Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA15-000039 2 of 3_MiscTECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT GRADING, INTERIM DRAINAGE, AND EROSION CONTROL Pointe Heron Fill, Excavation, and Grade Project 1101 SW Sunset Boulevard Renton, Washington King County Assessor's Parcel No. 132304-9010 Prepared for: Pointe Heron LLC 5050 1st Avenue, Suite 102 Seattle, WA 98134-2400 August 13, 2014 Our Job No. 14200 i',j(JISl{\IC! '.)f,JINf\JV id N01N3i1 :Kl A.11:'.> S10Z & Z ~1\/r ~ :v·YJ>• Q::1/\I , .. , .. J-.1 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT, WA 98032 (425) 251-6222 (425) 251-8782 FAX BRANCH OFFICES • TUMWATER, WA • LONG BEACH, CA • ROSEVILLE, CA • SAN DIEGO, CA www.barghausen.com TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW Figure 1 -Technical Information Report (TIR) Worksheet Figure 2 -Vicinity Map Figure 3 -Drainage Basins, Sub-basins, and Site Characteristics Figure 4 -Soils Map 2.0 CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY 2.1 Core and Special Requirements 3.0 OFF-SITE ANALYSIS 3.1 Upstream Basin Analysis 3.2 Downstream Basin Analysis 3.3 Upstream Basin Map 4.0 FLOW CONTROL AND WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS AND DESIGN 4.1 Existing Site Hydrology 4.2 Developed Site Hydrology 4.3 Performance Standards 4.4 Flow Control System 4.5 Water Quality System 5.0 CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN 6.0 SPECIAL REPORTS AND STUDIES 6.1 Wetland Hydrologic Assessment prepared by Ed McCarthy dated April 19, 2004 6.2 Geotechnical and Soil Engineering Report in Support of Proposed Fill, Excavation, and Grade, Pointe Heron LLC Parcel prepared by Earth Solutions NW LLC dated August 13, 2014 7.0 OTHER PERMITS 8.0 ESC ANALYSIS AND DESIGN 9.0 BOND QUANTITIES AND FACILITY SUMMARIES 10.0 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL APPENDIX 1 Color map exhibit generated from the City of Renton's GIS System 14200.004.doc 1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW The proposed Pointe Heron Fill. Excavation, and Grade project is located on a westerly portion of the approximately 26-acre Pointe Heron LLC parcel (Assessor's Parcel No. 132304-9010), a parcel that is located on the south side of SW Sunset Boulevard (a.k.a. SR-900) at 1101 SW Sunset Boulevard in Renton, Washington. Portions of the site were previously cleared and graded under City of Renton construction permit #U050099 and building permit #8050337 as part of the Sunset Bluff residential subdivision development. A Burlington Northern and Santa Fe (BNSF) Railroad right-of-way abuts roughly the westerly two thirds of the parcel's south side. An existing apartment development (the Sunset View Apartments) borders the northerly portion of the parcel's west side. The easterly portion of the Black River Quarry borders the southern portion of the parcel's west side. The parcel contains (1) areas of some relatively steep slopes, (2) portions of two wetlands (a wetland straddling a part of the easterly portion of the parcel's south boundary and a 258-square-foot portion of a 400-square-foot wetland straddling the parcel's south boundary near the west end of the parcel), and (3) a non-fish-bearing intermittent Class 4 Stream. The parcel slopes generally from north to south, with a typical overall grade differential from north to south of about 120 feet. The project site (within work area limits) encompassing both of the project's two phases is roughly 14.12 acres in size. This project site area has already been cleared and partially graded under the above-referenced previous permits. The work that was approved for construction under permit #U050099 consisted of (a) logging the site, (b) removing the stumps, (c) initial grading necessary in order to (i) gain access to the Sunset Bluff site from the west (from the Black River Quarry) and from SW Sunset Boulevard toward the east end parcel's north edge, (ii) construct a temporary sediment pond along the south central portion of the parcel (as well as construct the pond's maintenance access road), and (iii) establish basic grades for the Sunset Bluff residential subdivision development as a whole, and (d) installing erosion control measures necessary to retain all sediment on the Sunset Bluff site. The Sunset Bluff development's permanent stormwater detention and water quality pond facility was constructed under that permit and used as the temporary sediment pond. Most of the erosion control measures that were proposed under permit #U050099 were designed so that they could also be used in support of both the interim and final grading and drainage construction phases of the Sunset Bluff development project. An engineered fill slope along the west, north, and east interior edges of the pond with an ecology block wall along the base and other engineered fill slopes to the west and east of the pond were also installed under construction permit #U050099 and under building permit #8050337. The now-proposed grading, interim drainage, erosion/sedimentation control, and rehabilitation work on the subject project site is proposed to be done in two phases. The Phase 1 portion of the proposal is to involve both (1) filling of the existing stormwater detention and water quality pond located near the site's south boundary and (2) filling of the adjacent areas of the project site in order raise site grades to an interim elevation of approximately 110 feet. Phase 1 is also to involve construction of a new interim detention and water quality pond with a bottom elevation of 100 feet and an overflow elevation of 109 feet. The Phase 1 work will involve roughly 267,000 cubic yards of fill. An engineered 1.5H to 1 V fill slope will be constructed along the south side of the site over the existing pond and will close the gap between the existing engineered fill slopes along the south edge of the Pointe Heron LLC parcel to the east and west. The interim detention pond will provide the required detention for level 2 flow control for the proposed site conditions and will also serve as a temporary sediment pond. As noted on Sheet E3 of the 10-sheet set of Grading, Interim Drainage, E.S.C., and Rehabilitation Plans (the "Grading Plans"), the southerly top edge of this pond will be setback to the north from the interim Phase 1 top of the proposed engineered fill slope by a minimum of 80 feet unless the project's geotechnical engineer approves otherwise. This interim pond is to be in place and operational by October 1 following the first season of the filling and grading operation. After both (a) the permanent stormwater pond (described in the next paragraph as part of the Phase 2 construction) has been constructed and is operational and (b) most of the plateau area has been filled to its final Phase 2 design height so 14200.004.doc that runoff from that area of the plateau will drain into the permanent stormwater pond, the interim pond is to be filled with compacted structural fill. The Phase 1 work will involve approximately 267,000 cubic yards of fill but no excavation (unless work on the permanent pond starts early, in which case the approximately 18,200 cubic yards of excavation for the permanent pond could be done as part of the Phase 1 portion of the project. During the Phase 2 portion of the project, ( 1) a proposed potentially permanent storm water pond will be excavated from a segment of the northern portion of the existing plateau portion of the project site, (2) the area of the Phase 1 interim detention pond will be filled to final grade, and (3) the remainder of the project site will be filled to final grade, which will result in the plateau portion of the project site having an elevations ranging from 125 to 128 feet as depicted on the Grading Plans. [This proposed pond is designed so that it can be permanent. However, depending on the ultimate land use of the subject Pointe Heron LLC parcel, this pond might ultimately be replaced with (1) another stormwater detention and water quality pond located in a different portion of the parcel or (2) one or more underground stonmwater detention and water quality vaults. Because this pond is designed to the standards of a permanent pond with adequate detention for level 2 flow control for the proposed site conditions, in this report it is referred to as a "permanent pond" even though it might be ultimately modified or replaced.] The location of the permanent pond along the northern part of the existing plateau portion of the project site will afford easier access for pond maintenance than does the location of the existing stormwater and water quality pond created for the Sunset Bluff project at the base of existing slopes. The Phase 2 work will involve approximately 18,200 cubic yards of excavation (for the permanent pond) and approximately 228,500 cubic yards of fill for a net fill of roughly 210,000 cubic yards. As part of the Phase 2 work, the engineered 1.5H to 1 V fill slope along the south side of the fill area will be extended to an elevation of 128 feet. The phase 2 work is expected to be completed during the overall project's second or third construction season. During both phases of construction, the fill material shall conform to the following excerpt from the Fill Material Specifications for the Proposed Fill, an excerpt taken from pages 7 and 8 of the "Geotechnical and Soil Engineering Report in Support of Proposed Fill, Excavation, and Grade, Pointe Heron LLC Parcel" prepared by Earth Solutions NW LLC dated August 13, 2014 (referred to below as the Geotechnical Report): Fill Material Specifications for the Proposed Fill Two categories of structural fill are proposed for the subject fill and grade project: (1) a crushed aggregate fill to be used to construct a buttress fill zone along the face of the proposed fill slopes and (2) a fill to be used to construct the proposed fill core behind the crushed aggregate buttress fill zone. (See Plate 3 for a schematic depiction of the buttress fill zone and the core structural fill zone behind it.1 ) Both of these categories of structural fill must conform to RMC 4-4- 060N4 (FILL MATERIAL), which states in relevant part: Fill materials shall have no more than minor amounts of organic substances and shall have no rock or similar irreducible material with a maximum dimension greater than eight inches (8"). Fill material shall meet the following requirements: a. Construction, Demolition, and Land Clearing Waste Prohibited: Fill material shall be free of construction, demolition, and land clearing waste except that this requirement does not preclude the use of recycled 1 A copy of Plate 3 has been incorporated into Sheet E10 ofthe10-sheet set of the Grading, Interim Drainage, E.S.C., and Rehabilitation Plans for the proposed project. 14200.004.doc concrete rubble per Washington State Department of Transportation Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction. b. Cleanliness of Fill Material: Fill material shall not contain concentrations of contaminants that exceed cleanup standards for soil specified in WAC 173-340-740, Model Toxics Control Act In addition to conforming to RMC 4-4-060N4 (FILL MATERIAL), each of the two categories of fill material must conform to the respective applicable technical specifications set forth below. Buttress Fill Material Specification Material to be used to construct the buttress fill zone along the face of the proposed fill slopes shall be crushed aggregate conforming to RMC 4-4-060N4 (FILL MATERIAL) and conforming to the following strength parameters: Internal angle of friction 46' minimum Moist unit weight 145 pcf minimum Maximum aggregate size 8 inches Maximum fines content (passing U.S. Sieve No. 200) shall not exceed 5 percent This specified material, which is equivalent to coarse gravel and/or cobble, must be well-graded and angular (crushed). Samples of this proposed fill material must be provided to ESNW for laboratory analysis and approval prior to placement Page 34 of the Geotechnical Report provides the following explanation of the proposed configuration of the crushed aggregate buttress fill material to be placed along the face of the proposed 1.5H:1V fill slope, including a statement concerning the material's porous, nonerosive characteristics and benefits to the proposed project that those characteristics afford: The proposed crushed aggregate buttress fill along the slope face [a fill proposed to taper in horizontal depth from (1) a 35-foot depth at the toe of the proposed new 1.5H:1V engineered fill slope tapering to (2) a 5-foot depth at the top of the slope] will not only be excellent for providing slope stability and preventing slope erosion, it will also provide a porous, nonerosive aggregate facing of the proposed slope face (see Plate 3), a facing that will be excellent for vertically transmitting and dispersing through the crushed aggregate buttress zone both (a) rainwater that strikes the slope's face and (b) any hillside perched groundwater that may seep into the buttress fill zone from the fill core. This will eliminate any need for terracing the slope. Because of the porous, nonerosive characteristics of the proposed fill slope face, vegetation of the slope face will not be needed to prevent erosion and, because the facing will not be conducive to landscaping, other plantings, or hydroseeding, vegetation of the slope face will not be appropriate and is not being proposed. 14200.004.doc Stormwater from both the proposed interim pond and the proposed permanent pond will be discharged from the Pointe Heron LLC parcel at the same location as the discharge from the existing stormwater pond: namely, into an existing Type II storm manhole located at the south boundary of the project site, a manhole that drains into an existing 18-inch diameter ADS culvert (within a 24-inch steel casing) lying across and beneath the BNSF Railroad grade within the railroad right-of-way that abuts the south edge of most of the Pointe Heron LLC parcel. 14200.004.doc Figure 1 TIR Worksheet KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Part 1 PROJECT OWNER AND PROJECT ENGINEER Project Owner Pointe Heron LLC Phone 206-762-9125 Address 9125 JO'h Avenue South Seattle WA 98108 Project Engineer Don Dawes, P .E. . Company Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. Phone ( 425) 251-6222 Part 3 TYPE OF PERMIT APPLICATION D Landuse Services Subdivision / Short Subd. I UPD D Building Services M/F / Commercial I SFR 181 Clearing and Grading D Right-of-Way Use D other Part 5 PLAN AND REPORT INFORMATION Technical Information Report Type of Drainage Review !Full / Targeted (circle): Large Site Date (include revision 8-13-14 dates): Date of Final: Part6 ADJUSTMENT APPROVALS I Part 2 PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION Project Name Pointe Heron/SJ ODES Permit# ---------- Location Township 23 North Range ~4'-'E"'·aess,,_t ___ _ Section ~1,..3'------- Site Address 1101 SW Sunset Blvd. Renton Part 4 OTHER REVIEWS AND PERMITS D DFWHPA 0 COE404 D DOE Dam Safety D FEMA Floodplain D COE Wetlands D Other __ _ D Shoreline Management D Structural RockeryNaulU __ D ESA Section 7 Site Improvement Plan (Engr. Plans) Type (circle one): !Fulj / Modified I Small Site Date (include revision 8-13-14 dates): Date of Final: Type (circle one): Standard / Complex I Preapplication / Experimental / Blanket Description: (include conditions in TIR Section 2) None at this time. Date of Aporoval: 2009 Surface Water Design Manual 1/1/09 14200-TIR Worksheet.doc KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Part 7 MONITORING REQUIREMENTS Monitoring Required: ~/ No Describe: Start Date: TBD Completion Date: TBD Part 8 SITE COMMUNITY AND DRAINAGE BASIN Community Plan : ...,C=i,,ty~o=f~R=e=n=to=n~------- Special District Overlays:----------------------- Drainage Basin: ...,G,,,1"'-e"'e1"---1 R"""iv-"e,_r ---------- Stormwater Requirements: Part 9 ONSITE AND ADJACENT SENSITIVE AREAS ~ River/Stream Unclassified (non-fish bearing) D Lake ~ Wetlands Not in development area D Closed Depression ------- 0 Floodplain _________ _ D Other ___________ _ Part 10 SOILS Soil Type Slopes ~ Steep Slope Outside of development area -will be contained in a Native Growth Protection Easement area D Erosion Hazard _______ _ D Landslide Hazard ______ _ D Coal Mine Hazard ______ _ D Seismic Hazard _______ _ D Habitat Protection ______ _ o __________ _ Erosion Potential KCRTS Till 0 to 80 Jlercent D High Groundwater Table (within 5 feel) D Olher D Additional Sheets Attached 2009 SurFace Water Design Manual 2 D Sole Source Aquifer D Seeps/Springs 1/1/09 14200-TIR Worksheet.doc KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Part 11 DRAINAGE DESIGN LIMITATIONS REFERENCE LIMITATION/ SITE CONSTRAINT D Core 2 -Offsite Anall(sis D Sensitive/Critical Areas D SEPA D Other D D Additional Sheets Attached Part 12 TIR SUMMARY SHEET (provide one TIR Summaiy Sheet per Threshold Discharge Area) Threshold Discharge Area: /name or descrintionl Core Requirements (all 8 apply) Discharae at Natural Location Number of Natural Discharae Locations: I Offsite Analysis Level: l]/2/3 dated: Flow Control Level: 1 / ~ / 3 or Exemption Number (incl. facilitv summary sheet) Small Site BMPs TBD with final desion nlans Conveyance System Spill containment located at: TBD with final design 11lans Erosion and Sediment Control ESC Site Supervisor: Don Dawes Contact Phone: 425-656-7495 After Hours Phone: 206-396-86 I 6 Maintenance and Operation Responsibility: 1Privat"1 / Public If Private Maintenance Loa Renuired: lvesl / No Financial Guarantees and Provided: Yes / IMQl Liabililv Water Quality Type: ~ I Sens. Lake / Enhanced Basicm / Bog (include facility summary sheet) or Exemption No. Landscaoe Manaaement Plan: Yes I liiicl Special Requirements fas apnlicable) Area Specific Drainage Requirements Floodplain/Floodway Delineation Flood Protection Facilities Source Control (comm./industrial landuse) 2009 Surface Water Design Manual Type: CDA I SDO / MOP / BP / LMP / Shared Fae. / ~ Name: Type: Major / Minor / Exemption / ~ 100-year Base Blood Elevation (or range): Datum: Describe: Describe landuse: Describe any structural controls: 3 1/1/09 t4200-TIR Worksheet.doc KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Oil Control High-use Site: Treatment BMP: Yes/~ Maintenance Agreement: Yes / ~ with whom? Other Drainage Structures Describe: Part 13 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL REQUIREMENTS MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS DURING CONSTRUCTION AFTER CONSTRUCTION 121 Clearing Limits 121 Stabilize Exposed Surfaces 121 Cover Measures 121 Remove and Restore Temporary ESC Facilities 121 Perimeter Protection D Clean and Remove All Silt and Debris Ensure 121 Traffic Area Stabilization Operation of Permanent Facilities 121 Sediment Retention 121 · Flag Limits of SAO and open space 121 Surface Water Control preservation areas D Other D Dewatering Control 121 Dust Control 121 Flow Control Part 14 STORMWATER FACILITY DESCRIPTIONS/Note: Include Facilitv Summarv and Sketch\ Flow Control Tvne/Descriotion 121 Detention Open Pond D I nfillration D Regional Facility D Shared Facility D Flow Control BMPs D Other 2009 Surface Water Design Manual 4 Water Qualitv Tvne/Descriotion D Biofiltration 121 Wetpool Combined w/Det. D Media Filtration D Oil Control D Spill Control D Flow Control BMPs D other 1/1/09 14200-TIR Worksheet.doc KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Part 15 EASEMENTS/TRACTS Part 16 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS D Drainage Easement D Cast in Place Vault D Covenant D Retaining Wall [8J Native Growth Protection Covenant D Rockery> 4' High D Tract [8J Structural on Steep Slope D other D 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 incorpor ed into this~orksheet and the attached Technical Information Report. To the best of my knowledg .)he inform ·on provided here is accura . 2009 Surface Water Design Manual 5 3 If 1/1/09 t4200-TIR Worksheet.doc Figure 2 Vicinity Map S. 128TH ST. S. 132ND ST. MARTIN Llf\\-1£.R KING JR. WAY QUARRY Scale: Horizontal N/A Vertical N/A 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT, WA 98032 (425)251-6222 (425)251-8782 FAX CML ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING, SURVFr'ING, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES POINTE HERON Title: VICINITY MAP ~ X VJ w 3c <( 0 0 . - II ' -CD 0 <.) U) "' CL "' n n n 0 N '-... a) N '-... 0 CD E ~ CD 0 0 -z. v:i 0, " ~ " Q. ~ 0 "' I ~ u > c£. I X --i.---'i"--I 0 -..i.-' 0 N st .c;:; :3 .c X CD / 0 0 N st / "' 0 0 0 st --:: CL -" BCEtl4200 [;: Figure 3 Drainage Basins, Sub-basins, and Site Characteristics /·~'-,., --- \ '\\~ R\t~::¥,/:"~\-;\'~\\~1*'51i,_ _ '-_ ---~-T'f:ji'~11' Ii\ \ ' ' \\~\·,'<-x<'{\ ,\:, \ \ ,; \ I I \.:a,\ rf" \ \~ ,\\ I J \ \ \\ \\\ \ \,\ \\~. \ \ ·;\ \ "-\ > c:_ ' )... \ \l., I \\\\{:\\\:::.\\\\'\ \. J1 ',:,!-li',I \ -~\ !}\ , __ :/\ \;--\-\\ -( ,\ ) ~)' 'J\' I-\ 1, \1 \ ', \~\ (~\{. \~;> \\~\ \\ J \ \ ~ \ \ j --1i~ \ \ ·; \ l\\j! '\.'\,--_\ ' \ ~1\1 1,111, ,' l' \~}\, \ 1.\~\\.\\\ \ II 1 ~I CJ) '1 t :1 i, \ , \ \ ,, \ I • , , , \ I o I I I I \\\\ \ \'\'1\ \\\ \ ( II ·1 1'j! I I 11\ \ '111 \I ? I \1 \ \ ~ I I \ ,:,;. I ' 1 I I ' l '\\°0! \'I,.,~ ..... ,-\-';------~, ~-~-...).. __ :: J I l I ~ /H ', I \\ \ \\ I I\\ ---"'---j I ) I I L \ I lj ;~~ill \\\'(, s \ '> \ \ \ J I.I 1 I I\ I I )I I \,\".,1\\\\\\ _,-1 1/li\l ~\u/1j1 I \,\-vi,'' I,, [•lj '"-"--,)1/ ,; ',, , \ \ \ \ '1,1 I / /), / 1 I ~, ' ~,-,,1;,\·i,' )/' c--, 1L1, I: )>\~~;-'-1,1-___ J \ ~-\~\~,\\\ -\v ,II /I -1... T -~'\"'\·\, 1/r-' -1' 1J! ;,zc:-"1\ __ ,.\\\\\\\ '\1'', I ;_ 1, 1\/ \\\ \\1\\\ 1 \\ v / 1 \ \\\2:)\1 11 ! 1 J I f -~-\:2-i\\1\ (\ I: // :'1 0,\\\ \ ' 'I I \ ' "-I I \ 1' -,-, . '\\ I I I '.I I\' ' ' I \\\ 1 1 \\ 11 \\\ I \ '-....._/ I I \ (' ~ '\ \ \ \ \ \\ '1 .' ( i I \\\; \\\ I \ \ \ \ \ ~ \1 \\I I \ \ 1 I I~\ ~~\ \ "\ J \\ \--,;::;"1 '1\ \ \ 1N\1\ \,1 I 11-~ \I \ 1 1 -\ --____j__;;;,~,-~----~ 1 ,--;:~ -.0;1 · \ , 1 , ~t\ ·1 1 J 1~\\ \ 1 \\\ ,/ ~ : f \ '\ }; :- 1 1\ '\\ \ I I 1 1 1'1 \ 1 -,1 11~\1 '"''' ,' ,,\ r 'v 1 '-'L,·'-·1~1\(,11 t /1 \1\ ,1 \\\,\\, \.1 j 1\ ')~. \\ i\,' iv .----_, 1· ';I\> 1 '-)1 \ 1 1 "· J \ 1 \ I ' \ 1 \ \ ', :,1 \\,I' ' 11', I \10, -. 1 )', -~-------,o ;, \ I \ii 1 ( I , , \lq;, ''1-1 f 1i:J. j, _, \\ '-\ ,~, \. \ \ \-' I \ I I • /"'' ' \ I \ ' 1\.-., 1 _ \ \ \11 \ \ \ I\ I' -'; j (f\ ' \' "'-, ~ \ ', \i 1 , ~ l' \1\,I,\ \1\1\\,\\ ( ~\ ) 1-...' 1-C., 1\\1 I .I. \1\\\\ \ -1 \\I_,\ --\ \ ' \ ' 1 , \ \~'t \ } \ \ I I / -,, \ " ' \ i --I I , \ ' ' ,.-, • 1 1 I 1 1 ' ' I \:\I\ --_\ :~\\\\ ___ \... -\.\'. I I\\ '. \ '1_ -,i ____ t\:,_,_'_-__ ,_·._-_\· __ ---'--\ \\11\1 ' 1 '-''\\_'· \ '; \ 'i Y-\ )\·\'·',\··, .. ', 1 I \\~\-," ,,, ,::,\', ,_ ,>./ '1111_1 __ 1,_! 1\ I 11! \~ \ I I I '\',---'_\ \ \ \ '1 \ \Y-. ,, \·_,I \:.I:,\:.,',.:_, I r----------- \\~\ \ " ' I ,.,;, -, ' ' \ ' I -' ' ' I I ------ \ 1 ·.f. \\'\ \ \ 1 \~/~:-.. _ \ '\ .I I ·-\ .'° ·_{·-:,\\:·.-':i,,i .. '._{ 1 1 1\ \\ I\ \ --<~_{"-'\ '-\'., \.)''·l",1•:\-.,\·tl I I \~I\ i, ' ' \ \< I \',;ii,_,, 11 I ',\ I \ •. ·~···· ------/ ,_\, 1\_'_ 1 , , ''_\l~_-1 __ ,_•_1_',11 -1 \ ____ T __ _ , ' •\ \. 1 \ 1 '-,~ _ I '1 .\ ;\ \ ,,.1, \ \ \· \\ \ I ,,___~ ' 11\ \1-\":'1 \ 1 ---~ I I I \ -~ ', \.':\,\ I \1 'I 1\\) I ·, I \, -'1--i\' ,c '_"\ I \ II' I \'1 I ' J 11. \1, I, I \ t-------- \ \)\ ;-11A \ -i\ I I ci1 ',·:, ___ I II =r ----- 1 111\·.) · \ , __ "\ ', \ ./,, T\ T ', \\-\\ ____ ,_' \ , 1 , --I 11 11 r ,\{'.J:l1 I I \--··---------- \ \~\1 ' \ -I I I \ I I \ 'I: I I I , \l, i -0,\ I I I ' I \J ;/ , I I 11 \ \ ' \ ', I I I I ~ ' \ ' I I I \ I I '\ I I,\----' '-1_' \ I ' J.-Y j I I I 11 I I 1 --I l\\, r I I\ j , , 11:1 '1 l ' ): l:1 111 F, I ,,:'~'1 I 11 I \ ,J ; \ \ I -------- '_'ii' -_hi_ ·:_1_ J,_1-_! ,_, ,,_ ( I ,_-1 ,_-1 --), I I ---, --. 1,i,il l,'," '','I I' 1, I _ _ ,--/ 1 ,: \ \ I '•', / J \ ro / ,,I', , ''\ , 1 , 1, r 1 , , • ,1 , , ,11\1_'),i\ 1,1 I·' ' 11_\\,' __ ,-,-::.-/ -\1 1\1_\\ ',I--] I, I' J IJtD 1 1 \ \ 'I I I -1 I ro L------.-'--=:_-_·_c ;7,~: \ \ ;:r_· ' ,-----, Il l '' 'I' -)> , ' ' I\ I C -1 II -i,\ ', I' I 11 I b 1 \ \ :1 \ , '\-, z : ·. \I . 'I. . . .-1 . .. , 1 • en l~,l11il1~ll i., 111, l \fn~\\ 1, \ ,,, \ \ __ 'I\ '~ )'-I -------1 ~ 11 1 ,I , 1 1 -l!!-, -, 1 I 1 , 11 , m 1fl1J ii, ; '1 ~)>\\\ I 1, i I, ! 1, !; -1~ ------------- IJ:1111;~_/ i1,1 i lo-,,,,1,,\ I ',' 'fl_\' o I' ~o' \ + 11 ' 1. _,_, 1 '-1 1/ , ~ I : \ ' \ I ' ' I ,. \ 1 1, "">--I I · ' UJ t\l '1 '111, ro(!l J, \, , 1_1_ -~ I -1: I 1 1 1 ~rr 11 Yi i oi I --i '1 r 11 1 i I 1 ! .'J J 1 8 / II , ,, 1'~ I 1 /--------1 • I I O I 1--l . \ I, jrrlt' _ I, i\ w-11 . _ii1 __ , __ ~·--_-__ ._-_-__ 1_, -~r /1-_! '.::I~ I ,I / '~ti/.1 / / IHJ I ,· •·•. 11----- 1 'I -. J 1,_,_ , I 1 ! / I ,-I I 1(1i:// /,>~~--::.--=----J ! ,' 1 ~/ / ... / J././,A I / /I// i / / / y / / / 0"1 ,.' I .J11 / / ~1 ./ -----,' \ I : //// / I '-' r, 1 ' \ _I I -,• 1''1-_·~/-' \ / ;-,, I,,~' V" '/, 1111, • / , I ' • ( I ' 1 / I l ------/ ' //;/I /!/ 1--::--~'/,, i 1_1:/·/ \ / / ----------y-·---~ ; ! 1_;/l ___ f;, ; /_1 ,._-, --1 ;;:~-:::> I --z/_/1 _J_-_-• I/ / / / il/, / //l .1 /· . / /1 ' /l · · / I ' ~#, ,J -_-'_II I/ ) /Ji / I / / / I , I fl / \ -' ' ' I I ' I / /• ·.· i / / / / 1, I. , , ; ;1 // /; 1 11,, / / 1~1 / r---- ' '1t/;i/l!,1'-1'l/' //11_1 -' ;' \ 'A II ' I ' I ' o/ -' I /i~1 /l / /1 1 / / / 1 /_// .-~,, 1 1/ / fj I ' I I I j I I I! I I / / / I / ___ ./, () I .,. / / , I. IL I ' ' / I / / / / • ' I / ' L -/ ~; ' /I ' I -/ Ir ' \ ' I ' I ( I ..._ /; I / I < \ ., -/ , /· /'·J //1 / / I , \ \ , I -" ("/ I ; / 1 /Jr ~'\ I Y I 1 / ' /;/ ! '/ ( '11,',111 '1,../1----------~-----/ ;::1!~// / / i \ •,'t 1 \ Ii': 1 1 \i'-_( /11 11/// 1/ -';;f/J ,l111K' ,;-I /0 ' ,~ \ ~ ' / r / ,J·I I I --------/ / / ,f 1': -~--'f'-"-', ---~' '-, ' /--/-------------( r-/ /<f // .'j r/-,C ~"'t~~--'c;......' I 1 .... , \ \ \ / /1 / / ;;.J , 1/. ;, .,,.-. Ir . --t --.. 1 ., i-u /;J;;// ,' / / .. I ( I '/----/ '<..s. \ '\ \, \ \ / / :' J /(;Y// :.·JI)/ "-,;...-----~,\ \ \ /.1 / ,' ' / I I ...__ ~ I \ \ I . I / // _..-;,-(./,/ /// -//ii' f j/ '". --'t • I 1, I / / /-------,r;;--------~-/ Co : .·/,;,/'/,·· -· .'// / I, 1 \ :j,1 \/,II / -' I I/ I .'( ,;;/·. /,,.) ·.··_/,1.I/ __ / / ~.,..'/ /'"' \ ._.,'. ,),// f,'< ,~-/ // / //',-;:~ ,1 / ; ·;, 1/, 1 )./ , r'c--. ,,1; 1 /1 ',, 1 ·-,., / 1 L ____ / ---------- 1 //17"'-.,,-// ,.,-( 1 , , If_, i , I -, 1 I I ' ;/.\:;;:/ /'~11l 1'1 I I/ I~-/ ~,/ ' /<i'lf /,,,.--/-<l'o..___ I ----, I i / 'di/ / / /I, I I / -. /'\.: I / ' ' I I l ,_ ' I I I / ~ '.,>'} ' I ------- ~ ' ,-; ! , e / / ( ' ) I ' /; / C., -/' ' ''Y , ' / ... 1···u1/",.,./ c'"'/J f/!i/ ii I/ / '\; // /·, ,<J~-----..J......; //./ / ~"/~;~/,,/,,. r ; J: / t ,i (/ _//1 { r, Q' "'----. r/ ,,/ ,.,/ I" I / / ,' / ,( I '· _..." f/ / _,---~/------ / / / [ I I -/ ; I , J ', > ,-----/ - /,,,. _ ii +1ti-111_-_ 11/ -/ " --r / · ,J' ; 1 ; / I "X , ( /. • ,f ,( , / ~.r /' / 1,.~. /'.,,:/ //"// J....,.f \,1.,./ / 1 _/,/ .-, / '-/ , , / I ".r / / \..,/ I ·=I,-(-__:__, \ ' ,l.·.11-t / ! • / /' '>--J t--..... / / ·- ~-- m >< Cf) -I z C) (D )> Cf) z )> ::0 m )> s:: )> "lJ C) ::0 )> 0 z C) )> z 0 z -I m ::0 s:: 0 ::0 )> z )> C) m "lJ r )> z / / 1 ! --' ':_ I,/, ,1, '~, ' . , , / .,/ /,/ /,-/ J/,.,--'-,J-/-,) I / i'• , / /\/_·1 .. ':-/' ",, \, I ' I ....____ __ i, -I ' / ' -1 ./ / • , -, _ ; -_" ;, r _._1 , 0-, ;' · -; .. ·,--{ i I / I \ i -I I. ,,~ / -.. .. i ' -i i/ -\ / I .. ,----·,~ ' ! ' I ;· ·-.··-I , , -' I , , i, 1, ' ii',, ' I ,"- I ,, , 1-----/ I/ l I , -" -•• v-· 1 , 1 I --. -._ I , , • -'/ ---/I/ , '( -~ , '':;:~:-,f :b.[j~:;if;,/;/1> . / <,,, , // , ~~~ iS';, ~--/ =C.C:/c-:-:_i,1»,:,§;,;c\,f----/$,, ! '.,;,/ ,,7 , 'y ' Job r;umt,er ~~~HA~ ~; -. -( .~ -~ \ ti ~ ~ ' , ,n~ 14200 Sheet _L,,. 1 ·2:1s 7:r,o ,\v:J,._1:: SklT""1 ~-E~IT. \'iA 920.:t:· (4:::'.~-) ::, -on: (4'.2:-."1 -t, i.':,= I A\ :1vlL u,Gl'-;llRI\I; _AND Pl.~NNING, )lJh\it.YIN(;, C'·:Vlf!C:tlMl·tl:AI ':,f"~VltF'., c-,,,,q,,,u !'fawn ____:0_ (h 0 c,e~~ Aoprc,e,1 DU C,~k I ':'0/11 c;,,,le t;,i,,c,nl<l ·~ 'UII v~,1,c,J, N/A r,lq·P·\ · 4000s\ 1 '-2CJl'\r·r~I m,r,1Jr/,.14<rn-e,-r,<1c,1n ,1W<J Dn,~/',rr~ I :"1 7.'~814 ,;:41 ?M -Scale '' CDA\\ES Xre' For. POINTE HERON LLC 9125 -10TH AVENUE SOUTH SEATTLE, WA 98108 (206) 762-9125 __J-j-j~_J I fl~ I D,•.• Ov ChJ 1 ~rD' I E~,s,~c Trtle-EXISTING BASIN AREA MAP GRADING AND INTERIM DRAINAGE PLAN POINTE HERON 0 g ~' g ~ ~i ': -I , ;: " g 0 m < m r -\ ~~\ 1 ·r··~,ii,' •,,~ -~ ·~' ' 'f,''~\\\/,'['~· I \--) 0 \ ., .·.\· .. \·:·\·<· ... ,1,;..-::,,/ .~,!!!--'-:~,..--, r ••, _.,.,1~"' .•: ·i.·._11~·.,.. I __ \ \ j.:~\.'\\~~:'.1[~£'~::-~:>?\~-.-~:.•1::'1':J:'.-;~-\1·,.,:,._1 \, ------~---""U '11 ., , , , H. ,, ,, , ":1',:' , 11 1 I, • Ir . m ;;j i ;;!;;! 5l5l !/l i I ',\ ~,'5l '\,, \ ,( ,\, \ \,\\\\.,,,....I \ j' 0 -< f-f-f-,.,. z \ /, m :i,, \ ,, \' ~------o ,, 21 ,, ::. ::. .... o > ' • • 1 . , ----OJ :;;' > "' ii!> r r ~ \ (; ' ---t _l_ i ~ ; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ \ \' 11 ----------6) r ~~ ~ ~ I Q --!i1 8 . I I Z rli ~ ;;1 ::11 s: ---.. I 0 .... .... :!: '?.-1 r· ________ ~ '11 d F::1;;: O Ii\ l\"'il!om I -:--· ......._ Ill ~ , I 1, ~ > r.r, / >' ; .. 1 i 0;,, \ I 11, I \~~ ::E I / """ fR 2,.,J, 1-. I· I l~Q rn r-------------U ~ -~ Jj ,.. ~ :: I 11 1 -" \ \ '1'' """ \ I I I I ro'+ ~---;;g \ \' 1 1 I\ ' ',-,",,'1 ~II I I 'j I ~':;.l I I I C) -~ ~ I ~ N ~ !ii I.! I __ T_·: __: I I I ('1 1 '---:!\ ,;;j 1.,,:, !'i\\\\ \ I\ \ \ !:; I 1-----------:IJ "' _.. > i;; -"' -}: · ,. I I I , f-,,,, "'" \ 0 ......._ t5 -::'IOI 1Z!i , I I l 1,, c; I \ . I I >'1" ! ~ ~ ! "'.: ~ ~ / 11\1 1.1 ·---.I lil;j:: o)[(f Ii I I! /j ~-----____ / 0 z 'J; I '" I I Ii I:/ C) . p! fi'i c.> c.:> ~ 1 ,.''·j ·: I 8 a;.. ~ ~,..,!l! / I.,!·· I :1 ......._ ,;-N > ,;-,.._,,gl;S .. 'I' I" >' [! 0 [! 0 / ii · { z I 1. 1 i /Y I O z -, m :IJ ~ ' •; '' ' / ' u-i=----:=· · , ~ ./'," / , ', , ,/ f1' / i I r-----~"-l __ --, I ,, • , I , 1 o,f!l -1 ;------O ,.., -.... ./ ' ' '/ / ;1 I i . / i "'"',, I ;' Job Nurr,bor 14200 S~eet 1 • 1 , / I ,: I" . 1 -0 , .. // ...• 11 //// 1 · 1 ___ e~rn 1 1 :D o-_;:,1-2 J' l1); I/ I I, ,.j I --------1 f------::t> q.G HA<.,'9 18215 72ND AVENU[ SOUTH ~ "' KENT. WA 98032 4:) _. (425) 251--6222 ---. ~ "': (425) 251·-8782 cAX i f ,j,,s, ,;': CIVIL ENGINEERIN:;, LANO PLANNltSG ~ I' t.f(,11:-SURVEYING. ENV'R:)NIA[NTAL srnv1cEs 11'G EMG\~ Scol•· Hu,,,u,,tul OesigMd ___(J;j_ O«,~n~ Cnecked _!;l_l)_ , .. m 100 Ap~o·n•d .....Q_Q_ V~rl,col Jn\e _1/_:'ll/_~4-,;, X.,o,f-{' '>',, I I I ' I j ~(.!>"'O , ff , ) \ /'-I / z For, POINTE HERON LLC 9125 -10TH AVENUE SOUTH SEA TILE, WA 98108 (206) 762-9125 :t> C) m ""U r ------~ No. I Dole I By I Ckcl I Apur Revis;on T~e, DEVELOPED BASIN MAP GRADING AND INTERIM DRAINAGE PLAN POINTE HERON FdeP.\140005\14200\~relim,nol)\14200-dev-b<Js;~.d"g Date/TinieS/15/2014 5:30 P'-1 Scale I"~ 1' DDAWFS x,~i ---- \ ' I ' I \ I ' I D .. : . ' { ; : : I I ! I ',,. : ',, I 1 rl I .'//: :.~ · ... ,,' • , 1 I: ' • • • I I j I ; / '' ., .. ,t • I j • " • l' .. " . ,ilrr ~ I : J ~ ·1:•r j, 'i ,.,,, :: ::; . ·1 11• .. , ,. \ \ \ \ . • ' . I I . I , \ ( . \ ' , i \ I \ ' . i ' . :. t r ·!--I ·,1.. I :I 1,1,....__ ] ( l I I ' ,,. ' ·\ I ' • •\ I / ,, / I ' I :• ' ~ /4':z: ._ ·.:) ' . ' • '4' .. 1 .... Figure 4 Soils Map SOILS MAP NORTH 2.1 CORE AND SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS Care Requirement# 1: Discharge at the Natural Location: All surface and stormwater runoff from a project must be discharged at the natural location so as not to be diverted onto or away from downstream properties. The manner in which runoff is discharged from the project site must not create a significant adverse impact to downhill properties or drainage systems (see "Discharge Requirements" below). Response: The stormwater discharge from the proposed drainage facilities is to be routed through the same existing Type II storm manhole that the current detention and water quality pond discharges into. This existing manhole has a "bird cage" lid in order to accept surface water from the existing ditch along the north side of the railroad right-of-way. At the outlet side of that manhole, an existing 18-inch-diameter ADS pipe conveys stormwater to the south under the railroad grade into property owned and maintained by the City of Renton. To the west of the above referenced 18-inch-diameter culvert, there is an existing 12-inch- diameter clay culvert that conveys runoff to the south under the railroad grade into property owned and maintained by the City of Renton from both a small portion of the project site and from upstream contributing basin areas. In addition, there is an existing 12-inch-diameter HOPE pipe on the adjacent property to the west of the Pointe Heron LLC parcel that conveys drainage to the toe of the previously constructed steep south edge slope on that adjacent property and discharges that drainage into an existing Type II storm manhole with a bird cage lid. That Type II manhole structure dissipates the energy of the drainage flowing from the steep section of the HOPE pipe above the manhole and acts as a "bubble-up"-type catch basin. The water that bubbles up from that catch basin drains onto a rip rap pad near the slope's toe. From the pad, the water then drains into and travels east in the existing ditch along the north side of the railroad right-of-way and ultimately into the 12-inch-diameter clay culvert. Special Requirements of RMC 4-4-060P4: Renton Municipal Code Subsection 4-4-060P4 (Disposal) states: 4. Disposal: All drainage facilities shall be designed to carry waters to the nearest practicable drainage way approved by the City and/or other appropriate jurisdiction as a safe [place to deposit such waters. Silt and other debris shall be removed prior to the disposal of such water. If drainage facilities discharge onto natural ground, riprap may be required. (Ord. 2820, 1-14-1974, eff. 1-19-1974) a. Minimum Grade: At least two percent (2%) gradient toward approved drainage facilities from building pads will be required unless waived by the Building Department for nonhilly terrain. Exception: The gradient from the building pad may be one percent (1 %) where building construction and erosion control will be completed before hazardous conditions can occur. (Ord. 2820, 1-14-1974, eff. 1-19-1974; Amd. Ord. 3592, 12-14- 1981) b. Drainage Releases: The property owner or his authorized agent shall submit acceptable copies of drainage releases from downstream owners or other government agencies concerned whenever drainage is interrupted, diverted or changed from natural surface or subsurface drainage patterns. c. Stream Acceptance: The volume and rate of water released shall not exceed the receiving stream's or watercourse's ability to accept the water without erosion. 14200.004.doc Both the proposed interim and proposed permanent stormwater detention and water quality ponds are designed to discharge into on-site storm drain piping that will connect into the existing Type II storm manhole constructed as part of prior Sunset Bluff project construction at the common boundary between the Pointe Heron LLC parcel and the BNSF railroad right-of-way. (The existing Sunset Bluff stormwater detention and water quality pond discharges into that existing Type II storm manhole.) That storm manhole drains into the existing 18-inch-diameter culvert that extends to the south across the BNSF railroad right-of-way and discharges into the City property south of the BNSF railroad right-of-way. No interruption, diversion, or change in drainage from the Pointe Heron LLC parcel is proposed. Core Requirement #2: Offsite Analysis: All proposed projects must submit an offsite analysis report that assesses potential offsite drainage impacts associated with development of the project site and proposes appropriate mitigations of those impacts. The initial permit submittal shall include, at minimum, a Level 1 downstream analysis as described in Section 1.2.2.1 below. Response: See section 3.2 of this report for a downstream analysis. Core Requirement #3: Flow Control: All proposed projects, including redevelopment projects, must provide onsite flow control facilities to mitigate the impacts of increased storm and surface water runoff generated by the addition of new impervious surface and any related land cover conversion. These facilities shall, at a minimum, meet the performance criteria for one of the area-specific flow control standards described in Section 1.2.3.1 (p.1-31) and be implemented according to the applicable flow control implementation requirements in Section 1.2.3.2 (p. 1-35). Response: As noted in section 1.0 of this report, the proposed filling, excavation, and grading activities will be constructed in two phases. As described more fully in section 1.0 of this report, an interim detention pond meeting level 2 flow control standards will be constructed in conjunction with Phase 1 and a permanent detention pond meeting level 2 flow control standards will be constructed as part of Phase 2. Each of these ponds will provide the required detention and help to control and retain sediment on the project site. Please refer to section 4.4 of this report for detention calculations. Core Requirement #4: Conveyance System: All engineered conveyance system elements for proposed projects must be analyzed, designed, and constructed to provide a minimum level of protection against overlapping, flooding, erosion, and structural failure as specified in the following groups of requirements: "Conveyance Requirements for New Systems," Section 1.2.4. 1 (below) "Conveyance Requirements for Existing Systems," Section 1.2.4.2 (p. 1-39) "Conveyance System Implementation Requirements," Section 1.2.4.3 (p. 1-40) Response: In conjunction with and in support of future development of the Pointe Heron LLC parcel, conveyance system calculations for the ultimately determined on-site conveyance system will be provided along with the final site engineering/construction drawings submittal in accordance with the standards referenced above. Core Requirement #5: Erosion and Sediment Control: All proposed projects that will clear, grade, or otherwise disturb the site must provide erosion and sediment controls to prevent, to the maximum extent possible, the transport of sediment from the project site to downstream drainage facilities, water resources, and adjacent properties. To prevent sediment transport, Erosion and Sediment Control (ESC) measures are required and shall perform as described in Section 14200.004.doc 1.2.5.2. Both temporary and permanent erosion and sediment controls shall be implemented as described in Section 1.2.5.3. Response: The 10-sheet set of Grading, Interim Drainage, E.S.C., and Rehabilitation Plans prepared for this filling, excavation, and grading project and submitted to the City of Renton for approval specifies erosion and sediment control (ESC) measures that meet the requirements of above-stated Core Requirement #5. Core Requirement #6: Maintenance and Operations: Maintenance and operation of all drainage facilities is the responsibility of the applicant or properly owner, except those facilities for which the City of Renton is granted an easement, tract, or right-of-way and officially assumes maintenance and operation as described below. Drainage facilities must be maintained and operated in compliance with City of Renton maintenance standards. Response: The applicant understands that the City of Renton's current policy is to maintain drainage facilities located within public street rights-of-way. It is understood that any drainage facilities located outside the City right-of-way will be the responsibility of the property owner to maintain unless and until the City of Renton assumes maintenance responsibility. Core Requirement #7: Financial Guarantees and Liability: All drainage facilities constructed or modified for projects (except downspout infiltration and dispersion systems) must comply with the financial guarantee requirements of the City of Renton. Response: Financial guarantees will be complied with prior to or in conjunction with project completion as required by the City. Core Requirement #8: Water Quality: All proposed projects, including redevelopment projects, must provide water quality (WQ) facilities to treat the runoff from new and/or replaced pollution- generating impervious surfaces. These facilities shall be selected from one of the area-specific WQ menus described in Section 1.2.8.1 (p. 1-52) and implemented according to the applicable WQ implementation requirements in Section 1.2.8.2 (p. 1-57). Response: With the proposed Grading, Interim Drainage, E.S.C., and Rehabilitation plans, water quality facilities are not necessary because the subject filling, excavation, and grading project does not include construction of any new or replacement pollution-generating impervious surfaces. Nevertheless, in both the interim pond and the permanent pond, dead storage below the detention volume will provide water quality and sediment storage. Special Requirement #1: Other Adopted Area-Specific Requirements: This manual is one of several adopted regulations in King County which apply requirements for controlling drainage on an area-specific basis. Special District Overlays in KCC 21A.38 and areal clearing limits in KCC 16.8.150 (see Reference Sections 1 and 2-C) are examples of zoning and land use restrictions used to reduce drainage impacts in certain areas of the County. Other adopted area-specific regulations include requirements which have a more direct bearing on the drainage design of a proposed project. These regulations include the following: Critical Drainage Areas (CDAs): DNR establishes CDAs in areas where flooding and/or erosion conditions present an imminent likelihood of harm to the welfare and safety of the surrounding community. The special requirements in CDAs typically include more restrictive flow control and clearing standards. Maps showing GOA boundaries are available from DNR or ODES. Master Drainage Plans (MDPs): MDPs are comprehensive drainage plans prepared for urban planned developments (UPDs) or other large, complex projects (described in Section 1.1.2.4). Projects covered by a MOP must meet any adopted requirements specific to that plan. 14200.004.doc Basin Plans (BPs): The King County Council adopts basin plans to provide for the comprehensive assessment of resources and to accommodate growth while controlling adverse impacts to the environment. A basin plan may recommend specific land uses, regional capital projects, and special drainage requirements for future development within the basin area it covers. Lake Management Plans (LMPs): The King County Council adopts lake management plans to provide for comprehensive assessment of resources and to accommodate growth while controlling adverse impacts from nutrient loading to selected lakes. A lake management plan may recommend nutrient control through special drainage and source control requirements for proposed projects within the area it covers. Shared Facility Drainage Plans (SFDPs): SFDPs are approved by King County to allow two or more projects to share drainage facilities required by this manual. Projects covered by a SFDP must meet any specific requirements of that plan. Response: No adopted area-specific requirements exist for the Pointe Heron project site. Special Requirement #2: Floodplain/Floodway Delineation: Floodplains and f/oodways are subject to inundation during extreme events. The 100-year floodplains are delineated in order to minimize flooding impacts to new development and to prevent aggravation of existing flooding problems by new development. Regulations and restrictions concerning development within a 100-year floodplain are found in the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. Response: Not applicable. The project is located above the floodplain. Special Requirement #3: Flood Protection Facilities: Developing sites protected by levees, or berms requires a high level of confidence in their structural integrity and performance. Proper analysis, design, and construction are necessary to protect against the potentially catastrophic consequences if such facilities should fail. Response: Not applicable. Flood protection facilities are not needed and are not proposed with this project. Special Requirement #4: Source Controls: Water quality source controls prevent rainfall and runoff water from coming into contact with pollutants, thereby reducing the likelihood that pollutants will enter public waterways and violate water quality standards and County stormwater discharge permit limits. A Stormwater Pollution Control Manual was prepared for citizens, businesses, and industries to identify and implement source controls for activities that often pollute water bodies. King County provides advice on source control implementation upon request. The County may, however, require mandatory source controls at any time through formal code enforcement if complaints or studies reveal water quality violations or problems. Response: Water quality source controls will be addressed with the final construction plan phase of this project, if necessary. Special Requirement #5: Oil Control: Projects proposing to develop or redevelop a high-use site (defined below) must provide oil controls in addition to any other water quality controls required by this manual. Such sites typically generate high concentrations of oil due to high traffic turnover or the frequent transfer of oil. 14200.004.doc A high-use site is any one of the following: A commercial or industrial site subject to an expected average daily traffic (ADT) count equal to or greater than 100 vehicles per 1,000 square feet of gross building area, OR A commercial or industrial site subject to petroleum storage and transfer in excess of 1,500 gallons per year, not including routinely delivered heating oil, OR A commercial or industrial site subject to use, storage, or maintenance of a fleet of 25 or more diesel vehicles that are over 10 tons gross weight (trucks, buses, trains, heavy equipment, etc.), OR A road intersection with a measured ADT count of 25,000 vehicles or more on the main roadway and 15,000 vehicles or more on any intersecting roadway, excluding projects proposing primarily pedestrian or bicycle use improvements. The oil control requirement for high-use sites applies to all sites that generate high concentrations of oil, regardless of whether the project creates new impervious surface or makes site improvements to an existing high-use site. The traffic threshold identified focuses on vehicle turnover per square foot of building area (trip generation) rather than ADT alone. This is because oil leakage is greatest when engines are idling or cooling. In general, all-day parking areas are not intended to be captured by these thresholds except for diesel vehicles, which tend to leak oil more than non-diesel vehicles. The petroleum storage and transfer stipulation is intended to address regular transfer operations such as service stations, not occasional filling of heating oil tanks. Response: If required in view of the nature of the future development of the site, oil control facilities will be addressed and provided with future construction plans for such development. 14200.004.doc 3.0 OFF-SITE ANALYSIS 3.1 Upstream Basin Analysis Stormwater runoff is discharged onto the Pointe Heron LLC parcel through eight existing culverts extending south from SW Sunset Boulevard's road embankment. One of the culverts is a 36-inch-diameter pipe that conveys stormwater runoff and other flows from properties lying north of SW Sunset Boulevard and discharges those waters into the channel of the Pointe Heron LLC parcel's Class 4 intermittent stream, a stream that lies to the east of the filling and grading project site and that generally drains to the south into Wetland B. That wetland straddles the south boundary of the eastern portion of the Pointe Heron LLC parcel with (i) only about 6,078 square feet of the overall wetland lying within the Pointe Heron LLC parcel and (ii) the balance of the roughly 2-acre wetland located off-site on the parcel of land to the southeast of the Pointe Heron LLC parcel and east of the BNSF Railroad right-of-way. (That wetland has no surface outlet and no piped outlet.) The other seven culverts 2 discharge stormwater runoff onto the site from relatively small portions of SW Sunset Boulevard (and, in some cases, from small, undeveloped portions of existing lots lying immediately to the north of SW Sunset Boulevard). A series of existing subsurface drains (consisting of conduits of free-draining gravel buried beneath the existing ground surface) are already in-place within the previously graded portion of the subject Pointe Heron LLC parcel to convey stormwater runoff from the seven existing upstream culverts that extend from Sunset Boulevard slightly into and discharge water into the parcel (culverts that all lie to the west of the 36-inch-diameter culvert that conveys water to the intermittent stream to the east of the project site). These subsurface drains convey those upstream off-site waters to the natural discharge location (the existing railroad ditch located in the BNSF Railroad right-of-way immediately south of and along a portion of the parcel's south boundary). These subsurface drains were installed in 2006 or 2007 in conjunction with the previous (Sunset Bluff-related) filling and grading work on the parcel. These existing subsurface drains have proven to be a safe and reliable way to convey those waters through the previously graded portion of the parcel, as is evidenced by the fact that there have been no drainage capacity problems or erosion problems associated with these subsurface drains. These existing subsurface drains will remain in place with the proposed Phase 1 and Phase 2 filling, excavation, and grading work, with modifications if needed. Depending on the particulars of the ultimate future development of the Pointe Heron LLC parcel, a permanent piped and/or ditch conveyance system may ultimately replace some or all of the existing subsurface drains and continue to bypass the upstream offsite runoff to the railroad ditch. Water flowing through that railroad ditch drains into two existing culverts. The westerly of those two culverts is a 12-inch-diameter clay culvert and the easterly culvert (which is the existing pond's discharge location) is an 18-inch-diameter ADS culvert installed within a 24-inch steel casing. Both culverts lie beneath and across the railroad grade and discharge to the south into open space property owned and maintained by the City of Renton. 3.2 Downstream Basin Analysis Roughly the easterly third of the Pointe Heron LLC parcel drains into above-noted Wetland B, a wetland that straddles a part of the easterly portion of the Pointe Heron LLC parcel's south boundary. That wetland has no surface outlet and no piped outlet. 2 Two of those other seven existing upstream culverts are 18-inch-diameter culverts. However, those two culverts are substantially oversized in view of the relatively small tributary basins to each one. The other six existing upstream culverts are either 8-inch or 12-inch in diameter. 14200.004.doc Roughly the westerly two-thirds of the Pointe Heron LLC parcel drain south to the BNSF Railroad right-of-way's trackside ditch. Some of the water in that ditch drains to the east and some of it drains to the west. Those ditches drain to two existing culverts. The westerly culvert is a 12-inch clay culvert and the easterly culvert (which is the current pond discharge location) is an 18-inch ADS culvert installed within a 24-inch steel casing. Both culverts lie beneath and across the railroad grade and discharge to the south into open space property owned and maintained by the City of Renton. These two culverts and the drainage discharge related to each of them are further explained in the next two paragraphs. The culvert across the portion of the railroad grade generally south of and near the Pointe Heron LLC parcel's west boundary is the above-noted 12-inch-diameter clay culvert. Drainage flowing through that culvert discharges to the south and then flows into the City's open space property to the south of the railroad right-of-way. That drainage then sheet-flows to the south across a gravel maintenance road (located within the City's property) and drains into an approximately 10.48-acre depressional wetland lying within the City's property. The other culvert, which is located at approximately the mid-point of the Pointe Heron LLC parcel's south boundary, is the above-noted 18-inch-diameter culvert (installed within a 24-inch steel casing) that lies across and beneath the BNSF Railroad grade. This culvert was installed during 2007 to replace an old 12-inch-diameter clay culvert at this location, a culvert that was not functioning properly. Stormwater from both the proposed interim pond and the proposed permanent pond within the subject filling, excavation, and grading project site will be discharged from the Pointe Heron LLC parcel into the existing Type II manhole located at the south boundary of the project site (a manhole connected to this culvert's north end), which in turn will drain through this existing 18-inch diameter culvert. This existing Type II manhole also contains a "birdcage" lid that allows stormwater runoff from the existing ditch along the north side of the railroad grade to enter the pipe system and be conveyed through the culvert south to the downstream system within the City property. A "Wetland Hydrologic Assessment" letter report dated April 19, 2004 prepared by Edward McCarthy, PhD, P.E. sets forth the results of hydrologic modeling that he performed of the entire drainage basin tributary to the downstream depressional wetland based upon both pre-Sunset Bluff and post-Sunset Bluff development scenarios. (A copy of that letter report is included in Section 6.0 (Special Reports and Studies), below. Among other things, that letter report indicates that (a) the depressional wetland's depth to overflow to the south-southwest into the P-1 Forebay is approximately 3.2 feet, (b) under then-existing (i.e., pre-Sunset Bluff) basin conditions the hydrologic model indicated that over a 50-year simulation period the depression would have reached its overflow depth on average only once every 6.6 years and (c) under Sunset Bluff post- development conditions the hydrologic model indicated that over the same 50-year simulation period the depression would reach its overflow depth on average only once every 5.2 years. (Water within the P-1 Forebay is pumped into the Green/Duwamish River system.) There does not appear to be any significant adverse impacts from the Pointe Heron LLC parcel drainage contributing to the downstream system. 14200.004.doc 3.3 Upstream Basin Map i •.•. tt.Silg'·i I ' i • I I . :-• . : ~-.--f rc--: \ \ \ I ' ~:: : 'I, (' ' 1.' \ ! i: ., 1 I i I { \ \ ~: ........ ,:, ' . \ / , .. • •• •) ' ' \ , i i i ' i ' i ' ' .,. ,' I ! ·,·,r 4.0 FLOW CONTROL AND WATER QUALITY FACILITY ANALYSIS AND DESIGN 4.1 Existing Site Hydrology As stated in section 1.0, above, the current project site has already been cleared and partially graded under previous permits. The topography of the Pointe Heron LLC parcel generally slopes from north to south with slopes ranging from nearly flat to over 40 percent. The steeper slopes within the current project site are temporary (interim or partially complete) slopes that were created as part of the grading activities that were permitted by the City of Renton as part of the Sunset Bluff project. Nearly all of the cleared areas of the Pointe Heron LLC parcel have been surfaced with crushed aggregate, a material that prevents erosion. Stormwater runoff from these areas is controlled by shallow ditches and routed to the existing stormwater detention pond located along the south boundary line of the project site adjacent to the railroad right-of- way. Stormwater from that pond is released through a control structure to the natural discharge location at the existing Type II storm manhole and 18-inch-diameter pipe that flows south from that manhole under the BNSF railroad grade. As noted in section 3.1 of this report, the Pointe Heron LLC parcel receives runoff from an overall upstream basin area of approximately 70.7 acres. Runoff from approximately the east 43.0 acres of this overall upstream basin is routed through the existing 36-inch culvert that discharges to the non-fish-bearing intermittent Class 4 stream. The remaining approximately 27.7 acres of the overall upstream basin is routed through the remaining seven culverts that discharge onto the Pointe Heron LLC parcel to the north of the project site. A series of existing subsurface drains (consisting of conduits of free- draining gravel buried beneath the existing ground surface) are already in-place within the previously graded portion of the parcel to convey through the project site upstream stormwater runoff from the culverts to the natural discharge point (the railroad ditch) lying south of and along the project site's south boundary. These subsurface drains are planned to remain in-place with the proposed Phase 1 and Phase 2 filling, excavation, and grading work, with modifications if needed. 14200.004.doc NOl:l3H 31.NIOd N\fld 30\fNl\fl:IO V'lll:l31NI ON\f ONI0\11::10 d\fV'l \131::1\f NIS\18 ONl1SIX3 z <( _J 0... w C) <( z <( a: 0 ~ a: w 1-z 0 z <( C) z 0 <( a: C) I 0... <( ~ <( w a: <( z Cf) <( (D C) z 1- (f) >< w ·---/ I ! 9C:l6-C:9L (90C:) 8m86 VM '3lil\f38 H1nos 3nN3AV Hlm -9C:l6 '.)11 NOl:l3H 31NIOd :JO:::! r---~ I lr-~ I / ,! ~// ' ' ' / i ----! ----'J'd): S3,\IVO•J ~/IJ I--..\\ I ;\ ' ' ' \ _)) ', ,~ ' I I ' ' I / ' I I • I~ __ j_ I I I ,, I I ' ' ' ' ' \ ' / / \, ', 4.2 Developed Site Hydrology As previously noted, the proposed work contemplated by the Grading, Interim Drainage, E.S.C., and Rehabilitation plans is proposed to be constructed in two phases. The drainage calculations enclosed within section 4.4 of this report have been prepared using the KCRTS program. The developed basin area map and calculations show and account for the required pond sizing and allowed discharge of the permanent pond planned to be constructed during the Phase 2 portion of the proposed filling, excavation, and design project. The interim pond constructed during Phase 1 has been designed using the same required pond sizing and allowed discharge as has been calculated for the permanent pond. This way only one set of calculations is needed for both ponds. The interim pond will be just a little oversized because (1) the actual "bypass" area associated with the interim pond will be smaller than the "bypass" area calculated for the permanent pond and (2) with a smaller bypass area than the "bypass" area associated with the permanent pond the minimum required volume for the interim pond could have been slightly smaller than the minimum required volume for the permanent pond. During Phase 1 filling and grading construction, the existing detention pond near the south boundary line of the Pointe Heron LLC parcel will be filled and the grades within the project site (work area limits) generally will be raised to roughly elevation 11 O feet. The new interim pond will be constructed with a bottom elevation of approximately 100 feet and an overflow elevation of 109 feet with a volume necessary to provide the required level 2 flow control for the contributing area of the Pointe Heron LLC parcel. Runoff from that area will be routed to the interim pond in the form as sheet flow and flow from shallow ditches. A control structure will be installed at the east end of the pond to meet flow control requirements. A 12-inch-diameter HOPE discharge pipe will be installed down the surface of the Phase 1 proposed 1.5H to 1 V slope and connected to the existing storm manhole at the at the common boundary between the Pointe Heron LLC parcel and the BNSF railroad right-of-way. This is the same existing manhole that the current pond discharges into. During Phase 2 construction and after both (1) the permanent stormwater pond has been constructed along the north side of the project site and is operational and (2) most of the plateau area has been filled to its final Phase 2 design height between elevations 125 and 128 feet so that runoff from that area of the plateau will drain into the permanent stormwater pond, the interim pond is to be filled with compacted structural fill. The permanent pond is to be constructed along the north side of the project site and is to provide level 2 flow control. Stormwater runoff from the filled and graded portion of the Pointe Heron LLC site will be routed to the permanent pond as sheet flow and flow from shallow ditches. The by-then-existing 12-inch-diameter HDPE discharge pipe installed to serve the interim pond will be extended up the completed upward extension of the Phase 1 south slope to connect to the discharge side of a new Type II manhole on the plateau near the top of the slope. An 18-inch-diameter storm drain will be extended north from the inlet side of that manhole to connect with the control structure at the east end of the permanent pond. As discussed in more or less detail in sections 2.1, 3.1 and 4.1 of this report, the stormwater runoff from the approximately 27.7-acre upstream offsite basin area immediately to the north of the project site will continue to drain to the seven above-noted existing culverts and be routed through the project site in subsurface drains (as described in section 3.1 of this report) to allow for easier construction and eliminate erosion issues from the off-site flows. Those subsurface drains will continue to convey that upstream 14200.004.doc runoff and discharge it at its natural discharge location in the existing railroad ditch just south of and along the south boundary of the project site. The balance of the upstream basin (the 43-acre upstream area to the north of the portion of the Pointe Heron LLC parcel to the east of the project site) is tributary to the existing 36-inch-diameter culvert that crosses under Sunset Boulevard and is the water source to the intermittent non-fish-bearing stream across the easterly portion of the parcel to the east of the project site. 14200.004.doc NOl::l3H 3lNIOd N\fld 30\fNl\fl::IO V'lll::l3lNI ON\f ONIO\fl::IO z <( ...J a.. w 0 <( z <( a: 0 ~ a: w 1-z 0 z <( 0 z 0 <( a: 0 I a.. <( ~ z (I) <( m 0 w a.. 0 ...J w > w 0 d\fV'l NIS\f8 03d013A30 ,eip.i I ----~1 I I I Sll6-l9L ( 90l) 80l86 \fM '3lll\f38 H.LJ)OS 3nN3A \f H.lOI -Sll6 ::>11 NOl::l3H 3lNIOd ----'l°'X 53M\/OO SDIMJ3S l\/lN]~N0i:llr\N3 ":'.JNIA]r\lJOS ':)NINfS~lJ ONV1 "0"<11J33N10N3 111\1'.l XV..:I Z9L9-1c;z (c;z-i,) _ zzz9-1c;z (c;z-i,) Z"rG26 '"/M 0.i.N3i1 Hir,os ::nN3/s.V ONZL c;1rn1 I I I I I ' I i~~§ I I r--------- i !;~~~-ti~~ ' .. ril lz ;g ti ~ ::J ;.; F= ! ~ NN c~ ~ ~ ~~ ~I ~ l!:l!:li't;; .,, iiliil ~ ~ ii!I f2 _J _J !:/ .,:I \\' \\' .. zi iii! 55~~ !i .. , m \ ' \ _[_'°_(_ 0 'iJ g s 5 ~ &l ii "' ~ ,;,; "' ii; I ~ !!! ; ! 1'l ~ ~ "' ., ~ ::, ~ ~ m 0 I si1 .. Iii ~ ~ _J ~ I ~ \I_ __ ----~ -------- 4.3 Performance Standards The proposed project will be required to meet the requirements of the 2009 KCSWDM as amended by the City of Renton for use within Renton. The project site is located within an area that requires Level 2 Flow Control. For water quality system design purposes, the project site is located within an area of Renton that requires water quality systems to be designed to meet the 2009 KCSWDM's "Basic" water quality requirements. 14200.004.doc 4.4 Flow Control System The proposed Phase 1 and Phase 2 detention ponds have been sized to meet Level 2 Flow Control requirements in accordance with the 2009 KCSWDM. Please see the enclosed calculations for further details. 14200.004.doc 14200-Interim-Pond.exc KCRTS Program ... File Directory: C:\KC_SWDM\Kc_DATA\ [c] CREATE a new Time series ST 24.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 14200-pre.tsf T 1. 00000 T [C] CREATE a new Time Seri es ST 2.87 0.00 3.16 0.00 3.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.60 0.00 14200-dev.tsf T 1.00000 T [C] CREATE a new Time series ST 0.00 0.00 5.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 14200-byp.tsf T 1.00000 T 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 [T] Enter the Analysis TOOLS Module [P] compute PEAKS and Flow Frequencies 14200-byp.tsf 14200-byp.pks [P] Compute PEAKS and Flow Frequencies 14200-dev.tsf 14200-dev.pks [P] compute PEAKS and Flow Frequencies 14200-pre.tsf 14200-pre.pks [R] RETURN to Previous Menu [T] Enter the Analysis TOOLS Module Till Forest Till Pasture Till Grass Outwash Forest outwash Pasture outwash Grass wetland Impervious Ti 11 Forest Till Pasture Till Grass outwash Forest outwash Pasture outwash Grass Wetland Impervious Ti 11 Forest Til 1 Pasture Till Grass outwash Forest outwash Pasture outwash Grass Wetland Impervious [D] compute Flow DURATION and Exceedence 14200-pre.tsf 14200-target.dur F F 36 0.419000E-01 Page 1 Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:14200-pre.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--------Flow Frequency Analysis------- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak -Peaks ·Rank Return Prob (CFS) (CFS) Period 1. 52 2 2/09/01 18:00 1. 94 1 100.00 0.990 o. 411 7 1/06/02 3:00 1. 52 2 25.00 0.960 1.12 4 2/28/03 3:00 1.16 3 10.00 0.900 0.040 8 3/24/04 20:00 1.12 4 5.00 0.800 0.666 6 1/05/05 8:00 0.980 5 3.00 0.667 1.16 3 1/18/06 21:00 0.666 6 2.00 0.500 0.980 5 11/24/06 4:00 0. 411 7 1. 30 0.231 1. 94 1 1/09/08 9:00 0.040 8 1.10 0.091 Computed Peaks 1. 80 50.00 0.980 Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:14200-dev.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--------Flow Frequency Analysis------- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak -Peaks Rank Return Prob (CFS) (CFS) Period 2.90 6 2/09/01 2:00 5.80 1 100.00 0.990 2.33 8 1/05/02 16:00 3.58 2 25.00 0.960 3.44 3 2/27/03 7:00 3.44 3 10.00 0.900 2.47 7 8/26/04 2:00 3.10 4 5.00 0.800 2. 96 5 10/28/04 16: 00 2.96 5 3.00 0.667 3.10 4 1/18/06 16: 00 2.90 6 2.00 0.500 3.58 2 10/26/06 0:00 2.47 7 1.30 0.231 5.80 1 1/09/08 6:00 2.33 8 1.10 0.091 Computed Peaks 5.06 50.00 0.980 Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:14200-byp.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--------Flow Frequency Analysis------- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak -Peaks Rank Return Prob (CFS) (CFS) Period 0.364 2 2/09/01 18:00 0. 623 1 100.00 0.990 0.136 7 1/05/02 16:00 0.364 2 25.00 0.960 0.332 3 2/28/03 3:00 0.332 3 10.00 0.900 0.036 8 3/24/04 19:00 0.310 4 5.00 0.800 0.185 6 1/05/05 8:00 0.299 5 3.00 o. 667 0.310 4 1/18/06 16:00 0.185 6 2.00 0.500 0.299 5 11/24/06 4:00 0.136 7 1. 30 0.231 0.623 1 1/09/08 6:00 0.036 8 1.10 0.091 Computed Peaks 0.537 50.00 0.980 Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:14200-rdout.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--------Flow Frequency Analysis------- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak --Peaks --Rank Return Prob (CFS) (CFS) (ft) Period 1.25 2 2/09/01 20:00 2.94 6.32 1 100.00 0.990 0.229 7 1/07/02 4:00 1.25 6.04 2 25.00 0.960 0.958 3 3/06/03 22:00 0.958 5.56 3 10.00 0.900 0 .192 8 8/26/04 7:00 0.824 5.23 4 5.00 0.800 0.252 6 1/08/05 4:00 0.328 4.74 5 3.00 0. 667 0.328 5 1/19/06 12:00 0.252 4.03 6 2.00 0.500 0.824 4 11/24/06 8:00 0.229 3.34 7 1. 30 0.231 2.94 1 1/09/08 10:00 0.192 2.35 8 1.10 0.091 Computed Peaks 2.37 6.24 50.00 0. 980 Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:14200-dsout.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--------Flow Frequency Analysis------- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak -Peaks Rank Return Prob (CFS) (CFS) Period 1. 59 2 2/09/01 20:00 3.33 1 100.00 0.990 0.325 7 1/06/02 3:00 1. 59 2 25.00 0.960 1.20 3 3/06/03 21: 00 1.20 3 10.00 0.900 0 .211 8 8/26/04 6:00 1. 08 4 5.00 0.800 0.402 6 1/05/05 8:00 0.554 5 3.00 0. 667 0.554 5 1/18/06 20:00 0.402 6 2.00 0.500 1. 08 4 11/24/06 7:00 0.325 7 1.30 0.231 3.33 1 1/09/08 10:00 0.211 8 1.10 0.091 Computed Peaks 2.75 50.00 0.980 Retention/Detention Facility Type of Facility: Side Slope: Pond Bottom Length: Pond Bottom Width: Pond Bottom Area: Top Area at 1 ft. FB: Effective Storage Depth: Stage O Elevation: Storage Volume: Riser Head: Riser Diameter: Number of orifices: Detention Pond 2.00 H:lV 230.00 ft 115. 00 ft 26450. sq. ft 36894. sq. ft 0.847 6.00 118. 00 184692. 4.240 6.00 12.00 2 acres ft ft cu. ft ac-ft ft inches Orifice# Height (ft) 0.00 4.60 Diameter (in) 2.15 5.00 Full Head Discharge (CFS) 0.307 0.802 Pipe Diameter (in) 1 2 Top Notch Weir: None Outflow Rating Curve: None Stage Elevation Storage (ft) ( ft) (cu. ft) (ac-ft) 0.00 118.00 o. 0.000 0.02 118. 02 529. 0.012 0.04 118. 04 1059. 0.024 0.07 118.07 1855. 0.043 0.09 118. 09 2386. 0.055 0.11 118 .11 2918, 0. 067 0.13 118 .13 3450. 0.079 0.16 118 .16 4250. 0.098 0.18 118 .18 4783. 0.110 0.28 118.28 7460. 0.171 0.38 118.38 10151. 0.233 0.48 118.48 12856. 0.295 0.58 118. 58 15574. 0.358 o. 68 118. 68 18307. 0.420 0.78 118. 78 21053. 0.483 0.88 118. 88 23814. 0.547 0.98 118. 98 26589. 0. 610 1.08 119.08 29378. o. 674 1.18 119 .18 32181. 0.739 1. 28 119.28 34998. 0.803 1. 38 119. 38 37829. 0.868 1. 48 119. 48 40675. 0.934 1. 58 119. 58 43535. 0.999 1. 68 119. 68 46409. 1.065 1. 78 119. 78 49297. 1.132 1. 88 119. 88 52200. 1.198 1. 98 119. 98 55117. 1. 265 2.08 120.08 58049. 1.333 2.18 120.18 60995. 1. 400 2.28 120.28 63956. 1. 468 2.38 120.38 66931. 1. 537 8.0 Discharge Percolation (cfs) (cfs) 0.000 0.00 0.019 0.00 0.027 0.00 0.032 0.00 0.038 0.00 0.042 0.00 0.046 0.00 0.050 0.00 0.053 0.00 0.066 0.00 0.077 0.00 0.087 0.00 0. 095 0.00 0.103 0.00 0.111 0.00 0.118 0.00 0.124 0.00 0.130 0.00 0.136 0.00 0.142 0.00 0.147 0.00 0.152 0.00 0.158 0.00 0 .162 0.00 0.167 0.00 0.172 0.00 0.176 0.00 0.181 0.00 0.185 0.00 0.189 0.00 0.193 0.00 Surf Area (sq. ft) 26450. 26478. 26505. 26547. 26574. 26602. 26630. 26671. 26699. 26838. 26977. 27116. 27256. 27396. 27536. 27677. 27818. 27959. 28101. 28243. 28385. 28527. 28670. 28814. 28957, 29101. 29245. 29390. 29534. 29680. 29825. 2.48 120.48 69921. 1.605 0.197 0.00 29971. 2.58 120.58 72926. 1. 674 0.201 0.00 30117. 2.68 120.68 75945. 1.743 0.205 0.00 30263. 2.78 120.78 78978. 1. 813 0.209 0.00 30410. 2.88 120.88 82027. 1.883 0.213 0.00 30557. 2.98 120.98 85090. 1. 953 0.216 0.00 30704. 3.08 121. 08 88167. 2.024 0.220 o.oo 30852. 3.18 121.18 91260. 2.095 0.224 0.00 31000. 3.28 121. 28 94367. 2.166 0.227 o.oo 31149. 3.38 121. 38 97490. 2.238 0.230 0.00 31297. 3. 48 121. 48 100627. 2.310 0.234 0.00 31446. 3.58 121. 58 103779. 2.382 0.237 0.00 31595. 3.68 121. 68 106946. 2.455 0.240 0.00 31745. 3.78 121. 78 110128. 2.528 0.244 0.00 31895. 3.88 121.88 113325. 2. 602 0.247 0.00 32045. 3.98 121. 98 116537. 2. 675 0.250 0.00 32196. 4.08 122.08 119764. 2.749 0.253 0.00 32347. 4.18 122.18 123006. 2.824 0.256 0.00 32498. 4.28 122.28 126264. 2.899 0.259 0.00 32649. 4.38 122.38 129536. 2.974 0.262 0.00 32801. 4.48 122.48 132824. 3.049 0.265 o.oo 32954. 4.58 122.58 136127. 3.125 0 .268 0.00 33106. 4.60 122.60 136790. 3.140 0.269 0.00 33137. 4.65 122.65 138448. 3.178 0.278 0.00 33213. 4.70 122.70 140111. 3.217 0.301 0.00 33289. 4.76 122.76 142111. 3 .262 0.340 0.00 33381. 4.81 122.81 143782. 3.301 0.389 0.00 33458. 4.86 122.86 145457. 3.339 0.451 0.00 33535. 4.91 122.91 147135. 3.378 0.524 0.00 33612. 4. 96 122. 96 148818. 3.416 0.689 0.00 33688. 5.02 123.02 150842. 3.463 0. 719 0.00 33781. 5.12 123.12 154228. 3.541 0. 771 0.00 33935. 5.22 123.22 157629. 3.619 0.819 0.00 34090. 5.32 123.32 161046. 3.697 0.863 0.00 34244. 5.42 123. 42 164478. 3.776 0.905 0.00 34400. 5.52 123.52 167926. 3.855 0.944 0.00 34555. 5. 62 123.62 171389. 3.935 0.981 0.00 34711. 5. 72 123.72 174868. 4.014 1. 020 0.00 34867. 5.82 123.82 178362. 4.095 1.050 0.00 35024. 5.92 123.92 181873. 4.175 1.080 0.00 35180. 6.00 124.00 184692. 4.240 1.110 0.00 35306. 6.10 124.10 188230. 4.321 1. 450 0.00 35463. 6.20 124.20 191785. 4.403 2.040 0.00 35621. 6.30 124.30 195355. 4.485 2.800 0.00 35779. 6. 40 124.40 198941. 4.567 3.620 0.00 35937. 6.50 124.50 202542. 4.650 3.930 0.00 36096. 6.60 124.60 206160. 4.733 4. 210 0.00 36255. 6.70 124.70 209793. 4.816 4.470 0.00 36414. 6.80 124.80 213443. 4.900 4.720 0.00 36574. 6.90 124.90 217108. 4.984 4.950 0.00 36734. 7.00 125.00 220789. 5.069 5.160 0.00 36894. 7.10 125.10 224487. 5.154 5.370 0.00 37055. 7.20 125.20 228200. 5.239 5.570 0.00 37215. 7.30 125.30 231930. 5.324 5.770 0.00 37377. 7.40 125.40 235676. 5.410 5.950 o.oo 37538. 7.50 125.50 239438. 5.497 6.130 o.oo 37700. 7. 60 125.60 243216. 5.583 6.300 0.00 37862. 7.70 125.70 247010. 5. 671 6.470 0.00 38025. 7.80 125.80 250821. 5.758 6.640 0.00 38187. 7.90 125.90 254647. 5.846 6.800 0.00 38351. 8.00 126.00 258491. 5.934 6.950 0.00 Hyd Inflow Outflow 1 5.80 2.94 2 2.90 1. 25 3 3.44 0.96 4 3.58 0.82 5 3.10 0.33 6 2.96 0.25 7 2.33 0.23 8 2.47 0.19 Hyd R/D Facility Tributary Outflow Inflow 1 2.94 0.62 2 1. 25 0.36 3 0. 96 0.33 4 0.82 0.30 5 0.33 0.31 6 0.25 0.19 7 0.23 0.14 8 0.19 0.04 Peak Stage 6.32 6.04 5.56 5.23 4.74 4.03 3.34 2.35 Elev 124.32 124.04 123.56 123.23 122.74 122.03 121. 34 120.35 Reservoir Inflow ******** Storage (Cu-Ft) (Ac-Ft) 195956. 4.499 186133. 4.273 169225. 3.885 158007. 3.627 141518. 3.249 118284. 2.715 96214. 2.209 65920. 1.513 POC Outflow Target Cale 1. 94 3.33 ******** ******* 1.59 ******** ******* 1. 20 ******** ******* 1. 08 ******** ******* 0.55 ******** ******* 0. 40 ******** ******* 0.32 ******** ******* 0.21 ---------------------------------- Route Time Series through Facility Inflow Time Series File: 14200-dev. tsf Outflow Time Series File:14200-rdout POC Time Series File:14200-dsout Inflow/Outflow Analysis Peak Inflow Discharge: 5.80 CFS at 6:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 Peak Outflow Discharge: 2.94 CFS at 10:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 Peak Reservoir Stage: 6.32 Ft Peak Reservoir Elev: 124.32 Ft Peak Reservoir Storage: 195956. Cu-Ft 4.499 Ac-Ft Add Time Series:14200-byp.tsf Peak Summed Discharge: 3.33 CFS at 10:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 Point of Compliance File:14200-dsout.tsf Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:14200-rdout.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak (CFS) 1. 25 2 2/09/01 20:00 0.229 7 1/07/02 4:00 0.958 3 3/06/03 22:00 0.192 8 8/26/04 7:00 0.252 6 1/08/05 4:00 0.328 5 1/19/06 12:00 0.824 4 11/24/06 8:00 2.94 1 1/09/08 10:00 Computed Peaks Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:14200-dsout.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac -----Flow Frequency Analysis------- --Peaks --Rank Return Prob (CFS) (ft) Period 2.94 6.32 1 100.00 1.25 6.04 2 25.00 0.958 5.56 3 10.00 0.824 5.23 4 5.00 0.328 4.74 5 3.00 0.252 4.03 6 2.00 0.229 3.34 7 1.30 0.192 2.35 8 1.10 2.37 6.24 50.00 0.990 0. 960 0.900 0.800 0.667 0.500 0.231 o. 091 0.980 38514. Duration Comparison Anaylsis Base File: 14200-pre.tsf New File: 14200-dsout.tsf Cutoff Units: Discharge in CFS -----Fraction of Time--------------Check of Tolerance------- Cutoff Base New %Change Probability Base 0.333 0.95E-02 0.92E-02 -3.6 I 0.95E-02 0.333 0.424 0.63E-02 0.39E-02 -37.8 I 0.63E-02 0.424 0.515 0.49E-02 0.28E-02 -43.9 I 0.49E-02 0.515 0.605 0.37E-02 0 .19E-02 -48.9 I 0.37E-02 0. 605 0.696 0.28E-02 0.15E-02 -45.7 I 0.28E-02 o. 696 0.787 0.22E-02 0.14E-02 -37.5 I 0.22E-02 0.787 0.878 0.15E-02 0 .13E-02 -9.0 I 0.15E-02 0.878 0.969 O.lOE-02 O.lOE-02 1. 6 I O.lOE-02 0.969 1. 06 0.62E-03 0.73E-03 18.4 I 0.62E-03 1. 06 1.15 0.34E-03 0.42E-03 23.8 I 0.34E-03 1.15 1.24 0.21E-03 0.26E-03 23.1 I 0.21E-03 1.24 1. 33 0.16E-03 0.16E-03 0.0 I 0.16E-03 1. 33 1. 42 0.98E-04 0.82E-04 -16.7 I 0.98E-04 1. 42 1. 52 0.16E-04 0.33E-04 100.0 I 0.16E-04 1. 52 Maximum positive excursion= 0.091 cfs ( 6.1%) occurring at 1.50 cfs on the Base Data:14200-pre.tsf and at 1. 59 cfs on the New Data:14200-dsout.tsf Maximum negative excursion= 0.250 cfs (-31.5%) occurring at 0.793 cfs on the Base Data:14200-pre.tsf and at 0.543 cfs on the New Data:14200-dsout.tsf New %Change 0.328 -1. 3 0.366 -13.6 0.393 -23.7 0.436 -27.9 0.512 -26.4 0.539 -31.5 0.772 -12.1 0.974 0.4 1. 09 2.5 1.19 3.5 1. 31 5.5 1. 36 1. 7 1. 40 -1. 6 1. 59 4.7 Return Period 2 5 10 20 5LJOO 10 0 14200-rdout.pks in Sea-Tac • 14200-dsout. pks u 14200-pre.pks ll) • 0 () e ~ I') 0 r,,;- 10 -----,: 0 () ~ • Cl) LL. () C) • ~ <ll • 0 e> ro 00 ..c 0 0 0 (/) • 0 0 ll) () 10-2 -·-~--~-~---~-r-------~--~---, ---1 1 2 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 95 98 99 Cumulative Probability ---. Cl) LL () '-" (I) O> ... Ill .c u U) 0 <D ..... 0 ..... co 0 <D 0 '<f" 0 N 0 .i" 00 ___ _ 14200-rdout.dur <> 14200-dsout.dur • 14200-target.dur u ~. ~. -----_____________ ....:::,,~----·~ \ Probability Exceedence 4.5 Water Quality System Even though water quality is not required because no pervious or impervious pollution generating surfaces are proposed as part of the filling, excavation, and grading project, we have incorporated a wetpond element into the design of both the proposed interim pond and the proposed permanent pond. The wetpond element will be combined with the detention volume provided in each pond and will meet "Basic" water quality requirements in accordance with the 2009 KCSWDM. With each of the two phases of the project, a wetpond element will provide a water quality function as well as providing additional dead storage that will help retain sediment on site. Please refer to the enclosed "wetpond" calculations. 14200.004.doc Wetpond Sizing Worksheet Summary of the 2005 Surface Water Design Manual Requirements Project Name: Pointe Heron Project Number: 14200 Step 1) Determine volume factor f. Basic size ............................................ . Large size ............................................ . Step 2) Determine rainfall R for mean annual Storm Detemine rainfall R for mean annual storm Rainfall. ............................................... . Step 3) Calculate runoff from mean annual storm V, = (0.9A; + 0.25A,9 + 0.1 DA,,+ 0.01A.,g) X R A;= tributary area of impervious surface A,9 = tributary area of till grass A,,= tributary area of till forest Ao,, = tributary area of outwash grass R = rainfall from mean annual storm V, = Volume of runoff from mean annual storm Step 4) Calculate wetpool Volume Vb= f V, f = Volume Factor v. = Volume runoff from mean annual storm V, = Volume of the wetpool f= 3 -----f= 4.5 __ o_.o_3_9_(feet) 418.317 (sf) 276.953 (sf) 125.175 (sf) 0 (sf) 0.039 (feet) 17,871 (cf) 3 17,871 (cf) 53,614 !(cf) 5.0 CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN Conveyance system analysis and design will be completed with future construction plans prepared for the ultimate future development of the Pointe Heron LLC parcel. These calculations will use the Rational Method and Manning's formula for the sizing of proposed conveyance systems. Conveyance pipes will be sized to accommodate the 100-year storm event at a flowing full condition. The intent of the storm conveyance system will be to (1) convey the stormwater runoff from the developed part of the Pointe Heron LLC parcel to the then-existing or proposed detention and water quality facility and (2) to bypass upstream flows to the downstream drainage system. 14200.004.doc 6.0 SPECIAL REPORTS AND STUDIES A "Wetland Hydrologic Assessment" letter report dated April 19, 2004 (copy attached) prepared by Edward McCarthy, Ph.D., P.E. sets forth the results of hydrologic modeling that he performed of the entire drainage basin that is tributary to the downstream depressional wetland in the City of Renton open space property based upon both pre-Sunset Bluff and post-Sunset Bluff development scenarios. Also included in this section is a copy of the "Geotechnical and Soil Engineering Report in Support of Proposed Fill, Excavation, and Grade, Pointe Heron LLC Parcel" prepared by Earth Solutions NW LLC dated August 13, 2014. 14200.004.doc 6.1 Wetland Hydrologic Assessment prepared by Ed McCarthy dated April 19, 2004 ED McCARTHY, P.E., PS Hydrology• Hydraulics • Engineering April 19, 2004 Mr. Michael Merlino SR-900L.L.C. c/o Stoneway Concrete 1915 Maple Valley Highway Renton, WA 98055 9957171 AVENUE SE RENTON, WA 98059 (425) 271-5734 FAX (425) 271-3432 Re: Sunset Bluff Resid~lltial Subdivision-Wetland Hydrologic Assessment Dear Mr. Merlino: I've completed my hydrologic characterization and assessment of the depressional wetland that is downstream from the proposed Sunset Bluff Residential Subdivision in Renton, Washington. The narrative below provides a summary of my evaluation approach, results, and conclusions. Method of Evaluation I applied methods of evaluation that are accepted in the region for assessing impacts of development on resources that are sensitive to changes in the subject watershed's hydrology. Procedures outlined in the Surface Water Design Manual (King County Surface Water Management Division, 1998), where applicable, were followed in conducting the hydrologic assessment. In particular, to assess potential impacts of development of Sunset Bluff on the hydrology of the downstream depressiooal wetland, I developed hydro logic models of the system under existing and proposed developed conditions. I delineated boundaries of subbasins contributing to the wetland based on aerial topography (City of Renton, 1996 photography), available as-built drawings of upstream developments, and field verification of cross culverts and other drainage features. Subbasin boundaries identified in previous hydrologic studies were also used to assist in developing the boundaries in this study (Bargbausen Engineers, January 2004; Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Inc., December 1991). The drainage area contributing to the wetland was divided into subbasins for input to the hydrologic model (Figure I). Selection of the number and size of sub basins was driven by a number of .factors including topography, cover types, and the character and configuration of the drainage network. The hydro logic model KCRTS v4. 41 c (King County Department of Public Works, November 1995) was used to evaluate the hydrology of the contributing subbasins and wetland. The continuous modeling and level pool routing capabilities ofKCRTS allowed a detailed assessment of the wetland's hydrology and potential impacts to the wetland caused by changes in the 'i.lPTION ... : II ... :g 3 I I , ·, ' ·, ·, \ i ·, ·, ·, ·, ·, a r )L I " S ·, ,; l . ., 'p ·, I ,-·, t1 r., •. i ·, ·, , ·, ; ·, Sunset Bluff Hydrologic Assessment l ·, ·, ·-. . ~ ... __ '· '\ '\ ' ' .. \ ', ,\, '-.~ .. , .. t-- 1 . l I • \: ff) . J ·, ·, ( ( ~\ ~ , TITLE Fi ure 1. Basin Ma PAGE DATE 2 4/18/04 Michael Merlino Page3 April 19, 2004 watershed resulting from the Sunset Bluff development. The soils in the subbasins contributing to the wetland consist primarily of glacial till soils (Soil Conservation Service, 1973) and were modeled as such. The depressional wetland was modeled as a wetland type soil. The historic KCRTS time series data set was used in predicting runoff from contributing basins for the Seatac rainfall region with a scale factor of 1.00. The historic time series data set includes 50 years of J. hour runoff data for the period from 1949 through 1998. The depressional wetland was modeled as a storage reservoir. The stage-storage relationship for the wetland was based on a topographic map of the basin having 0.5-meter contour intervals. The character of surface discharge from the wetland and its location was based on the same topographic map. KCRTS simulates infiltration within the wetland based on a stage-surface area relationship and the average vertical infiltration rate of the wetland. The average vertical infiltration rate was based on soil texture measured in the wetland at three locations (Earth Consultants, Inc., April 2004). Future conditions in the watershed were modeled with the Sunset Bluff site developed as proposed. Land use for the Sunset Bluff site presented in the preliminary engineering design (Bargbausen ConsuJling Engineers, January 9, 2004) was used as an input to the hydrologic model. The proposed site design includes an access road, 65 single-family residential lots, and an associated stonnwater pond. The pond would be designed to meet King County Level l stormwater detention standards (K.iug County Surface Water Management Division, 1998). The predicted runoff times series from the SWJSet Bluff developed site was routed through the Level I pond in the model prior to discharging to the wetland. Proposed development would change the pattern of conveyance from upstream sub basins ('off4', 'off5', and 'offii') that currently discharge onto the forested Sunset Bluff site. Under developed conditions, runoff from these basins would be collected at the site's upstream property boundary and conveyed by tightline to a discharge location at the downstream property boundary. The resulting change in drainage pattern was represented in the hydrologic model by adjusting the effective impervious area of the upstream contributing subbasins. Under existing conditions, the impervious areas of upstream basins 'off4', 'offi', and 'offii'were modeled as 80 percent effective (Table 3.2.2.E in King County Surface Water Design Manual). The rernainins 20 percent non-effective impervious areas were modeled as a forest cover type. Under developed conditions, the impervious areas of these upstream basins were assumed to be 100 percent effective. Similarly, because the runoff from subbasin 'offil' discharges to a forested area, its impervious areas was modeled as 80 percent effective under both existing and developed conditions. On the other hand, the impervious areas from the Sunset Bluff site were modeled as I 00 percent effective under proposed developed conditions. The following model output elements were computed to characterize the hydrology of the wetland and to quantify changes in the wetland's hydrology and hydroperiod caused by development of SWJSet Bluff: • Average annual runoff volume to the wetland. This quantity includes both surface rwJOff and interflow (shallow groundwater) volumes flowing to the wetland. Michael Merlino Page4 April 19, 2004 Results • Avernge monthly stage in the wetland for both existing and developed conditions. This quantity represents each individual month's average stage for the SO-year simulation period. • Average monthly range in stage in the wetland for both existing and develQl)Cd conditions. As with the monthly stage, this value represents each individual month's average range in stage for the 50-year simulation period. The range in stage for a given month is calculated as the difference between each individual month's maximum and minimum stages. • Peak stage frequencies for both existing and developed conditions. Peak stage frequencies include the estimated peak wetland stage for the I-year, 2-year, JO-year, ... etc. return periods. • Stage duration curves for both existing and developed conditions. Stage durations indicate the percentage of time that a given wetland stage is likely to be exceeded. • Stage excursjons greater than O .5 foot. Excursions were defined as any given hour during the SO-year simulation period that the wetland stage under developed conditions varied from the wetland stage under existing conditions by more than 0. S foot. In addition, the frequency of these excursions that exceeded 72-hours in duration was computed. The depressional portion of the wetland was estimated to have a watershed of I 06.31 acres including the depression itself {Table I). The 21.4-acre portion of the Sunset Bluff site that contributes to the depressional wetland represents about 20 percent of the depression's watershed. The total effective impervious area in the basin was calculated to be 19 .19 acres, or approximately 18 percent of the watershed under existing conditions. Under proposed developed conditions, the effective impervious area would be increased to 29 .24 acres, representing 28 percent of the watershed {Table 2). The increase in effective area is a result of new impervious area added by the proposed development as well as changes in flow patterns across the Sunset Bluff site that result in · an increase in the effective impervious area of subbasins 'off4', 'off:5', and 'offi,'. The depressional wetland was calculated to be 10.48 acres in size and approximately 3.2 feet deep (from elevations 14.8 to 18.0 feet). The wetland was estimated to have a storage volume of over 1,000,000 cubic feet. The depression was estimated to overflow at an elevation of 18 feet. In overflow cooditioos, water was predicted to flow from the edge of the depression into the Black River pump station forebay. The stage-discharge relationship above the depression's overflow elevation was represented in the model as a broad crested weir. Below the overflow elevation, ponded water infiltrates. Soils at the bottom of the depression were sampled in three locations. Each of the samples were classified as having a silt texture with all material passing through the 200 sieve. Based on this textural classification, and input from the project's geoteclmical engineer, an average infiltration rate of Ix I 04 cm per second was used in the modeling (Earth Consultants, Inc. April 2004). Michael Merlino Page 5 April 19,2004 Table 1. Existing Conditions -Summary of Subbaslns Contributing to Depresslonal Wetland. Effective Non-Effective Subbasin Forest Pasture Lawn Wetland Impervious Impervious Total jAC) {AC) jAC) {AC) {AC) {AC) {AC) off4 4.47 4.93 3.12 0.78 13.30 off5 2.43 2.84 4.17 4.08 1.02 14.54 off6 0.22 0.05 0.27 off9 19.09 5.78 1.55 11.53 2.88 40.83 off10 5.18 0.24 0.06 5.49 Site 21.40 21.40 Depression 10.48 10.48 Total 52.57 8.62 10.65 10.48 19.19 4.80 106.31 Effective Impervious Area= 18% of watershed Table 2. Developed CondlUons -Summary of Subbasins Contributing to Depresslonal Wetland. Effective Non-Effective Subbasln Forest Pasture Lawn Wetland Impervious Impervious Total (AC) {AC) jAC) (AC) {AC) {AC) (AC) off4d 4.47 4.93 3.90 13.30 off5d 2.43 2.84 4.17 5.10 14.54 off6d 0.27 0.27 off9 19.09 5.78 1.55 11.53 2.88 40.83 off10 5.18 0.24 0.06 5.49 Site 13.20 8.20 21.40 Depression 10.48 10.48 Total 31.17 8.62 23.85 10.48 29.24 2.94 106.31 Effective Impervious Area= 28% of watershed Michael Merlino Page6 April 19, 2004 The proposed development would result in an increase in runoff volume to the depressional wetland as a result of new impervious area and changes in flow patterns on the Sunset Bluff site. The increase in runoff volume was estimated t.o be approximately 25 percent (fable 3 and Figure 2). Under existing conditions, the average annual runoff volume to the wetland was estimated to be I 15 .5 8 acre-feet. Under proposed developed conditions, this volume was predicted to increase to I 45. 04 acre-feet per year. The predicted volume includes both surface runoff and interflow (shallow groundwater flow). Increased runoff volumes to the wetland were predicted to result in an increase in average stage in the depression. The overall average difference in stage between predicted existing and proposed developed conditions was calculated to be 1.14 inches over the 50-year simulation period. Assessment of simulated wetland stages indicate that the predicted average monthly stage varies from O .11 foot in July to 1.11 feet in January under existing conditions (Figure 3). Under proposed developed conditions, the average monthly stage was predicted to increase to levels of 0.15 foot in July and 1.23 feet in January. The predicted average monthly range in stage varies :from 0.22 foot in July to 1.9 I feet in January under existing conditions (Figure 4). Under proposed developed conditions, the average monthly range in stage was predicted to increase to 0.30 foot in July to 2.05 feet in January. The overall average difference in range in stage between predicted existing and proposed developed conditions was calculated to be 1.85 inches over the 50-year simulation period. Under existing conditions, (a) the wetland was predicted to have an annual peak stage of 1.60 feet . and a 2-yearpeak stage of2.42 feet (Figure 5) and (b) the water level in the depression was predicted to reach its overflow depth of3 .2 feet with a return period of 6.6 years. Under proposed developed conditions, (a) the wetland was predicted to have an annual peak stage of I. 77 feet and a 2-year peak stage of2.68 feet (Figure 5) and (b) the water level in the depression was predicted to reach its overflow depth with a return period of 5 .2 years under developed conditions. Flow duration curves for wetland stage under existing and proposed developed conditions are compared in Figure 6. At the 50% exceedence level, the wetland stage wtder existing conditions was predicted to be 0.15 foot. This stage was predicted to increase to 0.20 foot under developed conditions. At the 20% exceedence level, the wetland stage under existing conditions was predicted to be 0. 70 foot. This stage was predicted to increase to 1.00 foot under developed conditions. At higher stages, the exceedence probability is largely unchanged by the proposed development. Excursions of wetland stage were computed for the 50-year simulation period by comparing predicted values for existing conditions to those for developed conditions. Wetland stage values were compared on an hourly time interval. Excursions in which the developed wetland stage varied from the existing wetland stage by more than 0.5 foot were tallied. Over the 50-year simulation period, there was a total of 146 0.5-foot excursions or, on average, about 3 per year. The average stage during these excursion periods was calculated to be 0.6 foot. The average Michael Merlino Page7 April 19, 2004 Table 3. Predicted Runoff Volumes to Depressional Wetland. Scenario Existing Future Increase (AC-FT) Increase (%) Runoff from Site (AC-FT/YR) 12.65 38.15 25.50 202% Other Runoff to Wetland (AC-FT/YR) 102.93 106.89 3.96 4% Note: Runoff volumes based on modeling for period from 1949 -1998. 160 r:: 140 ... ' 120 u 5-• 100 E 80 ::, ;g 60 i C 40 ::, 20 a: (AC-FT/YR) (AC-FT/YR) (AC-FT/YR) Runoff to Wetland (AC-FT/YR) 115.58 145.04 29.46 25% DExisting fill Future Runoff from Site Other Runoff to Runoff to Wetland Wetland Figure 2. Predicted Runoff Volumes to Depresslonal Wetland. Michael Merlino Pages April 19, 2004 Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep --+-Existing --Future Figure 3. Comparison of Average Monthly Stage in Depresslonal Wetland. Michael Merlino Page9 April 19, 2004 t 2.6 +--------------------------j • J "' 2.0 +-----.....--"'""c-- .5 Oct Nov Deit Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep -+-Existing --Future Figure 4. Comparison of Average Monthly Range in Stage In Oepressional Wetland. Michael Merlino Page 10 April 19, 2004 3.5 ----------------------- • • • • 0.5 0.0 +-------~-~~----~--~-~~~ 1.00 10.00 100.00 Return Period (Yurs) • Existing • Future Figure 5. Comparison of Peak Stage Retum Periods. Michael Merlino Page 11 April 19, 2004 ------+--Existing --s--Future J:" 2.5 .I-Ii,--~-------------------- !!:. • f 2.0 +--=\,,-------------------------.., :i i ~ 1.6 +---+---1---------~---------- 0.0 .t_~~--'--+--'~-'--~__;_..,__....:.,-=-+.~_;:__,::_:;_~~~-~c!l,~-~-~-::::-:::~~:;:::!L:;:::!1...i 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 Probability ol Exceoclenco (% J Figure 6. Comparison of Stage Duration Curves. Michael Merlino Page 12 April 19, 2004 excursion duration was calculated to be 42 hours. In total. there were 28 excursions with durations that exceeded 72-hours over the 50 year simulation period. Conclusions Based cm simulations conducted and observations in the field, it is evident that the depressional wetland has relatively large fluctuations in stage on both a monthly and annual basis under existing conditions. The proposed Sunset Bluff development was predicted to increase average runoff to the wetland by about 20 percent. Onsite stonnwater controls would attenuate developed peak flow rates and match forested flow rates from the site for up to the IO-year storm. Nevertheless, the increased runoff volumes ftom the site will likely increase average monthly stage in the wetland by about I to 2 inches in the winter months and by less than l inch in the swnmer months. The upper limit of the wetland' s stage is limited by the overflow elevation of the depression and will not be changed by the proposed development. Wetland stages at existing flow duration levels will likely be increased by I ro 2 inches as will be the peak stages for return periods between the annual and 5- year return periods. Relative to existing average monthly fluctuations in the wetland, which are on the order of 24 inches, these predicted increases in stage resulting ftom the proposed development are small. It is my opinion that potential impacts to the wetland caused by increased runoff volume from the proposed development would be insignificant for the following reasons: • Attenuation of stormwater from the proposed development would be provided by a stormwater pond designed to Level I detention standards under the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual. • The relatively large area of the depressional wetland (10.48 acres) and its considerable storage volume of over 1,000,00 cubic feet would accommodate the additional runoff volume with only minor changes in bydroperiod. In comparison, the proposed onsite stormwater pond, designed to meet Level I detention standards, would have a volume of 115,000 cubic feet. • The wetland depression is characterized by relatively large and frequent stage fluctuations. Predicted changes in fluctuations, average stage, and stage duration curves caused by the proposed development would have only a negligible impact on such a system. If you have quutions regarding my assessment or need additional documentation, please call me at (425) 271-5734. Sincerely, Hydrologist Michael Merlino Page 13 April 19, 2004 References Barghausen Consulting Engineers, January 9, 2004. Preliminary Drainage Study Sunset Bluff Residential Subdivision. Kent, WA. Earth Consultants, Inc., April 16, 2004. Memorandum descnl>ing soil textural results and hydraulic conductivity recommendations. Bellevue, Wash. King County Department of Natural Resources, 1998. King County Surface Water Design Manual. Seattle. King County Department of Public Worlcs, November 1995. King County Runoff Time Series (KCRTS) Computer Software Reference Manual. Seattle. Northwest Hydraulic Consultants, Inc., December 1991. East Side Green River Watershed Hydrologic Analysis. Prepared for R W. Beck and Associates and City of Renton, Department of Public Worlcs. Renton, Wash. Wash in gt on State Department of Ecology, 1992. Stomrwater Management Manual for the Puget Sound Basin. Olympia, WA. . U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, 1973. Soil Survey of King County Area, Washington. Seattle. Attachment A. KCRTS Model Documentation KCRTS Time Serles Calculations KCRTS Command CREATE a new Time Series Production of Runoff Time Series Project Location : Sea• Tac Computing Series : off4.tsf Regional Scale Factor : 1.00 Data Type : Historic Creating Hourly Time Series File Loading Time Series File:C:\KC_SWOMIKC_DATA\STTF60H.mf TIii Forest 5.25 acres Loading Time Series File:C:\KC_SWOM\KC_DATAISTTG60H.mf Till Grass 4.93 acres Loading Time Series File:C:\KC_SWOMIKC_DATA\STEl60H.mf Impervious 3.12 acres Total Area : 13.30 acres Peak Discharge: 2.57 CFS at 6:00 on Jan 9 in 1990 Storing Time Series File:off4.!sf Time Series Computed KCRTS Command CREATE a new Time Series Production of Runoff Time Series Project Location : Sea-Tac Computing Series : offS.tsf Regional Scale Factor : 1.00 Data Type : Historic Creating Hourly Time Serles File Loading Time Series File:C:\KC_SWDM\KC_DATA\STTF60H.mf Till Forest 3.45 acres Loading Time Series File:C:\KC_SWDM\KC_DATA\STTP60H.mf TIii Pasture 2.84 acres Loading Time Series File:C:\KC_SWDM\KC_DATAISTTG60H.mf Till Grass 4.17 acres Loading Tlme Serles File:C:\KC_SWDM\KC_DATAISTEl60H.mf Impervious 4.08 acres Total Area: 14.54 acres Peak Discharge: 2.98 CFS at 6:00 on Jan 9 In 1990 Storing Time Series File:off5. tsf Time Series Computed KCRTS Command A·l I CREATE a new Time Series Production of Runoff Time Series Project Location : Sea-Tac Computing Series : off6.tsf Regional Scale Factor: 1.00 Data Type: Historic Creating Hourly Time Series File Loading Time Serles File:C:IKC_SWDMIKC_DATA\STIF60H.mf Till Forest 0.05 acres Loading Time Series File:C:IKC_SWDMIKC_DATAISTEl60H.mf Impervious 0.22 acres Total Area : 0.27 acres Peak Discharge: 0.093 CFS at 6:00 on Jan 9 in 1990 Storing Time Series File:off6.tsf nme Series Computed KCRTS Command CREA TE a new Time Series -------- Production of Runoff nme Series Project Location : Sea-Tac Computing Series : off9.tsf Regional Scale Factor : 1.00 Data Type : Historic Creating Hourly Time Series File Loading Time Series File:C:IKC_SWDMIKC_DATA\STTF60H.mf Till Forest 21.97 acres Loading nme Series File:C:IKC_SWDMIKC_DATAISTTP60H.mf Till Pasture 5. 78 acres Loading Time Series File:C:IKC_SWDMIKC_DATA\STTG60H.mf Till Grass 1.55 acres Loading Time Series File:C:IKC_SWDMIKC_DATA\STEl60H.mf Impervious 11.53 acres Total Area : 40.83 acres Peak Discharge: 6.91 CFS at 6:00 on Jan 9 In 1990 Storing nme Series File:off9 .tsf Time Serles Computed KCRTS Command CREA TE a new Time Series Production of Runoff Time Series Project Location : Sea-Tac Computing Series: off10.tsf Regional Scale Factor : 1. 00 A-2 Data Type : Historic Creating Hourly Time Series File Loading Time Series File:C:\KC_SWOMIKC_DATA\STTF60H.mf Till Forest 5.24 acres Loading Time Series File:C:IKC_SWOM\KC_DATA1STEl60H.mf Impervious O .24 acres Total Area: 5.48 acres Peak Discharge: 0.432 CFS at 9:00 on Jan 9 in 1990 Storing Time Series File:off1 O.tsf Time Series Computed KCRTS Command CREA TE a new Time Series Production of Runoff Time Series Project Location : Sea-Tac Computing Series : weUand.tsf Regional Scale Factor : 1.00 Data Type : Historic Creating Hourly Time Series File Loading Time Series File:C:IKC_SWOMIKC_DATAISTWL60H.mf Wetland 10.48 acres Total Area: 10.48 acres Peak Discharge: 2.39 CFS at 7:00 on Jan 9 in 1990 Storing Time Series File:wetland.tsf Time Series Computed KCRTS Command CREA TE a new Time Series Production of Runoff Time Series Project Location : Sea-Tac Computing Series : siteex.tsf Regional Scale Factor: 1.00 Data Type : Historic Creating Hourly Time Serles File Loading Time Series File:C:\KC_SWDM\KC_DATAISTIF60H.mf Till Forest 21.40 acres Total Area : 21.40 acres Peak Discharge: 1.44 CFS at 9:00 on Jan 9 in 1990 storing TI me Series File:siteex. tsf Time Series Computed KCRTS Command CREATE a new Time Series A-3 Production of Runoff Time Series Project LocaUon : Sea-Tac Computing Series : sitefu.tsf Regional Scale Factor : 1.00 Data Type : Historic Creating Hourly Time Series File Loading Time Series File:C:IKC_SWDM\KC_DATAISTTG60H.mf Till Grass 13.20 acres Loading Time Series File:C:\KC_SWDM\KC_DATA\STEl60H.mf Impervious 8.20 acres Total Area : 21.40 acres Peak Dischal{le: 5.98 CFS at 6:00 on Jan 9 In 1990 Storing Time Series File:sitefu.tsf Time Series Computed KCRTS Command CREA TE a new Time Series Production of Runoff Time Series Project Location : Sea-Tac Computing Series : off4d.tsf Regional Scale Factor: 1.00 Data Type : Historic Creating Hourly Time Series File Loading Time Series File:C:\KC_SWDM\KC_DATA\STTF60H.mf Tdl Forest 4.47 acres Loading Time Series File:C:\KC_SWDM\KC_DATA\STTG60H.mf Till Grass 4.93 acres Loading Time Series File:C:\KC_SWDM\KC_DATA\STEl60H.mf Impervious 3.90 acres Total Area : 13.30 acres Peak Dischal{le: 2.85 CFS at 6:00 on Jan 9 In 1990 Storing Time Series File:off4d.tsf Time Series Computed KCRTS Command CREATE a new Time Series Production of Runoff Time Series Project Location : Sea-Tac Computing Series : off5d.tsf Regional Scale Factor : 1.00 Data Type : Historic Creeling Hourly Time Serles File Loading Time Series File:C:\KC_SWDM\KC_DATA\STTF60H.mf Till Forest 2.43 acres A-4 Loading Time Series File:C:IKC_SWDM\KC_DATAISITP60H.mf Till Pasture 2.84 acres Loading nme Series File:C:IKC_SWDMIKC_DATAISTTG60H.mf Till Grass 4.17 acres Loading Time Series File:C:IKC_SWDMIKC_DATAISTE160H.mf Impervious 5.1 O acres Total Area : 14.54 acres Peak Discharge: 3.34 CFS at 6:00 on Jan 9 In 1990 Storing Time Series File:off5d.tsf Time Series Computed KCRTS Command CREA TE a new Time Series Production of Runoff Time Series Project Location : sea-Tac Computing Series : off6d. !sf Regional Scale Factor : 1.00 Data Type : Historic Creating Hourly Time Series File Loading Time Series File:C:\KC_SWDM\KC_OATA\STEl60H.mf Impervious 0.27 acres Total Area : 0.27 acres Peak Discharge: 0.111 CFS at 0:00 on Oct 6 In 1981 storing Time Series File:off6d.tsf nme Series Computed End of EXEC file .. Begln Interactive Mode KCRTS Command eXit KCRTS Program A-5 KCRTS Runoff Volume catculatlons Discharge Volume from Time Series siteex.tsf between 10/01/48 00:00 and 09/30/98 23:59 27544024. Cu-Ft or 632.324 Ac-Ft in 18250.0 days Discharge Volume from Time Series sitefu.lSf between 10/01/48 00:00 and 09/30/98 23 :59 83090008. Cu-Ft or 1907.484 Ac-Ft in 18250.0 days Discharge Volume liom Time Series totexout.tsf between lf,/01/48 00:00 and 09/30/98 23:59 1836377. Cu.fl or 42.157 Ac-Ft in 18250.0 days Discharge Volume liom Time Series totfuout. tsf between 10/01/48 00:00 and 09/30/98 23:59 2690682. Cu-Ft or 61.770 Ac-Ft in 18250.0 days A-6 Stage/Storage/Discharge in Depressional Wetland Elev Area Area Cum. Storage Discharge {Fn (AC! {SF) {CF) {CFS) 14.76 0.04 1,693 16.40 4.01 174,595 144,556 18.00 10.48 456,330 649,297 18.20 10.48 456,330 740,563 65 18.40 10.48 456,330 831,829 183 18.80 10.48 456,330 1,014,361 521 Note: Discharge above EL 18.0 Is based on a broad-crested weir (L=225). The average Infiltration rate from the wetland is estimated to be 1 o"' cm/s. A-7 Attachment B. Hydrologic Modeling Results Wetland Stage Frequency Analysis Return Period Stage Stage Difference rrears1 Existing jFT!Future IFD !FTI 100.00 3.23 3.23 32.13 3.22 3.23 0.01 19.58 3.22 3.22 14.08 3.22 3.22 10.99 3.21 3.22 0.01 9.01 3.21 3.22 0.01 7.64 3.2 3.21 0.01 6.63 3.2 3.21 0.01 5.86 3.12 3.2 0.08 5.24 3.01 3.2 0.19 4.75 2.98 3.11 0.13 4.34 2.91 3.08 0.17 3.99 2.75 3.03 0.28 3.70 2.66 2.93 0.27 3.44 2.65 2.68 0.23 3.22 2.63 2.85 0.22 3.03 2.61 2.82 0.21 2.85 2.61 2.82 0.21 2.70 2.6 2.79 0.19 2.56 2.59 2.79 0.20 2.44 2.59 2.76 0.19 2.32 2.54 2.75 0.21 2.22 2.54 2.74 0.20 2.13 2.48 2.7 0.22 2.04 2.42 2.68 0.26 1.96 2.41 2.66 0.25 1.89 2.41 2.58 0.17 1.82 2.37 2.56 0.19 1.75 2.37 2.55 0.18 1.70 2.31 2.55 0.24 1.64 2.31 2.54 0.23 1.59 2.28 2.53 0.25 1.54 2.28 2.48 0.20 1.49 2.27 2.46 0.19 1.45 2.23 2.45 0.22 1.41 2.22 2.44 0.22 1.37 2.21 2.42 0.21 1.33 2.18 2.4 0.22 1.30 2.18 2.38 0.20 B-1 Wetland Stage Frequency Analysis (continued) Return Period Stage Stage !)ifference (Years) Existing (FT)Future (FT) (FT) 1.27 2.04 2.2 0.16 1.24 1.97 2.12 0.15 1.21 1.92 2.11 0.19 1.18 1.92 2.07 0.15 1.15 1.88 2.04 0.16 1.12 1.81 1.95 0.14 1.10 1.73 1.93 0.20 1.08 1.65 1.91 0.26 1.05 1.65 1.86 0.21 1.03 1.6 1.77 0.17 1.01 1.34 1.69 0.35 B-2 Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:totexout.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--------Flow Frequency Analysis------- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak --Peaks --Rank Return Prob (CFS) (CFS) (ft) Period 0.000 36 2/22/49 22:00 8.25 3.23 1 89.50 0.989 0.000 11 3/05/50 21:00 7.99 3.22 2 32.13 0.969 8.25 1 2/09/51 15:00 7.41 3.22 3 19.58 0.949 0.000 40 2/04/52 12:00 6.50 3.22 4 14.08 0.929 0.000 38 1/23/53 9:00 4.42 3 .21 5 10.99 0.909 0.000 22 1/07/54 20:00 3.25 3.21 6 9.01 0.889 0.000 19 2/09/55 10:00 1.49 3.20 7 7 .64 0.869 0.000 9 12/23/55 6:00 1.23 3.20 8 6.63 0.849 0.000 28 2/26/57 15:00 0.000 3.12 9 5.86 0.829 0.000 18 1/18/58 2:00 0.000 3.01 10 5.24 0.809 0.000 33 1/27/59 3:00 0.000 2.98 11 4.75 0.789 1,23 8 11/21/59 13: 00 0.000 2. 91 12 4.34 0.769 0.000 23 2/25/61 14: 00 0.000 2.75 13 3.99 0.749 0.000 46 1/04/62 3:00 0.000 2.66 14 3. 70 0. 729 0.000 31 11/27/62 6:00 0.000 2.65 15 3.44 0.709 0.000 29 1/26/64 2:00 0.000 2.63 16 3.22 0.690 0.000 26 12/02/64 0:00 0.000 2.61 17 3.03 0.670 0.000 39 1/07/66 9:00 0.000 2. 61 18 2.85 0.650 0.000 21 1/21/67 8:00 0.000 2.60 19 2. 70 0. 630 0.000 35 1/21/68 10:00 0.000 2.59 20 2.56 0.610 0.000 30 12/11/68 10:00 0.000 2.59 21 2.44 0.590 0.000 27 1/27/70 6:00 0.000 2.54 22 2.32 0.570 0.000 37 12/07/70 18:00 0.000 2.54 23 2.22 0.550 7. 41 3 3/06/72 19:00 0.000 2.48 24 2.13 0.530 0.000 15 12/27/72 21:00 0.000 2.42 25 2.04 0.510 0.000 17 1/18/74 20:00 0.000 2.41 26 1.96 0.490 0.000 34 12/28/74 13:00 0.000 2.41 27 1. 89 0.470 0.000 25 12/04/75 18:00 0.000 2.37 28 1.82 0.450 0.000 50 8/26/77 6:00 0.000 2.37 29 1. 75 0.430 0.000 24 12/16/77 5:00 0.000 2.31 30 1. 70 0.410 0.000 45 2/13/79 12:00 0.000 2.31 31 1. 64 0.390 1.49 7 12/17/79 23!00 0.000 2.28 32 l.59 0.370 0.000 32 12/31/80 2:00 0.000 2.28 33 1.54 0.350 0.000 14 2/20/82 17: 00 0.000 2. 27 34 1. 49 0.330 0.000 20 1/08/83 5:00 0.000 2.23 35 1. 45 0.310 0.000 43 12/11/83 9:00 0.000 2.22 36 1. 41 0.291 0.000 47 11/04/84 0:00 0.000 2.21 37 1.37 0.271 0.000 10 1/20/86 11:00 0.000 2.18 38 1.33 0.251 0.000 12 11/27/B6 0:00 0.000 2.18 39 1.30 0.231 0.000 44 1/15/88 18:00 0.000 2.04 40 1.27 0.211 0.000 48 4/06/89 5:00 0.000 1. 97 41 1.24 0.191 3.25 6 1/09/90 15:00 0.000 1.-92 42 1.21 0.171 4.42 5 4/05/91 5:00 0.000 1. 92 43 1.18 0.151 0.000 16 1/31/92 23:00 0.000 1. 88 44 1.15 0.131 0.000 41 3/24/93 8:00 0.000 1. 81 45 1.12 0.111 0.000 49 2/18/94 0:00 0.000 1. 73 46 1.10 0.091 0.000 13 2/21/95 5:00 0.000 1.65 47 1. OB 0.071 7.99 2 2/08/96 21:00 0.000 1.65 48 1.05 0.051 6.50 4 1/02/97 7:00 0.000 1.60 49 1.03 0.031 0.000 42 1/25/98 1:00 0.000 1.34 50 1.01 o. 011 B-3 Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:totfuout.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--------Flow Frequency Analysis------- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak --Peaks --Rank Return Prob (CFS) (CFS) (ft) Period 0.000 38 2/22/49 23:00 9.23 3.23 1 89.50 0.989 0.000 12 3/06/50 0:00 9.10 3.23 2 32.13 0.969 9.23 1 2/09/51 16:00 7.28 3.22 3 19.58 0.949 0.000 40 2/04/52 12:00 7.02 3.22 4 14. 08 0.929 0.000 33 1/23/53 14: 00 6, 63 3.22 5 10.99 0.909 0.000 24 1/07/54 22: 00 6,24 3.22 6 9.01 0,889 0.000 26 2/09/55 17: 00 3. 77 3.21 7 7.64 0.869 1.49 9 1/06/56 11: 00 3.25 3.21 8 6.63 0.849 0,000 28 2/26/57 19:00 1.49 3.20 9 5.86 0.829 0.000 20 1/18/58 4:00 0.975 3.20 10 5,24 0.809 0.000 35 1/27/59 3:00 0.000 3.11 11 4,75 0.789 3.25 8 11/21/59 3:00 0.000 3.08 12 4.34 0.769 0.000 22 11/25/60 9:00 0.000 3.03 13 3.99 0.749 0.000 46 12/24/61 8:00 0.000 2. 93 14 3. 70 o. 729 0.000 32 11/27/62 10:00 0.000 2.88 15 3.44 0.709 0.000 31 1/26/64 6:00 0.000 2.85 16 3.22 0.690 0.000 18 12/02/64 1:00 0.000 2,82 17 3.03 0.670 0.000 37 1/07/66 10:00 0.000 2.82 18 2.85 0.650 0.000 21 12/16/66 10:00 0.000 2,79 19 2,70 0,630 0,000 34 1/21/68 13:00 0.000 2.79 20 2.56 0.610 0.000 29 12/11/ 68 10: 00 0.000 2.78 21 2.44 0.590 0.000 25 1/27/70 7:00 0.000 2.75 22 2.32 0.570 0.000 36 12/08/70 3:00 0.000 2.74 23 2.22 0.550 7.28 3 3/06/72 19:00 0.000 2.70 24 2.13 0.530 0.000 13 12/27/72 21:00 0.000 2.68 25 2.04 0.510 0.000 17 1/18/74 20: 00 0.000 2.66 26 1.96 0.490 0.000 39 12/28/74 20:00 0.000 2.58 27 1. 89 0.470 0.000 27 12/05/75 1:00 0.000 2.56 28 1. 82 0.450 0.000 50 8/26/77 B:00 0.000 2.55 29 l. 75 0.430 0.000 23 12/16/77 6:00 0.000 2.55 30 l. 70 0.410 o. 000 45 2/13/79 15:00 0.000 2.54 31 1.64 0.390 3. 77 7 12/17/79 13: 00 0.000 2.53 32 1.59 0.370 0.000 30 12/31/80 3:00 0.000 2.48 33 1.54 0.350 0.000 14 10/08/81 21:00 0.000 2 .46 34 1.49 o.330 0.000 19 1/08/83 6:00 0.000 2.45 35 1. 45 0.310 0.000 42 12/13/83 8:00 0.000 2.44 36 1. 41 0.291 0.000 47 11/04/84 9:00 0.000 2. 42 37 1.37 0.271 0.000 11 1/20/86 14: 00 0.000 2.40 38 1.33 o.2s1 0.975 10 11/26/86 22: 00 0.000 2.38 39 1.30 0.231 0.000 44 1/16/88 7:00 0.000 2.20 40 1.27 0.211 0.000 48 11/06/88 0:00 0.000 2.12 41 1.24 0,191 6. 63 5 1/09/90 11: 00 0.000 2.11 42 1.21 0.171 6.24 6 4/05/91 4:00 0.000 2.07 43 1.18 0.151 0.000 15 2/01/92 0:00 0.000 2.04 44 1.15 Q.131 0.000 43 3/24/93 15:00 0.000 1.95 45 1.12 0.111 0.000 49 2/18/94 5:00 0.000 1.93 46 1.10 0.091 0.000 16 2/21/95 11: 00 0.000 1.91 47 1. oe 0.011 9.10 2 2/09/96 2:00 0.000 1. 86 48 1.05 0.051 7.02 4 1/02/97 7:00 0.000 1. 77 49 1.03 0.031 0.000 41 1/25/98 2:00 0.000 l. 69 50 1.01 o. 011 B-4 Wetland stage Flow Duration Comparison Existing Conditions Developed Conditions Probability of Probability of Exceeder>ce Stage Exceedence Stage (%) (FT) (%) (FT) 63.573 0.05 67.839 0.05 48.984 0.14 54.311 0.14 40.681 0.23 46.489 0.23 34.958 0.32 40.851 0.32 30.486 0.41 36.593 0.41 26.878 0.5 32.945 0.5 23.818 0.59 29.926 0.59 21.264 0.68 27.218 0.68 19.166 0.77 24.82 0.77 17.301 0.86 22.732 0.86 15.625 0.95 20.858 0.95 14.154 1.04 19.262 1.04 12.84 1.13 17.88 1.13 11.713 1.22 16.568 1.22 10.698 1.31 15.321 1.31 9.761 1.4 14.181 1.41 8.972 1.49 13.196 1.5 8.312 1.59 12.246 1.59 6.649 1.68 9.873 1.68 5.253 1.77 7.857 1.77 4.27 1.86 6.362 1.86 3.462 1.95 5.163 1.95 2.734 2.04 4.263 2.04 2.082 2.13 3.55 2.13 1.606 2.22 2.878 2.22 1.278 2.31 2.286 2.31 1.037 2.4 1.75 2.4 0.833 2.49 1.374 2.49 0.614 2.58 1.107, 2.58 0.483 2.67 0.872 2.67 0.395 2.76 0.67 2.77 0.324 2.85 0.511 2.86 0.25 2.94 0.403 2.95 0.187 3.03 0.312 3.04 0.131 3.12 0.207 3.13 0.005 3.22 0.004 3.22 B-S Excursion Calculations for 50-Year Simulation Period (Threshold Value= 0.5 Foot) Event Duration No. {Hr! End Month End Da}'. End Year End Hour 1 65 11 19 48 18 2 1 11 30 48 1 3 15 12 5 48 2 4 4 12 13 46 10 5 14 12 14 46 20 6 55 10 31 49 15 7 71 11 17 49 16 8 33 12 5 49 5 9 s 1 3 50 18 10 30 10 9 50 22 11 86 10 16 50 0 12 17 10 19 51 7 13 106 10 24 51 21 14 4 11 14 51 20 15 35 1 6 53 1 16 75 10 5 53 17 17 55 10 13 53 11 18 58 11 25 54 2 19 17 11 30 54 14 20 82 10 14 55 16 21 60 10 29 55 8 22 48 11 1 55 4 23 48 11 11 55 21 24 3 10 18 56 12 25 36 10 20 56 5 26 10 10 22 56 19 27 108 10 28 56 2 28 17 10 31 56 16 29 6 12 19 56 19 30 56 11 17 57 1 31 3 1 1 58 1 32 72 10 23 58 21 33 24 11 7 58 14 34 43 11 12 58 2 35 58 11 15 58 13 36 21 11 28 58 20 37 87 10 28 60 15 38 17 11 17 60 1 39 42 11 19 60 7 40 5 11 19 60 21 41 23 12 2 60 11 42 55 12 22 61 13 43 27 12 27 61 23 B-6 44 1 10 11 62 12 45 98 10 15 62 18 46 67 11 14 62 17 47 8 11 23 62 3 48 11 12 9 62 1 49 108 10 27 63 7 50 42 10 30 63 4 51 5 11 7 63 15 52 74 11 11 63 2 53 41 11 30 63 3 54 7 12 9 64 4 55 44 12 11 64 8 56 49 11 7 65 10 57 11 12 7 65 5 58 14 12 8 65 6 59 114 11 22 66 21 60 45 12 5 66 7 61 34 12 7 66 4 62 7 12 26 66 5 63 33 10 24 67 6 64 49 10 30 67 9 65 43 6 7 68 11 66 15 8 27 68 17 67 30 8 29 68 2 68 12 6 2 69 3 69 40 9 21 69 14 70 1 9 22 69 12 71 66 9 27 69 3 72 12 11 6 69 22 73 66 12 20 69 7 74 47 11 13 70 20 75 67 12 21 70 3 76 71 11 8 71 12 77 81 9 29 72 1 78 20 1 4 73 19 79 173 11 24 73 22 80 8 11 25 73 9 81 6 11 22 74 13 82 21 11 23 74 21 83 85 11 27 74 17 84 92 11 4 75 23 85 2 11 19 75 10 86 1 8 26 77 2 87 47 8 28 77 22 88 25 12 1 77 17 89 88 9 29 78 5 B-7 '. 90 18 11 5 78 21 91 5 11 22 78 16 92 78 12 8 79 14 93 8 11 9 80 9 94 88 11 12 80 7 95 64 11 26 80 1 96 17 12 7 80 16 97 57 10 17 81 2 98 55 11 1 82 8 99 65 11 23 82 2 100 5 12 11 82 6 101 15 12 24 82 19 102 92 11 8 83 20 103 10 11 16 83 23 104 62 11 20 83 1 105 40 11 24 83 0 106 15 11 28 83 0 107 132 11 11 84 0 108 84 11 16 84 0 109 1 12 12 64 23 110 47 6 11 65 2 111 1 10 24 65 18 112 15 10 26 85 6 113 118 11 3 85 6 114 123 11 3 86 8 115 37 11 23 86 5 116 11 12 5 86 19 117 33 12 5 87 17 118 54 12 9 67 12 119 87 12 15 87 6 120 3 11 4 88 23 121 160 11 13 88 19 122 60 11 20 88 22 123 18 11 27 88 3 124 126 11 20 89 8 125 14 12 13 89 11 126 87 11 23 90 18 127 4 12 12 90 6 128 46 12 8 91 16 129 7 2 9 92 10 130 25 11 23 92 8 131 2 12 12 92 22 132 7 1 30 93 7 133 47 12 4 93 3 134 11 12 10 93 7 135 76 12 13 93 17 B-8 136 16 2 20 94 19 137 35 12 5 94 17 138 8 11 10 95 17 139 5 11 15 95 12 140 90 11 19 95 12 141 7 12 21 95 16 142 10 12 14 96 6 143 61 10 8 97 0 144 3 10 8 97 19 145 49 10 11 97 3 146 31 11 4 97 15 Average Duration of Excursion (hr) = 41.8 Number of Exceedence Durations > 72 hours = 26 B-9 Summary of Average Monthly Wetland Stage Annual Condition Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar A(!r Ma~ Jun Jul Aug SeE! _p.ve Average Existing Stage (Fl) 0.48 0.82 1.05 1.11 0.99 0.80 0.54 0.25 0.22 0.11 0.15 0.25 0.56 Average Future stage (FT) 0.62 0.98 1.20 1.23 _1.08 0.89 0.62 0.32 0.29 0.15 0.20 0.34 o.ee Difference (IN) 1.65 1.93 1.75 1.37 1.11 1.09 0.90 0.86 0.88 0.52 0.60 1.03 1.14 Summary of Average Monthly Wetland Range in Stage Annual Condition Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar AE!r Ma~ Jun Jul Aug see Ave. Range in Existing Stage (FT) 0.93 1.49 1.79 1.91 1.70 1.46 1.04 0.49 0.43 0.22 0.29 0.49 1.02 Range in Future Stage (FT) 1.19 1.73 1.96 2.05 1.83 1.61 1.18 0.62 0.58 0.30 0.39 0.66 1.17 Difference (IN) 3.12 2.87 2.04 1.62 1.56 1.76 1.66 1.64 1.73 1.00 1.18 2.00 1.85 B-10 6.2 Geotechnical and Soil Report of Proposed Fill, Excavation and Grade prepared by Earth Solutions NW dated August 13, 2014 Geotechnica l Engineering Geology Env ironme nt a l Scientists Constru ction Monitoring GEOTECHNICALAND SOIL ENGINEERING REPORT IN SUPPORT OF PROPOSED FILL, EXCAVATION , AND GRADE POINTE HERON LLC PARCEL RENTON , WASHINGTON PREPARED FOR Pointe Heron LLC Kyle R. Campbell, P.E. Principal GEOTECHNICAL AND SOIL ENGINEERING REPORT IN SUPPORT OF PROPOSED FILL, EXCAVATION, AND GRADE POINTE HERON LLC PARCEL RENTON, WASHINGTON ES-2334.01 Earth Solutions NW, LLC 1805 -136th Place Northeast, Suite 201 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Phone: 425-449-4704 Fax: 425-449-4711 Toll Free: 866-336-8710 I Important Information About Your Geotechnical Engineering Report Subsurface prob1ems are a pnnc,pa! cause of construct/On delays, cost oven uns, claims, and disputes • The following information 1s provrdcd to help you manaqe your rrsks Geotechnical Services Are Performed for Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs of their clients. A geotechnical engineering study conducted for a civil engi- neer may not fulfill the needs of a construction contractor or even another civil engineer. Because each geotechnical engineering study is unique, each geotechnical engineering report is unique, prepared solely for the client. No one except you should rely on your geotechnical engineering report without first conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it And no one -not even you-should apply the report for any purpose or project except the one originally contemplated. Read the Full Report Serious problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical engineering report did not read it all. Do not rely on an executive summary. Do not read selected elements only. A Geotechnical Engineering R!,!llort Is Based on A Unique set of Project-Specific Factors Geotechnical engineers consider a number of unique, project-specific fac- tors when establishing the scope of a study. Typical factors include: lhe client's goals, objectives, and risk management preferences; the general nature of the structure involved, its size, and configuration; the location of the structure on the site; and other planned or existing site improvements, such as access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities Unless the geotechnical engineer who conducted the study specifically indicates oth- erwise, do not rely on a geotechnical engineering report that was: • not prepared for you, • not prepared for your project, • not prepared for the specific site explored, or • completed before important project changes were made Typical changes that can erode the reliability of an existing geotechnical engineering report include those that affect: • the function of the proposed structure, as when it's changed from a parking garage to an office building, or from a light industrial plant to a refrigerated warehouse, • elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or weight of the proposed structure, • composition of the design team, or • project ownership. As a general rule, always inform your gsotechnical engineer of project changes--€1/en minor ones-and request an assessment of their impact. Geotechnical engineers cannot accept responsibility or liability tor problems that occur because their reports do not consider developments of which they were not informed. Subsurface Conditions Can Change A geotechnical engineering report is based on conditions that existed at the time the study was pertormed. Do not rely on a geotechnical engineer- ing report whose adequacy may have been affected by: the passage of time; by man-made events, such as construction on or adjacent to the site; or by natural events, such as floods, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctua- tions. Always contact the geolechnicaf engineer before applying the report to determine if it is still reliable. A minor arnaunt of additional testing or analysis could prevent major problems. Most Geotechnical Findings Are Professional Opinions Site exploration identifies subsurtace conditions only at those points where subsurtace tests are conducted or samples are taksn. Geotechnical engi- reers review field and laboratory data and then apply their professional Judgment to render an opinion about subsurtace conditions throughout the site. Actual subsurtace conditions may differ-sometimes significantly- from those indicated in your report. Retaining the geotechnical engineer who developed your report to provide construction observation is the most effective method of managing the risks associated with unanticipated conditions. A Report's Recommendations Are Not Final Do not overrely on the construction recommendations included in your report. Those recommendations are not final, because geotechnical engi- neers develop them principally from judgment and opinion. Geotechnical engineers can finalize their recommendations only by observing actual subsurface conditions revealed during construction. The geotechnical engineer who developed your report cannot assume responsibility or liability for the report's recommendations if that engineer does not perform construction observation. A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Subject to Misinterpretation Other design team members' misinterpretation of geotechnical engineering reports has resulted in costly problems Lower that risk by having your geo- technical engineer confer with appropriate members of the design team after submitting the report. Also retain your geotechnical engineer to review perti- nent elements of the design team's plans and specifications. Contractors can also misinterpret a geotechnical engineering report. Reduce that risk by having your geotechnical engineer participate in prebid and preconstruction conferences, and by providing construction observation. Do Not Redraw the Engineer's Logs Geotechnical engineers prepare final boring and testing logs based upon their interpretation of field logs and laboratory data. To prevent errors or omissions, the logs included in a geotechnical engineering report should never be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings. Only photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but recognize that separating logs from the report can elevate risk Give Contractors a Complete Report and Guidance Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can make contractors liable for unanticipated subsurface conditions by limiting what they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent costly problems, give con- tractors the complete geotechnical engineering report, butpreface it with a clearly written letter of transmittal. In that letter, advise contractors that the report was not prepared for purposes of bid development and that the report's accuracy is limited; encourage them to confer with the geotechnical engineer who prepared the report (a modest fee may be required) and/or to conduct additional study to obtain the specific types of information they need or prefer. A prebid conference can also be valuable. Be sure contrac- tors have sufficient time to perform additional study. Only then might you be in a position to give contractors the best information available to you, while requiring them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions. Raall Responsibility Provisions Closely Some clients, design professionals, and contractors do not recognize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disci- plines. This lack of understanding has created unrealistic expectations that have led to disappointments, claims, and disputes. To help reduce the risk of such outcomes, geotechnical engineers commonly include a variety of explanatory provisions in their reports. Sometimes labeled "limitations" many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers' responsi- bilities begin and end, to help others recognize their own responsibilities and risks. Read these provisions closely Ask questions. Your geotechnical engineer should respond fully and frankly. Geoenvironmental Concerns Are Not Covered The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to perform a geoenviron- mental study differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical study. For that reason, a geotechnical engineering report does not usually relate any geoenvironmental findings, conclusions, or recommendations; e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants. Unanticipated environmental problems have led to numerous project failures. II you have not yet obtained your own geoen- vironmental information, ask your geotechnical consultant for risk man- agement guidance. Do not rely on an environmental repolt prepared for someone else. Obtain Professional Assistance To Deal with Mold Diverse strategies can be applied during building design, construction, operation, and maintenance to prevent significant amounts of mold from growing on indoor surfaces. To be effective, all such strategies should be devised for the express purpose of mold preventicn, integrated into a com- prehensive plan, and executed with diligent oversight by a professional mold prevention consultant. Because just a small amount of water or moisture can lead to the development of severe mold infestations, a num- ber of mold prevention strategies focus on keeping building surtaces dry. While groundwater, water infiltration, and similar issues may have been addressed as part of the geotechnical engineering study whose findings are conveyed intllis report, the geotechnical engineer in charge of this project is not a mold prevention consultant; none of the services per· formed In connection with the geotechnical engineer's study were designed or conducted for the purpose of mold preven- tion. Proper implementation of the recommendations conveyed in this report will not of itself be sufficient to prevent mold from growing in or on the structure involved. Rely, on Your ASFE-Member Geotechncial Engineer for Additional Assistance Membership in ASFE/The Best People on Earth exposes geotechnical engineers to a wide array of risk management techniques that can be of genuine benefit for everyone involved with a construction project Confer with you ASFE-member geotechnical engineer for more information. ASFE TIii 1911 PIUII II larl~ 8811 Colesville Road/Suite G106, Sil•1er Spring, MD 20910 Telephone 301/565-2733 Facsimile: 3011589-2017 e-mail inlo@asle.org wv,11 asle.arg Copyright 2004 by ASFE, Inc. Duplication, reproauctlon, or copying of this document, in whole or in part. by any means whatsoever; is strictly prohiMed, excepr with ASFE's specific written permission. Excerpting, quoting, or otherwise extracting wording from this document is permitted only with the express written permission of ASFE, and only for purposes of schotarfy research or book review. Only members of ASFE may use this document as a complement to or as an element of a geotechnfcaf engineering report. Any other firm. individual, or other entity that so uses this document without being an ASFE member could be committing negfigent or intentional (fraudulent) misrepresentJtion. I IGER06045 .OM Table of Contents ES-2334.01 PAGE INTRODUCTION . . . . .. . .. . . . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . .. . .. .. . .. . .. . .. . ... .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. .... 1 General ... ...... ........................................................... ...... 1 Background...................................................................... 3 Project Description .. .. .. .. ... . ... .. .. .. .. .. . .. .... .. .. . .... .. .. .. .. .... . .. .. . 3 Project Site Location .. .. .. .. . .. .. . .. . .. . .. . .. .. .. .. . .. . .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. . . .. ... 4 Surface............ . .. . .. . . . ... .. . ... ... ... . .. ... ... .. . ... ... ... .. . .. . ... ... ... .. .. 4 Subsurface ........................................................................ 4 Previously Placed Fill......................................................... 5 Native Soil ......................................................................... 7 Groundwater Conditions ...................................................... 7 Existing Wells in the Vicinity ................................................ 8 Specifications for Preparation of Ground for Fill ..................... 8 Fill Material Specifications for the Proposed Fill ..................... 9 Buttress Fill Material Specification_............................. 9 Core Structural Fill Material Specification.................... 8 Placement and Compaction Specifications for the Proposed Fill.......................................................... 9 Buttress Fill Placement and Compaction Specification .. . . .. . .. .. . .. . .. . .. . . .. . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. .. . 9 Core Structural Fill Placement and Compaction Specification .. . .. . .. .. .. .. . .. . .. . .. .. .. .. . .. . .. . . .. .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. .. . 1 0 Recommended Construction Sequence for Fill Placement....... 10 Slope Stability Evaluation . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . .. .. . .. . .. . . .. . .. ... 11 Pond Lining Specifications for the Permanent Stormwater Pond.............................................................. 13 Potential Future Roadway Fill Settlement.. ............................. 13 Special Erosion Control Requirements .................................. 13 Winter/Wet Season Grading ................................................. 14 Future Slope Setback Recommendations ............................... 14 Subsurface Drainage Specifications Regarding the Proposed Fill and Cut Slopes......................................... 14 CRITICAL AREAS ......................................................................... 15 Geologic Critical Areas under RMC 4-3-050J1 ... .... .. .. . .... ... .. . .. 15 Steep Slopes .............................................................. 15 Potential Landslide Hazards... .. . .. .. . .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. . 16 Erosion Hazards ......................................................... 17 Seismic Hazards ........................................................ 19 Coal Mine Hazards ...................................................... 20 Volcanic Hazards ....................................................... 20 Demonstration That RMC 4-3-050J1 Review Criteria Can Be Met... .. .. . .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . .. .. .. 21 Earth Solutions NW, LLC Table of Contents ES-2334.01 Cont'd PAGE RENTON GRADING, EXCAVATION AND MINING REGULATIONS ....... 36 Fill Material Specifications for the Two Proposed Fill Zones.............................................. 36 Final Landscaping and Stabilization ...................................... 36 Hydroseeding ..................................................................... 38 Erosion and Sediment Control .. . . . . .. . .. . . .. . .. . . . .. . . . ... .. . .. . .. .. . .. . . 39 Setbacks........................................................................... 40 Fills.................................................................................. 40 The Role of the Soi/ Engineering Report in Regard to Fills as Stated under Paragraph 1 of RMC 4-4-060N........................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 40 Conformance with RMC 4-4-060N2 (Fill Location).......... 41 Conformance with RMC 4-4-060N3 (Preparation of Ground) .. . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Conformance with Applicable Portions of RMC 4-4-060N4 (Fill Material) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . 42 Conformance with RMC 4-4-060N5 (Minimum Compaction) . . . . .. .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Conformance with Applicable Portions of RMC 4-4-060N6 .................................................... 44 Conformance with RMC 4-4-060N7 (Drainage and Terracing) . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 7 Conformance with Subsection 1 (General) ofRMC4-4-060P(DRAINAGE) .................................. 47 Conformance with Subsection 2 (Terrace) of RMC 4-4-060P (DRAINAGE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Conformance with Subsection 3 (Subsurface Drainage) of RMC 4-4-060P (DRAINAGE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Conformance with Subsection 4 (Disposal) of RMC 4·4-060P (DRAINAGE) . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . 49 Conformance with Subsection 5 (Overland Runoff) of RMC 4-4-060P (DRAINAGE) .. . ... . . . ... .. . ........ 50 Cuts ................................................................................. 51 The Role of the Soil Engineering Report in Regard to Cuts as Stated under Paragraph 1 of RMC 4-4-060M...... ... .. . ... ... ... ... ... ... . .. ... ... .. . ... ....... 51 Conformance with RMC 4-4-060M2 (Maximum Slope) . . . . .. .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Conformance with RMC 4-4-060M3 (Drainage and Terracing) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. .. . . . . .. . 52 Earth Solutions mv, LLC Table of Contents ES-2334.01 Cont'd Conformance with Subsection 1 (General) PAGE of RMC 4-4-060P (DRAINAGE) .................................. 53 Conformance with Subsection 2 (Terrace) of RMC 4-4-060P (DRAINAGE) ................................... 53 Conformance with Subsection 3 (Subsurface Drainage) of RMC 4-4-060P (DRAINAGE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Conformance with Subsection 4 (Disposal) of RMC 4-4-060P (DRAINAGE) .. . ... . .. . .. . .. . .. .. . .. . . . . ... .. .. 55 Conformance with Subsection 5 (Overland Runoff) of RMC 4-4-060P (DRAINAGE) ...... ...... ... ....... 55 GRADING, EXCAVATION AND MINING PERMITS AND LICENSES ...... 55 LIMITATIONS.............................................................................. 56 Additional Services............................................................ 56 Earth Solutions NW, LLC GRAPHICS Plate 1 Plate 2 Plate 3 APPENDICES APPENDIX A APPENDIX B APPENDIXC APPENDIX D APPENDIX E APPENDIX F-1 APPENDIX F-2 APPENDIXG APPENDIX H Table of Contents Cont'd ES-2334.01 Vicinity Map Boring and Test Pit Location Plan Schematic Depiction of the Proposed Buttress Fill Zone and the Fill Core Behind It Subsurface Exploration Boring and Test Pit Logs (ECI) 11" by 17" reduced-size six-sheet drawing set prepared by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. illustrating (1) the Sunset Bluff project's design grades, (2) existing site grades, and (3) currently proposed design grades within the filling, excavation, and grading project site 11" by 17" reduced-size two-sheet Topographic Map exhibit prepared by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. SlopeW Computer Output (Slope Stability Analyses) Color map excerpt from the City of Renton's GIS system depicting (1) the Pointe Heron LLC parcel boundary, (2) the subject proposed grade and fill project site, and (3) "regulated slopes" City of Renton GIS map exhibit for the area surrounding the subject Pointe Heron LLC parcel (depicting nearest Coal Mine Hazard Areas) King County iMAP exhibit for the area surrounding the subject parcel (depicting nearest Coal Mine Hazard Areas) Wetlands map exhibit created from the Renton GIS website 11" by 17" reduced-size seven-sheet drawing set of the City- approved October 7, 2005 clearing, initial grading, and TESC drawings for Sunset Bluff prepared by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. Earth Solutions NW, LLC GEOTECHNICAL AND SOIL ENGINEERING REPORT IN SUPPORT OF PROPOSED FILL, EXCAVATION, AND GRADE POINTE HERON LLC PARCEL RENTON, WASHINGTON ES-2334.01 INTRODUCTION General This Geotechnical and Soil Engineering Report has been prepared in support of proposed filling, excavation, and grading work on an approximately 14.12-acre project site portion of the following parcel of land owned by Pointe Heron LLC property in Renton, Washington: Lot 1 of the SR 900 L.L.C. Lot Line Adjustment (City of Renton File No. LUA-03- 124-LLA) as recorded in Volume 168 of Surveys, pages 233 through 235, under Recording No. 20040311900015, records of King County, Washington. The Sunset Bluff residential subdivision development was previously proposed on that parcel. The stormwater detention and water quality pond for that previously planned and approved development was constructed, and much of the site grading work for that development was performed. We understand that the Pointe Heron LLC property is currently zoned Light Industrial (IL) by the City of Renton. The subject Pointe Heron LLC parcel is located between SW Sunset Boulevard (SR 900) to the north and the BNSF Railroad right-of-way to the south, and between the forested westerly end of the site of the existing Sunpointe Townhomes Condominium development to the east, and the Sunset View Apartments and the Black River Quarry to the west. The approximate location of the subject properties is illustrated on the Vicinity Map (Plate 1 of this report). Our current services have involved (1) a review of geotechnical documentation previously prepared for the subject Pointe Heron LLC parcel and for the east portion of the abutting Black River Quarry property and (2) preparation of engineering geology and soil engineering recommendations in support of (a) Pointe Heron LLC's proposed two-or-three-construction-season fill and grade of both (i) an existing stormwater detention pond along a part of the southern edge of the subject Pointe Heron LLC parcel (a pond that had been constructed to serve the previously planned Sunset Bluff residential subdivision development) and (ii) certain adjacent uplands; Earth Solutions NW, LLC Pointe Heron LLC August 13, 2014 ES-2334.01 Page 2 (b) The design and construction of a mid-fill-level interim stormwater detention and water quality pond that is to be in place and operational by October 1 following the first season of the fill and grade operation (the "Interim Stormwater Pond"); and (c) The design and construction of a potentially permanent stormwater detention and water quality pond south of and near the toe of the existing slope along the north edge of the Pointe Heron LLC parcel (the "Permanent Stormwater Pond").1 In particular, our scope of services for completing this geotechnical report included the following: • Reviewing subsurface information presented in explorations conducted by Earth Consultants, Inc. (ECl)2 in regard to the previously planned Sunset Bluff residential subdivision development on the western and central part of the parcel of land that encompasses the site of the subject proposed Pointe Heron grade and fill; • Conducting engineering analyses, and; • Preparation of this report. The following documents and/or resources were reviewed as part of the preparation of this report: • Geotechnical reports and engineered wall/slope designs by Earth Consultants, Inc. (ECI), projects E-9543 and E-10927, prepared during 2004 and 2005. • The Site Plan for the Black River Quarry's South Edge Ecology Block Wall and Geogrid-Reinforced Fill Slope dated June 29, 2004 prepared by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. (Barghausen). • The set of Clearing, Initial Grading, and TESC drawings dated October 7, 2005 prepared by Barghausen for the Sunset Bluff residential subdivision development. 1 This proposed pond is designed so that it can be permanent. However, depending on the ultimate land use of the subject Pointe Heron LLC parcel, this pond might ultimately be replaced with (1) another stormwater detention and water quality pond located in a different portion of the parcel or (2) one or more underground stormwater detention and water quality vaults. 2 Kyle R. Campbell, P.E., a principal of Earth Solutions NW, LLC, was formerly employed by Earth Consultants, Inc. and was involved in some of the construction observation work of the slopes that were constructed as part of the Sunset Bluff residential subdivision development. Earth Solutions NW, LLC Pointe Heron LLC August 13, 2014 ES-2334.01 Page 3 • The 10-sheet set of Grading, Interim Drainage, E.S.C. [i.e., Erosion/Sedimentation Control], and Rehabilitation Plans dated August 2014 prepared by Barghausen for the subject Pointe Heron grade, excavation, and fill project (plans referred to in this report as the "Barghausen Grading Plans"). • Raedeke Associates, Inc. 's QIPNirtu/Sunset Bluff (MLDC) Properties Wetland & Stream Delineation Update 2014 technical memorandum dated August 2014. • Raedeke Associates, lnc.'s 2014 Great Blue Heron & Wildlife Habitat Update for the QIP/Sunset Bluff (MLDC) Properties dated August 2014. Background We understand the scope of the project includes filling and grading portions of the Pointe Heron LLC parcel in preparation for future development and includes excavating and constructing a new stormwater detention and water quality pond within the parcel to replace the existing pond. We also understand that Pointe Heron LLC anticipates later development of the parcel consistent with applicable City of Renton zoning and other development regulations. Such later development may include construction of roadways, single-story and/or multistory buildings, parking areas, driveways, landscaping, and utilities. Project Description The currently proposed filling, excavation, and grading, which is depicted on the Barghausen Grading Plans, is primarily intended to: (1) Fill (in two phases as shown on the Barghausen Grading Plans) the existing stormwater pond area and, along with doing so, create both (a) a new 1.5H:1V engineered fill slope along a portion of the south edge of the Pointe Heron LLC parcel (to a top of slope elevation of approximately 128 feet) between (i) the existing 1.5H:1V engineered slope to the west of the existing stormwater pond and (ii) the existing 1.5H:1V engineered fill slope to the east of the existing stormwater pond and (b) new 1.5H: 1V upward, engineered fill slope extensions of both (i) the existing south edge 1.5H:1V engineered fill slope lying to the west of the existing stormwater pond and (ii) the existing south edge 1.5H: 1V engineered fill slope lying to the east of the existing stormwater pond, in order to achieve a continuous top of slope elevation of approximately 128 feet among all portions of the south edge slope; Earth Solutions NW, LLC Pointe Heron LLC August 13, 2014 ES-2334.01 Page4 (2) Excavate and construct a new Permanent Stormwater Pond (as depicted on the Barghausen Grading Plans) along and just south of a portion of the toe of the existing slope on the portion of the Pointe Heron LLC parcel that abuts SW Sunset Boulevard's south edge, with this pond designed to have an approximate bottom elevation of 114.5 feet; and (3) Fill areas north of the proposed new and upward-extended south-edge fill slopes as depicted on the Barghausen Grading Plans in order to support anticipated future development of the project site, with the northerly edge of those fill areas designed to intersect existing grade at elevations generally around 125 to 128 feet. In addition, as shown on the Barghausen Grading Plans as part of Phase 1 filling and grading, the Interim Stormwater Pond (a pond with an approximate bottom elevation of 100 feet) is planned to be completed by October 1 of the first season of the proposed filling and grading work as part of winter stabilization of the grade and fill project work area. After the Permanent Stormwater Pond has been constructed and is operational, the interim pond is to be filled with compacted structural fill. The 14.12-acre filling and grading project site is depicted on the above-referenced plans prepared by Barghausen. Deviations from the design of the filling and grading depicted on the Barghausen plans should be reviewed by ESNW. In our opinion, all of the proposed site filling, excavation, and grading activities and designs are feasible and safe from geotechnical and soil engineering standpoints. Project Site Location The 14.12-acre filling and grading project site is part of the parcel of land on which the previously proposed Sunset Bluff residential subdivision development was approved. That parcel of land in Renton, Washington is located between SW Sunset Boulevard to the north and the BNSF Railroad right-of-way to the south, and between the forested westerly end of the existing Sunpointe Townhomes Condominium development property to the east and the Sunset View Apartments and the Black River Quarry properties to the west. The approximate location of the subject Pointe Heron LLC parcel is illustrated on the Vicinity Map (Plate 1 ). Surface Across the 14.12-acre portion of the subject parcel that is proposed to be filled, excavated, and graded, the topography is variable and represents the results of grading operations associated with the previously planned Sunset Bluff residential subdivision. Earth Solutions NW, LLC Pointe Heron LLC August 13, 2014 ES-2334.01 Page 5 An existing stormwater detention pond constructed for the previously planned Sunset Bluff residential subdivision development is located along and just to the north of the site's south- central property boundary. That pond, which was completed around 2006, is currently about 50 vertical feet lower than the portion of the site located immediately to the north of that pond. Some pockets of very small trees and brush vegetation are located within portions of the proposed work area. We understand that no trees within the work area have a caliper of two inches or greater at breast height. Subsurface ESNW reviewed the subsurface information provided in the above-referenced reports prepared by ECI dated January 9, 2004 and April 19, 2004, That subsurface information was used in preparation of ECl's geotechnical engineering study report E-10927, a report that was prepared in 2005 in support of the then-proposed Sunset Bluff residential subdivision. Copies of the boring and test pit logs prepared as part of that study that relate to the currently planned grade and fill project site are provided in Appendix A to this report. The subsurface information contained in geotechnical engineering study E-10927 and subsequent geotechnical design recommendations reflect conditions at the time of exploration (i.e., November 2003 and March 2004). The approximate limits of the proposed filling, excavation, and grading project site area are illustrated on the Boring and Test Pit Location Plan (Plate 2). Please refer to the boring and test pit logs provided in Appendix A of this report for a more detailed description of subsurface conditions. While the surface elevations noted on the boring and test pits may not correspond to the project site's current topography, the subsurface information set forth therein is still relevant in relation to the current evaluation. Previously Placed Fill Structural fill placed as part of the Sunset Bluff project's filling and grading is present within the currently proposed filling,excavation, and grading project site. For a graphic comparison of (1) the Sunset Bluff project's design grades contemplated by the Clearing, Initial Grading, and TESC Plans for Sunset Bluff that the City approved on October 4, 2005, (2) approximate existing ground elevations, and (3) the currently proposed design grades within the filling, excavation, and grading project site, see attached APPENDIX B, which is a six-sheet reduced- size (11" by 17") set of exhibit drawings (Sheets X1 through X6) prepared by Barghausen. Sheets X1 and X2 depict in plan view the locations of cross-sections J-J, K-K, LL, M-M, N-N, 0- 0, and P-P that Barghausen added to certain of the Clearing, Initial Grading, and TESC Plan sheets for Sunset Bluff that the City approved on October 4, 2005. Sheets X3 and X4 depict in plan view the same locations of those cross-sections as set forth on Sheets E5 and E6 of the set of Grading, Interim Drainage, E.S.C., and Rehabilitation Plans dated August 2014 prepared by Barghausen for the subject Pointe Heron fill, excavation, and grade project. Sheets X5 and X6 depict cross-sectional plots of (a) the Sunset Bluff project's design grades, (b) approximate existing ground elevations, and (c) the currently proposed design grades at each of cross- sections J-J, K-K, LL, M-M, N-N, 0-0, and P-P. Earth Solutions mv, LLC Pointe Heron LLC August 13, 2014 ES-2334.01 Page 6 Along (1) the existing stormwater pond's north side, (2) roughly the north half of the pond's east side, and (3) the pond's west side, a mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) ecology block wall up to about 16 feet in height with a top elevation ranging from approximately 50 feet to 65 feet is present. This wall is planned to be left in place and, as Cross Sections E-E and F-F on Sheet E7 of the Barghausen Grading Plans illustrate, will lie well beneath (roughly 60 feet beneath) the top of the planned fill. An existing structural fill slope inclined at about 2H: 1V (a) is located upgradient from (immediately north of) the north segment of the ecology block wall and (b) extends upward to elevations ranging from about 80 to 105 feet, where the slope reaches an existing interim, intermediate plateau area ("Existing Interim, Intermediate Plateau Area 1 "), a plateau area with a width ranging from about 30 feet to 100 feet. [See APPENDIX C, a reduced-size (11" by 17") two-sheet Topography Map exhibit of the project site prepared by Barghausen dated August 2014.) That intermediate plateau area extends to the north from the top of that existing structural fill slope to an interim structural fill slope ("Existing Interim Fill Slope 1 "), a fill slope bisected at an angle by an access road that is labeled "Access Road 1 to Temporary Sediment Pond Lying East of Sunset Bluff Stormwater Detention Pond" on Topography Map sheets 1 and 2. That access road extends farther up to the north to a more gently-sloping existing upper plateau area ("Existing Upper Plateau Area 1," which is labeled on Topography Map sheets 1 and 2). That plateau area ranges in elevation from (i) about 115 to 124 feet on the plateau's south edge to (ii) roughly 128 to 130 feet along the north edge of the project's work area limits. Existing Interim, Intermediate Plateau Area 1, Existing Interim Fill Slope 1, and Existing Upper Plateau Area 1 were all filled and graded as part of Sunset Bluff project site filling and grading. An approximately 2H:1V engineered fill slope is also present along the east side of the existing Sunset Bluff stormwater pond. South of the east leg of the MSE ecology block wall, the height of that fill slope is about 24 feet. At the top of that fill slope is an existing, interim intermediate plateau area ("Existing Interim, Intermediate Plateau Area 2") that has a width of about 70 feet and that extends generally to the east to an existing interim fill slope ("Existing Interim Fill Slope 2"), a fill slope that extends both to the east-southeast and to the north. A temporary sediment pond lies within the southerly portion of Existing Interim, Intermediate Plateau Area 2. (See Topography Map sheet 2.) The north end of Existing Interim, Intermediate Plateau Area 2 (a) wraps to the northwest around the northeast corner of the intersection of the stormwater pond's north and east slopes that extend above the north and east legs of the MSE ecology block wall and (b) connects to Existing Interim, Intermediate Plateau Area 1. Existing Interim Fill Slope 2's east-southeast leg extends up to a relatively gently-sloping upper plateau area ("Existing Upper Plateau Area 2"), a plateau area that ranges in elevation from (i) about 110 to 116 feet on the plateau's south and southwest edges to (ii) roughly 126 to 137 feet along the north edge of the project site. The northwesterly end of Existing Upper Plateau Area 2 connects to the northeasterly end of Existing Upper Plateau Area 1. (Again, see Topography Map sheet 2.) Existing Interim, Intermediate Plateau Area 2, Existing Interim Fill Slope 2, and Existing Upper Plateau Area 2 were all filled and graded as part of the Sunset Bluff project site filling and grading. Earth Solutions t-M/, LLC Pointe Heron LLC August 13, 2014 ES-2334.01 Page 7 In addition, an existing engineered fill slope is also present on the west side of the existing stormwater pond, to the west of the west leg of the existing MSE ecology block wall. That fill slope, which has an inclination of approximately 2H:1V, extends from the top of the existing MSE ecology block wall up to top-of-slope elevations rang.ing from about 104 feet to 112 feet. The top of that slope connects with the westerly extension of Existing Interim, Intermediate Plateau Area 1, which is coincident with an access road that is labeled "Access Road 2 to Temporary Sediment Pond Lying East of Sunset Bluff Stormwater Detention Pond" on Topography Map sheet 1. Further, existing engineered fill slopes with an inclination of approximately 1.5H:1V are located along the south edge of the Pointe Heron LLC parcel, both (a) to the west of the existing stormwater pond (south of the existing stormwater detention pond maintenance road) and (b) to the east of the east end of the pond. (Again, see Topography Map sheets 1 and 2.) Native Soil Native soil within the project site (work area limits) generally ranges from outwash sand and gravel to glacial drift including silt, sand, and gravel. However, because there have been significant modifications to the original site grades, very little, if any, native soil is expected to be exposed during grading activities associated with the proposal. Groundwater Conditions Groundwater seepage zones are present in or near and under the project site, and subsurface drain systems have already been installed to control the flow of these sources. In view of the varied nature of the existing fill on the site and previous engineered modifications to portions of the site topography, minor perched groundwater may be encountered during the wetter winter months, but no groundwater table will not be exposed or interrupted. Because the proposal involves raising site grades using engineered structural fill, any seepage would likely be very limited in flow volume and would also likely attenuate relatively quickly. Existing Wells in the Vicinity Based on a review of readily available information maintained on the Washington Department of Ecology's on line well database, no wells are present on the project site or within 1,000 feet of the project site. EMh Solutions NW, LLC I Pointe Heron LLC August 13, 2014 Specifications for Preparation of Ground for Fill ES-2334.01 Page 8 The ground surface that is to receive fill shall be prepared to receive fill by removing any vegetation, any noncomplying fill, any topsoil, and any other unsuitable materials (as determined by ESNW) from the areas in which the fill is to be placed. Areas of loose native soil or loose fill soil must be recompacted or replaced with new, compacted fill. In areas to be filled where the existing ground to be filled consists of slopes that are 5H: 1V or steeper, such areas prior to filling shall be benched into sound bedrock (or, as determined by ESNW, benched into other competent material), so that the fill is placed on a level surface with width(s) determined by ESNW during the course of the fill work. Fill shall not be placed on a sloping surface. The benching shall create as homogenous a fill interface as is reasonably practicable. The ground surface shall be scarified prior to fill placement. ESNW should observe the subgrade prior to fill placement. A schematic slope fill detail is included on Plate 3 attached to this report. The above-stated specifications for preparation of ground for fill have been set forth on Sheet E10 of the Barghausen Grading Plans. Fill Material Specifications for the Proposed Fill Two categories of structural fill are proposed for the subject fill and grade project: (1) a crushed aggregate fill to be used to construct a buttress fill zone along the face of the proposed fill slopes and (2) a fill to be used to construct the proposed fill core behind the crushed aggregate buttress fill zone. (See Plate 3 for a schematic depiction of the buttress fill zone and the core structural fill zone behind it.) Both of these categories of structural fill must conform to RMC 4- 4-060N4 (FILL MATERIAL), which states in relevant part: Fill materials shall have no more than minor amounts of organic substances and shall have no rock or similar irreducible material with a maximum dimension greater than eight inches (8"). Fill material shall meet the following requirements: a. Construction, Demolition, and Land Clearing Waste Prohibited: Fill material shall be free of construction, demolition, and land clearing waste except that this requirement does not preclude the use of recycled concrete rubble per Washington State Department of Transportation Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction. b. Cleanliness of Fill Material: Fill material shall not contain concentrations of contaminants that exceed cleanup standards for soil specified in WAC 173-340-740, Model Toxics Control Act. In addition to conforming to RMC 4-4-060N4 (FILL MATERIAL), each of the two categories of fill material must conform to the respective applicable technical specifications set forth below. Earth Solutions NW, LLC Pointe Heron LLC August 13, 2014 Buttress Fill Material Specification ES-2334.01 Page 9 Material to be used to construct the buttress fill zone along the face of the proposed fill slopes shall be crushed aggregate conforming to RMC 4-4-060N4 (FILL MATERIAL) and conforming to the following strength parameters: Internal angle of friction Moist unit weight Maximum aggregate size 46° minimum 145 pcf minimum 8inches Maximum fines content (passing U.S. Sieve No. 200) shall not exceed 5 percent. This specified material, which is equivalent to coarse gravel and/or cobble, must be well-graded and angular (crushed). Samples of this proposed fill material must be provided to ESNW for laboratory analysis and approval prior to placement. Core Structural Fill Material Specification Material to be used to construct the proposed fill core to be placed behind the crushed aggregate buttress zone fill shall conform to the following strength parameters: Internal angle of friction Moist unit weight Maximum aggregate size 36° minimum 125 pcf minimum 8 inches Maximum fines content (passing the U.S. No. 200 sieve) shall not exceed 20 percent. Samples of this proposed fill material must be provided to ESNW for laboratory analysis and approval prior to placement. The above-stated following fill material specifications for the proposed fill have been set forth on Sheet E1 O of the Barghausen Grading Plans. Placement and Compaction Specifications for the Proposed Fill Buttress Fill Placement and Compaction Specification The buttress fill material must be placed in maximum 12-inch loose lifts and compacted to a firm and unyielding condition. Adequacy of compaction must be confirmed by an ESNW representative at the time of material placement. At a minimum, three passes in two orthogonal directions using a vibratory drum roller should be made to compact each lift of buttress fill material. Earth Solutions NW. LLC Pointe Heron LLC August 13, 2014 ES-2334.01 Page 10 Because of the aggregate nature of the buttress fill, the specified buttress fill material is outside the range of typical grain size for testing under ASTM D-1557 or equivalent American Public Works Association (APWA) specifications and field density standards. Core Structural Fill Placement and Compaction Specification The core structural fill material must be placed in maximum 12-inch loose lifts and compacted to a relative compaction of 95 percent, based on the maximum dry density as determined by the Modified Proctor Method (ASTM D-1557), which is a compaction standard compatible with the American Public Works Association (APWA) specifications and field density standards. Adequacy of compaction must be confirmed by an ESNW representative at the time of material placement. At a minimum, three passes in two orthogonal directions using a vibratory drum roller should be made to compact each lift of core structural fill material. The above-stated placement and compaction specifications for the proposed fill have been set forth on Sheet E10 of the Barghausen Grading Plans. Recommended Construction Sequence for Fill Placement We recommend the following construction sequence for fill placement (1) Prior to placement of fill on any particular area to be filled, the ground of such area must be prepared for fill consistent with the section under the subheading "Specifications for Preparation of Ground for Fill" as set forth on page 7, above. (2) Place six-inch or larger quarry spalls or recycled concrete aggregate in the existing stormwater detention pond area to a depth of about five feet prior to filling that area. (3) Generally simultaneous with the placement and compaction of the adjacent portion of the core structural fill per paragraph 4, below, construct a buttress fill in the buttress fill zone (a) using fill material meeting the buttress fill material specification set forth on pages 7 and 8, above, (b) complying with the buttress fill placement and compaction specification set forth on page 9, above, (c) in conformance with the design set forth on Plate 3, and (d) placing the material in maximum 12-inch-thick lifts compacted to a firm and unyielding condition. The base of the new slope should include a keyway that is at least five feet in depth. The existing material from the southern berm of the existing stormwater pond should be removed and placed within the core structural fill zone behind the buttress zone. (See Plate 3 for a schematic depiction of the buttress fill zone, the keyway, the core structural fill zone, and geogrid material and placement specifications.) Earth Solutions NW, LLC Pointe Heron LLC August 13, 2014 ES-2334.01 Page 11 (4) Place and compact the core structural fill (in the core structural fill zone consistent with Plate 3) (a) using fill material that (i) meets the core structural fill material specification set forth on pages 7 to 9, above, and is (ii) near to slightly over optimum moisture content at the time of placement and (b) placing and compacting that fill material so as to conform to the core structural fill placement and compaction specification set forth on page 9, above. The above-stated recommended construction sequence for fill placement has been set forth on Sheet E10 of the Barghausen Grading Plans. The fill and fill slope construction method discussed above is similar to the method that was used successfully several years ago for construction of the existing 1.5H:1V fill slopes to the west and east of the subject proposed fill slope. Slope Stability Evaluation ESNW evaluated slope stability in both the planned interim (Phase 1) fill configuration and the post-construction (Phase 1) fill configuration based on both (1) topographic information presented on the Barghausen Grading Plans and (2) the conditions encountered at the exploration sites. [The slope stability analyses have been conducted through the two most critical slope cross-sections (cross-sections E-E and F-F depicted on Sheets E6 and E7 of the above-referenced set of Barghausen Grading Plans).] The slope stability analyses (which included evaluation of the potential for both localized failure and global slope failure-see APPENDIX D) indicate that the proposed 1.5H:1Vengineered structural fill slope will be stable under both static and seismic conditions. ESNW conducted the slope stability evaluation based in part on information concerning the prior construction of the existing 1. 