Valley Hwy84thAveSNEParkD r SW 7th St SE 128th St SE 192nd StLind Ave SWMainAveSS 132nd St Factory PlN Talbot Rd SN 3rd St RainierAveS 164thAveSETukwila Pk w y SPuget Dr NE 4th St S 3rd St S 1 2 9 thS t68thAveSSWSunsetBlvd SW 16th St 116thAveSEN 4th St I n t e r u r b a n Av e S WilliamsAveNBronsonW a y N NE7thSt 124thAveSES 7th St SERenton IssaquahRd Rai ni er AveNNewcastle Way CoalCr e e k PkwySESW 41st St T a y l o r P l NW NESunsetBlvdWellsAveNUnionAveNENE 3rd St Ha r die A v eSWS180th St Maple V a l l e y H w y 140thAveSES G radyWayS 2 1 s tSt BensonRdSRe nt o n AveS87thAveS128thAveSE148thAveSESW 43rd St SEC arrR d SE 168th St Beaco n A v e S 68thAveSLoganAveN108thAveSEForestDr SE S2ndSt 141 s tAve S ERainierAveS 156thAveSES E 183rd StBenson D r S S 124th StS 43rd St Airport Way S W G radyW a y S E J o n e s RdSunsetBlvdN Puget Dr SESE 204th Way SW 34th StMo n s ter RdSW SE 142nd Pl WestValleyHwySSEMay ValleyRd SunsetBlvdNS C a r r RdHouserWayNNewcastle GolfClubRd S 133rd St WilliamsAveSWellsAveSEMercerWay154thPlSEDuvallAveNELoganAveSMonroeAveNESunsetBlvdNEEdmondsAveNEStevens AveNWRai ni er AveSTalbotRdSOakesdaleAveSWTaylorAveNW164thAveSERainierAveSWestVal leyHwyWestValleyHwyParkAveN108thAveSE6 6 t h Av e SWMercerWayWMercer W ay Lakemont BlvdSE132ndAve SELakeWashingtonBlvdNE140thWaySE East Valley Rd68thAveS³City of RentonSensitive Areas 0 0.5 10.25 Miles Information Technology - GISmapsupport@rentonwa.govPrinted on: 11/12/2014 Data Sources: City of Renton, King County This document is a graphic representation, not guaranteedto survey accuracy, and is based on the best informationavailable as of the date shown. This map is intended forCity display purposes only. Renton City Limits k Education Fire Station K Valley Medical Center Erosion Hazard Severity High Coordinate System: NAD 1983 HARN StatePlane Washington North FIPS 4601 FeetProjection: Lambert Conformal ConicDatum: North American 1983 HARN Technical Information Report 2940, 2960, 2980, and 2990 East Valley Road Renton, WA 98057 2190112.10 Appendix C Exhibits C-1.................... Flood Insurance Rate Map C-2.................... Groundwater Protection Areas Map C-3.................... Department of Ecology GULD – Oldcastle Biopod Biofilter PROJECT SITE PROJECT SITE December 2018 GENERAL USE LEVEL DESIGNATION FOR BASIC (TSS), DISSOLVED METALS (ENHANCED), AND PHOSPHORUS TREATMENT For Oldcastle Infrastructure, Inc.’s The BioPod™ Biofilter (Formerly the TreePod Biofilter) Ecology’s Decision: Based on Oldcastle Infrastructure, Inc. application submissions for the The BioPod™ Biofilter (BioPod), Ecology hereby issues the following use level designation: 1. General Use Level Designation (GULD) for Basic, Enhanced, and Phosphorus Treatment: Sized at a hydraulic loading rate of 1.6 gallons per minute (gpm) per square foot (sq ft) of media surface area. Constructed with a minimum media thickness of 18-inches (1.5-feet). 2. Ecology approves the BioPod at the hydraulic loading rate listed above, to achieve the maximum water quality design flow rate. The water quality design flow rates are calculated using the following procedures: Western Washington: For treatment installed upstream of detention or retention, the water quality design flow rate is the peak 15-minute flow rate as calculated using the latest version of the Western Washington Hydrology Model or other Ecology- approved continuous runoff model. Eastern Washington: For treatment installed upstream of detention or retention, the water quality design flow rate is the peak 15-minute flow rate as calculated using one of the three methods described in Chapter 2.2.5 of the Stormwater Management Manual for Eastern Washington (SWMMEW) or local manual. Entire State: For treatment installed downstream of detention, the water quality design flow rate is the full 2-year release rate of the detention facility. 3. The GULD has no expiration date, but may be amended or revoked by Ecology. Ecology’s Conditions of Use: The BioPod shall comply with these conditions: 1) Oldcastle Infrastructure, Inc. shall design, assemble, install, operate, and maintain the BioPod installations in accordance with Oldcastle Infrastructure, Inc.’s applicable manuals and the Ecology Decision. 2) BioPod media shall conform to the specifications submitted to and approved by Ecology 3) Maintenance: The required inspection/maintenance interval for stormwater treatment devices is often dependent on the efficiency of the device and the degree of pollutant loading from a particular drainage basin. Therefore, Ecology does not endorse or recommend a “one size fits all” maintenance cycle for a particular model/size of manufactured filter treatment device. The BioPod is designed for a target maintenance interval of 1 year. Maintenance includes replacing the mulch, assessing plant health, removal of trash, and raking the top few inches of engineered media. A BioPod system tested at the Lake Union Ship Canal Test Facility in Seattle, WA required maintenance after 1.5 months, or 6.3% of a water year. Monitoring personnel observed similar maintenance issues with other systems evaluated at the Test Facility. The runoff from the Test Facility may be unusual and maintenance requirements of systems installed at the Test Facility may not be indicative of maintenance requirements for all sites. Test results provided to Ecology from a BioPod System evaluated in a lab following New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Laboratory Protocol for Filtration MTDs have indicated the BioPod System is capable of longer maintenance intervals. Owners/operators must inspect BioPod systems for a minimum of twelve months from the start of post-construction operation to determine site-specific inspection/maintenance schedules and requirements. Owners/operators must conduct inspections monthly during the wet season, and every other month during the dry season. (According to the SWMMWW, the wet season in western Washington is October 1 to April 30. According to the SWMMEW, the wet season in eastern Washington is October 1 to June 30.) After the first year of operation, owners/operators must conduct inspections based on the findings during the first year of inspections. Conduct inspections by qualified personnel, follow manufacturer’s guidelines, and use methods capable of determining either a decrease in treated effluent flow rate and/or a decrease in pollutant removal ability. 4) Install the BioPod in such a manner that you bypass flows exceeding the maximum operating rate and you will not resuspend captured sediment. 5) Discharges from the BioPod shall not cause or contribute to water quality standards violations in receiving waters. Applicant: Oldcastle Infrastructure, Inc. Applicant’s Address: 7100 Longe St, Suite 100 Stockton, CA 95206 Application Documents: Technical Evaluation Report TreePod™ BioFilter System Performance Certification Project, Prepared for Oldcastle, Inc., Prepared by Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. February 2018 Technical Memorandum: Response to Board of External Reviewers’ Comments on the Technical Evaluation Report for the TreePod™ Biofilter System Performance Certification Project, Oldcastle, Inc. and Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc., February 2018 Technical Memorandum: Response to Board of External Reviewers’ Comments on the Technical Evaluation Report for the TreePod™ Biofilter System Performance Certification Project, Oldcastle, Inc. and Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc., January 2018 Application for Pilot Use Level Designation, TreePod™ Biofilter – Stormwater Treatment System, Oldcastle Stormwater Solutions, May 2016 Emerging Stormwater Treatment Technologies Application for Certification: The TreePod™ Biofilter, Oldcastle Stormwater Solutions, April 2016 Applicant’s Use Level Request: General Use Level Designation as a Basic, Enhanced, and Phosphorus Treatment device in accordance with Ecology’s Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington Applicant’s Performance Claims: Based on results from laboratory and field-testing, the applicant claims the BioPod™ Biofilter operating at a hydraulic loading rate of 153 inches per hour is able to remove: 80% of Total Suspended Solids (TSS) for influent concentrations greater than 100 mg/L and achieve a 20 mg/L effluent for influent concentrations less than 100 mg/L. 60% dissolved zinc for influent concentrations 0.02 to 0.3 mg/L. 30% dissolved copper for influent concentrations 0.005 to 0.02 mg/L. 50% or greater total phosphorus for influent concentrations 0.1 to 0.5 mg/L. Ecology’s Recommendations: Ecology finds that: Oldcastle Infrastructure, Inc. has shown Ecology, through laboratory and field testing, that the BioPod™ Biofilter is capable of attaining Ecology’s Basic, Total Phosphorus, and Enhanced treatment goals. Findings of Fact: Field Testing 1. Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. conducted monitoring of the BioPod™ Biofilter at the Lake Union Ship Canal Test Facility in Seattle Washington between November 2016 and April 2018. Herrera collected flow-weight composite samples during 14 separate storm events and peak flow grab samples during 3 separate storm events. The system was sized at an infiltration rate of 153 inches per hour or a hydraulic loading rate of 1.6 gpm/ft2. 2. The D50 of the influent PSD ranged from 3 to 292 microns, with an average D50 of 28 microns. 3. Influent TSS concentrations ranged from 17 mg/L to 666 mg/L, with a mean concentration of 98 mg/L. For all samples (influent concentrations above and below 100 mg/L) the bootstrap estimate of the lower 95 percent confidence limit (LCL 95) of the mean TSS reduction was 84% and the bootstrap estimate of the upper 95 percent confidence limit (UCL95) of the mean TSS effluent concentration was 8.2 mg/L. 4. Dissolved copper influent concentrations from the 17 events ranged from 9.0 µg/L to 21.1 µg/L. The 21.1 µg/L data point was reduced to 20.0 µg/L, the upper limit to the TAPE allowed influent concentration range, prior to calculating the pollutant removal. A bootstrap estimate of the LCL95 of the mean dissolved copper reduction was 35%. 5. Dissolved zinc influent concentrations from the 17 events ranged from 26.1 µg/L to 43.3 µg/L. A bootstrap estimate of the LCL95 of the mean dissolved zinc reduction was 71%. 6. Total phosphorus influent concentrations from the 17 events ranged from 0.064 mg/L to 1.56 mg/L. All influent data greater than 0.5 mg/L were reduced to 0.5 mg/L, the upper limit to the TAPE allowed influent concentration range, prior to calculating the pollutant removal. A bootstrap estimate of the LCL95 of the mean total phosphorus reduction was 64%. 7. The system experienced rapid sediment loading and needed to be maintained after 1.5 months. Monitoring personnel observed similar sediment loading issues with other systems evaluated at the Test Facility. The runoff from the Test Facility may not be indicative of maintenance requirements for all sites. Laboratory Testing 1. Good Harbour Laboratories (GHL) conducted laboratory testing at their site in Mississauga, Ontario in October 2017 following the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Laboratory Protocol for Filtration MTDs. The testing evaluated a 4-foot by 6-foot standard biofiltration chamber and inlet contour rack with bypass weir. The test sediment used during the testing was custom blended by GHL using various commercially available silica sands, which had an average d50 of 69 µm. Based on the lab test results: a. GHL evaluated removal efficiency over 15 events at a Maximum Treatment Flow Rate (MTFR) of 37.6 gpm, which corresponds to a MTFR to effective filtration treatment area ratio of 1.80 gpm/ft2. The system, operating at 100% of the MTFR with an average influent concentration of 201.3 mg/L, had an average removal efficiency of 99 percent. b. GHL evaluated sediment mass loading capacity over an additional 16 events using an influent SSC concentration of 400 mg/L. The first 11 runs were evaluated at 100% of the MTFR. The BioPod began to bypass, so the remaining 5 runs were evaluated at 90% of the MTFR. The total mass of the sediment captured was 245.0 lbs and the cumulative mass removal efficiency was 96.3%. 