Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
RS_Drainage_Report_20170327_v1
Table of Contents Section 1. Project Overview Section 2. Conditions and Requirements Summary Section 3. Off-Site Analysis Section 4. Flow Control & Water Quality Facility Analysis and Design Section 5. Conveyance System Analysis and Design Section 6. Special Reports and Studies Section 7. Other Permits Section 8. ESC Analysis and Design Section 9. Bond Quantities, Facility Summaries, & Declaration of Covenant Section 10. Operations and Maintenance Manual List of Figures 1.1 Vicinity Map 1.2 Existing Site Conditions 1.3 Proposed Site Conditions 3.1 Site Topography, Drainage Complaints, and Environmental Hazards 3.2 Downstream Analysis Flow Path Appendix A Basin Exhibits B Hydrology Model Output C Geotechnical Engineering Feasibility Report \\esm8\engr\esm-jobs\1938\001\016\document\rprt-001.docx 1. Project Overview The purpose of this report is to encapsulate the documents and analysis required by the Drainage Review in the 2016 King County Surface Water Design Manual (SWDM) and the City of Renton Amendments to the SWDM. Existing Site: The proposed Earlington Townhomes PUD project site is located in the NE quarter of Section 13, Township 23 North, Range 04 East, W.M. in the City of Renton, WA. More specifically, the project site is located on the northwest corner of the intersection of Renton Avenue S & S 132nd Street. Parcels numbers included in the project are 214480-0295, - 0285, -0500, -0488, and -0487. The 4.2-acre parcel group is zoned R-14 and will be developed in accordance with the applicable City of Renton code. See Figures 1.1 and 1.2 for the vicinity map and a visual representation of the existing site conditions. Existing Site Hydrology: The existing site is partially developed with a single family residence with landscaped areas and a large number of outbuildings with paved driveways. The remainder of the site is vegetated with a few trees. The property slopes to the south at 8 to 15 percent. Stormwater runoff generally drains to the south, to the S 132nd Street public right-of-way (ROW) and into the existing public stormwater drainage system. The site is located in the West Lake Washington drainage basin (WRIA number: 8). See Section 3 for more information. Proposed Site Improvements: The proposed development includes the demolition of existing structures and the construction of 62 townhomes with driveways, access road, utility services, and a storm tract for the detention facility within the project site. Figure 1.3 shows the proposed site improvements. Proposed Site Hydrology: The proposed onsite stormwater conveyance system will collect and convey runoff from the developed project site to the existing stormwater drainage system in the ROW of S 132nd Street. The developed project site will continue to drain to the south at the site’s natural discharge location. See Sections 4 and 5 of this report for more information. Stormwater Runoff Mitigation Standard: As detailed in the pre-application meeting notes, the proposed development must comply with Level 2 Flow Control standards per the SWDM. See Section 4 for more information. Soils on the Project Site: The Geotechnical Engineering Feasibility Report (Appendix C) estimates the soils onsite include recessional outwash overlaying lodgment till. Refer to the Geotechnical Engineering Feasibility Report for more information. Flow Control BMP’s: All applicable Flow Control BMP’s are listed and explained in Section 4 of this report. King County Date: 3/16/2017 Notes: ±The information included on this map has been compiled by King County staff from a variety of sources and issubject 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 intendedfor use as a survey product. King County shall not be liable for any general, special, indirect, incidental, orconsequential damages including, but not limited to, lost revenues or lost profits resulting from the use or misuseof the information contained on this map. Any sale of this map or information on this map is prohibited except bywritten permission of King County. Figure 1.1 - Vicinity Map C O N S U L T I N G E N G I N E E R SL L CFederal Way, WA 9800333400 8th Ave S, Suite 205A PORTION OF THE NE 1/4 OF SEC 13, TWP 23 N., RGE 4 E., W.M.BLUE FERN DEVELOPMENT, LLCEARLINGTON TOWNHOMESPP-02 2 6 n CONTOUR INTERVAL = 5' SCALE: 1" = 40' S 132ND ST R E N TO N A V E S S 130TH ST PARCEL 2144800295 PARCEL 2144800285 PARCEL 2144800500 PARCEL 2144800488 PARCEL 2144800487 LEGEND LEGAL DESCRIPTION TR- A TR- B TR- C TR- D TR- E TRACT F TR- G TR- H TRACT I TRACT J C O N S U L T I N G E N G I N E E R SL L CFederal Way, WA 9800333400 8th Ave S, Suite 205A PORTION OF THE NE 1/4 OF SEC 13, TWP 23 N., RGE 4 E., W.M.BLUE FERN DEVELOPMENT, LLCEARLINGTON TOWNHOMESPP-05 5 6 n CONTOUR INTERVAL = 2' SCALE: 1" = 40'ROAD AS 132ND ST R E N TO N A V E S S 130TH ST TRACT J STORM DRAINAGE FACILILTY LEGEND 2. Conditions and Requirements Summary Review of the 9 Core Requirements and 5 Special Requirements This section describes how the project will meet the SWDM Core and Special Requirements. Core Requirement No. 1 Discharge at the Natural Location All stormwater runoff generated from the developed project site is estimated to drain to the S 132nd Street public right-of-way (ROW) and into the existing public stormwater drainage system, which is a natural discharge location for this site. Core Requirement No. 2 Off-site Analysis The off-site analysis has been documented in Section 3 of this report. Core Requirement No. 3 Flow Control Level 2 Flow Control is required per the pre-application meeting notes for this project. That flow control standard is estimated to be met with a detention vault. See Section 4 of this report for more information. Core Requirement No. 4 Conveyance System Stormwater conveyance will be provided by the proposed conveyance system per Section 5. Calculations will be provided in the final Technical Information Report (TIR). Core Requirement No. 5 Erosion and Sediment Control Erosion and sediment controls to prevent the transport of sediment from the project site to downstream drainage facilities, water resources, and adjacent properties will be provided on the construction plans. Core Requirement No. 6 Maintenance and Operations The Operations and Maintenance manual will be included with the final TIR. Core Requirement No. 7 Financial Guarantees and Liability All drainage facilities constructed or modified for projects will comply with the financial guarantee requirements as provided in the City of Renton Bond Quantities Worksheet. Bond Quantities will be provided in the final TIR. Core Requirement No. 8 Water Quality Water quality treatment will be provided by a media filter vault following detention. See Section 4 of this report for details. Core Requirement No. 9 Flow Control BMP’s All applicable Flow Control BMP’s are listed and discussed in Section 4 of this report. Special Requirement No. 1 Other Adopted Area-Specific Requirements There are no master drainage plans, basin plans, salmon conservation plans, stormwater compliance plans, flood hazard reduction plan updates, or shared facility drainage plans for this project. Special Requirement No. 1 does not apply. Special Requirement No. 2 Flood Hazard Area Delineation The developed project site location is not in a 100-year floodplain. Special Requirement No. 2 does not apply. Special Requirement No. 3 Flood Protection Facilities The developed project site is not protected by an existing flood protection facility. The proposed site improvements do not include the modification of an existing flood protection facility. Special Requirement No. 3 does not apply. Special Requirement No. 4 Source Control The site is a single family residential development and is not subject to this requirement. Special Requirement No. 4 does not apply. Special Requirement No. 5 Oil Control The project does not have a “high-use site characteristic” and is not a redevelopment of a high-use site. Special Requirement No. 5 does not apply. 3. Off-Site Analysis A Level 1 downstream analysis has been performed for the site. Task 1: Study Area Definition and Maps The study area consists of the project site and 1/4 mile downstream flow path for runoff released from the existing site. See Figure 1.2 and Figure 3.2 for the Existing Site Conditions and Downstream Analysis Flow Path exhibits. Task 2: Resource Review Flow Control Map According to the pre-application meeting notes, the project is required to comply with Level 2 Flow Control criteria. Soil Survey Web Soil Survey shows no data for the project site; however, the Geotechnical Engineering Feasibility Report (Appendix C) estimates the soils onsite include recessional outwash overlaying lodgment till. Refer to the Geotechnical Engineering Feasibility Report for more information. King County iMap, COR Maps According to iMap and COR Maps, the project site is NOT mapped in any of the following areas: - Landslide Hazard area - Coal Mine Hazard Areas - Erosion Hazard area - Streams & Wetlands - 100 Year Floodplains - Critical Aquifer Recharge Area - Seismic Hazard area See Figure 3.1 for more information regarding the environmental hazards near the project site. Road Drainage Problems None noted Wetlands Inventory According to iMap, COR Maps, and the 1990 King County Wetlands Inventory Notebooks there are no recorded wetlands on the existing project site. Migrating River Study None noted Downstream Drainage Complaints According to iMap, there are no relevant downstream drainage complaints within the scope of this project. Task 3: Field Inspection (Level 1 Inspection) A Level 1 Downstream Analysis was completed by ESM Consulting Engineers, LLC in the morning on March 20, 2017, when it was sunny and 49°F. During the inspection it was found that the project site has minimal upstream offsite areas draining to the property at the northern portion of the site. All other runoff from offsite basins appears to be collected either by the existing stormwater conveyance system along the ROW or in a drainage ditch that borders the west boundary of the project site. Stormwater runoff from the existing site’s lawn, vegetated areas, roof, and driveway is estimated to sheet flow across the property to the southern boundary of the site and drain to the public right-of-way. From there, stormwater runoff is collected in the existing public stormwater drainage system along S 132nd Street and flows south into private property. From there, runoff continues south approximately 400 and is collected into a small stream that eventually drains to Lake Washington. There did not appear to be any flooding issues over any of the roadways adjacent to, and downstream of, the project site due to the deep gulches in which the stream flowed. See Figure 3.2 Downstream Analysis Flowpath for further information. Task 4: Drainage Description and Problem Descriptions According to iMap, the project site is in the West Lake Washington drainage basin (WRIA number: 8). A creek is routed around within 300 feet of the west and south boundaries of the project site and continues to the east. No drainage problems are estimated to exist in the site’s present condition. Task 5: Mitigation of Existing or Potential Problems No existing or potential problems were observed with the existing drainage system within the scope of the downstream analysis. Therefore, no further mitigation is proposed. King County Minter Date: 12/28/2016 Notes: ±The information included on this map has been compiled by King County staff from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. King Countymakes no rep resentations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document isnot intended fo r u se as a survey product. King County shall not be liable for any general, special, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages including,but not limited to, lost revenues or lost profits resulting from the use or misuse of the information contained on this map. Any sale of this map or information onthis map is prohibite d except by written permission of King County. Legend Drainage complaints lower tributary basins upper tributary basins Potential landslide hazardareas (2016, see explanation--->) Potential steep slope hazardareas (2016, see explanation--->) Erosion hazard (1990 SAO) Seismic hazard (1990 SAO) Coal mine hazard (1990 SAO) class 1 class 2 perennial class 2 salmonid class 3 unclassified Wetland (1990 SAO) Sensitive area notice on title FEMA preliminary 100-yearfloodplain Streams Drainage basins 3,820637 City of Renton Print map Template This map is a user generated static output 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 reliable. THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATIONWGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere Notes None 12/27/2016 Legend 433 0 216 433 Feet Information Technology - GIS RentonMapSupport@Rentonwa.gov Streams (Classified) Type S Type F Type Np Type Ns Wetlands 100' Primary 100' Intermediate 20' Primary 20' Intermediate 5' Primary 5' Intermediate 2' Primary 2' Intermediate Network Structures Inlet Manhole Utility Vault Unknown Structure Control Structure Pump Station Discharge Point Water Quality Detention Facilities Pond Tank Vault Wetland Stormwater Main Culvert Open Drains Facility Outline Private Network Structures Inlet Manhole Utility Vault Unknown Structure Private Control Structure Private Discharge Point Private Water Quality Private Detention Facilities Pond Tank Vault Wetland Private Pipe Private Culvert Private Open Drains Private Facility Outline Fence At Point #1 looking northwest along Renton Avenue S ROW Offsite stormwater runoff from the sidewalk and roadway bordering the project site appears to collect in the existing curb and gutter along the west side of Renton Avenue S. From there, stormwater drains to the existing conveyance system in the ROW through catch basin structures. All areas of the project site at this point drain to the south. At Point #1 looking southeast along Renton Avenue S ROW Offsite runoff continues along the curb and gutter to the next catch basin. From there, runoff is conveyed in a piped system to Point #6. At Point #2 looking southeast along Renton Avenue S ROW No flow capacity issues were observed. At Point #3 looking north along the site’s west boundary All runoff flowing into the site from the offsite basins to the west is intercepted in the drainage ditch formed along the site’s west boundary. From there, runoff is conveyed to a catch basin in the S 132nd Street ROW and is piped to Point #4. No flow capacity issues were observed. At Point #4 looking southeast along the site’s south boundary Stormwater is piped to the south across the S 132nd Street ROW and into a catch basin structure on private property. At Point #4 looking south at the catch basin outside the ROW Trickling water noises were heard emanating from the catch basin shown here; however, no outlet was found due to limited access to the catch basin. It is assumed to drain to the stream 400 feet south of this point and continue to the east. At Point #5 looking east from the 84th Avenue S ROW Stormwater from Point #4 appears to flow to this point and merge with flows from other basins. At Point #6 looking south along the 84th Avenue S ROW From Point #5, stormwater is conveyed in a culvert beneath 84th Avenue S. At Point #6 looking west at the culvert outlets The outlet of the 30-inch diameter CMP culvert (left) was partially filled with sediment. The 18-inch diameter CMP (right) appeared to be unencumbered. No flow capacity issues were observed. At Point #6 looking east downstream of the culverts The stream shown is at the bottom of a gulch with at least 15 feet of vertical containment on either side until it reaches Point #7. No flow capacity issues were observed. At Point #7 looking east at the culvert inlet from the Renton Ave S ROW The inlet of the 30-inch diameter CMP culvert did not appear to have any restrictions. No flow capacity issues were observed. 