5H: 1 V fill slopes to the west and east of the segment of the project site's south boundary area that lies generally south of the existing stormwater pond from both (1) construction inspection records of Earth Consultants, Inc. (ECI) and (2) ESNW's on-site interview of a representative of Gary Merlino Construction Co., Inc. (GMCC) who personally worked on previous fill and grade operations on the Pointe Heron LLC parcel, including the construction of those 1.5H: 1V fill slopes to the west and east. That interview was conducted during February 2014 on the same day that a representative of ESNW conducted the most recent visual reconnaissance of those existing fill slopes along the south edge of the Pointe Heron LLC parcel to the west and east. During that reconnaissance, the existing fill slopes were observed to help assess the actual performance of those slopes over the years that they have been in existence. During the February 2014 site reconnaissance, ESNW observed the existing 1.5H:1V fill slopes to be stable and showed no signs of excessive erosion, sloughing, or other indicators of slope movement, despite the fact that heavy truck traffic has frequently traveled on the existing gravel roadway located along and near the top edge of the fill slope. Earth Solutions NW, LLC Pointe Heron LLC August 13, 2014 ES-2334.01 Page 12 In view of (1) our review of the ECI construction observation records and (2) our February 2014 site reconnaissance and interview of the GMCC representative, we developed appropriate soil parameters for use in the slope stability model to enable us to evaluate the proposed south- edge fill slope for stability or potential instability. Because the similar existing slopes to the west and east that the proposed slope will connect with are stable and have been stable for at least several years, it was reasonable for us to use the soil strength parameters included in the slope stability calculations attached to this report. We have included the resulting data in APPENDIX D. Also, in order to evaluate where the most probable failure planes would occur, we also ran the slope stability analysis as if the proposed new slope would have no geogrid reinforcement. With the information acquired from these analyses, ESNW determined appropriate geogrid strength and lengths and included such geogrid strength and lengths in the post-construction modeling. (Geogrid material specifications and placement specifications for the proposed fill are set forth on Plate 3.) ESNW evaluated global stability using the GeoStudio SlopeW 2007 revision 7.17 software modeling program. The analysis was focused on a deep-seated rotational failure mode. Based on (1) the project site setting and the soil conditions underlying the new proposed slope, (2) the proposed design geometry of the proposed new fill slopes, (3) the material specifications and placement and compaction specifications for the proposed fill, and (4) the geogrid specifications for the proposed fill, the potential for shallow debris-flow failures (failures that are a more common occurrence during the normal course of the natural weathering process than deep- seated rotational failures) is mitigated and, if any such failure do occur they are expected to be minimal, especially due to the porous, free-draining, and nonerosive characteristics of the proposed buttress fill material .. The results of our stability analyses are included in APPENDIX D. Minimum Factor of Safety values of 1.2 (seismic) and 1.5 (static) are generally considered acceptable threshold values for stability analyses. Seismic and static conditions were modeled for post-construction conditions including future roadway traffic loading on a road/street assumed to have the nearest travel lane located 20 feet from the top of slope. The results indicate a minimum factor of safety (FOS) of 1.25 for seismic conditions and 1.6 for static conditions in the post-construction configuration. The specific modeling parameters used are provided in the SlopeW computer output in APPENDIX D. The results of our slope stability analyses were generally consistent with those performed by ECI for the existing, previously permitted fill slope located to the east and west ends of the area lying along the southerly edge of the proposed project site. It is important to note that slope stability modeling is one tool used in an overall evaluation of a proposed fill slope project. In regard to the subject proposed fill slope project, the performance of the comparable existing 1.5H:1V fill slopes on the Pointe Heron LLC parcel and on the Black River Quarry property to the west over the years following their construction provides a good indicator of stability. In view of this, and provided that the recommendations and specifications in this report regarding construction means and methods are followed, it is our opinion that the proposed fill slopes will be stable. This includes both the final (Phase 2) slope configuration depicted on Sheets E5, E6, E7, and EB of the Barghausen Grading Plans and the interim (Phase 1) slope configuration and the Interim Stormwater Pond depicted on Sheets E2, E3, and E4 of the Barghausen Grading Plans. Earth Solutions NW, LLC Pointe Heron LLC August 13, 2014 Pond Lining Specifications for the Permanent Stormwater Pond ES-2334.01 Page 13 The proposed Permanent Stormwater Pond is to be constructed along the south edge of a portion of the toe of the existing slope in the north portion of the Pointe Heron LLC parcel south of SW Sunset Boulevard. The pond should include, at a minimum, a compacted till or clay liner conforming to the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM) Section 6.2.4 specifications, with the following amendments: Compacted till liner gradation should include a fines content of at least 40 percent, and the material should be placed in maximum 6-inch loose lifts for a total minimum depth of 18 inches. If these conditions cannot be met, a synthetic membrane pond liner should be used. The above-stated pond lining specifications for the proposed Permanent Stormwater Pond have been set forth on Sheet E10 of the Barghausen Grading Plans. Potential Future Roadway Fill Settlement Total long-term settlements of up to about one to two inches should be expected where fills are deepest (up to approximately 90 vertical feet). Due to the variability in new fill depths, settlement magnitudes will likely vary as well. We estimate that long-term differential settlement may decrease by one half over a span of about 50 feet as the fill depths decrease to the north. Special Erosion Control Requirements Due to the existing grades across the project site, it is critical that temporary erosion control measures be planned for and in place prior to and during grading activities. Temporary erosion control measures must include, at a minimum, (1) silt fencing placed in the locations depicted on the Barghausen Grading Plans and (2) installation of a construction entrance consisting of quarry spalls, as appropriate, to minimize off-site tracking of soil and to provide a firm surface. (If construction ingress and egress to and from the project site is through the Black River Quarry to the west of the project site, the existing wheel wash facilities near the quarry entrance driveway with Monster Road may be used in lieu of constructing a construction entrance consisting of quarry spalls.) Surface water should not be allowed to flow over the top edge of temporary or permanent fill slopes. Except for surface water in the proposed Interim Stormwater Pond contemplated as part of Phase 1 grading and designed on Sheets E2 and E3 of the Barghausen Grading Plans (the top edge of that pond must be located no closer than 80 horizontal feet from the top of the Phase 1 fill slope to the south of the pond without ESNW's approval-see Sheet E3 of the Barghausen Grading Plans), surface water should not be allowed to pond near the top of temporary or permanent fill slopes without ESNW's approval. Interceptor drains or swales should be considered for controlling surface water flow patterns. During construction, ESNW should observe the erosion control measures and provide supplemental recommendations for minimizing erosion as needed. Earth Solutions NW, LLC Pointe Heron LLC August 13, 2014 ES-2334.01 Page 14 Additional erosion and sediment control measures are specified on the Barghausen Grading Plans. The above-stated special erosion control requirements have been set forth on Sheet E10 of the Barghausen Grading Plans. Winter/Wet Season Grading In our opinion, means and methods of stabilizing the grading envelope during the wet season have been adequately developed and addressed in the current proposal. The areas of the project site that have been previously graded appear to be performing well with respect to erosion control. We would anticipate a similar level of erosion control measures and performance for the currently proposed filling, excavation, and grading project. ESNW has reviewed the Barghausen Grading Plans to confirm adequate measures are to be in place in the event that grading occurs during the rainy season. Future Slope Setback Recommendations The current proposal includes construction of engineered fill slopes and slopes excavated into native soils. Future site plans may include a light industrial development or one or more other types of development consistent with the Light Industrial (IL) zoning of the Pointe Heron LLC parcel, and may include typical construction elements associated with such use(s). A building foundation and/or roadway vehicular traffic setback of 20 feet from the top of the new fill slopes should be incorporated into future site layout plans. ESNW should evaluate future site layout and grading plans. Subsurface Drainage Specifications Regarding the Proposed Fill and Cut Slopes The proposed fill and cut slopes shall be provided with subsurface drainage features as necessary for stability. Because the subject fill and cut slope proposal includes placing fills in areas where past grading has occurred, in our opinion very little subsurface drainage will likely be required. In order to maintain slope stability during past grading activities on this site, subsurface drainage provisions were installed to accommodate flows that were encountered. These provisions appear to be performing as intended. Means and methods consistent with previous subsurface drainage measures (including subsurface corridors of gravel) to control subsurface drainage shall be implemented as part of the grading activities currently proposed. If subsurface drainage measures are ultimately needed, particular measures and methods will be determined during site grading depending on the conditions encountered. Subsurface drainage measures must be approved by ESNW representatives to accommodate subsurface flows encountered during the fill, cut, and grading project. Earth Solutions NI/I/, LLC Pointe Heron LLC August 13, 2014 ES-2334.01 Page 15 Temporary measures to control groundwater seepage and surface water runoff during construction may involve additional subsurface drains, interceptor trenches, sedimentation ponds, and/or sump areas. Where groundwater seepage is observed in areas to be filled, permanent subsurface drainage measures must be installed. The type of drainage measures to be used must be determined during construction, once the soil and groundwater conditions are exposed. Subsurface drainage measures sometimes consist of perforated pipes surrounded by drain rock and wrapped in filter fabric. If cut slopes expose seepage, such exposed water shall be routed to a discharge point approved by ESNW and, if needed, an appropriate portion of the cut slope face shall be stabilized using quarry spalls or alternative material(s) approved by ESNW. The above-stated subsurface drainage specifications regarding the proposed slopes have been set forth on Sheet E10 of the Barghausen Grading Plans. CRITICAL AREAS Renton Municipal Code Section 4-3-0SOJ provides regulations relating to geologic critical areas. That code section (along with related definitions in portions of RMC Chapter 4-11-190) addresses a variety of geologic hazards and provides accepted methods of identifying and classifying geologic critical areas, while subsection 7 (Definitions G) of RMC 4-8-120D (Definitions of Terms Used in Submittal Requirements for Building, Planning and Public Works Permit Applications) sets forth requirements for geotechnical reports. Subsection b of RMC 4- 3-050J1 (Special Studies Required) sets forth review criteria in regard to the geotechnical studies required under subsection a of RMC 4-3-050J1. These code provisions are addressed below. Geologic Critical Areas under RMC 4-3-050J1 Based on subsection 1 (Applicability) of RMC 4-3-0SOJ, steep slopes, potential landslide hazards, and potential erosion hazards are present to some degree on the subject parcel and/or within about 300 feet of the project site (work area limits). A discussion of steep slopes, potential landslide hazards, potential erosion hazards, potential seismic hazards, potential coal mine hazards, and potential volcanic hazards relevant to this parcel is provided below in this section of this report. Steep Slopes Renton Municipal Code Section 4-3-050J1a(ii) classifies steep slopes as either sensitive or protected. More particularly, RMC 4-11-190 defines steep slopes (and the protected slope and sensitive slope subclassifications) as follows: Earth Solutions NW, LLC Pointe Heron LLC August 13, 2014 ES-2334.01 Page 16 SLOPE, STEEP: A hillside, or portion thereof, which falls into one of two (2) classes of slope, sensitive or protected. A. Slope, Protected: A hillside, or portion thereof, with an average slope, as identified in the City of Renton Steep Slope Atlas or in a method approved by the City, of forty percent (40%) or greater grade and having a minimum vertical rise of fifteen feet (15'). B. Slope, Sensitive: A hillside, or portion thereof, characterized by: (1) an average slope, as identified in the City of Renton Steep Slope Atlas or in a method approved by the City, of twenty five percent (25%) to less than forty percent (40%); or (2) an average slope, as identified in the City of Renton Steep Slope Atlas or in a method approved by the City, of forty percent (40%) or greater with a vertical rise of less than fifteen feet (15'), abutting an average slope, as identified in the City of Renton Steep Slope Atlas or in a method approved by the City, of twenty five percent (25%) to forty percent (40%). This definition excludes engineered retaining walls. In regard to the location of steep slopes on a site, subsection i (Steep Slope Delineation Procedure) of RMC 4-3-050J1a (Steep Slopes) states: i. Steep Slope Delineation Procedure: The boundaries of a regulated steep sensitive or protected slope are determined to be in the location identified on the City of Renton's Steep Slope Atlas. An applicant's qualified professional may substitute boundaries independently derived from survey data for the City's consideration in determining the boundaries of sensitive or protected steep slopes. All topographic maps shall utilize two foot (2') contour intervals or the standard utilized in the City of Renton Steep Slope Atlas. (Boldfacing in the code text; underlining and italics added for emphasis.) The City of Renton has delineated areas of steep slopes (both sensitive and protected slopes) on the City's Steep Slope Hazard Atlas. Those delineated steep slope areas (along with areas of slopes that are greater than 15 percent and less than or equal to 25 percent) are depicted on the City's regulated slopes overlay that is part of the City's GIS system that is publicly accessible through the City of Renton website. Earth Solutions t,NV, LLC Pointe Heron LLC August 13, 2014 ES-2334.01 Page 17 Attached as APPENDIX E is a color map exhibit generated from the City's GIS system for the Pointe Heron LLC parcel with the regulated slopes overlay turned on. On that map both (1) the parcel boundaries have been outlined with a thick black line and (2) the project site (work area limits) for the proposed fill, excavation, and grading project have been outlined with a thick dashed line. The APPENDIX E map makes clear that no protected slopes lie within the project site (work area limits), although the map depicts four areas of protected slopes within the portion of the subject parcel to the east of the project site. Sheet E 1 of the above-referenced set of Barghausen Grading Plans for the proposed project depicts those four areas of protected slopes and their approximate respective square footages: namely, from west to east, Protected Slope Area 1 (which encompasses approximately 5,299 square feet), Protected Slope Area 2 (which encompasses approximately 68,936 square feet), Protected Slope Area 3 (which encompasses approximately 2,241 square feet), and Protected Slope Area 4 (which encompasses approximately 1,532 square feet). Sheet E1 also depicts the minimum distance (110 feet) between the westerlymost protected slope area (Protected Slope Area 1) and the nearest eastern edge of the project site (work area limits). APPENDIX E indicates 15% to 25% slopes across nearly all of the proposed project site and also indicates some small areas of sensitive steep slopes in the proposed project site, primarily in the western half of the project site. APPENDIX E depicts in white the remaining, scattered small portions of the project site, with the white portions intended to indicate areas of 15 percent or lesser slopes. Potential Landslide Hazards RMC 4-3-050J1b classifies landslide hazards as low, medium, high, and very high landslide hazards. The City's landslide hazards classification scheme is largely based on topography and stratigraphy. RMC 4-3-0SOJ 1 b states: b. Landslide Hazards: i. Low Landslide Hazard (LL): Areas with slopes less than fifteen percent (15%). ii, Medium Landslide Hazard (LM): Areas with slopes between fifteen percent (15%) and forty percent (40%) and underlain by soils that consist largely of sand, gravel or glacial till. iii. High Landslide Hazards (LH): Areas with slopes greater than forty percent (40%), and areas with slopes between fifteen percent (15%) and forty percent (40%) and underlain by soils consisting largely of silt and clay. iv. Very High Landslide Hazards (LV): Areas of known mappable landslide deposits. Earth Solutions NW, LLC Pointe Heron LLC August 13, 2014 ES-2334.01 Page 18 Based on our review of (1) RMC 4-3-050J 1 b(ii) (which classifies Medium Landslide Hazard Areas as "[a]reas with slopes between fifteen percent (15%) and forty percent (40%) and underlain by soils that consist largely of sand, gravel or glacial till," (2) the City of Renton's (APPENDIX E) map depiction of regulated slopes [a map that depicts (a) 15% to 25% slopes across nearly all of the proposed project site (work area limits), (b) only small areas of sensitive slopes within the project site, and (c) no protected slopes within 100 feet of the project site], and (3) subsurface information provided in the above-referenced previous geotechnical reports and supporting documents concerning the subject parcel (geotechnical reports and supporting documents that indicate the project site is underlain by soils that consist largely of sand and gravel), nearly all of the project site is consistent with the Medium Landslide Hazard classification described in RMC 4-3-050J1b. However, because the constructed slope areas along the south and north edges of the Pointe Heron LLC parcel were created using permitted engineered fills, permitted cuts, and drainage provisions, from a functional perspective we would classify the existing slopes within or adjacent to the project site as low landslide hazard areas. Our conclusion is supported by the performance of both (1) the previously created south-edge engineered fill slopes to the east and west of the now-proposed fill and grade project site and (2) the previously created 2H:1V cut slope along a portion of the subject parcel's north edge, slopes that have remained stable since their construction seven to nine years ago. Given our understanding of the conditions present on the subject parcel and the design of the proposed filling, excavation, and grading, from a functional perspective it is our opinion that the entirety of the proposed project site (1) is currently a low landslide hazard area and (2) will continue to be a low landslide hazard area with the proposed filling, excavation, and grading construction. Note that RMC 4-3-050J1b(iv) defines the term Very High Landslide Hazards (LV) as "[a]reas of known mappable landslide deposits." An isolated area of the subject parcel, an area located approximately 500 feet to the southeast of the most easterly portion of the project site, contains a known Very High Landslide Hazard area. That area of the subject parcel, an area that is approximately 39,960 square feet in size, is labeled "VERY HIGH LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREA (EX. SLIDE AREA)" and delineated on the overall site plan (Sheet E1) of the Barghausen Grading Plans along with an associated 50-foot-wide buffer required by RMC 4-3-070J7b. (That existing slide area straddles part of the easterlymost portion of the subject parcel's south boundary.) The existing slide area is totally separate from the proposed project site and has no bearing upon the proposed fill, excavation, and grade work contemplated by this report. Erosion Hazards RMC 4-3-050J1c classifies erosion hazards as either low or high depending on site slope gradient and NRCS soil classification scheme. RMC 4-3-050J1c states: Earth Solutions NW, LLC Pointe Heron LLC August 13, 2014 c. Erosion Hazards: ES-2334.01 Page 19 i. Low Erosion Hazard (EL): Areas with soils characterized by the Natural Resource Conservation Service (formerly U.S. Soil Conservation Service) as having slight or moderate erosion potential, and that slope less than fifteen percent (15%). ii. High Erosion Hazard (EH): Areas with soils characterized by the Natural Resource Conservation Service (formerly U.S. Soil Conservation Service) as having severe or very severe erosion potential, and that slope more steeply than fifteen percent (15%). The proposed project site is underlain predominantly by engineered fill. Those fill soils are characterized by the Natural Resource Conservation Service as having slight or moderate erosion potential. Further, nearly the entire project site has an extensive depth of crushed surfacing. Thus, even though some of the proposed project site has slopes greater than 15 percent, in our opinion the entirety of the proposed project site functions as a low erosion hazard. Note that erosion hazard classification is largely used to assess the sensitivity of a particular site with respect to off-site migration of soil and turbid surface waters. In this respect, the erosion hazards at this site can be successfully mitigated through erosion and sediment control measures that are addressed later in this report, measures that have previously been used at this site with good success. Seismic Hazards RMC 4-3-D50J1d classifies seismic hazards as either low or high depending on underlying soils. RMC 4-3-050J1d states: d. Seismic Hazards: i. Low Seismic Hazard (SL): Areas underlain by dense soils or bedrock. These soils generally have site coefficients of types 81 or 82, as defined in the International Building Code. ii. High Seismic Hazard (SH): Areas underlain by soft or loose, saturated soils. These soils generally have site coefficients of types 83 or 84, as defined in the International Building Code. (Ord. 5450, 3-2-2009) The proposed project site is underlain predominantly by engineered fill placed over dense native soils and areas of bedrock. Accordingly, the project site would meet the classification definition for Low Seismic Hazard (SL). Earth Solutions NW, LLC Pointe Heron LLC August 13, 2014 ES-2334.01 Page 20 In our opinion, in view of the presence of stable soils and the lack of a persistent groundwater table, the project site would present (1) little to no hazard relating to liquefaction potential and (2) low hazard to ground rupture or lateral spread along sloped areas during a strong seismic event. Further, because of the presence of dense soil and areas of bedrock, the site does not have a high susceptibility to amplification of seismic wave energy. Although the project site is located in the vicinity of the Greater Seattle Fault complex, in our opinion the risk of ground rupture or other seismic-related damage associated with the Greater Seattle Fault complex is only moderate. Coal Mine Hazards RMC 4-3-050J1e classifies coal mine hazards as low, medium, or high. RMC 4-3-050J1e states: e. Coal Mine Hazards: i. Low Coal Mine Hazards (CL): Areas with no known mine workings and no predicted subsidence. While no mines are known in these areas, undocumented mining is known to have occurred. ii. Medium Coal Mine Hazards (CM): Areas where mine workings are deeper than two hundred feet (200') for steeply dipping seams, or deeper than fifteen (15) times the thickness of the seam or workings for gently dipping seams. These areas may be affected by subsidence. iii. High Coal Mine Hazard (CH): Areas with abandoned and improperly sealed mine openings and areas underlain by mine workings shallower than two hundred feet (200') in depth for steeply dipping seams, or shallower than fifteen (15) times the thickness of the seam or workings for gently dipping seams. These areas may be affected by collapse or other subsidence. Based on our review of both (a) the City of Renton GIS map for the area surrounding the project site (see APPENDIX F-1) and (b) a King County Coal Mine map for the area in the vicinity of the project site (see APPENDIX F-2), no coal mines are identified. Further, to our knowledge, no undocumented mining is known to have occurred beneath the proposed project site or within 300 feet of the proposed project site. Thus, based on the coal mine hazard code definitions quoted above, the proposed project site does not lie within or near any Coal Mine Hazard area. Volcanic Hazards RMC 4-3-050J1f defines volcanic hazards. RMC 4-3-050J1f states: Earth Solutions NW, LLC Pointe Heron LLC August 13, 2014 ES-2334.01 Page 21 f. Volcanic Hazards: Volcanic hazard areas are those areas subject to a potential for inundation from post lahar sedimentation along the lower Green River as identified in Plate II, Map D, in the report U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey (Revised 1998), Volcano Hazards from Mount Rainier, Washington. Open-File Report 98-428. The subject parcel and the proposed project site lying within it are located outside mapped volcanic hazard areas delineated on the map resource cited in above-quoted RMC 4-3-050J1f. Thus, the project site is not located within a volcanic hazard area subjected to post-lahar inundation and/or sedimentation as defined in RMC 4-3-050J1f. Demonstration That RMC 4-3-050J1 Review Criteria Can Be Met Because (1) particular geologic critical areas lie on the subject parcel and (2) a development permit (in this case, a grade and fill special permit) is required for the subject proposal, under subsection a of RMC 4-3-050J1 (Special Studies Required), geotechnical studies are required for the proposal. Subsection b of RMC 4-3-050J1 (Special Studies Required) states as follows in regard to the geotechnical studies required under subsection a of RMC 4-3-050J 1: 'b. The required studies shall demonstrate the following review criteria can be met: i. The proposal will not increase the threat of the geological hazard to adjacent or abutting properties beyond pre-development conditions; and (Ord. 5676, 12- 3-2012) ii. The proposal will not adversely impact other critical areas; and iii. The development can be safely accommodated on the site. The following portion of this study report demonstrates that all three of those review criteria can be met by the fill, excavation, and grade work proposed within the project site (work area limits) on the subject parcel. Criterion 1: The proposal will not increase the threat of the geological hazard to adjacent or abutting properties beyond pre-development conditions. Earth Solutions NW, LLC Pointe Heron LLC August 13, 2014 ES-2334.01 Page 22 Analysis Relating to Criterion 1: The proposed project site is generally located along the central and western portions of the subject Pointe Heron parcel. The proposed project site currently consists of already-graded and -sloped areas including, but not limited to, (1) a geogrid- reinforced ecology block retaining wall up to about 16 feet in height along the north edge, west edge, and north portion of the east edge of the existing Sunset Bluff stormwater pond located near the central portion of the south boundary of the Pointe Heron LLC parcel and (2) an approximately 2H: 1V engineered fill slope above the ecology block wall. The previously graded generally flatter upper areas within the proposed project site are covered with a substantial depth of crushed material to prevent erosion. In view of the fact that the current topography of the project site is graded with varying slopes, the proposed fill, excavation, and grading project will essentially reconfigure an already substantially sloping area. More information concerning the project site's surface, subsurface, previously placed fill, and groundwater conditions is set forth in certain subsections (devoted to these topics) of this report on pages 4 through 7, above. The proposed fill, excavation, and grading project will involve placement of structural fills within the project site to raise grades to an approximate pad elevation of 125 to 128 feet in order to (a) generally match the existing top-of-slope elevation of the existing structural fill at the easternmost end of the proposed work area and (b) increase the area of the existing plateau portion of the project site for future development and use. The only excavation (cut) proposed as part of the currently proposed project is the excavation for the Permanent Stormwater Pond proposed south of and near the toe of the existing 2H:1V slope constructed along a portion of the north edge of the Pointe Heron LLC parcel. To avoid increasing the threat of the geological hazard to adjacent or abutting properties beyond pre- development conditions, the proposed design inclination of the north side slope of the proposed pond (a cut slope) has been limited to 3H:1V. A 100-foot-wide Burlington Northern and Santa Fe (BNSF) Railroad right-of-way abuts the entire south boundary of the portion of the proposed Pointe Heron LLC parcel that comprises the proposed project site. The nearest railroad track within the BNSF Railroad right-of-way lies approximately 30 feet to the south of the maximum southerly extent of the proposed fill slope. For the following reasons, the threat of geological hazard to the abutting property lying at the toe of the proposed fill slope (the 100-foot-wide BNSF Railroad right-of-way) will not be increased beyond pre-development conditions by the proposal: (1) The proposed project site currently consists of already-graded and -sloped areas including, but not limited to, (a) a geogrid-reinforced ecology block retaining wall up to about 16 feet in height along the north edge of the existing Sunset Bluff stormwater pond located north of and near the central portion of the south boundary of the Pointe Heron LLC parcel and (b) an approximately 2H:1V engineered fill slope above the ecology block wall; (2) The proposed 1.5H:1Vengineered fill slope is similar to both: Earth Solutions NW, LLC Pointe Heron LLC August 13, 2014 (a) (b) ES-2334.01 Page 23 The existing engineered fill slope inclined at approximately 1.5H:1V that lies north of and along the railroad right-of-way to the south of the west part of the project site (an existing engineered fill slope located south and west of the existing maintenance road to the existing Sunset Bluff stormwater detention pond) and The existing engineered fill slope inclined at approximately 1.5H:1V that lies north of and along the BNSF Railroad right-of-way to the east of the existing Sunset Bluff stormwater detention pond; (3) The proposed 1.5H:1V engineered fill slope (with its proposed top-of-slope elevation of 128 feet) will both (a) extend to the west to the southwesterly corner portion of the proposed project site, where the slope will (i) turn to the north along the subject parcel's west boundary [a boundary between (A) the subject parcel and, to the west, (B) the abutting easterly parcel of the Black River Quarry, a parcel also owned by Pointe Heron LLCJ and (ii) flatten to a maximum slope of 2.6H:1V (as depicted in plan view and cross-section on Sheets ES, E7, and E8 of the 10- sheet set of the Barghausen Grading Plans) and (b) connect with the existing slope to the east (extending only as far to the east as that slope's 128-foot top-of-slope elevation at the east end of the proposed project site); (4) The proposed fill, excavation, and grade proposal has been designed with special attention to both (a) the applicable portions of RMC 4-3-0SOJ (Geologic Hazards) and RMC 4-4-060 (Grading, Excavation and Mining Regulations) and (b) avoiding any increase in the potential for instability or impacts to adjacent or abutting properties beyond pre-development conditions, with the design (i) specifying the use of (A) structural fill materials throughout the proposed fill; Earth Solutions NW. LLC Pointe Heron LLC August 13, 2014 (B) ES-2334.01 Page 24 a crushed aggregate buttress fill zone ranging in horizontal dimension from 35 feet (at the fill slope toe) to 5 feet (at the fill slope top) along the face of the proposed 1.5H: 1V fill slopes (with the crushed aggregate buttress fill zone to be comprised of material meeting the buttress fill material specification set forth on pages 7 and 8, above, material intended to both enhance slope strength and stability and prevent accumulation of surface water runoff from the fill slope's face); and (C) geogrid reinforcement to further increase slope strength and stability; (ii) providing (as part of the Phase 1 filling and grading project depicted on the Barghausen Grading Plans) the proposed Interim Stormwater Pond designed to meet requirements of the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual, an interim pond that is planned to be (A) completed by October 1 of the first season of the proposed Phase 1 filling and grading work, to serve as part of wet season stabilization of the grade and fill project site; (B) used during all subsequent wet seasons (October 1 through April 30) until the Permanent Stormwater Pond (a pond depicted on the Phase 2 portion of the Barghausen Grading Plans) has been constructed and is operational and (C) thereafter filled with compacted structural fill meeting the core structural fill material specification set forth on pages 7 to 8, above; (iii) providing for a new Permanent Stormwater Pond (a pond depicted on the Phase 2 portion of the Barghausen Grading Plans) designed to meet requirements of the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual (a pond that is designed to have approximate bottom dimensions of a 600- foot length and a width varying from approximately 30 feet to 41 feet); and Earth Solutions NW, LLC Pointe Heron LLC August 13, 2014 (iv) ES-2334.01 Page 25 requiring construction means and methods that are generally known to ensure safe and stable conditions both during and following fill and grade project completion, including (A) specified loose-lift maximum fill thickness and minimum fill compaction standards (specifications that are set forth on page 9, above); (8) specifications for fill materials (specifications that are set forth on pages 7 to 9, above); (C) fill and slope construction observation and testing to ensure that project goals and specifications are being met during construction; and (D) other consulting services as needed during construction; (5) The proposed fill, excavation, and grade project will include the following drainage improvements depicted on the Barghausen Grading Plans: (a) The Interim Stormwater Pond (which is to be in place and operational by October 1 following the first season of the fill and grade operation); (b) The new Permanent Stormwater Pond; (c) Drainage ditches on the proposed plateau portion of the project site to route surface water runoff from the plateau to the north (away from the fill slope) into the new Permanent Stormwater Pond; (d) Both (i) a 12-inch-diameter storm drain from the Interim Stormwater Pond flow control manhole to a Type II storm manhole with a birdcage lid emergency overflow spillway (both of those manholes are to be installed in the southeasterly portion of the inner slope) and (ii) a 12-inch-diameter high density polyethylene (HOPE) storm drain discharge pipe from (A) that Type II storm manhole south- southeast across and beneath the interim plateau area shown on Sheet E3 of the Barghausen Grading Plans to (8) the face of the 1.5H:1V engineered fill slope, where the HOPE will daylight and extend down the face of the slope to the slope's toe (with the HOPE pipe to route surface water runoff from the drainage tributary area north of the top of the slope in order to protect the slope from such surface water runoff); and Earth Solutions NW, LLC Pointe Heron LLC August 13, 2014 (e) ES-2334.01 Page 26 Both (i) a 12-inch-diameter storm drain from the Permanent Stormwater Pond's flow control manhole to a Type II storm manhole with a birdcage lid emergency overflow spillway (both of those manholes are to be installed in the southeasterly portion of the pond's inner slope) and (ii) a 12-inch-diameter high density polyethylene (HOPE) storm drain discharge pipe from (A) that Type II storm manhole generally south across and beneath the surface of the plateau area shown on Sheet E6 of the Barghausen Grading Plans to (B) the face of the 1.5H:1V engineered fill slope, where the HOPE will daylight and extend down the face of the slope to the toe (with the HOPE pipe that is anchored to the surface to route surface water runoff from the drainage tributary area north of the top of the slope in order to protect the slope from such surface water runoff); and (6) Slope stability analyses (analyses we have conducted as part of this study to evaluate the potential for both localized failure or global slope failure- see APPENDIX D) indicate that the proposed 1.5H: 1V engineered fill slope will be stable under both static and seismic conditions [such studies have been conducted through the two most critical slope cross-sections (cross- sections E-E and F-F depicted on Sheets E6 and E7 of 1 O of the above- referenced set of Barghausen Grading Plans)]. Criterion 2: The proposal will not adversely impact other critical areas. Analysis Relating to Criterion 2: In regard to the phrase "other critical areas" set forth in Criterion 2, we assume that only non-geologic critical areas are meant because the three review criteria in RMC 4-3-050J1 b are part of RMC 4-3-050J (Geologic Hazards). Thus, the analysis below is based on that assumption. Opinions provided by ESNW in this analysis relating to Criterion 2 with respect to nongeologic critical areas are strictly related to geotechnical and geologic concerns in relation to the nongeologic critical areas noted. Excerpts, information, and opinions provided below from the referenced Raedeke Associates reports are provided to more fully address the nongeologic critical areas from Raedeke's areas of expertise. Wetlands on (or Partially on) the Subject Pointe Heron LLC Parcel First, straddling the south boundary of the Pointe Heron LLC parcel, there are the following two wetlands, both of which (along with their respective City code-specified buffers) lie entirely outside of the proposed project site (work area): Earth Solutions NW, LLC Pointe Heron LLC August 13, 2014 ES-2334.01 Page 27 (1) Wetland A, which Raedeke Associates, lnc.'s QJPNirlu!Sunset Bluff (MLDC) Properlies Wetland & Stream Delineation Update 2014 technical memorandum indicates as: (a) An existing approximately 400-square-foot Category 3 depressional wetland with a 25-foot buffer under Renton's current wetland critical areas regulations that lies approximately 150 feet west-southwest of the existing Sunset Bluff stormwater pond along the lower (south) edge of the existing slope and (b) Straddling the common boundary between (i) the south edge of the Sunset Bluff site (Pointe Heron LLC parcel) and (ii) the north edge of the BNSF railroad right-of-way [with about a 258-square-foot portion of Wetland A lying within the Sunset Bluff site (Pointe Heron LLC parcel) and the balance lying within the BNSF railroad right-of-way) and (2) Wetland B, which Raedeke Associates, lnc.'s Wetland & Stream Delineation Update 2014 technical memorandum indicates as an approximately 2-acre existing wetland that: (a) Is located in a depression that has neither a piped outlet nor a surface water outlet; (b) Straddles the south boundary of the eastern portion of the Pointe Heron LLC parcel with (i) only about 6,078 square feet of Wetland B lying within the parcel and (ii) the balance (most) located off-site on the parcel of land to the southeast of the Pointe Heron LLC parcel and east of the BNSF Railroad right-of-way; (c) Is either (i) a Category 3 wetland (with a 25-foot-wide buffer) under Renton's critical area regulations if the wetland is not hydraulically connected to the existing wetlands in the Black River Riparian Forest to the southwest of Wetland B across the BNSF Railroad right-of-way or (ii) a Category II wetland (with a 150-foot-wide buffer) under Renton's shoreline master program critical area regulations if the wetland is hydraulically connected to the existing wetlands in the Black River Riparian Forest to the southwest of Wetland B across the BNSF Railroad right-of-way and under Renton's shoreline jurisdiction. Earth Solutions NW, LLC Pointe Heron LLC August 13, 2014 ES-2334.01 Page 28 Sheets E1, E2, and E5 of the above-referenced set of Barghausen drawings depict the portion of Wetland A and its associated 25-foot buffer that lie within the subject Pointe Heron LLC parcel. Sheet E 1 indicates that the portion of Wetland A lying nearest to the proposed project site (the work area limits) lies about 37 feet south-southwest from the project site. (In that vicinity, the project site lies just south of the south edge of the existing maintenance road that was constructed to serve the existing Sunset Bluff stormwater detention pond from the west.) In our opinion, the proposal will not adversely impact Wetland A because: (1) Temporary erosion and sediment control (TESC) measures would be installed during construction and would utilize appropriate best management practices (BMPs) designed to prevent sediment from entering surface waters during and after construction; (2) The Interim Stormwater Pond will be installed and operational by October 1 following the first season of the proposed fill and grade operation and will provide interim surface water control for the project site; (3) The Permanent Stormwater Pond will thereafter be installed to replace the Interim Stormwater Pond and provide permanent surface water control; (4) In view of the location of the southerly extent of the project site (work area limits), none of the proposed fill and grade work will take place within 37 feet of Wetland A (a distance that is 12 feet beyond the edge of the wetland's 25-foot buffer); and (5) The proposed upward extension of the existing 1.5H:1V slope from the south edge of the project site upslope of Wetland A and its buffer will be stable based on the geotechnical design specifications of the slope. Sheets E1, E3, and E6 of the above-referenced set of Barghausen drawings depict the small portion of Wetland B and a relevant portion of both its associated 25-foot buffer (if the wetland is under Renton's critical area regulations) and Wetland B's associated 150-foot buffer (if the wetland is under Renton's shoreline master program regulations) that lie within the subject Pointe Heron LLC parcel. Sheet E1 indicates that the edge of Wetland B lying nearest to the proposed work area (i.e., the northwesternmost tip of the wetland) is about 193 feet south- southeast of the project site. In our opinion, the proposal will not adversely impact Wetland B because: (1) Temporary erosion and sediment control (TESC) measures would be installed during construction and would utilize appropriate best management practices (BMPs) designed to prevent sediment from entering surface waters during and after construction; Earth Solutions t#/, LLC Pointe Heron LLC August 13, 2014 ES-2334.01 Page 29 (2) The Interim Stormwater Pond will be installed and operational by October 1 following the first season of the proposed fill and grade operation and will provide interim surface water control for the project site; (3) The Permanent Stormwater Pond will thereafter be installed to replace the Interim Stormwater Pond and provide permanent surface water control; (4) In view of the location of the proposed project site (work area limits), none of the proposed fill and grade work will take place within about 193 feet of Wetland B, a distance that is (a) about 168 feet beyond the 25-foot-wide buffer of the wetland if the wetland is under Renton's critical area regulations and (b) about 43 feet beyond the 150-foot buffer of the wetland if the wetland is under Renton's shoreline master program regulations; and (5) The 1.5H:1V fill slope that is proposed to be constructed along the project site's east edge will (a) be stable based on the geotechnical design specifications of the slope and (b) have a vertical depth ranging from zero feet to only about nine feet, a depth that is negligible at such a great distance from Wetland B. Unnamed Stream Second, within the Pointe Heron LLC parcel but entirely outside of the proposed project site, an unnamed intermittent stream flows from north to south across the eastern part of the site into Wetland B. In regard to that intermittent stream, page 13 of Raedeke Associates, lnc.'s Wetland & Stream Delineation Update 2014 technical memorandum: (1) Indicates that this stream is a non-salmonid-bearing stream that is (a) intermittent during normal years of rainfall, (b) not mapped on RMC 4-3- 050Q, Figure 04, Renton Water Class Map as Class 2 or Class 3, and (c) is not classified by the City of Renton or the State of Washington as a "Shoreline of the State"; (2) Has determined that this stream is a Class 4 water under RMC 4-3- 050L 1 a(iv); and (3) Has identified under RMC 4-3-050L5a(i)(c) a 35-foot-wide code-specified buffer on both sides of the stream [except where a segment of the stream passes through a protected slope as depicted on Sheets E1, E3, and E6 of the above-referenced set of Barghausen Grading Plans (in view of RMC 4- 3-050L5b(ii), the code-specified stream buffer along that segment of the stream extends to the protected slope's boundary)]. Earth Solutions NW, LLC Pointe Heron LLC August 13, 2014 ES-2334.01 Page 30 Sheets E1, E3, and E6 of the above-referenced set of Barghausen drawings depict the unnamed stream and label it as an "Existing Class 4 Stream" along with its above-noted associated buffers. In addition, Sheet E1 indicates that the point of the stream lying nearest to the proposed project site is about 100 feet east-southeast of the nearest edge of the proposed project site. In our opinion, the proposal will not adversely impact the unnamed stream because: (1) Temporary erosion and sediment control (TESC) measures will be installed during construction and appropriate best management practices (BMPs) designed to prevent sediment from entering surface waters during and after construction will be utilized; (2) The Interim Stormwater Pond will be installed and operational by October 1 following the first season of the proposed fill and grade operation and will provide interim surface water control for the project site; (3) The Permanent Stormwater Pond will thereafter be installed to replace the Interim Stormwater Pond and provide permanent surface water control; (4) In view of the location of the proposed project site (work area limits), none of the proposed fill and grade work will take place within about 100 feet of the unnamed stream (a distance that is about 65 feet beyond the wetland's buffer); and (5) The 1.5H:1V fill slope that is proposed to be constructed along the east edge of the project site will (a) be stable based on the geotechnical design specifications of the slope and (b) have a depth ranging from zero feet to only about nine feet, a depth that is negligible at such a large distance from the unnamed stream. Wetlands Outside of the Pointe Heron LLC Parcel Lying within the Black River Riparian Forest Third, wetlands lie within portions of the Black River Riparian Forest (BRRF), a forest that lies in City of Renton park property south of the 100-foot-wide BNSF Railroad right-of-way-see the wetlands map exhibit (APPENDIX G) created from the Renton GIS website. Pages 7 and 8 of Raedeke Associates, lnc.'s QIPNirtu/Sunset Bluff (MLDC) Properties Wetland & Stream Delineation Update 2014 technical memorandum generally discuss those wetlands as follows: Earth Solutions NW. LLC Pointe Heron LLC August 13, 2014 ES-2334.01 Page 31 The City of Renton (2014a) online CORMaps includes a map that depicts two wetlands within the Black River Riparian Forest located south of the BNSF ROW. (See downloaded copy of that map, Appendix F, below.3) A trail that extends northward from Naches Avenue SW to the BNSF ROW separates the two mapped wetland areas (Renton 2014a). As described above, we investigated the wetland area east of the trail (referred to below as the east BRRF wetland) to determine whether a piped connection existed between it and Wetland B. The east BRRF wetland is dominated by forest vegetation consisting of Pacific willow (Sa/ix /asiandra, FACW), balsam poplar, red alder, red osier, and Sitka willow. Many small depressions within the wetland were inundated, and the remainder of the portion of the wetland that we investigated was saturated to the surface. Our interpretation of a 1990 aerial photo of the east wetland available online through Google Earth (2014) indicates that the forest vegetation is no more than approximately 30 years old. (See downloaded copy of that 1990 aerial photo, Appendix G, below.4 ) In 2004, we investigated the wetland west of the trail (referred to below as the west BRRF wetland) (Raedeke Associates, Inc. 2004). The west BRRF wetland consists of forest vegetation of varying ages. At the time of our 2004 investigation, the northern portion of this wetland was dominated by 15-to 20- year-old balsam poplar. The southern portion of the wetland was dominated by mature balsam poplar and Oregon ash trees, many of which were larger than 30 inches diameter at breast height (DBH), growing on numerous hummocks. Based on our interpretation of the above-noted 1990 aerial photo, the area of mature forest vegetation appears to be between 10 and 15 acres in size. In addition, pages 12 and 13 of Raedeke Associates, lnc.'s QIPNirtu!Sunset Bluff (MLDC) Properties Wetland & Stream Delineation Update 2014 technical memorandum provide commentary on regulatory considerations in regard to those wetlands in the BRRF as follows: The Black River Riparian Forest is designated as a Shoreline by the City of Renton (2014b); therefore, the west and east BRRF wetlands were rated using the WDOE (Hruby 2004, as revised 2006, and WDOE 2008) Wetland Rating System for Western Washington. 3 Appendix F to the subject Raedeke wetland and stream memorandum is the same as APPENDIX G to this geotechnical report. 4 Appendix G to the subject Raedeke wetland and stream memorandum is not attached to this geotechnical report. Earth Solutions NW, LLC Pointe Heron LLC August 13, 2014 ES-2334.01 Page 32 Based on ( 1) our 2004 investigation of the west BRRF wetland and (2) the results of our review of current online natural resource database information, it is likely that that wetland would meet criteria for a dual rating of Category I for the portion of the wetland that is dominated by mature trees and Category II for the portion dominated by younger trees because the wetland as a whole scored a total of 57 points (with 21 points for habitat functions). Per RMC 4-3-0900.2.d.iv(c), Category I and Category II wetlands having a moderate habitat function score are provided a minimum buffer of 150 feet. Based on our reconnaissance of the east BRRF wetland, it is likely that it would meet criteria to be regulated as Category Ill because it scored a total of 40 points (with 16 points for habitat functions). Per RMC 4-3-0900.2.d.iv(c), Category Ill wetlands that provide low habitat functions (i.e., wetlands that score of less than 20 habitat points) are provided a minimum buffer of 75 feet. Further, page 16 of Raedeke Associates, lnc.'s QIPNirtu/Sunset Bluff (MLOC) Properties Wetland & Stream Delineation Update 2014 technical memorandum provides the following analysis of impacts of the proposed Pointe Heron filling, excavation, and grading proposal to the wetlands in the BRRF: The west and east Black River Riparian Forest wetlands are approximately 160 feet south and 415 feet southeast of the proposed project site (work area limits) at their closest extent, respectively. In addition, both wetlands are separated from the project site by the BNSF Railroad, which is an ongoing source of disturbance to the wetlands. Under Pointe Heron LLCs' proposed site grading plan, drainage from the MLDC Property (i.e., the Pointe Heron LLC parcel) and associated tributary areas will continue to drain into the existing railroad cross-culverts at the south edge of the property and be conveyed to the City park property, where the drainage will continue to flow into the BRRF wetlands. Due to (1) the distance of the BRRF wetlands from the proposed work, (2) the existing and ongoing disturbance from the BNSF Railroad, and (3) the filling, excavation, and grading proposal's planned maintenance of existing sources of hydrology to the BRRF wetlands, it is unlikely that the wetlands would be impacted by implementation of the proposed filling, excavation, and grading. In our opinion, the proposal will not adversely impact any wetlands within the Black River Riparian Forest both (1) for the reasons stated in the above excerpts from the Raedeke wetland and stream memorandum and (2) because: (a) The 1.5H:1V engineered fill slope that is proposed to be constructed along the south edge of the project site will be stable based on the geotechnical design specifications of the slope; Earth Solutions r,m, LLC Pointe Heron LLC August 13, 2014 ES-2334.01 Page 33 (b) The Interim Stormwater Pond will be installed and operational by October 1 following the first season of the proposed fill and grade operation and will provide interim surface water control for the project site; (c) The Permanent Stormwater Pond will thereafter be installed to replace the Interim Stormwater Pond and provide permanent surface water control; and (d) Both (i) the proposed Interim Stormwater Pond and (ii) the proposed new Permanent Stormwater Pond have a design that is based upon a more stringent stormwater detention standard (the Level 2 Standard described in the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manua~ than the Level 1 Standard described in the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual used for the design of the existing Sunset Bluff stormwater detention and water quality pond. On-site Wildlife Habitat Area Fourth, a forested area in the eastern part of the Pointe Heron LLC parcel lies at its closest point at least 60 feet to the southeast of the proposed project site. On pages 6 and 7 of the 2014 Great Blue Heron & Wildlife Habitat Update for the QIP/Sunset Bluff (MLDC) Properties (including the subject Pointe Heron LLC parcel 5) prepared by Raedeke Associates in support of the Pointe Heron grade and fill permit application, Raedeke describes (1) existing vegetation and habitat conditions on the project site (and on the Pointe Heron LLC parcel as a whole), (2) the current status of the previously existing heron colony in the Black River Riparian Forest (BRRF), and (3) other wildlife observations made as follows: Vegetation and Habitat Description The proposed fill and grade project site remains essentially unchanged since our previous habitat assessment (Raedeke Associates, Inc. 2009c). Nearly all of the project site is unvegetated due to past clearing and grading associated with the previously approved Sunset Bluff Residential Subdivision. Areas of forested vegetation remain in (1) a narrow strip in the north part of the BNSF railroad right- of-way Gust north of the railroad tracks) along the south edge of the MLDC Property and (2) the southeastern part of the MLDC Property .... ' Because (a) Raedeke had previously studied what is now the Pointe Heron LLC parcel while it was owned by Merlino Land Development Co. and (b) Raedeke's prior (2009) reports referred to what is now the Pointe Heron LLC parcel as the "MLDC Property," for continuity with Raedeke's 2009 reports, in the 2014 Great Blue Heron & Wildlife Habitat Update Raedeke sometimes refers to the Pointe Heron LLC parcel as the MLDC Property. Earth Solutions NW. LLC Pointe Heron LLC August 13, 2014 ES-2334.01 Page 34 The forest in the eastern portion of the Pointe Heron LLC parcel (MLDC Property) consists of second-growth deciduous to mixed forest consisting of bigleaf maple, black cottonwood, Douglas fir, with common snowberry, red elderberry, hazelnut, and sword fern, and dense patches of Himalayan blackberry. Two wetlands have been identified within the study area, one in the southeastern portion of the MLDC Property and another in the southwestern portion of the MLDC Property. An intermittent, non-fish-bearing stream flows from north to south across the western edge of the on-site deciduous forest in the eastern part of the MLDC Property. The two wetlands and the stream are discussed in greater detail in the QIPNirtu/Sunset Bluff (MLDC) Properties Wetland & Stream Delineation Update 2014 report (Raedeke Associates, Inc. 2014), a report that serves to update our previous wetland investigation (Raedeke Associates, Inc. 2009b). The forested portions of the MLDC Property contain some special habitat features, such as snags and downed logs, as documented in our previous field investigations (Raedeke Associates, Inc. 2009c). We observed snags within the forest strip along the northern boundary of the MLDC Property (outside the limit of the project site) in the same locations as we observed previously. Current Status of the Heron Colony and Eagle Nest Based on our observations at the BRRF during our 2013 and 2014 visits to the study area, it appears that the herons have abandoned the former colony site, with (1) nearly all of the historic heron nests no longer present, (2) no herons present, and (3) no evidence of heron nesting activity. The herons do not appear to have nested successfully for at least three years, and no nesting activity appears to have taken place since 2011. Thus, based on our observations and information available, the BRRF heron colony is no longer present. Also, we saw no evidence of activity at the bald eagle nest tree within the BRRF during our field investigations in 2013 and 2014. No eagles were observed on or over the study area or vicinity in 2013. During our April 2014 field investigation, we observed a sub-adult eagle soaring high over the project site and SR 900 to the north, but observed no adult eagles or evidence of nesting activity anywhere within the study area or vicinity. Earth Solutions NW, LLC Pointe Heron LLC August 13, 2014 Other Wildlife Observations ES-2334.01 Page 35 During our 2013 and 2014 field investigations, we observed a variety of waterfowl, including cinnamon teal, mallard, American widgeon, gadwalls, and Canada geese within the existing stormwater pond that was built as part of the Sunset Bluff project. We also observed mallards, hooded mergansers, and wood ducks within Wetland B, the wetland that straddles the south boundary of the far eastern part of the MLDC Property and lies primarily on the property to the southeast of the MLDC Property's east end. In addition, we observed a red-tailed hawk perched in a large cottonwood tree on the Virtu Property, but found no hawk nests anywhere on the study area. Following both (1) a detailed summary by Raedeke of current heron protection recommendations by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) on pages 8 to 9 of the 2014 Great Blue Heron & Wildlife Habitat Update and (2) a detailed evaluation by Raedeke of impacts of the proposed fill, excavation, and grading project to (a) the prior BRRF great blue heron colony, (b) bald eagles, and (c) other wildlife habitat on pages 9 and 10 of that Update, at the bottom of page 10 of the 2014 Great Blue Heron & Wildlife Habitat Update Raedeke provides the following summary of impacts: Summary of Impacts on Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat As noted above, the proposed fill, excavation, and grading project would be located entirely within a portion of the Pointe Heron LLC parcel (MLDC Property) that is highly disturbed and consists largely of bare ground, and is outside the forested habitat of the BRRF. Consequently, we anticipate no adverse impacts to the forested habitat of the BRRF. In addition, the project would have no adverse impacts on the former heron colony within the BRRF or either of the known eagle nest sites in the vicinity (one of which was in the BRRF), as these sites have not been occupied for several years and no longer appear to be active. Even if the heron colony and nearest eagle nest sites were active, the proposed grade and fill project site lies well outside of standard setbacks recommended by WDFW to protect heron colonies and the USFWS to protect eagle nest sites. The proposed grading would eliminate a small area of shrubs and sapling trees and would remove an existing stormwater pond, which would result in only minimal impacts to existing wildlife habitat on site. In summary, the proposed fill, excavation, and grading project would not result in probable significant adverse impacts to wildlife or wildlife habitat. Earth Solutions NW. LLC Pointe Heron LLC August 13, 2014 Criterion 3: The development can be safely accommodated on the site. ES-2334.01 Page 36 Analysis Relating to Criterion 3: Based on (1) the results of our reviews and evaluations of (a) the ECI reports of pre-Sunset Bluff geologic conditions, (b) ECl's observation records of the previous filling within the proposed work area, and (c) the proposed filling, excavation, and grading depicted on the Barghausen Grading Plans, (2) the above-stated analysis of Criteria 1 and 2, above, (3) our site reconnaissance visits to evaluate existing site conditions, (4) our on- site interview of a representative of Gary Merlino Construction Co., Inc. (GMCC) who personally worked on previous fill and grade operations on the Pointe Heron LLC parcel, and (5) the slope stability modeling and slope stability analyses that we performed (see APPENDIX D and see the discussion of the slope stability analyses on pages 10 to 12, above), in our opinion construction of the proposed filling, excavation, and grading contemplated by the Barghausen Grading Plans in accordance with the specifications set forth in this report and noted on the Barghausen Grading Plans can be safely accommodated on the project site. RENTON GRADING, EXCAVATION AND MINING REGULATIONS City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-4-060 (Renton Grading, Excavation and Mining Regulations) provides regulations and guidelines concerning grading means and methods to avoid slope instability or adverse impacts to surrounding properties and/or to other critical areas. In our opinion, the proposed work in general performed in accordance with the Barghausen Grading Plans and in accordance with the specifications set forth in this report [including (1) the proposed filling of the existing stormwater pond and other adjacent areas of the site to raise grades, (2) the construction of the proposed 1.5H: 1V permanent structural fill slope along the southerly and easterly portions of the work area, and (3) the construction of the associated Interim Stormwater Pond, the Permanent Stormwater Pond, and other drainage and site rehabilitation improvements] will be reasonable, acceptable, and safe from a geotechnical and soil engineering standpoint. Fill Material Specifications for the Two Proposed Fill Zones The fill material specification for the proposed buttress fill zone along the face of the proposed fill slopes is set forth on pages 7 and 8, above. The fill material specification for the fill to be used to construct the proposed fill core behind the crushed aggregate buttress zone is set forth on pages 7 to 8, above. Final Landscaping and Stabilization Subsection 1 of RMC 4-4-060C (General) states: Earth Solutions NW, LLC Pointe Heron LLC August 13, 2014 ES-2334.01 Page 37 1. Landscaping: Existing vegetation in any required setback shall be preserved or landscaping shall be planted to prevent erosion and reduce the dust, mud and noise generated on the proposed reuse of the site. Around the periphery of the site, except where the proposed reuse of the site requires the lack of vegetation, the applicant shall landscape in such a manner as to result in reasonable screening. Trees planted shall be at least four feet (4') in height. In those areas that have been rehabilitated and are designated to be planted according to the proposed reuse of the site, the appropriate plantings shall be done as soon as possible to provide mature plants for the new use. The subject proposed fill, excavation, and grade project is the initial phase of a multiphase overall site development project. In this initial phase, the portion of the site within the project site (the work area) will be reconfigured (generally raised, except in the area of the Permanent Stormwater Pond, which is the only area of the project site where excavation is proposed) to the grade proposed as part of the subject grade and fill permit application. As part of one or more later site development phases, further grading modifications are expected. That being the case, ultimate landscape design and installation cannot be completed until a final site use is determined and a particular development for such site use is designed on behalf of the property owner and approved by the City. The proposed crushed aggregate buttress fill along the slope face [a fill proposed to taper in horizontal depth from (1) a 35-foot depth at the toe of the proposed new 1.5H:1V engineered fill slope tapering to (2) a 5-foot depth at the top of the slope] will not only be excellent for providing slope stability and preventing slope erosion, it will also provide a porous, nonerosive aggregate facing of the proposed slope face (see Plate 3), a facing that will be excellent for vertically transmitting and dispersing through the crushed aggregate buttress zone both (a) rainwater that strikes the slope's face and (b) any hillside perched groundwater that may seep into the buttress fill zone from the fill core. This will eliminate any need for terracing the slope. Because of the porous, nonerosive characteristics of the proposed fill slope face, vegetation of the slope face will not be needed to prevent erosion and, because the facing will not be conducive to landscaping, other plantings, or hydroseeding, vegetation of the slope face will not be appropriate and is not being proposed. Based on our field evaluation of the project site, in our opinion, the previously-graded portion of the site has been fully stabilized against erosion by means of extensive crushed material surfacing. A similar six-inch-minimum depth of crushed material surfacing of the project site to be graded (as now proposed on the Barghausen Grading Plans) is likewise expected to provide full stabilization against erosion and thereby eliminate the need for interim landscaping or .hydroseeding of the project site. Eanh Solutions f#,/, LLC Pointe Heron LLC August 13, 2014 Hydroseeding Subsection 4 of RMC 4-4-060C (General) states: ES-2334.01 Page 38 4. Hydroseeding Required: Within thirty (30) days of completion of grading work, the applicant shall hydroseed or plant an appropriate ground cover over any portion of the site that is graded or cleared of vegetation and where no further construction work will occur within ninety (90) days. Alternative measures such as mulch, sodding, or plastic covering as specified in the Surface Water Design Manual may be proposed between the dates of October 1st and April 30th of each year. The Development Services Division's approval of this work is required prior to final inspection and approval of the permit. (Ord. 4703, 2-2-1998; Ord. 5526, 2- 1-2010) (Boldfacing in the code text; underlining and italics added for emphasis.) RMC 4-4-060C4 provides requirements for hydroseeding a site within a prescribed time limit. The intent of this code section is to stabilize the surface of a disturbed area to prevent excessive erosion. Because, as explained above, the engineered fill slope proposed to be constructed along the south and east edges of the proposed project site will include a crushed aggregate buttress slope facing, hydroseeding this area is not appropriate and is thus not recommended or proposed. The crushed aggregate slope face will effectively disperse incidental surface water flows through the coarse media. Because the proposed slope facing (1) will not be conducive to landscaping, other plantings, or hydroseeding and (2) planting or hydroseeding of the slope facing is not expected to provide benefit, no planting or hydroseeding of the slope face is needed and thus none is being proposed. The crushed aggregate slope face has been designed to provide a level of erosion protection that is as least as good if not better than a vegetated slope surface. Mulching and hydroseeding of the interior side slopes of both the proposed Interim Stormwater Pond and the proposed Permanent Stormwater Pond is specified on the Barghausen Grading Plans. Rather than hydroseeding the finished surfaces of the plateau portion of the proposed work area, covering of the finished surfaces of the plateau portion of the work area with a 6-inch minimum depth of crushed surfacing (which is called for on the Barghausen Grading Plans) is proposed. Based on our field evaluation of the existing graded plateau portion of the project site, we have concluded that the extensive crushed material surfacing of that portion of the project site has fully stabilized it against erosion. The proposed similar crushed material surfacing of the proposed plateau portion of the project site is likewise expected to provide full stabilization against erosion and thereby eliminate the need for hydroseeding. The proposed crushed aggregate slope face and the proposed 6-inch minimum depth of crushed surfacing of the plateau portion of the work area are appropriate alternative measures to hydroseeding under Subsection 4 of RMC 4-4-060C (General). Earth Solutions NW, LLC Pointe Heron LLC August 13, 2014 Erosion and Sediment Control ES-2334.01 Page 39 Renton Municipal Code Section 4-4-0600.1 provides regulations regarding erosion and sediment control measures. The proposed scope of work has been designed to control erosion and limit sediment-laden discharge to surrounding properties. The elements proposed to accomplish this include, but are not limited to, the following: • Controlling the flow of surface water runoff from the plateau portions of the work area by means of swales and conveyance away from slopes and to the Interim Stormwater Pond and Permanent Stormwater Pond. This approach will effectively protect surface areas including slopes from uncontrolled release and flow that might initiate or exacerbate erosion. • Requiring that trucks traveling to and from the work area for construction of the subject fill and grade project drive through the Stoneway Black River Quarry property (which lies to the west of the subject Pointe Heron LLC parcel) and the quarry driveway connection with Monster Road. The Stoneway Black River Quarry has effective measures to reduce off-site migration of sediment to public streets, including a truck wash facility. • Covering the finished surfaces of the plateau portion of the work area with a 6- inch minimum depth of crushed surfacing, which is called for on the Barghausen Grading Plans. • Installation of the crushed aggregate buttress fill along the face of the proposed new and upward-extended south-edge and east-edge 1.5H:1V engineered fill slopes (a rock buttress fill proposed to taper in horizontal depth from a 35-foot depth at the toe of the new slope to a 5-foot depth at the top of the slope). Because of the porous, nonerosive crushed-aggregate material, the crushed aggregate buttress fill will prevent or minimize slope erosion and will vertically transmit through the crushed aggregate buttress fill zone both (1) rainwater that strikes the slope's face and (2) hillside perched groundwater that might seep into the buttress fill zone from the fill core in places at the interface between the buttress fill zone and the portion of the core fill zone immediately behind the buttress fill zone. These and other erosion and sediment control measures are specified on the Barghausen Grading Plans. Earth Solutions NW, LLC Pointe Heron LLC August 13, 2014 Setbacks ES-2334.01 Page 40 Renton Municipal Code Section 4-4-060L.1 provides guidelines for minimum safe setbacks from the top of slopes. The intent of this setback section of the code is to ( 1) provide for the safety and benefit of adjacent properties, (2) ensure that building foundations are provided adequate support and safety, and (3) prevent damage as a result of water runoff and erosion of the slopes. In view of both (1) the interim and limited nature of the subject filling and grading proposal and (2) the fact that the particular layout, scale, and features of future buildings, roadways, parking facilities, landscape areas, etc. of the subject property are not yet known, we recommend an interim minimum setback from the top of the proposed new structural fill slope to structures of 20 feet. This interim setback exceeds the minimum 10-foot setback to structures from the top of slope set forth in RMC 4-4-060L.1 's setback table. This proposed interim setback should be reevaluated during the final site plan design phase of a future development project on the site. In our opinion, the proposed 20-foot interim minimum setback from the top of the proposed new engineered fill slope to structures meets the intent of this code section. The topic of fills is specifically addressed in subsection N (FILLS) of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-4-060 (GRADING, EXCAVATION AND MINING REGULATIONS). The Role of the Soil Engineering Report in Regard to Fills as Stated under Paragraph 1 of RMC 4-4-060N Paragraph 1 of RMC 4-4-060N states: 1. Applicability and Exemptions: Unless otherwise recommended in the approved soil engineering report, fills shall conform to the provisions of this Section. In the absence of an approved soil engineering report, these provisions may be waived for minor fills not intended to support structures. For minor fills or waste areas, humps, hollows or water pockets shall be graded smooth with acceptable slopes. (Boldfacing in the code text; underlining and italics added for emphasis.) The phrase "this Section" in Paragraph 1 of RMC 4-4-060N refers to RMC Section 4-4-060 in its entirety. Thus, the code gives great deference to an approved soil engineering report in regard to the provisions of RMC Section 4-4-060 concerning fills. This report has been carefully prepared with appropriate analysis and design recommendations to be worthy of approval and such deference. Earth Solutions NW. LLC Pointe Heron LLC August 13, 2014 ES-2334.01 Page 41 Except for the second sentence of RMC 4-4-060N6 (the sentence regarding modifications, a sentence that should not be applicable because of the recommendations in this report regarding the design of the proposed fill slope), the now-proposed fill slope is designed to fully conform to all of the applicable provisions of Subsection N (FILL) of RMC Section 4-4-060. This is explained below. Conformance with RMC 4-4-060N2 (Fill Location) RMC 4-4-060N2 states: 2. Fill Location: Fill slopes shall not be constructed: a. On natural slopes steeper than two-and-one-half horizontal to one vertical (2.5:1) that are fifteen feet (15') or greater in height (except in conjunction with a modification granted per RMC 4-9-250D1 for filling against the toe of a natural rock wall -see RMC 4-3-050N2a(ii)(b)); or b. Where the fill slope toes out within twelve feet (12') horizontally of the top of existing or planned cut slopes that are fifteen feet (15') or greater in height and steeper than two-and-one-half horizontal to one vertical (2.5:1). (Amd. Ord. 4835, 3-27-2000; Ord. 4851, 8-7-2000) Because none of the fill slopes that Pointe Heron LLC now proposes are planned to be constructed either (a) on natural slopes steeper than two-and-one-half horizontal to one vertical (2.5: 1) that are fifteen feet ( 15') or greater in height6 or (b) where the fill slope will toe out within twelve feet (12') horizontally of the top of existing or planned cut slopes that are fifteen feet (15') or greater in height and steeper than two-and-one-half horizontal to one vertical (2.5:1), those slopes will not conflict with any of the general prohibitions concerning fill slopes set forth in above-quoted RMC 4-4-060N2. Conformance with RMC 4-4-060N3 (Preparation of Ground) RMC 4-4-060N3 states: 3. Preparation of Ground: The ground surface shall be prepared to receive fill by removing vegetation, noncomplying fill, topsoil and other unsuitable materials as determined by the soil engineer, and where the slopes are five to one (5:1) or steeper, by benching into sound bedrock or other competent material 6 Note that no fill slopes on any existing natural slopes are proposed. All of the fill slopes that Pointe Heron LLC now proposes are planned to be constructed in areas that were graded during Sunset Bluff site construction. Earth Solutions NW, LLC Pointe Heron LLC August 13, 2014 ES-2334.01 Page 42 The subsection of this report under the heading "Specifications for Preparation of Ground for Fill" set forth on page 7, above, conforms to above-quoted RMC 4-4-060N3. That subsection has been included on Sheet E1 O of the Barghausen Grading Plans. Conformance with Applicable Portions of RMC 4-4-060N4 (Fill Material) RMC 4-4-060N4 (Fill Material) states in relevant part:7 4. Fill Material: Fill materials shall have no more than minor amounts of organic substances and shall have no rock or similar irreducible material with a maximum dimension greater than eight inches (8"). Fill material shall meet the following requirements: a. Construction, Demolition, and Land Clearing Waste Prohibited: Fill material shall be free of construction, demolition, and land clearing waste except that this requirement does not preclude the use of recycled concrete rubble per Washington State Department of Transportation Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction. b. Cleanliness of Fill Material: Fill material shall not contain concentrations of contaminants that exceed cleanup standards for soil specified in WAC 173-340-740, Model Toxics Control Act. The fill material specifications set forth on pages 7 to 9, above, for both (1) the proposed buttress fill zone along the face of the proposed fill slopes and (2) the fill to be used to construct the proposed fill core behind the crushed aggregate buttress zone conform to the above-quoted excerpt from RMC 4-4-060N4. Those fill material specifications have been added to Sheet E10 of the Barghausen Grading Plans. 7 Subsections N4c, d, e, f, g, and h of RMC Section 4-4-060 apply only to sites lying within Aquifer Protection Areas 1 or 2. Those subsections are not applicable to the Pointe Heron property because the Pointe Heron property does not lie within either Aquifer Protection Area 1 or 2. Subsections N4i, j, and k of RMC Section 4-4-060 set forth assertions of authority by the City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development in regard to (1) illegal placement of imported fill, (2) entry onto private property to conduct independent sampling and analysis of fill, and (3) implementation of fill removal and remediation. Because none of those subsections set forth design standards for proposed filling, those subsections are not relevant to this report. Earth Solutions NW, LLC Pointe Heron LLC August 13, 2014 ES-2334.01 Page 43 Most of the needed structural fill material will have to be imported to the project site because, except for the relatively small volume of material to be excavated for construction of the proposed Permanent Stormwater Pond, none of the site is proposed to be excavated. Successful use of the limited volume of those excavated on-site soils will largely be dictated by the moisture content of the soils at the time of placement and compaction. Use of onsite soils from site excavations for structural fill material may require moisture conditioning prior to placement and compaction if the material has greater than optimum moisture content. Moisture conditioning would likely include passive measures such as aeration for overly moist soils and addition of water for overly dry soils prior to placement. These moisture conditioning methods would not affect water quality on the project site or the quality of water that may be discharged from the project site. Conformance with RMC 4-4-060N5 (Minimum Compaction) RMC 4-4-060N5 states: 5. Minimum Compaction: All fills shall be compacted to a minimum of ninety five percent (95%) of maximum density as determined by American Public Works Association (APWA) specifications. Field density shall be determined in accordance with APWA standards. A$ pointed out in the subsection of this report concerning placement and compaction standards for the buttress fill (see page 9, above), because of the large aggregate size of the buttress fill, the specified buttress fill material is outside the range of typical grain size for testing under ASTM 0-1557 or equivalent American Public Works Association (APWA) specifications and field density standards. Also, as specified in that same subsection of this report, at a minimum, three passes in two orthogonal directions using a vibratory drum roller should be made to compact each lift of buttress fill material. As pointed out in the subsection of this report concerning placement and compaction standards for the core structural fill material (see page 9, above), the core structural fill material is to be compacted to a relative compaction of 95 percent, based on the maximum dry density as determined by the Modified Proctor Method (ASTM 0-1557), which is a compaction standard compatible with the American Public Works Association (APWA) specifications and field density standards. Also, as specified in that same subsection of this report, at a minimum, three passes in two orthogonal directions using a vibratory drum roller should be made to compact each lift of core structural fill material. Earth Solutions NW, LLC Pointe Heron LLC August 13, 2014 Conformance with Applicable Portions of RMC 4-4-060N6 RMC 4-4-060N6 (Maximum Slope) states: ES-2334.01 Page 44 6. Maximum Slope: The slope of fill surfaces shall be no steeper than is safe for the intended use. Except in conjunction with a modification granted per RMC 4-9- 25001 for one of the circumstances listed in RMC 4-3-050N2a(ii) (Geologic Hazards -Modifications), fill operations associated with a plat, short plat, subdivision or dedication, or other permitted land development activity which would result in the creation of permanent slopes forty percent (40%) or greater which are fifteen feet (15') in height, i.e., protected slopes, shall not be approved. (Amd. Ord. 4835, 3-27-2000) The slope of the proposed fill surfaces is certainly not steeper than will be safe for the intended use of supporting fill to the north for future development-see the discussion of safety of the proposed slope under the subheading "Criterion 3: The development can be safely accommodated on the site" on page 33, above, and see the other portions of this report cited under that subheading. For context in regard to RMC 4-4-060N6's statement about "a modification granted per RMC 4- 9-25001 for one of the circumstances listed in RMC 4-3-050N2a(ii) (Geologic Hazards - Modifications)," the following should be noted: (1) The proposed new 1.5H:1V fill slope south of the existing Sunset Bluff detention pond is designed to connect to the following previously constructed adjacent fill slopes that the City authorized to the west and east of the planned location of the proposed new slope: Earth Solutions NW, LLC Pointe Heron LLC August 13, 2014 (a) ES-2334.01 Page 45 The similar existing 1.5H: 1V engineered fill slope created to the west of the existing Sunset Bluff detention pond [which is a slope that is steeper than 40 percent and greater than fifteen feet (15') in height], (i) the first portion of which slope was authorized by the City along the south edge of an easterly portion of the Stoneway Black River Quarry under Renton Construction Permit Number U040257 issued July 23, 2004 8 and (ii) the second portion of which slope (as part of the Sunset Bluff project construction) was authorized by the City along an additional part of the south edge of the easterly portion of the Black River Quarry and along the south edge of the westerly portion of the Sunset Bluff site under Renton Building Permit Number 9050337 issued July 29, 2005 and Renton Construction Permit Number U050099 issued July 26, 2005 9 and 8 In regard to the portion of the similar existing 1.5H: 1 V engineered fill slope that was first created (created during 2004 along some of the southerly edge of the easterly part of the Stoneway Black River Quarry property), we understand that that portion was authorized under Renton Construction Permit Number U040257 in relation to the following materials: (a) A May 26, 2004 soil engineering report for the slope prepared by Earth Consultants, Inc.; (b) A Site Plan for the Black River Quarry's South Edge Ecology Block Wall and Geogrid- Reinforced Fill Slope dated June 29, 2004 prepared by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc.; (c) A building permit (Renton Building Permit Number B040386) issued July 20, 2004 by the City for the geogrid-reinforced ecology block wall located along and beneath a portion of the lower edge of the 1.5H:1V geog rid-reinforced fill slope; and (d) A June 22, 2004 supplemental soil report (a report of calculations) prepared by Earth Consultants, Inc. in support of the design of the geog rid-reinforced ecology block wall. 9 In regard to the portions of the similar existing 1.5H:1V engineered fill slope constructed as part of the Sunset Bluff project [including (1) the portion lying along the southerly edge of the easternmost part of the Stoneway Black River Quarry property, (2) the portions lying along the south edge and east edge of the subject Pointe Heron LLC parcel to the west of the now-existing stormwater detention pond, and (3) the portions now lying to the east of the now-existing stormwater detention pond along the south edge and east edge of the subject Pointe Heron LLC parcel west of the existing Class 4 stream)], we understand that those portions were authorized as part of the Sunset Bluff project construction under Renton Building Permit Number B050337 issued July 29, 2005 and Renton Construction Permit Number U050099 issued July 26, 2005 (for clearing, initial grading and TESC for Sunset Bluff) in relation to the following materials: (a) A May 26, 2005 (Revised June 6, 2005) soil engineering report prepared by Earth Consultants, Inc. for the proposed Sunset Bluff 1 H:1V and 1.5H:1V geogrid-reinforced fill slopes and geogrid-reinforced ecology block wall; (b) A three-sheet set of design cross-sections, details, and notes prepared by Earth Consultants, Inc. for the proposed Sunset Bluff 1 H:1V and 1.5H:1V geogrid-reinforced fill slopes and geogrid-reinforced ecology block; and Earth Solutions NW, LLC Pointe Heron LLC August13,2014 (b) ES-2334.01 Page 46 The similar existing engineered fill slope ranging from 1.5H:1V to 2H:1V created along a portion of the south edge of the Sunset Bluff site just to the east of the Sunset Bluff stormwater detention pond [which is a slope steeper than 40 percent and greater than fifteen feet (15') in height], a slope that also was authorized by the City under Renton Building Permit Number 8050337 issued July 29, 2005 and Renton Construction Permit Number U050099 issued July 26, 2005. (2) It is our understanding that a modification per RMC 4-9-250D1 for one of the circumstances listed in RMC 4-3-050N2a(ii) (Geologic Hazards - Modifications) was neither granted nor needed for the fill slopes to the west and east that were applied for and permitted during 2004 and 2005 because, in view of the first sentence of Paragraph 1 of RMC 4-4-060N [the sentence that states "[ulnless otherwise recommended in the approved soil engineering report fills shall conform to the provisions of this Section" (emphasis added)], the soil engineering reports for the then-proposed fill slopes to the west and east proposed and permitted during 2004 and 2005 [slopes forty percent (40%) or greater that were higher than fifteen feet (15')) to the east and west of the now-proposed slope were approved by the City. It would be consistent with the previous approvals that the now-proposed similar infill slope (as well as the now-proposed upward extensions of those previously approved and constructed fill slopes to the west and east of the now-proposed infill slope) that the City approve the currently proposed fill slopes on the strength of this soil engineering report without need of a modification per RMC 4-9-250D1 for one of the circumstances listed in RMC 4-3-050N2a(ii) (Geologic Hazards -Modifications).10 (c) An October 7, 2005 seven-sheet set of the clearing, initial grading, and TESC drawings for Sunset Bluff prepared by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. (a set that bears a City approval signature dated October 9, 2005). 10 Note that if a modification is needed for the proposed fill. the proposed fill slope is consistent with at least the first of the three alternative circumstances for a modification listed in RMC 4-3-050N2a(ii) (Geologic Hazards -Modifications). That is the case because, in regard to existing slopes created as part of the grading and storm drainage facility work done in conjunction with the Sunset Bluff project's (1) proposed public street, (2) proposed emergency vehicle access road from the proposed cul-de-sac west to Monster Road, (3) stormwater detention pond constructed along much of the Sunset Bluff site's south edge, and (4) the stormwater detention pond's maintenance road [Sunset Bluff design features depicted on sheets 2 through 4 of the October 7, 2005 clearing, initial grading, and TESC drawings for Sunset Bluff prepared by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. (an 11" by 17" reduced-size set of which drawings are attached to this report as APPENDIX H)J, the proposed fill slope involves regrading of slopes that were "created through . . . public or private road installation ... and related transportation improvements, ... or public or private utility installation activities." Earth Solutions NW, LLC Pointe Heron LLC August 13, 2014 Conformance with RMC 4-4-060N7 (Drainage and Terracing) RMC 4-4-060N7 (Drainage and Terracing) states: ES-2334.01 Page 47 7. Drainage and Terracing: Drainage and terracing shall be provided and the area above fill slopes and the surfaces of terraces shall be as required by subsection N of this Section. (Ord. 5526, 2-1-2010) (Boldfacing in the code text; underlining and italics added for emphasis.) Subsection N of RMC 4-4-060 sets forth no requirements for "drainage and terracing" or for "the area above fill slopes and the surfaces of terraces." However, Subsection P (DRAINAGE) does. (Above-quoted RMC 4-4-060N7 has apparently not been updated to reflect the correct subsection letter.) A discussion of the proposed fill, excavation, and grade project's conformance with subsection P follows. Conformance with Subsection 1 (General) of RMC 4-4-060P (DRAINAGE) RMC 4-4-060P1 states: 1. General: Unless otherwise indicated on the approved grading plan, drainage facilities and terracing shall conform to the provisions of this Section. Special drainage protection work may be ordered in case of emergency or serious potential flooding conditions, and the grading operator required to have available an employee to be called in times of potential serious emergency hazards. Sheet E10 of the Barghausen Grading Plans indicates that no terracing of proposed fill slopes is required due to the reasons set forth in this Geotechnical and Soil Engineering Report. Note that the Sunset Bluff storm drainage facilities installation activities were "public or private utility installation activities" for purposes of the above-quoted excerpt from RMC 4-3-050N2a(ii) in view of the code definition of the word "utilities" in RMC 4-11-210 (DEFINITIONS U). That definition states: UTILITIES: Utility lines and facilities related to the provision, distribution, collection, transmission or disposal of water, storm and sanitary sewage, oil, gas, power, and telephone cable, and includes facilibes for the generation of electricity. This definition does not include sewage wastewater treatment plants, wireless communication facilities, or solid waste disposal/recycling facilities. (Boldfacing in the code text; underlining and italics added for emphasis.) Earth Solutions NW, LLC Pointe Heron LLC August 13, 2014 Conformance with Subsection 2 (Terrace) of RMC 4-4-060P (DRAINAGE) RMC 4-4-060P2 (Terrace) states: ES-2334.01 Page 48 2. Terrace: Terraces at least eight feet (8') in width shall be established at no more than twenty five foot (25') intervals to control surface runoff. Suitable access shall be provided to permit cleaning and maintenance. a. Swales: Swales or ditches on the back side of the terrace shall have a maximum longitudinal gradient of two percent (2%) unless protected by special paving, use of corrugated metal or other scour prevention devices. Drainage shall be designed to minimize trapping of excessive water which might endanger the terrace. Terraces shall slope toward the back or cut face at a minimum of ten percent (10%) slope to keep water from overtopping. b. Scouring: Single run of swale or ditch shall not collect runoff from a tributary area exceeding thirteen thousand five hundred (13,500) square feet of the area of the face of the slope without discharging into a down drain. Down drains shall terminate into a catch basin or other approved receiver to prevent scouring at the outfall. c. Capacity: Designed capacity for terraces shall be a twenty four (24) hour, twenty five (25) year storm as published by the U.S. Weather Bureau. Design velocity shall be such as to avoid water transporting colloidal silts in the stream. Should request be made for variation from the twenty four (24) hour, twenty five (25) year storm by the engineering designer, sufficient data shall be submitted in an engineering report to analyze the requested variation. When accumulated flows are such that the water is capable of transporting colloidal silts or other particles in suspension down drains, pipe or lined ditches shall be incorporated to dispose of the runoff safely. Energy dispersing structures shall be used to prevent erosion. d. Settling Ponds: Where stormwater and ground conditions appear to warrant, special holding and settling ponds, stormwater storage reservoirs, or other means may be required to prevent overload or unusual by-pass of storm flow water to areas off the owner's site and control. Earth Solutions NW, LLC Pointe Heron LLC August 13, 2014 ES-2334.01 Page 49 Terraces along the proposed slope are neither shown on the proposed grading plan nor otherwise proposed because they are not warranted under the proposed slope design. (As noted above, Sheet E10 of the Barghausen Grading Plans indicates that no terracing of proposed fill slopes is required due to the reasons set forth in this Geotechnical and Soil Engineering Report.) While terracing may appropriately be required for some slope designs on some fill slope projects, terracing is not appropriate for the subject proposed fill slope because it will include a highly porous crushed aggregate buttress fill along the slope's face [a crushed aggregate buttress fill proposed to range from a 35-foot (horizontal) dimension at the toe of the new slope to a 5-foot (horizontal) dimension at the top of the slope]. Need for terracing is eliminated because of the high porosity of the crushed aggregate buttress fill material, fill material that will effectively convey and disperse both (1) rainwater that strikes the slope's face and (2) hillside groundwater, if any, that may seep through the core structural fill zone into the buttress zone. In regard to the proposed fill, RMC 4-4-060P2d is satisfied by the proposed Interim Stormwater Pond and proposed Permanent Stormwater Pond. Conformance with Subsection 3 (Subsurface Drainage) of RMC 4-4-060P (DRAINAGE) RMC 4-4-060P3 states: 3. Subsurface Drainage: Cut and fill slopes shall be provided with subsurface drainage as necessary for stability. In view of RMC 4-4-060P3, the need for and manner of subsurface drainage measures shall be determined based on actual conditions encountered during grading activities. Because the buttress fill zone is so extensive, in our opinion, no additional subsurface drainage provisions will be necessary for the proposed fill slopes. Conformance with Subsection 4 (Disposal) of RMC 4-4-060P (DRAINAGE) RMC 4-4-060P4 (Disposal) states: 4. Disposal: All drainage facilities shall be designed to carry waters to the nearest practicable drainage way approved by the City and/or other appropriate jurisdiction as a safe place to deposit such waters. Silt and other debris shall be removed prior to the disposal of such water. If drainage facilities discharge onto natural ground, riprap may be required. (Ord. 2820, 1-14-1974, eff. 1-19-1974) Earth Solutions NW. LLC Pointe Heron LLC August 13, 2014 ES-2334.01 Page 50 a. Minimum Grade: At least two percent (2%) gradient toward approved drainage facilities from building pads will be required unless waived by the Building Department for nonhilly terrain. Exception: The gradient from the building pad may be one percent (1 %) where building construction, and erosion control will be completed before hazardous conditions can occur. (Ord. 2820, 1-14-1974, eff. 1-19-1974; Amd. Ord. 3592, 12-14-1981) b. Drainage Releases: The property owner or his authorized agent shall submit acceptable copies of drainage releases from downstream owners or other government agencies concerned whenever drainage is interrupted, diverted or changed from natural surface or subsurface drainage patterns. c. Stream Acceptance: The volume and rate of water released shall not exceed the receiving stream's or watercourse's ability to accept the water without erosion. Barghausen has addressed RMC 4-4-060P4 (Disposal) in section 2.1 of Barghausen's TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT-GRADING, INTERIM DRAINAGE, AND EROSION CONTROL dated August 2014 prepared for the Pointe Heron Fill, Excavation, and Grade Project (the "Barghausen TIR"). That section of the Barghausen TIR states: Both the proposed interim and proposed permanent stormwater detention and water quality ponds are designed to discharge into on-site storm drain piping that will connect into the existing Type II storm manhole constructed as part of prior Sunset Bluff project construction at the common boundary between the Pointe Heron LLC parcel and the BNSF railroad right-of-way. (The existing Sunset Bluff stormwater detention and water quality pond discharges into that existing Type II storm manhole.) That storm manhole drains into the existing 18-inch-diameter culvert that extends to the south across the BNSF railroad right-of-way and discharges into the City property south of the BNSF railroad right-of-way. No interruption, diversion, or change in drainage from the Pointe Heron LLC parcel is proposed. Conformance with Subsection 5 (Overland Runoff) of RMC 4-4-060P (DRAINAGE) RMC 4-4-060P5 (Overland Runoff) states: 5. Overland Runoff: Runoff from areas of higher elevation shall be safely routed around or through the extraction or fill area. (Ord. 2820, 1-14-1974, eff. 1-19- 1974; Ord. 5526, 2-1-2010) Earth Solutions NW, LLC Pointe Heron LLC August 13, 2014 In regard to RMC 4-4-060P5, section 3.1 of the Barghausen TIR states: ES-2334.01 Page 51 A series of existing subsurface drains (consisting of conduits of free-draining gravel buried beneath the existing ground surface) are already in-place within the previously graded portion of the subject Pointe Heron LLC parcel to convey stormwater runoff from the seven existing upstream culverts that extend from Sunset Boulevard slightly into and discharge water into the parcel (culverts that all lie to the west of the 36-inch-diameter culvert that conveys water to the intermittent stream to the east of the project site). These subsurface drains convey those offsite upstream waters to the natural discharge location (the existing railroad ditch located in the BNSF Railroad right-of-way immediately south of and along a portion of the parcel's south boundary). These subsurface drains were installed in 2006 or 2007 in conjunction with the previous (Sunset Bluff-related) filling and grading work on the parcel. These existing subsurface drains have proven to be a safe and reliable way to convey those waters through the previously graded portion of the parcel, as is evidenced by the fact that there have been no drainage capacity problems or erosion problems associated with these subsurface drains. These existing subsurface drains will remain in place with the proposed Phase 1 and Phase 2 filling, excavation, and grading work, with modifications if needed. Depending on the particulars of the ultimate future development of the Pointe Heron LLC parcel, a permanent piped and/or ditch conveyance system may ultimately replace some or all of the existing subsurface drains and continue to bypass the upstream offsite runoff to the railroad ditch. Water flowing through that railroad ditch drains into two existing culverts. The westerly of those two culverts is a 12-inch-diameter clay culvert and the easterly culvert (which is the existing pond's discharge location) is an 18-inch-diameter ADS culvert installed within a 24-inch steel casing. Both culverts lie beneath and across the railroad grade and discharge to the south into open space property owned and maintained by the City of Renton. Cuts are specifically addressed in subsection M (CUTS) of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-4- 060 (GRADING, EXCAVATION AND MINING REGULATIONS). The Role of the Soil Engineering Report in Regard to Cuts as Stated under Paragraph 1 of RMC 4-4-060M Paragraph 1 of RMC 4-4-060M states: 1. General: Unless otherwise recommended in the approved soil engineering and/or engineering geology report, cuts shall conform to the provisions of this Section. ~arth Solutions NW, LLC Pointe Heron LLC August 13, 2014 ES-2334.01 Page 52 The phrase "this Section" in Paragraph 1 of RMC 4-4-060M (like that same phrase in above- discussed Paragraph 1 of RMC 4-4-060N concerning fills) refers to RMC Section 4-4-060 in its entirety. Thus, the code gives great deference to an approved soil engineering report in regard to the provisions of RMC Section 4-4-060 concerning cuts. This report has been prepared with appropriate analysis and design recommendations to be worthy of approval and such deference. Conformance with RMC 4-4-060M2 (Maximum Slope) RMC 4-4-060M2 states: 2. Maximum Slope: The slope of cut surfaces shall be no steeper than is safe for the intended use. Except in conjunction with a modification granted per RMC 4-9- 25001 for one of the circumstances listed in RMC 4-3-050N2a(ii) (Geologic Hazards -Modifications), cut operations associated with a plat, short plat, subdivision or dedication, or other permitted land development activity which would result in the creation of permanent slopes forty percent (40%) or greater which are fifteen feet (15') in height, i.e., protected slopes, shall not be approved. (Amd. Ord. 4835, 3-27-2000) The only area of proposed cuts will occur in conjunction with the construction of the proposed Permanent Stormwater Pond located in the northern portion of the project site. The cut slope along the north side of that proposed pond is designed at an inclination of 3H:1V (i.e., about 33 percent). The proposed 2H:1V cut slopes along the east, south, and west sides of the proposed pond are less than 15 feet in height. Thus, the proposed new 2H:1V cut slopes for those three sides of the pond would not be protected slopes. Test pits observed by ESNW in January 2014 within the location of the proposed Permanent Stormwater Pond revealed dense native soil present at the elevation of the proposed pond bottom. Copies of the test pit logs are presented in APPENDIX A. In view of that dense native soil, none of the proposed cut slopes will be steeper than is safe for the intended use. Conformance with RMC 4-4-060M3 (Drainage and Terracing) RMC 4-4-060M3 states (and the associated image in RMC 4-4-060M3 depicts) as follows: 3. Drainage and Terracing: Drainage and terracing shall be provided as required by subsection N of this Section. Earth Solutions t#V, LLC Pointe Heron LLC August 13, 2014 (Ord. 5526, 2-1-2010) ES-2334.01 Page 53 Subsection N of RMC 4-4-060 sets forth no requirements for drainage and terracing. However, Subsection P (DRAINAGE) does. (Above-quoted RMC 4-4-060M3 has apparently not been updated to reflect the correct subsection letter.) A discussion of the conformance of the proposed fill, excavation, and grading project with subsection P in regard to drainage and terracing follows. Conformance with Subsection 1 (General) of RMC 4-4-060P (DRAINAGE) RMC 4-4-060P1 states: 1. General: Unless otherwise indicated on the approved grading plan, drainage facilities and terracing shall conform to the provisions of this Section. Special drainage protection work may be ordered in case of emergency or serious potential flooding conditions, and the grading operator required to have available an employee to be called in times of potential serious emergency hazards. Sheet E10 of the Barghausen Grading Plans indicates that no terracing of proposed cut slopes is required due to the reasons set forth in this Geotechnical and Soil Engineering Report. The Barghausen Grading Plans indicate that excavation is only proposed in regard to the proposed Permanent Stormwater Pond, which is to be constructed along a part of the project site's north edge. Accordingly, the analysis below of subsections 2, 3, 4, and 5 of RMC 4-4-060P addresses that proposed excavation. Conformance with Subsection 2 (Terrace) of RMC 4-4-060P (DRAINAGE) RMC 4-4-D60P2 (Terrace) states: 2. Terrace: Terraces at least eight feet (8') in width shall be established at no more than twenty five foot (25') intervals to control surface runoff. Suitable access shall be provided to permit cleaning and maintenance. Earth Solutions NW, LLC Pointe Heron LLC August 13, 2014 ES-2334.01 Page 54 a. Swales: Swales or ditches on the back side of the terrace shall have a maximum longitudinal gradient of two percent (2%) unless protected by special paving, use of corrugated metal or other scour prevention devices. Drainage shall be designed to minimize trapping of excessive water which might endanger the terrace. Terraces shall slope toward the back or cut face at a minimum of ten percent (10%) slope to keep water from overtopping. b. Scouring: Single run of swale or ditch shall not collect runoff from a tributary area exceeding thirteen thousand five hundred (13,500) square feet of the area of the face of the slope without discharging into a down drain. Down drains shall terminate into a catch basin or other approved receiver to prevent scouring at the outfall. c. Capacity: Designed capacity for terraces shall be a twenty four (24) hour, twenty five (25) year storm as published by the U.S. Weather Bureau. Design velocity shall be such as to avoid water transporting colloidal silts in the stream. Should request be made for variation from the twenty four (24) hour, twenty five (25) year storm by the engineering designer, sufficient data shall be submitted in an engineering report to analyze the requested variation. When accumulated flows are such that the water is capable of transporting colloidal silts or other particles in suspension down drains, pipe or lined ditches shall be incorporated to dispose of the runoff safely. Energy dispersing structures shall be used to prevent erosion. d. Settling Ponds: Where stormwater and ground conditions appear to warrant, special holding and settling ponds, stormwater storage reservoirs, or other means may be required to prevent overload or unusual by-pass of storm flow water to areas off the owner's site and control. Terraces along the proposed cut slope are neither shown on the proposed grading plan nor otherwise proposed because they are not warranted under the proposed slope design since the proposed Permanent Stormwater Pond at the toe of the proposed cut slope will capture all surface water runoff from the proposed cut slope. (As noted above, Sheet E10 of the Barghausen Grading Plans indicates that no terracing of proposed cut slopes is required due to the reasons set forth in this Geotechnical and Soil Engineering Report.) In regard to the proposed cut, RMC 4-4-060P2d is satisfied by the proposed Permanent Stormwater Pond. Earth Solutions NW, LLC Pointe Heron LLC August 13, 2014 Conformance with Subsection 3 (Subsurface Drainage) of RMC 4-4-060P (DRAINAGE) RMC 4-4-060P3 states: ES-2334.01 Page 55 3. Subsurface Drainage: Cut and fill slopes shall be provided with subsurface drainage as necessary for stability. The "subsurface drainage specifications regarding the proposed fill and cut slopes" set forth on pages 13 and 14, above, have been added to Sheet E10 of the Barghausen Grading Plans. Those specifications are consistent with RMC 4-4-060P3. Conformance with Subsection 4 (Disposal) of RMC 4-4-060P (DRAINAGE) See (under the major heading "Fills") the subsection of this report that is entitled "Conformance with Subsection 4 (Disposal) of RMC 4-4-060P (DRAINAGE)" on pages 45 and 46, above. Conformance with Subsection 5 (Overland Runoff) of RMC 4-4-060P (DRAINAGE) See (under the major heading "Fills") the subsection of this report that is entitled "Conformance with Subsection 5 (Overland Runoff) of RMC 4-4-060P (DRAINAGE)" on pages 46 and 47, above. GRADING, EXCAVATION AND MINING PERMITS AND LICENSES Renton Municipal Code Section 4-9-080 provides regulations regarding permit and license requirements and jurisdiction for grading, excavation and mining proposals. RMC 4-9-080F4 sets forth review criteria for Special Grade and Fill permits issued by the City of Renton Hearing Examiner. RMC 4-9-080F4 states in its entirety: 4. Review Criteria for Special Grade and Fill Permit: To grant a special permit, the Hearing Examiner shall make a determination that: a. Compatibility of Proposed Use: The proposed activity would not be unreasonably detrimental to the surrounding area. The Hearing Examiner shall consider, but is not limited to, the following: i. Size and location of the activity. ii. Traffic volume and patterns. iii. Screening, landscaping, fencing and setbacks. Earth Solutions NW, LLC Pointe Heron LLC August 13, 2014 iv. Unsightliness, noise and dust. v. Surface drainage. ES-2334.01 Page 56 vi. The length of time the application of an existing operation has to comply with nonsafety provisions of this Title. None of the six above-listed considerations relating to a Hearing Examiner's determination of whether a proposed filling, excavation, and grading activity "would not be unreasonably detrimental to the surrounding area" are geotechnical issues. However, in view of (1) our reviews and evaluations of (a) the ECI reports of pre-Sunset Bluff geologic conditions, (b) ECl's inspection records of the previous fills within the proposed work area, and (c) the design of the proposed fills depicted on the Barghausen Grading Plans, (2) the slope stability analyses that we have performed, and (3) the above portions of this report, in our opinion construction of the proposed filling, excavation, and grading project on the project site portion of the Pointe Heron LLC parcel in accordance with the design set forth on the Barghausen Grading Plans and in accordance with the specifications set forth in this geotechnical and soil engineering report and on the Barghausen Grading Plans would both (a) be feasible and safe and (b) not be unreasonably detrimental to the surrounding area. LIMITATIONS The recommendations and conclusions provided in this geotechnical engineering study are professional opinions consistent with the level of care and skill that is typical of other members in the profession currently practicing under similar conditions in this area. A warranty is not expressed or implied. Variations in the soil and groundwater conditions observed at the test sites may exist, and may not become evident until construction. ESNW should reevaluate the conclusions in this engineering geology and soil engineering report if variations are encountered. Additional Services ESNW should have an opportunity to review the final design with respect to the geotechnical recommendations provided in this report. ESNW should also be retained to provide testing and consultation services during construction. Earth Solutions NW, LLC Reference: King County, Washington Map 655 By The Thomas Guide Rand McNally 32nd Edition NOTE: This plate may contain areas of color. ESNW cannot be responsible for any subsequent misinterpretation of the infonmation resulting from black & white reproductions of this plate. Vicinity Map Pointe Heron Renton, Washington Drwn. GLS Date 07/21/2014 Proj. No. 2334.01 Checked SSR Date July 2014 Plate 1 I ,,,, ' "--. ' "- -..._ ----.......... --- 230 220 210 --200 -----i9e-- 180 170 230 L __ I_ ----J_ -__ I _ 1 _ l _ --l -BLVD --1 I I ---_,____ __ l I ~180 ..... ...._. I -....... S.W . SUN SE T 220 210 -200 190 ----~ _(_-= --: _--::--:=_-:.. ~-::: ---:::-_ ~ ~ ..__ ------/ .,,. ---- -... --_;; -_L,. ~ ,--=---_ ~ -_ ~ --~:-=::::::::::: =_-_-_-_ -_ -_ -_-__--------~: :--'"::----. --~--;-::------===-------_w-4---:: __ TP-6 _ '·Aj3pfflXi[_n~eWork I _ _ , _ _ -~ _ _ TP 8 A " . , --___ --__ -----_ ----. --rea 1m1 s--.... ) 1 / --------------•--j= I 8-3 (See Reference Sheets ..... --- I "' 1 / Fill To E~ev. 128 ITP-S I for Detailed Extent):-..._, ~1', ........... ..... I ---- / I ~::_ 1-..... "--. I '' "( ' ' ' '..::,_~ /"t- " .., ~-<:-&yY 'o 7 60 ( 1 TP 3 I ! -•--•-' -' L -/ "' .:_._ 1 --"1 I TP-7 ~ ' , -\ \ '-..... 1so 1---,,, •-r-=-I ... ~ ""-~,_ \:,, ',.;.-..60 140 I I TP-2 --. ..... -' -' '150' 130 I I .... ---------=--=--=--=------" ', _ ---, TP-1 j-\ , TPj 11I / ,--------------------.... :_---.... ~ ''-. ---_I ,,,.... I I '------------------------1 -----,,.~o- l .,//} 'TP-14!-=--:--:_.:::::::::=:----~ I 2H:1VFillSlope .,.. / .,.. .,.. / .,.. / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / I ., "' / v-1 / I / /~ -_) ' --- / / / \," -----------/ I ,------------------\ / -I / ""':.--------:::--------------------, / ,,.,,,., I \. -.,T ,,_ -----------------If I / / / / )· "3 / / / --------I / /,,-I , ·/ / / /, --I I ,,,. I --~ ,,-_; / / / / / / / I , I t ----,,. / ; ' ,-o-I I I .,. ..... ;,,.===--:---</. ITP-13 . ___ ITP-12 120 11 0 ' ' \ ' ' \ '' \ \ I \ \ I I I t \ '- I I l t ~ I \ ' ..... ', ........ ' \ ................... ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' .... ..... ' ' r"'f' ...... ...____..... ' 140 130 120 :: _,_,,,:,,,-:-----_.,.,, .1 -1-11 1.5H :1 VFillSlo_:>~~I-----=----,-__ . , . ,,. ~,, I -, ,.-----·---------..;~,--,-.., ', ', ~-/ I ·70 t· .,,,,.. ,/ / ~ ------~ ---~---...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... .... -...... ....... -=----_. / ,,... ..,.,,,.,,,.,.,,.,,.,,..--_----~ ................................................... --,,---//,' / 90 BO 100 ,,,.,.. .,,,.. .,,,,. -----..., ---.._ , "'-, ' ....._ ' , --_ _ --/ ./ .,,.. j .,,,,. ------.,...__.. -.....:...., ....._ ....._ _,,. -/I 90 ,../,-r _..;::--...... > ...... ....... -,,, ----/ 80 -'.--' _ --_ -------_ -_ "'' , _,, -_,,. 70 _. _ ---. .-------~-.,,.. ---r 60 __--(50 -----.......... _ ..... ---/ 1 ..,.. ..,.. 50 --__ -------.._ .._ _ ~ --.,,,,. ,,..,.....,,. 40 __. --_ ---. ----"'--.. "° --\ ' 50 , -------------....... ...... ' .,.. -----------, ...... "-'-. 40 ,,.../ --~~ ----~- ---- ----- ---.... ' ' -_, -...._ ' "--. -.... ' --.... ' / ,, -_,.. ,, Not -To -Scale LEGEND TP-1 -!-Approximate Location of I ESNW Test Pit, Proj. No. ES-2334 .02, Jan. 2014 TP-13 -l-Approximate Location of I ECI Test Pit, Proj. No . I B-4 -•-I E-10927, Nov. 2003 Approximate Location of ECI Boring, Proj. No. E-10927, Mar. 2004 Area of New Fill Slope "--. '-. ' ' ' ' "-. "' Reference: I Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Topography Map, Sheets 1 and 2, Dated June 26, 2014 /', ' "-. ' I "" ' ' NOTE : The graphics shown on this pla te are not intended for design purposes or precise scale measurements, but only to illustrate the approximate test locations rela tive to the approximate locations of existing and / or proposed site features . The information illustrated is larg ely based on data provided by the client at the time of our stud y. ESNW cannot be responsible for subsequen t design changes or interpretation of the data by others. NOTE: This plate may contain areas of color. ESNW ca nnot be respo nsib le for any subsequen t misinterpretation of the information resulting from black & white reprodu ctions of th is plate. "' ' "O C C 0 ro a.. a..1:: C Q) C g .s .8 ro "O C O> (.) Q) C o (/) e :.c __J ':>,. Q) U) -i;:_·I ro ·-ro > n..~Q)> -0 -c -U> 0. C ~ E·o o r--a.. -"O~ C C Q) ro = 0:::: O> LL c- ·;:: Q) 0"0 Cl'.l ~ (9 Drwn . By GLS Checked By SSR Date 08/12/2014 Proj . No. 2334.01 Plate 2 Notes: • Geogrid Lengths (alternate layers) Main= 40' Intermediate = 20' • Minimum Long-Term Design Strength L TDS = 7,520 lbs./ft. • Geogrid to be approved by Geotechnical Engineer prior to placement. 1.5H:1V Field-Adjust Transition from Buttress Fill and Core St ructu ral Fill per Geotechnical Enginee r .... ~. ~.-... __ :w;f::):{/:{:\:}{\:{\\:{\\?{:\:{:?{:\({:\(:·:(:?:::7J.:-~ ri~~e~~t=~; A~'MtM!i~;;1ii~f !~]tl;!~(~i~1~1lli~~~Jtl!~~!!f ti!W A • Buttress Fill shall taper from a minimum depth of 35 feet at base to 5 feet at top of slope . Fa ce Inclination ~~· ._ .. -... _ .. -.. Geogrid ., · · · · -·-.•. _. __ •. _·. -·- t Approximate Existing Grade Reinforcing (typ.) See Appendix D and Above Notes I a, a,1~ .510> Q) _J C CL B.2 ..Q Q) I'.:( Cf) a; (/) '+-e1-~ o a.. ... I~ for Geogrid Length and Strength Paramete rs I . _.-:-::.-:-::.-:._-:.-:-::.-:-::.-:-::.-:-::.-:,::_-:· . .-:.-:·.:·:.-:·.:·:_-:·.:·:.-:·.:·:.-:·.:·:.-:·.:·:.-:·.:·:.-\:.-\/._-: I ·, _. :}:·}:::?:::?:::?:::?:::::::::::??::::::?:::?:)\??::~:{\?:{}<:-::·::::·::·::.- Existing Native Soil Horizontal Scale 0 Vertical Scale O ,.,. Exis ti ng MSE Ecology Block Wall To Be Aband oned -In -Place Bench As Needed To E nsu re Stab le Interface Existing Native Soil 4 0 40 (1) ,._ 0 l) LL "'O C: C: cu O (1) C: 0) C: C: 0 Q ._ N ,._ ..c: (1) (/) = I cu LL <1> ~ en c -en ·-c: (1) 0 O ,._ a.. ....... ....... C: -(1) ~ 0:: u :.:; cu E (1) ..c: u Cl) Drwn . By G LS Checked By SSR Date 08/12/201 4 Proj . No. 2334.0 1 Plate 3 APPENDIX A Subsurface Exploration Boring and Test Pit Logs ES-2334.01 The subsurface conditions were explored by ECI during November 2003 and March 2004. The approximate locations of ECI boring and test pits are illustrated on Plate 2 of this report. Copies of the boring and test pit logs are provided in this Appendix. The final logs represent the interpretations of the field logs and the results of laboratory analyses. The stratification lines on the logs represent the approximate boundaries between soil types. In actuality, the transitions may be more gradual than the logs suggest. Earth Solutions ff-N. LLC Earth Solutions NWLLc SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART MAJOR DIVISIONS SYMBOLS TYPICAL GRAPH LEITER DESCRIPTIONS COARSE GRAINED SOILS MORE ntAN 50% OF MA TERIALIS LARGER THAN NO. 200 SIEVE SIZE FINE GRAINED SOILS MORE THAN 50% OF MATERIAL IS SMALLER THAN NO. 200 SIEVE SIZE GRAVEL AND GRAVELLY SOILS MORE THAN 50% OF COARSE FRACTION RETAINED ON NO. 4 SIEVE SAND AND SANDY SOILS CLEAN GRAVELS {LITTLE OR NO FINES) GRAVELS WITH FINES {APPRECIABLE AMOUNT OF FINES) CLEAN SANDS (LITTLE OR NO FINES) SANDS WITH MORE THAN 50% FINES OF COARSE FRACTION PASSING ON NO. 4 SIEVE {APPRECIABLE SILTS AND CLAYS SILTS AND CLAYS AMOUNT OF FINES) LIQUID LIMIT LESS THAN50 LIQUID LIMIT GREATER THAN 50 HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS GW WELL-GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL· SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO FINES POORLY-GRADED GRAVELS, GP GRAVEL-SANO MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO FINES GM SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL· SANO· SILT MIXlURES GC CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND- Cl.A Y MIXTURES SW WELL-GRADED SANOS, GRAVELLY SANDS, LITTLE OR NO FINES SP POORLY-GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SANO. LITTLE OR NO FINES SM SILTY SANDS, SAND-S!LT MIXTURES SC CLAYEY SANDS, SAND -CLAY MIXTURES INORGANIC SIL TS AND VERY FINE ML SANOS, ROCK FLOUR, SIL TY OR CLAYEY FINE SANDS OR CLAVEY SILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO CL MEDIUM PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY CLAYS, SANDY CLAYS, SILTY CLAYS, LEAN CLAYS OL ORGANIC SILTS ANO ORGANIC SILTY CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY INORGANIC SIL TS, MICACEOUS OR MH DIATOMACEOUS FINE SAND OR SILTY SOILS CH INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTlCITY OH ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO HlGH PLASTICITY, ORGANIC SILTS PT PEAT, HUMUS, SWAMP SOILS WITH HIGH ORGANIC CONTENTS DUAL SYMBOLS are used to indicate borderline soil classifications. The discussion in the text of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of the nature of the material presented in the attached logs. ~ w z w " • Earth Solutions NW TEST PIT NUMBER TP-1 1805 -136th Place N.E .. Suite 201 PAGE 1 OF 1 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone: 425-449-4704 Fax: 425-449-4711 CLIENT Point Heron LLC PROJECT NAME Pointe Heron --·-··· --·--- PROJECT NUMBER 2334.02 PROJECT LOCATION Renton, Washington ·----.. DATE STARTED 1/27114 COMPLETED 1127/14 GROUND ELEVATION _124 ft TEST PIT SIZE EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR G.M. Inc. GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD AT TIME OF EXCAVATION --------- LOGGED BY SSR CHECKED BY SSR AT ENO OF EXCAVATION ---------- NOTES Gravel Surface AFTER EXCAVATION -·- UJ 0. I ~ ffi en u :i:c, Ii E' UJ <D TESTS 0 (l_ 0 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION w-_J::; en ,?_ _J 0 0.:, :::j :.z Cl .,: "' 0 Gray silty SAND with gravel, medium dense, moist (Fill) -- - SM -mottling -variable gravel content -- -Fines= 40.00% ~ 5.0 119.D Reddish-brown highly weathered SILT I SANDSTONE (Bedrock) ,-- ---becomes dense " . -ss -becomes gray ___!Q___ - - -13.0 -------------------~Q; Test pit terminated at 13.0 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during excavation. Bottom of test pit at 13.0 feet. ~ >- I ~ ~ w z w " • Earth Solutions NW TEST PIT NUMBER TP-2 1805 -136th Place N.E., Suite 201 Bellevue, Washington 98005 PAGE 1 OF 1 Telephone: 425-449-4704 Fax: 425-449-4711 CLIENT Point Heron. LLC --~-PROJECT NAME _f.Qj!J,~_ Heron PROJECT NUMBER 2334.02 PROJECT LOCATION Renton 1 Washington DATE STARTED 1/27/14 COMPLETED 1/27/14 GROUND ELEVATION 126 ~ TEST PIT SIZE EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR G.M. Inc. ______ GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD AT TIME OF EXCAVATION LOGGED BY SSR CHECKED BY SSR AT END OF EXCAVATION - NOTES Graver Surface AFTER EXCAVATION --- w a. 0 I /: ffi vi Ic, ~£ w<D 0 a.o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION w-...J ::. vi ~...J 0 a.:, ::. z ::, (!) <( en 0 o/xl Brown silty SANO with gravel. medium dense, moist (Fill) X SM --_m -3.0 123.0 Brown highly weathered SILT/ SANDSTONE (Bedrock) - ss ,-..L -becomes dense to very dense c 6.0 120.0 Test pit terminated at 6.0 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during excavation, Bottom of test pit at 6.0 feet. ~ >- I " ~ w z w " • Earth Solutions NW TEST PIT NUMBER TP-3 1805-136th Place N.E., Suite 201 PAGE 1 OF 1 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone: 425-449-4704 Fax: 425-449-4711 CLIENT Point Heron LLC PROJECT NAME Pointe Heron PROJECT NUMBER 2334.02 PROJECT LOCATION Renton 1 Washington DATE STARTED 1127114 COMPLETED 1127114 GROUND ELEVATION 125 ft TEST PIT SIZE EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR G.M. Inc. GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD AT TIME OF EXCAVATION - LOGGED BY SSR CHECKED BY SSR AT END OF EXCAVATION -- NOTES Gravel Surface AFTER EXCAVATION - UJ r ~ ffi u; () ~= wm rj r: C!> TESTS o.o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION w--'::. u; ~ ... " 0. ::> :j ~z '-" "' 0 Brown silty SAND with gravel, medium dense, moist (Fill) " f-. -mottling -variable gravel content SM -. ........L 7.0 118.0 -- Reddish-brown highly weathered SILT I SANDSTONE (Bedrock) - -- _J_Q___ -becomes dense 55 -- " f-. " Fines= 30.80% 14.0 111.0 Test pit terminated at 14.0 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during excavation. Bottom of test pit at 14.0 feet. • Earth Solutions NW TEST PIT NUMBER TP-4 1805 -136th Place N.E., Suite 201 PAGE 1 OF 1 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone: 425-449-4704 Fax: 425-449-4711 CLIENT Point Heron LLC PROJECT NAME Pointe Heron --------- PROJECT NUMBER 2334.02 PROJECT LOCATION Renton, Washington DATE STARTED 1127114 COMPLETED 1127114 GROUND ELEVATION 126 ft TEST PIT SIZE EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR G.M. Inc. GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD AT TIME OF EXCAVATION LOGGED BY SSR CHECKED BY SSR AT END OF EXCAVATION NOTES Gravel Surface AFTER EXCAVATION w Q. g I >-a: u; f-W I(!) ~= wCO 0 a.o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION w--' :;a u; ~-' 0 Q. ::, ::; ::.az (!) <( "' a ffi Brown silty SAND with gravel, medium dense, moist (Fill) -- SM 3.0 -becomes gray 123.D -- Brown highly weathered SILT I SANDSTONE (Bedrock) - >--2----- " --becomes dense ss f- c . " ~ 10.0 ______ ,._ ------------·-· -~-----~---···---------116.0 Test pit terminated at 10.0 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during excavation. Bottom of test pit at 10.0 feet. • Earth Solutions NW TEST PIT NUMBER TP-5 1805-136th Place N.E., Suite 201 PAGE 1 OF 1 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone: 425-449-4704 Fax: 425-449-4711 CLIENT Poi~ Heron,_LLC PROJECT NAME Pointe Heron PROJECT NUMBER 2334.02 PROJECT LOCATION Renton, Washington DATE STARTED 1/27/14 COMPLETED . .1/J7/14 GROUND ELEVATION _ 1241!_ ____ ~ TEST PIT SIZE EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR G.M. Inc. GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD AT TIME OF EXCAVATION - LOGGED BY SSR CHECKED BY SSR AT END OF EXCAVATION - NOTES Gravel Surface AFTER EXCAVATION -- UJ a. I ~ ffi <Ii () ~i2' wm 0 :i: Cl TESTS a.o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION w----' ::. <Ii i?---' 0 a.:::, ::i ::. z Cl <( "' 0 Gray silty SAND with gravel, medium dense, moist (Fill) f- f-. -variable gravel content a SM f-- ~ 6.0 118.0 --Reddish-brown highly weathered SILT/ SANDSTONE (Bedrock) - ss - 9.0 -becomes dense 115.0 --Fines = 36.50% Test pit terminated at 9.0 feet betow existing grade. No groundwater encountered during excavation. Bottom of test pit at 9.0 feet. • Earth Solutions NW TEST PIT NUMBER TP-6 1805-136th Place N.E., Suite 201 PAGE 1 OF 1 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone: 425-449-4704 Fax: 425-449-4711 CLIENT Point Heron,.LLC PROJECT NAME Pointe Heron PROJECT NUMBER 2334.02 PROJECT LOCATION Renton, Washington __ . - DATE STARTED 1/27/14 COMPLETED 1/27114 GROUND ELEVATION _12811 __ TEST PIT SIZE EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR G.M. Inc. GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD AT TIME OF EXCAVATION -~-- LOGGED BY SSR CHECKED BY SSR AT END OF EXCAVATION ----- NOTES Gravel S!,.lrface AFTER EXCAVATION - L1J a. 0 I j'.:ffi <J) :i: (!) ~¢? L1J "' cj "-o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION w-....1:;; ui ;:; ..... 0 "-::, :;; z ::, (!) <( <J) 0 ; Gray silty SAND with gravel, medium dense, moist (Fill) -. SM ~,.o 125.0 -- Brown highly weathered SILT I SANDSTONE (Bedrock) - ss ._.L 6.0 -becomes dense to very dense 122.0 " . -· Test pit terminated at 6.0 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during excavation. Bottom of test pit at 6.0 feet. • Earth Solutions NW TEST PIT NUMBER TP-7 1805 -136th Place N.E .• Suite 201 PAGE 1 OF 1 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone: 425-449-4704 Fax: 425-449-4711 CLIENT Point Heron LLC PROJECT NAME Pointe Heron PROJECT NUMBER 2334.02 ___ PROJECT LOCATION Renton, Washington DA TE STARTED 1/27/14 COMPLETED 1/27/14 GROUND ELEVATION 128 ft TEST PIT SIZE -- EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR G.M. Inc. GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD AT TIME OF EXCAVATION -··--- LOGGED BY SSR CHECKED BY SSR AT END OF EXCAVATION - NOTES Gravel Surface AFTER EXCAVATION - UJ [l. >-0: ui 0 :,: >-UJ Ic., t;;e UJ a, TESTS cj [l. 0 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION w--':;; ui cl: ..J 0 [l. :::, ;:; :;;z 0 ;Ji 0 ,.1 Gray silty SAND with gravel, medium dense, moist (Fill) - . - 3.0 -mottling 125.0 Gray sandy SILT, medium dense, moist (Fill) --Fines= 50.80% ML _L .. . ~-· 6.0 122.0 Brown silty SAND, medium dense, wet ... - " . SM .. . ,...!!L .. . 11.Q 117.0 Brown highly weathered SILT/ SANDSTONE (Bedrock) ss ... - 14,0 114.0 ---~-- Test pit terminated at 14.0 feet below existing grade. Groundwater seepage encountered at 11.0 feet during excavation. Bottom oftest pit at 14.0 feet. • Earth Solutions NW TEST PIT NUMBER TP-8 1805 -136th Place N.E., Suite 201 PAGE 1 OF 1 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone: 425-449-4704 Fax: 425-449-4711 CLIENT Point Heron 1 LLC PROJECT NAME Pointe _Heron PROJECT NUMBER 2334.02 PROJECT LOCATION Renton, Washington DATE STARTED 1/27/14 COMPLETED 1/27/14 GROUND ELEVATION 130 ft TEST PIT SIZE EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR G.M. Inc. GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD AT TIME OF EXCAVATION - LOGGED BY SSR CHECKED BY SSR AT END OF EXCAVATION ----·· NOTES Gravel Surface AFTER EXCAVATION - w Q. :c ~ ffi ui () fu!S UJ co 0 :i: Cl a.o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION ..J::; <n ~..J Cl Q.:::, :j ::; z Cl <( <n 0 Gray silty SAND with gravel, medium dense, moist (fill) . . -variable gravel content --mottled fill SM -- ........L e . ~ 7.0 123.0 Brown silty SANO, medium dense, wet e . SM -"Burrito Drain Zone" e . 9.0 121.0 Test pit terminated at 9.0 feet below existing grade. Groundwater seepage encountered at 7.0 feet during excavation. Bottom of test pit at 9.0 feet. Q. >- ,: m g z w " • Earth Solutions NW TEST PIT NUMBER TP-9 1805 -136th Place N.E., Suite 201 PAGE 1 OF 1 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone: 425-449-4704 Fax: 425-449-4711 CLIENT Point Heron LLC PROJECT NAME Pointe Herqn~-- PROJECT NUMBER 2334.02 PROJECT LOCATION Renton, Washington DATE STARTED 1127114 COMPLETED 1127114 GROUND ELEVATION 128 ft TEST PIT SIZE EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR G.M. Inc. GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD AT TIME OF EXCAVATION - LOGGED BY SSR CHECKED BY SSR AT END OF EXCAVATION --- NOTES Gravel Surface AFTER EXCAVATION - w "-0 I ~ ffi ui It'.> t£ wm Li "-o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION w-__J:. ~ ~ __J 0 "-:::> :.z :::, t'.) ;Ji 0 I Tan SAND with silt, medium dense, moist (Fill) >- ,-. SW- SM >- ,--L >- ~ ') 6.5 121.5 ---·~·-------·--·- Brown silty SAND, medium dense, moist a - a - SM -becomes wet ~ -"Burrito Drain Zone" 12.0 116.0 --1~- Test pit terminated at 12.0 feet below existing grade. Groundwater seepage encountered at 10.0 feet during excavation. Bottom oftest pit at 12.0 feet. Boring Log Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this e,cplorato,y hole, modified by engineering tests. analysis and iuoomenl They are not necessarily representative of other limes and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of 1~~;.;,.,,. -am~"" th>et W'I § l1 " 0 .. Boring Log Project Name: I Sheet of Sunset Bluff Residential Develooment 2 2 Joo No. I Logged by: Start Date: Compkltion Date: Boring No.: 10927 MGM 3117/04 3117/04 B-3 Drilling Contactor: Drilling Method: Sampling Method: Gregory Drilling HSA SPT Ground Surface Elevation: Hole Completion: ±130' 0 Monnoring Well 0 Piezometer 00 Abandooed, sealed with bentonite No. I ] .. "' ] General w R . c. Blows E 41 LL E u E Notes (%) Ft. ~ ~ 0 .. "' ~ "' "' U) :, (/) 12.0 . SP-SM Brown poorly graded SAND with silt and gravel, very dense, wet to ' --saturated 74 • • 21 --. ' . --' -pockets of clean sand • 22 -• -11.2% fines . ' ·-. -clay film around gravels ' 23 -• • . ' ·-.. 24 -' ~ • - ~-( 25 9.3 t± SM Grades to blue gray silty SAND with gravel, very dense, moist 76/8" . (Glacial Till) 26 +-- 27 r-- ·r-- 28 TUKWILA FORMATION (Ttu): Greenish ~i fine grained r--.. SANDSTONE, very intensely weathered ) 29 r--... +-- ... 30 FF 18.3 ... -contains angular clasts 71/11" · . 31 Boring terminated at 31.0 feet below existing Jrade. Groundwater ~3/1,e encountered at 10.0 and 20.0 feet uring drilling. Boring II ed with benton~e. -~.~.~.,£?!:~;1.1!~~~.!.~S· Boring Log Sunset Bluff Residential Development Renton, Washington Proj. No. 10927 Own. GLS I Date April 2004 Checi<ed MGM Date 4/15/04 j Plate A11 Subsurface condtt1011s depicted represent our observations at the t,me and location al this e,,ploratOf)' hole, modified by engmeenng tests, analys,s and judgment. They are not necessarily representative al other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or Interpretation by othera of 1nf,........,,:,tinn ..,,,cu:u:1n,"""' nn •hie, Inn .. Boring Log Project Name: of Sunset Bluff Residential Development I Sh~ 2 Job No. I Logged by: Start Date: Completion Date: Boring No.: 10927 MGM 3/18/04 3/18/04 B-4 Drilling Contactor: Drilling Method: Sampling Method: Gregory Drilling HSA SPT California Ground Surface Elevatioo: Hole Completion: ±44' 0 Mon,oring Well D Piezometer IXl Abandoned, sealed with bentonrte No. .2 :ii .. en o Surface Cond~ions: Center of Pond .c General w a 0.. . a. (.) .Q Notes (%) Blows ~ E QI it E en E Ft. iJ, a .il :, iJ, SM Reddish brown silty SAND with gravel, very loose to loose, moist -1- +--- 2- -f-~ 18.5 3 f-f- 4 --f- 4 f-f--........ 5 11.5 • SP--SM Grades to reddish brown poorly graded with silt and gravel, medium ' -f-f--- 19 0 dense, saturated • 6 f-f-~./. -f-f---heavy seepage at 5' ~ : l -6.8% fines a 7-• 0, .• -~ 15.9 .: --becomes water bearing . -·.i. 8 f-f-0 17 • . ' f-f-.. 9 f-f-.. ' 0 • +----. ' 10 .. f-~ 13.8 ' 18 11 f-f---SM Grades to silty SAND with gravel, medium dense, saturated f-f- 12 ,-- --contains pockets of saturated, poorly graded sand ,-- 13 -,-- 14 ,-----large rocks at 14' 15.1 15 SM Reddish brown coarse grained SAND with gravel, medium dense, -f-f--- 71 moist to wet 16 f---f- ----dark iron oxide stainina 17 ,--SM Blue gray silty SAND with gravel, very dense, moist (Glacial Till) - 18 ,-- ,-- 19 --,-- .. ~.~!l .. ~~!:1!!~!~1!~1~· Boring Log Sunset Bluff Residential Development Renton, Washington Proj. No. 10927 Dwn. GLS Date April 2004 Checked MGM I Date 4/15/04 I Plate A12 .. Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at lhe time and location of lh,s exploratory hole, mod1f1ed by eng1neenng tests. analysis and ludgment They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or inlerpretation by others of ,,..1,......,.,,..;,..,,.. ..,,.ocar'lf......t....,.. fhi<t l,v"I Boring Log Project Name: Sunset Bluff Residential Develo ment Sheet 2 of 2 Job No. Logged by: Start Date: Completion Date: 3/18/04 Boring No.: 8-4 10927 MGM 3/18104 Ground Surface Elevation: ±44' General w No. ~ :g Blows a. E Notes (%) I'! ,,_ Fl. " "' 16.4 70 17.9 . . . . . . 15.4 62/10" ~ ~ a..; E .. u.. 0 ~ "' 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Drilling Method: Sampling Method: HSA SPT California Hole Completion: 0 Monitoring Well 0 Piezometer IX] Abandoned, sealed with bentontte "' :ii o E "' >-::::, "' TUKWILA FORMATION (Ttu): Blue green ClAYSTONE, decomposed (W9) Blue green fine grained SANDSTONE, very intensely weathered (W8) Boring terminated at 31.5 feet below existin9 grade. Groundwater seepage encountered at 5.0 -16.5 feet during drilling. Boring backfilled with bentonite. o'.l-------1-.....L.._L___L.--1..--1. _ __.L __ --r ______________ -l " Boring Log ~ Sunset Bluff Residential Development Renton, Washington g1-------~------~-------+-------~-------~------l ~ Proj. No. 10927 Dwn. GLS Date April 2004 Checked MGM Date 4/15104 Plate A 13 Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this e,cplorato!y hole, modified by engineering tests, analysis and jud!,nent. They are not necessarily representative of othef times and locations. We cannot aa:ept responsibility for the use or Interpretation by others of '"'"''"'~ nr _ _..loA ...,. lhio ~ · ,. ~ ;; ij iii ~ " ~ § " z § Boring Log Prcject Name: I Sh~ of Sunset Bluff Residential Development 2 Job No. I Logged by: Start Date: Completion Date: Boring No.: 10927 MGM 3118104 3/18/04 B-5 Drilling Contactor: Drilling Method: Sampling Method: Greaory Drilling HSA SPT California Ground Surface Elevation: Hole Completion: ±140' D Monijoring Well D Piezorneter IXJ Abandoned. seeled with benton~ No. .Q 0 % "' :a Surface Conditions: General w " " .c a_. Blows a. E E u E Notes (%) !! >, ~ u. m "' >-Ft. CJ "' D "' ::, "' ·-SM Brown silty SAND with gravel, loose to medium dense, moist 1- ·- 2- 36.0 ML Reddish brown SILT with sand, loose to medium dense, moist 3 --10 -- 4---derived from insitu weathered bed rock ·- 31.8 .... 5 TUKWILA FORMATION (Ttu): orange brown fine grained .... --SANDSTONE (tuffaceous) very intensely weathered (WS), soft (H6) 29 .... ---. 6 ---·.' .... --.. '. 7-" ' ... ... -dark manganese oxide staining ... ... a[ 24.4 ' . . . . 68 ', .. " . . .. ... . --... .. .. . .. ... ... ... 9-. . . ' . . . " . . --" . -. --.. . .. ... 10 1-~ ..... 25.0 .... ----30 ... ' " . " . 11 .. ' . ,-.. -.. ... ... ... .. . . ·I-- . .. . " ... 12 -... ... . -- . --... -. . " . .. ' 13 -.. ' . ... ... ... .. . -. -.. ... 14 -.. . . . . " ·I--.... .. ... .. ... 15 --20.7 .. .... -dark iron oxide stainino " . 86111" .... Blue green fine Jerained SANDSTONE, intensely to moderately --. .. 16 --weathered, mo erately soft (H5) ... ... --.... ' .. .. 17 -.. ---... " . . " ·-.. ... 18 -_. ... ... .. ''. -... " . ... " . ... 19 -... ---... .. -... ' ... .. -~.0:~.~?~~!!~!~,!~5:· Boring Log Sunset Bluff Residential Development Renton, Washington Proj. No. 10927 Dwn. GLS I Date April 2004 Checked MGM I Date 4/15/04 I Plate A14 Subsurface condtioos depicted represent our obser\'atloos at the tlll1EI and locatton of this e,cploralory hole, modified by eng.,..nng tests, analysis and judgment They are not .-santy representative of other times and I-OCalions. We cannot accept respon&1bilily for the use or interpretatiQn by others of ,m-o1;,.,, -~--' rv, 1h; .. 1,..,,.. . ' Boring Log Project Name: of Sunset Bluff Residential Development I Sh;' 2 Job No. I Logged by: Start Date: Ccrnpletion Dete: Boring No.: 10927 MGM 3/18/04 3/18104 8-5 Dnlling Contactor: Drilling Method: Sampling Method: Gr..,,orv Drillina HSA SPT California Ground Suliace Elevation: Hole Completion: ±140' D Monttoring Well D Piezometer IXJ Abandoned, sealed with bentoMe General w No. 11 :& ,: .., "' :& Blows a. E ,g_ _: ~ u E Notes (%) I!!~ " .._ V) ~ Ft. a m " V) V) ::, V) 14.4 50/4" .. . ~ Blue green fine wained SANDSTONE, moderately weathered . .. . . .. (W5), moderate y soft (HS) .. ... 21 -.. . . . . .. .. - 22 -.. -. . . . . .. 23 -... . . .. --. .. 24 -- 19.6 25 Fl= 8519" -auaer refusal at 26 on bedrock 26 Boring terminated at 26.0 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during drilling. Boring backfilled with entontte . . -~~.~ .. ~?.~!:!!~~~.!~~- Boring Log Sunset Bluff Residential Development Renton, Washington Proj. No. 10927 Dwn. GLS Date April 2004 Checked MGM I 0ate 4/15104 I Plate A15 .. Subsuliace conditions depicted represent our oboeniat,ons at the lane and localion of this e,q,loratory hole, modified by engmeenng tests, analysts and jlldgment They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibifity for the use or interpretation by others of '"'""'"',e,,fi.v. ,..,..,. .. .,.....ar1 "'" fkie l,v,, . il "' ~ 8 ~ ~ Iii I!! Test Pit Log Project Name: I Sh;"' of Sunset Bluff Residential Develooment 1 Job No. I Logged i>f: I ~~/14/03 Test Pit No.: 10927 MGM TP-11 Excavation Contactor: Ground Surface Elevation: Client Provided 85' Noles: .!l :g .c ... en a S<Jrface Conditions: Depth of Topsoil & Duff 12" / Approx 70' S of 15+ 70 General w t. E a . a.. 0 .0 Noles G LL E en E (%) !! > C .. :::, iJi (!) "' "' ,L, -TPSL TOPSOIL and DUFF , ,L, 1 SM Brown silty SAND with gravel, loose, moist - 2- - 3--trace cobbles - 4- - 5- 6-SM Brown silty SAND with gravel, medium dense, moist 23.1 - 7- ·--comprised of angular bedrock clasts in a silty sand matrix 8--does not appear to be insttu - 9- - 10 - ·- 11 -SM Brown silty SAND with gravel, medium dense to dense, moist 12 - ·- 13 --contains interbeds of compact coarse sand and small gravel --12" zone of dark iron oxide staining 14 --32. 7% fines 22.8 15 -TUKWILA FORMATION (Ttu) Blue gray SANDSTONE, very highly ... " . weathered, fractured, moderately hard ·- ..... 16 '--- " - " . .. 17 - ·'---.... -refusal on hard bedrock at 18' ... 18 Test pit terminated at 18.0 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during excavation. '"~.~.~E?~!:1!!.~!:!~,!~S- Test Pit Log Sunset Bluff Residential Development Renton, Washington Proj. No. 10927 I own. GLS I Date Dec.2003 Checked MGM I Date 12/4/03 I Plate A27 SUbsurface conditions depicted represent our obseNat,ons at the t,me and loca!IOO of this e,ploratay hole, modified l7f engmeenng tests, analysis and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannol accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of 1nf,vm~it"ln "'"-"""tArl "" O,J., I""' 8 8 ~ " 1c; ?! § ~ ~ ~ ~ Test Pit Log Project Name: I Sh;"' of Sunset Bluff Residential Develooment 1 Job No. I Loggedby I Date: Test Pit No.: 10927 MGM 11/14/03 TP-12 El«:avation Contaclor: Ground Surface Elevation: Client Provided 45' Notes: ."1 ii .<! .!! "' 0 Surface Conditions: Depth of Topsoil & Duff 18" / Approx. 11 O' NE of Existing General w a. a . o. 0 .0 Culvert & Beneath Railroad Noles (%) f! E ~ ti: ~ en E ,_ :::, iJi CJ "' "' ~ TPSL TOPSOIL and DUFF .J, ' - .J, 1-.J, 2-SM Reddish brown silty SAND, loose. moist to wet 1-- 31---contains gravel 1-- 41-- .1-- 5 . SP-SM Brown poorly graded SAND with silt and gravel, medium dense, moist • 1--• • 6 1-- 7.2 'it ~ . . -1--• -trace cobbles • 71--. ~ --9.6% fines ' 8-• • . ' - ' 9-• • --. ' 10 - ' • -• -increase in silt and cobbles content • • 11 - ' --some angular bedrock clasts " • 12 -. ' b ~! -• 13 1--• -caving in 12" zone dark iron oxide staining 0,., 1-- b •• 14 1-- 0 • 15 1--GM Blue gray silty GRAVEL, very dense, moist to wet ~ 16 1---comprised of abundant rounded cobbles and angular bedrock clasts in a silty sand matrix Test pit terminated at 16.5 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during excavation. -~.:1.~.,£?~~!!~~~1!1~~· Test Pit log Sunset Bluff Residential Development Renton, Washington Proj. No. 10927 I Dwn. GLS 1 Date Dec.2003 Checked MGM I Date 12/4103 I Plate A28 Subsurface condtions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this ""l)lorato,y hole, modified by engrneenng tests, analysis and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannol accept responsibility for the use or Interpretation by olhers of ,nl.l'Vl"ll...ti""" ~an+-f'"'" ti,ie: J,v, b " irl 0: " ~ 8 ~ ~ ~ ~ w ~ Test Pit Log Project Name: I Sheet of Sunset Bluff Residential Development 1 1 JobNo. I Logged by: I Date: Test Pij No.: 10927 MGM 11/14/03 TP-13 Excavation Contactor: Ground Surface Elevation: Client Provided 55' Notes: o-.c ~ 11) ii Surface Conditions: Depth of Topsoil & Duff 12" I Approx Center of West ·-C General w .c .c Q. . a. Pond a. E a, LL E u E Notes (%) I!! >-Cl cil 11) >- C) 11) ::, 11) -TPSL TOPSOIL and DUFF w ·-, w 1 SM Brown silty SAND, loose to medium dense, moist ·- 10.9 2- - 3 --GM Brown silty GRAVEL with sand, medium dense, moist 4- 5-SM Brown silty SAND with gravel, medium dense, moist - 6- - 7- s~ ML Brown SILT with sand, dense, moist ~ 91-- -contains small rounded gravel ~ 10 1-- 10.7 -51. 9% fines '-- 11 ~ - 12 - - 13 - ·- 14 -SM Blue gray silty SAND with gravel, very dense, moist 15 - - 16 --trace small rounded gravel --mostly angular bedrock clasts 17 - ·- 18 Test pit terminated at 18.0 feet below eJ<isting grade. No groundwater encountered during el<Cavation. -~'~"~'~?.!:~;1.l!?.!2~~'!~.~- Test Pit log Sunset Bluff Residential Development Renton, Washington Proj. No. 10927 I DNn. GLS I Date Dec. 2003 Checked MGM I Date 12/4/03 I Plate A29 Subsurface condilicns depicted represent our obse!valions at the tlllle and location of this e,ploratory hole, modified by engfneenog tests, anafysos and j·udgmenl They are not necessarny representati"8 of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibffoty for the use or interpretation by others of nf'Nn'l,o,tM n..-6'\k,,I""" U,H!, ltv1 , ~ ;; 8 iil ~ I § Ii: m Test Pit Log Project Name: Is~ of Sunset Bluff Residential Develnnment 1 Job No. I Logged by: I Date: Test P~ No.: 10927 MGM 11114103 TP-14 Excavation Contactor: Ground Surface Elevation: Client Provided 95' Notes: ~B .c .!! "' 0 Surface Conditions: Depth of Topsoil & Duff 12" / Approx. 100' S of 12+50 General w 15. . C. 0 .c Notes c. E cu U:: E "' E (%) ~ ,,_ Cl m :::, ili " "' "' 'V ,-TPSL TOPSOIL and DUFF , ,I, 1 SM Brown silty SAND, loose to medium dense, moist - 2--contains aravel 3~ ML Reddish brown sandy SILT, loose to medium dense, wet 23.0 ~ 4 '-- -contains gravel ~ s~ '-- 6 '-- ~ 7 '---becomes brown, blocky -- 8- - 9- - 10 - -- 11 - - 12 -SM Brown silty SAND with gravel, medium dense, moist 13 ~ ·'-- 14 '---contains large angular blocks of till ~ 15 ~ ·'---dark iron oxide staining 16 '-- ~ -comprised of angular clasts of reddish brown silty sand 17 ~ 18 -SM Blue gray silty SAND with gravel, very dense, moist to wet Test pit terminated at 18.5 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during excavation. -~.0.~.£?~~;1,1!~!~.!~.~- Test Pit log Sunset Bluff Residential Development Renton, Washington Proj. No. 10927 I Dwn GLS I Date Dec.2003 Checked MGM I Date 12/4/03 I Plate A30 Subsurface conditions :rt our obsenlations at the time and localton of this explo<atory hole, modified by engmeenng tests, analysts and l·udgment. They are not representative of other times and locations. We cannol accept responsibmty for the use or interpretation by othera of ,.,_~....,. t"ll'6f!l6"fM nn thie frv. • Earth Solutions NW GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION 1805-136th Place N.E., Sune 201 Bellevue, WA 98005 Telephone: 425-284-3300 CLIENT GMCC/Pointe Heron. LLC PROJECT NAME Pointe Heron PROJECT NUMBER ES-2334.02 PROJECT LOCATION Kent . - U.S. SIEVE OPEMNG lN INCHES I U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS I HYDROMETER 6 • 3 2 ,; 1 3/4 112: 3 • 6 810 1-416 20 30 40 50 60 100140200 100 I ~~ I o.. I I I I I I 95 \ "'--\,. "' 90 - 85 ~ ~~ ~ " --~ 80 I'._ 0, ~ ' r---... " ' 75 "t < I '.I\ 70 I' .. - 65 \ r \ \ ,_ \ I \ " 60 -~---i \ \\ \ >-55 \ " m a: \ .\ w 50 ,-~ ~-z \ ~' u: ,_ 45 --z \ ~ w (.) 40 a: '\ w 0.. 35 .. 30 I 25 20 15 10 5 0 I 100 10 1 0.1 O.Q1 0.001 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND SILT OR CLAY coarse fine coarse medium I fine Specimen Identification Classification LL PL Pl Cc Cu - 0 TP-1 4.0ft. Dark Gray Silty SAND With Gravel, SM 0 TP-3 14.0ft. Brown Sitly SAND, SM - . "' TP-5 9.0ft. Brown SIity SAND, SM * TP-7 4.0ft. Gray Sandy SILT, ML ---- ___ ,...._ Specimen Identification 0100 060 D30 010 %Gravel %Sand %Silt %Clay .0 TP-1 4.0ft. 37.5 0.311 20.3 38.8 40.8 0 TP-3 14.0ft. 37.5 0.445 14.6 54.6 30.8 6 TP-5 9.0ft. 9.5 0.264 2.6 61.D 36.5 * TP-7 4.0ft. 37.5 0.185 13.2 36.1 50.8 APPENDIX B Six-sheet, reduced-size (11" by 17") drawing set (Sheets X1 thru XS) prepared by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. illustrating (1) the Sunset Bluff project's City of Renton-approved design grades (Sheets X1, X2, XS, and XS), (2) existing site grades (Sheets X3, X4, X5, and XS), and (3) currently proposed design grades within the filling, excavation, and grading project site (Sheets X3, X4, XS, and XS). ES-2334.01 Earth Solutions NW, LLC ~·- .!_L~ GIWIIC/MUI) SIVflM DRAIN I.KS ' I on: PUN <>W<OES -2 --PER atY CE RENTtW aMEfTS 1 I PER atY CF RENTtW m£W NO. ~ l, \ ' \ ' \ . ' I '\2~ ~~ \~ \ ll' ll' ll' ,!f a'. a'. J J ~ ' -N " > ' ~ ~ ; I § § ~ ~ i l Ill i I s I ! ~ • 8 8 8 8 REY1SION 0 ~ a 2 ~ ~ ' '\ ' \ if 1 ,~ : H d I ~i !~ , j~ a$ ' d ~ -.•. 00 -··---- DC 00 "' jjjiji8 ~11111111 I mi ; : I !a2 -,---r--1"""r"r,r 1 -11 "i~ iaj 111 11 rr g ! ~ ,~j '~i; ~ 20 !~:· m =i e z-< ..... ~ -<o -t.• 0 ii .:.. ,.."'<""r, 'ill .. !~ .t"~ i -~j 0 .. 0 •• ... t,+ fll ~}' fi,,.t; '1-e; ENG 18215 72ND AI/ENUE SOUTH KENT, WA 9SOJ2 (425)251-6222 ( 425)251-8782 FAX aw. D«*EERtlG, LANO PIJHNNG, SUIMYING, ENVIRONMENTAL SER't'ICES \ \ FOR• 1'•50' --· F>IOT "'ll"' l'\01 SCA.I.( !W'O! 5">«, 51-" I ~:.MJ-, .•. ~ CITY OF RENTON ·® Plannl"z1j/Bulldinv/Publlc Worim =· ~ mmermon P .t., Aclminlltro r ' u,;;::~::c;~~~ ; --1. . -·. ". •-<•< " ! "" 0, "' .... "' .., "' .., ,.. ~~8~8~8~ ! ·:~-,~ C;;; C ~ "!.;...:~ ·:: ·::i -~~ -- 2 fJ&l::3!::!~ ~~.~~~ eeo;;:i:,:~ i~ijij~~ 8!Hl8; .. "~ ::!:: . ·;;;! G) 0 (/) JJ z m )> (/) 0 0 C :::! zzO G) (/) z ,:i m r r -I 0 )> OJ 0 zr)> C -I "Tl - "Tl 0 z 0 (/) ~ )> -o r:l 0 o rn r.,, 0 0--z ~JJ ' rn l>o ,:J ,:J JJ 0 < m 0 __J •, Ml:Fll.H) LAAO DEVELOPM:NT CO, NC. 9125 101H AVENUE SOUTI-1 SEATTLE, WA 98108 (206) 762-9125 - B.C.E. JOB NO. 7639.1 f'ile, P:\07000s\76J9\en9in-ing\76J9-ge1.d,rg Dot'.!/lime. 10/07/2005 13:36 Scole· 1 .. 50 dgabriel X~fs: z7639-s.z76J9-t.~oJI, -~ 00 CLEARING, INITIAL ClflADtlQ, AND 1ESC PLAN SUNSET Bl.lff ,:J co 0 :::. -(,J z--I I\.) m:; I.,. mo JJ JJ 00 z (/) G) C(l JJ (/) l> rn oo rn -I )>0 zz Om "Tl >< -I r_ rm =i "Tl 0 JJ TITLE• ' fi~ \ I I lf>I i l'}l \\ ·, ·, h rl I !311 {,; ' ,. r:·,111 I : !ft• co'! ; · Y\ I I I l ·1 t~ i 0 1 I 1 \ 1 I 1 , • : I 111 ° i 11 \1 I 11 }J I :I I I ,I'''~""-.\\\"-~-' \~\\\'---..I/ ~111 ---,11 \'--. iu1 ·,', 1 //li 1 / IJ I\ ! •1 , I JI \ • l/11'// Ii I ~J /ji I\\\\ i . "''-"\ I. 1// ; ',-C:.<0C'1 • i :::,>.._, ,111 ·-· ·-~':C"rlill!I i l'-.l'-.·111111111 :fD ·r, \11lfl11111i\ ,~ I \llililr!liil "§' . 1 1w,r),"t" .. 'ii Al1 "1/11( .) i i. r\1 r , i 1'1 I'm '. ~J, 11 r'"" .) ,i1i1111'.!J D, i:5 CLEAAtlQ, INITIAL~ AtO 1ESC Pl.AN SUNSET BLUFF () r m C> :D )> 0 i_~ ,, ti)> ;z z 10 .,. -; mm -en ~ () -u r )> z NY"ld OS3l. ON¥ 'oNICJYb'O l\fWNI 'oNll:f9'310 0 a: z LU o> 0 0~ LL !:: LU 0.. (0 _J a: 0... I _J z "f X LL ->- 0 I-LU 0 LU -zz 0 (_) 0 <( 0 l!) i= LU <( 0 0 (.) 0 Cl)~ LU <C Z"S!" Cl) a: Oo ch (') ~ LL Z Cl) z 00 (.) LL <( a: a: 0 ::i _J (.) LU _J _J a.. (0 "SI" I z I-(') 0 LU 0 LU~ C\J I-I-Cl) 0 -z (_) z <( "' ~o LU ::J a: a3 0... Cl) Cl) (') ,0 """ ::1::1018 ESNns N\f1d OS3l aNY -'oNlcMlo l\fWNI 'oNll:f9'310 "' ~"' SC:16-C:9£ (90c:) 80l86 YM '31il ¥38 HJJlOS 30N3A Y HJ.QI. SC:16 "ONI '·oo lN3t"ldO""EA3Cl Gl'fl ON111:13Vi , / ~ ,~,...,, J~~~~z ;;~;tj=~:::iiklui~~j I ·-~'"-: ~- NO.LN:IH ~ .!10 A.LI::> ,OS•J '"''i.':~·~".'a""" )C1'dS "3<1•d J"ClSIUlO S30IMl3S -W.LN31NOOWG ·~IA.'Wlns 'ONIN'Md ONV'I 'ONQl33NI~ 1W:> XII, Z8L8-(SZ(SZv) ZZZ9-(SZ(m) Z£086 VM 'JN3~ HlflOS 3nN3AV QNZL S(Z8( "' "' 00 "' I I ·oN aor ·3·o·a .,f ,n11 §1t 11r· ~ ~~~:::J j~il~~~ i;;;~i haaaaaaa ..,§?t~:':~"'~~ ~'f-++-t-+-,f+-H NOISII\Jij 'ON M3"3II NOJlGil .:IO Am 13d" SJ1aftl:'.I N01N3Y .:IO ~iad- SJOtM() tMd lllS- " 1: ,1 ~ ,8/N083H 3lNIOd 1181HX3 M31A NVld NOl1038 88080 -l 38VHd I [is II ,__ ' ' \ ' ' \ ' I I I I I I ' I I ' \ / I, ' \ I \ l ' I I I I ,8/N083H 31NIOd 1181HX3 M31A NVld NOl1038 880!:IO -l 38VHd 9ll6-l9L (90l) OOVl-\78186 VM '3lilV38 .:01311n8 'H1no8 3nN3AV 181 osos ::>11 N083H 3lNIOd S3.)IMiJS l'fltHl'lW}'11,\N3 ':)Nl}.lN:JrlS ~1tllr·INl'l<l a11V1 ')Nld3~fllS·N3 11',IJ ,(1..J ;:;s.-:_s l:;2::.scvl ;::G;:;') 1 sz(c;;::r j ('.~'Cb'ti VN, '11~..:l>I H1'1U'~ Jl1NJ/,'1 UN...:L ~ l.~:~· l B / NOL\l3U c!O AJ,IJ 1--------t---- "' I * ' I ~§ I- •_:,(5 ~ v<& a: :;j~ w tJ a.. 2 2 0 iB ' \ \ ·oN aor ·::i·o·a ' ' 3 i:b \ ' ' L ! i ,1:,1.,1 ~. ,_. ~ I I I I I ~ I • ---------------+------i z <t _J n... z 0 l-o w Cf) Cf) ~ Cf) ~ 0~ a: is 0~ I "- <( C\J w Cf) <t I n... ,S/NOl:l3H 31NIOd 1181HX3 M31A N'v'ld NOl1::l3S 8801:l::l -Z 3S'v'Hd '·-I ; / I ~; ..L_ -~'------ ,S/NOl:l3H 31NIOd 1181HX3 M31A N'v'ld NOl1::l3S SSOl:l::l -Z 3S'v'Hd 9ZL6-l9L (90l) 0017Z-178L86 'v' M '3111 'v'3S zm 311ns 'Hlnos 3nN3AV 1si 0909 ::lTl NOl:l3H 31NIOd ' l / ,y........,_,.,. "'" llO=I "~i:L~",.' I c.,J: 11\~.c; l'~l~IJl'JN:)cJl.'.t,J '0 ,NILJ/1::Jf'I'; '·'fJI\Nv·ld (JN',1 ''_lNICJ:C~fW)f,J ll~IJ Y'/.:. .~·2LS-lSG~SGt) ,.,...::9-l~;:::s;::t) 2'.'~C,;·1:, 'IN, 'l ·~T,1 H1·1,)S J1·1Mlt,'i' llNi-:,: '~l,'.'.S'l """'"' / I I I I I '/ I I f ' I OOlN zu OJ !z ~ w• a:. u. 0 Or ~ru (.) ~ • fu 0 L ____ _ I I I I I I I I I I I I I ', '· -~ I ~ ·c ! ~ ~. ol Cl oli r, u n I i 11 • I f----~ 1---t--,-, --j---,:-: ---'~---j-~-'+-1--============--------t--1 - , I: ~ .11~ en z I---< 0 F 0 Cl) 0 -LU en en en ~ 0 I C\I LU en <( I a.. r,..~ s Oo 0 E-' >-<7. ' E-rz:l C ui:>:: -I~ t s < 11 f -- z 0 ,r: LU I I!:! z 0 a.. PHASE 2 CROSS SECTIONS 250 250 250 i-·-250 z ' -~· --------------t---· 200 rR:;";srn 150 11 ,;aAL:, !,'"1~-< l -=;---, ~::::"--·· I .-" 150 150 '- 0 ''""'\ \ "''" \ __ L ---~.,.-,c f------J--=-';-"'':''~'"~=',,;--, --------f~,7', ;;;,,,;,"';~, .. -\ ... -11--~'~''0'"''' 'i\\ll,,-:--~:_:,,::,,,?~'---'"'"' m~,: ---=--_ ~ r/ ---, .. " '\)> \_ '.::. ' cce.+ / mm ;~ ~.<: _:,./1 -100 ~ + ..,. -------l-~·~·:·-_/"""c::i~~,,-=~_;;~~---~·'·~~f'l''~-~":"'~a~·:-O():'~+~~-;;-;;;;;;:-;:;:::-;:-i--------1---------,----50 150 I ~ 100f--2i~ f( 50r-'/ Or . I I C .. , ,, 'I ,. o+oo I 250 /C--" ,, "'·'"'-""~ ,w" ,., / -50 50 / / " ''''"' cc,.,.'" ff -::>,,,-SECTION L -L ,---,, c.oo,"•<D r.rvsno~ ·.r SECTION J-J ',poe)S[O :,RAO[ (l(\,•!1-i< FR<M Xl ,:c~ PCA'<·> :r,F> ' \-V<T:H c< C.•JIQ SCALE. , .. ~~o· ~ /, 1·~sc, '~~,~~~~ ~~; f~:i'( :+ '"~- ' ' ' ' o o' I 111 ' ' 'o , ''·l''l"·'C·-:: ,,,s,.s.c,: ... aocs-.c ... s.-s.s,}-cJ,"''·~··8-j>"" a.... . . 'I -11, __ 1, "'"l lCclct·lc,lc.a,.1=018dtttt·ltJJj, l"t" .l,,1,,1, •1 ·1··. •·"j,-co•0 o,,oc,-c·c,c","""""''"""•""·j•-,••-••cc•c-o"•" • c ,-,00 c.,• c uo ,j,0 0,c 0,0 ,,oc.,,,,,,1,••·cc,cco · '•l,coc- o ' e;; C '., y =( = e ',= 'C 'T '1= '' l C = C: C: = = 'i C \ '' "C = = '" = = CC C = C C ·: 0. Cf C' • ' C O O C' • 1U u ro -a C -= e. =' = -= -=. "= ·,= '/ C = • = --' ' = "C • ~Cf.LE: 1"-~o· r< & 1".~o· 1+oo 2+oo 3t00 4+-00 5tOO 6+oo e+so o+oo HOO 2+oo 3+oo 4t00 5tOO 6+oo 6+50 ~250 w g en z 0 F 0 LU en en en 0 ,r: 0 I C\I LU en <( I a.. Q ~o oiil ~ _J_ll() -1 I st C\I I-(') ~ z ::, ~ Cl) OO~c!,, cr: en <( "' LU LU S: r-,_ I::, ~ 0 Cl) -z 0 ,r: LU I ~ z 0 a.. '" /T~ iroc ,,~ " 0 ~1~ I''° 250 ~ ~ 1200200f-----+------+-----+--- ;.., I I !I~ ~.!, 200 ~;"" "co LU Z ui '° f-LU -1 ~ Z>1=~ 0 <( <( a..~ LU ~. ~ I ~! LJ ,,/ £ -I 1SC ' l:! I I !'. :<?: Im,-----!I" "' \ , , , . ..:.,,= I"''' . _,. .. . ,~-j_ ;// m ·r--------+-cc,.,-=--- >-,,,,--~;;;,"}---. I. ca,-, 1--'.~~i""~,, I "' "'"'"' l .. ' I 100 100 "" ; I · --" ,-I i]~ " ,u, ... . """"' ,,,, ,,·'-"----1--fc'~--1 I -., .... , "'""".. "I' -. . -" , ., I ~,,,, .• ,,, j 1,--7 C _/7. --~~ -----:--~/ l; ,, ., ,., , •.. 1. I --,,,. " • • , I/ ,,,j-· · , I ;· .•• '"" ,, '"" •' ,. ' . I .. -. . / ' . -. -~,,,,, 7 ~. 150 ~ en fil fil ':,,: -'e' i,: I, I O 0 I~ ,I ,~ ;I i I I ~H+t " '-,_ < w ~ 0 z ., iri ~ " ~mi ltt· - I L , I ,. I I 501 SECTION K-K s~.,:"E ·"c~Q ~ & ·"~~·J a Lei o+oo 1+oo 2t00 & . . ',,'I''; t ,i ;j ,; ,!: ;; ,. ,!, ,,· ' • • ,.\ .. ;:· -,itt'feff;.~Eilc0 ::; 0 ; -u '"') '·""' ,}, ' ---_J_I-· -I"'"" cz ,1 , I : -f n,,,,m· 1r;:~i"'''''"""'J' SECTIONMM -. !_ _· • ' " ; l ;) ' ;; ,i ,i; ,, ,I, ,H ; I • ·-,, "" . • . I '•'""j""i;<§ ;;~:;I ~t;i~ \~c,'c,c ' I -c -c. c • I, ,, " "c :,I, ·-I I O -(' "=3i~~c:~l~fH·iE SC~LC ':SO' H i, l":'.,C" ~ C, ,., ' 7 i;:. 18 f; ~ -:D ("1 I' z' ,~, 'f ,;,J ~.' ~;;::, ,n £~ :::: :3 ~ .. ~ Q._;!:., 9~ Sj 0 :1 :; > Oz ~-:;0 §~ 3+00 4+-00 5tOO 6t00 s+so o+oo 1+00 2+oo NOTE• REFER TO GEOTECHNICAL AND SOIL ENGINEERING REPORT PREPARED BY EARTH SOLUTIONS NW DATED AUGUST 2014 FOR CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS FOR PROPOSED ALLING AND GRADING ACTIVTTIES. 3+oo I J ~ 01 CI ,~ z· i]-~- ::o _..J ..,,. ..,,. -,, ~---- '--'L.i ~~ 4+oo 6+oo 5+00 ~tl }"D1',. ::,q,~-~ '•"% ~ ,1 ~ ~ :t • l!) ; ,S., . a'' ve~co'!\,; PERMIT* APPflOVED FOR CONSTRUCTION 8v __________ Dale ____ _ " 8v Dote -----~--_JL ___ =-:--::=::-:=:'::::::;-;-------- CITY OF RENTON E') D,te ____ _ DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS I'' "''' 'PHASE 2 -CROSS SECTIONS POINTE HERON/S' I I I 1=--~.',··1~" .. ""'' C1ECKED f,[) 9CJ1J..E 1 -5~ Fl..EHO LUiic~===~ ----""'-.,..,. ~ -~~ -EH;eT );5 ~ _Q 1 s ,, -;;,- ~- "- ;i t ~ 1 ~ s ~ : ~ " " 8 s g ~ ll! ~ 1----l e I ~ ~ I: I: 1 !___J, en z 0 0 Cl) -w a en en a: en w ~ I w () ~ C\J 0 w CL en <l: I CL ""Z , Oo ~ >--~ ~ I'-'-"I ~ -c.::::,:, U c t '1i I •!@< . h :=. :1! ~ ;f ,;:, / ; / T ~~t, 'i· -S ~ ii~ I"•~ L < I, C "i-10',,' 11 I! 11 " C ', ~. .· js:? I " I ~ ' ., I ';2 PHASE 2 CROSS SECTIONS 250 ------ 2001---------+--------+---------+---------+--- 1501------------ >R('OQOED-, ~R'-DE ' '("' ~,I -*-~ , I ---- 1 . ~ .... ..--<'"'"' ~f"" -~-- "' 5 r, (ff,LIW, ~\ \: ~~ ' OJ i! ···0~1, -• >~)'--:··""" cc-=,·--=~~, Rf.'')~O~LJ L!llcl~l·V~ '-''C' VIC, PO'.C 1-,·p; 250 200 150 100 50 C,S4L,l H'\N :)(Cf '•O" --""'"'-·p,c:,,•,G ,...--:.i'I ----, I _,, G<~u,n C_E\'ATl,•N :rf1 -------j50 c . -~."'-:,,._~-,-, 1~,,,rc, ,, n"<5? ---E> ST,-lP.Mll'f CR f'l)~C Cc•H,WX"l: fvR l~l ~Jl.'oll ELU"F =,cs 1D WIAL SUBD'/~10 11 r:Fvn OP11n, rn ;:ic r11. F"J ' -COJfaf,CO •,P;.Q( ('.£V•Tl•.j< ""-'M en ,.·,:~ PLt,N', IT,P) SECTION N-N sc~_E 1·~sYI r1 ~ , .. ~so· 01 ' ' -I + + + + ,1~ ,I~ 112 sl~ + ,I~ ;I~ + + ~; ~1~ + + + + ,1, J, t "I' + -1-1-I' {-·11r--,---jo o+oo 250 200• -- T ---e O ' = e = 'l 'i'' '} CC C = C ~ cG t~ ; [ ~ Cl 3 ~ ;; ~ ci~ ~ ! - HOO 2+oo 3+oo 4+00 5+00 6+00 7+oo ---------------------------------------------------250 :G i! ----1-----200 r /- 150 -+-··· .. ~A-·-__ 150 7 I lL•'CO ·YO•,NO-,,. ' o,; ~L~~, 1·,rJ / cl•1L;Q _J ~~~j J ,, \ "° ~I: ::fE £ _/~;;/;;,,-:-/ C \.-' \ /,.>·' ,-~.;Pi;,~o i;c1cw1,~·, ... ~----------1100 ,'.'0 F-•C',D (-t?;· 50 [> e JN [L['"I a rf I ,,,_,:~ :;"-""'--~ -=::_:'.""---:=":n~ :c:•_"C> -, ,,-Ii"" p,_ ,r ,-, E ~L-'·'' '"!~ :. 0 <36 CO'iS"PlCTt.[· f· • ,HE o,•,nET I,.,. r e>J5 ,u.,, \f -, 50 I SECTION 0-0 S·:sLE. 1"=50' ~. & 1"=50 ~~:,:~,J~~~i~f\T~! Lftu,~:~~~l~·fi I o o ,, ,12.j~ ,;,~:;~;i[;; ';l~~;~~~;~f::1;~~~~~;~§c5;"."'"'l~:e~olD, ~j~"'~~;;~ ;,,,":' -i- i ____ I_ -+ 200 -1-~ +- 1+oo 2+oo 3+oo 4+oo 5+oo 6+oo r.a d~ E,~ ~+'· l 7+00 ,250 200 150 "° 5( C I ~'"'-"} ' 150 -~--'/ '"~'--_ ---- 1~:'J~ _,-=I~~= :~~-~~>_'/~--1 ..:.,j.c, ~,w, u ---4'','i?ct'-,-- ,1 ~{! -,roo ~/ _;.,,---:~,---------~~::: T~~~,>~~u:~i 1 ¥1; cc-·,, \ -• ,,oc,cc, . j I I ... ~--. . ~m ~ ~::;-·• 1" n ,.. SECTION -P "I" -1" -~, "'c, ..,. " -~ u, ,) ELc.,,T,os n,t· P?Dac,s,:· cP,cc ELE·.,-ca,,~ -----,--------+---I o.:.r '°"" ?:"'' 1=: ,,,AlC· 1"-~r.· 1 .1c ,·-·-c· I + ;i; + ~1i ;~ ~~ :;~ ~1~ ~~ ~: -,~ ~,~ ~r =:§ =-1~ + ~IJ 0 'I'' ::::: 8 §1~ ,!s " ~ -,8 C 'I" "'" 'C "I" :r o+oo 1+oo 2+00 3+oo 4+oo 5+oo 6+oo 7+oo NOTE, REFER TO GEOTECHNICAL AND SOIL ENGINEERING REPORT PREPARED BY EARTI-1 SOLL/TIONS NW DATED AUGUST 2014 FOR CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS FOR PROPOSED FILLING AND GRADING ACTIVITIES. PERMIT i AF'PAOVED FOR cc:teTFIUCTION w g Ii': ~ en z 0 i= () w en en en ~ () I C\J w en <l: I CL C\J ~ WO !::::o ~ en -z 0 a: w I w r z 0 CL ovl ~ ...J.1L{) _JI"TC\J ~ (') -Z ~ -0, 0 5 ~ ct., a: en <l'. "' w w ;;: l's I=> ~ w z u.i"' r w _J 0 Z>[:::~ 0 <l: <l: CL r W l!l en 0 ~ :_, ·.n '" I!) g ~ . L ~ WN i!!! ~ .~~ ~~~~ row•• -~-- c, V ~, -,.. 7Cr'. z 7! i':-;t g§ :5 f 0:? §! 01 ~· ;:: '-'w _J {: ""; ,1 .::; . \ ,q' '~g :t • ~ l <Z>i~ ,·,., .... i$,,,t,.. ' --o.,·S"' 8 I cO,;,. "'' 1 I \ ~,,., II I 8)· [,cte \.~S/13/1~ e, F!/ kle e, D~te l ' I 1-------j---------------- CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS PHASE 2 -CROSS SECTIONS POINTE HERON/S' ' x ' , ;i " ;, 0 2 / ~ 0 ~ g m T ! ~ I 1ft" I .lPPll I ~ra --""'~" a.i:J(""";--IIHET X6 '" I . . .-::. -,--.. -. -. -DATE 8/ 1~1 ~ iFLEltO.lUAOO-_ --~ fES w= ·."~,-~· !FB.DOOCJ(_ ~ I NO. \s ~ I~ m APPENDIXC Color map excerpt from the City of Renton's GIS system depicting (1) the Pointe Heron LLC parcel boundary, (2) the subject proposed grade and fill project site, and (3) "regulated slopes" ES-2334.01 Earth Solutions NW, LLC I- ~ a: w (1... _J _J LL 0 z <{ w 0 <{ a: Cl ,S/NOl:l3H 31NIOd d\f~ AHd\fl:lOOdOl ,8/NOl:l3H 31NIOd d\f~ AHd\fl:lOOdOl NOLN3U i'IO ALI:) ~ '<jl '""""'"''" ,,,.~ "'"'''°'o,." ,-..--o rn," rn -----·-- ----+---(i~---1--f--1--- ooivi ·oN sor ·3<:rs • 'IOISL~J~I I- ~ a: w CL _J _J LL 0 z <! w 0 <! a: Cl z 0 a: w I w 1-z 0 CL 0 w (/) 0 CL 0 a: CL LL 0 z 5 ~ ,....._ <( I- C/) <! w '-' CL <! ~ >-I 0.. <! a: Cl 0 CL ~ --·'-''"-= ,S/NOl:l3H 3lNIOd d\fV'l )..Hd\fl:IOOdOl I / / I /\ I : -/ / I -----------_)_____ / --------/ I , ~ ,/ ./ f"'. •. , / C ,S/NOl:l3H 3lNIOd d\fV'l )..Hd\fl:IOOdOl 9lf6-l9L (90l) 00vl-j78(86 VM ':::rulV3S c::m :::rnns 'Hlnos 3nN3AV isi 0909 811 NOl:l3H 3lNIOd NO.Ll'\:e!H ..JO A.LD V / SJ~lt,.":J]S 1V!l'J]l'JNC,~IN<3 '')ISitJN:lflS ·-;111'.NVld ,JNV; '')tSl~~:r,i')t<~ 111,1) Cldd'I' ll\'ll '8 ,,, / ! I M)ISI/\Jcl ~I ! • ()N APPENDIX D SlopeW Computer Output (Slope Stability Analysis) ES-2334.01 Earth Solutions NW, LLC "' "' ''° "' ,00 '" Section E-E Geogrid reinforced Static Condition Minimum FOS 1.7 illJ1 • 1.5H.1V Face lncl1nalion " Geogrrd Reintorcmg ltyp) g I Property Line (approx) j /Or -----.. w " " '" '" Existing/Native Soil '" 200 pcf static surcharge (future loading) '--------.. / / / fi 11 tt:±t7/ I I I I I I I I X StNetinlfill '/ '"~o!-------------------------------------------' HO '" ''° '" '"' so "° " '" " " " " ,0 • • ~c o ,c 20 w 40 ~ M ro ~3 % ·co ,10 1w •20 ,~ ,~ ,50 ,ro ,~ 1M 200 210 = 2m Distance 140 130 120 110 100 90 Section E-E Geogrid reinforced Seismic Condition Minimum FOS 1.23 ~ • 1.5H:1V Face Inclination '° Geogrid Reinforcing (typ) g I Property Line (approx) 1 70 r -------. UJ 60 so 40 30 Existing/Native Soil 20 200 pcf static surcharge (future loading) ~ / , , i // • I I I I I I 1)/ ·1 I I I I _,_,_,_ // ·~ Structural Fill ,, .r/ 10111---------------------~ 140 130 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 so 40 30 20 10 0 0 -10 O 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 60 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 Distance C: ~ > ., w ''° 130 120 110 100 90 BO 70 60 so 40 30 20 10 Section F-F Geogrid reinforced Static Condition Minimum FOS 1.58 .1.filQ • ~~ I I I I I,/ 200 pcf static surcharge (future loading) ~ I 1.5H:1V Face Inclination Geogrid Reinforcing (typ) Property Line (approx) ~ Exlsling/Native Soil '1 I I I I I I I I ,7 / Slructural Fill / H-H I I I I I 1)7 / 140 130 120 110 100 90 '° 70 60 so 40 30 20 10 C L_ _ _....l __ J_ __ .L_ _ _JL_ _ __J_ __ .L_ _ _JL_ _ _L __ _,_ __ L_ _ _J_ __ __.._ __ J_ _ _....l __ J_ __ J_ _ _JL_ _ __J_ __ i__ __ c_ _ _J_ __ __.._ __ J_ _ _Jo .10 O 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 Distance C 0 i > w w 1~ 1m 120 110 100 m BO ro m 60 '° m 20 10 Section F-F Geogrid reinforced Seismic Condition Minimum FOS 1.24 Geogrid Reinforcing (typ) Property Line (approx) ----------... ~ • 1.5H:1V Face Inclination ·1 I I I I I I , -,---, 'I I I I I I I I I 1---V Existing/Native Soil 200 pcf static surcharge (future loading) ~ / / Structural Fill 140 130 120 11U 100 90 BO 70 60 50 '° 30 20 10 0 -10 ':------'-----':------'-----'-------'-----'-------'-,---------:',------'-,----------'------,'-:---,-'c--~'------'-----'------'-----'------:"-:--------,'------'----'-------'-----'--------' 0 o rn 20 30 40 so 60 10 eo 90 100 110 120 130 140 1so 160 170 1eo 1eo 200 210 220 230 Distance Slope Stability Report generated using GeoStudio 2007, version 7 .20. Copyright© 1991-2012 GEO-SLOPE lnternationa I Ltd. Title: ES2334.02 Pt. Heron Created By: Scott Riegel Revision Number: 91 Last Edited By: Scott Riegel Date: 06/27/2014 Time: 10:07:36AM File Name: ES2334.02 PT HERON E-E.gsz Directory: C:\Users\scott.riegel\Documents\GeoSI ope Runs\ Last Solved Date: 06/27/2014 Last Solved Ti me: 10:07:40 AM Length(L) Units: feet Time(t) Units: Seconds Force(F) Units: lbf Pressure(p) Units: psf Strength Units: psf Unit Weight of Water: 62.4 pcf View: 2D Kind: SLOPE/W Method: Morgenstern-Price Settings Side Function lnterslice force function option: Half-Sine PWP Conditions Source: (none) Slip Surface Direction of movement: Right to Left Use Passive Mode: No Slip Surface Option: Entry and Exit Critical slip surfaces saved: 1 Optimize Critical Slip Surface Location: No Tension Crack Tension Crack Option: (none) FOS Distribution FOS Calculation Option: Constant Advanced Number of Slices: 30 Optimization Tolerance: 0.01 Minimum Slip Surface Depth: 0.1 ft Optimization Maximum Iterations: 2000 Optimization Convergence Tolerance: le-007 Starting Optimization Points: 8 Ending Optimization Points: 16 Complete Passes per Insertion: 1 Driving Side Maximum Convex Angle: 5 ° Resisting Side Maximum Convex Angle: 1 ° Firm Native Soil Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 135 pcf Cohesion: 200 psf Phi: 34 ° Phi-B: 0 ° Crushed Rock Fill Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 132 pcf Cohesion: 0 psf Phi: 45' Phi-B: 0 ° Structural Fil! Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 125 pcf Cohesion: 0 psf Phi: 36 ° Phi-B:O' Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 135 pcf Cohesion: 200 psf Phi: 36 ° Phi·B: 0 ° Left Projection: Range Left-Zone Left Coordinate: (·1.69448, 37.51706) ft Left-Zone Right Coordinate: (72.5479, 67.58514) ft Left-Zone Increment: 4 Right Projection: Range Right-Zone Left Coordinate: (85.1553, 76.17852) ft Right-Zone Right Coordinate: (223.43049, 126.21499) ft Right-Zone Increment: 4 Radius Increments: 4 Left Coordinate: (·5.93873, 8.92378) ft Right Coordinate: (226.97116, 126.10443) ft Surcharge Loads Surcharge load 1 Surcharge (Unit Weight): 200 pcf Direction: Vertical X (ft) y (ft) 181.58638 130.85103 210.73117 130.30422 Seismic loads Horz Seismic Load: 0.2 Ignore seismic load in strength: No Reinforcement 1 Type: Fabric Outside Point: (41.55146, 46.24872) ft Inside Point: (61.55146, 46.24872) ft Slip Surface Intersection: (67.556, 46.249) ft Total Length: 20 ft Reinforcement Direction: 180, Applied Load Option: Variable F of S Dependent: Yes Contact Cohesion: 0 psf Contact Phi: 40, Interface Factor: 2 Bond Safety Factor: 1 Fabric Capacity: 150000 I bs Fabric Safety Factor: 1.5 Fabric Load: 100000 lbs Load Distribution: Cone. in 1 slice Load Orientation: 0 Applied Load: 100000 I bs Fabric Load Used: O lbs Resisting Force Used: 2999. 