Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMisc 5I WETLAND ASSESSMENT, STANDARD LAKE STUDY, HABITAT DATA REPORT, AND CONCEPTUAL RESTORATION PLAN QU EN DALL TERMINALS Prepared for Altino Properties, Inc. and J.H. Baxter & Company Prepared by Anchor QEA, LLC 1423 Third Avenue, Suite 300 Seattle, Washington 98101 November 2009 WETLAND ASSESSMENT, STANDARD LAKE STUDY, HABITAT DATA REPORT, AND CONCEPTUAL RESTORATION PLAN QUENDALL TERMINALS Prepared for Altino Properties, Inc. and J.H. Baxter & Company Prepared by Anchor QEA, LLC 1423 Third Avenue, Suite 300 Seattle, Washington 98101 November 2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Review of Existing Information ...................................................................................... 2 2 STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION .............................................................................................. 3 2.1 Topography ....................................................................................................................... 3 2.2 Soils ................................................................................................................................... 4 2.3 Hydrology ......................................................................................................................... 5 2.4 Plant Communities and Habitat Types .......................................................................... .5 3 WETLAND DEIJNEATION .................................................................................................. 7 3.1 Wetland Delineation Methods ........................................................................................ 7 3.1.1 Vegetation ................................................................................................................... 8 3.1.2 Soils ............................................................................................................................. 9 3.1.3 Hydrology ................................................................................................................... 9 3.1.4 Other Data Sources ................................................................................................... 10 3.1.5 Wetland Classifications ............................................................................................ 10 3.1.6 State Wetland Ratings System ................................................................................. 10 3.1. 7 City of Renton Wetland Rating System and Buffer Requirements ...................... .12 3.1.7.1 Wetland Rating System and Buffer Requirements ........................................ 12 3.1.8 Wetland Functions Assessment ............................................................................... 14 3.2 Wetland Delineation Results ......................................................................................... 14 3.2.1 Wetland A ................................................................................................................. 14 3.2.2 Wetland B ................................................................................................................. 16 3.2.3 Wetland C ................................................................................................................. 17 3.2.4 Wetland D ................................................................................................................. 18 3.2.5 Wetland E ................................................................................................................. 20 3.2.6 Wetland F ................................................................................................................. 21 3.2.7 Wetland G ................................................................................................................. 22 3.2.8 Wetland H ................................................................................................................ 24 3.2. 9 Wetland I .................................................................................................................. 25 3.2.10 Wetland J .................................................................................................................. 26 3.3 Regulatory Framework .................................................................................................. 28 3.3.1 USFWS Classification ............................................................................................... 28 Wedand Assessment, Standard Lake Study, and Habitat Data Report Quendall Terminals i November 2009 060059-01 3.3.2 Ecology Rating, Classification, and Functions and Values Scores ......................... 28 3.3.3 City of Renton Wetland Classification Guidance ................................................... 31 3.4 Wetland Functions and Values Summary ................................................................... .31 3.4.1 Water Quality Functions ......................................................................................... 33 3.4.2 Hydrologic Functions ............................................................................................... 33 3.4.3 Habitat Functions ..................................................................................................... 34 3.5 Exempt Wetlands ........................................................................................................... 35 3.6 Constructed Stormwater Features ................................................................................. 35 3.6.1 Excavated Features from the 1970s ......................................................................... 35 3.6.2 Best Management Practices Implementation -2006 ............................................. 36 3.6.3 Anticipated Regulatory Status ................................................................................. 36 3.7 Wetland Delineation and Typing Limitations .............................................................. 37 4 LAKE WASHINGTON OHWM DELlNEATION AND LAKE STUDY ............................. 38 4.1 Lake Washington OHWM Delineation Methods ........................................................ 38 4.2 Lake Washington OHWM Delineation Results ........................................................... 39 4.3 Lake Study ...................................................................................................................... 39 4.3.1 Fish Species Presence .............................................................................................. .40 5 SHORELINE RESTORATION PLAN .................................................................................. 41 5.1 Introduction and Purpose .............................................................................................. 41 5.2 Goals and Objectives ..................................................................................................... .42 5.3 Elements of the Plan ..................................................................................................... .43 5.3.1 Riparian Buffer Habitat.. ......................................................................................... .43 5.3.2 Wetland Restoration ................................................................................................ 44 6 REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................... 47 Wedand and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report Quendall Tenninals ii November 2009 060059-01 List of Tables Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Table 5 Table 6 Table 7 Table 8 Wetland Plant Indicator Definitions ................................................................... 9 City of Renton Wetland Regulations ................................................................. 14 USFWS Wetland Classifications and Connections to Surface Water .............. 28 Summary of Wetland Classes and Rating Scores Using Ecology Wetlands Rating System ....................................................................................................... 29 Summary of Functions and Values Wetland Rating Scores ............................. 30 City of Renton Wetland Ratings and Standard Buffer Distance ...................... 31 Riparian Buffer Plant List ................................................................................... 44 Wetland Plant List .............................................................................................. 46 List of Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 Figure 8 Vicinity Map Project Site and Aerial Photo Site Topography Soil Series NWI Mapped Wetlands Vegetative Cover Wetlands and OHWM Delineation Results Shoreline Restoration Conceptual Design List of Appendices Appendix A AppendixB AppendixC Plan View and Cross Sections of Wetlands A through H Ordinary High Water Mark Flag Locations Sample Plot Summary Data Appendix D Field Data Sheets Appendix E Ecology Wetland Rating Forms Appendix F Site Photographs Appendix G Mitigation Analysis Memorandum, Quendall and Baxter Properties Appendix H 1990 Aerial Photograph Wedand and Ordinary High Water Mark Dehneation Report Quendall Tenninals iii November 2009 J)60059-0J Introduction 1 INTRODUCTION From April to June 2009, Anchor QEA, LLC (Anchor QEA) performed wetland delineation, lake ordinary high water mark (OHWM) delineation, and habitat assessments of the approximately 21-acre Quendall Terminals Site (Site) in Renton, Washington (Parcel No. 2924059002; Township 24 North, Range 5 East, Section 29). A vicinity map is provided on Figure 1, and a recent aerial photograph of the project area is provided on Figure 2. The survey included an approximately 1.15-acre adjoining portion on the east side of Lake Washington Boulevard (Figure 2). This report is intended to support City of Renton (City) entitlement processing for Master Siteplan Approval, Shoreline Substantial Development, Environmental Review, and a Binding Siteplan, for the Quendall Terminals property. The redevelopment project anticipates submittal of a checklist with the intent of securing a Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance (MDNS) under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). The proposed project includes a mix of 5-story residential units above two levels of above-grade parking and at-grade surface street parking along with retail/restaurant space. The redevelopment project anticipates entitlement of approximately 800 residential units, 260,000± square feet of office space, and 30,000± square feet (sf) of retail/restaurant space with associated parking. Under the direction of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Quendall Terminals owners (Altino Properties, Inc., and J.H. Baxter & Company) are concurrently conducting a remedial investigation (RI) and feasibility study (FS) at the Site. The work is being conducted under an Administrative Settlement Agreement and Order on Consent, as amended (AOC), with EPA under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA; i.e., "Superfund"). Detailed information on existing lake and upland conditions will be included in the RI, anticipated to be completed in summer 2010. CERCLA cleanup actions along the shoreline will likely include remediation of hazardous substances in lake sediments and/or in the upland portions of the Site. While this report was prepared in accordance with City criteria, as defined in the City of Renton Municipal Code (RMC) Section 4-3-050 (City of Renton 2009), some elements required by the code will not be available until selection of a cleanup remedy for the Site by EPA, which is currently anticipated in early 2011. As required by CERCLA, all substantive provisions of City regulatory requirements will be met by the cleanup remedy selected by EPA. Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report Qpendall Tenninals I November 2009 06()()59-01 Introduction Land use within the study area is currently zoned for commercial use and consists of abandoned log storage facilities, modified dirt roads, and fragmented patches of forest and shrub habitat. Ten wetlands (Wetlands A through J) were identified within the study area. This report describes the methods used in the field investigation and Anchor QEA's findings. A description of the study area is included in Section 2. Summaries of the findings of the wetland delineation are included in Section 3. Summaries of the findings of the lake OHWM delineation are included in Section 4. Drawings showing plan view and cross sections of each wetland are provided in Appendix A. Flag locations from the OHWM survey are provided in drawings in Appendix B. A summary of data collected at each sample plot during the wetland delineation is presented in tables in Appendix C and in the field data forms in Appendix D. Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) wetland rating forms are included in Appendix E. Site photographs are provided in Appendix F. Previous wetland delineations performed in 1997 are included in the Mitigation Analysis Memorandum provided in Appendix G. A 1990 aerial photograph of the site is provided in Appendix H. 1.1 Review of Existing Information As part of the analysis to identify natural resources and critical areas in the study area, Anchor QEA ecologists reviewed the following sources of information to support field observations: • Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey(USDA 2009) • Soil Survey of King County, Washington (USDA 1973) • Hydn·c Soil List for King County, Washington (USDA 2001) • United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Wetlands Mapper for National Wetlands Inventory (NW!) Map Information (USFWS 2009) • RMC (City of Renton 2009) • Aerial photographs • Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Priority Habitat and Species (PHS) Maps (WDFW 2009) • WDFS Non-game Data System Special Animal Species, as identified in Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 232-12-011 Wedand and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report Quendall Tenninals 2 November 2009 060059-01 Study Area Description 2 STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION The study area consists of one parcel with two parts. The larger portion is rectangular- shaped and is approximately 20.08 acres located adjacent to Lake Washington. The smaller portion is located just across Lake Washington Boulevard and is approximately 1.15 acres. The study area is located in the City of Renton, King County Washington (Township 24 North, Range 5 East, Section 29; see Figures 1 and 2). Shortly after the lowering of Lake Washington in 1916 to construct the Lake Washington Ship Canal, the Site, including newly exposed portions of the former May Creek delta, was developed into a creosote manufacturing facility. Up until 1969, creosote was manufactured on the Site by refining and processing coal tar and oil-gas tar residues. From 1969 to approximately 1977, some of the aboveground tanks at the Site were used intermittently for crude oil, waste oil, and diesel storage. From 1977 to 2008, the Site was used primarily for log sorting and storage, with tree, shrub, and herbaceous vegetation associated with upland, wetland, and riparian habitats. The Site is currently vacant. Aquatic lands adjacent to the facility managed by the Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) were historically leased for log rafting and vessel storage uses, but those leases terminated in the 1990s. Immediately adjacent properties include Conner Homes to the south (former Barbee Mill property) and Port Qµendall Company/Football Northwest to the north (former J.H. Baxter property). Lake Washington borders the western boundary of the study area. BNSF railroad and Lake Washington Boulevard separate the two portions of the parcel, with Interstate 405 (I-405) located along the east side of the eastern portion. May Creek currently discharges into Lake Washington approximately 400 yards south of the Site, just south of the Conner Homes development. An aerial photograph of the study area shortly after redevelopment of the Port Quendall Company/Football Northwest property, but prior to more recent redevelopment of the Conner Homes property, is depicted on Figure 2. 2.1 Topography Overall, the topography of the Site is relatively level with a gradual slope west down to Lake Washington (Figure 3). Site topography has been modified over the past 90 years by filling and grading activities. Site elevations are based on the North American Vertical Datum 1988 Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report Qµendall Terminals 3 November 2009 060059-01 Study Area Description (NA VD 88) and range from approximately 35 feet on the east side of the property to about 20 feet at the lake shore. The exposed Site soils are relatively fine-grained, which slows infiltration during rainy periods causing ponding in many areas. The Site has been heavily manipulated through the placement of fill, which is found across the entire Site. Fill thickness ranges from 1 to 2 feet along the southern and eastern boundaries up to 6 and 10 feet in nonhern ponions. Most commonly, the fill is a mix of silt, sand, and gravel with wood debris. Wood chips and bark from the log saning operations are typical in the upper few feet. Where creosote and pitch-like material has been encountered, it generally occurred at depths greater than 2 feet below ground surface. The surface of the Site is currently covered by either wood debris or by a 0.25-to 1-foot- thick layer of rock and organic muck generated from imponed gravel and wood debris mixed together by operation of log soning equipment in wet areas. There is also a network of roads at the Site that were previously used for log soning and storage, resulting in relatively compacted soil on much of the Site. Additionally, several stormwater features have been constructed on the Site that appear to have historically collected and conveyed much of the site's stormwater into Lake Washington. During the rainy season, most runoff flows into stormwater collection ponds on the west side of the Site or a drainage ditch along the southern property boundary (Figure 3). Stormwater also accumulates in low-lying areas. During field surveys it was apparent that these features still function by conveying and storing seasonal stormwater. Several features were excavated, constructed, or improved in 2006 to limit stormwater runoff into Lake Washington (Phoinix 2006). These areas have developed wetland characteristics supponing riparian tree species like willows (Salixsp.) and black cottonwoods (Populus balsamifera). 2.2 Soils The NRCS Web Soil Survey (USDA 2009) identifies two soil series in the location of the study area: "Norma sandy loam (No)" and "Bellingham silt loam (Bh)." The Norma sandy loam series is mapped within the majority of the study area, and the Bellingham silt loam series is mapped along the nonhern ponion. Figure 4 shows soil series in the study area. Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report Qµendall Tenninals 4 November 2009 060059-01 Study Area Description Both soil series identified in the study area are described as having poorly drained soils that formed in alluvium, under sedges, grass, conifers, and hardwoods. The Norma series are in basins on the glaciated uplands and in areas along the stream bottoms. The Bellingham series are nearly level and are mostly in depressions on the upland glacial till plain (USDA 1973). According to the Hydric Soil List for King County, Washington, both the Norma sandy loam and Bellingham series are classified as hydric soils (USDA 2009). Sample plot soil profiles are described in Section 3.2. A summary of soils data collected at each sample plot is presented in tables in Appendix C and in the field data forms in Appendix D. 2.3 Hydrology The study area is located in the Lake Washington/Sammamish River Basin Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 8 (Ecology 2009a). Hydrologic characteristics in the study area are influenced by regional groundwater, direct precipitation, surface water runoff, and Lake Washington. The OHWM of Lake Washington was delineated as part of this investigation and is described in Section 4 of this report. Sample plot hydrology is described in Section 3.2. A summary of hydrology data collected at each sample plot is presented in tables in Appendix C and in the field data forms in Appendix D. 2.4 Plant Communities and Habitat Types The USFWS Wedands Mapper for NWl Map Information identifies palustrine scrub-shrub (PSS) habitat on the western border of the study area adjoining Lake Washington (USFWS 2009; Figure 5). Wetland vegetation community types identified during the delineation include palustrine and lacustrine emergent (PEM and LEM), palustrine and lacustrine scrub shrub (PSS and LSS), palustrine and lacustrine forested (PFO and LFO), and palustrine open water (POW) wetland systems. Vegetation within the study area includes tree, shrub, grass, and herbaceous species associated with upland, wetland, and riparian habitat associated with Lake Washington and the constructed stormwater features. Vegetative cover by community (forested, scrub/shrub, and herbaceous/disturbed) and trees more than 10 inches in diameter at breast height (dbh) within 100 feet of the shoreline are shown on Figure 6. Wetland and Wedand and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report Qpendall Terminals 5 November 2009 060059-0! Study Area Description upland vegetation in the study area is described in Section 3.2. A summary of vegetation data collected in the study area and at each sample plot is presented in the tables in Appendix C and in the field data forms in Appendix D. The WDFW PHS database does not identify any priority habitats within the study area (WDFW 2009). Priority wetland habitat occurs approximately 0.25-mile south and east of the study area and consists of scrub-shrub, forested, and emergent marsh wetlands along May Creek, its tributaries, and Lake Boren. Priority fish presence documented in May Creek includes coho salmon ( Oncorhynchus kisutch), fall Chinook salmon ( Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), resident cutthroat ( Oncorhynchus clarla), sockeye salmon ( Oncorhynchus nerka), and winter steelhead ( Oncorhynchus mykiss). Priority fish presence within the study area includes species documented in Lake Washington, including coho salmon, fall Chinook, resident cutthroat, sockeye salmon, winter steelhead, and Dolly Varden/bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus). Wedand and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report Qµendall Tenninals 6 November 2009 060059-01 Wetland Delineation 3 WETLAND DELINEATION On April 23 and 30, May 6, and June 19 2009, Anchor QEA ecologists performed wetland delineations and a wetland ratings analysis of wetland habitats in the study area. Ten wetlands, Wetlands A and J, were found in the study area. Complete descriptions of Wetlands A through J are provided in the following sections. Wetland delineation results are shown on Figure 6 -Wetland and OHWM Delineation Results. A summary of vegetation, soils, and hydrology data collected at each sampling plot is presented in the tables in Appendix C and in the field data forms in Appendix D. Site photographs are provided in AppendixF. 3.1 Wetland Delineation Methods This section describes the methodology used to perform the wetland delineation, including the review of existing information and field investigation procedures. These methods are consistent with current federal and state agency requirements, as well as local jurisdiction requirements, for performing wetland delineations and identifying protective wetland buffer widths. As specified by the RMC (City of Renton 2009), this wetland delineation was conducted according to the methods defined in the U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987), the Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wedand Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Corps 2008), and Ecology's Washington State Wedand Identification and Delineation Manual (Ecology 1997). Soil colors were classified by their numerical description, as identified on a Munsell Soil Color Chart (Munsell 1994). The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps; Environmental Laboratory 1987), the Washington State Shoreline Management Act (SMA; Ecology 2009b), the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA; Access Washington 2007), and the RMC all define wetlands as: "Areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas." Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report Quendall Terminals 7 November 2009 060059-01 W ctland Delineation The method for delineating wetlands is based on the presence of three parameters: hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology. Hydrophytic vegetation is "the macrophytic plant life that occurs in areas where the frequency and duration of inundation or soil saturation produce permanently or periodically saturated soils of sufficient duration to exert a controlling influence on the plant species present." Hydric soils are "formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part." Wetland hydrology "encompasses all hydrologic characteristics of areas that are periodically inundated or have soils saturated to the surface for a sufficient duration during the growing season" (Ecology 1997). Data collection methods for each of these parameters are described below. A total of 21 data plots were sampled at the approximately 21.23-acre study area. Sample plots are identified numerically as wetland or upland plots (for example, SPl Wet, SP2Wet, SP3Up, etc). Vegetation, soils, and hydrology information were collected at each of the plots, recorded on field data sheets, and photographed. Locations of wetland delineation boundary flags and data plots are provided in Appendix A. A summary of sample plot data is presented in Appendix C. The field data sheets are provided in Appendix D. Site photographs are provided in Appendix F. Wetland boundaries were determined based upon sample plot data and visual observations of each wetland. Wetland locations and boundaries were flagged and subsequently surveyed by a professional surveyor to establish and verify the location and size. 3.1.1 Vegetation Plant species occurring in each plot were recorded on field data sheets, one data sheet per plot (Appendix D). Percent cover was estimated in the plot for each plant species and dominant species were determined. At each plot, trees within a 30-foot radius, shrubs within a 15-foot radius, and emergents within a 3-foot radius from the center of the plot were identified and recorded on a data sheet. A plant indicator status, designated by the USFWS (Reed 1988 and 1993), was assigned to each species and a determination was made as to whether the vegetation in the plot was hydrophytic. To meet the hydrophytic parameter, more than 50 percent of the dominant species, with 20 percent or greater cover, must have an indicator of obligate wetland (OBL), facultative wetland (FACW), or facultative (F AC or FAC+). Table 1 shows the wetland indicator status categories. Wedand and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report Quendall Terminals 8 November 2009 060059-01 Wetland Delineation Table 1 Wetland Plant Indicator Definitions Indicator Status Description Obligate wetland (DBL) Plant species occur almost always in wetlands (estimated probability greater than 99 percent) under natural conditions. Facultative wetland Plant species usually occur in wetlands (estimated probability 67 (FACW) percent to 99 percent), but occasionally found in non-wetlands. Facultative (FAC) Plant species equally likely to occur in wetlands or non-wetlands (estimated probability 34 percent to 66 percent). Facultative upland Plant species usually occur in non-wetlands (estimated probability (FACU) 67 percent to 99 percent), but occasionally found in wetlands. Obligate upland (UPL) Plant species occur almost always in non-wetlands (estimated probability greater than 99 percent) under natural conditions. 3.1.2 Soils Soils were sampled in each plot and evaluated for hydric soil indicators. Soil pits were dug to a depth of 16 inches or greater, and all profiles were photographed. Hydric soil indicators include low soil matrix chroma, gleying, and redoximorphic features (such as mottles), and are formed predominantly by the accumulation or loss of iron, manganese, sulfur, or carbon compounds in a saturated and anaerobic environment. Mottles are spots of contrasting color occurring within the soil matrix (the predominant soil color). Gleyed soils are predominantly bluish, greenish, or grayish in color. For example, a depleted dark soil surface (F7), a matrix value of 3 or less, a chroma of 2 or less, and 20 percent or more redox depletions are positive indicators of hydric soils (Corps 2008). Due to the presence of known soil and groundwater contamination at the Site, soil pits were not excavated at many wetland sample plots located in the upland area. This includes the constructed stormwater features located throughout the project site and most upland plot locations. 3.1.3 Hydrology Wetland hydrology was evaluated at each plot to determine whether it "encompasses all hydrologic characteristics of areas that are periodically inundated or have soils saturated to Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report Qpendall Tenninals 9 November 2009 060059-01 Wetland Delineation the surface for a sufficient duration during the growing season" (Ecology 1997). The mesic growing season in western Washington is generally March through October. Field observations of saturation and inundation, and other indicators of wetland hydrology, such as water-stained leaves and drainage patterns in wetlands, were recorded. 3.1.4 Other Data Sources Reviews of existing information were conducted to identify potential wetlands or site characteristics indicative of wetlands in the study area. The sources of information reviewed to support field observations are identified in Section 1.1. 3.1.5 Wetland Classifications Wetland community types are discussed below according to the USFWS classification developed by Cowardin, et al. (1979). This system, published in 1979 by a team ofUSFWS scientists led by L.M. Cowardin, bases the classification of wetlands on their physical characteristics, such as the general type of vegetation in the wetland (trees, shrubs, grass, etc.) and prevalence and location of water in the wetland. The Cowardin classification system provides a classification for every known wetland type that occurs throughout the United States, and, under this system, a wetland can be classified as having one or more wetland classification types. The community types found during this investigation were: • Palustrine and Lacustrine forested (PFO and LFO) -These wetlands have at least 30 percent cover of woody vegetation that is more than 20 feet high. • Palustrine and Lacustrine scrub-shrub (PSS and LSS) -These wetlands have at least 30 percent cover of woody vegetation that is less than 20 feet high. • Palustrine and Lacustrine emergent (PEM and LEM) -These wetlands have erect, rooted, herbaceous vegetation present for most of the growing season in most years. • Palustrine open water (POW) -These wetlands are characterized by open water, such as ponds. 3.1.6 State Wetland Ratings System At the state level, wetlands are categorized by applying the most current version of the rating system developed by Ecology: Washington State Wetlands Rating System -Weste= Washington: Revised (Ecology 2004), and Washington State Wetland Rating Form - Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report Qpendall Tenninals JO November 2009 060059-0 I Wetland Delineation Western Washington, version 2 (Ecology 2006). Ecology developed this system to differentiate wetlands based on their sensitivity to disturbance, their significance in the watershed, their rarity, the ability to replace them, and the beneficial functions they provide to society. To determine an accurate assessment of a wetland's rating and functional values, function scores were calculated based on entire wetland systems, not just the delineated portion of wetlands within the study area. The Ecology rating system requires the user to collect specific information about the wetland in a step-by-step process. As part of the rating system, the hydrogeomorphic classification of the wetland was determined and three major functions were analyzed: flood and erosion control, water quality improvement, and wildlife habitat. Each hydrogeomorphic wetland class has specific rating criteria for water quality and hydrologic functions. Habitat functions rating criteria were the same for each of the hydrogeomorphic wetland classes. Ratings were based on a point system where points are given if a wetland meets specific criteria related to the wetland's potential and opportunity to provide certain benefits. If a wetland provides the opportunity to improve water quality or hydrologic functions, a multiplier of two was applied to the points for the wetland's potential functions. If a wetland does not provide the opportunity to improve water quality or hydrologic functions, a multiplier of one was applied. Per Ecology's rating system, wetlands were categorized according to the following criteria and on points given: • Category I wetlands (70 to 100 points) represent a unique or rare wetland type, or are more sensitive to disturbance, or are relatively undisturbed and contain ecological attributes that are impossible to replace within a human lifetime. • Category II wetlands (51 to 69 points) are difficult, though not impossible, to replace, and provide high levels of some functions. • Category III (30 to 50 points) wetlands have a moderate level of function. They have been disturbed in some ways, and are often less diverse or more isolated from other natural resources in the landscape than Category II wetlands. • Category IV wetlands (0 to 29 points) have the lowest levels of functions and are often heavily disturbed. Wedand and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report Qµendall Terminals 11 November 2009 060059-01 Wetland Delineation 3.1.7 City of Renton Wetland Rating System and Buffer Requirements Wetlands in the study area were also rated according to the City of Renton Critical Area Regulations that establish local regulatory requirements for wetlands and their associated buffers (City of Renton 2009). Wetlands in the study area were assigned a local rating category based on the applicable City and King County (County) critical areas regulations and the associated regulatory wetland buffer widths. Section 3.3.3 provides wetland information contained in the RMC (City of Renton 2009). The full text of the city's critical areas regulations was consulted during this analysis. 3.1.7.1 Wetland Rating System and Buffer Requirements Category 1 wetlands meet any of the following criteria: • Contain species listed by federal or state government as endangered or threatened, or the presence of essential habitat for those species • Have 40 to 60 percent permanent open water (in dispersed patches or otherwise) with two or more vegetation classes • Are equal to or greater than 10 acres in size and have three or more vegetation classes, one of which is open water • Contain plant associations of infrequent occurrence, or at the geographical limits of their occurrence Category 2 wetlands meet any of the following criteria: • Are wetlands that are not Category 1 or 3 wetlands • Have heron rookeries or raptor nesting trees, but are not Category 1 wetlands • Are wetlands of any size located at the headwaters of a watercourse, i.e., a wetland with a perennial or seasonal outflow channel, but with no defined influent channel, but are not Category 1 wetlands • Have minimum existing evidence of human related physical alteration such as diking, ditching, or channelization Category 3 wetlands meet any of the following criteria: • Are severely disturbed wetlands; severely disturbed wetlands are wetlands that meet Wedand and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report Quendall Tenninals 12 November 2009 060059-01 Wetland Delineation the following criteria: Are characterized by hydrologic isolation, human-related hydrologic alterations such as diking, ditching, channelization, and/or outlet modification Have soils alterations such as the presence of fill, soil removal and/or compaction of soil May have altered vegetation • Are newly emerging wetlands; newly emerging wetlands are wetlands occurring on top of fill materials, and characterized by emergent vegetation, low plant species richness, and used minimally by wildlife. • Include all other wetlands not classified as Category 1 or 2, such as smaller, high quality wetlands. According to the RMC, Category 3 wetlands less than 2,200 sf in area are exempt from the regulations if they meet the following exemption criteria[4-3-050 CS(f)]: • Standing water is not present in sufficient amounts, i.e., approximately 12 inches to 18 inches in depth from approximately December through May, to support breeding amphibians • Species listed by Federal or State government as endangered or threatened, or the presence of essential habitat for those species, are not present • Some form of mitigation is provided for hydrologic and water quality functions; for example, storrnwater treatment or landscaping or other mitigation • A wetland assessment is prepared by a qualified professional demonstrating the criteria of the exemption are met According to the RMC Title 4, Chapter 3, Section 5, wetland buffers are measured from the wetland edge as delineated in the field and are sized depending on the wetland category. Building or activity setback from a critical area or buffer may be required to ensure adequate protection of the critical area/buffer during construction and ongoing maintenance of the activity. Section 5 also states that alterations to wetlands shall be mitigated through creation, restoration, and/or enhancement. Mitigation actions must re-create as nearly as possible the wetland being replaced, and result in no net loss of wetland acreage and/or function. Table 2 provides a summary of the City's wetland buffer requirements. Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report Qµendall Tenninals 13 November 2009 060059-01 Wetland Delineation Table 2 City of Renton Wetland Regulations Wetland Classification Buffer Requirement Category 1 100 feet Category 2 50 feet Category 3 25 feet 3.1.8 Wetland Functions Assessment The functional values of wetlands were rated according to Washington State Wetland Rating System -Westem Washington: Revised (Ecology 2004) and Wetland Rating Fonn -Westem Washington, Version 2(Ecology 2006). Using Ecology's system, wetlands were rated based on a point system where points are awarded to three functional value categories: water quality, hydrologic, and wildlife habitat. Detailed scoring, based on Ecology wetland rating forms, is provided in Appendix E. 3.2 Wetland Delineation Results Ten wetlands, Wetlands A though J, were found in the study area. A complete description of each wetland is provided in the following sections. Wetland delineation results are shown on Figure 5 and for each individual wetland in Appendix A. A summary of vegetation, soils, and hydrology data collected at each sample plot is presented in the tables in Appendix C and in the field data forms in Appendix D. 3.2.1 Wetland A Wetland A is a 0.08-acre (3,433-sf) lake-fringe and slope wetland that contains LFO, LSS, and LEM habitat (Figure 7; Appendix A). The entire boundary of Wetland A was delineated within the study area. Wetland A is located in the southwest comer of the study area and is associated with Lake Washington (Photographs 1 and 2 in Appendix F). A compacted dirt access road abuts the eastern edge. Wetland A vegetation is dominated primarily by young (less than 10 inches dbh) red alder (Alnus rubra), red-osier dogwood ( Camus sericea), and black twinberry (Lonicera involucrata) (Photograph 2 in Appendix F). The dominant buffer vegetation of Wetland A is Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report Qpendall Tenninals 14 November 2009 060059-01 Wetland Delineation also young red alder with some Indian plum ( Oemleria cerasiformis) and dense Himalayan blackberry (Ru bus armeniacus) where the vegetated buffer transitions into a compacted soil road. Much (75 percent) of the buffer is disturbed compacted soils with sparse native and non-native invasive plants. The northwest perimeter of Wetland A is Lake Washington with extensive open and deep water habitats. Wildlife use of the wetland and its buffer was evident through several physical indicators such as woodpecker cavities, forage snags, beaver forage marks, and mammal tunnels in the dense vegetation. There was evidence of turtle and waterfowl use on the partially submerged woody debris at the edge of the wetland bordering the lake. Wildlife observed in the wetland and its buffer includes black-capped chickadee (Poecile atricapillus), song sparrow (Melospiza melodia), Bushtit (Psaltnparus minimus), and Anna's hummingbird ( Calypte anna). The transition from an open water habitat to wetland to maintained upland offers both soft and hard edges between habitats. Movement of wildlife from the wetland habitat to the lake or from the lake to the wetland appears healthy and may offer migration, forage, shelter, and breeding opportunities for specific species of amphibians, waterfowl, and mammals. The transition from the upland buffer habitats to the wetland habitat offers a more abrupt transition to wildlife. Hard edges tend to benefit some species while creating a less beneficial habitat for others. Migration, forage, shelter, and breeding near or in these areas may be limited for many species. Soils in the wetland plot included very dark gray (lOYR 3/1) to very dark grayish-brown (lOYR 3/2) clay loam to 18 inches deep. Below about 18 inches, very dark gray (2.SY 3/1) clay loam with dark yellowish brown (lOYR 3/4) mottles was observed in the matrix. Soils in the upland plot were very dark gray (lOYR 3/1) to 18+ inches with brown (lOYR 4/3) mottles observed around 8+ inches. Soil saturation was at the surface in the majority of Wetland A and the upland plot, with free-standing water in the sample plots within about 10 inches of the surface. Two sample plots were established as pan of Wetland A: SPlWet and SPlUp (Appendices A and B). SPl Wet contained indicators of hydrophytic vegetation, wetland hydrology, and hydric soils. The upland plot, SPl Up, had indicators of wetland hydrology and hydric soils, Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report Quendall Tenninals 15 November 2009 060059-01 Wetland Delineation but lacked hydrophytic vegetation. Twenty flags were used to identify the Wetland A boundary (Appendix A). 3.2.2 WetlandB Wetland Bis an approximately 0.14-acre (6,051-sf) depressional wetland and is one of the largest constructed stormwater features in the study area displaying wetland characteristics (Figure 7; Appendix A). Wetland B was excavated in the 1970s as a retention pond to control tar from flowing into the lake (King County Metro 1972). The wetland is triangle-shaped and representative of a settling pond with standing water observed during the survey. The eastern boundary of Wetland B narrows to a ditch-like feature that possibly used to convey water west from Wetland G during large rain events through either a culvert or a shallow ditch (now abandoned). Wetland Bis positioned in the landscape approximately 6 to 8 feet below Wetland C. Wetland B contains PSS and POW habitats (Photograph 2 in Appendix F). As part of an effort to prevent silt and wood debris from entering Lake Washington in 2006, an outfall was excavated along the north side of Wetland B to create a stable outlet for stormwater into Lake Washington. Wetland vegetation is dominated by Japanese knotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum), Pacific willow (Salix lasiandra), soft rush (Juncus effusus), and purple-leaved willowherb (Epilobium ciliatum). Dominant buffer vegetation of Wetland B includes monotypic stands of Japanese knotweed and Himalayan blackberry. Most (90 percent) of the buffer apparently was maintained until recently. These maintained areas have now become fully vegetated, with Japanese knotweed dominating the western buffer and Himalayan blackberry dominating the eastern buffer. The remaining buffer (10 percent) on the north and south ends of the wetland has a few large native trees (greater than 16 inches dbh), but the understory is a shrub layer dominated by non-native invasive plants. The western buffer extends to Lake Washington with extensive open and deep water habitats. Wildlife use of Wetland B and its buffer was not very evident, but there were a few physical indicators such as a beaver slide to the west from the wetland toward the lake, and other small mammal tunnels in the dense vegetation. There was evidence of turtle use on the partially submerged woody debris within the standing water of the wetland. No aquatic organisms were seen in the water other than the purple-leaved willow herb. Wildlife observed in the wetland and its buffer includes spotted towhee (Pipilo maculatus), song Wedand and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report Quendall Tenninals 16 November 2009 060059-01 Wetland Delineation sparrow, and American goldfinch ( Carduelis tristis). The open water habitat within the wetland quickly transitions to a scrub-shrub buffer habitat. Movement of wildlife from the wetland habitat to the buffer or from the buffer to the wetland appears to offer migration, forage, shelter, and breeding opportunities for specific species of amphibians, waterfowl, and mammals. Similarly, the transition from the wetland to the buffer to the lake offers a greater migration route with the dense shrub cover between the two open water habitats. Wetland B (denoted as Quendall Pond in the CERCLA RI/FS documents) is known to contain relatively high concentrations of contaminants in soil and groundwater, which limit the quality, use, and function of these habitats and corridors. Because contaminants are known to be in the study area, soil pits were not excavated in Wetland B. Wetland B is the largest of the constructed stormwater features in the study area. As described above, during large rain events, Wetland G may convey stormwater through a relic connection or by surface flow. The depth of water in Wetland B was not discemable because of opaque water coloration and the presence of contamination preventing further investigation; however, the volume and depth did appear to exceed several feet. Two sample plots were established as part of Wetland B: SPlWet and SPIUp (Appendices A, C, and D). The wetland plot contained indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology. The upland plot lacked indicators of wetland hydrology and hydrophytic vegetation. Eleven flags were used to identify the Wetland B boundary (Appendix A). 3.2.3 WetlandC Wetland C is an approximately 0.03-acre (1,200 sf) depressional wetland and is another constructed stormwater feature in the study area displaying wetland characteristics (Figure 7; Appendix A). The wetland is located in the center of the parcel with the western boundary approximately 38 feet from Lake Washington. Like Wetland B, the wetland is representative of a stormwater pond with standing water observed during the survey. Wetland C is positioned in the landscape approximately 6 to 8 feet above Wetland B. The entirety of Wetland C was constructed in 2006 as part of an effort to prevent silt and wood debris from entering Lake Washington (Phoinix 2006). An earthen berm was constructed along the Wedand and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report Quendall Terminals 17 November 2009 060059-01 Wetland Delineation southwest edge of Wetlands B and C, and check dams were installed to control turbid water and floating debris. Wetland C likely flows directly into Wetland B during high flow events via sheetflow (Figure 7; Photograph 3 in Appendix F). Wetland C was constructed in an upland area that did not contain wetland indicators, based on the fact that Wetland C was not identified during a wetland delineation conducted by David Evans and Associates in 1997 (Appendix G). Wetland C contains PFO, PSS, PEM, and POW habitats. At the time of the survey, Pacific willow and black cottonwood saplings were the only vegetation observed in Wetland B and distributed along the wetland's edge. The saplings were all 3 to 5 feet in height with a dbh of approximately I to 3 inches. Because of the recent construction and maintenance of this feature, the wetland habitat and buffer habitat are heavily degraded and offer little or no opportunity for wildlife use. Because contaminants are known to be in the study area, soil pits were not excavated in WetlandC. The wetland is oval-shaped and, as described above, resembles a small settling pond. The wetland primarily receives stormwater runoff from the study area and direct precipitation. During the survey, based only on visual approximations, the depth of standing water was about 10 to 12 inches in the deepest parts. Two sample plots were established as part of Wetland C: SPl Wet and SPl Up (Appendices A, C, and D). The wetland plot contained indicators ofhydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology. The upland plot lacked indicators of wetland hydrology and hydrophytic vegetation. Soil pits were not excavated. Ten flags were used to identify the Wetland C boundary (Appendix A). 3.2.4 WetlandD Wetland Dis a 0.38-acre (16,686-sf) lake-fringe and slope wetland that contains LFO, LSS, and LEM habitats (Figure 7; Appendix A). Wetland Dis associated with Lake Washington (Photograph 4 in Appendix F) and extends approximately 170 feet into the study area. Wetland D is the only wetland in the study area included in the USFWS Wetlands Mapper Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report Qµendall Tenninals 18 November 2009 060059-01 Wetland Delineation for NW! Map Information (Figure 5), which identifies this as PSS habitat. Wetland vegetation is dominated by large black cottonwood, Pacific willow, red alder, and red-osier dogwood. The dominant buffer vegetation includes black cottonwood and Himalayan blackberry and is the most diverse in vegetative strata layers (canopy, sub-canopy, scrub- shrub, and herbaceous) and the most intact of all the project site wetland buffers. Approximately 40 percent of the wetland buffer is Lake Washington to the northwest. Wildlife use of Wetland D is very similar to but more diverse than Wetland A. Several physical wildlife indicators within the wetland and the buffer were observed: woodpecker cavities, stick nests, basket nests, mole mounds, soil burrows, forage snags, beaver forage marks, matted vegetation, and mammal tunnels in the dense vegetation. There was also evidence of turtle and waterfowl use on partially submerged woody debris and vegetative mats at the edge of the lake and within the wetland. Wildlife observed in the wetland and its buffer includes Black-capped chickadee, song sparrow, bushtit, spotted towhee, downy woodpecker (Picoides pubescens), brown creeper ( Certhia amen·cana), American robin ( Turdus migratrious), and northwest crow ( Corvus caurinus). The transition from the open water habitat to the wetland to an intact upland buffer offers soft edges between all habitats. Movement of wildlife from the buffer to the wetland to the lake, or back, may offer healthy migration, forage, shelter, and breeding opportunities for specific species of amphibians, waterfowl, and mammals. This wetland, along with its buffer, appears to offer the best habitat opportunity for the most species due to its size, vegetative structure, hydrology regimes, and position in the landscape. Three soil pits were excavated in Wetland D (Appendix A); one near the lake's edge (SPlWet), one in the upland (SPlUp), and one in the uppermost extent of the wetland (SP2Wet). The soils in SPlWet included very dark grayish-brown (lOYR 3/2) sandy loam to 6 inches deep and then gray (lOYR 5/1) silt loam with dark yellowish brown (lOYR 4/6) mottles through 18+ inches. Soils in SP2Wet included black (lOYR 2/1) loamy sand through 10 inches and then dark gray (2.SY 4/1) loamy sand through 18+ inches. At approximately 10 to 12 inches, a narrow band of dark gray (2.SYR 4/1) silt loam with dark yellowish-brown (lOYR 4/6) mottles was observed with interspersed coarse angular rock. SPl Up included grayish brown (2.SY 5/2) loamy clay through 18+ inches. Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report Qpendall Terminals 19 November 2009 060059-01 Wetland Delineation Soil saturation was observed at the surface in the majority of Wetland D with standing water near the lake's edge. The primary hydrologic indicator in the upper extent of Wetland D included sparsely vegetated concave surface and water-stained leaves. In the upland plot, saturation was observed at the surface. Three sample plots were established as part of Wetland D: SPlWet, SP2Wet, and SPlUp (Appendices A, D, and D). SPl Wet and SP2Wet contained indicators of hydrophytic vegetation, wetland hydrology, and hydric soils. The upland plot, SPl Up, had indicators of wetland hydrology and hydric soils, but lacked hydrophytic vegetation. Twenty-two flags were used to identify the Wetland D boundary (Appendix A). 3.2.5 WetlandE Wetland Eis a 0.11-acre (4,556-sf) depressional wetland that contains PFO and PSS habitat located in the southwest comer of the study area (Figure 7; Appendix A). Like Wetlands B, C, and G, Wetland Eis a constructed stormwater feature in the study area, but it contains a more developed and mature forested component than the others (Photographs 1 and 2 in Appendix F). Wetland vegetation is dominated by young black cottonwood, Pacific willow, red alder, and red-osier dogwood. Dominant buffer vegetation includes Japanese knotweed and Himalayan blackberry, and a few mature black cottonwoods and young red alders (Photograph 5 in Appendix F). The entire wetland buffer apparently was maintained as transportation routes (roads) or staging areas (log storage) up until the facility closed in the past few years. These areas, other than the roads, have now become overgrown with upland invasive species, such as Scot's broom ( Cytisus scopan·us) and Himalayan blackberry. The dirt roads remain and are heavily compacted, supporting very little vegetation. Wildlife use of Wetland E and its buffer was not evident other than a few stick and leaf nests. There were some physical indicators of beaver foraging, but the teeth marks were very old and not very common. There was no evidence of aquatic organisms within the standing water of the wetland other than plants. Wildlife observed in the wetland and its buffer includes spotted towhee, Anna's hummingbird, northwest crow, American robin, song sparrow, and Wilson's snipe ( Gallinago delicata). The open water habitat within the wetland quickly transitions to a scrub-shrub, young forest buffer habitat. This transition of an open water habitat to a wetland to a disturbed upland offers both soft and hard edges between Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report Quendall Terminals 20 November 2009 060059-01 Wetland Delineation habitats. Movement of wildlife from the wetland habitat to the upland or from the upland to the wetland appears healthy and may offer migration, forage, shelter, and breeding opportunities for some species of amphibians, waterfowl, and mammals. The transition from the disturbed maintained upland habitats to the wetland habitat offers a more abrupt transition to wildlife. Hard edges tend to benefit some species while creating a less beneficial habitat for others. Migration, forage, shelter, and breeding near or in these areas may be limited for many species. Contaminated soil and sediments in this wetland may limit the quality, use, and function of these habitats and corridors. Because of the presence of contamination in the study area, soil pits were not excavated in Wetland E. The wetland determination for each plot was based on hydrology and vegetation data. The majority of Wetland E had standing water at the surface with some areas appearing in excess of 2-feet deep. A staff gauge was installed in 1995 to monitor water levels in 1995 and 1996 (Aspect 2009). At the time of the survey, the water level was around O foot; however, there were indications that the high water line on the gauge exceeded 3.5 feet. It is not known if this device was installed relative to any fixed position, but it does provide details on the storage capacity of the wetland. Wetland hydrology was not observed in the upland plot. Two sample plots were established as part of Wetland E: SPl Wet and SPl Up (Appendices A, C, and D). SPlWet contained indicators ofhydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology. The upland plot lacked any indications of hydrophytic vegetation or wetland hydrology. Nineteen flags were used to identify the Wetland E boundaty (Appendix A). 3.2.6 WetlandF Wetland F is a small 0.11-acre (546-sf) lake-fringe and slope wetland that contains LSS and LEM habitat (Figure 7; Appendix A). The entire boundary of Wetland F was delineated within the study area. Wetland Fis associated with Lake Washington (Photographs 1 and 2 in Appendix F) and is located in the center of the study area, immediately west of Wetland C. Wetland vegetation is dominated by red alder, Pacific willow, soft rush, and reed canarygrass (Phalaris arondinacea). Dominant buffer vegetation includes Japanese knotweed and Himalayan blackberry (Photograph 3 in Appendix F). Wedand and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report Quendall Tenninals 21 November 2009 060059-01 Wetland Delineation Although Wetland F is a very small wetland, wildlife use in the wetland and buffer was evident through several physical indicators such as shell and crustacean middens, forage snags, waterfowl droppings, beaver forage marks, and mammal tunnels in the dense vegetation. There was also evidence of recent turtle use (wet log) of a partially submerged log at the edge of the wetland bordering the lake. No wildlife was observed in the wetland or its buffer during field investigations. Half of the wetland perimeter is along Lake Washington, offering a transition from an open water habitat to a wetland to a vegetated upland. Movement of wildlife from the upland habitat to the wetland to the lake appears unobstructed and may offer migration, forage, shelter, and breeding opportunities for specific species of amphibians, waterfowl, and mammals. The actual wetland is so small that habitat function associated with the wetland may be reduced as an area for migration, forage, shelter, and breeding. Soils in the wetland plot included dark grayish-brown (2.5Y 4/2) sand with yellowish brown (lOYR 5/6) mottles to 6 inches deep (Appendix D). Below about 6 inches, dark gray (2.SY 4/1) sand with dark yellowish-brown (lOYR 4/6) mottles was observed in the matrix. Soil pits in the upland plot were not excavated in Wetland F because of the presence of contamination. Wetland hydrology was evident with free-standing water in the sample plot within about 10 inches of the surface. Wetland hydrology was not observed in the upland plot. Two sample plots were established as part of Wetland F: SPl Wet and SPl Up (Appendices A, C, and D). SPl Wet contained indicators of hydrophytic vegetation, wetland hydrology, and hydric soils. The upland plot lacked hydrophytic vegetation and any indication of wetland hydrology. Soils were not examined in the upland plot. Four flags were used to identify the Wetland F boundary (Appendix A). 3.2.7 WetlandG Wetland G is a small, approximately 0.05-acre (2,198-sf) depressional wetland (Figure 7; Appendix A). It is thought that Wetland G was excavated as part of construction of berms to direct tar on the site into Wetland B (Aspect 2009). The wetland is narrow and ditch-like Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report Quendall Terminals 22 November 2009 060059-01 Wetland Delineation and at one time conveyed stormwater to Wetland B, but has since been separated by a compacted dirt road separating the two (no culverts were found) (Figure 7). During prolonged rain events, Wetland G likely fills to capacity and sheetflows into Wetland B. Wetland G is positioned in the landscape approximately 2 to 4 feet below the rest of the study area. Wetland G contains PSS and PFO habitat. Wetland vegetation is dominated by black cottonwood, Pacific willow, and Himalayan blackberry, with an isolated patch of emergent vegetation. Dominant wetland buffer vegetation includes black cottonwood, black twinberry, and Himalayan blackberry (Figure 4; Photographs 7 and 8 in Appendix F). Based on aerial photography, it appears that more than half of the current areas adjacent to Wetland G are or have been maintained as transportation routes (roads) or staging areas (log storage). Appendix H provides a historic aerial photo from 1990 that shows log storage and roads present in the current location of Wetland G. These areas, aside from one existing road to the west, have now become overgrown with upland invasive plants such as Scot's broom, Japanese knotweed, and Himalayan blackberry. Physical evidence of wildlife use in Wetland G was limited possibly due to the wetland's long and narrow shape. Wildlife observed in the wetland and its buffer includes northwest crow, song sparrow, and black-capped chickadee. The narrow scrub-shrub habitat and small patches of young forest buffer habitat offer wildlife a possible corridor of cover/shelter along or through the wetland. This wetland and buffer habitat extends further east than any other wetland at the project site and overlaps with the buffer from Wetland B, creating a corridor to Lake Washington. Due to the narrow shape of the wetland, migration, forage, shelter, and breeding near or in these areas may be limited for many species. Contaminated soil and sediments in this wetland may limit the quality, use, and function of these habitats and corridors. Because of the presence of contamination in the study area, soil pits were not excavated in Wetland G. The wetland determination for each plot was based on hydrology and vegetation data. Wetland G is a narrow, ditch-like wetland that primarily receives stormwater runoff from the study area and direct precipitation. Standing water was present in much of the wetland. The upland plot did not display any wetland hydrology indicators. Wedand and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report Quendall Terminals 23 November 2009 060059-01 Wetland Delineation Two sample plots were established as part of Wetland G: SPl Wet and SP! Up (Appendices A, C, and D). SPIWet contained indicators ofhydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology. The upland plot contained indicators of hydrophytic vegetation but lacked wetland hydrology. Eighteen flags were used to identify the Wetland G boundary (Appendix A). 3.2.8 WetlandH Wetland H is an approximately 0.01-acre (511-sf) slope and depressional wetland located on the southern edge of the study area along the property boundary (Figure 7; Appendix A). Like many of the other features described in this report, Wetland H was constructed as a stormwater feature to control stormwater. Work was conducted in January 2006 to control silt and wood debris from flowing into Lake Washington. Wetland H was excavated in January 2006 to clean out the ditch along the southern portion of the site. Four rock check dams were placed in the cleared ditch at approximately 25-foot intervals to allow for sediment and wood debris control. Although Wetland H contains wetland indicators, it is located in an area that was excavated to function as stormwater conveyance off the site and into Lake Washington. Wetland H is positioned in the landscape approximately 2 to 4 feet below the rest of the study area and contains PFO, PSS, and PEM habitats (Figure 2; Photographs 9 and 10 in Appendix F). It is adjacent to a 15-foot-tall engineered concrete block wall, which is the boundary line between the project site and the newly developed parcel to the south. The low area extends along the concrete block wall and develops more ditch-like characteristics near Wetland H and Lake Washington. Wetland vegetation is dominated by mature black cottonwood, red alder, Pacific willow, and Himalayan blackberry. Dominant wetland buffer vegetation includes reed canarygrass and Himalayan blackberry. Effectively, the wetland only has two-thirds of its buffer. Wildlife use of Wetland H and its buffer may be increased by the presence of an adjacent concrete wall south of the wetland. Species traveling south or north may follow the wall until they reach the shoreline, effectively routing them through Wetland H or its buffer. Several physical indicators of wildlife presence within the wetland and the buffer were observed: woodpecker cavities, stick nests, forage snags, and beaver forage marks. Wildlife observed in the wetland and its buffer includes black-capped chickadee, song sparrow, Wedand and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report Quendall Terminals 24 November 2009 060059-01 Wetland Delineation spotted towhee, Downy woodpecker, and northwest crow. The entire area from the open water habitat of Lake Washington to the west, through the wetland, to the upland buffer is fully vegetated and may provide good shelter as well as a migration path for wildlife. Movement of wildlife from the buffer to the wetland to the lake, or back, may offer healthy migration, forage, shelter, and breeding opportunities for specific species of amphibians, waterfowl, and mammals. A single soil pit in the wetland was excavated and photographed in Wetland H; however, because of the presence of contamination in the study area, the soils were not handled and no information was recorded. The wetland determination for each plot was based on hydrology and vegetation data. Wetland H is a narrow ditch-like wetland that primarily receives stormwater runoff from the study area and direct precipitation. Adjacent to the wetland is another, smaller constructed stormwater feature that also collects stormwater from portions of the site. This feature sits at a higher elevation than Wetland Hand conveys stormwater from an adjacent ditch through a culvert to the eastern extent of the wetland. Flowing water was present during the survey. The upland plot did not display indications of wetland hydrology. Two sample plots were established as part of Wetland H: SPl Wet and SPl Up (Appendices A, C, and D). SPlWet contained indicators ofhydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology. The upland sample plot lacked indicators of wetland vegetation and hydrology. 3.2.9 Wetland I Wetland I is an approximately 0.05-acre (2,358-sf) depressional wetland located on the small portion of the property across Lake Washington Boulevard (Figure 7; Appendix A). Like many of the other features described in this report, Wetland I is a result of land surface manipulation and road construction. Wetland I is positioned in the landscape between I-405 and Lake Washington Boulevard where it receives stormwater runoff from adjacent impervious surfaces. The wetland contains PSS and PEM habitats (Figure 2; Photograph 15 in Appendix F) and all habitats are dominated by Japanese knotweed. Wetland vegetation is either stunted or dying adjacent to or under the thick canopy of Japanese knotweed. Dominant wetland buffer vegetation includes Himalayan blackberry and Pacific willow. Wedand and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report Quendall Tenninals 25 November 2009 060059-01 Wetland Delineation Physical evidence of wildlife use in Wetland I was limited possibly because of its location between I-405 and Lake Washington Boulevard or because there is a Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) right-of-way fence bordering the wetland to the east. Also, the wetland is dominated by Japanese knotweed, which has created a monoculture habitat with no herbaceous layer and limited species diversity. Due to the narrow shape of the wetland, the presence of the fence and roads, and the abundance of Japanese knotweed, migration, forage, shelter, and breeding near or in these areas may be limited for many species. Soils in the wetland plot included very dark brown loam (IOYR 3/1) in the top 6 inches (Appendix D). Between 6 and 12 inches, a dark gray (IOYR 3/2) loam with brownish-red (2.SYR 4/6) mottles was observed in the matrix. Below 12 inches was a dark red (5YR 4/2) sandy loam matrix with two distinct mottles (IOYR 6/9 and 2.Sy 4/2). Soil pits in the upland plot were dark brown silty loam (IOYR 3/3) to 8 inches. From 8 to 18 inches, the same matrix (lOYR 3/3) was present with strong brown (7.5YR 5/8) mottles. Wetland I is a narrow ditch-like wetland that primarily receives stormwater runoff from the adjacent roads and direct precipitation. The western edge of the wetland appears to undergo seasonal mowing or cutting to maintain the roadway and clearance for overhead powerlines. A WSDOT fence bisects the southeastern edge of the wetland so the full extent of the wetland is unknown, but it appears that the only a small portion remained undelineated. Two sample plots were established as part of Wetland I: SPI Wet and SPl Up (Appendices A, C, and D). The wetland plot contained indicators of hydrophytic vegetation, soils, and hydrology. The upland sample plot lacked indicators of wetland vegetation, soils, and hydrology. 3.2.10 Wetland J The full size of Wetland J is undetermined but may be approximately 0.05 acre (Figure 7; Appendix A). The wetland is a slope and depressional wetland located on the eastern edge of the portion of the study area on the east side of Lake Washington Boulevard. Only a small portion of the wetland extends onto the parcel, with the majority of the wetland extending Wedand and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report Quendall Tenninals 26 November 2009 060059-01 Wetland Delineation off the parcel into the WSDOT 1-405 right-of-way. Like many of the other features described in this report, Wetland J was partially constructed and manipulated to convey stormwater from a WSDOT stormwater pond to another waterbody (Gypsy Creek). Wetland J is positioned in the landscape running north to south along the parcel boundary. The wetland contains PSS and PEM habitats (Figure 2; Photograph 14 in Appendix F). Wetland vegetation is dominated by red alder, reed canarygrass, and Himalayan blackberry. Dominant wetland buffer vegetation includes Himalayan blackberry. Physical evidence of wildlife use in Wetland J was limited possibly because its proximity to 1-405, Lake Washington Boulevard, and a WSDOT right-of-way fence bordering the wetland on most of its eastern boundary. Like Wetland I, Wetland J is dominated by two invasive plant species, Himalayan blackberry and reed canarygrass, which have created a monoculture habitat with no native herbaceous layer and no possibility for tree saplings to grow. Because of the proximity of the fence and roads, as well as dense invasive plants, migration, forage, shelter, and breeding near or in these areas may be limited. Soils in the wetland plot have a dense 3-inch-thick layer of root mat from reed canarygrass. Below the root mat to 18 inches is a very dark silty loam (IOYR 3/1). The upland soil plot was similarly consistent with a dark brownish-red (lOYR 4/2) silty loam. Wetland J has both slope and depressional characteristics throughout. The wetland primarily receives stormwater runoff from the WSDOT right-of-way. Approximately 50 feet to the north of the delineated portion of the wetland is Gypsy Creek. Because of recent stream improvements and culverts on Gypsy Creek, Wetland J does not appear to receive any flood waters from Gypsy Creek. Two sample plots were established as part of Wetland J: SPlWet and SPlUp (Appendices A, C, and D). The wetland plot contained indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology. The upland sample plot lacked indicators of wetland vegetation and hydrology. Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report Quendall Tenninals 27 November 2009 060059-01 Wetland Delineation 3.3 Regulatory Framework Guidance from USFWS, Ecology, and the City was used to determine the wetland classifications. Information and excerpts from the specific guidance language are provided below. 3.3.1 USFWS Classification The wetlands identified in the study area have been classified using the system developed by Cowardin et al. (1979) for use in the NWI. Table 3 lists the USFWS classifications for the wetlands and their connections to surface waters. Table 3 USFWS Wetland Classifications and Connections to Surface Water Wetland A B C D E F G H I J Notes: PFO -Palustrine forested PSS -Palustrine scrub-shrub PEM -Palustrine emergent POW-Palustrine open water USFWS Classification Connection to Surface Water LFO, LSS, & LEM Associated with Lake Washington PSS, POW, PEM, and PFO Not associated to surface water PSS & POW Not associated to surface water LFO, LSS, & LEM Associated with Lake Washington PSS & PFO Not associated to surface water LSS & LEM Associated with Lake Washington PSS&POW Not associated to surface water PFO, PSS, & PEM Associated with Lake Washington PSS Not associated to surface water PSS & PEM Flows to adjacent stream LFO -Lacustrine forested LSS -Lacustrine scrub-shrub LEM -Lacustrine emergent 3.3.2 Ecology Rating, Classification, and Functions and Values Scores The wetlands identified in the study area have been rated using Ecology's Washington State Wedand Rating System -Westem Washington: Revised (Ecology 2004) and Wedand Rating Form -Westem Washington: Revised (Ecology 2006). As part of the rating process, an examination of the soil is required for depressional wetlands to determine if "2 inches below the surface (or duff layer) is clay or organic." Although soil plots were not collected in all Wedand and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report Quendall Tenninals 28 November 2009 060059-01 Wetland Delineation upland depressional wetlands (constructed stormwater features) due to the presence of contamination, observations from other soil plots throughout the site and soil series maps suggest no soils were clay or organic. Table 4 lists the wetland ratings and classifications. Water quality, hydrologic, and habitat functional values are shown in Table 5. A summary of the wetland rating scores and the Ecology Wetland Rating forms are included in Appendix E. Table 4 Summary of Wetland Classes and Rating Scores Using Ecology Wetlands Rating System Hydrogeomorphic Wetland Area (acres) Classification Wetland A 0.08 Slope/Lake Fringe Wetland B 0.14 Depressional Wetland C 0.03 Depressional Wetland D 0.38 Slope/Lake Fringe Wetland E 0.11 Depressional Wetland F 0.01 Slope/Lake Fringe Wetland G 0.05 Depressional Wetland H 0.01 Slope Wetland I 0.05 Depressional Wetland J 0.05* Depressional/Slope Note: *Full extent of Wetland J is undetermined due to right-of-way crossing. Wedand and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report Quendall Tenninals 29 State Rating (Ecology) Ill Ill IV II Ill Ill 111 IV Ill Ill November 2009 060059-01 Wetland Delineation Table 5 Summary of Functions and Values Wetland Rating Scores Water Quality Water Hydrologic Hydrologic Habitat Habitat Functions Quality Functions Functions Functions Functions Total Potential Opportunity Potential Opportunity Potential Opportunity Functions Wetland Score (Yes/No) Score (Yes/No) Score Score Score 1 Total No= 1 No= 1 Maximum 16 16 18 18 72 Score Yes= Z Yes= Z A 6 2 4 2 9 11 40 B 2 2 12 2 6 8 42 C 2 2 8 2 0 6 26 D 9 2 6 2 12 12 54 E 7 2 12 2 7 5 50 F 6 2 4 2 6 9 35 G 9 2 8 2 4 7 45 H 3 2 3 2 7 6 25 I 9 2 8 2 3 6 43 J 7 2 5 2 8 6 38 Note: 1-Calculated as (Water Quality Functions Potential Score times Water Quality Opportunity Score) plus (Hydrologic Functions Potential Score times Hydrologic Functions Opportunity Score) plus Habitat Functions Potential Score plus Habitat Functions Opportunity Score Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report Qpendall Tenninals 30 November 2009 060059-01 Wetland Delineation 3.3.3 City of Renton Wetland Classification Guidance Wetlands were also rated according to City wetland rating criteria in the RMC (City of Renton 2009). The City classifies wetlands into three categories (Category 1, Category 2, and Category 3) based on the City critical areas regulations. Appropriate wetland buffers have been identified according to the current RMC (City of Renton 2009). City ratings and buffer widths are provided in Table 6. Table6 City of Renton Wetland Ratings and Standard Buffer Distance Study Area Size State Rating Local Rating Buffer Width Wetlands (acres) (Ecology) (City of Renton) (feet) Wetland A 0.08 111 2 50 feet Wetland B 0.14 Ill 1 100 feet Wetland C 0.03 IV 3 25 feet Wetland D 0.38 II 2 50 feet Wetland E 0.11 111 1 100 feet Wetland F 0.01 Ill 2 50 feet Wetland G 0.05 111 3 25 feet' Wetland H 0.01 IV 3 25 feet Wetland I 0.05 Ill 3 25 feet Wetland J a.as' 111 3 25 feet Total 0.89 Notes: 1-Wetland G is exempt from City of Renton critical area requirements based on the criteria in RMC 4-3-050 C5(f), as discussed in Section 3.5. 2 -Full extent of Wetland J is undetermined due to right-of-way crossing. 3.4 Wetland Functions and Values Summary In general, wetlands in the study area provide many functions including water quality improvements, floodwater storage, groundwater recharge, and wildlife habitat. The wetlands in the study area can be divided into two categories: wetlands that are constructed stormwater features and wetlands that are naturally occurring. The constructed stormwater features generally display a higher opportunity to provide hydrologic function than naturally occurring wetlands, given their storage capacities to control flow during large storm events. Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report Quendall Tenninals 31 November 2009 060059-01 Wetland Delineation However, the constructed stormwater features also display generally low to moderate opportunity and potential to provide habitat value and opportunity to provide water quality value. The naturally occurring wetlands on the main parcel (Wetlands A, D, and F) are all slope and lake-fringe wetlands and provide moderate potential and opportunity to provide habitat function; however, given the nature of lake-fringe wetlands, they provide only low to moderate potential to provide water quality and hydrologic functions. The functional values of wetlands in the study area were rated according to the most current version of the Ecology Washington State Wetlands Rating System -Western Washington: Revised (Ecology 2004). Based on the rating scores, the overall functions of each of the three wetland rating categories of water quality, hydrologic, and wildlife habitat are rated as low (less than 34 percent of the maximum possible score), moderate (34 percent to 67 percent of the maximum possible score), or high (greater than 68 percent of the maximum possible score). Overall, the majority of wetlands in the study area have low to moderate water quality, hydrologic, and wildlife habitat function scores. Few of the wetlands have high hydrologic function scores and none of the wetlands have high water quality or habitat function scores. Of the ten wetlands in the study area, six were identified as depressional wetlands, three were identified as lake fringe wetlands, and one was identified as a slope wetland. Ecology wetland rating forms are provided in Appendix E. A summary of the wetland classes and functions and values rating scores is provided in Table 5. Wetland acreage also affects function. No wetland in the study area is larger than I acre. Because large wetlands have more capacity for capturing stormwater flows, improving water quality, and providing a variety of habitats for wildlife, they are more likely to provide beneficial functions than smaller wetlands. Water quality, hydrologic, and habitat functional values for wetlands in the study area are described below. For each function category, the wetlands' opportunity to provide that function is described first and the wetlands' potential to provide that function is described thereafter. Wetland buffers are areas of land surrounding a wetland boundary that protect wetlands from the effects of adjacent land use. Buffers help wetlands function by filtering storm runoff from surrounding developments, trapping sediment, absorbing nutrients, attenuating high flows, and providing wildlife habitat. Buffers also physically separate wetlands from developed areas in order to lessen noise, light, chemical pollution, and other associated Wedand and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report Qp.endall Tenninals 32 November 2009 060059-01 Wetland Delineation human-related disturbances. Most of the wetlands in the study area are adjacent to some disturbed habitat, roadway, or compacted dirt roads. With the exception of the three lake- fringe wetlands in the study area, wetland buffer habitat is generally of low quality and typically includes compacted dirt and roads, and is nearly devoid of vegetation. The buffers associated with each wetland, per local codes, are detailed in Table 6. 3.4.1 Water Quality Functions All of the wetlands in the study area provide opportunities to improve water quality, to varying degrees, primarily because their location in an urban environment allows the opportunity for water quality improvement. Three of the ten wetlands in the study area have a low potential (less than 34 percent of the maximum possible score) to improve water quality. This low score was observed in three of the five constructed stormwater features, which have characteristics of intermittent flowing or highly constricted surface outlets, and contain permanently ponded water, precluding cyclic changes between oxic and anoxic conditions. The remaining seven wetlands have moderate potential (34 to 67 percent of the maximum possible score) to improve water quality. None of the wetlands has a high potential to improve water quality (greater than 68 percent of the maximum possible score). Additionally, the moderate score is also due to the nature oflake-fringe wetlands (Wetlands A, D, F), which have a maximum score of only 12 for water quality function instead of the maximum of 16 that other wetland types have. This is because lake-fringe wetlands typically do not improve water quality to the same extent that riverine or depressional wetlands do, because of lower denitrification rates, and because of the fact that any pollutants taken up in plant material will be more easily released into the water column when the plants die off (Ecology 2006). Wetlands with moderate or high scores typically have characteristics such as organic soils, a high proportion of wetland area with seasonal ponding, or dense vegetation to restrict flow through the wetland. 3.4.2 Hydrologic Functions All of the wetlands in the study area provide opportunities to reduce flooding and erosion to varying degrees. Four of the ten wetlands in the study area have a low potential (less than 34 percent of the maximum possible score) to reduce flooding and erosion. The low scores for potential hydrologic functions are due to a lack of natural surface water outlets, ponding features, and the types of vegetation necessary to reduce surface flows. Four of the wetlands Wedand and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report Quendall Terminals 33 November 2009 060059-01 Wetland Delineation have moderate potential (34 percent to 67 percent of the maximum possible score) to improve hydrologic functions. The remaining two wetlands, Wetlands C and E, have high potential to improve hydrologic functions (greater than 68 percent of the maximum possible score). Wetlands with moderate or high scores typically have characteristics such as a highly constricted outlets or significant water storage depths during wet periods. 3.4.3 Habitat Functions Habitat function of the study area wetlands is further defined by their Cowardin classifications (forested, scrub-shrub, emergent, and aquatic bed). Two wetlands are classified as scrub-shrub and open water system; one wetland includes scrub-shrub and forested systems; two wetlands include scrub-shrub and emergent systems; three wetlands include forested, scrub-shrub, and emergent systems (see Table 2); and three wetlands include forested, scrub-shrub, emergent, and open water systems (see Table 3). Wetlands with mixed classifications are generally of higher value than wetlands with a single classification. Three of the ten wetlands have a low opportunity (less than 34 percent of the maximum possi1>le score) to provide habitat for many species. The low score for habitat opportunity is. due to the characteristics of the wetland buffers and the overall lack of quality habitat conditions near or adjacent to the wetlands. The remaining seven wetlands have a moderate score (34 to 67 percent of the maximum possible score), and none of the wetlands has a high score (greater than 68 percent of the maximum possible score). Wetlands with moderate or high scores typically have characteristics such as a several Cowardin vegetation classes, several hydroperiods, high habitat interspersion, or the presence of special habitat features. Six of the ten wetlands have a low potential (less than 34 percent of the maximum possible score) to provide habitat for many species. The low score for habitat functions is due to the general lack of vegetative structure, hydroperiods, plant richness, habitat diversity, and special habitat features, especially characteristic of Wetland C, which received a score of 0. The remaining four wetlands have a moderate potential score (34 to 67 percent of the maximum possible score). Wedand and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report Qpendall Tenninals 34 November 2009 · 060059-01 Wetland Delineation 3.5 Exempt Wetlands Wetland G is exempt from any activity affecting these wetlands, as described in RMC 4-3- 050 CS(f). It is a hydrologically isolated Category 3 wetland smaller than 2,200 sf. Standing water does not appear to be present in sufficient amounts to support breeding amphibians (i.e., less than approximately 12 inches in water depth from approximately December through May). No species are listed by federal or state government agencies as endangered or threatened, and the presence of essential habitat for those species is not present. Any impacts to Wetland G for cleanup activities will be mitigated for hydrologic and water quality functions. As shown in Table 5, hydrologic and water quality function is provided at a moderate level for Wetland G. Although Wetlands C, F, and H are smaller than 2,200 sf, they do not meet the exemption criteria in RMC. Wetlands F and Hare not hydrologically isolated due to their proximity to Lake Washington. Wetland C has sufficient water depths in the winter to potentially provide amphibian breeding habitat, but the presence of contamination in Wetland C limits the habitat quality. However, Wetland C was constructed for stormwater treatment in 2006, as described in Section 3.6.1, and is not expected to be regulated by the City of Renton. 3.6 Constructed Stormwater Features Five wetlands in the study area were apparently constructed as part of historic site activities in an attempt to control stormwater on the site during large storm events, and to avoid disruption to the log storage operation that has since been abandoned. Based on recent aerial photographs (Appendix H), site history, and other references, Wetlands B, C, G, and H were constructed to manage stormwater or control spills associated with site activities. Historic construction of each of these features influences the regulatory status as determined by the City and EPA. Wetland E is thought to have developed from changes to recent stormwater drainage on the site based on the fact that it did not qualify as a wetland during the 1997 David Evans and Associates wetland delineation conducted on the site (Appendix G). 3.6.l Excavated Features from the 1970s Wetland B was excavated in the early 1970s as a retention pond to control tar from flowing into the lake (King County Metro 1972). It is thought that Wetland G was also excavated at Wedand and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report Quendall Tenninals 35 November 2009 060059-01 Wetland Delineation the same time as part of construction of berms to direct tar on the site into Wetland B (Aspect 2009). Wetland B continues to provide stormwater retention for the Site. 3.6.2 Best Management Practices Implementation -2006 Work was conducted in January 2006 to implement best management practices to control silt and wood debris from flowing into Lake Washington. Work was conducted in the ditch along the southern property boundary (Wetland H) and in the area of Wetlands B and C. The work was conducted as recommended by Ecology to control potential sources of contamination from entering Lake Washington (Phoinix 2006). The entirety of Wetland C was constructed in January 2006 to prevent stormwater from flowing into Lake Washington (Phoinix 2006). An earthen berm was also constructed along the southern portion of Wetland C. Check dams were installed to control turbid water and floating debris. Wetland C was constructed in an upland area that did not contain wetland indicators, based on the fact that Wetland C was not identified during a wetland delineation conducted by David Evans and Associates in 1997 (Appendix G). Work was also completed on Wetland B to improve stormwater flow conditions in 2006. Along the north side of Wetland B, an outfall was excavated to create a stable outlet for stormwater into Lake Washington (Phoinix 2006). Wetland H was excavated in January 2006 as part of best management practices to clean out the ditch along the southern portion of the site. Four rock check dams were placed in the cleared ditch at approximately 25-foot intervals to allow for sediment and wood debris control. Although Wetland H contains wetland indicators, it is located in an area that was excavated to function as stormwater conveyance off the site and into Lake Washington. Wetland H also was not identified during the 1997 wetland delineation (Appendix G). 3.6.3 Anticipated Regulatory Status Wetlands B, C, G, and H may not be subject to City of Renton Critical Area regulations based on the history of their construction. According to RMC 4-11-230, "wetlands do not include those artificial wetlands intentionally created for purposes other than wetland mitigation, including, but not limited to ... drainage ditches, grass-lined swales, canals, detention Wedand and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report Quendall Terminals 36 November 2009 060059-01 Wetland Delineation facilities, wastewater treatment facilities." Wetlands B, C, G, and Hall were excavated from upland areas to manage spills or stormwater runoff. Excavation of Wetlands B and G occurred in the 1970s. Excavation and construction of Wetlands C and H occurred in 2006. At that time, nearly the entire Site was being used for log storage and associated activities, as documented in the 1990 aerial photo (Appendix H). In addition, Wetland G is exempt from City of Renton Critical Area regulations, provided that mitigation for hydrologic and water quality functions is provided for any impacts to the wetland. EPA may not choose to regulate Wetlands B, C, E, G, H, I, and J as waters of the U.S. based on their proximity to known waters of the U.S. (e.g., Lake Washington or Gypsy Creek). They may be determined to be isolated from waters of the U.S. and therefore not regulated, pending EP A's evaluation. Although wetland jurisdictional determinations are generally conducted by the Corps, impacts to these wetlands will occur as a result of a cleanup action under Superfund and are therefore regulated by EPA. Other wetlands along the shoreline, including Wetlands A, F, and D, are expected to be regulated as waters of the U.S. because they abut Lake Washington. 3.7 Wetland Delineation and Typing Limitations Wetland identification is an inexact science and differences of professional opinion often occur between trained individuals. Final determinations for wetland boundaries and typing concurrence or adjustment needs are the responsibility of the regulating resource agency. Wetlands are, by definition, transitional areas; their boundaries can be altered by changes in hydrology or land use. In addition, the definition of jurisdictional wetlands may change. If a physical change occurs in the basin or 5 years pass before the proposed project is undertaken, another wetland survey should be conducted. The results and conclusions expressed herein represent Anchor QEA's professional judgment based on the information available. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Dehneation Report Quendall Tenninals 37 November 2009 060059-01 Lake Washington OHWM Delineation and Lake Study 4 LAKE WASHINGTON OHWM DELINEATION AND LAKE STUDY Anchor QEA ecologists identified and delineated the OHWM of approximately 1,400 feet of Lake Washington within the study area between the neighboring parcels to the north and south. Habitat features of these two channels are described in the following sections. The result of the OHWM delineation is shown on Figure 7 and in Appendix B. 4.1 Lake Washington OHWM Delineation Methods To document the Lake Washington OHWM within the study area, Anchor QEA ecologists reviewed existing information (described in Section 1.1), performed an aerial photograph analysis, and conducted site visits on April 23 and 30, and May 6, 2009. The OHWM delineation was completed by walking the lake shoreline beginning at the south end of the study area and moving north. Photographs were also taken to document OHWM conditions (Photographs 11, 12, and 13 in Appendix F). During the site visits, the OHWM of the entire length within the study area was identified and flagged. The OHWM boundary was marked with pin flags and later surveyed by a professional surveyor. Anchor QEA ecologists identified the stream OHWM boundary consistent with Chapter 90.58 of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) and Chapter 173-22 of the WAC. The WAC defines the OHWM as: "'Ordinary high water line' means the mark on the shores of all waters that will be found by examining the bed and banks and ascertaining where the presence and action of waters are so common and usual and so long continued in ordinary years, as to mark upon the soil or vegetation a character distinct from that of the abutting upland: Provided, that in any area where the ordinary high water line cannot be found the ordinary high water line adjoining saltwater shall be the line of mean higher high water and the ordinary high water line adjoining freshwater shall be the elevation ofthe mean annual flood." Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report Qµendall Terminals 38 November 2009 060059-01 Lake Washington OHWM Delineation and Lake Study 4.2 Lake Washington OHWM Delineation Results Anchor QEA ecologists identified and delineated the OHWM of approximately 1,400 feet of Lake Washington within the study area between the neighboring parcels to the north and south. This included the placement of 43 pin flags installed at all meandering locations of the shoreline. Additionally, the OHWM was coincident with Wetlands A, D, and F and formed the western boundary of each of those wetlands. The OHWM is shown on Figure 7. Detailed flag locations are shown on drawings in Appendix B. Overall, the southern half of the study area contained an OHWM that was clearly defined by an armored shoreline consisting of large boulders. The northern half was not as clearly defined, with a gradual transition from the upland to the water as well as former pier structures and large floating logs along the lake's edge. This half of the property was delineated using the investigators' best professional judgment and based on parameters set forth in Chapter 90.58 of the RCW and Chapter 173-22 of the WAC (Photographs 12 through 14 in Appendix F). Water depth during the investigation adjacent to the OHWM ranged from about 4 inches to more than 3 feet deep. 4.3 Lake Study According to RMC 4-3-090, and consistent with Washington State Administrative Code (WAC 173-26-251 and RCW 90.58.030(2)(e))), Lake Washington is classified as a Shoreline of Statewide Significance, meaning "lakes, whether natural, artificial, or a combination thereof, with a surface acreage of one thousand acres or more measured at the ordinary high water mark," and thus subject to the local jurisdiction's SMA. The SMA governs the use and development of shorelines in Washington State for responsible shoreline development with environmental protection and public access. Subsequent activities along the shoreline will include remediation of hazardous substances in lake sediments and/or in the upland portions of the Site, as directed by EPA. The sediment and upland cleanup is being performed under Superfund. All substantive provisions of City regulatory requirements will be met by the cleanup remedy selected by EPA. Additional information on the existing lake conditions will be included in the RI. Details on each of the remedial alternatives considered will be included in the FS. Previous information on the Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report Quendall Tenninals 39 November 2009 060059-01 Lake Washington OHWM Delineation and Lake Study aquatic habitat conditions is included in Appendix G. A summary of known fish species present is described below. 4.3.l Fish Species Presence During the surveys, no fish were observed along the lakeshore of the study area; however, the Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Limiting Factors Report for WRIA 8 identifies five salmonid species that use Lake Washington, and could reasonably be expected to occur along the property: sockeye, coho, Chinook, coastal cutthroat, and rainbow/steelhead trout (Kerwin 2001). Anadromous forms of each of these species are present, so individuals are present in the lake both as adults during migrations to spawning grounds and as juveniles. Sockeye are known to spawn along some beaches of the lake while there are unconfirmed reports of Chinook spawning in littoral areas of the lake. Non-anadromous forms of winter steelhead (rainbow trout), sockeye (kokanee), and cutthroat also occur in the lake. Resident rainbow trout spend their entire life in Lake Washington. Non-anadromous coastal cutthroat trout also occur in Lake Washington and are much more abundant than the anadromous form (Nowak 2000). Other non-anadromous species expected to occur near the study area include: longfin smelt (Spirinchus thaleichthys), sticklebacks ( Gasterosteus spp.), and dace (Leuciscus spp.). Non- native freshwater species known to occur in Lake Washington, and likely found near the study area include: black crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatus), bluegill (Lepomis macroche11us), common carp ( Cyprinus carpio), largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), pumpkinseed sunfish (Lepomis gibbosus), smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu1), tench ( Tinca tinca), and yellow perch (Perea flavescens). Wedand and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report Quendall Tenninals 40 November 2009 060059-01 Shoreline Restoration Plan 5 SHORELINE RESTORATION PLAN 5.1 Introduction and Purpose This section presents a conceptual shoreline restoration plan to create significant net ecological functional improvement to the Lake Washington shoreline, riparian buffer, and wetlands and associated buffers. Subject to EPA approval under their CERCLA authorities, the plan would offset impacts resulting from prospective Site remediation efforts (e.g., capping) related to hazardous substances as may be present in lake sediments and in the upland portions of the Site. All wetland impacts at the Site are anticipated to occur as a result of CERCLA remediation. Because the sediment and upland cleanup is being performed under CERCLA, all substantive provisions of City regulatory requirements will be met by the cleanup remedy selected by EPA. Although specific details on remedial alternatives have not yet been developed, they will be included in the FS following additional testing and discussions with EPA. Once Site remediation is completed under CERCLA, the remaining wetlands will not be impacted by the planned redevelopment. This conceptual shoreline restoration plan provides the City with information on the wetlands to be impacted as part of the cleanup and some general information on the types of mitigation that will occur, all subject to EPA approval. There are no anticipated wetland impacts from the planned redevelopment and therefore no mitigation is required as part of Site redevelopment. It is generally assumed that any cleanup decision by EPA will result in impacts to Wetlands B, C, E, F, and G, and portions of Wetlands A and D. In general, projects with wetland impacts can only occur after it can be demonstrated that impacts to wetlands cannot be avoided, that impacts have been minimized to the greatest extent possible, and finally after adequate mitigation is provided. However, the cleanup will likely be ordered by EPA to address hazardous substance contamination on the Site that will result in unavoidable wetland impacts. Based on existing information on Site contamination, Wetlands H, I, and J, and portions of Wetlands A and D are not anticipated to be impacted by remediation actions. This conceptual shoreline restoration plan is intended to update the Mitigation Analysis Memorandum completed for the Quendall and Baxter properties in 2000 (AESI 2000). That memorandum was prepared to address cleanup-related impacts to wetlands and the lake Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Dehneation Repon Qyendall Terminals 41 November 2009 060059-01 Shoreline Restoration Plan shoreline when investigation and cleanup of the site were being conducted under Washington's Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA). That document was prepared for the City of Renton and Vulcan Northwest, and was developed with input from WDFW, Ecology, WDNR, the Corps, and the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, among others. Mitigation as a result of cleanup and development activities was completed on the Baxter site (located immediately north of the Quendall site) in 2007 according to the requirements in the Mitigation Analysis Memorandum. 5.2 Goals and Objectives The conceptual shoreline restoration plan would provide significant ecological functional gains for the Lake Washington shoreline including wetlands, buffers, and lake riparian areas. The conceptual plan would provide compensation necessary to mitigate impacts resulting from the prospective cleanup action (to be selected by EPA). Following cleanup, it is anticipated that the property would be redeveloped. A conceptual development plan is presented in Figure 8 to show how wetland creation/restoration ratios and buffer widths could potentially be applied to the site, subject to EPA's cleanup decisions. EPA has also included the resource agencies in its process and those agencies may be involved in future mitigation discussions, including changes to Site shoreline areas to further improve ecological functions (see Figure 8). Subject to EPA approval, impacts to wetlands will likely be mitigated at a 1.5:1 replacement ratio to offset functional losses resulting from Site remediation. This ratio is consistent with the Mitigation Analysis Memorandum (AESI 2000). Because Wetland G is exempt from critical area regulations, it will likely be mitigated at a 1: 1 ratio. If additional impacted wetlands are not regulated by the City and EPA (as discussed in Section 3.6), the total wetland restoration area may be smaller than what is presented in Figure 8. The conceptual shoreline restoration plan could also improve habitat for aquatic species within Lake Washington such as migrating juvenile salmon. Subject to EPA approval, shoreline habitat and complexity could be restored with appropriate habitat mix gravel, large woody debris, and overhanging vegetation. The large woody debris could be collected and stockpiled during remediation activities and reused along the shoreline to the extent practicable. Wedand and Ordinary High Water Mark Deh'neation Report Qµendall Terminals 42 November 2009 060059-01 Shoreline Restoration Plan The conceptual shoreline restoration plan depicted in Figure 8 includes a 100-foot average width riparian buffer from the lake OHWM. This buffer is consistent with the Mitigation Analysis Memorandum (AESI 2000). The proposed riparian area could also provide a buffer for existing wetlands, and prospective wetland expansions in addition to providing a shoreline buffer. The new development adjacent to the shoreline following cleanup could provide a 100-foot average setback. The setback may fluctuate in width, depending on the proposed development plan. This setback is significantly greater than the SO-foot minimum setback required by the City of Renton Shoreline Master Program (RMC 4-3-090). 5.3 Elements of the Plan 5.3.1 Riparian Buffer Habitat Subject to EPA approval, the 100-foot average width riparian buffer would revegetate the area adjacent to Lake Washington (see Figure 8). The revegetation would focus on species diversity, species density allowing for varied light penetration, and the creation of different successional stages along the lake. A preliminary plant list for riparian buffer enhancement is presented in Table 7. Willow and water-tolerant shrub vegetation along the shoreline would provide shade for aquatic species. Deciduous-dominated forests would include open areas where sunlight can penetrate to the forest floor. Coniferous-dominated forests would provide important habitat for upland species. Long-term function of riparian areas would provide detritus inputs, insect drop, and woody debris inputs for aquatic species to support prey resources and provide cover for juvenile salmon. In addition, woody debris and substrate enhancement of the shoreline would support these aquatic ecological functions in the short term. Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report Quendall Terminals 43 November 2009 060059-01 Shoreline Restoration Plan Table 7 Riparian Buffer Plant List Common Name Scientific Name Groundcovers lady Fern Athyrium filix-femina Salal Gaultheria shallan Sword Fern Polystichum munitum Willows/Shrubs Vine Maple Acer Circinatum Red-osier Dogwood Camus sericea Black Twin berry Lonicera involucrata Oregon Grape Mahonia nervosa Nootka Rose Rosa nutkana Hooker's Willow Salix hookeriana Scouler's Willow Salix scouleriana Sitka Willow Salix sitchensis Douglas Spirea Spiraea doug/asii Snowberry Symphoricarpos a/bus Trees Big Leaf Maple Acer macrophyllum Pacific Dogwood Cornus nuttalii Red Alder A/nus rubra Hazelnut Cory/us cornuta Oregon Ash Fraxinus latifolia Sitka Spruce Picea sitchensis Douglas Fir Psuedotsuga menziesii Black Cottonwood Popu/us tremuloides Western Crabapple Pyrusfusca Western Hemlock Tsuga heterophylla 5.3.2 Wetland Restoration Subject to EPA approval, it is anticipated that wetland creation/restoration along the Lake Washington shoreline would expand existing Wetlands A, D, and J (see Figure 8). Impacts to existing lakeshore wetlands from cleanup activities (Wetlands A, D, and F) could be mitigated along the lakeshore, adjacent to Wetlands A and D. Impacts to existing wetlands Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report QuendaU Terminals 44 November 2009 060059-01 Shoreline Restoration Plan that are not connected to the lakeshore (Wetlands B, C, E, and G) could be mitigated adjacent to Wetland J. In all areas, the creation/restoration would diversify the existing range of wetland habitat and will include emergent, scrub-shrub, and forested habitat areas. This includes restoration adjacent to Wetlands A and D for impacts to LFO, LSS, and LEM components of lakeshore Wetlands A, D, and F. In addition, the prospective wetland creation/restoration area adjacent to Wetland A could include a low swale (see Figure 8). This swale would connect to Lake Washington and diversify the marsh habitat by adding open water and emergent habitat. The creation of this swale could also offset impacts to POW habitats in Wetlands B and C. The swale could be designed to encourage seasonal use by juvenile salmonids with the placement of large woody debris (LWD). L WD provides habitat complexity and areas for cover for juvenile salmonids. Water quality and hydrologic functional improvements would also result from improved stormwater retention and capability to trap sediments through wetland, riparian, and associated buffer replanting. A preliminary plant list for wetland creation/restoration is presented in Table 8. Restoration adjacent to Wetland J would offset impacts to PSS, PEM, and PFO components of Wetlands B, C, E, and G. POW habitat would be replaced as part of restoration adjacent to Wetland A. The restoration/creation would replace current wetland areas with a wider range of wetland function and value. New wetland areas adjacent to Wetland J would provide an improvement to habitat quality and overall function from that provided by existing wetlands, which are compromised by the presence of soil and water contamination. Habitat function would also benefit from improved structure and diversity. Wetlands B, C, E, and G currently provide a moderate level of water quality and hydrologic function through stormwater retention. These wetlands currently have a higher opportunity to provide these functions due to the presence of contaminated storm water on the site. Water quality and hydrologic functions provided by existing Wetlands B, C, E, and G would be replaced with improved on-site stormwater control and treatment as well as an increased ability to trap sediments as part of riparian and shoreline wetland buffer improvements. Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report Qpendall Terminals 45 November 2009 060059-01 Table 8 Wetland Plant List Common Name Scientific Name Emergents Slough Sedge Carex obnupta Hardstem Bulrush Scirpus acutus Small-fruited Bulrush Scirpus microcarpus Willows/Shrubs Red-osier Dogwood Camus sericea Black Hawthorne Crataegus doug/asii Black Twinberry Lonicera involucrate Pacific Ninebark Physocarpus capitatus Hooker's Willow Salix haokeriana Pacific Willow Salix lasiandra Scouler's Willow Salix scou/eriana Douglas Spirea Spiraea doug/asii Trees Red Alder A/nus rubra Sitka Spruce Picea sitchensis Wedand and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report Qpendall Terminals 46 Shoreline Restoration Plan November 2009 060059-01 References 6 REFERENCES AESI. 2000. Mitigation Analysis Memorandum, Quendall and Baxter Properties, Renton, Washington. Prepared for Vulcan Northwest and City of Renton. February 17. Access Washington. 2009. Washington State Growth Management Act. Accessed online at http://www.gmhb.wa.gov/gma/index.html on February 23, 2009. Aspect Consulting, LLC (Aspect). 2009. Personal communication with Jeremy Porter regarding current understanding of historic property use and excavation of Wetland G. August 27. City of Renton. 1992. Renton's Critical Areas Inventory. Prepared by Jones and Stokes. City of Renton. 2009. Renton Municipal Code. Accessed online at http://www.codepublishing.com/wa/renton/ on June 11, 2009. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington D.C. Ecology. See Washington State Department of Ecology. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Kerwin. 2001. Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Limiting Factors Report for the CEDAR - SAMMAMISH BASIN (Water Resource Inventory Area 8). Washington Conservation Commission. Olympia, WA. King County Metro. Memorandum from Larry Peterson to Glen D. Harris regarding Qiendall Terminals Co. Industrial Waste. March 29, 1972. Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report Quendall Terminals 47 November 2009 060059-01 References Munsell. 1994. Munsell Soil Color Charts. Kollmorgen Corporation, Baltimore, Maryland. Nowak, G.M. 2000. Movement patterns and feeding ecology of cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki clarki) in Lake Washington. M.S. Thesis, University of Washington, Seattle. Phoinix. 2006. Memorandum to Mr. John J. Tortorelli, Western Wood Lumber Company, regarding Best Management Practices (BMP) Implementation Project. January 19. Reed, P.B., Jr. 1988. National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: 1988 National Summary. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Biological Report 88 (26.9). Reed, P., Jr. 1993. Supplement to List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: Northwest (Region 9). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Supplement to Biological Report 88 (26.9). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). 2008. Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region, ed J.S. Wakeley, R.W. Lichvar, and C.V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-08-13. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1973. Soil Survey of King County, Washington. USDA Soil Conservation Service (SCS). USDA. 2001. Hydric Soil List for King County, Washington. USDA Soil Conservation Service. Accessed online at http://www.wa.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/soils/county _hydric_lists.html on May 8, 2009. USDA. 2009. Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey. Accessed online at http://soils.usda.gov/use/hydric/lists/state.html on June 11, 2009. Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Dehneation Report Qµendall Tenninals 48 November 2009 060059-01 References United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2009. USFWS Wetlands Mapper for National Wetlands Inventory Map Information. Accessed online at http://wetlandsfws.er.usgs.gov on May 8, 2009 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2009. Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) Maps in the Vicinity ofT24, ROSE, Section 29. Report Date August 28 2009. Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology). 1997. Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual. Publication No. 96-94. Olympia, Washington. Ecology. 2004. Washington State Wetlands Rating System -Western Washington: Revised. Publication No. 04-06-15. Olympia, Washington. Ecology. 2006. Washington State Wetland Rating Form-Western Washington, version 2. Olympia, Washington. Ecology. 2009a. Environmental Information; Watersheds; WRIA 9 Duwamish/Green Basin. Accessed online at http://www.ecy.wa.gov/services/gis/maps/wria/number/wria9.htm on February 23, 2009 Ecology. 2009b. Washington State Shoreline Management Act. Accessed online at http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/sma/laws_rules/index.html on September 5, 2009. Wedand and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report Quendall Tenninals 49 November 2009 060059-01 FIGURES 0 M ~ L..i..--~:,._____;.i:,._...J...._:...._...J....._,.,__......._,.....1..-.....__--""-'._,__,_, Seattle WASHINGTON SOURCE : Base map prepared from Terrain Nav igator Pro USGS 7.5 minute quadrangle map of Bellevue South, Wash ington. DRAFT 0 0 20 0 0 Scale i n Feet Figure 1 Vincinity Map Port Quendall Term inal Natural Resource and Hab itat Assessment Report M (:> u: ~ "O 0 N c;, a. ~ I 0 a, "' 0 0 ~ ..J ..J <( Q z w :::> 0 d, "' 0 lE 9 "' .0 0 ;J :.: C 5l "O ·~ 'll E "' a, 0 0 ~o~ ~~0 ~'r's ..J-'{.<v /~ / ' / :,,, / ', ··c:,/ ··:.. .. / ,,_ /',-J .... "· ' I I • "> ' • I / ,...,.o ...., ~ ·/ ,. / Y', ~ ~-I / . ', / ir/ I ,,, ,/,' ,s ./ //.,' 's ":~Zs ,' i JJ'' //~,,, / / .. -"' ~,.:Jo I / /·· c:, {l '\,'"> ',. / l I / "' / io "' .;, ' I l 1:1 / /·· / 20 S ~-A j • '-..._ ,.;>0 /' !,,.,~· /c>-' ~I Property Line \ ,,, / ) ~s t!J 1<:> "'-.., ~··/. /",,. _t/· 1 ° /' ,,, 1,S -.... <'s / ~ 1 ¢ Y 2s 1 s ,':;] '-, "'.._ · . r." ,r . ' / ~ , • . '-./ .• (/ . I ~ I ~,, / 25 '-~ or.' 1 · / , I I I ,, .JJ. 1.-'-> Bo '·,_ ;..__ 1·· ~ , . /"() "'°' / '' ... • I f ;, / , '1.i ,f. • h , I ,,.· 25 o . . , ( l 30 : ' J;>' ,_ I '/ ' ; / -,,S / • . () . 1/ f .,:;· '-J / • /~ ? > ~ ·.· . ' / <:, LI) 'b LI) 30 , f;;:r "' .., o HWM ,.., 1· "' . ;;IJ _,I I/ / .• // / • • I () • f • I • I ~-25• 25 g · "> ·1 c::,, ' 1 .' • ,1 ,'. '>j· / I / o Jo 1' 3o .;:;> / 'f I / ;;O 4 -.. I c:, • <:) / ..... , ,,, .. ~ ( ~ .. .~5 I / -~s ~ ~ ~ / '," _.I / <s 25 1,S ~ a ...., -·--· ~ -~ JS "' N t}. ::; I / ,ts~ N "' 25 '/ . ">() ~ ~ ,';?( -I I . _;• Jo ,.. <::i · /lS' ,. 1 Jo 1 ,.., V) I ' '-'< /.. 'v -:,-~-i' ~ 30 /'., II. /··, -,. / J I . ·:q ,i; -:" , .. is . ' 25 ~ .:J/0 .,,o .Jo , ... ...,_ ; / I ... / " / •··· / " ,o <'fl~' ~ -.. / ~")-~· ... "'" "c, I : 3 0 /. ,;:J I I fr .~ \ I.~ i 'o ,.,:,S' ~ I . <15 'b ~ / ~<::>· ~ ,;,, . q,"' • ·~, I · .y 0~ I. . . ' -<.; /. 1 .,, 35 : • ~ // ,, ) ' / ,. . '· ., -£:' .,_/ •If '?-Cj // .:__ ' , ~ /..- ~ 30 30 25 )I I'" 1 '- (. /· ... /1 . LEGEND : -· · -· · -· · -Oridinary High Water Mark (OHWM} ------Property Line HORIZONTAL DATUM : W ash ington State Plane North, NAD83/91. VERTICAL DATUM : NAVD88 () ~'<, // ~5 /. / '-~~ -·· 3 0 · ..;,o ·,·J /' ---------_:.:_~,..,,. 35 30 .,._ . :,:,,// 25 1s 25 i L ::===:::::;;~~;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;~;;;;;;;;;;;;;!~ ~~;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ' ' . ._ --- 6 ,n; 0 150 Scale in Fe e t '£ANCHOR QEA ~_,.. ~ DRAFT Figure 3 Site Topography Port Quendall Terminal Natural Resource and Habitat Assessment Report "- (.'.) Li: 0, ~ "O ;g; 9 a. a;: § § 9 ~ 0 g 3 ...J <( 0 z w :::, ~ 0 0 <D ~ 0 :;J :.: £ 'O ·;; "' 13 E c!;l 6 cr, 0 0 N co 0 al- (/) 1£~f~~ DRAFT LEGEND: .. ---.. Wetland Location and Des ignation Ordinary Hi g h Water M ark (OHWM) Prop erty Line HORIZONTAL DATUM: Washington State Plane North, N A D8 3/91. VERTICAL DATUM : NA V D8 8 () 0 150 Sca le in Feet Figure 7 Wetland and OHWM Delineation Results Port Quendall Terminal Natural Resource and Habitat Assessment Report ~ 0.. Cf § "' 0 0 <D ~ 0 a, "' 0 0 <D 9 ..J ..J ..: 0 z w ::, a a, "' 0 0 <D ~ D 0 :::i ~ a. Q) (/) DRAFT A -100-Ft Buffer Property Lin e HORIZONTAL DATUM: W as hington State Plane North, NA D83/91. VERTICAL DATUM: NAVD88 n 0 Figure 6 Vegetative Cover Port Quendall Termin a l Natural Resource and Habitat Assessment Report "' (.') ii: ~ ,::, <O 9 0.. o;: ~ 0 0 <O 9 a 0) "' 0 g 9 _J _J <( 0 z w => a en "' 0 0 <O 0 vi D 0 ;;:, :i<: C: g "O ·s: °8 E "' 0 0) 0 0 N a5 0 0. <l) U) ~ -.,., ANQEAC~ 'L. ~ DRAFT LEGEND : .. ---.. NW I Mapped Wetland Locati o n Ord inary High Water Mark (OHW M) Property Line NOT E: No wetlands were map pe d o n the property on t he Ki ng Co u nty Wet land In ven tory. HO RI ZON T AL DAT UM : Wash ingt on Sta t e Plane North, NA D83/91. VERTICAL DATUM : NAVD88 0 0 150 Scale i n Feet F ig ure 5 NWI Mapped Wetlands Port Qu en dall Te rmina l Na tural Resou rc e and Hab it at Assessment Re port '£~i~ DRAFT Property Line HORIZONTAL DATUM: Wa shington State Plan e North, NAD83/91 . VERTICAL DATUM : NAVD8 8 () 0 25 0 Scale1n Feet Figure 4 Soil Map Port Quendal Terminal Natural Resource and Habitat As sess ment Report N (.'.) u: DRAFT LEGEND: Property Line HORIZONTAL DATUM: Washington State Plane Nort h, NAD83 /91. VERTICAL DATUM: NAVD88 n 0 150 Scale in Fe et Figure 2 Project Site and Aerial Photo Port Quendall Terminal Natural Resource and Habitat Assessment Report / I 'l I j/, I l I I / / -...._; I ,f~ !)" ; I.. I LEGEND : ; ) I .I I I ._, . ), . -·. ·-EXIST ING SHORELINE ORDINARY -,c,Q~ / I .. .,·. I HIGH WATER MARK (OHWM) z 6' ; x ~~~ // / EXISTING SHORELINE ORDINARY ~ .. \~ I I LOW WATER MARK {OLWM) ~ ~'f' / ' ! ..J'~ /; I .. EXISTING WETLAND TO REMAIN ~ ; • ~ EXISTING WETLAND TO BE ~ / -FILLED FOR REMEDIATION (TO ii! BE PER FORMED UNDER CERCLA) w 0 / ~ ; .... PROSPECTIVE WETLAND i / CREATION/ RESTORATION FOR ffi /; CERCLA REMEDIATION 1 / .. SHORELINE SO-FT SETBACK * (PER CITY OF RENTON i SHOR ELINE CODE) ~ _g ,, .... , , PROSPECTIVE SHORELINE (J) ~ , • , SETBACK, 100-FT AV ERAGE 0 ' N WIDTH t .§ ... PROSPECTIVE RIPARIAN I HABITAT RESTORATION AREA, ~ WORK TO BE PREFORMED 8 UNDER SEPERATE AG REEMENT a: -~ rite-1 1 '--v--' CREATION / RESTORATION ~' ~"'.r_•-c-~~ r-1 ~ PROSPECTIVE WETLAND ~ • ./ ~ -BUFF ER FOR CERCLA f f fWet~nd E REM ED IATION <I> ·;;; 8 } R_ 1<~ J) l . 3 7/JI -~~-·ijl/1 / 1 • · _. )f/ C, HORIZONTAL DATUM: Wash i ngton State ~ ., . ~ ~ !I/ I . I ' · 9 r Plane North, NAD83/91. ~ T ~/'-, '> (f / .1 , .· ,. -l<y· J VERTICAL DATUM: NAVD88 ! ~"/ H~~ ••• -~l{r~-u -~fl,,~/ -~ , • ( . /"~..-."G'-,,,~. 0 0 J_ u ' 1.• '--< . ~If ·1 Y ·. ' f //~·"'"" / "'.. ,,,,.,.,"'I.,,,.. ~-·· __ •• . / // ". y/i.:.._q.. .... / N \\J C-• ~--=====-=;: 1 y ) • -...... . ~ ~VY ,/ ~ ~-\~ -: v ~ --_ ~-.-~c-2 = =.r/ ·~L .'-1 1 ,~~'<, ,} 0 160 ~ . -----~-...:.-:.;z___ ___ ......._,_. ___ _ ~:;-.'.: ---"ti ,4"' .. , • ///)" ··-·.~:~. · I ~e in Feet ~ ANCHOR QEA ~_,... ~ Figure 8 Shoreline Restoration Conceptual Design Port Quendall Terminal APPENDIX A PLAN VIEW AND CROSS SECTIONS OF WETLANDS A THROUGH H I IIIF-6B / / \ / ,,---. (\"···j; I I ----1· r . . ,{_.) :i:----------------------------------------------~ " u: LEGEND: r ;! 9 Wetland Location ~ i Wetland Flag Location -! -· · -· · -· · -Oridinary High Water Mark (OHWM) tA A:i' Cross Section Location and Designation ------Property Line Test Plot Location 0 0 40 i HORIZONTAL DATUM: Washington State Plane North, NAD83/91. lc_V_E_R_T_ICA_L_D_A_T_U_M_:_N_A_V_D_B_B _____________________________ s_ca_le_i_n_F_ee_t ___ ~ A Ex1st1ng Surface~ I Wetland A --J ai 25 ...__ .!= ~ 20 -----.. OHWM ..~:. A' 5> -~ ~ 15 >-., w () 80 Horizontal Distance in Feet 0 20 Scale in Feet Figure A-1 Wetland A Port Quendall Terminal Natural Resource and Habitat Assessment Report (!J : ., I ;/ I / / .o~/ / 6' / ( ~~Ii ~~':, ' ~~~J .1 i I I a: LEGEND: l .. ~ q: r Wetland Flag Location i · -Oridinary High Water Mark Wetland Location tB Bj Cross Section Location and Designation ------Property Line Test Plot Location r 0 ill {OHWM) i HORIZONTAL DATUM: Washington State Plane North, NAD83/91. ; VERTICAL DATUM: NAVD88 0 I 40 Scale in Feet I '--------Wetland B ---------' Existing Surface Horizontal Distance in Feet 0 20 I I Scale in Feet Figure A-2 Wetland B Port Quendall Terminal Natural Resource and Habitat Assessment Report _/ -/ ,'/1/ / / -, -• /--/-/' .ii --- / /:/ //// / ' , //·,, _,_// _; .. >: /ii / / / i,/ // ·· .. ., ·-.i_.' ', '/~-------/ / .·/· : ,' ',//,';' / -i,;\ / / . /// /'::'._ ... J _,.;o!jf:., / '.\0 / ,,/ ,-/--___,----'r-/ __ y#:sL (::> / , r/ /,-------, _, ,"' I I~~/ fa' •! . ij//;:::-WF,4L . . i,S . --/ ;..-;. /. .// ~r· / ,, / ~~,:_/ ,,,,;/ _ _, ,,;WF-3L #t / !/_ //? :--;;::;:::::---/ i -• . V / •., // f: / / / · "_//:,;>:/, \l'{f:·2L / / / ,1./;_.~/ i /-?" -1 I "//If"" · ' ?' 1 I __ ; 4"..-/ / / /WF-Cll ~ I :;; / ( /il<~ ...;:.l~ __ _ 1WF-2)l I l / / / / }' \ \ ~~ 1__ • ! "·'ii ! ! I ' · --~ ", · ! /+j i// /' '-----/ ""' ./ "'/I•• /~ ,. '1-!/!r-/ (111v·• - // //~'/( ':\\' / / / , \ \7 / / / /r' ., I ' / / . ..---_,,.-"; / .. --/-----/ ///// /,/" )<.1 ., ~/ . /•//•'_: /' /., ,// / -· /,.. r-::~./ / I '·- / \-·1 C'{_ WF-SR .- -------/ .,,/· ,/./ ~ ! / _/ i / ---J ,. ,/ / _,/ _,./ / _ _J ,// _,./ -,.// _, ----I , :1;:::::::::::'.:::::=:=:==::'::::==============================::=====~ ~ LEGEND: l 1- a' Wetland Location '1' i Wetland Flag Location I -· · -· · -· · -Oridinary High Water Mark t C Cj Cross Section Location and Designation ------Property Line Test Plot Location () 9 (OHWM) gi I ? HORIZONTAL DATUM: Washington State Plane North, NAD83 91. ~ VERTICAL DATUM: NAVD88 Scale in Feet 40 I i~==========================================~ iii I :, ,, C Wetland C 0 Existing Surface C' OHWM ___ y__ 40 80 Horizontal Distance in Feet 0 20 Scale in Feet Figure A-3 Wetland C Port Quendall Terminal Natural Resource and Habitat Assessment Report --- "t 11, ~ 11 ;1 " " lb....._j_'o.L'-'---------------'""-----~---, ~ LEGEND: § rl --Wetland Location I i Wetland Flag Location i -, , -, , -, , -Oridinary High Water Mark ~ (OHWM) C, ili •DD'• Cross Section Location and ~ L _J Des,gnat,on D' ·. // (~/ ! ~ Test Plot Location HORIZONTAL DATUM: Washington State Plane North, NAD83/91. VERTICAL DATUM: NAVD88 I ------Property Line ~ D !----------Wetland D ---------~ n 0 I Scale in Feet D' i 251·-T 1' . I 2 u.-~ 1 1 '' OHWM : I i ·~ 120 i '------t-~~-~--'-------t,.-------,------;r--=::...:..· ·;.:.1=.;·..:·.:::::I::j;:.:·.:.· =11 ! ~ :il! 15 ! \_ Existing ~urface j '" ~ -6 40 . 80 120 g Horizontal Distance in Feet N Q 20 40 I ~ I I JL ____________________ ..:Sc::•::ie:.i:::n.:.F::ee::t ____________ ----======= Figure A-4 Wetland D Port Quendall Terminal Natural Resource and Habitat Assessment Report WF-10 WF-12 I / // /! \ / \ \ \ // ):,__----' I \ ~'.::'.::::::=======~==':::'.:::==:::::======================~ "' a: LEGEND: t ~ 1--i ~ i Wetland Flag Location I · · -· · -Oridinary High Water Mark Wetland Location t E Ej Cross Section Location and Designation ------Property Line Test Plot Location () s< (OHWM) 0 40 I HORIZONTAL DATUM: Washington State Plane North, NAD83/91. ~ VERTICAL DATUM: NAVD88 ~~=================================== Scale in Feet z w :, ~ ~ I "' I :~ E-----~--------~-We-t-la_n_d_E_-_-_-_-_-: _______ .• _---~l--_· =ist-in_g_S_u_rf_a_c_e--------;j ~ " " 20 "- C: C: lS 0 . ., "' 0 > " 40 w 80 Horizontal Distance in Feet 0 20 Scale in Feet 120 Figure A-5 Wetland E Port Quendall Terminal Natural Resource and Habitat Assessment Report ~ l:1 f 1 I I I I LEGEND: f l I I I I I I I ~ ~-~ :. ~ Wetland Location tF F'..f, Cross Section Location and Designation ------Property Line I Wetland Flag Location I -· · -· · -· · -Oridinary High Water Mark () Test Plot Location ~ (OHWM) l~H_o_R_1z_o_N_T_A_L_D_A_T_u_M_:_w_a_s_hi_n_gt_o_n_s_ta-te-Pl_a_ne_N_or1_h_,_N_A_o_s_3f_9_1_. -------------------~ ~-VERTICAL DATUM: NAVD88 0 40 I Scale in Feet I ~~----------------------------------------- z w i I ~ Existing Surface ~ F ---1 Wetland F r t 25 -, --+---------.. -------------,-- u.. -I OHWM ·= ~20 1 -: --1 .. -•• ~ •• -- c > .2 <t 15 ; ___ ---------------·----· --------~ z ' I ~-I OJ ! F l w 0 40 Horizontal Distance in Feet 0 20 Scale in Feet Figure A..f Wetland F Port Quendall Terminal Natural Resource and Habitat Assessment Report I I / / .. • / .. / -:-; ) "· / / / j / //) I/ \ I / '~ ···-..., ··-...__,. . ' . ' ,, • ' ' / / ~L_L_ ______________ L/::...._· ___ ::...._;,._ ________ ...:.._ ____ _L.._ _ _L ___ ~.:.....----"~----_J "'~------------------------------------------------~ ~ LEGEND: • ~ .. i I 0 m Wetland Location i Wetland Flag Location · · -· · -Oridinary High Water Mark (OHWM) t G G j Cross Section Location and Designation ------Property Line Test Plot Location 0 0 40 8 HORIZONTAL DATUM: Washington State Plane North, NAD83/91. ~ VERTICAL DATUM: NAVD88 Scale in Feet ~~------------------------------------------------~ z w I ~ ~ Existing Surface~ G t, 35 " u.- Wetland G G' ·= ~ 30 t §~ ----~--------_J·-~ -~ ~ 25 ------.. >- " w 0 40 Horizontal Distance in Feet 0 2_0 Scale in Feet FigureA-7 Wetland G Port Quendall Terminal Natural Resource and Habitat Assessment Report S! ~ LEGEND: ! .; ~ o: Wetland Location I -. r Wetland Flag L . ~ ·-··-··-. ocat,on -Ondinary H' •HH' L j Cross Section L . --ocat,on and D . ~-Property Line es1gnation ~ () 0 40 Test Plot Location I (OHWM) ,gh Water Mark ~ ~r:1zONTAL DATU ~ TICAL DATUM: ~~J;;iihington State Pia ffi ne North, NAD83/91 ~ . I Scale in Feet I ?, ,~. ~.,., 2sH ~ ~ 00 1---Wet.land H ---J ·-l!!l 20 I 6 > -·I ·-<( 1 ~ Z 5 j I _-Lr_ Existing Surface r --+-___ --[ _, OHWM __ Y. H' ' + ! E m ; >- QJ ;:;; L 40 Horizontal D' t -is ance in F 0 eet 80 20 Scale in Feet Figure A-I Natural R p Wetland H esource and Hab·t ort Quendall Ter . I at Assessment Rm,na eporl I ~-----------------' ~ -:_.. .. ~ l s; ~ ~ g ~ Wetland Location Wetland Flag Location 0 -· • -• • -• • -Oridinary High Water Mark i (OHWM) t I I j' Cross Section Location and Designation ------Property Line Test Plot Location () 0 40 i HORIZONTAL DATUM: Washington State Plane North, NAD83/91. t~V_E_R_T_I_CA_L_D_A_T_U_M_:_N_A_V_D_8_8 ______________________________________ ~ ' Scale in Feet ' ffi !------Wetland 1-----..j " ~ A ~~ 1 "'-_/ ! '.: I Property Line I ~ "'35 I I ~00 :-----~--,.~~----~----~--'-----~~-----.!: ~ 30 s> :: ·-< 25 'ro z >- "' Li:i 0 Existing Surface 40 80 0 20 Scale in Feet I' Figure A-9 Wetland I Port Quendall Terminal Natural Resource and Habitat Assessment Report ~ LEGEND: ! ..; ~ o; i Wetland Location I // Wetland Flag Location \ \ \ / I I I WF-6 t J J j Cross Section Location and Designation ------Property Line 8 -· · -· · -· · -Oridinary High Water Mark ~ (OHWM) l'il Test Plot Location I HORIZONTAL DATUM: Washington State Plane North, NAD83/91. I VERTICAL DATUM: NAVD88 !'--Property Line I ]i _ 30 _ Ji--_-_--11---""'_etla_nd_J~-------------____ 1 i; 2s====-...:.i-------i __ -··---·· -·-· ·----- > -J___ _____ ~-----~ "' 0 40 80 w 0 20 Scale in Feet I n 0 50 I Scale in Feet I Figure A-10 Wetland I Port Quendall Terminal Natural Resource and Habitat Assessment Report APPENDIX B ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK FLAG LOCATIONS Match line to Figure B-2 I V Property Line I I I OHWM-19i OHWM-18r OHWM-17t7" OHWM-11 OHWM-15t::,/. OHWM-12r OHWM·l~r !;/ • OHWM ~· 1,.t_.-. . 2c, OHWM-13' / . --~'\. /'V. . _/ ! . ~Vi . --'-/" .· ' OHWM-11.C,...J ; . \ • · t;; OHWM-iOr/· ,., . ;_,..,, -'> • 1s , OHWM-9[/ ',,,j' / ~ OHWM-Sr ~ ~ / ~ ~~ ~ OHWM-7~. i J" 25 1 OHWM-r/ ~ OHWM-5~," I l' / ft ::, I "" \r9HWM-4 " I ffi J OHWM-2 \l OHWM-3 25 5 OHWM-1~ ':c_ sc-=. 7 d, l ---i--_.l.: -- 25 I 1:::> .. 2 ; .• ..--· ---~... ~-~--~;e""'-',t"""-~!'-.~--~~,-~~ :i: .--~--~-~-~~-~n~,-~==I ] ~l--' _______________________________________ _j LEGEND: j Shoreline Flag Location Wetland Location Oridinary High Water Mark (OHWM) ------Property Line DRAFT HORIZONTAL DATUM: Washington State Plane North, NAD83/91. VERTICAL DATUM: NAVD88 0 ! 0 80 Scale in Feet ! Figure B-1 Ordinary High Water Mark Flag Locations -South Port Quendall Terminal Natural Resource and Habitat Assessment Report C:C'ta!!#:l!i#ill!liF±Glfflil!:\lf\lfi·tliill!lillilll!lllllllllllfd-llilllillll--lRllilllllll!IIIU_!ml_U_&:lllir%~l!l!!llM!li· ---llllll-ll!llll!l!!l!ll-!IIICllll!ililliffll511111:liiWllll!llki\li£ilc¢"!l!®lll!!I / / OHWM-28 OHWM-27 /' •/ LEGEND: j Shoreline Flag Location r,i,!!dJ,.·!.I Wetland Location Oridinary High Water Mark (OHWM) ------Property Line DRAFT ', OHWM-43 ' ,, ;:; OHW~-~2y OHWM-41~""' · . "'!OHWM-40 OHWM-3~r • '-..._,' .?s • OHWM-35 OHWM-32 / 25 25 25 ~o 1.-s·,-: '_:;_, :::::-J . !, '\v .. 30 n HORIZONTAL DATUM: Washington State Plane North, NAD83/91. VERTICAL DATUM: NAVD88 0 80 Scale in Feet Figure B-2 Ordinary High Water Mark Flag Locations -North Port Quendall Terminal Natural Resource and Habitat Assessment Report APPENDIX C SAMPLE PLOT SUMMARY DATA Appendfr C -Sample Plot Summary Data Table C-1 Plant Species Observed During the Investigation Scientific Name Common Name Trees A/nus rubra Red alder Arbutus menziesii Pacific Mardone Popu/us ba/samifera Black cottonwood Salix /asiandra Pacific willow Salix scouleriana Scouler willow Shrubs Cornus sericea Red-osier dogwood Cytisus scoparius Scot's b roe m Fraxinus latifolia Oregon ash Lonicera involucrata Black twinberry Oemleria cerasiformis Indian plum Rubus armeniacus Himalayan blackberry Rubus parviflorus Thimbleberry Rubus spectabilis Salmon berry Sambucus racemosa Red elderberry Spiraea doug/asii Spirea Ferns & Herbaceous Athyrium filix-femina Lady fern Carex obnupta Slough sedge Convolvulus arvensis Field bindweed Epilobium ciliatum Purple-leaved willowherb Equisetum arvense Field horsetail Ga/ium aparine Catchweed bedstraw Geranium robertianum Robert geranium Impatiens sp. Touch-me-not Iris pseudacorus Yellow flag iris Hedera helix English ivy Lemna minor Small duckweed Lycopus americanus American bugleweed Juncus effusus Soft rush Phalaris arundinacea Reed canarygrass Plantago major Common plantain Polygonum cuspidatum Japanese knotweed Polystichum munitum Sword fern Wedand and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report Qµendall Terminal C-1 Indicator Status 1 FAC NL FAC FACW FAC FACW NL FACW FAC FACU FACU FAC FAC FACU FACW FAC OBL NL FACW FAC FACU NL FACW OBL UPL OBL OBL FACW FACW FACU FACU FACU September 2009 060059-01 Appendix C -Sample Plot Summary Data Scientific Name Common Name Indicator Status 1 Ranunculus repens Creeping buttercup FACW Rumex crispus Curly dock FAC Tanacetum vu/gore Common tansy NL Taraxacum officionale Common dandelion FACU Trifolium repens White clover FAC Typha latifolia Common cattail OBL Notes: These categories, referred to as the "wetland indicator status" (from the wettest to driest habitats) are as follows: obligate wetland (OBL) plants, facultative wetland (FACW) plants, facultative (FAC) plants, facultative upland (FACU) plants, and obligate upland (UPL) plants. Table C-2 Summary of Wetland Sample Plot Vegetation Data Wetland Sample Scientific Name Common Name Plot A/nus rubra (tree stratum) Red alder Cornus sericea Red-osier dogwood A/nus rubra (shrub stratum Red alder A Wet Lonicera involucrata Black twin berry Rubus parviflorus Thimbleberry Rubus armeniacus Himalayan blackberry Iris pseudacorus Yellow flag iris Convolvu/us arvensis Field bindweed Hedera helix English ivy A/nus rubra Red alder Rubus armeniacus Himalayan blackberry A Up Oemleria cerasiformis Indian plum Equisetum arvense Field horsetail Popu/us balsamifera Black cottonwood B Wet Salix lasiandra Pacific willow B Up No vegetation Present C Wet Polygonum cuspidatum Japanese knotweed Salix lasiandra Pacific willow Rubus armeniacus Himalayan blackberry Juncus effusus Soft rush Epilobium ciliatum Purple-leaved willowherb Rumex crispus Curly dock Wedand and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report Quendall Terminal C-2 Indicator Status' FAC FACW FAC FAC FAC FACU OBL NL UPL FAC FACU FACU FAC FAC FACW FACU FACW FACU FACW FACW FAC Cover% 100% 20% 10% 10% 10% 5% 5% 5% 5% 75% 35% 20% 1% 25% 25% 65% 10% 5% 50% 25% 5% September 2009 060059-01 Appendix C -Sample Plot Summary Data Wetland Sample Scientific Name Common Name Plot Lycopus americanus American bugleweed Lemna minor Small duckweed Convolvulus arvensis Field bindweed Trifolium repens White clover Polygonum cuspidatum Japanese knotweed C Up Rubus armeniacus Himalayan blackberry Populus balsamifera Black cottonwood Salix lasiandra Pacific willow Comus sericea Red-osier dogwood D 1Wet lonicera involucrata Black twinberry Rubus armeniacus Himalayan blackberry Plantago major Common plantain A/nus rubra Red alder Cornus sericea Red-osier dogwood Rubus spectabilis Salmonberry D 2Wet Rubus armeniacus Himalayan blackberry Iris pseudacarus Yellow flag iris Epilobium ciliatum Purple-leaved willowherb Phalaris arundinacea Reed canarygrass Black cottonwood (tree Papulus balsamifera stratum) Rubus armeniacus Himalayan blackberry D Up Black cottonwood (shrub Populus balsamifera stratum) Epi/obium ciliatum Purple-leaved willowherb Salix /asiandra Pacific willow E Wet Populus balsamifera Black cottonwood Rubus armeniacus Himalayan blackberry Popu/us balsamifera Black cottonwood Lonicera involucrata Black twin berry Rubus armeniacus Himalayan blackberry E Up Cornus sericea Red-osier dogwood Epilobium ci/iatum Purple-leaved willowherb Hedera helix English ivy Rubus spectabilis Salmon berry F Wet A/nus rubra Red alder Salix Jasiandra Pacific willow Wedand and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report Qµendall Terminal C-3 Indicator Status 1 DBL DBL NL FAC FACU FACU FAC FACW FACW FAC FACU FACU FAC FACW FAC FACU DBL FACW FACW FAC FACU FAC FACW FACW FAC FACU FAC FAC FACU FACW FACW UPL FAC+ FAC FACW Cover% 5% 5% 5% 5% 80% 20% 75% 15% 10% 5% 5% 5% 5% 100% 25% 5% 5% 90% 10% 5% 75% 15% 10% 5% 15% 5% 5% 50% 15% September 2009 060059-01 Appendix C -Sample Plot Summary Data Wetland Sample Scientific Name Common Name Plot Rubus armeniacus Himalayan blackberry Populus balsamifera Black cottonwood Juncus effusus Soft rush Phalaris arundinacea Reed canarygrass Iris pseudacorus Yellow flag iris Galium aparine Catchweed bedstraw Plantago major Common plantain Rumex crispus Curly dock Rubus armeniacus Himalayan blackberry F Up Polygonum cuspidatum Japanese knotweed Epilobium ciliatum Purple-leaved willowherb Salix lasiandra Pacific willow A/nus rubra Red alder G Wet Cornus sericea Red-osier dogwood Rubus armeniacus Himalayan blackberry Polygonum cuspidatum Japanese knotweed Rubus armeniacus Himalayan blackberry G Up Polygonum cuspidatum Japanese knotweed Populus balsamifera Black cottonwood A/nus rubra Red alder Salix lasiandra Pacific willow Rubus armeniacus Himalayan blackberry Spiraea douglasii Spirea Lonicera involucrata Black twinberry H Wet Juncus effusus Soft rush Phalaris arundinacea Reed canarygrass Equisetum arvense Field horsetail Rumex crispus Curly dock Ranunculus repens Creeping buttercup Convolvulus arvensis Field bindweed Rubus armeniacus Himalayan blackberry Phalaris arundinacea Reed canarygrass H Up Equisetum arvense Field horsetail Polygonum cuspidatum Japanese knotweed Tanacetum vulgare Common tansy I Wet Cornus sericea Red-osier dogwood Polygonum cuspidatum Japanese knotweed Wedand and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report Quendall Terminal C-4 Indicator Status 1 FACU FAC FACW FACW OBL FACU FACU FAC FACU FACU FACW FACW FAC FACW FACU FACU FACU FACU FAC FAC FACW FACU FACW FAC FACW FACW FAC FAC FACW NL FACU FACW FAC FACU NL FACW FACU Cover% 15% 10% 35% 25% 10% 10% 5% 5% 15% 60% 5% 60% 20% 20% 10% 5% 25% 60% 40% 20% 20% 10% 15% 15% 10% 10% 5% 5% 5% 5% 25% 40% 10% 10% 10% 60% 25% September 2009 060059-01 Appendix C -Sample Plot Summary Data Wetland Sample Scientific Name Common Name Indicator Cover% Plot Status 1 Salix Jasiandra Pacific willow FACW 15% Epilobium ciliatum Purple-leaved willowherb FACW 5% I Up Polygonum cuspidatum Japanese knotweed FACU 100% Salix Jasiandra Pacific willow FACW 15% Rubus armeniacus Himalayan blackberry FACU 10% J Wet Phalaris arundinocea Reed canarygrass FACW 100% Rubus ormeniocus Himalayan blackberry FACU 15% A/nus rubro Red alder FAC 10% J Up Rubus armeniacus Himalayan blackberry FACU 80% Phalaris orundinoceo Reed canarygrass FACW 15% Notes: These categories, referred to as the "wetland indicator status" (from the wettest to driest habitats) are as follows: obligate wetland (OBL) plants, facultative wetland (FACW) plants, facultative (FAC) plants, facultative upland (FACU) plants, and obligate upland (UPL) plants. Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report Quendall Terminal C-5 September 2009 060059-01 Appendix C -Sample Plot Summary Data Table C-3 Summary of Wetland Sample Plot Hydrology Data Wetland Sample Hydrology Plot A Wet Saturation at surface and freestanding water in pit at 10 inches A Up Saturation at surface and freestanding water in pit at 15 inches Soil pit not excavated. Constructed stormwater feature with B Wet standing water present. B Up Soil pit not excavated. Soil pit not excavated. Constructed stormwater feature with C Wet standing water present. C Up Soil pit not excavated. No evidence of hydrology. D lWet No saturation or freestanding water in pit to 18 inches D 2Wet Saturation at surface and freestanding water at surface D Up Saturation at surface, no freestanding water in pit to 18 inches Soil pit not excavated. Constructed stormwater feature with E Wet standing water present. E Up Soil pit not excavated. No evidence of hydrology. No saturation at surface, freestanding water in pit at 11 inch F Wet inches F Up Soil pit not excavated. No evidence of hydrology. Soil pit not excavated. Constructed stormwater feature with G Wet standing water present. G Up Soil pit not excavated. No evidence of hydrology. H Wet Soil pit excavated. Standing water at surface. H Up No soil pit excavated no visible evidence of hydrology. I Wet Saturation at surface, no freestanding water in pit to 18 inches I Up Saturation at surface, no freestanding water in pit to 18 inches J Wet Saturation at surface and freestanding water at surface J Up Saturation at surface, no freestanding water in pit to 18 inches Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Dehneation Report September 2009 060059-01 Qµendall Terminal C-6 Appendix C -Sample Plot Summary Data Table C-4 Summary of Wetland Sample Plot Soils Data Wetland Sample Soil Horizon Matrix Color Redox Color Redox Texture Plot (inches) Abundance (%) 0 to 10 lOYR 3/1 None None Clay loam A Wet 10-18 lOYR 3/2 None None Clay Loam 18+ 2.SY 3/1 lOYR Y. 5% Clay Loam Oto8 lOYR 3/1 None None Clay loam A Up 8 to 18+ lOYR 3/1 lOYR 4/3 15% Sand B Wet B Up Due to known contamination, soil pits not excavated C Wet C Up Due to known contamination, soil pits not excavated Oto 6 lOYR 3/2 None None Sandy loam D lWet Silt loam, gravel 6 to 18+ lOYR 5/1 lOYR 4/6 10% interspersed at 6 to 8 0 to 10 lOYR 2/1 None None D 2Wet 10 to 12 2.5YR4/l lOYR 4/6 25% 12 to 18+ 2.SY 4/1 None None D Up 0 to 18+ 2.SY 5/2 None None E Wet E Up Due to known contamination, soil pits not excavated 0 to 6 2.SY 4/2 lOYR 5/6 20% F Wet 6 to 18+ 2.5Y 4/1 lOYR 4/6 40% F Up Due to known contaminants, soil pits not excavated G Wet G Up Due to known contaminants, soil pits not excavated H Wet H Up Due to known contamination, soil pits not excavated Oto 6 lOYR 3/1 None None 6 to 12 10YR 3/2 2.SYR 4/6 15% I Wet lOYR 6/8 50% 12 to 18 SY 4/2 2.5y 4/2 25% 0 to 8 lOYR 3/3 None None I Up 8 to 18 lOYR 3/3 7.5YR 5/8 5% Oto 3 Root mat None None J Wet 3 to 18 lOYR 3/1 None None J Up 0 to 18 lOYR 4/2 None None Wedand and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report Qpendall Tenninal C-7 inches. Loamy sand Loamy sand Sand Loamy clay Sand Sand Loam Loam Silty loam loam loam organic Silty loam Silty loam September 2009 060059-01 Appendix C -Sample Plot Summary Data Table C-5 Summary of Wetland Sample Plot Data and Wetland Determination Wetland Sample Vegetation Soils Plot A Wet Hydrophytic Hydric A Up Non-hydrophytic Hydric B Wet Hydrophytic N/A B Up None N/A C Wet Hydrophytic N/A C Up Non-hydrophytic N/A D lWet Hydrophytic Hydric D 2Wet Hydrophytic Hydric D Up Non-hydrophytic Non-hydric E Wet Hydrophytic N/A E Up Hydrophytic N/A F Wet Hydrophytic Hydric F Up Non-hydrophytic N/A G Wet Hydrophytic N/A G Up Non-hydrophytic N/A H Wet Hydrophytic N/A H Up Non-hydrophytic N/A I Wet Hydrophytic Hydric I Up Non-hydrophytic Non-hydric J Wet Hydrophytic Hydric J Up Non-hydrophytic Non-hydric Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report Quendall Terminal C-8 Hydrology Positive Positive Positive Negative Positive Negative Positive Positive Positive Positive Negative Positive Negative Positive Negative Positive Negative Positive Negative Positive Negative Determination Wetland Upland Wetland Upland Wetland Upland Wetland Wetland Wetland Wetland Upland Wetland Upland Wetland Upland Wetland Upland Wetland Upland Wetland Upland September 2009 060059-01 APPENDIX D FIELD DATA SHEETS WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project Site: Applicant/Owner: lnvestigator(s): Quendall Terminals Quendall A. Gale, J. Pursley Landform {hillslope, terrace, etc.): Lakefringe Subregion (LRR): A Lat: Soil Map Unit Name: Norma sandy loam 47.53N City/County: Renton/King Sampling Date: State: WA Sampling Point: Section, Township, Range: 29/24N/5E Local relief (concave, convex, none): None Long: 122.20W Datum: 04/23/2009 WetASP#1Up Slope (% ): O to 2 NWI classification: None mapped Are climatic/ hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes Are Vegetation 0, Soil D. Or Hydrology D. significantly disturbed? No D (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes t8I No D Are Vegetation D, Soil D. Or Hydrology D, naturally problematic? {If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -Attach site map showing sampling point locations transects important features etc ' ' Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes D No 181 Hydric Soil Present? Yes 181 No D Is the Sampling Area within a Wetland? Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 181 No D Remarks: Data plot includes wetland hydrology and soils, but lacking in hydrophytic vegetation. VEGETATION -Use scientific names of nlants Tree Stratum (Plot Size: 30 foot radius) 1. A/nus rubra 2. 3. 4. Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot Size: 15 foot radius) 5. Rubus anneniacus 6. Oelmeria cerasfformis 7. 8. 9. Absolute % Cover 75 35 20 Dominant Species? Yes Indicator Status FAC 75::: Total Cover Yes Yes FACU FACU 55 = Total Cover Dominance Test Worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAG: Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Prevalence Index worksheet: Total% Cover of: OBL species 0 FACW species 1 FAC species 75 FACU species 55 UPL species Yes D No 181 1 (AJ 3 (BJ 33% (A/BJ MultiQly by: x1 = 0 x2 = 2 x3 = 225 x4 = 220 x5 = Herb Stratum {Plot Size: 3 foot radius) 10. Equisetum arvense No FACW Column Totals: 131 (AJ 447 (BJ 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 1 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum {Plot Size: ) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 99% Prevalence Index= B/A = 3.41 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: No No Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ~3.01 Morphological Adaptations, (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants 1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain) 11ndicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes D No Remarks: 33% dominant wetland vegetation per the Dominance test and Prevalence index< 3. Hydrophytic vegetation not present. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valley, and Coast -Interim Version Project Site: Quendall Terminal SOIL Samrilinn Point: Wet A SP#1 Un Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of Indicators.) l Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (Moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks --------- Oto B 10YR 311 100 None None None None Clay loam 8 to 18+ 10YR 3/1 85 10YR 4/3 15% D M Clay loam 1Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: D Histosol (A 1) D Sandy Redox (S5) D 2 cm Muck (A10) D Histic Epipedon (A2) D Stripped Matrix (S6) D Red Parent Material (TF2) D Black Histic (A3) D Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) D Other (Explain in Remarks) D Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) D Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) 181 Depleted Below Dark Surface (A 11) D Depleted Matrix (F3) 181 Thick Dark Surface (A 12) D Redox Dark Surface (F6) D Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) D Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland D Sandy GI eyed Matrix (S4) D Redox Depressions (F8) hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or nroblematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (Inches): Hydric Soils Present? Yes 181 No D Remarks: 1 chroma with redox features. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) D Surface Water (A 1) 181 Water-Stained Leaves (89) D Water-Stained Leaves (89) 181 High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 48) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 181 Saturation (A3) D Salt Crust (B 11) D Drainage Pattems (810) D Water Marks (81) D Aquatic Invertebrates (813) D Dry-Season Water Table (C2) D Sediment Deposits (82) D Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) D Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) 181 Drift Deposits (83) D Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) D Geomorphic Position (D2) D Algal Mat or Crust (84) D Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) D Shallow Aquitard (D3) D Iron Deposits (85) D Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6} D FAC-Neutral Test {05) D Surface Soil Cracks (86) D Stunted or Stresses Plants (D1) (LRR A) D Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) D Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87) D other (Explain in Remarks) D Frost-Heave Hummocks (07) D Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88) Fleld Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes D No 181 Depth {inches): Water Table Present? Yes 181 No D Depth (inches): 15 inches Saturation Present? Yes 181 No D Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) At surface Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 181 No D Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Saturation and standing water observed in sample plot US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Va/fey, and Coast-Interim Version WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM-Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project Site: Applicant/Owner: lnvestigator(s): Quendall Terminals Quendall A. Gale, J. Pursley Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Lakefringe Lat Subregion (LRR): A Soil Map Unit Name: Norma sandy loam 47.53N City/County: Renton/King Sampling Date: State: WA Sampling Point: Section, Township, Range: 29/24N/5E Local relief (concave, convex, none): None Long: 122.20W Datum: 04/23/2009 Wet A SP#1Wet Slope(%): o to 2 NWI classification: None mapped Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes 181 No O (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation 0, Soil D. Or Hydrology D, significantly disturbed? D, Or Hydrology 0, naturally problematic? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes 181 No D Are Vegetation D. Soil (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes 181 No D Hydric Soil Present? Yes 181 No D Is the Sampling Area within a Wetland? Yes 181 No D Welland Hydrology Present? Yes 181 No D Remarks: Wetland A associated with Lake Washington; also receives stormwater runoff. Adjacent upland areas bolstered by placement of rlprap materials and silt fencing. T f I VEG ETA ION -Use scientific names or c ants Tree Stratum (Plot Size: 30 foot radius) Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test Worksheet; % Cover Species? Status 1. Alnus rubra 100 Yes FAC Number of Dominant Species That Are s (A) 2. OBL, FACW, or FAG: 3. Total Number of Dominant Species Across 7 (B) 4. All Strata: 100 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species That Are 71 (NB) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot Size: 15 foot radius) OBL, FACW, or FAG: 5. Cornus stolonifera 20 Yes FACW Prevalence Index work.sheet: 6. Alnus rubra 10 Yes FAC Total "{o Cover of: Multii;il~ b::f 7. Lonlcera lnvolucrate 10 Yes FAC OBL species x1 = 8. Rubus parviflorus 10 No FAC FACW species x2 = 9. Rubus armeniacus s No FACU FAC species x3 = 55 = Total Cover FACU species x4 = Herb Stratum (Plot Size: 3 foot radius) UPL species x5 = 10. Hedera helix s Yes NL Column Totals: (A) (B) 11. Iris pseudacorus s Yes OBL Prevalence Index = BIA = 12. Convolvulus arvensis s Yes NL Hydrophytlc Vegetation Indicators: 13. Yes Dominance Test is >50% 14. Prevalence Index is .::_3.0 1 15. Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting data in 16. Remarks or on a separate sheet) 17. Wetland Non-Vascular Plants 1 18. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain) 19. 20. 11ndicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, 10 = Total Cover unless disturbed or problematic. WQod~ Vine Stratum (Plot Size: I 1. 2. = Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 40 Present? Yes ~ No D Remarks: 71 % dominant wetland vegetation per the Dominance test US Anny Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valley, and Coast -Interim Version Project Site: Quendall Terminal SOIL Same lino Point: Wet A SP#1Wet Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) I Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color {Moist) % Type1 Loe' Texture Remarks --------- Oto 10 10YR 3/1 100 None None None None Clay loam Coarse organics 10 to 18 10 YR 3/2 100 None None None None Clay loam 18+ 2.SY 3/1 95 10YR3/. 5 RM M Clay loam 1Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: D Histosol (A1) D Sandy Redox ($5) D 2 cm Muck (A10) D Histic Epipedon (A2) D Stripped Matrix (S6) D Red Parent Material (TF2) D Black Histic (A3) D Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) D Other (Explain in Remarks) D Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) D Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) 181 Depleted Below Dark Surface (A 11) D Depleted Matrix (F3) 181 Thick Dark Surface {A 12) D Redox Dark Surface (FB) D Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) D Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland D Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) D Redox Depressions (F8) hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or oroblematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (Inches): Hydric Soils Present? Yes 181 No D Remarks: 1 chroma HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) D Surface Water (A 1) 181 Water-Stained Leaves (89) D Water-Stained Leaves (89) 181 High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 48) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 48) 181 Saturation (A3) D Salt Crust (811) D Drainage Patterns {810) D Water Marks (B1) D Aquatic Invertebrates (813) D Dry-Season Water Table {C2) D Sediment Deposits (82) D Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) D Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) 181 Drift Deposits (83) D Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) D Geomorphic Position (02) D Algal Mat or Crust (84) D Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) D Shallow Aquitard (03) D Iron Deposits (85) D Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (CB) D FAG-Neutral Test (D5) D Surface Soil Cracks (B6) D Stunted or Stresses Plants (01) (LRR A) D Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) D Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87) D Other (Explain in Remarks) D Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) D Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes D No 181 Depth (inches}: Water Table Present? Yes 181 No D Depth (inches): 4 inches Saturation Present? Yes 181 No D Depth (inches): {includes capillary fringe) At surface Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 181 No D Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Saturation and standing water observed in sample plot US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valley, and Coast-Interim Version WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project Site: Quendall Terminals Quendall City/County: Renton/King Sampling Date: 04/23/2009 WetC SP#1Up Applicant/Owner: lnvestigator(s): A. Gale, J. Pursley State: WA Sampling Point: Section, Township, Range: 29/24N/5E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Constructed stormwater feature local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (% ). None Subregion {LRR): A Lat 47.53N Long: 122.20W Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Norma sandy loam NWI classification: None mapped Are climatic/ hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No D (lf no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation D. Soil Are Vegetation D. Soil 0. Or Hydrology D. significantly disturbed? D. Or Hydrology D. naturally problematic? Are 'Normal Circumstances" present? Yes 181 No D (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -Attach site map showing sampling point locations transects, Important features etc ' Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes D No 181 Hydric Soil Present? Yes D No D Is the Sampling Area within a WeUand? Yes D No 181 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes D No 181 Remarks: Sample plot located on compacted berm adjacent and upland to Wetland C. VEGETATION Use scientific names of olants Tree Stratum (Plot Size: 30 foot radius) 1. 2. 3. 4. Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot Size: 15 foot radius) 5. Polygonum cuspidatum 6. Rubus armeniacus 7. 8. 9. Herb Stratum (Plot Size: 3 foot radius) 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot Size: ) 1. 2. % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Absolute %Cover 80 20 100 Dominant Species? Indicator Status 100 = Total Cover Yes Yes FACU FACU = Total Cover = Total Cover = Total Cover Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation not present in sample plot location. US A,my Corps of Engineers Dominance Test Worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Percent of Dominant Species Thal Are OBL, FACW, or FAG: Prevalence Index worksheet: Tota/% Cover of: 0 (A} 2 (B} (A/B} Multi(;!I~ b~; x1 = x2 = x3 = x4 = x5 = OBL species FACW species FAC species FACU species UPL species Column Totals: (A} (B} Prevalence Index= BIA= Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Yes Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ~3.01 Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland NonNascular Plants 1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 11ndicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes D No Western Mountains, Valley, and Coast-Interim Version Project Site: Quendall Terminal SOIL Samolina Point: Wet C SP#1Wet Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) I Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (Moist) % Type1 Loe' Te:dure Remarks --------- 1Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soll Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric So11s 3: D Histosol (A 1) D Sandy Redox (S5) D 2 cm Muck (A10) D Histic Epipedon (A2) D Stripped Matrix (S6) D Red Parent Material (TF2) D Black Histic (A3) D Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) D Other (Explain in Remarks) D Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) D Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) D Depleted Below Dark Surface (A 11) D Depleted Matrix (F3) D Thick Dark Surface (A 12) D Redox Dark Surface (F6) D Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) D Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland D Sandy GI eyed Matrix (S4) D Redox Depressions (FB) hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or oroblematic. Restrictive Layer (If present): Type: Depth (Inches): Hydric Soils Present? Yes ll!l No D Remarks: Due to known contaminants in the study area, soil pits were not excavated in some areas. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) D Surface Water (A 1) D Water-Stained leaves (B9) D Water-Stained leaves (B9) D High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 48) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) D Saturation (A3) D Salt Crust (B11) D Drainage Patterns (810) D Water Marks (B1) D Aquatic Invertebrates (B 13} D Dry-Season Water Table (C2) D Sediment Deposits (B2) D Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) D Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) D Drift Deposits (B3) D Oxidized Rhizospheres along living Roots (C3) D Geomorphic Position (D2) D Algal Mat or Crust (B4) D Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) D Shallow Aquilard (D3) D Iron Deposits (B5) D Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) D FAG-Neutral Test (D5) D Surface Soil Cracks (B6) D Stunted or Stresses Plants (01) (LRR A) D Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) D Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) D other (Explain in Remarks) D Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) D Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (BB) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes D No ll!l Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes D No ll!l Depth (inches): 4 inches Saturation Present? Yes D No ll!l Depth (inches): At surface Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes D No ll!l (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Dala (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Sample plot located an compacted bem, adjacent ta Wetland C; no evidence of wetland hydrology. US Army Corps of Engineers Westem Mountains, Valley, and Coast -Interim Version WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project Site: ApplicanUOwner: lnvestigator(s}: Quendall Terminals Quendall A Gale, J. Pursley Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Constructed stormwater feature City/County: Renton/King Sampling Date: State: WA Sampling Point: Section, Township, Range: 29/24N/5E Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave 04/23/2009 WetB SP#1Wet Slope(%): None Subregion (LRR): A lat: 47.53N Long: 122.20W Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Norma sandy loam NWI classification: None mapped Are dimatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No D (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Are Vegetation D. Soil D, Soil 0, Or Hydrology D, significantly disturbed? D, Or Hydrology D, naturally problematic? Are ~Normal Circumstances" present? Yes 181 No D (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes 181 No D Hydric Soil Present? Yes D No D Is the Sampling Area within a Wetland? Yes 181 No D Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 181 No D Remarks: Wetland C is a constructed stormwater feature that receives stormwater runoff from the property. Does not appear to be maintained. VEGETATION Use scientific names of nlants Tree Stratum (Plot Size: 30 foot radius) Absolute Dominant Indicator % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover SaE;!ling!'.Shrub Stratum (Plot Size: 15 foot radius) 5. Polygonum cuspidatum 65 Yes FACU 6. Salix lasiandra 10 Yes FACW 7. Rubus armeniacus 5 No FACU B. 9. 80= Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot Size: 3 foot radius) 10. Juncus effusus 50 Yes FACW 11. EpUobium ciliatum 25 Yes FACW 12. Rumex crlspus 5 No Obi 13. Lycopus americanus 5 No Olb 14. Lemna minor 5 No Obi 15. Trifolium repens 5 No FAC 16. Convolvu/us arvensJs 5 No NL 17. 18. 19. 20. 100= Total Cover Woodv Vine Stratum (Plot Size: ) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 10 Remarks: 100% dominant wetland vegetation per the Dominance test. US Army Corps of Engineers Dominance Test Worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAG: Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: 4 4 100 Multiply by: x1 = x2 = x3 = x4 = xs = (A) (B) (A/8) OBL species FACW species FAC species FACU species UPL species Column Totals: (A) (8) Prevalence Index = BIA = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Yes Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ~3.0 1 Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1lndicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Western Mountains, Valley, and Coast-Interim Version D Project Site: Quendall Terminal SOIL SamplinQ Point: Wet B SP#1Wet Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) I Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (Moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks --------- 1Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3 : D Histosol (A 1) D Sandy Redox (S5) D 2 cm Muck (A10) D Histic Epipedon (A2) D Stripped Matrix (S6) D Red Parent Material (TF2) D Black Histic (A3) D Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) D Other (Explain in Remarks) D Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) D Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) D Depleted Below Dark Surface (A 11) D Depleted Matrix (F3) D Thick Dark Surface (A 12) D Redox Dark Surface (F6) D Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) D Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland D Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) D Redox Depressions (F8) hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or nroblematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (Inches): Hydric Soils Present? Yes D No D Remarks: Due to knoWfl contaminants in the study area, soil pits were not excavated in some areas. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary-Indicators (2 or more required) D Surface Water {A 1) D Water-Stained leaves (B9) D Water-Stained Leaves (B9) 181 High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 48) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 181 Saturation (A3) D Salt Crust {B11) D Drainage Patterns (810) D Water Marks (B 1) D Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) D Dry-Season Water Table (C2) D Sediment Deposits (82) D Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) D Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) D Drift Deposits {B3) D Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) D Geomorphic Position (02) D Algal Mat or Crust (B4) D Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) D Shallow Aquitard (D3) D Iron Deposits (85) D Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) D FAG-Neutral Test (05) D Surface Soil Cracks (B6) D Stunted or Stresses Plants (D1) {LRR A) D Raised Ant Mounds {D6) (LRR A) D Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) D Other (Explain in Remarks) D Frost-Heave Hummocks (07) D Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes 181 No 181 Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes 181 No D Depth (inches): At surface Saturation Present? Yes 181 No D Depth (inches): At surface Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 181 No D (includes capillary-fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Standing water present in constructed stormwater feature. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valley, and Coast-Interim Version WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project Site ApplicanVOwner: lnvestigator(s): Quendall Terminals Quendall City/County: Renton/King Sampling Date: 04/2312009 Wet C SP#1Up State: WA Sampling Point: A. Gale, J. Pursley Section, Township, Range: 29/24N/5E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Constructed stormwater feature Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope(%): None Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47.53N Long: 122.20W Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Norma sandy loam NWI classification: None mapped No D (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are climatic/ hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes Are Vegetation D. Soil D. Or Hydrology D. significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes 181 No D Are Vegetation D, Soil D. Or Hydrology D, naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.} SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes D No 181 Hydric Soil Present? Yes D No D Is the Sampling Area within a Wetland? Yes D No 181 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes D No 181 Remarks: Sample plot located on compacted dirt road adjacent and upland lo Wetland B. VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants Tree Stratum (Plot Size: 30 foot radius) 1. 2. 3. 4. Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot Size: 15 foot radius) 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Herb Stratum (Plot Size: 3 foot radius) 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot Size: ) 1. 2. % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Absolute % Cover Remarks: No vegetation present in sample plot location. US Army Corps of Engineers Dominant Species? Indicator Status 100 = Total Cover = Total Cover = Total Cover = Total Cover Dominance Test Worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Percent of Dominant Species That Are DBL, FACW, or FAC: Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: x1 = x2 = x3 = x4 = x5 = (A) (B) (NB) OBL species FACW species FAC species FACU species UPL species Column Totals: (A) (8) Prevalence Index= BIA= Hydrophytlc Vegetation Indicators: Yes Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ~3.01 Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non~Vascular Plants 1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation, (Explain) 11ndicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes D No We stem Mountains, Valley, and Coast~ Interim Version Project Site: Quendall Terminal SOIL Sampling Point: Wet C SP#1 Up Profile Description: {Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) I Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color {Moist) % Type' Loe' Texture Remarks --------- 1Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soll Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydrlc Solls3 : D Histosol (A 1) D Sandy Redox (S5) D 2 cm Muck (A10) D Histic Epipedon (A2) D Stripped Matrix (S6) D Red Parent Material (TF2) D Black Histic (A3) D Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) D Other (Explain in Remarks) D Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) D Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) D Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) D Depleted Matrix {F3) D Thick Dark Surface (A 12) D Redox Dark Surface (FB) D Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) D Depleted Dark Surface {F7) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland D Sandy Gleyed Matrix {S4) D Redox Depressions (F8) hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or oroblematic. Restrictive Layer (If present): Type: Depth {Inches): Hydric Soils Present? Yes 1,11 No D Remarks: Due to known contaminants in the study area, soil pits were not excavated in some areas. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators {minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) D Surface Water (A 1) D Water-Stained Leaves (89) D Water-Stained Leaves {B9) D High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 48) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 48) D Saturation (A3) D Salt Crust (811) D Drainage Patterns (B 10) D Waler Marks (B 1) D Aquatic Invertebrates {B13) D Ory-season Water Table (C2) D Sediment Deposits (82) D Hydrogen Sulfide Odor {C1) D Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery {C9) D Drift Deposits (83) D Oxidized Rhizospheres along living Roots (C3) D Geomorphic Position (02) D Algal Mat or Crust (B4) D Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) D Shallow Aquitard (03) D Iron Deposits (85) D Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (CS) D FAG-Neutral Test (05) D Surface Soil Cracks (B6) D Stunted or Stresses Plants (D1) (LRR A) D Raised Ant Mounds (06) {LRR A) D Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) D Other (Explain in Remarks) D Frost-Heave Hummocks (07) D Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes D No 1,11 Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes D No 1,11 Depth (inches): 4 inches Saturation Present? Yes D No 1,11 Depth (inches): At surface Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes D No 1,11 {includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Sample plot located on compacted dirt road adjacent to Wetland B; no evidence of wetland hydrology. US Anny Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valley, and Coast -Interim Version WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project Site: Applican1/0wner: lnvestigator(s): Quendall Terminals Quendall A Gale, J. Pursley Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Constructed stormwater feature City/County: Renton/King Sampling Date: State: WA Sampling Point: Section, Township, Range: 29/24N/5E Local relief (conca'w'e, convex, none): Concave 04/23/2009 WetC SP#1Wet Slope (% ): None Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47.53N long. 122.20W Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Norma sandy loam NWI classification: None mapped No D (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are climatic/ hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes Are Vegetation D. Soil D, Or Hydrology D, significantly disturbed? Are Vegetation D, Soil D, Or Hydrology 0. naturally problematic? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes 181 No D (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -Attach site map showing sampling point locations transects Important features etc ' ' ' Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes !al No D Hydric Soil Present? Yes D No D Is the Sampling Area within a Wetland? Yes !al No D Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes !al No D Remarks: Wetland Bis a recently constructed stormwater feature that receives stormwater runoff from the property. VEGETATION -Use scientific names of [I lants Tree Stratum (Plot Size: 30 foot radius) 1. 2. 3. 4. Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot Size: 15 foot radius) 5. Populus balsamlfera 6. Salix lasiandra 7. 8. 9. Herb Stratum (Plot Size: 3 foot radius) 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot Size: ) 1. 2. % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 40 Absolute % Cover 25 25 Dominant Species? = Total Cover Indicator Status Yes FAC Yes FACW 50= Total Cover = Total Cover = Total Cover Dominance Test Worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAG: Prevalence Index worksheet: Total% Cover of: OBL species FACW species FAC species 2 2 100 Multiply bv· x1 = x2 = x3= x4= x5= (A) (8) (NB) F ACU species UPL species Column Totals: (A) (8) Prevalence Index= BIA= Hydrophytlc Vegetation Indicators: Yes Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is 9.01 Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants 1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain) 1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No D Remarks: 100% dominant wetland vegetation per the Dominance test. Young willows and cottonwoods surrounded constructed stormwater feature. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valley, and Coast-Interim Version Project Site: Quendall Terminal SOIL Same lina Point: Wet C SP#1 Wet Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) I Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (Moist) % Type 1 Loc2 Texture Remarks --------- 1Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydrlc Soll Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soi1s 3 : D Histosol (A 1) D Sandy Redox (S5) D 2 cm Muck (A10) D Histic Epipedon (A2) D Stripped Matrix (S6) D Red Parent Material (TF2) D Black Histic {A3) D Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) D Other {Explain in Remarks) D Hydrogen Sulfide {A4) D Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) D Depleted Below Dark Surface (A 11) D Depleted Matrix (F3) D Thick Dark Surface (A12) D Redox Dark Surface (F6) D Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) D Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland D Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) D Redox Depressions (F8) hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or oroblematic. Restrictive Layer {If present): Type: Depth (Inches): Hydric Soils Present? Yes D No D Remarks: Due to known contaminants in the study area, soil pits were not excavated in some areas. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) D Surface Water (A 1) D Water-Stained Leaves (89) D Water-Stained Leaves (B9) 181 High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 48) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 181 Saturation (A3) D Salt Crust (811) D Drainage Patt ems (B 10) D Water Marks (81) D Aquatic Invertebrates (813) D Dry-Season Water Table (C2) D Sediment Deposits (82) D Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) D Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) D Drift Deposits (B3) D Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) D Geomorphic Position (D2) D Algal Mat or Crust (B4) D Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) D Shallow Aquitard (D3) D Iron Deposits (85) D Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) D FAG-Neutral Test (D5) D Surface Soil Cracks (86) D Stunted or Stresses Plants (D1) (LRR A) D Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) D Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87) D Other (Explain in Remarks) D Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) D Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes 181 No 181 Depth {inches): Water Table Present? Yes 181 No D Depth (inches): At surface Saturation Present? Yes 181 No D Depth (inches): (indudes capillary fringe) At surface Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 181 No D Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Standing water present in constructed stormwater feature. US Army Corps of Engineers Westem Mountains, Va/fey, and Coast-Interim Version WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project Site: Quendall Terminals Quendall City/County: Renton/King Sampling Date: 04/30/2009 WetD SP#1Wet Applicant/Owner: lnvestigator(s): A. Gale, J. Pursley State: WA Sampling Point Section, Township, Range: 29/24N/5E Landforrn (hillslope, terrace, etc.): lakefringe Lat: Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (% ): O to 2 Subregion (LRR): A 47.53N Long: 122.20W Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Bellingham silt loam NWI classification: Palustrine scrub-shrub Are climatic/ hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No D (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation D. Soil D, Or Hydrology D. significantly disturbed? D, Or Hydrology D, naturally problematic? Are "Normal Circumstances~ present? Yes 181 No D Are Vegetation D, Soil (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -Attach site map showing sampling point locations transects important features etc ' ' Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes 181 No D Hydric Soil Present? Yes 181 No D Is the Sampling Area within a Wetland? Yes 181 No D Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 181 No D Remarks: Wetland D associated with Lake Washington; also receives stormwater runoff. VEGETATION -Use scientific names of nlants Tree Stratum (Plot Size: 30 foot radius) 1. Populus balsamlfera 2. Salix lasiandra 3. 4. Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot Size: 15 foot radius) 5. Comus sericea 6. Lonlcera involucrate 7. Rubus armenlacus 8. 9. Herb Stratum (Plot Size: 3 foot radius) 10. Plantago major 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot Size: ) 1. 2. % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0 Absolute Dominant % Cover Species? 55 Yes 35 Yes Indicator Status FAC FACW 90 = Total Cover 20 10 10 5 Yes No No FACW FAC FACU 40 = Total Cover No FACU 5= Total Cover = Total Cover Remarks: 100% dominant wetland vegetation per the Dominance test US Anny Corps of Engineers Dominance Test Worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are 0BL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAG: Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover qf: OBL species FACW species FAC species FACU species UPL species 3 3 100 Multiply by: x1 = x2 = x3 = x4 = x5 = (A) (B) (A/B) Column Totals: (A) Prevalence Index= BIA= (B) Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Yes Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ~3.0 1 Morphological Adaptations, (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain) 1 lndicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Western Mountains, Valley, and Coast -Interim Version D Project Site: Quendall Terminal SOIL Samolino Point: Wet D SP#1Wet Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) I Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (Moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks --------- Oto6 10YR3/2 100 None None None None Sandy loam 6 to 18+ 10 YR 3/1 100 10YR4/6 10 D M Silt loam Compacted 1Type: C= Concentration. D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix. CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydrlc Soll Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematlc Hydrlc So11s 3: D Histosol (A 1) D Sandy Redox (S5) D 2 cm Muck (A10) D Histic Epipedon (A2) D Stripped Matrix (S6) D Red Parent Material (TF2) D Black Histic (A3) D Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) D Other (Explain in Remarks) D Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) D Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ~ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A 11) D Depleled Matrix (F3) ~ Thick Dark Surface (A12) D Redox Dark Surface (F6) D Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) D Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3 lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland D Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) D Redox Depressions (F8) hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or oroblematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type; Coarse angular rock Depth (Inches): 6--8 inches Hydric Soils Present? Yes ~ No D Remarks: 2 chroma, mottles. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) D Surface Water (A 1) ~ Water-Stained Leaves (B9) D Water-Stained Leaves (B9) D High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 48) D Saturation (A3) D Salt Crust (B11) D Drainage Patterns (B10) D Water Marks (B 1) D Aquatic Invertebrates (813) D Dry-Season Water Table (C2) D Sediment Deposits (82) D Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) D Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ~ Drift Deposits (83) D Oxidized Rhiz.ospheres along Living Roots (C3) D Geomorphic Position (02) D Algal Mat or Crust (84) D Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) D Shallow Aquitard (03) D Iron Deposils {85) D Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) D FAG-Neutral Test (05) D Surface Soil Cracks (B6) 181 Stunted or Stresses Plants (D1) (LRR A) D Raised Ant Mounds (06) (LRR A) D Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) D Other (Explain in Remarks) D Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) ~ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes D No ~ Depth (inches): Waler Table Present? Yes 181 No D Depth (inches): 4 inches Saturation Present? Yes 181 No D Depth (inches): At surface Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ~ No D (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Primary indicators present. US A,my Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valley, and Coast -Interim Version WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project Site: Quendall Terminals Quendall City/County. Renton/King Sampling Date: 04/30/2009 WetD SP#2Wet Applicant/Owner: lnvestigator(s}: A. Gale, J. Pursley State: WA Sampling Point: Section, Township, Range: 29/24N/5E Landforrn (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Lakefringe Lat: Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope(%): Oto 2 Subregion (LRR): A 47.53N Long: 122.20W Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Bellingham silt loam NWI classification: Palustrine scrub-shrub Are climatic/ hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No D (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation D, Soil Are Vegetation D, Soil D, Or Hydrology D, significantly disturbed? D, Or Hydrology D, naturally problematic? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ~ No D (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -Attach site map showing sampling point locations transects important features etc ' ' Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes 181 No D Hydric Soil Present? Yes 181 No D Is the Sampling Area within a Wetland? Yes 181 No D Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 181 No D Remarks: Wetland D associated with Lake Washington; also receives stonnwater runoff. VEGETATION -Use scientific names of alants Tree Stratum (Plot Size: 30 foot radius) 1. A/nus rubra 2. 3. 4. Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot Size: 15 foot radius) 5. Cornus sericea 6. Rubus spectabilis 7. Rubus armeniacus 8. 9. Herb Stratum (Plot Size: 3 foot radius) 10. Iris pseudacorus 11. Epilobium ciliatum 12. Phalaris arundinacea 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 16. 19. 20. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot Size: ) 1. 2. % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum O Absolute Dominant % Cover Species? 75 Yes Indicator Status FAC 75 = Total Cover 15 10 5 5 5 5 Yes Yes No FACW FAC FACU 40 = Total Cover Yes Yes Yes DBL FACW FACW 15= Total Cover = Total Cover Rema!'ks: 100% dominant wetland vegetation per the Dominance test US Anny Corps of Engineers Sample plot located near the lake's edge. Dominance Test Worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAG: Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAG: Prevalence Index worksheet: Total% Cover of: OBL species FACW species FAG species 6 6 100 Multiply by: x1 = x2= x3 = x4= x5= (A) (B) (NB) F ACU species UPL species Column Totals: (A) (BJ Prevalence Index = BIA = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Yes Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is .::3.01 Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants 1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain) 11ndicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Western Mountains, Va/fey, and Coast-Interim Version D Project Site: Quendall Terminal SOIL Samo!ina Point: Wet D SP#2Wet Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) I Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (Moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks --------- 0 to 10 10YR 2/1 100 None None None None Loamy sand 10to 12 2.5Y YR 4/1 75 10YR 4/6 25 RM M Loamy sand Oxidized rhtzospheres, transition 12 lo 18+ 2.5Y4/1 100 None None None None Sand 1Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3 : D Histosol (A 1) 181 Sandy Redox (S5) D 2 cm Muck (A10) D Histic Epipedon (A2) D Stripped Matrix (S6) D Red Parent Material {TF2) D Black Histic (A3) D Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) D Other (Explain in Remarks) 181 Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) D Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) D Depleted Below Dark Surface (A 11) D Depleted Matrix (F3) D Thick Dark Surface (A12) 181 Redox Dark Surface (F6) D Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) D Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland D Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) D Redox Depressions (F8) hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or oroblematic. Restrictive Layer (If present): Type: Depth (Inches): Hydric Soils Present? Yes 181 No D Remarks: 1 chroma, mottles. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators! Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) 181 Surface Water (A 1) D Water-Stained Leaves (B9) D Water-Stained Leaves (B9) 181 High Water Table (A2) {except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 48) 181 Saturation (A3) D Salt Crust (B11) D Drainage Patterns (B10) D Water Marks (81) D Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) D Dry-Season Water Table (C2) D Sediment Deposits (82) D Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) D Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery {C9) D Drift Deposits (83) D Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) D Geomorphic Posi1ion (D2) D Algal Mat or Crust (B4) D Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) D Shallow Aquitard {D3) D Iron Deposits (BS) D Recent Iron Reduction in Tilted Soils (C6) D FAG-Neutral Test (DS) D Surface Soil Cracks (B6) D Stunted or Stresses Plants {D1) (LRR A) D Raised Ant Mounds {D6) (LRR A) D Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87) D Other (Explain in Remarks) D Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) D Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surtace (B8) Field Observations: Surtace Water Present? Yes 181 No D Depth (inches): At surface Water Table Present? Yes 181 No D Depth (inches): At surtace Saturation Present? Yes 181 No D Depth {inches}: (includes capillary fringe) At surface Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 181 No D Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge. monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Primary indicators present. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valley, and Coast-Interim Version WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM-Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project Site: Quendall Terminals Quendall City/County: Renton/King Sampling Date: 04/30/2009 WetDSP#1Up ApplicanUOwner: lnvestigator(s): A. Gale, J. Pursley State: WA Sampling Paint: Section, Township, Range: 29/24N/5E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Lakefringe lat Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%}: Oto 2 Subregion (LRR): A 47.53N Long: 122.20W Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Bellingham silt loam NWI classification: Palustrine scrub-shrub No D (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are climatic/ hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes Are Vegetation 0, Soil D. Or Hydrology D. significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances~ present? Yes 181 No D Are Vegetation D. Soil D. Or Hydrology D, naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -Attach site map showing sampling point locations transects important features etc ' Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes 181 No D Hydric Soil Present? Yes D No 181 Is the Sampling Area within a WeOand? Yes 181 No D Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 181 No D Remarks: WeOand D associated with Lake Washington; also receives stormwater runoff. VEGETATION Use scientific names of nlants Tree Stratum {Plot Size: 30 foot radius) 1. Populus balsamifera 2. 