4. Flow Control & Water Quality Facility Analysis and Design Existing Site Hydrology: The existing site is partially developed with a single family residence with landscaped areas and a large number of outbuildings with paved driveways. The remainder of the site is vegetated with a few trees. The property slopes to the south at 8 to 15 percent. Stormwater runoff generally drains to the south, to the S 132nd Street public right-of-way (ROW) and into the existing public stormwater drainage system. See Section 3 for more information. Developed Site Hydrology: Due to the topography of the developed project site, all onsite basins shown in the Developed Basin Exhibit (Appendix A) drain to the POC, which is the south border of the developed project site. From there, stormwater runoff is conveyed in the existing stormwater conveyance system across the ROW to the outfall shown on COR Maps; see Section 3 of this report for the downstream analysis. The frontage improvements (sidewalk and landscaped areas) have been graded to drain to the site for detention, where feasible, to minimize the amount of bypassed impervious surfaces. The detained and bypassed areas are shown on the Developed Basin Exhibit. All sidewalks onsite have been modeled as permeable pavement; however, the frontage sidewalks were modeled as impervious. All upstream offsite areas along the site’s west boundary will drain to the existing drainage ditch along the site’s boundary or a proposed gravel trench. That offsite runoff will be routed around the proposed onsite detention facility and released downstream of the project site. All runoff from offsite basins east and north of the project site (in the Renton Avenue S ROW) will continue to be collected and conveyed in the existing public stormwater drainage system, separate from the onsite stormwater runoff. The basin areas used in the approved hydrology model are outlined in Table 4.1. Table 4.1 Areas Predeveloped Developed (Acres) Total Detained Bypass Total Detained Bypass Forest 4.33 3.78 0.55 0.00 Roof 0.00 1.28 1.28 Grass 0.00 1.49 1.27 0.22 Pavement 0.00 1.01 0.93 0.08 Grass (Frontage) 0.00 0.37 0.17 0.20 Pavement (Frontage) 0.00 0.18 0.13 0.05 Total 4.33 3.78 0.55 4.33 3.78 0.55 Performance Standards: Stormwater systems onsite are to be designed to mitigate runoff generated from the project per the requirements of the SWDM, specifically the Level 2 Flow Control standards. The facility size is required to be determined by an approved hydrology model per the SWDM. Due to the size of the proposed development, all applicable flow control requirements are met with a stormwater detention vault followed by a media filter vault, as described in this section under Flow Control System and Water Quality System. Flow Control System: The approved hydrology model used to size the stormwater detention vault was the 2012 Western Washington Hydrology Model (WWHM). The resultant sizing from that software complies with the Level 2 Flow Control standards. The developed project site flow rates are given in Table 4.2 and comply with Level 2 Flow Control standards. The depth of live storage is 16 feet, which matches the hydrology model. The volume required, volume provided, and safety factor are given in Table 4.3. Water Quality System: A water quality filter vault following detention is proposed to meet the water quality treatment standards in Section 1.2.8 of the SWDM. The required water quality flow rate is the Full 2-year mitigated release rate, as computed by the approved hydrology model. The facility’s required and provided flow rates are given in Table 4.4. Table 4.2 Return Period Predeveloped ( cfs ) Mitigated ( cfs ) 2 Year 0.129 0.120 5 Year 0.211 0.167 10 Year 0.264 0.202 25 Year 0.327 0.251 50 Year 0.371 0.291 100 Year 0.412 0.334 Table 4.3 Stormwater Detention Volume Total (Cu Ft) Required 62,700 Provided 77,300 Safety Factor 15% Table 4.4 Water Quality Flow ( cfs ) Required 0.121 Provided 0.125 Safety Factor N/A Flow control BMPs: Flow control BMPs were evaluated for the project site as outlined in the SWDM under Section 1.2.9.2.2 – Large Lot BMP Requirements. These BMP’s are described in order of precedence below with feasibility determined. Because the total impervious coverage onsite is 58%, the portion of applicable area credited as mitigated should be no less than 31% of the total site area - 0.70 acres (specified in Section 1.2.9.2.2.5). Requirement #1 Full Dispersion (Section C.2.1) has been evaluated for the project site. There is insufficient onsite native vegetated flowpath to which target impervious surfaces may be dispersed. The applicable flowpath segments are generally located upstream of the target impervious surfaces onsite. Therefore, minimum design requirement #1 (specified in Section C.2.1.1) cannot be met; hence, this BMP is infeasible for the project site. Requirement #2 Full Infiltration of Roof Runoff is subject to the requirements of Full Infiltration per Section C.2.2 or Section 5.2 (whichever is applicable). The Geotechnical Engineering Feasibility Report (Appendix C) states that “Most of the shallow site soils are either dense and impermeable or saturated, and therefore storm water infiltration using shallow strategies does not appear feasible.” Therefore, the Soils requirement (specified in Section 5.2.1 - Soils) cannot be met; hence, this BMP is infeasible for the project site. Requirement #3 Full Infiltration (Section C.2.2 or Section 5.2, whichever is applicable) has been evaluated and the Geotechnical Engineering Feasibility Report states that “Most of the shallow site soils are either dense and impermeable or saturated, and therefore storm water infiltration using shallow strategies does not appear feasible.” Therefore, the Soils requirement (specified in Section 5.2.1 - Soils) cannot be met; hence, this BMP is infeasible for the project site. Limited Infiltration (Section C.2.3) is subject to the same minimum design requirements as Full Infiltration (per Section C.2.3.2). Since Full Infiltration has been deemed infeasible, Limited Infiltration is also infeasible for this project site. Bioretention (Section C2.6) may be feasible pending further geotechnical field investigation (to be completed with final design). Permeable Pavement (Section C.2.7) will be used in all onsite sidewalks with underdrains due to the type of existing native soils. Requirement #4 Basic Dispersion (Section C.2.4) has been evaluated for the project site. Most of the areas that could be used for the “vegetated flowpath segment” are not located between potential dispersion devices and any downstream impervious surface or drainage feature. Therefore, minimum design requirement #2.d (specified in Section C.2.4.1) cannot be met; hence, this BMP is infeasible for the project site. Requirement #5 If the impervious area credited as mitigated is less than the threshold specified in Flow Control BMPs above, then (according to Section 1.2.9.2.2.5 of the SWDM) a fee in lieu must be paid OR one or more the following BMPs must be implemented to achieve compliance: Reduced Impervious Surface Credit (Section C.2.9) has been evaluated for the project site. This project cannot use wheel strip driveways (Section C.2.9.3) due to the proposed parking layout, cannot implement a minimum disturbance foundation (Section C.2.9.4) due to the building type, and open grid decking over pervious surface (Section C.2.9.5) is not applicable. Additionally, the proposed improvements to the project create more than the threshold of 4,000 square feet or 4% of the total site area (whichever is greater) in impervious surface (Section C.2.9.2.2). Therefore, minimum design requirement #1 (specified in Section C.2.9.1) cannot be met; hence, this BMP cannot be claimed for the proposed site improvements. Native Growth Retention Credit (Section C.2.10) has been evaluated for the project site. Any potential area of target impervious surface to be credited as mitigated by this BMP must be directed to vegetated pervious surfaces on the site or discharged through a perforated pipe connection in accordance with Section C.2.11. It is not possible to direct stormwater runoff from the potential target impervious surfaces to vegetated pervious surfaces due to the elevation difference between the applicable areas. Therefore, minimum design requirement #2.b (specified in Section C.2.10.1) cannot be met; hence, this BMP cannot be claimed for the proposed site improvements. Requirement #6 All new pervious surfaces will be amended per Section 1.2.9.2.2.6 to satisfy the requirements specified therein (notes will be included on the final landscape plans). Requirement #7 Any proposed roof downspout connection will be shown as a Perforated Pipe Connection (Section C.2.11) on the final construction plans. In summary, the project site will implement, if not determined infeasible during final design, the following flow control BMPs: Bioretention and Permeable Pavement (pending further geotechnical field investigation). If the impervious area credited as mitigated is not sufficient, a fee in lieu will be paid. The project will also amend soils to retain moisture holding capacity and use perforated pipe connections for proposed roof downspouts. 5. Conveyance System Analysis and Design Onsite Conveyance System: Runoff from the developed project site will be collected from the developed lot lawns, roofs, and sidewalks by the conveyance system located in the ROW. The proposed stormwater drainage system is composed of catch basin structures with pipes ranging between 6-inches and 18-inches in diameter. A conveyance and backwater analysis will be completed to verify the capacity of the critical pipes in the system. The proposed stormwater drainage system will be designed to convey the 25-year peak flow rate generated by the developed tributary basin as required in the SWDM. The system will contain the 100-year flow within the catch basin without any conveyance or backwater issues. Conveyance calculations will be provided with the final TIR. 6. Special Reports and Studies The Geotechnical Engineering Feasibility Report by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc., dated January 18, 2017 is included in Appendix C. 7. Other Permits Building and NPDES permits will be required for this project, together with permits for utility connections. 8. ESC Analysis and Design The Erosion and Sedimentation Control will be provided with the final TIR. 9. Bond Quantities, Facility Summaries, and Declaration of Covenant The Bond Quantities worksheet and Declaration of Covenant will be provided with the final TIR. 10. Operations and Maintenance The Operations and Maintenance manual will be provided with the final TIR. Appendix A TR- A TR- B TR- C TR- D TR- E TRACT F TR- G TR- H TRACT I TRACT J C O N S U L T I N G E N G I N E E R SL L CFederal Way, WA 9800333400 8th Ave S, Suite 205A PORTION OF THE NE 1/4 OF SEC 13, TWP 23 N., RGE 4 E., W.M.BLUE FERN DEVELOPMENT, LLCEARLINGTON TOWNHOMESPP-05 5 6 n CONTOUR INTERVAL = 2' SCALE: 1" = 40'ROAD AS 132ND ST R E N TO N A V E S S 130TH ST TRACT J STORM DRAINAGE FACILILTY LEGEND 1,910318 City of Renton Print map Template This map is a user generated static output 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 reliable. THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATIONWGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere Notes None 12/27/2016 Legend 216 0 108 216 Feet Information Technology - GIS RentonMapSupport@Rentonwa.gov Streams (Classified) Type S Type F Type Np Type Ns 100' Primary 100' Intermediate 20' Primary 20' Intermediate 5' Primary 5' Intermediate 2' Primary 2' Intermediate Network Structures Inlet Manhole Utility Vault Unknown Structure Control Structure Pump Station Discharge Point Water Quality Detention Facilities Pond Tank Vault Wetland Stormwater Main Culvert Open Drains Virtual Drainline Facility Outline Private Network Structures Inlet Manhole Utility Vault Unknown Structure Private Control Structure Private Discharge Point Private Water Quality Private Detention Facilities Pond Tank Vault Wetland Private Pipe Private Culvert Private Open Drains Private Facility Outline Flow Control BMP Fence Appendix B WWHM2012 PROJECT REPORT Earlington 3/24/2017 8:58:25 AM Page 2 General Model Information Project Name:Earlington Site Name:Earlington Townhomes PUD Site Address:SW Corner of Renton Avenue S & S 132nd Street City:Renton Report Date:3/24/2017 Gage:Seatac Data Start:1948/10/01 Data End:2009/09/30 Timestep:15 Minute Precip Scale:0.00 (adjusted) Version Date:2016/02/25 Version:4.2.12 POC Thresholds Low Flow Threshold for POC1:50 Percent of the 2 Year High Flow Threshold for POC1:50 Year Earlington 3/24/2017 8:58:25 AM Page 3 Landuse Basin Data Predeveloped Land Use PreDev Onsite and Frontage Bypass:No GroundWater:No Pervious Land Use acre C, Forest, Mod 4.33 Pervious Total 4.33 Impervious Land Use acre Impervious Total 0 Basin Total 4.33 Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater Earlington 3/24/2017 8:58:25 AM Page 4 Mitigated Land Use Dev Onsite, Detained Bypass:No GroundWater:No Pervious Land Use acre C, Lawn, Flat 1.27 Pervious Total 1.27 Impervious Land Use acre ROADS MOD 0.67 ROOF TOPS FLAT 1.28 DRIVEWAYS FLAT 0.1 Impervious Total 2.05 Basin Total 3.32 Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater Dev Onsite, Vault Dev Onsite, Vault Earlington 3/24/2017 8:58:25 AM Page 5 Dev Onsite, Bypass Bypass:Yes GroundWater:No Pervious Land Use acre C, Lawn, Flat 0.42 Pervious Total 0.42 Impervious Land Use acre ROADS MOD 0.05 Impervious Total 0.05 Basin Total 0.47 Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater Earlington 3/24/2017 8:58:25 AM Page 6 Dev Offsite, Detained Bypass:No GroundWater:No Pervious Land Use acre C, Lawn, Mod 0.17 Pervious Total 0.17 Impervious Land Use acre SIDEWALKS MOD 0.13 Impervious Total 0.13 Basin Total 0.3 Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater Dev Onsite, Vault Dev Onsite, Vault Earlington 3/24/2017 8:58:25 AM Page 7 Dev Offsite, Bypass Bypass:Yes GroundWater:No Pervious Land Use acre Pervious Total 0 Impervious Land Use acre ROADS MOD 0.02 SIDEWALKS MOD 0.03 Impervious Total 0.05 Basin Total 0.05 Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater Earlington 3/24/2017 8:58:25 AM Page 8 Routing Elements Predeveloped Routing Earlington 3/24/2017 8:58:25 AM Page 9 Mitigated Routing Dev Onsite, Detained, Sidewalks Pavement Area:0.1601 acre.Pavement Length: 1550.00 ft. Pavement Width: 4.50 ft. Pavement slope 1:0 To 1 Pavement thickness: 0.5 Pour Space of Pavement: 0.2 Material thickness of second layer: 1 Pour Space of material for second layer: 0.4 Material thickness of third layer: 0 Pour Space of material for third layer: 0 Element Flows To: Outlet 1 Outlet 2 Dev Onsite, Vault Permeable Pavement Hydraulic Table Stage(feet)Area(ac.)Volume(ac-ft.)Discharge(cfs)Infilt(cfs) 0.0000 0.160 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0167 0.160 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.0333 0.160 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.0500 0.160 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.0667 0.160 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.0833 0.160 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.1000 0.160 0.006 0.000 0.000 0.1167 0.160 0.007 0.000 0.000 0.1333 0.160 0.008 0.000 0.000 0.1500 0.160 0.009 0.000 0.000 0.1667 0.160 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.1833 0.160 0.011 0.000 0.000 0.2000 0.160 0.012 0.000 0.000 0.2167 0.160 0.013 0.000 0.000 0.2333 0.160 0.014 0.000 0.000 0.2500 0.160 0.016 0.000 0.000 0.2667 0.160 0.017 0.000 0.000 0.2833 0.160 0.018 0.000 0.000 0.3000 0.160 0.019 0.000 0.000 0.3167 0.160 0.020 0.000 0.000 0.3333 0.160 0.021 0.000 0.000 0.3500 0.160 0.022 0.000 0.000 0.3667 0.160 0.023 0.000 0.000 0.3833 0.160 0.024 0.000 0.000 0.4000 0.160 0.025 0.000 0.000 0.4167 0.160 0.026 0.000 0.000 0.4333 0.160 0.027 0.000 0.000 0.4500 0.160 0.028 0.000 0.000 0.4667 0.160 0.029 0.000 0.000 0.4833 0.160 0.031 0.000 0.000 0.5000 0.160 0.032 0.000 0.000 0.5167 0.160 0.033 0.056 0.000 0.5333 0.160 0.034 0.079 0.000 0.5500 0.160 0.035 0.097 0.000 0.5667 0.160 0.036 0.112 0.000 0.5833 0.160 0.037 0.125 0.000 0.6000 0.160 0.038 0.137 0.000 0.6167 0.160 0.039 0.148 0.000 Earlington 3/24/2017 8:58:25 AM Page 10 0.6333 0.160 0.040 0.158 0.000 0.6500 0.160 0.041 0.168 0.000 0.6667 0.160 0.042 0.177 0.000 0.6833 0.160 0.043 0.185 0.000 0.7000 0.160 0.044 0.194 0.000 0.7167 0.160 0.045 0.202 0.000 0.7333 0.160 0.047 0.209 0.000 0.7500 0.160 0.048 0.217 0.000 0.7667 0.160 0.049 0.224 0.000 0.7833 0.160 0.050 0.231 0.000 0.8000 0.160 0.051 0.237 0.000 0.8167 0.160 0.052 0.244 0.000 0.8333 0.160 0.053 0.250 0.000 0.8500 0.160 0.054 0.256 0.000 0.8667 0.160 0.055 0.262 0.000 0.8833 0.160 0.056 0.268 0.000 0.9000 0.160 0.057 0.274 0.000 0.9167 0.160 0.058 0.280 0.000 0.9333 0.160 0.059 0.285 0.000 0.9500 0.160 0.060 0.291 0.000 0.9667 0.160 0.061 0.296 0.000 0.9833 0.160 0.063 0.301 0.000 1.0000 0.160 0.063 0.307 0.000 1.0167 0.160 0.064 0.312 0.000 1.0333 0.160 0.064 0.317 0.000 1.0500 0.160 0.065 0.322 0.000 1.0667 0.160 0.065 0.326 0.000 1.0833 0.160 0.066 0.331 0.000 1.1000 0.160 0.066 0.336 0.000 1.1167 0.160 0.067 0.341 0.000 1.1333 0.160 0.067 0.345 0.000 1.1500 0.160 0.068 0.350 0.000 1.1667 0.160 0.068 0.354 0.000 1.1833 0.160 0.069 0.358 0.000 1.2000 0.160 0.069 0.363 0.000 1.2167 0.160 0.070 0.367 0.000 1.2333 0.160 0.071 0.371 0.000 1.2500 0.160 0.071 0.376 0.000 1.2667 0.160 0.072 0.380 0.000 1.2833 0.160 0.072 0.384 0.000 1.3000 0.160 0.073 0.388 0.000 1.3167 0.160 0.073 0.392 0.000 1.3333 