The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMiscWETLAND ASSESSMENT REPORT AND BUFFER MITIGATION PLAN SW 7TH STREET/NACHES AVENUE SW STORM SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Prepared for SAIC and City of Renton City of Renton Planrnnq L IIvi c��on Prepared by In S C r-- 11 'j\V (C' D Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. (Liki HERRERA P, nted o 100 recycled paper WETLAND ASSESSMENT REPORT AND BUFFER MITIGATION PLAN SW 7TH STREET/ NACHES AVENUE SW STORM SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Prepared for SAIC 999 Third Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, Washington 98104 and City of Renton Renton City Hall 1055 South Grady Way Renton, Washington 98057 Prepared by Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. 2200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 1100 Seattle, Washington 98121 Telephone: 2061441-9080 May 24, 2013 Disclaimer Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. has prepared this report for use by the City of Renton. The results and conclusions in this report represent the professional opinion of Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. They are based in part upon (1) site evaluation, and (2) examination of public domain information concerning the study area. The work was performed according to accepted standards in the field of jurisdictional wetland determination and delineation using the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) and the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Environmental Laboratory 2010). However, final determination of jurisdictional wetland boundaries pertinent to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act is the responsibility of the Seattle District of the US Army Corps of Engineers. Various agencies of the state of Washington and local jurisdictions may require a review of final site development plans that could potentially affect zoning, buffer requirements, water quality, and/or habitat functions of lands in question. Therefore, the findings and conclusions in this report should be reviewed by appropriate regulatory agencies before any detailed site planning and/or construction activities. i 4 HERRERA jr � 1-0505� •'JOt linrriN wrtlsnc ms�ssn��: ref�n CONTENTS Summary.........................'—''''''''''''''—''''''''''''—'—^^''^'''''''''''''''''''''''''''-« Introduction................................................................................................. 1 Study Objectives -'.^..—......—...--_........._-...^^._..._—......---...... 1 Project Description ..............----'.....-.^.._...-------......__'..... j Applicable Laws and Regulations ............--......—....__^........................... 4 WHethods................--.'^...'^.'—''''''''''''''''''''''''—'''---^^^^'''''''''''''''''''—'' 5 Review ofAvailable Information .................................................................... 5 VYedand Delineation ..—.........—__-._..^.....................—............___^' 5 Wetland Classification, Rating, and Functional Assessment .................................... 6 YYetLaMd Ciassifcation....................—..........—...^...-'........................... b VYettandRating ................................................................................. 6 Wet[and Functional Assessment .............................................................. 6 Streams and Critical Habitats ....—__-._....._—...............—...—...-........... 7 Results--...—................................—.........—.................................—.... 9 Analysis of Available Information ................................................................... g Previously Mapped Wetlands ............._...............__........................... 9 MappedSoils .............. .^^'.'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''--^^'^'''''''''' 9 Analysis of Wetland Conditions —...........................-.-.'^.^^...—..................... g Evaluation ofVYet and Functions ................................................................... 16 Regulatory Implications .................—'^.^...-_...............--__...-.............-'. 19 City of Renton -_—..^..—'..............--......--_—_--.............._—.. 19 Shoreline Master Program ........................................................................... 19 VVettamd Classification and Buffers ......................................................... 19 Regulation of Project Actvities........................-.......^...-...................... 20 Mitigation Sequencing ..__...---..............—..........-...............___—.......I1 Buffer Mitigation and Vegetation Management Plan ................................................. 23 Project Impacts .--...—.........—..........................-....--------_. 33 Project Goal, Objective, and Performance Standands...................................—.... 33 G0ai............................................................................................. 34 Objective....................................................................................... 24 Performance Standards .........____...^.....—......—...—..................... 24 Buffer Revegetation Pian .............................—.—_...___^..^................... 34 Monitoring, Site Maintenance, and Contingency Plan ........................................... 28 MonitoringPlan ................................................................................ 38 Site Maintenance and Contingency Plan ................................................... 39 References ..^.^...-__-----_—..............—...^.^^.^.............---_—_ 31 MERRERA n� -~ , ,mmm.h�,m.°*I~",.w~l-` Appendix A Project Plans Appendix B Wetland Delineation Methods Appendix C Wetland Delineation Data Forms Appendix D Wetland Bating Forms TABLES Table S1. Wetlands Delineated in the Study Area for the SW 7th Street/Naches Avenue SW Storm System Improvement Project . .................................................... v Table 1. Wetlands Delineated in the Study Area for the SW 7th Street/Naches Avenue SW Storm System Improvement Project .......................................... 10 Table 2. Summary of Wetland A Within the Study Area ............................................ 13 Table 3. Summary of Wetland B....................................................................... 15 Table 4. Individual Wetland Function Scores for Wetlands in the Study Area .................. 16 Table 5. Native Plant Species Planned for Installation in Proposed Buffer Mitigation Areas for the SW 7th Street/Naches Avenue SW Storm System Improvement Project.......................................................................................... 28 FIGURES Figure 1. Study Area and Vicinity Map for the SW 7th Street/Naches Avenue SW Storm System Improvement Project................................................................. 2 Figure 2. Wetlands, Streams, and Buffers in the Study Area for the SW 7th Street/Naches Avenue SW Storm System Improvement Project ....................... 11 Figure 3. Impacts Associated with the SW 7th Street/Naches Avenue SW Storm System Improvement Project......................................................................... 25 '� HERRERA jr 11 X5051 CCI �ardic .etland as:e;;nent report Iv SUMMARY This wetland assessment report was prepared for the SW 7th Street/Naches Avenue SW Storm System Improvement Project (hereafter referred to as "the project"). The City of Renton proposes to improve stormwater conveyance capacity in the lower SW 7th Street trunk drainage system by installing approximately 3,330 linear feet of additional storm system pipe (Figure 1 and Appendix A). The objective of the project is to reduce upstream flooding along SW 7th Street. This report was prepared in accordance with the Renton Municipal Code Shoreline Master Program regulations,' Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987), and the Regional Supplement to the US Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Environmental Laboratory 2010). Herrera biologists delineated two wetlands in the study area: Wetlands A and B. Wetland A is a large palustrine forested depressional and riverine wetland complex that is contiguous with the Black River Riparian Forest. The portion of Wetland A within the study area extends into the northern portion of the City -owned parcel. Wetland B is a palustrine forested wetland that occupies the southern portion of the City -owned parcel. A summary of the wetlands within the study area is provided in Table S1 including approximate size, classification, and rating and regulated buffer width according to City regulations. Table S1. Wetlands Delineated in the Study Area for the SW 7th Street/Naches Avenue SW Storm System Improvement Project. City of Approximate Approximate Renton Size of Size of Standard Wetland Wetlands Wetland" USFWS Hydrogeomorphic Wetland Buffer Width Name (square feet acres) Classification Classification` __Rating d (feet)e A 10,366 4.24 PFO, PSS, PEM, Depressional and riverine 1 225 PAB, POW (rated as depressional) III B 16,549 0.38 PFO Depressional 75 I Wetland size is onsite portion only. b U5 Fish and Wildlife Service classification is based on Cowardin et at. (1979): palustrine forested (PFO), palustrine scrub -shrub (PSS), palustrine emergent (PEM), palustrine aquatic bed (PAB), and palustrine open water (POW). Includes all classes within the entire wetland unit. ` Hydrogeomorphic classification is based on Brinson (1993). d According to RMC 4-3-090 and the City of Renton (2013), Wetlands A and B are in shoreline jurisdiction; therefore, the category is based on the Ecology rating system (Hruby 2004). e Regulated buffer widths are based on RMC 4-3-090. Buffer widths for Wetlands A and B are based on the following habitat function scores: Wetland A - 29 points, Wetland B - 14 points. ' All wetlands delineated as part of this study are within the City's shoreline master program jurisdiction (City of Renton 2013). HERRERA p 11-!i 011 00 ha fig -11 1--'-,.A "Por. The project will not involve impacts to wetlands; however, unavoidable temporary impacts will occur to the buffer of Wetland A amounting to approximately 700 square feet of forested vegetation clearing. This report also contains a buffer mitigation and vegetation management plan for revegetating cleared areas with native plant species and removing invasive plant species (e.g., Himalayan blackberry [Rebus armeniacus]). Performance standards and revegetation site monitoring will ensure that installed plant material achieves sufficient survival and percent cover (e.g., 100 percent survival after first year and 50 percent cover after five years) and invasive species are effectively controlled (e.g., percent cover no greater than 15 percent throughout the 5 -year monitoring period). An unnamed stream (Stream A) is located within the study area which flows from east to west along the northern boundary of the City -owned parcel. Characteristics of Stream A and applicable regulations are presented in the Stream Study—SW 7th Street/Naches Avenue SW Storm System Improvement Project (Herrera 2013a). Since the buffer of Stream A overlaps with the buffer of Wetland A, buffer impacts and consequent mitigation measures are presented collectively in this wetland assessment report. The study area is located in a wildlife conservation area associated with the Black River Riparian Forest. The Habitat Data Report—SW 7th Street/Naches Avenue SW Storm System Improvement Project (Herrera 2013b)presents habitat conditions and applicable regulations. The project will affect fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas. The buffer mitigation and vegetation management plan presented in this wetland assessment report presents the proposed approach for satisfying mitigation requirements for impacts to critical habitats. 0 HERRERA ii 11 0%5' C01 na, die —1-1 aseSrIT nt repot INTRODUCTION This wetland assessment report was prepared for the SW 7th Street/ Naches Avenue SW Storm System Improvement Project (hereafter referred to as "the project"). The City of Renton proposes to improve stormwater conveyance capacity in the lower SW 7th Street trunk drainage system (which drains 623 acres of the South Renton Subbasin, including much of the downtown area) by installing approximately 3,330 linear feet of additional storm system pipe (Figure 1 and Appendix A). The objective of the project is to reduce upstream flooding along SW 7th Street. See below for a complete description of project activities. The study area for the purposes of this wetland assessment includes undeveloped areas potentially affected by the project (Figure 1). This area includes the portion of a City -owned parcel (PID 9188000154) in the vicinity of the parallel pipe system from Naches Avenue SW to its termination at a new outfall to an unnamed stream (Stream A), immediately downstream of an existing outfall location at Naches Avenue SW. All other project activities will occur within paved or landscaped areas on existing road rights-of-way or private properties and will not affect critical areas or buffers. This report describes the conditions of wetlands in the study area; wetland ratings and required buffer widths; and applicable local, state, and federal laws and regulations. This report was prepared in accordance with wetland assessment submittal requirements per the Renton Municipal Code (RMC) Chapter 4-8-120 and requirements associated with the City's Shoreline Master Program (RMC 4-3-090). Study Objectives The wetland delineation was conducted in the study area using the routine method described in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) and the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Environmental Laboratory 2010). The objectives of the study were to: • Delineate (flag and survey) at[ wetlands in the study area • Classify all delineated wetlands using the US Fish and Wildlife Service classification system (Cowardin et al. 1979) • Classify all delineated wetlands using the hydrogeomorphic classification system (Brinson 1993) • Evaluate wetland functions and values using the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington -Revised developed by the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology), hereafter referred to as the Ecology rating system (Hruby 2004) May 2013 ✓ HERRERA Wetland Assessment Report a Buffer Mitigation Plan SW 7th St./ Naches Ave. SW Storm System Improvement Project 'ro e—t Lt F3 C!,1 o lor I The specific improvements of the project include approximately 3,330 feet of 60 -inch diameter trunk storm drain that would be installed parallel to the existing system from its current outfall at Naches Avenue SW to approximately Lind Avenue SW. The pipe depths will range from approximately 8 to 11 feet. A separate element of the project includes stormwater treatment retrofitting along SW 7th between Naches Avenue SW and Lind Avenue SW. The City applied for and obtained a grant from the Washington State Department of Ecology for water quality retrofits along SW 7th Street. SW 7th Street is a busy arterial with high truck traffic (which tends to contribute greater pollutants to stormwater) and the water quality retrofit will be a significant water quality improvement to Stream A and the Black River. Treatment will be provided by installing 30 to 40 Filterra systems. The Filterra system utilizes a media blend designed to remove typical stormwater pollutants such as total suspended solids (TSS), phosphorus, nitrogen, heavy metals, and oil and grease. The typical size of Filterra units will be between 4 feet x 4 feet to 8 feet x 4 feet. The Filterra systems will be designed and installed in accordance with the Conditions of Use listed in the General Use Level Designation for the Filterra System and manufacturer specifications. The project will include upgrades of the storm drainage laterals to connect the new Filterra units to the existing or new trunk storm drain. Most of the trenching for the 64 -inch diameter trunk storm drain will be temporarily shored with trench boxes to minimize impacts to the roadway. Depending on the time of year, groundwater may be higher than excavation depths and dewatering is anticipated. Dewatering water will need to be treated using Baker tanks or routed to the sanitary sewer system if it does not meet water quality standards. Constructing the 60 -inch -diameter trunk will require relocating several utilities. These utilities include both public utilities (owned by the City of Renton) such as water and sewer lines and private utilities such as gas, power, fiber optic, and telephone. There are also three BNSF railroad crossings along SW 7th Street that would need to be removed and then restored following construction. Temporary traffic measures will be used to control traffic. The existing 60 -inch -diameter storm drain connects directly to an existing stream (Stream A) within the culvert crossing of Naches Avenue SW. This culvert is 72 inches wide by 55 inches high at its outlet. The new 60 -inch storm drain will outfall adjacent to the existing culvert outlet. The stream at this location is currently armored with rock. A temporary stream bypass will be necessary to construct the outlet. A conceptual plan was developed for the stream bypass that includes two temporary coffer dams (upstream and downstream of the work area) to be constructed using gravel -filled sandbags and a 48 -inch bypass pipe to isolate a portion of the stream from the work area. This work would be limited to the allowable fish construction window determined by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). The majority of the project will occur within existing road rights-of-way, with a small portion of the project occurring on undeveloped property. This approximately 60 -foot section of pipe extends west of the Naches Avenue SW right-of-way onto a City -owned parcel (PID 9188000154). At the outfall location, the existing channel bed and banks are armored with May 2013 L\ HERRERA Wetland Assessment Report 17 Buffer Mitigation Plan SW 7th St./ Naches Ave. SW Storrs System Improvement Project 3 rock. The bank affected by the new outfall wilt be restored with rock armoring, and live willow stakes will be installed amongst the rock in order to revegetate the streambank. Other project mitigation measures are described below. Hydrologic/hydraulic modeling was conducted as a part of the pre -design analysis (SAIC 2012). This project, combined with future upstream projects, is intended to provide flood protection for the 25 -year storm. This project does not include any new impervious surfaces, so stormwater runoff volume to the stream will not change. With the project improvements there will be some reduction of the peak flow attenuation that is currently caused by flooding. As such, there will be some increases in peak rate discharges to the stream. The stormwater quality retrofit with the Filterra systems will result in retrofitting approximately 2,700 feet of SW 7th Street which equates to approximately 3 acres of impervious surfaces. Based on the Western Washington Hydrology Model (WWHM), the retrofit will result in treating roughly 7.7 acre-feet of stormwater runoff volume per year. Applicable Laws and Regulations Wetlands are subject to a variety of federal and state regulations. Federal laws regulating wetlands include Sections 404 and 401 of the Clean Water Act (United States Code, Title 33, Chapter 1344 (33 USC 1344]). Washington state laws and programs designed to control the Loss of wetland acreage include the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (a federal law that is implemented in the state of Washington by the Department of Ecology, as mandated by the Washington State Water Pollution Control Act). The Renton Municipal Code (Section 4-3-090) specifies wetland categories, required wetland buffer widths, development standards, and wetland mitigation requirements for critical areas within the jurisdiction of its Shoreline Master Program, which applies to wetlands delineated in the study area. Wetlands outside of the City's Shoreline Master Program jurisdiction are regulated by the City's critical areas ordinance (RMC 4-3-050). (4 HERRERA _ May 2413 4 Wetland Assessment Report Ft Buffer Mitigation Plan—SW 7th St./Naches Ave. SW Storm System Improvement Project METHODS Evaluating the presence, extent, and type of wetlands requires a review of available information about the site (e.g., surveys, studies), followed by an onsite wetland delineation. The following sections describe the research methods and field protocols for the wetland evaluations. More information about the methodology used in the wetland delineation performed for this project is available in Appendix B. Review of Available Information A literature review was performed to determine the historical and current presence of aquatic resources in and near the study area. Sources of information included: • Aerial photographs of the project vicinity (Bing 2013) • National Wetlands Inventory map of wetland areas in the project vicinity (USFWS 2013) • City sensitive areas GIS data - "COR Maps" (City of Renton 2013) • King County area soil survey maps and soil map unit descriptions for the project vicinity (NRCS 2011) • SalmonScape mapping system (WDFW 2013a) • Washington State priority habitat and species (PHS) data (WDFW 2013b) • Washington State Natural Heritage Program (WNHP) rare plant and high quality ecosystem information (Personal communication via email with Jasa Holt, WNHP Data Specialist, on October 21, 2011) Wetland Delineation The wetland delineation was performed in accordance with the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) and the Regional Supplement to the U5 Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Environmental Laboratory 2010). The methods in the guidance manuals listed above use a three -parameter approach for identifying and delineating wetlands, and rely on the presence of field indicators for hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and hydrology. The methods for evaluating these three parameters are described in Appendix B. The wetland delineation for this project was performed according to procedures specified under the routine wetland determination method (Environmental Laboratory 1987). May 2013 HERRERA Wetland Assessment Report & Buffer Mitigation Pfan—SW 7th St./Naches Ave. SW Storm System Improvement Project 5 To identify potential wetlands, wetland biologists evaluated field conditions within the study area, noting wetlands, streams, and other aquatic features. A test plot was established for each area that appeared to have potential wetland characteristics within the project limits. For each test plot, data on dominant plant species, soil conditions in test plots, and evidence of hydrologic conditions were recorded on wetland determination data forms (Appendix C). Plants, soils, and hydrologic conditions were also analyzed and documented in adjacent upland areas. Based on collected data, a determination of wetland or upland was made for each area examined. For wetlands occurring within the project limits, wetland boundaries were delineated by placing sequentially -numbered, fluorescent orange flagging along the wetland perimeter following confirmation of wetland conditions. Test plot locations were marked with blue and white flagging. The locations of wetland boundaries and test plots were subsequently surveyed. Wetland Classification, Rating, and Functional Assessment Wetland Classification Wetlands observed on the study area were classified according to the US Fish and Wildlife Service classification system (Cowardin et at. 1979). This system is based on an evaluation of attributes such as vegetation class, hydrologic regime, salinity, and substrate. The wetlands were also classified according to the hydrogeomorphic system, which is based on an evaluation of attributes such as the position of the wetland within the surrounding landscape, the source and Location of water just before it enters the wetland, and the pattern of water movement in the wetland (Brinson 1993). Wetland Rating Wetlands were rated using the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington -Revised (Hruby 2004), hereafter referred to as the Ecology rating system. The Ecology rating system categorizes wetlands according to specific attributes such as rarity; sensitivity to disturbance; hydrologic, water quality, and habitat functions; and special characteristics (e.g., mature forested wetland, bog). The total score for all functions determines the wetland rating. The rating system consists of four categories, with Category I wetlands exhibiting outstanding functions and/or special characteristics and Category IV wetlands exhibiting minimal attributes and functions. The rating categories are used to identify permitted uses in the wetland and its buffer, to determine the width of buffers needed to protect the wetland from adjacent development, and to identify the mitigation ratios required to compensate for potential impacts on wetlands. The City Shoreline Master Program requires the use of the Ecology rating system (RMC 4-3-090). Wetland Functional Assessment Wetland functions are those processes that occur within a wetland, such as the storage of water, cycling of nutrients, and maintenance of diverse plant communities and habitat that ([t HERRERA May 2013 6 Wetland Assessment Report Et Buffer Mitigation Plan SW 7th St./Naches Ave. SW Storm System Improvement Project benefit wildlife. Wetland functions can be grouped into three broad categories: habitat functions, hydrologic functions, and water quality functions. Habitat functions include providing food, water, and shelter for fish, shellfish, birds, amphibians, and mammals. Wetlands also serve as a breeding ground and nursery for numerous species. Hydrologic functions include reducing the velocity of stormwater, recharging and discharging groundwater, and providing flood storage. Water quality functions include the potential for removing sediment, nutrients, heavy metals, and toxic organic compounds. Wetland functions were assessed using the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington -Revised (Hruby 2004), which is approved by the Washington State Department of Ecology for evaluating wetland functions in Washington. This system generates a score for each function based on the wetland's potential and opportunity for providing the function. Using the scores on the wetland rating forms, a qualitative functional rating (high, moderate, or low) was derived for each of the functions (water quality, hydrology, and habitat) provided by each wetland, based on supplemental guidance provided by Ecology (2008). Strearns and Critical Habitats Methods and results for the assessment of onsite streams and critical habitats (i.e., fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas) are provided in the Stream Study—SW 7th Street/ Naches Avenue SW Storm System Improvement Project (Herrera 2013a) and the Habitat Data Report— SW 7th Street/Naches Avenue SW Storm System Improvement Project (Herrera 2013b). Wetland and stream buffers and critical habitats within the study area overlap, therefore impacts to these areas and associated mitigation measures will be described collectively in this report. Streams, stream buffers, and critical habitats are included in the figures. May 2013 HERRERA Wetland Assessment Report & Buffer Mitigation Plan—SW 7th St./Naches Ave. SW Storm System Improvernent Project 7 RESULTS This section discusses the results of the wetland delineation, including a review of information obtained from various references, and an analysis of wetland conditions in the study area as observed during field investigations. Analysis of Available Information The available existing information compiled for the wetland delineation is summarized in the following subsections. Pi e viousl y Mapped Nletlands The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) identifies several wetlands in the vicinity of the study area (USFWS 2013). These include palustrine scrub -shrub (PSS) wetlands within the Black River Riparian Forest, which extends into the City -owned parcel located west of Naches Avenue West. The City of Renton (2013) identifies a large portion of the Black River Riparian Forest as wetland, including the northern portion of the City -owned parcel containing a Swale -like feature that runs north -south through the property. Mapped Solls The following two soil series have been mapped in the study area (NRCS 2011): Woodinville silt loam occupies the portion of the study area from approximately Lind Avenue westward, including the City -owned parcel, and the narrow wetland area between Powell Avenue SW and Naches Avenue SW. The soil is considered partially hydric. • Urban land occupies the other portions of the project area (east of Lind Avenue), which is a soil series that has been modified by disturbance of the natural layers with additions of fill material several feet thick to accommodate lame industrial and housing development. Analysis of Wetland Conditions Wetland delineation field activities were conducted by Herrera biologists Crystal Elliot and Josh Wozniak. Both biologists are certified by the Society of Wetland Scientists as Professional Wetland Scientists (PWS). The wetland delineation was conducted on January 25, 2013. The weather conditions during the fieldwork consisted of a daytime high temperature of approximately 50 degrees Fahrenheit (9F), with partly sunny conditions. It was determined 41, May 2013 l HERRERA Wetland Assessment Report Et Buffer Mitigation Plan -SW 7th St./ Nache5 Ave. SW Storm System Improvement Project 9 that the growing season (as defined in Appendix B) had not yet begun because emergence of herbaceous plants and bud burst on woody plants had not yet occurred. Herrera biologists delineated two wetlands in the project area: Wetlands A and B (Table 1; Figure 2). Wetland A is a large palustrine forested, depressional and riverine wetland complex that is contiguous with the Black River Riparian Forest. The portion of Wetland A within the study area extends into the northern portion of the City -owned parcel and occupies the swale feature that runs north -south through the property (Figure 2). Wetland 6 occupies the portion of this Swale feature south of an abandoned road prism that bisects the swale, thus creating a hydrologic break and necessitating the delineation of two separate wetland units (i.e., Wetland A and Wetland B). Table 1. Wetlands Delineated in the Study Area for the SW 7th Street/Naches Avenue SW Storm System Improvement Project. City of Approximate Approximate Renton Size" of Size" of Standard Wetland Wetland Wetland USFWS Hydrogeomorphic Wetland Buffer Width Name (square feet acres Classification Classification` Ratin d (feet e_ A 10,366 0.24 PFO, PSS, PEM, Depressional and 1 225 PAB, POW riverine (rated as Depressional) B 16,549 0.38 PFO Depressional III 75 Wetland size is only onsite portion. Size of entire wetland is estimated on Tables 2 and 3. b US Fish and Wildlife Service classification is based on Cowardin et at. (1979): palustrine forested (PFO), palustrine scrub -shrub (PSS), palustrine emergent (PEM), palustrine aquatic bed (PAB), and palustrine open water (POW). Includes all classes within the entire wetland unit. ` Hydrogeomorphic classification is based on Brinson (1993). d According to RMC 4-3-090 and the City of Renton (2013), Wetlands A and B are in shoreline jurisdiction; therefore, the category is based on the Ecology rating system (Hruby 2004). e Regulated buffer widths are based on RMC 4-3-090. Buffer widths for Wetlands A and B are based on the following habitat function scores. Wetland A - 29 points, Wetland B - 14 points. Wettand buffer widths are also shown in Figure 2. Minimum buffer widths were determined in accordance with RMC 4-3-090 based on level of wildlife function provided by the wetland and the wetland category. However, according to RMC 4-3-090, the buffer widths shown on Figure 2 are less than the standard width because they do not include Naches Avenue SW and developed areas east of Naches Avenue SW. The road functionally and effectively disconnects the buffer such that the buffer functions are not provided and cannot be feasibly removed, relocated, or restored to provide buffer functions. Detailed descriptions of the wetlands are provided in Tables 2 and 3. The biologists completed wetland delineation data forms (Appendix C) and a Department of Ecology wetland rating form (Appendix D) for each of the wetlands delineated in the project area. Representative photographs of the wetlands in the project area are included in Tables 2 and 3. ( HERRERA May 2013 10� Wetland Assessment Report Et Buffer Mitigation Plan—SW 7th St./Naches Ave. 5W Storm System Improvement Project � @ 2 2 _ L a Ln �£ E / �7 - R $ _CL} ) Rw Ln { \ r� @k10, k 2 E \ \ « \ ƒ E � E q2 — o_o e� 2 - , g 2 / 2 q z£ - k \ 2 a, E k\ -/ 2/ j- \ $ ) ) \ /) § )§ �� 0 - 2 « \ S s j \ \ \ / \ \ k k } < 2 j .\ G m% Lz R F 2 / ! ) ) 7 # « K ■ : � m � �� MMILAL Table 2. Summary of Wetland A Within the St Wetland Name Wetland A Local Jurisdiction WRIA Wetland Size Ecology Wetland Rating and City of Renton Classification Area. City of Renton 9 Approximately 0.24 acres on-site (--40 acres in total) Ecology: Category I/ll (dual rating) City of Renton: Category I City of Renton Buffer 225 feet Width USFWS Classification PFO HGM Classification Depressional and riverine (rated as depressional) Wetland Data Forms Appendix C Wetland Rating Form Appendix D Dominant The portions of Wetland A within the study area are dominated by red alder (Alnus rubra), red Vegetation osier dogwood (Cornus sericea), salmonberry (Rubes spectabilis), Himalayan blackberry (Rebus armeniacus), creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens), slough sedge (Carex obrlupta), and reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea). Invasive species (e.g., Himalayan blackberry) are abundant in disturbed portions of the wetlands primarily located along wetland edges and along modified portions of Stream A. Japanese knotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum) is also present in Wetland A. The mature forested portions of Wetland A (outside of the study area) are dominated by mature (>21 -inch diameter breast height [dbhj) black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera ssp. trichocarpa) trees and red alder. Many habitat features, such as snags and downed logs, are present throughout forested portions of Wetlands A. According to the Washington State Natural Heritage program, there are no records for rare plants or high quality native ecosystems in the study area (Personal communication via email with Jasa Holt, WNHP Data Specialist, on October 21, 2011). Sails Soils were examined to at least a 16 -inch depth and exhibited hydric characteristics. At sampling point TP WET Al, the upper 4 inches of the soil profile was very dark gray (10YR 311) sandy loam. From 4 to 16 inches, the soil was very dark gray (10YR 3/1) loamy sand with redoximorphic concentrations (10YR 514, 10 percent, in the matrix). This profile meets the criteria for the hydric soil indicator of sandy redox (S5) Hydrology Hydrologic conditions varied throughout the portions of Wetland A within the study area; some portions of the wetland were inundated (ranging from approximately 1 to 6 inches), while some areas exhibited saturated soils. At sampling point TP WET All, soils were saturated 1 inch below the soil surface (with a high water table present at 15 inches). The presence of primary wetland hydrology indicator A3 (saturation) satisfies the wetland hydrology criteria. Primary hydrologic sources to Wetland A include a high groundwater table, overbank flow associated with Stream A, and stormwater runoff. Another primary source of hydrology to Wetland A is Springbrook Creek. The hydrology of Wetland A is controlled by a dam at the outlet of the Black River Wetland which maintains flooded conditions. The landscape position of Wetland A within a pronounced depression surrounded by development, roads, and impervious surfaces facilitates the accumulation of surface water runoff. In addition, the depressional nature of Wetland A provides ample opportunity for expression of the high groundwater table. May 2013 HERRERA Wetland Assessment Report tr Buffer Mitigation Plan SW 7th St./ Naches Ave, SW Storm System Improvement Project 13 Table 2 (continued). Summary of Wetland A Within the Study Area. Wetland [Name Wetland A Wildlife Use A variety of fish and wildlife are documented as being present in the vicinity of the study area. Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), and coastal resident cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clark!) are known to be present within the Black River system/S pri ngb rook Creek (WDFW 2013a, WDFW 2013b, personal communication with Larry Fisher, WDFW Area Habitat Biologist, via email on 2/26/13). It is assumed that these species are present within the study area because Stream A flows into the Black River/Springbrook Creek approximately 800 feet downstream of the culvert at Naches Avenue SW and there are no documented fish barriers present that would prevent upstream migration of fish into the study area. The Black River Riparian Forest contains a documented bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) nest, but the associated Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)-mapped management buffer/protection area does not extend into the area where work is proposed for this project (WDFW 2013b). WDFW also identifies the presence of a great blue heron (Ardea herodias) rookery/breeding area within the Black River Riparian Forest, but its buffer area also does not extend into the project area (WDFW 2013b). Wildlife and bird species common to Puget Sound urban forests are also likely to be present in Wetland A and its buffer, including a variety of songbirds and small mammals. These may include American robin (Turdus migratodus), black -capped chickadee (Poecile atricapillus), English sparrow (Passer domesticus), dark -eyed junco (Junco hyemalis), white -crowned sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophrys), American crow (Corvus 6rachyrhynchos), and Douglas squirrel (Tamiasciurus douglasii). Buffer Condition The condition and function of the buffer surrounding Wetland A is highly variable within the study area and it depends primarily on the level of localized disturbance. Overall, Wetland A buffers function at a moderate level within the study area. The portions of the buffer that satisfy the City buffer requirement of 225 feet within the study area are to the north of the City -owned parcel and to the south of the wetland. The area to the north of Wetland A is relatively intact mature deciduous forest associated with the Black River Riparian forest. The area to the south of Wetland A is occupied by Wetland B and somewhat disturbed upland deciduous forest that has been heavily invaded by Himalayan blackberry. There is also an abandoned road prism that divides Wetlands A and B. The upland forest buffer to the west of Wetland A is very narrow and disturbed, with a dense understory of Himalayan blackberry. A parking lot occupies a large portion of the standard buffer width west of Wetland A. The buffer east of Wetland A (between the wetland and Naches Avenue SW) is dominated by large, mature black cottonwood trees and red alder, with an understory of saimonberry, Indian plum (Oemleda cerasitormis), sword fern (Polystichum munitum), beaked hazelnut (Corylus cornuta), red osier dogwood, and Himalayan blackberry. Stream A is located within the northern buffer of Wetland A_ Stream A is discussed in the Stream Study --SW 7th Street/Naches Avenue SW Storm System Improvement Project. HERRERA May 2013 14 Wetland Assessment Report & Buffer Mitigation Plan SW 7th St,/Naches Ave. SW Storm System Improvement Project Table 3. Summary of Wetland B. Wetland Name Wetland B Local Jurisdiction City of Renton WRIA 9 Wetland Size Approximately 0.38 acres Ecology Wetland Category III Rating and City of Renton Classification City of Renton Buffer 75 feet Width USFWS PFO Classification HGM Classification Depressional Wetland Data Form Appendix C Wetland Rating Form Appendix D Dominant Wetland B is dominated by red alder, red osier dogwood, salmonberry, Himalayan blackberry, Vegetation and stinging nettle (Urtica dioica). Invasive Himalayan blackberry is abundant in Wetland B. According to the Washington State Natural Heritage program, there are no records for rare plants or high quality native ecosystems in the study area (Personal communication via email with Jasa Holt, WNHP Data Specialist, on October 21, 2011). Soils Soils were examined to at least a 16 -inch depth and exhibited hydric characteristics. At sampling point TP WET Al, the entire soil profile was black (10YR 211) mucky loam with redoximorphic concentrations (10YR 416, 5 percent, in the matrix)- This profile meets the criteria for the hydric soil indicator of redox dark surface (176) Hydrology Hydrologic conditions varied throughout Wetland B; a small area in the northern portion of the wetland was inundated (ranging from approximately 1 to 3 inches), while most areas exhibited saturated soils. At sampling point TP WET Al, soils were saturated 1 inch below the soil surface (with a high water table present at 15 inches). The presence of primary wetland hydrology indicator A3 (saturation) satisfies the wetland hydrology criteria - Hydrologic sources to Wetland B are driven by a high groundwater table, precipitation, and stormwater runoff. The landscape position of Wetland B (i.e., in a swale feature surrounded by development, roads, and impervious surfaces) facilitates the accumulation of surface water runoff and provides ample opportunity for expression of the high groundwater table. The outlet for Wetland B is highly constricted, as it is a perched culvert (approximately 1.5 feet above ground elevation) that would convey flow only at very high water levels. Wildlife Use Wildlife use in Wetland B and its buffer is consistent with that of Wetland A (see above), except for fish species use. Given the presence of the perched culvert and road prism that separates Wetland B from Welland A, it is unlikely that fish are able to access Wetland B under all conditions except significant flood events. Buffer Condition The buffer surrounding Wetland B has been highly disturbed and functions at a low level — the only buffer area that satisfies the City buffer requirement of 75 feet is to the north of the wetland (where it abuts Wetland A). A narrow zone of upland vegetation buffers the wetland from development to the west, south, and east, and it is dominated by large, mature black cottonwood trees, with an understory of Indian plum, sword fern, beaked hazelnut, and Himalayan blackberry. May 2013 ( HERRERA Wetland Assessment Report & Buffer Mitigation Ptan -SW 7th St.lNaches Ave. SW Storm System Improvement Project 15 Evaluation of Wetland Functlotis Wetland functions for each wetland within the project area were evaluated according to data in the Ecology wetland rating forms (Hruby 2004), and supplemental qualitative ratings (high, medium, low) were determined based on Ecology guidance (2008). A summary of the function scores, the total wetland score, and the associated rating (category) for each wetland is provided (Table 4). Qualitative and quantitative scores for both potential and opportunity for each wetland to provide water quality, hydrologic, and habitat functions is provided. Table 4. Individual Wetland Function Scores for Wetlands in the Study Area. Water Quality Functions Hydrologic Functions — Habitat Functions — Wetland Name — Qualitative Rating a (numerical score in parentheses)parentheses) Qualitative Rating a (numerical score in p Qualitative Rating (numerical score in arentheses)____._Ecology Total Score 2444 Rating n Category Potential ! Opportunity Potential Opportunity Potential Opportunity A Moderate (9) l Yes Moderate (10) Yes High (18) Moderate (11) 67 I/II B Low (5) Yes Moderate (8) Yes Low (4) Moderate (10) 40 III 3 Qualitative ratings are based on Ecology (2008) guidance. e Wetland category is based on the Ecology rating system (Hruby 2004). Dual rating applies when category based on functions is different than category based on special characteristics. Wetland A Wetland A, a depressional wetland, has a moderate potential to improve water quality because the wetland has a highly constricted permanently flowing outlet (dam) that allows for seasonal flooding within areas of persistent, ungrazed vegetation. The wetland has the opportunity to improve water quality due to its location in an area that is subject to input of pollutants from adjacent developments and roads. The wetland has a moderate potential to improve hydrologic functions because it exhibits significant ponding and it occupies a relatively large area compared to its contributing basin. It has the opportunity to improve hydrologic functions (reduce flooding and erosion) due to its location in a highly urbanized watershed subject to flashy stream flows (e.g., Springbrook Creek/Black River system). Wetland A exhibits high potential to provide habitat functions because it is well -vegetated with diverse species and multiple vegetation classes, contains several hydroperiods and high interspersion of habitats, and has special habitat features such as snags and mature trees. The opportunity for Wetland A to improve habitat functions is moderate due to the presence of multiple priority habitats, but offset by the lack of well-functioning vegetated buffers around most of the wetland and the lack of continuity with other wetlands and large vegetated areas. Wetland B Wetland B, a depressional wetland, has a low potential to improve water quality because the wetland is only partially vegetated and the area of seasonal ponding is less than a quarter of { HERRERA May 2013 16 Wetland Assessment Report & Buffer Mitigation Plan -SW 7th St./Naches Ave. SW Storm System Improvement Project the total area of the wetland. The wetland has the opportunity to improve water quality due to its location in an area that is subject to input of pollutants from adjacent developments and roads. The wetland has a moderate potential to improve hydrologic functions because it has an intermittently flowing outlet and it provides significant potential depth of storage. It has the opportunity to improve hydrologic functions (reduce flooding and erosion) due to its location in a highly urbanized watershed subject to flashy stream flows (e.g., Springbrook Creek). Wetland B exhibits low potential to provide habitat functions because it is only partially vegetated, contains just two hydroperiods types, and has low habitat diversity and no interspersion of habitats. The opportunity for Wetland A to improve habitat functions is moderate due to the presence of multiple priority habitats in vicinity of the wetland, but offset by the lack of well-functioning vegetated buffers around most of the wetland and the lack of continuity with other wetlands and large vegetated areas. May 2013 � HERRERA Wetland Assessment Report Et Buffer Mitigation Plan—SW 7th St./Naches Ave. SW Storm System Improvement Project 17 REGULATORY IMPLICATIONS Regulations imposed by federal, state, and local governments apply to work in and around wetlands. Impacts to wetlands are regulated under the federal Clean Water Act and the Renton Municipal Code critical areas and Shoreline Master Program regulations. The City regulations also establish development standards for buffers associated with wetlands, including required widths. Federal, state, and city regulations require mitigation for impacts to wetlands, and the City also requires mitigation for impacts to wetland and stream buffers. Because this project will not result in impacts to wetlands, only City regulations applicable to temporary buffer impacts are described in this section. City of Renton Chapter 4-3-050 of the Renton Municipal Code (RMC) contains regulations for preservation, protection, and restoration of critical areas, including wetlands. However, wetlands that occur within shoreline jurisdictions are regulated under the Renton Shoreline Master Program (see below). A development permit (e.g., Utility Construction Permit), critical area permit, and/or letter of exemption is required for any development or alteration of a property containing a critical area. In addition, compliance with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) is necessary which is achieved by preparing an Environmental Checklist in support of a SEPA decision for the project. A Shoreline Substantial Development permit is necessary for project activities within shoreline jurisdiction. Furthermore, a Right -of -Way Use permit is necessary for construction activities within City road right-of-way. Shoreline Master Program wetland Classification dl& Suffers The Renton Shoreline Master Program (RMC 4-3-090) requires that wetlands within shoreline jurisdiction be classified according to the Department of Ecology rating system (Hruby 2004). Buffers are required around each wetland in order to protect the wetland functions and values. Regulations for wetlands within shoreline jurisdiction supersede wetland regulations contained in the critical areas ordinance (RMC 4-3-050). Since both Wetland A and Wetland B are under the jurisdiction of the City's Shoreline Master Program (associated with the Black River drainage), minimum buffer widths specified in RMC 4-3-090 apply. For each classification of wetland (Categories I through IV), the code specifies a minimum buffer width (Table 1). 2 Since the construction of the new stormwater outfall will occur below the OHWM of Stream A, applicable state and federal regulations will apply and are discussed in the Stream Study—SW 7th Street/Naches Avenue SW Storm System Improvement Project (Herrera 2013a). May 2013 R HERRERA Wetland Assessment Report a Buffer Mitigation Plan—SW 7th St./Naches Ave. SW Storm System Improvement Project 19 As shown in Tables 2 and 3, Wetland A meets the criteria for a Category I wetland and Wetland B meets the criteria for a Category III wetland. Minimum buffer widths were adjusted according to their habitat function levels per RMC 4-3-090. The minimum buffer width for Wetland A is 225 feet and 75 feet for Wetland B (see Tables 1, 2, and 3 for details). Regulation Of PrOjectACtivities According to RMC 4-3-090.B.3., the jurisdictional area associated with shorelines include Lands within 200 feet from the OHWM, or lands within 200 feet from floodways, whichever is greater; contiguous floodplain areas; and all associated marshes, bogs, swamps, and river deltas associated with streams, lakes, and tidal waters that are subject to the provisions of the State Shoreline Management Act. According to Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 173-22-040, these jurisdictional areas are referred to as shoreland areas. According to the City, shorelands associated with the Black River occur within the Natural Environment Overlay District. The natural environment is intended to provide areas of wildlife sanctuary and habitat preservation. For projects within this overlay district, the shoreline permit approval process involves a hearing examiner conditional use permit provided the use does not degrade the ecological functions or natural character of the shoreline area (RMC 4-2-090.E.1.). Within the study area, based on RMC 4-3-090 and WAC 173-22-040, shoreland areas subject to City shoreline regulations include Wetlands A and B because these wetlands are in proximity to the Black River shoreline and influence or are influenced by the Black River. In addition, shoreland areas include that portion of Stream A occurring within the Natural Environment Overlay District (within the buffer of Wetland A). According to WAC 173-22-040.3.(c), influence includes periodic inundation, location within a floodplain, or hydraulic continuity. The areas occupied by Wetlands A and B and Stream A are also mapped by the City as being within shoreline jurisdiction (City of Renton 2013). According to shoreline use regulations that apply to stormwater management, the design and construction of stormwater outfalls shall limit impacts on receiving waters and comply with all appropriate local, state, and federal requirements (RMC 4-2-090. E.11.d.iv.). According to RMC 4-3-090.D.2.d.xi., development standards near wetlands include a requirement that surface or piped stormwater should be routed to existing conveyances or other areas, wherever hydraulic gradients allow. According to RMC 4-3-090.D.2, shoreline use and development shall be carried out in a manner that prevents or mitigates adverse impacts to ensure no net loss of ecological functions and processes of wetlands, including buffers. According to RMC 4-3-090.D.2.d.x., activities that adversely affect wetlands or buffers shall follow mitigation sequencing, as described below, to ensure that impacts to wetlands and buffers are minimized to the extent feasible. Since unavoidable temporary impacts to buffers will occur as part of this project, a buffer mitigation and vegetation management plan is provided in a subsequent section of this report. (6 HERRERA May 2013 20 Wetland Assessment Report E< Buffer Mitigation Plan—SW 7th St./Naches Ave. SW Storm System Improvement Project MITIGATION SEQUENCING This project has made all reasonable efforts to provide sufficient mitigation such that the project wilt not result in net loss of ecological functions of critical areas or buffers. The following describes the required mitigation sequencing' approach as required by RMC 4-3-090.D.2 and the corresponding measures taken by the project to comply with these requirements: • Avoiding the adverse impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action, or moving the action. o The project completely avoids impacts to wetlands by siting the proposed stormwater outfall outside of wetland areas on the City -owned parcel. o Complete avoidance of wetland/stream buffers by using the existing outfall (Stream A) is not feasible because the new stormwater facility being installed as part of this flood reduction project requires a new corresponding stormwater outfall to achieve conveyance needs. Complete avoidance of wetland/stream buffers for construction of a new stormwater outfall is not feasible because all areas adjacent to the proposed pipe in Naches Avenue SW are considered wetland and/or stream buffer, and in order for the pipe to discharge through an outfall at Stream A, it must travel through buffer areas. As stated in RMC 4-3-090.D.2.d.ix., stormwater conveyance or discharge facilities such as outfalls, may be permitted within wetlands or buffers on a ease -by -case basis if there are no feasible locations for these facilities to discharge to surface water through existing systems or outside the buffer. This project meets these criteria. • Minimizing adverse impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation by using appropriate technology and engineering, or by taking affirmative steps to avoid or reduce adverse impacts. c The project has been designed so that that the amount of buffer area disturbed is minimized to the extent feasible while providing necessary construction conditions to install a pipe that will have adequate conveyance capacity/ appropriate orientation for the proposed stormwater pipe as it leaves Naches Avenue SW, crosses the buffer area on the City -owned property, and terminates at a new outfall in Stream A. This clearing and grading zone, limited to the minimum footprint necessary, will include an area approximately 18 feet wide for the length of the new pipe section from Naches Avenue SW to the new 3 This mitigation sequence is also outlined in joint Ecology, Corps, and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) guidance (Ecology 2006); and State Environmental Policy Act (Washington Administrative Code Chapter 197-11-768). May 2013 HERRERA Wetland Assessment Report Et Buffer Mitigation Plan SW 7th St./Naches Ave. SW Storm System Improvement Project 21 stormwater outfall. This will require the removal of six trees. All project staging will occur outside of critical area buffers. o Appropriate tree and vegetation protection measures will be implemented to ensure that impacts to buffer vegetation are minimized to the extent feasible. These protection measures wilt include installing high visibility fencing at clearing limit boundaries to ensure that construction disturbance does not extend into adjacent buffer areas. o The small area of disturbance on the City -owned property associated with construction of the new pipe segment through a buffer area is also located partially in an area that had been disturbed previously for other utility work (i.e., spur road from Naches Avenue SW to a utility box). Rectifying the adverse impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment. o All areas disturbed by project activities will be revegetated with native plant species (or sod, in areas currently maintained as lawn) as part of the buffer mitigation and vegetation management plan (see below). Reducing or eliminating the adverse impact over time by preservation and maintenance operation during the life of the action. c The project will minimize adverse impacts to buffer areas over time by revegetating disturbed buffer areas immediately following construction. The maintenance and monitoring plan described in the next section will ensure that performance standards for buffer planting areas are achieved and buffer functions are restored. Compensating for the adverse impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing similar substitute resources or environments and monitoring the adverse impact and taking appropriate corrective measures. o Since no buffer areas will be permanently impacted by the project, compensatory mitigation will not be required. * HERRERA May 2013 22 Wetland Assessment Report Et BufferMitigatian Plan SW 7th St./Naches Ave. SW Storm System Improvement Project BUFFER MITIGATION AND VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PLAN This section describes the proposed buffer mitigation and vegetation management plan for the project. It includes a description of project impacts; identification of project objectives and performance standards; description of the proposed revegetation plan; and a maintenance, monitoring, and contingency plan. Performances standards and the maintenance and monitoring plan are based on a 5 -year post construction period, as per RMC 4-3-090.D.2.d.xii. Since no impacts to wetlands will occur as part of this proposal, no wetland mitigation will be required. Project Impacts According to the permit -level design plans (Appendix A), the proposed project will completely avoid impacts to wetlands and permanent impacts to buffers. However, temporary impacts to the buffer of Wetland A/Stream A, which is also a City critical habitat, amounting to approximately 700 square feet of upland forested vegetation clearing, will be unavoidable. This will include the removal of six red alder and willow trees that are between 8 and 12 inches dbh 4. Figure 3 depicts the unavoidable temporary impacts to buffer areas. All temporary buffer impacts will be compensated for through the buffer mitigation and vegetation management plan, presented in a subsequent section of this report. This impact will occur at the north end of the City -owned parcel where the new parallel pipe system traverses buffer between laches Avenue SW and the termination at the new outfall in Stream A, immediately downstream of an existing outfall location at Haches Avenue SW. The new outfall will be located in a portion of the streambank that is currently armored with riprap, so no permanent impacts will occur associated with the installation of the new outfall. All other project activities will occur within paved areas of existing road rights-of-way. Project Goal, Objective, and Performance Standards According to RMC 4-3-090.D.2.d.xii., a vegetation management plan is required in order to maintain effective buffer conditions and function including supplemental planting if necessary to provide adequate cover of native vegetation. In addition, the plan needs to include measures for controlling invasive weeds and removal of existing invasive species. The plan also needs to include a monitoring and maintenance plan for a period of at least 5 years. This plan will ensure that buffer areas are restored to their pre-existing condition or better (e.g., reduction in invasive species coverage), resulting in no -net -loss of ecological functions in buffer areas. 4 Red alder trees to be removed include three &inch dbh trees and one 12 -inch dbh tree. Scouter's willow (Salix scouleriana) trees to be removed include two 10 -inch dbh trees. May 2013 l� HERRERA Wetland Assessment Report a Buffer Mitigation Plan - SW 7th St. /Naches Ave. SW Storm System Improvement Project 23 �'oaf Rectify temporary buffer impacts by restoring buffer function through restoration of buffer vegetation, resulting in no -net -loss of buffer ecological function. Objective Establish a diversity of native shrub and tree species in buffer enhancement areas that will develop into a mature vegetation community with adequate cover and native composition. Performance Standards The performance standards listed below shall apply to wetland and buffer enhancement areas. Performance Standard 1(2015) 100 percent of planted species will survive by the end of the first year after planting. Plants that die will be replaced. All trees, shrubs, and herbaceous species will be installed as specified in the mitigation plan to achieve intended plant community composition and structural diversity. Performance Standard 2 (201 6') By the end of the second year growing season, the combined cover of native woody (shrubs and trees) and emergent vegetation will be at least 20 percent. Performance Standard 3 (201 7) By the end of the third year growing season, cover of native woody vegetation (shrubs and trees) alone will be at least 20 percent. Performance Standard 4 (2418) By the end of the fourth year growing season, cover of native woody vegetation (shrubs and trees) alone will be at least 35 percent. Performance Standard 5 (2019) By the end of the fifth year growing season, cover of native woody vegetation (shrubs and trees) alone will be at least 50 percent. Performance Standard 0 (2015 through 2019) The percentage of the buffer mitigation areas covered by invasive and non-native species (e.g., Himalayan blackberry and English ivy [Hedera helix]) will not exceed 15 percent throughout the monitoring period. Buffer Revegetation Plan This section describes site preparation and planting activities for buffer mitigation areas. Per RMC 4-3-040.D.2.d.x(e), the minimum mitigation ratio for buffer impacts is 1:1 (i.e., the area 4 HERRERA May 2013 24 Wetland Assessment Report Et 0uffer Mitigation Ptan—SW 7th St./Naches Ave. SW Storm System Improvement Project a) 3 0 � 41 k Ul)Lo CD ` / E� k § k0. 7= 3 \ j 7 \ k m% ƒ \ 2 \ § ) 7 t \m {/ M g \ 2 2) o =� cu LOEq q 7 - 2 2 2" ■ 5 m 0 2 0 z� F- 2 k 2 k\ \ \ � ± $$ k k j 2 co b] _ 3 = o t§ k/\ o 8 k >± 22 S/ a) DD 0 2\ in }% -0 r: f§ ®g 2 4 Ln u o §= k\ E Ek]\ k® 0 0 j 2 u \ % k ) % \ ) \ \) ) k \ \ § ) / ) f / L"\ \ \ ƒ |■ | \ | • \ » e m / k L� « f ■ k} j} / of buffer revegetation must equal the area of buffer impact). The general construction sequence for construction activities for buffer mitigation areas is as follows: • Installation of temporary erosion and sediment control (TESC) measures per plans and specifications • Site clearing and grubbing per plans and specifications (selective removal of invasive plant species and retention of native species where possible) • Site excavation, pipe placement, and backfill per plans and specifications (stockpiling of soil in upland areas only outside of undeveloped buffers) • Placement of large woody material (i.e., trees with rootwads intact sourced from onsite trees to be removed) in Stream A riparian zone • Replacement of topsoil • Installation of weed -free wood chip mulch to the planting areas • Installation of native plant material per project plans and specifications Earthwork and sewer pipe installation activities will occur during the summer of 2014 and planting will occur during the dormant, or non -growing, season (October 2014 - February 2015). Trees to be removed will be retained onsite and will be removed with rootwads intact. They will be positioned in the riparian buffer of Stream A to support habitat functions. Trees will be planted 25 feet on -center, shrubs will be planted 4 feet on -center, and ferns will be planted 18 inches on -center. Tree spacing at 25 feet on center will ensure sufficient tree density as trees mature, since planted trees will be interspersed with existing onsite trees. Trees, shrubs, and ferns will be purchased in 1 -gallon containers. Plant material will be inspected by the project biologist, botanist, or horticulturist before acceptance, and that person will be on-site during replacement of topsoil and plant installation to ensure that these materials are installed properly. See Table 5 below for a list of plant species that will be installed in buffer mitigation areas. As described in the critical areas descriptions above, many of these plant species currently occur on-site, providing a reference for planting prescriptions. These species are common to western Washington riparian forest habitat, and they provide good forage and cover resources for local fish and wildlife (Stevens and Vanbianchi 1993). The mitigation planting plan was developed through consideration of the on-site environmental conditions in combination with tolerance ranges and ecological preferences of the specific plant species. Plants that were not selected include native plant species with narrow tolerance ranges or that are difficult to obtain from local native plant nurseries, as well as non-native plants. The mitigation planting pian is included in the construction plan set in Appendix A. May 2013 HERRERA Wetland Assessment Report & Buffer Mitigation Plan—SW 7th St /Naches Ave. SW Storm System Improvement Project ?1 Table 5. Native Plant Species Planned for Installation in Proposed Buffer Mitigation Areas for the SW 7th Street/Naches Avenue SW Storm System Improvement Project. Scientific Name Polystichum munitum Corylus comuta Common Name Stratum Wetland Indicator Status a FACU Sword fern Beaked hazelnut Herbaceous Shrub FACU Symphoricarpos albus Snowberry Shrub FACU Pseudotsuga menziesii Douglas fir Tree FACU Populus balsamifera ssp. trichocarpa Black cottonwood Tree FAC Salix lucida ssp. lasiandra Pacific willow Live stake FACW _ i Salix sitchensis Sitka willow Live stake FACW a See Table B-1 in Appendix B for Wetland Indicator Status Definitions; current status information was obtained from USDA (2013). Monitoring, Site Maintenance, and Contingency Plan Per RMC 4-3-090.D.2.d.xii, maintenance and monitoring will be conducted to ensure that buffer mitigation goats, objectives, and performance standards are achieved. The maintenance and monitoring program will be conducted for a minimum of 5 years to ensure adequate establishment of installed vegetation and adequate cover of native vegetation and trees. If monitoring activities determine that performance standards are not being met, contingency measures will be implemented to remedy onsite problems. Monitoring Plan The City will arrange for a qualified biologist to perform monitoring of the wetland and buffer enhancement areas to ensure compliance with the performance standards listed above. The site will be monitored annually for a minimum of five years following construction. If monitoring results determine performance standards are not being achieved, corrective actions will be taken (see Site Maintenance and Contingency Plan below). Year 11140nitoring The monitoring visit at the end of the first growing season following construction will be conducted to establish permanent sampling plots and photograph points (as needed), inspect the plantings, identify mortality, and specify quantities and locations of plants needing replacement (see Performance Standard 1 above). In addition, the site will be inspected for the presence of invasive or exotic plant species (see Performance Standard 6 above). Yews 2. 3. 4. and 5 Monitoring During the second, third, fourth, and fifth years of monitoring, Performance Standards 2 through 6 will be evaluated and photographs will be taken from each of the permanent photograph points. At the end of the fifth year growing season, if performance standards are not achieved, the monitoring period shall be extended for as many years as necessary until they are achieved. ( HERRERA May 2013 28 Wetland Assessment Report 8 Buffer Mitigation Plan—SW 7th St./Naches Ave. SW Storm System Improvement Project This section describes ongoing management and maintenance practices that will improve and protect wetland and stream buffer functions and habitat value through establishment and maintenance of high vegetation density. Principles of adaptive management, adjusting maintenance and management practices appropriately based on monitoring results, will be applied to ensure maximum project success. The site will be managed consistent with the best available science including information from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Wildlife Management Recommendations for Priority Habitats and Species (WDFW 2009). Proposed ongoing management practices that will protect buffer function and habitat value include maintaining the highest vegetative cover possible and minimizing the presence of invasive species. During the first year, the planting contractor will be responsible for maintaining 100 percent plant survival within the wetland and buffer enhancement areas per the planting contract plans. In accordance with the one-year plant survival guarantee, the contractor will replace plants that have died during the first year. Before plants are replaced, the contractor will consult with the project biologist arranged by the City to determine why certain species are not surviving and, if necessary, which native plant substitutions are appropriate. In addition, throughout the summer of the first year, the contractor will be responsible for providing supplemental water (irrigation) as frequently as necessary to ensure healthy plant conditions. The City wit( be responsible for managing the establishment of plants from the second through the fifth year, with the goal of meeting all applicable performance standards listed above. If percent cover requirements for native tree and shrub species are not satisfied, maintenance activities may include, but are not limited to, plant replacement, plant supplement, plant substitution, adjustment of planting layout to reflect specific or changing site conditions, weed control, and installation and adjustment of plant protection devices. For example, if more than 15 percent of the area is invaded by invasive or non-native species, the best method of eradication for the weedy species of concern will be implemented. An integrated pest management (IPM) approach will be adhered to for invasive species management within buffer mitigation areas, including limited use of herbicides per RMC 4-3-090.D.2.d.xi. Invasive plant species will by hand -pulled to the extent practical. If herbicides are deemed appropriate for use to control invasive species, only those herbicides approved for use in aquatic ecosystems by the Washington State Department of Ecology (e.g., Rodeo, Aquamaster) will be selected and application shall be done by a licensed applicator. May 2413 HERRERA Wetland Assessment Report 8 BufferMtigation Ptan SW 7th St./Naches Ave_ SW Storm Systern Improvement Project 29 REFERENCES Bing. 2013. Bing aerial photographs. Available at: http://windows. microsoft.corn /en - us /windows/ binp,- maps -aerial -imagery -down load -theme. Accessed on February 6, 2013, Brinson, M.M. 1993. A Hydrogeomorphic Classification for Wetlands. Technical Report WRP-DE-4. US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. August 1993. City of Renton. 2013. Critical Areas digital data compiled by the City of Renton; COR Maps. Obtained ori February 12, 2013, from agency website: http://www.rentonweb.org:8080/ Si lverli ghtPublic/ Viewer. htmPViewer=COR-Maps. Cooke, S. 1997. A Field Guide to the Common Wetland Plants of Western Washington and Northwestern Oregon. Seattle Audubon Society and Washington Native Plant Society, Seattle, Washington. June 1997. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. Publication FWS/OBS-79131. US Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services. Ecology. 2006. Wetland Mitigation in Washington State. Joint publication of the Washington State Department of Ecology, the US Army Corps of Engineers Seattle District, and the Environmental Protection Agency Region 10. Version 1, March 2006. Publications 06-06-011a and 06-06-011b (Part 1 and Part 2). Ecology. 2008. Using the Wetland Rating System in Compensatory Mitigation. Focus Sheet: Shorelands and Environmental Assistance. Washington State. Ecology Publication 08-06-009. Washington State Department of Ecology. March 2008. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1. US Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. January 1987. Environmental Laboratory. 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region. Technical Report TR -08-13. US Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center, Wetlands Regulatory Assistance Program, Vicksburg, Mississippi. Herrera. 2013a. Stream Study—SW 7th Street/Naches Avenue SW Storm System Improvement Project. Prepared for SAIC and City of Renton by Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc., Seattle, Washington. March 2013. Herrera. 2013b. Habitat Data Report—SW 7th Street/Naches Avenue SW Storm System Improvement Project. Prepared for SAIC and City of Renton by Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc., Seattle, Washington. March 2013. May 2013 HERRERA Wetland Assessment Report ft Buffer Mitigation Plan SW 7th St./Naches Ave. SW Storm System Improvement Project 31 Hitchcock, C.L. and A. Cronquist. 1987. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington. Hruby, T. 2004. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington—Revised. Ecology Publication 04-06-025. Washington State Department of Ecology. August 2004. Lichvar, R.W. and J.T. Kartesz. 2009. North American Digital Flora: National Wetland Plant List, version 2.4.0. US Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, New Hampshire, and BONAP, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Available at: https://wetland_plants.usace.army.mil. Munsell Color. 2000. Munsell Soil Color Charts. New Windsor, New York. MRCS. 2006. Field Indicators of Hydric Soil in the United States, Version 6.0. Edited by G.W. Hurt and L.M. Vasilas. US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, in association with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils. MRCS. 2011. Web Soil Survey. Natural Resources Conservation Service, US Department of Agriculture. Obtained July 5, 2011, from agency website: http://websoiLsurvey.nres.usda.>;ov/app/ WebSoilSurvey.aspx. SAIL, 2012. Hardie Avenue SW - SW 7th Street Storm System Improvement Project, Preliminary Design Memorandum. Prepared for the City of Renton. October 2012. Stevens, M.L. and R. Vanbianchi. 1993. Restoring Wetlands In Washington : a Guidebook for Wetland Restoration Planning and Implementation. Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, Washington. Available at: https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/summarvpages/ 93017. html. USDA. 2013. The PLANTS Database. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service. National Plant Data Center, Baton Rouge, LA 70874-4490, USA. Obtained February 13, 2013, from agency website: http: / /p__lants. usda. pov. USFWS. 2013. National Wetlands Inventory Wetlands Mapper for Google Earth. US Fish and Wildlife Service. Obtained February 12, 2013, from agency website: htto: //www.fws.gov/wetlands/. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2009. Landscape Planning for Washington's Wildlife: Managing for Biodiversity in Developing Areas. 88 Pp + App. Olympia, Washington. Available at: http://wdfw.wa.!gov/conservation/ phs/mgmt.._recommendations/. Accessed on February 20, 2013, WDFW. 2013a. SalmonScape. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Available at: http://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/salmonscape/index.htmi. Accessed on February 11, 2013. WDFW. 2013b. Washington State Fish and Wildlife Service Priority Habitat and Species (PHS) Data On the Web for the study area. Available at: http://wdfw.wa..o�v/mappipg_/phs/. Accessed on February 11, 2013. (Eta HERRERA May 2013 32 Wetland Assessment Report a Buffer Mitigation Plan -SW 7th St./Naches Ave. SW Storm System Improvement Project T Y, DI S roject Plan Paget So�rd � Z �72 i J tUii cp e asaeAv 0. a � 77n 5 �•v-w6.. O Z � Q O ff] 4 f� V oww ¢aa_aaaa �wUa i o Paget So�rd � Z �72 i J tUii cp 5 �•v-w6.. _ cap 5 � O n d !y N I � 4� off; a i' Paget So�rd � Z �72 i J tUii cp U) Z O F 4 W cc m m a 0 Z W 0 W r X X X X tX J_ J y W 2 w O 4 X W X z L7 O zwz U Li w 0 - �z c "s � Z � � w ? c� F- x x x x C] ` by a X X x iC x X X X X W n W m Z z I I I W w n L'a m � HX X X X X O X X X X X z Z zo o� z z S J w Y W V V1 W w wz Z t7 = N z l_ a W z� cn� Wa¢� c vcn U a Z V U Z $ O zu� �" W d U k o— o�� 7r O O O O n o UJ m � M o 2 a w o o � 1 m v 0aaaaa Z Z3 W „pv Uw air ¢ 2 W zO w O Zr W.Z m w T Qv r O U w L Z z O O za n J m S Ow } m Z W p z, C n C7 } Z N Q Z V s O O V H U O 4 O z v W Z = w 2 p wW VO Q ? V fn tz W U 4y ~w f Zd zd �w o a � to W WWF-- I �"' � < ¢ O � a z `'az Y U w co w Iw-- O cz7 z p = U r w U z w ca- w cr O W w a m a Z x zJ� p W� A N O a r O Y W O m Vl H OC w m Q w z CC m cc m w= J O m U a K W8' R' Z J W LOw Z `nU 2� W � W Ow U O H V � W W W � � ~ W IwBJI o w z m o m a z z fz w Or C? O W w O OIw O O Z Z O 0 7 K J i¢ - N M 4] 19 f- a 9p Q; - ly X X X X x J vl w 2 w O X W X ww zwz U Li w O to c4 �� Z 2 x x x x x F- x x x x X by a X X x iC x X X X X W n W m Z Z _ I I W w n L'a m � HX X X X X O X X X X X z Z zo o� O - p z rc J w Y W V V1 zza O wz Z T a Sow z� cn� Wa¢� w� vcn o U Z o Q O zu� �" 4 U Z k o— o�� 7r O O O O n o UJ m � oq w w� - z< �Z to Cl = m O 0aaaaa Z3 „pv W O O K J � r } w z z a CL 0 i o Q Z t}il n w -,a oz t rrw o p 7 ww d' } Z O Jt=j OST V O4 H Z Z a d WiW- y OU :} ..~J O J Z 4 � � 't T � ? W V n .-. L W � --'• v� f lid] } � V Z i._' W O Z O w ti? w d C7 d0 Z S R tr W 0 0 W W 0O } 2 J J J m M< m m Z Z z Z Z O O O O W W W ¢ W s W 4' 1 (n V] V l V i V l (n v] v l V 1 V) 11 Y Y > r s _ a n Vz 3z w -U a`s z i-� �4 a wc� aw w0 x Qa.� n} 7 O� oo w TM V in ��=_ d v zzz rzz 0000 T Wd �� cnwcn v�vl cn vJ �n cn vi cn v'r W 0- 3 T ' v1 (YZ S w I fY z z vl w 2 w O w = �cna ww zwz U Li w O to c4 �� Zp4 v� Z 2 W Z G Win"' � o0 Z N in z0 a w �z z om n W m Z _ O = _ J W w n L'a m � q a w = a Z z 4Wl1 Z W Z Z zo o� O - p rc J w Y W V V1 zza z wz Z T a Sow z� cn� Wa¢� w� vcn o U Z o Q O zu� �" 4 U Z k o— o�� 7r O O O O n o UJ m � oq w w� - z< �Z to = m O Z Z3 „pv Uw air ¢ W zO zz O Zr W.Z HZ OU O O z o zQ o wF wcYn w�� z W W Q p p W } V O z 4 � H lz w - � Qd z= o r ow -O z r Y �J ¢ w�w� o O V 1 Z O V t? a W Z a V 1 w z W U Z o o -x z zz mCol �� O J Ca7dz Lj c7 �w wp rc r www z J cjO�Q Oz�l��3 i wG �3 xp� dw Vj O 2 2 2 s w C 2 J H O 1 w�¢-_err azz U F. r_tn� z Ec��cn �w �--c ` m�w4rya c�[� �ztn U,zz"'¢w�l cY z�»Zzm r 3 rn�V4.J t70ooUto W JJ Ot-�n lnw zo. W ww ¢ O •L ¢O W 5T w0 000�wO w W �O x J nw Z z IX..J 4 4 000} 4} 4 4 4 m m m U J 1 U U 0 0 0 U V V V V V V V V V V O O O O m W m W W W W w nap a J}} mo- -- a W 000Wv�to >- i wJOv'I xx O :y ]C Oa 44a IGa mmm UUUUCi [j'VUVVVV��VVUVVV Doom WL.JWWwwCu `�J G.iw � CSO 2222 4'±+ 0 z X � W m m i m n a (/i li S 47 V'1 [f1 V O fr to _ Y fI] V of O Q U O U W U) UE ML CC� �Y11�1'.lJ� Iv i h � p d s�J z W W J m O � m T W J V O ¢ U U p V W Z C O J W O O W O w R' IKJ W W Z W O S w Y W Z Y` .L [C K d W (n 3 cn (n O a > ti V 3 O V] L� 3 V1 i.l1 D [Y N it i r I I I I ' I I f U W } O 3 z a ui U) 2 ww = 7 D w �V t) i:.. iicu .�:, �i' M Y.:i.., J. L"..3i. -jf -el �y w Y w�wII L� U cc p v. zwz U M �zw C]Z (n � U s w a W m Z J W za � q J V Z 2 O Z zo - 3 � W O W 3 U Z T 0Zy�� X rn V X 4 U Z w G n o UJ a cn z W W J m O � m T W J V O ¢ U U p V W Z C O J W O O W O w R' IKJ W W Z W O S w Y W Z Y` .L [C K d W (n 3 cn (n O a > ti V 3 O V] L� 3 V1 i.l1 D [Y N it i r I I I I ' I I f U W } O 3 z a ui U) 2 ww = 7 D w �V t) i:.. iicu .�:, �i' M Y.:i.., J. L"..3i. -jf -el s O V ;n cn 2 Z r Q � a S y a O y ~ m m =W z U w w Q V H V r Ir) Qmw tiooJ�r J? o��mo�a 'L W � Z OW W Nl:Joa=mo CL z 1 Q CL U) W O z z O H U U) Cf) z O U U) U) IL 4m W U) 0.zn�wo m Gycc a J Y U1 W0. W "+��' Cl m W !n 7 fI1 KY = a [n O ? 1 In [� zr x��ol�- ya:p wcc "vI c�z,y0a w0 c"7 Lo � Tw�w m �In ear cO�n Ovid y�xW ✓! �� ZK �Z X Q040] C �L'C V LC Z�j'y 4Cr1 [r �cn << �r o�przw -QUZW cvr -dYO� �a� wJ Zm�W O W 11Y�O 2lil cr2 �� 2m Qm U 4 z 7=pww LL cna �ID w � r�� p �': tri" d� Ym� cY-��o Q� 4 � �~2 J �CtV Q O O S p d O Z¢ S O 2_ 4� H Y Q w~ G d¢ m J m V rZ��o3 c�?m¢°dac?v��zd.�J¢ci V�Q?O_�-ILU¢wmw � V ? 0 0 0 0 I v11Iv I u I IV 1d I1 Ju SIM3iU dOYia'r AOOJ XOdddy U J I) O 4 O �EL0 EL F � � Z W Z O QW {n O w LLJ In W w o _ 0 n � O � z U c co z d ZW W F g g� z Ul Wm }OLIrOL LO Q cc00 aF- `t w m ¢ J w - q 0 TCN 2'{' 6� 4 Q O IZi.ir QZ Jlf�l WQ QO OQ�W OW m amu U[r11w 25N OO ��;� aO V r��y _ z ac G J 2? N ! m m O W� 1-FS-Ui Gw VJJ' V„ajW� mGUw wI= m d o =v'�vlia W O� �' ! O o w wua w V1 Q O� z = w� Woo�cwi W V13 V1QW 2awl2 sr4 UKQ Wr � Ot;+H C7 CZ]� CL U Z U Z H J= w Z CD J p Z Z N r V l m O r - v �rW� WOw zoo ZE`-02..aw ! zp� az� r r zm W H w 2 c-, _ c:i cn o w o z w UYyy L Z Z a yw w� T p VT z.-, zGo G ��V F -G Z w=z v' ¢ U�-�+ VSwZ2� ��`O ¢knzp w�Sa 20 _ z 3 O amQ ?AUG 9U1w O }OSZ (,Z W 4 W 3 W w 1 O U do w Z $ I1 J~11 vUi ZOZw 7i Z a ��q�N z_ i UO ��wmo0� m �v,w 93 o�opw �Woa w��o U3 mZ Q W m W m WQ w wd2��`fF1 V to} WO � V]SZ C7 4 p`� U QO dmO UdY� UwdW W NDN VJ W lwi a OY w 2>SW11 zo��y O Vi - a¢ a O z i.J O iw"'� wO w o G zrC OV a Zd ��w d 2 V wo U V, yl = Z44Uwd lit ~ U r _ H O wG W- V- Z n- - r r NQ O Oz w rW K U ZO w Q 71 � mwJ Z 4 m�'� O `L ZOZ Z d W w HZ mp W U J",j� pW O'11n ZOZawU t= m OK � Q u�p w�Q - �w mw wV wzw o n QW dWIzI�JI mm- � S Z r= W I S�`Y W r Y mJ JZ Q a•_ d� V� >- O 4~ W m? Q U ww O= V da wm v sa ¢0t2n0 oQ0 mo J ¢ wz ~ o Qz 0, z O tr - fi1Y W QI[�CJ W w " w `L O{{ m %y W 2fNnZ O W W ci I I I SIM3iU dOYia'r AOOJ XOdddy U J I) O 4 O �EL0 EL F � � Z W Z O QW {n O w LLJ In W w o _ 0 n � O � z U c co z d ZW W F g g� z Ul Wm }OLIrOL LO Q cc00 aF- � Z R] O IL 0 IVllIr11�1IV 1Ir41UJU pSC - �1L'7 N _C7 WHA b[7 ZJ t = TUC J L� O Z Q WZW (SCC W �' N r- V U �O W?I1.L�SJ4�3 O =O ._ �-^W - C]�ZVISi�W�S ZW V� :7WTWO:l1W U�fl C4C f�Z- 5 U r'- H - J i� Vr u. - - 0.0wW S O� _ �.•K mW Vw20W � �S�{ ~O L�� Y~W =I-ZUa7 0. b -Zw W w"'� G WCC WZ �ZZ�OOrSJW 2'U �W Z rc:W ._ tiC'IZSI�]F-OWr.. r-�� Z �f'ti O Lt C] -O - V: Li WKi/, H ZZ Z ww W wKCLV ZO rte? W C[Y [nNRQ�E '1 W'c Kew V W O N ��U W� V, �W 0�2 W K� Zx O JJJ CC m t_�W �dW wOSW ~ .i -O �� W-.[ UO CJW �Y W W aJC _ =��CC0 WYV10pF-�Z Wap W p -, I�(�dVl �< Ll�m�Z4 W�Z2�ll, WQmJ V Yp24�W~Z_ V -r' <00� _W Off' Ll�p pwW CnJ Wi � 2 U 1- V)QG<4Z 4�4. K Ora C�WmZF..4RUy-ZU'V ZT T Z i?Owl KT� � W K-V1z�W -VaZ 0. OSI1c� C7 4=C] ff] d'CK m WJ F.. pZ-O r} V �� VFW C]�Cm�W�H J2 bUw � �CW� Li JbWCLn Z0.L�bZ O�F.SmwS �rfn��b�f/,WC, �T JN¢] U W U Or_.z W`r V1W� W ZZ Z�'Y (Ln z_ Sd'C �C�- w1. j 4]c�X -•W = rW� _�- 'al.�Y�,JU H 2 �OJZZ Z,Y, "-�W w�p �40� (na �00pzW yQ��mZ oVO,i =fnOr��'��Z J;�4-;Z��Q--�V WwY �O p4=? �wG-t4�0� SON S K Lld w4pW Hy-a�w� u1. b '1 3CJK Y�W`.YK-L Vi=m[Y tX "O K�OV Zd -�� n r m o irr d vl� 3 w w rr ¢� K-~� ¢ H w in �F �rw„� Q rresJ W `n o Jrr -tx0 oJJmo 9w�KJ�< i 7 fl W Z U O Z D Cc] [_-' w ti 7C J O CC1 p O=W�r�r~�O Cx� Zwp H CJQ.i Z WOQ.Jy�mW�=H=Z W L% rJW W �W Q � �U0.J V}�O-LjZlll S H2� �� H NG[llp� D �V O W Z Z-rm _�w�U�rJUVW� pQJ J =�V1� Z d. U, Oi�� QUx UI K 24Zm HxJ ¢V1 V1H O U 2 ffJ�Jj SK J �m w a [r iLw� n C7 rz �W >^r �w W VI Wv}�Zc��Sa S, -,r �V rx OC] 0 moi„ ..OHE!-� aLLc7 H- ULLdr-, ati W�or. r_~ti.�w in0 TZoo �z - �Qr wvla �,n v: min oI`.I z�� w�z04zooaN �p VO :d¢r �Ow„-I L•'=�� =wr"w �ti 3- �y zz C� ~�ziw4 r��3z J=nw G n aL a i7� o V swWo x }o ¢¢YW �pa0 z�,V,�¢ ¢00VW[=� za5 r"mf� �4J�4JwJrwi Jca�[wjVw� z� Uzd [wj ��orcwin�WU � O�Q {{--V] CC Cr bc:)={c W W W 4�QV:ZO d'O-O -rw,.,l zd'U 2t? W OO VYr[f]OOQQd' 002 rW 4 (nZ Z�wZ ZZ Qrw V--F-YUOLj V1Z V1W VI�fnZ-�Jrl Om F(n W.y. J wOrfll0. (rS r^[] Q[�ZU = x z 0 W d m O W a x Z p ~ x 0 0 0 O[� m W W O x 0 0 �'a 0 0 0 Z O o Q 0 2 m w w 0 X 0 O w w rY W d O w J O w w 4 d 0 J¢�m=S�nW OwF mow,- liow 4� 6=ap Z WrcaUaJ 4mOU0 WUmWW WUr� r�r�rrC�m��pr wU Upn ��a Oara wVlr rs UaU M 133HS 33S 3NIIHOiVH a I f S fl �I I NI Lz z1. 3wla — — — 16 ,K 1. 1 02'50+� I vis ;]NIH39 HVi K3 (110) tb'0l 31 3V IZ 13 wla 1a ,LGUt B1..L+6I vJ5 (H3) Z9'01. 31 5l'W 13 Vila la ,z9'LZ ZI'1.9+p1. 'Is Jz 2 mo 45'01. 31 1a 1.0 8c H'90+01. His 1311(10 U LLl a W Z LLJ Q 2 J C) Q d z Q 2 cn w L U) U U) U) cc Q Ln N I I ; - � I 0 + M. O ooh N' 4� r II Oz--x^I + E' W Uj w a I� UT 11. l �� ".1 , _. - ..n, I4 L- JI' M' Y� .. .1 '1', -I''! T1 rn i.�:)� III =:•f ',J)�I cn W O I LU z w O � rii�r rue Iv ilr ■LIJVI y'� yL �LL�n IIr £O 133HS 33S - 3NIIHO1dW 177 I/VI it il•✓' `.I{;_. I:I (MN) 4 l L 31 L 31 9'OZ 13 riF 18 ,5V 11 16U+91 VIS rin'M - rHm O ' I 0 I z O z ll 31 06'QZ �3 M8 1J ,Lb BZ 09 if+v V15 �HVt II I 13 133H 33S 3NIIHOIVN b I � M a LA � a 4 U IZ V [Y V w � I d ZZ w Z Z CV li W J V z U O W o z Z ~ �a W LU o r d Lu Lij Z H U]v Li W Li 0 M C ¢ c Q d Q rn 7 a`cr Za oq 2 L!1 ox pJ0 w� Z n 2 o �! aia x- w w H Z N w g � co to � ,n'. r O £O 133HS 33S - 3NIIHO1dW 177 I/VI it il•✓' `.I{;_. I:I (MN) 4 l L 31 L 31 9'OZ 13 riF 18 ,5V 11 16U+91 VIS rin'M - rHm O ' I 0 I z O z ll 31 06'QZ �3 M8 1J ,Lb BZ 09 if+v V15 �HVt II I 13 133H 33S 3NIIHOIVN b I � M a LA � a 4 U IZ I `� 11•; �" �t I Vd. IF Iuh 1� llf 1lJJ\J 3- O SI1 VO 133HS 33S3NIIHO1bW g Va133HS335 3NIlMlbW ..1.._5i �.._.._.._.._.._...�..� _.. .--•--._..�+ 0 III � a V ' 1 V x � n U LLJ G O O o '=i N � a - to � N I V V ru W W Z > Z T Q LU L J '.moi x o a v W Q S ¢ 0- z w w o w w :z g o LLL.I L } � I CC Q (A VO 133HS 33S3NIIHO1bW g Va133HS335 3NIlMlbW ..1.._5i �.._.._.._.._.._...�..� _.. .--•--._..�+ 0 III � a (Q) 4L It 31 9L'tZ l3 Mid 1� ,9'0 L 90+OZ tIS �- GNPi -c1dd7 _ I V a N m S a 0 v~i o I -- - . N � tl '�.. _.. _..ter .. rr .. �.. �..� �.• ._.. _.._••� ZO 133HS 336' 3NIIHOiVV4 r il+. '.I .t., uc JI Mh r]:'. L; I1. I,� All, ,. , Hv �.. o .. .e - 11 iJ .rirf•' 1 V i N I i 1 N i to � N I r ru c (Q) 4L It 31 9L'tZ l3 Mid 1� ,9'0 L 90+OZ tIS �- GNPi -c1dd7 _ I V a N m S a 0 v~i o I -- - . N � tl '�.. _.. _..ter .. rr .. �.. �..� �.• ._.. _.._••� ZO 133HS 336' 3NIIHOiVV4 r il+. '.I .t., uc JI Mh r]:'. L; I1. I,� All, ,. , Hv �.. o .. .e - 11 iJ .rirf•' U 0 H cn w I-- 0 z U) LL 0 0 H U U) cn z O U W V N 4 0 I �I■ld J �I. Wi m_ f 1 z ' Q II L4. _ _ I ... 1 I � w � J � N N V V f4 J tal � G Z W Y L� CmJ N i CC 4 � � O o CJ N CC > zoom �Q a w 71 o a 0 00 0 90 133H 33S- 3NIIHOiVh J k K PAS IAV 71�AAOd i 1 �n I Rv . C f , I II p �z t i £0133HS 33S - 3Nl7H3iVVq I. iiIr ■UI Ill —r I. Jw Cf�1■ V N � = 0 I �I■ld � N O4 �I. z ' Q II L4. _ _ I ... 1 w 0 CrL H- Z UJ� p Q � J N a o LL LLJ � 0 C) V � r Z W } 90 133H 33S 3NIIHOiVN (HO) ZO'Z L 31 (HO) MtL 31 o �n 0 + 0 I m Z m o � N O4 z Q t I � J � N N V V f4 (HO) MtL 31 o + m Z m o � N O4 � � t N w J � N V V L6'Iz 13 WIa -{ p IH ,S'9'O wq6+7,7 HIS + 9HVI I E 4 I I � V _ Ul �o £a133HS33S 3NI7HDINW � e : ,, i.:a�:. �11m wi„ >•,.�t ,;;rn•; :.�,,. �,a, a,.. .n ,�.�, ��: v M�• :.�-„ ., � �,; ", >>.�, „ . ,,.. �.,_.��.• n� . ;...i iio':".:. I+I �.-� amr� U) W O z 90 133HS 33S f 3NPHOiVN I f Ms and SevgoH-L S I J� f I 4— h- Ivy wjug IV 1mv QLJJlJ P_ ICY 1 •----_ O Y � Lu > z W QW w fV ._ [/i J y LL o = 7 Li p 0 V) o [) V O— Lr1 i Z G NL iJL Z G d P J j - d W w 18 ,L � f L SZ+BZ } ~ rZ 8HW J �LI J F= Z I I I I io i LL, 4lbS 34: U O O O O 3NPHOiVN I f Ms and SevgoH-L S I J� f I 4— h- Ivy wjug IV 1mv QLJJlJ P_ ICY 1 •----_ O Lu > z W QW w fV ._ [/i J y LL o = 7 Li p 0 V) o a _ d LL Z G NL iJL Z G d j - d W w 18 ,L � f L SZ+BZ } x a U) I .._.._.._-. 93133HS336 3NMOiVW ._.._.. i a O W � a � z ="s O H II I n N I +I I bO 133HS 33S 3NIIHOM 11 1 I 8 J n� v a' D I + 'N a z 4 I a 0 Ul VO 133HS 336 3WHOiVV4 E,.� d I iiAld 0., NYI LO,7V:..o. w ry W LL 'a1S j - d W w 18 ,L � f L SZ+BZ x a 8HW wx� , I I I I I io i II I n N I +I I bO 133HS 33S 3NIIHOM 11 1 I 8 J n� v a' D I + 'N a z 4 I a 0 Ul VO 133HS 336 3WHOiVV4 E,.� d I iiAld 0., NYI LO,7V:..o. U) LLJ O Z Q W z LLJ (D S b + + f �I O � I v1 1 Q epi d Z Z ri L C� Y di W + LV- LU � Cz w M- �F�-L�i.1� cS 3 O � z m 9 oz iy w Ci W O O O [ H� w 2 is ? w 4m n o w Elf=- Yd � } Z O I I i LO 133HS 33S 3NFHOiVV4 I LO 133HS 33S 3NIlHOldW I I S b + + f �I O � I v1 1 Q epi II _ Z d r s Lo (Ki l9 Z l 31 1 saHl3VQ Id '30s as rz4K vis v � v I a 0 I + q q �a o w � p G W d I'. j^, ". 1-',P J Gill SII E 13 ,6('F FL'4Z+iF 1'15 6HVi Waft I� I± M Ul 90i]3HS33S 3WHOiM 1 `r�3-fir 11 w O Z w Z LU C7 I Vl1l91uI IJ 11/ 1U -- K h � ~_ m W 1.� Z Z m w w 7 = VI Z V ? w cJ W 111 C 0- .� � Z w � � w Lo Cl W o Ln mz nod merws caw `� wz �m o o LLL L �$� ¢ x � _� u o Q w v'ww w c� ,� a w� so C, �I� N a m to J 0 Z x Inz v~i Ja cnzo o `i U— o T LJ j p O L2 ~ L=� w U ZDVWl a w a n V Z s z W� U W W� V]�2� Z J � � I I LU IL ¢p zPv~io `m 3a� ��W xV r-,w� c~nz oo Cn OL) I , O 90 131H 33S 3NIlH0iVV4 93133HS 33S 3NIlHOiVN --•�� I I sp� G I M I I cn I+j I � $ + I � NiS ]AV VOINIS k a _..._.._,.-.._,. ......_.._.._.._.._.._.._ 9 133HS 33S - 3NIIHO1NW E + a'�8 (H)} DC t 31 12! .58'Z 94'LL+c� V1S l Al Li o I _ Lil 90il3HS33S 3NIIHOiVH %A M N I I v11lr IUI 1V llF%LJ .1 � !n 41 a 1. i w C -i W 2 '✓] H Z W S CJ WY � c C w � � 'T :J] X r, L9'FZ 13 LMId N I L£'6Z+£ti HIS linty, x3 1 -- m O W C V N t L� O_JJ N UGC W F �. Gryzwa �� ° J n V Qw w V} X CJ 4i V1 C W CO `r' o W n = O G F n r - LU w J LL r to z F. w U 1., zr LJ S u.a w ❑ n LLI W> p 111 Z J s u Z v0 U C) O W V S i C7 W W u5 m� s r o~ o o= O W _ = w d � m � o c» w U7 W g d F. I n .. o O iI I { 0 n O Q � UFII II I (H�) LS'Zl 31 J N E6TZ 13 him a a $ lb ,lL'0 L6Zt+pp YS r U a + I o LO 133HS d3S3NI IHOiVn tom I ��1l 11 :t :. �.I ] v ati t.. •; ._,. . --.. ]'r,"... -I 1 ", i'.. � .. •�•I �.', !.. M4 t.•, '. '.',- '-, ..i �I .: '1•�l Y '. ... .. .. - nu .. -I ..., i i ,ff:fY-. 91f131 L9'FZ 13 LMId N I L£'6Z+£ti HIS linty, x3 1 -- n .. o O iI I { 0 n O Q � UFII II I (H�) LS'Zl 31 J N E6TZ 13 him a a $ lb ,lL'0 L6Zt+pp YS r U a + I o LO 133HS d3S3NI IHOiVn tom I ��1l 11 :t :. �.I ] v ati t.. •; ._,. . --.. ]'r,"... -I 1 ", i'.. � .. •�•I �.', !.. M4 t.•, '. '.',- '-, ..i �I .: '1•�l Y '. ... .. .. - nu .. -I ..., i i ,ff:fY-. LU J 3 O l -U C] cn W cr F- U F- w w IT E V LU O LU �a >z w UJ Q � ujw � uj TO w v za cc O �w Cc H n cn O I I Z c o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I o I c I o I 0 I 0 I 0 a p o 0 0 0 0 o 0 G G m VI m m m m m I m m i m I m 3 [p d d d d d d d d d d d o a a a o n 0 in in vri in o to v� crn o cn 0 cn 0 cn cn O O O O b O O O O O V U Z d O d O D O D D O L"1 a Lu rn v� v� cn cn cn cn cn cn vi cn � cn ii; to v, iii cn cn iri � in Zvi - a o 0 0 o a o a o o a a z w z z z z z z z z z z Q J Ii w w w li W L� li li w w °a K4 4 J 4 J J4 5 4 Q C3 V U V U 7 V D V V V W V W V LL Lrtr ¢_ LL LL LL U V U U (? [� u V V V d TLL f? 1 U c0 G �D vn IL' u2 ui vi u -i u -i In m RJ z z Z z z Z J 4Z4 J J J � J ¢ J CL 1 d 2 d Q d d fl d CL d c c c o C o cz� o a a r o 0 r o r Q0 r r 4 r O 4 r G O Lu 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 Z w w w w W (!1 VI V1 !n Vf N N C+1 U] V] U] Lu C rL cr x LZ C rr a r � C 4 o O o p O D [q 6I 6 W I' 1 W 1 1 f 1 1 1 1 r� rv� rvl a w r� rv� r� ri r7 r'� rri rv-� w w w m w w w w w w V -WI U 1L� 1LL� ��II 1wI I,, U CD O o 0 0 4 a m 4 [] = S 2 2 2 2 S 2 S m = (7 W 2 En H 4 W H LLU O rr C7 W Z z z LU H U O Z O 2 Z S S 2 2 2 2 S = = 2 IV1--I—IV iIlr \J J1✓ rnT i O U ,^p i LM �lh IT V LU O �a >z w UJ Q � ujw � uj TO w v za cc �w Cc H n cn O I I rnT i O U ,^p i LM �lh U) w 0 z O z U J_ H CD z_ X W 1 Ylllr ■�� i.e lir ��Ju U W O CIJ a" w� z Qw a � � o LJ LL ?n <0 z a �LdL/3w YF x � C/] W U) } ii cc O F ul + + Z Z Z V W w E Q [ Z Z G V V � O O O ® m W 4 Q J S Z Z z z d W U m O f ` IC !rrY Z a a u� J LC 1.z.J W m m = 2 Z G V V, C1 Z W ff o o w w w K K K K K w t•] z # w w s46 w a1 °23 ,;d a z z z 2 w t v to w w y� z z z Z z Z Z n z z o z z x LD 15 U U to K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K J_ 2 i oW z z - _z o 2 a 2 V w w lti l -u w w W W W w W w W W a o a o a a a 0 0 x O (n O W z w w � ? O o pN w O O O m p m W re w w w oe w w cc w w rr w w ce w z w rc w a w rc rc s ce m m m m m m W W w W w ua z z s U U U U U C1 U U V U U U U V z O V 3 3 3 3 3 v ry z z v v v v ¢ Q U ca O W W U Q U O I U O U O U U J G V U G V O U G V U V V GJ U U GJ U V w V O V O V O V V V U U U U U U U U U U U U W Z q J J J J J J J J O O O O Q9 J] p Q CJ 4 O O J p O co c� of O Z \ \ \ \ W W z ip 2 Z F C.7 -- N N En LO N N - N N N N O Z J Q F Z W �n a a u7 u"> �!] r7 aq ° ° °"� z .•� ri .- N N r M! n w w w w a m z a M� n N rn n n n a N z z z I � m O At H � F Z W F w� LL mN �N7 'ra z z z z a O f W W ul 2 � O � 3� W i� tF � r!] „] rr] r'l „] 1•] Mi �"] „] N] N N N N � � � ^ - - - - ^ - [j Qi > > p 2 p I 47 W J \ t N + N i0 �) in = ` N • - v!] ° .C} N Z - ^ N cp N N K Z Z Z UJ � � N 2 4 Q U U J V nL - V U V Z U Z W Z w ( Z Z J 4 Z Z Z Z V _ G U V w G 3 O w W O Q z d 2 0. 4 0. d a w Z 2 Z d d G O O Z O F U n Z Q O V -J W J n C7 r ¢ a O 6m r `L m¢¢ V m 3 a a. W d a a a w a '- Q w rr a d p a p a p s O a `t s 3 C7 O a G s o a W a # f w J ^ � ¢ � r d 1 Ylllr ■�� i.e lir ��Ju U W O CIJ a" w� z Qw a � � o LJ LL ?n <0 z a �LdL/3w YF x � C/] W U) } ii cc O F ul LU G z o . �.�.�..�. \ \ [ ) \ « }G}7e })�}) Li; , , u wxzw,raIG' v =.".Icasv. ,w: w, - w :ms:«1r, � U G Z U O O � N N W � N N < .r �n V U V :J (7 I1 0 0 0 o Q o V L'1 F- a- Y X Y J S Q •-. r Y' S L.x 1 C} j � J - Lj v� n g _ ra m vi vi a to vi w a w ¢ z O 4 N L 5,E] O no I �w I Z—_ �ii,Irl,•�6 c�00 Oozz�z } } '•� o � � z e.� o } � � ♦♦� zv � - /' / � � o � w U a ¢ O o vi m Lm- w i 4 0 vs IV z VOID O w F 0vm u, W q W J LL U � 4 CL S w—�C aULLIz I a 0 H Q z OV W U m } w fw! 1 a 1 <a w C7 N z4 F- � �o d � � W � U G Z U O O � N N W � N N < .r �n V U V V V V 0 0 0 o Q o Y X Y J 1 C} j � J - W v� n g _ ra m vi vi a to vi IY-F 1V 1IP 1lJJV LU 4 c d - a o ul QLu O g w w LU v = O cc a w a L) L LOz n } LL C Q M 0 O z a. I v� n g _ ra w w a w ¢ z O 4 N W p c!5 W G W �q vLLI of ��// ui uit O wow �~r �_rrr m Z� o i wx 7 7 � V Z a=z I � p LLI p Z LU V z 531bYr,.� U LU 0 d w ~ Z LU aLL) n W Q a O ? � W Q d � ~ U 0 wz 00 - s Z m N a Jays u C..•,r" : r. "" .:,'.d :.6C I:_L ,,,i �..r„n it '� ,y.d �'el i.rl •.�i ll, N• LIV..' r ”- .!•{ I l .4111 IV31IF IUI IV 1IFIVJU V O W J vim Vr ON c t7 aT � a I O LL - p W p Z LU V z 531bYr,.� U LU 0 d w ~ Z LU aLL) n W Q a O ? � W Q d � ~ U 0 wz 00 - s Z m N a Jays u C..•,r" : r. "" .:,'.d :.6C I:_L ,,,i �..r„n it '� ,y.d �'el i.rl •.�i ll, N• LIV..' r ”- .!•{ I l .4111 O V O W J vim Vr ON c t7 aT � a I O LL - p W �z W ¢ m f O r V I J 7 a H ��l�l I7If�Y W � LU _ - = a 0 p Z LU V z 531bYr,.� U LU 0 d w ~ Z LU aLL) n W Q a O ? � W Q d � ~ U 0 wz 00 - s Z m N a Jays u C..•,r" : r. "" .:,'.d :.6C I:_L ,,,i �..r„n it '� ,y.d �'el i.rl •.�i ll, N• LIV..' r ”- .!•{ I l .4111 } V O '1 J O LL W ¢ m f O J 7 a H W � u Z � J r J L p Z LU V z 531bYr,.� U LU 0 d w ~ Z LU aLL) n W Q a O ? � W Q d � ~ U 0 wz 00 - s Z m N a Jays u C..•,r" : r. "" .:,'.d :.6C I:_L ,,,i �..r„n it '� ,y.d �'el i.rl •.�i ll, N• LIV..' r ”- .!