2. Herrera Environmental Consultants Inc. conducted laboratory testing in September 2014 at the Seattle University Engineering Laboratory. The testing evaluated the flushing characteristics, hydraulic conductivity, and pollutant removal ability of twelve different media blends. Based on this testing, Oldcastle Infrastructure, Inc. selected one media blend, Mix 8, for inclusion in their TAPE evaluation of the BioPod™ Biofilter. a. Herrera evaluated Mix 8 in an 8-inch diameter by 36-inch tall polyvinyl chloride (PVC) column. The column contained 18-inches of Mix 8 on top of 6-inches of pea gravel. The BioPod will normally include a 3-inch mulch layer on top of the media layer; however, this was not included in the laboratory testing. b. Mix 8 has a hydraulic conductivity of 218 inches per hour; however, evaluation of the pollutant removal ability of the media was based on an infiltration rate of 115 inches per hour. The media was tested at 75%, 100%, and 125% of the infiltration rate. Based on the lab test results: The system was evaluated using natural stormwater. The dissolved copper and dissolved zinc concentrations in the natural stormwater were lower than the TAPE influent standards; therefore, the stormwater was spiked with 66.4 mL of 100 mg/L Cu solution and 113.6 mL of 1,000 mg/L Zn solution. The BioPod removed an average of 81% of TSS, with a mean influent concentration of 48.4 mg/L and a mean effluent concentration of 9.8 mg/L. The BioPod removed an average of 94% of dissolved copper, with a mean influent concentration of 10.6 µg/L and a mean effluent concentration of 0.6 µg/L. The BioPod removed an average of 97% of dissolved zinc, with a mean influent concentration of 117 µg/L and a mean effluent concentration of 4 µg/L. The BioPod removed an average of 97% of total phosphorus, with a mean influent concentration of 2.52 mg/L and a mean effluent concentration of 0.066 mg/L. When total phosphorus influent concentrations were capped at the TAPE upper limit of 0.5 mg/L, calculations showed an average removal of 87%. Other BioPod Related Issues to be Addressed By the Company: 1. Conduct hydraulic testing to obtain information about maintenance requirements on a site with runoff that is more typical of the Pacific Northwest. Technology Description: Download at https://oldcastleprecast.com/stormwater/bioretention- biofiltration-applications/bioretention-biofiltration- solutions/ Contact Information: Applicant: Chris Demarest Oldcastle Infrastructure, Inc. (925) 667-7100 Chris.demarest@oldcastle.com Applicant website: https://oldcastleprecast.com/stormwater/ Ecology web link: https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/Guidance-technical- assistance/Stormwater-permittee-guidance-resources/Emerging-stormwater-treatment- technologies Ecology: Douglas C. Howie, P.E. Department of Ecology Water Quality Program (360) 407-6444 douglas.howie@ecy.wa.gov Revision History Date Revision March 2018 GULD granted for Basic Treatment March 2018 Provisional GULD granted for Enhanced and Phosphorus Treatment June 2016 PULD Granted April 2018 GULD for Basic and Provisional GULD for Enhanced and Phosphorus granted, changed name to BioPod from TreePod July 2018 GULD for Enhanced and Phosphorus granted September 2018 Changed Address for Oldcastle December 2018 Added minimum media thickness requirement Technical Information Report 2940, 2960, 2980, and 2990 East Valley Road Renton, WA 98057 2190112.10 Appendix D Exhibits D-1.................... Flow Control Application Map D-2.................... WWHM Flow Control Calculations D-3.................... 25-Year Conveyance Simulation D-4.................... Oldcastle Biopod Biofilter Sizing Calculations D-5.................... StormShed 2G Conveyance Model PROJECT SITE WWHM2012 PROJECT REPORT D-2 Flow Control Calculations 20191104-Flow Control Calcs 11/4/2019 7:39:21 AM Page 2 General Model Information Project Name:20191104-Flow Control Calcs Site Name: Site Address: City: Report Date:11/4/2019 Gage:Seatac Data Start:1948/10/01 Data End:2009/09/30 Timestep:15 Minute Precip Scale:1.000 Version Date:2017/07/05 Version:4.2.13 POC Thresholds Low Flow Threshold for POC1:50 Percent of the 2 Year High Flow Threshold for POC1:50 Year 20191104-Flow Control Calcs 11/4/2019 7:39:21 AM Page 3 Landuse Basin Data Predeveloped Land Use PreDeveloped Condition Bypass:No GroundWater:No Pervious Land Use acre C, Forest, Flat 0.1 SAT, Forest, Flat 0.16 Pervious Total 0.26 Impervious Land Use acre DRIVEWAYS FLAT 4.03 SIDEWALKS FLAT 0.11 Impervious Total 4.14 Basin Total 4.4 Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater 20191104-Flow Control Calcs 11/4/2019 7:39:21 AM Page 4 Mitigated Land Use Developed Condition Bypass:No GroundWater:No Pervious Land Use acre C, Lawn, Flat 1.37 SAT, Forest, Flat 0.16 Pervious Total 1.53 Impervious Land Use acre DRIVEWAYS FLAT 2.75 SIDEWALKS FLAT 0.12 Impervious Total 2.87 Basin Total 4.4 Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater 20191104-Flow Control Calcs 11/4/2019 7:39:21 AM Page 5 Routing Elements Predeveloped Routing 20191104-Flow Control Calcs 11/4/2019 7:39:21 AM Page 6 Mitigated Routing 20191104-Flow Control Calcs 11/4/2019 7:39:21 AM Page 7 Analysis Results POC 1 + Predeveloped x Mitigated Predeveloped Landuse Totals for POC #1 Total Pervious Area:0.26 Total Impervious Area:4.14 Mitigated Landuse Totals for POC #1 Total Pervious Area:1.53 Total Impervious Area:2.87 Flow Frequency Method:Log Pearson Type III 17B Flow Frequency Return Periods for Predeveloped. POC #1 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 1.582937 5 year 1.998062 10 year 2.279962 25 year 2.645475 50 year 2.925128 100 year 3.21149 Flow Frequency Return Periods for Mitigated. POC #1 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 1.185719 5 year 1.532449 10 year 1.772222 25 year 2.087584 50 year 2.331908 100 year 2.584563 Annual Peaks Annual Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #1 Year Predeveloped Mitigated 1949 2.049 1.618 1950 2.209 1.563 1951 1.302 1.026 1952 1.136 0.803 1953 1.227 0.868 1954 1.291 0.969 1955 1.457 1.073 1956 1.435 1.062 1957 1.631 1.261 1958 1.312 0.958 20191104-Flow Control Calcs 11/4/2019 7:39:58 AM Page 8 1959 1.337 0.928 1960 1.326 1.052 1961 1.400 1.068 1962 1.209 0.867 1963 1.346 1.026 1964 1.317 0.960 1965 1.689 1.323 1966 1.124 0.828 1967 1.928 1.461 1968 2.192 1.639 1969 1.527 1.191 1970 1.474 1.106 1971 1.755 1.319 1972 1.829 1.491 1973 1.096 0.761 1974 1.601 1.231 1975 1.843 1.279 1976 1.248 0.958 1977 1.342 0.933 1978 1.642 1.168 1979 2.248 1.583 1980 2.019 1.672 1981 1.650 1.223 1982 2.326 1.784 1983 1.893 1.362 1984 1.205 0.902 1985 1.646 1.226 1986 1.426 1.025 1987 2.201 1.570 1988 1.335 0.926 1989 1.670 1.158 1990 2.827 2.470 1991 2.253 1.880 1992 1.185 0.886 1993 1.025 0.740 1994 1.114 0.773 1995 1.463 1.076 1996 1.569 1.255 1997 1.526 1.192 1998 1.532 1.107 1999 3.134 2.446 2000 1.568 1.188 2001 1.714 1.215 2002 2.001 1.592 2003 1.559 1.240 2004 2.933 2.267 2005 1.351 1.050 2006 1.195 0.947 2007 2.741 2.226 2008 2.231 1.863 2009 2.040 1.418 Ranked Annual Peaks Ranked Annual Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #1 Rank Predeveloped Mitigated 1 3.1344 2.4697 2 2.9329 2.4455 3 2.8269 2.2674 20191104-Flow Control Calcs 11/4/2019 7:39:58 AM Page 9 4 2.7413 2.2262 5 2.3265 1.8804 6 2.2530 1.8630 7 2.2476 1.7835 8 2.2308 1.6722 9 2.2092 1.6387 10 2.2009 1.6183 11 2.1925 1.5925 12 2.0495 1.5834 13 2.0402 1.5696 14 2.0188 1.5631 15 2.0007 1.4911 16 1.9283 1.4606 17 1.8932 1.4181 18 1.8432 1.3617 19 1.8294 1.3234 20 1.7548 1.3188 21 1.7143 1.2790 22 1.6893 1.2610 23 1.6699 1.2547 24 1.6503 1.2402 25 1.6459 1.2313 26 1.6419 1.2264 27 1.6309 1.2226 28 1.6010 1.2147 29 1.5693 1.1922 30 1.5680 1.1914 31 1.5594 1.1880 32 1.5322 1.1679 33 1.5266 1.1580 34 1.5264 1.1067 35 1.4736 1.1062 36 1.4634 1.0755 37 1.4567 1.0725 38 1.4347 1.0684 39 1.4264 1.0621 40 1.4003 1.0517 41 1.3512 1.0497 42 1.3464 1.0262 43 1.3423 1.0257 44 1.3371 1.0254 45 1.3352 0.9693 46 1.3257 0.9604 47 1.3174 0.9581 48 1.3122 0.9578 49 1.3016 0.9468 50 1.2908 0.9331 51 1.2478 0.9278 52 1.2268 0.9258 53 1.2093 0.9016 54 1.2046 0.8855 55 1.1950 0.8676 56 1.1853 0.8674 57 1.1360 0.8278 58 1.1242 0.8027 59 1.1143 0.7726 60 1.0965 0.7606 61 1.0248 0.7402 20191104-Flow Control Calcs 11/4/2019 7:39:58 AM Page 10 20191104-Flow Control Calcs 11/4/2019 7:39:58 AM Page 11 Duration Flows The Facility PASSED Flow(cfs)Predev Mit Percentage Pass/Fail 0.7915 1809 581 32 Pass 0.8130 1647 534 32 Pass 0.8346 1489 483 32 Pass 0.8561 1356 437 32 Pass 0.8777 1233 396 32 Pass 0.8992 1114 365 32 Pass 0.9208 1012 345 34 Pass 0.9423 926 309 33 Pass 0.9639 861 283 32 Pass 0.9854 790 260 32 Pass 1.0070 733 233 31 Pass 1.0285 673 212 31 Pass 1.0501 612 199 32 Pass 1.0716 575 183 31 Pass 1.0932 541 170 31 Pass 1.1148 495 152 30 Pass 1.1363 454 143 31 Pass 1.1579 425 133 31 Pass 1.1794 393 123 31 Pass 1.2010 373 109 29 Pass 1.2225 342 105 30 Pass 1.2441 320 99 30 Pass 1.2656 299 90 30 Pass 1.2872 276 83 30 Pass 1.3087 259 80 30 Pass 1.3303 240 76 31 Pass 1.3518 223 74 33 Pass 1.3734 210 68 32 Pass 1.3949 199 64 32 Pass 1.4165 183 61 33 Pass 1.4380 172 57 33 Pass 1.4596 160 53 33 Pass 1.4811 145 49 33 Pass 1.5027 140 45 32 Pass 1.5242 136 41 30 Pass 1.5458 124 39 31 Pass 1.5673 116 36 31 Pass 1.5889 107 32 29 Pass 1.6104 105 29 27 Pass 1.6320 100 27 27 Pass 1.6536 91 25 27 Pass 1.6751 88 21 23 Pass 1.6967 83 21 25 Pass 1.7182 75 20 26 Pass 1.7398 71 18 25 Pass 1.7613 66 17 25 Pass 1.7829 64 14 21 Pass 1.8044 62 13 20 Pass 1.8260 60 12 20 Pass 1.8475 55 11 20 Pass 1.8691 53 10 18 Pass 1.8906 53 8 15 Pass 1.9122 50 8 16 Pass 20191104-Flow Control Calcs 11/4/2019 7:39:58 AM Page 12 1.9337 48 8 16 Pass 1.9553 45 8 17 Pass 1.9768 41 8 19 Pass 1.9984 38 8 21 Pass 2.0199 33 7 21 Pass 2.0415 31 7 22 Pass 2.0630 29 7 24 Pass 2.0846 28 7 25 Pass 2.1061 25 7 28 Pass 2.1277 23 7 30 Pass 2.1493 21 6 28 Pass 2.1708 21 5 23 Pass 2.1924 17 5 29 Pass 2.2139 14 5 35 Pass 2.2355 12 4 33 Pass 2.2570 9 3 33 Pass 2.2786 9 2 22 Pass 2.3001 9 2 22 Pass 2.3217 9 2 22 Pass 2.3432 8 2 25 Pass 2.3648 8 2 25 Pass 2.3863 8 2 25 Pass 2.4079 8 2 25 Pass 2.4294 8 2 25 Pass 2.4510 8 1 12 Pass 2.4725 8 0 0 Pass 2.4941 8 0 0 Pass 2.5156 8 0 0 Pass 2.5372 7 0 0 Pass 2.5587 7 0 0 Pass 2.5803 7 0 0 Pass 2.6018 7 0 0 Pass 2.6234 6 0 0 Pass 2.6450 6 0 0 Pass 2.6665 6 0 0 Pass 2.6881 6 0 0 Pass 2.7096 6 0 0 Pass 2.7312 6 0 0 Pass 2.7527 5 0 0 Pass 2.7743 5 0 0 Pass 2.7958 4 0 0 Pass 2.8174 4 0 0 Pass 2.8389 3 0 0 Pass 2.8605 2 0 0 Pass 2.8820 2 0 0 Pass 2.9036 2 0 0 Pass 2.9251 2 0 0 Pass 20191104-Flow Control Calcs 11/4/2019 7:39:58 AM Page 13 Water Quality Water Quality BMP Flow and Volume for POC #1 On-line facility volume:0 acre-feet On-line facility target flow:0 cfs. Adjusted for 15 min:0 cfs. Off-line facility target flow:0 cfs. Adjusted for 15 min:0 cfs. 20191104-Flow Control Calcs 11/4/2019 7:39:58 AM Page 14 LID Report 20191104-Flow Control Calcs 11/4/2019 7:40:42 AM Page 15 POC 2 POC #2 was not reported because POC must exist in both scenarios and both scenarios must have been run. 20191104-Flow Control Calcs 11/4/2019 7:40:42 AM Page 16 Model Default Modifications Total of 0 changes have been made. PERLND Changes No PERLND changes have been made. IMPLND Changes No IMPLND changes have been made. 20191104-Flow Control Calcs 11/4/2019 7:40:42 AM Page 17 Appendix Predeveloped Schematic 20191104-Flow Control Calcs 11/4/2019 7:40:43 AM Page 18 Mitigated Schematic 20191104-Flow Control Calcs 11/4/2019 7:40:45 AM Page 19 Predeveloped UCI File RUN GLOBAL WWHM4 model simulation START 1948 10 01 END 2009 09 30 RUN INTERP OUTPUT LEVEL 3 0 RESUME 0 RUN 1 UNIT SYSTEM 1 END GLOBAL FILES <File> <Un#> <-----------File Name------------------------------>*** <-ID-> *** WDM 26 20191104-Flow Control Calcs.wdm MESSU 25 Pre20191104-Flow Control Calcs.MES 27 Pre20191104-Flow Control Calcs.L61 28 Pre20191104-Flow Control Calcs.L62 30 POC20191104-Flow Control Calcs1.dat END FILES OPN SEQUENCE INGRP INDELT 00:15 PERLND 10 PERLND 19 IMPLND 5 IMPLND 8 COPY 501 DISPLY 1 END INGRP END OPN SEQUENCE DISPLY DISPLY-INFO1 # - #<----------Title----------->***TRAN PIVL DIG1 FIL1 PYR DIG2 FIL2 YRND 1 PreDeveloped Condition MAX 1 2 30 9 END DISPLY-INFO1 END DISPLY COPY TIMESERIES # - # NPT NMN *** 1 1 1 501 1 1 END TIMESERIES END COPY GENER OPCODE # # OPCD *** END OPCODE PARM # # K *** END PARM END GENER PERLND GEN-INFO <PLS ><-------Name------->NBLKS Unit-systems Printer *** # - # User t-series Engl Metr *** in out *** 10 C, Forest, Flat 1 1 1 1 27 0 19 SAT, Forest, Flat 1 1 1 1 27 0 END GEN-INFO *** Section PWATER*** ACTIVITY <PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # ATMP SNOW PWAT SED PST PWG PQAL MSTL PEST NITR PHOS TRAC *** 10 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 END ACTIVITY PRINT-INFO 20191104-Flow Control Calcs 11/4/2019 7:40:45 AM Page 20 <PLS > ***************** Print-flags ***************************** PIVL PYR # - # ATMP SNOW PWAT SED PST PWG PQAL MSTL PEST NITR PHOS TRAC ********* 10 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 19 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 END PRINT-INFO PWAT-PARM1 <PLS > PWATER variable monthly parameter value flags *** # - # CSNO RTOP UZFG VCS VUZ VNN VIFW VIRC VLE INFC HWT *** 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 END PWAT-PARM1 PWAT-PARM2 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 2 *** # - # ***FOREST LZSN INFILT LSUR SLSUR KVARY AGWRC 10 0 4.5 0.08 400 0.05 0.5 0.996 19 0 4 2 100 0.001 0.5 0.996 END PWAT-PARM2 PWAT-PARM3 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 3 *** # - # ***PETMAX PETMIN INFEXP INFILD DEEPFR BASETP AGWETP 10 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 