0.160 0.074 0.396 0.000 1.3500 0.160 0.074 0.400 0.000 1.3667 0.160 0.075 0.404 0.000 1.3833 0.160 0.075 0.408 0.000 1.4000 0.160 0.076 0.411 0.000 1.4167 0.160 0.076 0.415 0.000 1.4333 0.160 0.077 0.419 0.000 1.4500 0.160 0.077 0.423 0.000 1.4667 0.160 0.078 0.426 0.000 1.4833 0.160 0.079 0.430 0.000 1.5000 0.160 0.079 0.434 0.000 Earlington 3/24/2017 8:58:25 AM Page 11 Dev Onsite, Bypass, Sidewalks Pavement Area:0.0300 acre.Pavement Length: 290.00 ft. Pavement Width: 4.50 ft. Pavement slope 1:0 To 1 Pavement thickness: 0.5 Pour Space of Pavement: 0.2 Material thickness of second layer: 1 Pour Space of material for second layer: 0.4 Material thickness of third layer: 0 Pour Space of material for third layer: 0 Element Flows To: Outlet 1 Outlet 2 Permeable Pavement Hydraulic Table Stage(feet)Area(ac.)Volume(ac-ft.)Discharge(cfs)Infilt(cfs) 0.0000 0.030 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0167 0.030 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0333 0.030 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0500 0.030 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0667 0.030 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0833 0.030 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.1000 0.030 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.1167 0.030 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.1333 0.030 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.1500 0.030 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.1667 0.030 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.1833 0.030 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.2000 0.030 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.2167 0.030 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.2333 0.030 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.2500 0.030 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.2667 0.030 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.2833 0.030 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.3000 0.030 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.3167 0.030 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.3333 0.030 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.3500 0.030 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.3667 0.030 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.3833 0.030 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.4000 0.030 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.4167 0.030 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.4333 0.030 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.4500 0.030 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.4667 0.030 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.4833 0.030 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.5000 0.030 0.006 0.000 0.000 0.5167 0.030 0.006 0.056 0.000 0.5333 0.030 0.006 0.079 0.000 0.5500 0.030 0.006 0.097 0.000 0.5667 0.030 0.006 0.112 0.000 0.5833 0.030 0.007 0.125 0.000 0.6000 0.030 0.007 0.137 0.000 0.6167 0.030 0.007 0.148 0.000 0.6333 0.030 0.007 0.158 0.000 0.6500 0.030 0.007 0.168 0.000 Earlington 3/24/2017 8:58:25 AM Page 12 0.6667 0.030 0.008 0.177 0.000 0.6833 0.030 0.008 0.185 0.000 0.7000 0.030 0.008 0.194 0.000 0.7167 0.030 0.008 0.202 0.000 0.7333 0.030 0.008 0.209 0.000 0.7500 0.030 0.009 0.217 0.000 0.7667 0.030 0.009 0.224 0.000 0.7833 0.030 0.009 0.231 0.000 0.8000 0.030 0.009 0.237 0.000 0.8167 0.030 0.009 0.244 0.000 0.8333 0.030 0.010 0.250 0.000 0.8500 0.030 0.010 0.256 0.000 0.8667 0.030 0.010 0.262 0.000 0.8833 0.030 0.010 0.268 0.000 0.9000 0.030 0.010 0.274 0.000 0.9167 0.030 0.011 0.280 0.000 0.9333 0.030 0.011 0.285 0.000 0.9500 0.030 0.011 0.291 0.000 0.9667 0.030 0.011 0.296 0.000 0.9833 0.030 0.011 0.301 0.000 1.0000 0.030 0.011 0.307 0.000 1.0167 0.030 0.012 0.312 0.000 1.0333 0.030 0.012 0.317 0.000 1.0500 0.030 0.012 0.322 0.000 1.0667 0.030 0.012 0.326 0.000 1.0833 0.030 0.012 0.331 0.000 1.1000 0.030 0.012 0.336 0.000 1.1167 0.030 0.012 0.341 0.000 1.1333 0.030 0.012 0.345 0.000 1.1500 0.030 0.012 0.350 0.000 1.1667 0.030 0.012 0.354 0.000 1.1833 0.030 0.013 0.358 0.000 1.2000 0.030 0.013 0.363 0.000 1.2167 0.030 0.013 0.367 0.000 1.2333 0.030 0.013 0.371 0.000 1.2500 0.030 0.013 0.376 0.000 1.2667 0.030 0.013 0.380 0.000 1.2833 0.030 0.013 0.384 0.000 1.3000 0.030 0.013 0.388 0.000 1.3167 0.030 0.013 0.392 0.000 1.3333 0.030 0.013 0.396 0.000 1.3500 0.030 0.014 0.400 0.000 1.3667 0.030 0.014 0.404 0.000 1.3833 0.030 0.014 0.408 0.000 1.4000 0.030 0.014 0.411 0.000 1.4167 0.030 0.014 0.415 0.000 1.4333 0.030 0.014 0.419 0.000 1.4500 0.030 0.014 0.423 0.000 1.4667 0.030 0.014 0.426 0.000 1.4833 0.030 0.014 0.430 0.000 1.5000 0.030 0.014 0.434 0.000 Earlington 3/24/2017 8:58:25 AM Page 13 Dev Onsite, Vault Width:64.7630852387153 ft. Length:64.7630852387153 ft. Depth:16 ft. Discharge Structure Riser Height:15 ft. Riser Diameter:18 in. Orifice 1 Diameter:0.829 in.Elevation:0 ft. Orifice 2 Diameter:6 in.Elevation:21 ft. Orifice 3 Diameter:0.6 in.Elevation:12 ft. Element Flows To: Outlet 1 Outlet 2 Vault Hydraulic Table Stage(feet)Area(ac.)Volume(ac-ft.)Discharge(cfs)Infilt(cfs) 0.0000 0.096 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.1778 0.096 0.017 0.007 0.000 0.3556 0.096 0.034 0.011 0.000 0.5333 0.096 0.051 0.013 0.000 0.7111 0.096 0.068 0.015 0.000 0.8889 0.096 0.085 0.017 0.000 1.0667 0.096 0.102 0.019 0.000 1.2444 0.096 0.119 0.020 0.000 1.4222 0.096 0.136 0.022 0.000 1.6000 0.096 0.154 0.023 0.000 1.7778 0.096 0.171 0.024 0.000 1.9556 0.096 0.188 0.026 0.000 2.1333 0.096 0.205 0.027 0.000 2.3111 0.096 0.222 0.028 0.000 2.4889 0.096 0.239 0.029 0.000 2.6667 0.096 0.256 0.030 0.000 2.8444 0.096 0.273 0.031 0.000 3.0222 0.096 0.291 0.032 0.000 3.2000 0.096 0.308 0.033 0.000 3.3778 0.096 0.325 0.034 0.000 3.5556 0.096 0.342 0.035 0.000 3.7333 0.096 0.359 0.036 0.000 3.9111 0.096 0.376 0.036 0.000 4.0889 0.096 0.393 0.037 0.000 4.2667 0.096 0.410 0.038 0.000 4.4444 0.096 0.427 0.039 0.000 4.6222 0.096 0.445 0.040 0.000 4.8000 0.096 0.462 0.040 0.000 4.9778 0.096 0.479 0.041 0.000 5.1556 0.096 0.496 0.042 0.000 5.3333 0.096 0.513 0.043 0.000 5.5111 0.096 0.530 0.043 0.000 5.6889 0.096 0.547 0.044 0.000 5.8667 0.096 0.564 0.045 0.000 6.0444 0.096 0.582 0.045 0.000 6.2222 0.096 0.599 0.046 0.000 6.4000 0.096 0.616 0.047 0.000 6.5778 0.096 0.633 0.047 0.000 6.7556 0.096 0.650 0.048 0.000 6.9333 0.096 0.667 0.049 0.000 Earlington 3/24/2017 8:58:25 AM Page 14 7.1111 0.096 0.684 0.049 0.000 7.2889 0.096 0.701 0.050 0.000 7.4667 0.096 0.718 0.051 0.000 7.6444 0.096 0.736 0.051 0.000 7.8222 0.096 0.753 0.052 0.000 8.0000 0.096 0.770 0.052 0.000 8.1778 0.096 0.787 0.053 0.000 8.3556 0.096 0.804 0.053 0.000 8.5333 0.096 0.821 0.054 0.000 8.7111 0.096 0.838 0.055 0.000 8.8889 0.096 0.855 0.055 0.000 9.0667 0.096 0.873 0.056 0.000 9.2444 0.096 0.890 0.056 0.000 9.4222 0.096 0.907 0.057 0.000 9.6000 0.096 0.924 0.057 0.000 9.7778 0.096 0.941 0.058 0.000 9.9556 0.096 0.958 0.058 0.000 10.133 0.096 0.975 0.059 0.000 10.311 0.096 0.992 0.059 0.000 10.489 0.096 1.009 0.060 0.000 10.667 0.096 1.027 0.060 0.000 10.844 0.096 1.044 0.061 0.000 11.022 0.096 1.061 0.061 0.000 11.200 0.096 1.078 0.062 0.000 11.378 0.096 1.095 0.062 0.000 11.556 0.096 1.112 0.063 0.000 11.733 0.096 1.129 0.063 0.000 11.911 0.096 1.146 0.064 0.000 12.089 0.096 1.164 0.067 0.000 12.267 0.096 1.181 0.070 0.000 12.444 0.096 1.198 0.072 0.000 12.622 0.096 1.215 0.074 0.000 12.800 0.096 1.232 0.075 0.000 12.978 0.096 1.249 0.076 0.000 13.156 0.096 1.266 0.078 0.000 13.333 0.096 1.283 0.079 0.000 13.511 0.096 1.300 0.080 0.000 13.689 0.096 1.318 0.081 0.000 13.867 0.096 1.335 0.082 0.000 14.044 0.096 1.352 0.083 0.000 14.222 0.096 1.369 0.084 0.000 14.400 0.096 1.386 0.085 0.000 14.578 0.096 1.403 0.086 0.000 14.756 0.096 1.420 0.087 0.000 14.933 0.096 1.437 0.088 0.000 15.111 0.096 1.455 0.677 0.000 15.289 0.096 1.472 2.465 0.000 15.467 0.096 1.489 4.417 0.000 15.644 0.096 1.506 5.741 0.000 15.822 0.096 1.523 6.519 0.000 16.000 0.096 1.540 7.180 0.000 16.178 0.096 1.557 7.785 0.000 16.356 0.000 0.000 8.346 0.000 Earlington 3/24/2017 8:58:25 AM Page 15 Analysis Results POC 1 + Predeveloped x Mitigated Predeveloped Landuse Totals for POC #1 Total Pervious Area:4.33 Total Impervious Area:0 Mitigated Landuse Totals for POC #1 Total Pervious Area:1.86 Total Impervious Area:2.470083 Flow Frequency Method:Log Pearson Type III 17B Flow Frequency Return Periods for Predeveloped. POC #1 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0.128926 5 year 0.211258 10 year 0.264195 25 year 0.327166 50 year 0.370784 100 year 0.411525 Flow Frequency Return Periods for Mitigated. POC #1 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0.120137 5 year 0.166949 10 year 0.201894 25 year 0.250761 50 year 0.290732 100 year 0.333886 Annual Peaks Annual Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #1 Year Predeveloped Mitigated 1949 0.148 0.161 1950 0.176 0.173 1951 0.282 0.132 1952 0.088 0.080 1953 0.071 0.085 1954 0.110 0.099 1955 0.175 0.104 1956 0.141 0.116 1957 0.114 0.130 1958 0.127 0.091 Earlington 3/24/2017 8:59:01 AM Page 16 1959 0.109 0.085 1960 0.194 0.145 1961 0.107 0.126 1962 0.067 0.073 1963 0.091 0.108 1964 0.130 0.106 1965 0.086 0.125 1966 0.083 0.096 1967 0.198 0.171 1968 0.111 0.127 1969 0.108 0.109 1970 0.087 0.105 1971 0.098 0.133 1972 0.214 0.152 1973 0.095 0.087 1974 0.105 0.128 1975 0.146 0.135 1976 0.105 0.109 1977 0.015 0.078 1978 0.088 0.101 1979 0.053 0.088 1980 0.252 0.199 1981 0.079 0.111 1982 0.163 0.201 1983 0.140 0.114 1984 0.084 0.083 1985 0.050 0.092 1986 0.221 0.124 1987 0.195 0.130 1988 0.077 0.083 1989 0.051 0.074 1990 0.467 0.301 1991 0.248 0.227 1992 0.101 0.099 1993 0.099 0.074 1994 0.033 0.068 1995 0.141 0.102 1996 0.327 0.182 1997 0.252 0.338 1998 0.062 0.115 1999 0.277 0.237 2000 0.098 0.116 2001 0.018 0.087 2002 0.114 0.170 2003 0.170 0.144 2004 0.182 0.214 2005 0.135 0.113 2006 0.152 0.121 2007 0.353 0.283 2008 0.430 0.216 2009 0.201 0.154 Ranked Annual Peaks Ranked Annual Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #1 Rank Predeveloped Mitigated 1 0.4669 0.3380 2 0.4301 0.3008 3 0.3529 0.2832 Earlington 3/24/2017 8:59:01 AM Page 17 4 0.3270 0.2368 5 0.2817 0.2272 6 0.2767 0.2159 7 0.2523 0.2139 8 0.2517 0.2007 9 0.2476 0.1988 10 0.2209 0.1818 11 0.2138 0.1733 12 0.2005 0.1711 13 0.1980 0.1700 14 0.1950 0.1611 15 0.1944 0.1539 16 0.1818 0.1524 17 0.1761 0.1450 18 0.1752 0.1438 19 0.1701 0.1347 20 0.1633 0.1331 21 0.1517 0.1322 22 0.1484 0.1303 23 0.1462 0.1296 24 0.1414 0.1278 25 0.1412 0.1266 26 0.1397 0.1261 27 0.1349 0.1247 28 0.1295 0.1239 29 0.1265 0.1213 30 0.1139 0.1162 31 0.1139 0.1161 32 0.1114 0.1150 33 0.1097 0.1138 34 0.1085 0.1130 35 0.1085 0.1105 36 0.1069 0.1091 37 0.1051 0.1086 38 0.1045 0.1084 39 0.1011 0.1057 40 0.0987 0.1049 41 0.0983 0.1036 42 0.0983 0.1023 43 0.0948 0.1010 44 0.0913 0.0993 45 0.0884 0.0992 46 0.0883 0.0964 47 0.0871 0.0917 48 0.0861 0.0913 49 0.0841 0.0881 50 0.0827 0.0872 51 0.0790 0.0868 52 0.0770 0.0852 53 0.0714 0.0847 54 0.0665 0.0831 55 0.0617 0.0826 56 0.0534 0.0802 57 0.0510 0.0777 58 0.0499 0.0742 59 0.0331 0.0736 60 0.0177 0.0729 61 0.0153 0.0682 Earlington 3/24/2017 8:59:01 AM Page 18 Earlington 3/24/2017 8:59:01 AM Page 19 Duration Flows The Facility PASSED Flow(cfs)Predev Mit Percentage Pass/Fail 0.0645 17348 16527 95 Pass 0.0676 15740 12326 78 Pass 0.0707 14343 9349 65 Pass 0.0737 13075 7454 57 Pass 0.0768 11890 6102 51 Pass 0.0799 10797 5127 47 Pass 0.0830 9569 4068 42 Pass 0.0861 8780 3407 38 Pass 0.0892 8089 2849 35 Pass 0.0923 7409 2284 30 Pass 0.0954 6817 1767 25 Pass 0.0985 6265 1290 20 Pass 0.1016 5811 976 16 Pass 0.1047 5399 778 14 Pass 0.1078 5011 595 11 Pass 0.1109 4665 505 10 Pass 0.1140 4344 415 9 Pass 0.1171 3957 318 8 Pass 0.1202 3651 268 7 Pass 0.1233 3407 244 7 Pass 0.1263 3161 218 6 Pass 0.1294 2947 192 6 Pass 0.1325 2742 171 6 Pass 0.1356 2517 153 6 Pass 0.1387 2357 142 6 Pass 0.1418 2177 124 5 Pass 0.1449 2020 117 5 Pass 0.1480 1822 110 6 Pass 0.1511 1706 103 6 Pass 0.1542 1583 93 5 Pass 0.1573 1451 85 5 Pass 0.1604 1338 77 5 Pass 0.1635 1245 70 5 Pass 0.1666 1163 65 5 Pass 0.1697 1096 62 5 Pass 0.1728 1034 58 5 Pass 0.1759 974 54 5 Pass 0.1789 902 52 5 Pass 0.1820 825 49 5 Pass 0.1851 764 45 5 Pass 0.1882 726 45 6 Pass 0.1913 678 41 6 Pass 0.1944 633 38 6 Pass 0.1975 595 36 6 Pass 0.2006 563 33 5 Pass 0.2037 513 32 6 Pass 0.2068 476 30 6 Pass 0.2099 436 28 6 Pass 0.2130 395 26 6 Pass 0.2161 356 22 6 Pass 0.2192 329 21 6 Pass 0.2223 299 20 6 Pass 0.2254 272 18 6 Pass Earlington 3/24/2017 8:59:01 AM Page 20 0.2285 246 16 6 Pass 0.2315 222 15 6 Pass 0.2346 202 14 6 Pass 0.2377 179 13 7 Pass 0.2408 156 11 7 Pass 0.2439 135 10 7 Pass 0.2470 119 10 8 Pass 0.2501 104 10 9 Pass 0.2532 95 10 10 Pass 0.2563 84 10 11 Pass 0.2594 77 10 12 Pass 0.2625 69 10 14 Pass 0.2656 62 10 16 Pass 0.2687 54 10 18 Pass 0.2718 47 10 21 Pass 0.2749 42 10 23 Pass 0.2780 32 10 31 Pass 0.2811 25 10 40 Pass 0.2841 22 8 36 Pass 0.2872 20 7 35 Pass 0.2903 18 7 38 Pass 0.2934 14 7 50 Pass 0.2965 13 7 53 Pass 0.2996 10 7 70 Pass 0.3027 7 6 85 Pass 0.3058 7 6 85 Pass 0.3089 7 6 85 Pass 0.3120 6 5 83 Pass 0.3151 6 5 83 Pass 0.3182 6 4 66 Pass 0.3213 6 4 66 Pass 0.3244 6 4 66 Pass 0.3275 5 2 40 Pass 0.3306 5 2 40 Pass 0.3337 5 2 40 Pass 0.3367 5 1 20 Pass 0.3398 5 0 0 Pass 0.3429 5 0 0 Pass 0.3460 5 0 0 Pass 0.3491 4 0 0 Pass 0.3522 4 0 0 Pass 0.3553 3 0 0 Pass 0.3584 3 0 0 Pass 0.3615 3 0 0 Pass 0.3646 3 0 0 Pass 0.3677 3 0 0 Pass 0.3708 3 0 0 Pass Earlington 3/24/2017 8:59:01 AM Page 21 Water Quality Water Quality BMP Flow and Volume for POC #1 On-line facility volume:0.3298 acre-feet On-line facility target flow:0.3787 cfs. Adjusted for 15 min:0.3787 cfs. Off-line facility target flow:0.2111 cfs. Adjusted for 15 min:0.2111 cfs. Earlington 3/24/2017 8:59:01 AM Page 22 LID Report Earlington 3/24/2017 8:59:27 AM Page 23 POC 2 POC #2 was not reported because POC must exist in both scenarios and both scenarios must have been run. Earlington 3/24/2017 8:59:27 AM Page 24 Model Default Modifications Total of 0 changes have been made. PERLND Changes No PERLND changes have been made. IMPLND Changes No IMPLND changes have been made. Earlington 3/24/2017 8:59:27 AM Page 25 Appendix Predeveloped Schematic Earlington 3/24/2017 8:59:27 AM Page 26 Mitigated Schematic Earlington 3/24/2017 8:59:28 AM Page 27 Predeveloped UCI File RUN GLOBAL WWHM4 model simulation START 1948 10 01 END 2009 09 30 RUN INTERP OUTPUT LEVEL 3 0 RESUME 0 RUN 1 UNIT SYSTEM 1 END GLOBAL FILES <File> <Un#> <-----------File Name------------------------------>*** <-ID-> *** WDM 26 Earlington.wdm MESSU 25 PreEarlington.MES 27 PreEarlington.L61 28 PreEarlington.L62 30 POCEarlington1.dat END FILES OPN SEQUENCE INGRP INDELT 00:15 PERLND 11 COPY 501 DISPLY 1 END INGRP END OPN SEQUENCE DISPLY DISPLY-INFO1 # - #<----------Title----------->***TRAN PIVL DIG1 FIL1 PYR DIG2 FIL2 YRND 1 PreDev Onsite and Frontag MAX 1 2 30 9 END DISPLY-INFO1 END DISPLY COPY TIMESERIES # - # NPT NMN *** 1 1 1 501 1 1 END TIMESERIES END COPY GENER OPCODE # # OPCD *** END OPCODE PARM # # K *** END PARM END GENER PERLND GEN-INFO <PLS ><-------Name------->NBLKS Unit-systems Printer *** # - # User t-series Engl Metr *** in out *** 11 C, Forest, Mod 1 1 1 1 27 0 END GEN-INFO *** Section PWATER*** ACTIVITY <PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # ATMP SNOW PWAT SED PST PWG PQAL MSTL PEST NITR PHOS TRAC *** 11 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 END ACTIVITY PRINT-INFO <PLS > ***************** Print-flags ***************************** PIVL PYR # - # ATMP SNOW PWAT SED PST PWG PQAL MSTL PEST NITR PHOS TRAC ********* 11 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 END PRINT-INFO Earlington 3/24/2017 8:59:28 AM Page 28 PWAT-PARM1 <PLS > PWATER variable monthly parameter value flags *** # - # CSNO RTOP UZFG VCS VUZ VNN VIFW VIRC VLE INFC HWT *** 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 END PWAT-PARM1 PWAT-PARM2 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 2 *** # - # ***FOREST LZSN INFILT LSUR SLSUR KVARY AGWRC 11 0 4.5 0.08 400 0.1 0.5 0.996 END PWAT-PARM2 PWAT-PARM3 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 3 *** # - # ***PETMAX PETMIN INFEXP INFILD DEEPFR BASETP AGWETP 11 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 END PWAT-PARM3 PWAT-PARM4 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 4 *** # - # CEPSC UZSN NSUR INTFW IRC LZETP *** 11 0.2 0.5 0.35 6 0.5 0.7 END PWAT-PARM4 PWAT-STATE1 <PLS > *** Initial conditions at start of simulation ran from 1990 to end of 1992 (pat 1-11-95) RUN 21 *** # - # *** CEPS SURS UZS IFWS LZS AGWS GWVS 11 0 0 0 0 2.5 1 0 END PWAT-STATE1 END PERLND IMPLND GEN-INFO <PLS ><-------Name-------> Unit-systems Printer *** # - # User t-series Engl Metr *** in out *** END GEN-INFO *** Section IWATER*** ACTIVITY <PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # ATMP