•{ I l .4111 HERRERA J� ND Wett.and 'Dolm''' eati. n ethod HERRERA WETLAND DELINEATION METHODS This wetland delineation was performed in accordance with the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) and the Regional Supplement to the US Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual; Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Environmental Laboratory 2010). These methods use a three -parameter approach for identifying and delineating wetlands: the presence of field indicators for hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and hydrology. This wetland delineation was performed according to procedures specified for the routine wetland determination method (Environmental Laboratory 1987), Hydrophytic vegetation Hydrophytic vegetation is characterized by the ability to grow, effectively compete, reproduce, and persist in anaerobic soil conditions resulting from periodic or long-term saturation (Environmental Laboratory 1987). Vegetation must meet at least one of the four indicators (described below) that are used to determine the presence of hydrophytic vegetation in wetlands. Problematic and atypical situations for hydrophytic vegetation are also described in the Corps manual and supplement (Environmental Laboratory 1987 and 2010) . Plant Species Identification Plant species were identified using Flora of the Pacific Northwest (Hitchcock and Cronquist 1987) and A Field Guide to the Common Wetland Plants of Western Washington and Northwestern Oregon (Cooke 1997). The indicator status of each plant species is based on the North American Digital Flora: National Wetland Plant List, version 2.4.0 (Lichvar and Kartesz 2009) for the Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region. Dominant Species Determination Dominant species are those that contribute more than other species to the character of a plant community. To determine dominance, a vegetation sampling area is determined by the field biologist to accurately characterize the plant community that occurs in the area to be evaluated. These are commonly circular sampling areas, centered on the location of the test plot (where soil and hydrologic data is also collected). The radius of the circle is determined in the field, based on site conditions. In large wetlands, a typical sampling radius would be 2 to 5 meters for tree and sapling/shrub species, and 1 meter for herbaceous species. In a small or narrow wetland (or upland), the radius might be reduced to accurately sample wetland (upland) areas, thereby avoiding an overlap into an adjacent community having different vegetation, soils, or hydrologic conditions (Environmental Laboratory 2010). May 2013 HERRERA Wetland Assessment Report & Buffer Mitigation Pian—SW 7th St !N,aOe5 Ave 5W 5 uim System lmproverrent Project 8 1 Within the vegetation sampling area, a complete list of plant species that occur in the sampling area is compiled and the species divided into four strata: tree, shrub (including saplings, see criteria below), herb, and woody vines. A plant is included in the tree stratum if it is a woody plant 3 inches diameter at breast height (dbh) or greater; in the shrub stratum if it is a woody plant less than 3 inches dbh (including tree saplings under 3 inches dbh); in the herb stratum if it is an herbaceous (non -woody) plant; and in the woody vine stratum if it is a woody vine of any height (Environmental Laboratory 2010). To be included in the sampling, 50 percent or more of the plant base must be within the radius of the sampling area. For trees specifically, more than 50 percent of the trunk (diameter) must be within the sampling radius to be included. A rapid test, dominance test (e.g., the 50/20 rule), or prevalence index are commonly used to determine which species are considered dominant and to assess whether the criteria for hydrophytic vegetation are met at each test plot (Environmental Laboratory 2010). Additional hydrophytic vegetation indicators are discussed in the following section. To conduct a rapid test (Indicator 1 on the wetland determination data form), the dominant species are evaluated visually and if all are FACW or OBL, the vegetation data passes the rapid test. To conduct a dominance test (Indicator 2 on the wetland determination data form), the absolute areal coverage of the plant species within a stratum are totaled, starting with the most abundant species and including other species in descending order of coverage, until the cumulative coverage exceeds 50 percent of the total coverage for the stratum. The plant species that constitute this first 50 percent of areal coverage are considered the dominant species in the stratum. In addition, any other any single plant species that constitutes at least 20 percent of the total percent cover in the stratum is also considered a dominant species (Environmental Laboratory 2010). The indicator status category for each plant (shown in Table B-1) is also listed on the wetland determination form. If more than 50 percent of the dominant species across all strata are rated OBL, FACW, or FAC, the hydrophytic vegetation dominance test (Indicator 2) is met. Indicator Status Obligate wetland plants Facultative wetland plants Facultative plants Facultative upland plants Obligate upland plants Table B-1. Plant Indicator Status Categories. Indicator Symbol OBL FACW FAC FACU UPL Definition 'tants that occur almost always (estimated probability >99%) in wetlands under n tural conditions but also occur rarely (estimated probability <1 %) in upland areas '!ants that usually occur (estimated probability >67%) in wetlands under natural conditions but also occur (estimated probability 1% to 33%) in upland areas F ants with a similar likelihood (estimated probability 33% to 67%) of occurring in both wetlands and upland areas I lants that sometimes occur (estimated probability 1 % to 33%) in wetlands but occur more often (estimated probability >67% to 99%) in upland areas '!ants that rarely occur (estimated probability <1%) in wetlands under natural conditions WEiT : DRY OBL — FACW — FA('— FA CU — UPL Source: Environmental Laboratory (19 7). ( HERRERA May 2013 B-2 Wetland Assessment Report & uffer Mitigation Pian—SW 7th St /Naches Ave. SW Storm System Improvement Project The prevalence index (Indicator 3 on the wetland determination data form) is a weighted - average wetland indicator status of all plant species in the sampling plot, where weighting is by abundance (Environmental Laboratory 2010). This method is used where indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology are present, but the vegetation initially fails the rapid and dominance tests (Indicators 1 and 2)_ To determine the prevalence index, the absolute cover of each species in each stratum is determined. All species (across all strata) are organized into wetland indicator status groups (i.e., OBL, FACW, FAC, FACU, or UPL) and their cover values are summed within the groups. The formula for the prevalence index is applied. If the prevalence index (which ranges from 1.0 to 5.0) equals 3.0 or less, this hydrophytic vegetation indicator is met. Additional Hydiopilytic IVCegetat1011117diCNOIS The presence of morphological adaptations to wetland conditions in plants that lack a published hydrophytic vegetation indicator status or with an indicator status of FACU or drier is also a hydrophytic vegetation indicator (Indicator 4). Evidence of physiological, morphological, or reproductive adaptations indicating growth in hydrophytic conditions can include, but are not limited to, buttressed roots, adventitious roots, multi -stemmed trunks, or tussocks. To determine whether Indicator 4 is met, the morphological features must be observed on more than 50 percent of the individuals of a FACU species (or species without a published indicator status) living in an area where hydric soil and wetland hydrology are present. On the wetland determination data form, the indicator status of the species with morphological adaptations would be changed to FAC (with supporting notes), and the dominance test (Indicator 2) and/or prevalence index (Indicator 3) would then be recalculated. Wetland non-vascular plants, referred to as bryophytes and consisting of mosses, liverworts, and hornworts, may also meet the hydric vegetation criteria, under Indicator 5 (Environmental Laboratory 2010). These plants must be present in areas containing hydric soils and wetland hydrology. The percent cover of wetland specialist bryophytes is determined in 10 -inch by 10 -inch square plots placed at the base of hummocks, if present. The summed cover of wetland specialist bryophytes must be more than 50 percent of the total bryophyte cover in the vegetation sampling area. The "problematic hydrophytic vegetation" indicator section in the Corps regional supplement further explains how to interpret situations in which hydric soils and wetland hydrology are present but hydrophytic vegetation Indicators 1 through 5 are lacking (Environmental Laboratory 2010). Procedures for looking at settings such as areas with active vegetation management (e.g., farms), areas dominated by aggressive invasive species, active floodplains, and low terraces are described, as well as explanations for specific situations, such as seasonal shifts in plant communities, extended drought conditions, and riparian areas. Hydric Sails A hydric soil is a soil that is saturated, flooded, or inundated long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions that favor the growth and regeneration of hydrophytic vegetation (Environmental Laboratory 1987, 2010). The evaluation of existing soil maps May 2013 HERRERA Wetland Assessment F 2port & Butrer Miliyation Flan—SW 7th St./Naches Ave. SW Storm System Improvement Project B-3 (developed by NRCS and other sources) is used to understand hydric soil distribution and to identify the likely locations of hydric soils (by verifying their inclusion on the hydric soils list). Comparison of these mapped soils to conditions found on site help verify the presence of hydric soils. For on-site soils characterization, hydric soils data were obtained generally by digging test pits at least 20 inches deep and 4 inches wide. Hydric soil conditions were evaluated using indicators outlined in Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States (NRCS 2006), and adopted by the Regional Supplement to the US Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Environmental Laboratory 2010). Hydric soil indicators applicable to the Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast region include, but are not limited to, the presence of: organic soils (i.e., histosols or histic epipedons); suifidic material (i.e., hydrogen sulfide); depleted, gleyed, or reduced soil matrices; and/or the presence of iron or manganese concretions (Environmental Laboratory 2010). Soil color characterization (i.e., hue, value, and chroma) is a critical tool in determining depleted, gleyed, and reduced soil conditions. Soil color was evaluated by comparing soil colors at test plots to standardized color samples in Munsell Soil Color Charts (Munsell Color 2000). Wetland Hydrology Wetland hydrology is indicated by site conditions that demonstrate the periodic inundation or saturation to the soil surface for a sufficient duration during the total growing season. A "sufficient duration" during the growing season is defined as 14 or more consecutive days of flooding, ponding, or presence of a water table at 12 inches or less from the soil surface (Environmental Laboratory 2010). The growing season is the period of consecutive frost -free days, or the longest period during which the soil temperature stays above biological zero (41°F), when measured at 12 inches below the soil surface. Two indicators of biological activity can be used to determine whether the growing season has begun and is ongoing (Environmental Laboratory 2010): • Occurrence of aboveground growth and development of at least two non -evergreen vascular plant species growing within the wetland. Examples of this growth include the emergence or elongation of leaves on woody plants and the emergence or opening of flowers. • Soil temperature, which can be measured once during a single site visit, should be at least 41°F or higher at a depth of 12 inches. For this assessment, onsite hydrologic indicators were examined at the test plots. Hydrologic indicators include the presence of surface water, standing water in the test pit at a depth of 12 inches or less, saturation in the root zone, watermarks, drift lines, sediment deposits, drainage patterns within wetlands, oxidized rhizospheres surrounding living roots, and water - stained leaves. Note: References for this appendix are included at the end of the main text, ( HERRERA May 2013 B-4 Wetland Assessment Report & Buffer Mitigation Plan—SW 7th St /Nachos Ave. SW Storm System Imprnvement Project WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region HERRERA ENVIRONMENTAL CONSUTANTS Project Site: SW 7th StreetlNaches Avenue SW Storm System Improvements City/County: Renton Sampling Date: 1125113 ApplicantiOwner. City of Renton State: WA Sampling Point: TP UPL 1 Investigator(s): CE and JW Section, Township, Range: Section 13, T23N, i Landform (hillslope, terrace. etc.): terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 0°% Subregion (Li A 1 47°28'32.24" Long: 122°74'02.04" Datum: Soil Map Unit Name' Woodinville silt loam NWI classification: none Are climatic I hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ® No ❑ (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation ❑, Soil ❑, Or Hydrology ❑, significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ® No ❑ Are Vegetation ❑, Soil ❑, Or Hydrology ❑, naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling Doint locations. transects. imoortant features. etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ❑ No Absolute Cover Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No ® Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? YES ❑ NO Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No 1 Remarks: None of the three wetland parameters is met. VEGETATION — Use scientific names of nlants Tree Stratum (Plot Size: 2m) Absolute Cover dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet: 1 Number of Dominant Species That Are 1 2. OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) 3. Total Number of Dominant Species Across 2 (8) 4. All Strata: = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species That Are SanlinglShrub Stratum (Plot Size: 2m) OBL, FACW, or FAC: (Af B) Prevalence Index worksheet: 1. Cornus sericea 90 Y FACW 2. Rubus spectabihs 10 N FAC Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 3. OBL species xl = 4. FACW species x2 = 5. FAC species x3 = 100 = Total Cover FACU species x4 m Herb Stratum (Plot Size: tm) UPL species x5 = 1. Teflima grandiflora 10 Y FACU Column Totals: (A) (B) 2. Prevalence Index= B1A = 3. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4. Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 5. N Dominance Test is >50% 6. Prevalence Index is <3.0' 7. Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in g. Remarks or on a separate sheet) 9. Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' 10. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 11. 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, 10 = Total Cover unless disturbed or problematic. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot Size: ) 1. 2 Hydrophytic Vegetation Yes ❑ No Present? = Total Cover Bare Ground in Herb Stratum = 90 Remarks: No greater than 50% of the observed dominant plants are hydrophytic. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valley, and Coast — Version 2.0 Ir rp up1 I Project Site: SW 7th S1reeUNaches Avenue SW Storm System Improvements SOIL Sari ina Point: IT i I Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color % (moist) Color {Moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-3 10YR 212 100 ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139) Loam 3-11 10YR 312 100 ❑ High Water Table (A2) Silt loam 11-16+ 11 411 10 10YR 416 90 C M, PL Silt loam 'Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. ZLocation: PL=Pare Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': ❑ Histosol (Al) ❑ Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) ❑ Histic Epipedon (A2) ❑ Stripped Matrix (SG) ❑ Red Parent Material (TF2) ❑ Biack Histic (A3) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) ❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide 04) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) ❑ Depleted Matrix (F3) ❑ iron Deposits (135) ❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) ❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6) FAC -Neutral Test (D5) ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) ❑ )nundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) ❑ hydrology be present, unless disturbed or ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ElRedox Depressions (F6) problematic.ust Restrictive Layer (if present): Field Observations: Type: Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No Depth (inches): Depth (inches) Remarks: No hydric soil indicators are present. ® Depth (inches): HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) ❑ Surface Water (A1) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (89) ❑ High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 413) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 413) ❑ Saturation (A3) ❑ Salt Crust (B11) ❑ Drainage Patterns (B10) ❑ Water Marks (131) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) ❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2} ❑ Sediment Deposits (B2) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ❑ Drift Deposits (63) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ❑ Geomorphic Position (02) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust (134) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3) ❑ iron Deposits (135) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (Cfi} ❑ FAC -Neutral Test (D5) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) ❑ Stunted or Stresses Plants (D1) (LRR A) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) ❑ )nundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) ❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches) Water Table Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No Saturation Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos. previous inspections), if available: Remarks: No wetland hydrology indicators are present, US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valley, and Coast — Version 2.0 Jr 'p up! 1 C�l WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region HERRERA ENWRONMENTAL CONS[ATANTS Project Site- SW 71h SireetlNaches Avenue SW Storm System Improvements City/County: Renton Sampling Date: 1125113 Applicant/Owner: City of Renton State: WA Sampling Point: TP UPL Al Investigator(s): CE and JW Section, Township, Range: Section 13, T23N, R4E Landform (hillslope. terrace, etc.): hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex Slope (%): 7% Subregion (LRR): A Lai: 47°28'31.38" Long; 122°14'04.93" Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Woodinville sift loam NWI classification: none Are Climatic 1 hydrologic conditions an the site typical forthis lime of yearn Yes ® No ❑ (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation ❑, Seii ❑, Or Hydrology ❑, significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ® No ❑ Are Vegetation ❑, Sail ❑, Or Hydrology ❑, naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site maa showing sarnWina point locations. transects, imnortant features. etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ® No ❑ Absolute °/o Cover Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No ® Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? YES ❑ NO Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No 1. Populus balsamifera ssp. trichocarpa Remarks: Only one of the three wetland parameters is met. VFGFTATION —Use scientific names of nlants Tree Stratum (Plat Size: 3m) Absolute °/o Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet: 1. Populus balsamifera ssp. trichocarpa 40 Y FAC Number of Dominant Species That Are 2. Alnus rubra 10 Y FAC 3 (A) OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3. Total Number of Dominant Species Across 5 (B) 4. All Strata: so = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species That Aro SaplingiShruh Stratum (Plot Size: 2m) OBL, FACW, or FAC: 60 (A!B) Prevalence Index worksheet: 1. Rubus spectabilis 40 Y FAC 2. Sambucus racemosa 20 Y FACU Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 3. Rubusanneniacus 10 N FACU 0BLspecies x1 = 4. FACW species x2 = 5. FAC species x3 = 70 = Total Cover FACU species x4 = Herb Stratum (Plot Size: tm) UPL species x5 = 1. Polystichum munitum 60 Y FACU Column Totals: (A) (B) 2. Prevalence Index= BIA = 3. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4, Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 5. Y Dominance Test is >50% 6. Prevalence Index is X3.0' 7. Morphological Adaptations'(Provide supporting data in 8. Remarks or on a separate sheet) 9. Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' 10. Problematic Hydrophyll Vegetation' (Explain) 11. 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present. 60 = Total Cover unless disturbed or problematic. Woody Vine Stratum (Plat Size: ) 1. 2 Hydrophytic Vegetation Yes ® No ❑ Present? = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum = 40 Remarks: More than 50% of the observed dominant plants are hydrophytic. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valley, and Coast — Version 2.0 Jr tp upl al Project Site: SW 7th StreetiNaches Avenue SW Storm System Improvements 6N I Samulino Point: TP L'PL AI Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color oda Color % Type' Loc' Texture Remarks (moist) (Moist) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (69) 0-3 10YR 312 100 (except MLRA 1, 2,41A, and 4B) Loam 3-16+ 10YR 513 100 ❑ Saturation (A3) ❑ Loam 'Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 21-ocation: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': ❑ Histosol (A1) ❑ Sandy Redox (55) ❑ 2 cm Mucic (A10) ❑ Histic Epipedon (A2) ❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ Red Parent Material (TF2) ❑ Black Histic (A3) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) ❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (All) ❑ Depleted Matrix (F3) FAC -Neutral Test (D5) ❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) ❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6) ❑ ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland ❑ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) ❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) © Redox Depressions (F8) problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: ® Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No Remarks: No hydric soil indicators are present. ® Depth (inches): HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) ❑ Surface Water (A1) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (69) ❑ High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2,41A, and 4B) (M LRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4113) ❑ Saturation (A3) ❑ Salt Crust (B11) ❑ Drainage Patterns (1310) ❑ Water Marks (B1) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates (1313) ❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) ❑ Sediment Deposits (132) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (Cg) ❑ Drift Deposits (63) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ❑ Geomorphic Position (D2) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3) ❑ Iron Deposits (B5) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ❑ FAC -Neutral Test (D5) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136) ❑ Stunted or Stresses Plants (Di) (LRR A) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial imagery (137) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) ❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No Saturation Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: No wetland hydrology indicators are present. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valley, and Coast — Version 2.0 jr Ip upl al WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM —Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region HERRERA ENWRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS Project Site: SW 7th StreetiNaches Avenue SW Storm System Improvements CitylCounty: Renton Sampling Date: 1125113 Applicant/Owner City of Renton State: WA Sampling Point: TP UPL 131 Investigator(s): CE and JW Section, Township, Range- Section 13, T23N, i Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): swale Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%) 7% Subregion (LRR}: A Lat: 47°28'28.38" Long: 122°14'05.11" Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Woodinville silt loam NWI classification: none Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ® No ❑ (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation ❑, Soil ❑, Or Hydrology ❑, significantly disturbed? Are 'Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ® No ❑ Are Vegetation ❑, Soil ❑, Or Hydrology ❑, naturally problematic? Of needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS —Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc_ Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ® No ❑ Absolute Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No ® Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? YES ❑ NO Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No Remarks: Only one of the three wetland parameters is met. VEGETATION — Una sriantifir namae of niantr Tree Stratum (Plot Size: 3m) Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test Worksheet: % Cover Species? Status 1. Populus balsamifera ssp. trichocarpa 65 Y FAC Number of Dominant Species That Are 2. OBL. FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) 3. Total Number of Dominant Species Across 3 (B) 4. All Strata: 65 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species That Are SapiinglShrub Stratum (Plot Size: 2m) 66.6 (AIB) OBL, FACW, or FAC: Prevalence Index worksheet: 1. Rubus armeniacus 60 Y FACU 2. Cornus sericea 20 Y FACW Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 3. OBL species x1 = 4. FACW species x2 _ 5. FAG species x3 = 100 _ Total Cover FACU species x4 = Herb Stratum (Plot Size: 1m) UPL species x5 = 1. Column Totals: (A) (B) 2. Prevalence Index = B/A = 3. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4. Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 5. Y Dominance Test is >50% 6. Prevalence Index is <3.0' 7 Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in 13. Remarks or on a separate sheet) 9. Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' 10. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) it. Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, = Total Cover unless disturbed or problematic. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot Size: } 1. 2 Hydrophytic Vegetation Yes ® No ❑ Present? = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum = 100 Remarks: More than 50% of the observed dominant plants are hydrophytic. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valley, and Coast — Version 2.0 Jr 1p upl bl Project Site: SW 7th SireetlNaches Avenue SW Storm System Improvements SOIL Samplinq Point: TP 1J PL RI Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) �Y0 all that apply) % Type' Loc` Texture Remarks (moist)Color (Molist) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (B9) 0-4 10YR 312 100 (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Loam 4-16+ 10YR 413 90 10YR 4/6 10 0 M, PL Loam 'Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 21-ocation: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': ❑ Histosol (At) ❑ Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) ❑ Histic Epipedon (A2) ❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ Red Parent Material (TF2) ❑ Black Histic (A3) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) ❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) ❑ Depleted Matrix (F3) FAC -Neutral Test (D5) ❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) ❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6) ❑ ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (51) ❑ Depleted Dario Surface (F7) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland ❑ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) ❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88) hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Redox Depressions (FS) roblematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: ® Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): Wetland Remarks: No hydric soil indicators are present. Saturation Present? Yes ❑ No (includes capillaryfringe) ® HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) ❑ Surface Water (A1) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (B9) ❑ High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) (MLRA 1, 2,4A, and 48) ❑ Saturation (A3) ❑ Salt Crust (B11) ❑ Drainage Patterns (1310) ❑ Water Marks (131) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) ❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) ❑ Sediment Deposits (132) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aeriat Imagery (C9) ❑ Drift Deposits (B3) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ❑ Geomorphic Position (D2) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust (134) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3) ❑ Iron Deposits (B5) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ❑ FAC -Neutral Test (D5) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks (86) ❑ Stunted or Stresses Plants (D 1) (LRR A) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds (136) (LRR A) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) ❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No Saturation Present? Yes ❑ No (includes capillaryfringe) ® Depth (inches): Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), 'rf available: Remarks: No wetland hydrology indicators are present. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valley, and Coast — Version 2.0 j, rp p7 61 C�l WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region HERRERA ENVIRONMENTAL CONSLLTANTS Project Site: SW 7th StreetlNaches Avenue SW Storm System Improvements City/Gounty: Renton Sampling Date: 1/25/13 ApplicantlOwner: City of Renton State: WA Sampling Point: TP WET Al Investigator(s): CE and JW Section, Township, Range: Section 13, T23N, R4E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Swale Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 7% Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47°28'31.39' Long: 122°14'04.50" Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Woodinville silt loam NWI classification. none Are climatic 1 hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ® No [I (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation ❑, Soil ❑, Or Hydrology ❑, significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes IS] No ❑ Are Vegetation ❑, Soil ❑, Or Hydrology ❑, naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing samolina point locations. transects. important features. etc. Hydrophybc Vegetation Present? Yes ® No ❑ Absolute Hydric Soil Present? Yes ® No ❑ Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? YES ® NO ❑ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ® No ❑ Remarks: All three wetland parameters are met. VFGFTATION - Iiee neiontifir nemae of nl�ntc Tree Stratum (Plot Size: 3m) Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test Worksheet: % Cover Species? Status 1. Ali rubra 20 Y FAC Number of Dominant Species That Are 2. OBL, FACW, or FAC: 4 (A) 3' Total Number of Dominant Species Across 4. All Strata: 4 (B) 20 = Tetai Cover Percent of Dominant Species That Are Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot Size: 2m) OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (AIB) 1. Rubus spectabilis 50 Y FAG Prevalence Index worksheet: 2- Comus sencea 40 Y FACW Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 3. OBL species x1 = 4. FACW species x2 = 5. FAC species x3 = 90 = Total Cover FACU species x4 = Herb Stratum (Plot Size: 1m) UPL species x5 - 1. Ranunculus repens 25 Y FAC Column Totals: (A) (B) 2. Prevalence Index = B1A = 3. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4. Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 5. Y Dominance Test is ?50% 6. Prevalence Index is X3.0' 7. Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in S. Remarks or on a separate sheet) 9' Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' 10. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) it. Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, 25 = Total Cover unless disturbed or problematic. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot Size: ) 1. 2 Hydrophytic Vegetation Yes ® Na 13 Present? = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum = 0 (leaf litter) Remarks: More than 50% of the observed dominant plant species are hydrophytic. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valley, and Coast - Version 2.0 jr tp -el UI Project Site: SW 71h StreetlNaches Avenue SW Storm System Improvements RnII Samolino Point:'I'P WLI AI Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features ('orches) Color % Color a� Type' Lac` Texture Remarks (moist) (Moist) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139) 0A 10YR 211 95 (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Sandy loam 4-16+ 10YR 3/1 90 10YR 514 10 C M. PL Sandy loam 'Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 21-ocation: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators; (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': ❑ Histosol (Al) ® Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) ❑ Histic Epipedon (A2) ❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ Red Parent Material (TF2) ❑ Black Histic (A3) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (Fi) (except MLRA 1) ❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (All) ❑ Depleted Matrix (F3) ❑ ❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) ® Redox Dark Surface (F6) Stunted or Stresses Plants (D1) (LRR A) ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or ❑ Sandy Gloyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Redox Depressions (F8) problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Surface Water Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes ® No ❑ Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes ® No ❑ Depth (inches): 15 Remarks: Soil profile meets hydric soil indicator S5. Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ® No ❑ wynanr new Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) ❑ Surface Water (Al) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (69) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139) ❑ High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) (MLRA 1, 2,4A, and 48) ® Saturation (A3) ❑ Salt Crust (B11) ❑ Drainage Patterns (B10) ❑ Water Marks (B1) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates (613) ❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) ❑ Sediment Deposits (82) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ❑ Drift Deposits (63) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ❑ Geomorphic Position (D2) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust (134) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3) ❑ iron Deposits (135) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ❑ FAC -Neutral Test (D5) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks (66) ❑ Stunted or Stresses Plants (D1) (LRR A) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds (136) (LRR A) ❑ Inundation Visible an Aerial Imagery (137) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) ❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes ® No ❑ Depth (inches): 15 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ® No ❑ Saturation Present? Yes ® No ❑ Depth (inches): 4 (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), rf available: Remarks: Primary wetland hydrology indicator A3 observed in test pit. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valley, and Coast — Version 2.0 1, 1pwet al C=q WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM —Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region HERRERA ENWHONMEWAL CONSULTANTS Project Site: SW 7th SireetlNaches Avenue SW Storm System Improvements CitylCounty: Renton Sampling Date: 1125113 Applicant/OwnerCity of Renton State: WA Sampling Point: TP WET B1 investigator(s): CE and JW Section, Township, Range: Section 13, T23N. RAE Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Swale Local relief (concave, convex.. none): concave Slope (%): 7% Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47°28'28.41" Lang: 122°14'05.00" Datum: Soil Map Unit Name' Woodinville sill loam NWI class cation: none Are climatic! hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ® No ❑ (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation ❑, Soil ❑, Or Hydrology ❑, significantly disturbed? Are `Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ® No ❑ Are Vegetation ❑, Soil ❑, Or Hydrology ❑, naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS —Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features. etc. Hydrnphytic Vegetation Present? Yes ® No ❑ Absolute Hydric Sall Present? Yes ® No ❑ Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? YES ® NO ❑ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ® No ❑ Remarks: All three wetland parameters are met. VFCCFTATION — llca cr•_iantifh-_ nampa of nlnntc Tree Stratum (Plot Size: 3m) Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test Worksheet: %Cover Species? Status 1. Alnus rubra 60 Y FAC Number of Dominant Species That Are 2. OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) 3- Total Number of Dominant Species Across 3 4. All Strata: (B) 60 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species That Are Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot Size: 2m) OBL, FACW, or FAC: 66.6 (AIB) 1. Rubus spectabilis 30 Y FAC Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. Oemleria cerasiformis 20 Y FACU Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 3. OBL species x1 = 4. FACW species x2 = 5. FAC species x3 = 50 = Total Cover FACU species x4 = Herb Stratum (Plot Size: 1m) UPI_ species x5 = 1. Column Totals' (A) (B) 2. Prevalence Index = B/A = 3. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4. Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 5. Y Dominance Test is >50% 6. Prevalence Index is <3.0' 7' Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in g. Remarks or on a separate sheet) 9_ Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' 10. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 11. 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, = Total Cover unless disturbed or problematic. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot Size: ) 1. 2' Hydrophytic Vegetation Yes ® No ❑ Present? Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum = 100 Remarks: More than 50% of the observed dominant plants are hydrophytic. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valley, and Coast — Version 2.0 jr rpm,rhl Project Site: SW 7th SlreetlNaches Avenue SW Storm System Improvements 3011 Samolino Point: TP WF.T RI Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) (molls[) nr %(Moist) Color % Type' Loc' Texture Remarks 0-16+ 10YR 2i1 95 10YR 416 5 C M Mucky loam 'Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. ZLocation: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': ❑ Histosol (Al) ❑ Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) ❑ Histic Epipedon (A2) ❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ Red Parent Material (TF2) ❑ Black Histic (A3) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) ❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) ❑ Depleted Matrix (F3) Geomorphic Position (D2) ❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) ® Redox Dark Surface (F6) ❑ ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral {S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland ❑ FAC -Neutral Test (D5) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136) hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Redox Depressions (F8) robiematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) ❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) Type: Hydric Soil Present? Yes ® No ❑ Depth (inches): Remarks: Soil profile meets hydric soil indicator F6. ® Depth (inches): HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) ❑ Surface Water (Al) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (B9) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139) ® High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) (MLRA 1, 2,4A. and 4B) ® Saturation (A3) ❑ Salt Crust (B11) ❑ Drainage Patterns (1310) ❑ Water Marks (131) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates (1313) ❑ Dry -Season Water Table (02) ❑ Sediment Deposits (132) ❑ Hydrogen Suffide Odor (C1) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ❑ Drift Deposits (83) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ❑ Geomorphic Position (D2) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust (134) ❑ Presence of Reduced iron (C4) ❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3) ❑ Iron Deposits (B5) ❑ Recent iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ❑ FAC -Neutral Test (D5) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136) ❑ Stunted or Stresses Plants (D1) (LRR A) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) ❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes ® No ❑ Depth (inches): 4 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ® No ❑ Saturation Present? Yes ® No ❑ Depth (inches): 0 (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Primary wetland hydrology indicators A2 and A3 observed in test pit. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valley, and Coast — Version 2.0 jr 1p w•el hl A, V, Wena'hd Ra"' ng F r m s Welland name or number, A WETLAND RATING FORM - WESTERN WASHINGTON Version 2 - Updated July 2006 to increase accuracy and reproducibility among users Updated Oct. 2008 with the new WDFW definitions for priority habitats Name of wetland (if kno"m): Wetland A Date of site visit: 5/25/13 Rated by C. Elliot Trained by Ecology.' Yes 11 No ❑ Date: 51/l/0 SEC: 13 TWNSHP: 23N RNGE: 4E Is S/T/R in Appendix D? Yes ❑No 7 Map of wetland unit: Figure I Estimated size: -40 acres SUMMARY OF RATING Category based on FUNCTIONS provided by wetland: I ❑ H LE Category 1 = Score >=70 Category 11 = Score 51-69 Category III = Score 30-50 Category IV = Score <30 111 ❑ iv ❑ Score for Water Quality Functions Is Score for Hydrologic Functions 20 Score for Habitat Functions 29 TOTAL scare for functions 67 Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland I El 11 ❑ Does not Apply ❑ Final Category (choose the "highest" category from above)—J Check the appropriate type and class of wetland being rated. Wetland Type Estuarine ❑ Natural Heritage Wetland ❑ Bog ❑ Mature Forest �] Old Growth Forest ❑ Coastal Lagoon ❑ Interdunal ❑ None of the above ❑ Comments: Wetland Class Depressional [� Riverine Lake -fringe ❑ Slope ❑ Flats ❑ Freshwater Tidal ❑ Check if unit has multiple HGM classes present El Wetland Rating Form - Western Washington 1 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. Does the wetland unit being rated meet any of the criteria below? If you answer YES to any of the questions below, you will need to protect the wetland according to the regulations regarding the special characteristics found in the wetland. Check List for Wetlands That May Need Special Protection (in addition to the protection recommended for its category) YES NO SP 1. Ilas the welland unit been documented as a habitat for anvfederally listed ❑ ❑ Threatened or Endangered animal or plant species (TIE species)? For the purposes of this rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the appropriate state or federal database. SP2. Has the wetland unit been documented as habitat for any stale listed Threatened 0 ❑ or Endangered animal species? For the purposes of this rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the appropriate state database. Note: Wetlands with State listed plant species are categorized as Category I Natural Heritage Wetlands (see p. 19 of data form). SP3. Does the wetland unit contain individuals of Priority species listed by the ❑ WDFW.Jor the state? SP4. Does the wetland unit have a local significance in addition to its functions? For ❑ example, the wetland has been identified in the Shoreline Master Program, the Critical Areas Ordinance, or in a local management plan as having special significance. To complete the next part of the data sheet, you will need to determine the adrogeomorphic Class of the wetland being rated. The hydrogeomorphic classification groups wetlands into those that function in similar ways. This simplifies the questions needed to answer how well the wetland functions. The Hydrogeomorphic Class of a wetland can be determined using the key below. See p. 24 for more detailed instructions on classifying wetlands. Wetland Rating Form - Western Washington 2 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. Classification of Vegetated Wetlands in Western Washington If the hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated, you probably have a unit with multiple HGM classes. In this case, indcntify which hydrologic criteria in questions 1-7 apply and go to Question 8. 1. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides (.e., except during floods)? [] NO - go to 2 El YES - the wetland class is Tidal Fringe If YES, is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)? ❑ YES - Freshwater Tidal Fringe ❑ NO - Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) If - wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe, use the forms for Riverine wetlands. !fit is Saltwater Tidal Fringe, it is rated as an Estuarine wetland. Wetlands that were called estuarine in the first and second editions of the rating system are called Saltwater Tidal Fringe in the Hydrogeomorphic Classification. Estuarine wetlands were categorized separately in the earlier editions, and this separation is being kept in this revision. To maintain consistency between editions, the term "Estuarine" wetland is being kept. Please note, however, that the characteristics that define Category I and 11 estuarine wetlands have changed (see p. xx). 2. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is only source (>90%) of water to it. Groundwater and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit. 0 NO - go to 3 ❑ YES - the wetland class is Flats If your wetland can be classified as a "Flats" wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands. 3. Does the entire wetland unit meet both of the following criteria'? ❑ The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any vegetation on the surface) at least 20 acres (8 ha) in size; ❑ At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 feet (2 in)? 0 NO - go to 4 ❑ YES - the wetland class is Lake -fringe (Lacustrine Fringe) 4. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? ❑ The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual). F-1Thewater flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a Swale without distinct banks. ❑ The water leaves the wetland without being impounded. NOTE; Surface water does not pond in these: type of tivetlands except occasionally in very small and shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3 feet in diameter and less than I foot deep) 7±1 NO - go to 5 ❑ YES - the wetland class is Slope Wetland Rating Form - Western Washington 3 Herrera Environmental Consultants, inc. 5. Docs the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria`? [] The unit is in a valley, or stream channel, where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that stream or river. 0 The overbank flooding occurs once every two years. NO - go to 6 R YES - the wetland class is Riverine b. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the surface, at some time of the year? This means that any outlet, if present, is higher than the interior of the wetland. ❑ NO - go to 7 El YES - the wetland class is Depressional 7. Is the entire wetland unit located in a very fiat area with no obvious depression and no overbank flooding? The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to be maintained by high ground water in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural outlet. ❑ NO - go to 8 ❑ YES - the wetland class is Depressional 8. Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM classes. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small stream within a depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENT AREAS IN THE UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify the appropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes within your wetland. NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or more of the total area of the wetland being rated. If the area of the second class is less than 10% of the unit, classify the wetland using the class that represent more than 90% of the total area. HGM Classes Wilkin a Delineated Wetland Boundary Class to Use in Rating Slope + Riverine Riverine ❑ Slope + Depressional Depressional ❑ Slope + Lake -fringe Lake -fringe ❑ Depressional + Riverine along stream within boundary Depressional El Depressional- Lake -fringe Depressional ❑ Saltwater Tidal Fringe and any other class of freshwater wetland Treat as ESTUARINE under wetlands with special characteristics ❑ If you are unable still to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or you have more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the rating. Wetland Rating Form - Western Washington 4 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. D Depressional and Flats Wetlands WATER QUALITY FUNCTIONS - Indicators that wetland functions to improve water quality. D 1, Does the wetland unit have the potential to improve water quality? (seep, 38) Points D 1.1 Characteristics of surface water flows out of the wetland: ❑ Unit is a depression with no surface water leaving it (no nutlet) Points 3 Q !Unit has an intermittently flowing, or highly constricted permanently flowing Points = 2 outlet. ❑ Unit has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet (permanently Points = 1 2 flon°ing ). Unit is a flat depression (Q. 7 on key) or in the Flats class, with permenent Points = 1 ❑ surface outflow and no obvious natural outlet and/or outlet is a man-made ditch. (if ditch is not permanently flowing, treat unit as "intermittently !lowing.") Provide photo or drawing Figure D 1.2 The soil 2 inches below the surface (or duff layer) is clay or organic (use NRCS definitions): 0 ❑ YES Points = 4 0 NO Points = 0 D 1.3 Characteristics of persistent vegetation (emergent, shrub, and/or forest Cowardin class): El Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation >=95% of area. Points = 5 ❑ Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation >=112 of area. Points = 3 5 ❑ Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation >=1110 of area. Points = 1 ❑ Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation <l / 10 of arca Points = 0 Map of Cowardin vegetation classes Figure _ D 1.4 Characteristics of seasonal ponding or inundation. This is the area of the wetland that is ponded fur at least 2 months, but dries out sometime during the year. Do not count the area that is permanently ponded. Estimate area as the average condition 5 out of 10 yeurs. ❑ Area seasonally ponded is >1?2 total area of wetland. Points = 4 2 0 Area seasonally ponded is >14 total area of wetland. Points = 2 ❑ Area seasonally ponded is <1/4 total area of wetland. Points = 0 Map of hydroperiods Figure Total for D I ,odd the points in the boxes above 1 9 D 2. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to improve water quality? (seep, 44) Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in ground water or surface water corning into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams, lakes, or ground water downgrachent from the wetland. Note which of the following conditions provide the sources of pollutrmfs: ❑ Grazing in the wetland or within ISO feet. 0 Untreated stormwater discharges to wetland. ❑ Tilled fields or Orchards within 150 feet of wetland. ❑ A stream or culvert discharges into wetland that drains developed areas, residential areas, fanned fields, roads, or clear-cut logging. 0 Residential, urban areas, golf courses are within 150 feet of wetland. Multiplier ❑ Wetland is fed by ground water high in phosphorus or nitrogen. 2 ❑ Other: YES - multiplier is 2 NO - multiplier is 1 TOTAL - Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from D 1. by D 2, 18 Add score to table on p, 1 Wetland Rating Form - Western Washington 5 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. D Depressional and Flats Wetlands HYDROLOGIC FUNCTIONS - Indicators that wetland functions to reduce flooding/stream degradation. D 3. Does wetland unit have the potential to reduce flooding/erosion? (seep. 46) Points D 3.1 Characteristics of surface water flows out of the wetland: ❑ Unit is a depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet). Points = 4 Q Unit has an intermittently flowing, OR highly constricted permanently Points = 2 flowing outlet. ❑ Unit is a "flat" depression (Q. 7 on key), or in the Flats class, with Points = 1 2 permanent surface outflow and no obvious natural outlet and/or outlet is a man-made ditch. Qf'ditch is not permanently.flowing, treat unit at "intermittently, flowing. ') Unit has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet Points = 0 ❑ (permanently. fl owing ). D 3.2 Depth of storage during wet periods. Estimate the height of ponding above the bottom of the outlet. For units with no outlet measure from the surface of permanent water or deepest part (if dry). ❑ Marks of ponding are 3 feet or more above the surface or bottom of outlet. Points = 7 ❑ The wetland is a "headwater" wetland. Points = 5 5 0 Marks of ponding between 2 feet to <3 feet from surface or bottom of outlet. Points = 5 ❑ Marks are at least 0.5 feet to <2 feet from sur -face or bottom of outlet. Points = 3 ❑ Wetland is flat (yes to Q. 2 or Q. 7 on key) but has small depressions on the Points = I surface that trap water. ❑ Marks of ponding are less than 0.5 feet. Points = 0 D 3.3 Contribution of wetland to storage in the watershed. Estimate the ratio of the area of upstream basin contributing surface water to the wetland to the area of the wetland itself ❑ The area of the basin is <10 times the area of the unit. Points = 5 3 0 The area of the basin is 10 to 100 times the area of the unit. Points — 3 ❑ The area of the basin is >100 times the area of the unit. Points = 0 ❑ Entire unit is in the Flats class (basin—wetland) Points — 5 Total for D 3 Add the points in the boxes above 10 D 4. Does wetland unit have the opportunity to reduce flooding/erosion? (seep. 49) Answer YES if the unit is in a location in the watershed where the flood storage, or reduction in water velocity, helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows. Answer NO if the water coming into the wetland is controlled by a structure such as flood gate, tide gate, flap valve, reservoir, etc. OR you estimate that more than 90% of the water in the wetland is from groundwater in areas where damaging groundwater flooding does not occur. Note which of'the following indicators of opportunity upply: ❑ Wetland is in a headwater of a river or stream that has flooding problems. 21 Wetland drains to a river or stream that has flooding problems. ❑ Wetland has no outlet and impounds surface runoff water that might otherwise flow into a river or stream that has flooding problems. Multiplier ❑ Other: 2 YES - multiplier is 2 NO - multiplier is 1 TOTAL - Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from D 3. by D 4. 20 Add score to table on p. I Wetland luting Form - Western Washington 6 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. These questions apply to wetlands of all HGM classes HABITAT FUNCTIONS - Indicators that wetland functions to provide important habitat. H 1. Dues the wetland unit have the potential to provide habitat for many species? Points H 1.1 Vegetation structure (seep. 72) Check the types ofvegetation classes present (as h-v C'owardin). Size thresholdfor if class is 114 acre or more than 10% of the area if unit is smaller than 2.5 acres. 0 Aquatic bed 0 Emergent plants 0 Scrub/shrub (areas where shrubs have >30% cover) 21 Forested (areas where trees have >30% cover) If the unit has a forested class, check if 4 21 The forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub-canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, moss/ground-cover) that each cover 20% within the forested polygon Add the number of'vegetation types that qualify. If you have: 4 structures or more Points = 4 3 structures Points = 2 2 structures Points = I I structure Points = 0 Map of Cowardin classes Figure H 1.2 Hydroperiods (seep. 73) Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the xvelland. The water regime has to cover more titan 10% of the Welland if less than 2.5 acres in size or 114 acre to count (see text for descriptions of hvdroperiods). 0 Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present Points = 3 Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present Points = 2 ❑ Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present Points = 1 3 Saturated only I type present Points = 0 Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland ❑ Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland ❑ Lake fringe wetland = 2 points ❑ Freshwater tidal wetland =2 points Map of hydropeTiods Figure H 1.3 Richness of Plant Species (seep. 75) Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 sq. ft. (different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold). You do not have to name the .species. Do not include Eurasian Milfoil, reed canarygrass, purple loo.sestrife, Canadian Thistle. If you counted: > 19 species Points = 2 5-19 species Points = 1 2 List species below if you want to: <5 species Points = 0 Total for page Wetland Rating Form - Western Washington 7 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. H 1.4 Interspersion of Habitats (seep. 76) Points Decide from the diagrams helow whether interspersion between Cowardin vegetation classes (described in H 1.1) or the classes and unvegetated areas (carr include open water or mudflats) is high, medium, low, or noire. None = 0 points Low = l point Moderate = 2 points 3 [riparian braided channels] High = 3 points NOTE: If you have four or more vegetation types or three vegetation types and open water, the rating is always "high". Use map of Cowardin vegetation classes. H 1.5 Special Habitat Features (seep. 77) Check the habaut features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points you put into the next column. 0 Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (>4 inches in diameter and 6 feet long). Standing snags (diameter at the bottom>4 inches) in the wetland. 0 Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 feet (2 m) and/or overhanging vegetation extends at least 3.3 feet (1 m) over a stream (or ditch) in or contiguous with the wetland, for at least 33 feet (10 m). 6 Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver/muskrat for denning (>30' slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet turned hrown/grav ). At least 114 acre of thin-stemmed presistent vegetation or woody branches are present in areas that are permanently or seasonally inundated (structures for egg-laying by amphibians). f j-1 Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in each stratum of plants. Note: The 20%, stated in early printings of the manual on page 78 is an error. H 1. TOTAL Score - potential for providing habitat Add the scores from H1.1, HLZ H1.3, H1.4, H1.5 IS Comments: Wetland Rating Form - Western Washington 8 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. H 2. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to provide habitat for many species? Points H 2.1 Buffers (seep. 80) Choose the description that best represents condition of huffer of wetland unit. The highest scoring criterion that applies to the wetland is to be used in the rating. See text fbr definition of "undisturbed. " ❑ 100 rn (330 feet) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, Points = 5 or open water>95% of circumference. No structures arc within undisturbed part of buffer (relativeh� undisturbed also means )to grazing, no landscaping, no daily human use). ❑ 100 m (330 feet) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, Points = 4 or open water >50°% of circumference. ❑ 50 m (170 feet) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, Points = 4 or open water >95% circumference. 0 100 m (330 feet) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, Points = 3 or open water for >25% circumference. ❑ 50 m (170 feet) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, Points = 3 or open water for >50% circumference. 3 If buffer does not meet any of the criteria above: ❑ No paved areas (except paved trails) or buildings within 25 m (80 feet) Points = 2 of wetland >95% circumference. Light to moderate grazing, or lawns are OK. ❑ No paved areas or buildings within 50 m of wetland for >50% Points = 2 circumference. Light to moderate grazing, or lawns are OK. ❑ Heavy grazing in buffer. Points = 1 ❑ Vegetated buffers are <2 m wide (6.6 feet) for more than 95% of the Points = 0 circumference (e.g., tilled fields, paving, basalt bedrock extend to edge of wetland). ❑ Buffer does not meet any of the criteria above. Points = 1 Aerial photo showing buffers Figure H 2.2 Corridors and Connections (seep. 81) H 2.2.1 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed/unbroken vegetated corridor (riparian or upland) at least 150 feet wide, has at least 30% cover of shrubs, forest, or native undisturbed prairie, that connects to estuaries, other wetlands, or undisturbed uplands that are at least 250 acres in size? (Dams in riparian corridors, heavily used gravel roads, and paved roads are considered breaks in the corridor. ) YES = 4 points (go to H 2.3) NO=go toH2.2.2 H 2.2.2 is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed/unbroken vegetated corridor (either riparian or upland) at least 50 feet wide, has at least 30% cover of shrubs or forest, and connects to 1 estuaries, other wetlands, or undisturbed uplands that are at least 25 acres in size OR a Lake - fringe wetland, if it does not have an undisturbed corridor as in the question above? YES =2points (go toH2.3) NO — go toH2.?.3 H 2.2.3 Is the wetland: Q within 5 miles (8 km) of a brackish or saltwater estuary OR ❑ within 3 miles of a large field or pasture > 40 acres in size OR ❑ within 1 mile of a lake greater than 20 acres in size? YES = 1 point NO = 0 points Total for page Wetland Rating Form - Western Washington 9 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. H 2.3 Near or Adiacent to Other Priority Habitats Listed by WDFW (seep. 82) Points Which of the following priority habitats are within 330 feet (100 m) of the wetland unit`? ?VOTE: the connections do not have to be relatively undisturbed. These: are DFW dc;finitions. Check with your local DFW biologist if'there are any questions ❑ Aspen stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen >0.4 ha (I acre). ❑ Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 152). ❑ Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock. [�] Old-growthlMature forests: (Old growth west of Cascade crest) Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi -layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 20 trees/ha (8/acre) >81 cm (32 in) dbh or> 200 years of age. (Mature forests) Stands with average diameters exceeding 53 cm (21 in) dbh; crown cover maybe less than 100%; decay, decadance, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old-growth; 80 - 200 years old west of the Cascade crest. ❑ Oregon white Oak: Woodland stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component is 25% (full deserplions in WDFW PHS report p. 158). E] Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other. ❑ Westside Prairies: Herbaceous, non -forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wet prairie (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 161). El Instream: The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide functional life hsitory requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources. ❑ Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Ncarshore, Open Coastal Nearshore, and Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WDFW report pp. 167- 169 and glossary in Appendix A). ❑ Caves: Naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils, rock, ice, or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human. ❑ Cliffs: Greater than 7.6 m (25 ft) high and occuring below 5,000 ft. ❑ Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.15 - 2.0 in (0.5 - 6.5 ft), composed of basalt, andcsitc, and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs. Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of> 51 cm (20 in) in western Washington and are > 2 in (6.5 ft) in height. Priority logs are> 30 cm (12 in) in diameter at the largest end, and> 6 in (20 ft) long, If wetland has: 3+ priority habitats = 4 points 1 priority habitat = 1 point 2 priority habitats = 3 points No habitats = 0 points Note: all vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list. Nearby wetlands are addressed in question H 2.4 Wetland Rating Form - Western Washington 10 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. H 2.4 Wetland Landscape (seep. 84) Choose the one description of the landscape around the wetland that best fits. There are at least 3 other wetlands within 1!2 mile, and the connections Points = 5 between them are relatively undisturbed (light grazing between ❑ wetlands OK, as is lake shore with some boating, but connections should NOT be bisected by paved roads, fill, fields, or other development). ❑ The wetland is Lake -fringe on a lake with little disturbance and there Points = 5 3 are 3 other lake -fringe wetlands within 1/2 mile. El There are at least 3 other wetlands within 112 mile, BUT the Points = 3 connections between them are disturbed. ❑ The wetland is Lake -fringe on a lake with disturbance, and there are 3 Points = 3 other Lake -fringe wetlands within 1?2 mile. ❑ There is at least 1 wetland within 112 mile. Points = 2 ❑ There are no wetlands within 1?2 mile. Points = U H 2. TOTAL Score - opportunity for providing habitat tl .odd the scores from H2.1, H2.2, H2.3, H2.4 Total Score for Habitat Functions - add the points for H1 and H2, and record the result on p. 1 24 Wetland Rating Form - Western Washington 11 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Please determine if the wetland meets the attributes described below and choose the appropriate answers and Category. Wetland Type Check off any criteria that apply to the wetland. Check the appropriate Category when the appropriate criteria are met. Category SC 1.0 Estuarine Wetlands (seep. 86) Does the wetland unit meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands? ❑ The dominant water regime is tidal, ❑ Vegetated, and ❑ With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt. ❑ YES = Go to SC 1.1 ❑ NO - not an estuarine wetland SC l .l Is the wetland unit within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area Preserve, State Park, or Educational, Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332-30-151? ❑ YES = Category I ❑ NO = Go to SC 1.2 SC 1.2 Is the wetland unit at least 1 acre in size and meeting at least two of the following three conditions? The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing, and has <10% cover of non-native plant species. If the non-native Spartina spp. are the only species that cover > 10% of the wetlan d, then the wetland should be ❑ given a dual rating (1/1I). The area of Spartina would be rated a Category II while the relatively undisturbed upper marsh with native species would be a Category I. Do not, however, exclude the area of Sparlina in determining the size threshold of acre. ❑ At least 3i4 of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 foot buffer of shrub, forest, or ungrazed or unmowed grassland. ❑ The wetland has at least two of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or continguous freshwater wetlands. ❑ YES = Category 1 ❑ NO = Category II Wetland Rating Form - Western Washington t2 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. SC 2.0 Natural Heritaee Wetlands (seep. 87) Natural Heritage wetlands have been identified by the Washington :Natural Heritage Category Prograrn/DNR as either high quality undisturbed wetlands or wetlands that support state Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive plant species. SC 2.1 is the wetland unit being rated in a Section,-Township/Range that contains a Natural Heritage wetland? (This question is used to screen out most sites before you need to contact WNHP/DNR,) 5/7 /R information from Appendix D ❑ or accessed from WNHP/DNR web site ❑ ❑ YES - contact WNHP.;DNR(seep.79) and go to SC 3.2 ❑ NO SC 2.2 Has DNR identified the wetland as a high quality undisturbed wetland or as a site with state Threatened or Endangered plant species? ❑ YES = Category I ❑ NO - not a Heritage wetland SC 3.0 Bogs (seep. 87) Does the wetland unit (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key below to identify if the wetland is a hog. Ifyou answer Yes, you will still need to rate the wetland based on its function. 1. Does the unit have organic soil horizons (i.e., layers of organic soil), either peats or mucks, that compose 16 inches or more of the first 32 inches of the soil profile? (See Appendix B for afield key to identify organic oils.) ❑ YES -go to Q. 3 ❑ NO - go to Q. 2 2. Does the unit have organic soils, either peaty or mucks, that are <16 inches deep over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on a lake or pond? ❑ YES - go to Q. 3 ❑ NO - not a bog for purpose of rating 3. Does the unit have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, AND other plants, if present, consist of the "bog" species I isted in Table 3 as a significant component of the vegetation (>30% of total shrub and herbaceous cover consists of species in Table 3)? ❑ YES - is a bog for purpose of rating ❑ NO -go to Q. 4 NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory you may substitute that criterion by measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16" deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the "bog" plant species in Table 3 are present, the wetland is a bog. 4. Is the unit forested (>30% cover) with sitka spruce, subalpine fir, western redeedar, western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Englemann's spruce, or western white pine, WITH any of the species (or combination of species) on bog species plant list in Table 3 as a significant component of the ground cover (>30% coverage of total shrub/hcrbaceous cover)? ❑ YES - Category I ❑ NO - not a bog for purpose of rating Wetland Rating Form - Western Washington 13 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. SC 4.0 Forested Wetlands (seep. 90) Does the wetland unit have at least 1 acre of forest that meets one of these criteria for the Department of Fish and Wildlife's forests as priority habitat? Ifyou answer Ycs, you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. Old-growth forests: (west of Cascade Crest) Stands of at least 2 tree species, ❑ forming a multi -layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees `acre (20,1hectare) that are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 32 inches (81 cm) or more. NOTE: The criterion for dbh is based on measurements for upland forests. 200 -year-old trees in wetlands will often have a smaller dbh because their growth rates are often smaller. The DFW criterion is an "OR" so old-growth forests do not necessarily have to have trees of this diameter. �] Mature forests: (west of the Cascade Crest) Stands where the largest trees are 80 - 200 years old OR have average diameters (dbh) exceeding 21 inches (53 cm); crown cover may be less than 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old-growth. Ll YES = Category 1 ❑ NO - not a forested wetland wl special characteristics SC 5.0 Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons (seep. 91) Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wtland in a coastal lagoon? The wetland lies in a depression adjacent to marine waters that is wholly or partially ❑ separated from marine waters by sandbanks, gravel banks, shingle, or, less frequently, rocks. The lagoon in which the wetland is located contains surface water that is saline or ❑ brackish (>.5 ppt) during most of the year in at ]eat a portion of the lagoon (needs to be measured near the bottom ). ❑ Y ES = go to SC 5.1 ❑ NO - not a wetland in a coastal lagoon SC 5.1 Does the wetland meet all of the following 3 conditions? The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, ❑ grazing), and has less than 20% cover of invasive plant species (see list of invasive species on p. 74). ❑ At least 3/4 of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 foot buffer of shrub, forest, or ungrazed or unmowcd grassland. ❑ The wetland is larger than 1110 acre (4,350 square feet). ❑ YES = Category 1 ❑ NO = Category tE Wetland Rating Form - Western Washington 14 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. SC 6.0 1nterdunaI Wetlands (seep. 93) Is the wetland unit west of the l M9 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Category Ownership or WBUO)"? ❑ YES -go to S'6.1 ❑ NO - not an interdunal wetland for rating Ifyou answer YES, you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. In practical terms, that means the following geographic areas: • Long Beach Peninsula - lands west of SR 103 • Grayland-Westport - lands west of SR 105 • Ocean Shores-C'opalis - lands west of SR 1 l 15 and SR 109. SC 6.l Is wetland l acre or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is 1 acre or larger? ❑ YES = Category 11 ❑ NO - go to S(_'6. 2 SC 6.2 Is the wetland unit between 0.1 and l acre, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and l acre" ❑ YES = Category 111 Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics 1 Choose the "highest" rating if wetland falls into several categories, and record on p. 1. If you answered NO for all types, enter "Not Applicable" on p. i _ Wetland Rating Form - Western Washington 15 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. Wetland name of number B WETLAND RATING FORM - WESTERN WASHINGTON Version 2 - Updated July 2006 to increase accuracy and reproducibility among users Updated Oct. 2008 with the new WDFW definitions for priority habitats Name of wetland (if known): Wetiand 8 Rated by C. Elliot SEC: 13 TWNSHP:23N Date of site visit: 5/25113 Trained by Ecology? Yes 0 No ❑ Date: 5i Ii08 RNGE: 4E Is S,T/R in Appendix D? Yes []No [21 Map of wetland unit: Figure 1 Estimated size: --3 acres SUMMARY OF RATING Category based on FUNCTIONS provided by wetland: I ❑ 1] ❑ Category 1 = Score >=70 Category ]1 = Score 51-69 Category III = Score 30-50 Category IV = Score <30 III F1 IV ❑ Score for Water Quality Functions 10 Score for Hydrologic Functions 16 Score for Habitat Functions 14 TOTAL score for functions 40 Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland I ❑ lI ❑ Does not Apply Ll Final Category (choose the "highest" category from above) IlI Check the appropriate type and class of wetland being rated. Wetland Type Estuarine ❑ Natural Heritage Wetland ❑ Bog ❑ Mature Forest ❑ Old Growth Forest ❑ Coastal Lagoon ❑ Interdunal ❑ None of the above ❑ Comments: Wetland Class Depressional El Riverine ❑ Lake -fringe ❑ Slope ❑ Flats ❑ Freshwater Tidal ❑ Check if unit has multiple HGM classes present ❑ Wetland Rating Form - Western Washington 1 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. Does the wetland unit being rated meet any of the criteria below? If you answer YES to any of the questions below, you will nccd to protect the wctland according to the regulations regarding the special characteristics found in the wetland. Check List for Wetlands That May Need Special Protection (in addition to the protection recommended for its category) YES NO SP1. Has the wetland unit been documented as a habitat for any federally listed Threatened or Endangered animal or plant species (TIE species)? For the purposes of this rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the appropriate state or federal database. SP2. Has the wetland unit been documented as habitat f )r any slate listed Threatened ❑ El or Endangered animal species? For the purposes of this rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the appropriate state database. Note: Wetlands with State listed plant species are categorized as Category I Natural Heritage Wetlands (see p. 19 oFdata form). SP3. Does the welland unit contain individuals of Priority species listed by the ❑ WDFW for the stale? SP4. Does the wetland unit have a local significance in addition to its functions? For example, the wetland has been identified in the Shoreline Master Program, the Critical Areas Ordinance, or in a local management plan as having special significance. To complete the next part of the data sheet, you will need to determine the Hydry ev�morphic Class of the wetland heinf,- rated. The hydrogeomorphic classification groups wetlands into those that function in similar ways. This simplifies the questions needed to answer how well the wetland functions. The Hydrogeomorphic Class of a wetland can be determined using the key below. See p. 24 for more detailed instructions on classifying wetlands. Wetland Rating Form - Western Washington 2 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. Classification of Vegetated Wetlands in Western Washington If the hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated, you probably have a unit with multiple HGM classes. In this case, indentify which hydrologic criteria in questions 1-7 apply and go to Question S. 1. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides (i.e., except during floods)? 0 NO - go to 2 ❑ YES - the wetland class is Tidal Fringe If YES, is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)? ❑ YES - Freshwater Tidal Fringe ❑ NO - Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) Ifyour wetland can be classrfred as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe, use the forms for Riverine tinellands. If it is Saltwater Tidal Fringe, it is rated as an Estuarine wetland. Wetlands that were called estuarine in the first and second editions of the rating system are called Saltwater Tidal Fringe in the Hydrogeomorphic Classification. Estuarine wetlands were categorized separately in the earlier editions, and this separation is being kept in this revision. To maintain consistency between editions, the term "Estuarine" wetland is being kept. Please note, however, that the characteristics that define Category I and 11 estuarine wetlands have changed (sec p. xx). 2. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is only source (>90%) of water to it. Groundwater and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit. 7 NO - go to 3 ❑ YES - the wetland class is Flats If your wetland can be classified as a "Flats" wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands. 3. Does the entire wetland unit meet both of the following criteria? ❑ The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any vegetation on the surface) at least 20 acres (S ha) in size,- F1 ize; ❑ At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 feet (2 m)? ❑ NO - go to 4 ❑ YES - the wetland class is Lake -fringe (Lacustrine Fringe) 4. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? ❑ The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual }. ❑ The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks. ❑ The water leaves the wetland without being impounded. NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these ripe of wetlands except occasionally in very small and shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3 ftet in diameter and less than 1 foot deep). 0 NO - go to 5 ❑ YES - the wetland class is Slope Wetland Rating Form - Western Washington 3 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. 5. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? ❑ The unit is in a valley, or stream channel, where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that stream or river. ❑ The overbank flooding occurs once every two years. 0 NO - go to 6 ❑ YES - the wetland class is Riverine b. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographicdepression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the surface, at some time of the year? This means that any outlet, if presenl, is higher than the interior of the wetlund. ❑ NO - go to 7 0 YES - the wetland class is Depressional 7. Is the entire wetland unit located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbank flooding? The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to be maintained by high ground water in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural outlet. ❑ NO - go to S ❑ YES - the wetland class is Depressional 8. Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM classes. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small stream within a depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENT AREAS IN THE UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify the appropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes within your wetland. NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or more of the total area of the wetland being rated. If the area of the second class is less than 10% of the unit, classify the wetland using the class that represent more than 90% of the total arca. HGM Classes Within a Delineated Wetland Boundary Class to Use In Rating Slope + Riverine Riverine ❑ Slope + Depressional Depressional ❑ Slope + Lake -fringe Lake -fringe ❑ Depressional + Riverine along stream within boundary Depressional ❑ Depressional + Lake -fringe Depressional ❑ Saltwater Tidal Fringe and any other class of freshwater wetland Treat as ESTUARINE under wetlands with special characteristics ❑ If you are unable still to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or you have more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the rating. Wetland Rating Form - Western Washington 4 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. D Depressional and Flats Wetlands WATER QUALITY FUNCTIONS - Indicators that wetland functions to improve water quality. D 1. Does the wetland unit have the potential to improve water quality? (seep. 38) Points D 1.1 Characteristics of surface water flows out of the wetland: ❑ Unit is a depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) Points – 3 [] Unit has an intermittently flowing, or highly constricted permanently flowing Points = 2 outlet. Unit has an unconstric led, or slightly constricted, surface outlet (pernionentiv Points = 1 2 flowing). Unit is a flat depression (Q. 7 on key) or in the Flats class, with permanent Points = 1 ❑ surface outflow and no obvious natural outlet and/or outlet is a man-made ditch. (If ditch is nut pertnanently flowing, treat unit as "intermittently flowing.") Provide photo or drawing Figure D 1.2 The soil 2 inches below the surface (or duff layer) is clay or organic (use NRCS definitions): 0 ❑ YES Points = 4 0 .NO Points = 0 D 1.3 Characteristics of persistent vegetation (emergent, shrub, and/or forest Cowardin class): ❑ Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation >=95% of area. Points = 5 21 Welland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation > 1!2 of area. Points = 3 3 ❑ Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation —I il0 of area. Points = 1 ❑ Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation <1 10 of area Points = 0 Map of Cowardin vegetation classes Figure D 1.4 Characteristics of seasonal ponding or inundation. This is the area of the wetland that is ponded,for at least 2 months, but dries out sometime during the-vear. Do not count the area that is perrnanently ponded. Estimate area as the average condition S out of 10 years. ❑ Area seasonally ponded is >1r2 total area of wetland. Points = 4 0 ❑ Area seasonally ponded is >1/4 total area of wetland. Points = 2 El Arca seasonally ponded is <1/4 total area of wetland. Points = 0 Map of hydroperiods Figure Total for D 1 Add the poinis in the boxes above 5 D 2. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to improve water quality? (seep. 44) Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in ground water or surface water coming into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams, lakes, or ground water downgradient from the wetland—Vote which (?/ the follox°ing conditions provide the sources of pollutants: ❑ Grazing in the wetland or within 150 feet. 0 Untreated storrrtwater discharges to wetland. ❑ Milled fields or orchards within 150 feet or wetland. ❑ A stream or culvert discharges into wetland that drains developed areas, residential areas, farmed fields, roads, or clear-cut logging. ❑' Residential, urban areas, golf courses are within 150 feet of wetland. Multiplier ❑ Wetland is fed by ground water high in phosphorus or nitrogen. 2 ❑ (-)ther: YES - multiplier is 2 NO - multiplier is 1 TOTAL - Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from D 1. by D 2. t0 Add scare to table on p. I Wetland Rating Form - Western Washington 5 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. D Depressional and Flats Wetlands HYDROLOGIC FUNCTIONS - Indicators that wetland functions to reduce flooding/stream degradation. D 3. Does wetland unit have the potential to reduce flooding/erosion? (seep. 46) Points D 3.1 Characteristics of surface water flows out of the wetland: ❑ Unit is a depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet). Points = 4 Q Unit has an intermittently flowing. OR highly constricted permanently Points = 2 flowing outlet. ❑ Unit is a "flat" depression (Q. 7 on key), or in the Flats class, with Points = 1 2 permanent surface outflow and no obvious natural outlet and/or outlet is a man-made ditch. Qf ditch is not permanentlyflowing, treat unit at "intermittently flowing.") Unit has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet Points = 0 El (permunenlly flowing ). D 3.2 Depth of storage during wet periods. Estimate the height of 'ponding above the bottom of the outlet. For units with no outlet measure from the surface of permanent water or deepest part (if dry). ❑ Marks of ponding are 3 feet or more above the surface or bottom of outlet. Points = 7 ❑ The wetland is a "headwater" wetland. Points = 5 3 ❑ Marks of ponding between 2 feet to <3 feet from surface or bottom of outlet. Points = 5 El Marks are at least 0.5 feet to <2 feet from surface or bottom of outlet. Points = 3 ❑ Wetland is flat (yes to Q. 2 or Q. 7 on key) but has small depressions on the Points = I surface that trap water. [f Marks of pending are less than 0.5 feet. Points = 0 D33 Contribution of wetland to storage in the watershed. Estimate the ratio of the area of upstream basin contributing surface water to the wetland to the area of the wetland itself. ❑ The area of the basin is < 10 times the area of the unit. Points = 5 3 E The area of the basin is 10 to 100 times the area of the unit. Points = 3 ❑ The area of the basin is >I 00 times the area of the unit. Points = 0 ❑ Entire unit is in the Flats class (basin=wetland) Points = 5 Total for D 3 ,odd the points in the boxes above 8 D 4. Does wetland unit have the opportunity to reduce flooding/erosion? (seep. 49) Answer YES if the unit is in a location in the watershed where the flood storage, or reduction in water velocity, helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows. Answer NO if the water coming into the wetland is controlled by a structure such as flood gate, tide gate, flap valve, reservoir, etc. OR you estimate that more than 90% of the water in the wetland is from groundwater in areas where damaging groundwater flooding does not occur. Note which of the following indicators of opportunity apply ❑ Wetland is in a headwater of a river or stream that has flooding problems. 0 Wetland drains to a river or stream that has flooding problems. ❑ Wetland has no outlet and impounds surface runoff water that might otherwise flow into a river or stream that has flooding problems. Multiplier ❑ Other: 2 YES - multiplier is 2 NO - multiplier is 1 TOTAL. - Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from D 3. by D 4. 16 ,odd score to table on p. 1 Wetland Rating Form - Western Washington 6 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. These questions apply to wetlands of all HGM classes HABITAT FUNCTIONS - Indicators that wetland functions to provide important habitat_ H 1. Does the wetland unit have the potential to provide habitat for many species? Points H 1.1 Vegetation structure (seep. 72) Check the types of vegetation classes present (as defined by, C:owardin). Size threshold for class is 1/4 acre or more than 10% of the area if unit is smaller than 2,5 acres. ❑ Aquatic bed ❑ Emergent plants ❑ Scrub/shrub (areas where shrubs have >30% cover) F Forested (areas where trees have X30% cover) If the unit has a.forested class, check if l 0 The forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub-canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, moss/ground-cover) that each cover 20% within the forested polygon Add the number of vegetation types that qualify. !f you have: 4 structures or more Points = 4 3 structures Points = 2 2 structures Points = 1 structure Points = 0 Map of Cowardin classes Figure H 1.2 Hydroperiods (seep. 73) Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the Wetland. The water regime has to cover more than 10% of the Weiland if less than 2.5 acres in size or 1/4 acre to count (see lexl for descriptions of hydroperiods). ❑ Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present Points = 3 Ll Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present Points = 2 ❑ Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present Points = 1 1 El Saturated only 1 type present Points = 0 ❑ Permanently flowing stream or river in; or adjacent to, the wetland ❑ Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland ❑ Lake fringe wefland = 2 points ❑ Freshwater tidal wetland = 2 points Map of hydroperiods Figure H 1.3 Richness of Plant Species (seep. 75) Count the number of plant .species in the wetland that cover at least Ill sq. f. (different patches of the same species can he combined to rneel the size threshold). You do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian Milfoil, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, Canadian Thistle. If you counted: >19 species Points = 2 5-19 species Points = 1 l List species below if you want to: <5 species Points = 0 Total for page Wetland Rating Form - Western Washington 7 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. H 1.4 Intcrspersion of Habitats (seep. 76) Points Decidc from the diagrants below, whether interspersion between Cowardin vegetation classes (described in H 1.1) or the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, medium, low, or none. None = 0 points Low = 1 point Moderate = 2 points 0 [riparian braided channels] High = 3 points NOTE: If you have four or more vegetation types or three vegetation types and open water, the rating is always "high". Use map of Cowardin vegetation classes. H 1.5 Special Habitat Features (seep. 77) Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of'points you put into the nest column. Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (>4 inches in diameter and 6 feet long). ❑ Standing snags (diameter at the bottom >4 inches) in the wetland. ❑ Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 feet (2 m) and/or overhanging vegetation extends at least 3.3 feet (1 m) over a stream (or ditch) in or contiguous with the wetland, for at least 33 feet 00 m). 1 ❑ Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by bcavcr;muskrat for denning (>30° slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have notyet turned brown/gray). At least 114 acre of thin -stemmed presistent vegetation or woody branches are present ❑ in areas that are permanently or seasonally inundated (structures for egg -laying by amphibians). ❑ Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in each stratum of plants. Note: The 20% stated in early printings of the manual on page 78 is an error. H 1. TO'T'AL Score - potential for providing habitat Add the scores from HI.1, HI -2, HL3, HIA Hl_S 4 Comments: Wetland Rating Form - Western Washington 8 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. H 2. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to provide habitat for many species? Points H 2.1 Buffers (seep. 80) Choose the description that hest represents condition of buffer of xielland unit. Thehighesi scoring criterion that applies to the wetland is to he used it? the rating. Sec: text for definitiun n_f "undislurbed_" ❑ 100 m (330 feet) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, Points = 5 or open water >95% of circumference. No structures are within undisturbed part of buffer (relatively undisturbed also means no grazing, no landscaping, no daily human use). ❑ 100 m (330 feet) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, Points = 4 or open water >50% of circumference. ❑ 50 m (170 feet) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas. Points = 4 or open water >95% circumference. ❑ 100 m (330 feet) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, Points = 3 or open water for >25% circumference. ❑ 50 m (170 feet) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, Points = 3 or open water for>50% circumference. l If buffer does not meet any of the criteria above: ❑ No paved areas (except paved trails) or buildings within 25 m (80 feet) Points = 2 of wetland >95% circumference. Light to moderate grazing, or lawns are OK. ❑ No paved areas or buildings within 50 m of wetland for >50% Points = 2 circumference. Light to moderate grazing, or lawns are OK. ❑ Heavy grazing in buffer. Points = ❑ Vegetated buffers are <2 m wide (6.6 feet) for more than 95% of the Points = 0 circumference (e.g., tilled fields, paving, basalt bedrock extend to edge of wetland). Buffer does not meet any of the criteria above. Points = 1 Aerial photo showing buffers Fiewe H 2.2 Corridors and Connections (seep. 81) H 2.2.1 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbedl,unbroken vegetated corridor (riparian or upland) at least 150 feet wide, has at least 30% cover of shrubs, forest, or native undisturbed prairie, that connects to estuaries, other wetlands, or undisturbed uplands that are at least 250 acres in size? (Dams in riparian corridors, heavily used gravel roads, and pav=ed roads are considered breaks it? the corridor. ) YES =4points (go toH2.3) NO go toH2.2.2 H 2.2.2 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed/unbroken vegetated corridor (either riparian or upland) at least 50 feet wide, has at least 30% cover of shrubs or forest, and connects to 2 estuaries, other wetlands, or undisturbed uplands that are at least 25 acres in size OR a Lake - fringe wetland, if it does not have an undisturbed corridor as in the question above? YES=2points(gotoH2.3) NO=go toH2.2.3 H 2.2.3 Is the wetland: ❑ within 5 miles (8 km) of a brackish or saltwater estuary OR ❑ within 3 miles of a large field or pasture > 40 acres in size OR ❑ within 1 mile of a lake greater than 20 acres in size? YES - 1 point NO = 0 points Total for page Wetland Rating Form - Western Washington 9 Herrera Environmental Consultants, lnc. H 2.3 Near or Adiacent to Other Priority Habitats Listed by WDFW (seep. 82) Polnts Which of the following priority habitats are within 330 feet (100 m) of the wetland unit? NOTE: the connections do not have to be relatively undisturbed. These are DFW definitions. Check with your local DFW biologist if there are any questions ❑ Aspen stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen >0.4 ha (1 acre). ❑ Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 152). ❑ Herbaceous Salds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock. Old-growth/Mature forests: (Old growth west of Cascade crest) Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi -layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 20 trces,ha (8/acre) >81 cm (32 in) dbh or > 200 years of age. (Mature forests) Stands with average diameters exceeding 53 cm (21 in) dbh; crown cover may be less than 100°/x; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old-growth; 80 - 200 years old west of the Cascade crest. ❑ Oregon white Oak: Woodland stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component is 25% (full descrptions in WDFW PHS report p. 158). Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other. ❑ Westside Prairies: Herbaceous, non -forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wet prairie (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 161). [] lnstream: The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide functional life hsitory requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources. ❑ Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coastal Nearshore, and Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WDFW report pp. 167- 1 69 and glossary in Appendix .A). ❑ Caves: Naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils, rock, ice, or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human. ❑ Cliffs: Greater than 7.6 m (25 ft) high and occuring below 5,000 ft. ❑ Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.15 - 2.0 m (0.5 - 6.5 ft), composed of basalt, andesite, andior sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs. 0 Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to enable cavity excavationruse by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of> 51 cm (20 in) in western Washington and are > 2 m (6.5 ft) in height. Priority logs are > 30 cm (12 in) in diameter at the largest end, and > 6 in (20 ft) long. If wetland has: 3+ priority habitats = 4 points 1 priority habitat = 1 point 2 priority habitats = 3 points No habitats = 0 points Note: all vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list. Nearby wetlands are addressed in question H 2.4 4 Wetland Rating Form - Western Washington 10 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. H 2.4 Wetland Landscape (seep. 84) Choose the one description of the landscape around the wetland that best f ts. There are at least 3 other wetlands within 11,2 mile, and the connections Points = 5 between them are relatively undisturbed (light grazing between ❑ wetlands OK, as is lake shore with some boating, but connections should NOT be bisected by paved roads, fill, fields, or other development). ElThe wetland is Lake-fringe on a lake with little disturbance and there Points = 5 3 are 3 other Lake-fringe wetlands within 112 mile. 0 There are at least 3 other wetlands within 1;2 mile, BUT the Points = 3 connections between them arc disturbed. ❑ The wetland is Lake-fringe on a lake with disturbance, and there are 3 Points = 3 other Lake-fringe wetlands within 112 mile. ❑ There is at least i wetland within 1/2 mile. Points = 2 ❑ There are no wetlands within 112 mile. Points = 0 H 2. TOTAL Score - opportunity for providing habitat 10 Add the scores from H2.1, H2.2, H2.3, H2.4 Total Score for Habitat Functions - add the points for H 1 and H2, and record the result on p. 1 14 Wetland Rating Form - Western Washington t 1 Herrera Environmental Consultants. Inc. CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Please determine if the wetland meets the attributes described below and choose the appropriate answers and Category. Wetland Type Check off any criteria that apply to the wetland. Check the appropriate Category when the appropriate criteria are met. Cate ory SC 1.0 Estuarine Wetlands (seep. 86) Does the wetland unit meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands'? ❑ The dominant water regime is tidal, ❑ Vegetated, and ❑ With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt. ❑ YES = Go to SC 1.1 ❑ NO - not an estuarine wetland SC 1.1 Is the wetland unit within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area Preserve, State Park, or Educational, Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332-30-151'? ❑ YES = Category 1 ❑ NO = Go to SC 1.2 SC 1.2 Is the wetland unit at least 1 acre in size and meeting at least two of the following three conditions'? The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing, and has X10% cover of non-native plant species. If the non-native Spartina spp. are the only species that cover >l 0% of the wetland, then the wetland should be ❑ given a dual rating (I11). The area of Spartina would be rated a Category II while the relatively undisturbed upper marsh with native species would be a Category I. Do not, however, exclude the area of Spartina in determining the size threshold of 1 acre. ❑ At least 314 of the landward edge of the wctland has a 100 foot buffer of shrub, forest, or ungrazed or unmowed grassland. ❑ The wetland has at least two of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or continguous freshwater wetlands. ❑ YES = Category I ❑ NO = Category 11 Wetland Rating Form - Western Washington 12 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. SC 2.0 Natural Heritage Wetlands (seep. 87) Natural Heritage wetlands have been identified by the Washington Natural heritage Category Program,"DNR as either high quality undisturbed wetlands or wetlands that support state Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive plant species. SC; 2.1 Is the wetland unit being rated in a Section/Township.-Range that contains a Natural Heritage wetland? ('I his question is used to screen out most sites before you need to contact WNHP/DNR.) 8/11,'R information from Appendix D ❑ or accessed from WNHPiDNR web site ❑ ❑ YES - contact WNHP/DNR (seep. 79) and €o to .SC3.2 ❑ NO SC 2.2 .Has DNR identified the wetland as a high quality undisturbed wetland or as a site with state Threatened or Endangered plant species`? ❑ YES —Category I ❑ NO - not a Heritage wetland SC 3.0 Bogs (seep. 87) Does the wetland unit (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the kev below to idewjfJ ff the vvefland is a bog. If you answer Yes, you will still need to rate the wetland based on its function. 1. Does the unit have organic soil horizons (i.e., layers of organic soil), either peats or mucks, that compose 16 inches or more of the first 32 inches of the soil profile? (See Appendix B for a field key to identify organic oils.) ❑YES - go to Q_3 ❑ NO - go to Q.2 2. Does the unit have organic soils, either peats or mucks, that are X16 inches deep over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on a lake or pond'? ❑ YES - go to Q. 3 ❑ NO - not a bog for purpose of rating 3. Does the unit have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, AND other plants, if present, consist of the "bog" species listed in Table 3 as a significant component of the vegetation (>30% of total shrub and herbaceous cover consists of species in Table 3)? ❑ YES - is a bog for purpose of rating ❑ NO - go to Q. 4 NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory you may substitute that criterion by measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16" deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the "bog" plant species in Table 3 are present, the wetland is a bag. 4. Is the unit forested (>30% cover) with sitka spruce, subalpine fir, western redcedar, western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Englemann's spruce, or western white pine, WITH any of the species (or combination of species) on bog species plant list in Table 3 as a significant component of the ground cover (>30%coverage of total shruh/herbaceous cover)? ❑ YES - Category I ❑ NO - not a bog for purpose of rating Wetland Rating Form - Western Washington 13 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. SC 4.0 Forested Wetlands (seep. 90) Does the wetland unit have at least 1 acre of forest that meets one of these criteria for the Department of Fish and Wildlife's forests as priority habitat? Y you answer Yes, you will still need to rate the wetland based on its fimclions. Old-growth forests: (west of Cascade Crest) Stands of at least 2 tree species, ❑ forming a multi -layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/acre (20/hectare) that are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 32 inches (81 cm) or more. NOTE: The criterion for dbh is based on measurements for upland forests. 200 -year-old trees in wetlands will often have a smaller dbh because their growth rates are often smaller. The DFW criterion is an "OR" so old-growth forests do not necessarily have to have trees of this diameter. ❑ Mature forests: (west of the Cascade Crest) Stands where the largest trees are 80 - 200 years old OR have average diameters (dbh) exceeding 21 inches (53 cm); crown cover may be less than 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old-growth. ❑ YES = Category I ❑ NO - not a forested wetland w/ special characteristics SC 5.0 Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons (seep. 91) Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wtland in a coastal lagoon? The wetland lies in a depression adjacent to marine waters that is wholly or partially ❑ separated from marine waters by sandbanks, gravel banks, shingle, or, less frequently, rocks. The lagoon in which the wetland is located contains surface water that is saline or ❑ brackish (>.5 ppt) during most of the year in at ]eat a portion of the lagoon (needs to be measured near the bottom ). ❑ YES = go to SC 5.1 ❑ NO - not a wetland in a coastal lagoon SC 5.1 Does the wetland meet all of the following 3 conditions'? The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, ❑ grazing), and has less than 20% cover of invasive plant species (see list of invasive species on p. 74). ❑ At least 314 of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 foot buffer of shrub, forest, or ungrazed or unmowed grassland. ❑ The wetland is larger than 1/10 acre (4,350 square feet). ❑ YES = Category 1 ❑ NO = Category II Wetland Rating Form - Western Washington 14 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. SC 6.0 Interdunal Wetlands (seep. 93) Is the wetland unit west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Category Ownership or 11BC0)'? ❑ YES -gu ru SC 6.7 NO - not an interdunal wetland for rating lj'you answer YES, you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. In practical terms, that means the following geographic areas: • Long Beach Peninsula - lands west of SR 103 • Grayland-Westport - lands west of SR 105 • Ocean Shores-Copalis - lands west of SR 1 1 l5 and SR [09. SC 6,1 Is wetland 1 acre or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is 1 acre or larger? ❑ YES = Category 11 ❑ NO - go to SC 6.2 SC 6.2 Is the wetland unit between 0.1 and 1 acre, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.l and 1 acre'? ❑ YES — Category III Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics n/a Choose the "highest" rating if wetland falls into several categories, and record on p. 1. 1f you answered NO for all types, enter "Not Applicable" on p. 1. Wetland Rating Form - Western Washington 15 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. STREAM STUDY SUV 7TH STREET/NACHES AVENUE SUV STORM SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PROJECT City of Renton Punning Division JUN 19 Ll„ Prepared for SAI C and City of Renton Prepared by WC'-�'-i —.. Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. HERRERA pnnteo on 10C% recycled paper STREAM STUDY SW 7TH STREET/ NACHES AVENUE SW STORM SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Prepared for SAIC 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2500 Seattle, Washington 98154 and City of Renton Renton City Hall 1055 South Grady Way Renton, Washington 98057 Prepared by Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. 2200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 1100 Seattle, Washington 98121 Telephone: 2061441-9080 May 24, 2013 Disclaimer Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. has prepared this report for use by the City of Renton. The results and conclusions in this report represent the professional opinion of Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. They are based in part upon (1) site evaluation, and (2) examination of public domain information concerning the study area. Final determination of jurisdictional stream boundaries pertinent to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act is the responsibility of the Seattle District of the US Army Corps of Engineers. Various agencies of the state of Washington and local jurisdictions may require a review of final site development plans that could potentially affect zoning, buffer requirements, water quality, and/or habitat functions of lands in question. Therefore, the findings and conclusions in this report should be reviewed by appropriate regulatory agencies before any detailed site planning and/or construction activities. i T7 HERRERA Ir I1-U]C-�I JC -I st ream i.u]y-s:: !.h,.t Li nor hes ;+ ,. CONTENTS Summary......................................................................................................v Introduction................................................................................................. 