19 0 0 10 2 0 0 0.7 END PWAT-PARM3 PWAT-PARM4 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 4 *** # - # CEPSC UZSN NSUR INTFW IRC LZETP *** 10 0.2 0.5 0.35 6 0.5 0.7 19 0.2 3 0.5 1 0.7 0.8 END PWAT-PARM4 PWAT-STATE1 <PLS > *** Initial conditions at start of simulation ran from 1990 to end of 1992 (pat 1-11-95) RUN 21 *** # - # *** CEPS SURS UZS IFWS LZS AGWS GWVS 10 0 0 0 0 2.5 1 0 19 0 0 0 0 4.2 1 0 END PWAT-STATE1 END PERLND IMPLND GEN-INFO <PLS ><-------Name-------> Unit-systems Printer *** # - # User t-series Engl Metr *** in out *** 5 DRIVEWAYS/FLAT 1 1 1 27 0 8 SIDEWALKS/FLAT 1 1 1 27 0 END GEN-INFO *** Section IWATER*** ACTIVITY <PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # ATMP SNOW IWAT SLD IWG IQAL *** 5 0 0 1 0 0 0 8 0 0 1 0 0 0 END ACTIVITY PRINT-INFO <ILS > ******** Print-flags ******** PIVL PYR # - # ATMP SNOW IWAT SLD IWG IQAL ********* 5 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 9 8 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 9 END PRINT-INFO IWAT-PARM1 <PLS > IWATER variable monthly parameter value flags *** # - # CSNO RTOP VRS VNN RTLI *** 20191104-Flow Control Calcs 11/4/2019 7:40:45 AM Page 21 5 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 END IWAT-PARM1 IWAT-PARM2 <PLS > IWATER input info: Part 2 *** # - # *** LSUR SLSUR NSUR RETSC 5 400 0.01 0.1 0.1 8 400 0.01 0.1 0.1 END IWAT-PARM2 IWAT-PARM3 <PLS > IWATER input info: Part 3 *** # - # ***PETMAX PETMIN 5 0 0 8 0 0 END IWAT-PARM3 IWAT-STATE1 <PLS > *** Initial conditions at start of simulation # - # *** RETS SURS 5 0 0 8 0 0 END IWAT-STATE1 END IMPLND SCHEMATIC <-Source-> <--Area--> <-Target-> MBLK *** <Name> # <-factor-> <Name> # Tbl# *** PreDeveloped Condition*** PERLND 10 0.1 COPY 501 12 PERLND 10 0.1 COPY 501 13 PERLND 19 0.16 COPY 501 12 PERLND 19 0.16 COPY 501 13 IMPLND 5 4.03 COPY 501 15 IMPLND 8 0.11 COPY 501 15 ******Routing****** END SCHEMATIC NETWORK <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** COPY 501 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 48.4 DISPLY 1 INPUT TIMSER 1 <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** END NETWORK RCHRES GEN-INFO RCHRES Name Nexits Unit Systems Printer *** # - #<------------------><---> User T-series Engl Metr LKFG *** in out *** END GEN-INFO *** Section RCHRES*** ACTIVITY <PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # HYFG ADFG CNFG HTFG SDFG GQFG OXFG NUFG PKFG PHFG *** END ACTIVITY PRINT-INFO <PLS > ***************** Print-flags ******************* PIVL PYR # - # HYDR ADCA CONS HEAT SED GQL OXRX NUTR PLNK PHCB PIVL PYR ********* END PRINT-INFO 20191104-Flow Control Calcs 11/4/2019 7:40:45 AM Page 22 HYDR-PARM1 RCHRES Flags for each HYDR Section *** # - # VC A1 A2 A3 ODFVFG for each *** ODGTFG for each FUNCT for each FG FG FG FG possible exit *** possible exit possible exit * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *** END HYDR-PARM1 HYDR-PARM2 # - # FTABNO LEN DELTH STCOR KS DB50 *** <------><--------><--------><--------><--------><--------><--------> *** END HYDR-PARM2 HYDR-INIT RCHRES Initial conditions for each HYDR section *** # - # *** VOL Initial value of COLIND Initial value of OUTDGT *** ac-ft for each possible exit for each possible exit <------><--------> <---><---><---><---><---> *** <---><---><---><---><---> END HYDR-INIT END RCHRES SPEC-ACTIONS END SPEC-ACTIONS FTABLES END FTABLES EXT SOURCES <-Volume-> <Member> SsysSgap<--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # tem strg<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** WDM 2 PREC ENGL 1 PERLND 1 999 EXTNL PREC WDM 2 PREC ENGL 1 IMPLND 1 999 EXTNL PREC WDM 1 EVAP ENGL 0.76 PERLND 1 999 EXTNL PETINP WDM 1 EVAP ENGL 0.76 IMPLND 1 999 EXTNL PETINP END EXT SOURCES EXT TARGETS <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Volume-> <Member> Tsys Tgap Amd *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # <Name> tem strg strg*** COPY 501 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 48.4 WDM 501 FLOW ENGL REPL END EXT TARGETS MASS-LINK <Volume> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult--> <Target> <-Grp> <-Member->*** <Name> <Name> # #<-factor-> <Name> <Name> # #*** MASS-LINK 12 PERLND PWATER SURO 0.083333 COPY INPUT MEAN END MASS-LINK 12 MASS-LINK 13 PERLND PWATER IFWO 0.083333 COPY INPUT MEAN END MASS-LINK 13 MASS-LINK 15 IMPLND IWATER SURO 0.083333 COPY INPUT MEAN END MASS-LINK 15 END MASS-LINK END RUN 20191104-Flow Control Calcs 11/4/2019 7:40:45 AM Page 23 Mitigated UCI File RUN GLOBAL WWHM4 model simulation START 1948 10 01 END 2009 09 30 RUN INTERP OUTPUT LEVEL 3 0 RESUME 0 RUN 1 UNIT SYSTEM 1 END GLOBAL FILES <File> <Un#> <-----------File Name------------------------------>*** <-ID-> *** WDM 26 20191104-Flow Control Calcs.wdm MESSU 25 Mit20191104-Flow Control Calcs.MES 27 Mit20191104-Flow Control Calcs.L61 28 Mit20191104-Flow Control Calcs.L62 30 POC20191104-Flow Control Calcs1.dat END FILES OPN SEQUENCE INGRP INDELT 00:15 PERLND 16 PERLND 19 IMPLND 5 IMPLND 8 COPY 501 DISPLY 1 END INGRP END OPN SEQUENCE DISPLY DISPLY-INFO1 # - #<----------Title----------->***TRAN PIVL DIG1 FIL1 PYR DIG2 FIL2 YRND 1 Developed Condition MAX 1 2 30 9 END DISPLY-INFO1 END DISPLY COPY TIMESERIES # - # NPT NMN *** 1 1 1 501 1 1 END TIMESERIES END COPY GENER OPCODE # # OPCD *** END OPCODE PARM # # K *** END PARM END GENER PERLND GEN-INFO <PLS ><-------Name------->NBLKS Unit-systems Printer *** # - # User t-series Engl Metr *** in out *** 16 C, Lawn, Flat 1 1 1 1 27 0 19 SAT, Forest, Flat 1 1 1 1 27 0 END GEN-INFO *** Section PWATER*** ACTIVITY <PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # ATMP SNOW PWAT SED PST PWG PQAL MSTL PEST NITR PHOS TRAC *** 16 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 END ACTIVITY PRINT-INFO 20191104-Flow Control Calcs 11/4/2019 7:40:45 AM Page 24 <PLS > ***************** Print-flags ***************************** PIVL PYR # - # ATMP SNOW PWAT SED PST PWG PQAL MSTL PEST NITR PHOS TRAC ********* 16 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 19 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 END PRINT-INFO PWAT-PARM1 <PLS > PWATER variable monthly parameter value flags *** # - # CSNO RTOP UZFG VCS VUZ VNN VIFW VIRC VLE INFC HWT *** 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 END PWAT-PARM1 PWAT-PARM2 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 2 *** # - # ***FOREST LZSN INFILT LSUR SLSUR KVARY AGWRC 16 0 4.5 0.03 400 0.05 0.5 0.996 19 0 4 2 100 0.001 0.5 0.996 END PWAT-PARM2 PWAT-PARM3 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 3 *** # - # ***PETMAX PETMIN INFEXP INFILD DEEPFR BASETP AGWETP 16 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 19 0 0 10 2 0 0 0.7 END PWAT-PARM3 PWAT-PARM4 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 4 *** # - # CEPSC UZSN NSUR INTFW IRC LZETP *** 16 0.1 0.25 0.25 6 0.5 0.25 19 0.2 3 0.5 1 0.7 0.8 END PWAT-PARM4 PWAT-STATE1 <PLS > *** Initial conditions at start of simulation ran from 1990 to end of 1992 (pat 1-11-95) RUN 21 *** # - # *** CEPS SURS UZS IFWS LZS AGWS GWVS 16 0 0 0 0 2.5 1 0 19 0 0 0 0 4.2 1 0 END PWAT-STATE1 END PERLND IMPLND GEN-INFO <PLS ><-------Name-------> Unit-systems Printer *** # - # User t-series Engl Metr *** in out *** 5 DRIVEWAYS/FLAT 1 1 1 27 0 8 SIDEWALKS/FLAT 1 1 1 27 0 END GEN-INFO *** Section IWATER*** ACTIVITY <PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # ATMP SNOW IWAT SLD IWG IQAL *** 5 0 0 1 0 0 0 8 0 0 1 0 0 0 END ACTIVITY PRINT-INFO <ILS > ******** Print-flags ******** PIVL PYR # - # ATMP SNOW IWAT SLD IWG IQAL ********* 5 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 9 8 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 9 END PRINT-INFO IWAT-PARM1 <PLS > IWATER variable monthly parameter value flags *** # - # CSNO RTOP VRS VNN RTLI *** 20191104-Flow Control Calcs 11/4/2019 7:40:45 AM Page 25 5 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 END IWAT-PARM1 IWAT-PARM2 <PLS > IWATER input info: Part 2 *** # - # *** LSUR SLSUR NSUR RETSC 5 400 0.01 0.1 0.1 8 400 0.01 0.1 0.1 END IWAT-PARM2 IWAT-PARM3 <PLS > IWATER input info: Part 3 *** # - # ***PETMAX PETMIN 5 0 0 8 0 0 END IWAT-PARM3 IWAT-STATE1 <PLS > *** Initial conditions at start of simulation # - # *** RETS SURS 5 0 0 8 0 0 END IWAT-STATE1 END IMPLND SCHEMATIC <-Source-> <--Area--> <-Target-> MBLK *** <Name> # <-factor-> <Name> # Tbl# *** Developed Condition*** PERLND 16 1.37 COPY 501 12 PERLND 16 1.37 COPY 501 13 PERLND 19 0.16 COPY 501 12 PERLND 19 0.16 COPY 501 13 IMPLND 5 2.75 COPY 501 15 IMPLND 8 0.12 COPY 501 15 ******Routing****** END SCHEMATIC NETWORK <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** COPY 501 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 48.4 DISPLY 1 INPUT TIMSER 1 <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** END NETWORK RCHRES GEN-INFO RCHRES Name Nexits Unit Systems Printer *** # - #<------------------><---> User T-series Engl Metr LKFG *** in out *** END GEN-INFO *** Section RCHRES*** ACTIVITY <PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # HYFG ADFG CNFG HTFG SDFG GQFG OXFG NUFG PKFG PHFG *** END ACTIVITY PRINT-INFO <PLS > ***************** Print-flags ******************* PIVL PYR # - # HYDR ADCA CONS HEAT SED GQL OXRX NUTR PLNK PHCB PIVL PYR ********* END PRINT-INFO 20191104-Flow Control Calcs 11/4/2019 7:40:45 AM Page 26 HYDR-PARM1 RCHRES Flags for each HYDR Section *** # - # VC A1 A2 A3 ODFVFG for each *** ODGTFG for each FUNCT for each FG FG FG FG possible exit *** possible exit possible exit * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *** END HYDR-PARM1 HYDR-PARM2 # - # FTABNO LEN DELTH STCOR KS DB50 *** <------><--------><--------><--------><--------><--------><--------> *** END HYDR-PARM2 HYDR-INIT RCHRES Initial conditions for each HYDR section *** # - # *** VOL Initial value of COLIND Initial value of OUTDGT *** ac-ft for each possible exit for each possible exit <------><--------> <---><---><---><---><---> *** <---><---><---><---><---> END HYDR-INIT END RCHRES SPEC-ACTIONS END SPEC-ACTIONS FTABLES END FTABLES EXT SOURCES <-Volume-> <Member> SsysSgap<--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # tem strg<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** WDM 2 PREC ENGL 1 PERLND 1 999 EXTNL PREC WDM 2 PREC ENGL 1 IMPLND 1 999 EXTNL PREC WDM 1 EVAP ENGL 0.76 PERLND 1 999 EXTNL PETINP WDM 1 EVAP ENGL 0.76 IMPLND 1 999 EXTNL PETINP END EXT SOURCES EXT TARGETS <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Volume-> <Member> Tsys Tgap Amd *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # <Name> tem strg strg*** COPY 1 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 48.4 WDM 701 FLOW ENGL REPL COPY 501 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 48.4 WDM 801 FLOW ENGL REPL END EXT TARGETS MASS-LINK <Volume> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult--> <Target> <-Grp> <-Member->*** <Name> <Name> # #<-factor-> <Name> <Name> # #*** MASS-LINK 12 PERLND PWATER SURO 0.083333 COPY INPUT MEAN END MASS-LINK 12 MASS-LINK 13 PERLND PWATER IFWO 0.083333 COPY INPUT MEAN END MASS-LINK 13 MASS-LINK 15 IMPLND IWATER SURO 0.083333 COPY INPUT MEAN END MASS-LINK 15 END MASS-LINK END RUN 20191104-Flow Control Calcs 11/4/2019 7:40:45 AM Page 27 Predeveloped HSPF Message File 20191104-Flow Control Calcs 11/4/2019 7:40:45 AM Page 28 Mitigated HSPF Message File 20191104-Flow Control Calcs 11/4/2019 7:40:45 AM Page 29 Disclaimer Legal Notice This program and accompanying documentation are provided 'as-is' without warranty of any kind. The entire risk regarding the performance and results of this program is assumed by End User. Clear Creek Solutions Inc. and the governmental licensee or sublicensees disclaim all warranties, either expressed or implied, including but not limited to implied warranties of program and accompanying documentation. In no event shall Clear Creek Solutions Inc. be liable for any damages whatsoever (including without limitation to damages for loss of business profits, loss of business information, business interruption, and the like) arising out of the use of, or inability to use this program even if Clear Creek Solutions Inc. or their authorized representatives have been advised of the possibility of such damages. Software Copyright © by : Clear Creek Solutions, Inc. 2005-2019; All Rights Reserved. Clear Creek Solutions, Inc. 6200 Capitol Blvd. Ste F Olympia, WA. 98501 Toll Free 1(866)943-0304 Local (360)943-0304 www.clearcreeksolutions.com WWHM2012 PROJECT REPORT FLOW FREQUENCY FOR NORTH AND SOUTH BASIN CONVEYANCE CALCULATIONS Flow Frequency for Conveyance System 4/9/2019 2:07:35 PM Page 2 General Model Information Project Name:Flow Frequency for Conveyance System Site Name: Site Address: City: Report Date:4/9/2019 Gage:Seatac Data Start:1948/10/01 Data End:2009/09/30 Timestep:15 Minute Precip Scale:1.000 Version Date:2017/07/05 Version:4.2.13 POC Thresholds Low Flow Threshold for POC1:50 Percent of the 2 Year High Flow Threshold for POC1:50 Year Low Flow Threshold for POC2:50 Percent