The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMisc Copperwood Residential PlatI I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .' I I I WETLAND, FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT ASSESSMENT REpORT COPPERWOOD RESIDENTIAL PLAT REVISED JULY 2014 RECE\VED AUG 11 2014 CITY Of ru:NTO!\l ~1\,\NIG I[)MIIJIOl'A I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I WETLAND, FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT AsSESSMENT REpORT COPPERWOOD RESIDENTIAL PLAT . REVISED JULY 14, 2014 PROJECT LOCATION 5001 SOUTHEAST 2ND PLACE RENTON, WASHINGTON 98059 PREPARED FOR BARGHAUSEN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT, WASHINGTON 98032 QUADRANT HOMES 14725 SE 36'" STREET, SUITE 100 BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON 98006 PREPARED BY SOUNDVIEW CONSULTANTS LLC 2907 HARBORVIEW DRIVE GIG HARBOR, WASHINGTON 98335 (253) 514-8952 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----------------------------------- Executive Summary Soundview Consultants LLC was hired by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. and Quadrant Homes (Applicant) to delineate and assess wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat, and/or other potentially-regulated aquatic features on an approximately 12.68-acre site located within the City of Renton, Washington. The subject property consists of eight parcels (King County Tax Parcel Numbers 1523059043, 1523059066, 1523059067, 1523059093, 1523059100, 1523059170, 1523059201,1523059221) located in the Northwest '/. of the Southeast '/. of Section 15, Township 23 North, Range 05 East, W.M. The areas incorporated in this assessment include both the subject property and surrounding offsite areas located within approximately 115 feet of the subject property. The proposed project (Copperwood Residential Plat) will provide 47 additional single-family residential units, transportation improvements, and associated infrastructure within the City of Renton. The subject property was investigated for the presence of potentially regulated wetlands, drainages, fish and wildlife habitat, and/or priority species on April 2, 2014 and re-inspected in June 2014. No potentially regulated wetlands were found onsite. One stream (Maplewood Creek Tributary 0303) was identified on the eastern side of the property. The City of Renton identifies l\Iaplewood Creek Tributary 0303 as a Class 3 non-salmonid-bearing perennial stream. In the northern portion of the property, the stream is low-gtadient with gently-sloping banks; however, in the southern portion of the property, the channel is located in a ravine with steeply sloped banks and several natural fish passage barriers. The ravine associated with the stream corridor contain both Sensitive and Protected slopes as classified by the City of Renton. An artificially constructed swale with emergent wetland vegetation was also found onsite draining into Maplewood Creek Tributaty 0303. The swale is documented to have been constructed in 1993 as a landscape and drainage feature and is not likely regulated by the City of Renton per Renton Municipal Code Sections 4-11-230 and 4-3-050 L, nor is it likely regulated by the Washington State Department of Ecology under RCW 90.48 or 36.70A.030(21). Both of these features were addressed in the original Wetland, Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report prepared for the project dated April 21, 2014. However, an independent electro fishing study, previously undisclosed to Soundview Consultants LLC and the Applicant, identified fishes below a natural fish passage barrier in the southeast corner of the property classifying this onsite stream reach as a Class 2 salmonid-bearing stream. Following disclosure of the prior independent study, a site visit was conducted to verify the accuracy of this assessment. Soundview Consultants LLC's supplemental site visit identified salmonids below an onsite natural fish passage barrier. Therefore, a small portion of Maplewood Creek Tributary 0303 in the southeast corner of the site must be reclassified as a Class 2 salmon-bearing stream, and minor revisions to the buffer management recommendations are necessary to address increased buffer reguirements. The revised residential plat still includes 47 single-family residences, new access roads, one s!ormwater tract, extensive open space tracts, and associated infrastructure, and direct impacts to the stream will be entirely avoided. In addition, proposed impacts to stream buffer are minimal and limited to placement of a treated stormwater outfall, minor grading, a pervious walking trail, buffer reductions, and buffer enhancement actions. Impacts to the buffer will be mitigated through buffer averaging and non-compensatory buffer enhancement actions. t lR6.000S BeE/Quadrant -Coppct'\\'ood Residential Plat Wetland, Fish lind \'{Iildlifc Habitat Assessment Report Sound\'iew Consultants LLC Re\-jsedJuly 14, 2014 --------- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I --------------- Constructed Swale 107 If N/A Tributary 03038 140 If 2 Tributary 0303c 6151f 3 A Rent(~n Municipal Code 4-3-050.L. IIArea south of flag \'\'-18 in the southeastern comer of the site. cArea north of flag \X'-18 in the northeastern three <:juarters of the site. 1186.0005 BCE/Quadrnnt -Coppcrwood Residential Plat Wetland, Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report No No Yes Yes Yes ii Not Likely Yes Yes Sound view Consultants I.LC RC\'isedJuly 14,2014 ,-----------------------------------------------------------------, I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1186.0005 BeE/Quadrant -Copperwood Residcntial Plat Wetland. Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report Site Map iii 1/ __ , ./ /:::--.. "'- / ( / /\ (J j / ," -~ "-,-~.IAPI.EWOOD TRIBUTARY 0303 " (ClASS 3) STREAM $oundview Consultants LLC RcvisedJuI), 14.2014 ,------------------------------------ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Table of Contents Chapter 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1 Chapter 2. Proposed Project ........................................................................................................................... 2 2.1 Project Location ...................................................................................................................................... 2 2.2 Project Description ................................................................................................................................. 3 Chapter 3. Methods .......................................................................................................................................... 4 Chapter 4. Background .................................................................................................................................... 6 4.2 Topography and Drainage Basin .......................................................................................................... 6 4.3 Local and National Wetland Inventories ............................................................................................. 6 4.4 Vegetation ................................................................................................................................................ 6 4.5 Soils ........................................................................................................................................................... 6 4.6 Priority Habitats and Species ................................................................................................................. 6 4.7 Precipitation ....................... '. ..................................................................................................................... 7 4.8 Prior Electrofishing Survey ................................................................................................................... 7 Chapter 5. Results ......................................................... : ................................................................................... 8 5.1 Drainages .................................................................................................................................................. 8 Chapter 6. Regulatory Considerations ......................................................................................................... 11 6.1 Local and State Requirements ............................................................................................................. 11 6.2 Federal Regulatory Considerations ..................................................................................................... 12 Chapter 7. Buffer Averaging and Enhancement Plan ............................................................................... 15 7.1 Purpose and Need ................................................................................................................................. 15 7.2 Description of Impacts ........................................................................................................................ 15 7.3 J'vlitigation Approach and Best Management Practices ................................................................... 16 7.4 Buffer Averaging Efforts ..................................................................................................................... 17 7.5 Enhancement Actions .......................................................................................................................... 17 7.6 Mitigation Goals, Objectives, and Performance Standards ............................................................ 18 7.7 Plant Materials and Installation ........................................................................................................... 18 7.8 Maintenance & Monitoring ................................................................................................................. 20 7.9 Reporting ................................................................................................................................................ 21 7.10 Contingency Plans .............................................................................................................................. 21 7.11 Early Closeout ..................................................................................................................................... 21 Chapter 8. Closure .......................................................................................................................................... 22 Chapter 9. Report Summary .......................................................................................................................... 23 Chapter 9. References .................................................................................................................................... 24 Figures Figure 1. Vicinity Map ...................................................................................................................... 2 1186.0005 BeE/Quadrant -Coppcrv:ood Re~idendal Plat \X'etland, Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report iv Soundview Comultants LLC Rc\'iscclJuly 14, 2014 / I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Tables Table 1. Precipitation Summary ........................................................................................................ 7 Table 2. Drainage.Summary -Constructed Swale ............................................................................. 9 Table 3. Drainage Summary -Maplewood Creek Tributary ............................................................ 10 Appendices Appendix A -Methods and Tools Appendix B -Background Information Appendix C -Plant Species List Appendix D -Site Maps and Plan Sheets Appendix E -Biologist Qualifications 1186.0005 BeE/Quadrant -Copperwood Residential Plat \'('erland, Fish and Wildlife Habitat J\sscssmcnt Report v Sound\;c\\' Consultants LLC Rcvisedjuly 14, 2014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Chapter 1. Introduction Soundview Consultants LLC was hired by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. and Quadrant Homes (Applicant) to delineate and assess wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat, and other potentially- regulated aquatic features within or adjacent to the proposed Copperwood Residential Plat. The proposed project is located at 5001 Southeast 2nd Place within the City of Renton, Washington. The subject property is situated in the Northwest '/. of the Southeast '/. of Section 15, Township 23 North, Range 05 East, W.M. (King County Tax Parcel Numbers 1523059043, 1523059066, 1523059067,1523059093,1523059100, 1523059170, 1523059201, and 1523059221). The subject property and surrounding areas within 115 feet of the subject property were investigated for the presence of potentially regulated wetlands, streams, fish and wildlife habitat, and! or priority species in April of 2014 and re-inspected in June of 2014. An additional supplementary site visit was conducted following disclosure of an old electro fishing survey (Cedarock Consultants, Inc., 2006) previously unknown to Soundview Consultants LLC and the Applicant. The site investigations identified one regulated stream and one non-regulated, artificially constructed swale. The stream is referred to as Maplewood Creek Tributary 0303 by the Ciry of Renton. No impacts are proposed to the stream, and only minor impacts are proposed to the stream buffer, which will be addressed by buffer averaging and enhancement actions. The purpose of this wetland and fish and wildlife habitat assessment is to identify and assess the presence of wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat, and! or priority species on or near the subject property and to identify management recommendations for the proposed project. This report includes conclusions and recommendations regarding: • Site description, project description, and area of assessment; • Background research and identification of potentially regulated critical areas in the viciniry of the proposed project; • Identification, delineation, and assessment of regulated wetlands and water bodies; • Identification and assessment of fish and wildlife habitat and! or prioriry species located on or near the subject properry; • Standard buffer recommendations, building setbacks, and development limitations; • Proposed buffer reductions and temporary impacts; • Existing site maps detailing identified critical areas, standard buffers, proposed buffer modifications, and non-compensatory mitigation actions, and • Long term habitat management recommendations and impact minimization measures. 1186.0005 BCE/Quadrant-Copperv.'Ood Residential Plat Wetland, Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report Soundview Consultants LLC Revised July 14.2014 ,------------------------------- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Chapter 2. Proposed Project ~------~------------------------ 2.1 Project Location The subject property is located in the City of Renton near the eastern boundary of the city limits. The subject property is situated in the Northwest y, of the Southeast II, of Section 15, Township 23 North, Range 05 East, W.M. and comprises eight parcels (King County Tax Parcel Numbers 1523059043, 1523059066, 1523059067, 1523059093, 1523059100, 1523059170, 1523059201, and 1523059221). A King County tax parcel map of the subject property is presented in Appendix B. To access the subject property from the Tukwila area, via Interstate 405 northbound, take Exit 4 toward Washington-900/Bronson Way. Turn right onto Washington-169 north. After approximately 360 feet, take the first right onto Sunset Boulevard North. After 0.2 mile, take the first right onto Northeast 3"' Street. Proceed 0.9 mile and continue onto Northeast 4'" Street. Proceed 1.0 mile and turn right onto Duvall Avenue Northeast. After 0.5 mile, Duvall Avenue Northeast turns slightly to the left and becomes Southeast 2nd Place. The subject property will be located on the right side of Southeast 2nd Place after approximately 0.2 mile. Figure 1. Vicinity Map. 1186.0005 BeE/Quadrant -Coppen.vood Residential Plat Wetland, Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report 2 Soundview Consultants LLC Re ... :isedJuly 14,2014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 2.2 Project Description The Applicant proposes a single-family residential development within the approximately 12.68-acre subject property. The proposed project includes demolition of all but one of the existing residences, removal of scrap and debris associated with the previous residential land use, clearing and grading for construction of approximately 47 residential housing units with driveways, parking areas, associated utilities and infrastructure, and buffer reduction, averaging, and enhancement actions. The proposed project will also provide fully engineered stormwater facilities to the City of Renton's standards. The southwest facilities will require placement of a stormwater outfall and pervious walking trail along with minor grading actions within the stream buffer and minor buffer reduction via buffer averaging in the southeast corner of the site. Any impacts associated with the installation of this outfall, low-impact trail, minor grading, and buffer averaging will be mitigated for through non-compensatory enhancement actions. For further details, Appendix C provides a site plan of the proposed project and mitigation details. 1186.0005 BeE/Quadrant -Coppcrwood Residential Plat \X'efland, Fish and \X'ildlifc Habitat Assessment Repun .1 Sounddew Consultants LLC Revised July 14, 2014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Chapter 3. Methods The methods used to comply with Federal, State, and local assessment requirements are detailed below. Please see Appendix A for further details of methods and tools used to prepare the report. Wetlands, streams, and other potentially regulated fish and wildlife habitat within the subject property and offsite areas within 115 feet of the subject property were investigated, and potentially regulated critical areas were delineated and assessed by qualified Soundview Consultants LLC staff on April 2, 2014. A follow up site inspection was also conducted by Soundview Consultant's Principal Scientist on April 3, 2014 to verify staff findings. Publicly available background data was queried for documented wetlands, streams, and/or fish and wildlife habitat on or near the site, including the U.S. Geographic Survey (USGS) topographic map, the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey, National Wetlands Inventory (NWI), US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), King County GIS data (iMap), City of Renton GIS data, local precipitation data (NOAA), and various orthophotographic resources. Graphics and maps detailing background data such as site topography, soils, vegetative buffers, basin area, and critical areas inventories are provided in Appendix B. Potential wetland boundaries were determined using the routine approach described in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (USACE) Wetlands Delineation Manual (USACE, 1987) as modified by the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0) (USACE, 2010). Methods described in the Washington State Wetland Identification and Delineation Manual were not used since this document has been retired by the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) in favor of the updated USACE methods. Ordinary High Water (OH\'V') determinations were determined using Ecology's method as detailed in determining the Ordinary High Water Mark on Streams in Washington State (Olson, 2008); definitions provided in RCW 77.55.011 (11) and WAC 220.110.020 (69); and USACE's Regulatory Guidance Letter No. 05-05 Ordinary High Water Mark Identification (USACE 2005). Potential wetland, stream, and drainage boundaries and stormwater features were inspected, delineated, and surveyed over several dates in April 2014. The field assessment was performed by Jim Carsner, Professional \,«erland Scientist; Jeremy Downs, Principal Scientist and Environmental Planner; and Hannah Blackstock, Staff Scientist. To mark the boundary between potential wetlands and uplands, orange surveyor's flagging was alpha-numerically labeled and tied to vegetation or wood lath along the wetland boundary. To mark the points where data was c'ollected, pink surveyor's flagging was alpha-numerically labeled and tied at each sampling location. To mark the boundaries of streams and drainages, blue surveyor's flagging was alpha-numerically labeled and tied to vegetation or striped flagging from prior assessments was verified. The location of each stream and drainage boundary flag and data plot was surveyed by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. The locations and features of identified features are described in Chapter 5, and shown on plan sheets in Appendix C. Following disclosure of a previously unknown independent electro fishing survey performed on Maplewood Creek Tributary 0303 (Cedarock Consultants, Inc., 2006), two qualified Soundview Consultants LLC Staff Scientists verified the location of the identified natural fish passage barriers 1186.0005 BeE/Quadrant -Coppel'\\'()ud Residential Plat Wetland. Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report 4 Soundview Consultants LLC Rc\'isedJuly 14,2014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I on July 1, 2014, The onsite stream channel natural fish passage barriers were identified using methodologies described in Fish Passage Baniers and Stllface Water Diversioll Smelling Assessmellt alld Prioritization i'v1allllal (WDFW, 2009). Natural fish passage barrier locations were marked using blue surveyors flagging tape that was numerically labeled and tied to each located barrier. 1186.0005 BeE/Quadrant -Copperwood Residential Plat Wetland, Fish and \X'ildlife Habitat Assessment Report 5 Soundview Consultants LLC Revised Ju!), 14.2014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Chapter 4. Background 4.2 Topography and Drainage Basin The surveyed topography of the site shows the landform as generally flat with a slight rise in the westernmost portion of the site and generally sloping toward the stream in the east. The banks of the stream are shallow with low-gradient banks in the north but transitions into a steep ravine as it nears the southern property boundary. A King County Topographic map is provided in Appendix B 1. 4.3 Local and National Wetland Inventories The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (U.SF\'(1S) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map does not identify any wetlands or streams on or near the subject property. The City of Renton's GIS maps also do not identify wetlands on or near the subject property; however, the City identifies the stream as a Class 3 waterbody on the subject property. Prior to the stream entering the subject property to the north, it is identified as Class 4 water. The NWI and City of Renton maps are provided in Appendix B2 and B3, respectively. 4.4 Vegetation The majority of the property is cleared and developed with single-family residences. Most of the vegetated areas are dominated by landscaped areas and mowed lawn. The area containing the stream corridor (King County Parcel Number 1523059067) is the only undeveloped portion of the subject property. 4.5 Soils The NRCS Soil Survey of King County identified one soil series, Alderwood !,'tavelly sandy loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes, on the subject property. A soil map is provided in Appendix B4. Alderwood (AgC) series soils are considered non-hydric except for inclusions of Bellingham, Norma, Tukwila, and Shalear that are associated with small depressions. A1derwood soils arc described as moderately well drained soils on undulating to hilly landforms that have a dense, very slowly permeable glacial till at a depth of 20 to 40 inches. A typical pedon of the A1derwood (AgC) series is: 0 inch to 2 inches of a very dark brown gravelly sandy loam (lOYR 2/2); 2 inches to 12 inches of a dark brown gravelly sandy loam (10YR 4/3); 12 inches to 27 inches of a grayish-brown gravelly sandy loam (2.5Y 5/2) with light olive brown mottles (2.5Y 5/6); and 27 inches to 60 inches of a grayish-brown till (2.5Y 5/2) with light olive brown mottles (2.5Y 5/6) and with light olive brown mottles (2.5Y 5/6). 4.6 Priority Habitats and Species Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife's (WDF\'V) Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) maps and data identify a Biodiversity Area and Corridor (Cedar River Valley Open Space Areas) onsite, primarily located in the riparian corridor associated with the stream. WDFW's interactive data map (Salmonscape) identifies no streams with fish presence within 300 feet of the subject property. No 1186.0005 BeE/Quadrant -Coppenlrood Residential Plat \\'etland, Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report 6 Sounddew Consultants l.LC Re"isedJu1r 14, 2014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I priority habitats or Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive plant or animal species were identified during this investigation. The PHS and SalmonScape maps are provided in Appendix B5 and B6, respectively. 4.7 Precipitation Precipitation data was obtained from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) weather station at SeaTac Airport in order to obtain percent of normal precipitation during and preceding the investigation. A summary of data collected is provided in Table 1. Table 1. Precipitation Surnrnary1 Date Day of Day Before 1 Week 2 Weeks Month To Water 'Ioof Prior Prior Date2 Year' Normal' .4/2/14 0.00 0.00 1.57 1.75 0 26.25 92% .. Dam obtained from NOAA weather station at SeaTac Airpon . (http. (Iwww weathcr goy/cljrn;ucliodrx php?wfq-sew). 2. PreCIpitatiOn for the month IS the same as for the Year-tn-Date. 3. Water Year is precipitation from October 1, 2013. 4. Percent of normal is shown as for the day/for the year. The precipitation data indicates approximately 1.75 inches of precipitation fell within the two weeks prior to the last visit and precipitation was nearly normal (92 percent of normal) for the water year. However, these me tries do not reflect the extremely high rainfall encountered during March 2014, which was 9.44 inches and 253% above normal. In fact, March of 2014 was the wettest March on record for the SeaTac record, surpassing the old record of 8.40 inches (National Weather Service, 2014). The precipitation data suggests that daily rain events may have caused areas not normally wet to become sarurated and/or inundated at the time of the site investigation, and such conditions were considered in making professional wetland boundary determinations. 4.8 Prior Electrofishing Survey A previous electro fishing survey was conducted by Cedarock Consultants, Inc. in 2006. This survey documented fish presence in the East Fork of Maplewood Creek, which corresponds to the onsite Maplewood Creek Tributary 0303 herein. However, this prior assessment also identified a natural fish passage barrier in the southeastern porrion of the project site. Two adult cutthroat trout and six fry were documented during this electrofishing survey just below the plateau that creates the lowermost natural fish passage barrier. Cedarock Consultants, Inc. recommended that the reach downstream of the narural fish passage barrier be classified as a Class 2 stream and the upstream reach be classified as a Class 3 stream per RMC Section 4-3-050 L.5. A map provided in this prior survey report is included in Appendix B7. 1186.0005 BCE/Quadrant -Copperwood Residential Plat Wetland, Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report 7 Sound\'iew Consultants LLC RevisedJuly 14, 2014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Chapter 5. Results 5.1 Drainages The site investigation identified two aquatic features onsite, including one regulated stream (Maplewood Creek Tributary 0303) and one non-regulated, artificially constructed swale. Maplewood Creek Tributary 0303 runs north to south in the easternmost parcel on the subject property (King County Parcel Number 1523059067). The constructed swale runs west to east and drains to the stream. 5.1.1 Constructed Swale The artificially constructed swale originates from a series of curtain drains and catch basins draining adjacent areas and containing multiple single-family residences and discharges to an outfall located above Maplewood Creek Tributary 0303. The constructed swale exhibited some wetland characteristics, including hydrophytic vegetation (reed canarygrass) due to lack of regular maintenance on the drainage channel; however, the swale is documented as an artificial drainage feature constructed in 1993 as a landscape and drainage feature as part of a stormwater and groundwater management plan for the site. Therefore, the swale does not meet wetland criteria as defined by Renton Municipal Code (RMC) 4-11-230 and 4-3-050 M and should not be regulated as a wetland feature or stream. The feature also does not meet RC\X' 90.48 or 36.70A.030(21) criteria for regulation as a wetland or stream by the State of Washington. The artificially constructed swale is documented to be of anthropogenic origin where no naturally derived channel had previously existed, is known to collect and convey surface water and/or groundwater from adjacent developed areas, and is non-fish bearing; therefore, the swale meets the criteria of a non-regulated, Class 5 waterbody under RMC 4-3-050 L.1.a.v. Class 5 waterbodies are exempt from all regulations under RMC 4-3-050 L. The outfall for this constructed swale would be treated similarly; however, the outfall is located in the buffer for Maplewood Creek Tributary 0303. This outfall can be removed as part of the buffer enhancement plan detailed in Chapter 7 of this report. A summary of the constructed swale is provided in Table 2 below: 1186.0005 BeE/Quadrant -Copperv.·o()d Residential Plat \'('etland. Fish and \,\'ildlife Habitat Assessment Repon 8 Sound\'icw Consultants LLC Revised July 14. 2014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Table 2. Drainage Summary -Constructed Swale. DRAINAGE INFORMATION SUMMARY Connectivity (where stormwater drainage feature flows from/ to) Riparian/Buffer Condition # Constructed Swale 8 N/A of Renton N/A N/A N/A The swale runs west to east, with water sourced from curtain drains and catch basins in adjacent areas to the west. The swale ends at an unmaintained outfall in the buffer of Maplewood Creek' 0303. Class 5 are exempt from regulation, and no buffer 5.1.2 Maplewood Creek Tributary 0303 The onsite tributary to Maplewood Creek (0303) originates offsite in developed residential areas to the northeast and northwest of the subject property and discharges onto the subject property through a culvert under SE 2"" Place. Maplewood Creek Tributary 0303 flows southerly across the property in a broad, low-flow channel with a low-gradient riparian corridor in the north with increasingly steep slopes adjacent to the channel as it enters a ravine and approaches the southern boundary. The stream leaves the subject property and turns west to enter Maplewood Creek, approximately 2,000 feet to the south and west of the property. Observed flows indicated that the onsite portion of the tributary is likely perennial; however, precipitation for March was above normal, and there is a possibility that the strea m may be seasonal. North of the culvert under SE 2'· Place, the Maplewood Creek Tributary 0303 is identified as a Class 4 waterbody by the City of Renton; however, once the stream enters the property from the north, the City of Renton identifies the tributary as a Class 3 waterbody. A report disclosed to Soundview Consultants LLC and the Applicant by the City of Renton in June of 2014 identifies a small onsite section of Maplewood Creek Tributary 0303 as a Class 2 waterbody with the rest of the onsite stream being Class 3. A clear and distinct natural fish passage barrier is located just up strea m of where salmonid fry and cutthroat trout were detected by Cedarock Consultants, Inc. in 2006 . This Class 2 designation in the lowermost reach of the stream was confirmed by Soundview Consultants LLC Staff Scientists on July 1,2014. The steep gradients and several natural fish passage barriers within the onsite stream reach between the Class 2 and Class 3 waters, including subsurface flows and a 10 -foot vertical drop, indicate that salmonids do not and cannot migrate up the tributary and are not likely present upstream of where salmonids were detected. 11 86.0005 BCE /Quadnnt -Copperwood Residential Plat Wetland, Fish and Wildlife Hab it at Assessment Repon 9 Soundview ConsulWl ts LLC RtvisedJuly 14,2014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Table 3 . Location of Feature Connectivity (where st onnwater drainage feature flows from/ to) Riparian/Buffer Condition 5.1.3 Stream Buffers Creek DRAINAG E INF ORMATI ON SUMMARY Name # Stream Type Stream Rating BUlffer Width D o.cume:nt"d Fish Use of Renton N/A The onsite segment of the tributary is approximately 755 feet (combined) north to south in the westernmost The tributary drains residential and commercial properties to the north and enters the property through a culvert under SE 2'· Place. It leaves the property in the southeast and enters Maplewood Creek approximately 2,000 the onsite segment contains many native tree and shrub species . However, some portions of the buffer onsire are dominated by non-native invasive species in some areas and contain of waste and other debris . Of the two drainage features, only Maplewood Creek Tributary 0303 is required to have a buffer under RMC 4-3-050 L.5.a.i.(b). The artificially constructed drainage swale is identified as a Class 5 waterbody, as described above, and is not likely regulated by the City of Renton or other State and Federal agencies; therefore, no buffer is required for this constructed feature . As a Class 2 and Class 3 stream, the Maplewood Creek Tributary 0303 requires a buffer width of 100 feet and 75 feet, respectively. Onsite, the buffer consists of deciduous riparian forest with a canopy dominated by black cottonwood and red alder. Some areas of the understory include native shrubs, primarily salmonberry, but many areas are dominated by Himalayan blackberry and other non-native invasive species. Portions of the offsite buffer are modified with moderate to high density development on adjacent properties to the east. In addition, a gravel driveway and many piles of yard waste and debris are located in onsite areas of the western portion of the buffer associated with adjacent single-family residences and maintained neighboring yards. With buffer averaging and minor buffer enhancement and restoration measures, the modified Class 2 and 75-foot Class 3 buffers will be more than adequate to protect stream functions. 11 86.0005 BCE /Qu:adrant -Copperwood Re sidentia l Plat Wetland. Fish 2nd Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report \0 Soundview Cons ultants LLC Revi sed July 14 ,20 14 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -----------_ .. _-_._------------------- Chapter 6. Regulatory Considerations The proposed project is located in the City of Renton. The site investigation identified one regulated stream and one non-regulated swale on the property. No other potentially regulated wetlands, streams, or other fish and wildlife habitat were identified on or within 115 feet of the subject property. The buffer area of the onsite stream is somewhat degraded in the north, being vegetated by Himalayan blackberry and other invasive species and containing a substantial number of yard waste and debris piles and a gravel driveway. Local, State, and Federal regulatory implications are addressed below: 6.1 Local and State Requirements The constructed swale exhibited some wetland characteristics, inclurling hydrophytic vegetation (reed canarygrass) due to lack of regular maintenance on the drainage channel; however, the swale is documented as an artificial drainage feature constructed in 1993 as a landscape and drainage feature intended to be part of a stormwater and groundwater management plan for the site. Therefore, the swale does not meet wetland criteria as defined by Renton Municipal Code (RMC) 4-11-230 and 4-3-050 M and should not be regulated as a wetland feature or stream. As the artificially constructed swale is documented to be of anthropogenic origin where no naturally derived channel had previously existed, and as the swale is known to collect and convey surface water and/or groundwater from adjacent developed areas, the swale meets the criteria of a non-regulated, Class 5 waterbody under fu\1C 4-3-050 L.1.a.v. Class 5 waterbodies are exempt from all regulations by the City of Renton under RMC 4-3-050 L. The feature also does not meet RCW 90.48 or 36.70A.030(21) criteria for regulation by the State of Washington as a wetland or stream. Maplewood Creek Tributary 0303 is identified on the northern onsite portion as a Class 3 waterbody. According to RMC4-3-050 L 1.a.iii., Class 3 waterbodies are non-salmon-bearing perennial waters during years of normal rainfall and require a 75-foot buffer. The downstream, or southern, onsite portion of Maplewood Creek Tributary 0303 is identified as a Class 2 waterbody. According to RMC 4-3-050 L 1.a.ii, Class 2 waterbodies are salmon-bearing and perennial or intermittent waterbodies. A Class 2 waterbody under RMC 4-3-050 L.5.a.i.(a) requires a one hundred foot minimum buffer. The project is located a minimum of 75 feet from the Class 3 reach of the stream, but stormwater infrastructure must be located closer than 100 feet to the Class 2 reach; therefore, minor buffer averaging is necessary adjacent to the Class 2 designated reach. In addition, placement of a pervious walking trail and treated stormwater outfall are proposed within the Class 3 buffer, and some minor grading (approximately 3,000 square feet) is necessary in the modified Class 2 buffer. These additional actions will result in minor impacts, which will be offset with natural vegetation enhancement and restoration actions within the stream buffer. Any activity proposed within the buffer must comply with the following standards as outlined in RMC 4-3-050 L.6: a) Preservation of Native Vegetation: Existing native vegetation shall be pl~sen'ed to the extent possible, preferably in consolidated areas. b) Revegetation Required: I17IJe1~ water botfy buffir disturbance has OCCltn,d in accordance Ivith exemption or development permit approval or other activities, revegetation Ivith natil'e vegetation shall be required 1186.0005 BCE/Quadrant -Coppen.vood Residential Plat \'{'erland, Fish and Wildlife Hahitat Assessment Report 11 Soundview Consultants LLC RedsedJuly 14, 2014 - -I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I c) Use of Native Species: lI7heJ1 revegetation is I~quiml, approved native species, or other appropriate species naturalized to the Puget Sound regiO/I shall be used. A variety of species shall be used lvhich serve as food or shelter jiYJIn climatic extmlJeS and pl~dators, and as stmcflm and COl'er for reproduction and rearing ofyotlng. d) Removal of Noxious Species: lI7hen requil~d as a condition of approval, noxious or undesirable species of plants shall be 1~lIloved or controlled so as to not compete with native vegetation. e) Impervious Surface Restrictions: IVhere illlpervious sll/faces exist in buffer areas, such imperviolls sll/faces shall not be inmased or expanded lVithin the bllJJer a/~a. The extent of impervious suifaces lvithin the bllJJer area mqJ only be rearranged if the reconjigllration of impen'iolls sllifaces and restoration of prior stlifaced areas is pari of an enhancemel1t proposal that improves ecological jimc/ion of the area protected by the buffer. The buffer averaging and enhancement plan, as described in detail in Chapter 7, proposes removal of non-native invasive species, yard waste piles, and the existing gravel driveway and planting of all disturbed areas with native species in compliance with these requirements. In fact, the value and benefit of the buffer enhancement and restoration actions proposed will greatly exceed the minor and temporary impacts associated with placement of the walking trail, storm outfall, and minor grading near the storm pond. No impervious surface currently exists or is proposed within in the buffer area. In addition, buffer averaging will result in no net loss of stream buffer extent or functionality (see site plans in Appendix C). Along with providing enhancement and restoration actions, the project must meet the additional criteria for permit approval described in RMC 4-3-050 L.7.a and b, which require that (a) as a condition of any approval for any development permit issued, a native growth protection area must be created containing the stream area and associated buffer and (b) the action must result in no net loss of regulated area or ecological function in the drainage area. The native growth protection area will be established using a separate tract with deed restriction per RMC 4-3-050 E.4.c. option iii. The native growth protection area will encompass all areas of the site east of the final buffer line detailed on Sheet 3 of Appendix D. As stated previously, the benefits of the proposed enhancement and restoration actions far exceed the minor and temporary buffer impacts proposed by the project. In addition, a native growth protection area will be created ro protect the stream and buffer in perpetuity. With the enhancement actions proposed in Chapter 7 of this report, the native growth protection area will comply with the standards set forth in RMC 4-3-050 E.4.b. 6.2 Federal Regulatory Considerations The results of the 2014 site investigation identified one stream and one excavated drainage swale. Maplewood Creek Tributary 0303 receives water from natural and artificial sources upstream of the site and has a documented direct surface water connection to waters of the U.S. known to be regulated under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CW A). The drainage swale appears to have been originally constructed in upland soils for the purpose of conveying stormwater runoff from adjacent driveways and residences and groundwater from drainage systems. The swale does not receive water from any sources potentially regulated under Section 404 of the C\Y/ A. In a December 2, 2008 memorandum from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and USACE, joint guidance is provided that describes waters that are to be regulated under section 404 of the C\Y/ A (USACE, 2008). This memorandum was amended on February 2, 2012 where the EPA and USACE issued a final guidance letter on waters protected by the CW A. 1186.0005 BeE/Quadrant -Copperwood Residential Plat \X'etland, Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report 12 Soundview Consultants LLC Revised July 14.2014 I I I I I I I 1 I. I I I I I I I I I \ The 2012 guidance describes the following waters where jurisdiction would be asserted: 1) traditional navigable waters, 2) interstate waters, 3) wetlands adjacent to traditional navigable waters, 4) non- navigable tributaries of traditional navigable waters that are relatively permanent meaning they contain water at least seasonally (e.g. typically three months and does not include ephemeral waters), and 5) wetlands that directly abut permanent waters. The regulated waters are those associated with naturally occurring waters and water courses and not artificial waters (i.e. stormwater pond outfalls). Maplewood Creek Tributary 0303 fits the description of Item 4 and is clearly regulated under Section 404 of the CW A. The 2012 memorandum further goes on to describe waters where jurisdiction would likely require further analysis: 1) Tributaries to traditional navigable waters or interstate waters, 2) Wetlands adjacent to jurisdictional tributaries to traditional navigable waters or interstate waters, and 3) Waters that fall under the "other waters" category of the regulations. In addition, the 2012 guidance identifies thirteen waters or areas where jurisdiction will not be asserted: 1) \'Vet areas that are not tributaries or open waters and do not meet the agencies regulatory definition of "wetlands", 2) Waters excluded from coverage under the CWA by existing regulations, 3) Waters that lack a "significant nexus: where one is required for a water to be jurisdictional, 4) Artificially irrigated areas that would revert to upland if the irrigation ceased, 5) Artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating and/or diking dry land to collect and retain water and which are used exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, irrigation, settling basins, or rice growing, 6) Artificial reflecting pools or swimming pools excavated in uplands, 7) Small ornamental waters created by excavating and/or diking dry land to retain water for primarily aesthetic reasons, and puddles, 8) Water-filled depressions created incidental to construction activity, 9) Groundwater, including groundwater drained through subsurface drainage systems, 10) Erosional features (gullies and rills), 11) Non-wetland swales, 12) Ditches that are excavated wholly in uplands, drain only uplands or non-jurisdictional waters, and have no more than ephemeral flow, and 13) Ditches that do not contribute flow, either directly or through other waterbodies, to a traditional navigable water, interstate water, or territorial sea. The drainage swale identified on the subject property lacks a defined bed and bank and was clearly constructed from uplands as documented by the prior landowner. The source of water that may be found within this swale is stormwater associated with roadside runoff and a high groundwater collection system. The excavated swale identified onsite appears to fit at least 3 of the criteria (Items 7,9, and 12) for which the agencies are directed not to assert jurisdiction over; however, previous experience with the Seattle Branch of the USACE's interpretation of the guidance indicates agency staff sometimes will try to assert jurisdiction over such features. However, it is highly unlikely such assertion of jurisdiction over this swale is defensible given the documentation of the swale. Should the USACE decide to assert jurisdiction over the swale under Section 404 of the CWA, the project would still likely be covered under a simplified CW 1\ Section 404 Nationwide Permit (NWP) 29 for residential development projects as the limit of State and Federal permitting efforts under Sections 401 and 404 of the CW i\. Final determination of NWP coverage, though not likely necessary, is at the discretion of the USACE, and other minor NWP's, such as a NWP 18, may be also be used to authorize this project. 1186.00(15 BeE/Quadrant -COppcf\\'ood Residential Plat \Verland. Fish and \X1ildlife Habitat Assessment Report 13 Soundview Consultants I.1.C RevisedJuly 14,2014 I I I I' I I I I I, I , I I I I I I I Federal permitting efforts would also trigger Section 7 review under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The same permitting requirements would also trigger Section 106 review under the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) due to the extent of land-disturbing actions. As no Federal permitting is likely necessary, documentation for such additional review requirements is not being prepared at this time and will not be prepared in the future unless USACE staff can justify a regulatory nexus with the proposed project. 1186.(lOOS BeE/Quadrant -Copperwood Residential Plat Wetland, Fish and \X1ildlife Habitat Assessment Report 14 Soundyiew Consultants LLC Rcyised July 14,2014 I I I, I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Chapter 7. Buffer Averaging and Enhancement Plan The following sections present the proposed buffer averaging and enhancement plan with minor restoration actions to address the buffer impacts associated with the proposed project and satisfy buffer width and native growth protection area criteria. The proposed averaging and enhancement actions attempt to closely adhere to local Critical Areas Ret,'1llations specified in RMC 4-3-050 L.5.d and 4-3-050 E.4 and L.6-7, respectively. The proposed buffer averaging and enhancement plan is provided in Appendix D. The buffer enhancement plan proposes to remove the Himalayan blackberry and other non-native invasive vegetation by providing a chemical application (pre-treatment) of the invasive plants prior to grubbing, which would occur during the dry season to minimize any potential impact to Maplewood Creek Tributary 0303 and its downstream tributaries. Additional enhancement actions will include clean up and removal of the gravel driveway and the significant number of yard waste and debris piles located within the buffer to mitigate for the addition of a pervious walking trail along the perimeter of the buffer. This plan proposes enhancement efforts within the stream buffer wherever needed at the discretion of the responsible wetland scientist and restoration actions wherever minor grading actions disturb the perimeter of the buffer such as stormwater outfall placement and installation of the stormwater pond. No actions are proposed that will intrude into or affect the stream channel. Please see Appendix D for planting specifications and details. 7.1 Purpose and Need The purpose of the proposed project is to provide additional residential units and associated infrastructure within the City of Renton. The project proposes to develop a plat of forty-seven (47) residential units with all necessary parking, driveways, utilities and associated infrastructure. A minimum 75-foot protective buffer will be implemented to protect the regulated Class 3 stream and an averaged 100-foot buffer will be implemented to protect the Class 2 reach of the same stream. In addition, only temporary impacts are proposed to onsite stream buffers through enhancement and restoration actions. The project seeks to mitigate for the minor temporary impacts associated with necessary placement of a treated stormwater outfall and grading in the onsite buffer area and provide compliance with native growth protection arca requirements. 7.2 Description of Impacts No direct adverse impacts are proposed to any regulated critical area, as Maplewood Creek Tributary 0303 will not be directly impacted by the proposed project. However, the project proposes to place a walking trail, treated stormwater outfall, approximately 3,000 square feet of temporary grading within the stream buffer, resulting in minor temporary impacts. Surface water and a portion of the roof water from the proposed residential plat will be directed to a detention pond which will treat and discharge stormwater into a dispersion trench which will direct the treated water to the stream buffer. In addition, vegetation enhancement and restoration actions within the buffer will result in temporary disturbance only, with a resultant beneficial effect. The existing buffer onsite is degraded by the dominance of invasive Himalayan blackberry, the presence of yard waste and debris piles, and the gravel driveway. The dense blackberry and yard waste piles keep emergent vegetation suppressed near the stream channel thus causing increased 1186.0005 BeE/Quadrant -COppcf\\.·ood Residential Plat Wetland. Fish and \X'ildlife Habitat Assessment Report r 15 Suund"iew Consultants LLC Revised July 14, 2014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I runoff and erosion to limit water quality functions within the buffer. The proposed project will substantially improve stream buffer functions including enhanced wildlife habitat and improvements to water quality functions by establishing a highly structured native plant community and constructing a protective fence with signage to prevent continued disturbance of buffer areas. In addition, pedestrian access within the buffer will be contained by establishment of a low-impact trail system to curtail trampling of native vegetation and inappropriate uses within the buffer. Other than the gravel areas proposed to be removed, no impervious surface currently exists within the buffer nor is proposed to be placed in the buffer by the proposed project. The proposed project does not propose to negatively impact offsite drainages nor will it be detrimental to any other property. Only a small portion of the stream buffer will be temporarily impacted during installation of pervious walking trail, outfall,. and minor grading near the stormwater pond. The alignment of the outfall has been designed to avoid significant native conifers, and temporary impacts will be limited to the smallest area necessary to allow installation located outside of OHW. Once installation of these items is complete, the disturbed areas will be finish graded and replanted with native vegetation. The extent of buffer enhancement and restoration actions proposed will meet all native growth protection area requirements and will greatly exceed any mitigation necessary for the minor and temporary impacts associated with placement of the outfall. 7.3 Mitigation Approach and Best Management Practices The proposed enhancement and restoration plan is intended to provide an appropriate stream buffer functions without loss of area and non-compensatory enhancement and restoration actions for any temporary impacts. The plan will also enhance the overall buffer functionality to meet native growth protection area requirements. Onsite buffer areas are dominated by Himalayan blackberry and contain significant numbers of yard waste and debris piles. Proposed enhancement actions include treatment and removal of invasive vegetation, removal of yard waste and debris piles, planting with native trees and shrubs, and establishment of an herbaceous understory to allow the return of a forested canopy and enhance water quality and habitat functions of Maplewood Creek Tributary 0303. Impacts to the stream are being fully avoided, and impacts to the buffer are being minimized through careful planning efforts and project design. Enhancement and restoration actions will occur concurrently with the development of the plat. Temporary erosion and sediment control (fESC) measures will be implemented that consists of high-visibility fencing (HVF) installed around native vegetation within the buffer, silt fencing between the graded areas and buffer, plastic sheeting on stockpiled materials, and seeding of disturbed soils. These TESC measures should be installed prior to the start of development or enhancement actions and actively managed for the duration of the project. A concrete wash water collection basin should also be installed away from the buffer prior to commencement of construction activities requiring additional concrete work. All equipment staging and materials stockpiles should be kept out of the buffer, and the area will need to be kept free of spills and/or hazardous materials. All fill material and road surfacing should be sourced from upland areas onsite or from approved suppliers, and will need to be free of pollutants and hazardous materials. Construction materials along with all construction waste and debris should be effectively managed and stockpiled on paved surfaces and kept free of the remaining wetland and stream buffer area. Following completion of the residence, the entire site should be cleaned and detail graded 1186.0005 BeE/Quadrant Coppen,lrood Residential Plat Wetland, Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report 16 Suunci\'iew Consultants LLC RevisedJuly 14, 2014 I I I I I I I I , I I I I I I I I I using hand tools wherever necessary, and TESC measures will need to be removed. In addition, permanent stormwater treatment features will need to be implemented as designed by the project engineer. 7.4 Buffer Averaging Efforts As a result of the re-classification of the southeast onsite reach of the stream from a Class 3 to a Class 2, buffer averaging efforts will need to be made to accommodate the stormwater pond. With careful planning, buffer width modification using the buffer averaging standards set forth in RMC 4- 3-050 L5.d may be applied to this project if several criteria for approval are followed; including, buffer width will not result in a net loss of ecological function, the total buffer area is no less than the required standard, and the buffer standard is based on best available science. The buffer averaging efforts for this project included an assessment of existing site conditions, critical areas and physical limitations, stream class designation, and anticipated project needs. The proposed buffer averaging efforts are very minor and attempt to strike a balance between these clements in a manner that allows the best use of the site while maintaining the integrity of the existing critical areas. Careful planning and targeted implementation of the buffer averaging exercise detailed on Sheet 2 of Appendix D, along with buffer enhancement actions, will help ensure that no additional negative impacts will be made to the critical areas identified in this assessment. Expansion of buffer areas surrounding sensitive areas and implementation of effective restoration and enhancement measures will also help ensure that water quality and fish and wildlife habitat functions will be improved from its current state. The buffer reduction is only proposed within the outermost extent of the onsite buffer where the stream was re-classified as a Class 2 waterbody. Increase in buffer area is proposed an adjacent area that is situated between the proposed residences and the stream. The proposed buffer averaging plan increases overall total buffer area on the site by 1,442 square feet (from existing 1,730 square feet to the proposed 3,172 square feet). As the proposed actions will increase overall buffer functionality, no net loss of buffer function or area is proposed. 7.S Enhancement Actions Enhancement and restoration actions for the buffer include, but may not be limited to, the following recommendations: • Pre-treat invasive plants, such as English ivy, Himalayan blackberry, and Scotch broom, growing in the tributary buffer with a Washington Department of At,'·riculture approved herbicide. After pre-treatment, grub to remove the invasive plants and replant all cleared areas with native trees, shrubs, and ground covers listed in Appendix C; Pre-treatment of the invasive plants should occur a minimum of two weeks prior to removal; • Remove gravel associated with the existing gravel driveway and break up the compacted soil with a ripper attachment or tiller. Seed and plant disturbed areas; • Only native trees, shrubs, and groundcovers listed in Appendix C, or substitutes approved by the responsible wetland scientist, will be used in disturbed areas to help retain soils, filter stormwater, and increase biodiversity of macroinvertebrates (i.e. insects); • An approved native seed mix will be used to seed the disturbed areas after planting trees and shrubs; 1186.0005 IleE/Quadrant -Copperwood Residential Plat \X'etland. Fish and \X'ildlife Habitat Assessment Rcpon 17 SoundYicw Consulrants LLC Rc,'isedJuly 14, 2014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I • Maintenance to maintain control of invasive plants will occur annually, at a minimum, or more frequently if necessary. Maintenance to reduce the growth and spread of invasive plants is not restricted to chemical applications but may include hand removal, if warranted; • Dry-season irrigation will be provided as necessary by the property owner to help ensure plant survival; • Exterior lights will be directed away from the tributary buffer whenever possible, and • Activities that generate excessive noise (i.e. generators and air conditioning equipment) will be placed away from the riparian corridor whenever feasible. 7.6 Mitigation Goals, Objectives, and Performance Standards The goals and objectives for the proposed non-compensatory enhancement and restoration actions are based on improving buffer functions to compensate for temporary impacts to the buffer. These actions are capable of improving water quality and hydrologic functions and providing a moderate to high level of habitat function for stream buffer-associated wildlife. The goals and objectives of the proposed enhancement actions are as follows: Goal -Improve habitat functions associated with the Maplewood Creek Tributary 0303 buffer by reducing presence of non-native invasive species and increasing presence of habitat features and diversity within the temporarily impacted buffer. Objective 1-Increase plant biodiversity in areas where Himalayan blackberry and/or other invasive species are dominant. Performance Standard 1 -A minimum of 5 native tree and shrub species will be present within the enhancement area in all monitoring years. Performance Standard 2 -The enhanced buffer area onsite will contain a minimum of 50 percent native species areal coverage by Year 2, 60 percent areal coverage by Year 3, and 75 percent areal coverage percent by Year 5 of all strata. Objective 2 -Effectively control and/or eliminate invasive species from the stream buffer enhancement areas. Performance Standard 3 -Non-native invasive plants will not make up more than 15 percent total areal cover in any growing season following Year 1. 7.7 Plant Materials and Installation 7.7.1 Plant Materials All plant materials to be used for enhancement actions will be nursery grown stock from a reputable, local source. Only native species are to be used; no hybrids or cultivars will be allowed. Plant material provided will be typical of their species or variety; if not cuttings they will exhibit normal, densely-developed branches and vigorous, fibrous root systems. Plants will be sound, healthy, vigorous plants free from defects, and all forms of disease and infestation. 1186.0005 IKE/Quadrant -Copperwood Residential Plat \'X'etland, Fi~h and \X'iJdlife Habitat Assessment Report 18 $oundview Consultants LLC Revised July 14,2014 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 'I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 If container stock is used, such materials shall have been grown in its delivery container for not less than six months but not more than two years. Plants shall not exhibit rootbound conditions. Under no circumstances shall container stock be handled by their trunks, stems, or tops. Seed mixture used for hand or hydro seeding shall contain fresh, clean, and new crop seed mixed by an approved method. The mixture is specified in Appendix D. All plant material shall be inspected by the Wetland Scientist upon delivery. Plant material not conforming to the specifications below will be rejected and replaced by the planting contractor. Rejected plant materials shall be immediately removed from the site. Fertilizer will be in the form of Agroform plant tabs or an approved like form. Mulch will consist of sterile wheat straw or clean recycled wood chips approximately 1/2 inch to 1 inch in size and 1/2 inch thick. If free of invasive plant species, the mulch material may be sourced from woody materials salvaged from the land clearing activities. 