1 StudyObjectives...................................................................................... 1 Project Background and Need....................................................................... 3 ProjectDescription................................................................................... 3 Applicable Laws and Regulations................................................................... 5 Methods...................................................................................................... 7 Review of Available Information.................................................................... 7 Stream Delineation and Classification............................................................. 7 Results....................................................................................................... 9 Analysis of Available Information................................................................... 9 Previously Mapped Streams................................................................... 9 Documented Fish and Wildlife Use .......................................................... 9 Analysis of Stream Conditions...................................................................... 10 Regulatory Implications.................................................................................. 15 Clean Water Act Section 404....................................................................... 15 Hydraulic Project Approval......................................................................... 15 City Regulations and Permits....................................................................... 15 Critical Areas Regulations.................................................................... 16 Shoreline Master Program Regulations..................................................... 16 Project Impacts and Mitigation.................................................................... 17 References................................................................................................. 19 Appendix A Project Plans l\ HERRERA 11 1; 05051 X1 1 5U,111 „udy 7[ l h o ,c a,r s, TABLES Table 1. Summary of Stream A Within the Study Area ............................................. 13 FIGURES Figure 1. Study Area and Vicinity Map for the SW 7th Street/Naches Avenue SW Storm System Improvement Project................................................................. 2 Figure 2. Stream Study Site Plan for the SW 7th Street/Naches Avenue SW Storm System Improvement Project................................................................ 11 HERRERA j, 11.05051 XI 't'—, ".d, ., ?th stn --,— — iv SUMMARY This stream study was prepared for the SW 7th Street/Naches Avenue SW Storm System Improvement Project (hereafter referred to as "the project"). The City of Renton proposes to improve stormwater conveyance capacity in the lower SW 7th Street trunk drainage system by installing approximately 3,330 linear feet of additional storm system pipe (Figure 1 and Appendix A). The objective of the project is to reduce upstream flooding along SW 7th Street. This report was prepared in accordance with the Renton Municipal Code requirements for stream studies (RMC 4-8-120). The ordinary high water marks (OHWM) of streams within the study area were delineated using the definition provided in the Washington Administrative Code [WAC], Section 222-16-030, which has been adopted by the City of Renton (RMC 4-11-150). In addition, methods were applied from Determining the Ordinary High Water Mark on Streams in Washington State (Ecology 2010). Herrera biologists flagged the OHWM of one unnamed stream on the site (Stream A). Based on its characteristics, Stream A is classified as a Class 2 stream according to the City of Renton Critical Area Regulations (RMC 4-3-050). According to RMC 4-5-050 and RMC 4-3-0901, the jurisdictional buffer associated with Stream A is 100 feet from the OHWM. Characteristics of Stream A and applicable regulations are presented in this report. The project will involve construction of a new culvert outfall that will be set back from the existing stream OHWM. Excavation of a short channel to convey flow from the new outfall location to Stream A will be required. Therefore, the project will result in unavoidable impacts to a small portion of Stream A and its buffer. The existing streambanks and channel of Stream A in the section of stream to be affected are lined with riprap. The project will not degrade the channel beyond this condition and will improve habitat conditions by revegetating riprap areas with live stakes and removing invasive plant species. The project will result in no net loss of stream habitat ecological function. The buffer of Stream A overlaps with the buffer of on-site wetlands and will be temporarily impacted by installation of the new pipe system. Buffer impacts and consequent mitigation measures are collectively presented in the Wetland Assessment Report and Buffer Mitigation Plan—SW 7th Street/Naches Avenue SW Storm System Improvement Project (Herrera 2013). ' City of Renton Shoreline Master Program regulations apply to the onsite stream because it is located in proximity to the Black River shoreline (part of the Natural Environmental Overlay District) and it is hydraulically connected to the Black River. 2 This project approach was developed and decided up through a feasibility analysis and review of project alternatives spearheaded by City of Renton Public Works Department. See SAIC (2013) for more details. HERRERA Ir V 1011 (AA 't enrrr sl rr 1y tv, 711 " F I A, lies +.' 1.� INTRODUCTION This stream study was prepared for the SW 7th Street/ Naches Avenue SW Storm System Improvement Project (hereafter referred to as "the project"). The City of Renton proposes to improve stormwater conveyance capacity in the lower SW 7th Street trunk drainage system (which drains 623 acres of the South Renton Subbasin, including much of the downtown area) by installing approximately 3,330 linear feet of additional storm system pipe (Sheet G1, Appendix A). The objective of the project is to reduce upstream flooding along SW 7th Street. See below for a complete description of project activities. The study area for the purposes of this stream study includes undeveloped areas potentially affected by the project. This area includes the portion of a City -owned parcel (PID 9188000154) in the vicinity of the parallel pipe system from Naches Avenue SW to its termination at a new outfall to an unnamed stream (Stream A), 'immediately downstream of an existing outfall location at Naches Avenue SW (Figure 1). All other project activities wilt occur within paved or landscaped areas on existing road rights-of-way or private properties and will not affect critical areas or buffers. This report describes the conditions of onsite streams; stream classification and buffer width; vegetation conditions of the stream buffi�r; ecological functions of streams and their buffers; fish and wildlife use (documented and observed); applicable local, state, and federal laws and regulations; and an analysis of stream impacts and mitigation approach. This report was prepared in accordance with stream study submittal requirements per the Renton Municipal Code (RMC 4-8-120, RMC 4-3-050) and requirements of the City's shoreline master program (RMC 4-3-090). Study Objectives The ordinary high water marks (OHWM) of streams within the study area were delineated using the definition provided in the Washington Administrative Code (WAC), Section 222-16-010), which has been adopted by the City of Renton (RMC 4-11-150). In addition, methods were applied from Determining the ordinary High Water Mark on Streams in Washington State (20010). The objectives of the study were to: • Delineate (flag and survey) the OHWM of all streams in the study area Classify all streams using the classification system required by the Renton Municipal Code (RMC 4-3-050), which is consistent with shoreline master program regulations (RMC 4-3-090) Determine the applicable stream buffer widths required by the Renton Municipal Code (RMC 4-3-050), which is consistent with shoreline master program regulations (RMC 4-3-090) May 2013 (HERitERA Stream Study—SW 7th St./Naches Ave. SW Storm System Improvement Project 1 F "A 1: JO = emm 5W 4th p1 _ s FRar�rDaa 5t ._ } I, •l � yF' � �'�t �� f ;'• Access µ d: r _ : � ..• stn $ �405 FWy F ,.r r + Characterize the vegetation community and dominant plant species within stream buffer areas • Describe ecological functions of streams and buffers • Describe fish and wildlife use of streams and buffers • Identify applicable regulations and guidance provided by county, state, and federal authorities • Provide site plan that depicts stream OHWM and buffer locations relative to project activities and discuss project impacts and mitigation measures' Project Background and Need The existing SW 7th Street storm drainage system is a major trunk line draining 623 acres of the South Renton Subbasin, which includes much of the downtown area. The existing pipe system generally consists of 48 -inch to 60 -inch diameter pipe that extends west along SW 7th Street and then north along Naches Avenue SW where it discharges to an unnamed stream (Stream A). This stream drains to the Black River Pump Station forebay, an area which is designated by the City of Renton as Shoreline jurisdiction. Within the basin, there are recurrent flooding problems. In particular, at Hardie Avenue SW near the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad trestle underpass; SW 7th Street and Shattuck Avenue; and in the vicinity of Rainer Avenue and SW Sunset Boulevard. The purpose of this project is to construct a parallel storm drain in the lower portion of the basin to increase overall system capacity and help alleviate upstream flooding problems. The proposed sizing and alignment of the parallel pipe system was studied and recommended as part of a pre -design study (SAIL 2012). Project Description The specific improvements of the project include approximately 3,330 feet of 60 -inch diameter trunk storm drain that would be installed parallel to the existing system from its current outfall at Naches Avenue SW to approximately Lind Avenue SW. The pipe depths will range from approximately 8 to 11 feet. A separate element of the project includes stormwater treatment retrofitting along SW 7th between Naches Avenue SW and Lind Avenue SW. The City applied for and obtained a grant from the Washington State Department of Ecology for water quality retrofits along SW 7th Street. SW 7th Street is a busy arterial with high truck traffic (which tends to contribute greater pollutants to stormwater) and the water quality retrofit will be a significant water ' This project will result in stream impacts due to the construction of the new stormwater outfall, and these impacts are discussed later in this report. Temporary stream buffer impacts will also occur associated with installation of the new stormwater pipe, which overlap with impacts to wetland buffers and City of Renton critical habitats within the study area. Therefore, impacts to these buffer areas and associated mitigation measures are described collectively in the Wetland Assessment Report and Buffer Mitigation Plan --Hardie Avenue SW - SW 7th Street Storm System Improvement Project (Herrera 2013). Ikl May 2013 ( HERRERA Stream Study SW 7th St./Naches Ave, SW Storm System Improvement Project 3 quality improvement to Stream A and the Black River. Treatment will be provided by installing 30 to 40 Fitterra systems. The Filterra system utilizes a media blend designed to remove typical stormwater pollutants such as total suspended solids (TSS), phosphorus, nitrogen, heavy metals, and oil and grease. The typical size of Filterra units will be between 4 feet x 4 feet to 8 feet x 4 feet. The Filterra systems will be designed and installed in accordance with the Conditions of Use listed in the General Use Level Designation for the Fitterra System and manufacturer specifications. The project will include upgrades of the storm drainage laterals to connect the new Filterra units to the existing or new trunk storm drain. Most of the trenching for the 60 -inch -diameter trunk storm drain will be temporarily shored with trench boxes to minimize impacts to the roadway. Depending on the time of year, groundwater may be higher than excavation depths and dewatering is anticipated. Dewatering water will need to be treated using Baker tanks or routed to the sanitary sewer system if it does not meet water quality standards. Constructing the 60 -inch -diameter trunk will require relocating several utilities. These utilities include both public utilities (owned by the City of Renton) such as water and sewer lines and private utilities such as gas, power, fiber optic, and telephone. There are also three BNSF railroad crossings along SW 7th Street that would need to be removed and then restored following construction. Temporary traffic measures will be used to control traffic. The existing 60 -inch diameter storm drain connects directly to an existing stream (Stream A) within the culvert crossing of Naches Avenue SW. This culvert is 72 inches wide by 55 inches high at its outlet. The new 60 -inch storm drain will outfall adjacent to the existing culvert outlet. The stream at this location is currently armored with rock. A temporary stream bypass will be necessary to construct the outlet. A conceptual plan was developed for the stream bypass that includes two temporary coffer dams (upstream and downstream of the work area) to be constructed using gravel -filled sandbags and a 48 -inch bypass pipe to isolate a portion of the stream from the work area. This work would be limited to the allowable fish construction window determined by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). The majority of the project will occur within existing road rights-of-way, with a small portion of the project occurring on undeveloped property. This approximately 60 -foot section of pipe extends west of the Taches Avenue SW right-of-way onto a City -owned parcel (PID 9188000154). At the outfall location, the existing channel bed and banks are armored with rock. The bank affected by the new outfall will be restored with rock armoring, and live willow stakes will be installed amongst the rock in order to revegetate the streambank. Other mitigation measures are described in the Wetland Assessment Report and Buffer Mitigation Plan—SW 7th Street/Naches Avenue SW Storm System Improvement Project (Herrera 2013). Hydrologic/ hydraulic modeling was conducted as a part of the pre -design analysis (SAIL 2012). This project, combined with future upstream projects, is intended to provide flood protection for the 25 -year storm. This project does not include any new impervious surfaces, so stormwater runoff volume to the stream will not change. With the project improvements there will be some reduction of the peak flow attenuation that is currently caused by flooding. As such, there will be some increases in peak rate discharges to the stream. ( HERRERA May 2013 4 Stream Study -SW 7th StdNaches Ave. SW Storm System Improvement Project The stormwater quality retrofit with the Filterra systems will result in retrofitting approximately 2,700 feet of SW 7th Street which equates to approximately 3 acres of impervious surfaces. Based on the Western Washington Hydrology Model (WWHM), the retrofit will result in treating roughly 7.7 acre-feet of stormwater runoff volume per year. Applicable Laws and Regulations Streams are subject to a variety of federal and state regulations. Federal laws regulating streams include Sections 404 and 401 of the Clean Water Act (United States Code, Title 33, Chapter 1344 [33 USC 1344]). Washington state laws and programs designed to control impacts to streams include the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (a federal law that is implemented in the State of Washington by the Department of Ecology, as mandated by the Washington State Water Pollution Control Act). The Renton Municipal Code (Section 4-3-050) specifies stream types, required stream buffer widths, development standards, and mitigation requirements for streams in its jurisdiction. May 2013 l\ HERRERA Stream Study -SW 7th St.INaches Ave. SW Storm System Improvement Project 5 METHODS Evaluating the presence, extent, and type of streams requires a review of available information about the site (e.g., surveys, studies), followed by an onsite stream delineation. The following sections describe the research methods and field protocols for the stream evaluations. Review of Available Information A literature review was performed to determine the historical and current presence of streams in and near the study area. Sources of information included: • Aerial photographs of the project vicinity (Bing 2013) • City of Renton sensitive areas GIS data - "COR Maps" (City of Renton 2013) • King County iMap critical areas information (King County 2013) • SalmonScape mapping system (WDFW 2013a) • Washington State priority habitat and species (PHS) data (WDFW 2013b) • Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Area Habitat Biologist information on species present in the study area (Personal communication via email with Larry Fisher, WDFW Area Habitat Biologist, on February 26, 2013) • Washington State Natural Heritage Program (WNHP) rare plant and high quality ecosystem information (Personal communication via email with Jasa Holt, WNHP Data Specialist, on October 21, 2011). Stream Delineation and Classification The City uses the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) to define stream boundaries (RMC 4-3-050L). The OHWMs of streams within the study area were delineated using the definition provided in the WAC, Section 222-16-010, which has been adopted by the City of Renton. According to this definition, the OHWM of streams is "that mark that will be found by examining the bed and banks and ascertaining where the presence and action of waters are so common and usual, and so long continued in all ordinary years, as to mark upon the soil a character distinct from that of the abutting upland, in respect to vegetation." In addition, methods were applied that are contained within Determining the Ordinary High Water mark on Streams in Washington State (2010). To delineate the OHWM, the bed and adjacent banks of streams in the study area were examined for indications of regular high water events. Factors considered when assessing changes in vegetation include: May 2013 I`iERRERA Stream Study 5W 7th St.J Naches Ave. SW Storm System Improvement Project 7 • Scour (removal of vegetation and exposure of gravel, sand, or other soil substrate) • Drainage patterns • Elevation of floodplain benches • Changes in sediment texture across the floodplain • Sediment layering • Sediment or vegetation deposition • Changes in vegetation communities across the floodplain Herrera placed pink/black striped flagging to indicate the horizontal and vertical location of the OHWM along the stream segments in the study area. The OHWM flags were subsequently surveyed at the corresponding ground intercept by PACE Engineers. Outside the study area, the stream OHWM was approximated. Streams observed within the study area were classified according to the stream rating system per RMC 4-3-050 L. Regulated stream buffer widths that correspond to the stream classification were determined according to RMC 4-3-050 L. These critical areas regulations are consistent with the City's shoreline master program (RMC 4-3-090). ( HERRERA May 21313 8 Stream Study SW 7th St./Naches Ave. SW Storm System Improvement Project RESULTS This section describes the results of the stream study, including a review of information obtained from various references and an analysis of stream conditions in the study area as observed during field investigations. Analysis of Available Information The available existing information compiled for the stream study is summarized in the following subsections. Previously Mapped Streams An unnamed tributary to the Black River has been previously mapped by King County (2013) within the study area. This data source depicts the stream starting on the south end of the City -owned parcel and flowing to the north, where it shortly thereafter flows into the Black River wetland system located within the Black River Riparian Forest. The Black River wetland system drains into the Green River approximately 0.75 miles downstream of the study area after flowing through a fish -passable dam facility. There are no water quality -impaired, 303(d) listed streams within the study area (Ecology 2008). Documented Fish and Wildlife Use A variety of fish and wildlife are documented as being present in the vicinity of the study area. Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshowytscha), coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), and coastal resident cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki) are known to be present within the Black River system/ Springbrook Creek (WDFW 2013a, 2013b; Personal communication, Larry Fisher, WDFW Area Habitat Biologist, via email on February 26, 2013). It is assumed that these species are present within the study area because Stream A flows into the Black River/ Springbrook Creek approximately 800 feet downstream of the culvert at Naches Avenue SW and there are no documented fish barriers present that would prevent upstream migration of fish into the study area. Puget Sound Chinook salmon and Puget Sound steelhead trout are both listed as federally - threatened under the Endangered Species Act (NOAA Fisheries 2013). The Black River Riparian Forest contains a documented bald eagle (Hafioeetus leucocepholus) nest, but the associated Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife(WDFW)-mapped management buffer/ protection area does not extend into the area where work is proposed for this project (WDFW 2013b). WDFW also identifies the presence of a great blue heron (Ardea herodias) rookery/ breeding area within the Black River Riparian Forest, but its buffer area also does not extend into the project area (WDFW 2013b). May 2013 HERRERA Stream Study -SW 7th St./Naches Ave. SW Storm System Improvement Project 9 Analysis of Stream Conditions The OHWM determination was conducted on January 25, 2013, for the area east of Naches Avenue SW and on October 13, 2011, on the west side of Naches Avenue SW (as part of preliminary reconnaissance activities). Stream study field activities were conducted by Herrera biologists Crystal Elliot and Josh Wozniak in 2013 and by Crystal Elliot and George Iftner in 2011. The weather conditions during the 2013 fieldwork consisted of a daytime high temperature of approximately 50 degrees Fahrenheit (°F), with partly sunny conditions. The weather conditions during the 2011 fieldwork were clear skies with a daytime high temperature of approximately 60'F. Herrera identified one stream in the study area, Stream A. A description of Stream A is provided in Table 1 and its location and buffer boundary are shown on Figure 2. Figure 2 includes all of the required elements required for a Stream Study Site Plan, as per RMC 4-8-120. Herrera biologists flagged the OHWM of Stream A in the study area (and a short segment on the east side of Naches Avenue SW) with pink and black -striped flagging. A representative photograph of Stream A is included in Table 1. Stream A originates east of the study area, in a large wetland complex that is associated with the Black River System. This stream flows through a narrow, vegetated corridor between commercial office buildings, driveways, and parking lots on the east side of Naches Avenue SW. King County (2013) mapping depicts a stream occurring within the swate-like wetland depression on the City -owned property; however, stream conditions were not observed. Existing Stream Functions and Values Stream A within the study area exhibits variable levels of functions for habitat, corresponding with the variability related to stream channel conditions. Valuable rearing and refuge habitat is present in the sections of Stream A downstream of the highly altered segment immediately downstream of the culvert outfall at Naches Avenue SW. These areas exhibit pool and glide habitat, dense riparian cover (which moderates water temperatures), overhanging vegetation (which provides nutrients for invertebrates), and some woody debris (which provides habitat for invertebrates and in -stream cover for fish). Suitable spawning habitat was not observed within the study area, as the channel substrate consisted primarily of fine -textured materials (i.e., silt and silty clay) or armoring materials near the culvert outfall. ( HERRERA May 2013 10 Stream Study SW 7th St./Naches Ave. SW Storm System Improvement Project § 7 d¢ C5 & g Cl) R _ a o _ %o o $ ` � in \ / � \ \ \ / {( 2 k 2 E f c » { _ _� ) 2 \ j a LLJ G\ $CL \ \ k ` 3= / m ® o = f 2(/ ® - # M 2 2 \{ E \ ca a \ / { ) LU /\ 2 ee / f \ ) t a \ �)\ k - 2 o Ul G = \ _ _ \ = { - �k`0 �� , it > o k $ _ ) ] 2 = & & & §cu \ ) e _� )/ w % 2 CL 6q = ( 7 7%__{ o 2 _ E { 7 & > 2 \\}} 0k : _ §® G\\ t O ƒ \ _ / / E 2 0i m q f £ 2 = 2 2 § ) \ § _ 2 2 2 \ % ! \ } ) 2 ( zz® ( E 3 E 7 e E 4## u 2 J G 7// q/// 3// 2 G« 7# \/ƒ \ ) 0 _ mk R LL (n CA (f) \ May 2013 HERRERA Stream Study—SW 7th St./Naches Ave. SW Storm System Improvement Project 13 Table 1. Summary of Stream A Within the Study Area. Stream Name Stream A Local Jurisdiction City of Renton City of Renton Class 2 Stream Category City of Renton 100 • Buffer Width Fish Use within i Chinook salmon, coho study area salmon, steelhead trout, cutthroat trout assumed due to presence in Black River ' system Connectivity Stream A originates east of the study area, in a large wetland complex that is associated with (where stream the Black River System. This stream flows through a narrow, vegetated corridor between flows from/to) commercial office buildings, driveways, and parking lots on the east side of Naches Avenue SW before entering the 60 -inch diameter corrugated metal pipe (GMP) that conveys it under Naches Avenue SW and into the stream channel on the west side of the road_ A stormwater drainage system runs north under Naches Avenue SW, and its flow merges with that of Stream A within the aforementioned CMP (i.e., culvert). Stream A is tributary to the Black River approximately 800 feet downstream of the culvert at Naches Avenue SW. The Black River then flows into the Duwamish River at river mile (RM) 11.0. Location of Stream A flows through the study area from east to west. Stream Relative to Study Area Stream Stream A flows through the study area (and Wetland A) in a low -gradient channel with wetland Condition in banks (except for a riprap section extending approximately 30 feet downstream of the culvert Study Area outfall), dominant silt substrate, and dominant glide habitat. After discharging from the 60 -inch diameter CMP west of Naches Avenue SW, Stream A enters a channel that is approximately 5 to 7 feet wide, and that has been highly altered at this location with armoring materials (e.g., riprap, quarry spalls) and apparent excavation. Water depth was approximately 6 inches in this area at the time of survey (in 2013), and stream habitat consists of low -gradient riffle. After flowing through this altered section of channel, Stream A enters a large pool (approximately 1,000 square feet) that is approximately 3 to 6 feet deep_ The banks above this pool are 10 to 15 feet higher than the water surface elevation and are highly erosive. The substrate here is dominated by silt and silty clay. Downstream of this large pool, Stream A is approximately 8 feet wide and greater than 2 feet deep in many locations. The stream habitat here is dominated by pools and glides with dominate silt and silty clay substrate. Downed wood and overhanging woody vegetation were observed throughout the Stream A corridor. May 2013 HERRERA Stream Study—SW 7th St./Naches Ave. SW Storm System Improvement Project 13 Table 1 (continued). Summary of Stream A Within the Study Area. Stream Name Stream A Observed In addition to the documented fish and wildlife use noted in the above subsection, Herrera Wildlife Use biologists observed the presence of a variety of common songbird species (e.g., American robin) and evidence of woodpecker activity on standing snags in the buffer of Stream A. Riparian/Buffer The vegetated buffer of Stream A throughout the majority of the study area consists of Condition and palustrine forested wetland (Wetland A) and forested upland areas. The undisturbed 100 foot Functions buffer required by the City is present in most areas. The wetland portions of the riparian buffer of Stream A are dominated by red alder (Alnus rubra) trees; with an understory of red osier dogwood (Cornus sericea), salmonberry (Rebus spectabilis), Himalayan blackberry (Rubes armeniacus), creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repons), slough sedge (Carex obnupta), and reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea). Streambanks are dominated by salmonberry, Himalayan blackberry, and red osier dogwood. Upland forest portions of the riparian buffer are dominated by large, mature black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera ssp. trichocarpa) and red alder trees, with an understory of salmonberry, Indian plum (Oemleria cerasiformis), sword fern (Polystichum munitum), beaked hazelnut (Corylus cornuta), red osier dogwood, and Himalayan blackberry. These somewhat intact buffer areas provide a relatively high level of ecological function. Dense overhanging vegetation provides shade (temperature moderation), important cover for fish, streambank stability through root cohesion, and input of nutrients. Intact forested areas provide habitat for a variety of bird and wildlife species, as well as invertebrates that are an important food source for fish and amphibians_ The high density of trees also provides good large woody debris (LWD) recruitment potential. LWD is important to properly functioning stream systems, as it provides cover, nutrient inputs, and maintenance of floodplain processes. A number of snags and logs are present within the buffer of Stream A, contributing to onsite wildlife habitat and nutrient cycling processes. Riparian buffer areas immediately downstream of the culvert outfall location (at Naches Avenue SW) are highly disturbed. The streambanks are armored with riprap that extends approximately 30 feet downstream of the culvert outfall, and the channel displays artificial geomorphology throughout this segment. Some of the armored areas have been colonized by riparian species such as red osier dogwood and salmonberry, but other areas are unvegetaled or have been colonized by invasive species (e.g., Himalayan blackberry). Armored streambank segments with low vegetative cover provide a correspondingly low level of ecological function_ According to the Washington State Natural Heritage Program (WNHP), there are no records for rare plants or high quality native ecosystems in the study area (Personal communication via email with Jasa Holt, WNHP Data Specialist, on October 21, 2011) Invasive species (e.g., Himalayan blackberry) are found throughout the buffer, but are most abundant near Naches Avenue SW. See the Weiland Assessment Report and Buffer Mitigation Plan—SW 7th Street/Naches Avenue SW Storm System Improvement Project (Herrera 2013) for a detailed description of Wetland A and a discussion of project impacts to stream buffer areas and associated mitigation measures. i HERRERA May 2913 14 Stream Study - SW 7th St. /Naches Ave. SW Storm System Improvement Project REGULATORY IMPLICATIONS Regulations imposed by federal, state, and local governments may apply to any future project activities planned for the study area. Impacts to streams are regulated under the federal Clean Water Act, Washington State Hydraulic Code, and the Renton Municipal Code Critical Areas and Shoreline Master Program Regulations. The City regulations also establish development standards for buffers associated with streams including required widths. Federal, state, and city regulations require compensation measures for impacts to streams, and the City also requires mitigation for impacts to buffers. Clean Water Act Section 404 Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) regulates activities in waters of the United States, including wetlands and streams (33 USC 1344). The US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) administers the permitting program under Section 404 of the CWA. Such permits include nationwide permits (NWPs) for small areas of fill and individual permits for projects that require larger areas of fill. NWP 12 (Utility Line Activities) and NWP 7 (Outfall Structures and Associated Intake Structures) may apply if the project results in less than 112 -acre of loss to waters of the United States. The Corps does not regulate stream buffers. These regulations will be applicable if any portion of the onsite wetlands or streams are filled, dredged, or otherwise affected by project activities. Hydraulic Project Approval The Washington State Hydraulic Code [RCW 77.55] regulates construction activities that use, divert, obstruct, or change the natural flow or bed of any fresh water or saltwater of the state. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) administers the Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) under this law. City Regulations and Permits Chapter 4-3-050 of the Renton Municipal Code (RMC) contains regulations for preservation, protection, and restoration of critical areas, including streams and stream buffers. Since Stream A is within shoreline jurisdiction, it is also regulated under the Renton Shoreline Master Program (see below). A development permit (e.g., Utility Construction Permit), critical area permit, and/or letter of exemption is required for any development or alteration of a property containing a critical area. In addition, compliance with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) is necessary which is achieved by preparing an Environmental Checklist in support of a SEPA decision for the project. A Shoreline Substantial Development permit is necessary for project activities within shoreline jurisdiction. Furthermore, a Right -of -Way Use permit is necessary for construction activities within City road right-of-way. May 2013 i"IERRERA Stream Study SW 7th St./Naches Ave. SW Storm System Improvement Project 15 Cl~itical k-eas Regulations According to RMC 4-3-050 L, Stream A is regulated as a Class 2 stream because it is perennial and assumed to support salmonids. Class 2 waters in the City have a standard regulated buffer width of 100 feet. According to RMC 4-3-050 L. 4., disturbance to Stream A and/or the regulated buffer is prohibited except where the buffer is to be enhanced, where allowed exemptions are conducted, or where alterations are allowed in accordance with the code. In addition, there shall be no net loss of riparian area or shoreline ecological function resulting from any activity or land use occurring within the regulated buffer area. Applicable standards include preservation of native vegetation, revegetation with native species for areas disturbed in accordance with allowed exemption or development permit approval, and removal of noxious vegetation species when required as a condition of approval. The measures proposed by this project to ensure compliance with these requirements related to buffer impacts are included in the Wetland Assessment Report and Buffer Mitigation Plan—SW 7th Street/Naches Avenue SW Storm System Improvement Project (Herrera 2013). Shoreline Master Program Regulations Within the vicinity of the study area, the Black River and Springbrook Creek are designated as shorelines according to the City Shoreline Master Program Regulations (RMC 4-3-090). According to RMC 4-3-090 B. 3., the jurisdictional area associated with shorelines include lands within 200 feet from the OHWM, or lands within 200 feet from floodways, whichever is greater; contiguous floodplain areas; and all associated marshes, bogs, swamps, and river deltas associated with streams, lakes, and tidal waters that are subject to the provisions of the State Shoreline Management Act. According to Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 173-22-040, these jurisdictional areas are referred to as shoreland areas. Within the study area, based on RMC 4-3-090 and WAC 173-22-040 shoreland areas subject to City shoreline regulations include Stream A because it is in proximity to the Black River shoreline and influence or are influenced by the Black River. According to WAC 173-22-040.3.(c), influence includes periodic inundation, location within a floodplain, or hydraulic continuity. Because Stream A flows into the Black River/ Springbrook Creek, it has hydraulic continuity with these water bodies. According to the City, shorelands associated with the Black River occur within the Natural Environment Overlay District. The natural environment is intended to provide areas of wildlife sanctuary and habitat preservation. For projects within this overlay district, the shoreline permit approval process involves a hearing examiner conditional use permit provided the use does not degrade the ecological functions or natural character of the shoreline area (RMC 4-2-090 E.1.). According to shoreline use regulations that apply to stormwater management, the design and construction of stormwater outfalls shall limit impacts on receiving waters and comply with all appropriate local, state, and federal requirements (RMC 4-2-090.E.11.d.iv.). HERRERA May 2013 16 Stream Study—SW 7th St./Naches Ave. SW Storm System Improvement Project RMC 4-3-090 contains development standards for areas of shoreline jurisdiction. According to RMC 4-3-090.D.2., shoreline use and development shall be carried out in a manner that prevents or mitigates adverse impacts to ensure no net loss of ecological functions and processes. An application for permit or approval shall demonstrate all reasonable efforts have been taken to provide sufficient mitigation such that the activity does not result in net loss of ecological functions. Project Impacts and Mitigation According to the permit -level design plans (Appendix A), the proposed project will result in unavoidable direct temporary impacts to the buffer of Stream A due to pipe installation, which is also the buffer of Wetland A and a City critical habitat (i.e., fish and habitat conservation area). This will amount to approximately 700 square feet of upland forested vegetation clearing, including the removal of six red alder and willow trees that are between 8 and 12 inches dbh (diameter breast height). Since these impacts are common to the three critical areas listed above, they are described collectively in the Wetland Assessment Report and Buffer Mitigation Plan—SW 7th Street/Naches Avenue SW Storm System Improvement Project (Herrera 2013). The report includes approaches for no net loss of ecological functions and for mitigation sequencing. Proposed mitigation measures are described to compensate for unavoidable temporary impacts to buffers (buffer mitigation and vegetation management plan). The project will involve the construction of a new culvert outfall, set back from the existing stream OHWM. Excavation of a short channel to convey flow from the new outfall location to Stream A will be required'. The existing streambanks and channel of Stream A in the section of stream to be affected are lined with riprap. The project will not degrade the channel beyond this condition (i.e., the riprap will be replaced) and will improve habitat conditions by revegetating riprap areas with live stakes, removing invasive plant species, and adding large woody material to the stream buffer. Approximately 30 square feet of temporary stream impacts will occur where the downstream temporary sandbag coffer dam is installed in the channel to isolate the work area during construction (the upstream coffer dam will be constructed inside the existing culvert). The contractor will ensure the streambed is returned to pre-existing conditions following constructions (e.g., distribution of channel substrate). 4 This project approach was developed and decided up through a feasibility analysis and review of project alternatives spearheaded by City of Renton Public Works Department. See SAIC (2012) for more details. May 2013 4 HERRERA Stream Study SW 7th St./Naches Ave. SW Storm System Improvement Project 17 REFERENCES Bing. 2013. Bing aerial photographs. Available at: http://windows.microsoft.com/en- us/windows/bin1;-maps-aerial-imagery-download-theme. Accessed on February 6, 2013. City of Renton. 2013. Critical Areas digital data compiled by the City of Renton; COR Maps. Obtained on February 12, 2013, from agency website: http://www.rentonweb.or_R:8080/ Si lverlightPublic /Viewer. html?Viewer-CDR-Maps. Ecology. 2008. Washington State Water Quality Assessment 305(b) report and 303(d) list. Washington State Department of Ecology. Obtained from agency website: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/prop,rams/wg/303d/2008/index.htmt. Ecology. 2010. Determining the Ordinary High Water Mark on Streams in Washington State. Washington State Department of Ecology. Publication 08-06-001. March 2010. Second Review Draft. Herrera. 2013. Wetland Assessment Report and Buffer Mitigation Plan—SW 7th Street/Taches Avenue SW Storm System Improvement Project. Prepared for SAIC and City of Renton by Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc., Seattle, Washington. March 2013. King County. 2013. King County iMap data: Sensitive Areas overlay, King County GIS Center. Obtained February 15, 2013, from agency website: http://www.kinpcounty.gov/operations/ GIS/Maps /iMAP. aspx. NOAA Fisheries. 2013. NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service, ESA Salmon Listings. Obtained on February 13, 2013, from agency website: http://www.nwr.noaa.,Rov/ESA-Salmon- ListinQs /Index. cfm. SAIC. 2012. Hardie Avenue SW - SW 7th Street Storm System Improvement Project, Preliminary Design Memorandum. Prepared for the City of Renton. October 2012. WDFW. 2013a. SalmonScape. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Available at: http://wdfw.wa.ov/mappin /salmonscape/index.html. Accessed on February 11, 2013. WDFW. 2013b. Washington State Fish and Wildlife Service Priority Habitat and Species (PHS) Data On the Web for the study area. Available at: http://wdfw.wa.Qov/mapp ing/phs/. Accessed on February 11, 2013. May 2013 [� HERRERA Stream Study—SW 7th St./Naches Ave. SW Storm System Improvement Project 19 HERRERA . ...... .. ... . I;-- - - 7x L tt gqN 1, yx qd 4k ppl, Pro!Plans HERRERA . ...... .. ... . J Q MS any sauaek S any raiuiEh 'AS OAV Pun any eoauaS MS any seu o41 MSaw w*od w N .E E ' ! 5 qF w F'. •V � V CL CL J Puget _ d_ (Qj LU O �0- w z LU 4 LIJ �w w = O = IL Cc Z� LU F- O W H Q r -0iy s °ny :rr.s A5 ry +.yd .. a y s` 1 w N .E E ' ! 5 qF w F'. •V � V CL CL J Puget _ d_ (Qj LU O �0- w z LU 4 LIJ �w w = O = IL Cc Z� LU F- O W H Q [n W F� 0 z Ckf LLIZ LU 0 � W X X X iC W X V C X tr W X X x w x x x x x �w I h-- VJ ti W Z x x i x x x CK S Q z � � n C UJ n w {fj x x X x I X x X x X x W W L z z W C aE m � Z S ;= iG x X x 2 w O X X X X O W O = o� Z O Z O ? OZ[a O - - � U W O z Z T= 77 z O VW E�d V a H V � ovui M p U W Q Zj Z m V A ¢ U Q$$ W^ Z oa o� jlei Q W V CUlJ p 0aaaaa o¢n Lo --r G�z a0 a� op x = o wwo z - r W S a tr a W m W W T O Q V w } 9 ti Z < Z Z U z v O 0 O Z V O it 2 w O w O z 2 V w Z = Z O V O o O a S V z o 2 V q O o} liJ ti in qo Z V J J FOO yc J T w W ? o -7t Jw az J L W F O m VI r� W rx w Cdl'-� Oz K J d t a m m o, C5 z z o v ag v 7:1 d w Z z a zLr z z o O �� O O r¢ U W Z 2 O Y W C Y V p z Z o H +C p Z p w< Yr K r Z W U C U 7 uj az H W N ¢cD � _! J In 4 [/) 4 J 4 K W Q K W d p x 0 0 J W J w W 2 z O O U W Q 4 W w Z .- � W X X X iC X X X X y X x X X x w x x x x x �w h-- VJ ti W Z x x i x x x CK S Q z � � n C UJ n w {fj x x X x I X x X x X x W W L z z W C aE m � Z S X iG x X x 2 w O X X X X X O W O = o� Z O Z O ? OZ[a O - - � U W O z T= 77 z O VW E�d V a H V � ovui a U W Q Zj Z m V A ¢ U Q$$ W^ Z oa o� jlei Q W V CUlJ p 0aaaaa W J Z a U G U 2 W o z i V p Z LiJ O � H Z 47 m W W 4 f Y V r Z < 2 tr O O y Jw.lw IJ.J CjS �J V Oy = W W 2 z Z W pU W L J K w W W Z L o ¢V� a O S�w�- Z I.JS O zw w Oz O Ia] �cesz 3 S W a s = U = Raa^ W W _ _ 2 2 S H Z o U �, V y O Z CW7 z J Z[ n 2 2 O O U W- Z2 ¢ Q H W I,J O z ��JJ Xd zd zd W 0 0 0 0 0 Z S (Y tr 2 0 0 �- c7 U -¢¢ 7 d� OJ J M `1 i M M 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 00 (J! ] V~]1 V~i I2f 1 (n V l V 3 c~' ] f~! I V~' ] 4 7 7 7 3 3 mm C 4 S L= z W O $ C) 0 2 K r r m W 2 V I f I 1 )= 3 W O 4 W C J G V 0 0 0 d d d � Z 2= N l) SII Cn V1 A V, VJ 7, Vl (n lJt i 3 3 3 I O 4 OJ N z J aV- ww i1-2rC � Z m 4 6 QC yw p UZ �IZ,w,J zo wsirz z acW"c�iv J Wo cn zoo V V' a�za0� W Z H�V'JH Dc�z P7 P7 oJ4a- �zz moo 2 c..)J ¢oz aooJ } sro W¢owzw�a r_J rw CW U? O 2 W l7; s- f-- H rzzz¢�S�I.7zoe»azm Jc�VO�aro ¢ W K¢¢ m m m U U V U CJ} 0, U U 0 Q 0 U U Q U 0 n G p G W W W �w w w w m Iit OOT 2 }T Z Z ¢ r1 oc�c) �� zwm�- �?J u ac)c�0 � asa UCOa d mO-dam �OOOdV]v]��r `t Vw�Vlil} X O V UUV UV'UV UV UUV V V V V U V 6�G0 W W Www WiaJ �iJ� W Lew Z Z W C.� � W X -.-1J 0 Lou Z m m J z O Z O V S z ry y z w Z 2 w w w w C 2 O to Z V 1 r.i.•a.lr r�� Iv it r ru�u M P p K w O u y Z fY C � z W sID W Z - �w h-- VJ ti W d T W n ir m w CK S Q z � � n C UJ n w V a n2 W L z U W C aE m � � C} Z O 4 2 w O 2 J U z O W O = o� J O Z O ? OZ[a O - - � U W O X a T= 77 z VW E�d V a O V � ovui d U W Q Zj Z m V A ¢ U Q$$ W^ Z oa o� jlei Q W V o¢n Lo --r G�z a0 a� op U< 2 O Q V w } 9 ti Z < I O 4 OJ N z J aV- ww i1-2rC � Z m 4 6 QC yw p UZ �IZ,w,J zo wsirz z acW"c�iv J Wo cn zoo V V' a�za0� W Z H�V'JH Dc�z P7 P7 oJ4a- �zz moo 2 c..)J ¢oz aooJ } sro W¢owzw�a r_J rw CW U? O 2 W l7; s- f-- H rzzz¢�S�I.7zoe»azm Jc�VO�aro ¢ W K¢¢ m m m U U V U CJ} 0, U U 0 Q 0 U U Q U 0 n G p G W W W �w w w w m Iit OOT 2 }T Z Z ¢ r1 oc�c) �� zwm�- �?J u ac)c�0 � asa UCOa d mO-dam �OOOdV]v]��r `t Vw�Vlil} X O V UUV UV'UV UV UUV V V V V U V 6�G0 W W Www WiaJ �iJ� W Lew Z Z W C.� � W X -.-1J 0 Lou Z m m J z O Z O V S z ry y z w Z 2 w w w w C 2 O to Z V 1 r.i.•a.lr r�� Iv it r ru�u M P w O Z w Z W r w r z W Z Z K V W C V >W q x O 2 J Z W W J w W J Y U = z a VW} W Z O W r J w m O }}4 = O O = p a w o w rc w w �_ �` z `-` = w w z w w 4 yr F ¢ sl } Z O 4 ~O ? 4 F Ll C L 3 H H Q O W 0 Z F L7 O U' d � U % U � 3 � (n 4 f/I Vl VJ J p � V} 3 � Vi (L � d O fl i- � ti U 3- U• V) F- L) U LU 0 Q- W F Z Q w W LU U Q Ir Z IL W n � U) 0c i it 0 N rn - � ,, Ilv: :,-:. '�.;. il. x., Y:; •. ."'1.. it I... "�:)I I .I n �l l "1 •.`. n lib '::. ., I. '. .. �,.: • . - i +.'f '-b�eJ w O u � z W sID W Z - �w zwz ir m w CK S Q z � � W J C V W L z Z m � � C} Z O 4 Z 2 J U z O W O G W 2 J O 4J ¢ X a T= 77 z VW E�d V a O V � ovui w O Z w Z W r w r z W Z Z K V W C V >W q x O 2 J Z W W J w W J Y U = z a VW} W Z O W r J w m O }}4 = O O = p a w o w rc w w �_ �` z `-` = w w z w w 4 yr F ¢ sl } Z O 4 ~O ? 4 F Ll C L 3 H H Q O W 0 Z F L7 O U' d � U % U � 3 � (n 4 f/I Vl VJ J p � V} 3 � Vi (L � d O fl i- � ti U 3- U• V) F- L) U LU 0 Q- W F Z Q w W LU U Q Ir Z IL W n � U) 0c i it 0 N rn - � ,, Ilv: :,-:. '�.;. il. x., Y:; •. ."'1.. it I... "�:)I I .I n �l l "1 •.`. n lib '::. ., I. '. .. �,.: • . - i +.'f '-b�eJ w sID W Z - wQ zwz ir m w CK S Q z � C V W L z Z m � � Z w Z 2 J U z O W O CC, 3 CC, O d Z A ¢ U Q$$ W^ Z S w jlei Q W V w O Z w Z W r w r z W Z Z K V W C V >W q x O 2 J Z W W J w W J Y U = z a VW} W Z O W r J w m O }}4 = O O = p a w o w rc w w �_ �` z `-` = w w z w w 4 yr F ¢ sl } Z O 4 ~O ? 4 F Ll C L 3 H H Q O W 0 Z F L7 O U' d � U % U � 3 � (n 4 f/I Vl VJ J p � V} 3 � Vi (L � d O fl i- � ti U 3- U• V) F- L) U LU 0 Q- W F Z Q w W LU U Q Ir Z IL W n � U) 0c i it 0 N rn - � ,, Ilv: :,-:. '�.;. il. x., Y:; •. ."'1.. it I... "�:)I I .I n �l l "1 •.`. n lib '::. ., I. '. .. �,.: • . - i +.'f '-b�eJ 7 S W 4 [Y Jv wwp ID , 00� Z .0 WC K C� v]~ �[r�'f o w m� o<UO�` v]wp azr--aw,�a rz w'ZU.• d camcn�� z }�wmw ZN z 03 x O ID T O f- W 2 a O W G�'r� CJ> ZLJ Jw�?p 7�Zm� 0.l -A] _L 'y W Z g4 H WWF Icy w��¢� im UO ox wmc�Ocn c.� r~meq u� =z� W c } W 4 Z r V 47 F G 3 n Z r Ywj $ V] Z<=< V Z C] p W W O O K V Vf 4 U w yi w J m w V z Jom, 4= azo��<zaE:m J ? O z V W O O r z � p H U Z (r l V m 0 m m L J w 3 V Z 4 n y VW) -5 ZX Zm O J 4 z�F-�Jw L 7r V W- O Z r O z Om-Z�4 J }a ooi o � po�� c}� Pi O V mW V' Z V V c�w cwi 1�1�� = JQ �w m �\ IL V W W o Z V 9`O ICL) V l ~ P U O � U 4 d W W y k CD S f m U cam cnM W�wo� c?� Hwy 2� r UirUO o z� �a �z 3 �w�2..ii cam c�z V o 4� O i s Vli JQ O� FZ$ �Z T 44cn wCI}oo s�`~ tea~ �� owOnvia�a zw (j 1+ 1 0 V 2 O O Z C J 1. i f 11 pw W U Z [fin U rS Q1 w Q C I p m f- U�4VIT �ZF x2 vv ¢ rM 6�¢V? a: z O am ?3L�o �caac^ U� r� m � 04z�2 Sc - o© pw w wW O z VW VrV1 Z Q Z� V w 32 d �� 2 caa0 40" Z m y C p U[} dp 0 z [7 ZO 6 Qw A HtL U]Y W O w�C+l p O pOa� =�Om\¢2ya � �4 �t=nc_ y m} Q� �On W V O n v,rw��w N [rl la�ZQ W cOs W W Z V�J2rw �^ V Z�� F.' ap V py V] C} x o7 m 3 WFE '71 O G U J o x _ 0 = 0 4 2 N w 0 2 o V C T T w4maymv~i¢wOp a OQwp' wCU Z5Lx`- my tvWm F Omw O w J rv, m� i wm W S tet- 2 ox z q 2 }' �` w, q a y a cn z ¢Q }r �p-v+ rn �do� a- cUil O c oodrw.l P 0. � O� 7 z� = w ' U m F r z r y J w d �� w02w w -v �'m�3 �v, ZO w c Q 0 v rU. U 4 p} J w U Ul w G O O W w O �y¢ cn4 �xaz0 xwQd W J¢ oy o duo �Q w az W S oho CT� ?r c :;-! new z - nza.� cn ac ~ `24i`z a `1- _J w m� V 2 V �Y W Z Ofx' - W-� W `�-' d 4 O O W 4 CD S a >; } 2 a 4 J S- W O Il? S fY Vr ¢- � CC C, O W �- w cr] v �" ..gym 3 d a CL U 4 4 a 4 CL (.e Zd rn ci r i � ori ,ri I i I I 1 Z m Z W w l Z I Z O } ,� ,J J r q LJ _ W CL ti( I s1NhX3 dNd'i Hvoa xoaddd IY111f�V11V 11��V JV r7 aC Z Z m Z W w l Z zw�,:,�yp m;_ Z O � �W 0 ¢ rl J �7,.j� W xrv� o $ww�¢wu 1' C7 F' Ci I J woJ 000 l �Ir ra i ID ID I s1NhX3 dNd'i Hvoa xoaddd IY111f�V11V 11��V JV r7 aC W 4 �cr w oC]m �✓` rel, .. ,v.� r,. r,-::._.� avr:r.rnvu: ;?:a,..n,r, a ....,.t.., � -- .. ,....�.,� •-� r.:r... , ,...,i:.�.-,..-., � - - rv; :,ru i,o�,;ri, I,�I a;,.'i.rdaa U � W 0 H U) 0. U Z W Z O w Qw `r'� � � � w W w O _ � o z v cr ¢ 4 Q d 1- co Z � Z w w �- �-; z uo ul l W w 2 � o LU Z Z wQp Z W w l Z zw�,:,�yp m;_ Z O � �W 0 ¢ D �7,.j� rw xrv� o $ww�¢wu WUff. a4rn 0 M1� -� woJ 000 W 4 �cr w oC]m �✓` rel, .. ,v.� r,. r,-::._.� avr:r.rnvu: ;?:a,..n,r, a ....,.t.., � -- .. ,....�.,� •-� r.:r... , ,...,i:.�.-,..-., � - - rv; :,ru i,o�,;ri, I,�I a;,.'i.rdaa U � W 0 H U) 0. U Z W Z O w Qw `r'� � � � w W w O _ � o z v cr ¢ 4 Q d 1- co Z � Z w w �- �-; z uo ul l W w 2 � o LU 110W Z a Ir LL! LU cD 1 Y111I 7V] IV 1iI.V JV 32 w Z G �MX - z lr Za'-wr-�z~d y= (J CS LCA ��VX - O ]CH�W�w .Jw-H�y...pG dm Ww 1- t2 - � Z � � -Ll? r�Z.a.JW �- ✓1CJ�.t.J W��Z Zr�S WU Q' s CL-H� W-- -�iw ? ZUwwSGW ZF-Z L - �YTw=Z V f� Z �J LY `C (nZ W Z�v'l ra c mz WU' WZ �LZ40H S� � rVw J`L� m Off -Z fnd G�4Z �x r W UZ wWw (l�ZZO 2 WZj 4 ✓[vlgZ�¢ Q� �r�HL�vi S Z cJ L -.f. W(n jnrZ OF Y HOwI--ly O w I�m_t' H C]� O V1 4 W W G tr ��•w p�11 xm�VwtLw�p Sw� RZV tr d�exGow p d 4r-�'Oz� C �� WwZp �m W h O� Y p V Z Vl� W Ow VW ZW ��-�2CJ r` 04 4WdW Wm 1wp 'i3-�c7wYV)ONI-W w 'C] q. -.a v) UarZ d_ z� =tr to �(nmT"U E -m .zw Way n d cod H1 C_.� m F w�I��vii �w p¢�d oc.i t� K=o z�wo ¢°�zw Amo}�� OwmT ��a��z�c: pz}- z �yOz qOd zp�mx~ wWw zowa�oil„cnWl�= owYmsx xrn�ga�ozoiz=_hoc m o o�wiLi ��wao zY��z S<rO�V�2]G m1= �Wrn Q.wY�J-CJ :C JD�ZZC `m Wq XZ'L � KOO a CQ w��d HpC Q=3U YO��mZ QYOZo O��pMfS7�mza UZHC3_'iZ Qr0 m�Q 2z� V]qW ✓: O=mN ^-'�� rrOUyW glr�q�lO 31�U WVgXV1V� (W/lwwd Z Z 00 3�t�i �Z F- - �O GUO > Z Axl -y �W aa� UW �� cer �- d ��w':'gcn cn�o w m GviYd z rm.�m ��w �i,.iq w 4 wWl�crnK¢UA �c w Q LU ,a mom dam z�anU of dWw4 mw4iW� m wx �wU oww g rW0 �4J J41 S�fn? Z lZN Z�tOi=�U=� ZIZjLnU� ��K-i�mJzr��i aQVI~ O wp p �m�2=�~ fYWJ LL LU 7 O _W Nyip�wVl�(r� V�Z� O Zpq ��20-;ZOO 430 V07�4� wOWw Wx�li-rxW�W rlwl 4LT 3` saww�` �=W 'rrJ��^w oNl� �acJ a_ c�U o mv��Lo s�wi mlw-�? ado a� qY� U �UJZ dw¢�¢oO Uw"� iVfno �wi G(f�JU 4 wd' �� 3 twn X003= w3vi �trOi'iZOS ONO Z¢U¢ -Y�w ZL- [[pp Cqq) W�pF-Wfn��V ZO`[ 4 3w oo WUH[�/IOO�V OOZ 1YJ Cja �' F zHwz ZaH YVGV �S/Iz (/rd V/�V�z4J dOm HCn li4 J QF-<n�KSI-Iy' �CCV 4xc7V v, zzz� ma_,, zr= in ~zV ¢za-oa d-d¢�a cnl z Gwa 2xz.�a t?c?iY z- �Q xOp�� 000 �OOOZO=mwl''IVG xc, cS w 41�OOOd�'w ae xdo wS�d �� WUZqLViwzr�� . VI V v, aa- Z wr OV Oo2 ¢E 4m Sui wc�tra3n WUI-�!'a. l-r-r��per�o� wc� cpm qc �dU d��a wU� �VrZU w Qll L)o 0 0 0 0 0 0 a s H_ n n N n (n I � Ir o Y I_ J I i I a t ¢ U U ff z II IJ I Y I_ J a J S I � _ Z O ¢ U U ff z tHd M,1 ., e) H' lY .. 9 's.-- .. .. - -. y .-� }'...,-.•., .r. 1_'nd. b,l Lxr, .r „n K:' ]'.' L ,.r 1j 'a rPo.,TI s1NAix3 NOAu v Haoa xoaddv ZO 133HS 39S 3NI1HOIVN 4 i N N 3 O O I, x'1I NI 31 LZ' 1l 33 H18 18 X 11 oa so+£ 1 vis - - 'HO) 46'01 31 94' f Z 13 IVIG la ,LL OS: i'9 LL+L1 ti1S (HO) ZT')1 31 91 oz 13 vfla 1b ,L9'LZ Z1'19+01 Vi.S I HVi s o Ice is W'89 S� so+o1 vis 1�7�no 'n M,1 ., e) H' lY .. 9 's.-- .. .. - -. y .-� }'...,-.•., .r. 1_'nd. b,l Lxr, .r „n K:' ]'.' L ,.r 1j 'a rPo.,TI r ! a iS ^i "vi S 00+4 L o Jr! ! SFk9 i Q z � I � 1 �I 10 BINS 33S'•3NIlH�ivh IV 11 IN I U 11 V 1l IF I _!V O li li I� N i I a 0- i G } LU Z > W _Q Q W NJ a LU LL LLJ U Ou .t > 0 r Q `g z tW a ^} o - U) 7 A' {MN; 5f 1131 63 £S It 31 9'0Z 13 hid A ,S4 I I I8'H+N 7i5 llHVA - frHh I I I I £ I i O It n m 31 05'OZ 13 Mid ld .LV' Z 09 LC+pl dls 0 I 10 133H 33S3NI7H3iVV4 Z V m � o C!J z O Z5 w z a V � _ Z L W O J V uj W Z O J o ui LII F Lp fil � O Lj Ld C7 � Z w c71- W C Y N O O O J O O r~ W w W Q �] U N V CC m V L ) H O �� 0 �0000000 r ! a iS ^i "vi S 00+4 L o Jr! ! SFk9 i Q z � I � 1 �I 10 BINS 33S'•3NIlH�ivh IV 11 IN I U 11 V 1l IF I _!V O li li I� N i I a 0- i G } LU Z > W _Q Q W NJ a LU LL LLJ U Ou .t > 0 r Q `g z tW a ^} o - U) 7 A' {MN; 5f 1131 63 £S It 31 9'0Z 13 hid A ,S4 I I I8'H+N 7i5 llHVA - frHh I I I I £ I i O It n m 31 05'OZ 13 Mid ld .LV' Z 09 LC+pl dls 0 � S r LI '•: I o,rtd ? I VY'c [ �_�. . 1-:J_.o� � ,r'..:. ;-, ,d a.�.cu J:- 1 N'i Y.''_(, J..'. -d �1 , �hJ .:, 5:11',M�1 deb` e — m !- I, e a:.-� I - - [�'1 .:r ',n�ru I 10 133H 33S3NI7H3iVV4 � S r LI '•: I o,rtd ? I VY'c [ �_�. . 1-:J_.o� � ,r'..:. ;-, ,d a.�.cu J:- 1 N'i Y.''_(, J..'. -d �1 , �hJ .:, 5:11',M�1 deb` e — m !- I, e a:.-� I - - [�'1 .:r ',n�ru Cn W O Z J 4 cr LLJ Z LLJ 0 I I VO133HS 33S '3WHOiVA IYli.l�■WI IV 11!■�..1JV M � lV� D W = r u.J o w O � - LZ m J W U o r. © lJJ � > - cV Q CJ _ a U v V > LL Q O W F-- Z U O Z a z o p �} O Z w = o U w � Q p CJ Z O fj �O 00 O I I VO133HS 33S '3WHOiVA IYli.l�■WI IV 11!■�..1JV M � lV� �.... ...._.—_..-......—..... .... ...._. —... ...... .. _.. ... ... ._... I U) VO 133HS 33S - 3NRHO1VW �.._.._.._..----..�.... .. _...r....._... 9 ' i o II o I I i o (HO) 4Ctl 31 9L'lZ 13 rill f ,9 0 LL 90+OZ b'1S SHF4 II 'U81,1; I 0 + a Q d i z wJ��s r� 4 - s.1 o J N + I Iii I ZO 133HS 33S 3NIlH31'VN T 1 ' y r � = t«J {I..�i•.{.,Ile 4Y1�; i" ,�:. .. �.. r, :: i,. .� .:,:+-. �_. M., :,�J-.--.v+1.. 'N;MI 5'-,l L.i.,',a +'_':n by .; i-.�I li '.. 414" U u.J O CID d o r. lJJ � > - cV Q CJ a U v V > LL Q O Z 4 L7 W Z a i F �} �.... ...._.—_..-......—..... .... ...._. —... ...... .. _.. ... ... ._... I U) VO 133HS 33S - 3NRHO1VW �.._.._.._..----..�.... .. _...r....._... 9 ' i o II o I I i o (HO) 4Ctl 31 9L'lZ 13 rill f ,9 0 LL 90+OZ b'1S SHF4 II 'U81,1; I 0 + a Q d i z wJ��s r� 4 - s.1 o J N + I Iii I ZO 133HS 33S 3NIlH31'VN T 1 ' y r � = t«J {I..�i•.{.,Ile 4Y1�; i" ,�:. .. �.. r, :: i,. .� .:,:+-. �_. M., :,�J-.--.v+1.. 'N;MI 5'-,l L.i.,',a +'_':n by .; i-.�I li '.. 414" 9O 133HS 33S - 3NIIHOiVA I 81 T I Yiilf I�l IV iII 1VJV N J o � — U U3 CL 0 o LL1F 7 zc C O ¢ J n N ¢> U) W LL o n W 4 u CE o Z d Z Z LJ C r f` T U7 g cr O F— LOI 90133HS 33S 3NIIHOiVA r� 2 o y + 1 II I I I N 7r �6 7� I i w Ti Zt I (K) C] 0 H I 2 I � 4 6 4 W f I � tl C) c " `o1 -c- W O �5 z owi �a�m uua n Zai F-- (-Ii <V� O Z a J V 1 0 L N O n O XLU O O O cn z 7177 z z r < Z U w w O w� 41w¢ am oc a cn iXc =mm Z LLJ Z O O CD (.7 —.O �/ 9O 133HS 33S - 3NIIHOiVA I 81 T I Yiilf I�l IV iII 1VJV N J o � — U U3 CL 0 o LL1F 7 zc C O ¢ J n N ¢> U) W LL o n W 4 u CE o Z d Z Z LJ C r f` T U7 g cr O F— LOI 90133HS 33S 3NIIHOiVA r� 2 o y + 1 II I I I N 7r �6 7� I i w Ti Zt I (K) C] 0 I 2 I � 6 4 W f I � tl c " `o1 -c- L6" tL 13 IHIa — 9Hw I I E w 3 3 I Li i to LI —41� £D 133HS 33S 3NIIHOiVIN 1 �.:. If',n.f Al Vf.: Y;..:ii:a III 90 133H 33S 3NI�HOiVN N e :d 93 133H 33S 3NMOiVW I 8 9 r— I; Cn I rw ' I p Q T II � i 1 I I 11I i J VOi3]HS19S 3NIIHOIVV4 If � ;<' SZ Z � 31 bL ZZ 13 hjI IH ,Z £ � l'SZ+BZ 71s 9HW I IV11If.U1 IV 11I \IJJIJ l� V w O } } c a o Lu >Z n a C L w J o a U W w Q V Q N Z d Q Q T � W a w Y S V W~ 1�j = p w _ IU p L CiJ J Z �" m J z � i YCD 7 ~ IJ.J O Ow O p Y Q 5 fYZ J m G n LLLI C1 W (r] v H Q � z r_ ¢ s W w V z 'S CL �< w d �ID Z o a LO)a o 90 133H 33S 3NI�HOiVN N e :d 93 133H 33S 3NMOiVW I 8 9 r— I; Cn I rw ' I p Q T II � i 1 I I 11I i J VOi3]HS19S 3NIIHOIVV4 If � ;<' SZ Z � 31 bL ZZ 13 hjI IH ,Z £ � l'SZ+BZ 71s 9HW I IV11If.U1 IV 11I \IJJIJ l� V LL O } } c a o Lu >Z n a C L w J o a U W w Q V Q N Z d Q Q T � W a 0 i� i I i � N C �p pp � O O I N Z I � I 1 O I i �Li n i w 0 tO 133HS 33S 3NlHO1NW IV 11Ir 11J1 IV —I 1—J LO 133HS 33S 3NIlHOiVN 10 133H 33S 3NI7H3iVA fl ,n 9 s��z 11 �� Mid w I I Lj n ,61T �Oz+Ec a15 a i ' pI S I 4 0 _ I g O 00 I 1"] a U Lu W w W O +gip Nw� UiS Pa Um � a o I LlJ ~ a�� ~ 4 z"' 7,LL Y z V Q � W J S 2 W W Z O U N y y( U) LL W O a�w j 0 W a �4Z aY H U p Z O qqZ a m � �— �.4.Z �.O � _ >_.� it w a it � F- ..J oo o o crn N - o o LO 133HS 33S 3NIlHOiVN 10 133H 33S 3NI7H3iVA (1-13) l971. 31 I 9Z'£Z 13 Mid 18 ,so 9 89 4Z+4i its C, wpl I I fl ,n 9 s��z 11 �� Mid f I I Lj n ,61T �Oz+Ec a15 a i ' pI S I (1-13) l971. 31 I 9Z'£Z 13 Mid 18 ,so 9 89 4Z+4i its C, wpl I I fl ,n 9 s��z 11 �� Mid Lj n ,61T �Oz+Ec a15 Z 6HW I 4 0 (1-13) l971. 31 I 9Z'£Z 13 Mid 18 ,so 9 89 4Z+4i its C, wpl I I i L 31 0 9 s��z 11 �� Mid Lj n ,61T �Oz+Ec a15 Z 6HW I 4 0 O I g O 00 I 1"] i L 31 9 s��z 11 �� Mid Lj n ,61T �Oz+Ec a15 I 6HW I I i j+tilit 90133HS 33S 3NIIHDiVIN i Ilk W F- O Z J W Z W 0 O F- Ui W O Z LU W 0 Z Z O I— U Cn Z O U IYii1..6JI IV iFF IV JL 90 133H 33S 3NIlHO.LM K 133HS 33S 3NIlHO1NW I I I j I I 0 0 d a+i II � _ I } I r I C: a m o 0 0 t L 4j `s o a- _ - Z _ = M Uz o �-J r w U LU Ui ad ��3.� Z vri � mz , ..Z�a� Uva", q Z L z 4O fn 4 iw O �(W(��CC �s L' Q @C� uj Ww4z LLCD lL CC w Z W' w x N ff1 V Oww ~W a vl ` V D U w z in w- U w� zJ I Z Q _� w z (n w `a } t!7 IZ i 90 133H 33S 3NIlHO.LM K 133HS 33S 3NIlHO1NW I I I j I I 0 0 d a+i II � ins �AvV03NIS I _ I } I r I C: ins �AvV03NIS I u o w v a'S U W4'Z13hyla la ,SR'Z 9*LL+Sf vi S 90 133H 336 3NI1H3iVV4 lir, -lvw� a m o 0 0 t L `s o a- _ u o w v a'S U W4'Z13hyla la ,SR'Z 9*LL+Sf vi S 90 133H 336 3NI1H3iVV4 lir, -lvw� V) W t - O z J Z w 0 I V -F II II IW ilP 1VJV !Nz+£h 'CLS .- -- - iTIVA X3 � I � � 3 M Pu"tiS SAV QNi� j I Is 1 � ; I� I � U) i i 1 N i S I � I f LO 133HS 33SI 3NIlHO1dW I ' I i (HD) L671 31 3 WH 13 Vila is JIo t6'zj+or VIS I «133HS 336 - 3NIlHOltlW ton :T I f g .J Q S= mac, Z o w4 F C} LU F -W Z W s V> 40 ocR U O �� D P to d LU V) z m U Ow �dU`ri W Gia P n t� r LLJa Z 4 4 = N I LIJ Q LU Z , r > Z W iY = [n rwjl In C� W �' O O P r ~ r CC w CO W LU LL I _ Q a = I= w O ��.i zo x, ate- z $ i}cc o w a w n o za z Qm� 4 e5 1 U) Ir U n �� m 4J LLJ d Q O 0 Q O Y r O U) - I IIII I !Nz+£h 'CLS .- -- - iTIVA X3 � I � � 3 M Pu"tiS SAV QNi� j I Is 1 � ; I� I � U) i i 1 N i S I � I f LO 133HS 33SI 3NIlHO1dW I ' I i (HD) L671 31 3 WH 13 Vila is JIo t6'zj+or VIS I «133HS 336 - 3NIlHOltlW ton :T I f g U In E E w r - O z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 I 0 0 I 0 I 0 0 I 0 I 0 0 I 0 I 0 c; o 0 o ci 0 0 0 0 0 0 I [p I pp m 1 m I m m m I m I m I m I m 4 C 4 g a a a a d a a a a a a m --- 00d o m 05 d 0 0 rJ n O W It: � v] Ifl3 N N (n N N N Sfl N N D U V V V U V V <> U U U L a Q CL Q V V V U V U U U U U U I I I I 1 I 1 I <n to In In 5.0 c0 O SD O � 4 cp 4 c0 4 c0 vi In lei In ui �2 T .2 Iri .n ui I m I m I a7 I Q] I CO i W m i m I m I m I m a d d d a a a a n a al CDC) o I Q a� o c o� LU 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 - (-) w w w Wwi w +� L w is w iw LEI N In {7 V} N N N N N N N W ch Q' 0� Q' 2' iY d' a ' [Y >r r Lu w w is w Z---- w W r� r7 rvl w r7 trl M Ml r] M rv7 M W W W m W W W W w W w W (.J J J I J J J J J � W, O 2 o 2 o 2 r C7 2 U SS d S o S V d U S C7 1-- Q 2 4 ¢ 4 z ¢ 2S2 4 4 z 4 I.i W 2 73K H � U w a H cn t� O c L z z = LL I— U O z o x o z S z S z S x= z I V11IF 1MI 1V/ -�'I1 JJIJ I V11loYUI Iw/ 1101l. -IJ - C) w 0 U) CL w� z LU ww =o <� as ?� z LU iz U)x U) LU I �W cc 0 U)U) Y . 1 4 :':..' -!:: n n ,:. .1 - n M.' f i . .J � IFrvl � z � w w a ry z Z O � V 4 U 4 a a a w mQ O O J J w E 46 Z Z Z Z Z \\ a V J J rn Q :,Z2 vWl 4 U1 (n Z Z Z } J J Z = a W q a M EI wcc o m r2 4 o QN I 4 4 ¢ 4 ? O O Z w W 4 r n ? ooc J ZVNi J J 4 V O_ O X ][ We 4 O O O O Z Z Z L© LL K K K W (n Z W Z LL Wp Wp a w W W W W W w Z Z Z Z 2 IJ,J Z Z J S J W W VI W l!l q Q � G O O V LK L L L L L N N S = S S S S S F S S S h S S 2 J w J o 0 0 0 o z z n o >>^ w W O CW] p n O O O O O o O O O O O O O O O O O O O m m O O x a V a V N m m W WW L� = m m d x x m a o m m w w w w w W w J w w w w w w w w w m m m m m ~ m w W w w w O w P `i vr> v~i Z w rr Z r w cr~i N ~ m o N o V] x o ~ 0 ~ V O W w W w w w w w w W w w w w w W w V w w w W w w W �.I w w w w 1� '� ® ® ® ® z Z Z Z Z Z® Z 2 v V Z Z a V z C.., o a w W w � w w Y V 4 V R h V V V V w V V w V w V w V w V w V w V w Q V w 2 V w Q V W 4. U w= %C U U 2 W w Q U r' - U ¢ U w b Sj Q w ti r tJ w W r W= V O I a 0 4 cD 'n OJ U 0 OJ U U pJ U J U OJ U U U U tJ V J J J m U � 11J N 4 �Y - N - N N N - N [� - - N� N n - Q Ir G Q W \ \Q h 9 4 Q' 'n uJ V F U to w r'] O] Z Z \ z N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N - - - N N N h E Z J d W W [D _ �+1 tD :D .. u> c0 M it Z Z Z D O r7 ZE m C) H � Z J W F7 W CC O Z N N M) a N 1'J f-7 Y] ,S] u7 �' S.O CO 4"] f+l Z Ml [�) f 1 r'1 4� �A n �i �!1 N Z Z Z D (n a Q 0 Lli L ~ o a a a z O n sa > > .- :n w n n :n Y] n to to •n_ o r, a oo w �a s to rn n o m n o, ¢ v �n N rn to & n c r. z z z W x _ N N W - N 'n Y} \ \ \ tr,io 7 Z i.1 c.1 T N N N Z N �y r LL Z z z J z Z V LL\ V cri> "> o c s w a z a cr w � z O m m V V J W Ww w U- w LL O S O r Q 3 O 3 O 3 O 3 O m 'L U 3 O a U` 3 O m U m m w m a t7 m m r Q C7 m 3 c C7 4 3 ¢ V S m 1- 1- m ¢ ¢ 3 3 y, of 3 0 W a a a a d CL w Cl CL W O (L P LL zCC LL p d l.i li L� 3 L� m 2 3 d 4 a 3 3 Lr. S<7 d CL W a CL 2 W 0 0 0 I V11loYUI Iw/ 1101l. -IJ - C) w 0 U) CL w� z LU ww =o <� as ?� z LU iz U)x U) LU I �W cc 0 U)U) Y . 1 4 :':..' -!:: n n ,:. .1 - n M.' f i . .J � IFrvl I vii] r I1 I IV iff■1,J Co W H O Z aJ w w � a �p2 u ZpOW �� C z z z c " z 420 0 Z Z Z < Jxvly' mc��o�o z� Y Z J Z < {�K ao�soC)w: F o a s m C7 w r cin o 3 z =o I�ot- z�oma, 4� Awa irso apw`sm a� ¢JL KZ Z tCZ q� X cn 4 O a�C 2 �Q dz Qze �wZ V] 71 x 26 z- o wpZwwK �o zoTr�vl w zQO� �w B z U O d� � N Z z O L) U N W w z � W LL cn W Z p J W IDL Q v) a W w \ LU CtfCL Q' z w w w � Y Y CYC] !~11 f~!1 � � J x x x [Yiiil BVI !V ilk 1V JV N U LU O �a L> LU F Z W n LJ 1-5 w j o (n = (� o u z F LU L_ F } co Cc O I— U) ILI U) I.LI O Z D f -- U Of U) C!J z O C) IY111��UI IV ilf�V JU +? YJ I RX� 0 I w it LLJ - V] b I � J n.: �. v- -i ,, uy;.:� q t �',;: �• -.,., �„� ,: M, r:: ,: ,.,,., I.: a:,3v :� ,,,..: �:'•�, o. '.. - rv� „ u� I. �,.:...:, ”, l I .. 'nsm�3 � J V- W � a �o W ffl G -Z Z = /i] W C7 J Vl 2 S ti zEO r G l 0 W � � J � W W 9 U te© t'J ti O� 4 U Q] v Z y Z Q m N rc� y�dowr n 4 PZ g n o r 4n Z V cn w W a J < W S S � W J y QQ 4Z4 � CCW ZSr GG J O J r a W O W q Z O S Cl w vl �^ H 1.a. J GQ O z 3 J m N I a cin m a� �� ► II II II ALLJ G CC 4 Ill 11 i r d J � W � t G U a z 3 o z Ih = m o W U VI Uz U�� cn a I wow OOc� 4 U w TZO Y I O rf X Q g Eu r I I_I I I x Q c� vl IY111��UI IV ilf�V JU +? YJ I RX� 0 I w it LLJ - V] b I � J n.: �. v- -i ,, uy;.:� q t �',;: �• -.,., �„� ,: M, r:: ,: ,.,,., I.: a:,3v :� ,,,..: �:'•�, o. '.. - rv� „ u� I. �,.:...:, ”, l I .. 'nsm�3 W � a �o ffl G -Z Z = /i] W C7 J Vl 2 S ti zEO r G l 0 � � J � W W IY111��UI IV ilf�V JU +? YJ I RX� 0 I w it LLJ - V] b I � J n.: �. v- -i ,, uy;.:� q t �',;: �• -.,., �„� ,: M, r:: ,: ,.,,., I.: a:,3v :� ,,,..: �:'•�, o. '.. - rv� „ u� I. �,.:...:, ”, l I .. 'nsm�3 HABITAT DATA REPORT SW 7TH STREET/NACHES AVENUE SIN STORM SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Prepared for SAIC and City of Renton City of Renton Plar':r of q I)msiorr JUN Prepared by Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. (Ni -i HERRERA panted or 100% recycled paper HABITAT DATA REPORT SW 7TH STREET/NACHES AVENUE SW STORM SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Prepared for SAIC 999 Third Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, Washington 98104 and City of Renton Renton City Hall 1055 South Grady Way Renton, Washington 98057 Prepared by Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. 2200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 1100 Seattle, Washington 98121 Telephone: 2061441-9080 May 24, 2013 Disclaimer Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. has prepared this report for use by the City of Renton. The results and conclusions in this report represent the professional opinion of Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. They are based in part upon (1) site evaluation, and (2) examination of public domain information concerning the study area. Various agencies of the state of Washington and local jurisdictions may require a review of final site development plans that could potentially affect zoning, buffer requirements, water quality, and/or habitat functions of lands in question. Therefore, the findings and conclusions in this report should be reviewed by appropriate regulatory agencies before any detailed site planning and/or construction activities. h HERRERA 1 11n,051 1XJ1 7141Aat data i?pcn-s- 1t❑ st it nacM- -e CONTENTS Summary......................................................................................................v Introduction................................................................................................. 1 StudyObjectives...................................................................................... 1 Project Background and Need....................................................................... 5 ProjectDescription................................................................................... 5 Methods...................................................................................................... 7 Review of Available Information.................................................................... 7 HabitatAssessment................................................................................... 7 Results......................................................................................... 9 Analysis of Available Information................................................................... 9 Previously Mapped Wetlands................................................................. 9 Previously Mapped Streams................................................................... 9 Documented Fish and Wildlife Use .......................................................... 9 Documented Habitat and Vegetation...................................................... 10 Analysis of Habitat Conditions..................................................................... 10 HabitatTypes.................................................................................. 11 Critical Wildtife Species Associated with On-site Habitat Types ....................... 12 Habitat Functions and Values............................................................... 13 Regulatory Implications.................................................................................. 17 Project Impacts and Mitigation.......................................................................... 19 References................................................................................................. 21 Appendix A Project Plans FIGURES Figure 1. Study Area and Vicinity Map for the SW 7th Street/Naches Avenue SW Storm System Improvement Project................................................................. 2 Figure 2. Habitat Data Report Site Plan for the SW 7th Street/Naches Avenue SW Storm System Improvement Project......................................................... 3 V HERRERA SUMMARY This habitat data report was prepared for the SW 7th Street/Naches Avenue SW Storm System Improvement Project (hereafter referred to as "the project"). The City of Renton (City) proposes to improve stormwater conveyance capacity in the lower SW 7th Street trunk drainage system by installing approximately 3,330 linear feet of storm system pipe along two segments. Segment 1 is within SW 7th Street from Lind Avenue SW to a new outfall in the City -owned parcel (PID 9188004154) adjacent to Naches Avenue S. Segment 2 is on private properties between SW 7th Street and Hardie Avenue SW. The objective of the project is to reduce upstream flooding along SW 7th Street. This report was prepared in accordance with the Renton Municipal Code requirements for habitat data reports (RMC 4-8-120). The study area contains a variety of habitat conservation areas (City of Renton critical habitats), including wetlands, streams, and upland habitats. Detailed descriptions and maps of onsite wetlands (Wetlands A and B) and the onsite stream (Stream A) are presented in the Wetland Assessment Report and Buffer Mitigotion Plan— SW 7th Street/Noches Avenue SW Storm System Improvement Project (Herrera 2013a) and the Stream Study—SW 7th Street/Naches Avenue SW Storm System Improvement Project (Herrera 2013b), respectively. This report focuses on describing vegetation types and habitat diversity within the study area, identification of wildlife species associated with the various onsite habitat types, and providing an evaluation of the condition, functions, and values of onsite habitat conservation areas (City of Renton critical habitats) in general. Habitat types within the study area include wetlands, streams, and upland forest/riparian areas. A variety of fish and wildlife are documented as being present in the vicinity of the study area. Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), and coastal resident cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki) are known to be present within the Black River system/Springbrook Creek (WDFW 2013a, 2013b; Personal communication, Larry Fisher, WDFW Area Habitat Biologist, via email on February 26, 2013). It is assumed that these species are present within the study area because Stream A flows into the Black River/Springbrook Creek approximately 800 feet downstream of the culvert at Naches Avenue SW and there are no documented fish barriers present that would prevent upstream migration of fish into the study area. Puget Sound Chinook salmon and Puget Sound steelhead trout are both listed as federally - threatened under the Endangered Species Act (NOAA Fisheries 2013). The Black River Riparian Forest contains a documented bald eagle (Na[ioeetus leucocepholus) nest, but the associated Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife(WDFW)-mapped management buffer/ protection area does not extend into the area where work is proposed for this project (WDFW 2013b). WDFW also identifies the presence of a great blue heron (Ardea herodias) rookery/ breeding area within the Black River Riparian Forest, but its buffer HERRERA . it 1 I-UiCS: LKi1 habitat cau upon-- ltd sl a recces a,- s., area also does not extend into the project area (WDFW 2013b). The open water area of the Black River Riparian Forest is documented habitat for numerous waterfowl species including buff lehead (Bucephala albeola), mallard (Arras plotyrhynchos), scaup (Aythya spp. ), American wigeon (Arras americana), green -winged teal (Anas crecca), and gadwall (Anas strepera). According to the permit -level design (Appendix A), the proposed project will result in unavoidable impacts to the buffer of Wetland A and Stream A, which is also a habitat conservation area (City of Renton critical habitat). This wilt amount to approximately 700 square feet of upland forested vegetation clearing, including the removal of six red alder and willow trees that are between 8 and 12 inches dbh (diameter at breast height). Since these impacts are common to the three critical areas listed above, they are described collectively in the Wetland Assessment Report and Buffer Mitigation Plan—SW 7th Street/ Naches Avenue SW Storm System Improvement Project (Herrera 2013a). The mitigation plan portion of the report also describes how the project ensures no net loss of ecological function and includes a discussion of the project's mitigation sequencing approach and proposed mitigation measures to compensate for unavoidable temporary impacts to buffers (buffer mitigation and vegetation management plan). W HERRERA vi ji 11 O'n5t-(Cl 1�b.t,t dnt, r,: rt -s 7tli st 8 nac a,e �, INTRODUCTION This habitat data report was prepared for the SW 7th Street/Naches Avenue SW Storm System Improvement Project (hereafter referred to as "the project"). The City of Renton proposes to improve stormwater conveyance capacity in the tower SW 7th Street trunk drainage system (which drains 623 acres of the South Renton Subbasin, including much of the downtown area) by installing approximately 3,330 linear feet of additional storm system pipe (Figure 1 and Appendix A). The objective of the project is to reduce upstream flooding along SW 7th Street. See below for a complete description of project activities. The study area for the purposes of this habitat data report includes undeveloped areas potentially affected by the project. This area includes the portion of a City -owned parcel (PID 9188000154) in the vicinity of the parallel pipe system from Naches Avenue SW to its termination at a new outfall to an unnamed stream (Stream A), immediately downstream of an existing outfall location at Naches Avenue SW (Figure 1). All other project activities will occur within paved or landscaped areas on existing road rights-of-way or private properties and will not affect critical areas or buffers. This report was prepared in accordance with the Renton Municipal Code requirements for habitat data reports (RMC 4-8-120). The study area contains a variety of habitat conservation areas (City of Renton critical habitats), including wetlands, streams, and upland habitats (Figure 2). Detailed descriptions and maps of onsite wetlands (Wetlands A and B) and the onsite stream (Stream A) are presented in the Wetland Assessment Report and Buffer Mitigation Plan—SW 7th Street/Naches Avenue SW Storm System Improvement Project (Herrera 2013a) and the Stream Study—SW 7th Street/Naches Avenue SW Storm System Improvement Project (Herrera 2013b), respectively. This report includes information on existing habitat conservation areas (City of Renton critical habitats), including documented fish and wildlife use of the study area and known rare plants or high quality ecosystems. It also includes a description of the condition, functions, and values of onsite habitats and species that have an association with those habitats. This report includes the habitat data report submittal requirements, as per the Renton Municipal Code (RMC) Chapter 4-8-120 and requirements associated with the City's critical area regulations (RMC 4-3-050) and shoreline master program (RMC 4-3-090). Study Objectives The objectives of this study were to: • Identify and map documented onsite habitat conservation areas (City of Renton critical habitats), including those identified by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) database and the Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) Washington Natural Heritage Program (WNHP) database May 2013 HERRERA Habitat Data Report SW 7th St./Naches Ave. SW Storm System Improvement Pro)ect I b - ] £\ t o t { / o 2 k \ 3\ C- ° ro 0 / CL = (g\ \\j §k / \ § { k §\ § ƒ E £cn 4 j _ ƒ [ / )2 Lu ^co m / \ cu �\\ i �� Tw0 \ƒ§`2�&\\ %} ; % $ 2 0 §\ \ 2 = ` / / % $ ��= 2=,}&!w=e c2 & 0 CL %o t z R _ r-L\[/� a±=G!!]}7 2 j w ±n- _ / 0 o 7 c g=$ ±= o 2 = E o_ e \]{{k\/g/ m® ® ® - D @ � ©� . m a E = = E 0 e 0 a 8 o�m�� eb�] ��®2�`®a) )) ) // W f 2 °' # o 2 a ° [ 7 2 $ = E 7 0 .2 [)« L \ £ e - _ — — 2 _ > e _ &no— 2 cow =_)!£|» 22){2Rg= w )\ : c f § _ = o o ` ° 2 G w o / « / « = = m 3 o R [ 3 ' 2 �� ,,m,o., ,2 = ! f//�°aE § ) 2 | I £ 0Cj /)[k o \ 2 f » z - �){ z � 6n, • Identify and map onsite vegetation cover types • Describe the characteristics, condition, function, and values of onsite habitat areas • Describe fish and wildlife use of onsite habitat areas • Summarize project impacts and proposed mitigation measures' Project BeckgrOLInd and Need The existing SW 7th Street storm drainage system is a major trunk line draining 623 acres of the South Renton Subbasin, which includes much of the downtown area. The existing pipe system generally consists of 48 -inch to 60 -inch diameter pipe that extends west along SW 7th Street and then north along Naches Avenue SW where it discharges to an unnamed stream (Stream A). This stream drains to the Black River Pump Station forebay, an area which is designated by the City of Renton as Shoreline jurisdiction. Within the basin, there are recurrent flooding problems. In particular, at Hardie Avenue SW near the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad trestle underpass; SW 7th Street and Shattuck Avenue; and in the vicinity of Rainer Avenue and SW Sunset Boulevard. The purpose of this project is to construct a parallel storm drain in the lower portion of the basin to increase overall system capacity and help alleviate upstream flooding problems. The proposed sizing and alignment of the parallel pipe system was studied and recommended as part of a pre -design study (SAIL 2012). Project Description The specific improvements of the project include approximately 3,330 feet of 60 -inch diameter trunk storm drain that would be installed parallel to the existing system from its current outfall at Naches Avenue SW to approximately Lind Avenue SW. The pipe depths will range from approximately 8 to 11 feet. A separate element of the project includes stormwater treatment retrofitting along SW 7th between Naches Avenue SW and Lind Avenue SW. The City applied for and obtained a grant from the Washington State Department of Ecology for water quality retrofits along SW 7th Street. SW 7th Street is a busy arterial with high truck traffic (which tends to contribute greater pollutants to stormwater) and the water quality retrofit will be a significant water quality improvement to Stream A and the Black River. Treatment will be provided by installing 30 to 40 Filterra systems. The Filterra system utilizes a media blend designed to remove typical stormwater pollutants such as total suspended solids (TSS), phosphorus, nitrogen, heavy metals, and oil and grease. The typical size of Filterra units will be between 4 feet x 4 feet to 8 feet x 4 feet. The Filterra systems will be designed and installed in accordance with the Conditions of Use listed in the General Use Level Designation for the ' Temporary impacts to habitat conservation areas (City of Renton critical habitats) will occur, and they overlap with impacts to wetland and stream buffers within the study area. Therefore, impacts to these areas and associated mitigation measures are described collectively in the Wetland Assessment Report and Buffer Mitigation Plan—SW 7th Street/Naches Avenue SW Storm System Improvement Project (Herrera 2013a). May 2013 ( HERRERA Habitat Data Report—SW 7th St./Naches Ave. SW Storm System Improvement Project 5 Filterra System and manufacturer specifications. The project will include upgrades of the storm drainage laterals to connect the new Filterra units to the existing or new trunk storm drain. Most of the trenching for the 60 -inch diameter trunk storm drain will be temporarily shored with trench boxes to minimize impacts to the roadway. Depending on the time of year, groundwater may be higher than excavation depths and dewatering is anticipated. Dewatering water will need to be treated using Baker tanks or routed to the sanitary sewer system if it does not meet water quality standards. Constructing the 60 -inch diameter trunk will require relocating several utilities. These utilities include both public utilities (owned by the City of Renton) such as water and sewer lines and private utilities such as gas, power, fiber optic, and telephone. There are also three BNSF railroad crossings along SW 7th Street that would need to be removed and then restored following construction. Temporary traffic measures will be used to control traffic. The existing 60 -inch diameter storm drain connects directly to an existing stream (Stream A) within the culvert crossing of Naches Avenue SW. This culvert is 72 inches wide by 55 inches high at its outlet. The new 60 -inch storm drain will outfall adjacent to the existing culvert outlet. The stream at this location is currently armored with rock. A temporary stream bypass will be necessary to construct the outlet. A conceptual plan was developed for the stream bypass that includes two temporary coffer dams (upstream and downstream of the work area) to be constructed using gravel -filled sandbags and a 48 -inch bypass pipe to isolate a portion of the stream from the work area. This work would be limited to the allowable fish construction window determined by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). The majority of the project will occur within existing road rights-of-way, with a small portion of the project occurring on undeveloped property. This approximately 60 -foot section of pipe extends west of the Naches Avenue SW right-of-way onto a City -owned parcel (FID 9188000154). At the outfall location, the existing channel bed and banks are armored with rock. The bank affected by the new outfall will be restored with rock armoring, and live willow stakes will be installed amongst the rock in order to revegetate the streambank. Other mitigation measures are described in the Wetland Assessment Report and Buffer Mitigation Plan—SW 7th Street/Mathes Avenue SW Storm System Improvement Project (Herrera 2013). Hydrologic/hydraulic modeling was conducted as a part of the pre -design analysis (SAIC 2012). This project, combined with future upstream projects, is intended to provide flood protection for the 25 -year storm. This project does not include any new impervious surfaces, so stormwater runoff volume to the stream will not change. With the project improvements there will be some reduction of the peak flow attenuation that is currently caused by flooding. As such, there will be some increases in peak rate discharges to the stream. The stormwater quality retrofit with the Filterra systems will result in retrofitting approximately 2,700 feet of SW 7th Street which equates to approximately 3 acres of impervious surfaces. Based on the Western Washington Hydrology Model (WWHM), the retrofit will result in treating roughly 7.7 acre-feet of stormwater runoff volume per year. HERRERA May 2013 6 Habitat Data Report SW 7th St-/Naches Ave. SW Storm System Improvement Project Evaluating the presence, extent, and type of habitat conservation areas (City of Renton critical habitats) requires a review of available information about the site (e.g., surveys, studies), followed by an onsite evaluation. The following sections describe the research methods and field protocols for the habitat evaluations. Review of Available Information A literature review was performed to determine the historical and current presence of habitat conservation areas in and near the study area. Sources of information included: • Aerial photographs of the project vicinity (Bing 2013) • City of Renton sensitive areas GIS data - COR maps (City of Renton 2013) • King County iMap critical areas information (King County 2013) • Salmon5cape mapping system (WDFW 2013a) • Washington State priority habitat and species (PHS) data (WDFW 2013b) • Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Area Habitat Biologist information on species present in the study area (Personal communication via email with Larry Fisher, WDFW Area Habitat Biologist, on February 26, 2013) • Washington State Natural Heritage Program (WNHP) rare plant and high quality ecosystem information (Personal communication via email with Jasa Holt, WNHP Data Specialist, on October 21, 2011) Habitat Assessment The Renton Municipal Code (Sections 4-3-050 and 4-3-090) defines habitat conservation areas (City of Renton critical habitats) as: 1. Habitats associated with fish or wildlife species that are proposed or listed by the Federal government or State of Washington as endangered, threatened, candidate, sensitive, monitor, or priority 2. Category 1 wetlands Because this definition includes wetlands and streams, an evaluation of onsite habitat conservation areas (City of Renton critical habitats) overlaps with an evaluation of onsite wetlands and streams. The methodologies for wetland and stream assessments are presented in the Wetland Assessment Report and Buffer Mitigation Plan—SW 7th Street/Naches Avenue May 2013 ll HERRERA Habitat Data Report—SW 7th St.JNaches Ave. SW Storm System Improvement Project 7 SW Storm System Improvement Project (Herrera 2013a) and the Stream Study—SW 7th Street/Naches Avenue SW Storm System Improvement Project (Herrera 2013b), respectively. Habitat functions were evaluated using the portions of the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington -Revised applicable to habitat (Hruby 2000. Habitat functions include providing food, water, and shelter for fish, shellfish, birds, amphibians, and mammals. HERRERA May 2013 8 Habitat Data Report—SW 7th St. /Naches Ave. SW Storm System Improvement Project EUI_ This section discusses the results of the habitat study, including a review of information obtained from various references, and an analysis of habitat conditions in the study area as observed during field investigations. Analysis of Available Information The available existing information compiled for the habitat data report is summarized in the following subsections. PrelliorIsly' 1,311ved 1CM317ds The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) identifies several wetlands in the vicinity of the study area (USFWS 2013). These include palustrine scrub -shrub (PSS) wetlands within the Black River Riparian Forest, which extends into the City -owned parcel located west of Naches Avenue West. The City of Renton (2013) identifies a large portion of the Black River Riparian Forest as wetland, including the northern portion of the City -owned parcel and the swale that runs north -south through the property. Pn"Viausly Mapped Stiea»>s An unnamed tributary to the Black River has been previously mapped by King County (2013) within the study area. This data source depicts the stream starting on the south end of the City -owned parcel and flowing to the north, where it shortly thereafter flows into the Black River wetland system located within the Black River Riparian Forest. The Black River wetland system drains into the Green River approximately 0.75 miles downstream of the study area after flowing through a fish -passable dam facility. There are no water quality -impaired, 303(d) listed streams within the study area (Ecology 2008). Documented Fish ivid Wildlife Use A variety of fish and wildlife are documented as being present in the vicinity of the study area. Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), and coastal resident cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clorki) are known to be present within the Black River system/Springbrook Creek (WDFW 2013x, 2013b; Personal communication, Larry Fisher, WQFW Area Habitat Biologist, via email on February 26, 2013). It is assumed that these species are present within the study area because Stream A flows into the Black River/Springbrook Creek approximately 800 feet downstream of the culvert at Naches Avenue SW and there are no documented fish barriers present that would prevent upstream migration of fish into the study area. May 2013 ( HERRERA Habitat Data Report SW 7th St./Naches Ave. SW Storm System Improvement Project 9 Puget Sound Chinook salmon and Puget Sound steelhead trout are both listed as federally - threatened under the Endangered Species Act (NOAA Fisheries 2013). The Black River Riparian Forest contains a documented bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocepholus) nest, but the associated Washington Department of Fish and Wiidlife (WDFW)-mapped management buffer/ protection area does not extend into the area where work is proposed for this project (WDFW 2013b). WDFW also identifies the presence of a great blue heron (Ardea herodias) rookery/ breeding area within the Black River Riparian Forest, but its buffer area also does not extend into the project area (WDFW 2013b). The open water area of the Black River Riparian Forest is documented habitat for numerous waterfowl species including buff lehead (Bucephala albeola), mallard (Arras platyrhynchos), scaup (Aythya spp. ), American wigeon (Arras americana), green -winged teal (Arras crecca), and gadwall (Arras strepera). Doeuinented Habitat and Vegetation The study area is part of the Black River Riparian Forest, which is identified as a Biodiversity Area according to the WDFW Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) Database (WDFW 2013b). According to the Washington State Natural Heritage Program (WNHP), there are no records for rare plants or high quality native ecosystems in the study area (Personal communication via email with Jasa Holt, WNHP Data Specialist, on October 21, 2011). Analysis of Habitat Conditions Field work was conducted on October 13, 2011, (as part of preliminary reconnaissance activities) and January 25, 2013. Field activities were conducted by Herrera biologists Crystal Elliot and Josh Wozniak in 2013 and by Crystal Elliot and George Iftner in 2011. The weather conditions during the 2013 fieldwork consisted of a daytime high temperature of approximately 50 degrees Fahrenheit ('F), with partly sunny conditions. The weather conditions during the 2011 fieldwork were clear with a daytime high temperature of approximately 60°F. The study area contains a variety of habitat conservation areas (City of Renton critical habitats), including wetlands, streams, and upland habitats (Figure 2). Detailed descriptions and maps of onsite wetlands (Wetlands A and B) and the onsite stream (Stream A) are presented in the Wetland Assessment Report and Buffer Mitigation Plan—SW 7th Streetl Naches Avenue SW Storm System improvement Project (Herrera 2013a) and the Stream Study—SW 7th Street/Naches Avenue SW Storm System improvement Project (Herrera 2013b), respectively. The analysis of habitat conditions focuses on describing vegetation types and habitat diversity within the study area, identification of wildlife species associated with the various onsite habitat types, and providing an evaluation of the condition, functions, and values of onsite habitat conservation areas (City of Renton critical habitats) in general. ( HERRERA May 2013 10 Habitat Data Report -SW 7th St./Naches Ave. SW Storm System Improvement Project The study area contains a variety of habitat types, including wetlands, streams, and upland areas (including riparian buffers). As mentioned above, onsite wetlands and streams are described in detail in report attachments, but they are summarized below. Upland/riparian buffer habitat types are described in detail below. Wetlands within the study area are palustrine forested habitats, dominated by red alder (Alnus rubra), with an understory of red osier dogwood (Cornus sericea), salmonberry (Rebus spectabilis), Himalayan blackberry (Rebus ormeniacus), creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens), slough sedge (Carex obnupta), and reed canarygrass (Pholaris arundinocea). Invasive species (e.g., Himalayan blackberry) are abundant in disturbed portions of the wetlands primarily located along wetland edges and along modified portions of Stream A. Wetland A is contiguous with a larger wetland complex that includes portions of the Black River Riparian Forest. Because mature (721 inch dbh) black cottonwood trees and red alder are common in this wetland, it is rated as a Category I wetland according to the Washington State Rating System (Hruby 2004), which has been adopted by the City of Renton shoreline master program (RMC 4-3-090). Many habitat features, such as snags and downed logs, are present throughout forested portions of Wetland A and provide important habitat for wildlife. Detailed information on wetland hydrology, soils, vegetation, buffer characteristics, and wetland functions are provided in the Wetland Assessment Report and Buffer Mitigation Plan—SW 7th Street/Naches Avenue SW Storm System Improvement Project (Herrera 2013a). There is one stream within the study area, Stream A, which is a Class 2 stream according to the Renton Municipal Code (RMC 4-3-050). Stream A flows from east to west through the northern portion of the study area after exiting a culvert that conveys it under Naches Avenue SW. Stream A is a tributary to Springbrook Creek and the Black River system, with the confluence approximately 800 feet downstream of the culvert at Naches Avenue SW. The portion of Stream A within the study does not provide spawning habitat for fish, but does provide moderate- to low -quality rearing and refuge habitat for fish. In general, it is a low gradient stream that is approximately 5 to 7 feet wide with substrate that is dominated by silt. There is a large pool downstream of the area to be affected by the project that may provide thermal refugia for fish during summer months. The portion of Stream A immediately downstream of the culvert has been highly altered (armored and straightened) and the bed and banks are primarily composed of riprap and quarry spalls. Detailed descriptions of channel conditions, riparian buffer characteristics, and other information on Stream A are provided in the Stream Study—SW 7th Street/Naches Avenue SW Storm System Improvement Project (Herrera 2013b). May 2013 ( HERRERA Habitat Data Report—SW 7th St.?Naches Ave. SW Storm System Improvement Project 11 Upland forest habitat within the study area serves as a buffer between onsite wetlands and streams and surrounding development. In the vicinity of project activities, upland forest is dominated by large, mature black cottonwood trees and red alder trees, with an understory of salmonberry, Indian plum (oemleria cerasiformis), sword fern (Polystichum munitum), beaked hazelnut (Corylus cornuta), red osier dogwood, and Himalayan blackberry. Himalayan blackberry is prolific near wetland and stream margins, and has established some thick patches within upland forest. Upland forest within the study area is contiguous with the larger Black River Riparian Forest, which is a large wetland/upland mosaic that occupies the majority of what remains of the Black River system. This complex of wetland and upland habitats is dominated by mature black cottonwood trees, red alder, and a diverse assemblage of upland and wetland plant species. Habitat Connectivityand Ftapmentation In the vicinity of the study area, remaining areas of natural vegetation represent patches within a highly fragmented landscape due to surrounding development within the cities of Renton and Tukwila. Streams (Stream A, Springbrook Creek, Black River, and Green River) are the primary habitat connecting these patches for migration and movement corridors for fish and wildlife. A narrow vegetated corridor along Springbrook Creek provides some connectivity of riparian habitat to other wetland systems to the south within the Green River valley; however, this corridor is disrupted by crossing roadways (e.g., Interstate 405). The Black River follows a narrow vegetated corridor that connects to the Green River corridor, providing connectivity with upstream and downstream riparian habitats; however, these habitats have largely been replaced by commercial and industrial development. Critical Wildlife Species Associated with On-site Habitat Types The Renton Municipal Code defines critical wildlife species as non-salmonid2 species proposed or listed by the Federal government or State of Washington as endangered, threatened, candidate, sensitive, monitor, or priority (RMC 4-3-050.K.1.a). Although not documented onsite, the following critical wildlife species have an association with onsite habitat types: • River lamprey - Although not documented in the onsite stream, river lamprey (Lampetra ayresi), have been documented in the Duwamish River/Green River watershed; therefore, they potentially occur in the project area (King County 2004). River lamprey is federally designated as a Species of Concern and is designated by the State of Washington as a Candidate species. 2 Salmonid species are addressed separately under Shoreline Master Program regulations (RMC 4-3-090). Salmonid species documented onsite that are listed by the Federal government or State of Washington as endangered, threatened, candidate, sensitive, monitor, or priority include Chinook salmon (Federal: Threatened; State of Washington: Candidate), steelhead trout (Federal: Threatened; State of Washington: Candidate), and coho salmon (Federal: Species of Concern; State of Washington: no designation). 