of the 2 Year High Flow Threshold for POC2:50 Year Flow Frequency for Conveyance System 4/9/2019 2:07:35 PM Page 3 Landuse Basin Data Predeveloped Land Use North Basin Bypass:No GroundWater:No Pervious Land Use acre A B, Forest, Flat 0.7 Pervious Total 0.7 Impervious Land Use acre Impervious Total 0 Basin Total 0.7 Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater Flow Frequency for Conveyance System 4/9/2019 2:07:35 PM Page 4 South Basin Bypass:No GroundWater:No Pervious Land Use acre A B, Forest, Flat 1.15 Pervious Total 1.15 Impervious Land Use acre Impervious Total 0 Basin Total 1.15 Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater Flow Frequency for Conveyance System 4/9/2019 2:07:35 PM Page 5 Mitigated Land Use Basin 1 Bypass:No GroundWater:No Pervious Land Use acre Pervious Total 0 Impervious Land Use acre DRIVEWAYS FLAT 0.7 Impervious Total 0.7 Basin Total 0.7 Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater Flow Frequency for Conveyance System 4/9/2019 2:07:35 PM Page 6 Basin 2 Bypass:No GroundWater:No Pervious Land Use acre Pervious Total 0 Impervious Land Use acre DRIVEWAYS FLAT 1.15 Impervious Total 1.15 Basin Total 1.15 Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater Flow Frequency for Conveyance System 4/9/2019 2:07:35 PM Page 9 Analysis Results POC 1 + Predeveloped x Mitigated Predeveloped Landuse Totals for POC #1 Total Pervious Area:0.7 Total Impervious Area:0 Mitigated Landuse Totals for POC #1 Total Pervious Area:0 Total Impervious Area:0.7 Flow Frequency Method:Log Pearson Type III 17B Flow Frequency Return Periods for Predeveloped. POC #1 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0.000594 5 year 0.000899 10 year 0.001147 25 year 0.00152 50 year 0.001845 100 year 0.002214 Flow Frequency Return Periods for Mitigated. POC #1 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0.266885 5 year 0.337107 10 year 0.384818 25 year 0.446706 50 year 0.494073 100 year 0.542591 Annual Peaks Annual Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #1 Year Predeveloped Mitigated 1949 0.000 0.346 1950 0.001 0.374 1951 0.001 0.216 1952 0.001 0.192 1953 0.001 0.207 1954 0.001 0.217 1955 0.001 0.246 1956 0.001 0.242 1957 0.001 0.275 1958 0.001 0.222 North Basin Flow Frequency Flow Frequency for Conveyance System 4/9/2019 2:08:16 PM Page 10 1959 0.001 0.226 1960 0.001 0.222 1961 0.001 0.235 1962 0.001 0.204 1963 0.001 0.227 1964 0.001 0.223 1965 0.001 0.283 1966 0.001 0.189 1967 0.001 0.326 1968 0.001 0.371 1969 0.001 0.258 1970 0.001 0.249 1971 0.001 0.297 1972 0.003 0.306 1973 0.001 0.185 1974 0.001 0.271 1975 0.001 0.312 1976 0.001 0.210 1977 0.000 0.227 1978 0.001 0.278 1979 0.000 0.380 1980 0.001 0.341 1981 0.001 0.279 1982 0.001 0.393 1983 0.001 0.320 1984 0.001 0.202 1985 0.001 0.278 1986 0.001 0.241 1987 0.001 0.372 1988 0.001 0.226 1989 0.001 0.282 1990 0.001 0.476 1991 0.001 0.380 1992 0.001 0.200 1993 0.000 0.173 1994 0.001 0.188 1995 0.001 0.247 1996 0.004 0.263 1997 0.001 0.256 1998 0.001 0.259 1999 0.001 0.530 2000 0.001 0.264 2001 0.001 0.290 2002 0.001 0.338 2003 0.001 0.263 2004 0.001 0.496 2005 0.001 0.227 2006 0.001 0.200 2007 0.006 0.463 2008 0.001 0.373 2009 0.001 0.345 Ranked Annual Peaks Ranked Annual Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #1 Rank Predeveloped Mitigated 1 0.0058 0.5300 2 0.0039 0.4959 3 0.0029 0.4756 Flow Frequency for Conveyance System 4/9/2019 2:08:16 PM Page 11 4 0.0011 0.4635 5 0.0010 0.3933 6 0.0009 0.3800 7 0.0009 0.3799 8 0.0006 0.3735 9 0.0006 0.3733 10 0.0006 0.3721 11 0.0006 0.3707 12 0.0006 0.3457 13 0.0006 0.3450 14 0.0006 0.3409 15 0.0006 0.3381 16 0.0006 0.3260 17 0.0006 0.3201 18 0.0006 0.3116 19 0.0006 0.3061 20 0.0006 0.2965 21 0.0006 0.2898 22 0.0006 0.2829 23 0.0006 0.2823 24 0.0006 0.2789 25 0.0006 0.2783 26 0.0006 0.2776 27 0.0006 0.2747 28 0.0006 0.2705 29 0.0006 0.2638 30 0.0006 0.2632 31 0.0006 0.2627 32 0.0006 0.2590 33 0.0006 0.2577 34 0.0005 0.2556 35 0.0005 0.2486 36 0.0005 0.2473 37 0.0005 0.2461 38 0.0005 0.2421 39 0.0005 0.2412 40 0.0005 0.2347 41 0.0005 0.2271 42 0.0005 0.2270 43 0.0005 0.2266 44 0.0005 0.2261 45 0.0005 0.2258 46 0.0005 0.2227 47 0.0005 0.2219 48 0.0005 0.2217 49 0.0005 0.2170 50 0.0005 0.2159 51 0.0005 0.2096 52 0.0005 0.2074 53 0.0005 0.2045 54 0.0005 0.2019 55 0.0005 0.2002 56 0.0005 0.2000 57 0.0005 0.1921 58 0.0005 0.1892 59 0.0005 0.1884 60 0.0004 0.1854 61 0.0004 0.1732 Flow Frequency for Conveyance System 4/9/2019 2:08:16 PM Page 15 Water Quality Water Quality BMP Flow and Volume for POC #1 On-line facility volume:0 acre-feet On-line facility target flow:0 cfs. Adjusted for 15 min:0 cfs. Off-line facility target flow:0 cfs. Adjusted for 15 min:0 cfs. Flow Frequency for Conveyance System 4/9/2019 2:08:56 PM Page 17 POC 2 + Predeveloped x Mitigated Predeveloped Landuse Totals for POC #2 Total Pervious Area:1.15 Total Impervious Area:0 Mitigated Landuse Totals for POC #2 Total Pervious Area:0 Total Impervious Area:1.15 Flow Frequency Method:Log Pearson Type III 17B Flow Frequency Return Periods for Predeveloped. POC #2 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0.000976 5 year 0.001477 10 year 0.001885 25 year 0.002497 50 year 0.003031 100 year 0.003637 Flow Frequency Return Periods for Mitigated. POC #2 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0.438454 5 year 0.553819 10 year 0.632201 25 year 0.733874 50 year 0.811692 100 year 0.891399 Annual Peaks Annual Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #2 Year Predeveloped Mitigated 1949 0.001 0.568 1950 0.002 0.614 1951 0.002 0.355 1952 0.001 0.316 1953 0.001 0.341 1954 0.001 0.357 1955 0.001 0.404 1956 0.001 0.398 1957 0.001 0.451 1958 0.001 0.364 1959 0.001 0.371 SOUTH BASIN FLOW FREQUENCY Flow Frequency for Conveyance System 4/9/2019 2:09:25 PM Page 18 1960 0.001 0.364 1961 0.001 0.386 1962 0.001 0.336 1963 0.001 0.373 1964 0.001 0.366 1965 0.001 0.465 1966 0.001 0.311 1967 0.001 0.536 1968 0.001 0.609 1969 0.001 0.423 1970 0.001 0.408 1971 0.001 0.487 1972 0.005 0.503 1973 0.001 0.305 1974 0.001 0.444 1975 0.001 0.512 1976 0.001 0.344 1977 0.001 0.373 1978 0.001 0.456 1979 0.001 0.624 1980 0.001 0.560 1981 0.001 0.458 1982 0.001 0.646 1983 0.001 0.526 1984 0.001 0.332 1985 0.001 0.457 1986 0.001 0.396 1987 0.001 0.611 1988 0.001 0.371 1989 0.001 0.464 1990 0.001 0.781 1991 0.001 0.624 1992 0.001 0.329 1993 0.001 0.285 1994 0.001 0.310 1995 0.001 0.406 1996 0.006 0.432 1997 0.001 0.420 1998 0.001 0.426 1999 0.001 0.871 2000 0.001 0.433 2001 0.001 0.476 2002 0.001 0.555 2003 0.001 0.432 2004 0.001 0.815 2005 0.001 0.372 2006 0.001 0.329 2007 0.010 0.761 2008 0.001 0.613 2009 0.001 0.567 Ranked Annual Peaks Ranked Annual Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #2 Rank Predeveloped Mitigated 1 0.0096 0.8707 2 0.0064 0.8146 3 0.0048 0.7813 4 0.0017 0.7614 Flow Frequency for Conveyance System 4/9/2019 2:09:25 PM Page 19 5 0.0017 0.6461 6 0.0015 0.6243 7 0.0015 0.6242 8 0.0009 0.6136 9 0.0009 0.6133 10 0.0009 0.6113 11 0.0009 0.6090 12 0.0009 0.5679 13 0.0009 0.5667 14 0.0009 0.5601 15 0.0009 0.5555 16 0.0009 0.5356 17 0.0009 0.5259 18 0.0009 0.5120 19 0.0009 0.5029 20 0.0009 0.4872 21 0.0009 0.4762 22 0.0009 0.4648 23 0.0009 0.4638 24 0.0009 0.4582 25 0.0009 0.4571 26 0.0009 0.4561 27 0.0009 0.4513 28 0.0009 0.4444 29 0.0009 0.4334 30 0.0009 0.4323 31 0.0009 0.4316 32 0.0009 0.4256 33 0.0009 0.4233 34 0.0009 0.4199 35 0.0009 0.4084 36 0.0009 0.4063 37 0.0009 0.4043 38 0.0009 0.3978 39 0.0009 0.3962 40 0.0009 0.3855 41 0.0009 0.3732 42 0.0009 0.3728 43 0.0009 0.3723 44 0.0009 0.3714 45 0.0009 0.3709 46 0.0009 0.3659 47 0.0009 0.3645 48 0.0009 0.3641 49 0.0009 0.3565 50 0.0009 0.3547 51 0.0009 0.3443 52 0.0009 0.3407 53 0.0009 0.3359 54 0.0009 0.3317 55 0.0009 0.3288 56 0.0009 0.3285 57 0.0009 0.3155 58 0.0008 0.3108 59 0.0008 0.3095 60 0.0007 0.3046 61 0.0007 0.2845 Flow Frequency for Conveyance System 4/9/2019 2:09:25 PM Page 26 Appendix Predeveloped Schematic Flow Frequency for Conveyance System 4/9/2019 2:09:26 PM Page 27 Mitigated Schematic Flow Frequency for Conveyance System 4/9/2019 2:09:28 PM Page 32 Disclaimer Legal Notice This program and accompanying documentation are provided 'as-is' without warranty of any kind. The entire risk regarding the performance and results of this program is assumed by End User. Clear Creek Solutions Inc. and the governmental licensee or sublicensees disclaim all warranties, either expressed or implied, including but not limited to implied warranties of program and accompanying documentation. In no event shall Clear Creek Solutions Inc. be liable for any damages whatsoever (including without limitation to damages for loss of business profits, loss of business information, business interruption, and the like) arising out of the use of, or inability to use this program even if Clear Creek Solutions Inc. or their authorized representatives have been advised of the possibility of such damages. Software Copyright © by : Clear Creek Solutions, Inc. 2005-2019; All Rights Reserved. Clear Creek Solutions, Inc. 6200 Capitol Blvd. Ste F Olympia, WA. 98501 Toll Free 1(866)943-0304 Local (360)943-0304 www.clearcreeksolutions.com NORTH BASIN FLOW MASTER OUTPUT SOUTH BASIN FLOW MASTER OUTPUT BASED ON THE NORMAL DEPTHS IN BOTH THE NORTH AND SOUTH BASINS OF THE COMPTON LUMBER PROJECT. 8" PIPE HAS ADEQUATE CAPACITY TO CONVEY THE 25 YEAR STORM EVENT. Water Quality Flow Rate for Biopod Treatment Facilities Northern Basin WQ flow rate from WWHM Biopod Selection Model: BPU-IB-412 ; Size: 5; x 13’ Southern Basin WQ Flow rate from WWHM Biopod Selection Model: BPU-IB-612; Size: 7’x13’ 2 MODEL A DIM B DIM A1 DIM BPU-IB-46 4’5’6’7’25.6 / 0.057 38.4 / 0.086 64.0 / 0.143 38.4 / 0.086 57.6 / 0.128 96.0 / 0.214 179.2 / 0.399 204.7 / 0.456 287.8 / 0.641 8’9’ 12’13’ 6’7’ 8’9’ 12’13’ 16’17’ 18’19’ 20’21’ 4’5’ 4’5’ 6’7’ 6’7’ 6’7’ 8’9’ 8’9’ 10’11’ BPU-IB-48 BPU-IB-412 BPU-IB-66 BPU-IB-68 BPU-IB-612 BPU-IB-816 BPU-IB-818 BPU-IB-1020 B2 DIM VAULT SIZE (ID) TREATMENT FLOW CAPACITY (GPM/CFS) VAULT FOOTPRINT (OD)NORTH BASIN SOUTH BASIN Compton Lumber Storm Drainage Conveyance Model This report was created using StormShed 2G. The proposed storm drainage system was modeled using the SCS Type 1A method for both the 25 year and 100 year storm events. In both cases there was no overtopping observed and pipe capacity was good. Basin Map 25 year Storm Event (3.3 Inches) Appended on: 13:27:52 Friday, November 01, 2019 ROUTEHYD [] THRU [Untitled] USING TYPE1A AND [25 year] NOTZERO RELATIVE SCS/SBUH Reach ID Area (ac) Flow (cfs) Full Q (cfs) Full ratio nDepth (ft) Size nVel (ft/s) fVel (ft/s) CBasin / Hyd P10 1.0000 0.0231 1.2117 0.02 0.0638 8" Diam 1.3572 3.4712 SDCB 03 P4 0.3800 0.0084 0.8529 0.01 0.0469 8" Diam 0.7775 2.4434 SDCB 05 P3 0.3800 0.0084 0.8568 0.01 0.0469 8" Diam 0.7775 2.4545 P2 0.7200 0.0159 0.8568 0.02 0.0632 8" Diam 0.9494 2.4545 SDCB 04 P6 0.2000 0.0044 0.8568 0.01 0.0345 8" Diam 0.6442 2.4545 SDCB 08 P9 0.3100 0.0069 0.8568 0.01 0.0423 8" Diam 0.7378 2.4545 SDCB 10 P8 0.7300 0.0161 0.8568 0.02 0.0635 8" Diam 0.9553 2.4545 SDCB 09 P7 0.7300 0.0161 0.8568 0.02 0.0635 8" Diam 0.9553 2.4545 P5 1.2200 0.0273 0.8568 0.03 0.0817 8" Diam 1.1147 2.4545 SDCB 07 From Node To Node Rch Loss (ft) App (ft) Bend (ft) Junct Loss (ft) HW Loss Elev (ft) Max El (ft) 15.7533 ROOF SDCB 03 16.0131 ------ ------ ------ 16.0131 19.9200 SDCB 04 SDCB 03 16.0679 0.0094 0.0000 ------ 16.0586 18.0000 SDCB 12 SDCB 04 16.5034 0.0094 0.0000 ------ 16.4941 19.8000 SDCB 05 SDCB 12 17.0534 ------ ------ ------ 17.0534 18.7000 SDCB 07 SDCB 06 16.0299 0.0142 0.0063 0.0029 16.0250 18.3800 SDCB 08 SDCB 07 16.3421 ------ ------ ------ 16.3421 18.7300 SDCB 11 SDCB 07 16.3681 0.0142 0.0000 ------ 16.3539 19.0800 SDCB 09 SDCB 11 16.7381 0.0085 0.0117 ------ 16.7413 18.3500 SDCB 10 SDCB 09 16.8348 ------ ------ ------ 16.8348 18.7000 100 Year Storm Event (3.9 inches) Appended on: 13:29:59 Friday, November 01, 2019 ROUTEHYD [] THRU [Untitled] USING TYPE1A AND [100 year] NOTZERO RELATIVE SCS/SBUH Reach ID Area (ac) Flow (cfs) Full Q (cfs) Full ratio nDepth (ft) Size nVel (ft/s) fVel (ft/s) CBasin / Hyd P10 1.0000 0.0275 1.2117 0.02 0.0693 8" Diam 1.4291 3.4712 SDCB 03 P4 0.3800 0.0101 0.8529 0.01 0.0508 8" Diam 0.8273 2.4434 SDCB 05 P3 0.3800 0.0101 0.8568 0.01 0.0508 8" Diam 0.8273 2.4545 P2 0.7200 0.0191 0.8568 0.02 0.0687 8" Diam 1.0051 2.4545 SDCB 04 P6 0.2000 0.0053 0.8568 0.01 0.0378 8" Diam 0.6749 2.4545 SDCB 08 P9 0.3100 0.0082 0.8568 0.01 0.0462 8" Diam 0.7755 2.4545 SDCB 10 P8 0.7300 0.0193 0.8568 0.02 0.0693 8" Diam 1.0050 2.4545 SDCB 09 P7 0.7300 0.0193 0.8568 0.02 0.0693 8" Diam 1.0050 2.4545 P5 1.2200 0.0326 0.8568 0.04 0.0889 8" Diam 1.1792 2.4545 SDCB 07 From Node To Node Rch Loss (ft) App (ft) Bend (ft) Junct Loss (ft) HW Loss Elev (ft) Max El (ft) 15.7533 ROOF SDCB 03 16.0186 ------ ------ ------ 16.0186 19.9200 SDCB 04 SDCB 03 16.0706 0.0106 0.0001 ------ 16.0600 18.0000 SDCB 12 SDCB 04 16.5042 0.0106 0.0000 ------ 16.4936 19.8000 SDCB 05 SDCB 12 17.0542 ------ ------ ------ 