7 lbs/ft Available Bond Length: 0 ft Required Bond Length: 0 ft Governing Component: Bond Reinforcement 2 Type: Fabric Outside Point: (50.02165, 52.31204) ft Inside Point: (70.02165, 52.31204) ft Slip Surface Intersection: (94.691, 52.312) ft Total Length: 20 ft Reinforcement Direction: 180' Applied Load Option: Variable F of S Dependent: Yes Contact Cohesion: 0 psi Contact Phi: 40 ' Interface Factor: 2 Bond Safety Factor: 1 Fabric Capacity: 150000 I bs Fabric Safety Factor: 1.5 Fabric load: 100000 lbs Load Distribution: Cone. in !slice Load Orientation: 0 Applied Load: 100000 lbs Fabric Load Used: 0 lbs Resisting Force Used: 5337.3 lbs/ft Available Bond Length: 0 ft Required Bond Length: 0 ft Governing Component: Bond Type: Fabric Outside Point: (60.46367, 58.93195) ft Inside Point: (80.46367, 58.93195) ft Slip Surface Intersection: (111.85, 58.932) ft Total Length: 20ft Reinforcement Direction: 180' Applied Load Option: Variable F of S Dependent: Yes Contact Cohesion: 0 psi Contact Phi: 40' Interface Factor: 2 Bond Safety Factor: 1 Fabric Capacity: 150000 lbs Fabric Safety Factor: 1.5 Fabric Load: 100000 lbs Load Distribution: Cone. in 1 slice Load Orientation: 0 Applied Load: 100000 lbs Fabric Load Used: 0 I bs Resisting Force Used: 6161.8 lbs/ft Available Bond Length: 0 ft Required Bond Length: Oft Governing Component: Bond Type: Fabric Outside Point: (73.31006, 68.38563) ft Inside Point: (119.60129, 68.42698) ft Slip Surface Intersection: (129.52, 68.436) ft Total Length: 46.291248 ft Reinforcement Direction: 180.05 ° Applied Load Option: Variable F of S Dependent: Yes Contact Cohesion: 0 psf Contact Phi: 40' Interface Factor: 2 Bond Safety Factor: 1 Fabric Capacity: 280000 I bs Fabric Safety Factor: 1.5 Fabric Load: 186666.671 bs Load Distribution: Cone. in 1 slice Load Orientation: 0 Applied Load: 186666.67 lbs Fabric Load Used: O lbs Resisting Force Used: 6514.7 lbs/ft Available Bond Length: 0 ft Required Bond Length: 0 ft Governing Component: Bond Type: Fabric Outside Point: (69.01042, 65.35071) ft Inside Point: (89.01042, 65.35071) ft Slip Surface Intersection: (124.41, 65.351) ft Total Length: 20 ft Reinforcement Direction: 180 ° Applied Load Option: Variable F of S Dependent: Yes Contact Cohesion: 0 psf Contact Phi: 40' Interface Factor: 2 Bond Safety Factor: 1 Fabric Capacity: 150000 lbs Fabric Safety Factor: 1.5 Fabric Load: 100000 I bs Load Distribution: Cone. in 1 slice Load Orientation: D Applied Load: 100000lbs Fabric Load Used: 0 lbs Resisting Force Used: 6456.41 bs/ft Available Bond Length: Oft Required Bond Length: Oft Governing Component: Bond Type: Fabric Outside Point: (78.35947, 71.24733) ft Inside Point: (98.35947, 71.24733) ft Slip Surface Intersection: (133.95, 71.247) ft Total Length: 20 ft Reinforcement Direction: 180' Applied Load Option: Variable F of S Dependent: Yes Contact Cohesion: 0 psf Contact Phi: 40' Interface Factor: 2 Bond Safety Factor: 1 Fabric Capacity: 150000 I bs Fabric Safety Factor: 1.5 Fabric Load: 100000 lbs Load Distribution: Cone. in 1 slice Load Orientation: O Applied Load: 100000 lbs Fabric Load Used: O I bs Resisting Force Used: 6546.7 lbs/ft Available Bond Length: 0 ft Required Bond Length: Oft Governing Component: Bond Type: Fabric Outside Point: (83.56076, 74.49234) ft Inside Point: (127.2338, 74.31274) ft Slip Surface Intersection: (138.3, 74.267) ft Total Length: 43.673409 ft Reinforcement Direction: 179. 76 ° Applied Load Option: Variable F of S Dependent: Yes Contact Cohesion: 0 psf Contact Phi: 40 ° Interface Factor: 2 Bond Safety Factor: 1 Fabric Capacity: 280000 lbs Fabric Safety Factor: 1.5 Fabric Load: 186666.67 lbs Load Distribution: Cone. in 1 slice Load Orientation: 0 Applied Load: 186666.67 lbs Fabric Load Used: O lbs Resisting Force Used: 6530.81 bs/ft Available Bond Length: 0 ft Required Bond Length: Oft Governing Component: Bond Type: Fabric Outside Point: (38.39726, 38.53333) ft Inside Point: (78.39726, 38.53333) ft Slip Surface Intersection: (0, 0) ft Total Length: 40 ft Reinforcement Direction: 180 ° Applied Load Option: Variable F of S Dependent: Yes Contact Cohesion: O psf Contact Phi: 40 ° Interface Factor: 2 Bond Safety Factor: 1 Fabric Capacity: 280000 I bs Fabric Safety Factor: 1.5 Fabric Load: 186666.67 lbs Load Distribution: Cone. in 1 slice Load Orientation: 0 Applied Load: 186666.67 lbs Fabric Load Used: O lbs Resisting Force Used: 0 lbs/ft Available Bond Length: 0 ft Required Bond Length: 0 ft Governing Component: Bond Type: Fabric Outside Point: (36.18969, 43.48955) ft Inside Point: (76.18969, 43.48955) ft Slip Surface Intersection: (O, O) ft Total Length: 40 ft Reinforcement Direction: 180 ° Applied Load Option: Variable F of S Dependent: Yes Contact Cohesion: 0 psf Contact Phi: 40 ° Interface Factor: 2 Bond Safety Factor: 1 Fabric Capacity: 280000 lbs Fabric Safety Factor: 1.5 Fabric Load: 186666.67 lbs Load Distribution: Cone. in 1 slice Load Orientation: o Applied Load: 186666.67 lbs Fabric Load Used: 0 lbs Resisting Force Used: 0 I bs/ft Available Bond Length: 0 ft Required Bond Length: Oft Governing Component: Bond Type: Fabric Outside Point: (45.5292, 49.45128) ft Inside Point: (90.00527, 49.38876) ft Slip Surface Intersection: (84.328, 49.397) ft Total Length: 44.476114 ft Reinforcement Direction: 179.92 ° Applied Load Option: Variable F of S Dependent: Yes Contact Cohesion: 0 psf Contact Phi: 40 ° Interface Factor: 2 Bond Safety Factor: 1 Fabric Capacity: 280000 lbs Fabric Safety Factor: 1.5 Fabric Load: 186666.67 lbs Load Distribution: Cone. in 1 slice Load Orientation: 0 Applied Load: 186666.67 lbs Fabric Load Used: 26391 lbs Resisting Force Used: 4648.7 lbs/ft Available Bond Length: 5.6772 ft Required Bond Length: 5.6772 ft Governing Component: Bond Type: Fabric Outside Point: (54.5932, 55.35495) ft Inside Point: (99.66563, 55.44032) ft Slip Surface Intersection: (103.56, 55.448) ft Total Length: 45.072511 ft Reinforcement Direction: 180.11 ° Applied Load Option: Variable F of S Dependent: Yes Contact Cohesion: O psi Contact Phi: 40 ° Interface Factor: 2 Bond Safety Factor: 1 Fabric Capacity: 280000 lbs Fabric Safety Factor: 1.5 Fabric Load: 186666.67 lbs Load Distribution: Cone. in 1 slice Load Orientation: 0 Applied Load: 186666.67 lbs Fabric Load Used: o lbs Resisting Force Used: 5758.7 lbs/ft Available Bond Length: Oft Required Bond Length: Oft Governing Component: Bond Type: Fabric Outside Point: (65.4402, 62.20318) ft Inside Point: (112.12067, 62.38932) ft Slip Surface Intersection: (119, 62.417) ft Total Length: 46.680841 ft Reinforcement Direction: 180.23 ° Applied Load Option: Variable F of s Dependent: Yes Contact Cohesion: 0 psf Contact Phi: 40 ° Interface Factor: 2 Bond Safety Factor: 1 Fabric Capacity: 280000 lbs Fabric Safety Factor: 1. 5 Fabric Load: 186666.671 bs Load Distribution: Cone. in 1 slice Load Orientation: 0 Applied Load: 186666.67 lbs Fabric Load Used: O lbs Resisting Force Used: 6287.1 lbs/ft Available Bond Length: Oft Required Bond Length: Oft Governing Component: Bond Type: Fabric Outside Point: (88.1944, 78.1139) ft Inside Point: (108.22847, 78.17963) ft Slip Surface Intersection: (143.67, 78.296) ft Total Length: 20.034178 ft Reinforcement Direction: 180.19' Applied Load Option: Variable F of S Dependent: Yes Contact Cohesion: O psf Contact Phi: 40' Interface Factor: 2 Bond Safety Factor: 1 Fabric Capacity: 1508000 lbs Fabric Safety Factor: 1.5 Fabric Load: 1005333.3 lbs Load Distribution: Cone. in 1 slice Load Orientation: 0 Applied Load: 1005333.3 lbs Fabric Load Used: 0 lbs Resisting Force Used: 6485 lbs/ft Available Bond Length: Oft Required Bond Length: Oft Governing Component: Bond Type: Fabric Outside Point: (93.89259, 81.98975) ft Inside Point: (131.41079, 81.94525) ft Slip Surface Intersection: (148.12, 81.925) ft Total Length: 37.518226 ft Reinforcement Direction: 179.93' Applied Load Option: Variable F of S Dependent: Yes Contact Cohesion: 0 psf Contact Phi: 40 ' Interface Factor: 2 Bond Safety Factor: 1 Fabric Capacity: 280000 I bs Fabric Safety Factor: 1.5 Fabric Load: 186666.67 lbs Load Distribution: Cone. in 1 slice Load Orientation: 0 Applied Load: 186666.67 lbs Fabric Load Used: 0 lbs Resisting Force Used: 6223.3 lbs/ft Available Bond Length: 0 ft Required Bond Length: Oft Governing Component: Bond Type: Fabric Outside Point: (99.97504, 86.12696) ft Inside Point: (118.82917, 86.12225) ft Slip Surface Intersection: (152.77, 86.114) ft Total Length: 18.854131 ft Reinforcement Direction: 179.99' Applied Load Option: Variable F of S Dependent: Yes Contact Cohesion: 0 psi Contact Phi: 40' Interface Factor: 2 Bond Safety Factor: 1 Fabric Capacity: 150000 lbs Fabric Safety Factor: 1.5 Fabric Load: 100000 lbs Load Distribution: Cone. in 1 slice Load Orientation: 0 Applied Load: 100000 lbs Fabric Load Used: 0 lbs Resisting Force Used: 6223.3 lbs/ft Available Bond Length: 0 ft Required Bond Length: Oft Governing Component: Bond Type: Fabric Outside Point: (105.99688, 90.22294) ft Inside Point: (135.81562, 90.14735) ft Slip Surface Intersection: (156.97, 90.094) ft Total Length: 29.818836 ft Reinforcement Direction: 179.85' Applied Load Option: Variable F of S Dependent: Yes Contact Cohesion: 0 psf Contact Phi: 40' Interface Factor: 2 Bond Safety Factor: 1 Fabric Capacity: 280000 I bs Fabric Safety Factor: 1.5 Fabric Load: 186666.67 lbs Load Distribution: Cone. in 1 slice Load Orientation: O Applied Load: 186666.67 lbs Fabric Load Used: 0 I bs Resisting Force Used: 5904.9 lbs/ft Available Bond Length: 0 ft Required Bond Length: 0 ft Governing Component: Bond Type: Fabric Outside Point: (111.38175, 93.88567) ft Inside Point: (126.51864, 93.71678) ft Slip Surface Intersection: (160.18, 93.341) ft Total Length: 15.137832 ft Reinforcement Direction: 179.36' Applied Load Option: Variable F of S Dependent: Yes Contact Cohesion: 0 psf Contact Phi: 40 • Interface Factor: 2 Bond Safety Factor: 1 Fabric Capacity: 150000 lbs Fabric Safety Factor: 1.5 Fabric Load: 100000 lbs Load Distribution: Cone. in 1 slice Load Orientation: 0 Applied Load: 100000 I bs Fabric Load Used: 0 lbs Resisting Force Used: 5904.9 lbs/ft Available Bond Length: Oft Required Bond Length: 0 ft Governing Component: Bond Type: Fabric Outside Point: (117.38554, 97.96683) ft Inside Point: (145.46068, 97.89378) ft Slip Surface Intersection: (164.34, 97.845) ft Total Length: 28.075235 ft Reinforcement Direction: 179.85 • Applied Load Option: Variable F of S Dependent: Yes Contact Cohesion: 0 psf Contact Phi: 40 • Interface Factor: 2 Bond Safety Factor: 1 Fabric Capacity: 280000 lbs Fabric Safety Factor: 1.5 Fabric Load: 186666.67 lbs Load Distribution: Cone. in 1 slice Load Orientation: 0 Applied Load: 186666.67 lbs Fabric Load Used: 0 lbs Resisting Force Used: 5395.3 lbs/ft Available Bond Length: Oft Required Bond Length: 0 ft Governing Component: Bond Type: Fabric Outside Point: (123.31926, 102.00544) ft Inside Point: (137.04639, 102.00426) ft Slip Surface Intersection: ( 167.81, 102) ft Total Length: 13.72713 ft Reinforcement Direction: 180' Applied Load Option: Variable F of S Dependent: Yes Contact Cohesion: 0 psf Contact Phi: 40 • Interface Factor: 2 Bond Safety Factor: 1 Fabric Capacity: 150000 lbs Fabric Safety Factor: 1.5 Fabric Load: 100000 lbs Load Distribution: Cone. in 1 slice Load Orientation: 0 Applied Load: 100000 lbs Fabric Load Used: 0 lbs Resisting Force Used: 4471.5 lbs/ft Available Bond Length: 0 ft Required Bond Length: oft Governing Component: Bond Material Region Firm Native 1,2,3,4,5,12,6,7,8,9,10,11 1 Soil Points Region Structural 13, 14, 36, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21,22, 23, 24, 25, 26,27,28, 29,30, 31, 32,33,34,35,37, 38, 8 2 Fill MSE Region Ecology Block 38,37,9,8 3 Wall (Existing) Region Crushed 4,39,40,41,8, 7,6,12,5 4 Rock Fill Region Crushed 42, 34,33,32,31,30,29, 28, 27, 26, 25,24,23,22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15,36, 14, 13, 8,41,40 5 Rock Fill X (ft) y (ft) Point 1 -5.79474 37.64024 Point 2 9.49398 37.18092 Point 3 17.24746 36.114 Point 4 25.41623 41.30946 Point 5 34.58654 41.30946 Point 6 43.39934 34.34166 Point 7 143.47218 34.83078 Point 8 163.85465 42.82579 Point 9 225.61909 56.28341 PointlO 225.72725 9.71804 Point 11 -5.93873 8.92378 Point 12 38.58397 38.28817 Point 13 74.19269 45.9544 Point 14 80.77428 52.51924 Point 15 85.83644 57.9708 Point 16 87.84832 60.30718 Point 17 91.0933 63.94155 Point 18 92.91048 66.66733 Point 19 94.50662 67.89536 Area (ft2 ) 7045.9695 7350.3193 1475.6816 1413.3049 1130.5138 Point 20 96.73941 71.13063 Point 21 99.65571 72.72548 Point 22 102.38974 75.96076 Point 23 104.94151 78.51252 Point 24 107.85781 81.24655 Point 25 111.63019 84.11813 Point 26 115.2397 87.12473 Point 27 119.72575 91.18527 Point 28 123.18021 93.69041 Point 29 126.31823 96.56473 Point 30 132.93708 101.23221 Point 31 140.55799 107.16544 Point 32 147.96688 113.50055 Point 33 155.21966 119.2724 Point 34 164.64955 12805042 Point 35 226.97116 126.10443 Point 36 83.30536 54.79072 Point 37 226.37625 83.75752 Point 38 165.0138 63.81175 Point 39 31.26895 41.52855 Point 40 58.42958 57.96189 Point 41 74.10586 45.70119 Point 42 161.35453 128.117 Slip Surface FOS Center (ft) Radius (ft} Entry (ft) Exit (ft) 1 68 1.239 (47.206, 201.013) 156.1 ( 184.869, 127.419) (37.375, 45.223) 68 Slip X (ft) y (ft) PWP Base Normal Frictional Cohesive Surface (psf) Stress (psf) Strength (psf) Strength (psf) 1 68 40.006805 45.101435 0 251.57237 251.57237 0 2 68 45.270455 44.94727 0 786.23784 786.23784 0 3 68 50.534105 44.970765 0 1359.2035 1359.2035 0 4 68 55.797755 45.172 0 1954.0394 1954.0394 0 5 68 60. 77133 45.5214 0 2540.7931 2540.7931 0 6 68 65.45433 46.001385 0 3092.9789 3092.9789 0 7 68 70.13833 46.62491 0 3585.7267 3585.7267 0 8 68 74.138015 47.263165 0 3939.5598 3939.5598 0 9 68 78.285115 48.059365 0 3690.5083 2681.3112 0 10 68 82.03982 48.854875 0 3774.2244 2742.1345 0 11 68 84.5709 49.45661 0 12152.509 8829.3149 0 12 68 86.84238 50.032705 0 4127.2947 2998.6551 0 13 68 89.47081 50.753165 0 4076.3534 2961.6441 0 14 68 92.00189 51.48173 0 4010.8151 2914.0278 0 15 68 93.70855 52.00298 0 3958.5876 2876.0823 0 16 68 95.623015 52.616285 0 3892.6999 2828.212 0 17 68 98.19756 53.484525 0 3798.3036 2759.6291 0 18 68 101.02271 54.49062 0 3687.7514 2679.3082 0 19 68 103.6656 55.487725 0 3574.2705 2596.8595 0 20 68 106.39965 56.580335 0 3455.2584 2510.3922 0 21 68 109.744 58.00277 0 3309.9297 2404.8047 0 22 68 113.43495 59.673275 0 3152.9336 2290.7403 0 23 68 117.48275 61.650045 0 2985.3759 2169.0025 0 24 68 121.453 63.715185 0 2832.7941 2058.1454 0 25 68 124.7492 65.547365 0 2714.8881 1972.4816 0 26 68 129.62765 68.503995 0 2555.2956 1856.5309 0 27 68 134.8423 71.855235 0 2410.739 1751.5044 0 28 68 138.65275 74.525405 0 2316.0362 1682.6988 0 29 68 142.4102 77.328555 0 2231. 757 1621.4664 0 30 68 146.11465 80.271585 0 2155.6945 1566.2037 0 31 68 151.5933 85.053395 0 2050.2895 1489.6225 0 32 68 158.2871 91.4272 0 1932.3614 1403.9427 0 33 68 163.00205 96.35943 0 1769.7671 1285.811 0 34 68 167.4724 101.59723 0 1467.4385 1066.1564 0 35 68 173. 118 108.8694 0 1061.6421 771.32812 0 36 68 178.7636 117.15515 0 591.55863 429.7925 0 37 68 183.2276 124.50135 0 491.39256 357.0176 0 ill APPENDIX E Color map excerpt from the City of Renton's GIS system depicting (1) the Pointe Heron LLC parcel boundary, (2) the subject proposed grade and fill project site, and (3) "regulated slopes" ES-2334.01 Earth Solutions NW, LLC POINTE HERON LLC PARCEL AND GRADE & FILL PROJECT SITE with City of Renton Regulated Slopes .... .-• " ,.,,. ·'·,.· PROPOSED GRADE & FILL PROJECT SITE ........... ··J.r .... ~ I '•-.. . ......, ·, .......... -·,.,.,. ·-·-· ...... ___ '·,.,. ·-·-·-~ -·~·-·-·-·-·-·-.... --...... ., 690 0 345 690 Feet WGS _ 1984 _ Web_Mercator _Aux il iary_ Sphere Information Technology -GIS RentonMapSupport@Rentonwa.gov 05/28/2014 ·, , ·, ', ·, , .. ·, ; ·, ·, j • ji •/ !J I i ·,. ' ', ·, ,, j>. ·- i ~ ! ; l ! J I J_ •,i..... .. '•, t -... 'I>., I I •' ..... .... .. ....... ~ ... wl' ........ . J l POINTE HERON LLC PARCEL BOUNDARY ......... . ..... ,, . ; ' J l . ...... -._. ,_ ......... .. .... ···, ~ .. ..... Th is map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for refe rence only . Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current , o r otherwise rel iab le . Map title, labeling, parcel boundary and proposed project site added by Halinen Law, 8/12/2014 THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION Legend City and County Boundary l I Olher ~-, l .~ City of Renton Parcels Slope City of Renton >15% & <=25% • >25% & <=40% (Sensitive) • >40% & <=90% (Protected) • >90% (Proteeted) Environment Designations D Natural D Shoreline High Intensity D Sho,.,line Isolated High Intensity D Shoreline Residential D Urban Conserv"'1cy D Jurisdictions Notes None 0 Finance & IT Division APPENDIX F-1 City of Renton GIS map exhibit for the area surrounding the subject Pointe Heron LLC parcel (depicting nearest Coal Mine Hazard Areas) ES-2334.01 Earth Solut ions NW , LLC POINTE HERON LLC PARCEL with City of Renton Coal Mine Hazard Areas •. •. ...... . .. 9,\1"1\"'!,\ -~ .. •'\,Cl,. Q UN1H :~• P'oe:& r·-·-·-· . ·, !J ,1 ..... .,, ~ ;i King Counly . , .. , .. "' .. . ..... " I' .. :..J !... i ... '111 .... M . . .. ' . ·-·· ... . ...... : ·-· ', "· .. ~. ' -.. ~· ~-• ...... • • • \,-:;-.::•i -· -· - ,~•• S1JJtd SI c, ... • \, .. -<.,a i ' ~ \ \ I . . j • < J i Rencon Ctw,tt.-n\! Ae,adMr "lv.ov.,.,.,.,M M..a,lop .. ,l.irport < j • ' ! Atriiort W.,, Ii, ,,,.,,.,.., ... 5 1 ~ fCIC>o•M z z . . : 1 J : ~e!ion i ! J: M•o,1111i I lil«f•UM lf • -l'J,aa, N 4 U, &.I z . 4 ~ • --L~P,on c.., "-t .... , ..... ...~ • z . ! • 0 \A ,,. " I z < ' . ~ ! . . . . .r"'-~ ~· .; ~ I ® ~ \ .... ..--! \ ..... ..... '· \ . " ' ,1• a;,, • "'" ,, ·~ \ ,f I ~... • \ •• ·-·-r.;,,C::.':I' ·' . , .... , ... ! RriohH9'1 -• ! Jong ,lit'~ . Lll:um,,ar1r. ~ • <!!!) c .... ,..,.., ,~r, ' • &r.:r~... I / ... ,.---·-·-·' ~, . • •,I .... • (-.,o~,.,., .s.,. (art'*"Qltn ,.,.... " 11 t ~d~ : . .1 ; .z..l S ?ftd 51 11111.,(e Squ. • Sttopp.ng~er @!) S lrdSI .. <!!!) •' 8 ,,i> ....... ~. i ,., .. \ \ U•"""" 4' ·, .. ·, '\ '\. s '•-l,d&, ~ \ ; ~ ·, .. \ ~ ..... ~ \ \ ·, .. ,., ...... ...., c .•• , \ . l'ort OenlP.wlo \ \ \ • 8LK~ R..,.t R..p.ar~l'I , ... t o''-"I\."., •, '" ~..... ·, .... I> ~ ...... ~ ·, ... ~ \ ' -. 'i. . ~. ·~ ~ \ ''. Jt:J. J °' i i IU1..,.11a P'k'#'/ Q!D _,..w...i 0 Wtclf,eld &oottwc~er w .. , 2046 ...... "'"" UM.ed)?t.Ca 0 . . 1023 ,._ 2046Feet WGS_ 1984_ Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere ! ~ .... c,, ..... ~ .. ~ ,-w lrlt""' eo .. no ! ! . ~ i ~ C sw 1i.:,-1 i l " ! l/ ... •' ,,• <J! (. ·-Shopping C.me< ........... C.lhot.c .. a.no .. C ITY C f,.,T[,. . ... .. . " : ~.,,...-s,1 .. s. ' ~ .. ! i .. ~ ,~ .. s , @) a to, St POINTE HERON LLC PARCEL BOUNDARY (APPROXIMATE) ~~-o,_ " SW19o•ll ~--~·---,..,., • .,c•••• • @) ~~· ~ ~ ;' : ...... » .. •' " • t eth St .. ~ " l ! Uni led Slat.Hr cal otlice @) Ren 1an Information Technology -GIS This map is a user generated static o utput from an Internet mapping site a nd is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this m ap may or may not be RentonMapSupport@Rentonwa.gov . . accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. Map llllc. labeling, ,nd parcel boundary 06/03/20 14 added b y Holincn Law, 6131201 4 THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION Legend City and County Boundary Other [:] Cit~ of Renton Coa lmine • HIGH D MOOERATI: 1 UNCLASSIFIED ........, Notes None 0 ~ron® Finance & IT Division APPENDIX F-2 King County iMAP exhibit for the area surrounding the subject parcel (depicting nearest Coal Mine Hazard Areas) ES-2334.01 Earth Solutions NW, LLC -I County Boundary I_ X Mountain Peal<& POINTE HERON LLC PARCEL Legend J4/ Incorporated Area /t'._ Highway ,., Streets P' Artariin #l#'·, ;/ Streams ~ 0 '» .:,t!..~~t-llJ _,,..,,_,;,,, :z-.,, ~ ~ @. ~~c"( \ Highways (cont) Local ffl SAO Coal Mine Map t it le, labeling a nd parcel boundary added by Halinen Law , 6/3/20 14 The lnformatlon lricluded on this map has been compiled by King County staff from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. King County makes no representations or warranties, express or Implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not inte nded for use as a survey product. King County shall not be liable for any general, special, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages induding, but not limited to, lost revenues or lost profits resulting from the use or misuse of the infonnation contained on this map. Any sale of this map or lnfonnation on this map is prohibited except by written permission of King County. Date: 6/3/2014 Source: King County iMAP • Sensitive Areas (http://www.metrokc.gov/GIS/iMAP) ti King County APPENDIX G Wetlands map exhibit created from the Renton GIS website ES-2334.01 Earth Solutions NW, LLC POINTE HERON LLC PARCEL with City of Renton Wetlands s '"31" &J " . e ll ii •• IJ i i . ,.,~,. ~ i ,,J~,.s, i i I • ' u . . . ·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-. ; !! -·--._.,._ I • ,. ·-·-. -·-·-·-· ·-·-. ' ' . ' ·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-~·-·-· ......... _ -·-·-• IJ l ; i ~IJlva SW S1o1ns•1 81•<1 @ @ @ S W 9.,.nt.e.t ftlvd ~ ..... . ,., I ·,. .... i ... .... ,. ~ . .... . ..., '·, ... , ......... i ·, ./, --4~ . • "'!Ji,. ~·, •• ,,,,,.q ~ . ! i . ~ l .... , ..,,,, ....... <t l{ C!!o; .... .. ,.,.. .J,(/ ,., 1 519 0 260 WGS _ 1984 _Web_ Mercator _Aux iliary_ Sphere POINTE HERON LLC PARCEL BNSF RR R/W 519 Feet Information Technology -GIS RentonMapSupport@Rentonwa.gov 06/03/2014 "•., ""'~ .,-i< ..,. ~· ,. o' (?oi) .... "• .. •, ~ .... I) £ ; I ,• .... . ,. A, .t.-,. .... ,., ... ,,.,,,.~, ... . """••, 81,,.q .,.,...,,,, ,., £ ! l ! l . . I I e ,..,..,,,. ,., @; This map is a user gene rated stati c o utput from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only . Data layers t hat appear on this map may or m ay not be accu rate , cu rren t , or otherwise reliable. THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION .. Legend City and Co unty Bounda ry Other -·, l.; C ity of Re nton Parcel s El Wet lands Notes Map title, labe ling and pa rce l b o unda ry added by Ha lin e n Law, 6 /3/2014 0 City of llento fl ® Finance & IT Division APPENDIX H 11" by 17" reduced-size seven-sheet drawing set of the City-approved October 7, 2005 clearing, initial grading, and TESC drawings for Sunset Bluff prepared by Barghausen Consultlng Engineers, Inc. ES-2334.01 Earth Solutions NW, LLC Ll !iii,;.:: §l 1·-200 ~ 0 100 200 5 .. :r l/!UJI CQ!RJCI NOJB ~ THE CONTRACTOR S1-w..L BE RtSP0NSaE FOR ~ THE LOC:,I," Of >LL EX1SmG llllUTIES 'MiETHER SHOWN ON THESE Pl»IS OR --.. ·-SUIM:YIG THE HORIZOHTAL »ID '¥£R'IICAI. I..OC\llON -··--C1iU.1MG UTlJ1Y LOCATE O 1-8J0-424-5555 l1TlUTIES AT l..OCA.TlONS Of NEW l1TlUTY CR()! NOT CONfUCTS EXIST. L.OC.lt.T10NS OF SAD U. SHOLUIUPOtt~ ~~a~Mi ENGINEERS, NC. TO RESOLVE AU PROBtEWS ~ TO COVER SHEET A PORTION OF THE S 1/2 OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 23 N, RANGE 4 E, W.M., RENTON, WASHINGTON U:_~i _ _... _.,.,,... --- . , ;----JI U_J I i ' ' ~~~ -----'~"'---~ CAL.1.. BEFORE YOU DIG 1-800-424-5555 ~·-~ ~ ti tu i It s I~~~::, OJ z; I!! al . s~it(c;~1 :::::\ :~--~~--~ ,:~!jj:: .. VICINITY MAP rn i It iii~~ ~ ! ~~ I ~ f l ! ! I ! !gii ~ ffi I, ------"-' -- ~ r...z Oo li ~~ ,i PROPOSED GRAYEL ROAD >-E-< E-<z .,_.r,ci u~ !IC ' ~i.i i~ ~1 ~ lf ~~ !\~ !_' ~ I ~ ,~ < ' ' 0 I ~ 1/- T i1 1I ~: $!~ _fl <!.ll!J ~ !~l:,i ~ 8 ~ ~ ~ ~ 8 8 8 8 ~ iii 11 NOTES: 1. TJtX f: 1J2J04-Q01D 2, GROSS SIT! AAU. 215.26 K;, § ~ z CONSlL TANT tFORMATION, / •.j / I ::I! ~ ~ GmJECHHIC,l,l. ENGINEER: TIW'flC [NGf,IEER: t5 ENmt COMSULTN<n'S. INC. Tht, Tranapa G""-" ;. ~ ~ tr; 180:5-13GTI1 Pl.JC[ N.E., SUITE 201 117,C, -118th ~ N.E., Si.ilt, 600 """"' """'-""' .-----------------! CONSlFlUCTION SEOlJENCE, 1. ATTEND PRE-coNSTRUC110N lilEErlilG 'MTH CIT'I' Of' "9<TON 2. Fl.AG Cl.EARING uwns AS SHOWN ON SI-E£T C2 ANO CJ 3. lt<ISTAU. SILT F'ENCE AS SHOWN DN PLANS. 4. COMS'Tl!OCT .-,cctss ROAD F'ROlil QUARRY SITE 5. BEGIN I..OOGING AC'fMTES 6. ROUGH GRAD€ SITE AS SOOWN ON SHEET C2 AND C3 AMEND ESC FACIUTES AS NEEDfl). 7, NSTAL.L STORlil SYSTDI AS SHOWN OH PlJHS II. H'l'OROSEED ANO lilVLCH EXPOSED SOL AFTER fUW. GRIOE IS R<.OC>£D 9. CONra.*CTOR SHAU. liWNTAIN 1ESC F>CIU1'1ES LM1... ALL RISK Of EROSION SEDIMDIT,l,TION HAS PASSED AND SlORM SYSl£M IS INSTALLED ANO Fl.JMCTIONAL. DO NOT CONVEY SEDIMENT IJIDOI WAltR TO DOWtlS1RfAM DR.41NAGE: SYSTD,I UTILITIES/SERVICES """"""' '"'"'- ''""''"' STORM Fl.TER FABRIC FDCE UWITS OF a.£WNG TEMPORARY V Dn0-1 """"" ---------- -(. ··-· ---"(LJG;-- -NciC)--- ----'WHO- -:,.a-----• C• •. ,.....___ ~ ··--0- -. ;,;----- WA'TER/SEWER: CITY Of RENTON 1055 S. GRADY WAY m.EPHONE: QIIEST COMMl..tllC'.TIONS 450 1 1 otti AVE N.E. L.EGEtO --~-~_l"'®_-_-_--_·~ I~~ -0 """ ""' -{ll><) ... ""' """""" """""' '-AA.A.J IMO. .. .... """" """ .. --.. "'"" 1!llPHIIIE """"""" --..... ....., -----.... ........ ...... s $ C 0 8 .w::oot,I lll1I ~ JIITTD) ,.,,.,.,. """' OOt::11 a.al (cs) """ """' _, SNITMI' Sl'IER IWIQ! (SSllt) MIMI' EEi a.INOJT [SS::O) "' "'""" &<J ~ W(_Y[ N 'MTER W.YE (W/ ,Q FIIE H'l'DIWIT {FH) e ""' """-' @ MIER ltEIER il ... ® IDl10R WEll --I:> DIIECOON Cf' \£HCL.E TRMl. T.P.0.8. nu: PmlT OF 11'.GNN'.l ~ SllMY IDUINT ~ ICJIED) -t -+I • D SEClOI caHR ("5 NmED) RQO IEM/tN' (J\S Jr«1!ED) RlLN) IDIJ/f#CK /:L SUMY CONTlQ. STATON C1 OF 7 C2 OF 7 c, OF7 ~~, C5 OF7 '"'" C7 OF 7 ltoEX TO SHEETS COVER SHEET FOR CLEAAPIG, NllAI... GRADING AND 1ESC Cl.EARING, lt-lTIAI. GfW>IMG, ~ TESC Pl.NI CLE'AAING. INTW.. GRADING, AHO T£SC Pl.NI lEW'OMRY SEDIMENT POND Pl.NI ~ DET.-LS tfJTES ANO DETAILS FOR Cl..£t.RWG, JNTW.. GRADING ~D 1ESC STORWUNE ~ STORMUNE PR0FR.ES r·/S:, ,.,~~~ ('. -<,0·};), od-;,, {, '-f:P'* ~, ::-_;;,·· ·:P LEGAL DESCRf"TlON, I.OT 1 ~ SR 900 LLC. LOT LINE Al'.WSlilENT (Cm' Of ll:£NTOH LOT LINE AO.l..51llDIT NO. UJ,t,-03-124-UA). ~ PER Pl.AT RECORDED UMDER RECORDt1G NO. 20040311i0001!5 VERTICAL DATUM, CITY OF' RENTON BENCIWoRI( f662 a.EV. -28.33' NOTE BA.SIS Of ~ -RECOR> OF SUINE'I' RECORDED IJNOER RECORDING NUMBER 9012129001 RQI\TAlEI) TO CITY OF' REKTON ltORIZONTAI. CONTFIOL.. PI...ANER/SURVEYOR BNQWJSDI CONSULTING e«llHEERS, INC.. 18215 72nd A',£. SOIJJH K:J):1-:f ~AX {425) ~1--8782 CONTACT: HIil P. GRl.&I / ~ HAl.'..:)RSEN / DENNIS J. SALT'IS OwtER[DEVELOPER SR 900 LC.C. 9125 IUTli oWENUE SOUTll :59.TTL.£, WA 9910! (206) 762-9125 g {t 0 LL ! ~ 8 ffi!;Wl ~~~<(, iri 3: ... ~~ie ~~~~ ~s1 ~ i "j !:1 z ~ ~~NN ...._ON~ ocr.:i~a:i z Ol l t ~iLOLO Ii) .,5::t;:t .... 1--Ii) lO &ji5~~ .-:ii::-- "~ I~ ~~ offi ~2 Ii ~I ~~ .::, .. ~ t ~ ~·-,•, .. : ~ ~&.-l . ., .~ e tcot\'!, CITY OF RENTON I i i BEU.E\1.E, WA 99005 ICirldolld. WA 98034-7120 I PHONE: (425~843-3780 PHONE: (.f.25) 821-3665 1tlLL FIE, ) 7l9-867D FAX: (425) 825-B43.f. RENroN, "' """ PftEMS ~. 4th FLOOR "'1ID\-'C .._ """' T??i I ERP AJA N'T'80'N DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS , FAX: {425) 46-DIIIIO CONtt.CT: KEVIN JONES ~ 11!!;. OONTACT: 900lT lllNKI..EIU,N : I I Sl.fMYtR. i~ ~,551 ~ ~ -~ ~ 10210 72NO ""'"' SOOTH g BAACIWJSEN COMSUI.TING ENGltEERS. INC. KENT, WA 98032 PHONE. (425) 25H1222 FAX: (4~) 251-fl792 CONTACT: DENNIS SILT'l"S IIEIUKl CONSU..TNff: ~ CONSLLTING ENGINEERS, NC. 1821~ 72tCl AVENJE SOUTI{ KDIT, WA 98032 PHCffE: (425) 251-15222 FAX: (.f.2S) 251--5782 CONTACT: ~ OUSEI( POWER a: GAS: PUGET SOUND EtERC"I' 1~ 15flth AVE. N.E. IEIDI.<, .. """' 1(1!1DO) J21--021 FIRE: CITY Of RENTOH ARE OtPNITMENT 1055 S. GfWJr WAY RENroN, ... """ CABU; ~T .f.020 AUBURN WAY NOR1H PO BOX 1046 AU81JRN, WA. 98002 .,,~.4, -wa-.;7:::_ Oo>o; "' - "' - • EXPANDED GfiADl,IG/,1,00ED SO LINES "' 00 ' "" ..... '"""" "' -2 PER CITY ~ RENTON COWENTS 00 ""' , PER CITY Of RENTON Re«'# "' ""' "' -~ - 10/J/05 ·= 7/19/05 7/1/05 ~~ COY8'I 61-EET FOR CI..EAAl'lO, HTlAL QRADfll<l AtO TE8C SlNlET El.I.ff' ---"'----- OM'M'II -___ll_!o___ _ __.,__ - ~M -100/05 ,·-m· 11'1..EMOLV.l*'.--- 1-..0 IIOQIL__PMJE_ SHEET Cl OF 7 ~ ::l a 1 ~ -i , -. ' .. ~ ' ! " ~ I ~ t ii r 1 t l i I " j 0 z ID 0 --, u.i ~ ---- ::l:::lffl8 1.3SNns N\fld 0831 ClNV 'oNlcM:lo l\fWNI 't>Nll:lV3lO 0 :::l::lnl81.3SNns N'flcl 0831 ONV 'ONICM::IO l\fWNI 'ONIW310 00 ·Ct< oor sil6-i9L (90i} 80l86 VM. '31ll'f3S HJ.nOS 3nN3AV HlOI sil6 "ONI '·oo l.N3Wd013A3<J CJNV1 ON111::13'4 i : ~~;~;~;~ ; ::1~ =~=~=11" mi~ig~~i- i ~8~8~8:t.1~ :;:i3~':i~~[c;rel8~ z§-- "·t-H-+-+-H-+-+; J01P.ll•lUJWP'f '"3"d UOWJIIW~ f.lhJD ·µtao R"l!JOM ::i11qnd/6uJp11ne U[UUOld ~ NO.LNll'H ~ ..io .X..LIJ L .. ll<Hl.,..'l¥'JHOIIOOM """'""''" .os-.i ~ 1VOO"NO~:HMl3 'ONLl..3N:1nS '~INN'fld otM 'DNl~3Nl00 111\r.1 XV, ZBLB-!SZ(SZt) Zll9-!SZ(Slt) Z£086 VN. 'lN3>1 1-LlnOS 3nN31\V ONZL 9ll8l 00 """ "' 00 OdH ,0 "' OdH "' 00 ,., 00 00 00 r6C9L ·oN sor ·3·o·s ,,•""' .. ,, . . i i . " . . \ ~ "1)1rt19.,) \ ' ' c\ ,. ' c ' I \ ' ' \ ' ' \ ' ' \ ' ' ' ' \_ \ NOISl/\3~ 'ON ArnGI NQJJml .:ICI JJJ:) H3o:I SJN3l'lf'I):) NOJ.K3II .:ICI )JJ:) H3o:I S30fM<) ""' 3llS ' SJNn tMIO l'l!IOJS 0300V ~ a»NdXl • "l"""n; z <( _J (L 0~ Cl)~-w ~ l-tl:j 0~ Zz <( l ; i ! i z ~ ~ i ~ ~~!~~; ~ • • ' . ' j .s!i.!J ~ l ihPt! • j ;U;ltj i~-;ul rt..s8!l~ ,tdt!~£:; f " i "! .I ' l' ! ijl o"; f H i' ' ·d" ;il ! i' lhw ~ ~ ~ i' ,H ,• .! j ,t.~/1,J, & ]~ l l! '" i • " t " ,. §' " • i -! f': ; lt ~ 'i ·" .i .2J ~ lit, ,. i~ f·C ' •' :• ~i '•! _.;; i • H,li ., j> ~.s 8, !~~ n ~~ ,. f i{i~ .... oe N!i _;j :i: ~ .HJ • ,-F,.:ilffi J-i ,, ,-, r~ ~~~~~ ~j,.! .. id! i ic.Z ! i • ~ ' ' ~ J l l l ' • ' ' ::l::lffl8 .l3SNnS NVld OS3l ON'!f 'oNKlVl:IO 1VWNI 'oNll:fv310 •z ' . a u 11" "'(i ¢ .--Hi ill ·~~ ! ' ~ 8 J Sl:16-l:9L (90l:) 8(J86 "IM '3lll '13S H.1/lOS 3'1N3A 'If H!Ol Sl:16 'ONI ·oo lN3rYO"EA3Cl ONVl OM11:Elril ' ' • ! I ' ' ' i ' i. f 2 .._ ·{! !_i '.h ;. -~Jq; 5;..l- ~~-~.!!.l t;.!:·;;f" g.s,:,-., ~ .'2 ~ -t'C: -p 0 --, a." l-iF~ I p~l°!.€ .L,iB!iS:j ' ' / NO.LN:i!l:I 110 A.LIJ ']lW]j(lld ·~-"""""""'"• I-"'.:/~'~ .os-.~ S3::>WBS lYOO"QWO '9N~ns '~INNVld otM '9N003NIOO 11,'J:') XVJ Z8L8-'5Z(Sot) ZZZ9-I SZ(SZt) lrD86 'r/M 'l.N3>1 HlflOS 3nN3,W GNU £ ~Z:8~ ~ddV nva AB .. ~, .. '•,, . . i i . " . . '\ ~ '91)"°' H ,o'I) , , i l NOISIA3~ ·oN sor ·3-:Js "ON S-.Vl3Cl orv N\fld ClNOd .1.N3N03S Al:ft/1:10drl3.l '3llll r; ~ ~11-- \~ : 1'' I I j t{ I 1,.1 I I\.! I: I I I 11} 1~_11 1 1'l,1 I It' I 11"1 I I ,I 1 \ \ I I I j o 0 1,! I 'l I 'J I I '-I\ j 11, I L I I 'i I 1\i '{ : '{: ,"-l : l' j'._j I t'{ I 1".i I 111 '1,-.!: N I I l t'{ I 1\ : 1',1 I,"-!: 10 :lll J\I I j I I I I IL /,.; 11 l ~I\ I i\j_ I I i.. I !\1 I I I°\.!, I j'-1 I I t I I 1. ~I I !\I I 1\1 I\\ t.: \ 'Ll \} l',L I 1 l I t J I I' I I I\\ I I'\" 1 1\1 I'\" 0 I I I 11 I I I 11 I\ I I 11 11\1,)1 • 111 I I :,11 I , ,, 11 l I i•I 1 I ~.' ·····~1 ·~'ii"'" di I I 1 I ID I LI I I I\ I I 1'\':: \ l: ·~: I I 1 I 1.I 1 \ I } 1 I I I 1 1\I I l'\0 1\1 I I~ I I~ I I ,I , , \ I : : , : : ~ I 1\ L I ~ I L fl I I ~ I JI\ I 110 '\" 0 O O \' I I I I I I I I I I ntt1 I 1 1 I l I \I I 1\1 I I !\ I l k"'\' '\'' '\" I I I I 1111 : l 1•\: I:: : '\' 1\1 11\1 I 1\1 I 1 11 I I 1111 1 I 1 l I I I I I \ 1 1'1 I 1\1 I I I ,,1 I 11 11111 '' ' ~ ~ ~ 0 :::l:lll8 l3SNns 9C:16-C:9L (90C:) 80l86 'r/M '3lll 'r/3S HJ./lOS 3nN3A 'r/ HJ.Ol SC:16 "ON '·oo !N3rld013A3CJ CN'r/1 ON111:13rl : 111 /~ -~1/ 11 -~1! r -11 ,., /1 if -.., /I l.i NO.LN:311 .!IO ilI:J ~ •s ~¥ ' ~d • ll ~~ ·~ ~~ m1;~ 2;:i .. ~ s n ~ ~! ' d ~~ s ~~ ~ ~ . " ~ a §• £~ .oc-.~ IJ0::1 I I I I I 51 S3:>WIJS lVOOPINmlWG 'DN~ns 'ONINN't'ld ON'fl '~IH33N~ lw:> i XV.J Z8L8-l9Z(,Zt) zzz9-<ez(ezt) Z£086 VM '1N3>1 HlllOS 3nN3AV GNlL i;aze~ -~· .. ~'"'"•,, .:. ~ it 0 . 0 . - \ i."' "/)\'t40.,), b :, • , • 0 ~ i5 Q sd w• a:. LL 0 0~ ~· (.) ~ ( • • 0 ·oN aor ·3·:::,·a I . --1 ~ • i ~ ~ l I i lh ~ ~ ,, 111 I ~ i ! • ~ ~~ I I !I I ~! <?. 9' 'a;- ~8 t t2 '' ~ g ~ ~ ~ l 8 8 8 g • • ~ ll I i ! I I ! ! I i, i, I; s s ~ ~ . " • -!1 ~ ! ! .i i ... "" -+---1---------NO_I_S"'3_•___ "ON "" "" ' " 00 "' 00 00 00 M.1~ N0.1N3l:I .:IC AW 113d OOflflOCl HOJN3IJ .:IC ~~-11_3d - j s ~ ' ' 1 ! 11 li ~ ;i ~g~~ 0 iii: J!! al !jii ~~ ~ ~ ra.z Oo E--~ z tl [i:l t ~ ~i n ~~ ti4 ~~ '-c n ~· ,e "" ]f ~o ti ~ ''@ Ii ~ 'I I ~ ,1! ~ 11 'i. ,,, 8181818 I II I ~ ;s1s1a1 !i g STORM DFIAtlAClE N01ES NOTES AND DETAILS FOR CLEARING, INITIAL GRADING AND TESC ,. ,. ,. .. • ,. ,. • ,. IEFORE »« CONSTRUCTlON OR OOIEl..OPMENT N:rMfY OCCURS, A PREC.ONSTRIX:TI WEITil'G MUST BE HELD WITH TI£ CITY Of REHTON OEPNmlENT Of PUBLIC WOffKS, OESIGN ENGINEIR. AU COffSTRUCTION SIW.L BE IN ACCOftlWfC[ WITll 1HE "1988 STANCWID SProFICAOONS FOR RCW), BRIDGE AND IIJMICIPM.. ~ PREPARED B'I' WSOOT NO 1HE ~ PUBLIC WOffl'(S AS50Q~.T10NS ~. AS NrIDllED B'I' lHE CITY OF RENTON OEPAA'fMENT Of PU8UC WORKS. TI£ STORM DRoViW.i£ SYSTEM stW.l BE CONSTRUCTID ACCOROINC TO THE APPRCNED PW1S WHICH ARE ON Fl.E IN TI£ DEPNmENT OF Pl.a.JC WORt<S. N« l>E'N.TION FROM THE APPROVED Pl.NG WU. REOJIRE WRmB1 N'l'R(WAI. FROM TI£ CITY OF REJfTON OEFWmlENT Of PUBLIC WORKS, D£SIGN ENGINEE.'R OR STORM WATER U'IIUTY. A COPY OF 1l£SE APPRCNED PUHS MUST BE OM lHE .OS SITE WHOIE',IER CONS1R!X:TION 5 IN PRDCRESS. Dltl\lU SHAU. BE u.s.a..s Ulrl..ESS OTHERWISE APPRCNED B'I' CITY Of RENTOH DEPARNOO OF Pl.8JC WORKS. REfERENCE BENCHlMIC N«J ru.\lATJON ARE NOTm ON THE Pl.ANS. ALL SEDIWENTATION/EROSION FACIUT"ES WUST BE IN OPEAATION PRIOR TO CLf,Wl'fG HID 8UII..DING CONSJROCTDI, N«J TliEY MUST 11£ SAllSF..teroRILY ~NTMIED UNTIL CClNSJRUCTXlM IS COt,R£JID AHO THE P<l1EKTW.. FOR ON-Sl1E EROSION tw; PASSED. AU. RETOOlON/DETENT FACl.fTlES wusr BE INST.w..EII ~ IN OPERATIOH PRIOR TO OR IN cotWNCTlON WITH AU CONS1llUCllON IICTMIY UNLESS OTlffRWtSE Af>PROl,{I) B'I' lHE DEPNmENT Of' PIJEUC WORKS, STORM WATIR VTIUTY. GRASS SEID tu.Y BE N'Pl.£D BY HYORCISEEDt«,. 1HE GRASS SEED MIXTUR£. OTI£JI: TIWI CITY Of RENTON N"PRC'll'ED ST~ WIXES, stW.l BE S()BllTTEl) B'I' A I.JN[)sc,,pf ARCHITECT NO APPROVED B'I' 1HE !E'ARNENT Of Pl.JIii.iC WORKS. STORM WATIR UTIUTY. ALL PIPE MD APf\JRTENANCES StW.1. BE I.M) OM A PROPERLY PREPAAE FOUNDo\TlON IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 7-o2.J(1) OF M CUftftENT STATE Of' WASHINGTON ST#ICW!D SP£aFICAJ10N FOR ROAD ANO BRIDGE CONS1ll1JCJ10N. l1ilS SIW.l. lfrlCI..UDE NECESSf.RV I.Bn.lNG OF lHE "TRENCH BOTTON OR THE TOP Of THE R>I..NlA110H ~TERW. AS WEU. AS PLACEMENT NO COlif'.tenON Of REQUIRED BEDOING; IM.T!RW. TO UNFORM llRAOE 50 lHAT THE ENTIRE LD«:TH Of 1HE PIPE Will BE Su:>P0RTm ON A UNIFORMLY DEHSE IJNYIELDNG 6'ISE. ILL PIPE BEDDING stW.l BE N'WA Cl.ASS "C," 'MiH 1liE EXCEJFOON OF PVC PPE. AU ~ B10<FLL. SIWJ. BE OOIIIPACTED TO I.INIMUU 95 PERCENT FOA PAVDOT N40 STRIJCTURM. FlU MD go PERCENT an£RWISE PER ~ 0-1557-70. PfA GRI.VEL BEOOING SHAU. BE 6 INCl-£5 AND <MR AHD UNDER PYC PIPE. 10. GAJ.VNIZED STEEL PIPE ANl AI.JJMINIZEO SlEEL PIPE FOR AU Dlt'H,GE FACUTIES SHALL fUlVE ASPIW.T TREATMENT f1 OR BETTER IISllE ANO OJT'SIDE. 11. STRUC1llRES SHALL NOT BE PEIVllEI> Wlllit.l 10 FEET OF lHE SPRING LINE OF Nl( STORM [)AAIPW)[ PFE, OR I~ FEET FROM lHE TOP OF >Hr CHNt£I. 8Nt(. 12. AU CATa-1 BAS1N GAAlB SHAU. BE 0£PR£SSED 0.10 FEET BELOW PAYEWENT LfVEL 13. OPEN CUT RCW> CROSSINGS»(") EXlSTM PU8UC RIGHT-oF-lMY WU. tfJT BE M..LOWED UNLESS SPECFOU.Y Aff'ROv'ED B'I' CITY or R£NTOH DEPART\IENT or Pt.B.J: WORKS. DESIGN ENGtEER. H. ROCI( FOR EROSION PROTrCOON OF ROIOSIOE OITQ,IES,. WHERE REQUAED. stw.L BE Of ~ QUARRY ROCK PLAaD TO A DEPTH or 1 FOOT NolD MUSf MEET lHE FOLLOWING SPECIFICATIONS: 4 11«:1-£5 TO S INCHES/40 PERCENT TO 70 PERCOIT PASSING; 2 INCHES TO 4 INCHES ROCK/30 PERCENT TO 40 PERCENT PASSING: Nol[) -2 INCHES ROCK/10 PERCDIT TO 20 PERCEM1" PASSING. 15.. AU. 9.JILDING DOWNSPOUTS AND F1XJTV«l DRAINS SHALL BE CONNEC'fED TO lHE STORM DRA,itw;E SYSTEM UN..ESS APPR(MI) B'I' lHE llEPAlmlENT Of PUBLIC WORKS, DESIGN ENGINEER OR STORMlrATER UTUTY. AN ACCVAAlELY DIMDCSOG CERTFED A.S--IU..T ORAWt.lG or lHIS DRAMGE S'T'SJEW WIU BE Sl.6NITTED lO "JI,£ CITY Of ~ UPON COll'lET10M. I 15. ISSlWU OF lHE BUl.DIMG OR CONSTROCT10N P£RMIT BY lHE CITY Of RENTON DOES NOT REUE.\IE THE OWNER OF lHE COHTlNUIMG ~ ~TlON /,NO/Oft U!BILJTY cotlNEC'TED WllH STOAIII SURFACE WAT[R otSPOSrTJOH. FUlfflfER, TI£ CITY OF REMTON OO£S HOT JCaPr Nlf OII.JGATION FOR THE Pl!OPEJI FUNCOONflG MID MAINIDWa OF THE sY'STEM PROW>ED DURING CONSTRUCTION.. 17. lJ,£ CONTRACTOR SHAU. BE R£SPCWSIBI..E FOR PRCMDING ADEQUA.tt SNECl.Wlll, Sf,fEJY DEVICES. PROlEC11IE EQI.IREIT, F1AGCERS, >HO Nlf OTHER ~ ACn0NS TO PR01ECT THE LIFT, HEALTH, ANO WETY OF 11£ PUil.iC, AND TO PROTECT PROPERTY IN CONNECTICN wrTH n!E PERFORMANC[ OF WORK CCMRED BY THE c:otnR,ICI", Mf WORK WITHIII THE TRA'itl..ED RIGHT--Qf'-WAY 'THA.T W.Y INTERRUPT NORMAL TIWFIC fUNI 9WJ. REQUIRE AN N'PR(MI) lWJ'FIC COfrfTROl l'tNI BY lHE TIW'FIC EMGl£ERINC OMS10t1 OF Tl£ DEPARIMENT OF PUBUC WORKS. AU. SECT10MS OF TifE WSOOT ST..w::iNID SPECn:"ATIOHS EROSION CONmOL N01ES ,. ' ,. ,. ,. 80 eQ BEFORE N« CONSTRUC'OON DR C£VELOPWENT AC1M1'l' octtJRS, A PRE-<::CNSTIIUCTIO MEETING ~ BE HELD 'tll1llf A REl'ESEH1T11IIE Of' THE CITY OF REKTON DE'IROPWOO """" DMSl()N_ AU. LililfTS Of CL.EARt«; ,HJ N1lfAS OF VEGETAT10N PRESEJNATJOtl AS PRESCRIBED OH TH[ PI.JII Slw.l. BE Cl.EAFi..Y FLAGGED IN lHE FE.D ,ij,jl) 09SEJMD OORN; CONS11<UC11<><. ALL REQUIRED SO)IMENTATION/EROSION CONTROL fACIJIJES MUST BE CONSTRllClED 1HJ IN CffRATJOH PRIOII: TO LANb a.EARING ANO/OR OTHER CONS'IRUCOON TO INSIJ!E TlfAT SEDIIENT LJDEN WAlER DOES NOT ENTER THE OOWN5REAW DR,1,1NAGE S'l'SlElit. AU. EROSQI Noll) SEDIMENT f,•,CU.JIES s.w.l. BE YAMAIEl IN A SATISFACTORY CONDn10N UNTL Sl.Ot TIME THAT Cl.EARING ANl/OR CONSlRUC'TlOH IS COMPI..ETED AND POTEN1IAI... FM ON-SITE EROSION HA.S PASSED. THE llilPI..EMOOATION, WolNTOWfCE, RER.ACEWENT AN:l AClOl1llH, lO EROSION/SEDNDITATlON COK!ROL S'l'STEYS Slw.l. BE THE RESPOHSIBII..IIY OF TIE"""'""' THE EROSION ANO SEDIWENTAllON COh'rall.. SYSttMS DEPICTED ON TitS Mt.WING JR£ INTENDED TO BE MINIIMI ROlllRMENfS TO MEET AN11CIPATED SITE CCKllllONS. AS CONSTRllC'IION PROGR£SSES .lt,IO F ut£XPECTED OR 5EASONAl CONDITlONS DICTATE'. lHE PERWITTEE SHOUUl >NTICIPATE lH,l,T WORE EROSION ANl SEDIMENTATION CONTROL FACIUl1ES W.Y BE NECESSNn' TO INSURE COMPL.ETE SII.TAT10N CONTROL (l,I Tl£ PROPOSED SITE. OURt.lG TI£ COURSE OF CONSTRIJCTJOtl, IT SHAU. BE T>£ OBL.g_TlON ANl R£SPClffSIEIILJ1Y OF TliE PERMITTEE TO ADDRESS »ff NEW CONOITIOOS TW.T IMY BE CREATED BY TiiE PER!.ITEE'S ACTMT1ES ANO lO PROWlE AOOITIOtW.. fACIUTIES. CMR MID N!X:Nf. MINIMUM REQUlalENTS, AS W,t,Y BE NfiDED TO PROTICT ADJACOIT PROPERTIES ANl WAlER CUAU1'1 OF THE RECD/ING ORA11i11GE: S'l'STD,I. DURING Tl-£ TIME PERIOD Of NCMMBE11 1 TiffJOGH MARCH J1. AU PROJECT DISTURBED SOIL N!OS GAATER THAN 5,000 SQUARE FErr TiiA.T ARE TO BE LEFT UNWORKED FOR MME 1HAN: I 2 ft.'.11.MS Sl-w.L BE C01'ERED B'I' STW.W MULCH, HY!lRl'.l5EEIIR, OR PLAS1J:: COVERMl HOWE\ER, AH1 ARfA WHIQl t"'5 BEEN STiaPPED Of VEGErATION N40 WHERE NO F\JRTHER WOftK IS ANTICIPATED FOR A PERIOD Of 30 ~'I'S OR WORE MUST BE IMMEDIATaY STABI.JZED WITH STRM WUI..CHING, HYDROS£EDHJ OR OTHffi APPROVED EROSION CON1ROL TREATMOO N'PL.K'.ABI..E TO THE TIME Of YE'NI IN QUESTION. I I TOP Of BERM=45.Q ~J'.4 ' 80 61 LF· 12" HOPE / • ,.ox / // Fll.TD! Fl.BRIC M~TERIM. so· WOE RDU.S. USE STAP\..ES OR WIRE RINGS TO ATTACH FABRIC TO v,1R£. r::r-ii ,-.1 I . Lt-11 '1111111 5'-o" -,t ll=n-------~~- lf---6' MAX---11 POND BOTTOM U=34.0 u u FlLTER FABRIC MAT[RIA.l 2" BY z• BY 14 0A FABRIC Of EQUI\I. PRO\IIDE )/•" -1..5" -- WA!'iiEO GRA\U. BACKfll.1- IN TROICH AND 0-. BOT1" SIOCS Of fllTEfi: fENCE fABRlC ON THE SURFACE 2°BY•"lflOOOP~T ALT: STEE'L FENCE POSTS. BRUSH BARRIER "' ~~~~flb~%SfRtE'- &; COVE~ U•4<!.00 0\/ERFLOW EL••,. 7' SfE ELBOW DETAIL· en~PPORT(S): ~~~' BURY BOTTOM Of f ABRIC MAT[l!IA.l IN e• BY 12" TRENCH ,· (2· ~·-;o· RW~ SCUD COVER SEE O'M, J.6.7 , JAll . .f-lWSE ISAl~EET /// ; ,1,~2"H_91't TEMPORARY oun.ET CONTROL STRUCl\JRE . : ~~ ~ TABLE 4 .. 2.1.A // 80 I / I / NOT TO SCALE AP RAP SPECF1CA11Cll8 RIP RAP OUTl'AU. PAD SHAU. BE CONSTRUCTED AS fOL.lOIIIS. ROCK LINING SHALL BE QUARRY SPALLS WITH GRADATION AS rOLLOWS: PASSING B-INCH SOIJARE SIEVE: 1 00% P.O.SSING 3-INCH SOIJAAE SIEVE: 40-w,"; MAXIMUM IE•3S.OO___.i s --, W.O.TER-TICHT COUPll"G = 1, FOR SHEET RU~C>Ff' OR fOUO'MNG D1SCHAAG£ FlUJl.t A 5e:DIMENT TRAP OR POND. 2. M.0.XIMUM St.OPE STEEPNESS PE:l!PENDICUL',R TO f'OIC[ LINE IS 1:1 J MAXIMUM SHEET OR 0'1:Rl.ANO FLOW PATH LHIGTH TO THE FENCE Of 100 F'T. 4, If SOll; OR L£5S Of TH< SOIi, RY v.£1G>.ff. IS F1Ne P41HICL£'S SMAU.ER fflAN 'mE U.S. STANDAAD SIEVE NO. 200, THE EOS SHOULD BE EOUM. TO OR SlolAU.ER THAN THE Sl€:l'E SIZE 11-MT MX Of THE SOIL CAN PASS THROOGH ~ THE TRENCH SHAU. BE 81\()(flL.l.ED Wl'm 3/~" MINIMUM DI.WETER WASHED GRAVEL. 5. FILTER FABRIC f'ENCES SHAU. BE REMOVED \ltlEN THEY HAVE SERVED THEIR USEFUL PURPOSE, BUT NOT BEFORE Tl-lE UPSl.oPE ARE.O. HAS Bro, PERMANENTLY ST~UZEO. 6. FILTER FABRIC FENCES SHAU. BE t.SPf:CT[J) ILIMEOIATElY Af'1D, EACH RAINFALL ANO AT LEAST 0.0.,LY DI.IRING PROlONOED RIIJNF.lilL ANY RfP"-lRS SHAU. BE MADE IMMEDIAfilY. m.na r'8C ,aai: Dftl.lL e ....... -·-----·1/91 CIMi. tWilE: IIR2.1 SP PACE: IIOl8 i'IOTES: 1 . PIPE SIZES AND SLOPES, PER PLJ.NS. 2. OUTLET CN'ACrTY: NOT LESS Tl--lAN COMBINED INLCTS. J. METAL PARTS: CORROSION RESJSTANT. GALVANIZED PIPE PARTS TO ~VE ASP KALT 'IR(Al\10,IT 1. 4. fFW.!E &: L,IDOER OR SIEPS OffS[T SO A. CLEANOUT ~TE IS VISIBl£ f'ROM TOP. 6. CLIMB-DOWN SPACE IS Cl.£1.R OF RISER ANO C. FRAME IS CLEA.R OF CURB. 5. IF METAL OIJT1..£T PIPE CONNECTS TO CEMENT CONCRETE ~CR~1ftfo:°u:~VE1 J.t'-~ o.o. EOOAL ro 6. MULTI-ORIFICE El.BOWS MAY Bf LOCATED AS SHOWN OR All ON ONE SIDE Of RISER TO ASSURE LADDER CL.EARANCE. - g ;I ~~~~ !iii ~~ ~ ~ i 8 ~~iw, ~~<~ .J z 31: "" ~~ -~ 1--07.2J, T1W'11C CONTROL S1W..L APPLY. 18. SPEWl ORAIWlE MEASIAlES WU BE REQUIRED If lr!E PROJECT LOC,\TlON IS WITHIN THE l,QUFER --...,. SUlPE ' wrTH RIP Rl,P PER """""TIONS ON nt• HIT /• / .. / PASSING J/4-INCH SOVA.RE SIEVE: 0-10:C MAXIWUM lllNIMI/M PIMENSKJNS· TH,CKNESS: ! FOOT W!OTH: DIAMETER -t-6 FEET LENGTH: 8 FEET OR 4 X OtAUETER, WHICHEVER IS GREATER f!ESTR1CTOR PLATE WTH ORIFICE AS SP[Cll1EO. NOT NEEDED If ONLY FOR POWJTION CCf\lTRO. DI.0..-6 81" --! ~ ' CATCH BASIN TYPE II '™'"'~00 :: :rn ELBO: DET~L ~ill i~ ~ 19. PF£ C<MR NOTES; A. COYER IS lt£ IMTERW.. <MR lHE OOJ'SIDE TOP Of TI£ PIP£ (COVER !MY NOT INCI.J..()E Tl£ MATERIAL Of 1HE PIPE). If YOU HAVE A lHREE FOOT BR.fiDE DffER£NTW.. BETWEEN lHE NI/ER'T OF A 12° ~ Pf'£ AND TI£ GROUND OR THE GRAtt E!..EVATION OF A SrRUCnR, YOU DO NOT 1-Wi'E TWO FOOi" OF CO'tER O'IER THE Pf'E. a Wl£N CALCULAl\HG GRADE FOR PIPE CO/ER THERE 51-W.l BE A DfFEROITW. W.W. TO THE DEPTH OF ~ (IN FEEi') PWS D.2 FEET FOR lHE WAU. THa0£SS or THE PIPE PUIS lHE OIMEIER OF lHE PPE MR THE ltMR'l' EU.\IATION OF THE PIPE. C. FOR A W4. 2 FT. CO/ER -NN M.\TERW. USTEO IN KC SWDl,1°98 OTHER THAN I",(: WAY BE USED. 0. FOR COVER FROM I FT. TO :Z FT. USE REltFORCm CONCRET'E PFE, (PL,l,IN CON::R£TE PIP£ WA.Y BE USED FOR DRIVEWAY CULYERI). E. FUR COYER LESS THAN lFT. DUCTL.E IRCfil PFE IS USED. f. Pl,C PIPE REQUIRES 3fT. CXM:R. 20. AU. STORM OIWtw:£ CONVEYANCE PIPE SHOWN AS "SO" ON lHE PLAN stWl. BE 01€ Of TME fOU.OWING IJESIGNAJED, • • ,. D. C ,. • "· 00t«:RETE STORM SEWER PFE SHAU. CCM'ORU TO M REQUIREMENTS Of ASJM C 76-65 CL.ASS ~ REINFORCED CONCRETE Pf'E. SMOOTH W>Ll SPIIW.. Rf! METAL PIPE (ALUMINUM, ALUMINZED srm., OR ASPIW.T-TR9.TED STEa). 1$ GNJGE WITH J/4--INOI 5/6-NCM RIBS ON t:z-lNCH CENTER. ~:~~~~~OF~~-m WITH AN POLWIM. CHLORIDE (PYC) SEWER PIPE SORJ5 OR EOUAL DUCTILE IRON CLASS 50 at S:Z SOI.JD WAU. POLYEII-M..ENE PFE (SWPE: M.SO KNOWN AS HOPE PIPE OR HOPP) MNIW'JM PIPE COVER SI-WJ. BE Z.O Fm (UN..ESS OTliERWISE SPECFIED). Pf'E WA.Y BE NN Of lHE l8CNf. PR0W:ED: ,. • PIPE JOlffS ~ BE Of TI£ 5AIE IMTERW.S. AND '#HER£ A PIPE WAlERW.. IS SPECIFlCAU.Y SHOWN (l,I M PLAN, THAT W.TERW.. MUST BE USED. .4() CB TYPE U-48° ~~_fff.MUD RM•45.45 ._,, .4()" HElGHT: CROWN -t-I FOOT !JW,IEltJIAS~ SU OWG. 3.2.l OR1F1CE ~S SPECIFlEO DI.O..•S.J(l" C8t1A TYPE 11-54" CONTROL STRUCTIJRE f'LOW RESTRICTOl!/0.l POL..1-UTION CONTl!OL. TEE TiPE ---------e DW0. IWIIE: Bfl-04 a: fr STORMLINE .'H' :::-1 ·II II 11 11 111 J SP Pl'IGIE:B02~ ~ &l ii 1"=50' 1"=10' ~b i I ... ··. 5-K)() TEMPORARY 'V' DITCH NOT TO SCAL[ ~, ~ ~i I ' I ""' ~------,.. -------< 8 BARS O 4• OC FRAME ANl CRAlE FOR CONlllOUEI) f'(ltf() Ch'ERFLOW. PRCMDE VEJmCAI. IW5 fol FRAME AT 4° O.C. JAILHOUSE OVEAR.OW DETAIL (SECONDARY INLET) NOT TO SCALE MPLCTEU ROCK MUST :nOM ~J, C8QSS SECIPN lg TtiE DIST.o.NCE SUCH Tf-1.'T PQll'/T5 11 "ND B /\RE or EOU>J.. 8.£\IATION OE /24" WIDE BERi,! ~ NllDED PRCFOSED h lO WNNTo\lN 12" Mfol, OEPTl1 'V' DITCH ROCK CHECK DAM DETAILS Q£CK DAN SPACH, ~·, ,,. "' D<P1H --- NOT TO SCAL.£ Pf' 71 CODED FDR N'fflOYJL "" rken~, -JW'4S I 1 1 1 1 I w ~ ~ ~~NN 0 N 0, C o:JC'.IJ"-.. zOl<OOO ~ ~..!....!.. -~~ ~ l:;~~ NWIOIO ~~~~ ~~ ~~ !l~ m~ Iii ~i uii! ~~~··"", •.. .::; ·~ ~ 1 ~ $ " <" iS-i...:_ .•' -ti I co~ CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS NOlES AK) DETAI..S FOR CLEARtlCl, NTlAL ClRAOINQ AK) 1E8C ti .,,_ -·-1: I:_ 1 :·:..:':: I___ _ ~EU.FF, I ' I EXPANDED GMDING/.tOOED SD LINES I OD I OD I 1D/3M ' I~ :"'.J:; :::;•••--00 1-flG ·= _,. -I ; I:=:=. COMMENT I : I : I '.~~ I== ± i:. ~-:: j:::::~--=-i 2 1·P£fl-CITY Of RENTON COMMENT I oo 1 ... 1 7/19/rXJ , I PER cm' Of= REVEW I : I::. I lff/\R ~-~re ~ --~--Q'll:<l<IO"'"""" -· -C5 QF ....J..._ "" - j ~ ~ " ,; i ~ , ] " 0 i "' } 1 e_ i r 'i ' ~ "' s ' 1 j i §, " j g ~ -, LL! ~ ' ' ! ~ •• i! !1 '_. •11 .. ffi 180 i It: ~ i 11611 ~ ~, r..z ~ Oo oE ~ ~~ >-z -~ E-i ~ ira.. -p:: ~6 u '6 E ~ !i "" ·~o,, .... £I ' "~ ii ~ Ii ~ I ~ T. ;j ~:1 !i ~~ ~ l~ ,,.j ~18 8 8 I I 1 I !1 I ~ ~ ~ 140 12q ii "' i I ! I I I a iii I ~ ~ ~I ~ 20+00 ~ .. \l1'E1.! ., SOOll """"" "' ~A. 20+47.88 .RIM-130.19 , IE.,125.19 {18", SO} < ;1 ~I 2H-OO ii -"'-·""1~ C8f4J lYPE·f..-.48" :/A.~7~~UD ,. .. ,48;44 ~-139..89 (12" 50) --------~-~~\__ 1-ri.Jl 1r'~:i~:. 1-wiE;'i w, SOLD LOOQNG· U[) stA. 3++-9'i.7l!I __ ,.,.BO IE•142.!l0 (1:z"'SD) STORMLINE 'G' ! ~I -, 1"=50' j".,,10' !I ~: -, ~I ; '160 <ii ~I . Si ~I '""" '"""" SWPENOTB f'f'E SW.U. BE BUTT AJSED >S RECURED ., ..... '""""" ._ EXISTING GIHUl[J O PIPE l.\_. ·. ./ -, I • -I 180 i I 180 140 CBfJJ lYP[. ii~· SEE :iT1JRML.INE ·c· ON THIS SHiEt 160 120 STOAMLINE 'A' 1"=50' 1·=,-0· I ~I . --~I ;i 33.00 """ ,,.., HOO STORMLINE PROFILE A PORTION OF THE S 1/2 OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 23 N, RANGE 4 E, W.M., RENTON, WASHINGTON --~-- STOAML.INE 'G' ,·=so· ,~ .. ,a· ~I ii ~: iii ~I 24+00 """' '""" ~1 -§I 27+00 160 IJ7 T1'PE 11-'41,1~ W/ .._., """"' 11D S1'A. 28+12.35 Ralto15U5 1[•146.65 (12" SD) I ii ~1 28+00 cef~-iWf: . I ;(,._ 50I..E LOCKl«l I.D • ~~91 ~11i~~t&r c~i CONC:) ~I 160 ~/J OOST'HG Gll<lUND O PIP( ·y·•_---_ -•_-----•--, /,-• ------) E)'.. 1_8" COtlC. CBf38 Tl1"E 11-4&" W/ SOUO '-"""'_ . UO stA.~ .. RIM-20S.G$ lE•~.37 (12" SOl EX. IE-205.U (12 SD) ~ -~ 0 PIPE lf:---- f"S'.--"'-___ -_· .. -__ · __ -·) .. __ --_' .-) -I . TI : '/ 200 -/j ,' C8f30 lYPE j SfE STORMI..IIE 'G' ON TI-115' Sl'£Ef 180 ' EX, 12• SO 200 180 STORMLINE 1E3' - 1·~so· .1"=10' ;i ;] I -1 •I PltOPOSfD GRADE O PIPE t ~ : 140 ~ ·--·· """' ~~~ . .a:' : .SEE :&TOINl.ltd:: 'l:'. . . QN. THIS -SHffi-. STORMLINE 'C' 1"=50' -1"-jo· ~ ~1 ~ ..., Bf' CrcmfQRAfflP/N,, 140' 120' .I ~! i """' C8fJ9 ~ l W/ SOUD LOCKING LID st, 22+H.41 · RIM•152.45 IE-1-48.415 (12"' SD) f -ii J<><-00 !I " "1'E ..... ;~· • - W/ SOUD LOCIQlta LID ~ STA. 1+ 1"8.32 Rll~1M.415 IE•181.~ (12" SD2 ~ EX. JE•182.5:t: ,12 SO) PROPQSl;D GRADE O PIPE t leo C8#39 TM i SEI STQRWNE 'r.t ON THIS SHEfJ . 180 a 12• SD 1IIO ~ 50UD LOCKING" LID A. o+n:68 -RIW-157.95 · JE:•1M.lli!i (12" SD) STOAMUNE .'D' :::~:~ I sf ~I ~! '' H-00 "'!i ~· ·I I "'"" ~j .I I : I ! I ! I i •i ! I ig .J_!! .~ ---'i ~ --i ~ \40; ~ I ! I ! I i 120·-i ! I ii -~ """' ~ ct fi'. i ! I i t ~ gi ~ J: I~ ~~~-~ ;~i ~ill!~ ~i ::11 ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ 0 tf:l~~ Z Ol I I N<..--~~~~ -I;..,.., &:I CJ~~ .-:?,,:::......,.__, i; t. ~§ ii ~i ~~ om ::, ~~ II( t q,~fi-'t' ,-,., •• X f ~,$, l a..:. •' -(fl t co"',e, CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF PU8LJC WORKS STOfM..N: PAOFI..E 100/0'!, ~A '"",, tl'~------~-·----f---+--------t--t---t----i~---"'----- • DM'MI _______t!G_____ SUNSET BLUFF ~M 11'1..l!NO.UIA '*--- i/ > ~I -, I J-+oo " ----- " '"" ~--~ ,_ ~~ -~ ________@_ IIICAI.I!! ,·-w 1Fe.O~ PACE_I IH!loT C0 OF 7 " ;: • i f. a ~ ~ I ' , ! I ' ' t _, ' ~ co ~ ~ " ' [;: j ci z q uj ~ ' j ! I , Ii ~ ~ ~ I, ~ i tt c~ r..z 1~ Oo oE ... ~~ ~z ~..; r:z:;;i cf11.. u~ }! 111 ~~ . ~ ~ 4 11 ·~i irl; ;J@ ii ~ ii O i - I ~II ! ,. '•! I~ ~! a! J a! I! l I I! ~ ~ ! ~ t I ! 11 ! I I I g I EXISTING Gl!OOt() 0 Pl'E t. \/ 2 1'PE I W/SOLO\Ofl(INGUO ~ I st,.,; 3-t40.~ I ~~,'filf(,r SD / EX:. E•l5!5.4-:1= (121 Clif' / •1e0. . .• 1 JYPE. I SEE SJtlRlrU€ 'r/ ON SHEp C6 1 160 :140 . ' . 140 STOAMLINE 'E' -,:•;,.50' 'f",;,,10' ~ ·[ al J •I ~ -, -: - STORMLINE PROFILE A PORTION OF TI-IE S 1/2 OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 23 N, RANGE 4 E, W.M., RENTON, WASHINGTON CB/" = r ..... .. ' w/ souo LOOO<C '-" · · stA. 5+28.25 ,- Fnl•l62.$6 . ,' IE•157.&& (12" ~ /rEX. ·12' SO 0:.. l:•HI0.'1.:1. {f:Z: SD} :, . . wl CS,4J TYPE: i-48" 160 SEE STORMI..INE 'G' I , OH :sHEtr: Cfi ; exts:rHG GROUND O PIP£. t· -\:: ''''''''°'""' • Pl'E ~, \,1 .1«) ""' ' W/ !lfE-ftlE LID stA. 4-tOO.OO RIM•117.00 E•112.00 (12" SD) 120 1"=50" J... ,·.w~.1· T , +t-00 ! ·1'!0· 120 'F' "ti ~! ~! !f 5+00 EJOSTINC °""'' 0 .... • 1 1'PE I W/ SOUD """"" UD 5'bl.. 7+-9409 ~-162..17 IE•l5717 (12" SD) EX:. E•180.5i: (8" 00) _, 160 ~ 160 EX. IZ" SD CB#45 :lYPE I SEI STORMI.M: -·~ ON 5H$'·ee 140 1'10, STOAMLINE 'J' -,~,;,,50: . .1 ~ .. 1()' .... ~ .... ~·. ·' ~ ·1 . . ID . o+<IO e • norm POR iYl'ftl?IAL .,ih,ePAk ... , -<n"41 I I I I I -------- I"' ... ... ~ ..... " ""' ~~ "' ~ ~ i ~ r 8~ ~ I !zltR ~ J: m ~ ~;;~ ~ii; ~i ::Ii $ l ~ ~ j Ii: I " I~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~NN -..ONa:l c,00~~ Z 0> I J ~i~:o I{} .;::!.;::!. N~~~ ~~.:!,.'.!, I~ ~.i ~, I! ~~ ~iii oJ~·"'··,., •• ~ .::, y;--\ "" : ::i: : "• ,,,>!,.:' ...., tCO~ CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS STOIM.N: PROR..E SIJN8ET Ell...lff -----"'---w __..__ ~~ 10{1!_05 fLE J«I.LUA Oil--___ ~ ----"'--£ALE _ _!~ Fa.D aoot;___ Pllllll,. --Cl~ 7 -:ffllCI..-JC-< ----· I ] r ', ~ 1; l ' • ~ _l " ' [;: I g ~ u.i Q CD 9 COPIES Report Distribution ES-2334.01 Pointe Heron LLC 5050 1st Ave. S., Suite 102 Seattle, Washington 98134-2400 Attention: Mr. Jim Blais Earth Solutions NW, LLC 7.0 OTHER PERMITS The property owner plans to obtain coverage under the Washington State Department of Ecology's NPDES General Permit for stormwater discharges associated with construction activities. A Special Grade and Fill permits issued by the City of Renton Hearing Examiner is to be obtained prior to commencing the proposed filling, excavation, and grading work. An annual grading license issued by the Renton Development Services Division is also for the proposed work. We are not aware of any other required permits for this proposal. 14200.004.doc 8.0 ESC ANALYSIS AND DESIGN The Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control (TESC) design complies with Core Requirement No. 5 of the 2009 KCSWDM and with the City of Renton Engineering Standards. TESC elements are addressed as follows. Clearing Limits: As noted in section 1.0, above, the site was previously cleared under a separate permit issued by the City of Renton. We are not anticipating any additional clearing with this proposal. (If any additional clearing is needed, the edges of the clearing will be flagged in the field.) Land Cover Measures: As specified on Sheets E5 and E6 of the 10-sheet set of the Grading, Interim Drainage, E.S.C., and Rehabilitation Plans for the proposed project, within the project site (work area limits) finished grade areas that lie outside of the proposed permanent stormwater detention and water quality pond and outside of the proposed new and upward extended 1.5H:1 V slopes shall be surfaced with crushed aggregate (6-inch minimum compacted depth) for rehabilitation and to prevent erosion. As also specified on Sheets E5 and E6, within the permanent stormwater detention and water quality pond, any exposed soils along the pond's side slopes shall be mulched and hydroseeded once final grade is established. Note that as explained in the excerpt from page 34 of the Geotechnical Report set forth in section 1.0 of this report concerning the buttress fill material that the Geotechnical Report specifies for the proposed face of the new and upward extended 1.5H:1 V fill slopes, "[t]he proposed crushed aggregate buttress fill along the slope face [a fill proposed to taper in horizontal depth from (1) a 35-foot depth at the toe of the proposed new 1. 5H: 1 V engineered fill slope tapering to (2) a 5-foot depth at the top of the slope] will ... be excellent for ... preventing slope erosion . . . . Because of the porous, nonerosive characteristics of the proposed fill slope face, vegetation of the slope face will not be needed to prevent erosion and, because the facing will not be conducive to landscaping, other plantings, or hydroseeding, vegetation of the slope face will not be appropriate and is not being proposed." Perimeter Protection: Until the surface of the new southerly fill slope has been stabilized with the buttress fill material, perimeter protection consisting of silt fencing will be installed and maintained along the toe of the proposed new fill slope as depicted on Sheets E2, E3, E5, and E6 of the 1 a-sheet set of the Grading, Interim Drainage, E.S.C., and Rehabilitation Plans. Traffic Area Stabilization: A stabilized gravel and/or quarry spalls construction entrance will be provided as appropriate in view of construction period weather conditions to minimize off-site tracking of soil and to provide a firm surface. (If construction ingress and egress to and from the project site is provided through the Black River Quarry to the west of the project site, the existing wheel wash facilities near the quarry entrance driveway with Monster Road may be used in lieu of constructing a separate construction entrance.) Sediment Retention: The proposed interim detention pond to be provided in conjunction with the Phase 1 work and the proposed permanent detention pond to be provided in conjunction with the Phase 2 work will provide the required sediment storage during and after the fill, excavation, and grading work. Until the surface of the southerly fill slope has been stabilized with the buttress fill material, silt fencing will be provided along the toe of the proposed new fill slope as depicted on Sheets E2, E3, E5, and E6 of the 10-sheet set of the Grading, Interim Drainage, E.S.C., and Rehabilitation Plans. Surface Water Controls: Runoff from the construction area will be controlled and routed to the appropriate on-site pond as sheet flow or as flow from temporary ditches or swales with check dams. For areas that do not have positive drainage to the pond, silt fencing will be provided downstream of the work area as shown on sheets E2, E3, E5, and E6 of the construction plans. 14200.004.doc Dust Control: Dust control by sprinkling will be utilized when needed. Wet Season Construction: Construction during the wet season will be conducted according to City of Renton standards for wet season construction. Construction within Sensitive Areas and Buffers: No construction is proposed within (1) the Pointe Heron LLC parcel's two wetlands and their respective buffers, (2) the intermittent stream in the portion of the Pointe Heron LLC parcel lying east of the project site portion of the parcel (or within the stream's buffer), or (3) the project site's protected slopes, which are depicted on the APPENDIX 1 color map. 3 3 Renton Municipal Code Section 4-3-050J1a(ii) classifies steep slopes as either sensitive or protected. More particularty, RMC 4-11-190 defines steep slopes (and the protected slope and sensitive slope subclassifications) as follows: SLOPE, STEEP: A hillside, or portion thereof, which falls into one of two (2) classes of slope, sensitive or protected. A. Slope, Protected: A hillside, or portion thereof, with an average slope, as identified in the City of Renton Steep Slope Atlas or in a method approved by the City, of forty percent (40%) or greater grade and having a minimum vertical rise of fifteen feet (15'). B. Slope, Sensitive: A hillside, or portion thereof, characterized by: (1) an average slope, as identified in the City of Renton Steep Slope Atlas or in a method approved by the City, of twenty five percent (25%) to less than forty percent (40%); or (2) an average slope, as identified in the City of Renton Steep Slope Atlas or in a method approved by the City, of forty percent (40%) or greater with a vertical rise of less than fifteen feet (15'), abutting an average slope, as identified in the City of Renton Steep Slope Atlas or in a method approved by the City, of twenty five percent (25%) to forty percent (40%). This definition excludes engineered retaining walls. In regard to the location of steep slopes on a parcel of land, subsection i (Steep Slope Delineation Procedure) of RMC 4-3-050J1a (Steep Slopes) states: i. Steep Slope Delineation Procedure: The boundaries of a regulated steep sensitive or protected §]QQ&. are determined to be in the location identified on the City of Renton's Steep Slope Atlas. An applicant's qualified professional may substitute boundaries independently derived from survey data for the City's consideration in determining the boundaries of sensitive or protected steep slopes. All topographic maps shall utilize two foot (2') contour intervals or the standard utilized in the City of Renton Steep Slope Atlas. (Boldfacing in the code text; undertining and italics added for emphasis.) The City of Renton has delineated areas of steep slopes (both sensitive and protected slopes) on the City's Steep Slope Hazard Atlas. Those delineated steep slope areas (along with areas of slopes that are greater than 15 percent and less than or equal to 25 percent) are depicted on the City's regulated slopes overlay that is part of the City's GIS system that is publicly accessible through the City of Renton website. APPENDIX 1 is a color map exhibit generated from the City's GIS system for the Pointe Heron LLC parcel with the regulated slopes overlay turned on. On that map both (1) the parcel boundaries have been outlined with a thick black line and (2) the project site (work area limits) for the proposed fill, excavation, and grading project have been outlined with a thick dashed line. The APPENDIX 1 map makes clear that no protected slopes lie within the project site (work area limits), although the map depicts four areas of protected slopes within the portion of the subject parcel to the east of the project site. Sheet E1 of the above-referenced set of Grading Plans for the proposed project depicts those four areas of protected slopes and their approximate respective square footages: namely, from west to east, Protected Slope Area 1 (which encompasses approximately 5,299 square feet), Protected Slope Area 2 (which encompasses approximately 68,936 square feet), Protected Slope Area 3 (which encompasses approximately 2,241 square feet), and Protected Slope Area 4 (which encompasses approximately 1,532 square feet). Sheet E1 also depicts the minimum distance (110 feet) between the westerlymost protected slope area (Protected Slope Area 1) and the nearest eastern edge of the project site (work area limits). 14200.004.doc Maintenance of TESC Facilities: The contractor will be required to maintain TESC facilities in accordance with City of Renton Standards and Best Management Practices. Final Stabilization: Upon completion of the filling, excavation, and grading project, (1) all disturbed areas will be stabilized using the above-described Land Cover Measures and (2) TESC facilities removed where appropriate. The APPENDIX 1 map indicates 15% to 25% slopes across nearly the entire proposed project site and also indicates some small areas of sensitive steep slopes in the proposed project site, primarily in the western half of the project site. In addition, the APPENDIX 1 map depicts in white the remaining, scattered small portions of the project site, with the white portions intended to indicate areas of 15 percent or lesser slopes. 14200.004.doc 9.0 BOND QUANTITIES AND FACILITY SUMMARIES This section will be completed after initial review of the proposed filling, excavation, and grading project by the City of Renton. 14200.004.doc 10.0 OPERATIONAL AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL We have included in section 10.0 of this report for use by the contractor during the maintenance period the applicable sections of the 2009 KCSWDM Operation and Maintenance Manual for the proposed storm drainage facilities. 14200.004.doc KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR FLOW CONTROL, CONVEYANCE, AND WQ FACILITIES This appendix contains the maintenance requirements for the following typical stormwater control facilities and components: No. I -Detention Ponds (p. A-2) No. 2 -Infiltration Facilities (p. A-3) No. 3 -Detention Tanks and Vaults (p. A-5) No. 4 -Control Structure/Flow Restrictor (p. A-7) No. 5 -Catch Basins and Manholes (p. A-9) No. 6 -Conveyance Pipes and Ditches (p. A-11) No. 7-Debris Barriers (e.g., Trash Racks) (p. A-12) No. 8 -Energy Dissipaters (p. A-13) No. 9-Fencing (p. A-14) No. 10 -Gates/Bollards/ Access Barriers (p. A-I 5) No. 11 -Grounds (Landscaping) (p. A-16) No. 12 -Access Roads (p. A-17) No. 13 -Basic Biofiltration Swale (grass) (p. A-18) No. 14-Wet Biofiltration Swale (p. A-19) No. 15 -Filter Strip (p. A-20) No. 16-Wetpond (p. A-21) No. 17 -Wetvault (p. A-23) No. 18-Stormwater Wetland (p. A-24) No. 19 -Sand Filter Pond (p. A-26) No. 20-Sand Filter Vault (p. A-28) No. 21 -Stormfilter (Cartridge Type) (p. A-30) No. 22 -Baffie Oil/Water Separator (p. A-32) No. 23 -Coalescing Plate Oil/Water Separator (p. A-33) No. 24 -Catch Basin Insert (p. A-35) 2009 Surface Water Design Manual -Appendix A A-1 1/9/2009 APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FLOW CONTROL, CONVEYANCE, AND WQ FACILITIES NO. 1 -DETENTION PONDS Maintenance Defect or Problem Conditions When Maintenance Is Needed Results Expected When Component Maintenance ls Performed ( Sile Trash and debris Any trash and debris which exceed 1 cubic foot Trash and debris cleared from site. per 1,000 square reel (this ls about equal to the amount or trash It would take to fill up one slandard size omce garbage can). In general, there should be no visual evidence of dumping. Noxious weeds Any noxious or nuisance vegetallon which may Noxious and nuisance vegetation constltule a hazard lo County personnel or the removed according lo applicable public. regulations. No danger of noxious vegetation where County personnel or tho public might normally be. Conlaminanls and Any evidence or contaminants or pollulion such Materials removed and disposed of pollution as oll, gasoline, concrete slurries or paint according to applicable regulations. Source control BMPs Implemented II appropriate. No contamlnanls present other than a surface oil film. Grass/groundcover Grass or groundcover exceeds 18 Inches in Grass or groundcover mowed to a height. height no greater Uian 6 Inches. Top or Side Slopes Rodent holes Any evidence of rodent holes II laclllty Is acting Rodenls removed or destroyed and of Dam, Berm or as a dam or berm, or any evidence or water dam or berm repaired. Embankment piping through dam or berm via rodent holes. Tree growUi Tree growUi Uireatens Integrity of slopes, does Trees do not hinder raclllty not allow maintenance access, or Interferes with performance or maintenance maintenance actlvlly. If trees are not a threat or actlvilies. not Interfering with access or maintenance, U,ey do not need to be removed. Erosion Eroded damage over 2 inches deep where cause Slopes stablllzed using appropriate of damage Is sUII presenl or where there Is erosion control measures. If erosion potential for continued erosion. Any erosion Is occurring on oompacted slope, a observed on a compacted slope. licensed civil engineer should be oonsulled to resolve source of erosion. SetUement Any part of a dam, berm or embankment that has Top or side slope restored to design settled 4 Inches lower Uian Uie design elevaUon. dimensions. II settlement Is significant, a licensed civil engineer should be consulled to determine Iha cause of the setUemenl. Storage Area Sediment Accumulated sediment Uiat exceeds 10% or Uio Sediment cleaned out to designed accumulaUon designed pond depUi. pond shape and depUi; pond reseeded If necessary to control erosion. Liner damaged Liner Is visible or pond does not hold water as Liner repa~ed or replaced. (If Applicable) designed. lnleUOutlat Pipe. Sediment Sediment filling 20% or more of the pipe. lnleUouUel pipes clear of sediment. accumulallon Trash and debris Tresh and debris accumulated In lnleUouUet No trash or debris In pipes. pipes (Includes lloatables and non-ffoalables). Damaged Cracks wider than V.·lnch at Uie Joint of Uie No cracks more than Y.-lnch wide at lnleVoullet pipes or any evidence or soil entering at Uie Joints of Uie lnleUoutlet pipes. the Joint of Uie lnleVoullet pipe. Emergency Tree growUi Tree growUi Impedes llow or threatens stability or Trees removed. Overflow/Spillway spillway. Rock missing Only one layer of rock exists above naUve soil In Splllway restored lo design area Ove square feet or larger or any exposure of slandards. naUve soil on Uie spillway. 119/2009 A-2 2009 Surface Water Design Manual -Appendix A APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR FLOW CONTROL, CONVEYANCE, AND WQ FACILITIES NO. 2-INFILTRATION FACILITIES Maintenance Defect or Problem Conditions When Maintenance ls Needed Results Expected When Component Maintenance Is Performed SIie Trash and debris Any trash and debris which exceed 1 cubic foot Trash and debris cleared from sile. per 1,000 square feet (this Is about equal to the amount of trash It would take to flll up one standard size office garbage can). In general, there should be no visual evidence of dumping. Noxious weeds Any noxious or nuisance vegetation which may Noxious and nuisance vegetation constitute a hazard lo County personnel or the removed according to applicable public. regulations. No danger of noxious vegetation where County personnel or lhe public might normally be. Contaminants and Any evidence of contamlnents or pollution such Materials removed and disposed of pollution as all, gasoline, concrete slurries or paint. according to applicable regulations. Source control BMPs Implemented If appropriate. No conlamlnants present other than a surface oil film. Grass/groundcover Grass or groundoover exceeds 18 Inches In Grass or groundcover mowed lo a height. height no greater lhan 6 Inches. Infiltration Pond, Top Rodent holes Any evidence of rodent holes If facility Is acting Rodenls removed or destroyed and or Side Slopes of as a dam or berm, or any evidence of water dam or berm repaired. Dam, Berm or piping lhrough dam or berm via rodent holes. Embankment Tree growlh Tree growth lhrealens Integrity of dams, berms or Trees do not hinder facility slopes, does not allow maintenance access, or perfonnance or maintenance Interferes with maintenance activity. If trees are activities. not a threat to dam, berm, or embankment Integrity or not Interfering wllh access or maintenance, they do not need to be removed. ( Erosion Eroded damage over 2 Inches deep where cause Slopes stabilized using appropriate of damage Is still present or where there Is erosion control measures. If erosion potenllal for conUnued erosion. Any erosion Is occurring on compacted slope, a observed on a compacted slope. licensed clvll engineer should be consulled to resolve source of erosion. Settlement Any part of a dam, berm or embankment lhat has Top or side slope restored to design settled 4 Inches lower than lhe design elevaUon. dimensions. If settlement Is significant, a licensed civil engineer should be consulted to determine the ceuse of the setUement. Infiltration Pond, Sediment If two Inches or more sediment Is present or a Facility Infiltrates as designed. Tank, Vault, Trench, accumulallon percolation test Indicates facility Is working at or or Small Basin less than 90% of design. Storage Area Liner damaged Liner Is visible or pond does not hold water as Liner repaired or replaced. (If Applicable) designed. Infiltration Tank Plugged air vent Any blockage of lhe vent. Tank or vault freely vents. Structure Tank bent oul of Any part of tank/pipe Is bent out of shape more Tank repaired or replaced to design. shape than 10% of Its design shape. Gaps between A gap wider than ~-Inch at lhe Joint of any tank No water or soil entering tank secUons,damaged sections or any evidence or soil particles entering through Jotnls or walls. Joints or cracks or the tank at a Joint or through a wall. tears In wall lnffltraUon Vault Damage to wall, Cracks wider than %-Inch, any evidence of soil Vault ls sealed and structurally Slruclure frame, bottom, and/or entering lhe structure through creeks or qualified sound. top slab Inspection personnel determines that the vault ls not structurally sound. \ 2009 Surface Water Design Manual -Appendix A 1/9/2009 A-3 APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FLOW CONTROL, CONVEYANCE, AND WQ FACILITIES NO. 2 -INFILTRATION FACILITIES Maintenance Defect or Problem Conditions When Maintenance la Needed Results Expected When Component Maintenance 11 Performed ( Inlet/Outlet Pipes Sediment aceumulalion Sediment filling 20% or more of the pipe. lnlel/ouUet pipes dear of sediment. Trash and debris Trash and debris accomulaled In lnlel/ouUet No trash or debris In pipes. pipes (Includes noatables and non-noatables). Oamaged Cracks wider than %-Inch at the Joint of the No cracks more than Y.-lnch wfde at Inlet/outlet pipes or any evidence of soil entering at the Joints of the Inlet/outlet pipes. the joint of the Inlet/outlet pipe. Access Manhole Covernld nol In place Covernld Is missing or only partially In place. Manhole access covered. Any open manhole requires Immediate maintenance. Locking mechanism not working Mechanism cannot be opened by one malnlenance person with proper tools. Bolls Mechanism opens with proper tools. cannol be sealed. Self-locking covernld does not work. Covernld difficult lo One maintenance person cannot remove Covernld can be removed and remove covernld after applying 80 lbs of lift. reinstalled by one maintenance person. Ladder rungs unsefe Missing rungs, misalignment, rusl, or creeks. Ladder meals design standards. Allows maintenance person safe access. Large access Damaged or difficult Large access doors or plates cannot be Replace or repair access door so It doors/plala lo open opened/removed using normal equipment. can opened as designed. Gaps, doesn't cover Large access doors not flat andfor access Doors close flat and covers access completely opening not completely covered. opening complelely. Lifting Rings missing, Lifting rings not capable of lifting weight of door Lifting rings surficlenl lo lift or rusted or plate. remove door or plale. lnfiltraUon Pond, Plugged FIiier bag more lhan 11, full. Replace filler bag or redesign Tank, Vault, Trench, system. or Small Basin FIiier Bags lnnltrallon Pond, Sediment s• or more of sediment has accumulated. Pre-sellllng occurs as designed Tank, Vault, Trench, accumulation or Small Basin Pre- selHlng Ponds and Vaults Infiltration Pond, Plugged High waler level on upstream side of niter Rock filler replaced evaluale need Rock FIiier remains for exlended period of lime or llllle or no for filter and remove if not water flows lhrough filler during heavy rain necessary. storms. lnfiltraUon Pond Rock missing Only one layer of rock exists above nallva soil In Spillway restored to design Emergancy Overflow area flve square feet or larger, or any exposure of slandards. SplUway nallve soil al the top of out now path of spillway. Rip-rap on Inside slopes need nol be raplaced. Tree growth Tree growth Impedes now or threatens slablllty of Trees removed. spillway. 1/9/2009 A-4 2009 Surface Water Design Manual -Appendi< A APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR FLOW CONTROL, CONVEYANCE, AND WQ FACILITIES NO. 3-DETENTION TANKS AND VAULTS Maintenance Defect or Problem Conditions When Maintenance ls Needed Results Expected Whan Component Maintenance Is Performed SIie Trash and debris Any trash and debris which exceed 1 cubic foot Trash and debris cleared from site. par 1,000 square feet (this Is abcul equal to the amount ol lrash It would lake to fill up one standard size office garbage can). In general, there should be no visual evidence of dumping. Noxious weeds Any noxious or nuisance vegelaUon which may Noxious and nuisance vegetallon constllute a hazard to County personnel or the removed aocordlng to applicable public. regulaUons. No danger of noxious vegetaUon where County personnel or the public might normally be. Contaminants and Any evidence of contaminants or pollution such Materials removed and disposed of pollution as ell, gasoline, concrete slurries or paint. according to applicable regulations. Source control BMPs Implemented If appropriate. No contaminants present other than a surface oil film. Grass/groundcover Grass or groundcover exceeds 18 Inches In Grass or groundcover mowed to a height. height no greater than 6 Inches. Tank or Vault Trash and debris Any trash and debris accumulated In vault or tank No trash or debris In vault. Storage Area (Includes noatables and non-noalables). Sediment Accumulated sediment depth exceeds 10% of Iha All sediment removed from storage accumulation diameter of the storage area for V. length of area. slorage vault or any point depth exceeds 15% of diameter. Example: 72-lnch storage tank would require cleaning when sediment reaches depth of 7 Inches for more than Yz length of tank. Tank Structure Plugged air vent Any blockage of the vent. Tank or vault rreely vents. ( Tank bent out of Any part of tank/pipe Is bent out of shape more Tank repaired or replaced to design. shape than 10% of Its design shape. Gaps between A gap wider than V.-lnch at the Joint of any lank No water or soil entering tank sections, damaged sections or any evidence of soll particles entering through Joints or walls. Jolnls or cracks or the lank al a Joint or through a wall. tears In wall Vault Struclure Damage to wall, Cracks wider than Y.-lnch, any evidence of soil Vault ls sealed and structurally frame, bottom, and/or entering the stNclure through cracks or qualified sound. top slab lnspecUon personnel determines that the vault Is not structurally sound. lnlet/OUUel Pipes Sediment Sediment filling 20% or more of the pipe. lnlel/oullet pipes clear of sediment. accumulaUon Trash and debris Trash and debris accumulated In lnlel/oullet No trash or debris In pipes. pipes (Includes floatables and non-floalables). Damaged Cracks wider than Y..lnch al the Joint of lhe No cracks more than Y.-lnch wide at lnlel/ouUel pipes or any evidence of soil enlering the Joint of the lnlel/ouUet pipe. at the Joints of Iha lnlel/ouUel pipes. 2009 Surface Water Design Manual -Appendix A 1/9/2009 A-S APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FLOW CONTROL, CONVEYANCE, AND WQ FACILITIES NO. 3-DETENTION TANKS AND VAULTS Maintenance Defect or Problem Conditions When Maintenance ls Needed Results Expected When Component Maintenance ls Performed ( Access Manhole Covernld not In place Covernld Is missing or only partially In place. Manhole access covered. Any open manhole requires Immediate maintenance. Locking mechanism Mechanism cannot be opened by ona Mechanism opens wilh proper tools. not working maintenance person with proper lools. Bolts cannot be seated. Self.locking covernld does not work. CoverAld dlfncull lo One maintenance person cannot remove Cover/lid can be removed and remove covernld aRer applying 60 lbs of IIR. reinstalled by one maintenance person. Ladder rungs unsafe Missing n.mgs, mlsallgnmenl, rust, or cracks. Ladder meats design slandards. Allows maintenance person safe access. Large access Damaged or dltncull large access doors or plates cannot be Replace or repair access door so It doors/plale to open opened/removed using normal equipment. can opened as designed. Gaps, doesn't cover Large access doors not flat and/or access Doors close flat and covers access completely opening not completely covered. opening complelely. Lifting Rings missing, Lining rings not capable of lifting weight of door Lifting rings sufficient to lift or rusted or plale. remove door or plate. ( 1/9/2009 A-6 2009 Surface Water Design Manual -Appendix A APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR FLOW CONTROL, CONVEYANCE, AND WQ FACILITIES NO. 4-CONTROL STRUCTURE/FLOW RESTRICTOR Maintenance Defect or Problem Condition When Maintenance ls Needed Result, Expected When Component Maintenance Is Performed Structure Trash and debris Trash or debris of more lhan Y, cubic foot which No Trash or debris blocking or Is located lmmedlalely In front of the slructure potentlally blocking entrance to opening or Is blocking capacity of the slructure by structure. more lhon 10%. Trash or debris In the structure that exceeds 1/, No trash or debris In the structure. the depth from the bottom of basin to Invert the lowest pipe Into or oul of the basin. Deposits of garbage excaedlng 1 cubic foot In No oondlUon present which would volume. allract or support Iha breeding of Insects or rodents. Sediment Sediment exceeds 60% of the depth from the Sump of structure conlalns no boltom of Iha structure lo Iha Invert of Iha lowest sediment. pipe Into or out of Iha slructure or the bollorn of the FROP-T section or Is within 6 Inches of the Invert of tho lowest pipe Into or oul of the slructure or the bottom of the FROP· T section. Damage lo frame Comer of frame extends more than "% Inch pasl Frame Is even with curb. and/or top slab curb face Into tho slreot (If applicable). Top slab has holes larger then 2 square Inches or Top slab Is free of holes and cracks. cracks wider than % Inch. Frame not silting flush on top slab, I.e., Frame ls sitting flush on lop slab. separation of more than % Inch of the frame from Iha top slab. Cracks in walls or Cracks wider than Y, Inch and longer than 3 feat, Structure Is sealed and struclurally bottom any evidence of soil particles entering structure sound. ( through cracks, or maintenance person Judges that structure Is unsound. Cracks wider lhan Y, Inch and longer lhan 1 loot No cracks more than 1/4 inch wide at al Iha Joint of any Inlet/outlet pipe or any avldence Iha Joint of Inlet/outlet pipe. of soil particles anlartng struclure through cracks. Settlement/ Slructure has setued more than 1 Inch or has Basin replaced or repaired to design misalignment rolaled more lhan 2 Inches out of alignment. standards. Damaged pipe Joints Cracks wider than Y,-lnch al Iha Joint of the No cracks more than %·Inch wide al Inlet/outlet pipes or any evidence of soil entering the Joint of Inlet/outlet pipes. the struclure al the Joint of the Inlet/outlet pipes. Contamlnanls and Any evidence of contamlnanls or polluUon such Materials removed and disposed of pollutlon as oll, gasoline, ooncrele slurries or paint. acoordlng lo applicable regulatlons. Source conlrol BMPs lmplemenled II appropriate. No oontamlnants presenl other than a surface oil film. Ladder rungs missing Ladder Is unsafe due to missing rungs, Ladder meets design standards and or unsafe mlsellgnmenl, rust, cracks, or sharp edges. allows maintenance person safe access. FROP-T Section Damage T sscllon Is not securely attached to structure T section securely attached lo waa wall and outlel pipe structure should support al and outlet pipe. least 1,000 lbs of up or down pressure. Structure Is not In upright poslUon (allow up lo Structure In correct poslllon. 10% from plumb). Connections lo outlet pipe are not watertight or Connections lo outlet pipe are weler show signs of deteriorated grout. tight; structure repaired or replaced and works as designed. Any holes-other than designed holes-In the Struclure has no holes other than struclure. designed holes. Cleanoul Gate Damaged or missing Cleanoul gale Is missing. Replace cleanout gale. 2009 Surrace Water Design Manual -Appendix A 1/9/2009 A-7 APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FLOW CONTROL, CONVEYANCE, AND WQ FACILITIES NO. 4 -CONTROL STRUCTURE/FLOW RESTRICTOR Maintenance Defect or Problem Condition When Melntenance Is Needed Results Expected When Component Maintenance Is Performed ( Cleanout gate Is not watertight. Gate Is watertight and works as designed. Gate cannot be moved up and down by one Gate moves up and down easily and maintenance person. Is watertight. Chain/rod leadlng to gate Is missing or damaged. Chain Is In place and works as designed. Orifice Plate Damaged or missing Control device Is not working property due to Plate ls In place and worl<s as missing, out of place, or bent orifice plate. designed. Obstructions Any trash, debris, sedlmenl, or vegetation Plate Is free of all obstructions and blocking the plate. works as designed. Overflow Pipe Obstructions Any trash or debris blocklng (or having lhe Pipe Is free or all obstructions and potential of blocking) the overflow pipe. works as designed. Deformed or damaged Lip of overflow pipe Is bent or deformed. Overflow pipe does not allow lip overflow at an elevation lower than design lnleVOullet Pipe Sediment aCC1Jmulatlon Sediment filling 20% or more of the pipe. lnleVouUot plpes clear of sedlmenl. Trash and debris Tresh and debris aCC\Jmulaled In lnleVouUet No trash or debris In pipes. pipes (Includes fioalables and non-noatables). Damaged Creeks wider then Y.-lnch at the joint of the No cracks more than Y.-lnch wide at lnleVoutlet pipes or any evidence of soil entering the Joint of the lnleVoutlet pipe. at the joints of the lnleUoutlet pipes. Metal Grates Unsafe grate opening Grate with opening wider than 'I, Inch. Grate opening meets design (If Applicable) standards. Trash and debris Trash and debris that Is blocking more than 20% Grete free of trash and debris. of grate surface. footnote to guidelines for disposal Damaged or missing Grate missing or broken member(s) of the grate. Grate Is In place and meals design standards. Manhole Cover/Lid Covernld not In place Covernld Is missing or only partially In place. Covernld protects opening to Any open structure requires urgent structure. maintenance. locking mechanism Mechanism cannot be opened by one Mechanism opens with proper tools. Not Working maintenance person with proper tools. Bolts cannot be seated. Self-locking covernld does not work. Covernld dlJflcull to One malnlenance person cannot remove Cover/lld can be removed and Remove covernld after applying 80 lbs. of 11ft. reinstalled by one maintenance person. l/9/2009 2009 Surface Water Design Manual -Appendix A A-8 APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR FLOW CONTROL, CONVEYANCE, AND WQ FACILITIES NO. 5-CATCH BASINS AND MANHOLES ( Maintenance Defect or Problem Condition When Maintenance Is Needed R88ults Expected When Component Maintenance la Performed Slructure Sediment Sediment exceeds 60% or the depth from the Sump or catch basin contains no bollom of the catch basin to the Invert of the sediment lowest pipe Into or out of lhe catch basin or Is within 6 Inches of the Invert or the lowest pipe Into or out or Iha catch basin. Trash and debris Trash or debris or more than y, cubic fool which No Trash or debris blocking or ls localed lmmedlalely In Iron! or the catch basin potenUally blocking entrance lo opening or Is blocking capacity of Iha cetch basin catch basin. by more than 10%. Trash or debris In the catch basin that exceeds No trash or debris In the catch basin. 'I, the depth from the boltom of basin to Invert the lowest pipe Into or out or Iha basin. Dead animals or vegetaUon that could generate No dead animals or vegetation odors that could cause complaints or dangerous present within catch basin. gases (e.g., melhane). Deposits of garbage exceeding 1 cubic foot In No condition present which would volume. attract or support the breeding or Insects or rodenls. Damage to frame Comer of frame extends more than % Inch past Frame Is even with curb. and/or top slab curb face Into the street (If eppllcable). Top slab has holes larger than 2 square Inches or Top slab Is free of holes and cracks. cracks wider than Y. Inch. Frame nol sllllng flush on lop slab, I.e., Frame Is sllllng flush on lop slab. separation of more than % inch of the frame from the top slab. Cracks in walls or Cracks wider than Y, Inch and longer lhan 3 feet, Calch basin Is sealed and boltom any evidence of soil particles entering calch slruclurally sound. basin through cracks, or maintenance person judges that catch basin Is unsound. Cracks wider than Y, Inch and longer than 1 foot No cracks more than 1 /, Inch wfde at al the joint of any lnleVoullet plpa or any evidence the joint of lnleVoullet pipe. of soil particles entering catch basin through cracks. SeltlemenU Catch basin has sellled more than 1 Inch or has Basin replaced or repaired lo design mlsallgnmenl rotated more than 2 Inches oul of alignment. slandards. Damaged pipe joints Creeks wider than Y,-lnch al the joint of the No cracks more than %·Inch wide at lnleVouUel pipes or any evidence of soil entering the Joint of lnleVoutlet pipes. the catch basin al the Joint of lhe lnleVoullel pipes. Contaminants and Any evidence of contaminants or poilullon such Materials removed and disposed of poilutlon as oil, gasoline, concrete slurries or paint. aocordlng lo applicable regulations. Source control BMPs lmplemenled If appropriate. No contaminants present other than a surface oll film. lnlel/OuUet Pipe Sediment Sediment lllllng 20% or more of the pipe. lnleUouUet pipes clear of sediment. accumulation Trash and debris Trash and debris aocumulated In lnleVouUet No trash or debris In pipes. plpas (Includes floatables and non-noetables). Damaged Cracks wider than Y..lnch at the joint of the No cracks more than %-Inch wide at lnleUoullel pipes or any evidence of soil entering the Joint of the lnleUouUet plpa. al the joints of lhe lnleUouUel pipes. ( 2009 Surface Water Design Manual -Appendix A 1/9/2009 A-9 APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FLOW CONTROL, CONVEYANCE, AND WQ FACILITIES NO. 5-CATCH BASINS AND MANHOLES Maintenance Delaet or Problem Condition Whan Maintenance Is Needed Results Expected Whan Component Maintenance Is Performed ( Metal Grates Unsafe grale opening Grata wllh opening wider U,an 'I, inch. Grate opening meets design (Catch Basins) standards. Trash and debris Trash and debris that Is blocking more than 20% Grate free of trash and debris. of grate surface. footnote to guidelines for disposal Damaged or missing Grala missing or broken mamber(s) or Iha grate. Grate Is In place and meets design Any open structure requires urgent slandards. maintenance. Manhole Cover/Lid Covernld not In place Covernld Is missing or only partially In place. Covernld protacls opening to Any open structure requires urgent slructure. maintenance. Locking mechanism Mechanism csnnot be opened by one Mechanism opens wiU, proper tools. Not Working maintenance person with proper tools. Bolts cannot be seated. Self-locking covernkl does not work. Covernld dllftcult to One maintenance person cannot remove Cover/lid can be removed and Remove covernld aner applying 80 lbs. of lift. reinstalled by one maintenance person. ( 119/2009 2009 Surface Waler Design Manual -Appendi• A A-IO APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR FLOW CONTROL, CONVEYANCE, AND WQ FACILITIES NO. 6-CONVEYANCE PIPES AND DITCHES ( Maintenance Defect or Problem Conditions When Maintenance Is Needed Results Expected When Component Maintenance ls Performed Pipes Sediment & debris Accumulated sedlmenl or debris lhat exceeds Waler flows freely lhrough pipes. accumulaUon 20% of lhe dlameler of lhe plpa. Vegelallon/roots Vegetatlon/rools lhal reduce free movemenl of Water flows freely lhrough pipes. waler through pipes. Conlamlnanls and Any evidence of contaminants or pollution such Materials removed and disposed of pollution as oll, gasoline. concrete slurries or paint. according to applicable regulalions. Source control BMPs Implemented Ir appropriate. No contaminants present olher lhan a surface oil fllm. Damage to proteclive Protective coating Is damaged; rusl or corrosion Pipe repaired or replaced. coating or corrosion Is weakening the struclural Integrity of any part of pipe. Damaged Any dent lhal decreases the cross section area of Pipe repaired or replaced. pipe by more lhan 20% or Is determined to have weakened structural lnlegrity of lhe pipe. Ditches Trash and debris Trash and debris exceeds 1 cubic fool per 1.000 Trash and debris cleared from square feet of ditch and slopes. ditches. Sediment Accumulated sedlmenl lhat exceeds 20% of the Ditch cleaned/flushed of all sediment accumulalion design deplh. and debris so that It matches design. Noxious weeds Any noxious or nuisance vegetation which may Noxious and nuisance vegetaUon constltule a hazard to County personnel or lhe removed according to applicable public. regulations. No danger of noxious vegelaUon where County personnel or lhe public might normally be. Contaminants and Any evidence of contaminants or pollution such Materials removed and disposed of pollution as all, gasoline, concrete slurries or paint. according to applicable regulations. Source control BMPs Implemented If appropriate. No conlamlnanls present olher than a surface oil film. VegalaUon VegetaUon lhal reduces free movement of water Waler flows freely through dllches. through ditches. Erosion damage to Any erosion observed on a dllch slope. Slopes are not eroding. slopes Rock llnlng out of One layer or less of rock exists above nallve soll Replace rocks to design standards. place or missing (If area 5 square feel or more, any exposed nalive Applicable) son. ( 2009 Surface Water Design Manual -Appendi• A 1/9/2009 A-11 APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FLOW CONTROL, CONVEYANCE, AND WQ FACILITIES NO. 7 -DEBRIS BARRIERS (E.G., TRASH RACKS) Maintenance Defect or Problem Condition Whan Maintenance ls Needed Raaults Expected Whan Component Maintenance Is Performed. ( Site Trash and debris Trash or debris plugging more than 20% of the Barrier clear to receive capacity Row. area of the barrier. Sediment Sediment accumulation of greater than 20% of Barrier clear to receive capacity llow. accumulation the area of the barrier Struclure Cracked broken or Structure which bars attached to Is damaged • Structure barrier attached to Is loose pipe Is loose or cracked or concrete structure Is sound. cracked, broken of loose. Bars Bar spacing Bar spacing exceeds 6 Inches. Bars have at most 6 lnche spacing. Damaged or missing Bars are bent out of shape more than 3 Inches. Bars In place with no bends more bars than% Inch. Bars are missing or entire barrier missing. Bars In place according to design. Bars are loose and rust ls causing 50% Repair or replace barrier to design deterioration to any part of barrier. standards. i. 1/9/2009 2009 Surface Water Design Manual -Appendix A A-12 APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR FLOW CONTROL, CONVEYANCE, AND WQ FACILITIES NO. 8-ENERGY DISSIPATERS ( Maintenance Defect or Problem Conditions When Maintenance Is Needed Results Expected When Component Maintenance ls Performed. Site Trash and debris Trash and/or debrts accumulation. Dissipater clear of trash and/or debrts. Contaminants and Any evidence of contamlnanls or pollution such Materials removed and disposed of pollution as oil, gasoline, concrete slurries or paint. according to applicable regulations. Source control BMPs Implemented If approprlale. No contamlnanls present other than a surface oil film. Rock Pad Missing or moved Only one layer of rock exisls above nalive soil In Rock pad prevents erosion. Rock area five square feet or larger or any exposure of native soil. Dispersion Trench Pipe plugged with Accumulaled sediment thal exceeds 20% of the Pipe cleaned/nushed so that it sediment design deplh. malches design. Not discharging waler Visual evidence of water discharging at Water discharges from feature by properly concentrated points along trench (normal sheet flow. condiUon Is a "sheet now" of water along trench). Perforations plugged. Over 1/4 of perforations In pipe are plugged wilh PerforaUons freely discharge flow. debris or sediment. Water flows oul top of Waler nows out of dlslrlbutor calch basin during No flow discharges from dislrtbutor "distributor" catch any slonm less than Iha design storm. catch basin. basin. Receiving area over-Water In receiving area Is causing or has No danger of landslides. saturated potential of causing landslide problems. Gabions Damaged mesh Mesh of gablon broken, twisted or deformed so Mesh is Intact, no rock missing. structure ls weakened or rock may fall out. Corrosion Gablon mesh shows corroslon through more than All gablon mesh capable of % of ils gage. containing rock and retaining designed form. Collapsed or Gablon basket shape deformed due to any All gablon baskels Intact, struclure defonmad baskets cause. stands as designed. Missing rock Any rock missing that could cause gablon to No rock missing. loose structural Integrity. Manhole/Chamber Worn or damaged Structure dlsslpaUng now detertorates to Y, or Structure Is In no danger of failing. posl, bames or side of original size or any concenlraled worn spot chamber exceeding one square fool which would make structure unsound. Damage to wall, Cracks wider than %-inch or any evidence of soil Manhole/chamber is sealed and frame, bollom, and/or entering the struclura through cracks, or slructuralty sound. top slab maintenance lnspecUon personnel determines that the structure ls not struclurally sound. Damaged pipe joints Cracks wider than %-Inch at the Joint of the No soll or water enters end no water Inlet/outlet pipes or any evidence of son entering discharges al the Joint of Inlet/outlet lhe structure at the Joint of the lnlet/ouUet pipes. pipes. 2009 Surface Water Design Manual -Appendix A 1/9/2009 A-13 APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FLOW CONTROL, CONVEYANCE, AND WQ FACILITIES NO. 9 -FENCING Maintenance Defect or Problem Conditions When Maintenance ls Needed Results Expected When Component Maintenance Is Performed ( Sile Erosion or holes Erosion or holes more than 4 Inches high and 12-No access under the fence. under fence 18 Inches wide permitling access through an opening under a fence. Wood Posts, Boards Missing or damaged Missing or broken boards, post out of plumb by No gaps on fence due to missing or and Cross Members parts more than 6 Inches or cross members broken broken boards, post plumb to within 1Yz Inches, cross members sound. Weakened by rotting Any part showing structural deterioration due to All parts of fence are structurally or insects rotting or Insect damage sound. Damaged or failed Concrete or metal attachments deteriorated or Post foundation capable of post foundation unable lo support posts. supporting posts even In strong wind. Metal Posis, Ralls Damaged parts Post out of plumb more than 6 Inches. Post plumb lo wilhln 1 ~ Inches. and Fabric Top rails bent more than 6 inches. Top rail free of bends greater than 1 Inch. Any part or Ienco (Including post, top rails, and Fence Is aligned and meets design fabric) more than 1 fool out of design alignment. standards. Missing or loose tension wire. Tension wire In place and holding fabric. Deteriorated paint or Part or parts that have a rusting or scaling Structurally adequate posts or parts protective coating condition that has allected structural adequacy. with a uniform protective coating. Openings In fabric Openings In fabric are such that an 8-lnch Fabric mesh openings within 50% or diameter ball could HI through. grid size. ( 1/9/2009 2009 Surface Water Design Manual -Appendix A A-14 APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR FLOW CONTROL, CONVEYANCE, AND WQ FACILITIES NO. 10-GATES/BOLLARDS/ACCESS BARRIERS ( Maintenance Defect or Problem Conditions When Maintenance ls Needed Results Expected When Component Maintenance lo Performad Chain Link Fencing Damaged or missing Missing gale. Gates In place. Gate members Broken or missing hinges such that gate cannot Hinges Intact and lubed. Gate Is be easily opened and closed by a malnlenance working freely. person. Gate Is out of plumb more lhan 6 Inches and Gate Is aligned and vertical. more than 1 foot out or design alignment. Missing stretcher bar, stretcher bands, and lies. Stretcher bar, bands, and lies In place. Locking mechanism Locking device missing, no-functioning or does Locking mechanism prevents does not lock gate not link to all parts. opening or gate. Openings In labrlc Openings In fabric are such that an 8-lnch Fabric mesh openings wilhln 50% or diameter ball could flt through. grid size. Bar Gata Damaged or missing Cross bar does nol swing open or closed, Is Cross bar swings fully open and cross bar missing or Is bent to where It does not prevent closed and prevents vehlcle access. vehicle access. Locking mechanism Locking device missing, no-functioning or does Locking mechanism prevents does not lock gate not llnk to all psrts. opening or gate. Support post Support post does not hold cross ber up. Cross bar held up preventing vehicle dameged access Into facility. Bollards Damaged or missing Bollard broken, missing, does not flt Into support No access for molorized vehicles lo hole or hinge broken or missing. gel lnlo facility. Does not lock Locking assembly or lock missing or cannot be No access for motorized vehlcles to attached lo lock bollard In place. get Into facility. ( Boulders Dislodged Boulders not located to prevent motorized vehicle No access for motorized vehicles lo access. get Into facility. Circumvented Motorized vehicles going around or between No access for motorlzed vehicles to boulders. get Into facility. 2009 Surface Water Design Manual -Appendix A 1/9/2009 A-IS APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FLOW CONTROL, CONVEYANCE, AND WQ FACILITIES NO. 11 -GROUNDS (LANDSCAPING) Maintenance Defect or Problem Conditions When Maintenance Is Needed Results Expected When Component Maintenance Is Performed ( Site Trash or !Iller Any trash and debris which exceed 1 cubic foot Trash and debris cleared from slle. per 1,000 square feet (this Is about equal lo Iha amount of trash II would lake to fill up one slandard size office garbage can). In general, there should be nc visual evidence of dumping. Noxious weeds Any noxious or nuisance vegetallon which may Noxious and nuisance vegetallon ocnstllute a hazard to County personnel or the removed according to applicable public. regulations. No danger of noxious vegetation where County personnel or lhe public might normally be. Contaminants and Any evidence of contaminants or poliulion such Materials removed and disposed of pollullon as oil, gasoline, concrete slurries or paint. according to appllceble regulations. Source control BMPs Implemented If appropriate. No oontamlnanls present other lhan a surface oil film. Grass/groundcover Grass or groundcover exceeds 18 Inches In Grass or groundcover mowed to a height. height no greater than 6 Inches. Trees and Shrubs Hazard Any tree or limb of a tree Identified as having a No hazard trees In facility. potenllal to fall and cause property damage or threaten human life. A hazard tree ldentlnad by a qualiRed arborlsl must be removed as soon as poaslble. Damaged Limbs or parts of trees or shrubs that are split or Trees and shrubs with less than 5% broken which affect more than 25% of the total of tolal foliage with spill or broken foliage of the tree or shrub. limbs. Trees or shrubs lhat have been blown down or No blown down vegetallon or knocked over. knocked over vegelatlon. Trees or shrubs free of Injury. ( Trees or shrubs which are not adequately Tree or shrub In place and supported or are leaning over, causing exposure adequately supported; dead or of the roots. diseased trees removed. 1/9/2009 2009 Surface Water Design Manual -Appendix A A,16 APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR FLOW CONTROL, CONVEYANCE, AND WQ FACILITIES NO. 12 -ACCESS ROADS ( Maintenance Defect or Problem Condition When Maintenance Is Needed Results Expected When Component Maintenance la Performed Sile Trash and debris Trash and debris exceeds 1 cubic foot per 1,000 RoadWay drivable by malnlenance square feel (I.e., trash and debris would fill up vehicles. one standards size garbage can). Debris which could damage vehicle !Ires or RoedWay drivable by malnlenance prohibit uoe of road. vehicles. Contaminants and Any evidence of contaminants or pollullon such Materials removed and disposed of pollullon as all, gasoline, concrete slurries or palnl. according to applicable regulations. Source conlrol BMPs Implemented If appropriate. No contaminants present olher than a surface oil film, Blocked roadWay Any obstrucUon which reduces clearance above Roadway overhead clear lo 14 feel road surface lo less lhan 14 feet. high. Any obstruction restricting Iha access to a 10-lo At least 12-fool ofwldlh on access 12 foot wldlh for a dlslance of more lhan 12 feel road. or any polnl reslrlctlng access lo less than a 10 fool wldlh. Road Surface Erosion, setUement. Any surface defect which hinders or prevents Road drivable by malnlenance polholes, son spots, maintenance access. vehicles. ruls VegetatJon on road Trees or other vegetation prevent access to Maintenance vehicles can access surface facility by malnlenance vehicles. facility. Shoulders and Erosion Erosion wllhln 1 fool of Iha roadway more than 8 Shoulder free of erosion and Ditches Inches wide and 6 Inches deep. malchlng the surrounding road. Weeds and brush Weeds and brush exceed 18 Inches In height or Weeds and brush cul to 2 Inches In hinder maintenance access. height or cleared In such a way as to allow maintenance access. Modular Grid Contaminants and Any evidence of contaminants or polluUon such Malerlals removed and disposed of Pavemenl pollullon as oil, gasoline, concrele slurrles or pain!. aocordlng to applicable regulallons. Source control BMPs lmplemenled If appropriate. No contaminants present olher lhan a surface oil film. Damaged or missing Access surface compacted because of broken on Access road surface restored so missing modular block. road lnfiltrales. 2009 Surrace Water Design Manual -Appendi• A 119/2009 A-17 APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FLOW CONTROL, CONVEYANCE, AND WQ FACILITIES NO. 13 -BASIC BIOFIL TRATION SWALE (GRASS) Maintenance Defect or Problem Condition When Maintenance la Needed Results Expected When Component Maintenance ls Performed ( Sile Trash and debris Any trash and/or debris accumulaled on Iha No trash or debris on Iha bloswale bloswale slle. site. Contaminants and Any evidence of contaminants or pollullon such Materials removed and disposed of pollullon as oil, gasoline, concrete slurries or paint. according lo appllcable regulallons. Source control BMPs lmplemenlecl If appropriate. No conlamlnanls present other lhan a surface oil film. Swale Section Sediment Sediment depth exceeds 2 Inches In 10% of Iha No sediment deposits In grass accumulation swale trealment area. treatment area of Iha bloswale. Sediment Inhibits grass growth over 10% of Grass growth nol lnhlblled by swale lenglh. sediment. Sedlmenl lnhlblls even spreading of flow. Flow spreads evenly through swale Erosion/scouring Eroded or scoured swale bottom due to No eroded or scoured areas In channellzallon or high nows. bloswale. Cause of erosion or scour addressed. Poor vegetation Grass is sparse or bare or eroded patches occur Swale has no bare spots and grass coverage In more lhan 10% of lhe swale bollom. ls !hick and heallhy. Grass too !all Grass excessively tall (greater lhan 10 Inches), Grass ls between 3 and 4 Inches lall, grass Is thin or nuisance weeds and other thick and healthy. No clippings left vegetation has taken over. in swala. No nuisance vegetation present Excessive shade Grass growth Is poor because sunlight does not Heallh grass growth or swala reach swale. converted to a wet bloswale. I Constant basenow Continuous now through lhe swale, even when II Baseflow removed from swale by a has been dry for weeks or an eroded, muddy low-flow pea-gravel drain or channel has formed In the swala bottom. bypassed around the swale. ( Standing water Water pools In the swale between storms or does Swale freely drains and there Is no not drain freely. standing water In swale between storms. Channelization Flow concentrates and erodes channel through No flow channels In swale. swala. Flow Spreader Concentrated now Flow from spreader not uniformly dlslrlbutecl Flows are spread evenly over entire across enllre swala width. swate wldlh. tnleUOutlet Pipe Sediment Sediment foiling 20% or more of the pipe. lnleVoullet pipes clear of sadlmenl. accumulation Trash and debris Trash and debris accumulated In lnleVouUet No trash or debris In pipes. pipes (Includes floatables and non-floatables). Damaged Cracks wider lhan Y.-lnch at Iha Joint of lhe No cracks more than Y4-lnch wide at lnleVouUet pipes or any evidence of soll entering the Joint of lhe lnleVouUel pipe. al Iha Joints of Iha lnteVouUet pipes. ( 1/9/2009 2009 SurFace Water Design Manual -Appendix A A-18 APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR FLOW CONTROL, CONVEYANCE, AND WQ FACILITIES NO. 14-WET BIOFIL TRATION SWALE ( Maintenance Defect or Problem Condition When Maintenance Is Needed Resulte Expected When Component Maintenance ls Performed Site Trash and debris Any trash and/or debris accumulated at the site. No trash or debris at the site. Contaminants and Any evidence of contaminants or pollullon such Materials removed and disposed of pollullon as oll, gasoline, concrete slurrfes or paint. according to applicable regutallons. Source control BMPs Implemented If appropriate. No contaminants present oUler than a surface oll film. Swale Secllon Sediment Sediment depth exceeds 2 Inches In 10% of lhe No sediment deposlls In treatment accumulaUon swale treatment area. area. Erosion/scouring Eroded or scoured swale bottom due to No eroded or scoured areas In channellzallon or high Rows. bloswale. Cause of erosion or scour addressed. Waterdeplh Water not relalned to a depth of about 4 Inches Waler deplh of 4 Inches through out during the wet season. swale for most of wet season. Vegelallon lneffectlva Vegetation sparse, does not provide adequale Welland vegetation fully covers foltraUon or crowded out by very dense clumps of boltom of swale and no cattails or cattail or nuisance vegetaUon. nuisance vegetaUon present. Insufficient waler Welland vegetation dies due to lack of water. Welland vegetation remains heallhy (may require converting to grass lined bloswale Flow Spreader Concentrated now Flow from spreader not uniformly distributed Flows are spread evenly over enUre across entire swale width. swale width. lnleVOutlet Pipe Sediment Sediment filling 20% or more of the pipe. lnleVoutlet pipes clear or sediment. accumulation Tresh and debris Trash and debrls accumulated In lnleVoullet No trash or debris In pipes. pipes (Includes Roalebles and non-Roalables). Damaged Cracks wider lhan %-Inch el the Joint or lhe No cracks more than ~-Inch wide al ( lnleVoullet pipes or any evidence or soil entering Iha Joint of Iha lnleVouUel pipe. at Iha Joints of Iha lnleVouUet pipes. 2009 Surface Waler Design Manual -Appendix A 1/9/2009 A-19 APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FLOW CONTROL, CONVEYANCE, AND WQ FACILITIES N0.15-FILTER STRIP Maintenance Defect or Problem Condition When Maintenance Is Needed Results Expected When Component Maintenance Is Performed Site Trash and debris Any trash and debris accumulated on the filter Filter strip site free of any trash or slrfp site. debris Contaminants and Any evidence of contaminants or pollution such Malerials removed and disposed of pollution as oil, gasoline, ooncrete slurries or pain!. according to applicable regulations. Source control BMPs Implemented If appropriate. No oontamlnants present other than a surface oll film. Grass Strip Sediment Sediment accumulation on grass exceeds 2 No sediment daposlls In treatment accumulation Inches daplh. area. Eroslon/soouring Eroded or scoured swale bollom due to No eroded or scoured areas In channelization or high nows. bloswala. Cause of erosion or scour addressed. Grass too tall Grass excesslvety tall {greater lhan 10 Inches), Grass Is between 3 and 4 Inches tall, grass is thin or nuisance weeds and olher thick and heallhy. No clippings left vegelation has taken over. In swale. No nuisance vegetation present. Vegetation Ineffective Grass has died out, beoome excessively tall Grass Is healthy, less than 9 Inches {graater than 10 Inches) or nuisance vegetaUon Is high and no nuisance vegetaUon taking over. present. Flow Spraader Concentrated now Flow from spreader not uniformly distributed Flows are spread evenly over entire across entire swale width. swale wldlh. lnlet/OuUet Pipe Sediment Sediment filling 20% or more of the pipe. Inlet/outlet pipes clear of sediment. accumulation Trash and debris Trash and debris accumulated in Inlet/outlet No trash or debris In pipes. pipes (Includes floatables and non-floatablas). Damaged Cracks wider than %-Inch at tho Joint of tho No cracks more than %-Inch wide at Inlet/outlet pipes or any evidence of soil entering the Joint of Iha Inlet/outlet pipe. at the Joints of the lnlet/ouUet pipes. 1/9/2009 2009 Surface Water Design Manual -Appendix A A-20 APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR FLOW CONTROL, CONVEYANCE, AND WQ FACILITIES NO. 16-WETPOND ( Maintenance Delaet or Problem Condition When Maintenance ls Needed Results Expected When Component Maintenance Is Performed Sile Trash and debris Any trash and debris accumulated on Iha Welpond slle free or any trash or welpond site. debris. Noxious weeds Any noxious or nuisance vegetation which may Nox:Jous and nuisance vegetation constilute a hazard to County personnel or the removed acccrdlng lo applicable public. regulations. No danger of noxious vegaleUon where County personnel or the public might normally be. Conlamlnanls and Any evidence of contaminants or pollullon such Materials removed and disposed of pollution as oll, gasoline, concrete slurries or paint. according lo applicable regulallons. Source control BMPs Implemented If appropriate. No ccnlamlnanls present other than a surface oil film. Grass/groundcover Grass or groundcover exceeds 18 Inches In Grass or groundcover mowed to a height height no greater lhan 6 Inches. Side Slopes of Dam, Rodent holes Any evidence of rodent holes If faclllly Is acUng Rodents removed or destroyed and Berm, lnlernal benn as a dam or berm, or any evidence of water dam or berm repaired. or Embankment piping through dam or bann via rodent holes. Tree growth Tree growth lhrealens Integrity of dams, berms or Trees do nol hinder facility slopes, does not allow maintenance access, or performance or maintenance lnlerleres wllh maintenance acUvlty. If trees are actMlles. nol a lhreal to dam, benn or embankment lnlegrity, are no! Interfering wllh access or maintenance or leaves do not cause a plugging problem they do not need to be removed. Erosion Eroded damage over 2 Inches deep where cause Slopes slablllzed using appropriate of damage Is sllll present or where !here Is erosion control measures. If erosion potenllal for ccnllnued erosion. Any erosion Is occurring on compacted slope, a observed on a compacted slope. llcensed clvll englnear should ba consulted to resolve source of erosion. Top or Side Slopes Settlement Any part of a dam, benn or embankment lhal has Top or side slope restored to design of Dam, Berm, settled 4 Inches lower lhan Iha design elevallon. dimensions. If settlement Is Internal berm or slgnlflcant, a licensed ctvll engineer Embankment should be consulted to delennlne the cause of the settlement. Irregular surface on Top of berm nol unlfonn and level. Top of berm graded lo design Internal berm elevation. Pond Areas Sediment Accumulated sediment lhat exceeds 10% of lhe Sediment cleaned oul to designed accumulallon (except designed pond deplh. pond shape and deplh. first wetpool cell) Sediment Sediment accumulaUons In pond boUom that Sediment storage contains no accumulallon (first exceeds Iha deplh of sediment storage (1 fool) sediment. welpool cell) plus 6 Inches. Liner damaged (If Liner ls visible or pond does not hold water as Liner repaired or replaced. Applicable) designed. Waler levet (first First cell empty, doesn't hold waler. Waler retained In first cell for most of wetpool cell) lhe year. Algae mals (first Algae mats develop over more lhan 10% of lhe Algae mats removed (usually In Iha wetpool cell) water surface should be removed. late summer before Fall rains, especially In Senslllve Lake Protection Areas.) Gravity Drain Inoperable valve Valve will not open and close. Valve opens and closes nonmally. ( Valve won't seal Valve does not seal completely. Valve completely seals closed. Emergency Overflow Tree growth Tree growth Impedes flow or threatens stablllty of Trees removed. Spillway spillway. 2009 Surface Waler Design Manual -Appendix A 1/9/2009 A-21 APPENDIX A MAINTllNANCE REQUIREMENTS FLOW CONTROL, CONVEYANCE, AND WQ FACILITIES N0.16-WETPOND Maintenance Defect or Problem Condition When Maintenance Is Needed Results Expected When Component Maintenance Is Performed ( Rock missing Only one layer of rock ex1sls above native soil In Spillway restored lo design area five square feet or larger, or any exposure of standards. native soil at the top of out now paU, of spillway. Rip-rap on Inside slopes need not be replaced. lnleUOutlet Pipe Sediment accumulatlon Sediment filling 20% or more of the pipe. lnleVoullet pipes clear of sediment Trash and deMs Trash and debris accumulated In lnleVoullet pipes (Includes floatables end non-floatablos). No trash or debris In pipes. Damagad Cracks wider than V.-lnch al Ule Joint of the No creeks more than V.-lnch wide at lnleVoullet pipes or any evidence of soil entering at the Joints of U,e lnleVoullet pipes. the joint of Ula lnleVouUel pipe. ( 1/9/2009 2009 Surface Water Design Manual -Appendi• A A-22 APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR FLOW CONTROL, CONVEYANCE, AND WQ FACILITIES N0.17-WETVAULT ( Maintenance Defect or Problem Condition When Maintenance Is Needed Results Expected Whan Component Maintenance Is Performed Sile Trash and debris Trash and debris accumulated on facility site. Trash and debris removed from facility site. Treatment Area Trash and debris Any trash and debris accumulated In vault No !rash or debris In vault. (Includes Roatables and non-noatables). Sediment Sediment accumulallon In vault botlom exceeds No sediment In vault. accumulation the depth of the sediment zone plus 6 Inches. Conlamlnanls and Any evidence of conlamlnanls or pollullon such Materials removed and disposed of polluUon as oil, gasoline, concrete slurries or paint according to applicable regulallons. Source control BMPs Implemented If appropriate. No contaminants present other than a surface oil film. Vault Structure Damage to wall, Cracks wider lhan Y,-lnch, any evidence of soil Vault Is sealed and structurally frame, botlom, and/or entering lhe structure through cracks, vault does sound. top slab not retain water or qualified lnspecUon personnel determines that the vault Is not structurally sound. Baffles damaged Baffles corroding, ctacklng, warping and/or Repair or replace baffles or walls to showing signs of failure or baffle cannot be speclflcellons. removed. VenlilaUon Ventllallon area blocked or plugged. No reduction of ventllatlon area exlsls. lnleVOullet Pipe Sediment Sediment filling 20% or more of the pipe. lnlef/outlet pipes clear of sediment. accumulaUon Trash and debris Trash and debris accumulated In lnleVouUet No trash or debris In pipes. pipes (Includes floatables and non-floatables). Damaged Cracks wider than %-Inch at !he Joint of Iha No ctacks more than Y.-lnch wide at lnleVoutlet pipes or any evidence of soil entering the joint of the lnleVouUet pipe. at the Joints of lhe lnleVouUet pipes. Gravity Drain Inoperable valve Valve will not open and close. Valve opens and closes normally. Valve won't seal Valve does not seal completely. Valve completely seals closed. Access Manhole Access covernld Access covernld cannot be easily opened by one Access coverntd can be opened by damaged or difficult to person. Corroslon/deformaUon of covernld. one person. open Locking mechanism Mechanism cannot be opened by one Mechanism opens with proper tools. not working maintenance person wllh proper tools. Bolts cannot be seated. Self-locking coverAld does not work. Covernld dlfflcull to One malnlenance person cannot remove Cover/lid can be removed and remove coverAld after applying 80 lbs of lift. reinstalled by one maintenance person. Access doors/plate Large access doors not flat and/or access Doors close flat and covers access has gaps, doesni opening not completely covered. opening completely. cover complelaly URlng Rings missing, LIRJng rings not capable of JIRJng weight of door Lifting rings sufficient to lift or rusted or plate. remove door or plate. Ladder rungs unsafe Missing rungs, misalignment, rust, or cracks. Ladder meets design standards. Allows maintenance person safe access. 2009 Surface Water Design Manual -Appendix A 1/9/2009 A-23 APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FLOW CONTROL, CONVEYANCE, AND WQ FACILITIES NO. 18 -STORMWATER WETLAND Maintenance Defect or Problem Condition When Maintenance ls Needed Reaults Expected When Component Maintenance Is Performed ( SIie Trash and debris Trash and debris accumulated on facility slle. Trash and debris removed rrom facility site. Noxious weeds Any noxious or nuisance vegetation which may Noxious and nuisance vegetaUon conslltute a hazard to County personnel or tha removed according lo applicable public. regulallons. No danger of noxious vegelallon where County personnel or the public might normally be. Contaminants and Any evidence of conlamlnanls or pollullon such Materials removed and disposed of pollullon as oil, gasoline, concrete slurries or palnl. according lo applicable regulallons. Source control BMPs lmplemenled If appropriele. No contaminants present olher lhan a surface oll film. Grass/groundcover Grass or groundcover exceeds 18 Inches In Grass or groundcover mowed to a height height no greater lhan 6 Inches. Side Slopes of Dam, Rodent holes Any evidence of rodenl holes If faclllty Is acting Rodents removed or destroyed and Berm, Internal berm as a dam or berm, or any evidence of water dam or berm repaired. or Embankment piping through dam or berm via rodent holes. Tree growth Tree growth lhrealens Integrity of dams, berms or Trees do not hinder facility slopes, does not allow maintenance access, or perlormance or maintenance Interferes wllh maintenance aclMty. If lrees are acllvllles. not a threat lo dam, berm, or embankment Integrity or nol lnterfertng wllh access or maintenance, they do not need to be removed. Erosion Eroded damage over 2 Inches deep where cause Slopes stabilized using appropriate of damage Is sllll present or where there Is erosion conlrol measures. If erosion potenllal for continued erosion. Any erosion Is occurring on compacled slope, a observed on a compacted slope. licensed civil engineer should be consulted lo resolve source of ( erosion. Top or Side Slopes SetUement Any part of a dam, berm or embankment thal has Top or side slope restored to design of Dam, Berm, sallied 4 lnchos lowor than the design elevallon. dimensions. If selllement Is Internal berm or significant, a licensed civil engineer Embankment should be consulled lo determine the cause of the settlement. Irregular surface on Top of berm nol uniform and level. Top of berm graded flal to design Internal benn elevaUon. Pond Areas Sediment Sediment accumulations in pond bottom that Sediment storage contains no accumulation (first exceeds the depth of sediment storage (1 fool) sediment cell/forabay) plus61nches. Sedlmanl Accumulated sediment that exceeds 10% of the Sediment cleaned out to designed accumulation (weUand designed pond depth. pond shape and depth. cell) Liner damaged (If Liner Is visible or pond does not hold water as Liner repaired or raplaced. Applicable) designed. Waler level (first Cati doas not hold 3 feet of water year round. 3 feet of waler retained year round. cell/forebay) Water level (welland Cell doas not retain waler for at least 10 months Water retained al least 10 months of cell) of the yearorwelland plants are not surviving. the year or welland plants are surviving. Algae mals (first Algae mals develop over more than 10% of the Algae mats removed (usually In the cell/forebay) water surface should be removed. lale summer before Fall rains, especially In Senslllve Lake Protecllon Areas.) Vegatallon Vegetallon dead, dying, or overgrown (caltalls) or Plants In welland cell surviving and not meeting original planllng speclficaUons. nol lnlerfering with weUand funcllon. 1/9/2009 2009 Surface Water Design Manual -Appendi• A A-24 APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR FLOW CONTROL, CONVEYANCE, AND WQ FACILITIES N0.18-STORMWATERWETLAND Maintenance Defect or Problem Condition When Maintenance la Needed Results Expected When Component Maintenance la Performed Gravily Drain Inoperable valve Valve will not open and close. Valve opens and closes normally. Valve won't seal Valve does not seal completely. Valve completely seals closed. Emergency Overflow Tree growth Tree growth Impedes now or threalens stability of Trees removed. Spillway spillway. Rock missing Only one layer of rock exists above native soil In Spillway restored to design area five square feel or larger, or any exposure of standards. native soil at the top of oul now path of spillway. Rip-rep on Inside slopes need not be replaced. lnlet/Outiet Pipe Sediment Sediment OIiing 20% or more of the pipe. lnleVouUet pipes clear of sediment. accumulation Trash and debris Trash and debris aooumulated In lnlet/outiet No trash or debris In pipes. pipes (Includes noatables and non-noatables). Damaged Cracks wider than %-Inch at the Joint of the No cracke more than Y.-lnch wide al Inlet/outlet pipes or any evidence of soil entering the Joint of the Inlet/outlet pipe. al the Joints of the Inlet/outlet pipes. 2009 Surface Water Design Manual -Appendix A 1/912009 A-2S APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FLOW CONTROL, CONVEYANCE, AND WQ FACILITIES NO. 19-SAND FILTER POND Maintenance Defect or Problem Condition When Maintenance Is Needed Results Expected When Component Maintenance Is Performed ( Site Trash and debris Trash and debris accumulated on facilily site. Trash and debris removed from facillly site. Noxious weeds Any noxious or nuisance vegetallon which may Noxious and nuisance vegetaUon constllute a hazard to County personnel or the ramoved according lo applicable public. regulations. No danger of noxious vegetation where County personnel or Ule public might normally be. Contaminants and Any evidence of conlamlnanls or pollullon such Materials removed and disposed of pollullon as oil, gasollne, concrete slurries or paint. according lo applicable regulallons. Source control BMPs Implemented If appropriate. No contaminants present other than a surface oil mm. Grass/groundcover Grass or groundcover exceeds 18 Inches In Grass or groundcover mowed to a {not In the treatment height. height no greater than 6 inches. area) Pre-Treatment (If Sediment Sediment accumulallons In pond bottom thal Sediment storage contains no applicable) accumulallon exceeds Ule depth of sediment storage (1 fool) sediment. plus 6 Inches. Liner damaged (If Liner Is visible or pond does not hold waler as Liner repaired or replaced. Applicable) designed. Waler level Cell empty, doesn't hold waler. Waler retained In first cell for most of the year. Algae mats Algae mats develop over more than 10% or lhe Algae mats removed (usually In Iha water surface should be removed. late summer before Fall rains, especially In Sensitive Lake Protection Areas.) Pond Area Sediment Sediment or crust depUl exceeds %-Inch over 10 No sediment or crust deposit on accumulation % of surface area of sand filter. sand filter Ula! would Impede permeablllty of Ule filler section. Grass (If applicable) Grass becomes excessively tall (greater than 6 Mow vegetation and/or remove Inches) or when nuisance weeds and other nuisance vegetation. vegetation start lo take over or !hatch build up occurs. Side Slopes of Pond Rodent holes Any evidence of rodent holes If facility Is acllng Rodents removed or destroyed and as a dam or berm, or any evidence or water dam or berm repaired. piping Ulrough dam or berm via rodent holes. Tree growth Tree growth threatens Integrity of dams, berms or Trees do not hinder facility slopes, does not allow maintenance access, or performance or maintenance Interferes with maintenance activity. If trees are acllvilles. not a threat to dam, berm, or embankment Integrity or not Interfering with access or maintenance, lhey do not need to be removed. Erosion Eroded damage over 2 Inches deep where cause Slopes stabilized using appropriate of damage ls still present or where there Is erosion control measures. If erosion potential for continued erosion. Any erosion Is occurring on compacted slope, a observed on a compacled slope. licensed civil engineer should be consulted to resolve source of erosion. ( 1/9/2009 2009 Surface Waler Design Manual -Appendix A A-26 APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR FLOW CONTROL, CONVllYANCE, AND WQ FACILITIES NO. 19 -SAND FILTER POND Maintenance Defect or Problem Condition Whan Maintenance la Needed Results Expected When Component Maintenance la Performed Sand FIiier Media Plugging Drawdown of water through the sand filler media, Sand filter media surface Is aerated takes longer than 24 hours, and/or flow through and drawdown rale Is normal. the overflow pipes occurs frequenlly. A sieve analysis of >4% -100 or >2%-200 requires replacing sand filler media. Prolonged nows Sand Is saturated for prolonged periods of lime Excess nows bypassed or connnad (several weeks) and does not dry out balween to small ponlon of nner media storms due to continuous base flow or prolonged surface. nows from detenUon faclllUes. Shon circuiting Flows become concenlraled over one secUon of Flow and percolallon of water the sand filter ralher lhan dispersed or drawdown through Iha sand filter Is uniform and rale of pool exceeds 12 Inches per hour. dispersed across Iha enllre filler area and drawdown rate Is normal. Media thickness Sand thickness is less lhan 6 Inches. Rebuild sand lhlckness to a minimum of 6 Inches and preferably to 18 Inches. Underdralns and Sedlmant/debrls Underdralns or clean-outs panlally plugged or Underdralns and clean-ouls rree of Clean-Ouls OIied wllh sediment and/or dabl1s. JuncUon sediment and debrls and are box/cleanoul wyes not walenlghl. walenlghl. lnlet/Oullet Pipe Sediment Sediment fllHng 20% or more of the pipe. lnlet/ouUet pipes clear of sediment. accumulatlon Trash and debris Trash and debris accumulated In fnlet/ouUet No trash or debris In pipes. pipes (Includes noatables and non-floatables). Damaged Cracks wider than ~-Inch al Iha Joint of Iha No cracks more than X·inch wide al lnleUoullet pipes or any evidence of soll entering lhe Joint of the lnleUoullel pipe. ( at the Jolnls of the lnlet/ouUet pipes. Rock Pad Missing or out of Only one layer of rock exists above nallve soll In Rock pad restored to design place area five square feet or larger, or any exposure of standards. native soil. Flow spreader Concentrated now Flow from spreader not uniformly distributed Flows spread evenly over sand filter. across sand filter. 2009 Surface Water Design Manual -Appendix A 1/9/2009 A-27 APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FLOW CONTROL, CONVEYANCE, AND WQ FACILITIES NO. 20 -SAND FILTER VAULT Maintenance Derect or Problem Condition When Maintenance Is Naaded Results Expected When Component Maintenance Is Performed ( SIie Trash and debris Trash and debrts accumulated on facility site. Trash and debris removed rrom facility site. Noxious weeds Any ooxJous or nuisance vegetation which may Noxious and nuisance vegetation conslltute a hazard to County personnel or the removed according lo applicable public. regulations. No danger of noxious vegetallon where County personnel or Iha public might normally be. Contaminants and Any evidence of contaminants or pollutlon such Malertals removed and disposed of pollution as all, gasollne, concrete slurries or paint. according lo applicable regulations. Source control BMPs Implemented if approprtale. No contaminants present other than a surface oil film. Grass/groundcover Grass or groundcover excaeds 18 Inches In Grass or groundcover mowed to a height. height no greater than 6 Inches. Pre-Treatment Sediment Sediment accumulation exceeds the depth of the Sediment storage contains no Chamber accumulallon sediment zone plus 6 Inches. sediment. Sand Filler Media Sediment Sediment depth exceeds Y~lnch on sand filter Sand filler freely drains al normal accumulation media. rate. Trash and debrts Trash and debrts accumulated In vault (ffoalables No trash or debrts In vault. and non-noatables). Plugging Drawdown of water through the sand filler media, Sand filler media drawdown role ls takes longer than 24 hours, and/or now through the overflow pipes occurs frequently. A sieve normal. analysis of >4% -100 or >2% -200 requires replacing sand filler media. Short circuiting Seepage or now occurs along the vault walls and Sand filler media section re-laid and corners. Sand eroding near innow area. compacted along perimeter of vault ( Cleanout wyes are not watertight. to form a semi.seal. Erosion protection added lo dissipate force of Incoming flow and curtail erosion. Vault Structure Damaged to walls, Cracks wider then Yrlnch, any evidence of soil Vault replaced or repaired to provide frame, bottom and/or enlertng Iha structure through cracks or quellfled complete seallng of the structure. lop slab. Inspection personnel determines that the vault ls not structurally sound. Ventllatlon Ventilation area blocked or plugged. No reduction of venlllaUon area exists. Underdralns end SedlmenVdebrts Underdralns or clean-outs partially plugged, filled Underdralns and clean-ouls free of Claanouls with sediment and/or debrts or not watertight. sediment and debris and sealed. lnleVDutlet Pipe Sediment accumulatlon Sediment filling 20% or more of the pipe. lnleVoutlet pipes clear of sediment. Trash and debris Trash and debrts accumulated In lnleVoutlel pipes (Includes floatables and non-noalables). No trash or debrts In pipes. Damaged Cracks wider lhan Yrlnch al the joint of the No cracks more than 14-lnch wide al lnlaVoutiel pipes or any evidence of soil entertng the Joint or Iha lnleVoutlet pipe. at the joints of the lnleVoullet pipes. 119noo9 2009 Surface Water Design Manual -Appendix A A-28 APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR FLOW CONTROL, CONVEYANCE, AND WQ FACILITIES NO. 20-SAND FILTER VAULT ( Maintenance Defect or Problem Condition When Maintenance ls Needed Results Expected When Component Maintenance Is Performed Access Manhole Covernld not In place Covernld Is missing or only partially In place. Manhole access covered. Any open manhole requires Immediate maintenance. Locking mechanism Mechanism cannot be opened by one Mechanism opens with proper toots. not working malnlenance person with proper tools. Bolls cannot be seated. Self.locking cover/lid does not work. Covernld dlfflcult lo One maintenance person cannot remove Cover/lid can be removed and remove covernld afler applying 80 lbs of 1111. relnstalled by one maintenance person. Ladder rungs unsafe Missing rungs, misalignment, rusl, or cracks. Ladder meets design standards. Allows maintenance person safe access. Large access Damaged or difficult Large access doors or plates cannot be Replace or repair access door so It doors/plate to open opened/removed using normal equipment. can opened as designed. Gaps, doesn't cover Large access doors not flat and/or access Doors close flat and covers access completely opening not completely covered. opening completely. Llfllng Rings missing, Lifting rings not capable of lifting weight of door Llfllng rings sufficient to 11ft or rusted or plate. remove door or plate. ( 2009 Surface Water Design Manual -Appendix A 1/9/2009 A-29 APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FLOW CONTROL, CONVEYANCE, AND WQ FACILITIES NO. 21 -STORMFIL TER (CARTRIDGE TYPE) Maintenance Defect or Problem Condition When Maintenance la Needed Results Expected When Component Maintenance la Performed ( Site Trash and debris Any trash or debris which Impairs lhe function of Trash and debris removed from the facllily. facllily. Contaminants and Any evidence of contaminants or pollution such Materials removed and disposed of pollution as olls, gasoline, concrete slurries or paint. according to applicable regulallons. Source control BMPs Implemented If appropriate. No contaminants present other than a surface oil film. Life cycle Syslem has not been Inspected for three years. Faclllly Is re-Inspected and any needed maintenance performed. Vault Treatment Sediment on vault Greater lhan 2 Inches of sediment. Vault Is free of sediment. Area Hoor Sediment on top of Greater than Yz Inch of sediment. Vault ls free of sediment. cartridges Multiple scum lines Thick or mulllple scum lines above top of Cause of plugging corrected, above lop of cartridges. Probably due to plugged canisters or canisters replaced if necessary. cartridges underdraln manifold. Vault Struclure Damage to wall, Cracks wider than %-Inch and any evidence of Vault replaced or repaired to design Frame, Bottom, and/or soil particles entering lhe structure through the speclffcallons. Top Slab cracks, or qualined Inspection personnel determines the vault Is not struclurally sound. Baffles damaged Baffles corroding, cracking warping, and/or Repair or replace baffles to showing signs of failure as determined by speclffcaUon. maintenance/inspection person. FIiter Media Standing waler In 9 Inches or greater of staUc water In the vauU for No standing waler In vault 24 hours vault more than 24 hours following a rain event and/or after a rain event. overflow occurs frequently. Probably due to plugged Hiter media, underdraln or ouUet pipe. ( Short circuiting Flows do not property enter Hiter cartridges. Flows go through filter media. Underdralns and SedlmenVdebrls Underdralns or clean-outs partially plugged or Underdralns and clean-outs free of Clean.outs filled with sediment and/or debris. sediment and debrts. Inlet/Outlet Pipe Sediment accumulation Sediment filling 20% or more of the pipe. lnleVouUet pipes clear of sediment. Trash and debris Trash and debris accumulated In lnlet/ouOet pipes (Includes floatables and non-ffoalables). No trash or debris In pipes. Damaged Cracks wider than %-Inch at the Joint of the No cracks more lhan !4-lnch wide at lnleVoutlet pipes or any evidence of soil entering at the Joints of the lnleUouUet pipes. the Joint of the lnleUouUet pipe. Access Manhole Covernld not In place Cover/lid Is missing or only partlally In place. Manhole access covered. Any open manhole requires Immediate maintenance. Locking mechanism Mechanism cannot be opened by one Mechanism opens with proper tools. not worldng maintenance person wllh proper tools. Bolts cannot ba seated. Self-locking covernld doas not work. Covernld dlfflcull to One maintenance person cannot remove Covernld can be removed and remove covernld after applying 80 lbs of lift. reinstalled by one maintenance person. Ladder rungs unsafe Missing rungs, misalignment, rust, or cracks. Ladder meets design standards. Allows maintenance person safe access. Large access Damaged or difficult Large access doors or plates cannot be Replace or repair access door so It doors/plate lo open opened/removed using normal equipment. can opened as designed. 1/9/2009 2009 Surface Water Design Manual -Appendix A A-30 APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR FLOW CONTROL, CONVEYANCE, AND WQ FACILITIES NO. 21 -STORMFIL TER (CARTRIDGE TYPE) ( Maintenance Defect or Problem Condition Whan Maintenance Is Needed Results Expected When Component Maintenance ls Performed Gaps, doesn't cover Large access doors not nat and/or access Doors close flat and cover access completely opening not completely covered. opening completely. Lining Rings missing, Lifting rings not capable of lifting weigh! of door Lifting rings sufficient to lift or rusted or plate. remove door or plate. ( ( 2009 Surrace Water Design Manual -Appendix A 1/9/2009 A-31 APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FLOW CONTROL, CONVEYANCE, AND WQ FACILITIES NO. 22-BAFFLE OIUWATER SEPARATOR Maintenance Defect Condition When Maintenance Is Needed Reaults Expected When Component Maintenance Is Performed Site Trash and debris Any trash or debris which Impairs the function of Trash and debris removed from Iha facility. faclllly. Conlamlnants and Floallng oil In excess of 1 Inch In first chamber, No contamlnanls present other than pollution any all In other chambers or other contaminants a surface oil mm. of any type In any chamber. Vault Treatment Sediment Sediment accumulates exceeds 6 Inches In the No sediment In lhe vault. Area accumulation vault. Discharge waler not Inspection of discharge water shows obvious Effluent discharge ls clear. clear signs of poor water quality-effluent discharge from vaull shows lhlck visible sheen. Trash or debris Any trash and debris accumulation In vault Vault Is clear of trash and debris. accumulallon (floalables and non-floatables). Oil accumulallon Oil accumulations lhal exceed 1 Inch, at the No visible oil depth on water. surface of the water In the oil/waler separator chamber. Vault Structure Damage lo Wall, Cracks wider than %-Inch or evidence of soil Vault replaced or repaired lo design Frame, Bottom, and/or particles entering the structure through Iha specifications. Top Slab cracks, or malntenance/Jnspectlon personnel determines that the vault Is not structurally sound. Baffles damaged Baffles corroding, cracking, warping and/or Repair or replace baffles to showing signs of failure as determined by speclflcallons. maintenance Inspection personnel. Gravity Drain Inoperable valve Valve will not open and close. Valve opens and closes normally. VaJve won't seal Valve does not seal completely. Valve completely seals closed. lnleVOutlet Pipe Sediment Sediment filling 20% or more of the pipe. lnteVouUet pipes clear of sediment. accumulation Trash and debris Trash and debris accumulated In lnleUoullet No trash or debris In pipes. pipes (Includes floalables and non-floatables). Damaged Cracks wider than %-Inch at the Joint of the No cracks more than !ii-Inch wide at lnleVoutlet pipes or any evidence of soil entering the Joint of the lnleVouUet pipe. at Iha joints of lhe lnleUoutlet pipes. Access Manhole Covernld not In place Covernld Is missing or only partially In place. Manhole access covered. Any open manhole requires Immediate maintenance. Locking mechanism Mechanism cannot be opened by one Mechanism opens with proper tools. not working maintenance person with proper tools. Bolts cannot be seated. Self-locking covernld does not work. Covernld difficult to One maintenance person cannot remove Covernld can be removed and remove covernld after applying 80 lbs of lift. reinstalled by one maintenance person. Ladder rungs unsafe Missing rungs, misalignment, rust, or cracks. Ladder meals design standards. Allows maintenance person safe access. Large access Damaged or difficult Large access doors or plates cannot be Replace or repair access door so it dOOJB/plate to open opened/removed using normal equipment. can opened as designed. Gaps, doasn, cover Large access doors not flat and/or access Doors close flat and cover access completely opening not completely covered. opening completely. LlfUng Rings missing, Lilllng rings not capable of lifting weight of door Lifting rings sufficient to lift or rusted or covernld. remove coverAld. ( 1/9/2009 2009 SurFace Water Design Manual -Appendi, A A-32 APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR FLOW CONTROL, CONVEYANCE, AND WQ FACILITIES NO. 23-COALESCING PLATE OIL/WATER SEPARATOR ( Maintenance Defect Condition When Maintenance la Needed Results Expected When Component Maintenance Is Performed Sile Trash and debris Any ~ash or debris which impairs Iha luncllon of Trash and debris removed from Iha faclllly. facillly. Contaminants and Floallng oil In excess of 1 Inch In first chamber. No contaminants present other than pollullon any oil In other chambers or other contaminants a surface oil fllm. of ar.y lype In any chamber. Vault Trealment Sediment Sediment accumulation of 6 Inches or greater in No sediment In the forebay. Area accumulation in the lhe forebey. forebey Discharge waler not lnspecllon of discharge water shows obvious Repair luncllon of pleles so effluenl clear signs of poor water quellly • effluenl discharge Is clear. from vault shows thick visible sheen. Trash or debris Trash and debris accumulalfon In vault Trash and debris removed from accumulation (floalables and non·floatables). vault. Oil accumulation Oil accumulation thal exceeds 1 Inch at the water No visible oil depth on waler end surface In the In the coalescing plate chamber. coalescing plates clear of oil. Coalescing Plales Damaged Plate media broken, defonmed, cracked and/or Replace that portion of media pack showing signs of failure. or entire plate pack depending on severity of failure. Sediment Any sedlmenl accumulation which lnterferas with No sedlmenl accumulallon accumulation Iha operallon of the coalescing plates. lnlerlering with the coalescing plales. Vault S~clure Damage lo Wall. Cracks wider than Yrlnch and any evidence of Vaull replaced or repaired to design Frame, Bottom, and/or soil par11cles entering the slruclure lhrough the specifications. Top Slab cracks, or maintenance lnspecUon personnel detenmlnes that the vault Is not structurally sound. Baffles damaged Baffles corroding, cracking, warping and/or Repair or replace bafnes to showing signs of failure as determined by specifications. malntenance/lnspecllon person. Ventilation Pipes Plugged Any obslrucUon to the venlllatlon plpas. VenUlallon pipes are clear. Shutoff Valve Damaged or Shuloff valve cannot be opened or closed. Shutoff valve operates normally. Inoperable lnleVOutlet Pipe Sediment Sedlmenl filling 20% or more of lhe pipe. lnleVoullet pipes clear of sediment. accumulaUon Trash and debris Trash and debris accumulaled In lnleVoullel pipes (Includes floatables and non-floalables). No trash or debris In pipes. Damaged Cracks wider than Yrlnch at the Joint of the No cracks more than %-Inch wide at lnleVoutlet pipes or any evidence of soil enlering al the joints of lhe lnlaVouUet pipes. the joint of the lnleVouUet pipe. Access Manhole Covernld not in place Covernld Is missing or only partially In place. Manhole access covered. Any open manhole requires Immediate maintenance. Locking mechanism not working Mechanism cannot be opened by one maintenance person with proper tools. Bolls Mechanism opens with proper lools. cannot ba sealed. Self-locking covernld does nol work. CoverAld difficult to One malnlenance person cannot remove Covernld cen ba ramoved and remove coverAld after applying 80 lbs of 11ft. relnstalled by one maintenance person. Ladder rungs unsafe Missing rungs. misalignment, rust, or cracks. Ladder meals design standards. Allows maintenance person safe access. 2009 Surface Waler Design Manual -Appendix A 1/9/2009 A-33 APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FLOW CONTROL, CONVEYANCE, AND WQ FACILITIES NO. 23-COALESCING PLATE OIL/WATER SEPARATOR Maintenance Defect Condition Whan Maintenance la Naeded Results Expected When Component Maintenance Is Performed ( Large access Damaged or difficult Large access doors or plates cannot be Replace or repair access door so il doers/pl ale to open opened/removed using normal equipment. can opened as designed. Gaps, doesn't cover Large access doors not nat and/or access Doors close Rat and cover access complelely opening not complelely covered. opening completely. Llffing Rings missing, Lifting rings not capable of llftlng weight of door Lifting rings sufficient lo 11n or rusted or plate. remove door or plate. ( ( 1/9/2009 2009 Surface Waler Design Manual -Appendix A A-34 APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR FLOW CONTROL, CONVEYANCE, AND WQ FACILITIES ( NO. 24-CATCH BASIN INSERT Maintenance Delaet or Problem Condition, Whan Maintenance la Noedad Raault1 Expected Whan Component Maintenance 11 Performed Media Insert Visible DH Visible oll shaan passing lhrough media Media Inset replaced. lnsart does not fit Flow gets Into catch basin wtlhout going lhrough All flow goes lhrough media. catch basin properly media. FIiter media plugged Filter media plugged. Flow lhrough filler media Is normal. 011 absorbent media Media oil saturated. OH absorbsnt media replacad. aaturated Water saturated Catch basin Insert Is saturated with water, which Insert replacad. no longsr has lhe capacity to absorb. Service Ille exceeded Regular Interval replacement due to typical Media replaced at manulaclure(s averags Ille al media Insert product, typically one recommended Interval. month. Seasonal When storms OCC1Jr and during the wet saason. Remove, clean and replace or Install maintenance new Insert after major storms, monlhly during the wet season or at manulacturafa racommanded Interval. 2009 Surface Water Design Manual -Appendix A 1/9/2009 A-3S Appendix 1 POINTE HERON LLC PARCEL AND GRADE & FILL PROJECT SITE ' with City of Renton Regulated Slopes ....... ··"""'- ,,J'll9'• PROPOSED GRADE & FILL PROJECT SITE ~ _,,.~ ., ....... I •, • ._ ' . , ....... ·, .•. ,., ........ ·,.,., -·-· •, .. ..,, ......................... ___ ·-·-·--·-·-· ··--~~ ... BR.S .C .::_A 690 0 345 690 Feet WGS _ 1984 _Web_ Mercator_ Aux il iary_ Sphere ··--••••• I •• I • • • •. '-""---. I - Information Technology -GIS Renton MapSupport@Rentonwa.gov 05/28/2014 . ,,.._. i ·, . ·,:·\ ' " ·, ·, ·, ;. ;; ·I !1 I ·, . '•, ·, '\, j>. " ; ,-..... . ; l I j 1' I ,. ....... _ '•, :·· ... ,,. J .. ,. ... I t I ... ,......_ .. i .... ._.. ... .I· ..... ! I . V ' J J POINTE HERON LLC PARCEL BOUNDARY ........ ..,,,. .. , ! J j : J l l ·"·•· , . ..,.._ ....... ... 4"',., ... ,, .... .. ..____ ~ "' ...... This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is fo r reference only. Da t a layers t hat appear on this map may or may not be accurate , current, or otherwise reliable. Map titl e, labe ling, parcel boundary a nd proposed proj ect si te added by Ha line n Law, 8/12/2 01 4 THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USE D FOR NAVIGATION Legend City and County Boundary L I Other :-·, City of Renton L.; Parcels Slope City of Renton >IS% & <=2S'MI • >2S% & <=40% (Sensitive) • >40% & <=90% (Protected) • >90% (P rotected) En vi ronment Desi gnations D Natural D Shoreline High lntensrty D Shoreline Isolated High lnti,ns~y D Shoreline Res,dential D Urban Conservancy D Juri sd ictions Notes None 0 PREPARED FOR Pointe Heron LLC Kyle R. Campbell, P.E. Principal GEOTECHNICAL AND SOIL ENGINEERING REPORT IN SUPPORT OF PROPOSED FILL, EXCAVATION, AND GRADE POINTE HERON LLC PARCEL RENTON, WASHINGTON ES-2334.01 Earth Solutions NW, LLC 1805 -1361h Place Northeast, Suite 201 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Phone: 425-449-4704 Fax: 425-449-4711 Toll Free: 866-336-8710 Important Information About Your Geotechnical Engineering Report Subsurface problems are a pr111c1pal cause of construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes • The tollowmg mtormatwn 1s provided to help you manage your nsks Geotechnical Services Are Performed lor Specilic Purposes, Persons, and Projects Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs of their clients. A geotechnical engineering study conducted for a civil engi- neer may not fulfill the needs of a construction contractor or even another civil engineer. Because each geotechnical engineering study is unique, each geotechnical engineering report is unique, prepared solely for the client. No one except you should rely on your geotechnical engineering report without first conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it. And no one -not even you -should apply the report for 3ny purpose or project except the one originally contemplated. Read the Full Report Serious problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical engineering report did not read it all. Do not rely on an executive summary. Do not read selected elements only. A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Based on A Unique Set ol Project-Speci11c Factors Geotechnical engineers consider a number of unique, project-specific fac- tors when establishing the scope of a study. Typical factors include: the client's goals, objectives. and risk management preferences; the general nature of the structure involved, its size, and configuration; the location of the structure on the site; and other planned or existing site improvements, such as access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities. Unless the geotechnical engineer who conducted the study specifically indicates oth- erwise, do not rely on a geotechnical engineering report that was: • not prepared for you, • not prepared for your project, • not prepared for the specific site explored. or • completed before important project changes were made. Typical changes that can erode the reliability of an existing geotechnical engineering report include those that affect • the function of the proposed structure, as when it's changed from a parking garage to an office building, or from a light industrial plant to a refrigerated warehouse, • elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or weight of the proposed structure, • composition of the design team, or • project ownership. As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer of project changes----even minor ones-and request an assessment of their impact. Geotechnical engineers cannot accept responsibility or liab1Jity for problems that occur because their reports do not consider developments of which they were not informed. Subsurlace Conditions Can Change A geotechnical engineering report is based on conditions that existed at the time the study was pertormed. Do not rely on a geotechnical engineer- ing report whose adequacy may have been affected by: the passage of time; by man-made events, such as construction on or adjacent to the site; or by natural events, such as floods, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctua- tions. Always contact the geotechnical engineer before applying the report to determine if it is still reliable, A minor amount of additional testing or analysis could prevent major problems. Most Geotechnical Findings Are Prolessional Opinions Site exploration identifies subsurface conditions only at those points where subsurtace tests are conducted or samples are taken. Geotechnical engi- neers review field and laboratory data and then apply their professional judgment to render an opinion about subsurtace conditions throughout the site. Actual subsurtace conditions may differ-sometimes significantly- from those indicated in your report. Retaining the geotechnical engineer who developed your report to provide construction observation is the most effective method of managing the risks associated with unanticipated conditions. A Report's Recommendations Are Not Final Do not overrely on the construction recommendations included in your report. Those recommendations are not final, because geotechnical engi- neers develop them principally from judgment and opinion. Geotechnical engineers can finalize their recommendations only by observing actual subsurtace conditions revealed during construction. The geotechnical engineer who developed your report cannot assume responsibility or ll'ability for the reports recommendations if that engineer does not perform construction observation A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Subject to Misinterpretation Other design team members' misinterpretation of geotechnical engineering reports has resulted in costly problems. Lower that risk by having your geo- technical engineer confer with appropriate members of the design team after submitting the report. Also retain your geotechnical engineer to review perti- nent elements of the design team's plans and specifications. Contractors can also misinterpret a geotechnical engineering report. Reduce that risk by having your geotechnical engineer participate in prebid and preconstruction conferences, and by providing construction observation. Do Not Redraw the Engineer's Logs Geotechnical engineers prepare final boring and testing logs based upon their interpretation of field logs and laboratory data. To prevent errors or omissions, the logs included in a geotechnical engineering report should never be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings. Only photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but recognize that separating logs from the report can elevate risk Give Contractors a Complete Report and Guidance Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can make contractors liable for unanticipated subsurtace conditions by limiting what they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent costly problems, give con- tractors the complete geotechnical engineering report, bu/preface it with a clearly written letter of transmittal. In that letter, advise contractors that the report was not prepared for purposes of bid development and that the report's accuracy is limited; encourage them to confer with the geotechnical engineer who prepared the report (a modest fee may be required) and/or to conduct additional study to obtain the specific types of information they need or prefer. A prebid conference can also be valuable. Be sure contrac- tors have sufficient time to pertorm additional study. Only then might you be in a position to give contractors the best information available to you, while requiring them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions. Read ResponsibilitY Provisions Closely Some clients, design professionals, and contractors do not recognize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disci- plines. This lack of understanding has created unrealistic expectations that have led to disappointments, claims, and disputes. To help reduce the risk of such outcomes, geotechnical engineers commonly include a variety of explanatory provisions in their reports. Sometimes labeled "limitations" many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers' responsi- bilities begin and end, to help others recognize their own responsibilities and risks. Read these provisions closely. Ask questions. Your geotechnical engineer should respond fully and frankly. Geoenvironmental Concerns Are Not Covered The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to pertorm a geoenviron- mental study differ significantly from those used to pertorm a geotechnical study. For that reason, a geotechnical engineering report does not usually relate any geoenvironmental findings, conclusions, or recommendations; e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants. Unanticipated environmental problems have led to numerous project failures If you have not yet obtained your own geoen- vironmental information, ask your geotechnical consultant for risk man- agement guidance. Do not rely on an environmental report prepared for someone else. Obtain Professional Assistance To Deal with Mold Diverse strategies can be applied during building design, construction, operation, and maintenance to prevent significant amounts of mold from growing on indoor surtaces. To be effective, all such strategies should be devised for the express purpose of mold prevention, integrated into a com- prehensive plan, and executed with diligent oversight by a professional mold prevention consultant. Because just a small amount of water or moisture can lead to the development of severe mold infestations, a num- ber of mold prevention strategies focus on keeping building surtaces dry. While groundwater, water infiltration, and similar issues may have been addressed as part of the geotechnical engineering study whose findings are conveyed in this report, the geotechnical engineer in charge of this project is not a mold prevention consultant; none of the services per- formed in connection with the geotechnical engineer's study were designed or conducted for the purpose of mold preven- tion. Proper implementation of the recommendations conveyed in this report will not of itself be sufficient to prevent mold from growing in or on the structure involved. Rely, on Your ASFE-Membar Geotechncial Engineer for Additional Assistance Membership in ASFE/The Best People on Earth exposes geotechnical engineers to a wide array of risk management techniques that can be of genuine benefit for everyone involved with a construction project. Confer with you ASFE-member geotechnical engineer for more information. ASFE TIii 11111 P111l1 11 Eartll. 8811 Colesville Road/Suite G106, Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone: 301/565-2733 Facsimile: 301/589-2017 e-mail: info@asfe.org www.asfe.org Copyright 2004 by ASFE, Inc. Duplication, reproduction, or copying of this document, in whole or in part, by any means whatsoever, is strictly prohibited, except with ASFE's specific written permission. Excerpting, quoting, or otherwise extracting wording from this document is permitted only with the express wn"tten pennission of ASFE, and only for purposes of scholarly research or book review. Only members of ASFE may use this document as a complement to or as an element of a geotechnfcal engineering report. Any other firm. individual, or other entity that so uses this document without being an ASFE member could be committing negligent or intentional (fraudulent) misrepresentation. IIGER06045 OM Table of Contents ES-2334.01 PAGE INTRODUCTION ... ... ... ... ...... ... ... ......... ... ............ .............. ... ...... 1 General ... ... ... ... ... ...... ... ... ...... ... ... ............ ................. ... ... 1 Background...................................................................... 3 Project Description .... .. . ... .. . .. . ... . .. . .. .. . .. . .. . .. . . . . .. . .. . ... ... . .. . .. . 3 Project Site Location . . . . .. . .. ... .. . .. . ... . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. .. . .. . .. . .. . ... . .. ... 4 Surface............ ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ............ ... ... ... ... ... ... ......... .... 4 Subsurface ........................................................................ 4 Previously Placed Fill......................................................... 5 Native Soil ......................................................................... 7 Groundwater Conditions ...................................................... 7 Existing Wells in the Vicinity ................................................ 8 Specifications for Preparation of Ground for Fill ..................... 8 Fill Material Specifications for the Proposed Fill..................... 9 Buttress Fill Material Specification_............ . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . .. 9 Core Structural Fill Material Specification.................... 8 Placement and Compaction Specifications for the Proposed Fill.......................................................... 9 Buttress Fill Placement and Compaction Specification . . . . . . .. . .. . . .. . . . . .. .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . .. . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . .. .. . 9 Core Structural Fill Placement and Compaction Specification . . . .. . . . . .. . . .. . .. .. . . . . ... ... . .. . .. .. . . .. . .. . .. . .. .. . .... . 1 O Recommended Construction Sequence for Fill Placement.. ..... 10 Slope Stability Evaluation ................................................... 11 Pond Lining Specifications for the Permanent Stormwater Pond.............................................................. 13 Potential Future Roadway Fill Settlement.. ............................. 13 Special Erosion Control Requirements .................................. 13 Winter/Wet Season Grading ................................................. 14 Future Slope Setback Recommendations ............................... 14 Subsurface Drainage Specifications Regarding the Proposed Fill and Cut Slopes ......................................... 14 CRITICAL AREAS ......................................................................... 15 Geologic Critical Areas under RMC 4-3-050J1........................ 15 Steep Slopes .............................................................. 15 Potential Landslide Hazards ............... _ ........................ 16 Erosion Hazards ......................................................... 17 Seismic Hazards ........................................................ 19 Coal Mine Hazards ...................................................... 20 Volcanic Hazards ....................................................... 20 Demonstration That RMC 4-3-050J1 Review Criteria Can Be Met. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. . . .. .. . . .. . .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. . .. . .. .. .. .. . .. . . 21 Earth Solutions NW, LLC Table of Contents ES-2334.01 Cont'd PAGE RENTON GRADING, EXCAVATION AND MINING REGULATIONS ....... 36 Fill Material Specifications for the Two Proposed Fill Zones.............................................. 36 Final Landscaping and Stabilization ...................................... 36 Hydroseeding ..................................................................... 38 Erosion and Sediment Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Setbacks ........................................................................... 40 Fills.................................................................................. 40 The Role of the Soil Engineering Report in Regard to Fills as Stated under Paragraph 1 of RMC 4-4-060N..................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Conformance with RMC 4-4-060N2 (Fill Location) .......... 41 Conformance with RMC 4-4-060N3 (Preparation of Ground) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Conformance with Applicable Portions of RMC 4-4-060N4 (Fill Material) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Conformance with RMC 4-4-060N5 (Minimum Compaction) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Conformance with Applicable Portions of RMC 4-4-060N6.................................................... 44 Conformance with RMC 4-4-060N7 (Drainage and Terracing) ......................................... 47 Conformance with Subsection 1 (General) of RMC 4-4-060P (DRAINAGE) .................................. 47 Conformance with Subsection 2 (Terrace) of RMC 4-4-060P (DRAINAGE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Conformance with Subsection 3 (Subsurface Drainage) of RMC 4-4-060P (DRAINAGE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Conformance with Subsection 4 (Disposal) of RMC 4-4-060P (DRAINAGE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Conformance with Subsection 5 (Overland Runoff) of RMC 4-4-060P (DRAINAGE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Cuts................................................................................. 51 The Role of the Soil Engineering Report in Regard to Cuts as Stated under Paragraph 1 of RMC 4-4-060M. .. .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . ... . . . ... . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. .. . .... 51 Conformance with RMC 4-4-060M2 (Maximum Slope) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Conformance with RMC 4-4-060M3 (Drainage and Terracing) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Earth Solutions NW, LLC Table of Contents ES-2334.01 Cont'd PAGE Conformance with Subsection 1 (General) of RMC 4-4-060P (DRAINAGE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Conformance with Subsection 2 (Terrace) of RMC 4-4-060P (DRAINAGE) .................................. 53 Conformance with Subsection 3 (Subsurface Drainage) of RMC 4-4-060P (DRAINAGE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Conformance with Subsection 4 (Disposal) of RMC 4-4-060P (DRAINAGE) . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Conformance with Subsection 5 (Overland Runoff) of RMC 4-4-060P (DRAINAGE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 GRADING, EXCAVATION AND MINING PERMITS AND LICENSES ...... 55 LIMITATIONS.............................................................................. 56 Additional Services .................................................... _.