HomeMy WebLinkAboutMiscSEWALL Wetland Consultina. Inc.
EASLEY PROPERTY
REVISED WETLAND AND STREAM ANALYSIS REPORT
AND CONCEPT MITIGATION
CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON
Prepared For:
Tom Easley
7495 159'" Place NE
Redmond, WA 98052
March 21, 2006
Reprised May 30, 2006
Job ##A5-359
B-12 Wetland Consulting, Ine, Phone: 253-859-0515
1103 W. Meeker Street Fax: 253-852-4732
Kent, WA 98032
Sewall Wetland Consulfing, Inc.
1103 W. Meeker & Phx e- 253-859.0515
Kent, WA 9M-5751 Fax 253-8524732
EASLEY PROPERTY
REVISED WETLAND AND STREAM ANALYSIS REPORT
AND CONCEPT MITIGATION
CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Location
This report describes the jurisdictional wetlands and streams located on the Easley
Property, The 1.87 acre property is located along the north side of NE 44t" Street
(Lincoln Avenue NE) and to the east of Lake Washington Boulevard NE (parcel
3343301150) in the City of Renton, Washington.
SE
72ND STµ
C
v +
� i �
N
017
v rr
i l
SE
14TH
WE
r
it
5T w
`✓} P
�Q
SE 7UH
ST
sE
a
F
7
SITE
SE
76TH
w
Pt N 1
7BTH
P F
�
Lta t, CT
SE
imp � U
gE
HE
w
SE
80TH 79TH sr
5T 9�
CJ
{
Q
��1cF
Q
B2N0
w
N
Z
�.
__j
N 40TN ST
� 4C a
02 40TH
ST
Formerly known as B-12 Wetland Consulting, Inc
Re: Easley Property
SWC Job# AS-359
Revised May 30, 2006
Page 2 of 9
1.2 Existing Conditions
The property is currently undeveloped property with an unimproved gravel parking area
along the eastern property boundary. The western half of the site is forested and shub
The site is bound to the north and east by commercial land uses. The site is bound to the
.L �
2.0 METHODOLOGY
On January 12, 2006, 13-12 Wetland Consulting Inc. inspected the site for jurisdictional
wetlands and streams using methodology described in the Washington State Wetlands
Identification Manual (WADOE, March 1997). This is the methodology currently
recognized by the City of Renton and the State of Washington for wetland determinations
and delineations.
The Washington State Wetlands Identification Manual as well as the 1987 Federal
Manual requires the use of the three -parameter approach in identifying and delineating
wetlands. A wetland should support a predominance of hydrophytic vegetation, have
hydric soils and display wetland hydrology. To be considered hydrophytic vegetation,
over 50% of the dominant species in an area must have an indicator status of facultative
(FAC), facultative wetland (FACW), or obligate wetland (OBL), according to the
National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: Northwest (Region 9) (Reed,
1988). A hydric soil is "a soil that is saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during
the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part." Anaerobic
conditions are indicated in the field by soils with low chromas (2 or less), as determined
by using the Munsell Soil Color Charts; iron oxide mottles; hydrogen sulfide odor and
other indicators. Generally, wetland hydrology is defined by inundation or saturation to
the surface for a consecutive period of 12.5% or greater of the growing season. Areas
that contain indicators of wetland hydrology between 5%-12.5% of the growing season
Re: Easley Property
SWC Job# A5-359
Revised May 30, 2006
Page 3 of-9
may or may not be wetlands depending upon other indicators. Field indicators include
visual observation of soil inundation, saturation, oxidized rhizospheres, water marks on
trees or other fixed objects, drift lines, etc. Under normal circumstances, indicators of all
three parameters will be present in wetland areas.
3.0 OBSERVATIONS
3.1 Existing Site Documentation
Prior to visiting the site, a review of several natural resource inventory maps was
conducted. Resources reviewed included the King County Soil Survey, King County
Sensitive Areas Folio: Wetlands, King County Wetland Inventory, King County Sensitive
Areas Folio. Streams, A Catalog of Washington Streams and Salmon Utilization, and the
National Wetland Inventory.
3.1.1 King County Soil Survey
According to the King County Soil Survey, the site may contain portions of both Kitsap
silt loam (KpQ; which typically occur on slopes of 5-15 percent, and Bellingham silt
loam (Bh); which typically occurs on slopes less than 2 percent. Kitsap silt loam soils are
made up of moderately well drained soils that formed in glacial lake deposits, under a
cover of conifers and shrubs. Bellingham silt loam soils are made up of poorly drained
soils that formed in alluvium, under grass and sedges. According to the publication,
. ydric Soils of the United States" Kitsap silt loam soils are not considered to be hydric
(wetland) soils; however, Bellingham silt loam soils are considered to be hydric soils.
Kirk County Soil Surve
SITE f' AgC
May ekeMAN ;
D`
t
cr �
Re: Easley Property
SWC Job## A5-359
Revised May 30, 2006
Page 4 of 9
3.1.2 King County Sensitive Areas Folio: Wetlands and Streams
According to the King County Sensitive Areas Folios, there are no wetlands or streams
located on or within 300-feet of the property.
3.1.3 City of Renton Streams and Lakes Inventory
According to the City of Renton Streams and Lakes Inventory (figure 4-3-050Q4), there
is a Class 2 stream located along the western property boundary.
of Renton Municipal Code figure 4-3-U
3.1.4 City of Renton Wetland Inventory
According to the City of Renton Wetland lnventory (figure 4-3-050Q5), there are no
wetlands located on or within 300-feet of the site.
3.1.4 National Wetland Inventory
According to the National Wetland Inventory, there is a PSSC (palustrine, scrub -shrub,
seasonally flooded) wetland located along the northern property boundary.
Re: Easley Property
sWC lobs# A5-359
Rcviscd May 30, 2006
Page 5 of 9
1Vationat Wetland inventor
P55C
SITE 1
f�22U155 411 �[
3.2 Topography
The site varies in elevation, with the highest point along the eastern property boundary
and slopes down towards the west. The lowest point of the property is near the northwest
property corner.
3.3 Uplands
The upland portion of the site is typical of disturbed interurban sites. The area appears to
have been historically cleared and graded resulting in significant growth of invasive
species. Primarily Himalayan blackberry (Rebus armeniacus) is growing along the
graded slope near the center of the property.
Re: Easley Property
SWC Job# A5-359
Revised May 30, 2006
Page 6 of 9
Soils on the site revealed a 16-inch laver of gravelly, sandy loam with a color of lOYR
3/2. Soils within the upland were dry during the time of our site visit.
3.4 Wetland A
Due to the seasonal flooding conditions during the time of our site visit the wetland edge
was not safe to delineate. The majority of the wetland flags from the 1998 study were
observed at a short distance. The wetland edge does not appear to have changed and the
historic wetland boundary survey appears to accurately reflect present day conditions.
The wetland was historically flagged with pink "Wetland Delineation" flagging labeled
A-1 through A-14.
Wetland A is a scrub -shrub and emergent wetland located along the western property
boundary. Dominant vegetation within Wetland A includes pacific willow (Salix
lasiandra), red -osier dogwood (Cornns sericea), broad leaved cattail (Typha latifoha),
reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea), and buttercup (Ranunculus repens).
Soil pits excavated within the wetland revealed a gravelly sandy loam A -horizon with a
color of 1 OYR 2/2; an underlying sandy loarn B-horizon revealed a color of 5GY 4/1.
Soils within the wetland were inundated during the time of our site visit.
According to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) wetland
classification method (Cowardin et al. 1979). Wetland A would be considered a PSS1C
(palustrine, scrub -shrub, broad-leaved deciduous, seasonally flooded), and PEM1C
(palustrine, emergent, persistent, seasonally flooded) wetland.
According to the City of Renton Municipal Code (RMC §4-3-050(B)(7)), Wetland A
would be considered a Category 2 wetland due to is size being greater than 2,200sf and
not being classified as a Category 1 or Category 3 wetland. Typically, Category 2
wetlands have a 50-foot buffer measured from the wetland edge (RMC§4-3-050(M)(6).
3.5 Stream A
During the time of our site visit seasonal flooding conditions were present and the stream
channel was not able to be flagged. Several existing stream and wetland flags were
observed at a short distance and were observed to be consistent with the current ordinary
high water mark (OHWM).
Along the lowest portion of the western property boundary Stream A flows from south to
north. Stream A discharges onto the property from under NE 44`h Street. The stream has
a defined channel approximately 4-feet in width on average and ranges in depth from 6-
inches to 16-inches. Its banks are vegetated with red alder (Alnus rubra), red elderberry
(Sambucus racemosa), sword fern (Pol'vstichurn munitum), and Himalayan blackberry
(Rubus armeniacus). Near the northwest property corner Stream A flows into a culvert
and drains underneath Lake Washington Boulevard to the west.
Re: Easley Property
sWC Job# A5-359
Revised May 30, 2006
Page 7 of 9
Stream A is considered by the City of Renton to be a Class 2 stream (RMC §4-3-050Q4).
Typically, Class 2 streams have a 100-foot buffer measured from the OHWM (RMC 4-3-
050(L)(5)(a)(1)(a))
3.6 Wildlife and Habitat
Research for wildlife species included field investigations, research of the Washington
Fish and Wildlife habitat inventories and contacting the Washington State Fish and
Wildlife Service's area habitat biologist.
The site can be broken into three distinct vegetative communities based on the site visit
and review of the aerial photographs provided by King County I -map and Google Earth
Image. (Note: these sketches are not to scale and do not represent surveys of the mapped
vegetative communities.)
As noted on the aerial photograph the majority of the stream buffer consists of a shrub
community comprised predominantly of Himalayan blackberry (Rubes armeniacus), and
some evergreen blackberry (Rubus laciniatres). This area has low function and value as it
provides very little habitat for animal species and little life support to aquatic species.
This area represents the vegetative community within the buffer impact area. Although
Re: Easley Property
swC Job# A5-359
Revised May 30, 2006
Page 9 of 9
Himalayan blackberry does provide forage for many species; however, the dense plant
community does not allow easy passage for larger mammals. Due to the intense
development surrounding the propety the dominant wildlife species likely to utilize this
habitat would be human tolerant and noise tolerant avian species, rodents, and small
mammals.
The area outside or further to the east of this shrub vegetative community is comprised of
more Himalayan blackberry (less dense) and other various lowlying herbaceous plants.
However, the recent aerial photograph shows this area to have been completely graded
and field investigations revealed that this area has impervious soil conditions. This area
has Iittle or no function or value to an aquatic system as it does not provide any
hydrologic retention, water quality, or habitat value. This area would not likely provide
any cover or habitat for animals and limited forage. Due to the exposed condition of this
area, animal species would likely be limited to human tolerant avian species and rodents
and marsupials.
The remainder of the site is comprised of low -moderate value habitat with moderate
function. This area contains some increased species diversity and a forested canopy. The
forested canopy has a shrub underbrush with varying areas of native vegetation and non-
native invasive species. This area is to be left in its current state. In addition to the
species found in the surrounding vegetative communities the wetland area may contain
species such a ducks (1 drake and 1 hen mallard (Anus Platyrhynchos) were observed
using the wetland area), red winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus), blue heron (Arden
herodias),
Some trout species are known to utilize the stream which may include cutthroat trout.
Potential salmon species may include Coho; however, several studies have been
performed on this particular stream and no Salmonid species have been documented
using the stream. According to the Washington Fish and Wildlife habitat biologist this
stream is not expected to be used by Chinook salmon or Bull trout, apparently due to
poor habitat and poor water quality conditions and several significant 1-2 foot jumps
migrating fish would have to overcome. If Salmonid species were to utilize this tributary
Coho would likely be the first fish species to occupy this stream segment.
Therefore, it is our professional opinion that the site is not likely utilized by any
endangered or threatened species.
3.7 Functions and Values
The functions and value of the wetland and stream area and their associated buffers are
relatively low. The area is virtually isolated by development on all sides of the property
hindering migration of ground species through the area. As discussed above, habitat
value is low outside the wetland and stream area due to a lack of species diversity and
plant community interspersion. Due to the small size of the wetland area and its lack of
habitat corridors to other habitat areas this property would not likely function as any
significant breeding or rearing area for wildlife species.
Re: Easley Properly
SWC Joh#t A5-359
Revised May 30, 2006
Page 9 of 9
The connection between the stream and the wetland area may help reduce sediment loads
as it becomes trapped by vegetation within the stream channel. Outside turbidity,
improvements in water quality conditions the wetland may provide are likely off -set by
debris and trash deposited from the surrounding development. The wide stream channel
and wetland area does provide some storm water retention for downstream habitats.
However, this stream is in similar degraded condition downstream of the property as
well.
4.0 Proposed Project
The proposed project is the developmcnt of a parking area along the eastern property
boundary. The project proposes a small area of buffer reduction to the 100-foot Class 2
stream buffer as pursuant to the Renton Municipal Code §4-3-050(M)(6)(e)(11). The
buffer reduction will not result in a buffer less than 75-feet. The current condition of the
on -site portion of the buffer is comprised mainly of Himalayan blackberry. As mitigation
for the reduced buffer all non-native invasive species with be removed from the on -site
portion of the stream and wetland buffer. This area will subsequently be enhanced with
native tree and shrub plantings in a 1:1 dispersed manner, utilizing natural clumping
methodologies throughout the enhancement area. After acceptance of the concept
mitigation plan, a final mitigation plan will be submitted for approval detailing plant
species quantity and locations for the mitigation area etc. It is our opinion that the buffer
reduction with enhancement will improve the overall buffer function and value and will
be a positive attribute the riparian corridor.
If you have any questions or need any additional information please contact our office at
253.859.0515 or by e-mail at awill(ci_scn alh,�'c.com .
Sincerely,
Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc.
Z , X"�e" /-�
J. Aaron Will
Wetland Scientist
Pile:A5-259 Easley Properly WA.doc
EASLEY PRnvvlLrrY
W ETI;AND AND STREAM ANALYSIS REPORT,
AND CONCEPT MI'ITGATION
MY OF RENTON, WASHINO'TON
Prepared For:
Tom Easey
749515Wh Ply NE
Redmond, WA 99M
H
13-12 We.We.dW CmWting, Inc. Phow 2534SM15
1103 W. M Suet Fax: 253=952-4732
KeK WA 08032
B-12 Wetland Consulting, Inc.
EASLEY PROPERTY
W ETLAND AND STREAM ANALYSIS REPORT
AND CONCEPT MITIGATION
CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON
Prepared For:
Tons Easley
7495 159th Place NE
Redmond, WA 98052
March 21, 2006
Job #A5-359
13-12 Wetland Consulting, Inc. Phone: 253-859-0515
1103 W. Meeker Street Fax: 253-852-4732
Kent, WA 98032
B-12 Wetland Consulting, Inc.
1103 W. Meeker St (v)253.859-0515
Kent, WA9=-5751 (f 25HM-4732
EASLEY PROPERTY
WETLAND AND STREAM ANALYSIS REPORT
AND CONCEPT MITIGATION
CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Location
This report describes the jurisdictional wetlands and streams located on the Easley
Property. The 1.87 acre property is located along the north side of NE 441h Street
(Lincoln Avenue NE) and to the east of Lake Washington Boulevard NE (parcel
3343301150) in the City of Renton, Washington.
t
!Y
n
SE 72ND ST
$Ch
m
QT
SE 14TH
w
ST
LU
, fr
M
�$
SE 1 76TH
ST
�
sE a
7
`�
SE
T
SITE
76TH PL =
LtH 4-
4 �t� CT
71 SE
SE 'a
NE
Lu ._...1- —,
SE 80TH 797W ST
5T W,
c,116009
N
PL 11200
7
¢
z i
aa+a
m
CD ;
SE
V
N
r• N
40TH
a
'
SE
40TH ST
0 447H
1300
CUE
a
A Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. Company
Re: Easley Property
5-12 Job# A5-359
March 21, 2006
Page 2 of 7
1.2 Existing Conditions
The property is currently undeveloped property with an unimproved gravel parking area
along the eastern property boundary. The western half of the site is forested and shub
The site is bound to the north and east by commercial land uses. The site is bound to the
2.0
On January 12, 2006, B-12 Wetland Consulting Tic. inspected the site for jurisdictional
wetlands and streams using methodology described in the Washington State Wetlands
Identification Manual (WADOE, March 1997). This is the methodology currently
recognized by the City of Renton and the State of Washington for wetland determinations
and delineations.
The Washington State Wetlands Identification Manual as well as the 1987 Federal
Manual requires the use of the three -parameter approach in identifying and delineating
wetlands. A wetland should support a predominance of hydrophytic vegetation, have
hydric soils and display wetland hydrology. To be considered hydrophytic vegetation,
over 50% of the dominant species in an area must have an indicator status of facultative
(FAQ, facultative wetland (FACW), or obligate wetland (OBL), according to the
National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: Northwest (Region 9) (Reed,
1988). A hydric soil is "a soil that is saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during
the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part." Anaerobic
conditions are indicated in the field by soils with low chromas (2 or less), as determined
by using the Munsell Soil Color Charts; iron oxide mottles; hydrogen sulfide odor and
other indicators. Generally, wetland hydrology is defined by inundation or saturation to
the surface for a consecutive period of 12.5% or greater of the growing season. Areas
that contain indicators of wetland hydrology between 5%-12.5% of the growing season
Re: Easley Property
B-12 Job## A5-359
March 21, 2006
Page 3 of 7
may or may not be wetlands depending upon other indicators. Field indicators include
visual observation of soil inundation, saturation, oxidized rhizospheres, water marks on
trees or other fixed objects, drift lines, etc. Under normal circumstances, indicators of all
three parameters will be present in wetland areas.