17.0542 18.7000 SDCB 07 SDCB 06 16.0448 0.0157 0.0070 0.0032 16.0393 18.3800 SDCB 08 SDCB 07 16.3424 ------ ------ ------ 16.3424 18.7300 SDCB 11 SDCB 07 16.3708 0.0157 0.0001 ------ 16.3552 19.0800 SDCB 09 SDCB 11 16.7408 0.0093 0.0129 ------ 16.7444 18.3500 SDCB 10 SDCB 09 16.8390 ------ ------ ------ 16.8390 18.7000 TEAST VALLEY ROAD EAST VALLEY ROAD SW 27TH ST VANVANWASHING T O N S T A T E R O U T E 1 6 7 1 9 19 SDCB 05 SDCB 04 SDCB 09 SDCB 07 SDCB 10 SDCB 08 SDCB 06 50' DISPERSION TRENCH SDCB 02 SDCB 01 SDCB 03 74 LF 8" DI CL52 @ 0.50% 66 LF 8" DI CL52 @ 0.50% 60 LF 8" CPEP @ 0.50% 66 LF 8" DI CL52 @ 0.50% 25 LF 8" CPEP @ 0.50% 6 LF 8" CPEP @ 0.50% 71 LF 12" CPEP @ 0.50% 34 LF 12" CPEP @ 3.43% 62 LF 8" DI CL52 @ 0.50%111 LF 8" DI CL52 @ 0.50%1919 15 LF 12" CPEP @ 20.00% 58 LF 8" CPEP @ 0.50% FG: 19.42 FG: 19.38 FG: 19.71 FG: 19.44 FG: 19.11 FG: 19.04 FG: 19.44 FG: 19.75 FG: 19.01 FG: 19.69 FG: 19.38 FG: 20.12 FG: 19.77 FG: 19.03 FG: 19.34 FG: 19.03 FG: 18.66 FG: 19.76 FG: 19.06 FG: 18.69 FG: 18.76 FG: 19.07 FG: 19.30 FG: 19.04 FG: 18.46 FG: 18.30 FG: 19.10 FG: 19.90 FG: 19.51 FG: 19.29 FG: 18.78 FG: 18.92 FG: 18.88 FG: 18.31 FG: 19.67 FG: 19.54 FG: 18.31 FG: 18.23 FG: 18.98 FG: 19.09 FG: 19.24 FG: 19.131.00%1.00%1.00%1.00%1.00%1.00%1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00%1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00%1.00%2.06%1.00%2.06%1.00%1.00%1.00%1.00%0.03%2.06%1.00%1.00%2.06%1.00%1.00%1.00%1.00%2.06%1.00%3.15%1.41%1.89%0.47%0.82%0.50%0.23%0.46%1.12%3.04% 1.00% 0.50% FG: 19.69 FG: 19.69 FG: 19.18 FG: 19.89 FG: 19.69 FG: 19.38 FG: 19.79 FG: 19.91 FG: 20.21 FG: 20.00 FG: 19.75 FG: 19.70 FG: 19.62FG: 19.85 2 2 3 3 1 1 FG: 19.04 FF: 19.90 SDCO 01 A MAXIMUM OF 5,000 SQUARE FEET OF ROOF DRAINAGE AREA SHALL BE DIRECTED TO THE 50' DISPERSION TRENCH. FG: 18.25 FG: 18.27 FG: 18.17 FG: 18.13 FG: 19.86 FG: 19.69 FG: 18.87 CONNECT TO STMH 506 BPU-IB-412 OUTLET 191 9 191918 19 18 18 191919CONNECT TO STCB 514 SEE SHEET C3.1 FOR NORTH BASIN PROFILE SEE SHEET C3.2 FOR SOUTH BASIN PROFILE FG: 19.71 FG: 19.52 FG: 19.07 FG: 19.16 FG: 19.41 FG: 19.32 FG: 19.35 20 87 LF 8" DI CL52 @ 0.50%71 LF 8" CPEP @ 0.50% SDCB 12 SDCB 11 20 191919 CONNECT ROOF DRAINAGE SYSTEM TO SDCB 03 9 LF 12" CPEP @ 0.50% STORM STRUCTURE TABLE STRUCTURE NAME 50' DISPERSION TRENCH CB TYPE 1 STA: 0+57.70, 0.04 L BPU-IB-412 INLET 5' X 13' BIOPOD INLET CONNECTION STA: 8+34.47, 0.00 BPU-IB-412 OUTLET 5' X 13' BIOPOD OUTLET CONNECTION STA: 8+29.47, 0.00 R BPU-IB-612 INLET EXISTING TYPE 1 CB STA: 0+31.99, 0.09 R BPU-IB-612 OUTLET EXISTING TYPE 1 CB STA: 0+24.99, 0.20 R CONNECT TO STCB 514 EXISTING TYPE 1 CB STA: 0+00, 0.00 CONNECT TO STMH 506 EXISTING TYPE 2 CB STA: 7+00, 0.00 SDCB 01 CB TYPE 1 STA: 7+15.32, 0.00 R SDCB 02 CB TYPE 1 STA: 7+48.90, 0.00 L SDCB 03 CB TYPE 1 STA: 8+20.34, 0.09 R SDCB 04 CB TYPE 1 STA: 8+96.33, 0.01 R SDCB 05 CB TYPE 1 STA: 10+94.29, 0.01 R SDCB 06 CB TYPE 1 STA: 0+38.05, 0.00 L SDCB 07 CB TYPE 1 STA: 0+97.91, 0.04 R SDCB 08 CB TYPE 1 STA: 0+97.92, 66.03 R SDCB 09 CB TYPE 1 STA: 2+41.90, 0.01 L SDCB 10 CB TYPE 1 STA: 3+07.90, 0.02 R SDCB 11 W/ SOLID LOCKING LID STA: 1+68.41, 0.02 R SDCB 12 W/ SOLID LOCKING LID STA: 9+83.56, 0.00 R SDCO 01 ROOF DOWNSPOUT CONNECTION STA: 0+00, 0.00 STRUCTURE DETAILS RIM = 19.45 IE = 16.79 (8" W) RIM = 19.41 IE = 15.67 (8" E) RIM = 14.25 IE = 13.51 (12" W) RIM = 19.62 IE = 15.60 (8" E) RIM = 19.24 IE = 13.44 (8" W) RIM = 17.63 IE = 13.32 (8" E) RIM = 10.44 IE = 8.89 (12" E) RIM = 17.30 IE = 11.95 (12" E) IE = 11.95 (12" W) RIM = 17.51 IE = 13.10 (12" S) IE = 13.10 (12" W) RIM = 18.70 IE = 13.46 (12" E) IE = 13.46 (12" N) RIM = 18.00 IE = 15.98 (8" E) IE = 15.98 (8" W) RIM = 18.70 IE = 16.97 (8" W) RIM = 19.13 IE = 15.63 (8" E) IE = 15.63 (8" W) RIM = 18.38 IE = 15.93 (8" E) IE = 15.93 (8" W) IE = 15.93 (8" S) RIM = 18.73 IE = 16.26 (8" N) RIM = 18.35 IE = 16.65 (8" S) IE = 16.65 (8" W) RIM = 18.70 IE = 16.98 (8" N) RIM = 19.08 IE = 16.28 (8" E) IE = 16.28 (8" W) RIM = 19.22 IE = 16.42 (8" E) IE = 16.42 (8" W) RIM = 19.76 IE = 17.08 (8" E) CITY OF RENTON IN COMPLIANCE WITH CITY OF RENTON STANDARDSTED-40-4084COMPTON LUMBER RENTON R-408401 TEL FAX www.ahbl.comWEBTELFAXwww.ahbl.comWEBTELFAXwww.ahbl.comWEB 2215 North 30th Street, Suite 300 Tacoma, WA 98403 253.383.2422TEL 253.383.2572FAX www.ahbl.comWEB TACOMA SEATTLE SPOKANE TRI-CITIES GRAPHIC SCALE 0 30 60 1" = 30 FEET 15 NPACEL NO. 3023059103 PACEL NO. 3023059085 PACEL NO. 3023059091 PACEL NO. 3023059098 PACEL NO. 3023059096 DATE: October 31, 2019 FILENAME: Q:\2019\2190112\10_CIV\CAD\2190112-SH-STRM.dwg STORM DRAINAGE AND GRADING PACEL NO. 3023059099 KEYNOTES MATCH EXISTING GRADE. ADA-COMPLIANT PARKING STALL. SLOPE SHALL NOT EXCEED 2.0% IN ANY DIRECTION. ADA LEVEL LANDING. SLOPE SHALL NOT EXCEED 2.0% IN ANY DIRECTION. 1 2 3 LEGEND SLOPE VALLEY RIDGE TYPE 1 CATCH BASIN TYPE 2 CATCH BASIN STORMWATER CLEANOUT 1.0%3:1OR 3 C3.3 4 C3.3 4 C3.4 2 C2.2 1 C3.4 1 C3.3 1 C3.4 ALL DISTURBED SOILS SHALL BE RESTORED PER COR STANDARD PLAN 264 2 C3.3 C3.0 8 2 C3.4 2 C3.4 8,708.8 sf 12,521.5 sf 13,662.9 sf 18,281.9 sf 43,391.2 sf 16,693.4 sf 14,917.9 sf P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P 10 Technical Information Report 2940, 2960, 2980, and 2990 East Valley Road Renton, WA 98057 2190112.10 Appendix E Exhibits E-1 .................... Operations & Maintenance Guide COMPTON LUMBER RENTON Operations & Maintenance Guide CITY OF RENTON SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL 2017 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual 12/12/2016 A-1 APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR STORMWATER FACILITIES AND ON-SITE BMPS This appendix contains the maintenance requirements for the following typical stormwater flow control and water quality facilities and on-site BMPs (ctrl/click the title to follow the link): No. 1 – Detention Ponds No. 2 – Infiltration Facilities No. 3 – Detention Tanks and Vaults No. 4 – Control Structure/Flow Restrictor No. 5 – Catch Basins and Manholes No. 6 – Conveyance Pipes and Ditches No. 7 – Debris Barriers (e.g., trash racks) No. 8 – Energy Dissipaters No. 9 – Fencing No. 10 – Gates/Bollards/Access Barriers No. 11 – Grounds (landscaping) No. 12 – Access Roads No. 13 – Basic Bioswale (grass) No. 14 – Wet Bioswale No. 15 – Filter Strip No. 16 – Wetpond No. 17 – Wetvault No. 18 – Stormwater Wetland No. 19 – Sand Filter Pond No. 20 – Sand Filter Vault No. 21 – Proprietary Facility Cartridge Filter Systems No. 22 – Baffle Oil/Water Separator No. 23 – Coalescing Plate Oil/Water Separator TABLE OF CONTENTS APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR STORMWATER FACILITIES AND ON-SITE BMPS 12/12/2016 2017 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual A-2 No. 24 – Catch Basin Insert (not allowed in the city for oil control) No. 25 – Drywell BMP No. 26 – Gravel Filled Infiltration Trench BMP No. 27 – Gravel Filled Dispersion Trench BMP No. 28 – Native Vegetated Surface/Native Vegetated Landscape BMP No. 29 – Perforated Pipe Connections BMP No. 30 – Permeable Pavement BMP No. 31 – Bioretention BMP No. 32 – RainWater Harvesting BMP No. 33 – Rock Pad BMP No. 34 – Sheet Flow BMP No. 35 – Splash Block BMP No. 36 – Vegetated Roof BMP No. 37 – Rain Garden BMP No. 38 – Soil Amendment BMP No. 39 – Retained Trees No. 40 – Filterra System No. 41 – Compost Amended Vegetated Filter Strip (CAVFS) No. 42 – Media Filter Drain (MFD) No. 43 – Compost-Amended Biofiltration Swale OldCastle Biopod Manual APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR STORMWATER FACILITIES AND ON-SITE BMPS 12/12/2016 2017 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual A-10 NO. 5 – CATCH BASINS AND MANHOLES MAINTENANCE COMPONENT DEFECT OR PROBLEM CONDITION WHEN MAINTENANCE IS NEEDED RESULTS EXPECTED WHEN MAINTENANCE IS PERFORMED Structure Sediment accumulation Sediment exceeds 60% of the depth from the bottom of the catch basin to the invert of the lowest pipe into or out of the catch basin or is within 6 inches of the invert of the lowest pipe into or out of the catch basin. Sump of catch basin contains no sediment. Trash and debris Trash or debris of more than ½ cubic foot which is located immediately in front of the catch basin opening or is blocking capacity of the catch basin by more than 10%. No Trash or debris blocking or potentially blocking entrance to catch basin. Trash or debris in the catch basin that exceeds 1/3 the depth from the bottom of basin to invert the lowest pipe into or out of the basin. No trash or debris in the catch basin. Dead animals or vegetation that could generate odors that could cause complaints or dangerous gases (e.g., methane). No dead animals or vegetation present within catch basin. Deposits of garbage exceeding 1 cubic foot in volume. No condition present which would attract or support the breeding of insects or rodents. Damage to frame and/or top slab Corner of frame extends more than ¾ inch past curb face into the street (If applicable). Frame is even with curb. Top slab has holes larger than 2 square inches or cracks wider than ¼ inch. Top slab is free of holes and cracks. Frame not sitting flush on top slab, i.e., separation of more than ¾ inch of the frame from the top slab. Frame is sitting flush on top slab. Cracks in walls or bottom Cracks wider than ½ inch and longer than 3 feet, any evidence of soil particles entering catch basin through cracks, or maintenance person judges that catch basin is unsound. Catch basin is sealed and is structurally sound. Cracks wider than ½ inch and longer than 1 foot at the joint of any inlet/outlet pipe or any evidence of soil particles entering catch basin through cracks. No cracks more than 1/4 inch wide at the joint of inlet/outlet pipe. Settlement/ misalignment Catch basin has settled more than 1 inch or has rotated more than 2 inches out of alignment. Basin replaced or repaired to design standards. Damaged pipe joints Cracks wider than ½-inch at the joint of the inlet/outlet pipes or any evidence of soil entering the catch basin at the joint of the inlet/outlet pipes. No cracks more than ¼-inch wide at the joint of inlet/outlet pipes. Contaminants and pollution Any evidence of contaminants or pollution such as oil, gasoline, concrete slurries or paint. Materials removed and disposed of according to applicable regulations. Source control BMPs implemented if appropriate. No contaminants present other than a surface oil film. Inlet/Outlet Pipe Sediment accumulation Sediment filling 20% or more of the pipe. Inlet/outlet pipes clear of sediment. Trash and debris Trash and debris accumulated in inlet/outlet pipes (includes floatables and non-floatables). No trash or debris in pipes. APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR STORMWATER FACILITIES AND ON-SITE BMPS 2017 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual 12/12/2016 A-11 NO. 5 – CATCH BASINS AND MANHOLES MAINTENANCE COMPONENT DEFECT OR PROBLEM CONDITION WHEN MAINTENANCE IS NEEDED RESULTS EXPECTED WHEN MAINTENANCE IS PERFORMED Inlet/Outlet Pipe (cont.) Damaged inlet/outlet pipe Cracks wider than ½-inch at the joint of the inlet/outlet pipes or any evidence of soil entering at the joints of the inlet/outlet pipes. No cracks more than ¼-inch wide at the joint of the inlet/outlet pipe. Metal Grates (Catch Basins) Unsafe grate opening Grate with opening wider than 7/8 inch. Grate opening meets design standards. Trash and debris Trash and debris that is blocking more than 20% of grate surface. Grate free of trash and debris. footnote to guidelines for disposal Damaged or missing grate Grate missing or broken member(s) of the grate. Any open structure requires urgent maintenance. Grate is in place and meets design standards. Manhole Cover/Lid Cover/lid not in place Cover/lid is missing or only partially in place. Any open structure requires urgent maintenance. Cover/lid protects opening to structure. Locking mechanism not working Mechanism cannot be opened by one maintenance person with proper tools. Bolts cannot be seated. Self-locking cover/lid does not work. Mechanism opens with proper tools. Cover/lid difficult to remove One maintenance person cannot remove cover/lid after applying 80 lbs. of lift. Cover/lid can be removed and reinstalled by one maintenance person. APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR STORMWATER FACILITIES AND ON-SITE BMPS 12/12/2016 2017 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual A-12 NO. 6 – CONVEYANCE PIPES AND DITCHES MAINTENANCE COMPONENT DEFECT OR PROBLEM CONDITIONS WHEN MAINTENANCE IS NEEDED RESULTS EXPECTED WHEN MAINTENANCE IS PERFORMED Pipes Sediment & debris accumulation Accumulated sediment or debris that exceeds 20% of the diameter of the pipe. Water flows freely through pipes. Vegetation/root growth in pipe Vegetation/roots that reduce free movement of water through pipes. Water flows freely through pipes. Contaminants and pollution Any evidence of contaminants or pollution such as oil, gasoline, concrete slurries or paint. Materials