'tom HERRERA May 2013 12 Habitat Data Report—SW 7th St./Naches Ave. SW Storm System Improvement Project • Vaux's swift - Occurring in upland and wetland forest, snags in the study area provide potential nesting habitat (hallows) for Vaux's swift (Chaetura vauxi). However, Vaux's swift are more closely associated with old-growth forested habitat, which is not present in the study area (Larsen et al. 2004). Vaux's swift is designated by the State of Washington as a Candidate species. • Pileated woodpecker: Occurring in upland and wetland forest, snags in the study area provide foraging habitat for pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus). Woodpecker workings were observed on snags in the study area. Piteated woodpecker is designated by the State of Washington as a Candidate species. • Oregon spotted frog: Wetland A provides potential habitat for Oregon spotted frog (Rana pretiosa) because it contains pond habitat (outside of the study area) with surrounding marsh. However, presence is unlikely due to the small size of habitat, surrounding urbanization, and the rare status of Oregon spotted frog in Western Washington (Larsen 1997). Oregon spotted frog is federally designated as a Candidate species and is designated by the State of Washington as Endangered. • Western toad: Wetland A provides potential habitat for Western toad (Anaxyrus boreas) because it contains pond habitat with surrounding marsh (outside of the study area); however, presence is unlikely due to the rare status of this species (Larsen 1997). Western toad is federally designated as a Species of Concern and is designated by the State of Washington as a Candidate species. • Western pond turtle: Wetland A provides potential habitat for Western pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata) because it contains open pond habitat with floating logs for basking (outside of the study area); however, presence is unlikely due to surrounding urbanization and the rare status of this species (Larsen 1997). Western pond turtle is federally designated as a Species of Concern and is designated by the State of Washington as Endangered. • Townsend's big -eared bat: The presence of Wetland A and large trees and snags with cavities provides potential foraging and roosting habitat for Townsend's big -eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) (Larsen et at. 2005). This species is known to occur in western Washington riparian areas and wetlands, although no occurrences have been documented for the study area. Townsend's big -eared bat is federally designated as a Species of Concern and is designated by the State of Washington as a Candidate species. Hdbitat Fvnetians dfid VW1105 Onsite wetlands, streams, and upland areas provide variable levels of functions for habitat corresponding with their structure, composition, and condition. Wetland A is a depressional wetland that exhibits high potential to provide habitat functions because it is well -vegetated with diverse species and multiple vegetation classes; contains several hydroperiods and high interspersion of habitats; and has special habitat features such as snags and mature trees. The opportunity for Wetland A to improve habitat functions is May 2013 HERRERA Habitat Data Report SW 7th St. Naches Ave. SW Storm System Improvement Project 13 moderate due to the presence of multiple priority habitats, but offset by the lack of well- functioning vegetated buffers around most of the wetland and the lack of continuity with other wetlands and large vegetated areas. Wetland B exhibits low potential to provide habitat functions because it is only partially vegetated, contains just two hydroperiods types, has low habitat diversity, and no interspersion of habitats. The opportunity for Wetland B to improve habitat functions is moderate due to the presence of multiple priority habitats in the vicinity of the wetland, but offset by the lack of well-functioning vegetated buffers around most of the wetland and the lack of continuity with other wetlands and large vegetated areas. Stream A within the study area and surrounding area exhibits variable levels of functions for habitat, corresponding with the variability related to stream channel conditions. Valuable rearing and refuge habitat is present downstream of the study area in segments of Stream A downstream of the study area. These areas exhibit pool and glide habitat, dense riparian cover (which moderates water temperatures), overhanging vegetation (which provides nutrients for invertebrates), and some woody debris (which provides habitat for invertebrates and in -stream cover for fish). Stream A is highly altered within the study area (immediately downstream of the culvert outfall at Naches Avenue SW). Suitable spawning habitat was not observed within the study area, as the channel substrate consisted primarily of fine -textured materials (i.e., silt and silty clay) with the exception of rock armoring materials near the culvert outfall. Upland areas within the study area also provide variable levels of functions based on the level of alteration in different areas and subsequent impacts on species diversity and habitat structure. Law -level habitat functions are provided along the forest margin adjacent to Naches Avenue SW and where forested vegetation has been cleared for utilities development (and in some areas replaced with turf immediately adjacent to the roadway). Plant species diversity is lower here than other areas of the forest, invasive plant species (i.e., Himalayan blackberry) have established large patches in some areas, and habitat structure is less complex than in other parts of the forest. In more intact portions of the forest (further away from Naches Avenue SW), moderate- to high-level habitat functions are provided based on several characteristics that support diverse wildlife including high plant species diversity, presence of mature deciduous trees, complex vegetation structure (multi-level understory and overstory), and presence of snags. Intact, naturally vegetated portions of the study area represent habitat value to the City of Renton, as they contribute to the following City goals (RMC 4-3-050): • Maintain and promote diversity of species and habitat within the City • Coordinate habitat protection with the City's open space system, whenever possible, to maintain and provide habitat connections • Help maintain air and water quality, and control erosion Serve as areas for recreation, education, scientific study, and aesthetic appreciation (l HERRERA May 2013 14 Habitat Data Report 5W 7th St./Naches Ave. SW Storm System Improvement Project In order to maintain these values on the project site, the project seeks to retain as much native vegetation as feasible and compensate for any impacts that may occur from project activities. May 2413 4 HERRERA Habitat Data Report SW 7th St./Naches Ave. SW Storm System Improvement Project 15 REGULATORY IMPLICATIONS Regulations imposed by federal, state, and local governments may apply to any future project activities planned for the study area. Impacts to aquatic resources (e.g., wetlands, streams) are regulated under the federal Clean Water Act, Washington State Hydraulic Code, and the Renton Municipal Code Critical Areas and Shoreline Master Program Regulations. The City regulations also establish development standards for buffers (including required widths) associated with wetlands and streams, and the City regulates habitat areas associated with critical fish and wildlife species. For this reason, regulations imposed by federal, state, and Local governments may apply to any future project activities planned for the study area. According to RMC 4-3-050K, Stream A and Wetland A are considered habitat conservation areas (City of Renton critical habitats) based on presence of threatened Chinook salmon in the vicinity and Category I wetland classification. The entire study area is also considered a City of Renton critical habitat due to its identification as part of the Black River Riparian Forest Biodiversity Area (WDFW 2013b). Regulatory implications specific to wetlands and streams are described in the Wetland Assessment Report and Buffer Mitigation Plan—SW 7th Street/Neches Avenue SW Storm System Improvement Project (Herrera 2013x) and the Stream Study—SW 7th Street/Naches Avenue SW Storm System Improvement Project (Herrera 2013b). This report describes regulations specific to habitat conservation areas (City of Renton critical habitats) that are not wetlands and streams. All project activities that may affect habitat conservation areas (City of Renton critical habitats) must evaluate alternative methods of developing the property using the following criteria in this order: (1) avoid any disturbance to the habitat, (2) minimize any impacts to the habitat, and (3) compensate for any habitat impacts. If feasible, mitigation shall be provided on-site and be in-kind. Based on the habitat assessment, the City of Renton Department of Community Et Economic Development may designate the on-site critical habitat areas and their buffers as Native Growth Protection Areas, which may require establishment of a conservation easement or a similar permanent protective mechanism. May 2013 4 HERRERA - --------- Habitat -------Habitat Data Report- SW 7th St. /Naches Ave. SW Storm System Improvement Project 17 PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION According to the draft design (Appendix A), the proposed project will result in unavoidable temporary impacts to the buffer of Wetland A and Stream A, which is also a habitat conservation area (City of Renton critical habitat). This will amount to approximately 700 square feet of upland forested vegetation clearing, including the removal of six red alder and willow trees that are between 8 and 12 inches dbh. Since these impacts are common to the three critical areas listed above, they are described collectively in the Wetland Assessment Report and Buffer Mitigation Plan—SW 7th Street/Naches Avenue SW Storm System Improvement Project (Herrera 2013a). The report includes approaches for no net loss of ecological functions and for mitigation sequencing. Proposed mitigation measures are described to compensate for unavoidable temporary impacts to buffers (buffer mitigation and vegetation management plan). The wetland assessment report contains a buffer mitigation and vegetation management plan, with provisions for revegetating cleared areas with native plant species and removing invasive plant species (e.g., Himalayan blackberry [Rubus ormeniacus]). Performance standards and revegetation site monitoring will ensure that installed plant material achieves sufficient survival and percent cover (e.g., 100 percent survival after first year and 50 percent cover after five years) and invasive species are effectively controlled (e.g., percent cover no greater than 15 percent throughout the 5 -year monitoring period). May 2013 HERRERA Habitat Data Report SW 7th St./Naches Ave. SW Storm System Improvement Project 19 REFERENCES Bing. 2013. Bing aerial photographs. Available at: http://windows.microsoft.com/en- us/windows/bin -ma s-aerial-ima er -download-theme. Accessed on February 6, 2013. City of Renton. 2013. Critical Areas digital data compiled by the City of Renton; COR Maps. Obtained on February 12, 2013, from agency website: http://www.rentonweb.orp,:8080/ Si lverliQhtPublic /Viewer. html?Viewer-COR-Maps. Ecology. 2008. Washington State Water Quality Assessment 305(b) report and 303(d) list. Washington State Department of Ecology. Obtained from agency website: htt : / /www.ecV.wa.gov/programs/wq/303d/2008/index. html. Herrera. 2013a. Wetland Assessment Report and Buffer Mitigation Plan - SW 7th Street/ Naches Avenue SW Storm System Improvement Project. Prepared for SAIC and City of Renton by Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc., Seattle, Washington. March 2013. Herrera. 2013b. Stream Study - SW 7th Street/Naches Avenue SW Storm System Improvement Project. Prepared for SAIC and City of Renton by Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc., Seattle, Washington. March 2013. Hruby, T. 2004. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington—Revised. Ecology Publication 04-06-025. Washington State Department of Ecology. August 2004. King County. 2004. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Greenbridge Redevelopment Project. King County Housing Authority. Obtained on March 20, 2013, from agency website: http://www.kingcounty.Pov/property/permits/info_/Speciallnterest/ G reenb ri die / FE I S. aspx. King County. 2013. King County IMap data: Sensitive Areas overlay, King County GIS Center. Obtained February 15, 2013, from agency website: http://www.kingcounty.gov/ operations/ G IS /Maps/iMAP. aspx. Larsen, E.M (ed). 1997. Management Recommendations for Washington's Priority Species - Volume III: Amphibians and Reptiles. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. November 1997. Larsen, E.M., J.M. Azerrad, and N. Nordstrom (eds). 2004. Management Recommendations for Washington's Priority Species—Volume IV: Birds. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. March 2004. Larsen, E.M., J. M. Azerrad, and N. Nordstrom (eds. ). 2005. Management Recommendations for Washington's Priority SpeciesVolume V: Mammals. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. May 2013 (t HERRERA Habitat Data Report -SW 7th St./Naches Ave. SW Storm System Improvement Project 21 NOAA Fisheries. 2013. NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service, ESA Salmon Listings. Obtained on February 13, 2013, from agency website: http: / /www, nwr. noaa. Qov/ ESA -Salmon - Listings/ I ndex. cfm. SAIC. 2012. Hardie Avenue SW - SW 7th Street Storm System Improvement Project, Preliminary Design Memorandum. Prepared for the City of Renton. October 2012. USFWS. 2013. National Wetlands Inventory Wetlands Mapper for Google Earth. US Fish and Wildlife Service. Obtained February 12, 2013, from agency website: http://www.fws.gov/wetLands/index.htmt. WDFW. 2013a. SalmonScape. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Available at: http://wdfw.wa.�ov/mapping/satmonscape/index.html. Accessed on February 11, 2013. WDFW. 2013b. Washington State Fish and Wildlife Service Priority Habitat and Species (PHS) Data On the Web for the study area. Available at: htt ://wdfw.wa. ov/ mappin / hs/. Accessed on February 11, 2013. HERRERA 22 May 2013 Habitat Data Report SW 7th St./Naches Ave. SW Storm System Improvement Project A!,b NO 41 VEN "A Project Plans 4HERRERA MS any sayaeN S any 9afo�e�j SIS any Pu -I any eaauaS MS any sewoy1 MS any jjaMod ` f a 5• R, � u. �t�rc h .. r �r 9a la.l �er,Yy ,r' I I y"� � x a d �pml9h � J 7WIl 11).1 S, -r' Q pugel I m l7 � I H d W W s CIO W LL I Q a a a z ` zz J CL V I V11Iv■W! IV llf f1_i J4..1 .......... . L O U? � w Z �z 1+- G a� v Y�� [L Q z d p a `1 I y"� � x a d �pml9h � J 7WIl 11).1 S, -r' Q pugel I m l7 � I H d W W s CIO W LL I Q a a a z ` zz J CL V I V11Iv■W! IV llf f1_i J4..1 .......... . L O U? � w Z �z 1+- G a� v Y�� [L Q z d p a `1 co W H z J LU z W CD a 0 7 W x x x x x x x J X X x X X W x x x x x C) W W 4 ; U Z2w z p� [r m 1 p N < X x X X W E z m Z O rw q �z WC, m U z Z z x x x x x x x x x x O X x X X X V zo W Z II Z Z S Z D W Z z ^tea oTi o� z o C) Z x~ 2 W W Z m V H Ir U w C-, O LL W O \Z Ln a O y (WiL� f�M1 �O PLK--M<A<+q<A Z w � Q n u W a o � 3 Z Z Q Ci Z 2 J U Z � w J U O [L U G O? zz v r �r o Z � ¢ � U�- a S� 2� n•�x m5sr.., v. �. � � :s =-. � C a � S p� S H m V (i 1- 4 �� d w /- F"" a Q' �� J� t=� H S a V � H. F- S W �i Z Z U [� r m r o z U- Q y V O o 0 '+-( Z 4 �0 wa w a CC (n -j 0 J m 4 m Z wm 0 0 9 0 a o 0 o a a a CL ww (J� v v L � � V l (qF) (~f l (�! ]� S~I ] H H 7 7 i 3 S a x 2� X J J J J JISSYM Z Z Z � Z O O O G o- a d LL Z Qt p O r � � r (" r w c"is W Cr Ln z Vl mZ �Z Y W Z W V [d V 7 C] �F U U J W J In a Q J F C1 m vv W a rmo V zw(n a w0� cjV w 0. UCS r m V d LC fY Z 0 -73V G U U CC w Q mj J IViJ z 0 V � cwn V V � 0 1 = fY CY Z Z � W O v w G z m 0¢¢ W ,y CC �m Q 4? �? ¢ mmm V U V V VV CWJ V U �UCjU00��0 UU �P�r� w4 �(�w WALL W W �w lei lKi �a Cq7 T 222 z LU X V m c.�ppaa me--� �oop0.cn (n��r `Z zmc C) Q ¢ a q¢ ¢ mm'm vv UU UC�(J (J VUUU�3UU UUUU o00o ww wwww �i �i W w w W (a ca SS 2 S O41 m z W CD W J z cn cn w 2 O V = iso � S — V1 W z J Z T w (new U � O z0 © W W 4 ; U Z2w z p� [r m 1 p N O w p 2 w a J Z o W m J ~ o W 11 z m Z O rw q �z WC, m U z Smo 2 z o czr, m r a r � V zo W 0. U W J II Z Z S Z D W Z z ^tea oTi o� z o Z x~ 2 W W Z m V w C-, O Z W O \Z Ln a y (WiL� f�M1 �O Z w � Q n n z 2 Z (n rr o�cD Q Oso OU � D z O�S, N Welf v V] W z fli Q U)c� O 20] C') 2CI W a o � 3 Z Z Q Ci Z 2 J U Z � w J U O [L U G O? zz v r �r o Z � ¢ � U�- a S� 2� n•�x m5sr.., v. �. � � :s =-. � C a � S p� S H m V (i 1- 4 �� d w /- F"" a Q' �� J� t=� H S a V � H. F- S W �i Z Z U [� r m r o z U- Q y V O o 0 '+-( Z 4 �0 wa w a CC (n -j 0 J m 4 m Z wm 0 0 9 0 a o 0 o a a a CL ww (J� v v L � � V l (qF) (~f l (�! ]� S~I ] H H 7 7 i 3 S a x 2� X J J J J JISSYM Z Z Z � Z O O O G o- a d LL Z Qt p O r � � r (" r w c"is W Cr Ln z Vl mZ �Z Y W Z W V [d V 7 C] �F U U J W J In a Q J F C1 m vv W a rmo V zw(n a w0� cjV w 0. UCS r m V d LC fY Z 0 -73V G U U CC w Q mj J IViJ z 0 V � cwn V V � 0 1 = fY CY Z Z � W O v w G z m 0¢¢ W ,y CC �m Q 4? �? ¢ mmm V U V V VV CWJ V U �UCjU00��0 UU �P�r� w4 �(�w WALL W W �w lei lKi �a Cq7 T 222 z LU X V m c.�ppaa me--� �oop0.cn (n��r `Z zmc C) Q ¢ a q¢ ¢ mm'm vv UU UC�(J (J VUUU�3UU UUUU o00o ww wwww �i �i W w w W (a ca SS 2 S O41 m z W CD W J z cn cn w IY11I�1VI IV 11�\V JV CN 2 O V = iso � S — s W W z J m V1 Z © W W 4 ; U v Z O U I V V) S w O W a W p cr w p 2 w a J W Z q o O W m J ~ o W 11 w _i q w m Z O w Z s O x Zw w m w Z cn o m U z m W W G] L}per z o czr, m r IY11I�1VI IV 11�\V JV CN 2 O V = iso � S — s W W z J m V1 2 © a W 4 ; U o CY U S z p CM OU w W 3 I� m CD za�o W� m ? p Z J z O ca _ z2 a r N V m W W oo a D J w IY11I�1VI IV 11�\V JV CN SIT Q 2 O V = Q V- / w `= � � a y wO W 4 ; U o CY U S z p CM OU w W 3 I� m CD za�o _ m ? � m r p W d Z In Q C3 m W a w z o m V Z W O a w n z z Z (n rr Q Q x Welf z fli Q U)c� O 20] C') o vVi SIT Q 2 O Q V- / U W W � � a y wO W , - n W (n t7 CY U S z p CM OU w W 3 I� m CC Cr W Z Z K V m W U Z a J m Z Q O r [r z M z } W J U S } j 0 Z U ZO JJ C.J CL U W } L'C `i [C S J w W O W T 6 O S 4 W m G O d 0. o w [r w w z w v = w 0. m i� O x w w M z r a a } = CJ CJ p < ✓J S ¢ Q w m S o F- H m FV- `4 O w O a o Y CS -7 O 2 O �il S a H C�7 EL L 3 it f i I I 2 O Q V- U W W � L7 w Z W m i O Lo OU w W CD _ m ? CC Cr W Z Z K V m W U Z a J m Z Q O r [r z M z } W J U S } j 0 Z U ZO JJ C.J CL U W } L'C `i [C S J w W O W T 6 O S 4 W m G O d 0. o w [r w w z w v = w 0. m i� O x w w M z r a a } = CJ CJ p < ✓J S ¢ Q w m S o F- H m FV- `4 O w O a o Y CS -7 O 2 O �il S a H C�7 EL L 3 it f i I I v r x ? LL ID �2 w K Z L W V W CD rn O Qz Z SUw�z r s'>_ zz w VR vai wz t Ci ww4'� ¢ �;I O �z rcv �Pxo4m as-�P �dYto cn vi N [e Z p0 mta� cr- U a ordWJaoo�n ¢mow �w� r� �z r CCH W d d U m W `t t< J L W W Z �V ZZ O H N U N r W J m V 1- c 4 J~ 2 V Q z Z p W M rn d}w �wV 2 z a K Tom~ w �a2 pL rn TFr"aW `-��ca�z�dt�a �mm [n�w d tr„�?olnzo �O pmt Q _- } qW ZO�d2 W --OwwC 10- W Z [� VV] �NiJ.JW 71 m �wW fid¢ c�a= `-' oQa a V ¢z¢ �"w ¢ =Eo oz!wwr�a0 LLJv?m¢¢aOv��¢o O�c?O-.-IWOclimw O ? Iro o a o z :K 4 in W G a I1J C� Lr- < LJ p 4 F W' W q 4Z 13 VmJG J� WW dP S2Wr Wd W (.� US O} UO + LC W Tm Z 3a c=n W.eO (%+� pCC OV S p 3 W W q d i JP am O w O W V] W Fw- a C O o o v)ww CMD osrwr�zz oY i 1 �C � `awl � a � w [n¢ z w a yyc� �� wPwrcnow +LR 1 i1 [} w -f W yo C~n d 0M20,I_ pw�O� [nw i - _ -- -_ - - ZWIS Cc) N WZ p G w O Z= w W c�V7 z lei O s m C'06 ? ¢ z z w c�Fz V rcx�z x� rca I a� Wo } w wzl-, z2= woz 2� U 4 m 2}} d O S n d E. I+ F � r') Z 3 3 0 _ d m� z 3 V O� W 1 � oLilZ -0 mZO V V U 2 U ��2 q�zOzi,l z[�� UO".. q;J cn 1 zaIY�VI om�w w z¢c) O V W m ` ¢ 2}AZO UV W� W �p� Sim H [WlIY rz CO �CdY =0,a pp w w m ZE WO z�zWC�V1U M?Wp �V)SZ ry C7 pOOV d w [a r VI a [? r MJo crC[]3 W w a 0 W ¢�zsWs Od0r w a V H w V [Z W � 2� 2 N V 4 z a N o� 2Cc S r J Q 3 � 0 2 W. Y w w zdowt=v w Y� r zUw� w v�4r ¢Q r� V+z <n �oo O w w nwi [wiles m �m z �S� m d'Sn J m O V Z . O CD Z w J m V 4 [i) w Orr - W - V) Y w�2� P z :K 4 i I1J Li z :K 4 J~ K51 I1J Li Lr- < LJ alp iox f �Hd I f 11 ) i T. WUa Nc�j� sdw0.r S��iO r aZfl] NW HS�m !-- DV F H W � 7 f - O ELn n Cl- uj lW Z O Q LIJ O � Ui Ww o W � O U W ¢ ¢ Z a ~ w El - 0 slN3lX3 KVIdV AOOa Xadddd F H W � 7 f - O ELn n Cl- uj lW Z O Q LIJ O � Ui Ww o W � O U W ¢ ¢ Z a ~ w El - 0 slN3lX3 KVIdV AOOa Xadddd �c'o A O 0 v a m I IF 10.54 o a, z � o I I ;:.7 . w STA. 10+61.12 27.67' RT RIM EL 20.15 IF 10.62 (OH) I U4 12+71 s7 .30.27' RT RIM EL 21.46 IF 10-94 (CH) r:r'v-F j — — — EX MH 'BEHINV __ _ L _ _ STA 13+05.80 11.38' RT RIM EL 21,27 IF IN 11.3 5 � IIIFf � T IId b p U I � I � I o 1 E z w n � N z, X 00 i �I d; MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET C2 O�+ AoIROX ROCK ARMOR EXTENTS PH4 A x o _ a I J r = I Ig JI i f mo I � Y i � n � z � I - yr �N 1moron rr�pq ar~-- �xcomo m --- �' 0 0 00 6 0 0 0 0 fTl� Ts ^i n -v c>ao O�bm z- mom mox msCpn��n��nm ��z po mai O Ozln m n't v m0 Ox o-�.�l��0 000 �--1pm or-,mrnm Ozd002 opo p vtib"ti-� � v�c,r-+ r opx �a coo Wan T0ou �ommmW oo00 C �in -- zin �o5� z � zvl �on7:' m� 002 Q Z 2z 000� m�z �� m�c> c��nm Mmr�i czoo c m z� = cr' mm -L �ymmo rprinrb r z m_= m,>zz� r 00 '•;�2m�x C's:;�mU'OzdlZi�n 0= �r 8or<r, 0q7 o: �� _ = zv oop�m 10o1,rl__ g� zg m T �-vMnC `'�� O M (n o -v o�-� rn tp CD�r2m oX O Op0'" 0o �2@cmno �+ cp"�'n bS� 0 2 z v qzS pz v�Wm ompm m D mm0 nod or'gr�cmo r*i N 'm a-ir-ybmm '."� mc�i�? ill 0 m �z?m--�r�cnm zc'1co� �c b ti mpm� Z 0-o ��A cz m mz�o�� xvo ��mF co��,om op �o T'TVz �v no o pn mocWu��mo ; mom�in Cm C cogen Im 7m zv� <n� nOW mz-m row mmC'n£� z - Z p m _ ��_ � '» - 1nm�r� `min Ren-i�iyr�GSmr,i m z�r1 y�� =1 `acn r` -t m��1 t�pW �1�r3 Sd�Z=�.'O �c>q SSnJCS� =p (') o� o icWzam `MO o z zQ = x�?�mW�� mm�� o '77zy z`n_OOvrW yen exp mm - mObO O Amo �O �� romc��C��r'-' m ,.n x o�mz m m m pay Cpq �r c70 coO��pZ �z z z�� x�v�sm�z z �U'p'Aoa Na oo ��or N� roz��= im Y _ r"G i o hoz zWcn O��r-iz_m rL= v��yv; c v � t, Zmc�Z�2��O �czi Nm n'^oo0o `"'- 0��=ao z=z o ovp=�z.on 4 � m mcg �i yr ate'' I 'n ?omi''m��r=--+o rr�pq ar~-- �xcomo m --- �' a m" v z m z� n {z-< m A M f'18 A1T RI 119■ IPT A 1 -- Z a�=�p end mord �m��r-i*r+izO �n2�ro�Y� � mpg z n � ��nzmcn�pz pz r>r ."U nares W� z�� C az .CJZp moo c�gmzrxn Dr22 m. 'z. O r O nC 2 Sx Z �b Oo � mOz tom Gz7�O��y��m c,o AY Wzvvr��Z�xm T �S Nr-{* yr rm*t =�o �m 4i" ip opc o�� mOp mfz�?�@qi zuzi��rcn mom rte-, A �rN„ �ocnT.m0�2 �_ A o m�F �mio?�m Cq O� ZnS i i9 m��~oO_�Z Ti I'nllnm .L.n MATCHLINE SEE SHEET Cl rl� I I 8 d MH3 NI STA. 14+31-54 28-47' RT n m RIM EL 20.90 2 a _ IE 11.3 =amu' -o mm— m + I 4m z o o - c� cn ^� I me Z Z z b O n n p Cm o ❑ m m J N FK D o L� m z -0 co Io 0 X � I L 0 N I IOI I I I I Mrmb alT 1'11 1m& HITTA 1 -_o MH4 - VAULT STA 16+31,91 11.45 RT y RIM EL 20.6 IE 11.53 (E) IE 11,45 (NW) MATCHLINE - 5EE SHEET C3 . MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET Cl - x I m ICID � 1 I r ■ O 000 0 O 0 OO 7.+ m 4 m 2 <7 G O O m x r m � c7 V n m-0 Z A 2 [n Z Z rT1 -1 Ca v y r r 7 m .Z7 C t*1 m m fyJ .-O C n -"{ p O Z m z O� f!1 m m Z .-O Y O mz m r G rn O V m J Z C z 2 m c n m s n O r � m ICID � 1 I r ■ i MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET C2 0 z z . II 0 I a v� fir..-..-..-. ..- MATCH[ o jo Ml MG AIT AI IMA AITT A 1 I I I STA 20+06.71 C 6' LT RIM EL 21.76 IE 11.74 (CH) .INE - SEE SHEET C4 i MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET C2 jfQ I ro- Z r Ci cn :Z m jz q _ n II z Ila D , O V m o ICS N F _ > zo m m �a Z -i m v o G7 ' 2 ...... m g T 7�1�� -T-1 Ml MG AIT AI IMA AITT A 1 I I I STA 20+06.71 C 6' LT RIM EL 21.76 IE 11.74 (CH) .INE - SEE SHEET C4 i MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET C2 jfQ I ro- Z r Ci U :Z m z m om m o U7 O zo �a 1 , b I I , - MATCHLINE 0 f m z m om m o U7 o zo �a g m r n z i O z n —1 n � w nm vG z m m b O rl C S2 _ O C b C r z 0 W � N C3 r -a 4 � O 0 f g JI RI.. - SEE SHEET C4 �I z rn g n i g JI RI.. - SEE SHEET C4 MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET C3 ,Ln rlI � m s a I FAH6 SIA 22+46.45 0.63' R i RIM EL 21.91 IE 11.93 (CH;, RIMS EL 22.29 E 12 D? (CH) MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET C3 I f I f I i I � l I N u� f g �i x x n 1 ' i 1 I K f � o POWELL AV: SA' T Z N Uj NN 0 S - O f U = r � I 1 , I I ! I I I I i I ' MATGHLINE - SEE SHEET C5 .._.._. .._.._,.�.._.._.._ MATCHLINE 5EE SHEET C5 x I� o K Cn m� �o �mm =m oz W� 0<m OT N =moo pS ter' A Z z o ozz Z�� c b o m z ❑ ova m � z O m r m cn HT1 67 F 20 r m C7 n r'+ 0 co ID 1'1rT l l IT AI IMIN dlTT A 1 II ~N� b � T � � I C o SIA 22+46.45 0.63' R i RIM EL 21.91 IE 11.93 (CH;, RIMS EL 22.29 E 12 D? (CH) MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET C3 I f I f I i I � l I N u� f g �i x x n 1 ' i 1 I K f � o POWELL AV: SA' T Z N Uj NN 0 S - O f U = r � I 1 , I I ! I I I I i I ' MATGHLINE - SEE SHEET C5 .._.._. .._.._,.�.._.._.._ MATCHLINE 5EE SHEET C5 x I� o K Cn m� �o �mm =m oz W� 0<m OT N =moo pS ter' A Z z o ozz Z�� c b o m z ❑ ova m � z O m r m cn HT1 67 F 20 r m C7 n r'+ 0 co ID 1'1rT l l IT AI IMIN dlTT A 1 i, MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET C4 I � � i H O 1 ? I � i rn 0 + sm � m n o) 0 z o _ n i I ..._.._.._.. .._. .-------------------- MATCHUNE - SEE SHEET C6 cn � "VO: MHS STA 28+25.13 3.37' RT RIM EL 22-74 IF 12.25 'CH) MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 04 I , I I , I I. N j I *pp O I � � I U' it I -�1 T I ;. cf� I I i M1 Mo Al -r AI 1f m HITT A 1 i PI � I THOP,lIAS AVE SVr ++ ® f I I 'I MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET C6 o � i N , �P M1 Mo Al -r AI 1f m HITT A 1 i PI � I THOP,lIAS AVE SVr ++ ® f I I 'I MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET C6 c v zr -Cz ; C O T ro � N fj n 4 [ M< M Q O ITS O n O U O O T O W p M1 Mo Al -r AI 1f m HITT A 1 i PI � I THOP,lIAS AVE SVr ++ ® f I I 'I MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET C6 C O ITS p n'1 A 6� X O f'z p� z p H C =y C C omV Y C'z Oo �rn m m� o� Q 'TIFf OVA1 mmz K _�v 75 m Z r' ZF CU fTl m -1 f'1 p � C '+1 fTl fT1 ➢ O a O 70 MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET C5 -•—•--.._. .._ .._.._.._.._.._....._ I MHP j STA 31 3.79' RT 23.35 RIM EL 23.35 IE 12.43 (CH) i �I +I O OI I 6 m d � m� m o N N d W r O p IE I 0 STA. 34+24,88 5.05' RT RIM EL 23.2E IE 12.51 (CH) I v _ � I � I o ' 4 o I - rn w o 7 Ln o I MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET C7 MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET C7 I cn cn [JI � } g (n 1 m 3 1 1 I Do r -U m ,a � �•-: r O•`� II m 0 o � I w + � IO o -13 D ry IIY cl v+ m G7 r y 4 r m o f'1 O d Ox T m m C n z� � I I I I � ' I I I I I III j II o x - I v _ � I � I o ' 4 o I - rn w o 7 Ln o I MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET C7 MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET C7 1'11-P1. 11T f11 119. ■lTTA 1 I cn cn I g (n 1 m 3 Do (11 � � m ter: �•-: r O•`� _ 2 Vi m o -13 D ry IIY cl v+ m G7 r y 4 r m o f'1 O d Ox T m m C n z� _ � p2 O T1 C� m—— o o �� n o y o c ni n m rnD [.� o "' m Ix-, �m zz z" "�� rn 1�"0o r p Zm W" Qcn �o qm� o m O O W ZC'1 t=p rZn� [7 C ti Zcn Q f11 { mm �m �'y c.+ m Cq � [/t � � � In J fT1 fn 2 O y 7 CD m z 1'11-P1. 11T f11 119. ■lTTA 1 MATCHLINE - SEE SH 11 =ET C6 �.I z � ' �.1 SENECA AVE S7A/ 4 I 1 11 1\V a r, MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET C6 tA I u I b I I STA 35+77.46 2,65' RT RIM EL 23.41 t 2 IE 12.70 (CH) m o m 9 I I I I MATCHLINE - SEE SH 11 =ET C6 �.I z � ' �.1 SENECA AVE S7A/ 4 I 1 11 1\V I I I u I b x y � I MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET C8 MATCHLINE SEE SHEET C8 t i I 17; ijn �c zr �7i Op �-:� a Z z D a !"�� mmn m�� rm o�' n o n z• O Ohm ❑ ❑ r''i mi A "' xm s� Ozer SP1„ A x -I o= m- ff7 mD Zm �Dn mcg ozz m ao o z �Znz q O c0 �n c � �r� i❑ �m � Z � c �z m $ m N Ch O CJ O ITE O t fT1 Z C%7 7�` � ''1r f`111 /IT 1N7 IRR AITT111 I MATCHLINE -SEE SHEET 07 ,Lni rli o. MH12 n STA 40+12.97 G-Jf IT g RIM EL 23.91 E 12,97 (CH) a 0 I I I i I I 1 1 v v; y .moi W I:,!,L L LIND AVE SW EK VAULT STA 43+29.37 EL 23,c' E 13.16 z� i �3 00 -- 0 000 m� m `n L', cmc- �z^ n vr�cn�c� m� z u m �`J1I�i �� '�"Ir�o� �rn CJ O C TI M — m N v cn "a m © Z r*I o v x in m m y cn m b mvr Ln �'_� ilx' �Zp O m �z� <ma rn 7 rsi r 13 F;l { Vis' C7 F a o A m ro o m m n o mgr mIIT nl ImgIIYTA1 G) m z m D Z O m � I P1 M%A1T nl 11'gl ANTT M1I I Z � o rn A m z LJ y y y yy Q Q p o 0 0 o O o O o r r r r r r rr rri I � w w w w w u u u o c.l u u A I E I E I I fn co <n io co a a, s rn rn 1 rn C rn 1 ' z m rn C%rn m � 0 0 0 0 0 0 ra o Q o o m b b Y Y Y Y Y Y Y ➢ Y Y cn in cn In vl v� cn vl N vi M- o d d d o d d o 0 0 0 �� ti H H H H ti H ti C7 4 o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 a v a a a a a a a a a i 3 I I I I I I I I I cn v� cn rn cn r_n '. cr cn c� cn cn orae 0 t I I 2 0 I 0 I I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I d o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n r7 n n n n n n n n n T n n n n n n n n n n n y O n rn m y Y b b bD b pz Y b Y Y yz � z 0 2 0 z 0 z 0 z 0 o z c z o z a z m o- m n n n n n o n n n c7 Q p Q< o o Q 0 n 0 0 M < `ri ITi < < rn Y 7 in � cn vi yr vi m cn v, cn vl � m c�Si �Jr vS c v�S c$i> Ac�i� m d O d d o O d d d d n (} rn cn v, cn In cn In v; cn v, rn cn m m m m m m m I m I a� I oo I co I I 3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I z 0 m I E m � I P1 M%A1T nl 11'gl ANTT M1I X C R; a cn — mm�� i :p rAs C m Rr n 11 /IT AI I m R /ITT A I m X z C I a ! a c� i m m di m vi m ✓� m m rn m, m cn m m m m m m a �] m M m r z rn s Ir m rn m m m r'n m C s, In q z z z I o o -o o o z +� v v z v T o I5 v v v -i 7 o= - m y c` ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 a o � I 171 N T a o � v v m m r i m m on En o� A W W ? N -` F -- N N Z T •27 O C A Qr OO [P C4 J Cn cq D C r Z t � m j�1j c m O r z 0 N Z n rn rn O - OJ Vr f+] I 4� F Cn rp Q ei N C•+ N W N N N N N v N N W N W N N N N N N N N N W N W N W N C.V N W N W N\ W a� O Y Y W m Z CN �n pe O rJ O O O v U O� W ]': (.V O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O ] = Z m T .Zm} N S_n W W N I J f f d N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N NID r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r z O O A Z b D b b �i b D 2° h b h b D 2° D b b b b 2 h Y b Y b Y Y ➢ Y Y Y ➢ Y b Y L Y i Y 2 � m A n ren o mm v ren v n 0 m 0 r�* o v v C. m m U r� U n rzi rxn VI m m m m m o rn m M r� m rn m rYl In m m m m m O p p x 8 O � dxC O O N 4 � O Z --� m z !* Z --� m -y m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m R7 ti W �] O O p 0 C C p p p p p p� p p m s m n n ye m m= 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 m z Z d O 'T1- T1- -'i m m m m -7 — r�*I rn z Z c c zl zl XJ r r r r p v cn In C7 C? m p p n F� r, C ? Z z �] u] Q fL' R° fL° R' A D m A rs Lo rOr f7, Vr P p C O a Z fes+'] n CZ -i O m G n W c c m n n N z z v S 00 2 o 0 ri Z Z 0 Z m f n n � _ "] o s z 71 y tel- b � O � Z qO 2 � 2 p pp T r' W r JTi O U i n o E n 2 Z � f f'1 � rn r'I n z z � z Rr n 11 /IT AI I m R /ITT A I m X z C vw ha:, \ � < y , \\� ,Ln: b; ftft rle ¥(;!£ }6\)\ 4«±®c !)K} ) $ .\2 ) �D ) \\ z rn A .TMJLn ._�\•,- m m cn C7 x x x T c m z m m -p M1 ma AIT Pit 11'11■ITTA1 W cnm n��l�* cnm �m n-=+oxm b2oa 2� C ()Z mP tiq m��m T IT1 Qm b r[Cirvv�� po G7 U L C N — m � S Z SG�pr � P h � 4 V7 T y IT1 < I l oz z� p=aSR1 b •o m ��— �u,na or U Z q�l oy �=moo M M M1 ma AIT Pit 11'11■ITTA1 a A W cnm n��l�* cnm �m n-=+oxm b2oa 2� C ()Z mP tiq m��m T IT1 Qm b r[Cirvv�� po G7 U 2 Z T d T p y Z � Z SG�pr � P h � 4 V7 T y IT1 < I l oz z� p=aSR1 O m ��— o or U Z q�l oy �=moo M M A N 0 0 0 O a U d a A W cnm n��l�* cnm �m n-=+oxm b2oa 2� C ()Z mP tiq m��m T IT1 Qm b r[Cirvv�� po G7 U 2 Z T d T p y Z W ID SG�pr � P h � 1+Z2�b_1n V7 T oz z� p=aSR1 O m ��— o or U Z q�l oy �=moo A N a [n / \ I / I / I r i I I I � I I � I I - i I / I r / f / f f1T f1i IIT n 11'1\ 11TT A 1 - I � VARIES U) b � 5 I � b m Cn n a� b O O 3 b _ C o N 0 m M K D - - m C DU) - 2 0 b O m _ z zFf m h � o m C C = x z 2 co O TU O cn O r U ' K f1T f1i IIT n 11'1\ 11TT A 1 - I � I U) b � 5 Z Cn n a� b O O 3 b _ C o N 0 m M K D - - m C DU) 0 0 b m XVII N � f1T f1i IIT n 11'1\ 11TT A 1 - I � I � 5 Air- rT' ., m=b =o O�� Cr O�mU Cq'� �q opO z n� z� 22o nn O vnzv�inc �oo�xz z��c�rCi C7 cny �mcn ��zzmp WT. nl�'r crr'n �z m oo�yv c>o Wo�C'�m m�r,izoU� C y 9 z z r'm'1 � m VI r_ r � � C Final Report Hardie Avenue SW -- SW 7th Street Storm System Improvement Project Preliminary Design Memorandum City of Renton October 2012 SAIL City of Rentor, Final Report Hardie Avenue SW — SW 7th Street Storm System Improvement Project Preliminary Design Memorandum City of Renton October 2012 SAIC. This report has been prepared for the use of the client for the specific purposes identified in the report. The conclusions, observations and recommendations contained herein attributed to SAIC constitute the opinions of SAIL. To the extent that statements, information and opinions provided by the client or others have been used in the preparation of this report, SAIC has relied upon the same to be accurate, and for which no assurances are intended and no representations or warranties are made. SAIC makes no certification and gives no assurances except as explicitly set forth in this report. © 2012 SAIC All rights reserved. Hardie Avenue SW - SW 7th Street Storm System Improvement Project Preliminary Design Memorandum City of Renton Table of Contents Table of Contents List of Tahles List of Figures Hardie Avenue SW — SW 7th Street Storm System Improvement Project Preliminary Design Memorandum..............................................................................1 1. INTRODUCTION..............................................................I........................1 II. SCOPE OF INVESTIGATIONS.................................................................1 II1. INVESTIGATIONS AND RESULTS........................................................5 Survey/Mapping Investigations...................................................................5 Geotechnical Investigations.........................................................................5 Environmental Investigations......................................................................8 Existing Hydrologic and Hydraulic Model Updates..................................13 IV. EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE ALIGNMENTS ............................23 Alternative Descriptions............................................................................23 Environmental and Regulatory Implications of Alternatives ....................25 Cost and Other Criteria Considerations.....................................................30 Alternative Evaluation Summary...............................................................31 V. PRELIMINARY DESIGN (30 PERCENT DESIGN)..............................35 Hydrologic and Hydraulic Modeling of Alternative 1 ...............................35 Upstream Flooding Problems And Anticipated Improvements.................42 Recommendations......................................................................................48 List of Appendices A Basin Map and Land Use Data (Taken from GHD, 2010) B Storm Drain Pipe TV -Ing inspection Reports C Base Map Survey D Utility Potholing Results E Geotechnical Investigations F Preliminary Environmental Assessment G SWMM Model Output I1 Cost Estimates 1 30% Design Drawings File 001159 1 265 1 1 11 C18 SAIC Table of Contents List of Tables Table 1: Summary of w=etland size, classification, rating, and regulated List of Figures Figure 1. Alignment Alternatives..................................................................................3 Figure 2. Existing System XP SWMM Model Schematic.........................................1. 19 Figure 3. Alternative IA Improvements......................................................................37 Figure 4. Proposed System XP SWMM Model Schematic (Alternatives lA andl B) ................................................ ....39 Figure 5. Alternative 1 B Improvements... ............................................. —.— ............... 43 1v SAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, I.I.0 Preluninary Design Memorandum to -i? -12 buffer w=idth for the Hardie Avenue SW — SW 7th Street Storm System Improvement Project.........................................................................10 Table 2: XP-SWMM Loss Coefficients.......................................................................16 Table 3: Black River Pump Station Forebay Elevations (ft NAVD)...........................16 Table 4: Existing System Simulated flooding Locations.............................................21 Table 5: Potential Environmental Permits and Approvals Required for Alternatives. ................................................................................................... 28 Table 6: Alternative Evaluation Summary ..................................................................33 Table 7. Summary Model Results of Existing Conditions and Alternatives IAand IB ...................................................................................................... 45 Table 8: Alternative 1 A Cost Estimate........................................................................47 Table 9: Alternative 1B Cost Estimate........................................................................48 List of Figures Figure 1. Alignment Alternatives..................................................................................3 Figure 2. Existing System XP SWMM Model Schematic.........................................1. 19 Figure 3. Alternative IA Improvements......................................................................37 Figure 4. Proposed System XP SWMM Model Schematic (Alternatives lA andl B) ................................................ ....39 Figure 5. Alternative 1 B Improvements... ............................................. —.— ............... 43 1v SAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, I.I.0 Preluninary Design Memorandum to -i? -12 Hardie Avenue SW - SW 7th Street Storm System Improvement Project Preliminary Design Memorandum I. INTRODUCTION The SW 7th Street storm drainage system is a major trunk line draining 623 acres of the South Renton Subbasin. The basin includes much of the southerly downtown area and extends from Oakesdale Avenue SW to the west, Main Avenue to the east, Airport Way to the North and SW Grady Way to the south. The existing pipe system generally includes 48 inch to 60 inch diameter pipe that discharges to an unnarned stream that drains to the Black River Pump Station forebay. Within the basin, there are recurrent flooding problems, in particular, at Hardie Avenue SW near the BNSF railroad trestle underpass, SW 7th Street and Shattuck Avenue, and in the vicinity of Rainer Avenue and SW Sunset Boulevard. Flooding in the SW 7th Street basin has been studied previously including a 1994 study by SAIC (formerly R. W. Beck), a 2003 study by Gray and Osborne, Inc., and a 2010 study by BIIC Consultants. Fach Of these investigations has concluded that the lack of conveyance capacity in the lower trunk of the SW 7th Street contributes to the upstream flooding problems. The purpose of this study is to build on prior study and select a preferred alignment for the improved conveyance system, in particular between the outfall at Naches Avenue SW and Hardie Avenue SW, including a portion of the drainage system between SW 7th Street and Hardie Avenue SW that extends through private property. In addition to selecting the preferred alignment, additional objectives are to update prior hydrologic/hydraulic models based upon current survey data, size the new conveyance upgrades and develop 30 percent level design drawings. II. SCOPE OF INVESTIGATIONS The scope of investigations for this project were developed in consultation with City of Renton staff. The scope of work was developed to be implemented in two phases which are both documented in this report. The first phase included field survey, geotechnical investigations, hydrologic/hydraulic analyses, and environmental review to evaluate three different alignment alternatives for the proposed conveyance improvements. These alignments are shown on Figure 1 and were developed by the City as follows: ■ Alternative 1: New parallel system along SW 7th Street from Lind Avenue SW to the existing outlet along Naches Avenue SW and pipe replacement between Hardie Avenue SW and SW 7th Street. The new system would discharge to the same channel as the existing system. File 001159 1 2551111019 SAIL HARDIE AVENUE SW - SW 7TH STREET STORM SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ■ Alternative 2: The alignment for Alternative 2 is similar to Alternative 1 but includes construction of a water quality treatment facility on a City -owned parcel (#9188000154) located along the west side of Naches Avenue SW. The water quality treatment facility would be configured to discharge to the existing channel west of Naches Avenue SW. ■ Alternative 3: The alignment for Alternative 3 is similar to Alternative 1 except that instead of continuing along SW 7th Street west of Powell Avenue SW, it would extend north along Powell Avenue SW to its terminus, where it would discharge to an existing channel that extends west ultimately connecting to an existing Naches Avenue SW culvert crossing. The SW 7th Street 60 inch diameter pipe system also connects to this culvert. This alternative would also include improvements to the existing culvert crossing of Naches Avenue SW as well as possibly improvements to the channel between Powell Avenue SW and Naches Avenue SW. The second phase includes developing 30 percent design drawings of the preferred alignment (Alternative 1) and conducting detailed hydrologic/hydraulic modeling of the conveyance improvements to evaluate pipe sizing. A future third phase will include development of final plans and construction documents of the preferred alignment. Due to phasing, the third phase will likely be limited to the portion of improvements downstream of the Hardie Avenue SW system that extends through private property. The remaining alignment would be a future phase. 2 sA1C Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, LI -C Preliminary Design Memorandum 10-17-12 r U) L M _ L Q LnQ.: E r_ a o a v I- o ` L a co in Q m r c� U a� u�i CL CL E tD U) a a CY) -0 C X � N a� J Q W v m (n O ` N • 4 0 Q • s b � m � m CL Q Q) E n- U) o _ � � m r ZZ }, Q] 7. Q W O L �CL W m 7 IZ W � Q} O LL N E Q} LO M � M I I L O U LO O M _Q CL CL T- LO � T 0 PRELIMINARY DESIGN MEMORANDUM III. INVESTIGATIONS AND RESULTS Survey/Mapping Investigations The survey and mapping investigations included several separate investigations as described in the following paragraphs. ■ Pipe TV-ing. Pipe TV-ing was performed of a selected pipe reach of the system between SW 7th Street and Hardie Avenue SW and continuing a few hundred feet north along Hardie Avenue SW. This system was TV'd to assess conditions of the pipe and also to identify any pipe connections between catch basins that might not be shown on record drawings. The TV work was done by Bravo Environmental. A summary of their report findings is included in Appendix B. The last page in Appendix B includes a key map showing the different pipe segments TV'd. Video tiles were separately transmitted to the Citv. The TV work showed that the pipe was generally in good condition. However, there were several instances of root intrusion and debris accumulation, which in some cases prevented complete TV-ing of a pipe segment between manholes. ■ Survey and Base Map Development. Field survey was performed along the alternative alignments. The work included topographic survey to 1 foot contours as well as location of above ground surface features and below ground utilities. A copy of the base map survey is included in Appendix C. The survey and base map were developed by PACE Engineers. ■ Utility Potholing. Utility potholing to located depths of certain underground utilities was performed along the selected alternative alignment (Alternative 1). Potholing was done by Bravo Environmental and a summary of the investigations is included in Appendix D. This information was added to the base map survey. Geotechnical Investigations Geotechnical engineering investigations were completed by HWA (ieoSciences, Inc. (HWA) to consider geotechnical considerations when evaluating the alternative alignments. More specifically, the purpose of the investigation was to evaluate the subsurface conditions along the proposed alternative alignments and to identify if there are any advantages or disadvantages in selecting one alignment over another. The investigation included the drilling of eight exploratory boreholes extended to depths of about 30 feet below ground surface, collecting soil samples and associated laboratory testing, determining groundwater depths at the time of the investigation, and pumping tests to assess aquifer properties. The investigations and findings are documented in a report that is included in Appendix E. Some of the major conclusions are presented in the following paragraphs. File: 001159 1 2651111018 SAIL Energy, Environment & Infrastructure. LLC 5 HARDIE AVENUE SW - SW 7TH STREET STORM SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Based on the borings, the storm drain alignments are generally underlain by a sequence of fill and alluvium. Fill was encountered directly beneath the pavement in nearly all of the borings; extending to depths of approximately 2.5 to 7.5 feet. The fill encountered consisted generally of loose to medium dense, clean to slightly silty, sand and gravel. Some of the fill encountered in these borings could be utility trench backfill from nearby utilities. Recent alluvium was encountered in all of the explorations immediately below the fill and extended the entire depth of the explorations. The alluvium consists of interbedded, very loose to medium dense, clean to very silty sand, and very soft to medium stiff, dark, organic silt, peat, and silt. These materials are relatively fine-grained and were deposited in a low-energy environment such as a lake or shallow estuary. They are moderately to highly compressible and have relatively low shear strengths. They may contain logs, stumps or other woody debris. These deposits are described as Alluvial Silts and Sands on the borehole logs. Some portions of the alignments cross the former channel of the Black River which was the outlet of Lake Washington until the early 20th century. The Black River flowed to the Duwamish River until 1916 when the opening of the Lake Washington Ship Canal lowered the lake level and the Black River went dry (Galster and Laprade, 1991). Ground water was encountered in all borings during drilling at depths varying from approximately 4 to 14 feet below ground surface, with most ground water levels in the vicinity of about 7 to 10 feet below ground surface. With respect to the alternative alignments, the soils are relatively similar for all alignments and will likely present similar conditions during construction. The findings conclude that there is not any geotechnical reason to select one alignment over another. Some of the findings that affect all alignments are summarized below. More detailed information is included in Appendix E. ■ All alignments traverse loose, soft alluvial soils below the ground water table. These soils include compressible clays, silts and peat, in addition to sands and gravels containing occasional cobbles. Logs or other wooden debris and occasional boulders also may be present. ■ In some areas the proposed storm sewer invert will extend below ground water. Construction dewatering will be necessary. ■ Traditional trench box shoring methods can be used for most of the length along each alignment. Where utility and roadway protection is of more concern, steel sheetpiles, or steel plates with adjustable or hydraulic bracing may be needed for temporary shoring. ■ The existing soils that will be excavated along all alignments are very silty and organic -rich, and they will be unsuitable for re -use as trench backfill. To minimize the potential for future settlement along the pipeline, the use of lightweight backfill is recommended for new pipe installation; either clean, uniform sand or controlled density fill (CDF), as trench backfill. 6 sAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure. LLC Preliminary Design Memorandum 10-17-12 PRELIMINARY DESIGN MEMORANDUM ■ Ground water flow rates into the wall of the trenches will be lowest if construction occurs during the summer and early fall. Dewatering will likely require dewatering wells or well points in some or all areas. Settlement of adjoining ground surface, structures or utilities may occur due to dewatering activities. Dewatering should be performed in such a way as to not cause settlements or damage to adjacent areas. The responsibility for design and implementation of any dewatering system should be placed on the construction contractor. ■ Although no known ground water contamination is documented along the alternative alignments, it is possible; therefore construction bid documents (plans and specifications) addressing construction dewatering should include all analytical results and provisions for contaminated water testing, storage, treatment/disposal, and health and safety requirements. Contaminated water treatment/disposal options may include: Off-site treatment and disposal; On-site treatment and discharge; or Discharge to sanitary sewer under permit. ■ One particular note about the alignments is that between IIardie Avenue SW and Lind Avenues SW and in the vicinity of Naches Avenue SW, the project crosses and runs parallel to the alignment of the former Black River. Because ground water may preferentially flow in the alluvial sediments in these sections of the project, significant quantities of ground water may be encountered and require more extensive dewatering. HWA also evaluated the project alignments for the potential presence of contamination that may present issues during construction_ This was done by conducting a search for listed contaminated sites along the alignments, and reviewing files available at the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) and provided by the City of Renton. Eighteen listed sites were identified along, adjoining, or nearby the alternative alignments. With the exception of the City -owned parcel along Naches Avenue SW being considered as a stormwater treatment facility, there is a low to moderate potential that subsurface activities (excavation, earthwork, grading and utility work) in the project corridor may encounter soils and ground water that may contain elevated concentrations of petroleum or other contaminants. Although there is insufficient information to delineate potentially contaminated areas on any future construction, construction bid documents should include all background information, analytical results and provisions for contaminated soil handling, treatment/disposal, and health and safety requirements. With respect to the City owned parcel on the west side of Naches Avenue SW and north of SW 7th Street (See Figure 1), HWA reviewed files provided by the City of Renton and available at Ecology. The HWA report referred to this site as the "Black River Corporate Park site" because it was originally part of the Black River Corporate Park site. The site is now owned by the City of Renton and includes areas north of Oakesdale Avenue South and Southwest 7th Street, extending west of Naches Avenue SW about 200 feet. Dredge spoils were deposited on the site around 1984. Sampling in 1990 and 1991 indicated the presence of petroleum hydrocarbons and metals in the dredge spoils. Later sampling (ca. 1997) revealed petroleum hydrocarbons and metals File (101154 1 2651 1 1 1418 SAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure. Ll -C 7 HARDIE AVENUE SW - SW 7TH STREET STORM SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PROJECT in a drainage swale/channel. Hart Crowser conducted a Supplemental Environmental Assessment at the site in 1997. Previous investigations found fill soils within a drainage and wetland area on the site contained petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), lead, and cadmium exceeding Ecology Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA) cleanup levels. Hart Crowser collected shallow (0 to 3 feet below ground surface, (bgs)) soils from hand auger borings and test pits along the drainage Swale. Shallow samples, typically consisting of wetland vegetation and organic silts, generally did not exceed MTCA cleanup levels for the selected analytes (Hart Crowser, 1997). Deeper samples (1.5 feet below grade surface (bgs) and below) contained metals and TPH exceeding MTCA cleanup levels. The contaminated soils appeared to be concentrated within a swale that conveyed stormwater discharge from a former SW 7th Street stormwater outfall. Other (more upland) areas on the site generally did not have exceedances. Although the former property owners attributed the source of contamination to stormwater flowing through this area, the concentrations observed are in some cases higher than what might be expected solely from stormwater runoff. Hart Crowser estimated the volume of affected soils to range from 1,000 to 9,000 cubic yards. Ground water samples were not collected as part of their investigation. Ideally, construction of a stormwater treatment facility on this site would be designed to minimize the disturbance of contaminated soils in this area. The contaminated soils are currently located below cleaner silts and vegetation, and construction or excavation for a stormwater facility could possibly be done to avoid impacting the contaminated soils. However, this would significantly limit the size of a stormwater facility. If the City were to excavate the contaminated soils for a larger facility, the cost to excavate, haul, treat or dispose of petroleum contaminated soils would likely range from $40 to $60 a ton. Environmental Investigations A preliminary critical areas assessment was prepared as a part of this investigation by Herrera Environmental Consultants (Herrera). The effort was done in support of the alternatives analysis and design development for the proposed stormwater system conveyance improvements. The objectives of this preliminary critical areas assessment were to: ■ Conduct a reconnaissance -level investigation of wetlands, streams, and buffers within the study area; ■ Conduct an ordinary high water mark (OHWM) determination for streams observed within the study area; ■ Classify wetlands using the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and hydrogeomorphic (HGM) classification systems (Cowardin et al. 1979, Brinson, 1993); ■ Evaluate wetland functions and values using the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington (Hruby, 2004); 8 SAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, LLC Preliminary Design Memorandum 10-17-12 PRELIMINARY DESIGN MEMORANDUM ■ Approximate delineations (boundaries) of wetlands, streams and buffers; ■ Evaluate stream functions and values; ■ Conduct a preliminary classification of wetlands and streams according to the City of Renton Municipal Code (RMC) Chapter 4-3-050; ■ Based on preliminary classifications, determine applicable wetland and stream buffer widths according to RMC Chapter 4-3-050; ■ Characterize the vegetation community and dominant plant species within the study area; and ■ Describe potential impacts to critical areas and ESA listed species ■ Describe regulatory and permitting considerations associated with the three design alternatives. The findings of the critical areas assessment are included in Appendix F. A summary of the findings is provided in the following paragraphs. Based on review of published data and field reconnaissance, Herrera identified four wetlands, referred to in their report as Wetlands A, B, C and D, and one stream, referred to in their report as Stream A, within the study area. 'These general areas are shown on Figure 1 (note that a more detailed figure is presented in Figure 1 of Appendix F). Because this was a reconnaissance -level investigation, wetland boundaries shown in this figure are approximate. The OHWM of Stream A shown on Figure 1 in Appendix F is precise because it is based on surveyed locations of OHWM flags placed in the field by Herrera biologists, which were subsequently surveyed by Pace Engineers. Inc. Wetlands Wetland A is a 40 acre depressional wetland of which a portion occurs on the City -owned parcel adjacent to Naches Avenue SW. Wetland A is associated with the historic Black River drainage. The palustrine forested (PFO) wetland continues west of the City -ow=ned parcel where it is associated with the Black River Riparian Forest and Black River wetland system between Oaksdale Avenue SW and the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad tracks. Reconnaissance of the large wetland system west of the City -owned parcel was not conducted as part of this study, but based on aerial photograph interpretation, the larger wetland system contains several different palustrine wetland and aquatic habitats including scrub -shrub (PSS), emergent (PEM), aquatic bed (PAB), and open water (POW). An unnamed tributary (Stream A) flows into Wetiand A from the east. Wetland A was rated as a Category i wetland. Wetland B is an approximate 1 acre riverine wetland associated with Stream A, which flows west in a narrow vegetated corridor between commercial office buildings, driveways, and parking lots. The wetland supports a PFO vegetation community. Wetland B was rated as a Category- III wetland. Wetland C is an approximate 3 acre depressional and riverine wetland located adjacent to BNSF railroad tracks and is separated from Wetland B by a driveway connecting File: 001159 1 2651111018 SA1C Energy. Environment & WrastrUcture.. LLC 9 HARDIE AVENUE SW - SW 7TH STREET STORM SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PROJECT commercial office buildings at the end of Powell Avenue SW (Figure 1). Wetland C also contains a segment of Stream A and is comprised of a PFO vegetation community. It is possible that Wetland C is contiguous with Wetland A where contiguous vegetation wraps around the north side of a commercial office park, but this connection was not confirmed during the reconnaissance conducted as part of this study. Wetland D is a small depressional, PFO wetland that has been altered to provide stormwater detention/treatment on the north side of SW 7th Street east of Powell Avenue SW. The following table, excerpted from the Herrera report summarizes the information on the four wetlands in the project vicinity. An important distinction in the wetland rating is that wetlands A, B, and C are within shoreline jurisdiction in accordance with Renton Municipal Code (RMC) 4-3-090. As such, their category rating is based upon the Ecology rating system. Whereas, Wetland D is not in shoreline jurisdiction; therefore, the category is based on RMC 4-3-050. Table 1: Summary of wetland size, classification, rating, and regulated buffer width for the Hardie Avenue SW - SW 7th Street Storm System Improvement Project. Wetland Name Approximate Size of Wetland (acres) USFWS Classificationa Hydrogeomorphic Classificationb City of Renton Preliminary Standard Buffer Width Ratings (feet)d A 40 PFO, PSS, PEM, Depressional 1 150 PAB, POW B 1 PFO Riverine 111 75 C 3 PFO Depressional and 11 100 Riverine D 0.12 PFO Depressional 3 25 a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service classification is based on Cowardin et al. (1979) palustrine farested (PFO), palustrine scrub -shrub (PSS), palustrine emergent (PEM), palustrine aquatic bed (PAB), and palustrine open water (POW), h Hydrogeomorphic classification is based on Brinson (1993). Categories for Wetlands A, B, and C are based on function scores according to the Ecology wetland rating system (Hruby 2004). According to RMC 4-3-090, Wetlands A, B, and C are in shoreline jurisdiction, therefore, the category is based on the Ecology rating system. Wetland D is not in shoreline jurisdiction; therefore, the category is based on RMC 4-3-050. u. Regulated buffer widths are based on RMC 4-3-090 and RMC 4-3-050. The PFO communities of Wetlands A, B, C, and D within the study area are dominated by black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera ssp, trichocarpa), Pacific willow (Salix lucida ssp. lasiandra), red alder (Alnus rubra), and Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia); with an understory of Sitka willow (Salix sitchensis), red osier dogwood (Cornus sericea), salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis), Douglas spirea (Spiraea douglasii), Pacific ninebark (Physocarpus capitatus), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus), lady fern (Athyrium frlix femina), stinging nettle (Urtica dioica), creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens), slough sedge (Carex obnupta), and reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea). Invasive species (e.g., Himalayan blackberry) 10 SAIL Energy. Environment & Infrastructure, LLC Preliminary Design Memorandum 10-17-12 PRELIMINARY DESIGN MEMORANDUM are abundant in disturbed portions of the wetlands primarily located along wetland edges and along modified portions of Stream A. The mature forested portions of wetlands are dominated by mature (>21 inch diameter breast height [dbh]) black cottonwood trees and red alder. Many habitat features, such as snags and downed logs, are present throughout forested portions of Wetlands A and C. Hydrologic conditions varied throughout portions of Wetlands A, B, C, and D within the study area during reconnaissance activities. Some portions of the wetlands were inundated (anywhere from 1 to 6 inches), while some areas exhibited saturated soils at the surface. The wettest areas included the low elevation areas associated with the historic Black River drainage within Wetland A and areas adjacent to Stream A within Wetlands A, B, and C. Primary hydrologic sources to wetlands include a high groundwater table, overbank flow associated with Stream A, and stormwater runoff. A primary source of hydrology to Wetland A is Springbrook Creek. The hydrology of Wetland A is controlled by the Black River Pump Station at the outlet of the Black River Wetland. The buffers surrounding wetlands within the study area are largely highly disturbed and function at a low- level. Due to surrounding development, there are no buffer areas that satisfy the City's undeveloped buffer requirements. In some locations, no buffer exists where impervious surfaces, such as parking lots, roads, trails, the railroad, and buildings abut the wetland. In other locations, a narrow zone of upland vegetation buffers the wetlands from development, but this primarily consists of lawn areas. Within the City -owned parcel, the buffer between the wetland and Naches Avenue SW is dominated by large, mature black cottonwood trees, with an understory of Indian plum (Oemleria cerasiformis), sword fern (Polystichum munilum), beaked hazelnut (Corylus cornuta), and Himalayan blackberry. Stream A Stream A originates upstream of Wetland C and flows via culverts through Wetland B and into Wetland A. King County (2011) mapping depicts a stream occurring within the swale-like wetland depression on the City -owned property; however, strearn conditions were not observed. Stream A flows into the Black River wetland system located within the Black River Riparian Forest, The Black River wetland system drains to the Black River Pump Station (BRPS), which pumps creek flows into the Green River approximately 0.75 miles downstream of the study area. The BRPS is equipped with both upstream and downstream fish passage. There are no water quality -impaired, 303(d) listed streams within the study area (Ecology 2008). However, Springbrook Creek, the main tributary to the Black River Riparian Forest is listed as "impaired" on the state 303(d) list for dissolved oxygen and fecal coliform, and it is listed as "waters of concern" for temperature, pH. mercury, copper, and bis(2ethylnexyl)phthalate. The City of Renton (2011) indicates the City -owned parcel lies almost completely within the 100 -year floodplain, with the Black River Riparian Forest (to the north and west of the study area) also occupying the 100 -year floodplain. File: 001159 1 2651111018 sA]C Energy. Environment & lnfrastruclurc, LLC 11 HARDIE AVENUE SW - SW 7TH STREET STORM SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), steelhead trout (Oneorhynchus mykiss), and coastal resident cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki) are known to be present within the Black River/Springbrook Creek system (WDFW 201 la, WDFW 201 lb). Since the stream located in the study area flows into the Black River/Springbrook Creek system approximately 800 feet downstream of the culvert at Naches Avenue SW, and there are no documented fish barriers present that would prevent upstream migration of fish into the study area, it is assumed that these species are present within the study area. Puget Sound Chinook salmon and Puget Sound steelhead trout are both listed as federally -threatened under the Endangered Species Act (NOAA Fisheries 2011). Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife's Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) database identifies the Black River Riparian Forest (including the City -owned parcel) as a great blue heron (Ardea herodias) breeding area (WDFW 2011b). A bald eagle protection area is also identified within the Black River Riparian Forest, but the mapped protection area is just outside (to the northwest) of the project study area (WDFW 2011 b). Stream A within the study area exhibits variable levels of functions for habitat, corresponding with the variability related to stream channel conditions. Valuable rearing and refuge habitat is present in the sections of Stream A downstream of the highly altered segment immediately downstream of the culvert outfall. These areas exhibit pool and glide habitat, dense riparian cover (which moderates water temperatures), overhanging vegetation (which provides nutrients for invertebrates), and some woody debris (which provides habitat for invertebrates and in -stream cover for fish). Suitable spawning habitat was not observed within the study area, as the channel substrate consisted primarily of fine -textured materials (i.e., silt and silty clay) or armoring materials near the culvert outfall. Opportunities for Wetland and Stream Mingation/Enhancement The once large wetland complex associated with the Black River system has been highly altered by development within the study area. Consequently, many opportunities to mitigate wetland impacts occur in close proximity to the project where wetlands can be reestablished by removing fill material. An example of such an area is the large turn -around at the end of Naches Avenue SW, which is surrounded by wetlands. The project area offers limited opportunities, which are listed below, within undeveloped areas to mitigate unavoidable impacts on stream and wetland critical areas and buffer functions. if necessary, mitigation measures will be developed during the next phase of the project. ■ There are opportunities for vegetation enhancement within existing critical areas and buffers where invasive vegetation (e.g., Himalayan blackberries) can be removed and replaced with native vegetation. For example, the riparian buffer adjacent to Naches Avenue SW is characterized by dense Himalayan blackberry in some areas. This area provides an opportunity to plant native shrubs and trees that will (1) add shade to the stream channel to help regulate instream 12 5AIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, LLC Preliminary Design Memorandum 10-17-12 PRELIMINARY DESIGN MEMORANDUM temperature, (2) provide insect habitat and a potential food source for fish, and (3) provide improved terrestrial wildlife habitat. ■ The channel quality of Stream A could be improved by enhancing channel substrate and complexity in the highly altered segment immediately downstream of the culvert outfall, thereby decreasing flow velocities during storm events and reducing erosion of fine sediments into the stream. Existing Hydrologic and Hydraulic Model Updates As a part of the investigation, a previou hydrologic/hydraulic model (XP-SWMM) developed by GHD Consultants was updated to reflect the existing drainage system based upon the new survey data. A description of the prior modeling efforts is described below followed by a summary- of the modeling updates and results. Prior Model Development There have been three prior studies of the South Renton subbasin and SW 71h drainage system. all of which included some modeling of the system. SW 7th Street/Hardie Avenue SW/Lake Avenue S Drainage Investigations (R. W. Beck, 1998). This study included field survey of the existing conveyance system within the study area and hydraulic modeling using the King County BWPIPE model. Hydrology for this study was taken from work done as a part of the East Side Green River Watershed Plan, which had the entire SW 7th Street drainage modeled as one basin. This study included an initial assessment of required pipe sizes to reduce flooding at the Hardie underpass and other areas along SW 7' Street. The study determined that to completely solve the flooding problems, an entire system replacement (or parallel pipe) to its outfall at Naches Avenue SW would be needed. At the time, the City did not have the resources to initiate a project of this size so the focus of the study shifted to recommending smaller scale improvements that would provide significant benefit. SW 7th Street Storm Drainage Improvement Project — Pre -Design Analysis (Gray and Osborne, Inc., 2003). This study included a significant upgrade in the modeling of the system. The King County KCRTS (King County Runoff Time Series) model was used for basin hydrology and XP-SWMM for system hydraulics. While it focused on pipe improvements between Lind Avenue SW and Shattuck Avenue, the work did include some preliminary assessment of more extensive pipe improvements further downstream. The study concluded, on a preliminary basis, that a 72 inch diameter parallel pipe west of Lind Avenue plus the pipe improvement being considered as a part of their study would solve most system flooding along SW 7th Street (it did not focus on flooding at the Hardie Avenue SW underpass). This was based on a simplified model run of the parallel pipe system that assumed a uniform slope between Lind Avenue SW and the outfall. It also did not include system losses for most manholes. It also did not recognize that (or at least discuss) there are low lying catch basins along Hardie Avenue SW that are lower than the rims of the trunk line. Thus the report overstated the benefits of the 72 inch diameter system with respect to Hardie Avenue SW. File_ 001159 1 2651111018 SA1C Energy, Environment & I n frastruci tire. E1.0 13 HARDIE AVENUE SW - SW 7TH STREET STORM SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Shattuck Avenue Stormwater Diversion Modeling Report (GHD, 2010). This study focused on evaluating a proposed 48 inch diameter pipe diversion along Shattuck Avenue S between S 4th Street and S 7th Street. With this improvement project the runoff that previously went to the City stormwater pump station located on Rainier Avenue S adjacent to the BNSF railroad bridge was substantially reduced. This study was actually done as a supplemental analysis to the Rainier Avenue S, SW Grady Way to S 2nd Street Improvement Project Surface Water Technical Report. The effort included updating the model developed by Gray and Osborne for the analysis. Model updates included: ■ Updating the current drainage system to reflect recent parallel pipe construction in SW 7th Street (that were sized by the 2003 G&O work). ■ Reviewing and updating the subbasin delineations and future land use data for several subbasins. Only future land use conditions were analyzed as a part of the study, and data for eleven subbasins were updated. ■ Model scenarios include the current drainage system plus 4 alternative scenarios that considered both varying basin areas for the diversion and improvement pipe sizes. For each scenario, the model was run both with and without the assumption of a future b foot diameter parallel system between Lind Avenue SW and the outfall near the BRPS Forebay. The recommended scenario (Scenario 2A) included a 48 inch storm drain in Shattuck between SW 7th Street and SW 4th Street. Under this scenario, 54 acres are being diverted away from the Rainer pump station to Shattuck Avenue. Current Modeling Updates For this study effort, SAIL was provided with the 2010 GHD model, which was updated and applied as described in the following paragraphs. The specific XP— SWMM model scenario that was provided to SAIC to be updated was Scenario 2A. Hydrology - KCRTS As with the GHD study, all modeling done for this current study applied future land use conditions. All subbasin data was taken from the GHD study. Copies of both a subbasin map as well as a summary table of land use data is included in Appendix A. One important note about the prior future land use analysis is that the future land use condition was based upon allowable impervious areas using the City's 2002 zoning map. However, wherever the existing impervious areas (based on 2001 aerials) were greater than future impervious area, then the existing percent impervious area was used in the modeling for the `'future condition". For example, where a basin had a maximum allowable impervious percentage of 85 percent for its zoning, but it was already developed to 92 percent, then the higher percentage was used. This is reasonable because it is uncertain when the property would redevelop in the future. Other notable assumptions about the hydrology include: ■ Time Step: 15 Minute t4 SA1C Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, LLC Preliminary Design Memorandum 10-17-12 PRELIMINARY DESIGN MEMORANDUM ■ Rainfall: Sea -Tac Region with 1.0 scale factor, reduced data file (uses 8 water years selected for being statistically similar to the full historical record). ■ Soils: Till ■ Any existing on-site detention facilities are ignored ■ Impervious areas are assumed to be effective Hydraulics — XP-SWMM — Existing System The prior GHD model of the system was updated for existing conveyance conditions under future land use flows. The following updates were made: ■ The portion of the pipe system that was surveyed to develop project topgraphic base maps was updated based on surveyed pipe inverts and structure rims. This generally included the portions of the system downstream of Hardie Avenue (near the BNSF underpass) to SW 7th and then downstream along this system to the outfall at Naches Avenue SW. ■ Manhole losses were reviewed. In most areas along the existing model, exit and entrance losses were assumed to be zero. Manhole losses were added to the model. The method for adding losses is described below. ■ A 200 foot reach of Stream A downstream of the Naches Avenue SW culvert outfall was added to the model. This was done to reflect and backwater conditions that could be created by the channel. Also, a review of appropriate downstream boundary conditions (i.e., starting water surface elevation) was conducted_ The prior modeling analysis assumed a "free discharge". The review is discussed below. The prior model had some losses. particularly at junctions of multiple pipes and vaults. However, it did not have exit or entrance losses at every manhole or at the very downstream connection with the culvert crossing of Naches Avenue SW. Entrance, exit, and bend losses were added to manholes/catchbasins. These losses were generally applied in accordance with guidance from the Modern Sewer Design, American Steel Institute and also consideration of the FHWA Urban Drainage Manual and the King County Surface Water Design Manual. The following table summarizes the losses applied. This table also includes losses for proposed pipe improvements, assuming that these manholes would be channeled up to the crown of the pipe to reduce losses. Filc 001159 I 2651111018 SAIL Energy. F."nvironment & Infrastructure, LLC 15 HARDIE AVENUE SW — SW 7TH STREET STORM SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Table 2: XP-SWMM Loss Coefficients Loss K for Existing Pipe K for New Pipe (Channeled) Entrance - Straight Alignment 0.26 0.1 90 degree bend 1.1 1.1 45 degree bend 0.3 0.3 15 degree bend 0.1 0.1 Exit to Manhole 0.35 0.04 Exit to Outfall/Culvert 1.0 1.0 To determine an appropriate downstream boundary condition, the results of the Hydraulic Analysis of Springbrook Creek FEMA Re -Mapping Study (FEMA Re -Mapping Study, R. W. Beck, 2006) was reviewed. As noted above, the prior modeling efforts assumed a free discharge (i.e., no downstream effects). Stream A downstream of the Naches Avenue SW culvert discharges to the Black River Pump Station (BRPS) Forebay, which pumps tributary inflows to the Green River. The primary drainage to the forebay is Springbrook Creek. The Springbrook Creek and forebay were studied as a part of the FEMA Re -Mapping Study. As a part of this study, two different design events for Springbrook Creek were developed. One was called the "conveyance" event and represents a severe local precipitation event without any pumping restrictions at the BRPS. The other is the "storage" event, which represents a large flood on the Green River that, according to the Green River Interlocal Agreement, gives the authority to King County to reduce BRPS pumping rates when the Green River is greater than 9,000 cfs in order to protect the Green River levee system. Note that it is understood that the County has never reduced pumping rates even though the Green has been above 9,000 several times. The following table summarize the predicted future land use surface water elevations in the forebay from the report. Table 3: Black River Pump Station Forebay Elevations (ft NAVD) Future Land Use' Conveyance Event Storage Event 25 -year 100 -year 25 -year 100 -year 8.1 8.3 12 17.2 Source, Springbrook Creek FEMA Re -Mapping Study (R. W. Beck, 2006) This information was reviewed with the City and it was concluded to use water surface elevations from the conveyance event for this study. Use of the elevations corresponding to the storage event, particularly the 100 -year elevation would likely cause wide spread flooding because of the flatness of the valley (for example, the low point at Hardie Avenue SW, located 4,700 feet east is only 19.7 compared to elevation of 20.3 of Naches Avenue SW near the outfall). It would likely not be cost feasible to construct a conveyance and/or storage system to provide protection for this event. 16 SA1C Energy, Environment & Infrastructure. 1.1,C Preliminary Design Memorandum 10-17-12 PRELIMINARY DESIGN MEMORANDUM Given uncertainly as to whether the County would implement the BR -PS pumping restrictions even when the Green River exceeds 9,000, combined with idea that it would be cost prohibitive, it did not make sense to use the storage event as the design criteria. One of the previous updates in the model developed by GIID was some modifications to the pumping rates of the Rainier Avenue Pump Station. The capacity of the pump station that was used within the GHD study were reviewed with the City. As a part of the Rainier Avenue improvement project, the pump was replaced, but has the same capacity and efficiency. Therefore, no changes were made to the GIID model. The link that represents the pump is referred to as "TMP Out -VI to VIDpoint" in the model. A model schematic is presented in Figure 2. The results of the model runs are included in Appendix G. The model runs included the 2-, 10-, 25-, and 100 -year events. 'fable 4 includes a summary of simulated flooding locations for the storm events. File: 001159 1 2651111018 SAIL Energy, Environment & Infrastructure. LLC 17 I cz E cn E w cn W PRELIMINARY DESIGN MEMORANDUM Table 4: Existing System Simulated flooding Locations Event (year) General Locations XP-SWMM Nodes (see Figure 2) 2 -year Shattuck Avenue SW in the vicinity of S 3fd Place SH75_AL Shattuck Avenue SW SH70_AG Shattuck Avenue SW SH60_V2 SW 7th near Lind Ave SW 45.1 10 -year Hardie Ave 59B_U Intersection of SW7th and Shattuck Ave CB50 J Hardie Ave 59A W AM Hardie Ave 60B Hardie Ave 65A Hardie Ave 67A Hardie Ave 130A Hardie Ave 13OA_AH Hardie Ave 140A Hardie Ave 145A Hardie Ave 150AAIAJAK Hardie Ave 60A—X Hardie Ave 136A Hardie Ave 137A Hardie Ave 138A Near Intersection of SVV7th and Shattuck Ave 26+48Ex Near Intersection of SVV7th and Shattuck Ave C135126+48 Near Intersection of SW7th and Shattuck Ave C1354_29+23 Near Intersection of SW7th and Shattuck Ave CB46 24+14 Near Hardie Ave Mdpoint Shattuck Avenue SW in the vicinity of S 3,d Place SH75_AL Shattuck Avenue SW SH70_AG Shattuck Avenue SW SH60_V2 25 -year Shattuck Avenue SW in the vicinity of S 31d Place 32+23EX Shattuck Avenue SW in the vicinity of S 31d Place SH75_AL Shattuck Avenue SW SH70_AG Shattuck Avenue SW SH60_V2 SW 7th near Lind Ave SW 45.1 SW 7th near Lind Ave SW VAULT1_1+6 Hardie Ave 59B_U Intersection of SW7th and Shattuck Ave VT3_25+57 Near Intersection of SW7th and Shattuck Ave CB50_J Hardie Ave 59A W AM Hardie Ave 60B Hardie Ave 65A Hardie Ave 135A—AH Hardie Ave 140A ................ . File. 001159 1 2651111018 SAIC Encrgy. Environment & Infrastructure, LLC 21 HARDIE AVENUE SW - SW 7TH STREET STORM SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Table 4: Existing System Simulated flooding Locations Event (year) General Locations XP-SWMM Nodes (see Figure 2) Hardie Ave 145A 25 -year (Cont.) Hardie Ave 150AAIAJAK Hardie Ave 60A—X Hardie Ave 136A Hardie Ave 137A Hardie Ave 138A East of Intersection of SW7th and Shattuck Ave 32+10Ex Near Intersection of SW7th and Shattuck Ave 26+48Ex Near Intersection of SW7th and Shattuck Ave C65126+48 East of Intersection of SW7th and Shattuck Ave EXCB 31+05 East of Intersection of SW7th and Shattuck Ave CB54 29+23 East of Intersection of SW7th and Shattuck Ave CB52 28+16 Near Intersection of SW7th and Shattuck Ave CB45 23+63 Near Intersection of SW7th and Shattuck Ave CB46 24+14 Near Hardie Ave Mdpoint Shattuck Avenue SW CB2_KM 100 -year Shattuck Avenue SW in the vicinity of S 31d Place 40_E SW 7th Street east of Shattuck Ave SW D8 -14 —G SW 7th near Lind Ave SW E8 -13A-17+ SW 7th west of Shattuck Ave SW 32+23EX SW Th east of Shattuck Ave SW 35+21 Shattuck Avenue SW in the vicinity of S 3,d Place SH75_AL Shattuck Avenue SW SH70_AG SW 7th near Lind Ave SW 45.1 SW 7th near Lind Ave SW VAULTI 1+6 SW 7th near Lind Ave SW 4+21 Ex—F Hardie Ave 59B U Intersection of SW7th and Shattuck Ave VT3 25+57 Intersection of SW7th and Shattuck Ave CB50 J West of Intersection of SW7th and Shattuck Ave CB -EX -22+8 Hardie Ave 59A W AM Hardie Ave 60B Hardie Ave 65A Hardie Ave 67A Hardie Ave 120A Hardie Ave 125A Hardie Ave 130A Hardie Ave 135A AH Hardie Ave 140A Hardie Ave 145A Hardie Ave 150AAIAJAK Hardie Ave 60A—X 22 SAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, LLC Preliminary Design Memorandum 10-17-12 PRELIMINARY DESIGN MEMORANDUM Table 4: Existing System Simulated flooding Locations Event (year) General Locations XP-SWMM Nodes (see Figure 2) Hardie Ave 136A 100 -year (cont.) Hardie Ave 137A Hardie Ave 138A East of Intersection of SW7th and Shattuck Ave 32+10Ex Near Intersection of SW7th and Shattuck Ave 26+48Ex Near Intersection of SW7th and Shattuck Ave CB51 26+48 East of Intersection of SW7th and Shattuck Ave EXCB_31+05 East of Intersection of SW7th and Shattuck Ave CB54_29+23 East of Intersection of SW7th and Shattuck Ave CB52 28+16 Near Intersection of SW7th and Shattuck Ave CB45_23+63 Near Intersection of SW7th and Shattuck Ave CB46_24+14 Near Hardie Ave Mdpoint No model adjustments were made to try and simulate depths of flooding with detailed accuracy. This was considered unnecessary because the City will be implementing solutions over time to reduce the simulated water levels. One specific question the City had with respect to the existing system was whether improvements to the existing culvert outfall (Le., the culvert crossing Naches Avenue SW would result in any benefit upstream. The existing outfall includes 102 inch x 55 inch CMP. One option to improve the outfall would be to line the CMP pipe to reduce its roughness coefficient. The existing conditions model was re -run assuming this option (replacing the roughness of 0.024 with 0.012. The result was that upstream water levels at the low point in Hardie Avenue SW only decreased by 0.01 feet. Thus, an improvement to the outfall alone would not result in any appreciable benefit and was no longer considered. 1V. EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE ALIGNMENTS Alternative Descriptions As previously noted, 3 alternative alignments were identified by City staff to asses and selected a preferred alignment. These alignments are shown on Figure 1 and are summarized below. ■ Alternative 1: New parallel system along SW 7th Street to the existing outlet along Naches Avenue SW and pipe replacement between Hardie Avenue SW and SW 7th Street. The new system would discharge to the same channel as the existing system. ■ Alternative 2: The alignment for Alternative 2 is similar to Alternative 1 but includes construction of a water quality treatment facility on a City -owned Nlt: 001159 1 2651111018 SAIL Energy. Environment & Infrastructure, LLC 23 HARDIE AVENUE SW — SW 7TH STREET STORM SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PROJECT parcel (#9188000154) located along the west side of Naches Avenue SW. The water quality treatment facility would be configured to discharge to the existing channel west of Naches Avenue SW. ■ Alternative 3; The alignment for Alternative 3 is similar to Alternative 1 except that rather than continuing along SW 7th Street west of Powell Avenue SW, it would extend north along Powell Avenue SW to its terminus. From here, it would discharge to an existing channel that extends west ultimately connecting to an existing Naches Avenue SW culvert crossing. The SW 7th Street 60 inch diameter pipe system also connects to this culvert. This alternative would also include improvements to the existing culvert crossing of Naches Avenue SW and possibly the Stream A/Wetland B system between Powell Avenue SW and Naches Avenue SW. The following paragraphs provide some addition discussion about each of the alternatives. Alternative 1. This alternative alignment would generally include the construction of a parallel pipe adjacent to the existing system. One exception could be the segment between SW 7th Street and Hardie Avenue. The conveyance capacity of this segment could be improved by pipe replacement with a larger diameter system or by installation of a parallel pipe. The latter option would result in the need to secure a wider easement through private property (the City currently has prescriptive rights for the existing system). The segments along SW 7th Street, Naches Avenue SW, and the crossing of Hardie Avenue SW would likely require some utility relocations because of conflicts with existing utilities. In addition, there are 3 BNSF railroad crossings along SW 7t" Street that would need to be removed and then restored, which would require significant coordination with BNSF. At the outfall, there would be some impact to the critical area/stream system associated with Wetland A/Stream A. Alternative 2. As noted above, the conveyance improvements for this would be similar to Alternative 1, but would convey flows to a storm water quality treatment facility. Initially, this alternative was identified as a potential option to improve water quality and make use of an already City -owned vacant parcel. At this concept stage, the type of facility was not specified, but was generally thought to be something similar to a constructed wetland/wetpond that could resemble a natural amenity. To get an idea of the potential treatment performance that a facility could provide, a comparison was made between the volume that could be stored on the site compared to the water duality design storm volume for this basin (using Ecology criteria). Using sixty-seven percent (67 percent) of the 2 -year runoff volume is generally considered as the water quality design storm volume. This was calculated to be 20 ac-fect. The City's parcel is roughly 2.4 acres in area, thus to get the water quality volume the depth would need to be at least S feet, which does not appear feasible given site topography, the volume of excavation and fill that would be required, and issues of soil contamination (see next paragraph). Thus, it would be more likely that the facility would be smaller and designed to provide a treatment level at less than Ecology's basic treatment. 24 SAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, LLC Preliminary Design Memorandum 10-17-12 PRELIMINARY DESIGN MEMORANDUM As previously noted, the City -owned site also has known contaminants that would have a significant influence on how a treatment facility would he situated on the site (see the geotechnical investigation results discussion above). Investigations have found fill soils within the drainage swale and wetland area of the site contained petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), lead, and cadmium exceeding Ecology Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA) cleanup levels. Most likely. any significant facility that involved excavation would require removal and disposal of contaminated soils. A prior study (Ilart Crowser) estimated the volume of affected soils to range from 1,000 to 9,000 cubic yards, which typically cost between from $40 to $60 a ton (or about $55 to $80 per cubic yard) for disposal. Another important consideration of the City -owned site is the presence of the Type 1 wetland which can have significant environmental considerations regarding use of the site. This is further discussed below. Alternative 3. As noted above, the conveyance improvements for this would be similar to Alternative 1, but at the intersection of SW 7th Street and Powell Avenue SW, the trunk line would extend north along Powell Avenue SW to its terminus, where it would discharge to the Stream AlWetland B system that extends west ultimately connecting to the existing Naches Avenue SW culvert crossing. Although no sizing was done, the existing channel between Powell Avenue SW and Naches Avenue SW may be wide enough and deep enough that it would not need significant improvements (such as widening or deepening). However, the culvert crossing of Naches Avenue SW would certainly need to be replaced with a larger culvert. It was also noted that there is an existing 30 foot easement for drainage along this alignment; however, a portion of the existing channel near Powell Avenue SW appears to extend outside this easement. Therefore, acquisition of some additional easement would be necessary for this alternative. Environmental and Regulatory Implications of Alternatives As previously discussed, a preliminary critical areas assessment was prepared as part of the investigation by Herrera. In addition to this assessment, the environmental investigation described the regulatory and permitting considerations associated with the three alignment alternatives. This effort is described in Appendix F. A summary of the findings is presented below. Refer to Appendix F for more detailed information. Wetland and stream regulations imposed by the federal government, state government and City of Renton will apply to all of the alignment alternatives. This is because all of the alternatives will include some work within Wetland A and/or Stream A associated with the outfall at Naches Avenue SW. "These are described below. ■ Clean Water Act Sections 404: Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) regulates activities in waters of the United States, including wetlands (33 USC 1344), The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) administers the permitting program under Section 404 of the CWA. Such permits include nationwide (general) permits for small areas of fill and individual permits for File 001159 1 2651111018 sA1C Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, LLC 25 HARDIE AVENUE SW — SW 7TH STREET STORM SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PROJECT projects that require larger areas of fill. USACE does not regulate wetland buffers. These regulations will be applicable if any portion of the onsite wetlands are filled, dredged, or otherwise affected by project activities. ■ Hydraulic Project Approval: The Washington State Hydraulic Code [RCW 77.55] regulates construction activities that use, divert, obstruct, or change the natural flow or bed of any fresh water or saltwater of the state. WDFW administers the Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) under this law. An HPA will be required for work below the ordinary high water mark (OHWM). ■ City of Renton Municipal Code. - Wetlands: According to the City of Renton Municipal Code (Chapter 4-3-050), buffers are required around each wetland in order to protect wetland functions and values. For each classification of wetland (Categories 1, 2, and 3), the code specifies a standard buffer width. Since Wetland A meets the criteria for a Category 1 wetland, it receives a buffer width of 100 feet. Any proposed project within Wetland A or its buffer is subject to the assessment and submittal requirements in RMC 4-8-120. It is noted, however, that Wetlands A, B, and C are within the Natural Environment in the Shoreline Master Program, and therefore the Shoreline Master Program buffers and mitigation requirements apply (versus the RMC), as described below. - Streams: The City of Renton Municipal Code establishes stream rating criteria (RMC 4-3-050 L). Stream A is classified as a Class 2 stream due to the fact that it is perennial and is assumed to support salmonids. Class 2 waters in the City of Renton receive a standard buffer width of 100 feet. Any proposed project below the OHWM of Stream A or within its buffer is subject to the assessment and submittal requirements in RMC 4-8-120. It is noted, however, that Stream A is within the Natural Environment in the Shoreline Master Program, and therefore the Shoreline Master Program buffers and mitigation requirements apply (versus the RMC), as described below. - Habitat Conservation Areas: Per the City of Renton Municipal Code (Chapter 4-3-050 K), Wetland A is considered a Critical Habitat due to the presence of a Category I wetland. This triggers the need for a Habitat Assessment for any proposed development on or abutting the site. The assessment must determine the extent, function, and value of the critical habitat and include a mitigation plan that describes the potential for impacts and the proposed mitigation approach (RMC 4-8-120 D). This should also include assessment of potential impacts to the great blue heron breeding area located within the Black River Riparian Forest (WDFW 2011b). Based on the habitat assessment, the City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development can designate the on-site critical areas and their buffers as Native Growth Protection Areas, which may require establishment of a conservation easement or a similar permanent protective mechanism. 26 SA1C Energy, Environment & Infrastructure. LLC Preliminary Design Memorandum 10-17-12 PRELIMINARY DESIGN MEMORANDUM Shoreline Master Program. Per the City of Renton Shoreline Master Program (RMC Chapter 4-3-090), the former remnant of the Black River (near the Black River Pump Station Forebay) and Springbrook Creek arc regulated shorelines. The boundary of the shoreline designation includes areas within 200 feet of the creek's OHWM, and contiguous wetlands and floodplains. Portions of the City -owned parcel west of Naches Avenue SW as well as Wetland A, Wetland B, Wetland C and Stream A that extend east of Naches Avenue SW are considered shorelines within a shoreline designation called "Natural Environment Overlay District". The objective in designating a natural environment is to protect and preserve unique and fragile shoreline or wetland environments that are ecologically intact as close to their natural state as possible. There is a no net loss requirement, meaning that Shoreline use and development shall be carried out in a manner that prevents or mitigates adverse impacts to ensure no net loss of ecological functions and processes. The natural environment is intended to provide areas of wildlife sanctuary and habitat preservation. Under the Shoreline's program, permits are required for any activities and requirements for buffer setback and mitigation can supersede those City requirements for non -Shoreline designated streams and wetlands. An impact evaluation is also required (RMC 4-3-090 — D.2.a), Under the Natural Environment Overlay, the shoreline permit approval process also involves a hearing examiner conditional use permit (RMC 4-2-090E1). Mitigation Sequencing The project must follows requirements for mitigation sequencing as outlined in City of Renton Municipal Code (Chapter 4-3-050 K) and (Chapter RMC 4-3-090 D; joint Ecology, Corps, and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) guidance (Ecology 2006); and State Environmental Policy Act (Washington Administrative Code Chapter 197 11 768). Mitigation sequencing will be further developed during the next phase of the project when a preferred alternative is selected. Mitigation sequencing will include the following steps (excerpted from the Shoreline RMC 4-3-090.D.2.a): (a.) Avoiding the adverse impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action, or moving the action. (b.)Minimizing adverse impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation by using appropriate technology and engineering, or by taking affirmative steps to avoid or reduce adverse impacts. (c.) Rectifying the adverse impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment. (d.)Reducing or eliminating the adverse impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action. (e.) Compensating for the adverse impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing similar substitute resources or environments and monitoring the adverse impact and taking appropriate corrective measures File 001 151) 1 265 1 1 1 101 8 sAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, LLC 27 HARDIE AVENUE SW - SW 7TH STREET STORM SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Permitting Considerations The three alternatives being considered for the proposed project will require permits from federal and state agencies and the City of Renton. Potential permit requirements are summarized in Table 5 and described below. Table 5: Potential Environmental Permits and Approvals Required for Alternatives Permit Agency Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Clean Water Act Section 404 Nationwide USACE Yes Yes Yes Permit Endangered Species Act Compliance NOAA Fisheries Yes Yes Yes National Historic Preservation Act DAHP Yes Yes Yes Compliance NPDES General Construction Permit Ecology Yes Yes Yes Hydraulic Project Approval WDFW Yes Yes Yes Shoreline Substantial Development City of Renton Yes Yes Yes Permit/Shoreline Condition Use Permit (including Hearing Examiner review) Utility Construction Permit City of Renton Yes Yes Yes State Environmental Policy Act Compliance City of Renton Yes Yes Yes Right -of -Way Use Permit City of Renton Yes Yes Yes Critical Areas Exemption City of Renton Yes Yes Yes USACE: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers NOAH National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration DAHP; Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Ecology: Washington State Department of Ecology WDFW: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Federal All three alternatives have potential to require coverage under CWA Section 404 Nationwide permit (NWP) 7 (Outfall Structures and Associated Intake Structures) from the USACE if outfall construction will involve discharge of dredged or fill material within the stream channel or wetland (Stream A and Wetland A). NWP 7 requires that the effluent from the outfall is authorized, conditionally authorized, or specifically exempted by, or otherwise in compliance with, regulations issued under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program in accordance with Section 402 of the CWA. In Washington State, applications for CWA Section 404 permits are accomplished through submittal of a Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application (JARPA) to the USACE. Prior to obtaining NWP 7 coverage from the USACE, the project may also need to undergo review of potential on-site cultural resources by a qualified professional that coordinates with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) to ensure compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). In Washington State, the SHPO operates through the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP). 28 SAIL Energy. Environment & Infrastructure, LLC Preliminary Design Memorandum 10-17-12 PRELIMINARY DESIGN MEMORANDUM The requirement for a Section 404 pen -nit represents a federal nexus that triggers the need for review under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. This may involve preparation of a No Effect Letter (filed with the USACE) if it is determined that this project would have no effect on ESA -listed species and critical habitat. If any effects to ESA -listed species or critical habitat could occur, the project will require the preparation of a Biological Assessment (BA) and review by NOAA Fisheries and U.S. Fish and Wildlife prior to issuance of the Section 404 permit. Because ESA -listed salmonids could be present in Stream A within close proximity to Naches Avenue SW, preparation of a BA is anticipated to analyze effects during construction as well as a result of stormwater discharge during operation of the project. State All three alternatives will require coverage under Ecology's NPDES general construction permit because each alternative will require over an acre of earth disturbance which may result in a discharge of stormwater to a surface water of the state. Coverage under the NPDES general construction permit is required to comply with Section 402 of the Clean Water Act. All three project alternatives will require a Hydraulic Project Approval permit from WDFW because of work required waterward/below the OHWM of Stream A (Alternatives 1 and 3) and changes to natural flow of a state water resulting from the project (Alternates 1, 2, and 3). Consequently, a JARPA form and associated plan set will need to be submitted to WDFW for their review. SEPA compliance must be completed for the project before WDFW will begin review of the JARPA. City of Renton All three alternatives would require permits from the City including a Utilitv Construction Permit, Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, and Right -of -Way Use Permit. The Renton Municipal code contains permit submittal requirements for Public Works Applications, and specifically for Utility Construction Permits (RMC; 4- 8-120). These requirements include a construction permit, drainage plans, drainage report, erosion control measures, geotechnical study, hazardous materials management plan, stream study, wetland assessment, and a tree retention/inventorydand clearing plan., among others. In addition, in order to comply with State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) requirements; the City requires the submittal of an Environmental Checklist for its review in support of a SEPA decision. Water Quality Benefit Alternative 2 would result in significantly more water quality benefits than Alternatives 1 or 3. However, as noted previously, the space available likely require that the facility would need to be designed to provide a treatment level at less than Ecology's basic treatment standard. h1c 001159 1 2651111018 SAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, LLC 29 HARDIE AVENUE SW - SW 7TH STREET STORM SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Environmental and Regulatory Summary In considering the federal, state and city environmental and regulatory requirements, a common theme rises to the surface that drives the preferences between alternatives. This theme is the mitigation sequencing. As described above, in particular because a Shoreline permit will be required, the City should look for the alternative with the least environmental impact. In comparing the alternatives and their environmental impacts, it is clear that Alternative 1 would have the least environmental impact. Its impact would be limited to the construction of the new outfall to Stream. A on the west side of Naches Avenue SW. Alternative 2 would require significant regrading and excavation within the City -owned parcel that would affect Wetland A. Also, depending on the size of the water quality facility and required excavation, numerous trees would need to be removed. In addition, the diversion of flow to the wetland could be considered an impact by changing its hydroperiod. While Alternative 2 would provide some water quality benefit, it would still reflect significant impacts to the wetland (that is within the Shoreline Natural Environment Overlay District). Alternative 3 would impact the portion of Wetland B east of Naches Avenue SW by introducing significantly more flow at Powell Avenue SW than under current conditions in addition to any potential channel modifications that would be required. Again, this could affect the wetland hydroperiod. In addition, Alternative 3 would involve replacement of the Naches Avenue SW culvert which would result in greater construction impacts. Alternative 3 would have more impacts to critical areas than Alternative 1, which would likely involve more complex permitting and more mitigation required. Cost and Other Criteria Considerations Several other criteria were considered when evaluating these three alternative alignments. These criteria and an assessment of the alternatives with respect to these criteria are discussed below. Cost No detailed cost estimates were developed at this stage of alternative comparison. Rather, a qualitative cost comparison was provided. In general, all three alternatives would have the same order of magnitude costs. Alternative 2 would be most costly because it involves the trunk pipeline plus the stormwater treatment facility. As previously mentioned, any significant facility that would result in measurable water quality benefit would likely require removal of contaminated materials and that a prior study (Hart Crowser) estimated the volume of affected soils to range from 1,000 to 9,000 cubic yards, which typically cost between about $55 to $80 per cubic yard. The cost for cleanup alone could range from about $100,000 to $750,000. Alternatives 1 and 3 would be very similar, with a slight chance that Alternative 3 could be slightly less costly. This is because Alternative 3 would result in approximately 15 percent less overall pipe length and restoration (i.e. the one block 30 SAIL Energy. Environment & Infrastructure, LLC Preliminary Design Memorandum 10-17-12 PRELIMINARY DESIGN MEMORANDUM between Naches Avenue SW and Powell Avenue SW would be open channel rather than trunkline). However, it's not likely that it would result in a full 15 percent cost savings because the culvert replacement at Naches Avenue SW would be more costly than simple trunk line construction. In addition, the cost of any channel improvements between Naches Avenue SW and Powell Avenue SW as well as mitigation would also offset cost savings by the shorter trunkline length. Thus, cost of Alternatives 1 and 3 should be considered about equal. Geotechnical Considerations The primary differentiator between the alignment alternatives with respect to geotechnical considerations is that Alternative 2, with the stormwater treatment facility on the City -owned parcel, would have the significant potential for clean-up of contaminated soils. Along the remainder of the alignments for all alternatives, there are so significant differences with respect to geotechnical considerations. In general, the trunkline can be constructed using typical construction techniques. Traffic and Property Considerations Traffic impacts between the alignment alternatives would be similar. Alternative 3 could have slightly less traffic impacts than other alternatives because of one less block of construction along SW 7th Street. Alternative 2 would likely have the greatest traffic impacts if the facility were to include significant excavation and associated trucking for the removal of soils. In terms of property considerations, the impacts between alternatives would likely be similar. All alignments would require working with private property owners between SW 7th Street and Hardie Avenue SW. Alternative 3 would likely require securing a new drainage easement for a portion of the open channel between Naches Avenue SW and Powell Avenue SW. Long-term Maintenance Considerations No detailed cost estimates were developed at this stage of alternative comparison regarding long-term maintenance needs. In comparing the alternatives, Alternative 2 with the stormwater treatment facility would certainly require more long-term maintenance than the other alternatives. Typically, regional stormwater quality facilities would need to be maintained once per year, with possibly vegetation control such as mowing a few times during the year. Alternative Evaluation Summary Table 6 provides an alternative evaluation summary. In general, the alternatives are comparably similar in all criteria with the exception of environmental and regulatory considerations. Because each of the alternatives impact the City's Natural Environment and a Shoreline permit is required, the City will need to select that alternative alignment that minimizes adverse impacts (See mitigation sequencing discussion above). Alternative 1 has the least environmental impact to Shoreline designated Natural Environment including Wetland A, wetland buffers. and Stream A. Pile: 001159 1 2651111018 SAIL Energy. Environment & Infrastructure, LLC 3 t HARDIE AVENUE SW - SW 7TH STREET STORM SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Thus it would be challenging to argue that Alternative alignment 3, while could represent a slight reduction in cost and traffic impacts, be a preferred alternative. 