3. 4. Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot Size: 15 foot radius) 5. Rubus armeniacus 6. Populus balsamifera 7. 8. 9. Herb Stratum (Plot Size: 3 foot radius} 10. Epllobium clllatum 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot Size: ) 1. 2. % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 30 Absolute % Cover 100 25 5 5 Dominant Species? Yes Indicator Status FAC 100 = Total Cover Yes No FACU FAC 30 = Total Cover Yes FACW 5= Total Cover = Total Cover Remarks: 66% dominant wetland vegetation per the Dominance test US Anny Corps of Engineers Sample plot located adjacent to Wetland D. Dominance Test Worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are 0BL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAG: Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: 2 3 66 Mµltiply by: x1 = x2= x3= x4= x5= (A) (B) (NB) DBL species FAGW species FAG species FACU species UPL species Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = 8/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Yes Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ~3.01 Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants 1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain) 11ndicators of hydric soi! and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Western Mountains, Valley, and Coast-Interim Version D Project Site: Quendall Terminal amo11na Point: Wet D SP#1Uo Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of Indicators.) I Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color {moist) % Color (Moist) % Type 1 Loe' Texture Remarks --------- 0 to 18+ 2.5Y 5/2 100 None None None None Loamy clay Compacted 1Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators fo.-Problematic Hydric Soils3 : D Histosol (A 1) D Sandy Redox (S5) D 2 cm Muck (A10) D Histic Epipedon (A2) D Stripped Matrix (S6) D Red Parent Material (TF2) D Black Histic (A3) D Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) D Other (Explain in Remarks) D Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) D Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) D Depleted Below Dark Surface (A 11) D Depleted Matrix (F3) D Thick Dark Surface (A12) D Redox Dark Surface (F6) D Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) D Depleted Dark Surface (F7) ~Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland D Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) D Redox Depressions (FB) hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or oroblematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (Inches): Hydric Soils Present? Yes D No 181 Remarks: No evidence of hydric soils. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) D Surface Water (A 1) D Water-Stained Leaves (89) D Water-Stained Leaves (89) D High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 48) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 48) 181 Saturation (A3) D Salt Crust (811) D Drainage Patterns (810) D Water Marks (81) D Aquatic Invertebrates (813) D Dry-Season Water Table (C2) D Sediment Deposits (B2) D Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) D Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) D Drift Deposits {B3) D Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) D Geomorphic Position (02) D Algal Mat or Crust {B4} D Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) D Shallow Aquitard (03) D Iron Deposits (B5) D Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (CG) D FAG-Neutral Test (05) D Surface Soil Cracks (86) D Stunted or Stresses Plants (D1) (LRR A) D Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) D Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87) D Other (Explain in Remarks} D Frost-Heave Hummocks (07) D Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (BB) Fleld Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes D No 181 Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes D No 181 Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes 181 No D Depth (inches): At surface Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 181 No D (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections). if available: Remarks: Primary indicators present; saturation at surface. US Army Corµs of Engineers Western Mountains, Valley, and Coast -Interim Version WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project Site: Applicant/Owner: lnvestigator(s): Quendall Terminals Quendall City/County: Renton/King State: WA Sampling Date: Sampling Point: 04/30/2009 Wet E SP#1Up A. Gale, J. Pursley Section, Township, Range: 29/24N/5E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Constructed storrnwater feature Local relief {concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): None Subregion (LRR): A lat: 47.53N Long: 122.20W Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Norma sandy loam NWI dassificalion: None mapped Are climatic/ hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes 181 No D (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Are Vegetation D, Sail D, Soil D, Or Hydrology D, significantly disturbed? D, Or Hydrology D, naturally problematic? Are 'Normal Circumstances~ present? Yes 181 No D (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, Important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes 181 No D Hydric Soil Present? Yes D No D Is the Sampling Area within a Wetland? Yes D No 181 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes D No 181 Remarks: Sample plot located on compacted dirt road adjacent and upland to Wetland B. VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants Tree Stratum (Plot Size: 30 foot radius) 1. PopuJus ba/samifera 2. 3. 4. Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot Size: 15 foot radius) 5. Lonicera invo/ucrata 6. Rubus armeniacus 7. Comus sericea 8. 9. Herb Stratum (Plot Size: 3 foot radius) 10. EpllobJum clllatum 11. Hedera helix 12. Geranium robertianum 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot Size: ) 1. 2. % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 25 Absolute % Cover 75 15 10 5 15 5 5 25 Dominant Species? Yes Indicator Status FAC 75 = Total Cover Yes No No FAC FACU FACW 30 = Total Cover Yes No No = Total Cover = Total Cover FACW UPL NL Dominance Test Worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAG: Prevalence Index worksheet: Total% Cover of: OBL species FACW species FAG species FAGU species UPL species 3 3 100% Multiply by: x1 = x2 = x3 = x4 = x5 = (A) (B) (NB) Column Totals: (A) Prevalence Index= 8/A = (B) Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Yes Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ::3.3.01 Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants 1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain) 11ndicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes 181 No D Remarks: 100% Percent of Dominant Species that are FAG, FAGW, or OBL. Large cottonwood extending from wetland to test plot. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valley, and Coast-Interim Version Project Site: Quendall Terminal SOIL Samolina Point Wet E SP#1 Uo Profile Description: (Describe to the deplh needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of Indicators.) I Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (Moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks --------- 1Type: C= Concentration. D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydrlc Soll Indicators: (Applicable to al1 LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3 : 0 Histosol (A1) 0 Sandy Redox (S5) 0 2 cm Muck (A10) 0 Histic Epipedon (A2) 0 Stripped Matrix (S6) 0 Red Parent Material (TF2) 0 Black Histic (A3) 0 Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) 0 other (Explain in Remarks) 0 Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) 0 Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) 0 Depleted Below Dark Surface (A 11) 0 Depleted Matrix (F3) 0 Thick Dark Surface (A 12) 0 Redox Dark Surface (F6) D Sandy Mucky Mineral {S1) 0 Depleted Dark Surtace (F7) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland D Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) 0 Redox Depressions (F8) hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or oroblematic. Restrictive Layer (If present): Type, Depth (Inches): Hydric Soils Present? Yes 181 No 0 Remarks: Due to known contaminants in the study area, soil pits were not excavated in some areas. Test plot located on bermed area adjacent to Wetland E and has developed into dirt road. Soils appear very compact. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check: all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) 0 Surface Water (A 1) 0 Water-Stained Leaves (B9) D Water-Stained Leaves (99) 0 High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 48) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 0 Saturation (A3) 0 Salt Crust (B 11) 0 Drainage Patterns (910) 0 Water Marks {B1) 0 Aquatic Invertebrates (B 13) 0 Dry-Season Water Table (C2) 0 Sediment Deposits (B2) D Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1} 0 Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) 0 Drift Deposits (83) D Oxidized Rhizospheres along living Roots (C3) 0 Geomorphic Position (D2) 0 Algal Mat or Crust (84) 0 Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) 0 Shallow Aquitard (D3} 0 Iron Deposits (B5) 0 Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) 0 FAG-Neutral Test (D5) 0 Surface Soil Cracks (96) 0 Stunted or Stresses Plants (01} (LRR A) 0 Raised Ant Mounds (06) (LRR A) D Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) 0 other (Explain in Remarks) 0 Frost-Heave Hummocks (07) D Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface {BB) Fleld Observations: Surtace Water Present? Yes 0 No 181 Depth {inches): Water Table Present? Yes 0 No 181 Depth (inches): 4 inches Saturation Present? Yes D No 181 Depth (inches): At surface Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 0 No 181 (indudes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Sample plot located on compacted dirt road adjacent to Wetland B; no evidence of wetland hydrology. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valley, and Coast-Interim Version WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project Site: Applicant/Owner: lnvestigator(s): Quendall Terminals Quendall City/County: Renton/King State: WA Sampling Date: Sampling Point: 04/30/2009 WetE SP#1Wet A. Gale, J. Pursley Section, Township, Range: 29/24N/5E Landform {hillslope, terrace, etc.): Constructed stormwater feature Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope(%): 0 -2 % Subregion (LRR): A Lat. 47.53N Long: 122.20W Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Norma sandy loam NWl classification: Are climatic/ hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes Are Vegetation D. Soil D, Or Hydrology D, significantly disturbed? Are Vegetation D, Soil D, Or Hydrology 0, naturally problematic? No D (If no, explain in Remarks.} Are "Normal Circumstances" present? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes 181 No D Hydric Soil Present? Yes D No D Is the Sampling Area within a Wetland? Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 181 No D Remarks: Wetland E is a constructed stormwater feature that receives stormwater runoff from the property. VEGETATION -Use scientific names of olants Tree Stratum (Plot Size: 30 foot radius) 1. Salix lasiandra 2. Populus balsamifera 3. 4. Sapling/Shrub Stratum {Plot Size: 15 foot radius) 5. Rubus armeniacus 6. 7. 8. 9. Absolute Dominant %Cover ~ 90 Yes 10 No Indicator Status FACW FAC 1 DO = Total Cover 5 Yes FACU 5= Total Cover Dominance Test Worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAG: Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: None mapped Yes 181 No Yes 181 2 50 Multiply by: x1 = x2 = x3 = x4 = x5= No D D (A) (B) (A/8) Herb Stratum (Plot Size: 3 foot radius) 10. OBL species FACW species FAG species FACU species UPL species Column Totals; (A) (B) 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot Size: ) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 20% Remarks: 50% dominant wetland vegetation per the Dominance test. US Army Corps of Engineers Prevalence Index= B/A = Hydrophytlc Vegetation lndlcators: Yes Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is 9.01 Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non.Vascular Plants 1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain) 1 lndicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Western Mountains, Valley, and Coast-Interim Version D Project Site: Quendall Terminal SOIL Samnliru, Point: Wet E SP#1Wet Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) I Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (Moist) % Type1 Loe' Texture Remarks --------- 1Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3 : D Histosol {A 1) D Sandy Redox (S5) D 2 cm Muck (A10) D Histic Epipedon (A2) D Stripped Matrix (S6) D Red Parent Material (TF2) D Black Histic (A3) D Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) D Other (Explain in Remarks) D Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) D Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) D Depleted Below Dark Surface (A 11) D Depleted Matrix (F3) D Thick Dark Surface (A12) D Redox Dark Surface (F6) D Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) D Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland D Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) D Redox Depressions (F8) hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or nroblematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Deplh (Inches): Hydric Soils Present? Yes D No D Remarks: Due to known contaminants in the study area, soil pits were not excavated in some areas. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) D Surface Water (A 1) D Water-Stained Leaves (B9) D Water-Stained Leaves (B9) 181 High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 48) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 181 Saturation (A3) D Salt Crust (811) D Drainage Patterns (810) D Water Marks (81) D Aquatic Invertebrates (813) D Dry-Season Water Table (C2) D Sediment Deposits (82) D Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) D Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) D Drift Deposits (83) D Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) D Geomorphic Position (02) D Algal Mat or Crust (84) D Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) D Shallow Aquitard (03) D Iron Deposits (B5) D Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) D FAG-Neutral Test (05) D Surface Soil Cracks {86) D Stunted or Stresses Plants (01) (LRR A) D Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) D Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87) D Other (Explain in Remarks) D Frost-Heave Hummocks (07) D Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes 181 No 181 Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes 181 No D Depth (inches): At surface Saturation Present? Yes 181 No D Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) At surface Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 181 No D Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Tide gauge installed in constructed storrnwaterfeature. At time of survey water was at height O'. Evidence that water at one time reached 4 feet. No indication if the tide gauge was installed correctly. Remarks: Standing water present in constructed stormwater feature. US Anny Corps of Engmeers Western Mountains, Valley, and Coast-Interim Version US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valfey, and Coast -Interim Version WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project Site: Applicant/Owner: lnvestigator(s): Quendall Terminals Quendall A Gale, J. Pursley Landform (hitlslope, terrace, etc.): Lakefringe Lat: Subregion {LRR): A Soil Map Unit Name: Norma sandy loam 47.53N City/County: Renton/King Sampling Date: State: WA Sampling Point: Section, Township, Range: 29/24N/5E Local relief (concave, convex, none): None Long: 122.20W Datum: 05/06/2009 Wei F SP#1Up Slope (%): o to 2 NWI classification: None mapped Are climatic/ hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No D (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation D, Soil Are Vegetation D, Soil 0, Or Hydrology 0. significantly disturbed? D, Or Hydrology D. naturally problematic? Are "Normal Circumstances· present? Yes [81 No D (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydraphytic Vegetation Present? Yes D No 181 Hydric Soil Present? Yes D No D Is the Sampllng Area within a Wetland? Yes D No 181 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes D No 181 Remarks: Data plot location on upland berm between Wetland F and Wetland C. VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants Tree Stratum (Plot Size: 30 foot radius) 1. 2. 3. 4. Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot Size: 15 foot radius) 5. Rubus armenlacus 6. 7. 8. 9. Herb Stratum (Plot Size: 3 foot radius) 10. Polygonum cuspidatum 11. Epilobium ciliatum 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. Woody Vine Stratum {Plot Size: ) 1. 2. % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0 Absolute % Cover 30 60 5 Dominant Indicator ~ ~ = Total Cover Yes FACU 30 = Total Cover Yes No FACU FACW 65 = Total Cover = Total Cover Dominance Test Worksheet: Number of Dominant Species Thal Are 0 (A) OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across 2 (8) All Strata: Percent of Dominant Species That Are 0% (A/8) OBL, FACW, or FAC: Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x1 = FACW species x2• FAC species x3 = FACU species x4= UPL species x5 = Column Totals: (A) Prevalence Index= B/A = (8) Hydrophytlc Vegetation lndlcaton.: No No Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is .:S:3.0 1 Morphological Adaptations 1 {Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants 1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain) 11ndicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophylic Vegetation Present? Yes D No Remarks: 0% dominant wetland vegetation per the Dominance test and Prevalence index < 3. Hydrophytic vegetation not present. US Anny Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valley, and Coast -lnferim Version Project Site: Quendall Terminal SOIL Samolina Point: Wei F SP#1 Uo Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) I Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (Moist) % Type 1 Loc2 Texture Remarks --------- 1Type: C= Concentration, D=Oepletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric S0ll lndlca1ors: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematlc Hydrlc Solls3: D Histosol (A 1) D Sandy Redox (S5) D 2 cm Muck (A10) D Histic Epipedon (A2) D Stripped Matrix (S6) D Red Parent Material (TF2) D Black Histic {A3) D Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) D Other (Explain in Remarks) D Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) D Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) D Depleted Below Dark Surface {A 11) D Depleted Matrix {F3) D Thick Dark Surface (A12) D Redox Dark Surface {F6) D Sandy Mucky Mineral (S 1) D Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3 lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland D Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) D Redox Depressions (FB) hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or oroblematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (Inches): Hydric Soils Present? Yes 181 No D Remarks: Due to known cont.aminants in the study area, soil pits were not excavated in some areas. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) D Surface Water (A 1) D Water-Stained Leaves (89) D Water-Stained Leaves (B9) D High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 48) D Saturation (A3) D Salt Crust (B11) D Drainage Patterns (B10) D Water Marks (B1) D Aquatic Invertebrates (813) D Dry-Season Water Table (C2) D Sediment Deposits (B2) D Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) D Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) D Drift Deposits (B3) D Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) D Geomorphic Position (D2) D Algal Mat or Crust (B4) D Presence of Reduced lron (C4) D Shallow Aquitard (D3) D Iron Deposits (B5) D Recent Iron Reduction in Titled Soils (C6) D FAG-Neutral Test (D5) D Surface Soil Cracks (B6) D Stunted or Stresses Plants (D1) (LRR A) D Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) D Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery {B7) D other (Explain in Remarks) D Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) D Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes D No 181 Depth {inches): Water Table Present? Yes D No 181 Depth (inches): 15 inches Saturation Present? Yes D No 181 Depth {inches): At surface Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes D No 181 (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: No evidence of wetland hydrology. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Vafley, and Coast -Interim Version WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM-Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project Site: Applicant/Owner: Investigator( s ): Quenda!I Terminals Quendall A. Gale, J. Pursley Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Lakefringe Lat: Subregion (LRR): A Soil Map Unit Name: Norma sandy loam 47.53N City/County: Renton/King Sampling Date: State: WA Sampling Point: Section. Township, Range: 29/24N/5E Local relief (concave, convex, none): None Long: 122.20W Datum: 05/06/2009 Wet F SP#1Wet Slope(%): Oto 2 NWI classification: None mapped Are climatic/ hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes Are Vegetation D, Soil D, Or Hydrology 0, significantly disturbed? Are Vegetation D, Soil D, Or Hydrology D. naturally problematic? No D (lf no, explain in Remarks.) Are ~Normal Circumstances" present? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) Yes 181 No D SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes 181 No 0 Hydric Soil Present? Yes 181 No 0 Is the Sampling Area within a Wetland? Yes 181 No 0 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 181 No 0 Remarks; Wetland F associated with Lake Washington; also receives stormwater runoff and overflow from Wetland C constructed stormwater structure. VEGETATION -Use scientific names of olants Tree Stratum (Plot Size: 30 foot radius) Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test Worksheet: % Cover Species? Status 1. Number of Dominant Species That Are 3 (A) 2. OBL, FACW, or FAG: 3. Total Number of Dominant Species Across 3 (B) 4. All Strata: 100 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species That Are 100 (NB) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot Size: 15 foot radius) OBL, FACW, or FAC: 5. Alnus rubra 50 Yes FAC Prevalence Index worksheet: 6. Salix laslandra 15 No FACW Total 0{'i! CoY§:r of: Multipl:i b!f 7. Rubus armenlacus 15 No FACU DBL species x1 = 8. Populus balsamlfera 10 No FAC FACW species x2= 9. FAG species x3 = 90 = Total Cover FACU species x4 = Herb Stratum (Plot Size: 3 foot radius) UPL species x5 = 10. Juncus etfusus 35 Yes FACW Column Totals: (A) (B) 11. Phalarls arundlnacea 25 Yes FACW Prevalence Index = BIA = 12. Iris pseudacorus 10 No OBL Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 13. Galium aparine 10 No FACU Yes Dominance Test is >50% 14. Plantago major 5 No FACU Prevalence Index is ::.3.0 1 15. Rumex crispus 5 No FAC Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting data in 16. Remarks or on a separate sheet) 17. Wetland Non-Vascular Plants 1 18. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain) 19. 20. 11ndicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, 90 10 = Total Cover unless disturbed or problematic. Woodl:'. Vine Stratum (Plot Size: I 1. 2. = Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum5 Present? Yes 181 No 0 Remarks: 100% dominant wetland vegetation per the Dominance tesl US Anny Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valley, and Coast-Interim Version Project Site: Quendall Terminal SOIL Samolina Point: Wet F SP#1Wet Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) I Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (Moist) % Type1 Loc 2 Texture Remarks --------- Oto6 2.5Y 4/2 80 10YR 5/6 20 RM PL Sand 6to 18+ 2.5Y 4/1 60 10YR 4/6 40 RM PL Sand 1Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydrtc Soll Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soi1s 3 : D Histosol (A1) 0 Sandy Redox (S5) D 2 cm Muck (A10) D Histic Epipedon {A2) 181 Stripped Matrix (S6) 0 Red Parent Material (TF2) D Black Histic {A3) 0 Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) 0 other (Explain in Remarks) D Hydrogen Sulfide {A4) 0 Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) 181 Depleted Below Dark Surface (A 11) 0 Depleted Matrix (F3) 181 Thick Dark Surface (A 12) 0 Redox Dark Surface (F6) D Sandy Mucky Mineral {S1) 0 Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland D Sandy Gleyed Matrix {S4) 0 Redox Depressions (F8) hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or nroblematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth {Inches): Hydric Soils Present? Yes 181 No D Remarks: 2 chroma with mottles. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators {minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) D Surface Water {A 1) 0 Water-Stained Leaves (B9) 0 Water-Stained Leaves (B9) 181 High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 48) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 48) 181 Saturation (A3) 0 Salt Crust (B 11) 0 Drainage Patterns (B10) D Water Marks (81) 0 Aquatic Invertebrates (813) 0 Dry-Season Water Table (C2) 0 Sediment Deposits (82) 0 Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) 0 Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) 181 Drift Deposits (83) 0 Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) 0 Geomorphic Position (D2) 0 Algal Mat or Crust {84) 0 Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) 0 Shallow Aquitard (D3) 0 Iron Deposits {85) 0 Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils {C6) 0 FAG-Neutral Test (DS) 0 Surface Soil Cracks (B6) 0 Stunted or Stresses Plants (D1) {LRR A) 0 Raised Ant Mounds (06) (LRR A) 0 Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) D Other {Explain in Remarks) 0 Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) D Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Waler Present? Yes 0 No 181 Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes 181 No 0 Depth (inches): 11 inches Saturation Present? Yes 181 No 0 Depth (inches): 11 inches Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 181 No 0 (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data {stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Saturation and standing water observed in sample plot US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valley, and Coast -Interim Version WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project Site: Applicant/Owner: lnvestigator{s): Quendall Terminals Quendall City/County: Renton/King State: WA Sampling Date: Sampling Point 05/06/2009 WetG SP#1Up A. Gale, J. Pursley Section, Township, Range: 29/24N/5E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Constructed stormwater feature Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): None Subregion (LRR): A Lat 47.53N Long: 122.20W Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Norma sandy loam NWI classification: None mapped Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this lime of year? Yes 181 No D (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation 0. Soil Are Vegetation 0, Soil 0, Or Hydrology 0, significantly disturbed? D. Or Hydrology D, naturally problematic? Are ~Normal Circumstances" present? Yes t8I No D (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes D No 181 Hydric Soil Present? Yes D No D Is the Sampling Area within a Wetland? Yes D No 181 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes D No 181 Remarks: Sample plot located on compacted berm adjacent and upland to Wetland G. VEGETATION -Use scientific names of olants Tree Stratum (Plot Size: 30 foot radius) 1. 2. 3. 4. Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot Size: 15 foot radius) 5. Rubus armeniacus 6. 7. 8. 9. Herb Stratum (Plot Size: 3 foot radius) 10. Polygonum cuspidatum 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot Size: ) 1. 2. % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 25 25 60 Dominant Species? Indicator Status 75 = Total Cover Yes FACU 30 = Total Cover Yes FACU 25 = Total Cover = Total Cover Dominance Test Worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC; Prevalence Index worksheet: Total% Cover of: 0 2 100% Multiply by: x1 = x2 = x3= x4= x5= (A) (B) (AIB) OBL species FACW species FAC species FACU species UPL species Column Totals: (A) (8) Prevalence Index= B/A = Hydrophytlc Vegetation Indicators: Yes Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ~3.01 Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants 1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain) 1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes D No 181 Remarks: No Dominant Species that are F AC, FACW, or OBL. No wetland vegetation observed in sample plot. US Anny Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valley, and Coast -Interim Ve,sjon Project Site: Quendall Terminal SOIL SamplinQ Point: Wet G SP#1Up Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) I Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (Moist) % Type1 Loc 2 Texture Remarks --------- 1Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydrlc Soll Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3 : D Histosol (A 1) D Sandy Redox (SS) D 2 cm Muck (A10) D Histic Epipedon (A2) D Stripped Matrix {S6) D Red Parent Material (TF2) D Black Histic (A3) D Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) D other (Explain in Remarks) D Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) D Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) D Depleted Below Dark Surface (A 11) D Depleted Matrix (F3) D Thick Dark Surface (A 12) D Redox Dark Surface {F6) D Sandy Mucky Mineral (S 1) D Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland D Sandy GI eyed Matrix (S4) D Redox Depressions (F8) hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer {tf present): Type: Depth (Inches): Hydric Soils Present? Yes 181 No D Remarks: Due to known contaminants in the study area, soil pits were not excavated in some areas. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) D Surface Water (A1) D Water-Stained Leaves (B9) D Water-Stained Leaves (B9) D High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A. and 4B) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 48) D Saturation (A3) D Salt Crust (811) D Drainage Patterns (810) D Water Marks (81) D Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) D Dry-Season Water Table (C2) D Sediment Deposits (82) D Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) D Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) D Drift Deposits (83) D Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) D Geomorphic Position (02) D Algal Mat or Crust (B4) D Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) D Shallow Aquitard (D3) D Iron Deposits (85) D Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) D FAG-Neutral Test (05} D Surface Soil Cracks (B6) D Stunted or Stresses Plants (D 1) {LRR A) D Raised Ant Mounds (06) (LRR A) D Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery {87) D Other (Explain in Remarks) D Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) D Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes D No 181 Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes D No 181 Depth (inches): 4 inches Saturation Present? Yes D No 181 Depth (inches): At surface Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes D No 181 (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections}, if available: Remarks: Sample plot located on compacted upland area adjacent to Wetland G; no evidence of wetland hydrology. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valley, and Coast -fnterim Version WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project Site: Applicant/Owner: Quendall Terminals Quendall lnvestigator(s): A. Gale, J. Pursley City/County: Renton/King Sampling Date: State: WA Sampling Point Section, Township, Range: 29/24N/5E 05/6/2009 WetG SP#1Wet Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Constructed stormwater feature Local relief {concave, convex, none): Concave Slope(%): None Subregion (LRR): A Lat 47.53N Long: 122.20W Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Norma sandy loam NWI classification: None mapped No D (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are climatic/ hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes Are Vegetation 0, Soil 0, Or Hydrology D, significantly disturbed? Are Vegetation D, Soil D, Or Hydrology D. naturally problematic? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes 1:81 No D (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -Attach site map showing sampling point locations transects important features etc ' ' ' Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes 181 No D Hydric Soil Present? Yes D No D Is the Sampling Area within a Wetland? Yes 181 No D Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 181 No D Remarks: Wetland G is a constructed stonnwater feature that receives stormwater runoff from the property. VEGETATION-Use scientific names of rilants Tree Stratum (Plot Size: 30 foot radius) 1. Salix laslandra 2. A/nus rubra 3. 4. Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot Size: 15 foot radius) 5. Cornus sericea 6. Rubus armen/acus 7. B. 9. Herb Stratum (Plot Size: 3 foot radius) 10. Polygonum cusp/datum 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot Size: ) 1. 2. % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 25 Absolute ~ 60 20 20 10 5 Dominant ~ Yes Yes Indicator Status FACW FAC 80 = Total Cover Yes FACW No FACU 30 • Total Cover Yes FACU 5 = Total Cover = Total Cover Remarks: 75% Percent of Dominant Species that are FAC, FACW, or OBL. US Anny Corps of Engineers Dominance Test Worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FAGW, or FAG: Prevalence Index worksheet: Total% Cqverof: 3 4 75% MulliPIY by: x1 = x2= x3 = x4 = x5 = (A) (B) (NB) OBL species FACW species FAG species FACU species UPL species Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = BIA = Hydrophytlc Vegetation Indicators: Yes Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index fs :::3.0 1 Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants 1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain) 11ndicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Western Mountains, Valley, and Coast-fnterim Version D Project Site Quendall Terminal SOIL Samnlinq Point: Wet G SP#1Uo Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of Indicators.} I Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist} % Color (Moist) % Type 1 Loc2 Texture Remarks --------- 1Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: Pl=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3 : D Histoso! (A 1) D Sandy Redox (S5) D 2 cm Muck (A10) D Histic Epipedon (A2) D Stripped Matrix (S6) D Red Parent Material (TF2) D Black Histic (A3) D loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) D Other (Explain in Remarks) D Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) D loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) D Depleted Below Dark Surface (A 11) D Depleted Matrix (F3) D Thick Dark Surface (A 12) D Redox Dark Surface (F6) D Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) D Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland D Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) D Redox Depressions (F8) hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or nroblematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (Inches): Hydric Soils Present? Yes 181 No D Remario:.s: Due to known contaminants in the study area, soil pits were not excavated in some areas. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators; Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) D Surface Water (A 1) D Water-Stained Leaves (B9) D Water-Stained Leaves (89) D High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) D Saturation (A3) D Salt Crust (811) D Drainage Patterns (B10) D Water Marks (B1) D Aquatic Invertebrates (813) D Dry-Season Water Table (C2) D Sediment Deposits (B2) D Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) D Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) D Drift Deposits (B3) D Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) D Geomorphic Position (02) D Algal Mat or Crust (B4) D Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) D Shallow Aqultard (03) D Iron Deposits (85) D Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils {C6) D FAG-Neutral Test (05) D Surface Soil Cracks (B6) D Stunted or Stresses Plants (D1) (LRR A) D Raised Ant Mounds (06) (LRR A) D Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) D Other (Explain in Remarks) D Frost-Heave Hummocks (07) D Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes 181 No D Depth (inches): At surface Water Table Present? Yes 181 No D Depth (inches): At surface Saturation Present? Yes 181 No D Depth (inches): At surface Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 181 No D {includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos. previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Standing water present. US Army Carps of Engineers Westem Mountains, Valley, and Coast-Interim Version WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project Site: Applicant/Owner: Quendall Terminals Quendall lnvestigator(s): A. Gale, J. Pursley Landfarm (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Ditch Subregion (LRR): A Lat: Soil Map Unit Name: Norma sandy loam 47.53N City/County: Renton/King Sampling Date: State: WA Sampling Point: Section, Township, Range: 29/24N/5E Local relief (concave, convex, none): None Long: 122.20W Datum: 05/06/2009 Wet H SP#1Up Slope (%): Oto 2 NWI classification: None mapped Are climatic/ hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this lime of year? Yes No D (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation D. Soil D, Or Hydrology D, significantly disturbed? Are ~Normal Circumstances~ present? Yes t8I No D Are Vegetation D, Soil D. Or Hydrology 0, naturally problematic? (lf needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -Attach site map showing sampling point locatlons, transects, Important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes 181 No D Hydric Soil Present? Yes D No D Is the Sampling Area within a Wetland? Yes 181 No D Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes D No 181 Remarks: Wetland H was historically a constructed stormwater feature that conveys water to Lake Washington. During the survey stonnwater flowed directly into the wetland as well as to an adjacent ditch that conveyed water to WeUand H via a culvert. Upland plot located on berm north of wetland. VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants Tree Stratum (Plot Size: 30 foot radius) 1. 2. 3. 4. Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot Size: 15 foot radius) 5. Rubus armenlacus 6. 7. B. 9. Herb Stratum (Plot Size: 3 foot radius) 10. Phalaris arundlnacea 11. Equlsetum arvense 12. Polygonum cuspidatum 13. Tanacetum vulgare 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot Size: ) 1. 2. % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 20 25 40 10 10 10 Dominant Species? = Total Cover Yes Indicator Status FACU 25 = Total Cover Yes No No No FACW FAC FACU NL 70= Total Cover = Total Cover Dominance Test Worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are 1 (A) OBL, FACW, or FAG: Total Number of Dominant Species Across 2 (B) All Strata: Percent of Dominant Species That Are 50 (NB) OBL, FACW, or FAC: Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multigl~ QY: OBL species x1 = FACW species 40 x2 C 80 FAC species 10 xJc 30 FACU species 35 x4= 140 UPL species x5= Column Totals: 85 (A) 250 (B) Prevalence Index= BIA= 2.94 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Yes Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ~3.01 Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants 1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain) 11ndicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytlc Vegetation Present? Yes No D Remarks: 100% dominant weUand vegetation per the Dominance test. Prevalence index< 3.0. Hydrophytic vegetation present. US A,my Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valley, and Coast-Interim Version Project Site: Quendall Terminal SOIL SamrJlina Point: Wet H SP#1Wet Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indica1or or confirm 1he absence of indicators.) I Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (Moist) % Type1 loc2 Texture Remarks --------- 1Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3 : D Histosol (A 1) D Sandy Redox {S5) D 2 cm Muck (A 10) D Histic Epipedon (A2) D Stripped Matrix (S6) D Red Parent Material (TF2) D Black Histic (A3) D Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1} D other (Explain in Remarks) D Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) D Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) D Depleted Below Dark Surface {A 11) D Depleted Matrix (F3) D Thick Dark Surface (A 12) D Redox Dark Surface {F6) D Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) D Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland D Sandy Gleyed Matrix {S4) D Redox Depressions (F8) hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or rJroblematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (Inches): Hydric Soils Present? Yes 181 No D Remarks: Due to known contaminants in the study area, soil pits were not excavated in some areas. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) D Surface Water (A 1} D Water-stained Leaves (B9) D Water-Stained Leaves (B9) D High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 48} (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 48) D Saturation (A3) D Salt Crust (B11) D Drainage Patterns (B10) D Waler Marks (B 1) D Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) D Dry-Season Water Table (C2) D Sediment Deposits (B2) D Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) D Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) D Drift Deposits (B3) D Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) D Geomorphic Position (D2) D Algal Mat or Crust (84) D Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) D Shallow Aquitard (D3) D Iron Deposits (85) D Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) D FAC-Neutral Test (D5) D Surface Soil Cracks (66) D Stunted or Stresses Plants (01) (LRR A) D Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) D Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) D Other (Explain in Remarks) D Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) D Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (BB) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes D No 181 Depth {inches): Water Table Present? Yes D No 181 Depth (inches): 4 inches Saturation Present? Yes D No 181 Depth (inches): At surface Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes D No 181 (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: No wetland hydrology present. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Va/fey, and Coast -Interim Version WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project Site: Applicant/Owner: Quendall Terminals Quendall City/County: Renton/King State: WA Sampling Date: Sampling Point: 05/06/2009 WetH SP#1Wet lnvestigator(s): A. Gale, J. Pursley Section, Township, Range: 29/24N/5E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Ditch Local relief (concave, convex, none): None Slope(%): 0 to 2 Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47.53N Long: 122.20W Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Norma sandy loam NWI classification: None mapped Are climatic/ hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes Are Vegetation D. Soil Are Vegetation D. Soil 0. Or Hydrology 0. significantly disturbed? D. Or Hydrology D. naturally problematic? No D (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are "Normal Circumstances~ present? Yes 181 No D (If needed. explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes 181 No D Hydric Soil Present? Yes D No D Is the Sampling Area wtthln a Wetland? Yes 181 No D Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 181 No D Remarks: Wetland H was historically a constructed stormwater feature that conveys water to Lake Washington. During the survey stonnwater flowed dlrectly into the wetland as well as to an adjacent ditch that conveyed water to Wetland H via a culvert. VEGETATION-Use scientific names of olants Tree Stratum (Plot Size: 30 foot radius) Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test Worksheet: % Cover Species? Status 1. Populus balsamifera 40 Yes FAC Number of Dominant Species That Are 5 (A) 2. OBL, FAGW, or FAG: 3. Total Number of Dominant Species Across 5 (B) 4. Alf Strata: 40 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species That Are 100 (A/8) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot Size: 15 foot radius) OBL, FACW, or FAG: 5. Alnus rubra 20 Yes FAC Prevalence Index worksheet: 6. Salix Jaslandra 20 Yes FACW Total ~ Cover of: Multipl~ by: 7. Lonlcera Jnvolucrate 15 No FAC OBL species x1 = 8. Spiraea douglasJJ 15 No FACW FAGW species x2 = 9. Rubus armenlacus 10 No FACU FAC species x3= 80 = Total Cover FAGU species x4= Herb Stratum (Plot Size: 3 foot radius) UPL species x5= 10. Juncus effusus 10 Yes FACW Column Totals: (A) (B) 11. Phalaris arundlnacea 10 Yes FACW Prevalence Index= BIA= 12. Equlsetum arvense 5 No FAC Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 13. Rumex crlspus 5 No FAC Yes Dominance Test is >50% 5 No FACW Prevalence Index is ~3.01 14. Ranunculus repens 15. Convolvulus arvensis 5 No NL Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting data in 16. Remarks or on a separate sheet) 17. Wetland Non-Vascular Plants 1 18. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain) 19. 20. 11ndicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, 40= Total Cover unless disturbed or problematic. ~QQd:t ~!lfil mtal!J!l:l (Plot Size: ) 1. 2. = Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 40 Present? Yes 181 No D Remarks: 100% dominant wetland vegetation per the Dominance test US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valley, and Coast-Interim Version Project Site: Quendall Terminal SOI L Samclina Point Wet H SP#1Wet Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) I Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (Moist) % Type 1 Loc1 Te:dure Remarks --------- 1Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3 : D Histosol (A 1) D Sandy Redox (S5) D 2 cm Muck (A10} D Histic Epipedon (A2) D Stripped Matrix (S6) D Red Parent Material (TF2) D Black Histic (A3) D loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MlRA 1) D Other (Explain in Remarks) D Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) D loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) D Depleted Below Dark Surface (A 11) D Depleted Matrix (F3} D Thick Dark Surface (A12) D Redox Dark Surface (F6} D Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) D Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3 lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland D Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) D Redox Depressions (F8) hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or nroblematic. Restrictive Layer (If present): Type: Depth (Inches): Hydric Soils Present? Yes 181 No D Remarks: Due to known contaminants in the study area, soil pits were not excavated in some areas. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) 181 Surface Water (A 1) D Water-Stained Leaves (89) D Water-Stained Leaves (B9) 181 High Water Table (A2} (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 48) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 48) 181 Saturation (A3) D Salt Crust (811) D Drainage Patterns (B10) 181 Water Marks (B1) D Aquatic Invertebrates (813) D Dry-Season Water Table (C2) 181 Sediment Deposits (82) D Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) D Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) 181 Drift Deposits (B3) D Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) D Geomorphic Position (D2} D Algal Mat or Crust (84) D Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) D Shallow Aquitard (D3) D Iron Deposits (85) D Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6} D FAC-Neutral Test (D5} D Surface Soil Cracks (B6) D Stunted or stresses Plants (D1) (LRR A) D Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) D Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87) D Other (Explain in Remarks) D Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7} D Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (BB) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes 181 No D Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes 181 No D Depth (inches): 4 inches Saturation Present? Yes 181 No D Depth (inches): At surface Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 181 No D (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Saturation and standing water observed in sample plot US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valley, and Coast-Interim Version WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project Site: Quendall Terminals ApplicanUOwner: Quendall lnvestigator(s): A. Gale, J. Pursley Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Ditch Subregion (LRR): A Lat 47.31N Soil Map Unit Name: Bellingham Silt Loam City/County: Renton/King Sampling Date: State: WA Sampling Point: Section, Township, Range: 29/24N/5E Local relief (concave, convex., none): Concave Long: 122.11W Datum: 06/19/2009 Up I SP#2UP Slope (%): 0 to 2 NWI classification: None mapped Are climatic/ hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes Are Vegetation D. Soil D, Or Hydrology D. significantly disturbed? 181 No D (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are ~Normal Circumstances" present? Yes 181 No D Are Vegetation D, Soil D, Or Hydrology D. naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, Important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes D No 181 Hydric Soil Present? Yes D No 181 Is the Sampling Area within a Wetland? Yes D No 181 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes D No 181 Remarks: Wetland I ls located between a city road and a State/ federal Interstate. The area is a depression and ditch which appears to have standing water or saturated soils for several months a year. VEGETATION-Use scientific names of olants Tree Stratum (Plot Size: 30 foot radius) 1. Salix lasiandra 2. 3. 4. Sapling/Shrub Stratum {Plot Size: 15 foot radius) 5. Polygonum cuspidatum 6. Rubus armeniacus 7. 8. 9. Herb Stratum (Plot Size: 3 foot radius) 1 O. Eplloblum clllatum 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot Size: ) 1. 2. % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 95 Absolute % Cover 15 90 10 5 Dominant ~ Yes Indicator Status FACW 15 = Total Cover Yes No FACU FAC 100 = Total Cover No FACW 5 = Total Cover = Total Cover Dominance Test Worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are 1 (A) OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across 2 (B) All Strata: Percent of Dominant Species That Are 50 (NB) OBL, FACW, or FAC: Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multipl~ b~f OBL species 0 x1 = FACW species 20 x2 = 40 FAG species 10 x3= 30 FACU species 90 x4= 360 UPL species x5= Column Totals: 120 (A) 430 (B) Prevalence Index = 8/A = 3.58 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: No No Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is .:5.3.0 1 Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non·Vascular Plants 1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain) 1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytlc Vegetation Present? Yes D No 181 Remarks: The area is dominated by Japanese knotweed which is choking out the entire herb and shrub stratum. US Anny Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valley, and Coast-Interim Version Project Site: Quendall Terminal SOIL Samolina Point: L"n I SP#2t.:P Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) I Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (Moist) % Type1 loc2 Texture Remarks --------- 0-8 10yr3/3 100 None Silt loam 8-18 10yr 3/3 95 7.Syr 5/8 5 RM M Silt loam 1Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coaled Sand Grains. 2Location: Pl=Pore lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydrlc Solts3: 0 Histosol (A 1) 0 Sandy Redox (SS) 0 2 cm Muck (A10) 0 Histic Epipedon (A2) 0 Stripped Matrix (S6) 0 Red Parent Material (TF2) 0 Black Histic (A3} 0 Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1} (except MLRA 1) 0 Other (Explain in Remarks) 0 Hydrogen Sulfide {A4) 0 loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) 0 Depleted Below Dark Surface (A 11} 0 Depleted Matrix (F3) 0 Thick Dark Surface (A 12) 0 Redox Dark Surface (F6) 0 Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) 0 Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland 0 Sandy Gleyed Matrix {S4) 0 Redox Depressions (F8) hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or nroblematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (Inches): Hydric Soils Present? Yes 0 No l!sl Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) 0 Surface Water (A1) 0 Water-Stained Leaves (89) 0 Water-Stained Leaves (89) 0 High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 48) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 0 Saturation {A3) 0 Salt Crust (811) 0 Drainage Patterns (810) 0 Water Marks (81) 0 Aquatic Invertebrates (813) 0 Dry-Season Water Table (C2) 0 Sediment Deposits (82) 0 Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) 0 Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) 0 Drift Deposits (83) 0 Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) 0 Geomorphic Position {D2) 0 Algal Mat or Crust (84) 0 Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) 0 Shallow Aquitard (D3) 0 Iron Deposits (85) 0 Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (CG) 0 FAG-Neutral Test (05) 0 Surface Soil Cracks {86) 0 Stunted or Stresses Plants (D1) (LRR A) 0 Raised Ant Mounds (06) {LRR A) 0 Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87) 0 Other (Explain in Remarks) 0 Frost-Heave Hummocks (07) 0 Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface {88) Field ObseNations: Surface Water Present? Yes 0 No l!sl Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes 0 No l!sl Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes 0 No l!sl Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 0 No l!sl (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: No evidence of hydrology was found at this soil plot. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valley, and Coast-lnten"m Version WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project Site: Quendall Terminals Applicant/Owner: Quendall lnvestigator(s): A. Gale, J. Pursley Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Ditch Subregion (LRR): A lat: 47.31N Soil Map Unit Name: Bellingham Silt loam City/County: Renton/King Sampling Date: Stale: WA Sampling Point: Section, Township, Range: 29/24N/5E Local relief (concave, convex, none): None Long: 122.11W Datum: 06/19/2009 Wet I SP#1Wet Slope(%): 0 to 2 NWI classification: None mapped Are climatic/ hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No D (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation D, Soil Are Vegetation D, Soil D, Or Hydrology D. significantly disturbed? D, Or Hydrology D, naturally problematic? Are "Normal Circumstances· present? Yes 181 No D (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes 181 No D Hydric Soil Present? Yes 181 No D Is the Sampllng Area within a Wetland? Yes 181 No D Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 181 No D Remarks: Weiland I is located between a cl"ty road and a State/ federal Interstate. The area Is a depression and dl1ch which appears to have standing water or satura1ed soils for several mon1hs a year. VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plan s Tree Stratum (Plot Size: 30 foot radius) 1. 2. 3. 4. Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot Size: 15 foot radius) 5. Salix Jasiandra 6. Polygonum cusp/datum 7. Cornus serlcea 8. 9. Herb Stratum (Plot Size: 3 foot radius) 10. Eplloblum cillatum 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. Woody Vine Stratum {Plot Size: ) 1. 2. % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 95 Absolute % Cover 15 25 60 5 Dominant Species? Indicator Status O = Total Cover No No Yes FACW FACU FACW 100 = Total Cover Yes FACW 5= Total Cover = Total Cover Remarks: 100% dominant wetland vegetation per the Dominance test us Army Corps of Engineers Dominance Test Worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or F AC: Prevalence Index worksheet: Total% Cover of: OBL species 0 FACW species 80 FAC species 0 FACU species 25 UPL species 2 (A) 2 (8) 100 (A/8) MultiQly:by:: x1 = x2 = 160 x3 = x4 = 100 x5 = Column Totals: 105 (A) 260 (8) Prevalence Index= BIA= 2.47 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Yes Yes Dominance Test is :>50% Prevalence Index is ~3.0 1 Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants 1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain) 11ndicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present. unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Western Mountains. Valley, and Coast-lnten·m Version D Project Site. Quendall Terminal SOIL Samolina Point: Wet I SP#lWet Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) I Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (Moist) % Type 1 Loci Texture Remarks --------- 0-6 10yr 3/1 100 Loam 6-12 10yr 3/2 85 2.5yr 4/6 15 D M Loam 12-18 Sy4/2 50 10yr 6/8 50 D M Loam 2.SY 4/2 25 D PL 1Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydrlc Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Solls3 : D Histosol (A 1) D Sandy Redox (SS) D 2 cm Muck (A10) D Histic Epipedon (A2) D Stripped Matrix (S6) D Red Parent Material (TF2) D Black Histic (A3) D Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) {except MLRA 1) D Other {Explain in Remarks) D Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) D Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) D Depleted Below Dark Surface (A 11) 181 Depleted Matrix (F3) D Thick Dark Surface (A 12) D Redox Dark Surface (F6) D Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) D Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland D Sandy GI eyed Matrix (S4) D Redox Depressions (F8) hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or oroblematic. Restrictive Layer (If present): Type: Depth (Inches): Hydric Soils Present? Yes 181 No D Remarks: Depleted matrix HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) 181 Surface Water (A 1) D Water-Stained Leaves (89) D Water-Stained Leaves {B9) 181 High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 48) 181 Saturation (A3) D Salt Crust (811) D Drainage Patterns (810) 181 Water Marks (B1) D Aquatic Invertebrates (813) D Dry-Season Water Table (C2) D Sediment Deposits (82) D Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) D Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) D Drift Deposits (83) D Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) D Geomorphic Position (D2) D Algal Mat or Crust (B4) D Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) D Shallow Aquitard (D3) D Iron Deposils (BS) D Recent Iron Reduction In Tilled Soils (C6) D FAG-Neutral Test (D5) D Surface Soil Cracks {B6) D Stunted or Stresses Plants (D1) (LRR A) D Raised Ant Mounds (DB) (LRR A) D Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) D Other (Explain in Remarks) D Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) D Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes 181 No D Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes 181 No D Depth (inches): 11 inches Saturation Present? Yes 181 No D Depth (inches): At surface Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 181 No D (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Saturation and standing water observed in sample plot us Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valley, and Coast-Interim Version WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project Site: Applicant/Owner: Quendall Terminals Quendall City/County: Renton/King State: WA Sampling Date: Sampling Point: 06/19/2009 Up J SP#2UP lnvestigator(s): A. Gale, J. Pursley Section, Township, Range: 29/24N/5E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Ditch Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope(%}: o to 2 Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47.31N Long: 122.11W Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Bellingham Silt Loam NWI classification: None mapped No D (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes Are Vegetation D, Soil 0, Or Hydrology D. significantly disturbed? Are Vegetation D, Soil D. Or Hydrology D, naturally problematic? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes 181 No D (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes D No 181 Hydric Soil Present? Yes D No 181 Is the Sampling Area within a WeUand? Yes D No 181 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes D No 181 Remarks: WeUand J is located between a city road and a State/ federal interstate. The area is a depression and ditch which appears to have standing water or saturated soils for several months a year. VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants Tree Stratum (Plot Size: 30 foot radius) 1. 2. 3. 4. Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot Size: 15 foot radius) 5. Rubus armenlacus 6. Phalarls arundlnacea 7. 8. 9. Herb Stratum (Plot Size: 3 foot radius) 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot Size: ) 1. 2. % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 95 80 15 Dominant Species? Indicator Status 15 = Total Cover Yes FACU No FACW 100 = Total Cover 5 = Total Cover = Total Cover Dominance Test Worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAG: Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: OBL species 0 FACW species 15 FAC species FACU species 80 UPL species 1 (A) 2 (B) 50 (NB) MultiQI~ b~: x1 = 0 x2 = 30 x3 = x4 = 320 x5 = Column Totals: 95 (A) 350 (B) Prevalence Index= BIA= 3.7 Hydmphytic Vegetation Indicators: No No Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ~3.01 Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydmphytic Vegetation Present? Yes D No Remarks: The area is dominated by Himalayan blackberry and choking out the majority of the herb stratum. US Anny Carps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valley, and Coast-Interim Version Project Site: Quendall Terminal SOIL Samolino Point: Un J SP#2CP Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) I Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (Moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks --------- 0-18 10yr4/2 100 None Silt loam 1Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pora Lining, M=Matrix Hydrlc Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: D Histosol (A 1) D Sandy Redox (S5) D 2 cm Muck {A10) D Histic Epipedon (A2) D Stripped Matrix (S6) D Red Parent Material (TF2) D Black Histic (A3) D Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) D Other {Explain in Remarks) D Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) D Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) D Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) D Depleted Matrix (F3) D Thick Dark Surface (A 12) D Redox Dark Surface (F6) D Sandy Mucky Mineral {S1) D Depleted Dark Surface {F7) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland D Sandy Gleyed Matrix {S4) D Redox Depressions (F8) hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or oroblematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (Inches): Hydric Soils Present? Yes D No 181 Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) D Surface Water (A 1) D Water-Stained Leaves (89) D Water-Stained Leaves (89) D High Wate~ Table (A2) {except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 48) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) D Saturation (A3) D Sall Crust (B 11) D Drainage Patterns (810) D Water Marks (81)· D Aquatic Invertebrates (813) D Dry-Season Water Table (C2) D Sediment Deposits (82) D Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) D Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery {C9) D Drift Deposits (83) D Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) D Geomorphic Position (D2) D Algal Mat or Crust (84) D Presence of Reduced lron (C4) D Shallow Aquitard (03) D Jron Deposits (85) D Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) D FAG-Neutral Test (05) D Surface Soil Cracks (86) D Stunted or Stresses Plants (01) (LRR A) D Raised Ant Mounds (06) (LRR A) D Inundation Visible.on Aerial Imagery (87) D Other (Explain in Remarks) D Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) D Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes D No 181 Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes D No 181 Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes D No 181 Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes D No 181 (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: No evidence of hydrology was found at this soil plot. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valley, and Coast-Interim Version WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project Site: Applicant/Owner: lnvestigator(s): Quendall Terminals Quendall City/County: Renton/King Sampling Date: State: WA Sampling Point: 06/19/2009 WetJ#1Wet A. Gale, J. Pursley Section, Township, Range: 29/24N/5E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Ditch Lat: Local relief (concave, conYex, none): None Slope(%): 0 to 2 Subregion {LRR): A 47.31N Long: 122.11W Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Bellingham Silt loam NWI classification: None mapped Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No D (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation 0, Soil Are Vegetation D, Soil D. Or Hydrology D. significantly disturbed? 0, Or Hydrology D, naturally problematic? Are ~Normal Circumstances' present? Yesl!ilNoO (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes l!sl No D Hydric Soil Present? Yes l!sl No D Is the Sampling Area within a Welland? Yes l!sl No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes l!sl No D Remarks: Welland J is located between a city road and a State/ federal interstate. The area is a depression and ditch which appears to have standing water or saturated soils for several months a year. VEGETATION -Use scientific names of olants Tree Stratum (Plot Size: 30 foot radius) 1. Alnus rubra 2. 3. 4. Sapling)Shrub Stratum (Plot Size: 15 foot radius) 5. Phalarls arundinacea 6. Rubus armeniacus 7. 8. 9. Absolute Dominant Indicator Status FAC %Cover ~ 10 100 15 Yes 0 = Total Cover Yes FACW No FACU 100 = Total Cover Dominance Test Worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAG: Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: OBL species FACW species FAG species FACU species UPL species 2 2 100 Multiply by: x1 = x2 = x3 = x4 = x5= D (A) (B) (NB) Herb Stratum (Plot Size: 3 foot radius) 10. Column Totals: (A) Prevalence Index = BIA = (B) 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 5= Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot Size: ) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 95 Remarks: 100% dominant wetland vegetation per the Dominance test US Army Corps of Engineers Hydrophylic Vegetation Indicators: Yes Yes Dominance Test is >50'% Prevalence Index is .::_3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants 1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation, (Explain) 1lndicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Western Mountains, Valley, and Coast-Interim Version D Project Sile: Quendall Terminal SOIL Samrlinn Point: Wet I SP#!Wet Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) I Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches} Color (moist) % Color (Moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks --------- 0-3 Dense root mat, organic 3-18 10YR 3/1 100 Silty loam 1Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soi1s 3 : D Histoso! (A 1) D Sandy Redox (SS} D 2 cm Muck (A10) D Histic Epipedon (A2) D Stripped Matrix (S6) D Red Parent Material (TF2) D Black Histic (A3) D Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) D Other (Explain in Remarks) D Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) D Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) D Depleted Below Dark Surface (A 11) 181 Depleted Matrix (F3) 181 Thick Dark Surface (A 12) D Redox Dark Surface (F6) D Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) D Depleted Dark Surface (F7} 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland D Sandy GI eyed Matrix (S4) D Redox Depressions (FS) hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or nroblematic. Restrictive Layer (If present): Type: Depth (Inches): Hydric Solls Present? Yes 181 No D Remarks: Thick dark surface with matrix chroma of <1. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators {minimum of one required; check alt that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) 181 Surface Water (A1) D Water-Stained Leaves (B9) D Water-Stained Leaves (B9) 181 High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A. and 48) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 48) 181 Saturation (A3) D Salt Crust {811) D Drainage Patterns (810) 181 Water Marks (81) D Aquatic Invertebrates (813) D Dry-Season Water Table (C2) 181 Sediment Deposits (82) D Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) D Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) 181 Drift Deposits (B3) D Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) D Geomorphic Position (D2) D Algal Mat or Crust (B4) D Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) D Shallow Aquitard {D3) D Iron Deposits (85) D Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) D FAG-Neutral Test (DS) D Surface Soil Cracks (86) D Stunted or Stresses Plants (01) (LRR A) D Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) D Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87) D Other (Explain in Remarks) D Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) D Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes 181 No D Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes 181 No D Depth (inches): 4 inches Saturation Present? Yes 181 No D Depth (inches): At surface Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 181 No D (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarxs: Saturation and standing water observed in sample plot US Anny Corps of Engineers Westem Mountains, Valley, and Coast-Interim Version APPENDIX E ECOLOGY WETLAND RATING FORMS A Wetland name or number __ WETLAND RATING FORM -WESTERN WASHINGTON Version 2 -Updated July 2006 to increase accuracy and reproducibility among users Updated Oct 2008 with the new WDFW definitions for priority habitats N f I d ('fkn ) Wetland A O f . . . 04/23/2009 ame o wet an 1 own : ______________ ate o site v1s1t: Rated by Adam Gale and Joe Pursley SEC: 29 TWNSHP: 24 N RNGE: SE Trained by Ecology? YesX No_ Date of training May 2007 Is S!TIR in Appendix D? Yes_ NoX Map of wetland unit: Figure __ Estimated size 0· 1 Acre SUMMARY OF RATING Category based on FUNCTIONS provided by wetland I II 111X 1\1' Category I = Score >=70 Category II = Score 51-69 Category III= Score 30-50 Category IV= Score < 30 Score for Water Quality Functions 12 Score for Hydrologic Functions s 1------1 Score for Habitat Functions 20 ----TOTAL score for Functions 40 Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland I_ II_ Does not Apply X F1nal Category (d>-lh, "h;ghe,t" at,go.-y from ,hove) D Summarv of basic information about the wetland unit Wetland Unit has Special Wetland HGM Class Characteristics used for Rating Estuarine Denressional Natural Herita2e Wetland Riverine 802 Lake-frin2e X Mature Forest Slone Old Growth Forest Flats Coastal La2oon Freshwater Tidal Interdunal None of the above X Check if unit has multiple X HGM classes present Wet land Rating Form -western Washington August 2004 version 2 To be used with Ecology Publication 04-06-025 A Wetland name or number Does the wetland unit being rated meet any of the criteria below? If you answer YES to any of the questions below you will need to protect the wetland according to the regulations regarding the special characteristics found in the wetland. Check List for Wetlands That May Need Additional Protl;!Ction YES (in addition to the protection recommended for its cateeorv) SP!. Has the wetland unit been documented as a habitat/or any Federally listed Threatened or Endangered animal or plant species (TIE species)? For the purposes of this rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the aooropriate state or federal database. SP2. Has the wetland unit been documented as habitat for any State listed Threatened or Endangered animal species? For the purposes of this rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the appropriate state database. Note: Wetlands with State listed plant species are categorized as Category I Natural Heritage Wetlands (seep. 19 of data form). SP3. Does the wetland unit contain individuals of Priority species listed by the WDFW for the state? SP4. Does the wetland unit have a local significance in addition to its functions? For example, the wetland has been identified in the Shoreline Master Program, the Critical Areas Ordinance, or in a local management plan as having special significance. To complete the next part of the data sheet you will need to determine the Hydrogeomorphic Class of the wetland being rated. NO X X X X The hydrogeomorphic classification groups wetlands into those that function in similar ways. This simplifies the questions needed to answer how well the wetland functions. The Hydrogeomorphic Class of a wetland can be determined using the key below. Seep. 24 for more detailed instructions on classifying wetlands. Wetland Rating Form-western Washington 2 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 August2004 A W ctland name or number __ Classification of Wetland Units in Western Washington If the hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated, you probably have a unit with multiple HGM classes. In this case, identify which hydrologic criteria in questions 1-7 apply, and go to Question 8. 1. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides (i.e. except during floods)? NO -go to 2 YES -the wetland class is Tidal Fringe If yes, is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)? YES -Freshwater Tidal Fringe NO -Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) Jfyour wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands. if it is Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is rated as an Estuarine wetland. Wetlands that were called estuarine in the first and second editions of the rating system are called Salt Water Tidal Fringe in the Hydrogeomorphic Classification. Estuarine wetlands were categorized separately in the earlier editions, and this separation is being kept in this revision. To maintain consistency between editions, the term "Estuarine" wetland is kept. Please note, however, that the characteristics that define Category I and II estuarine wetlands have changed (seep. ). 2. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is the only source (>90%) of water to it. Groundwater and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit. NO -go to 3 YES -The wetland class is Flats If your wetland can be classified as a "Flats" wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands. 3. Does the entire wetland unit meet both of the following criteria? X The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any vegetation on the surface) at least 20 acres (8 ha) in size; X At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m)? NO -go to 4 YES -The wetland class is Lake-fringe (Lacustrine Fringe) 4. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? _X_ The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual), _X_ The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks. __X_ The water leaves the wetland without being impounded? NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these type of wetlands except occasionally in very small and shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3ji diameter and less than I.foot deep). NO -go to 5 YES -The wetland class is Slope Wetland Rating Form -western Washington 3 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 August 2004 A Wetland name or number 5. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? __ The unit is in a valley, or stream channel, where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that stream or river __ The overbank flooding occurs at least once every two years. NOTE: The riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not flooding. NO -go to 6 YES -The wetland class is Riverine 6. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the surface, at some time during the year. This means that any outlet, if present, is higher than the interior of the wetland. NO -go to 7 YES -The wetland class is Depressional 7. Is the entire wetland unit located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbank flooding. The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to be maintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural outlet. NO -go to 8 YES -The wetland class is Depressional 8. Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM clases. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small stream within a depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENT AREAS IN THE UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify the appropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within your wetland. NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the class listed in column 2 is less than 10% of the unit; classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the total area. HGM Classes within the wetland unit beinf!: rated HGM Class to Use in Ratinf!: Slope + Riverine Riverine Slope+ Depressional Depressional Slope+ Lake-fringe Lake-fringe Depressional + Riverine along stream within boundary Depressional Depressional + Lake-fringe Denressional Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other class of freshwater Treat as ESTUARINE under wetland wetlands with special characteristics If you are unable still to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or if you have more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the rating. Wetland Rating Form -western Washington 4 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 August 2004 A Wetland name or number L Lake-fringe Wetlands WATER QUALITY FUNCTIONS -Indicators that the wetland unit functions to imnrove water aualitv L L 1. Does the wetland unit have the l.!Otential to improve water quality? L L 1.1 Average width of vegetation along the lakeshore (use polygons of Co1<wdin classes): Vegetation is more than 33ft (!Om) wide points= 6 Vegetation is more than 16 (5m) wide and <33ft points= 3 Vegetation is more than 6ft (2m) wide and <16 ft points = 1 Vegetation is less than 6 ft wide points= 0 Mao of Cowardin classes with widths marked L L 1.2 Characteristics of the vegetation in the wetland: choose the appropriate description that results in the highest points, and do not include any open water in your estimate of coverage. The herbaceous plants can be either the dominant form or as an understory in a shrub or forest community. These are not Cowardin classes. Area of Cover is total cover in the unit, but it can be in patches. NOTE: Herbaceous does not include aquatic bed. Cover of herbaceous plants is >90% of the vegetated area points= 6 Cover of herbaceous plants is >2/3 of the vegetated area points= 4 Cover of herbaceous plants is> 1/3 of the vegetated area points= 3 Other vegetation that is not aquatic bed or herbaceous covers > 2/3 unit points= 3 Other vegetation that is not aquatic bed in> 1/3 vegetated area points= 1 Aquatic bed vegetation and open water cover> 2/3 of the unit points= 0 Mao with oof"nons of different veaetation t"nes L Add the points in the boxes above L L 2. Does the wetland have the Ol.!l.!Ortunity to improve water quality? Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in the lake water, or polluted surface water flowing through the unit to the lake. Note which of the following conditions provide the sources of pollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming.from several souxes, but any single source would qualify as opportunity. -Wetland is along the shores of a lake or reservoir that does not meet water quality standards -Grazing in the wetland or within 150ft -Polluted water discharges to wetland along upland edge -Tilled fields or orchards within 150 feet of wetland -Residential or urban areas are within 150 ft of wetland -Parks with grassy areas that are maintained, ballfields, golf courses (all within 150 ft. of lake shore) X Power boats with gasoline or diesel engines use the lake - -Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 L TOTAL -Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from LI by L2 Add score to table on JJ, I Comments Wetland Rating Form -western Washington 9 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 August 2004 Points ( only l score per box) (seep.59) Figure_ 3 Figure_ 3 ----- I 6 I -----(see p.61) multiplier 2 -- 12 A Wetland name or number L Lake-fringe Wetlands HYDROLOGIC FUNCTIONS -Indicators that the wetland unit functions to reduce shoreline erosion · .. L L 3. Does the wetland unit have the potential to reduce shoreline erosion? L L 3 Distance along shore and average width of Cowardin classes along the lakcshorc ( do not include aquatic bed): (choose the highest scoring description that matches conditions in the wetland) >%of distance is shrubs or forest at least 33 ft (I Om) wide points= 6 > '!. of distance is shrubs or forest at least 6 ft. (2 m) wide points= 4 > '!. distance is shrubs or forest at least 33 ft (1 Om) wide points= 4 Vegetation is at least 6 ft (2m) wide (any type except aquatic bed) points= 2 Vegetation is less than 6 ft (2m) wide (any type except aquatic bed) points= 0 Aerial photo or map with Cowardin veQetation classes L Record the points from the box above L L 4. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to reduce erosion? Are there features along the shore that will be impacted if the shoreline erodes? Note which of the following conditions apply. X There are human structures and activities along the upland edge of the wetland (buildings, fields) that can be damaged by erosion. -There arc undisturbed natural resources along the upland edge of the wetland ( e.g. mature forests other wetlands) than can be damaged by shoreline erosion -Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 L TOT AL -Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from L 3 by L 4 Add score to table on p. I Comments Wetland Rating Form-western Washington 10 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Points (only I score por box) (see p.62) Figure_ 4 -----I 4 I -----(seep.63) multiplier 2 8 A W ctland name or number __ These questions apply to wetlands of all HGM classes. HABITAT FUNCTIONS -Indicators that unit functions to provide important habitat H 1. Does the wetland unit have the potential to provide habitat for many species? H 1.1 V cgctation structure (seep. 72) Check the types of vegetation classes present (as defined by Cowardin)-Size threshold for each class is Y, acre or more than I 0% of the area if unit is smaller than 2.5 acres. __ Aquatic bed __ Emergent plants _x__scrub/shrub (areas where shrubs have >30% cover) XForested (areas where trees have >30% cover) If the unit has a forested class check if' The forested class has 3 out of5 strata (canopy, sub-canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, moss/ground-cover) that each cover 20% within the forested polygon Add the number of vegetation structures that qualify. If you have: Map of Cowardin vegetation classes H 1.2. Hydroperiods (.seep. 73) 4 structures or more 3 structures 2 structures 1 structure points= 4 points= 2 points= I ooints = 0 Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover more than 10% of the wetland or Y, acre to count. (see text for descriptions of hydroperiods) __ Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present points= 3 points= 2 point= 1 points= 0 __ Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present __ Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present __ Saturated only I type present __ Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland __ Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland X Lake-fringe wetland = 2 points Freshwater tidal wetland= 2 points Map of hydroperiods H 1.3. Richness of Plant Species (seep. 75) Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ft 2• of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold) You do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian Mi/foil, reed canarygrass, purple looses/rife, If you counted: > 19 species List species below if you want to: 5 -19 species < 5 species (different patches Canadian Thistle points= 2 points= I points= 0 Points ( only I se-ore per box) Figure_ 1 Figure_ 2 1 4 Total for page~-- Wetland Rating Form-western Washington 13 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 A Wetland name or number H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats (seep. 76) Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion between Cowardin vegetation classes ( described in H 1.1 ), or the classes and unvegetated areas ( can include open water or mudflats) is high, medium, low, or none. C) 0 None = 0 points Low= I point Moderate = 2 points ~ [ riparian braided channels] High = 3 points NOTE: If you have four or more classes or three vegetation classes and open water the ratio is alwa s "hi h". Use map of Coward in vegetation classes H 1.5. Special Habitat Features: (seep. 77) Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points you put into the next column. _X_ Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (>4in. diameter and 6 ft long). _X_Standing snags (diameter at the bottom> 4 inches) in the wetland X Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2m) and/or overhanging vegetation extends at least 3.3 ft (Im) over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the unit, for at least 33 ft (!Om) __ Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (>30degree slope) OR signs ofreccnt beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet turned grey/brown) __ At least V.. acre of thin-stemmed persistent vegetation or woody branches arc present in areas that are permanently or seasonally inundated. (structures for egg-laying by amphibians) __ Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in each stratum of plants NOTE: The 20% stated in early printings of the manual on page 78 is an error. igure_ 2 3 ~----------------------------------~~----H 1. TOT AL Score -potential for providing habitat 9 L-------------~A=d=d~t=h~e~sc=o~~=sCL:..:o=m=H=l=.J~,=H=l=.2~,=H=l=.3~,~H=l~.4~,~H=l=.5'--~----~ Comments Wetland Rating Form -western Washington 14 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 \\letland name or number A_ H 2. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to provide habitat for many species? H 2.1 Buffers (seep. 80) Figure~ Choose the description that best represents condition of buffer of wetland unit. The highest scoring criterion that applies to the wetland is to be used in the rating. See text for definition of "undisturbed." -100 m (330ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water >95% of circumference. No structures are within the undisturbed part of buffer. (relatively undisturbed also means no-grazing, no landscaping, no daily human use) Points = 5 -I 00 m (330 ft) ofrelatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 50% circumference. Points = 4 -50 m ( 170ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water >95% circumference. Points = 4 -100 m (330ft) ofrelatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water> 25% circumference, . Points = 3 X 50 m ( 170ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water for> 50% circumference. Points = 3 If buffer does not meet any of the criteria above -No paved areas (except paved trails) or buildings within 25 m (80ft) of wetland> 95% circumference. Light to moderate grazing, or lawns are OK. Points = 2 -No paved areas or buildings within 50m of wetland for >50% circumference. Light to moderate grazing, or lawns are OK. Points = 2 -Heavy grazing in buffer. Points = 1 -Vegetated buffers arc <2m wide (6.6ft) for more than 95% of the circumference (e.g. tilled fields, paving, basalt bedrock extend to edge of wetland Points= 0. -Buffer does not meet any of the criteria above. Points= 1 3 Aerial ohoto showina buffers H 2.2 Corridors and Connections (seep. 81) H 2.2.1 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor (either riparian or upland) that is at least 150 ft wide, has at least 30% cover of shrubs, forest or native undisturbed prairie, that connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 250 acres in size? (dams in riparian corridors, heavily used gravel roads, paved roads, are considered breaks in the corridor). YES= 4 points (go to H 2.3) NO= go to H 2.2.2 H 2.2.2 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor ( either riparian or upland) that is at least 50ft wide, has at least 30% cover of shrubs or forest, and connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 25 acres in size? OR a Lake-fringe wetland, if it does not have an undisturbed corridor as in the question above? YES = 2 points (go to H 2.3) NO= H 2.2.3 H 2.2.3 Is the wetland: within 5 mi (8km) of a brackish or salt water estuary OR within 3 mi of a large field or pasture (>40 acres) OR within 1 mi of a lake greater than 20 acres? YES= 1 noint NO= 0 ooints 2 5 Total for page~-~ Wetland Rating Form -western Washington 15 August2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 A Wetland name or number H 2.3 Near or adjacent to other priority habitats listed by WDFW (see new and complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which they can be found, in the PHS report http://wdfw.wa.gov/hablphslisthtm) Which of the following priority habitats arc within 330ft (100m) of the wetland unit? NOTE: the connections do not have to be relatively undisturbed. __ Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 0.4 ha (I acre). _K_Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 152). __ Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock. __ Old-growth/Mature forests: (Old-growth west of Cascade crest) Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi-layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 20 trees/ha (8 trees/acre)> 81 cm (32 in) dbh or> 200 years of age. (Mature forests) Stands with average diameters exceeding 53 cm (21 in) dbh; crown cover may be less that 100%; crown cover may be less that I 00%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old-growth; 80 -200 years old west of the Cascade crest. __ Oregon white Oak: Woodlands Stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component is important (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. l 58). __ Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other. __ Westside Prairies: Herbaceous, non-forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wet prairie (fall descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 161). __ Instream: The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources. __ Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearshore, and Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WDFW report: pp. l 67-169 and glossary in Appendix A). __ Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils, rock, ice, or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human. __ Cliffs: Greater than 7.6 m (25 ft) high and occurring below 5000 ft. __ Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.15 -2.0 m (0.5 -6.5 ft), composed of basalt, andesite, and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs. __ Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of> 51 cm (20 in) in western Washington and are> 2 m (6.5 ft) in height. Priority logs are> 30 cm (12 in) in diameter at the largest end, and> 6 m (20 ft) long. If wetland has 3 or more priority habitats ; 4 points If wetland has 2 priority habitats ; 3 points If wetland has 1 priority habitat; 1 point No habitats; 0 points Note: All vegetated wetland~ are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list. Nearby wetlands ·are addressed in question H 2.4) Wetland Rating Form -western Washington 16 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 1 A Wetland name or number H 2.4 Wetland Landscape (choose the one description of the land~cape around the wetland that best/its) (seep. 84) There are at least 3 other wetlands within V, mile, and the connections between them are relatively undisturbed (light grazing between wetlands OK, as is lake shore with some boating, but connections should NOT be bisected by paved roads, fill, fields, or other development. points= 5 The wetland is Lake-fringe on a lake with little disturbance and there are 3 other lake-fringe wetlands within Y, mile points= 5 There are at least 3 other wetlands within Y, mile, BUT the connections between them are disturbed points= 3 The wetland is Lake-fringe on a lake with disturbance and there are 3 other lake-fringe wetland within Y, mile points= 3 There is at least I wetland within Y, mile. points= 2 There are no wetlands within V, mile. points= 0 H 2. TOT AL Score -opportunity for providing habitat Add the scores from H2.1,H2.2, H2.3, H2.4 TOT AL for H 1 from page 14 Total Score for Habitat Functions -add the points for H 1, H 2 and record the result on o. I Wetland Rating Form-western Washin1,,'1on 17 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 5 -----I 11 I I I ----- 9 ----- 20 A Wetland name or number CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Please determine if the wetland meets the attributes described below and circle the appropriate answers and Category. Wetland Type Category Check off any criteria that apply to the wetland. Circle the Category when the avvropriate criteria are met. SC 1.0 Estuarine wetlands (seep. 86) Does the wetland unit meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands? -The dominant water regime is tidal, -Vegetated, and -With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt. YES= Go to SC 1.1 NO X SC 1.1 Is the wetland unit within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, Cat. I National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area Preserve, State Park or Educational, Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332-30-151? YES = Categorv I X NO go to SC 1.2 SC 1.2 Is the wetland unit at least I acre in size and meets at least two of the following three conditions? YES = Category I NO= Category II Cat. I -The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, Cat. II cultivation, grazing, and has less than I 0% cover of non-native plant species. If the non-native Spartina spp. are the only species that cover more than I 0% of the wetland, then the wetland should be given a dual Dual rating (I/II). The area of Spartina would be rated a Category II while the rating relatively undisturbed upper marsh with native species would be a I/II Category I. Do not, however, exclude the area of Spartina in determining the size threshold of 1 acre. -At least Y. of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un-mowed grassland. -The wetland has at least 2 of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or contiguous freshwater wetlands. Wetland Rating Form -western Washington 18 Augnst2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 A Wetland name or number SC 2.0 Natural Heritage Wetlands (.