removed and disposed of according to applicable regulations. Source control BMPs implemented if appropriate. No contaminants present other than a surface oil film. Damage to protective coating or corrosion Protective coating is damaged; rust or corrosion is weakening the structural integrity of any part of pipe. Pipe repaired or replaced. Damaged pipes Any dent that decreases the cross section area of pipe by more than 20% or is determined to have weakened structural integrity of the pipe. Pipe repaired or replaced. Ditches Trash and debris Trash and debris exceeds 1 cubic foot per 1,000 square feet of ditch and slopes. Trash and debris cleared from ditches. Sediment accumulation Accumulated sediment that exceeds 20% of the design depth. Ditch cleaned/flushed of all sediment and debris so that it matches design. Noxious weeds Any noxious or nuisance vegetation which may constitute a hazard to City personnel or the public. Noxious and nuisance vegetation removed according to applicable regulations. No danger of noxious vegetation where City personnel or the public might normally be. Contaminants and pollution Any evidence of contaminants or pollution such as oil, gasoline, concrete slurries or paint. Materials removed and disposed of according to applicable regulations. Source control BMPs implemented if appropriate. No contaminants present other than a surface oil film. Excessive vegetation growth Vegetation that reduces free movement of water through ditches. Water flows freely through ditches. Erosion damage to slopes Any erosion observed on a ditch slope. Slopes are not eroding. Rock lining out of place or missing (If applicable) One layer or less of rock exists above native soil area 5 square feet or more, any exposed native soil. Replace rocks to design standards. APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR STORMWATER FACILITIES AND ON-SITE BMPS 2017 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual 12/12/2016 A-17 NO. 11 – GROUNDS (LANDSCAPING) MAINTENANCE COMPONENT DEFECT OR PROBLEM CONDITIONS WHEN MAINTENANCE IS NEEDED RESULTS EXPECTED WHEN MAINTENANCE IS PERFORMED Site Trash and debris Any trash and debris which exceed 1 cubic foot per 1,000 square feet (this is about equal to the amount of trash it would take to fill up one standard size office garbage can). In general, there should be no visual evidence of dumping. Trash and debris cleared from site. Noxious weeds Any noxious or nuisance vegetation which may constitute a hazard to City personnel or the public. Noxious and nuisance vegetation removed according to applicable regulations. No danger of noxious vegetation where City personnel or the public might normally be. Contaminants and pollution Any evidence of contaminants or pollution such as oil, gasoline, concrete slurries or paint. Materials removed and disposed of according to applicable regulations. Source control BMPs implemented if appropriate. No contaminants present other than a surface oil film. Excessive growth of grass/groundcover Grass or groundcover exceeds 18 inches in height. Grass or groundcover mowed to a height no greater than 6 inches. Trees and Shrubs Hazard tree identified Any tree or limb of a tree identified as having a potential to fall and cause property damage or threaten human life. A hazard tree identified by a qualified arborist must be removed as soon as possible. No hazard trees in facility. Damaged tree or shrub identified Limbs or parts of trees or shrubs that are split or broken which affect more than 25% of the total foliage of the tree or shrub. Trees and shrubs with less than 5% of total foliage with split or broken limbs. Trees or shrubs that have been blown down or knocked over. No blown down vegetation or knocked over vegetation. Trees or shrubs free of injury. Trees or shrubs which are not adequately supported or are leaning over, causing exposure of the roots. Tree or shrub in place and adequately supported; dead or diseased trees removed. APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR STORMWATER FACILITIES AND ON-SITE BMPS 2017 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual 12/12/2016 A-39 NO. 27 – GRAVEL FILLED DISPERSION TRENCH BMP MAINTENANCE COMPONENT DEFECT OR PROBLEM CONDITIONS WHEN MAINTENANCE IS NEEDED RESULTS EXPECTED WHEN MAINTENANCE IS PERFORMED Preventive Blocking, obstructions Debris or trash limiting flow to dispersion trench or preventing spreader function. Dispersion trench able to receive full flow prior to and during wet season. Site Trash and debris Trash or debris that could end up in the dispersion trench is evident. No trash or debris that could get into the dispersion trench can be found. Pipes Plugged inlet The entrance to the pipe is restricted due to sediment, trash, or debris. The entrance to the pipe is not restricted. Vegetation/root growth in pipes Vegetation/roots that reduce free movement of water through pipes. Water flows freely through pipes. Plugged pipe Sediment or other material prevents free flow of water through the pipe. Water flows freely through pipes. Broken pipe or joint leaks. Damage to the pipe or pipe joints allowing water to seep out. Pipe does not allow water to exit other than at the outlet to the trench. Broken or missing cleanout caps Cleanout caps are broken, missing, or buried. Cleanout caps are accessible and intact. Structure Flow not reaching trench Flows are not getting into the trench as designed. Water enters and exits trench as designed. Perforated pipe plugged Flow not able to enter or properly exit from perforated pipe. Water freely enters and exits perforated pipe. Flow not spreading evenly at outlet of trench Outlet flows channelizing or not spreading evenly from trench. Sheet flow occurs at the outlet of the trench. Cleanout/inspection access does not allow cleaning or inspection of perforated pipe The cleanout/inspection access is not available. Cleanout/inspection access is available. Filter Media Plugged filter media Filter media plugged. Flow through filter media is normal. APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR STORMWATER FACILITIES AND ON-SITE BMPS 12/12/2016 2017 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual A-40 NO. 28 – NATIVE VEGETATED SURFACE/NATIVE VEGETATED LANDSCAPE BMP MAINTENANCE COMPONENT DEFECT OR PROBLEM CONDITION WHEN MAINTENANCE IS NEEDED RESULTS EXPECTED WHEN MAINTENANCE IS PERFORMED Site Trash and debris Trash and debris accumulated on the native vegetated surface/native vegetated landscape site. Native vegetated surface site free of any trash or debris. Vegetation Insufficient vegetation Less than two species each of native trees, shrubs, and groundcover occur in the design area. A minimum of two species each of native trees, shrubs, and groundcover is established and healthy. Poor vegetation coverage Less than 90% if the required vegetated area has healthy growth. A minimum of 90% of the required vegetated area has healthy growth. Undesirable vegetation present Weeds, blackberry, and other undesirable plants are invading more than 10% of vegetated area. Less than 10% undesirable vegetation occurs in the required native vegetated surface area. Vegetated Area Soil compaction Soil in the native vegetation area compacted. Less than 8% of native vegetation area is compacted. Insufficient vegetation Less than 3.5 square feet of native vegetation area for every 1 square foot of impervious surface. A minimum of 3.5 square feet of native vegetation area for every 1 square foot of impervious surface. Excess slope Slope of native vegetation area greater than 15%. Slope of native growth area does not exceed 15%. NO. 29 – PERFORATED PIPE CONNECTIONS BMP MAINTENANCE COMPONENT DEFECT OR PROBLEM CONDITIONS WHEN MAINTENANCE IS NEEDED RESULTS EXPECTED WHEN MAINTENANCE IS PERFORMED Preventive Blocking, obstructions Debris or trash limiting flow into perforated pipe system or outfall of BMP is plugged or otherwise nonfunctioning. Outfall of BMP is receiving designed flows from perforated pipe connection. Inflow Inflow impeded Inflow into the perforated pipe is partially or fully blocked or altered to prevent flow from getting into the pipe. Inflow to the perforated pipe is unimpeded. Pipe Trench Area Surface compacted Ground surface over the perforated pipe trench is compacted or covered with impermeable material. Ground surface over the perforated pipe is not compacted and free of any impervious cover. Outflow Outflow impeded Outflow from the perforated pipe into the public drainage system is blocked. Outflow to the public drainage system is unimpeded. Outfall Area Erosion or landslides Existence of the perforated pipe is causing or exasperating erosion or landslides. Perforated pipe system is sealed off and an alternative BMP is implemented. APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR STORMWATER FACILITIES AND ON-SITE BMPS 2017 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual 12/12/2016 A-47 NO. 38 – SOIL AMENDMENT BMP MAINTENANCE COMPONENT DEFECT OR PROBLEM CONDITIONS WHEN MAINTENANCE IS NEEDED RESULTS EXPECTED WHEN MAINTENANCE IS PERFORMED Soil Media Unhealthy vegetation Vegetation not fully covering ground surface or vegetation health is poor. Yellowing: possible Nitrogen (N) deficiency. Poor growth: possible Phosphorous (P) deficiency. Poor flowering, spotting or curled leaves, or weak roots or stems: possible Potassium (K) deficiency. Plants are healthy and appropriate for site conditions Inadequate soil nutrients and structure In the fall, return leaf fall and shredded woody materials from the landscape to the site when possible Soil providing plant nutrients and structure Excessive vegetation growth Grass becomes excessively tall (greater than 10 inches); nuisance weeds and other vegetation start to take over. Healthy turf- “grasscycle” (mulch-mow or leave the clippings) to build turf health Weeds Preventive maintenance Avoid use of pesticides (bug and weed killers), like “weed & feed,” which damage the soil Fertilizer needed Where fertilization is needed (mainly turf and annual flower beds), a moderate fertilization program should be used which relies on compost, natural fertilizers or slow-release synthetic balanced fertilizers Integrated Pest Management (IPM) protocols for fertilization followed Bare spots Bare spots on soil No bare spots, area covered with vegetation or mulch mixed into the underlying soil. Compaction Poor infiltration due to soil compaction • To remediate compaction, aerate soil, till to at least 8-inch depth, or further amend soil with compost and re-till • If areas are turf, aerate compacted areas and top dress them with 1/4 to 1/2 inch of compost to renovate them • If drainage is still slow, consider investigating alternative causes (e.g., high wet season groundwater levels, low permeability soils) • Also consider site use and protection from compacting activities No soil compaction Poor infiltration Soils become waterlogged, do not appear to be infiltrating. Facility infiltrating properly Erosion/Scouring Erosion Areas of potential erosion are visible Causes of erosion (e.g., concentrate flow entering area, channelization of runoff) identified and damaged area stabilized (regrade, rock, vegetation, erosion control matting).For deep channels or cuts (over 3 inches in ponding depth), temporary erosion control measures in place until permanent repairs can be made Grass/Vegetation Unhealthy vegetation Less than 75% of planted vegetation is healthy with a generally good appearance. Healthy vegetation. Unhealthy plants removed/replaced. Appropriate vegetation planted in terms of exposure, soil and soil moisture. Noxious Weeds Noxious weeds Listed noxious vegetation is present (refer to current County noxious weed list). No noxious weeds present. BIOPOD® Submittal Package 1 - Submittal Drawing 2 - Features & Benefits 3 - WA Ecology GULD Approval 4 - Inspection & Maintenance Table of ConTenTs Submittal Drawing seCTion 1 Features & Benefits seCTion 2 STORMWATER BIOPOD™ SYSTEM WITH STORMMIX™ MEDIA Sustainable Green Infrastructure for Stormwater Management BioPod systems utilize an advanced biofiltration design for filtration, sorption and biological uptake to remove Total Suspended Solids (TSS), dissolved metals, nutrients, gross solids, trash and debris as well as petroleum hydrocarbons from stormwater runoff. Environmentally friendly and aesthetically pleasing, BioPod systems are a proven, Low-Impact Development (LID) solution for stormwater treatment. BioPod systems integrate seamlessly into standard site drainage and can accommodate a wide variety of vegetation to meet green infrastructure requirements. Stormwater Treatment,NATURALLY STANDARD SIZES BioPod units are available in many standard and custom sizes to meet most site-specific requirements. Contact your local Oldcastle Infrastructure representative for additional sizes. 