'ro meet the mitigation sequencing requirements, the City must also consider not taking any action. No action would mean continued recurrent flooding as shown on Table 2. This is not considered viable, as the current flooding conditions represent potential safety and property damage concerns. 32 SA1C Energy, Lnvironment & Infrastructure, LLC Preliminary Design Memurandum 10-17-12 Z O J � rL L4J � rL W rt 'Z^ V rff W 0 m E 7 V) Li, U LLI w O �a V) Z ng W v7 } I � d N � W W Z �- W V) Gn W_ D � Q O I) M v C m d m— m m m m 0 C U C 2r: E m A O O O= EL mL (D C G � � a•�c 'y... E2 5Cn y C O Q) y m m C .� LJ , EQ�m3Q"m.,- N U Z5 a s- c� c c ma�LmU.oQ s:] 7 0 vj d �• O u cn D7 N vUi 9-- c N C Lti E .O U 2 m Z„a. [� E a, a) o_ = o i9 o E M w U) Q -05 cc L U G C �_ m a) al E E a U b p cn , a a c U a)W u) mrY.(n c� t a E = N L m C V mC R y a m O) -p =3 Q O C as E E (D E ocz a a N O E L E -ci ,n ca .� O c � Q7 r C C" '� O Q1 O 7 0 S m m a 3 J� Cq m Q) m m y a E E 't3 c C C m a) ' E (D a, o o m m E CD ¢�,� a�,31=� Iamc m a) a a) ID d CD O C Q 00-� U] c �� a Q a U Q) CL a� tU :, -m O. V ...� �E� �� O� � � p � Iti a7 f.? "' � @ � O Z CL __ a) U 0 � a cV N U U0 [p J� a) a) s m c a7 W. - (D x� m V C O 7 T L• .S 2 ,i 7 Q-0 0 C a U U m is U U m m tC ?, m (� 7. ` O j E 0 c y c a� 3 a) U) ` V c c Q m F- ] Q 7 W L- E X d? Q' o c o Rcr 5 m 0,¢-v,.. a) ¢ to aocr)z a) QU) O � p O C y m a) m O C Ci L a O V1 M m @ f6 KD y d O r:2 O 7 U CD a) �OmQ U .E o a 4 CaQ d c aai o Emm �(DLD m m c a b V) LL 0 "w .0 u m i UJ O N O 7 (93 N m E m .L C r y U E p N 0 � N y O � (5 O � L) O L C as m m O .•. 01 A CC a E= E _ ~O U a) O N U) C'7 J� cn 0 U N U) r O Ca Q a7 m= Q m LJ c6 = -C3 `7 N .--• O J y.• 7 a m C O o -Q iaa v, ro a ca ac oc -E c r m N c o W. m Z m ¢ d .-. Z O Ca it Z a y y 06 my N C co y c 3+ m N m m m Q) c a ro Y 'cn -0 �¢ o ate'' `o ¢ o E ID _� o a) 7S ov, c U- 3? E c rn a3 CO —0 m L x Q p ac) a> E- :3 c a) E a, c' o m E `m¢ o Cc C m�� o as a) o 47 a, E a, 2 o m o � W a 3 c m c m rn L c w o) a) L O L c d� co LU 3 'Ln W LU o 0 o u, v, P co LU E E a) a) o m .� m= o c' = ro a c¢ c C Um b 3 L Q= E .O m O Q E O Q as ~ N y 3n O m U) y � •En � a] L 3 - v - Q <C m Q m C L a7 U M U L i O _ � CL Z L 7 Q U O Z 3 0 O N a) C 7 '@ U 0O W Q _d Q''-0 c cm p_ C U I C) o m L -` 0 C p d cu u7 a) C4 N In m ro E ti m m a`� o m o E Z 3 O m a) ¢ �-� '¢_ d �+ ~ o d U) a,a UJ =3 CL. C CU 70 - O �O m m O aci� cv 3 � E c.� c •E.� a 0 4> _ r Gi E a� y aci �N, .aC E 7 a a) E a 65 N al U v m-0 Q a0 a) a,'c aa- as is a 3 c)0 0 E M m= E CD 0) m E 1+ o in d 0 (v� a) 9 L C6 O L r0» U • X N S a y� to > O Z 2 co H Q 3 0 m U) � Q 0 CO a) m 0 m w Z as E i r ai r, r N M PRELIMINARY DESIGN MEMORANDUM V. PRELIMINARY DESIGN (30 PERCENT DESIGN) Upon City review and confirmation that Alternative alignment I is the preferred alternative alignment, additional analysis was conducted to advance the design. This additional work included hydrologic and hydraulic analysis to confirm sizing, conducting utility potholing along the alignment to assess utility conflicts, and development of detailed project cost estimates. Hydrologic and Hydraulic Modeling of Alternative 1 The existing drainage system model was updated to reflect the Alternative 1 conveyance improvements to solve the flooding problems. The objective of the conveyance improvements is to meet the City's design criteria for stormwater conveyance which is outlined in the City of Renton Amendments to the King County Surface Water Design Manual. However, it is noted that these design criteria were developed to guide sizing for new systems within new development and/or redevelopment and projects. The SW 7th Street Hardie Avenue SW Drainage Improvement Project is actually a system rep] ac ement/i mprovement to reduce flood hazards and not associated with a new development project. Thus, this project does not fully have to comply with these requirements. Rather, they are considered as target criteria. The target criteria includes: (1) convey and contain the 25 -year peak flow with 6 inches of freeboard, and (2) pipe system structures may overtop for the 100 -year event, but overflows must not create or aggravate a severe flooding problem or severe erosion problem, must discharge at the natural location, and for residential subdivisions must be contained within a drainage easement or the public right of way. As noted under the existing condition modeling, there are upstream flooding problems. These problems have the potential to store and attenuate flows, To make certain that the conveyance upgrades considered as a part of this project will be sized to handle the ultimate flows in the future. either "hypothetical" parallel pipes were added to the model or undersized pipe was upsized where floodwater would pond and not flow overland in order to eliminate the upstream flooding problem. Adding the hypothetical pipes would have the same effect as upsizing the upstream pipe network to eliminate flooding, but adding one hypothetical pipe was more efficient from a modeling perspective. During the initial runs, sizing for the parallel system from Lind Avenue SW to the outfall and the pipe replacement on private property was set at 6 feet diameter (as with the prior modeling studies). Similar to the prior studies, the initial modeling showed some flooding at the low point at the Hardie Avenue SW/BNRR underpass. It was also noted that the prior studies only compared the simulated maximum water levels to the elevations of the catch basin grates on the main trunk storm line. However, with the new detailed survey, it was observed than the lowest lying catch basin that drains the roadway is actually 1.70 feet lower that the lowest catch basin grate on the trunkline (i.e., elevation 19.73 compared to 21.43). While the results showed some File. ON 159 1 2011 I It)IR SAIL Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, LLC 35 HARDIE AVENUE SW - SW 7TH STREET STORM SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PROJECT flooding (to a depth of 2 feet), it was also noted that the duration of flooding for the 25 -year event was very short in duration (i.e., about 30 minutes). These initial results were discussed with the City and it was decided to model and develop construction cost estimates for two sizing alternatives along the Alternative 1 alignment. These alternatives are referred to as Alternatives 1 A and 1 B, are shown on Figure 3 and 5, and described as follows: Alternative 1A: Six foot Diameter Pipe System Improvements and Small Pump Station. This alternative includes a parallel 6 foot diameter pipe from the existing parallel pipe system near Lind Avenue SW to Naches Avenue SW, a 5 foot diameter pipe along Naches Avenue SW to the outfall and pipe replacement with 6 foot diameter pipe within the private system between SW 7th Street and Hardie Avenue SW. Initially during the trial and error sizing, it was determined that replacing the portion of the parallel pipe system between SW 7th Street and the outfall (along Naches Avenue SW) with a 6 foot diameter pipe did not result in any additional benefits over a 5 foot diameter pipe, therefore this portion of the system was kept at 5 feet in diameter. A model schematic on the Alternative 1 model is presented on Figure 4. At Hardie Avenue SW, the road is so low that a 6 foot diameter pipe is not feasible because of the elevation of the road is so low. Thus, the section of the improvement across Hardie Avenue SW would need to be a box culvert (4 ft x 7 ft section). Because some flooding is simulated for the 25 -year event, this alternative also includes a small pump station that would be sized only for the local drainage to the low point in Hardie Avenue SW. For this to function properly, the following was assumed: ■ The catch basin grates on the trunk system along the low area would be sealed; meaning they would have solid lids and be bolted down so that when they hydraulic grade line is above the top of the catch basin, flows would not spill out. ■ The two low catch basins on Hardie Avenue (not along the trunk line) that connect to the trunkline would be modified to include a back flow preventor which would prevent surcharged flow in the trunk line spilling out into the intersection and a small pump station that would drain the low area when the trunk line system is surcharged. When developing the detailed alignment for this alternative along Naches Avenue _ SW, consideration was given to aligning the pipe system in the City -owned property on the west side of the street beyond the improved roadway. The benefit of this would be reduced roadway restoration costs. However, due to the concerns over tree removal, impacts to critical areas, and wetland buffer impacts, particularly considering that this would be in the buffer of a Shoreline designated Natural Environment Overlay District, it was decided to keep as much of the new pipeline in the roadway prism as possible. However, to accomplish this, it requires the new parallel pipe to tie into the existing 5 foot diameter pipe and have the existing 5 foot pipe tie into the new 5 foot parallel pipe (this configuration is shown on the drawings contained in Appendix I). 36 SAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, LLC Preliminary Design Memorandum 10-17-12 � N � v L) > V) Q W o v O ai _ N v (�] m a tea• o (D L ++ �t x O $ N E v �E w E L) Q Q CT m O m v 0 L CD ��-� .C_n V! a� V (n Ln co � x I� L6 i0 O 0 O U} m U a) CL M fl.ti AQ _L ^^a Lf) T Z� N z U) (� U N m M Mli a � c� y a- O o 0) ui Q O rOn 0 O °n' 0 O ui 0 O °ui C O °cn' 0- O cn CD C (n c) m C � C OJiaIl i 0- i W W � N � v L) > V) Q o v O ai _ N v m a o (D L ++ ^Q,, L O. L) Q Q ��a1X v 0 L �imo(D ��-� o a� V (n Ln co � N E O 0 J_- U 0 O U} LO M fl.ti a E s ---o - ~ a~� Lf) T Z� o z U) 0 N N t �tt'Zt` ��rtz� nu S any �ogegS 6uole walsAS } 9 �! n r r 3 800" MS any sayaeN 6uole W@JSAS Li c T A W cc W cc cn CD 0 cn E #/3 Q CD CA CL 0 CL qcr ai LL w H OL 0 U J 9 �! n r r 3 800" MS any sayaeN 6uole W@JSAS Li c T A W cc W cc cn CD 0 cn E #/3 Q CD CA CL 0 CL qcr ai LL w OL 0 U J W W T ~ LJ Z Lu (_) > a- Z CD (< ". W CO V) (n W O O O � LL W W OL Q. a Q ZO O O w O 0 af cr- r` m 9 �! n r r 3 800" MS any sayaeN 6uole W@JSAS Li c T A W cc W cc cn CD 0 cn E #/3 Q CD CA CL 0 CL qcr ai LL PRELIMINARY DESIGN MEMORANDUM Alternative 1B: Combination Seven foot and Six Foot Diameter System Improvements. Recognizing that it is generally undesirable to have pump stations for storm water, the intent of this alternative was to size a system that would provide flood protection for the 25 -year flood with a gravity system alone. This would eliminate the need for a pump station as included under Alternative IA. The Alternative 113 improvements are presented on Figure 5. Using a trial and error approach, the system was upsized with 6 foot diameter pipe from the outfall to the corner of Naches Avenue SW and SW 7th Street. The portion of the system from the corner of Naches Avenue SW and SW 7th Street to a location about 300 feet east of Lind Avenue SW (where the system from Hardie Avenue SW extends along private property to SW 7th Street) was upsized to a 7 foot diameter pipe. The system within private property would be replaced with 6 foot diameter pipe. As with Alternative 1A, the portion of the pipe replacement under Hardie Avenue would be a 4 foot by 7 foot box culvert. During the trial and error sizing, it was determined that replacing the portion of the parallel pipe system between SW 7th Street and the outfall (along Naches Avenue SW) with a 7 foot diameter pipe did not result in any additional benefits over a 6 foot diameter pipe. Thus it was assumed this portion of the system could be reduced to 6 foot diameter. Results of the modeling are shown on fable 7 for the 25 -year and 100 -year future land use condition flows for both alternatives as well as the existing system for comparison. Note that for Alternative 1A, the table shows ponding at the low point of Hardie Avenue SW at the BNRR underpass for the 25 -year event. This flooding would not actually occur if the system also modified with sealed lids and a small pump station pumps accumulated runoff at the low catch basins to the trunkline. Without the pump station, some minor flooding would occur (simulated as 2 feet depth for a duration of 30 minutes for the 25 -year event). Given that this is a short duration, one option to consider with Alternative I is to consider the pump station as a future element of the project to be constructed should flooding be observed after installation of the pipeline. It is noted that the use of future land use condition and the additional assumption that all impervious surfaces are effective (including residential areas where there is likely some non -effective impervious areas), the flow simulations are likely somewhat conservative. This would be a second reason to consider the pump station as a future phase. No detailed estimates were developed regarding the capacity of the pump station, however, it would likely be very small considering that it would need to pump flows from the surface area tributary to the low point (likely on the order of two 1 cfs pumps). It is noted that all of the above modeling effort was done using a hydrologic model time step of 15 minutes. After completing the modeling effort for the project, some questions were raised by City staff about whether the use of the 15 minute time step may be overly conservative considering the size of the basin (i.e., the 15 minute time step is required in the City's stormwater design manual for development projects that are typically much smaller than the SW 7t" basin). This is further discussed under the Recommendations section below. File 001159 I 265111KIN SAIL Energy, Environment& Infrastructure, L1.0 41 HARDIE AVENUE SW - SW 7TH STREET STORM SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Upstream Flooding Problems And Anticipated Improvements As previously discussed, to make certain that the conveyance upgrades considered as a part of this project are be sized to handle the ultimate flows in the future, either "hypothetical" parallel pipes were added to the model or undersized pipe was upsized to eliminate the upstream flooding problem. While identifying specific conveyance improvements to solve upstream flooding problems was beyond the scope of this study, the "hypothetical" pipes and/or pipe replacements can be used to provide a preliminary indication of the needed future conveyance improvements. The following paragraphs provide some preliminary conclusions that can be drawn from this modeling effort: Two separate "hypothetical" pipes were used to eliminate flooding of the system that extends from about Lake Avenue S and S Tobin Street to where Hardie Avenue SW crosses under the railroad trestle. The first is between about S Tobin Street to S 2nd Street. The second is from S 2nd Street to the railroad trestle. During the 25 -year storm, these hypothetical pipes had 8 and 17 cfs peak overflows, respectively. This flow can be used to provide an approximate pipe size of what would need to be a parallel pipe system in order to solve upstream flooding. The first reach would need to be 24 -inch diameter (assuming roughness of 0.012). the second reach would need to be 30 -inch diameter. • For the Shattuck Avenue S system north of SW 7th Street, existing pipe sizes were simply upsized to eliminate flooding. Increases in pipe sizes were from 24 -inch to 66 -inch diameter. Note that in upsizing these pipes, no attempt was made to determine the minimum pipe size necessary to eliminate flooding. Thus these pipe sizes are likely conservative. • For the SW 7th Street system east of Shattuck Avenue S, existing pipe sizes were simply upsized to eliminate flooding. Increases in pipe sizes were from 48 -inch to 60 -inch diameter up to Morris Avenue S. Note that in upsizing these pipes, no attempt was made to determine the minimum pipe size necessary to eliminate flooding. Thus these pipe sizes are likely conservative. File 001159 1 2651111018 SAIL Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, LLC 42 t a♦ •pkk- t• '�'i ry ^ ` � J�` �' �� N - � � +7 � � '�� y /' . •i'TF +�■ I1yR•Fr.'� rr. 4 Waft s. •_ yfT,r .y 'ilieAll � { O 6. dPr CL ui :AAS 8AV a' PJeH , moi. Q1 ► .. to 00 • Rpt �'r .I� � � �! _ Q� v lick •� W U] O N E E O * #MS anb L y l3 M 4l lt'i.. t4 X -0 -0 ++ �• E E T7 ` U N � w � .,�...., �'! QI � II =' �r f •_� I L.L LL L.L Q Q � _x r_.. — — O O (D Im � L- N 4J C5 E �i�NNNNW"AAS any eaaua• N =1411' o O O O O o O +, aaQQ a- CL a TT }, O O O O O O N �� _ , � fl r. - .,' a r •' 41 ■ r A" L.L W W '.' _ Y Ear• .•.. = +` .+ r MS any SeWOul T .r l` (D � S any I19nnodL) y'l� Ys - k YID: ; C •:.. .F� �: rQ) ssaOOy ' : N r - - -h r `- .., yid. .a.. LO S any SO JOeN -- _ Q �- 6 C C .Iii . • t`Y N i_ Q Q LW 'tyF� d K1 fl. Q) y- O LL f w -O C N O O Ilk - LO - C C �c L Q E C .r 5115 +Il'. Z C) �r: ZZ Z �0 W2 C CL � 'z V_ N LU 0 U F— W L61 O F— V) V) H LU LLI cl1 > i O a V) LU Z LLJ � LiJ V) 'a} L61 Q O = V) V m E V'1 E E 0 U W m N G 61 a cli ti ao O a O � f 1 2' N � C 0 ld :2 W � 3 c tp � O 0 � X T a � O fV r Cl) m L ui 0 cn O � C n7 co Hca ao co rn CT cn Lo o 0 V V V r E E V7 N p N r r h A (n m OO O (J] N y C � cn Ln o O o E LU = Q1 LL 0 co N 7f W Ln E E 0 U cD � u'S ao O a O � f 1 N b a N � C 0 ld :2 W � 3 c tp � O 0 � r Cli a � O fV r Cl) m Ft- ui 0 O � C y a� r aGi va E o E CL O U c V7 w p 0 � E L O 5 67 y u cn O o E m cn = Q1 LL W Ln E g s) N N N 0 E E m d f0 m C LL C 7 � T U Q E 0 o T co y 0,cu W u o m r H T N Zq n N V rn i E y'J � ry O C m .N T p y ?L GS W rn O C a Q LM LO LU a W LlJ cc n rn v c 4 O Nr � N !2-- CD M� o N r v E N ticc10 M m N r -0 LO 3 Ccn o cn W n O Y N rn � N v +NP E w a w E E 0 U cD � u'S ao O a c N b a N � _ = O W � 3 c tp � O 0 � r Cli O� U) ob � O C d Cl) m Ft- ui 0 w y a� r 41 in (cl � 0 E �E n E C C] w n—i a? n 0 � h 3 cO 67 y c E O o E m cn = Q1 LL W Ln E o s) N N N 7 YC A d f!7 dl m C N C U � T U Q E 0 o T co 0,cu u o m 'Q H T z � t V! V E y'J � ^_ O u3 G .N T p y Y � z W rn O C a n MC ° LM LO LU a W LlJ cc n rn v c 4 N N Nr � !2-- CD M� o O v N ticc10 M m N r -0 LO 3 OL O n rn � N v +NP a C O c ) cn 1.1.1 P7 h r In co G civ 3 O U] 6] C a3 } a }� J `m G O U] L 7 C d Q :z}^ Y V d7 2 2 ? U} � cco o q ED i,s @ _ T O c 7 (n E o M of aY n fn b lL aa � n rl � r N CE fn m r 0 7 > E E 0 U cD � u'S ao O a 0 N b a N � _ = O W � 3 c tp � O 0 � r Cli O� U) ob � O C d Cl) m N O X a ui 0 w O .R O a c O O c a1 6Y _ = O W � 3 c tp � O 0 � r Cli m C U C D C 3 E y 41 in (cl � 0 E �E n E C C] n—i a? n h 3 cO 67 o� cucL O o y m cn LL W Ln U s) N N N 7 YC A d f!7 dl m C N C w r � T Q 0 o T co 0,cu u o m 'Q z E V! V E E ^_ m u3 G T p y Y � W W rn O C a n MC ° LM LO LU a cc n rn v O .R c 6Y H W � r Cli m C 3 E O L 0 5cu c E En 67 E 0 y m cn U U E J co d f!7 dl m N C U � T h V7 o T 0,cu u o m fL °z5 z E c cu W W W U7 cp LM LO M cc c*i c 4 N N ccN !2-- CD M� O 7 N ticc10 M m N r -0 LO OL O .R 6Y W � r Cli C 3 O C7 67 y J C O d f!7 dl W dl Q C U } U o T u m fL °z5 E c cu VS W U7 cp 0 h !2-- CD M� O 7 PRELIMINARY DESIGN MEMORANDUM Project Cost Estimates for Alternative 1A and 1 B Cost estimates were developed for both Alternatives 1 A and 1 B and are summarized in Tables 8 and 9. Detailed cost estimates, including a breakdown of bid items and unit costs. are included in Appendix H. Unit costs were developed based on recent bid prices where data was available. The cost estimate includes a significant contingency (30 percent), considered appropriate for the current level of design. Some uncertainties in the cost estimate are related to when the project actually goes to bid and the bidding/economic climate at that time. There could also be significant added costs not currently accounted for at this level of design. Examples include the potential to have to dispose of contaminated soils, challenges related to minimizing construction impacts to the downtown area. and/or the need to make special accommodations for locating the conveyance line within an active railroad corridor. The cost estimates were developed in phases for each alternative because the City plans to implement phased improvements. The phasing is as follows: ■ Portion of system along Naches Avenue SW from the outfall to SW 7th Street ■ Portion of the system along SW 7t" Street from Naches Avenue SW to just east of Lind Avenue SW (this portion would include Filterra systems for water quality treatment) Portion of system between SW 7th Street to Hardie Avenue SW (note that this phase includes the cost of the stormwater pump station, but it would likely be implemented only after deemed necessary, and thus could be considered as a fourth phase) Table 8: Alternative 1A Cost Estimate Estimated Construction Cost (includes 30% Construction Schedule Contingency) Schedule A - Naches Ave SW (5 foot diameter parallel $1,340,000 pipe from outfall to SW 7th - Including vault at intersection) Schedule B - SW7th St (6 foot diameter parallel pipe from $5,702,000 Naches to Lind, including Filterra systems for water quality treatment) Schedule C - SW7th St to Hardie Ave SW System (6 foot $2,4107000 diameter pipe replacement) Total $9,452,000 File: 001159 1 2651111018 SA1C Energy, Lnvironment & Infrastructure. LLC 47 HARDIE AVENUE SW - SW 7TH STREET STORM SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Table 9: Alternative 1 B Cost Estimate Estimated Construction Cost (includes 30% Construction Schedule Contingency) Schedule A - Naches Ave SW (6 foot diameter $1,420,000 parallel pipe from outfall to SW 7th - Including vault at intersection) Schedule B - SW7th St (7 foot diameter parallel pipe $6,917,000 from Naches to Hardie system, including Filterra systems for water quality treatment) Schedule C - SW7th St to Hardie Ave SW System (7 $2,41Q000 foot diameter pipe replacement) Total Recommendations $10,747,000 In comparing Alternatives IA and 113, Alternative IA is preferred. Alternative ]A would result in cost savings (about $1.3 million) and reduces the extent of construction impacts associated with the larger pipe of Alternative 1 B. It also would reduce the extent of improvements along SW 7th Street (by about 300 feet). It also has the advantage of delaying the pump station element of the project until it can be confirmed that it is fully necessary. If the pump station is not needed, this would result in an additional $300,000 to $400,000 in savings. This recommendation was reviewed with City staff and confirmed. Subsequently, 30 percent design level drawings were developed which are contained in Appendix I. The pump station was not included in the 30% design. The remainder of this section discusses design considerations and/or need for further analysis as the design development proceeds. Alignment Considerations on Private Property between SW 7th Street and Hardie Avenue SW As previously mentioned, the currently proposed alignment for the section of pipe between SW 7th Street and Hardie Avenue SW is along the current alignment of the pipeline assuming the existing pipe would be replaced. The existing pipe through this section of private property has different pipe sizes and materials including 48 inch concrete pipe, 48 inch CMP pipe, and 60 inch x 36 inch CMP arch pipe. Portions of this segment are within a defined easement. Other portions are within a prescriptive rights easement for the existing system. One option for pipe replacement would be a parallel system. This option was not fully analyzed as a part of this study. Disadvantages of a parallel system would be that it would require a new and larger easement and would increase temporary impacts to private properties. Some preliminary estimates showed that if a parallel pipe were 48 SAIL Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, I.1,C Preliminary Design Memorandum I0-17-12 PRELIMINARY DESIGN MEMORANDUM used instead of pipe replacement it would still need to be quite large (portions would need to be 4 diameter and 5 foot diameter). For the reasons of the additional easement required, additional impacts to private property, and because a parallel pipe would still need to be large, this option was preferred. Utility Conflicts Constructing a large diameter gravity pipeline (6 feet diameter) within a developed urban corridor typically requires that many existing utilities be relocated. These utilities include both public utilities (owned by the City of Renton) such as water and sewer lines and private utilities such as gas, power, fiber optic, and telephone. Utility potholing was completed to help identify conflicts. Appendix D contains the detailed potholing results. 'The 30 percent design drawings, in Appendix I provide the pothole locations. Typically, private utilities operate within the City right-of-way under a franchise agreement. In accordance with the terms of the franchise agreement, these private utilities must relocate facilities if necessary to make room for City improvements. However, it is important to notify these private utilities of the required relocations well in advance of construction. The following table lists likely utility relocations for the selected alignment. The table also provides some discussion to elaborate on certain conflicts that will need special consideration as the design process progresses as well as where additional investigations are necessary. It is also noted that as the design progresses. the alignment and storm drain depths will be subject to change which could increase or decrease the number of utility relocations needed. Table 10: Utility Conflicts Utility Station Discussion/Comments Miscellaneous 10+25 to 10+40 Both a power line and fiber optic cable were shown in this area crossing the pipe. However Bravo dug a trench F long and 7' deep and could not locate. Additional investigation in this area is warranted during final design. water 10+44 Existing water service. This service was not confirmed and could be abandoned. This should be confirmed during final design. gas 10+40 to 13+00 Private utility to be relocated by franchised company storm 13+00 conflict with existing storm service. This storm line is likely abandoned. Need to confirm during final design. water 13+35 Existing water service. This service was not confirmed and could be abandoned or part of irrigation. This should be confirmed during final design, gas 15+85 Private utility to be relocated by franchised company storm 15+90 Recommend that pipe be tapped directly into trunk. However, this requires City approval. File: 001159 1 2051111018 SAIC Energy. Environment u- Infrastructure, LLC 49 HARDIE AVENUE SW - SW 7TH STREET STORM SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Table 10: Utility Conflicts Utility Station Discussion/Comments sewer 16+15 storm is design to go above existing sewer by 5.5 -inch clearance. This is less than City standard and needs City approval. This crossing control the pipeline depth upstream to Hardie Ave SW so it is desirable that it be as low as possible. Further analysis of this clearance is recommended during design. Fiber Optic 16+16 Private utility to be relocated by franchised company Water 16+53 Water to be relocated Water 16+85 Water to be relocated . It does not appear to be sufficient clearance to go above pipe. Likely need to go below pipe and have a blow off valve. Fiber Optic 17+02 Private utility to be relocated by franchised company Power 17+09 Private utility to be relocated by franchised company Power 19+67 Private utility to be relocated by franchised company Water 19+97 Water to be relocated. Water is 8 -inch. It is desirable to relocate above storm (for costs), but it would have less than 3of cover and needs water utility approval. Power 23+25 Private utility to be relocated by franchised company Fiber Optic 23+59 Private utility to be relocated by franchised company Storm 23+64 Catch basin at intersection to be redirected to Filterras system and then connect to new storm drain. This will be part of future design. Storm 23+86 Catch basin at intersection to be redirected to Filterras system and then connect to new storm drain. This will be part of future design. Water 24+00 Water to be relocated. Water is 12 -inch. It is desirable to relocate above storm (for costs), but it would have less than 3' of cover and needs water utility approval. Fiber Optic 24+10 Private utility to be relocated by franchised company Gas 25+81 Private utility to be relocated by franchised company Fiber Optic 29+28 Private utility to be relocated by franchised company Gas 29+32 Private utility to be relocated by franchised company Sanitary 29+62 to 35+86 Relocation options to be evaluated with the City's wastewater utility as part of final design. Some options are discussed on 30% design drawings. Storm 29+83 Catch basin at intersection to be redirected to Filterras system and then connect to new storm drain. This will be part of future design. Power 30+29 Private utility to be relocated by franchised company High Pressure Gas 32+17 Private utility to be relocated by franchised company water 33+25 Need to determine size of water, Likely water needs to be relocated. It is desirable to relocate above storm (for costs), but it would have less than 3' of cover and needs water utility approval. Fiber Optic 35+44 Private utility to be relocated by franchised company Sanitary 35+68 Relocation options to be evaluated with the City's wastewater utility as part of final design. Some options are discussed on 30% design drawings. 50 SAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure. LLC Preliminary Design Memorandum 10-17-12 Pipe Material Selection Much of the existing large pipe constructed in this area is reinforced concrete. There are other and newer pipe materials for large Storm drain pipe material. Some of these include ADS Sanfrite Corrugated Polypropylene Pipe, Corrugated High Density File 001159 1 2651111018 SA1C Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, LLC 51 PRELIMINARY DESIGN MEMORANDUM Table 10: Utility Conflicts Utility Station Discussion/Comments Storm 35+89 Catch basin at intersection to be redirected to Filterras system and then connect to new storm drain. This will be part of future design. Power 36+09 Private utility to be relocated by franchised company Fiber Optic 37+65 Private utility to be relocated by franchised company water 38+57 Size and depth of water need to be confirmed to determine if this is a conflict. Need additional investigation during design. Power 39+07 Private utility to be relocated by franchised company water 40+80 Need to confirm the water services are above storm drain during final design or include standard bid item for water service relocation. Power 42+41 Private utility to be relocated by franchised company Sanitary 42+73 Relocation options to be evaluated with the City's Storm 42+85 Catch basin at intersection to be redirected to Filterras system Fiber 42+27 Design appears to provide adequate clearance. This should be confirmed during final design. water 42+37 Need to confirm size of water and whether it needs to be relocated during final design. It would be desirable to relocate above storm drain, which would need water utility approval. power 42+41 Private utility to be relocated by franchised company storm 42+72 Catch basin at intersection to be redirected to Filterras system and then connect to new storm drain. This will be part of future design. Gas 42+93 Private utility to be relocated by franchised company storm 105+20 Confirm with City that storm service can tie directly to new storm drain during design. Power 106+00 to Power line along storm trunk in private property will be temporarily or 108+00 permanently relocated by the City. storm 109+70 Confirm with City that storm service can tie directly to new storm drain during design Power 110+00 Power line along storm trunk in private property will be temporarily or permanently relocated by the City. gas 111+05 Base map shows a gas line in area that could not be confirmed. Gas was not painted in field and PSE reports no gas in area. This needs to be confirmed during final design. Water 111+45 Water to be relocated. Water likely needs to go below new storm drain. Include blow off valve. Power 111+50 Private utility to be relocated by franchised company Pipe Material Selection Much of the existing large pipe constructed in this area is reinforced concrete. There are other and newer pipe materials for large Storm drain pipe material. Some of these include ADS Sanfrite Corrugated Polypropylene Pipe, Corrugated High Density File 001159 1 2651111018 SA1C Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, LLC 51 HARDIE AVENUE SW - SW 7TH STREET STORM SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Polyethylene Spirolite and Weholite Pipe. and DuroMaxx Steel Reinforced HDPE Pipe. Other pipes could offer lighter weight and less costly materials while offering varied structural capabilities. A thorough review of pipe materials and developing specific recommendations was beyond the scope of this work. During the 2003 design of the 5 foot diameter pipe along SW 7t'` Street improvements by Gray and Osborne, the City reviewed pipe materials. At the time, the City recognized there would be cost savings during construction but determined that reinforced concrete pipe should be used for all pipe diameters of 48 inch and larger. Part of this decision was likely the recognition that concrete pipe has been used as an industry standard for large diameter pipe. Cost estimates were developed assuming concrete pipe. Should the City want to open it up for other materials during design, it is recommended that a specific pipe material evaluation be conducted. This is because some of the newer materials are not well tested. It is also City policy that only pipe materials that are approved by the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) be considered. Light weight pipe, if considered for this project can float when placed below the ground water table. Once installed, the groundwater elevation is not expected to exceed the water surface elevation in the pipe by more than a few feet. Under this condition, the weight of the soil over the pipe is expected to maintain the pipe in place. However, during installation, some type of restraint system may be required. Pipe should be designed for H-20 loading. One exception is at the locations of railroad crossings. BNSF Utility policies have been developed focusing on installation of utilities under existing BNSF rails located within BNSF right-of-way (requiring Cooper E-80 loading). This project presents a different scenario, in that the rail line is within City right-of-way. During design, additional investigations are necessary to confirm design criteria at the BNSF crossings. If the crossing was in BNSF right-of-way the following policies would apply (from BNSF Utility Accommodation Policy, April 16, 2004, Revised May 5, 2007): ■ Pipes which cross perpendicular under the railroad must comply with the following policies: — All underground utility crossings of railroad trackage shall be designed to carry Cooper E-80 Railroad live loading with diesel impact (AREMA) (American Railway Engineering and Maintenance -of -Way Association) Cooper's loading Section 8-2-8). - The use of plastic carrier pipe for sewer, water, natural gas and other liquids is acceptable under specific circumstances. The use of plastic pipe is satisfactory if the pipe is designed to meet all applicable federal and state codes, and if the carrier pipe is properly encased within a steel casing pipe per AREMA standards. This casing must extend the full width of the right of way. - Pipelines under railroad tracks and across railroad property shall be placed in casings. Generally, casings shall extend from right-of-way line to right-of- way line, unless otherwise approved. Casing pipe and joints shall be made 52 SAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure. LLC Preliminary Design Memorandum 10-17-12 PRELIMINARY DESIGN MEMORANDUM of metal, and of leak -proof construction. Casings shall be capable of withstanding the railroad loadings and other loads superimposed upon them. Minimum wall thicknesses are listed in the BNSF manual_ Manhole sizes were determined using WSDOT guidelines. Some adjustment will be necessary in final design when considering multiple pipe connections. in addition, should the City want to use flexible couple adapters, the manhole sizes will need to be increased. One consideration that should be investigated in design is the City's willingness to consider "T -tap" manholes. These manholes have round access risers and lids form directly into the pipe. The advantage of T -top manholes is cost. They could not be used, however, in areas where multiple pipe must connect to the trunk line (such as laterals). Manholes would be required where there are multiple pipe connections. Traffic Control Traffic control plans will be required by the construction contractor as part of the project specifications. Specific requirements will need to be worked out with the City's Transportation Department during the design process_ Items for consideration should be maintenance of 2 -way traffic, maintaining ingress/egress to private properties at all times, hours of construction, possible traffic restrictions during peak travel hours, and requirements for Contractor developed specific traffic control plans vs. reliance on City standard traffic control details. As shown on the plans in Appendix I the proposed alignment along SW 7t" Street is primarily near the center of the road. This alignment is favorable because of the layout of existing utilities for most of the length, allowing the outer lanes to maintain 2 -way traffic as well as ingress/egress to private properties. Work at intersections will involve more traffic control and likely require detours. Regarding Hardie Avenue SW, consideration could be given to closing this road during construction, however, this is not likely feasible during the future planned construction improvements along Rainier Avenue S, which is expected to extend through 2013. For this reason, this portion of the project is scheduled for future years (see construction sequencing below). Utility relocations that extend beyond the storm drain trunk line will also require more extensive traffic control. These include sewer and water relocations. A preconstruction meeting with the City's traffic operations department and contractor will be a requirement of the construction documents to specifically discuss traffic control. Geotechnical Considerations Geotechnical considerations were previously summarized in this memorandum and a detailed geotechnical investigation report is included in Appendix E_ This report will need to be updated as a part of the final design process, so that it only reflects the recommended design and does not discuss alternatives. As a part of this work, the design team geotechnical engineer should provide input to the projects specifications, File, 001159 1 2651111018 SAIL Energy. Environment & Infrastructure, LLC 53 HARDIE AVENUE SW — SW 7TH STREET STORM SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PROJECT in particular for dewatering and provisions/requirements in case contaminated materials are found during construction. Railroad Crossings There are three existing railroad crossings along the alignment, all along SW 7th Street. Based on review of record drawings, it appears that the railroad crossings are within City of Renton right-of-way. During the design process, the City will need to coordinate construction requirements with BNSF. Because the crossings are within City right-of-way, it is not clear who is responsible for restoration of the rails after pipeline installation. At this time, it is assumed that BNSF is responsible for this cost. There are also likely to be special precautions required during construction activities associated with these crossings, since the lines will be closed. These requirements will also need to be identified during design. Also, see the discussion above for potential different loading requirements on the pipe under the railroad crossings. Construction Sequencing As previously discuss, cost estimates were developed in three phases because the City plans to implement the improvements in a phased sequence. The phasing is as follows: ■ Phase 1: Portion of system along Naches Avenue SW from the outfall to SW 7th Street ■ Phase 2: Portion of the system along SW 7th Street from Naches Avenue SW to just east of Lind Avenue SW ■ Phase 3A: Portion of system between SW 7th Street to Hardie Avenue SW ■ Phase 313: Analyze need for storrmwater pump station at Hardie Avenue SW underpass and construct it if it is deemed necessary. Phase 3 is divided into two phases. It is recommended that the pump station element of the 3rd phase be considered as a future element of this phase. This is because, the modeling assumes that other upstream conveyance improvements are in place, which will tend to increase flows. Until such time as flooding of Hardie Avenue SW is observed, or the upstream conveyance improvements are implemented, the pump station element may not be warranted. Future Water Quality Retrofits The City has applied for and obtained a grant from the Washington State Department of Ecology for water quality retrofits along SW 7th Street. The grant award was received during the time that this study was developed. Therefore, this study does not address design issues associated with the water quality retrofits, nor does it include preliminary design of these improvements. However, for the purposed of budgeting, the cost of the water quality retrofits is included in the cost estimates. 54 SAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, LLC Preliminary Design Memorandum 10-17-12 PRELIMINARY DESIGN MEMORANDUM It is the City's intent that the water quality retrofits be incorporated to the design for the 2n1 phase. This will maximize the cost effectiveness of the improvements, by having all roadway restoration in one project. On a preliminary basis (taken from the grant), the improvements will retrofit the drainage conditions along SW 7th St. by providing enhanced basic water quality treatment between Naches Ave SW and Lind Ave SW. Treatment will be provided by installing approximately 38 4 foot by 4 foot Filterra systems. Filterra System would be placed according to the urban design spacing for street trees in areas that receive gutter flow, thus avoiding utility and tree conflicts. Filterra systems will be designed and installed in accordance with the Conditions of Use listed in the General Use Level Designation for the Filterra System and manufacturer specifications. Environmental Mitigation Measures Environmental mitigation will need to be identified during the next phase of the project. It is desirable to incorporate mitigation measures, as much as practical, directly in the areas impacted by the project. The following opportunities were previously discussed which would be further evaluated during design and permitting. ■ Opportunities for vegetation enhancement within existing critical areas and buffers where invasive vegetation (e.g., Himalayan blackberries) can be removed and replaced with native shrubs and trees. ■ Opportunities to improve Stream A by enhancing channel substrate and complexity in the highly altered segment immediately downstream of the culvert outfall. Possible Pipe Size Reductions Considering Hydrologic Model Assumptions As noted earlier, all of the hydrologic modeling analysis done for this project was done using a model time step of 15 minutes. The 1.5 minute time step is typically required by the City's stormwater design manual for sizing conveyance systems. However, it is noted that the application of this criteria is typically for much smaller sites (such as development projects). The reason for this is that conveyance systems serving small areas have peak runoff rates typically associated with short and intense rainfall. In large basins. the use of the 15 minute time step is likely somewhat conservative because the short burst of rainfall is dampened as flows are conveyed downstream through the system. Because of the size of the pipe proposed in the analysis is significant, City staff raised some questions about whether use of this time step is too conservative and whether using an hourly time step (another commonly used time step) might be more appropriate. SA1C completed a preliminary assessment of how the simulation results could be different considering the two different time steps. The table below shows the results of the Alternative 1 A model run with both a 15 minute and hourly time step. File. 001159 1 7651111018 SAIC Energy, Environment & ]ntrastruclure.. LLC 55 HARDIE AVENUE SW - SW 7TH STREET STORM SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Time Step (min) Peak Flow at Outfall Maximum WSE (at Flooding Result (cfs) Hardie Underpass) 15 218 21.7 2 ft Flooding depth 60 161 18.6 1.1 ft freeboard As can be seen from the table, the use of the smaller 15 minute time significantly influences the model results. Further testing of the model showed that at least a portion of the proposed pipe system improvements could be reduced in size to 5 -feet in diameter if the hourly time step is used as the criteria for sizing. It is recommended that further investigations on the appropriateness between the two different time steps be done during the next phase in order to assess possible reductions in pipe size from what is presented in the 30% design. 56 SAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, LLC Preliminary Design Memorandum 10-17-12 File: 001 159 1 201 111018 Appendix A BASIN MAP AND LAND USE DATA (TAKEN FROM GHD, 2010) SAIC P p p 9 CL Opo .�` �: I __ yn jJjp�F.� '' rk N. IQ [ 7f1 7 -p,u � t ! ilLJ w_ yl f r 1 LA T `y __ - ' •.:,�, yam_ _ �� ,,�: -�.. S - _ -kill[It ,{ +y - x~11 "-I �, �.. -" d �'_ � �k ��L i ,� x�'`��'�`�,�y� �+ X �' 1 _ - —• � � - �� _ .4 I I �• fl IT ; J1- _ iZ j "�! t I''.lL � I � 5 `T,�$ 9'..7r It .f ) !r ` T4s J � f '.�.-_^ ✓� � � �,�. N 5 ' y moi'' ff euiF J 4 � � I � �i I i ,� �-- a ,J "`� : � i• �5 I I� i I - �'�, a — J� J.iL 7. 1 � ❑ � � 1 tf% `�` t f'r ';! �/i 7 y r �rlr � %/ 91 �' ,3! �-.. f 1 . �� I i IL a l �rr- 1 J' .S �A TI_`_\, f1 II: 1ti 70 ' � CN-� F3"J-. r',.i- • � 1�1� , �' '� ��;r� � � 1 pp x- �,� as 1 rleX i Q III �I I 1! a F1tt`:n = Summary of Land Use by Subbasin in XP-SWMM Model City of Renton 10117/2011 Notes, (1) Existing and future Subbasin areas and % impervious taken from SW 7th Street Pre -Design Analysis (Gray & Osborne- Inc, February 2003) except Shaded cells indicate basin areas modified in the Shattuck Avenue Stormwater QNefs10n Modeling Report (GHD Inc, April 2010) (2) Per documents referenced in Note (1). if existing % impervious area is greater than future % impervious area, then existing impervious are, was used for future conditiens modeling in the 2003 future conditions model and in the 2010 GHD future conditions model. (3) Subbasins S and T not used. (4) Subbasin AB seems to be incorrectly labeled 7B on Figure 1. Existing (1) Future (1) Future Land Use in Model provided by City (2) Subbasin Label Area (ac) %Impervious Impervious Area ac Pervious Area ac % Impervious Impervious Area ac Pervious Area ac % Impervious impervious Area ac Pervious Area ac A 45 96 56 25.65 2031 84 38,48 7.48 84 3848 7.48 B1 2286 52 11.89 1097 60 13,71 9.14 60 13 71 9.14 B2 2168 52 11.27 1041 60 13,01 8.67 60 1301 8.67 G 7.94 80 6.35 1.59 79 6.28 1.66 80 6-35 1.59 D 3226 83 26.80 5.45 88 28,49 3.77 88 2849 3.77 E 2864 86 24.57 4.06 100 26.64 0.00 100 2864 0.00 F 24,95 91 2271 2.24 100 24.95 0.00 100 24,95 0.00 G 17,67 94 1663 1.04 75 13.25 4.42 94 16,63 1.04 H 10.54 90 9.46 1.09 75 7.91 2,64 90 9.46 1.09 7.66 91 6.97 0.69 75 5.75 1.92 91 6.97 0.69 .] 14.91 85 12-63 2.28 75 11.18 3,73 85 12,63 2.26 K 2,59 70 1.82 0.77 79 2.05 0,54 79 2.05 0.54 L 21.85 55 12.02 9.83 85 1858 328 85 1B 58 3.28 M 5,17 57 2.94 2,23 85 4.39 078 85 4.39 0,76 N 6.36 72 5,98 2,38 82 6,83 153 82 6.83 1,53 0 20.35 82 16.68 3,67 89 1816 2,19 89 16.16 2,19 P 4.50 70 3,13 1,37 75 3,36 113 75 3.38 1.13 0 4,56 66 3,00 1.56 84 3.85 0,71 84 3,85 071 R 3 14.72 82 12.04 2.68 84 1235 2,37 84 12.35 237 U 12.93 89 11.51 1.42 75 970 3,23 89 11.51 142 V1 V1-1 7.85 90 7,06 0.79 75 5,89 1,96 90 7,06 079 V1 V1.2 4.75 90 4.28 047 75 3,56 1,19 90 4 28 0,47 V1 V1-3 4.03 90 363 040 75 3,02 1.01 90 363 0,40 V1 56.63 90 1497 166 75 12.47 4,16 90 14.97 1,66 V2 24.04 83 1995 4.09 83 19.95 409 83 19.95 4.09 W 4.57 84 384 0.73 75 3.43 114 84 3,84 0.73 X 19.91 96 19.11 0.80 75 14.93 498 96 19.11 0.80 Y 7.27 70 506 2.21 75 5,45 182 1 75 5,45 1.82 Z 50.90 45 22.70 28.21 61 30.85 20.05 61 30.85 20.05 AA 11.39 54 728 4.10 69 7 84 3.55 69 7.84 355 AB 4 8.94 59 5.28 3.66 70 6-28 2.66 70 6.28 266 AC 516 85 4.37 0.79 75 357 1.29 85 437 079 AD 578 88 5.07 0.71 75 4.34 1.45 88 507 071 AE 711 94 6.68 0.42 75 5.33 1.78 94 668 0.42 AF 8.48 80 6.77 1.70 75 6.36 2.12 80 6.77 1.70 AG 14.06 94 13.24 0.82 86 12.12 1.94 94 13.24 0.82 AH 14.14 48 4.87 5.27 73 7.40 2.74 73 7.40 2.74 AI 14.81 58 866 6.15 73 10.80 4.01 73 10.80 4.01 AJ 17.90 77 13.77 4.14 72 12.87 503 77 13.77 4.14 AK 11.90 76 9.04 2.86 78 9.28 262 78 9.28 2.62 AL 5.05 65 3.28 1.77 78 394 1.11 78 3.94 1.11 AM 27.95 63 17.51 10,44 75 20.96 6.99 75 20.96 6-99 AN 11.22 70 7.85 3.37 75 8.42 2.80 75 8.42 2.80 AO 703 75 5.29 1.74 81 5.72 1.31 61 5.72 1.31 AP 2.91 95 2.76 0.15 75 2.18 0.73 95 2.76 0.15 Totals 623.25 72% 451.41 171.82 78% 485.73 137.55 81% 507.89 115.37 Notes, (1) Existing and future Subbasin areas and % impervious taken from SW 7th Street Pre -Design Analysis (Gray & Osborne- Inc, February 2003) except Shaded cells indicate basin areas modified in the Shattuck Avenue Stormwater QNefs10n Modeling Report (GHD Inc, April 2010) (2) Per documents referenced in Note (1). if existing % impervious area is greater than future % impervious area, then existing impervious are, was used for future conditiens modeling in the 2003 future conditions model and in the 2010 GHD future conditions model. (3) Subbasins S and T not used. (4) Subbasin AB seems to be incorrectly labeled 7B on Figure 1. Appendix B STORM DRAIN PIPE TV-ING INSPECTION REPORTS File: 001 15 9 1 2651 11 1018 SAIL CYv _ RMTON Street BrumEmfionMatt l 8705 NE 175th Sl BRAV41so o, ft Matt Ikenmrs le'DO-11 Tel.' 425424-9= - environmental 49002 � : E-RW Inspection Report l Inspection: 48" STORM Data P/O. No. Weather Surveyors Nerve Pipe Segment Reference Section No. 10/128011 Dry JOEL vASEY 123.,57 It 2 Cart (irate No. Survey Cusbmer System Owner Date Cleaned Pre -Cleaning Sewer Category U304-1108 Year Reha6rlifaI Materiel Not Known Tape I Media No. Street HARDIE Ave A SW 7th Use of Sewer Stbormwater Upstream MH le'DO-11 City AEMTON Drainage Area Dowstream MH 16,08-12 Loc. detab Flaw Control Dir. of Survey Upstream Locadan Code Length surveyed 123.81 R Section Length 123.,57 It Purpose of Survey Routine Assessmeat Joint Length Year laid Dia.Maight 48 Inch Year Reha6rlifaI Materiel Convected Nw al Pipe Tape I Media No. 10-10.2011 lining Method Add. Information 1:315 Position Observation MPEG Photo N D(*- 6,06-1 Water Level, 25 %of crass sectional area 0.00 Manhole f 16,08-12 00:00:00 14 1 51 Alignment Right. 15 % Start J0 02 14 2497 F1 Alignment Flight 15 % Finish DO 18 32 26 16 Deposits Settled Other, 10 %of doss sectional area from 00 11.37 05 to 07 o'clock within 8 inches of I©int: NO 48.00 Tap Break -In, at 12 o'clock, 8", within 8 Inches of joint: NO 00:16:56 71.12 Tap Factory Made, at 04 o'clock, 8, within 8 Indies of 00:18:26 joint: NO 59.40 Infiltration Weeper at 05 o clock within 8 inches of joint 0020-33 YFS 123.91 Manhole 116,D811 00:22:23 Ci k-1NES 138503 QSR QMR SPR MPR OPR SPR MPRI OPRI 01110111 1 2406 a is a a 2 2 SAIC it Page:2 Ctty : RENTON SAIC 11 Page:3 Brava Env6rmune�+ UOSW 17-" BRAV4koXenmde, Wa &a7288 Tai: 42&4,?4-9= X24 X02 environmental`: Inspection Report I Inspection: 48" STORM Date p10. No. V►beftr Surveyors Name Pipe Segment Reference Sedan No. 10172f;t011 pry JOEL vASEY 3 ceAtl4cefs No. Survey Custamer SyaMm Owner Date Cleaned Pro4leaning Sewer Category tf 304_1198 Not K:coxm Street HARDIE Ave A SW 71h Use of Sewer Stomywater Upstream MH 16,M12 City RENTpN Drainage Area Dowstreem MH 16.08-6 Loc. detaya Flow Control Dir_ of Surrey pawnsbeam Location Code Length surveyed 1$8,33 It Section LAngth 169.33ft Purpose of Survey Routine Assessmmat Joint Length Year Laid DiSiHak t 48 inch Year RehabOOi*d Matwiml Conavbm Sogmmnb (unbolted) Tape 1 Meds No. 10-10.2011 L.iri ft Method Add. lnfgnnmtion 1:435 Poshlon Observation 1MEG Photo 13ID 5oz B,I�-1 0. water Level, 20 %of cross sectional area Manhole 116,138-12 00:00:00 4.4 Material Change, Concrete segments (unbolted) I CMP TO 00:01:53 CONC 14.46 Deposits Settled Other, 5 %of cross sectional area at 06 000258 o'clock , within 8 inches of joint NO ROCK Deposits Settled Other. 10 %of cross sectional area from 00 14 00 05 to 07 o'clock within S inches o#joint YES DEBRIS 169 Survey Abandoned 113EBRIS 00:26:24 � 13$S9 fi GSR OMR SPR MPR OPR smi MPRI om mo 2200 0 4 4 0 2 2 SAIC 11 Page:3 t;' . RENTON Bravo Envdanmen a! s6705 m—n NE 175th St Kertmora, M 98028 Tet: A25-4248000 Fax: 425-4249002 entail Inspection Report I inspection: 48" STORM D P10_ No. WeatherSurveyors Name Pipe Segment Reference Section No. 1 01 21201 1 Dry JOEL vASEY 4 '—stern Owner Date Cleaned Pre -Cleaning Sewer Category Certificate No. Survey Customer Y Not Known U-3"1188 Street HARDIE Ave 8 SW 7th Use of Sewer Stomrwater Upstream MH 16,178-10 City RENTON Drainage Area Dowa4'earn MH 16,138-11 Loc, details Flow Control Dir. of Survey Upstream Location Code Length surveyed 28821 It Section Length 248.21 ft Purpose of Survey Routine Assessment Joint Length Year Laid DiaJHeight 48 inch Year Rehabilitated Material Corrugated Metal Pipe Tape i Media No. 10-10-2011 Lining Method Add_ Information 1:750 Postuon Observation So 3 Water Level, 20 %of cross sectional area QSR a00a Manhole 1 16,D&11 Tap Factory Made, at 03 o'clock, 8", within 8 inches of joint: NO MPEG Photo 00:00:00 00:03:46 Roots Tap Joint, from 02 tc 10 o clock 5 % witnin 8 00'09 38 16 D8 10 16 US -11121310_ 12 inches of joint, YESR 102011 _A JPG Tap Break-in, at 01 o'dock, 8", within 8 inches of joint: NO 00:12:02 Tap Factory Made, at 03 o'ciock, 8", within 8 inches of 00:14:12 joint: NO .rifiH; a;,or Gkjsner at iA a Olick WON,, i; :act,es of 01r1{ Olt 1 S % Tap Break -In, at 01 o'dock 8", within 8 inches of joint: NO 00:23:18 Roots Tap Lateral at 01 o'clock 10 °/,, within 8 inches of joint NO Survey Abandoned ! DEBRIS 'rt9wr�RDt N�+� cA-) 3501 oMR SPR MPR OPR 6122 a Y a SAIC 11 Psge:4 00-2327 16D8-10 16 D8-1112105112 102011 A JPG 00:40:03 SRIMPRI op a ., 3 3 erwo Emhwrmental 8705 NE 175th St Kenmore, M 68028 l Tet: 425-424-9= Fax: 425-424-6002 M C4: Inspection photos 1 inspection: 48 STORM Street - I Date : I Pipe Segment Reference: I Section No - Photo: 16,D8 -10_16,D8-11121310 12102011 AAPG, VCR No-: 10-10-2011 142.61 FT, Roots Tap Joint, from 02 to 10 o'clock, 5 %, within 8 inches of joint: YESR Photo: 16,08-10_16,08-11121051_12102011 A.JPG, VCR No.: 10-10-2011 259.15FT, Roots Tap Lateral, at 01 o'clock, 10 %, within 8 inches of joint: NO SACC If Page' 6 CAV RENTON Street BravoEmhv Use of Sewer Stomnwdw Upstream MH ff705 NE 175th St BRAV*io RENTON Kenmae, VVa 88028 ,9=8♦ Dowstesm MH 18ps-11 rel.• 425-424-8000 l v1 425 424 9 0 02 �+ envnmen�]': Dowrratream E-n'ted€: Inspection Report I Inspection; 48" STORM taw P/0. No. Weather Surveyor's Name Pipe Segment Retarence Section No. Ion Year Laid I Ory JOEL vASEY 481nch 5 Certificate No. Survey Cusf orner system Clymer Date Cleaned Pre -Cleaning Sewer Category U-304-1198 Add. Infarnmtion ,. Not Known Street HARINE Ave S SW 7th Use of Sewer Stomnwdw Upstream MH 16,L18.10 City RENTON Drainage Area Dowstesm MH 18ps-11 Loc. details Flow Control Dir. of Survey Dowrratream Location Cada Length surveyed 167.90 ft Section Length 157.90 ft Purpose of Survey Routine AaeeeerrimA Joint Length Year Laid Dia.Aieight 481nch Year Rehabilitated Material Corrugated Nk tal Pipe Tape 1 Madre No_ 10-10-20111 Lining Method Add. Infarnmtion ,. 1.405 Position 4 vaHon MPEG Photo 13$c0 l 5,138-1 0. Water Level, 15 %of cross sectional area 0. Manhole / 16,D8-10 00:00:00 1 6` Deposits Attached Fncrustatior. 5 °/oaf cross sectional 00-0238 area. from W to 08 o'clock with€n 8 inches of jo€nt NO 25 -D S1 Deposits Settled Gravel 10 %of cross sectional area, 0003 10 from 05 to 07 o'clock. w€thsn 8 inches of joint YES Start 41.1 Tap Break -In, at 11 o'clock, 8", within 8 inches of joint: NO 00:05:39 T 127.3 Tap Factory Made, at D9 o'clock, 8", within 8 inches of 00:11:13 joint: NO 157 90 F1 Deposits Settled Gravel 10 %of cross sect€oval area 0014-07 from 05 to 07 o'clock. with€n 8 inCheS of hint YES Finish 157. 5 Abandoned 1 DEBRIS 00:15:08 'J'ov►rkRDi 14" CV*) OSR QMR SPR MPR OPR SPR€ I MPM OPR€ 0000 312E 0 W a 11 1 zM Ln SAIC !1 Page: 6 Civ. RENTON Sheat City Lea. daub L -ration Code Purpose at Survey Year Ladd Year RehabSlated Tape / Media No. =111fiii•.i"'iiTi HARDIE Ave it 8W 7111 RENTON Rouftrte Atnerament 10-10-2011 Use of Sewer Hravo Fnv6roronwrraf 67CZ NE 175rh Sr BRAVOwTsf:425-424-9" Kenma�s, M98028 Flow Control environmental F: `4 °°°p Eqmol Inspection Report 1 Inspection: 48" STORM DWm P10. No. vwmttrer Surveyors Name pipe Segment Re4eranoe Section No_ 101132"11 Materia[ 1 Dry JOEL vASEY Lining Method 6 CerWk ab No. Survey Cusbrnar System Owner Dab Cleaned Pie-Cbaning Sewer Category l -3W198 Not Known Sheat City Lea. daub L -ration Code Purpose at Survey Year Ladd Year RehabSlated Tape / Media No. =111fiii•.i"'iiTi HARDIE Ave it 8W 7111 RENTON Rouftrte Atnerament 10-10-2011 Use of Sewer Stormwater Drainage Area Flow Control Length surveyed 322.48 it Joint Length DisJHaigM Materia[ Lining Method 11;810 Positlolt *'On NVQ C1At 130Svr � 0=00Water Level, 50 96of class mortar area Manhole 116,DB-10 Upstream MH 16,E8-19 Dowstream MH 16,08-10 Dir. of Survey Upst»arp Section Langth 32226 R 48 Inch Cwn%sW Marbi Pipe MPEG Photo 00:00:00 Tap Break-in, at 01 o'clock, 8, within 8 inches of joint: NO 00:03:24 Tap Break -In, at 01 dclodt, 8', within 8 inches of joint: YES 00:10:40 295.83 Tap Factory Made, at 02 o'clock, 12", within 8 inches of 00:18:55 Joint: NO 322 1115 ,E8-19 00:21.18 B,t:&f N� Cr4 f$ 1 tL6S� QSR OUR SPR MPR OPR SPRI MPRl OPRi 000o 0000 0 o a o o 1 a SAIL 0 P"* -.7 CRY RENTON SAIL H PsV:8 Sravo ffmailid 6705 NE f750 St BPAVOW wiii, W 98028 Kertrnore, t1a aenza Tel: 425-4244KW Fart: environmental E-rNW4-8007 E-lnev: Inspection Report 1 Inspection: 48" STORM Date P/O. No. Weather Surveyors Name Pipe Segment Reference SacWn No. 101132011 I Dry JOEL vASEY 7 Certificate No. Survey Customer System Owner Date Cleaned Pro-Cieaning Sewar Calagory U-304-1198 Not Known Sheet HARDIE Ave d, SW 7th Use of Sewer 8'tormwatm Upstream MH 16,E8.8 City RENTON Drainage Area Dowstream MH 16,E8-19 Loc. details Flaw Control Dir. of Survey upeheam Location Coda LengM surveyed 18195 R Section Length 181.96 R Purpose of Survey Routine Assamownt Joint Langih Year Laid DieJFfeight 48hrctr Year Reha�flitatted Material Corrugated Metal Pipe Taps/ Media No_ 10-10-2011 Lining Method Add- tnfonniWon 1:465 Position rvation MPEG Photo �W CJ-, # { l 2—A5 6,E8-1 4. Water Level, 60 %of cross sectional area Manhole / 16,E8-19 00:00:00 23 12 Roots Tap Joint, al 12 o'clock 5 % withm 8 inches of joint 000241 YFSR 37. 8 Roots Tap Joint at 12 o'clock 5'to. wfttiin 8 inches of joint 00-0342 YESR 39.52 Repair Patch, frorn 10 to 11 o'clock, within 8 inches of 00:04:10 joint: NO 1 METAL 42.47 Repatr Patch, from 10 to 11 o'clock, within 8 inches of 00:04:54 joins: NO 1 METAL 43.5- S1 Hole S l Visrbe from 1 1 to 12 a Clock wilmn 8 inc.nes <�' rJG , ,5 2? 1oinl YES StHi 63 General Observation 1 ADDED MH NOT ON PRINT 00:08b3 F1 Hole Sas! Vi ib' , frorri 11 to 12 o'6oci,. with=.n 8 in�.ties of Qj) t)9 loin? YES_ Finish 109.45 Roots Fine Barrell. al 09 o'clock wilhin B inches of joint 00 10 25 YES 133 03 Roots Flee Joint, from 07 to 09 o'clock within 8 inches of 00 11 45 joint YESR 156 25 Roots Fine ,joint, f7om 03 to 04 o'clock within 8 inches of 00 14 11 loud YESR 1A8�1.85 Maanhole 1 1 B,EB B 00:15;47 7 4t `1 Cf 1 t�/0�� QSR QAAR SPR MPR OPR SPRI JAPRi OPR1 4M ZH2 45 a 53 5 1.6 3.79 SAIL H PsV:8 bile 601159 1265111101$ Appendix G BASE MAP SURVEY SAIL 7j Fn 1� > m LTi -;j m CD > c I > U3 > 2 z Fn z C: m (J) ;I ; i E ; I J - rip ` I I a .�,�, �.� I i i ED i a i i ry i yyi w ..... ............. ........... .... .... .. 0 U Wk 1 1 � LiJ IjVal LiJ L 4y. `y ti f N., t I i I ' � 1 I I I I 7 . i } 1 7 i 1 i I I I f I I ` { f i r r I � I f I i I j i f I I I i -.I i j Y \ I ti: j } \ 5 � I j : 1' i S I S e r i L L r.... _.. � �.._ �z C"V 1R .. .. .. .. .. .. C"V 1R g� qq !$ f 1 1 �Y u { kw roN aKmrxry 1CIA Appendix D UTILITY POTHOLING RESULTS File. 001159 12651111018 SAIC e., yel P.,rogisax �i palez suogeaol aloglod/m sueld lu;ed AeidS SR1819 poom/sl!eu Nd p3eoq j+0 ad!m/uo a;uNy eJawe� :102joj 1,uop Nd OrteIE pue IaAOge palsgl Nd lump 3q m P1a4 aq w 8wpmm apgm suaaauoa ao-.11-n6 pe P,-.3 patepf,! aq I— sdntlaew urld IIV wagspe A, pue sueld ua paTsq aq aq 1'n suo11e 1 alvy lod IItl sueld play uo III- Id- I'M ued pa8 +,117 uaamlaq uopeaol le algen pue uo!le8u❑ ldaaxa ,LT I ,8E /,9-1 E 011 V/N V/N VJN V/N )amOd Lb £ 'punoj sa!lyin ON ,9 x d x „BT-sa!i!pr aleaol of 4aua)1 lu!of Totr+Z4 9o- -'I + „o..-wq alge, pie ..!I„,, ,LT / ,8E /,9T E of L V/N V/N VIN V/N )aq!j 96 E Ida- 'puna} sa!el!1n ON ,9 x ,L x,,91 'sapIlln aleaol o1 gauall lu!of isE+zo sro 'dol „84 le set „b paleaol -jamod aleaol d; algeufl ',L x ,9 x „gr pagaua3l ,6 /,ZE / ,01 9 01 b V/N V/N VJN V/N RINI 96 E llf+Z4 64 aug41na 3apun iapinogs punogqlnos uo paleaol „o /,8Z / ,T 6 01 L „ EZ „OZ „E DAd AaATD );)mod bb £ IZL+fiE E4 - Ilemap!s )eau )ap!nogs punogqlnos uo paleaol S /,EE / 19 ZT 0101 „SS ,T5 „b 3!Iseld - uot! seg Eb E 54 &£ Zb ia!11eq laluaa punogqlnos leau paleaol ,6T / ,6 /.8T STET jr „ SE „4 a!iseld - LJO4 seg Zb £ lBC+9E Tb 3auleglaluaapunogqlnosleau paleaol 'a .9 Te 81-9T „81 „TL sz DAd laq!j Tb E a,an��w 1E5+9E Ob AAS anysagaeN le 4lL uo peol jo laluaa Co paleaol ,S'OE/ „D /,gu TZ -61 „EL „09 „ZT uoal ;aILM Ob E s£ (dew Sad ie) HW falem le ql1 uo peoi jo Jalue) (p) paleaol „EZI x /,ZZ bZ-ZZ „SL „09 „ST 0031 Salem 6E E 8485£ BE '3amod /m 4aua; lwo[ u! qlL uo PEW jo Ialuaa @ paleao] -/ „0 r LZ -SZ „S4 „bE ,.Z )Ad 3aq!j 9E £ M -SE LE ';aq!j /m 4au9ll lu!Of u! 41L uo peal jo )aluaa (n] paleaol -J „0 %- L Z -SZ ,.54 ,.4E ,.4 DAd LE E )amod abs -51 9E 141L uo pew j0 raluaa g paleaol a I ,0 / SZ OE -8Z „Eb ,.Z4 „T a!lseld Se E) 9E E 99+4E SE auel Tial punoglsam u! paleaol ,LT / ,S /,9T EE -TE „S'66 If ]Ad )amOd SE E a5-11 17E auel ljal punoglsam u! paleaol ,ST I It / TIT 9E -4E „Z4 "RE 144 DAd 3araOd VE E ZO+EE EE auel ljal punoglsam u! paleaol ,91 / ,9/ ,ST 6E -1E ,.Eb „SE „B UO)l )alem EE E zL-ZE ZE auel ljal punoglsam u! paleaol ,OZ /,E 1,6T 24-04 ,.9E „4£ ,.Z uOjl Seg ZE E 9L+TE T£ auel ljal punoglsam u! paleaol ,TZ/ ,E 1,02 S17 -E4 „ZZ „oz „Z DAd 1amOd TE £ ro+vz OE auel ljal punoglsam u! paleaol ,TZ/ ,E /,OZ 84-94 ITS 1 114 DAd lamod DE E Etr+6Z 6Z 'l5 q7L jo ialuaa (]o paleaol ,4Z/ „D / ,EZ TS -64 „£L „64 ,Zx,Z pasea alaauoD uaq! j 62 E 6o+6r BZ 'IS 41L jo 1aluaa @ pale301 4Z/ „0 / ,EZ b5 -ZS „SE „Z5 „SZ uo31 seq SZ E 50+6Z ZZ 'IS 41L jo laluaa (o paleaol EZ/ „0/,ZZ LS -Ss „L4 „SE „ZT uo11 ralem LZ E 89 -SZ 9Z ,ouadsw A39 ,ad 5Z a1o41ud @ q!i 111- ,EZ/ ,A/,ZZ 09-85 V/N V/N V/N V/N 30gH 9Z E ,ayla8ot si un,,aq!�, 'P -4J IG- PiF `-i 5 daaF d Fu-a,8=apuo payaca,y 95+BZ w '15 41L jo )aluaa @ paleaol ,EZ/ „O/,ZZ E9-19 1194 .,8E „Z „Z ald!lIOIN 3aq!j SZ E l!npuo7 ss -az az 'IS HIL 401aluaa @ paleaol EZ/„0/,ZZ 99-b9 „ES „OS „S'Z uo31 seg bZ E L8+9Z Ez 75 41L jo )aluaa mJ paleaol ,4Z/ „0/,£Z 69-L9 1.09 ,Z x,Z pasea a1a)au07 3aq!j EZ E Otr EZ ZZ '1S 41L jo laluaa (]n paleaol 4Z/ „0 /,EZ ZL-oL „S'Z4 O4 „S'Z uo11 seg ZZ Z LE+fz TZ 'IS 4;L 40111 (9 paleaol ,EZ/ ,,o/.ZZ SL EL E9 ,Z9 IS'? DAd lamod TZ Z ov+U oz „TdQ„ '15 41L 10 aaluaa (7o paleaol ,EZ/ „0/,ZZ 48 -ZS ,T9 ,Sb „9t 2ufsea lealS 9Po oz Z ,nssa,d a 8i zs+oZ 6T 75 4;t 4ojalueo @ paleaol EZ/,0/,ZZ BL -9L 1.99 „Z4 Z x,Z pasea opnuOD aaq!j 6T Z 52+LY 8t '1S q1L jo Jaluaa @ paleaol ,£Z/ „o/ ,ZZ 18$L 59 ES „b x,.Z DAd )amOd ST Z p9+9T CT '1S 411 jo)aluaa Io] paleaol TV „D/,EZ LS -SB ,4L ,OS Z x,Z pasea alalauoD ;aq!j LT Z EO+ST 9T is q1L +o laluaa n(0) paleaol ,4Z/ „0 /,EZ 06-88 „ 95 1.45 „Z lag;s lamod 91 Z r9+ft sY '15 41L jo laluaa (7y paleaol ,4Z/ „0 / ,EZ E6-16 9E ,4E „Z UO31 seJ ST Z 5tr*ZI 4T u0113aSlalul any pu!T Ig '1S q1L 10 Ja;uaa (an Paleaol ,bZ/ „0 / ,EZ 96-46 „ Eb EX,Z pasea alanuoD jaq! j bT Z Tro+at £i VOIlaa53ajUI dAV Pu!1 '815 4lL +O 3aluaa (nj paleaol ,4Z/ ,0 / ,EZ 6616 „9b "op „g pals 3amod ET Z LZ+OS ZT 11011.aa51a1U! any pu!l g 1S 41L 10 )aluaa @ paleaol ,bZ/ „0 / ,£Z Z01-001 ,$b „4b „b u0)I seg ZT Z SC+6 ti un!;aaSlalu! any poll rg '1S 41L jo laluaa (u] paleaol 17Z/,.O / ,EZ SDT-EOT „Zb „9E „Z+„4 DAd aamod TT Z s5+6 oY sse)8 u! 3apinogs punoglsam(ln paleaol ,5 / ,6Z J ,9 801-90T „ t, „ 8E „Z uO)I seg oT T SL+9 6 rpemap15 ui lapinogs punoglsam 0 paleaol ,6 /,EE / or T TI -601 „8Z 4 Zx,Z pasea alanuoD 1aq! j 6 T roL+9 8 5,6 alod;42!1 idol}'„4,ZT aauaj wa)j luawa)nseayq ST / V/N / VJN E 011 119Z „SZ IT DAd 3a kOd S 1 8f+50[ C ST jalsdwnp wo)j',S aouaj w0)j luawa3nseiI V/N 9 0117 1.61 „81 IT 7Ad 38rnOd L T L9+ro0Y 9 sau!1 DAd ,4 eaZ 'aauaj 40 gllou „L ,ZT ,S,S /V/N I V/N 6 OIL Js „Bb IV DAd ),?mod 9 L 55+101 5 sau!l DAd „b ea Z 'aauaj jo 41nos „L,6 ,Z / V/N / V/N ZT Ol OT ,STV „LE ,.b DAd )amod S T 68+001 b adpuq peoj!!el )eau auel punogg4jau u! paleaol OU „S9 /.A ST - ET LE SZ IZT 10 )alum E T iz+oot E -agpuq peojl!ej )eau auel punoggllou u! paleaol „SE/„6ET /„EZ 81 - 91 5£ 6Z It, + 1.9 ]Ad jamod Z T fT10oT r -A;!l!ln due aleaol lou p1a -peo) T )apino4s o;u! jTmap!s SSojae M,Zx OIL x IL pagauail V/N ZZ - 6T V/N V/N V/N V/N )amOd T T sywoY I q,mJeupnlua�famlBol atl8llndolnl Alllnn AI salON wm1 awels!O 4 0404 I, M,q,L +erya.nw�w luawamseayy 1. ans 1r1aa3ew p adAj palo41°d aTaays lis ead-Tvy :VYd Oee)g 8-T Hd ZTOZ-OT'S T8 Lt -6 Hd ZT'9'1,Z1'Z'b SaTRQ :)IVS :wd w0113 OZE's ITE :p prul ,e�sp'Apuy •:�,�e,L :aaaogQ7 mals :joleladp jD4U8L U0J1Aua Pothole 1- Power Pothole 2 - Power Pothole 2 - Power Pothole 3 - Water Pothole 1- Power Pothole 2 - Power Pothole 3 - Water Pothole 3 - Water Pothole 5 - Power Pothole 6 - Power Pothole 7 - Power Pothole 8 - Power Pothole 5 - Power Pothole 7 - Power Pothole 7 - Power Pothole 9 - Fiber Pothole 9 — Fiber Pothole 10 —Gas ik, 1Y: PRO'. 'A.).41C. 5 W '7 *6 �T 'TY T'Y.,-�� Pothole 10 — Gas Pothole 11— Power Pothole 9 — Fiber Pothole 10 —Gas Pothole 11— Power Pothole 11— Power Pothole 12 - Gas Pothole 12 - Gas Pothole 13 - Power Pothole 14 - Fiber Pothole 12 - Gas Pothole 13 - Power Pothole 13 - Power Pothole 14 - Fiber Pothole 14 - Fiber Pothole 15 - Gas Pothole 16 - Power Pothole 17 - Fiber Pothole 15 - Gas Pothole 16 - Power Pothole 16 - Power Pothole 17 - Fiber 0' Pothole 17 - Fiber Pothole 18 - Power Pothole 19 - Fiber Pothole 19 - Fiber Pothole 18 - Power Pothole 18 - Power Pothole 19 - Fiber Pothole 20 - Gas Pothole 20 - Gas Pothole 21- Power Pothole 21 - Power Pothole 23 - Fiber Pothole 20 -Gas Pothole 21- Power Pothole 23 - Fiber Pothole 23 - Fiber Pothole 24—Gas Pothole 24 — Gas Pothole 25 — Fiber Pothole 26 — Fiber Pothole 24 — Gas Pothole 25 — Fiber Pothole 26 — Fiber Pothole 26 — Fiber Pothole 26 —Gas Pothole 27 — Water 6195 Ck �QuncL 3Y." T'oP �r Pothole 28 — Gas i* Pothole 26 — Gas Pothole 27 —Water Pothole 27 — Water Pothole 29 — Fiber Pothole 29 - Fiber Pothole 30 - Power Pothole 30 - Power Pothole 31 - Power Pothole 29 - Fiber Pothole 30 - Power Pothole 31 - Power Pothole 31- Power w q . Pothole 32 — Gas Pothole 32 —Gas Pothole 33 — Water Pothole 34 — Power Pothole 32 — Gas Pothole 33 — Water Pothole 33 — Water Pothole 34 — Power Pothole 35 - Power Pothole 36 - Gas Potholes 37 and 38 - Power and Fiber Pothole 39- Water Pothole 36 - Gas Pothole 36 - Gas Pothole 39 - Water Pothole 39 - Water Ott. � i y A ,202;OAM 07:50 05 24',202+ USi a V 14 J 05i2412021, -AY 05'3.-1_; ' 45124+2021 0 05 3L P Ry� 124/2021 AM,04:13 051 05124F 2021 AM 03 2, 81 7-, 7 j 0-52-� 0512412021 AW 052412 W 02,171 lc� AOO kv X112412021 AM 02:17 File: 001159 1 26� 1 111019 Appendix E GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS SAIC GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT — ALTERNATIVES ASSESSMENT SW 7t" Street Drainage Improvements Hardie Avenue SW to Naches Avenue SW Renton, Washington HWA Project No. 2011-044-21 Prepared for SAIC Energy Environment & Infrastructure, LLC February 27, 2012 =11', HWAGEOSC[ENCES INC. • Ifl��('tl:'�'Tf �.� ��'•firlk ►I MA, (t1:() t.'l IN(..'[� I M February 27, 2012 HWA Project No. 2011-044-21 SAIL Energy Environment & Infrastructure, LLC 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2500 Seattle, Washington 98154 Attention: Mr. Michael Giseburt, P.L. Subject: GVOTECHNICAi, ENGINEERING REPORT — ALTERNATtw..s ASSFSSMENT SW 7"' Street Drainage Improvements — Hardie Avenue SW to Naches Avecme SW Ftentoii, Washington Dear Mr. GisehUA: In accordance with your request, I-IWA GcoSeiences Inc. completed a geotechnical engineering investigation to evaluate the alternative alignments for the proposed storm drain replacement project along SW 7`i' Street in Renton, Washington. We appreciate the opportunity to provide geotechnical engineering services on this project. Should you have any questions or comments concerning; our enclosed report, or if we may be of further service, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. Bryan K. Hawkins, P.E. Geotechnical Engineer Arnie S�I ar, L.G., L.H.G. President `+iii3F' I i{1 hofBell. WA `80'1_ 0111 4Y It 44. �11V:1 �i.'f3, 1'f1S Fl TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................1 1.1 GENERAL.......................................................................................................1 1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION... ................................................................ - ............. 1 1.3 SCOPE OF SERVICES ANDAUTHORIZATION....................................................2 2.0 FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATIONS................................................................2 2.1 SITE EXPLORATIONS......................................................................................2 2.2 PREVIOUS EXPLORATIONS 1N THE VICINITY..................................................3 2.3 LABORATORY TESTING.................................................................................4 3.0 SITE CONDITIONS ......................................................................................................4 3.1 SURFACE CONDITIONS...................................................................................4 3.2 GENERAL GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS................................................................5 3.3 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS.............................................................................5 3.3.1 Ground Water... ........ —.— .... ........................................................ .7 3.3.2 Aquifer Testing And Analysis.......................................................7 4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS...................................................................8 4.1 GENERAL.......................................................................................................8 4.2 FOUNDATION CONSIDERATIONS....................................................................9 4.2.1 Seismic Considerations... .............................................................. 9 4.2.2 Foundation Conditions and Pipe Bedding.....................................10 4.3 TEMPORARY SHORING...................................................................................10 4.4 DEWATERING................................................................................................11 4.5 FILL PLACEMENT AND MATERIALS...............................................................13 4.6 SURFACE RUNOFF... .... - ..... ........................................................................... 14 5.0 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS..........................................................................................14 5.1 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS..............................................................................14 5.1.1 Black River Corporate Park..........................................................16 5.1.2 US West, Renton Admin. Building (300 SW 7th Street) ...............17 5.1.3 K&N Meats (601 SW 7"' Street)...................................................18 5.1.4 Carwash Enterprises (621 Rainier Avenue South)........................18 5.2 CONCLUSIONS...............................................................................................19 5.3 GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS ........................... ........... .---- - ........................ 20 5.3.1 Construction Issues........................................................................20 5.3.2 Ground Water................................................................................21 5.3.3 Health and Safety..........................................................................21 6.0 CONDITIONS AND LIMITATIONS .................................................................................22 7.0 REFERENCES.........................................................................................................24 Table of Contents (continued) LIST OF FIGURES (FOLLOWING TEXT) Figure 1. Vicinity Map Figure 2. Site and Exploration Plan Figure 3. Alternative Alignments Appendices Appendix A: Field Exploration Figure A-1. Legend of Terms and Symbols Used on Exploration Logs Figures A-2 — A-9. Logs of Boreholes BH -1 through BH -6 Appendix B: Laboratory Testing Figure B-1. Plasticity Chart Figures B-2 - B-9. Grain Size Distribution Appendix C: Previous Explorations in the Vicinity Figure C-1. Legend of Terms and Symbols Used on Exploration Logs Figures C-2 — C-4. Logs of Boreholes BH -1 (2003) through BH -3 (2003) Figures C -S — C-7. Grain Size Distribution Figure C-8. Plasticity Chart Appendix D: Aquifer Test Data and Trench Dewatering Analysis 2011-044-21 SW 7th Street Final Report 11 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT — ALTERNATIVES ASSESSMENT SW 7TH STREET DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS —HARDIE AVENUE SW TO NACHEs AVENUE SW RENTON, WASHINGTON 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 GENERAL This report presents the results of a geotechnical engineering investigation completed by HWA GeoSciences Inc. (HWA) to evaluate the alternative alignments for the proposed storm drain improvement project along a corridor of SW 7`h Street in Renton, Washington. The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate the subsurface conditions along the proposed alternative alignments and to provide recommendations to be used in selecting the final alignment. 1.2 PROJEc"r DESCRIPTION Our understanding of the project is based on discussions with and design information provided by Mr. Mike Giseburt of SAIC Energy Environment & Infrastructure, LLC (SAIL). We understand that the City of Renton plans to increase the storm drainage capacity for the project area and that three alternative alignments are proposed. The general location of the site is shown on the Vicinity Map, Figure 1. Locations of our subsurface explorations in relation to the site are shown in Figure 2, while the proposed alternative alignments are shown on Figure 3. The three alternative alignments are described below: 1. Alternative 1 This alignment begins at the just south of the BNSF Railroad crossing on Hardie Avenue SW and extends to the west, along the south side of the BNSF property, before turning south through Renton School District property and intersecting SW 7`h Street just east of Lind Avenue. The alignment then extends west in SW 7th Street to Naches Avenue SW and then extends north in Naches Avenue SW and drains into the open -channel drainage swale on the west side of Naches Avenue SW. 2. Alternative 2 — This alignment follows Alternative 1 to a proposed now diversion structure just north of the intersection of SW 7`h Street and Naches Avenue SW and then discharges into a proposed water quality treatment facility to be constructed on the undeveloped, City owned property west of Naches Avenue SW. February 27, 2012 HWA Project No. 2011-044-21 3. Alternative 3 — This alignment follows Alternative 1 to the intersection of SW 7`�' Street and Powell Avenue SW and then extends north in Powell Avenue SW, discharging into the open -channel drainage swale that begins at the north end of Powell Avenue SW. This alternative would also likely include culvert replacement of the existing culvert crossing Naches Avenue SW as well as potential channel improvement (likely widening) for a portion of the existing channel between Naches Avenue SW and Powell Avenue SW. These improvements would be to improve the conveyance capacity of this system. Based on conversations with the design team, we understand that, for all three alternatives, the new storm drain will generally be constructed adjacent to the existing storm drain, with the exception of the reach between SW 7th Street and Hardie Avenue (through private property), which could alternatively involve pipe replacement with larger diameter pipe. We further understand that the new pipe will be 60 to 72 inches in diameter, depending on capacity needed to reduce flooding at the Hardie Avenue underpass and improve conveyance capacity in the lower SW 7th Street trunk drainage system. We further understand that the new drain pipe will be constructed at about the same invert elevation as the existing pipe, which is about 10 feet below ground surface. 1.3 SCOPE OF SERVICES AND AUTHORIZATION A proposed scope of services and cost estimate for this geotechnical investigation was submitted by HWA to SAIC on April 26, 2011. Authorization for the work was subsequently provided in a Subconsultant Agreement, dated August 29, 2011. The scope of work completed for this project included eight (S) exploration borings along the proposed alignments and performing selected field and laboratory testing and engineering analyses to develop geotechnical recommendations for the proposed improvements. 2.0 FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATIONS 2.1 SITE EXPLORATIONS On October 12 through 14, 2011, HWA monitored the drilling of eight exploratory boreholes, designated BH -1 through BH -8. These boreholes were performed by Holocene Drilling of Edgewood, Washington, under subcontract to HWA, using a truck- mounted drill employing hollow -stem auger drilling techniques. Boreholes extended to depths of about 30 feet below ground surface. A 2 -inch diameter piezometer was installed in boreholes BH -1 and BH -3, with the slotted screen installed at a depth of 20 to 30 feet. 2011-044-21 SW 7th Street Final Report 2 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. February 27, 2012 HWA Project No. 2011-044-21 Standard Penetration Test (SPT) sampling was performed in each borehole using a 2 -inch outside diameter split -spoon sampler and a 140 -pound auto -hammer. During the SPT. samples were obtained by driving the sampler 18 inches into the soil with the hammer free -falling 30 inches. The numbers of blows required for each 6 inches of penetration were recorded. The Standard Penetration Resistance ("N -value'`) of the soil is calculated as the number of blows required for the final 12 inches of penetration. This resistance, or N -value, provides an indication of relative density of granular soils and the relative consistency of cohesive soils; both indicators of soil strength and foundation bearing capacity. In several of the boreholes, a 3 -inch diameter split -spoon sampler was used due to poor recovery with the 2 -inch sampler. The borehole logs indicate the depth at which the standard sampler was switched to a 3 -inch diameter. The number of blows required to advance the larger diameter sampler with the standard 140 -pound hammer are greater than SPT penetration resistance due to the lower energy imparted, given the larger diameter sampler and same hammer weight. To avoid confusion, the number of blows required for the final 12 inches oCpenetration in these non-standard penetration test (NSPT) samples, are not plotted on our boring logs. The locations of the boreholes were determined approximately in the field by pacing and taping distances from existing site features and are shown on the Site and Exploration Plan, Figure 2. A geotechnical engineer and/or geologist from HWA logged each exploration and recorded all pertinent information. Soil samples obtained from the boreholes were classified in the field and representative portions were placed in plastic bags. These soil samples were then returned to our Bothell, Washington, laboratory for further examination and testing. Pertinent information including soil sample depths, stratigraphy, soil engineering characteristics, and ground water occurrence was recorded. The stratigraphic contacts shown on the individual exploration logs represent the approximate boundaries between soil types; actual transitions may be more gradual. The soil and ground water conditions depicted are only for the specific date and locations reported and, therefore, are not necessarily representative of other locations and times. A legend of the terms and symbols used on the exploration logs is presented in Figure A-1. Summary logs of the borehole explorations are presented in Figures A-2 through A-9. 2.2 PREVIOUS EXPLORATIONS IN THE VICINITY In 2003, HWA performed a geotechnical engineering investigation for a previous phase of storm drain work along 7`h Avenue SW (HWA, 2003). Three of the boreholes, designated BH -1 through BI 1-3, performed for that phase are located in the vicinity- of this new project. as shown in blue type on Figure 2. These previous boreholes are 2011-044-21 SW 7th Street Final Repon 3 HWA GEOSC1ENCES INC. February 27, 2012 HWA Project No. 2011-044-21 designated with '2003',in order to avoid confusion with the borehole designations performed for this new investigation. The logs of the previous boreholes are presented in Appendix C. All three of these previous boreholes extended to about 30 feet below ground surface and a 2 -inch diameter piezometer was installed in each, with the slotted screen installed from about 20 to 30 feet below ground surface, as shown on the logs in Appendix C. In addition to the borehole logs, laboratory test results for the three previous boreholes are included in Appendix C following the borehole logs. 2.3 LABORATORY TESTING Representative soil samples obtained from the subsurface explorations were returned to the HWA laboratory for further examination and testing. Laboratory tests were conducted on selected soil samples to characterize engineering properties of the soils. Laboratory tests, as described below, included moisture content determination, Atterberg limits and grain size distribution. The results of the laboratory testing are presented in Appendix B and in the tables below. Moisture Content of Soil: The moisture content (percent by dry mass) of selected soil samples was determined in accordance with ASTM D 2216. The results are shown at the sampled intervals on the appropriate borehole logs in Appendix A. Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of Soils (Atterberg Limits): Select fine-grained samples were tested using method ASTM D 4318, multi -point method. The results are reported on the attached Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index report, Figure B-1. Particle Size Analysis of Soils: Selected borehole samples were tested to determine the particle size distribution of material in accordance with ASTM D422. The results are summarized on the attached Grain Size Distribution Reports, Figures B-2 through B-9, which also provides information regarding the classification of the samples and the moisture content at the time of testing. 3.0 SITE CONDITIONS 3.1 SURFACE CONDITIONS The project site is situated near downtown Renton in a residential and light commercial area, as shown on the Vicinity Map, Figure 1. Site topography is relatively flat, with maximum relief of about 6 feet across the site (excluding drainage channels and streams). 2011-044-21 SW 7th Street Final Report 4 HWA GEOSC1ENCES INC. February 27, 2012 HWA Project No. 2011-044-21 3.2 GENERAL GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS The Puget Lowland has repeatedly been occupied by a portion of the continental glaciers that developed during the ice ages of the (quaternary period. During at least four periods, portions of the ice sheet advanced south from British Columbia into the lowlands of western Washington. The southern extent of these glacial advances was near Olympia, Washington. Each major advance included numerous local advances and retreats, and each advance and retreat resulted in its own sequence of erosion and deposition of glacial lacustrine, outwash and drift deposits. Between and following these glacial advances, sediments from the Olympic and Cascade Mountains accumulated in the Puget Lowland. As the most recent glacier retreated, it uncovered a sculpted landscape of elongated, north -south trending hills and valleys between the Cascade and Olympic mountain ranges, composed of a complex sequence of glacial and interglacial deposits. Post - glacial deposits within the Puget Lowland include alluvium, lacustrine deposits. volcanic mudflow deposits, and landslide deposits. The project area is located in the geologically recent floodplain of the Cedar River and former Black River, a site of deposition since the retreat of the last glacier some 13,000 years ago. Post -glacial alluvial sediments include tine sands and silts deposited in slow- moving water; coarse sands and gravels deposited in faster -moving active channels: and clayey silts, organic silts, and peats, deposited in still water such as ponds, oxbow lakes and Lake Washington. Portions of the proposed alignment cross the former channel of the Black River which was the outlet of Lake Washington until the early 201" century. The Black River flowed to the Duwamish River until 1916 when the opening of the Lake Washington Ship Canal lowered the lake level and the Black River went dry (Galster and Laprade, 1991). A present-day drainage, also named the Black River, originates in wetlands approximately eight miles south of the project alignment and flows northwesterly through the P-1 forebay (located in the Black River Riparian Forest northwest of the project area) before its confluence with the Duwamish River in Tukwila. 3.3 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Geological information for the site was obtained from the Geologic Map of the Renton Quadrangle, King County, Washington (Mullineaux. 1965). The geologic map indicates that the project area is generally underlain by recent alluvium consisting of sand and gravel with peat, silt and clay. The map indicates that the western approximately one-third of the project area is underlain by recent alluvium. described as chiefly sand, silt and clay deposited by the Black, White, and Green Rivers before diversion of the White River to the south in 1906 and lowering of the Lake Washington water surface in 1916. The map indicates that the 2011-044-21 SW 7th Street Final Report 5 HWA GEOSCIENCE.S INC. February 27, 2012 HWA Project No. 2011-044-21 upper part of the alluvium is typically comprised of clayey silt and fine sand, while the lower part of the deposit consists mostly of medium and coarse sand. The eastern approximately two-thirds of the project area is underlain by recent alluvium described as sand and gravel deposited by the Cedar River along with associated thin beds of silt, clay and peat. Based on our borings, the storm drain alignment is generally underlain by a sequence of fill and alluvium. Fill was encountered directly beneath the pavement in nearly all of the borings, extending to depths of approximately 2.5 to 7.5 feet. The fill encountered consisted generally of loose to medium dense, clean to slightly silty, sand and gravel. Some of the fill encountered in these borings could be utility trench backfill from nearby utilities. Recent alluvium was encountered in all of our explorations immediately below the fill and extended the entire depth of the explorations. The alluvium consists of interbedded, very loose to medium dense, clean to very silty sand, and very soft to medium stiff, dark, organic silt, peat, and silt. These materials are relatively fine-grained and were deposited in a low-energy environment such as a lake or shallow estuary. They are moderately to highly compressible and have relatively low shear strengths. They may contain logs, stumps or other woody debris. These deposits are described as Alluvial Silts and Sands on the borehole logs. The borings also encountered a higher energy (i.e., deposited by faster moving water), coarser deposit of alluvium consisting of sands and gravel containing cobbles and possibly boulders. The coarser alluvial soils are generally present below the fine-grained alluvium, although there are occasional layers of one within the other. These deposits are described as Alluvial Sands and Gravels on the borehole logs. The higher energy, coarse alluvium consists of medium dense to dense, gray to brown, clean to silty gravelly sand and sandy gravel, with occasional cobbles. Trace organic debris; consisting of sticks, roots, and other organic matter was encountered in several samples. Although no boulders were identified in the explorations, boulders may be present in the coarse alluvium. Because the borings were not drilled in the exact locations of the proposed pipeline alignment and the alluvial soils vary considerably in short distances, actual soil conditions in the pipeline excavation may be different than indicated. 2011-044-21 SW 7th Street Final Report 6 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. February 27, 2012 IIWA Project No. 2011-044-21 3.3.1 Ground Water Ground water was encountered in all borings during drilling at depths varying from approximately 4 to 14 feet below ground surface, with most ground water levels in the vicinity of about 7 to 10 feet below ground surface. A 2 -inch diameter PVC piezometer was installed in boreholes BH -1 and BH -3 to monitor ground water levels. Ground water levels taken about two weeks after drilling indicated water levels of 10.6 feet and 7.9 feet below road surface in boreholes BI -1-1 and BH -3, respectively. It is anticipated that ground water conditions will change in response to rainfall, time of year and other factors. 3.3.2 Aquifer Testing And Analysis HWA performed testing and data analyses to estimate aquifer hydraulic conductivities. Our aquifer testing included single -well, post -pumping ground water level recovery tests at piezometers BH -1 and BH -3. The recovery tests were performed by pumping piezometers BH -1 and BI 1-3 at a constant rate until the pumping water level stabilized (45 to 65 minutes), then recording the water level in each piezometer until it recovered to pre-test levels. During the test, water level changes were monitored by a datalogging pressure transducer. HWA analyzed the results of the pumping tests using the Aquifer Tesl far Windows Version 3.0 software ( Waterloo Hydrogeologic, 2001). We used the Theis recovery method included in the software to analyze the pumping test recoveries in wells 13I1-1 and BH -3. This method is appropriate for confined or semi -confined aquifer conditions, and is also appropriate for unconfined aquifer conditions if the water level drawdown during pumping is small compared to the saturated thickness of the aquifer. The analysis for each piezometer was compensated for partial penetration well completions. An estimated aquifer thickness of 50 feet was used for calculation purposes. Refer to Table I for hydraulic conductivity values determined through the testing and analyses. Appendix C contains printouts from the AquiferTest software used to analyze the test results. 2011-044-21 SW 7th Street Final Report 7 HWA GE.OSC[ENCES INC. February 27, 2012 HWA Project No. 2011-044-21 Table 1. Hydraulic Conductivity (K) Estimates From Single -Well Recovery Testing SWL — static water level Ft bgs — feet below ground surface Aquifer materials at the project site typically consist of alluvial sands and silty sands. The hydraulic conductivities calculated by pumping methodologies (approximately 5x10-2 to $x10-2 cm/sec) are representative of granular alluvial materials. As expected, the hydraulic conductivity is slightly higher in the coarse-grained materials observed at boring BH -1. The range is within that expected for the observed aquifer materials (Freeze and Cherry, 1979). 4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 4.1 GENERAL We understand that, for all three alternatives, the new storm drain will generally be constructed adjacent to the existing storm drain, with the exception of the reach between SW 7th Street and Hardie Avenue (through private property), which could alternatively involve pipe replacement with larger diameter pipe. The soils along the proposed alternatives are typically similar and consist of recent alluvial deposits along the entire project site. Based on the subsurface conditions encountered in our geotechnical investigation, the following constraints will affect the design and construction of the proposed project: The proposed pipeline will traverse loose, soft alluvial soils below the ground water table. These soils include compressible clays, silts and peat, in addition to sands and gravels containing occasional cobbles. Logs or other wooden debris and occasional boulders also may be present along the proposed pipe alignment. 2011-044-21 SW 7th Street Final Report 8 HWA GmSCIENCES INC. Assumed Screened Water- Rising Head Well SWI. Screen interval bearing K ID (ft bgs) Penetratio (ft bgs} Materials Method n (cm/sec) Alluvial sand 131-1-1 20-30 10.62 Partial Theis Recovery 7.6x10-2 and gravel Alluvial silty 2 BH -3 20-30 7.88 Partial Theis Recovery 4.9x10 sand SWL — static water level Ft bgs — feet below ground surface Aquifer materials at the project site typically consist of alluvial sands and silty sands. The hydraulic conductivities calculated by pumping methodologies (approximately 5x10-2 to $x10-2 cm/sec) are representative of granular alluvial materials. As expected, the hydraulic conductivity is slightly higher in the coarse-grained materials observed at boring BH -1. The range is within that expected for the observed aquifer materials (Freeze and Cherry, 1979). 4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 4.1 GENERAL We understand that, for all three alternatives, the new storm drain will generally be constructed adjacent to the existing storm drain, with the exception of the reach between SW 7th Street and Hardie Avenue (through private property), which could alternatively involve pipe replacement with larger diameter pipe. The soils along the proposed alternatives are typically similar and consist of recent alluvial deposits along the entire project site. Based on the subsurface conditions encountered in our geotechnical investigation, the following constraints will affect the design and construction of the proposed project: The proposed pipeline will traverse loose, soft alluvial soils below the ground water table. These soils include compressible clays, silts and peat, in addition to sands and gravels containing occasional cobbles. Logs or other wooden debris and occasional boulders also may be present along the proposed pipe alignment. 2011-044-21 SW 7th Street Final Report 8 HWA GmSCIENCES INC. February 27, 2012 1IWA Project No. 2011-044-21 In some areas the proposed storm sewer invert will extend below ground water. Construction dewatering will be necessary. The potential need to minimize surface disruptions during construction along with the desire to avoid undermining existing utilities, structures and roadway due to soil sloughing and caving using traditional trench box shoring methods. Based on these concerns, our recommendations include using either braced steel plates, steel sheetpiles or traditional trench boxes to support the excavation_ Additionally, we recommend the use of lightweight backfill; either clean, uniform sand or controlled density fill (CDF), as trench backfill where new pipe is installed. in areas where the pipe will be replaced, standard granular fill materials, possibly the excavated structural fill (provided it is suitable), can be used, as the soils below the pipe have likely consolidated under the weight of the previous backfill soils. These recommendations will provide for flexibility in the method to support the excavation sidewalls, limit dewatering and ground water flow into the excavation and minimize post -construction settlement_ Regarding the proposed alignment alternatives, the soils are relatively similar for all alignments and will likely present similar conditions during construction. We understand that Alternative 3 may require a new culvert crossing below Naches Avenue SW. This would likely require further geotechnical investigations (boreholes) at the culvert location to provide information for design. The following sections provide recommendations for seismic considerations, foundation design, shoring, construction dewatering, backfill, hazardous materials and other construction considerations. 4.2 FOUNDATION CONSIDERATIONS 4.2.1 Seismic Considerations Soil liquefaction is a phenomenon wherein saturated soil deposits temporarily lose strength and behave as a liquid in response to earthquake shaking. Soil liquefaction is generally limited to loose granular soils located below the water table. The upper alluvial soils in the project area have a high susceptibility to liquefaction. Evidence of liquefaction was observed in the project area during the 1965 magnitude 6.5 Seattle -Tacoma earthquake. However, in our opinion, properly compacted trench backfill will have little or no liquefaction potential. It would be impractical to design this project to mitigate for potential liquefaction effects. 2011-044-21 SW 7th Street Final Report 9 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. February 27, 2012 HWA Project No. 2011-044-21 4.2.2 Foundation Conditions and Pipe Bedding Along most of the alignment, the soils at the proposed storm drain invert elevation consist of very soft to soft silt, and loose silty sand. It will not be feasible to remove these soils, as these deposits extend to considerable depths. To provide suitable support and bedding for the pipe, we recommend the storm drain be founded on suitable bedding material consisting of clean sand and/or gravel. To minimize trench subgrade disturbance during excavation, the excavator should use a smooth-edged bucket rather than a toothed bucket. Pipe bedding should provide a firm uniform cradle for support of the pipes. A minimum 12 -inch thickness of bedding material beneath the pipe should be provided. Prior to installation of the pipe, the pipe bedding should be shaped to fit the lower part of the pipe exterior with reasonable closeness to provide uniform support along the pipe. Pipe bedding material should be used as pipe zone backfill and placed in layers and tamped around the pipes to obtain complete contact. To protect the pipe, bedding material should extend at least 12 inches above the top of the pipe. In areas where the subgrade soils in the trench excavation consist of fine-grained soils, such as silt/clay, or organic rich soils, we recommend that a geotextile separator fabric be placed over the native soils prior to placement of the pipe bedding. We recommend that the geotextile meet the requirements of WSDOT Standard Specifications (WSDOT, 2010) Section 9-33.2(1) Table 3 for Separation. We recommend that a qualified earthworks inspector observe subgrade conditions during construction and determine if and where a separator is necessary, in addition to providing full-time monitoring of all backfilling operations. 