7.7.2 Product Handling, Delivery, and Storage All seed and fertilizer should be delivered in original, unopened, and undamaged containers showing weight, analysis, and name of manufacturer. This material should be stored in a manner to prevent wetting and deterioration. All precautions customary in good trade practice shall be taken in preparing plants for moving. Workmanship that fails to meet industry standards will be rejected. Plants will be packed, transported, and handled with care to ensure protection against injury and from drying out. If plants cannot be planted immediately upon delivery they should be protected with soil, wet peat moss, or in a manner acceptable to the project biologist. Plants, fertilizer, and mulch not installed immediately upon delivery shall be secured on the site to prevent theft or tampering. No plant shall be bound with rope or wire in a manner that could damage or break the branches. Plants transported on open vehicles should be secured with a protective covering to prevent windburn. 7.7.3 Preparation and Installation of Plant Materials The planting locations shown in Appendix D are approximate and subject to modification to meet site-specific needs. The planting contractor shall verify the location of all elements of the enhancement plan with the Wetland Scientist prior to installation. The responsible Wetland Scientist reserves the right to adjust the locations of landscape elements during the installation period as appropriate to the enhancement actions outlined above. If obstructions are encountered that are not shown on the drawings, planting operations will cease until alternate plant locations have been selected by and/ or approved by the Wetland Scientist. Circular plant pits with vertical sides will be excavated for all container stock. The pits should be at least 12 inches in diameter, and the depth of the pit should accommodate the entire root system. The bottom of each pit will be scarified to a depth of 4 inches. Broken roots should be pruned with a sharp instrument and rootballs should be thoroughly soaked prior to installation. Set plant material upright in the planting pit to proper grade and alignment. Water plants thoroughly midway through backfilling and add Agroform tablets. Water pits again 1186.0005 BeE/Quadrant -Copperv.·ood Residential Plat \\'etland. Fish and \,\'ildlife Habitat Assessment Report 19 Sound\'iew Consultants LLC Revised Ju1r 14,2014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I upon completion of backfilling. No filling should occur around trunks or stems. Do not use frozen or muddy mixtures for backfilling. Form a ring of soil around the edge of each planting pit to retain water, and install a 4 to 6 inch layer of mulch around the base of each container plant. 7.7.4 Temporary Irrigation Specifications While the native species selected for enhancement are hardy and typically thrive in northwest conditions, and the proposed enhancement actions are planned in areas with sufficient hydroperiods for the species selected, some individual plants might perish due to dry conclitions. Therefore, irrigation or regular watering will be provided as necessary for the duration of the first 2 growing seasons while the native plantings become established. 7.7.5 Invasive Plant Control and Removal Invasive species to be removed include Himalayan blackberry and all listed noxious weeds. These species can also be found nearby; therefore, to ensure these species do not expand following the enhancement actions, invasive shrubs within the enhancement and restoration areas will be pretreated with a root-killing herbicide approved for use in aquatic sites (i.e. Rodeo) approximately 30 days prior to being cleared and grubbed from the entire wetland and associated buffer. The pre- treatment with herbicide should occur prior to all planned mitigation actions, and spot treatment of any surviving other invasive vegetation should be performed again each fall prior to leaf senescence for a minimum of 3 years. A maintenance program requiring annual removal of invasive species within all wetland buffer areas by a homeowner's association following project completion, and written into the subdivision's Codes, Covenants, and Restrictions, is also recommended. This program should start during the early summer of Year 1 of the monitoring program. 7.8 Maintenance & Monitoring The applicant is committed to compliance with the proposed enhancement plan and overall success of the project. As such, the applicant will continue to maintain the project, keeping the site free from of non-native invasive vegetation, trash, and yard waste. The enhancement site will be monitored for a period of 5 years with formal inspections by a qualified Wetland Scientist. The maintenance/monitoring period will begin upon completion of an as-built plan and certification from a Professional Wetland Scientist or Scientist with equivalent qualifications certifying the mitigation was installed per the enhancement and restoration plan. Monitoring events will be scheduled at the time of construction, 30 days after planting, and late in the first through final year's growing seasons in Years 1, 2, 3, and 5. A closeout assessment will also be conducted in Year 5 to ensure the adequate restoration and enhancement measures have been provided. Monitoring will consist of percent cover measurements at permanent sampling points, walk-through surveys to identify invasive species presence and dead or dying restoration plantings, photographs taken at fixed photo points, wildlife observations, and verification of dispersion trench function and general qualitative buffer function observations. Percent cover of all herbaceous species will be 1186.0005 BeE/Quadrant -Copperwood Residential Plat \X'erland, Fish and \,(Iildlife Habitat Assessment Report 20 Sound,;e\\' Consultants LLC Revised July 14,2014 I I I I I I I 'I I I 1 I I I 1 I measured along each transect at 3D-foot intervals using a .25 merer quadrant. Average values for each site will be determined from all quadrants measured along each transect. 7.9 Reporting Following each monitoring event, a brief monitoring report detailing the current ecological status of the stream buffer, measurement of performance standards, and management recommendations will be prepared and submitted to the City of Renton within 90 days of each monitoring event to ensure full compliance with the mitigation plan, performance standards, and regulatory conditions of approval. 7.10 Contingency Plans If monitoring results during the first 3 years indicate that performance standards are not being met, it may be necessary to implement all or part of the contingency plan. Careful attention to maintenance is essential in ensuring that problems do not arise. Should any portion of the site fail to meet the success criteria, a contingency plan will be developed and implemented with City of Renton approval. Such plans are adaptive and should be prepared on a case-by-case basis to reflect the failed mitigation characteristics. Contingency plans can include additional plant installation, and plant substitutions including type, size, and location. Contingency/maintenance activities may include, but are not limited to: 1. Replacing plants lost to vandalism, drought, or disease, as necessary; 2. Replacing any plant species with a 20 percent or greater mortality rate after 2 growing seasons with the same species or native species of similar form and function; 3. Irrigating the enhancement areas only as necessary during dry weather if plants appear to be too dry, with a minimal quantity of water; 4. Reseeding and/or repair of stream buffer areas as necessary if erosion or sedimentation occurs, or 5. Removing all trash or undesirable debris from the stream and buffer areas as necessary. 7.11 Early Closeout If the Year 3 monitoring effort indicates all Performance Standards are being met, the Applicant may petition the City of Renton for carll' closeout of the monitoring period. Such a petition may be made using the Year 3 monitoring report and a written request to City of Renton staff. 1186.0005 IKE/Quadrant -Copperv,.'Ood Residential Plat Wetland, Fish and \,(Iildlife Habitat Assessment Report 21 Soundview Consultants LLC ReyisedJuly 14,2014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Chapter 8. Closure The findings and conclusions documented in this report have been prepared for specific application to the Copperwood Residential Plat. They have been developed in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill normally exercised by members of the environmental science profession currently practicing under similar conditions in the area. The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are professional opinions based on an interpretation of information currently avaiJable to us and are made within the operation scope, budget, and schedule of this project. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made. In addition, changes in government codes, regulations, or laws may occur. Because of such changes, our observations and conclusions applicable to this site may need to be revised wholly or in part. \'Vetland determinations and regulatory recommendations made by Soundview Consultants LLC are based on conditions present at the time of the site visit and considered preliminary until validated by the jurisdictional agencies. Validation of the extent and jurisdictional status of all potentially regulated features by the regulating agency provides a certification, usually written, that the features that will, or will not, be regulated by the agencies until a specific date or until the regulations are modified. Only the regulating agencies can provide this certification. Since wetlands and streams are dynamic communities affected by both natural and human activities, changes in wetland boundaries may be expected; therefore, delineations cannot remain valid for an indefinite period of time. Local agencies typically recognize the validity of wetland and stream assessments for a period of 5 years after completion of an assessment. Development activities on a site 5 years after the completion of this report may require revisions. In addition, changes in government codes, regulations, or laws may occur. Because of such changes, our observations and conclusions applicable to this site may need to be revised wholly or in part. t 186.0005 BCE/Quadrant -Copperu'ood Residential Plat \\'et/and, Fish and \\'ildlife Habitat Assessment Report 22 Sound\;ew Consultants LtC Rcyised July 14, 2014 I I I I I I I I I I I I .. I I I I I I I Chapter 9. Report Summary All field inspections, jurisdictional wetland boundary delineations, OHWM determinations, habitat assessments, and supporting documentation, including this Wedand and Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment prepared for the Coppenvood Residential Plat were prepared by, or under the direction of, Jeremy Downs, Jim Carsner, and Hannah Blackstock of Soundview Consultants LLC. Jeremy Downs is a Principal Scientist and Environmental Planner, Jim Carsner is a certified Professional Wetland Scientist, and Hannah Blackstock is a Staff Scientist. Any deviations and/or alterations to this document must be approved by the aforementioned parties at Soundview Consultants LLC. Please see Appendix E for a description of professional qualifications. Sincerely, ] eremy Downs Soundview Consultants LLC 2907 Harborview Drive Gig Harbor, WA 98335 Office: (253) 514-8952 ext. 004 Fax: (253) 514-8954 haooah@sQuodyiewcousultaots com .. ames H. C.rsner, PWS Soundvi~w Consultants LLC 2907 Harborview Drive Gig Harbor, W A 98335 Office: (253) 514-8952 ext. 008 Fax: (253) 514-8954 jjm@sQllodyjewcoosulr30ts com Hannah Blackstock Soundview Consultants LLC 2907 Harborview Drive Gig Harbor, WA 98335 Office: (253) 514-8952 ext. 004 Fax: (253) 514-8954 hanoah@sQundyiewcoosultants com 1186.0005 BeE/Quadrant -Copper.mod Residential Plat Wetland, Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report 7/14/14 Date 7/14/14 Date 7/14/14 Date 23 Soundview Consultants LLC Re\'isedJuly 14,2014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Chapter 9. References Barber, M., S. Cierebiej, and D. Collins. 2009. Fish Passage Bamers and Suiface Water Diversion Screening Assess!l1e11t and Prioritization Manua/. Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia, WA. Brinson, M. M. 1993. A bydrogeomorphic classification for Ivetiands, Tecbnical &port IPRP-DE-4. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS. Cowardin, L.M. V. Carter, F. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of lf7etlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Washington D.C. Renton Municipal Code. 2014. Section 4-3-050, Critical Areas Regulations. Environmental Li.boratory. 1987. Corps of Engimers lf7etlands Delimation Man1la/. Technical &port 1'-87- 1, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. Granger, T., T. Hruby, A. McMillan, D. Peters, J. Rubey, D. Sheldon, S. Stanley, E. Stockdale. 2005. lf7etlands in Wasbington State -Volume 2: Guidance for Protecting and Managing Wetlands. Washington State Department of Ecology. Publication #05-06-008. Olympia, W A. [April 2005]. Hadley, C. 2006. Memorandllm: Sby Creek Preliminary Plat Fish Presence/Absence Surveys -East Fork Maplewood Creek. Cedarock Consultants, Inc. May 9, 2006. Hitchcock, c.L. and A. Cronquist. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northlvest. University of Washington Press. Seattle, Washington. Lichvar, Robert W. and John T. Kartesz. 2009. North American Digital Flom: National Wetland Plant List, version 2.4.0. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, NW, and BONAP, Chapel Hill, NC. Munsell® Color. 2000. 1I'lunsell@ soil color cbarts. New Windsor, New York. Natural Resources Conservation Service. 1995. Hydric Soils of Il7ashington. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Washington D.C. Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2001. I-Iydric Soils List: King COlmly, Il7ashinglon. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Washington D.C. Olson, P. and E. Stockdale. 2008. Detemlining tbe Ordinary High Waler Mark on Streams in Il7ashington State. Washington State Department of Ecology, Shorelands & Environmental Assistance Program, Lacey, WA. Ecology Publication # 08-06-001. Reed, P.B., Jr., D. Peters, J Goudzwaard, 1. Lines, and F. Weinmann. 1993. Supplement to National List of Plant Species That Occllr in Il7etlands: Northwest Region 9. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Supplement to BioI. Rep. 88 (26.9). 1186.0005 BCE/Quadrant -Copperwood Residential Plat Wetland, Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report 24 Suundvicw Consultants LLC Revised July 14, 2014 I I I I I !I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Sheldon, D., T. Hruby, P. Johnson, K. Harper, 1\. McMillan, T. Granger, S. Stanley, and E. Stockdale. 2005. Wetlands in Washington State -Volume 1: 1\ Synthesis of the Science. Washington State Department of Ecology. Publication #05-06-006. Olympia, Wi\. [March 2005] Snyder, Dale E., Philip S. Gale, and Russell F. Pringle. 1973. Soil SlIn'ey of King COUllty Area, Washington. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, in cooperation with the Washington Agricultural Experiment Station. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2008. Clean Water Act jurisdiction Following the U.S. Supreme C01ll1:, Decision in Rapanos v. United States & Carabell v. United States. EP 1\/US1\CE. December 2, 2008. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engimers IPetlalld Delineation Mallual.· Westem MOlllltains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Ver2.0), ed. J.S. Wakeley, R.W. lichvar, and C.V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-10-3. Vicksburg, MSS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2010. Field Indictors of Hydric Soils in the United States, Version 7.0. L.M. Vasialas, G.W. Hurt, and C.V. Noble (eds.). USDA, NRCS, in cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils. Washington State Department of Ecology. 1997. IPashington State IPet/ands Identification alld Delimation Manllal. Washington State Department of Ecology. Publication #96-94. Washington State Department of Ecology. 1997. Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delimati0l1 ManuaL Washington State Department of Ecology. Publication #96-94. Washington State Department of Ecology, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Seattle District, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10. (Ecology) 2006a. l17etland Mitigation ill Washillgtoll State -Part 1: Agenry Policies alld Guidallce (Version 1). Washington State Department of Ecology. Publication #06-06-011a. Olympia, Wi\. 1186.0005 BeE/Quadrant -Copperwood Residential Pial Wetland, Fish and \\'ilJlife Habitat Assessment Report 25 Sound"iew Consultants LtC Revised July 14, 2014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Appendix A -Methods and Tools TableA-l. Methods and tools used to prepare the report. Parameter Method or TooL Website Wetland USACE 19S7 http:/ / e1.erdc.usace.army.mi Delineation Wetland II elpubs/ pdf! wlmanS7.pdf Delineation Manual Western htrp:! /www.usace.army.rnil Mountains, / cw/ cecwo/reg/inte_aridw Valleys, and Coast es,-sup.pdf Region Interim Regional Supplement Wetland USFWS / http://www.fws.gov/nwi/P Classification Cowardin ubs_Reports/Class_Manual Classification / class_titlepg.htm System Hydrogeomorphic http:/ / el.erdc.usace.army.mi Classification l/wetlands/pdfs/wrpde4.pd (HGM) System f Wetland Renton Municipal http:/ /www.codepublishing Rating Code 4-3-050 M .com/wa/ renton/ Stream Federal Ordinary http:/ /www.usace.ann'y.mil Delineation High Water Mark / inet/ functions/ cw / cecwo Definition / reg/33cfr328.htm Draft State http://www.ecy.wa.gov/pu Ordinary High bs/OS0600l.pdf WaterMark Protocol Wetland National Wetland http:/ /wetland_plants.usace.ar Indicator Status Plant ust, 2013 my. rnil/ Wetland Ratings Plant Names USDA Plant http://plants.usda.gov/ Database Soils Dara NRCS Soil Survey http:/ / soils.usda.gov /use/h ydric/ Hydric Soils King County Not available Dara Hydric Soils List Threatened Washington btijl'LLwwwdD1:~ gm:Lcb and Natural Heritage 1186.0005 BCE/Quadrant-Coppern'ooo Residential Plat Wetland, Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report Reference Environmental Laboratory. 19S7. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-S7-1, US Anny Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 200S. Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region, ed. J. S. Wakeley, R. W. Lichvar, and C. V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-OS-\3. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. Government Printing Office. Washington, D.C. Brinson, M. M. (1993). "A hydrogeomorphic classification for wetlands," Technical Report WRP-DE-4, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg. MS. Website Congressional Federal Register 33 Part 328 Definition of Waters of the United States. Olson, P. and E. Stockdale. 2008. Determining the Ordinary High Water Mark on Streams in Washington State. \Vashington State Department of Ecology, Shorelands & Environmental Assistance Program. Lacey. WA. Ecology Publication # OS-06-001. Lichvar, R.W. 2013. The National Wetland Plant List 2013 wetland ratings. Phytoneuron 2013.49: 1-241. Published 17lulv 2013. Website (see Appendix A) Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2011. Hydric Soils US!: King County, Washington. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Washington D.C. Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2001. Hydric Soils US!: King County, Washington. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Washington D.C. Washington Natural Heritage Program (Data published 1O/15/0S). Endangered, Sound view Consultants LLC Revised July 14,2014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Parameter Method or Tool Website Endangered Program pL Species and http://wwwl.dnr.wa.gov/n hpj refdesk/ datasearch/wn hpwetlands.pdf \Vashington http://wdfw.wa.gov/hab/p Priority Habitats hspage.htm and Species NOAA fisheries http:/ /www.nwr.noaa.gov/ species list and ESA-Salmon- maps Listings/Salmon- Populations/lndex.cfm and http:/ Iwww.nmfs.noaa.gov /pr/species/ USFWS species http:/ /www.fws.gov/westw lists by County afwo/ se/SE_List/ endanger ed_Species. asp Species of WDFW GIS Data http://wdfw.wa.gov/mappi Local ng/ salmonscapel Importance Renton i\funicipal http:/ /www.codepublishing Code .com/waf renton/ 1186.0005 BCE/Quadrant -Copperwood Residential Plat \X'erland, Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report Reference threatened, and sensitive plants of \X'ashington. \XTashington State Department of Natural Resources, \X'ashington Natural Heritage Program, Olympia, WA Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) Program 1\hp of priority habitats and species in project vicinity. \Y./ashington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). Website \'V'cbsitc Website \'\'cbsitc Sound\'icw Consultants U.C Revised Julr 14. 2014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Appendix B -Background Information This appendix includes a King County Topographic Map (Bl); USFWS National Wetland Invemory Map (B2); City of Remon Critical Areas Map (B3); NRCS Soil Survey Map (B4); WDFW Priority Habitat and Species Map (BS); and WDFW SalmonScape Map (B6. 1186.0005 BeE/Quadrant -Copperwood Residential Plat \X:retl:md, Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Repon Sound\'icw Consultanrs LLC RcdscdJuly 14, 2014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Appendix Bl-King County Topographic Map 1186.0005 BCE/Quadmnt -Copperwood Re sidenti al Plat Wetland, Fish and Wildlife Habit'2t AS5c:ssmmt Re pon Subject ;;;:;;;~ / Property Soundview Co nsultants u..c ReviscdJuly 14.2014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Appendix B2 -USFWS National Wedand Inventory Map 1 t 86 .0005 BCE /Quadrant -Cop~rwood Residential Plat Wetland. Fish and Wildlife Habitat Asstssment Report Sou nd view ConsuJrams LLC R<ViscdJuly 14, 2014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Appendix B3 -City of Renton Critica l Areas Map City of Renton Critical Areas .m •• 02 117 .121 120 E "". Sl 20' "01 •• n 210 201 202 201 201 214 213 220 21. 22. u..,. '\ 1310.5 13827" " 13702 13103\t. '37DO 13714 • I , 127 1 .... .... '9(/0': • '1102 5016 % ~ '"", ...,-so ,9(1) 4900 i: I .921 ,;: 312 490 . 35' 50n 5021 '000 5006 Subject Property 5001 5013 119 12' 122 124 123 131 121 130 129 u. 202 .110 204 203 2 .. "0 209 214 220 210 210 Sl ' __ It" "" lG" 14325 13611 13820 13617 UG' 13G' 1363e 11133 13 ..... 13145 13652 ,seiO 13'" 13120 ------------. .=:-:::==-:: -- "807 ~ ; 13813 i 13119 CIt Uf02 13101 '3114 o o 128 City of Renton FI •• net & IT DlvI5l0. 14020 14030 14123 14017 ~ CIty .... County ""'""'"'Y 0 -rJ CIr·--" --sa.:.,. Qty 01 R.,don .. , .. a~ ... 2ft ...... ~) . "".---~ . --Fn.lil •••• ,.~ AIi_" .. a;; ..,be' :Lp 4171201. 0 • 0 U313 14321 13115 1313' --.... -...- s-"("'--l , , w_ THIS IMP IS HOT • ~ ~ ~ 1186.0005 BCE/Qu2dranr -Copprl"\lr'OOd ResidenriaJ PI2t Wetlsnd, F is h and Wildlife H abitat AS~S5.ment Re pon Soundview Con sulWltS u.c Revised July 14,2014 /1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ .... ..... Appendix B4 -NRCS Soil Survey Map • • • Q t • ~ . A IIInI c-, -. _. " 'twMAl ...... Un?7er-...... 1Iti77_ ~ AIdoNiood gravoly .. ncly Soom, 810 15_' .... T_ tor_ GI _rut t 186.0005 BCE /Quadrant -Copperwood Re si dential Plat WetJand, Fi sh and Wi ldlife H abi t2t Asscssment Re port _SnAOS 13.8 13.1 _GlAOS • ! 9 • • • ~ 100 .0% 100.0% Soundview Co nsultants LLC Rcvised J uly 14,2014 . .... ...... I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Appendix B5 -WDFW Priority Habitat and Species Map l- I J II UJ ., i lJ.. § :J ! 0 ...J 1; ~t-~ J oct: Ii: zO g 3 <!l. ~ J:UJ Iii en 0: -en lJ..UJ lJ..-OU t-UJ III z!l. i UJen ::<0 t-z 0:« ~ <en !l.t- II UJ« UJ ot:: is ZID 0< UJ t-J: (!)~ f:ii: ~~ ilio «-15 15 J 3:g: ~~ I I ~I!! 1186.0005 BCE/Quadrant -Copperwood Residential Plat We tl and, Fish and Wildlife Habi tat Assessme nt Report Sound"iew ConsulWltS LLC RcyisedJuly 14,2014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I B6-WDFW .o.>ril 3, 2014. All SalmonS.ape Species 1186.0005 BeE/Quadrant -Copperwood Residential Plat Wetland, Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report Subject Property 0 I 0 , 0.075 , I! Q1 1:9,028 1115 , I I , Q2 a.3m , , I 0.4 kin Soundview Consultants I~C RevisedJuly 14.2014 I I I I I 'I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Appendix B7 -Cedarock Consultants, Inc. Fish Presence/Absence Locations c:;:; • • • -0 • • c: • • nJ • • .... • • N 'It • • Source. Cedarock Consultants, [nc., 2006 1186.0005 BeE/Quadrant -Copperwood Residential Plat Wecland. Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report Sound"jew Consulwns LLC Revised July 14, 2014 I I I I; I I I I I I I I I .' I I Appendix C -Plant Species List This appendix includes a table with recommended plant species (el) for the optional buffer enhancement plan. (Alternative native plants may also be used with biologist's approval). . I Table Cl. Enhancement Plan Plant List. Form & Habit Comments Trees Cone bearing c\'crgrcen is adapted to a wide varict), of soils in -0' Fir Evergreen tree; extremely terms of texture, but reaches its best development on clay learns, (. silty clay laams, and silt ioams which are deep, moist, and well '0 dry sites. drained. The Douglas-fir is an important food for many native birds and mammals. Large deciduous tree often multi-stemmed and covered with R;. _J. ,(Maple Deciduous tree; dry to mosses and other plants. Frequently found with Douglas fir and ;> moist sites. on sites disturbed by fire or logging. \Xlinged seeds descent like (JiccrIUacrol'hyUuIU) helicopters, which increases dispersal. Red Cedar Evergreen tree; moist to Cone bearing evergreen deer browse it all year along the coast (Thuja I'licata) wet soils. occurring on various substrates, commonly on moist sites (swamps, wet ravines, poorly drained depressions). Sitka Spruce Everhrreen tree; in damp Very vigorous, broadly conical conifer. Is good on an exposed , J:). sitchensis) locations. or poor site. Shrubs/Emergents . Vine Maple Deciduous shrub; does not Large specimens widely available; spreads by root and seed (Acer circinatum) always spread aggressively Red Currant Deciduous shrub; does not One of our finest ornamental natives; produces clusters of white (Ribes sanquineum) spread to red flowers Rose Deciduous shrub; spreads Thickets of spring stems create a formidable barrier; produces (Rosa nutkana) by underground runners to attractive, pink flowers followed by large, red hips; tolerates salt form thickets spray Red Elderberry Deciduous shrub; does not Produces red, non-edible berries; some success reported from (Sambucus racemosa) spread woody cuttings Deciduous shrub; spreads Spreads quickly once established; berries provide food for a (Ruhus sl'cctabilis) by underground runners to variety of songbirds form thickets ~ ':~_>;c);;:L-iK~~1:··.·. " .. " ""~" '., , ,"; , ",', \: .,' . ,:,' ,",.--'" , :,: . '-:"':' ~ ~ Blue Wildrye (Elymus glaucus) Idaho Fescue (Festuca idahoensis) Red Fescue (Festuca rubra) California Brame (Bromus carinatus) Large Leaf Lupine (Lupinus polyphyUus) Meadow Barley (Hordeum brachyanterum) , Fin,) p),nt ,dection to b, ""ifi,d by tho pwj'" "i,nti". N"h'o p),nt 1186.0005 BeE/Quadrant -Coppel'\\rood Residential Plat \'';/etland. Fish and \X'ildlife Habitat Assessment Repun _; b, I , with tho pmjw approyaL Soundview Consultants LLC RevisedJuly 14, 2014 I. il I I I· I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Appendix D -Site Maps and Plan Sheets This Appendix includes, the project site plan maps showing the existing features of the site, the proposed features of the site, and the proposed planting plan. 1186.0005 BeE/Quadrant -Copperwood Residential Plat Wetland, Fish and \,\'ildlifc Habitat As~essment Report Suund\'iew Consultants LLC Revised Ju1r 14,2014 " c:t: W ~ Cl I z w (!) W ...J \ " I ' 'I I I / / ( . ) 1 Ji' _/ I;; ,--~ IH ( ( " " - .J -~ /' /' } / \/ ~ \ /'1 \ \ ---...... / / / / / / I I I " / ----_/' .. , / /' /-"'-'-"~ -/' ') I ", : \) - ( J I ./ / ( I I / / I / / / / / / / / -- \ \ \ v\ .......... \ \ \~~/' " \ -, -- / / / / / Wh.\ '3S0 H9NVl! ... -'Nt" dIHSNh.\O.L 'SI NOI.L;)3S dO !If HS HH.L ~ "-:! 6S086 NO.L9NIHSV h.\ 'NO.LNffil "-.-3JVld ONZ 3S XXX ~ aOO&lIHddOJ Q / / / / / / / o .J ./ '" 0 ~ ~ "-00 ~ --, - oii ;; Q.. '" '" 00 .. " "-0 , -,....... 5 ..: u ~ \ I \) ti; "' J: ~ -1 I (; I --~---~-----~-----~ " COPPERWOOD RESIDENTIAL PLAT -STREAM BUFFER AVERAGING . I I ~ L I -L-L '--c ~ "' f-101"~· _ t--==:'\)11- __ _. ) , r~ L ~ ~LE~~~EN~D~w-A-T-ER-------- "' S£ 2ND PI. S£ 136TH 51 I _ ~.~ ""_. . .. >f H./ ~ I 28 ·11 -, .. ~ _ 1 T7 -i---<i01~--+-_ ~ . 45 46 ~,\ I v/ 2 ~-8 9 10 "'" c f---;' 11 12 ,;( , /j--, 26 29 43 W3iE3 9 W4 E4 25 30 42 @ \ 31 Rri 1 1 tr.:J -f;.I •. 1-1 t-I ___ _ 24 41 '\ 23 32, RI:l1 0 IH~-40 22 33 W1 21 34 . ,- 20 35 ¥ ltll'~1 ~ '. ~; .... I .. ,,:~~~~~~g~~~---~": ~~~ '," 1 10"'}' I .," '<·.;~\J'''.e<J'''V U..7 ~ .-/ 1 --, I I ~i"'-'''"''''-"''r===' r-·""··'''''·==-9--~·~ ~ ........ I EXISTING PROPERTY "Z:::L I 1 I ~ LINE (TYP.) I 1'1 13 1 14 15 16 I§/ 17 18 I PROPOSED PROPERTY I Il'1 I LINE (TYP.) 1 \',: .... :' . ~o , -~ , '''~~A 1-\l 4,0 8,0 7 1 I I I A GRAPIUC SCALE ,"-\ ,,/ /' -STREAM BUFFER AREA INCREASED STREAM BUFFER AREA REDUCED !1";U?;j' r - -~ ~I I""""'''' I , ' , ' , ' , , .-,""- "( I I ,I r -- \ I [ ~-- I L-JI STREAM BUFFER AREA INCREASED (3,172 SF) ~I "':u ['1~~ riI --. 1 I ~--VY10~ 1'1 '00. SU:')--?~A "' "'~-? ""'It II !~ II] I ul STREAM BUFFER AREA REDUCED (1,730 SF) I _.../ -~ "" !l ~ I~ ~ ~ ~I ~a~~ I ~:!! i' ,...~~~ is ~ ~1OUi" ~ ~~!! 6~ 4~~"""'~~"> .,::,"v '\ « ~ ~ ! ~b-& .cO ... "- " c ;: :: ('oJ v " ~" -; ~ ~ "-l' ~:xl Xl .,,~,' 8 ~~ ''''~. ~ ~t<-i ~~.' :::>~~ ~ ?,~~:, ] ~ ~ ~ '!",'~' -0 D:':': ;:I ':~!. ;:; ,~ "':":'-"", ~ " " (,I ~ ll'l :: .E; ~ • o , <': r"\ Xl to .. -~ , ~ -., ~ u;5 '::! Z ·E:::> .:1 ...: 0 ... §o€] -~ ~ 52....:: ... r--..J.., a 2 g.~ ;, .;: NV " " :.;.; ~ '" "-on _ o :t 00 V> Ci IIlZ ~. 8 ~~ ~;_ ~o..z -Ul ::;>0_ z:g ..... z:r: 0", """'" N V) ..... ~1Il< G~ p.. '" ~ Ul ;:i f%~ ~ u b ~ Z Ul III V> c:::: ~ ~ DAlEo 7/14/2014 JOB, 1186,0005 BY, JR SCALE: 1" = 80' SHEET 2 OF 4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I COPPERWOOD RESIDENTIAL PLAT -PROPOSED SITE PLAN '--I -L L .--1'---'------\--) ,------~ h--l LEGEND 'i-~ ~ .. .. ,... 01 Sf: 2ND PI. ~,---.,...---~ '-- ""- 28 ......... ..~ I V/J21 1 : r-;--1-----' , .. '-.-.. -... _--. ' I~""I 45 46 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 GRAPffiC SCAlE '"-eo' ¥ 12 13 \ 26 25 24 23 o 22 21 20 19 14 I 15 29 30 31 32,. 33 34 35 36 I 0 16 17 43 42 @ "': WALKING TRAIL (PERVIOUSl ~ '\ 40 39 FINAL BUFFER'EDGE AND LIMIT OF I ~E1',: ». f'>I:J-+-NATIVE GROWTH PROTECTION AREA .'. ' .', ',:-:-:. " .1".',', '. "'II I I,. I',,',',··v 37 38 It PROPOSED LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT -----<' (TYP; SEE NOTE BELOW) 18 ~------- '--.J I I I I ~ EXISTING PROPERTY I' LINE (TYP.) I PROPOSED PROPERTY LINE (TYP.) ,/' /' WATER NATIVE GROWTH PROTECTION AREA BUFFER ENHANCEMENT AREA TEMPORARILY DISTURBED BUFFER AREA (REPLANTED) PEDESTRIAN WALKING TRAIL , . , , , , , //u", , , , I I ~ ~ \ I ~ I f-al (I)'" ~~ ~ OUTLET INSTALLS IN BUFFER DO NOT INSTALL OUTLET WITHIN STREAM. I ~ I J- I] MINOR GRADING WITHIN BUFFER TO BE RESTORED (APPROXIMATELY 3,008 SF) -~- 5 ~~ &l t~ i t.: ~ .., ~ °1 ~~~~ ~ ~(ny~ I ~~u:;u:; o~ U') -$:t~ i5l:i -t;~~ o!~ ~e~~ 6~ ~~.' .... ' ... "> ~ .:) ~ <C ~ 1: !l " '" ~ ,-&-b--e . cO~ 5NV -.::: tr" U') ~~~ c..,f....f -.; ..... -~~ ~f'""i«') ~ ~~ !;' ." . :::: ~ ~ :£ ::s ..... -0 0:':': ::I :; ~ Q " ;; '" u u ~ ::.: ;;.. ~ 'C '" <i,.....Xl~ ... -C"\ ~ ~ < ~ co u:-.. !;' Z 'E::=- -i ] c5 Q ~ ~-e ... -(':l e-:r:" ::: b OC 10 .E ~G !< > , ,~ " ~ ~ Ow~ O~O 00. t3 ~ 06 ~ 11 ai ~w< p.. '" !:< p..;.<. O~5 U b Z ;;l ~ == a5 z &:. ~:;;; .&: ~ . -w Z:g 0 .. , ;::5 Uz :;J~ '" o :s: ~ OJ> '" ~ DAlE 7/14/2014 JOB, 1186.0005 BY, JR SCALE: 1" = 80' SHEET 3 OF 4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I COPPERWOOD RESIDENTIAL PLAT -DETAILS AND PLANTING PLAN SAMPLE ENHANCEMENT PLANTING LAYOUT PLANT LIST (FiNAl lOCATIONS AND QUANTITIES TO BE FIELD LOCATED BY RESPONSIBLE WETLAND SCIENTIST) TREES (AS NEEDED) SPACING SYMBOL SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME {FTO.C.) til PSEUDOTSUGA MENZIESfI DOUGLAS FIR 15 • ACER MACROPHYlLUM BIG lEAF MAPlE 15 • THUJA PUCA TA WESTERN RED CEDAR 15 • PICEA SITCHENSIS SITKA SPRUCE 15 SHRUBS (AS NEEDED) SPACING SYMBOL SCfENnFIC NAME COMMON NAME {FTO.C.) @ ACER CIRCINA TUM VINE MAPLE 2 ® RIBES SANQU/NEUM RED CURRANT 2 ® ROSA NUTKANA NOOTKAROSE 2 • ~BUCUSRACEMOSA RED ELDERBERRY 2 0 RUBUS SPECTABIUS SALMONBERRY 2 BUFFER SEED MIX (AS NEEDED) PERCENT BY SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME VOLUME EL YMUS GLAUCUS BLUE W1LDRYE 15 FESTUCA IDAHOENSIS IDAHO FESCUE 15 FESTUCA RUBRA RED FESCUE 15 BROMUS CARINATUS CALIFORNIA BROME 15 LUPINUS POL YPHYLLUS LARGE LEAF LUPINE 15 HORDEUM BRACHYANTHERUM MEADOW BARlEY 15 SCALE: 1" = 30' LEGEND SIZE (MIN) 2 GAL 2 GAL 2 GAL 2 GAL SIZE (MIN) 1 GAL 1 GAL 1 GAL 1 GAL 1 GAL QUANTITY (APPROX.) 30 LBs/ACRE WATER NATIVE GROWTH PROTECTION AREA TREE PLANTING DETAIL NOT TO SCALE (2) 2X2 D.F. STAKES; TIE AT APPROX. J\ TOJ\ HEIGHT OF TREE WITH FLEXIBLE RUBBER TIE IN FIGURE EIGHT PATIERN. STAKES AND TREE PLUMB; STAKE PLANTS AS NOTED ON LEGEND REMOVE ALL TIES. WRAP & CONTAINERS. FREE PERIMETER ROOTS FROM NURSERY BALL 3" DEEP SAUCER FOR WATER EXCAVATE TREE PIT TO MIN. OF 4 TIMES DIA OF ROOTBALL AT BALL CENTER, TAPERING PIT GRADE TO FINISH GRADE PIT SPOILS. NURSERY BAlL WASTE BACKFILL SET BALL ON UNDISTURBED SUBGRADE OR --~r COMPACTED SOIL ~ I NOTE: WORK PERIMETER ROOTS FREE OF NURSERY BALL & SPREAD OVE EXCAVATED PIT. BALL & PIT TO BE COURSELY SCARIFIED SHRUB PLANTING DETAIL NOT TO SCALE LOCATOR LATH (IF SPECIFIED) NOTES: ~LANT SHRUBS OF THE SAME SPECIES IN GROUPS OF 3 to 6 AS APPROPRIATE. 2. EXCAVATE PIT TO FULL DEPTH OF ROOT MASS AND CANOPY DIAMETER. SPREAD ROOTS TO FULL WIDTH OF CANOPY. 3. MIDWAY THROUGH PLANTING ADD AGROFORM TABLET AND WATER THOROUGHLY. 4. BACKFILL TO BE COMPACTED USING WATER ONLY. 5. WATER IMMEDIATELY AFTER INSTALLATION. 3 to 4 INCH LAYER OF MULCH I CAL' ~ ~ ~ ~<~NN 0"'''' c~SID Z I I ~~:n~ "'''' ~ ffi·2"'iti" N "'''' '" ~~ -:.=.-- o~ II !; _ 1-1 """'" <, ~ .:> ~ « ~ J: !l " '" IY, ,oS-P"'& • cO~ .J B N V -; on U) ...., ;;;5j~ ~ 3;!:! <;:j ~~ ~ ~..-1~ ::> ~~ NN .::l ~ " c " u , • '<\ ....: :::: :;: ~ ~ -g 0:£ • ~ . u , ~ , , . ' ls ~ ~ ~ _ '0::: ('fj 0) d 000 to ~ C'\ .... ~ -' ~ <: ~ Z .S!;>.: '::! C ~ • ....: 0 '"" l::! .. ..0 0 ':I -"il .::l ~ E vU ;;:::t c 001: .; ~G ~ z ~ N c-o. ~ :;: 0 '" <n OUl~ ~. 8 ~ ~ ~_; o...{j U"l~ ~ Z -Ul 0_ z~ p:::z::t: 0", ril~~ 6j@ p.. on ~ Ul;2 p.. ~ z ~ o 0 ° U !-< ~ Z u:: iil ~ ::r: !-< DATE 7/14/2014 JOB, 1186.0005 BY, JR/KM , SCAI.£, AS NOTED SHEET4 OF 4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Appendix E -Biologist Qualifications Jeremy Downs. Principal Scientist and Environmental Planner Jeremy Downs is the Principal Scientist and Environmental Planner for the project with professional training and extensive experience in land use, site planning and design, project coordination, permitting and management, marine and wetland ecology, habitat restoration, wetland, stream, and benthic delineations and assessments, stream assessments, underwater and terrestrial monitoring programs, and mitigation planning and design since 1987. Jeremy earned a Bachelor's of Science degree in Biology from the University of California, Davis. In addition, he' studied under the Environmental Risk and Recovery program at the Australian Institute of Marine Science. He also holds graduate-level professional certifications in vatious advanced wetland science and management programs from both Portland State University and San Francisco State University, and he has received professional training in Salmonid Biology from the University of California Extension. Jeremy is a certified wetlands delineator under US Army Corps of Engineers guidelines. He has been formally trained in the use of the Washington State Wetland Rating System, Determination of Ordinary High Water Mark, Designing Compensatory Mitigation and Restoration Projects, and Reviewing Wetland Mitigation and Monitoring Plans from the US Army Corps of Engineers and Washington State Department of Ecology, and in conducting Biological Assessments from the Washington Department of Transportation. He is also a Pierce County Qualified Wetland Specialist and Fisheries Biologist, and he holds similar qualifications from other jurisdictions. James H. Carsner. Senior Scientist Jim Carsner, a certified Professional Wetland Scientist (#1461) with professional training and extensive experience in planning and design, project coordination, permitting and management, aquatic and wetland ecology, habitat restoration, wetland, stream, and benthic delineations and assessments, stream assessments, and mitigation planning and monitoring since 1979. Jim earned a Bachelor's of Science degree from the University of Washington, College of Fisheries and undertook post-graduate studies in wetland ecology at Portland State University. He has served on the Board of Directors of the Washington State Weed Association and instructed courses on pesticide laws, regulations, and uses. Jim has been formally trained in the use of the Washington State Wetland Rating System, Determination of Ordinary High Water Mark, Designing Compensatory l\1itigation and Restoration Projects, and Reviewing Wetland JVlitigation and Monitoring Plans from the US Army Corps of Engineers and Washington State Department of Ecology. He is also a Pierce Count)' Qualified Wetland Specialist and Fisheries Biologist, and he holds similar qualifications from other jurisdictions. Hannah Blackstock. Staff Scientist Hannah Blackstock is a Staff Scientist with a background in both forest and wetland ecology and fisheries biology and experience with various Federal agencies. Hannah earned a Bachelor's of Science with a double major in Environmental Science and Resource Management as well as Aquatic and Fisheries Sciences at the University of Washington. Hannah has an extensive knowledge of restoration ecology, ranging in topics such as soils, plant familiarity, hydrology, and wetland ecology. Furthermore, she has been certified by the Washington Department of Ecology in the use of the Washington State Wetland Rating System and Selecting Wetland l\1itigation Sites Using a Watershed Approach and has received training from the PNW Invasive Plant Council on the identification of newly emerging invasive plant species. She is also a Pierce County Qualified Fisheries Biologist. 1186.0005 IKE/Quadrant -Copperwood Residential Plat \'\'etland, Fish and \X'ildlife Habitat Assessment Report SuundYiew Consultants LtC Re\'isedjuly 14,2014 I I I I I • • ,. I ~ • I I • I I I I if I :-. 't. --'6, ~ ~ - .(.. .' <", f..q. I "'~ I!NG\tl PRELIMINARY TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT Plat of Copperwood (a.k.a. Stuth Property) Renton, Washington Prepared for: The Quadrant Corporation 14725 S.E. 36th Street, Suite 200 Bellevue, WA 98006 RECEIVED AUG 11 2nu CITY OF P.i:NTON PLANNING DIVISION Revised August 11 , 2014 June 2,2014 Our Job No. 16834 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT. WA 98032 (425) 251-6222 (425) 251-8782 FAX BRANCH OFFICES. TUMWATER. WA • LONG BEACH. CA • ROSEVILLE, CA • SAN DIEGO, CA WWIN.barghausen.com I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . 1.0 2.0 ---------------------------------------------- PROJECT OVERVIEW Figure 1 -TIR Worksheet Figure 2 -Site Location TABLE OF CONTENTS Figure 3 -Drainage Basins, Subbasins, and Site Characteristics Figure 4 -Soils Figure 5 -FEMA Map Figure 6 -Sensitive Areas Map CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY 2.1 Analysis of the Core Requirements 2.2 Analysis of the Special Requirements 3.0 OFF-SITE ANALYSIS 4.0 FLOW CONTROL AND WATER QUALITY FACILITY ANALYSIS AND DESIGN A. Existing Site Hydrology B. Developed Site Hydrology C. Performance Standards D. Flow Control System E. Water Quality System 5.0 CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN 6.0 SPECIAL REPORTS AND STUDIES 7.0 OTHER PERMITS 8.0 CONSTRUCTION STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN (CSWPPP) ANALYSIS AND DESIGN 9.0 BOND QUANTITIES, FACILITY SUMMARIES, AND DECLARATION OF COVENANT 10.0 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL APPENDIX A -Lower Cedar River Basin and Nonpoint Pollution Action Plan 16834.003.doc I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW The proposed Plat of Copperwood is a single-family residential project consisting of 47 lots zoned R4, and will be utilizing the small lot clustering provisions. The project is 12.68 acres in size, containing 8 tax parcels (152305-9066, 152305-9067, 152305-9201, 152305-9100, 152305-9093, 152305-9170, 152305-9043, and 152305-9221). The site is located at the intersection of 143rd Avenue S.E. and S.E. 2nd Place, in a portion of Section 15, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in the City of Renton. The site is rectangular in shape and fronts S.E. 2nd Place. The proposed on-site roads are to be tied into S.E. 2nd Place, and will be extended into the site to provide public access and circulation. This site is currently developed, with 7 single-family residences, and is currently zoned R4. The existing on-site improvements consist of storm and water utilities, and gravel driveways that access S.E. 2nd Place. There is a creek on-site (Maplewood Creek Tributary 0303), near the east property line. The existing site drains to Maplewood Creek Tributary 0303, where it then leaves the site near the southeast corner. The existing discharge location will be maintained after development as well. The site is bound along the east property line by 143rd Avenue S.E. The site is bound by single- family residences to the south and west. The southeast corner of the site contains steep slopes, ranging from 15% to 70%. These steep slopes will be contained within a Natural Growth Protection Area (NGPA) Tract. S.E. 2nd Place bounds the site to the north. Access to the site from S.E. 2nd Place will require frontage improvements, including new asphalt, new curb and gutter, sidewalk, and planter strip. On-site soils are mapped as Alderwood. Please refer to the Soils Map in this section. All drainage calculations were modeled as till soils. The project will be constructing roadways consisting of curb and gutter, sidewalk, and street trees. The site will tie into the existing road at S.E. 2nd Place. All roads for this project have been designed to be 26 feet wide, with an 8-foot planter strip at the back of curb and a 5-foot sidewalk (both sides). Overall, the proposed public right-of-way is to be 53 feet in width. The topography on-site is generally fiat, with a slight rise in the westernmost portion of the site. The site generally slopes from west to east, toward Maplewood Creek Tributary 0303, from elevation 398 to 386. The project will be mass graded with cuts and fills balanced on site. The proposed development also includes further restoration of the Maplewood Creek Tributary 0303 buffer area. The drainage facilities are required to meet the requirements of the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM), and the 2010 City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWDM. The drainage design shall meet, at a minimum, the Conservation Flow Control (Level 2) and Basic Water Quality Treatment. The drainage facility located in Tract B is a combination detention/wetpond, sized for Level 2 Flow Control. The wetpond will be sized pursuant to the 2009 KCSWDM and its amendments to ensure that the Basic Water Quality requirement is met. The project will be discharging the drainage from the pond to Maplewood Creek Tributary 0303. Please refer to Section 4.0 for detailed drainage calculations. 16834.003.doc I I Figure 1 I TIR Worksheet I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ---------------------- KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Project Owner The Ouadrant Cornoration Phone ____________ _ Address 14725 SE 36 TH Street. Suite 100 Bellevue. W A 98006 Project Engineer Chris Jensen, P,E, Company Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc, Phone (425) 251-6222 [gI Landuse Services Subdivision 1 Short Subd, 1 UPD o Building Services M/F 1 Commercial 1 SFR [gI Clearing and Grading [gI Right-of-Way Use o Other Part 5 PLAN AND REP6RY,IN~0RMATI0N , " -" . '-:~-:, - --. ,-"- Technical Information Report Type of Drainage Review !Full 1 Targeted (circle): Large Site Date (include revision A[!ril 18,2014 dates): Date of Final: ". ..... ....... . Part 6 ADJUSTM~NTAPPR()\tAtS ...•• :. 1 Project Name Plat of COllllerwood DOES Permit # _________ _ Location Township "'2"'3"'N'--___ _ Range ~5"'E'--____ _ Section -'1""5'--____ _ Site Address .... R",e",n",to""n ... , -'W"'ACl... _____ _ 0 DFW HPA o Shoreline' 0 COE404 Management 0 DOE Dam Safety o Structural RockeryNaultl __ 0 FEMA Floodplain o ESA Section 7 0 COE Wetlands 0 Other , . ' ' , ' .. Site Improvement Plan (Engr, Plans) Type (circle one): Date (include revision dates): Date of Final: .' ' !Full! 1 Modified Small Site Allril 18,2014 .. ' .. 1 Type (circle one): Standard 1 Complex 1 Preapplication 1 Experimental 1 Blanket Description: (include conditions in TIR Section 2) Date of Approval: 2009 Surface Water Design Manual 111109 16834,005,doc I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Monitoring Required: Yes / No Describe: _____ ---'-______ _ Start Date: Completion Date: Community Plan: ____________ _ Special District Overlays: ______________________ _ Drainage Basin: Lower Cedar River Basin Stormwater Requirements: DRiver/Stream D Lake D Wetlands D Closed Depression D Floodplain D Other Parh () SOILS Soil Type AgC D High Groundwater Table (within 5 feet) D Other D Additional Sheets Attached 2009 Surface Water Design Manual D Steep Slope D Erosion Hazard D Landslide Hazard D Coal Mine Hazard D Seismic Hazard D Habitat Protection D Slopes 6-15 Percent 2 D Sole Source Aquifer D Seeps/Springs Erosion Potential High 1/1/09 I 6834.00S.doc I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Part 11 DRAINAGE DESIGN LIMITATIONS REFERENCE LIMITATION / SITE CONSTRAINT D Core 2 -Offsite Anal~sis D Sensitive/Critical Areas D SEPA D Other D D Additional Sheets Attached Part 12 TIR SUMMARY SHEET (provide one TIR Summary Sheet per Threshold Discharge Area) Threshold Discharge Area: (name or description) Discharge to Maplewood Creek Tributary 0303 near southeast corner of site. Core Requirements (all 8 apply) DischarQe at Natural Location Number of Natural DischarQe Locations: I Offsite Analysis Level: 111/2/3 dated: Flow Control Level: 1 / J?J / 3 or Exemption Number (inc!. facility summary sheet) Small Site BMPs Conveyance System Spill containment located at: N/A Erosion and Sediment Control ESC Site Supervisor: TBD Contact Phone: TBD After Hours Phone: TBD Maintenance and Operation Responsibility: Private / IE!!.!W9 If Private Maintenance Log Required: Yes / No Financial Guarantees and Provided: Yes / No Liability Water Quality Type: .~ / Sens. Lake / Enhanced Basicm / Bog (include facility summary sheet) or Exemption No. Landscape Manaqement Plan: Yes / INOI Special Requirements (as applicable) Area Specific Drainage Requirements Floodplain/Floodway Delineation Flood Protection Facilities Source Control (comm.lindustriallanduse) 2009 Surface Water Design Manual Type: CDA / SDO / MDP / BP / LMP / Shared Fac. / ~ Name: Type: Major / Minor / Exemption / ~ 100-year Base Blood Elevation (or range): Datum: Describe: N/ A Describe landuse: N/A Describe any structural controls: N/A 3 111/09 1 6834.00S.doc I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Oil Control High-use Site: Yes / Iti9 Treatment BMP: Maintenance Agreement: Yes / ~ with whom? Other Drainage Structures Describe: Part 13 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL REQUIREMENTS MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS DURING CONSTRUCTION AFTER CONSTRUCTION [8J Clearing Limits [8J Stabilize Exposed Surfaces [8J Cover Measures [8J Remove and Restore Temporary ESC Facilities [8J Perimeter Protection [8J Clean and Remove All Silt and Debris Ensure o Traffic Area Stabilization Operation of Permanent Facilities [8J Sediment Retention [8J Flag Limits of SAO and open space [8J Surface Water Control preservation areas o Other o Dewatering Control [8J Dust Control [8J Flow Control Part 14 STORMWATER FACILITY DESCRIPTIONS (Note: Include Facility Summary and Sketch) Flow Control Type/Description [8J Detention Pond 0 Infiltration 0 Regional Facility 0 Shared Facility 0 Flow Control BMPs 0 Other 2009 Surface Water Design Manual Water Quality o Biofiltration [8J Wetpool o Media Filtration o Oil Control o Spill Control o Flow Control BMPs o Other 4 Type/Description Wetl10nd 1/1/09 16834.00S.doc I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Part15 EASEMENTS~RACTS Part 16 STRUCTURAL ANALYSiS D Drainage Easement D Cast in Place Vault D Covenant D Retaining Wall [8J Native Growth Protection Covenant D Rockery > 4' High [8J Tract D Structural on Steep Slope D Other o Other Part 17 SIGNATURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER I, or a civil engineer under my supervision, have visited the site. Actual site conditions as observed were incorporated into this worksh~ nd the attached Technical Information Report. To the best of my knowledge the informatio~ ced he,dccurate. /, .':;1t'k> . April 18, 2014 // SinnedlDate y 2009 Surface Water Design Manual S 111/09 I 6834.00S.doc --------------------------------------------------- I I -Figure 2 I Site Location I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I t"'~;t, " : ::sz , if ~. Mt Olivet Cemetery' ~lndq _50 ""1; ... hPl , t>' -+ •• -Se 160th 51 =: II II ~ r J( S.1~SI! .. .~. ~ ~i 1· J(' J( -' ~ I ~ . . I i ~ '!t !So-161rd SI .... jI:;j E I --. N . : ··So·16c4IhSI=I~ ... " REFERENCE: Rand McNally (2014) Sca/s: .1 Ii , No.4thSf' Greenwood r Memorial Park -. No 2nd,sI'. _ 1 '", ,~, , IS8thst . se J60lh SI \:< . J( __ Cascade t' \ Pa_,k \ ,Se! 161St 51 . " ,. , ~ \J, 3 , l' j ~,I6Cth SI~ " For: No litet Se 2nd S\ " , , ., .. \ -J" .' __ ~~I~. :No.JldPI-: -No-lidS. Ne~nd 5t , , ~ I If", ,Ke hilSt 1~ Sf!! ISBlh St II' "Se.1S9thPI ~I"~ ,,,,,. •• Se 162ryd PI· Job Number Horizontal; N.T.S. Vertical: NIA 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT, WA 98032 PLAT OF COPPERWOOD RENTON, WASHINGTON 16834 (425) 251-6222 (425) 251-8782 CIVil ENGINEERING, lAND PLANNING, SURVEYING, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Title: VICINITY MAP JlAIE; 04/16/14 I P:116000s116834Iexhibit\graphicsI16834 vmep.cdr r----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I REFERENCE: King County Department of Assessments (Dec. 2011) Scale: Horizontal: N. T.S. Vertical: NIA 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT, WA 98032 (425) 251-6222 (425) 251-8782 CIVil ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING, SURVEYING, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES For: PLAT OF COPPERWOOD RENTON, WASHINGTON Title: ASSESSOR MAP I P:116000s116834IexhibitlgraphicsI16834 amap.cdr Job Number 16834 ~04/16/14 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ------------------------- Figure 3 Drainage Basins, Subbasins, and Site Characteristics I~~ .r;: t: I~ -:::- l'i • Iq (i I, j G' Ie: I .;: ~ P 12' . ., , j I~ -J I'~-' .JJ I c' 4' -~ Ii, Ii -' I~~ I" " I ,-, J I '1 I • I " -"----'-"----"'~hem Tn"butarie. Subarea " >: •• .... _,- Q) =.~=~== ~- ...• \ -'-- ........ ' . '. Q) ... ....... , 1-·_·_·_·, ',~.~=...--00:. ~----~ , ;l~( K ul~MONC. W~:.I-,Lol. ~~' , Rack Creek Subarea _ . t. . __ l! _~_" _ .!!:~ -. -. ...... n. ~""It ..- ~"! -"'-- ,. ~ =-=-::-.-.= ~.J. _ ,,__ __:.=---_--1.._ --,....---:_~ Figure 3-' Subarea Boundaries Cedar River Basin Planning Area ~ Stream _ lok .. /Rive, ...",... Bosin Pion Boundary .... ..... SuboreO Boundary ... ~.... Subbasin Boundary C·-=-.l Incorporoted Area (as 01 6/98) Urban Growth Area Boundary (0$ 016/98) ..t o 2"u..1 . , I I <® fij' ~~;,;'':':::'~"'.6um,. Ii .• t; i Publk Oulium Stdlon . .. ""co "'0'(/1""-.1OI«4Nt"'.~bnJ·' ., I I Figure 4 I Soils Map I I I I I I I I I I I I I I, I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I , I I REFERENCE: USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service Sule: Horizontal: N. T.8. v.rtica/: NlA 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT, WA 98032 (425) 25Hl222 (425) 251-8782 CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING, SURVEY ING , ENVIRONMENTAl. SERVICES P;116000,1 16834Iexhlbit1QraphlcsI 16834 soIl.edr LEGEND ' AgC -Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 6-15% slopes For: Job Number PLAT OF COPPERWOOD 16834 RENTON , WASHINGTON Title : SOIL SURVEY MAP JlAIE; 04116114 I I Figure 5 I FEMA Map I I I I I I I I I I I - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SOUTHEAST 136TH STREET 21>-o f-- f--2 2 :J w 0 rr U "-(9 o 2 ~ Q u / CORPORATE FITS CITY OF RENTON 530088 142ND 15 STREET SITE w :> z w ;; 1-~ 0 KING COUNTY "'C'<, ~ w :> '" w > STREET « SE. 142ND F'L{:I..CE w '" w ~ w '" W :> Z w " I \0 " ZONE X SOUTHEAST SE 140TH STREET SE 140TH PLACE w '" w 5 ~ ,.. '" 0: w r ,.. ::> 0 '" ~ u :'I ~ I ,.. ~ " LEGEND Of HER AREAS / >-v 0 " I ~ C ~ w u :'I ~ I ,.. ro " ~~lli=~~=~~i'4=4T=H==+=:::=S=T=RE:E=T=~ CITY OF RENTON n,,,,dl'l.,in, REFERENCE: Federal Emergency Management Agency (Portion of Map 53033C0982 F, May 1995) Scale: Horizontal: N.1.5. Vertical: NlA 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT, WA 98032 (425) 251-6222 (425) 251-8782 CIVil ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING. SURVEYING, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES For: PLAT OF COPPERWOOD RENTON, WASHINGTON Title: FEMAMAP Job Number 16834 QAI.E; 04116114 I P;\16000s116834Iexhibit\graphfcsI16834 fema.cdr I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CHy and County Boundary o "'"., [l ely" •• - Parcels Slope Cl y of Renton >15,..,. <0125 .. • "25""~{8eMIIw) ........ -~ .-~ REFERENCE: www.rentonweb .org (2014) Hottzootal: N. T.S. VfHticIII: HlA 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT, WA 98032 (425) 251-6222 (425) 251 -8782 CIVIL ENGINEERING, lAND PLANNING . SURVEYING , ENVIRONMENTAl SERVICES P:\ 16000s\ 16834\SxhibItVJraphks\ 16834 amap.cdr For: Shoreh Restt.ntiIil o Urt>en ConNNoncy o Jurisdictions PLAT OF COPPERWOOD RENTON , WASHINGTON Title : SENSITIVE AREAS MAP Job Number 16834 JlAIE; 04/16114 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 2.0 CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY 2.1 2.2 Analysis of the Core Requirements Core Requirement NO.1: Discharge at the Natural Location. Response: The runoff from the existing site leaves near the southeast corner via an on-site creek (Maplewood Creek Tributary 0303). The proposed detention pond will discharge into the creek, maintaining the natural discharge location for the site. Core Requirement No.2: Off-Site Analysis. Response: An Off-Site Analysis has been performed pursuant to the 2009 KCSWDM. See Section 3.0 for the Level 1 Off-Site Analysis. Core Requirement No.3: Flow Control. Response: Conservation Flow Control (Level 2) is required. Conservation flow control requirements will be met by a detention pond, designed pursuant to the 2009 KCSWDM and the 2010 City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWDM. See Section 4.0 for more information. Core Requirement NO.4: Conveyance System. Response: The conveyance system has been design pursuant to the 2009 KCSWDM and the 2010 City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWDM. Conveyance and backwater analysis will be provided in the final engineering. Core Requirement NO.5: Erosion and Sediment Control. Response: Temporary erosion control measures will be provided in the final engineering. Core Requirement NO.6: Maintenance and Operations. Response: All proposed storm structures will be publically maintained by the City of Renton; therefore, no operation and maintenance manuals are required. Core Requirement NO.7: Financial Guarantees and Liability. Response: The project will provide a Site Improvement Bond Quantity Worksheet to establish a bond amount for drainage facility restoration and site stabilization financial guarantee prior to construction. Core Requirement NO.8: Water Quality. Response: Basic water quality is required for this project. This requirement is met by a wetpond. The wetpond is in combination with the detention pond, and sizing will be completed during final engineering. Analysis of the Special Requirements Special Requirement NO.1: Other Adopted Area-Specific Requirements. Response: The proposed project is not located in a designated Critical Drainage Area. 16834.003.doc I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Special Requirement NO.2: Flood Hazard Area Delineation. Response: As indicated by the FEMA Map included in this report, the proposed site does not lie within a floodplain or floodway of a stream, so this special requirement does not apply. Special Requirement NO.3: Flood Protection Facilities. Response: This project does not rely on an existing flood protection facility or propose to modify or construct a new flood protection facility, so this special requirement does not apply. Special Requirement No.4: Source Control. Response: The project does not require a commercial building or commercial site development permit, so this special requirement does not apply. Special Requirement NO.5: Oil Control. Response: This site is not classified as a High Use Site given the criteria in the 2009 KCSWDM, so this special requirement does not apply and no special control treatment is necessary. Special Requirement NO.6: Aquifer Protection Area Response: The project site is not located within an Aquifer Protection Area and, therefore, this special requirement does not apply. 16834.003.doc I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 3.0 OFF-SITE ANALYSIS TASK 1 STUDY AREA DEFINITION AND MAPS The proposed Plat of Copperwood is a single-family residential project consisting of 47 lots zoned R4, and will be utilizing the small lot clustering provisions. The project is 12.68 acres in size containing 8 tax parcels (152305-9066, 152305-9067, 152305-9201, 152305-9100, 152305-9093, 152305-9170, 152305- 9043, and 152305-9221). The site is located at the intersection of 143rd Avenue S.E. and S.E. 2nd Place, in a portion of Section 15, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in the City of Renton. The site is rectangular in shape, and fronts S.E. 2nd Place. The proposed on-site roads are to be tied into S.E. 2nd Place, and will be extended into the site to provide public access and circulation. This site is currently developed, with 7 single-family residences, and is currently zoned R4. The existing on-site improvements consist of storm and water utilities, and gravel driveways that access S.E. 2nd Place. There is a creek on-site (Maplewood Creek Tributary 0303), near the east property line. The existing site drains to Maplewood Creek Tributary 0303, where it then leaves the site near the southeast corner. The existing discharge location will be maintained after development as well. The site is bound along the east property line by 143rd Avenue S.E. The site is bound by single-family residences to the south and west. The southeast corner of the site contains steep slopes, ranging from 15% to 70%. These steep slopes will be contained within a Natural Growth Protection Area (NGPA) Tract. S.E. 2nd Place bounds the site to the north. Access to the site from S.E. 2nd Place will require frontage improvements, including new asphalt, new curb and gutter, sidewalk, and planter strip. On-site soils are mapped as Alderwood. Please refer to the Soils Map in this section. All drainage calculations were modeled as till soils. The project will be constructing roadways consisting of curb and gutter, sidewalk, and street trees. The site will tie into the existing road at S.E. 2nd Place. All roads for this project have been designed to be 26 feet wide, with an 8-foot planter strip at the back of curb and a 5-foot sidewalk (both sides). Overall, the proposed public right-of-way is to be 53 feet in width. The topography on-site is generally flat, with a slight rise in the westernmost portion of the site. The site generally slopes from west to east, toward Maplewood Creek Tributary 0303, from elevation 398 to 386. The project will be mass graded with cuts and fills balanced on site. The proposed development also includes further restoration of the Maplewood Creek Tributary 0303 buffer area. The drainage facilities are required to meet the requirements of the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM), and the 2010 City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWDM. The drainage design shall meet, at a minimum, the Conservation Flow Control (Level 2) and Basic Water Quality Treatment. The drainage facility located in Tract B is a combination detention/wetpond, sized for Level 2 Flow Control. The wetpond will be sized pursuant to the 2009 KCSWDM and its amendments to ensure that the Basic Water Quality requirement is met. The project will be discharging the drainage from the pond to Maplewood Creek Tributary 0303. Please refer to Section 4.0 for detailed drainage calculations. UPSTREAM DRAINAGE ANALYSIS: Upstream of the site, to the west, are existing single-family residences. This area is approximately 3.80 acres. The west property line serves as a high point between the upstream basin and the project site. Due to the high point between the upstream basin and the project site, it is safe to assume that the amount of runoff flowing onto the site from the upstream basin is negligible. 