4’ x 4’ 4’ x 6’ 4’ x 8’ 4’ x 10’ 6’ x 6’ 6’ x 8’ 6’ x 12’ 8’ x 16’ BIORETENTION / BIOFILTRATION BioPod systems use StormMix media, an engineered high-flow rate media (153 in/hr) to remove stormwater pollutants. The BioPod system has received a General Use Level Designation (GULD) approval from the Washington State Department of Ecology for Basic (TSS), Phosphorus, and Enhanced (dissolved metals) treatment. Offering flexibility of design and construction for your storm drain system, the BioPod system comes as an all-in-one, single-piece unit composed of durable precast concrete for ease of installation and a long service life. The BioPod system is offered in four configurations: High-Flow Bypass BioPod system offers an optional internal high-flow bypass that eliminates the need for a separate bypass structure, reducing costs and simplifying design so unit can be placed in a “sag” condition. Hydromodification BioPod system can be used in conjunction with other Oldcastle detention systems to address hydromodification and water treatment requirements. Collected flows may be utilized to supplement irrigation of the unit or surrounding vegetated areas by integrating a harvesting system, reducing consumption of local potable water. LEED WITH BIOPOD Can assist in earning LEED credits for: • Sustainable Sites (6.1, 6.2) • Water Efficiency (1.1, 1.2, 3.1, 3.2) • Materials & Resources (4.1, 4.2; 5.1, 5.2 in AZ, CA, NV, UT) BIOPOD SURFACE At-grade vault with media only, no vegetation. BIOPOD TREE Vault with media and tree(s). BIOPOD PLANTER Vault with media and vegetation. BIOPOD UNDERGROUND Below-grade vault with media only, no vegetation. Stormwater Treatment,NATURALLY (800) 579-8819 oldcastleinfrastructure.com BIOPOD™ SYSTEM WITH STORMMIX™ MEDIA WA Ecology GULD Approval seCTion 3 July 2018 GENERAL USE LEVEL DESIGNATION FOR BASIC (TSS), DISSOLVED METALS (ENHANCED), AND PHOSPHORUS TREATMENT For Oldcastle Infrastructure, Inc.’s BioPod™ Biofilter (Formerly the TreePod Biofilter) Ecology’s Decision: Based on Oldcastle Infrastructure, Inc. application submissions for the The BioPod™ Biofilter (BioPod), Ecology hereby issues the following use level designation: 1.General Use Level Designation (GULD) for Basic, Enhanced, and Phosphorus Treatment: Sized at a hydraulic loading rate of 1.6 gallons per minute (gpm) per square foot (sq ft) of media surface area. 2.Ecology approves the BioPod at the hydraulic loading rate listed above, to achieve the maximum water quality design flow rate. The water quality design flow rates are calculated using the following procedures: Western Washington: For treatment installed upstream of detention or retention, the water quality design flow rate is the peak 15-minute flow rate as calculated using the latest version of the Western Washington Hydrology Model or other Ecology- approved continuous runoff model. Eastern Washington: For treatment installed upstream of detention or retention, the water quality design flow rate is the peak 15-minute flow rate as calculated using one of the three methods described in Chapter 2.2.5 of the Stormwater Management Manual for Eastern Washington (SWMMEW) or local manual. Entire State: For treatment installed downstream of detention, the water quality design flow rate is the full 2-year release rate of the detention facility. 3.The GULD has no expiration date, but may be amended or revoked by Ecology. Ecology’s Conditions of Use: The BioPod shall comply with these conditions: 1)Oldcastle Infrastructure, Inc. shall design, assemble, install, operate, and maintain the BioPod installations in accordance with Oldcastle Infrastructure, Inc.’s applicable manuals and the Ecology Decision. 2)BioPod media shall conform to the specifications submitted to and approved by Ecology 3)Maintenance: The required inspection/maintenance interval for stormwater treatment devices is often dependent on the efficiency of the device and the degree of pollutant loading from a particular drainage basin. Therefore, Ecology does not endorse or recommend a “one size fits all” maintenance cycle for a particular model/size of manufactured filter treatment device. The BioPod is designed for a target maintenance interval of 1 year. Maintenance includes replacing the mulch, assessing plant health, removal of trash, and raking the top few inches of engineered media. A BioPod system tested at the Lake Union Ship Canal Test Facility in Seattle, WA required maintenance after 1.5 months, or 6.3% of a water year. Monitoring personnel observed similar maintenance issues with other systems evaluated at the Test Facility. The runoff from the Test Facility may be unusual and maintenance requirements of systems installed at the Test Facility may not be indicative of maintenance requirements for all sites. Test results provided to Ecology from a BioPod System evaluated in a lab following New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Laboratory Protocol for Filtration MTDs have indicated the BioPod System is capable of longer maintenance intervals. Owners/operators must inspect BioPod systems for a minimum of twelve months from the start of post-construction operation to determine site-specific inspection/maintenance schedules and requirements. Owners/operators must conduct inspections monthly during the wet season, and every other month during the dry season. (According to the SWMMWW, the wet season in western Washington is October 1 to April 30. According to the SWMMEW, the wet season in eastern Washington is October 1 to June 30.) After the first year of operation, owners/operators must conduct inspections based on the findings during the first year of inspections. Conduct inspections by qualified personnel, follow manufacturer’s guidelines, and use methods capable of determining either a decrease in treated effluent flow rate and/or a decrease in pollutant removal ability. 4)Install the BioPod in such a manner that you bypass flows exceeding the maximum operating rate and you will not resuspend captured sediment. 5)Discharges from the BioPod shall not cause or contribute to water quality standards violations in receiving waters. Applicant: Oldcastle Infrastructure, Inc. Applicant’s Address: 360 Sutton Place Santa Rosa, CA 95407 Application Documents: Technical Evaluation Report TreePod™ BioFilter System Performance Certification Project, Prepared for Oldcastle, Inc., Prepared by Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. February 2018 Technical Memorandum: Response to Board of External Reviewers’ Comments on the Technical Evaluation Report for the TreePod™ Biofilter System Performance Certification Project, Oldcastle, Inc. and Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc., February 2018 Technical Memorandum: Response to Board of External Reviewers’ Comments on the Technical Evaluation Report for the TreePod™ Biofilter System Performance Certification Project, Oldcastle, Inc. and Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc., January 2018 Application for Pilot Use Level Designation, TreePod™ Biofilter – Stormwater Treatment System, Oldcastle Infrastructure, May 2016 Emerging Stormwater Treatment Technologies Application for Certification: The TreePod™ Biofilter, Oldcastle Infrastructure, April 2016 Applicant’s Use Level Request: General Use Level Designation as a Basic, Enhanced, and Phosphorus Treatment device in accordance with Ecology’s Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington Applicant’s Performance Claims: Based on results from laboratory and field-testing, the applicant claims the BioPod™ Biofilter operating at a hydraulic loading rate of 153 inches per hour is able to remove: 80% of Total Suspended Solids (TSS) for influent concentrations greater than 100 mg/L and achieve a 20 mg/L effluent for influent concentrations less than 100 mg/L. 60% dissolved zinc for influent concentrations 0.02 to 0.3 mg/L. 30% dissolved copper for influent concentrations 0.005 to 0.02 mg/L. 50% or greater total phosphorus for influent concentrations 0.1 to 0.5 mg/L. Ecology’s Recommendations: Ecology finds that: Oldcastle Infrastructure, Inc. has shown Ecology, through laboratory and field testing, that the BioPod™ Biofilter is capable of attaining Ecology’s Basic, Total Phosphorus, and Enhanced treatment goals. Findings of Fact: Field Testing 1. Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. conducted monitoring of the BioPod™ Biofilter at the Lake Union Ship Canal Test Facility in Seattle Washington between November 2016 and April 2018. Herrera collected flow-weight composite samples during 14 separate storm events and peak flow grab samples during 3 separate storm events. The system was sized at an infiltration rate of 153 inches per hour or a hydraulic loading rate of 1.6 gpm/ft2. 2. The D50 of the influent PSD ranged from 3 to 292 microns, with an average D50 of 28 microns. 3. Influent TSS concentrations ranged from 17 mg/L to 666 mg/L, with a mean concentration of 98 mg/L. For all samples (influent concentrations above and below 100 mg/L) the bootstrap estimate of the lower 95 percent confidence limit (LCL 95) of the mean TSS reduction was 84% and the bootstrap estimate of the upper 95 percent confidence limit (UCL95) of the mean TSS effluent concentration was 8.2 mg/L. 4. Dissolved copper influent concentrations from the 17 events ranged from 9.0 µg/L to 21.1 µg/L. The 21.1 µg/L data point was reduced to 20.0 µg/L, the upper limit to the TAPE allowed influent concentration range, prior to calculating the pollutant removal. A bootstrap estimate of the LCL95 of the mean dissolved copper reduction was 35%. 5. Dissolved zinc influent concentrations from the 17 events ranged from 26.1 µg/L to 43.3 µg/L. A bootstrap estimate of the LCL95 of the mean dissolved zinc reduction was 71%. 6. Total phosphorus influent concentrations from the 17 events ranged from 0.064 mg/L to 1.56 mg/L. All influent data greater than 0.5 mg/L were reduced to 0.5 mg/L, the upper limit to the TAPE allowed influent concentration range, prior to calculating the pollutant removal. A bootstrap estimate of the LCL95 of the mean total phosphorus reduction was 64%. 7. The system experienced rapid sediment loading and needed to be maintained after 1.5 months. Monitoring personnel observed similar sediment loading issues with other systems evaluated at the Test Facility. The runoff from the Test Facility may not be indicative of maintenance requirements for all sites. Laboratory Testing 1. Good Harbour Laboratories (GHL) conducted laboratory testing at their site in Mississauga, Ontario in October 2017 following the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Laboratory Protocol for Filtration MTDs. The testing evaluated a 4-foot by 6-foot standard biofiltration chamber and inlet contour rack with bypass weir. The test sediment used during the testing was custom blended by GHL using various commercially available silica sands, which had an average d50 of 69 µm. Based on the lab test results: a.GHL evaluated removal efficiency over 15 events at a Maximum Treatment Flow Rate (MTFR) of 37.6 gpm, which corresponds to a MTFR to effective filtration treatment area ratio of 1.80 gpm/ft2. The system, operating at 100% of the MTFR with an average influent concentration of 201.3 mg/L, had an average removal efficiency of 99 percent. b. GHL evaluated sediment mass loading capacity over an additional 16 events using an influent SSC concentration of 400 mg/L. The first 11 runs were evaluated at 100% of the MTFR. The BioPod began to bypass, so the remaining 5 runs were evaluated at 90% of the MTFR. The total mass of the sediment captured was 245.0 lbs and the cumulative mass removal efficiency was 96.3%. 