4.3 TEMPORARY SHORING Excavations for the storm sewer trench can be accomplished with conventional excavating equipment such as backhoes and trackhoes. Because of the nature of the alluvial soils, the high ground water table, potential for flowing sands, and the depths of excavation, the excavations will require construction dewatering and temporary shoring. We have identified three methods by which the excavation could be shored: traditional trench boxes, steel plates with hydraulic/adjustable bracing and driven/vibrated interlocking sheet piles with internal bracing. In some areas, trench boxes may not provide adequate sidewall support and could allow soils to slough and cave, resulting in loss of support for existing utilities and the road surface. These soft/loose soils have the potential to slough to slopes approaching 1.25H:1 V (horizontal: vertical). 2011-044-21 SW 7th Street Final Report 10 HWA GEoSCIENCES INC. February 27, 2012 HWA Project No. 2011-044-21 Where utility and roadway protection is of more concern, steel plates with adjustable or hydraulic bracing may be used for temporary shoring. Excavation to, or slightly below. the water table may be possible before placement of the steel plates. Thereafter, excavation could continue within the plates. Where it is necessary to minimize the area affected by trench excavation, and/or protect nearby structures or utilities, the use of interlocking sheetpiles may be required. The use of sheetpiles would also minimize ground water flow into the excavation and limit the amount of dewatering required, protecting nearby utilities and structures from settlements associated with dewatering. The temporary shoring should be designed to resist the lateral earth pressures resulting from the soil and ground water as well as any traffic and/or construction surcharge loads. We recommend that the contractor be required to submit a shoring/excavation plan for review prior to construction. The plan should be required to contain specific measures for temporary support and protection of the existing utilities and structures. Precautions should be taken during removal of the shoring to minimize disturbance of the pipe, underlying bedding materials, and native soils. Maintenance of safe working conditions, including temporary excavation stability, is the responsibility of the contractor. In accordance with Part N of WAC (Washington Administrative Code) 296-155, all temporary cuts in excess of 4 feet in height should be sloped or shored. The existing native soils generally consist of loose sands and soft silt. These sand deposits generally classify as Type C soil, per WAC 296-155, and, if no shoring is used, should be sloped no steeper than 1'/2H: l V. Flatter side slopes will be required where ground water seepage is encountered. 4.4 DEWATERING HWA estimated the maximum ground water inflows to the open trench during construction using a spreadsheet model based upon equations presented in Powers and others (2007). Assumptions underlying these equations are: The length of the trench is much greater than the width • The aquifer is unconfined The extent of the water table decline around the trench during dewatering activities is less than the distance to any nearby ground water recharge source such as a stream or lake • Ground water flow to the trench is steady state Data we used in the spreadsheet model were: 2011-044-21 SW 7th Street Final Report 1 1 IIWA GEOSCIENCES INC. February 27, 2012 HWA Project No. 2011-044-21 • Depth to ground water is 4 to 8 feet bgs • Trench depth is 8 to 10 feet below existing grade • Trench width is 10 feet • The distance to the nearest surface water features, the P-1 channel and P-1 forebay, is approximately 2,400 ft • Aquifer thickness is 50 feet • Aquifer hydraulic conductivity is 4.9x10-2 to 7.6x10-2 centimeters per second (140 to 215 feet per day) per Table 1 above • We assumed that the contractor would have 100 feet of trench open at any time. Our analysis of ground water inflow to the trench is presented in Appendix D. The estimated ground water inflow to the trench is approximately 500 gallons per minute (gpm). However, it should be noted that ground water conditions can vary substantially over time. and over relatively short distances. For example, during construction it is possible that: • The aquifer thickness and hydraulic conductivity are not constant over the entire project distance and may vary considerably • Zones of higher water table elevation may be encountered during construction • Unanticipated sources of ground water recharge may be encountered • Construction dewatering total flow rates may initially be higher than estimated if excavation begins during the rainy season, but should decline after the water table equilibrates In particular, ground water flow rates greater than our estimated 500 gpm may be encountered between Hardie and Lind Avenues SW where the project crosses and runs parallel to the alignment of the former Black River because ground water may preferentially flow in the alluvial sediments in that section of the project. If project Alternative 1 or 2 is selected, then significant quantities of ground water may also be encountered in the vicinity of Naches Avenue SW which is in close proximity to the former Black River alignment. Accordingly, the dewatering contractor should be prepared to encounter trench inflow rates different than estimated here. Ground water flow rates into the trench will be lowest if construction occurs during the summer and early fall. Dewatering will likely require dewatering wells or well points in some or all areas. Settlement of adjoining ground surface, structures or utilities may occur due to dewatering activities. Dewatering should be performed in such a way as to not cause settlements or damage to adjacent areas. Design and implementation of any dewatering system is the responsibility of the contractor. Dewatering systems should be 2011-044-21 SW 7th Street Fina] Report 12 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. February 27, 2012 HWA Project No. 2011-044-21 designed and submitted to the project engineer ]or approval prior to the commencement of the excavation. 4.5 FILL PLACEMENTAND MATERIALS In general the existing soils that will be excavated are very silty and organic -rich, and they will be unsuitable for re -use as trench backfill. In order to reduce settlement potential of the soft silts below the pipe invert, minimize settlement of the trench backfill and reduce roadway maintenance, the weight of the new storm drain pipe and associated backfill should be less than the weight of the existing pipe and material removed. In this regard, we recommend that either clean sand or lightweight Controlled Density Fill (CDF) be utilized as trench backfill. If granular structural fill is utilized, it should consist of clean, fine to medium sand, similar to the bedding material. It should be free of gravel, organics and other debris. The on-site soil removed from the excavation will generally not be suitable for reuse as structural fill, due to the abundance of soft organic silty soils. The structural trench backfill should be moisture conditioned to within about 3 percent of optimum moisture content, placed in loose horizontal lifts less than 6 inches in thickness, and compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density (MDD), determined using test method ASTM D 1557 (Modified Proctor). Trench backfill should be densely compacted in a systematic manner. The contractor should develop compaction methods that consistently produce adequate compaction levels. All backfilling operations should be monitored full-time by a qualified inspector and a sufficient number of in-place density tests should be performed as the fill is placed to determine if the required compaction is being achieved. During placement of the initial lifts, the trench backfill material should not be bulldozed into the trench or dropped directly on the pipe. Furthermore, heavy vibratory equipment should not be permitted to operate directly over the pipe until a minimum of 2 feet of backfill has been placed over the pipe bedding. Alternatively, in areas where the pipe will be constructed where no utilities existed previously, an engineered lightweight CDF or lightweight Controlled Low -Strength Material (CLSM) could be used as backfill from the springline of the pipe to the base of the pavement layers. The use of CDF or CLSM would eliminate the effort required to place and compact granular structural fill around and above the pipe, and if a lightweight mix design is selected, it could reduce potential pipeline settlements. Depending on filler or aggregate material used, the in-place density of CDF and CLSM ranges from 90 to 145 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). When pre -formed foaming agents are used in low - 2011 -044-21 5W 7th Street Final Report 13 1IWA GEOSCIENCES INC. February 27, 2012 I1WA Project No. 2011-044-21 density CLSM, unit weights of 20 to 80 pcf can be achieved. If CLSM is used, we recommend a mix design with a unit weight of 90 pcf or less. A significant cause of large settlement results from inadequate shoring practices and poor compaction during shoring removal and backfilling. Special care must be taken to obtain good compaction up to the edges of the excavation as the shoring is removed. Moreover, attention must be paid to ensuring good compaction around manholes. 4.6 SURFACE RUNOFF Surface runoff control during construction should be the responsibility of the contractor, and should be treated prior to discharge so as to comply with State water quality standards. Grading measures, slope protection, ditching, sumps, dewatering, and other measures should be employed as necessary to permit proper completion of the work. 5.0 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 5.1 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS HWA evaluated the project alignment for the potential presence of contamination that may present issues during construction, by conducting a search for listed contaminated sites along the alignment, and reviewing files available at the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) and provided by the City of Renton. Eighteen listed sites were identified along or adjoining the project alignment. Of these, four (highlighted in yellow below) with documented releases of contaminants into the environment were further evaluated with file reviews, and are described below. 2011-044-21 SW 7th Street Final Report 14 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. February 27, 2012 HWA Project No. 2011-044-21 Facility ID 82996938 11361937 48726967 91348673 2697233 57236512 Facility Name Multichem Analytical Svcs Rockwell Collins Inc Bartells Material Management EJ Bartells Renton Unified Grocers Inc Renton ALLIED TUBE & CONDUIT CORP 98688171 Scott Container Prod Group 98997279 Aim Aviation 2612511 Kaye Smith Business Graphics 49373953 DRAPER VALLEY FARMS RENTON 87125963 Rockwell Intl Collins Avionics 58499353 Sound Ford 97449375 Bob Bridge Toyota 88484571 WOLF BROS OIL CO Address Listings Hazardous Waste Generator, Hazardous Waste Planner Hazardous Waste Generator Hazardous Waste Generator 750 Rainier Ave S Hazardous Waste Generator Hazardous Waste Generator Toxics Release Inventory, Hazardous Waste Generator, Hazardous Waste Planner, Industrial SW GP Hazardous Waste Generator, Emergency/Haz Chem Rpt TIER2, Underground Storage Tank Hazardous Waste Generator, Hazardous Waste Planner Hazardous Waste Generator, Hazardous Waste Planner, Haz Waste Management Activity Emergency/Haz Chem Rpt TIER2, Toxics Release Inventory, Hazardous Waste Generator, Underground Storage Tank, Industrial SW GP Hazardous Waste Generator Hazardous Waste Generator, LUST Facility, Hazardous Waste Planner, Underground Storage Tank, State Cleanup Site, Haz Waste Management Activity, Underground Storage Tank, Hazardous Waste Generator Underground Storage Tank Underground Storage Tank, LUST Facility, Independent Remedial Actn Prg LUST Facility, Underground Storage Tank LUST Facility, Underground Storage Tank Toxics, Independent Cleanup 201 t-044-21 SW 7th Street Final Report 15 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC_ INC 2570 US WEST RENTON 300 SW 7th St ADMIN 27778869 RENTON 1 1 Brown Bear 621 & 641 Car wash RAINIER AVE S 72559666 K & N MEATS 601 Seneca Ave SW 2272 BLACK RIVER Corp OAKSDALE AVE PARK TRACT A SW Hazardous Waste Generator Hazardous Waste Generator Toxics Release Inventory, Hazardous Waste Generator, Hazardous Waste Planner, Industrial SW GP Hazardous Waste Generator, Emergency/Haz Chem Rpt TIER2, Underground Storage Tank Hazardous Waste Generator, Hazardous Waste Planner Hazardous Waste Generator, Hazardous Waste Planner, Haz Waste Management Activity Emergency/Haz Chem Rpt TIER2, Toxics Release Inventory, Hazardous Waste Generator, Underground Storage Tank, Industrial SW GP Hazardous Waste Generator Hazardous Waste Generator, LUST Facility, Hazardous Waste Planner, Underground Storage Tank, State Cleanup Site, Haz Waste Management Activity, Underground Storage Tank, Hazardous Waste Generator Underground Storage Tank Underground Storage Tank, LUST Facility, Independent Remedial Actn Prg LUST Facility, Underground Storage Tank LUST Facility, Underground Storage Tank Toxics, Independent Cleanup 201 t-044-21 SW 7th Street Final Report 15 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC_ February 27, 2012. HWA Project No. 2011-044-21 HWA also field screened the samples from the geotechnical boreholes located along the project alignment. No visual, odor, or other indications of contamination were observed during our exploration program. 5.1.1 Black River Corporate Park HWA reviewed files provided by the City of Renton and available at Ecology. The Black River Corporate Park site described in the files includes areas north of Oakesdale Avenue South and Southwest 7t" Street, extending w=est of Naches Street some 1600 feet. The western half of this area is known as Tract A, and the eastern half as Tract B or the Phase VIII property. Dredge spoils were deposited on Tract A around 1984. Sampling in 1990 and 1991 indicated the presence of petroleum hydrocarbons and metals in the dredge spoils. Later sampling (ca. 1997) on Tract B revealed petroleum hydrocarbons and metals in a drainage swale / channel. A corporate office/business park was constructed on the southeast portion of Tract B, and the remaining portion of Tract was acquired by the City of Renton. This remaining City owned parcel is currently under consideration for proposed stormwater improvements as part of the Hardie Ave. SW — SW 7"' St. project. Hart Crowser conducted a Supplemental Environmental Assessment at Tract B in 1997. Previous investigations found fill soils within a drainage and wetland area on the site contained petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), lead, and cadmium exceeding Ecology Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA) cleanup levels. Hart Crowser collected shallow (0 to 3 feet below ground surface, (bgs)) soils from hand auger borings and test pits throughout Tract B, with emphasis in a drainage course at the northeastern edge of the property. Shallow samples, typically consisting of wetland vegetation and organic silts. generally did not exceed MTCA cleanup levels for the selected analytes (Hart Crowser, 1997). Deeper samples (1.5 feet bgs and below) contained metals and TPH exceeding MTCA cleanup levels. The contaminated soils appeared to be concentrated within a swale that conveyed stormwater discharge from a former stormwater outfall, and other (more upland) areas on the site generally did not have exceedances. Although the former property owners and consultants attributed the source of contamination to stormwater flowing through this area, the concentrations observed are in some cases higher than what might be expected solely from stormwater runoff. Hart Crowser estimated the volume of affected soils to range from 1,000 to 9,000 cubic yards. Ground water samples were not collected as part of their investigation. The City -owned portion of Tract B (containing contaminated soils) may be an alternative location for a stormwater facility (i.e., a wetpond and possibly a new storm pipe). 2011-044-21 SW 7th Street Final Report 16 HWA GEQSCIENCES INC. February 27; 2012 I IWA Project No. 2011-044-21 Proposed construction should be designed to minimize the disturbance of contaminated soils in this area. The impacted soils are currently located below cleaner silts and vegetation, and construction or excavation of drainage features should be avoided if at all possible. Additional exploration and sampling should be conducted in areas proposed for construction to evaluate the presence and extent of contaminated soils. and to estimate contaminated soil volumes, cleanup costs, and to prepare hazardous materials handling and disposal specifications for construction. Collected soil and ground water samples should be analyzed for petroleum hydrocarbons and metals at an accredited analytical laboratory. 5.1.2 US West, Renton Admin. Building (300 SW 7`h Street) The site is located on the north side of SW 7t" Street and is a listed leaking underground storage tank (LUST) site. Delta Environmental Consultants (Delta, 1994) prepared a UST site assessment report for the site. Two 6,000 gallon gasoline underground storage tanks (USTs) and one 300 gallon diesel UST were removed from the site. The tanks were located on the north side of the building, some 200 feet north of SW 7th Street. Releases from the USTs were not observed, and post-removal soil samples collected from the UST excavations either did not contain detectable concentrations of TPI, or the concentrations were below cleanup levels. Delta observed petroleum -affected soils beneath a fuel dispenser. Approximately 65 cubic yards of soil was removed and stockpiled for analysis. Approximately ten cubic yards were subsequently removed from the site for treatment. The contamination was assumed to be associated with overfill and/or spills. Ground water was encountered at ten feet bgs, but was not sampled at the time. Delta prepared an addendum to an Independent Remedial Action Report (not in the file but referenced as March 1996). A soil boring and ground water monitoring well were installed in the inferred downgradient position of the former USTs at Ecology's request for closure of the Independent Remedial Action. Ground water was encountered at eight feet bgs. Soil and ground water samples collected from the monitoring well did not contain detectable concentrations of TPH. Ecology provided a No Further Action (NFA) letter for the site in April 1996. Based on the available documentation and location of the releases, it is unlikely that contamination from the U.S. West site will affect soils in the project corridor due to the limited release to soils at the site and lack of evidence of ground water contamination. 2011-044-21 SW 7th Street Final Report 17 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. February 27, 2012 HWA Project No. 2011-044-21 5.1.3 K&N Meats (601 SW 7" Street) The site is located on the south side of SW 7`h Street and is a listed LUST site. B&C Equipment (1990) prepared a letter report documenting soil and ground water sampling associated with removal of one 10,000 gallon gasoline, one 10,000 gallon diesel, and one 500 gallon waste oil UST from the site. Multiple soil samples were collected from the excavation sidewalls at the approximate soil -ground water interface at seven feet bgs. Additionally, B&C collected a water sample from standing ground water within the excavation. The samples were analyzed for TPH and BTEX (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes). Several post -excavation soil samples exceeded 200 milligram per kilogram (mg/kg) (the MTCA petroleum cleanup level in effect at the time of the UST removal), and overexcavation of selected areas was performed to remove these soils. After overexcavation, The TPH concentration in one southwest sidewall sample (1,187 mg/kg) exceeded the 200 mg/kg MTCA cleanup level. The soil sampling location was adjacent to a street or structure and was not removed. The report included a hand -drawn sketch map of the excavation and sampling locations, but with no other features (e.g., streets, buildings) that provide information as to the actual location of the samples. The remainder of the post -excavation samples either did not contain detectable concentrations of TPH, or the concentrations were below cleanup levels. TPH and BETX were detected in the initial excavation water sample. A second water sample was collected after overexcavation and pumping, and the subsequent sample did not contain detectable concentrations of TPH or BTEX, or the concentrations were below cleanup levels. A total of 182 cubic yards of petroleum -affected soils were disposed of at the Cedar Hills Regional Landfill. The file for this site did not contain any other significant information regarding the UST removal or soil remediation. Based on the available documentation, it is unlikely that petroleum contamination from the K&N Meats site will affect soils in the project corridor. With the exception of one soil sample, remnant soils left in place after overexcavation are `Class 1' or 'Class 2' soils as defined by Ecology (2010). These soils may be reused as on-site fill above ground water if structurally suitable, but will require disposal as contaminated if not. 5.1.4 Carwash Enterprises (621 Rainier Avenue South) The site is located approximately 500 feet east of the project alignment and is a listed LUST site. The reviewed file did not contain a UST site assessment report or other associated information. The file for this site included an application document to King 2011-044-21 SW 7th Street Final Report 18 HWA GEOSC1ENCFS INC. February 27. 2012 HWA Project No. 2011-044-21 County Department of'Metropolitan Services (Metro) for a wastewater discharge permit (Shannon & Wilson, 1995). The application contained excerpts of a Shannon & Wilson ground water monitoring report and a remedial system pilot test report. According to the ground water monitoring data included in the application, ground water at the site contained gasoline range hydrocarbons and BTEX in exceedance of MTCA cleanup levels in multiple site monitoring wells. According to water level elevations documented in the remedial system pilot test report, ground water flow at the site is to the south, toward Rainer Avenue South. The file did not include other remedial reports or subsequent ground water monitoring reports. Based on the available data, there is the potential for ground water impacts at SW 7'h Street and Rainier Avenue South; however, the site is unlikely to affect the Hardie Ave. SW SW Th St. project due to the distance from the project. 5.2 CONCLUSIONS Based on the findings of this study, with the exception of the Black River site, there is a low to moderate potential that subsurface activities (excavation, earthwork; grading and utility work) in the project corridor may encounter soils and ground water that may contain elevated concentrations of petroleum or other contaminants. Although there is insufficient information to delineate potentially contaminated areas on the plans, construction bid documents should include all background information, analytical results and provisions for contaminated soil handling, treatment/disposal, and health and safety requirements. Proposed project improvements (a wet pond) at the Tract B / former Black River site are very likely to encounter contaminated soils, and should be called out on project plans and in the specifications. Construction bid documents should include all background information, analytical results and provisions for contaminated soil handling, treatment/disposal, and health and safety requirements. Proposed stormwater discharge, detention, or conveyance is likely to exacerbate or disturb the contamination, as well as trigger regulatory scrutiny. Project design should be re-evaluated with respect to contamination issues in this area. Additional exploration and sampling should be performed at the Tract B / former Black River site in areas proposed for new construction, to evaluate potential cleanup costs and construction impacts. Additional explorations are also recommended in the channel between Naches and Powell streets, if this area is slated for excavation or channel modifications. This channel is directly upstream of, and feeds into Tract B / Black River site. This area has not 2011-044-21 SW 7th Street Final Report 19 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. February 27, 2012. HWA Project No. 2011-044-21 previously been sampled, and may be impacted if stormwater was the source of impacts at the Black River site. 5.3 GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS 5.3.1 Construction Issues Construction bid documents (}dans and specifications) should include all available analytical results and provisions for contaminated soil and waste handling, treatment/disposal, and health and safety requirements. Subsurface work in the vicinity of reported release locations should account for field screening during excavation and segregation and analytical testing of suspected contaminated soils and ground water, if encountered. If impacted soils are discovered during construction, soils should be sampled and analyzed by the owner's representative to limit the volume requiring treatment or disposal and to document the findings. Excavation outside of the utility trenches is not recommended. Several treatment and disposal options for contaminated soils are available, including: • On-site disposal (use as roadway subgrade, or hot batch asphalt incorporation); • Off-site landfill disposal at a licensed facility; • Off-site thermal treatment and disposal/recycling at a licensed facility. Costs to excavate, haul, treat or dispose of petroleum contaminated soils generally range from $40 to $60 a ton. Net export or unsuitable soil excavated for construction that does not contain contaminants exceeding cleanup levels may still require treatment or disposal at a licensed facility, as many fill sites will not accept soils with detectable concentrations of contaminants. MTCA cleanup levels are used in this report for reference only; and normally apply to soils being excavated for the purpose of remediation. If excavated materials (e.g., "unsuitable" or net export soils) are disposed off-site, property owners at the receiving site should be notified of the results of this study and any additional testing information available at that time. Criteria for unrestricted use of soils may be lower than some cleanup levels. Soils with contaminant concentrations above detection limits but below cleanup levels should not be used as fill near surface or ground water. The contractor should be required to notify the Engineer or Owner's representative of suspected contaminated materials, with provisions in the specifications for assisting the Engineer with excavations for testing, segregating and stockpiling materials, sedimentation and erosion control, dust control, decontamination, and standby time or 2011-044-21 5W 7th Street Final Report 20 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. February 27, 2012 HWA Project No. 2011-044-21 provisions for delays due to testing. The contractor should be required to submit waste characterization, waste management, spill prevention/control, and health & safety plans which address these issues. HWA recommends sampling and testing for any contractor force account or unit rate pay items (e.g., contaminated soils disposal) be conducted by the Owner's representative. 5.3.2 Ground Water Although no known ground water contamination is documented along the project alignment, it is possible; therefore construction bid documents (plans and specifications) addressing construction dewatering should include all analytical results and provisions for contaminated water testing, storage, treatment/disposal, and health and safety requirements. Contaminated water treatment/disposal options may include: • Off-site treatment and disposal; • On-site treatment and discharge; • Discharge to sanitary sewer under permit. These measures may be handled as force account or unit rate (per gallon, but with no minimum guarantee) bid items. If ground water is encountered which is suspected of being contaminated based on visual, odor, or other characteristics or information, sump pumping or dewatering discharge should be stored on site and tested to determine treatment/disposal options_ Off-site disposal typically is feasible for small quantities of water (10,000 gallons). Short-term discharge to sanitary sewer under permit would likely be permitted depending on the water quality. 5.3.3 Health and Safety HWA recommends that appropriate health and safety measures be taken during excavation in areas where refuse, contaminated soils, ground water, or vapors may be present. These measures may include, but are not limited to, preparation of a site specific health and safety plan, air monitoring, site control/access, protective and decontamination measures, worker training, certification, and medical monitoring. We recommend an industrial hygienist or health and safety specialist be consulted to determine the applicability of these requirements. Construction specifications should include all available analytical results including this and other available reports. 2011-044-21 SW 7th Street Final Report 21 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. February 27, 2012 1IWA Project No. 2011-044-21 6.0 CONDITIONS AND LIMITATIONS We have prepared this report for SAIL and the City of Renton for use in design of a portion of this project. This report should be provided in its entirety to prospective contractors for bidding and estimating purposes; however, the conclusions and interpretations presented in this report should not be construed as a warranty of the subsurface conditions. Experience has shown that soil and ground water conditions can vary significantly over small distances. Inconsistent conditions can occur between explorations and may not be detected by a geotechnical study. If, during future site operations, subsurface conditions are encountered which vary appreciably from those described herein, HWA should be notified for review of the recommendations of this report, and revision of such if necessary. Sufficient geotechnical monitoring, testing, and consultation by HWA GeoSciences, Inc., should be provided during construction to confirm that the conditions encountered are consistent with those indicated by the explorations, to provide recommendations for design changes should conditions revealed during construction differ from those anticipated, and to verify that the geotechnical aspects of construction comply with the contract plans and specifications. Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, HWA attempted to execute these services in accordance with generally accepted professional principles and practices in the fields of geotechnical engineering and engineering geology in the area at the time the report was prepared. No warranty, express or implied, is made. The scope of our work did not include environmental assessments or evaluations regarding the presence or absence of wetlands, hazardous substances in the soil, or surface water at this site or decommissioning of monitoring wells installed for this project. This firm does not practice or consult in the field of safety engineering. We do not direct the contractor's operations, and cannot be responsible for the safety of personnel other than our own on the site. As such, the safety of others is the responsibility of the contractor. The contractor should notify the owner if he considers any of the recommended actions presented herein unsafe. .q 2011-044-21 5W 7th Street Final Report 22 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. February 27, 2012 IIWA Project No. 2011-044-21 We appreciate the Opportunity to provide geotechnical Services on this project. Should you have any questions or comments, or if we may be of further service, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, HWA GeoSeiences Inc. Bryan K. Hawkins, P.E. Geotechnical Engineer Arnie Sugar, L.G., L.I I.G. President 2011-044-21 SW 7th Street )Fina! Repoi# 23 HWA GEOSC1ENCE5INC. February 27, 2012 HWA Project No. 2011-044-21 7.0 REFERENCES B&C Equipment Company, 1990, K&NMeats, 601 7'f' Street Renton WA, dated March 16. Delta Environmental Consultants, 1994. UST Closure Observation and Testing Renton Administration Building, dated June 24. Delta, March 1996, Addendum to Independent Remedial Action Report, Post remediation subsurface Investigation, Renton Administration Building, dated March 19. Hart Crowser, 1997, Supplemental Environmental Assessment, Black Rock Phase IV Property, Renton., Washington, dated June 13. Freeze, R.A., and Cherry, J.A., 1979, Groundwater, Prentice -Hall, Inc. Galster, R.W., and W.T. Laprade, 1991, Geology of Seattle, Washington, United States of America, Bulletin of the Association of Engineering Geologists, Vol. XXVII, No.3, pp. 235-302. HWA, 2003, Geotechnical Report SW71h Street Storm Drain, Renton, Washington, Consultant's Report dated March 14, 2003. International Cade Council (ICC), 2008 International Building Code. Mullineaux, D.R., 1965, Geologic Map of the Renton Quadrangle, King County, Washington, Department of the Interior, U.S. Geologic Survey, Map GQ -405. Shannon & Wilson, 1995, Wastewater Discharge Permit for Brown Bear Car Wash - Renton 1, Seattle, Washington, dated October 5. Washington Department of Ecology, 1996, Re: Independent Remedial Action Report, USS. West Communications. Renton Administration Building, dated April 1, Washington Department of Ecology, 2010, Draft Guidance_for Remediation of Petroleum Contaminated Sites, Publication No, 10-09-057, dated 2010. Waterloo Hydrogeologic, Inc. 2001, Aquifer Test for Windows Version 3.0 software. Washington State Department of Transportation, 2010, Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction. 2011-044-21 SW 7th Street Final Report 24 HWA GEoSC1ENCES INC. S •F,�- Sr - ::.t 1. � '-. ,j4 Skyway Park P . Shopping Center ' $'j � � I_ylw• :r ' �. I:hlh 5} %}p1k �' N R:rf c' - Campbed -dr Elementary m serraoi v' Bryn �► ,. Mawr -Skyway y Wrrdenr S y '-ElevenWA. ChrNt--t.atier-4ey Z Renlon Yea Park ,ryre'1 Sr �L m R h 5lad meffiuml Black e`'1 ...._ ` �`� •; River 9M Rre Renton -T mumcipal I b ��. Z 5-_er,q,•anae _v` 13,115' .ar .. A:rpart Nay .8152nd St ` e s 1131a si n Ave 8 169 Mt Oliret t a b1v s BFry T k .�1�' Q Downtown '� Foster Gvtt- �- Renton Carse f 14Lendon ti AKer SW S..t Blvd Renron �, 0 q Park q+rt rve' SGppingrIft -Y �o+reler RC hob bndpe Tukwila to yota a x on e 161 - $tartre Sports « It _ Rervon _.,,Relrto�Wa9e S7S gr„OW Park aY "nda Sh0p0'p Centel {45auEhcenter PROJECT SITE S •� 9 ��' =1 ,•N x'1h .3 ,3 � 1a1 z P � BASE MAP BY GOGGLE EARTFI S15 ¢ k r F � 6' +f � •�[ �rary 4. f= T c N Lp .- Cexcade 8 515 Shopping Cerger Google -Map data 0R0liGoogle - `zLfu r`lis�_�-.c �a�l-rtacldat,er NORTH FIGURE NO VICINITY MAP SW 7'_ STREET DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS � � HAGEOSCIENCES INC. HARDIE AVENUE SW TO NACHES AVENUE SW FROJECTNO. RENTON, WASHINGTON 2011-044 y 4 coo _I CD l i Cry Cr) i C� — _ -- CD ' I i t � - (Y) OCD ` V `1 r _ — — — — -- — — _.y�'h Coll r tV„ i (Ii �T Cn n z O O > LU C.7 C] o LL w O z °—° O U Q� O CLJ Q a ❑ a a Z O � a z az` ❑ U UJ z > w Z U)Ii LU ❑ O J QJ Z w �w r ix co 0 0 N T 2 m 5a z C3 z a Z airy LU0a (n CL w - - CO LU� LU LU O¢z D z LA Z 2 a �' ¢O� aU) z 0 F- n z coQ sW U CIa U z TU^ V f OPP I N O � O d p It CD u I w C w UJ LD °Qa N� LL LU m m S. w r fii-•rte -. ❑ U Q Z • .. ��- - - - , I Q W u I Tk �t I H Z w W� �z W w O ¢ z 1 2 0 z �=j} cm Y'' a0LuQ F li W n Z I� WZW 1. IR �w�' f U3 a W U) _ , w z ` , r 3 1 „ ,i� - g , s 0 s c .r a 4)-• ul (V Q'Z. L' VJ m ui 40 ' - f QS i i < m APPENDIX A FIELD INVESTIGATION RELATIVE DENSITY OR CONSISTENCY VERSUS SPT N -VALUE MAJOR DIVISIONS GROUP DESCRIPTIONS COHESIONLESS SOILS Gravel and COIiFSiVC SOILS GVV Well -graded GRAVEL te Olean Gravel r Approximate Density N {blowslft} Gravelly SOta Co^sislency N (blowslft) Undrained Shear Grained Soils (li;lla or no fines) Rotaativelive Dees'ty�;%) More than 3 Strength (psf) Very Loose 0 to 4 0 - 15 Very Soft D to 2 <250 Loose 4 to 10 15 - 35 Soft 2 to 4 250 - 50C Medium Dense In to 30 35 - 65 Medium Sir 4 to 5 500 - 1000 Dense 30 to W 65 - 85 Stiff 8 to 15 1000 - 2000 Very Dense over 50 85 - 100 Very Stiff 15 to 30 2000 - 4000 SMI Hard over 30 >4Q00 200 Sieve USCS SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM MAJOR DIVISIONS GROUP DESCRIPTIONS SIZE RANGE Gravel and Larger than 12 in T GVV Well -graded GRAVEL Coarse Olean Gravel r 3 in tc 314 in Fine gravel 314 in to No 4 {4.5mrn) Gravelly SOta ° O GP Pocrly�raded GRAVEL Grained Soils (li;lla or no fines) Fine sand More than 3 Smaller than No. 200 (0.074mm) . ............. Resilient Modulus 501% of Coarse Gravel With° Pholoionization Device Reading GM Silty GRAVEL FraRetained Fines (appreciable SG --- TC Triaxial Compression on No. 4 Sieve amount of fines) Torvane GC Clayey GRAVEL SW Welljraded SAND Sand and Clean Sand More than Sandy Soils {little or no fines} SPpoorly�raded SAID 50% Retained SMI Silty SANO on No. 50% or More Sand with 200 Sieve of Coarse fines (appreciable -- Fraction Passing Size amount of fines) 5C Clayey SAND No. 4 Sieve SILT NIL Fine Silt CL Lean CLAY Grained and Liquid Limit Soils Less than 50% Clay _ OL Organic SILT10rganic CLAY MH Elastic SILT 50% or More Silt Liquid Limit Passing and 50% or More CH Fat CLAY Clay No, 200 Sfeve Size OH Organic SILT10rganic CLAY Highly Organic Soils ` I 1f PT PEAT COMPONENT DEFINITIONS COMPONENT SIZE RANGE Boulders Larger than 12 in T Gobbles 3 in to 12 in Gravel 3 in to No 4 (4.5mrn) Ccarse gravel 3 in tc 314 in Fine gravel 314 in to No 4 {4.5mrn) Sand No. 4 (4.5 mm) to No. 200 (0.074 mm) Coarse sand No. 4 (4.5 mm) to No. 10 (2.0 mm) Medium send No. 10 (2.0 mm) to No, 40 (0-42 mm) Fine sand No. 40 (0.42 mm) to No. 200 (0,074 mm) Sill and Gay Smaller than No. 200 (0.074mm) UC Unconfined Compression TEST SYMBOLS V,F Percent Fines AL Atterberg Limils: PL = Plastic Limit 1 LL = Liquid Limit CBR Ca4cmia Bearing Ratio CN Consolidation DD Dry Density (pcf) DS Direct Shear GS Grain Size Distribution K Permeability MD MoislurelDensity Relationship (Proctor) MR Resilient Modulus PID Pholoionization Device Reading PP Pocket Penetrometer Approx. Compressive Strength (tsf) SG Spedfic Gravity TC Triaxial Compression TV Torvane Approx. Shear Strength (tsf) UC Unconfined Compression GROUNDWATER SYMBOLS E Groundwater Level (measured at time of drilling) T Groundwater Level (measured in well or open hole after water level stab}ilzed) COMPONENT PROPORTIONS PROPORTION RANGE SAMPLE TYPE SYMBOLS ®2.0" OD Split Spoon (SPT) 5-12% (140 Ib. hammer with 30 In. drop) 1 Shelby Tube LJ 3-114° OD Split Spoon wlth Brass Rings OSmall Bag Sample 0 Large Bag (Bulk) Sample nCore Run Non-standard Penetration Test (3.0" OD split spoon) GROUNDWATER SYMBOLS E Groundwater Level (measured at time of drilling) T Groundwater Level (measured in well or open hole after water level stab}ilzed) COMPONENT PROPORTIONS PROPORTION RANGE DESCRIPTIVE TERMS <5% Clean 5-12% Slightly (Clayey, Silty, Sandy) 12-30% Clayey, Silly, Sandy, Gravelly 30-50% Very (C€ayey, Silly, Sandy, Gravelly) Components are arranged in order of increasing quantities, NOTES: Soil classifications presented on expicration lags are based on visual and laboratory observation. Soil descriptions are presented In the following general order: MOISTURE CONTENT Density/consislency, color, modifier{'Many) GROUP NAME, additions to group name (ifany), moislure I! DRY Absence of moisture, dusty, conlenL Pmporttbn, gradation, and angularity ofconstrluenfs, addRlonar comments. I dry to the touch. (GEOLOG)C 1NTERPRETATfON) MOIST Damp but no visible water, Please refer to the discussion In the report text as well as the exploration logs for a more WET Visible free water, visually complete description of subsurface conditions. sail is below water table, SW 7th Street Drainage Improvements LEGEND OF TERMS AND Hardie Avenue SW to Naches Avenue SW SYMBOLS USED ON HMIGEOSCIENCESINC. Renton, Washington EXPLORATION LOGS PROJECT NO : 2011-044 FIGURE: A-1 LEGEND 2011-044.GPJ 114112 DRILLING COMPANY: Holocene Dill rg DRILLING METHOD: Truck Mounted Drill Rig - Hollow Stem Auger SAMPLING METHOD: SPTw/Aui LOCATION: Naches Ave Sculbound Shoulder - 500 Feet North of SW 7th St - See Figure 2 DATE STARTED: 10/1212011 DATE COMPLETED: 10f12J2011 LOGGED BY: B Hawkins SURFACE LLLVATVON' 20U f feet 5 1 10– 4 -inches A phalt Pavement. w W 0 Standard Penetration Resistance ML 8 -inches Crushed Surfacing Base Course. m WU) {14p Ib. weight, 30" drop) D- 3-1 4-5-6 w Stiff, mottled reddish brown to gray. fine sandy SILT, moist. z ' Trace rootlets and woad bits. vLLJw ¢ A Blows per fool Q O a W Very loose, gray. Fine to medium SAND, moist. _ _ 1-1-2 _ Soft, dark brown to gray. SILT with Ane sand, moist. Wood a- N�N LU = debris noted. EL q Z) Very soft, gray, elastic SILL with wood debris, moist. _ S -4A 0-1-1 °- - 1.ul O n. 0 urj DESCRIPTION 0 v1 0 10 20 30 40 50 5 1 10– SM Very loose, gray, silty Ane SAND, wet �5-4B Very loose, gray, silty fins SAND, wet. S-5 0-0-2 15 Very loose, dark grayish brown, silty SAND, wet. 5-6 0-1-2 GS 20 is 1 25 Loose, gray, slightly silly, fine to medium SAND, wet, Thin S-7 2-2-5 lenses of wood debris present� x - NOTE: This fog of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations, • 1 1 0 • _ �– 15 [ 1� 1 1� 0 20 40 60 80 100 Water Content (°/) Plastic Limit 1-411 Liquid Limit Natural Water Content D BORING: a SW 7th Street Drainage Improvements BH -1 1 Hardie Avenue SW to Naches Avenue SW PAGE: 1 of 2 MAGEOSCIENCES INC. Renton, Washington PROJECT NO.: 2011-044 FIGURE= A-2 -- P70-DSM 2011-044,GPJ 116112 4 -inches A phalt Pavement. [ASPHALT PAVEMENT] ML 8 -inches Crushed Surfacing Base Course. [CSBC] [ALLUVIAL SILTS AND SANDS] 3-1 4-5-6 Stiff, mottled reddish brown to gray. fine sandy SILT, moist. Trace rootlets and woad bits. SP Loose, mottled reddish brown and gray, fine to medium SAND S-2 5-4-4 SM with silt, moist. Very loose, gray. Fine to medium SAND, moist. _ _ 1-1-2 ML Soft, dark brown to gray. SILT with Ane sand, moist. Wood �S-3A 5-3L1 debris noted. Very soft, gray, elastic SILL with wood debris, moist. _ S -4A 0-1-1 SM Very loose, gray, silty Ane SAND, wet �5-4B Very loose, gray, silty fins SAND, wet. S-5 0-0-2 15 Very loose, dark grayish brown, silty SAND, wet. 5-6 0-1-2 GS 20 is 1 25 Loose, gray, slightly silly, fine to medium SAND, wet, Thin S-7 2-2-5 lenses of wood debris present� x - NOTE: This fog of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations, • 1 1 0 • _ �– 15 [ 1� 1 1� 0 20 40 60 80 100 Water Content (°/) Plastic Limit 1-411 Liquid Limit Natural Water Content D BORING: a SW 7th Street Drainage Improvements BH -1 1 Hardie Avenue SW to Naches Avenue SW PAGE: 1 of 2 MAGEOSCIENCES INC. Renton, Washington PROJECT NO.: 2011-044 FIGURE= A-2 -- P70-DSM 2011-044,GPJ 116112 f]RILLING COMPANY: Holocene Drilling DATE STARTED: 10'1212011 DRILLING METHOD: TTu^k Mounted Drill Rig - Hoilow Stem Auger DATE COMPLETED: 10112120:1 SAMPLING MLTHOD: SPT vrlAuto`,amrner LOGGED BY: B. Haw�ips LOCATION: Nachos Ave Soutbound Shoulder- 500 Feet North of SW 7th St - See Figure 2 SURFACE ELFVATION: 20.0 ± feet W w z Standard Penetration Resistance ra EL 2 N (140 3b. weight, 20" drop) z 73 Ul J E15F t Q ♦ Blows per foot 0 O J J1 T T CL n N av U QQ W F- WUa fl �a DESCRIPTION N a_ A 0 ° 0 Q 1D 20 30 40 50 w" 25 GW 1 foot of hoave in sampler. 5-8 8-20-34 GS Very dense, gray, well graded GRAVEL v�ih sand, wet. i [ALLUVIAL. SANDS AND GRAVELS] 1 a a • -Q r 1 foot of heave in samples S-9 4-4-10 + Very dense, gray, sandy, fine to coarse GRAVEL, wet •IL a ' - 35 . y. SP Medium dense, gray, stlghtly gravelly, fine to medium SAND, 5 10 3-6-10 wet. 40 .,:.... ....-20 Medium dense, gray, slightly gravelly, fine to medium SAND, 5-11 2-8-12 wet. E - Baring was terminated at 41.5 feet BGS. Ground water seepage was observed at 11 feet BGS during drilling. A ground water monitoring well was installed with screen from 20-31) feet BGS, the ground water level was measured on 1012712011 at 10.62 feet BGS. 45- 50 0 20 40 60 80 100 Water Content (%) Plastic Limit Liquid Limit NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions appplies only at the specified location and on the dale Indicated Natural Water Content and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. BORING, j SW 7th Street Drainage Improvements BH -1 Hardie Avenue SW to Naches Avenue SW PAGE: 2 of 2 AGEOSCIENCES INC. Renton, Washington PROJECT NO.: 2011-044 FIG RE: A-2 PZO-DSM 2011-044.GPJ 11812 el DRILLING CCMPANY, Hclocene Drilling DAl L STARTl 10;1412011 DRILLING METHOD: -I ruck Mounted Drill Rig - Hollow Stem Auger DAfL GOMPI.F..TFf3 10r1412D11 SAMPLING METHOD: SPT w?Autohan mcr LOGGED BY, D. Coltrane LOCATION: SW 7th St WestbOLIFA Ous',de Lane - 200 Feet Last of Naches Ave SW - See Figure 2 SURFACE ELEVATION: 22.0 4 feet 0) U a O Q 0 m o DESCRIPTION 4-B inches Asphalt Pavement - SM [ASPHALT PAVEMENT] Cuttings are grayish brown silty SAND with gravel. [FILL] ML Medium dense, gray, silty SAND to sandy Sll_7 moist. Trace SM wood debris and thin laminar bedding. [ALLUVIAL SILTS AND SANDS] 5- 10- 15- 5- 20- 20- 1 1 25- Very loose, gray, slightly gravelly, silty 5ne SAND, moist. Thin beds of brown organic material present. Becoming more gravelly at tip of sample, ML Very soft, interbedded gray fine SAND and gray brown SILT to ORGANIC SILT, moist. Wood debris and layers of organic material present. MH Soft, grayish brown, elastic SILT with thin beds of ORGANIC SILT, moist. Finely laminated sand lenses with wood debris present, SC Very soft, olive gray to gray, sandy CLAY to clayey SAND, moist to wet. Fine laminar bedding and organic debris present. Sandy layers are wet. ML Loose, dark grayish brown, SILT with sand, wet. Finely laminated. Rootlets and organic debris present. Grades coarserwith depth. Driller adds drilling fluid to auger to cerntrol heave. Loess, grayish brawn to brown, clayeylsilly SAND to sandy i SILT, wet. Some organ's debrlslwoody layars. Aj W z S-2 1-1.2 Standard Peneiraiion Test 1-0-1 a F- 41 s.5 Q (140 Ib weight. 30' drop) Z lL z n Q • Blows per foot o Lu w ru <o CKEL A�.... ....:- ..�....... r= ¢ LLI m W V)°- o r 10 20 30 40 50 w a &1 10-7-8 S-2 1-1.2 f � 8-3 1-0-1 -S-4 1-1-2 AL s.5 o-n.i NS-6 0-1-3 GS S-7 0-2-3 NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on tfie dale indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times andlor locations, ... .. V .. .. .. .- ' • A�.... ....:- ..�....... ....:....:....:.... 0 20 40 60 60 Water Content (%) Plastic Limit P--• I Liquid Limit Natural Water Content 100 - 20 - 15 - 10 1 —5 —0 BORING: SW 7th Street Drainage Improvements BH -2 Hardie Avenue SW to Naches Avenue SW HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. Renton, Washington PAGE: 1 of 2 PROJECT NO.: 2011-044 FIGURE: A-3 BORING -DSM 2011044.GP,f 115112 DRILLING COMPANY. tloloce^e Drilling DATE STARTED: 1011412011 DRILLING METHOD: Truck Mounted Drill Rig - Hollow Stem Auger DATE COMPLETFD: 10/1412011 SAMPLING METHOD, SPTwlAutohammer LOGGED BY: D. Coltrane LOCATION SW 7th St Westbound Ouside Lane - 200 Feet Fast of Naches Ave SW - See Figure 2 SURFACE ELEVATION: 22.0 1 feet U) L Standard W z Penetration Test c] d I- ¢ (140 Ib. weight, 30" drop) Y p ua .c r • Biows per foot 7: _j O US li w --3 w X � z h Q M v5 a a w } w p a— v� cn D DESCRIPTION ¢ Q N rn w a 0 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 u+ u 25 SCI Switch to 3 -inch diameter sampler. S B 4-6-17 Medium dense, grayish brown, silty SAND to sandy SILT, wet. Fine laminar bedding. Layers of organic debris present. SM ----- :. At 26.3 feet becomes medium dense, gray, gravelly, silty, fine .. -5 to coarse SAND, wet. JALLUVIAL SANDS AND GRAVELS] 30 40 GW Dense, dark gray, well graded GRAVEL with sand, wet. S-9 13-15-26 GS i i �. 35 SP Medium dense, gray, tine to coarse SAND vdth fine silt 5-10 4-7-17 SM lamina, wet. Grades to slightly siltylclayey, sandy, fine to : coarse GRAVEL, wet. .. .. 15 413 Poor recovery. _ S-11 7-26-48 . . . ....:....:... .. .. Very dense, grayish brown, slightly silty, slightly gravelly, fine to coarse SAND, wet. :... -20 Boring was terminated at 41.5 feet BGS. Ground water seepage was observed at 11 feet BGS during drilling. 45— ....................... -25 50 0 20 40 60 80 100 Water Content (%) Plastic Limit F 41 Liquid Limit NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated Natural Water Content and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. BORING: j SW 7th Street Drainage improvements BH --2 Hardie Avenue SW to Naches Avenue SW HWAGEOSCIENUS INC. Renton, Washington PAGE: 2 of 2 PROJECT No.: 2011-044 FIGURE: A-3 [IORING DSM 2011A44_GPJ 1!6112 DRILL€NG COMPANY: Holocene DrilMq DRILLING METHOD: Truck Mounted Drill Rig - Hallow Stern Auger SAMPLING METHOD', SPT w?Autoharnr er LOCATION: Powell Ave 9cuthhound ShOLIder - 500 Feet North of SW 7th St - See Figure 2 U J O = O o v U) D DESCRIPTION o - - SM 4 -inches Asphalt Pavement. [ASPHALT PAVEMENT] Brown, silty, gravelly SAND cuttings, moist. [FILL.] SM Medium dense, gray, gravelly, fine to medium SAND becoming fine sandy SILT, moist. [ALLUVIAL SILTS AND SANDS] 5 - MH Medium stiff, olive gray, elastic SILT, moist- Oxide mottling present. Blocky texture and trace organic debris, Medium stiff, gray to olive gray, sandy SILTICLAY, wet. Oxide mottling present. Blocky texture grading is more lamination with depth. Some wood debris present 10 Medium stiff, gray SILT interbedded with silly, fine SAND, molst to wet. Welter in sand layers. No recovery, sampler is we.. 15 GP Medium dense, dark grayish brown, poorly graded GRAVEL ° with sand, wet. O [ALLUVIAL SANDS AND GRAVELS] °n C> ° O O 20 GP Driller adds drilling fluid to auger. Switch to 3 -inch diamoter ° GM sampler. o Medium dense, gray, slightly silly, sandy, fine to coarse GRAVEL, wet. 1 25 DATE STARTED: 10113121011 DATE COM PLLI LD: 10i 1 A; 2051 I.OGGEb BY. D. Coltrane SURFACE ELEVATION, 20.0 i €ee,, rr ul w z Standard a Penetration Test M ma 2 l � � U (140 Ib. weight, 30" drop) z z c w F_ w! A Blows per foot �¢ ¢ co 15 W F- O W CJ a- 0 0 10 20 30 40 r j �. 50 J� S-7 4-19-26 NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified localion and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily he indicative of other times andlor locations. 0 —0 1 20 40 64 80 100 Water Content (%) Plastic Limit 1- •----[ Liquid Limit Natural Water Content BORING: SW 7th Street Drainage Improvements BH -3 Hardie Avenue SW to Naches Avenue SW HMGEOSCIENCES INC. Renton, Washington PAGE' 1 of 2 PROJECT NO,: 2011-044 FIGURE: A-4 PZ0 DSM 2011.644.GPJ 116112 a S-1 12-7-1 �...;.... .��1 :. S-2 2-1-4 AL 1 .. 10 S-4 1-1-4 S-5 2-6-5 &6 7-9-8 GS . J� S-7 4-19-26 NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified localion and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily he indicative of other times andlor locations. 0 —0 1 20 40 64 80 100 Water Content (%) Plastic Limit 1- •----[ Liquid Limit Natural Water Content BORING: SW 7th Street Drainage Improvements BH -3 Hardie Avenue SW to Naches Avenue SW HMGEOSCIENCES INC. Renton, Washington PAGE' 1 of 2 PROJECT NO,: 2011-044 FIGURE: A-4 PZ0 DSM 2011.644.GPJ 116112 DRILLING COMPANY: Holocene Drilling DATE STARTED: 10113?2011 DRILLING ME1 HOD. 1 WCK Mounted Drill Rig - Hollow Stem Auger DATE COMPLETED: 10114!2011 SAMPLING METHOD: SPTwlAutohammer LOGGFf) BY: D. Coltrane LOCK] ION: Powell Ave Scut}hbound Shoulder - 500 Feet North of SW 7th St - See Figure 2 SURFACE LLFVATION: 20.0 f feet 211 Poor recovery. ° Medium dense, gray, slightly silty. sandy, fine to coarse of GRAVEL, wet. I 30 j GP Medium dense, gray to brownish gray, poorly graded ° GM GRAVEL with silt and sand, wet. 35 GP Poor recovery. ° Dense, olive brown, poorly graded GRAVEL with sand, wet, c7 P o� 0 40 h Very dense, olive brown, poorly graded GRAVEL with sand, o wet. Coarse, broken gravels in sampler. n Boring was terminated at 41.5 feet BGS. Ground water seepage was observed at 11 feet BGS during drilling. A ground water monitoring well was installed with screen from 20-30 feet BGS, the ground water level was measured on 1012712011 at 7.88 feet BGS. 1 45 1 50 ru z Siar:dard Penetration Test t w U (140 Ib. weight, 30' drop) Z z � F L ¢ ♦Blows per toot o a � � z x L;j �u m o w JQ 0 Co a rL 0 10 20 30 40 50 w w S-8 12-34-36 777 S-9 30-36-31 GS 5-10 28-59-37 S-11 20-64-70A" GS NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified locatlon and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times andlor locations. 0 0, ME -I I -20 1 11— -25 1 ll 0 20 40 60 80 100 Water Content (%) Plastic Limit 1-0-1 Liquid Limit Natural Water Gontent BORING: SW 7th Street Drainage Improvements BH -3 Hardie Avenue SW to Naches Avenue SW PAGE: 2 of 2 HWAGEOCIENCES INC. Renton, Washington PROJECT NO.: 2011-044 FIGURE: A-4 PZO-DSM 2011-044,GPJ 176112 W 3 U J o DESCRIPTION 211 Poor recovery. ° Medium dense, gray, slightly silty. sandy, fine to coarse of GRAVEL, wet. I 30 j GP Medium dense, gray to brownish gray, poorly graded ° GM GRAVEL with silt and sand, wet. 35 GP Poor recovery. ° Dense, olive brown, poorly graded GRAVEL with sand, wet, c7 P o� 0 40 h Very dense, olive brown, poorly graded GRAVEL with sand, o wet. Coarse, broken gravels in sampler. n Boring was terminated at 41.5 feet BGS. Ground water seepage was observed at 11 feet BGS during drilling. A ground water monitoring well was installed with screen from 20-30 feet BGS, the ground water level was measured on 1012712011 at 7.88 feet BGS. 1 45 1 50 ru z Siar:dard Penetration Test t w U (140 Ib. weight, 30' drop) Z z � F L ¢ ♦Blows per toot o a � � z x L;j �u m o w JQ 0 Co a rL 0 10 20 30 40 50 w w S-8 12-34-36 777 S-9 30-36-31 GS 5-10 28-59-37 S-11 20-64-70A" GS NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified locatlon and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times andlor locations. 0 0, ME -I I -20 1 11— -25 1 ll 0 20 40 60 80 100 Water Content (%) Plastic Limit 1-0-1 Liquid Limit Natural Water Gontent BORING: SW 7th Street Drainage Improvements BH -3 Hardie Avenue SW to Naches Avenue SW PAGE: 2 of 2 HWAGEOCIENCES INC. Renton, Washington PROJECT NO.: 2011-044 FIGURE: A-4 PZO-DSM 2011-044,GPJ 176112 DRILLING COMPANY Hatccene Drilling DATE STARTED: 10''12/2C11 DRILLING METHOD: Truck Mounted Drill Rig - Hollow Stena Auger DATE COMPLETED: 10112.x2011 SAMPLING METHOD, SPT w,'AutoYiamrner LOGGF-D BY: B Hawkins LOCATION: Powell Ave SB Shoulder - 200 Feet North of SW 7th St - See Fig ire 2 SURF ACE ELLVATION: 21.0 f feet � LL w V Standard Penetratio i Test a r ¢ 040 Ib. weight, 30" drop) J < (n U w r Slaws per foot Z o m w w 4 a" U z z O O W ra DESCRIPTION con a 9 cm7 0 10 20 30 40 Z 50 0 .. --- SM L4 inches Asphalt Pavement, [ASPHALT PAVEMENT] ...:. ........ . 20 Brown, silty, gravelly SAND cuttings, moist [FILL] . . ..,, ML S-1 5-6-6 ' Stiff, brown to gray, slightly gravelly, sandy SILT hemming medium dense, brown fine to medium SAND, moist. [ALLUVIAL SILTS AND SANDS) YYff��1111 Medium stiff, brown to gray, sandy SILT to silty SAND, moist. S-2 3-2.2 YYY :....:....:....:....:... r 15 i Very loose, light brown, silty rine SAND becoming gray, elastic S-3 1-1-1 SILT/CLAY with trace rootlets and wood debris, moist, �[ Very stiff, gray SILT to silty fine SAND, moist. Trace rootlets S4 3-7.9 and organic debris. Becoming wet at tip of sampler.] i f 14 SM Very loose, gray, silty One SAND, wet. Elecoming coarserw1h S-5 5-0-3 depth 15 SP Medium dense, gray, rine to medium SAND, wet. Fine wood S-6 4-10 17 layers near sampler tip. [ALLUVIAL SANDS AND GRAVELS] 20 :. ,.:. Dense, gray, fine to medium SAND to slightly silty SAND, wet S-7 5-19-30 25 E 0 2C 40 60 80 100 Water Content (%) Plastic €.lmit [ • I Liquid Limit NOTE: This log Of subsurface conditions applles only at the specified location and on the date indicated Naturai Water Content and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other Mmes and/or locations. BORING! SW 7th Street Drainage Improvements BH -4 =A Hardie Avenue SW to Naches Avenue SW fMGEOSCIENCES INC. Renton, Washington PAGE= 1 of 2 PROJECT NO,: 2011-044 FIGURE: A-5 BORING -DSM 2011-044.GPJ 11602 ' DRILLING COMPANY: Ho!ocene Drilling DATE STARTED, 10!1212011 DRILLING METHOD: Truck Mounted Dril' Rig - Hollow Stem Auger DATE COMPLFTFD: 1 011 21201 1 SAMPLING MLI -HOD: SPT w/Autchammer LOGGED BY, B. Hav*ins LOCATION: Powell Ave SB Shoulder- 20D Feet North of SW 7th St - See Figure 2 SURFACE ELEVATION: 21.0 t feet 25 30 35 1 40 - 1 45- 1 5- 1 50 O O U) m Vy O a DESCRIPTION ` GW Driller notes gravels al 24 feel BGS. L,m z m Dense, gray, well graded GRAVEL with sand, wet. 1 -foot w heave in sampler. 7¢7 zU i '' W 7 r U-1 2 20 r i Q . ` Dense, gray, slightly silty, sandy GRAVEL, wet. 1 -foot heave r 0, n' in sampler. i S-6 8-16-24 GS • r i Dense, gray, slightly silty, sandy GRAVEL, wet. Thin silt ]ens r at 38.3 feet BGS. 1 -foot heave in sampler. r . i I • ML Stiff, gray, SILT interbedded with fine to medium SAND and gravel, wet. Trace wood debris in silt layer. Boring was terminated at 41-5 feet BGS. Ground water seepage was observed at 11 to 12 feet BGS during drilling - Q� w 30 40 b0 L,m z m � w 7¢7 zU W 7 Uj U-1 2 20 Lu Q LLI 0, n' O t9 S-6 8-16-24 GS NS-9 3-9-18 5-10 5-13-30 i I NS-11 9-4-6 NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times andlor locatlons. Standard Penetration Test (140 lb. weight, 30" drop) AL Blows per foot ] 10 20 30 40 b0 i I 0 20 40 60 so Water Content (%) Plastic Limit 1 0 Liquid Limit Natural Water Content 100 z 0 m LJiJ - -5 1 - -10 1 - -15 1 - -20 1 - -25 BORING: SW 7th Street Drainage Improvements BH -4 Hardie Avenue SW to Naches Avenue SW HMGEOSCIENCES INC. Renton, Washington PAGE: 2 of 2 PROJECT NO.: 2011-044 FIGURE: A-5 BORING-OSM 2011-044,GPJ 116112 DRILLING COMPANY: HOiocene Drilling DATE STARTED, 1011312011 DRILLING METHOD: Truck Mounted Drill Rig - HCIIcw Siem Auger DATE COMPLETED: 10!13?20" 1 SAMPLING METHOD: SPT wlAutoharnmer !-OGLED BY D. Coltrane LOCATION. SW 7th St Westbound Ouside Lane- 33 Feet East of Thomas Ave -See Figure 2 SURfACL ELEVATION: 22,0 *feet r C LJ A U D t U) > DESCRIPTION 4-0 inches Asphalt Pavement. SM [ASPHALT PAVEMENT] Cuttings are grayish brown, silty SAND with gravel. [FILL] Medium dense, light brown, silty, gravelly SAND, moist. 1 15- 1 2a - 25 - GW I �-r GM Loose, brown, sandy GRAVEL to gravelly SAND, wet. Poor recovery. Ground water seepage at 4-5 feet below ground surface (BGS). Hit abandoned conduits running perpendicular to road at 4 feet RLS. Very loose, light brown SAND becoming gray SII TIC 1 -AY, moist to wet. [ALLUVIAL SILTS AND SANDS] No recovery. fvlediurn stiff, gray, SILTICLAY, wet. Very poor recovery. Driller adds drilling fluid to auger. No recovery, most likely SILTICLAY. Switch to 3 -inch diameter sampler. Medium stiff, gray to brownish gray, SILT, wet. Layer of organic debris becoming mostly ORGANIC SILT far last 3 -inches of sample. Soft, light gray CLAY becoming ORGANIC SILT with sand lenses and peat layers at 21 feet, wet w w L) L 5-10-13 W Standard Penetration Test ou' 11 A ¢ (140 Ib. weight, 30" drop) S-5 55 .� 5-6 n A Blows per foot W Jw LY �j S-8 1-1-2 AL 2i 2 N io w z :D o Cl- O O D 10 20 30 40 N3-1 5-10-13 NS-2 3-3-4 N 3-3 11 A SA 1-0-1 S-5 1 -z -z 5-6 2-1-1 �{ S-7 3-2-3 AL �j S-8 1-1-2 AL NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other limes andlor locations. Q....... . A i i A 0 20 40 60 60 100 Water Content {%) Plastic Llnlit Llqu!d Limit Natural Water Content - 20 - 15 10 1 -5 - 0 BORING: 1 SUV 7th Street Drainage Improvements BH -5 Hardie Avenue SW to Naches Avenue SW HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. Renton, Washington PAGE i of 2 PROJECT NO.: 2011-044 FIGURE A-6 BORING -PSM 2011-044.GPJ 'Irl12 bRILLING COMPANY', Holocene Drilling DATE STARTED: 101,312011 DRILLING METHOD: Truck Mounted Drill Rig - Hohow Steri Auger DATE COMPLETED: 1 011 31201 1 SAMPLING ME fHDD: SPT w/Autohammer I-OGGFD BY: D Coltrane LOCATION: SW 7th Sl Westbound Ouside lane - 33 Feel East of Thomas Ave -See Figure 2 SURFACE ELEVATION: 22.0 *feet 1 30 - 35- 40- 1 45 50 - TFIM ltand umdens, da vetkgrayishbrawn,pooriygradedSANDwith &1D 19-20-31 GS GP Medium dense, olive brown, poorly graded GRAVEL, weL 5-11 6-19-31 GS r Broken gravels in sampler. Medium dense, gray to brown, silty, fine to coarse sandy, fine S-12 16-28-35 to coarse GRAVEL, wet. Trace wood debris, and pockets of clayey material. Boring was terminated at 41.6 feet BGS- Ground water seepage was observed at 4 to 5 feet BGS during drRng I NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date Indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times andlor locations. Standard Penetration Test (140 Ib. weight, 30" drop) z ♦ Blows per foot o 10 20 30 40 50 0 20 40 60 60 100 Water Content (%) Plastic Limit 1 0 Liquid Limit Natural Water Content - -5 1 - -10 1 - -15 - -20 1 - -25 1 BORING: SW 7th Street Drainage Improvements BH -5 Hardie Avenue SW to Naches Avenue SW IMIGEOSCIENCES INC. Renton, Washington PAGE. 2 of 2 PROJECTNa.: 2011-044 FIGURE' A-6 BORiNG-DSM 2011-044.GPJ 116112 va � W U n_ Z � r Lu� v F¢ r ¢ OLLJ F z O L31 O CL co z oLLJ z O of a m c}7 a DESCRIPTION v4i aw A o to 0 25 - Driller notes gravelly drilling at 24 feel BGS. S-9 13-21-29 GS Medium dense, gray, well graced GRAVEL with silt and sand, • wet. [ALLUVIAL SANDS AND GRAVEL$] 1 30 - 35- 40- 1 45 50 - TFIM ltand umdens, da vetkgrayishbrawn,pooriygradedSANDwith &1D 19-20-31 GS GP Medium dense, olive brown, poorly graded GRAVEL, weL 5-11 6-19-31 GS r Broken gravels in sampler. Medium dense, gray to brown, silty, fine to coarse sandy, fine S-12 16-28-35 to coarse GRAVEL, wet. Trace wood debris, and pockets of clayey material. Boring was terminated at 41.6 feet BGS- Ground water seepage was observed at 4 to 5 feet BGS during drRng I NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date Indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times andlor locations. Standard Penetration Test (140 Ib. weight, 30" drop) z ♦ Blows per foot o 10 20 30 40 50 0 20 40 60 60 100 Water Content (%) Plastic Limit 1 0 Liquid Limit Natural Water Content - -5 1 - -10 1 - -15 - -20 1 - -25 1 BORING: SW 7th Street Drainage Improvements BH -5 Hardie Avenue SW to Naches Avenue SW IMIGEOSCIENCES INC. Renton, Washington PAGE. 2 of 2 PROJECTNa.: 2011-044 FIGURE' A-6 BORiNG-DSM 2011-044.GPJ 116112 DRILiJNG COMPANY: Holocene DTIiIir:g DATE STARTED: 101312011 DRILLING METHOD: Truck Mounted Dri:l Rig - I follow Siem Auger IaATE COMPLETED: 10!1312011 SAMPLING METHOD', SPTwlAutohammer LOGGF0 BY: D. Coltfane LOCATION: SW 7th St Westbound Ouside Lane - 42 Feet East of Seneca Ave --See Figure 2 SURFACE ELEVATION: 23 0 :1: feet 1 5 I in 1 15 1 20 1 25 S-1 5-7-7 S-2 1-1-2 S-3 0-0-0 S-4 0-1-1 GS S-5 0-3-3 GS S-6 0-1-7 S-7 2-8-19 NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified localion and on the date indicated and therefore may no': necessarily be indicative of other limes andlor locations. BORING: SW 7th Street Drainage Improvements BH -6 1 Hardie Avenue SW to Naches Avenue SW HMGEOSCIENCES INC. Renton, Washington PACE. 1 of 2 PROJECT NO.: 2011-044 FIGURE: A-7 GORING -DSM 2011-044.GPJ 1!6192 mz Lu inches Asphalt Pavement. [ASPHALT PAVEMENT] Cuttings are grayish brown, silty SAND with gravel. [FILL] Medium dense, light brown, gravelly SAND becoming silty fire SAND to fine to medium SAND, moist {i i`• i No recovery. Cuttings are light brown silty fine SAND, Very soft, light brown to gray, fine sandy SILT with Clay. Oxide Standard Penetration Test a- 2 mottling at 8 feet BGS. ¢ (140 Ih weight, 30" drop) [ALLUVIAL SILTS AND SANDS] z SM Blows per foot z Lu a Lu a ,cLLA. W o — w ❑ z debris layers. z T 0 Loose, gray, slightly gravelly, fine to medium SAND, wet, DESCRlPTtON Co 0 o a 79- a CD n in gn in an ,n w S-1 5-7-7 S-2 1-1-2 S-3 0-0-0 S-4 0-1-1 GS S-5 0-3-3 GS S-6 0-1-7 S-7 2-8-19 NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified localion and on the date indicated and therefore may no': necessarily be indicative of other limes andlor locations. BORING: SW 7th Street Drainage Improvements BH -6 1 Hardie Avenue SW to Naches Avenue SW HMGEOSCIENCES INC. Renton, Washington PACE. 1 of 2 PROJECT NO.: 2011-044 FIGURE: A-7 GORING -DSM 2011-044.GPJ 1!6192 Oil4-6 =. SM ML inches Asphalt Pavement. [ASPHALT PAVEMENT] Cuttings are grayish brown, silty SAND with gravel. [FILL] Medium dense, light brown, gravelly SAND becoming silty fire SAND to fine to medium SAND, moist {i i`• i No recovery. Cuttings are light brown silty fine SAND, Very soft, light brown to gray, fine sandy SILT with Clay. Oxide mottling at 8 feet BGS. [ALLUVIAL SILTS AND SANDS] SM Very loose, dark gray, silty SAND, moist. I Medium dense, dark gray, silty SAND, moist. Some wood debris layers. Loose, gray, slightly gravelly, fine to medium SAND, wet, It 1 Wood bits and layers of organic debris present. II�Jy�1 S-1 5-7-7 S-2 1-1-2 S-3 0-0-0 S-4 0-1-1 GS S-5 0-3-3 GS S-6 0-1-7 S-7 2-8-19 NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified localion and on the date indicated and therefore may no': necessarily be indicative of other limes andlor locations. BORING: SW 7th Street Drainage Improvements BH -6 1 Hardie Avenue SW to Naches Avenue SW HMGEOSCIENCES INC. Renton, Washington PACE. 1 of 2 PROJECT NO.: 2011-044 FIGURE: A-7 GORING -DSM 2011-044.GPJ 1!6192 ('DRILLING COMPANY: Holocene Drilling DATE STARTED: 10(1312011 DRILLING METHOD. Trunk Mounted Drill Rig - Hollow Stern Auger DALE COMPLETED. 1011312011 SAMPLING METHOD: SPT wlAutchammer LOGGED BY: D. Coltrane LOCATION: SW 7th St Westbound Ouside Lane - 42 Feet Fast of Seneca Ave - See Figure 2 SURFACE ELEVATION, 23.0 f ,`eet 40- 45 0- 45 - 50 -- DESCRIPTION Dense, gray, silty fine SAND over silty, sandy GRAVEL, wet - Roots and reeds present. GP Poor recovery. Mostly heave. ^ ^ GM Medium dense, dark grayish brown, poorly graded GRAVEL with silt and sand, wet. [ALLUVIAL SANDS AND GRAVELS) Very dense, gray, slightly silty, sandy, fine to coarse GRAVEL, wet. Broken gravel in sampler tip. Dense, gray, slightly silty, sandy, fine to coarse GRAVEL, wet- Dense, gray, slightly silty, sandy GRAVEL, wet. Boring was terminated at 41-5 feet BGS. Ground water seepage was observed at 14 feet BGS during drilling. � w U W m Z a W Z)~ U u C H W W a W w CL W � o S-5 4-12-24 GS S-9 3-13-37 GS � x S-10 3-8-25 8-11 3-14-17 NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times andlor locations. Standard Penetration Test (140 lb, weight. 30" drop) A Blows per foot 0 20 40 60 60 Waller Content (%) Plastic Limit �---W---j Liquid Limit Natural Water Content — -5 1 — -10 1 — -15 1 — -20 1 -- -25 1 =A SW 7th Street Drainage Improvements BORING: BH-6 Hardie Avenue SW to Naches Avenue SW HVIAGEOSCIENCE,S INC. Renton, Washington PAGE- 2 of 2 PROJECT NO.: 2011-044 FIGURE: A-7 OARING-r]SPA 2011.044.GPJ 116112 DRILLING COMPANYHolocene Drilling DATE STARTED: 'W14/2041 DRILLING METHOD: Truck Mounted Drill Rig - Hollaw Siem Auger DATE COMPLETED: 10,'1412011 SAMPLING METIiUD: SPT w'Autohammer LOGGED BY: D. Coltrane LOCATION, Renton Schoo! District Parking Lot - Northwest Side of Building - See f=igure 2 SURFACE ELEVATION: 26,0 f feet 15- 20 - 25 - McCium dense, dark gray, pooriy graded SAND with silt and gravel, wet. Becoming fine to coarse SAND at tip of sampler. Trace organics present. / GP Dense, gray, slightly silty, sandy, fine to coarse GRAVEL, wet` ° l [ALLUVIAL SANDS AND GRAVELS] o `^ 5 Switch to 3 -inch diameter sampler. SM Dense, dark grayish brown, poorly graded SAND with silt, wet. SP Dense, olive brown, poorly graded SAND with gravel, wet. o m w z _ S-2 w g 21-15-6 a U f� S4 ¢ O V) F 0 .A. BIOS per foot O Q a DESCRIPTION z SP 3-4 inches Asphalt Pavement. ii < z [ASPHALT PAVEMENT] a [FILL] Dense, light brown, slightly gravelly, fine to medium SAND, rnoist. Broken gravels in sampler. .j a -O 0 10 20 30 40 50 w 1.....: Dense, light brown, slightly gravelly, fine to medium SAND, moist Broken gravels in sampler. SP Medium dense, dark gray, poorly graded SAND voth sill and SM gravel, moist. Fine laminar bedding. [ALLUVIAL SILTS AND SANDS] 15- 20 - 25 - McCium dense, dark gray, pooriy graded SAND with silt and gravel, wet. Becoming fine to coarse SAND at tip of sampler. Trace organics present. / GP Dense, gray, slightly silty, sandy, fine to coarse GRAVEL, wet` ° l [ALLUVIAL SANDS AND GRAVELS] o `^ 5 Switch to 3 -inch diameter sampler. SM Dense, dark grayish brown, poorly graded SAND with silt, wet. SP Dense, olive brown, poorly graded SAND with gravel, wet. o m w z _ S-2 w Standard Penetration Test 21-15-6 a V f� S4 ¢ (140 Ib. weight, 30" drop) F 0 .A. BIOS per foot O W — w a z F ii < z z a co a -O 0 10 20 30 40 50 w &1 10-12-20 S-2 9-13-20 S-3 21-15-6 V f� S4 3-5-15 GS - S-5 13-19-20 �J S-6 20-45-43 GS S-7 26-44-47 GS NOTE- This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. - 26 1 20 - 15 1 - 10 1 -5 BORING: SW 7th Street Drainage Improvements BH -7 Hardie Avenue SW to Naches Avenue SW fMAGEOSCIENCES INC. Renton, Washington PAGE: 1 of 2 PROJECT NO.: 2011-044 FIGURE: A-8 BORING -i 2011-044.GPJ 116112 DRILLING COMPANY, Holocene Drilling DATE STARTED: 10/1412011 DRILLING METHOD: Truck Mcunted Drill Rig - Hallow Stem Auger DATE COMPLETED, 10.x1412011 SAMPI ING METHOD: SPT wlAutohammer LOGGED BY: D. CoE,rane LOCATION: Renton School District Parking Lot - Northwest Side of Building - See Figure 2 SURFACE ELEVATION: 26.0 ± feet rn U J d a- U a' 25 1 30- 1 0- 1 35-- 5-- I 4C- 40- 1 45- 1 50- NOTE: 0- DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION 'a GW Medium dense, olive brown, well graded GRAVEL with sand, Standard Penetration Test wet. r 41 DQ to (140 Ib, weight, 30" drop) 46 Blows per fool D W a L 'r r f i • a Dense, olive brown, well graded GRAVEL with sand, wet. • wm V) 0 a _" O r 10 20 30 40 50 LJ r � S-8 16-19-24 GS r ►� Medium dense, grayish brown, slightly silty, sandy, fine to coarse GRAVEL to gravelly SAND, wet. � 0 • o Medium dense, grayish brawn, slightly silty, slightly sandy, fine to coarse GRAVEL, wet. Broken gravels in sampler. Boring was terminated at 41.5 feet BGS. Ground water seepage was observed at 10 to 11 feet BGS dewing drilling. a! m w z � Standard Penetration Test 0- DQ Lj (140 Ib, weight, 30" drop) Blows per fool D W a L D n 2 :Ezo x o wm V) 0 a _" O 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 LJ r � S-8 16-19-24 GS � 0 f S-9 28-51-42 GS S-10 10-34-36 5-11 13-32-34 NOTE: This lag of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indlcated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. 0 20 40 60 80 100 Water Content (%) Plastic Limit !--0 Liquid Limit Natural Water Content - -5 1 --101 --15 1 - -20 BORING; SW 7th Street Drainage Improvements BH -7 Hardie Avenue SW to Naches Avenue SW HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. Renton, Washington PAGE: 2 of 2 PROJECT NO.: 2011-044 FIGURE: A"g HORING-DSM 2011-044.GPJ 116112 DRILLING COMPANY: Holocene Drilling DATE STARTED: 10!12'2D11 Dl INC, METHOD: Truck Mounted Drill Rig - He law Stem Auger DATE COMPLETED: Ill SAMPLING METHOD: SPT WAutohammer LOGGED BY: B. Hawkins LOCATION: Hardie Ave Northbound Lane- 180 Feet Scull of Rallroao Centerline - See Figu,e 2 SURFACE ELEVATION: 24.0 t feel g U J O n - t5 rwa u}i DESCRIPTION 4-6 inches Asphalt Pavement. GP [ASPHALT PAVEMENT) [FILL] a ° Medium dense, brown, silty, sandy, fine to coarse GRAVEL, r moist. l�o 5 i ML Medium stiff, mottled brown and gray, fine sandy SILT, wet. [ALLUVIAL SILTS AND BANDS] to - 1 o-- 1 15 -- 1 20 - 1 25 - SC j Soft, gray, tine sandy, elastic SILT/CLAY.. wet. ML I Soft, gray, fine sandy SILT with gravel, we; GP I Medium dense, sandy GRAVEL, wet. I MH Soft, dark gray, elastic SILT wlltl lenses of silty SAND, wet. Wood debris layers observed. Very soft, dark gray, slightly sandy, elastic SILT over medium dense, dark gray, fine to medium SAND with slit, wet. X W w r Standard Penelration Test a ? z 0 F-- w Q (1 a0 Ib. weight, 30" drop) LI)w o w A r Blows per foot uj J J of 0 In n- � C7 0 10 20 30 40 50 51 887 A :i ....:, ....... S-2 1-3-4 S-3 „� .... . �sa a1z .. r I ..i - .. :....: �j s -s a -o -z 1A S-7 0-8-6 NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and en the dale tndicaled and therefore may not necessarily re indicative o`other times andlor locations. 0 A--1 rf ............_.... — 20 40 60 80 100 Water Content (%) Plastic Limit I I" Liquid Limit Natural Water Content 0 1 - 15 1 -5 -0 BORING: SW 7th Street Drainage Improvements BH -8 �1 Hardie Avenue SW to Naches Avenue SW PAGE 1 of 2 HNAGEOSCIENCES INC. Renton, Washington PROJECT NO: 2011-044 FIGURE, A-9 ©ORING-USM 2011-044.GPJ VW2 DRILLING COMPANY', Holocene Drilling DRILLING METI IOD: 1Yuck Mounted Drili Rig - Hol:ow Stem Ager SAMPLING METHOD: SPI wlAutohammer LOCATION' Hardie Ave Northbound Lane - 180 Feet South of Raiiroad Certerline - See Figure 2 35 -- 40 — 1 45 1 50 DESCRIPTION Boring was terminated at 41.5 feet BGS. Ground water seepage was observed at 4 feet BGS during drilling. DATE STARTED: 10!12!2011 PATI~ COMPLETED: 10!1212011 LOGGED BY: B. Hawkins SURFACE ELEVATION', 24.0 f feet � � w U Medium stiff, dark gray, fine sandy, elastic SILT, wet, Wood � Lu debris and sand lenses observed. I r. SM __ — _ _ — — — — — -------- — — — — Poor recovery, Fd- N F- Loose, dark gray, slightly gravelly, silty, medium to coarse ....AL ....... W G SAND, wet. Q W LJ [ALLUVIAL SANDS AND GRAVELS] rr GM Medium stiff, dark gray, clayeylsilty, GRAVEL vrith sand, wet, ° o ° i Gravel jammed in sarnptor tip. 0 Medium stiff, dant grayish brown, ctayoylsilly SAND with — SM Vj U) a s gravel, wet. Gravel jammed in sampler lip. Boring was terminated at 41.5 feet BGS. Ground water seepage was observed at 4 feet BGS during drilling. DATE STARTED: 10!12!2011 PATI~ COMPLETED: 10!1212011 LOGGED BY: B. Hawkins SURFACE ELEVATION', 24.0 f feet � � w U 2U � Lu a� w zW Fd- N F- d ....AL ....... W G rr Q W LJ of rr Z Sa0. V W o = Q o O Vj U) a s 0 I S-8 0-2-3 AL 1 � S'9 1-2-3 NS-10 5-6-25 GS N5.11 7-8.24 GS NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date Indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times andfor loeatlons. Standard Penetration Test (140 Ib. weight, 30" drop) A glows per foot — -5 1 F— -20 1 0 20 40 60 80 10D Water Content (%) Plastic Limit 1---4" Liquid Limit Natural Water Content BORING: SW 7th Street Drainage Improvements BH -8 [�� (� � Hardie Avenue SW to Naches Avenue SW HWAGEIOSCIENCFS INC Renton, Washington g PAGE: 2 of 2 PROJECT NO.'. 2011-044 FIGURE: _ A'9 BORING -DSM 2011-0446PJ 116112 10 2U 3u 9V a� ....AL ....... ...:........:.... ..:...:.... — -5 1 F— -20 1 0 20 40 60 80 10D Water Content (%) Plastic Limit 1---4" Liquid Limit Natural Water Content BORING: SW 7th Street Drainage Improvements BH -8 [�� (� � Hardie Avenue SW to Naches Avenue SW HWAGEIOSCIENCFS INC Renton, Washington g PAGE: 2 of 2 PROJECT NO.'. 2011-044 FIGURE: _ A'9 BORING -DSM 2011-0446PJ 116112 APPENDIX B LABORATORY INVESTIGATION 0 V— LL 0 J U O J �I t0 }" J V_ J U2 U �s O O N Q CD l[7 0 O O O (Id) O V co X9UNI O kil0llS'V O N ld o co m [NQS � Cl) M M M �M CD J ffl Y7 V 'cT' LO 00co0 Z � co 0 O U o a. o o o 0 rev N V N n QO O7 CL mm�mm J 0 a U0CL 0 I W JZQ �I 2E z 2 U� cv a J 1 J U o co m [NQS � Cl) M M M �M CD J ffl Y7 V 'cT' LO 00co0 Z � co 0 O U o a. o o o 0 rev N V N n QO O7 CL mm�mm J 0 a U0CL 0 I W JZQ �I 2E z 2 U� cv a J 1 U� cv a J 1 CD C> C c FL c N ti Mui � CO 47 h I o �- o N - 9 LL W 0 K a [p v CDh �, o I I a 0 a _.. _.- 4 J J_ o V Icocz a a� E z o c _..... 0 ar 0 CD LUC; Uj E T - - - J 0. Q Q_ J 0 (7 z h ` o - LLI N � U3 - - z - -- LO o -to W Q u, _. _ - a O ON � q] J LL [!] N cou -- -- -� ------ -- -- - -- -- C? a W ni w cn O U FL -6w ` fil 7+ - � � ai i� � o o o < U) --- U7 -- - --- -ID = N lJ_ a LE1 o a o J LLI ❑ �rS ua ui r N - M [p o] CD LI,E J -- r � N 0 O d O O O O O C? O [0 f0 £0 V C7 M M 1- tD Lo M N 1H�13AA A8 �13NLJ 1N30dDd O ON N m U3 2,;W Q J (] CI} NVQ Nr WdQ � = F- o N {- W LL W 0 K a C 0 WdQ � = F- o N {- W LL W 0 K a Cf? 001 � N � Q ❑ "I U) Q LU cn N Q cn Q q I LL W o Q x - J = � NI F"' W O Z a F- 0 O Ir EL 0 qNj C � N L°] 1� 0 CU ICL Li �a .[i O a J o o CD m t� cfl -� 0. 0 a d 1 o � U rn co 0 m E -� � -� C N - - LOU7 C. n CD uJ -- n N_ --—......_..T� �— ------ .�.._ -- W T G L Q J o_ E J o •� W CJ �J t� W � LL Z N � LUCl o � M � M N CD � p CLa— U `o mar a 3 a O `vi o W J � a 0 — ., (IJ LU o N - — fl1 fY] GO US p N co P LL (n ca� Y dl `�} [9 y Q o � � a a z I = H M M --- — a o 0 0 J W o 6 Ln CD O 0- o C3 O N O O _ 00 p co 1HJIDM h8 �ANLJ 1Nd32idd Cf? 001 � N � Q ❑ "I U) Q LU cn N Q cn Q q I LL W o Q x - J = � NI F"' W O Z a F- 0 O Ir EL ICL o � M � M W J a fl1 fY] GO v � U Q � co � t � 0m C U cucu C, ICL lq- CD C) a co o LL Q o J @a N m � aco r�i °� 7 rn ai � '21 a �n 0 0 J U J_ 4 C!} o v w � 0 � � � N a •n O � — �4 Z n C co O Q (6 v C:) O N O LU @ a- - — -- -- -- ------ -- ^^ T— ci � 1 W ....... _ U 4 U C7 ! C7 — a. � � a �! o co cfl `° 7 N N d o 0 0 w o ui u7 � V N N N c m LL QLLI - - - -- Z v � 1 - -j a 1\[ 2 S S U) � m 0 L7 LLI Z a __ W--- - _._ N — — — — N- -------,-.-- -- — C� LU E Jl W j to o I 0� { ❑ o Q�- -- -- — —^ _ — — -- -- -- LL UJ C aLL J Lj — -.. --- — -- -- -- —� m cn c� — —�-- CL in 'd O Q a o o O a O d O o cn oo r- - Q n 0 1HE)I3M A8 �J3NId 1N30�3d m co o v w � t7 � � � � a •n O � — � Q (6 v O N T LL @ U 4 U C7 a � � co cfl 2 7 N N d o 0 0 w o ui u7 � V N N a� m w 1 a 2 S S m � m 0 04 Of :D Q Q W � C/LL 0 )NVQ � W o Q —i = G7 U � � }- W � 2 Q Q F- W O EL z V] •z � w U co!) LO 0 O m S o ii co n u' ,n m 0 QI � w Q � a Ica �.. } - u, N u� Q mo �n � o(13EL m o ui n o ---LO d J E 4 a� E E13 Z y Ln _0 7 J C:) c 4 am rn cLLI � _ o H -- -- _— — — — � 2 T uJ cz _ to m m m ...— — O w z �Q ❑ � J � w 3 o cn w J � Q C571Q o v LLI LL Z o w I cn Q m m � o N iiM Q � J U m � O ❑ a � LO 10 LO m U1 _ cAV� rr or a o Q Q w o ui o J Q c�i n U m LO n m - 41 M -Q O O O d Q O O O Q Q 4 m OD r- (D Lo 'R' co N IRDO 1 A9 �19Nf� 1NDO2Eld En m U) l o N � � N cIt Q � I Q U) :� El] Q oNcnQ �I Cco LU 0 C)0 QI � w Q � a Ica w J a � 2 � m m m } cucu QI � w Q � a Ica 4 U J_ 0 a N O C � IL Q 0 Z Q LU C!) N N c Ljj LU O N O C) Z Q U) C � � FL L. Cl) J LU Q � m C] 0 0 0 d O cn U) CS 0 LU LU O 0 4 0 0 0 4 0 0 O O d m O6 N 4o Ln V M N -- 1H9I3M AS HENIJ IWIM:Eld .n CD cfl OC] CJS C Q J W O NVQ U- ca Woo Y U o F— W 2 o Q F L'�.I 0 a N [U) C N rD -3 L � O Q C U N Z L6 o p U) c 0 N CI} � 2 N m n. co Cc (D N co C'l 47 N (D (D co m �� (D v v y o (h Lei d a c.) c7 I- co m 0 ID E < Z c � � w c a cc c 0 m E T s cn cL � J O {JJ f� m v � N ❑ N (0 � � (!) m Q i T d Q U) ❑ o 0 a Z v¢i vQi .� U U) m m Cn ❑ L Y @ (0 � � a ca 0 C7 ID cD en � co a �n o c� N (17 O ❑ ,� � N C7 o m w 0. Q � cD cn u3 � T T m m m O r U) cfl OC] CJS C Q J W O NVQ U- ca Woo Y U o F— W 2 o Q F L'�.I 0 a N [U) C N rD -3 L � O Q C U N Z L6 o p U) c 0 N CI} � 2 UD a co i% It ` v 0 C,)- N I 0 a Q ICL T� rn rn �- J c N n m U o 7 n LCD V a Ln O J CL O O J J O U co 0 41 S9 z -o u} 0 m a ra 5, Q > OS L C? LL I o i J a o � 3 LL pp .N q m D (f� V7 q Q tri � UJ 7� Z -- — ---- —�— ... -- —7 ❑- I J O S)O � � a- ami -o `° _ ..- O Q 0 a o 0 UJ cn � p a O C W T O OI Q L o o [iJ - N4_ — -- -- ---- — -- -- --�-- C7 11.1 u� J a Vi O d m m (fJ O a LL 4M Qi 3: �' O ❑ 4k cb a ci IL H- — -- -- ------ -- -- -- -- C07- — -- — -- ------ -- -- -- -- o ii W co Q-- — -- — ----- -- -- — -- m m (D N A T O d O O A9 �I3NId 1Nd0�l3d .LHO13M n ml co N � N c � Q Q ) 75 Q U0 W CQ � Q �I LL woo �. J = O Nl LijC Z CL �f a Q ICL `° _ ..- cis 0 a o 0 UJ o ui o 11.1 J a m m a I > j QL Q � (� z 0coca � CO �f a Q ICL 0 O N Q C] C.) CO 3t cn LLJ CO uj LU (n O Q Q. H co �0, a.T M N r 0 0 0 O O Ln O O 0 O O I II " o 0 0 o O o O o 0 0 0 O Q7 00 I- W 'n 'T 1H!Di3Nl Jk8 �13NIJ 1NE]OdAd LO O m Ccn O 1 N LL aW W Q NVQ LL © o USO �— W d H LL U fr 0- Id L U. G� a N L Cu co -a Co co N o m 7 c O Co o LC L J a J J U cLO 0 Q) E m z 0 D T C1. 2 N 17 @ cq Q J � LU ui co 7 J Ur Ur -cc 0 LL 0 C11 O] U }y 7i o a D D �J .>_ .? 4- •• p QCD O CD O 10 O O 0 0 0 1HO13AA h8 d3NU 1N308ld 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 U) 0 0 0 O O ED () O � F— LU O 00 !, C. LO " rn m C. c [i O N w LO a J d J r a 0 N 04 N N a5 Z O a n m v m N L U) c9 a N ❑ z J CQ b -j to > 0 O z C a U � D u m '+ � � m g � s U o n C7 v7 Z:� Lq cqcq H EL o 0 w ui o ❑ c7 � O r W J Q U) w m z � m m 0 Y �a t❑I co CIQ 3"' N < p �� Q JLLI _ n1 0 CO U) ¢ �I L❑ 0 IIJ �QD 'CRI LLJ 0 H LLJ 0 Q I I N � � I d7 ❑ O � L Q co I E � � N Z I L. N N (A t Q V f 0 14 I� S APPENDIX C PREVIOUS EXPLORATIONS IN THE VICINITY RELATIVE DENSITY OR CONSISTENCY VERSUS SPT N -VALUE COHESIONLESS SDILS COHESIVE SOILS Gravel and 3 in to 12 in GW Well -graded GRAVEL Coarse Clean Gravel Approximate Fine gravel 314 in to No 4 (4.5nan) Approximate No. 4 {4 5 mm) to No. 200 0,074 mm) Coarse sand No. 4 (4.5 mm) to No. 10 (2.0 mm) Density N {blows?f:1 o Re�ativc Density( /o) Consistency N (blowsifl) Undrained Shear MR Resilionl Modulus More than Photolonlzation Device Reading PP Strength {psf) Very Loose G to 4 0 - 15 _ _ Very Soft 0 to 2 <250 Loose 4 to 1r, i5 - 35 Soft 2 to 4 250 - 504 Medium Dense 16 to K 35 - 65 Medium Stiff 4 :u 8 500 - 1D4D Dense 30 to 56 65 - 85 Stiff 8 to 15 14DD - 2006 Very Dense ave- 50 85 - 100 VeryStiff 15 to 36 2000 4000 50% or More Hard over 30 -4000 USCS SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM MAJOR DIVISIONS GROUP DFSGRIPTIONS Gravel and 3 in to 12 in GW Well -graded GRAVEL Coarse Clean Gravel ., I---` Fine gravel 314 in to No 4 (4.5nan) Gravelly Soils Grained (little or no fines) No. 4 {4 5 mm) to No. 200 0,074 mm) Coarse sand No. 4 (4.5 mm) to No. 10 (2.0 mm) Medium sand p GP Poorly -graded GRAVEL Soils Smaller than No. 200 {0074mm) MR Resilionl Modulus More than Photolonlzation Device Reading PP Pocket Penetrometer 50°A of Coarse Gravel with o c GM Silly GRAVEL FraclionRetained Fines;apprecial Triaxial Compression TV Torvane on No, 4 Sieve amount of fines) Approx. Shear Strength (Isf) GC Clayey GRAVEL Sand and Mean Sand SVV Well -graded SAND Moro than Sandy Sails (Ii1Ua or no finest ' SP T. Pocrly-gtaded SAND 50%Retained ......._....-..-.........--- --- -�.---_ 50% or More on No. Sand with �' SM Silty SAND 260 Sieve of Coarse Pines (appreciable .-� SC Size Fraction Passing amount of fines) Clayey SAND No. 4 Sieve ML SILT Fine Silt Liquid Limit Grained and CL I --eon CLAY Solis Less than 501J, (lay OL Organic SILTIOrganic CLAY MH Elastic SILT Silt 5D% or More Liquid Limit Passing and 50°! or More CH Pal CLAY No. 200 Sieve Clay Size OH Organic SILTIOrganic CLAY r, Highly Organic Soils PT NEA r r COMPONENT DEFINITIONS COMPONENT SVP RANGE Boulders Larger than 12 in Cobbles 3 in to 12 in Gravel 3 in to No 4 (4.5mm) Coarse gravel 3 in to 314 in Fine gravel 314 in to No 4 (4.5nan) Sand No. 4 {4 5 mm) to No. 200 0,074 mm) Coarse sand No. 4 (4.5 mm) to No. 10 (2.0 mm) Medium sand No. 10 (2.0 mm) to No. 4C (0.42 mm) Fine sand No. 40 (0.42 mm) to No. 200 (4.074 mm) Silt and Clay Smaller than No. 200 {0074mm) TFST SYMBOLS %F Percent Fines AL Allerberg Limits Pim = Plastic Limit 5- 12% LL = Liquid Limit CBR Callfo•nla Bearing Ratio CN Consolidation OD Dry Density (pct) DS Direct Shear G5 Grain Size Distribution K Permeability MD MoislurelDensity Relationship {Proctor) MR Resilionl Modulus PID Photolonlzation Device Reading PP Pocket Penetrometer Approx. Compressive Strength (1st) SG Specific Gravity TC Triaxial Compression TV Torvane Approx. Shear Strength (Isf) UC Unconfined Compression SAMPLE -TYPE SYMBOLS ®2.0" OD Split Spoon (SPT) (140 Ib. hammer with 30 In. drop) l Shelby Tube J 3-114" OD Split Spoon with Brass Rings OSma#I Bag Sample eLarge Bag (Bulk) Sample u Core Run n/ Nan -standard Penetration Test j 0.0" OD split spoon) GROUNDWATER SYMBOLS S7 Groundwater Level (measured at time of drilling) Groundwater Level (measured in well or open hole after water level stabilized) COMPONENT PROPORTIONS PROPORTION RANGE DESCRIPTIVE TERMS < 5°/a Clean 5- 12% Slightly {Clayey, Silly, Sandy) 12-30% Clayey, Silty, Sandy, Gravelly 30 - 500/. Very (Clayey, Silty, Sandy, Gravelly) Components are arranged in order of Increasing quantities. NOTES: Soil classifications presented on exploration logs are based on visual and laboratory observation Soil descriptions are prosented in the following general order: Densltykonsisfency, cofor, modifier Marry} GROUP NAME, additions to group name (Many), moisture conlenl. Proportion, gradation, and angularity o{consfituemfs, addlbona) comments. (GEOLOGIC INTERPRETATION) Please refer to the discussion in the report test as well as the exploration logs for a more complete description of subsurface conditions. =A I HWAGEOSCtENCEs INC SW 7th Street Storm Drain MOISTURE CONTENT DRY Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to the touch. MOIST Damp but no visible water. WET Visible free wal usually soil is below water table, LEGEND OF TERMS AND SYMBOLS USED ON EXPLORATION LOGS PRCJEC ' NQ.: 2003-007 FIGu F: C-1 LEGEND 20030D7.GPJ 113112 DRILL€NG COMPANY: Holocene Drilling DATE STARTED: 01129,2CD3 DRILLfNG METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger DATE COMPLETED 01/2912003 SAMPLING METHOD SPT w/autohammer I,CGGFD BY: R. rlawkr ns LOCATION: Seo Figure 2 SURFACE ELEVATION: 23,5 * feet a: 5 10 15 20 1 25- 1 5- 1 30- 1 35 - 40 od W z Standard Penetration Test U a 2 [- _ w U (140 lb. weight, 30" drop) J 0 p m fL • Blows per foo[ m W ll.! W a s W � m r w ua 4 r0.� cc 7) DESCRIPTION co V) o- a o r1J a- N 0 10 20 30 40 p GP ASPHALT CONCRETE PAV MENT (ACP) —� Medium dense, brown, sandy, fine 10 coarse GRAVEL, moist. SM l _ [FILL]/ Loose, dark gray and brown, very silty, fine SAND, moist, M S-1 3-3-3 A [ALLUVIUM] w S-2 1-7-6 SP ................... Loose, dark brown, poorly graded SAND with silt and gravel, SM wet. 8-3 3-3-7 GS - *A SP Loose to medium dense brown grading to gray, slightly silty, S-4 X 0-2-4 SM fine to coarse gravelly, fine to coarse SAND, wet. Wood noted. S-5 4-6-12 ♦ . q 86 478 �.. ....�... ..- E .f S-7 0-10-11 GS • Soft, dark brown organic SILT, moist to wet. Abundant S-8 0-1-2 OH or i d GM San cs an wo . ...... ....I ......................... ° Medium dense, brown, silty, sandy GRAVEL, wet. GW Medium dense, yellowish brown, well graded GRAVEL with silt ' GM and sand. Oxidation stains noted at 25 feet. Total depth - 31.5 feet. Water Content (°!) Plastic Limit 1 4-1 Liquid Limit NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date €ndicated Natural Water Content and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times andlor locations. z n - 20 -0 1 -5 1 - -10 1 - -15 1 BORING- 1 SW 7th Street Storm Drain BH- 1 (2003) HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. PAGE: 1 of 1 -- — _-- _ PROJECT NO.: 2003-007 FIGURE' C-2 PLO-D8M 2003007,GPJ 113112 DRILLING COMPANY- Holocene Drilling DATF STARTED: D112912003 DRILLING METHOD, Hollow Stem Auger DATE COMPI_F.TFD: 01/29/2()03 SAMPLING METHOD: SPT wfaulohammer LOGGED BY: S. Hawkins LOCATION: See Figure 2 SURFACE ELEVATION: 24.5 ± feet W mStandard Penetration Test r wry (140 ib, weight, 3o" drop) zW s F iii • slows per foot J O W W W < = m rn a_ rL W 0N W ow a DESCRfPTION ( EL O o. U) D 10 20 3D 40 50 0 - - -- -.. 171 GP ACP ° Loose, brown, sandy, fine to coarse GRAVEL, moist - o [PILI] AS. _ S-1 3-4-3 SM Loose to very loose, brown and gray, silty SAND, moist to wet. Oxidation stains at 5 feet. 5- [ALLUVIUM] - A,.-. ...�...:.... ... :........... ! 10- 1 15- 1 20- 1 0- 1 25- 1 5- 1 30- 1 35- 1 40- NOTE: 0- .................... GM Loose, gray, slightly silty sandy, fine to coarse GRAVEL, wek. ° ...-.... . ........ SM Very loose, brown, slightly silty, fine to medium SAND, wet. SP Medium dense, grayish brown, poorly graded SAND with gravel, wet. Some gravel layers noted. Note: Blow counts Inflated due to driving on gravels. Total depth = 31.5 feet. 5.2 1_2-a C S-3 1112.2 G5 S-4 5-7-7 S-5 1-1-2 • • ........... .. S-6 8-9-5 S-7 11-17-16 S-0 2-7-7 GS �...� EE- M�� 1'-Tryy�i��Y,,s�� s0'1r-i �� NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times andror locatlons. z 0 -0 I - -5 1 - -10 1 15 0 20 40 60 60 100 Water Content (%) Plastic Limit 1 0 -- I Liquid Limit Natural Water Content BORING: 1 SW 7th Street Storm Drain BH- 2 (2003) HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. PAGE: 1 of 1 PROJECT NO.: 2003-007 FIGURE: C-3 PZO-OSM 2003007.GN 113112 DRILLING COMPANY Holocene Chilling DATE STARTED: 0112912003 DRILLING METHOD: Holow Stem Auger DATE COMPLETED, 01/29/2003 SAMPLING P.9LTHOD SPT wIautohamme• LOGGED BY: B. Hawkins LOCATION: See Figure 2 SURFACL ELEVAT{ON: 26,0 t feet w Standard Penetration Test LLJ m ix w U (140 Ib. weight, 30" drop) oz 0 .c w Blows per foot o LO w Lt o X mn ii n- w 0 w ¢ CL — U Z o 2 Wul 170)pFSCRIPTiON '� a `° a 0 10 20 30 40 50 w 0 - GP ACP ° t 5 Medium dense, brown, sandy, finL. e to coarse GRAVE,, moist, 25 ML FELL] L • - Soft, red brown to gray, Sandy to very sandy, SILT, moist to S-1 2-2-2 GS wet. Oxidation stains noted, organics noted. 5 [ALLUVIUM] 90. 15- 5- 20-- 20-- 25- 25- 30- 30- n- as- 40- 40- NOTE: NOTE: "This log of subsurface oandibons applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other limes and/or locations. 11. 0 20 40 6o 60 100 Water Content {%) Plastic Limit 1 0 Liquid Limit Natural Water Content - 20 - 15 1 - 10 1 -- 5 1 - -5 1 mini BORING: 1 SW 7th Street Storrs Drain BH- 3 (2003) HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. PAGE: 1 of 1 PROJt=CT NO,: 2003-007 FIGURE: C'4 PW -DSM 2003007.GPJ 173112 4 S-2 2-2-3 GS WX • ML Soft, dark gray, sandy SILT, wet Organics and wood noted. Some c!ayey soils noted. ZS -3A 4/12"-2 GS X 5-38 AL ~» i OH 1 Soft, dark brown and gray, slightly sandy, organic SILT, wet. f1/ 5 4 9112"-5 � • Abundant organics and wood noted. ML i Soft, dark braNn and dark gray, SILT, moist. Fine sand lenses noted. 5-5 2-1-2 AL SM Loose, dark gray, silty SAND, wet. Abundant organics and ` - wood. 56 444 . Tota) depth - 29 feet. NOTE: NOTE: "This log of subsurface oandibons applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other limes and/or locations. 11. 0 20 40 6o 60 100 Water Content {%) Plastic Limit 1 0 Liquid Limit Natural Water Content - 20 - 15 1 - 10 1 -- 5 1 - -5 1 mini BORING: 1 SW 7th Street Storrs Drain BH- 3 (2003) HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. PAGE: 1 of 1 PROJt=CT NO,: 2003-007 FIGURE: C'4 PW -DSM 2003007.GPJ 173112 M�M LU W J J z w N 6 z i _..., v LD b 0 o CD 0 o V Do QY LO I co -(j I-- m ^ m m ti4 FL a �! [q o CD _ .. - o a r N LO O O i0 N O �k Z O c} --- C � N � @ z Q u7E iL i# C, _ LUN o LU LU CD -- tr) E m U) rn P- 6 N a C y O (6 pp L Q� Z ❑ � Sn ----`-- J LLLU - a co N o, — OLO(i r .— _.......—.-....... - LL 4 ' _ O o 0 o O O O O O o 0 O Q) a0 V- co m -Ir M N r- 1HJ1EIM h8 PENH 1N3MAd M�M LU W J J z w N 6 z LO C3 (A LU J T cl Q C)u Q Na,h0 UJ Q , LL C7 UJ J00 o C) H W 2 a Q F CL W C T i t �7 v r r Do QY LO LL co -(j I-- m ^ m m ti4 FL a �I CD o o a r N U1 i0 Z c} C � N � @ N E m U) rn P- 6 N a C y O (6 pp L Q� Z ❑ � Sn Sn Q a o, — Cl) LL a ' o CL o a } n o cn a cn a � cn c7 o cn 0 rn � IL Lo LO o O M •- ti r•3 6l W J M M 0 N N N [0 47 W O LO C3 (A LU J T cl Q C)u Q Na,h0 UJ Q , LL C7 UJ J00 o C) H W 2 a Q F CL W C T i t �7 to E /n ) � N N � d � ClLLI N O � Cl) < P O CD 0 N fV fD a � rn r o J UFL o N � Y] N m �o r - -- OCL J J J U � O � N n v -- ro Z U) (!I a c ro 0 o � 0 .fl i.i.i T 0 CL tl> o' -- CDLL -- -- _ ----- J -- -- — CC o a cLyp LL ccN V cn � O N 0 uj - .................... ❑ z -- CD cn a Q � z Z -" a cn r co - - o � ¢ ro � m - - E w o --a �. o ca ca N — _ O [7 Q LLJ i i O � �'- v1 Q U Q o c cu S, p - --- -- 4 o O F . _LO fr-, C> _ o � M_. N V CL LO CD LO J w ❑ � o � N LU Cl) - -- - - - ---- — - - - r� V M a0 � Ul V] V7 N LU J ELL] w M O O O O ca p O O O O O O m m Il- to E!7 V M N r' 1HJlAM A8 lADNIJ iN3MAd to E /n ) � N N � d � ClLLI N O � Cl) < o ca ca N N [7 Q IU a O N 0 w � c � a 0 z C/) V1E LIJ N io p m W W (n 0 N O ❑ U ^I _ w N V U3 � [V U P7 O O O p Cl CJ Cj O O a a o m oo r- co LO .r Cl) N r J_HO13M A13 ?ANId J_N�IMJdd LO 0 0 0 Ca 0 0 Z) L o � LLI w o J LO a N bl U� m C 7 4 CJ A a a V a J fl J J a d E (13 z a N CL n 0 N gO h a J � o W T 0 z t= c v3 3 � n c ar iq N_ M U 0� 0 J J LO _ a N iL 1f} O 1L r-� fV N M (!) N W J U) N_ N M M T- m 0 m � � 101 -A U U) N D N Tr E < 'J_r N v! I ) < O L© o X00 0 _U F W LLJZ IL 4 U LLl 0 p - C 0 CO I V con 0 Z � U Q J_ {— w a 00 C/) u tea❑ W J z o CD UJ all- 0 Q � M M J LL f Q Q r co N f f J J U JLL ■ N J U 0 0 0 o a C3 o� (D LO m (V Od) YAGNI kil0l1SHld r N Ql C 0. J U tl 0 Z d U d J_ J_ .J J � O � �1 V d o in W ❑ <- cv m � rn J � � O 4 U) C CD O CO APPENDIX D AQUIFER TEST DATA TRENCH DEWATERING ANALYSIS Waterloo Hydrogeologic, Inc. 180 Columbia St. Unit 1104 Waterioo, Ontario, Canada Phone: +1 519 746 1798 Pumping Test Analysis Report Project: SW 7th Street No: 2011-044 - Gient: City of Renton BH -1 recovery (Theis Recovery) UY 10 100 Test name: BH -1 recovery Analysis method: Theis Recovery Analysis results: Transmissivity: 1.17E+2 [cm2/s] Conductivity: Test parameters: Pumping well: Screen radius: Screen length: Casing radius: Discharge rate Pump Time Comments: BH -1 0.33 [m] 10 [m] 0.08 [m] 9 [U.S. gal/min] 65.5 [min] Aquifer thickness: Unconfined aquifer 1m Bl --1 7.65E-2 [cm1s] 50 [ft] Evaluated by: V. Atkins Date: 10128/20 IhWaterloo Hydrogeologic, Inc. Pumping Test Analysis Report 180 Columbia St. Unit 1104 Project: SW 7th Street Waterloo, Ontario, Canada No 2011-044 Phone: +1 519 746 1798 Client: City of Renton BF! -3 recovery (Theis Recovery) tit' 10 0,064- 0.192- 0 256 .064_0.192 0.256 —.....__ -.-- Test name: 8H-3 recovery Analysis method: Theis Recovery Analysis results: Transmissivity: Testtparameters: Pumping well: Screen radius: Screen length: Casing radius: Discharge rate Pump Time Comments: 7.52E+1 [c0Vs] BH -3 0.33 [ft] 10 [ft] 0.08 [ft] 7 [U.S. gal/min] 45.5 [min] Conductivity: m BFf3 4.94E-2 [cm/s] Aquifer thickness: 50 [ft] Confined aquifer Evaluated by- V_ Atkins Date: 10128120 ■ W § ■ / k J $ / \ /CD CO \\� U) L: cc£ k2R» 9==° n / _ jƒCL �\ X 50 )ƒ2K =owe � Q / \ o $ z 7 $0» mjoie§ \ \§ƒ 0 { a)f \ S\6 ( ° \ �/� 2 _ 2 / \ �� S 0 0 k \ \ Cr) / to§\k i ±\ \ 2 ) % 2 u) } 7 =¥�yG 2 2§ aG TI § Q \ 2 0 � \ }¥7 \ 7 9 } § u § F= & 0 n $ 2 \ 2Gg/ -0e5 � 2E£-�o # \ } {cr �k§\� CL \ ' } j 0(oo0 \ § 8 } �I@§7 f\er: � p 2 »add ƒ $- @ L § - = 7 � E � I2gj(4 7 f [ $LU=LU iy\m 7 0x_o 0 L cf m ] o 4) 3ax� �� E Q 55£-� ƒ C,4° F- to LR \ 0 L) � t f § o L / k \> $ 6£ $ m0(\ ƒ /0 ) $ $ w w wI � Q ■ � § C: { ) Q \ // } « U)2 \ " \W0 ƒ >a - <«a®\ LD=== =G==» =&rL D o ¥ e § g = u m -@R) -j 3 ƒ i ID tm � 0 Q08 EE a of \ §F= F Z /§o SE \© G R \ � k G E \ a / § Appendix F PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT File 001159 1 2651111018 SAIL Preliminary Critical Areas Assessment for the Hardie Avenue SW — SW 7th Street Storm System Improvement Project City of Renton Introduction This preliminary critical areas assessment was prepared for the City of Renton (City) by IIerrera Environmental Consultants (Herrera) in support of the alternatives analysis and design development for stormwater system conveyance improvements in the lower SW 7"' Street trunk drainage system. The study area for the purposes of this preliminary critical areas assessment includes areas associated with the three design alternatives (Figure 1). The objectives of this preliminary critical areas assessment are to: ■ Conduct a reconnaissance -level investigation of wetlands, streams, buffers, and habitat conservation areas within the study area ■ Conduct an ordinary high water mark (OHWM) determination for streams observed within the study area ■ Classify wetlands using the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and hydrogeomorphic (HGM) classification systems (Cowardin et al. 1979, Brinson 1993) ■ Evaluate wetland functions and values using the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington Revised developed by the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology), hereafter referred to as the Ecology rating system (IIruby 2004) ■ Evaluate stream functions and values ■ Conduct a preliminary classification of wetlands and streams according to the Renton Municipal Code (RMC) Chapters 4-3-050 and 4-3-090 ■ Based on preliminary classifications, determine applicable wetland and stream buffer widths according to RMC Chapters 4-3-050 and 4-3-090 October 18, 2012 1 Herrera Environmental Consultants Characterize the vegetation community and dominant plant species within the study area Describe regulatory and permitting considerations associated with the three design alternatives. Methods Critical areas investigated for this project include wetlands, streams, and their buffers. Evaluating these resources requires a review of available information about the site followed by an onsite assessment. The following sections describe the research methods and field protocols for these investigations. Review of Available Information A literature review was performed to determine the critical areas and vegetation resources within and near the study area. Sources of information included: ■ Aerial photographs of the project vicinity (USDA 2009) ■ National Wetlands Inventory map of wetland areas in the project vicinity (USFWS 2011) ■ King County iMap critical areas information (King County 2011) ■ City critical areas information (City of Renton 2011) ■ SalmonScape online mapping system (WDFW 2011a) ■ Washington State priority habitats and species (PHS) data (WDFW 2011 b) ■ Washington State Natural Heritage Program (WNHP) rare plant and high quality ecosystem information (Personal communication via email with Jasa Holt, WNHP Data Specialist, on October 21, 2011) ■ King County area soil survey map and soils descriptions for the project vicinity (NRCS 2011). Critical Areas Reconnaissance To identify potential critical areas, biologists evaluated field conditions by walking the study area and noting any observed wetlands and streams. October 18, 2012 2 Herrera Environmental Consultants Wetlands Biologists relied primarily on the presence of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology indicators to assist in the approximation of wetland boundaries. Mapping of approximate wetland boundaries was accomplished by recording selective global positioning system (GPS) measurements while in the field and comparing these locations to wetland boundaries identified based on aerial photograph interpretation. Approximate wetland boundaries were mapped by digitizing polygons using geographic information system (GIS) software. Water quality, hydrologic, and habitat functions of wetlands within the study area were evaluated according to data in the Ecology wetland rating form (Hruby 2004), and supplemental qualitative ratings (high, medium, low) were determined based on Ecology guidance (Ecology 2008a). This methodology entails rating the entire wetland unit, which may include wetland areas that are outside of the study area. For wetlands that occur in shoreline jurisdictional areas, wetland categories and corresponding regulated buffer widths were determined according to RMC 4-3-090 in which case, wetland category was based on function scores according to the Ecology wetland rating system (Hruby 2004). For wetlands lying outside of shoreline jurisdiction, wetland categories and corresponding regulated buffer widths were determined according to critical areas regulations under RMC 4-3- 050. Streams The City uses the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) to define stream boundaries (RMC 4-3- 050 L). The OHWM of streams within the study area was delineated using the definition provided in RMC 4-11-150. Herrera biologists placed blue and white flagging to indicate the horizontal location of the OHWM on a City -owned parcel where an existing stream could be affected by the project. The OHWM flags were subsequently surveyed at the corresponding ground intercept by Pace Engineers, Inc. Elsewhere, the approximate OHWM and/or centerline location of stream segments were identified. Streams observed within the study area were classified according to the stream rating system per RMC Chapter 4-3-050 L Regulated stream buffer widths that correspond to the class were determined according to RMC 4-3-050 L. October 18, 2012 3 Herrera Environmental Consultants Results This section discusses the results of the preliminary critical areas assessment, including a review of information obtained from various references and an analysis of site conditions observed during field investigations. Previously Mapped Wetlands The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) identifies several wetlands in the vicinity of the study area (USFWS 2011). These include palustrine scrub -shrub (PSS) wetlands within the Black River Riparian Forest, which extends into the City -owned parcel located west of Naches Avenue West. The City of Renton (2011) identifies a large portion of the Black River Riparian Forest as wetland, including the northern portion of the City -owned parcel and the Swale that runs north - south through the property. Previously Mapped Soils The following two soil series have been mapped in the study area (NRCS 2011). Woodinville silt loam occupies the portion of the study area from approximately Lind Avenue westward, including the City -owned parcel, and the narrow wetland area between Powell Avenue SW and Naches Avenue SW. The soil is considered partially hydric. Urban land occupies the other portions of the project area (east of Lind Avenue), which is a soil series that has been modified by disturbance of the natural layers with additions of fill material several feet thick to accommodate large industrial and housing installations (NRCS 2011). Previously Mapped Streams An unnamed tributary to the Black River has been previously mapped by King County (2011) within the study area. This data source depicts the stream starting on the south end of the City - owned parcel and flowing to the north, where it shortly thereafter flows into the Black River wetland system located within the Black River Riparian Forest. The Black River wetland system drains into the Green River approximately 0.75 miles downstream of the study area after flowing through a fish -passable dam facility. There are no water quality -impaired, 303(d) listed streams within the study area (Ecology 2008b). October 18, 2012 4 Herrera Environmental Consultants The City of Renton (2011) indicates the City -owned parcel lies almost completely within the 100 -year floodplain, with the Black River Riparian Forest (to the north and west of the study area) also occupying the 100 -year floodplain. Documented Fish and Wildlife Use Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshaK-ytscha), coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), and coastal resident cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki) are known to be present within the Black River system (WDFW 2011 a, WDFW 201 lb). Since the stream located in the study area flows into the Black River approximately 800 feet downstream of the culvert at Naches Avenue SW, and there are no documented fish barriers present that would prevent upstream migration of fish into the study area, it is assumed that these species are present within the study area. Puget Sound Chinook salmon and Puget Sound steelhead trout are both listed as federally - threatened under the Endangered Species Act (NOAA Fisheries 2011). Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife's Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) database identifies the Black River Riparian Forest (including the City -owned parcel) as a great blue heron (Ardea herodias) breeding area (WDFW 2011b). A bald eagle protection area is also identified within the Black River Riparian Forest, but the mapped protection area is just outside (to the northwest) of the project study area (WDFW 2011b). Reconnaissance of Critical Area Conditions Critical areas reconnaissance activities were conducted by Herrera biologists George Iftner and Crystal Elliot. Crystal Elliot is certified by the Society of Wetland Scientists as a Professional Wetland Scientist (PWS). Field work was conducted on October 13, 2011. Weather conditions during field activities were clear with a daytime high temperature of approximately 60 degrees Fahrenheit (°F). Herrera identified four wetlands (A through D) and one stream (A) within the study area (Figure 1). Because this was a reconnaissance -level investigation, wetland boundaries shown in Figure 1 are approximate. The OHWM of Stream A shown on Figure 1 is precise because it is based on surveyed locations of OHWM flags placed in the field by Herrera biologists, which were subsequently surveyed by Pace Engineers, Inc. Wetlands The study area contains several wetlands that have been altered and fragmented to a large degree by commercial development in the area (Figure 1). Prior to commercial development in this area, .is likely that these wetlands were connected as part of one large wetland system associated with the Black River floodplain. A summary of the wetlands within the study area is provided in October 18, 2012 5 Herrera Environmental Consultants Table 1 including approximate size, classification, and rating and regulated buffer width according to City regulations. Table 1. Summary of wetland size, classification, rating, and regulated buffer width for the Hardie Ave SW — SW 7t" Street Storm System Improvement Project. Approximate Size Wetland of Wetland USFWS Hydrogeomorphic Preliminary City of Renton Standard Name (acres) Classification' Classification Rating` Buffer Width (feet)d A 40 PFO, PSS, PEM, Depressional 1 150 PAB, POW B I PFO Riverine III 75 C 3 PFO Depressional and 11 100 Riverine D 0.12 PFO Depressional 3 25 ' U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service classification is based on Cowardin et al. (1979): palustrine forested (PFO), palustrine scrub - shrub (PSS), palustrine emergent (PEM), palustrine aquatic bed (PAB), and palustrine open water (POW). b Hydrogeomorphic classification is based on Brinson (1993). G Categories for Wetlands A, B, and C are based on function scores according to the Ecology wetland rating system (I Iruby 2004). According to RMC 4-3-090. Wetlands A, B. and C are in shoreline jurisdiction, therefore, the category is based on the Ecology rating system. Wetland D is not in shoreline jurisdiction; therefore, the category is based on RMC 4-3-050. d Regulated buller widths are based on RMC 4-3-090 and RMC 4-3-050. Wetland A is a depressional wetland of which a portion occurs on the City -owned parcel adjacent to Naches Avenue SW, Wetland A is associated with the historic Black River drainage (Figure 1). The palustrine forested (PFO) wetland continues west of the City -owned parcel where it is associated with the Black River Riparian Forest and Black River wetland system between Oaksdale Avenue SW and the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad tracks. Reconnaissance of the large wetland system west of the City -owned parcel was not conducted as part of this study, but based on aerial photograph interpretation, the larger wetland system contains several different palustrine wetland and aquatic habitats including scrub -shrub (PSS), emergent (PEM), aquatic bed (PAB), and open water (POW). An unnamed tributary (Stream A) flows into Wetland A from the east. Wetland B is a riverine wetland associated with Stream A, which flows west in a narrow vegetated corridor between commercial office buildings, driveways, and parking lots. The wetland supports a PFO vegetation community (Figure 1). Wetland C is a depressional and riverine wetland located adjacent to BNSF railroad tracks and is separated from Wetland B by a driveway connecting commercial office buildings at the end of Powell Avenue SW (Figure 1). Wetland C also contains a segment of Stream A and is comprised of a PFO vegetation community. It is possible that Wetland C is contiguous with Wetland A October 18, 2012 6 Herrera Environmental Consultants where contiguous vegetation wraps around the north side of a commercial office park, but this connection was not confirmed during the reconnaissance conducted as part oi'this study. Wetland D is a small depressional, PFO wetland that has been altered to provide stormwater detention/treatment on the north side of SW 7 1 Street east of Powell Ave SW. The PFO communities of Wetlands A, B, C, and D within the study area are dominated by black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera ssp. trichocarpa), Pacific willow (Salix lucida ssp. lasiandra), red alder (Alnus rubra), and Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia); with an understory of Sitka willow (Salix sifchensis), red osier dogwood (Cornus sericea), salmonberry (Rubes spectabihs), Douglas spirea (.Spiraea douglasii), Pacific ninebark (Physocarpus capitatus), Himalayan blackberry (Rebus armeniacus), lady fern (Athyrium. filix-femina), stinging nettle (L'rtica dioica), creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens), slough sedge (Carex obnupta), and reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea). Invasive species (e.g., I limalayan blackberry) are abundant in disturbed portions of the wetlands primarily located along wetland edges and along modified portions of Stream A. The mature forested portions of wetlands are dominated by mature (>21 -inch diameter breast height [dbhj) black cottonwood trees and red alder. Many habitat features, such as snags and downed logs, are present throughout forested portions of Wetlands A and C. According to the Washington State Natural Heritage Program (WNHP), there are no records for rare plants or high quality native ecosystems in the study area (Personal communication via email with Jasa Molt, WNHP Data Specialist, on October 21, 2011). Hydrologic conditions varied throughout portions of Wetlands A, B, C, and D within the study area during reconnaissance activities. Some portions of the wetlands were inundated (anywhere from 1 to G inches), while some areas exhibited saturated soils at the surface. The wettest areas included the low elevation areas associated with the historic Black River drainage within Wetland A and areas adjacent to Stream A within Wetlands A, B, and C. Primary hydrologic sources to wetlands include a high groundwater table, overhank flow associated with Stream A. and stormwater runoff. A primary source of hydrology to Wetland A is Springbrook Creek. The hydrology of Wetland A is controlled by a dam at the outlet of the Black River Wetland maintains flooded conditions. The landscape position of the wetlands within pronounced depressions surrounded by development, roads, and impervious surfaces, facilitates the accumulation of surface water runoff. In addition, the depressional nature of wetlands provides ample opportunity for expression of the high groundwater table. The buffers surrounding wetlands within the study area are largely highly disturbed and function at a low level. Due to surrounding development, there are no buffer areas that satisfy the City's undeveloped buffer requirements. In some locations, no buffer exists where impervious surfaces, such as parking lots, roads, trails, the railroad, and buildings abut the wetland. In other locations, a narrow zone of upland vegetation buffers the wetlands from development, but this primarily consists of lawn areas. Within the City -owned parcel, the buffer between the wetland and Naches October 18, 2012 7 Herrera Environmental Consultants Avenue SW is dominated by large, mature black cottonwood trees, with an understory of Indian plum (Oemleriu cerasiformis), sword fern (Polystichum munitum), beaked hazelnut (Corylus cornute), and Himalayan blackberry. Existing Wetland Functions and Values A summary of the function scores, the total wetland score, and the associated category rating for Wetlands A, B, C, and D are provided in Table 2. Table 2. Individual wetland function scores for wetlands in the study area. Water Quality Functions -- Hydrologic Functions — Habitat functions — (11) Qualitative Rating' Qualitative Rating a Qualitative Rating' 2004 (numerical score in (numerical score in (numerical score in Ecology Weiland parentheses) parentheses) parentheses) Total Rating Name Potential Opportunity Potential Opportunity Potential Opportunity Score Category b A High(13) Yes B Moderate (8) Yes C Moderate Yes (10) Moderate Yes High(17) Moderate 74 I (10) (11) Moderate (9) Yes Moderate Moderate (S) 49 111 (7) Moderate (5) Yes Moderate Moderate (9) 51 ll (10) D Moderate (9) Yes Moderate (8) Yes Low (2) Low (4) 40 Ili a Qualitative ratings are based on Ecology (2008a) guidance. b wetland category is based on the Ecology rating system (Hruby 2004). IP'etland 4 Wetland A. a depressional wetland, has a high potential to improve water quality because the wetland has a highly constricted permanently flowing outlet (dam) that allows for seasonal flooding within areas of persistent, ungrazed vegetation. The wetland has the opportunity to improve water quality due to its location in an area that is subject to input of pollutants from adjacent developments and roads. The wetland has a moderate potential to improve hydrologic functions because it exhibits significant ponding and it occupies a relatively large area compared to its contributing basin. It has the opportunity to improve hydrologic functions (reduce flooding and erosion) due to its location in a highly urbanized watershed subject to flashy stream flows (e.g., Springbrook Creek). Wetland A exhibits high potential to provide habitat functions because it is well -vegetated with diverse species and multiple vegetation classes, contains several hydroperiods and high interspersion of habitats, and has special habitat features such as snags and mature trees. The opportunity for Wetland A to improve habitat functions is moderate due to the presence of multiple priority habitats, but offset by the lack of well-functioning vegetated buffers around most of the wetland and the lack of continuity with other wetlands and large vegetated areas. October 18, 2012 8 Herrera Environmental Consultants I'Velland 13 Wetland B. a riverine wetland, has a moderate potential to improve water quality because the wetland has high density of shrubs and trees capable of trapping and filtering potentially contaminated sediments. The wetland has the opportunity to improve water duality due to its location in an area that is subject to input of pollutants from adjacent developments and roads. The wetland has a moderate potential to improve hydrologic functions because it has high density of shrubs and trees capable of slowing down water velocities during floods. It has the opportunity to improve hydrologic functions because there are human structures downstream that can be damaged by flooding. Wetland B exhibits moderate potential to provide habitat functions because the wetland contains it is well -vegetated with diverse species and multiple vegetation classes, contains multiple strata of vegetation, contains a stream with flooded areas capable of supporting fish, and contains habitat features including downed wood and standing snags. The opportunity for Wetland B to improve habitat functions is moderate due to the presence of multiple priority habitats, but offset by the lack of well-functioning vegetated buffers around most of the wetland and the lack of continuity with other wetlands and large vegetated areas. Welland C Wetland C, a depressional and riverine wetland, has a moderate potential to improve water duality because the wetland has a slighty constricted permanently flowing outlet (culvert) that allow=s for seasonal flooding within areas of persistent, ungrazed vegetation. The wetland has the opportunity to improve water quality due to its location in an area that is subject to input of pollutants from adjacent developments and roads. The wetland has a moderate potential to improve hydrologic functions because it exhibits seasonal ponding and it occupies a relatively large area compared to its contributing basin. It has the opportunity to improve hydrologic functions (reduce flooding and erosion) due to its location in a highly urbanized watershed subject to flashy stream flows. Wetland C exhibits moderate potential to provide habitat functions because it contains multiple strata of vegetation, contains several hydroperiods and moderate interspersion of habitats, and has special habitat features such as snags and mature trees. The opportunity for Wetland A to improve habitat functions is moderate due to the presence of multiple priority habitats, but offset by the lack of well-functioning vegetated buffers around most of the wetland and the lack of continuity (for the most part) with other wetlands and large vegetated areas. Welland D Wetland D, a depressional wetland, has a high potential to improve water quality because the wetland has a slighty constricted outlet (culvert) that allow=s for seasonal flooding within areas of persistent, ungrazed vegetation. The wetland has the opportunity to improve water quality due to its location in an area that is subject to input of pollutants from adjacent developments and roads. October 18, 2012 9 Herrera Environmental Consultants The wetland has a moderate potential to improve hydrologic functions because it exhibits seasonal ponding and it occupies a relatively large area compared to its contributing basin. It has the opportunity to improve hydrologic functions (reduce flooding and erosion) due to its location in a highly urbanized watershed subject to flashy stream flows. Wetland D exhibits low potential to provide habitat functions because it has a low interspersion of habitats and contains few special habitat features. The opportunity for Wetland S to improve habitat functions is also low because the buffers are highly impacted by surrounding development and the wetland lacks with other wetlands and large vegetated areas. Streams A description of Stream A is provided in Table 3 and its location is shown on Figure 1, Herrera biologists flagged the OHWM of Stream A on the City -owned parcel with blue and white polka- dotted flagging. Stream A originates upstream of Wetland C and flows via culverts through Wetland B and into Wetland A. King County (2011) mapping depicts a stream occurring within the swale-like wetland depression on the City -owned property; however, stream conditions were not observed. Table 3. Summary of Stream A within the study area. Stream Name Stream A Local Jurisdiction City of Renton City of Renton Class 2 Stream Category City of Renton 100 Buffer Width Fish Use within Chinook salmon, coho salmon, study area steelhead trout, cutthroat trout assumed due to presence in Black River system Connectivity Stream A originates upstream of wetland C and flows via culverts through Wetland B and (where stream flows from/to) eventually into wetland A. A stormwater drainage system that runs north under Naches Avenue SW contributes flow to Stream A that discharges directly into the culvert underneath the road that conveys flow from Wetland B through a 60 -inch diameter corrugated metal pipe (CMP). Stream A is tributary to the Black River approximately 800 feet downstream of the culvert at Naches Avenue SW_ The Black River then flows into the Duwamish River at river mile (RM) 11.0. Location of Stream A flows through the study area from east to west. Stream Relative to Stud • Area Stream Stream A flows through Wetlands B and C in a low -gradient channel with wetland banks, October 18, 2012 10 Herrera Environmental Consultants Condition in dominant silt substrate, and dominant glide habitat. After discharging from the 60 -inch Study Area diameter CMP west of Naches Avenue SW, Stream A enters a channel that is approximately 5 to 7 feet wide, and that has been highly altered in this location with armoring materials (e.g., riprap, quarry spalls) and apparent excavation, Water depth was approximately 5 inches in this area at the time of survey, and stream habitat consists of low -gradient riffle. After flowing through this altered section of channel, Stream A enters a large pool (approximately 1,000 square feet) that is approximately 3 to 6 feet deep. The banks above this pool are 10 to 15 feet higher than the water surface elevation and are highly erosive. The substrate here is dominated by silt and silty clay. Downstream of this large pool, Stream A is approximately 8 feet wide and greater than 2 feet deep in many locations. The stream habitat here is dominated by pools and glides, while substrate throughout this segment is dominated by silt and silty clay. Downed wood and overhanging woody vegetation were observed throughout the Stream A corridor. Riparian/Buffer The vegetated buffer of Stream A consists of relatively intact PFO wetland areas dominated Condition by black cottonwood and red alder; with an understory of sitka willow, red osier dogwood. salmonberry, Douglas spirea, Himalayan blackberry, lady fern, stinging nettle, creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens), slough sedge, and reed canarygrass. Invasive species (e.g., Himalayan blackberry) are found throughout the buffer, but are most abundant near Naches Avenue SW. Existing Stream Functions and Values Stream A within the study area exhibits variable levels of functions for habitat, corresponding with the variability related to stream channel conditions. Valuable rearing and refuge habitat is present in the sections of Stream A downstream of the highly altered segment immediately downstream of the culvert outfall at Naches Avenue SW. These areas exhibit pool and glide habitat, dense riparian cover (which moderates water temperatures), overhanging vegetation (which provides nutrients for invertebrates), and some woody debris (which provides habitat for invertebrates and in -stream cover for fish). Suitable spawning habitat was not observed within the study area, as the channel substrate consisted primarily of fine -textured materials (i.e., silt and silty clay) or armoring materials near the culvert outfall. Opportunities for Wetland and Stream Mitigation/Enhancement The once large wetland complex associated with the Black River system has been highly altered by development within the study area. Consequently, many opportunities to mitigate wetland impacts occur in close proximity to the project where wetlands can be reestablished by removing fill material. The project area offers limited opportunities, which are listed below, within undeveloped areas to mitigate unavoidable impacts on stream and wetland critical areas and buffer functions. If necessary, mitigation measures will be developed during the next phase of the project when a preferred alternative is selected. There are opportunities for vegetation enhancement within existing critical areas and buffers where invasive vegetation (e.g.. Himalayan blackberries) can be removed and replaced with native vegetation. For example, the riparian buffer adjacent to Naches Avenue SW is characterized by dense Himalayan blackberry in some areas. This area provides an opportunity to plant native October 18, 2012 11 Herrera Environmental Consultants shrubs and trees that will (1) add shade to the stream channel to help regulate instream temperature, (2) provide insect habitat and a potential food source for fish, and (3) provide improved terrestrial wildlife habitat. ■ The channel quality of Stream A could be improved by enhancing channel substrate and complexity in the highly altered segment immediately downstream of the culvert outfall, thereby decreasing flow velocities during storm events and reducing erosion of fine sediments into the stream. Regulatory Implications Regulations imposed by federal, state, and local governments may apply to any future project activities planned for the study area. Impacts to aquatic resources (e.g., wetlands, streams) are regulated under the federal Clean Water Act, Washington State Hydraulic Code, and the Renton Municipal Code Critical Areas and Shoreline Master Program Regulations. The City regulations also establish development standards for buffers associated with wetlands and streams including required widths. Federal, state, and city regulations require mitigation for impacts on wetlands and streams, and the City also requires mitigation for impacts on buffers. Clean Water Act Section 404 Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) regulates activities in waters of the United States, including wetlands and streams (33 USC 1344). The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) administers the permitting program under Section 404 of the CWA. Such permits include nationwide permits (NWPs) for small areas of fill and individual permits for projects that require larger areas of fill. NWP 12 (Utility Line Activities) and NWP 7 (Outfall Structures and Associated Intake Structures) may apply if the project results in less than '/z -acre of loss to waters of the United States. The Corps does not regulate wetland buffers. These regulations will be applicable if any portion of the onsite wetlands or streams are filled, dredged, or otherwise affected by project activities. Clean Water Act Section 402 Section 402 of the federal CWA is administered by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) which comprises the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). The EPA has delegated responsibility to administer the NPDES permit program to the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology). In support of achieving water quality goals of the CWA, Ecology requires that projects with disturbance of over one acre of land apply for coverage under Ecology's General Stormwater Construction Permit. October 18. 2012 12 Herrera Environmental Consultants Clean Water Act Section 401 Section 401 of the federal CWA is administered by the Washington State Department of Ecology in the form of a 401 Water Quality Certification which is associated with Section 404 permitting through the Corps. The requirement for 401 Water Quality Certification may be certified if a NWP is received from the Corps. If NWP conditions are not achieved, an Individual 401 review is necessary. For example, an Individual 401 review is necessary if a utility line project impacts more than a %-acre of wetlands. Hydraulic Project Approval The Washington State Hydraulic Code [RCW 77.55] regulates construction activities that use, divert, obstruct, or change the natural flow or bed of any fresh water or saltwater of the state. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) administers the Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) under this law-. An HPA will be required for work below the OHWM. City Regulations and Permits Chapter 4-3-050 of the Renton Municipal Code (RMC) contains regulations for preservation, protection, and restoration of critical areas. Critical areas that apply to the project include wetlands, streams, buffers, and habitat conservation areas. However, wetlands and streams that occur within shoreline jurisdictions are regulated under the Renton Shoreline Master Program (see below). A development permit (e.g., Utility Construction Permit), critical area permit, and/or letter of exemption is required for any development or alteration of a property containing a critical area. In addition, compliance with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) is necessary w=hich is achieved by preparing an Environmental Checklist in support of a SEPA decision for the project. A Shoreline Substantial Development permit is necessary for project activities within shoreline jurisdiction. Furthermore, a Right -of -Way Use permit is necessary for construction activities within City road right-of-way. Critical Areas Regulations Exempted Activities A separate critical area permit is not required in addition to a development permit for projects that receive a letter of exemption. In addition, exempt activities do not need to comply with mitigation ratios. Applicable to the project, according to RMC 4-3-050 C. 5.1 new surface water discharges to wetlands, buffers, or streams are an exempted activity if the project does not result in significant adverse changes to the water temperature or chemical characteristics of the wetland or stream water sources; and there is no increase in the existing rate of flow unless it can be demonstrated October 18, 2012 13 Herrera Environmental Consultants that the change in hydrologic regime would result in equal or improved wetland or stream functions and values. Furthermore, necessary stormwater conveyance systems in buffers including dispersion outfall systems are exempted activities if designed to minimize impacts to the buffer and critical area, where the site topography requires their location within the buffer to allow hydraulic function., provided the standard buffer zone area associated with the critical area classification is retained. Wetlands According to RMC 4-3-050 K., Wetland D is regulated as a Category 3 wetland with a regulated 25 -foot buffer width. Wetlands A, B, and C are in shoreline jurisdiction and therefore are subject to wetland and buffer regulations contained in the Shoreline Master Program regulations (see below). Any proposed project within Wetland D or its buffer are subject to the assessment and submittal requirements in RMC 4-8-120. Applicable to Wetland D and the buffer, if changes are proposed for a non-exempt activity, the applicant shall evaluate alternative methods of development in the following sequence (RMC 4- 3-050 M. 8.). This mitigation sequence is also outlined in joint Ecology, Corps, and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) guidance (Ecology 2006); and State Environmental Policy Act (Washington Administrative Code Chapter 197-11-768). Mitigation sequencing shall include the following steps. (1) avoiding any disturbance to the wetland or buffer; (2) minimizing any wetland or buffer impacts; (3) restoring any wetlands or buffer impacted or lost temporarily; and (4) compensating for any permanent or buffer impacts. Compensation shall be achieved by one or more of the following methods: (1) restoring a former wetland and providing buffers at a site once exhibiting wetland characteristics, (2) creating new wetlands and buffers, and (3) in addition to restoring or creating a wetland, enhancing and existing degraded wetland. Compensation shall replace lost functions and values; and acreage such that there is no net loss. When creation, restoration, and/or enhancement are proposed, acreage replacement ratios are required according to RMC 4-3-050 M. 11 and 12. Alternatively, compensation can be achieved through purchase of credits from an approved mitigation bank. According to RMC 4-3-050 K. 7., as a condition of approval for a development permit, the property owner shall create a native growth protection area containing the wetland and buffer. Streams According to RMC 4-3-050 L, Stream A is regulated as a Class 2 stream because it is perennial and assumed to support salmonids. Class 2 waters in the City have a regulated buffer width of 100 feet. Any proposed project below the OHWM of Stream A or within its buffer is subject to the assessment and submittal requirements in RMC 4-8-120. According to RMC 4-3-050 L. 4., disturbance to Stream A and the regulated buffer is prohibited except where the buffer is to be enhanced, where allowed exemptions are conducted, or where alterations are allowed in accordance with the code. In addition, there shall be no net loss of October 18, 2012 14 Herrera Environmental Consultants riparian area or shoreline ecological function resulting from any activity or land use occurring within the regulated buffer area. Applicable standards include preservation of native vegetation, revegetation with native species for areas disturbed in accordance with allow=ed exemption or development permit approval, and removal of noxious vegetation species when required as a condition of approval. According to RMC 4-3-050 L. 3., if project activities within a stream or buffer are not exempt, a stream mitigation plan is required to address impacts. If feasible. mitigation shall be provided on- site and be in-kind. Mitigation preferences include daylighting of streams, removal of man-made fish passage barriers, removal of impervious surfaces in buffer areas; and other measures that provide for equivalent or greater biological function. According to RMC 4-3-050 L. 7., as a condition of approval for a development permit, the property owner shall create a native growth protection area containing the stream and buffer. Habitat Conservation Areas: Critical Habitats According to RMC Chapter 4-3-050 K, Stream A and Wetland A are considered Critical Habitats based on presence of threatened Chinook salmon in the vicinity and Category I wetland classification_ This triggers the need for a Habitat Assessment for any proposed development activity on or abutting the site that is not exempt. The assessment must determine the extent, function, and value of the critical habitat and include a mitigation plan that describes the potential for impacts and the proposed mitigation approach (RMC 4-8-120 D_). This should also include assessment of potential impacts to the great blue heron breeding area located within the Black River Riparian Forest (WDFW 201 lb). If alterations to critical habitat or buffers are proposed, mitigation is required. The applicant shall evaluate alternative methods of developing the property using the following criteria in this order; (1) avoid any disturbance to the habitat, (2) minimize any impacts to the habitat, and (3) compensate for any habitat impacts. If feasible, mitigation shall be provided on-site and be in- kind. Based on the habitat assessment, the City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development may designate the on-site critical habitat areas and their buffers as Native Growth Protection Areas, which may require establishment of a conservation easement or a similar permanent protective mechanism. Shoreline Master Program Regulations Within the vicinity of the study area, the Black River and Springbrook Creek are designated as shorelines according to the City Shoreline Master Program Regulations (RMC 4-3-090). According to RMC 4-3-090 B. 3., the jurisdictional area associated with shorelines include lands within 200 feet from the OHWM, or lands within 200 feet from floodways, whichever is greater; contiguous floodplain areas; and all associated marshes, bogs, swamps, and river deltas associated with streams, lakes, and tidal waters that are subject to the provisions of the State Shoreline Management Act. According to Washington Administrative Code (WAC} 173-22-040, October 18, 2012 15 Herrera Environmental Consultants these jurisdictional areas are referred to as shoreland areas. The City requires permits for activities within shoreline jurisdiction. According to the City, shorelands associated with the Black River occur within the Natural Environment Overlay District. The natural environment is intended to provide areas of wildlife sanctuary and habitat preservation. For projects within this overlay district, the shoreline permit approval process involves a hearing examiner conditional use permit provided the use does not degrade the ecological functions or natural character of the shoreline area (RMC 4-2-090 E. 1.). According to shoreline use regulations that apply to stormwater management, the design and construction of stormwater outfalls shall limit impacts on receiving waters and comply with all appropriate local, state, and federal requirements {RMC 4-2-090 E. 11. d. iv). Within the study area, based on RMC 4-3-090 and WAC 173-22-040 shoreland areas subject to City shoreline regulations include Wetlands A, B, and C because these wetlands are in proximity to the Black River shoreline and influence or are influenced by the Black River. In addition, shoreland areas include that portion of Stream A occurring within the Natural Environment Overlay District. According to WAC 173-22-040 3.(c), influence includes periodic inundation, location within a floodplain, or hydraulic continuity. Wetland A is located within the floodplain of the Black River and Stream A provides hydraulic continuity amongst Wetlands A, B, and C. In addition, surface water within Wetland C flows into Wetland A via a culvert connection located north of the study area. RMC 4-3-090 contains development standards for areas of shoreline jurisdiction. According to RMC 4-3-090 D. 2, shoreline use and development shall be carried out in a manner that prevents or mitigates adverse impacts to ensure no net loss of ecological functions and processes. An application for permit or approval shall demonstrate all reasonable efforts have been taken to provide sufficient mitigation such that the activity does not result in net loss of ecological functions. Mitigation shall occur in the following prioritized order: • Avoiding the adverse impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action, or moving the action. ■ Minimizing adverse impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation by using appropriate technology and engineering, or by taking affirmative steps to avoid or reduce adverse impacts. ■ Rectifying the adverse impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment. ■ Reducing or eliminating the adverse impact over time by preservation and maintenance operation during the life of the action. October 18, 2012 16 Herrera Environmental Consultants ■ Compensating for the adverse impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing similar substitute resources or environments and monitoring the adverse impact and taking appropriate corrective measures. Wetlands within shoreline jurisdiction supersede wetland regulations contained in the critical areas regulations (RMC 4-3-050). These standards contain unique buffer zone widths, as indicated in Table I _ According to RMC 4-3-090 D. 2. d, ix., stormwater conveyance or discharge facilities such as dispersion trenches, level spreaders, and outfalls may be permitted within wetlands or buffers on a case-by-case basis if the following are met: ■ Due to topographic or other physical constraints, there are no feasible locations for these facilities to discharge to surface water through existing systems or outside the buffer. The discharge is located as far from the wetland edge as possible and in a manner that minimizes disturbance of soils and vegetation and avoids long- term rill or channel erosion. According to RMC 4-3-040 D. 2. d. x... activities that adversely affect wetlands or buffers shall follow mitigation sequencing as outlined above and include mitigation sufficient to achieve no net loss of wetland function and value. Compensatory mitigation shall be provided for all wetland alteration and shall re-establish, create, rehabilitate, enhance, and/or preserve equivalent wetland functions and values in accordance with replacement ratios specified within the code. According to RMC 4-3-090 D. 2. d. xi., development standards near wetlands include a requirement that surface or piped stormwater should be routed to existing conveyances or other areas, wherever hydraulic gradients allow. Where stormwater is routed to wetlands, system design shall assure that erosion and sedimentation will be avoided to the maximum extent feasible. According to RMC 4-3-090 D. 2. d. xii,, a vegetation management plan is required in order to maintain effective buffer conditions and function including supplemental planting if necessary to provide adequate cover of native vegetation and a dense screen of native evergreen trees at the perimeter of the buffer. In addition, the plan needs to include measures for controlling invasive weeds and removal of existing invasive species. The plan also needs to include a monitoring and maintenance plan for a period of at least 5 years. Permitting Considerations The three alternatives being considered for the proposed project may require permits from federal and state agencies and the City. Potential permit requirements are summarized below. October 18, 2012 17 Herrera Environmental Consultants Federal All three alternatives have potential to require coverage under CWA Section 404 NWP 12 (Utility Line Activities) and NWP 7 (Outfall Structures and Associated Intake Structures) from the Corps if the project results in less than '/2 -acre of loss to waters of the United States including discharge of dredged or fill material within a stream channel (Alternatives 1 and 3) or wetland (Alternatives 2 and 3). NWP 7 requires that the effluent from the outfall is authorized, conditionally authorized, or specifically exempted by, or otherwise in compliance with, regulations issued under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program in accordance with Section 402 of the CWA. In Washington State, applications for CWA Section 404 permits are accomplished through submittal of a Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application (JARPA) to the USACE. Prior to obtaining NWP coverage from the Corps, the project may also need to undergo review of potential on-site cultural resources by a qualified professional that coordinates with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) to ensure compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). In Washington State, the SHPO operates through the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP). The requirement for a Section 404 permit represents a federal nexus that triggers the need for review under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. This may involve preparation of a No Effect Letter (filed with the USACE) if it is determined that this alternative would have no effect on ESA -listed species and critical habitat. if any effects to ESA -listed species or critical habitat could occur, the project will require the preparation of a Biological Assessment (BA) and review by NOAA Fisheries and U.S. Fish and Wildlife prior to issuance of the Section 404 permit. Because ESA -listed salmonids could be present in Stream A within close proximity to Naches Avenue SW, preparation of a BA is anticipated to analyze effects during construction as well as a result of stormwater discharge during operation of the project. State All three alternatives would require coverage under Ecology's NPDES general construction permit because they are anticipated to require over an acre of earth disturbance which may result in a discharge of stormwater to a surface water of the state. Coverage under the NPDES general construction permit is required to comply with Section 402 of the Clean Water Act. All three project alternatives may require a Hydraulic Project Approval permit from WDFW because of work required waterward/below the OHWM of Stream A (Alternatives I and 3) and changes to natural flow of a state water resulting from the project (Alternates 1, 2, and 3). Consequently, a JARPA form and associated plan set will need to be submitted to WDFW for their review. SEPA compliance must be completed for the project before WDFW will begin review of the DARPA. October 18, 2012 18 Herrera Environmental Consultants City of Renton All three alternatives would require permits from the City including a Utility Construction Permit, Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, and Right -of -Way Use Permit. The Renton Municipal code contains permit submittal requirements for Public Works Applications, and specifically for Utility Construction Permits (RMC 4-5-120). These requirements include a construction permit application, construction mitigation description, erosion control measures, geotechnical study, hazardous materials management plan, stream study, wetland assessment, and a tree retention/inventory/land clearing plan, among others. In addition, in order to comply with State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) requirements, the City requires the submittal of an Environmental Checklist for its review in support of a SEPA decision. Alternatives Impact Evaluation In considering federal, state, and city environmental regulations, the alternative with the least amount of impact to critical areas is driven by the results of mitigation sequencing. None of the alternatives are capable of avoiding impacts because they all involve activities within a wetland and/or stream and buffer. However, when comparing the alternatives and their potential to minimize impacts, Alternative 1 has the least amount of impact because it only involves impact to Stream A and a small portion of adjacent buffer requiring minimal clearing_ Alternative 1 can be achieved with minimal clearing of vegetation adjacent to the stream, potentially avoiding removal of trees. Alternative 2 represents the greatest extent of impact associated with the alternatives because it would require significant grading and excavation within the City -owned parcel that would affect Wetland A, which is a Category I wetland within shoreline jurisdiction (Natural Environment Overlay District) and a portion of the buffer. In addition, depending on the size of the water quality facility and required excavation, numerous trees would need to be removed within the wetland and buffer. In addition, the diversion of flow to the wetland could be considered an impact by adversely affecting the hydroperiod with fluctuating water levels in the vicinity of the discharge location. While Alternative 2 would provide some water quality benefit, it would still result in significant impact to the wetland and buffer. Alternative 3 would result in more impact than Alternative 1 and less impact than Alternative 2. This alternative would impact a portion of Stream A and Wetland B. which is a Category III wetland. In addition, a portion of buffer would be disturbed. In addition, this alternative would introduce significantly more flow to the wetland with potentially adverse effects to the hydroperiod. The additional flow could result in the need for channel modifications resulting in additional impact during construction. In addition, this alternative would involve replacement of the Naches Avenue SW culvert which would result in additional grading, excavation, and vegetation clearing impact to Stream A and Wetland B at the upstream and downstream extents of the replaced culvert. October 18, 2012 19 Herrera Environmental Consultants References Brinson, M.M. 1993. A Hydrogeomorphic Classification for Wetlands. Technical Report WRP-DE-4. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. August 1993. City of Renton. 2011. Stream data. Digital data compiled by the City of Renton. Obtained in October 2011, from the City of Renton. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. Publication FWS/OBS-79131, U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services, Ecology. 2006. Wetland Mitigation in Washington State. Joint publication of the Washington State Department of Ecology, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Seattle District, and the Environmental Protection Agency Region 10. Version 1, March 2006. Publications 06-06-011a and 06-06-011 b (Part 1 and Part 2). Ecology. 2008a. Using the Wetland Rating System in Compensatory Mitigation. Focus Sheet. Washington State Department of Ecology. March 2009. Publication 08-06-009. Ecology. 2008b. Washington State Water Quality Assessment 305(b) report and 303(d) list. Washington State Department of Ecology. Obtained from website: htlp://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/303d/2008/index.htmi. Hruby, T. 2004. Washington State Weiland Rating System for Western Washington—Revised. Ecology Publication 04-06-025. Washington State Department of Ecology. August 2004. King County. 2011. King County IMap data: Sensitive Areas overlay, King County GIS Center. Obtained August 9, 2011, from agency website: http://www.kingeounty.gov/operations/GIS/ Maps/iMAP.aspx. NOAA Fisheries. 2011. NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service, ESA Salmon Listings. Obtained on October 20, 2011 from agency website: http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/ESA-Salmon- Listings/Index.cfm NRCS. 2011. Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Web Soil Survey. Obtained July 5, 2011 from agency website: <http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/app/ WebS oil Survey. aspx>. USDA. 2009. Aerial photograph of Snohomish County. Color orthoimage. Horizontal resolution: 1 meter. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency, Aerial Photography Field Office. Publication date. November 2009. Obtained in January 2010, from University of Washington website: <http://gis.ess.washington.edu/data/raster/dogs_naip.html>. October 18, 2012 20 Herrera Environmental Consultants USFWS, 2011. Raster scan data of National Wetlands Inventory wetlands maps. Digital data created in 1981. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Obtained January 15, 2010, from agency website: http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/index.html. WDFW. gall a. SalmonScape. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Available at: http://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/salmonscape/index_html. Accessed on July 5, 2011. WDFW. 2011 b. Washington State Fish and Wildlife Service Priority Habitat and Species (PIIS) Data On the Web for the study area. Available at: http://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/phs/. Accessed on July 5, 2011. October 18, 2012 21 Herrera Environmental Consultants r +. N (D A LL 'o C D ro z :Lli 4} -0 U Q 0-9 O r+ a ++ O Q3 UI (D L LU @ A V) S£ Z y o 2 0 Icaro o o o o Lu �n o 0 to in E E E - ., a Q o a o ro o m a o 0 0 0 ccu a o L +L+d 7 R �_, O O R h �f Q Q cu ( Q Q UJ Q (17 () Ln c Q g L ,a CC Q J L6 LiJ Cf) 6) fn i lil .J o ww- • - ■ i 1 o I I � o 0 Jfhk- 49 m V O L4 IF AND dL f • � f r i : AL g} m r,fN 4 4 s, til � � � i �{� E fi m K � .+�►`/�f��'r�^3�.� r � �±±.- ti dw cl Li .T -, P' N Lp6 i f .. i • v- Vl � .•f a f� ` Ail Access Rd r t +'► t �+ M5 any sa4oe IRS 1 �1� Fiic, 001159 12651111018 Appendix G SWMM MODEL OUTPUT SAIC Existing Conditions - 2 year Storm - Nodes Table Name Invert Elevation (ft) Ground Elevation (Spill Crest) (ft) Max Water Elevation (ftp Freeboard (ft) Ponding Type 15 C D 12 20.58 15.277 5.02 None 20 13.1 21.56 15.597 5.94 None 25 12.8 21.5 16.358 5.16 None 30 12.8 22.29 16.587 5.47 None 35 12.8 22.67 17.215 5.38 None 40-E 13.1 22.68 17.862 4.91 None VAULT1 1+6 13.8 23.11 18.61 4.79 Allowed 4+21 Ex -F 13.7 24.01 18.826 1 5.04 None D8-14 G 13.78 23.95 18,825 5.13 None CB1 79+78 13.27 25.6 18.866 6.73 None CB21 11+35 13.14 25.9 18.888 7.01 None CB31 1435H 13.99 25.4 18.928 6.47 None CB3515711 13.57 25.31 18.945 1 6.36 None 56A 14.5 25.9 18.862 6.93 Allowed 57A 15 25.9 18.966 6.85 Allowed 58A 15.6 27.35 19.212 8.12 Allowed 59B -U 15.33 21.43 19.448 1.93 Allowed CB40 17+97 13.98 25.17 18.97 6.2 None CB41 20+92 14.51 25.64 19.001 6.64 Allowed VT3 25+57 13.05 24.36 19.068 5.29 Allowed CB50 J 14.5 24.43 19.133 5.3 Allowed 36+60 21.239 27.29 22.648 4.64 None 235 -0 -AO 22 29.82 22.985 6.83 None 37+22P Q R 21.388 28.48 22.769 5.71 None E8 -13A 17+ 16.67 24.79 18.967 5.82 None E8 -13B 18+ 17.53 26.13 18.976 7.15 None F8-2219+9 18.2 25.48 18.991 6.49 None CB -EX -22+8 18.34 24.59 19.041 5.55 Allowed E8-1116+2 17.62 24.92 18.947 5.97 None CB52 15+71 17.35 24.79 18.946 5.84 None 45 13.1 22.84 17,907 4.95 None 59A W AM 15.65 22.75 19.55 3.2 Allowed 60B 16 24.2 19.675 4.53 Allowed 65A 16.25 24.4 19.727 4.67 Allowed 67A 16.49 25.54 19.831 5.71 Allowed 70A 16.75 27.35 19.941 7.41 Allowed 73A 16.77 30.37 19.96 10.41 Allowed 75A Z AA Y 17.14 31.14 20.235 10.9 Allowed 78A 17.26 30.07 20.35 9.72 Allowed Existing Conditions - 2 year Storm - Nodes Table Name Invert Elevation (ft) Ground Elevation (Spill Crest) (ft) Max Water Elevation (ft) Freeboard (ft) Ponding Type 80A_ABACAP 17.09 30.22 20.505 9.71 Allowed 95A_AE 18.25 30.25 20.655 9.59 Allowed 100A 18.64 30.09 20.848 9.24 Allowed 110A 18.79 30.34 24,718 5.62 Allowed 115A_AF_AD 20.85 30.43 25.235 5.2 Allowed 120A 21.11 29.32 25.598 3.72 Allowed 125A 21.18 29.19 25.72 3.47 Allowed 130A 21.64 28.44 26.217 2.22 Allowed 135A -AH 21.9 27.75 27,018 0.73 Allowed 140A 22.34 28.04 27.95 0.09 Allowed 145A 22.64 28.69 28.373 0.32 Allowed 150AAIAJAK 23.05 28.75 28.729 0.02 Allowed 105A 19 30.8 22.232 8.57 Allowed 60A_X 15.96 23.65 19,648 4 Allowed 79A 17.37 30.17 20.474 9.7 Allowed 136A 21,95 27.75 27.248 0.5 Allowed 137A 22.14 27.74 27.477 0.26 Allowed 138A 22.14 27.87 27.698 0.17 Allowed 32+23Ex 20.19 25.6 21.544 4.06 None 32+17Ex 20.15 26.1 21.52 4.58 Allowed 32+10Ex 20.11 25.5 21.466 4.03 Allowed 10 11.3 21.23 14.113 7.12 None 5 11.02 20.93 13.72 7.22 None 1_A_81_B2 10.2 20.35 12.381 7,97 None Outfall 11.27 17 12.255 4.74 None 36+10Ex N 22.45 27.34 23.086 4,25 None 26+48Ex 20.47 24.58 20.47 4.11 Allowed 35+21 20.905 26.58 22.322 4.26 None CB5 4+67 13 24 18.725 5.27 None VAULT2 6+4 12.14 24.65 18.793 5.86 Allowed CB51 26+48 14.5 24.57 19.156 5.41 Allowed EXCB 31+05 19.3 25.36 20.407 4.95 Allowed CB54 29+23 17.53 24.86 19.187 5.67 Allowed CB52 28+16 16.17 24.68 19.209 5.47 Allowed EXCB 31+02 20.9 25.79 20.9 4.89 Allowed CB42 21+04 18.25 25.2 19.012 6.19 Allowed CB45 23+63 18.27 2424 19.046 5.19 Allowed I 18.39 24 19.049 4.95 Allowed mp24+14 mp Dut_V1 14.7 25.6 17.704 7.9 None Existing Conditions - 2 year Storm - Nodes Table Name Invert Elevation (ft) Ground Elevation (Spill Crest) (ft) Max Water Elevation (ft) Freeboard (ft) Ponding Type Mdpoint 22.02 24.5 22.474 2.03 Sealed SH50 AN 16.81 28.31 19.134 9.18 None SH75 AL 23.2 31.9 31.9 0 None SH70 AG 22.8 31.2 31,2 0 None SH65 21,99 30.99 30.765 0.23 None SH60 V2 21.67 29,63 29.63 0 None CB7 17.38 27.7 19.123 8.58 None CB6 16.9 27.4 19.115 8.28 None CB5 16.35 27 19,107 7.89 None CB4 L 15,97 25.8 19.098 6.7 None CB3 15.54 25,2 19.095 6.11 Allowed CB2 KM 15.03 24.5 19.085 5,42 Allowed 45.1 13.4 23.17 0 0 None Node94 6.86 17.79 0 0 None Node93 5.9 18.25 0 0 None Node92 9,77 20.92 0 0 INIone Existing Conditions - 2 year Storm - Links Table Name Upstream Node Name Downstream Node Name Diameter (or Height) (ft) Length (ft) Max Flow (cfs) Upstream Invert Elevation (ft) Downstream Invert Elevation (ft) Conduit Slope 15-10 15 G D 10 5 318 90.722 12 11.3 0,22 20-15 20 15 C D 5 440 82.256 13.1 12 0.25 25-20 25 20 5 342 -82.14 12.8 13.1 -0.088 30-25 30 25 5 126 82.085 12.8 12.8 0 35-30 35 30 5 470 82.099 12.8 12.8 0 40-35 40-E 35 5 630 82.218 13.1 12.8 0.032 Link94 VAULTI 1+6 45,1 5 46 0 13.8 13.4 0.87 421E+52 4+21Ex F VAULTI 1+6 4.5 262 41.199 13,7 13.8 -0.038 477E421 E DB -14 -G 4+21 Ex F 3 56 -5.968 13.78 13.7 -0.214 978880 CB1 79+78 VAULT2 6+4 5 314 -33.523 13.27 12.14 -0.131 1268978 CB21 11+35 C13179+78 5 157 -33.228 13.14 13,27 -0.08 14351268 CB31 1435H CB21 11+35 5 300 32.918 13.99 13.14 0.283 15711435 CB3515711 CB31 1435H 5 136 -31.263 13,57 13.99 -0.309 56A-55 56A 4+21 Ex F 4 230 40.349 14.5 13.7 0.304 57A -56A 57A 56A 4 131 40.828 15 14.5 0.382 58A -57A 58A 57A 4 465 40.971 15.6 15 0.108 598-58A 59B -U 58A 3 332 40.816 15.33 15.6 -0,081 17971571 CB4017+97 C83515711 5 226 29.044 13,98 13,57 0.181 20921797 CB41 20+92 CB4017+97 5 295 28.483 14.51 13.98 0.18 25572092 VT3 25+57 CB41 20+92 5 465 -30.477 13.05 14.51 -0.013 2648-2557 CB50 J VT3 25+57 3 19 21.27 14.5 13,05 0.263 3660-3521 36+60 35+21 3 139 13.623 21.239 20.905 0.24 235-3722 235 -0 -AO 37+22P Q R 3 100 11.276 22 21.388 0.612 37223660 37+22P C R 36+60 3 62 13,532 21.388 21.239 0.24 17971620 E8 -13A-17+ E8-1116+2 2 177 2.244 1 16.67 17,62 -0,537 17971797 E8 -13A-17+ C84017+97 2 10 0 16.67 13.98 -26.3 18831797 E8 -13B-18+ E8 -13A-17+ 2 86 -1.213 17.53 16.67 0.942 19961883 F8-2219+9 E8-13131 8+ 2 113 -0.961 18,2 17.53 0.549 22851996 CB -EX -22+8 CB42 21+04 2 181 -0.593 18.34 18.25 0.1 Link147 CB -EX -22+8 CB45 23+63 2 78 -0.373 18.34 18.27 0.09 16201571 E8-1116+2 C135215+71 2 49 -3.017 17.62 17.35 0.551 15711571 CB52 15+71 CB35 15711 2 14 3.157 17.35 13.57 -0.714 45-40 45 40_E 5 57 75.139 13.1 13.1 0 59A -59B 59A W AM 59B -U 3 187 37,036 15.65 15.33 0.171 60B -60A 60B 60A -X 3 100 27.85 16 15.96 0.04 65A-608 65A 60B 3 199 27.597 16.25 16 0.025 67A -65A 67A 65A 3 353 j 27.944 j 16,49 j 16.25 j 0,068 70A -67A 70A 67A 3 252 1 29.981 1 16.75 1 16.49 1 0.083 Existing Conditions - 2 year Storm - Links Table Name Upstream Node Name Downstream Node Name Diameter (or Height) (ft) Length (ft) Max Flow (cfs) Upstream Invert Elevation (ft) Downstream Invert Elevation (ft) Conduit Slope 73A -70A 73A 70A 3 125 31.322 16.77 16.75 0.096 75A -73A 75A Z AA Y 73A 2 210 31.558 17,14 16.77 0.176 78A -75A 78A 75A Z AA Y 2 172 -24.289 17.26 17.14 -0.012 8OA-79A 80A ABACAP 79A 2 38 -24.285 17.09 17.37 -0.737 95A -80A 95A AE 80A ABACAP 2 241 20.959 18.25 17.09 0.427 100A -95A 100A 95A AE 2 46 19.255 18.64 18.25 0.848 110A -105A 110A 105A 2 309 -19.429 18.79 19 -0.068 115A -110A 115A -AF -AD 110A 2 62 19.424 20.85 18.79 3 120A -115A 120A 115A -AF -AD 2 80 14.232 21,11 20.85 0.138 125A -120A 125A 120A 2 27 14.226 21.18 21.11 0.259 130A -125A 130A 125A 2 110 14.221 21.64 21.18 0.286 135A -130A 135A AH 130A 2 178 14.214 21.9 21.64 0.146 140A -138A 140A 138A 2 86 11.658 22.34 22.14 0.233 145A -140A 145A 140A 2 145 11.728 22.64 22.34 0.207 150A -145A 150AAIAJAK 145A 2 123 12.147 23.05 22.64 0.333 105A -100A 105A 100A 2 220 19.436 19 18.64 0.164 60A -59A 60A -X 59A W AM 3 272 30.783 15.96 15.65 0.04 79A -78A 79A 78A 2 154 24.281 17.37 17.26 0.136 136A135A 136A 135A AH 2 77 11.597 21.95 21.9 0.065 137A1 36A 137A 136A 2 77 11.586 22.14 21.95 0.247 138A137A 138A 137A 2 75 11.594 22.14 22.14 0 32233217 32+23Ex 32+17Ex 3 11 13.552 20.19 20.15 0.364 32173210 32+17Ex 32+10Ex 3 12 16.663 20.15 20.11 0.364 32103102 32+10Ex EXCB 31+05 3 105 16.628 20.11 19.3 0.395 5 -Oct 10 5 5 91 90.724 11.3 11.02 0.308 1 -May 5 1_A_B1_132 5 215 90.726 11.02 10.2 0.242 1 -Outfall 1 A B1 B2 Outfall 5.5 34 100.506 10.2 11.27 -3.147 Link97 Outfall Node92 5.73 30 0 1127 9.77 5 36103217 36+10Ex N 32+17Ex 1.75 393 3,182 22.45 20.15 0.585 26482648 26+48Ex CB51 26+48 2 10 0 20.47 14.5 0.7 35213223 35+21 32+23Ex 3 298 13.574 20.905 20.19 0.24 421114 CB5 4+67 VAULT1 1+6 5 304.5 36.516 13 13.8 -0.263 644E477E VAULT2 6+4 DB -14 -G 3 167 -11.747 12.14 13.78 0.042 644477 VAULT2 6+4 C135 4+67 5 197.5 36.278 12.14 13 0.041 Lk139 CB51 26+48 CB50 J 3 72 15.81 14.5 14.5 0 UAW EXCB 31+05 CB54 29+23 3 182 16.681 19.3 17.53 0.973 Link144 EXCB 31+05 EXCB 31+02 1.75 10 0 19.3 20.9 -13.2 Link141 CB54 29+23 CB5228+16 3 107 16.702 17.53 16.17 1.271 Existing Conditions - 2 year Storm - Links Table Name Upstream Node Name Downstream Node Name Diameter (or Height) (ft) Length (ft) Max Flow (cfs) Upstream Invert Elevation (ft) Downstream Invert Elevation (ft) Conduit Slope Link142 C135228+16 CB51 26+48 3 168 16.008 16.17 14.5 0.994 Link157 EXCI3 31+02 26+48Ex 1.75 457 0 20.9 20.47 0 CB42F822 CB42 21+04 178-2219+9 2 108 -0.805 18.25 18.2 0.1 Link148 CB45 23+63 CB46 24+14 2 51 0.298 18.27 18.39 -0.235 Link149 CB46 24+14 VT3 25+57 2 143 0.313 18.39 13.05 -0.217 Pump Tmp Out V1 Mdpoint 0.05 10 6.9 14.7 22.02 0 Pump Tmp Out V1 Mdpoint 14.7 22.02 L109 Mdpoint 59B_U 2 830 1.708 22.02 15.33 0.595 Link187 SH50 AN C137 4 116 8.218 16.81 17.38 0.293 Link172 SH75 AL SH70 AG 1 71 3.441 23.2 22.8 0.563 Link173 SH70 AG SH65 1 413 1.622 22.8 21.99 0.196 Link174 SH65 SH60 V2 1 579 1.724 21.99 21.67 0.055 Link175 SH60 V2 SH50 AN 1 455 4.787 21.67 16.81 0.321 Link188 CB7 C136 4 165 8.251 17.38 16.9 0.29 Link189 C136 CB5 4 191 7.991 16.9 16.35 0.288 Link190 CB5 CB4 L 4 191 7.076 16.35 15.97 0.199 Link191 CB4 L C133 4 87 14.398 15.97 15.54 0.49 Link192 C133 CB2 KM 4 176 13.288 15.54 15.03 0.29 Link193 C132 KM VT3 25+57 4 200 13.007 15.03 13.05 0.29 5045 45.1 45 5 650 74.986 13.4 13.1 0.046 Link99 Node93 Node94 10.93 38 0 5.9 6.86 -2.526 Link98 jNode92 INode93 11.15 38 0 9.77 1 5.9 1 10.184 Existing Conditions - 10 year Storm - Nodes Table Name Invert Elevation (ft) Ground Elevation (Spill Crest) (ft) Max Water Elevation (ft) Freeboard (ft) Ponding Type 15 -C -D 12 20.58 16,557 4.02 None 20 13,1 21.56 17.555 4.01 None 25 12,8 21.5 18.385 3.12 None 30 12.8 22.29 18,833 3.46 None 35 12,8 22.67 19.926 2.74 None 40 E 13.1 22,68 21.362 1.32 None VAULT1 1+6 13.8 23.11 22.885 0.23 Allowed 4+21Ex F 13.7 24.01 23.193 0,82 None D8 -14 -G 13.78 23.95 23.278 0.67 None CB1 79+78 13.27 25.6 23.597 2 None CB21_11+35 13.14 25.9 23.682 2,22 None CB31_1435H 13.99 25.4 23.856 1.54 None CB35 15711 13.57 25.31 23.916 1.39 None 56A 14.5 25.9 23.219 2.68 Allowed 57A 15 25.9 23.249 2.65 Allowed 58A 15.6 27,35 23.522 3.83 Allowed 59B -U 15.33 21.43 24.214 -2.78 Allowed CB40_17+97 13.98 25.17 23.982 1,19 None CB41 20+92 14.51 25.64 24.073 1.57 Allowed VT3 25+57 13.05 24,36 24.263 0.1 Allowed CB50 3 14.5 24.43 24.549 -0.12 Allowed 36+60 21,239 27.29 25.886 1,4 None 235 0 AO 22 29.82 25.963 3.86 None 37+22P Q R 21.388 28.48 25,926 2.55 None E8 -13A 17+ 16.67 24.79 23.982 0.81 None E8-13618+ 17.53 26.13 24.003 2.13 None F8-22.;_1 9+9 18.2 25,48 24.039 1.44 None CB -EX -22+8 18.34 24.59 24.14 0.45 Allowed EP 1_16+2 17,62 24.92 23.932 0,99 None CB52_15+71 17.35 24.79 23.919 0.87 None 45 13.1 22.84 21.619 1.22 None 59A W AM 15,65 22.75 24.653 -1.9 Allowed 60B 16 24.2 25.316 -1.12 Allowed 65A 16.25 24.4 25.666 -1.27 Allowed 67A 16.49 25.54 26.32 -0.78 Allowed 70A 16.75 27,35 26.944 0.41 Allowed 73A 16.77 30.37 27,29 3.08 Allowed 75A Z_AA_Y 17.14 1 31.14 28.618 1 2.52 jAllowed 78A 17.26 1 30.07 28.674 1 1.4 jAllowed Existing Conditions - 10 year Storm - Nodes Table Name Invert Elevation (ft) Ground Elevation (Spill Crest) (ft) Max Water Elevation (ft) Freeboard (ft) Ponding Type 80A ABACAP 17.09 30.22 28.825 1.4 Allowed 95A AE 18.25 30.25 28.84 1.41 Allowed 100A 18.64 30.09 28.836 1.25 Allowed 110A 18.79 30.34 28.869 1,47 Allowed 115A AF AD 20.85 30.43 28.935 1.5 Allowed 120A 21.11 29.32 28.954 0.37 Allowed 125A 21.18 29.19 28.964 0,23 Allowed 130A 21.64 28.44 29.013 -0.57 Allowed 135A AH 21.9 27.75 29.103 -1.35 Allowed 140A 22.34 28.04 29.292 -1.25 Allowed 145A 22.64 28.69 29.468 -0.78 Allowed 150AAIAJAK 23.05 28.75 29.68 -0.93 Allowed 105A 19 30,8 28,822 1,98 Allowed 60A X 15.96 23.65 25.142 -1.49 Allowed 79A 17.37 30.17 28.794 1.38 Allowed 136A 21.95 27.75 29,142 -1,39 Allowed 137A 22.14 27,74 29.188 -1.45 Allowed 138A 22.14 27.87 29.235 -1.37 Allowed 32+23Ex 20.99 25.6 25.449 0.15 None 32+17Ex 20.15 26,1 25,442 0,66 Allowed 32+10Ex 20.11 25,5 25.41 0.09 Allowed 10 11.3 21.23 15.73 5.5 None 5 11.02 20.93 15.238 5,69 None 1 A B1 B2 10,2 20,35 14.574 5.78 None Outfall 11.27 17 12.84 4,16 None 36+10Ex N 22.45 27.34 26.213 1.13 None 26+48Ex 20.47 24.58 24,645 -0,06 Allowed 35+21 20.905 26.58 25.778 0.8 None C1354+67 13 24 23.147 0.85 None VAULT2 6+4 12.14 24.65 23,298 1,35 Allowed CB51 26+48 14.5 24.57 24.641 -0.07 Allowed EXCB 31+05 19.3 25.36 25.21 0.15 Allowed CB54 29+23 17,53 24.86 24,872 -0.01 Allowed CB52 28+16 16.17 24.68 24.782 -0.1 Allowed EXCB 31+02 20.9 25.79 25.217 0.57 Allowed CB42 21 +Q4 18.25 25.2 24.076 1,12 Allowed CB45 23+63 18.27 24.24 24.17 0.07 Allowed CB46 24+14 18.39 24 24.189 -0.19 Allowed Tmp Out VI 14,7 25,6 18 1 7.6 None Existing Conditions - 10 year Storm - Nodes Table Name Invert Elevation (ft) Ground Elevation (Spill Crest) (ft) Max Water Elevation (ft) Freeboard (ft) Ponding Type Mdpoint 22,02 24.5 28.305 -3.81 Sealed SH50 AN 16.81 28,31 24.511 3.8 None SH75 AL 23,2 31.9 31.9 0 None SH70_AG 22.8 31.2 31.2 0 None SH65 21.99 30.99 30.6 0.39 None SH60_V2 21.67 29.63 29.63 0 None CB7 17.38 27.7 24.502 3.2 None C136 16,9 27.4 24.482 2.92 None C135 16.35 27 24.452 2.55 None C1341- 15.97 25.8 24,416 1.38 None CB3 15.54 25.2 24.382 0,82 Allowed CB2_KM 15,03 24.5 24.31 0.19 Allowed 45.1 13,4 23.17 22.635 0.53 None Node94 6.86 17.79 8.647 9.14 None Node93 5.9 18.25 8,891 9.36 None Node92 9.77 20.92 11.27 9.65 None Existing Conditions - 10 year Storm - Links Table Name Upstream Node Name Downstream Node Name Diameter (or Height) (ft) Length (ft) Max Flow (cfs) Upstream Invert Elevation (ft) Downstream Invert Elevation (ft) Conduit Slope 15-10 15 C D 10 5 318 103.287 12 11.3 0.22 20-15 20 15 C D 5 440 103.458 13.1 12 0.25 25-20 25 20 5 342 -104.525 12.8 13.1 -0.088 30-25 30 25 5 126 104.784 12.8 12.8 0 35-30 35 30 5 470 104.827 12.8 12.8 0 40-35 40-E 35 5 630 104.824 13.1 12.8 0.032 Link94 VAULTI 1+6 45.1 5 46 89.903 13.8 13.4 0.87 4.21 E+52 4+21 Ex -F VAU LT1 1 +6 4.5 1 262 -39.757 13.7 13.8 -0.038 477E421 E D8 -14 -G 4+21 Ex -F 3 56 -16.608 13.78 13.7 -0.214 978880 CBL -79+78 VAULT2 6+4 5 314 -57.537 1327 12.14 -0.131 1268978 C132111+35 C13179+78 5 157 -57.519 13.14 13.27 -0.08 14351268 CB31 1435H CB21 11+35 5 300 57.504 13.99 13.14 0.283 15711435 CB35 15711 CB31 1435H 5 136 -54.168 13.57 13.99 -0.309 56A-55 56A 4+21 Ex -F 4 230 47.636 14.5 13.7 0.304 57A -56A 57A 56A 4 131 47.541 15 14.5 0.382 58A -57A 58A 57A 4 1 465 47.453 15.6 15 0,108 598-58A 59131.1 58A 3 332 -47.439 15.33 15.6 -0.081 17971571 CB40 17+97 CB35 15711 5 226 47.674 13.98 13.57 0.181 20921797 CB41 20+92 C134017+97 5 295 46.804 14.51 13.98 0.18 25572092 VT3 25+57 CB41 20+92 5 465 -46.787 13.05 14.51 -0.013 2648-2557 CB50 J VT3 25+57 3 19 32.514 14.5 13.05 0.263 3660-3521 36+60 35+21 3 139 21.921 21.239 20.905 0.24 235-3722 235 -0 -AO 37+22P Q R 3 100 15.543 22 21.388 0.612 37223660 37+22P C R 36+60 3 62 21.983 21.388 21.239 0.24 17971620 E8 -13A-17+ E8-1116+2 2 177 4.966 16.67 17.62 -0.537 17971797 EB -13A-17+ CB40 17+97 2 10 -1.806 16.67 13.98 -26.3 18831797 E8-136 18+ ES -13A-17+ 2 86 -5.873 17.53 16.67 0.942 19961883 F8-2219+9 EB -1313 18+ 2 113 5.588 18.2 17.53 0.549 22851996 CB -EX -22+8 C134221+04 2 181 5.497 18.34 18.25 0.1 LAW CB -EX 22+8 CB45 23+63 2 78 -5.442 18.34 18.27 0.09 16201571 E8-11 16+2 CB5215+71 2 49 -5.231 17.62 17,35 0.551 15711571 C65215+71 C83515711 2 14 5.371 17.35 13.57 -0.714 45-40 45 40-E 5 57 89.94 13.1 13.1 0 59A -59B 59A W AM 59B -U 3 187 42.82 15.65 15.33 0.171 60B -60A 60B 60A -X 3 100 25.871 16 15.96 0.04 65A -60B 65A 60B 3 199 25.883 16.25 16 0.025 67A -65A 67A 65A 3 353 28.216 16.49 16.25 0.068 70A -67A 70A 67A 3 252 31.818 16.75 16.49 0.083 Existing Conditions - 10 year Storm - Links Table Name Upstream Node Name Downstream Node Name Diameter (or Height) (ft) Length (ft) Max Flow (cfs) Upstream Invert Elevation (ft) Downstream Invert Elevation (ft) Conduit Slope 73A -70A 73A 70A 3 125 31.831 16.77 16.75 0,096 75A -73A 75A Z AA Y 73A 2 210 31.847 17.14 16.77 0.176 78A -75A 78A 75A Z AA Y 2 172 -18.18 17.26 17.14 -0.012 8OA-79A 80A ABACAP 79A 2 38 -17.399 17,09 17,37 -0.737 95A -80A 95A AE 80A ABACAP 2 241 17.047 18.25 17.09 0.427 100A -95A 100A 95A AE 2 46 16.976 18.64 18.25 0,848 110A -105A 110A 105A 2 309 -16.961 18.79 19 -0.068 115A -110A 115A -AF -AD 110A 2 62 16.954 20.85 18.79 3 120A -115A 120A 115A -AF -AD 2 80 16.804 21.11 20.85 0.138 125A -120A 125A 120A 2 27 16.797 21.18 21.11 0.259 130A -125A 130A 125A 2 110 16,791 21.64 21.18 0.286 135A -130A 135A AH 130A 2 178 16.784 21,9 21.64 0.146 140A -138A 140A 138A 2 86 9.49 22.34 22.14 0.233 145A -140A 145A 140A 2 145 11.015 22.64 22.34 0,207 150A -145A 150AAIAJAK 145A 2 123 12,734 23.05 22.64 0.333 105A -100A 105A 100A 2 220 16.97 19 18.64 0.164 60A -59A 60A -X 59A W AM 3 272 32.891 15.96 15.65 0,04 79A -78A 79A 78A 2 154 17.8 17.37 17.26 0.136 136A135A 136A 135A -AH 2 77 16.41 21.95 21.9 0.065 137A136A 137A 136A 2 77 15.989 22.14 21.95 0.247 138A137A 138A 137A 2 75 10.142 22,14 22,14 0 32233217 32+23Ex 32+17Ex 3 11 21.804 20.19 20.15 0.364 32173210 32+17Ex 32+10Ex 3 12 26.707 20.15 20.11 0.364 32103102 32+10Ex EXCB 31+05 3 105 26,79 20,11 19.3 0.395 5 -Oct 10 5 5 91 103.244 11.3 11.02 0.308 1 -May 5 1 _A_B 1 _62 5 215 103.222 11.02 10.2 0.242 1 -Outfall 1 A B1 62 Outfall 5,5 34 -114.142 10,2 11.27 -3.147 LAW Outfall Node92 5.73 30 114.114 11.27 9.77 5 36103217 36+10Ex N 32+17Ex 1.75 393 4,642 22.45 20.15 0.585 26482648 26+48Ex C135126+48 2 10 5.503 20.47 14.5 0.7 35213223 35+21 32+23Ex 3 298 21.87 20,905 20.19 0.24 421114 CB5 4+67 VAULTI 1+6 5 304.5 -51.229 13 13.8 -0.263 644E477E VAULT2 6+4 D8 -14 -G 3 167 -16.222 12.14 13.78 0.042 644477 VAULT2 6+4 C854+67 5 197.5 51.212 12.14 13 0,041 Lk139 CB51 26+48 CB50 J 3 72 25.13 14.5 14.5 0 Link140 EXCB 31+05 CB54 29+23 3 182 22.02 19.3 17.53 0.973 Link144 EXCB 31+05 EXCB 31+02 1.75 10 -4,87 19,3 20,9 -13.2 Link141 ICB54 29+23 ICB52 28+16 3 1 107 1 20.492 17.53 16.17 1.271 Existing Conditions - 10 year Storm - Links Table Name Upstream Node Name Downstream Node Name Diameter (or Height) (ft) Length (ft) Max Flow (cfs) Upstream Invert Elevation (ft) Downstream Invert Elevation (ft) Conduit Slope Link142 ICB52 28+16 C135126+48 3 168 20.191 16.17 14.5 0.994 Link157 EXCB 31+02 26+48Ex 1.75 457 4.937 20.9 20.47 0 CB42F822 CB42 21+04 F8-2219+9 2 108 5.575 18.25 18.2 0.1 Link148 CB45 23+63 CB46 24+14 2 51 5.42 18.27 18.39 -0.235 Link149 CB46 24+14 VT3 25+57 2 143 6.72 18.39 13.05 -0.217 Pump Tmp Out_V1 Mdpoint 0.05 10 6.9 14.7 22.02 0 Pump Tmp Out -V1 Mdpoint 14.7 22.02 L109 Mdpoint 59B_U 2 830 9.878 22.02 15.33 0.595 Link187 SH50 AN CB7 4 116 10.234 16.81 17.38 0.293 Link172 SH75 AL SH70 AG 1 71 3.441 23.2 22,8 0.563 Link173 SH70 AG SH65 1 413 1.789 22.8 21.99 0.196 Link174 SH65 SH60 V2 1 579 1.834 21.99 21.67 0.055 Link175 SH60 V2 SH50 AN 1 455 4.791 21.67 16.81 0.321 Link188 C137 CB6 4 165 11.846 17.38 16.9 0.29 Link189 CB6 C135 4 191 12.014 16.9 16.35 0.288 Link190 CB5 CB4 L 4 191 11.951 16.35 15.97 0.199 Link191 CB4 L CB3 4 87 22.246 15.97 15.54 0.49 Link192 CB3 CB2 KM 4 176 21.798 15.54 15.03 0.29 Link193 CB2 KM VT3 25+57 4 200 23.249 15.03 13.05 0.29 5045 45.1 45 5 650 89.926 13.4 13.1 0.046 Link99 Node93 INode94 1 10.93 1 38 1 -114.015 5.9 6.86 -2.526 Link98 Node92 Node93 1 11.15 1 38 1 114.087 9.77 5.9 10.184 Existing Conditions - 25 year Storm - Nodes Table Name Invert Elevation (ft) Ground Elevation (Spill Crest) (ft) Max Water Elevation (ft) Freeboard (ft) Ponding Type 15 C D 12 20.58 18.042 2.54 lNone 20 13.1 21.56 18.912 2.65 None 25 12.8 21.5 19.666 1.83 None 30 12.8 22.29 20.107 2.18 None 35 12.8 22.67 21.095 1.57 None 40-E 13.1 22.68 22.336 0.34 None VAULT1 1+6 13.8 23.11 23.44 -0.33 Allowed 4+21 Ex -F 13.7 24.01 23.798 0.21 None D8 -14 -G 13.78 23.95 23.86 0.09 None 0131 79+78 13.27 25.6 24.12 1.48 None CB21 11+35 13.14 25.9 24.194 1.71 None CB31 1435H 13.99 25.4 24.337 1.06 None CB3515711 13.57 25.31 24.388 0.92 None 56A 14,5 25.9 23.827 2.07 Allowed 57A 15 25.9 23.864 2.04 Allowed 58A 15.6 27.35 24.039 3.31 Allowed 5913U 15.33 21.43 24.577 -3.15 Allowed CB40 17+97 13.98 25.17 24.451 0,72 None CB41 20+92 14.51 25.64 24.537 1.1 Allowed VT3 25+57 13.05 24.36 24.707 -0.35 Allowed CB50 J 14.5 24.43 24,928 -0.5 Allowed 36+60 21,239 27.29 26.569 0.72 None 235 -0 -AO 22 29,82 26.825 3 None 37+22P Q R 21.388 28.48 26.689 1.79 None EB -13A-17+ 16.67 24.79 24.451 0.34 None E8-131318+ 17.53 26,13 24.465 1.67 None F8-22119+9 18.2 25.48 24.486 0.99 None CB -EX -22+8 18.34 24.59 24.562 0.03 Allowed E8-11 16+2 17.62 24,92 24,405 0,52 None CB52 15+71 17.35 24.79 24,392 0.4 None 45 13.1 22.84 22.511 0.33 None 59A W AM 15,65 22.75 24.708 -1.96 Allowed 60B 16 24.2 24.949 -0,75 Allowed 65A 16.25 24.4 25.079 -0.68 Allowed 67A 16,49 25.54 25.376 0.16 Allowed 70A 16.75 27,35 25.614 1.74 Allowed 73A 16.77 30.37 25.732 4.64 Allowed 75A Z AA Y 17.14 31.14 26.783 4.36 Allowed 78A 17.26 30.07 26.834 3,24 jAllowed Existing Conditions - 25 year Storm - Nodes Table Name Invert Elevation (ft) Ground Elevation (Spill Crest) (ft) Max Water Elevation (ft) Freeboard (ft) Ponding Type 80A_ABACAP 17.09 30.22 26.892 3,33 lAllowed 95A -AE 18.25 30.25 26.943 3.31 Allowed 100A 18.64 30.09 27.015 3,07 Allowed 110A 18.79 30.34 27.977 2.36 Allowed 115A -AF -AD 20.85 30.43 28.135 2.3 Allowed 120A 21.11 29.32 28.126 1.19 Allowed 125A 21.18 29.19 28.134 1,06 Allowed 130A 21,64 28.44 28.168 0,27 Allowed 135A AH 21.9 27.75 28.388 -0.64 Allowed 140A 22,34 28.04 28.878 -0.84 Allowed 145A 22.64 28.69 29.284 -0.59 Allowed 150AAIAJAK 23.05 28.75 29.788 -1.04 Allowed 105A 19 30,8 27,37 3,43 Allowed 60A -X 15.96 23.65 24.889 -1.24 Allowed 79A 17.37 30.17 26.881 3.29 Allowed 136A 21.95 27.75 28.493 -0.74 Allowed 137A 22.14 27.74 28.606 -0.87 Allowed 138A 22.14 27.87 28.719 -0.85 Allowed 32+23Ex 20.19 25.6 25.6 0 None 32+17Ex 20,15 26,1 25.586 1 0,51 Allowed 32+10Ex 20.11 25.5 25.564 -0.06 Allowed 10 11.3 21.23 16.85 4.38 None 5 11,02 20.93 16.201 4,73 None 1_A_131_132 10.2 20.35 15.188 5.16 None Outfall 11.27 17 13.062 3.94 None 36+10Ex N 22,45 27.34 26.358 0,98 None 26+48Ex 20.47 24.58 25.011 -0.43 Allowed 35+21 20.905 26.58 26.26 0.32 None CB5 4+67 13 24 23.708 0.29 None VAULT2 6+4 12.14 24.65 23.862 0,79 Allowed CB51 26+48 14.5 24.57 25.008 -0.44 Allowed EXCB 31+05 19.3 25.36 25.387 -0.03 Allowed CB54 29+23 17.53 24.86 25.222 -0.36 Allowed CB52 28+16 16.17 24.68 25,139 -0.46 Allowed EXCB 31+02 20.9 25.79 25.379 0.41 Allowed CB42 21+04 18.25 25,2 24.51 0,69 Allowed CB45 23+63 18.27 24.24 24,59 -0.35 Allowed CB46 24+14 18,39 24 24.607 -0.61 Allowed Tmp Out V1 14.7 25.6 18,742 6.86 None Existing Conditions - 25 year Storm - Nodes Table Name Invert Elevation (ft) Ground Elevation (Spill Crest) (ft) Max Water Elevation (ft) Freeboard (ft) Ponding Type Mdpoint 22.02 24,5 28.965 -4.46 Sealed SH50 AN 16,81 28.31 24.861 3.45 None SH75 AL 23.2 31,9 31.9 0 None SH70 AG 22.8 31.2 31.2 0 None SH65 21.99 30.99 30.572 0.42 None SH60 V2 21.67 29.63 29,63 0 None CB7 17,38 27.7 24.856 2.84 None C136 16.9 27,4 24.848 2.55 None CB5 16.35 27 24,84 2.16 None CB4 L 15.97 25.8 24.833 0.97 None C133 15.54 25.2 24.808 0,39 Allowed CB2 KM 15,03 24.5 24.764 -0.26 Allowed 45.1 13.4 23.17 23.17 0 None Node94 6.86 17.79 8.806 8.98 None Node93 5,9 18.25 9.079 9.17 None Node92 9.77 20,92 j 11.419 9.5 None Existing Conditions - 25 year Storm - Links Table Name Upstream Node Name Downstream Node Name Diameter (or Height) (ft) Length (ft) Max Flow (cfs) Upstream Invert Elevation (ft) Downstream Invert Elevation (ft) Conduit Slope 15-10 15 C D 10 5 318 128,167 12 11.3 0.22 20-15 20 15 C D 5 440 99.64 13.1 12 0.25 25-20 25 20 5 342 -100.543 12.8 13.1 -0.088 30-25 30 25 5 126 102.033 12.8 12.8 0 35-30 35 30 5 470 102.281 12.8 12.8 0 40-35 40-E 35 5 630 102,568 13.1 12.8 0.032 Link94 VAULTI 1+6 45.1 5 46 91.657 13.8 1 13.4 0.87 4.21 E+52 4+21 Ex -F VAULTI 1+6 4.5 262 -40.095 13.7 13.8 -0,038 477E421 E D8 -14 -G 4+21 Ex -F 3 56 -16.387 13.78 13.7 978880 CB1 79+78 VAULT2 6+4 5 314 -58.543 13.27 12.14 R283 1268978 CB2111+35 CB1 79+78 5 157 -58,53 13,14 13,27 14351268 CB311435H C132111+35 5 300 58.516 13.99 13.14 15711435 CB35 15711 CB31 1435H 5 136 -56.666 13.57 13.99 -0.309 56A-55 56A 4+21 Ex -F 4 230 49.788 14.5 13.7 0,304 57A -56A 57A 56A 4 131 49.701 15 14.5 0.382 58A -57A 58A 57A 4 465 49.628 15.6 15 0.108 596-58A 59B -U 58A 3 332 -49.622 15.33 15.6 -0,081 17971571 CB40 17+97 CB35 15711 5 226 50.896 13.98 13,57 0.181 20921797 CB41 20+92 CB40 17+97 5 295 49.939 14.51 13,98 0.18 25572092 VT3 25+57 C134120+92 5 465 -49.928 13.05 14.51 -0.013 2648-2557 CB50 J VT3 25+57 3 19 40.798 14.5 13.05 0.263 3660-3521 36+60 35+21 3 139 28.651 21.239 20.905 0.24 235-3722 235 -0 -AO 37+22P Q R 3 100 22.249 22 21.388 0.612 37223660 37+22P Q R 36+60 3 62 28.679 21.388 21.239 0.24 17971620 EB -13A-17+ E8-1116+2 2 177 -4,335 16.67 17,62 -0.537 17971797 ES -13A-17+ CB40 17+97 2 10 4.387 16.67 13,98 -26,3 18831797 EB -13B-18+ E8 -13A-17+ 2 86 5.627 17.53 16,67 0.942 19961883 F8-2219+9 E8-13618+ 2 113 5.617 18.2 17.53 0.549 22851996 CB -EX -22+8 C134221+04 2 181 5.595 18.34 18.25 0,1 Link147 CB -EX -22+8 CB45 23+63 2 78 -5.585 18.34 18.27 0.09 16201571 E8-1116+2 C65215+71 2 49 4.364 17.62 1 17,35 0.551 15711571 CB52 15+71 CB35 15711 2 14 -4.497 17.35 13.57 -0,714 45-40 45 40-E 5 57 91.695 13.1 13.1 0 59A -59B 59A W AM 59B -U 3 187 49.944 15.65 15.33 0.171 60B -60A 60B 60A -X 3 100 42.141 16 15,96 0.04 65A-6013 65A 60B 3 199 43.158 16.25 1 16 0.025 67A -65A 67A 65A 3 353 1 46.23 16.49 j 16.25 0.068 70A -67A 70A 67A 3 252 1 46.242 16.75 1 16.49 0.083 Existing Conditions - 25 year Storm - Links Table Name Upstream Node Name Downstream Node Name Diameter (or Height) (ft) Length (ft) Max Flow (cfs) Upstream Invert Elevation (ft) Downstream Invert Elevation (ft) Conduit Slope 73A -70A 73A 70A 3 125 46.255 16.77 16.75 0.096 75A -73A 75A Z AA Y 73A 2 210 46.27 17.14 16.77 0,176 78A -75A 78A 75A Z AA Y 2 172 -24.83 17.26 17.14 -0.012 80A -79A 80A ABACAP 79A 2 38 -24.944 17.09 17,37 -0.737 95A -80A 95A AE 80A ABACAP 2 241 17.074 18.25 17.09 0.427 100A -95A 100A 95A AE 2 46 14,599 18.64 18.25 0.848 11OA-105A 110A 105A 2 309 -14.519 18.79 19 -0,068 115A -110A 115A -AF -AD 110A 2 62 14.492 20.85 18.79 3 120A -115A 120A 115A AF AD 2 80 12.082 21.11 20.85 0,138 125A -120A 125A 120A 2 27 12.059 21.18 21.11 0.259 130A -125A 130A 125A 2 110 12,055 21.64 21.18 0.286 135A -130A 135A AH 130A 2 178 12.05 21.9 21,64 0,146 140A -138A 140A 138A 2 86 10.433 22.34 22.14 0.233 145A -140A 145A 140A 2 145 12,581 22,64 22,34 0.207 150A -145A 150AAIAJAK 145A 2 123 15.948 23.05 22.64 0.333 105A -100A 105A 100A 2 220 14.588 19 18.64 0.164 60A -59A 60A -X 59A W AM 3 272 47,894 15.96 15.65 0.04 79A -78A 79A 78A 2 154 24.875 17.37 17.26 0,136 1136A1 35A 136A 135A -AH 2 77 12.185 21.95 21.9 0.065 137A1 36A 137A 136A 2 77 11.613 22,14 21,95 0.247 138A1 37A 138A 137A 2 75 9.489 22.14 22.14 0 32233217 32+23Ex 32+17Ex 3 11 27.003 20.19 20.15 0.364 32173210 32+17Ex 32+10Ex 3 12 33.128 20,15 20,11 0.364 32103102 32+10Ex EXCB 31+05 3 105 31.813 20.11 19.3 0.395 5 -Oct 10 5 5 91 128.043 11.3 11.02 0.308 1 -May 5 1_A_131_132 5 215 128,158 11,02 10.2 0.242 1 -Outfall 1 A B1 62 Outfall 5.5 34 -143.448 10.2 11.27 -3.147 Link97 Outfall Node92 5,73 30 143,47 11.27 9.77 5 36103217 36+10Ex N 32+17Ex 1.75 393 6.468 22.45 20,15 0.585 26482648 26+48Ex CB51 26+48 2 10 11.178 20,47 14.5 0,7 35213223 35+21 32+23Ex 3 298 28.623 20.905 20.19 0.24 421114 CB5 4+67 VAULT1 1+6 5 304,5 -51.844 13 13.8 -0.263 644E477E VAULT2 6+4 D8 -14 -G 3 167 -14.693 12,14 13,78 0.042 644477 VAULT2 6+4 C135 4+67 5 197.5 51.83 12.14 13 0,041 Lk139 CB51 26+48 CB50 J 3 72 38.629 14.5 14.5 0 Link140 EXCB 31+05 CB54 29+23 3 182 26.305 19,3 17,53 0.973 Link144 EXCB 31+05 EXCB 31+02 1.75 10 -5.502 19.3 20.9 -13.2 Link141 CB54 29+23 ICB52 28+16 1 3 1 107 22,957 17.53 1617 1.271 Existing Conditions - 25 year Storm - Links Table Name Upstream Node Name Downstream Node Name Diameter (or Height) (ft) Length (ft) Max Flow (cfs) Upstream Invert Elevation (ft) Downstream Invert Elevation (ft) Conduit Slope Link142 CB52 28+16 CB51 26+48 3 168 30.707 16.17 14,5 0,994 Link157 EXCB 31+02 26+48Ex 1.75 457 5,496 20.9 20.47 0 CB42F822 CB42 21+04 178-22 19+9 2 108 5.606 18.25 18.2 0.1 Link148 CB45 23+63 CB46 24+14 2 51 1 5.24 18.27 18.39 -0,235 Link149 CB46 24+14 VT3 25+57 2 143 9.288 18.39 13.05 -0.217 Pump Tmp Out V1 Mdpoint 0,05 10 13.5 14.7 22.02 0 Pump Tmp Out V1 Mdpoint 14.7 22.02 L109 Mdpoint 59B_U 2 830 13,538 22.02 15.33 0.595 Link187 SH50 AN CB7 4 116 11.668 16.81 17.38 0.293 Link172 SH75 AL SH70 AG 1 71 3.441 23.2 22.8 0.563 Link173 SH70 AG SH65 1 413 1,38 22.8 21.99 0.196 Link174 SH65 SH60 V2 1 579 1.378 21.99 21.67 0.055 Link175 SH60 V2 SH50 AN 1 455 4.788 21.67 16.81 0.321 Link188 CB7 CB6 4 165 11.617 17.38 16.9 0.29 Link189 C136 CB5 4 191 11.573 16.9 16.35 0.288 Link190 CB5 CB4 L 4 191 1 11.533 16.35 15.97 0.199 Link191 CB4 L CB3 4 87 28.952 15,97 15.54 0.49 Link192 CB3 CB2 KM 4 176 28.929 15.54 15.03 0.29 Link193 CB2 KM VT3 25+57 4 200 26.983 15.03 13,05 0.29 5045 45.1 45 5 650 91.677 13.4 13.1 0.046 Link99 Node93 Node94 10.93 38 -143.491 5.9 6.86 -2.526 098 Node92 Node93 1 11.15 1 38 143.486 1 9,77 1 5.9 1 10.184 Existing Conditions - 100 year Storm - Nodes Table Name Invert Elevation (ft) Ground Elevation (Spill Crest) (ft) Max Water Elevation (ft) Freeboard (ft) Ponding Type 15 C D 12 20.58 18.786 1.79 None 20 13.1 21.56 19.606 1.95 None 25 12.8 21.5 20.325 1.18 None 30 12.8 22.29 20.822 1.47 None 35 12.8 22.67 21.67 1 None 40-E 13.1 22.68 22.68 0 None VAULT1 1+6 13.8 23.11 23,709 -0.6 Allowed 4+21 Ex -F 13.7 24.01 24.01 0 None D8 -14 -G 13.78 23.95 23.95 0 None CB1 79+78 13.27 25.6 24.428 11.17 None CB21 11+35 13.14 25.9 24.529 1.37 None CB31 1435H 13.99 25.4 24.723 0.68 None CB35 15711 13.57 25.31 24.78 0.53 None 56A 14.5 25.9 24.258 1.64 Allowed 57A 15 25.9 24.672 1.23 Allowed 58A 15.6 27,35 25.715 1.64 Allowed 59B -U 15.33 21.43 26.043 -4.61 Allowed CB40 17+97 13.98 25.17 24.847 0.32 None C841 20+92 14.51 25.64 25.026 0.61 Allowed VT3 25+57 13.05 24,36 25.38 -1.02 Allowed CB50 J 14,5 24.43 25.491 -1.06 Allowed 36+60 21.239 27.29 27.138 0.15 None 235 -0 -AO 22 29.82 27.592 2.23 None 37+22P Q R 21.388 28.48 27.353 1.13 None E8 -13A-17+ 16.67 24.79 24.79 0 None E8 -13B 18+ 17.53 26.13 24.826 1.3 None F8-2219+9 18.2 25.48 24.874 0.61 None CB -EX -22+8 18.34 24.59 24.999 -0.41 Allowed E8-11 16+2 17.62 24.92 24.782 0.14 None CB52 15+71 17.35 24.79 24.78 0.01 None 45 13.1 22.84 22.833 0.01 None 59A W AM 15.65 22.75 26.149 -3.4 Allowed 60B 16 24.2 26.342 -2.14 Allowed 65A 16.25 24.4 26.448 -2.05 Allowed 67A 16.49 25.54 26.655 -1.12 Allowed 70A 16.75 27.35 26.964 0.39 Allowed 73A 16.77 30.37 27.185 3.19 Allowed 75A Z AA Y 17.14 31.14 29.174 1.97 Allowed 78A 17.26 30.07 29.208 0.86 Allowed Existing Conditions - 100 year Storm - Nodes Table Name Invert Elevation (ft) Ground Elevation (Spill Crest) (ft) Max Water Elevation (ft) Freelboard (ft) Ponding Type 80A_ABACAP 17.09 30.22 29248 0.97 Allowed 95A AE 118.79 18,25 30.25 29.248 1 Allowed 100A 18.64 30.09 29.245 0.85 Allowed 110A 30,34 29,205 1,14 Allowed 115A_AF_AD 20.85 30.43 29.304 1.13 Allowed 120A 21.11 29.32 29,345 -0.03 Allowed 125A 21,18 29.19 29.361 -0.17 Allowed 130A 21.64 28.44 29.435 -1 Allowed 135A AH 122.64 21,9 27.75 29,593 -1.84 Allowed 140A 22.34 28.04 30.023 -1.98 Allowed 145A 28.69 30,318 -1,63 Allowed 150AAIAJAK 23,05 28.75 30.675 -1.92 Allowed 105A 19 30.8 29.229 1.57 Allowed 60A -X 15.96 23.65 26,291 -2,64 Allowed 79A 17.37 30.17 29.24 0.93 Allowed 136A 21.95 27.75 29.677 -1.93 Allowed 137A 22,14 27.74 29,784 -2,04 Allowed 138A 22.14 27.87 29.892 -2.02 Allowed 32+23Ex 20,19 25.6 25,6 0 None 32+17Ex 20.15 26.1 25.597 0.5 Allowed 32+10Ex 20,11 25.5 25.591 -0.09 Allowed 10 11.3 21.23 17,187 4,04 None 5 11,02 20.93 16.138 4.79 None 1_A_131_132 10.2 20.35 14,726 5.62 None Outfall 11.27 17 13,75 3,25 None 36+10Ex N 22.45 27,34 26.992 0.35 None 26+48Ex 20.47 24.58 25.525 -0.94 Allowed 35+21 20.905 26.58 26.58 0 None C135 4+67 13 24,3 23.956 0,34 None VAULT2 6+4 12.14 24.65 24.074 0.58 Allowed CB51 26+48 14.5 24.57 25.524 -0.95 Allowed EXCB 31+05 19.3 25,36 25.54 -0,18 Allowed CB54 29+23 17.53 24.86 25.534 -0.67 Allowed CB52 28+16 16.17 24.68 25.531 -0.85 Allowed EXCB 31+02 20.9 25,79 25.539 0.25 Allowed CB42 21+04 18.25 25.2 24.92 0.28 Allowed CB45 23+63 1827 24.24 25.035 -0.79 Allowed CB46 24+14 18.39 24 25.062 -1,06 Allowed Tmp Out V1 14.7 125.6 20.808 4.79 None Existing Conditions - 100 year Storm - Nodes Table Name Invert Elevation (ft) Ground Elevation (Spill Crest) (ft) Max Water Elevation (ft) Freeboard (ft) Ponding Type Mdpoint 22,02 24.5 30.471 -5.97 Sealed SH50_AN 16.81 28.31 25,567 2.74 None SH75_AL 23.2 31.9 31.9 0 None SH70_AG 22.8 31.2 31,2 0 None SH65 21.99 30.99 28.905 2.08 None SH60_V2 21.67 29.63 25.594 4.04 None CB7 17.38 27.7 25.552 2.15 None C136 16.9 27.4 25.531 1.87 None CB5 16.35 27 25,509 1.49 None CB4_L 15.97 25.8 25.496 0.3 None CB3 15.54 25.2 25.479 -0.28 Allowed CB2 KM 15.03 24.5 25.438 -0.94 Allowed 45.1 13.4 23.17 23.17 0 None Node94 6,86 17.79 8.935 8.85 None Node93 5.9 18.25 9.224 9.03 None Node92 9.77 120.92 111.532 19.39 INone Existing Conditions - 100 year Storm - Links Table Name Upstream Node Name Downstream Node Name Diameter (or Height) (ft) Length (ft) Max Flow (cfs) Upstream Invert Elevation (ft) Downstream Invert Elevation (ft) Conduit Slope 15-10 15 C D 10 5 318 120.44 12 11.3 0.22 20-15 20 15 C D 5 440 85.94 13.1 12 0.25 25-20 25 20 5 342 -85.89 12.8 13.1 -0.088 30-25 30 25 5 126 85.875 12.8 12.8 0 35-30 35 30 5 470 85.883 12.8 12.8 0 40-35 40-E 35 5 630 85.892 13,1 12.8 0.032 Link94 VAULTI 1+6 45.1 5 46 89.372 13.8 13.4 0.87 4.21E+52 4+21Ex F VAULTI 1+6 4.5 262 -42.333 13.7 13.8 4038 477E421 E D8-14 G 4+21 Ex -F 3 56 13.354 13.78 13.7 -0.214 978880 C131179+78 VAULT2 6+4 5 314 -61.577 13.27 12.14 -0.131 1268978 CB21 11+35 C13179+78 5 157 -61.577 13.14 13.27 -0.08 14351268 CB31 1435H C132111+35 5 300 61.579 13.99 13.14 0.283 15711435 CB35 15711 CB31 1435H 5 136 -55.72 13.57 13.99 -0.309 56A-55 56A 4+21 Ex -F 4 230 53.411 14.5 13.7 0.304 57A -56A 57A 56A 4 131 53.41 15 14.5 0.382 58A -57A 58A 57A 4 465 53.408 15.6 15 0.108 5913-58A 5913Ll 58A 4 332 -53.405 15.33 15.6 -0.081 17971571 CB40 17+97 CB35 15711 5 226 49.155 13.98 13.57 0.181 20921797 CB41 20+92 CB4017+97 5 295 59.915 14.51 13.98 0.18 25572092 VT3 25+57 CB41 20+92 5 465 -59.913 13.05 14.51 -0.013 2648-2557 CB50 J VT3 25+57 3 19 28.659 14.5 13.05 0.263 3660-3521 36+60 35+21 3 139 1 38.96 21.239 20.905 0.24 235-3722 235 -0 -AO 37+22P Q R 3 100 29.93 22 21.388 0.612 37223660 37+22P Q R 36+60 3 62 38.967 21.388 21.239 0.24 17971620 E8 -13A 17+ E8-1116+2 2 177 -4.218 16.67 17.62 -0.537 17971797 E8 -13A-17+ CB40 17+97 2 10 %011 16.67 13.98 -26.3 18831797 E8-136 18+ E8 -13A-17+ 2 86 5.1 1 17.53 16.67 0.942 19961883 F8-2219+9 E8 -13B-18+ 2 113 5.03 18.2 17.53 0.549 22851996 CB -EX -22+8 CB42 21+04 2 181 5.031 18.34 18.25 0.1 Link147 CB -EX -22+8 C134523+63 2 78 -5.056 18.34 18.27 0.09 16201571 E8-1116+2 CB52 15+71 2 49 4.218 17.62 17.35 0.551 15711571 CB52 15+71 CB35 15711 2 14 4219 17.35 13.57 -0.714 45-40 45 40-E 5 57 81.215 13.1 13.1 0 59A -59B 59A W AM 59B -U 3 187 50.509 15.65 15.33 0.171 60B -60A 60B 60A -X 3 100 45.538 16 15.96 0.04 65A -60B 65A 60B 3 199 50.974 16.25 16 0.025 67A -65A 67A 65A 3 353 57.946 16.49 16.25 0.068 70A -67A 70A 67A 3 252 64.187 16.75 16.49 0.083 Existing Conditions - 100 year Storm - Links Table Name Upstream Node Name Downstream Node Name Diameter (or Height) (ft) Length (ft) Max Flow (cfs) Upstream Invert Elevation (ft) Downstream Invert Elevation (ft) Conduit Slope 73A -70A 73A 70A 3 125 64.199 16.77 16.75 0.096 75A -73A 75A Z AA Y 73A 2 210 64.215 17.14 16.77 0.176 78A -75A 78A 75A Z AA Y 2 172 -26.575 17,26 17.14 -0.012 8OA-79A 80A ABACAP 79A 2 38 -26.647 17.09 17.37 -0.737 95A -80A 95A AE 80A ABACAP 2 241 15.295 18.25 17.09 0.427 100A -95A 100A 95A AE 2 46 12.545 18,64 1825 0.848 11OA-105A 110A 105A 2 309 -12.573 18.79 19 -0.068 115A -110A 115A -AF -AD 110A 2 62 12,574 20.85 18.79 3 120A -115A 120A 115A AF AD 2 80 11.567 21.11 20.85 0.138 125A -120A 125A 120A 2 27 11.579 21.18 21.11 0.259 130A -125A 130A 125A 2 110 11.59 21.64 21.18 0.286 135A -130A 135A AH 130A 2 178 11.59 21,9 21.64 0.146 140A -138A 140A 138A 2 86 9.602 22.34 22,14 0.233 145A -140A 145A 140A 2 145 12,832 22.64 22.34 0.207 150A -145A 150AAIAJAK 145A 2 123 17.417 23.05 22.64 0.333 105A -100A 105A 100A 2 220 12.558 19 18.64 0.164 60A -59A 60A X 59A W AM 3 272 46.384 15.96 15.65 0,04 79A -78A 79A 78A 2 154 26.6 17.37 17.26 0.136 136A135A 136A 135A AH 2 77 11.277 21.95 21.9 0.065 137A136A 137A 136A 2 77 9.146 22.14 21.95 0.247 138A1 37A 138A 137A 2 75 8,166 22.14 22.14 0 32233217 32+23Ex 32+17Ex 3 11 30.788 20.19 20.15 0.364 32173210 32+17Ex 32+10Ex 3 12 37.67 20.15 20.11 0.364 32103102 32+10Ex EXCB 31+05 3 105 35.265 20.11 19.3 0,395 5 -Oct 10 5 5 91 120.33 11.3 11.02 0.308 1 -May 5 1_A_13132 5 215 120.154 11,02 10.2 0.242 1 -Outfall 1 A 131 B2 Outfall 5.5 34 -166.911 10.2 11.27 -3.147 Link97 Outfall Node92 5.73 30 167,3 11.27 9.77 5 36103217 36+10Ex N 32+17Ex 1.75 393 8.804 22.45 20.15 0.585 26482648 26+48Ex CB51 26+48 2 10 -5.12 20.47 14,5 0.7 35213223 35+21 32+23Ex 3 298 35.703 20.905 20.19 0.24 421114 CB5 4+67 VAULTI 1+6 5 306 -47.352 13 13.8 -0.261 644E477E VAULT2 6+4 D8 -14 -G 3 167 14.529 12.14 13,78 0.042 644477 VAULT2 6+4 CB5 4+67 5 197,5 47.351 12.14 13 0,041 Lk139 CB51 26+48 CB50 J 3 72 24.351 14.5 14.5 0 Link140 EXCB 31+05 CB54 29+23 3 182 33.306 19.3 17,53 0.973 Link144 EXCB 31+05 EXCB 31+02 1.75 10 -1.923 1 19.3 20.9 -13.2 Link141 CB54 29+23 CB52 28+16 3 107 28.404 17.53 16.17 1.271 Existing Conditions - 100 year Storm - Links Table Name Upstream Node Mame Downstream Node Name Diameter (or Height) (ft) Length (ft) Max Flow (cfs) Upstream Invert Elevation (ft) Downstream Invert Elevation (ft) Conduit Slope Link142 CB52 28+16 C85126+48 3 168 21.89 16.17 14.5 0.994 Link157 EXCB 31+02 26+48Ex 1.75 457 1 1.912 20.9 20.47 0 CB42F822 CB42 21+04 F8-2219+9 2 108 5.018 18.25 18.2 0.1 Link148 CB45 23+63 CB46 24+14 2 51 6.654 18.27 18.39 -0.235 Link149 C84624+14 VT3 25+57 2 143 10.606 18,39 13.05 -0.217 Pump Tmp Out -VII Mdpoint 0.05 10 13.5 14.7 22.02 0 Pump Tmp Out -V1 Mdpoint 14.7 22.02 L109 Mdpoint 598_U 2 830 13.555 22.02 15.33 0.595 Link187 SH50 AN C67 5.5 116 36.242 16.81 17.38 0.293 Link172 SH75 AL SH70 AG 1 71 3.441 23.2 22.8 0.563 Link173 SH70 AG SH65 1 413 3.221 22.8 21.99 0.196 Link174 SH65 SH60 V2 1 579 3.225 21.99 21.67 0.055 Link175 SH60 V2 SH50 AN 1 455 26.431 21,67 16.81 0.321 Link188 C87 CB6 5.5 165 36.249 17.38 16.9 0.29 Link189 C86 CB5 5.5 191 36.254 16.9 16.35 0.288 Link190 CB5 CB4 L 5.5 191 36.256 16.35 15.97 0.199 Link191 C84 -L CB3 5.5 87 58.752 15.97 15.54 0.49 Link192 CB3 CB2 KM 5.5 176 56.27 15.54 15.03 0.29 Link193 C82 -KM VT3 25+57 5.5 200 55.118 15.03 13.05 0.29 5045 45.1 45 5 1 650 1 81.206 13.4 13.1 0.046 Link99 Node93 Node94 10.93 38 -167.363 5.9 6.86 -2.526 Link98 1Node92 Node93 11.15 38 167.311 9.77 5.9 10.184 Alternative 1A - 2 year Storm - Nodes Table Name Invent Elevation (ft) Ground Elevation (Spill Crest) (ft) Max Water Elevation (ft) Freeboard (ft) Ponding Type 15 C D 12 20.58 14.76 5.82 None 20 13.1 21.56 15.254 6.31 None 25 12.8 21,5 15.59 5.91 None 30 12.8 22.29 15,741 6.55 None 35 12.8 22.67 15.983 6.69 None 40-E 13.1 22.68 16.251 6.43 None VAULTI 1+6 13.157 23.11 16.53 6.58 Allowed 4+21 Ex F 13.314 24.01 17.287 6.72 None D8 -14 -G 13.78 23.95 17.282 6.67 None CB1 79+78 13.27 25.6 17.424 8,18 None CB21 11+35 13.14 25.9 17.463 8.44 None CB31 1435H 13.99 25.4 17.517 7.88 None CB3515711 13.57 25.31 17.554 7,76 None 59B -U 14.009 23,43 17.6 5.83 Sealed CB40 17+97 13.98 25.17 17.595 7.57 None CB41 20+92 14.51 25.64 17.665 7.98 Allowed VT3 25+57 13.05 25,36 17.887 7.47 Allowed CB50 J 14.5 24.43 17,91 6.52 Allowed 36+60 21.239 27.29 22.616 4.67 None 235 0 AO 22 29,82 22.985 6.83 None 37+22P Q R 21.388 28.48 22.752 5.73 None E8 -13A 17+ 16.67 24.79 16.67 8,12 None E8 -13B-18+ 17.53 26.13 17.53 8.6 None F8-2219+9 18.2 25.48 18,2 7.28 None CB -EX -22+8 18.34 24.59 18.34 6.25 Allowed E8-11 16+2 17.62 24,92 17.62 7.3 None CB52 15+71 17,35 24.79 17.558 7.23 None 45 13.1 22.84 16.313 6.53 None 59A W AM 15.65 24.75 18.226 6.52 Sealed 60B 16 25.2 18,849 6.35 Sealed 65A 16.25 25.4 19.055 6.34 Sealed 67A 16.49 25.54 19.551 5,99 Allowed 70A 16.75 27,35 19.963 7.39 Allowed 73A 16.77 30.37 20.167 10.2 Allowed 75A Z AA Y 17.14 31.14 20.965 10.17 Allowed 78A 17.26 30.07 21.048 9.02 Allowed 80A ABACAP 17.09 30.22 21.14 9.08 Allowed 95A AE 18.25 30.25 21.192 9.06 Allowed 100A 18.64 30.09 21.212 8.88 Allowed Alternative 1A - 2 year Storm - Nodes Table Name Invert Elevation (ft) Ground Elevation (Spill Crest) (ft) Max Water Elevation (ft) Freeboard (ft) Ponding Type 110A 18.79 30.34 21.939 8.4 Allowed 115A -AF -AD 20.85 30.43 21.764 8.67 Allowed 120A 21.11 29.32 22,02 7,3 Allowed 125A 21.18 29.19 22.072 7.12 Allowed 130A 21.64 28.44 22.413 6,03 Allowed 135A -AH 21.9 27.75 22.872 4.88 Allowed 140A 22.34 28.04 23.469 4.57 Allowed 145A 22.64 28.69 23.73 4.96 None 150AAIAJAK 23.05 28.75 24.002 4.75 None 105A 19 30.8 21,47 9.33 None 60A_X 15.96 24.65 18.744 5.91 Sealed 79A 17.37 30.17 21.122 9.05 Allowed 136A 21.95 27.75 23.056 4.69 Allowed 137A 22.14 27.74 23.193 4.55 Allowed 138A 22.14 27.87 23.351 4.52 Allowed 32+23Ex 20.19 25.6 21.299 4.3 Allowed 32+17Ex 20.15 26.1 21.276 4.82 Allowed 32+10 Ex 20.11 25.5 21,224 4.28 Allowed 10 11.3 21,23 14.229 7 None 5 11.02 20.93 13.917 7.01 None 1_A_61_B2 10.2 20.35 13.54 6.81 None Outfall 10.5 18 12.805 5.19 None 36+10Ex N 22.45 27,34 23.086 4.25 None 26+48Ex 20.47 24.58 20.47 4.11 Allowed 35+21 20.905 26.58 22.068 4.51 None CB5 4+67 13 24 17,024 6.98 None VAULT2 6+4 12.14 24.65 17.245 7.4 Allowed C85126+48 14.5 24.57 17.912 6.66 Allowed EXCB 31+05 19.3 25,36 20.299 5.06 Allowed CB54 29+23 17.53 24.86 18.433 6.43 Allowed CB52 28+16 16.17 24.68 17.884 6.8 Allowed EXCB 31+02 20.9 25,79 20.9 4.89 Allowed CB42 21 +04 18.25 24.2 18.25 5.95 Allowed CB45 23+63 18.27 24.24 18.27 5.97 Allowed CB46 24+14 18,39 24 18.39 5.61 Allowed Tmp Out -VI 14.7 25.6 17.703 7.9 None Mdpoint 22.02 24.5 22.469 2.03 Sealed SH50 AN 17,72 28,31 18.859 9.45 None SH75 AL 1 20.681 1 31.9 21.434 1 10.47 INone Alternative 1A - 2 year Storm - Nodes Table Name Invert Elevation (ft) Ground Elevation (Spill Crest) (ft) Max Water Elevation R Freeboard (ft) Ponding Type SH70 AG 20.283 31.2 21.307 1 9.89 None SH65 19.457 30.99 20.514 10.48 None SH60 V2 19.18 29.63 20.177 9.45 None C67 17.38 27.7 18.522 9.18 None C66 16.9 27.4 18.06 9.34 None C65 16.35 27 17.938 9.06 None CB4 L 15.97 25.8 17.895 7.91 None CB3 15.54 25.2 17.901 7.3 Allowed CB2_KM 15.03 25.5 17.893 7.61 None 45.1 13.4 23.17 16.483 6.69 None Node92 9.77 20.92 11.248 9.67 None Node93 5.9 18.25 8.864 9.39 None Node94 6.86 17.79 8.625 9.17 None Node95 12.974 23.91 16.351 7.56 None Node96 12.794 23.41 16.178 7.23 None Node97 12.614 23.26 16.008 7.25 None Node98 12.425 23.35 15.843 7.51 None Node99 12.245 22.74 15.682 7.06 None Node100 12.065 22.29 15,523 6.77 None Node101 11.928 21.91 15.398 6.51 None Node102 11.737 21.76 15.245 6.52 None Node103 11.528 20.6 14,818 5.78 None Node104 11.58 20.9 13.82 7.08 None Node105 11.18 21.46 13.572 7.89 None Node106 10.67 21.12 13,375 7.74 None Node109 13.81 27.35 17.502 9.85 None Node110 13.531 25.9 17.399 8.5 None Node111 13.452 25.9 17,349 8.55 None Node112 13.967 21.9 17.572 4.33 None Nodel09.1 j 13.81 27.35 13.81 13.54 None Alternative 1A - 2 year Storm - Links Table Name Upstream Node Name Downstream Node Name Diameter (or Height) (ft) Length (ft) Max Flow (cfs) Upstream Invert Elevation (ft) Downstream Inver` Elevation (ft) Conduit Slope 15-10 15 C D Node104 5 189.4 46.132 12 11.58 0,22 20-15 20 Node103 5 393.89 34.87 13.1 11.528 0.25 25-20 25 20 5 342 -34.943 12.8 13.1 -0.088 30-25 30 25 5 126 35.041 12.8 12.8 0 35-30 35 30 5 470 35.273 12,8 12.8 0 40-35 40-E 35 5 630 35.949 13.1 12.8 0.032 Link94 VAULT1 1+6 45.1 5 46 29,741 13.157 13.4 0.87 Link101 VAULTI 1+6 Node95 6 304.29 63.932 13.157 12,974 0,06 4.21 E+52 4+21 Ex -F VAULT1 1+6 4,5 262 -46.901 13.314 13.157 0.06 477E421E D8 -14 -G 4+21Ex F 3 56 5,666 13.78 13.314 -0.214 978880 C13179+78 VAULT2 6+4 5 314 -40.327 13.27 12,14 -0,131 1268978 CB21 11+35 CB1 79+78 5 157 -40.779 13.14 13.27 -0.08 14351268 CB31 1435H CB21 11+35 5 300 41,27 13.99 13,14 0.283 15711435 CB3515711 CB31 1435H 5 136 -38.628 13.57 13.99 -0,309 Link120 59B -U Node 112 4 70 44.515 14.009 13.967 0.06 17971571 CB40 17+97 CB35 15711 5 226 36.692 13,98 13,57 0.181 20921797 CB41 20+92 CB40 17+97 5 295 37.675 14.51 13.98 0.18 25572092 VT3 25+57 CB41 20+92 5 465 -39.487 13.05 14.51 -0,013 2648-2557 CB50 J VT3 25+57 5 19 20.553 14.5 13.05 0.263 3660-3521 36+60 35+21 3 139 13.705 21.239 20.905 0.24 235-3722 235 -0 -AO 37+22P Q R 3 100 11.274 22 21,388 0.612 37223660 37+22P Q R 36+60 3 62 13.55 21.388 21,239 0.24 17971620 E8 -13A-17+ E8-1116+2 2 177 0 16.67 17.62 -0.537 17971797 E8 -13A-17+ CB40 17+97 2 10 0 16.67 13.98 -26.3 18831797 E8-13618+ E8 -13A-17+ 2 86 0 17.53 16,67 0.942 19961883 F8-2219+9 E8 -13B-18+ 2 113 0 18.2 17.53 0.549 22851996 CB -EX -22+8 CB42 21+04 2 181 0 18.34 18.25 0.1 Link147 CB -EX -22+8 CB45 23+63 2 78 0 18,34 18.27 0.09 16201571 E8-11 16+2 CB52 15+71 2 49 0 17.62 17.35 0.551 15711571 CB52 15+71 CB35 15711 2 14 0.052 17.35 13.57 -0.714 45-40 45 40-E 5 29.005 13.1 13.1 0 337.1 59A_W_AM 59B_U 3 33.713 15.65 14.009 0.171 overflow 59A W AM 59131.1 2 0 15.65 14.009 0.706 338.1 60B 60A -X 3 K353 23,099 15 15.96 0.04 overflow3 60B 60A_X 1 0 16 15.96 0,55 335.1 65A 60B 3 23.151 16.25 16 0.025 overflow4 65A 60B 1 0 16.25 16 0.101 67A -65A 67A 65A 3 23.43 16.49 16,25 0,068 Alternative 1A - 2 year Storm - Links Table Name Upstream Node Name Downstream Node Name Diameter (or Height) (ft) Length (ft) Max Flow (cfs) Upstream Invert Elevation (ft) Downstream Invert Elevation (ft) Conduit Slope 70A-676 70A 67A 3 1 252 23.614 16.75 16.49 0.083 73A -70A 73A 70A 3 125 23.789 16,77 16.75 0.096 75A -73A 75A Z AA Y 73A 2 210 23.82 17.14 16.77 0.176 78A -75A 78A 756 Z AA Y 2 172 -14,04 17.26 17.14 -0.012 8OA-79A 806 ABACAP 79A 2 38 -14.079 17,09 17.37 -0.737 95A -80A 95A AE 806 ABACAP 2 241 10.852 18.25 17.09 0.427 100A -95A 100A 95A AE 2 46 8.322 18,64 18.25 0.848 110A -105A 110A 1056 2 309 -8.462 18.79 19 -0.068 115A -110A 115A -AF -AD 110A 2 62 8,674 20.85 18.79 3 120A -115A 120A 115A -AF -AD 2 80 3.999 21,11 20,85 0.138 125A -120A 125A 120A 2 27 3.999 21.18 21.11 0.259 130A -125A 130A 125A 2 110 4.01 21.64 21.18 0.286 135A -130A 1356 AH 130A 2 178 4.011 21.9 21.64 0.146 Link96 1356 AH 59B_U 5 3335 8.881 21.9 14.009 0,197 140A -138A 140A 138A 2 86 5,339 22.34 22.14 0.233 145A -140A 145A 140A 2 145 5.385 22,64 22,34 0.207 15OA-145A 150AAIAJAK 145A 2 123 5.417 23.05 22.64 0.333 Link115 150AAIAJAK 1356 AH 4 583 6,994 23.05 21.9 0.197 105A -100A 105A 100A 2 220 8.334 19 18,64 0.164 336.1 606 X 596 W AM 3 272 26.312 15.96 15.65 0.04 overfiow2 60A -X 596 W AM 1 272 0 15.96 15.65 0.331 79A -78A 79A 78A 2 154 14.056 17,37 17.26 0.136 136A135A 136A 135A -AH 2 77 5.277 21.95 21.9 0.065 137A136A 137A 136A 2 77 5,3 22.14 21.95 0.247 138A137A 138A 137A 2 75 5.328 22.14 22,14 0 32233217 32+23Ex 32+17Ex 5 11 13.662 20.19 20.15 0.364 32173210 32+17Ex 32+10Ex 5 12 16.785 20.15 20.11 0.364 32103102 32+10Ex EXCB 31+05 5 105 16.762 20.11 19.3 0.395 5 -Oct 10 5 5 91 56.133 11.3 11.02 0.308 1 -May 5 1_A_61_132 5 215 56.196 11.02 10.2 0.242 1 -Outfall 1 A B1 B2 Outfall 5.5 34 -64.028 10.2 10.5 -3.147 Link97 Outfall Node92 5.73 30 109.961 10.5 9.77 5 36103217 36+10Ex N 32+17Ex 1.75 393 3.182 22.45 20.15 0.585 26482648 26+48Ex CB51 26+48 2 10 0 20.47 14.5 0.7 35213223 35+21 32+23Ex 5 298 13.66 20.905 20,19 0.24 421114 C135_4+67 VAULTI 1+6 5 304.5 -47.649 13 13.157 -0.263 644E477E VAULT2 6+4 D8 -14 -G 3 167 -11.34 12.14 13.78 0.042 644477 VAULT2 6+4 C135 4+67 5 197.5 48.006 12.14 13 0,041 Alternative 1A - 2 year Storm - Links Table Name Upstream Node Name Downstream Node Name Diameter (or Height) (ft) Length (ft) Max Flow (cfs) Upstream Invert Elevation (ft) Downstream Invert Elevation (ft) Conduit Slope Lk139 C851 26+48 CB50 J 5 72 15.399 14.5 14.5 0 Link140 EXCB 31+05 CB54 29+23 4 182 16.786 19.3 17.53 0.973 Link144 EXCB 31+05 EXCB 31+02 1.75 10 0 19.3 20.9 -13.2 Link141 CB54 29+23 C85228+16 3 107 16.817 17.53 16.17 1.271 Link142 CB52 28+16 CB51 26+48 3 168 16.127 16.17 14.5 0.994 Link157 EXCB 31+02 26+48Ex 1.75 457 0 20.9 20.47 0 CB42F822 CB42 21+04 F8-2219+9 2 108 0 18,25 18.2 0.1 Link148 CB45 23+63 CB46 24+14 2 51 0 18.27 18.39 -0,235 Link149 CB46 24+14 VT3 25+57 2 143 0 18.39 13.05 -0.217 Pump Tmp Out V1 Mdpoint 0.05 10 6.9 14.7 22,02 0 Pump Tmp Out V1 Mdpoint 14.7 22.02 L109 Mdpoint 59B_U 2 830 1,732 22,02 14.009 0.595 Linkl87 SH50 AN CB7 5.5 116 15.871 17.72 17.38 0,293 Link172 SH75 AL SH70 AG 2 71 4.514 20.681 20.283 0.56 Link173 SH70 AG SH65 2 413 4.837 20.283 19.457 0.2 Link174 SH65 SH60 V2 4 579 4.584 19.457 19.18 0,048 Link175 SH60 V2 SH50 AN 5,5 1 455 12.711 19.18 17.72 0.321 Link188 CB7 CB6 5,5 165 15.889 17.38 16.9 0.29 Link189 CB6 CB5 5.5 191 15.844 16.9 16.35 0.29 Link190 CB5 CB4 L 5.5 191 15.099 16.35 15.97 0,2 Link191 CB4 L CB3 5.5 87 22.158 15.97 15.54 0.49 Link192 CB3 CB2 KM 5,5 176 21.436 15.54 15.03 0.29 383.1 CB2 KM VT3 25+57 5.5 200 21.637 15.03 13.05 0.29 overflowl CB2 KM VT3 25+57 1 200 0 15.03 13.05 0 5045 45.1 45 5 650 29.283 13.4 13.1 0.046 Link98 Node92 Node93 11.15 38 109.961 9,77 5.9 10.184 LAB Node93 Node94 10.93 38 -109.96 5.9 6,86 -2.526 Link102 Node95 Node96 6 300.08 63.153 12.974 12.794 0.06 LInkl03 Node96 Node97 6 300.02 62,475 12,794 12.614 0.06 Link104 Node97 Node98 6 299.97 61.873 12.614 12,425 0.06 Link105 Node98 Node99 6 299.84 61.378 12.425 12.245 0.06 Link106 Node99 Node100 6 300.25 61,037 12,245 12,065 0.06 Link107 WOW Node101 6 227.92 60.828 12.065 11,928 0,06 Link108 Node101 Node102 6 303.88 60.736 11.928 11.737 0.063 Link109 Nodel02 Node103 6 348.81 60,767 11.737 11,528 0.06 Link110 Node103 10 6 339.42 56.077 11.528 11.3 0,24 Linkl14 Node103 15 C D 5 46.1 40.005 11.528 12 0.25 Link111 WON Node105 5 165.14 46.121 11.58 11.18 0.242 Alternative 1A - 2 year Storm - Links Table Name Upstream Node Name Downstream Node Name Diameter (or Height) (ft) Length (ft) Max Flow (cfs) Upstream Invert Elevation (ft) Downstream Invert Elevation (ft) Conduit Slope Link112 Nodel05 Node106 5 1 215.6 46.127 11,18 10.67 0.237 Link113 Node106 Outfall 5 68.84 46.132 10.67 10.5 0.247 Link117 Node109 Node110 6 465 43.537 13.81 13.531 0.06 Link118 Node110 Node111 6 131 43.291 13.531 13,452 0.06 Link119 Node111 14+21 Ex F j 6 230 j 43.261 j 13.452 j 13.314 j 0.06 Link116.1 Nodel12 INodelO9 1 6 1 262 1 44.102 1 13.967 1 13.81 1 0.06 Alternative 1A - 10 year Storm - Nodes Table Name Invert Elevation (ft) Ground Elevation (Spill Crest) (ft) Max Water Elevation (ft) Freeboard (ft) Ponding Type 15 -C -D 12 20.58 16.03 4.27 None 20 13.1 21.56 16.499 5.04 None 25 12.8 21.5 17.472 4.05 None 30 12.8 22.29 17.821 4.24 None 35 12.8 22.67 19.054 3.55 None 40_E 13.1 22.68 20.68 2.09 None VAULT1 1+6 13.157 23.11 22.376 1.02 Allowed 4+21 Ex -F 13.314 24.01 22.813 1.06 None D8 -14 -G 13.78 23.95 22.841 1.11 None CB1 79+78 13.27 25.6 23.23 2.37 None CB21 11+35 13.14 25.9 23.338 2.56 None CB31_1435H 13.99 25.4 23.561 1.84 None CB35_15711 13.57 25.31 23.651 1.66 None 59B -U 14.009 23.43 23.643 -2.26 Sealed CB4017+97 13.98 25.17 23.753 1.42 None CB41 20+92 14.51 25.64 23.872 1.77 Allowed VT3 25+57 13.05 25.36 24.112 0.25 Allowed CB50 J 14.5 24.43 24.447 -0.02 Allowed 36+60 21.239 27.29 25.792 1.5 None 235_O_AO 22 29.82 25.9 3.92 None 37+22P Q R 21.388 28.48 25.843 2.64 None E8 -13A-17+ 16.67 24.79 23.755 1.03 None EB -13B-18+ 17.53 26.13 23.812 2.32 None F8-2219+9 18.2 25.48 23.876 1.6 None CB -EX 22+8 18.34 24.59 23.963 0.63 Allowed E8-11 16+2 17.62 24.92 23.685 1.23 None CB52 15+71 17.35 24.79 23.659 1.13 None 45 13.1 22.84 20.794 2.07 None 59A W AM 15.65 24.75 23.858 -1.11 Sealed 60B 16 25.2 24.163 0.04 Sealed 65A 16.25 25.4 24.3 0.1 Sealed 67A 16.49 25.54 24.545 0.99 Allowed 70A 16.75 27.35 24.721 2.63 Allowed 73A 16.77 30.37 24.808 5.56 Allowed 75A_Z_AA_Y 17.14 31.14 25.625 5.51 Allowed 78A 17.26 30.07 25.804 4.27 Allowed 80A_ABACAP 17.09 30.22 26.003 4.22 Allowed 95A AE 18.25 30.25 26.109 4.14 Allowed 100A 18.64 30.09 1 26.232 3.86 jAllowed Alternative 1A - 10 year Storm - Nodes Table Name Invert Elevation (ft) Ground Elevation (Spill Crest) (ft) Max Water Elevation (ft) Freeboard (ft) Ponding Type 110A 18.79 30.34 27.653 2.69 Allowed 115A -AF -AD 20.85 30,43 27.819 2.61 Allowed 120A 21.11 29.32 27.883 1.44 Allowed 125A 21.18 29.19 27.904 1.29 Allowed 130A 21,64 28.44 27.995 0.44 Allowed 135A AH 21.9 27.75 28.203 -0,45 Allowed 140A 22.34 28.04 28.645 -0.6 Allowed 145A 22,64 28.69 28.898 -0.21 None 150AAIAJAK 23.05 28,75 29.247 -0.5 None 105A 19 30.8 26,823 3.98 None 60A -X 15,96 24.65 24.094 -0.44 Sealed 79A 17.37 30,17 25.964 4.21 Allowed 136A 21,95 27.75 28,288 -0.54 Allowed 137A 22.14 27.74 28.396 -0.66 Allowed 138A 22.14 27,87 28.511 -0.64 Allowed 32+23Ex 20.19 25.6 25,323 0.28 Allowed 32+17Ex 20.15 26.1 25.314 0,79 Allowed 32+10Ex 2011 25.5 25.293 0.21 Allowed 10 11.3 21.23 14.705 6.53 None 5 11.02 20.93 14.251 6,69 None 1 A B1 B2 10.2 20.35 12.811 7.54 None Outfall 10,5 18 12.679 4.32 None 36+10Ex N 22.45 27.34 25.87 1.47 None 26+48Ex 20.47 24.58 24.557 0.02 Allowed 35+21 20,905 26.58 25.653 0.93 Done CB5 4+67 13 24 22.679 1.32 None VAULT2 6+4 12.14 24.65 22,855 1.8 Allowed CB51 26+48 14.5 24.57 24.553 0.02 Allowed EXCB 31+05 19.3 25,36 25.093 0.27 Allowed CB54 29+23 17.53 24.86 24.863 0 Allowed CB52 28+16 16.17 24.68 24,723 -0.04 Allowed EXCB 31+02 20.9 25.79 25.082 0,71 Allowed CB42 21+04 18.25 24.2 23.92 1.28 Allowed C134523+63 18.27 24.24 23,989 0.25 Allowed CB46 24+14 18,39 24 24.013 -0.01 Allowed Torp Out V1 14.7 25,6 17.754 7.85 None Mdpoint 22.02 24.5 25.874 -1.37 Sealed SH50 AN 17.72 28.31 24.335 3.91 lNone SH75 AL 1 20.681 31,9 31.9 0 INone Alternative 1A - 10 year Storm - Nodes Table Name Invert Elevation (ft) Ground Elevation (Spill Crest) (ft) Max Water Elevation (ft) Freeboard (ft) Ponding Type SH70_AG 20.283 31.2 31.2 0 None SH65 19.457 30.99 30.602 0.39 None SH60_V2 19.18 29.63 29.63 0 None C137 17.38 27.7 24.329 3.37 None CB6 