~ee p. 87) Natural Heritage wetlands have been identified by tbe Washington Natural Heritage Program/DNR as either high quality undisturbed wetlands or wetlands that support state Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive plant species. SC 2.1 Is the wetland unit being rated in a Section/Township/Range that contains a Natural Heritage wetland? (this question is used to screen out most sites before you need to contact WNHP/DNR) S/T/R information from Appendix D _ or accessed from WNHP/DNR web site _ YES __ -contact WNHP/DNR (seep. 79) and go to SC 2.2 NO X SC 2.2 Has DNR identified the wetland as a high quality undisturbed wetland or as or as a site with state threatened or endangered plant species? YES= Category I NO _2<_ not a Heritage Wetland SC 3.0 Bogs (seep. 87) Does the wetland unit ( or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key below to identify if the wetland is a bog. If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. I. Does the unit have organic soil horizons (i.e. layers of organic soil), either peats or mucks, that compose 16 inches or more of the first 32 inches of the soil profile? (See Appendix B for a field key to identify organic soils)? Yes - go to Q. 3 X No -go to Q. 2 2. Does the unit have organic soils, either peats or mucks that are less than 16 inches deep over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on a lake or pond? Yes -go to Q. 3 X No -Is not a bog for purpose of rating 3. Does the unit have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, AND other plants, if present, consist of the "bog" species listed in Table 3 as a significant component of the vegetation (more than 30% of the total shrub and herbaceous cover consists of species in Table 3)? Yes -Is a bog for purpose of rating X No -go to Q. 4 NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory you may substitute that criterion by measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16" deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the "bog" plant species in Table 3 are present, the wetland is a bog. 1. Is the unit forested(> 30% cover) with sitka spruce, subalpine fir, western red cedar, western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Englemann's spruce, or western white pine, WITH any of the species (or combination of species) on the bog species plant list in Table 3 as a significant component of the ground cover (> 30% coverage of the total shrub/herbaceous cover)? 2. YES = Category I No _L ls not a bog for purpose of rating . Wetland Rating Form -western Washington 19 August2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Cat. I Cat. I A Wetland name or number SC 4.0 Forested Wetlands (seep. 90) Does the wetland unit have at least 1 acre of forest that meet one of these criteria for the Department of Fish and Wildlife's forests as priority habitats? If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its junctions. -Old-growth forests: (west of Cascade crest) Stands of at least two tree species, forming a multi-layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/acre (20 trees/hectare) that are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter at breast height ( dbh) of 32 inches (81 cm) or more. NOTE: The criterion for dbh is based on measurements for upland forests. Two-hundred year old trees in wetlands will often have a smaller dbh because their growth rates are often slower. The DFW criterion is and "OR" so old-growth forests do not necessarily have to have trees of this diameter. -Mature forests: (west of the Cascade Crest) Stands where the largest trees are 80 -200 years old OR have average diameters ( dbh) exceeding 21 inches (53cm); crown cover may be less that 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity oflarge downed material is generally less than that found in old-growth. YES ~ Category I NO X not a forested wetland with special characteristics SC 5.0 Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons (seep. 91) Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wetland in a coastal lagoon? -The wetland lies in a depression adjacent to marine waters that is wholly or partially separated from marine waters by sandbanks, gravel banks, shingle, or, less frequently, rocks -The lagoon in which the wetland is located contains surface water that is saline or brackish (> 0.5 ppt) during most of the year in at least a portion of the lagoon (needs to be measured near the bottom) YES = Go to SC 5 .1 NO _L not a wetland in a coastal lagoon SC 5.1 Does the wetland meets all of the following three conditions? -The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing), and has less than 20% cover of invasive plant species (see list of invasive species on p. 74). -At least % of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un-mowed grassland. -The wetland is larger than 1/10 acre ( 4350 square feet) YES= Category I NO= Category II Wetland Rating Form -western Washington 20 Augnst 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Cat. I Cat. I Cat. II VY' etland name or number A __ SC 6.0 lnterdunal Wetlands (.~ee p. 93) ls the wetland unit west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? YES -go to SC 6.1 NO X not an interdunal wetland for rating I/you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. In practical terms that means the following geographic areas: • Long Beach Peninsula-lands west of SR I 03 • Grayland-Westport-lands west of SR 105 • Ocean Shores-Copalis-lands west of SR 115 and SR I 09 SC 6.1 Is the wetland one acre or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is once acre or larger? YES= Category II X NO -go to SC 6.2 SC 6.2 Is the unit between 0.1 and 1 acre, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and 1 acre? YES= Category III Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics Choose the "highest" rating if wetland falls into several categories, and record on p. l. If vou answered NO for all types enter "Not Annlicable" on n.l Wetland Rating Form -western Washington 21 August2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Cat. II Cat. III B Wetland name or number __ WETLAND RATING FORM -WESTERN WASHINGTON Version 2 -Updated July 2006 to increase accuracy and reproducibility among users Updated Oct 2008 with the new WDFW definitions for priority habitats Name of wetland (if known): _w_e_tl_a_nd_B ___________ Date of site visit: 0412312009 Rated by Adam Gale and Joe Pursley Trained by Ecology? YesXNo_ Date of training May 2007 SEC ·. 29 TWNSHP·. 24 N RNGE·. ~--· I Sff/R · A d" D? Y N V _ s m ppen 1x . es_ o_c,,_ M f ti d ·t F. Est1·mated s1·ze 0·1 Acre ap o we an urn : 1gure __ SUMMARY OF RATING Category based on FUNCTIONS provided by wetland I_ II_ IIIX IV_ Category I = Score >= 70 Category II = Score 51-69 Category III = Score 30-50 Category IV = Score < 30 Score for Water Quality Functions 4 Score for Hydrologic Functions 24 f------1 Score for Habitat Functions 14 ... __ ..,. TOT AL score for Functions 42 Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland I_ II_ Does not Apply X Final Category<"'-· ... "•~·-at,go,y from·•~,, D s ummarvo f b .. t as1c m ormat10n a b h 1 d out t e wet an umt Wetland Unit has Special Wetland HGM Class Characteristics used for Ratin!! Estuarine Depressional 'x Natural Heritage Wetland Riverine Bog Lake-fringe Mature Forest Slope Old Growth Forest Flats Coastal Lagoon Freshwater Tidal Interdunal None of tbe above X Check if unit has multiple HGM classes present Wetland Rating Form-western Washington August 2004 version 2 To be used with Ecology Publication 04-06-025 B Wetland name or number __ Does the wetland unit being rated meet any of the criteria below? If you answer YES to any of the questions below you will need to protect the wetland according to the regulations regarding the special characteristics found in the wetland. ··. CheckList for Wetlands That May Need.Additional Protection YES (in addition to the orotection recommended for its cateeorv) SP!. Has the wetland unit been documented as a habitat for any Federally listed Threatened or Endangered animal or plant species (TIE species)? For the purposes of this rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the aooropriate state or federal database. SP2. Has the wetland unit been documented as habitat for any State listed Threatened or Endangered animal species? For the purposes of this rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the appropriate state database. Note: Wetlands with State listed plant species are categorized as Category I Natural Heritage Wetlands (seep. 19 of data form). SP3. Does the wetland unit contain individuals of Priority species listed by the WDFW for the state? SP4. Does the wetland unit have a local significance in addition to its functions? For example, the wetland has been identified in the Shoreline Master Program, the Critical Areas Ordinance, or in a local management plan as having special significance. To complete the next part of the data sheet you will need to determine the Hydrogeomorphic Class of the wetland being rated. NO X X X X The hydrogeomorphic classification groups wetlands into those that function in similar ways. This simplifies the questions needed to answer how well the wetland functions. The Hydrogeomorphic Class of a wetland can be determined using the key below. See p. 24 for more detailed instructions on classifying wetlands. Wetland Rating Form -western Washington 2 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 August 2004 B Wetland name or number __ Classification of Wetland Units in Western Washington If the hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated, you probably have a unit with multiple HGM classes. In this case, identify which hydrologic criteria in questions 1-7 apply, and go to Question 8. 1. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides (i.e. except during floods)? NO -go to 2 YES -the wetland class is Tidal Fringe If yes, is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)? YES -Freshwater Tidal Fringe NO -Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) If your wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands. !fit is Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is rated as an Estuarine wetland. Wetlands that were called estuarine in the first and second editions of the rating system are called Salt Water Tidal Fringe in the Hydrogeomorphic Classification. Estuarine wetlands were categorized separately in the earlier editions, and this separation is being kept in this revision. To maintain consistency between editions, the term "Estuarine" wetland is kept. Please note, however, that the characteristics that define Category I and II estuarine wetlands have changed (see p. ) . 2. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is the only source (>90%) of water to it. Groundwater and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit. NO -go to 3 YES -The wetland class is Flats If your wetland can be classified as a "Flats" wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands. 3. Does the entire wetland unit meet both of the following criteria? _The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any vegetation on the surface) at least 20 acres (8 ha) in size; _At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m)? NO -go to 4 YES -The wetland class is Lake-fringe (Lacustrine Fringe) 4. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? AThe wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual}, _X_The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks. __ The water leaves the wetland without being impounded? NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these type ofwedands except occasionally in very small and shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3ft diameter and less than 1 foot deep). NO -go to 5 YES -The wetland class is Slope Wetland Rating Form-western Washington 3 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 August 2004 B Wetland name or number __ 5. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? __ The unit is in a valley, or stream channel, where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that stream or river __ The overbank flooding occurs at least once every two years. NOTE: The riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not flooding. NO -go to 6 YES -The wetland class is Riverine 6. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the surface, at some time during the year. This means that any outlet, if present, is higher than the interior of the wetland. NO -go to 7 YES -The wetland class is Depressional 7. Is the entire wetland unit located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbank flooding. The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to be maintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural outlet. NO -go to 8 YES -The wetland class is Depressional 8. Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM clases. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small stream within a depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENT AREAS IN THE UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify the appropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within your wetland. NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents I 0% or more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the class listed in column 2 is less than 10% of the unit; classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the total area. HGM Classes within the wetlail,rlunit belne rated HGM Class to Use in Ratine Slope + Riverine Riverine Slope + Depressional Deoressional Slope + Lake-fringe Lake-frinee Depressional + Riverine along stream within boundary Depressional Depressional + Lake-fringe Deoressional Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other class of freshwater Treat as ESTUARINE under wetland wetlands with special characteristics If you are unable still to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or if you have more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the rating. Wetland Rating Form-western Washington 4 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 August 2004 B Wetland name or number __ D Depressional and Flats Wetlands WATER QUALITY FUNCTIONS -Indicators that the wetland unit functions to imorove water oualitv D D 1. Does the wetland unit have the gotential to improve water quality? D 1.1 Characteristics of surface water flows out of the wetland: D Unit is a depression with no surface water leaving it {no outlet) points= 3 Unit has an intermittently flowing, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet points= 2 Unit has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted. surface outlet (permanently /lowing) points= 1 Unit is a "flat" depression (Q. 7 on key). or in the Flats class, with permanent surface outflow and no obvious natural outlet and/or outlet is a man-made ditch points= I (If ditch is not permanently flowing treat unit as "intermittently flowing") Provide Dhoto or drawina S 1.2 The soil 2 inches below the surface {or duff layer) is clay or organic {use NRCS D definitions) YES points= 4 NO points= 0 D 1.3 Characteristics of persistent vegetation (emergent, shrub, and/or forest Cowardin class) D Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, vegetation > = 95% of area points= 5 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, vegetation > = 1/2 of area points= 3 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation>= 1/10 of area points= I Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation <1/10 of area points= 0 Man of Cowardin veaetation classes D 1.4 Characteristics of seasonal ponding or inundation. D This is the area of the wetland unit that is ponded for at least 2 months, but dries out sometime during the year. Do not count the area that is permanently ponded. Estimate area as the average condition 5 out of 10 yrs. Area seasonally ponded is > \I, total area of wetland points= 4 Area seasonally ponded is > 1/., total area of wetland points= 2 Area seasonally ponded is< 1/., total area of wetland points= 0 Mao of Hvdrooeriods D Total for DI Add the points in the boxes above D D 2. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to improve water quality? Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in groundwater or surface water coming into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams, lakes or groundwater downgradient from the wetland. Note which of the following conditions provide the sources of pollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming from several sources, but any single source would qualify as opportunity. -Grazing in the wetland or within 150 fl X Untreated stormwater discharges to wetland -Tilled fields or orchards within 150 ft of wetland -A stream or culvert discharges into wetland that drains developed areas, residential areas, farmed fields, roads, or clear-cut logging -Residential, urban areas, golf courses are within 150 ft of wetland -Wetland is fed by groundwater high in phosphorus or nitrogen -Other YES multiolier is 2 NO multiplier is I D TOTAL -Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from DI by D2 Add score to table on o. 1 Wetland Rating Form -western Washington 5 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 August 2004 Points (only 1 score per box) (see p.38) Figure_ 2 0 Figure_ 0 Figure_ 0 -----I 2 I -----(seep. 44) multiplier 2 -- 4 B Wetland name or number __ D Depressional and Flats Wetlands HYDRO LOGIC FUNCTIONS -Indicators that the wetland unit functions to reduce flooding and stream deITTadation D 3. Does the wetland unit have the [!Otential to reduce flooding and erosion? D D 3.1 Characteristics of surface water flows out of the wetland unit Unit is a depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) points= 4 Unit has an intermittently flowing, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet points= 2 Unit is a "flat., depression (Q. 7 on key), or in the Flats class, with permanent surface outflow and no obvious natural outlet and/or outlet is a man-made ditch points= I (If ditch is not permanently flowing treat unit as "intermittently flowing") Unit has an unconstricted, or sliehtlv constricted, surface outlet lnt>rmanentlv flowinol ooints -0 D D 3.2 Depth of storage during wet periods Estimate the height of ponding above the bottom of the outlet. For units with no outlet measure from the surface of permanent water or deepest part (if dry). Marks of ponding are 3 ft or more above the surface or bottom of outlet points= 7 The wetland is a "headwater" wetland" points= 5 Marks of ponding between 2 ft to < 3 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points= 5 Marks are at least 0.5 ft to < 2 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points= 3 Unit is flat (yes to Q. 2 or Q. 7 on key) but has small depressions on the surface that trap water points= I Marks of pondinl! less than 0.5 ft points= 0 D D 3.3 Contribution of wetland unit to storage in the watershed Estimate the ratio of the area of upstream basin contributing surface water to the wetland to the area of the wetland unit itself. The area of the basin is less than 10 times the area of unit points= 5 The area of the basin is 10 to 100 times the area of the unit points= 3 The area of the basin is more than 100 times the area of the unit points= 0 Entire unit is in the FLATS class points= 5 D Total for D 3 Add the points in the boxes above D D 4. Does the wetland unit have the O[![!Ortunity to reduce flooding and erosion? Answer YES if the unit is in a location in the watershed where the flood storage, or reduction in water velocity, it provides helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows. Answer NO if the water coming into the wetland is controlled by a structure such as flood gate, tide gate, flap valve, reservoir etc. OR you estimate that more than 90% of the water in the wetland is from groundwater in areas where damaging groundwater flooding does not occur. Note which of the following indicators of opportunity apply. -Wetland is in a headwater of a river or stream that has flooding problems -Wetland drains to a river or stream that has flooding problems -Wetland has no outlet and impounds surface runoff water that might otherwise flow into a river or stream that has flooding problems ~ Other Overflows to Lake Washington YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 D TOTAL -Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from D 3 by D 4 Add score to table on p. 1 Wetland Rating Form -western Washington 6 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 August 2004 Points (only l score per box) (see p.46) 2 7 3 -----I 12 I -----(seep. 49) multiplier 2 24 B Wetland name or number __ These questions apply to wetlands of all HGM classes. HABITAT FUNCTIONS -Indicators that unit functions to provide important habitat H 1. Does the wetland unit have the potential to provide habitat for many species? H 1.1 Vegetation structure (seep. 72) Check the types of vegetation classes present (as defined by Cowardin)-Size threshold for each class is !4 acre or more than 10% of the area if unit is smaller than 2.5 acres. __ Aquatic bed __x_Emergent plants __x_scrub/shrub (areas where shrubs have >30% cover) __ Forested {areas where trees have >30% cover) If the unit has a forested class check if: __ The forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy. sub-canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, moss/ground-cover) that each cover 20% within the forested polygon Add the number of vegetation structures that qualify. If you have: Map of Cowardin vegetation classes H 1.2. Hydroperiods (seep. 73) 4 structures or more 3 structures 2 structures 1 structure points= 4 points= 2 points= 1 ooints = 0 Check the types of water regimes {hydroperiods) present within the wedand. The water regime has to cover more than 10% of the wedand or !4 acre to count. (see text for descriptions of hydroperiods) __x_Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present points= 3 points= 2 point= 1 points= 0 __x_seasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present __ Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present __ Saturated only I type present __ Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland __ Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland __ Lake-fringe wetland = 2 points __ Freshwater tidal wetland= 2 points Map of hydroperiods H 1.3. Richness of Plant Species (seep. 75} Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ft 2• of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold) You do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian Mi/foil, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, If you counted: > 19 species Lisi species below if you want to: 5 -19 species < 5 species ( different patches Canadian Thistle points= 2 points = 1 points= 0 Points (only 1 score per box) Figure_ 1 Figure_ 3 Total for page __ _ Wetland Rating Form -western Washington 13 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 B Wetland name or number __ H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats (seep. 76) Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion between Cowardin vegetation classes (described in H 1.1), or the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, medium, low, or none. C) 0 None = 0 points Low= 1 point Moderate = 2 points ~ High = 3 points [ripariao braided chaonels] NOTE: If you have four or more classes or three vegetation classes and open water the ratio is alwa s "bi h". Use ma of Cowardin ve etation classes H 1.5. Special Habitat Features: (seep. 77) Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points you put into the next column. __ Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (>4in. diameter aod 6 ft long). __ Standing snags (diameter at the bottom> 4 inches) in the wetlaod __ Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2m) and/or overhanging vegetation extends at least 3.3 ft (Im) over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the unit, for at least 33 ft (!Om) XStable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (>30degree slope) OR sigos of recent beaver activity are present {cut shrubs or trees that have not yet turned greylbrowo) __ At least \4 acre of thin-stemmed persistent vegetation or woody branches are present in areas that are permanently or seasonally inundated. (structures for egg-laying by amphibians} __ Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in each stratum of plants NOTE: The 20 % stated in early printings of the manual on page 78 is an error. igure_ 2 1 r-----------------------------------~----H 1. TOT AL Score -potential for providing habitat Add the scores from HJ.I, Hl.2, Hl.3, Hl.4, Hl.5 ~------------------------~--~-~-~---~----~ 6 Comments Wetland Rating Form -western Washington 14 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 B Wetland name or number __ H 2. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to provide habitat for many species? H 2.1 Buffers (seep. 80} Figure __ Choose the description that best represents condition of buffer of wetland unit. The highest scoring criterion that applies to die wetland is to be used in the rating. See text for definition of "undisturbed." -100 m (330ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas. rocky areas, or open water >95% of circumference. No structures are within the undisturbed part of buffer. (relatively undisturbed also means no-grazing, no landscaping, no daily human use) Points = 5 -100 m (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 50% circumference. Points= 4 -50 m (170ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water >95% circumference. Points = 4 -100 m (330ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 25% circumference, . Points = 3 X 50 m (170ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water for> 50% circumference. Points = 3 If buffer does not meet any of the criteria above -No paved areas (except paved trails) or buildings within 25 m (80ft) of wetland> 95% circumference. Light to moderate grazing, or lawns are OK. Points = 2 -No paved areas or buildings within 50m of wetland for >50% circumference. Light to moderate grazing, or lawns are OK. Points = 2 -Heavy grazing in buffer. Points = 1 -Vegetated buffers are <2m wide (6.6ft) for more than 95% of the circumference (e.g. tilled fields, paving, basalt bedrock extend to edge of wetland Points = 0. -Buffer does not meet any of the criteria above. Points = 1 3 · Aerial photo showina buffers H 2.2 Corridors and Connections (seep. 81) H 2.2.1 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor (either riparian or upland) that is at least 150 ft wide, has at least 30% cover of shrubs, forest or native undisturbed prairie, that connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 250 acres in size? (dams in riparian corridors, heavily used gravel roads, paved roads, are considered breaks in the corridor). YES= 4 points (go to H 2.1) NO =goto H 2.2.2 H 2.2.2 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor (either riparian or upland) that is at least 50ft wide, has at least 30% cover of shrubs or forest, and connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 25 acres in size? OR a Lake-fringe wetland, if it does not have an undisturbed corridor as in the question above? YES = 2 points (go to H 2.1) NO= H 2.2.3 H 2.2.3 Is the wetland: within 5 mi (8km) of a brackish or salt water estuary OR within 3 mi of a large field or pasture (>40 acres) OR within 1 mi of a lake greater than 20 acres? YES = 1 point NO= 0 noints 4 Total for page. __ _ Wetland Rating Form-western Washington 15 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 B Wetland name or number __ H 2.3 Near or adjacent to other priority habitats listed by WDFW (see new and complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats. and the counties in which they can be found. in the PHS report http://wdfw.wa.gov/hab!phslist.htm) Which of the following priority habitats are within 330ft (100m) of the wetland unit? NOTE: the connections do not have to be relatively undisturbed. __ Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 0.4 ha (I acre). LBiodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 15Z}. __ Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock. __ Old-growth/Mature forests: (Old-growth west of Cascade crest) Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi-layered canopy with occasional small openings: with at least 20 trees/ha (8 trees/acre) > 81 cm (32 in) dbh or> 200 years of age. (Mature forests) Stands with average diameters exceeding 53 cm (21 in) dbh; crown cover may be less that 100%; crown cover may be less that 100%: decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old-growth; 80 -200 years old west of the Cascade crest. __ Oregon white Oak: Woodlands Stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component is important (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 158). __ Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other. __ Westside Prairies: Herbaceous, non-forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wet prairie (full descriptions in lfVFW PHS report p. 161). __ Instream: The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources. __ Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearshore, and Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions of habitats and the definition ofrelatively undisturbed are in WDFW report: pp. 167-169 and glossary in Appendix A). __ Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils, rock, ice, or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human. __ Cliffs: Greater than 7.6 m (25 ft) high and occurring below 5000 ft. __ Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.15 -2.0 m (0.5 -6.5 ft), composed of basalt, andesite, and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs. __ Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of> 51 cm (20 in) in western Washington and are > 2 m (6.5 ft) in height. Priority logs are> 30 cm (12 in) in diameter at the largest end, and> 6 m (20 ft) long. If wetland has 3 or more priority habitats = 4 points If wetland has 2 priority habitats = 3 points If wetland has 1 priority habitat = 1 point No habitats = 0 points Note: All vegetated wetlands are hy definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list. Nearby wetlands are addressed in question H 2.4) Wetland Rating Form -western Washington 16 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 1 B Wetland name or number __ H 2.4 Wetland Landscape (choose the one description of the landscape around the wetland that best fits) (seep. 84} There are at least 3 other wetlands within \I, mile, and the connectioos between them are relatively undisturbed (light grazing between wetlands OK, as is lake shore with some boating, but connections should NOT be bisected by paved roads, fill, fields, or other development. points= 5 The wetland is Lake-fringe on a lake with little disturbance and there are 3 other lake-fringe wetlands within V, mile points= 5 There are at least 3 other wetlands within V, mile, BUT the connections between them are disturbed points= 3 The wetland is Lake-fringe on a lake with disturbance and there are 3 other lake-fringe wetland within V2 mile points= 3 There is at least 1 wetland within V2 mile. points= 2 There are no wetlands within V, mile. points= 0 H 2. TOT AL Score -opportunity for providing habitat Add the scores from H2.1,H2.2, H2.3, H2.4 TOTAL for H l from page 14 Total Score for Habitat Functions -add the points for H 1, H 2 and record the result on o. l Wetland Rating Form -western Washington 17 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 3 -----I 8 I I I ----- 6 ----- 14 B Wetland name or number __ CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Please detennine if the wetland meets the attributes described below and circle the appropriate answers and Category. Wetland Type Category Check off any criteria that apply to the wetland. Circle the Category when the aooropriate criteria are met. SC 1.0 Estuarine wetlands {seep. 86) Does the wetland unit meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands? -The dominant water regime is tidal, -Vegetated, and -With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt. YES= Go to SC 1.1 NO..X SC 1.1 Is the wetland unit within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, Cat. I National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area Preserve, State Park or Educational, Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332-30-151? YES = Category I X NO go to SC 1.2 SC 1.2 Is the wetland unit at least 1 acre in size and meets at least two of the following three conditions? YES = Category I NO = Category II Cat. I -The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, Cat. II cultivation, grazing, and has less than I 0% cover of non-native plant species. If the non-native Spartina spp. are the only species that cover more than 10% of the wetland, then the wetland should be given a dual Dual rating (Ulij. The area of Spartina would be rated a Category II while the rating relatively undisturbed upper marsh with native species would be a 1/11 Category I. Do not, however, exclude the area of Spartina in determining the size threshold of 1 acre. -At least % of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un-mowed grassland. -The wetland has at least 2 of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or contiguous freshwater wetlands. Wetland Rating Fann -western Washington 18 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 B Wetland name or number __ SC 2.0 Natural Heritage Wetlands (seep. 87) Natural Heritage wetlands have been identified by the Washington Natural Heritage Program/DNR as either high quality undisturbed wetlands or wetlands that support state Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive plant species. SC 2.1 Is the wetland unit being rated in a Sectionffownship/Range that contains a Natural Heritage wetland? (this question is used to screen out most sites before you need to contact WNHP/DNR) S/T/R information from Appendix D _ or accessed from WNHP/DNR web site _ YES __ -contact WNHP/DNR (see p. 79) and go to SC 2.2 NOX SC 2.2 Has DNR identified the wetland as a high quality undisturbed wetland or as or as a site with state threatened or endangered plant species? YES = Category I NO _x__not a Heritage Wetland SC 3.0 Bogs (seep. 87) Does the wetland unit (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key below to identifjr if the wetland is a bog. If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. 1. Does the unit have organic soil horizons (i.e. layers of organic soil), either peats or mucks, that compose 16 inches or more of the first 32 inches of the soil profile? (See Appendix B for a field key to identify organic soils)? Yes - go to Q. 3 X No -go to Q. 2 2. Does the unit have organic soils, either peats or mucks that are less than 16 inches deep over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on a lake or pond? Yes -go to Q. 3 X No -Is not a bog for purpose ofrating 3. Does the unit have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, AND other plants, if present, consist of the "bog" species listed in Table 3 as a significant component of the vegetation (more than 30% of the total shrub and herbaceous cover consists of species in Table 3)? Yes -Is a bog for purpose of rating X No -go to Q. 4 NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory you may substitute that criterion by measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16" deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the "bog" plant species in Table 3 are present, the wetland is a bog. J. Is the unit forested (> 30% cover) with sitka spruce, subalpine fir, western red cedar, western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Englemann's spruce, or western white pine, WITH any of the species (or combination of species) on the bog species plant list in Table 3 as a significant component of the ground cover (> 30% coverage of the total shrub/herbaceous cover)? 2. YES = Category I NoX Is not a bog for purpose of rating Wetland Rating Form -western Washington 19 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Cat. I Cat. I B Wetland name or number __ SC 4.0 Forested Wetlands (seep. 90) Does the wetland unit have at least 1 acre of forest that meet one of these criteria for the Department offish and Wildlife's forests as priority habitats? lfyou answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. -Old-growth forests: (west of Cascade crest) Stands of at least two tree species, forming a multi-layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/acre (20 trees/hectare) that are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 32 inches (81 cm) or more. NOTE: The criterion for dbh is based on measurements for upland forests. Two-hundred year old trees in wetlands will often have a smaller dbh because their growth rates are often slower. The DFW criterion is and "OR" so old-growth forests do not necessarily have to have trees of this diameter. -Mature forests: (west of the Cascade Crest) Stands where the largest trees are 80-200 years old OR have average diameters (dbh) exceeding 21 inches (53cm); crown cover may be less that 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old-growth. YES= Category I NO Xnot a forested wetland with special characteristics SC 5.0 Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons (seep. 91) Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wetland in a coastal lagoon? -The wetland lies in a depression adjacent to marine waters that is wholly or partially separated from marine waters by sandbanks, gravel banks, shingle, or, less frequently, rocks -The lagoon in which the wetland is located contains surface water that is saline or brackish (> 0.5 ppt) during most of the year in at least a portion of the lagoon {needs to be measured near the bottom) YES= Go to SC 5.1 NO..X.. not a wetland in a coastal lagoon SC 5.1 Does the wetland meets all of the following three conditions? -The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing), and has less than 20% cover of invasive plant species (see list of invasive species on p. 7 4). -At least % of the landward edge of the wetland has a I 00 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un-mowed grassland. -The wetland is larger than 1/10 acre ( 4350 square feet) YES = Category I NO = Category II Wetland Rating Form-western Washington 20 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Cat. I Cat. I Cat. II B Wetland name or number --~ SC 6.0 Interdunal Wetlands (seep. 93) Is the wetland unit west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? YES -go to SC 6.1 NO X not an interdunal wetland for rating If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. In practical terms that means the following geographic areas: • Long Beach Peninsula-lands west of SR I 03 • Grayland-Westport-lands west of SR 105 • Ocean Shores-Copalis-lands west of SR 115 and SR I 09 SC 6.1 Is the wetland one acre or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is once acre or larger? YES = Category II X NO -go to SC 6.2 SC 6.2 Is the unit between 0.1 and 1 acre, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and 1 acre? YES = Category III Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics Choose the "highest" rating if wetland falls into several categories, and record on p. l. If vou answered NO for all tvnes enter "Not Ann]icable" on o. l Wetland Rating Form -western Washington 21 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 August 2004 Cat. II Cat. III C Wetland name or number __ WETLAND RATING FORM-WESTERN WASHINGTON Version 2 -Updated July 2006 to increase accuracy and reproducibility among users Updated Oct 2008 with the new WDFW definitions for priority habitats Name of wetland (if known): _w_e_tl_a_nd_c ___________ Date of site visit: 0412312009 Rated by Adam Gale and Joe Pursley Trained by Ecology? YesXNo_ Date of training May 2007 SEC: 29 TWNSHP: 24 N RNGE: ~ Is S!T/R in Appendix D? Yes_ No_X Map of wetland unit: Figure__ Estimated size < 0· 1 Acre SUMMARY OF RATING Category based on FUNCTIONS provided by wetland I II_ III_ IV X Category I = Score >= 70 Category II = Score 51-69 Category III = Score 30-50 Category IV = Score < 30 Score for Water Quality Functions 4 >----Score for Hydrologic Functions 16 f------1 Score for Habitat Functions 6 .,.. __ ..... TOT AL score for Functions 26 Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland I_ II_ Does not Apply X Final Category crn=, "' "high"'" at,go.-y rrnm •boveJ [J s ummarvo fb .. t as1c m ormation a b h tl d out t ewe an umt Wetland Unit has Special Wetland HGM Class Characteristics used for Ratin11 Estuarine Depressional 'x Natural Heritage Wetland Riverine Bog Lake-frin11e Mature Forest Slope Old Growth Forest Flats Coastal Laeoon Freshwater Tidal Interdunal None of the above X Check if unit has multiple HG M classes oresent Wetland Rating Form -western Washington August 2004 version 2 To be used with Ecology Publication 04-06-025 C Wetland name or number __ Does the wetland unit being rated meet any of the criteria below? If you answer YES to any of the questions below you will need to protect the wetland according to the regulations regarding the special characteristics found in the wetland. Check List for Wetlands That May Need Additic>nal Protection YES (in addition to the protection recommended for its cate1mrv) SPI. Has the wetland unit been documented as a habitat for any Federally listed Threatened or Endangered animal or plant species (TIE species)? For the purposes of this rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the aooropriate state or federal database. SP2. Has the wetland unit been documented as habitat for any State listed Threatened or Endangered animal species? For the purposes of this rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the appropriate state database. Note: Wetlands with State listed plant species are categorized as Category I Natural Heritage Wetlands (see o. 19 of data form). SP3. Does the wetland unit contain individuals of Priority species listed by the WDFW for the state? SP4. Does the wetland unit have a local significance in addition to its functions? For example, the wetland has been identified in the Shoreline Master Program, the Critical Areas Ordinance, or in a local management plan as having special significance. To complete the next part of the data sheet you will need to detennine the Hydrogeomorphic Class of the wetland being rated. NO X X X X The hydrogeomorphic classification groups wetlands into those that function in similar ways. This simplifies the questions needed to answer how well the wetland functions. The Hydrogeomorphic Class of a wetland can be determined using the key below. See p. 24 for more detailed instructions on classifying wetlands. Wetland Rating Form -western Washington 2 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 August 2004 C Wetland name or number~~ Classification of Wetland Units in Western Washington If the hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated, you probably have a unit with multiple HGM classes. In this case, identify which hydrologic criteria in questions 1-7 apply, and go to Question 8. 1. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides (i.e. except during floods)? NO -go to 2 YES -the wetland class is Tidal Fringe If yes, is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)? YES -Freshwater Tidal Fringe NO -Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) If your wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands. If it is Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is rated as an Estuarine wetland. Wetlands that were called estuarine in the first and second editions of the rating system are called Salt Water Tidal Fringe in the Hydrogeomorphic Classification. Estuarine wetlands were categorized separately in the earlier editions, and this separation is being kept in this revision. To maintain consistency between editions, the term "Estuarine" wetland is kept. Please note, however, that the characteristics that define Category I and II estuarine wetlands have changed (see p. ) . 2. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is the only source (>90%) of water to it. Groundwater and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit. NO -go to 3 YES -The wetland class is Flats If your wetland can be classified as a "Flats" wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands. 3. Does the entire wetland unit meet both of the following criteria? _The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any vegetation on the surface) at least 20 acres (8 ha) in size; _At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m)? NO -go to 4 YES -The wetland class is Lake-fringe (Lacustrine Fringe) 4. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? _X_ The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual), _X_The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks. __ The water leaves the wetland without being impounded? NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these type of wetlands except occasionally in very small and shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3ft diameter and Jess than 1 foot deep}. NO -go to 5 YES -The wetland class is Slope Wetland Rating Form -western Washington 3 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 August 2004 C Wetland name or number __ 5. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? __ The unit is in a valley, or stream channel. where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that stream or river __ The overbank flooding occurs at least once every two years. NOTE: The riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not flooding. NO -go to 6 YES -The wetland class is Riverine 6. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the surface, at some time during the year. This means that any outlet, if present, is higher than the interior of the wetland. NO -go to 7 YES -The wetland class is Depressional 7. Is the entire wetland unit located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbank flooding. The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to be maintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural outlet. NO -go to 8 YES -The wetland class is Depressional 8. Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM clases. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small stream within a depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENT AREAS IN THE UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify the appropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within your wetland. NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents l 0% or more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the class listed in column 2 is less than l 0% of the unit; classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the total area. HGM Classes within the wetland unit beine rated HGM Class to Use In Ratlne Slope + Riverine Riverine Slope + Depressional Depressional Slope + Lake-fringe Lake-fringe Depressional + Riverine along stream within boundary Depressional Deoressional + Lake-fringe Depressional Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other class of freshwater Treat as ESTUARINE under wetland wetlands with special characteristics If you are unable still to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or if you have more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the rating. Wetland Rating Form -western Washington 4 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 August 2004 C Wetland name or number __ _ D Depressional and Flats Wetlands WATER QUALITY FUNCTIONS -Indicators that the wetland unit functions to imorove water Qualitv D D I. Does the wetland unit have the [!Otential to improve water quality? D 1.1 Characteristics of surface water flows out of the wetland: D Unit is a depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) points= 3 Unit has an intermittently flowing. OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet points= 2 Unit has an unconstricted. or slightly constricted. surface outlet (pennanently flowing) points= 1 Unit is a "flat" depression (Q. 7 on key). or in the Flats class. with permanent surface outflow and no obvious natural outlet and/or outlet is a man-made ditch points = 1 (If ditch is not permanently flowing treat unit as "intermillent/y flowing") Provide ohoto or drawina S 1.2 The soil 2 inches below the surface (or duff layer) is clay or organic (use NRCS D definitions) YES points= 4 NO points= 0 D 1.3 Characteristics of persistent vegetation (emergent. shrub, and/or forest Cowardin class) D Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, vegetation > = 95% of area points= 5 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, vegetation > = 1/2 of area points= 3 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation > = 1 / 10 of area points= 1 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation <1/10 of area points= 0 Man of Cowardin venetation classes D 1.4 Characteristics of seasonal ponding or inundation. D This is the area of the wetland unit that is ponded for at least 2 months, but dries out sometime during the year. Do not count the area that is pennanently ponded. Estimate area as the average condition 5 out of 10 yrs. Area seasonally ponded is > \', total area of wetland points= 4 Area seasonally ponded is> V. total area of wetland points= 2 Area seasonally ponded is< V. total area of wetland points -0 Mao of Hvdrooeriods D Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes above D D 2. Does the wetland unit have the op[!ortunity to improve water quality? Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in groundwater or surface water coming into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams. lakes or groundwater downgradient from the wetland. Note which of the following conditions provide the sources of pollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming from several sources, but any single source would qualify as opportunity. -Grazing in the wetland or within 150 ft X Untreated stormwater discharges to wetland -Tilled fields or orchards within 150 ft of wetland -A stream or culvert discharges into wetland that drains developed areas, residential areas, farmed fields, roads, or clear-cut logging -Residential, urban areas, golf courses are within 150 ft of wetland -Wetland is fed by groundwater high in phosphorus or nitrogen -Other YES multinlier is 2 NO multinlier is 1 D TOT AL -Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from DI by D2 Add score to table on o. 1 Wetland Rating Form -western Washington 5 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 August 2004 Points (only 1 scorn per box) (seep.38} Figure_ 2 0 Figure_ 0 Figure_ 0 -----I 2 I -----(seep. 44) multiplier 2 --- 4 C Wetland name or number __ D Depressional and Flats Wetlands HYDRO LOGIC FUNCTIONS -Indicators that the wetland unit functions to reduce flooding and stream del!Tadation D 3. Does the wetland unit have the QOtential to reduce flooding and erosion? D D 3.1 Characteristics of surface water flows out of the wetland unit Unit is a depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) points= 4 Unit has an intermittently flowing, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet points= 2 Unit is a "flat'" depression (Q. 7 on key), or in the Flats class, with permanent surface outflow and no obvious natural outlet and/or outlet is a man-made ditch points= I (If ditch is not permanently flowing treat unit as "intermittently flowing") Unit has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet lnermanendy flowinl!) points= 0 D D 3.2 Depth of storage during wet periods Estimate the height of ponding above the bottom of the outlet. For units with no outlet measure from the surface of permanent water or deepest part (if dry). Marks of ponding are 3 ft or more above the surface or bottom of outlet points= 7 The wetland is a "headwater" wetland" points= 5 Marks of ponding between 2 ft to < 3 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points= 5 Marks are at least 0.5 ft to< 2 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points= 3 Unit is flat {yes to Q. 2 or Q. 7 on key) but has small depressions on the surface that trap water points= 1 Marks of ponding less than 0.5 ft points= 0 D D 3.3 Contribution of wetland unit to storage in the watershed Estimate the ratio of the area of upstream basin contributing surface water to the wetland to the area of the wetland unit itself The area of the basin is less than 10 times the area of unit points= 5 The area of the basin is 10 to 100 times the area of the unit points= 3 The area of the basin is more than 100 times the area of the unit points= 0 Entire unit is in the FLA TS class points= 5 D Total for D 3 Add the points in the boxes above D D 4. Does the wetland unit have the OQQOrtunity to reduce flooding and erosion? Answer YES if the unit is in a location in the watershed where the flood storage, or reduction in water velocity, it provides helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows. Answer NO if the water coming into the wetland is controlled by a structure such as flood gate, tide gate, flap valve, reservoir etc. OR you estimate that more than 90% of the water in the wetland is from groundwater in areas where damaging groundwater flooding does not occur. Note which of the following indicators of opportunity apply. -Wetland is in a headwater of a river or stream that has flooding problems -Wetland drains to a river or stream that has flooding problems -Wetland has no outlet and impounds surface runoff water that might otherwise flow into a river or stream that has flooding problems X Other Overflows to Wetland C and then Lake Washington YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is I D TOTAL -Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from D 3 by D 4 Add score to table on p. 1 Wetland Rating Form -western Washington 6 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 August 2004 Points ( only l score per box) (see p.46} 2 3 3 -----I 8 I -----(seep. 49} multiplier 2 16 C Wetland name or number __ These questions apply to wedands of all HGM classes. HABITAT FUNCTIONS -Indicators that unit functions to provide important habitat H I. Does the wetland unit have the potential to provide habitat for many species? H 1.1 Vegetation structure (seep. 72) Check the types of vegetation classes prese11t {as defined by Cowardin)-Size threshold for each class is % acre or more than 10% of the area if ur1il is smaller than 2.5 acres. __ Aquatic bed __ Emergent plants __ Scrub/shrub (areas where shrubs have >30% cover) __ Forested (areas where trees have >30% cover) If the unit has a forested class check if: __ The forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub-canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, moss/ground-cover) that each cover 20% within the forested polygon Add the number of vegetation structures that qualify. If you have: Map of Cowardin vegetation classes H 1.2. Hydroperiods (seep. 73) 4 structures or more 3 structures 2 structures 1 structure points= 4 points= 2 points= 1 noints = 0 Check the types of water regimes {hydroperiods} present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover more than 10% of the wetland or % acre to count. (see text for descriptions of hydroperiods) XPermanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present __ Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present __ Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present __ Saturated only I type present __ Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland __ Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland points= 3 points= 2 point= 1 points= 0 __ Lake-fringe wetland = 2 points __ Freshwater tidal wetland= 2 points Map of hydroperiods H 1.3. Richness of Plant Species {seep. 75) Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ft 2 • (different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold) You do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian Mi/foil, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, Canadian Thistle If you counted: > 19 species List species below if you want to: 5 -19 species < 5 species points= 2 points= 1 points= 0 Points (only 1 score per box) Figure~ 0 Figure~ 0 0 0 Total for page __ _ Wetland Rating Form -western Washington 13 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 C Wetland name or number __ H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats (seep. 76) Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion between Cowardin vegetation classes (described in H 1.1), or the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, medium, low, or none. C) 0 None = 0 points Low= 1 point .... '\[ ~ High = 3 points Moderate = 2 points t [ riparian braided channels] NOTE: If you have four or more classes or three vegetation classes and open water the ratio is alwa s "hi ". Use ma of Coward in ve elation classes H 1.5. Special Habitat Features: (seep. 77) Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points you put into the next column. __ Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (>4in. diameter and 6 ft long). __ Standing snags (diameter at the bottom > 4 inches) in the wetland __ Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2m) and/or overhanging vegetation extends at least 3.3 ft (Im) over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the unit, for at least 33 ft (10m) __ Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (>30degree slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet tumed grey/brown) __ At least 1/,, acre of thin-stemmed persistent vegetation or woody branches are present in areas that are permanently or seasonally inundated.(structures for egg-laying by amphibians} __ Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in each stratum of plants NOTE: The 20 % stated in early printings of the manual on page 78 is an error. igure_ 0 0 ~----------------------------------------H 1. TOT AL Score -potential for providing habitat Add the scores from HI.I, HI.2, Hl.3, HI.4, Hl.5 ~---------------=~~~=~~--~--~-~-~---~----~ 0 Comments Wetland Rating Form-western Washington 14 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 C Wetland name or number __ H 2. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to provide habitat for many species? H 2.1 Buffers (seep. BO) Figure __ _ Choose the description that best represents condition of buffer of wetland unit. The highest scoring criterion that applies to the wetland is to be used in the rating. See text for deflnition of "undisturbed. "' -100 m (330ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water >95% of circumference. No structures are within the undisturbed part of buffer. (relatively undisturbed also means no-grazing, no landscaping, no daily human use) Points = 5 -100 m (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 50% circumference. Points = 4 -50 m (170ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water >95% circumference. Points = 4 -100 m (330ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water> 25% circumference, . Points = 3 -50 m (170ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water for> 50% circumference. Points = 3 If buffer does not meet any of the criteria above X No paved areas (except paved trails) or buildings within 25 m (80ft) of wetland > 95% circumference. Light to moderate grazing, or lawns are OK. Points = 2 -No paved areas or buildings within 50m of wetland for >50% circumference. Light to moderate grazing, or lawns are OK. Points = 2 -Heavy grazing in buffer. Points = 1 -Vegetated buffers are <2m wide (6.6ft) for more than 95% of the circumference (e.g. tilled fields, paving, basalt bedrock extend to edge of wetland Points = 0. -Buffer does not meet any of the criteria above. Points = 1 2 Aerial nhoto showina buffers H 2.2 Corridors and Connections (seep. Bl) H 2.2.1 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor (either riparian or upland) that is at least 150 ft wide, has at least 30% cover of shrubs, forest or native undisturbed prairie, that connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 250 acres in size? (dams in riparian corridors, heavily used gravel roads, paved roads, are considered breaks in the corridor). YES = 4 points (go to H 2.3) NO =goto H 2.2.2 H 2.2.2 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor (either riparian or upland) that is at least 50ft wide, has at least 30% cover of shrubs or forest, and connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 25 acres in size? OR a Lake-fringe wetland, if it does not have an undisturbed corridor as in the question above? YES = 2 points (go to H 2.3) NO= H 2.2.3 H 2.2.3 Is the wetland: within 5 mi (8km) of a brackish or salt water estuary OR within 3 mi of a large field or pasture (>40 acres) OR within 1 mi of a lake greater than 20 acres? YES = 1 noint NO = 0 noints 3 Total for page. __ _ Wetland Rating Form -western Washington 15 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 C Wetland name or number __ H 2.3 Near or adjacent to other priority habitats listed by WDFW (see new and complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which they can be found, in the PHS report http://wdfw.wa.gov!hablphslist.htm} Which of the following priority habitats are within 330ft (JOOm) of the wetland unit? NOTE: the connections do not have to be relatively undisturbed. __ Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 0.4 ha (1 acre). LBiodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 152'}. __ Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock. __ Old-growth/Mature forests: (Old-growth west of Cascade crest) Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi-layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 20 trees/ha (8 trees/acre) > 81 cm (32 in) dbh or> 200 years of age. (Mature forests) Stands with average diameters exceeding 53 cm (21 in) dbh; crown cover may be less that 100"/o; crown cover may be less that 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old-growth; 80 -200 years old west of the Cascade crest. __ Oregon white Oak: Woodlands Stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component is important (full descriptions in WFW PHS report p. 158). __ Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other. __ Westside Prairies: Herbaceous, non-forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wet prairie (full descriptions in WFW PHS report p. 161). __ Instream: The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources. __ Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearshore, and Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WFW report: pp. 167-169 and glossary in Appendix A}. __ Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils, rock, ice, or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human. __ Cliffs: Greater than 7.6 m (25 ft) high and occurring below 5000 ft. __ Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.15 -2.0 m (0.5 -6.5 ft). composed of basalt, andesite, and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs. __ Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of> 51 cm (20 in) in western Washington and are> 2 m (6.5 ft) in height. Priority logs are> 30 cm (12 in) in diameter at the largest end, and> 6 m (20 ft) long. If wetland has 3 or more priority habitats = 4 points If wetland has 2 priority habitats = 3 points If wetland has 1 priority habitat = 1 point No habitats = 0 points Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not induded in this list. Nearbv wetlands are addressed in ouestion H 2.4) Wetland Rating Form-western Washington 16 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 C Wetland name or number __ H 2.4 Wetland Landscape (choose the one description of the landscape around the wetland that best fits) (seep. 84} There are at least 3 other wetlands within 1/2 mile, and the connections between them are relatively undisturbed (light grazing between wetlands OK, as is lake shore with some boating, but connections should NOT be bisected by paved roads, fill, fields, or other development. points= 5 The wetland is Lake-fringe on a lake with little disturbance and there are 3 other lake-fringe wetlands within ¥.a mile points= 5 There are at least 3 other wetlands within ¥.a mile, BUT the connections between them are disturhed points= 3 The wetland is Lake-fringe on a lake with disturbance and there are 3 other lake-fringe wetland within 'h mile points= 3 There is at least I wetland within ¥.a mile. points= 2 There are no wetlands within 1h mile. points= 0 H 2. TOTAL Score -opportunity for providing habitat Add the scores from H2.1,H2.2, H2.3, H2.4 TOT AL for H 1 from page 14 Total Score for Habitat Functions -add the points for H 1, H 2 and record the result on p. l Wetland Rating Form -western Washington 17 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 3 -----I 6 I I I ----- 0 ----- 6 C Wetland name or number __ CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Please determine if the wetland meets the attributes described below and circle the appropriate answers and Category. Wetland Type Category Check off any criteria that apply to the wetland. Circle the Category when the annropriate criteria are met. SC 1.0 Estuarine wetlands (seep. 86} Does the wetland unit meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands? -The dominant water regime is tidal, -Vegetated, and -With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt. YES= Go to SC 1.1 NOX SC 1.1 Is the wetland unit within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, Cat. I National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area Preserve, State Park or Educational, Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332-30-151? YES = Categorv I X NO go to SC 1.2 SC 1.2 Is the wetland unit at least I acre in size and meets at least two of the following three conditions? YES = Category I NO = Category II Cat. I -The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, Cat. II cultivation, grazing, and has less than 10% cover of non-native plant species. If the non-native Spartina spp. are the only species that cover more than 10% of the wetland, then the wetland should be given a dual Dual rating (UII). The area of Spartina would be rated a Category II while the rating relatively undisturbed upper marsh with native species would be a I/II Category I. Do not, however, exclude the area of Spartina in determining the size threshold of I acre. -At least % of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un-mowed grassland. -The wetland has at least 2 of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or contiguous freshwater wetlands. Wetland Rating Form -western WasWngton 18 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WD FW definitions Oct. 2008 C Wetland name or number __ SC 2.0 Natural Heritage Wetlands (seep. 87) Natural Heritage wetlands have been identified by the Washington Natural Heritage Program/DNR as either high quality undisturbed wetlands or wetlands that support state Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive plant species. SC 2.1 Is the wetland unit being rated in a Section/Township/Range that contains a Natural Heritage wetland? (this question is used to screen out most sites before you need to contact WNHPIDNR) S/T/R information from Appendix D _ or accessed from WNHP/DNR web site _ YES __ -contact WNHP/DNR (seep. 79) and go to SC 2.2 NOX SC 2.2 Has DNR identified the wetland as a high quality undisturbed wetland or as or as a site with state threatened or endangered plant species? YES = Category I NO _x_not a Heritage Wetland SC 3.0 Bogs (seep. 87) Does the wetland unit (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key below to identify if the wedand is a bog. If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. 1. Does the unit have organic soil horizons (i.e. layers of organic soil), either peats or mucks, that compose 16 inches or more of the first 32 inches of the soil profile? (See Appendix B for a field key to identify organic soils)? Yes - go to Q. 3 X No -go to Q. 2 2. Does the unit have organic soils, either peats or mucks that are less than 16 inches deep over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on a lake or pond? Yes -go to Q. 3 X No -Is not a bog for purpose of rating 3. Does the unit have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, AND other plants, if present, consist of the "bog" species listed in Table 3 as a significant component of the vegetation (more than 30% of the total shrub and herbaceous cover consists of species in Table 3)? Yes -Is a bog for purpose ofrating X No -go to Q. 4 NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory you may substitute that criterion by measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16" deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the "bog" plant species in Table 3 are present, the wetland is a bog. J. Is the unit forested (> 30% cover) with sitka spruce, subalpine fir, western red cedar, western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Englemann's spruce, or western white pine, WITH any of the species (or combination of species) on the bog species plant list in Table 3 as a significant component of the ground cover(> 30% coverage of the total shrub/herbaceous cover)? 2. YES = Category I NoX Is not a bog for purpose of rating Wetland Rating Form-western Washington 19 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Cat. I Cat. I C Wetland name or number __ SC 4.0 Forested Wetlands (seep. 90} Does the wetland unit have at least 1 acre of forest that meet one of these criteria for the Department of Fish and Wildlife's forests as priority habitats? If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. -Old-growth forests: (west of Cascade crest) Stands of at least two tree species, forming a multi-layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/acre (20 trees/hectare) that are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 32 inches (81 cm) or more. NOTE: The criterion for dbh is based on measurements for upland forests. Two-hundred year old trees in wetlands will often have a smaller dbh because their growth rates are often slower. The DFW criterion is and "OR" so old-growth forests do not necessarily have to have trees of this diameter. -Mature forests: (west of the Cascade Crest) Stands where the largest trees are 80 -200 years old OR have average diameters (dbh) exceeding 21 inches (53cm); crown cover may be less that 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old-growth. YES = Category I NO X not a forested wetland with special characteristics SC 5.0 Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons (seep. 91) Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wetland in a coastal lagoon? -The wetland lies in a depression adjacent to marine waters that is wholly or partially separated from marine waters by sandbanks, gravel banks, shingle, or, less frequently, rocks -The lagoon in which the wetland is located contains surface water that is saline or brackish (> 0.5 ppt) during most of the year in at least a portion of the lagoon {needs to be measured near the bottom) YES= Go to SC 5.1 NOX not a wetland in a coastal lagoon SC 5.1 Does the wetland meets all of the following three conditions? -The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing), and has less than 20% cover of invasive plant species (see list of invasive species on p. 7 4). -At least % of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un-mowed grassland. -The wetland is larger than 1/10 acre (4350 square feet) YES = Category I NO = Category II Wetland Rating Form -western Washington 20 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Cat. I Cat. I Cat. II C Wetland name or number~~ SC 6.0 Interdunal Wetlands (seep. 93} Is the wetland unit west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? YES -go to SC 6.1 NO X not an interdunal wetland for rating If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. In practical terms that means the following geographic areas: • Long Beach Peninsula-lands west of SR 103 • Grayland-Westport-lands west of SR 105 • Ocean Shores-Copalis-lands west of SR 115 and SR I 09 SC 6.1 Is the wetland one acre or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is once acre or larger? YES = Category II X NO -go to SC 6.2 Cat. II SC 6.2 Is the unit between 0.1 and 1 acre, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and 1 acre? YES = Category III Cat. III Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics Choose the "highest" rating if wetland falls into several categories, and record on p.1. If vou answered NO for all tvoes enter ''Not Annlicable" on o.1 Wetland Rating Form -western Washington 21 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 August 2004 D Wetland name or number __ WETLAND RATING FORM-WESTERN WASHINGTON Version 2 -Updated July 2006 to increase accuracy and reproducibility among users Updated Oct 2008 with the new WDFW definitions for priority habitats Name of wetland (if known): _w_e_t_la_nd_D ___________ Date of site visit: o4i3 oi 2 oo 9 Rated by Adam Gale and Joe Pursley Trained by Ecology? YesXNo_ Date of training May 2007 SEC:~ TWNSHP: 24 N RNGE: ~ Is S/T/R in Appendix D? Yes_ No2{ Map of wetland unit: Figure__ Estimated size o.5 Acre SUMMARY OF RATING Category based on FUNCTIONS provided by wetland I_ II_ IIIX_ IV_ Category I = Score >= 70 Category II = Score 51-69 Category III = Score 30-50 Cate!!ory IV = Score < 30 Score for Water Quality Functions 18 I-----, Score for Hydrologic Functions 12 ~----l Score for Habitat Functions 24 ,..._....,. TOTAL score for Functions 54 Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland I_ II_ Does not Apply X Final Category (<hOOK tire "b~bBt" rat<go,y from •hove) D s ummarvo f b . . fi r b t th as1c m orma 10n a ou ti d ·t ewe an um Wetland Unit has Special Wetland HGM Class Characteristics used for Ratin!! Estuarine Deoressional Natural Herita!!e Wetland Riverine Bo11 Lake-frin11e X Mature Forest Slooe Old Growth Forest Flats Coastal La!!oon Freshwater Tidal Interdunal None of the above X Check if unit has multiple X HGM classes oresent Wetland Rating Form-western Washington version 2 To be used with Ecology Publication 04-06-025 August 2004 D Wetland name or number __ Does the wetland unit being rated meet any of the criteria below? If you answer YES to any of the questions below you will need to protect the wetland according to the regulations regarding the special characteristics found in the wetland. Check List for Wetlands That May Need Additional Protection .. YES (in addition to the protection recommended 'for its cate1Zorv) SPI. Has the wetland unit been documented as a habitat for any Federally listed Threatened or Endangered animal or plant species ([IE species)? For the purposes of this rating system. "documented" means the wetland is on the aooropriate state or federal database. SP2. Has the wetland unit been documented as habitat for any State listed Threatened or Endangered animal species? For the purposes of this rating system. "documented" means the wetland is on the appropriate state database. Note: Wetlands with State listed plant species are categorized as Categorv I Natural Heritage Wetlands (seep. 19 of data form). SP3. Does the wedand unit contain individuals of Priority species listed by the l,flJFW for the state? SP4. Does the wetland unit have a local significance in addition to its functions? For example, the wetland has been identified in the Shoreline Master Program. the Critical Areas Ordinance, or in a local management plan as having special significance. To complete the next part of the data sheet you will need to determine the Hydrogeomorphic Class of the wetland being rated. NO X X X X The hydrogeomorphic classification groups wetlands into those that function in similar ways. This simplifies the questions needed to answer how well the wetland functions. The Hydrogeomorphic Class of a wetland can be determined using the key below. Seep. 24 for more detailed instructions on classifying wetlands. Wetland Rating Form-western Washington 2 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct 2008 August 2004 D Wetland name or number __ Classification of Wetland Units in Western Washington If the hydrologic criteria listed In each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated, you probably have a unit with multiple HGM classes. In this case, identify which hydrologic criteria in questions 1-7 apply, and go to Question 8. 1. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides (i.e. except during floods)? NO -go to 2 YES -the wetland class is Tidal Fringe If yes, is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)? YES -Freshwater Tidal Fringe NO -Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) If your wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands. If it is Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is rated as an Estuarine wetland. Wetlands that were called estuarine in the first and second editions of the rating system are called Salt Water Tidal Fringe in the Hydrogeomorphic Classification. Estuarine wetlands were categorized separately in the earlier editions, and this separation is being kept in this revision. To maintain consistency between editions, the term "Estuarine" wetland is kept. Please note, however, that the characteristics that define Category I and II estuarine wetlands have changed (see p. ) . 2. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is the only source (>90%) of water to it. Groundwater and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit. NO-go to 3 YES -The wetland class is Flats If your wetland can be classified as a "Flats" wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands. 3. Does the entire wetland unit meet both of the following criteria? X The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any vegetation on the surface) at least 20 acres (8 ha) in size; X At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m)? NO-go to 4 YES -The wetland class is Lake-fringe (Lacustrine Fringe) 4. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? _X_The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual), _x_ The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks. ___X_ The water leaves the wetland without being impounded? NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these type of wetlands except occasionally in very small and shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3ft diameter and less than 1 foot deep). NO -go to 5 YES -The wetland class is Slope Wetland Rating Farm -western Washington 3 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 August 2004 D Wetland name or number __ 5. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? __ The unit is in a valley, or stream channel, where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that stream or river __ The overbank flooding occurs at least once every two years. NOTE: The riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not flooding. NO -go to 6 YES -The wetland class is Riverine 6. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the surface, at some time during the year. This means that any outlet, if present, is higher than the interior of the wedand. NO -go to 7 YES -The wetland class is Depressional 7. ls the entire wetland unit located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbank flooding. The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to be maintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural outlet. NO -go to 8 YES -The wetland class is Depressional 8. Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM clases. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small stream within a depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENT AREAS IN THE UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify the appropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within your wetland. NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the class listed in column 2 is less than I 0% of the unit; classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the total area. HGM Classes within the wedand unit beine rated HGM Class to Usecin Ratinl! Slope + Riverine Riverine Slope + Depressional Deoressional Slope + Lake-fringe Lake-fringe Depressional + Riverine along stream within boundary Depressional Depressional + Lake-fringe Deoressional Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other class of freshwater Treat as ESTUARINE under wetland wetlands with special characteristics If you are unable still to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or if you have more than 2 HG M classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the rating. Wetland Rating Form -western Washington 4 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Augost 2004 D Wetland name or number __ L Lake-fringe Wetlands WATER QUALITY FUNCTIONS -Indicators that the wetland unit functions to imorove water aualitv L L 1. Does the wetland unit have the 11otential to improve water quality? L L 1.1 Average width of vegetation along the lakcshore {use polygons of Cowardi11 classes): Vegetation is more than 33ft (!Om) wide points= 6 Vegetation is more than 16 (Sm) wide and <33ft points= 3 Vegetation is more than 6ft (2m) wide and <I 6 ft points = I Vegetation is less than 6 ft wide points= 0 Map of Cowardin classes with widths marked L L 1.2 Characteristics of the vegetation in the wetland: choose the appropriate description that results in the highest points, and do not include any open water in your estimate of cuverage. The herbaceous plants can be either the dominant fonn or as an understory in a shrub or forest community. These are not Cowardin classes. Area of Cover is total cover in the unit, but it can be in patches. NOTE: Herbaceous does not include aquatic bed. Cover of herbaceous plants is >90% of the vegetated area points= 6 Cover of herbaceous plants is >2/3 of the vegetated area points= 4 Cover of herbaceous plants is > 1/3 of the vegetated area points= 3 Other vegetation that is not aquatic bed or herbaceous covers > 2/3 unit points= 3 Other vegetation that is not aquatic bed in > 1/3 vegetated area points= I Aquatic bed vegetation and open water cover > 2/3 of the unit points= 0 Mao with oolvnons of different veaetation tvnes L Add the points in the boxes above I L L 2. Does the wetland have the 01111ortunity to improve water quality? Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in the lake water. or polluted surface water flowing through the unit to the lake. Note which of the following conditions provide the sources of pollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming from several sources, but any single source would qualify as opportunity. X Wetland is along the shores of a lake or reservoir that does not meet water quality standards -Grazing in the wetland or within 150ft X Polluted water discharges to wetland along upland edge -Tilled fields or orchards within 150 feet of wetland -Residential or urban areas are within 150 ft of wetland -Parks with grassy areas that are maintained, ballfields, golf courses (all within X 150 ft. of lake shore) Power boats with gasoline or diesel engines use the lake -Other YES multiolier is 2 NO multiplier is l L TOTAL -Water Quality Functions Multiply the scare from Ll by L2 Add score to table on D. 1 Comments Wetland Rating Form -western Washington 9 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 August 2004 Points (only 1 soore per box) (see p.59) Figure_ 6 Figure_ 3 -----9 I -----(seep.61) multiplier 2 -- 18 D Wetland name or number __ L Lake-fringe Wetlands :HYDRO LOGIC FUNCTIONS -Indicators that the wetland unit functions to reduce shoreline erosion L L 3. Does the wetland unit have the 12otential to reduce shoreline erosion? L L 3 Distance along shore and average width of Cowardin classes along the lakeshore (do not include aquatic bed): (choose the highest scoring description that matches conditions in the wetland} > % of distance is shrubs or forest at least 33 ft (10m) wide points= 6 > % of distance is shrubs or forest at least 6 ft. (2 m) wide points= 4 > \4 distance is shrubs or forest at least 33 ft (10m) wide points= 4 Vegetation is at least 6 ft (2m) wide (any type except aquatic bed) points= 2 Vegetation is less than 6 ft (2m) wide (any type except aquatic bed) points= 0 Aerial photo or map with Cowardin veaetation classes L Record the points from the box above L L 4. Does the wetland unit have the 012portunity to reduce erosion? Are there features along the shore that will be impacted if the shoreline erodes? Note which of the following conditions apply. X There are human structures and activities along the upland edge of the wetland (buildings, fields) that can be damaged by erosion. ' -There are undisturbed natural resources along the upland edge of the wetland (e.g. mature forests other wetlands) than can be damaged by shoreline erosion -Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 L TOTAL -Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from L 3 by L 4 Add score to table on p. 1 Comments Wetland Rating Form-western Washington 10 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Points (only 1 score pet box) (see p.62) Figure_ 6 -----I 6 I -----(see p.63) multiplier 2 12 D Wetland name or number __ These questions apply to wetlands of all HGM classes. HABITAT FUNCTIONS -Indicators that unit functions to provide important habitat H 1. Does the wetland unit have the potential to provide habitat for many species? H 1.1 Vegetation structure (seep. 72) Check the types of vegetation classes present (as defined by Cowardin}-Size threshold for each class is!, acre or more than 10% of the area if unit is smaller than 2.5 acres. __ Aquatic bed _x__Emergent plants _x__scrub/shrub (areas where sbrubs have >30% cover) __ Forested (areas where trees have >30% cover) If the unit has a forested class check if: _x__The forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub-canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, moss/ground-cover) that each cover 20% within the forested polygon Add the number of vegetation structures that qualify. If you have: Map of Cowardin vegetation classes H 1.2. Hydroperiods (seep. 73} 4 structures or more 3 structures 2 structures 1 structure points= 4 points= 2 points= 1 noints = 0 Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wedand. The water regime has to cover more than 10% of the wedand or !, acre to count. (see text for descriptions of hydroperiods} __LPermanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present _x__seasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present __ Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present __ Saturated only 1 type present __ Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland __ Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland points= 3 points= 2 point= I points= 0 _x_ Lake-fringe wedand = 2 points __ Freshwater tidal wetland= 2 points Map of hydroperiods H 1.3. Richness of Plant Species (seep. 75) Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ft 1 . (different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold} You do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian Mi/foil, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, Canadian Thistle If you counted: > 19 species List species below if you want to: 5 -19 species < 5 species points= 2 points= 1 points= 0 Points (only I score per box) Figure~ 2 Figure~ 3 6 Total for page __ _ Wetland Rating Form-western Washington 13 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 D Wetland name or number __ H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats (seep. 76) Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion between Cowardin vegetation classes (described in H 1.1), or the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, medium, low, or none. C) 0 None = 0 points Low= I point Moderate = 2 points ~ [riparian braided channels] High = 3 points NOTE: If you have four or more classes or three vegetation classes and open water the ratio is alwa s "hi h". Use ma of Cowardin ve elation classes H 1.5. Special Habitat Features: (seep. 77) Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points you put into the next column. _LLarge, downed, woody debris within the wetland (>4in. diameter and 6 ft long). _LStanding snags (diameter at the bottom> 4 inches) in the wetland _LUndercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2m) and/or overhanging vegetation extends at least 3.3 ft (Im) over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the unit, for at least 33 ft (!Om) __ Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (>30degree slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet turned grey/brown) __ At least \4 acre of thin-stemmed persistent vegetation or woody branches are present in areas that are permanently or seasonally inundated. (structures for egg-laying by amphibians) __ Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in each stratum of plants NOTE: The 20 % stated in early printings of the manual on page 78 is an error. igure~ 3 3 r-----------------------------------~----H 1. TOT AL Score -potential for providing habitat Add the scores from HJ.I, Hl.2, Hl.3, Hl.4, Hl.5 ~------------------------~--~-~-~---~----- 12 Comments Wetland Rating Form -western Washington 14 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 D Wetland name or number ··-- H 2. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to provide habitat for many species? H 2.1 Buffers (seep. 80) Figure_ Choose the description that best represents condition of buffer of wetland unit. The highest scoring criterion that applies to the wetland is to be used in the rating. See text for definition of "undisturbed. ·· -100 m (330ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water >95% of circumference. No structures are within the undisturbed part of buffer. (relatively undisturbed also means no-grazing, no landscaping, no daily human use) Points = 5 X 100 m (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas. rocky areas, or open water > 50% circumference. Points = 4 -50 m (170ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas. or open water >95% circumference. Points = 4 -100 m (330ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water> 25% circumference, . Points = 3 -50 m (170ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water for > 50% circumference. Points = 3 If buffer does not meet any of the criteria above -No paved areas (except paved trails) or buildings within 25 m (80ft) of wetland> 95% circumference. Light to moderate grazing. or lawns are OK. Points = 2 -No paved areas or buildings within 50m of wetland for >50% circumference. Light to moderate grazing. or lawns are OK. Points = 2 -Heavy grazing in buffer. Points= I -Vegetated buffers are <2m wide (6.6ft) for more than 95% of the circumference (e.g. tilled fields, paving. basalt bedrock extend to edge of wetland Points = 0. -Buffer does not meet any of the criteria above. Points = 1 4 Aerial photo showino buffers H 2.2 Corridors and Connections {seep. 81) H 2.2.1 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor (either riparian or upland) that is at least 150 ft wide, bas at least 30% cover of shrubs, forest or native undisturbed prairie, that connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 250 acres in size? (dams in riparian corridors, heavily used gravel roads, paved roads, are considered breaks in the corridor). YES = 4 points (go to H 2.3) NO = go to H 2.2.2 H 2.2.2 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor (either riparian or upland) that is at least 50ft wide, has at least 30% cover of shrubs or forest, and cormects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 25 acres in size? OR a Lake-fringe wetland, if it does not have an undisturbed corridor as in the question above? YES = 2 points (go to H 2.3) NO= H 2.2.3 H 2.2.3 Is the wetland: within 5 mi (8km) of a brackish or salt water estuary OR within 3 mi of a large field or pasture (>40 acres) OR within 1 mi of a lake greater than 20 acres? 