______ 56 Earth Solutions NW, LLC GRAPHICS Plate 1 Plate2 Plate 3 APPENDICES APPENDIX A APPENDIXB APPENDIX C APPENDIX D APPENDIX E APPENDIX F-1 APPENDIX F-2 APPENDIXG APPENDIX H Table of Contents Cont'd ES-2334.01 Vicinity Map Boring and Test Pit Location Plan Schematic Depiction of the Proposed Buttress Fill Zone and the Fill Core Behind It Subsurface Exploration Boring and Test Pit Logs (ECI) 11" by 17" reduced-size six-sheet drawing set prepared by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. illustrating (1) the Sunset Bluff project's design grades, (2) existing site grades, and (3) currently proposed design grades within the filling, excavation, and grading project site 11" by 17" reduced-size two-sheet Topographic Map exhibit prepared by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. SlopeW Computer Output (Slope Stability Analyses) Color map excerpt from the City of Renton's GIS system depicting (1) the Pointe Heron LLC parcel boundary, (2) the subject proposed grade and fill project site, and (3) "regulated slopes" City of Renton GIS map exhibit for the area surrounding the subject Pointe Heron LLC parcel (depicting nearest Coal Mine Hazard Areas) King County iMAP exhibit for the area surrounding the subject parcel (depicting nearest Coal Mine Hazard Areas) Wetlands map exhibit created from the Renton GIS website 11" by 17" reduced-size seven-sheet drawing set of the City- approved October 7, 2005 clearing, initial grading, and TESC drawings for Sunset Bluff prepared by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. Earth Solutions NW, LLC GEOTECHNICAL AND SOIL ENGINEERING REPORT IN SUPPORT OF PROPOSED FILL, EXCAVATION, AND GRADE POINTE HERON LLC PARCEL RENTON, WASHINGTON ES-2334.01 INTRODUCTION General This Geotechnical and Soil Engineering Report has been prepared in support of proposed filling, excavation, and grading work on an approximately 14.12-acre project site portion of the following parcel of land owned by Pointe Heron LLC property in Renton, Washington: Lot 1 of the SR 900 L.L.C. Lot Line Adjustment (City of Renton File No. LUA-03- 124-LLA) as recorded in Volume 168 of Surveys, pages 233 through 235, under Recording No. 20040311900015, records of King County, Washington. The Sunset Bluff residential subdivision development was previously proposed on that parcel. The stormwater detention and water quality pond for that previously planned and approved development was constructed, and much of the site grading work for that development was performed. We understand that the Pointe Heron LLC property is currently zoned Light Industrial (IL) by the City of Renton. The subject Pointe Heron LLC parcel is located between SW Sunset Boulevard (SR 900) to the north and the BNSF Railroad right-of-way to the south, and between the forested westerly end of the site of the existing Sunpointe Townhomes Condominium development to the east, and the Sunset View Apartments and the Black River Quarry to the west. The approximate location of the subject properties is illustrated on the Vicinity Map (Plate 1 of this report). Our current services have involved (1) a review of geotechnical documentation previously prepared for the subject Pointe Heron LLC parcel and for the east portion of the abutting Black River Quarry property and (2) preparation of engineering geology and soil engineering recommendations in support of (a) Pointe Heron LLC's proposed two-or-three-construction-season fill and grade of both (i) an existing stormwater detention pond along a part of the southern edge of the subject Pointe Heron LLC parcel (a pond that had been constructed to serve the previously planned Sunset Bluff residential subdivision development) and (ii) certain adjacent uplands; Earth Solutions NW, LLC Pointe Heron LLC August 13, 2014 ES-2334.01 Page 2 (b) The design and construction of a mid-fill-level interim stormwater detention and water quality pond that is to be in place and operational by October 1 following the first season of the fill and grade operation (the "Interim Stormwater Pond"); and (c) The design and construction of a potentially permanent stormwater detention and water quality pond south of and near the toe of the existing slope along the north edge of the Pointe Heron LLC parcel (the "Permanent Stormwater Pond") .1 In particular, our scope of services for completing this geotechnical report included the following: • Reviewing subsurface information presented in explorations conducted by Earth Consultants, Inc. (ECl)2 in regard to the previously planned Sunset Bluff residential subdivision development on the western and central part of the parcel of land that encompasses the site of the subject proposed Pointe Heron grade and fill; • Conducting engineering analyses, and; • Preparation of this report. The following documents and/or resources were reviewed as part of the preparation of this report: • Geotechnical reports and engineered wall/slope designs by Earth Consultants, Inc. (ECI), projects E-9543 and E-10927, prepared during 2004 and 2005. • The Site Plan for the Black River Quarry's South Edge Ecology Block Wall and Geogrid-Reinforced Fill Slope dated June 29, 2004 prepared by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. (Barghausen). • The set of Clearing, Initial Grading, and TESC drawings dated October 7, 2005 prepared by Barghausen for the Sunset Bluff residential subdivision development. 1 This proposed pond is designed so that it can be permanent. However, depending on the ultimate land use of the subject Pointe Heron LLC parcel, this pond might ultimately be replaced with (1) another stormwater detention and water quality pond located in a different portion of the parcel or (2) one or more underground stormwater detention and water quality vaults. 2 Kyle R. Campbell, P.E., a principal of Earth Solutions NW, LLC, was formerly employed by Earth Consultants, Inc. and was involved in some of the construction observation work of the slopes that were constructed as part of the Sunset Bluff residential subdivision development. Earth Solutions NW, LLC Pointe Heron LLC August 13, 2014 ES-2334.01 Page 3 • The 10-sheet set of Grading, Interim Drainage, E.S.C. [i.e., Erosion/Sedimentation Control], and Rehabilitation Plans dated August 2014 prepared by Barghausen for the subject Pointe Heron grade, excavation, and fill project (plans referred to in this report as the "Barghausen Grading Plans"). • Raedeke Associates, Inc. 's QIPNirlu!Sunset Bluff (MLDC) Properlies Wetland & Stream Delineation Update 2014 technical memorandum dated August 2014. • Raedeke Associates, lnc.'s 2014 Great Blue Heron & Wildlife Habitat Update for the QIP!Sunset Bluff (MLDC) Properties dated August 2014. Background We understand the scope of the project includes filling and grading portions of the Pointe Heron LLC parcel in preparation for future development and includes excavating and constructing a new stormwater detention and water quality pond within the parcel to replace the existing pond. We also understand that Pointe Heron LLC anticipates later development of the parcel consistent with applicable City of Renton zoning and other development regulations. Such later development may include construction of roadways, single-story and/or multistory buildings, parking areas, driveways, landscaping, and utilities. Project Description The currently proposed filling, excavation, and grading, which is depicted on the Barghausen Grading Plans, is primarily intended to: (1) Fill (in two phases as shown on the Barghausen Grading Plans) the existing stormwater pond area and, along with doing so, create both (a) a new 1.5H:1V engineered fill slope along a portion of the south edge of the Pointe Heron LLC parcel (to a top of slope elevation of approximately 128 feet) between (i) the existing 1.5H:1Vengineered slope to the west of the existing stormwater pond and (ii) the existing 1.5H:1V engineered fill slope to the east of the existing stormwater pond and (b) new 1.5H: 1V upward, engineered fill slope extensions of both (i) the existing south edge 1.5H:1V engineered fill slope lying to the west of the existing stormwater pond and (ii) the existing south edge 1.5H:1V engineered fill slope lying to the east of the existing stormwater pond, in order to achieve a continuous top of slope elevation of approximately 128 feet among all portions of the south edge slope; Earth Solutions NW, LLC Pointe Heron LLC August 13, 2014 ES-2334 01 Page 4 (2) Excavate and construct a new Permanent Stormwater Pond (as depicted on the Barghausen Grading Plans) along and just south of a portion of the toe of the existing slope on the portion of the Pointe Heron LLC parcel that abuts SW Sunset Boulevard's south edge, with this pond designed to have an approximate bottom elevation of 114.5 feet; and (3) Fill areas north of the proposed new and upward-extended south-edge fill slopes as depicted on the Barghausen Grading Plans in order to support anticipated future development of the project site, with the northerly edge of those fill areas designed to intersect existing grade at elevations generally around 125 to 128 feet. In addition, as shown on the Barghausen Grading Plans as part of Phase 1 filling and grading, the Interim Stormwater Pond (a pond with an approximate bottom elevation of 100 feet) is planned to be completed by October 1 of the first season of the proposed filling and grading work as part of winter stabilization of the grade and fill project work area. After the Permanent Stormwater Pond has been constructed and is operational, the interim pond is to be filled with compacted structural fill. The 14.12-acre filling and grading project site is depicted on the above-referenced plans prepared by Barghausen. Deviations from the design of the filling and grading depicted on the Barghausen plans should be reviewed by ESNW. In our opinion, all of the proposed site filling, excavation, and grading activities and designs are feasible and safe from geotechnical and soil engineering standpoints. Project Site Location The 14.12-acre filling and grading project site is part of the parcel of land on which the previously proposed Sunset Bluff residential subdivision development was approved. That parcel of land in Renton, Washington is located between SW Sunset Boulevard to the north and the BNSF Railroad right-of-way to the south, and between the forested westerly end of the existing Sunpointe Townhomes Condominium development property to the east and the Sunset View Apartments and the Black River Quarry properties to the west. The approximate location of the subject Pointe Heron LLC parcel is illustrated on the Vicinity Map (Plate 1 ). Surface Across the 14.12-acre portion of the subject parcel that is proposed to be filled, excavated, and graded, the topography is variable and represents the results of grading operations associated with the previously planned Sunset Bluff residential subdivision. Earth Solutions NVV, LLC Pointe Heron LLC August 13, 2014 ES-2334.01 Page 5 An existing stormwater detention pond constructed for the previously planned Sunset Bluff residential subdivision development is located along and just to the north of the site's south- central property boundary. That pond, which was completed around 2006, is currently about 50 vertical feet lower than the portion of the site located immediately to the north of that pond. Some pockets of very small trees and brush vegetation are located within portions of the proposed work area. We understand that no trees within the work area have a caliper of two inches or greater at breast height. Subsurface ESNW reviewed the subsurface information provided in the above-referenced reports prepared by ECI dated January 9, 2004 and April 19, 2004, That subsurface information was used in preparation of ECl's geotechnical engineering study report E-10927, a report that was prepared in 2005 in support of the then-proposed Sunset Bluff residential subdivision. Copies of the boring and test pit logs prepared as part of that study that relate to the currently planned grade and fill project site are provided in Appendix A to this report. The subsurface information contained in geotechnical engineering study E-10927 and subsequent geotechnical design recommendations reflect conditions at the time of exploration (i.e., November 2003 and March 2004). The approximate limits of the proposed filling, excavation, and grading project site area are illustrated on the Boring and Test Pit Location Plan (Plate 2). Please refer to the boring and test pit logs provided in Appendix A of this report for a more detailed description of subsurface conditions. While the surface elevations noted on the boring and test pits may not correspond to the project site's current topography, the subsurface information set forth therein is still relevant in relation to the current evaluation. Previously Placed Fill Structural fill placed as part of the Sunset Bluff project's filling and grading is present within the currently proposed filling, excavation, and grading project site. For a graphic comparison of (1) the Sunset Bluff project's design grades contemplated by the Clearing, Initial Grading, and TESC Plans for Sunset Bluff that the City approved on October 4, 2005, (2) approximate existing ground elevations, and (3) the currently proposed design grades within the filling, excavation, and grading project site, see attached APPENDIX B, which is a six-sheet reduced- size (11" by 17") set of exhibit drawings (Sheets X1 through X6) prepared by Barghausen. Sheets X1 and X2 depict in plan view the locations of cross-sections J-J, K-K, LL, M-M, N-N, 0- 0, and P-P that Barghausen added to certain of the Clearing, Initial Grading, and TESC Plan sheets for Sunset Bluff that the City approved on October 4, 2005. Sheets X3 and X4 depict in plan view the same locations of those cross-sections as set forth on Sheets E5 and E6 of the set of Grading, Interim Drainage, E.S.C., and Rehabilitation Plans dated August 2014 prepared by Barghausen for the subject Pointe Heron fill, excavation, and grade project. Sheets X5 and X6 depict cross-sectional plots of (a) the Sunset Bluff project's design grades, (b) approximate existing ground elevations, and (c) the currently proposed design grades at each of cross- sections J-J, K-K, LL, M-M, N-N, 0-0, and P-P. Earth Solutions NW, LLC Pointe Heron LLC August 13, 2014 ES-2334.01 Page 6 Along (1) the existing stormwater pond's north side, (2) roughly the north half of the pond's east side, and (3) the pond's west side, a mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) ecology block wall up to about 16 feet in height with a top elevation ranging from approximately 50 feet to 65 feet is present. This wall is planned to be left in place and, as Cross Sections E-E and F-F on Sheet E7 of the Barghausen Grading Plans illustrate, will lie well beneath (roughly 60 feet beneath) the top of the planned fill. An existing structural fill slope inclined at about 2H: 1V (a) is located upgradient from (immediately north of) the north segment of the ecology block wall and (b) extends upward to elevations ranging from about 80 to 105 feet, where the slope reaches an existing interim, intermediate plateau area ("Existing Interim, Intermediate Plateau Area 1"), a plateau area with a width ranging from about 30 feet to 100 feet. [See APPENDIX C, a reduced-size (11" by 17") two-sheet Topography Map exhibit of the project site prepared by Barghausen dated August 2014.] That intermediate plateau area extends to the north from the top of that existing structural fill slope to an interim structural fill slope ("Existing Interim Fill Slope 1 "), a fill slope bisected at an angle by an access road that is labeled "Access Road 1 to Temporary Sediment Pond Lying East of Sunset Bluff Stormwater Detention Pond" on Topography Map sheets 1 and 2. That access road extends farther up to the north to a more gently-sloping existing upper plateau area ("Existing Upper Plateau Area 1," which is labeled on Topography Map sheets 1 and 2). That plateau area ranges in elevation from (i) about 115 to 124 feet on the plateau's south edge to (ii) roughly 128 to 130 feet along the north edge of the project's work area limits. Existing Interim, Intermediate Plateau Area 1, Existing Interim Fill Slope 1, and Existing Upper Plateau Area 1 were all filled and graded as part of Sunset Bluff project site filling and grading. An approximately 2H:1Vengineered fill slope is also present along the east side of the existing Sunset Bluff stormwater pond. South of the east leg of the MSE ecology block wall, the height of that fill slope is about 24 feet. At the top of that fill slope is an existing, interim intermediate plateau area ("Existing Interim, Intermediate Plateau Area 2") that has a width of about 70 feet and that extends generally to the east to an existing interim fill slope ("Existing Interim Fill Slope 2"), a fill slope that extends both to the east-southeast and to the north. A temporary sediment pond lies within the southerly portion of Existing Interim, Intermediate Plateau Area 2. (See Topography Map sheet 2.) The north end of Existing Interim, Intermediate Plateau Area 2 (a) wraps to the northwest around the northeast corner of the intersection of the stormwater pond's north and east slopes that extend above the north and east legs of the MSE ecology block wall and'(b) connects to Existing Interim, Intermediate Plateau Area 1. Existing Interim Fill Slope 2's east-southeast leg extends up to a relatively gently-sloping upper plateau area ("Existing Upper Plateau Area 2"}, a plateau area that ranges in elevation from (i) about 110 to 116 feet on the plateau's south and southwest edges to (ii) roughly 126 to 137 feet along the north edge of the project site. The northwesterly end of Existing Upper Plateau Area 2 connects to the northeasterly end of Existing Upper Plateau Area 1. (Again, see Topography Map sheet 2.) Existing Interim, Intermediate Plateau Area 2, Existing Interim Fill Slope 2, and Existing Upper Plateau Area 2 were all filled and graded as part of the Sunset Bluff project site filling and grading. Earth Solutions NW, LLC Pointe Heron LLC August 13, 2014 ES-2334.01 Page 7 In addition, an existing engineered fill slope is also present on the west side of the existing stormwater pond, to the west of the west leg of the existing MSE ecology block wall. That fill slope, which has an inclination of approximately 2H:1V, extends from the top of the existing MSE ecology block wall up to top-of-slope elevations ranging from about 104 feet to 112 feet. The top of that slope connects with the westerly extension of Existing Interim, Intermediate Plateau Area 1, which is coincident with an access road that is labeled "Access Road 2 to Temporary Sediment Pond Lying East of Sunset Bluff Stormwater Detention Pond" on Topography Map sheet 1. Further, existing engineered fill slopes with an inclination of approximately 1.5H:1V are located along the south edge of the Pointe Heron LLC parcel, both (a) to the west of the existing stormwater pond (south of the existing stormwater detention pond maintenance road) and (b) to the east of the east end of the pond. (Again, see Topography Map sheets 1 and 2.) Native Soil Native soil within the project site (work area limits) generally ranges from outwash sand and gravel to glacial drift including silt, sand, and gravel. However, because there have been significant modifications to the original site grades, very little, if any, native soil is expected to be exposed during grading activities associated with the proposal. Groundwater Conditions Groundwater seepage zones are present in or near and under the project site, and subsurface drain systems have already been installed to control the flow of these sources. In view of the varied nature of the existing fill on the site and previous engineered modifications to portions of the site topography, minor perched groundwater may be encountered during the wetter winter months, but no groundwater table will not be exposed or interrupted. Because the proposal involves raising site grades using engineered structural fill, any seepage would likely be very limited in flow volume and would also likely attenuate relatively quickly. Existing Wells in the Vicinity Based on a review of readily available information maintained on the Washington Department of Ecology's online well database, no wells are present on the project site or within 1,000 feet of the project site. Earth Solutions NW, LLC Pointe Heron LLC August 13, 2014 Specifications for Preparation of Ground for Fill ES-2334.01 Page 8 The ground surface that is to receive fill shall be prepared to receive fill by removing any vegetation, any noncomplying fill, any topsoil, and any other unsuitable materials (as determined by ESNW) from the areas in which the fill is to be placed. Areas of loose native soil or loose fill soil must be recompacted or replaced with new, compacted fill. In areas to be filled where the existing ground to be filled consists of slopes that are 5H:1V or steeper, such areas prior to filling shall be benched into sound bedrock (or, as determined by ESNW, benched into other competent material), so that the fill is placed on a level surface with width(s) determined by ESNW during the course of the fill work. Fill shall not be placed on a sloping surface. The benching shall create as homogenous a fill interface as is reasonably practicable. The ground surface shall be scarified prior to fill placement. ESNW should observe the subgrade prior to fill placement. A schematic slope fill detail is included on Plate 3 attached to this report. The above-stated specifications for preparation of ground for fill have been set forth on Sheet E1 O of the Barghausen Grading Plans. Fill Material Specifications for the Proposed Fill Two categories of structural fill are proposed for the subject fill and grade project: (1) a crushed aggregate fill to be used to construct a buttress fill zone along the face of the proposed fill slopes and (2) a fill to be used to construct the proposed fill core behind the crushed aggregate buttress fill zone. (See Plate 3 for a schematic depiction of the buttress fill zone and the core structural fill zone behind it.) Both of these categories of structural fill must conform to RMC 4- 4-060N4 (FILL MATERIAL), which states in relevant part: Fill materials shall have no more than minor amounts of organic substances and shall have no rock or similar irreducible material with a maximum dimension greater than eight inches (8"). Fill material shall meet the following requirements: a. Construction, Demolition, and Land Clearing Waste Prohibited: Fill material shall be free of construction, demolition, and land clearing waste except that this requirement does not preclude the use of recycled concrete rubble per Washington State Department of Transportation Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction. b, Cleanliness of Fill Material: Fill material shall not contain concentrations of contaminants that exceed cleanup standards for soil specified in WAC 173-340-740, Model Toxics Control Act. In addition to conforming to RMC 4-4-060N4 (FILL MATERIAL), each of the two categories of fill material must conform to the respective applicable technical specifications set forth below. Earth Solutions NW, LLC Pointe Heron LLC August 13, 2014 Buttress Fill Material Specification ES-2334.01 Page 9 Material to be used to construct the buttress fill zone along the face of the proposed fill slopes shall be crushed aggregate conforming to RMC 4-4-060N4 (FILL MATERIAL) and conforming to the following strength parameters: Internal angle of friction Moist unit weight Maximum aggregate size 46° minimum 145 pcf minimum 8 inches Maximum fines content (passing U.S. Sieve No. 200) shall not exceed 5 percent. This specified material, which is equivalent to coarse gravel and/or cobble, must be well-graded and angular (crushed). Samples of this proposed fill material must be provided to ESNW for laboratory analysis and approval prior to placement. Core Structural Fill Material Specification Material to be used to construct the proposed fill core to be placed behind the crushed aggregate buttress zone fill shall conform to the following strength parameters: Internal angle of friction Moist unit weight Maximum aggregate size 36° minimum 125 pcf minimum 8inches Maximum fines content (passing the U.S. No. 200 sieve) shall not exceed 20 percent. Samples of this proposed fill material must be provided to ESNW for laboratory analysis and approval prior to placement. The above-stated following fill material specifications for the proposed fill have been set forth on Sheet E10 of the Barghausen Grading Plans. Placement and Compaction Specifications for the Proposed Fill Buttress Fill Placement and Compaction Specification The buttress fill material must be placed in maximum 12-inch loose lifts and compacted to a firm and unyielding condition. Adequacy of compaction must be confirmed by an ESNW representative at the time of material placement. At a minimum, three passes in two orthogonal directions using a vibratory drum roller should be made to compact each lift of buttress fill material. Earth Solutions NW, LLC Pointe Heron LLC August 13, 2014 ES-2334.01 Page 10 Because of the aggregate nature of the buttress fill, the specified buttress fill material is outside the range of typical grain size for testing under ASTM D-1557 or equivalent American Public Works Association (APWA) specifications and field density standards. Core Structural Fill Placement and Compaction Specification The core structural fill material must be placed in maximum 12-inch loose lifts and compacted to a relative compaction of 95 percent, based on the maximum dry density as determined by the Modified Proctor Method (ASTM D-1557), which is a compaction standard compatible with the American Public Works Association (APWA) specifications and field density standards. Adequacy of compaction must be confirmed by an ESNW representative at the time of material placement. At a minimum, three passes in two orthogonal directions using a vibratory drum roller should be made to compact each lift of core structural fill material. The above-stated placement and compaction specifications for the proposed fill have been set forth on Sheet E1 O of the Barghausen Grading Plans. Recommended Construction Sequence for Fill Placement We recommend the following construction sequence for fill placement (1) Prior to placement of fill on any particular area to be filled, the ground of such area must be prepared for fill consistent with the section under the subheading "Specifications for Preparation of Ground for Fill" as set forth on page 7, above. (2) Place six-inch or larger quarry spalls or recycled concrete aggregate in the existing stormwater detention pond area to a depth of about five feet prior to filling that area. (3) Generally simultaneous with the placement and compaction of the adjacent portion of the core structural fill per paragraph 4, below, construct a buttress fill in the buttress fill zone (a) using fill material meeting the buttress fill material specification set forth on pages 7 and 8, above, (b) complying with the buttress fill placement and compaction specification set forth on page 9, above, (c) in conformance with the design set forth on Plate 3, and (d) placing the material in maximum 12-inch-thick lifts compacted to a firm and unyielding condition. The base of the new slope should include a keyway that is at least five feet in depth. The existing material from the southern berm of the existing stormwater pond should be removed and placed within the core structural fill zone behind the buttress zone. (See Plate 3 for a schematic depiction of the buttress fill zone, the keyway, the core structural fill zone, and geogrid material and placement specifications.) Earth Solutions NW, LLC Pointe Heron LLC August 13, 2014 ES-2334.01 Page 11 (4) Place and compact the core structural fill (in the core structural fill zone consistent with Plate 3) (a) using fill material that (i) meets the core structural fill material specification set forth on pages 7 to 9, above, and is (ii) near to slightly over optimum moisture content at the time of placement and (b) placing and compacting that fill material so as to conform to the core structural fill placement and compaction specification set forth on page 9, above. The above-stated recommended construction sequence for fill placement has been set forth on Sheet E10 of the Barghausen Grading Plans. The fill and fill slope construction method discussed above is similar to the method that was used successfully several years ago for construction of the existing 1.5H:1V fill slopes to the west and east of the subject proposed fill slope. Slope Stability Evaluation ESNW evaluated slope stability in both the planned interim (Phase 1) fill configuration and the post-construction (Phase 1) fill configuration based on both (1) topographic information presented on the Barghausen Grading Plans and (2) the conditions encountered at the exploration sites. [The slope stability analyses have been conducted through the two most critical slope cross-sections (cross-sections E-E and F-F depicted on Sheets E6 and E7 of the above-referenced set of Barghausen Grading Plans).] The slope stability analyses (which included evaluation of the potential for both localized failure and global slope failure-see APPENDIX D) indicate that the proposed 1.5H:1Vengineered structural fill slope will be stable under both static and seismic conditions. ESNW conducted the slope stability evaluation based in part on information concerning the prior construction of the existing 1.5H: 1V fill slopes to the west and east of the segment of the project site's south boundary area that lies generally south of the existing stormwater pond from both (1) construction inspection records of Earth Consultants, Inc. (ECI) and (2) ESNW's on-site interview of a representative of Gary Merlino Construction Co., Inc. (GMCC) who personally worked on previous fill and grade operations on the Pointe Heron LLC parcel, including the construction of those 1.5H:1V fill slopes to the west and east. That interview was conducted during February 2014 on the same day that a representative of ESNW conducted the most recent visual reconnaissance of those existing fill slopes along the south edge of the Pointe Heron LLC parcel to the west and east. During that reconnaissance, the existing fill slopes were observed to help assess the actual performance of those slopes over the years that they have been in existence. During the February 2014 site reconnaissance, ESNW observed the existing 1.5H:1V fill slopes to be stable and showed no signs of excessive erosion, sloughing, or other indicators of slope movement, despite the fact that heavy truck traffic has frequently traveled on the existing gravel roadway located along and near the top edge of the fill slope. Earth Solutions NW, LLC Pointe Heron LLC August 13, 2014 ES-2334.01 Page 12 In view of (1) our review of the ECI construction observation records and (2) our February 2014 site reconnaissance and interview of the GMCC representative, we developed appropriate soil parameters for use in the slope stability model to enable us to evaluate the proposed south- edge fill slope for stability or potential instability. Because the similar existing slopes to the west and east that the proposed slope will connect with are stable and have been stable for at least several years, it was reasonable for us to use the soil strength parameters included in the slope stability calculations attached to this report. We have included the resulting data in APPENDIX D. Also, in order to evaluate where the most probable failure planes would occur, we also ran the slope stability analysis as if the proposed new slope would have no geogrid reinforcement. With the information acquired from these analyses, ESNW determined appropriate geogrid strength and lengths and included such geogrid strength and lengths in the post-construction modeling. (Geogrid material specifications and placement specifications for the proposed fill are set forth on Plate 3.) ESNW evaluated global stability using the GeoStudio SlopeW 2007 revision 7.17 software modeling program. The analysis was focused on a deep-seated rotational failure mode. Based on (1) the project site setting and the soil conditions underlying the new proposed slope, (2) the proposed design geometry of the proposed new fill slopes, (3) the material specifications and placement and compaction specifications for the proposed fill, and (4) the geogrid specifications for the proposed fill, the potential for shallow debris-flow failures (failures that are a more common occurrence during the normal course of the natural weathering process than deep- seated rotational failures) is mitigated and, if any such failure do occur they are expected to be minimal, especially due to the porous, free-draining, and nonerosive characteristics of the proposed buttress fill material.. The results of our stability analyses are included in APPENDIX D. Minimum Factor of Safety values of 1.2 (seismic) and 1.5 (static) are generally considered acceptable threshold values for stability analyses. Seismic and static conditions were modeled for post-construction conditions including future roadway traffic loading on a road/street assumed to have the nearest travel lane located 20 feet from the top of slope. The results indicate a minimum factor of safety (FOS) of 1.25 for seismic conditions and 1.6 for static conditions in the post-construction configuration. The specific modeling parameters used are provided in the SlopeW computer output in APPENDIX D. The results of our slope stability analyses were generally consistent with those performed by ECI for the existing, previously permitted fill slope located to the east and west ends of the area lying along the southerly edge of the proposed project site. It is important to note that slope stability modeling is one tool used in an overall evaluation of a proposed fill slope project. In regard to the subject proposed fill slope project, the performance of the comparable existing 1.5H:1V fill slopes on the Pointe Heron LLC parcel and on the Black River Quarry property to the west over the years following their construction provides a good indicator of stability. In view of this, and provided that the recommendations and specifications in this report regarding construction means and methods are followed, it is our opinion that the proposed fill slopes will be stable. This includes both the final (Phase 2) slope configuration depicted on Sheets ES, E6, E7, and EB of the Barghausen Grading Plans and the interim (Phase 1) slope configuration and the Interim Stormwater Pond depicted on Sheets E2, E3, and E4 of the Barghausen Grading Plans. Earth Solutions NW, LLC Pointe Heron LLC August 13, 2014 Pond Lining Specifications for the Permanent Stormwater Pond ES-2334.01 Page 13 The proposed Permanent Stormwater Pond is to be constructed along the south edge of a portion of the toe of the existing slope in the north portion of the Pointe Heron LLC parcel south of SW Sunset Boulevard. The pond should include, at a minimum, a compacted till or clay liner conforming to the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM) Section 6.2.4 specifications, with the following amendments: Compacted till liner gradation should include a fines content of at least 40 percent, and the material should be placed in maximum 6-inch loose lifts for a total minimum depth of 18 inches. If these conditions cannot be met. a synthetic membrane pond liner should be used. The above-stated pond lining specifications for the proposed Permanent Stormwater Pond have been set forth on Sheet E10 of the Barghausen Grading Plans. Potential Future Roadway Fill Settlement Total long-term settlements of up to about one to two inches should be expected where fills are deepest (up to approximately 90 vertical feet). Due to the variability in new fill depths, settlement magnitudes will likely vary as well. We estimate that long-term differential settlement may decrease by one half over a span of about 50 feet as the fill depths decrease to the north. Special Erosion Control Requirements Due to the existing grades across the project site, it is critical that temporary erosion control measures be planned for and in place prior to and during grading activities. Temporary erosion control measures must include, at a minimum, (1) silt fencing placed in the locations depicted on the Barghausen Grading Plans and (2) installation of a construction entrance consisting of quarry spalls, as appropriate, to minimize off-site tracking of soil and to provide a firm surface. (If construction ingress and egress to and from the project site is through the Black River Quarry to the west of the project site, the existing wheel wash facilities near the quarry entrance driveway with Monster Road may be used in lieu of constructing a construction entrance consisting of quarry spalls.) Surface water should not be allowed to flow over the top edge of temporary or permanent fill slopes. Except for surface water in the proposed Interim Stormwater Pond contemplated as part of Phase 1 grading and designed on Sheets E2 and E3 of the Barghausen Grading Plans (the top edge of that pond must be located no closer than 80 horizontal feet from the top of the Phase 1 fill slope to the south of the pond without ESNW's approval-see Sheet E3 of the Barghausen Grading Plans), surface water should not be allowed to pond near the top of temporary or permanent fill slopes without ESNW's approval. Interceptor drains or swales should be considered for controlling surface water flow patterns. During construction, ESNW should observe the erosion control measures and provide supplemental recommendations for minimizing erosion as needed. Earth Solutions NW, LLC Pointe Heron LLC August 13, 2014 ES-2334.01 Page 14 Additional erosion and sediment control measures are specified on the Barghausen Grading Plans. The above-stated special erosion control requirements have been set forth on Sheet E10 of the Barghausen Grading Plans. Winter/Wet Season Grading In our opinion, means and methods of stabilizing the grading envelope during the wet season have been adequately developed and addressed in the current proposal. The areas of the project site that have been previously graded appear to be performing well with respect to erosion control. We would anticipate a similar level of erosion control measures and performance for the currently proposed filling, excavation, and grading project. ESNW has reviewed the Barghausen Grading Plans to confirm adequate measures are to be in place in the event that grading occurs during the rainy season. Future Slope Setback Recommendations The current proposal includes construction of engineered fill slopes and slopes excavated into native soils. Future site plans may include a light industrial development or one or more other types of development consistent with the Light Industrial (IL) zoning of the Pointe Heron LLC parcel, and may include typical construction elements associated with such use(s). A building foundation and/or roadway vehicular traffic setback of 20 feet from the top of the new fill slopes should be incorporated into future site layout plans. ESNW should evaluate future site layout and grading plans. Subsurface Drainage Specifications Regarding the Proposed Fill and Cut Slopes The proposed fill and cut slopes shall be provided with subsurface drainage features as necessary for stability. Because the subject fill and cut slope proposal includes placing fills in areas where past grading has occurred, in our opinion very little subsurface drainage will likely be required. In order to maintain slope stability during past grading activities on this site, subsurface drainage provisions were installed to accommodate flows that were encountered. These provisions appear to be performing as intended. Means and methods consistent with previous subsurface drainage measures (including subsurface corridors of gravel) to control subsurface drainage shall be implemented as part of the grading activities currently proposed. If subsurface drainage measures are ultimately needed, particular measures and methods will be determined during site grading depending on the conditions encountered. Subsurface drainage measures must be approved by ESNW representatives to accommodate subsurface flows encountered during the fill, cut, and grading project. Earth Solutions NW, LLC Pointe Heron LLC August 13, 2014 ES-2334.01 Page 15 Temporary measures to control groundwater seepage and surface water runoff during construction may involve additional subsurface drains, interceptor trenches, sedimentation ponds, and/or sump areas. Where groundwater seepage is observed in areas to be filled, permanent subsurface drainage measures must be installed. The type of drainage measures to be used must be determined during construction, once the soil and groundwater conditions are exposed. Subsurface drainage measures sometimes consist of perforated pipes surrounded by drain rock and wrapped in filter fabric. If cut slopes expose seepage, such exposed water shall be routed to a discharge point approved by ESNW and, if needed, an appropriate portion of the cut slope face shall be stabilized using quarry spalls or alternative material(s) approved by ESNW. The above-stated subsurface drainage specifications regarding the proposed slopes have been set forth on Sheet E10 of the Barghausen Grading Plans. CRITICAL AREAS Renton Municipal Code Section 4-3-050J provides regulations relating to geologic critical areas. That code section (along with related definitions in portions of RMC Chapter 4-11-190) addresses a variety of geologic hazards and provides accepted methods of identifying and classifying geologic critical areas, while subsection 7 (Definitions G) of RMC 4-8-120D (Definitions of Terms Used in Submittal Requirements for Building, Planning and Public Works Permit Applications) sets forth requirements for geotechnical reports. Subsection b of RMC 4- 3-050J1 (Special Studies Required) sets forth review criteria in regard to the geotechnical studies required under subsection a of RMC 4-3-050J1. These code provisions are addressed below. Geologic Critical Areas under RMC 4-3-050J1 Based on subsection 1 (Applicability) of RMC 4-3-050J, steep slopes, potential landslide hazards, and potential erosion hazards are present to some degree on the subject parcel and/or within about 300 feet of the project site (work area limits). A discussion of steep slopes, potential landslide hazards, potential erosion hazards, potential seismic hazards, potential coal mine hazards, and potential volcanic hazards relevant to this parcel is provided below in this section of this report. Steep Slopes Renton Municipal Code Section 4-3-050J1a(ii) classifies steep slopes as either sensitive or protected. More particularly, RMC 4-11-190 defines steep slopes (and the protected slope and sensitive slope subclassifications) as follows: Earth Solutions NW, LLC Pointe Heron LLC August 13, 2014 ES-2334.01 Page 16 SLOPE, STEEP: A hillside, or portion thereof, which falls into one of two (2) classes of slope, sensitive or protected. A. Slope, Protected: A hillside, or portion thereof, with an average slope, as identified in the City of Renton Steep Slope Atlas or in a method approved by the City, of forty percent (40%) or greater grade and having a minimum vertical rise of fifteen feet (15'). B. Slope, Sensitive: A hillside, or portion thereof, characterized by: (1) an average slope, as identified in the City of Renton Steep Slope Atlas or in a method approved by the City, of twenty five percent (25%) to less than forty percent (40%); or (2) an average slope, as identified in the City of Renton Steep Slope Atlas or in a method approved by the City, of forty percent (40%) or greater with a vertical rise of less than fifteen feet (15'), abutting an average slope, as identified in the City of Renton Steep Slope Atlas or in a method approved by the City, of twenty five percent (25%) to forty percent (40%). This definition excludes engineered retaining walls. In regard to the location of steep slopes on a site, subsection i (Steep Slope Delineation Procedure) of RMC 4-3-050J1a (Steep Slopes) states: i. Steep Slope Delineation Procedure: The boundaries of a regulated steep sensitive or protected slope are determined to be in the location identified on the City of Renton's Steep Slope Atlas. An applicant's qualified professional may substitute boundaries independently derived from survey data for the City's consideration in determining the boundaries of sensitive or protected steep slopes. All topographic maps shall utilize two foot (2') contour intervals or the standard utilized in the City of Renton Steep Slope Atlas. (Boldfacing in the code text; underlining and italics added for emphasis.) The City of Renton has delineated areas of steep slopes (both sensitive and protected slopes) on the City's Steep Slope Hazard Atlas. Those delineated steep slope areas (along with areas of slopes that are greater than 15 percent and less than or equal to 25 percent) are depicted on the City's regulated slopes overlay that is part of the City's GIS system that is publicly accessible through the City of Renton website. Earth Solutions NW, LLC Pointe Heron LLC August 13, 2014 ES-2334.01 Page 17 Attached as APPENDIX E is a color map exhibit generated from the City's GIS system for the Pointe Heron LLC parcel with the regulated slopes overlay turned on. On that map both (1) the parcel boundaries have been outlined with a thick black line and (2) the project site (work area limits) for the proposed fill, excavation, and grading project have been outlined with a thick dashed line. The APPENDIX E map makes clear that no protected slopes lie within the project site (work area limits), although the map depicts four areas of protected slopes within the portion of the subject parcel to the east of the project site. Sheet E1 of the above-referenced set of Barghausen Grading Plans for the proposed project depicts those four areas of protected slopes and their approximate respective square footages: namely, from west to east, Protected Slope Area 1 (which encompasses approximately 5,299 square feet), Protected Slope Area 2 (which encompasses approximately 68,936 square feet), Protected Slope Area 3 (which encompasses approximately 2,241 square feet), and Protected Slope Area 4 (which encompasses approximately 1,532 square feet). Sheet E1 also depicts the minimum distance (110 feet) between the westerlymost protected slope area (Protected Slope Area 1) and the nearest eastern edge of the project site (work area limits). APPENDIX E indicates 15% to 25% slopes across nearly all of the proposed project site and also indicates some small areas of sensitive steep slopes in the proposed project site, primarily in the western half of the project site. APPENDIX E depicts in white the remaining, scattered small portions of the project site, with the white portions intended to indicate areas of 15 percent or lesser slopes. Potential Landslide Hazards RMC 4-3-050J1b classifies landslide hazards as low, medium, high, and very high landslide hazards. The City's landslide hazards classification scheme is largely based on topography and stratigraphy. RMC 4-3-050J1 b states: b. Landslide Hazards: i. Low Landslide Hazard (LL): Areas with slopes less than fifteen percent (15%). ii. Medium Landslide Hazard (LM): Areas with slopes between fifteen percent (15%) and forty percent (40%) and underlain by soils that consist largely of sand, gravel or glacial till. iii. High Landslide Hazards (LH): Areas with slopes greater than forty percent (40%), and areas with slopes between fifteen percent (15%) and forty percent (40%) and underlain by soils consisting largely of silt and clay. iv. Very High Landslide Hazards (LV): Areas of known mappable landslide deposits. Earth Solutions r,w,.J, LLC Pointe Heron LLC August 13, 2014 ES-2334.01 Page 18 Based on our review of (1) RMC 4-3-050J1b(ii) (which classifies Medium Landslide Hazard Areas as "[a]reas with slopes between fifteen percent (15%) and forty percent (40%) and underlain by soils that consist largely of sand, gravel or glacial till," (2) the City of Renton's (APPENDIX E) map depiction of regulated slopes [a map that depicts (a) 15% to 25% slopes across nearly all of the proposed project site (work area limits), (b) only small areas of sensitive slopes within the project site, and (c) no protected slopes within 100 feet of the project site], and (3) subsurface information provided in the above-referenced previous geotechnical reports and supporting documents concerning the subject parcel (geotechnical reports and supporting documents that indicate the project site is underlain by soils that consist largely of sand and gravel), nearly all of the project site is consistent with the Medium Landslide Hazard classification described in RMC 4-3-050J1b. However, because the constructed slope areas along the south and north edges of the Pointe Heron LLC parcel were created using permitted engineered fills, permitted cuts, and drainage provisions, from a functional perspective we would classify the existing slopes within or adjacent to the project site as low landslide hazard areas. Our conclusion is supported by the performance of both (1) the previously created south-edge engineered fill slopes to the east and west of the now-proposed fill and grade project site and (2) the previously created 2H:1V cut slope along a portion of the subject parcel's north edge, slopes that have remained stable since their construction seven to nine years ago. Given our understanding of the conditions present on the subject parcel and the design of the proposed filling, excavation, and grading, from a functional perspective it is our opinion that the entirety of the proposed project site (1) is currently a low landslide hazard area and (2) will continue to be a low landslide hazard area with the proposed filling, excavation, and grading construction. Note that RMC 4-3-050J 1 b(iv) defines the term Very High Landslide Hazards (LV) as "[a]reas of known mappable landslide deposits." An isolated area of the subject parcel, an area located approximately 500 feet to the southeast of the most easterly portion of the project site, contains a known Very High Landslide Hazard area. That area of the subject parcel, an area that is approximately 39,960 square feet in size, is labeled "VERY HIGH LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREA (EX. SLIDE AREA)" and delineated on the overall site plan (Sheet E1) of the Barghausen Grading Plans along with an associated 50-foot-wide buffer required by RMC 4-3-070J7b. (That existing slide area straddles part of the easterlymost portion of the subject parcel's south boundary.) The existing slide area is totally separate from the proposed project site and has no bearing upon the proposed fill, excavation, and grade work contemplated by this report. Erosion Hazards RMC 4-3-050J1c classifies erosion hazards as either low or high depending on site slope gradient and NRCS soil classification scheme. RMC 4-3-050J1c states: Earth Solutions IW'-/, LLC Pointe Heron LLC August 13, 2014 c. Erosion Hazards: ES-2334.01 Page 19 i. Low Erosion Hazard (EL): Areas with soils characterized by the Natural Resource Conservation Service (formerly U.S. Soil Conservation Service) as having slight or moderate erosion potential, and that slope less than fifteen percent (15%). ii. High Erosion Hazard (EH): Areas with soils characterized by the Natural Resource Conservation Service (formerly U.S. Soil Conservation Service) as having severe or very severe erosion potential, and that slope more steeply than fifteen percent (15%). The proposed project site is underlain predominantly by engineered fill. Those fill soils are characterized by the Natural Resource Conservation Service as having slight or moderate erosion potential. Further, nearly the entire project site has an extensive depth of crushed surfacing. Thus, even though some of the proposed project site has slopes greater than 15 percent, in our opinion the entirety of the proposed project site functions as a low erosion hazard. Note that erosion hazard classification is largely used to assess the sensitivity of a particular site with respect to off-site migration of soil and turbid surface waters. In this respect, the erosion hazards at this site can be successfully mitigated through erosion and sediment control measures that are addressed later in this report, measures that have previously been used at this site with good success. Seismic Hazards RMC 4-3-050J1d classifies seismic hazards as either low or high depending on underlying soils. RMC 4-3-050J1d states: d. Seismic Hazards: i. Low Seismic Hazard (SL): Areas underlain by dense soils or bedrock. These soils generally have site coefficients of types S1 or S2, as defined in the International Building Code. ii. High Seismic Hazard (SH): Areas underlain by soft or loose, saturated soils. These soils generally have site coefficients of types S3 or S4, as defined in the International Building Code. (Ord. 5450, 3-2-2009) The proposed project site is underlain predominantly by engineered fill placed over dense native soils and areas of bedrock. Accordingly, the project site would meet the classification definition for Low Seismic Hazard (SL). Earth Solutions NW, LLC Pointe Heron LLC August 13, 2014 ES-2334.01 Page 20 In our opinion, in view of the presence of stable soils and the lack of a persistent groundwater table, the project site would present (1) little to no hazard relating to liquefaction potential and (2) low hazard to ground rupture or lateral spread along sloped areas during a strong seismic event. Further, because of the presence of dense soil and areas of bedrock, the site does not have a high susceptibility to amplification of seismic wave energy. Although the project site is located in the vicinity of the Greater Seattle Fault complex, in our opinion the risk of ground rupture or other seismic-related damage associated with the Greater Seattle Fault complex is only moderate. Coal Mine Hazards RMC 4-3-050J1e classifies coal mine hazards as low, medium, or high. RMC 4-3-050J1e states: e. Coal Mine Hazards: i. Low Coal Mine Hazards (CL): Areas with no known mine workings and no predicted subsidence. While no mines are known in these areas, undocumented mining is known to have occurred. ii. Medium Coal Mine Hazards (CM): Areas where mine workings are deeper than two hundred feet (200') for steeply dipping seams, or deeper than fifteen (15) times the thickness of the seam or workings for gently dipping seams. These areas may be affected by subsidence. iii. High Coal Mine Hazard (CH): Areas with abandoned and improperly sealed mine openings and areas underlain by mine workings shallower than two hundred feet (200') in depth for steeply dipping seams, or shallower than fifteen (15) times the thickness of the seam or workings for gently dipping seams. These areas may be affected by collapse or other subsidence. Based on our review of both (a) the City of Renton GIS map for the area surrounding the project site (see APPENDIX F-1) and (b) a King County Coal Mine map for the area in the vicinity of the project site (see APPENDIX F-2), no coal mines are identified. Further, to our knowledge, no undocumented mining is known to have occurred beneath the proposed project site or within 300 feet of the proposed project site. Thus, based on the coal mine hazard code definitions quoted above, the proposed project site does not lie within or near any Coal Mine Hazard area. Volcanic Hazards RMC 4-3-050J1f defines volcanic hazards. RMC 4-3-050J1f states: Earth Solutions NW, LLC Pointe Heron LLC August 13, 2014 ES-2334.01 Page 21 f. Volcanic Hazards: Volcanic hazard areas are those areas subject to a potential for inundation from post lahar sedimentation along the lower Green River as identified in Plate II, Map D, in the report U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey (Revised 1998), Volcano Hazards from Mount Rainier, Washington. Open-File Report 98-428. The subject parcel and the proposed project site lying within it are located outside mapped volcanic hazard areas delineated on the map resource cited in above-quoted RMC 4-3-050J1f. Thus, the project site is not located within a volcanic hazard area subjected to post-lahar inundation and/or sedimentation as defined in RMC 4-3-050J1f. Demonstration That RMC 4-3-050J1 Review Criteria Can Be Met Because (1) particular geologic critical areas lie on the subject parcel and (2) a development permit (in this case, a grade and fill special permit) is required for the subject proposal, under subsection a of RMC 4-3-050J1 (Special Studies Required), geotechnical studies are required for the proposal. Subsection b of RMC 4-3-050J1 (Special Studies Required) states as follows in regard to the geotechnical studies required under subsection a of RMC 4-3-050J1: b. The required studies shall demonstrate the following review criteria can be met: i. The proposal will not increase the threat of the geological hazard to adjacent or abutting properties beyond pre-development conditions; and (Ord. 5676, 12- 3-2012) ii. The proposal will not adversely impact other critical areas; and iii. The development can be safely accommodated on the site. The following portion of this study report demonstrates that all three of those review criteria can be met by the fill, excavation, and grade work proposed within the project site (work area limits) on the subject parcel. Criterion 1: The proposal will not increase the threat of the geological hazard to adjacent or abutting properties beyond pre-development conditions. Earth Solutions NW, LLC Pointe Heron LLC August 13, 2014 ES-2334.01 Page 22 Analysis Relating to Criterion 1: The proposed project site is generally located along the central and western portions of the subject Pointe Heron parcel. The proposed project site currently consists of already-graded and -sloped areas including, but not limited to, (1) a geogrid- reinforced ecology block retaining wall up to about 16 feet in height along the north edge, west edge, and north portion of the east edge of the existing Sunset Bluff stormwater pond located near the central portion of the south boundary of the Pointe Heron LLC parcel and (2) an approximately 2H:1V engineered fill slope above the ecology block wall. The previously graded generally flatter upper areas within the proposed project site are covered with a substantial depth of crushed material to prevent erosion. In view of the fact that the current topography of the project site is graded with varying slopes, the proposed fill, excavation, and grading project will essentially reconfigure an already substantially sloping area. More information concerning the project site's surface, subsurface, previously placed fill, and groundwater conditions is set forth in certain subsections (devoted to these topics) of this report on pages 4 through 7, above. The proposed fill, excavation, and grading project will involve placement of structural fills within the project site to raise grades to an approximate pad elevation of 125 to 128 feet in order to (a) generally match the existing top-of-slope elevation of the existing structural fill at the easternmost end of the proposed work area and (b) increase the area of the existing plateau portion of the project site for future development and use. The only excavation (cut) proposed as part of the currently proposed project is the excavation for the Permanent Stormwater Pond proposed south of and near the toe of the existing 2H:1V slope constructed along a portion of the north edge of the Pointe Heron LLC parcel. To avoid increasing the threat of the geological hazard to adjacent or abutting properties beyond pre- development conditions, the proposed design inclination of the north side slope of the proposed pond (a cut slope) has been limited to 3H:1V. A 100-foot-wide Burlington Northern and Santa Fe (BNSF) Railroad right-of-way abuts the entire south boundary of the portion of the proposed Pointe Heron LLC parcel that comprises the proposed project site. The nearest railroad track within the BNSF Railroad right-of-way lies approximately 30 feet to the south of the maximum southerly extent of the proposed fill slope. For the following reasons, the threat of geological hazard to the abutting property lying at the toe of the proposed fill slope (the 100-foot-wide BNSF Railroad right-of-way) will not be increased beyond pre-development conditions by the proposal: (1) The proposed project site currently consists of already-graded and -sloped areas including, but not limited to, (a) a geogrid-reinforced ecology block retaining wall up to about 16 feet in height along the north edge of the existing Sunset Bluff stormwater pond located north of and near the central portion of the south boundary of the Pointe Heron LLC parcel and (b) an approximately 2H: 1V engineered fill slope above the ecology block wall; (2) The proposed 1.5H:1V engineered fill slope is similar to both: Earth Solutions NW, LLC Pointe Heron LLC August 13, 2014 (a) (b) ES-2334.01 Page 23 The existing engineered fill slope inclined at approximately 1.5H:1V that lies north of and along the railroad right-of-way to the south of the west part of the project site (an existing engineered fill slope located south and west of the existing maintenance road to the existing Sunset Bluff stormwater detention pond) and The existing engineered fill slope inclined at approximately 1.5H:1V that lies north of and along the BNSF Railroad right-of-way to the east of the existing Sunset Bluff stormwater detention pond; (3) The proposed 1.5H:1V engineered fill slope (with its proposed top-of-slope elevation of 128 feet) will both (a) extend to the west to the southwesterly corner portion of the proposed project site, where the slope will (i) turn to the north along the subject parcel's west boundary (a boundary between (A) the subject parcel and, to the west, (8) the abutting easterly parcel of the Black River Quarry, a parcel also owned by Pointe Heron LLCJ and (ii) flatten to a maximum slope of 2.6H:1V (as depicted in plan view and cross-section on Sheets E5, E7, and EB of the 10- sheet set of the Barghausen Grading Plans) and (b) connect with the existing slope to the east (extending only as far to the east as that slope's 128-foot top-of-slope elevation at the east end of the proposed project site); (4) The proposed fill, excavation, and grade proposal has been designed with special attention to both (a) the applicable portions of RMC 4-3-050J (Geologic Hazards) and RMC 4-4-060 (Grading, Excavation and Mining Regulations) and (b) avoiding any increase in the potential for instability or impacts to adjacent or abutting properties beyond pre-development conditions, with the design (i) specifying the use of (A) structural fill materials throughout the proposed fill; Earth Solutions r-M/, LLC Pointe Heron LLC August 13, 2014 (B) ES-2334.01 Page 24 a crushed aggregate buttress fill zone ranging in horizontal dimension from 35 feet (at the fill slope toe) to 5 feet (at the fill slope top) along the face of the proposed 1.5H:1V fill slopes (with the crushed aggregate buttress fill zone to be comprised of material meeting the buttress fill material specification set forth on pages 7 and 8, above, material intended to both enhance slope strength and stability and prevent accumulation of surface water runoff from the fill slope's face); and (C) geogrid reinforcement to further increase slope strength and stability; (ii) providing (as part of the Phase 1 filling and grading project depicted on the Barghausen Grading Plans) the proposed Interim Stormwater Pond designed to meet requirements of the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual, an interim pond that is planned to be (A) completed by October 1 of the first season of the proposed Phase 1 filling and grading work, to serve as part of wet season stabilization of the grade and fill project site; (B) used during all subsequent wet seasons (October 1 through April 30) until the Permanent Stormwater Pond (a pond depicted on the Phase 2 portion of the Barghausen Grading Plans) has been constructed and is operational and (C) thereafter filled with compacted structural fill meeting the core structural fill material specification set forth on pages 7 to 8, above; (iii) providing for a new Permanent Stormwater Pond (a pond depicted on the Phase 2 portion of the Barghausen Grading Plans) designed to meet requirements of the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual (a pond that is designed to have approximate bottom dimensions of a 600- foot length and a width varying from approximately 30 feet to 41 feet); and Earth Solutions NW, LLC Pointe Heron LLC August 13, 2014 (iv) ES-2334.01 Page 25 requiring construction means and methods that are generally known to ensure safe and stable conditions both during and following fill and grade project completion, including (A) specified loose-lift maximum fill thickness and minimum fill compaction standards (specifications that are set forth on page 9, above); (B) specifications for fill materials (specifications that are set forth on pages 7 to 9, above); (C) fill and slope construction observation and testing to ensure that project goals and specifications are being met during construction; and (D) other consulting services as needed during construction; (5) The proposed fill, excavation, and grade project will include the following drainage improvements depicted on the Barghausen Grading Plans: (a) The Interim Stormwater Pond (which is to be in place and operational by October 1 following the first season of the fill and grade operation); (b) The new Permanent Stormwater Pond; (c) Drainage ditches on the proposed plateau portion of the project site to route surface water runoff from the plateau to the north (away from the fill slope) into the new Permanent Stormwater Pond; (d) Both (i) a 12-inch-diameter storm drain from the Interim Stormwater Pond flow control manhole to a Type II storm manhole with a birdcage lid emergency overflow spillway (both of those manholes are to be installed in the southeasterly portion of the inner slope) and (ii) a 12-inch-diameter high density polyethylene (HOPE) storm drain discharge pipe from (A) that Type II storm manhole south- southeast across and beneath the interim plateau area shown on Sheet E3 of the Barghausen Grading Plans to (B) the face of the 1.5H:1V engineered fill slope, where the HOPE will daylight and extend down the face of the slope to the slope's toe (with the HOPE pipe to route surface water runoff from the drainage tributary area north of the top of the slope in order to protect the slope from such surface water runoff); and Earth Solutions NW, LLC Pointe Heron LLC August 13, 2014 (e) ES-2334.01 Page 26 Both (i) a 12-inch-diameter storm drain from the Permanent Stormwater Pond's flow control manhole to a Type II storm manhole with a birdcage lid emergency overflow spillway (both of those manholes are to be installed in the southeasterly portion of the pond's inner slope) and (ii) a 12-inch-diameter high density polyethylene (HOPE) storm drain discharge pipe from (A) that Type II storm manhole generally south across and beneath the surface of the plateau area shown on Sheet E6 of the Barghausen Grading Plans to (B) the face of the 1.5H:1V engineered fill slope, where the HOPE will daylight and extend down the face of the slope to the toe (with the HOPE pipe that is anchored to the surface to route surface water runoff from the drainage tributary area north of the top of the slope in order to protect the slope from such surface water runoff); and (6) Slope stability analyses (analyses we have conducted as part of this study to evaluate the potential for both localized failure or global slope failure- see APPENDIX D) indicate that the proposed 1.5H:1V engineered fill slope will be stable under both static and seismic conditions (such studies have been conducted through the two most critical slope cross-sections (cross- sections E-E and F-F depicted on Sheets E6 and E7 of 10 of the above- referenced set of Barghausen Grading Plans)). Criterion 2: The proposal will not adversely impact other critical areas. Analysis Relating to Criterion 2: In regard to the phrase "other critical areas" set forth in Criterion 2, we assume that only non-geologic critical areas are meant because the three review criteria in RMC 4-3-050J1 b are part of RMC 4-3-050J (Geologic Hazards). Thus, the analysis below is based on that assumption. Opinions provided by ESNW in this analysis relating to Criterion 2 with respect to nongeologic critical areas are strictly related to geotechnical and geologic concerns in relation to the nongeologic critical areas noted. Excerpts, information, and opinions provided below from the referenced Raedeke Associates reports are provided to more fully address the nongeologic critical areas from Raedeke's areas of expertise. Wetlands on (or Partially on) the Subject Pointe Heron LLC Parcel First, straddling the south boundary of the Pointe Heron LLC parcel, there are the following two wetlands, both of which (along with their respective City code-specified buffers) lie entirely outside of the proposed project site (work area): Earth Solutions NW, LLC Pointe Heron LLC August 13, 2014 ES-2334.01 Page 27 (1) Wetland A, which Raedeke Associates, lnc.'s QIPNirlu!Sunset Bluff (MLDC) Properties Wetland & Stream Delineation Update 2014 technical memorandum indicates as: (a) An existing approximately 400-square-foot Category 3 depressional wetland with a 25-foot buffer under Renton's current wetland critical areas regulations that lies approximately 150 feet west-southwest of the existing Sunset Bluff stormwater pond along the lower (south) edge of the existing slope and (b) Straddling the common boundary between (i) the south edge of the Sunset Bluff site (Pointe Heron LLC parcel) and (ii) the north edge of the BNSF railroad right-of-way [with about a 258-square-foot portion of Wetland A lying within the Sunset Bluff site (Pointe Heron LLC parcel) and the balance lying within the BNSF railroad right-of-way] and (2) Wetland B, which Raedeke Associates, lnc.'s Wetland & Stream Delineation Update 2014 technical memorandum indicates as an approximately 2-acre existing wetland that: (a) Is located in a depression that has neither a piped outlet nor a surface water outlet; (b) Straddles the south boundary of the eastern portion of the Pointe Heron LLC parcel with (i) only about 6,078 square feet of Wetland B lying within the parcel and (ii) the balance (most) located off-site on the parcel of land to the southeast of the Pointe Heron LLC parcel and east of the BNSF Railroad right-of-way; (c) Is either (i) a Category 3 wetland (with a 25-foot-wide buffer) under Renton's critical area regulations if the wetland is not hydraulically connected to the existing wetlands in the Black River Riparian Forest to the southwest of Wetland B across the BNSF Railroad right-of-way or (ii) a Category II wetland (with a 150-foot-wide buffer) under Renton's shoreline master program critical area regulations if the wetland is hydraulically connected to the existing wetlands in the Black River Riparian Forest to the southwest of Wetland B across the BNSF Railroad right-of-way and under Renton's shoreline jurisdiction. Earth Solutions NW, LLC Pointe Heron LLC August 13, 2014 ES-2334.01 Page 28 Sheets E1, E2, and ES of the above-referenced set of Barghausen drawings depict the portion of Wetland A and its associated 25-foot buffer that lie within the subject Pointe Heron LLC parcel. Sheet E 1 indicates that the portion of Wetland A lying nearest to the proposed project site (the work area limits) lies about 37 feet south-southwest from the project site. (In that vicinity, the project site lies just south of the south edge of the existing maintenance road that was constructed to serve the existing Sunset Bluff stormwater detention pond from the west) In our opinion, the proposal will not adversely impact Wetland A because: (1) Temporary erosion and sediment control (TESC) measures would be installed during construction and would utilize appropriate best management practices (BMPs) designed to prevent sediment from entering surface waters during and after construction; (2) The Interim Stormwater Pond will be installed and operational by October 1 following the first season of the proposed fill and grade operation and will provide interim surface water control for the project site; (3) The Permanent Stormwater Pond will thereafter be installed to replace the Interim Stormwater Pond and provide permanent surface water control; (4) In view of the location of the southerly extent of the project site (work area limits), none of the proposed fill and grade work will take place within 37 feet of Wetland A (a distance that is 12 feet beyond the edge of the wetland's 25-foot buffer); and (5) The proposed upward extension of the existing 1.5H:1V slope from the south edge of the project site upslope of Wetland A and its buffer will be stable based on the geotechnical design specifications of the slope. Sheets E1, E3, and E6 of the above-referenced set of Barghausen drawings depict the small portion of Wetland B and a relevant portion of both its associated 25-foot buffer (if the wetland is under Renton's critical area regulations) and Wetland B's associated 150-foot buffer (if the wetland is under Renton's shoreline master program regulations) that lie within the subject Pointe Heron LLC parcel. Sheet E1 indicates that the edge of Wetland B lying nearest to the proposed work area (i.e., the northwesternmost tip of the wetland) is about 193 feet south- southeast of the project site. In our opinion, the proposal will not adversely impact Wetland B because: (1) Temporary erosion and sediment control (TESC) measures would be installed during construction and would utilize appropriate best management practices (BMPs) designed to prevent sediment from entering surface waters during and after construction; Earth Solutions NW, LLC Pointe Heron LLC August 13, 2014 ES-2334.01 Page 29 (2) The Interim Stormwater Pond will be installed and operational by October 1 following the first season of the proposed fill and grade operation and will provide interim surface water control for the project site; (3) The Permanent Stormwater Pond will thereafter be installed to replace the Interim Stormwater Pond and provide permanent surface water control; (4) In view of the location of the proposed project site (work area limits), none of the proposed fill and grade work will take place within about 193 feet of Wetland B, a distance that is (a) about 168 feet beyond the 25-foot-wide buffer of the wetland if the wetland is under Renton's critical area regulations and (b) about 43 feet beyond the 150-foot buffer of the wetland if the wetland is under Renton's shoreline master program regulations; and (5) The 1.5H: 1V fill slope that is proposed to be constructed along the project site's east edge will (a) be stable based on the geotechnical design specifications of the slope and (b) have a vertical depth ranging from zero feet to only about nine feet, a depth that is negligible at such a great distance from Wetland B. Unnamed Stream Second, within the Pointe Heron LLC parcel but entirely outside of the proposed project site, an unnamed intermittent stream flows from north to south across the eastern part of the site into Wetland B. In regard to that intermittent stream, page 13 of Raedeke Associates, lnc.'s Wetland & Stream Delineation Update 2014 technical memorandum: (1) Indicates that this stream is a non-salmonid-bearing stream that is (a) intermittent during normal years of rainfall, (b) not mapped on RMC 4-3- 050Q, Figure Q4, Renton Water Class Map as Class 2 or Class 3, and (c) is not classified by the City of Renton or the State of Washington as a "Shoreline of the State"; (2) Has determined that this stream 1s a Class 4 water under RMC 4-3- 050L 1 a(iv); and (3) Has identified under RMC 4-3-050L5a(i)(c) a 35-foot-wide code-specified buffer on both sides of the stream [except where a segment of the stream passes through a protected slope as depicted on Sheets E1, E3, and E6 of the above-referenced set of Barghausen Grading Plans (in view of RMC 4- 3-050L5b(ii), the code-specified stream buffer along that segment of the stream extends to the protected slope's boundary)]. Earth Solutions NVV, LLC Pointe Heron LLC August 13, 2014 ES-2334.01 Page 30 Sheets E1. E3, and E6 of the above-referenced set of Barghausen drawings depict the unnamed stream and label it as an "Existing Class 4 Stream" along with its above-noted associated buffers. In addition, Sheet E1 indicates that the point of the stream lying nearest to the proposed project site is about 100 feet east-southeast of the nearest edge of the proposed project site. In our opinion, the proposal will not adversely impact the unnamed stream because: (1) Temporary erosion and sediment control (TESC) measures will be installed during construction and appropriate best management practices (BMPs) designed to prevent sediment from entering surface waters during and after construction will be utilized; (2) The Interim Stormwater Pond will be installed and operational by October 1 following the first season of the proposed fill and grade operation and will provide interim surface water control for the project site; (3) The Permanent Stormwater Pond will thereafter be installed to replace the Interim Stormwater Pond and provide permanent surface water control; (4) In view of the location of the proposed project site (work area limits), none of the proposed fill and grade work will take place within about 100 feet of the unnamed stream (a distance that is about 65 feet beyond the wetland's buffer); and (5) The 1.5H:1V fill slope that is proposed to be constructed along the east edge of the project site will (a) be stable based on the geotechnical design specifications of the slope and (b) have a depth ranging from zero feet to only about nine feet. a depth that is negligible at such a large distance from the unnamed stream. Wetlands Outside of the Pointe Heron LLC Parcel Lying within the Black River Riparian Forest Third, wetlands lie within portions of the Black River Riparian Forest (BRRF), a forest that lies in City of Renton park property south of the 100-foot-wide BNSF Railroad right-of-way-see the wetlands map exhibit (APPENDIX G) created from the Renton GIS website. Pages 7 and 8 of Raedeke Associates, lnc.'s QIPNirtu!Sunset Bluff (MLDC) Properties Wetland & Stream Delineation Update 2014 technical memorandum generally discuss those wetlands as follows: Earth Solutions tW>J, LLC Pointe Heron LLC August 13, 2014 ES-2334.01 Page 31 The City of Renton (2014a) online CORMaps includes a map that depicts two wetlands within the Black River Riparian Forest located south of the BNSF ROW. (See downloaded copy of that map, Appendix F, below.3) A trail that extends northward from Naches Avenue SW to the BNSF ROW separates the two mapped wetland areas (Renton 2014a). As described above, we investigated the wetland area east of the trail (referred to below as the east BRRF wetland) to determine whether a piped connection existed between it and Wetland 8. The east BRRF wetland is dominated by forest vegetation consisting of Pacific willow (Salix lasiandra, FACW), balsam poplar, red alder, red osier, and Sitka willow. Many small depressions within the wetland were inundated, and the remainder of the portion of the wetland that we investigated was saturated to the surface. Our interpretation of a 1990 aerial photo of the east wetland available online through Google Earth (2014) indicates that the forest vegetation is no more than approximately 30 years old. (See downloaded copy of that 1990 aerial photo, Appendix G, below.4 ) In 2004, we investigated the wetland west of the trail (referred to below as the west BRRF wetland) (Raedeke Associates, Inc. 2004). The west BRRF wetland consists of forest vegetation of varying ages. At the time of our 2004 investigation, the northern portion of this wetland was dominated by 15-to 20- year-old balsam poplar. The southern portion of the wetland was dominated by mature balsam poplar and Oregon ash trees, many of which were larger than 30 inches diameter at breast height (DBH), growing on numerous hummocks. Based on our interpretation of the above-noted 1990 aerial photo, the area of mature forest vegetation appears to be between 10 and 15 acres in size. In addition, pages 12 and 13 of Raedeke Associates, lnc.'s QIPNirtu!Sunset Bluff (MLOC) Properties Wetland & Stream Delineation Update 2014 technical memorandum provide commentary on regulatory considerations in regard to those wetlands in the BRRF as follows: The Black River Riparian Forest is designated as a Shoreline by the City of Renton (2014b); therefore, the west and east BRRF wetlands were rated using the WDOE (Hruby 2004, as revised 2006, and WDOE 2008) Wetland Rating System for Western Washington. 3 Appendix F to the subject Raedeke wetland and stream memorandum is the same as APPENDIX G to this geotechnical report. 4 Appendix G to the subject Raedeke wetland and stream memorandum is not attached to this geotechnical report. Earth Solutions NW. LLC Pointe Heron LLC August 13, 2014 ES-2334.01 Page 32 Based on (1) our 2004 investigation of the west BRRF wetland and (2) the results of our review of current online natural resource database information, it is likely that that wetland would meet criteria for a dual rating of Category I for the portion of the wetland that is dominated by mature trees and Category II for the portion dominated by younger trees because the wetland as a whole scored a total of 57 points (with 21 points for habitat functions). Per RMC 4-3-0900.2.d.iv(c), Category I and Category II wetlands having a moderate habitat function score are provided a minimum buffer of 150 feet. Based on our reconnaissance of the east BRRF wetland, it is likely that it would meet criteria to be regulated as Category Ill because it scored a total of 40 points (with 16 points for habitat functions). Per RMC 4-3-0900.2.d.iv(c), Category Ill wetlands that provide low habitat functions (i.e., wetlands that score of less than 20 habitat points) are provided a minimum buffer of 75 feet. Further, page 16 of Raedeke Associates, lnc.'s QIPNirlu!Sunset Bluff (MLDC) Properlies Wetland & Stream Delineation Update 2014 technical memorandum provides the following analysis of impacts of the proposed Pointe Heron filling, excavation, and grading proposal to the wetlands in the BRRF: The west and east Black River Riparian Forest wetlands are approximately 160 feet south and 415 feet southeast of the proposed project site (work area limits) at their closest extent, respectively. In addition, both wetlands are separated from the project site by the BNSF Railroad, which is an ongoing source of disturbance to the wetlands. Under Pointe Heron LLCs' proposed site grading plan, drainage from the MLDC Property (i.e., the Pointe Heron LLC parcel) and associated tributary areas will continue to drain into the existing railroad cross-culverts at the south edge of the property and be conveyed to the City park property, where the drainage will continue to flow into the BRRF wetlands. Due to (1) the distance of the BRRF wetlands from the proposed work, (2) the existing and ongoing disturbance from the BNSF Railroad, and (3) the filling, excavation, and grading proposal's planned maintenance of existing sources of hydrology to the BRRF wetlands, it is unlikely that the wetlands would be impacted by implementation of the proposed filling, excavation, and grading. In our opinion, the proposal will not adversely impact any wetlands within the Black River Riparian Forest both (1) for the reasons stated in the above excerpts from the Raedeke wetland and stream memorandum and (2) because: (a) The 1.5H:1V engineered fill slope that is proposed to be constructed along the south edge of the project site will be stable based on the geotechnical design specifications of the slope; Earth Solutions NW, LLC Pointe Heron LLC August 13, 2014 ES-2334.01 Page 33 (b) The Interim Stormwater Pond will be installed and operational by October 1 following the first season of the proposed fill and grade operation and will provide interim surface water control for the project site; (c) The Permanent Stormwater Pond will thereafter be installed to replace the Interim Stormwater Pond and provide permanent surface water control; and (d) Both (i) the proposed Interim Stormwater Pond and (ii) the proposed new Permanent Stormwater Pond have a design that is based upon a more stringent stormwater detention standard (the Level 2 Standard described in the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manua~ than the Level 1 Standard described in the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual used for the design of the existing Sunset Bluff stormwater detention and water quality pond. On-site Wildlife Habitat Area Fourth, a forested area in the eastern part of the Pointe Heron LLC parcel lies at its closest point at least 60 feet to the southeast of the proposed project site. On pages 6 and 7 of the 2014 Great Blue Heron & Wildlife Habitat Update for the QIP/Sunset Bluff (MLDC) Properties (including the subject Pointe Heron LLC parcel 5 ) prepared by Raedeke Associates in support of the Pointe Heron grade and fill permit application, Raedeke describes (1) existing vegetation and habitat conditions on the project site (and on the Pointe Heron LLC parcel as a whole), (2) the current status of the previously existing heron colony in the Black River Riparian Forest (BRRF), and (3) other wildlife observations made as follows: Vegetation and Habitat Description The proposed fill and grade project site remains essentially unchanged since our previous habitat assessment (Raedeke Associates, Inc. 2009c). Nearly all of the project site is unvegetated due to past clearing and grading associated with the previously approved Sunset Bluff Residential Subdivision. Areas of forested vegetation remain in (1) a narrow strip in the north part of the BNSF railroad right- of-way Uust north of the railroad tracks) along the south edge of the MLDC Property and (2) the southeastern part of the MLDC Property .... 5 Because (a) Raedeke had previously studied what is now the Pointe Heron LLC parcel while it was owned by Merlino Land Development Co. and (b) Raedeke's prior (2009) reports referred to what is now the Pointe Heron LLC parcel as the "MLDC Property," for continuity with Raedeke's 2009 reports, in the 2014 Great Blue Heron & Wildlife Habitat Update Raedeke sometimes refers to the Pointe Heron LLC parcel as the MLDC Property. Earth Solutions NW, LLC Pointe Heron LLC August 13, 2014 ES-2334.01 Page 34 The forest in the eastern portion of the Pointe Heron LLC parcel (MLDC Property) consists of second-growth deciduous to mixed forest consisting of bigleaf maple, black cottonwood, Douglas fir, with common snowberry, red elderberry, hazelnut, and sword fern, and dense patches of Himalayan blackberry. Two wetlands have been identified within the study area, one in the southeastern portion of the MLDC Property and another in the southwestern portion of the MLDC Property. An intermittent, non-fish-bearing stream flows from north to south across the western edge of the on-site deciduous forest in the eastern part of the MLDC Property. The two wetlands and the stream are discussed in greater detail in the QIPNirtu/Sunset Bluff (MLDC) Properties Wetland & Stream Delineation Update 2014 report (Raedeke Associates, Inc. 2014), a report that serves to update our previous wetland investigation (Raedeke Associates, Inc. 2009b). The forested portions of the MLDC Property contain some special habitat features, such as snags and downed logs, as documented in our previous field investigations (Raedeke Associates, Inc. 2009c). We observed snags within the forest strip along the northern boundary of the MLDC Property (outside the limit of the project site) in the same locations as we observed previously. Current Status of the Heron Colony and Eagle Nest Based on our observations at the BRRF during our 2013 and 2014 visits to the study area, it appears that the herons have abandoned the former colony site, with (1) nearly all of the historic heron nests no longer present, (2) no herons present, and (3) no evidence of heron nesting activity. The herons do not appear to have nested successfully for at least three years, and no nesting activity appears to have taken place since 2011. Thus, based on our observations and information available, the BRRF heron colony is no longer present. Also, we saw no evidence of activity at the bald eagle nest tree within the BRRF during our field investigations in 2013 and 2014. No eagles were observed on or over the study area or vicinity in 2013. During our April 2014 field investigation, we observed a sub-adult eagle soaring high over the project site and SR 900 to the north, but observed no adult eagles or evidence of nesting activity anywhere within the study area or vicinity. Earth Solutions NW, LLC Pointe Heron LLC August 13, 2014 Other Wildlife Observations ES-2334.01 Page 35 During our 2013 and 2014 field investigations, we observed a variety of waterfowl, including cinnamon teal, mallard, American widgeon, gadwalls, and Canada geese within the existing stormwater pond that was built as part of the Sunset Bluff project. We also observed mallards, hooded mergansers, and wood ducks within Wetland B, the wetland that straddles the south boundary of the far eastern part of the MLDC Property and lies primarily on the property to the southeast of the MLDC Property's east end. In addition, we observed a red-tailed hawk perched in a large cottonwood tree on the Virtu Property, but found no hawk nests anywhere on the study area. Following both (1) a detailed summary by Raedeke of current heron protection recommendations by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) on pages 8 to 9 of the 2014 Great Blue Heron & Wildlife Habitat Update and (2) a detailed evaluation by Raedeke of impacts of the proposed fill, excavation, and grading project to (a) the prior BRRF great blue heron colony, (b) bald eagles, and (c) other wildlife habitat on pages 9 and 10 of that Update, at the bottom of page 10 of the 2014 Great Blue Heron & Wildlife Habitat Update Raedeke provides the following summary of impacts: Summary of Impacts on Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat As noted above, the proposed fill, excavation, and grading project would be located entirely within a portion of the Pointe Heron LLC parcel (MLDC Property) that is highly disturbed and consists largely of bare ground, and is outside the forested habitat of the BRRF. Consequently, we anticipate no adverse impacts to the forested habitat of the BRRF. In addition, the project would have no adverse impacts on the former heron colony within the BRRF or either of the known eagle nest sites in the vicinity (one of which was in the BRRF), as these sites have not been occupied for several years and no longer appear to be active. Even if the heron colony and nearest eagle nest sites were active, the proposed grade and fill project site lies well outside of standard setbacks recommended by WDFW to protect heron colonies and the USFWS to protect eagle nest sites. The proposed grading would eliminate a small area of shrubs and sapling trees and would remove an existing stormwater pond, which would result in only minimal impacts to existing wildlife habitat on site. In summary, the proposed fill, excavation, and grading project would not result in probable significant adverse impacts to wildlife or wildlife habitat. Earth Solutions MN, LLC Pointe Heron LLC August 13, 2014 Criterion 3: The development can be safely accommodated on the site. ES-2334 01 Page 36 Analysis Relating to Criterion 3: Based on (1) the results of our reviews and evaluations of (a) the EC! reports of pre-Sunset Bluff geologic conditions, (b) ECl's observation records of the previous filling within the proposed work area, and (c) the proposed filling, excavation, and grading depicted on the Barghausen Grading Plans, (2) the above-stated analysis of Criteria 1 and 2, above, (3) our site reconnaissance visits to evaluate existing site conditions, (4) our on- site interview of a representative of Gary Merlino Construction Co., Inc. (GMCC) who personally worked on previous fill and grade operations on the Pointe Heron LLC parcel, and (5) the slope stability modeling and slope stability analyses that we performed (see APPENDIX D and see the discussion of the slope stability analyses on pages 1 O to 12, above), in our opinion construction of the proposed filling, excavation, and grading contemplated by the Barghausen Grading Plans in accordance with the specifications set forth in this report and noted on the Barghausen Grading Plans can be safely accommodated on the project site. RENTON GRADING, EXCAVATION AND MINING REGULATIONS City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-4-060 (Renton Grading, Excavation and Mining Regulations) provides regulations and guidelines concerning grading means and methods to avoid slope instability or adverse impacts to surrounding properties and/or to other critical areas. In our opinion, the proposed work in general performed in accordance with the Barghausen Grading Plans and in accordance with the specifications set forth in this report [including (1) the proposed filling of the existing stormwater pond and other adjacent areas of the site to raise grades, (2) the construction of the proposed 1.5H:1V permanent structural fill slope along the southerly and easterly portions of the work area, and (3) the construction of the associated Interim Stormwater Pond, the Permanent Stormwater Pond, and other drainage and site rehabilitation improvements] will be reasonable, acceptable, and safe from a geotechnical and soil engineering standpoint. Fill Material Specifications for the Two Proposed Fill Zones The fill material specification for the proposed buttress fill zone along the face of the proposed fill slopes is set forth on pages 7 and 8, above. The fill material specification for the fill to be used to construct the proposed fill core behind the crushed aggregate buttress zone is set forth on pages 7 to 8, above. Final Landscaping and Stabilization Subsection 1 of RMC 4-4-060C (General) states: Earth Solutions NW. LLC Pointe Heron LLC August 13, 2014 ES-2334.01 Page 37 1. Landscaping: Existing vegetation in any required setback shall be preserved or landscaping shall be planted to prevent erosion and reduce the dust, mud and noise generated on the proposed reuse of the site. Around the periphery of the site, except where the proposed reuse of the site requires the lack of vegetation, the applicant shall landscape in such a manner as to result in reasonable screening. Trees planted shall be at least four feet (4') in height. In those areas that have been rehabilitated and are designated to be planted according to the proposed reuse of the site, the appropriate plantings shall be done as soon as possible to provide mature plants for the new use. The subject proposed fill, excavation, and grade project is the initial phase of a multiphase overall site development project. In this initial phase, the portion of the site within the project site (the work area) will be reconfigured (generally raised, except in the area of the Permanent Stormwater Pond, which is the only area of the project site where excavation is proposed) to the grade proposed as part of the subject grade and fill permit application. As part of one or more later site development phases, further grading modifications are expected. That being the case, ultimate landscape design and installation cannot be completed until a final site use is determined and a particular development for such site use is designed on behalf of the property owner and approved by the City. The proposed crushed aggregate buttress fill along the slope face [a fill proposed to taper in horizontal depth from (1) a 35-foot depth at the toe of the proposed new 1. 5H: 1V engineered fill slope tapering to (2) a 5-foot depth at the top of the slope] will not only be excellent for providing slope stability and preventing slope erosion, it will also provide a porous, nonerosive aggregate facing of the proposed slope face (see Plate 3), a facing that will be excellent for vertically transmitting and dispersing through the crushed aggregate buttress zone both (a) rainwater that strikes the slope's face and (b) any hillside perched groundwater that may seep into the buttress fill zone from the fill core. This will eliminate any need for terracing the slope. Because of the porous, nonerosive characteristics of the proposed fill slope face, vegetation of the slope face will not be needed to prevent erosion and, because the facing will not be conducive to landscaping, other plantings, or hydroseeding, vegetation of the slope face will not be appropriate and is not being proposed. Based on our field evaluation of the project site, in our opinion, the previously-graded portion of the site has been fully stabilized against erosion by means of extensive crushed material surfacing. A similar six-inch-minimum depth of crushed material surfacing of the project site to be graded (as now proposed on the Barghausen Grading Plans) is likewise expected to provide full stabilization against erosion and thereby eliminate the need for interim landscaping or hydroseeding of the project site. Earth Solutions NW, LLC Pointe Heron LLC August 13, 2014 Hydroseeding Subsection 4 of RMC 4-4-060C (General) states: ES-2334.01 Page 38 4. Hydroseeding Required: Within thirty (30) days of completion of grading work, the applicant shall hydroseed or plant an appropriate ground cover over any portion of the site that is graded or cleared of vegetation and where no further construction work will occur within ninety (90) days. Alternative measures such as mulch, sodding, or plastic covering as specified in the Surface Water Design Manual may be proposed between the dates of October 1st and April 30th of each year. The Development Services Division's approval of this work is required prior to final inspection and approval of the permit. (Ord. 4703, 2-2-1998; Ord. 5526, 2- 1-2010) (Boldfacing in the code text; underlining and italics added for emphasis.) RMC 4-4-060C4 provides requirements for hydroseeding a site within a prescribed time limit. The intent of this code section is to stabilize the surface of a disturbed area to prevent excessive erosion. Because, as explained above, the engineered fill slope proposed to be constructed along the south and east edges of the proposed project site will include a crushed aggregate buttress slope facing, hydroseeding this area is not appropriate and is thus not recommended or proposed. The crushed aggregate slope face will effectively disperse incidental surface water flows through the coarse media. Because the proposed slope facing (1) will not be conducive to landscaping, other plantings, or hydroseeding and (2) planting or hydroseeding of the slope facing is not expected to provide benefit, no planting or hydroseeding of the slope face is needed and thus none is being proposed. The crushed aggregate slope face has been designed to provide a level of erosion protection that is as least as good if not better than a vegetated slope surface. Mulching and hydroseeding of the interior side slopes of both the proposed Interim Stormwater Pond and the proposed Permanent Stormwater Pond is specified on the Barghausen Grading Plans. Rather than hydroseeding the finished surfaces of the plateau portion of the proposed work area, covering of the finished surfaces of the plateau portion of the work area with a 6-inch minimum depth of crushed surfacing (which is called for on the Barghausen Grading Plans) is proposed. Based on our field evaluation of the existing graded plateau portion of the project site, we have concluded that the extensive crushed material surfacing of that portion of the project site has fully stabilized it against erosion. The proposed similar crushed material surfacing of the proposed plateau portion of the project site is likewise expected to provide full stabilization against erosion and thereby eliminate the need for hydroseeding. The proposed crushed aggregate slope face and the proposed 6-inch minimum depth of crushed surfacing of the plateau portion of the work area are appropriate alternative measures to hydroseeding under Subsection 4 of RMC 4-4-060C (General). Earth Solutions NW. LLC Pointe Heron LLC August 13, 2014 Erosion and Sediment Control ES-2334.01 Page 39 Renton Municipal Code Section 4-4-060D.1 provides regulations regarding erosion and sediment control measures. The proposed scope of work has been designed to control erosion and limit sediment-laden discharge to surrounding properties. The elements proposed to accomplish this include, but are not limited to, the following: • Controlling the flow of surface water runoff from the plateau portions of the work area by means of swales and conveyance away from slopes and to the Interim Stormwater Pond and Permanent Stormwater Pond. This approach will effectively protect surface areas including slopes from uncontrolled release and flow that might initiate or exacerbate erosion. • Requiring that trucks traveling to and from the work area for construction of the subject fill and grade project drive through the Stoneway Black River Quarry property (which lies to the west of the subject Pointe Heron LLC parcel) and the quarry driveway connection with Monster Road. The Stoneway Black River Quarry has effective measures to reduce off-site migration of sediment to public streets, including a truck wash facility. • Covering the finished surfaces of the plateau portion of the work area with a 6- inch minimum depth of crushed surfacing, which is called for on the Barghausen Grading Plans. • Installation of the crushed aggregate buttress fill along the face of the proposed new and upward-extended south-edge and east-edge 1.5H:1V engineered fill slopes (a rock buttress fill proposed to taper in horizontal depth from a 35-foot depth at the toe of the new slope to a 5-foot depth at the top of the slope). Because of the porous, nonerosive crushed-aggregate material, the crushed aggregate buttress fill will prevent or minimize slope erosion and will vertically transmit through the crushed aggregate buttress fill zone both (1) rainwater that strikes the slope's face and (2) hillside perched groundwater that might seep into the buttress fill zone from the fill core in places at the interface between the buttress fill zone and the portion of the core fill zone immediately behind the buttress fill zone. These and other erosion and sediment control measures are specified on the Barghausen Grading Plans. Earth Solutions NW, LLC Pointe Heron LLC August 13, 2014 Setbacks ES-2334.01 Page 40 Renton Municipal Code Section 4-4-060L.1 provides guidelines for minimum safe setbacks from the top of slopes. The intent of this setback section of the code is to (1) provide for the safety and benefit of adjacent properties, (2) ensure that building foundations are provided adequate support and safety, and (3) prevent damage as a result of water runoff and erosion of the slopes. In view of both (1) the interim and limited nature of the subject filling and grading proposal and (2) the fact that the particular layout, scale, and features of future buildings, roadways, parking facilities, landscape areas, etc. of the subject property are not yet known, we recommend an interim minimum setback from the top of the proposed new structural fill slope to structures of 20 feet. This interim setback exceeds the minimum 10-foot setback to structures from the top of slope set forth in RMC 4-4-060L.1 's setback table. This proposed interim setback should be reevaluated during the final site plan design phase of a future development project on the site. In our opinion, the proposed 20-foot interim minimum setback from the top of the proposed new engineered fill slope to structures meets the intent of this code section. The topic of fills is specifically addressed in subsection N (FILLS) of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-4-060 (GRADING, EXCAVATION AND MINING REGULATIONS). The Role of the Soil Engineering Report in Regard to Fills as Stated under Paragraph 1 of RMC 4-4-060N Paragraph 1 of RMC 4-4-060N states: 1. Applicability and Exemptions: Unless otherwise recommended in the approved soil engineering report, fills shall conform to the provisions of this Section. In the absence of an approved soil engineering report, these provisions may be waived for minor fills not intended to support structures. For minor fills or waste areas, humps, hollows or water pockets shall be graded smooth with acceptable slopes. (Boldfacing in the code text; underlining and italics added for emphasis.) The phrase "this Section" in Paragraph 1 of RMC 4-4-060N refers to RMC Section 4-4-060 in its entirety. Thus, the code gives great deference to an approved soil engineering report in regard to the provisions of RMC Section 4-4-060 concerning fills. This report has been carefully prepared with appropriate analysis and design recommendations to be worthy of approval and such deference. Earth Solutions NW, LLC Pointe Heron LLC August 13, 2014 ES-2334.01 Page 41 Except for the second sentence of RMC 4-4-060N6 (the sentence regarding modifications, a sentence that should not be applicable because of the recommendations in this report regarding the design of the proposed fill slope), the now-proposed fill slope is designed to fully conform to all of the applicable provisions of Subsection N (FILL) of RMC Section 4-4-060. This is explained below. Conformance with RMC 4-4-060N2 (Fill Location) RMC 4-4-060N2 states: 2. Fill Location: Fill slopes shall not be constructed: a. On natural slopes steeper than two-and-one-half horizontal to one vertical (2.5:1) that are fifteen feet (15') or greater in height (except in conjunction with a modification granted per RMC 4-9-25001 for filling against the toe of a natural rock wall -see RMC 4-3-050N2a(ii)(b)); or b. Where the fill slope toes out within twelve feet ( 12') horizontally of the top of existing or planned cut slopes that are fifteen feet ( 15') or greater in height and steeper than two-and-one-half horizontal to one vertical (2.5:1). (Amd. Ord. 4835, 3-27-2000; Ord. 4851, 8-7-2000) Because none of the fill slopes that Pointe Heron LLC now proposes are planned to be constructed either (a) on natural slopes steeper than two-and-one-half horizontal to one vertical (2.5:1) that are fifteen feet (15') or greater in height6 or (b) where the fill slope will toe out within twelve feet ( 12') horizontally of the top of existing or planned cut slopes that are fifteen feet ( 15') or greater in height and steeper than two-and-one-half horizontal to one vertical (2.5: 1 ), those slopes will not conflict with any of the general prohibitions concerning fill slopes set forth in above-quoted RMC 4-4-060N2. Conformance with RMC 4-4-060N3 (Preparation of Ground) RMC 4-4-060N3 states: 3. Preparation of Ground: The ground surface shall be prepared to receive fill by removing vegetation, noncomplying fill, topsoil and other unsuitable materials as determined by the soil engineer, and where the slopes are five to one (5:1) or steeper, by benching into sound bedrock or other competent material 6 Note that no fill slopes on any existing natural slopes are proposed. All of the fill slopes that Pointe Heron LLC now proposes are planned to be constructed in areas that were graded during Sunset Bluff site construction. Earth Solutions NW, LLC Pointe Heron LLC August13,2014 ES-2334.01 Page 42 The subsection of this report under the heading "Specifications for Preparation of Ground for Fill" set forth on page 7, above, conforms to above-quoted RMC 4-4-060N3. That subsection has been included on Sheet E10 of the Barghausen Grading Plans. Conformance with Applicable Portions of RMC 4-4-060N4 (Fill Material) RMC 4-4-060N4 (Fill Material) states in relevant part:7 4. Fill Material: Fill materials shall have no more than minor amounts of organic substances and shall have no rock or similar irreducible material with a maximum dimension greater than eight inches (8"). Fill material shall meet the following requirements: a. Construction, Demolition, and Land Clearing Waste Prohibited: Fill material shall be free of construction, demolition, and land clearing waste except that this requirement does not preclude the use of recycled concrete rubble per Washington State Department of Transportation Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction. b. Cleanliness of Fill Material: Fill material shall not contain concentrations of contaminants that exceed cleanup standards for soil specified in WAC 173-340-740, Model Toxics Control Act. The fill material specifications set forth on pages 7 to 9, above, for both (1) the proposed buttress fill zone along the face of the proposed fill slopes and (2) the fill to be used to construct the proposed fill core behind the crushed aggregate buttress zone conform to the above-quoted excerpt from RMC 4-4-060N4. Those fill material specifications have been added to Sheet E10 of the Barghausen Grading Plans. 7 Subsections N4c, d, e, f, g, and h of RMC Section 4-4-060 apply only to sites lying within Aquifer Protection Areas 1 or 2. Those subsections are not applicable to the Pointe Heron property because the Pointe Heron property does not lie within either Aquifer Protection Area 1 or 2. Subsections N4i, j, and k of RMC Section 4-4-060 set forth assertions of authority by the City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development in regard to (1) illegal placement of imported fill, (2) entry onto private property to conduct independent sampling and analysis of fill, and (3) implementation of fill removal and remediation. Because none of those subsections set forth design standards for proposed filling, those subsections are not relevant to this report. Earth Solutions NW, LLC Pointe Heron LLC August 13, 2014 ES-2334.01 Page 43 Most of the needed structural fill material will have to be imported to the project site because, except for the relatively small volume of material to be excavated for construction of the proposed Permanent Stormwater Pond, none of the site is proposed to be excavated. Successful use of the limited volume of those excavated on-site soils will largely be dictated by the moisture content of the soils at the time of placement and compaction. Use of onsite soils from site excavations for structural fill material may require moisture conditioning prior to placement and compaction if the material has greater than optimum moisture content. Moisture conditioning would likely include passive measures such as aeration for overly moist soils and addition of water for overly dry soils prior to placement. These moisture conditioning methods would not affect water quality on the project site or the quality of water that may be discharged from the project site. Conformance with RMC 4-4-060N5 (Minimum Compaction) RMC 4-4-060N5 states: 5. Minimum Compaction: All fills shall be compacted to a minimum of ninety five percent (95%) of maximum density as determined by American Public Works Association (APWA) specifications. Field density shall be determined in accordance with APWA standards. As pointed out in the subsection of this report concerning placement and compaction standards for the buttress fill (see page 9, above), because of the large aggregate size of the buttress fill, the specified buttress fill material is outside the range of typical grain size for testing under ASTM D-1557 or equivalent American Public Works Association (APWA) specifications and field density standards. Also, as specified in that same subsection of this report, at a minimum, three passes in two orthogonal directions using a vibratory drum roller should be made to compact each lift of buttress fill material. As pointed out in the subsection of this report concerning placement and compaction standards for the core structural fill material (see page 9, above), the core structural fill material is to be compacted to a relative compaction of 95 percent, based on the maximum dry density as determined by the Modified Proctor Method (ASTM D-1557), which is a compaction standard compatible with the American Public Works Association (APWA) specifications and field density standards. Also, as specified in that same subsection of this report, at a minimum, three passes in two orthogonal directions using a vibratory drum roller should be made to compact each lift of core structural fill material. Earth Solutions NW, LLC Pointe Heron LLC August 13, 2014 Conformance with Applicable Portions of RMC 4-4-060N6 RMC 4-4-060N6 (Maximum Slope) states: ES-2334.01 Page 44 6. Maximum Slope: The slope of fill surfaces shall be no steeper than is safe for the intended use. Except in conjunction with a modification granted per RMC 4-9- 25001 for one of the circumstances listed in RMC 4-3-050N2a(ii) (Geologic Hazards -Modifications), fill operations associated with a plat, short plat, subdivision or dedication, or other permitted land development activity which would result in the creation of permanent slopes forty percent (40%) or greater which are fifteen feet (15') in height, i.e., protected slopes, shall not be approved. (Amd. Ord. 4835, 3-27-2000) The slope of the proposed fill surfaces is certainly not steeper than will be safe for the intended use of supporting fill to the north for future development-see the discussion of safety of the proposed slope under the subheading "Criterion 3: The development can be safely accommodated on the site" on page 33, above, and see the other portions of this report cited under that subheading. For context in regard to RMC 4-4-060N6's statement about "a modification granted per RMC 4- 9-25001 for one of the circumstances listed in RMC 4-3-050N2a(ii) (Geologic Hazards - Modifications)," the following should be noted: (1) The proposed new 1.5H:1V fill slope south of the existing Sunset Bluff detention pond is designed to connect to the following previously constructed adjacent fill slopes that the City authorized to the west and east of the planned location of the proposed new slope: Earth Solutions NW, LLC Pointe Heron LLC August 13, 2014 (a) ES-2334 01 Page 45 The similar existing 1.5H:1V engineered fill slope created to the west of the existing Sunset Bluff detention pond [which is a slope that is steeper than 40 percent and greater than fifteen feet ( 15') in height], (i) the first portion of which slope was authorized by the City along the south edge of an easterly portion of the Stoneway Black River Quarry under Renton Construction Permit Number U040257 issued July 23, 2004 8 and (ii) the second portion of which slope (as part of the Sunset Bluff project construction) was authorized by the City along an additional part of the south edge of the easterly portion of the Black River Quarry and along the south edge of the westerly portion of the Sunset Bluff site under Renton Building Permit Number B050337 issued July 29, 2005 and Renton Construction Permit Number U050099 issued July 26, 20059 and 8 In regard to the portion of the similar existing 1.5H: 1 V engineered fill slope that was first created (created during 2004 along some of the southerly edge of the easterly part of the Stoneway Black River Quarry property), we understand that that portion was authorized under Renton Construction Permit Number U040257 in relation to the following materials: (a) A May 26, 2004 soil engineering report for the slope prepared by Earth Consultants, Inc.; (b) A Site Plan for the Black River Quarry's South Edge Ecology Block Waif and Geogrid- Reinforced Fifi Slope dated June 29, 2004 prepared by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc.; (c) A building permit (Renton Building Permit Number 8040386) issued July 20, 2004 by the City for the geogrid-reinforced ecology block wall located along and beneath a portion of the lower edge of the 1.5H: 1V geogrid-reinforced fill slope; and (d) A June 22, 2004 supplemental soil report (a report of calculations) prepared by Earth Consultants, Inc. in support of the design of the geog rid-reinforced ecology block wall. 9 In regard to the portions of the similar existing 1.5H:1V engineered fill slope constructed as part of the Sunset Bluff project [including (1) the portion lying along the southerly edge of the easternmost part of the Stoneway Black River Quarry property, (2) the portions lying along the south edge and east edge of the subject Pointe Heron LLC parcel to the west of the now-existing stormwater detention pond, and (3) the portions now lying to the east of the now-existing stormwater detention pond along the south edge and east edge of the subject Pointe Heron LLC parcel west of the existing Class 4 stream)], we understand that those portions were authorized as part of the Sunset Bluff project construction under Renton Building Permit Number 8050337 issued July 29, 2005 and Renton Construction Permit Number U050099 issued July 26, 2005 (for clearing, initial grading and TESC for Sunset Bluff) in relation to the following materials: (a) A May 26, 2005 (Revised June 6, 2005) soil engineering report prepared by Earth Consultants, Inc. for the proposed Sunset Bluff 1H:1Vand 1.5H:1V geogrid-reinforced fill slopes and geogrid-reinforced ecology block wall; (b) A three-sheet set of design cross-sections, details, and notes prepared by Earth Consultants, Inc. for the proposed Sunset Bluff 1 H:1V and 1.5H:1V geogrid-reinforced fill slopes and geogrid-reinforced ecology block; and Earth Solutions NW, LLC Pointe Heron LLC August 13, 2014 (b) ES-2334.01 Page 46 The similar existing engineered fill slope ranging from 1.5H:1V to 2H:1V created along a portion of the south edge of the Sunset Bluff site just to the east of the Sunset Bluff stormwater detention pond [which is a slope steeper than 40 percent and greater than fifteen feet (15') in height], a slope that also was authorized by the City under Renton Building Permit Number 9050337 issued July 29, 2005 and Renton Construction Permit Number U050099 issued July 26, 2005. (2) It is our understanding that a modification per RMC 4-9-25001 for one of the circumstances listed in RMC 4-3-050N2a(ii) (Geologic Hazards - Modifications) was neither granted nor needed for the fill slopes to the west and east that were applied for and permitted during 2004 and 2005 because, in view of the first sentence of Paragraph 1 of RMC 4-4-060N [the sentence that states "[ulnless otherwise recommended in the approved soil engineering report, fills shall conform to the provisions of this Section" (emphasis added)], the soil engineering reports for the then-proposed fill slopes to the west and east proposed and permitted during 2004 and 2005 [slopes forty percent (40%) or greater that were higher than fifteen feet (15')) to the east and west of the now-proposed slope were approved by the City. It would be consistent with the previous approvals that the now-proposed similar infill slope (as well as the now-proposed upward extensions of those previously approved and constructed fill slopes to the west and east of the now-proposed infill slope) that the City approve the currently proposed fill slopes on the strength of this soil engineering report without need of a modification per RMC 4-9-25001 for one of the circumstances listed in RMC 4-3-050N2a(ii) (Geologic Hazards -Modifications).10 (c) An October 7, 2005 seven-sheet set of the clearing, initial grading, and TESC drawings for Sunset Bluff prepared by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. (a set that bears a City approval signature dated October 9, 2005). 10 Note that if a modification is needed for the proposed fill, the proposed fill slope is consistent with at least the first of the three alternative circumstances for a modification listed in RMC 4-3-050N2a(ii) (Geologic Hazards -Modifications). That is the case because, in regard to existing slopes created as part of the grading and storm drainage facility work done in conjunction with the Sunset Bluff project's (1) proposed public street, (2) proposed emergency vehicle access road from the proposed cul-de-sac west to Monster Road, (3) stormwater detention pond constructed along much of the Sunset Bluff site's south edge, and (4) the stormwater detention pond's maintenance road [Sunset Bluff design features depicted on sheets 2 through 4 of the October 7, 2005 clearing, initial grading, and TESC drawings for Sunset Bluff prepared by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. (an 11" by 17" reduced-size set of which drawings are attached to this report as APPENDIX H)J, the proposed fill slope involves regrading of slopes that were "created through . . . public or private road installation ... and related transportation improvements, ... or public or private utility installation activities." Earth Solutions NW, LLC Pointe Heron LLC August 13, 2014 Conformance with RMC 4-4-060N7 (Drainage and Terracing) RMC 4-4-060N7 (Drainage and Terracing) states: ES-2334.01 Page 47 7. Drainage and Terracing: Drainage and terracing shall be provided and the area above fill slopes and the surfaces of terraces shall be as required by subsection N of this Section. (Ord. 5526, 2-1-2010) (Boldfacing in the code text; underlining and italics added for emphasis.) Subsection N of RMC 4-4-060 sets forth no requirements for "drainage and terracing" or for "the area above fill slopes and the surfaces of terraces." However, Subsection P (DRAINAGE) does. (Above-quoted RMC 4-4-060N7 has apparently not been updated to reflect the correct subsection letter.) A discussion of the proposed fill, excavation, and grade project's conformance with subsection P follows. Conformance with Subsection 1 (General) of RMC 4-4-060P (DRAINAGE) RMC 4-4-060P1 states: 1. General: Unless otherwise indicated on the approved grading plan, drainage facilities and terracing shall conform to the provisions of this Section. Special drainage protection work may be ordered in case of emergency or serious potential flooding conditions, and the grading operator required to have available an employee to be called in times of potential serious emergency hazards. Sheet E10 of the Barghausen Grading Plans indicates that no terracing of proposed fill slopes is required due to the reasons set forth in this Geotechnical and Soil Engineering Report. Note that the Sunset Bluff storm drainage facilities installation activities were "public or private utility installation activities" for purposes of the above-quoted excerpt from RMC 4-3-050N2a(ii) in view of the code definition of the word "utilities" in RMC 4-11-210 (DEFINITIONS U). That definition states: UTILITIES: Utility lines and facilities related to the provision, distribution, collection, transmission or disposal of water, storm and sanitary sewage, oil, gas, power, and telephone cable, and includes facilities for the generation of electricity. This definition does not include sewage wastewater treatment plants, wireless communication facilities, or solid waste disposal/recycling facilities. (Boldfacing in the code text; underlining and italics added for emphasis.) Earth Solutions tffl, LLC Pointe Heron LLC August 13, 2014 Conformance with Subsection 2 (Terrace) of RMC 4-4-060P (DRAINAGE) RMC 4-4-060P2 (Terrace) states: ES-2334.01 Page 48 2. Terrace: Terraces at least eight feet (8') in width shall be established at no more than twenty five foot (25') intervals to control surface runoff. Suitable access shall be provided to permit cleaning and maintenance. a. Swales: Swales or ditches on the back side of the terrace shall have a maximum longitudinal gradient of two percent (2%) unless protected by special paving, use of corrugated metal or other scour prevention devices. Drainage shall be designed to minimize trapping of excessive water which might endanger the terrace. Terraces shall slope toward the back or cut face at a minimum of ten percent (10%) slope to keep water from overtopping. b. Scouring: Single run of swale or ditch shall not collect runoff from a tributary area exceeding thirteen thousand five hundred (13,500) square feet of the area of the face of the slope without discharging into a down drain. Down drains shall terminate into a catch basin or other approved receiver to prevent scouring at the outfall. c. Capacity: Designed capacity for terraces shall be a twenty four (24) hour, twenty five (25) year storm as published by the U.S. Weather Bureau. Design velocity shall be such as to avoid water transporting colloidal silts in the stream. Should request be made for variation from the twenty four (24) hour, twenty five (25) year storm by the engineering designer, sufficient data shall be submitted in an engineering report to analyze the requested variation. When accumulated flows are such that the water is capable of transporting colloidal silts or other particles in suspension down drains, pipe or lined ditches shall be incorporated to dispose of the runoff safely. Energy dispersing structures shall be used to prevent erosion. d. Settling Ponds: Where stormwater and ground conditions appear to warrant, special holding and settling ponds, stormwater storage reservoirs, or other means may be required to prevent overload or unusual by-pass of storm flow water to areas off the owner's site and control. Earth Solutions NW, LLC Pointe Heron LLC August 13, 2014 ES-2334.01 Page 49 Terraces along the proposed slope are neither shown on the proposed grading plan nor otherwise proposed because they are not warranted under the proposed slope design. (As noted above, Sheet E1 O of the Barghausen Grading Plans indicates that no terracing of proposed fill slopes is required due to the reasons set forth in this Geotechnical and Soil Engineering Report.) While terracing may appropriately be required for some slope designs on some fill slope projects, terracing is not appropriate for the subject proposed fill slope because it will include a highly porous crushed aggregate buttress fill along the slope's face [a crushed aggregate buttress fill proposed to range from a 35-foot (horizontal) dimension at the toe of the new slope to a 5-foot (horizontal) dimension at the top of the slope]. Need for terracing is eliminated because of the high porosity of the crushed aggregate buttress fill material, fill material that will effectively convey and disperse both (1) rainwater that strikes the slope's face and (2) hillside groundwater, if any, that may seep through the core structural fill zone into the buttress zone. In regard to the proposed fill, RMC 4-4-060P2d is satisfied by the proposed Interim Stormwater Pond and proposed Permanent Stormwater Pond. Conformance with Subsection 3 (Subsurface Drainage) of RMC 4-4-060P (DRAINAGE) RMC 4-4-060P3 states: 3. Subsurface Drainage: Cut and fill slopes shall be provided with subsurface drainage as necessary for stability. In view of RMC 4-4-060P3, the need for and manner of subsurface drainage measures shall be determined based on actual conditions encountered during grading activities. Because the buttress fill zone is so extensive, in our opinion, no additional subsurface drainage provisions will be necessary for the proposed fill slopes. Conformance with Subsection 4 (Disposal) of RMC 4-4-060P (DRAINAGE) RMC 4-4-060P4 (Disposal) states: 4. Disposal: All drainage facilities shall be designed to carry waters to the nearest practicable drainage way approved by the City and/or other appropriate jurisdiction as a safe place to deposit such waters. Silt and other debris shall be removed prior to the disposal of such water. If drainage facilities discharge onto natural ground, riprap may be required. (Ord. 2820, 1-14-1974, eff. 1-19-1974) Earth Solutions t-NI, LLC Pointe Heron LLC August 13, 2014 ES-2334.01 Page 50 a. Minimum Grade: At least two percent (2%) gradient toward approved drainage facilities from building pads will be required unless waived by the Building Department for nonhilly terrain. Exception: The gradient from the building pad may be one percent (1 %) where building construction, and erosion control will be completed before hazardous conditions can occur. (Ord 2820, 1-14-1974, eff. 1-19-1974; Amd. Ord. 3592, 12-14-1981) b. Drainage Releases: The property owner or his authorized agent shall submit acceptable copies of drainage releases from downstream owners or other government agencies concerned whenever drainage is interrupted, diverted or changed from natural surface or subsurface drainage patterns. c. Stream Acceptance: The volume and rate of water released shall not exceed the receiving stream's or watercourse's ability to accept the water without erosion. Barghausen has addressed RMC 4-4-060P4 (Disposal) in section 2.1 of Barghausen's TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT-GRADING, INTERIM DRAINAGE, AND EROSION CONTROL dated August 2014 prepared for the Pointe Heron Fill, Excavation, and Grade Project (the "Barghausen TIR"). That section of the Barghausen TIR states: Both the proposed interim and proposed permanent stormwater detention and water quality ponds are designed to discharge into on-site storm drain piping that will connect into the existing Type II storm manhole constructed as part of prior Sunset Bluff project construction at the common boundary between the Pointe Heron LLC parcel and the BNSF railroad right-of-way. (The existing Sunset Bluff stormwater detention and water quality pond discharges into that existing Type II storm manhole.) That storm manhole drains into the existing 18-inch-diameter culvert that extends to the south across the BNSF railroad right-of-way and discharges into the City property south of the BNSF railroad right-of-way. No interruption. diversion, or change in drainage from the Pointe Heron LLC parcel is proposed. Conformance with Subsection 5 (Overland Runoff) of RMC 4-4-060P (DRAINAGE) RMC 4-4-060P5 (Overland Runoff) states: 5. Overland Runoff: Runoff from areas of higher elevation shall be safely routed around or through the extraction or fill area. (Ord. 2820, 1-14-1974, eff. 1-19- 1974; Ord. 5526, 2-1-2010) Earth Solutions NVV. LLC Pointe Heron LLC August 13, 2014 In regard to RMC 4-4-060P5, section 3.1 of the Barghausen TIR states: ES-2334.01 Page 51 A series of existing subsurface drains (consisting of conduits of free-draining gravel buried beneath the existing ground surface) are already in-place within the previously graded portion of the subject Pointe Heron LLC parcel to convey stormwater runoff from the seven existing upstream culverts that extend from Sunset Boulevard slightly into and discharge water into the parcel (culverts that all lie to the west of the 36-inch-diameter culvert that conveys water to the intermittent stream to the east of the project site). These subsurface drains convey those offsite upstream waters to the natural discharge location (the existing railroad ditch located in the BNSF Railroad right-of-way immediately south of and along a portion of the parcel's south boundary). These subsurface drains were installed in 2006 or 2007 in conjunction with the previous (Sunset Bluff-related) filling and grading work on the parcel. These existing subsurface drains have proven to be a safe and reliable way to convey those waters through the previously graded portion of the parcel, as is evidenced by the fact that there have been no drainage capacity problems or erosion problems associated with these subsurface drains. These existing subsurface drains will remain in place with the proposed Phase 1 and Phase 2 filling, excavation, and grading work, with modifications if needed. Depending on the particulars of the ultimate future development of the Pointe Heron LLC parcel, a permanent piped and/or ditch conveyance system may ultimately replace some or all of the existing subsurface drains and continue to bypass the upstream offsite runoff to the railroad ditch. Water flowing through that railroad ditch drains into two existing culverts. The westerly of those two culverts is a 12-inch-diameter clay culvert and the easterly culvert (which is the existing pond's discharge location) is an 18-inch-diameter ADS culvert installed within a 24-inch steel casing. Both culverts lie beneath and across the railroad grade and discharge to the south into open space property owned and maintained by the City of Renton. Cuts are specifically addressed in subsection M (CUTS) of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-4- 060 (GRADING, EXCAVATION AND MINING REGULATIONS). The Role of the Soil Engineering Report in Regard to Cuts as Stated under Paragraph 1 of RMC 4-4-060M Paragraph 1 of RMC 4-4-060M states: 1. General: Unless otherwise recommended in the approved soil engineering and/or engineering geology report, cuts shall conform to the provisions of this Section. Earth Solutions NW, LLC Pointe Heron LLC August 13, 2014 ES-2334.01 Page 52 The phrase "this Section" in Paragraph 1 of RMC 4-4-060M (like that same phrase in above- discussed Paragraph 1 of RMC 4-4-060N concerning fills) refers to RMC Section 4-4-060 in its entirety. Thus, the code gives great deference to an approved soil engineering report in regard to the provisions of RMC Section 4-4-060 concerning cuts. This report has been prepared with appropriate analysis and design recommendations to be worthy of approval and such deference. Conformance with RMC 4-4-060M2 (Maximum Slope) RMC 4-4-060M2 states: 2. Maximum Slope: The slope of cut surfaces shall be no steeper than is safe for the intended use. Except in conjunction with a modification granted per RMC 4-9- 25001 for one of the circumstances listed in RMC 4-3-050N2a(ii) (Geologic Hazards -Modifications), cut operations associated with a plat, short plat, subdivision or dedication, or other permitted land development activity which would result in the creation of permanent slopes forty percent (40%) or greater which are fifteen feet (15') in height, i.e., protected slopes, shall not be approved. (Amd. Ord. 4835, 3-27-2000) The only area of proposed cuts will occur in conjunction with the construction of the proposed Permanent Stormwater Pond located in the northern portion of the project site. The cut slope along the north side of that proposed pond is designed at an inclination of 3H: 1V (i.e., about 33 percent). The proposed 2H:1V cut slopes along the east, south, and west sides of the proposed pond are less than 15 feet in height. Thus, the proposed new 2H:1V cut slopes for those three sides of the pond would not be protected slopes. Test pits observed by ESNW in January 2014 within the location of the proposed Permanent Stormwater Pond revealed dense native soil present at the elevation of the proposed pond bottom. Copies of the test pit logs are presented in APPENDIX A. In view of that dense native soil, none of the proposed cut slopes will be steeper than is safe for the intended use. Conformance with RMC 4-4-060M3 (Drainage and Terracing) RMC 4-4-060M3 states (and the associated image in RMC 4-4-060M3 depicts) as follows: 3. Drainage and Terracing: Drainage and terracing shall be provided as required by subsection N of this Section. Earth Solutions t-NV. LLC Pointe Heron LLC August 13, 2014 (Ord. 5526, 2-1-2010) ES-2334.01 Page 53 Subsection N of RMC 4-4-060 sets forth no requirements for drainage and terracing. However, Subsection P (DRAINAGE) does. (Above-quoted RMC 4-4-060M3 has apparently not been updated to reflect the correct subsection letter.) A discussion of the conformance of the proposed fill, excavation, and grading project with subsection P in regard to drainage and terracing follows. Conformance with Subsection 1 (General) of RMC 4-4-060P (DRAINAGE) RMC 4-4-060P1 states: 1. General: Unless otherwise indicated on the approved grading plan, drainage facilities and terracing shall conform to the provisions of this Section. Special drainage protection work may be ordered in case of emergency or serious potential flooding conditions, and the grading operator required to have available an employee to be called in times of potential serious emergency hazards. Sheet E10 of the Barghausen Grading Plans indicates that no terracing of proposed cut slopes is required due to the reasons set forth in this Geotechnical and Soil Engineering Report. The Barghausen Grading Plans indicate that excavation is only proposed in regard to the proposed Permanent Stormwater Pond, which is to be constructed along a part of the project site's north edge. Accordingly, the analysis below of subsections 2, 3, 4, and 5 of RMC 4-4-060P addresses that proposed excavation. Conformance with Subsection 2 (Terrace) of RMC 4-4-060P (DRAINAGE) RMC 4-4-060P2 (Terrace) states: 2. Terrace: Terraces at least eight feet (8') in width shall be established at no more than twenty five foot (25') intervals to control surface runoff. Suitable access shall be provided to permit cleaning and maintenance. Earth Solutions NW, LLC Pointe Heron LLC August 13, 2014 ES-2334.01 Page 54 a. Swales: Swales or ditches on the back side of the terrace shall have a maximum longitudinal gradient of two percent (2%) unless protected by special paving, use of corrugated metal or other scour prevention devices. Drainage shall be designed to minimize trapping of excessive water which might endanger the terrace. Terraces shall slope toward the back or cut face at a minimum of ten percent (10%) slope to keep water from overtopping. b. Scouring: Single run of swale or ditch shall not collect runoff from a tributary area exceeding thirteen thousand five hundred (13,500) square feet of the area of the face of the slope without discharging into a down drain. Down drains shall terminate into a catch basin or other approved receiver to prevent scouring at the outfall. c. Capacity: Designed capacity for terraces shall be a twenty four (24) hour, twenty five (25) year storm as published by the U.S. Weather Bureau. Design velocity shall be such as to avoid water transporting colloidal silts in the stream. Should request be made for variation from the twenty four (24) hour, twenty five (25) year storm by the engineering designer, sufficient data shall be submitted in an engineering report to analyze the requested variation. When accumulated flows are such that the water is capable of transporting colloidal silts or other particles in suspension down drains, pipe or lined ditches shall be incorporated to dispose of the runoff safely. Energy dispersing structures shall be used to prevent erosion. d. Settling Ponds: Where stormwater and ground conditions appear to warrant, special holding and settling ponds, stormwater storage reservoirs, or other means may be required to prevent overload or unusual by-pass of storm flow water to areas off the owner's site and control. Terraces along the proposed cut slope are neither shown on the proposed grading plan nor otherwise proposed because they are not warranted under the proposed slope design since the proposed Permanent Stormwater Pond at the toe of the proposed cut slope will capture all surface water runoff from the proposed cut slope. (As noted above, Sheet E10 of the Barghausen Grading Plans indicates that no terracing of proposed cut slopes is required due to the reasons set forth in this Geotechnical and Soil Engineering Report.) In regard to the proposed cut, RMC 4-4-060P2d is satisfied by the proposed Permanent Stormwater Pond. Earth Solutions NW, LLC Pointe Heron LLC August 13, 2014 Conformance with Subsection 3 (Subsurface Drainage) of RMC 4-4-060P (DRAINAGE) RMC 4-4-060P3 states: ES-2334.01 Page 55 3. Subsurface Drainage: Cut and fill slopes shall be provided with subsurface drainage as necessary for stability. The "subsurface drainage specifications regarding the proposed fill and cut slopes" set forth on pages 13 and 14, above, have been added to Sheet E10 of the Barghausen Grading Plans. Those specifications are consistent with RMC 4-4-060P3. Conformance with Subsection 4 (Disposal) of RMC 4-4-060P (DRAINAGE) See (under the major heading "Fills") the subsection of this report that is entitled "Conformance with Subsection 4 (Disposal) of RMC 4-4-060P (DRAINAGE)" on pages 45 and 46, above. Conformance with Subsection 5 (Overland Runoff) of RMC 4-4-060P (DRAINAGE) See (under the major heading "Fills") the subsection of this report that is entitled "Conformance with Subsection 5 (Overland Runoff) of RMC 4-4-060P (DRAINAGE)" on pages 46 and 47, above. GRADING, EXCAVATION AND MINING PERMITS AND LICENSES Renton Municipal Code Section 4-9-080 provides regulations regarding permit and license requirements and jurisdiction for grading, excavation and mining proposals. RMC 4-9-080F4 sets forth review criteria for Special Grade and Fill permits issued by the City of Renton Hearing Examiner. RMC 4-9-080F4 states in its entirety: 4. Review Criteria for Special Grade and Fill Permit: To grant a special permit, the Hearing Examiner shall make a determination that: a. Compatibility of Proposed Use: The proposed activity would not be unreasonably detrimental to the surrounding area. The Hearing Examiner shall consider, but is not limited to, the following: i. Size and location of the activity. ii. Traffic volume and patterns. iii. Screening, landscaping, fencing and setbacks. Earth Solutions NVV, LLC Pointe Heron LLC August 13, 2014 iv. Unsightliness, noise and dust. v. Surface drainage. ES-2334.01 Page 56 vi. The length of time the application of an existing operation has to comply with nonsafety provisions of this Title. None of the six above-listed considerations relating to a Hearing Examiner's determination of whether a proposed filling, excavation, and grading activity "would not be unreasonably detrimental to the surrounding area" are geotechnical issues. However, in view of (1) our reviews and evaluations of (a) the ECI reports of pre-Sunset Bluff geologic conditions, (b) ECl's inspection records of the previous fills within the proposed work area, and (c) the design of the proposed fills depicted on the Barghausen Grading Plans, (2) the slope stability analyses that we have performed, and (3) the above portions of this report, in our opinion construction of the proposed filling, excavation, and grading project on the project site portion of the Pointe Heron LLC parcel in accordance with the design set forth on the Barghausen Grading Plans and in accordance with the specifications set forth in this geotechnical and soil engineering report and on the Barghausen Grading Plans would both (a) be feasible and safe and (b) not be unreasonably detrimental to the surrounding area. LIMITATIONS The recommendations and conclusions provided in this geotechnical engineering study are professional opinions consistent with the level of care and skill that is typical of other members in the profession currently practicing under similar conditions in this area. A warranty is not expressed or implied. Variations in the soil and groundwater conditions observed at the test sites may exist, and may not become evident until construction. ESNW should reevaluate the conclusions in this engineering geology and soil engineering report if variations are encountered. Additional Services ESNW should have an opportunity to review the final design with respect to the geotechnical recommendations provided in this report. ESNW should also be retained to provide testing and consultation services during construction. Earth Solutions NW, LLC '.l9Tfl ST S 14DTH"' . -ST 141frjt I 10)~~ " z c;, . ....,. ..,,; ....,,5 ,,.: . 146T~ .. . ., -s ... H?.Tlf_ " ~ ~ .... >~ S 151ST: STci li ... .,._. __ . s Reference: z ii ;t'·· ~ ·-;~·-_jSOJH . H. .. c::, --~- King County, Washington Map655 By The Thomas Guide Rand McNally 32nd Edition S 14STH sr"·· ~ S 150TH /'p1 NOTE: This plate may contain areas of color. ESNW cannot be responsible for any subsequent misinterpretation of the information resulting from black & white reproductions of this plate. ~ ..,,. ~J_515T '_,, sr_...,· s 151.ST~f'c > 0 "" ~ FVANS SLACK DR BA_KER ,: f J ;: ii -_II . . ~-!; :~ :_·_ '.sTRANOER BLVJ. I l(fNTENMAL : : PARK, : · . -.· EMBRY-R/DD(E AfRONAUYICAL UNIVERSITY SEA THE CENTER BOEING LONGACRES INDUSTRIAL PARK Vicinity Map Pointe Heron Renton, Washington .,.,_ Drwn. GLS Date 07/21/2014 Proj. No. 2334.01 Checked SSR Date July 2014 Plate 1 I 2·;o 22J 2:r. ?01; 1Cl') !i3:, 115C' ''J,' ,:,,:, ,:(.; iO.:J (j(j 70 6C• j• ?:i1) Not -To -Scale /:,() ·- I ITP-2 -•- TP-11 S.W. SUNS[T BL VO C• WC! ,'·)1) TP-4 TP-6 TP-8 -•-I -i=i B-3 ITP-5 I -•--·-1-. .. . .. I TP-7 TP-31 -•--r TP-11 I TP-141 -c- -c-l - l I TP-13 -c- l I -!=ITP-12 ~:41 LEGEND TP-1 -!-Approximate Location of I ESNW Test Pit, Proj. No. ES-2334.02, Jan. 2014 TP-13-b-Approximate Location of I ECI Test Pit, Proj. No. I B-4-j- E-10927, Nov. 2003 Approximate Location of ECI Boring, Proj. No. E-10927, Mar. 2004 Area of New Fill Slope Approximate Worl< Area Limits (See Reference Sheets for Detailed Extent) Reference: Barghausen Consulting Engineers. Topography Map, Sheets 1 and 2, Dated June 26, 2014 no f.J{) ;30 i?O 1-:0 1CO ',(, 80 50 :::,o :,(; NOTE: The graphics shown on this plate are not intended for design purposes or precise scale measurements, but only to illustrate the approximate test locations relative to the approximate locations of existing and/ or proposec site features. The information illustrated is largely based on data provided by the client at the time of our study. ESNW cannot be responsible for subsequent design changes or interpretation of the data by others. NOTE: This plate may contain areas of color. ESNW cannot be responsible for any subsequent misinterpretation of the infonmation resulting from black & white reproductions of this plate. i::, C C 0 me.. Cl.. 1: C Q) C OE 0 :;:; ·--al "O C Cl O Q) C ouie:c _J ~ Q) (/) :t:mI;!l! c..~Q)> -0 -~ <nc.c:c ~ E ·o o ,--Cl.. - i::, ~ a; c_ 0:: ffl= ciLL c- "i:: Q) 0 i::, a:,~ ('.) Drwn. By GLS Checked By SSR Date 08/12/2014 Proj. No. 2334.01 Plate 2 Notes: • Geogrid Lengths (alternate layers) Main= 40' Intermediate = 20' • Minimum Long-Term Design Strength LTDS = 7,520 lbs.If!. • Geogrid to be approved by Geotechnical Engineer prior to placement. • Buttress Fill shall taper from a minimum depth of 35 feet at base to 5 feet at top of slope. Geogrid Reinforcing (typ.) 1.5H:1V Face Inclination See Appendix D and Above Notes for Geog rid Length Approximate Existing Grade I"' ~I~ :.JI"' "' ;,,, C: C. ,:,o 0 "'I<( ui a;"' -e1.!!! o a. ~ I~ I I and Strength Parameters Existing Native Soil Horizontal Scale 0 Field-Adjust Transition from Buttress Fill and Core Structural Fill per Geotechnical Engineer Buttress Fill ~~ (See Notes) '.J"" Existing MSE Ecology Block Wall To Be Abandoned -In -Place Bench As Needed To Ensure Stable Interface Existing Native Soil 20 40 t=:J' Scale in Feet O 10 Vertical Scale ~ 20 40 -~ d Scale in Feet ~ 0 (.) u::: "O C C m .S Q) C Cl C C 0 0,- N .... .c Q) U) -Im u::: Q) 3: U) +' -v,.= C Q) 0 0 .... a..+' ~ C ::J Q) al c::: u i E Q) .c u Cl) Drwn. By GLS -' Checked By SSR Date 08/12/2014 Proj. No. 2334.01 Plate 3 APPENDIX A Subsurface Exploration Boring and Test Pit Logs ES-2334.01 The subsurface conditions were explored by ECI during November 2003 and March 2004. The approximate locations of ECI boring and test pits are illustrated on Plate 2 of this report. Copies of the boring and test pit logs are provided in this Appendix. The final logs represent the interpretations of the field logs and the results of laboratory analyses. The stratification lines on the logs represent the approximate boundaries between soil types. In actuality, the transitions may be more gradual than the logs suggest. Earth Solutions NW, LLC Earth Solutions NWLLc SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART MAJOR DIVISIONS SYMBOLS GRAPH LETTER TYPICAL DESCRIPTIONS COARSE GRAINED SOILS MORE THAN 50% OF MA TERJAL IS LARGER THAN NO. 200 SIEVE SIZE FINE GRAINED SOILS MORE THAN 50% OF MATERIAL IS SMALLER THAN NO. 200 S(EVE SIZE GRAVEL AND GRAVELLY SOILS MORE THAN 50% OF COARSE FRACTION RETAINED ON NO. 4SIEVE SAND AND SANDY SOILS CLEAN GRAVELS (LITTLE OR NO FINES) GRAVELS WITH FINES (APPRECIABLE AMOUNT OF FINES) CLEAN SANDS {LITTLE OR NO FINES) SANDS WITH MORE THAN 50% FINES OF COARSE FRACTION PASSING ON NO. 4 SIEVE (APPRECIABLE SILTS AND CLAYS SILTS AND CLAYS AMOUNT OF FINES) LIQUID LIMIT LESS THAN 50 LIQUID LIMIT GREATER THAN 50 HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS GW GP GM GC SW SP SM SC ML CL OL MH CH OH PT WELL-GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL- SANO MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO FINES POORLY-GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE ORNO FINES SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND- SIL T MIXTURES CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND- CLAY MIXTURES WELL-GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SANDS, UTILE OR NO FINES POORLY -GRADED SANOS, GRAVELLY SAND, LITTLE OR NO FINES SILTY SANDS, SAND-SILT MIXTURES CLAYEYSANDS,SANO-ClAY MIXTURES INORGANIC SIL TS ANO VERY FINE SANDS, ROCK FLOUR, SILTY OR CLAYEY FINE SANDS OR CLAYEY SILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO MEDIUM PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY CLAYS, SANDY CLAYS, SIL TY CLAYS, LEAN CLAYS ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC SIL TY CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY INORGANIC SIL TS, MICACEOUS OR OIATOMACEOUS FINE SANO OR SILTY SOILS INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO HIGH PLASTICITY, ORGANIC SILTS PEAT, HUMUS, SWAMP SOILS WITH HlGH ORGANIC CONTENTS DUAL SYMBOLS are used to indicate borderline soil classifications The discussion in the text of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of the nature of the material presented in the attached logs. s ;: c 0 " w " c z (9 0: " N ;,; ~ N ~ ~ ~ >:: I 00 ~ ~ w z w " f- c c f- • Earth Solutions NW 1805 -136th Place N.E., Suite 201 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone: 425--449-4704 Fax: 425-449-4711 CLIENT _ _p9int Heron, LLC PROJECT NUMBER 2334.02 ----------------- TEST PIT NUMBER TP-1 PAGE 1 OF 1 PROJECTNAME_P~o=i=nt=e~H~"='=on~--------- PROJECT LOCATION Renton Washington DATE STARTED _1=/~27~/~14~---COMPLETED _ 1/27/11____ GROUND ELEVATION 124 ft TEST PIT SIZE ______ _ EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR G.M. Inc. _____________ _ GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD __________________ _ AT TIME OF EXCAVATION - LOGGED BY _S~S~R~------- NOTES Gravel Surface LJ.J Q_ I >-(!'. I-LJ.J 1--LJ.J"' Q_ '"' ---'2 LJ.J- Cl Q_:, 22 TESTS <{ </) 0 - - -Fines= 40.00% CHECKED BY _S~S~R ____ _ </) u u; :, AT END OF EXCAVATION _-__________ _ AFTER EXCAVATION - MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Gray silty SANO with gravel, medium dense, moist (Fill) SM -mottling -variable gravel content c-------L 5.0 ---------------------------------119.0 - C - ss _1Q__ -- 13.0 I I I I Reddish-brown highly weathered SILT/ SANDSTONE (Bedrock) -becomes dense -becomes gray -----------------------------------··-1.!1.Q Test pit terminated at 13.0 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during excavation. Bottom of test pit at 13.0 feet. ~ I m ~ w z w " • Earth Solutions NW TEST PIT NUMBER TP-2 1805 -136th Place N.E., Suite 201 PAGE 1 OF 1 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone: 425-449-4704 Fa<: 425-449-4711 CLIENT Point Heron, -~l.,.C PROJECT NAME Pointe Heron PROJECT NUMBER 2334.02 PROJECT LOCATION Renton Washington --------- DATE STARTED 1/27114 COMPLETED 1/27/14 GROUND ELEVATION 126 ft TEST PIT SIZE - EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR G.M. Inc. GROUND WATER LEVELS: ---- EXCAVATION METHOD AT TIME OF EXCAVATION --- LOGGED BY SSR CHECKED BY SSR AT END OF EXCAVATION - ·-- NOTES Gravel Surface AFTER EXCAVATION --- w a_ I >-IX en () t-w 'i:c:, t--w<D () a_ "' __, ::; en a_o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION w-~ __, 0 a_:::, ::; z :::, Cl <( (J) 0 Brown silty SAND with gravel, medium dense. moist (Fill) SM -- 3.0 123.0 Brown highly weathered SILT/ SANDSTONE (Bedrock) ss ,--L -becomes dense to very dense 6.0 --120.0 ·-- Test pit terminated at 6.0 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during excavation. Bottom of test pit at 6.0 feet. ~ ~ I m ~ • Earth Solutions NW 1805 -136th Place N.E., Suite 201 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone: 425-449-4704 TEST PIT NUMBER TP-3 Fax: 425-449-4711 CLIENT Point Heron LLC PROJECT NUMBER 2334.02 DATE STARTED _1127114_ __ _ ?ROJECT NAME Pointe Heron =====~-'-P"R:"O"'J:'::E:"C .. T~LOCATION Renton, Washington COMPLETED 11271_14 GROUND ELEVATION _12_5 ft ____ _ TEST PIT SIZE EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR G.M~. ~ln~c~. ______ _ GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD __ _ ATTIME OF EXCAVATION ___ _ LOGGEDBY~s~s~R_,___ ___ _ CHECKED BY -~S~S~R~---AT END OF EXCAVATION ________ _ NOTES __§_r~_'{el Surfa~ AFTER EXCAVATION w a_ I >-O'. ui >< >-w I(!} >--w"' (_) a_ "' TESTS a.o w--':. ui c2-' 0 a_:, :j :.z (!} <( MATERIAL DESCRIPTION en 0 Brown silty SAND with gravel, medium dense, moist (Fill) -mottling -variable gravel content SM 5 Reddish-brown highly weathered SILT I SANDSTONE (Bedrock) 10 -becomes dense ss 14.0 PAGE 1 OF 1 118.0 111.0 Flnes = 30.80% Test pit terminated at 14.0 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during excavation. Bottom of test pit at 14.0 feet. w z w OL_ _ _L __ J_ ______ j__,L._L_ ______________________________ ___J ~ I m ~ w z w " • Earth Solutions NW TEST PIT NUMBER TP-4 1805 -136th Place N.E., Suite 201 PAGE 1 OF 1 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone: 425-449-4704 Fax: 425-449-4711 CLIENT Point Heron LLC PROJECT NAME Pointe Heron PROJECT NUMBER -~334.02 -----------PROJECT LOCATION Renton, Washington ------ DATE STARTED 1/27/14 COMPLETED 1/27/14 GROUND ELEVATION _ 126 ft----TEST PIT SIZE --· EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR G.M. Inc. GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD AT TIME OF EXCAVATION ------ LOGGED BY SSR CHECKED BY SSR AT END OF EXCAVATION - NOTES Gravel Surface AFTER EXCAVATION -·---- w CL >-c:: 0 I 1-W U) 'i: <.? tE" wm 0 <Lo MATERIAL DESCRIPTION w-__, ::. U) i?. __, 0 CL::> ::.z ::i ('.) <( U) 0 Brown silty SAND with gravel, medium dense, moist (Fill) f-- SM " - 3.0 -becomes gray 1~_3.Q -·--- Brown highly weathered SILT/ SANDSTONE (Bedrock) f-. -.L -becomes dense ss _jQ_ 10.0 116.0 Test pit tenninated at 10.0 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during excavation. Bottom of test pit at 10.0 feet. i= I m ~ w z w • Earth Solutions NW 1805 -136th Place N.E, Suite 201 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone: 425-449-4704 Fax: 425-449-4711 CLIENT __ Pg_i~!ljeron, LLC PROJECT NUMBER =2=3=34=·=02==~~~~~=~~~~~ DATE STARTED 1127114 COMPLETED _1~12~7~1~14~--- EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR ~G=.M~-~ln~c~------------- EXCAVATION METHOD ---------------- LOGGED BY SSR NOTES Gravel Surface 0 w [l_ >-a: f-W w<D --' :; [l_::, :Ez ;Ji TESTS CHECKED BY ~S~S~R~---- en g 0 I(!) "-o en ~--' ::i (!) TEST PIT NUMBER TP-5 PROJECT NAME ~Pccoe,i"'nle,e_,_H"e"-ro.,,n_,_ _______ _ PROJECT LOCATION Renton, Washington GROUND ELEVATION 124 fl GROUND WATER LEVELS: AT TIME OF EXCAVATION - TEST PIT SIZE AT END OF EXCAVATION _-______ _ PAGE 1 OF 1 AFTER EXCAVATION _-_________________ _ MATERIAL DESCRIPTION I Gray silty SANO with gravel, medium dense, moist (Fill) -variable gravel content --SM ~ -- --Fines= 36.50% ; > X: 0,L~x'-"+'6~.o,__~~~~--~~-~-~=~~=~=~ ___ _ Reddish-brown highly weathered SILT I SANDSTONE (Bedrock) 118.0 ss 1---1----1-"9 '0 ~--b~_c_o_m_e_s_d_e_n_s_e _____________ _ . ______ _._11"'5-'"0 Test pit terminated at 9.0 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during excavation. Bottom of test pit at 9.0 feet. "~-~--~-------'--'--'--------------------------------------' i= I ~ ~ • Earth Solutions NW 1805 -136th Place N.E., Suite 201 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone: 425-449-4704 Fax: 425-449-4 71 t CLIENT Point Heron LLC PROJ_EC:T_N_U_MB_E-~R'-=2=3=3=4.=02============== TEST PIT NUMBER TP-6 PAGE 1 OF 1 PROJECTNAME~P~o~in~t~e~H~e~ro~n,_ _______ _ PROJECT LOCATION Renton Was_,~~~(n:'!:gt'so~n====-_ DATE STARTED 1/27/14 ______ COMPLETED _1~/~27~/~14~----GROUND ELEVATION _U_B_fL___ TEST PIT SIZE _______ _ EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR ~G~.M=-~ln~c~. ----------·-__ _ GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD AT TIME OF EXCAVATION --------------------- LOGGED BY _S~S~R~------ NOTES Gravel Surface AT END OF EXCAVATION _-__ _ AFTER EXCAVATION _-____ _ .. w Cl.. I >-a: U) <,,' >-w "'-" ,__ w (!l c_i Cl.. "' __, ::. a..o w-U) t2 __, 0 Cl..::, :j ::. z CJ « MATERIAL DESCRIPTION U) o Gray silty SAND with gravel, medium dense, moist (Fill) f-- SM e - c -·t"'L"f~3.~0-~--------~~~~~~~~~~~- Brown highly weathered SILT/ SANDSTONE (Bedrock) _ --_ --------------~'2~5~0~ f-- ss --6.0 -becomes dense to very dense 122_0 --~~----~-----·-·-----~= Test pit terminated at 6.0 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during excavation. Bottom of test pit at 6.0 feet w z w C,L__J_ __ L__L__J ______________________________________ __, I m ~ w z w " • Earth Solutions NW TEST PIT NUMBER TP-7 1805 -136th Place N.E, Suite 201 PAGE 1 OF 1 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone: 425-449-4704 Fax 425-449-4711 CLIENT Poi[l! rl_e~p!J..,_ LLC ------------PROJECT NAME Pointe Heron PROJECT NUMBER 2334.02 PROJECT LOCATION Renton, Washington DATE STARTED 1127/14 COMPLETED _1_/g?/14 ---------GROUND ELEVATION _128 ft TEST PIT SIZE -- EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR G.M. Inc. GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD AT TIME OF EXCAVATION ---------- LOGGED BY SSR CHECKED BY SSR _____ AT END OF EXCAVATION - NOTES (:ir~vel Surface AFTER EXCAVATION --··-·-· - w "- :,: >-0: u; u >-w I C!l ,__ wee 0 "-"' -'2 TESTS u; "-o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION w-c2-' 0 "-::J 2Z ::J (!) <( 'f) 0 Gray silty SAND with gravel, medium dense, moist (Fill) c - SM c - 3.0 -mottling 125.0 f--I -------------- i Gray sandy SILT, medium dense, moist (Fill) ' -Fines = 50.80% ML I 5 ---- --j 6.0 ---------------122.0 I ! Brown silty SAND, medium dense, wet SM I ----i i I I ' ___1Q__ I i ' 1 11.0 117.0 ------~-------~ --~·-·-··-Brown highly weathered SILT/ SANDSTONE (Bedrock) ss - c 14.0 114.0 Test pit terminated at 14.0 feet below existing grade. Groundwater seepage encountered at 11.0 feet during excavation. Bottom of test pit at 14.0 feet. ~ >- " m ~ w z w " • Earth Solutions NW TEST PIT NUMBER TP-8 1805. 136th Place N.E., Suite 201 PAGE 1 OF 1 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone: 425-449-4704 Fax: 425-449-4711 CLIENT Point Heron LLC PROJECT NAME Pointe Heron ------ PROJECT NUMBER 2334.02 PROJECT LOCATION R~_n_!_QD.,_ Washington -- DATE STARTED _11PIH ----COMPLETED 1/27/14 GROUND ELEVATION 130 ft TEST PIT SIZE -------- EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR GM. Inc. GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD AT TIME OF EXCAVATION ------- LOGGED BY SSR CHECKED BY SSR AT END OF EXCAVATION ---------- NOTES Gravel Surface AFTER EXCAVATION - w a. I >-0:: () >-w <fl ICJ >--w<D c.i a. "' a.o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION w--'::. <fl ~-' 0 a.::, cj ::. z CJ <( CJ) 0 I Gray silty SAND with gravel, medium dense, moist (Fill) -- ~ ) -variable gravel content -mottled fill SM __L s ~ Q " ---,$'.; 7c9 ----123.0 ' ! Brown silty SAND, medium dense, wet ' " SM -"Burrito Drain Zone" 9.0 1g1~Q r - Test pit terminated at 9.0 feet below existing Qrade. Gr0u0dwater seepage encountered at 7.0 feet during excavation. Bottom oftest pit at 9.0 feet. ~ >- r ~ ~ w z w " • Earth Solutions NW TEST PIT NUMBER TP-9 1805 -136th Place N.E., Suite 201 Bellevue, Washington 98005 PAGE 1 OF 1 Telephone: 425-449-4704 Fax: 425-449-4711 CLIENT Point Heron LLC PROJECT NAME Pointe Heron PROJECT NUMBER 2334.02 PROJECT LOCATION Renton, Washington .. .. DA TE ST AR TED 1/27/14 COMPLETED 1/27/14 GROUND ELEVATION 128 ft TEST PIT SIZE EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR G.M. Inc. GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD AT TIME DF EXCAVATION ... -·--- LOGGED BY _S§B_ _____ CHECKED BY _Sfill_ ____ AT END OF EXCAVATION - NOTES Gravel Surface AFTER EXCAVATION -... w a. I >-a: cri ,? >-w Ic, >--wm () a."' o.o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION w-...J:. cri ~...J 0 a.:, =i :.z Cl <( U) 0 Tan SAND with silt, medium dense, moist (Fill) >--SW- SM f-- e---L >-- 6.5 121.5 --------- ' Brown silty SAND, medium dense, moist f-- >-- ! I -! -becomes wet SM ' f--.10 -"Burrito Drain Zone" i . ' 12.0 116.0 -. Test pit terminated at 12.0 feet below existing grade. Groundwater seepage encountered at 10.0 feet during excavation. Bottom oftest pit at 12.0 feet. I • g \1 ~ Boring Log Project Name: of Sunset Bluff Residential Development I Sh;-' 2 Job No. I Logged by Start Date: Completion Date: Bering No.: 10927 MGM 3/17/04 3/17/04 B-3 Drilling Contactor Drilling Methcd: Sampling Method: Greaorv Drilling HSA SPT Ground Surface Elevation: Hole Completion: +130' D Mon~oring Well D Piezometer IX] Abandoned, sealed with bentonite No. .2 ii .c ~ U) 0 Surface Conditions· General w .c a. . 0.. () .Q Blows Q. E w U:: E u, E Notes (%) Ft. i!! >-0 "' :::, J; CJ U) U) I-----SM Dark brown silty fine SAND with gravel, very loose, moist 1-- 2 I------ 3,,......, 3 I'--no recovery 4f-- l---- 17.9 5f-~ -becomes loose, wet ~+-- 6 -iron oxide staining 6f-- ~~ 7 >-- 14 1 SM Brown silty SAND with gravel, dense, moist (Glacial Till) sf-f- 35 ~~ 9f-f- ·1------ 10 f-- 21.0 -contains pockets of saturated silty sand and poorly graded sand f-f- 30 -light seepage at 1 O' 11 f-+- f-~ 12 I----- I----- 13 - ·1------ 14 -f-- 15 f--11.5 -becomes very dense f-f- 81110" 16 f-f- .f-f- 17 -f-- 18 >--- 19 >--- -~~.~?~~}!~!~,!~~-Boring Log Sunset Bluff Residential Development Renton, Washington Proj. No. 10927 Dwn. GLS Dale April 2004 Checked MGM Date 4/15/04 I Plate A10 Subsurface conditions deprcted represent our observations at the time and locabon of this exploratory hole, mochfied by engineering tests, analysis and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of ;..,f,., ........ ~; .............................. ""' fhic, l,v,, § " z ~ Boring Log Project Name: I Sheet of Sunset Bluff Residential Development 2 2 Job No. I Logged by: Start Date: Completion Date: Boring No.: 10927 MGM 3/17/04 3/17/04 8-3 Drlling Contactor: Drilling Methot Sampling Method: Gregory Drilling HSA SPT Ground Surface Elevation: Hole Completion: +130' D Monrtcring Well D Piezometer IX] Abandoned, sealed with bentonite No. u :g .c -" "'0 General w E 15.. . a. () .0 Blows C. E Q,I U:: E "' E Notes (%) Ft. ~ ~ a "' :, :, CJ "' u, 12.0 . SP-SM Brown poorly graded SAND with silt and gravel, very dense, wet to ' -- 74 0 saturated • 21 --. ' -- ' 0 22 --pockets of clean sand • -11.2% fines . ' - ' 23 --clay film around gravels 0 < - ' 24 - 0 . - <le: . .,: 9.3 25 ± SM Grades to blue gray silty SAND with gravel, very dense, moist 7618" ( Glacial Till) 26 - 27 - - 28 TUKWILA FORMATION (Ttu): Greenish ~~ fine grained -SANDSTONE, very intensely weathered ) 29 - - 18.3 30 f -contains angular clasts 71111" 31 Boring terminated at 31.0 feet below existing grade. Groundwater see~~e encountered at 10.0 and 20.0 feet during drilling. Boring bac 11 ed with bentonite. "'~,~.~~~~!:.1!?.!2~~,!E~S· Boring Log Sunset Bluff Residential Development Renton, Washington Proj. No. 10927 Own. GLS Date April 2004 Checked MGM Date 4/15/04 I Plate A11 Subsurface conditions deptcted represent our observations at the bme and location of this exploratory hole, mod1f1ed by eng1neermg tests, analysis and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of infnrm<:>fi...,,.. rvoc,ontorl "" lhi<> 1........, g \1 ~ Boring Log Prtject Name: I Sheet of Sunset Bluff Residential Development 1 2 Job No. I Logged by: Start Date: Ccmpletion Date: Boring No.: 10927 MGM 3/18/04 3/18/04 8-4 Drilling Contactor: Drilling Method: Sampling Method: Gregory Drilling HSA SPT California Ground Surface Elevation: Hole Completion: +44' 0 Mon~cring Well 0 Piezometer [X) Abandoned, sealed wtth t:entonrte No u :& .c ... en o Surface Conditions: Center of Pond General w ic -. C. u .c Blows CL E ~ LL E en E Notes (%) Ft. ~ >-0 "' :::, ir, "' U) U) -SM Reddish brown silty SAND with gravel, very loose to loose, moist 1- - 2- --18.5 3-- 4 -- 4-- - 5 11.5 . SP-SM Grades to reddish brown poorly graded with silt and gravel, medium : ~ --19 • dense, saturated ,:t .: 6-- -heavy seepage at 5' " --• 7--6.8% fines .t_:: --159 :·:''\_ -becomes water bearing a-- 17 ('_: <>:: --f- I I>.-< 9-- ~._:o~ -. ' 10 --13.8 . 18 SM Grades to silty SAND with gravel, medium dense, saturated 11 ---- 12 f-- +---contains pockets of saturated, poorly graded sand 13 f-- f-- 14 f-- f-- -large rocks at 14' 15.1 15 SM Reddish brown coarse grained SAND with gravel, medium dense, +--moist to wet 71 16 -- -dark iron Oldde stainino 17 f---SM Blue gray silty SAND with gravel, very dense, moist (Glacial Till) f-- 18 - - 19 - - -Earth Consultants Inc. Boring Log Sunset Bluff Residential Development G<:Oft:<'hn!Lol FJ1~l~. Gr.olop.lsls.:.. F.ovtr0rln'lenr,il S(":lt:rit1s.rs Renton, Washington Proj. No. 10927 [nm. GLS Date April 2004 Checked MGM Date 4/15/04 I Plate A12 Subsurface cond~1ons depicted represent our observatJOns at the trme and location of this e;,:ploratory hole, modrf1ed by engmeenng tests, analysis and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of il"\f,..~m ,:,,t;",.. ,vo.c,.,....,fari ""' fki.,. 1....,... b " El Boring Log Project Name: Sheet of Sunset Bluff Residential Developme.rn"-t ------.--------y------_j_--'2=-__ 2=----1 jct:, No. Logged by: Start Date: Completion Date: 3/18/04 Boring No.: 10927 MGM 3/18/04 B-4 Drilling Contactor· Grego Drilling Ground Surface Elevation: ±44' General Notes w (%) 16.4 17.9 15.4 No. Blows Ft 70 82110" u -·-0 .c .c a. E ~ >-" "' .c .S! ci. . Q. di U:: E 0 m "' 21 22 23 24 25 Drilling Method: HSA Hole Completion: D Monrtoring Well (f) 0 (J .c en E ::, i}; Sampling Method: SPT California D Piezcmeter IZJ Abandoned. sealed with bentoorte TUKWILA FORMATION (Ttu): Blue green CLAYSTONE, decomposed (W9) 26f-1--+---~f----------------------------.j Blue green fine grained SANDSTONE, very intensely weathered (WS) 27 28 29 30 31 Boring terminated at 31.5 feet below existing grade. Groundwater seepage encountered at 5.0 -16.5 feet during drilling. Boring backfilTed with bentonite. o'.f--------'----'--....l..