3.0 OBSERVATIONS
3.1 Existing Site Documentation
Prior to visiting the site, a review of several natural resource inventory maps was
conducted. Resources reviewed included the King County Soil Survey, King County
Sensitive Areas Folio: Wetlands, King County Wetland Inventory, King County Sensitive
Areas Folio: Streams, A Catalog of Washington Streams and Salmon Utilization, and the
National Wetland Inventory.
3.1.1 King County Soil Survey
According to the King County Soil Survey, the site may contain portions of both Kitsap
silt loam (KpC); which typically occur on slopes of 5-15 percent, and Bellingham silt
loam (Bh); which typically occurs on slopes less than 2 percent. Kitsap silt loam soils are
made up of moderately well drained soils that formed in glacial lake deposits, under a
cover of conifers and shrubs. Bellingham silt loam soils are made up of poorly drained
soils that formed in alluvium, under grass and sedges. According to the publication,
"Hydric Soils of the United States" Kitsap silt loam soils are not considered to be hydric
(wetland) soils; however, Bellingham silt loam soils are considered to be hydric soils.
Ding County Sail Sury
�4
Re; Easley Property
B-12 Job# A5-359
March 21, 2006
Page 4 of 7
3.1.2 King County Sensitive Areas Folio: Wetlands and Streams
According to the King County Sensitive Areas Folios, there are no wetlands or streams
located on or within 300-feet of the property.
3.1.3 City of Renton Streams and Lakes Inventory
According to the City of Renton Streams and Lakes Inventory (figure 4-3-050Q4), there
is a Class 2 stream located along the western property boundary.
Utty of Menton Municipal Code tieure 4-3-05004
3.1.4 City of Renton Wetland Inventory
According to the City of Renton Wetland Inventory (figure 4-3-050Q5), there are no
wetlands located on or within 300-feet of the site.
3.1.4 National Wetland Inventory
According to the National Wetland inventory, there is a PSSC (palustrine, scrub -shrub,
seasonally flooded) wetland located along the northern property boundary.
Re: Easley Property
5-12 Job# A5-359
]March 21, 2006
Page 5 of 7
lruttunuc rvertana rnvenro
P5'
/ j "V
�� by �,• � f �f �� .. { •
3.2 Topography
The site varies in elevation, with the highest point along the eastern property boundary
and slopes down towards the west. The lowest point of the property is near the northwest
property corner.
3.3 Uplands
The upland portion of the site is typical of disturbed interurban sites. The area appears to
have been historically cleared and graded resulting in significant growth of invasive
species. Primarily Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus) is growing along the
graded slope near the center of the property.
Re: Easley Property
13-12 Job# A5-359
March 21, 2006
Page 6 of 7
Soils on the site revealed a 16-inch layer of gravelly, sandy loam with a color of 10YR
3/2. Soils within the upland were dry during the time of our site visit.
3.4 Wetland A
Due to the seasonal flooding conditions during the time of our site visit the wetland edge
was not safe to delineate. The majority of the wetland flags from the 1998 study were
observed at a short distance. The wetland edge does not appear to have changed and the
historic wetland boundary survey appears to accurately reflect present day conditions.
The wetland was historically flagged with pink "Wetland Delineation" flagging labeled
A-1 through A-14.
Wetland A is a scrub -shrub and emergent wetland located along the western property
boundary. Dominant vegetation within Wetland A includes pacific willow (Salix
lasiandra), red -osier dogwood (Cornus sericea), broad leaved cattail (Typha latifolia),
reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea), and buttercup (Ranunculus repens).
Soil pits excavated within the wetland revealed a gravelly sandy loam A -horizon with a
color of 10YR 2/2; an underlying sandy loam B-horizon revealed a color of 5GY 4/1.
Soils within the wetland were inundated during the time of our site visit.
According to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) wetland
classification method (Cowardin et al. 1979), Wetland A would be considered a PSS 1 C
(palustrine, scrub -shrub, broad-leaved deciduous, seasonally flooded), and PEM1C
(palustrine, emergent, persistent, seasonally flooded) wetland.
According to the City of Renton Municipal Code (RMC §4-3-050(B)(7)), Wetland A
would be considered a Category 2 wetland due to is size being greater than 2,200sf and
not being classified as a Category 1 or Category 3 wetland. Typically, Category 2
wetlands have a 50-foot buffer measured from the wetland edge (RMC§4-3-050(M)(6).
3.5 Stream A
During the time of our site visit seasonal flooding conditions were present and the stream
channel was not able to be flagged. Several existing stream and wetland flags were
observed at a short distance and were observed to be consistent with the current ordinary
high water mark (OHWM).
Along the lowest portion of the western property boundary Stream A flows from south to
north. Stream A discharges onto the property from under NE 44`h Street. The stream has
a defined channel approximately 4-feet in width on average and ranges in depth from 6-
inches to 16-inches. Its banks are vegetated with red alder (Alnus rubra), red elderberry
(Sambucus racemosa), sword fern (Polystichum munitum), and Himalayan blackberry
(Rebus armeniacus). Near the northwest property corner Stream A flows into a culvert
and drains underneath Lake Washington Boulevard to the west.
Re: Easley Properly
B-12 Job# A5-359
March 21, 2006
Page 7 of 7
Stream A is considered by the City of Renton to be a Class 2 stream (RMC §4-3-050Q4).
Typically, Class 2 streams have a 100-foot buffer measured from the QHWM (RMC 4-3-
050(L)(5)(a)(1)(a)).
4.0 Proposed Project
The proposed project is the development of a parking area along the eastern property
boundary. The project proposes a small area of buffer reduction to the 100-foot Class 2
stream buffer as pursuant to the Renton Municipal Code §4-3-050(M)(6)(e)(ii). The
buffer reduction will not result in a buffer less than 75-feet. The current condition of the
on -site portion of the buffer is comprised mainly of Himalayan blackberry. As mitigation
for the reduced buffer all non-native invasive species with be removed from the on -site
portion of the stream and wetland buffer. This area will subsequently be enhanced with
native tree and shrub plantings in a 1:1 dispersed manner, utilizing natural clumping
methodologies throughout the enhancement area. After acceptance of the concept
mitigation plan, a final mitigation plan will be submitted for approval detailing plant
species quantity and locations for the mitigation area etc.
If you have any questions or need any additional information please contact our office at
253.859.0515 or by e-mail at aaron(c b l 2assoc.com .
Sincerely,
B-12 Wetland Consulting, Inc.
J. Aaron Will
Wetland Scientist
File:A5-259 Easley Property WA.doc
1 0 ❑
nm[PGA Engmawongo unal
CONSLj[- ING -:NGNFFRS/GIV:L AND S fP -TUI-� L
TECHNICAL
INFORMATION REPORT
RENT�O�yNING
APR 17 20
OF RECEIVED
EXIT 7 AUTO SALES
1700 NE 44th Street
Renton, WA 98056
FOR174,
` ti�rt'
TOM EASLEY
7495 159th Place NE
Redmond, WA 98052
REI JOB #06019
March 2006
1 510VJest Val:ey Highmay Nortn/Sui[e 10i
P.,st Office Box 836/Aubirr% WA 980/1
253-833-7778 Fax 263-R39 2168
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Project Overview 1
Conditions and Requirements Summary 1
Offsite Analysis 3
Flow Control and Water Quality Facility Analysis and Design 3
Existing Site Hydrology 4
Developed Site Hydrology 4
Conveyance System Analysis and Design 4
Special Reports and Studies 4
Other Permits 4
ESC Analysis and Design 4
Bond Quantities, Facility Summaries, and Declaration of Covenant 4
Operation and Maintenance Manual 4
APPENDICES
Appendix
Site Map A
Technical Infornrration Report Worksheet B
Flow Control and Water Quality Calculations C
Conveyance System Calculations D
Offsite Analysis E
Maintenance & Operation Manual F
Bond Quantities Worksheet G
Floodplain Map H
TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT
Project Overview
The project, located at 1700 NE 44`' Street, consists of the construction of a 480 SF sales
trailer and 26,740 SF of paved parking and auto sales area. Stormwater runoff from the
site will be collected in catch basins and will be detained in a StormTech chamber
detention system near the north end of the sales area. Runoff will then be treated in a
bioswale before being released into the existing wetland at the northwest corner of the
site. Runoff flows from the wetland into a public conveyance system in Lake Washington
Boulevard.
Conditions and Requirements Summary
Core Requirement ##1: Discharge at the Natural Location
Stormwater will be released to the existing wetland as under current conditions.
Core Requirement #2: Offsite Analysis
. A downstream map and inventory is provided in Appendix E.
Core Requirement #3: Runoff Control
Stormwater runoff flow control v-ill be provided in a StorrnTech chamber system near
the north end of the sales area sized per the 1990 KCSWDM with a 30% factor of
safety. Detailed runoff calculations are included in Appendix C.
Core Requirement #4: Conveyance System
The new onsite conveyance pipes which carry the stormwater runoff to new detention
system will be analyzed per Section 4.3.4 of the 1990 KCSWDM to show that the
conveyance system has sufficient capacity to convey and contain (at minimum) the
25-year peak flow with a minimum freeboard of 0.5 feet from the top of the structure,
assuming developed conditions for onsite tributary areas and existing conditions for
any offsite tributary areas.
Core Requirement #5: Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control
ESC measures will be provided that meet or exceed the 1990 King County Surface
Water Design Manual standards.
Core Requirement #6: Maintenance and Operation
A Maintenance and Operation Manual is included in Appendix F.
Core Requirement 47: Bonds and Liability
A Bond Quantities Workshee€ is ncludd in Appendix G.
PAGE 1
Core Requirement #8: Water
Water quality treatment for this project will be provided in a bioswale at the
northwest corner of the paved auto sales area. Calculations are included in Appendix
C.
Special Requirement #1: Critical Drainage Areas
NIA
Special Requirement #2: Compliance with an Existing Master Plan
NIA
Special Requirement #3 _Conditions Requiring a Master Drainage Plan
NIA
Special Requirement #4:_Adopted Basin or Community Plans
NIA
Special Requirement 95: Special Water Quality Controls
No oil control will be provided because the site contains less than 1 acre of new
impervious surface.
Special Requirement #b: Coalescing Plate DilfWater Separators
NIA because the site contains less than 5 acres of impervious surface.
Special Requirement #7: Closed Depressions
N/A
Special Requirement #8: Use of Lakes, Wetlands or Closed Depressions for Peak Rate
Runoff Control
NIA
Special Requirement #9: Delineation o f 100 Year Floodplain
A floodplan map has been included in Appendix H.
Special Requirement #10: Flood Protection Facilities for Type 1 and 2 Streams
N/A
Special Requirement #11: Geotechnical Analnis and Report
A waiver is being sought from the City for this requirement
Special Requirement #12:Soils Analysis and Report
NIA
PAGE 2
Offsite Analysis
Stormwater runoff from the site is released into the public conveyance system in Lake
Washington Boulevard. According to WSDOT as -built drawings of the downstream
system, there are two outlets from the on -site wetland. The first is a 60-inch pipe that
flows west to the west side of Lake Washington Boulevard, under 1-405, into an existing
ditch on the west side of I-405, and into Lake Washington. The second outlet is a 24-inch
pipe that flows north to a catch basin in Lake Washington Boulevard, and then west,
underneath 1405, into the same existing ditch, and into Lake Washington. No drainage
problems are anticipated due to the restriction of the runoff so that developed peak flow
rates will be less than or equal to predeveloped flow rates from the site.
Copies of the WSDOT as -built drawings showing the downstream system are included in
Appendix E.
Flow Control and Water Quality Facilitv Analysis and Design
Flow Control
The existing groundcover over the area that will be developed consists of some bare soil,
landscaping, and natural vegetation_ It was modeled as 0.70 acres of meadow (CN=89).
The developed site was modeled as 0.70 acres of impervious surface (CN=98). A SBUH
flow frequency analysis was completed for this project using Hydraflow Hydrographs
2004. The detention pond was sized, as required in the preapplication notes, to restrict
developed release rates to match existing release rates from the site for the 2-year, 10-
year, and 100-year design storm events. In addition the size of the detention facility was
increased by 30% after the control structure had been designed. A summary of the
calculation results is included below in Table 1. Detailed calculations are included in
Appendix C.
TABLE 1
Existing
Developed
Unrestricted
Developed
Restricted
Restricted with 30%
Volume Increase
2-year
0.158 cfs
0.302 cfs
0.151 cfs
0.140 cfs
10- ear
0.297 cfs
0.448 cfs
0.196 cfs
0.178 cfs
100. ear
0.461 efs
0.610 cfs
0.464 cfs
0.232 cfs
Water Quality Treatment
Water quality treatment for flows up to and including the water quality flow rate (the
developed 2-year release rate from the detention tank) will be provided in a bioswale
located at the northwest corner of the auto sales area. The bioswale will have a 12.5-foot
wide channel, a length of 50 feet, and a longitudinal slope of 0.5% in order to provide
water quality treatment per scction 4.6.4 of the 1990 KCSWDM. Detailed calculations are
included in Appendix C.
PAGE 3
Existinz Site Hydrolo�y
Soils in the vicinity of the site are Bellingham silt loam. Under existing conditions runoff
from the site drains to the stream and wetland along the west edge of the property.
Developed Site A drolo
Stormwater runoff from the site will be collected in catch basins around the site and will
then flow into a detention tank near the north end of the auto sales area where flow
control will be provided. The runoff will then be treated in a bioswale and will then be
released into the onsite wetland.
Conveyance System Analysis and Dcsizn
Calculations are included in Appendix E.
Special Reports and Studies
A downstream analysis is included in Appendix D.
Other Permits
NIA
ESC Analysis and Design
ESC measures for this project include the installation of a gravel construction entrance to
prevent construction vehicles from transporting sediment off of the site on the vehicles
tires, the installation of filter fabric fencing around the perimeter of the site in order to
prevent sediment from washing off of the site while construction is under way, and
covering or spraying disturbed areas in order to prevent air -borne transportation of
sediment. All ESC measures will meet or exceed the standards set forth in the 1990 King
County Surface Water Design Manual.
Bond quantitiesLfacgily Summaries and Declaration of Covenant
A completed Bond Quantities Worksheet is included in Appendix G.
Operation and Maintenance Manual
An Operation and Maintenance Manual has been completed and is included in Appendix
F.
PAGE 4
APPENDIX A
SITE MAP
I
f ... �_w, _ .'rR�.. .�.. ....'.Yd7�!6;�0� �%3 Y!'• ..�. �.'�.� �..'.' '2��1 �r. J ... 1 ... , ' '�. 1 fj/
O
s
°
ra
I
9
APPENDIX B
TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT WORKSHEET
King County Department of Development and Environmental Services
TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET
Part 1 PROJECT OWNER AND
PROJECT ENGINEER
Project Owner
Tom Easley.
Address
7495 1591" Place NE
Phone
(425) 885-5752
Project Engineer
Dave Dormier
Company Rupert�Engineering. Inc.
Address/Phone (253) 833-7776
Part 3 TYPE OF PERMIT
APPLICATION
❑
Subdivison
❑
Short Subdivision
Grading
�❑
Lyl
Commercial
❑
Other
Part 2 PROJECT LOCATION AND
DESCRIPTION
Project Name
Exit 7 Auto Sales
Location
Township 24 North
Range 5 East
... SE.114.... Section 29
Part 4 OTHER REVIEWS AND PERMITS
❑
DFW HPA
❑
COE 404
❑
DOE Dam Safety
❑
FENIA Floodplain
❑
COE Wetlands
Part5 SITE COMMUNITY AND DRAINAGE BASIN
Community
Renton
Drainage Basin
East Lake Washin ton — Bellevue South
Park B SITE: CHARACTERISTICS
❑ River
Stream Gypsy Creek
❑
Critical Stream Reach
❑
Depressions/Swales
❑
Lake
❑
Steep Slopes _
❑ Shoreline Management
❑ Rockery
❑ Structural Vaults
❑ Other
❑/ Floodplain
Wetlands Class 3
❑ Seeps/Springs
❑ High Groundwater Table
Groundwater Recharge
Other
Part 7 SOILS
Soil Type
Bh
Slopes
❑ Additional Sheets Attached
Part 8 DEVELOPMENT LIMITATIONS
REFERENCE
❑ Ch_ 4 —Downstream Analysis______
❑
❑
❑
❑ Additional Sheets Attached
Part 9 ESC REQUIREMENTS
MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS
DURING CONSTRUCTION
❑ Sedimentation Facilities
Stabilized Construction Entrance
Perimeter Runoff Control
Clearing and Graing Restrictions
Cover Practices
Construction Sequence
❑ Other
Erosion Potential Erosive Velcoties
S-16
LIMITATIONISITE CONSTRAINT
i r G
MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS
AFTER CONSTRUCTION
Stabilize Exposed Surface
L-1 Remove and Restore Temporary ESC Facilities
Ld Clean and Remove All Silt and Debris
Ensure Operation of Permanent Facilities
❑ Flag Limits of SAO and open space
preservation areas
❑ Other
Part 10 SURFACE WATER SYSTEM
LJ
Grass Lined
Channel
L1
Pipe System
❑
Open Channel
❑
Dry Pond
❑
Wet Pond
Lf Tank
❑ vault
❑ Energy Dissapator
L" Wetland
LI Stream
❑ Infiltration
�i Depression
Flow Dispersal
r' Waiver
L Regional
Detention
Method of Analysis
SBUH
Compensation/Mitigati
on of Eliminated Site
Storage
Brief Description of System Operation Runoff collected in catch basins will be detained in an
underground StormTech chambers stem and released to a bioswale. All design complies with the
1990 KCSWDM as directed by the Ci of Renton
Facility Related Site Limitations
Reference Facility Limitation
Part 11 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS
❑
Cast in Place vault
❑
Retaining Wall
❑
Rockery > 4' High
❑
Structural on Steep Slope
❑
Other
Part 12 EASEMENTS/TRACTS
❑ Drainage Easement
_J1 Access Easement
7 Native Growth Protection Easement
❑ Tract
L � Other
Part 13 SIGNATURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER
I or a civil engineer under my supervision my supervision have visited the site. Actual site
conditions as observed were incorporated into this worksheet and the attachments. To the best of
my knowledge the information provided here is accurate.