16.9 27.4 24.319 3.08 None CB5 16.35 27 24.298 2.7 None C1134_L 15.97 25.8 24.271 1.53 None CB3 15.54 25.2 24.242 0.96 Allowed CB2_KM 15.03 25.5 24.187 0.31 None 45.1 13.4 23.17 0 0 None Node92 9.77 20.92 0 0 None Node93 5.9 18.25 0 0 None Node94 6.86 17.79 0 0 None Node95 12.974 23.91 0 0 None Node96 12.794 23.41 0 0 None Node97 12.614 23.26 0 0 None Node98 12.425 23.35 0 0 None Node99 12.245 22.74 0 0 None Node100 12.065 22.29 0 0 None Node101 11.928 21.91 0 0 None Node102 11.737 21.76 0 0 None Node103 11.528 20.6 0 0 None Node104 11.58 20.9 0 0 None Node105 11.18 21.46 0 0 None Node106 10.67 21.12 0 0 None Node109 13.81 27.35 0 0 None Node110 13.531 25.9 0 0 None Node111 13.452 25.9 0 0 None Node112 13.967 21.9 0 0 None Node109.1 13.81 27.35 0 0 None Alternative 1A - 10 year storm - Links Table Name Upstream Node Name Downstream Node Name Diameter (or Height) (ft) Length (ft) Max Flow (cfs) Upstream Invert Elevation (ft) Downstream Invert Elevation (ft) Conduit Slope 15-10 15 G D Node104 5 189.4 127.137 12 11.58 0.22 20-15 20 Node103 5 393.89 127.098 13.1 11,528 0.25 25-20 25 20 5 342 -127.121 12.8 13.1 -0.088 30-25 30 25 5 126 127.122 12.8 12.8 0 35-30 35 30 5 470 127.677 12.8 12.8 0 40-35 40-E 35 5 630 127.49 13.1 12.8 0.032 Link94 VAULTI 1+6 45.1 5 46 0 13.157 13.4 0.87 Link101 VAULTI 1+6 Node95 6 304.29 0 13.157 12.974 0.06 4.21 E+52 4+21 Ex -F VAULTI 1+6 4.5 262 60.838 13.314 13.157 0.06 477E421 E D8 -14 -G 4+21 Ex -F 3 56 16.401 13.78 13.314 -0.214 978880 C13179+78 VAULT2 6+4 5 314 -64.227 13.27 12.14 -0.131 1268978 CB21 11+35 CB1 79+78 5 157 -64.249 13.14 13.27 -0.08 14351268 CB31 1435H CB21 11+35 5 300 64.265 13.99 13.14 0.283 15711435 CB35 15711 CB31 1435H 5 136 -58.566 13.57 13.99 4309 Link120 59B -U Node112 4 70 0 14.009 13.967 0.06 17971571 CB40 17+97 CB3515711 5 226 50.161 13.98 13.57 0.181 20921797 CB41 20+92 C134017+97 5 295 49.89 14.51 13.98 0.18 25572092 VT3 25+57 CB41 20+92 5 465 -49.894 13.05 14.51 -0.013 2648-2557 CB50 J VT3 25+57 5 19 33.173 14.5 13.05 0.263 3660-3521 36+60 35+21 3 139 21.952 21.239 20.905 0.24 235-3722 -235-0-AO 37+22P Q R 3 100 15.372 22 21.388 0,612 37223660 37+22P Q R 36+60 3 62 21.986 21.388 21.239 0.24 17971620 E8 -13A-1 7+ E8-1116+2 2 177 6.144 16.67 17.62 -0.537 17971797 E8 -13A-1 7+ CB40 17+97 2 10 1.651 16.67 13.98 -26.3 18831797 E8 -13B 18+ E8 -13A-17+ 2 86 -6.778 17.53 16.67 0.942 19961883 F8-2219+9 E8 -13B-18+ 2 113 -6.023 182 17.53 0.549 22851996 CB -EX -22+8 CB42 21+04 2 181 4,725 18.34 18.25 0.1 Link147 CB -EX 22+8 CB45 23+63 2 78 -4.728 18.34 18.27 0.09 16201571 E8-1116+2 CB5215+71 2 49 -6.38 17.62 17.35 0.551 15711571 CB52 15+71 CB35 15711 2 14 6.486 17.35 13.57 -0.714 45-40 45 40-E 5 57 113.952 13.1 131 0 337.1 59A_W_AM 59B_U 3 187 0 15.65 14.009 0.171 overflow 59A_W_AM 59B_U 2 187 0 15.65 14.009 0.706 338.1 60B 60A_X 3 100 0 16 15.96 0.04 overFlow3 60B 60A_X 1 100 0 16 15.96 0.55 335.1 65A 60B 3 199 0 16.25 16 0.025 overflow4 65A 60B 1 199 0 16.25 16 0,101 67A -65A 67A 65A 3 353 41.987 16.49 16.25 0.068 Alternative 1A - 10 year storm - Links Table Name Upstream Node Name Downstream Node Name Diameter (or Height) (ft) Length (ft) Max Flow (cfs) Upstream Invert Elevation (ft) Downstream Invert Elevation (ft) Conduit Slope 70A -67A 70A 67A 3 252 41.989 16.75 16.49 0.083 73A -70A 73A 70A 3 125 41.989 16,77 16.75 0.096 75A -73A 75A Z AA Y 73A 2 210 41.989 17.14 16.77 0,176 78A -75A 78A 75A Z AA Y 2 172 -26.691 17.26 17.14 -0.012 80A -79A 80A ABACAP 79A 2 38 -26.827 17.09 17.37 -0.737 95A -80A 95A AE 80A ABACAP 2 241 22.102 18.25 17,09 0.427 100A -95A 100A 95A AE 2 46 18.792 18.64 18,25 0.848 110A -105A 110A 105A 2 309 -18.867 18.79 19 -0.068 115A -110A 115A AF AD 110A 2 62 18.851 20.85 18,79 3 120A -115A 120A 115A -AF -AD 2 80 16,694 21.11 20.85 0.138 125A -120A 125A 120A 2 27 16.682 21.18 21.11 0.259 130A -125A 130A 125A 2 110 16.671 21.64 21.18 0.286 135A -130A 135A AH 130A 2 178 16.658 21.9 21.64 0,146 Link96 135A AH 59B -U 5 3335 0 21,9 14.009 0.197 140A -138A 140A 138A 2 86 11.514 22.34 22.14 0.233 145A -140A 145A 140A 1 2 145 11.895 22.64 22.34 0,207 150A -145A 150AAIAJAK 145A 2 123 13.163 23,05 22.64 0.333 Link115 150AAIAJAK 135A AH 4 583 0 23.05 21.9 0.197 105A -100A 105A 100A 2 220 18.846 19 18,64 0.164 336.1 60A X 59A W AM 3 272 0 15.96 15,65 0.04 overAow2 60A -X 59A W AM 1 272 0 15.96 15.65 0.331 79A -78A 79A 78A 2 154 26.765 17,37 17.26 0.136 136A135A 136A 135A AH 2 77 16.117 21.95 21.9 0.065 137A136A 137A 136A 2 77 16.106 22.14 21.95 0,247 138A1 37A 138A 137A 2 75 15.627 22.14 22.14 0 32233217 32+23Ex 32+17Ex 5 11 21.829 20.19 20.15 0.364 32173210 32+17Ex 32+10Ex 5 12 25.317 20.15 20.11 0.364 32103102 32+10Ex EXCB 31+05 5 105 25.524 20,11 19.3 0.395 5 -Oct 10 5 5 91 127.228 11.3 11.02 0.308 1 -May 5 1_A_61_132 5 215 127,228 11.02 10.2 0,242 1 -Outfall 1 A B1 B2 Outfall 5.5 34 141.947 10.2 10.5 -3.147 Link97 Outfall Node92 5,73 30 0 10.5 9.77 5 36103217 36+10Ex N 32+17Ex 1.75 393 4.672 22.45 20.15 0.585 26482648 26+48Ex CB51 26+48 2 10 4.84 20.47 14.5 0,7 35213223 35+21 32+23Ex 5 298 21.916 20.905 20.19 0.24 421114 CB5 4+67 VAULTI 1+6 5 304.5 57.851 13 13.157 -0,263 644E477E VAULT2 6+4 D8 -14 -G 3 167 -24.916 12.14 13.78 0.042 644477 IVAULT2-6+4 ICB5-4+67 5 197,5 r 57.842 12.14 13 0.041 Alternative 1A - 10 year storm - Links Table Name Upstream Node Name Downstream Node Name Diameter (or Height) (ft) Length (ft) Max Flow (cfs) Upstream Invert Elevation (ft) Downstream Invert Elevation (ft) Conduit Slope Lk139 C135126+48 CB50 J 5 72 26.391 14.5 14.5 0 Link140 EXCB 31+05 CB54 29+23 4 182 20.858 19.3 17.53 0.973 Link144 EXCB 31+05 EXCB 31+02 1.75 10 -5.806 19.3 20.9 -13.2 Link141 CB54 29+23 C135228+116 3 107 21.361 17.53 16.17 1.271 Link142 CB52 28+16 CB51 26+48 3 168 21.787 16.17 14.5 0.994 Link157 EXCB 31+02 26+48Ex 1.75 457 4.909 20.9 20.47 0 C642F822 C134221+04 F8-2219+9 2 108 -4.798 18.25 18.2 0.1 Link148 CB45 23+63 CB46 24+14 2 51 4.73 18.27 18.39 -0.235 Link149 CB46 24+14 VT3 25+57 2 143 7.066 18.39 13.05 -0.217 Pump Tmp Out -V1 Mdpoint 0.05 10 6.9 14.7 22.02 0 Pump Tmp Out -V1 Mdpoint 14.7 22.02 L109 Mdpoint 59B_U 2 830 7.001 22.02 14.009 0.595 Link187 SH50 AN C137 5.5 116 9.546 17.72 17.38 0.293 Link172 SH75 AL SH70AG 2 71 3.441 20.681 20.283 0.56 Link173 SH70 AG SH65 2 413 1.789 20.283 19.457 0.2 Link174 SH65 SH60V2 4 579 1.834 19.457 19.18 0.048 Link175 SH60 V2 SH50 AN 5.5 455 4.787 19.18 17.72 0.321 Link188 CB7 CB6 5.5 165 10.049 17.38 16.9 0.29 Link189 CB6 C135 5.5 191 10.393 16.9 16.35 0.29 Link190 CB5 CB4 L 5.5 191 -11.792 16.35 15.97 0.2 Link191 C1341- CB3 5.5 87 21.445 15.97 15.54 0.49 Link192 C133 CB2 KM 5.5 176 21.072 15.54 15.03 0.29 383.1 CB2 KM VT3 25+57 5.5 200 0 15.03 13.05 0.29 overflow1 CB2 KM VT3 25+57 1 200 0 15.03 13.05 0 5045 45.1 45 5 650 113.948 13.4 13.1 0.046 Link98 Node92 Node93 11.15 38 0 9.77 5.9 10.184 Link99 Node93 Node94 10.93 38 0 5.9 6.86 -2.526 Link102 Node95 Node% 6 300.08 0 12.974 12.794 0.06 Link103 Node% Node97 6 300.02 0 12.794 12.614 0.06 Link104 Node97 Node98 6 299.97 0 12.614 12.425 0.06 Link105 Node98 Node99 6 299.84 0 12.425 12.245 0.06 Link106 Node99 Node100 6 300.25 0 12.245 12.065 0.06 Link107 Node100 Node101 6 227.92 0 12.065 11.928 0.06 Link108 Node101 Node102 6 303.88 0 11.928 11.737 0.063 Link109 Nodel02 Nodel03 6 348.81 0 11.737 11.528 0.06 Link110 Node103 10 6 339.42 0 11.528 11.3 0.24 Link114 Node103 15 C D 5 46.1 0 11.528 12 0.25 Link111 Node104 Node105 5 165.14 0 11.58 11.18 0.242 Alternative 1A - 10 year storm - Links Table Name Upstream Node Name Downstream Node Name Diameter (or Height) (ft) Length (ft) Max Flow (cfs) Upstream Invert Elevation (ft) Downstream Invert Elevation (ft) Conduit Slope Link112 Node105 Node106 5 215.6 0 11.18 10.67 0.237 Link113 Node106 Outfall 5 68.84 0 10.67 10.5 0.247 Link117 Node109 Node110 6 465 0 13.81 13.531 0.06 Link118 Node110 Node111 6 131 0 13.531 13.452 0.06 Link119 Node111 4+21Ex F 6 230 0 13.452 13.314 0.06 1-ink116.1 Node112 Node109 6 262 0 13.967 13.81 0.06 Alternative 1A - 25 year Storm - Nodes Table Name Invert Elevation (ft) Ground Elevation (Spill Crest) (ft) Max Water Elevation (ft) Freeboard (ft) Ponding Type 15 C D 12 20.58 16.46 4.12 None 20 13.1 21.56 17.028 4.53 None 25 12,8 21.5 17.361 4.14 None 30 12.8 22.29 17,56 4.73 None 35 12,8 22.67 17.94 4.73 None 40-E 13.1 22.68 18.41 4.27 None VAULTI 1+6 13.157 23.11 18.917 4.19 Allowed 4+21 Ex F 13.314 24.01 20.761 3.25 None D8 -14 -G 13.78 23.95 20,599 3.35 None CB1 79+78 13,27 25.6 20.417 5.18 None CB21 11+35 13.14 25.9 20.518 5.38 None CB31 1435H 13,99 25.4 20.709 4.69 None CB35 15711 13.57 25,31 20.786 4.52 None 59B U 14.009 23.43 21.714 1.72 Sealed CB40 17+97 13.98 25.17 20.882 4,29 None CB41 20+92 14.51 25.64 21.003 4.64 Allowed VT3 25+57 13.05 25,36 21.242 4.12 Allowed CB50 J 14.5 24.43 21.276 3.15 Allowed 36+60 21.239 27.29 23.272 4.02 None 235 -0 -AO 22 29.82 23,617 6.2 None 37+22P Q R 21,388 28.48 23.457 5.02 None E8 -13A 17+ 16.67 24.79 20.882 3.91 None E8 -13B-18+ 17.53 26.13 20,924 5.21 None F8-2219+9 18.2 25.48 20.979 4.5 None CB -EX 22+8 18.34 24.59 21.11 3.48 Allowed E8-11 16+2 17.62 24.92 20.811 4.11 None CB52 15+71 17,35 24.79 20.791 4 None 45 13.1 22,84 18.51 4.33 None 59A W AM 15.65 24.75 22,93 1.82 Sealed 606 16 25.2 23.943 1.26 Sealed 65A 16.25 25.4 24.257 1,14 Sealed 67A 16.49 25.54 24.877 0.66 Allowed 70A 16.75 27.35 25.349 2 Allowed 73A 16.77 30.37 25.582 4.79 Allowed 75A Z AA Y 17,14 31.14 26.489 4.65 Allowed 78A 17,26 30.07 26.563 3.51 Allowed 80A ABACAP 17.09 30.22 26.644 3.58 Allowed 95A AE 18.25 30.25 26.636 3.61 Allowed 100A 18.64 30.09 26,6 3.49 Allowed Alternative 1A - 25 year Storm - Nodes Table Name Invert Elevation (ft) Ground Elevation (Spill Crest) (ft) Max Water Elevation (ft) Freeboard (ft) Ponding Type 110A 18.79 30.34 26.188 4.15 Allowed 115A -AF -AD 20.85 30,43 26.139 4.29 Allowed 120A 21.11 29.32 25.655 3.67 Allowed 125A 21,18 29.19 25.491 3.7 Allowed 130A 21.64 28.44 24.866 3.57 Allowed 135A -AH 21.9 27.75 24.031 3.72 Allowed 140A 22.34 28.04 24.289 3.75 Allowed 145A 22.64 28.69 24.401 4.29 None 150AAIAJAK 23.05 28.75 24.505 4.24 None 105A 19 30.8 26.428 4.37 None 60A_X 15.96 24.65 23.795 0.86 Sealed 79A 17.37 30.17 26.628 3.54 Allowed 136A 21.95 27.75 24.093 3.66 Allowed 137A 22.14 27.74 24.154 3.59 Allowed 138A 22.14 27.87 24.219 3.65 Allowed 32+23Ex 20.19 25.6 21.796 3.8 Allowed 32+17Ex 20.15 26,1 21.771 4.33 Allowed 32+10Ex 20.11 25.5 21.719 3.78 Allowed 10 11.3 21.23 15.904 5.33 None 5 11.02 20.93 15.433 5.5 None 1_A_B1_B2 10.2 20.35 14.771 5.58 None Outfall 10.5 18 13.519 4.48 None 36+10Ex N 22.45 27.34 23.387 3.95 None 26+48Ex 20.47 24.58 21.286 3.29 Allowed 35+21 20.905 26.58 22.592 3.99 None CB5 4+67 13 24 19.647 4.35 None VAULT2 6+4 12.14 24.65 20.072 4.58 Allowed CB51 26+48 14.5 24.57 21.283 3.29 Allowed EXCB 31+05 19.3 25.36 21.562 3.8 Allowed CB54 29+23 17.53 24.86 21.573 3.29 Allowed CB52 28+16 16.17 24.68 21.46 3.22 Allowed EXCB 31+02 20.9 25.79 21.564 4,23 Allowed CB42 21+04 18.25 24.2 21.029 3.17 Allowed CB45 23+63 18.27 24.24 21.145 3.09 Allowed CB46 24+14 18.39 24 21.166 2.83 Allowed Tmp Out V1 14.7 25.6 18.742 6.86 None Mdpoint 22.02 24.5 23.496 1 Sealed SH50 AN 1 17.72 28.31 21.342 6.97 None SH75 AL 1 20.681 1 31.9 21.777 1 10.12 INone Alternative 1A - 25 year Storm - Nodes Table Name Invert Elevation (ft) Ground Elevation (Spill Crest) (ft) Max Water Elevation (ft) Freeboard (ft) Ponding Type SH70_AG 20.283 31.2 21.77 9.43 None SH65 19.457 30.99 21.556 9.43 None SH60_V2 19.18 29.63 21.439 8.19 None C137 17.38 27.7 21.33 6.37 None C66 16.9 27.4 21.314 6.09 None C65 16.35 27 21.292 5.71 None C134_L 15.97 25.8 21.274 4.53 None C63 15.54 25.2 21.269 3.93 Allowed C62 -KM 15.03 25.5 21.256 4.24 None 45.1 13.4 23.17 18.828 4.34 None Node92 9.77 20.92 11.719 9.2 None Node93 5.9 18.25 9.482 8.77 None Node94 6.86 17.79 9.162 8.63 None Node95 12.974 23.91 18.693 5.22 None Node96 12.794 23.41 18.47 4.94 None Node97 12.614 23.26 18.254 5.01 None Node98 12.425 23.35 18.034 5.32 None Node99 12.245 22.74 17.811 4.93 None Node100 12.065 22.29 17.589 4.7 None Node101 11.928 21.91 17.409 4.5 None Node102 11.737 21.76 17.179 4.58 None Node103 11.528 20.6 16.548 4.05 None Node104 11.58 20.9 15.252 5.65 None Node105 11.18 21.46 14.969 6.49 None Node106 10.67 21.12 14.66 6.46 None Node109 13.81 27.35 21.46 5.89 None Node110 13.531 25.9 21.124 4.78 None Node111 13.452 25.9 20.967 4.93 None Node112 13.967 21.9 21.667 0.23 None Node109.1 1 13.81 27.35 13.81 1 13.54 None Alternative 1A - 25 year Storm - Links Table Name Upstream Node Name Downstream Node Name Diameter (or Height) (ft) Length (ft) Max Flow (cfs) Upstream Invert Elevation (ft) Downstream Invert Elevation (ft) Conduit Slope 15-10 15 C D Node104 5 189.4 94.83 12 11,58 0.22 20-15 20 Node103 5 393.89 68.331 13.1 11.528 0.25 25-20 25 20 5 342 -68.564 12.8 13.1 -0,088 30-25 30 25 5 126 69.172 12.8 12.8 0 35-30 35 30 5 470 70,106 12.8 12.8 0 40-35 40-E 35 5 630 71.962 13,1 12.8 0.032 Link94 VAULT1 1+6 45.1 5 46 58.616 13.157 13.4 0.87 1-10101 VAULTI 1+6 Node95 6 304.29 132.24 13.157 12.974 0.06 4.21E+52 4+21 Ex F VAULT1 1+6 4.5 262 -101.795 13.314 13,157 0.06 477E421 E D8 -14 -G 4+21 Ex -F 3 56 20,711 13.78 13.314 -0,214 978880 CB1 79+78 VAULT2 6+4 5 314 -63.689 13,27 12.14 -0.131 1268978 CB21 11+35 CB1 79+78 5 157 -63.609 13.14 13,27 -0.08 14351268 CB31 1435H CB21 11+35 5 300 63.583 13.99 13.14 0.283 15711435 CB35 15711 CB31 1435H 5 136 -60.956 13.57 13,99 -0.309 Link120 .59B -U Node112 4 70 107.112 14.009 13.967 0.06 17971571 CB4017+97 CB35 15711 5 226 54.37 13.98 13.57 0.181 20921797 CB41 20+92 CB40 17+97 5 295 53.655 14.51 13,98 0.18 25572092 VT3 25+57 CB41 20+92 5 465 -56.137 13.05 14.51 -0.013 2648-2557 CB50 J VT3 25+57 5 19 42.451 14.5 13.05 0.263 3660-3521 36+60 35+21 3 139 28.399 21.239 20.905 0.24 235-3722 235 AO 37+22P Q R 3 100 22.094 22 21.388 0.612 37223660 37+22P Q R 36+60 3 62 28.329 21.388 21,239 0.24 17971620 E8 -13A 17+ E8-11 16+2 2 177 -5.124 16.67 17.62 -0.537 17971797 E8 -13A-17+ CB40 17+97 2 10 -1.582 16.67 13.98 -26,3 18831797 E8 -13B 18+ E8 -13A-17+ 2 86 5.311 17,53 16.67 0.942 19961883 F8-22 19+9 E8 -13B 18+ 2 113 5.263 18.2 17,53 0.549 22851996 CB -EX 22+8 CB42 21+04 2 181 4,966 18.34 18.25 0.1 Link147 CB -EX -22+8 CB45 23+63 2 78 -4.887 18.34 18.27 0.09 16201571 E841_16+2 CB52 15+71 2 49 -5.833 17.62 17,35 0.551 15711571 CB52 15+71 CB35 15711 2 14 6.192 17.35 13.57 -0,714 4540 45 40 E 5 57 56.931 13,1 13.1 0 337.1 59A W AM 59B U 3 187 65.995 15.65 14,009 0.171 overflow 59A W AM 59B -U 2 187 2,906 15.65 14.009 0,706 338.1 60B 60A -X 3 100 31.259 16 15.96 0.04 overflow3 60B 60A X 1 100 0 16 15.96 0.55 335.1 65A 60B 3 199 31.232 16.25 16 0.025 overflow4 65A 6013 1 199 0 16,25 16 0.101 67A -65A 67A 165A 3 353 31.213 16.49 16,25 0.068 Alternative 1A - 25 year Storm - Links Table Name Upstream Node Name Downstream Node Name Diameter (or Height) (ft) Length (ft) Max Flow (cfs) Upstream Invert Elevation (ft) Downstream Invert Elevation (ft) Conduit Slope 70A -67A 70A 67A 3 252 31.265 16.75 16.49 0.083 73A -70A 73A 70A 3 125 31.326 16.77 16.75 0.096 75A -73A 75A Z AA Y 73A 2 210 31.392 17.14 16.77 0.176 78A -75A 78A 75A Z AA Y 2 172 -13.909 17.26 17.14 -0.012 80A -79A 80A ABACAP 79A 2 38 -13.949 17.09 17.37 -0.737 95A -80A 95A AE SOA ABACAP 2 241 9.106 18.25 17.09 0.427 100A -95A 100A 95A AE 2 46 6.984 18.64 18.25 0.848 110A -105A 110A 105A 2 309 -6.966 18.79 19 -0.068 115A -110A 115A AF AD 110A 2 62 8.269 20.85 18.79 3 120A -115A 120A 115A -AF -AD 2 80 -16.511 21.11 20.85 0.138 125A -120A 125A 120A 2 27 -16.511 21.18 21.11 0.259 130A -125A 130A 125A 2 110 -16.505 21.64 21.18 0.286 135A -130A 135A AH 130A 2 178 -16.493 21.9 21.64 0.146 Link96 135A AH 59B_U 5 3335 40.553 21.9 14.009 0.197 140A -138A 140A 138A 2 86 8.161 22.34 22.14 0.233 145A -140A 145A 140A 2 145 8.449 22.64 22.34 0.207 150A -145A 150AAIAJAK 145A 2 123 8.721 23.05 22.64 0.333 Link115 150AAIAJAK 135A AH 4 583 16.755 23.05 21.9 0.197 105A -100A 105A 100A 2 220 6.971 19 18.64 0.164 336.1 60A X 59A W AM 3 272 42.097 15.96 15.65 0.04 overflow2 60A_X 59A W AM 1 272 1.051 15.96 15.65 0.331 79A -78A 79A 78A 2 154 13.943 17.37 17.26 0.136 136A135A 136A 135A AH 2 77 7.7 21.95 21.9 0.065 137A136A 137A 136A 2 77 7.835 22.14 21.95 0.247 138A1 37A 138A 137A 2 75 7.992 22.14 22.14 0 32233217 32+23Ex 32+17Ex 5 11 28.358 20.19 20.15 0.364 32173210 32+17Ex 32+10Ex 5 12 34.505 20.15 20.11 0.364 32103102 32+10Ex EXCB 31+05 5 105 34.702 20.11 19.3 0.395 5 -Oct 10 5 5 91 108.204 11.3 11.02 0.308 1 -May 5 1_A_131_62 5 215 108.184 11.02 10.2 0.242 1 -Outfall 1 A 61 B2 Outfall 5.5 34 -121.729 10.2 10.5 -3.147 Link97 Outfall Node92 5.73 30 216.428 10.5 9.77 5 36103217 36+10Ex N 32+17Ex 1.75 393 6.305 22.45 20.15 0.585 26482648 26+48Ex CB51 26+48 2 10 2.09 20.47 14.5 0.7 35213223 35+21 32+23Ex 5 298 28.54 20.905 20.19 0.24 421114 CB5 4+67 VAULTI 1+6 5 304.5 -91.858 13 13.157 -0.263 644E477E VAULT2 6+4 D8-14 G 3 167 -31.516 12.14 13.78 0.042 644477 VAULT2 6+4 CB5 4+67 5 197.5 92.466 12.14 13 0.041 Alternative 1A - 25 year Storm - Links Table Name Upstream Node Name Downstream Node Name Diameter (or Height) (ft) Length (ft) Max Flow (cfs) Upstream Invert Elevation (ft) Downstream Invert Elevation (ft) Conduit Slope Lkl39 CB51 26+48 CB50 J 5 72 32.023 14.5 14.5 0 Link140 EXCB 31+05 CB54 29+23 4 182 34.029 19.3 17.53 0.973 Link144 EXCB 31+05 EXCB 31+02 1.75 10 -1.995 19.3 20.9 -13.2 Link141 CB54 29+23 CB52 28+16 3 107 32.391 17.53 16.17 1.271 Link142 CB52 28+16 CB51 26+48 3 168 32.317 16.17 14.5 0.994 Link157 EXCB 31+02 26+48Ex 1.75 457 1.007 20.9 20.47 0 CB42FB22 CB42 21+04 F8-2219+9 2 108 5.137 18.25 18.2 0.1 Link148 CB4523+63 CB46 24+14 2 51 5.574 18.27 18.39 -0.235 Link149 CB46 24+14 VT3 25+57 2 143 6.948 18.39 13.05 -0.217 Pump Tmp Out -V1 Mdpoint 0.05 10 13.5 14.7 22.02 0 Pump Tmp Out -V1 Mdpoint 14.7 22.02 L109 Mdpoint 59B_U 2 830 13.131 22.02 14.009 0.595 Link187 SH50 AN C137 5.5 116 27.488 17.72 17.38 0.293 Link172 SH75 AL SH70 AG 2 71 3.721 20.681 20.283 0.56 Link173 SH70 AG SH65 2 413 7.192 20.283 19.457 0.2 Link174 SH65 SH60V2 4 579 7.056 19.457 19.18 0.048 Link175 SH60 V2 SH50 AN 5.5 455 24.021 19.18 17.72 0.321 Link188 C137 C136 5.5 165 24.736 17.38 16.9 0.29 Link189 C136 C135 5.5 191 24.214 16.9 16.35 0.29 Link190 CB5 CB4 L 5.5 191 25.771 16.35 15.97 0.2 Linkl9l C134 -L C133 5.5 87 31.853 15.97 15.54 0.49 Link192 CB3 CB2 KM 5.5 176 32.482 15.54 15.03 0.29 383.1 CB2 KM VT3 25+57 5.5 200 35.485 15.03 13.05 0.29 overflowl CB2 KM VT3 25+57 1 200 0 15.03 13.05 0 5045 45.1 45 5 650 57.715 13.4 13.1 0.046 Link98 Node92 Node93 11.15 38 216.444 9.77 5.9 10.184 Link99 Node93 Node94 10.93 38 -216.487 5.9 6.86 -2.526 U0102 Node95 Node96 6 300.08 129.769 12.974 12.794 0.06 Link103 Node96 Node97 6 300.02 127.673 12.794 12.614 0.06 Link104 Node97 Node98 6 299.97 125.369 12.614 12.425 0.06 U0105 Node98 Node99 6 299.84 123.431 12.425 12.245 0.06 Link106 Node99 Node100 6 300.25 122.367 12.245 12.065 0.06 Link107 Node100 Node101 6 227.92 121.698 12.065 11.928 0.06 U0108 Node101 Node102 6 303.88 121.138 11.928 11.737 0.063 Link109 Nodel02 Node103 6 348.81 120.939 11.737 11.528 0.06 Link110 WOW 10 6 339.42 108.247 11.528 11.3 0.24 Link114 Node103 15 C D 5 46.1 82.63 11.528 12 0.25 Link111 Nodel04 Node105 5 165.14 94.824 11.58 111118 0.242 Alternative 1A - 25 year Storm - Links Table Name Upstream Node Name Downstream Node Name Diameter (or Height) (ft) Length (ft) Max Flow (cfs) Upstream Invert Elevation (ft) Downstream Invert Elevation (ft) Conduit Slope Link112 Node105 Node106 5 215.6 94.762 11.18 10.67 0,237 Link113 Node106 Outfall 5 68.84 94.765 10.67 10.5 0.247 Link117 Node109 Node110 6 465 107.129 13.81 13.531 0.06 Link118 Node110 Node111 6 131 107.117 13.531 13.452 0.06 Link119 Node111 4+21 Ex—F 6 230 107.097 13.452 13.314 0.06 Link116.1 Node112 Node109 6 262 107.114 13.967 13.81 0.06 Alternative 1A - 100 year Storm - Nodes Table Name Invert Elevation (ft) Ground Elevation (Spill Crest) (ft) Max Water Elevation (ft) Freeboard (ft) Ponding Type 15_C_D 12 20.58 18.014 2.57 None 20 13.1 21.56 18.686 2.87 None 25 12.8 21.5 19.216 2.28 None 30 12.8 22.29 19.625 2.66 None 35 12.8 22.67 20.271 2.4 None 40 E 13.1 22.68 21.025 1.66 None VAULT1 1+6 13.157 23.11 21.559 1.55 Allowed 4+21 Ex -F 13.314 24.01 23.061 1 0.95 None D8 -14 -G 13.78 23.95 23.056 0.89 None CB1 79+78 13.27 25.6 23.589 2.01 None CB21 11+35 13.14 25.9 23.764 2.14 None CB31 1435H 13.99 25.4 24.099 1.3 None CB35 15711 13.57 25.31 24.232 1.08 None 59B -U 14.009 23.43 23.876 -0.45 Sealed CB40 17+97 13.98 25.17 24.4 0.77 None CB41 20+92 14.51 25.64 24.644 1 Allowed VT3 25+57 13.05 25.36 25.125 0.23 Allowed CB50 J 14.5 24.43 25.187 -0.76 Allowed 36+60 21.239 27.29 26.466 0.82 None 235 -0 -AO 22 29.82 26.87 2.95 None 37+22P Q R 21.388 28.48 26.638 1.84 None E8 -13A-1 7+ 16.67 24.79 24.398 0.39 None E8 -13B 18+ 17.53 26.13 24.419 1.71 None F8-2219+9 18.2 25.48 24.449 1.03 None CB -EX -22+8 18.34 24.59 24.675 -0.09 Allowed EB -11-16+2 17.62 24.92 24.275 0.65 None CB52 15+71 17.35 24.79 24.241 0.55 None 45 13.1 22.84 21.15 1.69 None 59A W AM 15.65 24.75 23.872 0.88 Sealed 60B 16 25.2 24.374 0.83 Sealed 65A 16.25 25.4 24.827 0.57 Sealed 67A 16.49 25.54 26.273 -0.73 Allowed 70A 16.75 27.35 27.398 -0.05 Allowed 73A 16.77 30.37 27.992 2.38 Allowed 75A Z AA Y 17.14 31.14 30.434 0.71 Allowed 78A 17.26 30.07 30.301 -0.23 Allowed 80A ABACAP 17.09 30.22 30.265 -0.05 Allowed 95A AE 18.25 30.25 30.087 0.16 Allowed 100A 18.64 30.09 29.906 0.18 Allowed Alternative 1A - 100 year Storm - Nodes Table Name Invert Elevation (ft) Ground Elevation (Spill Crest) (ft) Max Water Elevation (ft) Freeboard (ft) Ponding Type 110A 18.79 30.34 29.022 1.32 Allowed 115A_AF_AD 20.85 30.43 28.958 1.47 Allowed 120A 21.11 29.32 28.102 1.22 Allowed 125A 21.18 29.19 27.814 1.38 Allowed 130A 21.64 28.44 26.692 1.75 Allowed 135A -AH 21.9 27.75 25.174 2.58 Allowed 140A 22.34 28.04 25.262 2.78 Allowed 145A 22.64 28.69 25.304 3.39 None 150AAIAJAK 23.05 28.75 25.345 3.41 None 105A 19 30.8 29.341 1.46 None 60A_X 15.96 24.65 24.109 0.54 Sealed 79A 17.37 30.17 30.268 -0.1 Allowed 136A 21.95 27.75 25.195 2.55 Allowed 137A 22.14 27.74 25.217 2.52 Allowed 138A 22.14 27.87 25.238 2.63 Allowed 32+23Ex 20.19 25.6 25.492 0.11 Allowed 32+17Ex 20.15 26.1 25.508 0.59 Allowed 32+10Ex 20.11 25.5 25.525 -0.03 Allowed 10 11.3 21.23 17.549 3.68 None 5 11.02 20.93 16.594 4.34 None 1_A_81_132 10.2 20.35 15.67 4.68 None Outfall 10.5 18 13.855 4.15 None 36+10Ex N 22.45 27.34 26.756 0.58 None 26+48Ex 20.47 24.58 25.199 -0.62 Allowed 35+21 20.905 26.58 26.13 0.45 None C135 4+67 13 24.3 22.477 1.82 None VAULT2 6+4 12.14 24.65 22.975 1.67 Allowed CB51 26+48 14.5 24.57 25.199 -0.63 Allowed EXCB 31+05 19.3 25.36 25.361 0 Allowed C135429+23 17.53 24.86 25.229 1 -0.37 Allowed CB52 28+16 16.17 24.68 25.221 -0.54 Allowed EXCB 31+02 20.9 25.79 25.347 0.44 Allowed CB42 21+04 18.25 24.2 24.492 -0.29 Allowed C134523+63 18.27 24.24 24.689 -0.45 Allowed CB46 24+14 18.39 24 24.735 -0.73 Allowed Tmp Out V1 14.7 25.6 20.808 4.79 None Mdpoint 22.02 24.5 27.215 -2.72 Sealed SH50 AN 17.72 28.31 26.171 2.14 None SH75 AL 20.681 31.9 31.9 0 1 None Alternative 1A - 100 year Storm - Nodes Table Name Invert Elevation (ft) Ground Elevation (Spill Crest) (ft) Max Water Elevation (ft) Freeboard (ft) Ponding Type SH70 AG 20.283 31.2 31.2 0 None SH65 19.457 30.99 27.72 3.27 None SH60 V2 19.18 29.63 27,113 2.52 None CB7 17.38 27.7 25.885 1.82 None C136 16,9 27.4 25.534 1.87 None CB5 16,35 27 25.282 1.72 None CB4 L 15.97 25,8 25.228 0.57 None CB3 15.54 25.2 25.209 -0,01 Allowed CB2 KM 15.03 25.5 25.14 0.36 None 45.1 13.4 23.17 21,428 1.74 None Node92 9.77 20.92 11.942 8,98 None Node93 5.9 18,25 9.779 8.47 None Node94 6.86 17.79 9.426 8.36 None Node95 12.974 23.91 21.192 2,72 None Node96 12.794 23.41 20.837 2.57 None Node97 12.614 23.26 20.481 2.78 None Node98 12.425 23.35 20.125 3.22 None Node99 12.245 22,74 19.768 2.97 None Node100 12.065 22.29 19.44 2.85 None Node101 11.928 21.91 19.192 2.72 None Node 102 11,737 21.76 18.853 2.91 None Node103 11,528 20.6 18.128 2,47 None Node104 11.58 20.9 16.461 4.44 None Node105 11.18 21.46 16,03 5.43 None Node106 10,67 21.12 15.501 5,62 None Node109 13.81 27,35 23.626 3.72 None Node110 13.531 25.9 23.328 2.57 None Node111 13.452 25.9 23,21 2.69 None Node112 13.967 21.9 23.829 -1.93 Allowed Nodes 09.1 13.81 27.35 13.81 13.54 None Alternative 1A - 100 year Storm -Links Table Name Upstream Node Name Downstream Node Name Diameter (or Height) (ft) Length (ft) Max Flow (cfs) Upstream Invert Elevation (ft) Downstream Invert Elevation (ft) Conduit Slope Link120 598 U Node112 4 70 117.308 14.009 13.967 0.06 15-10 15 C D Node104 5 189.4 132.665 12 11.58 0.22 20-15 20 Node103 5 393.89 73.753 13.1 11.528 0.25 25-20 25 20 5 342 -75.877 12.8 13.1 -0.088 30-25 30 25 5 126 76.695 12.8 12.8 0 35-30 35 30 5 470 76.795 12.8 12.8 0 40-35 40-E 35 5 630 76.832 13.1 12.8 0.032 Link94 VAULTI 1+6 45.1 5 46 61.123 13.157 13.4 0.87 Link101 VAULT1 1+6 Node95 6 304.29 149.73 13.157 12.974 0.06 4.21E+52 4+21Ex F VAULTI 1+6 4.5 262 -112.061 13.314 13.157 0.06 477E421 E D8 -14 -G 4+21 Ex -F 3 56 13.747 13.78 13.314 -0.214 978880 CB1 79+78 VAULT2 6+4 5 314 -84.123 13.27 12.14 -0.131 1268978 CB21 11+35 CB1 79+78 5 157 -84.116 13.14 13.27 -0.08 14351268 CB31 1435H CB21 11+35 5 300 84.109 13.99 13.14 0.283 15711435 CB35 15711 CB31 1435H 5 136 -81.856 13.57 13.99 -0.309 17971571 CB40 17+97 CB35 15711 5 226 73.96 13.98 13.57 0.181 20921797 C841 20+92 CB4017+97 5 295 71.931 14.51 13.98 0.18 25572092 VT3 25+57 CB41 20+92 5 465 -71.912 13.05 14.51 -0.013 2648-2557 CB50 J VT3 25+57 5 19 48.852 14.5 13.05 0.263 3660-3521 36+60 35+21 3 139 38.674 21.239 20.905 0.24 235-3722 235 -0 -AO 37+22P Q R 3 100 30.412 22 21.388 0.612 37223660 37+22P Q R 36+60 3 62 39.349 21.388 21.239 0.24 17971620 E8 -13A 17+ E8-1116+2 2 177 -6.308 16.67 17.62 -0.537 17971797 E8 -13A-17+ CB40 17+97 2 10 7.214 16.67 13.98 -26.3 18831797 E8 -13B 18+ E8 -13A 17+ 2 86 9.309 17.53 16.67 0.942 19961883 F8-22 19+9 E8 -13B-18+ 2 113 9.306 18.2 17.53 0.549 22851996 CB -EX -22+8 CB42 21+04 2 181 8.118 18.34 18.25 0.1 Link147 CB -EX -22+8 C845 23+63 2 78 -8.472 18.34 18.27 0.09 16201571 E8-1116+2 CB52 15+71 2 49 6.319 17.62 17.35 0.551 15711571 C852 15+71 CB35 15711 2 14 -6.328 17.35 13.57 -0,714 45-40 45 40-E 5 57 61.154 13.1 13.1 0 337.1 59A_W AM 59B_U 3 187 61.191 15.65 14.009 0.171 overflow 59A_W_AM 59B_U 1 187 65.371 15.65 14.009 0.706 338.1 60B 60A_X 3 100 34.726 16 15.96 0.04 overflow3 60B 60A X 1 100 2.339 16 15.96 0.55 335.1 65A 60B 3 199 28.167 16.25 16 0.025 overflow4 65A 60B 1 199 9.262 16.25 16 0.101 67A -65A 67A 165A 3 353 37.306 16.49 16.25 0.068 Alternative 1A - 100 year Storm - Links Table Name Upstream Node Name Downstream Node Name Diameter (or Height) (ft) Length (ft) Max Flow (cfs) Upstream Invert Elevation (ft) Downstream Invert Elevation (ft) Conduit Slope 70A -67A 70A 67A 3 252 41.471 16.75 16.49 0.083 73A -70A 73A 70A 3 125 41.715 16.77 16.75 0.096 75A -73A 75A Z AA Y 73A 2 210 41.722 17.14 16.77 0.176 7BA-75A 78A 75A Z AA Y 2 172 -12.252 17.26 17.14 -0.012 SOA -79A 80A ABACAP 79A 2 38 -12.183 17.09 17.37 -0.737 95A -80A 95A AE 8OA ABACAP 2 241 -11.406 18.25 17.09 0.427 1OOA-95A 1OOA 95A AE 2 46 -13.892 18.64 18.25 0.848 11OA-105A 110A 105A 2 309 13.894 18.79 19 -0.068 115A -110A 115A -AF -AD 110A 2 62 -13.88 20.85 18.79 3 120A-115.0 120A 115A -AF -AD 2 80 -21.998 21.11 20.85 0.138 125A -120A 125A120A 2 27 -21.932 21.18 21.11 0.259 130A -125A 130A 125A 2 110 -21.868 21.64 21.18 0.286 135A -130A 135.0 AH 130A 2 178 -21.817 21.9 21.64 0.146 Link96 135.0 AH 59B -U 5 3335 49.305 21.9 14.009 0.197 140A -138A 140A 138A 2 86 7.302 22.34 22.14 0.233 145A -140A 145A 140A 2 145 7.525 22.64 22.34 0.207 150A -145A 150AAIAJA 1145A 2 123 7.786 23.05 22.64 0.333 Link115 150AAIAJAK 135A AH 4 583 27.686 23.05 21.9 0.197 105A -100A 105A 100.0 2 220 -13.857 19 18.64 0.164 336.1 60A -X 59A W AM 3 272 40.424 15.96 15.65 0.04 overflow2 60A X 59A W AM 1 272 24.142 15.96 15.65 0.331 79A -78A 79A 78A 2 154 12.194 17.37 17.26 0.136 136A135A 136A 135A AH 2 77 6.942 21.95 21.9 0.065 137A1 36A 137A 136A 2 77 7.052 22.14 21.95 0.247 138A137A 138A 137A 2 75 7.184 1 22.14 22.14 0 32233217 32+23Ex 32+17Ex 5 11 39.425 20.19 20.15 0.364 32173210 32+17Ex 32+10Ex 5 12 48.346 20.15 20.11 0.364 32103102 32+1OEx EXCB 31+05 5 105 77.849 20.11 19.3 0.395 5 -Oct 10 5 5 91 122.482 11.3 11.02 0.308 1 -May 5 1_A_B1_B2 5 215 122.5 11.02 10.2 0.242 1 -Outfall 1 A B1 B2 Outfall 5.5 34 -164.518 10.2 10.5 -3.147 Link97 Outfall Node92 5.73 30 281.739 10.5 9.77 5 36103217 36+1OEx N 32+17Ex 1.75 393 8.693 22.45 20.15 0.585 26482648 26+48Ex CB51 26+48 2 10 -15.288 20.47 14.5 0.7 35213223 35+21 32+23Ex 5 298 40.794 20.905 20.19 0.24 421114 CB5 4+67 VAULT 1+6 5 306 -97.526 13 13.157 4261 644E477E VAULT2 6+4 D8 -14 -G 3 1 167 -28.233 12.14 13.78 0.042 644477 VAULT2 6+4 CB5 4+67 5 1 197.5 97.516 12.14 13 0.041 Schedule A Alternative 1A 30% Submittal Engineer's Cost Estimate Hardie Ave SW and SW7th St Stormwater Improvments Schedule A - Naches Ave SW {Outfall to SW 7th - Including vault at intersection Item No. Description Unit Quantity Unit Price Total Amount 1 Mobilization, Cleanup and Demobilization LS 1 $ 90,000 $ 90,000 2 Construction Surveying, Staking and As -built Drawings LS 1 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 3 Project Temporary Traffic Control LS 1 $ 25,000 $ 25.000 4 Stormwater Pollution Prevention and TESC Plan and Implementation LS 1 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 5 Dewatering LS 1 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 6 Temporary Bypass Pumping LS 1 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 7 Shoring or Extra Excavation, Class B LS 1 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 8 Locate and Protect Existing Utilities LS 1 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 9 Utility Relocations LS 1 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 10 Removal of Structures and Obstructions LS 1 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 11 Class IV Concrete Storm Sewer Pipe - 60 -inch Dia LF 450 $ 500 $ 225,000 12 Class IV Concrete Storm Sewer Pipe - 72 -inch Dia LF 339 $ 625 $ 211,875 13 Manhole Type 3 - 96 -inch Dia EA 4 $ 20,000 $ 80,000 14 32'-6" L x 12'-0" W x 10'-8" H Stormwater Utility Vault LS 1 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 15 Access Riser - 48 -inch Dia EA 1 $ 4,000 $ 4,000 16 Trench Backfill TON 1900 $ 20.00 $ 38,000 17 Unsuitable Foundation Excavation Incl. Haul CY 50 $ 30 $ 1,500 18 Gravel Backfill for Pipe Zone Bedding CY 2200 $ 30 $ 66,000 19 Controlled Density Fill CY 50 $ 100 $ 5,000 20 Cement Concrete Curb and Gutter LF 450 $ 21 $ 9,450 21 Cement Concrete Sidewalk SY 250 $ 40 $ 10,000 22 Cement Concrete Curb Ramp Type 1 (Perpendicular Curb Ramp) EA 1 $ 1,300 $ 1,300 23 Crushed Surfacing Top Course TON 131 $ 26 $ 3,408 24 Sawcutting LF 1400 $ 1.50 $ 2,100 25 Temporary Cold Mix Asphalt Concrete Patch TON 70 $ 50 $ 3,500 26 HMA Class 112" 64-22 for Overlay TON 350 $ 120 $ 42,000 27 Restore Pavement Markings LF 2000 $ 0.25 $ 500 28 Type 2 Induction Loop LF 0 $ 12 $ - 29 Seeding, Fertilizing, and Mulching SY 50 $ 5 $ 250 30 Landscape Restoration LS 1 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 Bid Items Subtotal (with Mobilization) Sales Tax (assume none) Contingency Total Total (rounded) $ 1,023,883 0,00% $ - 30.00% $ 307,165 $ 1,331,048 $ 1,340,000 30% Cost Estlmate_Rechecked_JF_1A XIsx [Schedule A] Page 3 of 1 Printed: 7!212012, 1:19 PM Alternative 1A - 100 year Storm - Links Table Name Upstream Node Name Downstream Node Name Diameter (or Height) (ft) Length (ft) Max Flow (cfs) Upstream Invert Elevation (ft) Downstream Invert Elevation (ft) Conduit Slope Lk139 CB51 26+48 CB50 J 5 72 40.936 14,5 14.5 0 Link140 EXCB 31+05 C135429+23 5 182 74.946 19.3 17.53 0.973 Link144 EXCB 31+05 EXCB 31+02 1.75 10 -4.371 19.3 20.9 -13.2 LAW CB54 29+23 CB52 28+16 5 107 48.956 17.53 16.17 1.271 Link142 CB52 28+16 CB51 26+48 5 168 48,762 16.17 14.5 0.994 Linkl57 EXCB 31+02 26+48Ex 1.75 457 4.346 20.9 20,47 0 CB42F822 CB42 21+04 F8-2219+9 2 108 9.296 18.25 18.2 0.1 Link148 CB45 23+63 CB46 24+14 2 51 7.38 18.27 18.39 -0.235 Link149 CB46 24+14 VT3 25+57 2 143 12.927 18.39 13.05 -0.217 Pump Tmp Out -V1 Mdpoint 0.05 10 13.5 14.7 22.02 0 Pump Tmp Out VI Mdpoint 14.7 22.02 L109 Mdpoint 59B_U 2 830 13.501 22.02 14.009 0.595 Link187 SH50 AN C137 5.5 116 57.067 17.72 17.38 0.293 Link172 SH75 AL SH70 AG 2 71 12.899 20.681 1 20.283 0.56 Link173 SH70 AG SH65 2 413 20.57 20.283 19.457 0.2 Link174 SH65 SH60 V2 4 579 20.392 19.457 19.18 0,048 Linkl75 SH60 V2 SH50 AN 5.5 455 44.979 19.18 17.72 0.321 Link188 C137 CB6 5.5 165 59.236 17.38 16.9 0.29 Link189 C136 C135 5.5 191 61.242 16.9 16.35 0.29 Link190 C135 CB4 L 5.5 191 62.681 16.35 15.97 0.2 Link191 C134 L CB3 5.5 87 85.853 15.97 15.54 0.49 Link192 C133 CB2 KM 5.5 176 85,477 15.54 15,03 0.29 383.1 CB2 KM VT3 25+57 5.5 200 90.155 15.03 13.05 0.29 overflowl CB2 KM VT3 25+57 1 200 15.865 15.03 13.05 0 5045 45.1 45 5 650 61.138 13.4 13.1 0.046 Link98 Node92 Node93 11.15 38 281.75 j 9.77 5.9 10.184 Link99 Node93 Node94 10.93 38 -281.777 5.9 6.86 -2.526 Link102 Node95 Node96 6 300.08 148.247 12.974 12.794 0.06 Link103 Node96 Node97 6 300.02 147.644 12.794 12.614 0.06 Link104 Node97 Node98 6 299.97 147.58 12.614 12.425 0.06 Link105 Node98 Node99 6 299.84 147.797 12.425 12.245 0.06 Linkl06 Node99 Node100 6 300.25 148,168 12,245 12,065 0.06 Linkl07 Node100 Node101 6 227.92 147.444 12.065 11.928 0.06 Linkl08 Node101 Node102 6 303.88 147.754 11.928 11,737 0.063 Link109 Nodel02 Node103 6 348.81 148.325 11.737 11.528 0.06 Linkl10 Node103 10 6 339.42 123.03 11.528 11.3 0.24 Linkl14 Node103 15 C D 5 46.1 108.055 11.528 12 0.25 Link111 jNode104 Node105 1 5 1 165.14 132.478 11.58 1 11.18 0.242 Alternative 1A - 100 year Storm - Links Table Name Upstream Node Name Downstream Node Name Diameter (or Height) (ft) Length (ft) Max Flow (cfs) Upstream Invert Elevation (ft) Downstream Invert Elevation (ft) Conduit Slope Link112 Node105 Node106 5 215.6 132.439 11.18 10.67 0.237 Link113 Node106 Outfall 5 68.84 132.391 10.67 10.5 0.247 Link117 Node109 Node110 6 465 111.537 13.81 13.531 0.06 Link118 Node110 Node111 6 131 111.553 13.531 13.452 0.06 Link119 Node111 4+21 Ex F 6 230 111.57 13.452 13.314 0.06 Link116.1 Node112 INodelO9 6 262 111.518 13.967 13.81 0.06 Alternative 113 - 2 year Storm - Nodes Table Name Invert Elevation (ft) Ground Elevation (Spill Crest) (ft) Max Water Elevation (ft) Freeboard (ft) Ponding Type 15 C D 12 20.58 14.788 5,79 None 20 13.1 21,56 15.212 6.35 None 25 12.8 21.5 15.521 5.98 None 30 12.8 22,29 15.661 6.63 None 35 12.8 22.67 15.888 6.78 None 40-E 13.1 22.68 16.141 6.54 None VAULTI 1+6 13.157 23.11 16.397 6.71 Allowed 4+21 Ex -F 13,314 24.01 16.879 7,13 None D8 -14.;--G 13.78 23.95 16.906 7.04 None C131179+78 13.27 25.6 17.145 8.45 None CB21 11+35 13,14 25.9 17.193 8.71 None CB31 1435H 13.99 25.4 17,26 8.14 None CB35 15711 13.57 25.31 17.307 8 None 59B U 14.009 21.43 17.278 4.15 Allowed CB4017+97 13.98 25.17 17.359 7.81 None CB41 20+92 14.51 25.64 17.454 8.19 Allowed VT3 25+57 13.05 25.36 17.743 7.62 Allowed CB50 J 14.5 24.43 17.769 6.66 Allowed 36+60 21.239 27.29 22.616 4.67 None 235 0 AO 22 29,82 22.985 6.83 None 37+22P 0 R 21.388 28.48 22.752 5.73 None E8 -13A-17+ 16.67 24.79 16.67 8.12 None EB -13B-18+ 17.53 26,13 17.53 8.6 None F8-2219+9 18.2 25,48 18.2 7.28 None CB -EX -22+8 18.34 24.59 18.34 6,25 Allowed E8-1116+2 17.62 24.92 17.62 7.3 None CB5215+71 17.35 24.79 17.35 7.44 None 45 13.1 22.84 16.197 6.64 None 59A W AM 15.65 22,75 18.105 4.65 None 60B 16 24.2 18,783 5.42 None 65A 16.25 24.4 19 5.4 None 67A 16.49 25.54 19.504 6.04 Allowed 70A 16,75 27.35 19.901 7.45 Allowed 73A 16.77 30.37 20,104 10.27 Allowed 75A Z AA Y 17.14 31.14 20.896 10.24 Allowed 78A 17.26 30.07 20.977 9.09 Allowed 80A ABACAP 17.09 30.22 21,068 9.15 Allowed 95A AE 18.25 30.25 21.118 9,13 Allowed 100A 1 18,64 30.09 21.137 8.95 jAllowed Alternative 1B - 2 year Storm - Nodes Table Name Invert Elevation (ft) Ground Elevation (Spill Crest) (ft) Max Water Elevation (ft) Freeboard (ft) Ponding Type 110A 18.79 30.34 21.958 8.38 Allowed 115A -AF -AD 20.85 30.43 21.786 8.64 Allowed 120A 21.11 29.32 22.028 7.29 Allowed 125A 21.18 29.19 22.078 7.11 Allowed 130A 21.64 28.44 22.415 6.02 Allowed 135A -AH 21,9 27.75 22.875 4.88 Allowed 140A 22.34 28.04 23.467 4.57 Allowed 145A 22.64 28.69 23.727 4.96 None 150AAIAJAK 23.05 28.75 23.999 4.75 None 105A 19 30.8 21.477 9.32 None 60A_X 15,96 23.65 18.674 4.98 None 79A 17.37 30.17 21.05 9.12 Allowed 136A 21.95 27.75 23.056 4.69 Allowed 137A 22.14 27.74 23.193 4.55 Allowed 138A 22.14 27.87 23.349 4.52 Allowed 32+23Ex 20.19 25.6 21.299 4.3 Allowed 32+17Ex 20.15 26.1 21.276 4.82 Allowed 32+10Ex 20.11 25.5 21.224 4,28 Allowed 10 11.3 21.23 14.257 6.97 None 5 11.02 20.93 13.941 6.99 None 1_A_131_82 10.2 20.35 13.559 6.79 None Outfall 10.5 18 12.819 5.18 None 36+10Ex N 22.45 27.34 23.086 4.25 None 26+48Ex 20.47 24.58 20.47 4.11 Allowed 35+21 20.905 26.58 22.068 4.51 None CB5 4+67 13 24 16.753 7.25 None VAULT2 6+4 12.14 24.65 16.917 7.73 Allowed C135126+48 14.5 24.57 17.772 6.8 Allowed EXCB 31+45 19.3 25.36 20.299 5.06 Allowed CB54 29+23 17.53 24.86 18.433 6.43 Allowed C135228+16 16.17 24.68 17.739 6.94 Allowed EXCB 31+02 20.9 25.79 20.9 4.89 Allowed CB42 21+04 18.25 24.2 18.25 5.95 Allowed CB45 23+63 18.27 24.24 18.27 5.97 Allowed CB46 24+14 18.39 24 18.39 5.61 Allowed Tmp Out V1 14.7 25.6 17.701 7.9 None Mdpoint 22.02 24.5 22.469 2.03 Sealed SH50 AN 17.72 28.31 18.859 9.45 None SH75 AL 20.681 31.9 21.434 10,47 None Alternative 1B - 2 year Storm - Nodes Table Name Invert Elevation (ft) Ground Elevation (Spill Crest) (ft) Max Water Elevation (ft) Freeboard (ft) Ponding Type SH70_AG 20.283 31,2 21.307 9.89 None SH65 19.457 30.99 20.514 10.48 None SH60_V2 19.18 29.63 20.177 9.45 None CB7 17.38 27.7 18.522 9.18 None C136 16.9 27.4 18.043 9.36 None C85 16.35 27 17.829 9.17 None CB4_L 15.97 25.8 17.759 8.04 None C83 15.54 25.2 17.765 7.43 Allowed CB2_KM 15.03 25.5 17.752 7.75 None 45.1 13.4 23.17 16.354 6.82 None Node92 9.77 20.92 11.256 9.66 None Node93 5.9 18.25 8.875 9.37 None Node94 6.86 17.79 8.634 9.16 None Node95 12.974 23.91 16.223 7.69 None Node96 12.794 23.41 16.057 7.35 None Node97 12.614 23.26 15.897 7.36 None Node98 12.425 23.35 15.742 7.61 None Node99 12.245 22.74 15.595 7.14 None Node100 12.065 22.29 15.455 6.83 None Node101 11.928 21.91 15.344 6.57 None Node102 11.737 21.76 15.214 6.55 None Node103 11.528 20.6 14.846 5.75 None Node104 11.58 20.9 13.844 7.06 None Node105 11.18 21.46 13.596 7.86 None Node106 10.67 21.12 13.398 7.72 None Node109 13.81 27.35 17.175 10.17 None Node110 13.531 25.9 17.033 8.87 None Node111 13.452 25.9 16.965 8.94 None Node112 13.967 21.9 17.271 4.63 None Alternative 1B - 2 year Storm - Links Table Name Upstream Node Name Downstream Node Name Diameter (or Height) (ft) Length (ft) Max Flow (cfs) Upstream Invert Elevation (ft) Downstream Invert Elevation (ft) Conduit Slope 15-10 15 C D Node104 5 189.4 46.888 12 11,58 0.22 20-15 20 Node103 5 393.89 32.351 13.1 11.528 0.25 25-20 25 20 5 342 -32.484 12.8 13.1 -0.088 30-25 30 25 5 126 32.614 12.8 12.8 0 35-30 35 30 5 470 32.9 12,8 12.8 0 40-35 40-E 35 5 630 33.689 13.1 12.8 0.032 Link94 VAULTI 1+6 45.1 5 46 27,349 13,157 13.4 0.87 Link101 VAULT1 1+6 Node95 7 304.29 68.699 13.157 12,974 0.06 4.21E+52 4+21Ex F VAULTI 1+6 7 262 60.075 13.314 13.157 0,06 477E421 E DB -14 -G 4+21 Ex -F 3 56 -10.012 13.78 13.314 -0.214 978880 C81 79+78 VAULT2 6+4 5 314 -41.954 13.27 12.14 -0.131 1268978 CB21 11+35 CB1 79+78 5 157 -42.348 13.14 13.27 -0.08 14351268 CB31 1435H CB21 11+35 5 300 42.831 13.99 13.14 0.283 15711435 CB35 15711 CB31 1435H 5 136 -40.185 13.57 13.99 -0,309 Link120 59B -U Node 112 4 70 45.735 14.009 13.967 0.06 17971571 CB40 17+97 CB3515711 5 226 38.292 13.98 13,57 0.181 20921797 CB41 20+92 CB40 17+97 5 295 39.016 14.51 13.98 0.18 25572092 VT3 25+57 CB41 20+92 5 465 -40.551 13.05 14,51 -0.013 2648-2557 CB50 J VT3 25+57 5 19 20.632 14.5 13.05 0.263 3660-3521 36+60 35+21 3 139 13.705 21,239 20.905 0.24 235-3722 235 0 AO 37+22P Q R 3 100 11.274 22 21.388 0.612 37223660 37+22P Q R 36+60 3 62 13.55 21.388 21.239 0,24 17971620 E8 -13A-17+ E8-1116+2 2 177 0 16,67 17.62 -0.537 17971797 E8 -13A-17+ C134017+97 2 10 0 16.67 13.98 -26.3 18831797 EB -13B-18+ E8 -13A-1 7+ 2 86 0 17.53 16.67 0.942 19961883 F8-2219+9 E8-1313 18+ 2 113 0 18.2 17.53 0.549 22851996 CB -EX -22+8 CB42 21+04 2 181 0 18.34 18.25 0.1 Link147 CB -EX 22+8 CB45 23+63 2 78 0 18.34 18.27 0.09 16201571 E8-1116+2 CB52 15+71 2 49 0 17.62 17.35 0,551 15711571 CB52 15+71 CB35 15711 2 14 0 17,35 13.57 -0.714 45-40 45 40 E 5 57 j 26.526 13.1 13.1 0 59A -59B 59A W AM 59B U 3 187 34,415 15.65 14.009 0,171 60B -60A 608 60A -X 3 100 22.944 16 15.96 0.04 65A-6013 65A 60B 3 199 23.03 16.25 16 0.025 67A -65A 67A 65A 3 353 23.254 16.49 16.25 0.068 70A -67A j70A 67A 3 252 23.583 16.75 16.49 0.083 73A -70A 73A 70A 3 125 23.687 16.77 16.75 0.096 75A -73A 175A -Z -AA -Y 73A 2 210 23.79 17.14 16.77 0.176 Alternative 16 - 2 year Storm - Links Table Name Upstream Node Name Downstream Node Name Diameter (or Height) (ft) Length (ft) Max Flow (cfs) Upstream Invert Elevation (ft) Downstream Invert Elevation (ft) Conduit Slope 78A -75A 78A 75A Z AA Y 2 172 -14.148 17.26 17.14 -0.012 80A -79A 80A ABACAP 79A 2 38 -14.167 17.09 17.37 -0.737 95A -80A 95A AE 80A ABACAP 2 241 10.936 18.25 17.09 0.427 100A -95A 100A 95A AE 2 46 8.373 18.64 18.25 0.848 110A -105A 110A 105A 2 309 -8.503 18.79 19 -0.068 115A -110A 115A -AF -AD 110A 2 62 8.727 20.85 18.79 3 120A -115A 120A 2 80 4.027 21.11 20.85 0.138 125A -120A -115A-AF-AD 125A 120A 2 27 4.022 21.18 21.11 0.259 130A -125A 130A 125A 2 110 4.032 21.64 21.18 0.286 135A -130A 135A AH 130A 2 178 4.035 21.9 21.64 0.146 Link96 135A AH 59B -U 5 3335 8.934 21.9 14.009 0.197 140A -138A 140A 138A 2 86 5,315 22.34 22.14 0.233 145A -140A 145A 140A 2 145 5.36 22.64 22.34 0.207 150A -145A 150AAIAJAK 145A 2 123 5.393 23.05 22.64 0.333 Link115 150AAIAJAK 135A AH 4 583 7.009 23.05 21.9 0.197 105A -100A 105A 100A 2 220 8.381 19 18.64 0.164 60A -59A 60A -X 59A W AM 3 272 26.181 15.96 15.65 0.04 79A -78A 79A 78A 2 154 14.16 17.37 17.26 0,136 136A1 35A 136A 135A AH 2 77 5.254 21.95 21.9 0.065 137A1 36A 137A 136A 2 77 5.274 22.14 21.95 0.247 138A137A 138A 137A 2 75 5.302 22.14 22.14 0 32233217 32+23Ex 32+17Ex 5 11 13.662 20.19 20.15 0.364 32173210 32+17Ex 32+10Ex 5 12 16.785 20.15 20.11 0.364 32103102 32+10Ex EXCB 31+05 5 105 16.762 20.11 19.3 0.395 5 -Oct 10 5 5 91 56.967 11.3 11.02 0.308 1 -May 5 1_A_131_132 5 215 57.04 11.02 10.2 0.242 1 -Outfall 1 A B1 B2 Outfall 5.5 34 -64.867 10.2 10.5 -3.147 Link97 Outfall Node92 5.73 30 111.57 10.5 9.77 5 36103217 36+10Ex N 32+17Ex 1.75 393 3.182 22.45 20.15 0.585 26482648 26+48Ex CB51 26+48 2 10 0 20.47 14.5 0.7 35213223 35+21 32+23Ex 5 298 13.66 20.905 20.19 0.24 421114 CB5 4+67 VAULT1 1+6 5 304.5 -36.941 13 13.157 -0.263 644E477E VAULT2 6+4 D8 -14 -G 3 167 6.051 12.14 13.78 0.042 644477 VAULT2 6+4 CB5 4+67 5 197.5 37,341 12.14 13 0.041 Lk139 CB51 26+48 CB50 J 5 72 15.464 14.5 14.5 0 Link140 EXCB 31+05 CB54 29+23 4 182 16.786 19.3 17.53 0.973 Link144 EXCB 31+05 EXCB 31+02 1.75 10 0 193 20.9 -13.2 Link141 CB54 29+23 CB52 28+16 4 107 16.817 17.53 16.17 1.271 Alternative 1B - 2 year Storm - Links Table Name Upstream Node Name downstream Node Name Diameter (or Height) (ft) Length (ft) Max Flow (cfs) Upstream Invert Elevation (ft) Downstream Invert Elevation (ft) Conduit Slope Link142 CB52 28+16 CB51 26+48 4 168 16.187 16.17 14.5 0.994 Link157 EKCB 31+02 26+48Ex 1.75 457 0 20,9 20.47 0 CB42F822 CB42 21+04 F8-2219+9 2 108 0 18.25 18.2 0.1 Link148 CB45 23+63 C134624+14 2 51 0 18.27 18.39 -0.235 Link149 CB46 24+14 VT3 25+57 2 143 0 18.39 13.05 -0.217 Pump Tmp Out -V1 Mdpoint 0.05 10 6.9 14.7 22.02 0 Pump Tmp Out VI Mdpoint 14.7 22.02 L109 Mdpoint 59B_U 2 830 1.714 22.02 14.009 0.595 Link187 SH50 AN CB7 5.5 116 15.871 17.72 17.38 0.293 Link172 SH75 AL SH70 AG 2 71 4.514 20.681 20.283 0.56 Link173 SH70 AG SH65 2 413 4.837 20.283 19.457 0.2 Link174 SH65 SH60 V2 4 579 4.584 19.457 19,18 0.048 Link175 SH60 V2 SH50 AN 5,5 455 12.711 19.18 17.72 0.321 Link188 CB7 CB6 5.5 165 15.889 17.38 16.9 0.29 Link189 CB6 CB5 5.5 191 15.845 16.9 16.35 0.29 Link190 CB5 CB4 L 5.5 191 15.325 16.35 15.97 0.2 Link191 C1341- CB3 5.5 87 22.381 15.97 15.54 0.49 Link192 CB3 CB2 KM 5.5 176 21.83 15.54 15.03 0.29 383.1 CB2 KM VT3 25+57 5.5 200 22.201 15.03 13.05 0.29 overflowl CB2 KM VT3 25+57 1 200 0 15.03 13.05 0 5045 45.1 45 5 650 26.846 13.4 13.1 0.046 Link98 Node92 Node93 11.15 38 111.57 9.77 5.9 10.184 Link99 Node93 Node94 10.93 38 -111.568 5.9 6.86 -2.526 Link102 Node95 Node96 7 300.08 1 67.853 12.974 12.794 0.06 Link103 Node96 Node97 7 300.02 67.025 12.794 12.614 0.06 Link104 Node97 Node98 7 299.97 66.3 12.614 12.425 0.06 Link105 Node98 Node99 7 299.84 65.722 12.425 12.245 0.06 Link106 Node99 Node100 7 300.25 65.273 12.245 12.065 0.06 Link107 Node100 Node101 7 227.92 j 64.995 12.065 11.928 0.06 Link108 Node101 Node102 7 303.88 64.832 11.928 11.737 0.063 Link109 Node102 Node103 7 348.81 64.803 11.737 11.528 0.06 Link110 Node103 10 6 339.42 56.922 11.528 11.3 0.24 Linkl14 Node103 15 C D 5 46.1 40.633 11.528 12 0.25 Linkl11 Node104 Nodel05 5 165.14 46.88 11.58 11.18 0.242 Linkl12 Node105 Node106 5 215.6 46.881 11.18 10.67 0.237 Linkl13 Node106 Outfall 5 68.84 46.889 10.67 10.5 0.247 Link117 Node109 Node110 lNode'111 6 465 j 44.528 13.81 13.531 0.06 Link118 Node110 6 131 1 44.169 13.531 13.452 0.06 Alternative 1B - 2 year Storm - Links Table Name Upstream Node Downstream Diameter (or Length Max Flow Upstream Downstream Conduit Name Node Name Height) (ft) (ft) (c#s) Invert Invert Slope Elevation Elevation (ft) (ft) Link119 Node111 4+21 Ex F 6 230 44.086 13.452 13.314 0.06 Link116 Node112 �Nodel09 6 262 45.257 13.967 13.81 0.06 Alternative 1B - 10 year Storm - Nodes Table Name Invert Elevation (ft) Ground Elevation (Spill Crest) (ft) Max Water Elevation (ft) Freeboard (ft) Ponding Type 15 -C -D 12 20,58 15.701 4,88 None 20 13.1 21.56 16.207 5.35 None 25 12,8 21.5 16.518 4.98 None 30 12.8 22.29 16.688 5.6 None 35 12,8 22.67 16.969 5.7 None 40_E 13.1 22.68 17.287 5.39 None VAULTI 1+6 13.157 23.11 17.615 5.49 Allowed 4+21 Ex -F 13.314 24.01 18.177 5.83 None D8 -14 -G 13.78 23.95 18.224 5.73 None C13179+78 13.27 25,6 18.605 7 None CB21 11+35 13.14 25.9 18.708 7.19 None CB31_1435H 13.99 25.4 18.888 6.51 None CB35_15711 13.57 25.31 18,966 6.34 None 59B_U 14.009 21.43 18.709 2.72 Allowed CB40 17+97 13.98 25.17 19.073 6.1 None C134120+92 14.51 25.64 19.204 6.44 Allowed VT3 25+57 13.05 25.36 19.488 5.87 Allowed CB50_J 14.5 24.43 19.52 4.91 Allowed 36+60 21.239 27.29 23.006 4.28 None 235_0_AO 22 29.82 23,245 6.58 None 37+22P Q R 21.388 28.48 23.168 5.31 None ES -13A-17+ 16.67 24.79 18.998 5.79 None E8-1313 18+ 17,53 26,13 19.004 7.13 None F8-22 19+9 18.2 25.48 19.024 1 6,46 None CB -EX 22+8 18.34 24.59 19.249 5.34 Allowed E8-11 16+2 17,62 24.92 18.973 5.95 None CB52 15+71 17,35 24,79 18.968 5.82 None 45 13.1 22.84 17.359 5.48 None 59A_W_AM 15.65 22.75 20.004 1 2.75 None 60B 16 24,2 21,207 2.99 None 65A 16.25 24.4 21.549 2.85 None 67A 16,49 25.54 22.156 3.38 Allowed 70A 16.75 27.35 22.633 4.72 Allowed 73A 16.77 30.37 22.918 7.45 Allowed 75A_Z_AA_Y 17.14 31.14 24.021 7.12 Allowed 78A 17,26 30,07 24.072 6 Allowed 80A_ABACAP 17.09 30.22 24.128 6.09 Allowed 95A AE 18,25 30.25 24.128 6.12 Allowed 100A j 18.64 1 30.09 24.118 5.97 Allowed Alternative 1B - 10 year Storm - Nodes Table Name Invert Elevation (ft) Ground Elevation (Spill Crest) (ft) Max Water Elevation (ft) Freeboard (ft) Ponding Type 110A 18.79 30.34 24.005 6.33 Allowed 115A -AF -AD 20.85 30.43 23.992 6.44 Allowed 120A 21.11 29.32 23.877 5.44 Allowed 125A 21.18 29.19 23.838 5.35 Allowed 130A 21.64 28.44 23.69 4.75 Allowed 135A -AH 21.9 27.75 23.489 4.26 Allowed 140A 22,34 28.04 23.775 4.26 Allowed 145A 22.64 28.69 23.958 4.73 None 150AAIAJAK 23.05 28.75 24.169 4.58 None 105A 19 30.8 24.07 6.73 None 60A_X 15.96 23.65 21.036 2.61 None 79A 17.37 30.17 24.116 6.05 Allowed 136A 21.95 27.75 23.556 4.19 Allowed 137A 22.14 27.74 23.615 4.12 Allowed 138A 22.14 27.87 23.697 4.17 Allowed 32+23Ex 20.19 25.6 21.545 4.05 Allowed 32+17Ex 20.15 26.1 21.52 4.58 Allowed 32+10Ex 20.11 25.5 21.467 4.03 Allowed 10 11.3 21.23 15.164 6.07 None 5 11.02 20.93 14.75 6.18 None 1_A_61_132 10.2 20.35 14.188 6.16 None Outfall 10.5 18 13.216 4.78 None 36+10Ex N 22.45 27.34 23.212 4.13 None 26+48Ex 20.47 24.58 20.47 4.11 Allowed 35+21 20.905 26.58 22.385 4.19 None CB5 4+67 13 24 18.029 5.97 None VAULT2 6+4 12.14 24.65 18.243 6.41 Allowed CB51 26+48 14.5 24.57 19.525 5.04 Allowed EXCB 31+05 19.3 25.36 20.48 4.88 Allowed CB54 29+23 17.53 24.86 19.487 5.37 Allowed C65228+16 16.17 24.68 19.541 5.14 Allowed EXCB 31+02 20.9 25.79 20.9 4.89 Allowed CB42 21+04 18.25 242 19.097 5.1 Allowed CB45 23+63 18.27 24.24 19.284 4.96 Allowed C134624+14 18.39 24 19.302 4.7 Allowed Tmp Out V1 14.7 25.6 17.75 7.85 None Mdpoint 22.02 24.5 22.932 1.57 Sealed SH50 AN 17.72 28.31 1 19.539 1 8.77 INone SH75 AL 20.681 31.9 1 21.681 1 10.22 INone Alternative 1B - 10 year Storm - Nodes Table Name Invert Elevation (ft) Ground Elevation (Spill Crest) (ft) Max Water Elevation (ft) Freeboard (ft) Ponding Type SH70 AG 20.283 31.2 21,586 1 9.61 None SH65 19.457 30.99 20.755 10,23 None SH60 V2 19.18 29.63 20.395 9.24 None CB7 17.38 27.7 19.519 8,18 None C136 16.9 27.4 19.508 7.89 None CB5 16.35 27 19.505 7.49 None CB4 L 15.97 25,8 19.501 6.3 None CB3 15.54 25.2 19.503 5.7 Allowed CB2 KM 15.03 25,5 19.497 6 None 45.1 13.4 23.17 17.556 5.61 None Node92 9.77 20.92 11.526 9.39 None Node93 5.9 18.25 9.217 9.03 None Node94 6.86 17.79 8,929 8.86 None Node95 12.974 23.91 17.437 6,47 None Node96 12.794 23,41 17.265 6.15 None Node97 12.614 23.26 17.093 6.17 None Node98 12.425 23.35 16.926 6.42 None Node99 12.245 22,74 16.761 5.98 None Node100 12.065 22.29 16.599 5.69 None Node101 11.928 21.91 16.466 5.44 None Node102 11,737 21.76 16.306 5.45 None Node103 11.528 20.6 15.799 4.8 None Node104 11.58 20,9 14.624 6.28 None Node105 11.18 21.46 14,367 1 7.09 None Node106 10.67 21.12 14,117 7 None Node109 13.81 27,35 18.567 8.78 None Node110 13.531 25.9 18.386 7.51 None Node111 13.452 25.9 18,292 7.61 None Node112 13.967 21.9 18.685 3.21 1 None Alternative 1B - 10 year Storm - Links Table Name Upstream Node Name Downstream Node Name Diameter (or Height) (ft) Length (ft) Max Flow (cfs) Upstream Invert Elevation (ft) Downstream Invert Elevation (ft) Conduit Slope 15-10 15 C D Node104 5 1 189.4 73.106 12 11.58 0.22 20-15 20 Node103 5 393,89 52.754 13.1 11.528 0.25 25-20 25 20 5 342 -53.263 12.8 13.1 -0.088 30-25 30 25 5 126 53.637 12.8 12.8 0 35-30 35 30 5 470 54.148 12.8 12.8 0 40-35 40-E 35 5 630 55.262 13.1 12.8 0.032 Link94 VAULT1 1+6 45.1 5 46 43.026 13.157 13.4 0.87 Link101 VAULTI 1+6 Node95 7 304.29 113.742 13.157 12.974 0.06 4.21E+52 4+21 Ex F VAULT1 1+6 7 262 97.997 13.314 13.157 0.06 477E421 E D8 -14 -G 4+21 Ex -F 3 56 -12.941 13.78 13.314 -0.214 978880 CB1 79+78 VAULT2 6+4 5 314 -64.159 13.27 12.14 -0.131 1268978 CB21 11+35 C13179+78 5 157 -64.1 13.14 13.27 -0.08 14351268 CB31 1435H CB21 11+35 5 300 64.044 13.99 13.14 0.283 15711435 CB35 15711 CB31 1435H 5 136 -59.997 13.57 13.99 -0.309 Link120 59B=U Node 112 4 70 78.245 14.009 13,967 0.06 17971571 C940 17+97 CB35 15711 5 226 55.158 13.98 13.57 0.181 20921797 CB41 20+92 CB40 17+97 5 295 55.537 14.51 13.98 0.18 25572092 VT3 25+57 CB41 20+92 5 465 -56.112 13.05 14.51 -0.013 2648-2557 CB50J VT3 25+57 5 19 30.529 14.5 13.05 0,263 3660-3521 36+60 35+21 3 139 21.847 21,239 20.905 0.24 235-3722 235 -0 -AO 37+22P_Q_R 3 100 15.479 22 21.388 0.612 37223660 37+22P Q R 36+60 3 62 21.942 21.388 1 21.239 0.24 17971620 E8 -13A-17+ E8-1116+2 2 177 -2.255 16,67 17.62 -0.537 17971797 E8 -13A-17+ CB40 17+97 2 10 0 16.67 13,98 -26.3 18831797 E8 -13B-18+ E8 -13A-17+ 2 86 2.169 17.53 16.67 0,942 19961883 F8-2219+9 E8 -13B-18+ 2 113 2.073 18,2 17.53 0.549 22851996 CB -EX -22+8 CB42 21+04 2 181 1.923 18.34 18.25 0.1 Link147 CB -EX 22+8 CB45 23+63 2 78 -1.916 18.34 18.27 0.09 16201571 E8-11 16+2 CB52 15+71 2 49 -2.79 17.62 17.35 0.551 15711571 C135215+71 CB35 15711 2 14 2.928 17.35 13.57 -0.714 45-40 45 40 E 5 57 42.756 13.1 13,1 0 59A -59B 59A W AM 59B -U 3 187 51.811 15.65 14.009 0.171 60B -60A 60B 60A -X 3 100 27.968 16 15.96 0.04 65A -60B 65A 60B 3 199 27.95 16.25 16 0.025 67A -65A 67A 65A 3 353 27.925 16.49 16.25 0.068 70A -67A 70A 67A 3 252 27.902 16,75 16.49 0.083 73A -70A 73A 70A 3 125 27.883 1 16.77 16.75 0.096 75A -73A 175A -Z -AA -Y 173A 2 210 27.865 1 17.14 16.77 0.176 Alternative 1B - 10 year Storm - Links Table Name Upstream Node Name Downstream Node Name Diameter (or Height) (ft) Length (ft) Max Flow (cfs) Upstream Invert Elevation (ft) Downstream Invert Elevation (ft) Conduit Slope 78A -75A 78A 75A Z AA Y 2 172 -14.984 17.26 17.14 -0.012 80A -79A 80A ABACAP 79A 2 38 -14.986 17.09 17.37 -0.737 95A -80A 95A AE 80A ABACAP 2 241 10.275 18.25 17.09 0.427 100A -95A 100A 95A AE 2 46 7,096 18,64 18,25 0,848 110A -105A 110A 105A 2 309 -7.807 18.79 19 -0.068 115A -110A 115A AF AD 110A 2 62 8,781 20,85 18,79 3 120A -115A 120A 115A -AF -AD 2 80 -8.071 21.11 20.85 0.138 125A -120A 125A 120A 2 27 -8.074 21.18 21.11 0.259 130A -125A 130A 125A 2 110 -8.08 21.64 21.18 0.286 135A -130A 135A AH 130A 2 178 -8.063 21.9 21.64 0.146 Link96 135A AH 59B -U 5 3335 23.494 21.9 14.009 0,197 140A -138A 140A 138A 2 86 6.415 22.34 22.14 0.233 145A -140A 145A 140A 2 145 6.507 22.64 22.34 0.207 150A -145A 150AAIAJAK 145A 2 123 6,578 23.05 22.64 0,333 Link115 150AAIAJAK 135A AH 4 583 10.13 23.05 21.9 0.197 105A -100A 105A 100A 2 220 7.156 19 18.64 0.164 60A -59A 60A -X 59A W AM 3 272 35.786 15.96 15.65 0.04 79A -78A 79A 78A 2 154 14.972 17.37 17,26 0,136 136A135A 136A 135A -AH 2 77 6.242 21.95 21.9 0.065 137A1 36A 137A 136A 2 77 6.298 22.14 21.95 0.247 13BA137A 138A 137A 2 75 6.341 22.14 22.14 0 32233217 32+23Ex 32+17Ex 5 11 21,864 20.19 20.15 0,364 32173210 32+17Ex 32+10 Ex 5 12 24.896 20.15 20.11 0.364 32103102 32+10Ex EXCB 31+05 5 105 24.95 20.11 19.3 0.395 5 -Oct 10 5 5 91 87,008 11.3 11.02 0,308 1 -May 5 1_A_131_132 5 215 86.975 11.02 10.2 0.242 1 -Outfall 1-A 81 B2 Outfall 5.5 34 -93.098 10.2 10.5 -3.147 Link97 Outfall Node92 5,73 30 166,17 10,5 9,77 5 36103217 36+10Ex N 32+17Ex 1.75 393 4.421 22.45 20.15 0.585 26482648 26+48Ex CB51 26+48 2 10 0 20.47 14.5 0.7 35213223 35+21 32+23Ex 5 298 21.96 20.905 20.19 0,24 421114 CB5 4+67 VAULT1 1+6 5 304.5 -60.181 13 13.157 -0.263 644E477E VAULT2 6+4 D8-14 G 3 167 7.474 12.14 13.78 0.042 644477 VAULT2 6+4 C1354+67 5 197.5 60.39 12.14 13 0.041 Lk139 CB51 26+48 CB50 J 5 72 24.471 14.5 14.5 0 Link140 EXCB 31+05 CB54 29+23 4 182 24.942 19.3 17.53 0.973 Link144 EXCB 31+05 JEXCB 31+02 1,75 10 0 19,3 20,9 -13,2 Link141 CB54 29+23 ICB52 28+16 4 107 24.718 17.53 16.17 1.271 Alternative 1B - 10 year Storm - Links Table Name Upstream Node Name Downstream Node Name Diameter (or Height) (ft) Length (ft) Max Flow (cfs) Upstream Invert Elevation (ft) Downstream Invert Elevation (ft) Conduit Slope Link142 C135228+16 CB51 26+48 4 168 24.531 16.17 14.5 0.994 Link157 EXCB 31+02 26+48Ex 1.75 457 0 20.9 20.47 0 CB42F822 CB42 21+04 F8-2219+9 2 108 1.988 18.25 18.2 0.1 Link148 CB45 23+63 CB46 24+14 2 51 1.91 18.27 18.39 -0.235 Link149 CB46 24+14 VT3 25+57 2 143 1.942 18.39 13.05 -0.217 Pump Tmp Out V1 Mdpoint 0.05 10 6.9 14.7 22.02 0 Pump Tmp Out -V1 Mdpoint 14.7 22.02 L109 Mdpoint 59B_U 2 830 6.903 22.02 14.009 0.595 Link187 SH50 AN CB7 5.5 116 22.352 17.72 17.38 0.293 Link172 SH75 AL SH70 AG 2 71 6.266 20.681 20.283 0.56 Link173 SH70AG SH65 2 413 7.139 20.283 19.457 0.2 Link174 SH65 SH60 V2 4 579 7.005 19.457 19.18 0.048 Link175 SH60V2 SH50 AN 5.5 455 18.924 19.18 17.72 0.321 Link188 C137 C136 5.5 165 21.435 17.38 16.9 0.29 Link189 CB6 CB5 5.5 191 19.86 16.9 16.35 0.29 Link190 C135 C!34 -L 5.5 191 19.195 16.35 15.97 0.2 Link191 CB4 L C133 5.5 87 28.977 15.97 15.54 0.49 Link192 CB3 CB2 KM 5.5 176 27.742 15.54 15.03 0.29 383.1 CB2 KM VT3 25+57 5.5 200 29.896 15.03 13.05 0.29 overFlow1 CB2 KM VT3 25+57 1 200 0 15.03 13.05 0 5045 45.1 45 5 650 42.738 13.4 13.1 0.046 Link98 Node92 Node93 11.15 38 166.167 9.77 5.9 10.184 Link99 Node93 Node94 10.93 38 -166.157 5.9 6.86 -2.526 Link102 Node95 Node96 7 300.08 112.598 12.974 12.794 0.06 1-6103 Node96 Node97 7 300.02 111.537 12.794 12.614 Q.06 Link104 Node97 Node98 7 299.97 110.555 12.614 12.425 0.06 Link105 Node98 Node99 7 299.84 109.682 12.425 12.245 0.06 Link106 Node99 Node1Q0 7 300.25 108.977 12.245 12.065 0.06 Link107 WOW Node101 7 227.92 108.506 12.065 11.928 0.06 Link108 Node101 Node102 7 303.88 108.137 11.928 11.737 0.063 Link109 Node102 Node103 7 348.81 107.903 11.737 11.528 0.06 Link110 Node103 10 6 339.42 87.114 11.528 11.3 0.24 Link114 Node103 15 C D 5 46.1 73.142 11.528 12 0.25 Link111 Node104 Node105 5 165.14 73.103 11.58 11.18 0.242 Link112 Node105 Node106 5 215.6 73.064 11.18 10.67 0.237 Link113 Node106 Outfall 5 68.84 73.072 10.67 10.5 0.247 Link117 Node109 Node110 6 465 76.922 13.81 13.531 0.06 Li0118 jNode11O INodelll 6 131 76.314 13.531 13.452 0.06 Alternative 1B - 10 year Storm - Links Table Name Upstream Node Downstream Diameter (or Length Max Flow Upstream Downstream Conduit Name Node Name Height) (ft) (ft) (cfs) Invert Invert Slope Elevation Elevation (ft) (ft) Link119 Node111 4+21Ex F 1 6 230 76.101 13.452 13.314 0.06 I_ink116 Node112 Node109 1 6 262 77.69 13.967 13.81 0.06 Alternative 1B - 25 year Storm - Nodes Table Name Invert Elevation {ft) Ground Elevation (Spill Crest) (ft) Max Water Elevation (ft) Freeboard (ft) Ponding Type 15 C D 12 20.58 16.489 4,09 None 20 13.1 21.56 16.94 4.62 None 25 12.8 21.5 17.205 4.29 None 30 12.8 22.29 17.363 4.93 None 35 12,8 22.67 17.648 5.02 None 40-E 13.1 22,68 17.998 4,68 None VAULT1 1+6 13.157 23.11 18.396 4.71 Allowed 4+21Ex F 13.314 24.01 19.038 4,97 None D8-14 G 13.78 23,95 19.075 4.88 None CB1 79+78 13,27 25.6 19.533 6.07 None CB21 11+35 13.14 25.9 19.664 6,24 None CB31 1435H 13.99 25.4 19.925 5.48 None CB35 15711 13.57 25.31 20.019 5.29 None 59B_U 14.009 21.43 19.864 1.57 Allowed CB40 17+97 13.98 25.17 20.146 5.02 None CB41 20+92 14,51 25.64 20.3 5.34 Allowed VT3 25+57 13.05 25.36 20.587 4,77 Allowed CB50 J 14.5 24.43 20.63 3.8 Allowed 36+60 21,239 27.29 23.272 4.02 None 235 -0 -AO 22 29.82 23.617 6,2 None 37+22P Q R 21.388 28,48 23.457 5.02 None E8 -13A 17+ 16,67 24.79 20,149 4.64 None E8-13618+ 17.53 26.13 20.2 5,93 None F8-22 19+9 182 25.48 20.257 5.22 None CB -EX -22+8 18.34 24.59 20.426 4.16 Allowed E8-1116+2 17.62 24,92 20.056 4.86 None CB52 15+71 17.35 24.79 20.027 4.76 None 45 13,1 22.84 18.078 4,76 None 59A W AM 15.65 22.75 21.615 1.14 None 60B 16 24.2 23.26 0.94 None 65A 16.25 24.4 23,667 0.73 None 67A 16.49 25.54 24.387 1.15 Allowed 70A 16.75 27,35 24.9 2.45 Allowed 73A 16.77 30.37 25.153 5.22 Allowed 75A Z AA Y 17,14 31.14 26.13 5.01 Allowed 78A 17.26 30.07 26.224 3.85 Allowed 80A ABACAP 17.09 30.22 26,326 3.89 Allowed 95A AE 18,25 30.25 26.323 3.93 Allowed 100A 18.64 30.09 26.296 3.79 Allowed Alternative 1B - 2S year Storm - Nodes Table Name Invert Elevation (ft) Ground Elevation (Spill Crest) (ft) Max Water Elevation (ft) Freeboard (ft) Ponding Type 110A 18.79 30.34 25.989 4.35 Allowed 115A_AF_AD 20.85 30.43 25.951 4.48 Allowed 120A 21.11 29.32 25.506 3.81 Allowed 125A 21.18 29.19 25.355 3.84 Allowed 130A 21.64 28.44 24.734 3.71 Allowed 135A -AH 21.9 27.75 23.992 3.76 Allowed 140A 22.34 28.04 24.27 3.77 Allowed 145A 22.64 28.69 24.389 4.3 None 150AAIAJAK 23.05 28.75 24.503 4.25 None 105A 19 30.8 26.167 4.63 None 60A_X 15.96 23.65 23.055 0.6 None 79A 17.37 30.17 26.306 3.86 Allowed 136A 21.95 27.75 24.06 3.69 Allowed 137A 22.14 27.74 24.127 3.61 Allowed 138A 22.14 27.87 24.198 3.67 Allowed 32+23Ex 20.19 25.6 21.796 3.8 Allowed 32+17Ex 20.15 26.1 21.771 4.33 Allowed 32+10Ex 20.11 25.5 21.719 3.78 Allowed 10 11.3 21.23 15.933 5.3 None 5 11.02 20.93 15.457 5.47 None 1_A_81_132 10.2 20.35 14.788 5.56 None Outfall 10.5 18 13.529 4.47 None 36+10Ex N 22.45 27.34 23.387 3.95 None 26+48Ex 20.47 24.58 20.643 3.94 Allowed 35+21 20.905 26.58 22.592 3.99 None CB5 4+67 13 24 18.829 5.17 None VAULT2 6+4 12.14 24.65 19.087 5.56 Allowed CB51 26+48 14.5 24.57 20.636 3.93 Allowed EXCB 31+05 19.3 25.36 20.704 4.66 Allowed CB54 29+23 17.53 24.86 20.696 4.16 Allowed CB52 28+16 16.17 24.68 20.698 3.98 Allowed EXCB 31+02 20.9 25.79 20.9 4.89 Allowed CB42 21+04 18.25 24.2 20.332 3.87 Allowed CB45 23+63 18.27 24.24 20.463 3.78 Allowed CB46 24+14 18.39 24 20.488 3.51 Allowed Tmp Out V1 14.7 25.6 18.742 6.86 None Mdpoint 22.02 24.5 23.402 1.1 Sealed SH50 AN 17.72 28.31 20.642 7.67 None SH75 AL 20.681 31.9 21.614 1 10.29 INone Alternative 1B - 25 year Storm - Nodes Table Name Invert Elevation (ft) Ground Elevation (Spill Crest) (ft) Max Water Elevation (ft) Freeboard (ft) Ponding Type SH70 AG 20.283 31.2 21.595 9.61 None SH65 19.457 30.99 20,815 10.17 None SH60 V2 19.18 29.63 20.724 8.91 None C137 17.38 27.7 20.64 7.06 None CB6 16.9 27.4 20.64 6,76 None C135 16.35 27 20.629 6.37 None CB4 L 15,97 25.8 20.617 5.18 None C133 15.54 25.2 20.614 4,59 Allowed C132 i(M 15.03 25.5 20.604 4.9 None 45.1 13.4 23.17 18.328 4,84 None Node92 9.77 20.92 11.725 9.2 None Node93 5.9 18.25 9.49 8.76 None Node94 6.86 17.79 9.169 8,62 None Node95 12.974 23.91 18.223 5.69 None Node96 12,794 23.41 18.056 5.35 None Node97 12.614 23,26 17.892 5.37 None Node98 12.425 23.35 17.726 5.62 None Node99 12,245 22.74 17.565 5.17 None Node100 12.065 22,29 17.402 4.89 None Node101 11.928 21.91 17.267 4.64 None Node102 11,737 21.76 17.101 4.66 None Node103 11.528 20.6 16.582 4.02 None Node104 11.58 20.9 15.274 5.63 None Node105 11,18 21.46 14.989 6.47 None Node106 10.67 21,12 14.679 6.44 None Node109 13.81 27.35 19,641 7.71 None Node110 13,531 25.9 19.357 6,54 None Node111 13.452 25,9 19.215 6.69 None Node112 13.967 21.9 19,82 2.08 None Alternative 1B - 25 year Storm - Links Table Name Upstream Node Name Downstream Node Name Diameter (or Height) (ft) Length (ft) Max Flow (cfs) Upstream Invert Elevation (ft) Downstream Invert Elevation (ft) Conduit Slope 15-10 15 C D Node104 5 189.4 95.606 12 11.58 0.22 20-15 20 Nodel03 5 393.89 59.845 13.1 11.528 0.25 25-20 25 20 5 342 -61 12.8 13.1 -0.088 30-25 30 25 5 126 61.886 12.8 12.8 0 35-30 35 30 5 1 470 63.067 12.8 12.8 0 40-35 40 E 35 5 630 65.243 13.1 12.8 0.032 Link94 VAULTI 1+6 45.1 5 46 51.232 13.157 13.4 0.87 Link101 VAULT1 1+6 Ncde95 7 304.29 144,445 13.157 12,974 0,06 4,21 E+52 4+21 Ex -F VAULT1 1+6 7 262 128.304 13.314 13.157 0.06 477E421 E D8 -14 -G 4+21 Ex -F 3 56 -12.049 13.78 13.314 -0,214 978880 C13179+78 VAULT2 6+4 5 314 -70,14 13.27 12.14 -0.131 1268978 CB21 11+35 CB1 79+78 5 157 -70.153 13.14 13.27 -0.08 14351268 CB31 1435H CB21 11+35 5 300 70.157 13.99 13.14 0,283 15711435 CB35 15711 CB31 1435H 5 136 -64.861 13.57 13.99 -0.309 Link120 59B -U Node112 4 70 110.707 14.009 13.967 0.06 17971571 CB40 17+97 CB35 15711 5 226 56.746 13.98 13.57 0,181 20921797 CB41 20+92 CB40 17+97 5 295 58.089 14.51 13.98 0.18 25572092 VT3 25+57 CB41 20+92 5 465 -60.832 13.05 14.51 -0.013 2648-2557 CB50 J VT3 25+57 5 19 41.218 14.5 13.05 0.263 3660-3521 36+60 35+21 3 139 28.4 21.239 20.905 0.24 235-3722 235 -0 -AO 37+22P Q R 3 100 22.094 22 21,388 0.612 37223660 37+22P Q R 36+60 3 62 28.329 21.388 21.239 0.24 17971620 E8 -13A-17+ E8-1116+2 2 177 -5.384 16.67 17.62 -0.537 17971797 E8 -13A-17+ CB40 17+97 2 10 -0.286 16.67 13.98 -26.3 18831797 E8 -13B-18+ E8 -13A 17+ 2 86 5.359 17,53 16.67 0.942 19961883 F8-2219+9 E8-138 18+ 2 113 5.281 18.2 17.53 0.549 22851996 CB -EX -22+8 CB42 21+04 2 181 5.084 18.34 18.25 0.1 Link147 CB -EX -22+8 CB45 23+63 2 78 -5.238 18.34 18.27 0,09 16201571 E8-1116+2 CB52 15+71 2 49 -6.089 17.62 17.35 0.551 15711571 CB52 15+71 CB35 15711 2 14 6.367 17.35 13.57 -0.714 45-40 45 40 E 5 57 49.571 13,1 13.1 0 59A-596 59A W AM 59B -U 3 187 66,881 15.65 14.009 0.171 60B -60A 60B 60A -X 3 100 31.794 16 15.96 0.04 65A -60B 65A 60B 3 199 31.818 16.25 16 O.025 67A -65A 67A 65A 3 353 31.856 16.49 16.25 0.068 70A -67A 70A 67A 3 1 252 31.908 16.75 16.49 M83 73A -70A 73A 70A 3 125 31,965 16.77 16,75 0,096 75A -73A 75A Z AA Y 173A 2 210 32.029 1714 16.77 0.176 Alternative 1B - 25 year Storm - Links Table Name Upstream Node Name downstream Node Name Diameter (or Height) (ftj Length (ft) Max Flow (cfs) Upstream Invert Elevation A Downstream Invert Elevation (ft) Conduit Slope 78A -75A 78A 75A Z AA Y 2 172 -14.047 17.26 17.14 -0.012 80A -79A 80A ABACAP 79A 2 38 -14.188 17.09 17.37 -0.737 95A -80A 95A AE 80A ABACAP 2 241 9.307 18.25 17.09 0.427 100A -95A 100A 95A AE 2 46 7.857 18.64 18.25 0.848 110A -105A 110A 105A 2 309 -7.773 18.79 19 -0.068 115A -110A 115A AF AD 110A 2 62 8.275 20.85 18.79 3 120A -115A 120A 115A -AF -AD 2 80 -15.822 21,11 20.85 0.138 125A -120A 125A 120A 2 27 -15.831 21.18 21.11 0.259 130A -125A 130A 125A 2 110 -15.84 21.64 21.18 0.286 135A -130A 135A AH 130A 2 178 -15.834 21.9 21.64 0.146 Link96 135A AH 59B -U 5 3335 39.234 21.9 14.009 0.197 140A -138A 140A 138A 2 86 8.185 22.34 22.14 0.233 145A -140A 145A 140A 2 145 8.469 22.64 22.34 0.207 150A -145A 150AAIAJAK 145A 2 123 8.737 23.05 22.64 0.333 Link115 150AAIAJAK 135A AH 4 583 16.701 23.05 21.9 0.197 105A -100A 105A 100A 2 220 7.816 19 18.64 0,164 60A -59A 60A -X 59A W AM 3 272 43.029 15.96 15.65 0.04 79A -78A 79A 78A 2 154 14.03 17.37 17.26 0.136 136A135A 136A 135A AH 2 77 7.729 21.95 21.9 0.065 137A136A 137A 136A 2 77 7.877 22.14 21,95 0.247 138A137A 138A 137A 2 75 8.045 22.14 22.14 0 32233217 32+23Ex 32+17Ex 5 11 28.357 20.19 20.15 0.364 32173210 32+17Ex 32+10Ex 5 12 34.505 20.15 20.11 0.364 32103102 32+10Ex EXCB 31+05 5 105 34.708 20.11 19.3 0.395 5 -Oct 10 5 5 91 109.17 11.3 11.02 0.308 1 -May 5 1A131132 5 215 109.209 11.02 10.2 0.242 1 -Outfall 1 A B1 62 Outfall 5.5 34 -122.553 10.2 10.5 -3.147 Link97 Outfall Node92 5.73 30 218.12 10.5 9.77 5 36103217 36+10Ex N 32+17Ex 1.75 393 6.305 22.45 20.15 0.585 26482648 26+48Ex C85126+48 2 10 -0.067 20.47 14.5 0.7 35213223 35+21 32+23Ex 5 298 28.541 20.905 20.19 0.24 421114 CB5 4+67 VAULTI 1+6 5 304.5 -70.539 13 13.157 -0.263 644E477E VAULT2 6+4 D8 -14 -G 3 167 -10.516 12.14 13.78 0.042 644477 VAULT2 6+4 CB5 4+67 5 197.5 71.031 12.14 13 0.041 Lk139 CB51 26+48 C850 -J 5 72 31.177 14.5 14.5 0 Link140 EXCB 31+05 CB54 29+23 4 182 34.773 19.3 17.53 0.973 Link144 EXCB 31+05 EXCB 31+02 1.75 10 0 19.3 20.9 -13.2 Link141 CB54 29+23 ICB5228+16 4 1 107 32.503 1 17.53 1 16.17 1.271 Alternative 1B - 25 year Storm - Links Table Name Upstream Node Name Downstream Node Name Diameter (or Height) (ft) Length (ft) Max Flow (cfs) Upstream Invert Elevation (ft) Downstream Invert Elevation (ft) Conduit Slope Link142 CB52 28+16 CB51 26+48 4 168 31.48 16,17 14,5 0.994 Link157 EXCB 31+02 26+48Ex 1,75 457 0 20.9 20.47 0 CB42FB22 C134221+04 178-2219+9 2 108 5,13 18.25 182 0.1 Link148 CB45 23+63 CB46 24+14 2 51 5.34 18.27 18.39 -0.235 Link149 CB46 24+14 VT3 25+57 2 143 5.656 18.39 13.05 -0.217 Pump Tmp Out -V1 Mdpoint 0.05 10 13.5 14.7 22.02 0 Pump Tmp Out V1 Mdpoint 14,7 22.02 L109 Mdpoint 59B_U 2 830 13.328 22.02 14.009 0.595 Link187 SH50 AN C137 5.5 116 28,968 17.72 17.38 0.293 Link172 SH75 AL SH70 AG 2 71 3.721 20.681 20,283 0,56 Link173 SH70AG SH65 2 413 7.192 20.283 19.457 0.2 Link174 SH65 SH60 V2 4 579 7.059 19,457 19.18 0.048 Link175 SH60 V2 SH50 AN 5.5 455 24.022 19.18 17.72 0.321 Link188 CB7 C66 5.5 165 26.626 17.38 16.9 0.29 Link189 CB6 C135 5.5 191 22.999 16,9 16,35 0.29 Link190 CB5 CB4 L ICB3 5.5 191 24.722 16.35 15.97 0.2 Link191 CB4 L 5.5 87 32.516 15.97 15.54 0.49 Link192 C133 CB2 KM 5.5 176 32.679 15.54 15.03 0.29 383.1 CB2 KM VT3 25+57 5.5 200 35.357 15.03 13.05 0.29 overflowl CB2 KM VT3 25+57 1 200 0 15.03 13.05 0 5045 45.1 45 5 650 50.342 13.4 13.1 0.046 Link98 Node92 Node93 11,15 38 218.126 9.77 5.9 10.184 Link99 Node93 Node94 10.93 38 -218.137 5.9 6.86 -2.526 Link102 Node95 Node96 7 300.08 141.635 12.974 12.794 0,06 Link103 Node96 Node97 7 300.02 139.149 12.794 12.614 0.06 Link104 Node97 Node98 7 299.97 136.94 12.614 12.425 0.06 Link105 Node98 Node99 7 299.84 135.431 12.425 12.245 0.06 Link106 Node99 Node100 7 30025 134.022 12.245 12.065 0.06 Link107 Node100 Node101 7 227.92 133,353 12.065 11.928 0.06 Link108 Node101 Nodel02 7 303.88 133.129 11.928 11.737 0,063 Link109 Node102 Node103 7 348.81 133.369 11.737 11.528 0.06 Link110 Nodel03 10 6 339,42 109.241 11,528 11.3 0.24 Link114 Node103 15 C D 5 46.1 84.561 11.528 12 0.25 Link111 Node104 Node105 5 1 165.14 95.569 11.58 11.18 0.242 Link112 Node105 Nodel06 5 215,6 95,538 11,18 10.67 0.237 Link113 Node106 Outfall 5 68.84 95.557 10.67 10.5 0.247 Link117 Node109 Node110 6 465 108.736 13.81 13.531 0.06 Link118 Node110 Node111 6 131 107.683 13.531 13.452 0,06 Alternative 113 - 25 year Storm - Links Table Name Upstream Node Downstream Diameter Length Max Flow Upstream Downstream Conduit Name Node Name (or Height) (ft) (cfs) Invert Invert Slope (ft) Elevation Elevation A (ft) Link119 Node111 4+21 Ex -F 6 230 106.949 13.452 13.314 0.06 1-ink116 jNode112 Node109 1 6 262 109.972 13.967 13.81 1 0.06 Alternative 113 - 100 year Storm - Nodes Table Name Invert Elevation (ft) Ground Elevation (Spill Crest) (ft) Max Water Elevation (ft) Freeboard (ft) Ponding Type 59B -U 14.009 22.43 23.125 -0.7 Allowed 15 -C -D 12 20.58 18.853 1.73 None 20 13.1 21.56 19.458 2.1 None 25 12.8 21.5 19.862 1.64 None 30 12.8 22.29 20.159 2,13 None 35 12.8 22.67 20.621 2.05 None 40_E 13.1 22,68 21.157 1,52 None VAULTI 1+6 13.157 23.11 21.552 1.56 Allowed 4+21Ex F 13,314 24,01 21.987 2.02 None DB -14 -G 13.78 23.95 22.419 1.53 None CB1 79+78 13.27 25.6 23.238 2.36 None CB21 11+35 13,14 25.9 23.443 2.46 None CB31_1435H 13.99 25.4 23.835 1.56 None CB35_15711 13,57 25.31 23.982 1.33 None CB40 17+97 13.98 25,17 24.162 1,01 None CB41 20+92 14.51 25.64 24.417 1.22 Allowed VT3 25+57 13,05 25.36 24.92 0.44 Allowed CB50 J 14.5 24,43 24,99 -0,56 Allowed 36+60 21,239 27,29 26.181 1,11 None 235_O_AO 22 29.82 26.54 3.28 None 37+22P 0 R 21.388 28.48 26.399 2.08 None E8 -13A 17+ 16,67 24,79 24.159 0.63 None E8 -13B 18+ 17.53 26.13 24.171 1,96 None F8-2219+9 18.2 25.48 24.191 1.29 None CB -EX 22+8 18,34 24.59 24.416 0.17 Allowed E8-1116+2 17.62 24,92 24.029 0,89 None CB52 15+71 17.35 24.79 23.993 H None 45 13.1 22.84 21.249 1,59 None 59A_W_AM 15,65 23,75 23.259 0.49 None 60B 16 25.2 24.34 0,86 None 65A 16.25 25.4 24.758 0.64 None 67A 16,49 25,54 26.104 -0.56 Allowed 70A 16.75 27.35 27.323 0.03 Allowed 73A 16.77 30.37 27.95 2.42 Allowed 75A_Z_AA_Y 17,14 31,14 30.37 0.77 Allowed 78A 17.26 30.07 30.262 -0,19 Allowed 80A ABACAP 17.09 30.22 30.229 -0.01 Allowed 95A AE 18,25 30,25 30.037 0,21 Allowed 100A 18.64 30.09 29.844 0.25 Allowed Alternative 1B - 100 year Storm - Nodes Table Name Invert Elevation (ft) Ground Elevation (Spill Crest) (ft) Max Water Elevation (ft) Freeboard (ft) Ponding Type 110A 18.79 30.34 28.904 1.44 Allowed 115A AF AD 20.85 30.43 28.836 1.59 Allowed 120A 21.11 29.32 27.961 1.36 Allowed 125A 21.18 29.19 27.667 1.52 Allowed 130A 21.64 28.44 26.493 1.95 Allowed 135A AH 21.9 27.75 24.798 2.95 Allowed 140A 22.34 28.04 24.945 3.1 Allowed 145A 22.64 28.69 25.018 3.67 None 150AAIAJAK 23.05 28.75 25.086 3.66 None 105A 19 30.8 29.248 1.55 None 60A -X 15.96 24.65 24.065 0.59 None 79A 17.37 30.17 30.233 -0.06 Allowed 136A 21.95 27.75 24.834 2.92 Allowed 137A 22.14 27.74 24.87 2.87 Allowed 138A 22.14 27.87 24.905 2.96 Allowed 32+23Ex 20.19 25.6 25.424 0.18 Allowed 32+17Ex 20.15 26.1 25.341 0.76 Allowed 32+10Ex 20.11 25.5 25.256 0.24 Allowed 10 11.3 21.23 18,362 2.87 None 5 11.02 20.93 17.094 3.84 None 1_A -B1 -B2 10.2 20.35 15.585 4.77 None Outfall 10.5 18 13.963 4.04 None 36+10Ex N 22.45 27.34 26.478 0.86 None 26+48Ex 20.47 24.58 25.017 -0.44 Allowed 35+21 20.905 26.58 25.362 1.22 None CB5 4+67 13 24.3 22.187 2.11 None VAULT2 6+4 12.14 24.65 22.52 2.13 Allowed C135126+48 14.5 24.57 25.004 -0.43 Allowed EXCB 31+05 19.3 25.36 25.237 0.12 Allowed CB54 29+23 17.53 24.86 25.064 -0.2 Allowed CB52 28+16 16.17 24.68 25.056 -0.38 Allowed EXCB 31+02 20.9 25.79 25.238 0.55 Allowed CB42 21+04 18.25 24.2 24.258 -0.06 Allowed CB45 23+63 18.27 24.24 24.494 -0.25 Allowed CB46 24+14 18.39 24 24.544 -0.54 Allowed Tmp Out V1 14.7 25.6 20.808 4.79 None Mdpoint 22.02 24.5 26.483 -1.98 Sealed SH50 AN 17.72 28.31 26.768 1.54 None SH75 AL 20.689 j 31.9 j 29.963 1.94 None Alternative 1B - 100 year Storm - Nodes Table Name Invert Elevation (ft) Ground Elevation (Spill Crest) (ft) Max Water Elevation (ft) Freeboard (ft) Ponding Type SH70_AG 20.283 31.2 29.928 1.27 None SH65 19.457 30.99 28.57 2.42 None SH60_V2 19.18 29.63 27.061 2.57 None CB7 17.38 27.7 26.658 1.04 None C136 16.9 27.4 26.447 0.95 None CB5 16.35 27 26.076 0.92 None C84_L 15.97 25.8 25.566 0.23 None CB3 15.54 25.2 25.199 0 Allowed CB2_KM 15.03 25.5 24.964 0.54 None 45,1 13.4 23.17 21.455 1.71 None Node92 9.77 20.92 12.014 8.91 None Node93 5.9 18.25 9.876 8.37 None Node94 6.86 17.79 9.514 8.28 None Node95 12.974 23.91 21.306 2.6 None Node96 12.794 23.41 21.063 2.35 None Node97 12.614 23.26 20.819 2.44 None Node98 12.425 23.35 20.575 2.77 None Node99 12.245 22.74 20.332 2.41 None Node100 12.065 22.29 20.086 2.2 None Node101 11.928 21.91 19.885 2.02 None Node102 11.737 21.76 19.632 2.13 None Node103 11.528 20.6 19.028 1.57 None Node104 11.58 20.9 17.006 3.89 None Nodel05 11.18 21.46 16.472 4.99 None Node106 10.67 21.12 15.788 5,33 None Node109 13.81 27.35 22.792 4.56 None Node110 13.531 25.9 22.374 3.53 None Node111 13.452 25.9 22.199 3.7 None Node112 13.967 21.9 23.065 -1.16 jAllowed Alternative 1B - 100 year Storm - Links Table Name Upstream Node Name Downstream Node Name Diameter (or Height) (ft) Length (ft) Max Flow (cfs) Upstream Invert Elevation (ft) Downstream Invert Elevation R Conduit Slope 15-10 15 C D Nodel04 5 189.4 145.535 12 11.58 0.22 20-15 20 Node103 5 393.89 63.844 13.1 11.528 0.25 25-20 25 20 5 342 -64.805 12.8 13.1 -0.088 30-25 30 25 5 126 66.791 12.8 12.8 0 35-30 35 30 5 470 67.022 12.8 12.8 0 40-35 40-E 35 5 630 67.425 13.1 12.8 0.032 Link94 VAULT1 1+6 45.1 5 46 50.562 13.157 13.4 0.87 Link101 VAULTI 1+6 Node95 7 304.29 209.499 13.157 12.974 0.06 4.21 E+52 4+21 Ex F VAULTI 1+6 7 262 175.612 13.314 13.157 0.06 477E421 E D8 -14 -G 4+21 Ex -F 3 56 -28.291 13.78 13.314 -0.214 978880 CB1 79+78 VAULT2 6+4 5 314 -90.658 13.27 12.14 -0.131 1268978 CB21 11+35 C13179+78 5 157 -90.636 13.14 13.27 -0.08 14351268 CB31 1435H CB21 11+35 5 300 90.594 13.99 13.14 0.283 15711435 CB35 15711 CB31 1435H 5 136 -87.58 13.57 13.99 -0.309 Link120 59B U Node112 4 70 146.801 14.009 13.967 0.06 17971571 CB40 17+97 CB35 15711 5 226 78.709 13.98 13.57 0.181 20921797 CB41 20+92 CB40 17+97 5 295 77.353 14.51 13.98 0.18 25572092 VT3 25+57 CB41 20+92 5 465 -77.419 13.05 14.51 -0.013 2648-2557 C!350 J VT3 25+57 5 19 53.391 14.5 13.05 0.263 3660-3521 36+60 35+21 3 139 37.834 21.239 20.905 0.24 235-3722 235 0 -AO 37+22P Q R 3 100 29.672 22 21.388 0.612 37223660 37+22P Q R 36+60 3 62 38.361 21.388 21.239 0.24 17971620 E8 -13A-17+ E8-1116+2 2 177 -6.692 96.67 17.62 -0.537 17971797 E8 -13A 17+ CB40 17+97 2 10 3,146 16.67 13.98 -26.3 18831797 E8-1313 18+ E8 -13A 17+ 2 86 9.423 17.53 16.67 0.942 19961883 F8-2219+9 ES -1313 18+ 2 113 9.378 18.2 17.53 0.549 22851996 CB -EX -22+8 CB42 21+04 2 181 9.303 18.34 18.25 0.1 Link147 CB -EX -22+8 CB45 23+63 2 78 -9.274 18.34 18.27 0.09 16201571 E8-1116+2 CB52 15+71 2 49 6.723 17.62 17.35 0.551 15711571 CB52 15+71 CB35 15711 2 14 -7.194 17.35 13.57 -0.714 45-40 45 40-E 5 57 50.64 13.1 13.1 0 337.1 59A W AM 59B -U 3 187 66.679 15.65 14.009 0.171 overflow 59A W AM 59B U 1 187 46.486 15.65 14.009 0.706 338.1 60B 60A -X 3 100 36.478 16 15.96 0.04 overflow3 60B 60A -X 1 100 1.32 16 15.96 0.55 335.1 65A 60B 3 199 36.526 16.25 16 0.025 overflow4 65A 60B 1 j 199 j 5.568 j 16.25 j 16 0.101 67A -65A 167A 65A 3 1 353 1 36.927 1 16.49 1 16.25 0.068 Alternative 1B - 100 year Storm - Links Table Name Upstream Node Name Downstream Node Name Diameter (or Height) (ft) Length (ft) Max Flow (cfs) Upstream Invert Elevation A Downstream Invert Elevation (ft) Conduit Slope 70A -67A 70A 67A 3 252 42,419 16.75 16.49 0.083 73A -70A 73A 70A 3 125 42.437 16.77 16.75 0.096 75A -73A 75A 2 AA Y 73A 2 210 42.46 17.14 16.77 0.176 78A -75A 78A 75A Z AA Y 2 172 -12.011 17.26 17.14 -0.012 80A -79A 80A ABACAP 79A 2 38 -11.98 17.09 17.37 -0.737 95A -80A 95A AE 80A ABACAP 2 241 -11.645 18.25 17,09 0.427 100A -95A 100A 95A AE 2 46 -14.254 18.64 18.25 0.848 110A -105A 110A 105A 2 309 14,258 18.79 19 -0.068 115A -110A 115A AF AD 110A 2 62 -14.261 20.85 18.79 3 120A -115A 120A 115A -AF -AD 2 80 -22.215 21.11 20.85 0.138 125A -120A 125A 120A 2 27 -22.159 21.18 21,11 0.259 130A -125A 130A 125A 2 110 -22.103 21.64 21.18 0.286 135A -130A 135A AH 130A 2 178 -22.058 21,9 21.64 0.146 Link96 135A AH 59B -U 5 3335 52.727 21.9 14,009 0.197 140A -138A 140A 138A 2 86 7.424 22.34 22.14 0.233 145A -140A 145A 140A 2 145 7.627 22.64 22.34 0.207 150A -145A 150AAIAJAK 145A 2 123 7.888 23.05 22.64 0.333 Link115 150AAIAJAK 135A AH 4 583 27,519 23.05 21.9 0.197 105A -100A 105A 100A 2 220 -14.257 19 18.64 0.164 336.1 60A -X 59A W AM 3 272 43.835 15.96 15.65 0.04 overfiow2 60A X 59A W AM 1 272 18,397 15.96 15.65 0.331 79A -78A 79A 78A 2 154 11.952 17.37 17.26 0.136 136A1 35A 136A 135A AH 2 77 7.065 21.95 21.9 0.065 137A136A 137A 136A 2 77 7.168 22.14 21.95 0.247 138A1 37A 138A 137A 2 75 7,293 22.14 22.14 0 32233217 32+23Ex 32+17Ex 5 11 51.496 20.19 20.15 0,364 32173210 32+17Ex 32+10Ex 5 12 62.409 20.15 20.11 0.364 32103102 32+10Ex EXCB 31+05 5 105 69,22 20.11 19.3 0.395 5 -Oct 10 5 5 91 135.001 11.3 11.02 0,308 1 -May 5 1A131132 5 215 134.955 11.02 10.2 0.242 1 -Outfall 1 A B1 B2 Outfall 5.5 34 -159.871 10,2 10.5 -3.147 Link97 Outfall Node92 5.73 30 305.062 10.5 9,77 5 36103217 36+10Ex N 32+17Ex 1.75 393 8.766 22.45 20.15 0.585 26482648 26+48Ex CB51 26+48 2 10 -13.102 20.47 14.5 0.7 35213223 35+21 32+23Ex 5 298 40.292 20.905 20,19 0.24 421114 CB5 4+67 VAULTI 1+6 5 306 -78.026 13 13.157 -0.261 644E477E VAULT2 6+4 D8-14 G 3 167 18,996 12.14 13.78 0.042 644477 VAULT2 6+4 1CB5 4+67 5 197.5 78.114 12.14 13 0.041 Alternative 1B - 100 year Storm - Links Table Name Upstream Node Name Downstream Node Name Diameter (or Height) (ft) Length (ft) Max Flow (cfs) Upstream I Invert Elevation (ft) Downstream Invent Elevation (ft) Conduit Slope 1-039 CB51 26+48 CB50 J 5 72 43.667 14,5 14.5 0 Link140 EXCB 31+05 CB54 29+23 5 182 68.846 19.3 17.53 0.973 Link144 EXCB 31+05 EXCB 31+02 1.75 10 -3,649 19.3 20.9 -13.2 Link141 CB54 29+23 CB52 28+16 5 107 49.764 17.53 16,17 1,271 Link142 CB52 28+16 CB51 26+48 5 168 50.928 16.17 14.5 0.994 Link157 EXCB 31+02 26+48Ex 1.75 457 3.919 20,9 20.47 0 CB42F822 CB42 21+04 F8-22 19+9 2 108 9.339 18.25 18.2 0.1 Link148 CB45 23+63 CB46 24+14 2 51 8,646 18.27 18.39 4235 Link149 CB46 24+14 VT3 25+57 2 143 12.208 18.39 13.05 -0.217 Pump Tmp Out -V1 Mdpoint 0.05 10 13.5 14.7 22.02 0 Pump imp Out_V1 Mdpoint 14.7 22.02 L109 Mdpoint 59B_U 2 830 13.982 22.02 14.009 0,595 Link187 SH50 AN CB7 5,5 116 56.98 17.72 17.38 0.293 Link172 SH75 AL SH70 AG 2 71 12.649 20.681 20,283 0.56 Link173 SH70 AG SH65 2 413 20.04 20.283 19.457 0.2 Link174 SH65 SH60V2 4 579 1 19.513 19.457 19.18 0.048 Link175 SH60 V2 SH50 AN 5.5 455 44.897 19,18 17,72 0.321 Link188 CB7 C136 5.5 165 57.322 17.38 16.9 0.29 Link189 CB6 CB5 5,5 191 57.624 16.9 16.35 0.29 Link190 CB5 CB4 L 5.5 191 57.862 16,35 15,97 0.2 Link191 CB4 L CB3 5.5 87 79.443 15.97 15.54 0.49 Link192 CB3 CB2 KM 5.5 176 79.582 15.54 15.03 0.29 383.1 CB2 KM VT3 25+57 5.5 200 90.703 15.03 13,05 0.29 overflowl CB2 KM VT3 25+57 1 200 7.963 15.03 13.05 0 5045 45.1 45 5 650 50,607 13.4 13.1 0.046 Link98 Node92 Node93 11.15 38 305.071 9.77 5,9 10,184 Link99 Node93 Node94 10,93 38 -305.108 5.9 6.86 -2.526 Link102 Node95 Node96 7 300.08 203.004 12,974 12.794 0.06 Link103 Node% Node97 7 300.02 196.544 12.794 12.614 0,06 Link104 Node97 Node98 7 299.97 191.435 12.614 12.425 0,06 Link105 Node98 Node99 7 299.84 189.815 12.425 12.245 0.06 Link106 Node99 Nodel00 7 300.25 188.65 12,245 12.065 0.06 Link107 Node100 Node101 7 227.92 189.222 12.065 11.928 0,06 Link108 Node101 Nodel02 7 303.88 189.877 11.928 11.737 0.063 Link109 Nodel02 Nodel03 7 348.81 190.779 11.737 11.528 0.06 Linkl10 Nodel03 10 6 339.42 135.069 11.528 11.3 0,24 Linkl14 Node103 15-C D 5 46,1 124.322 11.528 12 0.25 Linkl11 Node104 INodelO5 5 165.14 145.534 11,58 11.18 0.242 Alternative 1B - 100 year Storm - Links Table Name Upstream Node Name Downstream Node Name Diameter (or Height) (ft) Length (ft) Max Flow (cfs) Upstream Invert Elevation (ft) Downstream Invert Elevation (ft) Conduit Slope Link112 Node105 Node106 5 215.6 145,424 11.18 10.67 0.237 Link113 Node106 Outfall 5 68.84 145.403 10.67 10.5 0.247 Link117 Node109 Node110 6 465 129.442 13.81 13.531 0.06 Link118 Node110 Nodel11 6 131 129.6 13.531 13.452 0.06 ,Link 119 Node111 4+21 Ex—F 6 230 130.03 13.452 13.314 0.06 Link 116 Node112 INodelO9 t 6 1 262 131.627 13.967 13.81 0.06 Schedule B Alternative 1A 30% Submittal Engineer's Cost Estimate Hardie Ave SW and SW7th St Stormwater Improvments Schedule B - SW7th St (Naches to Lind) Item No. Description Unit Quantity Unit Price Total Amount 1 Mobilization, Cleanup and Demobilization LS 1 $ 400 000 $ 400,000 2 Construction Surveying, Staking and As -built Drawings LS 1 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 3 Project Temporary Traffic Control LS 1 $ 90.000 $ 90,000 4 Stormwater Pollution Prevention and TESC Plan and Implementation LS 1 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 5 Dewatering LS 1 $ 180,000 $ 180,000 6 Temporary Bypass Pumping LS 1 $ 45,000 $ 45,000 7 Shoring or Extra Excavation, Class B LS 1 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 8 Locate and Protect Existing Utilities LS 1 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 9 Utility Relocations LS 1 $ 115,000 $ 115,000 10 Removal of Structures and Obstructions LS 1 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 11 Class IV Concrete Storm Sewer Pipe - 72 -inch Dia LF 2811 $ 625 $ 1,756,875 12 Manhole Type 3 - 96 -inch Dia EA 8 $ 20,000 $ 160,000 13 32'-6" L x 12'-0" W x 10'-8" H Stormwater Utility Vauit LS 0 $ 50,000 $ - 14 Access Riser - 48 -inch Dia EA 0 $ 4,000 $ - 15 Trench Backfill TON 6000 $ 20.00 $ 120,000 16 Unsuitable Foundation Excavation Incl. Haul CY 500 $ 30 $ 15,000 17 Gravel Backfill for Pipe Zone Bedding CY 12000 $ 30 $ 360,000 18 Controlled Density Fill CY 100 $ 100 $ 10,000 19 Cement Concrete Curb and Gutter LF 0 $ 21 $ - 20 Cement Concrete Sidewalk SY 0 $ 40 $ 21 Cement Concrete Curb Ramp Type 1 (Perpendicular Curb Ramp) EA 0 $ 1,300 $ - 22 Crushed Surfacing Top Course TON 800 $ 20 $ 16,000 23 Sawcutting LF 5.620 $ 1.50 $ 8,430 24 Temporary Cold Mix Asphalt Concrete Patch TON 420 $ 50 $ 21,000 25 HMA Class 112" 64-22 for Overlay TON 2100 $ 120 $ 252,000 26 Restore Pavement Markings LF 12000 $ 0.25 $ 3,000 27 Type 2 Induction Loop EA 500 $ 12 $ 6,000 28 Seeding, Fertilizing, and Mulching SY 0 $ 200 $ - 29 Landscape Restoration LS 0 $ 10,000 $ - 30 Water Quality Improvements (Estimate from Grant) LS 1 $ 547,200 $ 547,200 31 RR Crossing Restoration EA 3 $ 40,000 $ 120,000 Bid Items Subtotal (with Mobilization) Sales Tax (assume none) Contingency Total Total (rounded) $ 4,385,506 0.00% $ - 30.00% $ 1,315,652 $ 5,701,157 $ 5,702,000 30% Cost Estimate_Rechecked_JF_1A.xlsx [Schedule B] Page 2 of 3 1:20 PM Schedule C Alternative 1A 30% Submittal Engineer's Cost Estimate Hardie Ave SW and SW7th St Stormwater Improvments Schedule C - SW7th St to Hardie Ave System Item No. Description Unit Quantity Unit Price Total Amount 1 Mobilization, Cleanup and Demobilization LS 1 $ 157,000 $ 157,000 2 Construction Surveying, Staking and As -built Drawings LS 1 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 3 Project Temporary Traffic Control LS 1 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 4 Stormwater Pollution Prevention and TESC Plan and Implementation LS 1 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 5 dewatering LS 1 $ 65,000 $ 65,000 6 Temporary Bypass Pumping LS 1 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 7 Shoring or Extra Excavation, Class B LS 1 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 8 Locate and Protect Existing Utilities LS 1 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 9 Utility Relocations LS 1 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 10 Removal of Structures and Obstructions LS 1 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 11 Class IV Concrete Storm Sewer Pipe - 72 -inch Dia LF 1090 is 625 $ 681,250 12 7'x4' Bax Culvert LF 70 $ 800 $ 56,000 13 Manhole Type 3 - 96 -inch Dia EA 4 $ 20,000 $ 80,000 14 ITIL x &W x 6'H Stormwater Utility Vault LS 1 $ 30,000 $ 30,000 15 8'L x &W x 8'H Stormwater Utility Vault LS 1 $ 30,000 $ 30,000 16 Access Riser - 48 -inch Dia EA 2 $ 4,000 $ 8,000 17 Trench Backfill TON 4000 $ 20.00 $ 80,000 18 Unsuitable Foundation Excavation Incl. Haul CY 50 $ 30 $ 1,500 19 Gravel Backfill for Pipe Zone Bedding CY 3300 $ 30 $ 99,000 20 lContralled Density Fill CY 25 $ 100 $ 2,500 21 Cement Concrete Curb and Gutter LF 50 $ 21 $ 1,050 22 Cement Concrete Sidewalk SY 30 $ 40 $ 1,200 23 Crushed Surfacing Top Course TON 10 $ 26 $ 260 24 Sawcutting LF 2000 $ 1.50 $ 3,000 25 ITemporary Cold Mix Asphalt Concrete Patch TON 70 $ 50 $ 3,500 26 HMA Class 112" 64-22 for Overlay TON 330 $ 120 $ 39,600 27 Restore Pavement Markings LF 1000 $ 0.25 $ 250 28 Seeding, Fertilizing, and Mulching SY 15 $ 200 $ 3,000 29 Pump Station and Associated piping LS 1 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 30 IMisc. Private Property Restoration LS 1 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 Bid Items Subtotal (with Mobilization) $ 1,727,110 Sales Tax 9.50% $ 164,075 Contingency 30.00% $ 518,133 Total $ 2,409,318 Total (rounded) $ 2,410,000 30% Cost Estimate_Rechecked_JF_1A.xlsx [Schedule C] Page 3 of 3 Printed: 71212012,1:20 PM Schedule A Alternative 1 B 30% Submittal Engineer's Cast Estimate Hardie Ave SW and SW7th St Stormwater Improvments Schedule A - Naches Ave SW (Outfall to SW 7th - Including vault at intersection) Item No. Description Unit Quantity Unit Price Total Amount 1 Mobilization, Cleanup and Demobilization LS 1 $ 100,0001 $ 100,000 2 Construction Surveying, Staking and As -built Drawings LS 1 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 3 Project Temporary Traffic Control LS 1 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 4 Stormwater Pollution Prevention and TESC Plan and Implementation LS 1 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 5 Dewatering LS 1 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 6 Temporary Bypass Pumping LS 1 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 7 Shoring or Extra Excavation, Class B LS 1 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 8 Locate and Protect Existing Utilities LS 1 $ 5,000 $ 51000 9 Utility Relocations LS 1 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 10 Removal of Structures and Obstructions LS 1 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 11 Class IV Concrete Storm Sewer Pipe - 72 -inch Dia LF 789 $ 625 $ 493,125 12 Manhole Type 3 - 96 -inch Dia EA 4 $ 20,000 $ 80,000 13 32'-6" L x 12'-0" W x 10'-8" H Stormwater Utility Vault LS 1 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 14 Access Riser- 48 -inch Dia EA 1 $ 4,000 $ 4,000 15 Trench Backfill TON 1900 $ 20.00 $ 38,000 16 Unsuitable Foundation Excavation Incl. Haul CY 50 $ 30 $ 1,500 17 JGravel Backfill for Pipe Zone Bedding CY 2200 $ 30 $ 66,000 18 Controlled Density Fill CY 50 $ 100 $ 5,000 19 Cement Concrete Curb and Gutter LF 450 $ 21 $ 9,450 20 Cement Concrete Sidewalk SY 250 $ 40 $ 10,000 21 Cement Concrete Curb Ramp Type 1 (Perpendicular Curb Ramp) EA 1 $ 1,300 $ 1,300 22 Crushed Surfacing Top Course TON 131 $ 26 $ 3,408 23 Sawcutting LF 1400 $ 1.50 $ 2,100 24 Temporary Cold Mix Asphalt Concrete Patch TON 70 $ 50 $ 3,500 25 HMA Class 1/2" 64-22 for Overlay TON 350 $ 120 $ 42,000 26 IRestore Pavement Markings LF 4000 $ 0.25 $ 1,000 27 Type 2 Induction Loop LF 0 $ 12 $ - 28 Seeding, Fertilizing, and Mulching SY 50 $ 5 $ 250 29 Landscape Restoration LS 1 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 Bid Items Subtotal (with Mobilization) Sales Tax (assume none) Contingency Total Total (rounded) $ 1,090,633 0.00% $ - 30.00% $ 327,190 $ 1,417,823 $ 1,420,000 30% Cost Estimate -Rechecked -JF -1 B.xlsx [Schedule A] Page 1 of 1 Printed: 702012, 1:20 PM Schedule B Alternative 113 30% Submittal Engineer's Cost Estimate Hardie Ave SW and SW7th St Stormwater Improvments Schedule B - SW7th St (Naches to Lind) Item No. Description Unit Quantity Unit Price Total Amount 1 Mobilization, Cleanup and Demobilization LS 1 $ 480,000 $ 4807000 2 Construction Surveying, Staking and As -built Drawings LS 1 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 3 Project Temporary Traffic Control LS 1 $ 90,000 $ 90,000 4 Stormwater Pollution Prevention and TESC Plan and Implementation LS 1 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 5 Dewatering LS 1 $ 180,000 $ 180,000 6 Temporary Bypass Pumping LS 1 $ 45,000 $ 45,000 7 Shoring or Extra Excavation, Class 6 LS 1 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 8 Locate and Protect Existing Utilities LS 1 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 9 Utility Relocations LS 1 $ 115,000 $ 115,000 10 Removal of Structures and Obstructions LS 1 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 11 Class IV Concrete Storm Sewer Pipe - 84 -inch Dia LF 3073 $ 750 $ 2,304,750 12 Manhole Type 3 - 108 -inch Dia EA 8 $ 30,000 $ 240,000 13 32'-6" L x 12'-0" W x 10'-8" H Stormwater Utility Vault LS 0 $ 50,000 $ - 14 Access Riser - 48 -inch Dia EA 0 $ 4,000 $ - 15 Trench Backfill TON 4000 $ 20.00 $ 80,000 16 Unsuitable Foundation Excavation Incl. Haul CY 500 $ 30 $ 15,000 17 Gravel Backfill for Pipe Zone Bedding CY 19000 $ 30 $ 570,000 18 Controlled Density Fill CY 100 $ 100 $ 10,000 19 Cement Concrete Curb and Gutter LF 0 $ 21 $ - 20 Cement Concrete Sidewalk SY 0 $ 40 $ - 21 Cement Concrete Curb Ramp Type 1 (Perpendicular Curb Ramp) EA 0 $ 1,300 $ - 22 Crushed Surfacing Top Course TON 1000 $ 20 $ 20,000 23 Sawcutting LF 6150 $ 1.50 $ 9,225 24 Temporary Cold Mix Asphalt Concrete Patch TON 500 $ 50 $ 25,000 25 HMA Class 112" 64-22 for Overlay TON 2500 $ 120 $ 300,000 26 Restore Pavement Markings LF 13000 $ 0.25 $ 3,250 27 Type 2 Induction Loop EA 500 $ 12 $ 6,000 28 Seeding, Fertilizing, and Mulching SY 0 $ 200 $ 29 Landscape Restoration LS 0 $ 10,000 $ - 30 Water Quality Improvements (Estimate from Grant) LS 1 $ 547,200 $ 547,200 31 RR Crossing Restoration EA 3 $ 40,000 $ 120,000 Bid Items Subtotal (with Mobilization) Sales Tax (assume none) Contingency Total Total (rounded) $ 5,320,425 0.00% $ - 30.00% $ 1,596,128 $ 6,916,553 $ 6,917,000 30% Cost Estimate_Rechecked_JF_l B.xlsx [Schedule BI Page 2 of 3 1:21 PM Schedule C Alternative 18 30% Submittal Engineer's Cost Estimate Hardie Ave SW and SW7th St Stormwater Improvments Schedule C - SW7th St to Hardie Ave System Item No, Description Unit Quantity Unit Price Total Amount 1 Mobilization, Cleanup and Demobilization LS 1 $ 157,000 $ 157,000 2 Construction Surveying, Staking and As -built Drawings LS 1 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 3 Project Temporary Traffic Control LS 1 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 4 IStormwater Pollution Prevention and TESC Plan and Implementation LS 1 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 5 IDewatering LS 1 $ 65,000 $ 65,000 6 ITemporary Bypass Pumping LS 1 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 7 Shoring or Extra Excavation, Class B LS 1 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 8 Locate and Protect Existing Utilities LS 1 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 9 Utility Relocations LS 1 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 10 Removal of Structures and Obstructions LS 1 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 11 lClass IV Concrete Storm Sewer Pipe - 72 -inch Dia LF 1090 $ 625 $ 681,250 12 7'x4' Box Culvert LF 70 $ 800 $ 56,000 13 Manhole Type 3 - 96 -inch Dia EA 4 $ 20,000 $ 80,000 14 8'L x 6'W x 6' H Stormwater Utility Vault LS 1 $ 30,000 $ 30,000 15 8' L x &W x 8' H Stormwater Utility Vault LS 1 $ 30,000 $ 30,000 16 jAccess Riser - 48 -inch Dia EA 2 $ 4,000 $ 8,000 17 Trench Backfill TON 4000 $ 20.00 $ 80,000 18 Unsuitable Foundation Excavation Incl. Haul CY 50 $ 30 $ 1,500 19 Gravel Backfill for Pipe Zone Bedding CY 3300 $ 30 $ 99,000 20 Controlled Density Fill CY 25 $ 100 $ 2,500 21 lCement Concrete Curb and Gutter LF 50 $ 21 $ 1,050 22 Cement Concrete Sidewalk SY 30 $ 40 $ 1,200 23 Crushed Surfacing Top Course TON 10 $ 26 $ 260 24 Sawcutting LF 2000 $ 1.50 $ 3,000 25 Temporary Cold Mix Asphalt Concrete Patch TON 70 $ 50 $ 3,500 26 jHMA Class 1/2" 64-22 for Overlay TON 330 $ 120 $ 39,600 27 Restore Pavement Markings LF 1000 $ 0.25 $ 250 28 Seeding, Fertilizing, and Mulching SY 15 $ 200 $ 3,000 29 Pump Station and Associated piping LS 1 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 30 Misc. Private Property Restoration LS 1 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 Bid Items Subtotal (with Mobilization) $ 1,727,110 Sales Tax 9.50% $ 164,075 Contingency 30.00% $ 518,133 Total $ 2,409,318 Total (rounded) $ 2,410,000 300A Cost Estimate -Rechecked -JF -1 B.xlsx [Schedule C] Page 3 of 3 Printed: 71212012, 121 PM Filc 001159 1 2651111018 Appendix 1 30% DESIGN DRAWINGS SAIC D Q 2 2 O F E3 Qo ri n a a a Ca a s a a a a a Q Q Q Q D t7 L] 4 [? Q QLL, Q i zm �0-� a_ CL p j E l 2 .- N r N eri Y If] tp U L) U V U U V U U V \ E mz It el5l ao 1 Z'r •• dO U O LU — -- t- Y � r — cr L) _. 0 w Cn to d w W2 (n w U O �CE ; m w 0 2 J Q w z W C7 H O R O 9 Z Q U Y LU 7 r� / G / w ✓' r i z lil I s s w r W w w fn - a. 2 iE x x 'x x x x x ix x Z � V v ix iLJ w C7 d Z W Y j DO ,X X X X x � M x O X z X X X x f I I � fn � ! W •r c+h I � U I � I M i not y li l.�J Z � E+ Z L 1 Itf,} � 4 O � � F- V` CL � r�-• z z z C z i o z a ;in �� AR via m ap m i z s p C. `] G slow slow >� iF s J 3 cv ~r V¢ wm f Z Z c � j Z d n w = l- pillZ al. Z } QT ��-: OUR a i _ _ +-- Z 7 `- O [� in H O R O 9 Z Q U Y LU 7 r� � z o z W w W Lu 2 t- t� w Ca v,Ki Lins H11 g E�' S � - a a G � 5±1=2 S 2 iZ o ,O9 $ GS CC cut i 7� ul dw W A11HM A 01 LM0. Isi. U U- �� z��zz nC]pr7 �.wa WCYLYCCs <n�,r,v��,�,��n�.,� +�,�� _ z p Z W J '' V'1 L..Z `•'1 tic}u ss to Zw W rzZ � 2�� V t7 3o.,Z Z w �-�n >- Y yl.i ~ a Ln V: ry? V U C: €•� ��LJI` Z p J4U c. x z Z Off zs s `�U Z Cj a ons r LLw z ti Zi-� aw r Z w n n'.r x �� Cw Q � Q mt¢,i-] Cw.aC 1 K Rush sZ .ovv...1..... .... u�.GEt.'-1 GW ? wor.i s� wH 5Z w .�} c,v zsyy - W + ] v G �' CL - - CLO - � U C O C. t/1 � r Y - - U � _., �] 4'1 w X ,W� p 'L '>• Y < - w - Q CL •F C 'F a r:]m ¢] C. U U U V C?+r,J (_] V U V U U V V U [}Vis L3 � C.ry W W W w w W CaJ W y W W V [.J S 1ST L W 1 W w z s = w G w r o J w = z Z W ;n - T X W - / G / w �} T i z lil I X X X r W � w fn - a. 2 iE x x 'x x x x x ix x n x r � V v ix iLJ w C7 d Z W Y j DO ,X X X X x � M x O X z X X X x f I I � fn � ! W •r c+h I � U I � I M i � z o z W w W Lu 2 t- t� w Ca v,Ki Lins H11 g E�' S � - a a G � 5±1=2 S 2 iZ o ,O9 $ GS CC cut i 7� ul dw W A11HM A 01 LM0. Isi. U U- �� z��zz nC]pr7 �.wa WCYLYCCs <n�,r,v��,�,��n�.,� +�,�� _ z p Z W J '' V'1 L..Z `•'1 tic}u ss to Zw W rzZ � 2�� V t7 3o.,Z Z w �-�n >- Y yl.i ~ a Ln V: ry? V U C: €•� ��LJI` Z p J4U c. x z Z Off zs s `�U Z Cj a ons r LLw z ti Zi-� aw r Z w n n'.r x �� Cw Q � Q mt¢,i-] Cw.aC 1 K Rush sZ .ovv...1..... .... u�.GEt.'-1 GW ? wor.i s� wH 5Z w .�} c,v zsyy - W + ] v G �' CL - - CLO - � U C O C. t/1 � r Y - - U � _., �] 4'1 w X ,W� p 'L '>• Y < - w - Q CL •F C 'F a r:]m ¢] C. U U U V C?+r,J (_] V U V U U V V U [}Vis L3 � C.ry W W W w w W CaJ W y W W V [.J S 1ST L W 1 W w z s = w G w r o J w = z Z W ;n - T X W - / G / w �} T i z w s si T r W � w fn - a. �Qv I ] t` Z W Z z z _ � V w U d Z W Y j Lu t'� s O M 1Y.�L11�• 11�.! ,VWW w I _ �} T i z Z V p J W Wi W U �Qv I ] t` Z W Z � V w U d Z W Y j t'� s O M O CD G fn � W •r c+h � � I 1Y.�L11�• 11�.! ,VWW w I _ w s � y m W V W w V L] (Y l � r I � i [7 I � Z Q (n W ]-C J LL! F r r. i z p J W I ] t` f~ w U U w W Y p O M � � I w s � y m W V W w V L] (Y l � r I � i [7 I � Z Q (n W ]-C J LL! F r r. i z (L ' w U U w W I w s � y m W V W w V L] (Y l � r I � i [7 I � Z Q (n W ]-C J LL! F r r. I I I V) D 3 W LU CD w ' Z j O 1 j I - O n1 ,Z l l, -� m � �I f I ( I I r' } v I Cc) I. + Z i 1 I � I >i n � N CC LL . o n Z Cl - c. il, f LL z LL zowW I L .f 1 I d Q a L1J m iK � C7 LLI L' J z 41 w ��LL7 z I ' I p O j O 1 j I f L �Lj _u n1 I l l, -� m � �I f I ( I I r' } v I Cc) I. + Z i 1 I � I >i n � 1 I j I Ii I p O j O 1 j I f L �Lj _u n1 I Ir -1V VU I,E 1VVV d 12 I INIIHDiVA - a � O kk� z vi = 1 ;' l l NI 31 cG' l L 13 Md _ — at N337110 I {N3! b5'D al 9v 17 A Vila I la ,iZ 0i a9 lL+7l 's15 7[ i7 13 Vila 18 '29 U L9 L,+OI b15 l t< Ii M1 n �1 j I j I Wcl I II n1 I -� m � �I f I ( I I r' } v I Cc) + Z i OO >i n L N CC LL . o n Z Cl - il, f LL o LL Z I 7 g 1 I d a L1J m d 12 I INIIHDiVA - a � O kk� z vi = 1 ;' l l NI 31 cG' l L 13 Md _ — at N337110 I {N3! b5'D al 9v 17 A Vila I la ,iZ 0i a9 lL+7l 's15 7[ i7 13 Vila 18 '29 U L9 L,+OI b15 l t< Ii M1 n �1 j I �1 I II n1 I m � �I f I ( I I r' } v I I + Z i >i 1 . + W o 3 i { ci 3 z . V llIF IW, IV IVV- 3WHOiVA 7 7 t 31 1 31 S, OZ 3 NW !d 5p L i6'4+N ris OvZ 13 N16 Lt iz 0S I Vill ----- tt + ANIIHDiVN t �7, (n ZJ U3 uj 7j4 LU c� LL m �7, Z LU Ck� 0 LLI z (D C)Lu ........ ...... . ............ > < cc: < 3WHOiVA 7 7 t 31 1 31 S, OZ 3 NW !d 5p L i6'4+N ris OvZ 13 N16 Lt iz 0S I Vill ----- tt + ANIIHDiVN t I v11 Iv I V I I- /Vu� q WRf -,JS lHii rrrr _J I I ' I c III f oLLI E Z I I I x f LU Z n 7 � � 1 Z c Z Z I I O III I I ------ - III N �z — ' z �w Il z r- � r w - � y o Q - N z y :7 aco s xr r Z I v11 Iv I V I I- /Vu� ........ ...... - - -` ...— -' r - N `D WRf -,JS lHii rrrr I I ' I c III f oLLI E n (n Q I I I x f LU Z n 7 � � 1 y� I - I z y la I I � III I I ------ - III N �z — ' I v11 Iv I V I I- /Vu� {HJ 9L'il 31 ........ ...... - - -` ...— -' r - N `D WRf -,JS lHii rrrr I oLLI n (n Q fn _ cn L a LU Z 7 � � 1 la 3NIIHOiVA ------ - N �z — ' z �w Il U �G r w - � y o _� {HJ 9L'il 31 WRf -,JS lHii rrrr V G. ll�i i Q 1 + Z ,4 J f I t7 U i I L I II 0 :V a r c E l7 _ Z v •2 v q 77, 9 Itwo } Y c0 I Vi p 1 U I AV f-4 8 1 i S N - . ...... I I i Z W F- jy I I Lu F LLIE I i x Y LU Z S Fn m 'J i I I W .. � � `z �^�[)Z z1� I � - ay' L •r — _ Z cn 0 w 0 a =tea mr, adz Txv) z ;7x L7 L W 2 2 Lzi I (Y z 0 4nWm ��z oU-1 F a ID (D w I Vi p 1 U I AV f-4 8 S N - . ...... I I i 1 �I I i I I I Lu F I i x Y f I I i - 0 4 � N I i I I I iI � s I Vi p 1 U I AV f-4 U ZZ 13 Al - . ...... 4J l� (H3? T6' � i 31 Lu F I cn I � 0 w n c o (� 0 LL) - ; �. F a ;r1 n w w E CL LLJ _- _-_ Q Q 2 i 3NI1HOIM U ZZ 13 Al a, J LLn 0 ' CL 46lZ 13 01 Id .CA'Q Cp'GF+Z� 'i15s + � - 9l�i'I z` 'I �rc4v I I I I r. LM 3NIlHDiVV4 r 1:1k!'. A, 4 - . ...... l� (H3? T6' � i 31 a, J LLn 0 ' CL 46lZ 13 01 Id .CA'Q Cp'GF+Z� 'i15s + � - 9l�i'I z` 'I �rc4v I I I I r. LM 3NIlHDiVV4 r 1:1k!'. A, 4 U) LU 0 mz , 0 11I F I W I IV I V W M .HD) qZ Z 1 31 4i ?Z 13 Vild A 21 SZ+SZ a15 + cv 75 LU to LIJ Ar V1 z ~ C[ IOW 0 y. L71 ui z vI M Z U) IL I Ir 1 0 Ti , z L) ti w L'i-Ij LU Z LU ;cr > co m 'D - , ✓QJ t—c i_J CL LL z ID . .. . ................... . ... CE LLJ LU CE ......... . < M .HD) qZ Z 1 31 4i ?Z 13 Vild A 21 SZ+SZ a15 + cv cv I -lIv lul 1V fvww 'H-) l9 Zl 11 11 hid Id 'SOC vis [A LU iz LL z V) lt� 4G^? U) Ir .. . ........... .. . 3NIIHQiVA L 7 - 'H-) l9 Zl 11 11 hid Id 'SOC vis [A J LU Z LU I r� o w M l 1 I ZS t w W ~� LLI � S Z � �w � S �A� 4~"1 T;Sy •y, Z,. J,x ~ L lJ CK� `Y- _ - Y J X w (J �l I 3NI-IHOIVA I r� L M l 1 I 11 Y i 6 0 r� I v p I � I — j V V l DNIIHOIVV4 9L fl 31 NN cp 17, ✓2 < J LIJ 4F sir — Ll 17, o 0 LU Cl U) CL Lr S!l V) LU I iti Ia > WK cl cc T- DNIIHOIVV4 9L fl 31 NN cp J DNIIHOIVV4 9L fl 31 NN cp 3Nl7H31VIN til U) LLI O F- U) mz 'r N) li VI 11 IM -Ja,nol 7is. L — — — — — — - , v 1. ,....iv Juvt LLJ LL - 0 C) Z 0 w (no Z CL 2 m >LU 0 CL w 2 > < w FO ir LLJ LL - 0 C) Z fIl ") W W = H � 47 Z $ if 2 C Q xxz W Y F- a n o a 'w I --� 3N11HD1tIW i OQ n8'G7. l3 5C't9}�Ol VIS 1 �1HiY x, Iriylr Wily ruvv - .............. _N. -_... 7....__ .. T. .. �I -I N I N 111 ;r I II � G r) Q U Q W n G Q LJ CL u {n IL IL r F-- �z cr a LLI n d W z 7 Q Q W � I tHD3 sr�I 31 06's,7 13 jYla L 9IL+NIL • 1S h iHiY 0 0 3� VSs I i it i O i'''4Z '3 71S GO+pOI r1S � ! LI HYitil I 1 I I Ju i r � � 4 E 'n Lw �....-� V) - 'r ul LJ azlx y LJ Ili LLJ O v U} a Q 1 In "�n:Y aw _IIS II n} p 7 � 4 LiJ Z 0 O � IE d W W r/7 wz M0- o c� CD F Z c i r Y ! Y / / / 1 f r / / / / f vltIr 1V.— I.vv � d N I C i 'n Lw �....-� V) - 'r ul Ili LLJ O v U} a Q 1 Vim, F a 2LU _IIS II n} p 7 � 4 LiJ Z 0 � IE d W W 3NIlH01M c, LZ 13 Wit! 1� 974-F l fIS _.yiHW o � III I I i y111. Y1.Ai tV /VVV (N,) OT* l 31 Ft'I7 13 Md oVvs+l:t VIS �Sb4'l 31 it l trZ l3 YYicl tS'6n^T'il �1S � Li z c C? - J = F? sin O x Ce z LLI _ oa �r t7 W L �'� 'i ra o r`� U7 (I. O O y^ n U �x �,: a�Ceo t'zn N LLI z a. c� z wc_n �o -! cnI 2 U)sr w� www xoz ow F g z �O am sm �J wrm- U 4T �LUa_ - -- , ff S (N,) OT* l 31 Ft'I7 13 Md oVvs+l:t VIS �Sb4'l 31 it l trZ l3 YYicl tS'6n^T'il �1S � Li I V U+ 7 Z s w x I LU W r w N J Z 7r I LU Cl I � I Z m E Q �n f U ;S J ¢ j3 12 Te jc u� p `LcI h Z w 0 � W U � I ililll f w� i IYiili lkJl Iv fUVlr I f E �1 E f U ;S J ¢ j3 0O w "I u� p h Z w � W U Ocr m d (n LU A ¢ w cld - ao i I mlco n m an: m m u cv,m rsSS m m m i o I i _ L I i 0Q 2 h2 cm uj O O = n [� g G O O C, f 0 L 1 O CJ Ca C u n. Q 2 d O 0 0 :� - LU I c} � I w =� LI., w W w w W - W W W W W w W W J s W a s s a s, s = w s w s w s w w s iC W u UJ 7 c, V j S 1 11 a V f 0 Ci V Ci V V, V In W U, i E I III T CO �} �fl )m iil u) ' €m m m mw mlm mm m'm n m m � s did i (chi a s Lei r a dna a a a r In o� uj W c}.r.� nr K [[ s tr s ! w 5 L6 W I w 'w w W w w w w W [iJ iry 'w x ,`T rn v a rn rn rn rn rn s W w w w s a a a �o r= j U W W ✓� � W W w w w W W W '' W w ', J o v C G O G G 0 G� O n 0 Lucn2 1 cn U W IxI ' LL UJ I SII U IX ....... ..... ........p.... ._.- -- - I � 1 IYiili lkJl Iv fUVlr �1 ¢ j3 0O w "I u� p h Z w � W U Ocr m d (n LU A ¢ w cld - ao i i II I i o I i _ L I i 0Q 2 h2 I x 11111U1 IV /VLV 1 l � LU I i LU - I� J �Ir CE U OL U) O o Lr �z w }r g � C3 LU ? i 7 0 i [�!7 Q w I LLJ �a- L11 � p i 1 I 2 E k �€ oa __ v a oI 4i ri I I a rc - 1Cal _ _ Q ! o O G 0 a o z V ¢ I 3: Z 0 0 o F w s s - O C1 j O Ct O G P C51 ] �l Cl SJ e, v `4�4'' 4 z � >y=y +"44'-- a ✓�1 O 4�4 U Q i 0 4 0 Q p c] �,b O V O a ED d i E I in - F � � E Z G i h a � ^ N N ry N r o W- o o a r.I ."v € rry Z 2 - 2 I t 0 i •+ VI V € j I I i I � 6T I � v a w u¢ O � u u u u- u .. - a Q a �y a 6 0 � a � = P A v } a _ 4 � }nom, ami z z i� I € o }} E II - 4'1 O I.J � laJ � _ � - d o lam] l7 - ?. l7 O n N l@J y, � o o ,. C7 o � r - 4'1 � U O J' - :% O I x 11111U1 IV /VLV 1 l � LU I i LU - I� J �Ir CE U OL U) O o Lr �z w }r g � C3 LU ? i 7 0 i [�!7 Q w I LLJ �a- L11 � p i 1 I 2 W. 1111. I ,.... ,.1 e.i i1 v i o m L � N � 73UC �y U WIMIlam _ a Q N� O o 0 m c o 0 o m cij -1 w a o a o m o o a Q o o Q c � J ...._.. 4+ in 1