--''---....l..--'----'-----~-----------------------1 " ::; g; ~ Earth Consultants Inc. ~ ~-:1mfealF.ngln=.~&FJ111lrC>n11ienral~jKJtt= Boring Log Sunset Bluff Residential Development g 1f--------~------~--------+-------~--------~------i ~ Renton, Washington g Proj. No. 10927 DNn GLS Date April 2004 Checked MGM Date 4/15/04 Plate A 13 Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this e:xploratory hole, mOOified by engineering tests, analysis and judgment They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of in.f"",....,...,~ir,n r,roc:,,:inf,:vl r,n fhic, 1,..,., g g ~ Boring Log Project Name: I Sheet of Sunset Bluff Residential Development 1 2 Job No. I Logged by: Start Date: Completion Date: Boring No.: 10927 MGM 3/18/04 3/18/04 B-5 Drilling Contacior: Drilling Methcx:l: Sampling Method: Gregory Drilling HSA SPT California Ground Surface Elevation: Hole Completion: ±140' 0 Monsoring Well 0 Piezometer IX] Abandoned, sealed with bentonite No. 0 -.., "' 0 Surface Conditions: General w ·-0 a. . c.. .c .Q <.) .Q Notes Blows o. E °' Li'.. E "' E {%) Fl ~ >-0 ~ ::, 1Ji C) "' -SM Brown silty SAND with gravel, loose to medium dense, moist 1 - - 2- 36.0 ML Reddish brown SILT with sand, loose to medium dense, moist 3 -- 10 f---derived from insitu weathered bedrock 4 -- f---- 318 5 TUKWILA FORMATION (Ttu): orange brown fine grained f--29 SANDSTONE (tuffaceous) very intensely weathered (WB), soft (H6) 6 f-- f-- 7 f---- 88= -dark manganese oxide staining 24.4 68 9- f---- 25 0 10 -- f--30 11 -- ~- 12 f---- - . 13 f---- - 14 f---- - 15 --20.7 -dark iron oxide stainin,i 86/11" 16 --Blue green fin;Jlrained SANDSTONE, intensely to moderately weathered, m erately soft (HS) -- 17 - - 18 -.. - 19 - - "'~,~,~.~?.~;1.1!~~~,l~.S· Boring Log Sunset Bluff Residential Development Renton, Washington Proj. No. 10927 Dwn GLS I Date April 2004 Chec!<ed MGM Date 4/15104 I Plate A14 .. Subsurface condibons depicted represent our observations at the t,me and location of thts exploratory hole, modified by engineering tests. analysrs and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of inf...u-rnotinn =oconf.cw-1 "" lhf<> 1........, § ~ ~ Boring Log Project Name: I Sh~ of Sunset Bluff Residential Development 2 Joo No. I Logged by Start Date: Completion Date· Boring No.: 10927 MGM 3/18104 3/18/04 8-5 Drilling Contactor: Drilling Method: Sampling Method: Gregory Drilling HSA SPT California Ground Surface Elevation: Hole Completion: ±140' 0 Monrtoring Well 0 Piezometer IXJ Abandoned, sealed with bentonije No. u -.c 2 (/) 0 General w :E _g c.. . a. () .c Notes Blows a. E <1t it E C/J E (%) Ft. ~ >-0 !)l ::, >-" (/) (/) 14.4 50/4" _L Blue green fine wained SANDSTONE, moderately weathered ' 21 (W5), moderate y soft (HS) - -- . 22 - ' - 23 - - .. 24 - -' ' 25 19.6 =f 8519" -auqer refusal at 26 on bedrock 26 Boring terminated at 26.0 feet below existing grade. No toundwater encountered during drilling. Boring backfilled with ntonite. I ffl ~~.~ .. ~?~::!!~~~.!L:S· Boring Log Sunset Bluff Residential Development Renton, Washington Proj. No. 10927 Dwn. GLS Date April 2004 Checked MGM Date 4/15/04 I Plate A15 :Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this e,t;ploratory hole, modified by engineering tests, analysis and Judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of ,nf'......,.....,i-;,... .. "~°"anfo..-1 ""' fh!c, I......, § ~ Q ~ " w ~ Test Pit Log Prcjed Name: I Sh~ of Sunset Bluff Residential Development 1 Joo No. I Logged by: I ~~/14/03 Test Pit No.: 10927 MGM TP-11 E>ccavation Contactor: Ground Surface Elevation: Client Provided 85' Notes: u 0 ~ _., "' ii Surface Conditions· Depth of Topsoil & Duff 12" / Approx. 70' S of 15+ 70 General w E .0 a . a. "-E ~ U:: E u E Notes (%) !" >-Cl .. <I) >- Cl <I) <I) :, <I) ~ TPSL TOPSOIL and DUFF ,I, -, ,I, 1 SM Brown silty SAND with gravel, loose, moist - 2- - 3--trace cobbles - 4- - 5- 6-SM Brown silty SAND with gravel, medium dense, moist 23.1 - 7- --comprised of angular bedrock clasts in a silty sand matrix 8 <---does not appear to be insttu <-- g<-- -<-- 10 <-- ~ 11 SM Brown silty SAND with gravel, medium dense to dense, moist ~ 12 ~ -<-- 13 ~ -contains interbeds of compact coarse sand and small gravel ~ -12" zone of dark iron oxide staining 14 <---32. 7% fines 22.8 15 ~ TUKWILA FORMATION (Ttu) Blue gray SANDSTONE, very highly ' weathered, fractured, moderately hard ~ ' 16 ~ ' ~ ' ' 17 ~ -<-- 18 -refusal on hard bedrock at 18' Test pit terminated at 18.0 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during excavation. "'~.~!l .. ~!!!:1.l!~~~,~~~~- Test Pit Log Sunset Bluff Residential Development Renton, Washington Proj. No. 10927 I Dwn. GLS I Date Dec 2003 Checked MGM I Date 12/4/03 I Plate A27 Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hate, modified by engmeenng tests, analysis and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and kx:ations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of inf,..,,.,..,..-,,tjr,n r"lrc.c,,:,nt,::vl ,v, th;..-l,v, ti G 8 a'. G " ?! § >-a: E >- Test Pit Log Prqect Name: I Sheet of Sunset Bluff Residential Development 1 1 Job No. I Logged by: I Date: Test Pit No.: 10927 MGM 11/14/03 TP-12 Excavatioo Contactor· Ground Surface Elevation: Client Provided 45' Notes: o--! "'0 Surface Conditions: Depth of Topsoil & Duff 18" / Approx 11 O' NE of Existing ·-0 a....; General w .c .c 0 .c Culvert & Beneath Railroad a. E E "' E Notes (%) !!! >-" "-0 m ::, in C) "' <I) ~ TPSL TOPSOIL and DUFF + ' . , + + ' 1 - 2 SM Reddish brown silty SAND, loose, moist to wet '-- 3-;::ontains gravel ~ 4~ ~ 5 ·, -SP-SM Brown poorly graded SAND with silt and gravel, medium dense, moist 0 • 6-7.2 . ' ·, - 0 7--trace cobbles • -9.6% fines . ' -·, 8-0 • . ' ·- ·, 9- 0 • -. ' . 10 - ' 0 ~ . -increase in silt and cobbles content . ' 11 ·-. ' -some angular bedrock clasts - 0 . 12 -. ' - ' 0 13 '---. ;::aving in 12" zone dark iron oxide staining d __ ' ~ . ' 14 ,_ 0 • 15 ~ GM Blue gray silty GRAVEL, very dense, moist to wet ~ 16 ' ;::omprised of abundant rounded cobbles and angular bedrock clasts in a silty sand matrix Test pit terminated at 16.5 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during excavation. '"~,~.~0~;1.1!~~~.!~~- Test Pit Log Sunset Bluff Residential Development Renton, Washington Proj. No. 10927 I 0wn. GLS I Date Dec. 2003 Checked MGM I Date 12/4/03 I Plate A28 Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and locat,on of th,s exploratory hole, modified by engmeenng tests, analys,s and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accepl: responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of infnnn..+inn n~ocont.,.,.I nn fhic, J....,., ~ g ~ a: t; w ~ Test Pit Log Project Name: I Shee! of Sunset Bluff Residential Development 1 1 JobNo. I Logged by: I Date: Test Prt No.: 10927 MGM 11/14/03 TP-13 Excavation Contactor: Ground Surface Elevation: Client Provided 55' Notes: o-.c 2 "' 0 Surface Conditions: Depth of Topsoil & Duff 12" I Approx. Center of West Gereral w ·-0 .c .0 a . o.. u .0 Pond c. E a, U.: E "' E Notes (%) f > 0 m => in CJ (/J (/) -TPSL TOPSOIL and DUFF w ' - I, w 1 SM Brown silty SAND, loose to medium dense, moist - 10.9 2- - 3 GM Brown silty GRAVEL with sand, medium dense, moist - 4- 5-SM Brown silty SAND with gravel, medium dense, moist - 6- - 7- 8-ML Brown SILT with sand, dense, moist - 9--contains small rounded gravel - 10 -10 7 -51.9% fines ~ 11 -~ - 12 - - 13 - -~ 14 -SM Blue gray silty SAND with gravel, very dense, moist 15 - -- 16 --trace small rounded gravel --mostly angular bedrock clasts 17 - - 18 Test pit terminated at 18.0 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during e>«:avation. -Earth Consultants Inc. Test Pit log Sunset Bluff Residential Development Grilrc"<"imirdl F11~ ~% & r:J:1vr~1n1enr,11 Sctr.n11-= Renton, Washington Proj. No. 10927 I o.vn GLS I Date Dec. 2003 Checked MGM I Date 12/4/03 I Plate A29 .. Subsurface condrt,ons depicted represent our observations at the t,me and location of th1S exploratory hole, modified by ergmeenng tests, analys,s and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of ini'nrrn,;,tinn ..,,.O<><>nf.,...... nn +hie, Inn -- g ~ Q ~ w ~ Test Pit log Project Name: I Sheet of Sunset Bluff Residential Development 1 1 Job No. I Logged by I ~;/14/03 Test P~ No.: 10927 MGM TP-14 Excavation Contactor: Ground Surface Elevation: Client Provided 95' Notes: u-,= .!! U) 0 Surface Conditions: Depth of Topsoil & Duff 12" I Approx 100' S of 12+50 General w :.c .8 15... . a. 0 .a Notes "-E Cl,! U:: E u, E (%) ~ >, 0 .. :::, if; 0 U) "' w -TPSL TOPSOIL and DUFF , w 1 - -SM Brown silty SAND, loose to medium dense, moist 2--<:ontains aravel 3' .. ML Reddish brown sandy SILT, loose to medium dense, wet 23.0 ~ 4~ -<:0ntains gravel '---- s~ ~ s~ ·'-- 7~ -becomes brown, blocky - 8- - 9 - - 10 - ---- 11 - - 12 SM Brown silty SAND with gravel, medium dense, moist - 13 ~ -- 14 --<:0ntains large angular blocks of till - 15 -- -dark iron oxide staining -- 16 - --<:omprised of angular clasts of reddish brown silty sand 17 - 18 -SM Blue gray silty SAND with gravel, very dense, moist to wet Test pit terminated at 18.5 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during eioc:avation. -Earth Consultants Inc. Test Pit log Sunset Bluff Residential Development ~imk<:11 f'.r1&lr=s. ~1= /lo F.nv!mnn~MI Sdfflltt."ils Renton, Washington Prc)j. No. 10927 I 0wn GLS I Date Dec. 2003 Checked MGM I Date 12/4/03 I Plate A30 Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole, modified by engmeenng tests, analystS and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and lcx::ations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of inf'"m-t~inn n,..c.c,onfor4 nn thic 1,....... • Earth Solutions NW 1805 -136th Place N_E_, Suite 201 Bellevue, WA 98005 Telephone: 425--284-3300 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION CLIENT GMC_C/Pointe Heron LLC PROJECT NUMBER ES-2334-02 PROJECT NAME Pointe Heron PROJECT LOCATION Kent U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS f-- I Cl ~ >-co a:: w z u: ... z w 0 a:: w 0.. U.S. SIEVE OPENtNG IN INCHES HYDROMETER 6 4 3 2 1.5 1 3/4 1123'8 3 4 6 810 1416 20 30 40 50 60 100 140 200 100 Ii 11_,1 ___ 1_~,·' 'l'Tfk_1',~1 1 ',i11:_11_1,,;, 'il'1l l,l I Iii! I 95 'I ,,.-1.\'~~ I,~ ~1 l ',I'' '' L 1·1·11 i 1-Yn' '' 1· ,. ,,., '" ' : I I I 'l'U-+' ,[ 1'' 'I, I: I_ I -, ,I--.,:,.:1· ,1\ --~,;;! i. ,! ,1,_,1 ,, ,11 ' I I 90 -e-, • • ; -: , ; . . -m" : , ; : . I : ; : , --, . I: U+l-H. , , : : 11 -- 1 -~i :: i ; I 1~ I I ~ . '~ : ! j I i ' I I:! ! i : --+I--+'--+<, 1~:_: ! _l ! I' ' --- 85 '1 I i , :, I ,_ , ,_ m, -, "'-~. , I ! '1 t+' ; ! -I i i! i . -. , 8oW-i-j,l![il: _ir:,,,---------.1 . __J,11 ' -i--+------< ' I 'ilii +-¥' ''I ri-----' ' i I! ! ! ! 'I'/'''! 75 i I i_ 1 f 11 ' -, ' 1_ ' I -c_' --_-:'--... ' ' I f i J_f1 / I ! I ' i - 70 1 I !1!1111 ! i: iii '\~i\11 i ii! ]----mtt'ill~--k~ , , 1 1 r1 r, , I 1 ! " 1 1 , ,'< " -r r 11 , 1 1 , : 1 1 65 ! : ! _I 1 : : I _I ii i I ! i : :_ I ! i i ;·k_/ '\'\' :----rrrm' ·1 : ' ' " i I : 11 : : i : - 60-11~1 ! !:f~ ! 1:li'11 I ,_I f--I:: "11'\ '\·\L,,1:1,.: ; iii I j+ li ___ +-il _ _, 1 1 I'-, 1 , , , , I' 1, '_ . _' I', -f , , 1, 1 '. '. , -1· 1 1 i : 1 1 1 1 1 SSH-[-+--+--:_'_:I: i i l1!1i 1111 ! !_ ,_· i I : I \' :,l1, "'---... ,' I : :_ I-~1,1 _' Mi '_ I -- 50 r-· i 1 ' I I I·,. I ' I I --i i I ! -, I,~ l ' ! I I I It I Ii Ii '1'' ' ,1 '1 11111 .. ,'\),, ·1, ii j' I 1_1: '_ ! ' 4s1--+-+--~-Wtt1' ' I I i ii:: i 11 ' i •1 H1 I \J C\ : : I :,_ 14J+W_' ·1'] '1 ·-I :--;, Ii' 1,:1! I I :i_,'111_11 I lil, __ ,'1! \W_,'!11' :illl I 40 ' . ; 1' 1' ' 1' ,-, ; i 1' H-t-1· r~ I' ' I e,; ~tJ'-1 I , . : , _I i ! _i , , -~ 35 i ! • ! iJ • i I I i I:! ' ' ' ! I ! i I ! i i I 1 1 \ 11 (:J_ i -I '1 ! --t'' ! I I ! ' , , f t -- 1 -r:r, , , - 30 i I I i Ii j J : : 111 l j I --~ !, 111 -11 I I ' 1 • ! I i 11 : i --~ i ' ! 1,_1 1_ 11 11 1_---4mtt''' 1 _ • ', i I I I I 11 1 1 i' 11 ,, i, 25 I 11' ; I ' . L . ' ' I 111 I ! ! ' 20~1---~ I I :11 i I ! '1' -: /:: I I I I I:: I I I I i Ii ! ' -+J~-tl!+-+_1',,_,i1,-+-ll,, i 1,,, 11~_ 15 ' j I ii! i I ) , I ---I ! I I i I I ' / j 'I: , i j f i I' '! I i_ I_ I I ' ' ' 1, ' ', I ! i,· I I 1' ' I I i t ' I ' ' ' I 1 O i 111 I I I I ! i u i I I i -1-H. ,+_+ I' -'-.---1-+---ti----j+' Hi l+-t-+-,'-t-----1 5 ·1 : 11' 1/11! i: Ii I l!i!!: ! '1 ,1,! 11/ 1 :'I+---/ Ii / ' HI ---'-+----4,---+-- OL-.---1.._._-,-c'-:-i !'-'i-'-'!_ ... ,! ~1_ ... 1' --,','[ ....._I-'-'.ci---1..i _., _ _..._lu]-'-',~! _, __ ! -~1 ....... 1· ... 1 LL-'--'-'--= '.LJ-.1. ii ...l-.J......J.I_--' 100 10 o_ 1 0-01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS -~------r--- 'L COB_BLES ___ G_RA~V_E_L __ +]-SAND SILTORCLAY J -~-co_arse_ fine I coarse j medium I -__ fi_ne __ ~ ___________ _ s~--- __ C_l_a_ss_ifi_cat_ i_o_n____ LL PL I Pl v Specimen Identification ! ~ o' TP-1 4.0ft. :,; 2l TP-3 14.0ft. ~ 6 TP-5 9.0ft. s,; k, TP-7 4.0ft. >--z 0 I ,: Specimen Identification 1 "' ~ -TP-1 4.0ft. '=! ~.J ~ ~~ TP-3 14.0ft. ,;, :L TP-5 9.0ft. N ;;;: *ii TP-7 4.0ft. z ~ "' Cc I Cu Dark Gray Silty SAND with Gravel, SM -+----+- Brown Sitly SAND, SM , -+ 1 -----B_;-:-;-ss_a_::-dy-s_:--.~-~-.-':-~-------r I 1--~-' ~r ii ------'---,-----" 0100 060 I 030 I I -37.5 i 0.311 I I -- 37.5 I 0.445 I 9.5 0.264 --+ 37.5 0.185 i 010 %Gravel i ' 20.3 I 14.6 ' 1 2.6 13.2 %Sarni ! %Silt %Clay 38.8 54.6 61.0 36.1 40.8 30.8 ------ 36.5 50.8 ---j--- APPENDIX B Six-sheet, reduced-size (11" by 17") drawing set (Sheets X1 thru X6) prepared by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. illustrating (1) the Sunset Bluff project's City of Renton-approved design grades (Sheets X1, X2, XS, and X6), (2) existing site grades (Sheets X3, X4, XS, and X6), and (3) currently proposed design grades within the filling, excavation, and grading project site (Sheets X3, X4, XS, and X6). ES-2334.01 Earth Solutions NW, LLC z <( ...J a... a:<( <( w ...J 0 --~ ' \ ~ :::l:lffl8 l3SNOS D'. 0 LL !:: (l'.l ...J I ...J >< LL Wo zz 0 <( -w f-0 ~ c2 U) (!) rfJ z 00 i D'. D'. uw ... st I ~ w 0 f-N -z Q "' ~ 0 o3 a. :::l:::ln18 .13SNnS NV1d 083.l. ~ 'ONaVYO 1WJNI 'ONIW31o SC:16-C:9.£ (SOC:) 90l86 'r/M '3"1il V3S Hl/l08 :DQ'r/ HUI Sc:18 "ON "00 .1J'SW0""8A3CI 01V1 ON"IBn 0 w > 0 a'. a. oo.. w "f a'. >-· 1; c· z !:: f1( -u ;;~; 0 l!) ii w 0 0 0 0 N u ~~::!cl -":lie;! <( st -rfJ 0 !"""" z~ 0 LL -LL ~3z 1liiili~ ~ u (l'.l <( ! ~ h 0 f-...J ~ [; ...J w 0.. z rfJ (!) !~ ;~ ~~ ~: ;~ ozz ~~ -=>o f-rfJ c2 ~z ~:::; "" --"'" :::;:; rfJ O (!) ~ ~IU[WPV "3'd UDWJltW~ &6eJ~ ""'"""'""~ S>l'OM ::iuqnd/&U!Pll"8 U[UUOld ·-·..,,,_. I --NOJ.N:i:IH ~ ---- JIO ..U.IJ ,OS•J '""''"""""" S3011.Y3S lW~WG 'eNP.:Wtns 'otlNNVld QIM '!)NQl33HSN3 111\1:l )(,;J Z8L8-Lgz(gz;) zzzg-,gz(gz•) zross WA '00>1 1W10S 311N3AV ONZL g LZ8L 00 00 " 00 ""' " " " " .. ~·"••,, . . i i • 0 . . "\~.,,.o-b-.p ~ J !I ~I f ~ 1 xi ~I I~~~! I I I ! ii ! li_ ~ "'"-' ' 8 I 11 ! 8 8 8 8 ' ~ Is a ! Ii ! ! I ~ ~ I ~ § § lji lji . " --i ' i i i i "' "' "' "' \ ' ' ~ \, ~ \ -' ' \ ' ' \ ' ' \ ' ' \._ ' ' \ § 'ON S98Z/l9/ll :::1::1n18 !3SNns 0:: 0 LL !:: (Il ...J I-' X LL Wo zz 0 <( -w I-0 ~~ Ji (.'.) (J) z 00 0:: 0:: ow I " ~w 0 1-~ z (") - 0 0.. 0 zW 05 0 0:: w 0.. 0:: 0.. z"!'. ->- 0 1-w -00 0 LO <( g (J) N z:;.c Oo ~~z 0 LL<( 0 :::J ...J ...J ...J 0.. (Il z I-(.'.) Ow~ ~ (J) 0 0 Z <( w :::J 0:: (J) (J) (.'.) "" / ,..,I NV1d 083.1 ONV 'oNIOVl:IO 1VWNI 'ONll:IV310 SC:16-C:9£ (90C:) 80l86 VM '3"1llV38 HUl08 :llli8A V H!O'. SC:18 S3:wf3S lWOOl'INOIIWG '~N~ns '~INWlcl ONV1 '~NIYTIN~ lW:} ......... ,, .• . . . ~ i -. ·oN sor 3·::i·s .ON "00 .1.N3nd013A3CJ ON1 ON'1IBn XV.:I Z:SL8-~c;z:(c;zt) "l9-LSl(;l,) 2:£086 VM 'lN3>1 H.l./lOS 30N3Nt ONU c;1z:s1 \ Ji,. ,s-1).,,H,o-b / NOJ.N3:il ,IO ..U.IJ ., l------+---00 ,OS•.l 00 I .! ...... 1 All NOISIA3ij ,;,o/UL ... 00 00 00 00 00 M3~ NClUGII :IO-:uri-113d --· SOOJll'IOO NOI.IGI "° ~ 113d """"" "" "" 1----=-1-C"-'C---·--_-~Ofl~-"-'--~ ~-~~ ~ 'ON ' _1:_ ' i 8 ,S/NOl:l3H 3lNIOd JJ81HX3 M31A N\fld NOU03S SSOl:IO -C: 3S\/Hd !.C:16-C:9L (90C:) OQ17C:-VCl86 \/M '3"l.ll\/3S z:m 3JJns 'HlflOS 3nN31A \/ .LSI O!.O!. 011 NOl:l3H 3lNIOd S3J1Afl]S l'l'lNJ~NOellANJ 'cJNl;.JAflOS 'clNINN\flo ON\fl ''.JN11:H~Nl'.JN.:I 11/\IJ XV..:1 i'.BL8-lSC:(r;z:i,) lll9-lt;i:(<:;21>) z:rog5 VM '1N3>t H1nos 3nN3AV ONZL <:;l28l oS/NOl:l3H 3.LNIO~ ' ' ~o,,a :: 1:JddV Jl\fO A8 NOISl/1]1:J ~ S~JOM Jiiqnd 1o 1uaw; .. wdao .,, ,~ SJJ JJ81HX3 M31A N\fld NO.LN,rn ~ co NOU03S SSOl:IO -2: 3S\/Hd '10 A.L lJ C3;lv oN sor ci::is ! I ' ,S/NOl:l3H 3lNIOd .ll81HX3 M31A NVld NOU03S SSOl:IO -l 3SVHd 7., I ---~/ . I ., / " , ' ' ' ' ' ' ' / / LI : -----; 1-- (D I >< ~ W w' ~ ~ --, w~/· > a:_ z z~ <.:( ~ _J (/) z 0... ~ ~ f-z 12'i: 0 ~ ~ 1--~ ~ () u. w WO a: CJ)~ CJ) ~ CJ) ~ \ 0~ a: z () ~ I o.. <( C\I w CJ) <.:( I 0... I ' _ __j __ ~ \ I \ \ ,S/NOl:l3H 3!NIOd .ll81HX3 M31/\ NVld NOU03S SSOl:IO -l 3SVHd Sl~-l9L (90l) OOl>l-171:raE> VM '3lilV3S lm 3.llnS 'HJJ10S 3nN3A V 18( osos 011 NOl:l3H 3lNIOd / / / / / / S])lr\ll]S l"l'lN]riNOcMN] ''.)Nl.l v.1:1ns 'clN,NNV Id UNV-1 ''.'.lNl/:l]]Nl'.'.lN] 111\IJ XV-J i::9/8-lSl(Slt) Ul9-l<;l(<;lt) Z£096 1/M 0 lN]>1 H1nos JnN]AV O~ZL SlZ8l NOLl vnNUNOO !ID:! ex 133HS 33S NOJ.N3cl dO J.J,IJ S1J /:lddV ]lVO Al:I ' \ I i_____ __ -- ' ' '1 ' ' \ ' ' \ ' ' \ ' ' \ ' ' ON sor 388 . , ! "' ' ol 01 I , I i . ! ! I o, jSJ~ N0.119~ ~-I , , o:is M iT11 ,1ol/r,/s:aw,1/a1oc1 fiMO'f'fia ~ucv. \,m,;,W'IOJC\000 L \SCQ\Jj, I ,,_i,, • 1 om:171 ON sor :::r::is ,S/N0!:13H cilNIOd 9l~-l9L (90l) S]JIN:BS 1VlN]l'jNQ~l,W3 'JN1).1NinS ~-I ~ " 'JNINN'I Id ON'll ''.:JNl~]]NIJN] 111\JJ ' < • ' 0017l-17£l86 VM '3lilV3S XVJ l9Lf?-tSl(t;Zt) t '. 0 , ! 0 [ ' ~~ .:m 3lJnS 'Hlf)OS 3nN3A V .1Sl 0909 UllJ-tSl(t;lt) . ~ -0 .~ lrG96 VM 'lN:ni ,i, . Q7 ~ g i ! SNOLl03S SS0!:10 -l 3SVHd 011 N003H cilNIOd ~ ~ i HlnOS ]11N31W (:NU_ S l lf? l ,s,I) v 1-1 '!>'I) zo IF (I) OJ I frl •31111 IJO=l t--m -z ZJ ., iil w• &l 5, ~! 8 a Ii! a: • w ~ ~I §l a ~ 0 LL 0 § :,: Ii! 0 Ii! I 0~ ! -i--·-.. ~ ! ~· ' &ll~ '¥1!. -~ "' 3Nll )j~]dO~d 0~ w I ~ ol·o;1 ~ < ., C §I '.i'fi~1"$ 1'1~ <( § ]Nil A.Ul3d0~d G • " :,: u, 6L-1'H 1L·n1 w .. \ ~ 0 I I' I sz·,,n ~CL 5C Sfl I oS .. l:6"lll i~ rn·u1 L<.i-6Ll ::. ~ tO Oll ! ~i ' C ::. • i<.i'L\I ~ z 00·11 I ~ 06 91 l ~ y O(HLl ii j ~ ~ i i 6!'91 L tLTII Cl) 91'<.il l I HTII 10'~! I Olli ~I I * i i ' ! ~ I-II t E l01'l 1 ~ t ' t6 111 i~ ,, ~ ~ ' ~[ ~£'ti L I ' n111 I ~ ! -~ a: il "l w lS'i'l l !. 98"011 i ~i t i I! a.. 0~ ~IL \,ii ' Of 01 l " [ ' " • ' ~g I ___ -rn-~11 , L ___ -66-IOL ' ! l • 00911 8 <;1:'101 ~ " 11 0091\ IL 001 i . ,· 0(1"91, b -ii ~ lO'OOl ~~ ' 111 Oo ti "'' [\I f:.OL ;g n ,e . f'-. • • ~ ,II o, :~1 t1·co, "" 91':II <e • "" U) rt·,5 8 ~ I ~~ 01:·1[ 8 o• ~ t.'~ + lii <( !f z -~ N ..J " l:l 98 I "g ITl9 UJo._ ' " ;~~ 0 ' r ~:::: ..J • 90'6[ j,fl•j, z r ' I--• 0 ~ 89"1t d~f/1 -s -61"1/ F C ;~~I u @ i Z:H9 < %c 6L-6f w Cl) <;0'9<; 8 :~"tl, f26> 8 ;t ;t U) 'f:,~ ~ I ;;!~frlu ,, 81' ~7_,..,... ( 90"0t "'%., !.l 95-< U) L~ Ot <;O"V~ g~s~ ,_ '· U) ~~ 11<; l[' G:rl 5,;·e, J;j ~>-g~ 0 gl+Q lllS <;i'.+O ~1<; 3~11 }.Uj3d0&/ 3Ni1 /J.HJdmld er: -__ _J 8 ~ o~g~ Ii! ~ §l a Ii! 0 0 ~ ~ §l a Ii! 0 0 l~()~ u N ~ _l §l a Ii! ~ .1l_ a i!!l!'"-Ii! " Ii! N Ii! ~---il S1l!!!E~a: + + I G .. C\J 8 8 08'[61'; "\flS L8'86+<; 'VlS .. JNll )J<l]dOi,d + w ]Nil /J.<l]dO~d .. v11·<;v1 DL LVI U) Bl 9f, vs ffl <( V',"6li a,·a\ I OO'U\ l\ 81 '. a.. 86'Sl I 8 l9Hl ~ i); ~. 6t'<; I . >l LI, ,. I. I~ OE, ,t L h1i t891: ' rs·t1: '• ~t-~I L ~,·,11 .~~ s~! w·91. ' . ,-, i ' Wtlt ~ ~~ !!, <;6'GL I i f E f ' ~[ e 1-I [['£11 ! ,t L~ ~Ii ~l Ii 98 ~ I I ,_ !! 6<'<;1 L h c• I ~I ~! I ,: 0~ '" i<;'lll L8 l'l 1 I 0;1 ' l:'8 ' b1 zs·l11 L_ --95·71 I ' .,_,,:,; ~ 69 ll 1 9l'Gl I ~ [ E M Hlli 09<;1 I :1 61.ll L ~ ,;z:·,;11 ZD ll 1 ' 06"1'1 I IO'lll gz:-1<11 \ <_;i, SOI ~ > rv·so1 8 ~ + 1 N N ti 001 ¥ ll"lO! 7 ·-·-' "' • ~· -------""') • lOT6 W-% ,. z z ~~ ~ ·~ ,;r·<;g ' § " 6'.H>I ·' ·-\ V9 ll ' ~ ,:s·o11 § w Cl) Cl) ' l6 69 ~ 9LTL 8 ;t 19·99 '• u Z:£'6<; n-z~ <; tO Wl~ <;l-,-0 l\llS ]Nil .... ~~O,\jd ~llA!ol~ i -~·--~ ~ ~ §l 2 Ii! " ~ ~ §l 2 ii 0 0 ,S/N0!:13H cilNIOd ~ 00 cJddV JlVO ,a NOISl1Ul,I o, S~JOM ~•1q11d JO JUaUJJJOdao 00 SN0Ll03S SSOOO -l 3SVHd N01N3tl ~~ rn 30 )._J,JJ 00 ,o REVISION ~ 0 !'l g -PROP£1ffl -um: \'"-45.14 1~ 52.51 o, 60.25 i!I 61.76 ~~ 69 52 'c C f~ 79.15 "t ~ a 84 83 i 86 06 ii 93.45 95 24 96 02 '!! ' . 96 03 1~! l~ ' %84 ii ~ ~I • g7_so 9B.41 -~~ ' 99.50 ,! I " .. l 100.42 Ii ~ 101.14 ii ' !I I i 1 101.94 I 102.38 I ,, 103.05 § (JJ ~: Pl l I OJ.al " C ::l IOS 61 * 0 §I z I 112.39 • .,, c I 120.62 " .,, < 179.15 IJ7 69 146.05 §I § 0 !'l g if " if "ti I m )J I ~ ~ . ~ ?. ~ 1! ' ' ' l I I I ii 0 1 0 Is~ :8 m In ' ' , L2J ~ /Q ! ! -F;! ~ 0 '0 -i".I; 0'1 i1~~ lJJ o. !~ ~ ~ ~ -rn-, a, r o I ! I, • ::I oz ' ' o I ~[' 61 0 ' ' , , I ~ O> ' ~c;HAv ~'rg. ,S'~ < 0 •0 I V, <.;,-... ' ,-,i'/c.; l'NGl~I;.~:<" BY DAfF APPR !l 8 ~ PROPF~ LINE' STA 6+S8.BT 00 C[S 00 00 ~ g i ~ ! 'I' 8 § I ® ;1R CITY OF RENTON Depoctmert of Pub'": Works __ o ______ !t g !l ~ Pf<OP€iHY ltNf STA. 0+25 44 10 ,! ! ;':.,' •• , 40.08 ~,o ""' 1~~~ • 0 ~~ 3504 "% 37'H ' i 40.84 ;~;~~ 44 12 i~~~ 57.67 I rn\!1--<"' !\~8~ :~~o~ s1 n 'o;'"'--0 1~~~~ 77.56 ~~~ "'"'"' 87 40 : ~~ 'i~ ·-~ 11 94.20 I!~ ;~ 9484 ·! 95.49 97.93 • ;1 ' ; 104.19 £ I 1 ,. 104.45 (! p 104.64 -jl ------ i :l 104.90 ! 106.15 107.14 ~ ~ (JJ ; 107.48 m . 0 107.76 ;·, ::l s. ~ ,, ~§ 101.99 I "' 0 ~§ 117.J~ ' 0 '8 ~8 127.49 1;. 137.66 § 147.82 ~ 157.99 168.16 17B.08 -PROPE!rn' LiNE STA. 6+47.55 N !'l l! ~ ~ §L--,l !'l g !l 8 ~ ~ 2l ~ fl!li\ tis~~ijl ~~~o i~!!l~ g~i~ tloofllz "~,<~ ia~~ m;! a Ul :l!; l'l ooiF ~~~ ~ nlz Om "!!l §t5 el !!l fl! ~~ '8215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH K[NT, WA 9803:? (425)251 -F,222 (425)251-8782 FAX CIVIi F~G1Nf"F'llNG. IAND PLANNING, SURVEYl'JG. E~VIRON~[NTAL S[RVIC[S FOR POINTE HERON LLC 5050 1ST A VENUE SOUTH, SUITE 102 SEATTLE, WA 98134-2400 (206) 762-9125 BC.E. JOB NO. 14200 <le"\· ~:lOC 0,\ • 4:>nO\pcel,r~ nar,\ i 47nJ e~,.1.cJwc; Dcle/T,rne.8/1 ~/7014 • I .:.l AM <:cole I CSINCLC TON x,cl 'i' 8 44.55 J!;!.02 )4.00 g 34.0Q 34.00 40 62 44.54 62.95 N 8 ng1 82.68 92.85 91.B2 9S.05 ! 99 22 103.64 108.02 10799 108.02 t 8 10!1.04 110 04 110 48 11099 111 49 'I' 8 113.42 122 59 151.77 140.9~ 150 19 i 159.45 166.71 177.S4 :;! 8 PHASE 2 -CROSS SECTIONS POINTE HERON/S' 0 !'l g !l PROPERTY Ll~E ~ STA. 0+25 ~! t~ '( '.',; "$. ~-~g, ' c:O.,., • :1J; "t ., Co ' ; ~:;e'2Q g~~8 ~~~i 3,S:8,!. ojog rn •a ~§~~ Jj ~o"' ·10 o~~ ' ' ~':::i ii~ . ii ~~ -- !~ "' ' • ii ~-' • 1 !I i .,,.. -! ' 1 ! ~ l (JJ ' ~ C " 0 " I z • z I ~~ ;, z il ~ < r;io ~~ I ! 0 !'l !l l! TITLE N 8 PRGl'E'llY t.fl!E STA 6-HJ.67 8 PHASE 2 -CROSS SECTIONS POINTE HERON/S' ~ -u I )> en m I\) 0 ::0 0 en en en m 0 -I 0 JZ sen APPENDIX C Color map excerpt from the City of Renton's GIS system depicting (1) the Pointe Heron LLC parcel boundary, (2) the subject proposed grade and fill project site, and (3) "regulated slopes" ES-2334.01 Earth Solutions NW, LLC . " ~ CITY OF DATJI.A 00 ® ~ RENTON TOPOGRAPHY MAP OD Oepartme'1t of Public Wor~s NO REVISION BY DATE APPR OU POINTE HERON/S 3 /~\11;1\\\\~1\,\0\?,~\/\~1"'\\ \ ' ' \\ \W\l1v )ii,\1~ \ ! /1;'111111\11',i II 1 1:1 i 111r11,1 i'1\ \\~·~ • \ I \\~ ~·, ' L 'N I I I I I I I I I 1\S1~\~~~r~~~~\%·, \---\------'t--\--------t--I~~ c-J){J4-_! -i Ii;// 1/i; \1 l, 1 ,', 1:1 ',, il1·\l,\11,:,1 \'\f~t~~1},~'i~f'. \\ \ \ \ \ < -c-,' \1 , //// /1/, 11 11 /1 ,:' ~ 1 1111'1'(1\ l~~t~l>l~)Z*:\., \ \' \ Jrcck~"' \ I I i /ii' 1111 1 Ii / 11 ~I\ / ,11J';} )', 1 ~ ~\t~\\i\t\,k \\ '\, \ 1f:/,a \f• i'.:, Ii ii '.ill ::f (l~if );;J/fi{::. ,, ,,, -. ' I / £~-\(},f:\\1, 11 ',, 11,',l/1/1 /1 / / ;/1<1\\ \ I ;\'ii ~ ' \ I ;(;-/,!j;~fi\ :1t~,--'~1\ i\ i'11 :,J/i :/1 / i1:1I !\~\I'--_'=-~~ \1i(/ \~\ ' ;' wg \ _ \\ : 111 II: 1 I 1'1,', ~=-= ~~Iii 1'1'111 (/-1 I --' ' ' \ \ ---" I I I II I • I ' ,------. \\ \ I I -I --, ~\~~~\,,~it i~y~\~ -z3;>\~li112J \\ (_\ r·i1}1i/ih: i,(;,, \~~~:~~:>e~1\tiii)}\~0?t\, 1 1 ' 1 ::::, / g ~ ;~~}~\ ~1\\\i\l\'(/'"i;}x~\~i\ \~;~~~°!~ \\ \ I i '11\1\~\~~~\~ \t~---,;1)i\:i:t;1lt11~( J\}1\" / , ~ \~,,,\~\\01 ~~\)~~\~~/ __ l ~~,!~ ~z-~(~ \ 1 \\ \\t' ~\~~~~~\~_~1~\~\ \\\;~1\~;~~~~~~(/)\\\1\ 1 ~ \ z~\~~;t'!,\~\~\~~~\~\ / I 1\~S\\-~~c:c1\---\~. ------\~ ~2 /;;~\~\~~~~; , :) (\ \\1/:1i:\(i 1i: lii!,)~( 1 )h \ i ~ I ~,\\\ 1\-· -l\ ) a \ I 1) !' ~\\\\~~ \\ \ c<', \ ~\~1/ 1\l li1111 111 '11 11\ 1;' I \ 1. l>s:::: I I \' ,I '. 11\ \\\ \\ '.~ '\ '1'11.1111 I 11 1\1, \ I \ ,1 1 I \~ \\ \~\ \ \ I " ~~~\ ~\\~,,~\ \\1\ : \ ,I \ "'U I 1 ~I \\ \ !~, 'l!;/l,\\"i////f),\\\/1 1 1 \ 1~ .-.. \ \ \':tl\'.\~{<\~:\ll\~l~~'~:r~-~-,~1?\!1~,l )i;,,:'\ !!(( 1 ,",\~~~;~~: 1 \~\ ~"~ ''i~t~~\:rJ-~ ~ i\i, 11 \~1 \ 0 1 1\~ \\\;,';'\ ~\\__-PJ \ l'I \\\\\\11 \~\\\ \ ) \\'~,"'. tt\\\~\) ~~\i\\\,\ (I) )> ...... \ ~;::-// '\ 1\11 I,,, 1;111\11 I I\\\ 1~\.\'~\\S1'\\\::»1\'l'i' C "II I ~--cc, \ : Ii r~', \~::\\~\\~t\\f> 11 1 \: \ t\~~>'t~*:~~:~1:11\, \i~ ~ z ' l ! I Ii 1111 --t ulol'"I 0 0 0 i"' ""U 2l 0 ~ 11 ~ 55 . ,. iii )> ,,· /ta ,, ""Cl s Ii: o I I ~-< en ' ! I • ~ ' )> -.! ' ""Cl ' !., '1 "' ' BCE JOB NO. ' ' ' I :;:\ 1'\'0 '0\ ~ \ \ \ \\ %1t \~\\~ \l(• \1,\ 1\1, ,f!l ~ 00 ' ' ' t\ 11~ 11)\ \·1'i'i 1\',i, 1,111'1 ci O ~ '" l1\ ll'l I l1 . 11 u '' 'ii I ~ :i "'U · 1 :(~~{:;; ;;~~~%~!J(~~~1~\\~"'~{~ ~i\·,1~it'~,,::1~:,.I \,'.\~i0{~~\;\~~~~~~)(1 1\:t:;.:1~:'.\li:.:{}1\):,,"i::> I ; § \\'.1\.i\\ l\\\\'i~\\\°'~1\~\-\~~ ~~ \ "'l"-' i:J\1a:1 \ \ \I::\\\\\\\~\\(~;~!\~~\:-<\\~--~,-" '\" ~ ~ ~t "~~) 0 ' ; :, \\ '~'0 '-, ". '\" ', 111\\\1•11 \\ ~,'\1 a, 11•\.\_-"-11~ "-," '"~-\ -q--;\ """"\ \\\\ \11\,\I •11\1"1,1 111 1, Ol ', ~ \ \ ' I \ 11 \ ::J ' ,\\ \\ ' ''' '\,'< -I "" \ \ \ I I I I \111 I 11\1 I IL II I,' 'Z-\1\\\1\\\\ 1\\1\\~ 'I'' -I\\ '-. I ' 11 ,111111'11'1,l\i\\\i:',\\I\\ :IE~ 0 ~ ~'i{i;i;,\,1 :\ \1\:.:\?i~~,~~\,: \1 ~~.1\1 1', ~:~ \\ \ '1 ( ', II ':II! I i: 1i 1:i':'11,':'i:i~;::;:/i('\'1 ; ~ c3 111\\1,, \l\\~\\'-l\1\1\"ll\•'1/ " ~/\'\ \ '\ \l~__l,1\i\\'l1 f,\1 'Z;~\\\\1' Z- \\, \l'i ·, 11 , , \1\11/\, -~): \~\1 \i\ \(~.'~~ 11,\\"'-\:::;; \\\ \ \\ \\~~ '°"I'' \1 1 11 1 ~\?,\1111111'·1 ~ ~ --\,\,\\,\\\:, (J 1 11~1" .. ,\fi~ =>:\\\ \·:\\~\\\~\; / \}\ "'\, ~~~"'-~ \ \ \ \\11' \~ I,,,, I i1H+4~1~,1:i,1 ~ ~ 2!§~~=]R 1\-fi~\\1,I' \\1 1 111\-'\\\ \;\'\~~"~>.:.~ I 1:11 ' \'\'-,l ( \ ..... , \ I ,/1/N ~ i!~!:11 1 :::ii,,,'\,,\\'i:::i '., 1 ,, __ / 1 , ~ -"~~~1tt11['.1 1 \\,\:\" \11; \~i 11 '1 1 1,1 I / / ·,\ml .1·, 1 i,'i1 ii1 ~; i ,: i 11 1 1 1 :: 1i· g ';., 1 \II I\ 1\ \I 11 ( / r ~ ' , ~\ 1 \ \ \JI Iii 11 1 I m~ \ I I' 1 I 1 11 I I A I I s. ' 1/i, :'11 'i \\1 '1 I s''J l1(fi "<.(,~, :, \ 11,\111,'1?111 iii,',, ~ fu§ \~1\ 1:\:1 \, ~~~\ \ l 1 ! I, ( \ ''i',',11,1,',, \1-,,1,;i, 1,111 i Irv ' )1) I, J ; ~ ' > ~o ~-m ::;J ~o 0111" 11 :IJ :;;: ,m ffi~ co nz ~ > ' ro 14200 \ \11 11 I \ 1 1 \ I I , ~ '4;"' .\\\ \I\ i'l..,.,F' I ~;:;: 11 I I 1111 I\ ""n; "', 1---1,in,',1111·,il: I \i ,.,.r\,'11 ; 1'1 \ :,1i11J1\:lli!,ii@ ~~ t,::1''81\ \i~~ \ jil_j1 ~i \i'1,111',\111 :,11:1,ii·,11 i1'11\ (11(:111 ml> 11111 1 \11,1 \~I :',~""31 1 3 '__, 1 111 II ~ ---<g I II I \1 1 1 1 11 \1111 \11\1 l:1' I 11111 ,, I jl_,l,_1~ ,l't' • ;;"_,1,1, \\\\ '<~0 : \ 0 I'. T\, -~~ l\\'1.1111, 1111 •111 II/ //I z 1111,\111',1,1 ,111{11 ~ 11 1 1~~~,1,:11 ~ ,i 111111111 " \ 11 '\ s· \1,1, 11i1111 1,111 1l,1 1 1, 0 111 Ii 1' 1,1 I \ I I z ( ) \ \"o"C I I a ,'Jo '11111\11 o ' 0 5i \1 \ I' , ' , l'I I I 11 I i\11\",1'1"11 1 1\1111\ §~ j 1;;:~~','i1'Jl\l~ \'i\11,1, §\ \ 1, \Ji, ,1,1,1 1)1,111,1\ll,li• "Tl \ l,11 ,',,,111,1,\1 1 \11, '111\ ~~ 111I \ •,~011 11',;1; !s 1\11111,111 % \ \ '1 \ \ \1'1'1 1 1 11 1 1 1111 11 i\•1111, 1,' - 1 I\ I I I \1 r I ~ -"' ;;,. Ii(!) I r ,;: ,.,g r-... I I 1 \ I 1,1 I I 1 1 I 1111111,1,,,il,t,1i1,1, ,,,1 ~,,,,i1'11''lg/lil'll1\1,1,1, \ \J I i",l1l1',,,l11'11,,1,,,i,111 F '\ '.,,,'1,l,'11\ ',,il',:,\\,,'i, fl 'i'i1 '! i i1 ' ;!li'1'ii11 ~ ij 1\111',111'1 \ \ I\ I I \\,\\\\·1:'1'11111'1\\1.li\\1',; \:' "'U I I "' "' 1\ 1 \ ".]:',~;!! 11 ;;; I I I 11 ii 1i'1\ \ ii 1 ,\ I i'i,', '1,11 l:1 11'1'1: 11'11 f\ iii' ~ 11\ l'~!;,1,1'!'1\', ~ ,~ 11 1 i'i, 1i,'11i\,1,l ,:,-,I I 111 '1 I 111 \\\\ \\,\\ ,~111\11'., I \\ \ ~ \ I" I ,,', 'I ~ 11 I'"' II' 1/J'. ,,,, ,,,~,,;;~ I'\ I '\111,•' \'I' 7' I\\ [j 1i 1\1 11'11 '1 I I ':~ r ~ I ~1 1111 I'~ /1 '-.. I\I \\\\ '-j:':;J __.,\\ \ \ I 1. \\ \ 1 \\ \\\\ 1 \\i\ \ ::::!:: \\i\,\1\1\\)11 ,[ I _,ca \ I 1;§1,1\tl 111\ll\\\0f'--~~-'~1 \ \ I \\1\1\\\\\ \\'.\\ \I\ --1 I Ii '' 11'·1',1 II' I 1111111\1, / '\~\\\~.11~. "~ I I \\ ,'11 1,11,1 \ 11'1 I ~c;HAv 11r~ .. .s-~. • ,_ 1. G • \ ·' i " ' <,-,~ ' ~~~ ,:; nso\tli, I I I 11 .l ,'\ \1,~~ 1 '\ I ,,,l,111',11111 I I \11 I 1ll1'l'1ill;' "::,-.:-1,1 1~"'----''1" I 1,,11,11,,\,',I ) " 11 1 , 1 1 r 1 , , , , 1 V""' "'\ 1\1 , 1 , 1 , . I,, " 11 1 , 1 ', I I i1 i1i\'1 'i''1 1 1 I,~~ if' I 1, 11 1 i'i 11,,II '!i'i','1 1 1 1~?1~,~~\:s\::1 : I , 1, 1 'i'i, i,'i 1iii1 1 i.\ 1 i1 'J, i\ \v\\ \l I I ---.. -..__ ""'6 II 1' '11, I\, \'I \ ,::-, I IJ 1,1 1,ii11\1 ,, > ,, I/ 11 1 11111,1\'11 r1 ::::,___,,~;,,\ ~' il'i'i ·1 I 1•1 1,',1\ \\,,\\'!; y liliil1 1,111'.,i1.,\\ 1\1\,:1 1 1',1111' 11'1111'11 1,,_---.--:,,1~~IIII 1 1 'i'i1:1"1'i'•1 \ ,1, i', I \ I r i ~ ' ' 111 I i -........._ i 11 ~ ~ ' I I , i i \ 1,1l1Ji'11i','i\ 1 \'li:'i,, :\1111 11 '1'i'1i\'1\i, ) ",,:1//iii 1i'i11\ ! i i'/ 1,1!1'1··:i; /, I 11'\1\\ ,,',', ·,111 1,\:1'i!tll / u''lj-'·11111',1 \ / \ /111111,:/;I/:, 11 • . • . •.• tJ, \ ...... ~ ...... i .. !~ • .J.l .~ •••• , ••••••••• ltl:tiJJ .. ~l.1 ••••••••• 111 •• 1 •••••••••••• ~ .,,l.1,~ ........ . I ' 11, I I • ' I I I 1· I I I ' I I \ I I I I I I ' / 'I i ' Ii '8215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KE:.Nl, WA 98032 (425)2:l' -5222 (425)251--8782 FAX CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING, SURVEYING, ENVIRO~I.IENTAL SERVICES SEE SHEET 2 FOR CONTINUATION FOR POINTE HERON LLC 5050 1ST A VENUE SOUTH, SUITE 102 SEATILE. WA 98134-2400 (206) 762-9125 TITLE TOPOGRAPHY MAP POINTE HERON/S' ,, e r \ 1 <oc·o,\ 101~~\o,h,bd\, 420(,-,6 d~g Jc\e/1 me ~/!/iCI! · 1 <l· A"' ~cc•, 1 F',1~~ f ION X,d 1- '.:2 a: w a.. _J _J IL 0 z <t w 0 <t a: Cl z ':i. 0 ~ a: w ui I.,. w ~ ~ ; 0 a.. 0 w en 0 a.. 0 a: a.. IL 0 a.. <t '.:2 >-I a.. <t a: Cl 0 a.. 8 ,S/NOl:l3H 3lNIOd d'<tV'l AHd'<tl:IOOdOl ,S/NOl:l3H 31NIOd d'<tV'l AHd'<tl:IOOdOl <;ll6-l9L (90l) OOVl-l>E:186 VM '3lil V3S lOl 3llnS 'H.U10S 3nN3A V 1Sl oc;os :Yll NOl:l3H 31NIOd NO.LN3H ~ ..IO J..L I J Cii;J;; S]:)IAfJ]S lVlN]~NO~IJ\N] ''.)NIUN:Jrs ''.)NINN\fld ON\fl ''.lNllfflNl'.llfl 11/11:J X't:3 l8L8-lSl(Slv) Ut9-lSl(Slt) l£086 VM '1N:l~ HlflOS JnNJ/\V ONZL Sl29l ::J,klV ]lVO A8 OOlvl ON sor 308 NOISl/\]::J APPENDIX D SlopeW Computer Output (Slope Stability Analysis) ES-2334.01 Earth Solutions NW, LLC C 0 1il ~ w "" ''" "" 110 '" 90 f- "' ,0 GO 1- '" '" '" ,0 ti ,0 Section E-E Geogrid reinforced Static Condition Minimum FOS 1.7 1 720 .- 1.5H. 1V Face lnclinat1on Geogrid Reinforcing (typ) Property Line (approx) -.....__ __ ·-. RR Right-of-Way /~ Existing/Native Soil 200 pcf static surcharge (future loading) ~. / ; Structural Fill / "" DO "" "" rno '" "" ! ,0 00 '" '" '" w rn ~~~~~ ,~-~--~--~--~-~~ _J_ _ _L _ _L _ _t_ _ _t___J __ __j_ I_ so 60 70 so 90 100 110 ,20 '30 140 150 mo 170 1ao -~--~-~~-~-~, 190 200 210 220 230 -'.O '" '" ;e ,0 Distance C: Q iii a; uJ 140 ,- 130 120 I- 110 100 90 801_ 70 60 50 1-- 40 30 20 f- Section E-E Geogrid reinforced Seismic Condition Minimum FOS 1.23 .~ 1.5H:1V Face Inclination Geogrid Reinforcing (typ) Property Line (approx) ----~ ----- ,I,:'~· Existing/Native Soil F-H I-J7 ')/. 200 pcf static surcharge (future loading) ·-----.. ,/ // -1--,.· // Structural Fill / 10~~---------------------------------------~ 140 130 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 o~-~~-~--~ ~-~--~-~--~---L-__ L_ o ·10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 BO 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 Distance C 0 i > w w 1W 1m 120 110 100 w- 60 M 60 ~- ~ Section F-F Geogrid reinforced Static Condition Minimum FOS 1.58 Property Line (approx) ....____ _______ ---.... RR Right-of-Way // - 1.580 .- 1.5H: 1 V Face Inclination 1 200 pcf static surcharge (future loading) '-..... / I / / Structural Fill ./ 140 130 1,0 110 -I 1QQ -I 90 -i 80 70 60 " ,a ·r .. "[~~~~~~~l __ _L~o 210 220 ,,g 170 180 190 2 0 10 150 160 120 130 140 ·-·-80 90 100 110 __L 40 50 so 70 Distance 0 10 20 30 -10 0 30 Existing/Native Soil 20 C 0 ~ > (I) uJ 140 130 120 110 100 90 1--- 80 70 t 60 ' 50 40 I 30 20 10 Section F-F Geogrid reinforced Seismic Condition Minimum FOS 1.24 .1.245 1.5H:1V Face Inclination Geogrid Reinforcing (typ) Property Line (approx) ~- ~-... RR Right-of-Way /' Existing/Native Soil ,' ··-,' / 200 pcf static surcharge (future loading) ·---.... / / Structural Fill l 140 -·, 130 j 1 120 -I 110 _, 100 90 _, 80 70 60 50 ~ 40 ·I 30 20 10 0 _J________ _J____ ________J ___ --0 -10 O 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 Distance Slope Stability Report generated using GeoStudio 2007, version 7 .20. Copyright© 1991-2012 GEO-SLOPE lnte rnationa I Ltd. Title: ES2334.02 Pt. Hem1 Created By: Scott Riegel Revision Number: 91 Last Edited By: Scott Riegel Date: 06/27/2014 Time: 10:07:36 AM File Name: ES2334.02 PT HERON E-E.gsz Di rectory: C :\ Use rs\scott. ri egel\Docume nts\Ge oSI ope Runs\ Last Solved Date: 06/27/2014 Last Solved Time: 10:07:40 AM Length( L) Units: feet Time(t) Units: Seconds Force(F) Units: lbf Pressure(p) Units: psf Strength Units: psi Unit Weight of Water: 62.4 pcf View: 2D Kind: SLOPE/W Method: Morgenstern-Price Settings Side Function lnterslice force function option: Half-Sine PWP Conditions Source: (none) SI i p Surface Direction of movement: Rigrt to Left Use Passive Mode: No Slip Surface Option: Entry and Exit Critical slip surfaces saved: 1 Optimize Critical Slip Surface Location: No Tension Crack Tension Crack Option: (none) FOS Distribution FOS Calculation Option: Constant Advanced Number of Slices: 30 Optimization Tolerance: 0.01 Minimum Slip Surface Depth: 0.1 ft Optimization Maximum Iterations: 2000 Optimization Convergence Tolerance: le-007 Starting Optimization Points: 8 Ending Optimization Points: 16 Complete Passes per Insertion: 1 Driving Side Maximum Convex Angle: 5' Resisting Side Maximum Convex Angle: 1 ° Model: l\/1ohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 135 pd Cohesion: 200 psf Phi: 34' Phi-B: 0' Model: Morr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 132 pcf Cohesion: 0 psf Phi:45' Phi-B: 0 ° Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 125 pcf Cohesion: O psf Phi: 36' Phi-B: 0' Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 135 pcf Cohesion: 200 psf Phi: 36' Phi-B: 0 ° Left Projection: Range Left-Zone Left Coordinate: (-1.69448, 37.51706) ft Left-Zone Right Coordinate: (72.5479, 67.58514) ft Left-Zone Increment: 4 Right Projection: Range Right-Zone Left Coordinate: (85.1553, 76.17852) ft Right-Zone Right Coordinate: (223.43049, 126.21499) ft Right-Zone Increment: 4 Radius Increments: 4 Left Coordinate: (-5.93873, 8 92378) ft Right Coordinate: (226.97116, 126.10443) ft Surcharge (Unit Weight): 200 pcf Direction: Vertical X (ft) Y (ft) 181.58638 130.85103 210. 73117 130.30422 Horz Seismic Load: 0.2 Ignore seismic load in strength: No Type: Fabric Outside Point: (41.55146. 46.24872i ft Inside Point: 161.55146, 46.24872) ft Slip Surface Intersection: (67 556, 46.2491 ft Total Length: 20 ft Reinforcement Direction: 180 ° Applied Load Option: Variable F of S Dependent: Yes Contact Cohesion: 0 psf Contact Phi: 40, Interface Factor: 2 Bond Safety Factor: 1 Fabric Capacity: 150000 lbs Fabric Safety Factor: 1.5 Fabric Load: 100000 lbs Load Distribution: Cone. in 1 sl:ce Load Orientation: 0 Applied Load: 100000 lbs Fabric Load Used: O lbs Resisting Force Used: 2999.7 lbs/ft Available Bond Length: 0 ft Required Bond Length: 0 ft Governing Component: Bond Type: Fabric Outside Point: (50.02165, 52.31204) ft Inside Point: (70.02165, 52.31204) ft Slip Surface Intersection: (94.691, 52.312) ft Total Length: 20 ft Reinforcement Direction: 180 ° Applied Load Option: Variable F of S Dependent: Yes Contact Cohesion: 0 psf Contact Phi: 40 ° Interface Factor: 2 Bond Safety Factor: 1 Fabric Capacity: 150000 I bs Fabric Safety Factor: 1.5 Fabric Load: 100000 lbs Load Distribution: Cone. i-1 lslice Load Orientation: 0 Applied Load: 100000 ibs Fabric Load Used: O I bs Resisting Force Used: 5337.3 I bsift Available Bond Length: Oft Required Bond Length: Oft Governing Component: Bond Type: Fabric Outside Point: (60.46367, 58 93195) ft Inside Point: (80.46367, 58.93195) ft Slip Surface Intersection: (111.85, 58.932) ft Total Length: 20 ft Reinforcement Direction: 180 ° Applied Load Option: Variable F of S Dependent: Yes Contact Cohesion: 0 psf Contact Phi: 40 ° Interface Factor: 2 Bond Safety Factor: 1 Fabric Capacity: 150000 I bs Fabric Safety Factor: 1.5 Fabric Load: 100000 I bs Load Distribution: Cone. in 1 slice Load Orientation: 0 Applied Load: 100000 lbs Fabric Load Used: 0 lbs Resisting Force Used: 6161.8 lbs/ft Available Bond Length: Oft Required Bond Length: 0 ft Governing Component: Bond Type: Fabric Outside Point: (73.31006, 68.38563) ft Inside Point: (119.60129. 68.42698) ft Slip Surface Intersection: (129.52, 68.436) ft Total Length: 46. 291248 ft Reinforcement Direction: 180.05 ° Applied Load Option: Varlab:e F of 5 Dependent: Yes Contact Cohesion: 0 psf Contact Phi: 40' Interface Factor: 2 Bond Safety Factor: 1 Fabric Capacity: 280000 I bs Fabric Safety Factor: 1.5 Fabric Load: 186666.67 lbs Load Distribution: Cone. in 1 slice Load Orientation: 0 Applied Load: 186666.67 lbs Fabric Load Used: 0 lbs Resisting Force Used: 6514. 71 bs/ft Available Bond Length: 0 ft Required Bond Length: Oft Governing Component: Bond Type: Fabric Outside Point: (69.01042, 65.35071) ft Inside Point: (89.01042, 65.35071) ft Slip Surface Intersection: (124.41, 65.351) ft Total Length: 20 ft Reinforcement Direction: 130' Applied Load Option: Variable F of S Dependent: Yes Contact Cohesion: 0 psf Contact Phi: 40 ' Interface Factor: 2 Bond Safety Factor: 1 Fabric Capacity: 150000 lbs Fabric Safety Factor: 1.5 Fabric Load: 100000 I bs Load Distribution: Cone. in 1 s!i:e Load Orientation: 0 Applied Load: 180000 lbs Fabric Load Used: O I bs Resisting Force Used: 6456.41 os/ft Available Bond Length: Oft Required Bond Length: 0 ft Governing Component: Bond Type: Fabric Outside Point: (78.35947, 71.24733) ft Inside Point: (98.35947, 71.24733) ft Slip Surface Intersection: (133.95, 71.247) ft Total Length: 20 ft Reinforcement Direction: 180' Applied Load Option: Variable F of S Dependent: Yes Contact Cohesion: 0 psf Contact Phi: 40' Interface Factor: 2 Bond Safety Factor: 1 Fabric Capacity: 150000 I bs Fabric Safety Factor: 1.5 Fabric Load: 100000 I bs Load Distribution: Cone. in 1 slice Load Orientation: 0 Applied Load: 100000 I bs Fabric Load Used: O lbs Resisting Force Used: 6546. 71 bs/ft Available Bond Length: 0 ft Required Bond Length: 0 ft Governing Component: Bond Type: Fabric Outside Point: (83.56076, 74.49234i ft Inside Point: (127.2338, 74.31274) ft Slip Surface Intersection: (138.3, 74.267) ft Total Length: 43.673409 ft Reinforcement Direction: 179.76 ° Applied Load Option: Variable F of S Dependent: Yes Contact Cohesion: 0 psf Contact Phi: 40 ' Interface Factor: 2 Bond Safety Factor: 1 Fabric Capacity: 280000 I bs Fabric Safety Factor: 1.5 Fabric Load: 186666.67 lbs Load Distribution: Cone. in 1 sl'ce Load Orientation: 0 Applied Load: 186666 67 lbs Fabric Load Used: 0 I bs Resisting Force Used: 6530.8 lbs/ft Available Bond Length: Oft Required Bond Length: 0 ft Governing Component: Bond Type: Fabric Outside Point: (38.39726, 38.53333i ft Inside Point: (78.39726, 38.53333) ft Slip Surface Intersection: (0, 0) ft Total Length: 40 ft Reinforcement Direction: 180 ° Applied Load Option: Variable F of S Dependent: Yes Contact Cohesion: 0 psf Contact Phi: 40 ' Interface Factor: 2 Bond Safety Factor: 1 Fabric Capacity: 280000 I bs Fabric Safety Factor: 1.5 Fabric Load: 186666. 57 i bs Load Distribution: Cone. in 1 slice Load Orientation: 0 Applied load: 186666.67 lbs Fabric Load Used: 0 lbs Resisting Force Used: 0 lbs/ft Available Bond length: 0 ft Required Bond Length: Oft Governing Component: Bond Type: Fabric Outside Point: (3618969, 43.48955) ft Inside Point: (76.18969, 43.48955) ft Slip Surface Intersection: (O, O) ft Total length: 40 ft Reinforcement Direction: 180' Applied Load Option: Variable F of S Dependent: Yes Contact Cohesion: 0 psf Contact Phi: 40 ' Interface Factor: 2 Bond Safety Factor: 1 Fabric Capacity: 280000 I bs Fabric Safety Factor: 1.5 Fabric load: 186666.67 lbs Load Distribution: Con:. in 1 slice load Orientation: 0 Applied Load: 186666.671 bs Fabric load Used: 0 I bs Resisting Force Used: 0 I 6s/ft Available Bond Length: 0 ft Required Bond Length: Oft Governing Component: Bond Type: Fabric Outside Point: (45 5292, 49.45128) ft Inside Point: (90.00527, 49.38876) ft Slip Surface Intersection: (84.328, 49 397) ft Total Length: 44.476114 ft Reinforcement Direction: 179.92' Applied Load Option: Variable F of S Dependent: Yes Contact Cohesion: 0 psf Contact Phi: 40' Interface Factor: 2 Bond Safety Factor: 1 Fabric Capacity: 280000 lbs Fabric Safety Factor: 1.5 Fabric Load: 186666.67 lbs load Distribution: Cone. in 1 slice load Orientation: 0 Applied Load: 186666.67 lbs Fabric Load Used: 263911 bs Resisting Force Used: 4648.7 lbs/ft Available Bond Length: 5.6772 ft Required Bond Length: 5.6772 ft Governing Component: Bond Type: Fabric Outside Point: (54.5932, 55.35495) ft Inside Point: (99.66563, 55.44032) ft Slip Surface Intersection: (103.56, 55 448) ft Total Length: 45.072511 ft Reinforcement Direction: 180.11' Applied Load Option: Variable F of S Dependent: Yes Contact Cohesion: O psf Contact Phi: 40' Interface Factor: 2 Bond Safety Factor: 1 Fabric Capacity: 280000 ibs Fabric Safety Factor: 1.5 Fabric Load: 186666.67 lbs Load Distribution: Cone. in 1 slice Load Orientation: 0 Applied Load: 186666.67 lbs Fabric Load Used: Dibs Resisting Force Used: :i758.7 lbs/'t Available Bond Length: 0 ft Required Bond Length: Oft Governing Component: Bond Type: Fabric Outside Point: (65.4402, 62.203181 ft Inside Point: (11212067, 62.38932) ft Slip Surface Intersection: (119, 62.417) ft Total Length: 46.680841 ft Reinforcement Direction: 180.23' Applied Load Option: Variable F of S Dependent: Yes Contact Cohesion: 0 psf Contact Phi: 40' Interface Factor: 2 Bond Safety Factor: 1 Fabric Capacity: 280000 i bs Fabric Safety Factor: 1.5 Fabric Load: 186666.67 lbs Load Distribution: Cone. in 1 ske Load Orientation: O Applied Load: 186666.67 lbs Fabric Load Used: 0 lbs Resisting Force Used: 6287.1 lbs/ft Available Bond Length: Oft Required Bond Length: 0 ft Governing Component: Bond Type: Fabric Outside Point: i 88. 1944, 78. 1139) ft Inside Point: (108.22847, 78.17963) ft Slip Surface Intersection: (143.67, 78.296) ft Total Length: 20.034178 ft Reinforcement Direction: 180.19 ° Applied Load Option: Variable F of S Dependent: Yes Contact Cohesion: O psi Contact Phi: 40 ° Interface Factor: 2 Bond Safety Factor: 1 Fabric Capacity: 1508000 I bs Fabric Safety Factor: 1.5 Fabric Load: 1005333.3 lbs Load Distribution: Core. in 1 siice Load Orientation: 0 Applied Load: 1005333.3 lbs Fabric Load Used: O I bs Resisting Force Used: 6485 lbs/ft Available Bond Length: 0 ft Required Bond Length: Oft Governing Component: Bond Type: Fabric Outside Point: (93.89259, 81.98975) ft Inside Point: (131.41079, 81.94525) ft Slip Surface Intersection: (148.12, 81.925) ft Total Length: 37.518226ft Reinforcement Direction: 179.93 ° Applied Load Option: Variable F of S Dependent: Yes Contact Cohesion: 0 psi Contact Phi: 40 ° Interface Factor: 2 Bond Safety Factor: 1 Fabric Capacity: 280000 lbs Fabric Safety Factor: 1.5 Fabric Load: 186666.67 lbs Load Distribution: Cone. in 1 slice Load Orientation: D Applied Load: 186666.67 lbs Fabric Load Used: 0 lbs Resisting Force Used: 6223.31 bs/ft Available Bond Length: Oft Required Bond Length: Oft Governing Component: Bond Type: Fabric Outside Point: (99 97504, 86.12696) ft Inside Point: ( 118.82917, 86. 12225) ft Slip Surface Intersection: (152.77. 86.114) ft Total Length: 18.854131 ft Reinforcement Direction: 179.99, Applied Load Option: Variable F of S Dependent: Yes Contact Cohesion: O psf Contact Phi: 40' Interface Factor: 2 Bond Safety Factor: 1 Fabric Capacity: 150000 I bs Fabric Safety Factor: 1.5 Fabric Load: 100000 lbs Load Distribution: Cone. in 1 slice Load Orientation: 0 Applied Load: 100000 ibs Fabric Load Used: 0 lbs Resisting Force Used: 6223.3 lbs/ft Available Bond Length: Oft Required Bond Length: Oft Governing Component: Bond Type: Fabric Outside Point: ilOS.99688, 90.22294) ft Inside Point: (135.81562. 90.14735) ft Slip Surface Intersection: (156.97, 90.094) ft Total Length: 29 818836ft Reinforcement Direction: 179.85' Applied Load Option: Variable F of S Dependent: Yes Contact Cohesion: 0 psf Contact Phi: 40' Interface Factor: 2 Bond Safety Factor: 1 Fabric Capacity: 280000 I bs Fabric Safety Factor: 1.5 Fabric Load: 186666.671bs Load Distribution: Core. in 1 slice Load Orientation: O Applied Load: 186666.67 lbs Fabric Load Used: 0 I bs Resisting Force Used: 5904.9 lbs/ft Available Bond Length: 0 ft Required Bond Length: 0 ft Governing Component: Bond Type: Fabric Outside Point: (111.38175, 93.88567) it Inside Point: (126.51864, 93.71678) ft Slip Surface Intersection: (160.18, 93.341) ft Total Length: 15.137832 ft Reinforcement Direction: 179.36' Applied Load Option: Variable F of S Dependent: Yes Contact Cohesion: 0 psi Contact Phi: 40' Interface Factor: 2 Bond Safety Factor: 1 Fabric Capacity: 150000 lbs Fabric Safety Factor: 1.5 Fabric Load: 100000 lbs Load Distribution: Cone. in 1 slice Load Orientation: D Applied Load: 100000 lbs Fabric Load Used: 0 I bs Resisting Force Used: 5904.9 lbs/ft Available Bond Length: 0 ft Required Bond Length: Oft Governing Component: Bond Type: Fabric Outside Point: i 117.38554, 97.96683) ft Inside Point: (145.46068, 97.89378) ft Slip Surface Intersection: (164 34, 97 845) ft Total Length: 28.075235 ft Reinforcement Direction: 179.85' Applied Load Option: Variable F of S Dependent: Yes Contact Cohesion: 0 psf Contact Phi: 40' Interface Factor: 2 Bond Safety Factor: 1 Fabric Capacity: 280000 I bs Fabric Safety Factor: 1.5 Fabric Load: 186666.67 lbs Load Distribution: Cone. in 1 s:ice Load Orientation: 0 Applied Load: 186666.67 lbs Fabric Load Used: O I bs Resisting Force Used: 5395.3 lbs/ft Available Bond Length: Oft Required Bond Length: Oft Governing Component: Bond Type: Fabric Outside Point: (123.31926, 102.00544) ft Inside Point: (137.04639, 102.00426) ft Slip Surface Intersection: (167.81, 102) ft Total Length: 13.72713 ft Reinforcement Direction: 180' Applied Load Option: Variable F of S Dependent: Yes Contact Cohesion: 0 psf Contact Phi: 40' Interface Factor: 2 Bond Safety Factor: 1 Fabric Capacity: 150000 I bs Fabric Safety Factor: 1.5 Fabric Load: 100000 I bs Load Distribution: Cone. in 1 slice Load Orientation: O Applied Load: 100000 I bs Fabric Load Used: 0 lbs Resisting Force Used: 4471.5 lbs/ft Available Bond Length: Oft Required Bond Length: Oft Governing Component: Bond Material Firm Region ' 1 Native Soil ~--~- 1,2,3,4,5,12,6,7,8,9,10,11 Points Area (ft') 7045.9695 I Region Structural 2 Fill 13, 14,36, 15, 15, 17, 18, 19,20, 21,22,23,24, 25, 26, 27,28,29,30,31, 32, 33,34,35,37,38, 8 1 7350.3193 MSE Region Eco!ogy Block 3 Wall 38,37,9,8 1475.6816 (Existing) Region Crushed 4 I Rock Fill 4,39,40,41,8, 7,5, 12,5 1413.3049 Region Crusaed 5 Rock F1:1 42, 34, 33, 32 .. 31, 30, 29 .. 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23 .. 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15,36, 14, 13, 8,41,40 I 1130.5138 X (ft) y (ft) Point 1 ·5. 79474 37.64024 ! Point 2 9.49398 37.18092 Point 3 17.24746 36.114 Point 4 25.41623 41.30946 Point 5 34.58654 41.30946 Point 6 43.39934 34.34166 Point7 143.47218 34.83078 Points I 163.85465 42.82579 Point 9 225.61909 56.28341 Point 10 225.72725 9.71804 Pointll -5.93873 8.92378 Point 12 : 38.58397 38.28817 Point13 74.19269 45.9544 Point 14 : 80.77428 52.51924 Point 15 i 85.83644 57.9708 Point 16 . 87.84832 60.30718 Point 17 · 91.0933 63.94155 Point18 92.91048 66.66733 Point 19 ' 94.50662 67.89536 I Point20 96.73941 71.13063 ~ Point 21 99.65571 72.72548 Point22 102.38974 , 75.96076 Point23 104.94151 78.51252 ! Point 24 107.85781 81.24655 -------- Point25, 111.63019 . 84.11813 Point26 · 115.2397 87.12473 Point 27 119.72575 91.18527 Point 28 123.18021 93.69041 Point 29 ; 126.31823 : 96.56473 -~ Point 30 ' 132.93708 101.23221 . Point31 140.55799 ; 107.16544 ! Point 32 ' 147.96688 113.50055 Point33 155.21966 119.2724 Point34 164.64955 128.05042 Poi ct 35 226.97116 126.10443 Point 36 83.30536 54.79072 Point 37 . 226.37625 83.75752 Point 38 ' 165.0138 63.81175 Point 39 · 31.26895 41.52855 Point40 58.42958 57.96189 Point 41 · 74.10586 · 45.70119 Point42 16135453 · 128.117 · SlipSurface FOS Center (ft) Radius (ft) Entry (ft) Exit (ft) 1 68 1.239 (47.206, 201.013i 156.1 ( liJ±:§_§9, 127.419) (37.375, 45.223) 68 Slip X (ft) y (ft) PWP Base Normal Frictional Cohesive Surface (psf) Stress ( psf) Strength (psf) Strength (psf) 1 , 68 · 40.006805 45.101435 . 0 251.57237 251.57237 0 2 ' 68 45.270455 . 44.94727 0 786.23784 786.23784 0 3 68 50.534105 44.970765 ! 0 1359.2035 1359.2035 0 .4 68 55 797755 · 45.172 0 1954.0394 1954.0394 0 5 68 60.77133 45.5214 0 2540.7931 2540.7931 0 : 6 68 65.45483 46.001385 i 0 3092.9789 3092.9789 0 7 68 70 13833 46.62491 io 3585.7267 3585.7267 0 8 68 74.138015 47.263165 ; 0 3939.5598 3939.5598 0 9 68 78.285115 48.059365 ! 0 3690.5083 2681.3112 ! 0 10 · 68 82.03982 48.854875 ! 0 3774.2244 2742.1345 ' 0 11 . 68 84.5709 49.45661 0 12152.509 8829.3149 !O -· 12 ' 68 86.84238 50.032705 . 0 , 4127.2947 2998.6551 0 ' 13 i 68 89.47081 50.753165 0 : 4076.3534 2961.6441 ! 0 14 ; 68 92.00189 51.48173 0 . 4010.8151 2914.0278 io i 15 i 68 93.70855 52.00298 0 I 3958.5876 2876.0823 'o -1 I ~ 15 ' 68 95.623015 52.616285 0 3892.6999 2828.212 0 17 ; 68 98.19756 53.484525 . 0 3798.3036 2759.6291 !O 18 68 101.02271 54.49062 0 3687. 7514 26793082 0 19 68 103.6656 55.487725 i 0 3574.2705 2596.8595 0 20 68 106.39965 56.580335 0 3455.2584 2510.3922 0 21 68 109.744 5800277 0 3309.9297 2404.8047 0 22 68 113.43495 . 59.673275 0 3152.9336 2290.7403 I 0 , 23 : 68 117.48275 . 61.650045 • 0 2985.3759 2169.0025 j 0 '24 .~. _6_8 ____ 1_2_1._4-53 ___ 63-.-71_5_1_35--0----23_3_2_.7_9_4_1 ___ +-2-05_3_.1_4_5_4---+-i _o _____ _ 25 : 68 124.7492 65.547365 0 2714.8881 1972.4816 I 0 26 1 68 129.62765 · 68.503995 -o----2-55_5_.2_9_5_6 ___ -+-, -1-85_6_.5_3_0_9---+-, -o-----~ 27 : 68 134.8423 1 71.855235 0 2410.739 1751.5044 i 0 28 68 138.65275 1 74.525405 ; 0 2316 0362 1682.6988 ; 0 _29 __ 6_8 _____ 14_2.4102 __ ; n 328555-l__Q__---'-_2_2_31_._75_7 _____ 1_6_2_1._46_64 ___ --+_o _____ ........., 30 68 146.11465 i 80.271585 i O 2155.6945 1566.2037 : 0 31 • 68 151.5933 i 85.053395 . 0 2050.2895 1489.6225 : 0 --- 32 i 68 158.2871 91.4272 ' 0 1932.3614 1403.9427 · 0 33 • 68 163.00205 96.35943 . 0 , 1769. 7671 1285.811 0 I---+--------'---··------+--· ---+------------------, I 34 1 68 167.4724 101.59723 i O 1467.4385 1066.1564 0 I 35 i 68 173.118 108.8694 ' 0 1061.6421 771.32812 , 0 36 68 178.7536 117.15515 0 591.55863 429.7925 ; 0 ---+---~ -------------+--------+-------- 37 68 183.2276 124.50135 0 491.39256 357.0176 0 APPENDIX E Color map excerpt from the City of Renton's GIS system depicting (1) the Pointe Heron LLC parcel boundary, (2) the subject proposed grade and fill project site, and (3) "regulated slopes" ES-2334.01 Earth Solutions NW, LLC POINTE HERON LLC PARCEL AND GRADE & FILL PROJECT SITE with City of Renton Regulated Slopes -r, ,,.,/• .-....... I •, ..... ,. PROPOSED GRADE & FILL PROJ ECT SITE .................... ...... . -· , • ..._ '•, ' I -•-• •,._.J ................. ___ ·~·-··-·-·--·-· 690 0 34 5 WGS_ 1984_W e b_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sph ere 8 R.S .C .·A 690 Feet Information Technology -GIS RentonMapS upport@Re ntonwa.gov 0 5/28 /2 0 14 ~ This map 1s a user gen erated static output from an Internet mapping site and 1s for reference only Data layers th at appear on this map may or may not be accurate . current, or otherwise reliable Map t itle , labeling, parcel boundary and proposed project s it e add ed by Halinen Law, 8/12/2 014 T HIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION Legend City and County Boundary Other :-' l., Ci ty or Renton Parce ls Slope City of Renton >15% & <=25% • >25% & <=40% (Sensmve) • >4 0% & •-90% (Pr otec ted) • >90% (PrOleeted I En vironment Designatio ns D Natural D Shoreline High l nt ensrty D Shorel!ne I solated High lntensrty D Shoreline Resldenba l D Urban Conserva ncy D Ju ri sdictions Notes None 0 C ity of ~lfQfl ® Finance & IT Division APPENDIX F-1 City of Renton GIS map exhibit for the area surrounding the subject Pointe Heron LLC parcel (depicting nearest Coal Mine Hazard Areas) ES-2334.01 Ea~h Solutions NW, LLC POINTE HERON LLC PARCEL with City of Renton Coal Mine Hazard Areas .. .,. "·· .. ...4 . .. ~ O\,i·'"O;:,\ C, ,1t.'"'..,\. C i K i ng County ,.,,\" <&:,\ ~ ~ ~ r 11 .. ">, Unrte-d Stales Post 0-, 011,ce .... ·~ ., . > < .... :..I .S 1)8lh \I ··-·-·-· 5-. .... . ,-·-··-· , . .,, ~ 2 < C i -;-i:~ '> .. ~ ~ 2 . .. . t I . ~ 2 . MLl"ltOp.ll Ajl'J)Ort C: sMtl.~~ -· -·.., .; . ~ s jJ,. .. ~, -j .. ,5L":"'.:.:; I c , , '""""" •a · center • ,:;; " .. . } @) ~ I :; ' 'J'·~ •, S 132nd St\ ' . • ~, S 13311d SI s ''•••" ' ~ ~ ' ~. ~ . \ a 8 ,,, { Jr,,, ~ "''"" / 'II.,,~ \ ""s.,. j \ ~·°' I ~ .... -.,,1,~":r'M:r...... • , ./' r ~., . ., \ .. . \ --·-·· "'"• ,$ , .... ,. \ \ ---· ·, ·, \ ·, "~- Gr••,,,;·~ ..... .\ 1.c3,d s , 4, \ \ "' 1. ~ ~ ~.,. ) \ \ .\ \ \ ·, ~. B13ei,. RN•r R1p.-l.ln ~orMt :\ c,'•et' R.,._.~,. ·, '\, . ... .. 1- {, \ ,;,.d w.IJ.eid l ~ ~ \ .... ·~ ; "'· r,... Southeenter B•• t\t.,tf Mall Unrt.ed <;:'tat.es ' .... ·, ·I~ ·, \ " .. ' i i . s Lonu~, ... w....f • I .. I . I • I . I ~ " r ! : "' :i .pi .wG•~'I s~ - Boe,ng ~ '°o-> .. ., •.s s r1.,,• s, $~(" ,.__ 0 '-10..110 • . ~ i Renton z Chrt1:t1ain ;_.;. Acod-y "iwv,cro.,111 ,,. 1 ! : . . "' . .. t S 2nd St 0 ~ rotun ~I (ol Rentol> l1igh Sd>ooi • .,..,. l_, ... ~ . .. 1 ~ p ~.., Eerloneton ,..,., ~'ct p, l: .. . , _i ~- v,nao~ Squar~ Shopp'"u C-er- (S S3rdSt • "' J SW 7th St ,! . .. "'; ~"' ~' .,,~ J!, Renton Shopping Center St Anthony catholic: 11 School ~ .,, ,. \ ? CITY CE NT(.11 ... .. ~ .~ "'->,.. -: S ,t!" St ~ . OI S 6th 5 l ® ~ ltll St POINTE HERON LLC PARCEL BOUNDARY (APPROXIMATE) 2 z . . ' , < < j f i ~ cs N 4th S I :z: ~ .. ~ L o urnted Stites !® < ., i ~ ,., '! . j 2 . • . .,, I " 2 . • t l i <"'°" .,,., q,'o .. ·~ ... ·-... ~ "1, ... ~ $ i, J '.ioo:" Gltn oJ!l ~ -"'e 2046 0 1023 2046Fee t Information Technology -GIS Thi s map is a user generated static output from an Internet ma pp ing site and is for ref erence only. Data layers that appear on thi s map may or may not be RentonMapSupport@Rentonwa .gov accurate curren t or oth erwise rel iab le WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere Map titl e, la beling, a nd r a rcel boundary ' ' · 06 /03/2014 a dded by H alinen Law, 613/2 0 14 TH IS MAP IS NOT T O BE USED FOR NAVIGATION Legend City and County Boundary Other ;· ! City o f R e nton ...... Coalmine • II D HIGH MODERATE UNCLASSIFIED Notes None 0 City of ~etff O fl @ Finance & IT Division APPENDIX F-2 King County iMAP exhibit for the area surrounding the subject parcel (depicting nearest Coal Mine Hazard Areas) ES-2334.01 Earth Solutions NW, LLC POINTE HERON LLC PARCEL with King County Coal Mine Hazard Areas ~ ..• \ ! ~ 5-.,., A>.' '< ... ·1 N\ ___ -~ •-, f1 i( ~ ' ; ' ~ ,....-!ii ' ·",. -~ \ .. ' ' ' ' ! I:!' \ g z . '.' ' . -c~t; i' _ . _ z .. <P,,. .. · -. 1-· 1 , !I! :3. '° . Iii ~ I "' --· ,--¥----:-.,o .. • 1"/ ·"f' •, ,;} I ; iC > !fl · \Cl \·. < l-:-:-,,,_..·"' ··."-'·---,I;) / ' ! <: -< '° :, \ :» , s Jr,,, er l 1 /----·-,, .,. ---. ' "'~ ~ _/ le l:· I !I! :;,i;, \ N6™ST' --.;• " 'I ------', '' '· ,----: ~ ..... -----·~--,-4[ ~ ~-. . . . --~ --. . .---\ • s'• :, . (I) a.. / ·. .flO, Q • I UJI I '! !I --'!29,:; ~ " ~st ' . ... ' ?; > ' '' \. ____..::t:::::,-,....----', ,!!.! ~· ,_,15( .---.1Sf<-! I ril \, ,,,ul <, 'I 1 .... ---' I; --, --< t,., .o. sn••·· ··· t,.111 ·· >1 :.::, •. .,.· ''. ·-~ :to ~ • ~ .l"Q . ~~ < I ' I : \ : • ' '. ,!!!tc'"' . : . I ~,!2mt ST l N . '!E 4T: '. ~-I' ) 1--:<. ----... _H... s,:isntsr , :_ ,, POINTE HERON LLC -,-, .. ~rJ.·· ... ·.·, /· ----~Jl;r, r~.... ,,lo .., "': iJt ''· S 1~~ r-,. •' ' ' ·· I I ' t. '· · .' ',/ ....__ ,,.' ->"'l'G, A ,/ .. ·" --:. -~· s ·---PARCEL BOUNDARY 1 'os: i\\ .·: ··· ·, iJI . .-.-......... ---.··--. ' '· 'l _ -· ~<l. / I' ,IL ·, ··---·-·-:---. .: .::. · I . -::.-· ~ r, ! ::-,.'_:;;1, // __ · _ ___..,. .::>.~ 1 .it' '"""' · · ' . (APPROXIMATE) ff' . . '· ,_" _ .. o .~--'·"..', --~ (' 4--.,_.----.;"5, -:·,> -S133f10.ST -->· _:__ · --·~ . .__, ..___ __ -_, .. ~-. " · .· ; ' ~· /·' ~~~;, ·--~\?!""_:-~ ' _.. / -_,· .-a.----· ... ---·----. ·,. -~ ·.' o"" . , , . ,1 . , ' ,· -•-- ,,. ..-,, I ----, · .. «·•"'' .. ·-" 8T • ' , • · Z / • .... ~. .· / --.. ,. ' -~ ' ~: _.:>... . j ST~ ' ,., ... I ~-J·-· ..J -~"'-:-:=, ·<-~-.·-,.,. ./ --.. ·;:--8f.3lr>lsr s <,~:,::::-· l: 11 11>·,<. d).J,1· ,_.,--7/ I f ·,,, , ·,. { ,., ·-~ 'I 1: I II " ·" 1, ','. ' ·.. ._,___ ···!'!"V-l'.....:,$5 '"~ I 1 1 I ,., / -.,_-, '.I' '.' ' , , __ ""•r "'"•• ,, . I 'i I ' ,' ' "' ~ ·... , I .P <1,.,;.°'\, . ·, ··---~-.. ---_ ·-. ;--,__ I~---:: -_--_-5l2t,1ofl -".:~ (--.. ,' , 1 !,: q -~ ::\·. \ -.:,·_·-=--'' '•:r·---1r1·-F-[ ,I :,; ' •-,t,C"'I (! ···:-.:;~" ~; '---. (__i t-. sti,~"' -. i·e-nt~n-:c~~~~ .. ~-~~~~L J::;c'"' .._ ~. , . ',_ '-.Bt1r~-.. ·,:> ·,,.:-=.,=--1·11r i'·,r "Lll'lf:ci'l' ~ ·, . "-,-,, ~ ( • I I..-' '>,.' Tukw "1la '-..._, "-~...._ . ·---:.c,__']:J/!J;::-::__c;C-;;:.-,1, '-\ ~==-r .. ln-~_.~I r-·-\ •:'::_~, ."v.::C:,,.'"-,_ ....... , II \, I II! • I 1,,<l CIO f ', •<::,.., ·:a r-:-•!Oa) ,~ --:. .-,.... ~~ ....... : :c , It Ii~ 'A ·--~~=,: --ll,i~l'~=~--~11!-r ·-·-· 11 : -\\* ., ') -3.:~:--:==--~§~ ~.. 'ii: <11-'\., .:.."'r~ 1LL1 Jl.JJ~ Ii(,· i.' • ~ I I .. l • I,\ n-, If·:'.;::-~--c::.=l!l---::---SW T-ULS'J_JL '/ t' / ' ~= "' Sl4THST 1l ll1 11! 11 i \'· I~ '' ·----,-.t~,_..:: llf -------ir---,,Ji!"---,-;----,';;',// ' ' ' ' ,'It-"-. ' I! ~ 'I ,\ ( l J -.Z: ~ ;I; 'if:/ '.I -,v.' J IL. i...\ \ 1 \'1 I /. 1 ~.:~·.::---,\ s,-sr S:! •·· ~ ' -:;;,..,_. ,.··. \ ,.. ,, . f 11 ~. '[. -..o.:tY!__. '1'• _,n ..-I,\ ~ .. ~ , , -' , I ~~-__..- 1 , -., ,. ) ,, I' '[ .... -------O? ; S 1411)fjn" '\ I i',Y , ', _.... Sf ! _ ... ::.::.::.: .-:.=---· VII 1·j rr· •,\. ,' ; w•·· ..J -.:----- s lli011fST :O::! Bi,, ellfllPL 1) \\ .~--""\. \\ ~,,\ ·. ~-::::.cccc.::::-~l fjllll 1-:tn' 1. s, 1ft I, . \· .. \ / \ '~ \\'• ,-::----~! c::. !...:..=.-=:::.··, i -, \ " ~\.\-<-··- \ ,;_ \\\J _) < ', -~ ~P!"'C--,t ·:~ ... , ~ ,~ · · --cf \ -.',, ->_.~ , -~ ----16TH-ST-~L__ __ _ , \i ~~--------\"_----1.l_------1r-- ,,\ __ ,·. ii ~. ~! ·. -·,:·,-::.::-:+ ' .. '!· \ !NI , ST ,___ I_• I ! i" 1 _i. Or. ' (C) lDOII Kin9 Caunty <:-.."_ Legend -I Ccxny Boundary j'/ Incorporated Area ~ H..-, '-I ' /~.,/ Streams X Mountain Peaks Streets .r --i / Alt.aia!8i iJ,.,,_.. ffl SAO Coal Mine Highways (cont) loal1 \. Map title, labeling and parcel boundary added by Halincn Law, 6/3/2014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I APPENDIX G Wetlands map exhibit created from the Renton GIS website ES-2334.01 Earth Solutions NW, LLC POINTE HERON LLC PARCEL with City of Renton Wetlands .. ,,,..,,.,,, I 'J!l;,i llrt '.;...1lf.,.., < I i -·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·~ ........ .,. ........ -·-·-·-· ·-·-.... --· . . ... ' -· -· "' ••••••• "'• I -·-· -·-...... .... . ........ . -·-·-:.·-·-· ....... / ....... -·-·-· -· -·-·-·-· ....... .., ·,., .,, .. ., ..... .., e, .. a -... ~W S\l"~•t J\lvn ,_ -: : -:::"J,'(;J.i/:: .. -Jt :: __ ~ -~.::i .:f .. 519 0 260 WGS _ 1984 _Web_ Mercator _Auxil iary_ Sphere POINTE HERON LLC PARCEL BNSF RR R/W 51 9 Feet Information Technology -GIS Ren to nMapS upport@Re nto nwa.gov 06/0 3/2014 ·~~· ... . ! ,...,<""P.,o., >ta This map is a user generated static outpu t from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate , current . or otherwise re lia ble . THIS MAP IS NOT T O BE USED FOR NAV IGATION Legend City and County Boundary Other -·, i...i Crtyot Renton Parcels EJ Wetlands Notes Map tit le, labe ling and parce l boundary added by Ha lin en Law , 6/3/20 14 0 ~rrfon ® Finance & IT Divis ion APPENDIX H 11" by 17" reduced-size seven-sheet drawing set of the City-approved October 7, 2005 clearing, initial grading, and TESC drawings for Sunset Bluff prepared by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. ES-2334.01 Earth Solutions NW, LLC ' ' R i Ii ! Ii I• ., ., I IH~~~ iii~ ~ irl 1r1 ' ~ ""z Oo >< e-, ... z -r.:l u~ !IC ., ·-•e 0. t~ oE ~~ ~i.j ~-';;-;g ~, ., ~ JJ J.~ ., i; ~ I' o ., a. :.- I ' I , 8 I 8 .! ~iii I ;,j ~ ~\'-;., ~ I I s,s i i! I aiiiliil ~ I I s:8i~ng ~ ~~~ f-200' 0 100 200 400 P!... I NOTES ! ' I ~I 1. TAX f: 132.304-9010 2. GROSS SITE J,R£,t,: 26.29 /,t;. 11 jl !1~11 th. CONSIA.TANT IIFORMA"llCW III!! I ' """""""-'""""" EARTH DONS(JlT.wfS, INC. lll03-1~ PlJrCf N.E., SUITE 20\ EIElUWE. ...... PHOt£: (425~ "'~"" TOLi FM'.E: 1188) 739-&&70 r,1,X:: (42S) 48-¢680 CONT.lrCT, SCOTT ~ """"" IWIGHAIJSEN CONSULTING ENGIPEIRS, ~. 'i ~ !i !, . ~u I : ' I I ~: ~~?' "'"'" , I . PH0H£: (42!5) 251-£222 '"T">· ... I-~ FAX: (42!5) 251-6782 I . : CONTACT: [ENNIS SAl..l'IS TIWFC '""""' n,., Tn,._ c:r- 117XI -I 1 !th .,_._ N.E., Suit,, 600 JGrl<land, WA i8034-7120 ~~~)25i25~Mli CONTACT: KEvtl nNES WE1UHD CONSULTANT: BIRGW1S£N OJNSU.TING ENGINEERS, IMC. 1821:5 72ND ~U[ SOU'l'H KEN!, WA 9803:2 PHONE: (425) 251-6222 FAX: (425} 251-8782 CONTACT: n-£RESA DUSO: COVER SHEET A PORTION OF THE S 1/2 OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 23 N, RANGE 4 E, W.M., < -~-W~W'TH '"'"""""""' 110~'1 ~~~~ ··-1 '""'" .--c..:.--·:..·,, _. RENTON, WASHINGTON w ' ' u _ _____:_--~~--·-- l,: _tvf~' ,, .I},., ':,''--~·.I ij~ft/ -.. !e"._•1:,o"' TRACT A LEGeO -"'"" cct/TOURS ____ 100 ---- "°"" l'lLTER FABRIC nMCE: _,..._, ') ::::-UllllillllE{llll.) ~- ~ ~ .., ""' -""' """"" .ut:l10N IIOll [AS Mmll) -"""" CA'JCH Mill (CB} """"""" -!MlNl'l' SDIER AMll«ll.f {SWl} ~---------------------J LiwrTS OF Cl.EARING \..A.A.A..J 0 SMll"MI' SEWER a£M'.lUI' (!!l!XI) CONSTillJCTION SEQUENCE, lEMf'ORAR'Y" V orrt:H -···-- "'""" "' ""' ''"'""" (W,l ~ X 1. ATIDtD ?ffE-coNSTRIK:TlJto MEEl1NG W11H cm-Of RENTON 2. Fl.AG ~ LIMITS AS SHOWN ON SHEET C2 Nil c.3 3. INSTAU.. SILT FENCE AS SHOWN ON PLANS. 4. CONSTRUCT ACCESS ROAO FROM OLW!R'I' SITE :>. BEGIN lOOGIMC ACTMTIES .EmIIHG. ¥ fll: H'l'lllWff (FM) """"""" '"""""" 6. ROOOH GRADE SITE AS SIIOllN ON SHEET C2 AND c.3 .w£ND ESC FACIUTI£S JS tEEl)fil. 7. lNSTAl.l. STORM Sr"$TIM AS SHOWN OH Pl.ANS 8. H'!'Of!OSEED AMD IIJLCH EXPOSED SOI. AFTER FINAL ~ 15 R£Al:.£D ll. C0HnW:T0R SI-W.I. M,0,MAIN lUiC FN::ll/T1ES UNTIL AU. RISI( OF EROSKlN SEDIMENT"TION -PASSED AND STOIW SYSIDI IS INSTAil.ED AND f1.JHCTlONAL.. 00 NOT <xmvEY SEDIMOO I.ADEN WATER TO IXIWlfSTllENil DAA!tw.E S'l'SIEM UTUTES/SERVICES -~--··-~·-'l,\"ltJI UI£ -== SHITM'l'SOIERLN: --------S!Nlil!l!WW;( l.N: C "'"" -------.. """ ·-IWIIEl al£ f8CE ......... -i : ......--1DOO FDtC£ m..EPHONE: QWEST COWMCATIONS 450 110th AVE. N.t ~ ... @ MOlll'ORWEIJ. ==C>· Dl!EC1llN OF -..em TRMl. T.P.O.B. TROE POl(f IJ'" IEiNtl«i OS !UMY IINID1 I.IS lmD) . -+ I """" """' "' """' • FOMI REBIWW (.olS ~l D RU() WIJ/f0. ,<i SIM£Y a:Mllll. Sl"A1DI c, OF 7 ~ ~, ~ ~, "~' C, ~' "'~' C7 Of 7 ;-JI ' CAU. BEFORE YOU DIQ 1-800-424-5555 I'--, I I VICINITY MAP ,;Jf0'{:;~;~~}fJC° KlEX TO SHEETS CMR Sl-£ET R>R CI..EARNG, INmAI. GRADING AND ITSC Cl£ARINC, PIITW.. GR.liCllt4G, AND lESC Pl.AN Cl.EARING. IMITW.. GIWlff,IG. AND TE5:C Pl.AN TEMP0AARY SEDIWENT POND Pl.AN AND DETAILS NDrni IND OCTAll.S FDR Cl.EARING, INfTIAI.. GRAOIHG ANO TE'SC STORitUNE PROFILES STORlilUNE PROFllIS LEGAL DESCAIP110Na lDT 1 Of SR llOO LLC. UJT UNf ADJUSlMENT (CITY OF ~ tm Lt£ AOJJSTMENT t(). l.Ul,-05--124-UA). lfS PER Pl.AT RECORl:.ED UNDER RECORDN. Ml. 20040311i00015 VERTICAL DAnJM, Cl1Y OF l!Et(J'Qll BENCltWRI( fa82 El[Y. -28.33' NOTE• QISIS OF W -R£CORD or SURl,£V RECORD£[) UNDER R£CORDING ~MBER 9012129007 IIGI.TATm TO cm' OF RENTON lt::IRIZONfAL CONTROL ENaNEER/PLAANER!SURVEYOA Bt.RQ,W)SfN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, 11C. 18215 72nd AVE. SOUTH KENT, WA D8032 ~!rl-1~i-~1e2 CONT~: tw... ~-GRUBEi / 1VAN,1, HAL'JORSDI / DONS J. S-.J~ OWNER/DEVB.OPER SR 900 LC.C . B1~ lO!li A'IE1«JE SOJTJi SEATT1..E.. WA 98108 (206) 742--9125 Ill g ~ 00 i tu i It ~~5 ~ I ~ I I ~ 8 j§;i ~~~~ it. !!! . ~ ~iii ~i ~ -~ I ~~ 5 zm 5l ~ -l ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i~ 0 ~ ~"' 1~ ~ < .!. .!. 1· ":i=:G~ ~ f.-:"io'IO _. ~i3~~ ~::) ~~--"' ::,·•l'" 'JI-* ... ~ .. :11 ,·,., .... ,er ! : 0 e ... ~ ••e f ~o~~,:," CITY OF RENTON WATER/SEW[R: CITY OF RENTON 1ce!! S.. GIWl'I'" WAY AfNTOM, WA. ~ PROIS 9JR91..1, 4th FLOOR BElW'IJE. WA 98003 ee n arm FOR N'fflOYN-DEPARTMENT C>F PUBLIC WORKS POWE!! & ~' PUGET SOUND ENERGY 1~ 15tltll lW£.. N.E. """"-... """' 1{l!IOO) 321-4321 fl!E; CITY OF ROlTOII FIRE DEPAR"l'MENT lce!! S. GIW)'r' WAY """""-... """ CABLE: COMC>.ST ,4020 AI..JEIURN >m.Y NOR'TH PO BOX 1048 AUBURN, WA. 98002 "'Lka¥4,, ,.,., Jtf!/0.-,,1.::._ ,.,., "' ... "' "°" • 10/J/05 COVER~ FOR C1.EAN«3, NTIAL ClRADNG AN) TE8C SUNSET ELUFF I I EXPANDED C!W>ING/ADOED SD LINES I DG I DD I SITE PLAN CHANGES 0G 1-FG g/22/~ I ' I PER CITY Of REh'TI I~ I PER CITY Of = R£'4W I: l'.:I 7/7/~ I I · -I ~ 1 ~ I ;;;;; 1~ ~ I""· '',"~ i ~ _____@___ &CALE ~ ~HO.LI.IA,,._._ Fl3..0IIOOII:,.__ PAQE ~~ -18119aT C1 (if_ Z_ ~ ~ ' ] i ~ ] ~ ~ ;o. ~ 1 C :l ! f ~ -;;.. • ' ' , 5 ~ I , C ii ,-..: ci z [ll -, u.i ~ --------- :::l:::lffl8 .l3SNf1S N'ttld 083.1 ON 'ONICJ\fl:IO l\fUINI 't>NRl\f3l::> § ~! ~ ' ' ii! ~l 0 :::l:::l(ll8 .L3SNflS N'tld 083.1 ON't 'ONlcl'tl::lo l\fWNI 'ONU:l't310 \ 5Zl6-Z9L (90Z) 80l86 VM '31ll V3S HlllOS 3nN3A V 1-U.Ol SZl6 S3JW!3S l't'OO,.NC)ijWG 'DNIAJN:lnS "m!INl'Md OJ«l '!>NQl33Nr.>N3 lll\lO ·ONI ··oo .1N3nd013A3<J aN\f"l 0Nlll:f3n XVJ Z:9LB-!t:;Z:(9lt) Zll9-<9l(9lt) l£086 VM 'l.N3>1 H!ODS 3nN3AV GNU 9!l8L \ \ \ \ \ \ J~D.llJl!U!WPV •·3·d UDW.JllWW~ fifiaJo ·1 ea 8'ltJOM :l!l<lrld/fiU!Pl!"8/ U!UUDJd NO.LNJH ~ ;10 A.LIJ ~ .... "'""'""'- •lJ0:::1 00 'd"' "'"' "' ·------- I-",'.:.:;"-, "" "' "" "' "" "' .os-.i 00 "' ' \ 0 \ NOISV,3ij -------.,= ... =·1fl1N3!1 .i) J.ID H3cl , L WOJl'IO:) ~-~ ·.ui:, 83d ·r l -S39H\'IO-WldllJS ' ---------s:N1 lffljQ MO.IS Gm'/~~~ z <( _J CL 0~ CJ)! w.,. I-~ 0~ Zz <( ~:I,~~ j ,~ ,_ li ': ' I ----- - ~ I ~ ~ y '· 0 :±n18 .L3SNllS t • ' l i il " " ti -' I! ! ;1-', ! 1, "l p '' "'P' -il 1-:i ! 18 !hi Ii ! ·•! 'lj i, ! 'i ' ~£Lh"-ua t~ ' e F • ,t ~ -ii ]; ; .!i t p1 fa ' • i J J J ::l::ln18 .l3SNlS NVld 0831 CNtf 'oNlaVb'O "1'9'WNI 'ONll:N310 SC:l6-C:9L. (90C:) 80l86 VM '3'1.llV3S HlflOS 3'lN3" V HlOI. SC:16 "ONI •oo lN3V"d013A3Cl ONV1 OM11:13r4 1 ' J t ! H i 'i ! ' .~ l ' '! l s.'!; ~ r·r I J- -::0>;;~ qg_f .. ,,. 11~~ ·~1 r;.1:11 t~ ~·· 8-.. 1 ~ 8g .i i.:~ ~ ,H '" i! g'~ H"• -g.!l ,,, -~. f5 a~ hi ! ;~ ~ ~f I ~" fll·".s ,!. U! Uli ~r, § re .i ' e8 ~ 'i --- ;-~J~l~t~Z ~;~~;::::;/lfut~~J ~ ~fil"·:__, NOlN:iH ~ .iO XlIJ ,OS•J '"'U.""':''~-=t""" S3:JWOS 1V.IN]l'INOWIH3 'ON~ns 'ONINNYld ON'fl '::>Nl!:BlNJ.,NJ 11.AJ:l XV..:I i::BL8-!Cll{Slt) ll'9-<Sl(Slt) Z£086 VM 'lN3>1 H.UlOS 3nN31\V ONll S~l8~ ,,•'" ,.,, . . -. 1i 0 . 0 . . \ 'i' iS'l)i,H 9-b u / ~5 ' !~ ' .~ I u,. I ' ' I ' ' i : . ' ·oN aor ·3·::ra I 1\I ( j f ~I '.!j~~~~~ ~~~~~~ ~~~~:~ a~~;:;~;;; ~ :'.L~:Bt; a ! ~ ~&~ I 1 11 I . ~ddV: llVO A.El NOIS~ 'ON 00 "' 00 gj/ i/iJ erdll 00 0\31:1 t¥llJGij JO Jm"=~"'=+-~--l _ --_J~1z_~~~_![ 00 J_ _______ _,"""""".,..,=-~ ~ JJJ:l H3d /l'l,/G, ~H ~ S33tM() NVld :lllS 7~1as~_-_?]_~ -iia --~=--S3Nll tmKl l'IIKliS ~1~-(OON\ldx:3 :::1::r1,e l3SNns I \ ' Sll'1 l30 aNV $NV"ld CNOd lN3nKES AIM:!Od~3.1 '1 I I i SC:16-C:9L (90C:) 80l86 'IM '3'1ll '13S HUlOS 3nN3A'I HlOl SC:16 "ONI '·oo .LN~dCY13/\3Cl OWl ON111:13ri [/1 •i;l 1i ~i! r ,, " 111. l!i' lo i f,li ~-- NOJ.N,rn: 110 ill:) ~ • > !~ ;~ 611~8 I!!•' 2"· *~ 0 • ; i' " ci ~ " g ci ci ·~ • i -~ 0 >c ' ' @"'. d g~ ...J ~ / 0 ' ~ D.. (JJ ~ ~ ~ ~ e ~ I $ II I S30IAH3S 1VOOl'OKl~UAN3 ':>Nl.l.3N:lllS '~INNVld (]N'fl ':)Mti33NI003 llAI:> XV.:! ZQL8-~£z(gz1r) ,,,9-"'''") Z£'086 VM 'lN3>1 HlJlOS 30N3AV ONZL £!l81 ii I I I ___ / _____ JI~ I I I I 1~ I ·f. ~· I ;; I it I I I I !d ~ i 0 ' i:1 ~~ -~ I ">j ~ ' i~I i ! .!, I i I :i I I I :~1 ~d, r ' ' i ' ' \ ~ M I / I I . I o I "',I 00 00 >--,.~--- 8 ~ ' d g ~ + ,,¢'"' ,.,, .:. .,..,_ if 0 ' 0 . . \ .alb iS''>"H'°~ ~"~i ~Ip ii~ ~1;li ffio~ u • " £ zo o-!ad WL a:. u. 0 0~ ~· 0~ w D 8 8 8 8 • ' ~ b ' C <( I I <( " • z " 0 " 5 ' C 0 w ~ (JJ ~N<Wml.:IOJ.llO~ I .lH3MOO MOOOll -.:IO AIJ:l ~ --i -- 00 ~';;t.'c'~-'"-1------------~ MVld lUS --_9Q_ _ SlN_n NWO. M>JS OJOOi/~ -~ _ Ii ~ ~i ~gg~ ig~i i!<m ~ --.... u ~z .. -~ Oo" .... ·~ > z ,g.J ~~ ~a: u~ ~g H IH ~ I fi ii:~ ",i~ : I ii 2 ,. ~I ;§ '1 -- l . ~ '''I ;, ~i i: ~j! ~ . ~; r- I ' I g,g 8 l ~ ~ E -Tl~ , I I --' ~ ~I i I I 1:jl~ 1,1; i! ·I· I a,a a.: "'I a. ~,~,~ . rn . § , ... ; .... 1-~ " ' ' ' STORM DRAtlAGE NOlES NOTES AND DETAILS FOR CLEARING, INITIAL GRADING AND TESC ,. 2 J. .. ,. ,. ,. • • EEF0RE JHt COHSTRUCT10N OR DEIIEl.OPIIENT ACIMTY OCCURS, A PREt0MSTRUCn0N M£ErNG Mt.151' BE HEl.D WITH THC CITY OF ffENfOff 00>AATMENT Of PVBUC 'IIORKS. DESIGN ENGlt£IR. MJ. CONSTRIJClDt SIW..L BE ~ ~ WITH THE "1988 ST~ SPECIFJC,*,Tl:m FOR RC».D, BRIDGE AND MUNICIPAL CCffflll:IJC'!l" PRO>NIED IJY WSOOT NID THE NrERIC#I PUBUC WORl(S ASSCX;V.TICHS (APW,), AS NilEMOEO Err THE CITY Of RENTON DE?NmlENT Of PI.JII.JC WCJRl(S. TI-E STORM D1WMN.E S1"STEM SIW.i. 8E CONSTRUC1!D 1'CCORDIHG TO Tl1E N'1'ffC1r'ED PLANS WHCt1 ARE DN F1.E IN Tl-£ OO>NmlENT Of PUEl..K: WORl<S. N« DEVIATION FROM THE APPlll1v'ED Pl.ANS WU REOJIRE IRITIEN APPff(ML FROM 1t£ cm' Of ~ DEPNmlOO" Of PUU WOl!l(S, DESIGN EHGll£ER OR STtlRII WATER UTIUT'Y. A CQPY OF' lHESC lfffl!N£D PVffi MUST BE DN THE JOB SIT[ WHDE'tlEJI CXlNSTRUC1lON IS IN PROGRESS. c».T\111 SHAU. BE U.S.G.S UNLESS lm£RWISE APPRCMll Err CITY or RElfTON DEPNmlO!T Of PU1UC WORKS. REFERENCE IIENCHWARIC AND ELEVATION ARE NOTED DN lliE PU,NS. ALL SEDll,IENTATIONjtROSION FJCIUTIES lilUST BE IN OPERliTION PRIOR 10 Cl.EMffiG Nol[) BUI.DING CONSTRUClJON, AND T;£Y MUST BE 5'TISfM:TORILY ""'"°,*INED llHTIL COffSTRllCmN IS cnFlEIEll AND THE POTOOW.. FOR Ott-SITE: EROSION ~ PASSED. AU. REttN'TICIN/DETENTION FM:IJTIES MUST BE INSTAUED NO IN 0!'£RATION PRIOR TO OR IN ~ WITH ALL COffSTRUCOON .ccTMTY UNLESS 1JT}£RWIS£ APPRCMll BY 11£ EIEPARIMENl" Of PUBUC WOfflCS, STORW WATER UTILITY. GRIISS SEEll !MY Bf N'P1JED 8Y ~. 'THE ~ SEED ~ OTliER ~ CITY OF RENTON APPRCMll STN()AA[) IIXES. SIW..L BE SUBMITTED SY A L.ANDSCN>E ARCHITECT ANO N'PROYED Err 11£ DDWf1llEXT or PI.JBI..IC 'M>RKS, S'IDRIII WATER UTILJTY. AU. PIPE NC ~ SIW..L BE LAID ON A PROf'ERLY ?RE!'ARE FOUNOiltTION IN ACCOftlWICE WITH SECTION 7--02.J{l) Of Tl£ ru!RENT STA'![ or WASHING'roN STAtllMD Sf'ECIFICl,TION FOR ROH> AHO BRIDGE CONSTRIJCTION. 1rlS s.w..i JNCI.Ul:E NECESSAR'1 I..E\-tlJ«: Of THE TRENCH IIOTTOM OIi THE TOP Of" Tl-£ FOlllfDl,llOM W.TERIAL ~ WEU ~ PIJrCCMENT N() Cl:MPJCTION OF REQUIRED BEDDING IMTERW.. TO UNIF'ORN GAAi)[ SO ~T THE ENTIRE LDIGTH Of Tl-£ Pff. Will 9E Sl.f'F'CRTEil OH A UNf'DRIIIILV D£NS£ IJNY'E..l)ING ~ AU. Pff. BEDDING SIW.l. EIE N'WA CLISS "I::," WITH M EXCEPT10N Of PW: PIPE. AU. "TRENCH 8,1,CKFJU SHM.J.. BE COMPACTED TO l,ltUMUM 95 PERCENT FOR PAYEMENT AND STRUCTLRAL FUJ. AND 90 PERCEHT OTHERWISE PER ASTM D-1557-70. PEA GRA¥EL BEDDING stWl. BE 6 It.CHES NI) MR N«> UNtO "'° PFC 10. G,1,1.~ STEEl. PIPE AND ALUIMIIIZED STm PIPE FOR AU. ORa\lNIIGE FN;:IIJTl(S stWl. HAVE ~T lRE>.111100 f1 OR BETTER INSIDE AND OOTSIDE. \ I. STRUCruRES SHAU. NOT BE PERMmm WITHIN 10 FEET OF THE SPRING LINE OF NIT' Sl"Olllr,I DAAIH;.G[ Pff'£. OR 15 FEET FROM THE TOP OF Nh' CHANNEL. BANK. 12. AU. CATCH B.ISI. GRATES SIW.l. BE DEPRESSED D. \0 FEET BELOW PMlilENT LEVEL 13. OPEN CUT Rl!Wl CROSSINGS Nf:J ~ PIJBUC RIGHT-Of-UV WU NOT BE All..OWED UNLESS SPECIFDil..l.V APPRl'.MD BY CITY Of RENTON OE!'ARTMOO Of PlB.JC WORKS, DESIGN ENGINEER. 14. ROCi( FOR EROS10t1 PRaTECTIOH or R<W)Sl)E: DITCHES. WHERE REQUIREtl, stWl. BE or SOIJIO CUARR'!' ROCK PI.ACtD TO " DEPnl Of" 1 F"OOT AND MUST MEET THE roL.L.OWINC ~TlONS; 4 INCHES lO ! INCHES/.W PERCOIT TO 70 PERCENT PASSING; 2 INCHES TO 4 INCHES ROQ(/30 PCRco.r TO .W PERCENT PASSING; N() -2 .NCHES ROCK/10 PERCfNT TO 20 PERCENT ~- 15. ALI. BUILDING OOWNSPOUT5 N.10 FOOTING DIWNS SIW..I. BE CONPECTID TO TH£ STORII DRAINAGE SYSTEM UNI.ESS APPRMD !IV nlE DEPARTMENT OF PUBUC WORKS, DESIGN OIGINEER 0A STOIWWA"TER IJTUTY. AN NXIJAAlElY DIMENSIONED CERTIR£0 AS-BUILT [IP.AWING OF THIS DPNiWlE SYSTEM WU. BE SU~ TO Tl£ CITY OF RENTON UPON COMPLETIC»t 16.. LSSLW«:E or Tl£ IIUIUllltG 0A CONSTRUaTION PmWlT B'I' THE CITY or RENTON OOES NOT REL.l(i,t: THE ~~~U~~~~~~c:,,~~~f~MrER FUNC'TIONNG ANO w.lKTDWICE: or THE S'YSTIM l'!l\'.MOEO DI.IRING CONSTRI..CIION. 17. Tl£ COMTlW:TOR SIW..I. BE RESPONSlllE FOIi PRO'Jll»NC JDEQl.l"-TE WECUARD, SAf"tlV C01CES. PR01ECThlE EOUIPMENT, Fl.JOXRS, NIO #Hr OTHER NEEDED M'.:TIOtl$ TO PROTEC'T Tl£ U'T, HEALTH, AND 9fr1Y OF Tl-£ PUIIUC, N() TO PROTECT PROPER'lY IN CONNECTION WITH THE PERRRIANCE or WORK COVERED 11V 11£ CONTJW:T. Nh' WORK W'iTHtl THE TRA'JEl.!D RIGHT-or-W.V m\T W.'r t<IERRIJPT NOR1iW. "JRAFR:. FLOW SHAU. REQ\JIRE N,i APPRCMD lRlmC CONTROl PLAN BY TI£ TFIAFFlC ENCtEERIMC OM5D,I OF TI-IE DEPAlmlENT OF PUBLIC WORl(S. ALI. S£C1IONS OF 1HE WSOOT" ST~ SPECIFrAllONS ,. 2 • .. ' EROSION CONTROL NOlES BEFOR[ JM'f CONSmlJCTION OR OE\nOPMEHT ACTMrl" OCCl/11:S, " PRE-COHSIJIIJCTlON MEETING MUST BE HEl..D wm-1 " REPES£N'tTTM: OF Tl£ CITY OF ROtTON l)[\,{J,.OPMOiT SEfMC£S OMSION .. H.I. l..lllll1S OF Cl.EARING AND AREAS OF VEGEl"ATON ~TION AS PRESCRIBED ON THE Pl.AN SIWl. EE Cl.EARLY rvt,;GED IN THE FIELD AM:1 08SEJMD OLRIMG "'"""'"""· AU. RECUR£C SEDIMOOATION/EROSIOtl CONTROL FAClll£S MUST BE CONSTRIJCiED NilO IN OPERATION PRIOR TO !.ANO ClEAIING NID/OR OTHER CONSTRUCTION TO INSURE MT smr.ElfT LADEN WAlER OOES NOT ENTER TH£ OOWNSREAM OR.vWlE SYSTD.I. H.I. EROSION AM:I SEDIIOO FN:U..ITD SHAU. BE liWNl"AINED IN A St.TISFACTOR'I' CONDlmN UNTIL SUCH lllilE THAT CLEM!ING AND/OR COHS1RUCTION IS COMP\..£TED N.10 P<1TDITW... FOIi ON-Sitt EROS10H IWi PASSED. THE IWPIDIENTATION, ~ ~ AM:1 ADOOlONS 10 E!IOSION/sEDIW[NTATION CONTRCt. smEl,IS SHAU. BE lliE RESf'ONSIBII.ITV OF THE PERMITTEE. THE EROSION AND SEDUDITA"TlON CONTROL SYSTEMS ClEPIC'TED ON TlfS DAAWING ARE INlEHCED TO BE lillNliUI REQUIREMENTS TO MEET" ANTICIPATED SITE CCMl!TlONS. AS COHSTRUCTION PROGRE5SES N.10 F UHEXPEC'lm OR SEA$C11W. COWDITIONS Dlt'T"TE. Tl£ PERUITTEE SHOUUI AtfTICIPATE TiiAl lilORE EROSIOH AM:1 SllllWENT"TlON CON1ROL F.IOUT"C 1,1,\Y 8E hEC£SSAAY TO INSU!IE COMPLETE Sl.TATION CONlROI. ON THE PR0P0S£D SITE. OURIN:. THE COURSE OF cc»6TRUC'T10N, IT StW..L EE TH£ 08..JCATION ANO RESPONSIBILr1Y Of THE PERMITTEE TO ADDRESS >Hf NEll CONDfTJOMS 001 "'-Y 8E CREA1Ill B'I' THE PDMIEE'S ACTM1'lES AND ro l'RCMlE AOOl1lONIIL FACIUllES, CMll AND ll1:Nf. MINIWUM REOOIREMENTS, AS IMY EE NEEDED TO PR01ECT ~ PROPElfTlES AND WATER QUALITY Of THE RECEMNG DRAlfWlE S'l'STEM. DUR11G lliE TIME PERIOO OF ~ 1 11«0UGH 1iWi:CM 31, "-I.I. ~ DISTURBED SOIL AREAS GRATER ~ 5.000 SOUAA£ fEEr THAT ARE TO BE LEFT I.IIMlllKEO FOIi 1i10RE 11-Wi 12 HOURS SHAU. BE CMRED B'I' STIWf IIIULCH, HYDROSEEOING, OR FUSTIC Cl:MRING. HOWEVER Nf( RA WHICH 1WS BEEN SJRFl'ED OF VEGET"TION A.Nil WHERf N:1 fURTHER WORK !S ANTICIP"TEP FOR A PERIOD Of 30 ~'I'S OR WORE MUST BE illlEOIATELY STM:llUZEll WITH STR"-W MULCl*IG, HYOROSEE!HNG OR OTl£R Af'PR{MJJ EROSION CONTROl TilfAT\IENT APPLX::ABl£ TO THE TnE or YEAR IN QUESTION. I I L TOP Of BERM,,,45.0 PROPOSII) 15' 6zi'l """ -f ,A; ~ . r· ' 80 80 «n Lf" 12· l1Df'E • 1.0ll FlLl"ER FASR1C ,.,.iERIIU. 60" \111Dt ROUS. / USE ST,r,,PL..ES ~ \IIIRE RINGS TO ATTAD-1 FABRIC TO \IIIR£ ::l" B,. 2" 14 GA \MR£ HBRtC 0/il EQtJIV ,L'~~ 1111: I ,1,. -rr-------~rr-LJ_ ~s· .... ~----11 flLTER FA8R1C l.<AT(RIAI 2" BY 2" BY 1~ GA fAE!f'!JC Of £aVIV " PRO,.,Of v~--1.~· - WASJiEO GRAIIEL BAC><flL.!. IN TREMCH A'IO ~ BOTJ-< SIOES Of" FlLTER "EtlCI'. fABR1C ON Tl-<E SJJRFAC£. 2" BY f" WOOD POST o,!.1 STEEL F"ENC£ POSTS BRUSH BARRifR -~ ~rj-M 0/;e\°!j_S)l~[ &: CO\IE EL•#.00 \ • ,4= ' ·, 10:~:o~·o:~.:.~ PifxE SVPP~T(S) f• li.x.~ &f11.1.ptaoco L1A4~MA> EIURY BOTIDlol Of" ~"8RIC IIAT[RIAJ.. IN 3" BY 12" "IR£NCH ,. I ' s·-o· / --Rc-JND SOLID CO\/Ell SU cv,,.;. J.6.7 "ftik~~SE STANDARO GAJ..\/ANIZ[O STl:El LADDE~/ST!:PS SEE owe. J.4 4 """ ~OR SIJEH RUNOFF ~ FCU.O'MNG D1S01it.RGE fROM A SEDIMENT TRAP OR POND 2 .... AJQMUM SLOPE ST!IPNE!;S Pffi;>tNO•CULAA TO r[WC[ .IN[ IS 1·1 3 .... A)(JMUM SHEET OR Ol'El!~ANO f"cOW PAT>< l.ENGTI-< TO T><f FENCE Of" 100 F"T. ,t, ,r ~ Of! l.ESS OF lHE SOIL. BY WEIGl<T, IS FlNE P'-Rl1Cl.ES $M!.t.l.£R THAN THE \J.S. STANOAAO Sl[\IE NO. 200, ll<E EOS SHOULD BE EIJUAL T(I OR SMALLER Tli.W l1iE SIEl'E SIZE T><AT 6S~ ~ THE SOIL CAN PASS THROUGH. 5. THE TRENCH SHAU BE BAC~F"<I.J..[t) MlH 3/,t" t,!NMUM DIAM[Tl:R WA=O C)'lAVfL 5. 'lLTER F"8RIC FENCES StiALI.. Bf: RD,10\Ul Wtl[N lH[Y llAl'E SERl'EO THEJR USUUL PURPOS£. BUT NOT BEFORE THE JPSI..Of'E AREA l<AS 9£EN PERMA>IENTLY S1A81L1Zfil ~llro! FA.BRIC ~CES SHI.U. BE INSf'EClED <MMEOIATEl" AF"Tm EACH R.oJNF"AU. AMO ~T LEAST OAICY DURING Pi<Ol.OliCEO RAINFALi.. ANY REPAIRS SHAIJ. 8f MAO[ IMMEDIATil.Y. JllllrB -n:IICI J)ft.llt ~ ~-= ~ --·~ DWO,. IWilE: IIR21 SP P,lriGE:IIOflll NOTES; ' PIPE SIZES ANO SLOPES· PER PLANS. OLITLET CAPACITY: N01 LESS THAN COMBINED INLET'S. METAL PARTS: CORROSION RESISTANT. GAJ..V!\NIZED PIPE P/IRlS TO 1-1"-\IE ASPHALT TREATMENT t 4. FllAME & !.ADDER OR STEPS OFFSET SO " Cl.E/INOUT GATE IS VISIBLE FllOM TOP. B CUMB-DOWN SPACE IS Cl.EAR OF RISER A>IO C. FR/11.!E IS CLEAR OF CURB If ME1"1. OUll.ET PIPE CONNECTS TO CEMENT CONCRETE ~CRt~1ttfoTOLE1sv\~~111 o.D. EOUlu. TD 6 MULTI-ORIFICE [LBOW5 W..Y Bf LOCATED /\S SHOWN OR All ON ONE SW£ or RtS(R TO ASSURE LADDER CLEARANCE CLEANO<lO GATtc S>IEAR CATI: // $1 iF 12" tll)K O:t~ " TEMPORARY OOTlET COmROL STRUCTURE SIT DWG NO J •.J ,l,tf::HCR P,lf!E ~ lABl.f'. 4.2.1.A NOT TO ;;<.;AU " eo ,, eo RP RAP Sf'ECF!CAJ10NS' Rl 0 RAP OLIT1'A.I..L. ;>JID S-IALL BE CO'ISTRUCTED /JS FOUOWS: ROCK LINING SH/lli BE QUARRY SPA..LS \1/fTH GRADATION /JS FOLLOWS: P~NG 8-INCH SQUARE SIE\1£· ,oo,; PASSING 3-INCH SQUARE S[V[, 40-so,; l.l"XIMUM IE• Yil 00 ___'J ' --j 0 --.' _ ___.... --f ? IE•~9.00 Rt:MOW.SLE -'... -COUPLING 1-07.23, lRlmC CONTROL., SHAU. o\Pf'I.Y. ...,. '""' PASSING J/4-INCH SQUARE SJE\1£ 0··111.' MAl(IMUM MINI\IIJM QIMFN519N5 Rt:STRICT~ PLATE -' W1TH ~F"ICE AS SPEClflE!l. NOT NEEOED IF Q!,ll. Y FCf;i POLl.l, l10N CQNTIIO!. DIA.•6.8"" ,m,-,~,(U '""""'-- 16.. SPECIAL DRAINil!GE: liVSlAIES 'MLL BE REQUIRED IF THE PROJECT ~TION lS WITHIN THE AQUFER --1 g PIP£ co,.o NCJTES: It. CO>'ER IS THE ru.mtw.. <MR Tl£ OUTSIDE TOP Of THE PIPE (CMR W.Y NOT INCi.VOE Tl£ "'-TEl™L Of THE PIPE}. If YOO HAVE A TttRfE F"OOT GRAOE DlfFEREHTW... BETWEEN THE INVERT Of ,0 12' ow.tETER PFE Atll THE GROUl.:l DR THE GRATE EI..EVATION OF " STROCTUlE, YOU 00 lolOT ~ 1WO F"OOT OF co.(R CMll THE PIPE. B. llll£N ~TN. GRADE FOR PIPE C<MR ll-£RE SHW. BE " DffEREN1W.. EOUAL TO THE OEFfH Of CCMR (IN FEET) PLUS 0.2 FEET RlR THE W,lil TllCKtESS OF THE PIPE PLUS THE DIAMETER Of 11iE PIPE OVER THE IIMRT EI..EVATION OF THE PIPE. C. fOR " MN. 2 fT. COVER -N« W.TERW.. LlSTEO 1N KC SWOM'fl& OTHER T1'WI PYC W.Y BE USED. 0. f"OR COVER FRON \ fT. TO 2 fT. USE REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE, (Pl.AIM CONCRETE PIPE IA"-Y BE USED FOIi IIRIYEWAY CUI.WU). E. f'OA C<MJt LESS THAN 1 FT. OUCTll£ IRON PIPE IS USED. F. PW: PIPE REQUR:5 Jfl. C(M)l 20. AU STORM ~ CONYEYANCE PIPE SHOWN AS "So• ON 11-£ Pl.AN SHAU BE OtE Of THE f'Ol.1.0WING """'"Tm ' • 0 0. ,. ,. ~ STORM SEWER PIPE SHAU. CONfOltM TO 11-E REQUIREWEMT'S Of AS'TM C 76--85 Cl.ASS N F!EINF'ORCED COHCAETE PIPE. SMOOTH WAU. 5PM. RIB METAL PIPE (ALUMINUM, ~zm STEEL OIi "5PtW..l-mEATED S'IED.). 16 GNJGE MTM l/+-lltCH 5/&-INCl1 RIBS ON 12-lt+Ol CENT£R. ~E~l~~~Tt)~~OJ'CC:~-:!. WITH NI POL'IVNVL ctll.ORll:E: (PYC) SEWER PIPE SDR35 OIi EQU.IJ... OIXTI..E IRON ClJt.SS 50 .t .52 SOl..lD WAU. POLYETI-M..ENE PIPE (SWPE; Al.SO KNOWN AS HOPE PIPE OR HOPP) WINMUW PIPE roJER SHAU. BE 2.0 Fm (UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFED) • WITH RIP RAP PER" """"'"'"' "' '"" S><ffi 40 C8 "M'r 11-48" ~1i.!lff3+Cff54UO ,..45,45 1E"'41l~ STORMLINE : I ;@I ! S.00 , • .. so' ,·,..,o· ~ i .... 40 'H' ~ THICKNESS 1 FOOT WIOTI-\· OlAMETtR + 6 FEET LONGTH· HEIGHT· 8 FEET OR 4 X !),At.lCTER. 'IIHICHfl.'ER •S GREATER CROWN + 1 fOOT CATCH BASIN TYPE II ~ASf!tQI.OOEl mc,,o,,: J.2.J ~.;k wi_.~ /ELBOW DETAIL SPECIFIED ,!A.=~.30" EL-44.25 - EL•44.l0 - r 111111111] C8t1A TYPE 11-54' CONIBOL S1FIUCTURE EL-43.7~ - ~ I' J l------~,o·~------1 ! BAAS O 4" OC FAAIIE ANO ~TE FOIi CONTROU.ED PONO CNERFLOW. PRCMOE VER11CAL 8NtS ~ FRAME "T ,4• Q.C. JAILHOUSE OVERFLOW DETAIL (SECONDARY INLETI NOT TO SCALE ROCK ~UST C~ETELl r ~o;c:,6£1 ;~ me occs C "'' ~~,~~- CBQSS SECDQN 1.-THE D!ST.oJ.,CE SVCH TH/1.T POINTS A AND B /IRE Of EOLJAL ELDIATION CtfQS pw SP!CHi 'V' DITCH ROCK CHECK DAM DETAILS Fl.DIii R=fOIL POL.U/IION CONTl!OL.. TIT Tl'P£ ------__ .,... e !JIG. HAI«: Bll-04 SP PIIIQE:BON g ~ ;I ~~M! ~,olii 0) ~ i ~ m ~ ~ 8 lh~ ~:f ~c,i ~~ .ie_ ~!ij !i! Iii i ~ 5l ~ ~ z ~ ~~,:,..iN ...,OINID ~~~:;; N I I r--ilnin IO -~~ ._ 1--IOU") NZ,:-..N ID LL.I ............ -::.:::..._,....., ri ~" Q~ ~. -~ h ~,,. ~1 f;,tl •. ,,,,. .::,lli~·-. ~ ~ :i: ! " ! 1--.... ' t co•~~:- • • PIPE W.Y BE Nt/ OF Tl£ NJ<:JrlE Pf!Olv'IOED: ~~"~~-~ I)[ /2~· WDE BERM /\S NEEDED PffOPOSEil GR>DE M "TO Wil,lt,ITM,i 12· MliL OEPTH ~<·, CfTY OF RENTON ,. 2 PIPE JOINTS MUST BE Of THE SN.IE 1,1,\.TE~. AND ~ A PIPE l,l,\.T£RW. IS SPE~Y SHOWN ON THE Pl.AN, ™T W.TERW.. MUST BE USEO. TEMPORARY 'V DITCH NOT 10 SCAJ...E 12" MIN """ NOT TO SCALE FE' I ppep RIR NT'IP{N- ey; 0LffM1""r Daw: v' "- " ... " - DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS NO'TE8 AN> DETALB FOR CI..EAFNl. NT1AL ClllADNl AN) TE8C I I ·~,, :: I::'.. I '."c.'.'.: I ~!LUFF I EXP~-GR,IDING/.-ooED so UNES I OD I DD I 10/l/O!i Sil[ PIN< """"' 00 HPC 9/22./~ """" PER Cl1'I' OF RENTON OOIIIIIOO 00 "'' 7/18/0!i PER Cl1Y Of R£NTON REVIEW "' HPO 7/7/05 ~-I -~ -~re """-= --"'-- .-"'--- ~re -100/05 """"'" ~""''.a.,c.!"""'.>. 11'1..E NO LW. ">--. -- IFIB..D EIOO!\,___ ~- ll!ES" C5 Of' 7 ~ ] i s " j ~ ~ ~ I ! a a C "' ' ' ' ), ~ § ~ c j g "' 0 -, uj ~ "' 1 • Li I~ ~ '~ 180 I i If: ::, w al z !1180 I :H is..z ~ l" oE Oo ... ~~ >i z ~i.i t:ra:i {" u~ g,6 ~i " ,, ~. g,o ]f ~o ·~ r • • = 1 ~ ~ a ~ i~ I i-,1 il~d 'i:' ~ _C ·l Bl 8! 8 ' ~ -~--~- . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g I 140 120 01 ~1 PRCf'OSED GRADE: • PIP[ t "'*" 1'IP£ I ;: """' "' A. 19-+0e.~ Rl,l.,,100.50 l(-tl5.50 (1B" SD) / ./~ " .._.Y / -• .... . .., ,• ~-,-,, ~1 §I """ ; ~)'YPE:I ., ""' """"' lJ> -stA. 20+!-7.89 RIM•lJ0.19 E•12t,.lil {18" SD) i!I """ • ~- -,~:~~-'\_ 143 T1'PE 1-"8" W/ SOl,JO I.DCl(JIM<; UO st ... .33-1-72.71 Fltll•148.44 t•138.!18 (12" ~) 1i1_..!l 1-:r ~ ~ ""'°"'" ;(..._~~~NGUD Rlll•141.IIO IE•H2.~ (12" stl) STORMLINE 'G' 1~=5ll" 1"=11)" I I 11 ~I S: ~ ~I -1 -, I I I ~I ~ ~ ~ -, I """ '""' SWl'EN01B PPE SHW. BE BUTT FUSED AS REQUIRED BY tu.NUF.-cnJ!IER 1ISO """'"' """" . -. \/ l!O 140 CBflJ .lYPE U-4fJ" S£E ST"Of!ML.IIE 'rJ c,nHS SHEET 180 120 STOAMLINE 'A' 1"=50' 1· .. i:o· "I "' ;':: - I 180 ,,._ 111 ...... SHOO """ """ 1-1-00 STORMLINE PROFILE A PORTION OF THE S 1/2 OF SECTION 13. TOWNSHIP 23 N. RANGE 4 E. WM .. --~--- 135 TYPE I W/ SOL.I) ~ lD stA. :2.2+47.41 ~-179.:!7 IE-175.0!5 (1.2• SD) RENTON. WASHINGTON --~---.., '-..."--."-., '~~---~ El(lS'IWC CROUMO 0 ','°"'\./ 10P OF 2:1 SLOPE ' _!7_j[ 1-t. STORMLINE 'G' ~ ii -- , ... oo 1':,,,50· 1"-10' ell ;1 """' "'"" 11-'8" ~ W/ ... """" LO StA. 3-+80.50 RIM•20U3 1[•204.37 {12" SDj EX. lf-206.$% (12_ SO) PROPOSED G1WlE'. D PIPE { ---- ~I '6+oo EXISTING GAOllND D Pft \ \ a,11 /) Ls,:, 12~ SD roe /f 200 -' csf35 "!YI'£ ! SEE STORMUNE 'r;t ON THIS SHEEI" 180 STORMLINE 'B' 1 ",oe5Q' ,·~10' 180 :j "I " ;· 27•00 1ISO cl;Jf37 TYPE 11-'lt' :(,.,~,~LD RIM•Uil.155 IE•J46.&ti {12" SD) ~: ~ ,..,., C8f511 lYPE I W/ SOI.JD l..flCKM LKl $TA. &+JO.ill 11111•151!.oll ~i:;.;~~r {~ CONC) , ... i J ~ ~ 1 180 ""''"""""" 0 aPE l\/r/ PftOPOSED GRAD£ D PIPE { .....,_ _ / EX. 1!1" CONC 140 : ' 5+00 CS,;57 1YPE A 48" SEE STO!!MUNE 'G' ON lttlS SHEET STOAMLINE 'C' !"-50' '"=10' ~1 ' iii ~1 -, -i 0+00 140 120 ~ I I ~+00 -- C8f~TYPE I ;(,..~ .. ~uo Rll,l .. \52 . .S 1£-1-48.45 (12" SD) ~ j J ~ ~ ~ 1 ! """' 11-.. -I~ W/ SOUi) l.OCKINC .Ul ~ ST"-1'1·18.Jt Rll•11M.45 1£•191 .45 (12" SOl g EX. IE•182.5± (12 SD) PROPOSED OIWl£ O PIPE t 180 180 ..-, / ' / ' ' ' • I I i ! I • I 180" I 180!~ ___ Jm /--!~ '-/~ ! ~ 1401 j -1 l'T'PEI :t'.4. -SWJ n.~KINI, UD 11111•145.86 IE:•141.88 (12" SO) ~ ~ f . ..., 120, ! I ;I ~r -, I """ ~ ~ i ~ ~ I ~1, ~~<~ !I;! ;i! 3: <O ~>~~ ~iffi~ ~~ ::I! EX1SrNG GROUND D PFE t \ / :l EX. 12" SD (§ 180 cafJi T'1PE I S£E STORML.NE 'G' ~ lttlS. SltEU STORMUNE i-"=5Q'. T'i ,.,0,1 "I 8 '+00 1ISO 'D' ~I u. ~ 5l ~ ~ ~ ~ fi ~ ci~:;; z<:n I I ~ i :n ~ ~...:~G' NZNN ll;;ILLI ...... ~:'!<,'...__,..._.. fl ~,, ~~ d ~i ~~ ~. .::,~-~ oi~.i,-,., .... 'II(' ~ :i: 0 e .... ~ g."'e \; co¥-i.-v" CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WOF>IKS ~ -1 ~: -Ii ~I . -' ~ I "" ~TfPFQR:~ I I I I I I --~= I I I I I I I-.. -I"~ ....JNlM -.,. ...,_ ~---~~-x~5!l·_ IF\.ENQ.Lll,l,03,--_ IPB..D !IOOI;.____ PUE "~ -... ""'' -~ ,_ 1-~ ~_7_ -------- " ~ j ' ' ! ~ ' J • ~ s· ? 1 s " r 'E ~ f ' ' J ~ ~ ~ " ' " I g ~ uj al f' ------ :::l::ll18 .1.3SNt18 000l-9i:i: (Si:t>) SS086 '</M 'NOU'-a:1 A 't MHOIH J..311'</ A 3ld\fn SISI. 'ONI ·co lN3nd013A3Cl Ol'</1 ~n j• ;, i '.°) J w S'KL :.. \ z 8 ..J IH.'9L t f ~ ---" g . ~,, ::l! 0 I ~ "i':' • I '~,,;. a: -g ~ -.--- -g 00 mt ~ 3·~·~ ~- I I a.t-~Ji )> Cl) ,11,11 ~j~d j j ~B i ~ !t l~! ii • i-;, !,LI ?---~ w ,w z L'HH .. a )~' ..J • g ::l! • F~ 0 a: ~ I -I "· -.-"-,(i g --! :, "ii ~~ 1'111 ;1~~i )> .w.• I j ~d:loj i ~B Cl) -. j iii ~! ::1::1n10 l3SNns -----------------00 31l::IOl:ld 3Nf"lnl:IOJ.S I ' ' -,. • i ; ---------f---- ------------ -------------------------f----- -i -------------------- 9 COPIES Report Distribution ES-2334.01 Pointe Heron LLC 5050 1st Ave. 5., Suite 102 Seattle, Washington 98134-2400 Attention: Mr. Jim Blais Earth Solutions~, LLC I I ' I I I AT EARTH SOLUTIONS NW I . OUR MISSION Is To ~ HONOR OUR COMMITMENTS I ~ ' PROVIDE INNOVATIVE I SOLUTIONS THAT CREATE VALUE ~ RECOGNIZE THAT OUR I POWERAND EFFECTIVENESS LIES WITH OUR PEOPLE I .~ TREAT ALL FAIRLY AND HONESTLY ·~ DEDICATE OURSELVES TO I BRINGING OUT THE BEST IN EVERYONE I ~ MAINTAIN AN ATMOSPHERE OF PROFESSIONAL, FRIENDLY I CUSTOMER RELATIONS ~ CONTINUE TO SEEK. I OPPORTUNITIES FOR LEARNING AND GROWTH ~ MAINTAIN A CLEAN, I WELL ORGANIZED WORK ENVIRONMENT I ~ IMPLEMENT CONSISTENT, RELIABLE ACCOUNTING I PROCEDURES ~&J BE A RESOURCE To THE COMMUNITY I I Raedel{e Wetland & Aquatic Sciences Wildlife Ecology Landscape Architecture TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM August 13, 2014 RECEIVED JAN 2 3 2015 CITY Of RENTON ~---------------------------1~4AN.,vhll/\JG DIVISION To: From: RE: Mr. Jim Blais Pointe Heron LLC Kenneth J. Raedeke, Ph.D. President / Wildlife Biologist Raedeke Associates, Inc. Richard W. Lundquist, M.S. Vice President/ Wildlife Biologist Raedeke Associates, Inc. QIP/Sunset Bluff(MLDC) Properties Now Owned by Pointe Heron LLC - 2014 Great Blue Heron & Wildlife Habitat Update (RAI Project No. 2007-002-007) This report documents the results of our field investigation of both ( 1) the Sunset Bluff (MLDC) property and (2) the QIP property (i.e., the three easternmost parcels of the Black River Quarry) described below (collectively, the "study area"), properties that we understand are now owned by Pointe Heron LLC. The purpose of this investigation is to evaluate current wildlife use and habitat conditions within the study area, as well as evaluate the historical mapped sites of the great blue heron (Ardea herodias) colony and bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) nests in the vicinity, as an update to a previous Great Blue Heron Assessment report (February 2, 2009) and as an update to a previous Wildlife Reconnaissance report (February 4, 2009) performed by Raedeke Associates, Inc. concerning the MLDC, QIP, and Virtu properties. Copies of those earlier reports, which were submitted to the City of Renton as part of a 2009 application to the City of Renton for a rezone of (a) the MLDC Property (Sunset Bluff site), (b) the QIP Property, and (c) the Virtu Property to the City's Light Industrial (IL) zone (Raedeke Associates, Inc. 2009a, 2009c), are also attached as Appendices A and B to this technical memorandum. References in this technical memorandum to the MLDC Property, the QIP Property, and the Virtu Property are to the same properties addressed by those names in those two earlier reports. We understand that a portion of the MLDC Property is the subject of a planned application to the City of Renton for a Grade & Fill Permit. For consistency with other documents and drawings prepared in relation to that permit application, in this report, (i) that portion of the MLDC Property is sometimes referred to 9510 Stone Avenue N. Seattle, WA 98103 206-525-8122 www.raedeke.com as the "project site," and (ii) the MLDC Property is sometimes referred to as the "Pointe Heron LLC parcel." The project site encompasses 14.12 acres of the MLDC Property. 2 This Technical Memorandum is intended for submittal to the City of Renton as part of an application by Pointe Heron LLC for a Grade & Fill Permit seeking authorization from the City to (I) fill and grade the existing storm water detention pond within the MLDC Property (a pond that had been constructed along the westerly and central portion of the MLDC Property near that property's south boundary in anticipation of the previously planned Sunset Bluff residential subdivision development) and (2) fill, excavate, and grade certain portions of the Pointe Heron LLC parcel (MLDC Property) in the general vicinity of the existing stormwater detention pond as depicted on the proposal's grading plans. See the proposed Grading, Interim Drainage, E.S.C., and Rehabilitation Plans (Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. 2014), Sheet El of which is attached as Appendix C to this technical memorandum. Raedeke Associates, Inc. staff visited the study area on April 16, 18, and 19, 2013, and on April 16, 2014. During these field investigations, we documented wildlife presence, sign, and habitat, and we also described plant communities. We recorded information regarding reproduction, habitat use, and activities of all wildlife species observed. In addition, we noted special habitat features such as large and/or hollow trees, snags [ standing dead or partly dead trees at least four inches in diameter at breast height ( dbh) and at least six feet tall], and large downed logs. STUDY AREA LOCATION The study area, as evaluated in previous studies (Raedeke Associates, Inc. 2009a, 2009b, 2009c) includes the QIP Property (which is the easterly part of the Black River Quarry site), the MLDC Property, and the Virtu Property located in Section 13, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W.M. These properties all lie north of the BNSF railroad right-of~ way and tracks in the City of Renton. In addition, the study area includes Black River Riparian Forest (BRRF), located south of the BNSF railroad right-of-way. QIP Property The approximately 9-acre QIP Property, which is comprised of the easternmost three parcels of the Black River Quarry, (I) is bounded on the south by the South 140th Street unimproved right-of-way on the north by the South 137th Street unimproved right-of- way and (2) lies between 74th Avenue South (if extended) and 72nd Avenue south (if extended). While this report encompasses all three parcels comprising the QIP Property (and the MLDC Property), we understand that only the approximately 14.12-acre area of the MLDC Property defined and labeled as "project site (work area limits)" as depicted on Barghausen (2014) grading plans (Sheet EI of which is attached as Appendix C to this report) is actually the site of the filling, excavation, and grading work contemplated by the currently plauned Pointe Heron Grade & Fill Permit application. QJP!Virtu!Sunse/ Bh(ff (MLDC) Properties Raedeke Associates, Inc. 2014 Great Blue Heron & Wildlife Habitat Update A11g11s 13, 2014 3 MLDC Property The approximately 26-acre MLDC Property (the property on which the preliminary plat of the Sunset Bluff residential subdivision was approved during 2005) is located in the City of Renton on the south side of SW Sunset Boulevard (also known as SR 900) at approximately 1101 SW Sunset Blvd., north of the Black River Riparian Forest and north of the BNSF railroad tracks and I 00-foot right-of-way that lie between the MLDC Property and the Black River Riparian Forest. The 14.12-acre filling, excavation, and grading project site, which is outlined in the Barghausen (2014) grading plans (Sheet E 1 of which is attached as Appendix C to this report), lies entirely within a portion of the MLDC Property. Virtu Property The approximately 0.9-acre Virtu Property is a vacant triangular area (southeast comer portion) of the existing Sunset View Apartments complex site located at 2101 SW Sunset Boulevard. While this report references the Virtu Property, we understand that the Virtu Property is not part of the site of the filling, excavation, and grading work contemplated by the currently planned Pointe Heron Grade & Fill Permit application. PROJECT DESCRIPTION We understand that the currently proposed filling, excavation, and grading, which is depicted on the Barghausen (2014) Grading Plans, is primarily intended to: (I) Fill (in two phases as shown on the Barghausen 2014 Grading Plans) the existing storm water pond area and, along with doing so, create both (a) a new I.SH: 1 V engineered fill slope along a portion of the property's south edge (to a top of slope elevation of approximately 128 feet) between (i) the existing l.SH:IV structural fill slope to the west of the existing stormwater pond and (ii) the existing 1.5H: IV structural fill slope to the east of the existing stormwater pond and (b) new I.SH: 1 V upward, engineered-fill-slope extensions of both (i) the existing south edge l.5H:l V engineered fill slope lying to the west of the existing storm water pond and (ii) the existing south edge I .SH: IV engineered fill slope lying to the east of the existing storm water pond, in order to achieve a continuous top of slope elevation of approximately 128 feet among all portions of the south edge slope; QIP!Virtu!Sunset Blt1tffMLDC) Properties Raedeke Associates, Inc. 2014 Great Blue Heron & Wildlife Habitat Update Augus 13, 2014 (2) Excavate and construct a new, potentially permanent stormwater detention and water quality pond (as depicted on the Barghausen 2014 Grading Plans) along and just south ofa portion of the toe of the existing slope on the portion of the Pointe Heron LLC parcel that abuts SW Sunset Boulevard's south edge, with this pond designed to have an approximate bottom elevation of 114.5 feet; and (3) Fill areas north of the proposed new and upward-extended south- edge fill slopes as depicted on the Barghausen (2014) Grading Plans in order to support anticipated future development of the project site, with the northerly edge of those fill areas designed to intersect existing grade at elevations generally around 125 to 126.5 feet. 4 In addition, as shown on the Barghausen (2014) Grading Plans as part of the proposed Phase I filling, excavation, and grading, we understand that an interim stormwater detention and water quality pond ( a pond with an approximate bottom elevation of 100 feet) is planned to be completed by October I of the first season of the proposed filling and grading work as part of winter stabilization of the grade and fill project work area. After the proposed potentially permanent stormwater detention and water quality pond (a pond depicted on the Phase 2 portion of the Barghausen 2014 Grading Plans) has been constructed and is operational, the interim pond is to be filled with compacted structural fill. We understand that fill material for the filling and grading of the project site would come from and/or through the Black River Quarry property to the west of the project site. REVIEW OF BACKGROUND INFORMATION WDFW PHS Database The current Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW 2014) online Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) database map depicts an area just south of the project site as a "biodiversity and corridor" area. Formerly known as "urban natural open space" (UNOS), the area shown on the map is now confined to the Black River Riparian Forest south of the railroad right-of-way and tracks. In our previous review of the WDFW (2009) PHS database, we found that the UNOS designation had been mapped extending north of the railroad right-of-way and tracks onto the MLDC Property, despite the fact that most of the MLDC Property had already been cleared and graded as part of the Sunset Bluff project prior to our 2008 and 2009 studies. The current PHS database map depicts a habitat polygon that generally corresponds to the area known as the Black River Riparian Forest (BRRF) and encompasses the historical sites of a bald eagle nest and great blue heron rookery, as well as the Black River, which contains salmonid fish. On the current map, the eagle nest and heron rookery sites are QIP!Virtu!Sunset Bluff (MLDC) Properties Raedeke Associales, Inc. 20/4 Great Blue Heron & Wildlife Habitat Update Augus /3, 2014 shown in the same approximate locations as they were shown on the previous WDFW (2009) PHS map. 5 The bald eagle nest tree shown within the BRRF is one of two alternate nest trees of the Black River territory (WDFW No. 1610) and is approximately 1,100 feet south of the project site. The other bald eagle nest tree in this territory is located approximately 2.600 feet west of the current grade and fill project site near the northwest corner of the Black River Quarry. The WDFW (2014) PHS database contains records of nesting at one or the other of the two nest trees between 2005 and 2008, with young produced at the nest tree within the BRRF (1610-1) in 2007 and 2008 and young produced in the other (1610-2) in 2005 and 2006. In addition, the northwesterly nest tree (1610-2) was reported by neighbors to be active since 2000, and the nest in the BRRF is reported to have fallen out of the tree in 2010 (Chris Anderson, WDFW, personal communication, 2014; Gretchen Blatz, WDFW, personal communication, 2014). Great Blue Heron Colony History Great blue herons established a colony in the Black River Riparian Forest (BRRF) in 1985. We have monitored the colony since 1990 (see Table 2 in Raedeke Associates, Inc. 2009a). The colony increased from approximately eight nesting pairs in the mid- l 980s to a maximum of approximately 140 in 2006 ( one year after grading of the Sunset Bluff residential subdivision project). Since then the colony has declined progressively, most likely due to chronic predation by a pair of nesting bald eagles that established a nest within the trees formerly occupied by the nesting herons. WDFW no longer conducts annual monitoring of heron colonies and bald eagle nests (Chris Anderson, WDFW, personal communication 2013, 2014), and information that WDFW does provide is second-hand. The last known successful nesting period was in 2009, when an unknown number of fledglings were produced by 50 nesting pairs. Eagle predation greatly reduced the number of nesting pairs and fledglings (Herons Forever web site accessed August 31, 2009). A limited number of occupied heron nests were reported in the former nesting colony area in 20 IO and 2011, but nesting success was not well documented and was likely very limited at best. WDFW (Chris Anderson, personal communication, 2013, 2014) confirmed that there are no reports of herons nesting in the former BRRF colony since 2011. According to WDFW, the herons that fom1erly nested in the BRRF could have established colonies elsewhere in the valley, but again WDFW does not conduct systematic arumal monitoring of heron nesting colonies and does not know the actual fate of those herons (Chris Anderson, personal communication, 2013, 2014). QIP/Virtu!Sunset Bluff (MLDC) Properties Raedeke Associates, Inc. 2014 Great Blue Heron & Wildlife Habitat Update Augus 13, 2014 6 EXISTING CONDITIONS Vegetation and Habitat Description The proposed fill aod grade project site remains essentially unchaoged since our previous habitat assessment (Raedeke Associates, Inc. 2009c ). Nearly all of the project site is unvegetated due to past clearing aod grading associated with the previously approved Sunset Bluff Residential Subdivision. Areas of forested vegetation remain in (1) a narrow strip in the north part of the BNSF railroad right-of-way (just north of the railroad tracks) along the south edge of the MLDC Property aod (2) the southeastern part of the MLDC Property. The BNSF Railroad right-of-way forms the southern border of much of the project site. The Black River Quarry site lies to the west of the project site and remains mostly unvegetated. The Black River Ripariao Forest lies south of the railroad right-of-way aod tracks. The forest in the eastern portion of the Pointe Heron LLC parcel (MLDC Property) consists of second-growth deciduous to mixed forest consisting ofbigleafmaple, black cottonwood, Douglas fir, with common snowberry, red elderberry, hazelnut, aod sword fem, aod dense patches ofHimalayao blackberry. Two wetlaods have been identified within the study area, one in the southeastern portion of the MLDC Property and another in the southwestern portion of the MLDC Property. An intermittent, non-fish-bearing stream flows from north to south across the western edge of the on-site deciduous forest in the eastern part of the MLDC Property. The two wetlands and the stream are discussed in greater detail in the QIP/Virtu/Sunset Bluff (MLDC) Properties Wetlaod & Stream Delineation Update 2014 report (Raedeke Associates, Inc. 2014), a report that serves to update our previous wetlaod investigation (Raedeke Associates, Inc. 2009b ). The forested portions of the MLDC Property contain some special habitat features, such as snags and downed logs, as documented in our previous field investigations (Raedeke Associates, Inc. 2009c). We observed snags within the forest strip along the northern boundary of the MLDC Property ( outside the limit of the project site) in the same locations as we observed previously. Current Status of the Heron Colony and Eagle Nest Based on our observations at the BRRF during our 2013 aod 2014 visits to the study area, it appears that the herons have abaodoned the former colony site, with (1) nearly all of the historic heron nests no longer present, (2) no herons present, aod (3) no evidence of heron nesting activity. The herons do not appear to have nested successfully for at least three years, and no nesting activity appears to have taken place since 2011. Thus, based on our observations and infom1ation available, the BRRF heron colony is no longer present. Q!P/Virt11!S11nset Bluff (MLDC) Properties Raedeke Associates, Inc. 2014 Great Blue Heron & Wildlife Habitat Update Augus I 3, 2014 Also, we saw no evidence of activity at the bald eagle nest tree within the BRRF during our field investigations in 2013 and 2014. No eagles were observed on or over the study area or vicinity in 2013. During our April 2014 field investigation, we observed a sub- adult eagle soaring high over the project site and SR 900 to the north, but observed no adult eagles or evidence of nesting activity anywhere within the study area or vicinity. Other Wildlife Observations 7 During our 2013 and 2014 field investigations, we observed a variety of waterfowl, including cinnamon teal, mallard, American widgeon, gadwalls, and Canada geese within the existing stom1water pond that was built as part of the Sunset Bluff project. We also observed mallards, hooded mergansers, and wood ducks within Wetland B, the wetland that straddles the south boundary of the far eastern part of the MLDC Property and lies primarily on the property to the southeast of the MLDC Property's east end. In addition, we observed a red-tailed hawk perched in a large cottonwood tree on the Virtu Property, but found no hawk nests anywhere on the study area. CURRENT HERON PROTECTION RECOMMENDATIONS The WDFW (Azerrad 2012) revised its Priority Habitat and Species (PHS) recommendations for great blue heron protection in 2012. WDFW's new recommendations categorize colonies (which are defined in the recommendations as Heron Management Areas -HMAs) as "rural," "suburban/rural," and "urban." These new recommendations provide separate buffer and protection guidelines for each such category. Although the BRRF heron colony is no longer present, if one assumed for the sake of argument that it still was present, the colony would fall into the "urban" category due to (I) the amount of development around the colony site, (2) the herons' historic habituation to hwnan activity within a short distance to the colony site ( e.g., the use of the public trail with colony viewing sites located within 200 feet of the colony site), (3) past blasting and mining activities in the adjacent rock quarry, and (4) the overall developed nature of the surrounding habitat within a commercial/industrial area of the City of Renton. The "urban" category would be consistent with the WDFW (2009) PHS database map's depiction of the Pointe Heron LLC parcel (MLDC Property) and the BRRF to the south as "urban natural open space." For active "urban" HMAs, the PHS recommendations are for a 60-meter (197-foot) year- round vegetated buffer and a seasonal (nesting/breeding) no-activity buffer of 200 meters (656 feet). Also assuming for the sake of argument that the BRRF heron colony was still present, even if the colony was to be categorized as an active "suburban/rural" colony (a category that does not appear to apply), the new PHS recommendations for a vegetated buffer would be 200 meters (656 feet). This larger area would still be contained entirely within QIP/Virtu!Sunset Blziff (MLDC) Properties Raedeke Associates, Inc. 2014 Great Blue Heron & Wildlife Habitat Update Augus /3, 20/4 8 the BRRF land controlled by the City of Renton and would not extend into any portion of the Pointe Heron LLC parcel (MLDC Property). EVALUATION OF IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT Impacts to the Great Blue Heron Colony and BRRF Habitat As noted above, the BRRF colony is not known to have produced fledglings since 2009, appears to have been abandoned, and is no longer present. Accordingly, there are no great blue herons nesting in the BRRF that could be impacted by the proposed grade and fill project. In addition, because the work area limits for the proposed grade and fill project are located entirely outside of the BRRF, we expect no impact to the forested habitat contained in the BRRF. Even if herons were present, the width of the existing forest habitat between the north side of the abandoned colony site and the proposed grading and filling project substantially exceeds the above-noted PHS-recommended Heron Management Areas, both for a vegetated year-round buffer (60 meters) and a seasonal (200-meter) no activity zone. Based on previous habitat mapping, a 950-foot (nearly 300-meter) vegetated buffer exists around the north side of the abandoned colony site, as shown on the aerial photo Figure I from our February 2, 2009 Great Blue Heron Assessment report (Raedeke Associates, Inc. 2009a, which is attached as Appendix A to this document). Even if herons still occupied the former BRRF colony site, the 200-meter no-activity zone for the nesting/breeding season would lie entirely within the BRRF ( south of the existing BNSF railroad lines) and would not extend to the south edge of the proposed project site. Further, the WDFW PHS guidelines recognize that new activities in proximity to an HMA are a concern mainly when they exceed the type and intensity of historic activities in the area (Azerrad 2012). We note that the BRRF heron colony did not exhibit negative impacts associated with the clearing and grading of the Sunset Bluff project site in 2005. In fact, after the completion of that clearing and grading, the colony reached its maximum number of 140 nesting pairs in 2006. Hence, we conclude that the herons habituated to those changes in habitat conditions outside of the HMA. The colony declined in subsequent years when the bald eagles constructed a nest in the colony and predated on the nesting herons, rather than in response to changes in habitat outside of the HMA. It should also be noted that the current PHS guidelines have abandoned both (I) the previous PHS reconunendation for a 1,000-meter (3,300-foot) no activity zone around the colony during the nesting season and (2) the previous PHS recommendation that no aircraft fly over the no-activity zone during the nesting season period. In regard to the former Black River heron colony, the old PHS reconunendation of a 1,000-meter (3,300- foot) no-activity zone would have encompassed major portions of the commercial/industrial area of Renton, major transportation arterials (including 1-405), QIP/Virtu!Sunset Bluff(MLDC) Properties Raedeke Associates, Inc. 2014 Great Blue Heron & Wildlife Habitat Update Augus 13, 2014 two active railroad lines, the long-existing heavy industrial operations on the quarry site, the Metro treatment plant, and residential areas. Impacts to Bald Eagles 9 As noted above, a bald eagle nest was previously located within the BRRF approximately I, I 00 feet south of the project site, and another nest tree (thought to be an alternative nest site within the same eagle territory) was located near the northwest corner of the quarry site, approximately 2,600 feet west of the project site. The bald eagle nest within the BRRF is reported to have fallen from the nest tree in 2010 (Chris Anderson, WDFW, personal communication 2013, 2014) and has not been rebuilt. State law provides protections for wildlife species listed as endangered (WAC 232-12- 014), as well as threatened, sensitive, or "other protected" species (WAC 232-232-011). Recently, bald eagles have been down-listed to "sensitive" at the State and delisted at the federal level. However, in Washington, bald eagles are still protected by the Bald Eagle Protection Act of 1984 (RCW 77.12.655) and the Bald Eagle Protection Rules (WAC 232-12-292). The Bald Eagle Protection rules have been recently amended such that state bald eagle management plans are no longer required unless bald eagles are listed as Threatened or Endangered in Washington State. WDFW is no longer asking local governments to require a state bald eagle management plan prior to issuing local permits. Although there is no longer a state bald eagle management plan requirement, landowners must still comply with the federal Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668- 668c) to avoid impacting eagles. Generally, consultation with the local U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) office may be necessary to determine if a pennit is required when proposing land use activities within 660 feet of an eagle nest. Here, no eagle nests appear to exist within 660 feet of the proposed project site or anywhere within the study area. The USFWS (2007) National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines, which were established to minimize disturbance to eagle nests from activities such as construction or development, consider several factors, including proximity to the nest, the scope and nature of construction, the presence of screening vegetation (i.e., whether the activity is visible from the nest), and whether activities occur during the breeding season (generally between January and August). Depending on the type ofland use activity proposed, the USFWS may recommend differing strategies based on whether the proposed activity will occur within 330 or 660 feet of a nest. The USFWS (2007) guidelines recognize, however, that eagles are unlikely to be disturbed by routine use of roads, homes, and other facilities where these uses predate the establishment of a nest site and successful nesting. Such is the case for both of the eagle nest trees in the vicinity, including the nest tree approximately I, I 00 feet to the south within the BRRF (WDFW No. 1610-1 ), which is the nearest nest tree to the project site. QIP!Virt11/S1111set Bil1ff (MLDC) Properties Raedeke Associates, inc. 2014 Great Blue Heron & Wildlife Habitat Update Augus 13, 2014 10 as well as the nest tree approximately 2,600 feet west of the project site near the quarry (WDFW No. 1610-2); see Figure 1 of Raedeke Associates, Inc. 2009a, attached as Appendix A to this document. Eagles have successfully occupied the nest tree within the BRRF during previous years of clearing and grading, and have also successfully occupied the nest tree near the active quarry site. Given this context, the proposed grading activity is not likely to disturb either of the two known eagle nest sites, because they are well outside the setback zones in the USFWS (2007) guidelines. This would be the case even if the closest eagle nest tree, the one within the BRRF, was currently occupied, which it does not appear to be. Consequently, we anticipate no impacts to bald eagle habitat from the proposed grading activity within the Pointe Heron LLC parcel (MLDC Property). Impacts to Other Wildlife Habitat The currently proposed grading would occur almost entirely within the portions of the Pointe Heron LLC parcel (MLDC Property) that were previously cleared and graded. Those portions support little vegetation. A small patch of Himalayan blackberry with a few young alder and willow saplings (all of which are less than 2 inches dbh) located west-southwest of the existing stormwater pond would be removed as part of the proposed grading. No areas of well-developed forest on the Pointe Heron LLC parcel (MLDC Property), and no trees of2 inches or more dbh, would be impacted by the proposed grading. Removal of the existing storm water pond as part of the proposed grading and filling would cause temporal loss of a small area of habitat used by waterfowl for resting and feeding when water is present. However, we expect this to be replaced over time with construction of the proposed stormwater pond in the northern portion of the project site. Thus, we anticipate little or no impact to existing wildlife habitat or special habitat features on the project site. Summary of Impacts on Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat As noted above, the proposed fill, excavation, and grading project would be located entirely within a portion of the Pointe Heron LLC parcel (MLDC Property) that is highly disturbed and consists largely of bare ground, and is outside the forested habitat of the BRRF. Consequently, we anticipate no adverse impacts to the forested habitat of the BRRF. In addition, the project would have no adverse impacts on the former heron colony within the BRRF or either of the known eagle nest sites in the vicinity ( one of which was in the BRRF), as these sites have not been occupied for several years and no longer appear to be active. Even if the heron colony and nearest eagle nest sites were active, the proposed grade and fill project site lies well outside of standard setbacks recommended by WDFW to protect heron colonies and the USFWS to protect eagle nest sites. The proposed grading would eliminate a small area of shrubs and sapling trees and would remove an existing stormwater pond, which would result in only minimal impacts to existing wildlife habitat on site. In summary, the proposed fill, excavation, and grading project would not result in probable significant adverse impacts to wildlife or wildlife habitat. QIP/Virt11/S11nset Bhiff (MLDC) Properties Raedeke Associates, inc. 2014 Great Blue Heron & Wildlife Habitat Update Augus 13, 2014 LIMITATIONS We have prepared this report for the exclusive use of Pointe Heron LLC and its consultants. No other person or agency may rely on the information, analysis, or conclusions contained herein without permission from Pointe Heron LLC. 11 We warrant that the work performed conforms to standards generally accepted in our field, and has been prepared substantially in accordance with then-current technical guidelines and criteria. The conclusions of this report represent the results of our analysis of the information provided by grade and fill permit proponent Pointe Heron LLC and its consultants, together with information gathered in the course of this study. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. Thank you for the opportunity to prepare this information. If you have any questions, comments, or need additional information, we are available at 206-525-8122 or via email at kraedeke!ihaedeke.com or rwlundquist!i~raedekc.com. QIP/Virt11/S11nset Bluff (MLDC) Properties Raedeke Associates, Inc. 2014 Great Blue Heron & Wildlife Habitat Update Augus 13, 2014 LITERATURE CITED Azerrad, J. M. 2012. Management recommendations for Washington's priority species: Great Blue Heron. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. March 2012. Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. 2014. Grading, Interim Drainage, E.S.C., and Rehabilitation Plans, Pointe Heron/s. August 2014 plan set for Pointe Heron LLC, Seattle, Washington. 12 Raedeke Associates, Inc. 2009a. Great blue heron assessment for the MLDC, QIP, and Virtu properties, Renton, Washington. February 2, 2009 report prepared for Merlino Land Development Company and Quarry Industrial Park, LLC, Seattle, Washington. Raedeke Associates, Inc. 2009b. Wetland Reconnaissance for the QIP and Virtu Properties, Renton, Washington. February 4, 2009 report prepared for Merlino Land Development Company and Quarry Industrial Park, LLC, Seattle, Washington. Raedeke Associates, Inc. 2009c. Wildlife Reconnaissance for the MLDC, QIP, and Virtu Properties, City of Renton, Washington. February 4, 2009 report prepared for Merlino Land Development Company and Quarry Industrial Park, LLC, Seattle, Washington. Raedeke Associates, Inc. 2014. QIPNirtu/Sunset Bluff (MLDC) Properties -wetland and stream delineation update 2014. August 13, 2014 report to Pointe Heron, LLC, Seattle, Washington. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. National bald eagle management guidelines. May 2007. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2008. Priority habitats and species map for Township 23 North, Range 4 East, Section 13. March 14, 2008. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2009. Priority habitats and species map for Township 23 North, Range 4 East, Section 13. January 12, 2009. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2014. PHS on the web. Available at: http://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/phs/. Last accessed April 17, 2014. Q!P/Virtu/Sunset Bluff (MLDC) Properties Raedeke Associates, Inc. 2014 Great Blue Heron & Wildlife Habitat Update Augus 13, 2014 Appendix A: Great Blue Heron Assessment (Raedeke Associates, Inc. 2009a) GREAT BLUE HERON ASSESSMENT MLDC, QIP and Virtu Properties Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Amendments and Rezones Renton, Washington February 2, 2009 RAEDEKE ASSOCIATES, INC. Report To: Title: Project Number: Prepared By: Date: Merlino land Development Co., Inc. and Quarry Industrial Park, LLC Attn: Mr. Don Merlino 9125 -101h Avenue South Seattle, Washington 98108 Great Blue Heron Assessment MLDC, QIP and Virtu Properties--Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Amendments and Rezones Renton, Washington 2007-002-003 Kenneth J. Raedeke, Ph.D. RAEDEKE AS SOCIA TES, INC. 5711 Northeast 63rd Street Seattle, Washington 98115 (206) 525-8122 February 2, 2009 11 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 1 2.0 STATUS OF THE GREAT BLUE HERON ................................................................ 2 2.1 Regulatory Status of Great Blue Herons ............................................................... 2 2.2 Historical Status of the Great Blue Heron Population ........................................... 2 2.3 Heron Population Status in King County ............................................................. .3 2.4 Heron Response to Disturbance ............................................................................. 5 2.5 Analysis of Status of Regional Heron Colonies .................................................... 8 2.6 Studies of Nest Colony Abandonment ................................................................ 11 3.0 HISTORY AND STATUS OF THE BLACK RIVER COLONY ............................. 14 3.1 Number ofheron nests ......................................................................................... 14 3.2 History of Colony Disturbance ............................................................................ 15 3 .3 Existing Buffers on the Heron Colony ................................................................ 17 4.0 ASSESSMENT OF REZONE IMPACTS ON THE BLACK RIVER HERONS ...... 18 4.1 Description of Existing Conditions ..................................................................... 18 4.2 Description of Proposal ....................................................................................... 18 4.3 Disturbance Impacts of Proposed Rezone ........................................................... 19 4.4 Adequacy of the Buffers on the Heron Colony ................................................... 20 4.5 Construction Limitation Zone .............................................................................. 21 5.0. HABITAT APPROACH TO WILDLIFE PROTECTION ....................................... .23 6.0 LITERATURE REVIEWED ...................................................................................... 25 FIGURES AND TABLES ................................................................................................ .33 111 I 1.0 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this report is to provide an assessment of the probable impacts on the status of the Black River great blue heron (Ardea herodias) colony that would result from the pending Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Rezones of the MLDC Property, QIP Property and Virtu Property in Renton, Washington. The Black River heron colony is located in the City of Renton north/northwest of the existing Black River Corporate Park, within approximately I 00 acres of City-owned permanent park, open space, riparian forest and wildlife habitat. The lands that are the subject of this report in relation to the Black River heron colony are the MLDC Property, the QIP Property and the Virtu Property located in Section 13, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W.M. and lying north of the BNSF railroad tracks in the City of Renton. See Figure 1 (the attached 11" by 17" color aerial photo exhibit) for the boundaries of the properties in relation to the heron colony and its surroundings. The 27. I-acre MLDC Property ( the site of the previously planned Sunset Bluff Residential Subdivision) is located south of SW Sunset Boulevard, east of the Virtu and QIP properties, and west-northwest of the Sunfointe Townhomes. The 9.0-acre QIP Property is bounded on the south by the South 1401 Street unimproved right-of-way, on the north by the South 137th Street unimproved right-of-way, on the east by the MLDC Property, and on the west by a portion of the Black River Quarry. The 0.9-acre Virtu Property is a southeast comer portion of the existing Sunset View Apartments site located at 2101 SW Sunset Boulevard. The MLDC Property was recently cleared and graded for the planned development of the Sunset Bluff Residential Subdivision. The open space area planned as part of Sunset Bluff on the eastern portion of the MLDC Property has been retained along with the Category 1 wetland and its buffer that straddle the south boundary of the eastern portion of the MLDC Property. The QIP Property is used for storage of construction materials and equipment and for construction-materials recycling activities. It is the eastern part of the Black River Quarry property. The Virtu Property is a vacant, forested portion of the Sunset View Apartments site. The lands in question are surrounded by residential land uses to the east, north, and northwest, the BNSF railroad line to the south, and heavy industrial lands and uses to the west. The heron colony is located across the BNSF railroad line from the MLDC, QIP, and Virtu properties and adjacent to the regional storm-water ponds located in the above- mentioned City of Renton park lands (Figure 1). MLDC Property, QIP Property and Virtu Property Rezones Great Blue Heron Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc. February 2. 2009 2 2.0 STATUS OF THE GREAT BLUE HERON 2.1 REGULATORY STATUS OF THE GREAT BLUE HERON The great blue heron is a protected non-game species. As a type of non-game species, the great blue heron is protected from hunting and any other form of direct harm. It is also illegal to destroy an active heron nest. Additionally, the great blue heron has been classified by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) as one of the Priority Species under Criterion 2 for species with vulnerable aggregations. Great blue heron are considered to be vnlnerable due to their inclination to aggregate for breeding purposes (WDFW 2008). It should be noted that WDFW's Priority Species classification of the great blue heron is not based on documented population declines but, rather, by the heron's vulnerability due to the aggregated nature of their nest sites. WDFW has prepared recommendations for management of the habitat priority species (Appendix A); however, the recommendations are guidelines only and are not regulatory in nature. It should also be noted that WDFW's recommendations for buffers are based largely on studies of heron colonies in non-urban habitats. None of the studies WDFW cites in the current PHS guidelines (which are on WDFW's Web site) in support of its buffer recommendation for the great blue heron were conducted in the Puget Sound reg10n. 2.2 HISTORICAL STATUS OF THE GREAT BLUE HERON POPULATION While historically there is thought to have been a decline in heron populations in the Puget Sound region starting with European settlement during the early 1900s, a review of historical evidence shows that the number of breeding great blue herons in the region has been increasing since the 1960s. Calambokidis et al. ( 1985) compared available historical data with total nest counts conducted in 1984 in eight of the major great blue heron colonies in western Washington (Table I), and concluded that there was "no evidence that these heronries were experiencing significant declines in nest numbers over time" (page 97) and that the "numbers of nesting herons at Samish Island, Dumas Bay, Nisqually, and Totten Inlet have apparently increased over time, while nest numbers at Auburn and Long Island sites have fluctuated, but appear to be stable or possibly increasing" (page 97). MLDC Property, QIP Property and Virtu Property Rezones Great Blue Heron Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc. February 2, 2009 3 The data by Calambokidis et al. (1985), presented in Table 1, actually shows a three-fold increase in the number of heron nests in the colonies that they intensively censused as part of their study. Norman ( 1995) reviewed the status of over 100 heron colonies in the Puget Sound area and concluded that there is no evidence to suggest there has been a decline in heron numbers. In his review of the Christmas Bird Count data, Norman (1995 and 1991) concluded that there had been an increase in heron numbers over the past 25 years. Audubon's Christmas Bird Counts for the United States as a whole found a nationwide increase of 850% during the period from 1966 to 1994 (from 5,000 to 42,500 herons). Audubon's Christmas Bird Counts for Washington State showed an even greater increase (4381 % over the same 28-year period, from 47 to 2059 herons). Adjusted for any changes in number of observers or observer effort ( using the index of the number of birds observed per party-hour), the rate of increase of the herons in Washington State over the same period was 300%. The regional observations of Calambokidis et al. ( 1985) and Norman ( 1995) are consistent with increasing population trends in great blue heron from 1966 to 2003 recorded across the range of the Pacific coastal heron populations in North America, with the exception of British Columbia and small areas of southern Oregon and northern California (Sauer et al. 2005). Similarly, Graham et al. (1996) reported a 98% increase in the number of active heron colonies and a 55% increase in the number of heron pairs from 1976-81 to 1986-91 as part of an intensive inventory of 1,613 heron colonies in the Midwest. Citing the results of others ( e.g., a 150% increase noted by Brechtel 1981; a I 00% increase by Martin & Lester 1990, and an undefined increase by McCrimmon 1982), Calambokidis et al. (1985, page 44) concluded that "this species appears to have healthy growing populations in North America". It should be noted that the observed increase in great blue heron numbers in Washington, Alaska, and much of Oregon and California (Sauer et al. 2005) has not been observed in British Columbia. Butler (1997) calculated a 6% annual decline in heron numbers in coastal British Columbia between 1966 and 1994, based on the Breeding Bird Surveys. In a more recent Environment Canada Web page (www.ecoinfo.ec.gc.ca/env _ind/region/herons/heron_ e.cfin), Butler (2008) notes an annual rate of decline of9.4%. While he notes that this decline is not statistically significant due to small sample size, the decline has raised the status of the great blue heron in British Columbia to what the Canadians refer to as a Species at Risk. 2.3 HERON POPULATION STATUS IN KING COUNTY The heron population within the urban lands of King County is also increasing in numbers, consistent with the general trends cited above. Raedeke and Stabins (2009) MLDC Property. QIP Property and Virtu Property Rezones Great Blue Heron Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc. February 2, 2009 compiled information on the heron nest colonies from a variety of sources (including the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife's PHS database) and from intensive monitoring surveys conducted by the authors (Figure 3). Based on the data compiled from the sources cited above, we note the following great blue heron population trends in King County: • the number of active nesting colonies has increased from seven in 1981 to 14 in 2008 (2008 data from Chris Anderson at WDFW) • the number of active nests increased from 16 in 1980 to over 400 in 2006 ( data concerning a complete inventory of heron colonies is not yet available for 2007 and 2008), 4 • based on the most recent data, all colonies inventoried are showing increases in number of nests (the average number of active nests has increased from about 12-15 per colony to over 50 per colony), with the exception of colonies that have experienced repeated predation by bald eagles • while some colonies have been abandoned, other colonies have relocated to nearby sites in subsequent years ( e.g., the Spencer Property colony relocation to Redmond Town Center three miles to the south). It should be noted that these data represent the minimum number of nesting herons, as other small heron nest colonies were reported to exist but were not included in the data summaries (e.g., two nests on the Montlake fill near the University of Washington's Urban Horticulture Center) and not all nests are observed during field surveys due to concealment by foliage. Smith et al. (1997) mapped 21 confirmed heron nest sites, two additional probable nest sites, and 63 additional possible nest sites in King County. Butler (2007) and Vennesland (2007) suggested that the increase in heron numbers given in Figure 3 is the result of increased survey effort over time. Due to the charismatic nature of the great blue heron in the urban areas of Puget Sound, there has been considerable effort expended to find and document heron nesting colonies in this region (see Shipe and Scott 1981, Murphy 1988, Calambokidis et al. 1985, Stabins and Raedeke 1992, Norman 1995, Smith et al. 1997). The 1981 great blue heron survey was an intensive year-long effort by two WDFW biologists that included a significant outreach effort to interested "birders" and professional ornithologists in the region. It is quite unlikely that they missed any heron colonies of any size. Following the intensive 1990 survey conducted by Stabins and Raedeke (1992), there have been regular surveys conducted by the present authors, various interested parties, and WDFW biologists that have documented (a) new nesting colonies where none where found previously, (b) abandonment of old colonies, and (c) the number of birds in MWC Property, QIP Property and Virtu Property Rezones Great Blue Heron Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc. February 2, 2009 5 existing colonies. Hence, it is unlikely that significant colonies have existed that were not included in the surveys. Further, as set forth in the summary points above, there has been a noted increase in the number of nesting colonies and in the number of herons in existing colonies. It is unlikely that the increase in numbers could have been the result of immigration, as most colonies in the region for which we have data are also increasing in number of nests and number of herons. Butler (2007) further suggests that the increase in heron numbers is not believable based on the productivity measurements by Stabins et al. (2006). However, Stabins et al. (2006) clearly noted that productivity was at or above the level considered minimum for population maintenance by Henny ( 1972). In any case, comparisons to Henny's (1972) theoretical estimate of minimum necessary productivity levels for population maintenance should be reviewed with caution, as his estimate was based on many assumptions, including juvenile survival and adult survival rates in Oregon. The survival/mortality rates he used for Oregon may not be applicable to King County. The applicability and/or validity ofHenny's (1972) estimate of minimum required productivity are more fully discussed in Section 2.5 under the subheading Viability of Local Heronries. 2.4 HERON RESPONSE TO DISTURBANCE The WDFW PHS heron guidelines reference various field-research studies of heron response to disturbance and the effect of buffers on the colonies. Five studies deal with observed flushing distances (Taylor et al. 1982, Vos et al. 1985, Parker 1980, and Rogers and Smith 1995); one deals with observed nest distributions in relation to disturbance (Werschkul et al. 1976). It should be noted that while those studies may be indicative of heron response to disturbance and are the basis of the WDFW heron PHS guidelines, none of those studies were conducted in urban habitats, none of them were conducted in this region, and several of them reference different heron species. By far the most informative studies of heron response to disturbance in local urban conditions are Stabins (2001) and Vennesland (2000). Carlson and McLean (1996) is an informative large scale study of heron response to disturbance in urban areas in the Midwest. Flushing Studies The flushing studies referenced in the WDFW PHS heron guidelines were all similar in design. The authors subjected a heron-nesting colony to disturbance (generally humans walking or motoring within different distances of the colony) and then observed and noted the herons' reactions. The minimum distance at which the birds flushed from the nest was then considered to be the minimum recommended buffer. MLDC Property, QIP Property and Virtu Property Rezones Great Blue Heron Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc. February 2, 2009 Taylor et al. ( 1982), studying a single heron colony in Indiana, noted the response of herons in a nesting colony to different types of human disturbance at varying distances. Herons, they found, did not flush in response to: • mechanized farming within 66 feet if the farmers did not get off the tractor • helicopters within 227 feet • human activities within 280 feet • deliberate vegetation destruction within 495 feet. They recommended a buffer of 577 feet as a no-entry zone for human activity. 6 Vos et al. (1985), studying heron response to boating activity in Colorado, recommended a buffer of 150 meters ( 492 feet), which was their greatest observed flushing distance, plus 50 meters for safety. They hypothesized that, while flushing from the nest is not in itself an impact on the heron, flushing could reduce fledgling production due to heat stress, increased vulnerability to predation, and increased energy expenditure of adults. Rogers and Smith (1995) exposed fifteen species of colonial waterbirds at 17 colonies in Florida in semi-urban and rural areas to three different human disturbance mechanisms to determine recommended setback distances for protecting these nesting assemblages. They found that great blue herons flushed at mean distances of 30 meters in response to people on foot and at mean distances of approximately 28 meters in response to boat or canoe approach. Using a regression analysis for all species of wading birds, they recommended setbacks (e.g., buffers) of 100 meters (328 feet) for people walking around the heron nest sites, and smaller buffers of 82 meters (270 feet) for motorboats. Vennesland (2000) conducted a study ofresponse of nesting herons to pedestrian approach in British Columbia. He found mean flushing responses of herons to be approximately 55 meters (181 feet) in the most rural areas to about 10 meters (33 feet) in the most urbanized areas (see Figure 3.3, page 88). He then used the regression analysis results for wading birds in Florida developed by Rogers and Smith (1995) to recommend a buffer setback of 165 meters (544 feet) for herons in British Columbia. Logging Disturbance A study of nest distribution in relation to logging disturbance dealt with the impacts of timber harvesting on heron colonies in Oregon (Werschkul et al. 1976). In their study, they noted that (a) there was a lower percentage of active nests in the disturbed colony and (b) active nests were farther from logging disturbances than inactive nests were. However, conclusions cannot be drawn from their data because, as even they noted that they "realize[ d] that fledging rate should have been measured at more disturbed sites ... " (Werschkul et al. 1976:662). They had only one disturbed site and, while the fledgling MLDC Property, QIP Property and Virtu Property Rezones Great Blue Heron Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc. February 2, 2009 rate for the disturbed site (2.20 per nest) was lower than the average for the undisturbed sites, it was within the range observed for the undisturbed sites (2.18 to 2.58 per nest). With a sample size limited to one nesting colony in the disturbed category, the sampling was statistically inadequate and the study's conclusions were thus made without statistical basis. Response to Human and Mechanized Disturbance 7 Carlson and McLean (1996) conducted an evaluation of the impacts of human disturbance on great blue heron nesting colonies. They calculated fledging success for 19 colonies with a variety of associated human-disturbance and buffer conditions (from no buffer to a 2,640-foot buffer). Disturbance at each colony was classified as to the type of disturbance ( e.g., humans on foot or mechanical activity) and ranked by degree of severity and frequency of disturbance. No correlation was determined to exist between fledging success and the size of a buffer around the colony; that is, the size of the buffer zone has no statistically significant effect on the fledging success of the colony. Carlson and McLean (1996) did find that colonies with frequent foot traffic in the actual colonies had lower nesting success than did colonies with no disturbance or colonies with mechanical disturbances (e.g., farming, vehicle traffic, trains, etc.). They noted that barriers such as water and fences that isolate the colony from human access increased the fledging success rate of the colony. It is significant to note that mechanical disturbance, such as construction noise, was not found to be a disturbance that affected nesting success. Vennesland (2000) studied heron nesting colonies in coastal southern British Columbia and found that "there was no significant relationship between total human activity within 250 m of 22 colonies and mean heron breeding productivity in 1999 (P>O. J 5)(including pedestrians, cars, planes and land clearing equipment)." These results are consistent with the observations of Taylor et al. (1982), who noted that mechanized farming within 66 feet of the nest did not result in flushing. Based on the results of Carlson and McLean (1996) cited above, Butler (1997, page 132) concluded that "large forest buffers ( e.g., 825 feet) may not be necessary if other means of minimizing human disturbance in the colony are available" ( emphasis added). Butler (1997) and Carlson and McLean (1996) noted that effective types of buffers include water barriers and vegetation. Such features are found within the Black River riparian forest. The WDFW PHS guidelines failed to consider the results of the Carlson and McLean (1996) study or of the Vennesland (2000) study. MLDC Property, QJP Property and Virtu Property Rezones Great Blue Heron Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc. February 2, 2009 2.5 ANALYSIS OF STATUS OF REGIONAL HERON COLONIES The status of King County heron colonies and their relationship to disturbance has recently been studied and summarized by Stabins (2001 ). Based on 206 visits to 19 colony sites in King County and a review of the existing inventory data, she found that the number of colonies and number of breeding herons have increased since the early 1980s. Stabins (2001, see Table 10) found that the average disturbance-free buffer around the heron colonies in King County in 2000 was 59.8 feet. Stabins (2001) conducted a quantitative analysis to determine which landscape features affected productivity, size, and success of heron colonies in her King County study area. She determined nest productivity for 354 nests in 13 active colonies during 206 colony site visits. She characterized the landscape habitat conditions around the colonies and compared them with colony characteristics (e.g., productivity, size, and success). Landscape characteristics that Stabins (200 I) measured were: • proportion of high and low human activity around the colony • proportion of areas around the colony consisting of roads, houses, and other buildings (high human activity) or consisting of forest, fields, and water (low human activity) • distance to salt water • distance to water body • distance to active bald eagle nest • size of closest stream ( e.g., stream "order") Stabins (2001) then used multiple-linear regression to determine which landscape features affected productivity, colony size, and success. She found no correlation between buffer width and the viability and size of the colony. She found that colony success was positively related to (a) increased amounts of human disturbance around the nests and (b) increased colony size. She also found that colony success was negatively related to decreased distance from bald eagle nests. 8 Simpson ( 1984) monitored 15 heron colonies over a four-year period and found similar results. While these results are somewhat counterintuitive, both Simpson and Stabins speculated that proximity to human activity might deter eagle predation. Simpson ( 1984, page 35) noted that "Nesting herons could benefit from a close association with people if predators are less tolerant of humans". Stabins' and Simpson's results are also consistent with the findings of Carlson and McLean (I 996), who found no correlation between buffer width and the success of the colony as measured by the production of viable fledglings. Further, Vennesland (2000) MLDC Property, QIP Property and Virtu Property Rezones Great Blue Heron Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc. February 2, 2009 concluded that "Total human activity (including pedestrians, cars, planes. and land clearing equipment) had no relationship to heron breeding productivity)". Buffers and Local Heron Colonies The conditions that support local heron colonies in urban areas like Renton are most indicative of the needs of the herons at the Black River heron colony, while studies of herons from other areas under distinctly different conditions in rural and remote areas responding to different types of disturbance have less applicability. For example, Werschkul et al. (1976) studied the relationship of herons in relatively isolated forests and in relation to forest management practices in Oregon; Parker (1980) studied the responses of herons to recreational activities in riparian forests in Montana; and Taylor et al. ( 1982) noted the responses of herons to recreational use in a park area with a habitat of mixed forest and agricultural uses. 9 The results of those three studies do not provide relevant gauges to potential disturbance to the Black River heron colony associated with construction and use of buildings for office and light industrial purposes on the MLDC, QIP and Virtu properties. The portion of the MLDC Property that would be developed in the future with buildings for office and/or light manufacturing uses consistent with the proposed Office zoning has been cleared and graded for the previously planned Sunset Bluff subdivision. The QlP Property (the easterly part of the Black River Quarry) has been cleared and graded and is being used for construction-materials recycling and storage. All three of these properties (a) lie well outside of the roughly 100-acre urban riparian forest and public open space (within which the Black ruver heron colony lies) beyond an active freight railroad line and (b) are flanked by existing residential developments to the southeast (the Sunpointe Townhomes) and to the northwest (the Sunset View Apartments) and heavy industrial uses to the west (a construction-materials recycling operation that includes concrete crushing, concrete batching and related outdoor use of heavy equipment in the portion of the Black River Quarry to the west). The relationship between existing heron colonies and development demonstrates the tolerance of these birds in urban areas. Jones and Stokes, Inc. (1991), Jensen et al. (1990), Butler (1997), Carlson and McLean (1996) and others have shown that heron nesting colonies are tolerant of urban disturbances and have actually increased in numbers within short distances of disturbance (0 to 25 feet). Viability of Local Heronries Bayer (I 991, comment letter to the City of Renton) questioned the relevance of a buffer analysis based on local heron colonies. He asserted that none of the local colonies could be considered viable because they were below his theoretical minimum number of fledglings per nest needed for a viable colony. He asserts 2.33 ( or 2.11-2.53) fledglings per nest as the minimum number required for colony viability. MLDC Property, QIP Property and Virtu Property Rezones Great Blue Heron Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc. February 2, 2009 10 There are several ways to demonstrate that Bayer's concern is unfounded. First, regardless of Bayer's theoretical threshold number calculated for other areas, (a) the majority of the heron colonies in the Puget Sound area are increasing in number of nests and (b) the number of Puget Sound-area heron colonies is also increasing. This suggests that if the productivity in these heronries is below Bayer's theoretical minimum number of fledglings per nest required for growth, then his calculated theoretical minimum is either incorrect or does not apply to local conditions. For example, the Black River heron colony had only 2.25 young per nest in 1990 and was increasing at an annual rate of32 percent until eagle predation in 1991 substantially decimated the colony's population. In 2000, Stabins (2001) recorded a productivity rate of 2.20 young per nest for the Black River colony, and over the next three years the colony nearly doubled in size. However, in 2008, the Herons Forever Web site (www.heronsforever.org accessed on December 30, 2008) reported approximately 90 nests and 30 to 40 fledglings, for a productivity rate of0.33 to 0.44 as a result of bald eagle predation. This level of productivity, a direct result of bald eagle predation, is clearly not sustainable. Second, there are numerous studies of viable colonies below the fledglings per nest rate listed by Bayer ( e.g., see Pratt and Winkler 1985, asserting 2.20 young per nest on the basis of a 13-year study; Callazo 1981, Idaho study: 2.20; English 1978: 1.96). Pratt and Winkler (1985), based on their long-term studies of great blue heron nesting colonies, dispute the "viability estimates" of Bayer, Henny, and others. Third, Bayer's viability estimate may be based upon migratory heron populations, whereas the herons in the Puget Sound region are non-migratory (Butler 1997). Migratory herons would need to produce a much higher number of young per year in order to compensate for mortality of young during dispersal and migration. Krebs ( 197 4) and Pratt (1970) concluded that starvation (mainly of fledged young) was the major cause of mortality in herons and that this would be greatest in migratory herons. Bayer ( 1991, comment letter to City of Renton) and Stenberg (2004, comment letter to City of Renton) suggested that the increase in the number of herons in colonies in King County was due to an influx of birds from other areas. Bayer implied that these colonies could continue to increase even though they were not "viable," based on his opinion that the habitat conditions were sub-marginal. It is not clear, however, under his theory, where these additional birds would come from. Bayer (1991, comment letter) said that he believed they had come from abandoned colonies in the local region. However, based on intensive field data from 2000 (Stabins 200 I) and 2006 (Raedeke and Stabins 2007) and WDFW PHS data, the growth in the number of heron nests in the active colonies in King County exceeds the number of nests in all abandoned colonies in King County. At the same time, there has been a consistent increase in the number of active colonies in the MLDC Property, QJP Property and Virtu Property Rezones Great Blue Heron Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc. February 2, 2009 11 region since the early 1980s. That documented growth in the number of heron nests and number of active colonies disproves Bayer's theory. Finally, Stabins et al. (2006) demonstrated that the productivity of the heron colonies in King County in general, and in the Black River colony in particular, exceeded the minimum level required to maintain colony growth. 2.6 STUDIES OF NEST COLONY ABANDONMENT There is no doubt that certain kinds of disturbance during the early nesting season can cause abandonment or nesting failure in great blue heron colonies. What is unclear is what type and degree of disturbance are required to cause abandonment. WDFW (1991) noted that: "Colonies exist at the same location for many years, but some herons may naturally relocate their colonies in response to increased predation on eggs and young by mammals or other birds, or declines in food availability (Simpson et al. 1986). Heronries built in spruce or Douglas-fir trees may damage the host tree over time, which may also influence colony relocation (Julin 1986)." Most reports of heron colony abandonment are based on observations after some new development or disturbance occurs near the colony. However, in the cases reviewed, no cause-and-effect relationships have been established between colony abandonment and the particular development or disturbance. Many authors also note that colonies are often abandoned for no apparent reason (Washington Department of Wildlife 1991, Kelsall 1979, Simpson 1984, Findholt 1984, Butler 1997, and others). MLDC Property, QJP Property and Virtu Property Rezones Great Blue Heron Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc. February 2, 2009 12 In one of the most comprehensive studies of the dynamics of nest colonies, Graham et al. ( 1996) studied the fate of 1,614 colonies and found that 48 percent of the colonies inventoried at the start of their study were abandoned, while 67 percent of the colonies present at the end of their study had become established since the start of their study. The average longevity of a heron colony in their study area was 9.0 years. It may be that the actual cause of abandonment is coincidental to development or disturbance but is not caused by it. For example, Pratt and Winkler ( 1985) note that many heron colony predators are nocturnal (such as great homed owls and raccoons) and are rarely observed. Such predation (a) may coincide with development or disturbance adjacent to an abandoned colony and (b) may be the real cause of abandonment. Murphy (1988) described habitat conditions in heron colonies in King County and noted that six of the 13 colonies had been abandoned. (See Table 4 for a description of her conclusions and for our observations.) Contrary to the popular opinion that the abandonment of these colonies was due to housing or commercial developments, development does not seem to have played a significant role, if any, in any of these abandonments. Rather, the abandonment was caused by vandalism to the nests or by human activities within the colony or directly under nests in the colony. In more recent cases, eagle predation and the destruction or loss of nest trees were the primary causes of abandonment. Also, all colonies that were found abandoned by Murphy (1998) were very small (four to eight nests per colony), with the exception of the Crystal Lake colony (22 nests) and the temporary abandonment of the Black River colony (39 nests) in 1991 due to extensive bald eagle predation over a sustained period. Murphy (1988) also reported that the Pigeon Point nesting colony had been abandoned as a result of construction activities, but it had actually relocated a short distance away. Jones and Stokes, Inc. (1991) reported that local residents observed the colony in the area continuously during the entire period described by Murphy. Bald eagle incursions into the colony were also documented (D. Norman, personal communication). WDFW's Ted Muller (1998, personal communication) reported partial abandonment of the Kiwanis Ravine colony in 1991 following railroad repair activities within 95 feet of the colony. He also noted the abandonment of a single heron nest on Whidbey Island when a road was constructed within 75 feet of the nest. However, in both cases, other factors ( such as eagle predation, which had also been reported by local residents, especially at the Kiwanis Ravine colony and which may well have been the actual cause of the abandonment) were not evaluated or studied. It should be noted that there has not been a documented case of heron colony abandonment in King County due to passive disturbance by building construction and/or MLDC Property, QIP Property and Virtu Property Rezones Great Blue Heron Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc. February 2, 2009 land use adjacent to heron colonies. All cases of colony abandonment in King County have resulted from (a) sustained and persistent attacks by bald eagles, (b) direct disturbance by humans in the colonies, (c) shooting of the herons in the colony, or (d) destruction of the nest trees resulting from heron overuse. Three cases of heron colony abandonment from the destruction of the nest trees have been documented for the region. The Bellfield Office Park colony abandoned after the nest trees were killed as a result of guanotrophy (accumulation of feces). The Dumas Bay colony abandoned after an ice storm damaged the nest trees and after bald eagle predation. The Yarrow Bay colony abandoned after bald eagle predation and the cottonwood nest tree died and blew over in a windstorm (Jensen and Boersma 1993). 13 In sum, as noted above, nesting colony abandonment is a common occurrence most likely resulting from: • predation by bald eagles (Simpson 1974, WDW 1991, Dusi and Dusi 1968, Pratt 1970, Mark 1976, Vermeer 1973, Forbes 1989, Butler 1997, Vennesland 2000, Butler and Baudin 1999, Butler 2008), with such predation having occurred in the Black River colony in 1991, 2007 and 2008. • declines in food availability (Simpson 1984, Butler 1997) • colony-caused damage to nesting trees (Julin 1986, Wiese 1978, Butler 1997) • "severe winters" (Krebs 1974) • researchers banding birds in the nests (Simpson 1984) Any of these factors could occur coincidentally with non-critical disturbance, such as development and building construction, and yet be unnoticed at the time. MLDC Property, QIP Property and Virtu Property Rezones Great Blue Heron Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc. February 2. 2009 14 3.0 HISTORY AND STATUS OF THE BLACK RIVER COLONY 3.1 NUMBER OF HERON NESTS The history of the number of nesting herons in the Black River colony is given in Figure 4. The data points used in Figure 4 for the years 1986 to 1990, 1997, and 2001 to 2004 were provided by Suzanne Krom to the WDFW PHS database. The 2005 and 2006 data points were provided by Ms. Krom in a 2005 newsletter of Herons Forever and in a Seattle newspaper article, respectively. The 2007 and 2008 nest count and productivity is from Herons Forever's Web site www.heronsforever.org (accessed on December 30, 2008). The Black River nesting colony was first observed as three nests in large cottonwood trees in 1984, at the time of construction of the P-1 Detention Basin (Van Wormer 1989). Van Wormer observed 25 nests in the three large cottonwoods on the island created in the P-1 Detention Basin during the 1989 nesting period. By 1991, the number of nests increased to 45 (located in 12 different trees on the island and in the riparian forest within I 00 feet of the P-1 Detention Basin). The colony was abandoned that year, due to continued attacks by bald eagles (Jones and Stokes 1991). Following the temporary abandonment of the colony in 1991, the colony recovered and expanded into a greater portion of the riparian forest to avoid eagle predation (Jones and Stokes 1991 ). In 2002, 135 nests were reported (see 2004 comment letter of Jay and Sandy Lynch to the City of Renton). Nests were located in the three large cottonwoods on the island in the P-1 Detention Basin and in trees along the north edge of the P-1 Channel (Dusek 2004 ). Those riparian forest trees were preferred as re-nesting sites in 1991 as they provided greater cover and protection from attacks by the bald eagles. In 2005, a pair of bald eagles moved into the large cottonwood trees that had served as the main heron colony ever since its initiation. The female eagle died in the nest in 2005. In 2006, local observers reported that the eagles returned, but that they nested in the alternate nest near the detention pond at the southwesterly portion of the Valley View Apartments site north of the western part of the Black River Quarry. Herons Forever reported up to 140 active heron nests and 330 heron fledglings in 2006. In 2007, the pair of eagles returned to nest in the cottonwood tree that was the historic heron nest colony and raised one young to fledgling status (Chris Anderson, WDFW Biologist, pers. comm. 2008). In response to the presence of eagles in the main cottonwood heron nest tree, the herons moved to the west, into the riparian forest along the north side of the ponds in the Black River riparian forest. A total of 119 nests were reported to have produced 50 to 60 fledglings (Chris Anderson, WDFW email January 29, 2009). MLDC Property, QJP Property and Virtu Property Rezones Great Blue Heron Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc. February 2, 2009 15 In 2008, the bald eagle nest in the Black River riparian forest was again active, and the 90 heron nests were concentrated in an area about 250 to 400 feet wide, about 400 feet west of the bald eagle nest. Herons Forever reported "approximately 90 nests" by the time the cottonwoods leafed out in mid-April, but approximately half were abandoned within six weeks after repeated eagle attacks on eggs and nestlings. Only 30 to 45 fledglings were produced in 2008. 3.2 HISTORY OF COLONY DISTURBANCE The Black River colony has been subjected to a variety of disturbances since it was first occupied before construction of the P-1 Detention Basin. As reported by Jones and Stokes, Inc. (1989), the colony was active when the P-1 Detention Basin was constructed within 50 feet of the nest trees. The Basin was constructed from April to September 1984. Much of the construction occurred during the nesting period. Jones and Stokes, Inc. (1989) reported that in 1987 a large part of the riparian forest between the Burlington Northern Railroad tracks and the P-1 Detention Basin was cleared and partially filled. Logging activity took place from February to mid-March, within 200 feet of the colony during the period of mating and of nest-site selection and building. Van Wormer ( 1989) reported eight nests in the colony at that time. Since 1987, the colony has been subjected to a variety of disturbances, many during the nesting season, including: • construction and operation of the METRO wastewater treatment plant within 1,500 feet of the nests in the riparian forest • construction and use of Oakesdale Avenue SW within 800 feet of the then- existing nearest heron nest 1 • construction and use of Naches Avenue SW within 700 feet of the then-existing nearest heron nest • continued routine activities of the railroad within 550 of the northwesterly nests in the riparian forest (in contrast, the distance between the nearest portion of the railroad right-of-way along the QIP Property's south edge to the nearest of the then existing nests was approximately 800 feet) • frequent blasting (until April 18, 2002) and outdoor heavy industrial equipment activity in the Black River Quarry 1 The recent eagle predation and the associated establishment of an eagle nest in the original heron nesting tree on the island in the P-1 Detention Basin have since caused the heron colony to consolidate to the west. MLDC Property, QIP Property and Virtu Property Rezones Great Blue Heron Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc. February 2, 2009 16 • construction-materials recycling operations and heavy-equipment use, movement, and storage on the QIP Property within 850 feet of the then-existing nearest heron nest • construction and use of the office building and parking lot at the east side of northern end ofNaches Avenue SW (to the south of the east end of the MLDC Property) within 900 feet and 750 feet, respectively, of the then-existing nearest heron nest • construction and use of the Black River Corporate Park office building within 550 feet of the then-existing nearest heron nest and construction and use of a parking lot lying between the building and the nearest nest • clearing of debris and brush fields north of the riparian forest along the railroad tracks within 300 feet of the nearest heron nest in 1998 • public use ofan open pedestrian trail lying south of the P-1 Detention Basin within 200 feet of the closest heron nest • on-going vehicular traffic on Naches Avenue SW within 700 feet of the nearest heron nest and on Oakesdale Avenue SW within 800 feet of the nearest nest • land clearing, site grading and infrastructure work for the Sunset Bluff Residential Subdivision (within approximately 990 feet of the nearest heron nest) during portions of 2005 and 2006. As noted by Butler (1998, letter to City of Renton), the Black River colony herons are likely to be acclimated to human disturbance. They have established their nests in an area with extensive ongoing human disturbance, but with physical barriers that largely deter the types of direct disturbance caused by humans entering the colony (such as have been noted by many authors to be the principal cause of colony abandonment) (see Carlson and McLean 1996). There has been speculation by Suzanne Krom that the clearing and grading associated with the Sunset Bluff site (i.e., the MLDC Property) located to the north of the heron colony caused a delay in the initiation of the nesting season in the Black River colony in 2006. However, it appears that that delay was a regional condition (perhaps weather- related), as Cahn (2006) and WDFW biologist Christopher Anderson (2006, personal communication) reported a similar observation of a delay in the initiation of the nesting season for the Kiwanis Ravine heron colony and other colonies in King County during 2006. MLDC Property, QIP Property and Virtu Property Rezones Great Blue Heron Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc. February 2, 2009 17 3.3 EXISTING BUFFERS AROUND THE CURRENT BLACK RIVER HERON COLONY The closest existing disturbance to the heron nests in the Black River colony is the unregulated public pedestrian trail that lies approximately 200 feet south of the nearest nests in the riparian forest (see attached site photo and map). That trail is heavily used by the public and is highly visible to the herons in the colony. Other existing developments and active roads in relation to the colony include: • Naches Avenue SW to the east of the site, which is located within 1,200 feet of the nests in the riparian forest • Monster Road/Oakesdale Avenue SW, which is located about 800 feet south- southwest of the heron nests • Black River Corporate Park, which includes two buildings lying within approximately 800 feet southeast of the now-nearest nest • construction materials recycling activities and heavy equipment movement on the QIP Property itself, which is approximately 965 feet from the nearest heron nest. MLDC Property, QIP Property and Virtu Property Rezones Great Blue Heron Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc. February 2, 2009 18 4.0 ASSESSMENT OF REZONE IMPACTS ON THE BLACK RIVER HERONS 4.1 DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING CONDITIONS The approximately 27.1-acre MLDC Property, the site of the previously planned and approved Sunset Bluff Residential Subdivision, has largely been cleared and graded in preparation for residential development. Approximately 26.03 acres of the MLDC Property are currently zoned Residential-IO Dwelling Units Per Net Acre (R-10). The remaining approximately 1.05 acres of the MLDC Property (a strip along the west side of its south edge) are zoned Resource Conservation (RC). The Category l wetland and associated stream and buffer on the eastern portion of the MLDC Property have been retained in native growth (forest), as has a strip along the MLDC Property's north edge. (See attached figure.) The approximately 9.0-acre QIP Property is located approximately 965 feet from the nearest heron nesting area and is separated from the colony by (a) a SO-foot high slope along the property's south edge, (b) the BNSF railroad right-of-way, and (c) the riparian forest within the City park property lying between the railroad and the heron nesting area. Nearly the entire QIP Property is unvegetated and has been graded. This property is used for storage of construction materials and construction equipment, as well as for construction-materials recycling activities. Approximately 8. 