APPENDIX C
FLOW CONTROL AND WATER QUALITY CALCULATIONS
CONSULTING ENGINEERS/CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL
1519 West Valley Highway North/Suite 101 /Aubum, WA 98001
Post Office Box 836/Auburn,WA 98071
253-833-7776 Fax 253-939-2168
JOB EVt I. 7 4.17
SHEET NO. OF
CALCULATED BY A�-PD DATE u- �as
CHECKED BY-- DATE
SCALE
(f�=/�7
p.:[-, 0-7Ac-= CI\i
L 7RODUC7 207
Exit 7 Auto Sales
,� �• �iit�lii�i
r ' '4V
K lk , �tif�JiiJll{f
Seattle
vue
Renton
r x :a ;KritY`> It
Legend
El
F(
No
d 3w
M. IB�.r'$
"M Y
• r RdC
J F,�
RdE
vc
Asap cramw"i-T A-h:VkiS - Casyr o �C) 199Z MRI hc. ��� A G
--_ __
Hydrograph Return Period Recap
Hyd.
Hydrograph
Inflow
Peak Outflow (cfs)
Hydrograph
No.
type
Hyd(s)
--
description
(origin)
1-Yr
2-Yr
3-Yr
5-Yr
10-Yr
25-Yr
50-Yr
100 Yr
1
SBUH Runoff
0.060
0.158
----
—
0.297
0.378
0.461
Existing
2
SBUH Runoff
0.183
0.302
-
0448
0.529
0.610
Developed
4
Reservoir
2
0.116
0.151
— —
i
`
0.196
0.232
0.464
SC-310
5
Reservoir
2
0.110
0.140
--
0.178
E
i
E
0.200
0.232
SC-310 (30% Increase)
i
Proj. file: Drainage.gpw
Wednesday, Mar 22 2005, 4:53 PM
Hydraflow Hydrographs by lntelisolve
Hydrograph Summary Report
Hyd.
No.
Hydrograph
type
(origin)
Peak
blow
(cfs)
Time
interval
(min)
Time to
peak
(min)
Volume
(cult)
Inflow
hyd(s)
Maximum
elevation
(fit)
Maximum
storage
(cult)
Hydrograph
description
1
SBUH Runoff
0,158
6
480
2,612
—
---
Existing
2
SBUH Runoff
0.302
6
480
4,531
—
--
Developed
4
Reservoir
0.151
6
510
4,527
2
0.90
473
SC-310
5
Reservoir
0.140
6
516
4,526
2
E�
0.78
543
SC-310 (30% Increase)
]rainage.gpw
Return Period: 2 Year
Wednesday, Mar 22 2006, 4:53 PM
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve
Hydrograph Summary Report
Hyd.
No.
Hydrograph
type
(origin)
Peak
flow
(cis)
Time
interval
(min)
Time to
peak
(min)
Volume
(cuft)
Inflow
hyd(s)
Maximum
elevation
(ft)
Maximum
storage
(cult)
Hydrograph
description
1
SBUH Runoff
0.297
6
480
4,508
Existing
2
SBUH Runoff
0.448
6
480
6,814
f -
E
E
--
-----
Developed
4
Reservoir
0.196
6
516
6,811
! 2
E
1.45
857
SC-310
5
Reservoir
0.178
6
528
6,809
! 2
i
i
1.21
980
SC-310 (30% Increase)
]rainage.gpw
Return Period: 10 Year
Wednesday, Mar 22 2006, 4:53 PM
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve
Hydrograph Summary Report
iyd.
go.
Hydrograph
type
(origin)
Peak
flow
(Cfs)
Time
interval
(min)
Time to
peak
(min)
Volume
(Cuff)
Inflow
hyd(s)
Maximum
elevation
(ft)
Maximum
storage
(cuft)
Hydrograph
description
I
SBUH Runoff
0.461
6
480
6,935
—
--
Existing
t
SBUH Runoff
0.610
6
480
9,359
—
---
Developed
t
Reservoir
0.464
6.
492
9,356
2
2.18
1,154
SC-310
5
Reservoir
0.232
6
534
9,354
2
I
E
1.98
1,538
SC-310 (30% Increase)
Drainage.gpw
Return Period: 100 Year
Wednesday, Mar 22 2006, 4:53 PM
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve
Number of Chambers
42
Number of Chamber Rows
5
Total Width
21.3 feet
Maximum Row Length
7.00 chambers
Maximum Row Length
51.82 feet
Chamber Pit Area
1101.1 ft2
Edge Gravel
Interior Gravel
StormTech Chamber
StormTech Chamber
Incremental
Cumulative
Elevation Depth
Surface Area
Surface Area
Total Width
Surface Area
Volume (ft)
Volume (fe)
0.00 0.00
Chamber Bottom
0.50 0.50
99.63
124,54
2.43
727.3
165.2
165.2
1.00 1.00
111.67
261.54
2.16
645.1
387.9
553.1
1.50 1.50
127.03
431.74
1.46
435.9
340.2
893.2
Chamber Top
1.82 1.82
161.07
819.90
0.00
0.0
143.7
1036.9
Top of Trench
2.32 2.32
�
165.2
1202.1
1202.1 Total Volume
Pond Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs by intelisolve
Pond No. 3 - SC-310 Chambers
Pond Data
Pond storage is based on known values
Stage ! Storage Table
Wednesday, Mar 22 2006, 4:53 PM
Stage (ft)
0.00
0-50
1.00
1.50
1.82
2.32
Elevation (ft)
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
1.82
2.32
Contour area (sgft)
00
00
00
00
00
00
Incr. Storage (tuft) Total storage (cuff)
0 0
165 165
388 553
340 893
144 1,037
165 1,202
Culvert ! Orifice Structures
Weir Structures
[A]
[B]
[C]
[D]
[A] [B]
[C]
[D]
Rise (in)
= 2.50
0.00
0.00
0-00
Crest Len (ft) = 3.14 0.00
0.00
0.00
Span (in)
= 2.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
Crest Et. (ft) = 2.10 0.00
0-00
0.00
No. Barrels
= 1
0
0
0
Weir Coeff. = 3.33 0.00
0.00
0.00
Invert El. (ft)
= 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Weir Type = Rect -
-
---
Length (ft)
= 0.00
0.00
0-00
0.00
Multi -stage = No No
No
No
Slope (%)
= 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
N-Value
= .012
.000
.000
.000
Orif. CoefP.
= 0.62
0.00
0.00
0.00
Multi -Stage
= nfa
No
No
No
Exfiltration = 0.000 in/hr (Wet area) Tailwater Elev. = 0-00 ft
Nate: Culvert/Orifice outflows have been analyzed under inlet and outlet control_
Stage J Storage 1 Discharge Table
Stage
Storage
Elevation
Clv A
Clv B CIV C Clv D Wr A
Wr B Wr C Wr D Exfil Total
ft
tuft
ft
cfs
efs cfs eft cfs
cfs cfs cis cfs cfs
0.00
0
0.00
0.00
- -- - 0.00
- - - - - 0.00
0.05
17
0.05
0.00
--- - - 0.00
- - -- - 0.00
0.10
33
0.10
0.02
- - - 0-00
- --- - - 0.02
0.15
50
0.15
0.04
- - - 0.00
- - --- --- 0.04
0.20
66
0.20
0.06
- -- - 0-00
- - - - 0.05
0.25
83
0-25
0.06
- - - 0.00
- - - - - 0.06
0.30
99
0.30
0.08
- - - 0.00
- - - - - 0.08
0,35
116
0-35
0.08
- - - 0.00
- - -- -- 0-08
0.40
132
0.40
0.09
--- - - 0.00
- -~ - - 0.09
0.45
149
0.45
0.10
- - 0.00
- - - - 0.10
0.50
165
0.50
0.11
- - 0.00
- --- - - 0.11
0-55
204
0.55
0.11
--- - - 0.00
- - - --- 0.11
0.60
243
0.60
0.12
--- - --- 0.00
- --- - - - 0.12
0.65
282
0.65
0.13
- - 0.00
- - - -- 0.13
0.70
320
0.70
0.13
--- - - 0.00
- - - - 0.13
0.75
359
0.75
0.14
-- - - 0-00
-- - - - - 0.14
0.80
398
0.80
0.14
-- - - 0.00
- - --- - 0.14
0.85
437
0.85
0.15
- - - 0.00
- -- - - 0.15
0,90
476
0.90
0.15
- - - 0,00
- - -- - 0.15
0.95
514
0.95
0.16
- - - 0-00
- - --- --- 0.16
1.00
553
1.00
0.16
- - - - 0.00
- - - - 0.15
1.05
587
1.05
0.16
- - - 0-00
- - - - 0.16
1.10
621
1-10
0.17
- - - 0.00
- - -- - 0.17
1.15
655
1.15
0.17
- - -- 0-00
--- --- - - 0.17
1.20
689
1.20
0.18
- - - 0.00
--- - -- - 0.18
1.25
723
1-25
0-18
- - --- 0.00
- - - -- 0.18
1.30
757
1.30
0.19
- - 0.00
- - - - 0.19
1.35
791
1-35
0-19
- 0,00
- - - - 0.19
1-40
825
1.40
0.19
- - 0.00
- - - 0.19
1.45
859
1.45
0.20
--- --- 0.00
--- --- -- 0.20
1.50
893
1.50
0.20
- - - 0.00
--- -- - - 0.20
1-53
908
1.53
0.20
-- --- --- 0.00
- - - - - 0.20
Continues on next page- ..
SC-310 Chambers
Stage I Storage I Discharge Table
Stage
Storage
Elevation
Clv A
ft
CUR
ft
CfS
1.56
922
1.56
0.20
1.60
936
1.60
0.21
1.63
951
1.63
0,21
1.66
965
1.66
0.21
1.69
979
1.69
0.21
1.72
994
1.72
0.22
1.76
1,008
1.76
0.22
1.79
1,023
1.79
0.22
1.82
1,037
1.82
0.22
1.87
1,053
1.87
0.23
1.92
1,070
1.92
0.23
1.97
1,086
1.97
0.23
2.02
1,103
2.02
0.23
2.07
1,120
2.07
0.24
2.12
1,136
2.12
0.24
2.17
1,153
2.17
0.24
2.22
1,169
2.22
0.25
2.27
1,186
2.27
0.25
2.32
1,202
2.32
0.25
...End
Clv B Clv C Clv D Wr A Wr B Wr C Wr D EMI
Total
CfS Cfs Cfs Cf5 Cfs CfS Cfs Cf8
CfS
- - - 0.00 - - --- -
0.20
- - - 0.00 - - - -
0.21
--- - 0.00 - - - -
0.21
- - - OM - - - ---
0.21
-- - - 0.00 - - - -
0.21
- - 0.00 - --- --- -
0.22
- - - 0.00 - - - -
0.22
-- - 0.00 - --- - -
0.22
- - - 0.00 - - -
0.22
- -- --- 0.00 - - - -
0.23
- - - 0.00 - - -- -
0.23
- - - 0.00 - - - -
0.23
- - - 0.00 - - - -
0.23
- - - 0.00 - - - -
0.24
- - 0.03 - - - -
0.27
- - - 0.19 - - - -
0.44
- - - 0.43 - - - -
0.68
-- 0.73 - - - -
0.98
- - - 1.08 - - - -
1.33
Number of Chambers
60
Number of Chamber Rows
10
Total Width
34.4 feet
Maximum Row Length
6.00 chambers
Maximum Row Length
44.70 feet
Chamber Pot Area
1538.4 ft2
Edge Gravel
Interior Gravel
StormTech Chamber
StormTech Chamber
Incremental
Cumulative
Elevation Depth
Surface Area
Surface Area
Total Width
Surface Area
Volume (ft)
Volume (ft)
0.00 0.00
Chamber Bottom
0.50 0.50
85.40
192.15
2.43
1039.0
230.8
230.8
1.00 1.00
95.72
403.52
2.16
921.6
WA
779.2
1.50 1.50
108.89
666.12
1.46
622.7
481.6
1260.8
Chamber Top
1.82 1.82
138.06
1264.99
0.00
0.0
204.2
1465.0
Top of Trench
2.32 2.32
���
230.8
1695.8
1695.E Total Volume
Pond (Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Thursday, Mar 23 2006, 2:59 PM
Pond No. 4 - SC-310 Chambers(30% Incr)
Pond Data
Pond storage is based on known values
Stage I Storage Table
Stage (ft)
Elevation (ft)
Contour area (sgft)
Incr. Storage (cult)
Total storage (tuft)
0.00
0.00
00
0
0
0-50
0.50
00
231
231
1.00
1.00
00
548
779
1.50
1.50
00
482
1,261
1.82
1.82
00
204
1,465
2.32
2.32
00
231
1,696
Culvert I Orifice Structures
Weir Structures
[A]
[B]
[D]
[D]
[A]
[B]
[C]
[D]
Rise (in)
= 2.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
Crest Len (ft) = 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Span (in)
= 2.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
Crest El. (ft) = 0.00
0-00
0.00
0.00
No. Barrels
= 1
0
0
0
Weir Coeff. = 3.33
0,00
0.00
0-00
Invert El. (ft)
= 0-00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Weir Type = -
-
---
-
Length (ft)
= 0-00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Multi -Stage = No
No
No
No
Slope (%)
= 0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
N-Value
= -012
.000
.000
.000
Orif. Coeff.
= 0.62
0.00
0.00
0.00
Multistage
= nla
No
No
No
Exfiltration = 0.000 inlhr (Wet area) Tailwater
Elev.
= 0.00 ft
Note- Culvert/Orifice outflows have been analyzed under inlet and outlet control
Stage I Storage I Discharge Table
Stage
Storage
Elevation
Clv A Clv B Clv C Clv D Wr A Wr B Wr C Wr D Exfil
Total
ft
cult
ft
cfs cfs cfs cfs Cfs efs cfs cfs Cfs
cfs
0.00
0
0.00
0.00 - - - - - - -
0.00
0.05
23
0.05
0.00 --- - - - - - -- -
0.00
0-10
46
0,10
0,02 - - - - - -- - -
0.02
0.15
69
0.15
0-04 - - - -- - - - -
0.04
0.20
92
0.20
0.05 - - - - -- - - -
0.05
0.25
115
0.25
0.05 - - - -- - - --- -
0.06
0.30
138
0.30
0.08 - - - -- - - -
0.08
0.35
162
0.35
0.08 - - - - - -- - -
0.08
0.40
185
0.40
0.09 - - - - - - - - -
0.09
0.45
208
0.45
0.10 - - - - --- - -
0,10
0.50
231
0.50
0.11 - - - - - -- --
0.11
0.55
286
0.55
0.11 - - - - - -- - -
0.11
0.60
340
0.60
0.12 - - - - --- - - --
0.12
0,65
395
0.65
0.13 --- - - - - - - -
0.13
0-70
450
0.70
0.13 - - - - - - - --
0.13
0.75
505
0-75
0.14 - - - -- - - --- -
0.14
0.80
560
0.80
0.14 -- - - - - - -
0.14
0.85
615
0.85
0,15 - - - - - - -
0.15
0-90
670
0.90
0.15 - - - - - - -
0.15
0.95
724
0-95
0.16 - - -- - - --- -
0.16
1.00
779
1.00
0.16 -- - - - - -- - --
0,16
1.05
827
1.05
0-16 - - - -- - - - -
0.16
1.10
876
1.10
0.17 --- - - - - --- - ' "
0.17
1.15
924
1.15
0.17 - - -- -- - --- -
0.17
1.20
972
1.20
0.18 --- - - - - -- - -
0.18
1.25
1,020
1.25
0,18 - -- - - -- - - -
0.18
1.30
1,068
1.30
0.19 - -- - - - - - -
0,19
1.35
1,116
1.35
0.19 - - - -- - --
0,19
1.40
1,164
1.40
0.19 - - - - - -
0.19
1.45
1,213
1.45
0.20 - --- -- - - - - -
0,20
1.50
1,261
1.50
0.20 - --- --- - - - -
0.20
1.53
1,281
1.53
0.20 --- - - - -- - -
0.20
Continues on next page.-
SC-310 Chambers(30% InCr)
Stage 1 Storage ! Discharge Table
Stage
Storage
Elevation
Clv A
ft
Cuft
ft
Cfs
1.56
1,302
1.56
0.20
1.60
1,322
1.60
0-21
1.63
1,342
1.63
0.21
1,66
1.363
1.66
0.21
1.69
1,383
1.69
0.21
1.72
1,404
1,72
0.22
1-76
1,424
1.76
0.22
1-79
1,445
1,79
0.22
1.82
1,465
1-82
0.22
1.87
1,488
1-87
0.23
1.92
1,511
1.92
0.23
1.97
1,534
1.97
0-23
2.02
1,557
2.02
0.23
2.07
1,580
2.07
0-24
2.12
1,603
2.12
0.24
2.17
1,627
2.17
0.24
2.22
1,650
2.22
0.25
2.27
1,673
2.27
0.25
2-32
1,696
2.32
0.25
---End
Clv B Clv C Clv D Wr A Wr B Wr C Wr D EAU Total
Cis Cfs Cfs Cfs Cfs efs cis cis Cfs
- - 0.20
0.21
- --- - --- 0.21
0.21
_ _ - --- 0.21
- _ - - - - - 0.22
0,22
- - - - - - - 0-22
- - - - 0.22
0.23
- - - - - - - 0-23
- - - - 0.23
- - - 0.23
- _ - - - - - - 0.24
- - - - 0.24
- 0.24
- - -- - - - - 0.25
- - - - - T - - 0.25
- - -- - - - - 0.25
CONSULTING ENGINEERS/CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL
1519 West Valley Highway North/Suite 1of/Auburn, WA 98001
Post Mice Box 836/Auburn,WA 98071
253-833-7776 Fax 253-939-2168
SHEET NO
OF
CALCULATED BY ....r .._r DATE' �!