2 YES= 1 point NO = 0 ooints 6 Total for page. __ _ Wetland Rating Form -western Washington 15 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 D Wetland name or number __ H 2.3 Near or adjacent to other priority habitats listed by WDFW (see new and complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which they can be found, in the PHS report http://wdfw.wa.gov/hab!phslist.htm) Which of the following priority habitats are within 330ft (100ml of the wetland unit? NOTE: the connections do not have to be relatively undisturbed. __ Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 0.4 ha (1 acre). _K_Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 152). __ Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock. __ Old-growth/Mature forests: (Old-growth west of Cascade crest) Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi-layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 20 trees/ha (8 trees/acre) > 81 cm (32 in) dbh or > 200 years of age. (Mature forests) Stands with average diameters exceeding 53 cm (21 in) dbh; crown cover may be less that 100%; crown cover may be less that 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old-growth; 80 -200 years old west of the Cascade crest. __ Oregon wWte Oak: Woodlands Stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component is important (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 15EI'/. __ Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other. __ Westside Prairies: Herbaceous, non-forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wet prairie (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 161). __ Instream: The combination of physical, biological. and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources. __ Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearshore, and Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WFW report: pp. 167-169 and glossary in Appendix A). __ Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils, rock, ice, or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human. __ Cliffs: Greater than 7.6 m (25 ft) high and occurring below 5000 ft. __ Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.15 -2.0 m (0.5 -6.5 ft), composed of basalt, andesite, and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs. __ Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of> 51 cm (20 in) in western Washington and are > 2 m (6.5 ft) in height. Priority logs are> 30 cm (12 in) in diameter at the largest end, and> 6 m (20 ft) long. If wetland has 3 or more priority habitats = 4 points If wetland has 2 priority habitats = 3 points If wetland has 1 priority habitat = 1 point No habitats = 0 points Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not induded in this list. Nearby wetlands are addressed in auestion H 2.4) Wetland Rating Form-western Washington 16 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 1 D Wetland name or number __ H 2.4 Wetland Landscape (choose the one description of the landscape around the wetland that best fits) (seep. 84} There are at least 3 other wetlands within ¥.! mile, and the connections between them are relatively undisturbed (light grazing between wetlands OK, as is lake shore with some boating, but connections should NOT be bisected by paved roads, fill, fields, or other development. points= 5 The wetland is Lake-fringe on a lake with little disturbance and there are 3 other lake-fringe wetlands within \12 mile points= 5 There are at least 3 other wetlands within ¥.! mile, BUT the connections between them are disturbed points= 3 The wetland is Lake-fringe on a lake with disturbance and there are 3 other lake-fringe wetland within 1h mile points= 3 There is at least 1 wetland within \12 mile. points= 2 There are no wetlands within ¥., mile. points= 0 H 2. TOT AL Score -opportunity for providing habitat Add the scores from H2.1,H2.2, H2.3, H2.4 TOTAL for H 1 from page 14 Total Score for Habitat Functions -add the points for H 1, H 2 and record the result on P. 1 Wetland Rating Form-western Washington 17 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 5 -----I 12 I I I ----- 12 ----- 24 Wetland name or number _D __ CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Please determine if the wetland meets the attributes described below and circle the appropriate answers and Category. Wetland Type Category Check off any criteria that apply to the wetland. Circle the Category when the aoorooriate criteria are met. SC 1.0 Estuarine wetlands {seep. 86} Does the wetland unit meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands? -The dominant water regime is tidal, -Vegetated, and -With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt. YES= Go to SC 1.1 NO.X SC 1.1 Is the wetland unit within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, Cat. I National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area Preserve, State Park or Educational, Environmental. or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332-30-151? YES = Catee:orv I X NO e:o to SC 1.2 SC 1.2 Is the wetland unit at least 1 acre in size and meets at least two of the following three conditions? YES = Category I NO = Category II Cat. I -The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, Cat. II cultivation, grazing, and has less than 10% cover of non-native plant species. If the non-native Spartina spp. are the only species that cover more than 10% of the wetland, then the wetland should be given a dual Dual rating (I/II). The area of Spartina would be rated a Category II while the rating relatively undisturbed upper marsh with native species would be a I/II Category I. Do not, however. exclude the area of Spartina in determining the size threshold of 1 acre. -At least % of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest. or un-grazed or un-mowed grassland. -The wetland has at least 2 of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or contiguous freshwater wetlands. Wetland Rating Form -western Washington 18 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 D Wetland name or number __ SC 2.0 Natural Heritage Wetlands (seep. 87} Natural Heritage wetlands have been identified by the Washington Natural Heritage Program/DNR as either high quality undisturbed wetlands or wetlands that support state Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive plant species. SC 2.1 Is the wetland unit being rated in a Section/Township/Range that contains a Natural Heritage wetland? (this question is used to screen out most sites before you need to contact WNHPIDNR) Sff/R information from Appendix D _ or accessed from WNHP/DNR web site _ YES __ -contact WNHP/DNR (see p. 79) and go to SC 2.2 NOX SC 2.2 Has DNR identified the wetland as a high quality undisturbed wetland or as or as a site with state threatened or endangered plant species? YES = Category I NO _x_not a Heritage Wetland SC 3.0 Bogs (seep. 87} Does the wetland unit (or any part of the unit} meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key below to identify if the wetland is a bog. If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. 1. Does the unit have organic soil horizons (i.e. layers of organic soil}, either peats or mucks, that compose 16 inches or more of the first 32 inches of the soil profile? (See Appendix B for a field key to identify organic soils)? Yes - go to Q. 3 X No -go to Q. 2 2. Does the unit have organic soils, either peats or mucks that are less than 16 inches deep over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on a lake or pond? Yes -go to Q. 3 X No -Is not a bog for purpose of rating 3. Does the unit have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, AND other plants, if present, consist of the "bog" species listed in Table 3 as a significant component of the vegetation (more than 30% of the total shrub and herbaceous cover consists of species in Table 3}? Yes -Is a bog for purpose of rating X No -go to Q. 4 NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory you may substitute that criterion by measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16" deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the "bog" plant species in Table 3 are present, the wetland is a bog. J. Is the unit forested (> 30% cover) with sitka spruce, subalpine fir, western red cedar, western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Englemann' s spruce, or western white pine, WITH any of the species (or combination of species} on the bog species plant list in Table 3 as a significant component of the ground cover ( > 30% coverage of the total shrub/herbaceous cover)? 2. YES = Category I NoX Is not a bog for purpose of rating Wetland Rating Form-western Washington 19 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Cat. I Cat. I D Wetland name or number __ SC 4.0 Forested Wetlands (seep. 90) Does the wetland unit have at least 1 acre of forest that meet one of these criteria for the Department of Fish and Wildlife's forests as priority habitats? lfyou answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. -Old-growth forests: (west of Cascade crest) Stands of at least two tree species, forming a multi-layered canopy with occasional small openings: with at least 8 trees/acre (20 trees/hectare) that are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 32 inches (81 cm) or more. NOTE: The criterion for dbh is based on measurements for upland forests. Two-hundred year old trees in wetlands will often have a smaller dbh because their growth rates are often slower. The DFW criterion is and "OR" so old-growth forests do not necessarily have to have trees of this diameter. -Mature forests: (west of the Cascade Crest) Stands where the largest trees are 80-200 years old OR have average diameters (dbh) exceeding 21 inches (53cm); crown cover may be less that 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old-growth. YES = Category I NO Xnot a forested wetland with special characteristics SC 5.0 Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons (seep. 91) Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wetland in a coastal lagoon? -The wetland lies in a depression adjacent to marine waters that is wholly or partially separated from marine waters by sandbanks, gravel banks, shingle, or, less frequently, rocks -The lagoon in which the wetland is located contains surface water that is saline or brackish (> 0.5 ppt) during most of the year in at least a portion of the lagoon (needs to be measured near the bottom) YES= Go to SC 5.1 NOX not a wetland in a coastal lagoon SC 5.1 Does the wetland meets all of the following three conditions? -The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing), and has less than 20% cover of invasive plant species (see list of invasive species on p. 74). -At least % of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un-mowed grassland. -The wetland is larger than 1/10 acre (4350 square feet) YES = Category I NO = Category II Wetland Rating Form -western Washington 20 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Cat. I Cat. I Cat. II D Wetland name or number __ SC 6.0 Interdunal Wetlands (seep. 93} Is the wetland unit west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? YES -go to SC 6.1 NO X not an interdunal wetland for rating If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. In practical terms that means the following geographic areas: • Long Beach Peninsula-lands west of SR 103 • Grayland-Westport-lands west of SR 105 • Ocean Shores-Copalis-lands west of SR 115 and SR 109 SC 6.1 Is the wetland one acre or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is once acre or larger? YES = Category II X NO -go to SC 6.2 Cat. II SC 6.2 Is the unit between 0.1 and l acre, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between O .1 and 1 acre? YES = Category III Cat. III Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics Choose the "highest" rating if wetland falls into several categories, and record on p. 1. If vou answered NO for all tvoes enter ''Not Annlicable" on o. l Wetland Rating Form -western Washington 21 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 August 2004 E Wetland name or number __ WETLAND RATING FORM-WESTERN WASHINGTON Version 2 -Updated July 2006 to increase accuracy and reproducibility among users Updated Oct 2008 with the new WDFW definitions for priority habitats Name of wetland (if knowo): _w_e_tl_a_nd_E ___________ Date of site visit: 0510612009 Rated by Adam Gale and Joe Pursley Trained by Ecology? YesXNo_ Date of training May 2oo 7 SEC: 29 TWNSHP: 24 N RNGE: ~ Is S/I'/R in Appendix D? Yes_ No_X Map of wetland unit: Figure__ Estimated size 0-1 Acre SUMMARY OF RA TING Category based on FUNCTIONS provided by wetland I_ II_ IIIX_ IV_ Category I = Score >= 70 Category II = Score 51-69 Category III = Score 30-50 Category IV = Score < 30 Score for Water Quality Functions 14 Score for Hydrologic Functions 24 1------1 Score for Habitat Functions 12 ..,_ __ ..,. TOT AL score for Functions so Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland I_ II_ Does not Apply X Final Category (,hoo~ th, "hlgh,'1" _,.., from •bo.e) D Summarvo fb asic in ormation a b out t e wet an h 1 d unit Wetland Unit has Special Wetland HGM Class Characteristics used for Ratirni Estuarine Deoressional 'x Natural Herita!'e Wetland Riverine Bog Lake-fringe Mature Forest Slone Old Growth Forest Flats Coastal Lagoon Freshwater Tidal Interdunal None of the above X Check if unit has multiple HGM classes present Wetland Rating Form -western Washington 1 August 2004 version 2 To be used with Ecology Publication 04-06-025 E Wetland name or number __ Does the wetland unit being rated meet any of the criteria below? If you answer YES to any of the questions below you will need to protect the wetland according to the regulations regarding the special characteristics found in the wetland. Check List for Wetlands That May Need Additional Protection YES (in addition to the orotection recommended for its cate1mrv) SP!. Has the wetland unit been documented as a habitat for any Federally listed Threatened or Endangered animal or plant species ([IE species)? For the purposes of this rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the annropriate state or federal database. SP2. Has the wetland unit been documented as habitat for any State listed Threatened or Endangered animal species? For the purposes of this rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the appropriate state database. Note: Wetlands with State listed plant species are categorized as Categorv I Natural Heritage Wetlands (seen. 19 of data form). SP3. Does the wetland unit contain individuals of Priority species listed by the f.WJFW for the state? SP4. Does the wetland unit have a local significance in addition to its functions? For example, the wetland has been identified in the Shoreline Master Program, the Critical Areas Ordinance, or in a local management plan as having special significance. To complete the next part of the data sheet you will need to determine the Hydrogeomorphic Class of the wetland being rated. NO X X X X The hydrogeomorphic classification groups wetlands into those that function in similar ways. This simplifies the questions needed to answer how well the wetland functions. The Hydrogeomorphic Class of a wetland can be determined using the key below. See p. 24 for more detailed instructions on classifying wetlands. Wetland Rating Form -western Washington 2 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 August 2004 E Wetland name or number __ Classification of Wetland Units in Western Washington If the hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated, you probably have a unit with multiple HGM classes. In this case, identify which hydrologic criteria in questions 1-7 apply, and go to Question 8. 1. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides (i.e. except during floods)? NO -go to 2 YES -the wetland class is Tidal Fringe If yes, is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)? YES -Freshwater Tidal Fringe NO -Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) If your wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands. If it is Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is rated as an Estuarine wetland. Wetlands that were called estuarine in the first and second editions of the rating system are called Salt Water Tidal Fringe in the Hydrogeomorphic Classification. Estuarine wetlands were categorized separately in the earlier editions, and this separation is being kept in this revision. To maintain consistency between editions, the term "Estuarine" wetland is kept. Please note, however, that the characteristics that define Category I and II estuarine wetlands have changed (see p. ) . 2. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is the only source (>90%) of water to it. Groundwater and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit. NO -go to 3 YES -The wetland class is Flats If your wetland can be classified as a "Flats" wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands. 3. Does the entire wetland unit meet both of the following criteria? _The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any vegetation on the surface) at least 20 acres (8 ha) in size; _At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m)? NO -go to 4 YES -The wetland class is Lake-fringe (Lacustrine Fringe) 4. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? _X_The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual), XThe water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks. __ The water leaves the wetland without being impounded? NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these type of wetlands except occasionally in very small and shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3ft diameter and Jess than I foot deep}. NO -go to 5 YES-The wetland class is Slope Wetland Rating Form -western Washington 3 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 August 2004 E Wetland name or number __ 5. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? __ The unit is in a valley, or stream channel, where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that stream or river __ The overbank flooding occurs at least once every two years. NOTE: The riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not flooding. NO -go to 6 YES -The wetland class is Riverine 6. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the surface, at some time during the year. This means that any outlet, if present, is higher than the interior of the wetland. NO -go to 7 YES -The wetland class is Depressional 7. Is the entire wetland unit located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbank flooding. The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to be maintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural outlet. NO -go to 8 YES -The wetland class is Depressional 8. Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM clases. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small stream within a depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENT AREAS IN THE UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify the appropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within your wetland. NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the class listed in column 2 is less than 10% of the unit; classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the total area. HGM Classes within the wetlarJd unit being rated HGMCJass to Usem Rating Slope + Riverine Riverine Slope + Depressional Deoressional Slope + Lake-fringe Lake-fringe Depressional + Riverine along stream within boundary Depressional Depressional + Lake-fringe Deoressional Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other class of freshwater Treat as ESTUARINE under wetland wetlands with special characteristics If you are unable still to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or if you have more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the rating. Wetland Rating Form -western Washington 4 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 August 2004 E Wetland name or number __ D Depressional and Flats Wetlands WATER QUALITY FUNCTIONS -Indicators that the wetland unit functions to imorove water aualitv D D 1. Does the wetland unit have the 11otential to improve water quality? D 1.1 Characteristics of surface water flows out of the wetland: D Unit is a depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) points= 3 Unit has an intermittently flowing. OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet points= 2 Unit has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted. surface outlet (permanently flowing) points= 1 Unit is a "flat'" depression (Q. 7 on key). or in the Flats class. with permanent surface outflow and no obvious natural outlet and/or outlet is a man-made ditch points= 1 (If ditch i.s not permanently flowing treat unit as "intermittently flowing··) Provide ohoto or drawinq S 1.2 The soil 2 inches below the surface {or duff layer) is clay or organic (use NRCS D definitions} YES points= 4 NO noints = 0 D 1.3 Characteristics of persistent vegetation (emergent, shrub, and/or forest Cowardin class) D Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, vegetation > = 95% of area points= 5 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, vegetation > = 1/2 of area points= 3 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation > = 1/10 of area points= 1 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation <1/10 of area points= 0 Man of Cowardin veaetation classes D 1.4 Characteristics of seasonal ponding or inundation. D This is the area of the wetland unit that is ponded for at least 2 months, but dries out sometime during the year. Do not count the area that is permanently ponded. Estimate area as the average condition 5 out of 10 yrs. Area seasonally ponded is > 'h total area of wetland points= 4 Area seasonally ponded is > \4 total area of wetland points= 2 Area seasonally ponded is < \4 total area of wetland points= 0 Mao of Hvdrooeriods D Total for D l Add the points in the boxes above D D 2. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to improve water quality? Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in groundwater or surface water coming into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams, lakes or groundwater downgradient from the wetland. Note which of the fo//owing conditions provide the sources of po//utants. A unit may have po/Ju/ants coming from several sources, but any single source would qualify as opportunity. -Grazing in the wetland or within 150 ft X Untreated stormwater discharges to wetland -Tilled fields or orchards within 150 ft of wetland -A stream or culvert discharges into wetland that drains developed areas, residential areas, farmed fields, roads, or clear-cut logging -Residential, urban areas, golf courses are within 150 ft of wetland -Wetland is fed by groundwater high in phosphorus or nitrogen -Other YES multinlier is 2 NO multinlier is I D TOTAL -Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from Dl by D2 Add score to table on o. 1 Wetland Rating Form -western Washington 5 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 August 2004 Points ( only 1 score per box) (see p.38} Figure_ 2 0 Figure_ 3 Figure_ 2 -----I 7 I -----(seep. 44} multiplier 2 -- 14 E Wetland name or number __ D Depressional and Flats Wetlands HYDRO LOGIC FUNCTIONS -Indicators that the wetland unit functions to reduce flooding and stream de1>radation D 3. Does the wetland unit have the [!Otential to reduce flooding and erosion? D D 3.1 Characteristics of surface water flows out of the wetland unit Unit is a depression with no surface water leaving it {no outlet) points= 4 Unit has an intermittently flowing. OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet points= 2 Unit is a "flat'" depression (Q. 7 on key), or in the Flats class, with permanent surface outflow and no obvious natural outlet and/or outlet is a man-made ditch points= 1 (If ditch is not permanently flowing treat unit as "intermittently flowing") Unit has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet (oermanently flowinu) ooints -0 D D 3.2 Depth of storage during wet periods Estimate the height of ponding above the bottom of the outlet. For units with no outlet measure from the surface of permanent water or deepest part {if dry). Marks of ponding are 3 ft or more above the surface or bottom of outlet points= 7 The wetland is a "headwater" wetland" points= 5 Marks of ponding between 2 ft to < 3 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points= 5 Marks are at least 0.5 ft to< 2 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points= 3 Unit is flat (yes to Q. 2 or Q. 7 on key) but has small depressions on the surface that trap water points= 1 Marks of ponding less than 0.5 ft points= 0 D D 3.3 Contribution of wetland unit to storage in the watershed Estimate the ratio of the area of upstream basin contributing surface water to the wetland to the area of the wetland unit itself. The area of the basin is less than 10 times the area of unit points= 5 The area of the basin is 10 to 100 times the area of the unit points= 3 The area of the basin is more than 100 times the area of the unit points= 0 Entire unit is in the FLATS class points= 5 D Total for D 3 Add the points in the boxes above D D 4. Does the wetland unit have the O[![!Ortunity to reduce flooding and erosion? Answer YES if the unit is in a location in the watershed where the flood storage, or reduction in water velocity, it provides helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows. Answer NO if the water coming into the wetland is controlled hy a structure such as flood gate, tide gate, flap valve, reservoir etc. OR you estimate that more than 90% of the water in the wetland is from groundwater in areas where damaging groundwater flooding does not occur. Note which of the following indicators of opportunity apply. -Wetland is in a headwater of a river or stream that has flooding problems -Wetland drains to a river or stream that has flooding problems -Wetland has no outlet and impounds surface runoff water that might otherwise flow into a river or stream that has flooding problems X Other Overflows to Lake Washington YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 D TOTAL -Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from D 3 by D 4 Add score to table on p. I Wetland Rating Form -western Washington 6 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 August 2004 Points (only 1 score per box) {see p.46) 2 7 3 -----I 12 I -----(seep. 49) multiplier 2 24 E Wetland name or number __ These questions apply to wedands of all HGM classes. HABITAT FUNCTIONS -Indicators that unit functions to provide important habitat H I. Does the wetland unit have the potential to provide habitat for many species? H 1.1 Vegetation structure (seep. 72) Check the lypes ofvegetalion classes present (as defined by Cowardin)-Size threshold for each class is !4 acre or more than I 0% of the area if unit is smaller than 2.5 acres. __ Aquatic bed __ Emergent plants ..X..Scrub/shrub (areas where shrubs have >30% cover) ..X..Forested (areas where trees have >30% cover) If the unit has a forested class check if: __ The forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub-canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, moss/ground-cover) that each cover 20% within the forested polygon Add the number ofvegetalion structures that qualiljr. If you have: Map of Cowardin vegetation classes H 1.2. Hydroperiods (seep. 73) 4 structures or more 3 structures 2 structures 1 structure points= 4 points= 2 points= 1 ooints -0 Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover more than I 0% of the wetland or !4 acre to count. (see text for descriptions of hydroperiods) ...L_Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present points= 3 points= 2 point= 1 points= 0 ...L_ Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present __ Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present ...L_Saturated only 1 type present __ Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland __ Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland __ Lake-fringe wetland = 2 points __ Freshwater tidal wetland= 2 points Map of hydroperiods H 1.3. Richness of Plant Species (seep. 75) Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ft 2• of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold) You do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian Mi/foil, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, If you counted: > 19 species List species below if you want to: 5 -19 species < 5 species ( different patches Canadian Thistle points= 2 points= 1 points= 0 Points (only l score per box) Figure _ Figure~ 2 1 4 Total for page __ _ Wetland Rating Form -western Washington 13 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 E Wetland name or number __ H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats (seep. 76} Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion between Cowardin vegetation classes (described in H I. I), or the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, medium, low, or none. C) 0 None = 0 points Low= I point Moderate = 2 points ~ a [riparian braided channels] High = 3 points NOTE: If you have four or more classes or three vegetation classes and open water the ratin is alwa s "hi ". Use ma of Cowardin v elation classes H 1.5. Special Habitat Features: (seep. 77) Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points you put into the next column. __ Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (>4in. diameter and 6 ft Jong). __ Standing snags (diameter at the bottom > 4 inches) in the wetland __ Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2m) and/or overhanging vegetation extends at least 3.3 ft (Im) over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the unit, for at least 33 ft (10m) __ Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (>30degree slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet turned grey/brown) __ At least \14 acre of thin-stemmed persistent vegetation or woody branches are present in areas that are permanently or seasonally inundated. (structures for egg-laying by amphibians) _x_ Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in each stratum of plants NOTE: The 20 % stated in early printings of the manual on page 78 is an error. igure_ 2 r-----------------------------------~---- H 1. TOTAL Score -potential for providing habitat Add the scores from Hl.l, Hl.2, Hl.3, Hl.4, Hl.5 ~-----------------------------------~----~ 7 Comments Wetland Rating Form -western Washington 14 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 E Wetland name or number __ H 2. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to provide habitat for many species? H 2.1 Buffers {seep. 80) Figure_ Choose the description that best represents condition of buffer of wetland unit. The highest scoring criterion that applies to the wetland is to be used in the rating. See text for definition of "undisturbed. '" -100 m (330ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water >95% of circumference. No structures are within the undisturbed part of buffer. (relatively undisturbed also means no-grazing, no landscaping, no daily human use) Points = 5 -100 m (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 50% circumference. Points = 4 -50 m (170ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water >95% circumference. Points = 4 -100 m (330ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 25% circumference, . Points= 3 -50 m (170ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water for > 50% circumference. Points = 3 If buffer does not meet any of the criteria above -No paved areas (except paved trails) or buildings within 25 m (80ft) of wetland > 95% circumference. Light to moderate grazing, or lawns are OK. Points= 2 -No paved areas or buildings within 50m of wetland for >50% circumference. Light to moderate grazing, or lawns are OK. Points = 2 -Heavy grazing in buffer. Points = 1 X Vegetated buffers are <2m wide (6.6ft) for more than 95% of the circumference (e.g. tilled fields, paving, basalt bedrock extend to edge of wetland Points = 0. -Buffer does not meet any of the criteria above. Points = 1 o Aerial ohoto showina buffers H 2.2 Corridors and Connections {seep. 81) H 2.2.1 Is the wetland part ofa relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor (either riparian or upland) that is at least 150 ft wide, has at least 30% cover of shrubs, forest or native undisturbed prairie, that connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 250 acres in size? (dams in riparian corridors, heavily used gravel roads, paved roads, are considered breaks in the corridor). YES = 4 points (go to H 2.3') NO = go to H 2.2.2 H 2.2.2 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor (either riparian or upland) that is at least 50ft wide, has at least 30% cover of shrubs or forest, and connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 25 acres in size? OR a Lake-fringe wetland, if it does not have an undisturbed corridor as in the question above? YES = 2 points (go to H 2.3') NO = H 2.2.3 H 2.2.3 Is the wetland: within 5 mi (8km) of a brackish or salt water estuary OR within 3 mi of a large field or pasture (>40 acres) OR within 1 mi of a lake greater than 20 acres? 1 YES = 1 point NO = 0 points 1 Total for page. __ _ Wetland Rating Form -western Washington 15 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 E Wetland name or number __ H 2.3 Near or adjacent to other priority habitats listed by WDFW (see new and complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which they can be found, in the PHS report http://wdfw.wa.gov/hab!phslist.htm) Which of the following priority habitats are within 330ft (100m) of the wetland unit? NOTE: the connections do not have to be relatively undisturbed. __ Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 0.4 ha (I acre). LBiodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 15Z). __ Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock. __ Old-growth/Mature forests: (Old-growth west of Cascade crest) Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi-layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 20 trees/ha (8 trees/acre) > 81 cm (32 in) dbh or> 200 years of age. (Mature forests) Stands with average diameters exceeding 53 cm (21 in) dbh; crown cover may be less that 100%; crown cover may be less that 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old-growth; 80 -200 years old west of the Cascade crest. __ Oregon white Oak: Woodlands Stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component is important (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 158). __ Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other. __ Westside Prairies: Herbaceous, non-forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wet prairie (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 161). __ Instream: The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources. __ Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearshore, and Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WDFW report: pp. 167-169 and glossary in Appendix A). __ Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils, rock, ice, or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human. __ Cliffs: Greater than 7.6 m (25 ft) high and occurring below 5000 ft. __ Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.15 -2.0 m (0.5 -6.5 ft), composed of basalt, andesite, and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs. __ Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of> 51 cm (20 in) in western Washington and are> 2 m (6.5 ft) in height. Priority logs are> 30 cm (12 in) in diameter at the largest end, and> 6 m (20 ft) long. If wetland has 3 or more priority habitats = 4 points If wetland has 2 priority habitats = 3 points If wetland has I priority habitat = 1 point No habitats = 0 points Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list. Nearby wetlands are addressed in question H 2. 4) Wetland Rating Form -western Washington 16 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 E Wetland name or number __ H 2.4 Wetland Landscape {choose the one descriptioo of the landscape around the wetland tl1at best fits) (seep. 84} There are al least 3 oilier wetlands within l'2 mile, and the connections between them are relatively undisturbed (light grazing between wetlands OK, as is lake shore wiili some boating, but connections should NOT be bisected by paved roads, fill, fields, or other development. points= 5 The wetland is Lake-fringe on a lake with little disturbance and iliere are 3 other lake-fringe wetlands wiiliin 1'2 mile points= 5 There are at least 3 oilier wetlands within l'2 mile, BUT ilie connections between them are disturbed points= 3 The wetland is Lake-fringe on a lake with disturbance and iliere are 3 other lake-fringe wetland within ¥2 mile points= 3 There is at least 1 wetland within l'2 mile. points= 2 There are no wetlands wiiliin 1'2 mile. points= 0 H 2. TOTAL Score -opportunity for providing habitat Add the scores from H2.1,H2.2, H2.3, H2.4 TOT AL for H 1 from page 14 Total Score for Habitat Functions -add the points for H 1, H 2 and record the result on J). 1 Wetland Rating Form -western Washington 17 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 3 -----I 5 I I I ----- 7 ----- 12 E Wetland name or number __ CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Please determine if the wetland meets the attributes described below and circle the appropriate answers and Category. Wetland Type Category Check off any criteria that apply to the wetland. Circle the Category when the aooropriate criteria are met. SC 1.0 Estuarine wetlands (seep. 86) Does the wetland unit meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands? -The dominant water regime is tidal, -Vegetated, and -With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt. YES= Go to SC 1.1 NO_x SC 1.1 Is the wetland unit within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, Cat. I National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area Preserve, State Park or Educational, Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332-30-151? YES = Category I X NO go to SC 1.2 SC 1.2 Is the wetland unit at least I acre in size and meets at least two of the following three conditions? YES = Category I NO = Category II Cat. I -The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, Cat. II cultivation, grazing, and has less than 10% cover of non-native plant species. If the non-native Spartina spp. are the only species that cover more than 10% of the wetland, then the wetland should be given a dual Dual rating (VII). The area of Spartina would be rated a Category II while the rating relatively undisturbed upper marsh with native species would be a I/II Category I. Do not, however, exclude the area of Spartina in determining the size threshold of 1 acre. -At least % of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un-mowed grassland. -The wetland has at least 2 of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or contiguous freshwater wetlands. Wetland Rating Farm -western Washington 18 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 E Wetland name or number __ SC 2.0 Natural Heritage Wetlands (seep. 87} Natural Heritage wetlands have been identified by the Washington Natural Heritage Program/DNR as either high quality undisturbed wetlands or wetlands that support state Threatened. Endangered. or Sensitive plant species. SC 2.1 Is the wetland unit being rated in a Sectionfrownship/Range that contains a Natural Heritage wetland? (this question is used to screen out most sites before you need to contact WNHPIDNR) S/T/R information from Appendix D _ or accessed from WNHP/DNR web site _ YES __ -contact WNHP/DNR (seep. 79) and go to SC 2.2 NOX SC 2.2 Has DNR identified the wetland as a high quality undisturbed wetland or as or as a site with state threatened or endangered plant species? YES = Category I NO _x_not a Heritage Wetland SC 3.0 Bogs (seep. 87) Does the wetland unit (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key below to identify if the wetland is a bog. If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. 1. Does the unit have organic soil horizons (i.e. layers of organic soil). either peats or mucks, that compose 16 inches or more of the first 32 inches of the soil profile? (See Appendix B for a field key to identify organic soils)? Yes - go to Q. 3 X No -go to Q. 2 2. Does the unit have organic soils, either peats or mucks that are less than 16 inches deep over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on a lake or pond? Yes -go to Q. 3 X No -Is not a bog for purpose of rating 3. Does the unit have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, AND other plants, if present, consist of the "bog" species listed in Table 3 as a significant component of the vegetation (more than 30% of the total shrub and herbaceous cover consists of species in Table 3)? Yes-Is a bog for purpose ofrating X No -go to Q. 4 NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory you may substitute that criterion by measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16" deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the "bog" plant species in Table 3 are present, the wetland is a bog. 1. Is the unit forested (> 30% cover) with sitka spruce, subalpine fir, western red cedar, western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Englemann's spruce, or western white pine, WITH any of the species (or combination of species) on the bog species plant list in Table 3 as a significant component of the ground cover { > 30% coverage of the total shrub/herbaceous cover}? 2. YES= Category I NoX Is not a bog for purpose of rating Wetland Rating Form -western Washington 19 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Cat. I Cat. I E Wetland name or number __ SC 4.0 Forested Wetlands (seep. 90} Does the wetland unit have at least 1 acre of forest that meet one of these criteria for the Department of Fish and Wildlife's forests as priority habitats? If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. -Old-growth forests: (west of Cascade crest) Stands of at least two tree species, forming a multi-layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/acre (20 trees/hectare) that are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 32 inches (81 cm) or more. NOTE: The criterion for dbh is based on measurements for upland forests. Two-hundred year old trees in wetlands will often have a smaller dbh because their growth rates are often slower. The DFW criterion is and "OR" so old-growth forests do not necessarily have to have trees of this diameter. -Mature forests: (west of the Cascade Crest) Stands where the largest trees are 80 -200 years old OR have average diameters (dbh) exceeding 21 inches (53cm); crown cover may be less that 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old-growth. YES = Category I NO Xnot a forested wetland with special characteristics SC 5.0 Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons (seep. 91} Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wetland in a coastal lagoon? -The wetland lies in a depression adjacent to marine waters that is wholly or partially separated from marine waters by sandbanks, gravel banks, shingle, or, less frequently, rocks -The lagoon in which the wetland is located contains surface water that is saline or brackish (> 0.5 ppt) during most of the year in at least a portion of the lagoon (needs to be measured near the bottom} YES= Go to SC 5.1 NOX not a wetland in a coastal lagoon SC 5.1 Does the wetland meets all of the following three conditions? -The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing), and has less than 20% cover of invasive plant species (see list of invasive species on p. 74). -At least :Y. of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un-mowed grassland. -The wetland is larger than 1/10 acre (4350 square feet) YES = Category I NO = Category II Wetland Rating Form -western Washington 20 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Cat. I Cat. I Cat. II E Wetland name or number __ SC 6.0 Interdunal Wetlands {seep. 93) Is the wetland unit west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? YES -go to SC 6.1 NO X not an interdunal wetland for rating If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. In practical terms that means the following geographic areas: • Long Beach Peninsula-lands west of SR 103 • Grayland-Westport-lands west of SR 105 • Ocean Shores-Copalis-lands west of SR 115 and SR 109 SC 6.1 Is the wetland one acre or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is once acre or larger? YES = Category II X NO -go to SC 6.2 SC 6.2 Is the unit between 0.1 and 1 acre, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between O .I and 1 acre? YES = Category III Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics Choose the "highest" rating if wetland falls into several categories, and record on p.1. If vou answered NO for all types enter "Not Aonlicable" on o.1 Wetland Rating Form -western Washington 21 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 August 2004 Cat. II Cat. III F Wetland name or number __ WETLAND RATING FORM-WESTERN WASHINGTON Version 2 -Updated July 2006 to increase accuracy and reproducibility among users Updated Oct 2008 with the new WDFW definitions for priority habitats Name of wetland (if known): _w_e_ll_a_nd_F ___________ Date of site visit: 0510612009 Rated by Adam Gale and Joe Pursley Trained by Ecology? YesXNo_ Date of training May 2oo 7 SEC: 29 TWNSHP: 24 N RNGE: ~ Is S/f/R in Appendix D? Yes_ No2{ Map of wetland unit: Figure__ Estimated size 0 -1 Acre SUMMARY OF RA TING Category based on FUNCTIONS provided by wetland I_ II_ IIIX IV_ Category I = Score >= 70 Category II = Score 51-69 Category III = Score 30-50 Category IV = Score < 30 Score for Water Quality Functions 12 Score for Hydrologic Functions 8 .._ __ ___, Score for Habitat Functions 15 ----....i TOTAL score for Functions 35 Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland I_ II_ Does not Apply X Final Category (d>-lh, "lrlgb..t" at,go,y from ,oov,) D Summarvo fb h asic in ormation about t e wetland unit Wetland Unit has Special Wetland HGM Class Characterlstics used for Rating Estuarine Deoressional Natural Heritage Wetland Riverine Bo!! Lake-fringe X Mature Forest Slone Old Growth Forest Flats Coastal La!!oon Freshwater Tidal Interdunal None of the above X Check if unit has multiple X HGM classes present Wetland Rating Form -western Washington August 2004 version 2 To be used with Ecology Publication 04-06-025 ,,, F Wetland name or number ~- Does the wetland unit being rated meet any of the criteria below? If you answer YES to any of the questions below you will need to protect the wetland according to the regulations regarding the special characteristics found in the wetland. Check List for Wetlands That May Need Additional Protection YES (in addition to the orotection recommended for its catei,orv) SP!. Has the wetland unit been documented as a habitat for any Federally listed Threatened or Endangered animal or plant species (TIE species)? For the purposes of this rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the annrooriate state or federal database. SP2. Has the wetland unit been documented as habitat for any State listed Threatened or Endangered animal species? For the purposes of this rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the appropriate state database. Note: Wetlands with State listed plant species are cate1mrized as Cateeorv I Natural Heritaee Wetlands (seen. 19 of data form). SP3. Does the wetland unit contain individuals of Priority species listed by the J,J,VFW for the state? SP4. Does the wetland unit have a local significance in addition to its functions? For example, the wetland has been identified in the Shoreline Master Program, the Critical Areas Ordinance, or in a local management plan as having special significance. To complete the next part of the data sheet you will need to determine the Hydrogeomorphic Class of the wetland being rated. NO X X X X The hydrogeomorphic classification groups wetlands into those that function in similar ways. This simplifies the questions needed to answer how well the wetland functions. The Hydrogeomorphic Class of a wetland can be determined using the key below. Seep. 24 for more detailed instructions on classifying wetlands. Wetland Rating Form -western Washington 2 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 August 2004 F Wetland name or number __ Classification of Wetland Units in Western Washington If the hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated, you probably have a unit with multiple HGM classes. In this case, identify which hydrologic criteria in questions 1-7 apply, and go to Question 8. 1. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides (i.e. except during floods)? NO -go to 2 YES -the wetland class is Tidal Fringe If yes, is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)? YES -Freshwater Tidal Fringe NO -Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) If your wetland can be classilied as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands. If it is Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is rated as an Estuarine wetland. Wetlands that were called estuarine in the first and second editions of the rating system are called Salt Water Tidal Fringe in the Hydrogeomorphic Classification. Estuarine wetlands were categorized separately in the earlier editions, and this separation is being kept in this revision. To maintain consistency between editions, the term "Estuarine" wetland is kept. Please note, however, that the characteristics that define Category I and II estuarine wetlands have changed (see p. ) . 2. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is the only source (>90%) of water to it. Groundwater and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit. NO -go to 3 YES -The wetland class is Flats If your wetland can be classified as a "Flats" wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands. 3. Does the entire wetland unit meet both of the following criteria? X The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any vegetation on the surface) at least 20 acres (8 ha) in size; X At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m)? NO -go to 4 YES -The wetland class is Lake-fringe (Lacustrine Fringe) 4. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? _X_The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual), XThe water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks. _X_The water leaves the wetland without being impounded? NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these type of wetlands except occasionally in very small and shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3ft diameter and Jess than 1 foot deep). NO -go to 5 YES -The wetland class is Slope Wetland Rating Form -western Washington 3 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 August 2004 F Wetland name or number __ 5. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? __ The unit is in a valley, or stream channel, where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that stream or river __ The overbank flooding occurs at least once every two years. NOTE: The riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not flooding. NO -go to 6 YES -The wetland class is Riverine 6. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the surface, at some time during the year. This means that any outlet, if present, is higher than the interior of the wetland. NO -go to 7 YES -The wetland class is Depressional 7. Is the entire wetland unit located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbank flooding. The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to be maintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural outlet. NO -go to 8 YES -The wetland class is Depressional 8. Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM clases. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small stream within a depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENT AREAS IN THE UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify the appropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within your wetland. NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents I 0% or more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the class listed in column 2 is less than 10% of the unit; classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the total area. HGM Classes Within the wetlatid unit.beinH rated HGMCJassto Use i.n Rati11H Slope + Riverine Riverine Slope + Depressional Depressional Slope + Lake-fringe Lake-fringe Depressional + Riverine along stream within boundary Depressional Depressional + Lake-fringe Depressional Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other class of freshwater Treat as ESTUARINE under wetland wetlands with special characteristics If you are unable still to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or if you have more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the rating. Wetland Rating Form -western Washington 4 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 August 2004 F Wetland name or number __ _ L Lake-fringe Wetlands WATER QUALITY FUNCTIONS -Indicators that the wetland unit functions to imnrove water aualitv L L 1. Does the wetland unit have the QOtential to improve water quality? L L I. I Average width of vegetation along the lakeshore {use polygons of Cowardin classes): Vegetation is more than 33ft (!Om) wide points= 6 Vegetation is more than 16 (Sm) wide and <33ft points= 3 Vegetation is more than 6ft (2m) wide and <16 ft points = I Vegetation is less than 6 ft wide points= 0 Mao of Coward in classes with widths marked L L 1.2 Characteristics of the vegetation in the wetland: choose the appropriate description that results in the highest points, and do not include any open water in your estimate of coverage. The herbaceous plants can be either the dominant form or as an understory in a shrub or forest community. These are not Cowardin classes. Area of Cover is total cover in the unit, but it can be in patches. NOTE: Herbaceous does not include aquatic bed. Cover of herbaceous plants is >90% of the vegetated area points= 6 Cover of herbaceous plants is >2/3 of the vegetated area points= 4 Cover of herbaceous plants is > 1/3 of the vegetated area points= 3 Other vegetation that is not aquatic bed or herbaceous covers > 2/3 unit points= 3 Other vegetation that is not aquatic bed in > 1/3 vegetated area points= I Aquatic bed vegetation and open water cover > 2/3 of the unit points= 0 Mao with oolvnons of different veaetation tvoes L Add the points in the boxes above I L L 2. Does the wetland have the OQQOrtunity to improve water quality? Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in the lake water, or polluted surface water flowing through the unit to the lake. Note which of the following conditions provide the sources of pollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming from several sources, but any single source would qualify as opportunity. X Wetland is along the shores of a lake or reservoir that does not meet water quality standards -Grazing in the wetland or within 150ft -Polluted water discharges to wetland along upland edge -Tilled fields or orchards within 150 feet of wetland -Residential or urban areas are within 150 ft of wetland -Parks with grassy areas that are maintained, ballfields, golf courses (all within X 150 ft. of lake shore) Power boats with gasoline or diesel engines use the lake -Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multiolier is 1 L TOT AL -Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from L 1 by L2 Add score to table on TJ. 1 Comments Wetland Rating Form -western Washington 9 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 August 2004 Points {only 1 score per box) (see p.59} Figure_ 1 Figure_ 3 ----- 4 I -----(see p.61} multiplier 2 -- 8 F Wetland name or number __ L Lake-fringe Wetlands HYDROLOGIC FUNCTIONS -Indicators tlJat the wetland unit functions to reduce shoreline erosion ... L L 3. Does the wetland unit have the QOtential to reduce shoreline erosion? L L 3 Distance along shore and average width of Cowardin classes along the lakeshore (do not include aquatic bed): (choose the highest scoring description that matches conditions in the wedand} > % of distance is shrubs or forest at least 33 ft (10m) wide points= 6 > % of distance is shrubs or forest at least 6 ft. (2 m) wide points= 4 > 1/.i distance is shrubs or forest at least 33 ft (10m) wide points= 4 Vegetation is at least 6 ft (2m) wide (any type except aquatic bed) points= 2 Vegetation is less than 6 ft (2m) wide (any type except aquatic bed) points= 0 Aerial ohoto or mao with Cowardin veaetation classes L Record the points from the box above L L 4. Does the wetland unit have the OQQOrtunity to reduce erosion? Are there features along the shore that will be impacted if the shoreline erodes? Note which of the following conditions apply. X There are human structures and activities along the upland edge of the wetland (buildings, fields) that can be damaged by erosion. -There are undisturbed natural resources along the upland edge of the wetland (e.g. mature forests other wetlands) than can be damaged by shoreline erosion -Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is I L TOTAL -Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from L 3 by L 4 Add score to table on p. 1 Comments Wetland Rating Form -western Washington I 0 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Points (only 1 score per box) (see p.62) Figure_ 4 -----I 4 I -----(see p.63) multiplier 2 8 F Wetland name or number~- These questions apply to wedands of all HGM classes. HABITAT FUNCTIONS -Indicators that unit functions to provide important habitat H l. Does the wetland unit have the potential to provide habitat for many species? H 1.1 Vegetation structure (seep. 72) Check the types of vegetation classes present (as defined by Cowardin}-Size threshold for each class is !4 acre or more than 10% of the area if unit is smaller than 2.5 acres. __ Aquatic bed _x_Emergent plants _x_scrub/shrub (areas where shrubs have >30% cover) __ Forested (areas where trees have >30% cover) If the unit has a forested class check if: __ The forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub-canopy, shrubs. herbaceous, moss/ground-cover) that each cover 20% within the forested polygon Add the number of vegetation structures that qualify. If you have: Map of Cowardin vegetation classes H 1.2. Hydroperiods (seep. 73} 4 structures or more 3 structures 2 structures 1 structure points= 4 points= 2 points = 1 noints -0 Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wedand. The water regime has to cover more than 10% of the wedand or !4 acre to count. (see text for descriptions of hydroperiods) __ Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present __ Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present __ Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present __ Saturated only 1 type present __ Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland __ Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland points= 3 points= 2 point= 1 points= 0 ___x_ Lake-fringe wetland = 2 points __ Freshwater tidal wetland= 2 points Map of hydroperiods H 1.3. Richness of Plant Species (seep. 75) Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ft 2• (different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold) You do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian Mi/foil, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, Canadian Thisde If you counted: > 19 species List species below if you want to: 5 -19 species < 5 species points= 2 points= 1 points= 0 Points (only 1 sr.ore pcr box) Figure~ 1 Figure~ 2 4 Total for page __ _ Wetland Rating Form -western Washington 13 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 F Wetland name or number __ H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats (seep. 76) Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion between Cowardin vegetation classes (described in H I.I). or the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, medium, low, or none. C) 0 None = 0 points Low= I point Moderate = 2 points ~ High = 3 points [riparian braided channels] NOTE: If you have four or more classes or three vegetation classes and open water the ratin is alwa s "hi ". Use ma of Cowardin ve elation classes H 1.5. Special Habitat Features: (seep. 77) Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points you put into the next column. __ Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (>4in. diameter and 6 ft long). __ Standing snags (diameter at the bottom> 4 inches) in the wetland XUndercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2m) and/or overhanging vegetation extends at least 3.3 ft (Im) over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the unit, for at least 33 ft (tom) __ Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (>30degree slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present {cut shrubs or trees that have not yet turned grey/brown) __ At least 14 acre of thin-stemmed persistent vegetation or woody branches are present in areas that are permanently or seasonally inundated.(stroctures for egg-laying by amphibians) __ Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in each stratum of plants NOTE: The 20 % stated in early printings of the manual on page 78 is an error. igure_ 1 1 r-----------------------------------p---- H 1. TOT AL Score -potential for providing habitat Add the scores from HJ.I, Hl.2, Hl.3, Hl.4, Hl.5 ~------------------------~--~-~-~---~----~ 6 Comments Wetland Rating Form-western Washington 14 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 F Wetland name or number __ H 2. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to provide habitat for many species? H 2.1 Buffers (seep. 80} Figure_ Choose the description that best represents condition of buffer of wetland unit. The highest scoring criterion that applies to the wetland is to be used in the rating. See text for definition of "undisturbed. " -100 m (330ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water >95% of circumference. No structures are within the undisturbed part of buffer. (relatively undisturbed also means no-grazing, no landscaping, no daily human use) Points = 5 -100 m (330 ft) ofrelatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 50% circumference. Points = 4 -50 m (170ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water >95% circumference. Points = 4 -100 m (330ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 25% circumference, . Points = 3 -50 m (170ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water for> 50% circumference. Points = 3 If buffer does not meet any of the criteria above -No paved areas (except paved trails) or buildings within 25 m (80ft) of wetland > 95% circumference. Light to moderate grazing, or lawns are OK. Points = 2 -No paved areas or buildings within 50m of wetland for >50% circumference. Light to moderate grazing, or lawns are OK. Points = 2 -Heavy grazing in buffer. Points= 1 -Vegetated buffers are <2m wide (6.6ft) for more than 95% of the circumference (e.g. tilled fields, paving, basalt bedrock extend to edge of wetland Points = 0. X Buffer does not meet any of the criteria above. Points = 1 1 Aerial photo showinQ buffers H 2.2 Corridors and Connections {seep. 81) H 2.2.1 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor (either riparian or upland) that is at least 150 ft wide, has at least 30% cover of shrubs, forest or native undisturbed prairie, that connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 250 acres in size? (dams in riparian corridors, heavily used gravel roads, paved roads, are considered breaks in the corridor). YES = 4 points (go to H 2.:J'i NO =goto H 2.2.2 H 2.2.2 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor (either riparian or upland) that is at least 50ft wide, has at least 30% cover of shrubs or forest, and connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 25 acres in size? OR a Lake-fringe wetland, if it does not have an undisturbed corridor as in the question above? YES = 2 points (go to H 2.:J'i NO = H 2.2.3 H 2.2.3 Is the wetland: within 5 mi (8km) of a brackish or salt water estuary OR within 3 mi of a large field or pasture (>40 acres) OR within 1 mi of a lake greater than 20 acres? 2 YES = I point NO= 0 points 3 Total for page __ _ Wetland Rating Form-western Washington 15 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 F Wetland name or number __ H 2.3 Near or adjacent to other priority habitats listed by WDFW (see new and complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which they can be found, in the PHS report http://wdfw. wa.govlhablphslist.htm) Which of the following priority habitats are within 330ft (1 OOm) of the wetland unit? NOTE: the connections do not have to be relatively undisturbed. __ Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 0.4 ha (1 acre). _K_Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 152). __ Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock. __ Old-growth/Mature forests: (Old-growth west of Cascade crest) Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi-layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 20 trees/ha (8 trees/acre) > 81 cm (32 in) dbh or> 200 years of age. {Mature forests) Stands with average diameters exceeding 53 cm (21 in) dbh; crown cover may be less that 100%; crown cover may be less that 100%; decay. decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old-growth; 80 · 200 years old west of the Cascade crest. __ Oregon white Oak: Woodlands Stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component is important (full descriptions in WFW PHS report p. 158). __ Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other. __ Westside Prairies: Herbaceous, non-forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wet prairie (full descriptions in WFW PHS report p. 161). __ lnstream: The combination of physical, biological. and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources. __ Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearshore, and Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WFW report: pp. 167-169 and glossary in Appendix A). __ Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils, rock, ice, or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human. __ Cliffs: Greater than 7.6 m (25 ft) high and occurring below 5000 ft. __ Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.15 · 2.0 m (0.5 · 6.5 ft). composed of basalt, andesite, and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs. __ Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of> 51 cm (20 in) in western Washington and are> 2 m (6.5 ft) in height. Priority logs are> 30 cm (12 in) in diameter at the largest end, and> 6 m (20 ft) long. If wetland has 3 or more priority habitats = 4 points If wetland has 2 priority habitats = 3 points If wetland has 1 priority habitat = 1 point No habitats = 0 points Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not induded in this list. Nearbv wetlands are addressed in auestion H 2.4} Wetland Rating Form -western Washington 16 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 1 F Wetland name or number -~ H 2.4 Wetland Landscape (choose the one description of the landscape around the wetland that best fits) {seep. 84) There are at least 3 other wetlands within 1'2 mile, and the connections between them are relatively undisturbed (light grazing between wetlands OK, as is lake shore with some boating, but connections should NOT be bisected by paved roads, fill, fields, or other development. points= 5 The wetland is Lake-fringe on a lake with little disturbance and there are 3 other lake-fringe wetlands within 1'2 mile points= 5 There are at least 3 other wetlands within 1h mile, BUT the connections between them are disturbed points= 3 The wetland is Lake-fringe on a lake with disturbance and there are 3 other lake-fringe wetland within \12 mile points= 3 There is at least I wetland within 1h mile. points= 2 There are no wetlands within \12 mile. points= 0 H 2. TOTAL Score -opportunity for providing habitat Add the scores from H2.1,H2.2, H2.3, H2.4 TOTAL for H 1 from page 14 Total Score for Habitat Functions -add the points for H 1, H 2 and record the result on o. 1 Wetland Rating Form-western Washington 17 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 5 -----I 9 I I I ----- 6 ----- 15 F Wetland name or number __ CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Please determine if the wetland meets the attributes described below and circle the appropriate answers and Category. Wetland Type Category Check off any criteria that apply to the wedand. Circle the Category when the avvropriate criteria are met. SC LO Estuarine wetlands (seep. 86) Does the wetland unit meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands? -The dominant water regime is tidal, -Vegetated, and -With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt. YES= Goto SC 1.1 NOX SC 1.1 Is the wetland unit within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, Cat. I National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area Preserve, State Park or Educational, Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332-30-151? YES = Category I X NO go to SC 1.2 SC 1.2 Is the wetland unit at least l acre in size and meets at least two of the following three conditions? YES = Category I NO = Category II Cat. I -The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, Cat. II cultivation, grazing, and has less than 10% cover of non-native plant species. If the non-native Spartina spp. are the only species that cover more than 10% of the wetland, then the wetland should be given a dual Dual rating (I/II). The area of Spartina would be rated a Category II while the rating relatively undisturbed upper marsh with native species would be a I/II Category I. Do not, however, exclude the area of Spartina in determining the size threshold of 1 acre. -At least 'lit of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un-mowed grassland. -The wetland has at least 2 of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or contiguous freshwater wetlands. Wetland Rating Form -western Washington 18 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 F Wetland name or number __ SC 2.0 Natural Heritage Wetlands (seep. 87) Natural Heritage wetlands have been identified by the Washington Natural Heritage Program/DNR as either high quality undisturbed wetlands or wetlands that support state Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive plant species. SC 2.1 Is the wetland unit being rated in a Section/Township/Range that contains a Natural Heritage wetland? (this question is used to screen out most sites before you need to contact WNHPIDNR) Sff/R information from Appendix D _ or accessed from WNHP/DNR web site _ YES~ -contact WNHP/DNR (seep. 79) and go to SC 2.2 NOX SC 2.2 Has DNR identified the wetland as a high quality undisturbed wetland or as or as a site with state threatened or endangered plant species? YES = Category I NO _x_not a Heritage Wetland SC 3.0 Bogs (seep. 87} Does the wetland unit (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key below to identify if the wetland is a bog. If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. 1. Does the unit have organic soil horizons (i.e. layers of organic soil), either peats or mucks, that compose 16 inches or more of the first 32 inches of the soil profile? (See Appendix B for a field key to identify organic soils)? Yes - go to Q. 3 X No -go to Q. 2 2. Does the unit have organic soils, either peats or mucks that are less than 16 inches deep over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on a lake or pond? Yes -go to Q. 3 X No -Is not a bog for purpose of rating 3. Does the unit have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, AND other plants, if present, consist of the "bog" species listed in Table 3 as a significant component of the vegetation (more than 30% of the total shrub and herbaceous cover consists of species in Table 3)? Yes -Is a bog for purpose ofrating X No -go to Q. 4 NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory you may substitute that criterion by measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16" deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the "bog" plant species in Table 3 are present, the wetland is a bog. J. Is the unit forested (> 30% cover) with sitka spruce, subalpine fir, western red cedar, western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Englemann's spruce, or western white pine, WITH any of the species (or combination of species) on the bog species plant list in Table 3 as a significant component of the ground cover (> 30% coverage of the total shrub/herbaceous cover}? 2. YES= Category I NoL Is not a bog for purpose of rating Wetland Rating Form -western Washington 19 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Cat. I Cat. I F Wetland name or number __ SC 4.0 Forested Wetlands (seep. 90} Does the wetland unit have at least 1 acre of forest that meet one of these criteria for the Department of Fish and Wildlife's forests as priority habitats? lfyou answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. -Old-growth forests: (west of Cascade crest) Stands of at least two tree species, forming a multi-layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/acre (20 trees/hectare) that are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 32 inches {81 cm) or more. NOTE: The criterion for dbh is based on measurements for upland forests. Two-hundred year old trees in wetlands will often have a smaller dbh because their growth rates are often slower. The DFW criterion is and "OR" so old-growth forests do not necessarily have to have trees of this diameter. -Mature forests: (west of the Cascade Crest) Stands where the largest trees are 80 -200 years old OR have average diameters (dbh) exceeding 21 inches {53cm); crown cover may be less that 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old-growth. YES = Category I NO X not a forested wetland with special characteristics SC 5.0 Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons (seep. 91} Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wetland in a coastal lagoon? -The wetland lies in a depression adjacent to marine waters that is wholly or partially separated from marine waters by sandbanks, gravel banks, shingle, or, less frequently, rocks -The lagoon in which the wetland is located contains surface water that is saline or brackish (> 0.5 ppt) during most of the year in at least a portion of the lagoon (needs to be measured near the bottom) YES= Go to SC 5.1 NOX not a wetland in a coastal lagoon SC 5.1 Does the wetland meets all of the following three conditions? -The wetland is relatively undisturbed {has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing), and has less than 20% cover of invasive plant species (see list of invasive species on p. 74). -At least % of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un-mowed grassland. -The wetland is larger than 1/10 acre {4350 square feet) YES = Category I NO = Category II Wetland Rating Form -western Washington 20 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Cat. I Cat. I Cat. II F Wetland name or number __ SC 6.0 Interdunal Wetlands (seep. 93} Is the wetland unit west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? YES -go to SC 6.1 NO X not an interdunal wetland for rating If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. In practical terms that means the following geographic areas: • Long Beach Peninsula-lands west of SR 103 • Grayland-Westport-lands west of SR 105 • Ocean Shores-Copalis-lands west of SR 115 and SR 109 SC 6.1 Is the wetland one acre or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is once acre or larger? YES = Category II X NO -go to SC 6.2 Cat. II SC 6.2 Is the unit between 0.1 and 1 acre, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and 1 acre? YES = Category III Cat. III Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics · .. Choose the "highest" rating if wetland falls into several categories, and record on p. I. If vou answered NO for all tvoes enter "Not Annlicable" on o.1 Wetland Rating Form-western Washington 21 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 August 2004 G Wetland name or number __ WETLAND RATING FORM-WESTERN WASHINGTON Version 2 -Updated July 2006 to increase accuracy and reproducibility among users Updated Oct 2008 with the new WDFW definitions for priority habitats Name of wetland (if known): _w_e_t_la_nd_G ___________ Date of site visit: 0413012009 Rated by Adam Gale and Joe Pursley Trained by Ecology? YesXNo_ Date of training May 2007 SEC:~ TWNSHP: 24 N RNGE: ~ Is S/f/R in Appendix D? Yes_ No~ M f ti d ·t F. Est1·mated s1·ze 0·1 Acre ap o we an urn : 1gure __ SUMMARY OF RATING Category based on FUNCTIONS provided by wetland I_ II_ IIIX IV_ Category I = Score >= 70 Category II = Score 51-69 Category III = Score 30-50 Category IV = Score < 30 Score for Water Quality Functions 18 Score for Hydrologic Functions 16 f------1 Score for Habitat Functions 11 ..,. __ ..., TOTAL score for Functions 45 Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland I_ II_ Does not Apply X Final Category (eh=• the "ltigh"1" ut,gory from ,hove) D s ummarvo fb .. t as1c m ormat10n a b th out tl d ewe an umt Wetland Unit has Special Wetland HGM Class Characteristics used for Ratin!! Estuarine Depressional V Natural Herita11e Wetland Riverine Bo11 Lake-frin!!e Mature Forest Slope Old Growth Forest Flats Coastal Lagoon Freshwater Tidal Interdunal None of the above X Check if unit has multiple HGM classes oresent Wetland Rating Form -western Washington August 2004 version 2 To be used with Ecology Publication 04-06-025 G Wetland name or number __ _ Does the wetland unit being rated meet any of the criteria below? If you answer YES to any of the questions below you will need to protect the wetland according to the regulations regarding the special characteristics found in the wetland . . ·· Check List for Wetlands That May Need Additional Protection ·· YES ;-(in addition to the orotection recommended for its cate11orv) SPI. Has the wetland unit been documented as a habitat for any Federally listed Threatened or Endangered animal or plant species (TIE species)? For the purposes of this rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the appropriate state or federal database. SP2. Has the wetland unit been documented as habitat for any State listed Threatened or Endangered animal species? For the purposes of this rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the appropriate state database. Note: Wetlands with State listed plant species are categorized as Category I Natural Heritage Wetlands (see o. 19 of data form). SP3. Does the wetland unit contain individuals of Priority species listed by the WDFW for the state? SP4. Does the wetland unit have a local significance in addition to its functions? For example, the wetland has been identified in the Shoreline Master Program, the Critical Areas Ordinance, or in a local management plan as having special significance. To complete the next part of the data sheet you will need to determine the Hydrogeomorphic Class of the wetland being rated. NO .. .. X X X X The hydrogeomorphic classification groups wetlands into those that function in similar ways. This simplifies the questions needed to answer how well the wetland functions. The Hydrogeomorphic Class of a wetland can be determined using the key below. See p. 24 for more detailed instructions on classifying wetlands. Wetland Rating Form -western Washington 2 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 August 2004 G Wetland name or number __ Classification of Wetland Units in Western Washington If the hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated, you probably have a unit with multiple HGM classes. In this case, identify which hydrologic criteria in questions 1-7 apply, and go to Question 8. 1. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides (i.e. except during floods)? NO -go to 2 YES -the wetland class is Tidal Fringe If yes, is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)? YES -Freshwater Tidal Fringe NO -Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) If your wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands. If it is Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is rated as an Estuarine wetland. Wetlands that were called estuarine in the first and second editions of the rating system are called Salt Water Tidal Fringe in the Hydrogeomorphic Classification. Estuarine wetlands were categorized separately in the earlier editions, and this separation is being kept in this revision. To maintain consistency between editions, the term "Estuarine" wetland is kept. Please note, however, that the characteristics that define Category I and II estuarine wetlands have changed (see p. ) . 2. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is the only source (>90%) of water to it. Groundwater and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit. NO -go to 3 YES -The wetland class is Flats If your wetland can be classified as a "Flats" wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands. 3. Does the entire wetland unit meet both of the following criteria? _The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any vegetation on the surface) at least 20 acres (8 ha) in size; _At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m)? NO-go to 4 YES -The wetland class is Lake-fringe (Lacustrine Fringe) 4. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? _X_The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual), XThe water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks. __ The water leaves the wetland without being impounded? NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these type of wetlands except occasionally in very small and shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3ft diameter and less than 1 foot deep). NO -go to 5 YES -The wetland class is Slope Wetland Rating Farm -western Washington 3 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 August 2004 G Wetland name or number __ 5. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? __ The unit is in a valley, or stream channel, where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that stream or river __ The overbank flooding occurs at least once every two years. NOTE: The riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not flooding. NO -go to 6 YES -The wetland class is Riverine 6. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the surface, at some time during the year. This means that any outlet, if present, is higher than the interior of the wetland. NO -go to 7 YES -The wetland class is Depressional 7. Is the entire wetland unit located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbank flooding. The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to be maintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural outlet. NO-go to 8 YES -The wetland class is Depressional 8. Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM clases. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small stream within a depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENT AREAS IN THE UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify the appropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within your wetland. NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the class listed in column 2 is less than 10% of the unit; classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the total area. HGMCiasses within the wetland unit beine rated HGM Class to .Use in Ratinu Slope + Riverine Riverine Slope + Depressional Deoressional Slope + Lake-fringe Lake-fringe Depressional + Riverine along stream within boundary Depressional Depressional + Lake-fringe Deoressional Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other class of freshwater Treat as ESTUARINE under wetland wetlands with special characteristics If you are unable still to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or if you have more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the rating. Wetland Rating Form -western Washington 4 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 August 2004 G Wetland name or number __ D Depressional and Flats Wetlands WATER QUALITY FUNCTIONS -Indicators that the wetland unit functions to imorove water oualitv D D 1. Does the wetland unit have the [!Otential to improve water quality? DI.I Characteristics of surface water flows out of the wetland: D Unit is a depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) points= 3 Unit has an intermittently flowing, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet points= 2 Unit has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet (permanently flowing) points= I Unit is a "flat" depression (Q. 7 on key), or in the Flats class, with permanent surface outflow and no obvious natural outlet and/or outlet is a man-made ditch points = I (If ditch is not permanently flowing treat unit as "intermittently flowing') Provide nhoto or drawina S 1.2 The soil 2 inches below the surface (or duff layer) is clay or organic (use NRCS D definitions} YES points= 4 NO ooints = 0 D 1.3 Characteristics of persistent vegetation (emergent, shrub, and/or forest Cowardin class) D Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, vegetation>= 95% of area points= 5 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, vegetation>= 1/2 of area points= 3 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation > = 1/ 10 of area points= I Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation <1/10 of area points= 0 Mao of Cowardin veaetation classes 01.4 Characteristics of seasonal ponding or inundation. D This is the area of the wetland unit that is ponded for at least 2 months, but dries out sometime during the year. Do not count the area that is permanently ponded. Estimate area as the average condition 5 out of IO yrs. Area seasanally ponded is > \12 total area of wetland points= 4 Area seasonally ponded is > \4 total area of wetland points= 2 Area seasonally ponded is < \4 total area of wetland points= 0 Mao of Hvdrooeriods D Total for D l Add the points in the boxes above D D 2. Does the wetland unit have the op[!ortunity to improve water quality? Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in groundwater or surface water coming into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams, lakes or groundwater downgradient from the wetland. Note which of the following conditions provide the sources of pollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming from several sources, but any single source would qualify as opportunity. -Grazing in the wetland or within 150 ft X Untreated stormwater discharges to wetland -Tilled fields or orchards within 150 ft of wetland -A stream or culvert discharges into wetland that drains developed areas, residential areas, farmed fields, roads, or clear-cut logging -Residential, urban areas, golf courses are within 150 ft of wetland -Wetland is fed by groundwater high in phosphorus or nitrogen -Other YES multiolier is 2 NO multiolier is I D TOTAL -Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from Dl by D2 Add score to table on o. I Wetland Rating Form -western Washington 5 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 August 2004 Points {only l score per box) (see p.38) Figure_ 2 0 Figure_ 1 Figure_ 4 -----I 7 I -----(seep. 44) multiplier 2 -- 14 G Wetland name or number __ D Depressional and Flats Wetlands HYDRO LOGIC FUNCTIONS -Indicators that the wetland unit functions to reduce flooding and stream deITTadation D 3. Does the wetland unit have the 11otential to reduce flooding and erosion? D D 3.1 Characteristics of surface water flows out of the wetland unit Unit is a depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) points= 4 Unit has an intermittently flowing, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet points= 2 Unit is a "flat,. depression (Q. 7 on key), or in the Flats class, with permanent surface outflow and no obvious natural outlet and/or outlet is a man-made ditch points= 1 (If ditch is not permanently flowing treat unit as "intermittently flowing") Unit has an unconstricted, or sliehtlv constricted, surface outlet -( nermanentlv f/owinol ooints = 0 D D 3. 2 Depth of storage during wet periods Estimate the height of ponding above the bottom of the outlet. For units with no outlet measure from the surface of pennanent water or deepest part {if dry). Marks of ponding are 3 ft or more above the surface or bottom of outlet points= 7 The wetland is a "headwater" wetland" points= 5 Marks of ponding between 2 ft to < 3 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points= 5 Marks are at least 0.5 ft to < 2 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points= 3 Unit is flat (yes to Q. 2 or Q. 7 on key) but has small depressions on the surface that trap water points= 1 Marks of oondin!! less than 0.5 ft points= 0 D D 3.3 Contribution of wetland unit to storage in the watershed Estimate the ratio of the area of upstream basin contributing surface water to the wedand to the area of the wetland unit itself. The area of the basin is less than 10 times the area of unit points= 5 The area of the basin is 10 to 100 times the area of the unit points= 3 The area of the basin is more than 100 times the area of the unit points= 0 Entire unit is in the FLA TS class noints = 5 D Total for D 3 Add the points in the boxes above D D 4. Does the wetland unit have the 01111ortunity to reduce flooding and erosion? Answer YES if the unit is in a location in the watershed where the flood storage, or reduction in water velocity, it provides helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows. Answer NO if the water coming into the wetland is controlled by a structure such as flood gate, tide gate, flap valve, reservoir etc. OR you estimate that more than 90% of the water in the wetland is from groundwater in areas where damaging groundwater flooding does not occur. Note which of the following indicators of opportunity apply. -Wetland is in a headwater of a river or stream that has flooding problems -Wetland drains to a river or stream that has flooding problems -Wetland has no outlet and impounds surface runoff water that might otherwise flow into a river or stream that has flooding problems X Other Overflows to Wetland D and then Lake Washington YES multinlier is 2 NO multiolier is 1 D TOTAL -Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from D 3 by D 4 Add score to table on p. 1 Wetland Rating Form -western Washington 6 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 August 2004 Points (only 1 score per box) (see p.46) 2 3 3 -----I 8 I -----(seep. 49) multiplier 2 16 G Wetland name or number __ These questions apply to wedands of all HGM classes. HABITAT FUNCTIONS -Indicators that unit functions to provide important habitat H 1. Does the wetland unit have the potential to provide habitat for many species? H I.I Vegetation structure (seep. 72) Check the types of vegetation classes present (as defined by Cowardin)-Size threshold for each class is 14 acre or more than 10% of the area if unit is smaller than 2.5 acres. __ Aquatic bed __x___Emergent plants _xscrub/shrub (areas where shrubs have >30% cover) __ Forested (areas where trees have >30% cover) If the unit has a forested class check if: __ The forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub-canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, moss/ground-cover) that each cover 20% within the forested polygon Add the number of vegetation structures that qualify. If you have: Map of Cowardin vegetation classes H 1.2. Hydroperiods (seep. 73} 4 structures or more 3 structures 2 structures I structure points= 4 points= 2 points= I ooints = 0 Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover more than 10% of the wetland or !. acre to count. (see text for descriptions of hydroperiods) __ Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present points= 3 points= 2 point= I points= 0 __x___seasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present __ Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present __x___saturated only 1 type present __ Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland __ Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland __ Lake-fringe wetland = 2 points __ Freshwater tidal wetland= 2 points Map of hydroperiods H 1.3. Richness of Plant Species (seep. 75) Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ft 2• of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold) You do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian Mi/foil, reed canarygrass, purple looses/rife, If you counted: > 19 species List species below if you want to: 5 -19 species < 5 species ( different patches Canadian Thistle points= 2 points= 1 points= 0 Points (only l score p..