7 acres of the QIP Property are zoned R-10 and the remaining approximately 0.3acre portion of it (a roughly triangular-shaped area along the east side of its south edge) is zoned RC. The 0.9-acre Virtu Property is a currently forested, undeveloped comer portion of the existing Sunset View Apartments development. The Virtu Property is separated from the forest-lands surrounding the heron colony by (a) the BNSF railroad tracks and right-of- way, (b) the portion of the MLDC Property that has been cleared and graded for the Sunset Bluff residential development and (c) the cleared and graded QIP Property. The Virtu Property is currently zoned R-10. The Virtu Property is located approximately 1,300 feet from the nearest part of the heron nest colony. 4.2 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL The proposed Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Amendments and Rezones for the MLDC Property seek zoning that would allow for future development of the property into Commercial Office (CO) uses under Renton's zoning regulations. The proposed Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Amendments and Rezones for the QIP Property and Virtu Property seeks zoning that would allow for future development of the properties into Light Industrial (IL) uses under Renton' s zoning regulations. MLDC Property, QJP Property and Virtu Property Rezones Great Blue Heron Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc. February 2, 2009 19 4.3 DISTURBANCE IMPACTS OF PROPOSED REWNE Rezoning of the QIP and Virtu properties to Light Industrial (IL) and rezoning of the MLDC Property from to Commercial Office (CO) uses should have no adverse impact upon the heron colony in view of the history of heavy industrial uses of the QIP Property and in view of the current potential for development of the QIP, Virtu and MLDC properties into residential uses. This conclusion is based on my professional opinion that: • Disturbance to the colony (if any) would be (a) reduced by Light Industrial and Commercial Office development of the subject properties as compared to current uses and (b) generally similar to or less than that of potential residential development as allowed under the properties' existing zoning; • Black River herons have shown great adaptation to existing heavy- industrial and quarrying activities on the Black River Quarry property (the easterly portion of which includes the QIP Property), land uses that obviously have more potential to impact heron than do Light Industrial and Commercial Office uses; • The Black River heron colony has shown no negative impacts associated with commercial office park development to the southeast and east of the colony; • The heron colony is highly habituated to a substantial level of surrounding area disturbances (some of which are from areas substantially closer to the colony than are the MLDC, QIP and Virtu properties); • The MLDC, QIP and Virtu properties are too distant from the colony for activities associated with future Commercial Office or Light Industrial development to have any adverse impact on the colony, especially in view of the colony's existing urban context; • Commercial Office and Light Industrial uses would not involve children playing outside or any dogs, cats or other household pets that theoretically might venture into the Black River riparian forest and flush or menace the herons. (Herons Forever had previously contended that residential development of the MLDC, QIP and Virtu properties would pose a risk to the heron due to the residents' children and dogs and cats.) MLDC Property, QIP Property and Virtu Property Rezones Great Blue Heron Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc. February 2, 2009 20 4.4 ADEQUACY OF THE BUFFERS ON THE HERON COLONY Our assessment of the adequacy of the Black River heron colony buffer distances in relation to the proposed rezone site is based on regional observations of heron nesting colonies' responses to habitat conditions, as well as to existing local conditions. Local observations provide the best indicator of the range of environmental conditions that are conducive to maintaining viable great blue heron colonies in this area. The approximately 950-foot distance between the closest portion of the MLDC, QIP and Virtu properties and the nearest great blue heron nests in the Black River colony should be more than adequate for the following reasons: • The 950-foot distance is greater than the distances between the historic colony and other existing developments around the colony, including the active BNSF railroad line lying between the site and the colony ( on which two freight trains pass six days a week); • The entire MLDC, QIP and Virtu properties lie well beyond the 600-foot "optimum buffer width for protection of the [Black River] heron rookery" that Stenberg (June 12, 1998 letter to Renton Development Services Director Jana Huerter) recommended during circa-1998 public hearings for the Black River Corporate Park office buildings; • The 950-foot distance is greater than the width of actual buffers around any of the other existing heron colonies in King County (see Stabins 2001 and Stabins and Raedeke 1992) and around historical colonies that have thrived (Shipe and Scott 1981 ); • The railroad, steep slope, and existing fence along the north edge of the Renton park property, as well as dense forest communities in the Renton park between the proposed rezone sites and the heron colony will prevent casual human incursion from the rezone sites into the Black River riparian forest; • The rezone from residential to Light Industrial and Commercial Office uses will reduce the potential for human incursions into the colony and the potential for domestic residential pets ( such as cats and dogs) from impacting the riparian forest habitats; • The Black River colony is very habituated to human disturbance, including the blasting in the quarry that ceased only a few years ago and including the ongoing construction-materials recycling operations, concrete batching and use of outdoor heavy equipment on the quarry site. MLDC Property, QIP Property and Virtu Property Rezones Great Blue Heron Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc. February 2, 2009 21 Vennesland (2000) and Carlson and McLean (1996) both noted that pedestrian access within the buffers around heron colonies was the factor that had the most impact on the colonies. The Black River colony has a public access trail within 200 feet of the colony, and there is heavy year-round foot traffic on the trail, especially during the nesting season. Despite those other, closer developments and those closer disturbance factors, the Black River colony continued to grow until the documented decline starting in 2006 as a direct result of bald eagle predation. The most recent, large-scale study ofheron colonies in King County (Stabins, 2001, Table 10) showed (a) no correlation between buffer width and colony viability and size and (b) that colony success was positively related to the amount of human disturbance around the nests and colony size. As noted above, these results are consistent with other such assessments (Simpson 1984, Shipe and Scott 1981, Vennesland 2000, Carlson and McLean 1996). 4.5 CONSTRUCTION LIMITATION ZONE The WDFW (1999) PHS great blue heron guidelines recommend that activities such as logging and construction should not occur within 1,000 meters (3,281 feet) of a colony and that aircraft should not fly within a vertical distance of 650 meters (2,133 feet) of a colony during the nesting season, based on the recommendations of Butler (1991). However, no scientific studies support that recommendation. A review of Butler (1991) finds that his recommendation was based on personal recommendations ofKelsall made without citing any supporting studies. (See Butler 1991, page 10.) Butler then goes on to note that ''there are no data on the sensitivity of nesting herons to loud noises such as heavy construction, logging and house construction". He then cites the recommendations of Bowman and Siderius (1984) relating to herons in Ontario in support of the 1,000-meter buffer purportedly needed for construction-related activities. Bowman and Siderius (1984) cite no supporting studies for a 1,000-meter construction- season buffer. The only studies of disturbance that they cite are studies of cattle egrets, herons in rural Florida, and colonial nesting birds in national parks in the northeastern region of the USA, and none of these studies deal with a 1,000-meter buffer. Note that a construction moratorium within 1,000 meters of the Black River heron colony during the breeding season would encompass lands down to I-405 to the south, east to Lind Avenue SW in the heart of the City of Renton, and west almost to Interurban Avenue South. (See Figures I and 2.) Obviously, a moratorium in this entire area would be unrealistic and would be unenforceable because it would serve no legitimate purpose. MLDC Property, QJP Property and Virtu Property Rezones Great Blue Heron Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc. February 2, 2009 Further, there has been substantial construction activity within this area during the past heron breeding seasons with no measurable impact on the herons. 22 In view of the location of the MLDC, QIP and Virtu properties in relation to the Black River colony and the other factors discussed above, no construction limitation zone is needed or could be justified in relation to future construction on those properties. No nexus exists between construction on the MLDC, QIP and Virtu properties and the distant heron colony in the Black River riparian forest. MWC Property. QIP Property and Virtu Property Rezones Great Blue Heron Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc. February 2. 2009 23 5.0. HABITAT APPROACH TO WILDLIFE PROTECTION The 1991 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) among the City of Renton, private property owners to the south, and interested environmental groups concerning the Black River heron colony was based on a habitat approach that provided for consideration of the overall needs of the herons and other wildlife rather than on the application of rigid rules to a single group of heron nest trees. Habitat approaches have been adopted by WDFW (1991) and by federal agencies as the best way to protect wildlife of special public interest (e.g., bald eagles and spotted owls). The habitat approach previously adopted for Black River heron colony protection in the 1991 MOA included the following design elements: • a 500-foot buffer from the northerlymost of the then-proposed office buildings to the nearest of the nest trees on the island in the P-1 Detention Basin • retained vegetation within that buffer for screening of the office development to the south • a riparian forest separated from development by the P-1 Detention Basin • elimination of development proposals for 62 acres of land around the riparian forest sold by the property owner to the City of Renton as permanent open space and wildlife habitat • an expanded riparian forest providing alternative nest sites and an area of younger trees for new nests that will continue to be available over time as the trees on the island die or blow down These elements of the MOA augmented the habitat by the City of Renton and the other property owners surrounding the heron colony, including: • dedication of 17.5 acres ofland to the City of Renton for construction of the P-1 Detention Basin • planting of vegetative screening along the margins of the P-1 Channel and Detention Basin • dedication of 20.0 acres ofland to the City of Renton for riparian forest wildlife habitat • sale of 62.2 acres of land to the City of Renton for permanent open space and wildlife habitat MLDC Property, QIP Property and Virtu Property Rezones Great Blue Heron Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc. February 2, 2009 24 The habitat conditions within the City ofRenton's entire Black River open space complex already greatly exceed WDFW's (1991) minimum habitat recommendations for heron nest colonies. In WDFW's ( 1991) habitat management guidelines, a minimum 10- acre stand oflarge trees buffered from disturbance is recommended. The combined 100 acres of riparian forest and retained forest stands, detention basin, open space, and existing buffers around the Black River colony greatly exceeds that habitat recommendation. MLDC Property, QIP Property and Virtu Property Rezones Great Blue Heron Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc. February 2, 2009 6.0 LITERATURE CITED Anderson, J. 1978. Protection and management of wading birds. National Audubon Society. Wading Birds 7:99-103. 25 Bailey, V., and M. Terman. 1983. A comparative study of a great blue heron colony in Chase County, Kansas. Transactions of the Kansas Academy of Science 86:81- 88. Bayer, R. D., and E. McMahon. 1981. Colony sizes and hatching synchrony on great blue herons in coastal Oregon. Murrelet 62(3):73-79. Beak Consultants Inc. 1987. A review of wetland and heron related issues in the Marine Drive Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Report to Crown Zellerbach Corporation, Portland, OR. 23 pp. Bechtel, S. 1981. The white pelican, double-crested cormorant and great blue heron in Alberta. Alberta Energy and Natural Resources, Fish and Wildlife Div., Edmonton, Alberta. Bjorklund, R. 1975. On the death ofa Midwestern heronry. Wilson Bulletin 87(2):284- 287. Blus, L.J., and C. Henny. 1981. Suspected great blue heron population decline after a severe winter in the Columbia Basin. Murrelet 62(1 ):16-18. Bowman, I., and J. Siderius. 1984. Management guidelines for the protection of heronries in Ontario. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Wildlife Branch, Toronto. Buckley, P., and F. Buckley. 1976. Guidelines for the protection and management of colonially nesting waterbirds. USDI National Park Service, North Atlantic Regional Office, Boston. 52 pp. Burger, J. 1982. An overview of proximate factors affecting reproductive success in colonial birds: concluding remarks and summary of panel discussion. Colonial Waterbirds 5:58-65. Butler, R. 1997. The great blue heron. UBC Press, Vancouver, B.C. Butler, R. 2007. Review of the Great Blue Heron Assessment, QIP and Virtu Properties- Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Amendments and Rezone, Renton Washington by KJ Raedeke. Undated letter to City of Renton. MLDC Property, QIP Property and Virtu Property Rezones Great Blue Heron Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc. Febrnary 2, 2009 26 Butler, R. 2008. Great Blue Heron and indicator of wildlife sustainability in the Georgia Basin. Web page of the Environment Canada www .ecoinfo.ec.gc.ca/env _ind/region/herons/heron_ e.cfin accessed December 30, 2008. Butler, R., and P. Baudin. 1999. Status and conservation stewardship of the Pacific great blue heron in Canada. Proc. Biology and Management of Species and Habitats at Risk, Kamloops, British Columbia. Calambokidis, J., S. Speich, J. Peard, G. Steiger, J. Cubbage, D. Fry, and L. Lowenstine. 1985. Biology of Puget Sound marine mammals and marine birds: Population health and evidence of pollution effects. NOAA tech. Memo. NOS. OMA 18. Cahn, P. 2006. Heron Report. Heron Habitat Helpers Newsletter; June -September 2006. Callazo, J. 1981. Some aspects of the breeding ecology of the great blue heron sat Heyburn State Park. Northwest Science. 55(4):293-297. Carlson, B., and E. McLean. 1996. Buffer zone and disturbance types as predictors of fledging success in great blue herons, Ardea herodias. Colonial Waterbirds 19(1):124-127. Custer, T., R. Osborn, and W. Stout. 1980. Distribution, species abundance, and nest- site use of Atlantic Coast colonies of herons and their allies. The Auk 97:591- 600. Drapeau, P., R. McNeil, and J. Burton. Influences de derangement humain et de l'activite du Cormoran a aigrettes, Phalarcrocorax auritus, sur la reproduction du grand heron, Ardea herodias, aux iles de Madeleine. Canadian Field-Naturalist 98 :219- 222. Dunn, E., D. Hussell, and J. Siderius. 1985. Status of the great blue heron, Ardea herodias, in Ontario. Canadian Field-Naturalist 99(1):62-70. Dusek, T. 2004. Habitat/wildlife assessment and stream study report. Sunset Bluff Residential Subdivision, Renton, Washington. Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc., report to SR 900 LLC. Dusi, J. 1979. Heron colony effects on man. Colonial Waterbirds 3:143-144. Dusi, J., and R. Dusi. 1968. Ecological factors contributing to nest failure in a heron colony. Wilson Bull. 80:458-466. MWC Property, QIP Property and Virtu Property Rezones Great Blue Heron Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc. February 2, 2009 English, S. 1978. Distribution and ecology of great blue heron colonies on the Willamette River, Oregon. Wading Birds 7:235-244. Ervin, K. 1991. Bald eagle menaces herons' nests. Seattle Times, Seattle, WA. Findholt, S. 1984. Status and distribution of herons, ibises, and related species in Wyoming. Colonial Waterbirds 7:55-62. Forbes, L. 1987. Predation on adult great blue herons: is it important. Colonial Waterbirds 10(1):120-122. Forbes, L. 1989. Coloniality in herons: Lack's predation hypothesis reconsidered. Colonial Waterbirds 16:53-58. 27 Forbes, L., K. Simpson, J. Kelsall, and D. Flook. 1985. Reproductive success of great blue herons in British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Zoology 63(5):1110-1113. Gibbs, J., S. Woodward, M. Hunter, and A. Hutchinson. 1987. Determinants of great blue heron colony distribution in coastal Maine. Auk 104:38-47. Giles, L., and D. Marshall. 1954. A large heron and egret colony on the Stillwater Wildlife Management Area, Nevada. Auk 71 :322-325. Governement du Quebec. 1986. Modalities dlntervesntion en Milieu Forestier. No. Pub. 3214. Graham, K., B. Collier, M. Bradstreet, and B. Collins. 1996. Great blue heron (Ardea herodias) populations in Ontario: data from and insights on the use of volunteers. Colonial Waterbirds 19(1):39-44. Gray, P., J. Grier, G. Hamilton, and P. Edwards. 1980. Great blue heron colonies in northwestern Ontario. Canadian Field-Naturalist 94(2): 182-184. Hall, D. 1986. Dispersal ofa heron-egret rookery. Proceedings of the. Eastern Wildlife Damage Control Conference 2:3-6. Henson, T. 1998. Three height and screening between proposed Black River Corporate Park 'Tract B" Building and the heron rookery in Renton, Washington. Report to Alper Northwest. Natural Resource Consultants, Tacoma, Washington. Henny, C., and M. Bethers. 1971. Population ecology of the great blue heron with special reference to western Oregon. Canadian Field-Naturalist 85(3):205-209. MLDC Property, QIP Property and Virtu Property Rezones Great Blue Heron Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc. February 2, 2009 28 Henny, C., and J. Kurtz. 1978. Great blue herons respond to nesting habitat loss. Wildlife Society Bulletin 6(1 ):35-37. Jensen, K., K. Wilson, and C. Hensley. 1990. The relationship of great blue herons colony success to distance from development and the effects of screening on that relationship. Unpublished report. 16 pp. Jones and Stokes, Inc. 1989. Black River Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Appendix B. Life history and effects of human disturbance on great blue heron rookeries. City of Renton. Jones and Stokes, Inc. 1991. Status of Black River great blue heron colony as of July 9, 1991. Letter to City of Renton. Julin, K. 1986. Decline of second-growth Douglas-fir in relation to great blue heron nesting. Northwest Science. 60:201-205. Kelsall, J. and K. Simpson. 1979. A three year study of the great blue heron in southwestern British Columbia. Colonial Waterbirds 3:69-74. Kelsall, J. 1989. The great blue herons of Point Roberts: History, biology, and management. Pt. Roberts Heron Preservation Committee. Unpublished report. 31 pp. Koonz, W., and P. Rakowski. 1985. Status of colonial waterbirds nesting in southern Manitoba. Canadian Field Naturalist 99:19-29. Krebs, J. 1978. Colonial nesting in birds, with special reference to the Ciconiiformes. Wading Birds 7:299-311. Krebs, J. 1974. Colonial nesting and social feeding as strategies for exploiting food resources in the great blue heron (Ardea herodias ). Behavior 51 :99-134. Longley, W. 1960. Comment on the flight distance of great blue heron. Wilson Bulletin 72:289. Mark, D. 1976. An inventory of great blue heron (Ardea herodias) nesting colonies in British Columbia. Northwest Science 50:32-41. Markham, B. and S. Brechtel. 1978. Status and management of three colonial waterbird species in Alberta. Colonial Waterbirds 2:55-64. Martin, R. and G. Lester. 1990. Atlas of wading bird and seabird nesting colonies in Louisiana 1990. Louisiana Natural Heritage Program, Special Pub. No. 3. MLDC Property. QIP Property and Virtu Property Rezones Great Blue Heron Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc. February 2, 2009 McAloney, K. 1973. The breeding biology of the great blue heron on Tobacco Island, Nova Scotia. Canadian Field-Naturalist 87:137-140. McCnimmon, D., Jr. 1982. Populations of great blue heron (Ardea herodias) in New York State from 1964 to 1981. Colonial Waterbirds 5:87-95. McMillan, A. 1985. Great blue herons can serve as biological indicators. Coastal Currents 10(6):6. Moseley, E. 1936. Blue heron colonies in northern Ohio. The Wilson Bull. 63 :3-11. Murphy, M. 1988. Status of great blue heron colonies in King County, Washington. Western Birds 12:215-217. 29 Norman, D. 1991. Chlorinated hydrocarbons and polychlorinated biphenyl congeners in great blue herons from western Washington. Master's thesis, Western Washington Univ., Bellingham, WA. 248 pp. Norman, D. 1995. The status of great blue herons in Puget Sound: population dynamics and recruitment hypothesis. Pages 638-646 In Puget Sound Research "95 Proceedings. Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, Olympia, WA. Ogden, J. 1978. Recent population trends of colonial wading birds on the Atlantic and Gulf Coast plains. Wading birds 7:137-153. Olendorf, H., E. Klaas, and T. Kaiser. 1979. Environmental pollutants and eggshell thickness: Anhingas and wading birds in eastern United States. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service Special Science Report No. 216. Washington D.C. Orr, H., and T. Sudia. 1960. Flight distance in great blue heron. Wilson Bull. 72: 198 Parker, J. 1980. Great blue herons (Ardea herodias) in northwest Montana: nesting habitat use and the effects of human disturbance. Master's thesis, University of Montana, Missoula. 82 pp. Penland, S. 1987. Letter to CityofRenton. DepartmentofWildlife, Mill Creek, WA. Dated January 30, 1987. 2 pp. Pratt, H. 1970. Breeding biology of great blue herons and common egrets in central California. The Condor 72:407-416. Pratt, H., and D. Winkler. 1985. Clutch size, timing oflaying, and reproductive success in a colony of great blue herons and great egrets. The Auk 102:49-63. MWC Property, QIP Property and Virtu Property Rezones Great Blue Heron Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc. February 2, 2009 Quinney, T. 1983. Comparison of great blue heron (Ardea herodias) reproduction at Boot Island and other Nova Scotia colonies. Canadian Field-Naturalist 97(3):275-278. Raedeke, K. and A. Stabins. 2009. Status of great blue herons in King County, Washington. In prep. Rogers, J., Jr., and H. Smith. 1995. Set-back distances to protect nesting bird colonies from human disturbance in Florida. Conservation Biology 9:89-99. 30 Sauer, J., J. Hines, and J. Fallon. 2005. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, results and analysis 1966-2005. Ver. 6.2.200. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD. Schirato, G. 1990. Letter to Kitsap County Hearing Examiner. Dated October 4, 1990. 3 pp. Schirato, G. 1990. Letter to Kitsap County Planning Dept., Dated July 11, 1990. Washington Dept. of Wildlife, Aberdeen, WA. 2 pp. Shipe, S., and W. Scott. 1981. The great blue heron in King County, Washington. Nongame Program, Washington Game Department, Seattle, WA. 33 pp. Short, H., and R. Cooper. 1985. Habitat suitability Index models: Great blue heron. Bio. Rept. 82(10.99), USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service, Wash. D.C. 23 pp. Simpson, K. 1984. Factors affecting reproduction in great blue herons (Ardea herodias). M.S. thesis, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C. Simpson, K., J. Smith, and J. Kelsall. 1987. Correlates and consequences of coloniality in great blue herons. Canadian Journal of Zoology 65:572-577. Speich, S. 1986. Colonial waterbirds. pp. 387-405 In. Cooperrider, A., R. Boyd, and H. Stuart (eds). Inventory and monitoring of wildlife habitat. USO! Bureau of Land Management. Service Center, Denver, Co. 858 pp. Smith, M., P. Mattacks, Jr., K. Cassidy. 1997. Breeding birds of Washington State. Vol. 4 in Cassidy, K., C. Grue, M. Smith, and K. Dvomich (eds.) Washington Gap Analysis. Seattle Audubon Society Pubs. in Zoology No. I., Seattle. 538 pp. Stabins, A. 2001. Great blue herons in King County, Washington. M.S. thesis, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. 76 pp. MLDC Property, QJP Property and Virtu Property Rezones Great Blue Heron Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc. February 2, 2009 31 Stabins, H., and K. Raedeke. 1992. Status of great blue heron nesting colonies in King County, Washington. Northwest Science 66(2):126. Stabins, A., K. Raedeke, and D. Manuwal. 2006. Productivity of great blue herons in King County, Washington. Northwest Science 80(2):116-119. Stem, J., and R. Feins. 1991. Use of Christmas Bird Count data for monitoring marine bird populations. Pages 400-413 In Proceedings Puget Sound Research '91. Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, Olympia, WA. Sullivan, J ., and S. Payne. 1988. Aspects of history and nesting mortality at a great blue heron (Ardea herodias) colony, Quentico Provincial Park, Ontario. Canadian Field-Naturalist 102(2):237-241. Taylor, T., M. Reshkin, and K. Brock. 1982. Recreation land use adjacent to an active heron rookery: a management study. Proc. Indiana Academy of Sciences 91 :226- 236. Thompson, D. 1977. Decline in populations of colonial waterbirds within the upper floodplain of the Mississippi River. Colonial Waterbirds 1:26-37. Thompson, T. 1994. Avondale/Spencer heron colony and "Park 95" development. Letter dated Feb. 9, 1994 to Raedeke Associates, Inc. Washington Dept. Wildlife, Mill Creek, WA. Terres, J. 1980. Heron family. pp. 495, 499 In The Audubon Society Encyclopedia of North American Birds. New York, NY. Van Wormer, R. 1988. Technical report on recommended setbacks of great blue heron rookery. Independent Ecological Services, Olympia. 10 pp. Van Wormer, R. 1989. Technical report on recommended setbacks of great blue heron rookery. Independent Ecological Services, Olympia. 10 pp. Vennesland, R. 2000. The effects of disturbance from humans and predators on the breeding decisions and productivity of the great blue heron in south-coastal British Columbia. M.S. thesis, Simon Fraser University, British Columbia. 109 pp. Vennesland, R. 2007. Great Blue Heron Management Plan and associated documents for rezone application for QIP and Virtu properties, Renton, Washington. Letter dated July 31, 2007 to Renton Planning Commission and City Council. MLDC Property, QJP Property and Virtu Property Rezones Great Blue Heron Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc. February 2, 2009 Vermeer, K. 1973. Great blue heron and double-crested cormorant colonies in the Prairie Provinces. Canadian Field Naturalist 87:427-432. Vos, D., R. Ryder, and W. Graul. 1985. Response of breeding great blue herons to human disturbance in north-central Colorado. Colonial Waterbirds 8: 13-22. 32 Washington Department of Wildlife. 1991. Management Recommendations for Priority Species: Great Blue Herons. Olympia, WA. Washington Department offish and Wildlife. 2008. Priority Habitats and Species List. Habitat Program, Olympia, WA. Washington Department of Wildlife. 1999. Management Recommendations for Priority Species: Great Blue Herons. Olympia, WA. Webb, S., and S. Forbes. 1981. Colony establishment in an urban site by great blue herons. Murrelet 63:91-92. Werschkul, D., E. McMahon, and M. Leitschuh. 1976. Some effects of human activities on the great blue heron in Oregon. The Wilson Bulletin 88:660-662. Werschkul, D., E. McMahon, M. Leitschuh, S. English, C. Skibinski, and G. Williamson. 1977. Observations of the reproductive ecology of the great blue heron (Ardea herodias) in Western Oregon. The Murrelet 58:7-12. Wiese, J. 1978. Heron nest site selection and its ecological effects. Wading Birds. National Audubon Society Research Report 7:27-34. MLDC Property, QIP Property and Virtu Property Rezones Great Blue Heron Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc. February 2, 2009 FIGURES AND TABLES '1111 .,.,..-----..... -----... ------. -- --__ ,__ ._ .. eN.IOtr, ._...,,.__'WI .... ~'-'>.., IIYJ ait1-1;&t"t) k~,t \·: .; -UD-1;&t"t) Z'[OII • • !113)1 OC2K IUIIOS: :IWW GNU !;la!L 6-1)~ ... g~ -- 1tOJ.IOH JO )JI:) JH1 JO J.SlllRX) (JDftOlld SJlf1 >.Ul3dClHd .OdOJ. 1Wll'I SSOIIOlCI JO AS1Ut100 (IIOOZ 'II *IOPO :.}GO) HcMl:)()J.OHd 'MIOt !l!OH 35 Table I. Comparison of heron colony nest counts in Western Washington from Calambokidis et al. (1985). First Count 1984 Samish Island >50 334 March Point nd >42 West Seattle nd 16 Dumas Bay 5 46 Peasley Canyon 0 14 Nisqually 0 53 Totten Inlet 30 75 Long Island 125 128 Total nests 210 692 MLDC Property, QIP Property and Virtu Property Rezones Great Blue Heron Assessment Date of First Count 1925 No previous data Since 1940's 1978 First nests in 1968 First observed in 1977 1978 1981 Raedeke Associates, Inc. February 2, 2009 36 Table 2. Summary of great blue heron census data for the Black River colony and for King County in total. Year Black River Nests 1981 0 1982 0 1983 0 1984 4 1985 active 1986 8 1987 9 1988 22 1989 24 1990 37 1991 31 1992 16 1993 10 1994 14 1995 19 1996 39 1997 active 1998 65 1999 60 2000 61 2001 80 2002 133 2003 125 2004 119 2005 135 2006 130 2007 119 2008 90 MLDC Property, QIP Property and Virtu Property Rezones Great Blue Heron Assessment King County Nests Colonies 79 7 103 8 180 8 276 10 280 11 297 11 300 12 383 13 270 13 314 10 401 11 13 14 Raedeke Associates, Inc. February 2, 2009 37 Table 3. Buffer recommendations and basis for recommendations. Source/Type Buffers (in feet) Research/Direct Observations: Taylor et al. 1982 577 Vos et al. 1985 492 Rogers & Smith 1995 328 Parker 1980 82 Literature Review: WDFW 1999 management 820-980 King County (1998) 660 Schirato (WOW) 1990 175 Jones & Stokes Inc. 1990 250 wow 1989 75 Shipe & Scott 1981 656 Personal Professional Opinion: Kelsall 1990 1000 Bayer 1990 800-1000 Unknown Basis: Koonz and Rakowski 1985 3,300 Markam and Brechtel 1978 1,650 Forbes et al. 1985 1,642 Quebec 1986 660 Dunn 1987 660 Penland 1986 660 Penland 1987 500 Mathiesen and Richards 1978 330 Kitsap County 1991 350 City of Seattle 1986 200 Anderson 1978 165 Thompson (WOW) 1994 250 MLDC Property, QIP Property and Virtu Property Rezones Great Blue Heron Assessment Comments Observations of flushing Flushing distance over water Flushing distances Observations of flushing PHS guidelines Shipe and Scott (?) Comments on Heron Cove North Miller Bay colony Relies on Parker 1980 Werschkul et al. 1976 Professional opinion Professional opinion Involved rural/remote area study Based on rural/remote area study Based on rural/remote area study Forest management guidelines Cites department policies Reference to Pigeon Point Raedeke Associates, Inc. February 2, 2009 Appendix B: Wildlife Habitat Reconnaissance (Raedeke Associates, Inc. 2009c) WILDLIFE RECONNAISSANCE MLDC, QIP, and Virtu Properties Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone City of Renton, Washington February 4, 2009 RAEDEKE ASSOCIATES, INC. Report To: Title: Project Number: Prepared By: Date: Merlino Land Development Co., Inc., and Quarry Industrial Park, LLC Attn: Mr. Don Merlino 9125 10th Avenue South Seattle, Washington 98108-4612 Wildlife Reconnaissance for the MLDC, QIP, and Virtu Properties, City of Renton, Washington 2007-002-003 RAEDEKE AS SOCIA TES, INC. 5711 Northeast 63rd Street Seattle, Washington 98115 (206) 525-8122 February 4, 2009 Project Manager: Current Project Personnel: Kenneth J. Raedeke, Ph.D. President I Certified Senior Ecologist, ESA Joel Merriman, M.S. Wildlife Biologist Emmett Pritchard, S.S. Principal/ Wetland Ecologist Duane Dietz, B.L.A., A.S.L.A Landscape Architect Ashley Thorner, M.L.A, M.F.A. Landscape Designer 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 STATEMENT OF PURPOSE This report documents the results of our field investigation and assessment of the wildlife communities and habitat on the MLDC, QIP, and Virtu properties (hereafter, collectively referred to as the "study site" or "property") in King County, Washington (Figures 1 and 2). The primary objective of our study is to provide baseline biological information on the wildlife and habitat that are located on or adjacent to the site. A list of common and scientific names of wildlife species observed on the site or otherwise mentioned in the following text is provided in Table 1, and common and scientific names of plant species mentioned in the report text are provided in Table 2. 1.2 SITE LOCATION AND OWNERSHIP The site is located in Section 13, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W.M., in the City of Renton (Figures 1 and 2). The 37-acre site is bounded on the south by the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad tracks, on the north in part by SW Sunset Boulevard and in part by the Sunset View Apartments, on the southeast by the Sunpointe Townhomes, and on the west by a portion of the Black River Quarry. The property boundaries are shown on an exhibit map prepared by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. dated January 27, 2009 and on the aerial photo exhibit in Appendix A. MLDC, QIP, and Virtu Properties Wildlife Reconnaissance Raedeke Associates, Inc. February 4. 2009 2 2.0 METHODS 2.1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION In preparation for our field visit, we requested current information from the Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) and Wildlife Heritage (HRTG) databases maintained by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW 2009) for documented information on the potential occurrence of Federal-or State-listed endangered, threatened, sensitive, candidate, other priority, or monitor wildlife species (hereafter "species of concern"), their preferred habitats, and any State-designated priority habitats on the project site and vicinity. State priority species are defined as those fish and wildlife species "requiring protective measures and/or management actions to ensure their survival," and State priority habitats are defined as habitat types "with unique or significant value to many species." (WDFW 2008a). State monitor species are those species that are "managed by the Department, as needed, to prevent them from becoming endangered, threatened, or sensitive" (WDFW 2008b ). We reviewed reference lists maintained by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS 2009) and WDFW (2008a, 2008b) for information on the status of wildlife species of concern that could use the site during at least some part of the year. We also consulted species accounts and management recommendations provided by WDFW (e.g., Rodrick and Milner 1991, Larsen 1997, Larsen et al. 2004) to determine habitat associations of such species and to evaluate the likelihood of their occurrence on the project site. During our field investigation, we searched for the presence of these species, or signs thereof, which could be found on the property. Additional information regarding current and past zoning and land uses of the site was provided by Merlino Land Development Co., Inc. and Quarry Industrial Park, LLC, and their representatives. 2.2 FIELD INVESTIGATION We conducted field investigations of the study site and vicinity on March 12, 2008 and January 15, 2009. In this report, cumulative wildlife observations are presented from both visits. During these field investigations, we documented wildlife presence, sign, and habitat, and we also inventoried and described plant communities. We recorded information regarding reproduction, habitat use, and activities of all wildlife species observed. In addition, we noted special habitat features such as large and/or hollow trees, snags [standing dead or partly dead trees at least four inches diameter at breast height (dbh) and at least six feet tall], and large down logs. We directly observed and noted present land use of the site and immediate vicinity, and we also analyzed aerial photographs to note historic and present land uses of those areas. During our field surveys, we also searched specifically for the presence, sign, or habitats of any wildlife species of concern on or adjacent to the project site. In particular, we MLDC, QJP, and Virtu Properties Wildlife Reconnaissance Raedeke Associates, Inc. February 4, 2009 3 searched for the presence of large stick-type nests, hollow trees, tree cavities, and pileated woodpecker foraging sign. Large stick-type nests are built and used by several species of concern, including bald eagles and great blue herons. Tree cavities are created and used by woodpeckers, including species of concern such as the pileated woodpecker, and are used secondarily by a host of bird and mammal species, including species of concern such as purple martins, various cavity-nesting duck species, and various bats. Hollow trees are used as daytime roost for species of concern, including various bat species, as well as Vaux' s swifts. MLDC, QIP, and Virtu Properties Wildlife Reconnaissance Raedeke Associates, Inc. February 4, 2009 4 3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS 3.1 RESULTS OF BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION The WDFW (2009) PHS and HRTG databases map a polygon that lies predominantly north of the south edge of the BNSF railroad tracks, and encompasses the majority of the study site, as "Urban Natural Open Space" (UNOS), which is a State-designated priority habitat (WDFW 2008a). Similarly, the adjacent, undeveloped areas south of the BNSF railroad track and north of Oakesdale Avenue SW, including the approximately 100-acre Black River Riparian Forest (Figure 2), are collectively mapped as UNOS (WDFW 2008a). Ten additional areas are mapped as UNOS within approximately 1.5 miles of the property. The Black River Riparian Forest (Figure 2) is owned by the City of Renton, and areas of wetland (including a substantial open water area) and a great blue heron nesting colony are mapped as being present within this City-owned property (WDFW 2008a). Great blue herons are considered a State monitor species (WDFW 2008b), and heron nesting colonies are considered priority areas (WDFW 2008a). Three bald eagle nests are mapped within approximately 1.5 miles of the study site. The first is located approximately I, I 00 feet south of the site within the Black River Riparian Forest, adjacent to the open water area and near the great blue heron nesting colony. An adult eagle was seen perched near this nest during the majority of our site visit. The second nest is approximately I, 750 feet west of the northwest corner of the property atop a bluff, adjacent to a stormwater pond for the nearby Valley View Apartments. This nest appeared to be inactive during our site visits, though it was early in the breeding season. The third nest is more than 1.5 miles north-northeast of the property near the shore of the southwestern portion of Lake Washington. Bald eagles are considered a sensitive species in Washington State (WDFW 2008a). 3.2 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY AND VICINITY The approximately 27. I-acre MLDC Property, the site of the previously planned and approved the Sunset Bluff Residential Subdivision, has largely been cleared and graded in preparation for residential development (Photoplate I, photos I through 3 ). Approximately 26.03 acres of the MLDC Property are currently zoned Residential-I 0 Dwelling Units Per Net Acre (R-10). The remaining approximately 1.05 acres of the MLDC Property (a strip along the west side of its south edge) are zoned Resource Conservation (RC). Much of the MLDC Property has been cleared and graded for the recently planned and approved Sunset Bluff Residential Subdivision development. Those areas support little to no vegetation. A Category 1 wetland, a stream, and associated buffers on the eastern portion of the MLDC Property have been retained in native growth and encompass approximately 4.7 acres (see aerial photo exhibit in Appendix A; MLDC, QJP, and Virtu Properties Wildlife Reconnaissance Raedeke Associates, Inc. February 4, 2009 Photoplate I, Photo 4) as has a narrow, forested strip along the MLDC Property's north edge north of the area that has been cleared (see aerial photo exhibit in Appendix A). A younger deciduous forest/shrub-mosaic strip of vegetation lies off-site on the north edge of the BNSF railroad right-of-way adjacent to the southern boundary of the MLDC Property and the QIP Property (see aerial photo exhibit in Appendix A). 5 The approximately 9.0-acre QIP Property (which is the easternmost part of the Black River Quarry site) is located west of and abutting the MLDC Property along the north edge of an unimproved street right-of-way (S. 1401h Street) and the BNSF railroad right- of-way immediately to the south ofit. Further south is the Black River Riparian Forest, within which the heron nesting area is located about 965 feet south of the QIP Property. Nearly the entire QIP Property is unvegetated and portions ofit have been graded. This property is used for storage of construction materials and construction equipment and for construction materials recycling activities. Approximately 8. 7 acres of the QIP Property are currently zoned R-10 and approximately 0.3 acres ofit (a roughly triangularly-shaped area along the east side of its south edge) are zoned RC. The 0.90-acre Virtu Property is a currently undeveloped, forested comer portion of the existing Sunset View Apartments development abutting a portion of the MLDC Property's west edge and located to the north of the easterly half of the QIP Property [just to the north ofa 20-foot-wide unimproved street right-of-way (S. 1371h Street)]. Two wetlands have been identified on the study site, one in the southeastern portion of the MLDC Property, another in the southwestern portion of the MLDC Property. An intermittent, non-fish-bearing stream flows from north to south across the western edge of the on-site deciduous forest in the eastern part of the MLDC Property. Streams and wetlands are discussed in greater detail in the wetland delineation report (Theresa R. Henson Consulting 2000) and habitat/wildlife assessment and stream study report (Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. 2004) for the MLDC Property. Moderate-to high-density housing lies north, northwest and southeast of the site, whereas construction-materials recycling and storage operations, concrete batching and related uses involving heavy equipment are conducted in the portion of the Black River Quarry located to the west. As previously mentioned, the Black River Riparian Forest lies to the south of the rezone site and is separated from the site by the BNSF railroad line. 3.3 VEGETATION The majority of the study site, including all non-forested areas, is largely unvegetated (see aerial photo exhibit in Appendix A). The forest on the Virtu Property in the north- central portion of the study site is relatively closed-canopy, second-growth deciduous forest dominated by bigleafmaple, with lesser amounts of Douglas fir and black cottonwood. The shrub layer is dominated by Indian plum and common snowberry, with MLDC. QJP, and Virtu Properties Wildlife Reconnaissance Raedeke Associates, Inc. February 4. 2009 6 Himalayan blackberry common in more-open areas and at the forest edge. Herbaceous plants are somewhat sparse in this area, and western sword fem is the most prevalent species among them. The forest in the eastern portion of the site is closed-canopy, second-growth deciduous forest dominated by bigleaf maple. Common snowberry is the dominant species in the sparsely to moderately dense shrub layer, and western sword fem is the dominant herbaceous plant in this area. The slopes along the northern boundary of the MLDC Property are generally dominated by bigleaf maple, though some areas are dominated by black cottonwood. Himalayan blackberry dominates the shrub layer, particularly in canopy gaps where trees and saplings are absent. Within the shrub layer, additional species present include beaked hazelnut, vine maple, and oceanspray, and scattered western sword fem dominates the herbaceous layer. The slopes south of the southern boundary of the study site are vegetated by young bigleaf maple trees interspersed with openings dominated by bigleaf maple saplings, as well as by Himalayan blackberry, common snowberry, and Pacific blackberry. 3,4 SPECIAL HABITAT FEATURES Snags provide important foraging habitat, as well as breeding and cover sites for a variety of invertebrate and vertebrate wildlife species. We observed snags within the deciduous forest on the Virtu Property, as well as within the forest strip along the northern boundary of the MLDC Property. Within the Virtu Property, snags included one large, partly live western red cedar, one approximately 20-inch dbh bigleaf maple, and one approximately 10-inch dbh red alder. Within the forest strip along the MLDC Property's northern boundary, we observed a total of 16 snags (all deciduous species), at least three of which were greater than 20 inches dbh. WDFW (2008a) considers snags greater than 20 inches dbh and 6.5 feet tall to be priority snags; thus, five or more snags on the study site constitute priority snags. In addition, the density of snags in the treeline along the northern edge of the MLDC Property would probably constitute "priority snag and log habitat" per current WDFW (2008a) guidelines. Large(> 12 inches diameter at the large end) down logs provide cover, as well as foraging, breeding, and cover sites for a variety of invertebrates, small mammals, and amphibians. We documented few large down logs in the forested portions of the study site, although we found several near the northern edge of the forest patch in the eastern portion of the MLDC Property, as well as within the forest strip along the MLDC Property's north edge. Small-and medium-sized woody debris (less than three inches in diameter and between three and 12 inches in diameter, respectively) is uncommon on the site. MLDC. QIP, and Virtu Properties Wildlife Reconnaissance Raedeke Associates, Inc. February 4, 2009 The deciduous forest on the Virtu Property supports several large (>20 inches dbh) trees, including Douglas fir, bigleaf maple, and black cottonwood. Large black cottonwoods are also found within the forest strip along the MLDC Property's north edge. A large remnant of what appears to be a Douglas fir is situated near the northern boundary of the wetland in the southeastern, forested portion of the MLDC Property. Otherwise, large trees are generally absent within the forest located in the eastern portion of the MLDC Property. 7 Due to its small size, highly fragmented nature, and mostly narrow configuration, most of the on-site forest constitutes edge habitat. While edge habitat is preferred by some wildlife species and may therefore increase wildlife species richness and diversity, it is subject to a number of negative environmental factors that are less pronounced in larger, more contiguous forest patches. Those factors include, among others, increased likelihood for colonization by invasive plant species, increased presence of mid-sized carnivores (which can potentially lead to increased depredation and decreased reproductive success for resident wildlife), and increased understory temperature. 3.5 WILDLIFE Due in part to (a) the highly disturbed, unvegetated nature of the majority of the study site, (b) the time of year of our site visits ( corresponding to the non-breeding season when many neotropical migrant birds are not present), and (c) the largely urbanized setting, the number of wildlife species that we observed during our field visits was moderate. Species observed primarily include those adapted to Puget Sound lowland forest, as well as those adapted to fragmented and/or residential areas. A variety of bird species are likely to inhabit the site and vicinity at different times of the year. Many of these are spring and summer residents that migrate out of the area for the fall and winter. Bird species observed were primarily limited to year-round or winter residents (Table 1 ). We observed three species of waterfowl within the open-water portion of the wetland in the southeastern portion of the MLDC Property, as well as four species of diurnal raptor on or near the site. The latter consisted of(a) an adult bald eagle flying over the site (in March 2008) and perched near the documented eagle nest south of the site (in January 2009), (b) a sharp-shinned hawk hunting in the forest in the eastern portion of the site (in January 2009), (c) a Cooper's hawk flying over and perched within the site (in March 2008), and ( d) multiple observations of one or more red-tailed hawks at different times during both site visits. We observed a single gull species flying over the site, a single hummingbird species on and south of the site, and a total of 16 passerine species on the site. We observed a pair of band-tailed pigeons mating in a tree along the south side of SW Sunset Boulevard in the far eastern extent of the MLDC Property. We documented the presence and/or foraging sign of at least three woodpecker species on or near the site, including a northern flicker observed on the site and a red-breasted MLDC. QJP, and Virtu Properties Wildlife Reconnaissance Raedeke Associates, Inc. February 4, 2009 8 sapsucker observed south of the site. Woodpecker foraging sign on the site was uncommon and appeared to consist primarily of the activity of smaller woodpecker species (e.g., downy and/or hairy woodpeckers, northern flicker). However, we observed weathered foraging sign ofa pileated woodpecker on a snag along the MLDC Property's northeast boundary. No pileated woodpeckers were heard or seen during our site visit, and no recent foraging sign was observed. We observed cavities in three standing dead trees on the Virtu Property. The first of these trees was a large western red cedar, in which we observed two cavities in the upper third of the trunk. Both cavities were fairly large, and neither showed sign ofrecent use by woodpeckers. In addition, we observed red-breasted sapsucker foraging sign on that snag. The second tree was a broken-topped bigleaf maple, which supports a fairly large, circular cavity that did not show sign of recent use. The third was an alder snag with a large, oblong cavity that was probably the result ofrot following a large branch breaking from the trunk. Two snags within the strip of forest along the MLDC Property's northern boundary also supported small cavities. The only mammals or their sign that we observed on the study site include a cottontail rabbit and coyote scat, though multiple other species of small-and medium-sized mammals likely use the site. As indicated in Section 3 .4, a low to moderate amount of down woody debris is present on the study site, which provides potential cover and breeding habitat for small mammals, and on-site trees and snags provide potential cover and breeding locations for medium-sized mammals such as raccoons and eastern gray squirrels. We observed Pacific treefrogs during our field visits. We did not observe any other amphibians or reptiles, though a small number of each group is likely to be present. The down woody debris on the site may provide breeding habitat for a small number of Puget Sound lowland terrestrial-breeding amphibians, and aquatic-breeding amphibians probably breed in the wetland in the southeast portion of the site. Potential cover and foraging habitat for some reptiles, including garter snakes, and some amphibians, particularly salamanders, are also found on the site. MLDC, QIP, and Virtu Properties Wildlife Reconnaissance Raedeke Associates, Inc. February 4, 2009 9 4.0 REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS 4.1 STATEOFWASHINGTON In Washington State, bald eagles are protected by the Bald Eagle Protection Act of 1984 (RCW 77.12.655) and the Bald Eagle Protection Rules (WAC 232-12-292). The Bald Eagle Protection Rules require preparation of Bald Eagle Management Plans for proposed projects that fall within a Bald Eagle Management Zone (within 800 feet of a nest, or within 250 feet of shoreline if also within 0.5 mile of a nest). The bald eagle nest that is 1,750 feet west of the site's northwest comer falls well outside the 800-foot zone and thus would not need a Bald Eagle Management Plan. The eagle nest within the Black River Riparian Forest, which is approximately 1,100 feet from the property boundary, is also well outside the 800-foot zone and thus would not require a Bald Eagle Management Plan, either. Bald eagle management issues are discussed in greater detail in Section 4.2.1. 4.2 CITY OF RENTON The City of Renton regulates wildlife habitat under Renton Municipal Code Section 4-3- 050.K -Habitat Conservation. Specifically, Category 1 wetlands and habitat associated with species of concern are considered "critical habitat," as defined in RMC 4-3- 050K.1.a. "Critical habitat" is further defined in RMC 4-11-030 as "habitat areas associated with threatened, endangered, sensitive, monitored, or priority species of plants or wildlife and which, if altered, could reduce the likelihood that the species would maintain and reproduce over the long term." The wetland in the southeastern portion of the property has been rated as a Category 1 wetland and thus constitutes a critical habitat per City of Renton code. Species of concern that are or may be present on or in the vicinity of the property, as determined by our background and field investigation, include bald eagles, pileated woodpeckers, band-tailed pigeons, and great blue herons. Each is discussed in greater detail in the following paragraphs. 4.2.1 Bald Eagle Bald eagles are listed as a Sensitive species in Washington State. As discussed in Section 3.1 above, three bald eagle nests are found within approximately 1.5 miles of the study site. Of these, the birds occupying the nest site more than 1.5 miles to the north-northeast are likely to perch and forage along the shore of Lake Washington and are not likely to use the study site. Eagles using either of the two nest sites nearer the property probably perch and forage along the open-water component within the Black River Riparian Forest, as well as along the Green River. (The Green River is located approximately 0.25 and 0.85 miles west of the nest sites, respectively). These two nest sites are considered to be part of the same territory and thus are probably used by the same eagles from year to year. MLDC. QJP, and Virtu Properties Wildlife Reconnaissance Raedeke Associates, Inc. February 4, 2009 10 The large trees on the study site probably do not provide valuable perch sites for bald eagles given the trees' substantial distance from large, open-water foraging areas. In addition, most of the larger trees on the site lie in close proximity to apartment buildings, roads, and the active industrial/quarry site, which further reduces their utility for eagles. Eagles may occasionally perch and hunt waterfowl in the wetland in the southeastern portion of the MLDC Property (most of which is off-site), but given that larger, fish- bearing waters are found in the area, the on-site wetland is unlikely to be a regular feeding location for local eagles. Thus, (a) the study site is not likely to provide important habitat for bald eagles, and (b) the limited habitat that does exist for this species (the wetland in the southeastern portion of the MLDC property) would be retained along with its associated buffer during future construction within the study area. In addition, due to the limited usefulness of this wetland to eagles, any hypothetical alteration of this wetland would be unlikely to "reduce the likelihood that [bald eagles] would maintain and reproduce over the long term." Therefore, it is our opinion that critical habitat, as defined by the City of Renton, does not exist on the study site for bald eagles. 4.2.2 Pileated Woodpecker Pileated woodpeckers are a "State candidate" species, which are species that "will be reviewed by the department for possible listing as endangered, threatened, or sensitive" (WDFW 2008a). The weathered, probably inactive cavities in the western red cedar on the Virtu Property (as described in Sections 3.4 and 3.5) may have been excavated and/or used by pileated woodpeckers in the past, but it does not appear that these cavities are currently used. The cavity in an on-site broken-topped bigleaf maple ( described in Section 3.5) is potentially large enough to be used by a pileated woodpecker; however, the circular cavity entrance ( contrasted with the typically oblong openings created by pileated woodpeckers), small forest patch size, surrounding habitat, and presence of northern flickers in the area indicate that the cavity was probably excavated and used by the latter species. In addition, only a small amount of weathered pileated woodpecker foraging sign was observed on the property. Pileated woodpeckers can use forest stands within urban and rural localities, are known to engage in relatively long overland flights between foraging areas, and probably inhabit the general area. However, we did not observe this species during our site visit and found no recent evidence of foraging sign that could be attributed to this species. The on-site snags present limited potential habitat for pileated woodpeckers; however, it does not appear that this species currently uses the site. In addition, the snags that lie within the strip of vegetation along the northern boundary of the MLDC property (which constitute most of the on-site snags) would be retained during future development. Because the potential on-site habitat for pileated woodpeckers is limited and because the site does not appear to be currently used by this species, any alteration of the forested portions of the site would be unlikely to "reduce the likelihood that [pileated woodpeckers) would maintain and reproduce over the long term." Thus, it is our opinion that critical habitat, MLDC. QIP, and Virtu Properties Wildlife Reconnaissance Raedeke Associates, Inc. February 4, 2009 11 as defined by the City of Renton, does not exist on the study site for pileated woodpeckers. 4.2.3 Band-tailed Pigeon Band-tailed pigeons are a "Species of Recreational, Commercial, and/or Tribal Importance" in Washington, and are considered a priority where they occur in regular concentrations and at occupied mineral sites. This species is typically found in mixed coniferous-deciduous or coniferous forest with sufficient berry-and nut-producing trees and shrubs for foraging (Lewis et al. 2003). In addition, band-tailed pigeons are strongly associated with mineral springs, which they use during the breeding season (Lewis et al. 2003). As discussed in Section 3.5, we observed a single pair of band-tailed pigeons in the deciduous forest at the study site's eastern end. Band-tailed pigeons typically nest in young, closed-canopy, coniferous forest (Lewis et al. 2003). No such forest is found on the study site, so it is unlikely that these birds would nest within the study area. The shrubs in the understory of the on-site forest could provide foraging habitat for band- tailed pigeons, but given the predominance of deciduous trees in the overstory, it is unlikely that these areas would regularly be used by pigeons. We did not observe nest sites or any large concentrations of band-tailed pigeons, nor did we observe any ground- feeding pigeons (e.g., at mineral springs). In addition, no band-tailed pigeon nest sites, concentrations, or mineral springs are mapped by WDFW (2009) within approximately 1.5 miles of the site. Given the limited usefulness of the on-site deciduous forest to band-tailed pigeons, it is unlikely that alteration of these areas would "reduce the likelihood that [band-tailed pigeons] would maintain and reproduce over the long term." Therefore, it is our opinion that critical habitat, as defined by the City of Renton, does not exist on the study site for band-tailed pigeons. 4.2.4 Great Blue Heron Great blue herons are a monitor species in Washington, and are considered a priority at breeding areas. An assessment of great blue heron management in relation to the study site has been addressed in another document (Raedeke Associates, Inc. 2009). Herons in the vicinity of the study site may forage within the approximately three-acre Category I wetland that straddles the study area's south boundary in the southeastern portion of the MLDC Property. (The bulk of that wetland is off-site\ However, their foraging activity is likely to be concentrated in larger aquatic areas in the vicinity of the breeding colony to the south of the study site, within the City park property. Because (a) only a small 1 The wetland delineation report prepared for what is now referred to as the MLDC Property (Theresa R. Henson Consulting 2000) notes that the on-site portion of the approximately three-acre Category 1 wetland was only 6,058 square feet. Thus, less than five percent of that wetland lies on the MLDC Property. MLDC, QIP, and Virtu Properties Wildlife Reconnaissance Raedeke Associates, Inc. February 4, 2009 12 portion of the Category I wetland is found on the study site, and (b) more substantial habitat exists for great blue herons in the area to the south of the study site, it is unlikely that any hypothetical alteration of the on-site portion of the wetland would "reduce the likelihood that [great blue herons] would maintain and reproduce over the long term." Thus, it is our opinion that critical habitat, as defined by the City of Renton, does not exist for great blue herons on the study site. 4.2.S Summary Because Renton Municipal Code Section 4-3-050.K. l .a includes all Category I wetlands as "critical habitat," the 6,058-square-foot on-site portion of the approximately three-acre Category I wetland that straddles the study site's south boundary in the southeastern portion of the MLDC Property is by definition a "critical habitat". As discussed in Sections 4.2.1 through 4.2.4, it is our opinion that no other portion of the study site is critical habitat, as defined by the current Renton Municipal Code. The portion of the Category I wetland on the study site, and its associated on-site buffer, would be preserved during future development of the site regardless of the site's zoning. Further assessment of that wetland is provided in the wetland delineation report (Theresa R. Henson Consulting 2000) for the MLDC Property. Aside from the species discussed in Sections 4.2.1 through 4.2.4, no other species of concern are known to use or are likely to use the study site. The Black River Riparian Forest to the south of the site would meet the definition for critical habitat as a result of the presence of a bald eagle nest and a great blue heron colony there. 4.3 OTHER ISSUES As discussed in Section 3.1, the area north of the BNSF railroad track that surrounds and includes the study site is mapped as UNOS by WDFW (2009). Under the revised PHS definitions provided by WDFW (2008a), the "UNOS" priority habitat definition is being phased out and replaced by "biodiversity areas." However, this will require an on-the- ground analysis of all areas currently designated as UNOS, and all such areas shall remain designated as UNOS on WDFW's PHS and HRTG databases map until the site review has been completed. [Per the current PHS definitions (WDFW 2008a), this will be no later than August 201 OJ. Until that analysis is completed, WDFW's mapping of portions of the study site as UNOS will technically still remain, even though the portions of the study site that are mapped as UNOS no longer meet the UNOS definition (see discussion below. Prior to the most recent update, UNOS was defined by WDFW (2008c) as areas where: A priority species resides within or is adjacent to the open space and uses it/or breeding and/or regular.feeding; and/or the open ,pace junctions as a corridor connecting other priority habitats, especialzy those that would MLDC, Q!P, and Virtu Properties Wildlife Reconnaissance Raedeke Associates, Inc. Fehruary 4, 2009 otherwise be isolated; and/or the open space is an isolated remnant of natural habitat larger than 4 ha (10 acres) and is surrounded by urban development. Local considerations may be given to open space areas smaller than 4 ha (IO acres). The following is a point-by-point analysis of this definition in relation to the study site: A priority species resides within or is adjacent to the open :,pace and uses it for breeding and/or regular feeding; 13 As discussed in Section 4.2, the priority species that have been observed within or near the study site are not likely to use the property for breeding and/or regular feeding. Great blue herons and bald eagles may forage within the Category I wetland (the bulk of which is off-site) in the southeastern portion of the MLDC Property, but their foraging activity is likely to be concentrated in larger aquatic areas to the south of the study site within the City ofRenton's approximately 100-acre park property. In addition, band-tailed pigeons may forage in the forested portions of the study site but, given that the habitat is of marginal value to pigeons, those forested portions are not likely to be used for regular feeding by this species . . . . the open space functions as a corridor connecting other priority habitats, especially those that would otherwise be isolated; Forested areas contiguous with the on-site forest patches are not also contiguous with other priority habitats. Thus, the vegetated portions of the site do not serve as a corridor connecting other priority habitats. The BNSF railroad tracks and associated chain link fence (a fence that has only occasional breaks) to the south of the property separate the vegetated portion of the study site from the Black River Riparian Forest (see aerial photo exhibit in Appendix A) . . . . the open space is an isolated remnant of natural habitat larger than 4 ha (] 0 acre:,) and is surrounded by urban development. The forest patch in the southeast portion of the MLDC Property is approximately 4.7 acres in size. However, the contiguous forested area to the southeast of the site (all north of the BNSF railroad right-of-way) is approximately 8.3 acres in size. Thus, the entirety of this contiguous forested area is approximately 13 acres in size (i.e., greater than I 0 acres). However, because the Black River Riparian forest lies across the railroad line to the south of this 13-acre forested area, this 13-acre forest patch is not "surrounded" by urban development. The data accompanying the PHS and HRTG map (WDFW 2009) provide the following description of the portion of the study site that is mapped as UNOS: MLDC, QIP, and Virtu Properties Wildlife Reconnaissance Raedeke Associates, inc. February 4, 2009 Urban deciduous riparian.forest (cottonwood; alder; maple). Great blue heron colony on site. Used by many water.fowl (bufflehead, mallards, scaup; wigeon. green-winged teal; gadwall; etc.) Bald eagle.feeding area. 14 This narrative much more accurately describes the City of Renton' s 100-acre park property to the south of the BNSF railroad than it does the study site (see aerial photo exhibit in Appendix A). First, the majority of the polygon that is mapped (WDFW 2008a) as UNOS, within which the study site lies, is not forested. In contrast, the park property is predominantly forested. Second, there is not a great blue heron colony on any portion of the mapped (WDFW 2008a) UNOS polygon that includes the study site, but there is a heron colony in the park. Third, whereas (a) waterfowl are known to use the Category I wetland in the southeast portion of the MLDC property (a wetland that only encompasses about 0.5 percent of the study site) and (b) that wetland and large perch trees in its immediate vicinity could potentially be used by bald eagles for perching and foraging, the vast majority of the study site does not provide habitat for waterfowl or eagles. In contrast, much larger aquatic areas exist in the park and provide greater foraging opportunities and habitat for these taxa. UNOS mappings are not updated regularly, and the clearing of portions of the on-site forest that has occurred within the last several years probably had not occurred at the time of the mapping. Based on the discussion provided in this section, it appears that none of the study site meets the criteria to be designated as UNOS. MLDC, QIP, and Virtu Properties Wildlife Reconnaissance Raedeke Associates, Inc. February 4, 2009 15 5.0 GENERAL IMPACTS TO WILDLIFE More than 80% of the forested habitat on the study site, consisting of the 4.7-acre forest patch in the eastern portion of the MLDC Property and the treeline along the MLDC Property's north edge. would be retained with future development of the property under the proposed Light Industrial (IL) and Commercial Office (CO) zoning. The 0.9-acre forest patch on the Virtu Property is expected to be removed. Thus, the current buffer vegetation surrounding the on-site Category I wetland and the on-site intermittent stream, as well as the majority of the on-site snags would be retained. This will preserve the majority of the potential foraging, breeding, and cover sites for the wildlife species of concern that may use the site, including those discussed in Section 4.2. This will also preserve all of the "critical habitat", as defined by the Renton Municipal Code, that in our opinion exists on the study site. Rezoning of the QIP and Virtu properties to Light Industrial (IL) and rezoning of the MLDC Property to Commercial Office (CO) should have no significant adverse impact upon wildlife on the study site in view of(a) the history of heavy industrial uses of the QIP Property, and (b) the current potential for development of the QIP, Virtu and MLDC properties into residential uses. Wildlife that may be disturbed by development of the site under the proposed zoning would generally be the same wildlife that would be expected to be disturbed by development under the site's existing zoning. Development and use of the property with Commercial Office and Light Industrial uses would not be expected to lead to (a) instances of children playing outside on the study site or (b) the presence of any dogs, cats or other household pets. With residential development that could take place under the site's existing zoning, children might venture into undeveloped portions of the site. Children might also venture into the Black River riparian forest, potentially disturbing wildlife, although it is less likely because of the difficulty of getting to the Black River Riparian Forest due to factors such as the steep slope along the study site's south edge, fencing that would be provided along the south edge of any residential development, and the need to cross the BNSF railroad tracks. Dogs and cats, which are commonly associated with residential development, not only disturb native wildlife but are known to be predators of many native species. These potentially important disturbance factors would not be present with development under the proposed zoning, whereas they might be problematic with allowable uses developed under the study site's current residential zoning. Under Light Industrial and Commercial Office development, disturbance to wildlife would generally be similar to or less than that which would reasonably be expected with residential development allowed under the properties' existing zoning. Under these different development scenarios ( office and light industrial versus residential), the nature, timing, duration, and magnitude of disturbance MLDC, QIP, and Virtu Properties Wildlife Reconnaissance Raedeke Associates, Inc. February 4, 2009 would differ, but the cumulative impact to wildlife would not be expected to differ greatly. 16 MLDC. QJP, and Virtu Properties Wildlife Reconnaissance Raedeke Associates, Inc. Februa,y 4, 2009 17 6.0 LIMITATIONS We have prepared this report for the exclusive use of Merlino Land Development Co., Inc., Quarry Industrial Park, LLC, and their consultants. No other person or agency may rely on the information, analysis, or conclusions contained herein without permission from Merlino Land Development Co., Inc. and Quarry Industrial Park, LLC. The determination of ecological system classifications, functions, values, and boundaries is an inexact science, and different individuals and agencies may reach different conclusions. We cannot guarantee the outcome of such agency determinations. Therefore, the conclusions of this report should be reviewed by the appropriate regulatory agencies prior to any detailed site planning or construction activities. We warrant that the work performed conforms to standards generally accepted in our field, and has been prepared substantially in accordance with then-current technical guidelines and criteria. The conclusions of this report represent the results of our analysis of the information provided by the rezone proponents and their consultants, together with information gathered in the course of this study. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. MLDC, QIP, and Virtu Properties Wildlife Reconnaissance Raedeke Associates, Inc. February 4. 2009 7.0 LITERATURE CITED Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. 2004. Habitat/wildlife assessment and stream study report. Report prepared for SR 900, LLC, Seattle, Washington. Larsen, E.M., editor. I 997. Management recommendations for Washington's priority species, Volume III: amphibians and reptiles. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. 122 pp. Larsen, E.M., J.M. Azerrad, and N. Nordstrom, eds. 2004. Management recommendations for Washington's priority species, Volume IV: Birds. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. 268 pp. Lewis, J.C., M. Tirhi, and D. Kraege. 2003. Band-tailed pigeon (Columba.fasciata). Pages 22-1 to 22-5 in E.M. Larsen, J.M. Azerrad, and N. Nordstrom, editors. Management Recommendations for Washington's Priority Species, Volume IV: Birds. Available at http://wdfw.wa.gov/hab/phs/vol4/band _JJigeon.pdf. 18 Raedeke Associates, Inc. 2009. Great blue heron assessment for the MLDC, QIP, and Virtu properties. Report prepared for Merlino Land Development Company and Quarry Industrial Park, LLC, Seattle, Washington. Renton, City of. 2009. Renton Municipal Code on-line, current through Ordinance 5430 passed December I, 2008. Title IV, Chapter 3 -Environmental Regulations and Overlay Districts. Last accessed January 23, 2009. Rodrick, E. and R. Milner, (eds.). 1991. Management recommendations for Washington's priority habitats and species. Washington Department offish and Wildlife, Fish Management and Habitat Management Divisions. Olympia, Washington. Theresa R. Henson Consulting. 2000. Wetland delineation for the SR 900, LLC property in Renton, Washington. August 29, 2000 report prepared for SR 900, LLC, Seattle, Washington. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Threatened and endangered species system listings and occurrences for Washington. http:// ecos. fws. gov /tess _JJub lic/StateListingAnd Occurrence.do ?state~ WA. Si le last accessed January 22, 2009. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2008a. Priority habitats and species list. Olympia, Washington. 174 pp. MLDC, QIP, and Virtu Properties Wildlife Reconnaissance Raedeke Associates, Inc. February 4, 2009 Washington Department offish and Wildlife. 2008b. Washington State monitor list. http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/diversty/soc/state _ monitor.htm. Current through June 30, 2008. Washington Department offish and Wildlife. 2008c. Priority habitats. http://wdfw.wa.gov/hab/phshabs.htm. Site last accessed March 24, 2008. Washington Department offish and Wildlife. 2009. Priority habitats and species map for Township 23 North, Range 4 East, Section 13. January 12, 2009. 19 MLDC, QJP, and Virtu Properties Wildlife Reconnaissance Raedeke Associates, Inc. February 4, 2009 FIGURES, TABLES, AND PHOTOPLATE Clallam ······.lefJetSOl'I ........ . Olympic National Pat1<. .................... ............. .... ,. ........ . ' ' ' ' ' ' ' _CANADL UNITED STATES ---:: .. /-.. --a;;,:;;...-- ' ------... =,,,·· $114grt ~ · ·-------· · -· ·· · s; .. ;;;;o,;r;h · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · -· · · · · · · ·.:.: ~-· ····· .. ' . ···· ... ·•. ct·d111· • •• ,• ' ·; .................. ...: ... Mt. Rainier National Perk ··. ·························· ···························• ' ' ~.r-..._ ·1 .• va .. ima . -· --. -... -----------------. --.. --... ---. J()(:1((191 Oi.anog.m .. NORTH A B C E 5 ~TI.A/NCH LAKE .WASHINGTON 3 4 Table I. Wildlife species observed on the site or mentioned in report text. Common Name REPTILES Garter Snake AMPHIBIANS Pacific treefrog BIRDS Mallard Gadwall Hooded Merganser Great Blue Heron Osprey Bald Eagle Cooper's Hawk Sharp-shinned Hawk Red-tailed Hawk Band-tailed Pigeon Glaucous-winged Gull Anna's Hummingbird Red-breasted Sapsucker Downy Woodpecker Hairy Woodpecker Northern Flicker Pileated Woodpecker Violet-green Swallow Steller's Jay American Crow Black-capped Chickadee Chestnut-backed Chickadee Brown Creeper Bewick's Wren Golden-crowned Kinglet Ruby-crowned Kinglet MLDC, QIP, and Virtu Properties Wildlife Reconnaissance Scientific Name Thamnophis spp. Pseudacris regilla Anas platyrhynchos Anas strepera Lophodytes cucullatus Ardea herodias Pandion haliaetus Haliaeetus leucocephalus Accipiter cooperii Accipiter striatus Buteojamaicensis Patagioenasfasciata Larus glaucescens Calypte anna Sphyrapicus ruber Picoides pubescens Picoides villosus Colaptes auratus Dryocopus pileatus Tachycineta thalassina Cyanocitta stelleri Corvus brachyrhynchos Poecile atricapillus Poecile rufescens Certhia americana Thryomanes bewickii Regulus satrapa Regulus ca/endula Observed On-Site? No Heard only Yes Yes Yes No No Yes 1 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 1 Yes Foraging sign Possible foraging sign Possible foraging sign Yes Foraging sign Yes 1 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Raedeke Associates, Inc. February 4, 2009 Table I. Continued. Common Name BIRDS American Robin European Starling (I) Spotted Towhee Fox Sparrow Song Sparrow Golden-crowned Sparrow House Sparrow (I) MAMMALS Eastern Cottontail (I) Eastern Gray Squirrel (I) Raccoon Coyote Notes: (I): Introduced species 1 Observed flying over the site MLDC. QIP, and Virtu Properties Wildlife Reconnaissance Scientific Name Observed On-Site? Turdus migratorius Yes Sturnus vulgaris Yes Pipilo maculatus Yes Passerella iliaca Yes Melospiza melodia Yes Zonotrichia atricapilla Yes Passer domesticu.~ Yes Sylvilagus jloridanus Yes Sciurus carolinensis No Procyon lotor No Canis latrans Scat Raedeke Associates, Inc. February 4, 2009 Table 2. Plant species mentioned in report text. Common Name TREES Red Alder Bigleaf Maple Black Cottonwood Douglas-fir Western Red Cedar SHRUBS Vine Maple Beaked Hazelnut Oceanspray Indian Plum Himalayan Blackberry Pacific Blackberry Common Snowberry HERBS Western Sword Fern MLDC. QIP, and Virtu Properties Wildl/fe Reconnaissance Scientific Name A/nus rubra Acer macrophyllum Populus halsamifera Pseudotsuga menziesii Thuja plicata Acer circinatum Cory/us cornuta Holodiscus discolor Oem/eria cerasiformis Rubus armeniacus Rubus ursinus Symphoricarpos a/bus Polystichum munitum Raedeke Associates, Inc. February 4, 2009 Photo 1 View of a portion of the study area, looking southwest. Photo 3 View of a portion of the study area , looking west-by- northwest. Photo 2 View of a portion of the study area , looking west. · -· ,., ,,, , ··wr ,,,.·, ·~r-i 1•"'i.'~l'· '.')~ · ~~r~"· _: ·,\ ·;· ... -~,,.. 1:i A' I '; .ff.,, hr. .~li',·1r£1·,,....·~.: :l 1.··i~~-:~ .. it ;,.,., • 'I • ~-·,· •• :-•1', ,. '. ''I ''.·:,, ' I · • · I , 1 1 • • • : _. '· 1 .. \I · :', ,,-, /'. 11 ; . . ' / • . !J ' . • . r ··.-. \ · '/ , . IF" f.,/ ·; ... ; ' !' . :,' ... -~ ""'· ' : , ' '' . ·-. ,, h t· . ' ' "';. ' . ,, I~ . I. "·. ~ ' . ' • I . .., h ; ·,1 I I ; . ~., I • : : ' 'i ... : "' \ ' : ' ' Ji~,.: ' I ' _.. ".., •. / • .,.\_;r:., -·"'-·' ~¥-· , .• ~--, J' •• ~ .. , ... 1,~ J• ~ "\11 .• : .... . ". ---·.'>;; ... '""""J")~... _. 1·, •· .-I t,,:;., .. _,,,,.,._~·~-~-~·.-._:,; ..::~,,;:-~· . ; .-·:F~.··, .. .,_,u,, • 11.:• r ' ,., ~r:• V ~--,,r.::-· • • • • "' .' ,. ' / I ', .. , . j f • •• fl:.:.__ ·· •..• ,· .•.• -. :· ·.• '·-<':,~.· :"' ... ,: . -~-~. •. • •. 'fr~.~~. . -. . •, . ·' t--~~.-.· ~ -. ' ;~ .,..,...., ·£, -· ' ..t .. '~:.; ··~ :··:i i:.\~:;~,::'.~ ~c,¥ •• ~-·-~·, ~ .. ~ • . ;)~~ --~ .:.~--\ ~·- •.. . J ~-. ,_ ... ·'· .. •-, -.:;. ,e,:i,; •· ·i.. -Photo 4 Deciduous forest in eastern portion of site, looking southeast. U:\2007\2007-002 MLDC. QIP and Virtu Rezones -Herons\Site Photo s\1-15-09 MLDC, QIP, and Virtu Properties Wildlife Reconnaissance Raedeke A ssociates, Inc. F eb. 4, 2009 APPENDIX A .... IIIW11"" ----..... -----..... --------- ----... '1¥f1.'0Nl8t,t.(): ~GWl~'WIO ~· :4.~ ?' xYJ ara-1~~ .. , i ~~i -"'9-1~~ .. , \ ~ .. fl/ mllll • 'lNJ)I OOIK IWm :now ONU 1:11:111 ;s.l)_."~~ -- ~ JIJ AJ.O lHJ. JIJ ~ Cl30WllAd S3ll1 JJ.llldOlld "OdOJ. lWIIIJV SSOll!)]CI JIJ J.SlLWm (IIOOZ 'I I *IDPO :9111Q) HcMIOOlOHd "MIOt !llON Wetland & Aquatic Sciences Wildlife Ecology Landscape Architecture TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM August 13, 2014 To: Pointe Heron LLC From Emmett Pritchard, Raedeke Associates, Inc. RE: QIPNirtu/Sunset Bluff (MLDC) Properties Wetland & Stream Delineation Update 2014 RAI Project No. 2007-002-006 RECE\VED JAN 2 3 20\5 \TY OF Rl:N'tON C _ .... ,,. ,r DIVISION Raedeke Associates, Inc. was retained by Pointe Heron LLC to (I) verify and update, as necessary, wetland and stream boundaries that had previously been delineated within the MLDC Property (property also known as the Sunset Bluff residential subdivision site) by Theresa R. Henson Consulting (2000, Appendix B), (2) verify our previous findings [set forth in our February 4, 2009 Wetlands Reconnaissance report (Raedeke Associates, Inc. 2009b, Appendix E)] that neither wetlands nor streams were present within (a) the eastern portion of the Quarry Industrial Property (QIP) property [property that is located west of and abutting the MLDC (Sunset Bluff) Property] or (b) the eastern portion of the AGNirtu Investments (Virtu) property (property that is located west of and abutting the northern part of the MLDC Property and north of the eastern part of the QIP Property), and (3) assess potential impacts of a proposed grading plan for the MDLC Property (property now called the Pointe Heron LLC parcel on the grading plan and on other application materials for a City of Renton Grade & Fill Permit application) and present a summary of mitigation elements to reduce or compensate for identified adverse impacts. Note that a Great Blue Heron Assessment report (February 2, 2009) and a Wildlife Reconnaissance report (February 4, 2009) were also prepared by Raedeke Associates, Inc. in generally the same timeframe as our February 4, 2009 Wetlands Reconnaissance report. Copies of all three of those reports were submitted to the City of Renton as part of a 2009 application to the City of Renton for a rezone of the MLDC Property (Sunset Bluff site), the QIP Property, and the Virtu Property to the City's Light Industrial (IL) zone. [A copy of the Raedeke Great Blue Heron Assessment report (February 2, 2009) and a copy of the Wildlife Reconnaissance report (February 4, 2009) are attached as appendices to the QJP!Sunset Bluff (MLDC) Properties -2014 Great Blue Heron & Wildlife Habitat Update report update dated August 2014.J References in this Technical Memorandum to the MLDC Property, the QIP Property, and the Virtu Property are to the same properties addressed by those names in those three 2009 Raedeke reports. 9.510 Stone Avenue N. Seattle, WA 98103 206-525-8122 www.raedeke.com As part of our current work reflected in this Technical Memorandum, we rated all wetlands and streams using current criteria required under existing applicable City of Renton (2014b) code provisions. The two wetlands and single stream that we have evaluated are mapped on the two-sheet Wetlands and Streams Map (Appendix H). 2 It is our understanding that this technical memorandum will be submitted by Pointe Heron LLC to the City of Renton as part ofan application for a City of Renton Grade & Fill permit seeking authorization to fill both (1) the existing stormwater pond within the MLDC Property ( a pond that had been constructed in anticipation of the previously planned Sunset Bluff residential subdivision development) and (2) an adjacent portion of the MLDC Property. It is also our understanding that ( 1) the MLDC Property is now owned by Pointe Heron LLC and (2) the easternmost three parcels of the Stoneway Black River Quarry (parcels that we have collectively referred to as the QIP Property in our 2009 reports) are also now owned by Pointe Heron LLC. However, to maintain descriptive continuity with our 2009 reports, in this report we continue to use the terms "MLDC Property" and "QIP Property" to identify the same areas as in our 2009 reports. STUDY AREA The subject study area includes the MLDC Property, the easternmost three parcels of the QIP property, and the southeast part of the Virtu property, all of which are located in Section 13, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W.M. Those properties are located north of the BNSF railroad tracks and right-of-way in the City of Renton. The 26-acre MLDC Property is located on the south side of SW Sunset Boulevard (also known as SR 900) at approximately 1101 SW Sunset Blvd. and north of the Black River Riparian Forest (a forested area within a portion of the City of Renton park property located immediately south of the JOO-foot-wide BNSF railroad right-of-way). The approximately 9-acre QIP property is bounded on the south by the South 1401h Street unimproved right-of-way, on the north by the South 137th Street unimproved right-of-way, and between 74th Avenue South (if extended) and 72nd Avenue south (if extended). FILL, EXCAVATION, AND GRADE PROJECT SITE The project site of the current fill and grade proposal is the approximately 14.12-acre area outlined and labeled "Project Site (Work Area Limits)" on the set of Grading, Interim Drainage, E.S.C. [Erosion/Sedimentation Control], and Rehabilitation Plans dated August 2014 prepared by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. for the proposed Pointe Heron fill, excavation, and grade project. In this Technical Memorandum, that set of plans is referred to as the Barghausen Grading Plans. QIP/Virtu/Sun.set Bluff Raedeke Associates, Inc. Wetland & Stream Delineation Update -2014 August 13. 2014 3 METHODS Wetlands and streams are protected by federal law as well as by state and local regulations. Federal law (Section 404 of the Clean Water Act) prohibits the discharge of dredged or fill material into "Waters of the United States," including certain wetlands, without a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE 2012). The COE has authority to make a final determination as to whether an area meets the definition of a wetland and whether the wetland is under its jurisdiction. The COE wetland definition was used to determine whether any portions of the MLDC Property, the QIP Property, and/or the Virtu Property could be classified as wetlands. A wetland is defined as an area "inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances does support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions" (Federal Register 1986:41251). We based our investigation upon the guidelines of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) and subsequent amendments and clarifications provided by the COE (1991a, 1991b, 1992, 1994), as updated for this area by the regional supplement to the COE wetland delineation manual for the Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (WMVC) (COE 2010). The COE Wetlands Delineation Manual is required by state law (WAC 173-22-035, as revised) for all local jurisdictions. As outlined in the COE Wetlands Delineation Manual, wetlands are distinguished by the presence of three diagnostic characteristics: hydrophytic vegetation (wetland plants), hydric soil (wetland soil), and wetland hydrology. The ordinary high water mark (OHWM) for the small stream that flows across the eastern portion of the MLDC Property was reviewed for accuracy using the following definition from Renton Municipal Code Section 4-11-150: ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK (OHWM): On lakes and streams, that mark found by examining the bed and banks and ascertaining where the presence and action of waters are so common and usual, and so long continued in all ordinary years, as to mark upon the soil a character distinct from that of the abutting upland, in respect to vegetation as that condition exists as of the effective date of regulations, as it may naturally change thereafter, or as it may change in accordance with permits issued by the City or State. The following criteria clarify this mark on lakes and streams: A. Lakes: Where the ordinary high water mark cannot be found, it shall be the line of mean high water. QIP!Virtu/Sunset Bluff Raedeke Associates, Inc. Wetland & Stream Delineation Update -2014 August 13. 2014 B. Streams: Where the ordinary high water mark cannot be found, it shall be the line of mean high water. For braided streams, the ordinary high water mark is found on the banks forming the outer limits of the depression within which the braiding occurs. PREVIOUS WETLAND AND STREAM DELINEATIONS AND VERIFICATIONS Henson Wetland A, Wetland B, and an unnamed stream were previously delineated within the MLDC Property by Henson (2000). 4 Henson (2000) determined that Wetland A was situated within an approximately 400- square-foot depression [including an approximately 150-square-foot portion within the Burlington Northern Railroad (now BNSF Railroad) right-of-way (ROW)] located along a westerly portion of the MLDC Property's south property boundary (Henson 2000). Wetland A was (I) fed by seepage at the toe of a slope at the north wetland boundary and (2) drained into a ditch within the BNSF Railroad ROW. Wetland A consisted of a palustrine, scrub-shrub vegetation class dominated by red osier ( Cornus alba, F ACW; formerly red osier dogwood, Cornus sericea) and giant horsetail (Equisetum telmatiea, F ACW) (Henson 2000). The wetland was highly disturbed due to regular maintenance of the railroad ROW (Henson 2000). Under the then-current City of Renton (1995) code, Wetland A met criteria to be a non-regulated Category 3 wetland under the then-current City of Renton (1995) wetland regulations because it was less than 5,000 square feet in size (Henson 2000). Henson (2000) determined that Wetland B was located within an approximately 3-acre depression located nearly entirely off-site straddling the south boundary of the eastern portion of the property referred to in this Update as the MLDC Property (Sunset Bluff site) (Henson 2000). Wetland B included palustrine scrub-shrub and palustrine emergent vegetation classes and had a hydrologic regime that ranged from seasonally flooded along the wetland edges to permanently flooded near the wetland center (Henson 2000). An unnamed seasonal stream that flowed into the west end of the wetland was determined to be the primary source of Wetland B's hydrology (Henson 2000). Henson (2000) determined that the wetland was impounded by the BSNF railroad berm and did not have an outlet. Scrub-shrub portions of the wetland were dominated by red osier and willows (Salix spp., F ACW). Emergent areas were dominated by sedges ( Carex spp., F ACW- OBL) and rushes (Juncus spp., FACW-OBL) (Henson 2000). Henson (2000) determined that Wetland B met criteria to be Category I under the then-current City of Renton (1995) code because it was greater than 2,200 square feet in size and had between 40% and 60% permanent open water with two vegetation classes present. Due to the narrow channel width of the seasonal stream that flows generally from north to south across an easterly portion of the MLDC Property (a channel width ofless than 5 QIP/Virtu/Sunset Bluff Raedeke Associates, Inc. Wetland & Stream Delineation Update -2014 August 13, 2014 feet) and due to the absence of fish in the stream (Henson 2000; Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. 2004, Appendix D), the stream was classified as Type 4 using the Washington State Department of Natural Resources water-typing criteria in effect at that time under WAC 222-16-030. 5 In 2003, Ms. Henson (whose last name had changed to Dusek and who was by then employed by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc.) revisited the Sunset Bluff project site to verify the accuracy of the wetland and stream delineations and ratings (Barghausen Consulting Engineers 2003, Appendix C). At that time she found that site conditions were unchanged from her 2000 site visit and that the delineations of Wetlands A and B and the unnamed stream and their respective ratings were accurate. Raedeke Associates, Inc. In 2008, Raedeke Associates, Inc. was retained by Merlino Land Development Co., Inc. and Quarry Industrial Park, LLC to determine whether wetlands or streams were present within (I) the three easternmost parcels of the Stoneway Black River Quarry property (property that we understand was all owned at that time by Quarry Industrial Park, LLC) that were then being considered for reclassification to the City ofRenton's Light Industrial (IL) zone (those three parcels were collectively referred to in our 2009 reports as the "QIP Property") and (2) a vacant southeasterly portion of the Sunset View Apartments site owned by AG/Virtu Investments (that portion of the property was referred to as the "Virtu Property" and was located to the north of the east part of the QIP Property). In addition, because Wetland A was within 300 feet of the QIP Property, Raedeke Associates, Inc. (2009b) reviewed the previous delineation of that wetland by Henson (2000), as confirmed by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. (2003). During our 2008 site investigation (Raedeke Associates, Inc. 2009b ), we found that neither wetlands nor streams were present within the QIP Property. At that time, the property was used for storage of construction materials and construction equipment, as well as for construction-materials recycling activities. Raedeke Associates, Inc. (2009b) also found that neither wetlands nor streams were present within the Virtu Property. In 2008, we found that Wetland A was located approximately 120 feet east of the QIP Property's southeast comer (a comer that was also the MLDC Property's southwest comer). Wetland A, as identified and described by Henson (2000), did not appear to have changed. At the time of our 2008 site investigation, we did not review the accuracy of the prior delineations of Wetland Band the unnamed stream because that wetland and the stream were more than 300 feet from the QIP Property and Virtu Property and, therefore, were not likely to be affected by future development on those properties. CURRENT WETLAND AND STREAM DELINEATIONS AND VERIFICATIONS On April 18 and 19, 2013, Raedeke Associates, Inc. visited the MDLC Property (i.e., the Sunset Bluff site), the QIP Property, and the Virtu Property. We found that portions of QIP!Virtu/Sunset Bluff Raedeke Associates, Inc. Wetland & Stream Delineation Update -2014 August I 3, 2014 6 the MLDC Property (the Sunset Bluff site) have been cleared and graded since the Henson (2000) and Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. (2004) studies of that site. (Below, we discuss our findings concerning Wetland A, Wetland B, and the unnamed stream. Wetland A, Wetland B, and the unnamed stream are depicted on the two-sheet Wetlands and Streams Map, Appendix H). We also found that conditions within the QIP Property had not changed since our previous 2008 investigation and that neither wetlands nor streams were present. We also found that neither wetlands nor streams were present within the Virtu Property. Wetland A We found that conditions within Wetland A have not changed since our 2008 verification of the Henson (2000) delineation of that wetland (Sample Plot I, Appendix A). Vegetation and soils within Wetland A appear to be regularly disturbed by maintenance of a ditch along the north side of the BNSF Railroad ROW. We observed an area of seepage approximately 50 feet west of Wetland A that flows from the downslope side of an access road to the existing storm water pond lying near the MLDC Property's south edge. Wetland A is located approximately 150 feet west of the existing storm water pond constructed as part of the Sunset Bluff project. The seepage area was not delineated as part of Wetland A by Henson (2000). The seeps flow into a ditch within the BSNF Railroad ROW. Soils have not developed within the gravel and quarry spalls that form the slope where the seepage is occurring; however, several early successional hydrophytic species including Sitka willow (Salix sitchensis, F ACW), red alder (A/nus rubra, FAC), and balsam poplar (Populus balsamifera, FAC; formerly black cottonwood) saplings have become established in sediment that has been deposited in the crevices between the rocks (Sample Plot 2, Appendix A). Google Earth (2013) aerial photos of the seepage area and its vicinity indicate that, between 2009 and 2010, a sedimentation pond was constructed within the QIP Property upslope of the above-noted seeps. The sedimentation pond was still present at the time of our 2013 site investigation (Figures 1, 2, and 3). We did not observe an outlet to the sedimentation pond at the time of our 2013 site investigation, which indicates that water within the pond quickly infiltrates into the highly permeable gravel on which the sedimentation pond was constructed. We observed water seeping from the gravel slopes at several downslope areas, including the area near Wetland A and along the stormwater pond access road. Flow from these seepage areas appeared to be highly responsive to rainfall based on our observation of substantially increased flow from the seeps over a period of two successive days (April 18 and 19, 2013), the first day having received very little measurable rainfall and the second day following a heavy rainfall that occurred during the night before. QIP/Virtu/Sunset Bluff Raedeke Associates. Inc. Wetland & Stream Delineation Update -2014 August 13, 2014 7 Due to the absence ofhydric soil development in the seepage areas and because the existing conditions did not appear to constitute "normal circumstances" due to the effects of the recent construction of the upslope sedimentation pond, we determined that the area of seepage did not meet criteria of the U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers (Environmental Laboratory 1987) delineation manual as updated by the WMVC regional supplement (COE 20 I 0) to be delineated as wetland. Wetland Band Its Unnamed Tributary Stream We found that conditions within Wetland Band the unnamed steam that flows into the west end of Wetland B, as described by Henson (2000), were unchanged, with the exception that Wetland B appears to be approximately only 2 acres in size, based on measurements using Google Earth (2013) aerial photographs, rather than 3 acres as originally reported by Henson (2000). The majority of Wetland B consists ofa central area consisting ofa deepwater emergent vegetation community dominated by buck-bean (Menyanthes tri(oliata, OBL) (Sample Plot 3, Appendix A). This is surrounded by fringing scrub-shrub and forest vegetation communities dominated by red osier, Sitka willow, balsam poplar, and Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia, FACW) interspersed around the wetland's perimeter (Sample Plot 4, Appendix A). Water in Wetland Bis impounded by the BNSF Railroad berm. Wetland B was inundated to a depth of greater than 36 inches at the time of our 2013 site investigation, and more than 90% of the wetland was inundated. We investigated the City of Renton Black River Riparian Forest Natural Area on the southwest side of the BNSF Railroad berm, in the area immediately southwest of Wetland B, in order to determine whether a direct outlet, such as a pipe, discharges from Wetland B to wetlands on the southwest side of the railroad ROW. We did not find any direct connection from Wetland B to wetlands on the south side of the railroad ROW. The unnamed stream was flowing at a rate of approximately 1 gallon per second (0.13 cubic feet per second) at the time of our April 18 and 19, 2013 site investigation. Given its relatively low flow volume, the stream likely does not flow year-round and would be considered to be intermittent. The stream channel is incised to a depth of 3 to 5 feet. The channel drops 64 feet in elevation from a culvert up the slope within the Pointe Heron LLC parcel south of SW Sunset Boulevard down to the north edge of Wetland B, resulting in an average slope of greater than 20% for 315 lineal feet of stream channel. Black River Riparian Forest Wetlands The City of Renton (2014a) online CORMaps includes a map that depicts two wetlands within the Black River Riparian Forest located south of the BNSF ROW. (See downloaded copy of that map, Appendix F, below.) A trail that extends northward from QIP/Virtu!Sunset Bluff Raedeke Associates, Inc. Wetland & Stream Delineation Update -2014 August 13, 2014 8 Naches Avenue SW to the BNSF ROW separates the two mapped wetland areas (Renton 2014a). As described above, we investigated the wetland area east of the trail (referred to below as the east BRRF wetland) to determine whether a piped connection existed between it and Wetland B. The east BRRF wetland is dominated by forest vegetation consisting of Pacific willow (Salix lasiandra, F ACW), balsam poplar, red alder, red osier, and Sitka willow. Many small depressions within the wetland were inundated, and the remainder of the portion of the wetland that we investigated was saturated to the surface. Our interpretation of a 1990 aerial photo of the east wetland available online through Google Earth (2014) indicates that the forest vegetation is no more than approximately 30 years old today. (See downloaded copy of that 1990 aerial photo, Appendix G, below.) In 2004, we investigated the wetland west of the trail (referred to below as the west BRRF wetland) (Raedeke Associates, Inc. 2004). The west BRRF wetland consists of forest vegetation of varying ages. At the time of our 2004 investigation, the northern portion of this wetland was dominated by 15-to 20-year-old balsam poplar. The southern portion of the wetland was dominated by mature balsam poplar and Oregon ash trees, many of which were larger than 30 inches diameter at breast height (DBH), growing on numerous hummocks. Based on our interpretation of the above-noted 1990 aerial photo, the area of mature forest vegetation appears to be between IO and 15 acres in size. REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS Wetlands and streams are protected by Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act and other state and local policies and ordinances, including City of Renton (2014b) municipal code. Regulatory considerations pertinent to wetlands identified within the study area are discussed below; this discussion, however, should not be considered comprehensive. Additional information may be obtained from agencies with jurisdictional responsibility for, or interest in, the site. A briefreview of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and State of Washington regulations and of the City of Renton municipal code, relative to wetlands and streams, is presented below. Federal Clean Water Act (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) In general, Federal law (Section 404 of the Clean Water Act) discourages the discharge of dredged or fill material into the nation's waters, including most wetlands and streams, without a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). Certain wetlands, including many that are hydrologically isolated from "waters of the United States," may not be regulated by the COE. The COE has the authority to make a final determination concerning whether an area ( 1) meets the definition of "waters of the United States" as defined by the federal government (Federal Register 1986:41251) and (2) is under federal jurisdiction. QIP!Virtu!Sunset Bluff Raedeke Associates, Inc. Wetland & Stream Delineation Update -2014 August 13, 2014 State of Washington Activities within wetlands that are determined to be non-jurisdictional by the COE may be regulated by the State of Washington under Chapter 90.48 RCW (Water Pollution Control). In addition, activities that will use, divert, obstruct, or change the natural flow or bed of any state waters must be approved by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), through its administration of the State Hydraulic Code (RCW 75.20.100- 140). City of Renton The City of Renton (2014b) municipal code currently regulates wetlands and streams under Title IV, Chapter 3 -"Environmental Regulations and Overlay Districts." Alterations of wetlands or streams and their buffers are generally prohibited, except as allowed under certain conditions specified in RMC Title IV. RMC 4-3 specifies ratings, buffers, and allowed uses of wetlands and other sensitive areas that are under Renton's jurisdiction. Wetland A 9 Wetland A has been severely disturbed by (I) construction of the BNSF railroad improvements within BNSF's ROW (including such things as clearing, grading, ditching, railroad-bed construction, and railroad-track installation, which are improvements that have caused hydrologic alterations) and (2) BNSF's ongoing maintenance of those improvements. Therefore, Wetland A meets criteria under RMC 4-3-0SOM. l .a.iii(a) for classification as a Category 3 wetland by virtue of being severely disturbed. RMC 4-3- 0SOM. l.a.iii states in relevant part: iii. Category 3: Category 3 wetlands are wetlands which meet one or more of the following criteria: (a) Wetlands that are severely disturbed. Severely disturbed wetlands are wetlands which meet the following criteria: (!) Are characterized by hydrologic isolation, human-related hydrologic alterations such as diking, ditching, channelization and/fil: outlet modification; and (2) Have soils alterations such as the presence of fill, soil removal and/.!!!: compaction of soils; and (3) May have altered vegetation. * QJP!Virtu!Sunset Bluff Raedeke Associates, Inc. Wetland & Stream Delineation Update -2014 August 13, 2014 * * IO (Emphasis added.) Each of the three above-listed criteria for severe disturbance is met in regard to Wetland A. Construction of the BNSF railroad improvements has isolated Wetland A from wetlands located on the south side of the BNSF ROW within the City of Renton Black River Riparian Forest Natural Area. In addition, regular maintenance activities within the BNSF ROW to maintain the ditch along the north side of the railroad have removed soils from a portion of the wetland while placing fill within other portions of Wetland A, as well as altering the wetland vegetation community to include non- native, invasive species including reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea) and Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeiacus). Wetland B Henson (2000) rated Wetland Bas Category I under the then-current City of Renton wetland regulations (1995) because Wetland B was greater than 2,200 square feet in size and had between 40% and 60% permanent open water with two vegetation classes present. However, based on recently available Google Earth (2013) aerial photos taken during July 2012, August 2011, and November 2007, it is now evident that substantially less than 40% of the wetland persists as unvegetated open water during the late growing season (Figures 4, 5, and 6). Therefore, Wetland B does not meet Category I criteria for the presence of 40% to 60% permanent open water. In addition, Wetland A does not meet other criteria listed under RMC 4-3-050.M. l .a.i for Category I regulation, such as the presence of federal-or state-listed species (Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. 2004; Raedeke Associates, Inc. 2009a, 2013), size larger than 10 acres, or plant association of infrequent occurrence. Wetland B does not meet Category 2 criteria under RMC 4-3-050.M. l .a.ii because (1) it does not contain a heron rookery or osprey nest (Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. 2004; Raedeke Associates, Inc. 2009a, 2014), (2) it is not a headwater wetland [ defined by RMC 4-3-0SOM.1.a.ii( c) as a wetland with a perennial or seasonal outflow channel, but with no defined influent channel], and (3) it does not have minimum existing evidence of human-related physical alteration such as diking, ditching, or channelization. Therefore, Wetland A meets criteria to be classified as Category 3 under RMC 4-3- 0SOM. l.a.iii(c), which includes all other wetlands not classified as Category I or 2, such as smaller, high-quality wetlands. Shoreline Jurisdiction Due to its proximity to the Black River Riparian Forest, which is designated as a Shoreline by the City of Renton (2014b), the City may determine that Wetland Bis regulated under Renton's Shoreline Master Program. Whether Wetland B is regulated under its Shoreline Master Program may depend on whether or not Wetland B is QIP/Virtu!Sunset Bluff Raedeke Associates, Inc. Wetland & Stream Delineation Update -2014 August 13, 2014 hydraulically connected to the wetlands in the Black River Riparian Forest (WDOE 2014). As noted above, we looked for but did not find any piped connection from Wetland B to wetlands on the southwest side of the railroad ROW in the Black River Riparian Forest. For regulatory purposes, the City of Renton (2014b) code requires that wetlands within areas under its shoreline jurisdiction be rated using the Washington Department of Ecology's (WDOE) Wetland Rating System for Western Washington (publication #04- 06-025) (Hruby 2004, as revised 2006, and WDOE 2008).1 Assuming for the sake of 1 RMC 4-3-090D.2.d (Wetlands within Shoreline Jurisdiction) states: d. Wetlands within Shoreline Jurisdiction: i. Wetland Identification: Wetlands shall be identified in accordance with the requirements of RCW 36.70A.175 and 90.58.380. Unless otherwise provided for in this Chapter, all areas within the City meeting the criteria in the Washington State Wetland Identification and Delineation Manual (Ecology Publication No. 96-94), regardless of any formal identification, are hereby designated critical areas and are subject to the provisions of this Chapter. ii. Wetland Rating System: Wetlands shall be rated based on categories that reflect the functions and values of each wetland. Wetland categories shall be based on the criteria provided in the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington, revised August 2004 (Ecology Publication No. 04-06-025). These categories are generally defined as follows: (a) Category I Wetlands: Category I wetlands are those wetlands of exceptional value in terms of protecting water quality, storing flood and stormwater, and/or providing habitat for wildlife as indicated by a rating system score of seventy (70) points or more. These are wetland communities of infrequent occurrence that often provide documented habitat for critical, threatened or endangered species, and/or have other attributes that are very difficult or impossible to replace if altered. (b) Category II Wetlands: Category II wetlands have significant value based on their function as indicated by a rating system score of between fifty one (51) and sixty nine (69) points. They do not meet the criteria for Category I rating but occur infrequently and have qualities that are difficult to replace if altered. (c) Category Ill Wetlands: Category Ill wetlands have important resource value as indicated by a rating system score of between thirty (30) and fifty (50) points. (d) Category IV Wetlands: Category IV wetlands are wetlands of limited resource value as indicated by a rating system score of less than thirty (30) points. They typically have vegetation of similar age and class, lack special habitat features, and/or are isolated or disconnected from other aquatic systems or high quality upland habitats. iii. Wetland Review and Reporting Requirements: A wetland assessment study shall be required. iv. Wetland Buffers: (a) Buffer Required: Wetland buffer zones shall be required for all regulated activities adjacent to regulated wetlands. Any wetland created, restored or enhanced as compensation for approved wetland alterations shall also include the standard buffer required for the category of the created, restored or enhanced wetland. All buffers shall be measured from the wetland boundary as surveyed in the field. Buffers shall not include areas that are functionally and effectively disconnected from the wetland by a permanent road or other substantially developed surface of sufficient width and with use characteristics such that buffer functions are not provided and that cannot be feasibly removed, relocated or restored to provide buffer functions. (b) Buffer May Be Increased: The buffer standards required by this Chapter presume the existence of a dense vegetation community in the buffer adequate to protect the wetland functions and values. When a buffer lacks adequate vegetation, the Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development or designee may increase the standard buffer, require buffer planting or enhancement, and/or deny a proposal for buffer reduction or buffer averaging. (c) Minimum Buffer Width: 11 QIP!Virtu/Sunset Bluff Raedeke Associates, Inc. Wetland & Stream Delineation Update -2014 August 13, 2014 12 argument that Wetland B is under the City's shoreline jurisdiction, Wetland B meets Category II wetland criteria because it would score a total of 65 points with 25 points for habitat functions (Appendix I). For wetlands lying within areas under Renton's shoreline jurisdiction, the Minimum Buffer Width table found in RMC 4-3-090D.2.d.iv(c) requires that a minimum 150-foot- wide buffer be provided for Category II wetlands that provide relatively moderate habitat function (score of20-29 habitat points). Because the Pointe Heron fill, excavation, and grade proposal does not involve any such work within 150 feet of Wetland B, in regard to that proposal there is no need to seek to further ascertain whether Wetland B (!) is hydraulically connected to the wetlands in the Black River Riparian Forest (and thus subject to the City's shoreline jurisdiction) and, if so, (2) is subject to a 150-foot buffer under RMC 4-3-090D.2.d. Black River Riparian Forest Wetlands The Black River Riparian Forest is designated as a Shoreline by the City of Renton (2014b); therefore, the west and east BRRF wetlands were rated using the WDOE (Hruby 2004, as revised 2006, and WDOE 2008) Wetland Rating System for Western Washington. Based on (1) our 2004 investigation of the west BRRF wetland and (2) the results of our review of current online natural resource database information, it is likely that that wetland would meet criteria for a dual rating of Category I for the portion of the wetland that is dominated by mature trees and Category II for the portion dominated by younger trees because the wetland as a whole scored a total of 57 points (with 21 points for habitat functions) (Appendix I). Per RMC 4-3-090D2d.iv(c), Category I and Category II Low Wildlife Function (less Moderate Wildlife Function (20 High Wildlife Function (29 than 20 points) -28 points) or more points) Wetland Category Buffer Width (feet) Category 50 50 50' IV Category 75 125 150' Ill Category 100 150 225 II Category 125 150 225 I 1. Habitat scores over 26 points would be very rare for Category Ill wetlands and almost impossible for Category IV wetlands that have a total rating of 30 or less. (Emphasis added.) QIP!Virtu/Sunset Bluff Raedeke Associates, Inc. Wetland & Stream Delineation Update-2014 August 13, 2014 13 wetlands having a moderate habitat function score are provided a minimum buffer of 150 feet. Based on our reconnaissance of the east BRRF wetland, it is likely that it would meet criteria to be regulated as Category III because it scored a total of 40 points (with 16 points for habitat functions) (Appendix!). Per RMC 4-3-090D2d.iv(c), Category III wetlands that provide low habitat functions (i.e., wetlands that score less than 20 habitat points) are provided a minimum buffer of 75 feet. Unnamed Stream The unnamed stream that flows into Wetland B meets criteria under RMC 4-3-050Lla.iv to be Class 4 because it is non-salmonid-bearing (Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. 2004) and intermittent during years of normal rainfall. In addition, the unnamed stream is (I) not mapped on RMC 4-3-050Q, Figure Q4, Renton Water Class Map as Class 2 or Class 3 and (2) not classified by the City of Renton or the State of Washington as a "Shoreline of the State." The unnamed stream does not meet Class 5 criteria because it (a) does not flow within an artificially created channel where no natural channel had previously existed and (b) is not a surficially isolated water body less than one-half (0.5) acre ( e.g., a pond) not meeting the criteria for a wetland as defined under RMC 4- 3 .050.M. Wetland and Stream Buffer Widths The City of Renton determines wetland buffer widths based on wetland category. RMC 4-3-050M6c specifies a 25-foot-wide standard buffer for Category 3 wetlands such as Wetland A and Wetland B. The City of Renton determines stream buffer widths based on stream classification. RMC 4-3-050L5a.i(c) specifies a 35-foot-wide standard buffer for Class 4 streams such as the on-site unnamed stream. In addition, RMC 4-3-050L5b.ii specifies as follows: ii. Buffers Falling Within Protected Slope or Very High Landslide Area: When the required stream/lake buffer falls within a protected slope or very high landslide hazard area or buffer, the stream/lake buffer width shall extend to the boundary of the protected slope or the very high landslide hazard buffer. Notifications may be required per subsection F8 of this Section. Because a segment of the subject unnamed stream on the Pointe Heron LLC parcel passes through an area of a protected slope ( as depicted on Sheets E 1, E3, and E6 of the above- referenced set ofBarghausen Grading Plans), in view ofRMC 4-3-050L5b.ii, the code- specified stream buffer for that segment of the stream extends to the protected slope's boundary. QJP!Virtu!Sunset Bluff Raedeke Associates, Inc. Wetland & Stream Delineation Update -2014 August 13, 2014 14 Impacts Analysis The following discussion of project impacts to Wetlands A and B and the unnamed stream tributary to Wetland B is based on our review of (I) the Grading, Interim Drainage, E.S.C. [Erosion/Sedimentation Control}, and Rehabilitation Plans (Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. August 2014) and (2) portions of the Geotechnical and Soil Engineering Report in Support of Proposed Fill and Grade, Pointe Heron LLC Property, Renton, Washington prepared by Earth Solutions NW, LLC (August 2014). Project Description We understand that the currently proposed filling, excavation, and grading, which 1s depicted on the Barghausen Grading Plans, is primarily intended to: (I) Fill (in two phases as shown on the Barghausen Grading Plans) the existing stormwater pond area and, along with doing so, create both (a) a new I.SH:! V structural fill slope along a portion of the property's south edge (to a top of slope elevation of approximately 128 feet) between (i) the existing I.SH: IV structural fill slope to the west of the existing stormwater pond and (ii) the existing I.SH: 1 V structural fill slope to the east of the existing storm water pond and (b) new I.SH: 1 V upward, engineered-fill-slope extensions of both (i) the existing south edge I.SH: 1 V engineered fill slope lying to the west of the existing stormwater pond and (ii) the existing south edge I.SH: IV engineered fill slope lying to the east of the existing stormwater pond, in order to achieve a continuous top of slope elevation of approximately 128 feet among all portions of the south edge slope; (2) Excavate and construct a new, potentially permanent stormwater detention and water quality pond (as depicted on the Barghausen Grading Plans) along and just south of a portion of the toe of the existing slope on the portion of the Pointe Heron LLC parcel that abuts that is adjacent to the south edge of SW Sunset Boulevard's south edge that abut the site's north edge, with this pond designed to have an approximate bottom elevation of 114.5 feet; and (3) Fill areas north of the proposed new and upward-extended south- edge fill slopes as depicted on the Barghausen Grading Plans in QIP/Virtu!Sunset Bluff Raedeke Associates, Inc. Wetland & Stream Delineation Update -2014 August 13, 2014 order to support anticipated future development of the project site, with the northerly edge of those fill areas designed to intersect existing grade at elevations generally around 125 to 126.5 feet. 15 In addition, as shown on Sheets E2 and E3 of the 8arghausen Grading Plans as part of the proposed Phase I filling, excavation, and grading, we understand that an interim stormwater detention and water quality pond (a pond with an approximate bottom elevation of I 00 feet) is planned to be completed by October I of the first season of the proposed filling and grading work as part of winter stabilization of the project site. After the proposed potentially permanent stormwater detention and water quality pond (a pond depicted on the Phase 2 portion of the 8arghausen Grading Plans) has been constructed and is operational, the interim pond is to be filled with compacted structural fill. Direct Impacts to Wetlands and Streams Wetland A, Wetland 8, and the unnamed stream tributary to Wetland 8 and their respective buffers (including the 150-foot buffer for Wetland 8 if Wetland 8 is in fact hydraulically connected to the wetlands in the Black River Riparian Forest and thus subject to the City's shoreline jurisdiction), as well as buffers for the west and east Black River Riparian Forest wetlands, all lie entirely outside of the proposed project site. The proposed grading plans do not contemplate filling, grading, or other work within Wetland A, Wetland 8, or the unnamed tributary stream to Wetland B or any of their respective buffers, or the buffers for the west and east Black River Riparian Forest wetlands. In addition, the proposed upward extension of the existing 1.5H: IV slope from the project site (work area limit) upslope of Wetland A and its buffer will be stable based on the slope's design specifications (Earth Solutions NW, LLC 2014). All construction staging for the proposed grading plan would be outside the wetlands, stream, and their respective buffers. Appropriate BMPs would be implemented to prevent temporary impacts during slope construction. Therefore, direct impacts to these critical areas would be avoided. Hydrologic Impacts As explained below, adverse impacts to Wetland A, Wetland 8, and the unnamed stream tributary to Wetland B are not anticipated. Wetland A As discussed above, hydrology to Wetland A appears to be partly provided by discharge of water that infiltrates into the existing pervious-material fill from a small sedimentation pond located upslope of the wetland. The remainder of wetland hydrology is likely to be provided from groundwater seepage from native soil strata at the base of the existing fill located several feet upslope from the wetland. Under the proposed grading plan, the sediment pond would be eliminated with the result that hydrologic input to Wetland A is likely to be reduced. However, elimination of this hydrologic source to the wetland is likely to result in the resumption of a wetland hydro logic regime that is similar to one which was likely present prior to construction of the existing fill. In addition, it is likely QJP!Virtu!Sunset Bluff Raedeke Associates, Inc. Wetland & Stream Delineation Update -2014 August 13, 2014 16 that precipitation onto the proposed fill slope north of the wetland will continue to infiltrate into the existing and proposed porous fill material and will ultimately discharge into the wetland. Thus, it is likely that soils within the wetland will continue to remain saturated for sufficient duration during the growing season to meet the federal wetland delineation manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) technical criteria for wetland hydrology. Vegetation within Wetland A consists of mature shrubs and scattered trees that are well adapted to soil saturation and limited periods of inundation and are unlikely to be adversely impacted by changes to the current wetland hydrologic regime that might occur from the proposed grading plan. Therefore, it is unlikely that adverse impacts to wetland vegetation would occur. Wetland Band Its Unnamed Tributary Stream Wetland Band its unnamed tributary stream are approximately 193 feet and 100 feet east of the proposed project area work limits at their closest extent, respectively. Due to their distance from the proposed work, it is unlikely that existing sources of hydrology to the wetland or stream would be impacted by the proposed grading plan. In addition, native forest buffer would be retained around the wetland and its tributary stream to help maintain the existing hydrologic regime. Therefore, it is unlikely that adverse impacts to Wetland B or the unnamed stream would occur. Black River Riparian Forest Wetlands The west and east Black River Riparian Forest wetlands are approximately 160 feet south and 415 feet southeast of the proposed project site (work area limits) at their closest extent, respectively. In addition, both wetlands are separated from the project site by the BNSF Railroad, which is an ongoing source of disturbance to the wetlands. Under Pointe Heron LLCs' proposed site grading plan, drainage from the MLDC Property (i.e., the Pointe Heron LLC parcel) and associated tributary areas will continue to drain into the existing railroad cross-culverts at the south edge of the property and be conveyed to the City park property, where the drainage will continue to flow into the BRRF wetlands. Due to (I) the distance of the BRRF wetlands from the proposed work, (2) the existing and ongoing disturbance from the BNSF Railroad, and (3) the filling, excavation, and grading proposal's planned maintenance of existing sources of hydrology to the BRRF wetlands, it is unlikely that the wetlands would be impacted by implementation of the proposed filling, excavation, and grading. Mitigation Mitigation has been defined by the statewide SEPA Rules (WAC 197-11-768; cf. Cooper 1987) and, more recently, in a Memorandum of Agreement between the Environmental QIP/Virtu!Sunset Bluff Raedeke Associates, Inc. Wetland & Stream Delineation Update -2014 August 13, 2014 17 Protection Agency and the U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers (Memorandum 1989). In order of desirability, mitigation may include: 1. Avoidance -avoiding impacts by not taking action or parts of an action; 2. Minimization -minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation; 3. Compensation -which may involve: a) repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment; b) replacing or creating substitute resources or environments; c) mitigation banking. Avoidance of Impacts The proposed grading plan has been designed to avoid direct impacts to Wetland A, Wetland B, the unnamed tributary stream to Wetland B, and their respective buffers. Minimization oflmpacts The proposed grading plan incorporates a number of design features that would avoid or minimize impacts to the wetlands and their buffers. These include the following measures: • Temporary erosion and sediment control (TESC) measures would be installed during construction and would utilize appropriate best management practices (BMPs) designed to prevent sediment from entering surface waters during and after construction; • Installation of a minimum five-horizontal-foot-thick buttress fill face to the proposed upward extension of the existing 1.5H: IV slope from the south edge of the project site (work area limits) upslope of Wetland A and its buffer to (I) maintain hydrology to Wetland A (by transmitting subsurface seepage through the extension's porous buttress fill face) and (2) avoid erosion to the upward slope extension upslope of Wetland A and its buffer and consequent siltation of Wetland A; and • In order to reduce the potential for adverse water quality impacts to downstream wetlands, (I) the interim stonnwater and water quality pond depicted on the project's Phase I grading plan sheets would be installed by October 1 of the first year's construction season of the proposed filling and grading in order to provide water quality treatment of storm water runoff and (2) the potentially permanent stonnwater and water quality pond depicted on the project's Phase 2 grading plan QIP!Virtu!Sunset Bluff Raedeke Associates, Inc. Wetland & Stream Delineation Update -2014 August 13, 2014 18 sheets (a pond that would replace the interim stormwater and water quality pond) would be installed not later than October 1 of the last year's construction season of the proposed filling, excavation, and grading in order to provide water quality treatment of stormwater runoff thereafter. Compensatory Mitigation Direct wetland, stream, and buffer impacts would be avoided under the proposed grading plan; therefore, creation, reestablishment, rehabilitation, or enhancement of wetlands is not needed and is not proposed. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS TO WETLANDS AND STREAMS The proposed fill, excavation, and grading project would avoid direct filling or grading within Wetlands A and B, the off-site BRRF wetlands, and the unnamed tributary stream to Wetland B. In addition, with adherence to the avoidance and minimization measures described above, we anticipate that indirect adverse impacts to wetland and stream vegetation communities or hydrologic regimes would not occur. In summary, the proposed fill, excavation, and grading project would not result in probable significant adverse impacts to wetland or streams within or in the vicinity of the project site. LIMITATIONS We have prepared this report for the exclusive use of Pointe Heron LLC and its consultants. No other person or agency may rely upon the information, analysis, or conclusions contained herein without permission of Pointe Heron LLC. We warrant that the work performed conforms to standards generally accepted in our field and has been prepared substantially in accordance with then-current technical guidelines and criteria. The conclusions of this report represent the results of our analysis of the information provided by the project proponent and its consultants, together with information gathered in the course of the study. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. QIP/Virtu!Sunset Bluff Raedeke Associates, Inc. Wetland & Stream Delineation Update -2014 August 13. 2014 19 LITERATURE CITED Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. 2003. Confirmation that the wetlands delineation and classification as well as the stream classification set forth in Theresa R. Henson Consulting's August 29, 2000, wetland delineation report remain accurate. Job# 7639. December 23, 2003 report prepared for SR 900 L.L.C. Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. 2004. Habitat/wildlife assessment and stream study report for the "Sunset Bluff' residential subdivision. January 9, 2004 report prepared for SR 900 L.L.C. Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. 2014. Grading, Interim Drainage, E.S.C., and Rehabilitation Plans, Pointe Heron/S 3• August 2014 plan set for Pointe Heron LLC, Seattle, Washington. Earth Solutions NW, LLC. 2014. Geotechnical and Soil Engineering Report in Support of Proposed Fill and Grade, Pointe Heron LLC Property, Renton, Washington. dated August 2014 prepared for Ponte Heron LLC. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1, US Army Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. I 00 pp. Federal Register. 1986. 40 CFR Parts 320 through 330: Regulatory programs of the Corps of Engineers; final rule. Vol. 51. No. 219. pp. 41206-41260, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Google Earth. 2013. Image for 47.4410N, 122.0954W in Woodinville, WA, from U.S. Geological Survey. © 2012 Google. Accessed April 17, 2013. Raedeke Associates, Inc. 2004. Sunset Bluff Residential Subdivision -Investigation of a downstream forested wetland community, Renton, Washington. April 26, 2004 report prepared for SR 900 LLC., Seattle, Washington. Raedeke Associates, Inc. 2009a. Great blue heron assessment for the MLDC, QIP, and Virtu properties, Renton, Washington. February 2, 2009 report prepared for Merlino Land Development Company and Quarry Industrial Park, LLC, Seattle, Washington. Raedeke Associates, Inc. 2009b. Wetland Reconnaissance for the QIP and Virtu Properties, Renton, Washington. February 4, 2009 report prepared for Merlino Land Development Company and Quarry Industrial Park, LLC, Seattle, Washington. QIP/Virtu/Sunset Bluff Raedeke Associates, Inc. Wetland & Stream Delineation Update -2014 August 13. 2014 20 Raedeke Associates, Inc. 2014. QIP/Sunset Bluff(MLDC) Properties-2014 Great Blue Heron & Wildlife Habitat Update. August 13, 2014 report to Pointe Heron, LLC, Seattle, Washington. Renton, City of. 1995. Renton Municipal Code. Title IV, Chapter 4-3-100 Wetland Regulations. Renton, Washington. Renton, City of. 2014a. City of Renton CORMaps. Online City of Renton sensitive area operational layer. http://www.rentonweb.org:8080/SilverlightPuhlic/Viewer.html?Viewer=COR- Maps. Accessed April 11, 2014. Renton, City of. 2014b. Renton Municipal Code online through Code Publishing Company, Seattle, WA. Current through Ordinance 5707, passed March 24, 2014. Title IV, Chapter 3 -Environmental Regulations and Overlay Districts. Accessed April 11, 2014. Theresa R. Henson Consulting. 2000. Wetland Delineation -SR 900 L.L.C. Property, Renton, Washington. August 29, 2000 report to SR 900 L.L.C. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1991a. Special notice. Subject: Use of the 1987 wetland delineation manual. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District. August 30, 1991. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1991b. Memorandum. Subject: Questions and answers on the 1987 manual. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington D.C. October 7, 1991. 7 pp. including cover letter by John P. Studt, Chief, Regulatory Branch. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1992. Memorandum. Subject: Clarification and interpretation of the 1987 methodology. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington D.C., March 26, 1992. 4 pp. Arthur E. Williams, Major General, U.S.A. Directorate of Civil Works. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1994. Public Notice. Subject: Washington regional guidance on the 1987 wetland delineation manual. May 23, 1994, Seattle District. 8 pp. 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). Wakeley, J.S., R.W. Lichvar, and C.V. Noble, eds. May 2010. ERDC/EL TR-10-3. U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS. QIP/Virtu!Sunset Bluff Raedeke Associates, Inc. Wetland & Stream Delineation Update -2014 August 13, 2014 21 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2012. Special Public Notice. Final Regional Conditions, 401 Water Quality Conditions, Coastal Zone Management Consistency Responses, for Nationwide Permits for the Seattle District Corps of Engineers for the State of Washington. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District. March 19, 2012. Washington Department of Ecology. 1994. v. l Shoreline Administrators Manual. Shoreline Management Guidebook, 2"d Ed. Publication No. 93-104a. January 1994. Washington Department of Ecology. 2014. Shoreline Management Act Jurisdiction. http://www.ecv.wa.gov/programs/sca/sma/st guidc/j urisdiction/index. html. Accessed April 11, 2014. QIP!Virtu!Sunset Bluff Raedeke Associates, Inc. Wetland & Stream Delineation Update -2014 August 13, 2014 FIGURES Google earth edeke ANsociah•s, Inc. 9510 Stone Avenue North Seattle , WA !JSIOS I ...................... ~~~===:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::600 feet• 200 rreters Photo date: Wetland A Wetland & Stream Del ineation Update-2014 QIP/ Sunset Bluffs August 13, 2014 July 2012 A Figure 1 Google ear th edeke Ass(H·iafl•s, Inc. U!S I U Stone Avenue North Seattl e, \.\',\ 98 10S I .............................. ~~~~~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::600 fu~~ 200 rreters, Photo date: Wetland A Wetland & Stream Delineation Update-2014 QIP/ Sunset Bluffs August 13, 2014 May 2010 A Figure 2 Goog le ear th edeke Associates, nc. 9/S IO Stone Avenue North Seattle, \\'A 98JOS 600 ~~~~::;~~~;;;;;;;;;:::::::::::::::::::::::::::~~ 200 feet-Photo date : ireters May 2009 Wetland A Wetland & Stream Delineation Update-2014 QIP/ Sunset Bluffs August 13 , 2014 A Figure 3 Goo gle earth Associates, Inc. 95 l O Stone Avenue North Seattle, WA 98 103 feet l 600 rreters 100 Photo date: Wetland B July2012 Wetland & Stream Delineation Update-2014 QIP/ Sunset Bluffs August 13 , 2014 A Figure 4 Google earth -edeke Associates. Inc. 9510 Stone Ave nue North Seattle , WA 98108 1 ~ meters 100 Photo date: Wetland B August 2011 Wetland & Stream Delineation Update-2014 QIP/ Sunset Bluffs August 13 , 2014 A Figure 5 Goo gle earth edeke Associates, Inc. 9510 Stone Avenue North Seattle, WA 9810.S 1 ~ n-eters 100 Photo date : Wetland B November 2007 Wetland & Stream Delineation Update-2014 QIP/ Sunset Bluffs August 13 , 2014 A Figure 6 APPENDIX A Field Survey Data WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: QIP / Sunset Bluffs Applicant/Owner: Heron Pointe LLC City/County: Renton I King Sampling Date:4/19/2013 State: -'-W~'A~---Sampling Point:-'-------- lnvestigator(s): Emmett Pritchard Section, Township, Range: ,S'-'1"3-T.c2,c3e,N=R__,:4:,E._ ________ _ Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): ~H"'il~ls~lo~p,,,e~---------Local relief (concave, convex, none): ,C,,o"'n"-ve"'x"------Slope (%): _10 __ Datum: Unknown Subregion (LRR): Northwest Forests and Coasts Lat: 47. 28' 45" Long: 122.14' 22" Soil Map Unit Name: Beausite gravelly sandy loam and Woodinville silt loam transition zone NWl classification: 0n.,o,...ne,._ _______ _ Are climatic/ hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes D No ISi (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation!, Soil~. or Hydrology __ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes 18J No D 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? Yes0 NoD Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes 12] NoD within a Wetland? Yes0 NoD Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 12] NoD Remarks: Sample Plot 1 is in Wetland A. Wetland includes a10ft X 30ft depression within the BNSF Railroad ROW and project site that encompassesses a portion of a ditch within the ROW. Portion of wetland within project site is mostly on a slope. Vegetation and soils appear to be regularly disturbed by maintenance of the ROW. Rainfall thus far in April is nearly 100% more than normal. VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: 3m radius) 06 Cover Sg;ecies? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. ---That Are 08L, FACW, or FAC: 5 (A) 2. ---Total Number of Dominant 3. ---Species Across All Strata: 5 (8) 4. ---Percent of Dominant Species = Total Cover That 'Are 08L, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/8) Sai;;iling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 3m radius) 1. red osier (Camus alba} 50 y FACW Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. Nootka rose (Rosa nutkanna} 20 y E/'&..._ Total % Cover of: MultiQ:ly by: 3. Sitka rose (Salix sitchensis} 10 N FACW OBL species X 1 = 4. Himalayan blackber!Y (Rubus armeniacus} 10 N FACU FACW species x2= 5. red alder {Alnus rubra} 5 N E/'&..._ FAC species x3= 95 = Total Cover FACU species x4= Herb Stratum (Plot size: 3m radius) UPL species x5= 1. Reed cana!J!Qrass (Phalaris arundinacea) 10 y FACW Column Totals: (A) (8) 2. common velvetgrass {Holcus lanatus} 5 y E/'&..._ 3. Giant horsetail {Eguisetem telmetia} 5 y E/'&..._ Prevalence Index = 8/A= 4. ---Hydrophytlc Vegetation Indicators: 5. ---D 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 6. 12] 2 -Dominance Test is >50% --- 7. D 3 -Prevalence Index is :S3.0 1 --- 8. ---D 4 -Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting 9. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) ---D 5 -Wetland Non-Vascular Plants 1 10. ---Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 11. D ---11ndicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 20 : Total Cover be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 3 m radius) 1. ---Hydrophytic 2. ---Vegetation 0 = Total Cover Present? Yes0 NoD % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 80 Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast -Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point' 1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confinn the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches} Color (moist} ____%._ Color {moist} ~ _r-.:_ Loe"' Texture Remarks 0::§ 10YR 3/1 ------f.s.loam manv rocks 9-18+ 10YR4/2 ~ 10YR 4/4 5 C _M __ f.s.loam manv rocks ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 1Tvne: C=Concentration, D=Decletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Unina, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3 : D Histosol (A1) D Sandy Redox (S5) D 2 cm Muck (A10) D Histic Epipedon (A2) D Stripped Matrix (S6) D Red Parent Material (TF2) D Black Histic (A3) D Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) D Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) D Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) D Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) D other (Explain in Remarks) D Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) ~ Depleted Matrix (F3) D Thick Dark Surface (A12) D Redox Dark Surface (F6) ~Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and D Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) D Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, D Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) D Redox Depressions (FS) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes~ NoD Remarks: Soils appear to be somewhat mixed due to the presence of many rocks and debris. Mixed soils are likely to be the result of regular maintenance by the BNSF Railroad to maintain the ditch within its ROW. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators {minimum of one reguired· check all that ai;u;~I~) Secondary Indicators (2 or more reguired} ~ Surface Water (A1) D Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA D Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, D High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) ~ Saturation (A3) D Salt Crust (B 11) D Drainage Patterns (B 10) D Water Marks (B1) D Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) D Dry-Season Water Table (C2) D Sediment Deposits (82) D Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) D Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) D Drift Deposits (B3) D Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) D Geomorphic Position (D2) D Algal Mat or Crust (B4) D Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) D Shallow Aquttard (D3) D Iron Depos~s (B5) D Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) D FAC-Neutral Test (D5) D Surface Soil Cracks (B6) D Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) D Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) D Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) D Other (Explain in Remarks) D Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) D Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (BS) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes0 NoD Depth (inches): 5 Water Table Present? Yes~ NoD Depth (inches): _o_ Saturation Present? Yes0 NoD Depth (inches): _o_ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes~ NoD /includes caoillarv frinoe\ Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Depressional portion of wetland within BNSF ROW is inundated to a depth of 5 inches. The portion of the wetland within the project site is on a 10% slope that is seeping into the depression. 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: QIP / Sunset Bluffs Applicant/Owner: Heron Pointe LLC City/County: Renton / King Sampling Date:4/19/2013 State: ~W~A~---Sampling Point: -2 ____ _ lnvestigator(s): Emmett Pritchard Section, Township, Range: ,S~1~3-T~2~3~N=R~4~E~--------- Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): ~H~il~ls~lozp~e __________ Local relief (concave, convex, none): ,C~o~n~ve~x~-----Slope(%):~ Subregion (LRR): Northwest Forests and Coasts Lat: 47. 28' 45" Long: 122.14' 22" Datum: Unknown Soil Map Unit Name: Beausite gravelly sandy loam and Woodinville silt loam transition zone NWI classification: 0n~o~ne~-------- Are climatic I hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes D No [8J (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation ;, Soil!, or Hydrology i significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes D No IZI 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 ISi NoO Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? YesD No IS] within a Wetland? YesD No IS] Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ISi NoO Remarks: Sample Plot 2 is in an area of seepage on side slope of the storm pond access road. SP2 is 1 O ft upslope and 50 ft west of Wetland A and located on a quarry spall slope that was constructed in 2005/2006. Aerial photos show a sedimentation pond that was constructed upslope of SP2 in 2009/2010. Seepage is likely from sediment pond infiltration into very premeable gravel. Rainfall thus far in April is nearly 100% more than normal. VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: 3m radius) % Cover S12ecies? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. ---That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 6 (A) 2. ---Total Number of Dominant 3. ---Species Across All Strata: 6 (B) 4. ---Percent of Dominant Species = Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (NB) Sa!;!ling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 3m radius) 1. red alder (Alnus rubra} 30 y E8Q___ Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. black cottonwood (Poll.ulus balsamifera) 20 y E8Q___ Total% Cover of: Multi12ly by: 3. trailing blackberty (Rubus ursinus} 10 N FACU OBL species X 1 = 4. red elderber(Y (Sambucus racemosa) 10 N FACU FACW species x2= 5. Sitka willow (Salix sitchensis} 30 y FACW FAC species x3= 100 = Total Cover FACU species x4= Herb Stratum (Plot size: 3m radius) UPL species x5= 1. soft rush (Juncus effusus) 5 N FACW Column Totals: (A) (8) 2. common velvetgrass {Holcus lanatus) 10 y E8Q___ 3. little western bittercress {Cardamine oligosgerma) 10 y E8Q___ Prevalence Index = B/A = 4. fringed willowherb (Ei;i:ilobium ciliatum} 10 y FACW Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. undifferntiated grasses 15 N _N_I __ D 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 6. ISi 2 -Dominance Test is >50% --- 7. D 3 -Prevalence Index is :53.0 1 --- 8. D 4 -Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting --- 9. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) ---D 5 -Wetland Non-Vascular Plants 1 10. ---Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain) 11. D ---11ndicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 50 = Total Cover Woody_ Vine Stratum (Plot size: 3 m radius) be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 1. ---Hydrophytic 2. ---Vegetation 0 = Total Cover Present? Yes ISi NoD % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 50 Remarks: Also red flowering currant (Ribes sanguineum, NL) present with 5% cover in shrub stratum. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast -Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point' 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} ~..ImL Loe" Texture Remarks ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 1Tvne: C=Concentration, D-Decletion, RM-Reduced Matrix, CS-Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2location: PL===Pore Unino, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils": D Histosol (A 1) D Sandy Redox (S5) D 2 cm Muck (A10) D Histic Epipedon (A2) D Stripped Matrix (S6) D Red Parent Material (TF2) D Black Histic (A3) D Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) D Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) D Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) D Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) D Other (Explain in Remarks) D Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) D Depleted Matrix (F3) D Thick Dark Surface (A12) D Redox Dark Surface (F6) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and D Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) D Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present. D Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) D Redox Depressions (FB) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? YesO Noll'J Remarks: Cannot dig test pit because ground consists of 6-12" river rock/ quarry spalls. Some sediment interbedded between rocks to provide substrate for plant establishment. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Prims!Ql lndi!d!li!;r§ {minimum of one reguired· check all that aggM Seconda!Y Indicators (2 or more reguired} 0 Surface Water (A 1) D Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA D Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, D High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 46) 4A, and 46) 121 Saturation (A3) D Salt Crust (611) D Drainage Patterns (B10) D Water Marks (B1) D Aquatic Invertebrates (613) D Dry-Season Water Table (C2) D Sediment Deposits (B2) D Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) D Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) D Drift Deposits (B3) D Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) D Geomorphic Position (D2) D Algal Mat or Crust (B4) D Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) D Shallow Aquitard (D3) D Iron Deposits (85} D Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) D FAC-Neutral Test (D5) D Surface Soil Cracks (86} D Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) D Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) D Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87) D Other (Explain in Remarks) D Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) D Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes 121 NoO Depth (inches): .25" Water Table Present? YesO No0 Depth (inches): Saturation Present? YesO Noil'J Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes0 NoO (includes caaillarv frinae\ Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Seepage from roadbed becomes channelized and flows diagonally to the west and down the slope for approximately 20 feet before discharges into a ditch within the BNSF Railroad ROW. Seepage is highly responsive to recent rainfall. Observed 100% increase in volume w/in 24hrs due to heavy overnight rainfall. 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: QIP / Sunset Bluffs Applicant/Owner: Heron Pointe LLC City/County: Renton / King Sampling Date:4/19/2013 State: ,_W"''A"-------Sampling Point: ~3 ____ _ lnvestigator(s): Emmett Pritchard Section, Township, Range: ,S~1~3~T~2~3~N=R~4~E~--------- Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): ~H~il~ls~lo~p~e~---------Local relief (concave, convex, none): ,c .. o,cn,.ca.,v,oe._ ___ _ Slope(%): _o __ Datum: Unknown Subregion (LRR): Northwest Forests and Coasts Lat: 47. 28' 45" Long: 122.14' 22" Soil Map Unit Name: Woodinville silt loam NWI classification: ~no~n~e~------- Are climatic/ hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes D No [8J (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation __ , Soil __ , or Hydrology __ significantly disturbed? Are Vegetation __ , Soil __ , or Hydrology __ naturally problematic? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes [ZI No D (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 0 NoD Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes 0 NoD within a Wetland? Yes 0 NoD Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes0 NoD Remarks: Sample Plot 3 is in wetland B in deepwater emergent community. Rainfall thus far in April is nearly 100% more than normal. VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: 3m radius) % Cover Sg;~cies? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. ---That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A) 2. ---Total Number of Dominant 3. ---Species Across All Strata: 1 (B) 4. ---Percent of Dominant Species = Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (NB) Sa~ling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 3m radius) 1. ---Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. ---Total% Cover of: Multiply by: 3. ---OBL species X 1 = 4. ---FACW species x2= 5. ---FAC species x3= = Total Cover FACU species x4= Herb Stratum (Plot size: 3m radius) UPL species x5= 1. ByQSbean (Men!l!:anthes trifoliata} 20 y OOL_ Column Totals: (A) (B) 2. --- 3. ---Prevalence Index -B/A= 4. ---Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. ---D 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 6. ---0 2 -Dominance Test is >50% 7. ---D 3 -Prevalence Index is ::.3.0 1 8. ---D 4 -Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting 9. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) ---D 5 -Wetland Non-Vascular Plants 1 10. ---Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain) 11. D ---1lndicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: _) be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 1. ---Hydrophytic 2. ---Vegetation = Total Cover Present? Yes0 NoD % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 80 Remarks: Vegetation within the deepwater emergent community is just starting to emerge from the water. Aerial photos of the wetland that were taken in August 2011 and November 2007 indicate that the emergent community covers most of the center of the wetland. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast -Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point· 3 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) ___li_ ToL Loe" Texture Remarks ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 1Tune: C=Concentration, D=Deoletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2 Location: PL=Pore Linino, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3 : D Histosol (A 1) D Sandy Redox (S5) 0 2 cm Muck (A10) D Histic Epipedon (A2) D Stripped Matrix (S6) D Red Parent Material (TF2) D Black Histic (A3) D Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) D Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) D Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) D Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) D Other (Explain in Remarks) D Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) D Depleted Matrix (F3) D Thick Dark Surface (A 12) D Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and D Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) D Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, D Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) D Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes t8J NoO Remarks: Could not sample due to inundation greater than 36". Assume aquic moisture regime to meet hydric soil criteria. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary: Indicators (minimum of one reguired· check all that a1212ly) Secondary: lndicalor§: (2 or more reguired) t8J Surtace Water(A1) D Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA D Water-Stained Leaves (69) (MLRA 1, 2, D High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 46) 4A, and4B) D Saturation (A3) D Salt Crust (B11) D Drainage Patterns (810) D Water Marks (B 1) D Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) D Dry-Season Water Table (C2) D Sediment Depostts (62) D Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) D Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) D Drift Deposits (B3) D Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) D Geomorphic Posttion (D2) D Algal Mat or Crust (B4) D Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) D Shallow Aquitard (D3) D Iron Depostts (B5) D Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) D FAC-Neutral Test (D5) D Surface Soil Cracks (86) D Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) D Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) D Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87) D Other (Explain in Remarks) D Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) D Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes t8I NoO Depth (inches): 36+" Water Table Present? YesD No t8J Depth (inches): Saturation Present? YesD No t8J Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes t8I NoO /includes caoillarv frinael Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Inundated to >36" due to impoundment by BNSF Railroad berm. Cannot find an outlet to the wetland. Hydrology appears to seep through the railroad berm to wetlands on south side of railroad. 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: QIP / Sunset Bluffs Applicant/Owner: Heron Pointe LLC City/County: Renton I King Sampling Date:4119/2013 State: ~W~A~---Sampling Point: ~4 ____ _ lnvestigator(s): Emmett Pritchard Section, Township, Range: .S~1~3~T~2~3~N=R~4~E~--------- Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): ~H~il~ls~lo~p~e~ _________ Local relief (concave, convex, none): ,C~o~n~ca~v~e _____ Slope(%): O __ _ Subregion (LRR): Northwest Forests and Coasts Lat: 47. 28' 45" Long: 122.14' 22" Datum: Unknown Soil Map Unit Name: Woodinville silt loam NWI classification: -n-on-e ________ _ Are climatic/ hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes D No [8J (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation __ , Soil __ , or Hydrology __ significantly disturbed? Are Vegetation __ , Soil __ , or Hydrology __ naturally problematic? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes [8J No D (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 0 NoO Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes 0 NoO within a Wetland? Yes0 NoO Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 0 NoO Remarks: Sample Plot 4 is in wetland Bat west end in PSS community near mouth of inlet stream at edge of inundated portion of the wetland. Rainfall thus far in April is nearly 100% more than normal. VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: 3m radius) % Cover Sgecies? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. red alder {Alnus rubra} 5 y _EAf;__ That Are OBL, FACW, or FAG: 5 (A) 2. Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia} 10 y FACW Total Number of Dominant 3. Balsam QO~lar (Po~ulus balsamifera} 10 y _EAf;__ Species Across All Strata: 5 (B) 4. ---Percent of Dominant Species 25 = Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW, or FAG: 100 (NB) SaQling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 3m radius) 1. Red osier {Cornus albus} 80 y FACW Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. Himala)i!an blackberr:t (Rubus armeniacus} 5 N FACU Total % Cover of: MultiQI~ b~: 3. Sitka willow (Salix sitchensis} 10 N FACW OBL species X 1 = 4. ---FACW species x2= 5. ---FAG species x3= 95 = Total Cover FACU species x4= Herb Stratum (Plot size: 3m radius) UPL species X 5 = 1. Reed cana!)!Qrass (Phalaris arundinacea} 10 y FACW Column Totals: (A) (B) 2. --- 3. Prevalence Index = BIA= --- 4. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: --- 5. D 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation --- 6. ---0 2 -Dominance Test is >50% 7. D 3 -Prevalence Index is :53.0 1 --- 8. ---D 4 -Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting 9. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) ---D 5 -Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 10. ---D Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain) 11. ---11ndicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 10 = Total Cover be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Wood'.i Vine Stratum (Plot size: 3m radius) 1. ---Hydrophytic 2. ---Vegetation 0 = Total Cover Present? Yes[gi No0 % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 90 Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast -Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point' 4 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Ms1!rix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) ~ Color (moist} ___%_ ~ Loe"' Texture Remarks 0-14 10~r 4/2 ~ 1 Q~r 4/4 5 C _M __ Gr. S.L. 14-20+ 10YR 5/1 1.QQ__ ---Gr. S. L. ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 1Tvne: C-Concentration, D-Oeoletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Linina, M==Matrix. Hydrlc Soll Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3 : D Histosol (A1) D Sandy Redox (S5) 0 2 cm Muck (A10) D Histic Epipedon (A2) D Stripped Matrix (S6) D Red Parent Material (TF2) D Black Histic (A3) D Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) D Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) D Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) D Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) D Other (Explain in Remarks) D Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) (ZJ Depleted Matrix (F3) D Thick Dark Surface (A12) D Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3 lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and D Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) D Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, D Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) D Redox Depressions (FS) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes (ZJ NoO Remarks: Soils in this area appear to be fonned by sediment deposited into the wetland from the stream. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primart Indicators (minimum of one reguired· chegk 5111 lbat ai,:mb!l SecondaQ! lndi~1QC§ (2 Qr more r~gyir~d} D Surface Water (A1) D Water-Stained Leaves (89) (except MLRA D Water-Stained Leaves (89) (MLRA 1, 2, (ZJ High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 48) 4A, and 48) (ZJ Saturation (A3) D Salt Crust (B11) D Drainage Patterns (B 10) D Water Marks (B 1) D Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) D Dry-Season Water Table (C2) D Sediment Deposits (B2) D Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) D Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) D Drift Deposits (83) D Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) D Geomorphic Position (D2) D Algal Mat or Crust (84) D Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) D Shallow Aqunard (03) D Iron Deposits (85) D Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) D FAG-Neutral Test (05) D Surface Soil Cracks (86) D Stunted or Stressed Plants (01) (LRR A) D Raised Ant Mounds (06) (LRR A) D Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87) D Other (Explain in Remarks) D Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) D Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? YesD No (ZJ Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes (ZJ NoO Depth (inches): L- Saturation Present? Yes (ZJ NoO Depth (inches): 1:_ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes (ZJ NoO (includes caoillarv frinae) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: More than 90% of the wetland is inundated to a depth of as much as >36". Cannot find an outlet to the wetland. Hydrology appears to seep through BNSF railroad berm to wetlands located south of railrad berm. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast -Version 2.0 APPENDIXB Theresa R. Henson Consulting Wetland Delineation Report 8-29-2000 for the SR 900, LLC property aka Sunset Bluff Site WETLAND DELINEATION SR 900 L.L.C. PROPERTY Renton, Washington August 29, 2000 SR 900, LLC 9125 -10th Avenue South Seattle, Washington 98108 THERESA R. HENSON CONSUL TING Assessment, Management and Regulatory Permitting P.O. BOX 7208 TACOMA, WASHINGTON 98406 (253) 756-0370 FAX: (253) 156-0155 H-1051--01 () ) . ) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The findings and conclusions presented in this report are based on an interpretation of information currently available to Theresa R Henson Consulting. This summary is fur introductory purposes and should be used only in conjunction with the full text of this report. This wetland delineation was based on the On-Site Detennination Method descnbed in the Washington State Wetland Identification and Delineation Manual (1997) and the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (1987). Based on the information derived through site reconnaissance and readily available documents, two wetlands were identified on the site. Wetland A is a O. 006-acre (258-square foot), Palustrine scrub-shrub, seasonally flooded wetland located in the southwest comer of the site. Wetland A extends off-site to the south and is estimated to total 400 square feet in size. Wetland B is a Palustrine scrub-shrub, emergent wetland that has water regimes that vary from seasonally-flooded along the wetland's edges to pennanently-flooded near the wetland's center, which is located off-site. The on-site portion of Wetland B is 0.14 acres (6,078 square feet) in size. Wetland B extends off of the site and is estimated to total three acres in size. Wetland A is a Category 3 Wetland that is isolated and that has been severely disturbed by the placement of fill along the southern edge for the railroad grade and by the subsequent construction of a ditch in that fill. Wetland A would be classified as a non-regulated wetland in accordance with the City of Renton Wetland Regulations, Title IV, Sections 4-3-105-G.l.b and 4-3-110-I.3 due to it being a Category 3 wetland less than 5,000 square feet in size. A certificate of exemption must be obtained from the City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator prior to impacting this Category 3 Wetland by filling, clearing, flooding, or draining. In accordance with Nationwide Permit 39, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the "Corps") must be notified of impacts to Wetland A within 30 days of completion of the impact. Wetland B would be classified as a Very High Quality, Category 1 Wetland using the City of Renton Wetland Regulations, Title IV, Section 4-3-110. This wetland meets that classification because it is greater than 2,200 square feet in size and has between 40°/c, and 60"/o permanent open water with two vegetation classes (scrub-shrub and emergent). City of Renton Wetland Regulations currently require a 100-foot bufler between Category 1 Wetlands and land development activities. Impacts to Wetland B would require permits from the City of Renton, the Corps, and possibly the Washington State Department of Ecology ("Ecology"). The on-site stream would be classified as a Type 4 water under the Washington State Department ofNatural Resources ("DNR") water typing criteria provided in WAC 222-16-030. The DNR water typing criteria are used by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife ("Fish and Wildlife") to classify streams within their jurisdiction. The on-site stream section would be classified as a Type 4 water due to channel widths at the ordinary high water mark being within the 2-to-5-fuot range and the very high likelihood that the stream is "not used by significant numbers of fish," jf it is used by any fish at all. Work within the stream, including crossing the stream, would require a permit from Fish and Wildlife. Section 4-4-130.D.4.b of the City of Renton Land Clearing Ordinance requires a 25-fuot riparian buffer along the stream. Work within the stream and its buffer, including crossing the stream, would require a variance from the City of Renton. Such variances can be sought pursuant to RMC 4-130.l. Work below the stream's ordinary high water mark would also require a permit from the Corps and possibly a permit from Ecology . I H-1051-01 (y ) TABLE OF CONTENTS Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................... i 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...................................................... l 1.1 Scope of Services .................................................. I 1.2 Site Location and Description ........................................ 1 2.0 DOCUMENT REVIEW .................................................. 2 2.1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetland Inventory Map ............... 2 2.2 City ofRenton Wetland Inventory ..................................... 2 2.3 Soil Conservation Service Soil Survey of the King County Area ............... 2 3.0 SITE RECONNAISSANCE ............................................... 3 3.1 Site Conditions During Site Visit ...................................... 3 3.2 Topography ...................................................... 3 3.3 Fauna .......................................................... 3 3 .4 Vegetation ....................................................... 3 3.5 Soils ............................................................ 4 3.6 Hydrology ....................................................... 4 4.0 WETLAND AREAS ..................................................... 4 5.0 WETLAND FUNCTIONS AND VALUES .................................... 5 5. I Biologic Functions ................................................. 5 5.2 Hydrologic Functions ............................................... 5 6.0 WETLAND REGULATION ............................................... 6 7.0 CONCLUSIONS ........................................................ 6 8.0 CLOSURE ............................................................ 7 REFERENCES ........................................................... I 0 Table No. I 2 LIST OF TABLES Vegetation Species Identified On the Site Results of the Triple Parameter Approach for Each Data Point II H-1051-01 / ) TABLE OF CONTENTS ( continued) Figure No. 1 2 APPENDIX A APPENDIXB APPENDIXC Vicinity Map Site Map LIST OF FIGURES LIST OF APPENDICES WETLAND DELINEATION METIIODOLOGY DEFINITION OF PLANT INDICATOR STATUS AND FIELD SHEETS MODIFIED REPPERT WETLAND VALUES EVALUATION SHEET iii H-1051-01 WETLAND DELINEATION REPORT SR 900 L.L.C. RENTON, WASHINGTON 1.0 INTRODUCTION Theresa R Henson Consuhing has completed a wetland delineation for the SR 900 L.L.C. property located south of SR 900 in Section 13, Township 23 North, Range 4 East in Renton, Washington (Figure 1 ). This work was performed to assist in site planning related to future development of the property. 1.1 Scope of Services The scope of work for this study was limited to the following tasks: • Review of federal, state and local regulations pertaining to the wetlands identified on the subject site. The review was used to classify the on-site wetlands and drainage. • A visual assessment to observe existing site conditions and to identify and flag the wetlands located on the site. This was accomplished using field procedures consistent with the Washing/on State Wetland Identification and Delineation Manual (1997) and the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (I 987) (Appendix A). • A review of documents readily available, including local wetland inventory maps, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetland Inventory Maps, and the Soil Conservation Service Soil Survey of the King County Area. • Assessment of the identified wetlands to help determine the overall functions and values of the wetlands. • A report documenting the process, findings, and conclusions for this project. 1.2 Site Location and Description The roughly triangularly-shaped SR 900 L.L.C. parcel contains approximately 26 acres of land and is located south of SR 900 in Section 13, Township 23 North, Range 4 East (Figure 1). Approximately the northwesterly I 7.54 acres of the site lies just outside of the Renton city limits while the balance of the site already lies within Renton. (An annexation is currently pending that would bring those 17.54 acres into the City.) The site is a forested parcel of land with steep slopes, a north-south flowing stream located in the eastern third of the site, one regulated wetland located in the southeastern portion of the site, and one non-regulated wetland located in the southwestern portion of the site (Figure 2). The site is bounded along the north by SR 900 (which is called Martin Luther King Jr. Way South along the property's unincorporated King County road frontage and which is called Sunset Boulevard along the property's City of Renton road frontage), along the south 1 H-1051-01 (y ) ) by railroad tracks and a wetland, along the east by a stretch of forested land that is part of an existing multi-family residential development called the Sunpointe Townhomes and along the west by the Empire Estates Apartments (abutting the northerly portion of the west boundary) and by the Stoneway Black River Quarry site (abutting the southerly portion of the west boundary). Storm water runoff from SR 900 is discharged onto the site through eight culverts located along the SR 900 road embankment (Figure 2). One of the culverts is a 24-inch diameter pipe that carries water from the north side of SR 900 and discharges it into a channel that (with such water) becomes an on-site stream. The other seven culverts collect storm water from SR 900 and discharge it onto the site. 2.0 DOCUMENT REVIEW 2.1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetland Inventory Map The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetland Inventory Map of the Renton, Washington Quadrangle, I :24,000 scale (1988), does not identify any wetlands on the subject site. 2.2 City of Renton Wetland Inventory The City of Renton Wetland Inventory (1992) does not identify any wetlands on the subject site. Wetland W-5c located south of the site is the nearest wetland noted in that Inventory. 2.3 Soil Conservation Service Soil Survey ofthe King County Area The U.S. Soil Conservation Service Soil Survey (SCS) of the King County Area, Washington (1973) was reviewed to determine the general nature of soils on the subject site. The site is mapped as containing Beausite gravelly sandy loam over a majority of the site and Woodinville silt loam in the southeast portion of the site along the railroad tracks (Figure 3). The following soils information was taken from the SCS 1973 publication. The Beausite series-is a well-drained soil formed in glacial deposits and contain bedrock at a depth of20 to 40 inches. Typically, the soil is a dark-brown to dark yellowish-brown gravelly sandy loam to a depth of about 19 inches. The lower part of the soil is an olive-brown very gravelly sandy loam underlain by fractured bedrock. Some areas contain up to 20 percent Alderwood soils and Ovall soils, and 5 percent wet Norma and Seattle soils. Beausite soils are not listed by the Washington State and King County SCS as hydric (wetland) soil. The Woodinville series is a poorly-drained soil formed in alluviwn, typically found in stream bottoms. Typically, the soil is a gray silt loam, silty clay loam, and has layers of peaty muck to a depth of38 inches. Often found in this unit is as much as 15 percent Puget soils, and 10 percent Snohomish, Oridia, Briscot, Puyallup, Newberg and Nooksack soils. The seasonal high water table is at or near the surface. Woodinville silt loam is listed by the Washington State and King County SCS as hydric (wetland) soil. 2 H-1051-01 ) 3.0 SITE RECONNAISSANCE 3.1 Site Conditions During Site Visit On June I" and 29"', 2000, Ms. Theresa Henson visited the subject site to delineate and evaluate wetlands. The site visits included a visual observation of the subject site and surrounding area. Vegetation, soils, and hydrologic conditions on the site appear to be stable. Two wetlands were identified on the site. Wetland A is a highly-disturbed, small depression (258 square feet onsite ), that has water seeping into it from the wetland's north central boundary. Wetland A extends off-site to the south and is estimated to total 400 square feet in size. Wetland B is a depression that retains water provided by the on-site stream Water from tbe stream is trapped along the railroad grade and has funned Wetland B. The on-site portion of Wetland B is approximately 0.14 acres (6,078 square feet) in size. The total size of Wetland Bon and off of the site is approximately three acres. Storm water nmoff from SR 900 is discharged onto the site through eight culverts located along the SR 900 road embankment. 3.2 Topography Based on topographic data provided on a December 1999, Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. map, site elevations range from approximately I 50 feet in the northern portion of the site to 20 feet in Wetland B located in the southeastern portion of the site. 3.3 Fauna Several species of songbirds were observed on the site. Redtail hawks were seen roosting in trees in the northern portion of the site. Great blue herons were observed flying south of the site. No great blues heron or hawk nests were observed on the site. Evidence of various animal species on the site was also noted. Large rectangular holes (indicative of Pileated woodpecker foraging) in small snags located in the northern and eastern portions of the site were observed. No plant or animal species listed federally or by the state as threatened or endangered were observed on the site. A great blue heron rookery is located approximately I, I 00 feet south of the site. 3.4 Vegetation Eighteen representative data plots were established to document plant species and dominance of vegetation on the subject property (Figure 2). The vegetative species composition varied from a second growth upland mixed big leaf maple (Acer macrophyl/um)lred alder (A/nus rubra) forest with a dense Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor) thicket understory in the western portion of the site and a more native sword fem(Polystichum munitum), snowberry (Symphoricarpos a/bus), and salal ( Gaultheria shallon) understory in the eastern portion of the site, to the scrub-shrub, emergent wetland (Wetland B) dominated by willow (Salix spp.), red osier dogwood (Cornus stolonifera), sedges ( Carex spp.) and rushes (Juncus spp. ). The wetland plant communities are predominantly the shrub and emergent areas and the uplands are predominantly composed of the second growth forest. A few scattered evergreen trees were also observed in the mixed deciduous forest on the site. Data 3 H-1051-01 () f) fonns detailing observations for vegetation are included in Appendix B. 3.5 Soils During the site reconnaissance, soil conditions (including color, texture, and relative moisture content) were observed and recorded at eighteen data points on the subject site. The indicators used to identify hydric soils can be found in Appendix A Soil types observed on the site ranged from sandy loam to silt loam to bedrock. Field sheets detailing observations for soils are included in AppendixB. 3.6 Hydrology Hydrologic conditions, including saturated soils as weU as indicators of wetland hydrology as defined by the 1987 and 1997 manuals, were observed at four of the eighteen data plots (Appendix Band Table 2). Generally, the site's wetlands and stream bed contain saturated soils near the sw-fuce (within 12 inches) and ponded water. Storm water from SR 900 is discharged onto the site through eight culverts located along the road embankment. Water from seven of these discharges appears to sheet flow down the slope and perk into the well drained soils on the site. Water from one of the culverts ( which drains an upstream existing residential neighborhood) discharges into the on-site channel that (with such water) constitutes the site's only stream. Groundwater and surface water on the remainder of the site was not encountered. Water discharging from the site was observed only where the stream flows into Wetland Band off-site to the southeast. 4.0 WETLAND AREAS Based on the use of the triple-parameter approach defined within the 1987 and l 997 manuals, two wetlands were identified on the subject property. Vegetation species were identified and classified with a Wetland Indicator Status (WIS), soil conditions were identified and labeled, and observations ofhydrologic conditions were made at eighteen data points on the site. The wetlands were classified as such because aU three wetland parameters were present (Table 2). According to the classification system developed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Cowardin et al., 1979), the wetland habitats on the site would be classified as Palustrine scrub-shrub for Wetland A, and Palustrine scrub-shrub, emergent communities with an open water component for Wetland B. Dominant vegetation within Wetland A is comprised of red osier dogwood, and giant horsetail (Equisetum telmatiea). Dominant vegetation within Wetland B is comprised of wiUow, red osier dogwood, sedges, and rushes. The upland boundaries of both wetlands contain a railroad grade along the southern boundaries and a mixed big leaf maple/red alder forest with a shrub layer dominated by sword fi:rn, snowberry, salal, red elderberry, Indian plum, and Himalayan blackberry along the north, east and west boundaries. Soils in the wetlands were dark silt loams with sandy lenses indicative of hydric ( wetland) soil conditions. 4 H-1051-01 ) ) ------ Wetland A has a seep that continuously saturates the soils within the central portion of the wetland. The east and west ends of Wetland A did not contain saturated or flooded soils during the site visit but evidence of flooding at least six inches deep included debris lines in the shrubs and water marks. During the June site visits at least 60 percent of Wetland B contained ponded water from one-inch to 48 inches deep. The edges of Wetland B contained saturated soils and the areas nearer the wetland/upland edge showed signs of flooding ( debris lines in the shrubs and water marks) up to two feet deep. A stream enters the northwest comer of Wetland B. During the June I" site visit water was flowing from the stream into the wetland. During the June 29"' site visit the stream contained saturated soils in the lower channel but had no flowing water. 5.0 WETLAND FUNCTIONS AND VALUES A Modified Reppert Wetland Values Evaluation form was completed for the project (Appendix C). The general biologic and hydrologic functions of Wetlands A and B are described below. 5.1 Biologic Functions Wetland A generally has moderate to low biologic functions. The general habitat contains shrub vegetation. It does not contain habitat features such as logs or snags. Birds and small mammals most likely use the wetland. Shrub cover is too dense for water fowl and heron use. Wetland B provides generally moderate to high biologic functions. The general habitat contains shrub and emergent plant communities with open water, downed logs, snags, and the railroad embankment with vegetative cover. Although Wetland B is approximately 1,200 feet northeast of a great blue heron rookery, other larger systems {such as Lake Washington, the P-1 Pond and Springbrook Creek) provide more diverse foraging areas. This wetland has some limitations to biologic functions due to its small size {approximately 3 acres) and proximity to the nearby railroad grade. 5.2 Hydrologic Functions Wetland A provides low hydro logic functions. In general Wetland A is an isolated depression with a seep that discharges water into the system. Wetland A would store a modest volume of storm water runoff from the railroad ditch if the ditch reaches capacity and overflows in a large storm event. Wetland B provides moderate hydrologic functions. In general, the system is a seasonally to permanently-flooded wetland that is approximately three acres in size and has no known outlet. Wetland B does retain surface water runoff from the intermittent stream that discharges into the wetland and from the surrounding hillside during flood events. Wetland B does receive local runoff from non-point sources such as roads and the railroad grade, and the wetland structure of shrub and emergent vegetation provides water purification functions. 5 H-1051-01 c·1 ) 6.0 WETLAND REGULATION Wetland A is an isolated, Category 3 Wetland that has been severely disturbed by the placement of fill along the southern edge for the railroad grade and by the subsequent construction of a ditch in the fill. Wetland A would be classified as a non-regulated wetland in accordance with the City of Renton (Renton) Wetland Regulations, Title IV, Sections 4-3-105-G.l.b and 4-3-110-1.3 due to it being a Category 3 wetland less than 5,000 square feet in size. A certificate of exemption must be obtained from Renton's Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator prior to impacting this Category 3 Wetland by filling, clearing, flooding or draining. In accordance with Nationwide Permit 39, the U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers (the "Corps") must be notified of such impacts to Wetland A within 30 days of completion of the impact. Wetland B would be classified as a Very High Quality, Category 1 Wetland using the Renton Wetland Regulations, Title IV, Section 4-3-l l 0. Wetland B would meet this classification because it is greater than 2,200 square feet in size and has between 40% and 60"/o permanent open water with two vegetation classes (scrub-shrub and emergent). Renton Wetland Regulations currently require a l 00- foot buffer between Category 1 Wetlands and land development activities. Impacts to Wetland B would require permits from Renton, the Corps and possibly the Washington State Department of Ecology ("Ecology"). The on-site stream would be classified as a Type 4 water using the Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) water typing criteria as provided in WAC 222-16-030. The DNR water typing criteria are used by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife ("Fish and Wildlife'') to classify streams within its jurisdiction. The on-site stream section would be classified as a Type 4 water due to channel widths at the ordinary high water mark being within the 2-to-5-foot range and the very high likelihood that the stream is "not used by significant numbers offish," ifit is used by any fish at all. Because the lower portion of the stream channel has a slope of approximately 20 percent and the wetland that the stream discharges into does not have a connection to other streams or the P-1 Channel, it would be extremely unlikely that any fish would be found within the stream. Work within the stream, including crossing the stream, would require a permit from Fish and Wildlife. Section 4-4-130.D.4.b of the City of Renton Land Clearing Ordinance requires a 25-fuot riparian buffi:r along the stream. Work within the stream and its buffer, including crossing the stream, woukl require a variance from the City of Renton. Such variances can be sought pursuant to RMC 4-130.1. Work below the stream's ordinary high water mark would also require a permit from the Corps and possibly a permit from Ecology. 7.0 CONCLUSIONS Based on the 1987 and 1997 manuals, vegetation, soils, and hydrologic conditions necessary for an area to be considered wetland were fuund on the site. Two wetlands were identified, Wetland A in the southwest corner of the site and Wetland Bin the southeast comer of the site. Wetland A is an isolated, Category 3 Wetland that has been severely disturbed. Wetland A would be classified as a non-regulated wetland in accordance with Renton Wetland Regulations, Title IV, Sections 4-3-105- 6 H-1051-01 ' t ) Glb and 4-3-l 10-I3 due to it being a Category 3 Wetland less than 5,000 square feet in size. A certificate of exemption must be obtained from Renton's Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator prior to impacting tbis Category 3 Wetland. In accordance with Nationwide Permit 39, the Corps must be notified ofimpacts to Wetland A within 30 days of completion of the impact. Wetland B would be classified as a Very Higb Quality, Category 1 Wetland. This wetland meets tbis classification because it is greater than 2,200 square feet in size and has between 40% and 60% permanent open water with two vegetation classes (scrub-shrub and emergent). Renton Wetland Regulations currently require a 100-foot buffer between Category 1 Wetlands and land development activities. Impacts including clearing, filling, flooding and/or draining Wetland B would require permits from Renton, the Corps, and possibly Ecology. The on-site stream would be classified as a Type 4 water due to channel widths at the ordinary high water mark being within the 2-to-5-foot range and the very high likelihood that the stream is "not used by significant numbers offish," ifit is used by any fish at all. Section 4-4-130.D.4.b of the City ofRenton Land Clearing Ordinance requires a 25-foot riparian buffer along the stream. Impacts to the stream, including crossing the stream, would require permits and approvals from Fish and Wildlife, and Renton Impacts below the ordinary high water mark would also require a permit from the Corps and possibly a permit from Ecology. 8.0 CLOSURE The findings and conclusions documented in tbis report have been prepared for specific application to this site. 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 dated May 12, 2000. The conclusions and recommendations presented in tbis 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 tbis project. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made. Wetland boundaries identified by Theresa R. Henson Consulting are considered preliminary until the flagged wetland boundaries are validated by the Corps and/or the local jurisdictional agency. Validation of the wetland boundaries by the regulating agencie(s) provides a certification, usually written, that the wetland boundaries verified are the boundaries that will be regulated by the agencie( s) until a specific date or until the regulations are modified. Only the regulating agencie( s) can provide tbis certification Since wetlauds are dynamic communities affected by both natural and human activities, changes in wetland boundaries may be expected; therefore, wetlaud delineations cannot remain valid for an indefinite period of time. Renton currently recognizes the validity of wetland delineations for a period of two years after completion of a wetland delineation report. Development activities on a site two 7 H-1051-01 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. Because of such changes, our observations and conclusions applicable to this site may need to be revised wholly or in part. THERESA R. HENSON CONSULTING Theresa R. Henson Natural Resource Ecologist HIOSJ.01.RP'f 8 H-1051-01 ) ) REFERENCES Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C.Golet, and E.T. LaRoe, 1979, Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Publication FSW/OSB-79/31. Environmental Laboratory, 1987, Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual Technical Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. Hitchcock, C., and Cronquist, Arthur, 1990, Flora of the Pacific Northwest, University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington. Munsell Soil Color Chart, 1994, Rev. ed.: Baltimore, Maryland, Kollmorgen Instruments Corporation. Reed, P.B., Jr., 1988, National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: Northwest (Region 9), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 88 (26.9). Renton, 1995, Title IV, 4-3-110 Wetland Regulations, Renton, Washington. Reppert, R.T., W. Sigleo, E. Stakhiv, L. Messman, and C. Beyers, 1979, Wetland Values Concepts and Methods for Wetland Evaluations: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources, Fort Belvoir, Virginia. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, 1973, Soil Survey of the King County Area, Washington. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1988, National Wetland Inventory Map, Renton, Quadrangle, Washington. Washington State Department of Ecology, 1997, Washington State Wetland Identification and Delineation Manual, Publication #96-94. IO H-1051-01 () TABLE 1 VEGETATION SPECIES IDENTIFIED ON THE SITE TREES BigleafMaple Acer macrophyllum Black Cottonwood Populus trichocarpa Douglas Fir Pseudotsuga menziesii Oregon Ash Fraxinus latifolia Red Alder Alnus rubra Western Red Cedar Thuja plicata Willow Salixspp. SHRUBS Bracken Fem Pteridium aquilinum Dewberry Rubus ursinus Douglas Spiraea Spiraea douglasii ) Elderberry Sambucus racemosa Hazelnut Cory/us cornuta Himalayan Blackberry Rubus discolor Holly flex aquifolium Indian Plum Oemleria cerasiformis Nightshade Solanum dulcamara Oceanspray Holodiscus discolor Oregon Grape Mahonia nervosa Red Osier Dogwood Cornus stolonifera Salal Gaultheria shallon Salmon berry Rubus spectabilis Snowberry Symphoricarpos a/bus Stinging Nettle Urtica dioica } i H-1051-01 ,-, I } ) Sword Fem Polystichum munitum Thimbleberry Rubus parviflorus HERBS Bedstraw Galium triflorum English Ivy Hedera helix Giant Horsetail Equisetum telmatiea Licorice Fem Polypodium glycyrrhiza Knotweed Po/ygonum persicaria Sedge Carexspp. Soft Rush Juncus effusus Stinging Nettle Urtica dioica Youth-On-Age Tolmiea menziesii AQUATIC Duckweed Lamnaminor Note: This listing represents the major plant species identified. There may be otber species present on within the subject site that are not listed. H-1051-01 ) \ I TABLE2 RESULTS OF THE TRIPLE-PARAMETER APPROACH FOR EACH DATA POINT Wetland Wetland Wetland Data Point Vegetation Hydric Soils Hydrology Determination 1 No No No Non-wetland 2 No No No Non-wetland 3 No No Yes Non-wetland 4 No No No Non-wetland 5 No No No Non-wetland 6 No No No Non-wetland 7 Yes Yes Yes Wetland 8 Yes Yes Yes Wetland 9 No No No Non-wetland 10 No No No Non-wetland 11 No No No Non-wetland 12 No No No Non-wetland 13 No No No Non-wetland 14 No No No Non-wetland 15 Yes Yes Yes Wetland 16 Yes Yes Yes Wetland 17 No No No Non-wetland 18 No No No Non-wetland H-1051-01 (-) N Approximate Scale l inch to 400 feet A Merlino SR 900 Renton, Washington VICINl1Y MAP July 2000 H-1051-01 Theresa R. Henson Consulting FIG. 1 AS5anncat, Mmagcmcint ,111.d Rogv.lAOJY Pommtina g ~ " e z 8 • -~ 0 ~ ~ APPENDIX A WETLAND DELINEATION METHODOLOGY \ ) ) H-1051-01 t, ) APPENDIX A WETLAND DELINEATION METHODS The triple parameter approach of the Washington State Wetland Identification and Delineation Manual (1997) and the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (1987) was used to delineate the extent of wetlands on the site. Under this methodology, vegetation, soils, and hydrology are each evaluated to determine the presence or absence of wetlands. Based on the use of this method, an area is considered to be a wetland if each of the following are met: (I) dominant hydrophytic vegetation is present in the area, (2) the soils in the area are hydric, and (3) the necessary hydrologic conditions within the area are met. The Routine On-Site Determination Method was used for the evaluation of triple parameter criteria for this project. This methodology was selected because differences in vegetation types were easily observed, aiding in the identification of areas likely to meet the hydrology and soils criteria of this approach. Wetland boundaries were determined by conducting a walking inspection of the property. As part of this inspection, species of vegetation, soil conditions, and hydrologic conditions were noted at several data plots to more accurately determine the boundaries of on-site wetlands. Wetland Vegetation Hydrophytic plants are plants specially adapted for saturated and/or anaerobic conditions. The U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has assigned an indicator status to many plant species that is based upon the estimated probability of the species existing under wetland conditions. Plants are categorized as Obligate (OBL), Facultative Wetland (FACW), Facultative (FAC), Facultative Upland (FACU), and Upland (UPL). Species with an indicator status ofOBL, FACW, or FAC are considered to be adapted to saturated and/or anaerobic (ie., wetland) conditions and are referred to as hydrophytic vegetation (Appendix B). Trees and shrubs within a 30-foot radius and herbs within a 5-foot radius of each data plot were identified and noted. The approximate percentage of cover for each of the different plant species occurring within the tree, shrub, and herb strata was determined. Dominant plant species are considered to be those that, when cumulatively totaled in descending order of abundance, exceed 50 percent of the areal cover for each vegetative stratum. Any additional species individually representing 20 percent or greater of the total areal cover for each vegetative stratum are also considered dominant. The indicator status of the dominant plant species within each of the vegetative strata are used to determine the presence ofhydrophytic vegetation near each data plot. A data plot was considered to have hydrophytic vegetation if greater than 50 percent of the dominant plant species within the area had an indicator status of OBL, FACW, or FAC. Hydric Soils Hydric soils are defined as those soils which are saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during A-1 H-1051-01 if ) the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions that favor the growth and regeneration of hydrophytic vegetation. As a result of anaerobic conditions, hydric soils exhibit characteristics directly observable in the field, including high organic matter content, greenish or bluish grey color (gley funnation), accumulation of sulfidic material, spots of orange or yellow color (mottling), and dark soil colors (low chromas ). Throughout a large portion of the area delineated as wetland, identification ofhydric soils was aided through observation of surface hydro logic characteristics and indicators of wetland hydrology (i.e., drainage patterns). The areal extent ofhydric soils was defined through direct soil observation within several data plots placed both inside and outside the wetland. Soil observations were completed within soil data plots dug with a shovel to a depth of at least 16 inches below the existing ground surfuce. Soil samples were examined for the presence ofhydric indicators. Soil organic content was estimated visually and textually. The presence of sulfidic material was determined by the presence of sulfide gases (ie., a "rotten egg" odor). Soil colors were recorded after being determined through use of the three aspects of color in the Munsell Soil Color Chart: hue, value and chroma (e.g., a soil designated as 10YR6/2has a hue oflOYR, a value of 6, a chroma of2, and a soil color name of light brownish gray). A soil chroma of two in combination with soil mottling or a soil chroma of one without soil mottling typically indicates a hydric soil. Wetland Hydrology Hydrologic conditions identifying wetland characteristics occur during those periods when the soils are inundated permanently or periodically, or the soil is continuously saturated to the surface for sufficient duration to develop hydric soils and support vegetation typically adapted for life in periodically anaerobic conditions. Research has indicated that duration of soil saturation and inWtdation during the growing season is more influential on the plant community than the frequency of soil saturation and inundation during the growing season. For the purposes of this wetland delineation, the wetland hydrology criterion was considered to be satisfied if it appeared that wetland hydrology was present for at least 5 to 12 percent (12 to 29 days) of the growing season. The growing season begins when the soil reaches a temperature of 41 degrees Fahrenheit in the zone of root penetration. The hydrology was evaluated by direct visual observation of surface inundation or soil saturation within 16 inches below the existing ground surface in data plots. According the 1987 Manual, "for soil saturation to impact vegetation, it must occur within a major portion of the root zone (usually within 12 inches of the surface) of the prevalent vegetation." Therefore, if saturated soils or indicators were observed within 12 inches of the surface, positive indicators of wetland hydrology were noted. The area near each data plot was also examined for indicators of wetland hydrology. These indicators include dried water marks, drift lines, sediment deposits, and drainage patterns. It was not possible to observe conditions during the entire growing season. Areas where positive indicators ofhydrology were noted were assumed to contain wetland hydrology. A-2 H-1051-01 () APPENDIX B DEFINITION OF PLANT INDICATOR STATUS AND FIELD DATA FORMS ) H-1051-01 --·-... . \ } ) APPENDIXB DEFINITION OF PLANT INDICATOR STATUS AND DATA FORMS Indicator Category OBL FACW FAC FACU UPL NI Source: Definitions Obligate Wetland. Occurs ahnost always (estimated probability >99%) under natural conditions in wetlands. Facultative Wetland. Usually occurs in wetlands (estimated probability 67- 99% ), but occasionally found in uplands. Facultative. Equally likely to occur in wetlands or uplands ( estimated probability 34-66% ). Facultative Upland. Usually occurs in uplands (estimated probability 67- 99"/o), but is occasionally found in wetlands (estimated probability 1-33%). Obligate Upland. Occurs in wetlands in other regions (as defined in the National List of Scientific Plant Names), but occurs almost always ( estimated probability >99%) under natural conditions in uplands in the region specified. No Indicator. These species have not been given an indicator status. They are assumed to be upland. National List of Plants That Occur In Wetlands: Northwest (Region 9). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 88 (26. 9). 89 pp. H-1051-01 \ I Data Point: _I of J!? DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION ProjectJSite: SR "l 0~ Applicant/Owner: _(Yl~e""-'-',._'"'",,.,; (\'-'-"'P'-----~--- . tor: TR.H J-s...u. "-'0""J-ol Have vegetation, soils, or hydrology been disturbed: Yes Is the area a potential Problem Area: Yes (If needed, lain on reverse.) VEGETATION Date: ,_ I -oo City: Re njp (I County: IC ; r\ ! State: twA Uslminaoi elinl Sneci~ Strah1m ~Cov~[ Indi!,i!1!lI DomimiD1 flmn Sneci~ Stratum ·&i ~Yl:[ Indi~tQr 1. g ... 12 ... s O•'Sto /Dl'_sl:i __f.,_o ....Efilu.. 1. ------2. Sljl'lj>)\pt-; c"-rflJ __ 2. --------3. &.\hu.S _2b ~ ..f:A_C.U.. 3. ------4.d cer M,u.ror~y//~"1 T ~ FIi£ u._ 4. ------5. -----5. ------6. ------6. ------ 7. ------7. ------ 8. 8. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, /7) FACW orFAC, -PAC-\. *·Dominant sn-,,ies. Cowardin Classification: No fl -wet! o..n. .,l 7 Remarks: HYDROLOGY ....-1.lecorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators #Jbvt.{_ _ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gage _-1'.erial Photograph - . Inundated -Other -L Saturated in Upper 12 Inches _ No Recorded Data Available -Water Marks -Water Lines fJ ov'lL -Sediment Deposits Field Observations: Drainage Patterns in Wetlands --Oxidized Root Channels in Upper Depth of Surface Water: ±(in.) 12 Inches Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) ~ Water-Stained Leaves Oep(i\ to Saturated Soil: (in.) Local Soil Survey Data Other (1:1.....Jain in Remarks) Remarks: Data Point: j_ of .J.i son.s Map Unit Name: o~ ... Y.~ :+e Drainage Class: We II cl. O:!, ; !l,~ d X t. ta , h. rc.p-+-s Field Observations ~ Taxonomy (Subgroup): 'D ~ d ,-: Ee Confinn Mapped Type? No Profile Description· Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, (i!Jkhes\ (Mun&eJI M2inl UdWJsU Moisl} Abunda~/.C.Qntrast Bbiu,fiP)Jems "'I o-l 10'{ e q.J 1 ~d'/1.L_ S,'lt loo.I'\'\ :2.~ 8 I D\ffJ...3}3 ,.,~ ~ ht,udl 8 xn~ {o .. m B -".l<> /O'J.f.l{/q ,J.,(I.L @. ra. ut./ ( 'j ~ « I\~ (o4. YYI I -- -- -- Hydric Soil Indicators: IJptl.L ) ~-Histosol -Concretions -Histic Epipedon -High Organic Content in Surface Layer -Sulfidic Odor -Organic Streaking -Probable Aquic Moisture Regime -Listed on Local Hydric Soils List -Reducing Conditions -_ Listed on National Hydric Soils List -Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors -~ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes l Yes@) Hydric Soils Present? Yes I Is this Data Point Within a Wetland? Wetland Hvdroloo,v Present? Yes Remarks: i I +--··7 l-99/DATAFRM/fRH4rh Data Point: .2i.._ of .JB DATAFOkM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION Project/Site: SR. jOO Date: ,-1-oD Applicant/Owner: me r-1 1·(1 o City: €. e o 'h,, o htvesti11ator: Ti' 14 1-L #· u -loOC-t-o \ Comrty: Ki~ ' State: !6LA= Have vegetation, soils, or hydrology been disturbed: Yes Is the area a potential Problem Area: Yes rr+'needed. """lain on reverse.) VEGETATION Dominlll!l Ellll!l SJl!:!<i!ll! Stratum 'l3, Cover lodi~tor l&mhuun Plant SnPri§ Stratum ~ Cov!:[ Igdicatot 1. :8 ... '!,. .. , 4; s '"le>,. __x_r. ~ ~u.. I. ------2. ~M:L!, .\;oic~ -2.b -3.f> I= At:. 2. ------3. A,cr ("l,u,.,ei.~11 .. !!:I....I. J..Q !1U_u. 3. -----4 . .+tnw <, ,.._ 1,,._ __I_ ~" i=-1\ <:. 4. ------5. «11. 11, .. s; u.t,r;l'\uS _g _2.Q_ PU'.. 5. ------ 6. ------6. ------ 7. ------7. ------ 8. 8. ) Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, 1-\0 ? ... FACW or PAC lex~-FAC-l. *-Dominant -ies. Cowardin Classification: '' ->'I uJe.+1 ..... ,1..l Remarlts: HYDROLOGY __::::"Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators _ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gage 9eria! Photograph -Inundated _Other _ Saturated in Upper 12 Inches _ No Recorded Data Available -Water Matts -Water Lines -Sediment Deposits Field Observations: fJo~ ?Drainage Patterns in Wetlands _ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper Depth of Surface Water: =i= (in.) 12 Inches Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) -Water-Stained Leaves Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) _ Local Soil Survey Data Other .. in Remarks) Remarks: 7es'I-i.,lt. Ju'3 ;,,. tL. ~hAllow h,..a..c1:\J .. \ --:i Data Point: ~of _Jf9 <'") i \ . SOILS Map Unit Name: 13 i!' ........ ,;; i-f.. Drainage Class: t..>e II Jr,,..; t').t J Taxonomy (Subgroup): l>¥:s.'4r; L ~efo<.kMf"t.S Field Observations ~ Confinn Mapped Type? No Profile Description· Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, {inch,s) lMun..,11 Ml!i&ll tM.11DKII M.QiSJ Abundance/f',0ntra.i Bhi 7 osnheres. m: o-j /0 ':1.£3// N~ Si/f /D<A.M w/St.1.t14 4-"· /0 'I e. 3/a.. /e,is~s. A}c)V'\L_ gl)l.tl'l.lt'& sa.n~ loa.WJ -- 1'-Q.o LO 'ff 't/3 /J()t\L ~(cLut.11 <;! $a..Yld'd lo«.r,,i -- -- -- Hydric Soil Indicators: N"~ ) -• Histosol _ _ Concretions _ 0 Histic Epipedon _ ._ High Organic Content in Surface Layer _ _ Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking _ ,.. Probable Aquic Moisture Regime . _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List -_ Reducing Conditions . _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List _, Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ~ Other (Explain in Remarlcs) Remarlcs: WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ~ Yes@ Hydric Soils Present? Yes Is this Data Point Within a Wetland? Wetland Hvdrolo,rv Present? Yes I Remarks: 2-991DATAFRMfflUHdt Data Point: ..3_ of /G DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION Project/Site: sg 9QZ> Date: ,-/-oD Applicant/Owner: rfnft:fi,10 City: ~ el]tcil'l lnvesti1>ator: n'H 12h Ii tJ. -1os/-o\ County: k. ,';,. .J:j ~ State: le!LA Have vegetation, soils, or hydrology been disturbed: Yes Is the area a poteotial Problem Area: ®~ afneeded, exnlain on reverse.) JS It f 114 C "-lo>f. 14 . ,l ' s ... r-fact ...,..,+ p ,_\,). 'Ill'\, VEGETATION ~mioant Plant Sne.cies Stratum %Cover Imlii.al!!c Domjnant eill!ll Sneci!:ll Stratum %Cover lwli!.ll12l I. °K!!.b>!S c1..-s,olor ~ ~ ...f'.ftSLt. I. ------2. s~rne••••u•e•s-.. ,~" ~ FA c.i>-2. ------3.&,.),.u 5 p ... r~:.(1<,,~s___5,4 ---2.Q f>.f\ CIA. 3. ------4.8:c.u· ""'"' r•p~y llll.lkL.T -'4.o t:,1 t.u. 4. ------5. ------5. ------6. ------6. ------7. ------7. ------8. 8. ' J Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, o{ FACW or FAC ( excent FAC-l. *-Dominant ..,..,,ies. Cowardin Classification: •lo .. -wet-( o..rt d Remarks: HYDROLOGY ___::'Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators A ,--1; .r:c ,.,,_, w .. vu· _ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gage S'""' ,c I! • ...i.(Aerial Photograph -Inundated /JO .,!.:+ d,. -Other _ Saturated in Upper 12 Inches _ No Recorded Data Available _ WaterMarks or-eros ;.,w -Water Lines P"-'lteo, 11 • Field Observations: _ Sediment Deposits _ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Depth of Surface Water: _ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper (in.) 12 Inches Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) _ Water-Stained Leaves Depth to Saturated Soil: v"' (in.) _ Local Soil Survey Data Other ffiYnlain in Remarks) Remarks: /to.:.-~! il,..i.. S<L 'h.\. r-a. 'Je J o..'f-~i,.r-fa.c.L -befow 'f ,, · 1<t \14~re + I\,~...,_ ,t{,.:\l'IDtt';,.,. So; I~ wtr-t. /111.0 i S 'f n.o't ~+-. le <A. "f.cJ So9 0.11 19 '' C1t IV(rt. e,01..1:t!r.J ~ ... r-f,.c• w ... -ler ,...._~ ooff:. {r, ""' Sf.· 'foo (,, ... J). $.._,,(A Ct! WO-.._,_ J;./ oipe. J. \ } Data Point: 3_ of J_B SOILS Map Unit Name: Pi.-A.U. s ;+-e.. Drainage Class: lt.le. l I 'J) CP,, i y\t_ j Taxonomy (Subgroup): ~ ~ S ±r-: c... :il~toc.h ~p+s Field Observations @ Confirm Mapped Type? No Profile Description· Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, (inch"} lM1111&ll Mni&t) £MunRII M2i&tl AbundapWContrast Rhizoallberes m: o-'l IO'iRY/ ('JfJYU-s.· 11-loa..!!'.l !l.-/0 ID 'IR 't/3 >,)~~ ~ c:a,, II!:. II ~ ,(' .c. ncb lo ta. fY1 10-2.0 /0~ ~ ':/..L'1 ,v.,,u_ 30i....e.ll~ Sa..n~ loa.n, -- -- -- -- Hydric Soil Indicators: IJorlt._ _. Histosol _/Concretions -Histic Epipedon -High Organic Content in Surface Layer -Sulfidic Odor -Organic Streaking -Probable Aquic Moisture Regime -,_ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List -Reducing Conditions . ,_ Listed on National Hydric Soils List -Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes@ Yes(;) Hydric Soils Present? ~~ Is this Data Point Within a Wetland? Wetland Hvdrolouv Present? -Remarks: 1-99/DATAFl!M/TRH-llh Data Point: !:i._ of~ DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION Project/Site: 2R ~QQ Date: 6-l-OO Applicant/Owner: C!lt,..t,·l'.la City: ft:. tff-ot1 In r: ,lt..w lhh H· ll -I OS I-0 \ Comity: 1c.,·11~ ~ State: wA Have vegetation, soils, or hydrology been disturbed: Yes Is the area a potential Problem Area: Yes (If needed. exnJain on reverse.) VEGETATION Dominaua flaDt Sne.ci~ Stratum °Ill Cover lndjcatnr Domiuaol Plant S~'5 Stratum °Ill Covg lmU~tQr I. E"-~"S .!. ,·y color ~ ~ fv':r u.. I. ------2. 11.~1,~ ~ IA r S , • .., "' S _B ~ 2. ------3. A, t:r m ... ,~#rhylJ.,.., T ~ E!k_U.. 3. ------4. He 104:c .... s J..,~ .. 1or s.J.. --2.Q .£..!lf.!A. 4. ------5. ------5. ------6. ------6. ------1. ------7. ------8. 8. ) Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, rA F ACW or F AC (ey"""' F AC-). *-Dominant snecies. Cowardin Classification: lvo~ -w~ i-1 e.<.nc\ Remarks: HYDROLOGY _ vfurded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators /JD~ _ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gage v Aerial Photograph -/.... Inundated -Olber • ~ Saturated in Upper 12 Inches -No Recorded Data Available . ,..... Water Marks ,-Water Lines Sediment Deposits Field Observations: µ olAJL r-Drainage Patterns in Wetlands . r-OxidIBed Root Channels in Upper Depth of Surface Water: =f= (in.) --12 Inches Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) _ _ Water-Stained Leaves Depth to Satorated Soil: (in.) Local Soil Survey Data -Other f'Exnlain in Remarks) Remarks: ~ ---i Data Point: !i_ of .1_6 SOILS Map Unit Name: ee ......... s:+ of. Drainage Class: W<!. I\ d re,, ; Y'll..b D~ s+r-; .. 'te rod,~ p"(s Field Observations (;) Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type? No Profile Description· Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, (inc~ /Munsell MoiS} {MJID&ll Moist) Abundance/C,mit[MI Bbiznmberes ~ o -I 1ov1< 1..1 I Nv~ s;J: loo.. WI i J-/')_ }0'1 /?. 'I /3 ~c;, ".'f g n:,.. ~ H 'a .£.,. ,1 ~ ~ lac.. "'1 1"l..-2D ID~ R. f./.JL/ Nu...u... ~tr.(_ (j(>.} ':1 ,;; « ,,,Jj !Oct."" r- -- -- -- Hydric Soil Indicators: fJo~ ) _j. Histosol 1-Concretions • ,. Histic Epipedon ,__ High Organic Content in Surface Layer ~ Sulfidic Odor '-Organic Streaking . ,_ Probable Aguie Moisture Regime ~ Listed on Local Hydlic Soils List . ._ Reducing Conditions ,__ Listed on National Hydlic Soils List . ~ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ,_ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ~! Yes@ Hydlic Soils Present? Yes Is this Data Point Within a Wetland? Wetland Hvdrolo"" Present? Yes ' ,,,, Remarks: 2-99/DATAFRMITRH-<m Data Point: 5 of J.8 DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION Project/Site: SR. ~OD Date: ,_, -oo Applicant/Owner: 'IYI e t 1,· 11 o City: gi:n+oa Inve r: Tltl± Joh Ii: !:l -u>s1-01 County: ~,~ ~ State: I&!~ Have vegetation, soils, or hydrology been disturbed: Yes Is the area a potential Problem Area: Yes <If needed """lain on reverse.) VEGETATION D2miDi1l11 F.li1Dl Speci~ Stratum 'll, Covet l!l!li!o!ll!r QQmioam Plaut Sneci,5 Stratum °,:q Cover Indi,;atQr 1. R\\hH .l. ;flu/or __:;_I, ~ ..EM~ 1. ------2. So."' ~ .. ~w, r.U:<'~~J._gp £.fl.cu 2. ------3. ~r::l:: ,._ .I.; o, u,._i)i -3c ..E.B..c. 3. ------4. 1'el'fs'i." Ckl!,M "''\Jll:wMS~ .C-i<Jcu. 4. ------5. ------5. ------6. ------6. ------7. ------7. ------8. 8. ) Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, ~s~ .... FACWorFAC (ex"""' FAC-). *-Dominant =ies. Cowardin Classification: JJ () '/I -w e 'fl ~ l'1. .J Rentarks: HYDROLOGY / Recorded Data (Describe in Rentarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators r/vt\4_ _ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gage ~Aerial Photograph -• Inundated _Other -Saturated in Upper 12 Inches _ No Recorded Data Available -~ Water Marks -~ Water Lines tJ /) yt..(_ _ _ Sediment Deposits Field Observations: __ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Depth of Surface Water. ~,~, • ,... Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) ~ Water-Stained Leaves Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) _ Local Soil Survey Data Other (Exnlain in Remarks l Remarl<s: i -j () ) Data Point: 5 of J13 SOILS Map Unit Name: 13eA.1.t.!i;i e.. Drainage C)ass: tiJe II J h;c, ~ v111!!1 Field Q:Jservations Taxonomy (Subgroup): 'l!~,"tt-: <.. l~ foe h kf'I-S Confinn Mapped Type? ~ No Pmfile De,scription · Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colon; !iodlW lM1111s:II Mllisl <Mnnselj Moist) 0-1.. JO 'f £ y2. f,J,J>'\..L_ :i..-11.{ /D 'ff?.. 3/~ /JON.. ,4~zo LD'ff<. L/L3 J.)t) (l.t_ -- -- -- Hydric Soil Indicators: Ni>~ _ Histosol -Histic Epipedon -Sulfidic Odor -Probable Aquic Moisture Regime -~ Reducing Conditions -,_ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Remarlcs: WE1LAND DETERMINATION Hydropbytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soils Present? Wetland drolo Present? Remarks: 2-99/DATAPRM/l1Ul-<rh Yes Yes Yes Mottle Textnre, Concretions, Abundance/ContDl&I Bbiz.ospheres mi Se..n4,~ loa..m ~ht ve 118 s .,._ 11b Io a..n.i 3/'ll.~//j ~ ... nJ~ I 0ct.tvr _, Concretions -High Organic Content in Surface Layer -Organic Streaking -~ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List . ~ Listed on National Hydric Soils List Other (Explain in Remarlcs} Is this Data Point Within a Wetland? Yes <@ Data Point: -'-. of f 8 DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION Project/Site: '5(?, ~00 Date: '-•t•OO Applicant/Owner: met.£1'r1 iJ City: Rr_n'kll"I Investi2ator: Tilt! Job tl' I:! ~10~1-ol County: l{i(lj ~ State: 1.1A Have vegetation, soils, or hydrology been disturbed: Yes Is the area a potential Problem Area: Yes ® (If needed, exnlain on reverse.) VEGETATION I:mmioam flam S~i~ Stratum %CQy,[ Indicator Domiuaot flant Sneci~ Strah1m %Cover Indicator 1.R,d, .. s 4,su,lo,,.~I, ~ l='fk.u.. l. ------2. 12 .... b .. s I.A.ts:.,,..~ _::!.P .o:c-2. ------3. eor't l"s , ~h ......2J2. tJJ:.7 ii QL 3. ------4. Co t """--i-.,._ 4. ------5. Pol'i ~: .. iw.., r,uu:-1...., s~ .....a.a .C:1'1 cu. 5. ------ 6. ~<c:l:fVl--;;"f~vi~,-'lo FAcu.. 6. ------7.se~"t ~.._ _____ 7. ------s. 1M @,, ~ si'i __:r: ..2.£. l='l'\ £ u.. 8. - ) Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, c;f F ACW or F AC ( excent F AC-). *-Dominant =ies. Cowardin Classification: A l ,1 ;1 -/,U e +I a. n J Remarks: HYDROLOGY ..6ecorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators /Ul>N..... _ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gage _ic1\erial Photograph _. Inundated -Other L Saturated in Upper 12 Inches _ No Recorded Data Available . _ Water Marks . __ Water Lines Field Observations: ,-) p -(\L. _ Sediment Deposits "--Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Depth of Surface Water: (in.) ,__ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) _ Water-Stained Leaves Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) _ Local Soil Survey Data Other • · · in Remarks) Remarks: L --~ / Data Point: (e, of I B SOILS Map Unit Name: E,e..,u.s;k. Drainage Class: Lil~ll cl ra.i /\.( J Field Observations ~ Taxonomy (Subgroup): D ¥ s i-r; c.. ll'e ,,. c. t. ~"ts Confirm Mapped Type? No Profile Description· Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, (ipr.hP.C) fMUJJ~I Moist) lMnn~I MmSll AbJ1odancelC.Ontra&t Rruzomberes. 1:t~. 0-4 Io 1./ t. 2/Q.. ND.,._._ Si J+ /Oa... fYl 4 -)')_ Joyt?. '-1/3 'j '1:1. ue. llti ~ G(. n !g Io Q,. r-t I\Jot"\.L -- rZ-2D IO 'f fi!. '-IL t/ p l>;t./L. '3 G!.~11.y. ~ttnl~ (<J a.rvi -- -- -- -- ) Hydric Soil Indicators: f'.J"..v.._ -Histosol f--Concretions -Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer ->-Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking -,.. Probable Aquic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List -Reducing Conditions ,_ Listed on National Hydric Soils List -Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: b~.!. roe. le. .._ ~ f" reJ ,..,,, 1k sltta.,., Ii-eel 1o'e ... s'f o'{ d ~fr,,.. po:11-f. WERAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ~ Yes® Hydric Soils Present? Yes Is this Data Point Within a Wetland? Wetland Hvdrolo"" Present? Yes Remarks: 2-99/DATAFRM/J'R!Urh Data Point: / of 18 DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION Project/Site: sg 9_D D Date: ,-~~-00 Applicant/Owner: l"'fle,-.11·v1 Q City: Re tl'fo() lnvestilllltOr: TR...1:l: Job Ii: 11-1os1-ol County: l!e ~ 11~ (No) State: ,.,tt Have vegetation, soils, or hydrology been disturbed: Yes Is the area a potential Problem Area: Yes @ (If needed. exnlain on reverse.) VEGETATION O!!,t~m eli!Ol Snecies litratum %Covet Lm.!icator 122miDiHl1 flam sigg~ Stratum %Cover lndi~tm: I. \ll,u s s~ei..J,;1'L__;ij,i ~o F,.c. l. ------2. ::S: "-Nu S ffl-,,. S .._s..__j:f _2_Q_ ~A-cw 2. ------3. ------3. ------4. ------4. ------5. ------5. ------6. ------6. ------1. ------1. ------8. 8. ) _, Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, lOo?o FACWorFAC' FAC-l. *-Dominant =ies. Cowardin Classification: 'P ... I. v.. !. +,-: V'.O.. 'E MLtAU\i- Remarks: 0 v-e--r-ka. ,, ~; "'5 L.t.>e.:H &e...(\ J. no-+ l'cloi-e d I t1 w-e tl~ ti d. Ac.er-t"J .._ C. I'>!> f h '( ll u..n-i (F-P,(. lA.), HYDROLOGY ~Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators _ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gage i/ Inundated ~Aerial Photograph -Other .../Satwated in Upper 12 Inches -No Recorded Data Available -Water Marks v WaterLines Field Observations: _ Sediment Deposits \ f ,._5 :r;., ,, /Drainage Patterns in Wetlands "'t -er _ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper Depth of Surface Water: (in.) 12 Inches Depth to Free Water in Pit: s~ r; .. <C (in.) Water-Stained Leaves Depth to Saturated Soil: ,a-(in.) - ./' Local Soil Survey Data Other in Remarks) Remarks: s .. -1-1,......_'k.J to ~ 5 .,._ r-fa C. e.. j___~ , I \) e t:i ('l\,IA.Ulj we.-+ SDI I , Data Point: :!___ of __l_.!/> () SOILS Map Unit Name: Wcoc\i!lll;lle. Drainage Class: p c>ot-lJ d ,,.Cl.; ""-c) Field Observations Taxonomy (Subgroup): I~ ~ i L ~ h.1, ~ -e-t ~tn+s Confirm Mapped Type? ® No Profile Der,cription: Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, (inches) IMIIDKII Moi&J) /Munsell Mm&!) Abundance/Con~ Bb~m ~ /0'-f.P-3// /V<>l'lt_ S ,ll !ou.""' "'-'I ; Or~e«.rt :c5 -- -- -- -- -- Hydric Soil Indicators: ) -Histosol -Concretions _ Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Sutface Layer _ Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking L Probable Aquic Moisture Regime :::::: Listed on Local Hydric Soils Llst _ Reducing Conditions ....--Listed on National Hydric Soils List V Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Olher (Explain in Remarl<s) Remarks: .so: I '+o ~1 -ro ~ e '+ Cl. '.:!,ood. >oil pvD'C; 1-e... WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? 31 No Is this Data Point Within a Wetland? (!; No Hydric Soils Present? es No Wetland Hvdrolon Present? No Remarks: ' \ t----i --.,/ 2-99/DATAFRM/IllH-tm Data Point: Jf of .1B_ ~-,---'>, I ' l J DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION Project/Site: :s R. '.:100 Date: ,-~'r-oo Applicant/Owner: fl'1e.t--\it'I D City: "-~n~ () Invest:i<>ator: TR l::l 1®_#· 1:1-10'5\-D \ County: ~.-11.~ ~ State: w.A Have vegetation, soils, or hydrology been disturbed: Yes Is the area a potential Problem Area: Yes @) fifneeded, exnlain on reverse.) VEGETATION Domioam eiam Snecie.s Strabuu % CQ~r Illilicator OQmioani flml Sneci~ Stratum 'Mt eov,r lnllicml!l I. Col'tl!,!,,S #,lon:ff.ro.. SL!U) .B.s.w 1. ------2. ------2. ------3. ------3. ------4. ------4. ------5. ------5. ------6. ------6. ------7. ------7. ------8. 8. ) Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, 1007.-FACW or FAC (exceot FAC-). *-Dominant =ies. Cowardin Classification: 1'-· lu,;.'f-(;>Ab See: r-...,.),~ Sti,-..... b Remades: I c,.. r~ e.. C o r I'\ 1.<.S 'S 'I-,, J {)"' .' ttr o.. sw....kr a I M "s-/- -f!'e.e -/,'/<.~. HYDROLOGY / Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators _ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gage ~al Photograph _ Inundated -Other _ Saturated in Upper 12 Inches _ No Recorded Data Available _ Water Marl<s ..!,!"'Water Lines Field Observations: _ Sediment Deposits .c,C"'Drainage Patterns in Wetlands IJ•-4! _ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper Deptlt of Surface Water: (in.) 12 Inches Deptlt to Free Water in Pit: ~,;lfl\L (in.) Water-Stained Leaves Deptlt to Saturated Soil: It.. (in.) -~ Local Soil Survey Data Other f'P=lain in Remarks} Remarks: A.He.. Aff t:' o.rr tr:, f{ooL . 1-. k w:vtkr I j,'I ' ( ..., .. +c. t-"((o..,i "., -Ho...ot'Q ~ k sp...-in.5 • W<L-k.r c:1-epi-h. Mo..~ ~c...h. ,, J 1. I 3 e 10 s.~ 17( ,_ ... ';>o;.,·+:- Data Point: 8 of JB ·, SOILS { ) Map Unit Name: t.:>oQd.1 t:11.!; ~le. Drainage Class: ~ ODt-\J d h,..; ,/IQ J. Taxonomy (Subgroup): T~ pi c. {.\\A.lie! ~Iii-.s Field Observations Confinn Mapped Type? (!jy No ) J Profile Description· Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors (inches) <Munsell Mm&il (MnoK.Jl Moist) o-3 JD'{~~/?-i O 'i. tf-SL/, j J-'"i /O':f.f!. ':J.LJ N-,YIL I ~ -,, J1>'1l3LI N<>tU... n-10 -S'f~/J I D'1~ ~8 -- -- -- Hydric Soil Indicators: -Histosol _ Histic Epipedon _ Sulfidic Odor .!'.'.'.'Probable Aquic Moisture Regime v"'Reducing Conditions VGJeyed or Low.Chroma Colors Remarks: WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soils Present? Wetland H lo Present? Remarks: 2-99,DATAFRWfRH-<m No No No Mottle Texture, Concretions, AhnodanrelContram Rhizomheres & t,lo.11:J I M orJ . ,f J.(.,.., Si/-f 1~ ..... YY) s ... ria~ I() ,:,..rY\ s; ,.,. /ou..rn Pta.l'\j t tit.~, f rz,,,r,, s: Ii-/OQ..JY'l -Concretions _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer _ Organic Streaking ::::: Listed on Local Hydric Soils List £.-Listed on National Hydric Soils List _ Other (Explain in Remarks) Is this Data Point Within a Wetland?~ No Data Point: _j__ of )13 DATAFORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION Project/Site: t1 e. t-\ 1' w'\ Q -~ Date: t.-i ,-oo Applicant/Owner. S g 1tYo City: Re o ::b::l~ Investirurtor: i R ~ loo #· t1-~1os1-01 County: I;!'· ... ~ ,, State: t&A-Have vegetation, soils, _or hydrology been disturbed: Yes Is tbe area a potential Problem Area: Yes (Ifn exnlain on reverse.) VEGETATION U!Jmioam eiam Soeci~ Stratum ".1,Cover Indicator [!Qmimmt P!mlt S~i~ Slratwn ".1i C!lY,c Indicator I. S,1 MP. berico.,p~ ----l. .4t.1t~ M•aor>.yl"II'\ 1 ~ .£!is,_ V,. 2. .._ II• u. s ~ _2.12 E!±5,__u... 2. ------3. fal"I S:I: !,;.b w~ ----3. ------4. !?I 1A.!l:itu.111 s-"' ~ l-="19 c !A. 4. ------5. ,.,,!!i. kl '2d i 1& ----5. -----6. t:J ,e f' i.JDf«. 2h. --1..Q.. emu. 6. ------7. 0C'Mj1tr;-. __ --7. ------8. C ~ ,-,.~ .'~r,..:.f. .... 11!.. -:z.o p, l>l 8. Pen:enl of Dominant Species that are OBL, n FACW or FAC f e-...,. FAC-). *·Dominant sneries. Cowardin Classification: /Jofl -We.."t-/ .. fl J Remarks: r>-f w-ei-/ a. YI d 10 1 S'<' .... "Ht. o-f J .,.:l-.,,... • o ~,..,,e~ is l«nds. po ;At s/.u..Js Dfe" (A)o..~, tu I Jlow S hr ... b ¥,.. ,e n,t.t r, e, ti-· HYDROLOGY V Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators ,-Joy\..(_ _ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gage ::it Aerial Photograph t-Inundated -Other ,_ Saturated in Upper 12 Inches _ No Recorded Data Available ...... WaterMarks _ WaterLlnes Field Observations: _ Sediment Deposits /JI> ,t(__ _ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands _ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper Depth of Surface Water: =$(in.) 12 Inches Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) ~ Water-Stained Leaves Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) ,_ Local Soil Survey Data Other (Exnlain in Remarks) Remarks: ' I Data Point: _j_ of J_Jj SOILS MapUnitName: T3r::o..1tS, ;~,t. Drainage Class: Lil"\\ A tu. jY',t_/J 'i!-e.H>el, 1tf't S Field Observations (9 Taxonomy (Subgroup): P~ ~-h-: L Confimt Mapped Type? No Profile DescriptioQ" Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, !in£llw (Munsell Moisl IMunKU Moi&1l AhundungiContras Bbi~b~m, o~~ ,0-1 e 3/a_ N, (I.A_ siJt /a.t. M ' a. 11:, /O'((<. 'f /1 l\.)ol'lQ___ ~r«uel \~ s .. 11Ai~ /oo.tv\ I 16-U /{) ~~ 'ilJ A) ~.;ti_ 51'.!!.~l\~ ~~c~ (o ... "'1 -- -- -- ) Hydric Soil Indicators: tJ ,)v'Q__ -Histosol -Concretions -Histic Epipedon -_ High Organic Content in Surface Layer -~ Sulfidic Odor --Organic Streaking -Probable Aquic Moisture Regime -Listed on Local Hydric Soils List -Reducing Conditions _) Listed on National Hydric Soils List -Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarlts) Remarks: WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes w Hydric Soils Present? Yes Is this Data Point Within a Wetland? Yes<!97 Wetland Hwlmlo!!V Present? Yes Remarks: _, -} 2-99/DATAFRM/fRH-tm Data Point: JQ_ of IB DATA FORM kOUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION Project/Site: SR. qQD Date: ,-ii-OD Applicant/Owner: mec:l111i12 City: lt.i o'tOtf Investigator: "Tf) I.I. lnh#· 14-,~1-ol Cowity: ~ ' State: Have vegetation, soils, or hydrology been disturbed: Yes Is the area a potential Problem Area: Yes CTfneeded. e lain on reverse.) VEGETATION Domimmt flam Soecies Stratum %Cover Indi1o1mr Dominant :eiam S~i= Stratunl ~Cm!i:r Indicator I. e, ..... b .. l J;,rtok>r-~ ~ l=l'k.u.. I. ------2. /s'.u.l! u { µfl[/"'-'-"~ :2.o ~ 2. ------3. Z: /,:1, AfY·rf,./;,..~ lo ...f:!1!..L 3. ------4. S o..l i1 < p ....2.t1 -....a..e /='A;<... 4. ------5. ------5. ------6. ------6. ------7. ------7. ------8. 8. \ } Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, ? c; '" FACW or FAC <exr-FAC-}. •-Dominant snecies. Cowardin Classification: rJ o ,,.. -u.:,~:+ I a. " J Remarks: HYDROLOGY _/Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators f.J c) r..J.._ _ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gage -/ Aerial Photograph -~ Inundated -Other -~ Saturated in Upper 12 Inches _ No Recorded Data Available -~ Water Marks -Water Lines j,.JJ~ -Sediment Deposits Field Observations: Drainage Patterns in Wetlands - -Oxidized Root Cbarutels in Upper Depth of Surface Water: -=t= (in.) 12 lnches Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) -Water-Stained Leaves Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) Local Soil Survey Data - Other ffomlain in Remarks) i----) Remarks: /ow be7~ssic'>'1 -fo~oj r~pti; a.~::i . , ~/ Data Point: _lQ_ of 1fl. () SOILS Map Unit Name: Be 0 . .11. S ;+~ Drainage Class: ~11 d(Q,1.i\Ld 'llero"1 ~ p-+s Field Observations (Y__C!J) Taxonomy (Subgroup): o~~tr~ <.. Confirm Mapped Type? No Profile Descriptjon · Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, Cin!;hes) £Munwl M11iS} (M1111sell Moist) Ab11ndanceJf',0ntrast Bbiromheres. ~ o-"3 toytfl/1 ,'\)pll'l.L s: If /o,,,._VV) -- 1:.J.l LD \/R 3/!J.. ft)-,yt.Q_ ~,..ue))~ S"a.nl~ /oa..rvi • 11.:.!.1 Io 'j f!. '1J_ S /urJ~ ~1t1.vell.J ~ ... v.!~ loc...Y"I -- -- -- Hydric Soil Indicators: tJovt.i_ ; ) -i Histosol _ Concretions _ Histic Epipedon -High Organic Content in Surface Layer -~ Sulfidic Odor _ _ Organic Streaking -_ Probable Aquic Moisture Regime ~ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List -Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List -_ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors L Other (Explain in Remarlcs) Remarlcs: WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? YC/l '!' Yes@ Hydric Soils Present? YCll ~ ls this Data Point Within a Wetland? Wetland Hvdrolo"" Present? YC/l Remarks: 2-99/DATAFRM/fR!Hm Data Point: JL of (8 DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION Project/Site: <R -1_oD Date: 6.-2'l-oc'> Applicant/Owner: /Yler-\(>'1D City: R.enicdl lnvesti-or: .T~),l f.L #· 1-1-,os 1-ol County: lt..'rt ~ <f:w State: WA- Have vegetation, soils, or hydrology been disturbed: Yes Is the area a potential Problem Area: Yes @ n+-need""' """lain on reverse.) VEGETATION Dominant flillll Sneci!ll, Stratum %C2m l!ll!i!.i!tl!t Domioalll E!i!!!l Soeci!ll! Stratum 0& Cover !w;ticator 1. 'J?. u.~11 $ r\, 's:,o ,br _____Sa '30 ,C:"dA 1. ------2. _.._.!:."h. ,!!I. J!'o\c ... _sh__ ---1E F 14 c:. 2. ------3. J::11,\,,u .,.,,:,,,.,s ~ :to fl)l: 3. ------ 4.llc."t-Me,d<>fky)W!LT ....s.o Ftt-c IA. 4. ------ 5. p., V "-\o.U 'tt:c~ot<Atfo. -,.. '30 _E!i_c. 5. ------6. ------6. ------ 7. ------7. ------ 8. 8. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, 4o~,.. FACW or FAC lex......,, FAC-l. *-Dominant .,,..,...;es_ Cowardin Classification: Nol? -we--HQ..nd Remarks: HYDROLOGY v Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators (!Jo~ _ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gage .=:" Aerial Photograph -Inundated - _Other -Saturated in Upper 12 Inches _ No Recorded Data Available -Water Marks -L Water Lines µ~ . ,._ Sediment Deposits Field Observations: . ~ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands . _ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper Depth of Surface Water: =f==. (in.) 12 Inches Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) -Water-Stained Leaves Depth to Saturated Soil: (in) -L Local Soil Survey Data Other · ·n in Remarksl Remarks: \J..f 0-. .bro ... !'\\}" ~ 't1-f t>d t:1:1:~ Data Point: J1 of ( 8 SOILS Map Unit Name: 8<!' a. u. !p :k Drainage Class: t.Jc. I\ J. to,,~ NJ Taxonomy (Subgroup): D ~ !i 1 r.' (. ~e tll t: Lvt. p~ Field Observations ~ Confinn Mapped Type? No Profile Description; Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Textur~, Concretions, {inches) (Munsell Moist) lMunsll Moist) N!1n4atwetContrast Rhizospheres etc O· '-/ /O'{t 3/~ A.),J~ s,·;t-la .... ~ 4-lb /o 'I~ 3/5 /Ue>~ ~~uell'j S:<e.nd~ ~ ... ""7 ' I~ ID 'f R. "/ [J }J,,~ 3r~~ll:1<"a.o~~ 1~~ I -- -- -- ) Hydric Soil Indicators: /Jp~ __ Histosol -Concretions _ _ Histic Epipedon -High Organic Content in Surface Layer _ ~ Sulfidic Odor -Organic Streaking _ ,_ Probable Aquic Moisture Regime -_ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List _ _ Reducing Conditions ->-Listed on National Hydric Soils List -Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ >-Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes® Yes® Hydiic Soils Present? Yes~ Is this Data Point Within a Wetland? Weiland Hvdrolouv Present? Yes - Remarks: 2-99/DATAFRM/fRH-tm ) Data Point: l!_ t>f ~ DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION Have vegetation, soils, or hydrology been disturbed: Yes Is the area a potential Problem Area: Yes needed lain on reverse. '==~===~ VEGETATION Date: 6-:l.'f-OO City: Re fl iO>l'I County: ic,·..,!l state: wA ll.Qminant flilm s~~ Stratmn 'll! Covec Iudjr-_::rtnr lk!minaot elmt B~~ Strntum %Cove[ Indicator 1. R .... 1, 11 s; .\. i<o,/~ r--..5a _I,,& .£&1,l I. ------2. s ....... i. ...... ~ r• u !1!!N!...SA _2,0 ..Efu.tA 2. ------3. A t;(I" r?'C{Ppltyllif.b... "T __Bp F~LlA. 3. ------4. A 111 .. s r..,b,..._ _____:r -:io __£ttc... 4. -----·-5. ------5. ------6. ------6. ------1. ------7. ------8. 8. Percent of Dpminant Species that are OBL, /) s,., FACW or FAC ,ex......, FAC-). *-Dominant srecies. Cowardin Classification: "-l,:>O"l-t,J,of/"'-n,.l Remarks: HYDROLOGY ~ecorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators N~ ~!ream, Lake, or Tide Gage _ Aerial Photograph -I-Inundated -Other _ Saturaled in Upper 12 Inches _ No Recorded Data Available . +-Water Marks · ._ Water Lines Field Observations: ('JOf\L ~ Sediment Deposits _ _ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands -_ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper Depth of Surface Water: (in.) 12 Inches Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) _ Water-Stained Leaves -Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) Local Soil Survey Data -Other ffi,mlain in Remarks\ I Remarks: () __ ) Data Point: ~ of I B SOILS Map Unit Name: :Be g.\.L~ ; t e Drainage Class: we}\ d h>..' AO Ji D:i,~ir;, ~-e ro,hi-ep't.s Field Observations & Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type? No Profile Description: Deplh Matrix Color Mottle Colors (jnche$} IMunseJJ Mojso (MnpseJJ M<lisQ o-) 1 D\{ R3/tl Novt-t LJ-.Zo ) 0 y "( 1¥3 (Vovu_ -- -- -- -- Hydric Soil Indicators: /VO-llz_. -Histosol _ e Histic Epipedon _ 0 Sulfidic Odor . _ Probable Aquic Moisture Regime ,-Reducing Conditions ,_ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Remarl<s: WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soils Present? Wetland H lo Present? Remarks: 2-99/DATAFRM/l"RH-tdt Yes Yes Yes Mottle Texture, Concretions, Ahundance/Contrast RbiZOSQbem& etc s; J+ loo. rn -~rg 1~} l:::j 5"!!.n 'tJ lo"-111 -Concretions -High Organic Content in Surface Layer _ _ Organic Streaking . _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List ,_ Other (Explain in Remarl<s) Is this Data Point Within a Wetland? Yes @ ) H •,s/ Data Point: l:, of J1t DATA FORM ROUTINE WE1LAND DETERMINATION Project/Site: -----=5:::...fi?.:..::__'i...,O,,_.,D::::.._ ___ _ Date: {.-~~-OD City: Rrm,,'1 Comrty: k.,rtj Applicant/Owner: --'--'-"'-'---'-~-=-------. Investi ator: Have vegetation, soils, or hydrology been disturbed: Yes Yes State: wA Is the area a potential Problem Area: f n e lain on reverse. VEGETATION ¥.9)f~~1?1~~k~ %er ll!dicatnr Domi 0101 flam S~i~~ Stratum %Cover Indigtor 1::ik.t..L 1. ------2. ~ 5-!l:l lu,u: ~i ~<CM.,,..._ 5 /i ----2£ .E.fr.L~. 2. ------3. f, l ¥~'I-... 1~ !!I ,.....,,;-i...,., SJ, -2..o.. ~l<.. 3. ---·---4. ------4. ------5. ------5. ------6. ------6. ------7. ------7. ------8. 8. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, D~ FACW or FAC lex,...,.. FAC-). •-Dominant mecies. Cowardin Classification: A In>'/ -we+/ a. n..-1 Remarks: HYDROLOGY / Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators ,'Jovt.C _ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gage v7 Aerial Photograph -.... Inundated -Other -,_ Saturated in Upper 12 Inches _ No Recorded Data Available -,_ Water Marks -_ Water Lines Field Observations: jJ O'f\J.._ _ 1-Sediment Deposits _ ._ Drainage Pauerns in Wetlands Depth of Surface Water: _ _ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper £(in.) 12 Inches Depth lo Free Water in Pit: (in.) _ ~ Water-stained Leaves Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) ~ Local Soil Survey Data Other l'F,mJain in Remarks\ Remarks: Data Point: _!l of 18 .----..._ ( ) SOILS Map Unit Name: B (." ""tt. !a; +e.. Drainage Class: ~i II d tb.iMJ Taxonomy (Subgroup): D ~ s"h-~ c 'ilero,ht,tf+s Field Observations w Confirm Mapped Type? No Profile Description· Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, {jnclJes) lMnnseJI Moist) tMnnseJl Moist} Abundance/Contrast Rbk,ospberes etc Q:-8. lo 'I R. ?-/ 12.. t-Jcytq_ S,'/} loa.m C-~D toyR. 1L3 NoYfl r.:.-11!;25 S ~ a~ L,,,., n; --• -- -- -- -- ) Hydric Soil Indicators: .A.)t,~ . ,_ Histosol ,_ Concretions . ,_ Histic Epipedon '-High Organic Content in Surface Layer . ~ Sulfidic Odor ~ Organic Streaking . ,_ Probable Aguie Moisture Regime ...... Listed on Local Hydric Soils List _ '-Reducing Conditions ._ Listed on National Hydric Soils List -t Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ~ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarl<s: WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ~ Yes~ Hydric Soils Present? Yes Is this Data Point Within a Wetland? Wetland Hvdrolo"" Present? Yes ~ '-" Remarks: i i / 2-99/01\.TAFRMlfRH-lrh \ j \ ; Data Point: Ji of _lB. DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION Project/Site: SR "TDD Date: ,-i'f-00 Applicant/Owner: {!l ~ r-li' It 0 City: teojg'.!1 Investi=tnr: -rR. \-1 ,~ .. #, >J.-loc; I-cl I County: ~ifl~ State: 11.1A Have vegetation, soils, or hydrology been disturbed: Yes ~ Is the area a potential Problem Area: Yes llfneed....t e,mlain on reverse.) VEGETATION Jl2mhJi1D1 ~ant Sneci~ Stratum tqCover lndii;atm Domi111111t f!Jml Speci!:ll Stratum °L'.oCover lndicatn[ I. ~"' s .I; s: .. -..le..--_Sh _1:.2 ...££Ku. I. ------ 2. U r {'I LO<>f hr v.... "l.......I. -30 ~u. 2. ------3. ------3. ------4. ------4. ------5. ------5. -----6. ----6. --------1. ------1. ------8. 8. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, 07r> FACW or FAC lex...,.,.. FAC-l. *-Dominant S"""'ies. Cowardin Classification: Nv·vi -Wei-1"4n J Remarks: HYDROLOGY / Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Stream, Lake, or Tide Gage v Aerial Photograph _Other _ No Recorded Data Available Field Observations: NO~ Depth of Surface Water: Depth to Free Water in Pit Depth to Saturated Soil: $(in.) (in.) (in.) Wetland Hydrology Indicators _ Inundated _ Saturated in Upper 12 Inches _ Water Marks _ WaterLines _ Sediment Deposits 5 4,, ,_ "'f- ...-Drainage Patterns in Wetlands J -Oxidized Root Channels in Upper e.fl~s.,.,.,1 -12Inches ~ _ Water-Stained Leaves r '1'1:: 0 '-<I "<..,.. Local Soil Survey Data ;1~ -Olher' ·n in Remarks) Remarks: 2 0 1 5 o -( i' • /e. v-h,,._, 'l-J • r <'. I,,.,.._ rj 0 w..._<>k.r- -0-,, o, SIZ qO(), T.-;<kl~ co,'VI:¥\~ -fv,,,..... '? .. f .... ,50=,,,, .. "'<.::, i11t'+o • .,. o..1-i;,vOld> o.."t l;sc-h.a..<«e... {lo,'i\i-. ~o....!. ~w .... ~r--..fn,wi ~,.,11'1-~·~ ta.tf• Data Point: l:i. of J.8 (y S0Il,S Map Unit Name: B I!.._"-.S ; 'I ~ Drainage Class: We,) I J. ~ ; ""-iiD Taxonomy (Subgroup): O~_si-1": <.. ){erocl..re.p+r Field CXJservations ({ei) Confirm Mapped Type? No Profile Description· Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture,Concretions, u~w (MJms.:.11 Moi&l} IMunsll M!!i&ll AbuodaocrJContrast Rhi7,ospheres !al. 0-:ll) 1.0'{ R.. J& IJ~ ~ht.Lie.) lj Sa..nd ~ I Du..Y'1 ) ' (-t:: }/ .x- -- -- -- -- -- Hydric Soil Indicators: ) -Histosol _ Concretions _ Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer -Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking _ Probable Aquic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List _ Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List _ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarl<S) Remarks: "j(--Co '1 c "'1.'/e 5ro.v-d 0-1'\ .l. oU<.4.r-Je b.....;.J 'Vl -t. \ I 5o: / S, I WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes I~ Yes® Hydric Soils Present? Yes Is this Data Point Within a Wetland? Wetland Hvdroloav Present? Yes Remarl<S: l-99/DATAFRMITRJ-f.<dt Data Point: J5. of J8 { ) DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION Project/Site: .S-R -c:roo Date: 6-2"{-oc> Applicant/Owner: mer--11·110 City: R~n'fot1 Inve<rio•tor: nt+ lal! /J.; 1-1-'-I o,S: I-<> I County: ~ @ State: Have vegetation, soils, or hydrology been disturbed: Yes Is the area a potential Problem Area: Yes ® (If needed. exolain on reverse.) VEGETATION Domiwm.t Plant SJ!!l!<ies Stratnm "& ~,r lndigitor Dominant ~am Specie.s Stratum 'Ml Cl!Y,r Indicator I. A-cc:,-.. ['!•p-.,phyll!!..!!L.'.:, _!:iJ) .EfulA. 1. -----2. 11" ""'5 ,:\ , s a,l~ r _.fii..l:i _!:IQ .Efl£U... 2 . ------3. ~A!!l b IA("~ ~a..t. t?Mi>S c. ..Sh ___zQ_ ~u__ 3. ------4. Bta~ ~~ ~ ..2.Q_ N;I 4 . ------5. ------5. ------6. ------6. ------7. ------7. ------8. 8. ) Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, 1717,, FACW or FAC (exceDI FAC-l. *-Dominant ....,.;es. Cowardin Classification: A 10 ;1 -£ud-,I~ -..,...l Remad<:s: HYDROLOGY -~rded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators "-loWl_ _ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gage I/Aerial Photograph _ ~ Inwtdated -Other -0 Saturated in Upper 12 Inches _ No Recorded Data Available -Water Marks -Water Lines -Sediment Deposits Field Observations: N ovt.L..-Drainage Patterns in Wetlands --Oxidized Root Channels in Upper Depth of Surface Water: ±(in.) 12 Inches Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) -Water-Stained Leaves Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) -Local Soil Survey Data Other fRYnlain in Remarks) Remarks: ) Data Point: .!2_ of I 8 () son.s Map Unit Name: ~ ~:!S. l.&.S:; 'K. Drainage Class: well Den:~ D ~J'h-~ 'll::e nxJ,,-epi-s Field Observations @ Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confinn Mapped Type? No Profile Description· Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, finch!:£! (MJmzlJ Moi:n} IMnnSlJI Moi&D Ahundance/Con!mS! 8birosPlJere5 Ill!<, ~ )o'f f!. '2[ / }.JD~ $ ,' lf )7, "'--(YJ I 1-10 /oyi<J/3 /Ji) v<JL, j rn. a,_)/:j 54\1~ lt=.M -- lo-:17> /o Y"f?.. 'J.l t >J~1'11L, 5tsuel~ Sq.n.lj jOq_"l -- -- -- Hydric Soil Indicators: J.Ji>YLt, ) _ ,.. Histosol -Concretions -Histic Epipedon -High Organic Content in Surface Layer _ _ Sulfidic Odor _ _ Organic Streaking . ~ Probable Aquic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List _ Reducing Conditions _ Listed .on National Hydric Soils List _ Oleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ~ Other (Explain in Remarlcs) Remarlcs: WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytk Vegetation Present? Yes I Yes@ Hydric Soils Present? Yes Is this Data Point Within a Wetland? Wetland Hvdrolomr Present? Yes Remarks: 2-99/DATAFRM/IlUl-lm Data Point: i-t, of f2> DATAFORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION Project/Site: < e-'J.O O Date: b-Zer-oo Applicant/Owner: t!J. er-/itt o City: t. r. ,r/ t>'/. Investi,.....~r: :[It H-h!I:! ti: H-1051-01 Cowrty: ~,·,1'3 t/i.w State: I, (}f Have vegetation, soils, or hydrology been disturbed: Yes Is the area a potential Problem Area: Yes ~ llfnP.MP.ti e1mlain on reverse.) VEGETATION Domioam ElllDt Snecillli Stratum % Cover Imii'1112r 12!:!mil!ilDI Plant s~~s Stratum %Cl!v~r lodi,at2r l. t"'tu :sehtrn -iclm.d~ ~ ..Efk..w l. ------2.C,cvw< tjplon;-fe_,..,_~1, ---3£ _£gt,) 2. ------3. R.o.5,!!,. ~~ --2.b. ---1..a. NT 3. ------ 4. ~let, s:12 --2.h.. _!:1(2__ Fllcw 4. ------ 5. ------5. ------ 6. ------6. ------ 7. ------7. ------8. 8. ( ) Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, r, $"'}-FACW or F AC lexcent FAC-l. *-Dominant =ies. Cowardin Classification: ,, . Iv.< "-1-,..; ,1 A < ' ~ ... )., ' l.. 1"V\.. k Remarks: HYDROLOGY ........-----Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators _ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gage '-'11.erial Photograph -Inundated -Other .J<'.'.'. Saturated in Upper 12 Inches _ No Recorded Data Available -Water Marks ~Water Lines Field Observations: -Sediment Deposits _ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands _ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper Depth of Surfllce Water: ( (in.) 12 Inches Depth to Free Water in Pit: t (in.) Water-Stained Leaves -Depth to Saturated Soil: :Iv.. ~f,ue (in.) _ Local Soil Survey Data Other ffomlain in Remarks) Remarks: Sm.,,./1 5"ee f ----IO I S-ovc-fh I\ o hy ),_r,,/ ,5 ~ I,...._ 'I-ce.v; Jeqc.e_ .. ~ u=-,4e.<-fV\a.... If-"rs '" .ke b<-:5 ' .., S' I,_ ,-...._b. Ve_s Jo' S, RL.i os;e.,--Jo~u.rcoJ. S'o; Is s.-Jf-IDo...rv, S' u-u-y J "-"* , ) Data Point: ~ of /8 J SOILS Map Unit Name: B e<l.~~; +-e Drainage Class: CJe ll dJ ti:>..,~ 1 e ci;;i~ h refb" Field Observations Taxonomy (Subgroup): \) I/ str; <. Confirm Mapped Type? Yes ® Profile Description: Depth Matrix: Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, (jnches} !M110WI Mois} {M11nsel! Moisl Abundao~LQQntrnst BbiwsPher£1 Ill& Cb1. /a~e11/ Po~ $"<Lr\d.\) loa..rY) • 2.:::1-2 lo'j R. 3{ I ' A>oN..... 5; /t-Io o,.O'.J J'l -18 10Y.t<.3LI ' JO'ff:?.5/l • Mf> 5; H-I oo-.n'.) -- -- -- Hydric Soil Indicators: _ Histosol _ Concretions _ Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer _ Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking .J,c1'robable Aquic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List __l::'Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List ~ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarl<s: WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ! No Is this Data Point Within a Wetland? (S} No Hydric Soils Present? No Wetland Hydrolo2V Present? No Remarl<s: Z-99/DATAFRMfl'RH<m Data Point: fl of JE DATA FORM ROUTINE WEILAND DETERMINATION Project/Site: Sfc?._-joo Date: /,, -21-0D Applicant/Owner: l'.!2 I! ,-.. I ; n a City: /1!.e rtfo"1 lnvestiitator: TR. \.I. l!!h ti' 1-1--105 1-01 County: ~··"'~ ~ State: WA Have vegetation, soils, or hydrology been disturbed: Yes Is the area a potential Problem Area: Yes (If needed, exnlain on reverse.) VEGETATION D9mimm1 flam S~i~ Stratum %Cover Indicator O!.lmioan1 Plant Soeci~ Slrlll!lm ~Cover Indjcato[ L Ale<' 'Nla.cN>f~~ ))~ ____'.39 £fku. L ------2.he~A.o+s'j"'-~~ __&Q flku... 2. ------3. R..,1. .. , ucs::n<-<S _2.b _j;Q N:C 3. ------4. ~"'-hl'lai e,.. ne~ -5.b 20 F''4cu.. 4, ------5. fol't's:/ic.hu!J "'""'-I«"' 51, _2f>. F1'lc..U. 5. ------6, ------6. ------7. ------7. ------8. 8, ) Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, ,..,e}''Jo FACW or FAC fex~-FAC-). *-Dominant snecies. Cowardin Classification: 1\lon -•·=:-\-1~ "' J, Remarks: HYDROLOGY ..._,.,,--Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicator,; NOVI..{_, _ Stream. Lake, or Tide Gage ~ ~rial Photograph _ -Inundated _Other -,_ Saturated in Upper 12 Inches _ No Recorded Data Available -,__ Water Maries -_ Water Lines Field Observations: t-\o \\..Q__. -e-Sediment Deposits -,_ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands -_ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper Depth of Surrace Water: $(in.) 12 Inches Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) -,_ Water-Stained Leaves Depth to Saturated Soil: (ill) -~ Local Soil Survey Data Other <Exolain in Remarks I Remarks: L)- ,. ~· Data Point: / 7 of 18 C) SOILS Map Unit Name: '3~ 0. u. s; i--e. Drainage Class: !dk II dfa..~NJ J Taxonomy(Subgroup): lJ¥:f!i-r:c. ~ ec:o,~1e;i-s Field °'8ervations (£) Confirm Mapped Type? No Profile Oescription- Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, (inches\ (M)mgjl M!li&Jl !Mnusll Moisl Ab11ndance/C,2ntra1jJ Rhizosoheres el,;, Jl=.!:J. lO :J_{Z 3 L-:J... tuo..t.t__ 5; 1-1· / ,0,.._(YJ ' 't-a.D lojR3/3 No~ 1~ut.llj s ... ,,c\'::', loa..fr) i -- -- -- -- () Hydric Soil Indicators: /'-l',NL-, -r Histosol -Concretions -• Histic Epipedon -IDgh Organic Content in Surface Layer -~ Sulfidic Odor -Organic Streaking -_ Probable Aquic Moisture Regime -Listed on Local Hydric Soils List -,. Reducing Conditions -Listed on National Hydric Soils List -Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors -Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Pn:sent? Yes <!.. Yes@' Hydric Soils Present? Yes ( 0 Is this Data Point Within a Wetland? Wetland Hvdrolo<>v Present? Yes 0 Remarks: Z-99/DATAFRM/fRH-trn Data Point: 18 of~ DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION Project/Site: 5te.-1..oo Date: ' -~ 'f-oi) Applicant/Owner: (Y/ f" l1 itJ. {2 City: f e(l 'fe,i? Jnvestih ... ~r: Tl<. 1-1-Job/{ COWlty ~'? ~ State: Lt/ Have vegetation, soils, or hydrology been disturbed: Yes Is the area a potential Problem Area: Yes (JfnANf,.,j" eYnlain on reverse.) VEGETATION Dominaul el11nt Slll:!.i!:!i Stratum "6i Cl!Yer llllli~gr Ugminant Plant Soeci~ StrahU!! ~QMr Indicatw: I. Ace c ffi4£(1' f h ~ I l!!.!!:L 1 __/ep tttc.u. I. -----2. R.,. l;>"-s J,·s,ol<>t-__;jJ, ---2!2 ..£.fr£<.(_ 2. ------3. S~"" bl.4.t:I.A.S 1'1(.::emo5A.. S: '1. ~ f:;ct+c.u_ 3. ------ 4. ------4. ------5. -----5. ------ 6. ------6. ------ 7. ------7. ------ 8. 8. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, ni"' FACW or FAC te-=-FAC-l. *-Dominant <nec.ies. Cowardin Classification: .Ilg .. -tv~-Hq..nJ Remarks: HYDROLOGY ~rded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators /V{)YlL._, _ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gage JC Aerial Photograph -Inwidated _Other -Saturated in Upper 12 Inches -No Recorded Data Available -Water Marks -Water Lines ('j t>vtt... -Sediment Deposits Field Observations: -Drainage Patterns in Wetlands -Oxidized Root Channels in Upper Depth of Surface Water: *(in.) 12 Inches Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) ~ Water-Stained Leaves Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) -._ Local Soil Survey Data Other IF.xnlain in Remarksl Remarks: Data Point: 1.9 of 18 () SOILS Map Unit Name: E eo ... u.r:'k Drainage Class: welt J~i'!'.!tJ }{e l<>c.h 1tffs Field Observations @No Taxonomy (Subgroup): '12.v.dr:, Confirm Mapped Type? Profile Description· Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, (inches} (Muo~U Moi&O (Mun~I Mllistl Ab1111dance/Q}ol[i1S Bllimspta,r= ~ 0-'3 ]D"I e z}) ' f0t> 11\.l_ ::; ; l't-)1la...Q'.) "'3--IQ,_ lo'I ~ '-) /3 'luayl.Q__ ':J,-,,,__ue.l~ s:~ /04¥>1 J'.J..-'.,20 }D'I R._ tjj ~ i-JaAL-~ ~ll'j i.._n~ /oa...fr\ .,. -- -- -- ) Hydric Soil Indicators: /JM(_ I Concretions --Hi$lic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer -Sulfidic Odor -Organic Streaking -Probable Aquic Moisture Regime -• Listed on Local Hydric Soils List -Reducing Conditions -• Listed on National Hydric Soils List .., ,.. Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors -" Other (Explain in Remarks) R.emarl<s: · WETLAND DETERMINATION HydrophyticVegetationPresent? Yes ( t Yes@ Hydric Soils Present? Yes , Is this Data Point Within a Wetland? Wetland Hvdrolo"" Present? Yes Remarks: 2-99/DAT A.FRM/llUl-trh APPENDIXC Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. 12-23-2003 Letter Regarding Accuracy of Theresa R. Henson Consulting 8-29-2000 Wetland Report for SR 900, LLC property aka Sunset Bluff Site ·.'. ''\ ') ) \ '----j ) APPENDIXC MODIFIED REPPERT WETLAND VALUES EVALUATION WETLAND A Values Basis For Evaluation L Natural Biologic Function Mod/High A. Food Chain Support Low i. Net Primary Production moderate Shrub and emergent vegetation ii. Mode of Transport low Isolated system fed by a seep iii. Food Chain Support low Low diversity of vertebrate animals B. General Habitat Low Single shrub plant community C. Special Habitat Low Railroad banks with cover 2. Aquatic Study Areas, Moderate Heron rookery and riparian forest south Sanctuaries, Refuge of the wetland 3. Hydrologic Support Function Low A. Hydrologic Periodicity Low Isolated system fed by a seep B. Elevation in Basin Low Isolated system 4. Shoreline Protection N/A No designated shoreline 5. Storage of Storm and Flood Water Moderate A. Flood Storage Factor Low Total wetland is > 5 acres in size B. Flood Retardation Factor High > 30% of wetland vegetative cover is woody shrubs 6. Natural Groundwater Recharge Low Isolated system 7. Water Purification Mod/Low A. Wetland Type Mod/low i. Hydro period low Intennittently flooded system, not associated with a lake, river or estuary ll. Vegetative Density moderate Wetland vegetative cover is between 50% and 80"/o C-1 H-1051-01 () B. Areal & Waste Loading Low Relationship I. Total Wetland low Total wetland is < l O acres in size IL Proportion of Water to low < 40% of wetland is covered with water Wetland iii. Proportion of Runoff high > 50"/o of surface water runoff is Retained in Wetland retained in the wetland for no more than a 2 year event C. Location Factor Mod/High i. Frost-free Days high >250days II. Location Related to moderate Wetland adjacent to railroad grade Pollution Sources 8. Cultural Values (Economics, Moderate In local area with heron rookery, and Aesthetics, Recreational, riparian forest Archeological Sites. i ) C-2 H-1051-01 MODIFIED REPPERT WETLAND VALUES EVALUATION WETLAND B Values Basis For Evaluation I. Natural Biologic Function Mod/High A. Food Chain Support Moderate l. Net Primary Production moderate Shrub and emergent vegetation II. Mode of Transport moderate Intermittently flooded Ill. Food Chain SI1pport moderate Moderate diversity of vertebrate animals B. General Habitat Moderate Two plant communities, SS, EM C. Special Habitat High Downed logs, snags, and railroad banks with cover 2. Aquatic Study Areas, Moderate Heron rookery and riparian forest Sanctuaries, Refuge southwest of the wetland 3. Hydrologic Support Function Mod/High ) A. Hydrologic Periodicity Moderate Stream fed depression with no known outlet B. Elevation in Basin High low gradient system with open water 4. Shoreline Protection NIA No designated shoreline 5. Storage of Storm and Flood Water Moderate A. Flood Storage Factor Low Total wetland is > 5 acres in size B. Flood Retardation Factor Moderate between 10% and 30% of wetland vegetative cover is woody shrubs 6. Natural Groundwater Recharge Moderate Wetland is a seasonal system< 5 acre in size with open water 7. Water Purification Moderate A. Wetland Type Mod/low l. Hydroperiod low Intermittently flooded system, not associated with a lake, river or estuary II. Vegetative Density moderate Wetland vegetative cover is between 50%and80% LJ ~--·' C-3 H-1051-01 () B. Areal & Waste Loading High Relationship i. Total Wetland low Total wetland is< 10 acres in size ii. Proportion of Water to high 40 -60% of wetland is covered with Wetland water iii. Proportion of Runoff high > 50% of surface water runoff is Retained in Wetland retained in the wetland for no more than a 2 year event C. Location Factor Mod/High i. Frost-free Days high >250days ii. Location Related to moderate Wetland adjacent to non-point sources; Pollution Sources roads, and railroad grade 8. Cultural Values (Economics, Moderate In local area with heron rookery, and Aesthetics, Recreational, riparian forest Archeological Sites. i '"·) • . . . , L_) ' ._ .... C-4 H-1051-01 APPENDIXC Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. 12-23-2003 Letter Regarding Accuracy of Theresa R. Henson Consulting 8-29-2000 Wetland Report for SR 900, LLC property aka Sunset Bluff Site SR 900 L.L.C. 9125 -10th Avenue South Seattle, Washington 98108 Attn: Mr. Michael Merlino CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING, SURVEYING, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES December 23, 2003 RE: SR 900 L.L.C. 's "Sunset Bluff' Property in Renton, Washington Confirmation That the Wetlands Delineation and Classification As Well As the Stream Classification Set Forth in Theresa R. Henson Consulting's August 29, 2000, Wetland Delineation Report Remain Accurate Our Job No. 7639 Dear Mr. Merlino: I completed the original wetland delineation report for the subject SR 900 L.L.C. property on August 29, 2000, while I was self-employed (doing business as Theresa R. Henson Consulting). I now work for Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc., and my name has been changed, due to marriage, to Theresa R. Dusek. Because that report is now over three years old, you requested that I review the site, the August 2000 Wetland Delineation report, and relevant current regulations to determine if the report is still accurate. I have done so and I hereby advise you (and the City of Renton, because I understand that a copy of this letter along with a copy of my original report will be provided to the City) that: (a) Site conditions have not significantly changed; (b) The wetland-delineations set forth in that report remain accurate; and (c) Even though certain changes have been made to the City of Renton wetland regulations since the report was prepared, neither the City's classifications for the on-site wetlands and stream nor the extent of City code required wetland and stream buffers with respect to the on-site wetlands and stream have changed. Please contact me at ( 425) 251-6222, if you have any questions concerning this. TRD/vj 7639c.008.wpd Respectfully, Theresa R. Dusek Natural Resource Ecologist cc: Mr. David L. Halinen, Halinen Law Offices, P.S. 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT, WA 98032 (425) 251-6222 (425) 251-8782 FAX BRANCH OFFICES + OLYMPIA, WA + lEMECULA, CA + WALNUT CREEK. CA www.barghausan.com APPENDIXD Barghausen Consnlting Engineers, Inc. 01-09-2004 Habitat/ Wildlife Assessment & Stream Study Report for the "Sunset Bluff'' Residential Subdivision HABITAT/WILDLIFE ASSESSMENT AND STREAM STUDY REPORT "Sunset Bluff' Residential Subdivision Renton, Washington Prepared for: SR 900 L.L.C. 9125 -101h Avenue South Seattle, Washington 98108 January 9, 2004 Our Job No. 7639 CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING, SURVEYING, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 18215 72ND A VENUE SOUTH, KENT, WA 98032 , (425)251-6222 , (425)251-8782 FAX www.barghausen.com EXECUTIVESUMMARY The findings and conclusions presented in this report are based on an interpretation of infonnation currently available to Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. This summary is for introductory purposes and should be used only in conjunction with the full text of this report. This Habitat/Wildlife Assessment and Stream Study Report has been prepared to accompany the preliminary plat application for SR 900 L.L.C. 's proposed "Sunset Bluff' residential subdivision. The site is proposed to be developed with (a) 65 Jots for construction of detached single family residences, (b) a public street to access the proposed lots, (c) both a cul-de-sac bulb tenninus to that public street and an emergency vehicle access road on property lying to the west of the southerly portion of the site, and ( d) an open pond-type stonn drainage facility. The site contains two wetlands (a City of Renton Category I wetland straddling a part of the easterly portion of the site's south boundary and a small Category 3 wetland along the site's south boundary near the site's west edge) and a 2 to 2.5-foot wide intermittent stream (a Type 4 Water under the State of Washington DepartmentofNatural Resources interim water typing system described in WAC 222-16-031). However, the stream does not fall within the definition of "stream" that is set forth in the City of Renton's Development Regulations. (See RMC 4-11-190 and the full text of this report.) The only critical habitat on the site ( or along the route of the cul-de-sac and emergency vehicle access road to the west of the site) is the Category I wetland. Neither it nor its buffers would be impacted by the proposed Sunset Bluff project. An existing dirt road crosses the on-site stream (and much of the rest of the site) from east to west. The public street and utilities that are to be constructed to access and provide utility service to the proposed lots will have to cross that stream. The crossing is designed to occur at generally the same location as the ex.isling dirt road's crossing of the stream (overlapping the existing crossing) to minimize impact to the stream. Impacts to the stream ( displacement of approximately 80 lineal feet of stream flow line and approximately 200 square feet (0.005 acres) of stream channel) will be more than off-set by the 4.70-acre Native Growth Protection Easement proposed to the east-southeast of the stream, an NOPE that (a) will extend east-southeast perpendicular to the stream from 400 to 900 feet ( depending upon the location along the stream) and (b) will be approximately 1.40 acres (42 percent) greater in size than the 3.30-acre portion of the Sunset Bluff site that the Renton Municipal Code requires to be left undisturbed. Approximately 16.33 acres (62.2%) of the site is proposed to be set aside as open space and for storm water facilities. The Tract A (3.81 acres) open space area will be cleared, graded and hydroseeded to accommodate development of the proposed lots and street. Tract B, a tract for both drainage facilities and open space, will be approximately 7.32 acres in size and will be cleared, graded and largely hydroseeded. Another open space tract, proposed Tract C (totaling 5.20 acres), will for the most part (about 4.70 acres) be set aside in its natural state within a Native Growth Protection easement to protect the on-site Type 4 Water (intermittent stream), the Category 1 wetland and its associated buffer, an area classified under the City's Critical Areas Regulations as a "very steep landslide hazard area" (and its associated buffer) and another area classified as a protected slope. Given the history of other development projects and BNSF railroad operations that have occurred within 1,000 feet of the Renton great blue heron rookery without impacting the growth or health of the rookery, it is anticipated that development of the Sunset Bluff project site (a site located 1,100 feet north of the rookery's nearest nest) will not adversely impact the rookery. TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................... i l. INTRODUCTION .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.1 Applicable City Code Provisions .................................................... 1 1.2 Study Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.2.1 Sunset Bluff Project Site ................................................... 4 1.2.2 Off-Site Cul-de-Sac and Emergency Vehicle Access Road Route ................... 4 1.2.3 The Sunpointe Townhomes Condominium Site's Category 1 Wetland ............... 4 J .2.4 The Sunpointe Townhomes Condominium Site's West End Forest .................. 5 1.2.5 The Sunset View Apartment Homes Site's East End Forest ........................ 5 1.2.6 BNSF Railroad Right-of-Way ............................................... 5 1.2.7 City of Renton Open Space Area ............................................. 5 2. DETERMINATION OF CRITICAL HABITATS ............................................. 5 2.1 Documented Presence of Species Proposed or Listed as Endangered, Threatened, Sensitive, Candidate, Monitored, or Priority ............................................................. 5 2. I.I Background Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.1.2 Wildlife and Plant Inventories ............................................... 6 2.1.2.1 Plant Community Inventory .......................................... 7 2.1.2.2 Fish and Wildlife Inventory .......................................... 8 2.1.3 CONDITIONS IN THE STUDY AREA ....................................... 8 2.1.3.1 General Property Descriptions ........................................ 9 2. I. 3 .2 Plant Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0 2.1.3.3 Fish and Wildlife Inventory ......................................... 10 2.1.3.3.l Fish .................................................... 10 2.1.3.3.2 Wildlife ................................................. 11 2.1.3.4 Special Wildlife Habitat Features ..................................... 13 2.1.3.4.1 Riparian and Fish Habitat .................................. 13 2.1.3.4.2 Forested Habitat .......................................... 13 2.1.4 Endangered, Threatened, Candidate, Sensitive, Monitored, or Priority Species in the Study Area ................................................................... 13 2.2 The Presence of Heron Rookeries or Raptor Nesting Areas in the Study Area ............... 15 2 .3 Category I Wetlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 2.3.1 Wetlands Review ........................................................ 15 2 .3 .2 Wetland Inventory . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 16 2.3 .3 City of Renton Wetland Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 2.3.4 Category I Wetlands Within IOOFeetoftheSunsetBluffProjectArea ............. 17 2.4 Portions of Streams and Their Shorelines Designated in the Renton Shoreline Master Program . 17 2.5 Summary of Critical Habitat in the Study Area ........................................ 17 3. STREAM STUDY ..................................................................... 18 3 .I River and Stream lnventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 3 .2 River and Stream Regulatory Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 4. IMPACTS ........................................................................... 20 4.1 Project Proposal ................................................................ 20 4.2 Potential lmpacts ............................................................... 21 II 4.2.1 Plant Community Impacts ................................................. 21 4.2.2 Wetland Impacts ......................................................... 21 4.2.3 Stream Impacts .......................................................... 21 4.2.4 Wildlife Impacts ......................................................... 22 4.2.5 Threatened, Endangered and Priority Species Impacts ........................... 24 5. CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................... 25 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 TABLE I FIGURE 1 APPENDIX A APPENDIXB TABLES Wildlife-Habitat Associations FIGURES Vicinity Map APPENDICES 1999 Aerial Photograph Sunset Bluff Preliminaiy Plat--Development Plan Sheets I -11 iii 1. INTRODUCTION This report sets forth the results and conclusions of the habitat/wildlife assessment and stream study prepared by TheresaR. Dusek of the natural resources department ofBarghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. for (a) the site of the proposed 65-lot "Sunset Bluff' residential subdivision planned at a 26.26- acres site located at 1101 SW Sunset Boulevard in Renton, Washington and (b) the route of a public street cul-de-sac terminus and emergency vehicle access road planned to be constructed on and across abutting property to the west in conjunction with the proposed subdivision. The subject property is located in Section 13, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W.M. (Figure 1). The habitaVwildlife assessment portion of this report was primarily prepared to address the habitat conservation regulations of City of Renton Municipal Code (RMC) 4-3-050B.5 and 4-3-050K in the context of the above-referenced property and residential development project. The stream study portion of this report was prepared to augment the habitaVwildlife assessment in relation to an intermittent Type 4 Water that flows across a portion of the Sunset Bluff subdivision site. 1.1 Applicable City Code Provisions RMC 4-3-0SOB.5 states: 5. Habitat Conservation: a. Applicability: The habitat conservation regulations apply to all nonexempt activities on sites containing or abutting critical habitat as classified below. b. Critical Habitat: Critical habitats are those habitat areas which meet any of the following criteria: i. The documented presence of species proposed or listed by the federal government or State of Washington as endangered, threatened, sensitive, monitor, or priority; and/or ii. The presence of heron rookeries or raptor nesting areas; and/or 111. Category 1 wetlands (refer to subsection B7b(i) of this Section for classification criteria); and/or iv. Portions of streams and their shorelines designated in the Renton Shoreline Master Program, RMC 4-3-090, as Conservancy or Natural (refer to the Renton Shoreline Master Program). c. Mapping: i. Critical habitats are identified by lists, categories and definitions of species promulgated by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (Non-game Data System Special Animal Species) as identified in WAC 232-12-011; in the Priority Habitat and Species Program of the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife; or by rules and regulations adopted currently or hereafter by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 7639.007.wpd [TRD] ii. Referenced inventories and maps are to be used as guides to the general location and extent of critical habitat. Critical habitat which is identified in subsection B5b of this Section, but not shown on the referenced inventories and maps, are presumed to exist in the City and are also protected under all the provisions of this section. iii. The actual presence or absence of the criteria listed above as determined by qualified professionals, shall govern the treatment of an individual building site or parcel of land requiring compliance with these regulations. (Emphasis added.) K HABITATCONSERVATION: 1. Applicability: In addition to the general standards of subsection E of this Section, the following performance standards, subsections K2 to KS, apply to all non-exempt activities on sites containing critical habitat areas per subsection B5. 2. Habitat Assessment Required: Based upon subsection B5 of this Section, Habitat Conservation, the City shall require a habitat/wildlife assessment to determine the extent, function and value of the critical habitat when regulated activities are proposed which have the potential to cause significant impacts. In cases where a proposal is not likely to significantly impact the critical habitat and there is sufficient information to determine the effects of a proposal, an applicant may request that this report be waived by the Department Administrator in accordance with subsection D4b of this Section. The City may require independent review of an applicant's report by qualified specialists selected by the City, at the applicant's expense. 3. Native Growth Protection Areas: Based on the required habitat assessment, the Reviewing Official may require critical habitat areas and their associated buffers be placed in a native growth protection area subject to the requirements of subsection G of this Section, or dedicated to a conservation organization or land trust, or similarly preserved through a permanent protective mechanism acceptable to the City. 4. Alterations Require Mitigation: ![ alterations to critical habitat/wildlife habitat or buffers are proposed, mitigation shall be required by the Cjty. The applicant shall evaluate alternative methods of developing the property using the following criteria in this order: a. Avoid any disturbances to the habitat. b. Minimize any impacts to the habitat. c. Compensate for any habitat impacts. S. Mitigation Options: In addition to any performance standards or mitigation required by wetland regulations, additional mitigation may be determined by the Reviewing Official based upon the consultant report submitted by the applicant, and/or peer review of the applicant's consultant report by a qualified professional selected by 2 7639.007.wpd [TRD] the City at the applicant's expense, and/or by information from State or Federal agencies. a. On-Site Mitigation: Mitigation shall be provided on-site, unless on-site mitigation is not scientifically feasible due to physical features of the property. The burden of proof shall be on the applicant to demonstrate that mitigation cannot be provided on-site. b. Off-Site Mitigation: When mitigation cannot be provided on-site, mitigation shall be provided in the immediate vicinity of the permitted activity on property owned or controlled by the applicant, and identified as such through a recorded document such as an easement or covenant, provided such mitigation is beneficial to the habitat area and associated resources. c. In-Kind Mitigation: In-kind mitigation shall be provided except when the applicant demonstrates and the City concurs that greater functional and habitat value can be achieved through out-of-kind mitigation. (Emphasis added.) As demonstrated below, no alterations to critical habitat or buffers are proposed as part of the Sunset Bluff project. 1.2 Study Area The study area includes seven main components: (I) The 26.26-acre Sunset Bluff project site; (2) The route of a public street cul-de-sac terminus and emergency vehicle access road planned on and across abutting property to the west of the southerly portion of the Sunset Bluff project site; (3) The off-site (predominant) portion of a Category I wetland that straddles the site's south boundary (the off-site portion lying within the extreme westerly portion of the site of an existing multi-family residential development called the Sunpointe Townhomes Condominium that abuts roughly the easterly one-third of the Sunset Bluff site's south boundary); (4) An area of off-site forested land within the west end of the Sunpointe Townhomes Condominium site abutting the Category l wetland's east edge and the easterly portion of the Sunset Bluff site's south boundary; (5) An area of off-site forested land within the east end of the Sunset View Apartment Homes site abutting the north portion of the Sunset Bluff site's west boundary. (6) The l 00-foot wide BNSF railroad right-of-way abutting roughly the westerly two- thirds of the Sunset Bluff project site's south boundary and extending to the east and west; and (7) The greater than l 00-acre open space area owned by the City of Renton lying to the south of the portion of the BNSF railroad right-of-way that (a) abuts the south edge 3 7639.007.wpd ffRD) of the Sunset Bluff project site and (b) lies to the south of the route of the planned public street cul-de-sac tenninus and emergency vehicle access road to the west of the Sunset Bluff project site. These seven component areas are noted on the aerial photograph in Appendix A and are discussed more fully, below. 1.2.1 Sunset Bluff Project Site The 26.26-acre Sunset Bluff project site is located in the southeast Puget Sound region of Western Washington in Section 13, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W.M. (Figure 1 ). The site is roughly bounded as follows: (a) Along the north by SW Sunset Boulevard (SR 900) and associated right- of-way; (b) Along the south by (i) Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railroad tracks and right-of-way (as to about the westerly two-thirds of the site's south boundary), (ii) a wetland that straddles a relatively short portion of the easterly part of the site's south boundary and (iii) a stretch of forested land (which extends along roughly the easterly quarter of the site's south boundary) that is located within the north portion of the westerly part of an existing multifamily residential development called the "Sunpointe Townhomes Condominium"; ( c) Along the north portion of the site's west boundary by a 240-unit apartment complex called the "Sunset View Apartment Homes"; and ( d) Along the south portion of the site's west boundary by the site of the former Stoneway "Black River Quarty" (land that now is the site of a contractor's office, outdoor equipment and material storage, construction materials recycling activities and concrete batching). 1.2.2 Off-Site Cul-de-Sac and Emergency Vehicle Access Road Route The public street that is planned to be constructed generally east-to-west across the Sunset Bluff site is proposed to terminate as a cul-de-sac bulb just to the west of the southerly portion of the Sunset Bluff site's west boundary within the site of the former Stoneway "Black River Quany". In conjunction with the planned development of the Sunset Bluff subdivision, a 20-foot minimum width emergency vehicle access road is planned to extend from the west end of that cul-de-sac bulb to the west-southwest and connect to Monster Road SW. (See Sheet 6 of 11 in Appendix B.) The entire route of both the cul-de-sac bulb and the emergency vehicle access road (which is referred to in this report as the "western road route") lies within Sections 13 and 14, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W.M. 1.2.3 The Sunpointe Townhomes Condominium Site's Category 1 Wetland Abutting roughly the easterly one-third of the Sunset Bluff site's south boundary is the west part of the site of the existing Sunpointe Townhomes Condominium 4 7639.007.wpd [TRI)] development. A Category I Wetland straddles the westerly portion of that common boundary (with most of that wetland lying within the Sunpointe Townhomes Condominium site). A stretch of forested land lies along most of the rest of the south side of that common boundary. This property also lies within Section 13, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W.M. 1.2.4 The Sunpointe Townhomes Condominium Site's West End Forest An area of off-site forested land within the west end of the Sunpointe Townhomes Condominium site abuts the Category I wetland's east edge and the Sunset Bluff site's south boundary. That forested land is essentially a continuation of the existing forest within the eastern end of the Sunset Bluff site. This property also lies within Section 13, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W.M. 1.2.5 The Sunset View Apartment Homes Site's East End Forest An area of off-site forested land within the east end of the Sunset View Apartment Homes site is essentially a continuation of the existing forest within the western end of the Sunset Bluff site. This forested area extends from the northerly part of the Sunset Bluff site's west boundary approximately 300 feet to the west and connects along its south edge to the forested land lying within approximately the east 300 feet of the former Black ruver Quarry site. This property also lies within Section 13, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W.M. 1.2.6 BNSF Railroad Right-of-Way The I 00-foot wide BNSF railroad right-of-way abutting the Sunset Bluff site's south boundary and lying south of the off-site cul-de-sac and emergency vehicle access road route has a railroad grade with active tracks in both directions. This property lies within Sections 13 and 14, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W.M. 1.2.7 City of Renton Open Space Area The I 00+ acres of open space owned by the City of Renton includes (a) scattered upland areas including a gravel access road to the P-1 pump station (a road located directly south of and paralleling the BNSF railroad right-of-way), (b) an area that is generally referred to as the Black ruver ruparian Forest (including a former channel of the Blackruver), (c) a portion of the P-1 Channel (Springbrook Creek), (d) theP-1 Forebay and (e) and wetland areas. The Renton great blue heron rookery is located in this open space area approximately 1,100 feet south of the Sunset Bluff site. This property also lies within Section 13, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W.M. 2. DETERMINATION OF CRITICAL HABITATS Critical habitats have been determined below in relation to each of the four criteria set forth in RMC 4- 3-0SOB.5. 2.1 Documented Presence of Species Proposed or Listed as Endangered, Threatened, Sensitive, Candidate, Monitored, or Priority 5 7639.007.wpd [fRD) 2.1.1 Background Review The National Wetland Inventory Map (USFWS, 1988), the City of Renton Wetland Inventory (City of Renton, 1992), the Soil Survey for the King County, Washington Area (U.S.D.A., Soil ConsetVation Service, 1973) and project maps were reviewed. A wetland report completed by Theresa R. Henson Consulting (August 29, 2000) that identifies wetlands on the site and within I 00 feet of the site was also reviewed. Theresa R. Henson (now Theresa R. Dusek) conducted a background review and performed a wetland field survey of what is now called the Sunset Bluff site in December of 1999. In preparation of this report, the findings and conclusions in Theresa R. Henson Consulting's August 29, 2000 report (following field confirmation during November 2003) were relied upon for wetland conditions on the site. In addition, the Washington State Department of Natural Resources' Washington Natural Heritage Program was reviewed. It identifies and lists rare plant species, rare animal species, high-quality wetland ecosystems, and high-quality terrestrial ecosystems for the Renton Quadrangle. Further, the Department of Natural Resources' Field Guide to Rare Plants (DNR, 1999) was reviewed to identify rare plant species and determine whether any of the areas of their distribution included the subject site. The Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife was consulted during November 2003 to determine current federal and state listing status and Evolutionarily Significant Unit distributions. The Salmon and Steelhead Stock Inventory (WDFW, 1992) and A Catalog of Washington Streams and Salmon Utilization (Williams et al., 1975) were reviewed to determine possible anadromous and fluvial fish species that occur in the P-1 Channel (Springbrook Creek), which is located approximately I ,I 00 feet downstream of the site. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Priority Habitat and Species Database provided data including locations of federal and state listed species (threatened, endangered, sensitive and candidate) and other priority non-game and game species. This database review includes review of and information from the Wildlife Heritage (HRTG) Database (as referred to in RMC 4-3-050B.5.c.i as the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife Non-game Data System Special Animal Species), which contains information on documented endangered, threatened, sensitive, candidate and monitored species. Wildlife-Habitat Relationships in Oregon and Washington (2001) as well as mannnal, bird, reptile, amphibian, and insect guides were reviewed to approximate the assemblage of species indicative of environmental conditions and possible habitats that exist on the subject site. 2.1.2 Wildlife and Plant Inventories Background information concerning wildlife and plant species was reviewed prior to our November and December field surveys. The Priority Habitats and Species Map and the Wildlife-Habitat Relationships in Oregon and Washington were utilized to determine possible species assemblages within on-site ecosystems. Plant and animal communities were surveyed to identify, classify, and inventory species and habitats. 6 7639.007.wpd rrRDJ The survey involved a general observation of the Sunset Bluff site from the entire perimeter and then a more specific investigation of the site's interior. In addition, other properties in the study area near the Sunset Bluff Site were investigated. According to the Priority Habitat and Species Database, the Sunset Bluff site is listed as an Urban Natural Open Space. Urban Natural Open Spaces are defined by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife as places where "a priority species resides within or is adjacent to the open space and uses it for breeding and/or regular feeding; and/or the open space functions as a corridor connecting other priority habitats, especially those that would otherwise be isolated; and/or the open space is an isolated remnant of natural habitat larger than 4 ha (IO acres) and is surrounded by urban development." (WDFW Priority Habitats and Species List, Habitat Program, 1996; emphasis in the original). The reasons that the site is listed as Urban Natural Open Space appear to be (a) the proximity of the site near (although not adjacent to) the designated heron rookery open space south of the site and (b) the Category I wetland that straddles a portion of the easterly part of the site's south boundary. Several field surveys were conducted by Barghausen Consulting Engineers' natural resources department staff members during November and December of 2003 to evaluate and identify wildlife, plants, habitats, and sensitive areas on the site. At that time, Theresa R. Dusek and Andrea Gates (Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. biologists) walked the property and documented observable wildlife, special habitat features, and indicators of wildlife habitation. Attention was focused on special habitat features, such as snags, cavity nests, feeding stations, and raptor nests throughout the entire site with a special focus on the eastern portion of the site near the Category I wetland and Type 4 Water (stream). Wetland habitat features were investigated in the locations identified from the background information and throughout the property. 2.1.2.1 Plant Community Inventory The on-site plant community was inventoried during the field surveys. Hitchcock and Cronquist's Flora of the Pacific Northwest (1973) was used as a reference for plant species classification. A review was completed of the Washington State Department of Natural Resouroes' Natural Heritage Information System (2003), an on-line system that identifies and lists rare plant species, rare animal species, high-quality wetland ecosystems, and high-quality terrestrial ecosystems for the Renton area. According to the Natural Heritage Information System, no rare plants or high quality ecosystems are located on the proposed project site (DNR, 2003). In a City of Renton 1999 aerial photograph (a copy of which is included as Appendix A), the property is shown as predominantly deciduous forest with an open water wetland system straddling a part of the eastern portion of the site's south boundary. 7 7639.007.wpd [TRDJ 2.1.2.2 Fish and Wildlife Inventory An inventory of wildlife occurrence on the site was compiled through the field surveys for this report and from the background information obtained through research and review of documents obtained from by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington State Department of Department of Natural Resources and King County. Species habitat relationships were reviewed in Wildlife-Habitat Relationships in Oregon and Washington (200 I). Information on amphibian and reptile species is based on Brown et al. (1995), Kozloff(1995), Leonard et al. (1993), Nussbaum et al. (I 983),and Olsen et al. (1997). Bird species information is based on Acorn and Baron (1997), Hunn (1982), Johnsgard (1990), and Kozloff (1995). Birds' nests, nesting cavities, woodpecker feeding stations, animal tracks, scat, and other wildlife indicators are based on Harrison (1979) and Murie (1974). Background information for mammals is based on Forey and Fitz.simons (1986), King County (1987), and Whitaker (1989). Fish stock inventory was determined by review of the Salmonid and Steelhead Stock Inventory (Washington Department of Fisheries, 1992), Coastal Cutthroat Stock Inventory (WDFW, 2000b) and Dolly Varden/Bull Trout Inventory (WDFW, 1998) for Washington State. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife's A Catalog of Streams and Salmon Utilization documented salmonid populations in the P-1 Channel (Springbrook Creek). An on-site meeting with Mr. Larry Fisher (the local habitat biologist for the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife) was conducted on November 18, 2003 to review the on-site intermittent stream (which he indicated is a Type 4 Water) and to discuss fish use in the P-1 Channel (Springbrook Creek) located approximately I ,I 00 feet south and downstream of the site. 2.1.3 CONDITIONS IN THE STUDY AREA The Sunset Bluff site is situated approximately 1,100 feet north of the P-1 Channel (Springbrook Creek) in the City of Renton, northwest of the City's downtown business area. The P-1 Channel provides a migration corridor and rearing habitat for Federally- listed (Chinook) salmonid species located approximately I ,I 00 feet downstream of the subject property. The Renton great blue heron rookery is located approximately I , l 00 feet south of the subject property in the open space area that the City of Renton owns. A primarily deciduous forest that is between 30 and 50 years old covers nearly all of the Sunset Bluff site and roughly the east 300 feet of the western road route. (The balance of that route west to Monster Road SW crosses a totally cleared area within the site of the former Black !tiver Quarry.) A Type 4 Water (intermittent stream) flows from north to south across the eastern third of the site. The on-site stream does not contain fish (Fisher, 2003). Water from the stream discharges into the City of Renton Category I wetland that straddles approximately 300 feet of the eastern portion of the south property boundary and 8 7639.007.wpd [TRD] extends approximately 25 feet into the site. Water from the Category I wetland is trapped north of the BNSF railroad tracks and does not discharge downstream. A small wetland that is exempt from the City ofRenton's wetland regulations is located along the western portion of the Sunset Bluff site's south boundary (Theresa R. Henson Consulting, 2000). The BNSF railroad right-of-way contains (a) active railroad tracks for train movements in both the east and west directions, (b) a cleared and graded railroad grade supporting the tracks, and ( c) stretches of drainage ditches along the north side of the railroad grade. The City of Renton Open Space area contains l 00+ acres of open space that consists of(a) forested, shrub and herbaceous uplands, (b) the gravel access road for the P-1 pump station along the area's north edge, ( c) open water areas with emergent wetland islands in the P-I Forebay and P-1 Channel, and ( d) a great blue heron rookery. 2.1.3.1 General Property Descriptions The Sunset Bluff site, the east 300 feet ofboth the former Black River Quarry site and the Sunset View Apartment Homes site, and the forested west end of the Sunpointe Townhomes Condominium site are all forested lands situated on the slopes above the Green River Valley, a valley that extends from the lower Duwamish River (to the north) to the lower Green River (to the south). (The BNSF railroad right-of-way and the City of Renton open space area lie in the valley.) Prior to Euro-American settlement of the area, coniferous rainforest dominated the valley. However, by the beginning of the twentieth century, timber harvesting and the conversion of upland forests to agricultural uses (such as cropping and grazing) had impacted the diversity of the valley's forest habitat. Based both on this history and our observations of the study area, it is evident that virtually all of the site's forest area and the western road route's forest area have been harvested at least once. Timber harvesting generally results in a temporal loss of forest structure and habitat. This Joss of native habitat fragmented the continuous forest and reduced the number and diversity of native plants and animal species, not only on the subject site but throughout the region. Species diversity increased along riparian corridors within the portions of valley bottoms that were not converted to urban or agricultural uses. The site and the western road route have slopes of varying steepness. A north-south flowing intermittent stream is located across the site at about one- third of the site's east-west dimension from the site's easterly tip. A Category I wetland straddles part of the easterly portion of the site's south boundary. A small wetland that is exempt from the City of Renton' s wetland regulations is located along the site's south boundary near the site's southwest comer. A longstanding dirt road bisects most of the site in an east-west direction. An on-site culvert allows water in the stream to pass downstream under that existing dirt road. Two abandoned shacks are located near the site's west boundary. Several homeless camps (some active and some abandoned) are 9 7639.007.wpd [TRD] located on the site. Storm water runoff is discharged onto the site through nine culverts extending south from SW Sunset Boulevard's road embankment. One of the culverts is an 18-inch diameter pipe that conveys stonn water runoff and other intermittent flows from properties lying north of SW Sunset Boulevard and discharges those waters into the Sunset Bluff site's on-site stream channel, which drains into the Category l wetland. The other eight culverts discharge storm water runoff onto the site from relatively small portions of SW Sunset Boulevard (and, in some cases, from small undeveloped portions of existing lots lying immediately to the north of SW Sunset Boulevard). The forest canopy of the site and of the forested portion of the western road route are not closed and the plant community of those areas ( a community which contains many non-native invasive species) is not diverse. The portion of the site within I 00 feet of the Category I wetland has the most habitat diversity of any portion of the site or of the western road route. That wetland has no outlet due to the railroad grade having cut off any surface water connection to downstream drainage systems. The wetland's water depth appears to fluctuate up to five feet between the dry and wet seasons. 2.1.3.2 Plant Communities The site and the east 300 feet of the western road route are primarily a second growth upland big leaf maple/red alder forest dominated by (a) a dense Himalayan blackberry thicket understory on the western portion of the site and on the western road route and (b) a more native sword fem, snow berry, and salal understory in the eastern portion of the site. A few scattered evergreen trees were also observed in that deciduous forest. The on-site portion of the wetland straddling the south boundary in the eastern portion of the site is a Palustrine scrub-shrub, emergent system dominated by willow, red-osier dogwood, sedges, and rushes. 2.1.3.3 Fish and Wildlife Inventory 2.1.3.3.1 Fish Salmonid species inhabiting the P-1 Channel (Springbrook Creek) consist of: • chinook (Onchorynchus tshawtscha) (WDFW, 2000a; Williams et al., 1975); • coho (0. kisutch)(WDFW, 2000a; Williams et al., 1975); and • cutthroat trout (0. clarkii) (WDFW, 2000b). Chinook, cutthroat and coho salmonids are present in the P-1 Channel (Springbrook Creek) during respective stages of their life histories (WDFW, 2000a; Williams et al., 1975). Both fluvial and anadromous cutthroat trout inhabit the P-1 Channel (WDFW, 2000b;Wash. Dept. of 10 7639.007.wpd [TRI)) Fisheries, 1992). The on-site intermittent stream does not have a surface water connection to fish bearing waters and contains several five-foot high vertical drops and an approximate 20 percent gradient across the site. Therefore, fish cannot use the stream. 2.1.3.3.2 Wildlife Wildlife-Habitat Relationships in Oregon and Washington (200 I) lists species that would generally be found in different types of ecosystems. As shown on Table I of this report, the habitat types of the project site and the eastern 300 feet of the western road route include upland forest with a shrub understory, wetland and riparian stream. In general, riparian, forested ecosystems are relatively high in species number. Of the species generally found in this type of ecosystem in the Puget Sound area, many are native species such as woodpeckers, owls, songbirds, frogs, salamanders, snakes, and mammals. Others are introduced species that have replaced native wildlife. Because the forested system on the Sunset Bluff site and the abutting 300 feet to the west (a) is dominated by a multistory, moderate canopy (the canopy closure only covering 40 to 60% of those areas) and (b) has less than one snag per acre, the number of cavity nesting species therein is likely relatively small. Few wildlife species were observed during the field survey. Birds, amphibians and reptiles were observed. Frogs were audible near the Category I wetland and a garter snake was observed off-site in the railroad right-of-way. Wildlife indicators of small mammals (such as mice, moles and mountain beaver) were also found on the site. Robins, towhees, chickadees, and jays were observed on the site. Songbirds were audible; however, species hidden in the forest canopy were difficult to identify. A Steller's jay was present, swooping down from the riparian canopy on the southern portion of the property. A red tail hawk was noted soaring over the site. Great blue herons were observed flying over the eastern end of the Sunset Bluff site and over the western end of the Sunpointe Townhomes Condominium site. Herons have also been observed feeding in the Category I wetland pond that straddles the common boundary between those two sites. The wildlife species observed ( or found to be indicated) on the site or the western road route are summarized as follows: • Towhee -in the shrub near the south edge of the site. • Songbirds -hidden in the forested canopy. • Mole -soil mounds throughout the site. • Red tail hawk -soaring over the eastern portion of the site. • Great blue heron -soaring over the eastern portion of the site and 11 7639.007.wpd [TRDJ using the wetland pond located primarily south of the eastern portion of the site. • Steller's jay -observed in southern riparian corridor. • Frogs -were audible near the Category I wetland. No priority species were observed on the site or the western road route during the field survey. Direct observation and indicators of priority species were investigated. The on-site habitats and the western road route were evaluated for woodpeckers, raptors, waterfowl, nesting cavities, feeding stations, scats, and other observations or indicators leading to the identification of priority species. No nests of priority birds were found on the site or the western road route during the field survey. No priority bird habitat was found on the site or the western road route during the field survey, either. Further, no pileated woodpecker nesting cavities or feeding stations were found. (The pileated woodpecker prefers mature, closed-canopy forest habitats with large snags, which are features that are not present on the Sunset Bluff site or the western road route. Although some mature cottonwood trees are growing in the forest, ideal pileated habitat does not exist on the Sunset Bluff site or the western road route.) The nearest nest of any priority bird species to the Sunset Bluff site or the western road route is the Renton great blue heron rookery, which is located approximately 1,100 feet south of the site. Herons are known to feed at the Category 1 wetland's pond that straddles a portion of the easterly part of the site's south boundary. Other larger, higher quality feeding areas such as Lake Washington, Springbrook Creek and the Green River are likely the herons' primary feeding areas. Raptors or their nests were not observed on the Sunset Bluff site or the western road route. Although raptors commonly nest in forested areas, no nests were found on the site during the field survey. Trees were systematically inspected for nests, scat, or other indicators of raptor activities. High quality waterfowl habitat was not observed on the site; however, the open water portion of the Category 1 wetland that straddles a portion of the easterly part of the site's south boundary provides feeding and resting area for waterfowl. The extreme fluctuation of the water level in the pond (roughly 5 feet between wet and dry seasons) limits use of the wetland for waterfowl breeding and rearing. Field observations were limited by the time of day, season, and duration of the field survey. Wildlife observations focused on diurnal wildlife active in the late fall; however, wildlife indicators are less restricted and may be observed all-year-round and over a longer duration of time. The limitations of the field survey prevent an absolute or all-encompassing determination. However, in perspective, and when cross-referenced with the background information we reviewed, the field survey appears to provide a quite accurate description of existing conditions. 12 7639.007.wpd (TRI)) 2.1.3.4 Special Wildlife Habitat Features 2.1.3.4.1 Riparian and Fish Habitat Riparian habitat is habitat that is associated with rivers and streams. Riparian habitat associated with the on-site stream is the same as the forested habitat described in Section 2.1.3.4.2, below. Fish habitat is not present on the site. The nearest fish habitat is located approximately 1,100 feet south of the site along the P-1 Channel (Springbrook Creek). The P-1 Channel has a well developed riparian corridor located south of the site. The area is designated as open space and has a width of more than 1,000 feet between the BNSF railroad right-of-way (along the site's south edge) and the P-1 Channel. The BNSF railroad grade (which has an active railroad line operating on it), the gravel access road to the P-1 pump station and a cyclone fence along the railroad right-of-way's south boundary all separate the site from the riparian open space south of the site. 2.1.3.4.2 Forested Habitat During our field survey, we found that the upland deciduous forest located on the site and the east 300 feet of the western road route is composed of a moderate canopy (with a cover ranging from 40% to 60%) dominated by big leaf maple and red alder. Minor trees scattered throughout the forest include Douglas fir and black cottonwood. The understrny is dominated by blackbeny and other non-native species in the western portion of the site and the east 300 feet of the western road route and by more native sword fem, salal, Oregon grape and snowberry in the eastern portion of the site. Several trees were cored to determine the age of the forest. The forest is less than 50 years old with most trees determined to be 39 to 45 years old. Snags on the site were small (less than 12 inches d.b.h.). Snag density on the site and the east 300 feet of the western road route was less than one snag per acre. The highest concentration of snags was located on the eastern portion of the site. 2.1.4 Endangered, Threatened, Candidate, Sensitive, Monitored, or Priority Species in the Study Area Federally-listed salmonids inhabit the Green (to Duwamish) River. Puget Sound chinook and bull trout are listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (U.S. Department of Commerce, 2000; U.S. Department of the Interior, 1999; and WDFW, 1999). Chinook are known to occur in the P-1 Channel (Springbrook Creek) (WDFW, 2000a; WDFW, 2000b; Wash. Dept. of Fisheries, 1998; and Williams et al., 1975). Coho salmon that inhabit the P-1 Channel (Springbrook Creek) are candidates for listing under the ESA (Wash. Dept. of Fisheries, 1998; WDFW, 1999). 13 7639.007.wpd [TRDJ The State of Washington Species o/Concern Inventory lists Puget Sound Chinook as candidate species (WDFW, 1999). Coho salmon and rainbow trout are not listed in the Washington State Species of Concern Inventory. However, Coho salmon are candidates for Federal listing. Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife Priority Species of salmonids include chinook, chum, coho, pink, and steelhead, and resident cutthroat and doarden/bull trout (WDFW, 2000a). No amphibian, reptile, or mammal species are listed with WDFW as priority species within the section, township, and range of the site. Great blue herons are a priority species that have a rookery (nesting area) located approximately 1,100 feet south of the site. Although great blue heron are listed by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife as a priority species, only their breeding areas are protected by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife.' In the area of this study, the only great blue heron breeding area is the Renton heron rookery located within the Renton Open Space area that lies to the south of the Sunset Bluff site and the BNSF railroad right-of-way. 1 As of December 27, 2003, the State of Washington Department offish and Wildlife Priority Habitats and Species website comments on "Priority Area" (a term somewhat akin to Renton's "Critical Habitat Area") are as follows: PRIORITY AREA: Species are often considered a priority only within known limiting habitats (e.g., breeding areas) or within areas that support a relatively high number of individuals (e.g., regular large concentrations). These important areas are identified in the PHS List under the heading Priority Area. For example, great blue herons are often foW1d feeding along shorelines. but they are consjdered a priority only in areas used for breed.jog (see criterion 2). Iflimiting habitats are not known, or if a species is so rare that any occurrence is important in land-use decisions, then the priority area is described as any occurrence. Priority areas are described with the following terms: · Breeding Site: The immediate area and features associated with producing and rearing young ( e.g., nest tree, den). Typically, a point location. · Breeding Area: The area necessary to support reproduction and the rearing of young; includes breeding sites and adjacent foraging habitat, and may include a disturbance buffer . • • • (Italics in the original; underlining added for emphasis.) Criterion 2 (referred-to above) is set forth in that website as follows: Criterion 2. Vulnerable Aggregations Vulnerable aggregations include those species or groups of animals susceptible to significant population declines, within a specific area or statewide, by virtue of their inclination to aggregate. Examples include heron rookeries, seabird concentrations, marine mammal haulouts, shellfish beds, and fish spawning and rearing areas. (Emphasis added.) 14 7639.007.wpd [TRI)] During the field survey, no priority species (including those that are Federally-listed or State-listed) were observed on the site or the western road route and no indicators of priority species habitation were observed on the site or the western road route. The field survey uncovered no evidence of woodpecker habitation or utilization of the site or the western road route. Raptors nests were not found on the site or on adjacent properties. Other habitat features of priority species were not observed on the site or the western road route. The nearest breeding area of a priority species is the Renton heron rookery located within the City of Renton open space area to the south of the site. 2.2 The Presence of Heron Rookeries or Rap tor Nesting Areas in the Study Area As noted above, the great blue heron is a priority species that has a rookery located approximately I ,I 00 feet south of the site in the City of Renton Open Space area. Also as noted above, no raptor nesting areas were found on the Sunset Bluff site, the western road route or the other portions of the study area near the site. According to the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife Priority Habitats and Species Database inforrnation, the heron rookery has grown from 7 active nests in 1986 to more than 37 active nests in 1996. During Barghausen's 2003 field studies, over 50 nests were counted in the herons' main nesting tree and the riparian corridor along the P-1 Forebay. 2.3 Category 1 Wetlands 2.3.1 Wetlands Review The National Wetland Inventory Map (USFWS, 1988), the City of Renton Wetland Inventory (City of Renton, 1992), the Soil Survey for the King County, Washington Area (U.S.D.A., Soil Conservation Service, I 973) and project maps were reviewed in preparation for this report. A wetland delineation report completed by Theresa R. Henson Consulting (August 29, 2000) that identifies wetlands on the site and within JOO feet of the site was also reviewed. During December 1999, Theresa R. Henson ( now Theresa R. Dusek) conducted a background review of potential wetland areas and perforrned a wetland field survey of what is now called the Sunset Bluff site. During November 2003, she perforrned a field confirrnation of the wetlands and found that the wetland boundaries were unchanged. In preparation of this report, the findings and conclusions set forth in Theresa R. Henson Consulting's August 29, 2000 report were relied upon for wetland conditions and functions and values on the Sunset Bluff site and with respect to the portion of the Category I wetland that straddles the boundary between the Sunset Bluff site and the Sunpointe Townhomes Condominium site. Wetlands are protected by Federal Jaw and applicable State and local regulations. Federal Jaw (Section 404 of the Clean Water Act) ordinarily prohibits discharge of dredge or fill material into the nation's waters, including wetlands, without a permit from the U.S. Arrny Corps of Engineers (Corps, 2002). In the Corps' 1987 wetlands delineation manual, the Corps defines a wetland as an area "inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances does support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions." The Washington 15 7639.007.wpd [TIU)] Department ofEcology has published a wetland identification and delineation manual revised from the Corps' manual to address unique regional, environmental conditions (Ecology, 1997). The wetland delineation set forth in Theresa R. Henson Consulting's August 29, 2000 report was based upon the Corps manual and the regional specificity of Ecology's manual. Generally, as outlined in both the Corps and Ecology manuals, wetlands are distinguished from other landforms by the presence of three criteria: hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and hydrology. 2.3.2 Wetland Inventory The wetland report prepared by Theresa R. Henson Consulting (2000) characterizes the site's soils, vegetation, and hydrology to determine whether wetlands exist on or adjacent to the subject site. The work performed as part of that study included an extensive background review of potential wetland areas and a comprehensive field investigation of such areas. That report addresses field observations and interprets findings according to standard wetland identification methods, and determined the functions and values of the on-site wetlands. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's National Wetland Inventory Map of the Renton Area (obtained from GEOTracker Interactive Mapping (2003)) does not identify any wetlands on the subject site. The City of Renton Wetland Inventory (1992) does not identify any wetlands on the subject site either. Wetland W-5c, which is located south of both the site and the BNSF railroad right-of-way, is the nearest wetland noted in that inventory. The Soil Survey for the King County, Washington Area (U.S.D.A., Soil Conservation Service, 1973) maps most of the site as containing Beausite gravelly sandy loam and maps the area where the Category I wetland is located as containing Woodinville silt loam. Woodinville soils are considered hydric (wetland) soils by the Natural Resource Conservation Service (1995). 2.3.3 City of Renton Wetland Categories In the State of Washington, wetlands and streams are generally regulated under Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act and other state and local regulations and ordinances, such as the wetlands provisions of the City of Renton Critical Areas Regulations. The City of Renton regulates wetlands as a type of critical area under Renton Municipal Code Section 4-3-050 (Critical Areas Regulations). In Renton, alterations of wetlands or their code-specified buffers are generally prohibited, except as allowed under certain conditions specified in those Critical Areas Regulations. Under those regulations, wetlands are rated as Category 1, 2, or 3 based on characteristics such as size, vegetative cover, and occurrence of endangered or threatened species. Wetlands in Renton ordinarily require buffers of l 00, 50, or 25 feet from the ordinary high water mark for Category I , 2, and 3 wetlands, respectively. 16 7639.007.wpd [fRD] 2.3.4 Category 1 Wetlands Within 100 Feet of the Sunset Bluff Project Area The Theresa R. Henson Consulting Wetland Delineation Report indicates that the wetland straddling a part of the easterly portion of the Sunset Bluff site's south boundary is a Category I Wetland. Water entering the wetland from the on-site stream is trapped north of the railroad tracks and cannot drain out. Under the City of Renton's regulations, a JOO-foot wide buffer is required for that wetland because it is a Category I wetland.2 The portion of the wetland on the Sunset Bluff site is approximately 6,078 square feet. The total size of the wetland is about 3 acres. Only about the north 25 feet of that wetland extends onto the site. The balance of the wetland extends about 450 feet to the southeast into the Sunpointe Townhomes Condominium site. The entire wetland system for this Category l wetland includes areas of open water, emergent habitat and shrub habitat. Through niche differentiation, more species are able to occupy a greater number of potential habitats in complex environments such as this wetland than in environments of lesser complexity. This Category I wetland has a multi-layered canopy. The forested I 00-foot buffer adjacent to the Category I wetland provides habitat for perching birds and shade for aquatic organisms. Raptors may perch in taller trees overlooking foraging areas in that wetland, and waterfowl and herons use the open water portions of the wetland for feeding. Red-osier dogwood and other fruit-bearing shrubs within that wetland's buffer attract berry-eating birds and mammals during certain times of the year. During the field survey for this report, the route of the proposed cul-de-sac and emergency vehicle access road (and abutting areas within I 00 feet thereot) was also examined for the presence of wetlands. None were found. 2.4 Portions of Streams and Their Shorelines Designated in the Renton Shoreline Master Program Neither the Sunset Bluff site nor the route of the proposed cul-de-sac and emergency vehicle access road include any portions of streams or their shorelines that are designated in the Renton Shoreline Master Program, RMC 4-3-090. 2.5 Summary of Critical Habitat in the Study Area The only Critical Habitat on the Sunset Bluff site ( or on the land to the west that is the route of the cul-de-sac and emergency vehicle access road proposed to be constructed in conjunction with the Sunset Bluff project) is the Category I Wetland that straddles a portion of the common boundary between the Sunset Bluff site and the abutting Sunpointe Townhomes Condominium 2The Theresa R Henson Consulting Wetland Delineation Report (2000) also indicates that the wetland located along the west portion of the south property boundary is an approximately 400 square foot Category 3 Wetland, 258 square feet of which lies on the Sunset Bluff property and the balance of which extends south into the BNSF Railroad right-of-way. Because RMC 4-3-0SOB.7.a exempts from the City of Renton wetland regulations Category 3 wetlands having an area less than 5,000 square feet, that wetland is exempt. That wetland, which is dominated by shrub habitat including red-osier dogwood and horsetail, has been highly disturbed by filling and ditching activities associated with the railroad grade. Wildlife habitat in that wetland is limited due to its small size and single class of vegetation. 17 7639.007.wpd [TRD] site to the southeast. Critical habitat for the great blue heron exists within the Renton Open Space area that lies to the south of the BNSF railroad right-of-way. Areas of Category 1 wetland also exist within the Renton Open Space area to the south, but those wetland areas lie at least I 00 feet from the Sunset Bluff site. 3. STREAM STUDY 3.1 River and Stream Inventory The Sunset Bluff project site is located approximately J, l 00 feet north of the P-1 Channel (Springbrook Creek). The P-1 Channel flows from the southeast to the northwest where it enters the P-1 Forebay (a large constructed pond used to store floodwaters), which contains the P-1 Pump Station that controls flows from Springbrook Creek into the Green/Duwamish River system. An 18-inch diameter culvert across SW Sunset Boulevard conveys into the on-site Type 4 Water (stream) channel storm water runoff and other intermittent flows from properties lying to the north. That Type 4 Water (a non-fish habitat stream with a width of 2 to 2.5 feet) discharges into the Category I wetland that straddles a part of the eastern portion of the site's south property boundary. That wetland (a) has no surface water connection to downstream waters (such as wetlands or the P-1 Channel (Springbrook Creek) lying to the south of the BNSF right-of-way) due to the configuration of the BNSF railroad grade and (b) is not fish habitat. As mentioned above (in Section 2.1.3.1), eight other culverts discharge storm water runoff from relatively small portions of SW Sunset Boulevard (and, in some cases, from relatively small undeveloped portions of existing lots lying immediately to the north) onto the Sunset Bluff site. During relatively modest rainfall events, that water infiltrates into the site. However, during significant rainfall events, some of that water drains across the site's surface into (a) a ditch located in the railroad right-of-way immediately south of the site (from the westerly seven of those culverts) and (b) the Category I wetland (from the easterlymost of those culverts). Water in that railroad ditch drains into two 12-inch culverts that extend beneath the railroad tracks and discharge into off-site downstream wetlands. As part of the field survey, a search was made within the City of Renton Open Space Area to find channels or streams that might connect those downstream wetlands to the P-1 Channel (Springbrook Creek). None were found. No waters flow across the Sunset Bluff site (or the western road route) in which fish spawn, reside, or through which they may pass. Except for the on-site Type 4 Water that flows into the Category I wetland, no waters with defined beds or bank flow across the Sunset Bluff site (or across the western road route). 3.2 River and Stream Regulatory Considerations The P-1 Channel (Springbrook Creek) is located 1,100 feet south of the site. A 100+ acre riparian corridor and open space forest (which are owned by the City of Renton and managed by the City of Renton Park Department ) are located between the Sunset Bluff site and the P-1 Channel, providing a very large buffer between them. The I 00-foot wide BNSF railroad right- 18 7639.007.wpd [TRD] of-way and a recently installed cyclone fence along that right-of-way's south boundary serve as a further separator and barrier between the site and the P-1 Channel. According to the Larry Fisher, the local habitat biologist for the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, the on-site stream is a Type 4 Water without fish use.' During the site conference with Mr. Fisher on November 18, 2003, he indicated that alterations to the stream channel below the ordinary high water mark will require a Hydraulic Projects Approval from his Department. The Category I wetland that the on-site stream drains into is not fish habitat. In RMC 4-11-190, the Renton Municipal Code provides its own definition of the word "stream", including it with "creek", "river'\ and "watercourse" as follows: STREAM, CREEK, RIVER, OR WATERCOURSE: Any portion ofa channel, bed, bank, or bottom waterward of the ordinary high water mark in which fish may spawn, reside, or through which they may pass, and tributary waters with defined beds or bank which influence the quality offish habitat downstream, This includes watercourses which flow on an intermittent basis or which fluctuate in level during the year, and applies to the entire bed of such watercourse whether or not the water is at peak level. This definition does not include irrigation of ditches, canals, stormwater runoff devices, or other entirely artificial watercourses, except where they exist in a natural watercourse which has been altered by humans or except where there are salmonids. Refer also to RMC 4-3-050B6. (Emphasis added.) As noted above, WDFW's Larry Fisher has determined that the on-site Type 4 water has no fish use. Further, because the Category 1 wetland into which the Type 4 Water flows (a) is not fish habitat itself and (b) has no outlet, the Type 4 Water does not influence the quality of fish habitat downstream. Thus, the subject Type 4 Water is not a stream, creek, river, or watercourse" under the Renton Municipal Code. Under RMC 4-4-130D.4.b (which is a portion of the City ofRenton's Tree Cutting and Land 3 ''Type 4 Water" is defined in the State of Washington Department ofNatural Resources interim water typing system under WAC 222-16-031 as follows: (4) "Type 4 Water" means all segments ofnatural waters within the bankfull width of defined channels that are perennial nonflsh habitat streams. Perennial streams are waters that do not go dry any time ofa year of normal rainfall. However, for the purpose of water typing, Type 4 Waters include the intermittent dry portions of the perennial channel below the uppermost point of perennial flow. If the uppermost point of perennial flow cannot be identified with simple, nontechnical observations (see board manual, section 23), then Type 4 Waters begin at a point along the channel where the contributing basin area is: (a) At least 13 acres in the Western Washington coastal zone (which corresponds to the Sitka spruce zone defined in Franklin and Dymess, 1973 ); (b) At least 52 acres in other locations in Western Washington; (c) At least 300 acres in Eastern Washington. (Emphasis added.) 19 7639.007.wpd [TRIJ] Clearing Regulations), tree cutting. land clearing or groundcover management is ordinarily not permitted in connection with a land development project " [ w ]ithin a minimum of twenty five feet (25') of the ordinary high water mark of creeks, streams, lakes and other shoreline areas or within fifteen feet(15')ofthe top of the bank of same .... " (Emphasis added.) RMC 4-4- 130D.4.b further provides that mechanical equipment should not "operate in such areas except for the development of public parks and trail systems and enhancement activities." However, because the subject Type 4 Water is not a "stream" under the Renton Municipal Code's defmition, RMC 4-4-130D.4.b does not apply to the subject Type 4 Water. Further, because (I) no waters in which fish spawn, reside, or through which they may pass flow across the Sunset Bluff site or the western road route and (2) no waters with defined beds or bank flow across the Sunset Bluff site or the western road route (aside from the subject Type 4 Water, a water that does not influence the quality of fish habitat downstream), RMC 4-4-l 30D.4. b has no application to the Sunset Bluff project's circumstances. Nevertheless, to the south of the proposed public street crossing of the Type 4 Water, the Sunset Bluff project proposal contemplates imposition of a Native Growth Protection Easement extending perpendicular to theType4 Water's ordinary high watermark(a) 25 feet to the west side and (b) 400 to 900 feet to the east side. 4. IMPACTS 4.1 Project Proposal • • • The 26.26-acre site is proposed to be developed into 65 single family residential lots ( each one planned for a single-family detached residence), an associated open pond-type storm drainage facility to be located within a drainage facilities and open space tract, a public street to access the proposed lots, and two other open space tracts. In addition, both (a) a cul-de-sac terminus of the proposed public street and (b) an emergency vehicle access road are proposed across property to the west of the southerly part of the site's west boundary. Grading of the site would comply with City ofRenton requirements and best management practices. Specifically, the site is proposed to be subdivided into the following components: Tract A (3 .81 acres) is plarmed as a designated open space. This tract is to be cleared and graded in order to achieve the grades necessary for the lots proposed along the north side of the proposed public street. Tract A is to be hydroseeded after grading and allowed to return to a vegetated state. Tract B (7.32 acres) is plarmed to contain (a) the proposed stormwater detention pond facility for development of the site and (b) areas of graded slopes necessary in order to achieve the design grades for both that facility and the lots proposed along the south side of the proposed public street. The stormwater detention pond has been designed to provide discharge flow control and water quality treatment in accordance with the King County Surface Water Design Manual (I 998). The design contemplates discharge from the facility at or below the site's pre- development runoff rate into the BNSF railroad ditch located south of the site, which is the historic downstream drainage course for runoff from the Sunset Bluff site. That ditch drains into two existing 12-inch diameter culverts lying beneath and across the BNSF railroad tracks. Tract B's graded slopes are to be hydroseeded after grading. Tract C (5.20 acres) is plarmed as designated open space. Approximately 4.70 acres of this tract are to be designated as a Native Growth Protection Easement to protect (a) the Category I wetland and its buffer, (b) the portion of the on-site intermittent stream lying outside of the 20 7639.007.wpd [TRI)] area involved with the public street and utility crossing of the stream, (c) an area classified under the City's Critical Areas Regulations as a "very steep landslide hazard area" (and its associated buffer) and (d) areas classified under the City's Critical Areas Regulations as "protected slopes". • The remainder of the Sunset Bluff site ( approximately 1 0.03 acres) is planned to be developed into 65 single family residential lots and a public street. 4.2 Potential Impacts 4.2.1 Plant Community Impacts The proposed development would involve land clearing of approximately 21.56 acres of the 26.26-acre site (82.1 percent of the site}, nearly all of which (except for the existing dirt road across the site, the two shacks and the homeless camp areas) is currently forested. Approximately 4.70 acres of the site (the portion of Tract C planned as a Native Growth Protection Easement) is not to be cleared or graded. Except for the area involved with the proposed construction of a public street and utility crossing of the on-site stream, all of the portion of the site lying within 25 feet of the Type 4 Water and within JOO feet of the Category I wetland would lie within the Native Growth Protection Easement and would not be cleared or graded. No endangered, threatened, candidate, sensitive, monitored, or priority plant species would be impacted by the proposed project. 4.2.2 Wetland Impacts No clearing, grading or other site development work is planned within either of the two wetlands on the site or within the I 00-foot wide buffer associated with the City of Renton Category I wetland. 4.2.3 Stream Impacts The Type 4 Water (intermittent stream) located on the site will generally have a 25- foot wide minimum buffer; however, in order to achieve public street and utility access to the Sunset Bluff project's proposed lots, a street and utility crossing of that stream is unavoidable. The stream crossing by the public street and utilities is proposed at generally the same location as the existing dirt road's crossing of the stream. The old, existing culvert at that existing crossing will be replaced by a new storm drain that will extend beneath the public street (and the proposed utilities) and connect a short distance upstream to the existing 18-inch diameter concrete culvert that discharges into the site from SW Sunset Boulevard. The new storm drain and the street filling and grading will displace approximately 80 lineal feet of the existing stream (approximately 200 square feet (0.005 acres) of stream channel area). That displacement is necessary in order to (a) enable the public street to be constructed at a reasonable street grade for access (including emergency vehicle access) to the area of the proposed lots, (b) provide space for needed utilities, ( c) provide space for grade transition devices (such as rockeries) along the south side of the public street and (d) provide for safe and readily maintainable conveyance of the existing 18-inch diameter culvert's discharge waters beneath the proposed street and utilities. The impacts of the 21 7639.007.wpd [[RD) crossing of this non-fish bearing stream are minimal and, in view of the extensive Native Growth Protection Easement proposed within Tract C abutting the remaining length of the stream, the impacts will be substantially more than mitigated for.' 4.2.4 Wildlife Impacts In general, grading, construction, creation of impervious surfaces, and increased human activity may result in short-term and long-term disturbance to wildlife on virtually any developed sites. Short-term impacts are generally related to construction activities and can include, but are not limited to, construction noise, erosion of exposed soils and discharge of sediment-laden waters. Such impacts are relatively short-lived. Especially in view of construction period erosion-sedimentation control measures and best management practices that will be applicable to the construction of the proposed Sunset Bluff project, such short-term impacts are expected to be of minimal consequence here. In general, long-term impacts of development can include but are not limited to (a) direct elimination of habitat areas by areas of new development, (b) fragmentation of wildlife habitat, (c) decreases in species diversity or quantity, (d) changes in water quality (such as from the use oflandscaping fertilizers and pesticides), (e) increases in intrusions by humans and household pets, and (f) impacts to wetlands. Development on the Sunset Bluff site will result in a general reduction of overall wildlife habitat ( as would development of any undeveloped site) but no reduction of any critical habitat. Further, the proposed Sunset Bluff development will occur on the more disturbed portions of the site, where existing shacks, homeless camps and a dirt road are located and have caused some impacts to and fragmentation of on-site habitat. The site development would displace habitat for some wildlife species but would preserve from development: (a) A valuable Category I wetland and its required I 00-foot wide buffer; (b) The small Category 3 wetland at the site's south edge near the site's west end; (c) Most of the on-site Type 4 Water (intermittent stream); and ( d) An extended native growth protection easement area ( approximately 1.40 acres more than code-required native growth protection areas) in the eastern portion of the site (the extended NGPE to be connected to both 'Note that the aggregate area encompassed by (a) the on-site portion of the Category I wetland and its 100-fuot wide City code-required buffer, (b) the Very High Landslide Hazard Area and its 50-foot wide code- required buffer and (c) the protected slopes is about 3.30 acres. (That is the total area of the site protected by the Renton Municipal Code's Critical Areas Regulations.) In contrast, about 4.70 acres ofTract C is proposed to be left WJdisturbed in a Native Growth Protection Easement. Thus, that NGPE area will be approximately 1.40 acres (42 percent) greater in size than the 3.30-acre aggregate area that the Renton Critical Areas Regulations would require to be left undisturbed. Note also that the proposed Native Growth Protection Easement will extend east-southeast perpendicular to the intermittent stream from 400 to 900 feet depending upon the location along the stream. 