SNOW IWAT SLD IWG IQAL *** END ACTIVITY PRINT-INFO <ILS > ******** Print-flags ******** PIVL PYR # - # ATMP SNOW IWAT SLD IWG IQAL ********* END PRINT-INFO IWAT-PARM1 <PLS > IWATER variable monthly parameter value flags *** # - # CSNO RTOP VRS VNN RTLI *** END IWAT-PARM1 IWAT-PARM2 <PLS > IWATER input info: Part 2 *** # - # *** LSUR SLSUR NSUR RETSC END IWAT-PARM2 IWAT-PARM3 <PLS > IWATER input info: Part 3 *** # - # ***PETMAX PETMIN END IWAT-PARM3 IWAT-STATE1 <PLS > *** Initial conditions at start of simulation # - # *** RETS SURS END IWAT-STATE1 Earlington 3/24/2017 8:59:28 AM Page 29 END IMPLND SCHEMATIC <-Source-> <--Area--> <-Target-> MBLK *** <Name> # <-factor-> <Name> # Tbl# *** PreDev Onsite and Frontage*** PERLND 11 4.33 COPY 501 12 PERLND 11 4.33 COPY 501 13 ******Routing****** END SCHEMATIC NETWORK <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** COPY 501 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 48.4 DISPLY 1 INPUT TIMSER 1 <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** END NETWORK RCHRES GEN-INFO RCHRES Name Nexits Unit Systems Printer *** # - #<------------------><---> User T-series Engl Metr LKFG *** in out *** END GEN-INFO *** Section RCHRES*** ACTIVITY <PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # HYFG ADFG CNFG HTFG SDFG GQFG OXFG NUFG PKFG PHFG *** END ACTIVITY PRINT-INFO <PLS > ***************** Print-flags ******************* PIVL PYR # - # HYDR ADCA CONS HEAT SED GQL OXRX NUTR PLNK PHCB PIVL PYR ********* END PRINT-INFO HYDR-PARM1 RCHRES Flags for each HYDR Section *** # - # VC A1 A2 A3 ODFVFG for each *** ODGTFG for each FUNCT for each FG FG FG FG possible exit *** possible exit possible exit * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *** END HYDR-PARM1 HYDR-PARM2 # - # FTABNO LEN DELTH STCOR KS DB50 *** <------><--------><--------><--------><--------><--------><--------> *** END HYDR-PARM2 HYDR-INIT RCHRES Initial conditions for each HYDR section *** # - # *** VOL Initial value of COLIND Initial value of OUTDGT *** ac-ft for each possible exit for each possible exit <------><--------> <---><---><---><---><---> *** <---><---><---><---><---> END HYDR-INIT END RCHRES SPEC-ACTIONS END SPEC-ACTIONS FTABLES END FTABLES EXT SOURCES <-Volume-> <Member> SsysSgap<--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # tem strg<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** WDM 2 PREC ENGL 1 PERLND 1 999 EXTNL PREC WDM 2 PREC ENGL 1 IMPLND 1 999 EXTNL PREC Earlington 3/24/2017 8:59:28 AM Page 30 WDM 1 EVAP ENGL 0.76 PERLND 1 999 EXTNL PETINP WDM 1 EVAP ENGL 0.76 IMPLND 1 999 EXTNL PETINP END EXT SOURCES EXT TARGETS <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Volume-> <Member> Tsys Tgap Amd *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # <Name> tem strg strg*** COPY 501 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 48.4 WDM 501 FLOW ENGL REPL END EXT TARGETS MASS-LINK <Volume> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult--> <Target> <-Grp> <-Member->*** <Name> <Name> # #<-factor-> <Name> <Name> # #*** MASS-LINK 12 PERLND PWATER SURO 0.083333 COPY INPUT MEAN END MASS-LINK 12 MASS-LINK 13 PERLND PWATER IFWO 0.083333 COPY INPUT MEAN END MASS-LINK 13 END MASS-LINK END RUN Earlington 3/24/2017 8:59:28 AM Page 31 Mitigated UCI File RUN GLOBAL WWHM4 model simulation START 1948 10 01 END 2009 09 30 RUN INTERP OUTPUT LEVEL 3 0 RESUME 0 RUN 1 UNIT SYSTEM 1 END GLOBAL FILES <File> <Un#> <-----------File Name------------------------------>*** <-ID-> *** WDM 26 Earlington.wdm MESSU 25 MitEarlington.MES 27 MitEarlington.L61 28 MitEarlington.L62 30 POCEarlington1.dat END FILES OPN SEQUENCE INGRP INDELT 00:15 IMPLND 16 RCHRES 1 PERLND 16 IMPLND 2 IMPLND 4 IMPLND 5 IMPLND 17 RCHRES 2 PERLND 17 IMPLND 9 RCHRES 3 COPY 1 COPY 501 COPY 601 DISPLY 1 END INGRP END OPN SEQUENCE DISPLY DISPLY-INFO1 # - #<----------Title----------->***TRAN PIVL DIG1 FIL1 PYR DIG2 FIL2 YRND 1 Dev Onsite, Bypass, Sidew MAX 1 2 30 9 END DISPLY-INFO1 END DISPLY COPY TIMESERIES # - # NPT NMN *** 1 1 1 501 1 1 601 1 1 END TIMESERIES END COPY GENER OPCODE # # OPCD *** END OPCODE PARM # # K *** END PARM END GENER PERLND GEN-INFO <PLS ><-------Name------->NBLKS Unit-systems Printer *** # - # User t-series Engl Metr *** in out *** 16 C, Lawn, Flat 1 1 1 1 27 0 17 C, Lawn, Mod 1 1 1 1 27 0 END GEN-INFO Earlington 3/24/2017 8:59:28 AM Page 32 *** Section PWATER*** ACTIVITY <PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # ATMP SNOW PWAT SED PST PWG PQAL MSTL PEST NITR PHOS TRAC *** 16 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 END ACTIVITY PRINT-INFO <PLS > ***************** Print-flags ***************************** PIVL PYR # - # ATMP SNOW PWAT SED PST PWG PQAL MSTL PEST NITR PHOS TRAC ********* 16 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 17 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 END PRINT-INFO PWAT-PARM1 <PLS > PWATER variable monthly parameter value flags *** # - # CSNO RTOP UZFG VCS VUZ VNN VIFW VIRC VLE INFC HWT *** 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 END PWAT-PARM1 PWAT-PARM2 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 2 *** # - # ***FOREST LZSN INFILT LSUR SLSUR KVARY AGWRC 16 0 4.5 0.03 400 0.05 0.5 0.996 17 0 4.5 0.03 400 0.1 0.5 0.996 END PWAT-PARM2 PWAT-PARM3 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 3 *** # - # ***PETMAX PETMIN INFEXP INFILD DEEPFR BASETP AGWETP 16 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 17 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 END PWAT-PARM3 PWAT-PARM4 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 4 *** # - # CEPSC UZSN NSUR INTFW IRC LZETP *** 16 0.1 0.25 0.25 6 0.5 0.25 17 0.1 0.25 0.25 6 0.5 0.25 END PWAT-PARM4 PWAT-STATE1 <PLS > *** Initial conditions at start of simulation ran from 1990 to end of 1992 (pat 1-11-95) RUN 21 *** # - # *** CEPS SURS UZS IFWS LZS AGWS GWVS 16 0 0 0 0 2.5 1 0 17 0 0 0 0 2.5 1 0 END PWAT-STATE1 END PERLND IMPLND GEN-INFO <PLS ><-------Name-------> Unit-systems Printer *** # - # User t-series Engl Metr *** in out *** 16 Porous Pavement 1 1 1 27 0 2 ROADS/MOD 1 1 1 27 0 4 ROOF TOPS/FLAT 1 1 1 27 0 5 DRIVEWAYS/FLAT 1 1 1 27 0 17 Porous Pavement 1 1 1 27 0 9 SIDEWALKS/MOD 1 1 1 27 0 END GEN-INFO *** Section IWATER*** ACTIVITY <PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # ATMP SNOW IWAT SLD IWG IQAL *** Earlington 3/24/2017 8:59:28 AM Page 33 16 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 5 0 0 1 0 0 0 17 0 0 1 0 0 0 9 0 0 1 0 0 0 END ACTIVITY PRINT-INFO <ILS > ******** Print-flags ******** PIVL PYR # - # ATMP SNOW IWAT SLD IWG IQAL ********* 16 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 9 2 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 9 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 9 5 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 9 17 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 9 9 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 9 END PRINT-INFO IWAT-PARM1 <PLS > IWATER variable monthly parameter value flags *** # - # CSNO RTOP VRS VNN RTLI *** 16 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 END IWAT-PARM1 IWAT-PARM2 <PLS > IWATER input info: Part 2 *** # - # *** LSUR SLSUR NSUR RETSC 16 400 0.01 0.1 0.1 2 400 0.05 0.1 0.08 4 400 0.01 0.1 0.1 5 400 0.01 0.1 0.1 17 400 0.01 0.1 0.1 9 400 0.05 0.1 0.08 END IWAT-PARM2 IWAT-PARM3 <PLS > IWATER input info: Part 3 *** # - # ***PETMAX PETMIN 16 0 0 2 0 0 4 0 0 5 0 0 17 0 0 9 0 0 END IWAT-PARM3 IWAT-STATE1 <PLS > *** Initial conditions at start of simulation # - # *** RETS SURS 16 0 0 2 0 0 4 0 0 5 0 0 17 0 0 9 0 0 END IWAT-STATE1 END IMPLND SCHEMATIC <-Source-> <--Area--> <-Target-> MBLK *** <Name> # <-factor-> <Name> # Tbl# *** IMPLND 16 0.1601 RCHRES 1 5 Dev Onsite, Detained*** Earlington 3/24/2017 8:59:28 AM Page 34 PERLND 16 1.27 RCHRES 3 2 PERLND 16 1.27 RCHRES 3 3 IMPLND 2 0.67 RCHRES 3 5 IMPLND 4 1.28 RCHRES 3 5 IMPLND 5 0.1 RCHRES 3 5 IMPLND 17 0.03 RCHRES 2 5 Dev Offsite, Detained*** PERLND 17 0.17 RCHRES 3 2 PERLND 17 0.17 RCHRES 3 3 IMPLND 9 0.13 RCHRES 3 5 Dev Onsite, Bypass*** PERLND 16 0.42 COPY 501 12 PERLND 16 0.42 COPY 601 12 PERLND 16 0.42 COPY 501 13 PERLND 16 0.42 COPY 601 13 IMPLND 2 0.05 COPY 501 15 IMPLND 2 0.05 COPY 601 15 Dev Offsite, Bypass*** IMPLND 2 0.02 COPY 501 15 IMPLND 2 0.02 COPY 601 15 IMPLND 9 0.03 COPY 501 15 IMPLND 9 0.03 COPY 601 15 ******Routing****** RCHRES 1 1 RCHRES 3 6 RCHRES 1 COPY 1 16 PERLND 16 1.27 COPY 1 12 IMPLND 2 0.67 COPY 1 15 IMPLND 4 1.28 COPY 1 15 IMPLND 5 0.1 COPY 1 15 PERLND 16 1.27 COPY 1 13 PERLND 17 0.17 COPY 1 12 IMPLND 9 0.13 COPY 1 15 PERLND 17 0.17 COPY 1 13 RCHRES 2 1 COPY 501 16 RCHRES 3 1 COPY 501 16 END SCHEMATIC NETWORK <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** COPY 501 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 48.4 DISPLY 1 INPUT TIMSER 1 <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** END NETWORK RCHRES GEN-INFO RCHRES Name Nexits Unit Systems Printer *** # - #<------------------><---> User T-series Engl Metr LKFG *** in out *** 1 Dev Onsite, Deta-005 1 1 1 1 28 0 1 2 Dev Onsite, Bypa-008 1 1 1 1 28 0 1 3 Dev Onsite, Vaul-009 1 1 1 1 28 0 1 END GEN-INFO *** Section RCHRES*** ACTIVITY <PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # HYFG ADFG CNFG HTFG SDFG GQFG OXFG NUFG PKFG PHFG *** 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 END ACTIVITY PRINT-INFO <PLS > ***************** Print-flags ******************* PIVL PYR Earlington 3/24/2017 8:59:28 AM Page 35 # - # HYDR ADCA CONS HEAT SED GQL OXRX NUTR PLNK PHCB PIVL PYR ********* 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 END PRINT-INFO HYDR-PARM1 RCHRES Flags for each HYDR Section *** # - # VC A1 A2 A3 ODFVFG for each *** ODGTFG for each FUNCT for each FG FG FG FG possible exit *** possible exit possible exit * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *** 1 0 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 3 0 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 END HYDR-PARM1 HYDR-PARM2 # - # FTABNO LEN DELTH STCOR KS DB50 *** <------><--------><--------><--------><--------><--------><--------> *** 1 1 0.29 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 2 2 0.05 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 3 3 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 END HYDR-PARM2 HYDR-INIT RCHRES Initial conditions for each HYDR section *** # - # *** VOL Initial value of COLIND Initial value of OUTDGT *** ac-ft for each possible exit for each possible exit <------><--------> <---><---><---><---><---> *** <---><---><---><---><---> 1 0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3 0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 END HYDR-INIT END RCHRES SPEC-ACTIONS END SPEC-ACTIONS FTABLES FTABLE 1 91 4 Depth Area Volume Outflow1 Velocity Travel Time*** (ft) (acres) (acre-ft) (cfs) (ft/sec) (Minutes)*** 0.000000 0.160124 0.000000 0.000000 0.016667 0.160124 0.001067 0.000000 0.033333 0.160124 0.002135 0.000000 0.050000 0.160124 0.003202 0.000000 0.066667 0.160124 0.004270 0.000000 0.083333 0.160124 0.005337 0.000000 0.100000 0.160124 0.006405 0.000000 0.116667 0.160124 0.007472 0.000000 0.133333 0.160124 0.008540 0.000000 0.150000 0.160124 0.009607 0.000000 0.166667 0.160124 0.010675 0.000000 0.183333 0.160124 0.011742 0.000000 0.200000 0.160124 0.012810 0.000000 0.216667 0.160124 0.013877 0.000000 0.233333 0.160124 0.014945 0.000000 0.250000 0.160124 0.016012 0.000000 0.266667 0.160124 0.017080 0.000000 0.283333 0.160124 0.018147 0.000000 0.300000 0.160124 0.019215 0.000000 0.316667 0.160124 0.020282 0.000000 0.333333 0.160124 0.021350 0.000000 0.350000 0.160124 0.022417 0.000000 0.366667 0.160124 0.023485 0.000000 0.383333 0.160124 0.024552 0.000000 0.400000 0.160124 0.025620 0.000000 0.416667 0.160124 0.026687 0.000000 0.433333 0.160124 0.027755 0.000000 0.450000 0.160124 0.028822 0.000000 0.466667 0.160124 0.029890 0.000000 Earlington 3/24/2017 8:59:28 AM Page 36 0.483333 0.160124 0.030957 0.000000 0.500000 0.160124 0.032025 0.000000 0.516667 0.160124 0.033092 0.056054 0.533333 0.160124 0.034160 0.079272 0.550000 0.160124 0.035227 0.097088 0.566667 0.160124 0.036295 0.112107 0.583333 0.160124 0.037362 0.125340 0.600000 0.160124 0.038430 0.137303 0.616667 0.160124 0.039497 0.148304 0.633333 0.160124 0.040565 0.158543 0.650000 0.160124 0.041632 0.168161 0.666667 0.160124 0.042700 0.177257 0.683333 0.160124 0.043767 0.185909 0.700000 0.160124 0.044835 0.194175 0.716667 0.160124 0.045902 0.202104 0.733333 0.160124 0.046970 0.209733 0.750000 0.160124 0.048037 0.217094 0.766667 0.160124 0.049105 0.224214 0.783333 0.160124 0.050172 0.231115 0.800000 0.160124 0.051240 0.237815 0.816667 0.160124 0.052307 0.244332 0.833333 0.160124 0.053375 0.250679 0.850000 0.160124 0.054442 0.256870 0.866667 0.160124 0.055510 0.262914 0.883333 0.160124 0.056577 0.268823 0.900000 0.160124 0.057645 0.274605 0.916667 0.160124 0.058712 0.280268 0.933333 0.160124 0.059780 0.285818 0.950000 0.160124 0.060847 0.291263 0.966667 0.160124 0.061915 0.296607 0.983333 0.160124 0.062982 0.301858 1.000000 0.160124 0.063516 0.307018 1.016667 0.160124 0.064050 0.312093 1.033333 0.160124 0.064583 0.317087 1.050000 0.160124 0.065117 0.322003 1.066667 0.160124 0.065651 0.326846 1.083333 0.160124 0.066185 0.331617 1.100000 0.160124 0.066718 0.336321 1.116667 0.160124 0.067252 0.340960 1.133333 0.160124 0.067786 0.345537 1.150000 0.160124 0.068320 0.350054 1.166667 0.160124 0.068853 0.354514 1.183333 0.160124 0.069387 0.358918 1.200000 0.160124 0.069921 0.363268 1.216667 0.160124 0.070455 0.367568 1.233333 0.160124 0.070988 0.371817 1.250000 0.160124 0.071522 0.376019 1.266667 0.160124 0.072056 0.380174 1.283333 0.160124 0.072590 0.384284 1.300000 0.160124 0.073123 0.388350 1.316667 0.160124 0.073657 0.392375 1.333333 0.160124 0.074191 0.396358 1.350000 0.160124 0.074725 0.400302 1.366667 0.160124 0.075258 0.404208 1.383333 0.160124 0.075792 0.408076 1.400000 0.160124 0.076326 0.411908 1.416667 0.160124 0.076860 0.415704 1.433333 0.160124 0.077393 0.419466 1.450000 0.160124 0.077927 0.423195 1.466667 0.160124 0.078461 0.426891 1.483333 0.160124 0.078994 0.430555 1.500000 0.160124 0.079528 0.434189 END FTABLE 1 FTABLE 2 91 4 Depth Area Volume Outflow1 Velocity Travel Time*** (ft) (acres) (acre-ft) (cfs) (ft/sec) (Minutes)*** 0.000000 0.029959 0.000000 0.000000 0.016667 0.029959 0.000200 0.000000 0.033333 0.029959 0.000399 0.000000 Earlington 3/24/2017 8:59:28 AM Page 37 0.050000 0.029959 0.000599 0.000000 0.066667 0.029959 0.000799 0.000000 0.083333 0.029959 0.000999 0.000000 0.100000 0.029959 0.001198 0.000000 0.116667 0.029959 0.001398 0.000000 0.133333 0.029959 0.001598 0.000000 0.150000 0.029959 0.001798 0.000000 0.166667 0.029959 0.001997 0.000000 0.183333 0.029959 0.002197 0.000000 0.200000 0.029959 0.002397 0.000000 0.216667 0.029959 0.002596 0.000000 0.233333 0.029959 0.002796 0.000000 0.250000 0.029959 0.002996 0.000000 0.266667 0.029959 0.003196 0.000000 0.283333 0.029959 0.003395 0.000000 0.300000 0.029959 0.003595 0.000000 0.316667 0.029959 0.003795 0.000000 0.333333 0.029959 0.003994 0.000000 0.350000 0.029959 0.004194 0.000000 0.366667 0.029959 0.004394 0.000000 0.383333 0.029959 0.004594 0.000000 0.400000 0.029959 0.004793 0.000000 0.416667 0.029959 0.004993 0.000000 0.433333 0.029959 0.005193 0.000000 0.450000 0.029959 0.005393 0.000000 0.466667 0.029959 0.005592 0.000000 0.483333 0.029959 0.005792 0.000000 0.500000 0.029959 0.005992 0.000000 0.516667 0.029959 0.006191 0.056054 0.533333 0.029959 0.006391 0.079272 0.550000 0.029959 0.006591 0.097088 0.566667 0.029959 0.006791 0.112107 0.583333 0.029959 0.006990 0.125340 0.600000 0.029959 0.007190 0.137303 0.616667 0.029959 0.007390 0.148304 0.633333 0.029959 0.007590 0.158543 0.650000 0.029959 0.007789 0.168161 0.666667 0.029959 0.007989 0.177257 0.683333 0.029959 0.008189 0.185909 0.700000 0.029959 0.008388 0.194175 0.716667 0.029959 0.008588 0.202104 0.733333 0.029959 0.008788 0.209733 0.750000 0.029959 0.008988 0.217094 0.766667 0.029959 0.009187 0.224214 0.783333 0.029959 0.009387 0.231115 0.800000 0.029959 0.009587 0.237815 0.816667 0.029959 0.009787 0.244332 0.833333 0.029959 0.009986 0.250679 0.850000 0.029959 0.010186 0.256870 0.866667 0.029959 0.010386 0.262914 0.883333 0.029959 0.010585 0.268823 0.900000 0.029959 0.010785 0.274605 0.916667 0.029959 0.010985 0.280268 0.933333 0.029959 0.011185 0.285818 0.950000 0.029959 0.011384 0.291263 0.966667 0.029959 0.011584 0.296607 0.983333 0.029959 0.011784 0.301858 1.000000 0.029959 0.011884 0.307018 1.016667 0.029959 0.011983 0.312093 1.033333 0.029959 0.012083 0.317087 1.050000 0.029959 0.012183 0.322003 1.066667 0.029959 0.012283 0.326846 1.083333 0.029959 0.012383 0.331617 1.100000 0.029959 0.012483 0.336321 1.116667 0.029959 0.012583 0.340960 1.133333 0.029959 0.012683 0.345537 1.150000 0.029959 0.012782 0.350054 