16834.003.doc I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TASK 2 RESOURCE REVIEW • Adopted Basin Plans: The site is located within the Lower Cedar River Basin. Refer to Appendix A for the portions of the basin that applies to this project. • Finalized Drainage Studies: This is not applicable. • Basin Reconnaissance Summary Report: This site is located in the Lower Cedar River Basin, which is covered by the Lower Cedar River Basin and Nonpoint Pollution Action Plan dated July 1997 (included in Appendix A). • Critical Drainage Area Maps: This project will not discharge to any critical areas or wetlands as it will be discharging runoff from the detention pond to Maplewood Creek Tributary 0303, matching pre-developed flows. Therefore, no critical areas are to be affected. • Floodplain and Floodway FEMA Maps: Please see the attached FEMA Map (Section 1.0) utilized for this analysis. As indicated on the map, the site is located in Zone X and is outside of the 500-year floodplain. • Other Off-Site Analysis Reports: A site investigation was conducted in preparation of this Level 1 Off-Site Drainage Analysis. The United States Department of Agriculture Soils Conservation Service Map is also provided. See Figure 4 -Soils Map in Section 1.0. • Sensitive Areas Folios: Based on review of the King County Sensitive Areas Map Folios, the site does not contain any On-Site Wetlands, Erosion Areas, Sensitive Areas, or Land Slide Areas. • Road Drainage Problems: This is not applicable. • United States Department of Agriculture King County Solis Survey: Based on the Soils Map (Figure 4 -Soils Map, Section 1.0) for this area, the site is underlain with Alderwood gravelly sandy loam. The soils were modeled as till soils. • Wetland Inventory Map: From the Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report by Soundview Consultants, there is no known documentation or inventory of wetlands for the project site. • Migrating River Studies: This is not applicable. • City of Renton Aquifer Protection Zones: Per the City of Renton's GIS Map, the project site is not located within an Aquifer Recharge Area. 16834.003.doc I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TASK 3 FIELD INSPECTION 3.1 Conveyance System Nuisance Problems (Type 1) 3.2 3.3 Conveyance system nuisance problems are minor but not chronic flooding or erosion problems that result from the overflow of a constructed conveyance system that is substandard or has become too small as a result of upstream development. Such problems warrant additional attention because of their chronic nature and because they result from the failure of a conveyance system to provide a minimum acceptable level of protection. There were no conveyance system nuisance problems observed during the site visit. Furthermore, based on a review of the drainage complaints received from the City of Renton, there is no evidence of past conveyance system nuisance problems occurring in the direct downstream drainage course, as there is a record of none having been submitted. This site will have a Level 2 Flow Control facility, which will restrict the flow of the 2-year release rate to 50% of the pre·developed site and will provide adequate mitigation to prevent any future drainage complaints as a result of this proposed site development. Severe Erosion Problems (Type 2) Severe erosion problems can be caused by conveyance system overflows or the concentration of runoff into erosion-sensitive open drainage features. Severe erosion problems warrant additional attention because they pose a significant threat either to health and safety or to public or private property. . Based on our site visit, there was no evidence of. or potential for, erosion/incision sufficient to pose a sedimentation hazard downstream within the limits of the study. All runoff sheet flows to Maplewood Creek Tributary 0303, where it is then conveyed off site. Stormwater runoff from the proposed roads will be collected and conveyed to a detention and water quality facility where it will then be discharged to the on-site creek tributary. As a result no future erosion problems should occur downstream because of this development. Severe Flooding Problems (Type 3) Severe flooding problems can be caused by conveyance system overflows or the elevated water surfaces of ponds, lakes, wetlands, or closed depressions. Severe flooding problems are defined as follows: • Flooding of the finished area of a habitable building for runoff events less than or equal to the 1 DO-year event. Examples include flooding of finished floors of homes and commercial or industrial buildings. Flooding in electrical/heating systems and components in the crawlspace or garage of a home. Such problems are referred to as "severe building flooding problems." • Flooding over all lanes of a roadway or severely impacting a sole access driveway for runoff events less than or equal to the 1 OO-year event. Such problems are referred to as "severe roadway flooding problems." Based on a review of the FEMA Map (Section 1.0) the proposed site is outside of the 500-year floodplain, and there is no evidence of severe flooding problems encountered during our visit. 16834.003.doc I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TASK 4 DRAINAGE SYSTEM DESCRIPTION AND PROBLEM DESCRIPTIONS DOWNSTREAM DRAINAGE ANALYSIS: In the pre-developed condition, all runoff drains to the Maplewood Creek Tributary 0303. Once it is collected by the creek tributary, it leaves the site at the southeast corner. In the developed condition, stormwater that is discharged from the site will be conveyed from the detention pond to Maplewood Creek Tributary 0303. Steep slopes exist near the southeast corner of the NGPA, ranging from 15% to 70%. Stormwater from the detention pond is discharged via a bubble-up manhole that is armored with crushed rock. The crushed rock will help dissipate the outflows of the pond. In addition to the bubble-up manhole and crushed rock armoring, the outlet will be placed at the toe of the stream channel to ensure no runoff is being introd uced over the slopes of the channel. The proposed detention pond was designed to match developed flows to pre-developed flows, from half of the 2-year storm event up to the full 50-year storm event. With the above proposed measures for stormwater management, we believe that the proposed development will not increase the amount of runoff entering Maplewood Creek Tributary 0303. Since the amount of runoff entering the creek tributary will remain the same, there will be no erosion of the existing steep slopes located near the southeast corner of the site. 16834.003.doc ---------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Upstream Basin Map I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~---------------------- I I Downstream Drainage Map I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i )/ I f ~'----./~ ~ -- iMAP lU",..""od SoN CoUlD ... _or Legend 1-_1 County Boundary X IIountaln Peaks COritiiurs (5i1l1ghtj /' 100;500;10lI0 Otll« Highways F_t Production District Boundary AgricuJtural Production District Boundary " Urban Growth Area Una jo/ Inc:orpormd Area streets Hig..., -~ o Lakes and Large Rivers ;I Streams ~ Tribal Lands P.n::els o Parlls UnifiCorporjIlIId KC Zoning A.IO."' .... k ..... _OU porlO ..... Aol5.,.. .......... o •• OUpor35 ..... f.f_ (cDntj ... , ___ ..... _ "" _. A"lIUIII.uur1. -~-.. -·-.... ~ ........ maporil ... h ....... o .. Min .... RA.2.~. R .... AnII. .... OU por~ .... o RA.5 .R .... AnII. .. 'OUporS .... o RA .l0.RunlAnII._OUporl0 .... [ UR.Urt..I Rmono. ... OU porS .... R.I. RasicIooIioI._OU por_ R~. RasicIooIioI. 4 OU per_ R .. ·R_t ..... OUper ..... R.a. R_tioI.IOU per_ R.U._tioI.I20Upor_ o R.ll.R_tioI.I80Upor_ o R.24 .R_tioI.240Upor_ o Ro4I . ROIidontioI.. OU por- HB • H"_GOd B.siness , [[J ca .. COImIInly a.sMa ,,-o RB·Roa ...... B ...... Ii:ll 0 • 0IIi<II ". I~ o 1.10<1_ .Otll« map W King County I I Off-Site Analysis Drainage I System Table I I I I I I I I I I I I It I I I - - - ---- ------- ---- - Basin: Cedar River Basin Drainage Component Symbol Type, Name, and Size Type: sheet flow. swale, stream, channel, pipe, pond; size, See Map diameter, surface area A Stream B Stream OFF-SITE ANALYSIS DRAINAGE SYSTEM TABLE Surface Water Design Manual, Core Requirement #2 Subbasin Name: Lower Cedar River Basin Distance Drainage Component Crom Site Existing Potential Description Slope Discharge Problems Problems Constrictions. under capacity, ponding. overtopping. flooding. habitat or organism Drainage basin, vegetation, cover, destruction. scouring, bank sloughing. depth, type of sensitive area, volume % Fe sedimentation, incision. other erosion Maplewood Creek Tributary 0 None None 0303 Maplewood Creek Tributary 0-3920 None None 0303 --------- Subbasin Number: ---- Observations oC Field Inspector, Resource Reviewer, or Resident TnDutary area, likelihood of problem, overflow pathways, potential impacts - 16834-0ff-Site Analysis Drainage System. Table.doc I I 4.0 I I I I I I I '. I I I I I I I I I FLOW CONTROL AND WATER QUALITY FACILITY ANALYSIS AND DESIGN A. Existing Site Hydrology This site is currently developed, with 7 single-family residences containing 8 tax parcels (152305-9066, 152305-9067, 152305-9201, 152305-9100, 152305-9093, 152305-9170, 152305-9043, and 152305-9221) and is currently zoned R4. The existing on-site improvements consist of storm and water utilities, and gravel driveways that access S.E. 2nd Place. There is a creek on site (Maplewood Creek Tributary 0303), near the east property line. The existing site drains to Maplewood Creek Tributary 0303, where it then leaves the site near the southeast corner. The existing discharge location will be maintained after development as well. B. Developed Site Hydrology The completed project will create 47 lots. The total developed area will be 10.33 acres in size. New impervious surfaces will include roadways, driveways, sidewalks, and roof areas. The project will be providing landscaped pervious areas, open space areas, and a drainage facility. A conveyance system consisting of catch basins and storm pipes will be constructed in the roadways to collect drainage from impervious surfaces and lots, and conveyed to the new drainage facility. A combination detention/wetpond will be constructed in Tract B to provide water quality and flow control for the project. The pond will contain a control structure fitted with a riser overflow. Stormwater from the pond will be conveyed to Maplewood Creek Tributary 0303 via a proposed 12-inch pipe. The runoff will enter the creek and them be conveyed off site via Maplewood Creek. C. Performance Standards The KCRTS Runoff Time Series Program was used to size the detention facility. The detention pond was sized for Conservation Flow Control (Level 2) based on the requirements of the 2009 KCSWDM and the 2010 City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWDM. Individual lot BMPs will be applied to an impervious area equal to 10% of the lot size for lots less than 11,000 square feet and 20% of the lot size for lots greater than 11,000 square feet. The BMP credit has been applied to the impervious land cover data (impervious areas with applied BMPs modeled as 50% grass/50% impervious), which was used to size the detention pond. Please refer to the KCRTS computations included in this section. Based on Level 2 detention pond sizing calculations, the pond volume required is 121,975 cubic feet. The project is also subject to Basic Water Quality. To meet this requirement, a wetpond is proposed, and will be in combination with the detention pond. The wetpond was sized pursuant to the 2009 KCSWDM and the 2010 City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWDM. Based on the Wetpool Sizing Worksheet. the required wetpond volume is 34,409 cubic feet. D. Flow Control System Flow Control System details will be submitted during final engineering. 16834.003.doc ~-------------------------------------------------------------------- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I E. Water Quality System A Wetpond will be used for water quality. Sizing of the wetpond will be prepared during final engineering. 16834.003.doc I I KCRTS Input Files I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I KCRTS Command CREATE a new Time Series Production of Runoff Time Series Project Location : Sea-Tac Computing Series Copperwood-Pre.tsf Regional Scale Factor: 1.00 Data Type : Reduced Creating Hourly Time Series File Till Forest Loading Time Series File:C:\KC_SWDM\KC_DATA\STTF60R.rnf 10.33 acres Total Area 10.33 acres Peak Discharge: 0.833 CFS at 9:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 Storing Time Series File:Copperwood-Pre.tsf Time Series Computed KCRTS Command Enter the Analysis TOOLS Module Analysis Tools Command Compute PEAKS and Flow Frequencies Loading Stage/Discharge curve':eopperwood-pre.tsf Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:copperwood-pre.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac Frequencies & Peaks saved to File:Copperwood-pre.pks Analysis Tools Command RETURN to Previous Menu KCRTS Command CREATE a new Time Series Production of Runoff Time Series Project Location: Sea-Tae Computing Series Copperwood-Dev.tsf Regional Scale Factor: 1.00 Data Type : Reduced Creating Hourly Time Series File Till Grass Impervious Loading Time Series File:C:\KC_SWDM\KC_DATA\STTG60R.rnf 3.75 acres Loading Time Series File:C:\KC_SWDM\KC_DATA\STEI60R.rnf 6.46 acres Total Area 10.21 acres Peak Discharge: 3.85 CFS at 6:00 on Jan 9 in Year B Storing Time Series File:Copperwood-Dev.tsf Time Series computed I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I KCRTS Command Enter the Analysis TOOLS Module Analysis Tools Command compute PEAKS and Flow Frequencies Loading Stage/Discharge curve:copperwood-dev.tsf Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:copperwood-dev.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac Frequencies & Peaks saved to File:Copperwood-Dev.pks Analysis Tools Command RETURN to Previous Menu KCRTS Command CREATE a new Time Series Production of Runoff Time Series Project Location: Sea-Tac copperwood-Bypass.tsf 1. 00 Computing Series Regional Scale Factor : Data Type : Reduced Creating Hourly Time Series File Impervious Loading Time Series File:C:\KC_SWDM\KC_DATA\STEI60R.rnf 0.12 acres Total Area 0.12 acres Peak Discharge: 0.057 CFS at 6:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 . Storing Time Series File:Copperwood-Bypass.tsf Time Series computed KCRTS Command Enter the Analysis TOOLS Module Analysis Tools Command Compute PEAKS and Flow Frequencies Loading Stage/Discharge curve:copperwood-bypass.tsf Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:copperwood-bypass.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac Frequencies & Peaks saved to File:Copperwood-Bypass.pks Analysis Tools Command RETURN to Previous Menu I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Pre-Developed Peak Flows -Assumes Forested Condition Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:copperwood-pre.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--------Flow Frequency Analysis------- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak - - Peaks Rank Return Prob (CFS) (CFS) Period 0.651 2 2/09/01 18:00 0.833 1 100.00 0.990 0.177 7 1/06/02 3:00 0.651 2 25.00 0.960 0.483 4 2/28/03 3:00 0.500 3 10.00 0.900 0.017 8 3/24/04 20:00 0.483 4 5.00 0.800 0.287 6 1/05/05 8:00 0.422 5 3.00 0.667 0.500 3 1/18/06 21:00 0.287 6 2.00 0.500 0.422 5 11/24/06 4:00 0.177 7 1.30 0.231 0.833 1 1/09/08 9:00 0.017 8 1.10 0.091 Computed Peaks 0.773 50.00 0.980 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Developed Unmitigated Peak Flows Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:copperwood-dev.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--------Flow Frequency Analysis------- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak - -Peaks Rank Return Prob (CFS) (CFS) Period 1. 90 6 2/09/01 2:00 3.85 1 100.00 0.990 1. 55 8 1/05/02 16:00 2.44 2 25.00 0.960 2.29 3 2/27/03 7:00 2.29 3 10.00 0.900 1. 68 7 8/26/04 2:00 2.02 4 5.00 0.800 2.02 4 10/2B/04 16:00 2.02 5 3.00 0.667 2.02 5 1/1B/06 16:00 1. 90 6 2.00 0.500 2.44 2 10/26/06 0:00 1. 6B 7 1.30 0.231 3.85 1 1/09/08 6:00 1. 55 8 1.10 0.091 Computed Peaks 3.38 50.00 0.980 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I UNMITIGATED BYPASS FLOWS Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:copperwood-bypass.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--------Flow Frequency Analysis------- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak - -Peaks Rank Return Prob (CFS) (CFS) Period 0.029 7 2/09/01 2:00 0.057 1 100.00 0.990 0.026 8 1/05/02 16:00 0.044 2 25.00 0.960 0.036 3 12/08/02 18:00 0.036 3 10.00 0.900 0.030 6 8/26/04 2:00 0.036 4 5.00 0.800 0.036 4 10/28/04 16:00 0.031 5 3.00 0.667 0.031 5 1/18/06 16:00 0.030 6 2.00 0.500 0.044 2 10/26/06 0:00 0.029 7 1. 30 0.231 0.057 1 1/09/08 6:00 0.026 8 1.10 0.091 Computed Peaks 0.052 50.00 0.980 I I KCRTS Detention I Facility Calculations I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Retention/Detention Facility Type of Facility: Side Slope: Pond Bottom Length: Pond Bottom Width: Pond Bottom Area: Top Area at 1 ft. FB: Effective Storage Depth: Stage 0 Elevation: Storage Volume: Riser Head: Riser Diameter: Number of orifices: Detention Pond 3.00 H:1V 241. 00 ft 80.00 ft 19280. 32132. 0.738 5.00 0.00 121975. 2.800 5.00 18.00 2 sq. ft sq. ft acres ft ft cu. ft ac-ft ft inches Orifice # Height (ft) 0.00 3.50 Diameter (in) 1.68 3.47 Full Head Discharge (eFS) 0.171 0.400 Pipe Diameter (in) 1 2 Top Notch weir: None Outflow Rating CUrve: None Elevation Storage 6.0 Stage (ft) 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.05 0.07 0.09 0.11 0.12 0.14 0.24 0.34 0.44 0.54 0.64 0.74 0.84 0.94 1. 04 1.14 1. 24 1.34 1.44 1. 54 1.64 1. 74 1.84 1. 94 2.04 2.14 2.24 2.34 (ft) 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.05 0.07 0.09 0.11 0.12 0.14 0.24 0.34 0.44 0.54 0.64 0.74 0.84 0.94 1. 04 1.14 1.24 1.34 1.44 1. 54 1. 64 1. 74 1. 84 1. 94 2.04 2.14 2.24 2.34 (cu. ft) (ac-ft) Discharge (cfs) 0.000 o. 0.000 386. 773. 966. 1354. 1743. 2133. 2328. 2718. 4683. 6667. 8671. 10694. 12737. 14799. 16882. 18984. 21106. 23248. 25411. 2759~. 29796. 32019. 34262. 36526. 38810. 41115. 43441. 45787. 48154. 50542. 0.009 0.010 0.018 0.014 0.022 0.018 0.031 0.040 0.049 0.053 0.062 0.108 0.153 0.199 0.245 0.292 0.340 0.388 0.436 0.485 0.534 0.583 0.633 0.684 0.735 0.787 0.839 0.891 0.944 0.997 1.051 1.105 1.160 0.020 0.023 0.025 0.027 0.029 0.038 0.045 0.051 0.056 0.061 0.066 0.070 0.074 0.078 0.082 0.085 0.089 0.092 0.095 0.098 0.101 0.104 0.107 0.109 0.112 0.115 0.117 Percolation (cfs) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Surf Area (sq. ft) 19280. 19319. 19357. 19376. 19415. 19454. 19492. 19512. 19550. 19744. 19939. 20134. 20331. 20527. 20725. 20923. 21122. 21322. 21522. 21724. 21925. 22128. 22331. 22535. 22740. 22946. 23152. 23359. 23567. 23775. 23984. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Hyd 1 2 3 4 2.44 2.54 2.64 2.74 2.84 2.94 3.04 3.14 3.24 3.34 3.44 3.50 3.54 3.57 3.61 3.64 3.6B 3.72 3.75 3.79 3.89 3.99 4.09 4.19 4.29 4.39 4.49 4.59 4.69 4.79 4.89 4.99 5.00 5.10 5.20 5.30 5.40 5.50 5.60 5.70 5.BO 5.90 6.00 6.10 6.20 6.30 6.40 6.50 6.60 6.70 6.80 6.90 7.00 Inflow 3.85 2.44 2.29 2.02 2.44 2.54 2.64 2.74 2.84 2.94 3.04 3.14 3.24 3.34 3.44 3.50 3.54 3.57 3.61 3.64 3.68 3.72 3.75 3.79 3.89 3.99 4.09 4.19 4.29 4.39 4.49 4.59 4.69 4.79 4.89 4.99 5.00 5.10 5.20 5.30 5.40 5.50 5.60 5.70 5.80 5.90 6.00 6.10 6.20 6.30 6.40 6.50 6.60 6.70 6.80 6.90 7.00 Outflow 2.07 0.13 0.49 0.10 52951. 55381. 57832. 60304. 62797 . 65312. 67848. 70406. 72985. 75585. 78207. 79791. 80B51. B1649. 82715. B3517. 84590. 85666. 86475. 87557. 90278. 93021. 95785. 98572. 101382. 104213 . 10706B. 109944. 112843. 115765. 118710. 121677. 121975. 124967. 127983. 131021. 134083. 137167. 140275. 143406. 146561. 149739. 152940. 156165. 159414. 162686. 165982. 169302. 172646. 176014. 179406. 182823. 186263. Peak Stage 5.21 3.02 4.50 1. 57 1.216 0.120 1.271 0.122 1. 328 0.124 1.384 0.127 1.442 0.129 1.499 0.131 1. 558 0.133 1.616 0.136 1.675 0.138 1.735 0.140 1.795.0.142 1.832 0.143 1.856 0.147 1. 874 0.157 1.899 0.173 1. 917 0.194 1.942 0.220 1.967 0.250 1.985 0.313 2.010 0.325 2.072 0.355 2.135 0.381 2.199 0.405 2.263 0.428 2.327 0.449 2.392 0.468 2.458 0.487 2.524 0 . 505 2.591 0.522 2.658 0.538 2.725 0.554 2.793 0.570 2.800 0.571 2.869 1. 050 2.938 1.910 3.008 3.010 3.078 4.320 3.149 5.810 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.220 7.250 0.00 3.292 7.790 0.00 3.365 8.290 0.00 3.438 8.760 0.00 3.511 9.210 0.00 3.585 9.640 0.00 3.660 10.050 0.00 3.735 10.440 0.00 3.810 10.820 0.00 3.887 11.180 0.00 3.963 11.540 0.00 4.041 11.880 0.00 4.119 12.210 0.00 4.197 12.530 0.00 4.276 12.850 0.00 Elev 5.21 3.02 4.50 1.57 Storage (Cu-Ft) (Ac-Ft) 128434. 67467. 107302. 32748. 2.948 1. 549 2.463 0.752 24194. 24404. 24616. 24828. 25040. 25254. 25468. 25683. 25898. 26114. 26331. 26462. 26549. 26615. 26702. 26768. 26855. 26943. 27009. 27097. 27317. 27538. 27760. 27982. 28205. 28429. 28654. 28879. 29105. 29332. 29559. 29787. 29810. 30039. 30269. 30499. 30730. 30962. 31195. 31428. 31662. 31897. 32132. 32368. 32605. 32843. 33081. 33320. 33560. 33800. 34041. 34283. 34526. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 5 2.02 0.33 3.80 3.80 87954. 6 1.90 0.56 4.96 4.96 120706. 7 1.68 0.11 2.22 2.22 47675. 8 1.55 0.14 3.12 3.12 69911. Hyd R/D Facility Tributary Reservoir POC Outflow Outflow Inflow Inflow Target 1 2.07 0.06 ******** ******* 2 0.13 0.04 ******** ******* 3 0.49 0.03 ******** ******* 4 0.10 0.04 ******** ******* 5 0.33 0.03 ******** ******* 6 0.56 0.03 ******** ******* 7 0.11 0.03 ******** ******* 8 0.14 0.03 ******** ******* ---------------------------------- Route Time Series through Facility Inflow Time Series File:copperwood-dev.tsf Outflow Time Series File:Copperwood-rdout POC Time Series File:Copperwood-dsout Inflow/Outflow Analysis Peak Inflow Discharge: 3.85 CFS at 6:00 Peak Outflow Discharge: 2.07 CFS at 10:00 Peak Reservoir Stage: 5.21 Ft Peak Reservoir Elev: 5.21 Ft Peak Reservoir Storage: 128434. CU-Ft 2.948 Ac-Ft Add Time Series:copperwood-bypass.tsf Calc 2.09 0.15 0.49 0.11 0.33 0.57 0.13 0.14 on Jan on Jan 2.019 2.771 1.094 1.605 9 in Year 8 9 in Year 8 Peak Summed Discharge: 2.09 CFS at 10:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 Point of Compliance File:Copperwood-dsout.tsf Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:copperwood-rdout.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac - --Annual Peak Flow Rates--------Flow Frequency Analysis------- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak - - Peaks --Rank Return Prob (CFS) (CFS) (ft) Period 0.629 2 2/09/01 20:00 2.07 5.21 1 100.00 0.990 0.135 7 1/07/02 3:00 0.629 5.01 2 25.00 0.960 0.488 3 3/06/03 22:00 0.488 4.50 3 10.00 0.900 0.114 8 8/26/04 7:00 0.482 4.46 4 5.00 0.800 0.142 6 1/08/05 3:00 0.329 3.80 5 3.00 0.667 0.329 5 1/19/06 0:00 0.142 3.43 6 2.00 0.500 0.482 4 11/24/06 8:00 0.135 3.12 7 1.30 0.231 2.07 1 1/09/08 10:00 0.114 2.22 8 1.10 0.091 Computed Peaks 1. 59 5.16 50.00 0.980 Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:copperwood-dsout.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--------Flow Frequency Analysis------- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak --Peaks Rank Return Prob (CFS) (CFS) Period 0.635 2 2/09/01 20:00 2.09 1 100.00 0.990 0.142 7 1/06/02 3:00 0.635 2 25.00 0.960 0.494 3 3/06/03 21:00 0.494 3 10.00 0.900 0.133 8 8/26/04 2:00 0.487 4 5.00 0.800 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 0.148 0.331 0.487 2.09 6 1/07/05 23:00 5 1/19/06 0:00 4 11/24/06 7:00 1 1/09/08 10:00 0.331 0.148 0.142 0.133 5 6 7 8 3.00 2.00 1. 30 1.10 computed Peaks 1.61 50.00 Flow Dur,ation from Time Series File: copperwood-rdout . tsf Cutoff Count Frequency CDF Exceedence_probability CFS % % % 0.009 0.027 0.044 0.062 0.080 0.097 0.115 0.133 0.150 0.168 0.186 0.204 0.221 0.239 0.257 0.274 0.292 0.310 0.327 0.345 0.363 0.380 0.398 0.416 0.433 0.451 0.469 0.487 0.504 0.522 0.540 0.557 0.575 0.593 0.610 0.628 31080 6297 5935 5578 4596 , 3242 1911 1605 735 46 36 24 25 15 11 6 4 8 32 14 12 10 9 13 10 8 13 17 10 3 4 5 4 1 o o 50.685 10.269 9.679 9.097 7.495 5.287 3.116 2.617 1.199 0.075 0.059 0.039 0.041 0.024 0.018 0.010 0.007 0.013 0.052 0.023 0.020 0.016 0.015 0.021 0.016 0.013 0.021 0.028 0.016 0.005 0.007 0.008 0.007 0.002 0.000 0.000 50.685 60.954 70.633 79.729 87.224 92.511 95.628 98.245 99.444 99.519 99.578 99.617 99.658 99.682 99.700 99.710 99.716 99.729 99.781 99.804 99.824 99.840 99.855 99.876 99.892 99.905 99.927 99.954 99.971 99.976 99.982 99.990 99.997 99.998 99.998 99.998 49.315 39.046 29.367 20.271 12.776 7.489 4.372 1. 755 0.556 0.481 0.422 0.383 0.342 0.318 0.300 0.290 0.2B4 0.271 0.219 0.196 0.176 0.160 0.145 0.124 0.108 0.095 0.073 0.046 0.029 0.024 0.018 0.010 0.003 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.493E+00 0.390E+00 0.294E+00 0.203E+00 0.128E+OO 0.749E-01 O.437E-01 O.175E-01 0.556E-02 0.481E-02 0.422E-02 0.383E-02 O.342E-02 0.31BE-02 0.300E-02 0.290E-02 O.2B4E-02 0.271E-02 O.219E-02 0.196E-02 O.176E-02 0.160E-02 0.145E-02 0.124E-02 0.108E-02 0.946E-03 0.734E-03 0.457E-03 0.294E-03 0.245E-03 0.179E-03 0.978E-04 0.326E-04 0.163E-04 0.163E-04 O.163E-04 Flow Duration from Time Series File:copperwood-dsout.tsf Cutoff Count Frequency CDF Exceedence_Probability CFS % % % 0.009 0.027 0.045 0.063 0.080 0.098 0.116 0.134 0.152 0.170 0.188 31092 6247 5867 5583 4656 3229 1952 1592 742 68 31 50.705 10.188 9.568 9.105 7.593 5.266 3.183 2.596 1. 210 0.111 0.051 50.705 60.892 70.460 79.565 87.158 92.423 95.607 98.203 99.413 99.524 99.574 49.295 39.108 29.540 20.435 12.B42 7.577 4.393 1.797 0.587 0.476 0.426 O.493E+00 0.391E+00 0.295E+00 0.204E+00 0.12BE+00 0.758E-01 0.439E-01 0.180E-01 0.587E-02 0.476E-02 0.4268-02 0.667 0.500 0.231 0.091 0.980 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 0.205 27 0.044 99.618 0.382 0.382E-02 0.223 23 0.038 99.656 0.344 0.344E-02 0.241 17 0.028 99.684 0.316 0.316E-02 0.259 11 0.018 99.702 0.298 0.298E-02 0.277 5 0.008 99.710 0.290 0.290E-02 0.295 4 0.007 99.716 0.284 0.284E-02 0.313 6 0.010 99.726 0.274 0.274E-02 0.330 35 0.057 99.783 0.217 0.217E-02 Q.348 16 0.026 99.809 0.191 o .l91E-02 0.366 11 0.018 99.827 0.173 0.1738-02 0.384 7 0.011 99.839 0.161 0.161E-02 0.402 10 0.016 99.855 0.145 0.145E-02 0.420 14 0.023 99.878 0.122 0.122E-02 0.437 9 0.015 99.892 0.108 0.108E-02 0.455 9 0.015 99.907 0.093 0.930E-03 0.473 10 0.016 99.923 0.077 0.766£-03 0.491 18 0.029 99.953 0.047 0.473£-03 0.509 10 0.016 99.969 0.031 0.310£-03 0.527 4 0.007 99.976 0.024 0.245£-03 0.545 4 0.007 99.982 0.018 0.179£-03 0.562 5 0.008 99.990 0.010 0.978E-04 0.580 4 0.007 99.997 0.003 0.3268-04 0.598 1 0.002 99.998 0.()02 0.163E-04 0.616 0 0.000 99.998 0.002 0.1638-04 0.634 0 0.000 99.998 0.002 0.1638-04 Duration comparison Anaylsis Base File: copperwood-pre.tsf New File: copperwood-dsout.tsf Cutoff Units: Discharge in CFS -----Fraction of Time--------------Check of Tolerance------- CUtoff Base New %Change Probability Base 0.143 0.95E-02 0.82E-02 -13.7 I 0.95E-02 0.143 0.182 0.63E-02 0.44E-02 -30.2 I 0.63E-02 0.182 0.221 0.50£-02 0.35E-02 -28.6 I 0.50E-02 0.221 0.260 0.37£-02 0.30E-02 -19.4 I 0.37E-02 0.260 0.299 0.29£-02 0.28E-02 -1.1 I 0.29E-02 0.299 0.338 0.22£-02 0.21E-02 -7.4 I 0.22E-02 0.338 0.377 0.15£-02 0.17E-02 13.2 I 0.15E-02 0.377 0.416 0.10£-02 o .l3E-02 23.8 I 0.10E-02 0.416 0.455 0.62E-03 0.93E-03 50.0 I 0.62E-03 0.455 0.494 0.34E-03 0.39£-03 14.3 I 0.34£-03 0.494 0.533 0.21E-03 0.23E-03 7.7 I 0.21E-03 0.533 0.572 0.16E-03 0.65E-04 -60.0 I 0.16E-03 0.572 0.611 0.l1E-03 0.16E-04 -85.7 I 0.11£-03 0.611 0.650 0.16E-04 O.OOE+OO -100.0 I 0.16E-04 0.650 Maximum positive excursion ~ 0.041 cfs ( 9.8%) occurring at 0.423 cfs on the Base Data:copperwood-pre.tsf and at 0.465 cfs on the New Data:copperwood-dsout.tsf Maximum negative excursion = 0.055 cfs (-24.8%) occurring at 0.223 cfs on the Base Data:copperwood-pre.tsf and at 0.168 cfs on the New Data:copperwood-dsout.tsf New %Change 0.141 -1. 0 0.147 -18.9 0.166 -24.7 0.212 -18.6 0.284 -4.9 0.329 -2.6 0.399 5.8 0.445 7.0 0.481 5.8 0.502 1.5 0.536 0.6 0.548 -4.3 0.560 -8.4 0.635 -2.4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Mitigated Developed Flows -Downstream Outflow at poe (Pond Outflow + Bypass) Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:copperwood-dsout.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--------Flow Frequency Analysis------- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak --Peaks Rank Return Prob (CFS) (CFS) Period 0.635 2 2/09/01 20:00 2.09 1 100.00 0.990 0.142 7 1/06/02 3:00 0.635 2 25.00 0.960 0.494 3 3/06/03 21:00 0.494 3 10.00 0.900 0.133 8 8/26/04 2:00 0.487 4 5.00 0.800 0.148 6 1/07/05 23:00 0.331 5 3.00 0.667 0.331 5 1/19/06 0:00 0.148 6 2.00 0.500 0.487 4 11/24/06 7:00 0.142 7 1.30 0.231 2.09 1 1/09/08 10:00 0.133 8 1.10 0.091 Computed Peaks 1. 61 50.00 0.980 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Wetpool Sizing Worksheet I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Wet pool Sizing Worksheet SummaI}' of the 2009 SUlface Wate, DesIgn Manual Requirements Project Name: Copperwood Project Number: 1.6834 Step 1) Determine volume factor f. Basic size ........................................... .. Large size ............................................ . f=_....::.3 __ f= __ 4,;,;,;.5:......_ Step 2) Determine rainfall R for mean annual Storm Detemine rainfall R for mean annual storm RainfalL .............................................. .. Step 3) Calculate runoff from mean annual storm V, = (0.9A. + 0.25A.g + 0.10A., + 0.01A",,) X R A. = tributary area of impervious surface Atg = tributary area of till grass All = tributary area of till forest A"" = tributary area of outwash grass R = rainfall from mean annual storm V, = Volume of runoff from mean annual storm Step 4) Calculate wetpool Volume Vb = f V, f = Volume Faelor Vr = Volume runoff, mean annual atorm Vb = Volume of the wetpool Step 5) Determlna wetpool dimensions a) Determine geometry of first cell Volume In first cell Depth h 1st cell (minus sed. Storage) Determine horizontal xs area at mid-depth using A mid = Vol. 1st celli h Mid-width Mid-length Determine xs area at surface Z = Side slope lenglh (_H:1V) 2(h/2 x Z) = Dimensions of top of pond adjusted for geometries Top width 0.039 (feel) 2~1,398 (sf) 163,350 (51) 0 (51) 0, (sf) 0.039 (feet) .11,470 (ef) 3 11,470 (el) 34,409 I(el) 10,323 (cl) 4 (Ieet) 2,581 (sl) 51 (Ieet) 51 (feet) 3 3:1 recommended 12 (feet) 63 (feet) I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Top length Area of Top b) Determine geometry of second cell Volume in second cell Depth h 2nd cell Determine xs area at mid-depth using A mid = Vol. 2nd celli h Mid-width Mid-length Determine horizontal xs area at surface Z = Side slope length ( _H:1V) 2(h/2 x Z) = Dimensions of top of pond adjusted for geometrics Top width Top length Area of Top Adjustment to cells (If necessary) Geometry check: Overall pond L:W at mid-depth = 3: 1 Pond width (mid-depth) Cell 1 length (mid-depth) Cell 2 length (mid-depth) Pond Length (mid-depth) = Cell 1 + Cell 2 Lmid :Wmid= Total Wetpond Surface area required = _.....::6:;;:,3 __ (feet) _...:3;:;:9;;:,44::....._ (feet) 24,086 (cf) 4 (feet) 6,022 (sf) 51 (feet) 119 (feet) 3 3:1 recommended 12 (feet) 63 (feet) 131 (feet) 8198 (feet) 51 51 119 169 3.33 12,142 5,639 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 5.0 -------------... _.- CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN Conveyance system analysis and backwater calculations will be provided in final engineering. 16834.003.doc I I I I I I I il I' I - I I I I I I I I 6.0 SPECIAL REPORTS AND STUDIES The following special reports have been prepared for this project and are included in this section: 6.1 Geotechnical Report by Terra Associates, Inc., dated February 10, 2014 6.2 Wetland Report by Sound view Consultants dated July 2014 16834.003.doc • '. I • • • • • • • • I • I • I • I I I 6.1 Geotechnical Report by Terra Associates, Inc. dated February 10, 2014 I I I I I \ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I --. ;';-, F-~i;. - GEOTECHNICAL REPORT Stuth Assemblage SE 136th Street and 143r~ AvenueSE Rent~;;n, Wa.shington PrOject No. T ·6995 Terra Associates, Inc. , ,~ ~ . . Prepared for: Quadrant Homes Bellevue, Washington 'F,ebruary 10, 2014 ,; ,*, -.;, -- I ) ) \) I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I --------------- TERRA ASSOCIATES, Inc. Mr. Corey Watson Quadrant" Hoines 14725 SEj6tli street, Stiite.200 ,Bell~vue, W asliingt~ri. 98006 Subject: Geotechnicai Report Stuth Assemblage iqi.ri.suhanls in:<:;c61~c:~ni<;al Engineering, Geology and' Ellvironmcl1lalEailn Sciences , ".-. SEI36tJi Street iuldl43rd AvenueSE :Renton;Washliigton' .. . Dear Mr. Watson: Febriiary 10,2014 Project·No. T-699~ As requested. wi: h~vecOndui:ted,a geOtechnical engineering. study (or·ihe subject Project. The·alla~hed report presentso!lrfmdmgs and recommeridi!tioriHor t1ie'geotechnicallispects of project deSign and construction: . S~i1c<iDdilionswe observed in thetestpils generally ()oDsisted of610. 12irichCs'oforganictopsoH overlyilig2to' 5 feet. of medium.dense silty saodwilh 'gravel (we<ithered till) overlyii!g dense to vel'Y. dense silty sand Witb gravel (illiw~thered glaci~i illl) 10 th~ termiriatibn of the test pi~s. A thicker'organic topsol! layer-(lS inches)"v~ observed overlying thes~' natiVe till soils. at. Test Pit TP:9. 'W~ also observed 'aboul IS inches.ohilty sand fill m~tCrial'below 6:inches of-gravelly topsoil ilt Test Pit TP.~7.· We would expeCt other areas of shallow. surface fills associll;ed;iththe existing de~l~ parceis'will be present: S~low perchC!i growidwat~r wiisoj>servoo at a depth of ab~ut4feetat 3 of the I (test piis:excavaiCci. . . . .' . In our opinion. soil conditi6ns observed at the site will ~e suitable for support ofihe proposed ,ili:velopment proYidedthe recommend8l!onspresented in thlsreport are incorporated iDioprojectdesign and construction .. . ' '.- We trust the informalionpresented in this report is.sufliciiml for your currenl'needs. Jfyou have any questions or require pleasec8.l1. ?. -I b .... PI 12525 Willows Road/Suite 101, Kirkland, Washington 98034 Phone (425) 821-7777 • Fax {42SlS21-4334 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1.0 2.6 "3.0 5.0. M. 7.0. Figures Appendix TABLE OF CONTENTS ~ . . " . ,.'. ,." '. . . ~~~;iO~~~X:;i.~.~;::::::.::::::::::.:::::::::::::;::::::::;;:':,::~:::::::::;:::::::;:;:;:.:.:::::::::::::::::::::::::'::::::::::::: ~~rCont~~b~:::::~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::'::::::::::::::::::~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::'::::::::1 i~,,·,fg!~~~=i:j::""'~?;:::::':""]:;,:i:,::,:l '1'2 Er<1siO~ Ha~nJ Arc~; ........ :: ...... , ...... : .......... : ... : ................ , ............ , ......... , ........... ",. 4;3. . . han?sh~eH3za[d.Area~, ...... , ......... :: .. , ....................... " .................. , ........... ; ......... 4, .l?i~u~sion;anilReconiiiii:ndaiions ........... : ............... , ....................... : .............................. 4 5.1. -.elenc.raJ .. , ... , .... , ...... ; .. , ...... ,00 .. ' .. ; ••..• ; •. ; ..... , ..............•.........•. ; .•.. : .........••.... : .... ; ....... 4 5,2 :Site Preparation and Grading ' ..... ,';:.; .. : .... , ..... ;; ........ ; ... ;' ... ; .. ,;.; •. :.,.;.:.:." .. ;,.:~:.,:, ..• ~:S ~! .*_=t-,:,:,':::':::':':,;:',:i:',,:;::::':! 5.7 . StoITIlwater,Detenlton.Pond ............. ; ................... " ............ , ............................... 7 ;:~.~m:ii~~.::::~::::::·::,:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.::.:::::::::::~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~::::::::::::~ 't~!:!~£~:~:~~~~::::;:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::i~ Field. E~pl()rat iijn .and L~borat()ry'Testirig .,., .... ',: ... ", .. : ." .......... , .......... , ........... :: ................ Appendix A I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1.0 • I Ge()te,chni~al R.epcn1 , , , StuthAsserilblage ' , SE '136th Streetaodt43rd'Av:enueSE . . ' 'Re'ntqn" Washing~bn.· , PRQ,fEpt DESCRIPT.ION The ~r9je,c.t"c\ilisists of, developing the, :ipprf>xirilat.~!y. ~ ~:(j;acl1:.· ~i t!?,with,j9,re:s,i4entiiilljujl¥~g; iots,~c.c~ss • . .' '1' <.. . .,' ~ .. ", "--'" . .' , > roadways" two stonnwater detention ponds; and utilities. Grading 'plans' were not. available at the time of:,this ' , report, ·Ho~e\'ergiven·exis~ng.site ka~es, we; aniicipa!c,cuts'.ano fillsreq\jUya ti>establi~h. design .10\ aild' roadw~yelevations wiirb!:on iite Qrde~ o'flwo to ~ightt'eet. . '.' . . --. . ,. TIlcre.ar'c· two ,stoimwater pondsplaiin:ed for the' site: . The ponds willD;' ICicated in 'thesouilleastern'site area· northea~tand noitl!.westof an exisiiilgdra,irtage thatbi~tsth~ ~a'st,elil p<\t1iohof,thepfgpcrty.' We)lnticipatethe ,ponds' wilibe c~nstrucled primarily by excavation h~low.current,siicgradcs Jiihmiriimai .flll' placclI for , foimiiiionofIierimeterconiliimn'enibemls, We, eX~I,lhal the residential :structures C()nstructed OD' ttie lots wil(be .two-to threc"story,W<iod~framea "butldi~g~ '\~iththeir ma~ fl~~ level~iranicdo~er:a:i:ra~I'space: 'At~chciJ:g~rng~fioo~ winbe cdn;iruc;cdai gra~e. -S,tructura.1 loading sh<i,l!I(j l,>p!!latively light;, wit~l,>earirig,..valls ,Saring lo~ds of 2to;.3 kips p¢rf~~*nd isola\~ columns canl)g, maxhnum'loads 0[,'30 i9 40kips,' ' . , " '" , The recommendations inllie' followingscctions 6(this report are, based oil. pur uriderStandingi'of'ihe preceding desJgri. r~iures: We.should~vicw final design' 'drawings as the~ ,b.ecome ~~ailable!o, verify that oUr recommelldationsliave'been properly ititerpreted and:to su~plemel1t.them,.i(require(t, 2.0 ~COP,E.OF WO~ , Our. scope of work was completed'ln accordance with, 'our author'fzed proposal dated January :9, 2014, AC'c6rdingly' on ~aituary 17, '2014,wi: observed soil cpridiiions at 11 test piis,exj:8vated betweeii6 ,and .\0 feet beiow 'exi.sting site. grages. i.J~ing-the infonnalion obtained from the-subsurface expiora!ion; we· performed an~lyses iodcvelop geOteChnical ~ommi:~diltions,for project design and constril~tion.Si>ecifi;,any, this report l!4dressest~e~01l0wing:. • Soiland,ground\valer conditions • Seis';'ic design para~etersper:2009Intem~tionaiBtillding tod~(IBC)' " '. .' . - • Geologic Hazru:dsper'current CityofRentori Municipal COae .' Site preparation and grading Excavation' ,".. .. ~ Foundationi': I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~o .FloodJiihs at grade o. ,S~onnw~ter det"n~?!l ponds . 0 . Ut'iliiies Fel:lruarYI0;'201~ 'Projeci'i>!o: T:6995 its.h<?uld"b~ :!1ot<;<! t1iatrecommend'!tions .ol!t)in~d ,inthi~ report:regarilfng:;d!llinag!l::u:e' asso~Iate,<l with:·soil 'strengili;'dc~ign,:ckhpriis;iires;erosiO'n~:aitd stability,f)'e~ign ~~d:Perf~;n.;a~c~{isi;·u~s wilIirespcet to moi~t~ as it, relah!S'to:~thestfu~ture enyir'(jrimerit (i,e;, huniidity; n!i1~e\v. ril~l,d) is beyon'd Terra, Ass6dat~s' purview: A btiildingenvelope,speciMist,or,contracior,;houlCh;e ~~nsulfed to address 'these issues, as needed, '. " " 3,ogrE CONQITIONS ,3.1 Surface Tile project site 'consists 0[6 ,tax parcels totiJling:approxinlately 12.6:acr'es lQi;ated lidjacent and south,,;'est 6f,the ._ _ ~'.".. . .:,."":" "-... ,,: ... :-.":' _ .: ,,~,:-"::!; ... :L .. , ',", ". _,', ." ' .. '.' ,', • -,.',' -,,,' i" -,,,," ,,'. _'I:, '.: i1itersection' 'of SE,'13,6th' Street :'and:143rd Avenue ,SE, iit.Renion,' Washin~on, The approxiinate:site location is ~hown·ori.F!gur¢ .J., With, ihe,~xcepii<?n of thegastern parcel the prope~y, is,c!e"eloPed~ith:single-famil>: residei1~s;~lol)giwitli se'veraloutbuildihgs., The'lII'Cas immediatCly slirroundiilg the residences'afe'laiidscaped,\vith lawn's anQass6Ci~ted bushe~ and~01yer beds. ThtiCl!stern "a~e} is uriaevel~pe.dand, ~as ifdrainagetliat meandei'sthn:>tigIi thepropc:rtY cCfiom the ,nortliwest to,thc'southeast', In, the, southeastern comer ottlle'property the drniimge, becomes' inci.sed 'creating,a'dcepc(ravimj.feature., Elev;i!ion relief from the'topof the iayiiie to:ihebii~ortlie drainiige is on.the order of. 14 to 2:0 f~t. canied over slope' gradi~nts of abo~t 50 percentTbis ,portion orihe ~ite;is':modelflt~ly (oreste~, witli a~sodiaiedilnderSt6.y., Elsbvlier(:' thcsite'topo!lfl!i>hy'is'.gtlnerallY:fl~1 'With sliglit eleVation , , undulations. -. .-'. -. 3.2 ',subsiirface 'Soil conditi'ons we observed cin the test piis'generally consisted of 6 to 12 incheS of organic' topsoil overlying 2 tt!, 5 feetofmediuri\dens~silty sand,withgt:a\'el(\~eaihered{i1i) o~'~rIyillg dense:i~~eryd~n~ ;i1i; ~a~d\viih g~vel (unw"athered'.gl,~Ciallill) t<i~the Jernu18tio ll of:thetes.t pits: . A ihick'er'Oigai1ictop~ojf"i~ei', (18i11~he£j wa~ observedoverlyiiig iIicse native till soils al Test PitTP~9. We aiso:observed about 18 in~hes.ofsilty s3!1ci fill materiaLbelo\v.Q:iiidl~s()f gravellytops'oil at T~~t PitW:Y. WeWo~Jdexpec(oiher3reas;ofshallow surface fills associ.3ted:,wiihthe existing developed parcels\Viilbe,pr~enl. The Geologic Map a/The Rell/on QUtldrtlllg/e..Kilig COUli/)' byD,R. Mullineaux '(1965) maps die site,as Ground, • _." . ,I , 'moraine. deposits ,consisting~c)f a, thi~laY~r''of ablation"till oycrIying,lodgmelil'.!ill' (QIit): Soil ,conditions observed in the test pits aregenerally,consistent·.wiih tile mapped'geology. ,-----------------------------. ------- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I F(1)fti.lO 2014 ,_m., " Project No, T~6995 '. Tbepi'~e(!ingdiscussion is:int~n(jc:d.'6 !ie Ii g~tiel1l' ,review Of the sqil conditi9tisen~oiint*d. ,FOTmOre, dC;tailed descrlpiions, please ref~r,to iheTest.Pii,Logs~inAppendix,A, ~ ,. . '33 ,Groundwater 'We observed-'groundwater seepage atTest,pi!s''rP::i,'TP-4, and,.rr-5' dilling:our exploration. ,'The seepage was observe(i at l{depth of aboiit .r';iir feei below current site grad~s B,t tile cont~ct ~t\Ve~n the upper \v~theTedJind lower unweathered tilfsolls, this sh8110w,·groundwater,see~ge, is common o'nglacialitill'sitesandis,ilieresuIi of pretipItaiiori' i~fiiinii~g 'the u~~er,n6re ~;.vioiis·'w~th6red iilL soi!;na' beComing~iched.6ri;iop~hhe i~ ~er:v!o~s llllwe~there:~ 1~1l. The)~pagt? is~?a,sona! ~~ctwill flUctu,ate depel1(!ing on, rain~aU amou,n.ts; This seepage jypicalltdiininishes '~ith,theons<it Of the normally drier, summer months and· often times'isabseni in the 'fall (ime()f.th'h'ellr, 4;1 ,Seismic Considerations :Section-4-c3-05, J..\ ;d,or:ihe.RenionMiiriicipaLCOde (RMC)definesa,seiimic hazard,as'!' L /.;OW S'eismicHazafd (SLY"-reas !'ndi:r1aiiiby d,en~es,oi)s OrbedrO~k:These'sojlsgenerl'Ily hl!ye site :~mcii:nt~:,9ftypes ~I 0(S2,as defined in the 'International 'Building 'Code, iL Higll Seismic 'Hazru'd(ln/): Areas underlain, by 'soft or loose, sat,ui1ttedsoil,s, Tbese{s!iils{ll¢l1era!lyn,ave' Sile!.c:ClCm,Ciei:lt~ ;ii( lypei ,S3 prS4;as', 'defin~_ 'w t~eliitei'ilaiionai B\ljldi~g ~o~e: (Or4: 5450,,:i"~-2009Y,;' , ., 'Liquefaction is a phenomenon where there:is a reduction.or compieie loss of sliihitrength due to .an increase in watc:rpressurejndu~~d liy' vibratioll5. Liquefa,ction mainly affeci~geo.logicilll)· TeCent:d~posils of fine-grained sanlUhat,is beiow 'the'g!'O,u,ndwater ,ta~je.SOiiS·9f~ thiS nature derive thefr strength from'IDlergranular t'riciion. :The'genenif~ wilier presfureor l10represstire ess~niilillys~panlies· ihesoil grains aj{d~llminates this intergranular fric.ti~n; thus, ~iinJinati';g,the~9iiisstrengt~. Based on the,soilcomiilions we observed anchheabsence of a sliailowgroundwater table,:in our opiiiion: the risk for:liql1efactionto occur at tliissite,duriiig;an eajthquakeis negIigi.ble,Thesoils'afi: dens.e:and, therefore the site jsa Low Seisll1[cHazard,pert~eRMC; , Based 6n soil conditions'obseryed iit the test,piis and our Knowledge' otthe area' geology;.per Chapter-16,oftJie 20 q International Bw!~iilg <;qde(\!39), site: qlass '''C'!sho~ld ,~: llsed. ii1sti1Jc~J'aI,de~ign, B!I~edon thi.ssite, class; in accordance,with thc·20j2 IBC;.thc follo,ving parameters should.be,uscd in computii1~ seismic forccs: Seismic Design'Pai"llIneters'(IBC 'li)) 2) . .-. -'." -. ~ . " -~ ,. ,. '". rms 0:623 0,917 ' O:~H6 Viilti~ 'determinixju,sing th,e/9!1it~d States ge910gtcal S\lrvey (lJ~9SFGl"9und .tvl.0tion,~aran)et"r Cillcul!'tor access~' on' February'S;20i 4 at tlie web she htll?:l!eanhquake;us~s, Bov/rcscar~h1haz1l1nps/dcsigntind~~:php; Pag~N~., 3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -----_ ... _------------------_ .. __ ._----------------- Pebrua "10 2014 . " .. ry, .,!, ,'. Pfojeci N<5: T -,6995 4.2 Erosion HanirdAreas Seclion 4;,3-95 h.of Ihe.RMG defines :an:~rosi'oil haZard, as "i. Lciw Erosion Hazard (EL): Areas ,vilh soils sh,araclenzed 1>)" llle NaluralResource 'tOIl~ervalii>Il:S,crvice (foIn:lcri y. U ,s'.s9ir~~nservatioI1Servj~)ashaVjng s,iglilor it!iJderate.~sion poie.ntial;)ndtha! slope'less lhilli' fifteenpe~,eiji (15%): ii,HigliErQsiciri H~i-d (EH): ATeas \vilh spils characteriZed by'tlie'Nailiral Resource, Co~servalioil S~rVice (foniletly (j.S, Soil Conservation 'ser,vi~),as ,h~ving. seyereor' verysevf;lre erosionpole,n\ial. andlhaL'slo!1!l, !1!or!, ~leeply .. ~I)an 'flfteen ~rc(!l)! (15%).~" . . , TheiIiajority ofthesoil(obsen·e4'gll,sit¢ar¢ Classified as NdcrWooo grave!IY sandy IC!~m'~.I(d5;p~rfent:slop'es .oYlheUiiil~ St~tes;Departn1,ent ,of AgrlcultureNliroiii\ ReSOurces '(j~i;seiVaiio,d;eivii;e (NRCS) • .fomierly ,tl;~ S6il Conservation·S\:rvice. Soils,on the steep ravine, slopes located In:)lie southe~slem portion or'thesile,are classi (jed as A1derwooo very'steep. Ovel':rnos! ()f lhe site'with lhe:existiiig 'slop" gradients •. :thesesoi Is will . have a . ,.-.. , .' .-' ... ) ,'.',' '",,',-, ',,', ..... ,': '\." .. ' . ". ": . .., .". "": ' , .'.' .. , .. ,"{ ....... '." ,'.,' " .. ' slight i~ ITuiderille, poicntiilJ for erosion Wh~Ii~)(P0sC4;·Jhi:rcfiii-c;, .,vil~ tlie e;oiceptio~ ofthesteeper #vine slopes the site is a .Low Erosion Hazard area per the RMC. The steep ravine'slopes would be considered a'High'erosion hazai:d area Per the ruvm . R"gari!less.e,~sion pro\e"~lj.o~ m~u~,s as rc;quiredby the CitY,ClfRe!)lon-wlIlIlc;CdtCl b~ iIipia~e prior tClstartiilg griidiiig aCiiYiii~s on the site. This' WQuld irt'clude'Penmeter'sili:fendiiig.to ,c6~iaii1 .erosion ori'site'anilco~er ,measuresto.prevent or reduce soil' erosiondunng an<ffollowing construciicm,' '4.3 'LIindslidc'lIazard Areas Section 4~3~5 ".bi of Ihe'·R.MC 'defines a landslide hazard areaas;;i.Low Landslide.Hazard' (LI::):Areaswitli sIopC;S le~s than 'f1Il~n;ix:tcent 0.5'%): ii.~~i,p'm.Liln~~lid~ Hai;ai";!,q .. tvI):,,~S~itlisloP~~I";e~nfifi~~n percent '(15%) and 'forty percenL(40.%).arid:tinderlain by soils that ~6n'sist laigelyofsiuid.grlIvel or glacial 'till. iii .. High 'Lru!dslide Haz.a,rd(LH): Areas willi si~pes greater than forty perceni(40~) •. ,andarel!s with slopes ,bet~veenfifii:en. perc,e.nt (1 ~,%) ~i1d foriy pcrc~nt (40%), ~siduIidci'laii1 bY:~9i1sc'cjnsisting larg¢Iycjf s.i1t 'and. ~Iay: 1',,: V~~High Liind$lide'HazaI"ils (LV): Areasat' known mappable landslide deposits, ;, Becauseo[ the:'sloPe gradient ihe drainage ravine'slopes locaied in:i1ic'southeastemportion or the:siic \voiilrl be categoriZed as a High Laodslide Hazard' area by :the RMC~ 'Appropriate building'setbacks and buffers, as discu$~diil l)iefoUO\yirig ~llclions'i1flhi.s report 'Yill nci:d io be'iiilplew:en(ed t())revent impacts tplhe sIope5'~nd attendantprojierticS:' . . . 5.0 DISCUSSION ANDRECOI\1MENDATIONS So i General. Based 'on' ()u'r stlIdY.ct~er¢ 'are rio geot!!,chnical consiacraiioos thill, wo-~Id pr~~ludedeveI6pIllenl of.th~ sit~.,as currentlY"plamled, Residences:can. be supported, on conventional. spread'foolings, beaHilg on:competent nalivc soils ()bs~fved, beIowthe,tIpp,er I i\~,c~e~ ofor!,:ani,c, s~rfa,e s()i.l~rfJn s,,""ctural (III plac~ and c,<lI1iplicted'above these natiye soils: Pavenient and f1o,or slabs can be·silriilarlysupported:,. The':nati\iesoils,egcoUIitere4at:l~e,sit!l :'containa,significant am()un,ofQrij:s and will be ijifficl!l\ to:~o,nlpa~t :a~ structural fillwhcn 100,Wet. TIi~,ability to, use native soil from slicexcavations,as structural fill wilI depeniJ on iis moistl!recont~nt and the prevailing~veath,r conditions at the, ti'!1e of construction" Ifgradingacli"itieS will.take place: du'rin~;vinter~ ,iheo\Vner shoUIil'.bi prepared t()inlp,ji'l 9Ieari:g'ni!1~llar riia.t,eHid tor ~se;as slructuI'aI, fill arid backfilL Page .No,4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Febfu' 10,2014 .' ,',,', ~'; .,'"-,, Project No;-T-6995 Thetollowi~gseclio.nsproYld~:det~ile4 I:Ccomm~nd,allons,rcgl'-rding:ihepreceding issues and olher,geoleclulical design-consi~eraiicinS~ These 'reeommendaliolis should be' iilCOrpOi'itI~d 'intO' [he-final 'd,esigndfu.wirigs ',nrid 'c(lnstruction,specifi~ali9.ns, 5:2 Site' Preparatio'nalldGrliding To, prepare tliesile'"for constrU~ticiti, all vegeuiiion,organicsurflice S(lils, B,nd,oiher deleteiious_m;,te!ialshouldb~ stnppe,d and removed 'from below thebuilding,l~tsand' road~~y,areas,(}e~enillYi surl~~esiripping depths of" app~ximately, 8, to 12 inches should be expected toremov~ l!le'organi, s\lrfa~e:soiJs: peep~rsi;;ppjiig approacliing 1'8 should'be.expected inareas'sueh as in,the viCiilily, cir"TesfPitTP"9:in thedevelope<!:portlonso[ !hesile,:demgIiiion)fexisiinii -su:uct~eS sho!lld, include: removal of ,cxistirjg. f9.:ll~datio!ls and!l~an(lo~ei1.!',of' 'undergro,und septic systems, and oiher--buried uiiliiies, Abandoned uIHilx pipes that" fall otiiside of'new:building :~rea-s ~an be WI',in placepro"ioeii th¢yare,sealed.to preyeiitinlrusi6hii(gr!>undw81¢i ~eep~ge andsoil,Org1l11ii,; ,top,soil\vil! nOl,besu1t~I)lefor USC, as strucl\!f3liiii, but may, beused-i'or'iimiled d~ths in-Donst~ctuml areas, ' OnceCiearii:gandstnpping operations are complete, cut'and fill operations can be..tnitlaied to establish desii-ed grades, I'rior 10 piac[[lgflll, ali expoSed beanog' surfaceSsliould'\)c::'ObsCrVed' by ii repr~eniative: ofTerrii Associates 10 :,ve.riry'sqil conditigns, are as eicpect,?d' aJ1~,_Sl!il~ble (or~uppon,ofn~w fill" OUf ~presentaifve may reqiiest ~ ~rciofr6jltisiitir heaVyrub~r:tired' eqwpJneni to deteririirle:i(~ily isolille4's0fi.'and yieldJng,aril!s'sre 'present. If' excessively' yiejding~areas' are observed, .and ,ihey'cannot,be,stabiliZedinplacc by c,~1)lpa~lloni,th~ ,aiT~dted'solis 'slt~,uldbc','cxi:avilleCJ a'-"dcrem~,Jed 10 firm, bearing ,and grade n.:sici~'d wii!t:iiews)i'uctura\ ,[Ill" B~neat~:'~l1lb.1inianent IiHsor~,~dway subgrade:'if-t~e dep'th, o(~cavalion to .rell1ov~ unstabl~,soils is,~xcessi\'e; tHetise of.geote~til"e.fabri2s, siich as'Mirafi,SOOX,or',ail equivaleiitfabnc; caii beustiil;iJ1'conjuriciiqit'with"ciean 'gr,anul ar sl1J;l,£!.U,raJ ,filL 9urexIl~encg ~a,s sh9'YI!}hat,i~:genernl:~ minim~'.I1~f\~: inches,of~clean,_b'n.l1ll~lar structural fill plaCed and compaetedover lhe ge6iextile fabricshould'estilblish a'stable'bi:3ring'surface: The native soils encolinieredal the' site cOrlinin' a sullCienuimount ofsoj)',fines that williliakc.'tnem,'oimCiilt to ,comp~Ct as','stru9ttiral ;ml wheiitoo:\Vetof 10~ diy. TIie,abil,ity 10':use~naJive.~oils,'froll1'siie ,ex9ay~tions.,;as structural fiii wiil depend on its inoisture content arid the prevalilrii w~~ihefconditions at the iiiue-:of ,conslru,ction, Wh~nwelSO~s are eilcoliritered,.the:clmtr'act6(will,i1eed 19 ~ry;tl1e"soiis~,by a~rd!i6n,d~nng;<!ry weatherconailions.AIternaiively;' lhe use of ail additive ,such as: Portland~in~nio(lime't9, stabilizethc:'soil in9isturrca~ \Je~ohside~d; Iflhks()iLiSaineti~e.d,add_iliOtial Be_st~~llagt:mel1l; rril~tiC~~(BM~s) ad~iing,~he potential for 'etevaled pH levels will ne'tid 10. be inCluded in, tile Siomi Waler, Pollution: Pre,ie-fition' Progrillll (SWPPP) p,reparell witli theTempoi'l\ry,Erosionaii,d S,ediincritati9ri'.C()u~rot (fgSC) plan, '.Ifg(~dillg,activities a're planil~d~during !he \'{e! wiiitt:rmont~~,"?r if they ',are initi'!t~d,,9iiritig ,!he:s.ummerat)d exlendiiilo fall and winler; lhe owner musi -be prepared't~ import wet'w~aih~rs~ct~ral fiil. FCiT ihispu~se'-we recoO\me;i!l importing'a ll1:anularsoi nhat nleets t11i:followiiiggrading re9uii'C¢eil)s:' ' U,S.Sieve Size Perc'elitPassiog 6iitches 100 NoA' 75 maxiillurii No. 200 ; S'll1aX i 1111,1111 ~, ,. Based on the 3/4'inch fraction, -'. --, -.,' , Priorto,use; 1)::rra Assocjates~liic, should exami'iieand test'll11 materi~!s imported to the'sile' foru,seas slffict,urn.1 ,fiiI', ., .,', ' ',' " . , ',' ',' , Page No: 5' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Februljiy 10;:2014 Pi-9j~ct"Ni>:_T'6Q~5'" StructUiiiI fin should,bephiced -in. unifonn ioose-Iayers not exceeding.li inches and compacted 10 a minimum of' ~5 pereenr Qfth~;soil.'s~niaidiiiiinl dr)iAensity, as;:dilie!'mihed by'Ameii~ri SoCietyfqr T~tiilg.aildMaferiaIs, (ASTM) .Test.besiilna"tion -D .. M8(~tandarci Proctor); t~e ml)i~turecontel1tof·the'soii at the: tiine.'~fcl)~pa,qtion: sheiuld be\viihih, tjl1ii:us.;one to,pi~(fihree percenlofits optililuiri;, '~s 'determine'dby ihis ASTM -siand~fd. -[;{ ~noIistructuniI areas;tJiedegtee eifcompactiort'caIi .be reducedtc(90,!5\:rcent. -.-. . -.-'.-". -. -.". ".' ." ., -.. -~.,' .. 5:3 Excavation An e~c.a~atiqJJS attlle:~it~l!.~sOci!!t,ed w!thC6iI9hed spaces! 'such as utility trenchc,s; must·.~~ ~omph:ted _ in . accordaiice--·\Yiili loCiII'. state; and federal requirements: Based 011 regulations outlined' in ·tlie Wa~hington ~d~~lril!l ~alety-itii~Health·Mt (\\,!Sl:IA); the uppert.lvo to)i.,;efee\ cir'~'eilthe~ riati ... e:~oilsjndexisiingJiII soi'ts would'be ~Iassifie~-as, Type"C soil:' The dense. naiivesojls-b~low four fcc_t ,woulci,'bHlassifled_ as, Type,-A _soil, ' ' - -, '.'. Acc()r<iingiY"temj>orary excilvationsin Type'C soils,sliould liave their slopes hud biick at an.incliilationof'l.5: I (Horiz6~tai:\iertic~1) or,flatier: fr~';;the toe t~ 'the~~~t ~ith~sI~p;., 'iid~slopesinTyPe A'soilscan-~ laidba~k ai, ~,' ~16p~:iricIin~tiQrf6fO.75:I:oifl~!ter.· For tempoi'ai-y exc~v~tioil,sI9pelf I~~s tha~ 8feei ill height. in Type A soils,. Ih~·lower.3.5 f~tcau be.C!'t, t9 ,aveljical condition,wit~' a 0:75,: I'slope graCie~above. For,,~mporilry excavationslopeSgreatert~3iI~ightt'~ fh heighi; tbe-slopeabove the3.5~foot\;~rticalpoition will n~(ft~ 6eiaid' b~~~ ala,miriimum slop'e -incHiI~ti9n '0.£ ':1.' AII.~exp6se~ tempoJ!irysIopefa.ces!hit,.w,i11 remain tijJen fofan extended period o'nime.-shouldbe·covered .with·adurahle reinforced plastic_membrane during construci'ionto . ';ptcverii.sli>jleravelingiindrut.tirig·duriIig~riddii'ofprecipiiatieii1: ',' Th~abo~e';nformationisproviged,solelyfqr the,i)t:l1f,fit ofjhe 0~nerl!n90tlier deSignconsultallts, and ~hoilld neit be, constrtied to. iinply.tbatTe.tiAssoclates. [nc;assU;nesrespo~sibiIiIY i~r job ~ite .safety. it i~ 'undersioodthat ' job'site~ilfe-,y i~ thesolc resp<insibility of.tbeprOjectgen~ral¢~ntraplor. 5:4 Slimes illld'Embaukments All pe!IDanentclit <,iJid,:li.l1 s19t>eS ~hotildbe grad~~\\'ilh;3 ,firiisli~ illelihation of no:greaterthari;2: L Upon c6mpieiion of grading; the sl-ope,'race should be,appropriately-vegetatedor provided with ~ther physical means to guar~.agains! .erosion. Final·gfade~'stth"top,6fthe slope,inllst promote surface drainage a~ay froin tile sloPe . crest: Water must· not be.aJlowed,·to:flow uncontrolled-over the· slope 'face, If surface runofTml!sl.be direc_ted iowar(jgthe slope,tlie-rliiloff should oe'col1trolled.ill the lop oftlieslope; piped in liclosed conduit, installed on the :'Si9J)e.:fl\ce;:~d t~en:-'oan:app~()p;iate point, of djscha~~beyond the~ge'-'. -5,5 Foundation-Suimort Theresi~ences can be suppC)rt~d on.~00\·entiol)a_lspre4~ footing .r9undati9~ _be"ring 1m cODlpet_C!i! nati,ve ~oils, competent existing flll'-soils;-ot.on structiirillfiiis' pl~ced above_ compete-nl-soils, Foundation subgrade should.be prep.af.edasTec9nlnien~e~i,nS~ctii:m5}otthisrei>oT!, I'~rim~t~f fouri~ations~~posed totli~ weath~r shoilldbear a .minimum . depth of J.5 feet, below 'final exterior-!lfsdes 'for frost protectic)II. lnterior foundaiionscanbe con.strllcfed· at any convenient depth below the 'flo(jf slab. - ------------------------------------------- I I I ,. • I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -------------------------------------------- Febfl!ary 10,2014 • P'ri)Je~t N<:i • .ri~9.9~'; Fouridluioils tieariiig on COJi!Reteittitativesbils; competent existing'fill soils or,on compacted structural fill canbe dirne~.~ion~d forli,~et8!ki~~J:jle, ~tig,c8pa~ity,~cir 4,500. pOiig4s pe'r~quare· foo.f()isQ" F6rshOit-l~im 19895,. -""~' ." . " , .' " such as wind and seismic; aone,thlrcLincrea.seln tliis:aflowa~ie'capadiy.can b~. us~d.: .withs!J'!l~\ural .1oading:as, ,ani,icip~ted and·!JUs i>eilririg·stress applied; estimated iotill'setiJe~n~iits',are:lieiwe~n·6ite-<iilai-ter,and·oiie.half iiJ~it. For designing' foiiridali6n~t.o~ist lateral. )6ads';!l\)~se·mi::ti(}n"coef.Fici~it(i>.f(n5 can tie iised. PassivC;=cilrth pressuresacfing on,the side of the footiJigand buried portion ofiliefoundati'on,siem wall can aiso be considered, We reC9tiimen~'(;,ali:tiIatirig;tliis lat~ralre~istaJi~eusiitgancquiVlilerit fluid ~veigh!'6q50pcf, • Werecominend tiot· iticlu~ing ~he ,up~~rli inches of soil.in thisc?!llpvtlltio~ ~ec.a,use!~eycanbe lIff7.9~.e4 bywe~ib~r br:di~!W:beil by 'fuiuregiadiilgaciivit~ .. tliis value'assumes the f6undation WIll be'cohstTuciedneal,agaiitst competent n'alive soil 9r ~~ckfilled ,,',Vithstructural Jill '~~:,M~~rib~4 )f1,Sei::1io,n 5:2,pf;t!iM,~i1: Tlie values reCoplin~ndcilincltide::a ,safety factorof'l ;5, 5;6' Floor Slab-on-Grade . Siab-on,grade . floorS', may be supported onsubgrade prepared asrecommendCd in ,Section 5,2--0'[ this, report . .. lmmediatelY· below the fioor slab;werec(Jliun~na placingia four-iitchthick capilhiry break layercoitiposedof cle~; c~arse sa~i:I or finl',grav~i tita; h~ iess:than i~~p~rcent;'~s~ing,th~No,100,s;eve;Ti;is 1118tenal,\viII reduce thepcii~iiiial 'for'up~~~d ciipillarynioyein~nh;f\v'aier through the uitdeflyingsoil aildsubseq'tienlw~ting 9f.lhc, flOor slab, . ., , , :The,capi liary break;iaycr. will'not'. prcvent.'moisture.·intrusi on: through, theslab,caused·'by. water. vapor. transmission; Wh",fe iiiO:ist~rebyva'pOi'trati~rniSsi6Jiisl!ndesi,rn,ble,sucli as coVered floor ar~s, a common Pl!'ciiceis to'phice a durable plasUc membrane on ,the capillarybreai< 'lay",r',alldthen coyer.tJi~mem~!anc )ylth ~ I~ye)' ofcl~S\Ul~9r finegravelibproiect it' from' damage durlng,construction, ,aild, to, aid, in wiiforlnciJ~ng 6fthc concrete shlb. it ,sho,l!ldJ>e ~pte.dth~ljr' the. s,aild ~rgiave! lilyer overlyiifg !he,melxl~nUieis'satUJ"!ltl(d ptior to Rouring the slab, ,it . wilLnoi beeffeclive inassfsling uniiorrncurlng of lhesl~b and:can actuallyserve'as,a water supply for moisture bl~irig 'tliio.,.gh the s)ab".potentiiilly'affe'cting,f1oor ,~ove'rings" Therefore,.in (jur' .opitii~n; coveriiig' ,the menibran~wi!h.a 'layer qr'sat]d or'gr1!veJ ~ho\1ld be a\~oidedif floor slabcoi1stru~tionoccursduting the:wet winter" monihs .aiid'ilieiaY~i' canriot,be:erfi:ctively&i;ined, \V ~'. recomniendfloor de~igners ,aitdconiracidrs refer io ilie 2003 AinericailC~ncrete,lnstitute (ACI) Manual of CoticietePractice; PIit12';.302.1R-96, forfunhei infonilatioit rega;dihg vap~rb~;ner'illst~lIaii6n beio~vslab-on-~rade flo~rs, .' '. ,. , ,.." ,', . .' ", 5.7 Stormwater;Detention Pond ,As noted earlier; lWO' stoimwatcr detention ponds ,are planned for the siie. The ponds wili' be 'located in . the 'sOutheastern site ,area northwest andnoi1hcast 'or lin' existing drainage' that' bisects',the' eastdll portion 'of the p~pe~~:' w~ a~d~ipate ,th~ ~onds' will'be ~~n~truc;~d primariJy 'byexcav!1ti~!1bei~;" ~u~nt~ite grad,eswilh mininialHlI'placeilfoi formatioitofperinieterconiairunentbemi:;. ' " . 9u~neld explorati?~'Jn~icalC!' !lial the ~oils i.i1 !he ~rea of th<:-pol,1ds ,will be l!ledium. 4ers~, \o\>ej'Y, den.Se weathered and unweathered,glacia'l'till. These. soil conditions exliibitlow permeabililyand. are inherently,slable .ahdwelLsuited forcoristrucli6ti of stormwilhiideieniion porids; " , " ' .' .. ~-. --. ... "'. . ,-. .-. .' - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I February 10,.2014 ·PfoJeciNo.t~6995 ~." '. ' ~ .. ,-.,., .... ," .. , .FIII used: Io.·tonn contiiiiimenlbenns.anil conslruct: slopes for!ihe detention pOnils: should, consiliI cifnalive.silty. ~and \yit~,gra.v¢1 pl~ce~anilcoilll'~cleilas slrucIUr:a(fiIL, !pC<j~i~entei1is of,J!J:e,!9ngCOUD!Y S,~rfaceWatgr. Design Manual apply; the'fill in this·area must ~e,:compacled .. to.'a:mmhnum cf?5 pere.el)~9fihe.~ils.mn~mum .drY density, asd,el~ined I:ly .t\STM'Tc!st· D~signaiii:1I1I?:15 57 (M9difieoproetor). :. Iriie"rior JjQrill' slope~ ~elo~ the IT!a~imum liye. sl()rcd,w31o/ievcl s!io~i~!>egrad~d tC;3 !l!a~imurijsJc~'iDc!Irlaiicl1:oh: I, ~lbp~s ab<iv~Il]i:: rtJaxiniufu stcred wahj~ l~v~lct c~ th~pcihd'exleric~ can be,graded loa fiilish~d slb~ in~iinaiicnof·2: 1." .. . The ponillhliLwill belo.c~ted northwesto.f the drainag(ravii1e.,ccul~, ,as)i res,uItOrseepagtHiOin' lliepcnd,;eause. :shallow.sci! iltslahilityo.n!he ,rayi'n!l slo.pes .. T~epctential.fo..r.this ~eyetopmellt.~(11 lledepe!1~~nt o.nthep()J.ld stored water d~tJi'anddistM~efrom Iherilvii1e·slq~. At rninirtJum,\~ereCo.mn;end the p6ildd~sign~rovid~sa' 50;foct·h6ri7.6ntlil setbackdishillCe'from thc'cdge.Of theiniixiffiuin.stofi:d \valt:felevatiori :iMhe pond to the crest ~"'''' " " _. ,_ .': .. '~.-.'., " ....... ", '.' " ~' .. -,,_-~ .~_., ,-"'~:.-,-... ' .-r-· ':" •..• -...... cf the .ravine,sl<?pe. Ifthis setback cannctbe pro.vidCd'lining tllc,pcnd· with a flexiblcmembmne liller'to. prevenf · seepage·lo.ss¢scmay need to:)e·c~nsidered .. We.s~ould rexl,,\y iii~ pondgradirig wlien'aviiila~le f6"veii.fy ~i1i1' . - -. ..., . -, gcoJ;Jletry and location~vo.]ds seepage impacts 10. the rayine slcpes. 5.8 Drainage. Surftfce Finalex.tc:~cr~des:shcI11d ~romote/ tree~d; positive :dr3inag~ ~w~Y.:!i'0llillie ~itc:ar a~ I .. tithes. W~t.er. nitislllot !?,e'. · alicwed 'to. Po.nd cr' collect adj~cen( 10 founilations cr wiihinthe 'immediate 'buildlng areas, We/recommend prilviding a ;ira.dient cht.least tlifee . percent fchi rriiilimiini :disianceof.t~n. feet from the ,~ui)ai~g;~erimeterS. If' tliis'gradi~~t~al1!1o.l be pro.v{ded; ·surface· waleT s~cul~.be colleCted adjacent t() th.~ st!1l~t~~ ,and:aisposc~ 10.. appropriale.Slonn:fac'ilities. Suiface' wat~rmus.t ncCbe ~lIo.we<:l to flcw, uncc~!rolle.d ovettliecrest 6fthe,site~19P~s, imW~m.l:)illiki1i~nt~., Surface'w~tersho.uld be direcleda~ay fro~ the:slcpecrests'IC a point 'cf c()lIectlon and Co.nlroll~ d'is~harge: If · site'-'grades. do not 'allow f6r 'directing.sulface \Val~r a"".aY £rOrri slopes" thenlvatbt 's!ioUld be 'co.llc<ciei .. :ind , tighilined.do.'Yntbe-slo~ f~cein.a cch\~clIedmal)ner. . . . ,. . . Whcco.mmend inslallingperlme!erf!lundationdrains adjacenl.to shallow. fcun~ations. th,e~T!\in~can 1?e laid to. .griide at, an inV~i1 C1ev~li6ri equivalent 'to., tb~ bOllon:. o.(footing.grade. Th~d~'ins' ~~.CoiisisCc:if fo.ur,inch diam~ter.perfC?rated !,V~ pipe tha!.';:; i:D\~el()pep in"Ya~hegp¢agr!l(~"I'siz~ drain~g¢' ~gg1:egate, The·.aggrega\e· sh'o.~ld extend sue inches above an'd' to. the ·sides. cf Ihe pi'pe;RcoLmd:fcundaii'o.n drainsshcuid' be iigbHined separat¢ly tIl the storri(drnins.~Ilc\rilins sh~uld:be pr,6vided with Cleliilouts,ari:l\Silyaccessit>le·locatioris,. Infiitroiion ~,descrij)ed'i:lIrlier, lJl.eglacial till scilscbseiVedin Ih~ \eslpitscont~iii '~. hig\Jper!=<lnta#~.Qr s<lil fiI!es,'are\vell consolidated, and exliibii'low permeability. 'The so.ilsand geclo.gic 'fcrmaiicnare no.l suil!lbieJcnilschargc o.f .slcnnwaierusing .facilitieS that rely on infiltration. " . . I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 5.9 Utilities' Fel>nillT)' to,~~OI4 Pfoj~t No,:r~6Q95, UtiJif)\ pipes should be bedded ~n4, ~ac~fiIl~Jna,c~ordai1cl?)Y}ih,,,¥1~1C~1J ~bli.c W~~ks~soCili,!i~n,(AI'W,A)9r, 'jhe' City Of Renton specifications, As a minimum; . trench backfill 'should',be pl'aced and' compacted as structural fill, as :descri~edi n'SectionS .2of.~liis, report; AS. notea i .de~Jldiiig;onilie ~oil, moisture wlien 'excavated inQst inorganic ·native, so~soi1 tbe' site; should besu,it~ble·fori.Jseas, liitcklilL material .quring;.dry),ieil\llerconditi<?l1s. How~ver,.ifutiiity c~nstruction tak~place dilri'ngth~ wet winiermontl~s. it wilflikely he.nccessary'wimpo,r sUitabk w:etiveatherfiIlJof·utiliiy trench bilckfillh;g. ." · sJo Pavement Pav,enlerit:subgTadesllould be prepared,as. desciibCdjn tlic'Sec!ion5:i .of tliisrepilrt. Regardless ofth'edegreco( ~ela!iyc compMti<?n:achi~Yed. 'the'sllbgra4e~m\lstbe:fihn aDd relati~elyuJlyieJding~efo}~p'aving, '1Jie ~uligTade' should be proofrolled' wiil! heavy. rubber-tire' const!Ucti~n equipment such ~snloaded, fQ7yat'd dump.trilckt<,l' 'veritY this condition, '. . , , . . ..., . 