22 7639.007.wpd [TRI)] the Category I wetland's buffer and the stream) for the use of native species. In view of the site being sandwiched between a State highway (SR 900) and the active BNSF railroad right-of-way and tracks, the proposed Sunset Bluff development will not fragment wildlife habitat in the context of the broader area around the site. Because the site is not a wildlife conidor, the proposed development will not impact any wildlife conidors. No significant reduction in species diversity or quantity is anticipated in the study area. No significant impact to downstream water quality is anticipated from the proposed Sunset Bluff development. The average lot size planned for the entire development is only about 5,000 square feet, which (after construction of the homes, driveways, patios, and walkways) will mean that only very small yard areas will be available for lawns or gardens that would utilize fertilizers or pesticides. In addition, the open pond storm drainage facility proposed within the southerly portion of the site will be constructed in accordance with the King County Surface Water Design Manual (1998). In regard to the potential for intrusion by humans and household pets into the Renton Open Space area that has the heron rookery within it, the following things are anticipated to minimize opportunities for such intrusion: (a) The BNSF railroad grade along the south side of the Sunset Bluff site; (b) The recently-installed fence along the south edge of the BNSF railroad right-of-way; ( c) The steep slopes to be graded and the rockeries to be installed within proposed Tract B in conjunction with the construction of (a) the open pond storm drainage facilities and (b) the southerly row of lots (Lots 39 through 65); ( d) Construction of the minimum 6-foot high fence required by the December I 0, 2003 Development Agreement between the City of Renton and the project applicant, a fence that is to be "constructed along the south side of the development for the entire length of the development (i.e., from the west edge of the southerly projection of the westerly-most residential lot to the east edge of the southerly projection of the easterly-most residential lot)"; and (e) In regard to potential intrusions by dogs, the fact that the City of Renton has a leash law. It should be kept in mind that general public access to the Renton Open Space area (in which the heron rookery is located) is provided by two trail systems, (a) one system that connects to Monster Road SW (to the southwest) and (b) one that connects to Powell Avenue (to the south). 23 7639.007.wpd ffRDI 4.2.5 Threatened, Endangered and Priority Spe1:ies Impacts According to the DNR Natural Heritage Infonnation System, no rare plants or high quality ecosystems are located on the Sunset Bluff site or on the property to the west or east and none were identified during the site review; therefore, none will be impacted. No endangered, threatened, candidate, sensitive, monitored, or priority wildlife species will be impacted by the proposed Sunset Bluff project. No Federally- listed or State-listed threatened, endangered, or priority species were identified on or within J ,JOO feet of the site. WDFW's Priority Habitats and Species map and database did not record the presence of any priority species on the Sunset Bluff site or on the property to the west that is the route of the cul-de-sac and emergency vehicle access road that are planned to be built in conjunction with the Sunset Bluff project. However, a great blue heron rookery is located J, I 00 feet south of the Sunset Bluff site. Development projects to the southwest, south and east of that rookery that have been constructed within the last decade have not significantly disturbed the heron colony associated with that rookery (nor have the trains plying the BNSF railroad tracks lying between the Sunset Bluff site and the rookery, nor did the periodic rock blasting to the northwest of the rookery that occurred at the Black River Quarry for more than 50 years before quarrying ceased a couple years ago). Some of the developments that have occurred near the rookery include the following: (I) The Renton Sewage Treatment Plant Wetland Enhancement Project (circa J 9%), which is located 1,000 feet southwest of the heron rookery. This project included heavy outdoor construction within 1,000 feet of the rookery during the summer months. (2) The last phase of the Black River Corporate Park (circa 1999), which is located less than 500 feet south of the heron rookery. This project limited construction of buildings to within about 500 feet of the nearest nest in the rookery. Construction of a stonn water facility for the project was allowed within 400 feet of the nearest nest. Use of heavy outdoor construction equipment was not allowed within J ,000 feet of the rookery between January 15 and June 15 (the heron nesting season). With the great distance between the site and the heron rookery, the Sunset Bluff project is likewise anticipated to have no impact upon the Renton heron rookery. Federally-listed anadromous and fluvial fish species inhabit the P-1 Channel (Springbrook Creek). Although these species of concern inhabit the P-1 Channel, they utilize the section of the P-1 Channel nearest to the Sunset Bluff site (I ,I 00 feet south of the site) primarily for a migration corridor and rearing purposes. The Sunset Bluff project would not alter the shoreline of the P-1 Channel, would not change the capacity of the P-1 Channel's active floodway, and would not alter the storage capacity within the associated I 00-year flood plain. In addition, discharge flow control and water quality treatment in accordance with the King County Surface Water Design Manual (1998) are proposed for the project's storm drainage facility to avoid significant drainage impacts. 24 7639.007.wpd [TRD] 5. CONCLUSIONS Only one critical habitat as defined in Renton Municipal Code Section 4-3-050B.5 is located on or abutting (a) the Sunset Bluff site or (b) the route of the cul-de-sac and emergency vehicle access road that are planned to be built in conjunction with the Sunset Bluff project: namely, the Category I wetland that straddles a part of the eastern portion of the site's south boundary. That wetland, its 100- foot buffer and an additional, extensive portion of the site to the north and east of the wetland within proposed Tract C are proposed to be set aside in a Native Growth Protection Easement and will not be impacted by the Sunset Bluff project. The Type 4 Water located on the site is neither a critical habitat area nor a "stream" under the Renton Municipal Code and is not fish-bearing. While a public street crossing of the Type 4 Water is necessary in order to provide access and utilities to the proposed lots, impacts to it are to be minimized by locating the proposed public street so as to overlap the existing dirt road's crossing of the Type 4 Water. Impacts to the Type 4 Water (displacement of approximately 80 lineal feet of stream flow line and approximately 200 square feet (0.005 acres) of stream channel) will be more than off-set by the 4.70- acre Native Growth Protection Easement proposed to the east-southeast of the stream, a NGPE that (a) will extend east-southeast perpendicular to the stream from 400 to 900 feet ( depending upon the location along the stream) and (b) will be approximately 1.40 acres (42 percent) greater in size than the 3 .30-acre area that the Renton Municipal Code requires to be left undisturbed. Given the history of other development projects and BNSF railroad operations that have occurred within 1,000 feet of the Renton great blue heron rookery without impacting the growth or health of the rookery, it is anticipated that development of the Sunset Bluff project site (a site located 1,100 feet north of the rookery's nearest nest) will not adversely impact the rookery. Theresa R. Dusek Natural Resource Ecologist 25 7639.007 .wpd [TRD) REFERENCES City of Renton, 1999, Aerial Photograph and Property Lines, April 9. City of Renton, Renton Municipal Code. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe, 1979, Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Publication FSW/OSB-79/31. Environmental Laboratory, 1987, Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, Technical Report Y- 87-1, U.S. Anny Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. Fisher, Larry, 2003, Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife local habitat biologist, Personal Communication. Hitchcock, C. Leo and Arthur Cronquist, 1973, Flora of the Pacific Northwest, University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington. Johnsgard, P.A., 1990, Hawks, Eagles, and Falcons of North America, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Johnson, D.H., and T.A. O'Neil, 2001, Wildlife-Habitat Relationships in Oregon and Washington, Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, Oregon. King County, King County Surface Water Design Manual (1998). Kozloff, E., 1995, Plants and Animals of the Pacific Northwest: an Illustrated Guide to the National History of Western Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia, University of Washington and Oregon, Seattle Audubon Society, Seattle, Washington. Leonard, W.P., H.A. Brown, L. L. Jones, K.R. McAllister, R. M. Storm, 1993, Amphibians of Washington and Oregon, Seattle Audubon Society, Seattle, Washington. Lyons, C.P., 1999, Trees and Shrubs of Washington, Lone Pine Field Guilds, Lone Pine Publishing, Renton, Washington. Munsell Color, 1988, Munsell Soil Color Charis, Kollmorgen Instruments Corp., Baltimore, Maryland. Murie, OJ., 1974, A Field Guide to Animal Tracks, second edition, The Peterson Field Guide Series, National Audubon Society, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), 1996, Making Endangered Species Act Determinations of Effect for Individuals or Grouped Actions at the Watershed Scale, Environmental and Technical Services Division of the Habitat Conservation Branch, August. Nussbaum, R.A., E.D. Brodie, R.M. Storm, 1983,Amphibians and Reptiles of the Pacific Northwest, University ofldaho Press, Moscow, Idaho. Olson, D., W. Leonard, and R. Bury, 1997, Sampling Amphibians in Lentic Habitats: Methods and Approaches for the Pacific Northwest, Northwest Fauna Number 4, Society for Northwest 26 7639.007.wpd [TRD] Vertebrate Biology, Olympia, Washington. Pojar, J ., and A. MacKinnon, 1994, Plants of the Pacific Northwest Coast, Washington, Oregon, British Columbia, and Alaska, B.C. Ministry of Forests; B.C. Forests; B.C. Forest Service; Research Program. Reed, P.B. Jr., 1988, National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: Northwest (Region 9), USFWS Biol. Report 88. Reed, P.B. Jr., 1993, Supplement to: National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: Northwest (Region 9), USFWS Biol. Report 88. Reed, P.B. Jr., 1998, National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: Northwest (Region 9), USFWS Update. Theresa R. Henson Consulting, 2000, Wetland Delineation SR-900 L.L.C. Property, Renton, Washington, August 29. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), 2002, Special Public Notice. Final Regional Conditions, 401 Water Quality Certification Conditions, Coastal Zone Management Consistency Responses, for National Permits for the Seattle District Corps of Engineers for the State of Washington, July 23. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Services, 1973, King County Area Soil Survey. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, 1991, Hydric Soils of the United States. U.S. Department of Commerce, 2000, Federal Register 50 CFR Part 223. Endangered and Threatened Species; Proposed Rule Government Take of Seven Threatened Evolutionary Significant Units (ESUs); Proposed Rule, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, January 3, vol. 65, No. I. U.S. Department of the Interior, 1999, Federal Register 50 CFR Part 17, Determination of Threatened Status for Bull Trout in the Contiguous United States, U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife, November l, Volume 64, No. 210. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services (USFWS), 1985, Users Guide: National Wetlands Inventory Information and Legend for Map Products. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services (USFWS), 2003, National Wetlands Inventory Map, Renton Quadrangle, GEOTracker Interactive Mapping. Whitaker, J.O., 1989, The Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Mammals, Alfred A. Knopf, New York. Washington State Department of Ecology, 1997, Washington State Wetland Identification and Delineation Manual, March. Washington State Department of Ecology, 1998, Final 1998 Section 303(d) List. Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, 1995, Management Recommendations for 27 7639.007.wpd (TRDJ Washington's Priority Species, Olympia, Washington. Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, 1996, Priority Habitats and Species List, Habitat Program, Olympia, Washington. Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, 1998, Salmon Stock Inventory: Bull Trout and Dolly Varden, Fish Program, July. Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, 1999, Species of Concern: State Candidate Species, Olympia, Washington. Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2003, Priority Habitats and Species/or the Area Included Within Section 13, Township 23 North, and Range 4 East, November 25. Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2000a, Salmon Stock Inventory: Coastal Chinook, Fish Program, June. Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2000b, Salmon Stock Inventory: Coastal Cutthroat, Fish Program, June. Washington Department of Fisheries, Washington Department of Wildlife, and Western Washington Treaty Indian Tribes, 1992, Salmon and Steelhead Stock Inventory, Olympia, Washington. Washington State Department of Natural Resources, 1977, Forest Practices Illustrated. Washington State Department of Natural Resources, 1994, Endangered, Threatened and Sensitive Vascular Plants of Washington. Washington State Department of Natural Resources, 1999, Field Guide to Washington's Rare Plants. Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Washington Natural Heritage Program, 2003, Rare Plant Species, Rare Animal Species, High Quality Wetland Ecosystems, High Quality Terrestrial ecosystems for the Renton Quadrangle. Williams, R.W., R.M. Laramie, J.J. Aines, 1975,A Catalog of Washington Streams and Salmon Utilization, Volume 1, Puget Sound Region, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington, various pagination. Wydoski, R.S. and R.R. Whitney, 1979,lnland Fishes of Washington, University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington. 28 7639.007.wpd [!'RD] Table 1 Wildlife Habitat Associations WILDLIFE SPECIES ASSOCIATIONWJTHIIABITATTYPE ~ Upland Forest~ Common Name Shrub Wetland Environment Riparian ,'"' Tiger Salamander Ambystoma tigrinum CA/B GA/F Northwestern Salamander Ambystoma gracile GA/F CAIB P/F CAIB Long·toed Salamander Ambystoma macrodacty/um GA/B CA/B GA/B CA/B Cope's Giant Salamander Dicamptodon copei GA/F CA/B Pacific Giant Salamander Dicamptodon tenebrosus GA/F P/F CA/B Olympic Torrent Salamander Rhyacotriton o/ympicus GA/F CA/B Columbia Torrent Salamander Rhyacotriton kezeri GA/F CA/B Cascade Torrent Salamander Rlryacotrilon cascadae GA/F CA/B Rough-Skinned Newt Taricha granulosa GA/F CA/B P/F CA/B Dunn's Salamander P/ethodon durmi GA/B P/B GA/B Larch Mowitain Salamander Plethodon larselU GNB Van Dyke's Salamander P/ethodon vandykei GA/B GAIB Western Red-Backed Salamander Plethodon vehiculum GA/B P/F GNB Ensatina Ensatina eschscholtzii GA/B P/B GA/B Tailed Frog Ascaphus truei GA/F CAIB Great Basin Spadefoot Scaphiopus intermontanus CA/B GA/B Western Toad Bufo boreas GA/F CA/B P/F CAIB Woodhouse's Toad Bufo woodhousii CA/B GA/F Pacific Chorus (Tree) Frog Pseudacris regilla GA/B CA/B GA/B CA/B Red-Legged Frog Rana aurora CAif CA/B PIF CA/B Cascades Frog Rana cascadae GA/F GNB GAIB Oregon Spotted Frog Rana pretiosa GA/F CA/B CAIB Columbia Spotted Frog Rana iuteivent,.is CA/B Bullfrog Rana catesheiana GA/F CA/B GA/F CAIB ·~i~i1~W?tit{Nt%f;{ti?-t0Atft:#il~; ·-~;;~::_:'.' R -~ Snapping Turtle Chelydra serpentina CAIF GA/B Painted Turtle Chrysemys picta CA/F GAIB Western Pond Turtle Clemmys marmorata cAIF CA/B Red-Earerl Slider Turtle Trachemys scripta CA/F GNR GA/B Northern Alligator Lizard Elgaria coerulea GA/B GA/B GA/B Southern Alligator Lizard E/garia multicarinata P/B P/B P/B Sagebrush Lizard Sce/oporus graciosus GA/B Western Fence Lizard Sceloporus occidentalis GA/B GA/B Western Skink Eumeces skiltanianus GA/B P/B Rubber Boa Charina hottae GA/B GA/B GA/B Racer Coluber constrictor GA/B Sbarptail Snake Contia ienuis GAIB GA/B GA/B Ringneck Snake Diadophis punctatus GA/B P/B P/B California Mountain Kingsnake Lamprope/tis zonata P/B P/B P/B Gopher Snake Pituophis catenifer GA/B Western Terrestrial Garter Snake Thamnophis e/egans GAIB GA/B Northwestern Garter Snake Thamnophis ordinoides GA/B GA/B GA/B Table 1 Wildlife Habitat Associations WILDLIFE SPECIES ASSOCIATION WITH HABITAT TYPE Upland Fonst, Urban Common Name Scientific Name Shrub Welland Environment Riparian Common Garter Snake Thamnophis sirtalis GA/B CA/B GA/B CA/B Western Rattlesnake CrotaJus viridis GA/B GA/B ~Mt),ij)t~'\f~~fi"f.%1/r,WHt\~\-L -~r,?:};c~ftli~1tirN'.,;: ·-+(::~·-_i.':0:./ ,_.. ___ .,.. .-.,}~~fi Virginia Opossum Didelphis virginiana GA/B CA/B GA/B Masked Shrew Sorex cinereus GA/B P/B Preble's Shrew Sorex preblei P/B Vagrant Shrew Sorex vagrans GA/B GA/B P/B P/B Montane Shrew Sorex montico/us GA/B P/B Water Shrew Sorex palustris GA/B CA/B Paeific Water Shrew Sorex bendirii GA/B GA/B CA/B Trowbridge's Shrew Sore:x trowbridgii CA/B GA/B GA/B Meniam's Shrew Sorex merriami Pygmy Shrew Sorex hoyi Shrew-Mole Neurotrichus £ibbsii CA/B GA/B GA/B GA/B Townsend's Mole ScaJXmus townsendii GA/B GA/B GA/B GA/B Coast Mole Scopa.nus orarius CA/B GA/B GA/B California Myotis Myotis ca/ifornicus CA/B GA/B P/B GA/B Western Small-Footed Myotis Myotis ciliolabrum GA/F P/B YumaMyotis Myotis yumanensis CA/F GA/B CA/B Little Brown Myotis Myotis lucifugus GA/F GA/B GA/B Long-ugged Myotis Myolis vo/ans GA/F P/B GA/B Fringed Myotis Myolis thysanodes GA/B GA/F P/B GA/B Keen's Myotis Myotis keenii CA/B GA/F GA/B Long-Eared Mvotis Myotis evotis GA/B GA/F GA/B GA/B Silver-Haired Bat Lwionycteris noclivagans CA/B GA/F P/F GA/F Western Pipistrelle Pipistrellus hesperus P/F Big Brown Bat Eptesicus fuscus CA/B GA/F CA/B GA/B Hoary Bat lasiurus cinereus GA/F GA/F GA/F GA/B Spotted Bat Euderma maculatum GA/F Townsend's Big-Eared Bat Corynorhinus townsendii GA/B GA/F P/B GA/F Pallid Bat Antrozous pallidus CA/F P/B GA/F Eastern Cottontail Sy/vilagus j/oridanu., GA/B Nuttall's (Mountain) Cottontail Sylvilagus nut/a/Iii P/B European Rabbit Oryctolagus cuniculus P/B GA/B Snowshoe Hare Lepus americanus GA/B GA/B Mountain Beaver Aplodontia rufa CA/B uast Chipmunk Tamias minimus P/B GA/B Yellow-Pine Chipmunk Tamias amoenus GA/B ·-Townsend's Chipmunk Tamias tcwnsendii CA/B GA/B GA/B Red-Tailed Chipmunk Tamias ruficaudus GA/B Yellow-Bellied Mannot Marmola flaviventris GA/B Columbiao Ground Squirrel Spermophi/us columbianus P/B California Ground Squirrel Spermophilus beecheyi GA/B P/B Golden-mantled Ground Squirrel Spermophilus laterali.s GA/B Cascade Golden-Mantled Ground Squirrel Spermophilus saturotus GA/B Table I Wildlife Habitat Associations WILDL1Ff: SPECIES ASSOCIATION WITIJ HABITAT TYPE Upland Forest, Urban Common Name Scientific Name Shrub Wetland Environment Riparian Eastern Gray Squirrel Sciurus carolinensis CAIB Eastern Fox Squirrel Sciurus niger CAIB Western Gray Squirrel Sciurus griseus P/B GAIB Red Squirrel Tamiasciurus hudsonicus P/B Douglas' Squirrel Tamiasciurus douglasii CAIB GAIB Northern Flying Squirrel G/aucomys sabrinus CAIB P/B Northern Pocket Gopher Thomomys talpoides GAIB GAIB Western Pocket Gopher Thomomys mazama CAIB GAIB American Beaver Castor canadensis GAIF CAIB P/F CAIB Western Harvest Mouse Reithrodontomys megalotis CAIB Deer Mouse Peromyscus maniculatus CAIB CAIB CAIB CA/B Columbian Mouse Peromyscus keeni CA/B Bushy-Tailed Woodrat Neotoma cinerea CA/B GA/B Southern Red-Backed Vole Clethrionomys gapperi GA/B Heather Vole Phenacomys intermedius P/B Meadow Vole Micro/Us pennsylvanicus CAIB Montane Vole Micro/us montanus CAIB P/B Gray-tailed Vole Micro/us canicaudus Townsend's Vole Microtus townsendii GAIB CA/B GAIB Long-Tailed Vole Microtus longicaudus GAIB CA/B CA/B Creeping Vole Microtus oregoni GA/B GA/B Water Vole Microtus richardsoni P/B CA/B Sagebrush Vole Lemmiscus curtatus Muskrat Ondotra zibethicus P/B CA/B Black Rat Rauus rattus CA/B Norway Rat Rattus norvegicus CAIB House Mouse Mus musculus CAIB Western Jumping Mouse Zapus princeps GA/B Pacific Jumping Mouse Zapus trinolatus GAIB GAIB CA/B Common Porcupine Erethizon dorsatum CA/B P/F P/B GA/B Nutria Myocastor coypus CAIB P/F CA/B Coyote Canis latrans GA/B GAIF GA/B GA/B Gray Wolf Canis lupus GAIB Red Fox Vulpe, vu/pes P/B GA/B GA/B Black Bear Ursus americanus GA/B GAIF GAIF GA/B Grizzly Bear Ursus arctos P/F Raccoon Procyon lotor GA/B CAIF CA/B CA/B American Marten Martes americana GAIB P/B - Fisher Martes pennanti CA/B CA/B Ermine Muste/a erminea GA/B GA/B Long-Tailed Weasel Mustela frenata GA/B GAIF GAIB GA/B Mink Mustela vison GAIF CAIF P/F CA/B Wolverine Gu/ogu/o GAIF American Badger Taxidea taxus Western Spotted Skunk Spilogale graci/is GAIB P/B GA/B Table 1 Wildlife Habitat Associations WILDLIFE SPECIES ASSOCIATION WITH IIABITAT TYPE Upland Forest, Urban Common Name Scientific Name Shrub Wetland Environment Riparian Striped Skunk Mephitis mephitis GAIB P/B GAIB Northern River Otter Lutra canadensis CAIB CAIB Mountain Lion Puma conco/or GAIB GA/F PIF Bobcat Lynxrufas GAIB GA/F GA/B GA/B Feral Horse Equus caba/lus PIF Feral Pig Susscrofa GA/B Roosevelt Elk Cervus e/aphus rooseve/Ji GAIB GA/F P/B GAIB Rocky Mountain Elk Cervus e/aphus nelsoni GAIB GA/F P/B GAIB Odocoileus hemionus Black-Tailed Deer columbianus GAIB GA/F GA/B GAIB Mule Deer Odocoileus hemionus hemionus GA/F GA/B Columbian White-Tailed Deer OdocoiJeus virginianus leucurus GAIB GA/F GA/B GAIB Moose AJcesa/ces GA/F PIF Mountain Caribou Rangifer tarandus GA/F ~~~~'iiww»~,;'>!,,'J:i.\~~a~~~' . ' .. , "#t'.~''·:·,: ·-· ... '• ·' , . . .,_ .·{'.:.,,'-~ ,i.Y .. ~'Jl,·.,l,a,-."·''-·--'. *· . ., ·"-'· ,;z.f.~. ,_. · '·" Common Loon Gavia immer CA/B Pied-Billed Grebe Podilymbus podiceps GAIB Homed Grebe Podiceps auritus CAIB Red-Necked Grebe Podiceps grisegena CA/B Eared Grebe Pcdiceps nigricollis CAIB Western Grebe Aechmophorus occidentolis CAIB Clarie's Grebe Aechmophorus clorkii CA/B American White Pelican Pelecanus erythrorhynchos GA/F Double-Crested Cormorant Pha/acrocorox auritus GAIR P/B American Bittern Botaurus lenliginosus CAIB Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias GAIR CA/F GA/B CA/B Great Egret Ardeaa/ba P/R CAif P/F GAIB Snowy Egret Egretla !hula CA/F GAIB Cattle Egret Bubulcus ibis CA/F Green Heron Butorides virescens CAIF CA/B Black-crowned Night-Heron Nyclicorax nycliccrcu CA/F GA/F White-faced Ibis Plegadis chihi CA/B Twi<ey Vulture Calhartes aura GAIB GA/F P/B GA/B Greater White-Fronted Goose Anser albifrons CAif Snow Goose Chen Ccaerulescens CA/F Ross's Goose Chen rossii CAif Canada Goose Branta canadensis CAIB P/B Mute Swan Cygnusolor CAIB GA/B Tnnnpeter Swan Cygnus buccinator CA/B Tundra Swan Cygnus columbicmus CAif Wood Duck Aixsponsa PIF CAIB Gadwall Anos strepera CAIB American Wigeon Anos americana CAIB GAIB American Black Duck Anos rubripes CAIB Mallard Anas p/atyr/rynchos CAIB GA/B CAIB Blue-Winged Teal Anos discors CAIB Table 1 Wildlife Habitat Associations WILDLIFE SPECIES ASSOCIATION WITH HABITAT TYPE Upland Forest, Urban Common Name Scientific Name Shrub Wetland Environment Riparian Cinnamon Teal Anas cyanoptera CA/B CA/B Northern Shoveler Anas clypeata CA/B Northern Pintail Anas acuta CA/B Green# Winged Teat Anas crecca CA/B Canvasback Aythya valisineria CA/B Redhead Aythya americana CA/B Ring-Necked Duck AyJhya co/loris GNB CA/B Harlequin Duck Hislrionicus histrionicus CA/B Bufflehead Bucephala albeola GA/B Hooded Merganser Lophodytes cucullatus GA/B Ruddy Duck Oxyurajamaicensis CA/B Osprey Pandion haliaetus GAIR GA/F White-Tailed Kite Elanus /eucurus P/R Bald Eagle Haliaeetus /eucocephalus GAIR GA!F GA/B GA/B Northern Harrier Circus cyaneus GA/B P/B Sharp-Shinned Hawk Accipiter sll"iatus GA/B GA/F P/B Cooper's Hawk Accipiter cooperii GA/B GA/F GA/B GA/B Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentilis GA/B GA/F Red-Shouldered Hawk Buteo lineatus GA/B Red-Tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis GA/B GA/F GA/B GA/F Rough-Legged Hawk Buteo lagopus P/F GA/F P/F P/F Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos P/B PIF American Kestrel Falco SJ)(U1Jerius GA/B GA!F Merlin Falco columbarius GA/B PIF GA/F PIF Gyrfalcon Falco ruslicolus GA/F Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus GA/F GA/B PIF Ring-Necked Pheasant Phasianus colchicus GA/F GAIB Ruffed Grouse Bonasa umbellus CA/B Blue Grouse Dendragapus obscurus CA/B Wild Turkey Meleagris gallop:rvo GA/B GAIB Mountain Quail Oreortyx pictus GA/B P/B California Quail Callipepla californica GA/B GA/B American Coot Fulica americana CA/B GA/B Sandhill Crane Grus canadensis CA/B Killdeer Charadrius vociferus GA/B GA/B GA/F Willet Catoptrophorus semipalmatus CNB Spotted Sandpiper Aclitis macularia GA/B Uoland Sandpiper Bartramia longicauda GA/B Western Sandpiper Calidris mauri CA/F Least Sandpiper Calidris minutilla CA/F Baird's Sandpiper Calidris bairdii CAIF Pectoral Sandpiper Calidris melanotos CA/F Donlin Calidris alpina CAfF Ruff Phi/omachus pugnax GA/F Heennann's Gull Larus heermanni GA/F GA!F Table 1 Wildlife Habitat Associations WILDLIFE SPECIES ASSOCIATION WlTII HABITAT TYPE Upland Forest, Urban Common Name Scientific Name Sbrnb Wetland Environment Riparian Mew Gull Larus canus GNF Ring-Billed Gull Larus delawarensis GAJF California Gull Larus californicus GNF GNF Herring Gull Larus argentatus GNF GNF Western Gull Larus occidentalis GNB GNF Glaucous-Winged Gull Larus glaucescens GNB GNF Glaucous Gull Larus hyperboreus GNB GNF Common Tern Sterno hirundo CNF Forster's Tern Sterno forsteri CNF Black Tern Chlidonias niger CNB Marbled Murrelet Brachyramphus marmoratus CA/R P/F Rocle Dove Columbo livia CNB P/F Band-Tailed Pigeon Co/umba fascia ta CAIB GNB Mourning Dove Zenaida macroura GA/B GNB GNB Barn Owl Tytoolbo GNF GNB P/F Western Scruch-Owl Otus kennicottii GNB Great Homed Owl Bubo virginianus GNB Snowy Owl Nye/ea scandiaca P/F Northern Pygmy-owl Glauddium gnoma CNB P/F Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis CNB Barred Owl Strix varia CNB P/B Great Gray Owl Strix nebu/osa P/B Long-Eared Owl Asio otus P/B GNF Short-Eared Owl Asia jlammeus GNF Common Ni•hthawk Chordeiles minor GAIB GNF GNB GNB Common Poorwill Phalaenoptilus mmallii P/F Black Swift Cypseloides niger GNF P/F GNB GNB Vaux's Swift Choetura vauxi GNB GNF GNB GNB White-Throated Swift Aeronautes saxata/is GNF Black-Chinned Hummingbird Archilochus a/exandri GNF Anna's Hummingbird Calypte anna CA/B GNB GNB Calliope Hummingbird Stellu/a calliope Rufous Hummingbird Se/asphorus rufas GNB P/F GNB GNB Allen's Hummingbird Se/asphorus sasin GNB GA/B GNB Belted Kingfisher Ceryle a/cyon GNF Lewis's Woodpecker Melanerpes lewis GA/B Acom Woodnecker Me/anerpes formicivorus GNB Williamson's Sansucker ""•yrapicus thyroid,w; GNB Red-breasted Sapsucker Sphyrapicus ruber GNB Downy Woodpecker Picoides puhescens GA/B CNF Hairy Woodpecker Picoides vi/Josus GA/B GA/B GNF White-Headed Woodpecker Picoides a/bo/arvatus P/B Northern Flicker Co/aptes auratus GNB GA/B GNF Pileated Woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus GNB GNF Olive-Sided Flycatcher Contopus cooperi CA/B GNB GNF ' ' Table 1 Wildlife Habitat Associations WILDLIFE SPECIES ASSOCIATION WITH HABITAT TYPE Upland Forest, Urban Comttlon Name Scientific Name Shrub Wetland Environment Riparian Western Wood~pewee Contopus sordidulus GAJB GAJB Willow Flycatcher Empidonax trail/ii GAJB GAJB Hammond's Flycatcher Empidonax hammondii GAJB Black Phoebe Sayornis nigricans P/F GA!B Say's Phoebe Sayornis saya GAJB Ash-Throated Flycatcher Myiarchus cinerascens GA/JI Western Kingbird Tyrannus verticalis GA!B Eastern Kingbird Tyrannus tyrannus GAIF GAJB Yellow-Throated Vireo Vireo jlavifrons GA/B GAIF Cassin's Vireo Vireo cassinii GA/B GA/B Hutton's Vireo Vireo huttoni GA/B P/B Warbling Vireo Vireo gilvus GA!B P/B Red-eyed Vireo Vireo o/ivaceus P/B Gray Jay Perisoreus canadensis GA/B Stellets lay Cyanocitta ste/leri GA/B GAJB GAIF Blue Jay Cyanocina cristata GA/JI Western Scrub-Jay Aphelocoma ca/ifomica P/B GA/B Pinyon Jay Gymnorhinus cyanocephalus GA/B Black-Billed Magpie Pica hudsonia GA/B American Crow Corvus brachyrhynchos GA!B P/F GA/B GAIF Northwestern Crow Corvus caurinus GA/B GA/B GA/F Common Raven Corvus corox GA/B P/F GAJB GAIF Sky Lork Alauda arvensis P/B HomedLork Eremophila alpestris GA/B Purple Martin Progne subis GA/JI GA/F GAIB GAIF Tree Swallow Tachycinera bicolor P/B CA/F GA/B Violet-Green Swallow Tachycineta thalassina GAJB GAIF GAJB Northern Rough-Winged Swallow Stelgidopteryx serripennis GA/F CAIF P/B Bank Swallow Riparia riparia GAIF P/B GA/F Cliff Swallow fetrochelidon pyrrhonota GAJB GAIF GAJB GA/F Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica GAJB CA/F GAJB GAIF Black-Capped Chickadee Poecile alricapilla GA!B P/F GA!B GAIF Chestnut-Backed Chickadee Poecile rufescens GA!B GAJB Busbtit PsaJtriparus minimus GAJB GA!B GA/F Red-Breasted Nuthatch Silta canadensis GAJB GAJB White-Breasted Nuthatch Silta carolinensis GAJB Pygmy Nuthatch Sitto pygmaea Brown Creeper Certhia americana GAIB Bewick's Wren Thryomanes bewickii GA/B P/F GA/B GA/F House Wren Troglodytes oedon GAJB GAJB Winter Wren Troglodytes troglodytes CA/B GA!B Marsh Wren Cistothorus palustris CA/B GAJB P/F Golden-Crowned Kinglet Regulus satrapa GAIB Ruby-Crowned Kinglet Regulus calendula GA/F Townsend's Solitaire Myodestes townsendi GA/B P/F Table 1 Wildlife Habitat Associations WILDLIFE SPECIES ASSOCIATION WITII IIABITAT TYPE Upland Forest, Urban Common Name Scientific Name Shrub Wetland Environment Riparian Swainson's Tirrush Catharus ustuJatus GAJB Hermit Thrush Catharos guttatus GAJB American Robin Turdus migratorius GAJB GA/F GA/I! P/F Gray Catbird Dumete/la caro/inensis P/B Northern Mockingbird Mimus polyglonos GA/F European Starling Sturnus vulgaris GAJB P/F Bohemian Waxwing Bombycilla garrulus GA/F Orange-Crowned Warbler Vermivora ce/ata GAJB Nashville Warbler Vermivora ruficapil/a GAJB Yellow Warbler Dendroica petechia P/B Black-Throated Blue Warbler Dendroica caerulescens P/B Yellow-Rumped Warbler Dendroica coronata GAJB Townsend's Warbler Dendroica townsendi GA/F Wilson's Warbler Wilsonia pusilla CAJB Western Tanager Piranga lud<Wiciana CAJB Spotted Towhee Pipi/o macu/atus GAJB GA/F GA/F American Tree Sparrow Spi2ella arborea GA/F Chipping Sparrow Spizel/a passerina P/B Clay-Colored Sparrow Spizella pa/Iida P/B Song Sparrow Melosviza melodia GAJB GAJB P/B Lincoln's Sparrow Melospiza lincolnU CAJB P/B Swamp Sparrow Melospiza georgiana CA/F White-'Jbroated Sparrow Zonotrichia albico/lis GA/B White-Crowned Span-ow Zonotrichia leucophrys GAJB Golden-Crowned Sparrow Zonotrichia atricapilla GAJB Dark-Eyed Junco Junco hyemalis GAJB Lazuli Bunting Passerino amoena GAJB Red-Winged Blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus CAJB CA/F Western Meadowlark Stume/la neglecta P/F Yellow-Headed Blackbird Xanthocepha/us xanthccephalus CAJB Great-Tailed Grackle Quiscalus mexicanus GA/F Brown-Headed Cowbird Molothrus ater CA/F Purple Finch Carpodacus purpureus GAJB GA/F Cassin 1s Finch Carmdncus cassinii House Finch Carpodacus mexicanus GAJB GA/F Red Crossbill Loxia curvirostra GAJB White-Winged Crossbill Loxia leucoptera P/F Pine Siskin Carduelis pinus GAJB GA/F Lesser Goldfinch Carduelis psaltria P/F American Goldfinch Cardue/is tristis GAJB GA/F Evening Grosbeak Coccothrausles vespertinus GAJB GA/F House Sparrow Passer domesticus GA/F GA/F Adapted from the CD Matrix provided in Jolmson, D.H. and T.A. O'Neil. 2001. Wildlife-Habitat Relationships in Oregon and Washington. Oregon State University Press. Corvallis. Definitions: Table 1 Wildlife Habitat Associations WILDLIFE SPECIES ASSOCIATION WITH HABITAT TYPE Common Name T Scientific Name Upland Forest, I Shrub Wetland I Urban I Environment Rioarian CA -Closely Associated -A species is widely known to depend on a habitat for part of or all its life history requirements. GA -Generally Associated -A species exhibits a high degree of adaptability aod may be supported by a number of habitats. p -Present -A species demonstrates occasional use of a habitat. B -Breeds and feeds. F -Feeds only. R -Reproduces only. 0 -Other, such as roosting, resting, hibernating, or cover. APPENDIXE Raedeke Associates, Inc. 02-04-2009 Wetland Reconnaissance for the QIP and Virtu Properties, Renton, Washington. WETLAND RECONNAISSANCE QIP and Virtu Properties Renton, Washington February 4, 2009 RAEDEKE ASSOCIATES, INC. Report To: Title: Project Number: Prepared by: Date: Merlino Land Development Co., Inc. and Quarry Industrial Park, LLC Attn: Mr. Don Merlino 9125 lO'h Avenue South Seattle, Washington 98108-4612 Wetland Reconnaissance for the QIP and Virtu Properties, Renton, Washington 2007-002-002 RAEDEKE AS SOCIA TES, INC. 5711 Northeast 63rd Street Seattle, Washington 98115 (206) 525-8122 February 4, 2009 Project Manager: Project Personnel: Kenneth J. Raedeke, Ph.D. President/ Certified Senior Ecologist, ESA G. Emmett Pritchard, B.S. Principal / Wetland Ecologist Beth Day, B.S. Wetland Biologist Emily Podolak, M.L.A. Landscape Designer Gail W. Livingstone, B.S.L.A. Natural Resource Planner & Editor 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 PURPOSE This report documents the results of our wetland reconnaissance of the QIP and Virtu properties (hereafter, collectively referred to as the "study area") in King County, Washington (Figures 1 and 2). This report documents the results of our investigation and meets all requirements for wetland reports as specified under Section 4.3.M of the City of Renton (2008) municipal code. This report is intended to provide technical baseline data for use in site planning. I .2 PROJECT STUDY AREA The 9.9-acre study area is roughly bounded by (a) the Sunset View Apartments along the south edge of SR 900 (SW Sunset Boulevard) to the north, (b) the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad to the south, (c) property to east owned by the Merlino Land Development Co., Inc. (the MLDC Property, which is the site of the previously planned and approved Sunset Bluff Residential Subdivision) and ( d) the westerly portion of the Black River Quarry site to the west (Figure 2). The study area is located in Section 13, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W.M. QJP and Virtu Properties Wet/and Reconnaissance Raedeke Associates. Inc. February 4. 2009 2 2.0 METHODS 2.1 DEFINITIONS AND METHODOLOGIES Wetlands and streams are protected by federal law, as well as by state and local regulations. Federal law (Section 404 of the Clean Water Act) prohibits the discharge of dredged or fill material into "waters of the United States," including certain wetlands, without a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE 2007). The COE has the authority to make a final determination as to whether an area meets the definition of a wetland and whether a wetland is under its jurisdiction. The COE wetland definition was used to determine if any portions of the study area could be classified as wetland. A wetland is defined as an area "inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances does support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions" (Federal Register 1986:41251). We based our investigation upon the guidelines of the COE Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987), as revised in the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual published by the Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE 1997). The WDOE wetlands manual (a) is required by state law for all local jurisdictions, including the City of Renton, (b) is consistent with the 1987 COE wetland delineation manual with respect to wetland identification and delineation, and (c) incorporates subsequent amendments and clarifications provided by the COE (1991 a, 1991 b, 1992, 1994 ). As outlined in the 1987 wetland delineation manual, wetlands are distinguished by three diagnostic characteristics: hydrophytic vegetation (wetland plants), hydric soil (wetland soil), and wetland hydrology. Definitions for these terms are provided below. Hydrophytic vegetation is defined as "macrophytic plant life growing in water, soil or substrate that is at least periodically deficient in oxygen as a result of excessive water content" (Environmental Laboratory 1987). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Wetland Indicator Status (WIS) ratings were used to make this determination (Reed 1988, 1993 ). The WIS ratings "reflect the range of estimated probabilities ( expressed as a frequency of occurrence) of a species occurring in wetland versus non- wetland across the entire distribution of the species" (Reed 1988:8). Plants are rated, from highest to lowest probability of occurrence in wetlands, as obligate (OBL), facultative wetland (F ACW), facultative (F AC), facultative upland (F ACU), and upland (UPL), respectively. In general, hydrophytic vegetation is present when the majority of the dominant species are rated OBL, FACW, and FAC. A hydric soil is defined as "a soil that is formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part" (Federal Register 1995: 35681). The morphological characteristics of the QIP and Virtu Properties Wetland Reconnaissance Raedeke Associates, Inc. February 4, 2009 soils in the study area were examined to determine whether any could be classified as hydric. 3 According to the 1987 methodology, wetland hydrology could be present if the soils were saturated (sufficient to produce anaerobic conditions) within the majority of the rooting zone (usually the upper 12 inches) for at least 5% of the growing season, which in this area is usually at least two weeks (COE 1991a). It should be noted, however, that areas having saturation to the surface between 5% and 12% of the growing season may or may not be wetland (COE 1991 b; see also Table A.4). Depending on soil type and drainage characteristics, saturation to the surface would occur if water tables were shallower than about 12 inches below the soil surface during this time period. Positive indicators of wetland hydrology include direct observation of inundation or soil saturation, as well as indirect evidence such as driftlines, watermarks, surface encrustations, and drainage patterns (Environmental Laboratory 1987). Hydrology was further investigated by noting drainage patterns and surface water connections between wetlands and streams within and adjacent to the study area. 2.2 BACKGROUND RESEARCH We collected and analyzed background information available for the study area prior to the on-site investigation. We reviewed maps and information from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetland Inventory (NW! 2008) Wetlands Online Mapper, the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS 2007a) Web Soil Survey, and the U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service (SCS) Soil Survey for King County (Snyder et al. 1973), as well as the Renton Wetland Maps Inventory (2008) and King County iMAP (2008). We also reviewed the wetland investigation report prepared by Theresa R. Henson Consulting (2000) for what is now referred to as the MLDC Property to the east of the QIP and Virtu properties, as well as the wetlands portion of the Habitat/Wildlife Assessment and Stream Study Report prepared by Barghausen Consulting Engineers (2004) for the Sunset Bluff Residential Subdivision on the MLDC Property. 2.3 FIELD SAMPLING PROCEDURES We conducted a field investigation of the study area and vicinity on March 12, 2008. During our field investigation of the study area, we inventoried, classified, and described representative areas of plant communities, soil profiles, and hydrologic conditions throughout the study area. We searched specifically for areas where positive indicators ofhydrophytic vegetation, hydric soil, and wetland hydrology might be present. Vegetation, soils, and hydrology were examined in representative portions of the study area. Plant communities were inventoried, classified, and described during our field investigation. We used the Braun-Blanquet cover-abundance scale and plotless sampling QIP and Virtu Properties Wetland Reconnaissance Raedeke Associates. Inc. February 4, 2009 methodology to describe homogenous plant "cover types" in both wetlands and uplands (Mueller-Dombois and Ellenburg 1974). Vegetation nomenclature follows standard taxonomic procedures described in Hitchcock and Cronquist ( 1976), with nomenclature as updated by USDA NRCS (2007b). Wetland classification follows the USFWS wetland classification system (Cowardin et al. 1992). Two quantitative indices were used to analyze vegetation data in order to determine if the plant community meets the definition of"hydrophytic vegetation." The first index represents the percentage of dominant species with a WIS rating of facultative or wetter. We used the Braun-Blanquet cover-abundance method (Mueller-Dombois and Ellenberg J 974) as a way to objectively describe homogenous vegetation "cover types." A species with a cover class value of2 (5% to 25% canopy cover) or greater on the Braun-Blanquet scale is considered a dominant. The second vegetation index used was a weighted mean of the WIS ratings, after Wentworth and Johnson (1986). This weighted mean index (WM!) calculates the average WIS rating of all species in the plot by weighting each species based upon its relative cover. The WM! is a measure of the plant community's adaptation to saturated soil conditions (Wentworth and Johnson 1986). The WM! provides an objective parameter for determining whether a plant community is indicative of wetland or upland conditions. Ideally, the "breakpoint" between wetland and upland vegetation is a weighted mean index of 3 .0, with wetland vegetation characteristics indicated by a WM! less than 3.0 and upland vegetation characteristics indicated by a WM! greater than 3.0. When the weighted mean index is near 3.0, however, vegetation may not clearly indicate whether an area is wetland or upland. In such cases, soil and hydrologic conditions must be carefully considered. As the weighted mean index of a plant community or plot approaches either extreme on the scale (i.e., 1.0 or 5.0), however, the probability of the vegetation indicating wetland or upland, respectively, increases. Wentworth and Johnson (1986) confirmed the effectiveness of this methodology for a wide variety of plant communities in different regions of the United States. We excavated pits to at least 18 inches below the soil surface, where possible, in order to describe the soil and hydrologic conditions throughout the study area. We sampled soil at locations that corresponded with vegetation sampling areas and potential wetland areas. Soil colors were determined using the Munsell Soil Color Chart (Munsell Color 2000). 4 QIP and Virtu Properties Wetland Reconnaissance Raedeke Associates, Inc. February 4, 2009 3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS 3.1 RESULTS OF BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION 3.1.1 National Wetland Inventory 5 The USFWS (2008) NWI Wetlands Online Mapper (Figure 3) does not depict wetlands within the study area or within 1,000 feet of the study area north of the BNSF railroad. Wetland classification follows the USFWS wetland classification system ( Coward in et al. 1992). The NWI depicts two palustrine, scrub-shrub, seasonally flooded (PSSC) wetlands approximately 600 and 1,000 feet southeast of the study area, respectively. The NWI also maps a riverine, lower perennial, unconsolidated bottom, permanent, excavated (R2UBHx) wetland approximately 1,000 feet southwest of the study area. The NWI does not depict any other wetlands or stream within 1,000 feet of the property. Wetlands shown on the NWI are general in terms of location and extent, as they are determined primarily from aerial photographs. Thus, the number and areal extent of existing wetlands located within the study area may differ from those marked on an NWI map. 3.1.2 Soil Conservation Service Maps According to the USDA NRCS (2007a) Web Soil Survey, a majority of the study area is mapped entirely as Beausite gravelly sandy loam, 15% to 30% slopes (map symbol BeD, Figure 4). Beausite gravelly sandy loam soils consist of well-drained soils formed in glacial deposits underlain by sandstone and are not listed as hydric (SCS 1991, Federal Register 1995). 3.1.3 Local Wetland and Stream Inventories Neither the City of Renton Wetland and Stream Overlays (2008) nor the King County (2008) Sensitive Areas iMAP shows any wetlands or streams within 1,000 feet of the study area north of the BNSF railroad. Both the City of Renton Wetland and Stream Overlays (2008) and the King County (2008) Sensitive Areas iMAP depict a large wetland system located approximately 750 feet south of the study area. The area identified by the City of Renton Wetland and Stream Overlays (2008) and the King County (2008) Sensitive Areas iMAP is located in the City ofRenton's Black River riparian forest. The location of this wetland system generally corresponds to location of the R2UBHx and PSSC wetlands identified on the NWI Online Map (Figure 3). 3.1.4 Theresa R. Henson Consulting's Wetland Investigation of Property to the East Theresa R. Henson Consulting investigated the MLDC Property east of the QIP and Virtu properties for wetlands during 2000. (Henson's wetlands delineation report was used as part of the SEPA documentation for the Sunset Bluff Residential Subdivision.) Henson (2000) identified as Wetland A a Category 3 wetland located approximately 120 feet east of the QIP Property's southeast corner. The wetland was 400 square feet in size (257 square feet of which were on the MLDC Property and the balance of which was within the abutting BNSF railroad right-of-way to the south) and dominated by red-osier QIP and Virtu Properties Wetland Reconnaissance Raedeke Associates. Inc. February 4, 2009 6 dogwood (Cornus sericea) and giant horsetail (Equisetum telmateia). Henson (2000) reported that that wetland had been severely disturbed due to maintenance of a ditch on the north side of the railroad tracks. Henson (2000) did not identify any other wetlands within 300 feet of the QIP or Virtu properties, but did identify and delineate on the MLDC Property as Wetland B a 6,058-square-foot northerly portion of a Category I wetland estimated to be three acres in size straddling the south boundary of the MLDC Property's east end. 3.2 ON-SITE INVESTIGATION We did not identify any wetlands within the study area. The QIP Property portion of the study area is the easterly part of the Black River Quarry property. Nearly the entire QIP Property is unvegetated and has been graded. This property is used for storage of construction materials and construction equipment, as well as for construction-materials recycling activities. The 0.9-acre Virtu Property portion of the study area is a currently forested, undeveloped corner portion of the existing Sunset View Apartments development. 3.3 OFF-SITE INVESTIGATION The MLDC Property to the east of the study area has been cleared and graded as part of the Sunset Bluff Residential Subdivision site development. The Sunset View Apartments complex is located to the north of and upslope from the study area. The Black River Riparian Forest lies south of the study area, and is separated from the study area by the BNSF railroad. Heavy industrial uses ( construction-materials operations that include concrete crushing and recycling, concrete batching and related outdoor use of heavy equipment) are conducted in the portion of the Black River Quarry to the west of the study area. During our March 12, 2008 investigation, we examined the Category 3 wetland area identified by Henson (2000) as Wetland A. We found Wetland A to be less than 500 square feet in size and dominated by red-osier dogwood. In addition, we found a BNSF drainage ditch within the north side of the BNSF right-of- way (ROW) extending along the right-of-way's entire QIP property frontage. The ditch drains to a 12-inch storm drain pipe located about 100 feet east of the QIP Property's southeast corner. That storm drain conveys water to the south side of the BNSF right-of- way. We did not observe any other wetlands or water features within 300 feet of the study area boundaries. QIP and Virru Properties Wetland Reconnaissance Raedeke Associates, inc. Fehruary 4. 2009 7 4.0 REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS Wetlands and streams are protected by Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act and other state and local policies and ordinances including City of Renton (2008) municipal code. Regulatory considerations pertinent to wetlands identified within the study area are discussed below; this discussion, however, should not be considered comprehensive. Additional information may be obtained from agencies with jurisdictional responsibility for, or interest in, the site. A brief review of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regulations and of the City of Renton municipal code, relative to wetlands and streams, is presented below. 4.1 FEDERAL CLEAN WATER ACT (U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS) Federal law (Section 404 of the Clean Water Act) discourages the discharge of dredged or fill material into the nation's waters, including most wetlands and streams, without a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). We note that certain wetlands, including many that are hydrologically isolated from "waters of the United States," may not be regulated by the COE. The COE makes the final determination as to whether an area meets the definition of"waters of the United States" as defined by the federal government (Federal Register 1986:41251) and whether it is under federal jurisdiction. 4.2 CITY OF RENTON The City of Renton municipal code currently regulates wetlands and streams under RMC Chapter 4-3 "Environmental Regulations and Overlay Districts". Alterations of wetlands or streams and their buffers are generally prohibited, except as allowed under certain conditions specified in Chapter 4-3. Chapter 4-3 specifies ratings, buffers, and allowed uses of wetlands and other sensitive areas that are under Renton's jurisdiction. Off-site Wetlands within 300 Feet of the Study Area Based on our March 12, 2008 site investigation, conditions within the off-site Wetland A as identified and described by Henson (2000) (see Section 3.1.4 above) do not appear to have changed. That wetland, which has been severely disturbed by BNSF right-of-way ditch maintenance activities, meets the City ofRenton's three criteria under RMC 4-3- 050M.l.a.iii(a) for classification as a Category 3 wetland by virtue of being severely disturbed. RMC 4-3-050M. l .a.iii states in relevant part: iii. Category 3: Category 3 wetlands are wetlands which meet one or more of the following criteria: (a) Wetlands that are severely disturbed. Severely disturbed wetlands are wetlands which meet the following criteria: QIP and Virtu Properties Wetland Reconnaissance Raedeke Associates, Inc. February 4, 2009 ( 1) Are characterized by hydro logic isolation, human-related hydrologic alterations such as diking, ditching, channelization and/or outlet modification; and (2) Have soils alterations such as the presence of fill, soil removal and/fil: compaction of soils; and (3) May have altered vegetation. * * * (Emphasis added.) The first of the three above-listed criteria for a Category 3 severely disturbed wetland is met because the BNSF right-of-way ditch maintenance activities have altered the wetland's hydrology by causing it to drain to the BNSF drainage ditch (i.e., a wetland outlet modification). The second of the three above-listed criteria is met because the BNSF right-of-way ditch maintenance activities have removed soils from a portion of the wetland while placing fill within other portions of the wetland. The final of the three above-listed criteria is met because the BNSF activities have altered the wetland vegetation community to include non-native, invasive species including reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea) and Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeiacus). Wetland Buffer Widths The City of Renton determines wetland buffer widths based on wetland category. RMC 4-3-0SOM.6 specifies a 25-foot-wide standard buffer for Category 3 wetlands. 8 QIP and Virtu Properties Wetland Reconnaissance Raedeke Associates, Inc. February 4, 2009 5.0 LIMITATIONS We have prepared this report for the exclusive use of Merlino Land Development Co., Inc., Quarry Industrial Park, LLC, and their consultants. No other person or agency may rely upon the information, analysis, or conclusions contained herein without permission from Merlino Land Development Co., Inc. and Quarry Industrial Park, LLC. 9 The determination of ecological system classifications, functions, values, and boundaries is an inexact science, and different individuals and agencies may reach different conclusions. With regard to wetlands, the final determination of their boundaries for regulatory purposes is the responsibility of the various agencies that regulate development activities in wetlands. We cannot guarantee the outcome of such determinations. Therefore, the conclusions of this report should be reviewed by the appropriate regulatory agencies. We warrant that the work performed conforms to standards generally accepted in our field and has been prepared substantially in accordance with then-current technical guidelines and criteria. The conclusions of this report represent the results of our analysis of the information provided by the project proponent and their consultants, together with information gathered in the course of the study. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. QIP and Virtu Properties Wetland Reconnaissance Raedeke Associates, Inc. February 4, 2009 10 6.0 LITERATURE CITED Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. 2004. Habitat/wildlife assessment and stream study report for the "Sunset Bluff' residential subdivision. January 9, 2004 report prepared for SR 900 L. L. C. Cowardin, L., F. Golet, V. Carter, and E. LaRoe. 1992. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. U.S.D.I. Fish and Wildlife Service Pub!. FWS/OBS-79/31. I 03 pp. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1, US Army Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. 100 pp. Federal Register. 1986. 40 CFR Parts 320 through 330: Regulatory programs of the Corps of Engineers; final rule. Vol. 51. No. 219. pp. 41206-41260, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Federal Register. 1995. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service: Changes in Hydric Soils of the United States. Volume 59, No 133, July 13, 1994. Revised September 15, 1995. Henson, Theresa R., Consulting. 2000. Wetland Delineation -SR 900 L.L.C. Property, Renton, Washington. August 29, 2000 report to SR 900 L.L.C. Hitchcock, C., and A. Cronquist. 1976. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. Univ. of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington. 730 pp. King County. 2008. iMAP -Sensitive Areas map. http://www.mctrokc.gov/gis/mapportal/imap main.him#. Accessed March 25, 2008. Mueller-Dombois, D. and H. Ellenberg. 1974. Aims and methods of vegetation ecology. John Wiley and Sons, New York. 54 7 pp. Munsell Color. 2000. Munsell soil color charts. GretagMacbeth, New Windsor, NY. Pojar, J., and A. MacKinnon. 1994. Plants of the Pacific Northwest Coast, Washington, Oregon, British Columbia, and Alaska. B.C. Ministry of Forests; B.C. Forest Service; Research Program. 527 pp. Reed, P.B., Jr. 1988. National list of plant species that occur in wetlands: Northwest (Region 9). U.S.D.I. Fish and Wildlife Service. Biological Report 88 (26.9). 89 pp. QIP and Virtu Properties Wetland Reconnaissance Raedeke Associates, Inc. February 4, 2009 Reed, P.B., Jr. 1993. 1993 Supplement to list of plant species that occur in wetlands: Northwest (Region 9). U.S.D.I. Fish and Wildlife Service. Supplement to Biological Report 88 (26.9) May 1988. 11 Renton, City of. 2008. Renton Municipal Code on-line, current through Ordinance 5351 passed February 11, 2008. Title IV, Chapter 3 -Environmental Regulations and Overlay Districts. Accessed March 24, 2008. ' Snyder, D.E., P.S. Gale, and R.F. Pringle. 1973. Soil Survey of King County area, Washington. U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service. 100 pp. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1991a. Special notice. Subject: Use of the 1987 wetland delineation manual. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District. August 30, 1991. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1991 b. Memorandum. Subject: Questions and answers on the 1987 manual. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington D.C. October 7, 1991. 7 pp. including cover letter by John P. Studt, Chief, Regulatory Branch. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1992. Memorandum. Subject: Clarification and interpretation of the 1987 methodology. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington D.C., March 26, 1992. 4 pp. Arthur E. Williams, Major General, U.S.A. Directorate of Civil Works. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1994. Public Notice. Subject: Washington regional guidance on the 1987 wetland delineation manual. May 23, 1994, Seattle District. 8 pp. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2007. Special Public Notice. Final Regional Conditions, 401 Water Quality Conditions, Coastal Zone Management Consistency Responses, for Nationwide Permits for the Seattle District Corps of Engineers for the State of Washington. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District. November 7, 2007. 94 pp. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Wetlands Online Mapper. http://wetlandsfws.er.usgs.gov/wtlnds/launch.html. Accessed March 25, 2008. U.S.D.A. NRCS. 2007a. Web soil survey for King County, Washington. http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Accessed March 25, 2008. U.S.D.A. NRCS. 2007b. Plants Database. http://plants.usda.gov/wetland.html. QIP and Virtu Properties Wetland Reconnaissance Raedeke Associates, Inc. February 4, 2009 U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service. 1991. Hydric soils of the United States: In cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils. U.S.D.A. Miscellaneous Publication Number 1491. 12 Washington Department of Ecology. 1997. Washington state wetlands identification and delineation manual. Publication No. 96-94. 88 pp. plus appendices. Wentworth, T. and G. Johnson. 1986. Use of vegetation in the designation of wetlands. Final report to USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. North Carolina Agricultural Service and N.C. State University, Raleigh. 107 pp. QJP and Virtu Properties Wetland Reconnaissance Raedeke Associates, Inc. February 4, 2009 FIGURES --~.:,c,,;:..· -~ _; C,,. CANADA UNITED STAT£S ------ Belringham ------!<'SI!! C.,. --~t Co. - ---~c.,Co.---- • NORTH Figure I. Regional map showing general location of the project. Gra phi cs\\2007\2007-002 Q uan-y Ind ustri a l Park \002\ Wetland Assessm ent\Fig 2 V ic inity Map.pdf RA I#2007-002 -002 Wetland Assessment 03 /08 F G H J A B C D E 5 5 BOA r l.AUNCH LAKE WASHINGTON 6 I I I 16 RENrON 7 ~,, '\ \ ,~ '-I I >I ··;:~ r, \ ~, 1 1 · •PMK 1~ \='I \\ Pl.Alff IT I I , \' ~...., µ__ 117 CEOAR /UVER rRA!l 1 /~1 2 2 3 3 4 4 [ ©2005 Thomas Bros. Maos H J A B C D E F igure 2. Vicinity m ap for the project area. Graphics\2007\2007-002 Quarry Indu s trial Park \002 \ Wetland Assessm ent \Fig 3 NW/ Map.pd[ RA/#2007-002-002 Wet land Assessment 03/08 National Wetland Inventory Map .i,. ~22-15-20 W ~r-.--------------,--------------:------------.::.::......:...:.:....:..:. ________ .....:.=....:...:...:..:..:.... __ _ ~ 122-15-0 W 122-14-40 W 122-14-20 W 122-14-0 W -..I ~-,~ ---,Tl I~ (1> N ,..:. 'Sf' I ~t:1H z 0 (1> N ,..:. 'Sf' J. 'T ~ .{j (J.J I.; 1- 1.1'1 '.O ·o bes Moines \ :? l fH d) tC ..-I vl ""t. \}: l I o - (7 I : . I z 0 s:t" (.)~.( A !4-\, co I N --+--- ,..'.. s:t"~ z 0 N I co N ,..:. s:t" R1UBV '4JRD 1 -UfW "-14Ttj ' ~, ~ ( ~ & 1? '1 1 ..1. ~ J ,~ R2UBH 122-15-20 W PUBHx K t PEMF 122-15-0 W -----\~ 12bHI f.~ I~~ t ~· 1~~. H ~· ') ~ . "'-•,';.1tt :n ~ t~ r . '.:.L lr t-,,>, I O' < p-~ T ; . " ·~/\1[) j 1:... \JJW ---- Wa~hingto SITE ---__,_------- MUNS ILK 122-14-40 W I -r r-: -.J .. ~ ::0 f· i Jj j ftJ • jf: 1 ti ?Ttl 122-14-20 W -- !rt: Iv, Of'v • ._, I~ ·c~> 1 ' ..... _,, 0 1.../ ., s,- Q' J) ·.t· '5<.' ku UBH ./J !J - i 122-14-0 W .i,. -..I . N co 6 z .i,. -..I N 0) ~ 0 z ~ -., N 0) N 0 z This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for general reference o nl y . Data layers that appear on thi s map may or may not be accurate. current. or otherwise reliable . THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION . Map center: 47° 28' 47" Nt 122° 14' 37" W Figure 3. U.S. F ish and Wildlife National Wetland Inventory (2008) map for the project area. See Table I for a key to the mapping sym bols . Legend CONUS_wet_scan .0 0 1 • Out of range ~ Interstate Major Roads Other Road ~ Interstate /./ State hi ghway /./ US highway Roads • Ci ties r : USGS Quad Index 24K Lower 48 Wetland Polygons Estuarine and Marine Deepwater Estuarine and Mari ne Welland Freshwater Emergent Welland Riverine Lower 48 Available Wetland Data Non-Dig Ital D igital No Data Scan NHD Streams Counties 1 OOK Cl States 1 OOK o South America o North America $ Scale : 1 :15,000 I inch = 1,250 feet Grophics \\2007\2007-002 Qt1arry Ind ust ria l Park\002 \ Wetland Asscssm cnt \Fig 4 So ils NR CS M £1p.pdf RA/#2 007-002-002 We tland Assessment 03108 § 5ffi900 556.200 5l56_SOO 956800 557100 557 400 557700 0) l(l ll'l ~ a) ~ ll'l I N Ill 8 .... ~ "' Ill ~ "' ll'l 8 -~ "' ll'l ~ :;;-..u.a;u: Gl N A Figure 4. -----ic:=====-----------==========::::JMt:le<1l 0 200 400 800 ----=====--------=======:::::1 Feet 0 ~00 1,000 2 .000 3,000 ~ Natural Resources iiill Conservation Service Web Soil Survey 2 .0 N abona t Coopera t ive Soi l Survey NRCS (2008) Web Soil S urvey for the project s ite. 1 200 Py Tu Ur w Wo S5SOOO 558300 Map Unit Name Beausite gravelly sandy loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes Beausite gravelly sandy loam , 15 to 30 percent slopes Newberg s ilt loam Pits Puget silty clay loam Puyallup fine sandy loam Tukwila muck Urban land Water Woodi nville silt loam APPENDIXF City of Renton Online CORMaps for the the Black River Riparian Forest and Vicinity, Renton, Washington. POINTE HERON LLC PARCEL with City of Renton Wetlands & 'Jlf,. 3t -; I .. '':Jr"~ • 'J:,,,,,..., jl io/ i i i i i ! .Stt,l, .. , ....... e-r e,.,.d i i! .. -·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-; !! ••••.•••• ·-·--'•-._. ; I! ·-·-·-· -· -·-·-· -· -· -·-"· -·-·-·-·••··· .... .., ........ -·-·-' ;; '•o •.... • .. ( ... t w s .. ., •• 1 8 1..,u ! I • .' ..... , 519 0 260 W GS _ 1984 _ Web _Mercat or _Auxil iary_ Sphere ~.... I ........ i ...... ~ POINTE HERON LLC PARCEL ·,. .... ,· '· . ..... ..... ....... . .. ~, ·~..... i ..t~.,.'-' ... , •,&,.,,a ·, If'""' ........... • '1:i'. +•, (!!' "'"'.,",, .. , ""~ ~~ ,,. #' ,• 0~ ~·) 8"" J,., ,., £ ; i ,o '""A,.,., • ..,. ''o ,., £ ; ' J l BNSF RR R/W 519 Feet •• '"o: ···-· ··-. ···•·· .. ~ -·-···~·-----~··-·-~···-····:.wt. Information Technology -GIS RentonMapSupport@Rentonwa.gov 06/03/2014 .(~·--. }r;;; ti---'.~-, ·.~~~ ...... .---~~ -: -~~~-.: ·~. ~ ... *'t.,A, ..... ,"',., ! l • ! .. ..,._.,,.. ,.f (iti) This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on th is map may or may not be accurate , current, or otherwise reliable. THIS MAP IS NOT T O BE USED F OR NAV IGATION Legend Ci ty and County Boundary Other -·, ~.; City of Renton Parcels El Wetl a nds Notes M ap title, la be ling and parc e l bo undary adde d by H a lin en law , 8/15 /20 14 0 City of llettto n G Finance & IT Division APPENDIXG Google Earth 1990 Aerial Photograph for the Black River Riparian Forest, Renton, Washington. feetl 1 km Black River Riparian Forest 3000 A Google earth Image Dat e : 7/9/1990 APPENDIXH Two-Sheet Wetlands and Stream Map dVII\I II\IV3H.1S ONV SONV1.13M ,S/NOl:l3-t 3lNIOd d\fV"l AHd\fl:IOOdOl 't'.•• .. rr. ~I l ' ,. I , '' ' .11/1 'Ii: llJ , S/NOl:l3H 3lNIOd d\fV"l AHd\fl:IOOdOl SZ16-Z:9L (90Z) QOl7C:-t>El86 VM '31.ll\f3S c:m 3.!Jns '1-UJ1os 3nN3A v lSl osos OTl NOl:l3H 3lNIOd IlO:I NOU. vnNUNOO l:lO:::I z; l33HS 338 ~ U~.IO/,\ :;,!1qnd 10 iuuu,qJ,x!UQ '''"""'""'~ I I NO.LN3H ~ ..ro J...LIJ ··c.~..:~..o:.- S3:'.)i.\!BS 1'9'1Nll'INO~ ':JNITTN!ns '~NINN'ild ON'(] "".lNlrnN~N3 lWJ m ,a,a-LS,(slt) lll9-L<;Z(C.Zt) Z:£086 VM 'lN])I H1nas 3nN3AV ONZL C,LZBL rm•···~~~··· i ii 1 '1 I'·.\\·, • . ' ···.r.1 ... , . I. i · 1 i '' 11 ', i ' 'I '·\'• i', ', ' ' ,\ I,, 'I· i 1 ! T j i !i '1: ' ' "' '•' I ' I [i 't ,, i\ ~ ,,: I,,·, I:,, , I. ~~ \ \ ,, ' ' ~,-: ' '·,I, L, ) ' ' ·n 00 """ 31VCI I AB 00 00 00 ' ' ! ~Q ~d ~~ 0~ ~· ui ~ ' ' a.. <I'. ::!: • >-~ ~i . " ;, ' .. C 8! ~ ~ ~ 9 gg 1111 ~ I • i ' \ 'ON d'1W W'13H.1S ON'1 SON'11J.3M I- '.:? a: w a.. _J ..J u. 0 z < w 0 ~ 0 >-I a.. < a: ~ ~ , S/NOl:J3H 3lNIOd Sll6-l9L (90i) OOl7i-PC~ VM '3lllV3S dv'V"l AHdv'!:IOOdOl im 3llns 'HJ.nos 3nN3AV !St osos 011 NOl::l3H 3lNIOd / / ;< /,/ --l __ J_ ' ~--/ // __ J x· I , , I ' , ;' I ,!' ' ' ' I ' ' , ' ' -----( ;' l~--- , , ' ' ' ' 1 / I I / I ·--00 -l,dd't 31VO J..8 ,S/NOl:J3H 3lNIOd dv'V"l AHd\f!:IOOdOl ':. :;·· I i---oo:c-~-}--+-f--+-----oo NO.LN,nI ~ ..io A.LI:) Qli 00 ooi1>1 ·oo aor ·3·::,·a NOISIJ\Ji:l J l i ON APPENDIX I Washington Department of Ecology Wetland Rating Forms for Western Washington Wetland name or number~ WETLAND RATING FORM-WESTERN WASIIlNGTON Version 2. Updated July 2006 to increase accuracy and reproducibility among users Updated Oct 2008 with the new WDFW definitions for priority habitats Name of wetland (if known): W ~ f-1 at\ d 8 Date of site visit: 1!µ9 / 2-t:> l ~ Rated by£""'""''--ft-Pr, +c i._ ,..-p( Trained by Ecology? Yes v'ffo_ Date oftrainingc, cJ., 2 OCl 't- SEC:\~ TWNSHP:~~N RNGE: c.\f: Is S/f/R in Appendix D? Yes_ No~ Map of wetland unit: Figure__ Estimated size 2. Q . .C,{e.5 SUMMARY OF RATING Category based o~FUNCTIONS provided by wetland I_ II_V_ III_ IV_ Category I = Score >=70 Category II = Score 51-69 Category III = Score 30-50 Category IV= Score< 30 Score for Water Quality Functions Score for Hydrologic Functions Score for Habitat Functions TOTAL score for Functions Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland I_ II_ Does not Apply v' !'2.. Final Category (<boo",., "h;gbMr ~,.,..,, from '""') I JI I Summary of basic information about the wetland unit ,~~f~1t}fl:Jf.·?)~ '.ii{-i\if~~i./i)); Estuarine Deoressional . V Natural Herital!e Wetland Riverine R,,.. Lake-friDl!e Mature Forest Slope Old Growth Forest Flats Coastal La!!ooD Freshwater Tidal Interdunal None of the above v' Check if unit has multiple HOM classes oresent Wetland Rating Form -western Washington 1 August 2004 version 2 To be used with Ecology Publication 04-06-025 Wetland name or number 2 Does the wetland unit being rated meet any of the criteria below? Jfyou answer YES to any of the questions below you will need to protect the wetland according to the regulations regarding the special characteristics found in the wetland. . . . . ' . . ·.• . •. . . ~ . . . . . . . . . ,··· ·, ._ ·--.. ; . ,· . ,_ ' ' . Check.List for W~dsJ'hat May ~eed Aijditioilal Protection . YES .· 'tm iu:lditio'n to the orote~oli reco~mended rori~:~tettory) ;, SPI. Has the wetland unit been documented as a habitat for any Federally listed Threatened or Endangered animal or plant species (J'IE species)? For the pwposes of this rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the anoropriate state or federal database. SP2. Has the wetland unit been documented as habitat for any State listed Threatened or Endangered animal species? For the purposes of this rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the appropriate state database. Note: Wetlands with State listed plant species are cate11:orized as Category I Natural Heritage Wetlands (seep, 19 of data form). SP3. Does the wetland unit contain individuals of Priority species listed by the WDFW for the state? SP4. Does the wetland unit have a local significance in addition to its fimctions? For example, the wetland has been identified in the Shoreline Master Program, the Critical Areas Ordinance, or in a local management plan as having special significance. To complete the next part of the data sheet you will need to determine the Hydrogeomo,:phic Class of the wetland being rated . '.NO / / / / The hydrogeomorphic classification groups wetlands into those that function in similar ways. This simplifies the questions needed to answer how well the wetland functions. The Hydrogeomorphic Class of a wetland can be determined using the key below. Seep. 24 for more detailed instructions on classifying wetlands. Weiland Rating Form -western Washington 2 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 August2004 Wetland name or number --12_ Classification of Wetland Units in Western Washington ' . '' . . ._ ,. ., .-._ •, .. :... . '. ,• . . '•. . . . · . . lf the hydro logic .criteria Ii51ed in ~ q uesti® <lo b<1t app)y to tke eirtire unit being · . · ra~;you probably have a uutt·with m~ltiple HGM.~ Jn this case; identify w.liich • hydrologie criteria in qnestlons 1-7.apply; ajid goto Qudltioil s:: . . . . . . . . ' . .." •'. . . . . . . • .. <> ... · ''. I. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides (i.e. except during floods)? ('"NO -go to!) YES -the wetland class is Tidal Fringe Jfyes, is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)? YES -Freshwater Tidal Fringe NO -Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) If your wetland can he classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands. ff it is Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is rated as an Estuarine wetland. Wetlands that were called estuarine in the first and second editions of the rating system are called Salt Water Tidal Fringe in the Hydrogeomorphic Classification. Estuarine wetlands were categorized separately in the earlier editions, and this separation is being kept in this revision. To maintain consistency between editions, the term "Estuarine" wetland is kept. Please note, however, that the characteristics that define Category I and TI estuarine wetlands have changed (seep. ). 2. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is the only source (>90%) of water to it. Groun ter and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit. -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 both of the following criteria? _The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any vegetation on the surface) at least 20 acres (8 ha) in size; At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m)? (R<""O,,.---go.-to'-'.;3? 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 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. __ The water leaves the wetland without being imponnded? 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 _.--, <:Jti diameter and less than 1 foot deep). (!!o -go ~ YES -The wetland class is Slope Wetland Rating Form -western Washington 3 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 August2004 Wetland name or number_____/;?__ S. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? __ The unit is in a valley, or stream channel, where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that stream or river __ The overbank flooding occurs at least once every two years. NOTE: The riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not floodilJi:;., @ -go to6 _)YES -The wetland class is Riverine 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 Q'!)' outlet, if present, is higher than the interior of the wetland. .. NO -go to 7 <!ES -The wetland class is Depressiogb 7. ls 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. NO-go to 8 YES -The wetland class is Depressiooal 8. Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM clases. For example, seeps at the base ofa 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 your wetland. NOTE; Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents IO% or more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the 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. 'FIQMCJ~ 'Glihm'tliiil'w'iiliil1iPliiiif;'bl 'iii .rtitelJ'<>•· ' '.· .• Ci:<·· /lJGM'isl.iasJo_<Uie:fff.,., · · .. . '_. . •," .... -, ..... ·.-\., .... , .. ',.Jlt. .' . ,.-,·.,f.·., ·-· . . . Slo= + Riverine Riverine Slo"" + D""ressional • sional Slope + Lake-frin11e Lake-frinire Depressional + Riverine along stream within boundary Depressional Dem-essional + Lake-frimre • sional Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other class of freshwater Treat as ESTUARINE under wetland wetlands with special characteristics If you are unable still 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 Depresslonal for the rating. Wetland Rating Form-western Washington 4 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 August2004 Wetland name or number~ -, -::?;wi ~,flr'rit~:. ;,··---~ , ,,c::}i~JJ/·P,.:f::"::?ti/:_:,t,:->:}Y . .ft:11.?f\,/:<~r'··.fl. I> ··~~r'·'~a-··w.~11s·"-,,._ ·-·--· ··· ··-·:,-,~'!<'!:···'-f.idcr,J'"~---·,,-w··,. '''"· -,,1~--J-· • ·-· ·, · ·--· · •· Jruli-· 'llillttlie,wciiaitd.M;ii;t. · ®~-ti'.>-· -~ · :i0.t{t;1f ~~1~ ·1;x -__ · i #1~t;;~t/Y1Jr·.:.j:/tl'-:_?:\,{i.?•t::-'):Jr~2t ---; ;.;::r.%·~.")" D D 1. Does the wetland nnit have the 11otential to improve water quality? D 1.1 Characteristics of swface water flows out of the wetland: D Unit is a depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) ~ Unit has an intermittently flowing, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet . · · -2 Unit has an unwnstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet (permanent/yjl{fWing) points= I Unit is a ''flat" depression (Q. 7 on key), or in the Flats class, with permanent surface outflow and no obvious natural outlet and/or outlet is a man-made ditch points= I (ff ditch is rwt permanenrly flowing /real uni/ as "intermitlently jluwlng") F'roliide 'Photo or drawina S l .2 The soil 2 inches below the surface (or duff layer) is clay or organic (useNRCS D definitions) YES pc,ints = 4 NO rnoints = 0 l D 1.3 Characteristics of persistent vegetation (emergem, shrub, and/or forest Cowiirdin class) D Wetland has persistent, ungra7.ed, vegetation>= 95% of area pc,ints = 5 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, vegetation > = l /2 of area ~lnts=3) Wetland has persistent, W1grazed vegetation>= 1/10 of area pomis-1 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation <l/10 of area points= O Map of Cowardin veoetation classes D 1.4 Characteristics of seasonal ponding or immdation. D This is the area of the wetland unit that is ponded fur at least 2 months, but dries out sometime during the year. Do net count the area that is permanently pomied Estimate area as the average condition 5 out of JO yrs. Area seasonally ponded is > 16 total area of wetland points=4 Area seasonally ponded is > V. total area of wetland pqints=2 Area seasonally ponded is < V. total area of wetland t1iiiiats = !!) Mao of Hvctrooeriods D Total forD 1 Add the points in the boxes above D D 2. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to improve water quality? Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in groundwater or surface water coming into the wetland that would otherwise remn, water quality in streams, lakes or groundwater downgn,client from the wetland. Note which of the following conditions provide the sources of pollutants. A unit may have pollutants comingfrom several sources, but any single source would qualify os opportunity. ~ng in the weUand or within 150 ft -Untreated stonnwater discharges to wetland ~ed fields or orchards within 150 ft of wetland -A stream or culvert discharges into wetland that drains developed areas, residential areas, fanned fields, roads, or clear-cut logging -Residential, urban areas, golf courses are within 150 ft of wetland -Wetland is fed by groundwater high in phosphorus or nitrogen -Other YES multinlier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 D TOTAL-Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from DI by D2 Add score to table on 11. 1 Wotland Rating Form -western Washington 5 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 August2004 I {seep.38) figure_ 3 0 Figure_ :3 Figure_ (.) -----__ 0 __ I (seep. U) multiplier k_ /2 Wetland name or number~ t> · 'Depressi(litaJatut)1atsW~s,. ··.• ::'.: · -.: ·•:A ,; i", ··':c.· ',, .'.· · > ·:e-.fP-oints ·., ?:·:'.. }~~.~~j~i~~~~~f,~18Ji~u,ii~~cti~~· :.:··.:/;5t~> D 3. Does the wetland unit have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? . (see p.46) D D D D 3.1 Characteristics ofsmface water flows out of the wetland unit e Unit is a depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) points• 4 Unit bas an intermittently flowing, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet - Unit is a "flat" depression (Q. 7 on key), or in the Flats class, with permanent surface outflow and no obvio11• natural outlet and/or outlet is a IIlilll·made ditch points = l (If ditch is nol permanently j/uwing /Teal unit as "intennittently flowing") Unit has an unconstricted, or slil!btly constricted, surface outlet l=rmanentlv flowi-) nnints = 0 D 3 .2 Depth of storage during wet periods Estimate the height of ponding ab/l\ie the bottom of the outlet. For units with no outlet measure from the surface of permanent water or deepest part (if dry). Marks of ponding are 3 ft or more above the surface or bottom of outlet €nts = '1) The wetland is a "headwater" wetland" pomts -~ 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 smface or bottom ofoutlet points = 3 Unit is flat (yes to Q. 2 or Q. 7 on key) but has small depressions on the surface that trap water points = I Marks ofnonclinR less than 0.5 ft noints = 0 D 3 .3 Contribution of wetland tmit to storage in the watershed Estimate the ratio of the area of upstream basin contributing swface water to the wetland to the area of the wetland unit itself. The area of the basin is less than l O times the area of tmit points = 5 The area of the basin is JO to 100 times the area of the unit (€:JriE"t) The area of the basin is more than 100 times the area of the uliit points -0 4- 3 Entire unit is in the FLA TS class nnints = 5 ~==========::::....---------------t::=::._.::_ ...... ____ _ I-D--I_T_o_1_a1_~_or_D_3 ___________ A_dd_t_he_po_im_s_in_1_he_ho_~_s_ab_o_ve_-1' -l~ ... -I D D 4. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to rednce flooding and erosion? (seep. 49) Answer YES if the unit is in a location in the watershed where the flood storage, or D reduction in water velocity, it provides helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources fiom flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows. Answer NO if the water coming into the wetland is controlled by a structure such as flood gate, tide gate, flap valve, reservoir etc. OR you estimate that more than 90% of the water in the wetland is from groundwater in areas where damaging grotmdwater flooding does not occur. Note which of the folluwing indicators of opportunity apply. ~tland is in a headwater of a river or stream that has flooding problems -Wetland drains to a river or stream that has flooding problems -Wetland has no outlet and impounds surface runoff water that might otherwise flow into a river or stream that has flooding problems -Other. _____________ _ YES multiolier is 2 NO multiolier is 1 TOT AL -Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from D 3 by D 4 Add score to table on p. I Wetland Rating Fonn -western Washington 6 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 August2004 multiplier 2- Wetland name or number L H l. Does the wetland unit have the potential to provide habitat for many species? H 1.1 Vegetation structure (seep. 72) Check the types of vegetation classes present (as defined by Cowardin)-Size _threshold for each class i.r.J{ acre or more than 10% of the area if unit i.r smaller than 2. 5 acres. ~quaticbed __ainergent plants ll');crub/shrub (areas where shrubs have >30% cover) _"°v_F Porested (areas where trees have> 30% cover) If the unit has a forested class check if: __ The forested class has 3 out of5 strata (canopy, sub-canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, moss/ground-cover) that each cover 20"/o within the forested polygon Add the number of vegetation structures that qualify. /f)!QIJJ,ave,;.::_. ___ _ ( 4 ~§ gr WP;_) 3 structures Map of Cowardin vege1ation classes 2 structures I structure H 1.2. Hydroperlods (seep. 73) points =4 points= 2 points= I ints = 0 Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiod.s) present within the wetland The water regime has to cover more than JO% of the wet/and or~ acre to count. (see text for descljptions ofhydroperiods) -""'Yermanently flooded or in1mdated 4 or more types present points = 3 _---;;;,r_ SSeasonally flooded or inundated ,JJYAAS,pr~ent points = 2 __ Occasionally flooded or in1mdated C 2 W pres$) point= I __ Saturated only l 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 . __ Fresh.water tidal wetland= 2 points Map of hydroperiods H 1.3. Richness of Plant Species (seep. 75) Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least JO tt2. (different patehes of the same species can be combined to meet rhe size threshold) You do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian Mi/foil, reed car,arygrass,.;pwple /oosesrrife, Canadian Thi.rile If you counted: > L9 specie• points = 2 Li.rt species below if you want to: c:::::'.s. -J 9 ;;cies") pojnts c I -......." < 5 species points = 0 (V1 an·-.<.. Jv..e r f o "t A CJtL/;O ~/>EM Figure_ Figure_ .1 Wetland Rating Form-western Washington 13 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct 2008 Total for page 0 August2004 Wetland name or number~ H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats (seep. 76) lgure _ Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion between Cowardin vegetation classes (described in H I .I), or the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, medium, low, or none. 0 0 @ None= 0 points Low= l point Moderate = 2 points 4 ·.·, '. ' •.: . .,... ~!,pm: / [ri ___ , NOTE: if you have four or more classes or three vegetation classes and open water the ra · is alwa s "hi ". use ma of Cowardin tion classes H 1.5. Special Habilllt Features: (seep, 77) s;,ack the habitat features that are priu~ in the wetland The number of checks Is the ./ ,,, ___ number of points you put into the next column. ~ge, downed, woody debris within the wetland (>4in. diameter and 6 ft long). ~g snags (diameter at the bottom> 4 inches) in the wetland V Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2m) and/or overhanging vegetation extends at --least 3.3 ft (lm) over a stream (or ditch) in, OT contiguous with the unit, for at least 33 ft (!Om) __ Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (>30degree slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or rrees rhat .Jfave not yet turned grey/brown) _.,,~AA•t 11 .. eas•t 14 acre of thin-stemmed persistent vegetation or woody branches are present in areas ~at are permanently or seasonally inundated. (structuriu for egg-laying by amphibians) __ Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in each stratum of plants 3 5 NOTE: The 20% stated in early printings of the manual on page 78 is an error. 1-------------------------------~----H 1. TOT AL Score -potential for providing habitat I I ± I ... ___________ _.:.A~~:::.;;~=.:s~oo~n;s::...:.;o~m~H=l.~J,~H~J~.2~,~H~l~.3~,H=l·~~~H~l~.5:..___.I , I --_ .. Commeot!I Wetland Rating Form-western Washington 14 August2004 vorsion 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Wetland name or number _{J_ H 2. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to provide habitat for many species? H 2 .1 Buffers (seep. 80) Choose the description that best represents condition of buffer of wetland unit. The highest scoring criterion that applies to the wetland is to be used in the rating. See text for definition of "undisturbed. " -l 00 m (330ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water >95% of circumference. No structures are within the undisturbed part of buffer. (relatively undisturbed also means no-grazing, no landscaping, no daily human use) Poinls = 5 -l 00 m (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 50% circumference, Poinls = 4 -50 m (170ft) ofrelatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water>95% Acumference. Poinls = 4 k':'." l?O m (330ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or ope::·:'~~ crrcumference, . cp~~-~ -50 m {170ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or o~ 50% circwnference. Poinls = 3 If buffer does not meet any of the criteria above -No paved areas (except paved trails) or buildings within 25 m (80ft) of wetland> 95% circumference. Light to moderate grazing, or lawns are OK. Points '-2 -No paved areas or buildings wlthin SOm of wetland for>50% circumference. Light to moderate grazing, or lawns are OK. Points = 2 -Heavy grazing in buffer. Points = 1 -Vegetated buffers are <2m wide (6.6ft) for more than 95% of the circumference (e.g. tilled fields, paving, basalt bedrock extend to edge of wetland Poinls = 0. -Buffer does not meet any of the criteria above. Poinls = 1 Aerial ohoto showina buffers H 2.2 Cqrridors and Connections (seep. Bl) H 2.2.1 Is the wetland part of a relatively undistw'bed and unbroken vegetated corridor (either riparian or upland) that is at least 150 ft wide, has at least 30%, cover of shrubs, forest or native undisturbed prairie, that connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 250 acres in size? (dams in riparian corridors, heavily used gravel roads, paved roads, are considered breaks in the corridor). ~~ YES= 4 points (go to H 2.3) ~O =goto 2.2.2'\ H 2.2.2 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and unffiOke!i • lfudor (either riparian or upland) that is at least 50ft wide, has at least 30%, cover of shrubs or forest, and connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 25 acres in size? OR a Lake-fringe wetland, if it does not have an undisturbed corridor as in the question above? ,,..---... YES= 2 points (go to H 2.3) l"fio = H 2.2!) H 2.2.3 Is the wetland: \.:: - within 5 mi (8km) of a brackish or salt water estuaty OR within 3 mi of a large field or pasture (>40 acres) OR within 1 -• -~ • '·' e greater than 20 acres? f"'YEs ='1 liolnt, NO= 0 noints Figure_ 3 t Total for page 'r Wetland Rating Form -western Washington 15 vernion 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 August2004 Wetland name or number~ H 2.3 Near or adjacent to other priority habitats listed by WDFW (see new a.nd complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which they CllJt be found, in the PHS report http://wdfjv.wa.gov/hablphslist.htm) Which of the following priority habitats are within 330ft (l OOm) of the wetland lDlit? NOTE: the connections do not have to be relatively undisturbed __ Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 0.4 ha (l acre). _Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and wildlife (fall descriptions in WDFW P HS report p. 152). ____Jierbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock . .:::~:'.'.bid-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 20 trees/ha (Btrees/acre) > 81 cm (32 in) dbh or> 200 years of age. <Mature forests) Stands with average diameters exceeding 53 cm (21 in) dbh; crown cover may be Jess that 100%; crown cover may be less that I 00%; 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. __ Oregon white Oak: Woodlands Stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component is important (fall descriptirms in WDFW PHS /report p. 15/fJ. _ll"_ru ll ;parian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other. ~ tside Prairies: Herbaceous, non-forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wet prairie (fall descriptions in WDFW PHSreportp. 161). _lnstream: The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide f\mctional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources. _ Neanhore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearshore, and Puget Sound Nearshore. (fall descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are In WDFW report: pp. 167-169 and glossary in Appendix A). __ Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or gystem of interconnected passages IDlder the earth in soils, rock, ice, or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human. _Cliffs: Greater than 7.6 m (25 ft) high and occurring below 5000 ft. _Talus: Homogenous areas ofrock rubble ranging in average siz.e 0.15 -2.0m (0.5-6.5 ft), composed of basalt, andesite, and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs. __ 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> 51 cm (20 in) in western Washington and are> 2 m (6.5 ft) in height. Priority logs are> 30 cm (12 in) in diameter at the largest end, and> 6 m (20 ft) ~etland has 3 or more priority habitats = 4 polo€) If wetland has 2 priority habitats= 3 poinb-~--- Ifwetland has 1 priority habitat= 1 point No habitats= 0 points Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included In thi.r list. Nearbv wetlands are addressed in ,,.,es ti on H 2. 4) Wetland Rating Form -western Washington J 6 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 August 2004 Wetland name or number L H 2.4 Wetland Landscape (choose the one description of the landscape around the wetland that best fits) (seep. 84) There are at least 3 other wetlands within I'> mile, and the connections between them are relatively undisturbed (light grazing between wetlands OK, as is lake shore with some boating, but connections should NOT be bisected by paved roads, fill, fields, or other development. points= 5 The wetland is Lake-fringe on a lake with little disturbance and there are 3 other lake-fringe wetlands within 'h mile points= 5 There are at least 3 other wetlands within Y, mile, BUT the connections betwee!).ljl~m_are disturbed r ooints -3 ~ The wetland is Lake-fringe on a lake with disturbance and there are 3 other lake-fringe _3 wetland within 1-S mile points= 3 There is at least l wetland within I'> mile. points= 2 There are no wetlands within Y, mile. points= 0 -----H 2. TOT AL Score • opportunity for providing habitat I 11 I Add the scores from H2.1,H2.2, H2.3, H2.4 I I -----TOTAL for H I from page 14 t t-t -----Total Score for Habitat Functions -add the points for H l, H 2 and record the result on 2.J5 p. l Wetland Rating Form -western Washington 17 August2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Wetland name or number ---8_ CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Please determine if the wetland meets the attributes described below and circle the appropriate answers and Category. 'Wetland 'fype . , . . . . . Category Check off arry criteria that apply to the wetland, Circle the Category when the nnnrovriate criteria are met, SC 1.0 Estuarine wetlands (seep. 86) Does the wetland unit meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands? -The dominant water regime is tidal, -Vegetated, and -With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt No/ YES= Go to SC 1.1 SC 1.1 Is the wetland unit within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area Preserve, State Park or Educational, Cat. I Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332-30-151? YES = CateRorv I NO iro to SC 1.2 SC 12 Is the wetland unit at least I acre in size and meets at least two of the following three conditions? YES = Category I NO = Category II Cat. I -The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, Cat. II cultivation, grazing, and has less than 10% cover of non-native plant species. If the non-native Spanina spp. are the only species that cover more than I 00/o of the wetland, then the wetland should be given a dual Dual rating (I/II). The area of Spartina would be rated a Category II while the rating relatively undisturbed upper marsh with native species would be a I/II Category J. Do not, however, exclude the area ofSpartina in determining the size threshold of 1 acre. -At least% of1he 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 2 of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or contiguous freshwater wetlands. ' . . .. Wetland Rating Form -western Washington 18 August2004 version 2 Updated with oew WDFW definitions OcL 2008 Wetland name or number __b__ SC 2.0 Natural Heritage Wetlands (seep. 87) Natural Heritage wetlands have been identified by the Washington Natural Heritage Program/DNR as either high quality undisturbed wetlands or wetlands that support state Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive plant species. SC 2.1 Is the wetland unit being rated in a Section/fownship/Range that contains a Natural Heritage wetland? (this question is used to screen out most sites before you need to contoct WNHPIDNR) SrI'IR infonnation from Appendix D V or accessed from WNHP/DNR web site -- YES __ -contact WNHP/DNR (seep. 79) and go to SC 2.2 NO~ SC 2.2 Has DNR identified the wetland as a high quality undisturbed wetland or as or as a site with state threatened or endangered plant speciesy YES = Category I . NO _iL_not a Heritage Wetland SC 3.0 Bogs (seep. lJ 7) Does the wetland unit ( or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key below to identify if the wetland is a bog. lfyou answer yes you will stlll need to rate the wetland based on its functions. I. _Does the unit have organic soil horizons (i.e. layers of organic soil), either peats or mucks, that compose 16 inches or more of the first 32 inches of the soil profile? (See Appendix B for a fie!d.~entify organic soils}? Yes· go to Q. 3 C No • go to_~2-) 2. Does the unit have organic soils, either peats or mucks that are less than 16 inches deep over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on~lak pood2 .. Yes -go to Q. 3 No -Is not a bog for pur;ise of~~ 3. Does the unit have more than 70% cover o · nJSes at grnuria level;ANlY······ other plants, if present, consist of the "bog" species listed in Table 3 as a significant component of the vegetation (more than 30% of the total shrub and herbaceous cover consists of species in Table 3 )? Yes -Is a bog for purpose of rating No • go to Q. 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" deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the "bog" plant species in Table 3 are present, the wetland is a bog. 1. Is the unit forested (> 30% cover) with sitka spruce, subalpine fir, western red cedar, western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Englemann 's spruce, or western white pine, WIT1:I any of the species (or combination of species) on the bog species plant list in Table 3 as a significant component of the ground cover(> 30% coverage of the total shrub/herbaceous cover)? 2. YES = Category I No_ Is not a bog for purpose of rating Welland Rating Form-western Washington 19 vernion 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 August2004 Cat. I Cat. I Wetland name or number __f;_ SC 4.0 Forested Wetlands (seep. 90) Does the wetland unit have at least 1 acre of forest that meet one of these criteria for the Department of Fish and Wildlife's forests as priority habitats? If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on it.s functions. -Old-growth forests: (west of Cascade crest) Stands of at least two tree species, fonning a multi-layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/acre (20 trees/hectare) that are at least 200 years ofage OR have a diameter at breast height ( dbh) of 32 inches (81 cm) or more. NOTE: The criterion for dbh is based on measurements for upland forests. Two-hundred year old trees in wetlands will often have a smaller dbh because their growth rates are often slower. The DFW criterion is and "OR" so old-growth forests do not necessarily have to have trees of this diameter. -Mature forests: (west of the Cascade Crest) Stands where the largest trees are 80-200 years old OR have average diameters (dbh) exceeding 21 inches (53cm); crown cover may be less that I 00%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of!arge downed material is generally less than that found in old-growth. / Cat. I YES ~ Category I NO _Vn_noott a forested wetland with special characteristics SC 5.0 Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons r/ee p. 91) Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wetland in a coastal lagoon? -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 surface 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 neJ,11"'the bottom) YES = Go to SC 5. J NO ,Lnot a wetland in a coastal lagoon SC 5.1 Does the wetland meets all of the following three conditions? -The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing), and has Jess than 20% cover ofinvasive plant species (see list of invasive species on p. 74). -· At least % of the landward edge of the wetland has a J 00 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un-mowed grassland. -The wetland is larger than 1/l O acre ( 4350 square feet) YES = Category I NO = Category II Wetland Rating Form-western Washington 20 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 August2004 Cat. I Cat. II Wetland name or number 8 SC 6.0 Interdunal Wetlands (seep. 93) Is the wetland unit west of the J 889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? YES -go to SC 6.1 NO { not an interdunal wetland for rating If you an:rwer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. In practical tenns that means the following geographic areas: • Long Beach Peninsula-lands west of SR 103 • Grayland-Westport-lands west of SR I 05 • Ocean Shores-Copalis-lands west of SR 115 and SR I 09 SC 6.1 Is the wetland one acre or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is once acre or larger? YES = Category Il NO -go to SC 6.2 Cat. D SC 6.2 Is the unit between 0.1 and I acre, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.J and I acre? YES = Category Ill Cat. m Category of wetland based oii Special ciiara: . ' '•es ·, _ c:;_7. the ''.hightst'.: rating .~!et[f111t!~alh i1ito .sever.ai: c,ate~~s. and ~~>'ti on NI A If you answered NO for all types enter ."Not Applicable" oil pJ · · Wetland Rating Fonn-western Washington 21 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Wetland name or number W-8~ I<, F WETLAND RATING FORM-WESTERN WASHINGTON Version 2 -Updated July 2006 to increase accuracy and n:producibility among users Updated Oct 2008 with the new WDFW definitions for priority habitats Name of wetland (if known): \.te!,t blt1-ck R.iw &'f:lo,Yia II) Fodoate of site visit: 'i I ioo'f Rated by Ll'vt V\:l..ftt Pv; f:c.ht@ Trained by Ecology? Yes i/No_ Date of training C>cf l-0{) 'f SEC: 13 TWNSHP:2.3N.RNGE: If£' Is S/f/R in Appendix D? Yes_ Nov"' Map of wetland unit: Figure _ Estimated size 2-0 r a. c.ve SUMMARY OF RATING Category based o~CTIONS provided by wetland 1_ n~m-rv_ Category I = Score >=70 Category II= Score 51-69 Category ill= Score 30-50 Cate.11:0IY IV= Score < 30 Score for Water Quality Functions Score for Hydrologic Functions Score for Habitat Functions TOTAL score for Functions Category ~ed on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland 1_'1/'_ I Ill_ DoesnotApply_ . Final Category C"'-,.. •• ,...,.. ~ ...... -....,l f:ftc:j Wetland Matnre Forest Old Growth Forest COQtal La oon lnterdunal None of the above Wetland Rating Fonn -western Washington version 2 To be used with Ecology Publication 04-06-025 Freshwater Check if unit has multiple HOM classes esent August2004 Wetland name or number ~RJ...f- Does the wetland unit being rated meet any of the criteria below? If you answer YES to any of the questions below you will need to protect the wetland according to the regulations regarding the special characteristics found in the wetland. SP!. Has the wetland unit been documented as a habitat for any Federally listed Threatened or Endangered animal or plant species (/'IE species)? For the purposes of this rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the ro · ate state or federal database. SP2. Has the wetland unit been documented as habitat for any State listed Threatened or Endangered animal species? For the purposes of this rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the appmp,iate state database. Note: Wetlands with State listed plant species are cate orized as Cate I Natural Herita e Wetlands see . 19 of data fonn . SP3. Does the wetland unit contain individuals of Priority species listed by the WDFW for the state? SP4. Does the wetland unit have a local significance in addition to its /unctions? For example, the wetland has been identified in the Shoreline Master Program, the Critical Areas Ordinance, or in a local management plan as having special significance. ./ ./ To complete the next part of the data sheet you will need to determine the H;ydrogeomorphic Class of the wetland being rated. The hydrogeomOIJlhic classification groups wetlands into those that fimction in similar ways. This simplifies the questions needed to answer how well the wetland fimctions. The Hydrogeomorphic Class of a wetland can be determined using the key below. Seep. 24 for more detailed instructions on classifying wetlands. Wetland Rating FOllll -western Washington 2 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 August2004 Wetland name or ll1lJJlber .J1L:..ffi{U..f Classification of Wetland Units in Western Washington I. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides (i.e. except during floods)? ~16 go to 2 .:, YES -the wetland class is Tidal Fringe If yes, is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)? YES-Freshwater Tidal Fringe NO -Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) 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 rated as an Estuarine wetland. Wetlands that were called estuarine in the first and second editions of the rating system are called Salt Water Tidal Fringe in the Hydrogeomo,:phic Classillcation. Estuarine wetlands were categorized separately in the earlier editions, and this separation is being kept in this revision. To maintain consistency between editions, the term "Estuarine" wetland is kept. Please note, however, that the characteristics that define Category I and II estuarine wetlands have changed (seep. ). 2. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is the only source (>90"A,) of water to it. Groundwater and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit. ~u -go ii:J> YES -The wetland class is FJat.s If your wetland can be classified as a ''Flats" wetland, use the form for Depressfonal wetlands. 3. Does the entire wetland unit meet both of the following criteria? _The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any vegetation on the surface) at least 20 acres (8 ha) in size; --~A~t"'!I"~~,: 30% of the open water area is deeper 1han 6.6 ft (2 m)? ~0-go'to 4:) YES -The wetland class is Lake-fringe (Lacustrine Fringe) 4. Does the entire wetland unit meet aD of the following criteria? __ The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual), __ 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. __ The water leaves the wetland without being impounded? 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 .:;JI!.. diameter and less than 1 foot deep). ~O -go to _!j YES -The wetland class is Slope Wetland Rating Fonn -westClll Washington 3 version 2 Updated with new WDFW detlnitions Oct. 2008 August 2004 Wctland name or number~ R_.p,_f- S. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? __ The unit is in a valley, or stream channel, where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that stream or river __ The overbank flooding occurs at least once every two years. NOTE: The riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is O-goto6 -The wetland class is Riverine 6. Is and 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 outkt, if present, is higher than the interior of the we --:;-;;.;;.·-;,;;·;,;;··.;---.. ------- NO -go to 7 YES -The wetland class is Depressfonal 7. Is the entire wetland unit o m a very at area with no obvious depression and no overbank flooding. The unit does not pond swface 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. J«J go to 8 .) YES -The wetland class is Dq,resslonal ..._ ____ ,rifll""- 8. Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM clases. 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 WlilCH OF Tiffi HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS I-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 your wetland. NOTE: Use this table only iftbe class that is recommended in the second column represents I 0% or more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the class listed in column 2 is less than IO"A, oftbe unit; classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 9()01' of the total area. Depressional + Riverine along stream within boundary D ·ona1 + Lake-. e Salt W aterTidal Fringe and any other class of freshwater wetland Rivmoe sional Treat as ESTUARINE UlJder wetlands with special charactt:ristic Jf you are unable still to determine which of tbe above criteria apply to your wetland, or if you have more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depresllfoaal for the rating. Wetland Rating Form-western Washington 4 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 August 2004 D D D D D D I. Does the wetland noit have the potential to improve water quality? D I .J Characteristics of surface water flows out oftbe wetland: Unit is a depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) pQi~ = ~ Unit has an intenniUently flowing, OR highly oonstricted permanently flowing outlor::::ji@ = > Unit has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet (permmrently flowing) points" I Unit is a "flat" depression (Q. 7 on key), or in the Flats class, with penoanent surface outflow and no obvious aatural olltlet and/or outlet is a man-made ditch points = I (If 1/irch is not permanently flowing treat unit aJ "lnterm/flemly flowing ''.1 . Pro\iiife:phOto oi drawinc S 1.2 The soil 2 inchei; below the surface (or duff layer) is clay or organic (use NRCS definitions) H C. ~ S ~.:;. It.. I'\. Cl<. rt.a. 0 f YES :[:·1 L NO -, IA (;..~\ cL l"),t.<.,t C.~ (points = 4 __::, nmnis=O {seep.38) Figure_ 2- 4 D 1.3 Characteristics of persistent vegetation (emergent, shrub, and/or forest ~wardin class) Figure_ Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, vegetation>= 95% of area ( points ~:p Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, vegetation>= l/2ofarea points - Wetland has persistent, ungraud vegetation>= 1/IOofarea points= I Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation <I/IO of area points = 0 Mao of CDwamln Ion classes DJ .4 Characteristics of seasonal ponding or inundation. This Is the area of the Welland unit that Is ponded for at lea,t 2 mrmth.r, but dries out sometime during the year. Do not count the area that is permanently ponded Estimate area a, the average condition 5 ma of 10 yrs. Area seasonally ponded is > v, total area of wetland Area seasonally ponded is> ~ total area of wetland Area seasonally ponded is < ~ total area of wetland points=4 points=2 ( r---..5~ .;:;- Figure_ Mano, ~ D Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxe""'s""aa..b-oµ-e-... l-f (--1 1--1-------------------------------+-----D D 2. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to improve water quality? (sup. "4) Answer YES if you know or believe 1here are polluUU:rts in groundwater or surface water D coming into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in strmms, lakes or groundwater downgradient from the wetland. Note which of the following conditions provide the sources of pollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming from suveral sources, ltut any stngle source would qualify as opportunity. -Grazing in the wetland or within 150 ft -Untreated stormwatcr discharges to wetland -Tilled fields or orchards within 150 ft of wetland -A stream or culvort discharges into wetland that drains developed areas, residentiaJ areas, fanned fields, roads, or clear-<:ut logging -Residential, urban areas, golf courses are within 150 ft of wetland -Wetland is fed by groundwater high in phosphorus or nitrogen -Other·------------~ \'ES multiolier is 2 NO multiolier is 1 TOTAL-Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from DI byD2 Add score to table on D. 1 Wetland Ju.ting Form-wertem Washinston 5 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 August2004 multiplier 2.. Wetland name or number W--~ ~~,.~;:11~,11~~:~~~&.ca~~;~·"~: .. :::?~::~~r D D D D 3. Does the wetland unit have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? . (s~ p.46) D 3.1 Characteristics of surface water flows out of the wetland unit Unit is a depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) pain"'= 4 Unit has an inlennittently flowing. OR highly conslricted pmnanently flowillg ouqot" · points = 2 Unit is a "flat" depression (Q. 7 on key), or in the Flats class, with permanent wand no obvious nnaral outlet 11nd/or outlet ia a man-made ditch points = I (lf ditch is not pennQ11B111/y flawing /real 1111/t as "lnurmittsntly flawing") Unit has an unconstricted, or sli2htlv constricted, surface outlet f nermanentlu fluwinvl nmnts = 0 D 3 .2 Depth of storage dilling wet periods Estimate the height of ponding above the bottom of the outlet. For 1111its with no outlet measure from the swface of permanent water or deepest part (if dry). Marks of ponding are 3 ft or more above the surface or bottom of outlet points = 7 The wetland is a "headwater" wetland" points= 5 2 Marks of ponding between 2 ft to < 3 ft 'from swface or bottom of outlet aims -? ) Marks are at least 0.5 ft to < 2 ft from surface or bottom of outlet -,mi'ils = j e- Unit is flat (yes to Q. 2 or Q. 7 on key) but bas small depressions on the surface that trap .:;;) water points = I Marlai of oondinE less than 0.5 ft noints = 0 D 3.3 Contribution of wetland writ to storage in the wateJshed Estimate the ratio of the area ofll]Mtream basin contributing swface wuter to the wetland to the area of the. wetland un/J Itself. The area of the basin is less than IO times the area of unit points = 5 The area of the basin is JO to I 00 times the area of the 1111it points = 3 ljTb~e~ar;ea;of~the~ba;~sin~istm~orte~th=an~lO~O~ti:m:es~the:.:area:~of~th~e~um~··1'._ ___ j··:-~~-~V~ Entire llllit is in the FLA TS class · ~ -----0 D Total for D 3 Add the points in the boxes above I -=f' I 1--1------------------------------i-----D D 4. Does the wetland wtit have the opportunity to reduce flooding ud erosion? D Answer YES if the unit is in a location in the watershed where the flood sto.rage, or reduction in wa1er velocity, it provides helps protect downslream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows. Answi,r NO if the water conring into the wetland is controlled by a struCIW'e such as flood gate, tide gate, flap valve, reservoir etc. OR you estimate that more than 90% of the water in the wetland is from groundwater in areas where damaging grow:idwater flooding does not occw. Note which ofthefolluwing indicators of opportunity apply. -Wetland is in a headwater of a river or stream that has flooding problems -Wetland drains to a river or stream that has flooding problems -Wetland bas no outlet and impounds surface runoff water that might otherwise flow into a river or stream that has flooding problems -Other _____________ _ YES multiPlier is 2 NO multiDlier is 1 TOT AL -Hyd rologic Fllnetlons Multiply the score from D 3 by D 4 Add score w tllble on p. 1 Wetland Rating Fonn -western Washington 6 vemon 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct 2008 August2004 (seep. 49) multiplier Wetland name ornnmber W::_~ «.f.L'f- H 1. Does the wetland unlt have the potential to provide habitat for many species? H 1.1 Vegetation structw-e (seep. 72) Check the types of vegetaiion closses present (as defined by Cawardin)-Size threshold for each closs is !4 acre or more than JO"A, of the area if unit is smaller than 2.5 acres. __ Aquatic bed __ Emergent plants ___ycrub/shrub (areas where shrubs have >30% cover) ..... 11'.'.'. . .Forested (areas where trees have >30"h cover) If thyunit hos a forested class check if _V_ ThThee forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub-canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, moss/ground-cover) that each cover 20% within the forested polygon Add the number of vegetation structures that qualify. If you have: 4 structures or more 3 structures 2 structures Map of Cowardin vegetation classes I structure H 1.2. Hydroperiods (we p. 73) points =4 points=2 points= 1 ooints =O Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover more than 10%ofthe wetland or !4 acre to count. (see text/or descriptions ofhydroperiods) __ _ _.Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present .Ts ODally flooded or inundated 3 types present iomilly flooded or inundated 2 types present Y$aturated only 1 type present _V_P Penruermanen!ly flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland __ S,easonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland points= 3 points =2 point= I points= 0 _ Lake-fringe wetlan4 = 2 polnfl _Freshwater ti,lt,J wedluul = 2 points Map of hydroperlods H l.3. Richness of PJant Spmj,;s (seep. 75) Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least l O ft2. (different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold) You do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian Mi/foil. reed CIJJlllTYKrOSS, purple /oose.rtrife, Canadian Thistle If you counted: > 19 species <fi'.m~'~::P List species be/aw if you want to: 5 • 19 species points= 1 < 5 species points = 0 Figure_ f Figure_ 3 2.. Wetland Rating Form -western Washington 13 Total for page lo August2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Wetland name or number vJ-PJ/lRP H 1.4. Interspersion ofhabitats (seep. 76) lgure _ Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion between Cowardin vegetation classes ( described in H 1.1 ), or the classes and unvegetated areas ( can include open water or mudflats) is high, medium, low, or none. C) 0 None= 0 points Low= 1 point Moderate = 2 points ~ [riparian braided channels] High = 3 points NOTE: If you have four or more classes or three vegetation classes and open water the ratio is alwa s "hi ". Use ma of Cowardin elation classes H 1.5. Special Habitat Features: (seep. 77) Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the / number of points you put into the next column. __11'),arge, downed, woody debris within the wetland (>4in. diameter and 6 ft long). _J(jtanding snags (diameter at the bottom> 4 inches) in the wetland ,/ Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2m) and/or overhanging vegetation extends at --least 3.3 ft (Im) over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the unit, for at least 33 ft ,,ff'0m) Vsiable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning --(>30degree slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet turned grey/brown) __ At least I' acre of thin-stemmed persistent vegetation or woody branches are present in areas / that are permanently or seasonally inundated(stnu:tures for egg-11¥)1ing by amphibians) __ Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in each stratum of plants 0 s NOTE: The 20% stated in early printings of the manual on page 78 is an error. ~------------....:..:......--=-....:.. ____ __:~:......--------...... ---- H 1. TOT AL Score -potential for providing habitat I I L--------------......:.:A=dd=~~e~sc~o~r~=..t.~ro~m~H=l.~L~H~l~.2~,~H~l~.3~,~H~l~.4~,H=l.~5---i.l-~--J Comments Wetland Rating Form -western Washington 14 August2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Wetland name or number W-f;;({..{{_f H 2, Does the wetl11nd unit have the opportunity to provide habitat for llll!lly species? H 2.l Buffers (seep. 80) Choose the description that best represents condition of buffer of wetland unit. The highest scoring criterion that applies to the wetland is to be used in the rating. See text for definition of "undisturbed. " -l QO m (3 30ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water >95% of circumference. No structures are within the undisturbed part of buffer. (relatively undisturbed also means no-grazing, no landscaping, no daily human use) Points = 5 -l 00 m (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 50% circumference. Points = 4 -50 m (170ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water >95% circumference. Points = 4 -l 00 m (330ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water> 25% circumference, . Points = 3 -50 m (170ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water for> JO% circumference. Point, = 3 V ~· If buffer does not meet any ofthecriterla above · -No paved areas (except paved trails) or bmldings within 25 m (80ft) of wetland> 95% circumfe.rence. Light to moderate grazing, or lawns are OK. Points= 2 -No paved areas or bmldings within 50m of wetland for >50"A, circumference. Light to moderate grazing, or lawns arc OK. Points = 2 -Heavy grazing in buffer. Points = 1 -Vegetated buffers arc <2m wide (6.6ft) for more than 95% of the circumference (e.g. tilled fields, paving, basalt bedtock extend to edge of wetland Pofnu = 0. -Buffer does not meet any of the criteria above. Points -l Aerial nhnlo .,. , -buffers H 2.2 Corridon and Connections (sup. BI) H 2.2. l Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor ( either riparian or upland) that is at least 150 ft w:ide, has at least 30% cover of shrubs, forest or native undisturbed prairie, that connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 250 acres in size? (dams in riparian corridors, heavily used gravel roads, paved roads, are considered breaks in the corridor). YES = 4 points (go to H 2.3) NO = go to H 2.2.2 H 2.2.2 Is the wetland part of a relatively undistumed and unbroken vegetated corridor ( either riparian or upland) that is at least 50ft wide, has at least 30"A, cover of shrubs or forest, and connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 25 acres in siz.e? OR a Lake-fringe wetland, if it does not have an undisturbed corridor as in the question above? YES = 2 points (go to H 2.3) NO= H 2.2.3 H 2.2.3 Is the wetland: within S mi (8km) of a brackish or salt water estuary OR within 3 mi of a large field or pasture (>40 acres) OR wi"'-'-' -' -.f • '·"· '"""!er than 20 acres? YES -1 nalnt c:. NO= 0 nolnts Figure_ 2 I ----Total for page 3 Wetland Rating Form -western Washington 15 August2004 Version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 _,,,. . ' ~ ' Wc:tland munc or number vJ-~~ If' H 2.3 Near or adiacent to other priority habitats listed by WDFW (see new ond complete descriptions of WDFW priority ht1hitats, 1111d ~ countiu in which they Clln he found, in the PHS report http:/Mfiy.wg.gow1y,M,hslpt.htm) Which of the following priority habitats are within 330ft (lOOm) of the wetland unit? NOTE: the connections do not have to be relatively undisturbed. ~ Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 0.4 ha (I acre). _JlBiodivenity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and wildlife (foll descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 152). __J(erbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrook. _L Old-growth/Mature lilreltl: {Old-growth west of Canade crest) Stands of at least 2 tree species, funning a multi-layered canopy with occasional amall openings; with at least 20 trees/ha {8 trees/acre)> 81 cm (32 in) dbh or> 200 years of age. (Mature fmests) Stands with average diameters ~reeding 53 cm (21 in) dhh; crown cover may be less that 100%; crown cover may be less that I 00"/o; decay, de.cadence, numbers of =gs, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old-growth; 80 -200 ycars old west of the Cascade crest. Oregon wklte Oak: Woodlands Stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where --canopy coverage oflhe oak component is important (.fall descriptums in WDFW PHS faport p. 158). "'1uparian: The area acljacent 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 7.' fonn of a dry prairie or a wet prairie (foll descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 161). _In stream: The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources. _ Neanhore: Relatively undistmbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Neanihore, Open Coast Nearshore, and Puget Sound Nearshore. (.fall descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WDFW report: pp. 167-169 and glossary in .Appendix A). 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. _ CJlf&: Greater than 7.6 m (25 ft) high and occurring below 5000 ft. _ Talm: Homogeru,us areas of rock nibble ranging in average si7.e 0.15 -2.0 m (05 -6.S ft), composed of basalt, andesite, and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap alides and mine tailings. May be asociated with cliffs. __ Snag, ud Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exlnoit sufficient decay characteristics to enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife:. Priority BDagS have a diameter at breast height of> 51 cm (20 in) in western Washington and are> 2 m (6.S ft) in height. Priority logs are> 30 cm (12 in) in diameter at the largest end, and> 6 m (20 ft) long. If wetland has 3 or more priority habitats • 4 polnl:II If wetland has 2 priority habitats = 3 po.inn If wetland has 1 priority habitat s 1 point No habital:II = 0 points Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in thu list. NearJ,,, wetlands are addressed in auestion H 2.4) Wetland Rating Form-westem Washington 16 August2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 . ' .. Wetland name or number ~rtJlF H 2.4 Wetland Landscape (choose the one description of the landscape around the wetland that best fits) (seep. 84) There ere at least 3 other wetlands within 11 mile, and the connections between them ere relatively llJldisturbed (light grazing between wetlands OK, as is lake shore with some boating, but connections should NOT be bisected by paved roads, fill, fields, or other development. points= 5 The wetland is Lake-fringe on a lake with little disturbance and there are 3 other lake-fringe wetlands within 11 mile points= 5 There ere at least 3 other wetlands within 11 mile, BUT the connections between them ~ disturbed c. points = 3 The wetland is Lake-ftinge on a lake with disturbance and there are 3 other lake-fringe 3 wetland within 11 mile points= 3 There is at least I wetland within 11 mile. points= 2 There are no wetlands within 11 mile. points= O a::;a_.., __ H 2. TOT AL Score -opportunity for providing habitat I Jo I Add the scores -from H2.l,H2.2, H2.3, H2.4 I I _.,.. ___ TOT AL for H I from page 14 _LL __ Tot&l Score for Habitat Functions -add the points for H I, H 2 and record the result on 2.\ o.1 Wetland Rating Form -westem Wa.,l,ington 17 August2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 ' • _, I CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Please determine if t}te wetland meets the attributes described below and circle the appropriate answers and Category. ·wetland 'fype· ·. · ·· · . · , . '. . .. . . . . · . . . . Check off any criJeria that appJy t() .the weJlana. CiFcle th,, Category wheri the fate criteria are met. · · · ·· · _. SC 1.0 Estuarine wetlands (seep. 86) Does the wetland unit 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 I.I NO/ SC l. l Is the wetland unit within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area Preserve, State Parle or Educational, Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332-30-151? YES= Cateaorv I NO 20 to SC 1.2 SC 12 Is the wetland 1mit at least l acre in size and meets at least two of the following three conditions? YES = Category I NO-= Category Il -The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, till~ cultivation, grazing, and bas less than I 0% cover of non-native plant species. If1he non-native Spal'ltna spp. are the only species that cover more than I O"/o of the wetland, then the wetland should be given a dual rating (I/II). The area of Spartina would be rated a Category Il while the relatively undisturbed upper marsh with native species would be a Category I. Do not, however, exclude the area of Spartina in determining the size threshold of l acre. -At least% of the landward edge of the wetland bas a JOO ft buff'er of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un-mowed grassland. -The wetland bas at least 2 of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or contiguous 1reshwater wetlands. Cal. I Cat I Cat II Dlllt.l rating I/Il , .... ~· Wetland Rating Fonn -western Washington 18 August2004 version 2 Updated wilh new WDFW cldinitlons Oct. 2008 '., J. . ' Wetland name or numbe:r .w.:1> i<../<..i SC 2.0 Natural Heritage Wetlands (seep. 87) Natural Heritage wetlands have been identified by the Washington Natural Heritage Program/DNR as either high quality undisturbed wetlands or wetlands that support state Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive plant species. Cat I SC 2.l Is the wetland unit being rated in a Sectionn'ownship/Range that contains a Natural Heritage wetland? (this question is used to screen 0111 most sites before you need to contact )PNHPIDNR) S!r/R infonnation from Appendix D JC. or accessed from WNHP/DNR web site _ YES __ -contact WNHP/DNR (seep. 79) and go to SC 2.2 NO SC 2.2 Has DNR identified the wetland as a high quality undisturbed wetland or as or as a site with state threatened or endangered plant species? YES= Category I NO not a Heritage Wetland . ' .. .. ·· .. :· ·. : : •' . . '· . .• . '.. ' ' ' SC 3.0 Bogs (seep. 87) Docs the wetland unit (or any part ofthe unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key be/uw to identify if the wetlmui is a bog. lf you answer ya you will still need to rate the wetland based on Its func/uJIIS, J. _Docs the 1mit have organic soil horizons {i.e. layers of organic soil), either peats or mucks, that compose 16 inches or more of the first 32 inches of the ogil pwfile2 (£_ee Appendix B for a field key to identify organic soils)? Yes - zgo to Q. 3 _.;:> ·· No -go to Q. 2 2. Does the unit have organic soils, either peats or mucks that are less than 16 inches deep over bedrock, or an Impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on a lake or pond? Yes -go to Q. 3 No· Is not a bog for purpose of rating 3. Does the unit have more than 700A, cover of mosses at ground level, AND other plants, if present, consist of the "bog" speeies listed in Table 3 as a significant component of the vegetation (more than 30% of the total shrub and herbaceous cover consists of species in Ta~~}.,..1?_~-- y es -Is a bog for purpose of rating Uyo • go to 0. b NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the undc:mory you may substitute that criterion by measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16" deep. If the pH is Jess than 5.0 and the "bog" plant species in Table 3 are present, the wetland is a bog. J. ls the unit forested(> 30% cover) with sitka spruce, subalpine fir, western red cedar, western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Bnglemmn's spruce, or western white pine, WITH any of the species (or combination of speeies) on the bog species plant list in Table 3 as a significant oomponent of the grollltd cover(.> 30% coverage ofthe.,JDtal shrub/herbaceous cover)? 2. YES= Category I No_VJ_ Iss n not a bog for purpose of rating Cst. I Wet.land Rating Fonn -weatcrn Wasbinglon 19 August2004 version 2 Updated wilh new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Wetland name or number w..:::../J~F- . ': ,'• SC 4.0 Forested Wetlands (seep. !JO) Docs the wetland unit have at least 1 acre of forest that meet one of these criteria for the Department of Fish and Wildlife's forests as priority habitats? If you answer yea you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. -Old-growth forests: (west of Cascade crest) Stands ofat least two tree species, forming a multi-layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/acre (20 trees/hectare) that are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of32 inches (81 cm) or more. NOTE: The criterion for dbh is based on measurements for upland forests. Two-hundred year old trees in wetlands will often have a smaller dbh because their growth rates are often slower. The DFW criterion is and "OR" ~o old-growth forests do not necessarily have to have trees of this diameter. -Mature forests: (west of the Cascade Crest) Stands where the largest trees are 80-200 years old OR have average diameters (dbh) exceeding 21 inches (53cm); crown cover may be less that 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of IMge downed material is generally less than that found in old-growth. _.. • = Category I -:, NO _not a forested wetland with special oharacteristics SC S.u ..,..,..an..., ... Coastal Lagoons ~e p. 91) Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria ofa wetland in a coastal lagoon? -The wetland lies In a depressioo adjacent to marine waters 1hat is wholly or partially separared from marine waters by sandbanks, gravel banks, shingle, or, less frequffltly, rocks -The lagoon in which the wetland is located cootains swce watertbat is saline or brackish (> 0.5 ppt) during most of the year in at least a portion of the lagoon (needs to he mea.rured 7116, tire bottom) YES = Go to SC 5. r NO_../_ n noiot a wetland in a coastal lagoon SC 5.1 Does the wetland meets all of the following three conditions? -The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, fillin& cultivation, grazing), and has less than 20"-"' cover of invasive plant species (see list of invasive species on p. 74). -At least ¥.i of the landward edge of the wetland has a JOO ft buffer of · shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un-mowed grassland. -The wetland is larger than 1/10 acre (4350 square feet) YES = Category I NO= Category Il Wetland Rating Fonn-w,,stern Washinpn 20 August2004 version 2 Updated wilh new WDFW definltions Oct 2008 Cat. I Cat.I Cat.Il Wetland name or number vJ -~ (2...~ SC 6.0 Interd1mal Wetlands (seep. 93) Is the wetland unit west of the J 889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? / YES -go to SC 6.1 NO y not IUl interdunal wetland for rating q you answer yes you will still need to rate tke wetland based on its fundions. 1n practical terms that means the following geographic areas: e Long Beach Peninsula-lands west of SR l 03 • Grayland-Westport-lands west of SR l 05 s Ocean Shores-Copa!is-lands west of SR J 15 and SR 109 SC 6.J Is the wetland one acre or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is once acre or larger? YES= Category ll NO-go to SC 6.2 Cat. Il SC 6.2 Is the unit between 0. I and I acre, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and I acre? YES = Category ID Cat. ill Wetland Rating Form -western Washington 21 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 August 2004 Wetland n~e or number f -B R ,{; F WETLAND RATING FORM-WESTERN WASHINGTON Version 2 • Updated July 2006 to increase accuracy and reproducibility among users Updated Oct 2008 with the new WDFW definitions for priority habitats Name of wetland (if known): £«,rBlack/,iw.vl!ipa.riAA fur:e6± Date of site visit:* q /2--015 Rated by Eri:wn.e.t+: {)y j +:-J.wco\ Trained by Ecology? yes 4o_ Date of training od: zc09- SEC:!? TWNSHP:23N RNGE: !../:f" Is Str/R in Appendix D? Yes_ No~ Map of wetland unit: Figure_ Estimated size / 0 r o..e,v-e$ SUMMARY OF RATING Category based on FUNCTIONS provided by wetland I_ Il_ Ill y""" IV_ Category I = Score >=70 Category II = Score 51-69 Category ill= Score 30-50 Category IV = Score < 30 Score for Water Quality Functions Score for Hydrologic Functions Score for Habitat Functions TOT AL score for Function• Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland I_ II_ Does not Apply / . I /0 Final Category (d>oon,.. • .......,. ......,., 6"m ,..,.) I /I/ I r:::-c:i~==g.!ofbanc,fn'.o~ation about the wetland ani~t,.,.,...TI"".,.. ,:~-j-,-;/·/ .:"--:>~:;::;~\ .. Wetland Mature Forest Old Growth Forest Coastal oon Intenlunal None of the above Wetland Rating Fonn -western Washington I version 2 To be used with Ecology Publication 04-06-025 Check if unit has multiple HGM classes esent August 2004 Does the wetland unit being rated meet any of the criteria below? If you answer YES to any of the questions below you will need to protect the wetland according to the regulations regarding the special characteristics found in the wetland. SP1. Has the wetland unit been documented as a habitaJ/orany Federally listed Threatened or Endangered animal or plant species (/'IE species)? For the puq,oses of this rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the · te state or federal database. SP2. Has the wetland unit been documented as habitat for alT)' State listed Threatened or Endangered animal species? For the pUiposes oftbis rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the appropriate state database. Note: Wetlands with State listed plant species are cate · as Cate I Natural Herita e Wetlands see . 19 of data form. SP3. Does the wetland unit contain individuals of Priority species listed /Jy the WDFW for the state? SP4. Does the wetland unit have a local significance in addition to itsfonctions? For example, the wetland has been identified in the Shoreline Master Program, the Critical Areas Ordinance, or in a local management plan as having special significance. To complete the next part of the data sheet you will need to determine the Hydrogeomorphic Class of the wetland being rated. The hydrogeomOiphic classification groups wetlands into those that function in similar ways. This simplifies the questions needed to answer how well the wetland functions. The Hydrogeomo.iphic Class of a wetland can be determined using the key below. Seep. 24 for more detailed instructions on classifying wetlands. Wetland Rating Form --= Washington 2 version 2 Updated with new WDFW ddmitions Oct. 2008 August2004 Wetland name or number[. ,'5/t:JtF Classification of Wetland Units in Western Washington 1. Are the wa~s in the entire unit 118Ua!Iy controlled by tides (i.e. except during floods)? ~go~ YES -the wetland class is Tidal Fringe ---:::..-----If yes, is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)? YES-Freshwater Tidal Fringe NO -Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) .if your wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands . .(fit is Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is rated as an Estllarine wetland. Wetlands that were called estuarine in the first and second editions of the rating system are called Salt Water Tidal Fringe in the Hydrogeomorphic Classification Estuarine wetlands were categorized separately in the earlier editions, and thiB separation is being kept in this revision. To maintain consistency between editions, the tenn "Estuarine" wetland is kept. Please note, however, that the characteristics that define Category I and D estuarine wetlands have changed (seep. ). 2. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is the only source (>90"/o) of water to it. Groundwater and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit. ~QC -go to.!) YES -The wetland class is Fla!Ji If your wetland can be classified as a "Flats" wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands. 3. Does the entire wetland unit meet botll of the following criteria? _The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any vegetation on the surface) at least 20 acres (8 ha) in size; ~ 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m)? ~ -go jii> 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 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. __ The water leaves the wetland without being lmponnded? . NOTE: Su,face water does not pond in these type of wetlands acept occasionally in very small and shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually ~ diameter and less than I foot deep). ~ YES -The wetland class is Slope Wetland Rating Fann -western Washington 3 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 August2004 Wetland name or number E~ ~F S. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? __ The unit is in a valley, or stream channel, where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that stream or river __ The overbank flooding occurs at least once every two years. NOTE: The riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not flooding. ~ go to 6) YES -The wetland class is Riverine 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.~ . .;--:;:;:::::;=~~~~~~=- NO -go to 7 <:!8-The wetland class is Depressio~ 7. Is the entire wetland unit located in a very flat area wiili no obvious depression and no overbank flooding. The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to be lll8intained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural outlet. ~6 jto9 YES -The wetland class is Depressional 8. Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several diffei:ent HGM clases. 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 WffiCH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS J. 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 your wetland. NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 1 O"A, or more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the class listed in column2 is less than 10% of the unit; classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the total area. Riverine sional Lake- 'onal Treat as ES'IUARINE under wetlands with special characteristics If you are unable still 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 Depreslfonal for the rating. Wctlend Rating Fonn -Wes1etn Washington 4 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 August2004 Wetland name or number f:· 8,(l;(?..f' D D I. Does the wetland unit have the potential to improve water quality? (seep.38) D J.l Characteristics of surface water flows out of the wetland: Figure_ D Unit is a depreasion with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) Unit has an intermittently flowing, OR highly constricted pennanently flowing outl po ts= 2 Unit has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet (pennanent/y j1UH1;"K. pom = Unit is a "flat" depression (Q. 7 on key), or in the Flats class, with permanent surface oudlow ond '? no obvious natural outlet and/or outlet is a man-made ditch points= l ,:;:;;.._ (If ditch;, IJ(}/ permansnt/y ffuwing treat unit a, "intermitte7Jl/y jluwing '? . Pi'oViile'· . oto.or dtawiri S 12 The soil 2 inches below the swface (or duff layer) is clay or organic (use NRCS D definitions) NC$':> M~ ..wf t'nJ:1-f dYrc. ?clltS points= 0 NO t,v I ' 7{-( / inls=O D J, aracteristics of persistent vegetation (emergent, shrub, and/or orest Cowardin class) Figure_ Wetland has persistent, wigrazed, vegetation>= 95% of area 'j)Qints"= 5 .) Wetland has persistent, wigrazed, vegetation > = 1/2 of area points = 3 ,- Wetland has persistent, Wlgrazed vegetation>= l/lO of area points = I -:::, D Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation <l/1 O of area points = 0 Ma Df Coward.in v n classes D 1.4 Characteristics of seasonal ponding or inundation Figure _ Thi, is the area qf the wetland unit that is ponded for at least 2 monthr, blll dries out sometime during the year. Do not count the area that is permanently ponded Estimate D area as the average condition 5 0111 of JO yrs . .Area seasonally ponded is > IS total area of wetland points = 4 Area seasonally ponded is > Y. total area of wetland 0 Area seasonally ponded is < Y. total area of wetland ~--------------------JM~~m2!,!~~~~:._ _ _j ____ _ D Total for D I Add the poinJs in the boxes above I '=I-I 1--1------------------------------------D D 2. Does tile wetland unit have tile opportunity to improve water quality? (seep. #) Answer YES if you know or believe 1here are pollllfllnts in groundwater or sumce water D coming into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams, Jalces or groundwater downgradient from the wetland. Note which of the following condili= provide the wurces of pollutants. A unit m<01 have pollllfants coming.from several s(lUl'ces, but any single source would q1Jalify as opportunity. -Grazing in the wetbmd or within 150 ft -Untreated stormwater discharges to wetland -Tilled fields or orchards within 150 ft of wetland -A stream or culvert discharges into wetland that drains developed areas, residential areas, fanned fields, roads, or clear-cut Jogging Residential, urban areas, golf oourscs are within 150 ft of wetland Wetland is fed by groundWBter high in phosphonis or nitrogen ..,70ther~_,...-,--,~-~-:c-~-- v'YES multi' lier is 2 NO multi lier is 1 TOTAL -Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from Dl by D2 Add score to table on . I Wetland hting Form -western Washington 5 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 August2004 multiplier 1+ Wetland name or number E ~ft-(tF ::1~:ji~r.•1~~~~-~~;:~~:~~~~:•~.·i:r·::~~c~~;~ D 3. Does the wetlaqd uqit have the aoteatiaJ to reduce flooding Hd erosion? D D 3.1 Chanicteristics of surface water flows out of the wetland unit Unit is a depression with no surface water leaving ii (no ol1tlet) points =4 Unit has an intermittently flowing, OR highly conslrict.ed pennanenlly flowing outlclr .,..,na • ~ Uni! is a "flat" depression (Q. 7 on key), orin the Flats class, with permanent sumce o-~··-ana no obvious natural oufJot and/or outlet is a man-made ditch points= I (If ditch /.r hot pennmu,nlly j10111ing /r4a/ ""It as "lhlennitt•nJ/y flowihg '') Unit has an unconslricted. or slil!htlv oonstricted, surface outlet (omnamntfu flowino\ nnints = 0 D D 3.2 Depth of storage during wet periods Estimate the height of ponding ab{7Ve the bottom oftheOUliet. For unitr with 110 outlet meosure from the su,face of penrumellf water or deepett part (if dry). Marlcs of ponding are 3 ft or more above the swface or bottom of outlet points =7 The wetland is a "headwater" wetland" points= 5 Marks of ponding between 2 ft to < 3 ft ftom sumce or bottom of outlet ·'--< Merles are at least 0.5 ft to <, 2 ft from surface or bottom of outlet r """L' 3 Unit is flat (yes to Q. 2 or Q. 7 on key) but has 8mfil! depressions on the surface Ital trap water points= l Marks ofnnndimz less than 0.5 ft nnints =o D D 33 Contribution of wetland unit to storage in the wa!ersbed Estimate the ratio of the area of upstream basm contributing su,f ace water to the wetlmtd to the area of the wetlmtd unit itself The area of the basin is Jess 1han 10 times the area ofmit points= 5 The area of the basin is IO to l 00 times the area of the unit ..,.;..,,. = l The area of the basin is more than JOO times the area of the uliit :...... ·--0 r Entire unit is in the FLA TS class nnints~5 D TotaJ forD 3 Add the points in the boxes above D D 4. Does the wetland unit have the op1>0rtunlty to redoce flooding and erosion? Answer YES if the unit is in a location in the watershed where the flood sto.rage, or reduction in water velocity, it provides helps protect dOVIDSlram property Bild aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows. Answer NO if the water coming into the wetland is controlled by a structure such as flood gate, tide gate, flap valve, reservoir etc. OR you estimate that more than 90% of the water in the wetland is from gro1D1dwater in areas where damaging groundwater flooding does not occur. No~lch of the folluwlng indicators of opporhlllily apply. Wetland is in a headwater ofe river or stream that has flooding problems -Wetland drains to a river or stream that has flooding problems -Wetland has no outlet and impowids sumce nmoffwater that might otherwise :flow into a river or stream that has :flooding problems -Other ""9Es multiolier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 D TOT AL -Hydrologic Fundioqs Multiply the score from D 3 by D 4 Add score to table on p. I Wetland Rating Form -western Washington 6 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct 2008 August2004 (Sf!t p.46) J 2. 3 C> -----I b I --.----(seep. 49) multiplier 2.. /D Wetland name or nun,ber £::_fj,(l. i€.. F .111-_:~~li;_~i,.ti·-.; ldl#(iM'.Cfi1•-'.:'.;(: :;~:>~Y;yc>~:'. :·:(·:,. L :"'. ~___;.· ~·. :.i HASttAf~· "'' -·tbai~~--~~-.. '•• ·, ·--····· ,,;.:,•1 -' ; . ' ·.· ' .. " .-~i:-' ', ' . 'JO ', . ' .. '.. ' ·~·"'< ·:;··:j!Cr!"">: H 1. Does the wetland unit have the l!Ofential to provide habitat for many specles? H J. l Vegetation structure (ue p. 72) Figure_ Check the types qf vegetation classes present (as de.fined by Cowardin)-Size threshold for each class is l4 acre or more than 10% of the area if unit is smaller than 2.5 acres. __ Aquatic bed __ Emergent plants ~b/shrub (areas where shrubs have >30% cover) rested (areas where trees have >30% cover) If ~/t has a forested class check if: __ The forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub-canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, moss/growd-cover) that each cover 20% within the forested polygon Add the number of vegetation structures thot qualify. .lf you have; 4 s1ructures or more points=4 Map of Cowardin vegetatJon classes 3 structures ~eb I 2 snuctures ,· points= 1 structure DOlllts -0 H 1.2. Hydroperiods (seep. 73) Figure_ Check the types of water regimes (hydro periods) present within the wetland The water regime has to cover more than 10% of the wetland or ~ acre to count. (see text for descriptions ofhydroperiods) Pamanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present points= 3 . ~onally flooded or inundated ~types present points =2 casionally flooded or inundated 2 types present point= l __ Saturated only I type present points=O 2. __ Permanently flowing stn:am or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland __ $.easonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland _ ulrbfrlnge wetlmuJ ~ 2 polntw _Fresh~titW wetland= 2 points Map of hydroperiods H 1.3. Richness of Plant Species (sup. 75) Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least IO ft2. (different patehes of the same species can be combined w meet the size threshold) You do not have w name the species. Do not include Eurasian Mi/foil, reed canarygrass, purple !oosestrife, Canadian Thistle If you counted: >19s=) points;2 List species below if you want to: e:_·s~ points= 1 I points;O Wetland Raring Fom -western Washington 13 Total for page _j_ August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Wetland name or number £-/3«.JI...F H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats (seep. 76) lgure _ Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion between Cowardin vegetation classes { described in H I . I), or the classes and unvegetated areas { can include open water or mudflats) is high, medium, low, or none. 0 Low= l point Moderate = 2 points ~ High = 3 points [riparian braided channels] NOTE: If you have four or more classes or three vegetation classes and open water the ratio is alwa s "hi ". Use ma of Cowardin ve talion classes H 1.5. Special Habitat Features: (seep. 77) Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number ofcheck.Y is the /, number of points you put into the next column. _:J..arge, downed, woody debris within the wetland (>4in. diameter and 6 ft long). _l>""'._<:Sttan••ding snags {diameter at the bottom> 4 inches) in the wetland Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2m) and/or overhanging vegetation extends at least 3.3 ft (Im) over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the unit, for at least 33 ft (tom) Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (>30degree slope) OR signs ofrecent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet turned grey/brown) __ At least 14 acre of thin-stemmed persistent vegetation or woody branches are present in areas ...diat are permanently or seasonally inundated. (structures for egg-laying by amphibians) _t/_1 Inft•vasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in each stratum of plants 0 3 NOTE: The 20%stated in early printings of the manual on page 78 is an error. ~---------------'--...;,.......c.. ____ __;.__;. ______________ _ H 1. TOT AL Score -potential for providing habitat I 1-" : '--'."-----------_:.;;A::;dd::;..::.;th..:.e..:.sco:::.:::...res=r;..;oc.;.;m.;.;H;.;;.1;;.:.:::.,l,c..:H.:.:1:..:;.2°",..:.Hc::1.:.::.3.,_, H:..:..::.1·:...:4'-', H~J.;:.5-1 .. ____ _. Comments Wetland Rating Form -western Washington 14 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 August2004 ' -. Wetland name or number E._ -61?...ftP H 2. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to provide habitat for many specieJ? H2.1 Buffers (sup. 80) Figure_ Choose the description that best represents condition of buffer of wetland unit. The highest scoring criterion that applies to the wetland is to be used in the rating. See text for definition of "undisturbed. " -I 00 m (330ft) of relatively undisturl>ed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water >95% of circumference. No structures are within the undisturl>ed part of buffer. (relatively undisturl>ed also means no-grazing, no landscaping, no dajJy human use) Points -5 -I 00 m (330 ft) of relatively undisturl>ed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 50% circumference. Points = 4 -50 m (170ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water >95% circumference. Points = 4 -l 00 m (330ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water> 25% circumference, . Points = 3 -50 m (170ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water for> 50% circumference. Points = 3 V:-: If buffer does not meet any of the criteria abow · . -No paved areas (except paved trails) or buildings within 25 m (80ft) ofwedand >~9Y:5>.\l:'="-- circumference. Light to moderate grazing, or lawns are OK. , Poii:ts :...:.-,' -No paved areas or buildings within 50m of wetland for >50% circumference':' Light to moderste grazing, or lawns are OK. Points = 2 -Heavy grazing in buffer. Points ~ 1 -Vegetated buffers are <2m wide (6.6ft) for more than 95% of the circumfeffllce (e.g. tilled 2 fields, paving, basalt bedrock extend to edge of wetland Points = 0. -Buffer does not meet any of the criteria above. Points ml Aerial photo showlna buffers H 2.2 Conidors and Gmwections r-p. 81) H 2.2.1 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor (either riparian or upland) that is at least 150 ft wide, has at least 30"/o cover of shrubs, forest or native urutisturbed prairie, that connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 250 acres in siz.e? (dams in riparian corridors, heavily used gravel roads, paved roads, are considered breaks in the corridor). YES= 4 points (go to H 2.3) NO= go to H 2.2.2 H 2.2.2 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetamd corridor (either riparian or upland) that is at least 50ft wide, has at least 30% cover of shrubs or forest, and connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 25 acres in size? OR a Lake-fringe wetland, if it does not have an undisturbed corridor as in the question above? YES = 2 points (go to H 2.3) NO= H 2.2.3 / H 2.2.3 Is the wetland: within 5 mi (8km) of a brackish or aalt water estuary OR within 3 mi of a large field or pasture (>40 acres) OR within l mi of a lake ar-,ter than 20 acres? NO=O...,lnn ' Wetland Rating Fonn -western Washington IS version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Total for page ..J August2004 Wetland name or number C -/3(L(Lf H 2.3 Near or adjacent 10 other priority habitats listed byWDFW (see new IUUI cmnplete descriptwm of WDFW j,ri,,rily hamtals, llnd the counties In whidi they can be found, In the PHS report http://W4fw.wq.gOylhgM,Je:list.htm) Which of the following priority habitats are within 330ft (I OOm) of the wetland Wlit? NOTE: the connections do not have to be relatively wu/isturbed. ~spen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 0.4 ha (1 acre). __03iodivenity Areas and Corridon: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 152). __ Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock. _ Old-growth/Mature forests: (Old-growth west of Cascade crest) Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming • multi-layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 20 trees/ha (8 trees/acre)> 81 cm (32 in) dbh or> 200 years of age. (Mature forests) Stands with average diameters exceeding S3 cm (21 in) dbh; crown cover maybe Jess that 100%; crown cover may be Jess that l 00%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally Jess than that found in old-growth; 80 -200 years old west of the C.ascade crest. _Oregon whih! Oak: Woodlands Stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where ~opy coverage of the oak component is important (foll descriptions in WDFW PBS ,/ 0 ;::~rt p. 158). __ Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and tem:stt:ial ecosystems which mutually illfluence each other. _ Watlide Prairies: Herbaceous, non-forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry ptairie or a wet ptairie (full descriptions in WDFW PBS report p. 161). _Instream: The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and conditiODB that interact to provide limctional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife re!IOW'ceS. _ Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Opeu Coast Nearshore, and Puget Sound Nearshore. (fi,11 descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WDFW report: pp. 167-169 and glossary in Appendix A). __ Caves: A naturally occuning cavity, iecess, 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. _Clifft: Greata-than 7.6 m (25 ft) high and occurring below 5000 ft. _Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble tanging in average size 0.15 -2.0 m (0.5 -6.5 ft), composed of basalt, andesite, and/or sedimentary rock, including ripmp slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs. _. _Snap and Loga: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay chamcteristics to enable cavity excavatioa/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of> SI cm (20 in) in western Washington and are> 2 m (6.S ft) in height. Priority logs are> 30 cm (12 in) in diameter at the largest end, and > 6 m (20 ft) Jong. If wetland has 3 or more priority habitats = 4 pofnll ~:; ;M!YY habhats = !I et t!: -, If pnority habitat • 1 point No habitats = O poinu Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list. NeariN wetlands are addressed in questiQn H 2.4) Wetland Rating Form-western Washington 16 August2004 version 2 Updstc,d with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 3 Wetland name or number E -6rZ.vtP H 2.4 Wetland Landscape (choose the one description of the landscape around the wetland that best fits) (seep. 84) There are at least 3 other wetlands within 'h mile, and the COlllleCtions between them are relatively undisturbed (light grazing between wetlands OK, as is lake shore with some boating, but connections should NOT be bisected by paved roads, fill, fields, or other development. points= 5 The wetland is Lake-fringe on a lake with little disturbance and there are 3 other Jake-mnge wetlands within 'h mile points= 5 There are at least 3 other wetlands within 'h mile, BUT the connections between~ 3 disturbed pomts = 3 The wetland is Lake-fringe on a lake with disturbance and there are 3 other lake- wetland within 'h mile points= 3 There is at least l wetland within 'h mile. points= 2 There are no wetlands within 'h mile. points= 0 --aml--H 2. TOT AL Score • opportunity for providing habitat I 9 I Add the scores from H2.l,H2.2, H2.3, H2.4 I I --=----TOTAL for HI from page 14 =r--==-----ToW Score for Habitat Functions -add the points for H I, H 2 and record the result on lie p. I W ctland Rating Form -western Washington 17 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 : -" . f Wotland name or number _LJt<.ilP CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Please determine if ¢e wetland meelY the attrl/Jutes described he/ow and circle the appropriate answers and Category. w -. ' ,• •' .,. -' -etfand _ _ . ___ . __ . . _ . , . _ _ . Check off any criteria that apply tQ .the wetlaniJ. Circle 1~ Category wheri the ro11riale criteria are met. · · ·· SC 1.0 Estuarine wetlands (seep. 86) Does the wetland unit meet the following criteria for Estuarim wetlands? -The dominant water regime is tidal, -Vegetated, and -With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt. YES= Go to SC 1.1 No/ SC l. J Is the wetland unit within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area Preserve, State Parle or Educational, Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332-30-151? YES= Catel!'orv I NO 20 to SC 1.2 SC 1.2 Is the wetland unit at least 1 acre in size and meets at least two of the following three conditions? YES = Category I NO= Category Il -The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, fill4>g, cultivation, grazing, and has less than J O"Ai cover of non-native plant species. If the non-native Spartina spp. are the only species that cover more than J 0% of the wetland, then the wetland should be given a dual rating (I/II). The area of Spartin& would be rated a Category II while the relatively undisturbed upper marsh with native species would be a Category I. Do not, however, exclude the area of Spartina in determining 1he size threshold of I acre. -At least% oflhe landward edge oftbe wetland has a JOO ft bu1ler of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un-mowed grassland. -The wetland has at least 2 of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or contiguous freshwater wetlands. •, .. Category Cati Cat I Cat.Il Dual radng l/Il ~ ... ·· ... Wetland Rating Form -western Washington l 8 August 2-004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW detinitions Oct. 2008 , ... ' Wetland name or number £-r'3 l'li<.f' SC 2.0 Natural Heritage Wetlands (seep. 87) Natural Heritage wetlands have been identified by the Washington Natural Heritage Program/DNR as either high quality undisturbed wetlands or wetlands that support state Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive plant species. SC 2.l Is the wetland unit being rated in a Section!I'ownship/Range that contains a Natural Heritage wetland? (this question is used to screen out most sites before you need to contact WNHPIDNR) Sff/R information from Appendix D _V_ o orr IICCCSSed from WNHP/DNR web site _ YES __ -contact WNHP/DNR (seep. 79) and go to SC 2.2 NO SC 2.2 Has DNR identified the wetland as a high quality undiswrbed wetland or as or as a site with state threatened or endangered plant species? YES= Category I NO not a Heritage Wetland .. : . ·. . • • • .. . • ·• . . . . • !, . .. -'· . ' SC 3.0 Bogs (seep. 87) Does the wetland unit (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key beluw to identify if the wetland is a bog. Ifyo11 1111swer yes you will &till need to rate the wetland based on its fundions. 1. poes the imit have organic soil horizons (i.e. layers of organic soil), either peats or mucks, that compose 16 inches or more of the first 32 inches of the soil profile? (See Appendix B for• field key tn identify organic soils)? Yes - go to Q. 3 ":'. No -go to..Q, ,t ::::> . 2. Does the unit have organic soils, either peats or mucks that are less thlll I 6 inches deep over bedrock, or an impenneable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on a lake or pond? Y cs -go to Q. 3 cNo _,_;_nm_ .. 11 .. uvioiz,g'ifor;';p;:urposc;;;;"o;;jffr'all'iBI!~-." 3. Does the unit have more than 70,o • • •--• a,,., other plants, if present, consist of the ''bog'' species Ji~ in Table 3 as a significant component of the vegetation (more than 30% of the total shrub and herbaceous cover consists of species in Table 3)? Yes -Is a bog for pwpose of rating No· go to Q. 4 NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the imderstory you may substitute that criterion by measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16" deep. Jfthe pH is less than 5.0 and the "bog" plant species in Table 3 are present, the wetland is a bog. J. Is the unit forested (> 30% cover) with sitka spnice, subalpine fir, western red cedar, western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Englemann' s spruce, or western white pine, WITH any of the species (or combination of spe<:ies) on the bog species plant list in Table 3 as a significant component of the gro1D1d cover(.> 30% coverage of the total shrub/herbaceous cover)? 2. YES= Category I No_ Is not a bog for purpose of rating Wetland Ratipg Form-western Wasbingu,n 19 August:2004 vemon 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct 2008 Cat. I Cat.I ...... ,1 SC 4.0 Forested Wetlands (tee p. 90) Does the wetland unit have at least I acre of forest that meet one of these criteria for the Department of Fish and Wildlife's forests as priority habitats? lfyou answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its fimctions. -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/acre (20 trees/hectare) that are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of32 inches (81 cm) or more. NOTE: The criterion for dbh is based on measurements for upland forests. Two-hundred year old trees in wetlands will often have a smaller dbh because their growth rates are often slower. The DFW criterion is and "OR" so old-growth forests do not necessarily have to have trees of this diameter. -Mature forests: (west of the Cascade Crest) Stands where the largest trees are 80 -200 years old OR have average diameters (dbh) exceeding 21 iuebes (53cm); crown cover may be less that I 00%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old-growth. v( YES ~ Category I NO _not a forested wetland with special characteristics SC 5.0 Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons r/te p. 91) Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wetland in a coastal lagoon? -The wetland lies In a depression adjacent to marine waters that is wholly or pamally separated from marine waters by sandbanks, gravel banks, shingle, or, less frequently, rocks -The lagoon in which the wetland is located contains Blll'face water that is saline or brackish(> 0.5 ppt) during most of the year in at least a pmion of the lagoon (needs to be measured -oear 1M bottom} YES =Goto SC 5 .I NO_V_ n not a wetland In a coastal lagoon SC 5. l Does lhe wetland meets all of the following three conditions? -The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing), and has Jess than 20% cover of invasive plant species (see list of invasive species on p. 74). Cat.I -At least~ of the landward edge of the wetland has a I 00 ft bu1rer of · shrub, forest, or on-grazed or un-mowed grassland. Cat. I · -The wetland is larger than l/J O acre ( 4350 square feet) YES = Category I NO = Category 11 Cat. Il Wetland RJ.!lng Porm-wcs1ern Washington .ZO August2004 version 2 Updalcd with new WDFW ddinllions Oct. 2008 • ~ • l Wedand nmne or number ~-P.J{}..fl...P SC 6.0 Interdunal Wetlands (seep. 93) Is the wetland unit west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? / YES -go to SC 6. J NO v'not an interdunal wetland for rating Qyou answer yes you wm still need to rate t!,e wetland based on Its fundions. In practical terms that means the following geographic areas: e Long Beach Peninsula· lands west of SR J 03 • Grayland-Westport-lands west of SR IOS • Ocean Shores-Copalis-lands west of SR 115 and SR !09 SC 6. J Is the wetland one acre or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is once acre or larger? YES= Category II NO-go to SC 6.2 SC 6.2 ls the unit between 0.1 and I acre, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and I acre? YES = Category In Wetland :Ratlng Form -western Washington 21 August2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Cat. Il eatm