I
CHECKED BY
SCALE
���y_L�%'�,> ;.. �17
77,
0,01)
7— —
_i (J
e..7 '` 2`r11�.: ;Z.�'� ..;:Z . !wt , � I'�TY ON3
Jy
� 1
p 4!141,., y
vcp
-p��,4= 500 Ei=
DATE
Lj f
Z-
700-year Bioswale Flow
Worksheet for Trapezoidal Channel
Project Description
Project File
untitled
Worksheet
Bioswale
Flow Element
Trapezoidal Channel
Method
Manning's Formula
Solve For
Channel Depth
Input Data
Mannings Coefficient
0.027
Channel Slope
0,005000 ft/ft
Left Side Slope
3.00
H : V
Right Side Slope
3.00
H : V
Bottom Width
8.00
ft
Discharge
0.23
W/s
Results
Depth
0.63
in
Flow Area
0.43
fF
Wetted Perimeter
8.33
ft
Top Width
8,32
ft
Critical Depth
0.03
ft
Critical Slope
0.034540 ft/ft
Velocity
0.54
ft/s
Velocity Head
0.45e-2
ft
Specific Energy
0.06
ft
Froude Number
0.42
Flow is subcritical.
Mar28, 2006 i?upert Engineering FlowMaster v4.1C
09:17:37 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of t
APPENDIX D
CONVEYANCE SYSTEM CALCULATIONS
jtUviei !jwvie. ■ romw
r roj. ji,. on%rvycx,,ce.,,-yGar.SLlll
Elev. (ft)
64.00
57.00
50.00
43.00
36.00
29.00 -L
C
- Sta 2 �60.Q0 - Ln: 3
_ Sta 0+ MO- -Out all Sta 0 80.00 .- Ln _1_. Sta 1 60.00 - Ln 2 .....__.. -
- Grnd. 1. 38.65- - --Rim I.-41.76_ .._ .. - Rim 145.79 - . _ Rim . 1. 49.40
Inv.EI. 34:20 in Inv.- 1, 39.06 Out__ Inv: I: 43.QS Ou Inv. I.46,7Q Qut
- - -InY L 39.06-In - Inv:E 1.43.09 In -
I
Reach (ft)
Hydraflow Storm Sewers 2005
"A01111 Suvilet rfa111C rroj. rne: Uonv,=ya,,ce.ku-ywcjr.st,,,
Reach (ft)
Hydraflow Storm Sewers zuuh)
King County Rational Method Calculation: 25-year Storm
EXIT 7 AUTO SALES: CB#9
Rational Runoff Coefficients:
C l := 09 Al := 0.115 acre
C2 := 0.25 A2 := 0.00 acre
C3 :— 0.15 A3 := 0.00 acre
C4 := 0.30 A4 := 0.00 acre
C1'A1 + C2'A2 + C3'Aa + C4'A4
c := c = a9
c Al + A2 + A3 + A4 c
Area:
A := Al + A2 + A3 + A4 A = 0.12 acre
Peak Rainfall Intensity:
P25 := 3.40 in (taken from Figure 3.2.1.C, KCSINDM 1998)
a25 := 2.66
b25 := 0.65
Time of Concentration:
Ll := 311 L2 := 0 L3 :- 0
kR 1 := 20
sa.1 0.0365 ft
Ll
T1 :=
60 kR.1 4SOl.
kR.2 := 20
ft
so.2 = 0-01 ft
L2
T2 :=
60•kR.2- $a.2
kR.3 := 20
ft
ft
L3
T3
60•kRS so.3
Tc := if (T 1 + T2 + T3 + T4 < 63,63j, + T2 + T3 + T4)
— b25
i25"= a25'Tc
1 i�t
125 := P25-i25" hr 125 = 2.73 fir
Peak Flow Rate 3
ft
Q25:- Cc'125-A Q25 = 0.29 see
L4 := 0 (length of flow, in feet)
kR 4 := 20 (from KCSWDM
Table 3.2.1.C)
ft (longitudinal slope, ftlft
ft
L4
T4
60 kR.4' so.4
Tc = 6.3 minutes
CB#1.25-yr Rational Method 3/28/2006 10:55 AM
King County Rational Method Calculation: 25-year Storm
EXIT 7 AUTO SALES; CS#2
Rational Runoff Coefficients:
Cl := 0.9 Al := 0.197 acre
C2 := 0.25 A2 := 0.00 acre
C3 := 0.15 A3 :- 0.00 acre
C4 := 0.30 A4 := 0-00 acre
C := CIAl+C2A2+C3A3+C4A4 C =0.9
c A,+A2+A3+A4 c
Area:
A := Al + A2 + A3 + A4 A = 0.20 acre
Peak Rainfall Intensity:
P25 :— 3.40 in (taken from Figure 3.2.t.C, KCSWDM 1998)
a25 := 2.66
b25 := 0.65
Time of Concentration:
Ll := 275 L2 := 0 L3 := 0 L4 := 0
kR.1 := 20 kR.2 := 20 kR.3 :— 20 kR.4:= 20
(length of flow, in feet)
(from KCSWDM
Table 3.2.1.C)
ft ft ft ftlon Rift)
sal := 0-0436 — sa 2 := 0.01— so-=? :— 0.01— �0.4 := 0.01— (longitudinal slope,
ft ft ft R
Li L2 L3 T L4
T T T, —
60' kR.1' s 2 60•kR.2 so-2 60•kR.3- So.3 4 60 kR_4 So.4
Tc := if(Tl + T2 + T3 + T4 < 6.3,6.3,T1 + T2 + .1.3 + T4) Te = 6.3 minutes
h25
j25:= a25'Tc
1
125 := P25' i25' hr
Peak Flow Rate
Q25 := Cc-125-A
125 = 2.73 hr
ft3
Q25 = 0.49 —
sec
CB#2.25-yr Rational Method 3128/2006 10.55 AM
King County Rational Method Calculation: 25-year Storm
EXIT 7 AUTO SALES: CB#3
Rational Runoff Coefficients:
C1 := 0.9 Al 0.159 acre
C2 := 025 A2 := 0.00 acre
C3 := 0.15 A3 := 0.00 acre
C4 := 0.30 A4 := 0.00 acre
CVAI + C2-A2 + CYA3 + C4-A4
C :=
c Al+A2+A3+A4
Area:
A := Al + A2 + A3 + A4 A = 0.16 acre
Peak Rainfall Intensity:
P25 :- 3.40 in (taken from Figure 3.2.1.C, KCSWDM 1998)
2'25 ;w 2.66
b25 := 0.65
Time of Concentration:
L1 := 268 L2 := 0 L3 := 0 L4 := 0
k R-1 := 20 kR.2 := 20 kR.3 := 20 kR.4 20
(length of flow, in feet)
(from KCSWDM
Table 32.1.C)
so.l := 0.0313 ft
so 2 := 0.01 ft
So.3 ,= 0.01 $
so 4 := 0-01 ft(longitudinalslope, ft/ft)
ft
f4
ft
ft
Ll
L2
L3
L4
T 1 :=
60 • kR.1' Sa.l
T2 :=
60'kR2' So.2
T3 :=
60-kR.3' So.3
T4:=
60'kR.4' so.4
Tc .= if(T1 + T2 + T3 + T4 < 6.3,6.3,T1 + T2 + T3 + T4) Tc = 6.3 minutes
b25
'25 := a25'Tc
l
125 := P25'i25' hr
Peak Flow Rate
Q25 := Cc'I25-A
in
125 = 2.73 —
hr
R3
Q25 = 0.39 —
see
CB#3.25-yr Rational Method 3/28/2006 10:57 AM
King County Rational Method Calculation: 25-year Storm
EXIT 7 AUTO SALES: CB#4
Rational Runoff Coefficients:
C1 := 0.9 Al := 0.114 acre
C2 :- 0.25 A2 := 0.00 acre
C3 := 0.15 A3 := 0.00 acre
C4 := 0.30 A4 := 0.00 acre
= C 1 Al + C2 A2 + C3 A3 + C4 A4
C :
Al+A2+A3+A4 cc = 0.9
Area:
A := Al + A2 + A3 + A4 A - 0.11 acre
Peak Rainfall Intensity:
P25 := 3.40 in (taken from Figure 32.1_C, KCSWDM 1998)
a25 := 2,66
b25 :- 0.65
Time of Concentration:
Li := 166 L2 := 0 L3 := 0
kR.1 := 20 kR.2:= 20 kR.3 := 20
L4 := 0 (length of flow, in feet)
kR 4:= 20 (from KCSWDM
Table 3.2.1.C)
ft
so.l �= OA264 ft
ft
so.2:= 0.01 8
ft
so.3 �= OA1 ft
ft Ion slope,
so.4== a.al ft (longitudinal � � ft/ft)
L1
L2
L3
L4
1 60 - kR_1' Sa.l
2 60•kR.2' so.2
(fl-kR.3- so.3
4 60kR.4' so.4
Tc := if
(T1 + T2 + T3 + T4 < 6.3,6.3, T1 + T2 + 1'3 + T4) Tc = 6.3 minutes
- b25
i25 := a25'Tc
i
125 : = P25"25' hr
Peak Flow Rate
Q25 := Cc-125-A
in
125 = 2.73 —
hr
ft3
Q25=0.28—
sec
CB#4.25-yr Rational Method 3/28/2006 10.58 AM
King County Rational Method Calculation: 25-year Storm
EXIT 7 AUTO SALES: CB#5
Rational Runoff Coefficients:
C 1 := 0.9 A, := 0.034 acre
C2 := 0.25 A2 :— 0.00 acre
C3 := 0.15 A3 := 0.00 acre
C4 := 0.30 A4 := 0.00 acre
C := CI -Al + C2-A2 + C3'A3 + C4•A4 C =0.]
c Al+A2+A3+A4 c
Area:
A := Al + A2 + A3 + A4 A = 0-03 acre
Peak Rainfall Intensity:
P25 3.40 in (taken from Figure 3.2-1.C, KCSWDM 1998)
a25 := 2.66
b25 := 0.65
Time of Concentration:
Ll := 64 L2 := 0 L3 := 0
kR,1 := 20
so. i := 0.0109 fr
L1
Tl :_
60 • kp l• sQ-1
kR.2 .= 20
ft
So.2 0-01
ft
L2
T2
60-kR.2' Sat
kR 3 := 20
So.3 := 0.01
L3
T3 :=
60• kR.3' so.3
Tc := if + T2 + T3 + T4 < 6.3,6.3,T1 + T2 + T3 + T4)
b25
i25:= a25'Tc
1 in
125 -= P25'i25' hr 125 = 2.73 hr
Peak Flow Hate 3
ft
Q25 := Cc-125-A Q25 = 0.08 sec
L4 :— 0 (length of flow, in feet)
kR.4:= 20 (from KCSWDM
Table 3.2.1.C)
So.4 0.01 ft ft (longitudinal slope, Rift))
r.,
T4 :_
60-kR.4: Jo74
Tc = 6.3 minutes
CB#5.25-yr Rational Method 3128/2006 11:00 AM
Storm Sever Inventory report
Pa,'_ .
Line
Alignment
Flow Data
Physical Data
Line ID
No.
Dnstr
Line
DefI
June
Known
Drng
Runoff
Inlet
Invert
Line
Invert
Line
Line
N
J-loss
Inlet/
line
length
angle
type
Q
area
coeff
time
El Dn
slope
El Up
size
type
value
coeff
Rim El
No.
(ft)
(deg)
(cfs)
(ac)
(C)
(min)
(ft)
(°/o}
(ft)
(in)
(n)
(K)
(ft)
1
End 60.0
-9,0
MH
0.39
0.16
0.00
0.0
34.20
8.10
39.06
8
Cir
0.012
0.19
41.76
CB#3 to CB#1
2
I
1 100.0
9.0
MH
0.28
0.11
0.00
0.0
39,06
4.03
43.09
8
Cir
0.012
0.15
45.79
CB#4 to CB#3
3
2 100.0
0.0
MH
0.08
0.03
0.00
0.0
43.09
3.61
46.70
8
Cir
0.012
1.00
49.40
CB#5 to CB#4
4
End 52.0
i
i
180,0
MH
0.49
0.20
0.00
0.0
34.20
0.19
34.30
8
Cir
0.012
1.00
36.30
CB#2 to CB#1
Project File: Conveyance.25-year.stm
Number of lines: 4
Date: 03-30-2006
Hydraflow Storm Sewers 2005
Storm Sewer Summary Report
Page 1
Line
No_
Line ID
Flow
rate
(cfs)
Line
size
(in)
Line
length
(ft)
Invert
EL Dn
(ft)
Invert
EL lip
(ft)
Line
slope
(°10)
HGL
down
(ft)
HGL
up
(ft)
Minor
loss
(ft)
HGL
Junct
(ft)
Dns
line
No.
1
CM to CB#1
0.75
8 c
60.0
34.20
39.06
8.100
35.70
39.47
nfa
39.47 j
End
2
CB#4 to CB#3
0.36
8 c
100.0 1
39.06
43.09
4.030
39.63
43.37
nla
43.37 j
1
3
CB#5 to CB#4
0.08
8 C
100.0
43.09
46.70
3.610
43.47
46.83
nla
46.83 j
2
4
CB#2 to CB#1
0.49
8 c
52.0
c
I
i
E
34.20
34.30
0.192
35.70`
35.77'
0.03
35.80
End
Project
File: Conveyance.25-year.stm
Number
of lines:
4
Run
Date: 03-30-2006
NOTES: c = cir; e = ellip; b = box; Return period = 25 Yrs. ; "Surcharged (HGL above crown). ; j - Line contains hyd. jump.
HyCVWIQW b MA JBWeM /VC6
Storm Sewer Tabulation
Pa. _ -
Station
Len
Drng Area
Rnoff
Area x C
Tc
Rain
Total
Cap
Vel
Pipe
Invert Elev
HGL Elev
Grnd 1 Rim Elev
Line ID
coeff
(I)
flow
full
Llne
To
Incr
Total
Inlet
Syst
S1zT(.4
Up
Dn
Up
Dn
Up
Dn
L(ft)
71norTotal
(C)
(min)
(min)
(Inlhr)
(cfs)
(cfs)
(ft!s)
(In
(ft)
(ft)
(ft)
(ft)
(ft)
(ft)
1
End
60,0 0.16
0.30
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
2.6
0.0
0.75
3.72
2.75
8
8.10
39.06
34.20
39,47
35.70
41.76
38.65
C13#3 to CB#1
2
1
100.0 0.11
0.14
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
1.7
0.0
0.36
2.63
1.85
8
4.03
43.09
39.06
43.37
39.63
45.79
41.76
CB#4 to CB#3
3
2
100.0 0.03
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.08
2.49
1.00
8
3.61
46.70
43.09
46.83
43.47
49.40
45.79
CB#5 to CB#4
4
i
End
52.0 0.20
E
I
i
E
0.20
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.49
0.57
1.40
8
0.19
34.30
34.20
35.77
35,70
36.30
38.65
CB#2 to C541
Project File: Conveyance.25-year.stm
Number of lines: 4
Run Date: 03-30-2006
NOTES: Intensity = 102.61 / (Inlet time + 16.50)" 0.82: Return period = 25 Yrs.
HydraFlow Storm Sewers 2005
Storm Sewer r rotn e
,-j. fil— --nve, _.._-.10 _ , _ __r.st
Elev. (ft)
64'00 _ Sta 0+ 0.00 - Out all _ Sta 0 60.00 - Ln .1 ._ _. Sta 1 60.00 - Ln 2 Sta 2 60.00 - Lm 3
- -
-FG
.EI. 34 20 In,- nv 1. 39.06 Out - I
vm L 43.09 Du - Inv. E 1. 49.40
.70
I. 46.70 Out
36.00 -
29.00
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275
Reach (ft)
Hydraffow Storm Sewers 2005
Storm Sewer Profile
. -di. fi,�,..,..nv-,u� ,..e,1 - , ar.s....