'Thep~\;errieilt4es.il¢.sectiori· is'depend~nt upon the,:S\lpportillg'.!:apabililyof thesuogrndesoils'and. the traffic con~itionsto which it ~ilibesubJ<;ctCl<l' F'~r~siA~nti~i aH.ses~! withtniffic.:co!isistiilg rri~il1ly.qfli~J pas'se~g~r vehicles with oniy occas'ional·heavy traffic. and\Yith·a.siable subgrade prepared as recommended;.we,recommt:nd· .the follo",irig pa'!emenisections: .' '. ~ Two:i~ches Ofhotmix aspha1t(HMA) over tour:incheso{crushedroo.kbase'(C~) ~. Three ahdoil~-)1alfincbes~f full depth H¥A Tile. paving materials.used should conform to ihe;:,Washiul,>1onStaw Departmell! of'Trnnspof!~tion: (WSDOT) specificali~risJcii Y>"inch cliissliMA and ,eRB aggregate;'" .. ' " Long-temi pa~',elllen\ peffqhnanc:ewilld~pend: til1'~uifa¢edtainage, A p!Xirly,'!Ii'ail1cd,pa\;e'oie,nt~ection will be ,subject 10 p~emat~lre f~ilu~~'as a result of surface water, i~fillrnting into Ihe su~g,~ad~ soils al1d~d~cing th~fr silpjxlI1iiig ,capability" For tipliulumpavemeilt performance. \\:c. ri:C<;mnl~a suiface 'drni~age'gra"ierilsqrai leaSt 'tw9 percent;. Some. degr~rif longitudinal, and lrn.nsvet:Se cracking 'of Ihc pa~'c,ments~rfase ~h<?uidbe,ej'liecI~ 'ovc'rtime, . Regular mainienanceshoul(J'beplaiuiea tose~l cracks whenihey occur. TemfA,Ssociates;,rnc. should'rh;ieiv Ihe:firial'deSlgii,ruawingsail&spei:ifibticiils in order:to veriij'lbai earthwork · and foundation recommendation,s. hayc.becl1p~perlyinterpreted ~ild ihiplelnept&liriprOj~!de~igil. We,shjiuld · also provide geotechnicai serviCe, durihS construction .to observe compliilllce \vith our" design concepts; speciflcatim,ls. ,alld ,~pliin)endations: This""'i11,al1o,,; for design changes if subsurtiice<conditio~s·dlffer'fnin; ihoscanticipated prior tot4e,staJ1 of,constructioll. Page No .. 9 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 7,0 LIMITi\TIQNS, Febl}!3ry ·.rO!~!t14 'Projec(l\Io.T:6995 We;prepared this report in 'accordal)~ew!th ge~er~lIyaccepted g~tcchni~ai e~gi~e~ririg Ifractic,~~: ,No; oth~t \va l1:i1nty ,.cxpr~ssed; o(impl ied" is, niade.~This;.ePort is the, coPYrigiit~'pfoPe~y o(te~, Associatesj,inc., and is inteluledfQr~~!fic~ppUcatiQn:loW::)toth As~einblage.ptpjeqt." Thi~'~iX>rt)s forlhe.cxclusiv~.us~ of.Quadfurii HomeS,ali'd.it~ authorhet:i representatives. Th'eal1alys~s ,and'recoli1merid8tions'iire~nt'in' this report are, based; on 'datjfobtainedfrOm the test pits:excavated on site: Variati~nsili soil'conditions c,an' occur, tbe nature' and exlenHjr. \vhichiitay,'n6tbecom~'evident until tonsiructioi\.' Jf~ari~ti6~~ 'app~~;e~id~nt,~teria' Associ~t~;:In~;~hould be requested,' id ree~~I~a;e 'the ~conunendatjo,ns: in this ,report ,p~()r ,til, proceedingw ith'eonstru~tioli: Page No, io, I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i\' -----------_._._------------~ ~ .. O' &'~;;i;:"~~iOl> I Oliver M Hazon HIgh SChool 1/[ 111111 SI • KIWIIlIJ' Park liE Rlh St N£61hSI Ii NFsv, St I ~ nenlon Technical Col" !I --r.'\ ~-Gr«nwood MO"1O".1 I NE 4th SI i • PArk FunerAlI/o,"" % '" -. Jimi Hendrix Memori.1 !kt,r. P",* ~ 1>, ~ I N{' lOth SI Nr glhSt I I § ~ I N£7thPl l \ fft10n Chris'''JO Fellow.hip N£2od St $I; 1121h SI SE 113 51 SE 116111 51 Celtbr"ion rour.quato Church ~ II 6 U.St Q Jt i -NE4IhSI st 132"051 II • Jl (". Lo.d oIlif. luth.,an Chur SITE SElndS. • MlI9lewo<xl Park Terra Associates, Inc. Consultants In G<!oiechnlcal Engineemg Geology and Environmentil Ear1l1 Sciences SE 142nd51 ? /I • o APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET VICINITY MAP STUTH ASSEMBLAGE RENTON , WASHINGTON Proj . No .T '{)995 Date FEB 2014 Figure 1 SE I 4000 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ( J I ) I APPROXIMATE SCAlE: 1:10000 'II! A J .... ?I " 'P ¥I II!OD "fOREI E=~~3C~=!~?~==~~~~f§§§===~~============3!~ CONTOUR INTERVAL : 65 FEET REFERENCE : TACOMA WASHINGTON QUADRANGLES 1991 Terra ~7"'"'";.:J Associates, Inc. TOPOGRAPHIC VICINITY MAP STUTH ASSEMBLAGE RENTON , WASHINGTON r..:: ConsultanlS In Geolec:hnlcal Engineering Geology and EnWonmenOO Eo"" Sciences Proj . No .T -6995 Date FEB 2014 Figure 2 .... ,---------------------------------- ·'P.o -. . ';:~I.:~: .,~=-r;-.; ') . ,4:!j' .,:~ ".c- • --- -- - I I, I I I I--.. I " / :---" , ,"" .. . /. ·r 1 ....... ., - - - -- ": ... ~ ... , ~( f .. 'I I ., 1---.-__ I " , I • . \ -- -- - Of u, c' , -'Ii. ,0; .... - :! o ,!'I 'CD w .u. "G) l!. - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 'APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATIONANDLABORATORY, TESTING, -;.-' -',-, ~" ", -.' . -. ", -',' ~-.-'-.-.-'~'""."' . . Stutb_~#ein,bI8gc' Renton; Washingtoii, Oil ~ariuiuY. 17,2014, ,we completed oW siteexplorati.oirbyob~eryiQg ~oiI ''1nditio~s'itt 1 I .. test 'pits,. Tlui:test pitS ~ere ex~avaied usi~ga trablihoe,toa maximum'depth -of ten-fecl.below existing.site'grades_ Test pit'Iocations -\~~re Aeteiiriiiled intliefjel~bx 'measurement'S from' exisiiiig sii~'fcaiures.· Th~ap~r6xjiriatelocatiori. ~f't1ie test pI!sjs~hownon t~e.aua~~ed ~_xl'J:9ralion;I.&catiClI}~IIDI; fig~r¢2. T~f. p'it. Log~ are:atl_ached,~~ figures'A-2 tltrougIi.A-iz .. ;\ g~logists fri)m. olir·offi<:e.,coii<!llct~. t~e fietd¢xploratiori.;. pu'rrepre,seiitati\'ei:lassifi~ ihe,spiIc6nditions • encountered; ··maintained a log of each testpit,.:obtained represenllitive;soil.'samples; andrec<irded 'waterlevels observed 'duringexci'v3tion.'· AlI~oil samples w~~ Visually cl~~~ified'iri'accoril~n~e ·with, ih~.Unified Soli -dassiri-cati~nSystem (l1~CS)<!~Scr{~ on Figl!re'A71. . Represenuitive soii samples obtained'from the lest pits were' place<! "lp 'CJose~ containers ",and taken to,-,oilX lal>l>f<it()fy .. for. furtJieT.~~iiii~tion !ind :iesiing,. TIie inoi~ture.:~oni~nt ofJach kmple wasfueasured in~ i~ . report~on tile [ju!iyi4uaITestPit Logs, Gra:ih~i~'~lllxscslY~r~perfOrlle9OYiselC(;ted sanlpl~, T~er~"!!~9f l~~ grain si~e-ailillyscs1a~sho'wnon FiguresA~J3lhr6~ghA-IS.-., . .. ProjeCt,No . .! ,6995 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ,'~ ;.J z o iii w :r o o w' ,~ w 5 o LEITER SYM~9.( 'D'PICA~OESC,RIPTION CI~~n,~ GW weli:9~dedgravels;,grav~'-sanamlxtures; iiWe ornofines: 'GRAVELS G(~:~~5~~ 1--'-'-' -Ir--"-' --'-'--' "-'-' ------'-' -'--'-'-'-'--1 Mpfe·tha,n '50% ,fine"s, ) ,GJ:> pooijy.gra~e~'grii"els, giav~l,iana,inIXtuies;'lltile or n,;ffnes, ofcO~rSefradidn t----'-'--I----r--:--------:--:-------:-------t isli\rge~:lh,~'iiNo" Gr.f :siliy gravels: gravel.sand:sllt "';liitures; non-plaslicfines. 4slev,a Gr~vel~:""ilh: t--'''-'-'-+-:--'--'-'-"'--------' '--'-' _____ -1 fine~ GC' CI~yeygrailels; grn.yel'sand'CI,aymlx,h,lres; plastic f!~es. '. ~ . '. . . ". .' -. . .' ' . ' . , Welliiraded' sands: 'Sands With' 9ra'''el, IitUe' or no ,fines .. .... " 0. -• -., • "_'.... • ,-_ ,yt~~'Sil~.ds :SW SANOS(less Ihan I----'-ir--------------------i More iilll" SO%5%,fihl!~i' SPF?oorly;gradeiFsands"sandifwilhgravel, ilttJe or no fines, ofooarse,fiiiCtJon't-----r----t-:---------------------I is smiliter, than SM ; Silty, ,sands; sand-sill mixtures, non-p, lastiC fines, .' 'Sands with No, 4 sieve fines SILTS AND CLAYS liquid LimlUsl~sil tfujil'SO·". , , SC ML CL aL 'Clayey sands;' sand-clay mixtures, plastic Hnes. . "'-"'" '" I •. " ,-..-~., " ~. ' , ," .. ., - . InorganiC silts, rock flour,clayeysUts withsl;ght plasUdiy. ... -" ,,~.,..' '-.' . '''" ", ,'-'.', ' , -"'_., ;Organicsilts and organic clays oflowplaStici~: Inorganic sills, ~"'sUc" S~ILTS AN,D, CIA,'", ,,'yS CH, Inorganic cliiys of,hlgti plasticity: (Fat clay) Liql,li!l, Lin'ljt~,9[~a!flr than 50'*,> I-__ ~+-' _'_"_"_' _'_' _'_' __ "_'_'_' '_"_' _' _'_' _' "_' _' '--------l OH Organic,cl§yspf highplasiicily: HIGHlXORGANic SOilS PT 'Peal DEFINITION OFTERMSANOSYMSOLS .. Density 'VeryLoo5e loose Standard Penetraticii" Resistance in BIOws/FOOi. ~o I I 2" OUTS'IDEDIAMETER'SPIL TSPOONSAMPLER 2.,4~iN~I[)E,i5IAMeTERR~NG,SAMPLER·6R 5;HELBY:WBE SAMPLER Mooium Dense ,b~nSe '" ,VerY Dense .. '''- Conslstancv Very 50ft Soft' , ~~~iuniStiff Very Stiff Hard ,~ '10:.36: ·3()..sO :'50 Standard Penelriition ReSiStance in 'BlOWsIFoot 0'2" 2..4, 4'-8 8'16 16:32 :>32 Terra Associates Inc. "COnsilitaniSln,GeoteCliriiCal,~n9iiie.mg " ",,, "Geof" and',: ' " " " Environme= Earth Sc!ences WATEf3 LEVEL(Date) TORVANE READINGS, tsl, -. --,.:. --v -" Tr PpPENETR6Mm'RREADING,tSf DO, 'DRY,OENSITY,l1Ouil!is pe,eubic ili"t LL ,UQYIO,UMIT, perce~t: PI PLAST"C I,,!OEX N ,STANDARo' P.ENETRATION; blows per f<>at ,UNIFIED SOIL"CLAS,SIFICATION SYSTEM R~~¥6~,A~~~~~~¥6N I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I LQG bFTESt PIT NO.1 . FIGURE A'2' ',' -, ... -." .. . PROJ.~CT ~E: .. SluJ!l.Asse.oillllige,,-: ______ ~ P~o,IcNO::.J.:I-6'!',"!f#l .. 5~" ___ · L(,)G(;E.D.BYi ..... Jo.H __ _ L.o.CA~t)": -Beilior!: W~!IDin9t9" ____ _ ~URFACE C()NDS: .... G ... ra .... ·si>i's .. e,~s_' _____ . /iJ>PROX;·EI:.EV: ___ _ bATE' LOGGED: januarY i. 2014 .... . .'-, .,. -. D~i>TH TO GROUNDWATER,: ~iA DEPTHT() CAViNG:. NJA 1 2 4. 5 7 8 9 10 o ·z ~. !Ii. c' 'n . DESC,RIPTION. (4'10 6 InChes ORGANIC,TOPSOIL) . ,CONSISTENCYI RELATIVE DENSllY "". -. . -.... --..... -.. -.-.... -.--..... --.-.. -.. ~ .. -.. -.. -.~.... ~'-... _ .... _ .. - oai1< brOwn .liIySAND. fine to mediilm grained. traCe ·gravel. oCCasIOnal OObble to 8Inch.s:moist..(SM) . (Weaihefed till)' ". ..' . . Medium Den •• 2101 ....... , ....... ,_ .............. , ... ,'-, ....... , .. ,,'._ ...... -. ---·---I-~-·--·· 7,9 'Gray .siliy"SAND; fine to medium grained. lrace gravel. cobbles' to 8InCh.s, (~M);(TiII) . Test pittermlnated.atapproxiinateiy 7 feel: No 9roundwater. '~!i'!:ob·serv",!., DimseJo vef.j Derise: Terra: ,Asllocilltes;' In!=; . · .. ·CoitsUIIa ... 1n GeotOehnlcalEngineering . , .ge<:>~Y'nd . , .... E,nyl~nm.en~ E8rth_~nces': I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I LOG OF TEST PIT-NO.2 P~9jECi"NM!E:'SMb Asiemblagi!' U)Ci,I]ON! Renton WasbjOglon DATE CoGGED: Jailual)l i' 20j4 fRo:), NO:: I:li995' L.OilGEi:i.EiY:~ ,J,uH:L' ', __ _ SU~fACE CONDS;oC~ia"ses 'APPR6x:ELEIi: ___ ~ DEpnn'b GROUNDWATER:' WA DEPTH TO CAViNG:.illA . it f w " 2 5 .. 6 7. 8 9 10 o z I DESCRIPTION •. CONSISTENCYI. RELATIVE DENSITY· . (2 10'4 'Inches' dartiORGANIC.TOPSOIl) . , , . ......... -...... , ..... -..... -................... ; ..... ~~ ... ':..;.~ .......... _ .... _ .. _ .. -.-.. .. -.. --.- bark brown siitYsA;"D. fih. grained, tra<:e gravel. moist (SM) ~eaU;etidtill)' ~edium D~~s~. --~.--.---~-• __ ._._-_. 21:6 Gray silly SAND. fine graIned. trace, gravel. moist ($M) (Till) . . ' , . , . .' T esl pillermlnaled al approxlmalely 8 f •• I. No gro.ui!dwaIOr. seepag. libse,;,;..... . Dense 10 Very Denso' 22.5 .'Terra· ... ' ':! • , . REMARKS NOTE: ThG sUtilwlac. InlOinialJOri pOnaJns only to lhls test p\i IOc8ilOo Bnci ..... it! ~ be' inte~ 'as ~ lnd!ci:ittve Of otnctt.k:icaikins at'th& $110.:': . < -•• l"L Associates,' Inc; eonil:Lihanis In ,GeOtechriIcat Engineering . .GOOIogy iiiid • . . "':"'r ~mal E8r:m Sden~ I I I I I I I I ''f: I I I I I I I I .' I I I Fli3UREA14': ;P,!OJEcT !lAME:.sMb:AsliBiDb'll'lal9g'",e~_______ PRo.., NO;, ·.L;H;g' '·cl!l99:r;;S'--__ . LOGGEO:SY; cJ,t:lH_' __ _ LOCATION: R9riIOn,Wasiiin9,\0n SURFACECONDS:..Grasses.AppROXiELEV;· ~ __ _ 'bATE'lOGGED: ·janua!)'7;2014 DEI''rIi.TO GROUNDWATER: ~L-DEPTH TO CAVING: N1i\. DESCRIPTION, , CONSISTENCY/. ",fLATlVE,DENSITY (4 to 6 Ini:lieS'diif1('ORGANIC TOPSOIC), .. -~ ... ; ... ~..:. .. ~-'-' .. ...::.'. .. -.. : ....... .:..:: . .:-:---.... -.... -....... -........ -.... _ .... -._ .. Biowo.~ntYSANi>. r.ni',toniediijm,grai';~.Ii;ic8 gravel; mOist,: .(SM~(Vllealh~red~n) , , REMARKS . 40.5 '.~. -... ~,-.-......... --.-......... -.~-.~~-.. -.. -.. -.. -._ .. ,-_._'_ .. -.-, 25:7 10 12. 14 Gilly silly SAND. fine grained;tracegravel. moist (SM):(tInj' ',' ' '" .' ." " " '",' Tesl·~t'leinii';.le(iai aPiirold",iiioly; oieei: G;ounllWai,;, 'seepage obseiVed at '4Ieei, •• --, -<, • -• NOTE:' Thb .'u.bsu~ln!otma~ Poria ... OIIfy.Io:ohis)"sijlli tOciiiJon One!'~., nol be interpreted as ~-indicatlve 01 other Iocatlons'at the site. D.ii~.tO V~.De!,se Terra ~~opiates;lnc. ConsuttintS In Geoiechnlc8l Englneerln9 . ' " 'GeolOgy. and' ' . , EmrirOMlGotal Earth s_ I I I I ~ I I I I I ~. I I I I I I I I I I 'LQGOf TEST PIT NO;, 4' PROjeCT NAMe: .:S1111h t\sSemblagec..· _______ PROj, NO: Bi99s LOGGeD BY: ,"' Ju::Hc;.·· __ _ LocAnoN: £entoo; Washingloo SURFACE CONDS::Grasses·: APPROX.ELEv:~: __ _ ~.: OATE'LOGGED: .:Ja!ll.Isu:L201!(: DEPtH io GROUNDWATER: A Eeet DEPTH TO.CAVING: .~IA ci z i DESCRIPTION (6)ncl\~sT9pSOIL) •••• _._. ___ ............... ....-......... ______ •• ____ , ____ ...... ~ ..... i ..... _ ..... Brown SIlty SAND; flne Io'.medium gridned, tiace gravel;. cobbles 10 8liiches. niOISt.(S·M) (1)U) . . ,",-,"' .--, . -, ... "., 3 ~'. ---,_._---"_.". __ ._,,. Giiiy'$lltY.SA~D, fineloin'ldlum'graln)ld, ti;iClt'gravel, 6 cobbles «0 81nthes, mois« •.. (SM) (Weathe,MUII) . 7 10, 11 13 14 15 resl Ptl lerminaledalapPrOximalOly9feet. Groundwater 's~'page 'oDserved at '4-feel ~OjE.: ~& $~~ ~tor~n ~~~~'!)I 'O,~l_$ test Qll ~u~~~ S;hOurd nO. be irrtorpielCd as ~.lndicalMo of OIh .. lOcaliono'allht> site. ~ I'. :r----' REMARKS Terra. AssocIates, Inc; 'cOnsultantS In GeOtechnbl En9lneeri~ ··'~.nd: .... , EnvlroMMirital Ea'" SClen<8S I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I PROJECT NAME:'SI~th'A~a'll,g~eL: _______ _ PROJ .. NO: -!-f=s:!>ll99ltJS~' ___ lOGGED.BY:: .. J",H,-' __ _ LOC~Tl9~: Renlon. W;jS!Jin~L' __ ~ DATE.Lo,G.GED: --laniIatit -7.2014' SURFAC,E CONDl!:.'.lOGuia"'sOilsilje,.s _____ _ . " ' -.. ',. ~.'., . ~!,R9X. ELEV:. __ _ . -'.' ".-'. ',' ..... - --,. DE'p:rH .. TO G~()UNDWATJ:.R:!·3.5'EEieI -. -' -.. '. ,. '. f 4 6, 7 8 9 10 IlESCRtPnON ,,-.,."' .•.. ' .. (6:10 8,inclies dail< brOwn TOPSOIL) ._._-_._--... -. " Brown sUtySANO, i1iii.-lo'mOdlUm Srairied.iiacegiSYilI. mOist. (SM)(Weathered.·UII)' ..... . . ., .~-":'_·~I .......... _ .••. -.. _ ...... _ .................. . Giay siltYS~D.fine' to medl.iin gr8lh8d. mice gravel. m!)ist.' (SMl,(TlU): . . ...., Test pit teimlriati.d al 'aPi><oxirriafeiY7 feet. Ughlgt6ui1dWaler,.se~ge'obs~ a13.5 f •• !. NO:rE:.,Thi$s~rt~ inl0f.m8.1.ion pe~i_r'!S o~ty 10 thi~,~ll'it.r~tIon aM $boukt ~ ~ Interpr~~ as t>:~ l~tl.ye ~ o~~.r 1Oca~:iI~ ~'_~tt!~ .CONSrSlENCV(, RELATIVE DENSITY· M~iu~:, t>i!iise , .. _ .. _._----.-- I I ( :' I D~~,to V~ry.D..,se !..~ REMARKS '22,6 23.2 Terra Assoclates·lnc. . C~t8m$ &n~eot~ieafEi"gin'a~ . . GooiOvY..... .. '. ,. .'. Envl~montal ~ SdC~¥' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ,'" --, '.~ ".,' .'-". ,,,-, .' PROJECT NAME:. 8Mb Assemblage' PRo.i:.NO:'u;J+6::2· ··9911l·t;l5c:..·. ___ LC)GGEO'BY: ",-j!IJHl-__ i.6CATlON:·~enton' Washln~'Qn DATE 19G~ED: ~·2014. siJRFAcEcoiiDs: :.G:ruSliS' AAPRDX.-ELEV: .. ___ _ DEP'THTO C?R01!.NDWATER:·~~ DEP.TI:i'TO C:AVI~G.:. N(A" d z W ~: ~ OESC~IP~N (~I06·fri.Ch;;sTOpSOIL)··· CONSISTENCYi' RELAnvE DENSiTY .; .... :....~.:...... ... _ .. _._ ... _. , ______ .-=--._ .. __ . _, __ :..... ______ ._--'i-.-. __ .... _._ I' 2 DaritbrowIlsilty'SANO .. flne grained. ""oe gravel; moist. 10 wet.. !S!>'l) ('N~ath~r<!d dll). 5 .. -~.-.... -.............. -...... -.-.... ,-.-.-.. -.. --,.-.. , ------~.- 6 8 9 Grayj,lltYSAND. flne_g~lnOd. tiiii:e'giaVef and-Oobtit9: mOis!"lo wet. • (SM) (Till), ,.... ........ c .. •· . Tesfpit't.miliiatOCi at appi-oxlm"tely:S' feet;, No 'g,oundWate, ."Page obSe.ved, . '. -, . . ~E:' This siJbsurtac.e tnformallon"Ptr&aIM only,to: Ihluesc pit iocauon and should not bti interPreted as being ii1dleOtive Of ok, lOcatIons al tho sI~;' --.. -.... ' .. , -. ", _. ' .. -'". V"'Y. Dense REMARKS '16.1 Terra Assochites~lnc'; .:COnsutiOnisin. Geot.oMical englrie...,g , '" " Geology and' .... - EnVironmei\faJ Ealth Scientes . ,----------------------------------------------------------------------------- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I : lOG OF TEsTpir NO.7 -'-" -. "' : '-. . PRoJECT'NAMlf: Sliilh ASSIlll'IliJage"'·________ PROJ. NO:T-6995 LOGGEO'BY: co·;ltclHL:..', __ _ 'LoCATiON: Renion;)VashlnQion SURFACE CONDS: ... GlLra .. s .. "" ...... s· ______ · APPROX,ELEV',<--__ _ DATE LOGGED: . Januarth2Oj~ DEPTH TOGROU~Dy.'~TER.:NIA I?E.P'THT() ~AVltI~:. 1;:IIA 2 3. 4. 5 7 ·8. 9 12. 13 14 DESCRIPOON' . CONSISTENCY/. RELATIVE DENSITY. (4 t06IriChe~dai!<. ~VEL :rPPSC?IL) .... -.. -.-.... -.. -.---.-~ .. -.. , .. ~.-... ~.--... ~ .... -..... -... _. "-_.- FILL: bfawil sillY SancliHri. grained; trilcie' g,avel .. plasUc and b~CIi: .-Medfum Dense: -. -,- ........... _ .. _ ............... _ ................ __ .... -.................. _.-..... -...... -.-.-..... ~--. Gray Silly SAND. rlli •. grained. ltace griiVel, mOisL(SM) (Tin)' -,-... . .' .' .. . . Test pit 'termlnated atapp'C>dmat.ly '10 ·f.';' .. No ~t.r seepage observed. .. ' . . -.-.',,'. Very'Dense:; / ; I .-: . REMARKS :,-" '21.7 . '19.5 Terra· ASsociates •. Inc, t:o~ullaiii"ln>.GeO:eihNciI EnO~ "~." Ge<ilogyoild" .. • , E~~1iI Eann SCI~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I LO,G OF TEST PIT NO.8 -,' . ." .' -.. -. FIGUREA·9 .' . PROJECTNAME:cStutliA$sembiage PROJ.NO: :J.t~,:s>l;!99;z;5",-·___ LOGGED BY::·:..Ju:H'--__ 'LClCATIDN: : Reoloo' WaShfngt"'o,.o ____ ·SURFACE,CONDS:\.Gmss.e.s,.,c ______ AP!,R~X.E~EV:. ___ _ DATE LOGGED: .Jap.II~·Z.2014 DEPTH TO (l~OU~D.W"iJ;ER:NIA. 1 3, 4 5, 7 8: io. DEs.eRIPTIDN .. . cONsisTeNcYI :RELATIVE' DENSITY .,-.--''"., .. '"-.. ----.-... -.. -.----l .. ~' ---I Brownsilly'SANDilnlce gravel;'molsL (8M) (Weatlieredilil) , ...... ,:. -.-.-... " f------... .;.. ..... -.---.~-. _ ...... -........ __ ._ ... -. _ .. -..... -...... _--.. <3ra)' silly SAND, liace 9"''''''. traCe .CoOble; mOiSt. (SM) (Till)' . '. '" '. . . . Tesl'pil ierminate<{at apProXimateiy a"feet. NogrOundwat ... seepage obsef'ied. . .Dense t~ V~pense·. REMARKS',· . , .. ".'.--' '22,5 '18,0 'Terra As~ociates; Inc. . coos;..ta'n'i' Ii> 'GeOteChliJcal enQii>eeilng ..... Geology .iId ... , . EJivlrOnnieIi1aJ Eai1Ii s·~ ...... . . . -.' -c' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 'PROJECT NAME: ..stulbASlWmbIage,________ PROJ: NO: 'J.T"Il",' .. 9"'9,,,5, ___ 'LOG'GED BY: """jH;,.· " __ _ lOCATION: Renion; Wa$hlngion ' SURFACE ~6NDS: .Grasses: APPR())(; ~,LEV::... __ _ DATE LOGGED: ..Janua1YL.2Q.1L-DEI!TH TO GROUNDWATER;. NIA ... -•. r. " .' -. . • . -. ~:--," "." . -. ~ ," .' ~EI'TH TI? CAVI~g,: _tilA 2 3, ,4 6 7· 8: .9 1.0. DESCRIPTION CONsiSTENCYI ;;, RELATIVE DENSlTYi 'i' .. -.. -.------;..;..-~.~ .. -~-.--.... -..... --... --.-... -.. -.-.... .' • '\ l:'-'" " !3iayto.browt) silty SAND. fine grained. trace gravel. njol~l: ,(~M),(TIII) • Tesl Piiterinlnatecf.' appro'Xiniately Sleet. NOgroundWaier seepage'obserVed.' , . , ~ .. -",-''--. MO<ilum~.nse. jO.4. Teria "AS~~iiite~:: !tIC, . ", Conoullants In ~Ical Engineetlrijj """'GeoIOg'anc!' •. ..•. EriVln:';:lrri~tiI ~arit1 'S~~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I LQGOF TEST PIT NO. 10 FI.GURE ~'1,1 PR9<!.I'p.~E:,_$lu1Ii:A~eIDlllagelL.·· ______ _ PROJ,I!.O::.",J:6"!.""9~!,,,51,,,' __ _ LOG.GED~BY: ,JBI;",: __ ,LOC.AnON; -B.e.J;itQru.1tiilsh ingIQIi' gATEL.<?G,tl!,D: ~JantiiilY Z. 2014' ~U~FACEC;ONIl~:"J>Ia~ii, ... i; ____ _ ~P~O~~iELE~:. __ _ DEP.THlCf9!loiitiDWATi::R:~ NiA DEPTH'TO CAVING:.J.iIA I . 3 (12 inroes ilart< brown'TOPSOlll "-~ .. ";.-... ~--..... -: .. : .. -.. -", .. -.-:.~ .. ,, .. -... - Dark broWn silly SAND. flnegiairiEid, traC& gravel. molsl (SM) (WeathOredtiU)' '. '. '" • -. ," """ _ .. '.-., cONsuimiCYI ii_' RELATIVE DENSITY ..... .., ';I: 19.5 Medium:O'ense.; ·'11.8 1-------------1-. __ .... _. 6 ·7 9 10 Gray silly SJWO, flnegrajne<!. trace gravel, moist.. (SM) (Tdl), . TeSt pit t.,;ml"sted at approidmiilelY.9 'feet. No grOuru!Wai.i ••• page:ObseiVe'd. ' . . . -. .' .. , . , NOTE:. ms $ubsurtaee InfofmDtion pertaIns on!)' to this tost Pil lOCatiOn 8RC,.:sbould ri01belnle~e.tede:s.belnglt!d~tNe.O!.~r~~rjl·althe~~;· -, ... -. ~ery Deris.e REMARKS I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .' PRoJecT NAME: ..5nuh.~$j .. em'\1, .. bl!,,~gtll9,-______ _ :PIl9J:,NO:,~1t ,LOOGE,D, BY:, -""Ju::H,-__ LOC~nO~:;:.:B"nton' ":Y~~,ij)gtoillri,-__ _ SUR!'ACECONI?~i .Gra:Ss.es AF>PR~X, EL~:, ___ _ DATE,LOGGED:'..Jliitilai:Y.l, .,014 . . -," . -'. ." _.. -" " DE,~TH. TO. \3R.OUNDWA~!I;' 'NIA DEP.r,H t6C~VING: NiA CONSISTENCVj -~ -RELAnve DEN~ITY -,~ (12'inchesdark·brown'TOPSOIL) 1 ~' __ '_"""'_"""_"'_'~' __ """"'· __ "'.'_"""'I ___ '_ ... n _._._ ............. -..... -' 2 3 4 5. 6: 7 ',8 9 11 12 ' 13. 15_ Dark -D,ciN,>: siltY SAND. fine,to medium ,gralned.-I,ac. graveVcObble:nioist, (SM) (Wealheriid liIl) . ~ ,-,., .,"' -',' -' " " ." --------_._------';""._ ••• , ............... -j ... -.............. ,"';""--- GmY'SIUI/SAND. fino. to medi.:"" grained. trace 9ra vel!cobble;mclsl., (SM) (Till)' Test",t termlnatedalapproximiltely 10 foet. N09rOUndwater. seepageObScrVOO, - 16,0 '15,0 :Terr'a Associates" fnc. eonsUnants In GeoteCh~ EngineeMg, , GeoIOOYond. -, Envf!on~ EarUi ScIOnces I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Particle' 'Size Di$ttibution'Rep~tt s ".' oS -,' . s ,~' f~; ,~~',~ I· '.E", .E.~ ,(~;,.iI~ ;i i: . ., .M ..,;.; ... ' '," "!:...-. .:'ft ~~. ~ 199 . : ' .... ~ T " , : ' I I I ~ I I I I I I I , I, \. 1\:1. I ,I I I I I '99 I !, i\]" \ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I /' I I 1 i\ I I ,I /' I I '60 I I i' i r I \. I I " \ I I I I I I I I I I I I / ~ / I 1 I I I .70 , i i ~il, i : I I I I I Ii" I I I I I I I I I I I I ! I I I 0:: ~o W " z' I I I ,I I I I 1 ~ I I I I I I U::. I, I I I 1 I I I I ,I I I 1 1 ~ ,~ , ~, .. I I. I I I I I I~ I / I I ()' I I I J I ! I 1 1 l I I 0::, W a. 40 ~ I 1 I 'I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I l I 1 I I, I r\. .. 'I I I '30 i ; ~ I I I I I i I I 1 I, \\ I~ I I I : I I I I I I : ~i 20 I I I I I I I I I I i I, f I I I I I I I I I I I I : : I I 10 I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ': I I II I I I I I I I 0 I I I I I I I I 'I I I ',100 10 .1 0.1 q.Ol.' 0 .. 001 GRAIN SIZE :,mm; %+3" 'Yo.Gravel %Saiid' % FineS: ,Coarse: Fine. Coarse Me<llum I Fine. ·,SlIt I Clay 0 0:0 12.9,' 19.9 9:9 '22:7. I 16~5 ·1'8.1 [j 0:0 ,6;0 '7.0 16.0: 'i8:5 I 2i,5 '26.0 6 0.0 6:2 I 14:6 8.4 I 21.6' I 24,3 24.9: ~. II Pl. DIi'; OM Dl;n' D~n D'1~ Din C~ COO 0 16:9349; 25i04 1.1407 0.3143 0 2.9,772 0;7j)96 0.4545 0.1519, '" 8.9138 0:7M2 ,0:4410 o:Boo Materl,,1 DeSCription USC.S AASHTO 0' Silty, Sand with Gravel SM o ,SlltY.Sandtrace.gr;lvel ·sM 6 Silly. Sandwilh'some:gravel SM- PioJectNo. T-fi995 Cllent:"Qua'dranl'Homes" Remarks: Project:> S.l1ith ASSeml?lage Remon,WaShinglon o locatlon:Tcsi PitTP-1 Deptli; ;2:5foel . -... . ..... \ '" o Locatlon:'TestPiliP~2 Depth:S feel 6.location:.,Tcist'PitSTP-3 Depth;' 6 feet; TeriaAssochites, Inc'~ Kirkland WA '. Figure' A-13 \" -.. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Particle . -. -', .. " .. Size DJ$trib.:dion, Report .s: .. Ii .: .. i: .8 ., ~: .. ! .' s '$. );i. ~"s ~ ., ,!t ~ ~ i: • ii. ii ~ ii liJo ,. N ..... ' ',:J:! ·U ! -".... ~ Iii I I [ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I / / I / I I 90 I. 'i i ~~ .I ., I I / / I / / I / / / I I I .I / I t\ "-/ I i i I I lio I ; I; ; ~ ; ; I I ~ I I I I I / '/ I I / I I / I I I .70 ; ; ; , , ; i I K I / I I I a:' ) I ./ I I I / /\1 / I I w· '60 ~I \ i Z I / / / I I I I / u: I / I ! I I I / [ / / !-,-. ,50 , , Z'. Ir--w I I I I I I I ...., I h I !'t. / I () 1 I I ! I I I I I'--I ! I I a: w 40 a.. I I / I I / / I I I I /\ I I I I I I I / I / .~ .~ I I '39 I' I I I I I / / I I I I I / ~ ~' I' I / i I I I I I N I i i 2~ I· I I I I I I I I I I I / I I Ii 1 I I I I I I .: I I I '10 I I I I I I I I I I I I I / I I / I I Ii : I / I I / / / I I 0 / / I I / I I / 'l!lO 10' 1 9.1 0 .. 01 GRAIN SIZE', min, %W ~k'Graiiel ·.%Sand '¥oF/n'es .Coarse FIne' Coarse Medium Fine, Silt, I 0 ,0:0 2A '15.1 S,3, 23.1 3Lt 20:0 0 0,0 40.1 9.8 5.1' 10.7 '16:2 17.5, t; 0,6 0.0 iLl 8:3'. 14X 36.1 29.6 X Ll P.L 0111;' ORn Ol;n O~n Oil;· Din· e,:, 0 ,5.9985 1);5.85 i 0.4113 0.2 !'68 0 59.1.490 25,2793. 5.2022 tUB02 t; 3.3.745 0.3215: .0.21'14. 0,0.769 Material.'Oeseripiion uses o Sill}: Sandwithsome'gravel SM ClSa;idYGrn\,eJ.{viih siit • < ~~. OM t;' SillY Slii"I:,,:ithsolUe u'ravel 'SM Project N~. T'6.995· Clien~:' Quadran.t Hoipes Project:~.lUth A.s'semblageRelli~iii·Washing!on, Reinar~s: 0' Location: Tcst'pitTP'5 Depth: 5:5 feel' o Locatlon:TeSll'it TP,. 7 Q~~th: 1 fool [, Lo~iion: 'l:e~ipitTp,s Depth: 7, fe~t TerrI! Asiloclates, Inc,· Kirklan'dWA F!gure 0,001 . Clay Ci; ... AA~HTO iI.'I.~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I P~tticle Si,ze,I)'$t.riJlQtio,rR~port, .Ii ,So ~·s . ~ .~r~ " Jl ~ .~ .~, ~~'l .. ,.." ~.~ ,!-.. ",!l 11, .;: .... . 100. f ~ I I I I I I I I I I /' I I I 90 I I I. L· ~I I I I I I I I I , : 1\ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .1 I I I I 1 I .80 : I I I 1[\ " I I , I I 1 I I I I , I I I I ~ I I I I I I '70 , ,i ; I " J I I I I ' I ~ I I I I I ! I I I I I I I I ! I I I 0:: 60. W', Ii\ i ; z I I I I I I I I u:: , I I ! I I I I \; I I 1 ! I j ","., 50 I Z, " W , I I 1 , I j 1 I I ~ I I , , u' ! I 1 ! 1 " , I I ! ! I I 0:: .", ' W 4.0 0;. I I I I I I I I I I .~ I 1 I : I I i I i I 1 I I I I '3.0 I I I I I I I I I I I I I )\ ~. I 1 I I : I : I I 1 I ~ ;20 i I I I I I I I I I 1 ,. .... I I I I 1 : I I 1 I ': : 1 "0 i , I 1 , I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I l I I 1 I I I , I I , ;0 I 1 I I I I I I I I 100 10 ,1 0,1 0.01 '0.001 GRAIN SIZE-min, ~-t:~n; .%,Gravel .0/0 Sand %Flnes ,Coa'iSe Fino' Coarse Medium, L Fine, 511\. I Clay 0 0:0 7:2 3Cl:I 13:4 16.1 I 16,8 16.4 a o~o ,5:9 ,13';2 12;5 .24,1 I 21.4 '22.9 I I I X, ,LL PL Das Di;n Dim D~n, Di!1 Din C;, CII 0 13:6418' 4,0436 i,llS? '0:321.6 " -0' 0 '7 ;4'198 1.0964 0,5793 0;)825 Material D:Sscriptlcin uses AASHTO o Silty'Sand' with'gravel ',SM IJ im\X:Sand wjlhs;'fu.~:~"el :SM Project No. T·6995.' Client: Quadrant Homes' Rem~rks: Project: $tulh Asseinbliige Reri!.~n. W":Sl!ingtori 0' Location: Tim Pii TP-1O Depth: 2 n,et "--," ,-' ',-' . .' . . o Locatlon:'Test Pit'TP-lO Depth: 6 feet Terra'Associates, Inc, . , Kirkland WA Figure, A·IS: .---~~~------------------~~~~--~~- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 6.2 Wetland Report by Soundview Consultants dated July 14, 2014 I I I I WETLAND, FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT AsSESSMENT REpORT COPPERWOOD RESIDENTIAL PLAT I REVISED]ULY2014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I • ,----------------------------------- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Executive Summary Soundview Consultants LLC was hired by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. and Quadrant Homes (Applicant) to delineate and assess wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat, and/or other potentially-regulated aquatic features on an approximately 12.68-acre site located within the City of Renton, Washington. The subject property consists of eight parcels (King County Tax Parcel Numbers 1523059043, 1523059066, 1523059067, 1523059093, 1523059100, 1523059170, 1523059201,1523059221) located in the Northwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 15, Township 23 North, Range 05 East, W.M. The areas incorporated in this assessment include both the subject property and surrounding offsite areas located within approximately 115 feet of the subject property. The proposed project (Copperwood Residential Plat) will provide 47 additional single-family residential units, transportation improvements, and associated infrastructure within the City of Renton. The subject property was investigated for the presence of potentially regulated wetlands, drainages, fish and wildlife habitat, and/or priority species on April 2, 2014 and re-inspected in June 2014. No potentially regulated wetlands were found onsite. One stream (Maplewood Creek Tributary 0303) was identified on the eastern side of the property. The City of Renton identifies Maplewood Creek Tributary 0303 as a Class 3 non-salmonid-bearing perennial stream. In the northern portion of the property, the stream is low-gradient with gently-sloping banks; however, in the southern portion of the property, the channel is located in a ravine with steeply sloped banks and several natural fish passage barriers. The ravine associated with the stream corridor contain both Sensitive and Protected slopes as classified by the City of Renton. An artificially constructed swale with emergent wetland vegetation was also found onsite draining into Maplewood Creek Tributary 0303. The swale is documented to have been constructed in 1993 as a landscape and drainage feature and is not likely regulated by the City of Renton per Renton Municipal Code Sections 4-11-230 and 4-3-050 L, nor is it likely regulated by the Washington State Department of Ecology under RCW 90.48 or 36.70A.030(21). Both of these features were addressed in the original Wetland, Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report prepared for the project dated April 21, 2014. However, an independent electro fishing study, previously undisclosed to Soundview Consultants LLC and the Applicant, identified fishes below a natural fish passage barrier in the southeast corner of the property classifying this onsite stream reach as a Class 2 salmonid-bearing stream. Following disclosure of the prior independent study, a site visit was conducted to verify the accuracy of this assessment. Soundview Consultants LLC's supplemental site visit identified salmonids below an onsite natural fish passage barrier. Therefore, a small portion of Maplewood Creek Tributary 0303 in the southeast corner of the site must be reclassified as a Class 2 salmon-bearing stream, and minor revisions to the buffer management recommendations are necessary to address increased buffer requirements. The revised residential plat still includes 47 single-family residences, new access roads, one stormwater tract, extensive open space tracts, and associated infrastructure, and direct impacts to the stream will be entirely avoided. In addition, proposed impacts to stream buffer are minimal and limited to placement of a treated stormwater outfall, minor grading, a pervious walking trail, buffer reductions, and buffer enhancement actions. Impacts to the buffer will be mitigated through buffer averaging and non-compensatory buffer enhancement actions. 1186.0005 IKE/Quadrant -COppcf\.\'ood Residential Plat \'{'erland, Fish and \X'ildlifc Habitat Assessment Report Sound,'icw Consultanu LLC Revised July 14,20l4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Constructed Swale 107 If N/A Tributary 03038 140 If 2 Tributary 0303c 6151f 3 ,\ Renton Municipal Code 4-3-050.1.. IIArca south of flag \'(1-18 in the southeastern comer of the site. cArca notch of flag \'\'-18 in the northeastern three quarters of the site. 1186,0005 BeE/Quadrant -Coppcrwood Re~idcntial Plat \X'erland. Fish and \,\'ildlife Habitat Assessment Report No Yes Yes ii No Yes Yes Not Likely Yes Soundview Consultant~ LI.C Rc,·jsedJuly 14, 2014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Site Map r:---'"':J " ""\ r-r ( ,~ I \ t 186.0005 BeE/Quadrant -Coppetv.'Ood Residential Plat Wetland. Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report 2 STREAM OFW18) Soundview Consultants LLC Revised July 14,2014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ---------------------------------------- Table of Contents Chapter 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1 Chapter 2. Proposed Project ........................................................................................................................... 2 2.1 Project Location ...................................................................................................................................... 2 2.2 Project Description ................................................................................................................................. 3 Chapter 3. Methods .......................................................................................................................................... 4 Chapter 4. Background .................................................................................................................................... 6 4.2 Topography and Drainage Basin .......................................................................................................... 6 4.3 Local and National Wetland Inventories ............................................................................................. 6 4.4 Vegetation ................................................................................................................................................ 6 4.5 Soils ........................................................................................................................................................... 6 4.6 Priority Habitats and Species ................................................................................................................. 6 4.7 Precipitation ............................................................................................................................................. 7 4.8 Prior Electrofishing Survey ................................................................................................................... 7 Chapter 5. Results ............................................................................................................................................. 8 5.1 Drainages .................................................................................................................................................. 8 Chapter 6. Regulatory Considerations ......................................................................................................... 11 6.1 Local and State Requirements ............................................................................................................. 11 6.2 Federal Regulatory Considerations ..................................................................................................... 12 Chapter 7. Buffer Averaging and Enhancement Plan ............................................................................... 15 7.1 Purpose and Need ................................................................................................................................. 15 7.2 Description of Impacts ........................................................................................................................ 15 7.3 Mitigation Approach and Best Management Practices ................................................................... 16 7.4 Buffer Averaging Efforts ..................................................................................................................... 17 7.5 Enhancement Actions .......................................................................................................................... 17 7.6 Mitigation Goals, Objectives, and Performance Standards ............................................................ 18 7.7 Plant Materials and Installation ........................................................................................................... 18 7.8 Maintenance & Monitoring ................................................................................................................. 20 7.9 Reporting ................................................................................................................................................ 21 7.10 Contingency Plans .............................................................................................................................. 21 7.11 Early Closeout ..................................................................................................................................... 21 Chapter 8. Closure .......................................................................................................................................... 22 Chapter 9. Report Summary .......................................................................................................................... 23 Chapter 9. References .................................................................................................................................... 24 Figures Figure 1. Vicinity Map ...................................................................................................................... 2 1186.0005 BCE/Quadrant -Copperwood Residential Plat \,<fetland, Fish and \'('ildlife Habitat l\ssessment Rcport IV Sound"icw Consultants LLC Revised Julr 14, 2014 I I I I I I' I 1 I I I I I I I I I I Tables Table 1. Precipitation Summary ........................................................................................................ 7 Table 2. Drainage Summary -Constructed Swale ............................................................................. 9 Table 3. Drainage Summary -Maplewood Creek Tributary ............................................................ 10 Appendices Appendix A -Methods and Tools Appendix B -Background Information Appendix C -Plant Species list Appendix D -Site Maps and Plan Sheets Appendix E -Biologist Qualifications 1186.0005 BeE/Quadrant -Coppcrwoou Residential Plat \'{'etland. Fish and \'{Iildlifc Habitat Assessment Report v Souncl\'iew Consultants U.C RcyiscdJuly 14, 2014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Chapter 1. Introduction Soundview Consultants LLC was hired by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. and Quadrant Homes (Applicant) to delineate and assess wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat, and other potentiaUy- regulated aquatic features within or adjacent to the proposed Copperwood Residential Plat. The proposed project is located at 5001 Southeast 2nd Place within the City of Renton, Washington. The subject property is situated in the Northwest '/. of the Southeast '/. of Section 15, Township 23 North, Range 05 East, W.M. (King County Tax Parcel Numbers 1523059043, 1523059066, 1523059067,1523059093,1523059100, 1523059170, 1523059201, and 1523059221). The subject property and surrounding areas within 115 feet of the subject property were investigated for the presence of potentially regulated wetlands, streams, fish and wildlife habitat, and! or priority species in April of 2014 and re-inspected in June of 2014. An additional supplementary site visit was conducted following disclosure of an old elcctrofishing survey (Cedarock Consultants, Inc., 2006) previously unknown to Soundview Consultants LLC and the Applicant. The site investigations identified one regulated stream and one non-regulated, artificially constructed swale. The stream is referred to as Maplewood Creek Tributary 0303 by the Ciry of Renton. No impacts are proposed to the stream, and only minor impacts are proposed to the stream buffer, which will be addressed by buffer averaging and enhancement actions. The purpose of this wetland and fish and wildlife habitat assessment is to identify and assess the presence of wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat, and! or priority species on or near the subject property and to identify management recommendations for the proposed project. This report includes conclusions and recommendations regarding: • Site description, project description, and area of assessment; • Background research and identification of potentially regulated critical areas in the vicinity of the proposed project; • Identification, delineation, and assessment of rei,'1llated wetlands and water bodies; • Identification and assessment of fish and wildlife habitat and! or priority species located on or near the subject property; • Standard buffer recommendations, building setbacks, and development limitations; • Proposed buffer reductions and temporary impacts; • Existing site maps detailing identified critical areas, standard buffers, proposed buffer modifications, and non-compensatory mitigation actions, and • Long term habitat management recommendations and impact minimization measures. 1186.0005 BCE/Quadrant-Coppc,,\'ood Residential Plat \X'etland, Fish and \X'ildlife Habitat A~sessment Report Suundyiew Consultants LtC RcvisedJul), 14, 2014 ------------------------------------------ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Chapter 2. Proposed Project 2.1 Project Location The subject property is located in the City of Renton near the eastern boundaty of the city limits. The subject property is situated in the Northwest II. of the Southeast II. of Section 15, Township 23 North, Range 05 East, W.M. and comprises eight parcels (King County Tax Parcel Numbers 1523059043, 1523059066, 1523059067, 1523059093, 1523059100, 1523059170, 1523059201, and 1523059221). A King County tax parcel map of the subject property is presented in Appendix B. To access the subject property from the Tukwila area, via Interstate 405 northbound, take Exit 4 toward Washington-900/Bronson Way. Turn right onto Washington-169 north. After approximately 360 feet, take the first right onto Sunset Boulevard North. After 0.2 mile, take the first right onto Northeast 3"' Street. Proceed 0.9 mile and continue onto Northeast 4'h Street. Proceed 1.0 mile and turn right onto Duvall Avenue Northeast. After 0.5 mile, Duvall Avenue Northeast turns slightly to the left and becomes Southeast 2nd Place. The subject property will be located on the right side of Southeast 2nd Place after approximately 0.2 mile. Figure 1. Vicinity Map. Source: Google Maps p~ .. /. " ).( 1186.0005 BCE/Quadrant -Copperwood Residential Plat Wetland, Fi~h and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report 2 Sound view Consultants LLC Revised July 14,2014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 2.2 Project Description The Applicant proposes a single-family residential development within the approximately 12.68-acre subject property. The proposed project includes demolition of all but one of the existing residences, removal of scrap and debris associated with the previous residential land use, clearing and grading for construction of approximately 47 residential housing units with driveways, parking areas, associated utilities and infrastructure, and buffer reduction, averaging, and enhancement actions. The proposed project will also provide fully engineered stormwater facilities to the City of Renton's standards. The southwest facilities will require placement of a stormwater outfall and pervious walking trail along with minor grading actions within the stream buffer and minor buffer reduction via buffer averaging in the southeast corner of the site. Any impacts associated with the installation of this outfall, low-impact trail, minor grading, and buffer averaging will be mitigated for through non-compensatoty enhancement actions. For further details, Appendix C provides a site plan of the proposed project and mitigation details. 1186.0005 BCE/Quadrant -CoppetV.'ood Residential Plat \'{'etland, Fish and \X'ildlife Habitat Assessment Report 3 Soumh'iew Consultants LtC RedsedJuly 14.2014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Chapter 3. Methods The methods used to comply with Federal, State, and local assessment requirements are detailed below. Please see Appendix A for further details of methods and tools used to prepare the report. Wetlands, streams, and other potentially regulated fish and wildlife habitat within the subject property and offsite areas within 115 feet of the subject property were investigated, and potentially regulated critical areas were delineated and assessed by qualified Soundview Consultants LLC staff on April 2, 2014. A follow up site inspection was also conducted by Soundview Consultant's Principal Scientist on April 3, 2014 to verify staff findings. Publicly available background data was queried for documented wetlands, streams, and/or fish and wildlife habitat on or near the site, including the U.S. Geographic Survey (USGS) topographic map, the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey, National Wetlands Inventory (NWI), US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), King County GIS data (iMap), City of Renton GIS data, local precipitation data (NOAA), and various orthophotographic resources. Graphics and maps detailing background data such as site topography, soils, vegetative buffers, basin area, and critical areas inventories are provided in Appendix B. Potential wetland boundaries were determined using the routine approach described in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (USACE) Wetlands Delineation Manual (USACE, 1987) as modified by the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0) (USACE, 2010). Methods described in the Washington State Wetland Identification and Delineation Manual were not used since this document has been retired by the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) in favor of the updated USACE methods. Ordinary High Water (OH\'V) determinations were determined using Ecology's method as detailed in determining the Ordinary High Water Mark on Streams in Washington State (Olson, 2008); definitions provided in RCW 77.55.011 (11) and WAC 220.110.020 (69); and USACE's Regulatory Guidance Letter No. 05-05 Ordinary High Water Mark Identification (USACE 2005). Potential wetland, stream, and drainage boundaries and stormwater features were inspected, delineated, and surveyed over several dates in April 2014. The field assessment was performed by Jim Carsner, Professional Wetland Scientist; Jeremy Downs, Principal Scientist and Environmental Planner; and Hannah Blackstock, Staff Scientist. To mark the boundary between potential wetlands and uplands, orange surveyor's flagging was alpha-numerically labeled and tied to vegetation or wood lath along the wetland boundary. To mark the points where data was collected, pink surveyor's flagging was alpha-numerically labeled and tied at each sampling location. To mark the boundaries of streams and drainages, blue surveyor's flagging was alpha-numerically labeled and tied to vegetation or striped flagging from prior assessments was verified. The location of each stream and drainage boundary flag and data plot was surveyed by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. The locations and features of identified features are described in Chapter 5, and shown on plan sheets in Appendix C. Following disclosure of a previously unknown independent electro fishing survey performed on Maplewood Creek Tributary 0303 (Cedarock Consultants, Inc., 2006), two qualified Soundview Consultants LLC Staff Scientists verified the location of the identified natural fish passage barriers 1186.0005 BeE/Quadrant -Coppel"\\'ood Residential Plat \'{'etland, Fish and \X'ildlife Habitat Assessment Repon 4 Soundview Consultants LLC RcvisedJuly 14,2014 ,------------------------------------------------------------- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I on July 1, 2014. The onsite stream channel natural fish passage barriers were identified using methodologies described in Fish Passage Baniers and SlIIface lV"ater Diversion Screening Assesslllent and PriOlitization Manllal (\X1DFW, 2009). Natural fish passage barrier locations were marked using blue surveyors flagging tape that was numerically labeled and tied to each located barrier. 1186.00()S BCE/Quadmnt -Coppcr\\'ood Residential Plat \X'etland, Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Repon 5 Soundview Consultants LtC Rc"isedJuly 14, 2014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I WETLAND, FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT AsSESSMENT REpORT COPPERWOOD RESIDENTIAL PLAT REVISED JULY 14, 2014 PROJECT LOCATION 5001 SOUTHEAST 2'D PLACE RENTON, WASHINGTON 98059 PREPARED FOR BARGHAUSEN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT, WASHINGTON 98032 QUADRANT HOMES 14725 SE 36TH STREET, SUITE 100 BEllEVUE, WASHINGTON 98006 PREPARED BY SOUNDVIEW CONSULTANTS LLC 2907 HARBORVIEW DRIVE GIG HARBOR, WASHINGTON 98335 (253) 514-8952 ~----------------- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Chapter 4. Background 4.2 Topography and Drainage Basin The surveyed topography of the site shows the landform as generally flat with a slight rise in the westernmost portion of the site and generally sloping toward the stream in the east. The banks of the stream are shallow with low-gradient banks in the north but transitions into a steep ravine as it nears the southern property boundaty. A King County Topographic map is provided in Appendix B 1. 4.3 Local and National Wetland Inventories The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USF\'{IS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map does not identify any wetlands or streams on or near the subject property. The City of Renton's GIS maps also do not identify wetlands on or near the subject property; however, the City identifies the stream as a Class 3 waterbody on the subject property. Prior to the stream entering the subject property to the north, it is identified as Class 4 water. The NWI and City of Renton maps are provided in Appendix B2 and B3, respectively. 4.4 Vegetation The majority of the property is cleared and developed with single-family residences. Most of the vegetated areas are dominated by landscaped areas and mowed lawn. The area containing the stream corridor (King County Parcel Number 1523059067) is the only undeveloped portion of the subject property. 4.5 Soils The NRCS Soil Survey of King County identified one soil series, Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes, on the subject property. A soil map is provided in Appendix B4. Alderwood (AgC) series soils are considered non-hydric except for inclusions of Bellingham, Norma, Tukwila, and Shalear that are associated with small depressions. Alderwood soils are described as moderately well drained soils on undulating to hilly landforms that have a dense, very slowly permeable glacial till at a depth of 20 to 40 inches. A typical pedon of the A.Iderwood (AgC) series is: 0 inch to 2 inches of a very dark brown gravelly sandy loam (10YR 2/2); 2 inches to 12 inches of a dark brown gravelly sandy loam (10YR 4/3); 12 inches to 27 inches of a grayish-brown gravelly sandy loam (2.5Y 5/2) with light olive brown mottles (2.5Y 5/6); and 27 inches to 60 inches of a gra)~sh-brown till (2.5Y 5/2) with light olive brown mottles (2.5Y 5/6) and with light olive brown mottles (2.5Y 5/6). 4.6 Priority Habitats and Species Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife's (WDF\'V) Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) maps and data identify a Biodiversity Area and Corridor (Cedar River Valley Open Space Areas) onsite, primarily located in the riparian corridor associated with the stream. WDFW's interactive data map (Salmonscape) identifies no streams with fish presence within 300 feet of the subject property. No 1186.0005 BeE/Quadrant -Copperu"(lod Residential Plat Wetland. Fish and ''I:rildlife Habitat Assessment Report 6 Sound,;e\\' Consultants LtC RevisedJuly 14.2014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I priority habitats or Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive plant or animal species were identified during this investigation. The PHS and SalmonScape maps are provided in Appendix B5 and B6, respectively. 4.7 Precipitation Precipitation data was obtained from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) weather station at SeaTac Airport in order to obtain percent of normal precipitation during and preceding the investigation. A summary of data collected is provided in Table 1. Table 1. Precipitation Summary' Date Day of Day Before 1 Week 2 Weeks Month To Water %of Prior Prior Date2 Year' Normal' .4/2/14 0.00 0.00 1.57 1.75 0 26.25 92% , Data obtained from NOAA weather station at SeaTac Airport. (httpollwwwweatberFJU'/dimareliodexphp?wfQ=sew). , , • Precipitation for the month is the same as for the Year-to-Datc. \'Vater Year is precipitation from October 1, 20t 3. Percent of Donnal is shown as for the day/for the year . The precipitation data indicates approximately 1.75 inches of precipitation fell within the two weeks prior to the last visit and precipitation was nearly normal (92 percent of normal) for the water year. However, these metrics do not reflect the extremely high rainfall encountered during March 2014, which was 9.44 inches and 253% above normal. In fact, March of 2014 was the wettest March on record for the SeaTac record, surpassing the old record of 8.40 inches (National Weather Service, 2014). The precipitation data suggests that daily rain events may have caused areas not normally wet to become saturated and/or inundated at the time of the site investigation, and such conditions were considered in making professional wetland boundary determinations. 4.8 Prior Electrofishing Survey A previous electro fishing survey was conducted by Cedarock Consultants, Inc. in 2006. This survey documented fish presence in the East Fork of Maplewood Creek, which corresponds to the onsite Maplewood Creek Tributary 0303 herein. However, this prior assessment also identified a natural fish passage barrier in the southeastern portion of the project site. Two adult cutthroat trout and six fry were documented during this electro fishing survey just below the plateau that creates the lowermost natural fish passage barrier. Cedarock Consultants, Inc. recommended that the reach downstream of the natural fish passage barrier be classified as a Class 2 stream and the upstream reach be classified as a Class 3 stream per RMC Section 4-3-050 L.5. A map provided in this prior survey report is included in Appendix B7. 1186.0005 BeE/Quadrant -Coppcrwood Residential Plat Wetland, Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report 7 . Soundview Consultants LLC Revised July 14, 2014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ------------------------------------ Chapter 5. Results 5.1 Drainages The site investigation identified two aquatic features onsite, including one regulated stream (Maplewood Creek Tributary 0303) and one non-regulated, artificially constructed swale. Maplewood Creek Tributary 0303 runs north to south in the easternmost parcel on the subject property (King Counry Parcel Number 1523059067). The constructed swale runs west to east and drains to the stream. 5.1.1 Constructed Swale The artificially constructed swale originates from a series of curtain drains and catch basins draining adjacent areas and containing multiple single-family residences and discharges to an outfall located above Maplewood Creek Tributary 0303. The constructed swale exhibited some wetland characteristics, including hydrophytic vegetation (reed canarygrass) due to lack of regular maintenance on the drainage channel; however, the swale is documented as an artificial drainage feature constructed in 1993 as a landscape and drainage feature as part of a stormwater and groundwater management plan for the site. Therefore, the swale does not meet wetland criteria as defined by Renton Municipal Code (RMC) 4-11-230 and 4-3-050 M and should not be regulated as a wetland feature or stream. The feature also does not meet RCW 90.48 or 36.70A.030(21) criteria for regulation as a wetland or stream by the State of \Xlashington. The artificially constructed swale is documented to be of anthropogenic origin where no naturally derived channel had previously existed, is known to collect and convey surface water and/or groundwater from adjacent developed areas, and is non-fish bearing; therefore, the swale meets the criteria of a non-regulated, Class 5 waterbody under fuVlC 4-3-050 L.1.a.v. Class 5 waterbodies are exempt from all regulations under fuVlC 4-3-050 L. The outfall for this constructed swale would be treated similarly; however, the outfall is located in the buffer for Maplewood Creek Tributary 0303. This outfall can be removed as part of the buffer enhancement plan detailed in Chapter 7 of this report. A summary of the constructed swale is provided in Table 2 below: 1186.0005 BCE/Quadrant -Coppen.vood Residential Plat \'(!erland, Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report 8 Sound\'iew Consultants LLC Re\'isedJuly 14,2014 I I 1 I I ,I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Table 2. Drainage Summary -Constructed Swale. DRAINAGE INFORMATION SUMMARY Connectivity (where slonnwaler drainage feature flows from/to) # Constructed Swale Class 5, 8 N/A N/A N/A Riparian/Buffer Condition are exempt from regulation, and no buffer 5.1.2 Maplewood Creek Tributary 0303 The onsite tributary to Maplewood Creek (0303) originates offsite in developed residential areas to the northeast and northwest of the subject property and discharges onto the subject property through a culvert under SE 2nd Place. Maplewood Creek Tributary 0303 flows southerly across the property in a broad, low-flow channel with a low-gradient riparian corridor in the north with increasingly steep slopes adjacent to the channel as it enters a ravine and approaches the southern boundary. The stream leaves the subject property and turns west to enter Maplewood Creek, approximately 2,000 feet to the so uth and west of the property. Observed flows indicated that the onsite portion of the trib utary is likely perennial; however, precipitation for March was above normal, and there is a possibility that the stream may be seasonal. North of the culvert under SE 2nd Place, Ihe Maplewood Creek Tributary 0303 is identified as a Class 4 waterbody by the City of Re nton; however, once the stream enters the property from the north, the City of Renton identifies the tributary as a Class 3 water body. A report disclosed to Soundview Consultants ILC and the Applicant by the City of Renton in Jun e of 2014 identifies a small onsite section of Maplewood Creek Tributary 0303 as a Class 2 waterbody with the rest of the onsite stream being Class 3. A clear and distinct natural fish passage barrier is located just upstream of where salmonid fry and cutthroat trout were detected b y Cedarock Consultants, Inc. in 2006. This Class 2 designation in the lowermost reach of the stream was confirmed by Soundview Consultan ts ILC Staff Scie nti sts on July 1, 2014. The steep gradients and several natural fish passage barriers within the on site stream reach between the Class 2 and Class 3 waters, including subsurface flows and a 10-foot vertical drop, indicate that salmo nid s do not and cannot migrate up the tributary and are not likely prese nt upstream of where salmonids we re detected. 11 86.0005 BCE /QU2Idranr -Copperwood Residential Plat Wetland. Fish and Wildlife Habitllt Assessment Report 9 So undvi ew Co nsu1tants LLC RcviS<dJuly 14,2014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Table 3 . Location of Feature Connectivity (where stormwater drainage feature flows froml to) Riparian/Buffer Condition 5.1.3 Stream Buffers Creek DRAINAGE INFORMATION SUMMARY Creek 8 # 0303 o f Rento n Stream Type N/A Stream Rating stream 755 feet (co mbined) segment but contains many native tree and shrub species. However, some portions of the buffer onsite are dominated by non-native invasive species in some areas and contain of waste and other . Of the two drainage features, only Maplewood Creek Tributary 0303 is required to have a buffer under RMC 4-3-050 L.5.a.i.(b). The artificially constructed drainage swale is identified as a Class 5 waterbody, as described above, and is not likely regulated by the City of Renton or other State and Federal agencies; therefore, no buffer is required for this constructed feature . As a Class 2 and Class 3 stream, the Maplewood Creek Tributary 0303 requires a buffer width of 100 feet and 75 feet, respectively. Onsite, the buffer consists of deciduous riparian forest with a canopy dominated b y black cottonwood and red alder. Some areas of the understory include native shrubs, primarily salmonberry, but many areas are dominated by Himalayan blackberry and other non-native invasive species . Portions of the offsite buffer are modified with moderate to high density development on adjacent properties to the east. In addition, a gravel driveway and many piles of yard waste and debris are located in onsite areas of the western portion of the buffer associated with adjacent single-family residences and maintained neighboring yards. With buffer averaging and minor buffer enhancement and restoration measures, the modified Class 2 and 75-foot Class 3 buffers will be more than adequate to protect stream function s. t 186.0005 BCE/Quadr:mt -Copperwood Rc sidc::ntia.l Pbt Wetland, Fish :md Wildlife Hab itat Assessment Report 10 Soundview Co nsultants u.c R.v;scd July 14,2014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Chapter 6. Regulatory Considerations The proposed project is located in the City of Renton. The site investigation identified one regulated stream and one non-regulated swale on the property. No other potentially regulated wetlands, streams, or other fish and wildlife habitat were identified on or within 115 feet of the subject property. The buffer area of the onsite stream is somewhat degraded in the north, being vegetated by Himalayan blackberty and other invasive species and containing a substantial number of yard waste and debris piles and a gravel driveway. Local, State, and Federal regulatory implications are addressed below: 6.1 Local and State Requirements The constructed swale exhibited some wetland characteristics, including hydrophytic vegetation (reed canarygrass) due to lack of regular maintenance on the drainage channel; however, the swale is documented as an artificial drainage fearure constructed in 1993 as a landscape and drainage feature intended to be part of a stormwater and groundwater management plan for the site. Therefore, the swale does not meet wetland criteria as defined by Renton Municipal Code (fu'vIC) 4-11-230 and 4-3-050 M and should not be regulated as a wetland fearure or stream. As the artificially constructed swale is documented to be of anthropogenic origin where no naturally derived channel had previously existed, and as the swale is known to collect and convey surface water and/or groundwater from adjacent developed areas, the swale meets the criteria of a non-regulated, Class 5 waterbody under Rt'vIC 4-3-050 L.1.a.v. Class 5 waterbodies are exempt from all regulations by the City of Renton under Rt'vIC 4-3-050 L. The feature also does not meet RCW 90.48 or 36.70A.030(21) criteria for regulation by the State of Washington as a wetland or stream. Maplewood Creek Tributaty 0303 is identified on the northern onsite portion as a Class 3 waterbody. According to Rt'vIC4-3-050 L 1.a.iii., Class 3 waterbodies are non-salmon-bearing perennial waters during years of normal rainfall and require a 75-foot buffer. The downstream, or southern, onsite portion of Maplewood Creek Tributary 0303 is identified as a Class 2 waterbody. According to RMC 4-3-050 L l.a.ii, Class 2 waterbodies are salmon-bearing and perennial or intermittent waterbodies. A Class 2 waterbody under Rt'vIC 4-3-050 L.5.a.i.