1.166667 0.029959 0.012882 0.354514 1.183333 0.029959 0.012982 0.358918 1.200000 0.029959 0.013082 0.363268 Earlington 3/24/2017 8:59:28 AM Page 38 1.216667 0.029959 0.013182 0.367568 1.233333 0.029959 0.013282 0.371817 1.250000 0.029959 0.013382 0.376019 1.266667 0.029959 0.013481 0.380174 1.283333 0.029959 0.013581 0.384284 1.300000 0.029959 0.013681 0.388350 1.316667 0.029959 0.013781 0.392375 1.333333 0.029959 0.013881 0.396358 1.350000 0.029959 0.013981 0.400302 1.366667 0.029959 0.014081 0.404208 1.383333 0.029959 0.014180 0.408076 1.400000 0.029959 0.014280 0.411908 1.416667 0.029959 0.014380 0.415704 1.433333 0.029959 0.014480 0.419466 1.450000 0.029959 0.014580 0.423195 1.466667 0.029959 0.014680 0.426891 1.483333 0.029959 0.014780 0.430555 1.500000 0.029959 0.014879 0.434189 END FTABLE 2 FTABLE 3 92 4 Depth Area Volume Outflow1 Velocity Travel Time*** (ft) (acres) (acre-ft) (cfs) (ft/sec) (Minutes)*** 0.000000 0.096287 0.000000 0.000000 0.177778 0.096287 0.017118 0.007863 0.355556 0.096287 0.034235 0.011120 0.533333 0.096287 0.051353 0.013620 0.711111 0.096287 0.068471 0.015727 0.888889 0.096287 0.085588 0.017583 1.066667 0.096287 0.102706 0.019261 1.244444 0.096287 0.119824 0.020804 1.422222 0.096287 0.136941 0.022241 1.600000 0.096287 0.154059 0.023590 1.777778 0.096287 0.171177 0.024866 1.955556 0.096287 0.188294 0.026080 2.133333 0.096287 0.205412 0.027239 2.311111 0.096287 0.222530 0.028352 2.488889 0.096287 0.239647 0.029422 2.666667 0.096287 0.256765 0.030455 2.844444 0.096287 0.273883 0.031453 3.022222 0.096287 0.291000 0.032421 3.200000 0.096287 0.308118 0.033361 3.377778 0.096287 0.325236 0.034275 3.555556 0.096287 0.342353 0.035166 3.733333 0.096287 0.359471 0.036034 3.911111 0.096287 0.376589 0.036882 4.088889 0.096287 0.393706 0.037711 4.266667 0.096287 0.410824 0.038522 4.444444 0.096287 0.427942 0.039317 4.622222 0.096287 0.445059 0.040095 4.800000 0.096287 0.462177 0.040859 4.977778 0.096287 0.479295 0.041609 5.155556 0.096287 0.496412 0.042345 5.333333 0.096287 0.513530 0.043069 5.511111 0.096287 0.530648 0.043781 5.688889 0.096287 0.547765 0.044482 5.866667 0.096287 0.564883 0.045171 6.044444 0.096287 0.582001 0.045851 6.222222 0.096287 0.599118 0.046520 6.400000 0.096287 0.616236 0.047180 6.577778 0.096287 0.633354 0.047831 6.755556 0.096287 0.650471 0.048473 6.933333 0.096287 0.667589 0.049106 7.111111 0.096287 0.684707 0.049732 7.288889 0.096287 0.701824 0.050350 7.466667 0.096287 0.718942 0.050960 7.644444 0.096287 0.736060 0.051563 7.822222 0.096287 0.753178 0.052159 8.000000 0.096287 0.770295 0.052749 8.177778 0.096287 0.787413 0.053332 Earlington 3/24/2017 8:59:28 AM Page 39 8.355556 0.096287 0.804531 0.053908 8.533333 0.096287 0.821648 0.054479 8.711111 0.096287 0.838766 0.055043 8.888889 0.096287 0.855884 0.055602 9.066667 0.096287 0.873001 0.056155 9.244444 0.096287 0.890119 0.056703 9.422222 0.096287 0.907237 0.057246 9.600000 0.096287 0.924354 0.057783 9.777778 0.096287 0.941472 0.058316 9.955556 0.096287 0.958590 0.058844 10.13333 0.096287 0.975707 0.059367 10.31111 0.096287 0.992825 0.059885 10.48889 0.096287 1.009943 0.060399 10.66667 0.096287 1.027060 0.060909 10.84444 0.096287 1.044178 0.061415 11.02222 0.096287 1.061296 0.061916 11.20000 0.096287 1.078413 0.062413 11.37778 0.096287 1.095531 0.062907 11.55556 0.096287 1.112649 0.063396 11.73333 0.096287 1.129766 0.063882 11.91111 0.096287 1.146884 0.064364 12.08889 0.096287 1.164002 0.067755 12.26667 0.096287 1.181119 0.070363 12.44444 0.096287 1.198237 0.072302 12.62222 0.096287 1.215355 0.073964 12.80000 0.096287 1.232472 0.075460 12.97778 0.096287 1.249590 0.076844 13.15556 0.096287 1.266708 0.078145 13.33333 0.096287 1.283825 0.079379 13.51111 0.096287 1.300943 0.080560 13.68889 0.096287 1.318061 0.081696 13.86667 0.096287 1.335178 0.082794 14.04444 0.096287 1.352296 0.083859 14.22222 0.096287 1.369414 0.084895 14.40000 0.096287 1.386531 0.085904 14.57778 0.096287 1.403649 0.086890 14.75556 0.096287 1.420767 0.087855 14.93333 0.096287 1.437884 0.088800 15.11111 0.096287 1.455002 0.677533 15.28889 0.096287 1.472120 2.465362 15.46667 0.096287 1.489237 4.417560 15.64444 0.096287 1.506355 5.741834 15.82222 0.096287 1.523473 6.519222 16.00000 0.096287 1.540590 7.180804 16.17778 0.096287 1.557708 7.785819 END FTABLE 3 END FTABLES EXT SOURCES <-Volume-> <Member> SsysSgap<--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # tem strg<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** WDM 2 PREC ENGL 1 PERLND 1 999 EXTNL PREC WDM 2 PREC ENGL 1 IMPLND 1 999 EXTNL PREC WDM 1 EVAP ENGL 0.76 PERLND 1 999 EXTNL PETINP WDM 1 EVAP ENGL 0.76 IMPLND 1 999 EXTNL PETINP WDM 1 EVAP ENGL 0.76 RCHRES 1 EXTNL POTEV WDM 1 EVAP ENGL 0.76 RCHRES 2 EXTNL POTEV END EXT SOURCES EXT TARGETS <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Volume-> <Member> Tsys Tgap Amd *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # <Name> tem strg strg*** COPY 1 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 48.4 WDM 701 FLOW ENGL REPL COPY 501 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 48.4 WDM 801 FLOW ENGL REPL COPY 601 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 48.4 WDM 901 FLOW ENGL REPL RCHRES 3 HYDR RO 1 1 1 WDM 1000 FLOW ENGL REPL RCHRES 3 HYDR STAGE 1 1 1 WDM 1001 STAG ENGL REPL END EXT TARGETS Earlington 3/24/2017 8:59:28 AM Page 40 MASS-LINK <Volume> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult--> <Target> <-Grp> <-Member->*** <Name> <Name> # #<-factor-> <Name> <Name> # #*** MASS-LINK 2 PERLND PWATER SURO 0.083333 RCHRES INFLOW IVOL END MASS-LINK 2 MASS-LINK 3 PERLND PWATER IFWO 0.083333 RCHRES INFLOW IVOL END MASS-LINK 3 MASS-LINK 5 IMPLND IWATER SURO 0.083333 RCHRES INFLOW IVOL END MASS-LINK 5 MASS-LINK 6 RCHRES ROFLOW RCHRES INFLOW END MASS-LINK 6 MASS-LINK 12 PERLND PWATER SURO 0.083333 COPY INPUT MEAN END MASS-LINK 12 MASS-LINK 13 PERLND PWATER IFWO 0.083333 COPY INPUT MEAN END MASS-LINK 13 MASS-LINK 15 IMPLND IWATER SURO 0.083333 COPY INPUT MEAN END MASS-LINK 15 MASS-LINK 16 RCHRES ROFLOW COPY INPUT MEAN END MASS-LINK 16 END MASS-LINK END RUN Earlington 3/24/2017 8:59:28 AM Page 41 Predeveloped HSPF Message File Earlington 3/24/2017 8:59:28 AM Page 42 Mitigated HSPF Message File Earlington 3/24/2017 8:59:28 AM Page 43 Disclaimer Legal Notice This program and accompanying documentation are provided 'as-is' without warranty of any kind. The entire risk regarding the performance and results of this program is assumed by End User. Clear Creek Solutions Inc. and the governmental licensee or sublicensees disclaim all warranties, either expressed or implied, including but not limited to implied warranties of program and accompanying documentation. In no event shall Clear Creek Solutions Inc. be liable for any damages whatsoever (including without limitation to damages for loss of business profits, loss of business information, business interruption, and the like) arising out of the use of, or inability to use this program even if Clear Creek Solutions Inc. or their authorized representatives have been advised of the possibility of such damages. Software Copyright © by : Clear Creek Solutions, Inc. 2005-2017; All Rights Reserved. Clear Creek Solutions, Inc. 6200 Capitol Blvd. Ste F Olympia, WA. 98501 Toll Free 1(866)943-0304 Local (360)943-0304 www.clearcreeksolutions.com Appendix C associated earth sciences incorporated Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. 911 5th Avenue Kirkland, WA 98033 P (425) 827 7701 F (425) 827 5424 Geotechnical Engineering Feasibility Report MINTER PROPERTY Renton, Washington Prepared For: BLUE FERN DEVELOPMENT January 18, 2017 Project No. KE160641A January 18, 2017 Project No. KE160641A Blue Fern Development 11232 120th Avenue NE Kirkland, Washington 98033 Attention: Mr. John Groves associa ted earth sciences incorpor ate d Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Feasibility Report Minter Property South 132nd Street and Renton Avenue South Renton, Washington Dear Mr. Groves: We are pleased to present the enclosed copies of the referenced report. This report summarizes the results of our geotechnical engineering feasibility study and offers preliminary recommendations for the design and development of the proposed project. This report is based on two site concept sketches you provided, and our knowledge of the site gained through completion of a preliminary geotechnical engineering study of the site for another client in 2007. The recommendations presented in this report are based on subsurface explorations completed onsite by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. in 2007. We recommend that we be allowed to review project plans when they are developed and update our recommendations as needed. We have enjoyed working with you on this study and are confident that the recommendations presented in this report will aid in the successful completion of your project. If you should have any questions or if we can be of additional help to you, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. Kirkland, Washington �4N __ \ __ _ Kurt D. Merriman, P.E. Senior Principal Engineer KDM/ld -KE160641A3 -Projects\20160641\KE\WP Kirkland Office I 911 Fifth Avenue I Kirkland, WA 98033 P I 425.827.7701 FI 425.827.5424 Everett Office I 2911 ½ Hewitt Avenue, Suite 2 I Everett, WA 98201 P I 425.259.0522 F I 425.827.5424 Tacoma Office I 1552 Commerce Street, Suite 102 I Tacoma, WA 98402 P I 253.722.2992 F I 253.722.2993 www.aesgeo.com GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING FEASIBILITY REPORT MINTER PROPERTY Renton, Washington Prepared for: Blue Fern Development 11232 120th Avenue NE Kirkland, Washington 98033 Prepared by: Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. 911 5th Avenue Kirkland, Washington 98033 425-827-7701 Fax: 425-827-5424 January 18, 2017 Project No. KE160641A Minter Property Geotechnical Engineering Feasibility Report Renton, Washington Project and Site Conditions January 18, 2017 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. DDV/ld - KE160641A3 - Projects\20160641\KE\WP Page 1 I. PROJECT AND SITE CONDITIONS 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our geotechnical engineering feasibility study for the proposed new residential development. The site location is shown on the “Vicinity Map,” Figure 1. The approximate locations of explorations completed for our 2007 study are shown on the “Site and Exploration Plan,” Figure 2. This report is based on two previously referenced site concept drawings, and our knowledge of the site gained through completion of a preliminary geotechnical engineering study of the site for another client in 2007. Interpretive exploration logs and associated laboratory test results completed for our 2007 study are included in the Appendix. The conclusions and recommendations contained in this report should be reviewed and modified, or verified, to reflect final plans when they are developed. When our 2007 geotechnical engineering report for the site was prepared, the site was under King County jurisdiction. The site was annexed by Renton in 2009, and this annexation means that geotechnical critical areas considerations for the project are substantially different than in 2007. Geotechnical critical areas are discussed in further detail later in this report. 1.1 Purpose and Scope The purpose of this study was to provide subsurface data to be used in the preliminary design of the project. Our study included a review of selected geologic literature, a review of subsurface data from our 2007 exploration, and performing geologic studies to assess the type, thickness, distribution, and physical properties of the subsurface sediments and shallow ground water. Geotechnical engineering studies were completed to formulate preliminary recommendations for site preparation, site grading, construction, and drainage. Storm water infiltration feasibility recommendations were also formulated for the proposed project. This report summarizes our previous fieldwork completed for our 2007 study and offers recommendations for development based on our present understanding of the project. We recommend that we be allowed to review project plans prior to construction to verify that our geotechnical engineering recommendations have been correctly interpreted and incorporated into the design. 1.2 Authorization This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Blue Fern Development and its agents for specific application to this project. Our work was performed in accordance with our scope of work and cost proposal dated December 1, 2016. We were authorized to proceed by means of a signed proposal. Minter Property Geotechnical Engineering Feasibility Report Renton, Washington Project and Site Conditions January 18, 2017 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. DDV/ld - KE160641A3 - Projects\20160641\KE\WP Page 2 Within the limitations of scope, schedule, and budget, our services have been performed in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering and engineering geology practices in effect in this area at the time our report was prepared. No other warranty, express or implied, is made. 2.0 PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION This report was completed with an understanding of the project based on two previously referenced site concept sketches prepared by Contour Engineering LLC, and our knowledge of the site gained through completion of a preliminary geotechnical engineering study of the site for another client in 2007. The project site is irregularly shaped in plan view, and includes several parcels with a total area of approximately 4 acres. The site slopes down to the south with moderate inclinations and overall vertical relief of approximately 70 feet. At the time of our subsurface exploration program, the site was developed with a commercial plant nursery that included a sales building, several greenhouses, and a detached home. We understand that a home previously existed on the east part of the site, and the remnants of that home were demolished after it burned. Gravel driveway and parking areas provided access to various parts of the site, and mature trees were present in an area on the east part of the site. The site appeared to have been graded to its current configuration that generally includes relatively flatter terraces separated by slopes. We anticipate that these flatter terraces were created by cutting on the upslope side and filling on the downslope side. This theory is supported by the subsurface conditions observed in our exploration pits completed as part of our 2007 study of the site. The site includes slopes that meet geometric criteria for treatment as Sensitive Slopes as defined in Renton Municipal Code (RMC) 4-3-050. To support any development proposal, a topographic survey which explicitly depicts Sensitive Slopes will be required. The critical slope plan should be prepared by the project surveyor. The development proposal will also require a detailed geotechnical engineering report that is specific to the proposed site grading plan and critical areas plan. It should be noted that RMC requires a 15-foot buffer around Protected Slopes. RMC provides a mechanism for reducing or eliminating the Protected Slope buffer. Such reductions require a detailed geotechnical report. The City will also hire a third party geotechnical consultant at Blue Fern Development’s expense to review our work. Current site concept drawings call for construction of 65 new single-family residential lots, new paved access roads, and a storm water management area identified on the east part of the site. No site grading or retaining walls are depicted on the concept drawings. We understand that storm water infiltration is desired on this site if feasible. This report contains a feasibility level infiltration discussion. Minter Property Geotechnical Engineering Feasibility Report Renton, Washington Project and Site Conditions January 18, 2017 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. DDV/ld - KE160641A3 - Projects\20160641\KE\WP Page 3 3.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION Our previous 2007 field study of the site included excavation of nine exploration pits. The exploration locations were measured in the field from known site features, and the locations depicted on Figure 2 are taken from a site concept sketch provided to us by Blue Fern Development. Interpretive exploration logs from our 2007 study are presented in the Appendix. The various types of sediments, as well as the depths where characteristics of the sediments changed, are indicated on the exploration logs presented in the Appendix. The depths indicated on the logs where conditions changed may represent gradational variations between sediment types in the field. The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on the explorations completed for our 2007 study of the site. Because of the nature of exploratory work below ground, extrapolation of subsurface conditions between field explorations is necessary. It should be noted that differing subsurface conditions may sometimes be present due to the random nature of deposition and the alteration of topography by past grading and/or filling. The nature and extent of any variations between the field explorations may not become fully evident until construction. If variations are observed at that time, it may be necessary to re-evaluate specific recommendations in this report and make appropriate changes. 