-box) Figure _ Figure~ 3 Total for page __ _ Wetland Rating Form-western Washington 13 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 G Wetland name or number __ H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats (seep. 76) Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion between Cowardin vegetation classes (described in H 1.1), or the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, medium, low, or none. C) 0 None = 0 points Low= 1 point Moderate = 2 points ~!IV,; ~ [riparian braided channels] High = 3 points NOTE: If you have four or more classes or three vegetation classes and open water the ratin is alwa s "hi ". Use ma of Cowardin ve etation classes H 1.5. Special Habitat Features: (seep. 77) Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points you put into the next column. __ Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (>4in. diameter and 6 ft long). __ Standing snags (diameter at the bottom> 4 inches) in the wetland __ Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2m) and/or overhanging vegetation extends at least 3.3 ft (lm) over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the unit, for at least 33 ft (10m) __ Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (>30degree slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present {cut shrubs or trees that have not yet turned grey/brown} __ At least 1/.i acre of thin-stemmed persistent vegetation or woody branches are present in areas that are permanently or seasonally inundated. (structures for egg-laying by amphibians} __ Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in each stratum of plants igure_ NOTE: The 20 % stated in early printings of the manual on page 78 is an error. r-------------~~~==~~-----~~--~----~~----H 1. TOT AL Score -potential for providing habitat 0 Add the scores from Hl.1, Hl.2, Hl.3, Hl.4, Hl.5 ~------------------------~-~--~-~--~~----~ 4 Comments Wetland Rating Form-western Washington 14 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 G Wetland name or number __ H 2. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to provide habitat for many species? H 2.1 Buffers (seep. 80} Figure~ Choose the description that best represents condition of buffer of wetland unit. The highest scoring criterion that applies to die wedand is to be used in the rating. See text for definition of "undisturbed. " -I 00 m (330ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water >95% of circumference. No structures are within the undisturbed part of buffer. (relatively undisturbed also means no-grazing, no landscaping, no daily human use) Points = 5 -100 m (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 50% circumference. Points = 4 -50 m (170ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water >95% circumference. Points = 4 -100 m (330ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water> 25% circumference, . Points = 3 -50 m (170ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water for > 50% circumference. Points= 3 If buffer does not meet any of the criteria above X No paved areas (except paved trails) or buildings within 25 m (80ft) of wetland > 95% circumference. Light to moderate grazing, or lawns are OK. Points = 2 -No paved areas or buildings within 50m of wetland for >50% circumference. Light to moderate grazing, or lawns are OK. Points = 2 -Heavy grazing in buffer. Points= I -Vegetated buffers are <2m wide (6.6ft) for more than 95% of the circumference (e.g. tilled fields, paving, basalt bedrock extend to edge of wetland Points= 0. -Buffer does not meet any of the criteria above. Points = I 2 Aerial ohoto showina buffers H 2.2 Corridors and Connections (seep. 81) H 2.2.1 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor (either riparian or upland) that is at least 150 ft wide, has at least 30% cover of shrubs, forest or native undisturbed prairie, that connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 250 acres in size? (dams in riparian corridors, heavily used gravel roads, paved roads, are considered breaks in the corridor). YES = 4 points (go to H 2.3) NO = go to H 2.2.2 H 2.2.2 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor (either riparian or upland) that is at least 50ft wide, has at least 30% cover of shrubs or forest, and connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 25 acres in size? OR a Lake-fringe wetland, if it does not have an undisturbed corridor as in the question above? YES = 2 points (go to H 2.3) NO = H 2.2.3 H 2.2.3 Is the wetland: within 5 mi (8km) of a brackish or salt water estuary OR within 3 mi of a large field or pasture (>40 acres) OR within I mi of a lake greater than 20 acres? 1 YES = I noint NO = 0 ooints 3 Total for page. __ _ Wetland Rating Forrn -western Washington 15 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 G Wetland name or number __ H 2.3 Near or adjacent to other priority habitats listed by WDFW (see new and complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which they can be found, in the PHS report http://wdfw.wa.gov/hab/phslist.htm) Which of the following priority habitats are within 330ft (100m) of the wetland unit? NOTE: the connections do not have to be relatively undisturbed. __ Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 0.4 ha (1 acre). LBiodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 152'). __ Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock. __ Old-growth/Mature forests: (Old-growth west of Cascade crest) Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi-layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 20 trees/ha (8 trees/acre) > 81 cm {32 in) dhh or> 200 years of age. (Mature forests) Stands with average diameters exceeding 53 cm (21 in) dbh; crown cover may be less that 1000,{,; crown cover may be less that 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less tban that found in old-growth; 80 -200 years old west of the Cascade crest. __ Oregon white Oak: Woodlands Stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component is important (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 158) . __ Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of hoth aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other. __ Westside Prairies: Herbaceous, non-forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wet prairie (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 161). __ Instream: Tbe combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources. __ Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearsbore, and Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions of habitats and the definition ofrelatively undisturbed are in WDFW report: pp. 167-169 and glossary in Appendix A). __ Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils, rock, ice, or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human. __ Cliffs: Greater than 7.6 m {25 ft) bigb and occurring below 5000 ft. __ Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.15 -2.0 m (0.5 -6.5 ft), composed of basalt, andesite, and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs. __ Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of> 51 cm {20 in) in western Washington and are > 2 m (6.5 ft) in height. Priority logs are > 30 cm (12 in) in diameter at the largest end, and > 6 m (20 ft) long. If wetland has 3 or more priority habitats = 4 points If wetland has 2 priority habitats = 3 points If wetland has 1 priority habitat = 1 point No habitats = 0 points Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list. Nearby wetlands are addressed in auestion H 2.4} Wetland Rating Form -western Washington 16 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 1 G Wetland name or number __ H 2.4 Wetland Landscape (choose the one description of the landscape around the wetland that best fits) (seep. 84} There are at least 3 other wetlands within V, mile, and the connections between them are relatively undisturbed (light grazing between wetlands OK, as is lake shore with some boating, but connections should NOT be bisected by paved roads, fill, fields, or other development. points= 5 The wetland is Lake-fringe on a lake with little disturbance and there are 3 other lake-fringe wetlands within \, mile points= 5 There are at least 3 other wetlands within \, mile, BUT the connections between them are disturhed points= 3 The wetland is Lake-fringe on a lake with disturbance and there are 3 other lake-fringe wetland within \, mile points= 3 There is at least I wetland within \, mile. points= 2 There are no wetlands within V, mile. points= 0 H 2. TOT AL Score -opportunity for providing habitat Add the scores from H2.1,H2.2, H2.3, H2.4 TOT AL for H I from page 14 Total Score for Habitat Functions -add the points for H I, H 2 and record the result on D. 1 Wetland Rating Form -western Washington 17 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 3 -----I 7 I I I ----- 4 ----- 11 G Wetland name or number __ CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Please determine if the wetland meets the attributes described below and circle the appropriate answers and Category. Wetland Type Category Check off any criteria that apply to the wetland. Circle the Category when the aonropriate criteria are met. SC 1.0 Estuarine wetlands (seep. 86} Does the wetland unit meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands? -The dominant water regime is tidal, -Vegetated, and -With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt. YES= Go to SC 1.1 NOX SC 1.1 Is the wetland unit within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, Cat. I National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area Preserve, State Park or Educational, Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332-30-151? YES = Category I X NO !!O to SC 1.2 SC 1.2 Is the wetland unit at least 1 acre in size and meets at least two of the following three conditions? YES = Category I NO = Category II Cat. I -The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, Cat. II cultivation, grazing, and has less than 10% cover of non-native plant species. If the non-native Spartina spp. are the only species that cover more than 10% of the wetland, then the wetland should be given a dual Dual rating (I/II). The area of Spartina would be rated a Category II while the rating rel a ti vel y undisturbed upper marsh with native species would he a I/II Category I. Do not, however, exclude the area of Spartina in determining the size threshold of 1 acre. -At least 34 of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un-mowed grassland. -The wetland has at least 2 of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or contiguous freshwater wetlands. Wetland Rating Fonn -western Washington 18 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 G Wetland name or number __ SC 2.0 Natural Heritage Wetlands (seep. 87} Natural Heritage wetlands have been identified by the Washington Natural Heritage Program/DNR as either high quality undisturbed wetlands or wetlands that support state Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive plant species. SC 2.1 Is the wetland unit being rated in a Section/Township/Range that contains a Natural Heritage wetland? (this question is used to screen out most sites before you need to contact WNHPIDNR) S/T/R information from Appendix D _ or accessed from WNHP/DNR web site _ YES __ -contact WNHP/DNR (seep. 79) and go to SC 2.2 NOX SC 2.2 Has DNR identified the wetland as a high quality undisturbed wetland or as or as a site with state threatened or endangered plant species? YES = Category I NO __x_not a Heritage Wetland SC 3.0 Bogs (seep. 87) Does the wetland unit (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key below to identify if the wetland is a bog. If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. 1. Does the unit have organic soil horizons (i.e. layers of organic soil), either peats or mucks, that compose 16 inches or more of the first 32 inches of the soil profile? (See Appendix B for a field key to identify organic soils)? Yes - ~mQ.3 X~-~mQ.2 2. Does the unit have organic soils, either peats or mucks that are less than 16 inches deep over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on a lake or pond? Yes -go to Q. 3 X No -Is not a bog for purpose of rating 3. Does the unit have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, AND other plants, if present, consist of the "bog" species listed in Table 3 as a significant component of the vegetation (more than 30% of the total shrub and herbaceous cover consists of species in Table 3)? Yes -Is a bog for purpose of rating X No -go to Q. 4 NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory you may substitute that criterion by measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16" deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the "bog" plant species in Table 3 are present, the wetland is a bog. J. Is the unit forested (> 30% cover) with sitka spruce, subalpine fir, western red cedar, western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Englemann's spruce, or western white pine, WITH any of the species (or combination of species) on the bog species plant list in Table 3 as a significant component of the ground cover(> 30% coverage of the total shrub/herbaceous cover)? 2. YES = Category I NoX Is not a bog for purpose of rating Wetland Rating Form-western Washington 19 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Cat. I Cat. I G Wetland name or number __ SC 4.0 Forested Wetlands (seep. 90) Does the wetland unit have at least 1 acre of forest that meet one of these criteria for the Department offish and Wildlife's forests as priority habitats? If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. -Old-growth forests: (west of Cascade crest) Stands of at least two tree species, forming a multi-layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/acre (20 trees/hectare) that are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 32 inches (81 cm) or more. NOTE: The criterion for dbh is based on measurements for upland forests. Two-hundred year old trees in wetlands will often have a smaller dbh because their growth rates are often slower. The DFW criterion is and "OR" so old-growth forests do not necessarily have to have trees of this diameter. -Mature forests: (west of the Cascade Crest) Stands where the largest trees are 80-200 years old OR have average diameters (dbh) exceeding 21 inches (53cm); crown cover may be less that 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old-growth. YES = Category I NO X oot a forested wetland with special characteristics SC 5.0 Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons (seep. 91} Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wetland in a coastal lagoon? -The wetland lies in a depression adjacent to marine waters that is wholly or partially separated from marine waters by sandbanks, gravel banks, shingle, or, less frequently, rocks -The lagoon in which the wetland is located contains surface water that is saline or brackish (> 0.5 ppt) during most of the year in at least a portion of the lagoon (needs to be measured near the bottom) YES = Go to SC 5.1 NO X not a wetland in a coastal lagoon SC 5.1 Does the wetland meets all of the following three conditions? -The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing), and has less than 20% cover of invasive plant species (see list of invasive species on p. 7 4). -At least % of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un-mowed grassland. -The wetland is larger than 1/10 acre ( 4350 square feet) YES = Category I NO = Category II Wetland Rating Form~ western Washington 20 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Cat. I Cat. I Cat. II G Wetland name or number __ SC 6.0 Interdunal Wetlands (seep. 93} Is the wetland unit west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? YES -go to SC 6.1 NO X not an interdunal wetland for rating If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. In practical terms that means the following geographic areas: • Long Beach Peninsula-lands west of SR 103 • Grayland-Westport-lands west of SR 105 • Ocean Shores-Copalis-lands west of SR 115 and SR 109 SC 6.1 Is the wetland one acre or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is once acre or larger? YES = Category II X NO -go to SC 6.2 SC 6.2 Is the unit between 0.1 and 1 acre, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and 1 acre? YES = Category III Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics Choose the "highest" rating if wetland falls into several categories, and record on p.1. If vou answered NO for all tvoes enter "Not Annlicable" on o.1 Wetland Rating Form-western Washington 21 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 August 2004 Cat. II Cat. III H Wetland name or number __ WETLAND RATING FORM-WESTERN WASHINGTON Version 2 -Updated July 2006 to increase accuracy and reproducibility among users Updated Oct 2008 with the new WDFW definitions for priority habitats Name of wetland (if known): _w_e_tl_a_nd_H ___________ Date of site visit: 0510612009 Rated by Adam Gale and Joe Pursley Trained by Ecology? YesXNo_ Date of training May 2007 SEC:_:_:_ TWNSHP: 24 N RNGE: ~ Is Sff/R in Appendix D? Yes_ NoX Map of wetland unit: Figure__ Estimated size 0 ·1 Acre SUMMARY OF RA TING Category based on FUNCTIONS provided by wetland I_ II_ IIIX IV_ Category I = Score >= 70 Category II = Score 51-69 Category III = Score 30-50 Category IV = Score < 30 Score for Water Quality Functions 6 Score for Hydrologic Functions 6 f---~ Score for Habitat Functions 13 .---..... TOTAL score for Functions 25 Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland I_ II_ Does not Apply X Final Category (,h,,R the ··~hBt" rat,go,y from ,hove) c:::::J Summarv of basic information about the wetland unit Wetland Unit has Special Wetland HGM Class Characteristics used for Ratln!! Estuarine Denressional Natural Herita!!e Wetland Riverine BOP Lake-fringe Mature Forest Slone X Old Growth Forest Flats Coastal La!!oon Freshwater Tidal Interdunal None of the above X Check if unit has multiple HG M classes oresent Wetland Rating Form-western Washington August 2004 version 2 To be used with Ecology Publication 04-06-025 H Wetland name or number __ Does the wetland unit being rated meet any of the criteria below? If you answer YES to any of the questions below you will need to protect the wetland according to the regulations regarding the special characteristics found in the wetland. Check List for Wetlands That May Need Additional Protection YES (in addition to the protection recommended for its categorv) SPI. Has the wetland unit been documented as a habitat for any Federally listed Threatened or Endangered animal or plant species ([IE species)? For the purposes of this rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the aooropriate state or federal database. SP2. Has the wetland unit been documented as habitat for any State listed Threatened or Endangered animal species? For the purposes of this rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the appropriate state database. Note: Wetlands with State listed plant species are categorized as Category I Natural Heritage Wetlands (see p. 19 of data form). SP3. Does the wetland unit contain individuals of Priority species listed by the WDFW for the state? SP4. Does the wetland unit have a local significance in addition to its functions? For example, the wetland has been identified in the Shoreline Master Program, the Critical Areas Ordinance, or in a local management plan as having special significance. To complete the next part of the data sheet you will need to determine the Hydrogeomorphic Class of the wetland being rated. NO X X X X The hydrogeomorphic classification groups wetlands into those that function in similar ways. This simplifies the questions needed to answer how well the wetland functions. The Hydrogeomorphic Class of a wetland can be determined using the key below. See p. 24 for more detailed instructions on classifying wetlands. Wetland Rating Form -western Washington 2 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 August 2004 H Wetland name or number __ Classification of Wetland Units in Western Washington If the hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated, you probably have a unit with multiple HGM classes. In this case, identify which hydrologic criteria in questions 1-7 apply, and go to Question 8. 1. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides (i.e. except during floods)? NO -go to 2 YES -the wetland class is Tidal Fringe If yes, is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)? YES -Freshwater Tidal Fringe NO -Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) If your wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands. !fit is Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is rated as an Estuarine wetland. Wetlands that were called estuarine in the first and second editions of the rating system are called Salt Water Tidal Fringe in the Hydrogeomorphic Classification. Estuarine wetlands were categorized separately in the earlier editions, and this separation is being kept in this revision. To maintain consistency between editions, the term "Estuarine" wetland is kept. Please note, however, that the characteristics that define Category I and II estuarine wetlands have changed (see p. ) . 2. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is the only source (>90%) of water to it. Groundwater and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit. NO -go to 3 YES -The wetland class is Flats If your wetland can be classified as a "Flats" wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands. 3. Does the entire wetland unit meet both of the following criteria? _The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any vegetation on the surface) at least 20 acres (8 ha) in size; _At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m)? NO -go to 4 YES -The wetland class is Lake-fringe (Lacustrine Fringe) 4. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? AThe wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual), XThe water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks. _XThe water leaves the wetland without being impounded? NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these type of wetlands except occasionally in very small and shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually < 3ft diameter and less than 1 foot deep). NO -go to 5 YES -The wetland class is Slope Wetland Rating Form -western Washington 3 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 August 2004 H Wetland name or number __ 5. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? __ The unit is in a valley, or stream channel, where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that stream or river __ The overbank flooding occurs at least once every two years. NOTE: The riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not flooding. NO -go to 6 YES -Tbe wetland class is Riverine 6. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the surface, at some time during the year. This means that any outlet, if present, is higher than the interior of the wetland. NO -go to 7 YES -The wetland class is Depressional 7. Is the entire wetland unit located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbank flooding. The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to be maintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural outlet. NO -go to 8 YES -The wetland class is Depressional 8. Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM clases. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small stream within a depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENT AREAS IN THE UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify the appropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within your wetland. NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the class listed in column 2 is less than 10% of the unit; classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the total area. HGM Classes within the wetland. unit beinl! rated ' HGM'Class to Use in Ratinl! Slope + Riverine Riverine Slope + Depressional Depressional Slope + Lake-fringe Lake-fringe Depressional + Riverine along stream within boundary Depressional Depressional + Lake-fringe Depressional Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other class of freshwater Treat as ESTUARINE under wetland wetlands with special characteristics If you are unable still to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or if you have more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the rating. Wetland Rating Form -western Washington 4 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 August 2004 H Wetland name or number __ _ s Slope Wetlands WATER QUALITY FUNCTIONS -Indicators that the wetland unit functions to imnrove water aualitv s S I. Does the wetland unit have the 2otential to improve water quality? s S 1.1 Characteristics of average slope of unit: Slope isl% or less {a 1% slope has a 1 foot vertical drop in elevation for every 100 ft horizontal distance) points= 3 Slope is 1% -2% points= 2 Slope is 2% -5% points= 1 Slope is greater than 5% points= 0 s S 1.2 The soil 2 inches below the surface (or duff layer) is clay or organic (useNRCS definitions) YES -3 ooints NO= 0 noints s S 1.3 Characteristics of the vegetation in the wetland that trap sediments and pollutants: Choose the points appropriate for the description that best fits the vegetation in the wetland. Dense vegetation means you have trouble seeing the soil surface (>75% cover), and uncut means not grazed or mowed and plants are higher than 6 inches. Dense, uncut, herbaceous vegetation > 90% of the wetland area points= 6 Dense, uncut, herbaceous vegetation > 1/2 of area points= 3 Dense, woody, vegetation> 'h of area points= 2 Dense, uncut, herbaceous vegetation > 1/4 of area points = 1 Does not meet any of the criteria above for vegetation points= 0 Aerial ohoto or man with veaetation oolvnons s Total for S 1 Add the points in the boxes above s S 2. Does the wetland unit have the 022ortunity to improve water quality? Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in groundwater or surface water coming into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams, lakes or groundwater downgradient from the wetland. Note which of the following conditions provide the sources of pollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming from several sources, but any single source would qualify as opportunity. -Grazing in the wetland or within 150ft X Untreated stormwater discharges to wetland X Tilled fields, logging, or orchards within 150 feet of wetland -Residential, urban areas, or golf courses are within 150 ft upslope of wetland -Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 s TOTAL -Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from SI by S2 Add score to table on o. 1 Comments Wetland Rating Form -western Washington 11 version 2 Updated with new WD FW definitions Oct. 2008 August 2004 Points {only l score per box) (see p.64) 2 0 Figure_ 1 -----I 3 I -----(see p.67} multiplier 2 -- 6 H Wetland name or number __ s Slope Wetlands HYDROLOGIC FUNCTIONS -Indicators that the wetland unit functions to reduce floodine: and stream erosion S 3. Does the wetland unit have the potential to reduce flooding and stream erosion? s S 3.1 Characteristics of vegetation that reduce the velocity of surface flows during storms. Choose the points appropriate for the description that best fit conditions in the wetland. (stems of plants should be thick enough {usually > I/Bin}, or dense enough, to remain erect during surface flows} Dense, uncut, rigid vegetation covers > 90% of the area of the wetland. points= 6 Dense, uncut, rigid vegetation > 1/2 area of wetland points= 3 Dense, uncut, rigid vegetation> 1/4 area points= 1 More than 1/4 of area is grazed, mowed, tilled or vegetation is not rieid points= 0 s S 3.2 Characteristics of slope wetland that holds back small amounts of flood flows: The slope wetland has small surface depressions that can retain water over at least I 0% of its area. YES points= 2 NO points= 0 s Add the points in the boxes above s S 4. Does the wetland have the opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion? Is the wetland in a landscape position where the reduction in water velocity it provides helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows? Note which of the following conditions apply. -Wetland has surface runoff that drains to a river or stream that has flooding problems X Other Lake Washington is located immediately downslope. (Answer NO if the major source of water is controlled by a reservoir (e.g. wetland is a seep that is on the downstream side of a dam} YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 s TOT AL -Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from S 3 by S 4 Add score to table on p. 1 Comments Wetland Rating Form -western Washington 12 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Points (ooly I score pet box) (see p.68) 1 2 -----I 3 I -----(seep. 70} multiplier 2 -- 6 H Wetland name or number __ These questions apply to wedands of all HGM classes. HABITAT FUNCTIONS -Indicators that unit functions to provide important habitat H 1. Does the wetland unit have the potential to provide habitat for many species? H 1.1 Vegetation structure (seep. 72) Check the types of vegetation classes present {as defined hy Cowardin)-Size threshold for each class is !ii acre or more than 10% of the area if unit is smaller than 2.5 acres. __ Aquatic bed __x__Emergent plants __x__scrub/shrub (areas where shrubs have >30% cover) __x__Forested (areas where trees have >30% cover) If the unit has a forested class check if: __ The forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub-canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, moss/ground-cover) that each cover 20% within the forested polygon Add the number of vegetation structures that qualify. If you have: Map of Cowardin vegetation classes H 1.2. Hydroperiods (seep. 73) 4 structures or more 3 structures 2 structures 1 structure points= 4 points= 2 points= 1 points= 0 Check the types of water regimes {hydroperiods) present within the wedand. The water regime has to cover more than 10% of the wedand or !ii acre to count. (see text for descriptions of hydroperiods) __ Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present points= 3 points= 2 point = 1 points= 0 __x__seasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present __ Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present _L_Saturated only 1 type present __ Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland __x__ Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland __ Lake-fringe wedand = 2 points __ Freshwater tidal wetland= 2 points Map of hydroperiods H 1.3. Richness of Plant Species (seep. 75) Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ft 1 . of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold) You do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian Milfoil, reed canarygrass, purple looses/rife, If you counted: > 19 species List species below if you want to: 5 -19 species < 5 species (different patches Canadian Thistle points= 2 points = 1 points= 0 Points (only 1 sr.ore per box) Figure_ 2 Figure_ 2 5 Total for page __ _ Wetland Rating Form-western Washington 13 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 H Wetland name or number __ H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats (seep. 76} Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion between Cowardin vegetation classes (described in H 1.1), or the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, medium, low, or none. C) 0 0 None = 0 points Low= I point Moderate = 2 points ~ [riparian braided channels] High = 3 points NOTE: If you have four or more classes or three vegetation classes and open water the ratin is alwa s "hi h". Use ma of Cowardin ve elation classes H 1.5. Special Habitat Features: {seep. 77) Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points you put into the next column. __ Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (>4in. diameter and 6 ft long). -. _Standing snags (diameter at the bottom > 4 inches) in the wetland __ Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2m) and/or overhanging vegetation extends at least 3.3 ft (Im) over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the unit, for at least 33 ft (IOm) __ Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (>30degree slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet tumed grey/brown} __ At least If., acre of thin-stemmed persistent vegetation or woody branches are present in areas that are permanently or seasonally inundated. (structures for egg-laying by amphibians) __ Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in each stratum of plants NOTE: The 20 % stated in early printings of the manual on page 78 is an error. igure_ 2 0 ~----------------------------------------H 1. TOT AL Score -potential for providing habitat Add the scores from Hl.l, Hl.2, Hl.3, Hl.4, Hl.5 ~------------------------~-~~-~-~---~----~ 7 Comments Wetland Rating Form-western Washington 14 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 H Wetland name or number __ H 2. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to provide habitat for many species? H 2.1 Buffers (seep. 80) Choose the description dial best represents condition of buffer of wetland unit. The highest scoring criterion that applies to the wetland is to be used in the rating. See text for definition of "undisturbed." -100 m (330ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water >95% of circumference. No structures are within the undisturbed part of buffer. (relatively undisturbed also means no-grazing, no landscaping, no daily human use) Points = 5 -100 m (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 50% circumference. Points = 4 -50 m (170ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water >95% circumference. Points = 4 -100 m (330ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water> 25% circumference, . Points = 3 -50 m (170ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water for> 50% circumference. Points = 3 If buffer does not meet any of the criteria above -No paved areas (except paved trails) or buildings within 25 m (80ft) of wetland> 95% circumference. Light to moderate grazing, or lawns are OK. Points= 2 -No paved areas or buildings within 50m of wetland for >50% circumference. Light to moderate grazing, or lawns are OK. Points = 2 -Heavy grazing in buffer. Points= 1 -Vegetated buffers are <2m wide (6.6ft) for more than 95% of the circumference (e.g. tilled fields, paving, basalt bedrock extend to edge of wetland Points= 0. X Buffer does not meet any of the criteria above. Points = 1 Aerial ohoto showinn buffers H 2 .2 Corridors and Connections (seep. 81) H 2.2.1 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor (either riparian or upland) that is at least 150 ft wide, has at least 30% cover of shrubs, forest or native undisturbed prairie, that connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 250 acres in size? (dams in riparian corridors, heavily used gravel roads, paved roads, are considered breaks in die corridor). YES = 4 points (go to H 2.3) NO = go to H 2.2.2 H 2.2.2 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor (either riparian or upland) that is at least 50ft wide, has at least 30% cover of shrubs or forest, and connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 25 acres in size? 0 R a Lake-fringe wetland, if it does not have an undisturbed corridor as in the question above? YES = 2 points (go to H 2.3) NO = H 2.2.3 H 2.2.3 Is the wetland: within 5 mi (8km) of a brackish or salt water estuary OR within 3 mi of a large field or pasture (>40 acres) OR within I mi of a lake greater than 20 acres? YES = I ooint NO = 0 ooints Figure~ 2 Total for page. __ _ Wetland Rating Form-western Washington 15 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 H Wetland name or number __ H 2.3 Near or adjacent to other priority habitats listed by WDFW (see new and complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which they can be found, in the PHS report http://wdfw.wa.gov!hab!phslist.htm) Which of the following priority habitats are within 330ft (100m) of the wetland unit? NOTE: the connections do not have to be relatively undisturbed. __ Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 0.4 ha (I acre). _K_Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. J 5ZJ. __ Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock. __ Old-growth/Mature forests: (Old-growth west of Cascade crest) Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi-layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 20 trees/ha (8 trees/acre) > 81 cm (32 in) dbh or> 200 years of age. (Mature forests) Stands with average diameters exceeding 53 cm (21 in) dbh; crown cover may be less that 100%; crown cover may be less that 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old-growth; 80 -200 years old west of the Cascade crest. __ Oregon white Oak: Woodlands Stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component is important (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 158) . __ Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other. __ Westside Prairies: Herbaceous, non-forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wet prairie (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 161). __ Instream: The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources. __ Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearshore, and Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WDFW report: pp. 167-169 and glossary in Appendix A). __ Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils, rock, ice, or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human. __ Cliffs: Greater than 7 .6 m (25 ft) high and occurring below 5000 ft. __ Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.15 -2.0 m (0.5 -6.5 ft), composed of basalt, andesite, and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs. __ Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of> 51 cm (20 in) in western Washington and are> 2 m (6.5 ft) in height. Priority logs are > 30 cm (12 in) in diameter at the largest end, and > 6 m (20 ft) long. If wetland has 3 or more priority habitats = 4 points If wetland has 2 priority habitats = 3 points If wetland has I priority habitat= I point No habitats = 0 points Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list. Nearby wetlands are addressed in auestion H 2.4} Wetland Rating Form -western Washington 16 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 1 H Wetland name or number __ H 2.4 Wetland Landscape {choose the one description of the landscape around the wedand that best fits) {seep. 84} There are at least 3 other wetlands within V, mile, and the connections between them are relatively undisturbed (light grazing between wetlands OK, as is lake shore with some boating, but connections should NOT be bisected by paved roads, fill, fields, or other development. points= 5 The wetland is Lake-fringe on a lake with little disturbance and there are 3 other lake-fringe wetlands within V, mile points= 5 There are at least 3 other wetlands within V, mile, BUT the connections between them are disturbed points= 3 The wetland is Lake-fringe on a lake with disturbance and there are 3 other lake-fringe wetland within 1-1 mile points= 3 There is at least 1 wetland within 1-1 mile. points= 2 There are no wetlands within 1-1 mile. points= 0 H 2. TOTAL Score -opportunity for providing habitat Add the scores from H2.l,H2.2, H2.3, H2.4 TOTAL for H 1 from page 14 Total Score for Habitat Functions -add the points for H l, H 2 and record the result on p. 1 Wetland Rating Farm -western Washington 17 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 3 -----I 6 I I I ----- 7 ----- 13 H Wetland name or number __ CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Please determine if the wetland meets the attributes described below and circle the appropriate answers and Category. Wetland Type Category Check off any criteria that apply to the wetland. Circle the Category when the annropriate criteria are met. SC 1.0 Estuarine wetlands {seep. 86) Does the wetland unit meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands? -The dominant water regime is tidal, -Vegetated, and -With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt. YES= Go to SC 1.1 NO - SC 1.1 Is the wetland unit within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, Cat. I National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area Preserve, State Park or Educational, Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332-30-151? YES = Category I NO go to SC 1.2 SC 1.2 Is the wetland unit at least l acre in size and meets at least two of the following three conditions? YES = Category I NO = Category II Cat. I -The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, Cat. II cultivation, grazing, and has less than 10% cover of non-native plant species. If the non-native Spartina spp. are the only species that cover more than l 0% of the wetland, then the wetland should be given a dual Dual rating (I/II). The area of Spartina would be rated a Category II while the rating relatively undisturbed upper marsh with native species would be a I/II Category I. Do not, however, exclude the area of Spartina in determining the size threshold of l acre. -At least % of the landward edge of the wetland has a l 00 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un-mowed grassland. -The wetland has at least 2 of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or contiguous freshwater wetlands. Wetland Rating Form -western Washington 18 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 H Wetland name or number __ SC 2.0 Natural Heritage Wetlands (seep. 87) Natural Heritage wetlands have been identified by the Washington Natural Heritage Program/DNR as either high quality undisturbed wetlands or wetlands that support state Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive plant species. SC 2.1 Is the wetland unit being rated in a Sectionrrownship/Range that contains a Natural Heritage wetland? (this question is used to screen out most sites before you need to contact WNHP/DNR) S/T/R information from Appendix D _ or accessed from WNHP/DNR web site _ YES __ -contact WNHP/DNR (see p. 79) and go to SC 2.2 NO_ SC 2.2 Has DNR identified the wetland as a high quality undisturbed wetland or as or as a site with state threatened or endangered plant species? YES = Category I NO __ not a Heritage Wetland SC 3.0 Bogs (seep. 87) Does the wetland unit (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key below to identify if the wetland is a bog. If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wedand based on its functions. I. Does the unit have organic soil horizons (i.e. layers of organic soil), either peats or mucks, that compose 16 inches or more of the first 32 inches of the soil profile? (See Appendix B for a field key to identify organic soils)? Yes - ~mQ.3 ~-~mQ.2 2. Does the unit have organic soils, either peats or mucks that are less than 16 inches deep over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on a lake or pond? Yes -go to Q. 3 No -Is not a bog for purpose of rating 3. Does the unit have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, AND other plants, if present, consist of the "bog" species listed in Table 3 as a significant component of the vegetation (more than 30% of the total shrub and herbaceous cover consists of species in Table 3)? Yes-Is a bog for purpose of rating No -go to Q. 4 NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory you may substitute that criterion by measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16" deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the "bog" plant species in Table 3 are present, the wetland is a bog. J. Is the unit forested (> 30% cover) with sitka spruce, subalpine fir, western red cedar, western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Englemann's spruce, or western white pine, WITH any of the species (or combination of species) on the bog species plant list in Table 3 as a significant component of the ground cover{> 30% coverage of the total shrub/herbaceous cover)? 2. YES = Category I No_ Is not a bog for purpose of rating Wetland Rating Form -western Washington 19 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Cat. I Cat. I H Wetland name or number __ SC 4.0 Forested Wetlands (seep. 90} Does the wetland unit have at least l acre of forest that meet one of these criteria for the Department of Fish and Wildlife's forests as priority habitats? lfyou answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. -Old-growth forests: (west of Cascade crest} Stands of at least two tree species, forming a multi-layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/acre (20 trees/hectare) that are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh} of 32 inches (81 cm) or more. NOTE: The criterion for dbh is based on measurements for upland forests. Two-hundred year old trees in wetlands will often have a smaller dbh because their growth rates are often slower. The DFW criterion is and "OR" so old-growth forests do not necessarily have to have trees of this diameter. -Mature forests: (west of the Cascade Crest) Stands where the largest trees are 80 -200 years old OR have average diameters (dbh) exceeding 21 inches (53cm}; crown cover may be less that 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old-growth. YES = Category I NO _not a forested wetland with special characteristics SC 5.0 Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons (seep. 91} Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wetland in a coastal lagoon? -The wetland lies in a depression adjacent to marine waters that is wholly or partially separated from marine waters by sandbanks, gravel banks, shingle, or, less frequently, rocks -The lagoon in which the wetland is located contains surface water that is saline or brackish (> 0.5 ppt) during most of the year in at least a portion of the lagoon (needs to be measured near the bottom) YES= Go to SC 5.1 NO_ not a wetland in a coastal lagoon SC 5.1 Does the wetland meets all of the following three conditions? -The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing}, and has Jess than 20% cover of invasive plant species (see list of invasive species on p. 74). -At least % of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un-mowed grassland. -The wetland is larger than 1/10 acre (4350 square feet) YES = Category I NO = Category II Wetland Rating Form -western Washington 20 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Cat. I Cat. I Cat. II H Wetland name or number ___ _ SC 6.0 Interdunal Wetlands (seep. 93} Is the wetland unit west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? YES -go to SC 6.1 NO_ not an interdunal wetland for rating If you answer yes you will sfj}/ need to rate the wetland based on its functions. In practical terms that means the following geographic areas: • Long Beach Peninsula-lands west of SR 103 • Grayland-Westport-lands west of SR 105 • Ocean Shores-Copalis-lands west of SR 115 and SR I 09 SC 6.1 Is the wetland one acre or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is once acre or larger? YES = Category II NO -go to SC 6.2 SC 6.2 Is the unit between 0.1 and 1 acre, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and I acre? YES = Category III Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics Choose the "highest" rating if wetland falls into several categories, andrecord on p.1. If you answered NO for all types enter ''Not Annlicable" on n.l Wetland Rating Form -western Washington 21 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 August 2004 Cat. II Cat. III I Wetland name or number __ WETLAND RATING FORM-WESTERN WASHINGTON Version 2 -Updated July 2006 to increase accuracy and reproducibility among users Updated Oct 2008 with the new WDFW definitions for priority habitats Name of wetland (if known): _w_e_tl_a_nd_l ___________ Date of site visit: 0611912009 Rated by Adam Gale and Joe Pursley Trained by Ecology? YesXNo_ Date of training May 2oo 7 SEC: __2_!l___ TWNSHP: 24 N RNGE: ~ Is S/I/R in Appendix D? Yes_ No~ Map of wetland unit: Figure _2 _ Estimated size o.o 5 Acre SUMMARY OF RATING Category based on FUNCTIONS provided by wetland I_ II_ IIIX IV_ Category I = Score >= 70 Category II = Score 51-69 Category III = Score 30-50 Category IV = Score < 30 Score for Water Quality Functions 18 f--------1 Score for Hydrologic Fuoctions 16 .__ __ ___, Score for Habitat Functions g ..... --. TOT AL score for Functions 43 Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland I_ II_ Does not Apply X Final Category <•••= t1re ·•~•~t" ~"'°" from •bow) [] Summarv of basic information about the wetland unit Wetland Unit has Special Wetland HGM Class L Characteristics used for Rating Estuarine Deoressional V Natural Heritage Wetland Riverine BOQ" Lake-frinQ"e Mature Forest Slone Old Growth Forest Flats Coastal Lagoon Freshwater Tidal Interdunal None of the above X Check if unit has multiple HGM classes oresent Wetland Rating Form-western Washington August 2004 version 2 To be used with Ecology Publication 04-06-025 I Wetland name or number __ Does the wetland unit being rated meet any of the criteria below? If you answer YES to any of the questions below you will need to protect the wetland according to the regulations regarding the special characteristics found in the wetland. Check List for Wetlands That May Need Additional Protection YES (in addition to the protection recommended for its cate1mrv) SPl. Has the wetland unit been documented as a habitat for any Federally listed Threatened or Endangered animal or plant species (TIE species)? For the purposes of this rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the aooropriate state or federal database. SP2. Has the wetland unit been documented as habitat for any State listed Threatened or Endangered animal species? For the purposes of this rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the appropriate state database. Note: Wetlands with State listed plant species are categorized as Category I Natural Heritage Wetlands (see p. 19 of data form). SP3. Does the wetland unit contain individuals of Priority species listed by the WDFW for the state? SP4. Does the wetland unit have a local significance in addition to its functions? For example, the wetland has been identified in the Shoreline Master Program, the Critical Areas Ordinance, or in a local management plan as having special significance. To complete the next part of the data sheet you will need to determine the Hydrogeomorphic Class of the wetland being rated. NO X X X X The hydrogeomorphic classification groups wetlands into those that function in similar ways. This simplifies the questions needed to answer how well the wetland functions. The Hydrogeomorphic Class of a wetland can be determined using the key below. See p. 24 for more detailed instructions on classifying wetlands. Wetland Rating Form-western Washington 2 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 August 2004 I Wetland name or number __ Classification of Wetland Units in Western Washington If the hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated, you probably have a unit with multiple HGM classes. In this case. identify which hydrologic criteria in questions 1-7 apply, and go to Question 8. 1. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides (i.e. except during floods)? NO -go to 2 YES -the wetland class is Tidal Fringe If yes, is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand}? YES -Freshwater Tidal Fringe NO -Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) If your wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands. !fit is Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is rated as an Estuarine wetland. Wetlands that were called estuarine in the first and second editions of the rating system are called Salt Water Tidal Fringe in the Hydrogeomorphic Classification. Estuarine wetlands were categorized separately in the earlier editions, and this separation is being kept in this revision. To maintain consistency between editions, the term "Estuarine" wetland is kept. Please note, however, that the characteristics that define Category I and II estuarine wetlands have changed (see p. ) . 2. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is the only source (>90%} of water to it. Groundwater and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit. NO -go to 3 YES -The wetland class is Flats If your wetland can be classified as a "Flats" wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands. 3. Does the entire wetland unit meet both of the following criteria? _The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any vegetation on the surface) at least 20 acres (8 ha} in size; _At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m)? NO -go to 4 YES -The wetland class is Lake-fringe (Lacustrine Fringe) 4. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? __ The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual). __ The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks. __ The water leaves the wetland without being impounded? NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these type of wetlands except occasionally in very small and shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3ft diameter and Jess than 1 foot deep). NO -go to 5 YES-The wetland class is Slope Wetland Rating Form -western Washington 3 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 August 2004 I Wetland name or number __ 5. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? __ The unit is in a valley, or stream channel, where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that stream or river __ The overbank flooding occurs at least once every two years. NOTE: The riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not flooding. NO -go to 6 YES -The wetland class is Riverine 6. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the surface, at some time during the year. This means that any outlet, if present, is higher than the interior of the wetland. NO -go to 7 YES -The wetland class is Depressional 7. Is the entire wetland unit located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbank flooding. The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to be maintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural outlet. NO -go to 8 YES -The wetland class is Depressional 8. Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM clases. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small stream within a depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENT AREAS IN THE UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify the appropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within your wetland. NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the class listed in column 2 is less than 10% of the unit; classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the total area. HGM Classes witmilthe wetland unit being rated HGM Class to Use 1n Rating Slope + Riverine Riverine Slope + Depressional Denressional Slope + Lake-fringe Lake-fringe Depressional + Riverine along stream within boundary Depressional Depressional + Lake-fringe Depressional Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other class of freshwater Treat as ESTUARINE under wetland wetlands with special characteristics If you are unable still to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or if you have more than 2 HG M classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the rating. Wetland Rating Form -western Washington 4 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 August 2004 I Wetland name or number __ D Depressional and Flats Wetlands WATER QUALITY FUNCTIONS -Indicators that the wetland unit functions to imnrove water aualitv D D 1. Does the wetland unit have the I!Otential to improve water quality? D I. I Characteristics of surface water flows out of the wetland: Unit is a depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) points= 3 D Unit has an intermittently flowing, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet points= 2 Unit has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet (permanently flowing) points= l Unit is a "flat" depression (Q. 7 on key). or in the Flats class. with permanent surface outflow and no obvious natural outlet and/or outlet is a man-made ditch points= 1 (If ditch is not permanently flowing treat unit as "'intermittently flowing") Provide Dhoto or drawina S 1.2 The sail 2 inches below the surface (or duff layer) is clay or organic {use NRCS D definitions} YES points= 4 NO aoints = 0 D 1.3 Characteristics of persistent vegetation (emergent, shrub, and/or forest Cowardin class) D Wetland bas persistent, ungrazed, vegetation>= 95% of area points= 5 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, vegetation>= 1/2 of area points= 3 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation > = 1/10 of area points= 1 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation < 1/ 10 of area points= 0 Map of Cowardin veaetation classes D 1.4 Characteristics of seasonal ponding or inundation. D This is the area of the wetland unit that is ponded for at least 2 months, but dries out sometime during the year. Do not count the area that is permanently ponded. Estimate area as the average condition 5 out of 10 yrs. Area seasonally ponded is > V, total area of wetland points= 4 Area seasonally ponded is > % total area of wetland points= 2 Area seasonally ponded is < % total area of wetland points= 0 Man of Hvdroneriads D Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes above D D 2. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to improve water quality? Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in groundwater or surface water coming into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams, lakes or groundwater downgradient from the wetland. Note which of the fa/lowing conditions provide the sources of po/lutants. A unit may have po/lutants coming from several sources, but any single source would qualify as opportunity. -Grazing in the wetland or within 150 ft X Untreated stormwater discharges to wetland -Tilled fields or orchards within 150 ft of wetland -A stream or culvert discharges into wetland that drains developed areas, residential areas, farmed fields, roads, or clear-cut logging -Residential, urban areas, golf courses are within 150 ft of wetland -Wetland is fed by groundwater high in phosphorus or nitrogen -Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 D TOTAL -Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from D 1 by D2 Add score to table on TJ. 1 Wetland Rating Form -western Washington 5 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 August 2004 Points {only I score per box) (see p.38} Figure_ 2 0 Figure_ 3 Figure_ 4 -----I 9 I -----(seep. 44) multiplier 2 -- 18 I Wetland name or number __ D Depressional and Flats Wetlands HYDROLOGIC FUNCTIONS -Indicators that the wetland unit functions to reduce flooding and stream de!!radation D 3. Does the wetland unit have the 2otential to reduce flooding and erosion? D D 3.1 Characteristics of surface water flows out of the wetland unit Unit is a depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) points= 4 Unit has an intermittently flowing. OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet points= 2 Unit is a "flat" depression (Q. 7 on key), or in the Flats class, with permanent surface outflow and no obvious natural outlet and/or outlet is a man-made ditch points= I (If ditch is not permanently flowing treat unit as "intermittently flowing") Unit has an unconstricted, or sli2htlv constricted, surface outlet (nermanentlv flowinol ooints -0 D D 3.2 Depth of storage during wet periods Estimate the height of ponding above the bottom of the outlet. For units with no outlet measure from the surface of permanent water or deepest part (if dry}. Marks of ponding are 3 ft or more above the surface or bottom of outlet points= 7 The wetland is a "headwater" wetland" points= 5 Marks of ponding between 2 ft to < 3 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points= 5 Marks are at least 0.5 ft to < 2 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points= 3 Unit is flat (yes to Q. 2 or Q. 7 on key) but has small depressions on the surface that trap water points= 1 Marks of pondin2 less than 0.5 ft points= 0 D D 3.3 Contribution of wetland unit to storage in the watershed Estimate the ratio of the area of upstream basin contributing surface water to the wetland to the area of the wetland unit itself. The area of the basin is less than 10 times the area of unit points= 5 The area of the basin is 10 to 100 times the area of the unit points= 3 The area of the basin is more than 100 times the area of the unit points= 0 Entire unit is in the FLATS class points= 5 D Total for D 3 Add the points in the boxes above D D 4. Does the wetland unit have the 022ortunity to reduce flooding and erosion? Answer YES if the unit is in a location in the watershed where the flood storage, or reduction in water velocity, it provides helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows. Answer NO if the water coming into the wetland is controlled by a structure such as flood gate, tide gate, flap valve, reservoir etc. OR you estimate that more than 90% of the water in the wetland is from groundwater in areas where damaging groundwater flooding does not occur. Note which of the following indicators of opportunity apply. -Wetland is in a headwater of a river or stream that has flooding problems -Wetland drains to a river or stream that has flooding problems X Wetland has no outlet and impounds surface runoff water that might otherwise - flow into a river or stream that has flooding problems -Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 D TOTAL -Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from D 3 by D 4 Add score to table on p. 1 Wetland Rating Form -western Washington 6 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 August 2004 Points (only 1 score per box) (see p.46} 2 3 3 -----I 8 I -----(seep. 49) multiplier 2 16 I Wetland name or number __ These questions apply to wedands of all HGM classes. HABIT AT FUNCTIONS -Indicators that unit functions to provide important habitat H l. Does the wetland unit have the potential to provide habitat for many species? H 1.1 Vegetation structure (seep. 72) Check the types of vegetation classes present (as defined by Cowardinr Size threshold for each class is !4 acre or more than 10% of the area if UI1it is smaller than 2.5 acres. __ Aquatic bed __ Emergent plants ..x_Scrub/sbrub (areas where shrubs have >30% cover) __ Forested ( areas where trees have >30% cover) If the unit has a forested class check if: __ The forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub-canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, moss/ground-cover) that each cover 20% within the forested polygon Add the number of vegetation structures that qualify. If you have: Map of Cowardin vegetation classes H 1.2. Hydroperiods (seep. 73} 4 structures or more 3 structures 2 structures 1 structure points= 4 points= 2 points= 1 points= 0 Check the types of waler regimes {hydroperiods} present within the wed and. The water regime has to cover more than 10% of the wedand or !4 acre to count. (see text for descriptions of hydroperiods} __ Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present points= 3 points= 2 point = 1 points= 0 ..x_seasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present ..x_ Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present ..x_saturated only 1 type present __ Permanently flowing stream or river in. or adjacent to, the wetland __ Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland __ Lake-fringe wedand = 2 points __ Freshwater tidal wetland= 2 points Map of hydroperiods H 1.3. Richness of Plant Species {seep. 75) Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ft 1. of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold} You do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian Mi/foil, reed canarygrass, purple Joosestrife, If you counted: > 19 species List species below if you want to: 5 -19 species < 5 species (different patches Canadian Thistle points= 2 points = I points= 0 Points ( only 1 score per box) Figure_ 0 Figure_ 2 0 2 Total for page __ _ Wetland Rating Form -western Washington 13 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 I Wetland name or number __ H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats {seep. 76} Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion between Cowardin vegetation classes (described in H I.I), or the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, medium, low, or none. C) 0 None = 0 points Low= 1 point Moderate = 2 points ~ [ riparian braided channels] High = 3 points NOTE: If you have four or more classes or three vegetation classes and open water the ratio is alwa s "hi h". Use map of Cowardin ve elation classes H 1.5. Special Habitat Features: (seep. 77) Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points you put into the next column. __ Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (>4in. diameter and 6 ft long). __ Standing snags (diameter at the bottom> 4 inches) in the wetland __ Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2m) and/or overhanging vegetation extends at least 3.3 ft (Im) over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the unit, for at least 33 ft (JOm) __ Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (>30degree slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present {cut shrubs or trees that have not yet fumed grey/brown} __ At least 'A acre of thin-stemmed persistent vegetation or woody branches are present in areas that are permanently or seasonally inundated. {structures for egg-laying by amphibians} __ Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in each stratum of plants NOTE: The 20% stated in early printings of the manual on page 78 is an error. igure_ 1 0 r-----------------------------------p---- H 1. TOT AL Score -potential for providing habitat Add the scores from Hl.J, Hl.2, Hl.3, Hl.4, Hl.5 ~------------------------~----~-~---~----~ 3 Comments Wetland Rating Form -western Washington 14 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 I Wetland name or number __ H 2. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to provide habitat for many species? H 2.1 Buffers (seep. 80) Figure~ Choose the description that best represents condition of buffer of wetland onit. The highest scoring criterion that applies to the wetland is to be used in the rating. See text for definition of "undisturbed. " -100 m (330ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water >95% of circumference. No structures are within tbe undisturbed part of buffer. (relatively undisturbed also means no-grazing, no landscaping, no daily human use) Points = 5 -100 m (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 50% circumference. Points = 4 -50 m (170ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water >95% circumference. Points = 4 -100 m (330ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water> 25% circumference, . Points = 3 -50 m (170ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water for> 50% circumference. Points = 3 If buffer does not meet any of the criteria above -No paved areas (except paved trails) or buildings within 25 m (80ft) of wetland > 95% circumference. Light to moderate grazing, or lawns are OK. Points= 2 -No paved areas or buildings within 50m of wetland for >50% circumference. Light to moderate grazing, or lawns are OK. Points = 2 -Heavy grazing in buffer. Points = 1 -Vegetated buffers are <2m wide (6.6ft) for more than 95% of the circumference (e.g. tilled fields, paving, basalt bedrock extend to edge of wetland Points = 0. X Buffer does not meet any of the criteria above. Points = I 1 Aerial photo showina buffers H 2.2 Corridors and Connections (seep. 81) H 2.2.1 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor (either riparian or upland) that is at least 150 ft wide, has at least 30% cover of shrubs, forest or native undisturbed prairie, that connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 250 acres in size? (dams in riparian corridors, heavily used gravel roads, paved roads, are considered breaks in the corridor). YES= 4 points (go to H 2.3') NO =goto H 2.2.2 H 2.2.2 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor (either riparian or upland) that is at least 50ft wide, has at least 30% cover of shrubs or forest, and connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 25 acres in size? OR a Lake-fringe wetland, if it does not have an undisturbed corridor as in the question above? YES = 2 points (go to H 2.3') NO = H 2.2.3 H 2.2.3 Is the wetland: within 5 mi (8km) of a brackish or salt water estuary OR within 3 mi of a large field or pasture (>40 acres) OR within I mi of a lake greater than 20 acres? 1 YES = 1 point NO = 0 ooints 2 Total for page. __ _ Wetland Rating Form-western Washington 15 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 I Wetland name or number __ H 2.3 Near or adjacent to other priority habitats listed by WDFW (see new and complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats. and the counties in which they can be found, in the PHS report http://wdfw.wa.gov!hab!phslist.htm) Which of the following priority habitats are within 330ft (I OOm) of the wetland unit? NOTE: the connections do not have to be relatively undisturbed. __ Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 0.4 ha (1 acre). LBiodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 152). __ Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock. __ Old-growth/Mature forests: {Old-growth west of Cascade crest) Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi-layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 20 trees/ha {8 trees/acre) > 81 cm (32 in) dhh or> 200 years of age. <Mature forests) Stands with average diameters exceeding 53 cm (21 in) dbh; crown cover may be less that 100%: crown cover may be less that 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old-growth; 80 -200 years old west of the Cascade crest. __ Oregon white Oak: Woodlands Stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component is important {full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 15!/'J. __ Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other. __ Westside Prairies: Herbaceous, non-forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wet prairie (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 161). __ Instream: The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources. __ Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearshore, and Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WDFW report: pp. 167-169 and glossary in Appendix A). __ Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils, rock, ice, or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human. __ Cliffs: Greater than 7.6 m (25 ft) high and occurring below 5000 ft. __ Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.15 -2.0 m (0.5 -6.5 ft), composed of basalt, andesite, and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs. __ Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of> 51 cm (20 in) in western Washington and are > 2 m {6.5 ft) in height. Priority logs are> 30 cm (12 in) in diameter at the largest end, and> 6 m (20 ft) long. If wetland has 3 or more priority habitats = 4 points If wetland has 2 priority habitats = 3 points If wetland has 1 priority habitat = 1 point No habitats = 0 points Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list. Nearby wetlands are addressed in question H 2.4) Wetland Rating Form -western Washington 16 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 1 I Wetland name or number __ H 2.4 Wetland Landscape {choose the one description of the landscape around the wetland that best fits) {seep. 84) There are at least 3 other wetlands within ~ mile, and the connections between them are relatively undisturbed (light grazing between wetlands OK, as is Jake shore with some boating, but connections should NOT be bisected by paved roads, fill, fields, or other development. points= 5 The wetland is Lake-fringe on a lake with little disturbance and there are 3 other lake-fringe wetlands within ~ mile points= 5 There are at least 3 other wetlands within ~ mile, BUT the connections between them are disturbed points= 3 The wetland is Lake-fringe on a lake with disturbance and there are 3 other lake-fringe wetland within ~ mile points= 3 There is at least I wetland within ~ mile. points= 2 There are no wetlands within ~ mile. points= 0 H 2. TOTAL Score -opportunity for providing habitat Add the scores from H2.1,H2.2, H2.3, H2.4 TOT AL for H I from page 14 Total Score for Habitat Functions -add the points for H 1, H 2 and record the result on D. 1 Wetland Rating Form~ western Washington 17 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 3 -----I 6 I I I ----- 3 ----- 9 I Wetland name or number __ CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Please determine if the wetland meets the attributes described below and circle the appropriate answers and Category. Wetland Type Category Check off any criteria that apply to the wetland. Circle the Category when the anoropriate criteria are met. SC 1.0 Estuarine wetlands (seep. 86} Does the wetland unit meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands? -The dominant water regime is tidal, -Vegetated, and -With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt. YES= Go to SC 1.1 NOX SC 1.1 Is the wetland unit within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, Cat. I National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area Preserve, State Park or Educational, Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332-30-151? YES = Cate_gorv I X NO _go to SC 1.2 SC 1.2 Is the wetland unit at least 1 acre in size and meets at least two of the following three conditions? YES = Category I NO = Category II Cat. I -The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, Cat. II cultivation, grazing, and has less than 10% cover of non-native plant species. If the non-native Spartina spp. are the only species that cover more than 10% of the wetland, then the wetland should be given a dual Dual rating (I/II). The area of Spartina would be rated a Category II while the rating relatively undisturbed upper marsh with native species would be a I/II Category I. Do not, however, exclude the area of Spartina in determining the size threshold of 1 acre. -At least % of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un-mowed grassland. -The wetland has at least 2 of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or contiguous freshwater wetlands. Wetland Rating Form-western Washington 18 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 I Wetland name or number __ SC 2.0 Natural Heritage Wetlands {seep. 87) Natural Heritage wetlands have been identified by the Washington Natural Heritage Program/DNR as either high quality undisturbed wetlands or wetlands that support state Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive plant species. SC 2.1 Is the wetland unit being rated in a Sectionffownship/Range that contains a Natural Heritage wetland? {this question is used to screen out most sites before you need to contact WNHPIDNR) S/T/R information from Appendix D _ or accessed from WNHP/DNR web site _ YES __ -contact WNHP/DNR (see p. 79) and go to SC 2.2 NOX SC 2.2 Has DNR identified the wetland as a high quality undisturbed wetland or as or as a site with state threatened or endangered plant species? YES = Category I NO _x_not a Heritage Wetland SC 3.0 Bogs {seep. 87) Does the wetland unit {or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key below to identify if the wetland is a bog. If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. 1. Does the unit have organic soil horizons {i.e. layers of organic soil), either peats or mucks, that compose 16 inches or more of the first 32 inches of the soil profile? (See Appendix B for a field key to identify organic soils)? Yes - ~~Q3 X~-~~Q.2 2. Does the unit have organic soils, either peats or mucks that are less than 16 inches deep over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on a lake or pond? Yes -go to Q. 3 X No -Is not a bog for purpose of rating 3. Does the unit have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, AND other plants, if present, consist of the "bog" species listed in Table 3 as a significant component of the vegetation (more than 30% of the total shrub and herbaceous cover consists of species in Table 3)? Yes-Is a bog for purpose of rating X No -go to Q. 4 NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory you may substitute that criterion by measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16" deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the "bog" plant species in Table 3 are present, the wetland is a bog. J. Is the unit forested (> 30% cover) with sitka spruce, subalpine fir, western red cedar, western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Englemann' s spruce, or western white pine, WITH any of the species {or combination of species) on the bog species plant list in Table 3 as a significant component of the ground cover(> 30% coverage of the total shrub/herbaceous cover)? 2. YES= Category I NoX Is not a bog for purpose of rating Wetland Rating Form -western Washington 19 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Cat. I Cat. I I Wetland name or number __ SC 4.0 Forested Wetlands (seep. 90} Does the wetland unit have at least 1 acre of forest that meet one of these criteria for the Department of Fish and Wildlife's forests as priority habitats? lfyou answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. -Old-growth forests: (west of Cascade crest) Stands of at least two tree species, forming a multi-layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/acre (20 trees/hectare) that are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 32 inches (81 cm) or more. NOTE: The criterion for dbh is based on measurements for upland forests. Two-hundred year old trees in wetlands will often have a smaller dbh because their growth rates are often slower. The DFW criterion is and "OR" so old-growth forests do not necessarily have to have trees of this diameter. -Mature forests: (west of the Cascade Crest) Stands where the largest trees are 80 -200 years old OR have average diameters (dbh) exceeding 21 inches (53cm): crown cover may be less that 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old-growth. YES = Category I NO Xnot a forested wetland with special characteristics SC 5.0 Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons (seep. 91} Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wetland in a coastal lagoon? -The wetland lies in a depression adjacent to marine waters that is wholly or partially separated from marine waters by sandbanks, gravel banks, shingle, or, less frequently, rocks -The lagoon in which the wetland is located contains surface water that is saline or brackish (> 0.5 ppt) during most of the year in at least a portion of the lagoon (needs to be measured near the bottom) YES= Go to SC 5.1 NOX not a wetland in a coastal lagoon SC 5.1 Does the wetland meets all of the following three conditions? -The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing), and has less than 20% cover of invasive plant species (see list of invasive species on p. 7 4). -At least % of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un-mowed grassland. -The wetland is larger than 1/10 acre (4350 square feet) YES = Category I NO = Category II Wetland Rating Form -western Washington 20 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Cat. I Cat. I Cat. II I Wetland name or number __ SC 6.0 Interdunal Wetlands (seep. 93) Is the wetland unit west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? YES -go to SC 6.1 NO X not an interdunal wetland for rating If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wedand based on its functions. In practical terms that means the following geographic areas: • Long Beach Peninsula-lands west of SR 103 • Grayland-Westport-lands west of SR 105 • Ocean Shores-Copalis-lands west of SR 115 and SR 109 SC 6.1 Is the wetland one acre or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is once acre or larger? YES = Category II X NO -go to SC 6.2 Cat. II SC 6.2 Is the unit between 0.1 and I acre, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and I acre? YES = Category III Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics Choose the "highest" rating if wetland falls into severalcategories, and record on p. 1. If you answered NO for all tvnes enter ''Not Aoolicable" on p. l Wetland Rating Form -western Washington 21 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 August 2004 Cat. III j Wetland name or number __ WETLAND RATING FORM-WESTERN WASHINGTON Version 2 -Updated July 2006 to increase accuracy and reproducibility among users Updated Oct 2008 with the new WDFW definitions for priority habitats Name of wetland (if known): _w_e_ll_a_nd_J ___________ Date of site visit: 0611912009 Rated by Adam Gale and Joe Pursley Trained by Ecology? YesXNo_ Date of training May 2 oo 7 SEC: 29 TWNSHP: 24 N RNGE: ~ Is S/T/R in Appendix D? Yes_ NoX Map of wetland unit: Figure _2 _ Estimated size 0·1 Acre SUMMARY OF RATING Category based on FUNCTIONS provided by wetland I_ II_ III_X_ IV_ Category I = Score >= 70 Category II = Score 51-69 Category III = Score 30-50 Category IV = Score < 30 Score for Water Quality Functions 14 Score for Hydrologic Functions 1 o .__ __ -----< Score for Habitat Functions 14 -----TOTAL score for Functions 38 Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland I_ II_ Does not Apply X Final Category ( <h=<th, "lrlgb..t" rat,go,y from ,oov,) D Summarvo fb asic in ormation a b out t e wet an h 1 d unit Wetland Unit has Special Wetland HGM Class Characteristics used for Ratirt!! . .· Estuarine Deoressional V Natural Herita!!e Wetland Riverine Bo!! Lake-frin!!e Mature Forest Slone X Old Growth Forest Flats Coastal La!!oon Freshwater Tidal Interdunal None of the above X Check if unit has multiple X HGM classes oresent Wetland Rating Form -western Washington August 2004 version 2 To be used with Ecology Publication 04-06-025 J Wetland name or number __ Does the wetland unit being rated meet any of the criteria below? If you answer YES to any of the questions below you will need to protect the wetland according to the regulations regarding the special characteristics found in the wetland. Check List for Wetlands That May Need Additional Protection YES (in addition to the protection recommended for its categorv) SPl. Has the wetland unit been documented as a habitat for any Federally listed Threatened or Endangered animal or plant species ([IE species)? For the purposes of this rating system. "documented" means the wetland is on the aooropriate state or federal database. SP2. Has the wetland unit been documented as habitat for any State listed Threatened or Endangered animal species? For the purposes of this rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the appropriate state database. Note: Wetlands with State listed plant species are categorized as Category I Natural Heritage Wetlands (seep. 19 of data form). SP3. Does the wetland unit contain individuals of Priority species listed by the WDFW for the state? SP4. Does the wetland unit have a local significance in addition to its functions? For example, the wetland has been identified in the Shoreline Master Program, the Critical Areas Ordinance, or in a local management plan as having special significance. To complete the next part of the data sheet you will need to detennine the Hydrogeomorphic Class of the wetland being rated. NO X X X X The hydrogeomorphic classification groups wetlands into those that function in similar ways. This simplifies the questions needed to answer how well the wetland functions. The Hydrogeomorphic Class of a wetland can be determined using the key below. Seep. 24 for more detailed instructions on classifying wetlands. Wetland Rating Form -western Washington 2 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 August 2004 j Wetland name or number __ Classification of Wetland Units in Western Washington If the hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated, you probably have a unit with multiple HGM classes. In this case, identify which hydrologic criteria in questions 1-7 apply, and go to Question 8. 1. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides (i.e. except during floods)? NO -go to 2 YES -the wetland class is Tidal Fringe If yes, is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)? YES -Freshwater Tidal Fringe NO -Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) If your wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands. If it is Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is rated as an Estuarine wetland. Wetlands that were called estuarine in the first and second editions of the rating system are called Salt Water Tidal Fringe in the Hydrogeomorphic Classification. Estuarine wetlands were categorized separately in the earlier editions, and this separation is being kept in this revision. To maintain consistency between editions, the term "Estuarine" wetland is kept. Please note, however, that the characteristics that define Category I and II estuarine wetlands have changed (see p. ) . 2. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is the only source (>90%) of water to it. Groundwater and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit. NO-go to 3 YES -The wetland class is Flats If your wetland can be classified as a "Flats" wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands. 3. Does the entire wetland unit meet both of the following criteria? _The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any vegetation on the surface) at least 20 acres (8 ha) in size; _At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m)? NO -go to 4 YES -The wetland class is Lake-fringe (Lacustrine Fringe) 4. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? _X_The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual), XThe water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks. __ The water leaves the wetland without being impounded? NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these type of wetlands except occasionally in very small and shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3ft diameter and less than 1 foot deep). NO -go to 5 YES -The wetland class is Slope Wetland Rating Farm -western Washington 3 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 August 2004 J Wetland name or number __ 5. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? __ The unit is in a valley, or stream channel, where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that stream or river __ The overbank flooding occurs at least once every two years. NOTE: The riverine unit can contain depressions that are /11Jed with water when the river is not flooding. NO -go to 6 YES -The wetland class is Riverine 6. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the surface, at some time during the year. This means that any outlet, if present, is higher than the interior of the wetland. NO -go to 7 YES -The wetland class is Depressional 7. Is the entire wetland unit located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbank flooding. The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to be maintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural outlet. NO -go to 8 YES -The wetland class is Depressional 8. Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM clases. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small stream within a depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY WHICH OF THE HYDRO LOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENT AREAS IN THE UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify the appropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within your wetland. NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the class listed in column 2 is less than 10% of the unit; classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the total area. HGM Classes within the,wetl~hd:Unit beinP rated HGM Class to tlsemRatinE Slooe + Riverine Riverine Slone + Denressional Deoressional Slope + Lake-frine:e Lake-frine:e Depressional + Riverine along stream within boundary Depressional Deoressional + Lake-frine:e Depressional Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other class of freshwater Treat as ESTUARINE under wetland wetlands with special characteristics If you are unable still to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or if you have more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the rating. Wetland Rating Form -western Washington 4 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 August 2004 J Wetland name or number __ D Depressional and Flats Wetlands WATER QUALITY FUNCTIONS -Indicators that the wetland unit functions to improve water quality D D 1. Does the wetland unit have the 11otential to improve water quality? D 1.1 Characteristics of surface water flows out of the wetland: D Unit is a depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) points= 3 Unit has an intermittently flowing. OR higWy constricted permanently flowing outlet points= 2 Unit has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet (permanently flowing) points= I Unit is a "flat" depression (Q. 7 on key), or in the Flats class, with permanent surface outflow and no obvious natural outlet and/or outlet is a man-made ditch points= 1 (If ditch i\' not permanently flowing treat unit as "intermittently flowing") Provide Photo or drawina S 1.2 The soil 2 inches below tbe surface (or duff layer) is clay or organic {useNRCS D definitions) YES points= 4 NO points= 0 D 1.3 Characteristics of persistent vegetation (emergent, shrub, and/or forest Cowardin class) D Wetland bas persistent, ungrazed, vegetation>= 95% of area points= 5 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, vegetation>= 1/2 of area points= 3 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation > = 1/10 of area points= 1 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation <1/10 of area points= 0 Map of Cowardin veaetation classes D 1.4 Characteristics of seasonal ponding or inundation. D This is the area of the wetland unit that is ponded for at least 2 months, but dries out sometime during the year. Do not count the area that is permanently ponded. Estimate area as the average condition 5 out of 10 yrs. Area seasonally ponded is > 1/2 total area of wetland points= 4 Area seasonal! y ponded is> 114 total area of wetland points= 2 Area seasonally ponded is< 114 total area of wetland points= 0 Mac of Hvdroceriods D Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes above D D 2. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to improve water quality? Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in groundwater or surface water coming into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams, lakes or groundwater down gradient from the wetland. Note which of the following conditions provide the sources of pollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming from several sources, but any single source would qualify as opportunity. -Grazing in the wetland or within 150 ft . X Untreated stormwater discharges to wetland -Tilled fields or orchards within 150 ft of wetland X A stream or culvert discharges into wetland that drains developed areas, residential areas, farmed fields, roads, or clear-cut logging -Residential, urban areas, golf courses are within 150 ft of wetland -Wetland is fed by groundwater high in phosphorus or nitrogen -Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 D TOTAL -Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from D 1 by D2 Add score to table on o. 1 Wetland Rating Form-western Washington 5 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 August 2004 Points (only I score per box) (see p.38) Figure_ 2 0 Figure_ 3 Figure_ 2 -----I 7 I -----(seep. 44} multiplier 2 -- 14 J Wetland name or number __ _ D Depressional and Flats Wetlands HYDROLOGIC FUNCTIONS -Indicators that the wetland unit functions to reduce flooding and stream dePradation D 3. Does the wetland unit have the 12otential to reduce flooding and erosion? D D 3.1 Characteristics of surface water flows out of the wetland unit Unit is a depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) points= 4 Unit has an intermittently flowing, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet points= 2 Unit is a "flat" depression (Q. 7 on key), or in the Flats class, with permanent surface outflow and no obvious natural outlet and/or outlet is a man-made ditch points= I (If ditch is not permanently flowing treat unit as "intermittently flowing") Unit has an unconstricted, or sli~htlv constricted, surface outlet I =rmanendv flowin~) ooints -0 D D 3.2 Depth of storage during wet periods Estimate the height of ponding above the bottom of the outlet. For units with no outlet measure from the surface of pennanent water or deepest part (if dry). Marks of ponding are 3 ft or more above the surface or bottom of outlet points= 7 The wetland is a "headwater" wetland" points= 5 Marks of ponding between 2 ft to < 3 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points= 5 Marks are at least 0.5 ft to < 2 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points= 3 Unit is flat (yes to Q. 2 or Q. 7 on key) but has small depressions on the surface that trap water points= I Marks of oondin!! less than 0.5 ft ooints = 0 D D 3.3 Contribution of wetland unit to storage in the watershed Estimate the ratio of the area of upstream basin contributing surface water to the wetland to the area of the wetland unit itself The area of the basin is less than 10 times the area of unit points= 5 The area of the basin is 10 to 100 times the area of the unit points= 3 The area of the basin is more than 100 times the area of the unit points= 0 Entire unit is in the FLATS class noints = 5 D Total for D 3 Add the points in the boxes above D D 4. Does the wetland unit have the 01212ortunity to reduce flooding and erosion? Answer YES if the unit is in a location in the watershed where the flood storage, or reduction in water velocity, it provides helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows. Answer NO if the water coming into the wetland is controlled by a structure such as flood gate, tide gate, flap valve, reservoir etc. OR you estimate that more than 90% of the water in the wetland is from groundwater in areas where damaging groundwater flooding does not occur. Note which of the following indicators of opportunity apply. -Wetland is in a headwater of a river or stream that has flooding problems -Wetland drains to a river or stream that has flooding problems X Wetland has no outlet and impounds surface runoff water that might otherwise flow into a river or stream that has flooding problems X Other primary hydrology source from WSDOT pond YES multiolier is 2 NO multiolier is 1 D TOTAL -Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from D 3 by D 4 Add score to table on p. 1 Wetland Rating Form -western Washington 6 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 August 2004 Points (only 1 score per box) (see p.46) 2 3 0 -----I 5 I -----(seep. 49) multiplier 2 10 J Wetland name or number __ _ These questions apply to wedands of all HGM classes. HABITAT FUNCTIONS -Indicators that unit functions to provide important habitat H 1. Does the wetland unit have the potential to provide habitat for many species? H 1.1 Vegetation structure {seep. 72) Check the types of vegetation classes present {as defined by Cowardin)-Size threshold for each class is !4 acre or more than 10% of the area if unit is smaller than 2.5 acres. __ Aquatic bed _x_Emergent plants _x_scrub/shrub (areas where shrubs have >30% cover) __ Forested (areas where trees have >30% cover) If the unit has a forested class check if: __ The forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub-canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, moss/ground-cover) that each cover 20% within the forested polygon Add the number of vegetation structures that qualify. lfyou have: Map of Cowardin vegetation classes H 1.2. Hydroperiods (seep. 73) 4 structures or more 3 structures 2 structures 1 structure points= 4 points= 2 points= 1 ooints = 0 Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wedand. The water regime has to cover more than 10% of the wedand or !4 acre to count. {see text for descriptions of hydroperiods) XPermanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present _x_seasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present _x_ Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present XSaturated only 1 type present __ Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland __ Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland points= 3 points= 2 point= 1 points= 0 __ Lake-fringe wedand = 2 points __ Freshwater tidal wetland= 2 points Map of hydroperiods H 1.3. Richness of Plant Species {seep. 75) Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ft 1• (different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold) You do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian Mi/foil, reed canarygrass. purple loosestrife, Canadian Thistle If you counted: > 19 species List species below if you want to: 5 -19 species < 5 species points= 2 points= 1 points= 0 Points (only I score per box) Figure _ 1 Figure _ 3 1 5 Total for page __ _ Wetland Rating Form -western Washington 13 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 J Wetland name or number __ H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats (seep. 76} Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion between Cowardin vegetation classes (described in H I.I), or the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, medium, low, or none. C) 0 None = 0 points Low= 1 point Moderate = 2 points ~ High = 3 points [ riparian braided channels] NOTE: If you have four or more classes or three vegetation classes and open water the ratin is alwa s "hi h". Use ma of Cowardin ve elation classes H 1.5. Special Habitat Features: (seep. 77) Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points you put into the next column. __ Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (>4in. diameter and 6 ft long). __x_standing snags (diameter at the bottom> 4 inches) in the wetland __ Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2m) and/or overhanging vegetation extends at least 3.3 ft (Im) over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the unit, for at least 33 ft (!Om) __ Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (>30degree slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet turned grey/brown} __x_At least Iii acre of thin-stemmed persistent vegetation or woody branches are present in areas that are permanently or seasonally inundated.(structures for egg-laying by amphibians) __ Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in each stratum of plants NOTE: The 20 % stated in early printings of the manual on page 78 is an error. igure_ 1 2 ~----------------------------------~~----H 1. TOT AL Score -potential for providing habitat Add the scores from Hl.1, HJ.2, Hl.3, Hl.4, Hl.5 ~------------------------~-~~-~-~~=~~----- 8 Comments Wetland Rating Form-western Washington 14 Augnst 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 I j Wetland name or number __ H 2. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to provide habitat for many species? H 2.1 Buffers (seep. 80} Figure_ Choose the description that best represents condition of buffer of wetland unit. The highest scoring criterion that applies to the wetland is to he used in the rating. See text for definition of "undisturbed. " -100 m (330ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water >95% of circumference. No structures are within the undisturbed part of buffer. (relatively undisturbed also means no-grazing, no landscaping, no daily human use) Points = 5 -100 m (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 50% circumference. Points = 4 -50 m (170ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water >95% circumference. Points = 4 -100 m (330ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 25% circumference, . Points = 3 -50 m (170ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water for > 50% circumference. Points = 3 If buffer does not meet any of the criteria above -No paved areas (except paved trails) or buildings within 25 m (80ft) of wetland > 95% circumference. Light to moderate grazing, or lawns are OK. Points = 2 -No paved areas or buildings within 50m of wetland for >50% circumference. Light to moderate grazing, or lawns are OK. Points= 2 -Heavy grazing in buffer. Points = 1 -Vegetated buffers are <2m wide (6.6ft) for more than 95% of the circumference (e.g. tilled fields, paving, basalt bedrock extend to edge of wetland Points= 0. X Buffer does not meet any of the criteria above. Points = 1 Aerial ohoto showina buffers H 2.2 Corridors and Connections (seep. 81} H 2.2.1 ls the wetland part ofa relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor (either riparian or upland) that is at least 150 ft wide, has at least 30% cover of shrubs, forest or native undisturbed prairie, that connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 250 acres in size? (dams in riparian corridors, heavily used gravel roads, paved roads, are considered breaks in the corridor). YES= 4 points (go to H 2.3) NO = go to H 2.2.2 H 2.2.2 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor (either riparian or upland) that is at least 50ft wide, has at least 30% cover of shrubs or forest, and connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 25 acres in size? OR a Lake-fringe wetland, if it does not have an undisturbed corridor as in the question above? YES = 2 points (go to H 2.3) NO = H 2.2.3 H 2.2.3 Is the wetland: within 5 mi (8km) of a brackish or salt water estuary OR within 3 mi of a large field or pasture (>40 acres) OR within 1 mi of a lake greater than 20 acres? YES = 1 ooint NO = 0 ooints 1 2 Total for page. __ _ Wetland Rating Farm -western Washington 15 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 J Wetland name or number __ H 2.3 Near or adjacent to other priority habitats listed by WDFW (see new and complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which they can be found, in the PHS report http://wdfw.wa.gov/hab/phslist.htm) Which of the following priority habitats are within 330ft (IOOm) of the wetland unit? NOTE: the connections do not have to be relatively undisturbed. __ Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 0.4 ha (I acre). _x_Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 152). __ Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock. __ Old-growth/Mature forests: (Old-growth west of Cascade crest) Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi-layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 20 trees/ha (8 trees/acre) > 81 cm (32 in) dbh or> 200 years of age. (Mature forests) Stands with average diameters exceeding 53 cm (21 in) dbh; crown cover may be less that 100%; crown cover may be less that 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old-growth; 80 -200 years old west of the Cascade crest. __ Oregon whlte Oak: Woodlands Stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component is important (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 158). __ Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other. __ Westside Prairies: Herbaceous, non-forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wet prairie (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 161). __ Instream: The combination of physical, biological. and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources. __ Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearshore, and Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WDFW report: pp. 167-169 and glossary in Appendix A). __ Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils, rock, ice, or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human. __ Cliffs: Greater than 7.6 m (25 ft) high and occurring below 5000 ft. __ Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.15 -2.0 m (0.5 -6.5 ft), composed of basalt, andesite, and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs. __ Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of> 51 cm (20 in) in western Washington and are> 2 m (6.5 ft) in height. Priority logs are> 30 cm (12 in) in diameter at the largest end, and> 6 m (20 ft) long. If wetland bas 3 or more priority habitats ; 4 points If wetland has 2 priority habitats ; 3 points If wetland has 1 priority habitat ; 1 point No habitats ; 0 points Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list. Nearbv wetlands are addressed in question H 2. 4) Wetland Rating Form -western Washington 16 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 August 2004 1 J Wetland name or number ~-~ H 2.4 Wetland Landscape (choose the one description of the landscape around the wedand that best fits) {seep. 84) There are at least 3 other wetlands within 12 mile, and the connections between them are relatively undisturbed (light grazing between wetlands OK, as is lake shore with some boating, but connections should NOT be bisected by paved roads, fill, fields, or other development. points= 5 The wetland is Lake-fringe on a lake with little disturbance and there are 3 other lake-fringe wetlands within 1h mile points= 5 There are at least 3 other wetlands within 12 mile, BUT the connections between them are disturbed points= 3 The wetland is Lake-fringe on a lake with disturbance and there are 3 other Jake-fringe wetland within 12 mile points= 3 There is at least I wetland within 12 mile. points= 2 There are no wetlands within 1h mile. points= 0 H 2. TOTAL Score -opportunity for providing habitat Add the scores from H2.l,H2.2, H2.3, H2.4 TOTAL for H 1 from page 14 Total Score for Habitat Functions -add the points for H 1, H 2 and record the result on p. 1 Wetland Rating Form -western Washington 17 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 3 -----I 6 I I I ----- 8 ----- 14 J Wetland name or number __ CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Please determine if the wetland meets the attributes described below and circle the appropriate answers and Category. Wetland Type Category Check off any criteria that apply to the wetland. Circle the Category when the annropriate criteria are met. SC 1.0 Estuarine wetlands (seep. 86} Does the wetland unit meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands? -The dominant water regime is tidal, -Vegetated, and -With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt. YES; Go to SC 1.1 NOX SC 1.1 Is the wetland unit within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, Cat. I National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area Preserve, State Park or Educational, Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332-30-151? YES ; Category I X NO go to SC 1.2 SC 1.2 Is the wetland unit at least 1 acre in size and meets at least two of the following three conditions? YES ; Category I NO ; Category II Cat. I -The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, Cat. II cultivation, grazing, and has less than 10% cover of non-native plant species. If the non-native Spartina spp. are the only species that cover more than 10% of the wetland, then the wetland should be given a dual Dual rating (I/II). The area of Spartina would be rated a Category II while the rating relatively undisturbed upper marsh with native species would be a 1/11 Category I. Do not, however, exclude the area of Spartina in determining the size threshold of I acre. -At least % of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un-mowed grassland. -The wetland has at least 2 of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or contiguous freshwater wetlands. Wetland Rating Form-western Washington 18 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 J Wetland name or number __ SC 2.0 Natural Heritage Wetlands (seep. 87) Natural Heritage wetlands have been identified by the Washington Natural Heritage Program/DNR as either high quality undisturbed wetlands or wetlands that support state Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive plant species. SC 2.1 Is the wetland unit being rated in a Section/Township/Range that contains a Natural Heritage wetland? (this question is used to screen out most sites before you need to contact WNHPIDNR) Sff/R information from Appendix D _ or accessed from WNHP/DNR web site _ YES __ -contact WNHP/DNR (see p. 79) and go to SC 2.2 NOX SC 2.2 Has DNR identified the wetland as a high quality undisturbed wetland or as or as a site with state threatened or endangered plant species? YES = Category I NO _x_not a Heritage Wetland SC 3.0 Bogs (seep. 87) Does the wetland unit (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key below to identify if the wetland is a bog. If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. 1. Does the unit have organic soil horizons {i.e. layers of organic soil), either peats or mucks, that compose 16 inches or more of the first 32 inches of the soil profile? (See Appendix B for a field key to identify organic soils)? Yes - go to Q. 3 X No -go to Q. 2 2. Does the unit have organic soils, either peats or mucks that are less than 16 inches deep over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on a lake or pond? Yes -go to Q. 3 X No -Is not a bog for purpose of rating 3. Does the unit have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, AND other plants, if present, consist of the "bog" species listed in Table 3 as a significant component of the vegetation (more than 30% of the total shrub and herbaceous cover consists of species in Table 3)? Yes -Is a bog for purpose of rating X No -go to Q. 4 NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory you may substitute that criterion by measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16" deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the "bog" plant species in Table 3 are present, the wetland is a bog. J. Is the unit forested (> 30% cover) with sitka spruce, subalpine fir, western red cedar, western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Englemann's spruce, or western white pine, WITH any of the species (or combination of species) on the bog species plant list in Table 3 as a significant component of the ground cover(> 30% coverage of the total shrub/herbaceous cover)? 2. YES = Category I NoX Is not a bog for purpose of rating Wetland Rating Form-western Washington 19 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Cat. I Cat. I J Wetland name or number __ SC 4.0 Forested Wetlands (seep. 90} Does the wetland unit have at least 1 acre of forest that meet one of these criteria for the Department of Fish and Wildlife's forests as priority habitats? If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. -Old-growth forests: (west of Cascade crest) Stands of at least two tree species, forming a multi-layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/acre (20 trees/hectare) that are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 32 inches {81 cm) or more. NOTE: The criterion for dbh is based on measurements for upland forests. Two-hundred year old trees in wetlands will often have a smaller dbh because their growth rates are often slower. The DFW criterion is and "OR" so old-growth forests do not necessarily have to have trees of this diameter. -Mature forests: (west of the Cascade Crest) Stands where the largest trees are 80 -200 years old OR have average diameters (dbh) exceeding 21 inches (53cm); crown cover may be less that 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old-growth. YES = Category I NO X not a forested wetland with special characteristics SC 5.0 Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons (seep. 91) Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wetland in a coastal lagoon? -The wetland lies in a depression adjacent to marine waters that is wholly or partially separated from marine waters by sandbanks, gravel banks, shingle, or, less frequently, rocks -The lagoon in which the wetland is located contains surface water that is saline or brackish (> 0.5 ppt) during most of the year in at least a portion of the lagoon (needs to be measured near the bottom) YES = Go to SC 5.1 NO _x not a wetland in a coastal lagoon SC 5.1 Does the wetland meets all of the following three conditions? -The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing), and has less than 20% cover of invasive plant species (see list of invasive species on p. 7 4). -At least % of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un-mowed grassland. -The wetland is larger than 1/10 acre (4350 square feet) YES = Category I NO = Category II Wetland Rating Form -western Washington 20 Augnst 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Cat. I Cat. I Cat. II j Wetland name or number __ SC 6.0 Interdunal Wetlands (seep. 93} Is the wetland unit west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? YES -go to SC 6.1 NO X not an interdunal wetland for rating If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. In practical terms that means the following geographic areas: • Long Beach Peninsula-lands west of SR 103 • Grayland-Westport-lands west of SR 105 • Ocean Shores-Copalis-lands west of SR 115 and SR 109 SC 6.1 Is the wetland one acre or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is once acre or larger? YES = Category II X NO -go to SC 6.2 SC 6.2 Is the unit between 0.1 and 1 acre, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between O .I and 1 acre? YES = Category III Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics Choose the "highest" rating if wetland falls into several categories, and record on p.1. If you answered NO for all types enter "Not Aoolicable" on p.1 Wetland Rating Form-western Washington 21 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 August 2004 Cat. II Cat. III APPENDIX F SITE PHOTOGRAPHS Photograph 2 Wetlan d B Facing South Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report Qµendall Terrru·nal F-1 Appendix F -Sjte Photographs September 2009 xxxxxx Photograph 3 Wetland C Facing East Photograph 4 Wetland D Facing North Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation R eport Qµendall Terminal F-2 Appendix F -Site Photographs September 2009 xxxxxx Photograph 6 Wetland F Facing South Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report Quendall Terminal F-3 Appendix F -Site Photographs September 2009 xxxxxx Photograph 7 Wetland G Emergent Commu ni ty Photograph 8 Wetland G Soil Plot Location Wedand and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report QµendaD Terminal F-4 Appendix F -Sit e Photographs September 2009 xxxxxx Photograph 9 Wetland H Facing West ~ Photograph 10 Appen dix F -Site Photographs Wetland H Soils (not touched or keyed due to known contaminants) Wetland and Or dinary High Water Mark Delineation Report Q u endall Termin al F-5 Sept ember 2009 XXXX\'.X Appen dix F -Si te Photograph s Photograph 11 OHWM Delineation ; Sou t hern Half of Property Photograph 12 OHWM Delineation; Southern Half of Property Wetland and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report September 2009 Quendall Terminal F-6 Photograph 13 OHWM Delineation; Northern Half of Property Photograph 14 Wetland J Facing Southeast W edan d and Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation Report Qµendall Terminal F-7 Appendix F -Site Photographs September 2009 xxxxxx Photograph 15 Wetland I Facing Southeast Wedand and Ordina,y High Water Mark Delineation Report Qµendall Terminal F-8 Appendix F -Site Photographs September 2009 xxxxxx APPENDIX G MITIGATION ANALYSIS MEMORANDUM, QUENDALL AND BAXTER PROPERTIES 911 Fifth Avenue, Suite 100. Kirkland. Washington 98003 Phone (425) 827-7701 Fax (425) 827-5424 FEB 2 3 2000 DATE: February 17, 2000 PROJECT NO.: KB99142A PROJECT NAME: Quendall/Baxter Mitigation Analysis Memorandum TO: Larry Martin, Chuck Wolfe, John Ryan, Grant Hainsworth, Ron Straka, Susan Carlson, Jennifer Henning. Bill Joyce, Catherine Petito Boyce, Elizabeth River Higgins, Jim Green, Erik Stockdale, Brian Sato, Gail Colburn, Martha Turvey, Sarah Suggs, Larry Fisher, David Bortz, Carol Cloen, Karen Walter, Glen St. Amant, Jim Hanken, and Lynn Manolopoulos FROM: Andy Kindig, Judith Light. and Carl Hadley REGARDING: Notes from the November 17, 1999 Meeting and The Final Remediation Mitigation Analysis Memorandum. The third and final meeting on the Quendall Terminals and Baxter Remediation Mitigation Plan was held on November 17, 1999 in Renton. Handouts from that meeting were sent to your attention on November 18, 2000. Those included: 1. The agenda. 2. A Memorandum dated November 17, 1999 summarizing the comments received on the draft (October 19) Mitigation Analysis Memorandum and a brief description of how they were handled, and 3. A revised Mitigation Analysis Memorandum, dated November 17, 1999. A summary of discussion during the November 17'' meeting is attached in this package. That summary was not sent earlier. so that we could include the final results of discussions with Ecology on minor changes to the November 17, 1999 Mitigation Analysis Memorandum. The final changes were minor, and have been incorporated into a final Mitigation Analysis Memorandum report dated February 17, 2000. That report is also attached. The final changes agreed with Ecology included the following: 1. Any main north-south pedestrian trail connector proposed by subsequent development would be landward and outside of the buffer along Lake Washington and the two wetland mitigation areas at Baxter Cove and the southwest corner of Quendall Terminals. Access would be controlled by I signage, and any combination of fencing or dense/thorny native vegetation. 2. The final Consent Decrees will provide for assurance that the mitigation described in the Mitigation Analysis Memorandum will be implemented, and that the contractor overseeing the implementation and the subsequent success monitoring will be made known in advance to Ecology. 3. Monitoring would occur five times over 10 years, not over 5 years as previously proposed. 4. Water derived from the dewatering of Baxter Cove to allow remediation would be treated as necessary and discharged to the sanitary sewer, not to Lake Washington. 5. An error in Figure 4-4 was corrected, so that the tree cover was correctly referenced as 50 percent. All of these changes were minor. Thank you very much for participating in the preparation of this mitigation plan. In combination with contamination remediation, implementation of this plan will greatly enhance the southeastern Lake Washington shoreline. ACK/Id KB99142A55 LO-D:Ud\2-00 -W2K 2 Quendall/Baxter Mitigation Analysis Memorandum Third Meeting List of Attendees on November 17, 2000: Larry Fisher, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Martha Turvey, Washington Department of Ecology Gail Colburn, Washington Department of Ecology Grant Hainsworth, ThennoRetec Carol Cloen, Washington Department of Narural Resources Andy Kindig, Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. Judith Light, Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. Carl Hadley, Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. Darlene Madenwald, Orion Group Lynn Manolopoulos, Davis Wright Tremaine Bill Joyce, City of Renton; Ogden, Murphy & Wallace Ron Straka, City of Renton Chuck Wolfe, Vulcan Northwest; Foster Pepper & Shefelman Jennifer Henning, City of Renton Meeting Notes from November 17, 2000: These notes are based on notes taken by Andy Kindig, Judith Light, and Carl Hadley. As you might expect, they reflect major topics and points, and are not intended to be a transcript of the meeting. [Light] Described the 1.5: I wetland mitigation ratio basis as consistent with City of Renton policy given the proposed enhancement; and that the elimination of vertical and bare dirt banks at the lakeshore will acrually create more lake-side wetlands than are being counted for acreage at the northern and southern ends of the mitigation area. Buffer averaging was discussed as up to the subsequent development to determine the need for; any implemented averaging would have to make biological sense given the restoration objectives of the mitigation plan. That determination would be made at the time of the final planting plan preparation, which Ecology and the Army Corps would review through the NWP 38 permitting process. [Suggs, Colburn. Fisher] While Sarah Suggs indicated that she felt there should be no trails anywhere in the mitigation area, Larry Fisher indicated that he would prefer the main north-south trail spine be outside the mitigation area. (Light response] Public access is one part of the City's comprehensive plan for the property, and could be controlled with perpendicular extensions to the main north-south spine extending to outlooks landward of the ordinary high water mark of Lake Washington. It was agreed that placement of the main north-south trail spine outside of February 17, 2000 ACX/Id -K/199142..456 · l..D-D:lldll..00-WZK ASSOCIA1"ED EARTH SCIENCES. INC Page I the mitigation area would be presented to those deriving development concepts for the properties. [Light] 50 percent forest cover was being proposed to maintain and enhance the bird habitat along the shoreline. Greater tree cover would decrease the bird habitat value. [Suggs] Can tree type/placement be specified at this time? She wants full consideration to habitat, not to creating views. [Light response] Not at this time. Specifications would be prepared for Anny Corps and Ecology review at the time of the final planting plan. [Suggs and Colburn] Enquired about placing vertical tree snags within the mitigation area. [Light response] Snags need to be buried up to at least 30 percent of their height to stay upright, and this would interfere with the capping objectives of the site, as well as potentially interfere with ground water flow. The objectives of the contaminant remediation team need to take priority, but will be consulted during preparation of the final planting plan to see if any snags could be safely placed. [Suggs] Requested 10 years of monitoring, rather than the 5 years proposed. Would the contractor guarantee planting success? [answer: yes for immediate success in first year]. [Madenwald] Who will get the reports, and will the Muckelshoots be involved? [Light response I We expect the mitigation reports will be distributed to anyone with an interest, but Ecology would likely be the lead to make the initial determination for a mailing list. The Muckleshoots have participated in the process since its first inception years ago, and receive all information as a listed participant. It is our understanding from Karen Walters that the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe views the remediation as a positive action, and are directing their resources in other directions at present. [Hadley) Described fisheries assessment and mitigative elements as being directed at all fish species in Lake Washington, not just sock eye. In response to questions. about the accounting method for measuring linear extent of bulkheads, clarified that initial work looked south onto the Barbee Mill where genuine bulkheads occur, but that property is not now included. The category stayed nonetheless. Bollards were separately accounted from bulkheads in the report tables, although they both have the same fisheries habitat effect. The 33 percent of area with bank protections in place included bollards, rip-rap, log skids, and other reinforcements. There are no true bulkheads on the Quendall or Barbee properties. February 17, 2000 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES. INC. ACK/Id -KB9914W6. LD-D:lldll..00 • WZK Page2 [Colburn] The question is procedural. [Suggs] Her experience with other municipalities does not give her assurance. She would like bonding. [Joyce] [Colburn] Doesn't see need for bonding, but it could be discussed further. Assurance is not documented in this mitigation report. [Wolfe and Joyce] We can consider an inclusion by reference to the Consent Decree obligations. [Suggs] What type of temporary irrigation would be used for the mitigation plantings? Would there be a diversion from Lake Washington? [Light] [Suggs] City water would be the source. In the early 1990s, portions of the Baxter site were cleared without a permit. [ Colburn] The owners were required to mitigate at that time [City added that a permit was granted after the fact as an administrative matter]. Mitigation consisted of a silt fence, straw cover on the cleared areas, and winter wheat planting (occurred in November). [Suggs] Then the site had more habitat value than at present. Is the comparison of enhancement to how it appears now, or then? [Hadley] To how it appears now. 50 years ago it was a forested river delta. [Light] The issue is moot. Vegetation will still be removed by remediation, and this mitigation proposal will replace it with greater value. [Kindig] Practically spealcing, there are no data on the past 1990 action to apply a valuation to the alder that were removed, nor would it change the mitigation plan. The site exists as we see it at present, and that condition is documented. [Wolfe] In the 1960s to 1980s it had less value while industrial activity was active. The discussion closed at that point. Ftbruary 17, 2()()() ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES. INC. ACK/ld -KB9914W6 · U,..D:\Jd\2.(X) · W2K Page4 MITIGATION ANALYSIS MEMORANDUM OUENDALL AND BAXTER PROPERTIES RENTON, WASHINGTON CORPORATI: OfFICE 911 Filth A-ue, Suil9 100 Kirkland, Washinglon 98033 (42SJ 827-7701 FAX (425) 827-5424 BAINBRIDGE ISLAND OFFICE 179 Modrone lane North Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 12061 7B0-9370 FAX 1206) 780-9438 PREPARED FOR Vulcan Northwest City of Renton PROJECT NO. KB99142A February 17, 2000 4.IIASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC PORT QUENDALL MITIGATION ANALYSIS MEMORANDUM Prepared for: Vulcan Northwest 110 11 O"' Avenue NE, Fifth Floor Bellevue, WA 98004 and The City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way, Sixth Floor Renton, WA 98055 Prepared by: Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. 911 Fifth A venue, Suite 100 Kirkland, Washington 98033 February 17, 2000 Project No. KB99142A Qu.endaU and Baxter Propenies Jfitigation Analysis Jfemorandum TABLE OF CONTEl'iTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION.......... .... .. ........... ...... ... .. . .. ········ .....••......... I 1.1 Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... 1 I. 2 Disclaimer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... 1 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF AFFECTED RESOURCES........................... ........................... . ....... 2 2.1 Water Quality ...................................................................................... 2 2. 1.1 South Lake Washington .................................................................. 2 2.1.2 Gypsy Subbasin Drainage ................................................................ 9 2. 2 Plants and Animals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 2.3 Fisheries Affected Environment ............................................................... 16 2.3.1 Introduction ............................................................................... 16 2.3.2 Lake Washington Biology.................. ... .... .. . . .... ... ... .. . 17 Pelagic Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Benthic Species ............................................................................. 21 2. 3. 3 Lake Washington Shoreline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Survey Methodology .................................................................... 21 On-Site Habitat and Valuation ........................................................... 21 Off-Site Habitat ............................................................................ 27 2.3.4 Lake Washington Open Water...................................... .. 29 Benthic ....................................................................................... 29 Water Column ............................................................................. 30 Surface ....................................................................................... 30 2.3.5 Habitat Valuation ........................................................................ 30 2.4 Recreational.. .................................................................................... 31 2 .5 Cultural ............................................................................................ 31 2.6 Economic .......................................................................................... 31 3.0 IMPACTS .............................................................................................................................. 32 3.1 Plants and Animals ........................................................................... 32 3.1. l Disturbance to Shoreline .............................................................. 32 3.1.2 Dredge Offshore Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH) ................... 32 3. l. 3 In-Water One-Foot Sediment Cap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 7 3.1.4 Dredge Offshore Areas with Greater Than 50 Percent Wood Chips .......... 37 3.1.5 Upland Soil Excavation and Capping............... . 37 3.2 Fisheries Impacts ................................................................................. 37 3.2.1 Shoreline Disturbance........... . ...... 37 3.2.2 Dredge Offshore (PAH) ............................................................ 38 3.2.3 Dredge Offshore (Wood Chips).............................. . .. 38 3.2.4 Upland Soil Excavation and Capping ............................................... 40 4.0 MITIGATION............................... .................................... ................... . ....................... -II 4.1 Plants and Animals ............................................................................ 43 4. 1.1 Disturbance to Quendall Shoreline and Loss of Wetland C. ..................... 43 4.1.2 Excavation of Baxter Cove (Wetland E) and Loss of Wetland D ............... 49 F ,bruary 17, 2()()() ,KK!jhl/o. -KB99/42A57-LD-D:lldl.2-00 -W2K ASSOCIATED EARm SCIENCES. INC Page i Quendall and Baxter Properties Mitigation Analysis Memorandum TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) 4 .1. 3 Dredge Offshore Areas with Greater Than 50 Percent Wood Chips._ . __ ...... 49 4.1.4 Dredge Offshore PAH Areas .................... ____ .... _ ........ _ .................. _. 50 4.1.5 Upland Soil and Excavation and Capping ... __ .......................... _ ........... 50 4. 2 Fisheries Mitigation ............................................................................. 50 4.2.l In-Water Work Timing ................................................................. 50 4.2.2 Shoreline Disturbance ............................................................... _ .. 51 4.2.3 Dredge Offshore (PAH and Wood Chips) .......................................... 51 4.2.4 Upland Soil Excavation and Capping .......... _ ................................ _ .. 51 4.3 Water Quality ..................................................................................... 53 4.4 Mitigation Implementation Schedule ......................................................... 53 4.4. l Baxter Property .......................................................................... 53 4.4.2 Quendall Property ....................................................................... 53 4.5 Monitoring and Contingency ................................................................... 55 4.5. l Performance Standards ................................................................. 55 4. 5. 2 Maintenance .............................................................................. 56 4.5.3 Monitoring ................................................................................ 56 4.5.4 Monitoring Schedule .................................................................... 57 4.5.5 Monitoring Reporting ................................................................... 57 4.5.6 Contingency Plans ....................................................................... 58 5.0 REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................... 59 Figure 2-1. Figure 2-2. Figure 2-3. Figure 2-4. Figure 2-5. Figure 2-6. Figure 2-7. Figure 3-1. Figure 3-2. Figure 3-3. Figure 4-1. Figure 4-2. Figure 4-3. Figure 4-4. LIST OF FIGURES Metro Water Quality Sampling Stations in Lake Washington ............................... 3 Wetlands and Shoreline Vegetation ...................................................................... 13 Aerial Overview of Port Quendall Remediation Site ........................................... 14 1994 beach seining results at Kennydale Park ...................................................... 18 Wetlands and Shoreline Structure ......................................................................... 24 Wetlands and Shoreline Substrate and Depth ....................................................... 25 Lake Washington Shoreline Composition along a 14-Mile Reach ofLakeshore on Both Sides of Quendall and Baxter in September 1995 .............................................................. 28 Wetlands and Shoreline Vegetation with Remediation Overlay .......................... 34 Wetlands and Shoreline Structure with Remediation Overlay ............................. 3 5 Wetlands and Shoreline Substrate and Depth with Remediation Overlay ........... 36 Conceptual Shoreline and Wetland Mitigation Plan ............................................. 42 Shoreline Enhancement Concept (shrub-dominated cross-section) ..................... 46 Shoreline Enhancement Concept (tree-dominated cross-section) ........................ 4 7 Conceptual Wetland Design for Lake Washington Shoreline .............................. 48 Febroary 17, 2000 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. ACK/jh/ld · KBfJ9I4W7 -LD--0:1/dl2-00 • WJK Page ii Table 2-1. Table 2-2. Table 2-3. Table 2-4. Table 2-5. Table 2-6. Table 2-7. Table 2-8. Table 2-9. Table 2-10. Table 2-11. Table 3-1. Table 3-2. Table 3-3. Table 4-1. Table 4-2. Table 4-3. QueruiaU and Baner Properties Mirigarzon Analysis J1emorandum LIST OF TABLES Nearshore Lake Washington Total Metals Concentrations for a Water Sample Collected South of the Gypsy Subbasin Culvert Outfall on the Baxter Parcel... ........................................ 4 Lake Washington Surface Water Quality near the Port Quendall Property ........................................................................................ 5 Lake Washington Water Quality Data Collected near the May Creek Mouth ................................................................................... 6 Water Quality Measured in the Lower Gypsy Subbasin Drainage Outfall to Lake Washington.................................... . ....................... 10 Results of Metals Screen for Lower Gypsy Subbasin Drainage at the Culvert Outlet to Lake Washington ............................................ 11 Wetlands to be Dredged or Filled by the Port Quendall Remediation Actions .................................................................. 15 Fish Species in Lake Washington............ . ...................................... 19 Benthic Biota Present in Lake Washington ......................................................... 22 Lake Washington shoreline characteristics for the Quendall and Baxter Properties ............................................................................ 26 Comparison of Shoreline Conditions within the Remediation Area and the Surrounding Shoreline .............................................. 27 Comparison of Overwater Pier Coverage within the Remediation Area ( l 997) and the Surrounding Shoreline ( 1989). ............. . .... 28 Shoreline Vegetation Disturbance Resulting from Upland Excavation and/or Capping .................................................................... 32 Impacts to Wetlands to be Dredged or Filled by the Quendall and Baxter Remediation Actions (Refer to Figure 3-1) ....................... 33 Valuation of Physical Shoreline Characteristics as Fish Habitat and Mitigated Condition Following Remediation (3,130 feet surveyed April 11, 1997) ................................................................... 39 Plant Species Proposed for Planting within the Wetland and Shoreline Buffers ............................................................................. 45 Mitigated Lake Washington Shoreline Characteristics (3,130 ft. surveyed April 11 l 997)............................................... . ......... .. Mitigation of Short-Term Impacts Related to Site Cleanup ........................... . 52 54 February 17, 2()()() ASSOCIATED EARffi SCIENCES. !NC Page iii ACK!jh/ld. KIJ99/42A57 · W-D:1/dl2-00 · W2K Quendail and Bauer Propem"es Miriganon Anatysrs A1emorandum 1.0 INTRODL'CTION 1.1 Objectives Mitigation analysis has been prepared for remediation of the Quendall Terminals (Quendall) and Baxter sites under Prospective Purchases Consent Decrees as provided for under the Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA). The remediation areas include the Quendall and Baxter properties, as well as areas offshore of the Quendall property. The Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is a landowner offshore of the Quendall and Baxter properties. Use authorization will be obtained from DNR prior to remediation activities on its property. Under a Consent Decree in conformance with MTCA (RCW 70. 105D), remediation actions are exempt from procedural requirements of permits under RCW Chapters 70.94 [Air], 70.95 [Solid Waste], 70. 105 [Hazardous Waste], 75.20 [Hydraulic Permit], 90.48 [Water Quality], and 90.58 [Shorelands], and the procedural requirements of any laws requiring or authorizing local government permits or approvals for the remedial action (RCW 70 .105D. 090). For the mitigation action, this would include such procedural requirements as Hydraulic Permit Approval (HPA), National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit issuance, and City of Renton wetland mitigation requirements and shorelands permits under the Renton zoning regulations. The Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) will ensure compliance with the substantive provisions of these laws and regulations through issuance of the Consent Decrees for the Quendall and Baxter remediation projects, and will make the final decision regarding which substantive provisions are applicable. The substantive requirements will be incorporated into the Consent Decrees as Ecology deems appropriate, or into other remedial action documents. The Consent Decrees would provide assurance that the mitigation proposed in this document will be performed. The Consent Decrees would also require that the mitigation installation, oversight, and monitoring contractor be identified in advance to Ecology. In this document, references to City of Renton wetland buffer requirements, buffer widths, and shoreline setbacks are made for the purpose of comparing substantive elements of the proposed remediation under MICA with the local procedural requirements for the Quendall and Baxter properties. Resources potentially impacted by the site remediation plans are described in Section 2. 0, and impacts to those resources from remediation are described in Section 3.0. Conceptual mitigation plans are provided in Section 4.0. 1.2 Disclaimer Toe City of Renton has an interest in the Quendall property, and Vulcan Northwest. Inc. has an interest in the Baxter property. The DNR is a landowner of record for areas offshore of both properties that would be affected by some of the proposed remediation work. The City of Renton, and Vulcan Northwest, Inc. are submitting this document with the understanding that no independent liabilities shall be assumed by any party under the Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA) or any comparable federal or state environmental laws should any party elect not to complete purchase of the subject properties; nor shall the current owners of the Quendall or Baxter project areas be in any way obligated to undertake any mitigation approach or recommendation contained herein. February 17, 2000 ASSOCIATED EARlli SCIENCES. INC. A.CK/jhlld -KB9914W7-lD-D:lld\2-00 -WZK Page 1 Quendall and Baxter Properties Mitigation Annl_vsis Memorandum 2.0 DESCRWI'ION OF AFFECTED RESOURCES 2.1 Water Quality Lake Washington is the largest lake in King County with a drainage area of 4 72 square miles and an area of 21,500 acres. The lake has a volume of 2 .35 million acre-feet, a mean depth of 108 feet, and a maximum depth of 214 feet. The Lake Washington watershed is urban, and approximately 63 percent of its area was developed by 1989 (Metro 1989). The basin is much more urbanized today. The main inflows to the lake are the Cedar River in the south end (57 % ) and the Sammamish River in the north end (27%). The Cedar River contributes 25 percent and the Sammamish River contributes 41 percent of the phosphorus load to the lake, respectively. The lake outlet is the ship canal, which flows through Portage Bay and Lake Union to Puget Sound near Shilshole. Metro has established numerous water quality monitoring stations for nutrients and conventional parameters throughout Lake Washington (Figure 2-1). Most of the historic water quality data available for Lake Washington are from 5 nearshore stations established in Juanita Bay, Yarrow Bay, Newport, Meydenbauer Bay and Kenmore, which are all north of the remediation site. However, additional nearshore and offshore stations were added to the monitoring effort beginning in 1992, which included three near the Port Quendall remediation site. These three lake stations are located at the mouth of May Creek (stations 0839 [shallow] and 0840 [deep]), and near Renton (station 0831). Lake Washington is listed as water quality limited for sediment under the 1972 Clean Water Act (Section 303(d) Segment No. 08-9350). Six sediment bioassay studies are cited as the basis for the listing. Three of the six bioassays were conducted on sediment collected near the Port Quendall site (Norton 1991; Norton 1992; Bennett and Cubbage 1992). Lake Washington (Waterbody Segment Number WA-08-9350) is listed as impaired for wildlife habitat as a result of industrial point source pollution. Contamination of the Quendall and Baxter properties, and cleanup standards agreed under Consent Decrees for each, are not the subject of this water quality section. Conventional water quality parameters are described, mainly from existing literature, to allow evaluation of habitat suitability following remediation. 2. I. I South Lake Washington Beak Consultants Incorporated collected one on-site shoreline water sample on March 21, 1997 from Lake Washington approximately 200 feet south of the lower Gypsy Subbasin Drainage outfall to augment the Metro data, which lacked information on heavy metals. This sample was analyzed for metals (e.g., cadmium, copper, lead, and zinc) and hardness (Table 2-1). Cadmium and zinc exceeded the acute State water quality standards, and lead exceeded the chronic water quality standard. The exceedences were based on State standards (WAC 173-201A) for metals at the ambient hardness of 32 mg CaC03/L. Febn,ary 17, 2000 ACK/flt/Id-KB99/4W7 -lD-D.'IJd\2-(}()-W2K ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES. INC Page 2 ~ 1 ! LEGEND Lake Union :-irs~ 4903-Historic water quality stations Shallow station Deep station 0804 t'! \ os11• Lake Washington 11'}. A NORTH NO SCALE "======================= METRO WATER QUALITY SAMPLING STATIONS IN LAKE WASHINGTON QUENOALL AND BAXTER PROPERTIES REMEDIATION MITIGATION PROJECT RENTON. WASHINGTON FIGURE 2-1 DATE 9124199 PROJ. NO. KB99142A Table 2-1. Metal Cadmium: Acute Chronic Copper: Acute Chronic Lead: Acute Chronic Zinc: Acute Chronic Quendall and Baxter Propenies A!itigation Analysis ,Memorandum Nearshore Lake Washington Total Metals Concentrations for a ,vater Sample Collected South of the Gypsy Subbasin Culvert Outfall on the Baxter Parcel. Lake Chm Criteria Reffitt (mg/L) (WAC 173-201A) Standard Met? mg/L 0.0010 0.0009 NO 0.0004 NO 0.002 0.0052 YES 0.0038 YES 0.001 0.0132 YES 0.0005 NO 0.054 0.0397 NO 0.0360 NO Water sample collected from Baxter parcel shoreline by Beak Consultants on March 21, 1997. Metals standards shown for hardness of 32 mg/L as CaCO, in the sample. Metro has monitored two Lake Washington stations near the mouth of May Creek and an offshore station near Kennydale Park in Renton (Table 2-2). The sampling frequency varied, but was from approximately 1992 to the present, with samples collected bimonthly. Parameters monitored were temperature, D. 0., pH, conductivity, transparency, turbidity, alkalinity, nitrate+ nitrite-nitrogen, ammonia nitrogen, total nitrogen, orthophosphate, total phosphate, chlorophyll-a, phaeophytin, fecal coliform, and enterococcus. The lake water quality near the Quendall and Baxter sites can be described as moderate for a mesotrophic urban lake. The remediation actions are expected to improve sediment quality and decrease risk of exposure of aquatic organisms to contaminants originating on the two sites. Water quality for the whole lake is rated by Metro as good, except for algal blooms in periods of warm weather. Average transparency for the south lake stations was 3.8 m. Fecal coliforrns were high at the May Creek nearshore station (average of 128 MPN), as was chlorophyll-a (9.6 mgim' in 1996). Nutrients were low at the Kennydale Park and May Creek lake stations, with the average nitrate + nitrate nitrogen value less than 0.25 mg/Land the average orthophosphate was less than 0.010 mg/L. Transparency, total phosphorus, and chlorophyll-a trends for METRO station 0839 during water years 1992 through 1994 indicate decreased transparency, slightly increased phosphorus, and slightly decreased chlorophyll-a (Table 2-3). Chlorophyll-a peaked annually from 1992 through 1994 in April or May offshore of May Creek, which may be reflective of nutrient loading from the February 17, 2000 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. ACK4"hlld-KB99142A:'j7-LD-D:\ldl2-00-W2K Page 4 Quendall anLi Baxter Propentes Mitiga1ion Analysis ,'ldemorandum creek coincident with increased sunlight in the spring. Table 2-2. Lake Washington Surface Water Quality near the Port Quendall Property. Water Year /Station Wat~. ·4'» o•• Temp -~ (mg/I,) '.(C). .. l 992-13.68 10.43 1996 I 0831 1992-15.55 11.11 1996 I 0839 1995/ 14.24 11.34 0840 1996/ 13.72 10.23 0840 pH•• 7.86 7.83 8.29 7.79 1997• I 12.44 9.40 7.54 0840 1992-0. 157 0.022 0.296 1996 / 0831 I 992-0.1 I 7 0.029 0.3 I 1996 / 0839 1995 I 0.190 run 0.32 0840 1996/ 0.181 0.031 0.324 0840 I 997• I 0.226 0840 Soles: 0.021 0.289 Cond.•• µohms/ cm' 96 97 97 97 94 0.009 0.008 0.006 0.007 0.008 Transparency •• Secchi(m} . 4.2 4.4 3.5 3.2 3. 7 0.022 0.017 0.020 0.020 0.017 . Tuibidlty. (NTU) '• ' . ,,f, 1.2 1.3 0.9 I .4 0.6 4.4 4.2 9.6 run run Lake Washington water qualiry data collecced near Renton from 1992 to 1996 (Metro station 0831) ~Alk(mg!L> asCaCO, .. , ~... . . . ~--,. 36.4 36.0 38.0 36.0 38. I 1.5 3.4 1.0 nm run l...ake Washington water qualiry data collected from 1992 to 1995 offshore of May Creek mouth (Source Metro station 0839). l..a.lri:e Washington water quality data collected near May Creek mouth (Metro station 0840 -Deep Lake Scation). Monthly average of water quality data collcc~ at a depth of I meter. run = not monitored • 1997 data includes only October, November and December •• Field measurement Entero. MPN 10 54 10 19 25 128 2 25 52 . February I 7, 2/)I)() ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES. INC. ACK!jhlld. KS99141A57-l..D·D:\ldl2-00-W2K Page 5 Quendal/ and Ba:tter Properties Mitigarion Analysis Memorandum Table 2-3. Lake Washington Water Quality Data Collected Near the May Creek Mouth. . •• Secchi Disc ',• •·. . ,,: ··-' ... Date (Traaspareaq). ' Total Phosphate (mg/L} Chli>ropllyll'<J (mg/m') (meter) :> .. ,c,. . . ' May 1192 5.0 run 21.0 May 18 92 3.4 0.011 1.5 May 26 92 4.6 nm DID JuneOl 92 6.0 0.006 1.6 June 15 92 5.7 0.001 DID June 22 92 5.8 0.023 nm July 06 92 5.5 0.0009 2.1 July 20 92 4.4 0.010 nm Aug 03 92 4.7 0.010 0.9 Aug 10 92 4.4 0.008 DID . Aug 17 92 4.1 0.017 nm Aug 24 92 4.5 0.028 nm Aug 31 92 4.3 0.020 nm Sep 08 92 3.6 0.029 2.9 Average: 4.7 0.014 5.0 am ~ not monitored Source: Metro Station 0839 (shallow) February I 7, 2000 ASSOCIATED EARm SClENCES. lNC. ACK/jlrlld-KB99/42A57. LD-D:11412..(JO-W2K Page 6 Quetuitlil and Baxter Properties Mitigatzon ATUJ/ysis Merrwrandum Table 2-3. Lake Washington Water Quality Data Collected near the '.\fay Creek Mouth. (Continued) .... ' .. " ' Secchi Disc_. ·. ,:,._:-;;., Date ;: (FramParency). Total Phosphate~), Chlorophyll--a (mg.Im') .. . ' . (meter) ' --., . ,' ,, .. '·•· .. _ ... ". Oct 05 92 5.0 0.014 2.5 Oct 20 92 4.2 0.015 nm Nov 02 92 6.5 0.017 1.8 Nov 17 92 4.6 0.022 2.3 Dec 01 92 4.5 0.027 2.8 Jan 04 93 6.0 0.035 3.2 Feb 01 93 3.3 0.012 2.7 Mar 01 93 3.3 0.025 7.6 Mar 16 93 2.4 0.021 0.7 Apr 15 93 2.1 0.024 21.0 Apr 19 93 2.1 0.019 11.0 May 03 93 3.0 0.009 4.0 May 25 93 3.3 0.036 4.5 Jun 07 93 5.0 0.014 2.0 Jul 06 93 4.0 0.019 0.5 Aug 02 93 3.0 0.059 0.1 Sep07 93 4.2 0.009 0.4 Average: 3.9 0.022 4.2 nm = not monitored Source: Metro Station 0839 (shallow) February 17. 2000 ASSOCIATED EARlli SCIENCES. INC. ACK/Jhi/d • KJJ99142A57 · LD-D:\ld\UXJ · W1K Page 7 Quendall and Baxter Properties ,i,fitigaiion Analysis Memorandum Table 2-3. Lake Washington Water Quality Data Collected Near the May Creek Mouth. (Continued) -: .. . Secchi Disc Total Pbospbate (mg/L} Date -· . . (l'nmsparency) ,· l-Chlorophyll-a (mg/m3) •. :~' ~· .~·; .. (meter), ··.;;, """ ... ' -~ , . Oct 04 93 7.0 0.009 0.4 Nov 01 93 5.0 0.011 2.4 Dec 08 93 5.5 0.018 0.5 Jan 05 94 5.0 0.081 0.4 Feb 15 94 3.8 0.011 4.1 Mar 07 94 3.2 0.023 4.5 Mar 21 94 2.5 0.020 6.1 Apr 04 94 2.8 0.045 18.0 Apr 18 94 3.0 0.012 7.7 May 02 94 3.8 0.020 6.3 May 23 94 2.7 0.017 6.9 Jun 06 94 3.5 0.013 7.2 Jui 05 94 4.0 0.018 3.6 Aug 04 94 5.0 0.031 2.0 Sep 06 94 4.5 0.017 2.0 Average: 4.1 0.023 4.8 run ; not monitored Source: Metro Station 0839 (shallow) February 17, 2000 ASSOCIATED EARm SCIENCES. INC. ACK!Jhlld -KB99!42A57 -f.D.D:\ld\Z-()(} -W'ZK Page 8 Quendall and Baxter Propenies Mirigarion Anafvsis Memorandum Table 2-3. Lake Washington Water Quality Data Collected Near the May Creek Mouth. (Continued) Secchi Disc Date (Transparency) Total Phosphate (mg/L) Chlorophyll-a (mglm') (meter) Oct 03 94 6.0 0.011 2.5 Nov 02 94 5.0 0.027 2.4 Dec 05 95 4.0 0.028 2.3 Jan 23 95 5.5 0.027 5.0 Average: 4.8 0.028 3.7 nm = not monitored Source: Metro Station 0839 (shallow) 2.1.2 Gypsy Subbasin Drainage No historic water quality data were available for Lower Gypsy Subbasin Drainage. The Lower Gypsy subbasin flows from the east side ofI-405 through an approximately 125-foot open channel before entering a culvert in the northern area of the project site that discharges directly to Lake Washington. Lower Gypsy subbasin water discharges via tightline directly to Lake Washington and is thus classified as Class A (extraordinary) by WAC 173-201A. This drainage is distinct from Gypsy Creek, which joins May Creek at RM 1.15. Limited water quality monitoring of the Lower Gypsy subbasin occurred Oll March 28, 1997 by Beak Consultants, Inc. (Table 2-4). The results were consistent with an urbw stream and show some influe!lce ofupstrearll wetlands. Waters were neutral, cool, with low dissolved oxygen, high conductivity, and high total dissolved solids relative to most regional waters. Oil and grease were below detection, fecal coliforrns were moderate (41 CFU/100 mL) and hardness was moderate. Nutrients were moderately elevated: nitrate and nitrite oxygen was 1.0 mg/Land total phosphorus was .038 mg/L. All metals met the chronic toxicity standard (JI AC 173-201A) adjusted for the ambient hardness (Tables 2-4 and 2-5); however. while cadmium, lead, mercury, and silver were all below detection, the detection levels for these metals were above their respective stwdard. Based on the limited water quality data (one sampling event), dissolved oxygen was below the Class AA standard ( > 9.5 mg/L). Turbidity may not meet the standard, but compliwce was not determined because of lack of baseline data. It is likely that temperature would not meet the standard ( < 16°C) during the summer months due to the low elevation and the wetlwd component of the stream system. During some site visits, a strong sewer odor was noticed where Gypsy February 17, 2000 ACK/jhlld-KJJ99142A57-LD-D:lldl2.(X)-W2K ASSOCIATED EARm SCIENCES, INC Page 9 QuelUJlJtl and Baxter Properties Mitigation Analysis Memorandum subbasin enters the site from the east: however, this odor was not apparent during the single monitoring event reported here. Origin of this odor is not obvious. Table 2-4. Water Quality Measured in the Lower Gypsy Subbasin Drainage Outfall to Lake Washington. ,.~,, <., ·, . Water Total OU & Gri,;...; TPH :'.TIIM pH Di>solved Oxygen Conductivity . ~\""'.':,--.. . Temperature (m/Ll~) (ohms/an') (mg/L) ~.:~;~"'~· .·' -~' ( ("CJ 10:21 9.85 7.15 8.00/71.8 180 <I ·:t~',;--~~"' . Nitrate+ Total Total Plloophorus Ortbo Pllospbale Fecal Cotifonn ~- .·.~e oltropa (mg/L) (mg/L) (CFU/IOOmL) }: .. Nltrocea ; (mg/L) (avg. 3 reps.) ··. , .. 6n&'LJ. ·, 0.028 LO 0.5 0.038 0.025 41 . Turbidity' •·. TolalLea.P-Total Copper" Total Ziac" . Hardness . (ng.NTU) (mc/L) (mg/L) (mg/t) (mg/L) 110 5 6.3 <0.02 <0.002 0.06 74 <0.02 (dissolved) <0.002 (dissolved) 0.0105 (dissolved) Monitoring Date; March 28, 1997 24-hour rainfall recorded at Sea-Tac was 0. 10~ on March 27, 1997. • See Table 2-5 for a complete listing of the metals screening analysis. Ftbruary 17, 2000 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES. INC. ACK/jh/14 • KB9914W7 • l.D-D:\tdl2.QO • W2X Page 10 Table 2-5. -Alwninum Antimony Arsenic Boron Barium Berylliwn Calcium Cadmium Cobalt Chromium Copper Iron Mercury Pocassium Lithium Magnesium Manganese Molybdenum Sodium Nickel Phosphorus Lead Sulfur Selenium Silicon Silver Tin Strontium Tiwtium Thallium Vanadium Yttrium Zinc Quendall wui Bm:ter Properties Mitigarion Analysis Memorwuium Results of Metals Screen for Lower Gypsy Subbasin Drainage at the Culvert Outlet to Lake Washington '\"f' March 28 a..utt DdtttlonUmlt ' 0.26 0.01 <0.02 0.02 <0.0] O.Q3 <0.1 0.1 O.Qt5 0.00] <0.005 0.005 18.0 0.1 <0.002 0.002 <0.003 0.00] <0.006 0.006 <0.002 0.002 1.6 0.01 <0.01 0.01 2.2 LO <0.02 O.Q2 7.2 0.1 0.]20 0.002 <0.01 0.01 8.9 0.1 <0.01 0.01 0.08 0.05 <0.02 O.Q2 l.3 0.1 <0 OJ O.Ol 10 0.10 <0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.120 0.003 <0.01 O.o! <0.03 0.0l <0.002 0.002 <0.001 0.001 0.060 0.002 Samples collected on March 28, 1997, u,wer Gypsy Creek subbasin outfall al Lake Washington. Note: Total metals. All values are in mg/L. EPA Method 200.7. lr..alics indicare results which exceed or may exceed the WAC 173-20 IA surface water standard (chronic): the ambiguity occurs when the standard is lower than the detection limir and the result is below detection. Bold italics indicate a result which may e~ceed the acute scandard (silver). February J 7, 20()() ACKJjhlfd -KJl99/42A57-LD-D:lld\2-00 -W2K ASSOCIATED EAR'I1f SCIENCES, INC Page l l Queruiall and Baxter Properties Mitigation Analysis Memorandum 2.2 Plants and Animals The Port Quendall and Baxter parcels are sparsely vegetated. Five wetland areas were delineated within the Quendall/Baxter remediation area (David Evans and Associates 1997, Figure 2-2). The Port Quendall parcel is currently an active log yard; vegetation on the site is primarily limited to the shoreline (Figure 2-3, Table 2-6). Two of the wetlands (Wetlands A and B) are found along the Quendall shoreline. Wetland A is a palustrine forested wetland dominated by immature red alder (A/nus rubra) and Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor), with a sparse herbaceous layer of reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea), buttercup (Ranunculus repens) and yellow flag iris (Iris pseudacorus). Wetland Bis a palustrine forested wetland comprised of red alder with a hardhack (Spiraea douglasil) and Pacific willow (Salix lasiandra) shrub layer. Hydrology in Wetlands A and B is controlled by the lake level. Only minor surface discharge enters these areas. Vegetation and embedded logs help stabilize the shoreline. These wetlands provide little flood control. base flow support or water quality improvement, because they lie along the shoreline and receive little surface discharge. A third wetland (Wetland C) located on the Quendall parcel is a remnant of an old industrial lagoon which currently supports a permanent open water component, emergent vegetation dominated by cattails (Typha latifolia) and a black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera) sapling shrub layer. Wetland C detains some drainage from the adjacent log yards and therefore provides some water quality function by diverting this runoff from the lake. However, no outlet was observed and the area appears to be isolated from ground water. therefore, no base flow support is provided by this wetland. The remaining vegetated shoreline along the Quendall parcel is dominated by red alder, willow and Himalayan blackberry. Industrial activities on the Baxter parcel ended in the early 1980s; a portion of the site is currently used to store bark mulch. The compacted fill soils on the Baxter parcel support sparse stands of non-native grasses and patches of sapling-and seedling-size black cottonwood and soft rush (Juncus effusus). Baxter Cove (Wetland E) is found along the southern Baxter shoreline and appears to have been created by shoreline fill or fill and dredge activities. Baxter Cove supports an open water component, cattails and a shrub layer comprised of Himalayan blackberry, red alder saplings and red-osier dogwood (Cornus stolonifera) and a few willow (Salix spp.) and Pacific Madrone (Arbutus menziesil). The second wetland area (Wetland D) on Baxter is an old industrial pond isolated from Lake Washington that is dominated by cattail, Pacific willow and red-osier dogwood. The floodwater control, base flow support and water quality functions provided by Baxter Cove and Wetland D are limited due to the small area that drains each wetland area. A narrow band of vegetation, approximately 25 feet wide, along the remaining Baxter shoreline is comprised of Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius) (also frequently referred to as Scott's broom) and Himalayan blackberry. A short open channel section of the Gypsy Sub basin Drainage is also located on the Baxter parcel. The Baxter site was cleared in 1990. Sapling red alder and willow are present on the steep banks of the channel. However, only extremely limited habitat value is currently provided by this vegetation. February /7, 20(}() ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, !NC. ACX/jhlld · KB99!42A57-LD-D:\ldll-00 -W2K Page 12 • ! • ~o~ ~~0 ~~<::, s-*"<v >-11:: c§ ~ 0 ID g; ~ ~ ffi s 0 / !;!, ~ II:: ~ ~ 0 ~ Ai: ASSOCIATED r> EARTH I SCIENCES, INC //"--~. // /// ~ // ~ 'cov~ &lo~ ·~~~---.. ·,. '-,_ '•. //~~ r?-~;· ~,v;, 0 -_/WETLAND A 1 ·1 •• { r · .. GYPSY SUBBASIN DRAINAGE .· J~ (UNAFFECTED BY REMEDIATION) . . · . ~~ l____,. " ""-, ", ~q_ ~~~ ~~ 0 <:J~'<- ,. fl;! ~· ··~· \~~LA;D I. \J I 'LAND D ' ~- .. ' ' ! ' . ·,,_ ··-x., . ' "· I I i I ' ! I ' I ; I / / .. , / I , ! "--)WE~ND l ! / / I , , I , I I , I ! / I I I ;;_;: --; ---1 i l C I ; I I I WETLANDS AND SHORELINE VEGETATION QUENDALLAND BAXTER PROPERTIES REMEDIATION FOOTPRINT RENTON, WASHINGTON -- LEGEND Blackberry Shrubs Trees NOTE: ALL HABITAT, Vl,ETLAND, AND PROJECT FEATURE LOCATIONS AND QUANTITIES ARE APPROXIMATE. A NORTH 0 100 aX'.l DJ o:; APPROXIIAATE SCALE IN FEET FIGURE 2-2 DA TE 9124199 PROJ NO KB99142A ' -·~...,::··. ..... -...-:-,,-_ ~-'. ·-;°"',,,, ~: ~ .i .. .. ........ ~.. • ~--... . .. ~ , .. QUENDALL AND BAXTER PROPERTI ES REMEDIATION RENTON, WASHIN GTON FIGURE 2-3 Quendall and Baxter Aerial View (B arbee Mill i n rig ht foregrou nd) Aeri al photo is b eli eved to date s umm er 1995. Queruialt and Baxter Properties Mitigation Analvsis ,'4.emorandum Table 2-6. Wetlands to be Dredged or Filled by the Port Quendall Remediation Actions ,a1~·,,t .·. ' ~f- A 0.20 B 0.37 C 0.17 D 0.08 E 0.23 {Baxter Cove) PFO = Pilustrian Fon:sred Wetland PSS = Palusttian Scrub-Scrub Wetland PEM = Palustrian Emergent Wetland POW .,. Palustrian Open Water February 17, 2000 Physical Characteristics Wetland along Lake Washington shoreline, minor surface discharge from project site; some shoreline protection provided by vegetation and logs embedded nearshore: little flood control, base !low support or water quality improvemenl is provided. Wetland along Lake Washington shoreline, minor surface discharge from project site: some shoreline protection provided by vegelation and logs embedded nearshore; liule tlood concrol, base flow support or water quality improvement is provided. The wetland resulted from excavation in fill material; detains drainage from log yards; no outlet was observed and the area appears to be isolated from ground water. therefore no base flow support is provided by this wetland; water quality improvement provided by detention of log yard runoff. Old industrial settling pond isolated from Lake Washington: little flood control or base flow support is provided; no water quality improvements provided. Cove created by fill along the lake shoreline; some shoreline protection provided by vegetation and logs embedded nearshore; flood control, base flow support and water quality improvement are limited due to the small area that drains into the cove. ACK!jhlld -KB99142A57 • l.D-D:\ld\2.00 • W2K Biological Condition and Habitat Supported PFO -immature red alder wilh a Himalayan blackberry W1derstory and a sparse herbaceous cover of cattail, reed canarygr.ass, buttercup and flag iris: habitat value is moderate due to adjacency to lhe lake: provides potential habital for amphibians. passerme birds and limited waterfowl nesting -observed wildlife use includes Canada goose, beaver. several species of passerine birds. PFO -red alder wilh a hardhack and Pacific willow shrub layer; habitat value is modera1e due w adjacency to the lake; provides potential habitat for amphibians, passerine birds and limited waterfowl nesting; observed wildlife use includes Canada goose. beaver. several species of passerine birds. PSSIPEMIPOW -black cottonwood saplings, cattails and soft rush; perennial open water: low habitat value due to low vegetative diversity and isolated nature of area; observed wildlife use includes Canada goose, mallards. and green heron. PSS -small wetland within former industrial area dominated by cattail, Pacific willow and red-osier dogwood~ overatl habttat value 1s low; observed wildlife use includes rerJ- winged blackbird, snipe. PEMIPOW/PSS -cattail, Himalayan blackberry, red-osier dogwood and red alrJer sapling; emergent vegetation established after I 990: habiiat value is moderate due to adjacency to the lake; provides polential habitat for amphibians, passenne birds and water fowl: observed wildlife use includes mnles (painted and sliders); beaver. red-wing blackbird, mallards. ASSOCIATED EARIB SCIENCES, INC Page 15 Quendall and Baxter Properries Mitigarion Analysis Memorandum In general, the habitat value of the remediation area is low due to the disrurbed narure of the former and active industrial areas which support limited vegetation. Oily sheens were observed on the surface of the open water wetland areas and areas along the lake shoreline. The shoreline areas provide the highest habitat value in the remediation project area, but the habitat value of these areas are limited due to the dominance of non-native invasive plant species, lack of vegetative diversity and stn1crure, and lack of special habitat fearures such as snags and woody debris. Most of the wildlife use observed on the site occurs along the Quendall and southern Baxter shoreline. Canada geese (Branta canadensis) were observed in both the vegetated and hardscape shoreline areas. The geese were observed nesting along the vegetated shoreline and in the osprey nest located on the Quendall Cable Station nesting platform. Puget Sound Energy moved an osprey nest from a retired distribution pole on the Baxter site to a new nest pole platform erected on the south side of the cable station in 1993. Puget Sound Energy also placed a perch on top of the first transmission pole leading away from the station to provide a safe place for the birds to perch. The osprey (Pandion haliaetus) have successfully nested on the platform since the transfer of the nest in 1993 until 1997, when the osprey built a new nest at the top of the wood chip elevator located on the Barbee Mill site to the south of the Quendall property. The osprey are present in the area from mid-March through August. Osprey have been observed hunting small mammals (likely mice) on the north Baxter site as well as fishing the lake. Canada geese and bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucophalus) have occasionally been observed perching on the nest platform during the winter months. It is assumed the bald eagles used the perch site to forage for fish and waterfowl along the lake shoreline. The closest known bald eagle nest site is located approximately 0.75 mile west of the remediation area (WDFW, May 1997 PHS database). Numerous duck species also use the Baxter offshore area. Beaver (Castor canadensis) have been observed in the wetland habitat along the lake shoreline. Pond sliders (Pseudemys scripta) are present in Baxter Cove and have been observed on floating logs off of the southern Baxter and northern Quendall shoreline. Red-winged blackbirds (Agelaius phoeniceus) were observed using cattail habitat along the shoreline and isolated patches of cattails away from the shoreline (Wetland D). Snipe (Capella gallinago) were observed in the Wetland D area and in the cottonwood sapling-dominated areas on the Baxter parcel. Other species of passerine birds and amphibians could be supported by the shoreline wetlands and the narrow red alder-dominated upland shoreline area. 2.3 Fisheries Affected Environment 2.3. I Introduction This section describes existing fish habitat conditions within the area that would be impacted by remediation activities, and provides an assessment of the various components thac make up this habitat. A description of known fish use of the habicac is also provided. February 17, 2000 ASSOCIATED EARlli SCIENCES. INC. ACK!jltlld -KB9914'lA57 -LD-D:l/d\2-00 · W2K Page 16 Quendatl and Bax.fer Properties /1,tirigmion Analysis .\1emorandum The remediation activities are being implemented with a primary intent of enhancing sediment and water quality in Lake Washington. Improving the uplands portion of the sites is also a critical component of the remediation project. This will benefit all species rearing and migrating along the project shoreline. Existing conditions for the shoreline and nearshore areas are described in the following text. 2.3.2 Lake Washington Biology Pelagic Species Lake Washington supports a variety of anadromous salmonids, including chinook ( Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), coho (0. kisutch), and sockeye salmon (0. nerka), and steelhead (0. mykiss) and cutthroat trout (0. clarki). Runs of non-anadromous kokanee (0. nerka) salmon are also present (King County, 1993). Lake Washington contains a wide variety of non-salmonid species, some of which are considered "warm water" species. These include both native and non-native species such as speckled dace (Rhinichtlrys osculus), three-spine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus), northern squawfish (Ptychocheilus oregonensis), yellow perch (Percajlavescens), black crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatus), largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieui), mountain whitefish (Prosopium williamsom), largescale sucker (Catostomus macrocheilus), longfin smelt (Spirinchus thaleichtlrys), and prickly sculpin (Cottus asper) among other species (Pfeifer and Weinheimer 1992, King County 1993, Wydoski and Whitney, 1979). A more complete list of fish species potentially found near the project is provided in Table 2-7. Of particular importance to the project is the presence of chinook salmon in Lake Washington. On March 16, 1999, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) listed the Puget Sound evolutionarily significant unit of chinook salmon as a threatened species under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). Adult chinook salmon migrate past the site on their way to the Cedar River each summer. Juvenile chinook pass the site on their trip back out to the Puget Sound and may spend some time rearing in the site vicinity. Beach seining surveys by the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe in Kennydale Park found chinook fry rearing nearshore from March through June (Figure 2-4). February 17. 2000 ASSOCIATED EARIB SCIENCES. INC. ACK!jhlld -KB9914LU7-W-D:'1/JIZ·OO • W2X Page 17 Quendall and Baxter Propem·es Mitigarion Analys1's ,Memorandum Figure 2-4. 1994 beach seining results at Kennydale P'ark. 10 I 60 t I 50 ~ i :1 ' 10, 0 Feb Mar 0 Feb Mar F ebruo.ry 17, ZOQO 1--SOCKEYE FRY -M-CHINOOK /-+-SQUAWFISH ACK/jlllld • KB9914W7 · l..D-D:lld.\2--00 • W2K DAY SURVEYS Apr 1994 NIGHT SURVEYS Apr 1994 May Jun May Jun ..... SOCKEYE PRESMOLTS _._COHO --YELLOW PERCH -SM BASS --LMBASS i _J ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES. INC. Page 18 Quendall and Baxter Properties Mitigan·on Analysis Memoraruium Table 2-7. Fish Species in Lake Washington ---------?:-~!~~ ~ :__•. ~---·-··1~-~ ~ -~": ___ -:~--------, ' --. Petromyzontidae Western brook lamprey Lamperra richardsoni Lampreys Pacific lamprey Entosphenus trideniatus River lamprey Lamperra ayresi Acipenseridae White sturgeon Acipenser transmontmtUS Sturgeons Clupeidae American shad Alosa sapidissima Herrings Salmonidae Mountain whitefish Prosopium wiiliamsoni Trouts Cutthroat trout Oncorhynchus clarki Rainbow trout (steelhead) Oncorhynchus myk.iss Brook trout Salveiinus Jon1inalis Lake trout Salvelinus namaycush Coho salmon Oncorhynchus kisutch Chinook salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Chum salmon On.corhynchus k.eta Pink salmon Oncorhynchus gorbuscha Sockeye salmon (k:okanee) Oncorhynchus nerk.a Osmeridae Longtin smelt Spirinchus thaleichlhys Smelts Cyprlnidae Carp Cyprinus carpio Minnows Peamouth Mylocheilu.s caurinus Northern squawfish Ptychoceilus oregonensis Speckled dace Rhinichthys osculus Redside shiner Richardsonius balteatus Tench Tinca tinca Catostomidae Largescale sucker Catostomus macrocheilus Suck.ers lctaluridae Brown bullhead lctalurus nebulosus Catfishes Channel cacfish lctafurus punctatus Gasterosteidae Threespine stickleback: Gasteros!eus aculeatus Sticldebac< Ceotrarchldae Smallmouch bass Micropterus dolonu'eui Sunfishes Largemouth bass Micropterus saimoides Black. crappie Poxomis nigromaculatus Percidae Yellow perch Perea flavescens Perches Cottidae Coastrange sculpin Cotrus aleuticus Sculpins Shorthead sculpin Couus conjusus Torrent sculpin Coitus rhoth,us Prickly sculpin Cottus asper Riffle sculpin Co((UJ gufosus Pacific staghom sculpin Leptocottus amatus Source: Shepard and Hoeman 1979. Also of importance to the project is the population ofsockeye salmon juveniles which rear in Lake Washington. These fish may utilize the shoreline and offshore habitat along the project for rearing. The majority of sockeye ounnigrate from the Cedar River, although a smaller number February 17, 2(XJ() ACK!jhltd -KB99J42.A57-LD-D:lla.\2-(X}-W:ZK ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC Page 19 Queruiall and Baxter Propenies Mitigation Ana/vs is Memorandum may be the result of beach spawners. The Cedar River sockeye is a non-native species originating predominately from Baker River stock and introduced in 1935 (WDFW et al. 1994). The stock is currently believed to be depressed based on a long-term negative escapement trend (WDFW et al. 1994). Sockeye are not known to have spawned historically along the Quendall and Baxter project sites (Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, 1997). Areas of suitable substrate were looked for during diver and video surveys for this project. It was assumed that any area with large sand to medium sized gravels and evidence of upwelling may be used for sockeye spawning; however, little suitable habitat was found and there was not any evidence of redds. One small upwelling site was noted by divers in about 30 feet of water off the mouth of May Creek. Similar small upwellings may exist off the Quendall and Baxter shorelines that were not observed by divers, however geohydrology studies and modeling do not suggest concentrated points of upwelling should be expected to occur. Naturally spawned fry begin leaving the Cedar River each year starting in late December. Millions more hatchery fry are released into the river starting in March. The fry migrate downstream to Lake Washington where they may spend from one to two years before emigrating to the sea. Recent studies in southern Lake Washington found the majority of sockeye fry migrate into deep water soon after reaching the lake and head north (Burgner, 1991; UW, 1996). A few fry were found in the nearshore environment for up to one month after emerging. By late summer, sockeye densities are highest at the north end of the lake (Burgner, 1991). Predation of sockeye fry in Lake Washington is believed to be a major cause of low recruitment (University of Washington, 1996). A considerable amount of research is currently being undertaken by the Muckleshoot Tribe, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), University of Washington (UW), Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and King County to better understand the early life history of sockeye in Lake Washington and the various factors influencing predation. Currently northern squawfish and cutthroat trout are believed to be the major predators of fry (UW, 1996). Estimates of sockeye consumption by squawfish in Lake Washington range between 3,000,000 and 11,000,000 fry per year (UW, 1996). Smallmouth and largemouth bass, prickly sculpin, yellow perch, rainbow trout and coho salmon also consume sockeye juveniles but in much fewer numbers. Although bass were once believed to be major sockeye predators, recent evidence indicates this is not entirely true (UW, 1996). Life history studies of the two bass species and sockeye in Lake Washington show few opportunities for the three species to interact. Gut analysis confirmed the studies (UW, 1996). Each spring when juvenile salmon are most abundant, less than 10 percent of the diet of smallmouth bass is made up of this prey item. Most sockeye consumed by largemouth bass are taken in the ship canal where they are concentrated during the outmigration period. Total bass consumption of sockeye fry is estimated at less than 100,000 fish per year (UW, 1996). Ten beach seining surveys at Kennydale Park, approximately 0.7 miles south of the remediation site, were conducted by the US Anny Corps of Engineers and the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe between February and June, 1994 (Muck!eshoot, 1997). One survey was completed during the February 17, 2()()() ASSOCIATED E.ARffi SCIENCES, INC. ACXJjhlld -KB9914'2A57 -LD-D: lld\2-00 -WZK Page 20 Quendall and Baxter Properties Mitigation Analysis Memorandum day and one survey at night each month. Relatively high numbers of sockeye fry. chinook fry. coho fry, and yellow perch were captured (Figure 2-4). Lesser numbers of sockeye presmolts, smallmouth bass, and squawfish were caught. Most sockeye were observed in May during the daytime surveys. A high number of yellow perch were also captured during the same survey. Fewer sockeye fry were captured in June but a higher number of chinook were netted. Again, an abundant yellow perch population was also netted. The coho population peaked in April. Benthic Species Crayfish (Pacifasticus spp.) and freshwater shrimp (Ostracods and Mysids) are relatively abundant benthic biota in the vicinity of the project. Numerous individuals were observed in diver and video surveys within the outer harbor line. Most crayfish were associated with larger pieces of wood where many were noted protecting the entrance to dens under logs. Freshwater clams (Pelecypods) were also noted in several places on the lake bed. Other benthic species potentially found in Lake Washington, within and around the remediation bounds are listed in Table 2-8. No site specific benthic studies were completed as part of the assessment for this project. 2.3.3 Lake Washington Shoreline Survey Methodology Physical surveys of the Lake Washington shoreline along the project boundary were undertaken to characterize existing conditions affecting fish habitat. A total of 3,130 feet of shoreline was walked from the northern edge of the Baxter property to the southern edge of the Quendali parcel. A hip-chain was pulled to measure distances. Five variables (riparian vegetation, bank type, bank protection, substrate, and water depth) were assessed at roughly five-foot intervals. The dominant characteristic in each five-foot interval was noted on a spreadsheet. Substrate and water depth were measured approximately five feet from shore. Overwater structures were also noted and measured. Existing literature was reviewed to describe shoreline characteristics in the immediate vicinity of the project. This information is provided for comparison with project site conditions. On-Site Habitat and Valuation Project shoreline characteristics are shown in Figures 2-2, 2-5 and 2-6. Features within the remediation area are summarized in Table 2-9. February 17, 2000 ASSOCIATED £Alim SCIENCES, INC. ACK/jhlld · KB99UlA57 · W-D:1/dl'UXJ · W2K Page 21 Quendall and Baxter Propem·es Mirigation AMlysis Memorandum Table 2-8. Benthic Biota Present in Lake Washington. r ------------. -~----. I • I -', 1 ~ •' ' ;,..(.£..!.l_/<1'1_, '-2". ~ . ----. ---~--::-~ ·_:::::_-__ ----· -·---------~~- Chironomidlle Macropelopia, Eukiejferiella, Midges Heterorrissoc/adius, parakiejfererielifl, Chironomus, C/adopelma, Ta,rytarsus Cryptochironomous, Dicrotendipes, Einfeldia, Phaenopsectra, Potypedilum Ceratopogonidae biting midges Oligochaeta Tubificidae. Naldidae aquatic earthwonns Nematoda roundworms Ostracoda seed shrimp Pelecypoda Pisidium freshwater clams Tricoptera caddistlies Copepoda mainly harpacticoids Hydracarina Piona water mites Gastropoda Planorbelifl Snails Amphipoda Hyalel/a azteca scuds and sideswimmers Epbemeroptera Maytlies Plecoptera Perlodidae stoneflies Collembola springtails Mysidacea Taphromysis seed shrimp Hirudinea leeches Tardigrada water bears Porifera sponges Brachiopoda daphnia lsopoda Caecidotea aquatic sowbugs Coleoptera Psephenus beetles Sources: Shepard and Hoeman, 1979, Bennet and Cubbage, 1992. The shoreline riparian vegetation is dominated by Himalayan blackberry (46%) which grows up to, and in places, over the lake. The remaining area is split about evenly between shrubs (primarily Scotch broom) and an unvegetated condition (Table 2-9). Approximately 25 percent of the shoreline is also overhung with a sparse tree canopy layer. Most trees are young alder (to about 4 inches diameter at breast height [DBH]). The trees are typically set back from the shoreline five to ten feet and associated with the four lakeshore wetlands (Figure 2-2). No trees large enough to provide large woody debris (LWD) were noted. Wetland habitat influences approximately 17 percent of the shoreline. February I 7, 20()() ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. A.CKljhlld -KD99!42A57-W-D:lld\Z--00 -W1K Page 22 Quendall and Baxter Properties Millgation Analysis Memorandum The existing shoreline vegetation provides little visual refuge for fish, bank stability. insect habitat, or shading, because the lack of diversity and non-native characteristics of the existing vegetation are not well suited for these purposes. The young, sparse hardwood stand currently growing along the banks do not provide any of the above functions or serve as a source of large woody debris or bank refuge beneath undercut rootballs. The majority of the bank (56 % ) is unsupported and consists of steep dirt banks from one to four feet high (30%), or relatively low gradient "beach" like shoreline (26%) (Figure 2-5). Manmade structures and protection features (rip-rap, log bollards, piers, buildings, log skids) cover 33 percent of the shoreline (Table 2-9). Eleven percent of the bank could not be surveyed due to heavy blackberry coverage. Four percent of the bank (110 feet) is undercut by wave action. Large logs floating or sitting on the lake bottom near the shore protect 81 percent of the shoreline. These logs not only shelter the banks from wave action, they provide excellent rearing and shelter habitat for fish and macroinvertebrates. Historically the lake shoreline was primarily low-gradient beach habitat formed as the delta of May Creek. Over time, erosion caused by industrial landfilling, riparian vegetation removal, and wave action has created oversteepened banks. Other banks are artificially protected with rip-rap and log bollards. Neither condition is conducive to habitat formation. Cull logs and stringers from the mill effectively provide many of the habitat functions and diversity normally associated with large woody debris (LWD). Various manrnade structures provide some diversity and overhead cover, and may be used by juvenile salmonids (Ratte and Salo, 1985; Heiser and Finn, 1970). Inlets, or coves make up approximately 26 percent of the shoreline. Most have a few pieces of LWD floating or sitting on the bottom. These areas of meandering shoreline add diversity to the relatively straight shore elsewhere. Shallow coves filled with LWD could provide nursery areas for many species of fish and benthic organisms. Surficial substrate along the shoreline is dominated by sands (54%) with relatively equal proportions of mud/silt and gravel in other areas. None of the substrates are free of silts; a muddy layer underlies most areas. A large amount of woody debris including wood chips covered the substrate in several areas (Figure 2-6). Clean gravels can provide spawning habitat for sockeye as well as macroinvertebrate habitat. Finer materials anchor vegetation and are preferentially inhabited by other aquatic species. Dense wood chip coverage leads to anaerobic conditions and a relatively sterile environment. No benefit is derived from the wood chip coverage. Water depths five feet from shore are typically less than one foot (57%). Only 15 percent of the shoreline has a slope greater than about 3: 1. These areas are usually heavily disturbed by nearshore activities and may have resulted from past filling of the lake. February 17, 2000 ASSOCIATED EA.Rm SCIENCES. INC. ACK/j'9!Jd · KB9914W7 · lD-D:\ld\2-lXJ -W2K Page 23 t ~o~ ~~(j ~~Cj -:r*-«., >-0:: d ~ 0 co ls ~ 1 ~ :::, 0 ///' . / / / / //' !!, il5 1£ i 0 ! _// / / /'---.,_ // "') a.---1 , 01".-/ ;::,'t"/ '?)O,/ [<;io~/- ·«"'t// :,.,'v~/ GYPSY SUBBASIN DRAINAGE , C· · ~ (UNAFFECTED BY REMEDIATION),/ ~ /I ,, .· ------~ 00 / / / // =, & ,"' , .... · ,, -~ , ( J,1 / ---------,/ '-,, ~ ' / ,1 /'· •· ··... "" ., .! f / ·· ..... ,,,, I/ , .. ··. I . . I .· ii -~/ :"'·· I · . -:1/ 0 .. ~-"' ··.,, / ,' , // '~/ ',\\ C '/ fl": p, ,! ~ ' ' ,/! , 1, I ,, /' ,, ' :rr• :t l,1 ' I, -.. ~ ' , I .. , ',, ~ ! ~y' ·',. . / ;' /- -(_'l_ 1t _ '/}/ ~ . HICTLAND fl.. . .· !/ . .::_,,.-· \ ) •n;; I, . ::'<.. / . •;/j .. ~,TLAND-D \ (i) I /?-. it . ~--(,::., .. ~]' ... ~?/ .· '-. //.·/• . --..__ ··, -' !/ / /.. / ~ /qj •, .Jf, .·· /' '/// ( .' WETLAND B , j ,~-~ . . / i}f1 ~ /, !/;/ /( ·;ff 'v /'· WETLAND C " , _/ _',;/ ... v ,. //; ~~ //-// ,f // ·. ~ N ,., , // a ;/ .. · , ,f ,...._,, ,//' f/ ·: ,~-.. .1.-. , -\'lli _.. --1 ~-'-~ ~'. ?I [_ -~---WETLAND A :t'. . ' ·., \ ... t; \ ,. . /. I ,, " ~_-;f'? ~<_/" •· ( ., i . _-; ~ ·1 ,: .. / J //( ; ' i ' i I , f ' •': ! I .. ·. ,/ -·· , ~ : ;j'T ! i WETLANDS AND SHORELINE STRUCTURE QUENDALLAND BAXTER PROPERTIES REME~AllONFOOTPRlNT RENTON, WASHINGTON ----~.--.~ :i,,. ---~-1 ' LEGEND Beach Vertical dirt Rip-rap Undercut Log bollard Logs in lake NOTE ALL HABITAT, 1/VETLAND, AND PROJECT FEATURE LOCATIONS AND QUANTITIES ARE APPROXIMATE ~ NORTH 0 '00 :a:o 3l) 4)J APPROXIMATE SCALE !N FEET FIGURE2-5 DATE 9/24199 PROJ NO KB99142A ! J N i I / ,/ ¢/ ~()'I"/ O~/ <o / o'<:-/ 0<o / '<''I"/ ,<v«;,/ 0\)/ /7 ! / /./'"-··--.... / " GYPSY SUB / )· (UNAFFECTEi~~I~ DRAINAGE • ~ EMiEDIATION) /1 I / '-----/·' ~ .4// ··... ~ &71/ ..... 4. ~ ~ ~ ' ' / R-.·/,,;1 ··. I /_,'/ •·... /. h ~ ;' (( ' •·... ·, ./· ··. .· . ,f // "'o~ ~~G ~~C:3 ,s-*"~ >-Q:'. ; 0 III ~ ~ ~ Q:'. ~ ::, 0 / / /// / / /// 9:, vi I 0 ~ / ·--. -·--· ___ ,, "''· -· -.-.... ·) -- 1 I .. \\ . ' ,// ,' • -• 0f • . ·,/1,- r/ , l" ' \' ' ' <;/ I/;;;.,..,. ,)~ND ~ . : 1,{ I " E ND IP I/ l: ' ~ ·.fr; ! ,IX· I ~ . ,, 1::·, J \ ' . /~ ',// .. //. J ~ V l ;1·· , WETLAND ~ ,./ /!// /, f// B r• :,j ) [ WETLAND 'v f/ /;! ~ ./' ;/fl • ,Af. I ·' C ' A' //./? ~v /., :;/ =r= ., -·~. /,.,.._> ' ' / WETLAND A ./' / I' I . I~ ,I .;::,v /:· r-.:. ,;/ \.J" /-' .. ' ;l1 \t ,rt'" <</~ .. // " ' _ _j --;;;.:-_ WETLANDS AND SHORELINE SUBSTRATE AND DEPTH QUENDALL AND BAXTER PROPERTIES REMEDIATION FOOTPRINT RENTON, WASHINGTON ....... __ -:'.f" ~ .;..'"~· .. ,:, ----- LEGEND SUBST8l\IE; Mud silt Sand Gravel >50% wood chips QEPlli 0-1 fool 1-2 feel >2 feet NOTE ALL HABITAT, \NETLAND. AND PROJECT FEATURE LOCATIONS AND QUANTITIES ARE APPROXIMATE. A NORTH 0 10'.J ZX.I ~ 4JJ APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET FIGURE 2-6 DATE 9124199 PROJ. NO. KB99142A Queruiall arui Baxter Properties Mitiga1ion Analysis Memorandum Table 2-9. Lake Washington shoreline characteristics for the Quendall and Baxter Properties. r ,---;_ ~--r-----~ . -' ----------.---------~-~---, - " (:1.-• ~:: •(-'.i Ir ' I -• ""-' " • • J1 ' l-~-"":::c:.~---~-....l---------. -. ---~ ·----- Vegetation none 800 26% blackbe= 1.425 46% shrubs 905 29% trees 770 25% wetland 535 17% Bank type/Protection beach 805 26% vertical dirt 930 30% rip-rap 415 13% bulkhead 0 0% lo~ bollard 515 16% oier 55 2% bui!din• 35 1% log skid 35 1% undercut 110 4% inlet 820 26% l02s 2.550 81 % Substrate• mud/silt 755 24% sand 1,685 54% <>ravel 690 22% woodwasteb 500 16% Depth' 0-1 ft. 1.775 57% 1-2 ft. 870 28% >2 ft. 485 15% 3,130 feet, surveyed 11 April 1997 'Measured or sampled approximately five feet out from shoreline. s Woodwaste ; areas where chips and bark exceed 50% surface coverage. Anthropogenic structures are found in several areas along the shoreline. Two boat sheds (one sunken), half a dozen docks, a barge, three boats, two log skids and several other smaller structures impact approximately 5 percent of the shoreline. All of these structures overhang shallow water habitat in Lake Washington. No floating log rafts were present offshore of Baxter or Quendall the day of the survey, although aerial photographs indicate this practice was historically common. The Gypsy Subbasin Drainage enters the Baxter property via a 24-inch concrete culvert beneath the Burlington Northern railroad tracks (Entranco, 1995)-The culvert is 55 feet long, has a gradient of approximately 2 percent, and is likely a barrier to upstream fish passage_ Upon entering the property, the drainage is discharged to a small (approximately 10 foot diameter), quarry-span lined pond. From the pond, the drainage enters a 24-incb, 46-foot long concrete culvert beneath a dirt haul road before daylighting again to an open channel. The open channel is February 17. 