(a) requires a one hundred foot minimum buffer. The project is located a minimum of 75 feet from the Class 3 reach of the stream, but stormwater infrastructure must be located closer than 100 feet to the Class 2 reach; therefore, minor buffer averaging is necessary adjacent to the Class 2 designated reach. In addition, placement of a pervious walking trail and treated stormwater outfall are proposed within the Class 3 buffer, and some minor grading (approximately 3,000 square feet) is necessary in the modified Class 2 buffer. These additional actions will result in minor impacts, which will be offset with natural vegetation enhancement and restoration actions within the stream buffer. Any activity proposed within the buffer must comply with the following standards as outlined in RMC 4-3-050 L.6: aJ Preservation of Native Vegetation: Existing lIative vegetation shall be preseroed to the extmt possible, preferably ill consolidated a/~as. bJ Revegetation Required: Where Ivater body bujfer disturballce has oCCllmd ill accordance Ivith exel1lption or developl1lmt pemlit approval or other actiJ!ities, revegetation with native vegetation shall be required 1186.0005 BeE/Quadrant -COppCf\\'oou Residential Plat \Xletland, Fish and \,\'ildlife Habitat Assessment Repon 11 Soundview Consultants LLC RevisedJuly 14, 2014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I c) Use of Native Species: When revegetation is req!liml, approved native species, or other appropriate species natNralized to the PNget SOlmd region shall be !lsed. A va/iefy of specieJ shall be !lsed which seme as food or shelterfrom clilllatic extremes and predators, and as stmcture alld cover for replVdllction and rearing ofyOll/lg. d) Removal of Noxious Species: When reqNired as a condition of approval, 1I0xioNS or IIndesirable species of plants shall be relllOl'ed or controlled so as to 1I0t COlli pete Ivith native vegetation. e) Impervious Surface Restrictions: Il7here illlperoiolis slllfaces exist in bllffer areas, sllch illlPeroiol/s sllTfaces shall not be inmased or expanded within the buffer area. The extent of ilJJperoiolls sll/faces within the btrffor area lJJay 01lIY be I~arranged if the reconftguration of impen,iolls sllrfoces alld restoration of plior sUlfaced areas is part of all ellhancemet1t proposal that impr()/Jes ecological/tlllction of the al~a protected by the blrffor. The buffer averaging and enhancement plan, as described in detail in Chapter 7, proposes removal of non-native invasive species, yard waste piles, and the existing gravel driveway and planting of all disturbed areas with native species in compliance with these reguirements. In fact, the value and benefit of the buffer enhancement and restoration actions proposed will greatly exceed the minor and temporary impacts associated with placement of the walking trail, storm outfall, and minor grading near the storm pond. No impervious surface currently exists or is proposed within in the buffer area. In addition, buffer averaging will result in no net loss of stream buffer extent or functionality (see site plans in Appendix C). Along with providing enhancement and restoration actions, the project must meet the additional criteria for permit approval described in RMC 4-3-050 L.7.a and b, which reguire that (a) as a condition of any approval for any development permit issued, a native growth protection area must be created containing the stream area and associated buffer and (b) the action must result in no net loss of regulated area or ecological function in the drainage area. The native growth protection area will be established using a separate tract with deed restriction per Rt'V[C 4-3-050 EA.c. option iii. The native growth protection area will encompass all areas of the site east of the final buffer line detailed on Sheet 3 of Appendix D. As stated previously, the benefits of the proposed enhancement and restoration actions far exceed the minor and temporary buffer impacts proposed by the project. In addition, a native growth protection area will be created to protect the stream and buffer in perpetuity. \'{Iith the enhancement actions proposed in Chapter 7 of this report, the native growth protection area will comply with the standards set forth in RMC 4-3-050 EA.b. 6.2 Federal Regulatory Considerations The results of the 2014 site investigation identified one stream and one excavated drainage swale. Maplewood Creek Tributary 0303 receives water from natural and artificial sources upstream of the site and has a documented direct surface water connection to waters of the U.S. known to be regulated under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The drainage swale appears to have been originally constructed in upland soils for the purpose of conveying stormwater runoff from adjacent driveways and residences and grou'1dwater from drainage systems. The swale does not receive water from any sources potentially regulated under Section 404 of the CW A. In a December 2, 2008 memorandum from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and USACE, joint guidance is provided that describes waters that are to be regulated under section 404 of the CWA (USACE, 2008). This memorandum was amended on February 2, 2012 where the EPA and USACE issued a final !,>uidance letter on waters protected by the CW A. 1186.0005 BeE/Quadrant -Copperwood Residential Plat \'('etland. Fish and \'\'ildlifc Habitat Assessment Repon 12 Soundview Consultants LtC Re,'isedJuly 14, 2014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The 2012 guidance describes the following waters where jurisdiction would be asserted: 1) traditional navigable waters, 2) interstate waters, 3) wetlands adjacent to traditional navigable waters, 4) non- navigable tributaries of traditional navigable waters that are relatively permanent meaning they contain water at least seasonally (e.g. typically three months and does not include ephemeral waters), and 5) wetlands that directly abut permanent waters. The regulated waters are those associated with narurally occurring waters and water courses and not artificial waters (i.e. stormwater pond outfalls). Maplewood Creek Tributary 0303 fits the description of Item 4 and is clearly regulated under Section 404 of the CWI A The 2012 memorandum further goes on to describe waters where jurisdiction would likely require further analysis: 1) Tributaries to traditional navigable waters or interstate waters, 2) \X1etlands adjacent to jurisdictional tributaries to traditional navigable waters or interstate waters, and 3) \X1aters that fall under the "other waters" category of the regulations. In addition, the 2012 guidance identifies thirteen waters or areas where jurisdiction will not be asserted: 1) \X1et areas that are not tributaries or open waters and do not meet the agencies regulatory definition of "wetlands", 2) Wlaters excluded from coverage under the CWiA by existing regulations, 3) \X1aters that lack a "significant nexus: where one is required for a water to be jurisdictional, 4) Artificially irrigated areas that would revert to upland if the irrigation ceased, 5) Artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating and/or diking dry land to collect and retain water and which are used exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, irrigation, settling basins, or rice growing, 6) Artificial reflecting pools or swimming pools excavated in uplands, 7) Small ornamental waters created by excavating and/or diking dry land to retain water for primarily aesthetic reasons, and puddles, 8) Water-filled depressions created incidental to construction activity, 9) Groundwater, including groundwater drained through subsurface drainage systems, 10) Erosional features (gullies and rills), 11) Non-wetland swales, 12) Ditches that are excavated wholly in uplands, drain only uplands or non-jurisdictional waters, and have no more than ephemeral flow, and 13) Ditches that do not contribute flow, either directly or through other waterbodies, to a traditional navigable water, interstate water, or territorial sea. The drainage swale identified on the subject property lacks a defined bed and bank and was clearly constructed from uplands as documented by the prior landowner. The source of water that may be found within this swale is stormwater associated with roadside runoff and a high groundwater collection system. The excavated swale identified onsite appears to fit at least 3 of the criteria (Items 7, 9, and 12) for which the agencies are directed not to assert jurisdiction over; however, previous experience with the Seattle Branch of the USACE's interpretation of the guidance indicates agency staff sometimes will try to assert jurisdiction over such features. However, it is highly unlikely such assertion of jurisdiction over this swale is defensible given the documentation of the swale. Should the USACE decide to assert jurisdiction over the swale under Section 404 of the CWI A, the project would still likely be covered under a simplified CWiA Section 404 Nationwide Permit (NWlP) 29 for residential development projects as the limit of State and Federal permitting efforts under Sections '401 and 404 of the CWiA. Final determination of NWiP coverage, though not likely necessary, is at the discretion of the USACE, and other minor NWiP's, such as a NWIP 18, may be also be used to authorize this project. 1186.0005 BeE/Quadrant -Coppcrwood Residential Plat Wetland, Fish and \X'ildlife Habitat Assessment Report 13 Sounddcw Consultants LLC RcdscdJuly 14, 2014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Federal permitting efforts would also trigger Section 7 review under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The same permitting requirements would also trigger Section 106 review under the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) due to the extent of land-disturbing actions. As no Federal permitting is likely necessary, documentation for such additional review requirements is not being prepared at this time and will not be prepared in the future unless USACE staff can justify a regulatory nexus with the proposed project. 1186.0005 BCE/Quadrant -Coppcrwood Residential Plat \X'etJand, Fish and \X'ildlife Habitat Assessment Report 14 SoundYiew Consultants LLC RC\'ised July 14.2014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Chapter 7. Buffer Averaging and Enhancement Plan The following sections present the proposed buffer averaging and enhancement plan with minor restoration actions ro address the buffer impacts associated with the proposed project and satisfy buffer width and native growth protection area criteria. The proposed averaging and enhancement actions attempt to closely adhere to local Critical Areas Regulations specified in RMC 4-3-050 L.5.d and 4-3-050 EA and L.6-7, respectively. The proposed buffer averaging and enhancement plan is provided in Appendix D. The buffer enhancement plan proposes to remove the Himalayan blackberry and other non-native invasive vegetation by providing a chemical application (pre-treatment) of the invasive plants prior to grubbing, which would occur during the dry season to minimize any potential impact to Maplewood Creek Tributary 0303 and its downstream tributaries. Additional enhancement actions will include clean up and removal of the gravel driveway and the significant number of yard waste and debris piles located within the buffer to mitigate for the addition of a pervious walking trail along the perimeter of the buffer. This plan proposes enhancement efforts within the stream buffer wherever needed at the discretion of the responsible wetland scientist and restoration actions wherever minor grading actions disturb the perimeter of the buffer such as stormwater outfall placement and installation of the stormwater pond. No actions are proposed that will intrude into or affect the stream channel. Please see Appendix D for planting specifications and details. 7.1 Purpose and Need The purpose of the proposed project is to provide additional residential units and associated infrastrucrure within the Ciry of Renton. The project proposes to develop a plat of forty-seven (47) residential units with all necessary parking, driveways, utilities and associated infrastructure. A minimum 75-foot protective buffer will be implemented to protect the regulated Class 3 stream and an averaged 100-foot buffer will be implemented to protect the Class 2 reach of the same stream. In addition, only temporary impacts are proposed to onsite stream buffers through enhancement and restoration actions. The project seeks to mitigate for the minor temporary impacts associated with necessary placement of a treated stormwater outfall and grading in the onsite buffer area and provide compliance with native growth protection area requirements. 7.2 Description of Impacts No direct adverse impacts are proposed to any regulated critical area, as Maplewood Creek Tributary 0303 will not be directly impacted by the proposed project. However, the project proposes to place a walking trail, treated stormwater outfall, approximately 3,000 square feet of temporary grading within the stream buffer, resulting in minor temporary impacts. Surface water and a portion of the roof water from the proposed residential plat will be directed to a detention pond which will treat and discharge stormwater into a dispersion trench which will direct the treated water to the stream buffer. In addition, vegetation enhancement and restoration actions within the buffer will result in temporary disturbance only, with a resultant beneficial effect. The existing buffer onsite is degraded by the dominance of invasive Himalayan blackberry, the presence of yard waste and debris piles, and the gravel driveway. The dense blackberry and yard waste piles keep emergent vegetation suppressed near the stream channel thus causing increased 1186.0005 BCE/Quadr:mt -Copperwood ResidenriaJ Plat Wetland, Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report 15 Sound\·icw Consultants LLC Revised July 14, 2014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I runoff and erosion to limit water quality functions within the buffer. The proposed project will substantially improve stream buffer functions including enhanced wildlife habitat and improvements to water quality functions by establishing a highly structured native plant community and constructing a protective fence with signage to prevent continued disturbance of buffer areas. In addition, pedestrian access within the buffer will be contained by establishment of a low-impact trail system to curtail trampling of native vegetation and inappropriate uses within the buffer. Other than the gravel areas proposed to be removed, no impervious surface currently exists within the buffer nor is proposed to be placed in the buffer by the proposed project. The proposed project does not propose to negatively impact offsite drainages nor will it be detrimental to any other property. Only a small portion of the stream buffer will be temporarily impacted during installation of pervious walking trail, outfall, and minor grading near the stormwater pond. The alignment of the outfall has been designed to avoid significant native conifers, and temporaty impacts will be limited to the smallest area necessary to allow installation located outside of OHW. Once installation of these items is complete, the disturbed areas will be finish graded and replanted with native vegetation. The extent of buffer enhancement and restoration actions proposed will meet all native growth protection area requirements and will greatly exceed any mitigation necessaty for the minor and temporary impacts associated with placement of the outfall. 7.3 Mitigation Approach and Best Management Practices The proposed enhancement and restoration plan is intended to provide an appropriate stream buffer functions without loss of area and non-compensatory enhancement and restoration actions for any temporary impacts. The plan will also enhance the overall buffer functionality to meet native growth protection area requirements. Onsite buffer areas are dominated by Himalayan blackberry and contain significant numbers of yard waste and debris piles. Proposed enhancement actions include treatment and removal of invasive vegetation, removal of yard waste and debris piles, planting with native trees and shrubs, and establishment of an herbaceous understory to allow the return of a forested canopy and enhance water quality and habitat functions of Maplewood Creek Tributary 0303. Impacts to the stream are being fully avoided, and impacts to the buffer are being minimized through careful planning efforts and project design. Enhancement and restoration actions will occur concurrently with the development of the plat. Temporary erosion and sediment control (TESC) measures will be implemented that consists of high-visibility fencing (HVF) installed around native vegetation within the buffer, silt fencing between the graded areas and buffer, plastic sheeting on stockpiled materials, and seeding of disturbed soils. These TESC measures should be installed prior to the start of development or enhancement actions and actively managed for the duration of the project. A concrete wash water collection basin should also be installed away from the buffer prior to commencement of construction activities requiring additional concrete work. All equipment staging and materials stockpiles should be kept out of the buffer, and the area will need to be kept free of spills and/or hazardous materials. All fill material and road surfacing should be sourced from upland areas onsite or from approved suppliers, and will need to be free of pollutants and hazardous materials. Construction materials along with all construction waste and debris should be effectively managed and stockpiled on paved surfaces and kept free of the remaining wetland and stream buffer area. Following completion of the residence, the entire site should be cleaned and detail graded 1186.0005 BeE/Quadrant -Copperwood Residential Plat Wetland, Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report 16 Soundview Consultants Tole RevisedJuly 14, 2014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I using hand tools wherever necessary, and TESC measures will need to be removed. In addition, permanent stormwater treatment fearures will need to be implemented as designed by the project engineer. 7.4 Buffer Averaging Efforts As a result of the re-classification of the southeast onsite reach of the stream from a Class 3 to a Class 2, buffer averaging efforts will need to be made to accommodate the stormwater pond. \Vith careful planning, buffer width modification using the buffer averaging standards set forth in RMC 4- 3-050 L5.d may be applied to this project if several criteria for approval are followed; including, buffer width will not result in a net loss of ecological function, the total buffer area is no less than the required standard, and the buffer standard is based on best available science. The buffer averaging efforts for this project included an assessment of existing site conditions, critical areas and physical limitations, stream class designation, and anticipated project needs. The proposed buffer averaging efforts are very minor and attempt to strike a balance berween these elements in a manner that allows the best use of the site while maintaining the integrity of the existing critical areas. ' Careful planning and targeted implementation of the buffer averaging exercise detailed on Sheet 2 of Appendix D, along with buffer enhancement actions, will help ensure that no additional negative impacts will be made to the critical areas identified in this assessment. Expansion of buffer areas surrounding sensitive areas and implementation of effective restoration and enhancement measures will also help ensure that water quality and fish and wildlife habitat functions will be improved from its current state. The buffer reduction is only proposed within the outermost extent of the onsite buffer where the stream was re-classified as a Class 2 waterbody. Increase in buffer area is proposed an adjacent area that is situated berween the proposed residences and the stream. The proposed buffer averaging plan increases overall total buffer area on the site by 1,442 square feet (from existing 1,730 square feet to the proposed 3,172 square feet). As the proposed actions will increase overall buffer functionality, no net loss of buffer function or arca is proposed. 7.5 Enhancement Actions Enhancement and restoration actions for the buffer include, but may not be limited to, the following recommendations: • Pre-treat invasive plants, such as English ivy, Himalayan blackberry, and Scotch broom, b'1'owing in the tributary buffer with a Washington Department of Agriculture approved herbicide. After pre-treatment, grub to remove the invasive plants and replant all cleared areas with native trees, shrubs, and ground covers listed in Appendix C; Pre-treatment of the invasive plants should occur a minimum of rwo weeks prior to removal; • Remove gravel associated with the existing gravel driveway and break up the compacted soil with a ripper attachment or tiller. Seed and plant disrurbed areas; • Only native trees, shrubs, and ground covers listed in Appendix C, or substitutes approved by the responsible wetland scientist, will be used in disturbed areas to help retain soils, filter stormwater, and increase biodiversity of macroinvertebrates (i.e. insects); • An approved native seed mix will be used to seed the disrurbed areas after planting trees and shrubs; 1186.0005 BeE/Quadrant -Coppenmod Residential Plat \\lctland, Fish and Wildlife Habitat ,\ssessmcnt Report I7 Sounddew Consultants LLC Revised July 14, 2014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I • Maintenance to maintain control of invasive plants will occur annually, at a minimum, or more frequently if necessary. Maintenance to reduce the growth and spread of invasive plants is not restricted to chemical applications but may include hand removal, if warranted; • Dry-season irrigation will be provided as necessary by the property owner to help ensure plant survival; • Exterior lights will be directed away from the tributary buffer whenever possible, and • Activities that generate excessive noise (i.e. generators and air conditioning equipment) will be placed away from the riparian corridor whenever feasible. 7.6 Mitigation Goals, Objectives, and Performance Standards The goals and objectives for the proposed non-compensatory enhancement and restoration actions are based on improving buffer functions to compensate for temporary impacts to the buffer. These actions are capable of improving water quality and hydrologic functions and providing a moderate to high level of habitat function for stream buffer-associated wildlife. The goals and objectives of the proposed enhancement actions are as follows: Goal -lmprove habitat functions associated with the Maplewood Creek Tributary 0303 buffer by reducing presence of non-native invasive species and increasing presence of habitat features and diversity within the temporarily impacted buffer. Objective 1-Increase plant biodiversity in areas where Himalayan blackberry and! or other invasive species are dominant. Performance Standard 1 -A minimum of 5 native tree and shrub species will be present within the enhancement area in all monitoring years. Performance Standard 2 -The enhanced buffer area onsite will contain a minimum of 50 percent native species areal coverage by Year 2, 60 percent areal coverage by Year 3, and 75 percent areal coverage percent by Year 5 of all strata. Objective 2 -Effectively control and! or eliminate invasive species from the stream buffer enhancement areas. Performance Standard 3 -Non-native invasive plants will not make up more than 15 percent total areal cover in any growing season following Year 1. 7.7 Plant Materials and Installation 7.7.1 Plant Materials All plant materials to be used for enhancement actions will be nursery grown stock from a reputable, local source. Only native species are to be used; no hybrids or cultivars will be allowed. Plant material provided will be typical of their species or variety; if not cuttings they will exhibit normal, densely-developed branches and vigorous, fibrous root systems. Plants will be sound, healthy, vigorous plants free from defects, and all forms of disease and infestation. 1186.0005 BeE/Quadrant -Copperwood Residential Plat \\'etland, Fish and \\'ildlife Habitat Assessment Repan 18 Sound\'iew Consultants LLC Rc\·ised July 14,2014 I I I I I I I I' I I I I I I I I I I I If container stock is used, such materials shall have been grown in its delivery container for not less than six months but not more than two years. Plants shall not exhibit rootbound conditions. Under no circumstances shall container stock be handled by their trunks, stems, or tops. Seed mixture used for hand or hydroseeding shall contain fresh, clean, and new crop seed mixed by an approved method. The mixture is specified in Appendix D. ,. All plant material shall be inspected by the Wetland Scientist upon delivery. Plant material not conforming to the specifications below will be rejected and replaced by the planting contractor. Rejected plant materials shall be immediately removed from the site. Fertilizer will be in the form of Agroform plant tabs or an approved like form. Mulch will consist of sterile wheat straw or clean recycled wood chips approximately 1/2 inch to 1 inch in size and 1/2 inch thick. If free of invasive plant species, the mulch material may be sourced from woody materials salvaged from the land clearing activities. 7.7.2 Product Handling, Delivery, and Storage All seed and fertilizer should be delivered in original, unopened, and undamaged containers showing weight, analysis, and name of manufacturer. This material should be stored in a manner to prevent wetting and deterioration. All precautions customary in good trade practice shall be taken in preparing plants for moving. Workmanship that fails to meet industry standards will be rejected. Plants will be packed, transported, and handled with care to ensure protection against injury and from drying out. If plants cannot be planted immediately upon delivery they should be protected with soil, wet peat moss, or in a manner acceptable to the project biologist. Plants, fertilizer, and mulch not installed immediately upon delivery shall be secured on the site to prevent theft or tampering. No plant shall be bound with rope or wire in a manner that could damage or break the branches. Plants transported on open vehicles should be secured with a protective covering to prevent windburn. 7.7.3 Preparation and Installation of Plant Materials The planting locations shown in Appendix D are approximate and subject to modification to meet site-specific needs. The planting contractor shall verify the location of all elements of the enhancement plan with the Wetland Scientist prior to installation. The responsible Wetland Scientist reserves the right to adjust the locations of landscape elements during the installation period as appropriate to the enhancement actions outlined above. If obstructions are encountered that are not shown on the drawings, planting operations will cease until alternate plant locations have been selected by and/or approved by the Wetland Scientist. Circular plant pits with vertical sides will be excavated for all container stock. The pits should be at least 12 inches in diameter, and the depth of the pit should accommodate the entire root system. The bottom of each pit will be scarified to a depth of 4 inches. Broken roots should be pruned with a sharp instrument and rootballs should be thoroughly soaked prior to installation. Set plant material upright in the planting pit to proper grade and alignment. Water plants thoroughly midway through backfilling and add Agroform tablets. Water pits again 1186.0005 BeE/Quadrant -Coppcnmod Residential Plat Wetland, Fish and Wildlife Habitat I\s~essment Report 19 Suundyiew Consultants LLC Re\'i~cdJuly 14, 2014 ": , I I I I I I I I I I I I I I' I I I I I upon completion of backfilling. No filling should occur around trunks or stems. Do not use frozen or muddy mixtures for backfilling. Form a ring of soil around the edge of each planting pit to retain water, and install a 4 to 6 inch layer of mulch around the base of each container plant. 7.7.4 Temporary Irrigation Specifications While the native species selected for enhancement are hardy and typically thrive in northwest conditions, and the proposed enhancement actions are planned in areas with sufficient hydroperiods for the species selected, some individual plants might perish due to dry conditions. Therefore, irrigation or regular watering will be provided as necessary for the duration of the first 2 growing seasons while the native plantings become established. 7.7.5 Invasive Plant Control and Removal Invasive species to be removed include Himalayan blackberry and all listed noxious weeds. These species can also be found nearby; therefore, to ensure these species do not expand following the enhancement actions, invasive shrubs within the enhancement and restoration areas will be pretreated with a root-killing herbicide approved for use in aquatic sites (i.e. Rodeo) approximately 30 days prior to being cleared and grubbed from the entire wetland and associated buffer. The pre- treatment with herbicide should occur prior to all planned mitigation actions, and spot treatment of any surviving other invasive vegetation should be performed again each fall prior to leaf senescence for a minimum of 3 years. A maintenance program requiring annual removal of invasive species within all wetland buffer areas by a homeowner's association following project completion, and written into the subdivision's Codes, Covenants, and Restrictions, is also recommended. This program should start during the early summer of Year 1 of the monitoring program. 7.8 Maintenance & Monitoring The applicant is committed to compliance with the proposed enhancement plan and overall success of the project. As such, the applicant will continue to maintain the project, keeping the site free from of non-native invasive vegetation, trash, and yard waste. The enhancement site will be monitored for a period of 5 years with formal inspections by a qualified Wetland Scientist. The maintenance/monitoring period will begin upon completion of an as-built plan and certification from a Professional Wetland Scientist or Scientist with equivalent qualifications certifying the mitigation was installed per the enhancement and restoration plan. Monitoring events will be scheduled at the time of construction, 30 days after planting, and late in the first through final year's 'growing seasons in Years 1, 2, 3, and 5. A closeout assessment will also be conducted in Year 5 to ensure the adequate restoration and enhancement measures have been provided. Monitoring will consist of percent cover measurements at permanent sampling points, walk-through surveys to identify invasive species presence and dead or dying restoration plantings, photographs taken at fixed photo points, wildlife observations, and verification of dispersion trench function and general qualitative buffer function observations. Percent cover of all herbaceous species will be 1186.0005 BeE/Quadrant -Coppenmod Rcsidenrial Plat Wetland. Fish and \X'ildlife Habitat Assessment Repon 20 Sound view Consultants LLC Re\,j~cdJu[y 14, 2014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I measured along each transect at 30-foot intervals using a .25 meter quadrant. Average values for each site will he determined from all quadrants measured along each transect. 7.9 Reporting Following each monitoring event, a hrief monitoring report detailing the current ecological status of the stream huffer, measurement of performance standards, and management recommendarions will he prepared and suhmitted to the City of Renton within 90 days of each monitoring event to ensure full compliance with the mitigation plan, performance standards, and regulatory conditions of approval. 7.10 Contingency Plans If monitoring results during the first 3 years indicate that performance standards are not being met, it may be necessary to implement all or part of the contingency plan. Careful attention to maintenance is essential in ensuring that problems do not arise. Should any portion of the site fail to meet the success criteria, a contingency plan will he developed and implemented with City of Renton approval. Such plans are adaptive and should be prepared on a case-by-case hasis to reflect the failed mitigation characteristics. Conringency plans can include additional plant installation, and plant substitutions including type, size, and location. Contingency/maintenance activities may include, but are not limited to: 1. Replacing plants lost to vandalism, drought, or disease, as necessary; 2. Replacing any plant species with a 20 percent or greater mortality rate after 2 growing seasons with the same species or native species of similar form and function; 3. Irrigating the enhancement areas only as necessary during dry weather if plants appear to be too dry, with a minimal quantity of water; 4. Reseeding and/or repair of stream buffer areas as necessary if erosion or sedimentation occurs, or 5. Removing all trash or undesirable dehris from the stream and buffer areas as necessary. 7.11 Early Closeout If the Year 3 monitoring effort indicates all Performance Standards are being met, the Applicant may petition the City of Renton for early closeout of the monitoring period. Such a petition mal' be made using the Year 3 monitoring report and a written request to City of Renton staff. 1186.0005 BCI~/Quadrant -Copper-wood Residendal Plat \X'etland. Fish and \X'ildlifc Habirat Assessment Report 21 Sound"jew Consultants LLC Rc"isedjuly 14, 2014 I I I, I I I I I 1 I I I I' I .' I I I Chapter 8. Closure The findings and conclusions documented in this report have been prepared for specific application to the Copperwood Residential Plat. They have been developed in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill normally exercised by members of the environmental science profession currently practicing under similar conditions in the area. The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are professional opinions based on an interpretation of information currently available to us and are made within the operation scope, budget, and schedule of this project. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made. In addition, changes in government codes, regulations, or laws may occur. Because of such changes, our observations and conclusions applicable to this site may need to be revised wholly or in part. \V'etland determinations and regulatory recommendations made by Soundview Consultants LLC are based on conditions present at the time of the site visit and considered preliminary until validated by the jurisdictional agencies. Validation of the extent and jurisdictional status of all potentially regulated features by the regulating agency provides a certification, usually written, that the features that will, or will not, be regulated by the agencies until a specific date or until the regulations are modified. Only the regulating agencies can provide this certification. Since wetlands and streams are dynamic communities affected by both natural and human activities, changes in wetland boundaries may be expected; therefore, delineations cannot remain valid for an indefinite period of time. Local agencies typically recognize the validiry of wetland and stream assessments for a period of 5 years after completion of an assessment. Development activities on a site 5 years after the completion of this report may require revisions. In addition, changes in government codes, regulations, or laws may occur. Because of such changes, our observations and conclusions applicable to this site may need to be revised wholly or in part. 1186.0005 BeE/Quadrant -Copperwood Residential Plat \X/erland. Fish and \'\'ildlifc Habitat Assessment Report 22 Suundvic\\' Cunsultants LLC RevisedJuly 14,2014 I I .' I' I I I I I I I I I I , ,. Chapter 9. Report Summary All field inspections, jurisdictional wetland boundary delineations, OH\VM determinations, habitat assessments, and supporting documentation, including this Wedand and Fish & Wildlife Habitat Assessment prepared for the CoppeDYood Residential Plat were prepared by, or under the direction of, Jeremy Downs, Jim Carsner, and Hannah Blackstock of Soundview Consultants LLC. Jeremy Downs is a Principal Scientist and Environmental Planner, Jim Carsner is a certified Professional Wetland Scientist, and Hannah Blackstock is a Staff Scientist. Any deviations and/or alterations to this document must be approved by the aforementioned parties at Soundview Consultants LLC. Please see Appendix E for a description of professional qualifications. Sincerely, Jeremy Downs Soundview Consultants u.c 2907 Harborview Drive Gig Harbor, W A 98335 -------- Office: (253) 514-8952 ext. 004 Fax: (253) 514-8954 bannah@sQunwewcQQsultants com Soundview Consultants LLC 2907 Harborview Drive Gig Harbor, W A 98335 Office: (253) 514-8952 ext. 008 Fax: (253) 514-8954 jim@sQuodyiewcoQsultaots com Hannah Blackstock Soundview Consultants u.c 2907 Harborview Drive Gig Harbor, WA 98335 Office: (253) 514-8952 ext. 004 Fax: (253) 514-8954 baooab@souodyiewcoosultants com 1186.0005 BCE/Quadrant -Copperwood Residential Plat Wetland, Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report 7/14/14 Date 7/14114 Date 7/14114 Date 23 Soundvicw Consultants LLC RevisedJuly 14, 2014 I I I I I I I I, I I I' I I I 1 I Chapter 9. References Barber, M., S. Cierebiej, and D. Collins. 2009. t<lsh Passage Baniers and Suiface 117ater Diversioll Screelling Assessme/1t and Prioritizatioll MalluaL Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia, WA. Brinson, M. M. 1993. A h),drogeomorphic classificatioll for 1vetlallds, Techllical Report I17RP-DE4. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS. Cowardin, L.M. V. Carter, F. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classificatioll of I17etlands and Deep1vater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Washington D.C. Renton Municipal Code. 2014. Section 4-3-050, Critical Areas Regulations. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. CO/ps of Engineers I17etlallds Delineation Malll/aL Technical Report Y-87- 1, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. Granger, T., T. Hruby, A. McMillan, D. Peters, J. Rubey, D. Sheldon, S. Stanley, E. Stockdale. 2005. 117etlands in I17ashingtoll State -Volume 2: Gllidance for Protecting and Mallaging Wetlands. Washington State Department of Ecology. Publication #05-06-008. Olympia, WA. [April 2005]. Hadley, C. 2006. Memorandllm: Shy Creek PrelilJlinary Plat Fish PreseJ1cej Abse/1ce SmlflJ)'s -East Fork Maplewood Cmk. Cedarock Consultants, Inc. May 9, 2006. Hitchcock, c.L. and A. Cronquist. 1973. Flora of the Pacific North1vest. University of Washington Press. Seattle, Washington. Tichvar, Robert W. and John T. Kartesz. 2009. N01th Americall Digital Flora: Natiollal 117et/alld Plallt List, version 2.4.0. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, NW, and BONAP, Chapel Hill, NC. Munsell® Color. 2000. Munsell@ soil color charts. New Windsor, New York. Natural Resources Conservation Service. 1995. Hydric Soils of 117ashington. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Washington D.C. Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2001. H),dnc Soils List: King COIIIID', I17ashington. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Washington D.C. Olson, P. and E. Stockdale. 2008. Detennining the Ordinary High Water Mark all Streams in 117ashington State. Washington State Department of Ecology, Shore lands & Environmental Assistance Program, Lacey, WA. Ecology Publication # 08-06-001. Reed, P.B., Jr., D. Peters, J Goudzwaard, 1. Lines, and F. Weinmann. 1993. Supp/eIJ/e/1t to National List of Piant Species That OCCllr in Wetlallds: N01tlJlvest Region 9. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Supplement to BioI. Rep. 88 (26.9). 1186.0005 BeE/Quadrant -Cupperv;ood Residential Plat \'\ictland, Fish and \'Iiildlifc Habitat Assessment Report 24 Sound"icw Consultants LLC ReyisedJuly 14, 2014 I I , I I I I I I I I I' I I I I I I I Sheldon, D., T. Hruby, P. Johnson, K. Harper, A. McMillan, T. Granger, S. Stanley, and E. Stockdale. 2005. Wetlands in Washington State -Volume 1: A Synthesis of the Science. Washington State Department of Ecology. Publication #05-06-006. Olympia, WA. [March 2005] Snyder, Dale E., Philip S. Gale, and Russell F. Pringle. 1973. Soil Slimy of King County Area, l17ashington. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, in cooperation with the Washington Agricultural Experiment Station. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2008. Cleall Water Act jurisdiction PollOlving the US Supm"e COllrt's Decision ill Rapallos v. United States & Cambell v. United States. EPA/USACE. December 2, 2008. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2010. Regional Supplelllellt to the Corps of Engilleers l17etlalld Delima!ioll Manila/: l17estem MOllntains, Valll!)'s, and Coast Region (Ver2.0), ed. J.S. Wakeley, R.W. Lichvar, and C.V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-l0-3. Vicksburg, MSS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2010. Field Indictors of Hydric Soils in the United States, Version 7.0. L.M. Vasialas, G.W. Hurt, and C.V. Noble (eds.). USDA, NRCS, in cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils. Washington State Department of Ecology. 1997. Washington State Wetlands Identificatioll and Delineatioll Manual. Washington State Department of Ecology. Publication #96-94. Washington State Department of Ecology. 1997. l17ashington State Wetlands Idet1tification and Delineatioll Mallua/. Washington State Department of Ecology. Publication #96-94. Washington State Department of Ecology, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Seattle District, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10. (Ecolob'Y) 2006a. l17etland Mitigation ill Washington State -Part 1: Agenry Policies and Guidance (Version 1). Washington State Department of Ecology. Publication #06-06-011 a. Olympia, W A. 1186.0005 BeE/Quadrant -Coppcrwood Residenci:l.! Plat Wetland, Fish and \,(Iildlife Habitat A~sessmcnt Report 25 Suundview Consultants LLC . RcdscdJulr 14, 2014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Appendix A -Methods and Tools Table A-t. Methods and tools used to prepare the report. Parameter Method or Tool Website Wetland USACE 1987 http:! / e1.erdc.usace.army.mi Delineation Wetland 1/ e1pubs/ pdf/ wlman87 .pdf Delineation Manual Western htrp:! /www.usace.anmy.mil l\.Iountains, / cw / cecwo/reg/intc_aridw Valleys, and Coast esesup.pdf Region Interim Regional Supplement Wetland USFWS/ http://www.fws.gov/nwi/P Classification Cowardin ubs_Reports/Class_Manual Classification / class_tidepg.htm System H ydrogeomorphic http:/ / el.erdc.usace.anny.mi Classification IIwetlands/pdfs/wrpde4.pd (HGM) System f Wetland Renton Municipal http:/ /www.codepublishing Rating Code 4-3-050 1\1 .com/wa/renton/ Stream Federal Ordinary http:! /www.usace.army.mil Delineation High Water Mark /inet/ functions/ cw / cecwo Definition /reg/33cfr328.htm Draft State http://www.ecy.wa.gov/pu Ordinary High bs/0806001.pdf \Vater Mark Protocol Wetland National Wetland http:/ /wcdand_plants.usace.ar Indicator Status Plant List, 2013 my.miI1 Wetland Ratings Plant Names USDA Plant htrp:/ /plants.usda.gov/ Database Soils Data NRCS Soil Survey http:/ / soils.usda.gov /use/h ydric/ Hydric Soils King County Not available Data Hydric Soils Jjst Threatened Washington bttp'LLwww dDt ~ gO:£LDb and Natural Heritage 1186.0005 BCE/Quadrant-Coppel"'.\'ood Residential Plat Wetland. Fish and Wildlife Habitat Asst!ssment Repon Reference Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1, US Anmy Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2008. Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region, ed. J. S. Wakeley, R. W. Lichvar, and C. V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-08-13. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. Cowardin, L. M., V. Catter, F. C. Golet, E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. Government Printing Office, \Y/ashington. D.C. Brinson, M. M. (1993). "A hydrogeomorphic classification for wetlands," Technical Report . WRP-DE-4, U.S. Anmy Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. \'Vebsite Congressional Federal Register 33 Part 328 Definition of Waters of the United States. Olson, P. and E. Stockdale. 2008. Determining the Ordinary High Water Mark on Streams in \V/ashington State. \Vashington State Department of Ecology, Shorelands & Environmental Assistance Program, Lacey, WI A. Ecology Publication # 08-06-001. Lichvar, R.W. 2013. The National Wetland Plant List: 2013 wetland ratings. Phytoncuron 2013-49: 1-241. Published 17 lulv 2013. Website (see Appendix A) Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2011. Hydric Soils List: King County, Washington. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Washington D.C. Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2001. Hydric Soils Ust: King County, \V/ashington. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Washingron D.C. Washington Natural Heritage Program (Data published 10/15/08). Endangered, $ound\;ew Consultants LLC Re,'isedJuly 14, 2014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Parameter Method or Tool Website Endangered Program pL Species and http://wwwl.dnr.wa.gov/n hpj rcfdesk/ datasearch/wn hpweclands.pdf W/ashinbrton http://wdfw.wa.gov/hab/p Priority Habitats hspage.htm and Species NOAA fisheries http://w',,VW'.nwr.noaa.gov/ species list and ESA-Salmon- maps Lisrings/Salmon- Populations/Index.cfm and http:/ Iwww.nmfs.noaa.gov /pr/species/ USF\X1S species. http://www.fws.gov/westw lists by County afwo/ se/SE_List/ endanger ed_Spccies.asp Species of WDFW GIS Data http://wdfw.wa.gov/mappi Local ng/salmonscapel Importance Renton Municipal http:/ /\V\vw.codcpublishing Code .com/wa/ renton/ 1186.0005 BeE/Quadrant -C()pperwood Residential Plat Wetland, Fish and \X/ildJi(e Habitat Assessment Repnn Reference threatened. and sensitive plants of \Vashington. Washington State Department of Natural Resources, \'Washington Natural Heritage Proh'Tam, Olympia, WA Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) Program :Map of priority habitats and species in project vicinity. W/ashinbrton Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). \Xr'cbsitc \X'cbsite \X?cbsite \V'ebsite Soundvicw Consultants LLC Revised July 14,2014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----------- Appendix B -Background Information This appendix includes a King County Topographic Map (BI); USFWS National Wetland Inventory Map (B2); City of Renton Critical Areas Map (B3); NRCS Soil Survey Map (B4); WDFW Priority Habitat and Species Map (BS); and WDFW SalmonScape Map (B6. 1186.0005 BeE/Quadrant -Coppel"\\!Ood Residential Plat Wetland, Fish and \,\'ildlife Habitat Assessment Report Soundyiew Consultants LLC RevisedJulr 14, 2014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Appendix Bl-King County Topographic Map 1186.0005 BCE /Quadrant -Coppenvood RcsidcntiaJ Pl at Wewnd. Fish :and Wildlife Hllbitat Aucssment Report Subject /' Property Soundview Consultants u..c Revised July 14 ,2014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Appendix B2 -USFWS National Wedand Inventory Map 11 86.0005 BCE/Quadr2nt -Cop~rwood Re sidential Plat Wetland, Fish and Wildlife Habi tat Assessment Report So und view Co nsulta nts LLC RcviscdJuly 14, 2014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Appendix B3 -City of Renton Critical Areas Map City of Renton Critical Areas 412' 4'02 1t7 '20 20. "01 "IU 210 20. 202 207 213 210 13&01 ~ 20' 2" 220 221 13121 ~ 1 310' 13115 13627 '7 "\ '3702 1l7QJ '" 13700 '3700 13114 1sno 131<)2 1310. •• CD 4000 '55 L I 492' .. 312 .4CII0 ~11 ~11 '000 5008 Subject Property $001 :10'3 !lOOT 14020 14123 11114 13906 -- o o 128 2 .. _ Cilyor Benfon Finan« &-IT DivISion 14017 CIty ... CoonIy- 0 -Cl car ....... -Slope City rI Rmian ... 2ft ............. , . -._-.--F"\i~,'''''''''' noa.do ..... w. --....... ,.', IOPID.uap 012014 1186.0005 BCE /Qwdnnt-Coppcrwood Rc sidentia.l Plat Wetland, Fi sh and Wildlife Habitat Assessm ent Report 11~ 12$ • 31 'no 124 123 1)0 129 2G6 203 210 l:OI 211 2" .22 , .. " . 202 201 214 220 Sf 'net'l ---'--·'0"·2$ 5151 tCUt 138" .3820 .3611 ! \3£1' 13821 1313. ,S.33 .31$1 ''''0 136., ,.a13 14321 13'" --0 .... - r Sf 1ltth'. 0- , • • _ ...... Soundview Consultants LLC R.viscd Jul y 14, 7014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Appendix B4 -NRCS Soil Survey Map • • • ~ .... UnIl..- Jq; T_Ior _al _ .... CounIrArM. ...... e .... UnIl_ _grawlySMdyIoam, 810 151*'*"""'- 11 86 .0005 BCE /Qu.a d mm-Copperwood Reside n tia l Pl at Wcdand, Fish and Wildli fe Habitat ASKument Repon ·IWMU) _InAOl 13.8 13.1 • • • ! _alAOI 100.0% 100.0% Soun dview Consultants LLC Revism J uly 14,2014 "'.IF _ -.... I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Appendix B5 -WDFW Priority Habitat and Species Map J J H UJ U i LL ~ :J ~ 0 ! -' ~ 0 ;:1-~ J 00:: 0: f zo Q ! <a. g J:UJ ,II 1/)0:: -I/) LLUJ LL-ot> I-UJ 1 .. za. i UJI/) ::;:0 I-Z 0::< ~ <I/) a. I-n UJ~ JJ~ o_ II zm 0< jjJ I-J: it~ (!)~ z_ -0:: ilio <-~g: J I I 1186.()()()S BCE/QuadnlOf -Copperwood Res idential Plat WetJand, Fish and Wild li fe Habitat Assessment Report Soundv;ew Consu lWltS LLC Re';scdJuly 14,2014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I A endix B6 -WDFW SalmonSca April 3, 2014 I I I \ I I , , " ~~r}7j • • ----.-.. ~ AD SalmonS cape Species '\ I t l , \ t 186.0005 BeE/Quadrant -Copperwood Residential Plat Wetland, Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report Subject Property 0. I 0. 0..075 , , , , QI 1.:9,028 0. 15 , i i , Q2 0.3 ni , , i 0.4 "" Soundview Consultants LLC RevisedJuly 14, 2014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Appendix B7 -Cedarock Consultants, Inc. Fish Presence/ Absence Locations c;; • • • "0 • • c • • IU • • --• • N 'II: • • tt-.If f I 'iE Source: Cedarock Consultants, Inc., 2006 1186.0005 BCE/Quadrant -CoppervlOod Residential Plat Wetland. Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report Soundview Consultants LtC Re\'isedJuly 14,2014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ Appendix C -Plant Species List This appendix includes a table with recommended plant species (Cl) for the optional buffer enhancement plan. (Alternative native plants may also be used with biologist's approval). Table C1. Enhancement Plan Plant List.' Trees 1 Dc)U~:las Fir Big-Leaf Maple (,4cern7acrol'hy//un7) I Western Red Cedar Thuja I'Iicata) Maple (Acer circinatufl1) Red Currant (Ribes sanquineum) Form & Habit Evergreen tree; extremely dry sites. Deciduous tree; dry to moist sites. Evergreen tree; moist to wet soils. Everh'1'een tree; in damp locations. Deciduous shrub; does not always spread aggressively Deciduous shrub; does not spread bearing cverhTfcen is adapted to a wide variety of soils in of texture, but reaches its best development on clay loams, silty clay loams, and silt loams which are deep, moist, and well drained. The Douglas-fir is an important food for many native s and mammals. deciduous tree often multi-stemmed and covered with I mlosses and other plants. Frequently found with Douglas fir and sites disturbed by fire Of logging. \X:ringed seeds descent like which increases dispersal. bearing evergreen deer browse it all year along the coast I o"cc>rriMon various substrates, commonly on moist sites wet ravines, poorly drained depressions). vigorous, broadly conical conifer. Is good on an exposed site. specimens widely available; spreads by root and seed of our finest ornamental natives; produces clusters of white to red flowers I Nootka Rose (Rosa nutkana) Deciduous shrub; spreads of spring stems create a formidable barrier; produces by underh'1'ound runners to I altra,clive. pink flowers followed by large, red hips; tolerates salt form thickets spray Red Elderberry Deciduous shrub; docs not Produces red, non-edible berries; some success reported from (Sambucus racemosa) spread cuttings Salmonberry (Rublls sl'ectabiIis) Deciduous shrub; spreads I :~;;;::~': by underground runners to guickly once established; berries provide food for a form thickets of songbirds Blue Wildrye (Elymus glaucus) Idaho Fescue (Festuca idahoensis) Red Fescue (Festuca rubra) California Brome (Bromus 'carinatus) Large Leaf Lupine (Lupinus polyphyllus) Meadow Barley (Hordeum brachyanterum) 1186.0005 BCE/Quadrant -Copperwood Residential Plat \X'etland, Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report the project scientist's approval. Soundyiew Consultants LLC Re\'!~edJulr 14, 2014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I , Appendix D -Site Maps and Plan Sheets This Appendix includes the project site plan maps showing the existing features of the site, the proposed features of the site, and the proposed planting plan. 1186.0005 IKE/Quadrant -CoppelV.'Oud Residential Plat Wetland, Fish and \X'ildlife Habitat Assessment Report Soundview Consultants I.LC RcyiscdJuly 14,2014 r----------------------------------- tt: w ~ Cl I z w C) W ..J \ \ 'I \ \ / / ( . ) ) I -- ( f " '/ ,/ In i!' ~ III '-/ ----_/ ( / / / ", '. ,. '. . . '.,;. . \) - ( / ( ) : , .' I / ( \ \ \ V\ ............ \ \ \~~r " \ -, ·I'.rl~\ '350 39NVll 'Nf" dIHS~\O.L '51 NOI.L:)3S dO ~ ,IS 3H.L 65086 NO~9NIHSV hi. 'NO~NffiI 3JVld aN" 3S xxx aOO&1I3ddO:) '-, / I / " ... ( o -1 / ..,. 0 '" '" 0 0 "-0 ..,. -.0 "-'" <--~ ,;; 0 0 ~ / r ~ "-0:: -, ~ 0 '" ~ II .. 0 , -.-< ~ u ~ \ I \) ~ "' " ~ /' ~ -I I I I I I I I I I I ..J /; I ------------------- COPPERWOOD RESIDENTIAL PLAT -STREAM BUFFER AVERAGING -,--L -L~ ~ LL L ~ LEGEND V J'. ) '-~~ w.a ~ -_ •• •• "_'M'" ...... _. _._., • "'. • .......... _ .... _ •••• "...... "'0l WATER SE2I<DPI. Sf 136TH ST !-.~ STREAM BUFFER AREA INCREASED '~J, ' . -"--....... ~ I'T-;--;;l" V/ 1; 27 28,' -..... ~ . __ .... _;. . ... - W2 fe2~ STREAM BUFFER AREA REDUCED "( I 45 v1 I ;! F :!-I 46 E3 ~ W3 r I :" --> . , 2 . , [;II I 26 29 I I:~ illl I 43 I W4mE4 3 25 1-'--.... 4 24 5 23 0 '--.... 6 -MIl 22 -..... .1 1:1 I ~ I H I 1---- 7 8 • I .. , -~ -,' . .;' I H 1 20 ¥ 9 10 12 36 13 15 14 tll'll ~ : PROPOSED LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT (TYP; SEE NOTE BELOW) ~ .... -.. ... ~&< :]--------\-1 ' .... § 'X I .," . >... 0: I \ I • " " .;J.~. ,-", _ -, '. f---t I • I '.. ...... . . ':.' . 1 V-~~~~~.~ROPERTY : 161§/ 17 18 I I 111 I PROPOSED PROPERTY LINE (TYP.) I .") ':' ~ < \ l 19 '!i-_n ~ -I -'-.: '.0--, GRAPIDC SCALE 1-·80" \ ~=== I 1-I Q 4,0 8,0 7 I' .4 ./ /' I;tUlu7i7 - -~ ~I ~'""U''''' I : ~ , ' , , I"",. 'ao. lJU:'''~,,~ ':'-;<-,,~ -"'f? I It r -- \ I [ ~-- I L-JI STREAM BUFFER AREA INCREASED (3,172 SF) ~I ",:<I f'1.~~ iii -- . 1 ~ ~-- I .~-- II] JI STREAM BUFFER AREA REDUCED (1.730 SF) ~-_~!!l1'--_.L1 """" .'" /1'1-. --'---_ _ ~ I~ ~ 11: ~I ~a!:!~ I ococouo ~ 0) I I _ "'~~iQ ~ ~~~~ g~ ~~ .... '.~ <, ~ .:J ~ « ~ :r: ~ " '" ~I>-.'.$' e.c<> "'v ~~ c-.. 0- "" '" ...,j..,,; --0"1"1 ... f""'. (f"J ~~((l ':.' -; e j :E ~ ..... "'0 0':' ;; - o ':.' ~ , , ~ ~ ... ~ lI') ::.:: ;. C"'l _ ·c ri e ~ ~ :. , ~ .., ;;; u -< .. Z '-!i< -. ~ . n 2 0 '=' ;:: "',.!l u ..;: ~ E-:t c r-tIC .~ ~G > ~ ;i, ::.J '" 0-~ = o ~ "" '" OUJ~ ~. O~o ::;;;; O -l ,.. -!i< .... ~ U"l ~ b--z -UJ :::;>Q-Z;£ P:;: z :t 0 UJ g: ~ ~ @~ P-.x z ~ o ~o 0 U ,.. ~ it Bl '" "' ~ DA'ffi 7/14/2014 JOB, 1186.0005 BY, JR SCALE: 1" = 80' SHEET 2 OF 4 L I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I· I I GRAPIfiC SCAlE ,0- --L '" S£ 2ND Pl \ COPPERWOOD RESIDENTIAL PLAT -PROPOSED SITE PLAN / / 'lLEGEND -L ~ WATER WA NATIVE GROWTH PROTECTION AREA I~"""-~I BUFFER ENHANCEMENT AREA 11111111111111 TEMPORARILY DISTURBED BUFFER AREA (REPLANTED) IRI!III PEDESTRIAN WALKING TRAIL ; , , , , hun. , , , I I I ~ r-~ I ~ I )- tl ",,,, lEh-- ~ OUTLET INSTALLS IN BUFFER. DO NOT INSTALL OUTLET WITHIN STREAM. I ~ I :~ ,] MINOR GRADING WITHIN BUFFER TO BE RESTORED (APPROXIMATELY 3,008 SF) '{{{{el ~- ~-- ~ I~ ~ ~ ~I \:!~~~ 1-~!!! I ,....~:t:3~ ~ !ili)"~ e r2~~.:!. 6 ~~ .. ""';,. o ~ :::> ~ <{ ~ I fl " '" ~L ,.s-JiYe • co'" c 'sN"<t" -:::: U") U") :~53 c~...,f c..: ........... V> V> ;:;..-i..-i ::J(G::q :: ~ . ::: e .:: :£: ~ ..... ~ 0:..:... :s . ,; ~ " • , c • ~ 0 LO ~ :> ("') _ "\: ('t') .. ,...., Xl t> ........ 0- 3 3: -< ~ z .~~ :: C _ o ~ , -" a ~-" ~ ~ ~o:: ~ 8.~ .!:: ~O '" V> a '" Q '" ~ OUO 0 <,.., ....l\:) ~ 0.. Z 0_ P::; z :t ~N~ P-< eJ ~ P-<(S-OX~ U ,.., ~ ~ N S:: 0:: ~. 0;; t-~ -~ ~ --w Z~ Ow 5~ Bl;:i u. o ,,;: "' V> "' :t .... DA'ffi 7/14/2014 JOB, 1186.0005 BY, JR SCALE: 1 n = 80' SHEET 3 OF 4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I COPPERWOOD RESIDENTIAL PLAT -DETAILS AND PLANTING PLAN SAMPLE ENHANCEMENT PLANTING LAYOUT PLANT LIST (FiNAl lOCATIONS AND QUANTITIES TO BE FIELD LOCATED BY RESPONSIBLE WETlAND SCIENTIST) TREES (AS NEEDED) SPACING SYMBOL SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME ,FT D.C.} • PSEUDOTSUGA MENZlESll DOUGLAS FIR 15 • ACER MACRQPHYLLUM BIG lEAF MAPLE 15 • THUJA PUCA TA WESTERN RED CeDAR 15 • PICEA SITCHENSIS SITKA SPRUCE 15 SHRUBS (AS NEEDED) SPACING SYMBOL SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME ~FTO.C·l @ ACER CIRCINA TUM VINE MAPLE 2 ® RISES SANQUINEUM RED CURRANT 2 ® ROSA NUTKANA NOOTKAROSE 2 • SAMBUCUSRACEMOSA RED ELDERBERRY 2 0 RUBUS SPECTABIUS SALMONBERRY 2 BUFFER SEED MIX (AS NEEDED) PERCENT BY SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME VOLUME El YMUS GLAUCUS BLUE WlLORYE 15 FESTUCA IDAHOENSIS IDAHO FESCUE 15 FESTUCA RUBRA RED FESCUE • 15 BROt.1US CARINATUS CAliFORNIA BROME 15 LUPINUS POL VPHYlLUS LARGE lEAF lUPINE 15 HORDEUMBRACHYANTHERUM MEADOW BARLEY 15 SCALE: 1" = 30' SIZE (MIN) 2 GAL 2 GAL 2 GAL 2 GAL SIZE (MIN) 1 GAL 1 GAL 1 GAL 1 GAL 1 GAL QUANTITY (APPRQX.) 30 LBSIACRE LEGEND WATER ~ NATIVE GROWTH PROTECTION AREA TREE PLANTING DETAIL NOT TO SCALE (2) 2X2 D.F. STAKES; TIE AT APPROX. J\ Toll HEIGHT OF TREE WITH FLEXIBLE RUBBER TIE IN FIGURE EIGHT PATTERN. STAKES AND TREE PLUMB; STAKE PLANTS AS NOTED ON LEGEND REMOVE ALL TIES, WRAP & CONTAINERS. FREE PERIMETER ROOTS FROM NURSERY BALL 3-DEEP SAUCER FOR WATER " EXCAVATE TREE PIT TO MIN. OF 4 TIMES DIA. OF RooTBALL AT BALL CENTER, TAPERING PIT GRADE TO FINISH GRADE PIT SPOILS, NURSERY BALL WASTE BACKFILL SET BALL ON UNDISTURBED SUBGRADE OR COMPACTED SOIL NOTE: WORK PERIMETER ROOTS FREE OF NURSERY BALL & SPREAD OVE EXCAVATED PIT. BALL & PIT TO BE COURSELY SCARIFIED SHRUB PLANTING DETAIL NOT TO SCALE LOCATOR LATH (IF SPECIFIED) NOTES: 1. PLANT SHRUBS OF THE SAME SPECIES IN GROUPS OF 3 10 6 AS APPROPRIATE. 2. EXCAVATE PIT TO FULL DEPTH OF ROOT MASS AND CANOPY DIAMETER. SPREAD ROOTS TO FULL WIDTH OF CANOPY. 3. MIDWAY THROUGH PLANTING ADD AGROFORM TABLET AND WATER THOROUGHLY. 4. BACKFILL TO BE COMPACTED USING WATER ONLY. 5. WATER IMMEDIA TEL Y AFTER INSTALlATION. 3 to 4 INCH LAYER OF MULCH I CAL' ~ I~ '" ~ ~N ~ ~I ~~~~ I o(J)~oo ~ -< I I ~~;;;; I It) _~~ is -:s~~ ~!Io::~~ g~ ~~ ··~/:r ::J0~\ « ~ :r: 0 '" .! ~,. .~ 17& • cO~ ~ 0 '" "NV , -; lI") U"i "" '" c.. 0- s:! 0 0000 tS :! :! Cl ~~~ ~ ;::J lI") It> , N '" :::l ~ ~ , 0 '" • u ~lf:<"" ]0:£ :s s:! ~ · .; • ~ , , c • a ~ <:.I U"\ ::::: > <:<i <oj _ 'C <:<i • " 00 0 ..... ~-e-. ~ -~ -., ~ .~ ~ s:! -: ~ ~ 5 ..0 0 :::l 51§~ vQ ~;:::r: 0<£ c .~ ~6 ~ '" '" ~ Q w~ o Uo o :5 f-< :;,. "" (j ::;> Cl ~ ~ z:r: 'T' N '" ...... w< p. '" ~ ~g~ U f-< Z 2 z '" N 0. 5: '" z !:i:. O;:E f-<' .!:i: '" . .-~ z:g 0", Co llz i;J;2 '" ° ~ OJ '" OJ ~ DAlE 7/14/2014 JOB, 1186.0005 BY, JR/KM , , > SCALE: AS NOTED SHEET4 OF 4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Appendix E -Biologist Qualifications Jeremy Downs. Principal Scientist and Environmental Planner Jeremy Downs is the Principal Scientist and Environmental Planner for the project with professional training and extensive experience in land use, site planning and design, project coordination, permitting and management, marine and wetland ecology, habitat restoration, wetland, stream, and benthic delineations and assessments, stream assessments, underwater and terrestrial monitoring programs, and mitigation planning and design since 1987. Jeremy earned a Bachelor's of Science degree in Biolq,,), from the University of California, Davis. In addition, he studied under the Environmental Risk and Recovery program at the Australian Institute of Marine Science. He also holds graduate-level professional certifications in various advanced wetland science and management programs from both Portland State University and San Francisco State University, and he has received professional training in Salmonid Biology from the University of California Extension. Jeremy is a certified wetlands delineator under US Army Corps of Engineers guidelines. He has been formally trained in the use of the Washington State Wetland Rating System, Determination of Ordinary High Water l\-Iark, Designing Compensatory Mitigation and Restoration Projects, and Reviewing Wetland Mitigation and Monitoring Plans from the US Army Corps of Engineers and Washington State Department of Ecology, and in conducting Biological Assessments from the Washington Department of Transportation. He is also a Pierce County Qualified Wetland Specialist and Fisheries Biologist, and he holds similar qualifications from other jurisdictions. James H. Carsner, Senior Scientist Jim Carsner, a certified Professional Wetland Scientist (#1461) with professional training and extensive experience in planning and design, project coordination, permitting and management, aquatic and wetland ecology, habitat restoration, wetland, stream, and benthic delineations and assessments, stream assessments, and mitigation planning and monitoring since 1979. Jim earned a Bachelor's of Science degree from the University of Washington, College of Pisheries and undertook post-graduate studies in wetland ecology at Portland State University. He has served on the Board of Directors of the Washington State Weed Association and instructed courses on pesticide laws, regulations, and uses. Jim has been formally trained in the use of the Washington State Wetland Rating System, Determination of Ordinary High Water l\hrk, Designing Compensatory j\'[jti"oation and Restoration Projects, and Reviewing Wetland Mitigation and Monitoring Plans from the US Anny Corps of Engineers and Washington State Department of Ecology. He is also a Pierce County Qualified Wetland Specialist and Pisheries Biologist, and he holds similar qualifications from other jurisdictions. Hannah Blackstock. Staff Scientist Hannah Blackstock is a Staff Scientist with a background in both forest and wetland ecology and fisheries biology and experience with various Federal agencies. Hannah earned a Bachelor's of Science with a double major in Environmental Science and Resource Management as well as Aquatic and Pisheries Sciences at the University of Washington. Hannah has an extensive knowledge of restoration ecology, ranging in topics such as soils, plant familiarity, hydrology, and wetland ecolo",),. Furthermore, she has been certified by the Washington Department of Ecology in the use of the Washington State Wetland Rating System and Selecting Wetland Mitigation Sites Using a Watershed Approach and has received training from the PN\V Invasive Plant Council on the identification of newly emerging invasive plant species. She is also a Pierce County Qualified Fisheries Biologist. 1186.0005 IleE/Quadrant -Copperwood Residential Plat \\Ietland, Fish and \Xrildlife Habitat Assessment Repon Suund,;ew Consultants LtC RedsedJuly 14, 2014 -------- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 8.0 CONSTRUCTION STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN (CSWPP) ANALYSIS AND DESIGN This section will be completed in final engineering. 16834.003.doc I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 9.0 BOND QUANTITIES, FACILITY SUMMARIES, AND DECLARATION OF COVENANT This section will be provided in final engineering. 16834.003.doc I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 10.0 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL This section will be provided in final engineering. 