3.1 Exploration Pits The exploration pits were excavated using a track-mounted excavator. The pits permitted direct, visual observation of subsurface conditions. Materials encountered in the exploration pits were studied and classified in the field by an engineering geologist from our firm. All exploration pits were backfilled immediately after examination and logging. Selected samples were then transported to our laboratory for further visual classification and testing, as necessary. 4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Subsurface conditions at the project site were inferred from the field explorations accomplished for our 2007 study, visual reconnaissance of the site, and review of selected geologic literature. The general distribution of geologic units is shown on the field logs. The explorations generally encountered medium dense silty to clean sand, interpreted as recessional outwash, overlying medium dense grading to very dense silty sand with gravel and cobbles, interpreted as lodgement till. Existing fill was observed in six exploration pits to depths of up to approximately 9 feet. We reviewed published geologic mapping on Pacific Northwest Center for Geologic Mapping Studies, 2006, Geologic Map of King County, Washington, D.B. Booth and A.P. Wisher, compilers, scale 1:100,000. Our interpretation of Minter Property Geotechnical Engineering Feasibility Report Renton, Washington Project and Site Conditions January 18, 2017 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. DDV/ld - KE160641A3 - Projects\20160641\KE\WP Page 4 geologic conditions at the site closely corresponds to those shown on the referenced geologic map. The project vicinity has outcrops of sandstone bedrock of the Tukwila Formation. Although no bedrock was encountered in our explorations, it is possible that bedrock may be encountered below the lodgement till in deeper site utility excavations. Typically, the upper portion of the bedrock is weathered and can be removed with typical earthwork excavation equipment. 4.1 Stratigraphy Topsoil/Gravel Surfacing We observed a surficial layer of topsoil or gravel surfacing at several of the exploration pit locations. The observed surface materials and thicknesses are noted on the attached exploration logs. Fill Fill soils (those not naturally placed) were encountered in six exploration pits to depths of up to approximately 9 feet below the existing ground surface. Most of the existing fill appeared to consist of sand with silt and gravel that was similar in gradation to the native site soils, and likely originated from excavations onsite. Most of the fill contained little or no debris or other deleterious materials that would prevent its reuse in structural fill applications. One notable exception was exploration pit EP-6, which contained existing fill that included asphalt, concrete rubble, and wood waste. Existing fill is expected to be silty, moisture-sensitive, and above optimum moisture content for compaction purposes. It appears that with the exception of fill observed in EP-6, existing fill materials would be available for reuse in structural fill applications if they are moisture-conditioned during dry site and weather conditions and are free of excessively organic material. Existing fill is not recommended for support of foundations, and will require remedial preparation in areas that will support paving and utilities. Vashon Recessional Outwash Deposits Sediments interpreted to be representative of Vashon recessional outwash were encountered in three of the exploration pits. The Vashon recessional outwash sediments generally consisted of loose grading to medium dense, fine to medium sand with variable silt and gravel content. Recessional outwash was deposited by rivers flowing from the base of northward- retreating continental glaciers near the end of the Vashon Stade of the Fraser Glaciation, approximately 13,000 years ago. Recessional outwash deposits are typically somewhat loose, but are suitable for support of foundations, floor slabs, and paving, with proper preparation. Excavated recessional outwash sediments are expected to be moisture-sensitive and above optimum moisture content for reuse in structural fill applications. Minter Property Geotechnical Engineering Feasibility Report Renton, Washington Project and Site Conditions January 18, 2017 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. DDV/ld - KE160641A3 - Projects\20160641\KE\WP Page 5 Vashon Lodgement Till Six of our exploration pits encountered medium dense grading to very dense silty sand with gravel and cobbles, interpreted as Vashon lodgement till. The lodgement till observed in our explorations graded from medium dense and brown in the weathered zone near the surface to dense to very dense and gray at depth. Lodgement till was deposited at the base of an active continental glacier and was subsequently compacted by the weight of the overlying glacial ice. Lodgement till typically possesses high-strength and low-compressibility attributes that are favorable for support of foundations, floor slabs, and paving, with proper preparation. Lodgement till is silty and highly moisture-sensitive. In the presence of moisture contents above the optimum moisture content for compaction purposes, lodgement till can be easily disturbed by vehicles and earthwork equipment. Careful management of moisture-sensitive soils, as recommended in this report, will be needed to reduce the potential for disturbance of wet lodgement till soils and costs associated with repairing disturbed soils. 4.2 Hydrology Ground water seepage was encountered in six of our exploration pits. The observed seepage occurred in recessional outwash and fill sediments, and within more-permeable granular layers within the lodgement till. Actual depths of ground water observed in each exploration pit are depicted on the logs in the Appendix. Observed ground water seepage was interpreted to represent perched ground water. Perched ground water occurs where downward infiltration of surface water is impeded by low-permeability soil layers such as lodgement till, and the ground water migrates laterally and generally downslope. Ground water conditions should be expected to vary in response to changes in season, weather, on- and off-site land use, and other factors. 4.3 Laboratory Test Results Laboratory testing was completed on selected soil samples from our 2007 explorations. Laboratory testing results are included in the Appendix. Moisture content was tested in accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D-2216. Table 1 summarizes the moisture content laboratory results. Minter Property Geotechnical Engineering Feasibility Report Renton, Washington Project and Site Conditions January 18, 2017 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. DDV/ld - KE160641A3 - Projects\20160641\KE\WP Page 6 Table 1 Exploration Pit Approximate Ground Surface Elevation (feet) Depth to Bearing Soil (feet) Approximate Bearing Soil Elevation (feet) Depth Tested (feet) Existing Moisture Content (percent) EP-1 242 8.5 233.5 8.5 17.8* EP-1 14 18.0 * EP-2 246 0.5 245.5 3 15.6* EP-2 7 13.2* EP-3 255 8 247 3 12.5* EP-3 5 13.5* EP-3 9 11.0* EP-4 264 5 259 8 11.2* EP-4 12 17.5* EP-5 264 6 258 10 12.7* EP-6 295 9 286 EP-7 275 0 275 5 17.0* EP-8 247 4.5 242.5 8 14.6* EP-9 241 2 239 4 20.6* EP-9 7 24.9* * Samples above optimum moisture content. The maximum dry density of one soil sample was determined using the modified Proctor test procedure (ASTM D-1557). The results are as follows in Table 2. Table 2 Sample Location Maximum Dry Density (pcf)(1) Optimum Moisture Content (percent)(2) EP-2 @ 4’ 132.0 8.0 (1) pcf = pounds per cubic foot. (2) Reported results are not corrected for gravel content. 4.4 Infiltration Feasibility Most of the shallow site soils are either dense and impermeable or saturated, and therefore storm water infiltration using shallow strategies does not appear feasible. One exploration pit previously completed near the southeast site corner (EP-1) encountered unsaturated recessional outwash that could potentially serve as an infiltration receptor if it is laterally and vertically extensive and unsaturated, which has not been proven by existing exploration data. Minter Property Geotechnical Engineering Feasibility Report Renton, Washington Project and Site Conditions January 18, 2017 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. DDV/ld - KE160641A3 - Projects\20160641\KE\WP Page 7 The concern for shallow infiltration at this site is not limited to whether or not ground water is able to infiltrate into the subsurface soils, but also the potential adverse effects that additional ground water would have on slope stability of site slopes. Another adverse effect that must be considered is the potential emergence of infiltrated ground water onto neighboring properties. It appears unlikely, in our opinion, that further geotechnical work would support the use of storm water infiltration for the project using conventional shallow infiltration strategies. We are available to discuss the potential for infiltration strategies further upon request. Minter Property Geotechnical Engineering Feasibility Report Renton, Washington Geologic Hazards and Mitigations January 18, 2017 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. DDV/ld - KE160641A3 - Projects\20160641\KE\WP Page 8 II. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS AND MITIGATIONS The following discussion of potential geologic hazards is based on the geologic, slope, and shallow ground water conditions, as observed and discussed herein. 5.0 LANDSLIDE HAZARDS AND MITIGATIONS Geotechnical critical areas are discussed in RMC Section 4.3.050. Based on site geometry and City maps, it appears likely that the site contains slopes that meet geometric criteria for treatment as Sensitive Slopes, and Low, Medium, and High Landslide Hazard Areas. Most of these designations impose additional analysis requirements to be met in support of any development proposal but do not automatically impose limitations that would affect project layout. 6.0 SEISMIC HAZARDS AND MITIGATIONS Earthquakes occur regularly in the Puget Lowland. Most of these events are small and are usually not felt by humans. However, large earthquakes do occur, as evidenced by the 2001, 6.8-magnitude event; the 1965, 6.5-magnitude event; and the 1949, 7.2-magnitude event. The 1949 earthquake appears to have been the largest in this region during recorded history and was centered in the Olympia area. Evaluation of earthquake return rates indicates that an earthquake of the magnitude between 5.5 and 6.0 is likely within a given 20-year period. Generally, there are four types of potential geologic hazards associated with large seismic events: 1) surficial ground rupture, 2) seismically induced landslides, 3) liquefaction, and 4) ground motion. The potential for each of these hazards to adversely impact the proposed project is discussed below. 6.1 Surficial Ground Rupture The nearest known fault zone to the project site is the Seattle Fault Zone, located approximately one mile north of the site. Studies by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) (e.g., Johnson et al., 1994, Origin and Evolution of the Seattle Fault and Seattle Basin, Washington, Geology, v. 22, p.71-74 and Johnson et al., 1999, Active Tectonics of the Seattle Fault and Central Puget Sound Washington - Implications for Earthquake Hazards, Geological Society of America Bulletin, July 1999, v. 111, n. 7, p. 1042-1053) have provided evidence of surficial ground rupture along a northern splay of the Seattle Fault. According to the USGS studies, the latest movement of this fault was about 1,100 years ago when about 20 feet of surficial displacement took place. This displacement can presently be seen in the form of raised, wave-cut beach terraces along Alki Point in West Seattle and Restoration Point at the Minter Property Geotechnical Engineering Feasibility Report Renton, Washington Geologic Hazards and Mitigations January 18, 2017 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. DDV/ld - KE160641A3 - Projects\20160641\KE\WP Page 9 south end of Bainbridge Island. The recurrence interval of movement along this fault system is unknown, although it is hypothesized to be several thousand years. Due to the suspected long recurrence interval and the distance from the site to the currently recognized limits of the Seattle Fault Zone, the potential for surficial ground rupture is considered to be low during the expected life of the structures. 6.2 Seismically Induced Landslides A final geotechnical report for the project will include slope stability analyses completed under static and design level seismic conditions. Seismic slope stability modeling has not been completed at this time. 6.3 Liquefaction Liquefaction is a temporary loss in soil shear strength that can occur when loose granular soils below the ground water table are exposed to cyclic accelerations, such as those that occur during earthquakes. Our explorations suggest that the potential risk of damage to the proposed development by liquefaction is low, due to the dense glacially consolidated lodgement till sediments observed at shallow depths in most areas. 6.4 Ground Motion/Seismic Site Class (2015 International Building Code) Structural design of the buildings should follow 2015 International Building Code (IBC) standards. We recommend that the project be designed in accordance with Site Class “D” as defined in IBC Table 20.3-1 of American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) 7 – Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures. 6.5 Erosion Control The site contains areas that meet City of Renton criteria for treatment as Erosion Hazard Areas. Project plans should include implementation of temporary erosion controls in accordance with local standards of practice. Control methods should include limiting earthwork to seasonally drier periods, typically April 1 to October 31, use of perimeter silt fences, and straw mulch in exposed areas. Removal of existing vegetation should be limited to those areas that are required to construct the project, and new landscaping and vegetation with equivalent erosion mitigation potential should be established as soon as possible after grading is complete. During construction, surface water should be collected as close as possible to the source to minimize silt entrainment that could require treatment or detention prior to discharge. Timely implementation of permanent drainage control measures should also be a part of the project plans, and will help reduce erosion and generation of silty surface water onsite. Minter Property Geotechnical Engineering Feasibility Report Renton, Washington Preliminary Design Recommendations January 18, 2017 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. DDV/ld - KE160641A3 - Projects\20160641\KE\WP Page 10 III. PRELIMINARY DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS 7.0 INTRODUCTION Our exploration indicates that, from a geotechnical standpoint, the proposed project is feasible provided the recommendations contained herein are properly followed. The bearing stratum is sufficiently shallow that conventional shallow foundations should perform well with proper subgrade preparation. Existing fill was observed in existing terraces onsite, and will require special preparation for construction of new structures. Ground water seepage was encountered in several of our explorations and is expected to be encountered during construction in significant excavations. Ground water was observed in our exploration pits on the south part of the site at lower elevations, and therefore may be a factor in design of the storm water management system. 