Elev. (ft)
42.00
40.00
4: "11,
QtO U VU.VV - V tIGln LO V-FI U.V - LI I. It
Grad. -I. 38.65- im EL 35. 0 -
Inv, EI. 34.20 In I v. EI.34. 0 Out
Reach (ft)
Hydraflow Storm Sewers 2005
King County Rational Method Calculation: 100-year Storm
EXIT 7 AUTO SALES: CB#1
Rational Runoff Coefficients:
C1 := 0.9 Al := 0.115 acre
C2 := 025 A2 :— 0.00 acre
C3 := 0.15 A3 := 0.00 acre
C4 := 0.30 A4 := 0.00 acre
CFAI + C2-A2 + C3-A3 + C4-A4
C := C = 0.9
Al +A2+A3+A4
Area:
A := Al + A2 + A3 + A4 A = 0.12 acre
Peak Rainfall Intensity:
P100:= 3.9 in (taken from Figure 3.2.1-D, KCSWDM 1998)
ai00:= 2-61
b 100 0.63
Time of Concentration:
L1 := 311 L2 := 0 L3 := 0
k,,,:= 20
0.0365 ft
ft
L1
60 • kR.I' so.1
kR.2.= 20
ft
so.2 := 0.01
L2
TZ :_
60 • kR.2' sa.2
kR 3 :— 20
ft
so i := 0,01 $
L3
T3 :_
60-kR.3' sa3
Tc := if (Ti + T2 + T3 + T4 < 6.3,6.3,TI + T2 + T3 + T4)
b100
iloo:= a100'Tc
1 in
1100 P100'i100' hr 1100 = 3.19 hr
Peak Flow Rate
ft3
Q100 := Cc'1100'A Q100 = 0-33 Sec
sec
L4 :- 0 (length of flow, in feet)
kR.4 := 20 (from KCSWDM
Table 3.2.1.C)
so 4:= 0.01 (longitudinal slope, ftJft)
ft
1'.
T4 :_
60•kRA' so-4
Tc = 6.3 minutes
CB#1.100-yr Rational Method 3/28/2006 11:01 AM
Kind County Rational Method Calculation: 100-year Storm
EXIT 7 AUTO SALES: CB#2
Rational Runoff Coefficients:
C l := 0.9 A l := 0.197 acre
C2 := 0.25 A2 := 0.00 acre
C3 0.15 A3 := 0.00 acre
C4 := 0.30 A4 := 0.00 acre
Ct-Al + C2-A2 + C3•A3 + C4-A4
cc:- C = 0.9
Al+A2+A3+A4 c
Area:
A .= Al + A2 + A3 + A4 A = 0-20 acre
Peak Rainfall Intensity:
P100 := 3.9 in (taken from Figure 3.2-1-D, KCSWDM 1998)
a100 := 2.61
b 100 := 0.63
Time of Concentration:
L, := 275 L2 := 0 L3 := 0
k1L 1 := 20 kR.2 := 20 kR.3 :— 20
so 1 := 0.0436 fl
L1
T 1 :=
60 • kRt I - So. I
so.2 := 0.01 8
L2
T2
60•kR.2 so.2
ft
$a.3 -- 0.01 ft
L3
T ; :-
'i0-kR.3- So.3
Tc:= if(Tl +T2+T3+T4<6.3,6.3,T1+T2+T3+T4)
b100
i100:= a100'Tc
I in
1100 := P100,`100 hr 1100 = 3.19 hr
Peak Flog Rate 3
ft
Q100 := Cc-1100-A Q100 = 0.57—
sec
L4 '= 0 (length of flow, in feet)
kR.4:= 20 (from KCSWDM
Table 3.2.1.C)
so.4:= 0.01 ft ft (longitudinal slope, ftlft)
I..
T4 :=
60-kR.4' SoA
Tc = 6.3 minutes
CB#2.100-yr Rational Method 3/28/2006 11:01 AM
King County Rational Method Calculation: 100-yearStor►rr
EXIT 7 AUTO SALES: CB#3
Rational Runoff Coefficients:
Cl := 0.9 Al := 0.159 acre
C2 := 0.25 A2 := 0.00 acre
C3 := 0.15 A3 := 0.00 acre
C4 := 0.30 A4 := 0.00 acre
C1'A1 + C2-A2 + C3-A3 + C4-A4
C := C = 0.9
c c
Al+A2+A3+A4
Area:
A:=Al+A2+A3+A4 A=0.16acre
Peak Rainfall Intensity:
P100 := 3.9 in (taken from Figure 3.2.1.D, KCSWDM 1998)
a100 := 2.61
b100 := 0.63
Time of Concentration:
Ll := 268 L2 := 0 1.3 := 0
L4 := 0 (length of flow, in feet)
kR.1 :— 20 kR.2:— 20 kR.3 := 20
kR.4:= 20 (from KCSWDM
Table 3.2.1.C)
ft ft ft
So.1 := 0.0313 --- sa2 :� 4.01— so.3 := 0.0I --
ft sloe ft/ft)
so.4 := 0.01— (longitudinal P
ft ft ft
ft
Ll L2 L3
L4
Tl:= T2:= T3:_
60 - kR.1' So.l 60kR.2 50.2 60-kR.3' so.3
T4:=
60-kR.4' Sa.4
Tc := if(Tl + T2 + T3 + T4 < 6.3,6.3,T1 + T2 + T3 + T4) Tc
= 6.3 minutes
—6l00
1100 '— a 100' Tc
1 in
1100 := P100'i100' 1100 = 3.19
hr hr
Peak Flow Rate 3
ft
Q100 -= Cc-I100-A Q100 = 0-46
sec
C8#3.100-yr Rational Method 3/28/2006 11:02 AM
King County Rational Method Calculation: 900-year Storm
EXIT 7 AUTO SALES: CE#4
Rational Runoff Coefficients:
C 1 := 0.9 Al := 0.114 acre
C2 025 A2 := 0.00 acre
C3 := 0.15 A3 := 0.00 acre
C4 := 0.30 A4 := 0.00 acre
C := C1 AI +C2A2+C3 A3+C4A4 C =0.9
c Al+A2+A3+A4 c
Area:
A.= At + A2 + A3 + A4 A=0.11acre
Peak Rainfall Intensity:
P100 := 3.9 in (taken from Figure 3.2.1.D, KCSWDM 1998)
a100 2.61
b100 0.63
Time of Concentration;
LI := 166 L2:= 0 L3 := 0 L4:= 0
kR.l := 20 kR 2 := 20 kR 3 :— 20 kR 4 := 20
(length of flow, in feet)
(from KCSWDM
Table 3.2.1.C)
ft slope, ftlft
So.l �= 0.0264-ft -- sQ 2 := 0.01ft — so.3 := 0.01ft — sa.4 := 0.01— (longitudinal p )
ft ft ft ft
L1 L2 L3 T L4
T2 := T3 =_
4
60 • kR.I- $o.l 60 kR.2 So.2 60.ki�.3. So.3 60•kR.4 So.4
Te := if(T1 + T2 + T3 + T4 < 6.3,6.3,T1 + T2 + T3 + T4) Tc = 6.3 minutes
— b100
i100-= aloo-Tc
i in
1100 P 100' 1100' hr 1100 = 3.19 hr
Peak Flow Rate 3
ft
Q100 Cc'1100-A Q100 = 0.33 Sec
CB#4.100-yr Rational Method 3/281200611:02 AM
King County Rational Method Calculation: 100-year Storm
EXIT 7 AUTO SALES: CB#5
Rational Runoff Coefficients:
C 1 0.9 Al := 0.034 acre
C2 := 0.25 A2 := 0.00 acre
C3 := 0.15 A3 0.00 acre
C4 := 0.30 A4 .= 0.00 acre
C := CIAl+C2A2+C3A3+C4A4 C =0.9
c Al + A2 +- A3 + A4 c
Area:
A := Al + A2 + A3 + A4 A = 0.03 acre
Peak Rainfall Intensity:
P10O := 3-9 in (taken from Figure 3.2.1.D, KCSWDM 1998)
a10O := 2.61
b10O := 0.63
Time of Concentration:
L1 := 64 L2:= 0 13 0
kl_ 1 := 20
sol:=O.0109ft
Ll
T 1 :—
60 • kR 1..1
kR.2 := 20
ft
So.2:= 0.01 #t
L2
T2
60•kR.2' so.2
kR.3 :- 20
ft
so 3 := 0.01 -
L3
T3 :_
60•kR.3' sa_3
Tc := if (Ti + T2 + T3 + T4 ¢ 6.3,6.3,T1 + T2 + T3 + .f4)
— b100
'100 a100'Tc
1 in
1100 '_ P 100' i 100' hr 1100 =3.19 hr
Peak Flow Rate 3
Q100 Cc'11O0-A Q100 = 0.10 ft
sec
L4 := 0 (length of flow, in feet)
kR4:= 20 (from KCSWDM
Table 3.2.1.C)
s 0.01 ft (longitudinal slope, ftlft)
0_4 == ft
L4
T4 :-
60•kR.4- So.4
Tc = 6.3 minutes
CB#5.1 OO-yr Rational Method 3/28t20O6 11:03 AM
atoms Svvve1 n ive,11Lury mepu,
Page 1
Line
Alignment
flow Data
Physical Data
Line ID
No.
Dnstr
Line
Deft
Junc
Known
Dmg
Runoff
Inlet
Invert
Line
Invert
Line
Line
N
J-lass
Inlett
line
length
angle
type
Q
area
coeff
time
El Dn
slope
El Up
size
type
value
coeff
Rim El
No.
(ft)
(deg)
(cfs)
(ac)
(C)
(min)
(ft)
N
(ft)
(in)
(n)
(K)
(ft)
1
End
60.0
-9.0
MH
0.46
0.16
0.00
0.0
34.20
8.10
39.06
8
Cir
0.012
0.19
41.76
CB#3 to CB#1
2
1
100.0
9.0
MH
0.33
0.11
0.00
0.0
39.06
4.03
43.09
8
Cir
0.012
0.15
45.79
CB#4 to CB#3
3
2
100.0
0.0
MH
0.10
0.03
0.00
0.0
43.09
3.61
46.70
8
Cir
0.012
1.00
49.40
CB#5 to CB#4
4
End
62.0
i
180.0
MH
0.57
0.20
0.00
0.0
34.20
i
0.19
34.30
8
Cir
0.012
1.00
36.30
CB#2 to CD#1
Project Fite: Conveyance.100-year.stm
Number of lines: 4
Date: 03-30-2006
Hydretlow Storm Sewers 2005
Storm Sewer Summary report
Page 1
Line
Line ID
Flow
Line
Line
invert
Invert
Line
HGL
Ht'aL
Minor
HGi_
Dns
No.
rate
size
length
EL Dn
EL Up
slope
down
up
loss
Junct
line
(cis)
{in)
(fta
(ft)
{ft)
N
{ft)
(ft)
(R)
(ft)
No.
1
CB#3 to CB#1
0.89
8 c
60.0
34.20
39.06
8.100
36.18
39.50
n/a
39.50 j
End
2
CB#4 to C8#3
0.43
8 c
100.0
39.06
43.09
4.030
39.68
43.40
n/a
43.40 j
1
3
CM to CB#4
0.10
8 c
100.0
43.09
46.70
3.610
43.51
46.85
n/a
46.85 j
2
4
CB#2 to CB#1
0.57
8 c
52.0
34.20
i
E
34.30
0.192
36.18"
36.28'
0.04
36.32
End
Project File: Conveyance.100-year.stm
Number of lines: 4
Run Date: 03-30-2006
NOTES: c = cir; e = ellip; b = box; Return period = 100 Yrs. ; "Surcharged (HGL above crown)_ ; j - Line contains hyd. jump.
HydraRaw Storm Sewers 1W7
%,..Orel Stmer , abull0d011
Page 1
Station
Len i
Drng Area
Rnoff
Area x C
To
Rain
Total
Gap
Vel
Pipe
Invert Elev
HGL Elev,
Gmd 1 Rim Elev
Line ID
caeff
(I)
flow
full
Line
To
lncr
Total
Incr
Total
Inlet
Syst
Size
Slope
Up
Dn
Up
Dn
Up
Dn
Line
(ft)
(ac)
(ac)
(C)
(min)
(min)
(Inlhr)
(efs)
(cfs)
(ftls)
(in)
(ft)
(ft)
(ft)
(ft)
(ft)
(ft)
1
End
60.0
0.16
0.30
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
2.4
0,0
0.89
3.72
3.07
8
8.10
39.06
34.20
39,50
36,18
41.76
38.66
CB#3 to CB#1
2
1
100.0
0.11
0.14
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
1.6
0.0
0.43
2.63
1.99
8
4.03
43.09
39.06
43.40
39.68
45.79
41.76
CB#4 to CB#3
3
2
100.0
0.03
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.10
2.49
1.07
8
3.61
46.70
43.09
46.85
43,51
49.40
45.79
CB#5toCB#4
4
f
End
52.0
0.20
`I
I
I
�
IE
I
E
0.20
i
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
I
I
0.0
0.0
0.57
0.57
1.63
8
0.19
34.30
34.20
36.28
36.18
�
36.30
38.65
CB#2 to C8#1
Project File; Conveyarice. 100-year.strn
Number of lines: 4
Run Date: 03-30-2006
NOTES: Intensity = 127.16 1 (Inlet time + 17.80) " 0.82; Return period = 100 Yrs.
Hydreflaw Storm Stowers 2005
APPENDIX E
OFFSITE ANALYSIS
a
.Astw j4d ov.
a7A`Edc66Y5RpA9401�pSa35fA!!]
55iott.,2a a'
4--
a
I\
C_7
Ce)bW
z
a.
a
u.l
0 -.
0
cg
<
v Q
HL6
"
a yr
Q a
�t
[r
►anal
�i
at N
L..L
w�
J
i
rr ■r rr �r r r� rr rr r rr rr ■r rr r +r rr rr r� rr
f 1r�
' / / r /� Vr J rl♦ r
/ J
IIr"ly
'
,
Cf
/' f '�••ka. r / ref ,".fir rf �. ..=,,
/ , ,S, I r �- , i\�!i�y�'yJ}; L,I �/ ,J•J r f f/�� �` r ?
•' o f / r r .�
f!, J,' r f H I
I/
./11 DENNY'S
J r /ly
RESTAURANT
kR��r •,Jr , / r ' / �,r' �/ / y' / / -C�---- - - - --- - .. --
�. �J, LJ' ! r / r J '�r +�•l I � r ry
1K
�� S�CL
1���� 1r7
LLJ
F-
,
�,7 J
King County
0�....
Exit 7 Auto Sales
-we *W
f Y
4� WWrA 4,11 I 'S e
IT
A=;
411
f
'Pit , 4.19b
N
A
3
XN'
dr
%
44�
r
.7
THAST
�O 'I WC�l�f`;s
fZ-II
y
5R P
AC12WiKinq
The information inducted on this map has been compiled by King County staff from a variety of sources and is subject to change Without notice.
King County Makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, Completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such
information. King County shall not be liable for any general, special, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages including, but not limited to,
lost revenues or lost profits resulting from the use or misuse of the information contained on this map. Any sale of this map or information on
this map is prohibited except by written permission of KinQ County.
K;ng County I GIS Center I Nevis I er reps I Coinmenis I Search
By visiting this and other King County web pages, you expressly agree to be bound by terms and conditions of the site. The details
OFF -SITE ANALYSIS DRAINAGE SYSTEM TABLE
SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL, CORE REQUIREMENT #2
Basin: A (6(�:, n Sabbasin Name:
Subbasin Number:
Symbol
Drainage
Component Type,
Name, and Size
Drainage
Component
Description
Slope
Distance
from site
discharge
Existing
Problems
Potential
Problems
Observations of field
inspector, resource
reviewer, or resident
see map
Type: sheet flow, swale,
stream, channel, pipe,
pond; Size: diameter,
surface area
drainage basin, vegetation,
cover, depth, type of sensitive
area, volume
�/
IG
'/A ml = 1,320 ft.
constrictions, under capaclty, ponding,
overtopping, flooding, habitat or organism
destruction, scouring, bank sloughing,
incision other erosion
tributary area, likelihood of problem,
overflow pathways, potential impacts
h
'fsedimentation,
7—WW
C -D17Ck l
Name
hl�N�
111105
Basin; J )nvdm9M9AM (124
OFF -SITE ANALYSIS DRAINAGE SYSTEM TABLE
SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL, CORE REQUIREMENT #2
Subbasin Name:
Subbasin Number:
Symbol
Drainage
Component Type,
Name and Size
Drainage
Component
Descri tion
Slope
Distance
from site
discharge
Existing
Problems
Potential
Problems
Observations of field
inspector, resource
reviewer, or resident
see map
Type: sheet flow, Swale,
stream, channel, pipe,
pond; Size: diameter,
surface area
drainage basin, vegetation,
cover, depth, type of sensitive
area, volume
%
1/4 mi = 1,320 ft.
constrictions, under capacity, ponding,
overtopping, flooding, habitat or organism
destruction, scouring, bank sloughing,
sedimentation, incision, other erosion
tributary area, likelihood of problem,
overflow pathways, potential impacts
of 'pl
f rJ
Q1 12rt?iaP1N
o N6W
'�PlZ05L9MS
NO tVAgL M 5 AJ
ipU �Idt 8i
tDl 19�dt D ' CrrLt
e P
r 1 �-7�?
q'
I Via �lf�
11I105
Site Improvement Bond Quantity Worksheet Web date: 11/2112005
@) King County
Department of [development & Environmental Services
900 Oakesdale Avenue Southwest
Renton, Washington 98055-1219 For alternate formats, call 206-296-6600.