16834.003.doc I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Appendix A Lower Cedar River Basin and Nonpoint Pollution Action Plan I I I, !' Watershed Management Committee I Lower Cedar River Basin ! I and Nonpoint Pollution Action Plan I I I. I" I- I, I, r- I.i p- I- I I I I ~ ~KING COUNTY ~ ~ Department of Natural Resources UHIIiOIOIl STAlE elm. !PARIMEHI Of :<J"'i ECOLOGY I I I I I I I~ IJ , I I. L ., I I l: I I I I Watershed Management Committee Lower Cedar River Basin and Nonpoint Pollution Action Plan Adopted by Metropolitan King County Council July 1997 July 1998 Printing KlDg Couuty DcparlmeDt of Natural Resources Water and Land Resoun:es Divmon Cedar River Watershed Management Committee City of Renton 700 Fifth Avenue Sui1e2200 Seattle, Washington 98104 (206) 29~S19 King Conservation Dislrlet King County Mucldeshoot Indian Tnbe Seattle Public Utilitiea Department Trout Unlimited United States Anny Corps of Engineers Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife Washington Department orNatuml Resources Washington DepartmentofTnmsportation . Was1UngtonFann Forestry Association Funded in part by the Washington State DepartJ/lent o/Ecology Centennial aean Water Fund I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I King County Esecudve GaI)'Locke MetropoHtan KIng County Council Maggi Fimia, District 1 Cynthia SUllivan, District 2 Lollise Miller, District 3 Larry Phillips, District 4 Ron Sims, District 5 Rob McKenna, District 6 Petct von Reichbauer, District 7 Greg Nickcla, DistrictS Kent Pullen, District 9 Larry Gossett, District 10 Jane Hague, District II Brian Derdowski, Dis1rie112 ChrIstopher Vance, District J 3 DepartmeJlt 01 Natural Resourees Pam BissOJllletle, Direclor Water IUId Land Resources Division Nancy Hansen, Division Manager Debbie Arima, Assistant Division MUUlger Bi11 Beltel, Regional Waler Resources Services Mall1l8er Contribnting Staff Keith Hiumao, Basin Plalllling Program Manager Roz Glasser, Project Manager Jean White, Project Manager John Adams, Planner DereIc Booth, Ph.D., Cl!:ologist Glenn Bvana, P .E., Senior Engineer Divid Hartley, P.R, Ph.D., Hydrologist Gino Lucchetti, Swor l!cologist Kale Rhoads, Setrior Waler Quality Specialist " Rnth Schaefer, SWot Bcologist Supporting Staff Fred Beader. P1anning'Support Techllician Aline BiId6. Basin Sleward Rika Cecil. Resource Planner Karen Golo, P.E. Senior Engineer Mary IorgeMeU; Resource PIlIDtIer Ted Krause, Planning Support Technician Mark Lampard,P .B .• Rngineer Barbara Nelson, Technical Writer" Laurel Preston, Grapblc Technician Bill Priest, Ecological Technician David Risley, Buginecr Fran Solomon, Ph.D., Senior Engineer Ruoxi Zhang, Planning Graphic Supervisor WMC Lower Cedar River Balin Plan WaalUngton Department of Ecology Bob PUftY. Bnviromnenlal Planner Kitty' Gillespie, Project Manager Watcnhed Management Committee David Beedle and Leslie Groce· Mucklcshoot lndian Tribe Paul Crane -BociDg Company " Nancy Davidson, P .E •• S~atdo Public Utilities Jack Davis· Kin8 ConmvalioaDistrict Gary Engman and Bob Gelke • WA Department of Fish and Wildlife Keith Hinman· KlDg County WLRD Kay Iohnson"· Renton Chamber DfCommen:.: (rcdred), Cedar River CAe Loujs Kahn. Washington Fum Foreslcty AssQcia.tion Liruja Smith· US Army Corps of Bngineen RmIStraIcs, P.E .• City ofRcnton Surfaeo Water Utility Rex Thompson. W A Dept. of Natural Resources Frank Utahcct, P.B.· Trout Unlirnltcd Bob Winter, P.E. • WA Dept. of Transportation CltbeD AdvIaory Committee Mib:Ba1asa NOrln Bonkowski Judith Fillips Ray Griffin Bra\! Habcmicbt Janice Hoon (deceased) Kaylohnson BobKarinen Laure Iddings BdMattheWs Paul Szcwczylrowski Technical Advisors " Carolyn Boatsman· City of Renton Min BonDfi', Rand Little, and George Schneider. Seattle Public Utilities Department Lany Fisher and Hal Michael· Washington Department ofFis~ and Wildlife 10hnathan Frodge, Ph.D .• King COllllty Department of Natural Resources, Wastewater Treatment Division "Dan Harvey, P.E.· US Army Corps DfBngincers Da"id 1ennings, P.E. • City of Renlon ji" Gr~S Zentner • Muckleshoot Indian Tn'be Texl win be llUlde available ill large print. Braille. or : : tiudlo/Qp6 os requ~ted. • ~ • I ..... I I- I I I I I: I I- I- i; 1-.. II r I I. II r Table of Contents Page List of Figures and Tables ................................ ; ........................................................................... v Executive Summary ...................................... u~ ........ u ..... u ......••••••••••••• · ........................... u ............. uvii Chapter 1: Introduction to the Cedar River Basin and NonpointPollution Action Plan ....... 1.1 The Major Conditions in the Cedar River Basin ................................................................... 1-1 The Major Plan Recommendations ........................................................................................ 1.5 The Basin PlaIU1ing Area ............................................... : .................. u .................................... 1-8 About the Plan Itself .............................................................................................................. 1-15 Chapter 2: Goals and Priority Actions ................................................................................... 2-1 Introduction ..................... ~ ................................... ,_, ......................... u. II ............. u ........ II •••••••••• 2-1 Flood-Damage ROO.uction ................................................................................ 4 ••••••••••••••••••• :.2.4 Aquatic Habitat Protection and Restoration .......................................................................... 2·11 Protection of Water Quality from Nonpoint Source Pollution ........... : .................................. 2-16 Aquifer.Protection ........................... ao ......................................................................................... 2-20 Cedar River Watershed Management Program ..................................................................... 2-23 Relationship of Chapter 2 to Chapters 3 and 4 ...................................................................... 2·24 Chapter 3: Subarea Recommendations .................................................................................. 3-1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... ~ ................ 3-1 Cedar River MainsteJll ............. uu ............................................................................................ 3-5 Northern. Tnootaries .......... , .......... , .................. ~ ........ n ....................................................... h •••• 3·17 South.em. Tributaries ..... ~ ..•.•.• , .................................................................................................... 3-27 Taylor Creek .................................................................... : ..................................................... 3·37 Peterson Creek .. u ............................................................................................... H ..................... 3-43 Middle Tnlmtaries ................................................................................................................. 3-49 Rock Creek. .. u .......................................................... d ...... 0'0 ..................................................... 3-55 Chapter 4: Detailed Descriptions ofRecommendations.; ...................................................... 4-1 Introduc:tion ............................................................................................................................ 4-1 Capita.l Improvement Projects ................................................. h ............................................... 4-3 Basinwide Recommendations .................................................................................................. 4-31 Subarea Programmatic Recommendations ............................................................................ 4-83 . Chapter 5: Implementation Strategy ....................... : .............................................................. 5-1 InIroduction ............................................................................................................... ~ ............ 5-1 Priority Setting: Balancing Competing Needs ...................................................................... .5-1 Sharing Implementation Roles .............................................................................................. .5-5 Implementation Process: Long-Term Watershed Management ............................... : ............ 5-10 iii Table ofContenu I I II' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Appendix A: WMC Vision. Goals, and Objectives ................................................................... A-l Plm Vision Stat.eIrlent .. n .................................................... hU ••••• to ........................................... A-l Goals and Obj~ves ..... u •••••••• " ....... u.u ................ n ............. h ....................................................... A-l Appendix B: Addendum to Bedload Transport Analysis ......................................................... .A-9 Appendix C: Hydrology and FQrest Retention ...................................... u ..................................... A .. 11 Technical Note 1: Upland Flooding and Channel Stability ................... , .............................. .A-ll Technical Note 2: Downstream Analysis Peterson, Rock, and Taylor Creek Ravines ........ A-19 Appendix D: Significant Resource Area Map, Definitions, and List ........................................ A-29 Definitions .......................................................... uu .................................................................. A .. 29 Significant Resource.Areas (SRAs) ............................. · .......................................................... A-30 . Appendix E:Estimation ofSalmonid Production Potential and Costs ofFish Habitat Restora.tion Opportunities .... f .......... n.I ....... ~ ......... ~ ............................................... u .............. .A-3S Ex ; S . . ec:utive mnmary ................................. h .......... u ............................... II ............................... .A .. 3S ID.troduction .... ono .............. uu ...... u ...... n ............ II ............................ t ••• '.0 ........... 1.,,, ....... u ......................... .A-38 Backgrotmd ........... u .............................................................. H .................................................. A-39 Metllocls ........................................ u ................ I ....... ~ .......................................... u ................... .A42 Results ........................................................... u ••.• : ••• , ........ ~ •••••• h ........ ~ ........................ u •• u ........ A-55 Discussion .......... u ................................................................................................. u~ ••••••••......... A-S8 C()nclusions ....... u ....... h .............. u ... n ............................................... ~ ....................................... A-65 Ac1aJowledgDlents. ................... 0 ............................ ; ...........................................................•••••• A..66 Litera111re Cited. .............. n ......... U'" ....................................... <lu .. • ............................................... A .. 66 List of Tables and Figures. ............................ : ........................ :.: .......................... : ................... A-69 Cedar River Habitat Opportunity Concept Reporta ........... ; ................................................... A-89 Bibliography .. : .............................................................................................................................. A-14S List of Acronyms WMC Lower CedtIr River Basi" Plan tv • • III • • I I III ~---------------- I I I I I 1- I~ t- I., I t t I II I- I I I t Cedar River Mainstem INTRODUCTION The Mainstem subarea consists of the Cedar River valley floor and its steep walls, and the surrounding plateau areas that drain small, unnamed tributaries. The valley extends roughly 17 miles from Renton to Landsburg, varying in width from a few hundred to a few thousand feet . . While the Mainstem subarea represents less than I S% of the 66-square-mile basin planning area, . it includes the largest and most hazardous flood risk sites and is disproportionately rich in both current and potential future aquatic resources. Therefore, actions in this subarea are given very high priority. Major human alterations to the Cedar River valley began in the late 18008 and have included logging, railroad construction, agricultural land conversion, dam construction and water diversion, redirection of the river's outlet, construction oflevees and revetments, dredging, and more recently, urbanizatiolL These activities have had significant impacts both on flood risks and aquatic habitat. Channelization of the river through Renton and construction of levees and revetments along 14 of the 21 river mites in the Mainstem subarea have encouraged agricultural, residential, and commercial development within the floodplain, placing more property at risk of flood damage. . Flood-control projects have provided limited localized flood protection at the cost of aggravating upstream and dQwnstream flood damages by removing floodplain storage and increasing· flood depths and velocities. To date, the most significant flooding damage has occurred in the City of Renton (river mile [RM) 0.0-1.6), along lower Jones Road (RM 5.4-6.0), upstream and downstream of Cedar Grove Road (RM 10.6-12.0), along lower Bain Road (RM 14.6), and in the neighborhood ofDorre Don (RM 15.8-16.4). Aquatic habitats within the Mainstem subarea have been reduced significantly in both quantity and quality by logging, floodplain development, river engineering, and diversion of river flow. Large woody debris recruitment has declined, meanders and side channels have been cut off, . riparian wetlands have been filled, the river has narrowed, and summer flows have been depleted. Generally. these changes have tended to reduce the hydraulic complexity that supports the wide variety of salinonid species and life stages that depend on the river. The Mainstem subarea recommendations consist of capital improvement projects (CIPs) and programs that focus mainly on the two primary. and often rel!lted, issues of flood-damage redUCtion and aquatic babitat restoration and enhancement. These recommendations strive to: 1. Remove or protect occupied structures from the most hazardous aress; 2. Modify or remove certain existing levees and revetments, allowing the river access to its historical floodplains and restoring floodplain storage; 3. Protect, restore, and enhance existing aquatic habitat; and 4. Prevent siting of additional structures within hazardous areas. 3-5 . Chapter 3: Subarea RecammimdatlotlS ,-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I These objectives are consistent with the goals and policies of the King·County Flood Hazard Reduction Plan, which was adopted by the King County Council in 1993. In fact, the Mainstem subarea recommendations follow many specific sOlutions outlined by the Flood Hazard Reduction Plan, and augment them by adding water quality and aquatic habitat restoration and enhancement components to create a more comprehensive floodplain management program for basin planning area. As explained in "Mainstem Recommendations," under "Recommendations to Reduce Flood Damage" in Chapter 2, properties proposed for acquisition would be acquired only on a willing-seller basis. Landowners who choose not to sell to the County would not face any penalty or loss of existing benefit as a result oftheir dedsion. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS See Chapter 4 for the complete text of all recommendations, the locations of which are shown on Figures 3-2, 3-3, and 3-4 at the end of this section .. Capital Improvement Projects * Denotes Core Plan recommendations, which are those recommendations that would accomplish, at a minimum, the major Plan goals (see Chapter 5). * Rainbow Bend Flood-Damage ReductioalFloodplaln Restoration (CIP 3108): Approximately 55 mobile homes in the Cedar Grove Mobile Home Park and nine nearby permanent houses on the right bank betweenRM 10.8 and RM 11.3, below Cedar Grove Road, were damaged by fast, deep flood flows, erosion, and deposits of large debris during the November 1990 flood. The pennanent houses are ~ubject to hazardous flows when the Rainbow Bend levee overtops. The mobile home park, at the downstream, unleveed end of this reach, experiences hazardous flooding during much smaller, more frequent events. Emergency access to and egress from all Muses in this reach are frequently· blocked by flooding. This area is a high-velocity floodway and presents serious thrests to human safety. This recommendation would purchase and remove all occupied structures from this reach and reestablish the floodplain's aquatic habitst and flood storage functiol!ll. Because the mobile home park provides affordable bousing to low income families, and becau!IC King County policy requires relocation assistance and replacement housing when displacements from below-market-rate housing are unavoidable,' the }llan recommends offering these services. rather than a simple market-value buyout, to the mobile home residents. A park closure plan would also be developed to include oWllers and tenants in the planning, design, and implementstion of this recommendation. A potential relocation site is the adjacent Stoneway Sand and Gravel mine, once it has been reclaimed. . * Dorre Don Flood.Damage ReductioDIFJoodplaill Restoration (CIP 3102): Several houses, a COlmty road, and a County-maintained levee in this neighborhood, located on the right bank of the Cedar River surrounding the railroad bridge at RM 16.4, have been damaged repeatedly by • King Cpunty Comprehensive Plan Policy R· 108. WMC Lower Cedar River Basin Plan 3-6 - • .... I I I - --------------------------- I I I I I I - ~ t I t .. I: ~ II I I I I t debris and fast, deep floodwaters. The Basin Plan's highest-priority flood-damage reduction recommendation would pUTchase and remove the 20 houses in the most hazardous locations, eliminating the flood threat to these residents. It would also remove the upstream portion of the Lower Dorre Don levee and restore approximately six acres of floodplain to its historic aquatic habitat and floodwater Storage functions. In addition, approximately 600 linear feet of Lower Dorre Don Way would be elevated to continue to provide sole access to the remaining eight, less-severely threatened houses. * Elliot Bridge/Lower Jones Road Flood-Damage Reduction (CIP 3111): Below Elliot Bridge (RM 5.4), two left-bank houses were inundated by water over three feet in depth dUTing .the November 1990 flood. Upstream, to RM 6.0,22 houses between Jones Road and the Cedar River experienced erosive, high-velocity flows as is common during large floods. Eighteen houses on 156th Place SE are inaccessible when Jones Road floods, an approximately 2-year occurrence, and 20 additional houses are exposed to less-hazardous flooding during large events. This recommendation would purchase and remove the 24 houses in the most hazardous areas, raise approximately 2,300 linear feet of Jones Road to, ensure access to lS6th Place SE and to reduce flood damage to the less-severely threatened houses. and restote up to 16 acres of flood storage and habitat area. *, Rlcardl Flood-Damage ReductionlFloodplain Restoration (CIP 3109): Two houses subject to frequent hazardous flooding would be purchased and removed. and the area restored as open space for aquatic habitat and floodwater storage. Nearly one-half of the estimated cost would be, paid by federal and state matching funds. • Byers Bend/Cedar Grove Road Flood-Damage Reduction (CIP 3107): Frequent and severe flood damage to an entire neighborhood would be reduced or eliminated by removing up to eight houses, raising an additional eight houses; improving the Byers Bend levee, and building an overbank conveyance channel along Byers Road to carry floodwater safelY back to the Cedar River. . * Dorre DOD Court Flood-Damage ReductionlFloodplaln Restoration (CIP 3103): Three houses subject to hazardous flooding would be removed and the area would be restored as floodplain for aquatic habitat and floodwater storage. • Lower Bain Road and Royal Arch Flood-Damage ReductJonlFloodplBin Restoration (CIP 3104): Between three and nine houses, typically flooded at about the to-year event and damaged by hazardous flows dUTing the November 1990 flood, would be removed and floodplain storage and habitat would be reestablished. • Maplewood Flood-Damage Reduction (CIP 311'2): Approximately 60 houses in the Maplewood subdivision that are threatened with severe damage during the 100-year flood would be protected by the construction of a 1.200-foot-long levee (to a maximum height of approximately foUT feet). As mitigation for this activity, a suitable project should be selected and implemented from the mainstem enhancement and restoration projects listed in basinwide reconunendation (BW) 6 and Mainstem recommendation (MS) 4 ofthis Plan. • Jan Road Flood-Damage ReductlonlHabltat Restoration (CIP 3106): Frequent damage to roads and houses would be reduced and emergency access to 14 houses would be ensured by 3-7 . Chapler 3: Subarea Recommendations I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~nSln1cting a stable overbank conveyance channel to safely direct floodwaters overtopping the Jan Road levee back to the Cedar River. • Riverbend MobUe Borne Park Revetment Modification (CIP 3UO): The rock revetment on the left bank of this constricted reach of the Cedar River would be recontoured using bioengineering techniques to provide stability and additional conveyance and aquatic habitat· Up to 19 mobile homes nearest the river would be moved or purchased and replaced. • Dorre Don Way SE Elevation (Orchard Grove) (CIP 3101): Approximately 650 linear feet ofDorre Don Way SB would be raised an average of two feet.to ensure access to 15 houses in -the Orchard Grove neighborhood currently cut offby floodwater at about the 10-year flood event I • GetchlDan Levee ModlOc:ations (CIP 310S): Frequent damage to the Rhode levee, which protects nearly 20 houses, would be reduced by moving the Getchman levee back from the cedar River and strengthening the faces of both structures using bioengineering techniques. One or two houses at the downstream end of the Rhode levee would be removed. • Penoo Revetment ModlOc:aUons (CIP 3113): A private revetment would be rccontoured and strengthened using bioengineering techniques to prevent continued release of large quantities of sediment. In addition, a gravel mine-site and landslide scar would be stabilized with vegetation_ • Arcad(~oble Flood and Erosion Damage Reduction (CIP 3100): One house. at the downstream end of this frequently damaged revetment would be removed and up to 1,600 linear feet of revetment would be modified using bioengineering tcchriiquC!l. Programmatic Recommendations. * Denotes Core Plan recommendations, which are those recommendations that would accomplish, at a rninirnwn, the major Plan goals (see ChaPter S). * Open Space Acquisition (BW 4): Sites in the Cedar River floodplain have been identified and prioritized for acquisition as open space to allow protection or restoration of their aquatic habitat . value. See TabtllS 4-1 and 4-2 in Chapter 4. * Aquatic Resource Mitigation Bank Sites (BW 6): This recommendation would allow public agencies to fulfi1l their mainstem mitigation obligations in high-quality mitigation bank sites away from project sites, where such mitigation may be less effective. * RoadlUrban Runoff Water Quality Reeo~eDdations (BW 9): The drainage facilities of 1-405 and numerous County roads would be maintained and retrofitted with water quality controls to reduce the impacts of contaminated road runoff. . * Water Quality Treatment Standards (BW Il): Sphagnum bog water quality treatment standards would be applied to all development in catchment MS 16 that drainS to Wetland 38 to • BiocngineeriDg.techniquea use materlals such as rock, limbers. Boil. plants, and natural rabrics to reduce erosion and stabilize sleep slopes. WMC Lower Cedar RhIer Bann Plan 3·8 I - • I • - I I I I I I I I I I I I' I I I I I I I I I ---------------------------------------------------------------------~ * Debris Flow Protection for MobUe Home Park (MS 11): Owners of a mobile home park on Tributary 0313, which is at risk ofsevere damage from debris tloW8, would be provided with a list of alternative private actions that could be taken to reduce their risk. • Salmonid Productivity (BWs 7 and 8*): These recommendations would support an ongoing study to determine the causes of salmon decline, and would continue to support a temporary sockeye hatchery at Landsburg, and reserve the option to use County open space at RM 9.0 for possible future development as a spawning channel. A final decision to construct a spawning channel at this site will depend on results of the Lake Washington Ecological Studies and additional evaluation of the environmental impact ofa spawriing channel at this site relative to . others, and comparison to other production methods that could produce the desired sockeye fry production with less COSt and environmental impact. The final decision will be made by the Cedsr River Sockeye Spawning Channel Policy Committee, or its designee. • Stormwater Quallty (MS 9, 10*, 11): Extensive source control strategies for cleanup efforts and elimination of stormwater pollutants are recommended for industrial and commerciai areas (MS 10). Stormwater discharges from major highways and the Renton Municipal Airport would be addressed by National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System industrial s10rmwater pollution prevention plans (MS 9, MS II) and the W8!lhington State Department of Ecology liighway Runoff Program. • Remove Qualifying Structures from Hazardons Areas (BW I): Occupied structures at high risk of hazardous flooding, and not included in the ClPs above, would be removed from the floodplain on a willing-seller basis as they are ideotified and as funding is available. • Reduce Less-Hazardous Flood Damage (BW 1): Occupied structures at risk of less-hazardous flooding, many of which are identified in the full text of this .recommendation found in Chapter 4, may be eligible for technical and limited financial assistance Cor removal or other f1oodproofing. . • ModUY Levees and Revetments (MS 5): Selected County-maintained levees and revetments would be modified, relocated, or removed. to reestablish aquatic habitat and increase the storage volume of the floodplain. . • Aquifer Prptection (BW 17): Aquifer recharge and groundwater quality would be protected as a potable drinking water source. , " ". • Urban Stonnwater Mallagement (BW ·18): To promote more efficlent use ofland in the Renton Urban Growth Area, public/private partnerships would be encollfaged to build regional . s10nnwater quality and quantity treatment facilities .. WMC Lower CediuRr-Basin Plan 3-10 • • • I I I I I. I I I I~ ... .1 r: • I I • I I I ~. _ ..... --.-~===~====. I' • ; " -\:1 \ r----, 1 i r-----j • I , '--1_, ._ .. ..1 .... _-, 1---' I--i., 1 1. ______ 1 I v·4o, ... I .... ----~-~ ('"'I.. , i --- :.......... L_/ '"'--_.. I ---_ .... loco lion Mop • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • I • • • • • • " I _. '_ • • • • • • • , • ' .......... , , < MSO , , , , , ~', ..... # # # # # -~ ........... ~-'" RENTON -I Programmatic Recommendations aw I BW2 8W6 aWl aW9 IWI2 , BW 13 BV! ,. BW 15 SlY 16 BW 18 BW 19 woS I /IS 2 WS7 liS 8 ~iS9 hiS 10 , hiS" t~"'OH' OvoMying Stvclllic.s h"\(JI Ha40rdcus Ate:JJ 1«1000:.1,"&",,,,," Floed DomoS" AqvofK: RelOlJrce NJligahon Bon! SIII!J ArMicioI5oImOI1;d Prod:JcticxJ N''''O!lJft! ktJp'OYtmenl 01 WO~I Ouofi¥ from Raud Dralnog!S and Ubon AI~OJ Walt! 0u0Ii~1 T,eabTlenl Stlfldolds. Ba~c Tttalmenl Basin non Wuarion WOItr I1.SOIJtCU fo'ucallM end Pl.lbiJc lrWdo'tm«ll em RII'tt CC(II'Icd Boslll Ste.vord PtogtOl'A Urban S~\\olcr Manogemonf lm/ic!lle. td~(I~orr/De~tiCt1 SkwJoun, leI" 0 MrJ!or.ry Dam Opero/ior..s SfoJdy s..f lb. ""d ''''''01 Foxodcr91oo fIoo:d Ha..",d ft!lcktion tV.eO$LITI!'~ Fl9QdpIo1JI /lopping ,.A.no¥'J, P.evlsic:t!. t. DllhhtJrion Roo::! frlLICOlicn NPDES h.:Ius.ioI S/Orln .... o~ Pl!tInill Sb'mwalel Gvotf)' in t,.,cIv5liol/Colllmerc'QI AtOOl r,,,, .. ,,,,01 /-405 ord SI-169 S""",,,,,,,, ~. J-----.... ~===============--_----' . m', r ...... · .... =.:".=-_· -----...... ==-==.'1-' t:.... = ""~-~--'--=-~.=~"'''''''''''~ Cedar River Mainstem Reach 1 Cedar River Basin Planning Area Recommendations .~?!.. Stream & Stream Number il!iiII lake/Rive, 'I. River Mile (RMj ~.:..; Werland •••• Subbasin Boundciry t ...... -Calc.hment Boundary I..=~so Calehmenl Numb.~' __ == t~':'~J Incorporated Area 10$ ef 6/98) o 1 Figure 3-2 ," 1 112 Mit. I I .' .' .< 1-. I • I 1-' , I L. I·' I ",::-:= .. " ,.;;;;;:;-".".==:-----~ ~ ---= Figure 3·3 Cedar River Mainstem Reach 2 Cedar River Basin Planning Area Recommendations ..2~!.. Stream & Stream Number •• # .. -. Unclassified Stream ... Lake/River ". River Mile (RM) 30 _ We~ond So Wetlond Number ®_ Clo .. I W.~ond & Wetlond Numb.r • fill .... Subbasi n Boundary .. , -Cotchme.n.t Boundary MSI Cotchment Number --Urbon Growth Area Boundary (0. 01 6/981 c.:::J Incorporated Areo (0' of 6/981 3122 Capitol Improvement Proiect L'ocolion & Number Programmatic Recommendations: (".;z::::) MS 6: Chonnel Migration Hazard A1eas I!I MS 12: Debris Flow Protection for Mobile Home Pork o t 112 I f . I I I , I I t I ! I , I I I -f I - I I I I t I I I --,-~,--~=====~="""""711 Programmatir: R.ecommendation.s 8VY J r.."... ~ s...:.", ""'" ~ A<"" I 8W 2 Ie<k. I",Hok-ooicvs Rood Doov>g. " Ic~dar River Mainste"; Reach3 -- r Cedar River Basin Planning Area Recommendations I " .o.!~ __ Stream & Stream Number ...... Unclassified Stream .... lake/River u. River Mil. (RM) • ~ -Catchmenl Boundary B 1 Catchmenl Number 3122 C!) Copilallmprovemenl Projecllocotion C".:"J Incorporated Area (a. of 6/98) ew 4 i'tl«ifieJ 101 Opeon 5p.x1f Acqvi,;IiGY'lJ aw 0 Aquo¥c I ........ M/1jalfoII8a<Js;MS BW 7 MlIckJ SoImc...iJ _,I""""" iW 12 W ... G\.oo!/y r._ SI><iaJ.. 8a<~ Tre.*"", 8W J 3 Ibin PIon &aImcn aw 14 \.y. itWus Ecb:okn aid Ah//C ~oh'ttr.trJ aw 15 Cedorl,.,CoondI aw 10 8"" s...od!log"" aw J 8 th!>on ~""'" ... Mcms-'''''''''''' ew 19 ttlention/DcNriIicn SlonchdJ, "'CarclUMl,b I • ..! 0, Volley !loa W.~ (llr." 0;sc/"'9' 1m} I: IV ....... orr", Dischage 8W 20 1",,,.1\0.,,,,,,,,, Sl><iad MS I N""""Y IJom c>pe. .. "" SWy MS 3 s..l S ... and Fede<cJ MiIng I .. Rood '-/o,,,,d MS. MS5 MSO MS7 MS8 ledJcb M!03tI'e'5 MoiluJiim HoblbI i'esba5on and fr.honcemenf p,ogtom AbJJy l~j otJd tlMhletlb ChomJNqof.oo Hazard Mw (s.. Mop !ego"" RoocIp/o.IrI tV.opp;r.g k«ys!J, If,.j~IM. omJ ~j~ Rood Ed«ction o I localion Map 'Figure 3-4 '12 I 1MIIIII 7 "'1:;<;9 Weiland & WeIland Number Urban Growth Area Boundary (as of 6/98) 'I ®... Cia" I Wetland & WeIland No, • ~.... Subbo!lhi Boundary L=- Programmatic Recommendations: Q::Zl MS 6: Channel Migration Hazard Areas ............ ' VIusaIC-=nIiCldailt. GIS Un1\ Pabh MAch kef!.., ........ ~J.4., I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Revised Traffic Impact Analysis COPPERWOOD PLAT Prepared for: Quadrant Hom~s July?014 Prepared by: 1/!tranSpOGROUP 11730 118th Avenue NE, Suite 600 Kirkland, WA 98034-7120 Phone: 42!?-821 "~665 Fax: 425-825-8434 www.transpo9rou P·com 14004.01 © 2014 Transpo Group ~----------------------------------------------------------- I I I I I-I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Revised Traffic Impact Analysis Copperwood Plat July 2014 Table of Contents Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1 Project Description ................................................................................................................. 1 Study Scope ........................................................................................................................... 1 Study Area ............................................................................................................................. 1 Existing Conditions ....................................................................................................................... 4 Transportation System ........................................................................................................... 4 Traffic Volumes ...................................................................................................................... 6 Traffic Operations ................................................................................................................. , 8 Traffic Safety .......................................................................................................................... 9 Future Without-Project Conditions ............................................................................................ 1 0 Planned Improvements ........................................................................................................ 10 Traffic Volumes .................................................................................................................... 10 Traffic Operations ................................................................................................................ 12 Project Impacts ............................................................................................................................ 13 Trip Generation .................................................................................................................... 13 Trip Distribution and Assignment.. ....................................................................................... 13 Future With-Project Traffic Volumes .................................................................................... 15 Future With-Project Traffic Operations ................................................................................ 17 Site Access Analysis ............................................................................................................ 18 Traffic Safety Impact ............................................................................................................ 18 Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................................................... 19 Traffic Impact Fees .............................................................................................................. 19 Conclusions .................................................................................................................................. 20 Appendix Appendix A: Traffic Counts Appendix B: LOS Definitions Appendix C: LOS Worksheets Figures 1. Site Vicinity and Study Intersections ............................................................................ 2 2. Preliminary Site Plan .................................................................................................... 3 3. Existing Channelization and Traffic Control at Study Intersections ............................. 5 4. Existing Weekday AM and PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ........................................ 7 5. 2016 Without-Project Weekday AM and PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ................. 11 6. Project Trip Distribution and Net New Project Trip Assignment ................................ 14 7. 2016 With-Project Weekday AM and PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ...................... 16 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Tables Study Area Existing Roadway Network Summary ....................................................... 4 Existing Transit Service ............................................................................................... 4 Existing Weekday AM and PM Peak Hour Intersection Operations ............................ 8 Study Intersection Collision Data Summary (2011 -2013) ......................................... 9 Without-Project Weekday AM and PM Peak Hour Intersection Operations .............. 12 Estimated Daily and Weekday Peak Hour Project Trip Generation .......................... 13 Weekday AM and PM Peak Hour Project Traffic Volumes Impacts .......................... 15 With-Project Weekday AM and PM Peak Hour Intersection Operations ................... 17 Site Access Operations .............................................................................................. 18 llftranspOGRaJP ---------------------------------------------~------- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Revised Traffic Impact Analysis Copperwood Plat Introduction July 2014 This traffic impact analysis (TIA) identifies potential transportation-related impacts associated with the proposed Copperwood Plat residential development. Project Description The project is a development of single-family dwelling units located south of SE 2nd Place and west of 143rd Avenue SE in the City of Renton. The site currently has six existing homes. The proposed project would relocate one of the existing houses (remove the remaining) and construct 46 new single-family dwelling units to be completed and occupied by 2016. Figure 1 illustrates the project site and surrounding vicinity. A preliminary site plan is shown in Figure 2. As shown in the site plan, two new roadways would access the site along SE 2nd Place. Study Scope This TIA evaluates existing 2014 and future 2016 weekday AM and PM peak hour intersection operations in the area surrounding the project site. A horizon year of 2016 was used for all analysis of future conditions as it represents the anticipated build-out year of the proposed project. Study Area The analysis focuses on the weekday AM and PM peak hour (between 7:00 to 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 to 6:00 p.m., respectively) operations at four existing off-site study intersections. This is a revision to the May 2014 TIA, which had three off-site study intersections, in response to the comments from the City of Renton received on June 19, 2014 adding the NE 4th Street I Duvall Avenue NE intersection as a study intersection. These periods represent the highest cumulative total traffic for the adjacent street system providing a conservative timeframe for level of service (LOS) analysis. The study intersections include (see Figure 1): 1. NE 4th Street I Duvall Avenue NE 2. NE 4th Street I Jericho Avenue NE 3. SE 2nd Place I Jericho Avenue SE 4. SE 2nd Place I Hoquiam Avenue SE ':;{tranSpOGROUP Page 1 ------------------- WJ .. N ~ l.v I 7 : Nono SCALE ~ NE 3rd CI NE 2nd CI NE 3rd 51 PI NE2nd 51 SE 2nd 51 lliill!Q. o ~ STUDY INTERSECTIONS E ~--II9' 1- l \ \\ Site Vicinity and Study Intersections FIGURE Copperwood Plat \\srv-dfs.wa\MM_Projects\Projects\14\14004.01 • Copperwood Traffic Study\Graphics\Graphics 14004.01 <Fig 1 Study Area> kassil 05123114 11 :58 7/transpoGROUP 1 ------------------- .. N 'I f I ' I I I 1 I I I L ~:z~~~~~., I t lH I I I ---r I I' '!Ii I I ---1 u I , , : __ .J! Sl L I I I I I I ! I"' II I-I I .j -~~-~-~ --L-__ -L __ --L ____ -,~ _ _ ____ 1 _____ _ ~ SE 2ND PI.... (AKA IE tJ6l'1i ST) \ II NOTTOSCALE ---.. ~ -~---------·---------r-~--I;o D~ ~~ti 0 G., ~( I ---: I r / ~ / / , , '- r--, ...... ·1 " " " " ., • "'ll" --• ,,!JIll" = 'H7 !~ 11 '.'"'' ,-, , ,- .J!>. I ~ ,...i". ~ LtliL,,~;J 1 G;;, ~! II~~ " [~. ~ J~ I.e, .. 1!I'!oJ !.P. II!I -o-J l L", O?J-r .. --.. • l,IlOCISI' ~ ~ '-~jJ1·'~·~yf; -.1.\ ~ r ... 1,·, .. 0 /~ ,.ioo:r or !JI~II ' 'I' , .fl.l -. i .... • .. 11' I I ' 1 I --=-:~ r'--:::-l ,-~ IIi', j [ __ ' ® \, l-u .. , " '. ~, MlIIIEOI'BtI \;', m".1f \ ~ ',\ " ~ \:~'~-~,.-""" '\ ' ~ " .. "'" ...... v , --' ,,," ;;;;.1 I. __ _ ---.J c I '.,----~ "' --"'!.--, I .. >.""'''' ":'.l' -= r-L~~ __ I ! -...0....-_.1: -IM:U~~ ~. 1ftIIII...,IIOCJII8t ........ .... " .. 1 ___ _ i I i '1---'III I~ ji 1---- , ! ,---- 1 , ROADS ~ j t I • -I ---r==--'I'I' /-:;;;;'T -l~n0' 1-__ 12 • DIM l· 1!5 111 fl:""': I .. (1"11': ,_J' _. ~,-. ,-'rl-' -'I~I ~'I! '~ill ,~. U L _ I L-.--1 r ,------.1 _---J '-_ .• _:.11 L._---' L ~ I Bl!fIOQUIST --r.!. VZ1!! \ \ Preliminary Site Plan Copperwood Plat \ \ \ / ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ \\srv-dfs-wa\MM_Proiects\Projects\14\14004.01 -Copperwood Traffic Study\Graphics\Graphics 14004.01 <Fig 2 -Site Plan> kassil 05123114 11:58 "-. "~.~n' !P<tl 1.1:" 'IT ........ '1 V BE 138m ST, I > p;;' ;;'}( I , , I I 7JtranSpOGROUP FIGURE 2 I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Revised Traffic Impact Analysis Copperwood Plat July 2014 Existing Conditions This section describes existing conditions within the identified study area. Charac,teristics are provided for the existing transportation system, existing traffic volumes and operations, and traffic safety. Transportation System The project site is located in the City of Renton south of SE 2nd Place and west of 143rd Avenue SE. Existing roadway characteristics within the vicinity of the project are described in Table 1. Table 1. Study Area Existing Roadway Network Summary Posted Number of Bicycle Roadwa~ Arterial Classification Speed Limit Travel Lanes Parking? Sidewalks? Facilities? NE 4th Street Principal Arterial 35 mph 5 No Ves Ves Jericho Avenue NE • Collector Arterial 30 mph 2 Partial Partial No Jericho Avenue SE SE 136th Street-Residential Access 25 mph 2 Partial Partial No SE 2nd Place Street Duvall Ave NE Collector Arterial 25 mph 2 Partial Partial No (South of NE 4th Street) Hoquiam Ave SE Residential Access 25 mph 2 Ves Partial No Street The channelization and traffic control at the four off-site study intersections can be found in Figure 3. As shown, the two study intersections located along SE 2nd Place are stop sign controlled intersections; all-way stop sign controlled at Hoquiam Avenue SE and two-way stop sign controlled at Jericho Avenue SE. The two intersections along NE 4th Street at Jericho Avenue NE and Duvall Avenue NE are signalized intersections, coordinated along NE 4th Street. The site is located in a single-family residential area in the Renton Highlands near Maplewood Elementary School. Pedestrian facilities near the site include partial sidewalks along the north side of SE 2nd Place as well as pedestrian paths or sidewalks along Jericho Avenue SE. Crosswalks are provided intermittently along Jericho Avenue SE. There are bike facilities provided along NE 4th Street and bicycles typically share the roadway with vehicles along the other roadways in the area. The project site is located in close proximity to transit served by King County Metro Routes 111 and 908. Route 111 travels along Jericho Avenue SE and stops at SE 2nd Place providing peak hour access to Downtown Seattle. Route 908 is a Dial-a-Ride-Transit (DART) route that provides service to Downtown Renton; including the transit center as well as the Renton Senior Center. Route characteristics are summarized in Table 2. Table 2. Existing Transit Service Routes Area Served 111 Renton -Seattle 908' Maplewood Neighborhood - Downtown Renton Source: KIng County Metro (AptiJ 2014). Approximate . AM Peak Weekday Operating Period T I Hours r ps 5:20 a.m. -7:30 a.m. 7 3:30 p.m. -7:00 p.m. 8:00 a.m. -7:00 p.m. NA PM Peak Period Trips 7 NA Headways (minutes) 15t030 15 to 30 NA 1. Route 908 Oial-a-Ride Transit (DART) serves the Maplewood neighborhood to the Renton Senior Center (Monday -Friday). '::;{transpOGROJP Page 4 ------------------- • DUVALL AVENUE NE NE 4TH STREET .. N NE 4th 51 ( f I_ro~ ~ : • JERICHO AVENUE NE NE 4TH STREET • JERICHO AVENUE SE SE 2ND PLACE • HOCUIUMAVENUE SE 2ND PLACE -+; +) I. lID ~ NE 3rd SI NE 2nd SI SE 2nd 51 LEGEND TRAFFIC SIGNAL = STOP SIGN Existing Channelization and Traffic Control at Study Intersections Copperwood Plat IIsrv-<lfs.waIMM_ProjedslProjedsI14114004.01 • Copperwood Traffic StudylGraphicslGraphics 14004.01 <Fog 3 Ex Chan> kassiI 05123114 11:58 CI FIGURE 7/tranSpOGROUP 3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I RevIsed Traffic Impact Analysis Copperwood Plat Traffic Volumes July 2014 Figure 4 illustrates the existing weekday AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes at the off-site study intersections. Traffic counts were collected at each study intersection in March 2014 with the exception of the NE 4th Street I Duvall Avenue NE intersection, which was counted in June 2014. Since school was already released for summer break at the time of this June 2014 traffic count, new traffic counts were collected at NE 4th Street I Jericho Avenue NE as well. The counts taken in June 2014 at the NE 4th Street I Jericho Avenue NE intersection were compared to the previous counts from March 2014 and showed that the March counts were 4 percent and 20 percent higher than the June counts during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. In order to account for this difference, the June counts at the NE 4th Street I Duvall Avenue NE intersection were increased by 4 and 20 percent in the weekday AM and PM peak hours, respectively, to reflect conditions when school is in session. Detailed intersection traffic counts are provided in Appendix A. Traffic volumes were rounded to the nearest five vehicles since weekday volumes fluctuate day-to-day. 'i{transpOGROJP Page 6 -------------------o DWAlLAVENUENE NE 4TH STREET (10) 155 (120)j le(7O) -\. r-L~ • (215)255) ~ ISO (485) ~ U ;p - (355)940--680(935) r-~ N (15)SO) (30(5) NE 4th 51 (85)) t C(10) NOTTOSCALE 13' U 0 o· c 40 • g, > (125) ~ .. i t---iii ~ • :--• JERICHO AVENUE NE C iii '" NE 3rd 51 ~ I NE 4TH STREET JJ; (10) 5 I--I (30)jle NE 2nd CI l-n J '" \ (5)30) ~5(5) \NE 2nd PI (405)1,085 --695(910) ,- (125)340) (30 (10) r-- (450) J t (55) NE2ndln \ NE 2nd 5t --.L i 5 I--\ I I (5) ~ :;:1--.. o· 0 ~ 1,,-Nets/ .. • • JERICHO AVENUE SE 3 f-----> "' PI ~ • m SE2ND PLACE \ I "' ~ (SO) NelSI m "' "' I-m 335 m (jlC) SI J SE 1st PI -SE 2nd CI l~ / (20)5) ~5(15) SE 2nd 51 -(5)5--q5) nOr -" (20)75) (5 (5) I lJIl (35)l t (20) \ SE 2nd PI SE 2nd PI SE 136th SI 210 'il .: .'.'c " .. ·'(:0,':" E (430) I '" t r{,j,',,;;,) • ····.'.·., ••. r a. ~.6~ <; ~ • HOOUIUMAVENUE 'I ~ SE 2ND PLACE ~ j! '. :: .... , :: (".; ~ "< S'~·.'!Jt 'ii-~ 'i'::':':; ., .... (5) 0 5(15) S\ . . .:,,:.,': ,:,:,:',;.;':C',' ~ J l LEGEND ~\SITEI E l t (5)5) ~5(10) " ,,,,,?\ .. \ (35)80--15(50) X = WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR • "' m (X) = WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOUR 0 = STUDY INTERSECTION Existing Weekday AM and PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes FIGURE 4 Copperwood Plat \\srv-dfs.wa\MM_Projects\Projects\14\14004.01 -Copperwood Traffic SbJdy\GraphicslGraphics 14004.01 <Fig 4 Ex Vol> kassiJ 05123114 11:58 7JtranSpOGROUP I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Revised Traffic Impact Analysis Copperwood Plat July 2014 Traffic Operations The operational characteristics of an intersection are determined by calculating the intersection's level of service (LOS). The intersection as a whole and its individual turning movements can be described alphabetically with a range of levels of service (A through F), with LOS A indicating free-flow traffic and LOS F indicating extreme congestion and long vehicle delays. LOS is measured in average control delay per vehicle and is typically reported for the intersection as a whole at signalized intersections and all-way stop controlled intersections and for the approach or turning movement that experiences the most delay at two-way stop-controlled intersections. Control delay is defined as the combination of initial deceleration delay, queue move-up time, stopped delay, and final acceleration delay. Appendix B provides a more detailed explanation of intersection LOS criteria. Existing levels of service, delays, and volume-to-capacity (vic) ratios were calculated using the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2000 methodology. Synchro (version 8.0) was used for these calculations. For the operations analysis of existing conditions at the signalized study intersections (NE 4th Street I Jericho Avenue NE and NE 4th Street I Duvall Avenue NE), signal timing and phasing information was obtained from the City of Renton and input into Synchro. Existing peak hour factors and heavy vehicle percentages were used for the operations analysis. Table 3 shows the weekday AM and PM peak hour existing traffic operations. Detailed intersection LOS worksheets are contained in Appendix C. Table 3. Existing Weekday AM and PM Peak Hour Intersection Operations AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour V/C 3 or VIC or Intersection LOS' Delay' WM' LOS Delay WM 1. NE 4th Street I Duvall Avenue NE C 33.1 0.70 D 46.4 0.81 2. NE 4th Street I Jericho Avenue NE C 30.9 0.72 C 26.5 0.70 3. SE 2nd Place I Jericho Avenue SE B 13.9 EB B 13.9 WB 4. SE 2nd Place I Hoquiam Avenue SE A 7.4 -, A 7.3 Source: HeM, 2000 and Transpo Group, 2014. 1. LOS as defined by the HeM (TRB, 2000). 2. Average delay per vehicle in seconds. 3. Volume-to-capacity (VIC) ratio reported for signalized intersections. 4. Worst movement (WM) reported for side-street stop controlled intersections. EB = eastbound approach; and WB = westbound approach 5. -.-= All-way stop controlled intersection reports delay and LOS for the entire intersection. Table 3 shows that all study intersections operate at LOS D or better under existing peak hour conditions. 'j/tranSpOGROUP PageS I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Revised Traffic Impact Analysis Copperwood Plat Traffic Safety July 2014 Collision records were reviewed within the study area to document any potential traffic safety issues. The most recent summary of collision data from WSDOT is for the three-year period between January 1, 2011 and December 31, 2013. A historical review of collisions was conducted at off-site study intersections. A summary of the total and average annual number of reported collisions as well as the collisions rate at each study intersection is provided in Table 4. The collision rate is representative of the number of collisions per one million entering vehicles (MEV) at each intersection. Intersections with a rate greater than 1.0 collision per MEV are typically flagged for further investigation to determine whether an adverse condition exists. As shown in the table, all study intersections are at or below 0.6 collisions per MEV. Table 4. Study Intersection Collision Data Summary (2011 -2013) Number of Reported Collisions Annual Collisions Intersection 2011 2012 2013 Total Average per MEV' 1. NE 4th Street I Duvall Avenue NE 7 6 8 21 7.0 0.6 2. NE 4th Street I Jericho Avenue NE 3 3 2 8 2.7 0.3 3. SE 2nd Place I Jericho Avenue SE 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 4. SE 2nd Place I Hoquiam Avenue SE 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Source: WSDOT and Transpo Group, 2014. 1. Million Entering Vehicles In addition to collisions at study intersections, collisions along SE 2nd Place were also reviewed as this is the roadway providing access to the site. No collisions were reported along SE 2nd Place within the vicinity of the project. 'i{tranSpOGROUP Page 9 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Revised Traffic Impact Analysis Copperwood Plat July 2014 Future Without-Project Conditions This section describes future without-project conditions within the identified study area including planned improvements, traffic volumes, and traffic operations. Planned Improvements Based on a review of the City of Renton's Six-Year (2014-2019) Transportation Improvement Program, the NE 3rd I NE 4th Street corridor is planned to provide improved traffic operations including rechannelization and improved signal timing, transit priority at signalized intersections, queue jumps, and non-motorized improvements for pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users. This improvement is planned between 2015 and 2019. No specific improvements have been identified to be completed by 2016; therefore no changes to the roadway network have been included in evaluating future 2016 conditions. Traffic Volumes Future without-project weekday AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes were estimated by growing existing traffic volumes by two percent per year to 2016 conditions. This growth rate was determined in coordination with the City of Renton and is consistent with other projects completed in the City. No pipeline projects were identified within the study area. Figure 5 illustrates 2016 without-project weekday AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes at off-site study intersections. 'iftranSpOGROUP Page 10 ------------------- • DUVALL AVENUE NE NE 4TH STREET (10) 160 (125)j! r(75) (225) 255 } ~ 185 (505) (370) 980 - -705 (975) .. (15)60) (30(5) (90)) 1 C'0) I NE 41h SI " I '.v 'i NOTTO SCALE L Ii " . N 40 • JERICHO AVENUE NE NE 4TH STREET (10) 5 (30J ! l' (5)30) ~5(5) (420)1,130--725(945) (130)355) (30 (10) (470) J 1 C55) • JERICHO AVENUE SE SE2ND PLACE (85) 350 (5)5 ,'0(5) JI 5} • HOOUIUM AVENUE SE2ND PLACE (5) 0 5(15) J l (5)S) ~5(10) (35)85--15(50) NE 3rd SI NE 2nd CI PI NE 2nd SI SE 2nd SI 0< LEGEND X WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR (X) WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOUR o = STUDY INTERSECTiON 2016 Without-Project Weekday AM and PM Peak Hour Volumes Copperwood Plat \\srv-dfs-wa\MM_Projects\Projects\14\14004,01 -Copperwoocl Traffic Study\Graphics\Graphics 14004.01 <Fig 5 8asefme Vol> kaSSll Q5123/14 11:58 ~ CI 1- l \ \ FIGURE 7JtranspoGROUP 5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Revised Traffic Impact Analysis Copperwood Pial Traffic Operations July 2014 AM and PM weekday peak hour intersection operations were evaluated for forecast 2016 without-project conditions. Intersection LOS was calculated at the study intersections using the LOS methodology described previously. Table 5 summarizes 2016 without-project weekday AM and PM peak hour traffic operations and compares these forecast conditions to 2014 existing weekday AM and PM peak hour traffic conditions. The detailed LOS worksheets are included in Appendix C. Table 5. Without-Project Weekday AM and PM Peak Hour Intersection Operations Existing (2014) 2016 Without-Project VIC' or VIC or Intersection LOS' Delay' WM' LOS Delay WM ~e2b:dil£ ~M f§.i!is. tJ.2yr 1. NE 4th Street I Duvall Avenue NE C 33.1 0.70 D 35.5 0.73 2. NE 4th Street I Jericho Avenue NE C 30.9 0.72 C 31.6 0.75 3. SE 2nd Place I Jericho Avenue SE B 13.9 EB B 14.2 EB 4. SE 2nd Place I Hoquiam Avenue SE A 7.4 -• A 7.4 kYU!itiU£ eM. f.galr.I::ls!U! 1. NE 4th Street I Duvall Avenue NE D 46.4 0.81 D 49.4 0.84 2. NE 4th Street I Jericho Avenue NE C 26.5 0.70 C 27.3 0.73 3. SE 2nd Place I Jericho Avenue SE B 13.9 WB B 14.4 WB 4. SE 2nd Place I Hoquiam Avenue SE A 7.3 A 7.4 Source: HeM, 2000 and Transpo Group, 2014. 1. LOS as defined by the HeM (TRB. 2000). 2. Average delay per vehicle In seconds. 3. Volume-to-capaclty (VIC) ratio reported for signalized intersections. 4. Worst movement (WM) reported for side-street stop controlled Intersections. EB::: eastbound approach; and WB = westbound approach 5. "." = AlI·way stop controlled intersection reports delay and LOS for the enUre Intersection. As shown in Table 5, with the addition of background growth under without-project conditions, all study intersections are expected to continue operating at LOS D or beUer. 'j{tranSpOGROUP Page 12 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Revised Traffic Impact Analysis Copperwood Plat July 2014 Project Impacts This section of the analysis documents potential project-generated impacts on the surrounding street network and study intersections. First, estimated traffic volumes generated by the proposed project are distributed and assigned to the adjacent street system. Next, project trips are added to future without-project traffic volumes and any potential impacts to traffic operations and safety are identified. Site access operations are also discussed. Trip Generation Trip generation for the proposed residential development is summarized in Table 6. Estimates for existing and project-generated vehicle trips were calculated using average peak hour trip rates for single-family detached housing published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) in Trip Generation (9th Edition, 2012). As described previously, the proposed project would remove five existing homes and relocate a sixth house located on the project site and construct 46 new single-family residential units. Table 6. Estimated Dally and Weekday Peak Hour Project Trip Generation AM Peak Hour Tri~s PM Peak Hour Tri~s Single Family Detached Housing DU' Daily In Out Total In Out Total ,#210 f Tri~s Existing Oemolished Units 5 48 3 4 3 2 5 Relocated Units 1 10 0 1 0 1 Total Units 6 58 4 5 4 2 6 Proposed New Units 46 438 9 26 35 29 17 46 Units (Relocated + New) 47 448 9 27 36 30 17 47 Net New Units 41 390 8 23 31 26 15 41 1. Trip generation estimates based on the number of units and the average dally and peak hour trip rates from ITE Trip Generation, 9th Edition (2012). 2. DU = Dwellin~ Units The proposed project would generate approximately 390 net new daily trips. During the weekday AM peak hour, the project would generate approximately 31 net new trips (8 inbound and 23 outbound). During the weekday PM peak hour .. the project would generate approximately 41 net new trips (26 inbound and 15 outbound). Trip Distribution and Assignment Project trip distribution was estimated based on existing travel patterns in the study area. Figure 6 illustrates the distribution during the weekday AM and PM peak hours. As shown in the figure, 45 percent of the trips would be oriented to/from the west, 25 percent to/from the south, 20 percent to/from the north, and 10 percent to/from the east. Project trips for the weekday daily and AM and PM peak hours were assigned to the study intersections based on the travel patterns. The resulting trip assignment is shown in Figure 6. 'Y/tranSpOGROUP Page 13 ------------------- • DWAl.LAVENUE NE NE 4TH STREET (2) 4 Il) (O)I--1(1) (3)11, {J • JERICHO AVENUE NE NE 4TH STREET (O)2, (2{1) I r (I) I 2(2) • JERICHO AVENUE SE SE 2ND PLACE (I)' J (3)3} (6)3, I (3) 7 • HOCUIUMAVENUE SE2ND PLACE (9)6--11(4) f'j;I ROAD A ~ SE 2ND PLACE (-I)'- {')13, (IJ -1(4) (3{1) G) ®ROADB SE2ND PLACE (1)1_ (I)S, I -1(1) (9{3) r (4)3 SIS) LEGEND X WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR (X) WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOUR 0 STUDY INTERSECTIONS 0 SITE ACCESS INTERSECTIONS § PERCENT TRIP DISTRIBUTION I XXX I = AVERAGE DAILY NET NEW PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES s NE 3rd SI NE 2n<! NE 2nd PI NE 2nd 8t SE 2nd St Project Trip Distribution and Net New Project Trip Assignment Copperwood Plat \\srv-dfs-waIMM_Pmjec!sIProjec!s\I4\I4004.01 -Copperwood Traffic SIlldyIGraphics\Graphics 14004.01 <F~ 6 Dis! an<! Assign> kassR OS/2311.11:58 ~ ~ '" m .. N 10% .... NOT TO SCAlE CI 136thSt l \ \ FIGURE 'i{tranSpOGROUP 6 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Revised Traffic Impact Analysis Copperwood Plat Future With·Project Traffic Volumes July 2014 Site-generated weekday AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes were added to the future without-project traffic volumes at the study intersections. The resulting future (2016) with- project peak hour traffic volumes are illustrated in Figure 7. Table 7 summarizes the anticipated increase in total entering traffic at the study intersections as well as the percent of future with-project traffic volumes attributable to the proposed residential project. Table 7. Weekday AM and PM Peak Hour Project Traffic Volumes Impacts AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Net New 2016 Future Percent Net New 2016 Future Percent Project Wlth-Attributable Project Wlth-Attributable Intersection Trips ProJect1 to Project Trips Project to Project 1. NE 4th Street I Duvall Avenue NE 20 2.555 0.8% 28 3,388 0.8% 2. NE 4th Street I Jericho Avenue NE 4 2,094 0.2% 7 2,567 0.3% 3. SE 2nd Place I Jericho Avenue SE 13 678 1.9% 17 722 2.2% 4. SE 2nd Place I Hoquiam Avenue SE 13 133 9.8% 17 132 12.9% Source: Transpo Group, 2014. 1. Total number afvah/eras entering the Intersection. The largest percent impact at the SE 2nd Place I Hoquiam Avenue SE intersection was approximately 10 to 13 percent during the weekday AM and PM peak hours, respectively. The high percent impact at this intersection compared to the other study intersections (approximately 2 percent or less) because traffic volumes at this intersection are much less than at the other study intersections. ':;{tranSpOGROUP Page 15 -------------------O DUVAll AVENUE NE NE4TH SmEET (12) 164 (125)j ll:[7S) (225) 25S ) ~ 185 (505) (370) 981 --708 (976) (18) 71 ") ( 30 (5) (ggJt C(10) • JERICHO AVENUE NE NE4TH SmEET (10) 5 (3O)5le (5)30) ~5(5) (420) 1,130 --725 (945) (130)357") (32(11) (471) J I ~S7) • JERICHO AVENUE SE SE2ND PLACE (85) 350 (jlrS ) (23)8) ~5(1S) (S)S--q5) (25)83") (5(5) (38))1(20) • HOQUIUM AVENUE SE2ND PLACE (5) 0 5 (15) J l (S)S) ~5(10) (44) 91 --25 (54) • N L : ; Ii NE4fu 51 r I '¥ 't NOTTOSCAlE f"j;:I ROAD A ~ SE 2ND PLACE (39)89- (4)13") (IJ ROADB -16(59) (3(1) C) SE 2ND PLACE (41)86- (1)5") I (4)3 -16(56) (9(3) r 5(8) LEGEND X WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR (Xl WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOUR o STUDY INTERSECTIONS CD SITE ACCESS INTERSECTIONS NE 3rd SI NE2nd CI NE 2n<l PI NE 2nd $1 SE 2nd SI ~ " ~ '" m Cl l \ t 2016 With-Project Weekday AM and PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes FIGURE Copperwood Plat \\srv-dfs.wa\MM_Projects\Projects\14\14004.01 • Copperwoocl Traffic Sludy\Graphics\Graphics 14004.01 <Fig 7 With Project Vol> kaSSll (}5J23114 11:58 7JtranSpOGROUP 7 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----------------------------------------- Revised Traffic Impact Analysis Copperwood Plat Future With-Project Traffic Operations July 2014 Future 2016 with-project study intersection operations were evaluated for the weekday AM and PM peak hours. Intersection LOS was calculated using the methodology described previously. The without-project conditions are compared to the with-project conditions to understand the potential traffic impacts of the proposed project. Table 8 summarizes the 2016 without and with-project intersection operations for the weekday AM and PM peak hours, respectively. LOS worksheets are included in Appendix C. As shown in Table 8, the LOS with the addition of project traffic remains at LOS D or better when compared to without- project conditions. Table 8. With-Project Weekday AM and PM Peak Hour Intersection Operations 2016 Without-Project 2016 With-Project VIC! or VIC or Intersection LOS' Delay' WM' LOS Delay WM kY~k2al£ ~M f.ell! tiJ2f:J.C 1. NE 4th Streell Duvall Avenue NE D 35.5 0.73 D 36.4 0.75 2. NE 4th Street I Jericho Avenue NE C 31.6 0.75 C 31.6 0.75 3. SE 2nd Place I Jericho Avenue SE B 14.2 WB B 14.3 WB 4. SE 2nd Place I Hoquiam Avenue SE A 7.4 . , A 7.5 kYGittmaJi! eM. f§1~ i:mIJ.C 1. NE 4th Street I Duvall Avenue NE D 49.4 0.84 D 50.6 0.86 2. NE 4th Street I Jericho Avenue NE C 27.3 0.73 C 27.3 0.73 3. SE 2nd Place I Jericho Avenue SE B 14.4 WB B 14.7 WB 4.SE 2nd Place I Hoquiam Avenue SE A 7.4 A 7.4. Source: HeM, 2000 end Transpo Group, 2014. 