8.0 SITE PREPARATION Site preparation should include removal of all grass, trees, brush, debris, and any other deleterious materials from structural areas. All existing fill around structures that have been demolished should be removed. If any heating oil storage tanks or other similar structures are discovered, they should be decommissioned and removed in accordance with applicable Washington State Department of Ecology regulations. Existing septic systems should be decommissioned in accordance with King County Health Department regulations and removed from below planned structures. Any depressions below planned final grades caused by demolition activities should be backfilled with structural fill, as discussed under the “Structural Fill” section of this report. The existing topsoil, grass, and shrubs should be removed from areas where new buildings, paving, or other structures are planned. The actual observed in-place depth of topsoil and sod at the exploration locations is presented on the exploration logs in the Appendix. After stripping, remaining roots and stumps should be removed from structural areas. All soils disturbed by stripping and grubbing operations should be recompacted as described below for structural fill. Once excavation to subgrade elevation is complete, existing fill should be addressed. Below building foundation areas, we recommend that existing fill be removed to expose underlying undisturbed native materials that are suitable for structural support. The resulting surface should be proof-rolled with a loaded dump truck or other suitable equipment. Any soft, loose, yielding areas or areas exposing existing fill should be excavated to expose suitable bearing soils. The subgrade should then be compacted to at least 95 percent of the modified Proctor maximum dry density, as determined by the ASTM D-1557 test procedure. Structural fill can then be placed to achieve desired grades, if needed. In areas of planned paving, similar Minter Property Geotechnical Engineering Feasibility Report Renton, Washington Preliminary Design Recommendations January 18, 2017 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. DDV/ld - KE160641A3 - Projects\20160641\KE\WP Page 11 preparation methods should be used; however, excavation need only extend 2 feet below planned paving subgrade elevation. We recommend that where existing fills underlie planned grade-sensitive utilities, such as gravity sewer lines, that the upper 2 feet of material below the pipe be prepared as described above for paving subgrades. 8.1 Cutoff Drains Grading challenges caused by ground water seepage would be significantly reduced if a cutoff drain was installed on the upslope side of the project prior to starting other earthwork. Ideally, the cutoff drain would be installed as early as possible and would cover the entire northern site boundary. It may be beneficial if the drain also extended along the west property boundary as far south as any planned substantial excavations in that area. Drains should consist of trenches at least 18 inches wide, excavated to a depth of at least 1 foot into dense silty soils underlying any recessional outwash or fill. The trenches should be provided with a 6-inch, perforated drainpipe, graded to drain to a suitable discharge, and backfilled to within 1 foot of the ground surface by washed drain rock. We recommend that cleanouts be provided at appropriate intervals to allow future maintenance. 8.2 Temporary Cut Slopes In our opinion, stable construction slopes should be the responsibility of the contractor and should be determined during construction. For estimating purposes, however, temporary, unsupported cut slopes can be planned at 1.5H:1V (Horizontal:Vertical) in the weathered till, fill, and recessional outwash deposits and at 1H:1V in dense, unweathered lodgement till. These slope angles are for areas where ground water seepage is not encountered, and assume that surface water is not allowed to flow across the temporary slope faces. If ground or surface water is present when the temporary excavation slopes are exposed, flatter slope angles or temporary shoring will be required. As is typical with earthwork operations, some sloughing and raveling may occur, and cut slopes may have to be adjusted in the field. In addition, WISHA/OSHA regulations should be followed at all times. 8.3 Site Disturbance Most of the on-site soils contain fine-grained material, which makes them moisture-sensitive and subject to disturbance when wet. The contractor must use care during site preparation and excavation operations so that the underlying soils are not softened. If disturbance occurs, the softened soils should be removed and the area brought to grade with structural fill. 8.4 Winter Construction Due to the silt content and existing moisture content of the site soils, it will be nearly impossible to use the existing soil as structural fill unless the fill can be placed during favorable Minter Property Geotechnical Engineering Feasibility Report Renton, Washington Preliminary Design Recommendations January 18, 2017 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. DDV/ld - KE160641A3 - Projects\20160641\KE\WP Page 12 dry weather conditions. If construction takes place in winter, drying is not expected to be feasible, and we anticipate that all of the excavated on-site materials will be unsuitable for structural fill applications. Even during dry weather, site soils excavated for installation of buried utilities might not be suitable for utility backfill under paving or other structures. We recommend budgeting for backfill of buried utility trenches in structural areas with imported select structural fill. For summer construction, significant, but unavoidable effort may be needed to scarify, aerate, and dry site soils that are above optimum moisture content to reduce moisture content prior to compaction in structural fill applications. The effort required to dry site soils would be reduced (but not eliminated) if the cutoff drain is installed, as recommended above. Care should be taken to seal all earthwork areas during mass grading at the end of each workday by grading all surfaces to drain and sealing them with a smooth-drum roller. Stockpiled soils that will be reused in structural fill applications should be covered whenever rain is possible. If winter construction is expected, crushed rock fill could be used to provide construction staging areas. The stripped subgrade should be observed by the geotechnical engineer, and should then be covered with a geotextile fabric, such as Mirafi 500X or equivalent. Once the fabric is placed, we recommend using a crushed rock fill layer at least 10 inches thick in areas where construction equipment will be used. 9.0 STRUCTURAL FILL All references to structural fill in this report refer to subgrade preparation, fill type, placement, and compaction of materials, as discussed in this section. If a percentage of compaction is specified under another section of this report, the value given in that section should be used. For backfill of buried utilities in the right-of-way, the backfill should be placed and compacted in accordance with the City of Renton codes and standards. After stripping, planned excavation, and any required overexcavation have been performed to the satisfaction of the geotechnical engineer/engineering geologist, the surface of the exposed ground should be recompacted to a firm and unyielding condition. If the subgrade contains too much moisture, adequate recompaction may be difficult or impossible to obtain, and should probably not be attempted. In lieu of recompaction, the area to receive fill should be blanketed with washed rock or quarry spalls to act as a capillary break between the new fill and the wet subgrade. Where the exposed ground remains soft and further overexcavation is impractical, placement of an engineering stabilization fabric may be necessary to prevent contamination of the free-draining layer by silt migration from below. After recompaction of the exposed ground is tested and approved, or a free-draining rock course is laid, structural fill may be placed to attain desired grades. Structural fill is defined as non-organic soil, acceptable to the geotechnical engineer, placed in maximum 8-inch loose lifts, with each lift being compacted to 95 percent of ASTM D-1557. The top of the compacted fill Minter Property Geotechnical Engineering Feasibility Report Renton, Washington Preliminary Design Recommendations January 18, 2017 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. DDV/ld - KE160641A3 - Projects\20160641\KE\WP Page 13 should extend horizontally outward a minimum distance of 3 feet beyond the locations of the perimeter footings or roadway edges before sloping down at a maximum angle of 2H:1V. The contractor should note that any proposed fill soils must be evaluated by AESI prior to their use in fills. This would require that we have a sample of the material at least 72 hours in advance to perform a Proctor test and determine its field compaction standard. Soils in which the amount of fine-grained material (smaller than the No. 200 sieve) is greater than approximately 5 percent (measured on the minus No. 4 sieve size) should be considered moisture-sensitive. The existing fill and lodgement till soils are estimated to contain substantially more than 5 percent fine-grained material. Use of moisture-sensitive soil in structural fills should be limited to favorable dry weather and dry subgrade conditions. Construction equipment traversing the site when the soils are wet can cause considerable disturbance. If fill is placed during wet weather or if proper compaction cannot be obtained, a select, import material consisting of a clean, free-draining gravel and/or sand should be used. Free-draining fill consists of non-organic soil, with the amount of fine-grained material limited to 5 percent by weight when measured on the minus No. 4 sieve fraction, and at least 25 percent retained on the No. 4 sieve. In order to reuse excavated on-site soils in structural fill applications, it will be necessary to moisture-condition wet site soils by aeration and drying during favorable dry weather conditions. Alternatives to drying site soils include using imported granular soils suitable for use in structural fill, or treating wet soils with Portland cement. 10.0 FOUNDATIONS Spread footings may be used for building support when they are founded on approved structural fill placed as described above, or on the glacial soils that are prepared as recommended in this report. Based on our observations, suitable foundation bearing soils are expected approximately up to 9 feet below the existing ground surface within the building lots. Existing fill should be removed and replaced with structural fill, as described in the “Site Preparation” section of this report. For residential structures, footings may be designed for an allowable foundation soil bearing pressure of 3,000 pounds per square foot (psf), including both dead and live loads. An increase of one-third may be used for short-term wind or seismic loading. Perimeter footings should be buried at least 18 inches into the surrounding soil for frost protection. However, all foundations must penetrate to the prescribed bearing strata, and no foundations should be constructed in or above loose, organic, or existing fill soils. Minter Property Geotechnical Engineering Feasibility Report Renton, Washington Preliminary Design Recommendations January 18, 2017 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. DDV/ld - KE160641A3 - Projects\20160641\KE\WP Page 14 If a concrete storm water detention vault is proposed, it may be feasible to design vault foundations using higher foundation soil bearing pressures than those presented above for new homes. If a storm water vault is planned we should be allowed to offer situation-specific geotechnical engineering design recommendations. Anticipated settlement of footings founded, as recommended, should be on the order of ¾ inch or less, with differential settlement of ½ inch or less. However, disturbed material not removed from footing trenches prior to footing placement could result in increased settlements. All footing areas should be inspected by AESI prior to placing concrete to verify that the foundation subgrades are undisturbed and construction conforms to the recommendations contained in this report. Such inspections may be required by the City of Renton. Perimeter footing drains should be provided, as discussed under the “Drainage Considerations” section of this report. It should be noted that the area bounded by lines extending downward at 1H:1V from any footing must not intersect another footing or intersect a filled area that has not been compacted to at least 95 percent of ASTM D-1557. In addition, a 1.5H:1V line extending down and away from any footing must not daylight because sloughing or raveling may eventually undermine the footing. Thus, footings should not be placed near the edges of steps or cuts in the bearing soils. 11.0 FLOOR SUPPORT If crawl-space floors are used, an impervious moisture barrier should be provided above the soil surface within the crawl space. Slab-on-grade floors may be used over medium dense to very dense native soils, or over structural fill placed as recommended in the “Site Preparation” and “Structural Fill” sections of this report. Slab-on-grade floors should be cast atop a minimum of 4 inches of washed pea gravel or washed crushed “chip” rock with less than 3 percent passing the U.S. No. 200 sieve to act as a capillary break. The floors should also be protected from dampness by covering the capillary break layer with an impervious moisture barrier at least 10 mils in thickness. 12.0 DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS All footings, basement walls, and retaining walls should be provided with a drain at the footing elevation. Drains should consist of rigid, perforated, polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe surrounded by washed pea gravel. The level of the perforations in the pipe should be set downward and at the bottom of the footing at all locations, and the drain collectors should be constructed with sufficient gradient to allow gravity discharge away from the buildings. In addition, all foundation walls taller than 3 feet should be lined with a minimum, 12-inch-thick, washed gravel blanket drain provided to within 1 foot of finish grade that ties into the footing drain. Minter Property Geotechnical Engineering Feasibility Report Renton, Washington Preliminary Design Recommendations January 18, 2017 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. DDV/ld - KE160641A3 - Projects\20160641\KE\WP Page 15 A prefabricated drainage mat is not an acceptable alternative to the gravel blanket drain unless the entire excavation backfill consists of free-draining structural fill. Roof and surface runoff should not discharge into the footing drain system, but should be handled by a separate, rigid, tightline drain. In planning, exterior grades adjacent to foundations should be sloped downward away from the structures to achieve surface drainage. These recommendations apply to conventional shallow foundation walls and landscape walls less than about 4 feet tall. One should refer to the following section for walls up to 10 feet tall. 13.0 CAST-IN-PLACE RETAINING WALLS AND BASEMENT WALLS All backfill behind foundation walls or around foundation units should be placed as per our recommendations for structural fill and as described in this section of the report. Horizontally backfilled walls that are free to yield laterally at least 0.1 percent of their height may be designed to resist active lateral earth pressure represented by an equivalent fluid equal to 35 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). Fully restrained, horizontally backfilled, rigid walls that cannot yield should be designed for at-rest conditions and an equivalent fluid of 50 pcf. Walls with sloping backfill up to a maximum gradient of 2H:1V should be designed using an equivalent fluid of 55 pcf for yielding conditions or 75 pcf for fully restrained conditions. If parking areas are adjacent to walls, a surcharge equivalent to 2 feet of soil should be added to the wall height in determining lateral design forces. As required by the 2015 IBC, retaining wall design should include a seismic surcharge pressure in addition to the equivalent fluid pressures presented above. Considering the site soils and the recommended wall backfill materials, we recommend a seismic surcharge pressure of 5H and 10H psf, where H is the wall height in feet for the “active” and “at-rest” loading conditions, respectively. The seismic surcharge should be modeled as a rectangular distribution with the resultant applied at the midpoint of the walls. The lateral pressures presented above are based on the conditions of a uniform backfill consisting of excavated on-site soils, or imported structural fill compacted to 90 percent of ASTM D-1557. A higher degree of compaction is not recommended, as this will increase the pressure acting on the walls. A lower compaction may result in settlement of the slab-on-grade or other structures supported above the walls. Thus, the compaction level is critical and must be tested by our firm during placement. Surcharges from adjacent footings or heavy construction equipment must be added to the above values. Perimeter footing drains should be provided for all retaining walls, as discussed under the “Drainage Considerations” section of this report. It is imperative that proper drainage be provided so that hydrostatic pressures do not develop against the walls. This would involve installation of a minimum 1-foot-wide blanket drain to Minter Property Geotechnical Engineering Feasibility Report Renton, Washington Preliminary Design Recommendations January 18, 2017 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. DDV/ld - KE160641A3 - Projects\20160641\KE\WP Page 16 within 1 foot of finish grade for the full wall height using imported, washed gravel against the walls. If situations exist where a footing drain is not feasible for a foundation wall or retaining wall, the wall should be designed for saturated lateral earth pressures and a hydrostatic surcharge. We should be allowed to offer situation-specific recommendations if this situation arises. The use of drainage improvements as recommended herein does not alleviate the need for waterproofing where finished spaces are planned on the interior side of basement walls. Backfilled walls with finished interior space should be waterproofed in accordance with recommendations of the building designer. 