2. Herrera Environmental Consultants Inc. conducted laboratory testing in September 2014 at the Seattle University Engineering Laboratory. The testing evaluated the flushing characteristics, hydraulic conductivity, and pollutant removal ability of twelve different media blends. Based on this testing, Oldcastle Infrastructure, Inc. selected one media blend, Mix 8, for inclusion in their TAPE evaluation of the BioPod™ Biofilter. a.Herrera evaluated Mix 8 in an 8-inch diameter by 36-inch tall polyvinyl chloride (PVC) column. The column contained 18-inches of Mix 8 on top of 6-inches of pea gravel. The BioPod will normally include a 3-inch mulch layer on top of the media layer; however, this was not included in the laboratory testing. b. Mix 8 has a hydraulic conductivity of 218 inches per hour; however, evaluation of the pollutant removal ability of the media was based on an infiltration rate of 115 inches per hour. The media was tested at 75%, 100%, and 125% of the infiltration rate. Based on the lab test results: The system was evaluated using natural stormwater. The dissolved copper and dissolved zinc concentrations in the natural stormwater were lower than the TAPE influent standards; therefore, the stormwater was spiked with 66.4 mL of 100 mg/L Cu solution and 113.6 mL of 1,000 mg/L Zn solution. The BioPod removed an average of 81% of TSS, with a mean influent concentration of 48.4 mg/L and a mean effluent concentration of 9.8 mg/L. The BioPod removed an average of 94% of dissolved copper, with a mean influent concentration of 10.6 µg/L and a mean effluent concentration of 0.6 µg/L. The BioPod removed an average of 97% of dissolved zinc, with a mean influent concentration of 117 µg/L and a mean effluent concentration of 4 µg/L. The BioPod removed an average of 97% of total phosphorus, with a mean influent concentration of 2.52 mg/L and a mean effluent concentration of 0.066 mg/L. When total phosphorus influent concentrations were capped at the TAPE upper limit of 0.5 mg/L, calculations showed an average removal of 87%. Other BioPod Related Issues to be Addressed By the Company: 1. Conduct hydraulic testing to obtain information about maintenance requirements on a site with runoff that is more typical of the Pacific Northwest. Technology Description: Download at https://oldcastleprecast.com/stormwater/bioretention- biofiltration-applications/bioretention-biofiltration- solutions/ Contact Information: Applicant: Chris Demarest Oldcastle Infrastructure, Inc. (925) 667-7100 Chris.demarest@oldcastle.com Applicant website: https://oldcastleprecast.com/stormwater/ Ecology web link: https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/Guidance-technical- assistance/Stormwater-permittee-guidance-resources/Emerging-stormwater-treatment- technologies Ecology: Douglas C. Howie, P.E. Department of Ecology Water Quality Program (360) 407-6444 douglas.howie@ecy.wa.gov Revision History Date Revision March 2018 GULD granted for Basic Treatment March 2018 Provisional GULD granted for Enhanced and Phosphorus Treatment June 2016 PULD Granted April 2018 GULD for Basic and Provisional GULD for Enhanced and Phosphorus granted, changed name to BioPod from TreePod July 2018 GULD for Enhanced and Phosphorus granted Inspection & Maintenance seCTion 4 Inspection and Maintenance Guide BIOPODTM SYSTEM WITH STORMMIX™ MEDIA BioPod™ Biofilter with StormMix™ Biofiltration Media Description The BioPod™ Biofilter System (BioPod) is a stormwater biofiltration treatment system used to remove pollutants from stormwater runoff. Impervious surfaces and other urban and suburban landscapes generate a variety of contaminants that can enter stormwater and pollute downstream receiving waters unless treatment is provided. The BioPod system uses proprietary StormMix™ biofiltration media to capture and retain pollutants including total suspended solids (TSS), metals, nutrients, gross solids, trash and debris as well as petroleum hydrocarbons. Function The BioPod system uses engineered, high-flow rate filter media to remove stormwater pollutants, allowing for a smaller footprint than conventional bioretention systems. Contained within a compact precast concrete vault, the BioPod system consists of a biofiltration chamber and an optional integrated high-flow bypass with a contoured inlet rack to minimize scour. The biofiltration chamber is filled with horizontal layers of aggregate (which may or may not include an underdrain), biofiltration media and mulch. Stormwater passes vertically down through the mulch and biofiltration media for treatment. The mulch provides pretreatment by retaining most of the solids or sediment. The biofiltration media provides further treatment by retaining finer sediment and dissolved pollutants. The aggregate allows the media bed to drain evenly for discharge through an underdrain pipe or by infiltration. Configuration The BioPod system can be configured with either an internal or external bypass. The internal bypass allows both water quality and bypass flows to enter the treatment vault. The water quality flows are directed to the biofiltration chamber while the excess flows are diverted over the bypass weir without entering the biofiltration chamber. Both the treatment and bypass flows are combined in the outlet area prior to discharge from the structure. BioPod units without an internal bypass are designed such that only treatment flows enter the treatment structure. When the system has exceeded its treatment capacity, ponding will force bypass flows to continue down the gutter to the nearest standard catch basin or other external bypass structure. The BioPod system can be configured as a tree box filter with tree and grated inlet, as a planter box filter with shrubs, grasses and an open top, or as an underground filter with access risers, doors and a subsurface inlet pipe. The optional internal bypass may be incorporated with any of these configurations. In addition, an open bottom configuration may be used to promote infiltration and groundwater recharge. The configuration and size of the BioPod system is designed to meet the requirements of a specific project. Inspection & Maintenance Overview State and local regulations require all stormwater management systems to be inspected on a regular basis and maintained as necessary to ensure performance and protect downstream receiving waters. Without maintenance, excessive pollutant buildup can limit system performance by reducing the operating capacity of the system and increasing the potential for scouring of pollutants during periods of high flow. Some configurations of the BioPod may require periodic irrigation to establish and maintain vegetation. Vegetation will typically become established about two years after planting. Irrigation requirements are ultimately dependent on climate, rainfall and the type of vegetation selected. 2 INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE GUIDE 3 Maintenance Frequency Periodic inspection is essential for consistent system performance and is easily completed. Inspection is typically conducted a minimum of twice per year, but since pollutant transport and deposition varies from site to site, a site-specific maintenance frequency should be established during the first two or three years of operation. Inspection Equipment The following equipment is helpful when conducting BioPod inspections: •Recording device (pen and paper form, voice recorder, iPad, etc.) •Suitable clothing (appropriate footwear, gloves, hardhat, safety glasses, etc.) •Traffic control equipment (cones, barricades, signage, flagging, etc.) •Manhole hook or pry bar •Flashlight •Tape measure Inspection Procedures BioPod inspections are visual and are conducted without entering the unit. To complete an inspection, safety measures including traffic control should be deployed before the access covers or tree grates are removed. Once the covers have been removed, the following items should be checked and recorded (see form provided on page 6) to determine whether maintenance is required: •If the BioPod unit is equipped with an internal bypass, inspect the contoured inlet rack and outlet chamber and note whether there are any broken or missing parts. In the unlikely event that internal parts are broken or missing, contact Oldcastle Infrastructure at (800) 579-8819 to determine appropriate corrective action. •Note whether the curb inlet, inlet pipe, or – if the unit is equipped with an internal bypass – the inlet rack is blocked or obstructed. •If the unit is equipped with an internal bypass, observe, quantify and record the accumulation of trash and debris in the inlet rack. The significance of accumulated trash and debris is a matter of judgment. Often, much of the trash and debris may be removed manually at the time of inspection if a separate maintenance visit is not yet warranted. •If it has not rained within the past 24 hours, note whether standing water is observed in the biofiltration chamber. •Finally, observe, quantify and record presence of invasive vegetation and the amount of trash and debris and sediment load in the biofiltration chamber. Erosion of the mulch and biofiltration media bed should also be recorded. Sediment load may be rated light, medium or heavy depending on the conditions. Loading characteristics may be determined as follows: o Light sediment load – sediment is difficult to distinguish among the mulch fibers at the top of the mulch layer; the mulch appears almost new. o Medium sediment load – sediment accumulation is apparent and may be concentrated in some areas; probing the mulch layer reveals lighter sediment loads under the top 1” of mulch. o Heavy sediment load – sediment is readily apparent across the entire top of the mulch layer; individual mulch fibers are difficult to distinguish; probing the mulch layer reveals heavy sediment load under the top 1” of mulch. Often, much of the invasive vegetation and trash and debris may be removed manually at the time of inspection if a separate maintenance visit is not yet warranted. 4 Maintenance Indicators Maintenance should be scheduled if any of the following conditions are identified during inspection: •The concrete structure is damaged or the tree grate or access cover is damaged or missing. •The curb inlet or inlet rack is obstructed. •Standing water is observed in the biofiltration chamber more than 24 hours after a rainfall event (use discretion if the BioPod is located downstream of a storage system that attenuates flow). •Trash and debris in the inlet rack cannot be easily removed at the time of inspection. •Trash and debris, invasive vegetation or sediment load in the biofiltration chamber is heavy or excessive erosion has occurred. Maintenance Equipment The following equipment is helpful when conducting DVS maintenance: •Suitable clothing (appropriate footwear, gloves, hardhat, safety glasses, etc.) •Traffic control equipment (cones, barricades, signage, flagging, etc.) •Manhole hook or pry bar •Flashlight •Tape measure •Rake, hoe, shovel and broom •Bucket •Pruners •Vacuum truck (optional) Maintenance Procedures Maintenance should be conducted during dry weather when no flows are entering the system. All maintenance may be conducted without entering the BioPod structure. Once safety measures such as traffic control are deployed, the access covers may be removed and the following activities may be conducted to complete maintenance: •Remove all trash and debris from the curb inlet and inlet rack manually or by using a vacuum truck as required. •Remove all trash and debris and invasive vegetation from the biofiltration chamber manually or by using a vacuum truck as required. •If the sediment load is medium or light but erosion of the biofiltration media bed is evident, redistribute the mulch with a rake or replace missing mulch as appropriate. If erosion persists, rocks may be placed in the eroded area to help dissipate energy and prevent recurring erosion. •If the sediment load is heavy, remove the mulch layer using a hoe, rake, shovel and bucket, or by using a vacuum truck as required. If the sediment load is particularly heavy, inspect the surface of the biofiltration media once the mulch has been removed. If the media appears clogged with sediment, remove and replace one or two inches of biofiltration media prior to replacing the mulch layer. •Prune vegetation as appropriate and replace damaged or dead plants as required. •Replace the tree grate and/or access covers and sweep the area around the BioPod to leave the site clean. •All material removed from the BioPod during maintenance must be disposed of in accordance with local environmental regulations. In most cases, the material may be handled in the same manner as disposal of material removed from sumped catch basins or manholes. Natural, shredded hardwood mulch should be used in the BioPod. Timely replacement of the mulch layer according to the maintenance indicators described above should protect the biofiltration media below the mulch layer from clogging due to sediment accumulation. However, whenever the mulch is replaced, the BioPod should be visited 24 hours after the next major storm event to ensure that there is no standing water in the biofiltration chamber. Standing water indicates that the biofiltration media below the mulch layer is clogged and must be replaced. Please contact Oldcastle Infrastructure at (800) 579-8819 to purchase the proprietary StormMix™ biofiltration media. 5 BioPod Tree Module BioPod Media Module BioPod Planter Module BioPod Media Vault 6 Curb Inlet or Inlet Rack Blocked Notes: Yes No BioPod Inspection & Maintenance Log BioPod Model__________________________ Inspection Date________________________ Location______________________________________________________________________________ Condition of Internal Components Notes: Good Damaged Missing Standing Water in Biofiltration Chamber Notes: Yes No Trash and Debris in Inlet Rack Notes: Yes No Trash and Debris in Biofiltration Chamber Notes: Yes No Maintenance Requirements Yes - Schedule Maintenance No - Schedule Re-Inspection Invasive Vegetation in Biofiltration Chamber Notes: Yes No Sediment in Biofiltration Chamber Notes: Light Medium Heavy Erosion in Biofiltration Chamber Notes: Yes No BUILDING STRUCTURES OUR MARKETS TRANSPORTATION WATER ENERGYCOMMUNICATIONS May 2019 v.1 www.oldcastleinfrastructure.com 800-579-8819 BIOPOD®