1. LOS as defined by the HeM (TRB, 2000). 2. Average delay per vehlde in seconds. 3. Volum&-to-capaclty (VIC) ratio reported for signalized Intersections. 4. Worst movement (WM) reported for side-street stop controlled InlersecUons. EB c eastbound approach: and we = westbound approach 5. ·0" = Alloway stop controlled intersection reports delay and LOS for the entire Intersection. 'ijtranSpOGROUP Page 17 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Revised Traffic Impact Analysis Copperwood Plat Site Access Analysis July 2014 The proposed project will be accessed via two residential roadways along SE 2nd Place as shown in the site plan (see Figure 2). Traffic operations and sight distance were evaluated at the two proposed site access intersections. Traffic Operations Site access operations were evaluated for the weekday AM and PM peak hours and shown in Table 9, below. Intersection LOS was calculated using the methodology described previously. LOS worksheets are included in Appendix C. The table shows that the two proposed access intersections are forecast to operate at LOS A during both peak hours. Table 9. Site Access Operations Intersection A. SE 2nd Place I Road A B. SE 2nd Place I Road B Source: HeM, 2000 and Transpo Group, 2014. 1. LOS as defined by the HeM (TRB, 2000). 2. Average delay per vehicle in seconds. AM Peak Hour LOS 1 Delay' WM' A A 9.2 8.9 NB NB PM Peak Hour LOS Delay WM A A 9.1 9.0 NB NB 3. Worst movement (WM) reported for side-street stop controlled Intersections. NB = northbound approach. Sight Distance Sight distance was evaluated at the two site access intersections. The methods and standards used to measure the available sight distance for the sight triangles are defined in A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 6th Edition produced by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). Based on a 30-mph design speed, the recommended stopping sight distance along the major roadway is 200 feet from an intersection location. Similarly, the recommended entering sight distance for a vehicle exiting the minor street onto a major roadway with design speed of 30 mph is 335 feet exiting to the left and 290 feet exiting to the right. Field measurements at the two locations show that stopping sight distance is in excess of 200 feet. The entering sight distance measured in the field was also in excess of the required 335 feet and 290 feet at the proposed Road B (the easternmost proposed roadway) for the exiting left and right turns, respectively. The entering sight distance at proposed Road A exceeded the required 290 feet and met the required 335 feet. Traffic Safety Impact Traffic generated by the proposed project would likely result in a proportionate increase in the probability of traffic accidents. It is unlikely, however, that this traffic would create a safety hazard or significantly increase the number of reported accidents in the study area. As previously noted, no collisions have been reported along SE 2nd Place within the vicinity of the proposed project site. 7JltranspOGROJP Page 18 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----------------------------------------------- Revised Traffic Impact Analysis Copperwood Plat Mitigation Measures July 2014 Mitigation measures have been identified to reduce potential transportation-related impacts generated by the proposed residential project. As all study intersections are forecast to operate at LOS D or better, the proposed project is not required to mitigate any intersection impact. The proposed project will be required to pay traffic impact fees which are summarized below. Traffic Impact Fees The project would be required to pay the City's Transportation Impact Fee. The current fee is approximately $1 ,431 per single-family residence, which results in a preliminary estimate of $58,671 for 41 net new single-family dwelling units. The City of Renton adopted a new Transportation Impact Fee structure in 2011 which is being implemented through a phased schedule over a five-year period. In January 2015, the fee will increase to approximately $2,155 per single-family residence, and the final increase will be implemented in 2016, resulting in a fee of approximately $2,857 per single-family residence. The required transportation fee for this development will depend on when permits are issued and the fee collected. Therefore, the fee for this development is estimated to be as low as $58,671 and as high as approximately $117,137. The final impact fee will be calculated and approved by the City. 'j{tranSpOGROUP Page 19 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Revised Traffic Impact Analysis Copperwood Plat Conclusions This traffic impact analysis summarizes the project traffic impacts of the proposed Copperwood Plat development. General findings and recommendations include: July 2014 • The project consists of removing five existing houses, relocating a sixth house and constructing 46 new single-family residential units. • The proposed project would generate approximately 390 net new daily trips, 31 net new trips during the weekday AM peak hour and 41 net new trips during the weekday PM peak hour. • Project traffic would represent 1 to 13 percent of the 2016 peak hour traffic volumes at off-site study intersections. • All study intersections are forecast to operate at LOS 0 or better with the addition of project traffic. • Both site access intersections would operate at LOS A and meet the minimum sight distance requirements. • An impact fee for this development is estimated to be as low as approximately $58,671 (if all building permits were issued in 2014) and as high as approximately $117,137 (if all building permits were issued in 2016). The final impact fee will be calculated and approved by the City. lIftranspOGROUP Page 20 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I www.idaxdata.com 947 ( 485 Interval Start DUVALL AVE NE NE 4TH 5T .:::::::::a Peak Hour N w ~ 1 i~ z w ~ ..J ..J ~ C> C> ... 0 ~ en It) J 1 l. 178...1 TEV: 2,018 ~ 294_ PHF: 0.96 13 -,. E4T ST ., t en .., '" C> ~ ~l i~ Count Summaries ,.. CD Date: Tue, Jun 24, 2014 Count Period: 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM Peak Hour: 7:00 AM to 8:00 AM NE 4TH 5T L 406 1,187 _ 778 <E('-- r 3 ~ 359 w HV%: Z W ~ EB 5.4% ..J WB 2.4% ..J ~ NB 1.1% ::> 5B 2.4% 0 TOTAL 3.0% PHF 0.89 0.97 0.85 0,85 0.96 15-mln Ro111ng Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Total One Hour LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Marl< Skaggs: 425 -250 -0777 mark.skaggs@idaxdata.com I www.idaxdata.com I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1,017 E 1,207 Interval Start 4:00 PM 4:15 PM DUVALL AVE NE NE 4TH 5T Date: ~ N Peak Hour Count Period: ) w z ~ 245 ..J 902 .... 60 -,. Count Eastbound TEV: 3,118 PHF: 0.92 ., t oo en '" '" ~l i~ Peak Hour: NE4TH 5T L171 857 _ 656 <EE-- r 30 ) 1,408 r- en w HV%: PHF p z w EB 0.8% 0.87 ;;: ..J WB 1.6% 0.87 ..J ~ NB 1.6% 0.83 Cl 5B 1.0% 0.92 TOTAL 1.1% 0.92 Westbound Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count. 3 5 7 2 Tue, Jun 24, 2014 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM 4:45 PM to 5:45 PM 15-mln Roiling Total One Hour (jj fl 0 0 ill o 0 C 0 () I I I 2 "'-y/ 2 " ;1, :",.' Mark Skaggs: 425 -250 -0777 mark.skaggs@idaxdata.com I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I www.idaxdata.com 1,390 ( 531 Interval Start .::::::::. JERICHO AVE NE NE 4TH ST Date: N Peak Hour Count Period: ) 4 2 w z ~ o J: U 1( W -, ...J 406 .... 123, S o 0 .., ~ ... J J l. TEV: 2,017 PHF: 0.97 ., I 0 ... ., ... ~l i~ Count Summaries Eastbound ,.. In NE 4TH ST L 3 925 _ 910 ..;;(:--- r 12 ) 470 w HV%: z w :t EB 4.9% 0 WB 1.8% J: NB 3.1% u "' SB 8.5% w -, TOTAL 3.1% Peak Hour: PHF 0.90 0.92 0.90 0.78 0.97 Westbound Northbound Wed, Mar 19, 2014 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM 7:30 AM to 8:30 AM 150mln Roiling Total One Hour Southbound LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT o 95 2 113 475 Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count. Mark Skaggs: 425 -250 -0777 mark.skaggs@idaxdata.com I www.idaxdata.com I I a:::::::::. N I I 927 JERICHO AVE NE NE 4TH ST Peak Hour w ~ 11; z w ~ 0 J: () ii: w 0 ~ N '" .., .J J L. L Date: Count Period: Peak Hour: NE 4TH ST 5 729 I E 29..J TEV: 2,459 .... 693 E I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1,453 Interval Start Interval Start 4:00 PM ) 1,086_ 338 ., Mark Skaggs: 425 -250 -0777 PHF: 0.97 ., t r .. r w z ~ o J: () ii: w ~ 31 ) 1,116 HV%: EB 1.0% WB 0.5% NB 0.8% 5B 0.0% 0.66 TOTAL 0.8% 0.97 RT LT 7 0 6 0 Wed, Mar 19, 2014 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM 4:45 PM to 5:45 PM 150mln Roiling Southbound Total One Hour TH RT 1 2 535 2 5 593 mark.skaggs@ldaxdata.com I www.idaxdata.com I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1,232 ( 377 Interval Start ~ N UJ z UJ > « J: ~ ~ 4 J ,. 328 .... 45 .. 144TH AVE NE NE4TH 5T Date: Peak Hour Count Period: ~l i~ '" ~ .., ... .J 1 L. TEV: 1.667 PHF: 0.97 ., t r '" ~ '" ;:I; .., ~l i~ NE4TH ST L 2 879 _ 868 <E(;--- r 9 ,. 371 UJ HV%: z UJ ~ EB 6.9% J: WB 3.1% >-NB 1.8% ~ SB 0.0% TOTAL 3.6% Peak Hour: PHF 0.89 0.89 0.81 0.81 0.97 Count Summaries Westbound Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count. Interval Start Mark Skaggs: 425 -250 -0777 Tue, Jun 24, 2014 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM 7:00 AM to 8:00 AM IS-min Roiling 1 o Total One Hour 1 o o o 1.600 1.558 1.515 5 1 o 3 mark.skaggs@ldaxdata.com I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- www.idaxdata.com A N 144TH AVE NE NE 4TH ST Peak Hour It> ~ It> It> Date: Tue. Jun 24. 2014 Count Period: 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM Peak Hour: 5:00 PM to 6:00 PM --".J I l. NE4TH ST 890 ( 27 ..J __ ~) 1.089 ..... 1.401 285. 4T ST Interval TEV: 2.368 PHF: 0.97 ., t CD CD IX) ~ ~1 i~ ,.. N .., L 2 718 ... 689 <E('--- r 27 ) 1.126 w HV%: z w ;;: EB 1.0% J: WB 1.8% ~ NB 0.4% ~ SB 0.0% TOTAL 1.2% PHF 0.95 0.89 0.76 0.69 0.97 150mln Rol11ng Start Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Total One Hour LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT 4:00 PM 1 231 67 6 153 a 35 7 a 1 5 507 4:15 PM 8 237 71 6 148 2 40 0 4 0 4 521 4:30 PM 7 288 66 5 152 1 37 7 1 6 3 574 4:45 PM 6 275 81 6 171 0 44 5 2 6 598 2,200 . Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count. CD CD CD CD (i) Marl< Skaggs: 425 -250 -0777 mark.skaggs@idaxdata.com I www.idaxdata.com JERICHO AVE 5E ~{ 5E 136TH 5T I ~ Date: Wed, Mar 19, 2014 N Peak Hour Count Period: 7:00AM to 9:00AM w Peak Hour: 7:30AM to 8:30AM '" ;1 r~ w &0 ~ 0 :J: I I () ii: w '" ..., '" co .., J I L. SE 136TH ST I 47 L 17 27 E 22 .J TEV: 650 .... 6 E I ) 5 -PHF: 0.85 r 4 ) 49 22 ., 26 5 136T 5T ., t r I on co co w HV%: .., .., -'" 'ot w ~ EB 0.0% ~1 r; 0 WB 3.7% :J: NB 0.4% () ii: 5B 0.0% 0.65 w I I ..., TOTAL 0.5% 0.85 Interval is-mIn Roiling Start Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Total One Hour I LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT a 4 104 0 0 10 122 I I I I Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count. I Interval Start 7:00AM I I I 8:45AM I Mark Skaggs: 425 -250 -0777 mark.skaggs@idaxdata.com I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I www.idaxdata.com JERICHO AVE SE 18 E 79 Interval Start SE 136TH ST ~ Peak Hour N UI ~ ll~ (/) UI ::: 0 J: (J 1i: ... UI .... -, N .... .. .J 1 l. 1 ...J TEV: 658 ) 5 ..... PHF: 0.90 73 ., 136T S ., t ,.. CD .. .... -0 N ~l I~ Count Summaries Mark Skaggs: 425 -250 -0777 L -r UI (/) UI ::: 0 J: (J 1i: UI -, SE 136TH ST 1 0 E 4 EB WB NB 5B TOTAL Date: Wed, Mar 19, 2014 Count Period: 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM Peak Hour: 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM 5 ) 16 HV%: 2.5% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0% 0.89 0.5% 0.90 Southbound 15-mln Roiling Total One Hour : .:621 658 638 641 626 mark.skaggs@idaxdata.com I www.idaxdata.com I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HOQUIAM AVE 5E 5E 136TH 5T .~ Peak Hour N Date: Count Period: w Peak Hour: en ~ ll~ w ::t ::; ~ :J 0 0 II> :t ... .. .J l. SE 136TH ST 53 L 11 60 ( TEV: 117 -49 ( :;0 2 J PHF: 0.68 :;0 38 36 -51 SE 136TH sf HV%: PHF EB 0.0% 0.63 WB 5.0% 0.83 SB 0.0% 0.48 TOTAL 2.6% 0.68 Count Summaries Interval Start Eastbound Westbound Northbound LT TH RT LT TH TH 7:00AM 0 2 0 0 8 0 7:15AM 1 3 0 0 8 0 7:30AM 0 3 0 0 5 Two·hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count. 7:15AM 7:30AM 7:45AM o o o o o o Mark Skaggs: 425 -250 -0777 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o , ~.\' o o o (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) o o Wed, Mar 19, 2014 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM 8:00 AM to 9:00 AM 150mln Roiling Southbound Total One Hour o o o o o o o o o o o o 47 o o o mark.skaggs@idaxdata.com I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I www.idaxdata.com ~ N HOQUIAM AVE 5E 5E 136TH 5T Peak Hour w en ~l r ~ w ~ ::;: ~ ::J 0 0 I 0 on Date: Wed, Mar 19, 2014 Count Period: 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM Peak Hour: 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM ..It. SE 136TH ST 15 ( TEV: ~ 2 .J PHF: 81 79 -SE 136TH sf Interval Start Count Summaries Eastbound LT TH RT Mark Skaggs: 425 -250 -0777 106 0.88 LT o L - Westbound TH 2 5 15 RT 2 o f3 f3 o fJ ~ o f3 ~ ------o () ~ o o 4 5 2 ( EB WB SB TOTAL LT 20 ~ 84 HV%: 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Northbound TH PHF 0.84 0.63 0.63 0.88 RT LT Southbound TH RT 150min Total Roiling One Hour mark.skaggs@idaxdata.com . _. -_._--------------------- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Highway Capacity Manual, 2000 Signalized intersection level of service (LOS) is defined in terms of the average total vehicle delay of all movements through an intersection. Vehicle delay is a method of quantifying several intangible factors, including driver discomfort, frustration, and lost travel time. Specifically, LOS criteria are stated in terms of average delay per vehicle during a specified time period (for example, the PM peak hour). Vehicle delay is a complex measure based on many variables, including signal phasing (i.e., progression of movements through the intersection), signal cycle length, and traffic volumes with respect to intersection capacity. Table 1 shows LOS criteria for signalized intersections, as described in the Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board, Special Report 209, 2000). Table 1. Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections Average Control Delay Level of Service (sac/yah) General Description (Signalized Intersections) A <10 B >10 w 20 C >20 -35 D >35 -55 E >55 -80 F >80 Free Flow Stable Flow (slight delays) Stable flow (acceptable delays) Approaching unstable flow (tolerable delay I occasionally wait through more than one signal cycle before proceeding) Unstable flow (intolerable delay) Forced flow (jammed) Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, Special Report 209,2000. Unslgnalized intersection LOS criteria can be further reduced into two intersection types: all- way stop-controlled and two-way stop-controlled. All-way, stop-controlled intersection LOS is expressed in terms of the average vehicle delay of all of the movements, much like that of a signalized intersection. Two-way, stop-controlled intersection LOS is defined in terms of the average vehicle delay of an individual movement(s). This is because the performance of a two- way, stop-controlled intersection is more closely reflected in terms of its individual movements, rather than its performance overall. For this reason, LOS for a two-way, stop-controlled intersection is defined in terms of its individual movements. With this in mind, total average vehicle delay (i.e., average delay of all movements) for a two-way, stop-controlled intersection should be viewed with discretion. Table 2 shows LOS criteria for unsignalized intersections (both all-way and two-way, stop-controlled). Table 2. Level of Service Criteria for Unslgnallzed Intersections Level of Service AYerage Control Delay (sec/yeh) A 0-10 B >10 -15 C >15-25 D >25 -35 E >35 -50 F >50 Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, Special Report 209, 2000. r. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I --------------------------- HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Duvall Avenue NE & NE 4th Street Lane Configurations 'I t:fo 'I /Jolume (~PJ:1) 215 355 15 5 Ideal Flow (~P.!1e1) 1900 1900 1900 1900 jrotal Lost time (~) 5.1 5.1 5.1 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (wot) 1719 3417 1770 Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow !~erm) 1719 3417 1770 Peak-hour faCtor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 1xdj. Flow (~PJ:1) 224 370 16 5 RTOR Reduction (~~) 0 2 0 0 Lane Grou~ Flow (~PJ:1) 224 384 0 5 Hea~ Vehicles !%) 5% 5% 5% 2% jrum Ty~e Prot NA Prot Protected Phases 5 2 1 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (~) 13.9 66.0 1.4 Effective Green..9.(~) 13.9 66.0 1.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.55 0.01 f::learance Time (~) 5.1 5.1 5.1 Vehicle Extension !s) 3.0 4.0 3.0 Lane Gr~ Capj~pJ:1) 199 1879 20 - tJ_" 935 485 1900 1900 5.1 4.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 3539 1583 1.00 1.00 3539 1583 0.96 0.96 974 505 0 0 974 505 2% 2% NA Free 6 Free 53.5 120.0 53.5 120.0 0.45 1.00 5.1 4.0 1577 1583 vis Ratio Prot cO.13 0.11 0.00 cO.28 ~Is Ratio Perm cO.32 vic Ratio 1.13 0.20 0.25 0.62 0.32 Uniform Delay, d1 53.0 13.7 58.8 25.4 0.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 tncremental Delay, d2 101.6 0.2 6.5 1.8 0.5 Delay (s) 154.7 13.9 65.3 27.3 0.5 Level of Service F B E C A Approach Delay (s) 65.6 18.3 7i~~roach LOS· E B t 4- 85 125 1900 1900 5.1 1.00 0.99 0.98 1834 0.85 1597 0.96 0.96 89 130 0 2 0 227 1% 1% Perm NA 8 8 24.1 24.1 0.20 5.1 4.0 320 cO.14 0.71 44.7 1.00 7.7 52.4 D 52.4 D Existing AM Peak Hour Copperwood Plat '1_01'_l'. 10 70 10 120 1900 1900 1900 1900 5.1 5.1 4.0 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.95 0.96 1.00 1681 1705 1583 0.95 0.96 1.00 1681 1705 1583 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 10 73 10 125 0 0 0 0 0 42 41 125 1% 2% 2% 2% S~lit NA Free 4 4 Free 8.1 8.1 120.0 8.1 8.1 120.0 0.07 0.07 1.00 5.1 5.1 I 4.0 4.0 113 115 1583 0.02 0.02 0.08 0.37 0.36 0.08 53.5 53.5 0.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.8 2.6 0.1 56.3 56.0 0.1 E E ~ 22.5 C ~~-----.--_._--------- HCM 2000 Control Delay---,,---:-:-___ -'?33"'.1;.-__ H"'C""M""2:.::0"'00:..,:L"'ev"'e;..:1 o::..f S::,:e:!.:rv""ice"--___ -"C ______ .-..J HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity . ..::ra",ti:=.o ___ ~0_;;.,70~---,;c=-c===_::_i:;_-----;;;;-;;---------, 1xctuatect Cycle Leng!!!.(~) 120.0 Sum of lost time (~) _____ ...!::20"C.4o-_____ __' Intersection Capacity.,.=U:::ti1=iz::.:ati:::;on"-___ --"69:,:.1'i%;;-_-'-"ICc::U..=L.:,:ev.:;el..::o""f S:.;:e:.c,rvJ=·ce::.-_____ -"C'--_____ --, 1xnalysis Period (min), ________ ""15'---___________________ .-..J c Critical Lane Group 6/30/2014 Synchro 8 Report T ranspo Group I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ------------------------------------------------- HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Jericho Avenue SE & NE 4th Street INE 4th Street - Lane Configuralions 'I t'fo 'I t'fo ,Volume (~PE) 5 405 125 10 910 Ideal Flow (~~eI) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 ITotal Lost lime (~) 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 Lane Ulil. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (~rot) 1719 3316 1770 3536 Fit Permitted 0.26 1.00 0.30 1.00 Satd. Flow (~erm1 468 3316 553 3536 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 1\dj. Flow (YPE) 5 418 129 10 938 RTOR Reduclion (vph) 0 30 0 0 1 Lane Grou~ Flow (yP.!!) 5 517 0 10 942 Hea!1 Vehicles (%) 5% 5% 5% 2% 2% jrum TYQe pm+Qt NA Qm+pt NA Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 37.7 36.5 55.5 49.2 Effective Green..9.(~) 37.7 36.5 55.5 49.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.34 0.33 0.50 0.45 Clearance Time (~) 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 Vehicle Extension (sl 3.0 5.0 3.0 5.0 Lane GrJl CapjYPE) 174 1100 432 1581 vis Ratio Prot 0.00 0.16 CO.OO cO.27 ~/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.01 vic Ratio 0.03 0.47 0.02 0.60 Uniform Delay, dl 24.0 29.1 14.5 22.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 1.4 0.1 1.7 Delayj~) 24.0 30.5 14.6 24.6 Level of Service C C B C Approach Delay (s) 30.5 24.5 ~P'Qroach LOS -C C 5 450 1900 1900 0.97 0.97 5 464 0 0 0 0 2% 3% Perm 4 t Existing AM Peak Hour Copperwood Plat of_ f' of i! 5 55 5 10 30 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.98 1.00 1758 1568 1715 1482 0.72 1.00 0.90 1.00 1324 1568 1567 1482 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 5 57 5 10 31 0 34 0 0 19 469 23 0 15 12 3% 3% 9% 9% 9% NA Perm Perm NA Pem 4 8 4 8 8 44.3 44.3 44.3 44.3 44.3 44.3 44.3 44.3 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 533 631 631 596 cO.35 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.88 0.04 0.02 0.02 30.4 19.9 19.8 19.8 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 16.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 46.8 20.0 19.8 19.8 0 B B B 43.9 19.8 0 B ----------- HCM 2000 Control Delay 30.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Ca-pa-Cl::-·ty-ra"7.ti-o ---~O.:;;:72~----'-'-~=~':O::"::::...:::::::..:.:!"'------"'---------.-J 1\ctuated Cy_cle_L_engtl1.(~) 110.0 Sum of losltime (~) _____ ......:;15"".3;-_____ --, Intersection Capacity',.:U""ti",liz""ati",·o,,-n ____ ~6""'7.47°!.:o-0 __ -"IC",U,-,L::cev",el:.:o::.:f S""e:c:rv-"oice"--_____ -'C'--_____ ---, 1\nalysis Period (min).-,-__ -'-____ -'-'15'--___________________ --' c Critical Lane Group 6/30/2014 Synchro 8 Report T ranspo Group L..... ___________________________________________ _ 1 1 1 .1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 I I I ---------------------------------------- HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Jericho Avenue SE & SE 136th Street - Lane Configurations 4-4- 1-iolume (veh/h) 20 5 20 5 5 Sign Control Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Hourly flow rate (yp.!!) 24 6 24 6 6 Pedestrians Lane Width (m Walking~peed (ft/s) Percent Blockage ~ght tum flare (veh) Median ty~e Median storage veh) y~stream sig~lJm pX, platoon unblocked ~, conflicting volume 729 721 97 735 712 vC 1, stage 1 conI vol ~, stage 2 conI vol vCu, unblocked vol 729 721 97 735 712 ~, sing~(~) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 tC, 2 stage (s) !E.J~) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 pO queue Iree % 93 98 98 98 98 eM ca~acity.Jveh/h) 317 344 965 312 344 1-iolume Total 53 29 571 106 Volume Left 24 6 41 6 1-iolume Right 24 18 24 6 cSH 458 434 1505 1048 IVolume to Ca~acity 0.12 0.07 0.03 0.01 Queue Length 95th (ft) 10 5 2 0 ,Control Delay.J~) 13.9 13.9 0.8 0.5 Lane LOS B B A A ~p'p'roach Delat(~) 13.9 13.9 0.8 0.5 Approach LOS B B t 4- 15 35 430 Free 0% 0.85 0.85 0.85 18 41 506 None 518 100 518 100 6.2 4.1 3.3 2.2 97 97 554 1505 Existing AM Peak Hour Copperwood Plat 4- 20 5 80 5 Free 0% I 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 24 6 94 6 None 529 529 4.1 2.2 99 1048 ~------------------_._-------------- Average Delay 2.2 ~e~a~~~ac~ity-U~t"'iliz~a"tio~n----~M7.~3%~-~ICA.u~Le-ve~l~m~S~e-N~ice------~A--------. Analysis Period (min) _________ 1"'5'---_____________________ --. C 6/30/2014 Synchro 8 Report T ranspo Group I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis . 4: SE 136th Street & Hoquiam Avenue SE - Existing AM Peak Hour Copperwood Plat Lane Configurations 4' to V §igri~CBRtrol;;'!lW!"l, .' 'c<f~'D¥'\$tQp~i.i@j*J$tmt'j~~;','i{l'ti3ill'liO!1£'?,,!jk~~lI\ik~:;;,!,'gij}~tfl Volume (vph) 5 35 50 10 15 5 P,eak~H9lj@,a:cto1JiH'" .~·1i,[Or68)~,;fO:68W$10:'68{iIi01681'$.'(0i68f;t,fto:68.iI;';\liljj\\lll!l~:'·;'%'l¥:t!'f;;~'o~;W''!.~''\.f~·ii,·,~j Hou~y flow rate (vph) 7 51 74 15 22 7 ~ ___ ffiJj ~1L ~U __ ____ ______ _ _____ . ___________ _ 6/30/2014 Synchro 8 Report T ranspo Group ,--------------------------------_.- I 'I I I I I ,I I II I I II I I I I I I I I I HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Duvall Avenue NE & NE 4th Street Lane Configurations 'i _t.f> 'i /lfolume (ypJ:t) 255 940 60 30 Ideal Flow (~~~) 1900 1900 1900 1900 jTotal Lost time (~) 4.0 5.1 5.1 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (Rrot) 1787 3542 1770 Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (~erm) 1787 3542 1770 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 'Adj. Flow (ypl!) 277 1022 65 33 RTOR Reduction (~ph) 0 3 0 0 Lane GrouR Flow (ypl!) 277 1084 0 33 Hea~ Vehicles (%) 1% 1% 1% 2% ITumType Prot NA Prot Protected Phases 5 2 1 Permitted Phases . Actuated Green, G (~) 26.5 60.9 4.7 Effective Green&(~) 26.5 60.9 4.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.19 0.43 0.03 Clearance Time (~) 4.0 5.1 5.1 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 4.0 3.0 Lane GrJl CapjYPl!) 338 1540 59 vis Ratio Prot cO.15 cO.31 0.02 ~/s Ratio Perm vic Ratio 0.82 0.70 0.56 Uniform Delay., d1 54.5 32.2 66.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 14.3 2.7 11.0 Delay (s) 68.8 34.9 77.6 Level of Service E C E Approach Delay (s) 41.8 ~p.Rroach LOS --D - tt 680 1900 5.1 0.95 1.00 1.00 3539 1.00 3539 0.92 739 0 739 2% NA 6 40.2 40.2 0.29 5.1 4.0 1016 0.21 0.73 45.0 1.00 4.6 49.5 0 40.5 D t " ~ 180 70 40 1900 1900 1900 4.0 5.1 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.98 1.00 0.97 1583 1776 1.00 0.64 1583 1169 0.92 0.92 0.92 196 76 43 0 0 5 196 0 136 2% 2% 2% Free Perm NA 8 Free 8 140.0 22.2 140.0 22.2 1.00 0.16 5.1 4.0 1583 185 0.12 cO.12 0.12 0.73 0.0 56.1 1.00 1.00 0.2 14.9 0.2 71.0 A E 71.0 E Existing PM Peak Hour Copperwood Plat 'i .r l'. 20 505 155 305 1900 1900 1900 1900 5.1 5.1 4.0 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.95 0.97 1.00 1698 1741 1599 0.95 0.97 1.00 1698 1741 1599 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 22 549 168 332 0 0 0 0 0 357 360 332 2% 1% 1% 1% SRlit NA Free 4 4 Free 31.8 31.8 140.0 31.8 31.8 140.0 0.23 0.23 1.00 5.1 5.1 I 4.0 4.0 385 395 1599 cO.21 0.21 0.21 0.93 0.91 0.21 53.0 52.7 0.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 28.4 25.1 0.3 81.3 77.9 0.3 F E tI, 54.5 D ------------- HCM 2000 Control Delay 46.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Ca-pa-ci::-ty-ra-::tio----70."'81;---'-"~='-""~"-"'''-'''''''------''---------' 'Actuated Cycle Length (~) 140.0 Sum of lost time (~). _____ __"20"'.4=___----------' Intersection Capacity,;-U::..;ti",liza::;:ti:;.:·o,,-n ____ ..c.7-"4.c::,3'1ci-, __ ~IC::..:Uc...:L:::.ev;.;;e,-,1 o;;..f S::..:ec..;rvc.oic-=-e _____ ---'0'--_____ ---, )!.nalysis Period (min) ________ 1"'5'--___________________ ---' c Critical Lane Group 6/30/2014 Transpo Group Synchro 8 Report I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I ----------------------- HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Jericho Avenue SE & NE 4th Street INE 4th Street Existing PM Peak Hour Copperwood Plat -+ .. -t Lane Configurations l! t.t-l! +-t-4' r 4' l'. 1v'olume (~p.!)) 30 1085 340 30 695 5 215 5 25 5 5 20 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 ITotal Lost tiii,e (~) 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.98 1.00 Satd. Flow (Erot) 1787 3446 1787 3571 1793 1599 1854 1615 Fit Penmilted 0.38 1.00 0.07 1.00 0.72 1.00 0.88 1.00 Satd. Flow (Eenm) 710 3446 126 3571 1362 1599 1676 1615 Peak·hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 :r..dj. Flow (~p~) 31 1119 351 31 716 5 222 5 26 5 5 21 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 16 Lane GrouE Flow (~p~) 31 1446 0 31 721 0 0 227 6 0 10 5 Hea~ Vehicles (%) 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% j1"um Type pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Perm NA Perm Penm NA Pemi Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 4 8 Penmilted Phases 2 6 4 4 8 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 72.7 68.7 91.5 82.4 28.3 28.3 28.3 28.3 Effective Green,.gJ~) 72.7 68.7 91.5 82.4 28.3 28.3 28.3 28.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.56 0.53 0.70 0.63 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 ,Clearance Time (~) 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1. Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 5.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane G~ Capj~p~) 430 1821 314 2263 296 348 364 351 vis Ratio Prot 0.00 cO.42 cO.01 cO.20 '-;lIs Ratio Penm 0.04 0.06 cO.17 0.00 0.01 0.00 vic Ratio 0.07 0.79 0.10 0.32 0.77 0.02 0.03 0.01 Unifonm Delay, d1 12.9 24.9 14.8 10.9 47.8 39.9 40.0 39.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 3.7 0.6 0.4 13.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 Delay (s) 12.9 28.6 15.5 11.3 60.9 40.0 40.1 39.9 Level-of Service B C B B E D D D Approach Delay (s) 28.3 11.5 58.8 40.0 ~proach LOS -C B E D ------------------------------- HCM 2000 Control Delay~".-_:_:_---__"'26"'.5'---'Hc::C""M"-'2"'0"'00C!:L"'-ev"'e'-'l o::..;f S"'e"'rv""ice"-___ -"'C ______ ---' HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity-"ra""ti::o,.o ___ ~0.""70~--,;--_;O__;_;7"_c_;,._-----=_;;c__-----_, 'Actuated Cycle Length (~) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) _____ --"15:!=;.3c-_____ ---' Intersection Capacity""U:,::til::::iza::.:ti:=;on'--___ ---"'68::;.2"''lio-, __ "'IC"'U..=Le;:.:v.:::el..=of:..:S"'e:.:.rvi"'ce'--_____ -"C'--_____ _, :tInalysis Period (min) ________ 1;,::5 ____________________ ---' c Critical Lane Group 6/30/2014 Transpo Group Synchro 8 Report I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Jericho Avenue SE & SE 136th Street - Lane Configurations 40 40 !Volume (vehlh) 5 5 75 5 0 Sign Control Stop Stop ,Grade 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourl~ flow rate (YPE) 6 6 83 6 0 Pedestrians LaneWidth@ Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right tum flare (veh) Median ty~e Median storage veh) .l!~stream signal (~) pX, platoon unblocked ~, conflicting volume 672 669 375 753 669 vC 1, stage 1 conI vol ~, stage 2 conI vol vCu, unblocked vol 672 669 375 753 669 tC, sing~(§) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 tC, 2 stage (~) !EJ§) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 pO queue free % 98 98 88 98 100 'eM ca~acityJvehlh) 359 369 669 280 372 t 40 5 15 210 Free 0% 0.90 0.90 0.90 6 17 233 None 236 378 236 378 6.2 4.1 3.3 2.2 99 99 808 1192 Existing PM Peak Hour CoppelWood Plat 40 5 10 335 5 Free 0% I 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 6 11 372 6 None 239 239 4.1 2.2 99 1340 !Volume to Ca~acity= __ ---",.;.:;-_""":_--,,,,::..:-___,:.= ___________________ -, Queue Length 95th (ft), __ --;;ii:_-:;-;;'~---;,,_ic_-__;,;1;_-------------------_, Control Dela~ (s) __ -__ --'.~-.=;~---'''7_--'0c.;.3:--------------------' Lane LOS A ~~~roach DelaYJ~) ___ -""=-_-==c----"",-_-,,0,,,.3 ___________________ -, Approach LOS ~---------------------------------------- Average Delay 2.1 friieiSection C'-a~-a....,city~U""til,...iza...,ti,-on------;3"'2"".6i;i%---;;;IC:;-;u7L-ev-e1'0'1 S"e-rv7ice--------;Ac---------, Analysis Period (min)'-_______ ~15'--____________________ __, C 613012014 Transpo Group Synchro 8 Report I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: SE 136th Street & Hoquiam Avenue SE -Existing PM Peak Hour Copperwood Plat ~ _________ ~<~_m_ wm;_ .. ~_ . ___ ~. ____ ._ .. ___ .. .._.. .._ .. 1!l~l!!!!L~ _ .. _ timav~"W-fF.--' -t-'~ '~"'~'--~ ~;,~;i®*tJt7f3.jiJ{fi-#.g:~'i~NWi+¥;;~(jbj#¥¥tfNtJB,§~eJtjjb,'#t 1{f:lt\iMhJoi,--WJ Level of Service A Int~*ectioh-;Ca'i1acity Utilization. <\,,-~--',18:3%\{,;!;'¥!,'IGUJ_evl!lOfSereice'iC"-(';'''': -':; islA",: Jf .e'f_· ,'.-.',. Analysis Period (min) 15 f]'Wl(,~f!~·Ht;.· '.:i.'tic -" .--''$~*lt~"c,lIj,i~fi~!'~' __ '~<; .i.te.!;"-.:'.'--.',, ;i,"":; 6/30/2014 Transpo Group Synchro 8 Report I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Duvall Avenue NE & NE 4th Street -+ .. - Lane Configurations 'i tfo 'i_H /v'olume (~p.b) 225 370 15 5 975 Ideal Flow (~~~) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 jl"otal Lost time (~) 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1719 3418 1770 3539 Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 .Satd. Flow (~erm) 1719 3418 1770 3539 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 'Adj. Flow (~p.b) 234 385 16 5 1016 RTOR Reduction (~~) 0 2 0 0 0 Lane GrouR Flow (VRh) 234 399 0 5 1016 ----Hea~ Vehicles (%) 5% 5% 5% 2% 2% jl"umTYRe Prot NA Prot NA Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (~) 13.9 64.5 1.4 52.0 Effective Green&(~) 13.9 64.5 1.4 52.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.54 0.01 0.43 ,Clearance Time (~) 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 Lane GrR Capj~p.!J) 199 1837 20 1533 vis Ratio Prot cO.14 0.12 0.00 cO.29 ~/s Ratio Perm vic Ratio 1.18 0.22 0.25 0.66 Uniform Delay, dl 53.0 14.5 58.8 27.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 119.3 0.3 6.5 2.3 DelaYJ~) 172.3 14.8 65.3 29.3 Level of Service F B E C Approach Delay (s) 72.9 19.6 ~p'woach LOS -E B ., 505 90 1900 1900 4.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1583 1.00 1583 0.96 0.96 526 94 0 0 526 0 2% 1% Free Perm Free 8 120.0 120.0 1.00 1583 cO.33 0.33 0.0 1.00 0.6 0.6 A Without Project AM Peak Hour Copperwood Plat t 4-'i _4'_~ 130 10 75 10 125 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 5.1 5.1 5.1 4.0 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.98 0.95 0.96 1.00 1834 1681 1704 1583 0.85 0.95 0.96 1.00 1592 1681 1704 1583 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 135 10 78 10 130 2 0 0 0 0 237 0 44 44 130 1% 1% 2% 2% 2% NA SRlit NA Free 8 4 4 Free 25.4 8.3 8.3 120.0 25.4 8.3 8.3 120.0 0.21 0.07 0.07 1.00 5.1 5.1 5.1 I 4.0 4.0 4.0 336 116 117 1583 0.03 0.03 cO.15 0.08 0.71 0.38 0.38 0.08 43.8 53.4 53.4 0.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 7.1 2.8 2.8 0.1; 50.9 56.2 56.1 0.1 D E E J\ 50.9 22.7 D C ~~-----------_. __ ._------- HCM 2000 Control Delay_::---::-___ ---'3"'5"'.5 __ ...;H:.:.:C~M"'2"'0""00"_L"'e~ve:::.1 "'of..::S"'ervc:;i"'ce'--___ --"D'--______ -' HCM 2000 Volume to Capaclty...!:ra~ti~0 ___ ~0,;:.7'""3~-... --;;-""'"____,=_-----__;;;:_;_------__, 'Actuated Cy_cle_L_ength (~) 120.0 Sum of lost time (~) _____ ---'2~0'=.4~--------' Intersection Capacity,...:U:..::ti::;:liz=:;ati",·o::..n _____ 7:.:1c;.3:,:;%;.-_....:.;IC:..::U:..;:L"'ev:..:;e:;.:1 o:.:.f.::.Se::.rv.:.:;ic::::e ______ -'C'--______ -, 'Analysis Period (min) ________ ...;1.::.5 _____________________ --' c Critical Lane Group 6/3012014 Transpo Group Synchro 8 Report I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Jericho Avenue SE & NE 4th Street INE 4th Street Lane Configurations /Jolume (~p.N Ideal Flow (~Il.!:!Il!) jTotal Lost time (~) Lane Util. Factor Frt Fit Protected Satd. Flow (~rot) Fit Permitted Satd. Flow (2erm) Peak·hour factor, PHF I\dj. Flow (~pJ:l) RTOR Reduction (~ph) Lane Grou~ Flow (v~h) Hea~ Vehicles (%) jTurn Ty~e Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green&(ii Actuated g/C Ratio ,Clearance Time (~) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Gr~ Capj~pJ:l) vis Ratio Prot ~/s Ratio Perm vic Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level-of Service Approach Delay (5) ~~~roaclh LOS - c Critical Lane Group 6/30/2014 Transpo Group 'i 5 1900 5.1 1.00 1.00 0.95 1719 0.22 391 0.97 5 0 5 5% ~m+~t 5 2 39.4 39.4 0.36 5.1 3.0 154 0.00 0.01 0.03 23.2 1.00 0.1 23.3 C - _t.f> 'i _t.f> 420 130 10 945 1900 1900 1900 1900 5.1 5.1 5.1 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 3316 1770 3537 1.00 0.29 1.00 3316 548 3537 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 433 134 10 974 29 0 0 1 538 0 10 978 5% 5% 2% 2% NA ~m+~t NA 2 1 6 6 38.2 54.3 48.0 38.2 54.3 48.0 0.35 0.49 0.44 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.0 3.0 5.0 1151 392 1543 0.16 cO.OO cO.28 0.01 0.47 0.03 0.63 28.0 15.1 24.2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.4 0.1 2.0 29.3 15.2 26.2 C B C 29.3 26.0 C C 5 470 1900 1900 0.97 0.97 5 485 0 0 0 0 2% 3% Perm 4 Without Project AM Peak Hour Copperwood Plat t 4'_7' 4'_~ 5 55 5 10 30 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.98 1.00 1758 1568 1715 1482 0.72 1.00 0.90 1.00 1324 1568 1564 1482 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 5 57 5 10 31! , 0 33 0 0 18 490 24 0 15 13 3% 3% 9% 9% 9% NA Perm Perm NA Pem 4 8 4 8 8 45.5 45.5 45.5 45.5 45.5 45.5 45.5 45.5 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1' 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 547 648 646 613 cO.37 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.90 0.04 0.02 0.02 30.0 19.2 19.1 19.1; 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 18.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 48.2 19.2 19.1 19.1 D B B B 45.1 19.1 D B Synchro 8 Report I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Jericho Avenue SE & SE 136th Street Without Project AM Peak Hour Copperwood Plat Lane Configurations 40 40 40 40 /Volume (veh/h) 20 5 20 5 5 15 35 445 20 5 85 5 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free 'Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% I Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Hourly flow rate (~P.!!) 24 6 24 6 6 18 41 524 24 6 100 6 i pX, platoon unblocked ~, conflicting volume 753 744 103 759 735 535 106 547 vC1, stage 1 conI vol ~, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 753 744 103 759 735 535 106 547 tC, sing~(~) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stag~(~ !E.(~) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 pO queue free % 92 98 98 98 98 97 97 99 'cM ca~acityjveh/h) 306 334 957 301 333 541 1498 1032 -~---~~~------------ /Volume Total 53 29 588 112 Volume Left 24 6 41 6 /Volume Right 24 18 24 6 cSH 444 421 1498 1032 /Volume to Ca~acity 0.12 0.07 0.03 0.01 Queue Length 95th @ 10 6 2 0 control Delat(~) 14.2 14.2 0.8 0.5 Lane LOS B B A A ~~~roach Delat(~) 14.2 14.2 0.8 0.5 Approach LOS B B ---~~~~~~----.~--~------~~------- Average Delay=:;;::;;;;;;;:=-=--~~~----.~2'c;-2~~"";-;-::c:o.",,,=-=--~~~~~-.~~~~~~, iiii8rSection Ca~acity Utilization 45.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min),--~~~~~~~.:.:15,--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--, C 6/30/2014 Synchro 8 Report T ranspo Group I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: SE 136th Street & Hoquiam Avenue SE -Without Project AM Peak Hour Copperwood Plat ~ ________ & _D_W]lL_~B_a ______________________________ _ Lane Configurations of to V Hourly flow rate (vph) 7 51 74 15 22 7 Departure Headway (s) 4.1 4.0 4.2 Degre'ti,l.}tilizaticfri,i.x;-.. .';;;ljO'07,o; (;0}10 «.0'03~\Wi1'i!il'j)!4%(P/I.<lY·';·V ilc\JL1%'ifii~.~'N+·1il140if'~M~·,t': ·*W!>t,[It~ Capacity (veh/h) 868 885 818 contmi),oMl'y!(§)}'!!',· . ····j~i'<m7!.4Ti ·;;9:7!.4_7ifii:!B$~;;~1· ; :f;\ti)j) ';rtzf~-1i··>·!i'\i'l"Dl!!14·..·v·ll.'i:1l1!!lil1 Approach Delay (s) 7.4 7.4 7.4 ~p'jlJo'8'6h;t1O:s1f;?' '12f":fA'; ;1\1A'fit.A'II':iii~W1:t"j;t-{:;~\ji )~llHlit~;·~~f:i01~IJlfl!iI.:t i.{;·:\~a ~~------------------_. ------- DeraY%~-i~~t~:~rr~~~;~.·~,·:'t~\Rii;iWirf4,.$,&ii%f:~i~~;it~-~1*;~t;*¥*.tt~**:Md4&r@)f~'g¥.~m!~:_ Level of Service A 6/30/2014 Synchro 8 Report T ranspo Group I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Duvall Avenue NE & NE 4th Street -Without Project PM Peak Hour Copperwood Plat t __ _ _ __ I!IDL~_@@EJ ___ m _WW ______ ~ __ ~ __ .ll!Ilm __ @]1 __ ~ __ ~ Lane Configurations 'tTt ,+_+ __ '{I 4+ 'tf __ l! /Jolume (~pl)'7}==-----;2=65: 98~0 ----,6""0--=-30 705 185;:-~7""'5'----"!4~0 ----,2""0--;5=25 160 315 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 jTotal Lost lime (~) 4.0 5.1 5.1 5.1 4.0 5.1 5.1 5.1 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.97 1.00 Satd. Flow (~rot) 1787 3543 1770 3539 1583 1776 1698 1741 1599 Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.63 0.95 0.97 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1787 3543 1770 3539 1583 1144 1698 1741 1599 Peak·hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 1xdj. Flow (~pl)} 288 1065 65 33 766 201 82 43 22 571 174 342 RTOR Reduclion (vph) 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 Lane GrouR Flow (vRh) 288 1127 0 33 766 201 0 142 0 371 374 342 HeavyVehicles(%} 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% jTumTy~~e~ ______ ~P~ro~t_~N~A _____ ~Pr~m~~N~A __ ~Fr~ee~~P~er~m~~NA7-___ ~SR~lit~~NA~~F~re~e Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4 4 Permitted Phases Free 8 Free Actuated Green, G (s) 27.4 59.7 4.7 38.1 140.0 23.2 32.0 32.0 140.0 Effective Green,.g_(~j 27.4 59.7 4.7 38.1 140.0 23.2 32.0 32.0 140.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.20 0.43 0.03 0.27 1.00 Clearance Time (~) 4.0 5.1 5.1 5.1 0.17 0.23 0.23 1.00 5.1 5.1 5.1 I Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Gfll Capj~pl)) 349 1510 59 963 1583 189 388 397 1599 vis Ralio Prot cO.16 0.32 0.02 cO.22 cO.22 0.21 Y/s Ralio Perm 0.13 cO.12 0.21 vic Ralio 0.83 0.75 0.56 0.80 0.13 0.75 0.96 0.94 0.21 Uniform Delay! d1 54.0 33.8 66.6 47.3 0.0 55.7 53.3 53.1 0.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 InCremental Delay, d2 14.6 3.4 11.0 6.8 0.2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 16.3 34.3 30.9 0.3 Delay (s) 68.6 37.2 77.6 54.1 0.2 Level-of Service E D E D A 72.0 87.6 84.0 0.3 E F F p', Approach Delay (s) 43.6 44.0 ~e~roach LOS --D D 72.0 58.9 E E ------------- HCM 2000 Control Delay~::___::_---_.;49~.4~--~HC~M~2~0""00"-'L"'e"-'ve"-'l o~f""Se<!:rv~ice"'_ _____ __"'D~ _______ __' HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity,~ra:::ti""o ______ ...;0;:.84;;-. __ -..-:-:70:''7;':"'''''.,.. __________ ''''',-________ ---. Actuated Cy_cle_L_eng~(~} 140.0 Sum of lost time (~}, _______ --'=.20"'.4;;-. _________ ---' Interseclion Ca pacity,'"U:..::ti=liz"'at""ion"---_____ -'-7"'6.5::.;'Ic ... , __ ..:.:IC:.::Uc..::L",ev",elc:0,-,f S::;:e:.:rv:;:ice"---_________ c..::D'--_________ ---. Analysis Period (min}-,--________ 1..:.:5'--______________________________ ---' c Crilical Lane Group 6/30/2014 Synchro 8 Report T ranspo Group I I I , I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Jericho Avenue SE & NE 4th Street INE 4th Street -.. - Lane Configurations 1j tt> 1j tt> I/olume {ypJ]} 30 1130 355 30 725 Ideal Flow ~hpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 jTotal Lost time (~) 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (~rot) 1787 3446 1787 3571 Fit Permitted 0.37 1.00 0.06 1.00 Satd. Flow (~erm) 689 3446 106 3571 Peak·hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 'Adj. Flow (ypJ]) 31 1165 366 31 747 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 23 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (~P.!i) 31 1508 0 31 752 Hea~ Vehicles (%) 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% ITum TYRe Rm+pt NA Rm+Rt NA Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 2 6 Actuated Green, G (~) 73.1 69.1 90.7 81.6 Effective Green..9.{~) 73.1 69.1 90.7 81.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.56 0.53 0.70 0.63 ,Clearance Time (~) 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 Vehicle Extension (5) 3.0 5.0 3.0 5.0 Lane Grp CapjypJ]) 421 1831 287 2241 vis Ratio Prot 0.00 cO.44 cO.Ol cO.21 ~/s Ratio Perm 0.04 0.06 vic Ratio 0.07 0.82 0.11 0.34 Uniform Delay, dl 12.7 25.4 16.4 11.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 4.3 0.8 0.4 Delayj~) 12.7 29.7 17.2 11.8 Level of Service B C B B Approach Delay (5) 29.4 12.0 ~p.Rroach LOS -C B 5 225 1900 1900 0.97 0.97 5 232 0 0 0 0 1% 1% Perm 4 - ---------- Without Project PM Peak Hour Copperwood Plat t of ., of ~ 5 25 5 5 20 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.98 1.00 1793 1599 1854 1615 0.72 1.00 0.88 1.00 1362 1599 1675 1615 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 5 26 5 5 21' 0 20 0 0 16 237 6 0 10 5 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% NA Perm Perm NA Perm 4 8 4 8 8 29.1 29.1 29.1 29.1 29.1 29.1 29.1 29.1 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 304 357 374 361' cO.17 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.78 0.02 0.03 0.01 47.4 39.3 39.4 39.3 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 13.8 0.0 0.1 0.0 61.2 39.3 39.5 39.3 E D D D 59.1 39.4 E D --------------------------- HCM 2000 Control Delay_:c--c-___ -.;.27"'.3'-_-'-"HC"'M"'2""0""00e..:L"'e""ve""l o"'f"'Se""rv"'ice"'-___ -"C'-_____ --' HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity,-,r=.:at:.=.io ___ ...,.;;0;;-.73~_--,;..."-:-=,,,":-:-:-;,.,.-_____ 7."': _______ --' ilctuated Cy_cle_L_eng!l!..(~} 130.0 Sum of lost time (~) _____ --"15",,.3;-_____ --, Intersection Capacltyc-=U:::til=iza==ti::::on~ ___ .....:..:70:::.5:.;.,%;-_....:.::IC..::.U..::.Le::..:v.:=el..::.of,-,S:.::erv:.,::i::::ce=--_____ -=C ______ --, ilnalysis Period (min) ________ ""15'--___________________ ---' c Critical Lane Group 6/30/2014 Transpo Group Synchro 8 Report I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----------------------- HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Jericho Avenue SE & SE 136th Street - Lane Configurations .;. .;. 1I0lume (veh/h) 5 5 80 5 0 Sign Control Stop Stop prade 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly flow rate (~P.b) 6 6 89 6 0 Pedestrians Lane Width (~) Walking Speed (fils) Percent Blockage Right tum flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) !,!pstream sig~(m pX, platoon unblocked ~ conflicting volume 700 697 392 786 697 vC 1 , stage 1 coni vol ~, stage 2 coni vol vCu, unblocked vol 700 697 392 786 697 ~, sing~(~) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 tC, 2 stage (~) !Ej~) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 pO queue Iree % 98 98 86 98 100 eM capacityjvehlh) 344 355 655 262 359 5 15 0.90 0.90 6 17 247 394 247 394 6.2 4.1 3.3 2.2 99 99 796 1175 Without Project PM Peak Hour Copperwood Plat t .;. .;. 220 5 10 350 5 Free Free 0% 0% I 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 244 6 11 389 6 None None 250 250 4.1 2.2 99 1327 -~-~------------------ lIolume Total 100 11 267 406 Volume Left 6 6 17 11 1I0lume Right 89 6 6 6 cSH 597 394 1175 1327 lIolume to Capacity 0.17 0.03 0.01 0.01 Queue Length 95th (~) 15 2 1 1 Control Delay (s) 12.2 14.4 0.6 0.3 Lane LOS B B A A ~p'proach Delayj~) 12.2 14.4 0.6 0.3 Approach LOS B B ~~------------------------------------ Average Delay 2.1 frrtterSe~a~p-ac~ity~Ut~ili-za7.tio-n----~3~3.~7°~Yo---~I~CU~Le-v~el-ol~S~e-N~ioo------------~A--------------. Analysis Period (min), ______________ -'-'15'--_______________________________________ --, C 6/30/2014 Transpo Group Synchro 8 Report I I • • • • • • :. • • • I • • • I • • HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: SE 136th Street & Hoguiam Avenue SE -+ - Without Project PM Peak Hour Copperwood Plat . {c ..... ~ ------------------------------ t)8iaY.H;·!i%/I~,:--"r:"y~tf?Mk1#:-~:ltr~~: tt~t_'!4._5¥J#k/~~~~.+ .. ~fIdi1i!,,··c,!-o-4+.Jli~:tt!¥$·-*(r~'~*t&'1 Level of Service A 6/30/2014 Transpo Group Synchro 8 Report '----------------------------------------- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Duvall Avenue NE & NE 4th Street Lane Configurations 'I tTo 'I /Jolume (~p.D) 225 370 18 5 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 iTotal Lost time (~) 5.1 5.1 5.1 Lane Uti!. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (wot) 1719 3414 1770 Fit Penmitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (~erm) 1719 3414 1770 Peak·hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 )l.dj. Flow (~p.D) 234 385 19 5 RTOR Reduction (yph) 0 2 0 0 Lane Group Flow (~p.D) 234 402 0 5 Hea:1: Vehicles (%) 5% 5% 5% 2% iTurn Type Prot NA Prot Protected Phases 5 2 1 Penmitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 13.9 62.3 1.4 Effective Green,.g.l~) 13.9 62.3 1.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.52 0.01 pearance Time (~) 5.1 5.1 5.1 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 4.0 3.0 Lane GfIl Capj~p.D) 199 1772 20 - tt 976 1900 5.1 0.95 1.00 1.00 3539 1.00 3539 0.96 1017 0 1017 2% NA 6 49.8 49.8 0.41 5.1 4.0 1468 vis Ratio Prot cO.14 0.12 0.00 cO.29 ~/s Ratio Penm vic Ratio 1.18 0.23 0.25 0.69 Uniform Delay, d1 53.0 15.7 58.8 28.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 119.3 0.3 6.5 2.7 DelaYJ~) 172.3 16.0 65.3 31.5 Level of Service F 8 E C Approach Delay (s) 73.3 21.1 ~p'proach LOS -• E C 'f 505 99 1900 1900 4.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1583 1.00 1583 0.96 0.96 526 103 0 0 526 0 2% 1% Free Perm Free 8 120.0 120.0 1.00 1583 cO.33 0.33 0.0 1.00 0.6 0.6 A With Project AM Peak Hour Copperwood Plat t 4-'I 4_~ 134 10 75 12 125 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 5.1 5.1 5.1 4.0 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.98 0.95 0.96 1.00 1834 1681 1707 1583 0.85 0.95 0.96 1.00 1582 1681 1707 1583 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 140 10 78 12 130 1 0 0 0 0 252 0 44 46 130 1% 1% 2% 2% 2% NA Split NA Free 8 4 4 Free 27.6 8.3 8.3 120.0 27.6 8.3 8.3 120.0 0.23 0.07 0.07 1.00 5.1 5.1 5.1 I 4.0 4.0 4.0 363 116 118 1583 0.03 0.03 cO.16 0.08 0.69 0.38 0.39 0.08 42.3 53.4 53.4 0.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 6.1 2.8 2.9 0.1 48.5 56.2 56.3 0.1 D E E Pi 48.5 23.1 D C ----------------------------------- Intersection Capacity"U""ti""liza"'ti""·onc....-___ --'-7=2.0"j%..-, __ ",IC,-"U-=L",ev;.:,el:..,:o,,-f S:c;eC-'rv""ice'--_____ -'C'--_____ --, Analysis Period (min),.,-_______ ""15'--___________________ --' c Critical Lane Group 6/30/2014 Transpo Group Synchro 8 Report I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Jericho Avenue SE & NE 4th Street INE 4th Street - Lane Configurations 1j tJ. 1j t_l> /Jolume (ypJ:1) 5 420 130 11 945 Ideal Flow (~~~) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 jl"otal Lost time (~) 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 Lane Uti!. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (~rot) 1719 3316 1770 3537 Fit Permitted 0.22 1.00 0.29 1.00 Satd. Flow l~erm! 389 3316 548 3537 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 !Adj. Flow (ypJ:1) 5 433 134 11 974 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 29 0 0 1 Lane GrouR Flow (ypJ:1) 5 538 0 11 978 Hea~ Vehicles (%) 5% 5% 5% 2% 2% rum TYRe ~m+~t NA pm+~t NA Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 39.4 38.2 54.2 47.9 Effective Green, g (s) 39.4 38.2 54.2 47.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.36 0.35 0.49 0.44 piearance Time (~) 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 Vehicle Extension lsI 3.0 5.0 3.0 5.0 Lane Gr~ CapjypJ:1) 153 1151 391 1540 vis Ratio Prot 0.00 0.16 cO.OO cO.28 ~/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.01 vic Ratio 0.03 0.47 0.03 0.64 Uniform Delay, d1 23.2 28.0 15.2 24:2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 1.4 0.1 2.0 Delayj~) 23.3 29.3 15.3 26.2 Level of Service C C B C Approach Delay (s) 29.3 26.1 ~p'~roach LOS-C C 5 471 1900 1900 0.97 0.97 5 486 0 0 0 0 2% 3% Perm 4 With Project AM Peak Hour CoppelWood Plat t 4' l' 4' ~ 5 57 5 10 30 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.98 1.00 1758 1568 1715 1482 0.72 1.00 0.90 1.00 1324 1568 1564 1482 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 5 59 5 10 31 0 35 0 0 18 491 24 0 15 13 3% 3% 9% 9% 9% NA Perm Perm NA Perm 4 8 4 8 8 45.6 45.6 45.6 45.6 45.6 45.6 45.6 45.6 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 548 650 648 614 cO.37 0.02 0.01 0.01i 0.90 0.04 0.02 0.02 30.0 19.2 19.0 19.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 18.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 48.1 19.2 19.1 19.0 D B B B 45.0 19.1 D B ~----.. ~-------~-----~~---- HCM 2000 Control Delay 31.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HeM 2000 Volume to ca'..,.pa""CI-;-;.ty-r::catiC":".o----~0.:;;75;-----'C====""-''''''-'c:=-----''----------' !Actuated Cycle Length (~) 110.0 Sum of lost time (~), ______ 1_"5"".3'--_____ ___' Intersection Capacity~U~ti~·liz~a~tio~n----~69:::.6~o/c~o __ .::IC~U~L~ec::ve~1 ~of..::S~ervc::i::::ce::...-_____ _.::.C ______ ____, !Analysis Period (min) _________ 1"'5 _____________________ ---' c Critical Lane Group 6/30/2014 Transpo Group Synchro 8 Report I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Jericho Avenue SE & SE 136th Street - Lane Configurations 4-4- ~olume (veh/h) 23 5 26 5 5 Sign Control Stop Stop ;Grade 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 !::!2!!!IY flow rate (~p.N 27 6 31 6 6 Pedestrians Lane Width @ Walking.§peed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median lyRe Median storage veh) .i:lRstream signal (m pX, platoon unblocked ~ conflicting volume 761 752 104 774 744 vC 1, stage 1 conI vol yC2, stage 2 conI vol vCu, unblocked vol 761 752 104 774 744 tC, sing~(~) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 tC, 2 stag!.(~) !f..(~) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 pO queue free % 91 98 97 98 98 'eM caRacilyJvehlh) 301 330 957 291 329 15 38 0.85 0.85 18 45 535 107 535 107 6.2 4.1 3.3 2.2 97 97 541 1496 With Project AM Peak Hour Copperwood Plat t 4-4- 445 20 5 85 6 Free Free 0% 0% I 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 524 24 6 100 ~ None None 547 547 4.1 2.2 99 1032 -~----------- ~olume Total 64 29 592 113 Volume Left 27 6 45 6 ~olume Right 31 18 24 7 cSH 455 416 1496 1032 ~olume to CaRacily 0.14 0.07 0.03 0.01 Queue Length 95th (f!) 12 6 2 0 ,Control DelaYJ~) 14.2 14.3 0.9 0.5 Lane LOS B B A A ~RProach DelayJ~) 14.2 14.3 0.9 0.5 Approach LOS B B ~----------- Average Dela y=:;;:c;'"""==-____ "';.;2.4>i-_--,"".-==c===--_____ -. ______ --, lnterseCiiOilCaRacily Utilization 46.1 % ICU Level 01 Service A Analysis Period (min), ________ -"15'--____________________ --. C 6/30/2014 Synchro 8 Report T ranspo Group I • • • • • • • • • • • • •• • • • • • • HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: SE 136th Street & Hoguiam Avenue SE -- Hourly flow rate (vph) 7 65 79 15 22 7 With Project AM Peak Hour Copperwood Plat ;. ~".. > ... ·.;.:.:.·.·\.1 '·-,,)1-'1'" - . ~----------------------- 6/30/2014 Synchro 8 Report T ranspo Group I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: Road A & SE 136th Street - With Project AM Peak Hour Copperwood Plat _______ @w _ G ___ m, __ WW __ Il@L _ 1i!lliFl__ ____ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ________ _ Lane Configurations To of V ~olume (vehlh) 39 4 59 12 3 Sign Control Free Free Stop :Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68 Hourly flow rate (ypl)) 57 6 1 87 18 4 Pedestrians Lane Width (~) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median lyQe None None Median storage veh) .\iQstream signal (m pX, platoon unblocked ~ conflicting volume 63 150 60 vC1, stage 1 conI vol ~, stage 2 conI vol vCu, unblocked vol 63 150 60 tC, sing~(~) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stag!.(~) ~(~) 2.2 3.5 3.3 pO queue free % 100 98 100 eM caQacilyJvehlh) 1520 846 1011 ~olume Total 63 88 22 Volume Left 0 1 18 ~olume Right 6 0 4 cSH 1700 1520 874 ~olume to CaQacily 0.04 0.00 0.03 Queue Length 95th @ 0 0 2 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.1 9.2 Lane LOS A A ~QQroach DelayJ~) 0.0 0.1 9.2 Approach LOS A ----------------------_._--- Average Delay'--..".-~_".-----_="'1.;;_2 --"';';<;c;-;"CC'C:'O..,.,-,=cc:-------.--------, frii9rSeCtiOnCaQaCily Utilization 13.9% leu Level 01 Service A Analysis Period (min), ________ --'..:15~ ____________________ __, C 6/30/2014 Transpo Group Synchro 8 Report I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Road B & SE 136th Street -,. - Peak Hour Factor 0.68 0.68 With Project AM Peak Hour copp9lwood Plat Hourly flow rate (~p.!!), ___ ~ __ .!-_~_-=_--...:6~_1~2,--____________ --, Pedestrians Lane Width (m,;-;;c,.,.-------------------------------' Walking Speed (ft/s) ~tru~e_'--------------------------------. Right tum flare (veh) ___ ".-______ -o7" ___________________ ---. Median ty~"'e_-:-c__--""N"'on"'e--------'N"'o"'n"-e __________________ ----' Median storage veh) !!~streamsignal @'---------------------------------, pX, platoon unblocked ~, oonflicting..:,vo"'lu:::.m:.:;:ec-_______ ..=. ___ --.:=-_-=-'--_____________ --' vC1, stage 1 conI vol ~, stage 2 conI vol vCu, unblocked vol 62 152 61 62 152 61 4.1 6.4 6.2 2.2 3.5 3.3 100 99 99 1522 842 1010 ~~~ ___ m________ _ /Jolume Total 62 87 18 Volume Left 0 4 6 ,Volume Right 1 0 12 cSH 1700 1522 947 iVolume to Ca~acity 0.04 0.00 0.02 Queue Length 95th @ 0 0 1 ,Control DelaYJ~) 0.0 0.4 8.9 Lane LOS A A ~pproach DelaYJ~) 0.0 0.4 8.9 Approach LOS A -------------------- Average DelaY_~"'"'_,,__:_----~.;.;;1..;-1 ---cz.,.-;---;'--...,..---,-:--------;--------, iirteiSeCtiOnCapacity Utilization 15.4% ICU Level 01 Service A Analysis Period (min) _________ 1"'5 _____________________ --, C 6/30/2014 Synchro 8 Report T ranspo Group ,. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • I • • HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Duvall Avenue NE & NE 4th Street Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (Rrot) 1787 3538 1770 Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (eerm) 1787 3538 1770 Peak·hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 :r..dj. Flow (ypJ:1) 288 1066 77 33 RTOR Reduction (y~) 0 3 0 0 Lane GrouR Flow (ypJ:1) 288 1140 0 33 Hea!:i: Vehicles (%) 1% 1% 1% 2% jTum TYRe Prot NA Prot Protected Phases 5 2 1 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (~) 26.9 58.5 4.7 Effecllve Green, g (s) 26.9 58.5 4.7 Actuated g/C Rallo 0.19 0.42 0.03 Clearance Time (§) 4.0 5.1 5.1 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 4.0 3.0 Lane GrIl CapjypJ:1) 343 1478 59 vis Ratio Prot cO.16 cO.32 0.02 :v/s Ratio Perm vic Rallo 0.84 0.77 0.56 Uniform Delay, dl 54.5 35.0 66.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 16.3 3.9 11.0 DelaYJ~) 70.8 38.9 77.6 Level 01 Service E D E Approach Delay (s) 45.4 ~p.Rroach LOS -. D - 1.00 1.00 3539 1.00 3539 0.92 767 0 767 2% NA 6 37.4 37.4 0.27 5.1 4.0 945 0.22 0.81 48.0 1.00 7.5 55.5 E 45.2 D 0.92 0.92 201 88 0 0 201 0 2% 2% Free Perm Free 8 140.0 140.0 1.00 1583 0.13 0.13 0.0 1.00 0.2 0.2 A With Project PM Peak Hour Copperwood Plat t 0.95 1.00 0.97 1741 0.97 1741 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 47 22 572 178 342 4 0 0 0 0 153 0 372 378 342 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% NA SRlIt NA Free 8 4 4 Free 24.3 32.1 32.1 140.0 24.3 32.1 32.1 140.0 0.17 0.23 0.23 1.00 5.1 5.1 5.1 I 4.0 4.0 4.0 197 389 399 1599 cO.22 0.22 cO.13 0.21; 0.78 0.96 0.95 0.21 55.3 53.3 53.1 0.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 18.2 34.3 31.8 0.3 73.4 87.6 84.9 0.3 E F F tI. 73.4 59.3 E E -------------~----~ HCM 2000 Control Delay---,,..--::-___ --7'50"'.6'--_-'-"HC""M""'2""0"'00'-'L"'ev:,::e::...:1 0,,-1 ",Se",rv""ic,,-e ____ -"!.D ______ --' HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity',.::ra""ll,,-o ___ --,-70.~86~-....,,---=-_:7--;-;------"""',.---------, :r..ctuated Cycle Leng~(§) 140.0 Sum 01 lost time (§) _____ ....!:!20~.4~-------' Intersecllon Capacity,.:U:.::liI::::iz:::;at'''''lon''-___ -'-77:.c-.l'i,'*,.., __ :..:IC",U.::L:::;evc:::el:.,::o:..;1 S:.:e;.:,rv:::;ice=--_____ .::D:...... _____ --, :r..nalysis Period (min) ________ 1!-"5~ ___________________ ---1 c Critical Lane Group 6/30/2014 Synchro 8 Report T ranspo Group I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Jericho Avenue SE & NE 4th Street INE 4th Street - Lane Configurations 'i 1'10 'i t.To /Jolume (ypJ]) 30 1130 357 32 725 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 it" otal Lost time (~) 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (Rrot) 1787 3446 1787 3571 Fit Penmitted 0.37 1.00 0.06 1.00 Satd. Flow (~enm1 689 3446 106 3571 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 I\dj. Flow (ypJ]) 31 1165 368 33 747 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 23 0 0 0 Lane GrouR Flow (VRh) 31 1510 0 33 752 ----Hea~ Vehicles (%1 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% it"um TYRe Rm+Rt NA Rm+Rt NA Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 Penmitted Phases 2 6 Actuated Green, G (~) 73.2 69.2 90.7 81.6 Effective Green&(~) 73.2 69.2 90.7 81.6 Actuated glC Ratio 0.56 0.53 0.70 0.63 ~Iearance Time (~) 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 Vehicle Extension (sl 3.0 5.0 3.0 5.0 Lane Gill CapjypJ]) 421 1834 286 2241 vis Ratio Prot 0.00 cO.44 cO.Ol cO.21 ~Is Ratio Penm 0.04 0.07 vic Ratio 0.07 0.82 0.12 0.34 Uniform Delay, dl 12.6 25.3 16.5 11.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 4.3 0.8 0.4 Delay (s) 12.7 29.6 17.4 11.8 Level of Service B C B B Approach Delay (s) 29.3 12.0 ~~Rroach LOS --C B 5 226 1900 1900 0.97 0.97 5 233 0 0 0 0 1% 1% Penm 4 With Project PM Peak Hour Copperwood Plat t 4' ." 4'_~ 5 27 5 5 20 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.98 1.00 1793 1599 1854 1615 0.72 1.00 0.88 1.00 1361 1599 1674 1615 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 5 28 5 5 21 0 22 0 0 16 238 6 0 10 5 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% NA Perm Penm NA Pemi 4 8 4 8 8 29.1 29.1 29.1 29.1 29.1 29.1 29.1 29.1 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 304 357 374 361 cO. 17 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.78 0.02 0.03 0.01 47.5 39.3 39.4 39.3 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 14.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 61.6 39.4 39.5 39.3 E D D D 59.3 39.4 E D ------------------- HCM 2000 Control Delay 27.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Ca-pa--,ci::-ty-ra-;-:tio----~0.=73:-----'-"""'-'='-""~"-""=~---~--------.J I\ctuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (~) _____ _'_'15"'.3'--_____ ___' Intersection Capacityc=Uc::tiI=iza::.:ti:::on'--___ -'-'70:::.6T.%~--I:.:::C~U=:Le::.:v:::el~of"'S=ervc.::i::::ce'--_____ ~C ______ ___, I\nalysis Period (min) ________ 1"'5'---___________________ ----.J c Critical Lane Group 613012014 Transpo Group Synchro 8 Report I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Jericho Avenue SE & SE 136th Street - Lane Configurations 4-4- Wolume (vehlh) 8 5 83 5 0 Sign Control Stop Stop :Grade 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly flow rate (~P.b) 9 6 92 6 0 Right tum flare (veh) Median ty~e Median storage veh) .\!~stream signal m) pX, platoon unblocked ~! conflicting volume 718 715 394 807 717 vC1, stage 1 con! vol ~, stage 2 con! vol vCu, unblocked vol 718 715 394 807 717 tC, sing~(~) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 tC, 2 stage (~) !f..(~) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 pO queue free % 97 98 86 98 100 Cli ca~acityJveh/h) 333 345 653 251 347 5 22 0.90 0.90 6 24 247 399 247 399 6.2 4.1 3.3 2.2 99 98 796 1171 With Project PM Peak Hour Copperwood Plat t 4-4- 220 5 10 350 9 Free Free 0% 0% I 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 244 6 11 389 10 None None 250 250 4.1 2.2 99 1327 ~~ ___ lil]lj____________ ____ _ __ _ Wolume Total 107 11 274 410 Volume Left 9 6 24 11 Wolume Right 92 6 6 10 cSH 580 381 1171 1327 Wolume to Ca~acity 0.18 0.03 0.02 0.01 Queue Length 95th @ 17 2 2 1 Control DelayJ~) 12.6 14.7 0.9 0.3 Lane LOS B B A A ~~Rroach Delayj~) 12.6 14.7 0.9 0.3 Approach LOS B B ~------------------- Average Delay 2.3 ~ectionCa~R~ac~ity~U~t~ilg=a~tio=n---------o34T.9~O/C~,----"ICNU~L~e=ve~l~m~S~eN=i~oo~-----------.A-------------. Analysis Period (min) ______________ 1~5 ____________________________________ __, C 6/30/2014 Transpo Group Synchro 8 Report ,----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: SE 136th Street & Hoquiam Avenue SE --With Project PM Peak Hour Copperwood Plat ~ ____________ .