206-296-6600 7TY 206-296-7217
Project Name: - Exit 7 Auto Sales Date: 3/28/2006
Lacitibn: 1700 NE 44th Street NE, Renton, WA
Clearing gr_;r: -ut fil>a.n or equal to 5,000 board feet of timber?
yes
If yes,
Forest Practice Permit Number:
(RC11d 76.09)
Page 1 of 9
Bond Quantities Worksheet.xls
7C no
Project No.:
Activity No.:
(Vote: All prices include labor, equipment, materials, overhead and
profit. Prices are from IRS Means data adjusted for the Seattle area
or from local sources if not included in the RS Means database.
Unit prices updated: 02/12/02
Version: 04/22/02
Report Date: 3/29/2006
APPENDIX F
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL
MAINTENANCE & OPERATION MANUAL
for
E)IT 7 AUTO SALES
Site Address:
The project is located in the SE'/4 - Township 29 — Range 5 East, W-M., 1700
NE 44Eh Street, Renton, WA. The tax parcel number is 3343301150.
Introduction:
This storm drainage maintenance and operation manual has been prepared to
address the City of Renton's site development and storm drainage
requirements for the proposed Exit 7 Auto Sales project. The site has an area
of approximately 1.87 acres and is currently undeveloped. The subject site
will be developed as a auto sales lot.
When developed, the subject site will be covered with 0.70 acres of aspalt
paved sales area and a 480 SF sales trailer. The rest of the site will be
covered with a wetland, stream and a sensitive areas buffer.
According to the City of Renton's Standards for storm water management, the
city requires storm water quantity and quality control to all qualifying proposed
developments. We have proposed to collect all of the storm water runoff from
the building and pavement areas in a series of catch basins. This water will be
conveyed by storm drainage pipe to a StormTech stormwater detention
system located near the north end of the auto sales area. Here the stoma
water will be released into biofiltration Swale and from there into the existing
on -site wetland at the northwest corner of the site. The wetland releases runoff
directly into the public system located in Lake Washington Boulevard.
Plan Goal
The specific purpose for the storm water facility is to minimize pollution that is
typically associated with modern development. In general, pollution from
motor vehicles and pollution generated from erosion. Attached to this
narrative is a maintenance manual, which offers guidelines to the owner for
storm water facility maintenance.
Prevention BIVIFS
The catch basins shall have ster:dlred on them "DUMP NO WASTE — DRAINS
TO STREAM." The owner sharp be responsible for sweeping the lot, installing
storm drainage stenciling and pi oAjl e spill control procedures. In case of spill
call DOE at 1-425-549-7000. The catch basins, detention/wet pond, and
control structures will be visually inspected for accumulation of debris and silt
and will be maintained as required by this pollution prevention plan and
attachments.
• Maintenance Standards for Drainage Facilities
No. 3 — Closed Detention Systems
No. 4 — Control Structure/Flow Restrictor
No. 5 — Catch Basins
No. 7 — Energy Dissipaters
No. 8 — Typical Biofiitration Swale
(Department of Ecology Storm Water Manual, August 2001).
Treatment 13MP'S
A bioinfiltration swale will be installed to treat runoff for conventional
pollutants. The bioswale was designed to treat the restricted peak runoff rate
from the developed 2-year storm event (water quality storm) for water quality
treatment. In addition, the detention pond was designed to detain the volume
created from releasing the existing 2-year, 10, and 100-year storm events,
while holding the developed 2-year, 10, and 100-year storm volumes.
The City of Renton Utilities Section is to review and approve any changes to
this Maintenance & Operations Manual prior to changes in its implementation.
Additionally, any changes in ownership or person of responsibility are to be
reported to the City Utilities Sections.
Inspection 1 Maintenance:
Regular inspections of the drainage facilities should be carried out twice per
year, in the spring and fall. The responsible party should keep records of
these inspections available for review by the City. Additional inspections may
be required after severe seasonal storms.
Routine maintenance of the site will include mowing, care of landscaping and
the removal of trash and debris from the drainage system. The parking lots
and driveways should be kept clean and in repair. Events such as major
storms or heavy winds will require immediate inspections for damages.
To ensure proper water quality and treatment, the bioinfiltration swale must be
properly maintained. Be careful to avoid introducing landscape fertilizer to
receiving waters or group ,jv-nter. Ix bioinfiltration swale side slopes become
eroded over 2" deep, stabili:ee by using appropriate erosion control measures
(e.g., rock reinforcement, p: ar;t `¢g of grass, compaction).
Catch Basins shall be cleaned when sump is 1/3' full of sediment or debris.
Person of Responsibility,
Tom Easley
7495 159th Place NE
Redmond, WA 98052
(425) 885-5752
Design Engineer:
Rupert Engineering, Inc.
Dave Dormier, PE
1519 West Valley Highway North
Auburn, WA 98001
(253) 833-7776
Plan and f or Information Updates:
The City of Renton Utilities Section is to review and approve any changes to
this Maintenance and Operation Manual prior to changes in its
implementation. Additionally, any changes in ownership or person of
responsibility are to be reported to the City Utilities Sections.
INSPECTIONIMAINTENANCE CHECKLIST
STRUCTURE
DATE OF INSPECTION/MAINTENANCE
Results/
Maintenance
Date
Inspection
CB#1
Results
Maintenance
Done
CB#2 (Flow Control
Inspection
Structure)
Results
Maintenance
Done
Inspection
CB#3
Results
Maintenance
Done
Inspection
CB#4
Results
Maintenance
Done
Inspection
CB#5
Results
Maintenance
Done
StormTech
Inspection
Detention Pond
Results
Maintenance
Done
Inspection
Conveyance Pipes
Results
Maintenance
Dane
Maintenance Standards for Drainage Facilities
The facility -specific maintenance standards contained in this section are intended to
be conditions for determining if maintenance actions are required as identified
through inspection. They are not intended to be measures of the facility's required
condition at all times between inspections. In other words, exceeding these
conditions at any time between inspections and/or maintenance does not
automatically constitute a violation of these standards. However, based upon
inspection observations, the inspection and maintenance schedules shall be
adjusted to minimize the length of time that a facility is in a condition that requires a
maintenance action.
No, 3 — Closed Detention Systems (ranksNaults)
Maintenance
Defect
Conditions When Maintenance is Needed
Results Expected
Component
when Maintenance is
Performed
Storage Area
Plugged Air Vents
One-half of the cross section of a vent is
Vents open and
blocked at any point or the vent is damaged.
functioning.
Debris and Sediment
Accumulated sediment depth exceeds 1 U°/a
Ali sediment and
of the diameter of the storage area for 112
debris removed from
length of storage vault or any point depth
storage area.
exceeds 15% of diameter.
(Example: 72-inch storage tank would
require cleaning when sediment reaches
depth of 7 inches for more than 1/2 length of
tank.)
Joints Between
Any openings or voids allowing material to
All joint between
Tank/Pipe Section
be transported into facility.
tank/pipe sections
are sealed.
(Will require engineering analysis to
determine structural stability).
Tank Pipe Bent out
Any part of tank/pipe is bent out of shape
Tank/pipe repaired or
of Shape
more than 10% of its design shape. (Review
replaced to design.
required by engineer to determine structural
stability).
Vault Structure
Cracks wider than 1/2-inch and any
Vault replaced or
Includes Cracks in
evidence of soil particles entering the
repaired to design
Wall, Bottom,
structure through the cracks, or
specifications and is
Damage to Frame
maintenance/inspection personnel
structurally sound.
and/or Top Slab
determines that the vault is not structurally
sound_
Cracks wider than 112-inch at the joint of
No cracks more than
any inlet'outlet pipe or any evidence of soil
1/4-inch wide at the
particles entering the vault through the
joint of time inletioutlet
walls_
pipe.
No. 3 - Closed Detention Systems (TanksNaults)
Maintenance
Defect
Conditions When Maintenance is Needed
Results Expected
Component
When Maintenance is
Performed
Manhole
Cover Not in Place
Cover is missing or only partially in place.
Manhole is closed.
Any open manhole requires maintenance.
Locking Mechanism
Mechanism cannot be opened by one
Mechanism opens
Not Working
maintenance person with proper tools.
with proper tools.
Bolts into frame have less than 1/2 inch of
thread (may not apply to self-locking lids).
Cover Difficult to
One maintenance person cannot remove lid
Cover can be
Remove
after applying normal lifting pressure. Intent
removed and
is to keep cover from sealing off access to
reinstalled by one
maintenance.
maintenance person.
Ladder Rungs unsafe
Ladder is unsafe due to missing rungs,
Ladder meets design
misalignment, not securely attached to
standards_ Allows
structure wall, rust, or cracks.
maintenance person
safe access.
Catch Basins
See "Catch Basins"
See "Catch Basins" (No. 5).
See "Catch Basins"
(No. 5)
I
I (No. 5)_
No. 4 -- Control StructurelFlow Restrictor
Maintenance
Defect
Condition When Maintenance is Needed
Results Expected
Component
When Maintenance
is Performed
General
Trash and Debris
Material exceeds 25% of sump depth or 1
Control structure
(Includes Sediment)
foot below orifice plate.
orifice is not blocked.
All trash and debris
removed.
Structural Damage
Structure is not securely attached to
Structure securely
manhole wall.
attached to wall and
outlet pipe.
Structure is not in upright position (allow up
Structure in correct
to 10% from plumb).
position.
Connections to outlet pipe are not watertight
Connections to outlet
and show signs of rust.
pipe are water tight;
structure repaired or
replaced and works
as designed_
Any holes --other than designed holes --in
the structure.
Structure has no
holes other than
designed holes.
No. 4 — Control Structure/Flow Restrictor
Maintenance
Component
Defect
Condition When Maintenance is Needed
Results Expected
When Maintenance
is Performed
Cleanout Gate
Damaged or Missing
Cleanout gate is not watertight or is missing_
Gate is watertight
and works as
designed.
Gate cannot be moved up and down by one
maintenance person.
Gate moves up and
down easily and is
watertight.
Chainfrod leading to gate is missing or
damaged_
Chain is in place and
works as designed.
Gate is rusted over 50% of its surface area.
Gate is repaired or
replaced to meet
design standards.
Orifice Plate
Damaged or Missing
Control device is not working properly due
to missing, out of place, or bent orifice plate.
Plate is in place and
works as designed.
Obstructions
Any trash, debris, sediment, or vegetation
blocking the plate.
Plate is free of all
obstructions and
works as designed.
Overflow Pipe
Obstructions
Any trash or debris blocking (or having the
potential or blocking) the overflow pipe.
Pipe is free of all
obstructions and
works as designed_
Manhole
See "Closed
Detention Systems"
(No. 3)_
See "Closed Detention Systems" (No. 3)_
See "Closed
Detention Systems"
(No. 3).
Catch Basin
See "Catch Basins"
(No. 5).
See Catch Basins" (No. 5)_
1
See "Catch Basins'
(No. 5)_
No. 5 — Catch Basins
Maintenance
Defect
Conditions When Maintenance is Needed
Results Expected When
Component
Maintenance is
perfonned
General
Trash &
Trash or debris which is located immediately
No Trash or debris
Debris
in front of the catch basin opening or is
located immediately in
blocking in letting capacity of the basin by
front of catch basin or on
more than 10%.
grate opening.
Trash or debris (in the basin) that exceeds 60
No trash or debris in the
percent of the sump depth as measured from
catch basin.
the bottom of basin to invert of the lowest
pipe into or out of the basin, but in no case
less than a minimum of six inches clearance
from the debris surface to the invert of the
lowest pipe_
Trash or debris in any inlet or outlet pipe
Inlet and outlet pipes free
blocking more than 1/3 of its height.
of trash or debris.
Dead animals or vegetation that could
No dead animals or
generate odors that could cause complaints
vegetation present within
or dangerous gases (e.g_, methane).
the catch basin.
Sediment
Sediment (in the basin) that exceeds 60
No sediment in the catch
percent of the sump depth as measured from
basin
the bottom of basin to invert of the lowest
pipe into or out of the basin, but in no case
less than a minimum of 6 inches clearance
from the sediment surface to the invert of the
lowest pipe.
Structure
Top slab has holes larger than 2 square
Top slab is free of holes
Damage to
inches or cracks wider than 114 inch
and cracks.
Frame and/or
Top Slab
(Intent is to make sure no material is running
into basin)_
Frame not sitting flush on top slab, i.e.,
Frame is sitting flush on
separation of more than 314 inch of the frame
the riser rings or top slab
from the top slab_ Frame not securely
and firmly attached.
attached
Fractures or
Maintenance person judges that structure is
Basin replaced or
Cracks in
unsound,
repaired to design
Basin Walls/
standards.
Bottom
Grout fillet has separated or cracked wider
Pipe is regrouted and
than 1/2 inch and longer than 1 foot at the
secure at basin wall.
joint of any inlet/outlet pipe or any evidence
of soil particles entering catch basin through
cracks.
Settlement/
If failure of basin has created a safety,
Basin replaced or
Misalignment
function, or design problem_
repaired to design
standards.
Vegetation
Vegetation growing across and blocking
No vegetation blocking
more than 10% of the basin opening_
opening to basin.
Vegetation grcv ing in inletloutlet pipe joints
No vegetation or root
that is more than six inches tall and less than
growth present.
six inches apart.
No. 5 — Catch Basins
Maintenance
Defect
Conditions When Maintenance is Needed
Results Expected When
Component
Maintenance is
performed
Contamination
See "Detention Ponds" (No. 1).
No pollution present.
and Pollution
Catch Basin
Cover Not in
Cover is missing or only partially in place.
Catch basin cover is
Cover
Place
Any open catch basin requires maintenance.
closed
Locking
Mechanism cannot be opened by one
Mechanism opens with
Mechanism
maintenance person with proper tools. Bolts
proper tools.
Not Working
into frame have less than 1/2 inch of thread_
Cover Difficult
One maintenance person cannot remove lid
Cover can be removed by
to Remove
after applying normal lifting pressure.
one maintenance person.
(Intent is keep cover from sealing off access
to maintenance_)
Ladder
Ladder Rungs
Ladder is unsafe due to missing rungs, not
Ladder meets design
Unsafe
securely attached to basin wail,
standards and allows
misalignment, rust, cracks, or sharp edges.
maintenance person safe
access.
Metal Grates
Grate opening
Grate with opening wider than 718 inch.
Grate opening meets
(if Applicable)
Unsafe
design standards.
Trash and
Trash and debris that is blocking more than
Grate free of trash and
Debris
20% of grate surface inletting capacity.
debris.
Damaged or
Grate missing or broken member(s) of the
Grate is in place and
Missing_
grate.
meets design standards.
No. 7 — Energy Dissipaters
Maintenance
Defect
Conditions When Maintenance is
Results Expected When
Components
Needed
Maintenance is Performed
External:
Rock Pad
Missing or
Only one layer of rock exists above
Rock pad replaced to design
Moved Rock
native soil in area five square feet or
standards.
larger, or any exposure of native soil.
Erosion
Soil erosion in or adjacent to rock pad.
Rock pad replaced to design
standards.
Dispersion Trench
Pipe
Accumulated sediment that exceeds
Pipe cleaned/flushed so that it
Plugged with
20% of the design depth.
matches design.
Sediment
Not
Visual evidence of water discharging at
Trench redesigned or rebuilt to
Discharging
concentrated points along trench
standards.
Water
(normal condition is a "sheet flow" of
Properly
water along trench). Intent is to prevent
erosion damage.
Perforations
Over 112 of perforations in pipe are
Perforated pipe cleaned or
Plugged.
plugged with debris and sediment.
replaced_
Water Flows
Maintenance person observes or
Facility rebuilt or redesigned to
Out Top of
receives credible report of water flowing
standards_
"Distributor"
out during any storm less than the
Catch Basin.
design storm or its causing or appears
likely to cause damage.
Receiving
Water in receNing area is causing or has
No danger of landslides.
Area Over-
potential of causing landslide problems.
Saturated
Internal:
Manhole/Chamber
Wom or
Structure dissipating flow deteriorates to
Structure replaced to design
Damaged
1/2 of original size or any concentrated
standards.
Post,
worn spot exceeding one square foot
Baffles, Side
which would make structure unsound.
of Chamber
Other
See "Catch Basins" (No. 5)_
See "Catch Basins" (No_ 5).
Defects
No. S - Typical Biofiltration Swale
Maintenance
Defect or
Condition When
Recommended Maintenance to Correct
Component
Problem
Maintenance is Needed
Problem
General
Sediment
Sediment depth exceeds 2
Remove sediment deposits on grass
Accumulation on
inches.
treatment area of the bio-swale. When
Grass
finished, swale should be level from side
to side and drain freely toward outlet.
There should be no areas of standing
water once inflow has ceased.