13.1 Passive Resistance and Friction Factors Lateral loads can be resisted by friction between the foundation and the natural glacial soils or supporting structural fill soils, or by passive earth pressure acting on the buried portions of the foundations. The foundations must be backfilled with structural fill and compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density to achieve the passive resistance provided below. We recommend the following allowable design parameters: • Passive equivalent fluid = 250 pcf • Coefficient of friction = 0.30 14.0 PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS The pavement for this project is expected to be supported by lodgement till sediments, recessional outwash, or structural fill soils. These soils should be suitable, with proper preparation, to allow the use of standard paving sections. The City of Renton minimum paving section for residential access streets is summarized in RMC 4-6-060 and is 4 inches of asphalt concrete paving (ACP) above 6 inches of crushed rock base. All depths given are compacted depths. All paving materials, base course materials, and placement procedures should comply with suitable standard specifications, such as the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction or other suitable specifications. All structural fill and all native subgrades less than 4 feet below finished grade for a planned roadway should be compacted to 95 percent of the modified Proctor maximum dry density, as determined by ASTM D-1557. Prior to structural fill placement or to placement of base course materials over native subgrades, the area should be proof-rolled under the observation of AESI with a loaded dump truck or other suitable equipment to identify any soft or yielding areas. Any soft or yielding areas should be repaired prior to continuing work. R E N T O N S E AT T L E T U K W I L A K I N G C O U N T Y Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed 0 20001000 FEE T ± NOTE : BLACK AND WHITEREPRODUCTION OF THIS COLORORIGINAL M AY RE DUCE ITSEFFECTIVENESS AND LEAD TOINCORRECT INTERPRETAT ION VICINITY MAP PROJ NO. DATE: FIGURE:KE 1606 41A 12/1 6 1 Document Path: G:\GIS_Projects\aTemplates\aVM_Template\VM_MXD\160641 Fig1 VM_Minter.mxdDATA SOURCES / REFERENCES:USGS: 24K SERIES TOPOGRAPHIC MAPSKING CO: STREETS, CITY LIMITS, PARCELS 2016 LOCATIONS AND DISTANCES SHOWN ARE APPROXIM ATE Ki ts apCounty Sno hom i sh Co unty Pierc e C ount y King Cou nty Renton Ave S S 130th St S 132nd St 84thAveS!( S I T E ¬«167 ¥4 0 5 MIN TER P ROP ERTYRENTON, WA SH ING TON NOTES: 1. BASE MAP REFERENCE: CONTOUR ENGINEERING LLC, MINTER PROPERTY, BOUNDARY AND TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY, 5/17/13.160641 Minter \ 160641 F2 Site-Explr.cdrMINTER PROPERTY RENTON, WASHINGTON SITE AND EXPLORATION PLAN PROJ NO.DATE:FIGURE: KE160641A 12/16 2 BLACK AND WHITE REPRODUCTION OF THIS COLOR ORIGINAL MAY REDUCE ITS EFFECTIVENESS AND LEAD TO INCORRECT INTERPRETATION. a s s o c i a t e d e a r t h s c i e n c e s i n c o r p o r a t e d FEET 40 800 N CONTOUR INTERVAL = 2’ LEGEND: EXPLORATION PITEP NOTE: LOCATION AND DISTANCES SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE. EP-6 EP-7 EP-5 EP-4 EP-1 EP-2 EP-3 EP-9 EP-8 APPENDIX Exploration Logs Laboratory Testing Results Elev. 242 feet Topsoil and Topsoil Fill Fill Loose to medium dense, very moist, yellowish brown, fine to medium SAND, with silt, few fine gravel, trace cobbles, trace debris - wire and plastic (SM). Recessional Outwash Medium dense, very moist, reddish brown, fine to medium SAND, with silt, little fine to coarse gravel (SM). Becomes mottled gray and brown. Bottom of exploration pit at depth 16.5 feet Weak seepage below 11 feet. No caving. DESCRIPTION Renton, WA Minter Property 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 This log is part of the report prepared by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. (AESI) for the named project and should be readtogether with that report for complete interpretation. This summary applies only to the location of this trench at the time ofexcavation. Subsurface conditions may change at this location with the passage of time. The data presented are a simplficationof actual conditions encountered. Logged by: BWG Approved by: BWG 3/28/07 Project No. KE160641A LOG OF EXPLORATION PIT NO. EP-1 Depth (ft)KCTP3 160641.GPJ December 28, 2016 Elev. 246 feet Topsoil Lodgement Till Medium dense, very moist, mottled gray, fine to coarse SAND, with silt, little fine to coarse gravel, trace cobbles (SM). Becomes dense grading to very dense, gray. Bottom of exploration pit at depth 11 feet Weak seepage zones 4 to 5 feet and 7 feet. No caving. DESCRIPTION Renton, WA Minter Property 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 This log is part of the report prepared by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. (AESI) for the named project and should be readtogether with that report for complete interpretation. This summary applies only to the location of this trench at the time ofexcavation. Subsurface conditions may change at this location with the passage of time. The data presented are a simplficationof actual conditions encountered. Logged by: BWG Approved by: BWG 3/28/07 Project No. KE160641A LOG OF EXPLORATION PIT NO. EP-2 Depth (ft)KCTP3 160641.GPJ December 28, 2016 Elev. 255 feet Fill Loose, very moist to wet, mixed, brown, gray, and dark gray, fine to coarse SAND, with silt, little to with fine to coarse gravel (SM). Lodgement Till Dense grading to very dense, very moist, gray, fine to coarse SAND, with silt, with fine to coarse gravel (SM). Bottom of exploration pit at depth 11.5 feet Weak seepage zones 3.5 to 8 feet. Slight to moderate caving above 8 feet. DESCRIPTION Renton, WA Minter Property 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 This log is part of the report prepared by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. (AESI) for the named project and should be readtogether with that report for complete interpretation. This summary applies only to the location of this trench at the time ofexcavation. Subsurface conditions may change at this location with the passage of time. The data presented are a simplficationof actual conditions encountered. Logged by: BWG Approved by: BWG 3/28/07 Project No. KE160641A LOG OF EXPLORATION PIT NO. EP-3 Depth (ft)KCTP3 160641.GPJ December 28, 2016 Elev. 264 feet Fill Loose, very moist, brown, fine SAND, with silt, trace fine gravel. Drain lines bedded in washed rock - 8 feet +/- on center at 4 feet deep. Lodgement Till Dense grading to very dense, very moist, mottled gray to gray, fine to coarse SAND, with silt, little to with fine gravel (SM). Bottom of exploration pit at depth 11 feet No seepage. Slight caving above 5 feet. DESCRIPTION Renton, WA Minter Property 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 This log is part of the report prepared by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. (AESI) for the named project and should be readtogether with that report for complete interpretation. This summary applies only to the location of this trench at the time ofexcavation. Subsurface conditions may change at this location with the passage of time. The data presented are a simplficationof actual conditions encountered. Logged by: BWG Approved by: BWG 3/28/07 Project No. KE160641A LOG OF EXPLORATION PIT NO. EP-4 Depth (ft)KCTP3 160641.GPJ December 28, 2016 Elev. 264 feet Gravel Fill and Topsoil Fill Loose, very moist, brown, fine SAND, with silt, little fine to coarse gravel, trace concrete rubble and plastic drain pipe bedded in washed rock at ~4 feet (SM). Lodgement Till Dense grading to very dense, very moist, gray, fine to coarse SAND, with silt, trace fine to coarse gravel (SM). Poly pipe in ditch at 7 feet. Bottom of exploration pit at depth 11 feet No seepage or caving. DESCRIPTION Renton, WA Minter Property 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 This log is part of the report prepared by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. (AESI) for the named project and should be readtogether with that report for complete interpretation. This summary applies only to the location of this trench at the time ofexcavation. Subsurface conditions may change at this location with the passage of time. The data presented are a simplficationof actual conditions encountered. Logged by: BWG Approved by: BWG 3/28/07 Project No. KE160641A LOG OF EXPLORATION PIT NO. EP-5 Depth (ft)KCTP3 160641.GPJ December 28, 2016 Elev. 295 feet Fill Loose, wet, brown, fine to coarse SAND, with silt, concrete and asphalt rubble, wood (logs, roots, sticks) (SM). Recessional Outwash Medium dense, very moist, gray, silty fine to coarse SAND, with silt, trace fine gravel (SM). Bottom of exploration pit at depth 12 feet Weak seepage 0 to 9 feet. Moderate caving 0 to 9 feet. DESCRIPTION Renton, WA Minter Property 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 This log is part of the report prepared by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. (AESI) for the named project and should be readtogether with that report for complete interpretation. This summary applies only to the location of this trench at the time ofexcavation. Subsurface conditions may change at this location with the passage of time. The data presented are a simplficationof actual conditions encountered. Logged by: BWG Approved by: BWG 3/28/07 Project No. KE160641A LOG OF EXPLORATION PIT NO. EP-6 Depth (ft)KCTP3 160641.GPJ December 28, 2016 Elev. 275 feet Lodgement Till Medium dense grading to dense, mottled gray, fine to coarse SAND, with silt, little fine to coarse gravel (SM). Bottom of exploration pit at depth 4 feet Exploration termianted due to space constraints. No seepage or caving. DESCRIPTION Renton, WA Minter Property 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 This log is part of the report prepared by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. (AESI) for the named project and should be readtogether with that report for complete interpretation. This summary applies only to the location of this trench at the time ofexcavation. Subsurface conditions may change at this location with the passage of time. The data presented are a simplficationof actual conditions encountered. Logged by: BWG Approved by: BWG 3/28/07 Project No. KE160641A LOG OF EXPLORATION PIT NO. EP-7 Depth (ft)KCTP3 160641.GPJ December 28, 2016 Elev. 247 feet Gravel Surface Fill Loose, very moist to wet, brown, fine to coarse SAND, with silt, trace gravel, drainpipe backfilled with washed rock at 4 feet (SM). Recessional Outwash Medium dense to dense, very moist, brown, fine to coarse SAND, few silt, few fine to coarse gravel (SW). Bottom of exploration pit at depth 9 feet Weak seepage 3 to 6 feet. Slight caving 3 to 6 feet. DESCRIPTION Renton, WA Minter Property 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 This log is part of the report prepared by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. (AESI) for the named project and should be readtogether with that report for complete interpretation. This summary applies only to the location of this trench at the time ofexcavation. Subsurface conditions may change at this location with the passage of time. The data presented are a simplficationof actual conditions encountered. Logged by: BWG Approved by: BWG 3/28/07 Project No. KE160641A LOG OF EXPLORATION PIT NO. EP-8 Depth (ft)KCTP3 160641.GPJ December 28, 2016 Elev. 241 feet Topsoil and Topsoil Fill Lodgement Till Medium dense grading to dense, very moist to wet, mottled gray, fine SAND, with silt (SM). Bottom of exploration pit at depth 11 feet Weak seepage below 3 feet. No caving. DESCRIPTION Renton, WA Minter Property 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 This log is part of the report prepared by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. (AESI) for the named project and should be readtogether with that report for complete interpretation. This summary applies only to the location of this trench at the time ofexcavation. Subsurface conditions may change at this location with the passage of time. The data presented are a simplficationof actual conditions encountered. Logged by: BWG Approved by: BWG 3/28/07 Project No. KE160641A LOG OF EXPLORATION PIT NO. EP-9 Depth (ft)KCTP3 160641.GPJ December 28, 2016 Proctor Analysis ASTM D1557, D698 Date Sampled Project Project No.Soil Description Minter Property KE160641A Tested By Collected By Location EB/EP No.Depth MS BG Southeast Site EP-2 4' Percent passing 3/4" sieve:97% A Mold Number 1 2 3 B Water Added field wet dry C Wt. of Wet Soil + Mold (lb)23.150 22.955 22.850 D Wt. of Mold (lb)12.405 12.405 12.405 E Wt. of Wet Soil (lb)10.745 10.550 10.445 F Wet Density, (pcf)144.327 141.708 140.297 G Wt. of Pan (lb)0.495 0.490 0.500 H Wt. of Wet Soil + Pan (lb)3.600 2.480 2.460 J Wt. of Dry Soil + Pan (lb)3.330 2.275 2.335 K Wt. of Water (lb)0.270 0.205 0.125 M Wt. of Dry Soil (lb)2.835 1.785 1.835 N Moisture Content (%)9.5 11.5 6.8 O Dry Density (pcf)131.8 127.1 131.3 Z For a 6 inch mold: Z = 0.074449 For a 4" mold: Z = 0.0333 Optimum Moisture Percentage: Maximum Dry Density: Corrected Moisture Percentage: Corrected Maximum Dry Density: Assumed Specific Gravity:2.7 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. 911 Fifth Ave., Suite 100 Kirkland, WA 98033 425-827-7701 FAX 425-827-5424 Correction for oversize: ASTM D4718 Remarks N/A 132.0 N/A Test Results: 8.0 3/28/2007 Automatic Tamper SAND trace gravel silt ASTM D1557 Method C 110.0 115.0 120.0 125.0 130.0 135.0 140.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0dry density.(pcf)moisture content, % Moisture Content ASTM D 2216 Date Sampled Project Project No.Soil Description 3/28/2007 Minter Property KE160641A Tested By Location EB/EP No.Depth Various MS Onsite Sample ID EP-1 8.5'EP-1 14'EP-2 3' Wet Weight + Pan 455.0 533.2 388.5 Dry Weight + Pan 401.4 467.1 349.4 Weight of Pan 99.6 100.8 99.8 Weight of Moisture 53.6 66.1 39.1 Dry Weight of Soil 301.8 366.3 249.6 % Moisture 17.8 18.0 15.7 Sample ID EP-2 7'EP-3 3'EP-3 1-5' Wet Weight + Pan 329.5 377.9 362.3 Dry Weight + Pan 302.9 347.0 330.9 Weight of Pan 100.7 101.0 97.9 Weight of Moisture 26.6 30.9 31.4 Dry Weight of Soil 202.2 246.0 233.0 % Moisture 13.2 12.6 13.5 Sample ID EP-3 9'EP-4 8'EP-4 12' Wet Weight + Pan 414.0 458.5 331.0 Dry Weight + Pan 382.9 422.4 296.5 Weight of Pan 101.3 100.5 100.0 Weight of Moisture 31.1 36.1 34.5 Dry Weight of Soil 281.6 321.9 196.5 % Moisture 11.0 11.2 17.6 Sample ID EP-5 10'EP-7 5'EP-8 8' Wet Weight + Pan 327.0 520.5 350.1 Dry Weight + Pan 301.5 459.4 317.6 Weight of Pan 101.4 99.7 95.7 Weight of Moisture 25.5 61.1 32.5 Dry Weight of Soil 200.1 359.7 221.9 % Moisture 12.7 17.0 14.6 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. 911 5th Ave., Suite 100 Kirkland, WA 98033 425-827-7701 FAX 425-827-5424 Moisture Content ASTM D 2216 Date Sampled Project Project No.Soil Description 3/28/2007 Minter Property KE160641A Tested By Location EB/EP No.Depth Various MS Onsite Sample ID EP-9 4'EP-9 7' Wet Weight + Pan 318.0 394.2 Dry Weight + Pan 280.6 335.5 Weight of Pan 98.8 99.5 Weight of Moisture 37.4 58.7 Dry Weight of Soil 181.8 236.0 % Moisture 20.6 24.9 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. 911 5th Ave., Suite 100 Kirkland, WA 98033 425-827-7701 FAX 425-827-5424