~_~ __ .~1:1JL __ .. @}Jl._ .@Nl ____ ._ _ _____ ____ ._ __ I ~ -.. Hourly flow rate (vph) ~Jk'---._Jrul.LJ'i1lU __ ~L_ . _______ . __ . ______________________ . ~ ------------------------------- Delaya·_i;1f[~'~-:~::]/'.-.~~r?MMt.4t7!4.iMMHi-¥§t'iti"hKjf.Hm§h-,~;~:,~.§i;~ ;;~)i:~:r~1.~-Afiv-~~**Fl Level of Service A Intji1~£UonjGiiilacitY Utilii?ti6] ·,gi);; ·-~~MMi18:9%':fittll!;;'IGI.J;eev~I!Qf;SeryiCe1f~;;iillii; .. ,;!:~h';fe.il@ji't, ,;1m, '," ;Ii/;.!k;1 Analysis Period (min) 15 u-'i~, <.,;er !:,;;, -,- 6/30/2014 Transpo Group Synchro 8 Report I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: Road A & SE 136th Street - Lane Configurations fo of_V I/olume (vehlh) 89 13 3 16 7 Sign Control Free Free Stop ;Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Hourly flow rate (ypJ)} 101 15 3 18 8 Pedestrians Lane Width m} Walking~eed (!tis) Percent Blockage Right tum flare (veh) Median tyRe None None Median storage veh} )!Rstream signal @ pX, platoon unblocked )&, conflicting volume 116 134 vC1, stage 1 conI vol yC2, stage 2 conI vol vCu, unblocked vol 116 134 tC, sing~(~} 4.1 6.4 tC, 2 stage (~r ~(~) 2.2 3.5 pO queue free % 100 99 eM caRacityJveh/h) 1485 863 I/olume Total 116 22 10 Volume Left 0 3 8 I/olume Right 15 0 2 cSH 1700 1485 881 1I0lume to CaRacity 0.07 0.00 0.01 Queue Length 95th @ 0 0 1 Control DelayJ~) 0.0 1.2 9.1 Lane LOS A A ~p.Rroach Delat(~) 0.0 1.2 9.1 Approach LOS A 2 0.88 2 109 109 6.2 3.3 100 951 With Project PM Peak Hour Copperwood Plat ~---------------------- Average Delay 0.8 ~e~a~R~ac~ity·U~t~iliz~a~tio~n--------~15~.5~~To----"IC~U~L~e~ve~l~ol~S~eN~i~ca~----------~A--------------' Analysis Period (min} _________________ 1:::5 __________________________________________ ---. C 6/30/2014 Synchro 8 Report T ranspo Group I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Road B & SE 136th Street With Project PM Peak Hour CoppelWood Plat -.. -______ M __ ~m __ \!!Wi _ il'J.ll1 __ ._ _ ____________________ _ Lane Configurations t-4' V )lolurne (veh/h) 86 5 9 16 3 5 Sign Control Free Free Stop :Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Hourl~ flow rate (~P.b) 98 6 10 18 3 6 Pedestrians Lane Width m) Walking~peed (IUs) Percent Blockage ~ght tum fiare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) !:!Rstrearn signal (~) pX, platoon unblocked yc, conflicting volume 103 139 101 vCl, stage 1 conf vol :VC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 103 139 101 tC, sing~(~) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stag~(~) !Ej~) 2.2 3.5 3.3 pO queue free % 99 100 99 eM caRacityjvehlh) 1501 853 960 ---------------------- )lolurne Total 103 28 9 Volume Left 0 10 3 )lolurne Right 6 '0 6 cSH 1700 1501 917 I'olurne to CaRacity 0.06 0.01 0.01 Queue Length 95th @ 0 1 1 Control Delayj~) 0.0 2.7 9.0 Lane LOS A A ~p.Rroach Delat(~) 0.0 2.7 9.0 Approach LOS A -------------- Average Delay 1.1 frrtemSe~onca~R~a~7.·ty~Uti~·Ii=~70tio~n~----~1~8.ioo~~----~I~CU~Le~v~el~ofuS~e=N~ice~------.A--------, Analysis Period (rnin) _________ 1:,::5 ______________________ -, C 6/30/2014 Synchro 8 Report T ranspo Group ~~~~~~~~~~~~~--~~~-------I ---~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I , "_'t ,.' , ."' I \, . i' , i . , I , ,iGEQTEtHNICAL REPORt • ~ • '." -< -.;. -. '.---." --', ~ • ," --.' _. ------T--- Quadrant Homes i~~II~~u~~'Washlngton I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TERR:AASSOCIATE5, 'Inc. ;Cii,risullilI1IS"1", Gqo!e~lln:i~al E~gine.eiing,:G~6Iogy' and ' EiivirOnmental EartliiSCiences , -, --~ . . .-. Mr"CQrey,Ws!son, ,QiiadrantHomes . 1472S,'SE36th'Siieei,'Suile200 '. ". .: --. -,' \ • ~--, ',i.,: '., ,,", ••. ,' • ;BeUIl~e. WaSliiiigtOD' 98006 Subji:C\: 'Oeoiechnlca);R'eport ;Stutb'AssciDbl~' i: iSE'lj6tli:'Md~d"143fdAV'eiiue:SE :;R~6i9n;, W~~iii~~on;, " , "" , , peai-, W:\ValsoD: 1\~'req~¥I~,.,. w~ '1i~\,e,~i:>li!IiiciCd ;a:~"OlecJuilcal"ei!~neCiin.g,stud'y",ior',ihe :siibj:ecl; proj~\;' 1i!lia.lta~~ed repoit, ',' preSeni~o!l( '/'illdiitgs ati~' reC6!W?eri~ti6ris~f~f}liegc:o(eC}iriic~I'!iS~tS of ptOji:Cf deslgn.sndcOilSlrii@On, 'Soil' conditioiis we ,observoo'in·lhe·tesl ,piis,l!enerilli~;~onsj~~cii, ~f6,!6:'1 ~,'lii,c~es"of:O,rg8ni.c,I?P~Qjl()Jert,yipg,,2, 10' 'S,/t;IlI, of,me~iiiiii'd~~se'~j}IY:~d wi,lb~~~el (~~lliered lilljoverl~g·denselo,verr. dense sjllp~dlYitli8J!l.Yet '(unweatlle..oo 'g1acialiill)"iQ,tbe I~rmi,\a~on.of Ih~;!~t,1~j,~i, A "Ihi~k~(§rganift9p'sOnlllyef' (I8jlidics) 'W,as o~s~rye.dov~rI.Ying :the,s~', #IWetiil"soils;,ai~ TeSt;pii,'rP~9,,'We'also (,bserve~tl!bou!. '1{ in,che~.~ofs'iity ~~, fjll 'm~tCri~!'be!q~6\1)~~~~:iE&I;a,,y~i.IY,tl?!'.~!I,aJ;I~s,t;~it·TP,+?"~Wel~(),!lldJ~pecroiher'~~,.6f,stlall~~:~iJraoo'fi'il~ \~sso.iij~tCd~ith .Ihe.e,ustii\gdeVeI~parcels.will be Present: ':Sha,lIo~;pen:h~, grOu!id\Vat~r,;W~:9Jise!Y@.at;a ~CJ),th '~i,~1iout, 4;i~t.qq{~~~lte;II}&rpi!s·e*,#y~jec:t; " ," " . , . ' , , , . " " , ''iil ouropfnion"soilconiiitib~cibs.eryed;·at (he,~jte,~ilIJi~'~ililli.~leJor sUPPOrt onheiprOP<iSOO}I~vel0l!meiJt , pi"9Vided llt e '~~()iju!i~AAiio1ispres~ted, in .ihls, ri:~rt are:ini:0rporated, inioPrOjecl,desillJl,an.~":~g~.t'1!cPS>II::, inf<Ol1!'laljIJn:i)~:eXll,~'iin IJ~,s:repo~ is);!Jfl~~ileniforcY.o,ur.lclWrenineeds. ,IfY6i1'have,anrquestions'or 1252S\.villows Road;Suiie lOi;Kiikland,'Washingion 98034 I;'hpn~e(425) 1}21 ,777(,. ~~x;(42?)'82J ~4334, I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 'LO '2":6 3.0' :TAuLEOFCONTENTS -• _. • ,. _,.~, _ •• '" •••• ".0 _ •• ,Page No. 'Pro jeCi ·'l¥~¥p.tion: ., ;":;.:'"'" ... , ... : .... : .. :: .... ,.; .:;: ,.:,,",.: ':':~:":"; ":::.:: ~~.: ... ~: ;~; ~:: ': : : .,;, : ... :::.;; :.,:;1 :. .~co~ .ofWj>rk ...................... , ...................................... ; .......................................... , ........ ,I ~ itt· Con!lii ii?~s .. '..:.;. ::.:;~ .. c.;; .. ,";: •. ~::;. , .1.,/.:::; .. : :·;;A;;·: : ;;~ ;', ~,';. ;;;;i::.:,~: .. :; :., ••. :. :': .: .. :;: , .•.. '. .. ;.: :.::; ~ 3:1 iSurfacc: ............ : ............... : .................................................................................... 2 .. ·5:2 ·SlIe·.Preparallon·and .Grading' ..... :; .. ,,::: .. :;: ... ;';· ... ;:.:;;:.;·.:.,.;:;;;;.~:,; ... ,.,,;;;;:;;.;' ... :: .. ;.· ... ·S s,:fExcavation::: ....... : .............................................................. : .. '::.~::: ... :::: .. :::::::: .. :.>6. '.' ',',' ':_ -:"~;:;~' .. \~---·i,· ... -'" > • ,~. ' •••••• "-.-~'.' , -: ... , -. '-.~. -"'·w"; ",'. ·SA·:SlopC§'lihd·EmbailktiteriK .................................................... , ...... , ... , ............... , .. '6· :$.J'~r!1':~~:o~*~~~;:~:;:~;::::::::::::'.::::::::·::;;::::::;:::;~:':::;:::~:;::;;~::::::~:::::::::::::::~:.::~:, '5:1. ',StoInlwater,Detention' Pond .•.... :: ..... : ... :: .. ;.', ..... :.;~.:.O:::. :.,;'; ..• :~.:;;.,,;;".;: •.•• :.:.::.: .. :~.:. ,7' "S'S' . "D':: , .. , .... , .. , .. " ... , .'; ... , .', ........ . ..... "'.' ... .'S" . ramage ........................................................................................................... .. • • •••• ; •• , • ..,-.' .. _.,'., •••• , ........ ,0;' ....... '.'· •• ·.',.v.' ..• C,), ;":. ... 1,, .,'., ...... , •.•.. -" ••. ~'. ,' •• ,~ .• "', '5,9. Utililles' ............................................................................................................... '9 6;0 }~~!lio;~,~~~~~:,:~:f:~:;:~;:~::::·::~::;:~:):;;::::::::::~::;:::/;:;;;,;;:::~:;~:.~.::::::j:::.::;;)::::::':::;:::;;:~:\ fiL .LlmltaUons ..................................................................................................................... 10 Figures ).Dpenillx. :.F.ie!~ E.'5p.I()ra,tic:m:aud.Lab~~toryr.eSti~g.~, ....... , .•.• :: .• , .. ::.:······ .. ··,.··:····,.·· .. :·,··.,.·,····,.· ... ,.,· .. Mpendil.",A I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1.Ci :~eotec:hnlc~l: Repor1. .. . StuthAssen'ltjla"e "' ... "" '., .' . ' " i." ,g..., , .. SE '136th, Stre"et and,'143rd'Av:enueSE . . . . . ,'R~hton"Wa$hihg~t;Ii' .' ... '. .' .", . . .-~ . . -" . , PRO.iEC't DEScRIPTI()N The P'r9j~f:c9H~istS· i?f, ~¢veJ~ping ..the .. apjll{lxirilatc;:!Y g.?;!i'c~.\~i~~"wi*}?i'eS.idellt!~.~lljliJ!ng. Io!s,a~cCiSr' .. roadways.,.two sionnwaterdeien'tion p6n~.·and .titilities., Gradiilg:plans were not. available, at :the ·tinie .of:.this:: l.~ -, ,."~ , _',' ,_ .:~Port,. :'l.l£l~~y~r ;!iive~ .i~*is!-illgi.sit~'8i:iii!e~;\y.c:' a~ii~ipa\~;:~UIS~.an~. filWii:q~~· .!§.)~~"li~I!: ~¢sigri'ilot~:~na:i !'9.a'dw_~y 'ei~tioIlS')\f(i!',*' on .iIte'C!r4erqthvo'to'~ight.f~i,; ., .. ~ ."-., , . ., -. . " ',' . ',. There are'lwosiotlllw~ler 'ponds' planned' for. ihe'. sile: . The.pondS "viii be lacatC<ilii 'the souiheasterit:s"iiearea. .·Iioi1~~~!M\lri.o.ry,jJ:Westo~81t'e~is\iilg~~age th!Ilbi~lfth.e~t.~·l'9rtioh.of;tlle,p'io~!jX': W~;a.itticipa!e.l:h.e'. ,pondhvili.be cOIlSiructeil primarily by excavation beiowcurrenCslte grades wlih·'.miriimal ,fill placed for· · .. formiiiion.·or "'ihCtereoniiiinmentbemls, ............ ~ ....................... . . ~!l.;e*~! .. 9jat ,,the. ·r.Wd~nt~aL:s,trUc~ C!1~lI11~~."9.':I' !~I:. ipW ~ill.' ~.:·tw'?":.Jg.t~i'9J:~.~~~' 1,VQC1.a;fr;t~ed .. buildings wiili. therrniafu . floor··.levelsfriliriCd ,over' a : crawl 'space:· Attachcil; garage:: flooiS~Will: be 'coiis'tiilcted ,a( .lit'iide.;· !l~fiJ£Ii,i~1 ,l¥~ing' shQlJl~ b,e :J'!ililtj"~JY!lig~t; .. ~it!i :1'.~ilg~alls·{anil~ '19~\IS:of2:W3 .kij>~, peffO!;l(~nd . ;!solat~'colillnns ca.nl)g ma~lmum'loaas of:)O iC?40kips.' "Tlie, recciniinehdaiions in the' following' sections :6rlhis report'RreibaSed oiiour lindei'Si8ii(jinl(or:the preceding. d.~si~1;f~!~~::,,:We.;~shO~ld.:~y!eJi Jin,~!,~~sIgh:!Ira\V!n.gS: ~~;:th:e~ :b¢onie~y~il,~~Ie.n,9; ye.ri,fy' ilia! 9.\11" ,.recommenaaHons·have.been· properly, i'nte!'Preted and'to.supplemenf.them;:if'required" .. ".-, .-.. , :Our scope '6fworKwas completed 'in accordance w'fihour authoriZed proposal daie<l :January9; 2(i'J4:. .Ac.c6itiingl~:<in '1¥DusryI7. :201~,\Y~:!J~rV~ .Soili:.~iidiJions.at '11 ~e~!piise1!'~~~ated ,~i~~~n~6 '~'cJ. 19. fe~.t ~el~we~.(~ti~g\siilE .gra~es.; .. U~.i'lg·t,he.:it!fC?nnB!if>ll~bl!liii~"from \he·sullsurface,,!.'pfolf!il~Il.·,,:e :p~fo!ll!~~ :8n~lyse's":lo"ilevclop gei>tcichiiical recolnni.mdiiiion~)lorproject(tesign;ana cori'siiUc!loi( Sp.~cifiCiiily;,lhis repon 'a~~r~~~e~,t~c\f9,llo~inli:. '. , • soilii8d:groiiiid",stcr' conditiOns ,. • Se!~mic~~ign.parameters·per;200~'ihtemation~i .. Buildfug·.{:;Od~ (me),' . -. . -. ' ..... ,." .. -. ,.' ... -. .... ,; Oi:Olo'cHaZ3rdii ercurrent CiC;ofReilton'Mtiilici') COde' , .. . ".g...... ..... p. '.. .. ... y.... ..... ..pa ....... ' •. Site. preparation and. grading. " '':-J i EXciivatioif '~. ..-.... ,C '.~:. • I'ouiuiiliions' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~. .Fioor:siabs.at gmde '.' .Stonnwateriletention ponds·. .. . . ,~-. " ,'~ ... -; . '. -'~. ;. 'DJjinage '. 'uliliiies .. ;!,ay~riie~~' FeliNarYolO; l20 14 ' I'rojifi'i-lti: t ;6995 it$9uld:.~ . n9tt;.d.t\i~t J~1:01J1111CJ1~a.i!911~,ou.i!in~i~ .ti)!~ ~JlR,rt::regll@in¥,.;ck,t'iP!lge· *'a~~ill!¥ wN!:i~oil i~iiength;design,e3rt1i pressilres; erosion.,'and si~bility. De~igu arid 'Pcrfritmance:lssueswitli respect 10 mofslUIe as i.t.rel~teSt9)~e:;StfUc.iu.re.~,!Yii9!1,1n~I· (i;~: •. hlf~dit)i; mild#w. :~~I~) ·\s~?iid'J'~iTa. ~s#.i~t~s·'piirvie\V. /A 'bullding envelope,specialist.orconimctor should be consulled ioaddress'tlieseissues.as needed.· '.. • 1>( " SITE CONDITIONS :, ,,'", ' .... ~. -.' .' '. }.1 Surface . ~e p.r~~~~,S!t~~9.i1¥i.st~,?[~~~;P~~JS?9Iiil(nil~p'~~fil~t~JtJt:6;a~~~" l~a~~~!@~~elit;~,fi,~ I.SO~!)1~~~, r~L'?c: ClDtersecllon of$Ea36lb 'Slreetand .J43i'd;Avenue,SE:'m,Renton;~Washll1gton •. The, approxllnate,site. locallonIS -~. , shownoiiFi -. re·J.. '< .... , ..... "gu, .. ,." 'wl~, the .e.~c~~!icm:, ~f ih~:,c;~~~ ."I'~~I 1~~:l'r~p.c;$':· i~~d.~~~I,(lPF';~\¥~~itl~I~'fa.mi.lr . f~i~e~~s,. !I!O!1~~ wit~ . $eyeral, outbuildings ... 'rhe' areas immediately.surrounoilig the' re'sidencesare: landscaped .WilhJilwRS ana' assOCiated ,bushes aric:iflo~~c;l'beds: T1ie.~t~i'n 'p~~e!: is (l\ideve!~p~d'3iid.lliis :ac:lraii1~ge:t~tiD¢and~rs.·tlAAtigh'th~ proiX!ID' ;rfom 'ihe ~orthwest. to,iheso~theaSt' ,btlhe.~outlieasiem co~e~o'ftlie~propertYllie drainage, becomes 'incised '~~ati1tg: a:,d~epc;rra.virie fC<!l~re .. ,~Ie\".itionreliefft:~mthetop,of !!t~ tayiil~l(i:i~~1jli~e'of iliei:l.;ai~gci:is on,~e order of 14.10 :29 fl:!Ct canied'ov~r-s_lope' gtlldienwof~bo!lt:S9'perc~m.: 'This ;~rtion;.clf~i~e. ~iteJs,modemtely 't:orested' with i1s'so:ciaie4 'ii~d'¢ist~rY" . Ei~wtierelh~site'16pOgrt.piiy:.js!!¥iefaity _fl~i \\'.itli ~si~hi. eie~iliiti~· . -~--"'. -. ;!I9~ul~iioD,~: ~~2 ;SubSilnace ;~~ii c.~nditibns, 'Ye~~s,t:ryed'in..t~.i;;te,s\.Pit~!g~n,~f!l!ixc,O\wf~J¥~f;(~,lR;lg;~~Ii~(§f:~f~~nic;:!o~[oil. 9.ye1yjl)gi2.!~: S· feei of meaium 'dense siliy sarlawitli.,gi'livel· (weaihered' ti lI)ovedyiitg. deiise:to verydensesi!t~sand'wiih gravel (imw.eath~~~·:i~t~~illl;m I)· t§:'W~"teililiii.atW~ '~f:I~e}¢~: pil~; ' .. A,iJ:.jfk~f' org~jii~~t~p~!>Hla~fi;~(18 iil~hei) v.;~¥ oliserved'overlyii)gcibesenativC>iili soils at Test· Pil'TP~9: 'We'iii~,~!:>served'a_bout ISinc;hes.cifsi!tY',sa}14ffn ritaiei'i~llieto~·;~.hlches !lfgrn.veHYtopsoi I. ~t T~st Pit TP.;Y .. )We Wii!lid:~xjieci(6tl1er:l\ieas~ofstiililows~rfJce7iiik as~~i.ate<!.wit1!t~ee_x,istinl! deyeiol,>ed pa.rc~I$·will :be.p~t The Geoio~ic M(~p'oJfI,e Renton (1i,adra"*ti:.,,ki,.,gCoUlio/. br ,D:R. Mullineaux 'p 9(5),maps't1ie siie,asGround moiairitfd~~si_ts"consi~i~·g,()fa.'!hi~)ay~r.gfiijlI~t.ii?ri:!i,ll oyeiWing 199We.iif·WI(Qgt),···Soil:c.ondiii6ns:o~~eryed: ,in the testpiisare .g~nmliy.consfsteDt:with .themappe,d lleol~I!Y' ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I :1)1~ p~~!~g,~js9us,$i()"ilisJllt~~¥,!9~(ii 'g~ie@.',revi,eW 6,( the,sq!!COil4i!ii?Jis,~90,1illt¢~d,I:0r mgredC;JliiIed descri~iions"pleaseret'er'to ihe'TeSt Pi(i.o~s'in'Appendb(' ~ , );3 ,Groundwater 'W~0b'serveci!grOundwaier,see~geaiTestPits:tP~3;'TP-4;,and,tp-5'during"our exploration, ,"The,seq>ag~ was ~ob~rVeiliit,,!;'d~p!h'ofitlio~t,M~tfcilli b,e!oW 9iJqeil! siie~d~at tIlcc<!n¥t 6ei~een t!iil'l!pper~~t,liei'ed~an~ ,lower J~II}veaih~ !ilf§Qits, t1is'Sllll1JOW!gro\ll!~water:~Pl!ge jS'CO,IM,IQII'oI;lglacill!:tJft sites,~I!~is'it)e~licif' preCipii~iiori' iil'tiltiiiingihe, u~i>er moi"~pt;rVioliS:weath~d iiIL,:soilaiia',b~()inilig~~tied:oii;top,'ohhe lcis ,p~mo~s, Wiw~,i~!~:-WL Th~>~~~ fi~:Sf~sOJl\l!' ~.n4.w!,l!ifl..~£tl!!I!~'A~p~(lI~g'on,,~,f,aJI aiiio.ull,~~; , T;hi~ :seepage typically'diminishes viiitb,ihe'Onset,,6fihe ,nom19l1y,drier,,'surnmerlmonths,and',ofien1 times!is aliseni"in,i1ie Jailtin,i!!;Qftli~;~r: ' '4.1 ;Seismlc'C:!onsidcrations Li'luefaCtlonisa ,phenomenon 'wherc'there ;isared'!ictlori ,Or compjei~'losso'f sblhiireDitb ciiie ,toanlncrease In 'w,iii~r:pre,s~i!re:ill.tdi19~4,liy: vih.rati~ns, ,I,;iguefa,ctioll, ~ainl'i' Mf~ci~"geo)~gij;1 .. iy're~en(c!.¢Pij'si~s,,9f'fi~~lgiiliitci\ 's~n'(Uh,a~;Is :bel()~ :th4;:'grQund\\(atertithl~:,:soiis~(.ti1is:nature.:dc:rrv~ihefr S1Ten8!li '~m,iDlergl'llD~lar .,frici lon, Ttie',g'eiienitCdWale':)l:r~sstire~r pore' pressure '-es¥iiiiiJiyts;;p;,raie~,'ihe-:,soii gtiuis 'ah~ "eliminates this :in!efgraituil!'"friCti(;!l;tJi~Si ~finiiriating t1te~Jil;s stre!1gih: ' . .. .". ' ~. ., . . . . . -" ..... -.'- Based 011 ihesoifconciii'ions we:observed 'ancI' the absence of'it'shai!ow,groundwater, iable,';fn,our,opl~lon;.the risk 'fo( liij\iefa.(i~io~'t.o,<X:cur;at' thi,s ~~iie,~~~g,jlii'Cl!ithqll'ake'is,~egljgi,llle'(' ''Ine, s~i1s :iii'i:i!ens~,'aM,:ih~!iif9~;~e 'siili j~;a Low,Seislllic'!l.llZ1Irdp~r,t~e:RM,c" Based oil' soilcondltioDs,obse.vedin ,the'" iesi ,piis:an'douHOio\(;ie4gti 6(ihe;afea'geology"peH::iuipter' -16,o'f, die '2,Q 11,~m:teiliati9,ruiln~i.1diilg, C;;odf:(f!39>,~jte,~.1.aS);:!'9.'~',sho~l~ ~b!i::~~i:! iii'stiuctuf!1l"d#1 gn, '~~~~~iilthl¢:si!e ~iass; ;inacc~rd3nce,~ith the, 20 12 mC::the_folloviiill,gpara~eterssho~idbeu~ed in com)l~iin~sei$mic~forces:, ~~~mii:,p!~~n f;iia!II~{e~(!!ff,~2N2!. ',' SDCCtrnl response acceleration (SliortJ>eriOd), S~,.' 1:375' Spectral response, acceleration' (I -'SC:cond:J~eriod);' S." 0:623, Five:p~rceiit damPed,:2seconil Period,:S';;, . .0.917 : Five:percentdiuliped ,\',O:secoiid'perioCl"SDI " , O~416,:, .-. " Viilues 'deteffilirioou'sirig, the "United ;Stiues "Geological Stirvey(USGSFGroiiild Motion :J>aranlete'rC~lculator .. ' '-.,,:,., ... "_.·-···-·-_ .. _.r.·-,~,.~,"_,'-'''' :;-";"', -'~"-,' ,'j,-' -:'-::' • ~-...-;.:; .• " ":~.' .. • .. ··'i'·.:''';-··./·~·y-~'· .-.......... .. accessed on'February:8;.'2014at'the websitehitp:llearihguakc;usgs,gov/rescarch!hazmaps/designlinde'''php;' .. . -. -" I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Febrif' '102014 ", -,-~ !'~'-" -".' 'PrO' eciNo~T-6995 ~.. ..... . 4,2Ero~lon Hlizard Areas s~iiol! 4~3;9.~ J;c .. pf.thc'JU:.o!Gdlifi'le·s·arierosi()it 1iBz!rn! as "i. LOw. E~sio!l HaZard '(Btj: Aie3sWith s()lls 'cba!'8"tc!~~ !>Y'!h~ N~tul'!ll R~so~e'Con~ation:~e~c:e (formerlyU;S;SQiI Com.erv~¥onServ!~) as,haVing \li~nl~or~~eri\te~sioii:poie?tia!;:~~dt\tit!.~!opeJe~th~ri fiftei:n ·p~.e'1'.(15~): .. ii. H.i~~~i~~ :H~t~(I?~j:: Area.s with soils characteriZed bY'.the'Naturill·Res'ourceiCo~serVatioitSe'J\rice· (fonneny IJ;S.Soil Conservatioit Service):as .h~ving severe ·wvel)'sevl!~ erosi(>n poteniial. and that 'slope' !1!O~ ~teeply. '!Jian:fjfte eJ1 : pel'Ct!!.! ~(I~%).l'·' ...... ., . ...... ,. .' . . ;me'ina' orilofthcnioils' ol)seiVed'oi!'siteareClassilioo'ssAldeiWood raveU' 'sand '16am'6 to' 1 s·.. fCetifslo"es .... U ...... y. ' ....... " ...... " ......... ",., ...•.. ,. '.' ........ ~ ... ' '," " .... ,g ........ oy.·.J ·N .... ·.• .......... p~L.. .•. , ...... JI." ~r:·tJlC;:Uitited ·§tat~;Pe~entorAgric~liureN~tUriilResoii~ :C~~se~aiion.SetVi¢e (NRCSj,if,olme~ly .the Soil'<:,:onservatio.D,.Servil;;e .. Soils·on·the steep ravinesl<1pes . lOcated in:the south~~slemportipn:orthe:'siteiare ?!~~,sifi.eiI~s··N~e;~9~·~~.rY,·~t~~p,.·:Over"in0.~t;of'th.e.~i,tfwi!~I)1~:e.xis!J.tig.~Wpe8r,l!di~~,t.s;!tl.!:e~.·~jl,~.\yH!.Ii~V'e::i.! slightlg.mo<lerat~,pot~ntiarror ~sion .whCrl~*p9.soo:::rherefore;',\,Vith the,exception anhe. St~er~.v!.iieslopc's 'thesite·is.a .Low' Erosion Hazard a~~per the RMC.·The'Sleep ravmc'sloJ:!CS wouIObe'COnsid~O a'Higli\!<rosi~n hazaril area' . theRMC: . . . '.' . -. , .• , .•... (ICT .. _ ' .. 'R~g~!~::e.ro,.sicjl)p.ro\~.fiiOi,lllleaSur.e.SIiS~!1#.4!>y t.he¢itY·~r~~~t~n:winn.¥:i !ob,finpi~~;pii?t to.Stlii!'~g ;~dinga'=:ti~iti~s ()u!he;si!i:i T!tjs:Wc:,uld in1.ll!df~J:iit!ete(sjlt Ifen¢jng to;cont~!nerosion .on~site;!ilid·c()vei measures to .p.revcntor reduce soil erosion 'durlog;ancffolJowilig construction .. , . '43 Liiildslide-Jiaiard Areas :Sec:ti()n 4,-3-QS {~.Jof; t11e~:RM~ ·~~hn~snlan~sii<lehaznrtlru:ea:!IS ·!!i .. i.owLaJidslici e I:lilzm:d, (L.i:-): ·Areas :wjtII ;.sl~P# l~ss\tWin.· ii ~~I);~J'c#.t( I,?%)/ # .. M~i~,m·;~an~sli<lel-!aiai'(I. '(l~ni ;~s ·~ilh';sJoi#.~!w~n ii~e¥ p~i'£e:nt. (15%landfoitY. ji¢iceoL( 40%);;iiid; ti.iidei'hiili· Wsoilsthlii f0risiSt hirgeJ:r:9(silild; .gmvetor,.gIIiCial. till: jii.;High .l.;an~slideH~rd,,(l:J:i): 'Areas 'Yi~slo,~ ~tc;rt.J.1an ;fO~,.perct;l1l; (40~),,!.and.~s· wijh. slpJI.C.S :!>e!)vCCp :fifii:eD. ~~n\. (I ~% )~il<l'fort'y p,crcen( 41,)%) Ilndurldcrlliin ~Yi~!1i1sc~~~isting·,larg~ly.i9.f~ih 'an.~ ~!~y ,: :iv;-Veir.·H11;l1i'Landslide Hazards (LV)::AreilsofkDo\vn rnappabie·lilridsltde.Oej;oSits;;· ':~ec~~!ofiilie\slop~\gradie~1 :!I.le~tainagemVin~\sf9pes,I.Qcai~d· in·!h~ .. S?~theast~~:porti~~,onh~~~ii~~o,iIfdbe. '~at~gori~ed as 'a:HighLand~lide Hazard'carea~y:the' RMC. App'ropiiat~.~ui'di~g:settiacks·!IIId b.uffers.as. ,discuSsed in:theTollowinseclions~'ot:this .... n will need' 10 ooiiiii'ieitiented tif reventini' ds.t6;tlie' ;iio cis'arid • if. •. "..... , .••• , .. , g ....... " .. , .. ,' .~.'". '.,..,.,.' , .... R .... , ... , ........ .I!.. ... , .... P.B." .. , .......... P ... -,., .. ' :aitendanipropertics: . . 5;0 . DlSCUSSi()N AND RECOMMENDATioNS :5~ i General . ·Ba.~C4'on Ol!~ study.,tli~Iii moo lleOi~IuliCal ~oilsidi:i'aii!>ns tliat 'would p~lude~~yeI9Plllent 9(·\lifsii!!.;lS .currently plimned; Residences can·be supported: on conventiomll spread"footings.bearing oncompeicoinativc ;soils'ob'ser\led belo\v the upper' I 2'inches· oforgariic5urface' soil 'oroiistructural fill. placed 'aild~c()mpaCted ·"bove :th~~~ariyes~ils:PaVe~eni'~~~' fl~:or:sl.~~~ciifh~·Ji1ri.iIlitly~~p~6:ri~:'" .. '.' '. " '.', '''. --... -'. .' .' ;T~e)l~tiVe';soi1(e~courile~ :al •. t~fS!t~':coniaiil·.~:?iimiJica.nt ·ai119un).:9ffap9s·8!jd· wiII.~~tm~ljh t~'~ofi.jpa,ct,~s .strifcturalml \vhentoo,\Vet. Thc,abilily,(o:u'se native. soil fromsiie excavation'sasslructuraLfi1Lwill'depen~ on its '. , , _. , . _ _ . • __ ~ _ _ " _. __ _. _ " _ ," _ -', -., i'.. .; - ,!Uoislure'col\tent'andJhe pre~'ailiitg,~\'eathl)r,cooditioDS'all.lietib1e:of'conslructi()n, .. Jfgrading~l!ctiyilieSjwi1l.take ;~i~2~;~uijiJ~~!rilef,. ih~ ;qv;n~~ l~h~tiid,,~~·p~iP'iY¥t·i~!'i;np~rt-.¢i~~Il;gn!~~llli.inai¢ri~i 'for:~~;!ls .sihi~!uril;fi11 Md' backfill:' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ------------------------------------------- F:eblu··.··lO~2014 _,< '.,'-'"-,, '!!:r;, -, .. , -~-. PrOj!lCtNi!;T~99S .Thef~I!9\\'~gsecii~ns··pro.,;idc:det~iledr.ecomm~J;ldatl()ns.!'Cganifng·ihe'preeeding issues"and'other,seoieciniical 'desi' "'MiisiaerniimtiiTheSe ii'ecoiriitientlations should be' ineo 'orntC'(Lirilo~'thefJiilil. oesi:drilwiii 'lIild . gJl. . . .'.". .. ..' " .. ... .' .' . .rp.. ., .. ,gn". ..gs . 'c.onstf.uction.spec;ifi~atiol1S. ,S;2 . : Site' Prejjaratio'o and Grading. ,r4'prep'~tIie: silelor c.oiistrU~tI~l]; !ill' yq:CtliiiQn,org8ii.i~~urf,!i£e. S<,i1§,. aria.o~hefd.~!~leiiCju:s ,m,at~rijU.sh()~I~.~ sirippedand ,removed 'from. beiow the tiuildinglots and roadw!iyareas.· "G~~enilly" surfaci: stripping.di:pths.o( ~app.i9xi.ffiatc;IY(8: to 12 illch.~ should, be. c,tp!:cied to ,'rCJnove' IIt(f()rg¥ic~yrfa¢e:¥oi!s •.. J?C~~si1iPP!Dg 'approaching !"Sshoyld'beexpected in areas such as in thcvicW)y,of-Tes(PirTP"9: intfie'devefoped:poriions o"f' ,~e.~ite;:d~m()liiioii;9f existil)ij~r\lc,~. ~hitiilditi~hiile:removill of. :e~istiiig;fqijiidi!ti9.I)li.!U)d !!ila,n~onrii~ni:of ',un4ergrQurid' 5eptic;systems.andoiher·buriC:d utilities. Abandoned uiiHty pipes.tliat. fallotiiiide'ofnew;buMing :a~.s.~a~,IX::I~ftin place p.roXid~ ilieyare'S#I¥.topreyel1tin!riis}~n9'fgr~u,iid~a.!~r;~pa.M~.iid)~i1, Organi~ ;top,sl)ihvi!!l1ot.besult~blefor.l.ISc.as st.rut:turiI!·ifn,but maybeuseUodiinited depths iil'nonstructural areas; . -.-.. " . ,. .'. ".. . . ,. ,. On~~iC!ll'ing .~nd'stnpping' operaiions arecol!lpiet~; e\ll'a~afi!l 9perali~ns:.can 'be.ipltillie4 t~~stablish d~si~ g;.ade~i :'Piirir:io' pi~clrlgrtn, a.li~x~sed ~n~.~tirfaci;S~iiol!lC!bc;b~sf~~by Ii :r.ep'~.elit~ti.ve'.:~f'T~ ;Associllt~~'t9y~,~fy:S()il ~1I~i.ti<?ns·~·asex.p!=Ctc;~· ap,cf~l!it~~te;for~~PJXlrtofnew. iil.I', -our~~prc;sent.iliive !Da~ 'r~iiest :'iI' proofron 'us(ng'heaVy rubbCr~tired'eqiiipriien'i, 'io 'deieilriiiiif:ifat)y;!~~lille4 \;o.ft~aiii:r yic;!dirig,a~:;iire ;p¥se!1t, Ii,iexc~.ssiYeinielding:areas 'a.~:C!b~iyed,.a.pil J,heY·C;l!J!IIot.be,staiiiiizedihpi~ceby.!=I)I!lPI\c:t!ol1 •. !he ''-J.'''''~<~_ .. ;.~-'\'-:.".':""' .. _. " :-... ~ ... ,'.-... ,~_\~.,_ .•.. .',\ ..•.. ~;_ ... "::.-. __ ~:. _< _ •.. '.,:'~-~'''-.. ""--._'~:"'-.;'"_:",."_'''':_: •. -.'-. 'affect~.'soilssyould 'be'cxcavat,ed and,renlPxep.tp.tinn beal1ng,and, grade f.Cls.tored· w.lth}~Cl',Y;\S'r"<;IUral;fill. ;!J~Ji.!':iJt~.'~~D.ib\l~.ent fitl~.:?r~dway'~~b~de.if:.!JlegeI?th.'of'e,xca~t,io:~··!c;>'.~~X"1!n~ta~I~;~oi,~·.is,~x.~~~~Iv.e; . tIle;usc Of :jje:otexiile f8brics, ,such as Mifiifi50.0X, o~'iiin ciquivaleiJl!fabi'i¢;' i:8ii~::4~e(Un::canjii)icti()!lwith"C1eAA Igrnnular'sWcfunirfill. Our experience has shown t1iat,:in'general •. a minimum·ot'UI inches .oi':a,clean, granular :. ,".: -.' -: "-' ;.,' j _ ~.".'-.; ,.' .. ~ I: " .-;--: .... ,", " .•.•.• "-" : : ~, . _~'-'-.', .;. ,--" .' -, .. c, •• _ .', ~_. :. t_ ,-' _,' .. _' ,,~. '-("." ,. ,; _' _ ,.:. ,". _ • '.. • -<,-_ -:. . -. '-.,., •. , -. v :slruchti-al 'fill placed ·lIild.compactCd'over'.the" gcOtcxtile.'fabricshould;establish:aistable'bciUiiigsfuface: 'The native .soils :eitcQUnieiedal tIle' site .eorifaii .. a .:suii'fdent:iiiiiQulii ,dfisoil'fm,e's' ih:atwi11·iriiifc."tneiii :iliff1cilll.IO ;:~mi>~~!.~~:;s,Ih!f\~~I.:nt!'w~~!1~<iO.:w~t '.~;t~§ '$Y: 'T,Ije'!~~ililr. t9~!;t~~1·1~tiY~i.~QiI~;~~:~j.\~:,~~~y~~~~,·~~,. ,structural fillwill .. ilepend on its inoistUre··coiiteRI.Jiti'd ::tbe'··prevailiitg·weatli.er ,conditions at:,lhc·tiJite'.of· ;C:Ori~.I\it~tioti, .' :o/h~ii.:~~f~o~,s .a~ ,~~oiJiitere.i!~;\~e\~?ntJ1\91\lr)~.i!ii(l~.i w,4!t;$e;~Ril~t~j'~~r-if!~~,.d~~~~:d?,. weatherconait ions" .A!teriuitivelY;:·tllC ·;use. 6f;'ail . additive ',stich ,as, Poithiilci.cemerit·, o~' J iine:,tii;stab!l i~:"!he;:Son iin'iWu~.c!lilJ.re:£{),~S\~e.,~.~;: Ifth~~s.9P·Is:a:iil.endS(K~¥.it}or\iII,I3,~~;t,¥,~i1<ig~¥'S~t·P:fii~t(~~c(!lM!!..s~:~~~(iif1!ih~ .potenillil· . .for:CJevated;pH"levels willneedAd' be AnCltided .iil,:thC.Sioriti ·Wiie·r'polliitioil:'preveniion·. Program ;(~Wp~r)·p.t~pa~iW!tJi .tli~,1'1!1I1P:of.\rYl?~sipil:iI~~.S,c4.in'I~~t*!~ri:9?mffi'(Ig~cr~J!IJi' If;gt~_~ing"~~Hviti~s 'are" plalliiedA)iriitg ;tlic: \ve! w,iillef 'm9i1.di~.;9r. :if,t~~y;.~~e .iiii.ti~t.~~';-~iii'jjill)t1)~f.s.yD)ti.1cir~~4 . exiend:iilto '(all and winter; the owner musD:icprepared to import weI· weather ,structilJal:flll, ... For.thisplu'pose; \v'e .!,!=coinnleitiliiriportliiga8l:8I1uliir·soil!hlil mei:isthc.f~!I.o~iillhifuding ieiJuirem~jjts:. ',' , U.S~ Sieve Size 'Perc:entPiissl!ig 6iilcheS' 100: Nc;,4 ''J5 lIlaximum No;2()Q., .5 maxiinum··: " . · .... ·BaSedon tlie 3/4,inch' fraction.· -~. : -,-.' .. .' . p.9.§rWj\u~;·l):rra_·~sodates; .inc .. ~h{)Jl.iI·exa~rne"an~ .te~t·all m,a!eri,1l,s'ill1p()rteiltojhe;~i~~lor.,l}s~;~~·§.lf\!ct.u~i .'fllI, Page'No:· 5' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Febfu "10"2014 ", "." ~ .~_;_,.' .-. r_.~ .. ' ·.Prifect·NOt,Tc699S· ..... ~.... ' ........ .. SIi'uciUnil· fill sh6uii! be· placed' in. unifonnioose'layersnol' exceeding ,f2.uicl1esandcompactedlo a' niinimum of' · ~S:Pii~eri! (lf~the s~Ws;.~~.xiMum dit:de~~jty, a~'.~e!.~h1iijl~ ·!;IrAmerig.ri :J¥iCi9,' @ '~~iii1giUidM~~tials' (ASTh1)"TestnesiJll1llti(lu'0-698 (S!!I11dard ~roctor); . Tl.te, moi§tIlrIi~onten!of'!.he'soilartii~: ~!ille'9.f cPJllpa£li~n.: · sl.toUI~ be. :Witlifu. rilirlus, one' tojilusrthree perceiilof iis:' oPtiri1urii;,.'as'<iet~nnined' by,thlsl\STM ·standard.,fu' , :IlPIistTIII:I¥iL~~~;,)Jie.d,~~ ofcil.m~ctiori~l,i~bc: .. ~uc,e~:to;}~O'~J:C~~" . :,5;3 Excavation Afl exc,a':lItiQnsat .lh~.'~ile~~~o.::i!ll,~with ,~~i)!ih~ ~#a~s! :S!l~~~ "utilitY, tn:nch#;'ljiiiW~ ~i!1i>I¢.\~ iri ai=rdarice·wiill.lociIl; Staiei and fedcnii' Teciuuemenis, 'Based' on .regulati~ns outlined 'jn:'ihe WaShingion · m~.i',s.!Ji1ll ,~~feIY.'Iiii~I1~th,~~t (\V!sl;f~),.th~l,Ipper two i(l'.fi~~I~t 0~w.e§ih~~~tiy§:~9ils,~~i!;existjDgf!ll 'soils would:heCiassifled,as. Type C soii.· The'dens~ naiives<ihs~~tow 'rourt'ee! ,~ouldbe;c1assift~\ls,t~.A AoiI, . . . ., .,....."., . · ~~~r<li!1giy ,)7Uljlt)¥'Y eX~V!I!i!!ns. iii Type c· sciJl~ :~h<iuld ffiive~I~~i(s.l~jJeS .l~d~~ck;~( ~·ifi~~liiultiQi(ofl .. ~;I · (licirlzorilal:\ierticaJ) or'flatt~r; from·theloe to the crest ofibe slope . .:'Sideslopes'in .Typc AsoiIs canbe.l~idhack: iat iI~liijle~ iii~lirialion·.ofll: ~S: I ::orfJ*let,. For le.mporarye~c:~v~li()n:.s!cipes-j~~·lh~n:~; f#i' !ri;h~igbl,in;i~·'.A. 'soflsdhe 'Iowi:r )~~ ftl!ll~ ~C!lt 19 :1J:ver:tical.condi,i()n,:~illf aO:7S{f':slqpe:8!8~c:~f,a~~e, F;oj-:tc;jn¢l'iIrY 'i:¥ca,vaiiqn'sloPcS'gri:!itcrilUU! eig~1 feel fil heigliti tllcslopdb6ve:lhe3:S:fo6t ~~rti~~lporti~ii·~Hiliied·tii·b~'jiliCl·. ~back' ala ·niInimum. slope '.iilcliilitliolf'of··1 :1. ' 'All' expO'sedtemporiiry:·slo~. faces .lhitl.will, remain'oj)c:'ji' forlan ""~T~ -,-•••••••••••• ~.:, .,_. ,.' •••• , ','" ." _, ., "'_#","._ "'--", ""~ •• ' •• ,' ."",.'_ '~"'I'~' , ....• ~.--•. -'.--'-•..• , '.exiended,perfo'd·of'tifue 'should' be· covered.with·.a.durable .reinforced "plaslic.membrane,durlngconstiuction· to . ';pn;v?it ~(#e a'!\ y,eli rig ~nilJ1!t.tiiiif duri.t:ig . P.!lriiids 'of j>i:e~i p'ii~t ion:," '. . . . · i!!~aboy~j~i()!'JTI3t ~!>rj~is.p~yi~e~soleIY··fgr .the;j,~~~fil;(,k~b~.~~,n~r~;9}~th~r, if~i~~~ns.ui~!1~' .l!ftil~hoW.d;~no.t • . be. ¢iinstt'uea 'to: imp-Iye'thai TelTll.ASsoeiatesi lric •.. ·assiillies .res.poiisibilij*:for)ob siieSitfety"" It: is' understood thaI· · j9~' S!!e 'Sli.f e.ly • i$ ,t~e; so!e, fesp~risi bilit yo f..th~, pW jec,l} ge'.ii~illt.i\o.lltr.aj::tc;t· . . . . ,5:4 Slojiesand:Embaiiliments, . Ali 'eiiJianeill''cUl. arid"fill '510 'essbould be. ·iriidcd·;witlf:jl' .firiislied incliriation·:of,no;o'·· 'lei· 'thiirF2:1.. u~' i1 -.. ' J~"-_L-' ·· .. ·.,-';"',.b· .. '.'._".--p ........ _. ,-g, ..... , '·-._f"·,·" .. ·.,'~'t"····.· .. -~·,, "'u'.··.~,·,-··.·-'-ll .. ,._. P9 ... , ,coml'i'eiion·of.'grading;,·tbe slope;face,i;hould,he,·appropria:t<:ly .. vegetaled .. or providet:f withoiiier.piiysi~al·.mean,s'to' ,s.u~ri:!.agitin~I.'er!>Sji;ii:Fi.ilal'~iildefat.tli~:loP;~f:tlie;sI9pe:'nJi#t.pro.mQt~:~j1Hac~.diliiAage;a~~i:frp.ii\·Al~,s'lo~e, 'crest: Waler DlUS!' not he . al!ow.e~to·110w!Jncont)'OI.I,eci ,o~~ri~!,;~iop'e"fa~, If,surfase I1in.()iTiJl~s(~.~~ii):i~l.~ · 'io\Var!lS·tli¥.slqpe •• IIi~. runoff shoulillie' conlroiicd.at··tiie'i<!pofthe~slo]Je;pjp~a'in .~Ciosoo·~ohdUirlii~~lied'oii 'Ih~ ;'~lope,face;aitd·taIC~nJoan'appropiiale'pointof dii;chargeJ)eyoildthi: toe: -.. "'-.,.'-...... "r·~.·.·, ',',-.'.'0 _.t->,' •.••• ,... "_" ,,_ .• ,-. >." 'ri",'",,'· .5.5 Founilation Support T~~:T(:si4enct;s c,~n'b~~upPoJ:l~d~n:;~?nvc:nti9n.a:1 ,s~~~,:f~o.iing~911nd~H~~; ~~g,(m;5Q~~lciii!;~li,ye:~ciils; ··comj>elerilexisling .fill~sOils; or, (jti-.struCnirill :fiIlS'placed' abOve, compele-lit :soils;, 'Foundation subgrade should:be I'rep~r&.1:a.s:r~QnUiien~e~:i,n:Sci:lion.S:~'.ofthis,rep()rl, ;p'~rim~t~r(l!ijn~aiio~s~'ijXl.~ed.l(ft~~\ii~athei'·~~~u.ld'~~ a .miliimum,deplh of 1:5 feet'below :finalexterior·J:rades.'for(frost pr:oiC(Ct!~n:' lnteli9d~l!na~i!0~ .. f3,!l·be coli~ti'U'cliid8i'aiiy corivc:hieit\cIeptb belo}VJlie1]o:<!r;shi~': . . I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I February 10; 2014 ,j>'j:~Je(:i·~~:t;@~: Foiiildatioilslieariiig on cOm.petent iliiiivesoils, competentexistingflUsoUs or. on compacted structurilJfill can'be d,ifu~,ti~ioii~ 'f~ra, r~~!lc:l\Yii~te Jiei!rifjg:capa~ity ,of'2,?99pq~ijc!sPer ~qtW:e,f9.~t' <P~t)" I:~rsh9it,t#.iDlga4s" 'such as wind ruid s~ism:ic! aon«<;third;jncrea~e;in, lliisiiJlow,a~I~~Jlllcliy;c.a,nb~ u$,!ld,.: ,Withstr,u.91u.n!IJoa4ipg:l!S: :8iificipatedand this beaTjrigstress~pplied,' es~imatei( loi~l: sii!iiemCiitif art,: IiCtweerl on~uai'ter;an'd'one.liiiif ili~h,. Jior.,dc;sigriin*,lo:lit!datioJiS,t.o:~ist la!era!.l(ja~s; i!lb~~~Jiiction ,c~fli6ienl'Q.f ~;~~~an '~'.(i~i«[ . "assiv~(earth ,p!eSsures:actmg,on,the .side oi.thefootulgand buried:porHon ofihefoundation"slemwallcan'ais g bt:,con~i~d;" , : W~' rec9.m~enCl:salcllJatiiig~tJiis· hit~i1l1 re~istjiriceilsihg8ii. ~~iVilI~riJfluid wei8ht:,oq5Qp#,y.'e:rec'om.men~ riot;, in~iu~ing~hel!pp!lf' f2in9~esof soiU!l tins computaiiolrb~,use!~eycanbe IdTe~ted by weath!lfordisru¥l;by' fuiiite~gradi~g~~tiyity ;'This~lueassum~thefoun'daiioh 'wili be,~c:instiucted:f1ci1i,~gainst· ciJfupei~nl~:ativd ~~ii. of .. ·backfllicil' witb'stfuc!lu1i1 :fillas:deseribed :in'Scction' 5:2,ofthiS ,... 'it; 'fhe~lialues ,recom.h€rided .. inclride'a . ..... _-:;,';-.-.~.~_ .• __ ,.'_ ,1-.,.,,,\>, '.'"'_' .': .,,~_.-.'~ __ , .•. ".,., ';-~_,,_.'. -..... ,', .... ,, •.• ,_~, •• .I, •• ,~:.-_~ •••• ~ " •. _,_.,. ....... , ___ .'_'" '.'_,.",,,_,.,, _., .• ",.,."" ,safet,yfactor.of:r,s, ' 5,6 F1oorSiiib.on-Gr~de . Sfab,ori~gradejiooJi'.maybe'supported ,on 'subgrade,prepared as 'recommended'ln.'Seciion 'S;2,ofthis, report:' I~~diate1Y ~Iiiw :~h~ fl<i<>r .. ~Iab,w~: ~mm~l\d p'11i~jrij:;a, fOUf:inch \h.ick)£liPjl1,Bry bjeiiltl~y~r ~oniposeaof " -' --. . --' -," '", ".' ,-". "r ,-. or,' clean; coarse,~and gr fine g!1lvel thathas.1~sslha!l ~~~l:p.erce1)t .. pl!ssing th!l No;. 20Q ~ievt::1JtiS)).1~teiia!:w!V .ifdli!:~the,poi~niii!l '(or :ujlwft'ilI c~jii l1arY moYeiri~rii;of.waier, \hnlilgi{the 'underiYfugsoil'anCisubsequerit 'wCiiin~ .. :of.'ihcfloor:slab,·· .,' '.. ", '. "; -"7V / --.-~. -.... , •• 'c '", "The capillary, break,iayer, wiiimo1.p'revent :moistureintrusion throu~, the ~Iab caused by,water vapor lransv.iisSi~n, 'Where moistti~ 'by vaP.ildiansnijssicinisuiidesirable:Siicli 'ascoveied· floor areas, a common pra'cliceisto' pl~cea '~~!'8bl~' pl~~]l~ 'lDe~b~~~n ,t~~ '~~pili~;::bre~R :illy~:al]~t~~n' t6ve~ii;~~.eJ~~HI~e:~i!ha i~y~!:o,{ ~j~~n:~jIiI,~.,\>r . /'ine:gre~l :toproiect ii 'frQIn" d3inage :duriiikcOnstiilcir6n,~anciloaidhi 'unifonn'curlng ofihe' ciiriciite sl~b;' it ';:sho\¥ ,,§iioteq 'th~ if tM, s.~~9 !irgilivella)'~f'ov~i'IYiii~: Hic:' meiI!Qran~,iS ',satiJr!lt~~' "ljor, to; P<14iingt~e, sla~,)t wiU,notbeeffective in 'assistiiig unifonncuri~,g of the slab and can 'aciualiy.ser:ve asa water sUp'plr, .for moisi,u.re .~I~ing thfci~gh .. tIi~'sJ~~,.P.ote:ntiiill~'/grecti,ng'floof':~veriflg~~, :T1i.~reto}i. ~ in ~I!r; .opjIlioiti c'overiiig'; the' men:a~!1!D\l wjth:~ layer ,~fsaD<lor lP:1!ve!!'ho!1ld 'bell~oided.if floor .. slabconstru"tlo~ :~curs,during 'the, w~t ~Vjnt.~r ' mb~ibS,alidtife Jaytr carui6i.bC.:~iiCcti veli (kine&:' VI ~,re~mmend floord~igrieiS .and ~~iiiiicio'ci refer ,10 the ,iii03 AniericrufCbncrete: Institute (ACI) Manual of COticret.epractice; Part 2~:302.1R·96, 'fci(fijrther infoniliitioii ';~a;d;';~v~p~r~bari1~:~,sl~i~li6nbeio~sla~~;~d~flo~~, "r,' ......... " .. "q ' ...... . -'. -,. 'As~ noicd earlier; two"S\onnwafcr deteniion ·ponds 'are ,planned for the:site, The, ponds wiirbeiocaiciFin:the ',S~uJ1ie:a~!eiii '~it~;~~~: nqf\b~est ~rid':~ii~li~~!.'of.an:§~i$ting:dr~in~ge' ·tIi~f. ~is~J:ts,; ~~e:illistefri,PQni§n ior!.~~ proFrty,. We aritii:i~te ,the P?nds will be construct~ 'I'JjmariJr.' ~y ,e~cav~rig!l' ~iQw c,:,rre.Il~'siie' gra~~~;~v~t1; mininia.1,fiUplac~d. for, fonnatioll. of Pe'rimeter,conialnnlerii b.enns., 'J~ur'fic:ldexplofati()i1dJi~i9~~.tliilt "tJi~ :~oJls,!n'!h,e:a'~o[ the.'popd,s, ,wi!1 h:c't#Cdiliiljd§jiPll \ov~i;Y,:~~rise weathered ~ria'u~weathered glsels'l tin: ,These~iLcondilions exliibttJow,penneability and~are;jnherently,slable :!lii~:~elJls~!i~a·M¢orist,l'ii~ti~ri.of*}ini,~~i~it\eie!\i!§ri~c:iMs; . , I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Fill.usedio:fonncontairiiiteiltJ:lerms aJiaoonstruct siopes fodhe deieniion.Ponds shoul,t cons1!it cir:lllitivesilty, ,sanih¥ith; . vel'.' laced 'ana com'actciLiis structural ::flll.> If····uiri:m61ts cif th'e,Kin' 'CouJit'Siliface'Wat~r . . .... , .. gra ...... P"" '." :: ....... ~: ......... -".... . """ ,req. , .. ,.,'''' ", ,.;,: .. ,g .. :-"',oY. . '" ... ,.' ._ Design'Manwifapply;·the 'fill ,in'this·area ·must· l1e'compacied cto;a:nilliimum' Of.95 ·percent:ofthe·soils. maximum· .ilrY:d~iW·as;d~l~in&lIiY AStM':ri;SiJ).esignaii~n; i?~1 ~sHM~ifiea 'P;Wt~rj .. !rii~n~f·~iiasloti~s:l:I~ib~'the· m,a~i~um}iye'f,t~J:ed ~v.:at~ •. ie~e~ ~M#~.)N:. ira,de d' t~\allJ~~um.~!()P:c(iitcl~i!6~.:~r3; !". S!,~p~s. a!>ov~.: t~~· maximum S!ofedwater·leve!;or,o'nthepoiid·cxteriorcan be graoed'i(fa firiished slope inclination·of2:)· ... . ~. '. Th~pOnd th~IWin.~I~C!li¥ n!li'thWt;Sic5fihe~nage~\:\~e.~o]iJii,.as .. a ~u\t .6(s$>3g~fi9il1 t\1e:poPd,:ca:u~c·. :sha!I(?'.~"s9i)!DstabJtit~ on'lhe.tlIvll!!l sio,P$l,T\tepol!lniia! hr tlJisqevelopmCt)t~(1I bedeJle!1~enl ()n the PC?nd • • '\ ' ~ ~ ·-'r~'.',' ,-'-' '" '_'_., '_'~' ',.I', ,._. _ ,," .'f : ••••• '_" _" I ... _ .... !stored W:alet dej)!h:and' disUuic.efrom Ihe.nivine:s)opes., At miniiiium:: we. recorillnen(lJh~ pond deSign provides.a·. -'50~foot·horlzOntaJ.:stitbiickdistlince-· from :Ilic'ed 'C' 6f-lhemaxiiiiiim stored :watci'-eliiviitioii :iIi,tIie:'oiid to ;the' crest" '.. /''''~'''-'' ~_,. "·-":<·-"~'·':_'-··'.i'_: .,-, .. ,-, .,.:.;.,."> ..•... :~.,--..,..,g.~ ,,, ... ~,~ ... -.. :'-.. ·~:·, ... '."'r.<" •• -•.• ~:,;. ,.;,;., •. -: .. ; .• ".~ •. , •.• -.• , .... ~f:">.-.',.' "_ ....... '-.,, , ,of the ravinesl<?pci Ifihis setback cannot .be providedlining.the,pond· wiiha;flexiblC'.menibrane lfueltoprevent' .s~p:igfl(f~s~s,rnay neci!t6Jjei'i?nsiijerei!.;. We,should re,,!e:w.the ·porid:grading.whcn,!iv~j1aJ>!eio~Verify i>Qnd' geoJ)letry:.atidj~!ion avoids see~g~in,lp!lC1S to!herayin~'~I~pes: . ,.' --'. -.--_. "-" , .. , '. . . '·'F.iriill,~~'~ti~tj~d¢.S·shOI1.Id. Ji~\ri()te ;t:ree;~(\;~~iti:,~ .draiiia.~e~~~y,:rrO!#;I~e.s~~~~'\'!111; tIfu~~ .. W~~~r; mu~t iiot'~? . allowed.:lopond .. or· collect adjacent .to.foundations or within :the·'immediatc ... building areas. We:·recommend ~ ~i'<>viding ~·iirii.4i~i)t ~f aUeaslt~p.~rcei'i( fcjf a riii,niinijm' gisiliilce,:Of. ten Je~t .from !h·e1?uiid!fig~m'li~rs. I.f' this':gradien!,!=.~J1!Io~be. p~vid,~(\; ~Wfa.ce.\y~!er .. s!lOulii ~.coliec~~ ~dj~sel)~. to th.e~!IU.st~~a~~·~js~s~!lto: ·(a?propriatcStorm·.taciIities. "Sui'fuce"water'Oiust nof.be, allowed tii'~flow ',uileontroIlCd ·over·:tIie·'crest ·of-the'site' slopes;and'einbarikirfeiits. , ·I.~"""·:".-~ ..... ' .. '.,~:.'.,' .o,' .. :;," .... ". ,'" "'--"','-. ,.,,~_ . .:.,.' ... ~~--;'.'-.. ' . ,"-., ........... -, ' . .J.~"'''' ~:" . ,. :,~'''' '1.1;:' ~:.'.;-.~;<>-<-: .•• >:-.. "' ... '.-':'./ . Surfa'ce; water.shOuld.be directed away, from· tbe: slope .crests ,to a :winl,~f c.ollecti!-,n \ and,~onlrOlled .disc.haf8c: If .site';grac!estM ,~ot :~I16w: foi<di.reCtirig:s·una~e w~ill.r av,.ay fiifijj·:$loRe~.,.:ih.eii"\val~f·sljoilld b~/colllli:iciJ'~arid.· . tighilinei1..d9~I1.i~e ~,-o~face ·.ina "9n\r.oll~a' Olanner . . Sti1!~!ifafe· \,,~ rcc9qunelld!n~!;lilin,g,peiiJJ1~!!lr.fpun,ciation~~s adj?c~!It.tC!~hallo"(:f('ul!c!aii~n,s: Th,.e ~i-aihscal!\ieJ~!d to ';grj(dii a!:an':inyei1; etevaiioJi.~qiiiValciitO lo,the'b'ollom '6fofooii~itgdde: "Tl1e,dJijihi:ciiii':ooilsisL:Or'foui~i6Cli_ :'~i!li11~t~f;;~etf~r!l,t¥ :P:Y§ !,i~lh~l:.J.s\ellsc;.I!>p'¥p. i,n:Wasli~ :p~. ¥~Y~hsi~:il!tiiilJ.~g¢,;~~~~!e!. T~~::~~r,eslll¥:' , should.extenii: siX<.'inches. alloveand 't6 the.:sides: o(the' piPe: :Rixif'and'foundaiiondrains:should'bc!ighilined' 'sepai'a@'ft!>'!lics~om(dmins, .AlI~~riliils·~lJo.!lld.~.pi)?Vid~d with·~liiliijoiit~·at'#.Sily.:a~~ssil!le:lO¢aiion.s~ . li.jiih-adon ~d~s~ri!1¥ ·e'<iJli~.th~~la~i.~1 till '~oiIs~)l~:ery~o .iri\~~ t¢S'i>it~'~9p,uiiii' ~.h.iilh ~~~riili~~;()f'q,..iJ.~ri.~~; are\v~II consol idated;.and eXhibii·low, permeability: The soils andgeologi!,''f()rmation '~re!l(,lt. slllt?!l'e'.'f9~ 'dis,-,~arge of ,.s\9rm.w.a(erusinif@IitieS'!ha:t:retyori·i~61@itciJl. ..'...... , . ". ", I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ;Feb' "10 '2014' -.. -~ -,.' .... ~'-' Piojei:tJl/o.T~6~9S: ,'5.9 Utilities' liH!hY; J)i~,,~~?p,i4be:bed~,~(i,a,n~:ka~,~t.iil~)pYMco.r(\aiti:~,:,~f!h'~~~s~l1iblic'W~rks\t\.ss~iati4)iI,,(APW~).or: "th~' Ciiy;of,RlmIOnspeciflcaiions; :As 'amiilimum, 'trenchbackflll ~Should',be ;placed,and compacted 'as' structural ,; 1il1,:as:~deiiCri~iit~S~iiono.s.2 :'9f,,@s, i-epOit; ;A~' ijoie<ti, depeilamg; on l1iesciil,moisiu~wiieit excavatdi moSI il)orgl!~,i~ ,naIiy~;: soM~oii; i}te ~j'te' sh,o.lM:~' sii,!tablcl~ruse)is, ~!i,~~~Utjiat~al ,4uriqg,%f\¥e~!her c9iicJjtt~!Is. ,However;:lf:iruliiy consiruCiion takes place during ,the wet ,winter"months,ii wili'likeiyj,e nece~ary'!o;~potl, ,sultable.'~ei'w~ilier;fiUfoT!itiliiy;ir¢D~h baC!dillirtg. ',.',,' ,,!i;io Pavement. , ,P~V:ement .siibgmde' sllouiil bepiep-iiliiil'as,ilest:Tibed,inthe Sci:tion,:S;2:oftliis feport: 'RegareUess ol'llie, degree' or: ,~Iat,\ ~~: c<?i'i]pa~i~~: a~h!~Yi:?~tIi~"s~b.g1a~e::rnVstb~:r~Iind.' rji!~,li\@y uJl~LeJtiin~ i!~fo~: ~~Xiiig,., 1JJe: subgr8de; should he ,prootToll¢ with !Jea~ n..b~N.ire; ~onstru~ion~~i~Dlen!such as "a ioa~~JQ7yat4, d,uI!!P,tJilCI( :U5," verilYlhi~ &liciilioit, ' .'~lie ,paxerii~n!:'!!e.sjg;i :,sC(:tiori'!s'~epen,~~t,u~n :!~e.Suj:ip~iiirig:~aRa!>mty,of the,'~u!>iiril4e:silils~'an(!\iie',triiffic' :c~~4iqQns~~~Yii~ic~:i,t~Hi:~:s"II,b~~c~;,F~ri#,j4~I~iiarA~,~~~~:~il,~ t#.ffic,:C.9~*ti~g,m~irily.7~rlig~,t,p'~s~e~g~~' vehicleS, willfonly occasiona I' heavy,ti"affic;':and :'with ,a ,stable ,subgrade;prepared 'as,recommen~ed;' we'l1:comrnei\d: .ih~'follo"viiigpayeln~lse'Clion~: ' ' " ' , ' . ' • "Twoi~chesofhcitritix asphali,(~) overfour:fncheso(cl1lsli~d~kbase(';)~B) '.' Th~ea:n,d:~~~~lIlf:iit9h.CS~.f.!)I)L~~th"H¥A' The, pavil]~,matf~al~,u~4 .~h!JuiJC:9rifQ~.'!o t~e ":\y ~.s~!!l.I?,o~ ;S~!e; b(li>~,T!IlWI1l.,of,!.f~n;;pg~ti.()~, ,!W~i:>Qn ' ispecifji:,Ili i9ns::for:,~"i6ch cl~ss;l-IMA~a~d '¢RD',aggregate:":' ,Long'l~!1ll~av~iilen~,p~if<!rmarifc w,ill:d~n4~ ?!I'fu,rr.~c:e:d:f~,inag~t", A,p~rly.-4,ri!inC(l ',p~Y&t.ii,eiit~se~!i,o~ 'w.i ~"'~~ , subjecl' to, I',rematitre . failure 'asa,result of:i;urfaee,water. infiltrai.iD~ intolhesub.~~ad(l,sQj.1~:al!d~~9i)"1~tlil?!f' • supp!>rti~gcaJfaDiliiY., ,For!Jpiiif1u~ pav~~e~\. perfoiinah~e. :~e'recomw~iid suiface'drni~ag~'gi:8dieiits,'ijf,al least : tWQ p,crc,el)t., ~()l11~,d~~o(Ion!!i!~"~in41a,~~' tl'!!n,~,:,e~e'c'l!~idi1~'9('~91t1l~'(!mc;nt~\lffa~!". $~~U i!!be, :ex~~~t~ :<ivcrtirile. 'Regula" inainicna~cc"Siiould 'be' pl~iln~(j'to,seJil.cracksWhiri"i1iey.occiJr. . - --" - -. ," ~ Tem Msociates;' IDe.· sh6uidrcview'tlid~rlai 'i:leSigli. driiWiiigs'aiid' speCifi~at ions 1norder;lo. verify . thai' eaiihworl< .. ~ . and foundiitlon recominendations havc,l5eeiijlfojlerlfiitterpieted'antrimjlleiileiited'iii project.deslgn .. We'sliould .' ,".c,-,".:-.. ,-,-'. ",.~'-:,.-" ~< .. ', ;''-'''-'''\''''''''.-.'''' ~-,"" ... -.. ' ~ .. ,:. "-.'.;.,:.-.......... .';', ~-.~ ...... . ,lilso pro\'iile geOtechnical ,service "during eonslruction '\0 observe compliance .wilh:~uridesign. 'concepts; ,speC,fi~iiQ~~.:iln9 ,:recoillinendaii()~!{~his:will,~!lo*for:d~il:ii cl\8.rlgej; oJ sUl>surr~c~:~';ndlticin'~:aiffer::fron; "·iho~:'I!!lti.~jp'af~p, fio; 10 'th~slan9f.~~.;s-'I}f~fi~I].: . ',. . ' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I --------------------- I.;IMITATIONSi , -, -.. -~--~ . '"'-.. ",' . Feliriltity·10,20l!l; "ii;' (ii No: t -6995' . ~. . .. ' "" We:prepared ihls~port.ma~~rc!~IJ:~e\.Vl~ ~\l.I!!!J'I!."rL~~cep~,ed. gC9~«;~lmi~)f3~~~~~. p:ljlcVC\!~i ,NgRt1!~t. 'warj],nty,! 'e~pr~d or'impIiCd,js'niade .. · Thisreportiithe,cc!p'Yrigliied))J'Operiy ofTerra,Associales.4nc,and.is !iJle~d¢ fq~:~!~c' ~p~~~tlol! 10. 'th~i~liIt~;r\l;~blagl1:prp~#t, Th.~:i;C~it is:fQf;lhe.c"cl~sivii;~;'Of:Qu~di1i~i Homes'and ii~auihorlzedrepresentatives. 11t'.e,ii~_81~ .. aiid:~r!iinendati~ns.'present;'iii.tIij~ repoi1are.,~ased,9n:dali\obia.ined from 'thetcsl jiltS:exbiv'aled' 0!1!siie;, v~~I,iQJ!s 'i~siii(:~on'diiiollSgan:%c!,r,i~~;:~til!C~~lI,~~~~!ent~tw~ic~ '~Wn~1 ~<>iije~eYi~~ilt.untir doiisiiiicii()~. I(variaii~iis~ppear,'-evideni, TCiTa Associates; Inc; ,.shouiej' be requested'to reeValu31C,lthe a'c!c_orimlc!1dj!ti<iris iri'!hi~;~p:<irt P~Qt't9P.iM¥d!ng~i!Ii'C~ilSiJ:il~!i6.il: " 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I' "'f 101li.Sr @ . ,.' "H""""" "'''1' ® ,., ,'"Im, < ... nX:Memona ," . ,c'·'p'~." ' '.1 y.'.;:"-".';-,",",' . \ •. :,;~" dJetf~B~ .. 81"'~ '. ' •... ,', @QliverMHazen 1!ilJ11 ~ho<!l .. , s,' ",' .,,1. '''~' . ' • ·1 i' I ' " I VIc:INITY'MAP R~~~b~~~~~~~N~¥5N -" . --. .. . ... -. . - I I I I I I I :~~~~ II~' ~ I I I 11~i£ I ............. ··. ~ :~~~~~~.= ..... = .. ~-,~-~ .... -,.~ 'TOF,'O~RARHJC'VICINITY'MAP , STUTHASSEMaLAGE . I .RENTON;WASHINGTON I·L ----~~~--~==~~~~~. • .., ... !e ~ '. ~ ~, ..I. I:: 0.. '", C' <II' Z j!!: w ~, ClI', w, ,;.I' "", X' 0:' 0: ... ~, ~ I:. ,t\ - - - - - - - - - - ---- - - -- - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 'APPENDIX A FlEI;D,EXPLORATIONANDLABORATORYTESTING, •• -.-, -'.~,.' ~ .. ' --"-"'".--' -. ,-,' --••• <~"""' •• ,..,' '.,-~ ; • . ,~~i!,~-:\,ss.ei#~,ag~' Rentoo;Washingtoii ., 0~ ,liln~:I7 ~ ;~OL4. ,Y;,~ ~~~p.let~ .. ou.rsi.te:~p! oriitloff!>Y'.o~~&~*'s<>jr~~nlliti()!)(ai' IJ:iesipjts~ Tlie.1esi,pitS were excavateilusingatrackhoe, to'a maximum'idepth'<1ftC)]l'f~,below' exist~g;s,ite,~~,es, 'Testjii! '.I()C8tionS " - -J +.. .~ . .' !." -,. ... .--., . "'. .. . 'were'ilei~!iliiii&iri Jlie ;fiel(rbYiIi~urerrienis frOm~eiiisimg 'sitc" feiiiures,. TIiel!pproXiiiiilleilocatlonoftlie ,teSt· 'pi!sis: ~Jiown on .Iileattached Exploration Location'Pllm;.Flgui'i:-2. TeSt' Pit Uigs'are'iiitii6Iied:as'Fi~'A~2 :ihlo~g(,(di ',.. -,-', ' ',.' .. ~" .. ,,,,' . ,,'," . >, ,--" .... , •• A' ge.olomsts, f~iil: o!i(9ffiee ~.cpn4uCtoothefield',exp!oraiiori., 'Ou'r ;rep,re.sen\iiti~' ~lassifiC!l i~e"~i1C:onCliiiohs,, ,e~couriiered;"~~intiined;{l ,i~gdf.~cii ·iempil.:obl~tn~ represCnt.~ti~e;S()lhI!JUple,~. !l!id,"~co~~(w~etlevels,' "obSe:rV~·.iliiH~g'~c8yati~n'.' '. Alhsoil, sariipleswere ~'~siiiilly .classified iil,:~ccoriianc~·With,ih~Unified Soil 'C)assifl'catibn SYstemrnS'cS)deScribedoiiPililJkA~l. ' "' .. -._r,·. _"_.-' •. ",." .. -.. ~, .... -~". ',r",," ._ ..•. ___ ' .. '-.,' . :;RilJ.!nisentStivesoiLsamples obtained~from ihe;iesi (:!iis;,were;,plilced.,~~'~lg~I1.~Fco!l~ers;~~ ~~.~, f(),'~()\1.f 'all\'>~loty:~foi.furtli!ii: i~j(!liiii.rii!iioii aria ;te~iing,.. The JUoistu.re, conielit of,: eacli sample, was. measuted.and .is 'repoti~ :O~I~~ iri41yi4.~~rT~sl;~it ~oes;. i3r~ilis,.j~;!)h~Ws~,s:\~~J1i<pi#~ri?,~ oJ!,sel~!e9 sa,*p)~" T~~ .-r~!WoF :Ilie;grnirfsizi: ailidySCs;areslioWn'on' Figures.A'13 thiO~~1 Ac IS; I I I I I I I , ~ -Ci ,. E QI, MAJ0RDIVISIONS: ~ '\' -.-.-.' .. -. , ,'-~' .... 'Gra;!~ri~ I-_G_-'W_-_' -11--""_' e_i·..;'1_f<l_d_IKt_,._:!lra_. _ve_'ls_J_9m_. _ve_}_se_n_a_m_'I'xt_u_re_s_!_I1itJ~·.'e_o_r_no_-fi_n_~_s;._· _-I ::GRAVELS -'tha'n-5%'-More'than50% ... '. Poolt'-riided' ravels, r8ve~nifmIXiures~;miieorilo,fineS: of'coliiS'iifraclio'n +. _··..:n..:·~-:.~s..:)_+_.G_P_. _-d-' _ .. _.,,_'1_"9_ .• _._9_ .. _. _. _9,---_'_-.. _._''_._' _-_" _._._. _" -_-_"_. --'--,1 •.• ,':;.. ,i _ ).!~ • '.'.' .' ~ _.-, ' • _ " • •. .. . -_ J • is larger. than No. QM : Silly grevels; gmvel-send-siit nibitunss, non-piaSIi,:fiiles . .. -4\SleVe, Qravels:w1thl'-~-'-~f-"""::'''_' --''':;''-' -------. _._' _____ -1 -. fines -'" , .. G~,. :9IaYI!Y!l.rI!v~IS; lIr!!ye.l'8a!1d'9,8_y n\1x:t\i.~~ p,~s_tic ~~~.; Clean Sands:5w' Well,gi'adedsandi., 'sanCIa with' gravel,lillle'orilO fines. -SANDs"iless'tha'ri' .f----+. -'-"-' '-' '-' ,-'-' -'-' '-"-" -.,.',.."-" -' -"-'---'-"-' -'-'"-'-'-'-'-----,I More'ihan 5Q%,~%:fin~). 5p;~il(jrly;g~il!Ki ~~ds,sani!s\Yithgrilvei;iillle orno fiiles: of,ooarsi3"fraCtion·I------t----+--------------------I Issmailedhan 8M' :sliiy sands;san~slltmixtures; non-plastIC fines; No,',is-Ieve ;sands,v.iiih .f----II--:-'-,.,-. --.'-------.-. -..:.' --______ -1 -:ti~~s ... 59 .Clay,~!.,~n~s;: S?I!d-t;Iay,rn,Muryll,~'!IsliCfl,n~s: SilTS AND-CLAYS L:i Ui«(Umih~less thail' 50% ,q -" -,. --.. ,. !l .. ,~ I ,0; '~QI>' 1/)" QI Q '-iii .S! 0[.,. . :blg. -aoic lillis' arid o(g. aliii: cia. ys oi·Iow.PcaSiiciiv .. '.', W', 'E(': I . ,~z.;.-. ~;~ 1--------+--:;:-:-.... -+' .. --., --:-,,-. ',"--'. -" --'----~.:.-----1 _ ~o" " :,M':t: Inorganic silts, elastic:' ~ 0 .• ~ .. :-~lS ~ .:s'Lj-s~~,t,j.~C.4Y~ .. ',2 '::' ~ ~ifl.,.i!l:~i.[!liti!>~gi~a!l![ th~n;5()'W 'f-_.C_._I;I~--I'-',n_}l_ .. t9_,i!_~I_c_.!1!_~'fS_ ... _"o_f_!1,I_~h_ .. ~P_)_~s_·.~_~Iy_:_,!_Fa_:!_Cl._Ijir_)_, ______ -1 I 1-_~_·~~~~~~ ______ ~ ____________ ~--,-.'O-·H-"':..._f'-o-·-a-nl-c-·CIa-'_s_:o_t_hi_h_"_a_'s_u_'_' ,_. __________________ ~ ;::!i . .1'9 .. .. y. ..,g .pI .. 1l;itY. I I I I I I I I I 'DenSity iliery l06se, j:ilose M8diunroense :08"88' '.' .. -.y.~iY~se' , Conslstancy 'vl;liYSO!l ,Soft; 'Me(lfum'siJif . 'Stiff" " . r -. ~. If ,\lery.,5~ . . Haiti .. ,.: ....... P.t 'f'~al . .$tand~d Pl!n~~ -.Reslstance in'S-lowS/FOoI. -~t.~~~,~rill:!~~~ya~()n . . Resistance in BkiWslFoot '<iii' .~6 1&-32 >32' . ~ ... :-. I- I 2:;!O'iiilsIDE.i5iAMrnR· RiNG·.SAMPLEifoR' .si-iELBX~l'u'BE:St.rviPlER'; ,~~ 1'\!1',:n;~I,e.~L)(D~te) ;ri . TORvp,.NE;READINGS,tSf '.:.-.~ .. _ .• _~.:,: . -".r.-' ~ , .. "., 'P,p, ;.F"ENETROMrn'RROOING;·lSf .' ,DO .. '[)8V':O:E~SIjY.'AAiin~~pei'cU'~jc'ig()t Lt' LI(;W.ID, 91d 1]\ Pcih:i!rit: PI,P.~~1:I~ I!:lP~: N., ~;stAN6ARi)'p.'ENETRAfi6N:biowsperiOot UNIFIEO:.S0IL, CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM . , ,-'STUTRAS$EMBLAGE-.. RENTON;'WASHINGT.0N _ .. ,~ .... ' .... '. -.' . ,. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . LOG OF TEST,PIT'NO. ·1 '.PI!OJ,E~ ~E.'.Sl!jth·Ai;siiiritilage '. -' , ..... ,,~ "." ." --~ ,",.", ,-'". ",. .. ., PRO,J. NO:T-8995 ' .LOGGED. BY:, JH • . ._ .• ', '.' ....... "........... . .. ,o!, ... <L. __ _ ~gcA'1:10r( : B.ehiOi)W~llhi!i9t9n D~TEOL:()c39~D: "Januii'Y t 2914 (4·100·lnchss'ORGANIC.TOPSOlq:. . . .~NsisfENCYI' ... ' :RELATIVE DENSITY·' .. _. .. . . ........ it: ..... : .-.... -... ~ ... -.. ~ .. .;.-.. .,... ...... --.. ~ .... ~~ ... ~ .. ~ .... -.. -............... ........, ... : .. :.': .. ,_.-:-.: ... . ? 9 .1~ .00i1l.~~uty:S~f.r6,.~ to (1)edi~;T,~r8lned:tri. ... ; :gl'lMll. ~sIonal Cobble,lo8lnches. molsl;.(SM) ·(Weattieiiid.till)'· .. ,. . ......... ," ,. '" ............... " .................... :.'~ ......................... --.......... " ....... _ ........ _. _ ......... "_ .... " ...... ,,. iii Tesi ~'t iermlnatedafapproximaleiY:ifeei: .N.o~~~I.,~~e:~"".; NOTE:; Th~:~tiSiirtaCG ~tkiii jietialiiS: o!dY to 1I!~.1Ht 'P!I tciCB.tiOi. ";~'lliiUld. not ,,".I~~tecI •• f>!ing I~~ of .,!her I~uo,n' ~11h;e ~.' . .. . . I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I LOG;'OF TEST PIT NO.2 PR9J EctNAMEHiMb'As$ijmbiage' -'. . --. . »:R.6JiN~;:'",T-6",··",99 .. 5,-,-·. ___ .[.C!~GE·D.~J{:.",J!lJHLo..· __ _ LOC~TIqN.: .ReritOnWaslilngk!!i i;ATEUxiGED: Jaoua!yz-20j4' ~1!iIJ::¢(C~NDs;:",'G ... 1as"-",·'s",e,,,s,,-_____ '~~R6x;iiLeV: ___ -' DePTHTo.GROUNowATER:NiA-·DEPTHTo·cAvlNG:, ;NtA, 3. 5' ;8 ,.(2IO'4·IIIchOs'da"':QRG.t\NICTOPSOIL)' . . ~ ~ •• -.. ......... Io'''''-''''' ..... -.;. •••• ~ ........ ; ............... :~ ..... ;.;..;.:; .......... ..:....; •• ; ............... :-•• ~ •• -, --•• _ .......... ---...... __ . __ ._. --.--.~-..:...-.-.. --~.~ .~.~.-..... -.. -.- Gtayoilty SAND/flne grained. lraoo'gravel;' moist;· (S~) mil '.~' "'. ,., .. Test pit temllnated atapproldmately 8 feet. ' No·~A<!wBter.';~ge~~ •• ~,· ". Dense to . ", ,- . VB!y.Dense:' . .., , :NOrE: Tiiis"~I~ ~.niyiOihl$i.stPiiiOcliJiina:ii~ ~·be"~t8~'as,b8fnQ-tr1dlc.iiJYO_Of-OIhGt,lOcGtIOrui.'itih&·slbi::·:·"· ;~ "'.,,.,' . .-.,.-- -. ~ '.' ,:~ . REIlARKS " '22,S· , 'Terr~ ASsoc:lates; Inc . c&..UtUon;;I';. ~icaI EOglnoenng e'nvI~%~:'Sctences' I I I I I I I I ,~; I I I I I I I I I I I ----------- . LOG OF TEsTPI'f NO,·,.!, ---.'. -', ~ ...... ... . .-' -. ,i>R6.jECT~E:. Stujii)uiSemiiJag~~ROJ;N();: ·H995·' . ;LOGGED'BY: .. ",·J![]H_· _--'-~ :':-OCAnON: ,·R8riloo.Wilstiln9ton SURFAcECONDS:;:.G.iasses· :kpRox;elEv;~: __ _ 'DA'rE'lOGGED,_Januar:{t;2614'iiEPTH.to:oRouNDWATeR:lEeat ·DePnt.TO CAVING; . N(A. DESCRIP.TiON . .• , CONSrSTENCV/.:··.2' !tEL.IITlVE.DEIISIT.Y·: .... .~, :REMARl<S (~.t~61~~da)!iOR~IC.T9~~IL)· . ...'. -.. -.... ~---.-.-.. -.... ~ .. -..... -... -~ .... ~ .......... -....... , ...... , .... _._ .......... _ .... -:-.... . B~.ff.y:SANi>;fin,e:!O;,;;~lirri:gial.;d.tiace.g;aYei; inolst.: .. (Sl>1r::('!'I:eat~!!edJlJl) . • - -.t-. '. • '.3 '5 ·:6 Giay sillY' SAND, .flni.:giairiOd, ·triioegm .... : mol;,t. (SM);(Tjli), ',' ',,-> •• C" .,-..... _ ... ' .• ··7 10 NOTE: 'This' .~cOhironnaiJ"i,·~.1;;"" ~I"ihis iO.rpii iO<:&~n .iId~1d -naibe-ln~aS~--lrldl(:a~ve"OfoOl(klciUtli:WI$·8tu;e8ite.· .-. ' -,' '. -: , t ci.n~.~ "V~8~J'''' :;10.5 <terra" ;kli'6i:lates;' Inc.: ~~~~~.E~~ _:-Environme~EaMScienee' r---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I I I I I I I I ~; .~ I I I I I I I I I I " I .i>Iic)j'ECI N~E: :St.iIhMsemtilage. . i:oc'AiiO'fi:Renioo . WaSh'jnglon :PROj, NO: .T.L,,;a"'99 .... 5"-___ ,LOGGED BX:,"'jnH'---__ SURFACE CONDS:·J:G>li'railJjSlltselllsL' ___ ---,~ ,jpPROX:'ELEV:,,_-.-_ DEPTH:fO GROUNDWATERHEeelDEPTH TOCAYlNG:,W;' .: ... -.-... --.. :.~: -" ·-:-;:"·'"'Y' OATE'LOGGEo:.~aCY7,2Q14' o z i 3- ~ '" ~:- s- 6- 7- 9- .10~ 1i- ,13.- 1'5.- . DESCRIPTION 'CoNSISTeIiCYI, ' ::11.' RE.~nve DENSITY' .. 'a:',. (6 Inches TOPSOIL) -.. ..:.::.::..::.::: .. ~ .. :::...::...::: . .:-.----, -. --,._, -'~"'-.-. -.............. -........... ---..... . 8..0..;; Gllt{SANO;flne io'ined.."gi8i~ed. tiace ~veI;" MeOlu;. Dense; '36:4· , . -."'. .. '.-. ' .... .,. ~ ~1?bI.sJO !I.I~""~: !¥iSt. <,S",fJD.II) . . :~ .. -. .;...... .. --.-. _ .. _,-'-'---_ .. _._._ ........ -... -..... ~-"' .. -.-. .• ......:. GraY-sOIy:SANO;'fin,illi'ine<flumgiainiid:ti8ee'grav8l;' cobbles to 8InChesiii;oist ... (SM) (Weall1eiiiilUlI) '.'. F' '. TeS!pi! 'tennlnateilat'appiOxiinaieiyiHOlit, • Griii",iiwalef"iieepage·oliso.ved at~ feet' ~. . . , , . REMARKS I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I a:OG:OF="TEst;PIT NO. S' " -.~, .~~. '~-~.' .... , ,.... ..' 'PRo'/E~TNAME:,SW!lrf'!'!ilI!Il~I~~e'PR'O./, NO:'~' , 'LOGGED BY: .",Jectil:..' __ _ :I,QCAnON:Rilnlgii,WaS/iiDgIoD SURFACE CONDSi.·GiIlSSQS ;APP,ROX:ELEV:: " . ".~~ "' __ ~~" ......•.. ,-.," ~ ->~-. " -· .... ,-~P_. ,'-•• .. ; ... 'i_· -.·t~--- .D~Yl'\'~~~~: ...IiIn\Ili;Y]:20J4~ .!!E..P!':t,,!O·~~Q~~~W~~~::.~?:~ ,DEP:rH T(),c«V1t".G"NlA DEScRIPTION : ,-",~", ' , .... '" (610 ~.I~clie$ ,dari< brown TOPSOil) 2' 4 6, 7 '10 ~NOTE;.' TbJ,·sutn.urface'inJonnaUonperml ns o.ryty &0 tl:'Is teSl pillo(;atiCn and ShOuld nOt~~I~ipfO~ ... ~ 1~1cii~:"'~il!Oi ~~I~oI~, .!len~~~ Ve,yDerise" --.-.'-~. ~,: . <' ) ... :r---" . REMARKS " ' \ "'~ 'C', I • • • • • • • • • • '. • I I I I I I ---------------------- i'QG :QF t~5t~P,ITNQi6: ,,-'. -",-., ' . : •. ~. -... ':-..... . -.~-.... ,,1-, . " -, .PROJEC.T NAME:·S\ulbA!I!!!!mbla~.Q PRoo:'lici:: ... it""i§99",-.. 5",',_· __ ..;,' tOGGED,'BY: ",JtJJHl-' _--'-_ , . L6CATio'N::.BentondNB&iifu~!Qn DATE LQG9E!I:' Jl!riiiBryZ. ·2014 SURFACE COHOs: ·!3~Sll!lsAi!PR6X/ELEV:.,--__ _ DEP.TH TO GROUNDWATER:·' NIA .. -., --, .. , '-'-"""'-'. -'-"'~,,,:-. DEP..THTOCAVlNG: NIA. . . ,..... ,.-:'-':.' .-~ ~~." • • ••• "_ •• ,~ _. "J " ", _", DESC_RIPT1O~ ': REMARK~ 2 5. ........ : ............. ~ ..... --+-.: .• ~~ •• -.-... "'--• .....: .. -. -' • ...:...-•• -' .... ~ .. -....... :' •• : ......... -_ ..... _ ••••.• _ •• 6 7. ~jii' ,,-" " " I " t-, __ . ': '. • •. ' . " '~t~:.t~~s ~s~au ~fo:rrna.~IOn ,~nal~_~,r~,tO'~·I~c 1m ~n a6d,~ .~~ I~~ ~.~,I~~ItCa~~~ ~1heJ~~!"'~ ... ~I.th~ .. II~;·. 46 . .1 . ' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I : PRoJECT 'NAME': sliM Assemblage . i:ocAiioN:Renion' WaStdDgion ,I!ROJ:NO: · ... T",:t!gg",,· ... 5 ..... · __ ~ a:6GoEDBY: :J'oH,-. __ 8URFAcE'CONDs:)3 ra S§"s APPRO,!, ELE)I:,,·:... __ _ . DATELoGGED:, ~ry h2()1~' D~Pnf .TO~RqUND~1~.R?:NI1D~P.T!f .rtI· C~~II~G: 'NM '. o ,.. .~.' !: . . CONSiSteNCY/ . ,it RELATIVE DENSIn':, : i' DESCRIPTION' (4 to'6hicliesdSrl< GAAVELTOPSOIL) . ... :~~ .. ~.,;..;r.:~;."":;:"""::: ";:;" .. ' ••.... .:...::.:.._;;~ .. ~:;.;;.;.--., ................. -.. :-;..;.~ --.-•.• ~.:;.~-. _. i 2"' ~ .. .-•••••. --......... ! .......... -•• .--.......... ;.~ .......... -••..• -;--.• -:.-... -:,--':"-.-.......... -....... _._-_. 3. 5 . 'E?' 7 ,9 1i. 13 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I LOG ,(jFtTesT PIT:NO.8 >, -'. ", • ,." •• ',' -,' -•• FIGUREA-9 ~', " .. PRO.rECfNAME:·jtUttiAssembiage PROJ. NO: ·;J.T -6::ll. ",00",'5>:,: ___ . toGGED By:·.,,.JIJJHL-__ .LOi:ATiON:.Rerit~n:W'lshl"ng,,!to .. ou.. ____ SURFACECONDSi".GiJlSUS 'f'PPI!-C?~i ~l:EV1·---- DATELOG~ED:' :~a.D.ua!y ·7;2Q.14 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER: . NlA --:,.-.~' •• -.~'.'~ • -"' ?~, .. " -" 3 i 8' DESCRIPTION. ;' .. '." . :.cONsiSTENCY/ ;RE.:ATIVE DENSITY . ' . ... ---"~' .. '~~~~""":""'--.'.-;""'-:-"-~.-"--'-'~-"-, -:~---~ T..si pii tiiiin;Ra"tOd'aliijipiOiiimai.iy·s.f"et. NogrOundwa.eri,,;epage oIiSeMiI. ' -." . .' " V~ry.tO~ns.e: . "." .'; • I ,. . ,. . ' l I._~·.-··· '18.0 .-, ..... '---------~------....,...,....----''''-------''--:-:---'"":'"'""----'-:. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I LOG OFtEST'~it'Nd.·9. '--,:. .-. '. ; ....... ,.-' ,--',' 'PRO;'ECT·tW.iE;·siUthAAAI!mtil~e LOCATION: Renion :Wa$lngioo :PROJ: NO: 'r:6995, ':LOGGED BY: .",j"H",,' _-:-_ ,. ." ;SURFACECOliiiis: Giasses' 'APPROX; I;LEy:;...; __ _ 'DEP.TH TO GROUNDWATER:'NIA ,DEPTH TO CAVING: -HIA' . " ~ ~~',----:-'-':-'-~.'-"-""--.' ,". ;"--"'".' .-.... -.. ,.~ ,-,- REMARKS .~ . "-. -:,', .. DESCRIPTIJlN' ._' .• _.":"' ___ ' .:,-,_, •. ...:._......;~ ____ ... _ .. '_Ioi4 •• _ ...... ,.:~_. , ......... ';.._ •••• ~~. __ •• ::.;.~ •• 2. ". '" :, '-•. -' t·--l:~': .'" -.', Giay,to.brown silly SAND, ,fine grained: lrace gravel, Rj~I~\; ,(~Mt{nJI),' , 8; io: Nojei:ThI • ..,bs.mice'l1.ionn8ilan ~ins ~tolhls losl PlIk.eaUon and ~d, not lle In~ '8S ~ 1f1dlt::~ilive o',other ~J~:' 8.(.~~.~~~ ~ -. .' , -;.r-. - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ,,~pc<~n~~:~~9tOn;'W~stilngtiiri' iiATHOGGEDiJ ,<. ,t 20'!4-" ' , ',,,' -, anu.aJY-, (12 Inchesdarti brOwn TOPSOILf FI!3URE~11 ---, -.• , ........ -.• ;.: •.. ---:----:-.-;:.-.----.-~~-::__:r .•. :~.:.--.:-_ .•..• "":" -.... --:;:::-::,,-,-,~--," .19.5 ,~' 4, GmY silty $iiND"'flnegr8ined,,irace,grsval;'moOsi::isMr (1'lI1)' ' 10, ,1'I9YE: ;~!U~~ tn,foijna!iOn ~;~'OI!'Y tOtl!;~ 08it1il'lcCailOtij"'1,OIIO!JIci '~~lnle"""_ted,,,.~.I'!d~lJve~~""l~~n!~!!MM"; ,._' Tem. r -JAS89Ci~i~~;,jnc; ,. , ',COoouitinlS ,i!' ~"'hillcal Engl_rIng E"'i!.~~~;'~!~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 'PRClJECT NAME: ~olI!ssll.leUJ"1~b!'.l.'i'9!\1 •. !"a _______ _ Lg<;~Tl~~.';:"R.entiJD;·W~Wi.,,!19~gto .... uri __ ~_ !lURf.I\C~C:PND~;' .. G"ia .. ss"!: ... e"'s_' _____ .AP~R9x~Ei.~:. ___ -' ; D~TEI,~~G~: Jiiglli"tY7.2Ql~· ~~r:T1i}c)(,!~6~ND~.t.~,,; :Nl,6. .DEP,:rH TO'c~ViNG: NjA 2. 3' 5. .8' 12' 14' .-.,., DeSCRiPTiON "',of" ',0.' (12fni:lies dark blown TOPSOIL) ,',.-,-,-, ..... ".-' .... ,:-. '''-..,. ... ', Giaysilly SAND .. fine tD medium grained, trace graveuCotibte;moist (SMf(TiIi); ,-'C. "_-• '.'-.~ , ~ -i ,,'. ,,'., •• ' . -. '. Test pit terminated alapproximately10 '.et ~o.ii"'~~c!W..I'" !i8ep8ge:~: C --.-'c' -, . -~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ------------------------ " .. -, PaiticlE!,'SlzE! DisftibutiOrii'R,p~f:t'~ .5 . ,'Ji -":if :1:''& ":~' '~"~If~ g,',1i ~,' ~.: .G.'~ 's·· .' ',' '§' if . : ' .. 'M 'N';<' ,",. " ·.:oIll. .... , . " :;~.; lQO I 'I:'; . r , 1 ' I, I I I 1'. I I I I I I t' I I IOQ I I I ',,: 1\::( I I .1 J , I i ; L N'\ ,:'\ ,I 'I " I I I I , I I I , I , I I I I I ' ~ I I 'I J I I ,80 . ". I ; l) ; T, I I; I 1''-~ ~ I I " I I I I I I I I I I ' I I ,I " , I ,to , ; ; .. '~I' i I I I I I I 'I i I , I I I , I I I I "-, . I I 'I I I a:: ~60 , W I" . :"\ .. ~.' I I " I I I I \. I I ,I 'I I I II.,; , f, I I, I I f I I I ·1 , ','1 I I ~ '50 , , , ~h " ~-., I I I I' I I I .,' I I 0' i I I I I i I I 1\ 'I ! I I 0::. u.( :'40 " , j 11.:: i 1 1 'I I I I I I ~ I 1 I I' I I t I II I. I \. ,I I , .30 i' i " M. I' I I' i I I I I , I '~ :',i"!! I. I I ! I 1 I I I I Nrl :'20 ( I I 1" I I r I I :1 J' . I I I I : I I I I : I I I I 'I 'I I I !-1J~ I 'I I I l-I I I-I I I I .1 I I I 'I I I ,I I, I I I I I I ,I I I '0 I,' I .1' I I I .1 I I I -.. '·100 10 ,1 0',1, ;!!,~~," ,0,001 .... , :GRAlli" SIZE~mm: % Gravel ,. %Sarid' %.Flnes' ',%'+3!' :,Come: Fine. Coarse Midliim Fine .. · .. SlIt,; . r Clav b 0:0 .,li,9" 19.9~ <i,ii, '22:7,i '16;5 :nn [j 0:0 :6.0 '7.0 16,0: 'i8,S, 'i:ts '26.0' A 0,0 6:2 14.61 8:4· , '·21.6, 24:3 '24.9.' X ,LL :PL Ost"" 060 'Dti" "D30 Oi!; 01"n c·' ." CU' q 16:9349; j;Si04 : L1.407: O,ji43' 0 '2:9.772 :0:7,69(, , '9:4545, 0;1519, A '8.9138 0:7612 ;O;44i11 OJsoo· . , MilterlalO~ciil'dori lIS¢'S MSHJ:o' o'SiliySandwitb Grav':l ,SM o :SiliY:Saniitrace~vel I.SM a'.:Siliv santi \yilli'somelinivel 'SM , J:>roJiicitNo; '1'':(;995 Cllerit:C'QiladmiliHomes" Remarka: P[~Je,ct:::~.l!ith ~.1?I\\!ieRfnta~. ~~~b!~~ton, ciLOcatlon: . .TesiPifTP.' 1 Deptli:'2:5,feet, .," -.. ..; -. ,".' "", -'J' 'r "":~ ., ',:.' Depth;S fe~t . o'Locatlon:~TesiPlt'tp~i 6 Locatioi1:.TesfPitSTP'3. Oepth:6'feei, TeiTa"AS$oclates;lnc; '.' ~ ":-.~. '! 0 ••• ' ••• '" . Kirkland WA Figure' A ol3' ... ' .. _. . r-~~~~~~~~---- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . P~r1i¢ljfSiz~ DJ$ttibldipo:Re'poiil , .Ii ¥~'~, 'B ie'; ~.i '8 is "..Ii .s~ -Ii .. .G:~ :;t' 0 :i, , .. N .. , Ii ,Ii ,lOll : I T ~ I !: I I I I I I I I <.:90 I I I. 1 1 , I I I 'I I: :1 I , . . ' . , . :~, '" " I I , I I I I I I I I I I I ,.-I I I , .I I I I ~ " IX I I ,i r I I ."~ , ; ; i " X ; ; I ,I ,.~ I I I I I I I I I I I , I ',I I I I '70 I i; I I 'i\ I I I II I ~\ I I I 0::' ) I .I I I I I :'1 I' I I W, 160 If'i.-I ~ I' i I I I I I '~ I" I I LL' I I I ! I ! I I I I I ..... ,50 z 1'-0 w, I. I I I I I I I ~ I I I ~ I I u' I I I I I I I , I r' I 1\ I I I 0::' w .40 " " t i Q., -, I' I I I ,I I I, I I I I I I I. I I, i I i I , I ':00 .. ~ .! I :39 " - I i I " I I I i , I '~ ' .. ' i I' I I i I i, I, , I ~N I j i -20 I 'I' I. I I I I I I , I I I : I I 1 I I I I I I I l-I , ';1"0 'I I I I I I I I I I I I 'I '.I I I , I I I I : I I I I : 'I I I ~, I., I I I I 'I '1(1() 19 1 I:~.i~' 0,.01 '~,OOl' ':GRAIN:SIZE:'. min., %'+~: :%:Gravel, :%Sand !Y.Flnes Coarse .Flne ' Coarse Medium, Fine, Sill-: I :CI~y. 0 ,0:0 2A, 'fS.I :8,3' ,23.1 :3f:1 ',20,0,' 0 '0,0 '40,7. 9.8 'S:1i '10:7· -.:1'6;2, T7:5; 6 .0.0 0;0 ..ilf '8:3', ':14;3' '36,1 :29.6 <IX ell Pl' D8S' ,DiID, "D~n D~n 'Dill' 'Din, ,C~ -Cii ,5.9985 ,o:slisi ~0:4113, .0,2'1'68 , " , , 0 . I!i S9.1~90i 2$;2793, :5:2622 6:2802 I> ,3:374S ',0.3215 ' ,,0.2114,' , 0;0769 . .Materlal:'Oescription uses:: 'AAIf!:fi'o o :Silly;Saiid:wilh'some!ii'avel 'SM . tr~:ai!,d~,g~it.' ~~!i!: s.nt:: ',:' 'GM '~," ,. I> SillySaild,Wlth'someliravel 'SM ProJeCt No.-:T'69,9S: '.Cllent:' Quadrant Home.< . Reinarks:' P~6Jeci::~~ili .o.siembl.gC'~ei,!_~~;~w~s!ii;;g~~~: ',', ,--. .-. '" ". 6'locaifc)n';;Tcsi'pil TP~S: Diptli:S:Sfeel; o Lociltlon:,TesIPifTP.'7 Depth;' I ;fooi', A:'L~~ilori~'iJi~ii:fp~8' . ~',~,,;.. ',~:' ",'::; ~.,., '. Depth:',7, reel Terra Assoclates/lnc;-' '. ~ _. -.' ::-:-;'---. :.-.. -' .,';; , .... , Klrkland.,WA . figure A-t4, . I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .ii :,5-, S ·s ...... ; 1.5 .5!f:.~.s'-.Ii' .. ,M N',ii;\ ._::1:; .:~ ,100 ; , ~ , ! ,''-I I ~I I '~ I j I ,I.., ,I" I J " : I'{ I I I I I I,. I ,.J , 80 ; ! ; "".' I I J I 'I I I' I I I' I 01.71;) , i I I "j I j I Q:' ,I I I, I I ,I I W' '/60 , Z I I I I .I I U::. I I I I I I I ~~ .• ~ W I I r ,I I II ~: I, t I ! I 1,1 W'· ,~~ a.' L I I :) I I I I I 1 I 11 '30 '. " I I, I I I, I : I I i I I I ~20 " I i I I I I. I I I I I I : I "10 j I I I I I I I I I I I 'J I : I '6 I I I 1~? 10' ',-" 'lI'· <> ;. :~ I I , I I , I I "1 I 1[\ I I \.; I I I " I , , 11\ ,I \. I I I , I i' I '·1 I' I ai 'l 8 '~:I' ;; ;; . -;' " !. : I I. I I I I I I I '. 'J ; I , I I I I I I I I I, I .I "I' I I ,I t I I " , I .1 I I I I I I I I I I I' I I I " I I' I I I I I I I ~ :I I' I I f' , r I I . I I ~ I· I I '" .I '* .~ I I . I, 'i '\.!i' " ' I ,I r::- I 'I I' I I I I I I I 1'1' I I II '. i I I 0.1 'GBAIN SIZE'~ mm. ' '%.Grav81 I %+3n~ .•.. --.' :Coarse 'Fine' COarSe Medium'; o 0:0 tJ 0:0 :Oiin !Dl;o o ,Mate'rial'O:escription' o.S i1ty'Sand' with'gravel , o;~ilt{Saiici :":itli,s~it{e;~yel. projectNp.,T'(i99S . Clliirit:~Quaifiruit;Homes' PI'~j8c~.:~"'th As~iil~IAg~$e;i!9n.,\V~ii!ori': o'·LocatJon:'TestPiifp-IO ... _ ...... -' -r-. " _' _:':'~" .. ' .. : . ci location: Test Pit n.lO . ',',-", --. - Deplt1:2·f&i 'D.~pi,~:~f~l . ~ .,' . . ., ·Terrif Associates! 'In·c. , ,:j(jrtdancIWA, . .24:1 D~n 'O.i82~ Fine': , .. , % Fines SIIr: I Clay ,16:4, I D,10Ci; c;-' ·.SM iSM ,-~ ".