Standing Water
When water stands in the
Any of the following may apply: remove
swale between storms and
sediment or trash blockages, improve
does not drain freely.
grade from head to foot of swale, remove
clogged check dams, add underdrains or
convert to a wet biofiltration swale.
Flow spreader
Flow spreader uneven or
level the spreader and clean so that
clogged so that flows are not
flows are spread evenly over entire Swale
uniformly distributed through
width_
entire Swale width.
Constant
When small quantities of
Add a low -flow pea -gravel drain the length
Baseflow
water continually flow through
of the Swale or by-pass the baseflow
the Swale, even when it has
around the swale.
been dry for weeks, and an
eroded, muddy channel has
formed in the swale bottom.
Poor Vegetation
When grass is sparse or bare
Determine why grass growth is poor and
Coverage
or eroded patches occur in
correct that condition. Re -plant with plugs
more than 10% of the swale
of grass from the upper slope: plant in the
bottom.
swale bottom at 8-inch intervals. Or re-
seed into loosened, fertile soil.
Vegetation
When the grass becomes
Mow vegetation or remove nuisance
excessively tall (greater than
vegetation so that flow not impeded.
110-inches); when nuisance
Grass should be mowed to a height of 3
weeds and other vegetation
to 4 inches_ Remove grass clippings.
starts to take over.
Excessive
Grass growth is poor
If possible, trim back over -hanging limbs
Shading
because sunlight does not
and remove brushy vegetation on
reach swale.
adjacent slopes.
Inlet/Outlet
Inlet/outlet areas clogged
Remove material so that there is no
with sediment and/or debris.
clogging or blockage in the inlet and
outlet area.
Trash and
Trash and debris
Remove trash and debris from bioswale.
Debris
accumulated in the bio-Swale.
Accumulation
Erosion/Scouring
Eroded or scoured swale
For ruts or bare areas less than 12 inches
bottom due to flow
wide, repair the damaged area by filling
channelization, or higher
with crushed gravel. If mare areas are
flows.
large, generally greater than 12 inches
wide, the swale should be re -graded and
re -seeded. For smaller bare areas,
overseed when bare spots are evident, or
take plugs of grass from the upper slope
and plant in the Swale bottom at 8-inch
Intervals-
APPENDIK G
BOND QUANTITIES `V4rORKSHEET
Site Improvement Bond Quantity Worksheet Web date: 11/2112005
Reference #
Unit
Price
Unit
Quantit
# of
Applications
Cost
EROSION/SEDIMENT CONTROL
Number
Backfill & compaction -embankment
ESC-1
$ 5.62
CY
Check dams, 4" minus rock
ESC-2
SWDM 5.4.&3
$ 67.51
Each
Crushed surfacing 1 1/4" minus
ESC-3
WSDOT 9-03.9 3
$ 85.45
CY
Ditching
ESC4
$ 6.08
CY
Excavation -bulk
ESC-5
$ 1.50
CY
1230
1
1845
Fence, silt
ESC-6
SWDM 5.4.3A
$ 1.38
LF
1010
1
1394
Fence, Temporary (NGPE)
ESC-7
$ 1.38
LF
H droseeding
ESC-8
SWDM 5.4.2.4
$ 0.59
SY
Jute Mesh
ESC-9
SWDM 5.4.22
$ 1.45
SY
Mulch, by hand, straw, 3" dee
ESC-10
SWDM 5.4.2.1
$ 2,01
SY
Mulch, by machine, straw, 2" deep
ESC-11
SWDM 5.421
$ 0.53
SY
Piping, temporary, CPP, 6"
ESC-12
$ 10.70
LF
Piping, temporary, CPP, 8"
ESC-13
$ 16,10
LF
Piping, temporary, OPP, 12"
ESC-14
$ 20.70
LF
Plastic covering, Grnrn thick, sandbagged
ESCA5
SWDM 5 4.23
$ 2.30
SY
Rip Rap, machine placed; slopes
ESC-16
WSDOT 9-13.1(2}
$ 39.08
CY
Rcck Construction Entrance, 50'xl5'x1'
ESC-17
SWDM 5.4.4.1
$ 1,464.34
Each
Rock Construction Entrance, 100'x15'x1'
ESC-18
SWDM 5.4.4.1
$ 2,928.68
Each
1
1
2929
Sediment pond riser assembly
ESC-19
SWDM 5,4.52
$ 1,949.38
Each
Sediment trap, 5' high berm
ESC-20
SWDM 5.4.5.1
$ 17,91
LF
Sed. trap, 5' high, riprapped spilluvd berm section
ESC-21
SWDM 5.4.5.1
$ 68.54
LF
Seeding, by hand
Sodding, 1" deep, level ground
ESC-22
SWDM 5,424
$ 0.51
SY
ESC-23
SWDM 5.4.2.5
$ 6.03
SY
Sodding, 1" deep, sloped round
ESC-24
SWDM 5,4,2.5
$ 7.45
SY
TESL Supervisor
ESC-25
$ 74.75
HR
Water track, dust control
ESC-26
SWDM 5.4.7
$ 97.76
HR
WRITE -IN -ITEMS **** see page9
Each
ESC SUBTOTAL:
30% CONTINGENCY & MOBILIZATION:
ESC TOTAL:
COLUMN:
Page 2 of 9
Bond Quantities Worksheet.xls
$ 6,167.46
$ 1,850.24
$ 8,017.72
A
Unit prices updated: 02/12/02
Version: 04/22/02
Report Date: 3/29/2006
,.JILO 1l l (prow, nel IL L301 lu Quail pity 4ol t\z)hot-,L
11!
Existing
Right -of -Way
Future Public.
Road improvements
l0rainarye Facilities
Private.
Improvements
Quantlty Completed
(Bond Reduction)'
Quant. .
Cant fete
Cost
Unit Price
Unit.
Quant,
Cast . '
C�uant,
Cast '.
Quanf.
Cast ` ` :.:
GIENEiAl:13-1t
No.
Baddill & Corr;paef;on- embankment
GI - 1
$ 5.62
CY
Backfili & Compactton- trench
GI-2
$ &53
CY
Clear/Remove Brush, by hand
GI - 3
$ 0.36
SY
Clearing/Grubbing i ree Removal
Gl - 4
$ 8,676.16
Acre
0.7
8,213.31
Excavation - bulk
GI-51
$ 1.50
cY
Excavation - Trench
GI-6
$ 4,06
CY
Fencing, cedar, 6' Ngh
GI - 7
$ 18.55
LF
Fencing, chain link, vinyl coated, 6' hl h
GI - 8
$ 13.44
LF
45
604M
Fencing. chain link. pate, vinyl coated, 2
GI - 9
$ 1,271.81
Each
Fencing, split rail, 3' high
GI - 10
$ 12,12
LF
Fill & compact - common barrow IGI
- 11
$ 22.57
CY
60
1,364.20
FIN & compeck - navel b7se
GI - 12
$ 25.48
CY
FiII & comp;.: f sri v n i topsoil
Gi - 13
$ 37.85
CY
Gablon, 12" cj"' .0 ' s'.onv f' led mesh
GI - 14
$ 54.31
SY
Gablon, 1 F" c'cep, done- "IHad mesh
GI - 15
$ 74.85
5Y
Gah!on, 36" desp, acne fit..',d mesh
GI - 16
$ 132.45
5Y
Grading, fine, fay hand
GI -17
$ 2.02
SY
Grading, Finn, with grrdar
GI -16
$ 0.95
SY
30500
28,975.00
Monuments, 3' long
GI - 19
$ 135.13
Each
Sensitive Areas Sign
GI - 20
$ 2.88
Each
Sodding, 1" deep• sloped around
GI .211
$ 7.46
SY
Surveying, line & grade
GI - 22
$ 788.26
Da
Surveying, lot tccationdttnes
Gl - 23
$ 1,556.64
Acre
Traffic control crew (2 flag ers)
GI - 24
$ 85.18
HR
Trail, 4' chlpp22d tnrcod
GI - 25
$ 7.59
5Y
Tra!l, 4" crushed cinder
GI - 26
$ 8.33
SY
Trail, 4' top course
GI - 27
$ 8.19
SY
Wall, retaining, ccnem',0
GI -28
$ 44A6
SF
Wail, rockery
GI - 29
$ 9.49
SF
Page 3 of 9
SUBTOTAL
37,147, 31
Unit prices updated: 02/12/02
'KCC 27A authorizes only one Bond reduction. Version: 4J22/02
Bond Quantities Worksheet.xl5 Report Date: 3/29J2006
0I llA. I I Bpi Oit;,r f ie, IL E301 IU Quantity 4cii xz5hem
11.
Existing
Right -of -Way
Future Public..
Road Improvements .
& Drainage Facilities ":..
Private
Improvements
Bond Reduction'.
Quant.
Corn letei
Cost
Unit Price -
Unit
QUank. .Cost
4uant. Gost
Quant. Cost
ROAD IMPROVE-jl4lF- 1T :`i
No
AC Grinding, 47 ,wide machine ,4 1000s
Ri - 1
$ 23.00
SY
AC Grindln, ,-4 vride machine 1000-200
Ri - 2
$ 5,75
SY
AG Grinding, 4 wide maoh'rte > 2000s
RI - 3
$ 118
SY
AC Remov0laisposalfRcpair
RI.4
$ 41.14
SY
140
5,759.60
Barricade, type I
Ri - 5
$ 30.03
LF
Barricade, type III ( Permanent)
RI - B
$ 45,05
LF
Curb & Gutter, roiled
RI-7
$ 13.27
LF
Curb & GLItter, vertical
RI - 8
$ 9.60
LF
140
1,356.60
Curb and Gutter, dam6l lon and dis osal
RI - 9
$ 13.58
LF
Curb, extruded asphalt
RI -10
$ 2,44
LF
Curb, extruded concrete
RI - 11
$ 256
LF
1000
2,560.00
aawcut, +cphei'. 3" ;;; n,—,
RI - 12
$ 1.85
LF
140
250.00
SawCUt, concrat.e, +;=r 1" depth
Ri - 13
$ 1,69
LF
Seafant, asph .l'i
RI - 14
$ 0.99
LF
_
Shoulder, AC, (see AC read Unit price
RI - 15
$ -
SY
Shoulder, gravel, 4` thick
Ri - 16
$ 7.53
SY
Sidewalk, 4" thick
R1-17
$ 30.52
SY
100
3,052.00
Sidewalk, 4' thick, demolition and dis os
RI - 18
$ 27.73
SY
Sidewalk, 5" thick
RI - 19
$ 34.94
SY
Sidewalk, 5" thick. demolition and dis os
RI - 20
$ 34.65
SY
Sign, handicap
RI - 21
$ 85.28
Each
1
85.28
Striping, per stall
RI - 22
$ 5.82
Each
8
46,56
Striping, thermoplastic, ( for crosswalk
R 1 - 23
$ 2.38
1 SF
,Striping, 4' reflectorized line
JR1 -24
$ 0.25
1 LF
Page 4 of 9
SUBTOTAL 10,427.20
2,691.84
Unit prices updated: 02/12102
`KCC 27A authorizes only one bond reduction. Version: 4/22102
Bond Quantities Wor€<shGet.xls Report pate: 3/2912006
QiLe h i ipi ovui i iei it r301 iU QUar silty VV0FK5rleuL
11l
Existing
Ricdht of -way
Future public..
Road Improvements
C]rainage Faciillies
Private
Improvements .. .
Quant, :Cost.
: Bond Reduction*
Quant.
Cam let.e
:. 'Cost
Unit Price
Unit:
Quant.Cost
Qtian#. Cost .
ROAD SilF;F'ACU\1G ; (4'-.Rock = 2.5 base & 1.5" top course) ;. For'93 MRS (6,&' Rooksa F base
For KCRS'93, (additional 2.5" base) add
R5 - 1
$ 3.60
BY
AC Overlay, 1.5" AC
RS-2
$ 7.39
SY
AC Overlay, 2" AC
RS - 3
$ 8.75
SY
AC Road, 2", 4" rock, First 2500 SY
RS - 4
$ 17.24
SY
AC Road, 2", 4" rock, My, over 2500SY
RS - 5
$ 13.36
SY
AC Road, 3", 4" rock, First 2500 SY
RS-6
$ 19.69
SY
AC Road, 3", 4" rock, Qty. over 2500 SY
RS-7
$ 15.81
SY
AC Road, 5", First 2500 SY
RS-8
$ 14.67
SY
AC Road, 5", Qty. over 2500 SY
RS - 9
$ 13,94
SY
AC Road, 6", First 2500 SY
RS - 1
$ 16.76
SY
AC Road 6", Q`;+. Ovcr 2500 SY
RS - 11
$ 16.12
SY
Asphalt Tr[ La?d 57s�, •'" thick
S - 1
$ 9.21
SY
Gravel Rowd, 4` rec!<, rlm2500 SY
RS - 1;
$ 11.41
SY
Gravel Rozc, 4" rock rNv. over 2500 SY
RS - 1
$ 7.53
SY
PCC Road, ", no gas , over 2500 SY
R5 - 1_
$ 21.51
SY
PCC Road, 6", no base, over 2500 SY
RS - 1
$ 21.87
SY
Thickened Pdge
S -1-
$ 6.89
LF
Page 5 of 0
SUBTOTAL
Unit prices updated: 02/12/02
*KCC 27A authorizes only one bond reduction. Version, 4122102
Bond Quantities Worksheet.As Report Date: 3/29/2006
01W IrW'O\Mef lE DOM QUdt1tlty 401 KbOeCL
w 111:
Existing
Right-of-way
Future Public
Road Improvements
& Drainage Facilities
Private
Improvements
Bond Redaction*
Quant.
Cam fete Cost
Unit Price
Unit
Quant. Cost
Quant. Cost
Quant. =ost
ROAD SURFACING (4" Rock = 2.5 base & 1,5" top course) For'93 KCRS (65' Rock= 5" base & 1.5" top course)
For I(CRS '93. additional 2.5' base) add
RS-1
$ 3.60
SY
AC Overlay, 1.5" AC
RS-2
$ 7.39
SY
AC Overlay, 2" AC
RS-3
$ 6.76
SY
AC Road, 2", 4" rock, First 2500 SY
RS-4
$ 17.24
SY
AC Road, 2", 4" rock, Qty. over 2500SY
RS-5
$ 13.36
SY
AC Road, 3", 4" rock, First 2500 SY
RS-6
$ 19.69
SY
AC Road, 3", 4" rock, Qty. over 2500 SY
RS-7
$ 15.81
SY
AC Road, 5", First 2500 SY
RS-8
$ 14.57
SY
AC Road, 5", Oty. Over 2500 SY
RS - 9
$ 13.94
SY
AC Road, 6", First 2500 SY
RS-1C.
$ 16.76
SY
AG Road, 6", Qty. Over 2500 SY
RS - 11
$ 16.12
SY
Asphalt Treated Bas_o, 4" thick
I
$ 9.21
SY
-RS-
Gravel Road, 4" rock. Cksi 2500 SY
RS - 1:
$ 11.41
SY
Gravel Road, a" rock, Div. over 2500 SY
RS - 1
$ 7.53
SY
PCC Road, 5", no t;ac'e, over 2500 SY
RS - 1 F
$ 21.51
SY
PCC Road, 6", no base, over 2500 SY
RS - 1
$ 21.87
SY
Thickened Edge
RS -1 `
$ 6.89
LF
Page 5 of 9
SUBTOTAL
Unit prices updated: 02/12102
*KCC 27A authorizes only one bond reduction. Version: 4122/02
Bond Quantities Worksheet.xls Report Date: 3/2912006
owe, Irnpiovu eiit oOI Iu Qudi ifity V11ombnBut
Existing
Right-of-way
Future Public
Road Improvements
R Drainage Facilities
Private
Improvements
Bond Reduction*
Quant.
Com lete Cost
Unit Price
Unit
Qtiant. Cost
Quant, Cost
Quant, Cost
DRAINAGE (CPP = Corrugated Plastic Pipe, N12 or Equivalent) For Culvert prices, Average of 4' cover was assumed, Ass me perforaied PVC is same price as solid pi e.
Access Road, RID
D - 1
$ 16,74
SY
Bollards - fixed
D - 2
$ 240.74
Each
Bollards - removable
0-3
$ 452,34
Each
* Ms include frame and lid
CB Type I
D - 4
$ 1,257.64
Each
41
5,030.56
CB Type IL
D - 5
$ 1,433.59
Each
CB Type II, 48" diameter
D- 6
$ 2,033.57
Each
1
2,033.57
for additional depth over 4'
0-7
$ 436.52
FT
4
1,746.08
CB Type II, 54' diameter
D - 8
$ 2,192,54
Each
for additional depth over 4'
D - 9
$ 486.53
FT
CO Type II, 80" oiarr.a`.er
D - 10
$ 2,351,52
Each
for additional derTh ovc� r 4'
D - 11
$ 536.54
FT
CB Type il. i2" diameter
P - 12
$ 3,212.64
Each
for additional depti,, over 4'
D - 13
$ 692.21
FT
Through -curb Inle3 Framework Add
D - 14
$ 366.09
Each
Cleanout, PVC, 4'
D - 15
$ 130,55
Each
Cleanout, PVC, 6"
D -16
1 174.90
Each
1
174.90
Cleanout, PVC, 8"
D - 17
$ 224.19
Each
Culvert, PVC, 4'
D - 18
$ 8.64
LF
Culvert, PVC, 6"
D - 19
$ 12.60
LF
60
755,00
Culvert, PVC, 8"
D - 20
$ 13.33
LF
330
4,398,90
Culvert, PVC, 12"
D - 21
$ 21.77
LF
85
1,850.45
Culvert, CMP, 8"
D - 22
$ 17.25
LF
Culvert, CMP, 12"
D -23
$ 26,45
LF
Culvert, CMP, 15"
D - 24
$ 32.73
LF
Culvert, CMP, 18"
D - 25
$ 37.74
LF
Culvert, CMP, 24"
D - 26
$ 53.33
LF
Culvert, CMP, 30"
D - 27
$ 71.45
LF
Culvert, CMP, 36'
D - 28
$ 112.11
LF
Culvert, CMP, 'W
D - 29
$ 140.83
LF
Culvert, CMP, 60"
D - 30
$ 235.45
LF
Culvert, CMP, 72"
D - 31
$ 302,58
LF
Page 6 of 9 SUBTOTAL
*KCC 27A authorizes only one bond reduction.
Bond Quantities Worksheet.As
15,990.46
Unit prices updated: 02/12102
Version: 4122102
Report Date: 3/29/2006
SIM: I[I ip, ovtvi t ilerIl DO[ 1U oud, itity vviombf 1eCl
We 1112
DRAINAGE CONTINUED
Existing
Right-of-way
Future Public
Road Improvements
& Drainage Facilities
Private
Improvements
Bond Reduction'
Quant.
Com late
Cost
No.
Unit Price
Unit
Quant.
Cost
QLiant.
Cost
Quant.
Cost
Culvert, Concrete, 8"
D - 32
$ 21.02
LF
Culvert, Concrete, 12"
D - 33
$ 30.05
LF
Culvert, Concrete, 15"
D - 34
$ 37.34
LF
Culvert, Concrete, 18"
D - 35
$ 44.51
LF
Culvert, Concrete, 24"
D - 36
$ 61.07
LF
Culvert, Concrete, 30"
D - 37
$ 104.18
LF
Culvert, Concrete, 36"
D - 38
$ 137,63
LF
Culvert, Concrete, 42"
D - 39
$ 158.42
LF
Culvert, Concrete, 48"
D - 40
$ 175.94
LF
Culvert, CPP, 6"
D - 41
$ 10.70
LF
Culvert, CPP, 8"
D - 42
$ 16.10
LF
Culvert, CPP, 12"
D - 43
$ 20.70
LF
Culvert, CPP. 15'
D - 44
$ 23.00
LF
Culyen, CPP. 18"
D - 45
$ 27.60
LF
CdVeri, CPP, 24"
D - 46
$ 36.80
LF
Culvert, CPP, 30"
D - 47
$ 48,30
LF
Culvert, CPP, 33"
D - 46
$ 5520
LF
Ditching
D - 49
$ 8.08
CY
Flow Dispersal Trench (1,436 base+)
D - 50
$ 25.99
LF
French Draln 3' de th)
D - 51
$ 22.60
LF
Geotextile, laid In trench, oly rc lane
D - 52
$ 2.40
SY
380
912
Infiltration pond testing
0 - 53
$ 74.75
HR
Mid -tank Access Riser, 48" dia, 0 dee
D - 54
$ 1,605.40
Each
Pond Overflow Spillway
D - 55
$ 14,01
SY
RestrietorlOil Separator, 12'
D - 56
$ 1,045,19
Each
Restrictor1011 Separator, 15"
D - 57
$ 1,095.56
Each
Restrictorloil Separator, 18"
D - 58
$ 1,4 46.16
Each
Rlprap, placed
D - 59
$ 39.08
CY
3
117.24
Tank End Reducer 36" diameter
D - 60
$ 1,000.50
Each
Trash Rack, 12"
D - 61
$ 211.97
Each
Trash Rack, 15'
D - 62
$ 237.27
Each
Trash Rack, 18"
D - 63
$ 268.89
Each
Trash Rack, 21"
D - 64
$ 306.84
Each
Page 7 of 9
SUBTOTAL
1029.24
Unit prices updated: 02/12/02
'KCC 27A authorizes only one bond reduction. Version: 4/22/02
Bond Quantities VVorksheet.xls Report Date: 3/29/2006
bim, It a01I IU QUal ltlty vJ4r msr fet:.-I.
W 11J2
Existing
Right-of-way
Future Public
Road Improvements
& Drainage Facilities
Ptivate
improvements
Bond Reduction'
Quaint,
Complete
Cost
Unit Prioe
Unit
Quant. Price
Quaint. Cost
Quaint. Cost
PARKING LOT SURFACING
No,
2" AC, 2" top course rock & 4' borrow
PL - 1
$ 15.84
SY
3000
47520
2" AC. 15' top course & 25' base tour
PL-2
$ 17.24
SY
4" select borrow
PL - 3
$ A55
SY
1,5" top course rock & 25' base course
PL - 4
$ 11.41
SY
WRITE -IN -ITEMS
Such as detentionMater quality vaults.
StormTech Chambers
WI-1
$10,G00.00
Each
1
10,000.00
WI-2
SY
WI-3
CY
VVI-4
LF
VVI - 51
FT
WI-6
WI-7
W1-8
WI-9
wi.10
SUBTOTAL
SUBTOTAL (SUM ALL PAGES): 10,427.20
30% CONTINGENCY & MOBILIZATION: 3,128.16
GRANDTOTAL: 13,555.36
COLUMN: B
Page 8of9
C
57,520,00
114,378.85
34,313.66
148,692.61
D
E
Unit prices updated: 02/12/02
'KCC 27A authorizes on;y one bond reduction. Version: 4/22/02
Bond Quantities Worksheet.xis Report Date: 3/29/2006
Site Improvement Bond Quantity Worksheet
Original bond computations prepared by:
Name:
PE Registration Number:
Dave Dormier, PE
31741
Web date: 11121/2005
Date: 3/28/2006
Tel. #: 253 833-7776
Firm Name: Rupert Engineering, Inc.
Address: 1519 West Valley Highway North, Suite 101, Auburn, WA 98001 Project No:
ROAD IMPROVEMENTS & DRAINAGE FACILITIES FINANCIAL GUARANTEE REQUIREMENTS
Stabilization/Erosion Sediment Control (ESC)
Existing Right -of -Way improvements
PERFORMANCE BOND*
AMOUNT
(A) $ 8,017.7
(B) $ 13,555.4
Future Public Road Improvements & Drainage Facilitlel (C)
Private Improvements
Calculated Quantit,! Completed
Total Flight -of 1,�Jay and/or Site Restoration Bond*/**
(First $7,500 of bond" shall be cash.)
Performance Bond* Amount (A+B+C+D) = TOTAL
Reduced Performance Bond* Total ***
Maintenance/Defect Bond* Total
NAME OF PERSON PREPARING BOND* REDUCTION:
u
(D) $ 148,692.5
(A+B) $ 21,573.1
(T) $ 170,265.6
Minimum an amount s $100.
BOND"AMOUNT
REQUIRED AT RECORDING OR
TEMPORARY OCCUPANCY *"*
(E)
T x 0,30 $ 51,079.7 OR
(T-E) $ 170,265.6
Use larger of Tx3O%or
Date:
PUBLIC ROAD & DRAINAGE
MAINTENANCE/DEFECT BOND*
(B+C) x
0,25 = $ 3.388.8
" NOTE. The word "bond" as used In this document means any financial guarantee acceptable to King County.
*" NOTE: KCC 27A authorizes right of way and site restoration bonds to be combined when both are required.
The restoration requirement shall Include the total cost for all TESL as a minimum, not a maximum. In addition, corrective work, both on- and off -site needs to be included,
Quantities shall reflect worse case scenarios not just minimum requirements. For example, if a salmonld stream may be damaged, some estimated costs for restoration
needs to be reflected In this amount. The 30% contingency and mobilization costs are computed In this quantity.
"** NOTE: Per KCC 27A, total bond amounts remaining after reduction shall not be less than 30% of the original amount (T) or as revised by major design changes.
SURETY BOND RIDER NOTE: If a bond rider is used, minimum additional performance bond shall be $ 148,692.5 (C+D)-E
REQUIRED BOND* AMOUNTS ARE SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND MODIFICATION BY DDES
Page 9 of 9 Unit prices updated: 02/12/02
Check out the DDES Web site at www.metrokc._gov/ddes Version: 4122102
Bond Quantities Worksheet.xls Report Date: 3/29/2006
APPENDIX H
FLOODPLAIN MAP
King County x �; ..
Exit 7 Auto Safes
•
t'�� 'rl li!
i
I i.T.___
-E J
_
da
I
.d.'.;Q
i Ltdd7
f j -r3
Legend
.CT„_
kew�-
i ! Paiea:5
Of
County 1.-ui:J:iry
... 133 Y Bar F;ood::3:n
+ae-i
.-,.
ki7unta:n Paa4s
Laiasun! La.gu
,:r,x
K;ng ..aunty I:Ta naga
Rve rs
St'aats
In�arp�ia.aro
King Cou-o/ i%atar
'�f
ricyrYr
na_�11iw? ln'iani�:y
lycc]Y
A;-2as
The information included on this map has been compiled by King County staff from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice.
King County makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such
information. King County shall not be liable for any general, special, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages including, but not limited to,
ost revenues or lost profits resulting from the use or misuse of the information contained on this map. Any sale of this map or information on
King County E G_IS Center I Ne%vs I Seprices I Comments k Search
By visiting this and other King County web pages, you expressly agree to be bound by terms and conditions of the site. The details.
Jennifer Henning - Re: Exit 7 Auto Sales Site
Page 1
From: Ronald Straka
To: Jennifer Henning
Date: 01 /30/2008 8:04:15 AM
Subject: Re: Exit 7 Auto Sales Site
The Gypsy subbasin/Ripley Ln Storm System improvement project will not involve any work on the east
side of 1-405. All construction will occur west of 1-405. The two projects are independent of one another.
I am interested in knowing what the Exit 7 auto sales project is proposing in terms of impacting this
drainage course to ensure that it will not create any problems with reducing capacity or creating
restrictions.. If there are filling areas that provide flood storage, then mitigation will be necesssary also.
>>> Jennifer Henning 01/29/2008 3:28 PM >>>
Hi Ron,
I understand that some work is being done on this property in conjunction with the Gypsy Creek
sub -basin work. Is there a restoration plan being proposed for the work within 100 feet of the creek?
And, is the City taking care of the restoration? The applicant is also going to be disturbing an area in the
vicinity for a utility line, and I'm trying to coordinate restoration. Thanks for your help.
CC: Allen Quynn
B-12 Wetland Consulting,Inc.
1103W. MeekerSL (v)253�15
-- Kent WA98032-5751 (fj2SM52-4732
April 11, 2006
Tom Easley
7495 159 h Place NE
Redmond, WA 98052
Re: Supplemental Stream Report
B-12 Job #A5-359
Dear Mr. Easley,
Per your request we have prepared the following description of your project, stream and
subsequent buffer conditions for the site. The site is located along the north side of NE
44'h Street (Lincoln Avenue NE) and to the east of Lake Washington Boulevard NE
(parcel 3343301150) in the City of Renton, Washington.
n
5E 72NU ST
v
r
5E 74TH
f4I
I
ST
< ff
I
�tia Jy
� x
SE
76TH
5T
SE Q
E
7
SITE
�'
576TH PL "W' G
PL 16Tb
GTON
J
a rry
`�jtH
1
se 77M
PL
SF
SE � a
�
NE
SE 8OTH 7 sr
ST A
NE 14
tX
PL 112DO
7
Q
b
N
U
N
S
r-+
N 4OTH ST
asn+
�4
4M
5E
a
1300
A Sewall Wetiana Consulting, Inc. Company
Re: Easley Supplemental Stream Study
B-12 Job 4A5-354
April 11, 2006
Page 2 of 5
1.1 Existing Conditions
The property is currently undeveloped property with an unimproved gravel parking area
along the eastern property boundary. The western portion of the site is forested with
some shrub coverage. The site is bound to the north and east by commercial land uses.
The site is bound to the south and west by NE 441h Street, and Lake Washington
Boulevard NE, respectively. The area outside of the stream channel and wetland area is
significantly comprised of fill material and is vegetated with Himalayan blackberry with
virtually no species diversity.
1.2 Vegetative Community
The site can be broken into three distinct areas based on the site visit and review of the
aerial photographs provided by King County 1-map and Google Earth Image. (Note:
these sketches are not to scale and do not represent surveys of the mapped vegetative
communities.) As noted on the aerial photograph the majority of the stream buffer
consists of a shrub community comprised predominantly of Himalayan blackberry
(Rubus armeniacus), and some evergreen blackberry (Rubus laciniatus). This area has
low function and value as it provides very little habitat for animal species and little life
support to aquatic species. This area represents the vegetative community within the
buffer impact area.
The area outside or further to the east of this shrub vegetative community is comprised of
more Himalayan blackberry (less dense) and other various lowlying herbaceous plants.
However, the recent aerial photograph shows this area to have been completely graded
and field investigations revealed that this area has impervious soil conditions. This area
has little or no function or value to an aquatic system as it does not provide any
Re: Easley Supplemental Stream Study
B-12 Job #A5-359
April 11, 2006
Page 3 of 5
hydrologic retention, water quality, or habitat value. The proposed project will be
developed primarily on this impervious surface.
The remainder of the site is comprised of low -moderate value habitat with moderate
function. This area contains some increased species diversity and a forested canopy. The
forested canopy has a shrub underbrush with varying areas of native vegetation and non-
native invasive species. This area is to be lets in its current state.
2.0 Proposed Project and Code Compliance
The project proposes the formal construction of a parking lot approximately 30,123
square feet (sf) in size. In order to construct this parking lot impacts to the 100-foot
stream buffer are unavoidable. See report prepared by B-12 Wetland Consulting, Inc,
"Wetland and Stream Analysis Report and Concept Mitigation" dated March 21, 2006,
for stream and wetland description and rating information.
The project proposes a 25-foot reduction in the 100-foot stream buffer. The proposed
reduction would normally result in a reduction area of 10,560sf. However, the project
will only impact 5,318sf of buffer; the remaining 5,242sf of buffer will be included back
into the area to be restored as mitigation for buffer impacts and preserved within the
native growth protection easement.
Re: Easley Supplemental Stream Study
B-12 Job #A5-359
April 11, 2006
Page 4 of 5
We feel that this project meets the intent criteria for reduced buffer widths based on the
requirements set forth by Renton Municipal Code §4-3-050(L)(5)(c)(iv):
(2) The buffer is comprised predominantly by Himalayan blackberry which is
considered to he a non-native invasive species. Slopes within the buffer are
varying; and no slopes immediately adjacent to the reduced buffer area are greater
than 15 percent. Although some areas of the overall buffer contain slopes greater
than 15 percent the proposed project will not create any hazardous slope
conditions or slopes greater than 15 percent as a result of the buffer reduction.
(3) The minor buffer width reduction will not reduce stream functions or functions
provided to anadromous fish. The habitat value of the reduced area is extremely
low as it is comprised of non-native invasive species growing in compacted fill
material soils.
(4) The 25-foot buffer reduction will not degrade the riparian habitat as it is
comprised of Himalayan blackberry and compacted fill material soils. Non-native
invasive species are not considered to provide adequate buffer habitat or any
substantial value to a riparian system.
(5)(a) To be determined by City.
(5)(b) To be determined if possible by City.
(5)(c) See attached concept mitigation plan. Once the concept mitigation plan is
approved a subsequent final mitigation plan will be provided for review and
comments which will detail plant species, locations, plant size, plant quantity,
planting details, location of sensitive area signs, fencing details, mitigation
monitoring guidelines and procedures, mitigation monitoring timeline,
construction sequencing and mitigation bond information etc.
(5)(d) Mitigation for the reduction of the stream buffer will substantially off -set the loss
of area by providing higher quality habitat with greater function and value
through species diversity, variable vegetation communities, and removal of non-
native invasive species. Also, sensitive area signage and a wildlife passable fence
will be provided along the edge of the development to better ensure the protection
of the mitigation area / enhanced stream buffer.
(5)(e) No flood hazard risks are known and it is not anticipated that the project will
increase any risks.
(5)(f) Noted. The final mitigation plan will be in accordance with the best available
science.
Re: Easley Supplemental Stream study
8-12 Job #A5-359
April 11, 2005
Page 5 of 5
The buffer enhancement plan would likely include species such as, but not limited to:
Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), big leaf maple (Ater macrophyllum), beaked
hazelnut (Corylus cornuta), vine maple (Ater circinatum), red elderberry (Sambucus
racemosa), Indian plum (Oemleria cerasiformis), nootka rose (Rosa nutkana), red
flowering currant (Rites sanguineum), and salal (Gaultheria shallon).
3.0 Conclusion
Again, once the concept mitigation plan is accepted a final mitigation plan will be
submitted for City review. Also included on the final mitigation plan will be the survey
of current wetland and stream delineation. The edge of forested/native vegetation will be
surveyed to determine the exact edge of buffer enhancement and will be reflected on the
final mitigation plan.
If you have any questions or need any additional information please contact our office at
253.859.0515 or by e-mail at awill'ri`sexNalIv, c.colrl .
Sincerely,
Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc.
J. Aaron Will
Wetland Scientist
i;ile:aw/A5-359 Easley Supplemental Report.doc