2000 ASSOCIATED EARm SCIENCES. INC. ACK!jhlld -KB99U.2,U7-W-D:1/dl2-00-W2K Page 26 i I Queruiall and Baxter Propenies Mitiga!ion Annlysis Memorandum Figure 2-7. Lake Washington Shoreline Composition along a 14-Mile Reach of Lakeshore on Both Sides of Quendall and Baxter in September 1995. ---~---· . -------------------------- 100% r I • • 90% f • • • i 80% iil T • z 70% t :; w 60% 1 a: • • 0 50% l :,: "' Rem:diatim area ... I 0 40% r I-z ' • w 30% f-0 0 a: 0 0 w 20% t a. 10% 0 0 0 • 0%; 0 ~ .. .. -------~- 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 I ' LAl<EMILE I~% BULKHEAD o % SLOPED I • % VEGETATED i I I source reference: Muckleshoot Indian Tribe 1995 Pier coverage of the water surface within 100 feet of the shoreline was estimated from 1989 aerial photographs and a review of environmental documents published between September 1991 and July 1995 (Muckleshoot, 1997). The values are believed to underestimate the real coverage due to an incomplete database and unauthorized development. For the eleven mile reach surveyed (which includes the remediation reach) a total of517 piers were counted (47 piers/mile). This compares with 4 piers, or 7 piers/mile within the remediation reach (Table 2-11). Overall surface coverage averages 4.2 percent of the first 100 feet of lake for the eleven mile reach. Within the remediation area, only 0.6 percent of the lake surface is covered with piers. Table 2•11. Comparison of Overwater Pier Coverage within the Remediation Area (1997) and the Surrounding Shoreline (1989). r - --d -~---~~____.,..._---~-~~---~ -.-0:-.,.,......, ' -..,. ,--~;.,.. -~• --r .,-..-.-, 4~•~ ~"<',._ , i.,J-_;.;.!.:.:~'..,,!Si:,}_t.-;_ ,1 ~"lL1t,•,:.!.1.~~·..,,l!_.,.1,..1-..::.,t0~. j '~~ ------·-------~ ... _........,.j - Number of Piers/mile 7 47 Estimated Coverage (ft2/mile) 3,008 22,368 Estimated Coverage ( % ) 0.6 4.2 1989 data supplied by the Muckleshoot lndian Tribe (Muckleshoot, 1997). February 17, 2000 ASSOCIATED EARm SCIENCES. INC. ACK!jhlld -KB99141A57 -LD-D:\Id\2-00. W2K Page 18 Queruiail arui Baxter Properties Miiigarion Anai_vsis .lfemorandum 2.3.4 Lake Washington Open Water Benthic In general, the Quendall and Baxter offshore lake bottom drops off gently at slopes between approximately 20: 1 and 9: l. Small localized areas with slopes in excess of 3: 1 are present. After dropping relatively quickly to 15 to 20 foot depths within 250 feet from shore, the gradient flattens into a broad plateau sloping gently for another 400 to 600 feet offshore. Approximately 5 to 10 additional feet in depth are gained over this plateau. Additional topography/bathymetry information and a map is provided in the Sediment Quality Memorandum, Section 4. 1 (RETEC, 1997). The vast majority of remediation activities will take place in 10 or less feet of water, although dredging near the old I-dock would occur in about 30 feet of water. The surface of the lake bottom substrate was characterized in terms of particle size and organic material (e.g., wood chips). The subsurface composition was examined via sediment-profile imaging (SP!). The surficial layer was surveyed with video by both towed and diver operated cameras, and during the SP! surveys. In general the lake bottom consists of very fine particles. Occasional sandy areas were also noted. No graveled areas were noted. A more complete description is provided in Section 4. 2 (RETEC, 1997). SP! images provide a measurement of the substrate depth in which aerobic activity is occurring (RETEC, 1997). These data are useful in assessing the quality of habitat for epifauna and infauna. A thin redox potential discontinuity (RPO) is indicative of a stressed environment. Stress can occur physically (e.g., prop wash) or chemically (e.g., high biological oxygen demand or chemical contamination). RPO depths of less than 0.4 cm are indicative of an anaerobic condition. The shallowest RPO depths in the remediation area ( < 0. 2 cm) were measured off the southern end of the Port Quendall parcel and were associated with areas with high wood waste (RETEC, 1997, Figure 6-2). Intermediate RPO levels (0.2 to 0.8 cm) were observed over much of the rest of the lake bottom off Port Quendall. These levels are indicative of a disturbed environment where benthic stress is present but likely varies. Both scattered wood debris and chemical contamination are likely present. The rest of the remediation area has RPO depths over 0.8 cm, which is considered to be a relatively undisturbed benthic condition in terms of overall animal-sediment interactions for nearshore environs in this portion of Lake Washington (RETEC, 1997). A complete description of the SPI process, wood and chemical contamination extents, and associated maps are provided in the Sediment Quality Memorandum, Section 6 (RETEC, 1997). Sunken logs are present throughout the remediation area with the highest densities (3 to 5 logs/acre) mapped along the Quendall shoreline. Much of the aquatic organisms observed during video surveys (e.g., crayfish, sculpin, perch) were associated with the logs. Milfoil was noted during the side-scan sonar and video surveys (RETEC. 1997). Areas of dense rnilfoil are mapped in Figure 2-2. Milfoil is common throughout most of the remediation area at water depths from about 4 to approximately 15 feet. Only in the dense woodwaste area at the south end of the remediation area was milfoil relatively absent. February 17, 2000 ASSOCIATED EARm SCIENCES, INC. .ACK!jhlld. KB99J4:ZJ'lj7 · lD-D:lld\2-00 · WZK Page 29 Quenda/1 and Baxter Properties Mitigation Anatysis Memorandmn Water Column Pilings and dolphins (tied piling cluster) are scattered throughout the remediation area with 64 percent located off the Port Quendall parcel. A total of 73 vertical structures, mainly dolphins, have been mapped to date. These structures provide vertical habitat which many species utilize, including some salmonid predators, (e.g., bass). Several hundred individual upright pilings, many not rising above the water surface, also likely exist but have not been mapped. The pilings also provide attachment and focal points for aquatic organisms such as freshwater mussels. Several sunken structures along the Quendall shoreline are also present in the water column including the old boat house and several partially sunken pier sections. Surface A number of anthropogenic structures and objects exist on the surface of Lake Washington which have an influence on aquatic habitat quality. A varying quantity of logs have been stored as log rafts off the shoreline of Barbee Mill, Baxter and Quendall. Vessels including tugs, barges and recreational boats have been anchored in the area. Numerous docks are present in either a permanent (i.e., mounted on pilings) or temporary (i.e., floating) basis. Structures on the lake surface provide overhead refuge cover for numerous aquatic species as well as their predators. Salmonids in particular prefer overhead cover, especially when near shore. A number of small oily slicks have been observed nearshore and are believed to be coming from old creosote deposits (Figure 4-6 in RETEC, 1997). These slicks impact aquatic habitat via both chemical and physical processes. Chemically, various components of the creosote are toxic to aquatic life. Physically, the slicks present a barrier at the air/water interface. Fish feeding at the surface can become contaminated. Prey items stuck in the sheen are not consumable. 2.3.5 Habitat Valuation Numerous protected alcoves, abundant woody debris, overhanging trees, and relatively low human disturbance along the shoreline offer good potential rearing and migrating structure for fish, especially when compared to the adjacent Lake Washington shoreline. Although a number of beneficial habitat features exist, they are compromised by the constant seepage of chemicals and oily residues. Under existing conditions, therefore, habitat value of the remediation site for fish is low. Offshore habitat in the remediation area ranges from good to poor. Those areas contaminated with chemicals and wood chips offer poor to negligible benthic habitat. The majority of the lake bottom is relatively clean, however, and the numerous sunken logs provide good structural diversity for a number of aquatic species. The vertical and floating structures benefit some species (e.g., smallmouth bass) to the possible detriment of others (e.g., juvenile salmonids). February 17. 2(X}() ASSOCIATED E:AR.ffi SCIENCES. INC. A.CK!jlrJld -KB9914W7 -lD-D:lld\2--00 -W2K Page 30 Quendall and Baxter Properties Mitigation Analysis Memorandum Fish habitat value of the Gypsy Subbasin Drainage within the project boundary is minimal. The two short open stretches offer some potential rearing habitat, however, shallow depths, a muddy substrate, no instream structure, and little instream cover limits the overall habitat value. With little protection from high velocities, winter storm events likely flush many fish from the system. Summer conditions produce extremely low flows which may also limit the habitat quality. 2 .4 Recreational There is one private dock and boathouse located over Lake Washington at the extreme northern boundary of the Baxter parcel. No other recreational opportunities and no public access are currently provided on the site. Recreational resources are not discussed further. 2.5 Cultural See Larson Anthropological/Archaeological Services, 1997, for a cultural resource assessment of the Quendall and Baxter sites, as well as for recommendations for cultural monitoring based on the assessment findings. 2.6 Economic A portion of the Baxter parcel is used for storage of "beauty bark. " The southern portion of the Quendall parcel is used for log sorting. Both of these uses would be curtailed by remediation. A utility right-of-way separates the Baxter and Quendall parcels, however use of this right-of-way is not affected by remediation. Economic resources are not discussed further. February I 7, 2000 ACK/jhlld -KB991'4W7 • ~D:\1412-(X)-W2X ASSOCIATED EAR111 SCIENCES, INC. Page 31 Queruiall and Baxter Properties Mitigation Analysis Memorandum 3.0 IMPACTS 3.1 Plants and Animals 3 .1.1 Disturbance to Shoreline Land-based remediation will result in the excavation and/or capping of 1,150 feet of the Quendall shoreline (Figures 3-1 through 3-3). Approximately 660 linear feet of vegetated shoreline, including Wetlands A and B, will be impacted (Table 3-1 and Table 3-2). The capping activities on the Baxter Parcel are not expected to directly impact shoreline vegetation. All wildlife use of the shoreline areas will be eliminated where vegetation is removed, or severely curtailed where it remains, during active remediation. Remediation is likely to require an 18-month period. Nesting waterfowl and passerine bird use will be the greatest wildlife use impacted during shoreline remediation activities. Table 3-1. Shoreline Vegetation Disturbance Resulting from Upland Excavation and/or Capping ;,ii~ Chiiracterlstfc 1m ted '.,,;:" _.' .~;. ·-pac :.;-,>:,: . ·.· Lfnelir Distance (feet) Total shoreline impacted l,150 feet Non-vegetated shoreline 490 feet Vegetated shoreline 660 feet Blackberry 425 feet Upland shrubs (non-blackberry) 235 feet Upland trees 345 feet Wetland 280 feet 3.1.2 Dredge Offshore Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH) Wetland E (Baxter Cove) will be dredged to remove polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) sediments, which will remove all vegetation and woody debris in the wetland and most of the adjacent vegetated area. Turtles will be displaced from this shoreline area during the dredging activities. Red-wing blackbird nesting habitat will be eliminated. PAH dredging offshore of the Quendall parcel will remove 106,200 fr of milfoil, which is considered to be a positive impact. The positive impact will likely be short-lived, as the rnilfoil would be expected to recolonize. February 17. 2()()() ACK!jll/fa -KB99142A57-W-D·lld\2-00-W2K ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES. INC Page 32 Quendall arul Baxrer Properties Miriganon Analysis Jfemorandum Table 3-2. Impacts to Wetlands to be Dredged or Filled by the Quendall and Baxter Remediation Actions (Refer to Figure 3-1) i~-----·.......,,-.. ,--' - : I I I '... : , ,*'...).) -::.u;.....--., 1. l=..-:,_-~ ' A B C D E (Baxter Cove) 0.20 0.37 0.17 0.08 0.23 February 17, 2000 Wetland along Lake Washington shoreline, minor surface discharge from project site; some shoreline protection provided by vegetation and logs embedded nearshore: little flood control, base tlow support or water quality improvement is provided. Wetland along Lake Washington shoreline, minor surface discharge from project site; some shoreline protection provided by vegetation and logs embedded nearshore; Iinle flood control, base flow detains drainage from log yards; no outlet was observed and the area appears IO be isolated from ground water, therefore no base flow support is provided by this wetland; water quality improvement provided by detention of log ard runoff. Old industrial settling pond isolated from Lake Washington; little flood control or base flow suppon is provided; no water quality im rovements rovided. Cove created by fill along the lake shoreline; some shoreline protection provided by vegetation and logs embedded nearshore; flood control, base flow support and water quality improvement are limited due to the small area that drains into the cove. ACK/jltlld, KB99142A57 · W-D:lldlU)()-W2K PFO -immature red alder with a Himalayan blackberry understory and a sparse herbaceous cover of cattail, reed canarygrass, buttercup, and flag iris; habitat value is moderate due to adjacency to the lake; provides potential habitat for amphibians, passerine birds and limited waterfowl nesting -observed wildlife use includes Canada goose. beaver, several s ecies of asserine birds. PFO -red alder with a hardback and Pacific willow shrub layer; habitat value is moderate due to adjacency 10 the lake: provides potential habitat for amphibians, passerine birds and limited waterfowl nesting, observed wildlife use includes Canada goose, beaver. several species of passerine birds. PSSIPEMIPOW -black cottonwood saplings, cattails and soft rush; perennial open water; low habitat value due co low vegetative diversity and isolated nature of area: observed wildlife use includes Canada goose, and mallards. PSS -small wetland within Fonner industrial area dominated by cattail, Pacific willow and red-osier dogwood; overall habitac value is low; observed wildlife use includes red- win ed blackbird. sni e. PEM/POW /PSS -cattail, Himalayan blackberry. red-osier dogwood and red alder sapling: emergent vegetalion established after 1990; habitat value is moderate due co adjacency lO the lake; provides potential habitat for amphibians. passerme birds and waler fowl; observed wildlife use includes turcles (painted and sliders); beaver. red-win blackbird. mallards. A portion to be c;,;:cavated and replaced with dean material; remainder to be capped with J feet of clean ma(ertal. A ponion to be excavated and replaced with clean material; remainder to be capped with 3 feet of clean material. Excavated and replaced with clean material. A portion to be excavated and replaced with clean material; remainder to be capped with J feet of clean material. Most to be excavated 3 to 6 feet and replaced with dean material: remainder excavated to 3 feet and replaced with clean material. ~inor portion to south along shoreline may be retained. ASSOC/A"[ED EAR11f SCIENCES, INC Page 33 ~ j ~ I i "o~ ~0 '1(-s'<' ~~ ,if! >-C( i 0 (JJ g; 8! :i C( l!c1 ::, 0 / //\ //-- / / I ' I / ., i\!i / ; ,. ' / ~ Hi I / / " / / 0,1;/ ,;:,~ / <oo// /l_ / /<)0'/ ,/:/'~// / /"'~ / .,_:,,.., GYPSY SUBBASlN DRAINAGE _,... .. • -, ,ff/ // (UNAFFECTE/D BY REMEDIATION) --~::~-'-~ --------~ _____________ ...,,_ '---------.1' -----------·-"--~,.:~---=-----:ff C ------------··------, rv<?-Cc, 0 _ ;~~-:~ =.:-;;~--=;=:-;;;~7 /7 --------------------· --···-··; // // / ./ / / / / / / ~ ,.r ,/ / / ""' --==-~:....:::.==:----~====-w·==:---/i. ,...,---------.---_. -ii V --• •· -· -~¥ -, // i I ;h •; -; ; I //, , / II .-r:=::--____ . --.::::-:·-----=::=.·__ -. ' I ' I --------""----------/ --------------------------~------~--~--·------. ~ ---.,___ ---7 :J~;;;---:;,,. ·~~::--=--::=.~==--=-··---·_:_ __ -.~/ {;"ff -'>sr· >-~.--' 'J'.z,',~/,, ,_;: ' ---------------··-·· --" t,.._ ··-""'" ·---··----¥;;'~', // ~~~=-==-~./,,~/ / J~~·~c~~> ,· -.: /. ~ -----_I ,:·)' --~- ."/ / /,' ·;· / _.l' ,.:{-'. / C ' L ' ' WETLANDS AND SHORELINE VEGETATION QUENDALL AND BAXTER PROPERTIES REMEDIATION FOOTPRINT RENTON, WASHINGTON ~ L_:J fl , : Till 1-.:.:..:---1 t=.---· [Z. ///% •/// LEGEND Area of remediation impact along the shorehne Wood waste >50% removed with dredging Potential 1-foot sediment cap Dredge to 6' and replaced with clean material to origina I grade Dredge to 3' and replaced with clean material to original grade 3' cap with clean material or cap with redevelopment Excavated to required depth to remove contaminants and replaced with clean material to capped grade Blackberry Shrubs Trees NOTE: All HABITAT, \NETLAND, AND PROJECT FEATURE LOCATIONS AND QUANTITIES ARE APPROXIMATE ..... Ft.... NORTH 0 100 3)) 3:0 4X! APPROXIMATE SCALE IIJ FEET FIGURE 3-1 DATE 9/24/99 PROJ. NO. KB99142A J i Ao..o~ ~~0 ~~<:;; ,s-fY ~ ~ ~ g ls ~ 1 Bi s 0 I-~~-.-. I - I ~'v'f,. o0. ~q;· ~<ca. \1-~. ft. 0\) (i -r rr,"'.;f,' ;,.-'~ l~.-... •• ·, ...... GYPSY SUBBASIN DRAINAGE (UNAFFECTED BY REMEDIATION) rf,~/k/ . ii!. .'_!"l_,_,......_ ' ~~ea/ . : ...: ~~~ .· = ~o 'v~ ~. ' ~-. ,· _...,, '( ,/ / i I _-;,,;;...,_,--.:- '' {~------>.c:! ·-rI-,,. /t.": t i; t ; ; ; I ' I / I I I ' I I / I / 1' 1/ WETLANDS AND SHORELINE STRUCTURE QUENDALLANO BAXTER PROPERTIES REMEDIATION FOOTPRINT RENTON, WASHINOlON ~ ~_____J IIIWill F-------l ™ ,,...,~----~ ... ,. LEGEND Area of remediation impact along the shoreline Wood waste >50% removed with dredging Potential 1-foot sediment cap Dredge to 6' and replaced with clean material to original grade Dredge to 3' and replaced with clean material to original grade 3' cap with clean material or cap with redevelopment Excavated to required depth to remove contamlnanls and replaced with clean material to capped grade Beach Vertical dirt Rip-rap Undercut Log bollard Logs in lake NOTE: ALL HABITAT, IM:TLAND, AND PROJECT FEATURE LOCATIONS AND QUANTITIES ARE APPROXIMATE. A NORTH 0 100 ZC DJ 4,X, APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET FIGURE 3-2 DATE 9124199 PROJ NO KR®14?A ~ i i ~o~ ~~0 ~'r'-Cj -.J-*"-«,, / //\ /; / / ' / >-Ct: d ~ g 15 en Ct: . ~, ffi I'= ::, 0 I I ./) /// ... ;.,J. ~J...ti-..:. fJ. ; ' i ~ () l / / ,. / ¢// ~()°?;/ 00// ~<o,/ roO/ '?'-~/ ,,,_ Y'/ AX,'/ 0' ,• o// / / / ; .• / , / / / / / / / / . i i ( ~-~.· . <!cc ,'.\ <:~;-;: ·,. ,'--~-_.;,.,,,-, ,,.--'·-...-\• · ev..,-, y ,• '· ! /·' ,/, __ i ·; / . / /f /'" 1;_,. i . fi ..!..._C"o. ... ,,I ' ' -.. ----7 -.· -, . --,"-- I ,;,/ ( -I '--1 • ' ' ,(. ,/-( ~ ., ~.,. ~ ,,/,/?' .' • WETLANDS AND SHORELINE SUBSTRATE AND DEPTH QUENDALLAND BAXTER PROPERTIES REMEDIATION FOOTPRINT RENTON, WASHINGTON ~ L.:::..__J i ! 'IT'ITT t;~ f'/',:/./. ,/J/>; --~~c,o,· .. ,\)'l."'<:',;•:"t,-'h,-,: LEGEND Area of remediation impact along the shoreline Wood waste >50% removed with dredging Potential 1-foot sediment cap Dredge to 6' and replaced with clean material to original grade Dredge to 3' and replaced wrth clean material to original grade 3' cap with clean material or cap wrth redevelopment Excavated to required depth to remove contaminants and replaced with clean material to capped grade SUBSTRATE Mud silt Sand Gravel >50% wood chips DEPTH 0-1 foot 1-2 feet >2 feet NOTE ALL HABITAT. WETLAND. AND PROJECT FEATURE LOCATIONS AND QUANTITIES ARE APPROXIMATE A NORTH G 100 2JJ :it 4:G APPROX!MATE sc~:..E II~ FEET FIGURE 3-3 DATE 9124199 PROJ. NO. KB991~2A Quendall and Baxter Propenies .ititigacion Analysis .Memoram:ium 3.1.3 In-Water One-Foot Sediment Cap If Ecology determines that less than 50 percent woodwaste areas require remediation, these areas would be capped with one foot of clean sand. These areas are indicated as a "potential" one-foot cap in Figure 3-1. No impact to nearshore, partially submerged logs that provide resting platforms for waterfowl and rurtles, or to other features along the shoreline and water interface, are expected due to this potential action, other than the staging areas within the impact zones shown in Figure 3- 1. 3 .1.4 Dredge Offshore Areas with Greater Than 50 Percent Wood Chips No impact to plants or animals will result from the removal of material with greater than 50 percent wood chips. Although approximately 7,666 square feet of milfoil will be removed, this is considered to be a positive impact. 3.1.5 Upland Soil Excavation and Capping In addition to the removal of shoreline vegetation shown in Figures 3-1 through 3-3, all upland vegetated areas on the Quendall and Baxter parcels, including Wetlands C and D, will be eliminated with this action (Table 3-2 and Figures 3-1 through 3-3). The narrow band of existing shoreline vegetation on the Baxter site that is excluded from the shoreline impact zones in Figures 3-1 through 3-3 will be retained. The upland vegetation removal will eliminate all current wildlife use of the Quendall and Baxter parcels upland of the shoreline areas. Snipes, Canada geese, and some pas serine birds have been observed using these sparsely vegetated areas. Osprey nesting in the area could be impacted by the remediation activities. However, the osprey successfully nested on the adjacent active mill site in 1997, indicating that high levels of activity and construction-level noise would not necessarily impact osprey nesting in this area. The occasional use of the osprey nest platform on the Puget Sound Energy cable station pole by bald eagles during the winter could be eliminated during remediation activities. As a result of this very limited use, remediation should not affect bald eagle foraging. The closest known bald eagle nest site is approximately lii mile west of the site; therefore, the project will not impact nesting bald eagles. Capping over the piped section of Gypsy subbasin drainage on the Baxter site would not preclude any mitigation potential the drainage may represent to future development after remediation. Gypsy subbasin drainage is not included or needed to reasonably mitigate remediation as proposed in Section 4.0. 3.2 Fisheries Impacts 3 .2 .1 Shoreline Disturbance Shoreline disturbances affecting fish habitat include complete removal of all vegetation along 660 feet of shoreline, removal of all nearshore woody debris along 1,045 feet of shoreline, 100 percent filling of Wetlands A and B, the two wetlands adjacent to the lake, and dredging of "Baxter Cove". Onshore capping activities are not expected to impact shoreline vegetation. February 17. 2000 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES. INC. ACK!jhild -KB99UV.57 -l..D-D:l/d\2-00 • W2K Page 37 Table 3-3. Vegetation Bank Type Bank Protection Substrate Depth Februmy 17, 2000 Querrdal/ and Baxter Properties Mitigan·on Analysis Memorandum Valuation of Physical Shoreline Characteristics as Fish Habitat and Mitigated Condition Following Remediation (3,130 feet surveyed April 11, 1997). Shrubs dominated by Low growing vegetation including Non-vegetated and non-native Scotch grasses and shrubs provide blackberry covered broom and Himalayan overhanging visual refuge for fish, shoreline would be blackberry to the bank stability, insect habitat (prey reduced by 23 percent exclusion of native item), and shading; trees provide and 28 percent species; small similar functions plus source of respectively; native trees hardwoods; relatively large woody debris, and planted along 50 percent homogeneous structure. overhanging banks when rootball of the remediated is undercut. landscape; native shrubs planted along 50 percent of the remediated landsca Beach type shoreline Historically the lake shoreline was All artificial strucrures dominates. primarily low-gradient beach removed from the Anthropogenic features habitat formed as the delta of May remedia1ion area; (e.g., piers, bollards, Creek; large woody debris (LWD) wetland mitigation along etc.) are also common near beach may provide juvenile shoreline fronted with (33 percent). Eroding salmon refuge. Alternative beach type habitat dirt along shoreline at shoreline types (e.g., bollards, (Figure 4-4); beach southeast. riprap) provide some diversity and habitat increased by IO rearing habitat for juvenile percent; non-wetland salmonids. graded more steeply (Fi res 4-2 and 4-3). Approximately 33 Fallen trees along the shoreline Anthropogenic srrucrure percent anthropogenic provide bank stabilization as well reduced to 22 percent; strucrures; floating logs as quiet backwater rearing habitat percent log coverage along 81 percent of for juveniles. Logs enhance remains the same. shoreline and in shallow primary productivity in nursery nearshore lake areas. Rocks and rootwads environment. provide refuge and habitat diversi Dominated by fine Clean gravels provide potential Substrate returned to materials including sand spawning habitat for salmonids as original grain size and and silts (79 percent); well as macroinvertebrate habitat; grade; wood waste graveled substrate finer materials anchor vegetation eliminated in most around 12 percent of and are preferentially inhabited by areas. shoreline; abundant other aquatic species; dense wood wood chips in areas ( 16 chips provide no benefit. rcent). Mostly (57 percent) Juvenile salmonids prefer No change in depth very shallow nearshore nearshore shallow habitat at night; characteristics from environment ( < 1 foot deeper areas provide adult holding existing conditions. within 5 feet offshore). and refuge especially when Occasional deeper combined with overhanging banks areas. or other complex structures. Intermediate de tbs for ve etation. ASSOCIATED EARm SCIENCES. INC. ACK!Jhlld • K899U2A57 • lD-D:1/d\HJO· WZK Page 39 Quenda!I and Baxter Propenies Mirigarion Analysis Memorandum Areas to be dredged of wood chips are commonly associated with highly anaerobic conditions (RETEC, 1997), thus little beneficial habitat currently exists in the dredging areas. No long-term negative impact is expected from the activity. Dredging of the wood chips is expected co have a net long-term benefit on fish habitat in the area. The areas are expected to be rapidly recolonized with benthic invenebrates and flora, and shortly thereafter with the larger species which prey on these organisms. Ecology specifications for cleanup standards should prevent sublethal impacts to the fishery from the wood leachates and anaerobic chemical processes after remediation. 3.2.4 Upland Soil Excavation and Capping Upland soil excavation and capping activities have the potential to introduce sediment to Lake Washington. Excessive sediment introduction can result in reduction of nearshore habitat availability. Excessive fine sediments can elevate turbidity which can have a detrimental effect on fish communities. High turbidity can impact fish directly through changes in behavior and physiology, or indirectly by decreasing food supply and habitat availability. Behavioral modifications include cessation of feeding and outmigration. Physical reactions include excessive mucus secretion, excretory interference, and respiratory complications resulting in possible suffocation (Redding et al., 1987). An erosion and sediment control plan would be developed and implemented to contain all significant sediment sources, thus no significant impacts to fish resources should be expected from the upland activities. February 17, 2000 ASSOCIATED EARm SCIENCES, INC. ACK/jlalld -KB991.f2A57 -LD-D:lld12-00 -W1K Page 40 Quendall and Baxter Properties Mitigalion Analysis Memorandum 4.0 MITIGATION The wildlife habitat within the remediation area is primarily found along the shoreline. The goal of the wildlife mitigation is to expand and enhance the plant communities and other habitat features (e.g., down woody debris) along the Quendall and Baxter shorelines. All wetlands on the Quendall and Baxter parcels are Class 3 wetlands (per City of Renton categorization) that require replacement at a 1: 1.5 (impact restoration) ratio by the City of Renton. Wetland communities would be replaced with higher value Class 2 forested wetlands in two areas. The northern area would include the present location of Baxter Cove (Wetland E). The southern wetland mitigation site would be a large complex along the southern Quendall shoreline. Wetland hydrology would be primarily controlled by Lake Washington. Vegetation and logs would provide shoreline protection as found under current conditions. Water quality functions would be limited in these wetland systems due to the limited area that would drain into these wetlands, similar to existing wetland conditions. The biological support provided by the wetland mitigation areas is expected to be greater than currently provided by the five wetland areas (A through E) that would be impacted by the remediation because two large and enhanced wetland areas would be linked by a restored 100-foot vegetated shoreline. The resulting habitat would also support greater vegetative diversity and structure than current conditions, including an overstory conifer component. Conceptual mitigation actions are summarized in Figure 4-1 and discussed below for each remediation action. Wetland mitigation is not proposed along intact portions of the shoreline unaffected by remediation (for example, northern Baxter) or in areas of Quendall with extensive monitoring requirements under the cleanup action plan. Shoreline enhancement and restoration has been placed where the shoreline will be impacted by the remediation (Quendall shoreline north to Baxter cove). A trail north to south with perpendicular extensions to controlled outlooks landward of the OHWM is expected with subsequent development of the site. A trail is not proposed as part of the remediation mitigation. Nonetheless, mitigation enhancement for the remediation is considered to constrain any future trail and public access as follows: 1. The main north to south trail would be landward of the buffer. 2. Perpendicular trail extensions to controlled Lake Washington outlooks would be allowed to extend into the buffer, with buffer widths extended to make up the area lost to the trail. 3. All access would be controlled to within the trail and outlook system, using some combination of dense or thorny native vegetation or fencing. Signs would be posted indicating the wildlife value of the buffer, indicating ownership. and restricting access. 4. The buffer perimeter may be averaged. February 17, 2()(){) ACK/jhfld -KB99142A57-W-D:\ld12-00 -W2K ASSOCIATED EAR1H SCIENCES, INC Page 41 ~ l OJ ii i " i ~ ! .l. f),f- oV~ ~ RJo<?- '<''lr'~ ~«_,<?- 0'0 LAKE WASHING TON OUTER HARBOR BOUNDARY '« 0.1c ~~ ~ .le ~o <S>v. ~o's9 0 <9 "'u>, ;c.1?'0 ~,,,,.(:;'e,q,_ ~"'o i1•..C:· ~1x~H~l:;...P ___ (~ "st '-:' .~ :-' ':;:, auENDALL CONCEPTUAL SHORELINE AND WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN QUENDALL ANO BAXTER PROPERTIES REMEDIATION FOOTPRINT RENTON, WA~HINGTON I I I BAil]~B ~ '-'1)~, 0 100 2Xl ))) 400 APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET FIGURE 4-1 DATE 9rz4199 PROJ. NO. KB99142f.. Quendall and Baxter Propem'es i\!itigation Analysis Memorandum 4.1 Plants and Animals 4. l. l Disturbance to Ouendall Shoreline and Loss of Wetland C The goal of the Quendall shoreline mitigation is to replace existing vegetated shoreline areas (including Wetlands A & B) and Wetland C with similar or enhanced vegetated/habitat conditions. The following actions will be conducted to mitigate for shoreline wildlife habitat impacts: Establishment of an averaged 100-foot-wide zone of native plant communities along the impacted shoreline that is currently only poorly vegetated or lacking vegetation. Shrub species will be established along most of the revegetated shoreline (Figure 4- 2). Trees will be established along at least 50 percent of the shoreline and cover at least 50% of the wetland restoration areas (Figure 4-3). • Plant diversity will be increased from current conditions. A list of plants proposed for the restoration plantings are provided in Table 4-1. • Wetlands A, B, and C will be replaced with enhanced functions on a 1: l. 5 area (impact:restoration) in one wetland complex associated with Lake Washington in the current location of Wetland A, totaling approximately 1.11 acres (Figure 4-4). The length of the wetland complex along the shoreline will at least equal current shoreline wetland area (approximately 395 feet). The creation of one larger system comprised of more diverse communities (e.g., conifers) will increase wetland value. Wetland hydrology will be controlled by lake level during the summer and stormwater release from the developed project during the winter, and is thus guaranteed. • Vegetation species composition and diversity will be increased in the wetland buffer from the current condition. The wetland buffer will be expanded from 25 feet to 50 feet because the newly created wetlands associated with the lake would be classified by the City as Class 2 wetlands, rather than having the existing Class 3 status. The increase in buffer width reflects Renton's requirements for the improved wetland values. • Woody debris will be placed in all re-created shoreline habitats, including replacement of logs as necessary along the shoreline. • Wetland and buffer slopes would average 4: I or less in most areas, although some banks may rise more steeply to provide diversity in limited areas so long as erosion risk can be avoided. , If contaminated material removal coincides with wetland placement, one or two snags could be installed where clean fill is placed. February 17, 2000 ASSOCIATED EARm SCIENCES, INC. A.CKJjlllld · KB99UW7 · W·D:\ld\UXJ · W2K Page 43 Quendall and Baxter Propenies Mitigation Analysis Memorandum Table 4-1. Plant Species Proposed for Planting within the Wetland and Shoreline Buffers SCIENI'IFIC NAME . COMMO~NAME, ' ··----· ·;: ' Shallow Emergent Wetland Cara obrwpta slough sedge Carex stipata saw-beaked sedge Eleocharis ovata ovid spike-rush Juncus oxym.eris poimed rush Saglttaria Umfolia broadleaf arrowhead Scirpus microcarpus small-fruited bulrush Vtronica Amen·cana american Drooklime Deep Emergent Wetland Alisma planlago--aquatica water plantain Scirpus acutus hard.stem bulrush Scirpus \/alillus softstem bulrush &rub-Shrub Wetland Cornus sericea red-osier dogwood Lon.icera in\!Olucra!e black twinberry Physocarpus capitatus Pacific ninebark Pyrus jusca western crabapple Rhamnus purshiana cascara Ribes lacustre swamp gooseberry Rosa nurkana NuEka rose Rosa pisocarpa pea•fruit rose Rubus spectabilis salmonberry Salte lucida var. lasiandra Pacific willow Sala sitchensis Si1ka willow February 17, 2000 ASSOCIATED EARlli SCIENCES, INC. ACK/jMd -K899141A,7 -LD-D:ltdl2,00 -WZK Page 44 QuendaU and Baxter Properties Jfitigation Analysis Afemorandum Table 4-1. Plant Species Proposed for Planting within the Wetland and Shoreline Buffers (continued). SCIENTIFIC NAME I COMMON NAME . . .... ' -~-. .;~5 -.. ---4' Forested Wetland Fraxinus la!ifolia Oregon ash Picea sitchensis Sitka spruce Popul.us trichocarpa black cononwood Th.uja plicata western redcedar Upland Forest (trees and shrubs) Acer circinatum Acer macrophyllum Arbutus menziesii Berberis {Mahonia] spp. Corrw.s ruatailii Gaullheria shallon Oemkria cerasifomr.is Pinus concona PopuJus tremuloides Prunu.s emarginata Pseudotsuga menz.iesii Thuja plicata Tsuga heterophylla Acer circinatum Amelanchier ainifolia Corylus cormaa Rosa spp. Rubu.s parv,florus Salix spp. Symphoricarpor albus February 17. 2000 A.CKljhlld -KB99l4W7 -W-D:'tldl2-00 -W2K vine maple bigteaf maple Pacific madrone Oregon grape Pacifc dogwood salal Indian plum shorepine quaking aspen bitter cherry Douglas-fir western redcedar western hemlock Upland Shrub vine maple serviceberry hazelnut rose thimbleberry willow snow berry ASSOCIATED EARIB SCIENCES, INC Page 45 j NORTH-SOUTH I'" TRAIL .,j (Outside Outer Edge of Buffer) 100-Foot Averaged Shoreline Buffer Shrub plontir,;is interspersed with g111SSy openings & ocmsional upright deciduous tree (i.e. quakir,;i aspen). woody debris placement SHORELINE ENHANCEMENT CONCEPT (SHRUB-DOMINATED CROSS SfC1ION) Overhang at shoreline edge V'.'}:tj.-I with red osier dogwood dewlap shallow & deep emergent plant mmmunities as lab lewl ffuduation allows FIGURE 4-2 DATE 10199 PROJ. NUMBER K899142A s J it1 NORTH-SOUTH TRAIL I-, (Outside Outer Edge of Buffer) 100-Foot Averaged Shoreline Buffer Plant norive species near the shoreline and transition to honicultural/non-native species as needed IO blend into the overall site landsmpe plan 08SERVATl0N/AR£A VIEWPOINT (Typical, Reached By Perpendicular Extensions From Main Trail) SIIORELINE ENHANCEMENT CONaPT (TREE-DOMINATED CROSS SECTION} ' ' ' ' ' .. .... ..... ..... : :!! Sele<!ively place woody dobris within the near shore 111Jtive species planting area i ls to provide addttional wildlffe habitat structure using both deciduous and : t5i coniferous logs ranging from 4' to 36' dbh. Snags could also be installed. ' / Provide overhang at sho1111ine edge with native willows and red osier dogwood : r Develop area of emergent vegetotion (i.e. bulrush, arrowroot) as ' allowed by lake level fluctuation. O.H.W. FIGURE 4-3 DATE 10199 PROJ. NUMBER KB99 H2A ~ i wmMI ltllFlll ZOIIJ.MIXII IIPUIII IOIIISJ IIMIIAJ- Pruvides shade & miaodimate buffering, large woody debris and organic nutrient source (leaf litter), bank stablity, food supply (insects), as well as wildlife habitat (nesting, feeding). · I 50% Tree Coved MRMDAID- emef!lent wgetotion, anchored LWD to provide fish refuge habitat, shade, nutrienls, etc. I.AICE WASHINGTON ~mm I Averaged Wetland ' Buffer , Log \ High Lal,e level I [ Low Loire level I '=============================~====~~~:~:::=================~F~1Giiu;RFeeF4-4~===== CONUPTUAL WETLAND DESIGN fOll UICI WASIIING10N SHOllEUNE DATE 10/99 PROJ. NO. KB99142A I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Quendall and Baxter Propemes Mirzganon Analysis Jfemorandum 4.1.2 Excavation of Baxter Cove (Wetland E) and Loss of Wetland D The following actions will restore wetland habitat in an area centered around Baxter Cove: • • • Turtles currently existing in Baxter Cove will be live-trapped and removed to nearby areas in Lake Washington containing suitable habitat. Dispersal areas will be identified in conjunction witb County and WDFW wildlife biologists. When remediation has been completed and Baxter Cove has been replanted, anempts will be made to capture turtles from tbe dispersion areas and return a small population (6-12 individuals) to Baxter Cove. Dredged areas will be filled witb clean material of a similar grain size and to elevations similar to current conditions. This will recreate a hydro logic regime tbat supports open water and emergent vegetation components. The area will be replaced witb suitable clean fill material. The Baxter Cove wetland area will be expanded by excavating additional areas (to a total of approximately 0.46 acre) to provide a 1: 1.5 forested wetland replacement for tbe Baxter Cove wetland (Wetland E) and Wetland D. Logs will be partially buried and/or anchored along the lake shoreline at tbe moutb of Baxter Cove to stabilize the shoreline and provide resting platforms for turtles and waterfowl. Logs will be floated across tbe open water mouth of Baxter Cove. Large down logs will be placed in the wetland perimeter. Shallow and deep emergent wetland species will be planted to establish an emergent plant community with greater diversity tban is currently found in Baxter Cove; a bench to appropriate depth for shallow emergents will be constructed during regrading with clean fill after the excavation is complete. Obligate and facultative wetland tree and shrub species will be planted at the wetland perimeter. A 50-foot forested and shrub upland buffer will be planted. with a slope of 4: 1 or less throughout most of tbe buffer. Trees will comprise at least 50 percent of native canopy cover in areas where tree and shrub communities are established. • An osprey nest platfonn will be erected in the buffer if the cable station nest platform is removed during remediation. 4.1.3 Dredge Offshore Areas with Greater Than 50 Percent Wood Chips No mitigation action required. The remediation will improve the existing condition and restore the lake bonom to its original contours. Februo.ry 17, 2000 ACK!jll//d. KB99/42457 -LD-D:\ld\Z-00 -WZK ASSOCIATED EARm SCIENCES. INC Page 49 Quentfatl and Batter Properties Micigation Analysis Jfemorandum 4.1.4 Dredge Offshore P AH Areas No mitigation action required, other than replacement to original contours with clean material of a similar grain size. 4.1.5 Upland Soil and Excavation and Capping Wildlife habitat impacts will be compensated by habitat created along the shoreline. This will include: • • • Replacement of Wetlands C and D on a 1: 1. 5 area basis in the two wetland complexes associated with the shoreline restoration (as discussed above); Enhancement of the vegetation species composition and diversity of the wetland and wetland buffer from the current condition (Table 4-1 and as discussed above); Placement of woody debris in wetland and associated buffers . As a result of these mitigations, the following improvements would result: • • 1.05 acres of existing degraded Class 3 wetland replaced by 1.58 acres of replaced Class 2 forested wetland hydrologically supported by Lake Washington; Approximately 53,500 ft2 of degraded shoreline vegetation (including wetlands and buffers replaced/enhanced by approximately 115.000 ft2 of shoreline vegetation and buffers; , an average 100-foot Lake Washington enhanced shoreline buffer, in excess of the Renton minimum code requirements of 50 feet (commercial) or 25 feet (residential). 4.2 Fisheries Mitigation Fish habitat mitigation for remediation impacts would take place along the shoreline and is closely integrated with wetland mitigation activities. Mitigation planning was directed towards creating a high quality nearshore rearing environment as the first priority. Physical shoreline characteristics and the final mitigated condition are shown in Table 4-2. 4.2.1 ln-Water Work Timing To minimize impacts to sensitive fisheries resources, the timing of work in Lake Washington and along the shoreline below the ordinary high water mark will avoid the annual migration of juvenile salmonids (see Section 3.2.2). To protect the juvenile runs from physical disturbance and short- term turbidity, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife recommends no in-water work in southern Lake Washington during the period from February 1 through June 15. Therefore, February 17, 2000 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES. INC. ACKJjhlld. KB'J9UW7 -LD-D:\ld\Z-1)() -W2K Page 50 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Qu.eruiaJI and Baxter Properries M"ifigation Anafyszs Memorandum dredging and clean sediment replacement on the lake bottom and all work below the OHWM along the shoreline, including Baxter Cove, would be conducted between June 16 and January 31. Water quality protection measures are described in Section 4.3. Additional details required to protect species listed under the federal Endangered Species Act will be provided as necessary during the biological review process for those species. 4. 2. 2 Shoreline Disturbance Vegetation removal resulting from the remediation activities would be mitigated by replanting the nearshore environment as described in Section 4.1. The riparian width would vary, but would average 100 feet. A minimum of 50 percent of the remediation shoreline buffer would be planted with low growing native groundcovers and shrubs. Together with the existing shrubbery remaining outside the remediation area, the total linear distance of shrubs would include 1,490 feet of shoreline. Plants along the shore would be selected to maximize overhanging vegetation and provide bank stability. Compatible species would be planted in those areas converted to wetland from the existing conditions. A minimum of 50 percent of the remediation shoreline would be replanted with trees for a total of I, 135 feet (tree planting would be concurrent with other shrub and groundcover vegetation). Trees close to the waterline would be selected to provide similar functions to those described for the shrubs. Mitigation for loss of nearshore wetlands was described in Section 4.1. Enhanced wetland habitat along the Baxter shoreline will rep lace areas with relatively poor fish habitat conditions (e.g., vertical dirt banks, abandoned structures, rip-rap) with a vegetated gently sloped shoreline. Wetland replacement would result in increased low-gradient shoreline and a more diverse shoreline structure. Reductions in the extent of vertical dirt bank, rip-rap, log bollards, and several industrial structures would be accomplished (Table 4-2). 4.2.3 Dredge Offshore (PAH and Wood Chips) No direct habitat mitigation is proposed for offshore dredging undertaken to remove P AH and wood chip contamination except for re-establishing and enhancing the Baxter Cove shoreline. 4.2.4 Upland Soil Excavation and Capping Potential upland soil excavation and capping impacts would be mitigated to the greatest extent practicable with implementation of an erosion and sediment control plan. No other mitigation is proposed. February 17, 2000 ASSOCJATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. ACK/jhlld -KB99142A57 -UJ-D:\ld\2-00 -W2K Page 51 Queruiail and Baxter Propenies Mirigan·on Analys1s AfemoratTLium Table 4-2. Mitigated Lake Washington Shoreline Characteristics (3,130 ft. surveyed April 11, 1997) Vegetation none 800 26% 1460 47% +83% 75 2% -95% ,91% blackberry 1425 46% 1000 32% -30% 540 17% --46% -62% shrubs 905 29% 670 21% -26% + 1490 48% +122% +65% trees 770 25% 425 14% 45% + 1135 36% +167% +J7% welland 535 17% 255 8% -52% =I+ 1070 34% +320% +l00% Bank type I beach 805 26% 485 15% + 1120 36% +131 % +39% Proaectioo vertical dirt 930 30% 750 24% -19% 660 21% -12% -29% ripnp 4Il 13% 335 11% -19% 335 11% +0% ·19% bulkhead 0 0% 0 0% +o% 0 0% +0% +0% log bollard l!l 16% 4Jl 14% ·16% 285 9% -34% -45% pier 55 2% 35 1% -36% 35 1% +0% -36% building 35 I% 35 1% +0% 3l 1% log skid 35 I% 20 -43% 0 0% .JOO% -100% undercut 110 4% 110 4% +0% 80 3% -27% ·27% inlet 820 26% 690 22% -16% =I+ 820 26% +19% +0% logs 2550 81 % 1505 48% -41% + 2550 81% +69% +0% Substrate1 mud/silt 755 24% 325 10% -574X, _,_ 325 10% +0% ·57% sand 1685 54% 1080 35% -.36% =/-1080 35% +0% -36% gravel 690 22% 1725 55% +150% =!+ 1725 55% +0% +150% wood waste1 500 16% 0 0% -100% 0 0% +0% -100% 0-1' 1775 57% 1775 57% +0% ~1+ 1775 57% +0% J.2' 870 28% 870 28% +0% =I+ 870 28% +0% +0% >2' 485 15% 485 15% +0% =/-485 15% +0% +0% 1 Bank type assumes capping does not affect e,;isting bank. 1 Measured or sampled approximately five feet out from shoreline; 1 Wood.waste = areas where chips and bark exceed 50% surface coverage. RemediJted coOOition assumes lake bed capped to original elevation with material sized smular to cxistmg conditions. Mitigated condition amimes so, of dredged shoreline would be replanted with trees, 50% wlth shrubs, and wetland areas would be recreated as beach. February I 7. 2000 ASSOCIATED EARm SCIENCES. INC. ACK!jhfld -KB99J42A57-LD-0:\W\2.<XJ -W2K Page 52 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Quendil.ll arui 8CLner Propenies Miliganon Analysis .vfemora,ulu.m 4.3 Water Quality Water quality impacts will not accrue from the proposed remediation and mitigation in the long term. These combined actions are expected to improve water quality over the existing condition. However, impacts in the short-term from implementation of the remediation action could occur if proper temporary erosion and sediment control (TESC) measures are not taken. A synopsis of likely TESC measures that would be proposed as part of the Consent Decree under the Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA) is provided in Table 4-3. 4.4 Mitigation Implementation Schedule 4 .4. 1 Baxter Property Based on the current projected schedule, the remediation activities could start on the Baxter property sometime in the fourth quarter of 2000. Upland excavation activities, including soil treatment, are projected to be completed within an 80-day period. Baxter Cove remediation activities are estimated to take approximately one month. Capping activities on the Baxter site should be completed within a 90-day period. Under a start date of the fourth quarter of 2000, the Baxter Cove excavation and fill activities would need to be completed prior to January 31, 2001 to accommodate the recommended fisheries window for in-water work of June 16"' to January 31". This would allow for completion of remediation activities on the Baxter site to be completed by the first quarter of 2001. The wetland restoration I mitigation activities in Baxter Cove would begin with the excavation of the areas adjacent to Baxter Cove that would be converted to wetland habitat. This excavation would at least include over-excavation of the planned grade for topsoil placement or whatever depth may be necessary to accommodate remediation excavation. Backfill of Baxter Cover and the adjacent wetland expansion area would include a least 12 inches of topsoils. If remediation is initiated in the last quarter of 2000, the wetland mitigation area and shoreline areas disturbed by remediation activities on the Baxter parcel would be planted in the spring of 2001. If the remediation is conducted under an alternative schedule the area should be planted late fall, winter, or early spring, if possible. Temporary watering of the plantings would be conducted as necessary to establish the plants. Long-term watering would not be required for these plantings. 4.4.2 Ouendall Property Remediation activities on the Quendall property would likely begin after June 16, 2000. Remediation of the Quendall site involves much more extensive in-water dredging than the Baxter site, where in-water dredging is limited to Baxter Cove. Upland excavation activities are also more extensive on the Quendall site than the Baxter site. The materials dredged from Lake Washington would be transported to the upland areas of the Quendall property to be treated on-site or off-site. These materials would likely be brought onto the site just south of Wetland A. February /7, 2000 ASSOCIATED EARm SCIENCES. INC. ACK:]h!ld -KB99142A57-LD-D:\ldl2-00-WZK Page 53 Quendali and Baxter Properties Mitigation Analysis Jfemorandum Table 4-3. Mitigation of Short-Term Impacts Related to Site Cleanup a...m,p Actt,Uy Possible Mitigation Approach General Sice Controls Where possible a vegetative buffer will be left between upland activities and the lake In all places. ~1!( , fencing will be installed to prevent sediment from entering the lake. In addition, the site will be graded, as necessary, m prevent stonnwacer discharge to the !ake (Chapter 173-201A WAC establish water quality cmeria). Measures recommended in the 1999 draft Volume II Stonnwater Management in Washington State will be considered representative of "typical~ best management practices (BMPs) for much of rbe unland site work. Excavation and Dewatering fa.cavations will be dewatered, as necessary, to prevent handling of sarurated soil excavated from helow the water table. Water will be treated and preferentially discharged to the local sanitary sewer with prior pennission. If lake discharge is necessary, specific testing regimes and criteria for Jake discharge would be agreed with the Washington State Depanrnenc of fa:ology (Ecology). Surge capac.iry will be provided by the use of rented storage ranks. Excavated soil will be stockpiled and provided with appropriate erosion and sedimentation controls. Dredging -Bauer Cove Baxter Cove will be hydraulically isolated from the lake using steel sheet piles or s1m1Jar. Free water will be pwnped off for discharge to the sanitary sewer. Excavation will be perfonned using tand-hased ""Uinment. Dredging -Quendall Silt curt.aim or screens will be used to control the spread of turbidity from dredging. Turbidity criteria under WAC 173·201A-030 can be modified to a.How a temporary mi~ing zone during dredging of lake bottom sediments. however the point of compliance would not be further than 150 feet from the dredging activity pursuant to WAC l 73·201A-110(3)(d). Dredging will be perfonned using specialized equipment (e.g., CableArm™), techniques, and dredge races that limit the potential for gener.ning turbidity and that do nor cause exceedances of surface wa1er quality criteria outside the work area. Most chemica.Js present on.site will be suongly associated with sediment particles. Surface water quality monitoring will be perfonned during dredging to ensure no impacts are occurring beyond the work area. This plan would be develoned as a nart of U.S. Armv Coms of Emrineers (COE) rw:rmiuin.e. Sediment Transport and Haul barges for mechanically dredged sediment would be welded water tight to prevent discharge of free Offloading -Mechanical wacer back into the lake. Offloading will occur by placing the haul barge as near to shore as possible. (Spillage Preventioi ! 1 Offloading will occur with a clamshell or similar. A spill apron barge may be used under the crane swimr area to collecr anv incidental soillalle. Sediment Transport and Any sediment dredged hydraulically will be pumped directly to the upland portions of the site using a Offloading -Hydraulic pipeline. (Snillaae Prevention' Sediment Staging and Dredged sediment will be contained in barges or upland dewatering cells or ponds. Free water will be Dewatering collected and treated prior to discharge to the sanitary sewer. Dewatering from hydraulic dredging would require discharge to Lake Washington after trea1ment due to the large volumes it would generate. Upland cells or ponds will be lined. will have a water collection system, and will be constructed with benns to crevent run.on or run·off. Off-Site or On-Sire Hauling Entry points 10 the site will be upgraded with crushed rock: or quarry spalls. Ail trucks leaving the site will proceed through a wheel wash and any soil tracked onto public roads will be addressed through occasional street wash in". Process waste water could be control led and kect senarace from stonn water Soil Capping A clean soil cap will be placed over large ponions of the site. The soil will consist of imponed clean or treated soil. As for general site activities, a vegetative buffer will be left between Ule sot! cap and shoreline to the maximum extent practicahle. Other erosion and sedimentation controls. noted above under aencral site controls.. will remain in l"'llace until redevelonmenc activities commence. Water Treatment Any water collected from soil or sediment dcwatering will be treated using some combination of equalization, free-phase nydrocarbon separation, coagulaiion/flocculation (for example. polymer treatment), or filtration. Discharge water would conform co standards required by itS receiving location. If discharged to Lake Washington, Chapter l73-201A WAC would apply. If discharged to the saniwy sewer. Kin,;T Countv/Metro standards would anolv. Pennitting Treated dewatering water and stonnwater discharge will be pennitted under a Consent Degree in conformance with MTCA (Chapter 70-105D WAC). Under RCW 90.48.039, remediation actions do not require a separate Narional Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) construction·phase permit; however, there must be compliance with substantive requirements of an NPDES permit. A detailed S1onnwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be developed prior to implementation of the final cleanun rlan. February 17, 2000 A.CK/jhlld -KB99l42AJ7. lD--D:\ld\1-1)0 -w.?K ASSOCIATED EARlli SCIENCES. INC Page 54 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Quenfiil!i aiul Baxter Propanes Mingazwn Analvsis Jfemorandum If all of the remediation activities on the Quendall site are completed within a single fish window opening (June 16, 2000 to January 31, 2001), the wetland mitigation and shoreline plantings could be conducted in the second quarter of 2001 (assuming a June 16, 2000 start date). If the remediation dredging activities cannot be completed within a single fish window period, the dredging activities would be halted from February l" through June 15"' and be completed in the following fish window opening. Wetland mitigation could not be completed until the dredging activities are completed since the materials would be brought onto the site in the proposed wetland mitigation area (southern Quendall shoreline). If the remediation activities in the northern portion of Quendall are completed in the first season. the shoreline mitigation plantings. north of the wetland mitigation area, could be implemented in the first or early second quarter of 2001, and the wetland mitigation implemented after the dredging is completed the second year (project first I second quarter of 2002. If not, all wetland and shoreline mitigation activities would be initiated when all remediation activities are completed. Again, plantings would be irrigated on a temporary basis as needed to successfully establish the plants. 4.5 Monitoring and Contingency This section outlines post-<:onstruction performance standards, a monitoring schedule, maintenance requirements, and contingencies for the proposed buffer and wetland enhancement project. As proposed, monitoring to document plant survival would occur five times over a 10-year period. Each monitoring survey would be conducted by a qualified biologist. 4.5.1 Performance Standards The success of the remediation mitigation effort would be based on the following standards: • • Survival of 90 percent of the tree and shrub species plantings and 10 to 15 percent cover for emergent wetland plantings after one growing season. Percent survivorship would be calculated through a direct count of all dead rooted and severely stressed stock plantings within permanent sample plots. If necessary, the reason for the failure of plantings would be determined (i.e., soil conditions, herbivory, moisture conditions, etc.), and recommendations to rectify the problem(s) provided. Survival of 80 percent of the tree and shrub plantings and 30 percent cover of emergent wetland plantings after rwo growing seasons within the representative permanent sample plots. Fifteen percent cover for the tree and shrub plantings and 60 percent cover of emergent wetland plantings within the representative sample plots after three growing seasons. February 17, 2000 ASSOCIATED EARm SCIENCES. INC. ACKJjhlf,d -KJJ99/42A57-lD-D:lld\1-00 -W'ZK Page 55 • • Que!UUJ.U and Bax1er Properties MitigaJion Arwl_vsis Jfemorarulum Thirty to 40 percent cover for the tree and shrub plantings and 75 percent cover of emergent wetland plantings within the representative sample plots after five growing seasons. Forty to 55 percent cover for the tree and shrub plantings and 75 percent cover of emergent wetland plantings within the representative sample plots after 7 and 10 years. For all years less than or equal to 5 percent cover of non-native, invasive herbaceous species. 4.5.2 Maintenance A goal of this plan is to establish communities of native plant species that require little planned scheduled maintenance to become established, and require no routine maintenance after the plants have become successfully established. The planting contractor would be responsible for maintaining all plantings for a one-year period after installation before the final project acceptance is issued to the contractor. A temporary irrigation system would be used as needed during plant establishment. No permanent irrigation system would be required once the plants have successfully become established. 4.5.3 Monitoring During the first monitoring survey, randomly selected 5-meter radius plots would be permanently established within the restored habitats to provide a representative sampling of the tree and shrub plantings. One-meter square plots would be established to monitor the emergent wetland plantings. The entire area would be visually inspected at the time of sample plot establishment to ensure that the plots are representative of site conditions. Information on survivorship and percent cover would be collected from inside the permanent sample plots to judge the success of the restoration plantings. Information collected during each monitoring survey would not be of sufficient quantity or complexity to provide a statistical analysis for the project. However, it would be sufficient to adequately assess the success of the restoration efforts. Photo documentation stations would be permanently established either at the center of the permanent sampling plots, or at other locations that provide representative views of the mitigation areas. Photographs taken at these photo stations would be used to document the establishment of planted materials and to illustrate plant community changes within the restored areas. Percent survivorship for the project would be calculated through a direct count of all dead and severely stressed plantings within the permanent sample plots. Plant vigor would be evaluated using the following categories: live; stressed; tip die-back; and dead. Live plants would be judged to be those with healthy, vigorous stems, and adequate succulent foliage. Plants having sparse or desiccated foliage, significantly damaged twigs, sunburn or sunscald, etc. would be assigned to the stressed category. Plants suffering from significant stem mortality, especially the leader and/or February 17, 2000 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. ACK/jJr//,d -KB99142A57 -LD-D:\ldll-00 • W2K Page 56 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Quendail and Baxter Propern'es Miliga1ion. Analysis Memorandum main stem, would be placed within the tip die-back category. Plants found to support no foliage or live sterns would be assigned to the dead category. Severely stressed plants and plants with tip die-back and no healthy basal sprouts or side branches would be considered dead for that monitoring period. During the first year following restoration, monitoring would occur during early spring before lake water levels rise and late summer before lake water levels are lowered. The focus of the initial spring monitoring survey would be to assess the suitability of the planting location selected for a particular plant species in relation to the lake water levels during the early growing season. Additionally, general observations of wildlife use of the enhanced habitat would also be noted. Photographs would be taken at each of the permanent photo stations during each monitoring survey, and current photographs from these photo stations would be included in the report prepared for that particular monitoring survey. 4.5.4 Monitoring Schedule All monitoring surveys would be conducted by a qualified biologist. Monitoring and reporting would be conducted over a 10-year period as follows: 1) 2) 3) Immediately after plant installation to provide an as-built plan. The as-built review would include the establishment of the photo stations and documentation of the distribution of plant materials. Early spring (i.e., March, April) and late summer (e.g., September) of the first growing season. Late summer of the second growing season. 4) Late summer of the fifth growing season. 5) 6) Late summer of the seventh growing season. Late summer of the tenth growing season. 4.5.5 Monitoring Reporting The as-built report for the restored habitats would be submitted to the reviewing agency when completed, and all subsequent written reports would be submitted to the reviewing agency no later than October 15"' of the monitoring year for review and approval. The written reports would include: • Condition of plants, including survivorship, percent cover, health, and vigor. Rationale for poor condition of plants, if present, would be determined and recommendations to rectify these conditions would be provided in the report. A February /7, 2000 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES. INC. Page 57 ACK/jhlld. Kll99142A57-UJ..D:lldll-00 · W2K • Quenda/1 and Baxter Propenies Miniarion Analysis Memorandum discussion of the natural establishment of species not included in the planting plants (desirable and weedy species) would also be provided. Observations of wildlife use. , Photo documentation from the permanently established photo stations. Overall condition of the restored habitats and nearshore habitat, including indications of erosion, human disturbance, etc. 4.5.6 Contingency Plans Appropriate contingency plans would be developed as necessary to correct problems identified during the monitoring (i.e., planting failures, shoreline erosion, etc.). If plant survivorship does not meet the established criteria, replanting would be conducted only after the reason for failure has been identified (e.g., poor planting stock, incorrect moisture regime, herbivory, disease, shade/sun conditions, hydrologic conditions, vandalism, plant competition, etc.). Any replanting effort required would occur between October 15'" and March 15'", or the following spring. All contingency plans would be submitted to the reviewing agencies for their approval prior to implementation. Therefore, timing of implementation would be dependent upon agency staff availability and scheduling. A report would also be submitted to the reviewing agencies following the implementation of any contingency plans. February 17, 20()() ASSOCIATED EARm SCIENCES. INC. ACK/jh/Jd · KB9914ZA57 · lD-D:lldll-l)O · W2K Page 58 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Queruiatl and Baxter Properties Mitigation Analysis lvfemorandu.m 5.0 REFERENCES Bennett, J. and Cubbage, J. 1992. Effects of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons from Lake Washington on freshwater bioassay organisms and benthic macroinvertebrates. Ecology Report, 28 p. plus appendices. Burgner, R.L. 1991. Life history of sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka). Pages 3-117 in: Groot, C. and L. Margolis, eds. 1991. Pacific salmon life histories. UBC Press, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Entranco. 1995. Gypsy subbasin analysis, teclmical memorandum No. 2. Prepared for the City of Renton, Washington. David Evans and Associates, Inc. 1997. Wetland determination report on the JAG Development Property, Renton, Washington. Prepared for CNA Architecture Group, Bellevue, WA. Fisher, L., Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Personal communication to Andy Kindig (Beak), June 6, 1997. Heiser, D. W. and E. L. Finn, Jr. 1970. Observations of juvenile chum and pink salmon in marina and bulkheaded areas. Supplemental progress report, Washington State Department of Fisheries. September 1970. 28 p. King County. 1993. Sammamish River corridor conditions and enhancement opportunities. King County Surface Water Management, Seattle, WA. 54 p. plus appendices. Larson Anthropological/ Archeological Services. 1997. Cultural Resonance Assessment JAG Development, King County, Washington. Teclmical Report 97-7, March 27, 1997. MuckJeshoot Indian Tribe. 1997. Draft summary of Lake Washington studies completed by the MuckJeshoot Indian Tribe in the vicinity of the Port Quendall project. Provided by Rod Malcom, habitat biologist. MuckJeshoot Indian Tribe, Environmental Division, Auburn, WA. Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (Metro). 1989. Quality of local lakes and streams 1987- 1988 status report. Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, Water Resources Section, Water Pollution Control Department, Seattle, WA. Norton, 1991. Distribution and Significance of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Lake Washington Sediments Adjacent to Quendall Terminals/ J.H. Baxter site. Ecology Report, 73 p. Norton, 1992. Results of Sediment Sampling in the J.H. Baxter Cove, Lake Washington -June 1991. Ecology Teclmical Document, 18 p. February 17. 2()()() ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES. INC. ,KK/jhl/4-KB9914ZA57 * W-D:lld\2-00 -W1K Page 59 Quendall and Baxter Propenies Mitigation Analysis Memorandum Pfeifer, B. and J. Weinheimer. 1992. Fisheries investigations of Lakes Washington and Sammamish, 1980-1990. VI Warmwater fish in Lakes Washington and Sammamish (draft report). Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia, WA. Ratte. L. D. and E. 0. Salo. 1985. Under-pier ecology of juvenile pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) in Commencement Bay, Washington. Final report prepared by the University of Washington, Fisheries Research Institute for the Port of Tacoma. FRI-UW-8508. December 1985. Shepard, M.F. and J.C. Hoeman. 1979. Some comparisons ofbenthis biota in control areas and areas affected by sewage effluent in Lake Washington, 1977 -1978. U. W. College of Fisheries, Wa. Coop. Fish. Res. Unit, Seattle, WA. citation from EVS Consultants. 1990. Aquatic Resources of Lake Washington. Report prepared for Woodward-Clyde Consultants, Seattle, WA. November 19, 1990. Thermoretec (RETEC). 1997. Sediment quality memorandum. Consultant report prepared for Port Quendall Company. April 29, 1997. Remediation Technologies, Inc., Seattle, Washington. University of Washington. 1996. U.W. Lake Washington Sockeye Workshop. Notes from presentations by Roger Tabor (USFWS), Roland Viera (U.W.) and Tom Sibley (U.W.) at U.W. conference held November 19, 1996. Washington Department of Ecology. 1995. 1994 Washington state water quality assessment, [305(b)] report companion document. Olympia, WA. Washington Department of Ecology. 1996. 303(d) Department of Ecology draft decision matrix for surface waters listed under section 303(d) included in 305b Report of the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA). Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and Western Washington Treaty Indian Tribes. 1994. 1992 Washington State salmon and steelhead stock inventory, Appendix I, Puget Sound stocks, South Puget Sound volume. WDFW, Olympia, Washington. Wydoski, R.S. and R.R. Whitney. 1979. Inland fishes of Washington. University of I I I I I I I I I I I I I Washington Press, Seattle, WA. 220 p. I February 17, 2000 A.CK!jh/14-KB99141A57-lD-D:lldl2-f)O. W1K ASSOCIATED EARTH SCJENCES, lNC. Page 60 I I I I I APPENDIX H 1990 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH I Q_ Q_ <{ N 0 a_ ~ 0 ~ 0 0 (D 9 ~ § 9 -' -' ;§ z UJ => 0 ~ 0 0 "' ~ 0 :;J >:'. § "O .,, E -Ol 0 0 N '£~;~ DRAFT LEGEND : Property Li ne (ap proxi m ate) 0 0 150 Sea l e i n Feet Append ix H 199 0 Aeria l Photo grap h Port Qu e nd all Te rmi nal Natu ral Reso urce and Hab it at Assessm e nt Repo rt • PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL STUDY Quendall Terminals Renton, Washington Prepared for: Altino Properties Inc. and J.H. Baxter & Company Project No. 020027-010-04 • November 11, 2009 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL STUDY Quendall Terminals Renton, Washington Prepared for: Altino Properties Inc. and J.H. Baxter & Company Project No. 020027-010-04 • November 11, 2009 Aspect Consulting, LLC John L. Peterson, PE Senior Associate Geotechnical Engineer jpeterson@aspectconsulting.com Henry H. Haselton, PE Senior Associate Geotec1mical Engineer hhaselton@aspectconsulting.com V:\020027 Quendall Tcrminals\Ge<llcchnical Scudy\final\Qllcnchlll Fina[ Gcokcb Enlidcmcnt .. l l _ _l l._2009.doc ---401 Second,.,,._S,s,,it,,,291 5-(2Q6)-www.aspectconsulting.com ASPECT CONSUL TING Contents 1 Project and Site Conditions ....................................................................... 1 1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................ 1 1.1.1 Purpose and Scope .............................................................................. 1 1.2 Authorization .............................................................................................. 2 1.3 Project Description ..................................................................................... 2 1.4 Adjacent Properties .................................................................................... 3 2 Site Conditions ............................................................................................ 5 2.1 Surface Conditions and Topography .......................................................... 5 2.2 General Geology ........................................................................................ 6 2.3 Seismic Setting .......................................................................................... 9 2.4 Field Exploration ...................................................................................... 1 O 2.4.1 Review of Existing Subsurface Information ......................................... 10 2.5 Subsurface Conditions ............................................................................. 11 2.5.1 Potential Modifications to the Subsurface ........................................... 11 2.5.2 Groundwater ....................................................................................... 12 3 Geotechnical and Environmental Considerations ................................. 13 3.1 Soft Ground .............................................................................................. 13 3.2 Seismic Hazards ...................................................................................... 14 3.2.1 Surface Fault Rupture ........................................................................ 14 3.2.2 Ground Response .............................................................................. 14 3.2.3 Liquefaction ........................................................................................ 15 3.3 Environmental Considerations .................................................................. 16 4 Site-Wide Geotechnical Options .............................................................. 18 4.1 Mitigation of Lateral Spreading ................................................................. 18 4.1.1 Ground Improvement .......................................................................... 18 4.1.2 Lateral Resistant Piles/Anchors .......................................................... 18 4.2 Building Support ....................................................................................... 19 4.2.1 Static and Seismic Settlement ............................................................ 19 4.2.2 Displacement Piles ............................................................................. 19 4.2.3 Structural Slabs .................................................................................. 20 4.3 Earthwork ................................................................................................. 20 4.3.1 General Site Preparation .................................................................... 20 4.3.2 Shallow Groundwater and Dewatering ................................................ 20 4.3.3 Preloading .......................................................................................... 20 4.3.4 Infrastructure Development Considerations ........................................ 21 PROJECT NO. 020027-010-04 • NOVEMBER 11, 2009 ASPECT CONSULTING 5 References ................................................................................................. 22 Limitations and Additional Services ............................................................... 23 List of Tables 2.5.1 On-Subsurface Geologic Units and Properties ........................................ 12 3.1.1 Estimates of Static Settlement.. ............................................................. 14 List of Figures 1.1.1 Site Vicinity Map 1.1.2 Site Plan 1.1.3 Proposed Site Plan 2.2.1 Geologic Cross Section A-A' 2.2.2 Geologic Cross Section 8-8' 2.2.3 Geologic Cross Section C-C' 2.2.4 Geologic Cross Section D-D' List of Appendices A Existing Site-Wide Geotechnical Data ii PROJECT NO. 020027-010-04 • NOVEMBER 11, 2009 ASPECT CONSUL TING 1 Project and Site Conditions 1.1 Introduction This report presents the results of a preliminary engineering study by Aspect Consulting, LLC (Aspect) to provide a planning-level understanding of geotechnical considerations, and support a development entitlement process for re-development of the Quendall Terminals property (Site) located in Renton, Washington. Aspect is also engaged in assessing environmental conditions and evaluating cleanup alternative to address site impacts associated with past industrial activities at the Site. The environmental work is being completed under agreed order with Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The environmental studies will be documented in separate reports. Geotechnical recommendations, as presented herein, have been developed in coordination with the clean-up study planning. The location of the Site is presented on Figure 1.1.1. The approximate locations of selected explorations previously accomplished on-site are presented on Figure 1.1.2. 1.1.1 Purpose and Scope KPFF and Century Pacific have prepared conceptual development plans for the approximately 19-acre Site and have requested this geotechnical evaluation to assist in the master planning process. The development concept under consideration is mixed-use commercial and high density multi-story residential. Buildings would generally be setback from the shoreline. We understand the proposed buildings typically will be 5 to 7 above-ground stories with the lowest 2 stories dedicated for parking. Street-level space will also be used for commercial pmposes. No below-ground levels are planned. A preliminary site plan is shown on Figure 1.1.3. Site development will need to consider the environmental Site characteristics and constraints relating to site environmental cleanup, and the relatively weak, compressible soils known to be present on-site. Grades would be raised across the Site with a generally 2-to 5-foot capping fill. Thicker fills might be required at certain locations. We anticipate that typical development features such as underground utilities, pavement/roadways, and grading will be important considerations for the conceptual plan. The principle objective of this study is to provide planning-level geotechnical engineering recommendations to support the development entitlement process. Additional studies and design will be necessary after detailed development plans become known. The key geotechnical conditions that must be considered include: • Seismic hazards, such as liquefaction, lateral spreading, and amplified seismic response; PROJECT NO. 020027-010-04 • NOVEMBER 11, 2009 ASPECT CONSULTING • The need for enhanced building support on special foundations such as improved ground or piling; • Geotechnical considerations for designing and constructing utilities, grading, and other development features on weak, compressible ground; and, • Potential construction costs associated with special geotechnical construction methods that could be used to mitigate the geotechnical challenges at the Site. Geotechnical solutions for site development must also be consistent with selected environmental remedies, and will be subject to approval by EPA. Our study included reviewing available geologic literature, maps, and Site data to assess the physical properties of the subsurface soils at the Site. This information was used to develop concept-level conclusions and recommendations for the potential Site development. 1.2 Authorization Aspect entered into a Professional Services Agreement with Altino Properties, Inc. and J.H. Baxter & Company to perform this work. The Professional Services Agreement was authorized by the Altino Properties, Inc. on August 19, 2009 and J.H. Baxter & Company on August 31, 2009. Our scope is based on our proposal dated April 17, 2009. 1.3 Project Description 2 The proposed project is illustrated on Figure 1.1.3. It would include the construction of 800 residential units plus office, retail, and restaurant space. Parking would be accommodated in the lowest two levels of the buildings. The buildings would be up to seven stories high. We assume that the buildings will be steel and/or concrete-framed and would have foundation loads that are typical for buildings of this size and type. The development plan is divided in to "Quads" separated by proposed roadways running east-west and north-south. A roundabout is planned at the intersection of the central roads and at the south end of the central north-south roadway. Another roundabout with parking is planned at the western terminus of the central east-west roadway, adjacent to the shoreline. Roads are also planned along the eastern, northern and southern property boundaries. We understand the roadways will become public right-of-way and will be constructed in accordance with City of Renton standards. We assume that typical utility infrastructure, including domestic water supply, sewer, power, communications and possibly natural gas, will be constructed in the rights-of-way. Open space and a recreational trail are planned for the waterfront. The shoreline is irregular, and the proposed buildings are generally set back from the shoreline greater than I 00 feet from the shore. However, there are two locations where the setbacks will be less than 100 feet, as shown on Figure 1.1.3. The planned buildings include 450 residential units in the SW Quad, bordering Lake Washington. This Quad will include three buildings separated by landscaped courtyards. The northernmost building (bordering the central roadway) in the SW Quad will have PROJECT NO. 020027-010-04 • NOVEMBER 11, 2009 ASPECT CONSUL TING retail and restaurant space. Buildings in the SW quad will have five residential floors over two floors of parking and/or commercial space. The NW Quad, also bordering the lake, would have 175 residential units within two buildings, and commercial space in the building bordering the roadway. A landscaped courtyard will separate the buildings. These buildings will also have 5 floors of residential space over two floors of parking and/or commercial space. The SE Quad would have 175 residential units and office space within three buildings, separated by landscaped courtyards. The buildings will include five floors of residential or office units over two floors of parking. The NE Quad will have one office building with five stories of office space over parking levels, and a large parking structure on the NE corner of the Site. Geotechnical and Environmental Constraints Geotechnical study of the Site indicates weak, compressible soil with considerable static and seismic settlement potential, liquefaction potential, and liquefaction-induced lateral spreading potential. The proposed multistory buildings will require a deep foundation system to address settlement concerns. Lateral spreading can be mitigated through engineered lateral resistance features associated with individual buildings, such as batter piles or anchors. Alternatively, site-wide lateral spreading mitigation could be accomplished with broader scale lateral restraint techniques such as in-situ stabilization, soil densification, soil replacement, or a containment structure. Deep foundations and/or site-wide lateral spreading mitigation measures must be coordinated with environmental remediation, long-term environmental protection objectives, and civiVstructural design. The implementation of geotechnical solutions for site development is subject to review and approval by the EPA. Fill cap construction will need to be scheduled such that time is allowed for the majority of the soil consolidation to be completed prior to the installation of grade-sensitive utilities or roadways. Special building/utilities connection may be required to account for long term organic and seismic settlement. 1.4 Adjacent Properties To the north of the Site is the former Baxter property, currently used as the Football Northwest training facility. The Site had contamination related to past wood treatment processes, and a shallow groundwater table with weak shallow soils. The geology and contamination issues are similar to those at the Site. However, a distinct geologic difference at the Football Northwest site is the presence of relatively shallow bedrock in the northern section of that property, where the structure was built. Large diameter drilled shafts were used for the building foundations on that property, and they were designed to resist lateral movement. No significant improvements for liquefaction and lateral spreading were made for the remaining (southern) portion of the on-grade fields. The property to the south, formerly known as Barbee Mill, is a residential subdivision being developed by Conner Homes. This site was also contaminated from wood PROJECT NO. 020027-010-04 • NOVEMBER 11, 2009 3 ASPECT CONSUL TING 4 treatment processes, and has geologic conditions that are similar to the Site. Areas of high arsenic level were excavated and refilled with compacted gravel. A permeable reaction trench was provided down-gradient of the contaminated area, which treats impacted groundwater. Soils at the Conner Homes site are weak and highly varied across the site. A structurally- compacted cap fill was placed over the site. Shallow foundations in the structural cap were allowed by the City of Renton for the lightly loaded single family homes, except where sited directly over the reaction trench where structures were placed on pin piles. No apparent mitigation for lateral spreading was performed. PROJECT NO. 020027-010-04 • NOVEMBER 11, 2009 ASPECT CONSUL TING 2 Site Conditions This section provides a discussion of the physical site conditions, including our characterization of the subsurface conditions. Figure 1.1.2 illustrates the current Site features layout and selected historical features. 2.1 Surface Conditions and Topography The Site borders approximately 1,500 feet of Lake Washington shoreline, and is bordered on the east by the Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad tracks and right-of-way. Immediately adjacent shoreline properties include Conner Homes to the south (former Barbee Mill property) and Port Quendall Company/Football Northwest to the north (former J.H. Baxter & Company property). Access to the Site is across the railroad tracks from Lake Washington Boulevard, located along the eastern side of the property. Interstate 405 is located approximately 500 feet to the east. The Site had been a wood treatment facility from about 1917 to 1977. From 1977 to present, the Site has been used as a log sorting and storage yard. Various structures, docks, pits, and tanks have existed from time-to-time on the Site. Only small scattered buildings remain currently on the Site. Several utility easements currently exist on the Site. Further details of the Site history are documented in a prior report supporting the on- going environmental investigation (Anchor and Aspect, 2007b) The Site is located on Lake Washington in the northernmost limits of the City of Renton (City). The Site occupies the middle portion of a roughly 70-acre alluvial plain, which was historically formed as a delta where May Creek enters Lake Washington. The topography has been modified over the past 90 years by filling and grading activities. The property currently slopes at a I to I Y, percent grade towards the shoreline, having a maximum relief of about 15 feet across the 19 acre area. Upland elevations at the Site range from approximately 35 feet on the east side of the property to about 20 feet at the lakeshore (all elevations reported in NAVDSS). At the shoreline, the slopes increase to about 20 percent for about 20 feet in elevation to lake level. The lake-bottom portion of the alluvial fan grades at approximately 10 percent or less toward the center of the lake. The Site surface is predominately wood dust/soil fill or wood debris. Gravel access roads and remaining structure foundations make-up less than 5 percent of the surface area. Site drainage is relatively poor because of the flat topography and the fine-grained nature of the surface soils. During the active log yard operation and prior to implementing the interim measures, most runoff was directed into two stormwater collection ponds on the west side of the Site (Quendall Pond and South Detention Pond) and a drainage ditch along the southern property boundary. Stormwater also accumulated in low-lying areas east of BH-24, southwest of BH-21A/B, and south of BH-20A/B (refer to Figure 1.1.2). Following curtailment of the log sorting operation, interim stormwater management measures were implemented in October 2008, to control stonnwater discharges to the PROJECT NO. 020027-010-04 • NOVEMBER 11, 2009 5 ASPECT CONSUL TING lake, promote infiltration in less contaminated areas, reduce inflow into Quendall Pond, and prevent erosion (Anchor and Aspect, 2007b ). 2.2 General Geology 6 The geologic units beneath the Site consist of highly heterogeneous shallow alluvial and lacustrine silts, sands, and peat underlain by a coarser sand-gravel alluvium. The shallow alluvial deposits are overlain by fill deposited over the years since the lake level was lowered in 1916. The alluvium was deposited by May Creek and the Site is located within the creek's delta. The delta extends well below lake level, approximately 5,000 feet along the shoreline of Lake Washington, and projects up to 3,000 feet offshore toward Mercer Island. Normal delta depositional processes where the May Creek channel changes position periodically, and episodic earthquake-induced slumps that occurred at the face of the delta, have resulted in a deposit with abrupt changes in lithology and little vertical or lateral continuity of units. Detailed geologic cross sections along four alignments show subsurface conditions and the relationship of the uplands portion of the Site to Lake Washington and underlying sediments. Cross section locations are shown on Figure 1.1.2 with the cross sections on Figures 2.2.1 through 2.2.4. The major geologic units are described below. Fill and Fill History Fill is found across the entire Site. Draft Task 3 report (Anchor and Aspect, 2007b) provides a detailed history and annotated observations of the surface activity and fill soils. A condensed presentation of this information is presented below. Along the southern and eastern boundaries, fill ranges from I to 2 feet in thickness, while in other areas, the fill ranges to more than 10 feet thick. Most commonly, the fill is a mix of silt, sand, and gravel with wood debris. Wood chips and bark from the log sorting operations are common in the upper few feet with finely ground wood dust covering the Site up to a foot in depth. Where creosote and pitch-like (tar) material has been encountered in soil explorations, such materials have generally been observed at depths greater than 2 feet below the ground surface. In addition to the industrial surface contaminants, dense non-aqueous liquids (DNAPL) contamination has been observed at the Site to a depth of generally 25 feet, with a maximum depth of 32 feet below ground surface. Specific areas of fill include: • Northwest Quarter of Site: Fill may be as thick as 10 to 14 feet in this portion of the Site. Fill in this area includes abundant wood material, glass, brick, and pitch-like material. • East of Quendall Pond: Fill is 7 to 9 feet in thickness with brick and pitch-like material observed in area explorations (BH-5/5A, TP-4, and TP-9). • Former May Creek Channel: Exploration logs from this area indicate that some of the fill used in this area includes tar, brick, wood, and metal fragments to depths of 6 to 7 feet. PROJECT NO. 020027-010-04 • NOVEMBER 11, 2009 ASPECT CONSULTING • Former Tank Area: Tar and pitch were logged at a depth of 5 feet in borings BH-5, BH-6, and BH-25. This may represent a previous ground surface in the former tank area (the tanks areas are shown as circles on Figurel.1.2). • West of South Detention Pond: In July 2007, slag-like material was observed in near-surface soils in the area of former well BH-12. Fill history is informed by geologic characteristics identified in subsurface explorations and historical records. Key episodes of fill placement at the Quendall Site are summarized below: • The Lake Washington Ship Canal was completed in 1916, which resulted in the lowering of the lake level by about 9 feet. Not long after the lake was lowered, tar refining operations began at the Site. Both the existing shoreline and the historical (pre-19 I 6) lake shoreline based on historical DNR maps are shown on Figure 1.1.2. • May Creek stream channels were located on the southern portion of the Site until the creek was rerouted sometime between 1920 and 1936. These channels have now been filled in. The former channel locations on the Site, indicated by early DNR maps, are shown on Figure 1.1.2. • Solidified tar products (pitch or "Saturday coke") were reportedly placed on the Site during the period of creosote manufacturing. These materials as well as other debris, including brick, concrete, and metal have been observed in the fill unit. • Foundry slag from PACCAR, Inc. was reported by Roberts (Anchor and Aspect 2007b) to have been placed as fill along the shoreline. Although geologic logs in this area generally have not identified slag, a few pieces of slag-like material were identified in the June 2007 well survey east of the former location of well BH-12 during the environmental review of the Site. • In 1983, Quendall Terminals placed approximately 3 feet of fill consisting of sawdust and soil over most of the Site. • Ongoing log yard operations have resulted in the creation of several piles on the Site consisting largely of wood debris. Shallow Alluvium The shallow alluvium at the Site consist of interbedded sand, silt, clayey silt, organic silt, and peat beds, characteristic of a deltaic environment. The shallow alluvium occurs throughout the Site to a depth of about 25 to 50 feet, with thinner deposits in the eastern portion of the Site. Saturated conditions have been encountered at depths ranging from 2 to IO feet depending on groundwater elevation and seasonal recharge. The shallow alluvium was deposited by the May Creek delta. The delta complex is composed of three general sets of strata. Nearly horizontal topset beds were deposited in the former floodplain and shallow marshy areas near the mouth of the creek. Inclined foreset beds were deposited on the delta face below lake level near the mouth of the former creek, and dip into the lake at low angles (less than 10 degrees). Nearly horizontal bottomset beds were deposited on the lake floor well away from the mouth of the creek. The majority of the delta is composed of the gently dipping foreset beds. PROJECT NO. 020027-010-04 • NOVEMBER 11, 2009 7 ASPECT CONSUL TING 8 Very soft peat and organic silts present within the shallow alluvium is interbedded with very loose silty fine to medium sand. Interbedding occurs when sandy sediment is deposited on the gently sloping delta face to form foreset beds. The sediment is deposited on the delta slope at an angle that is marginally stable. During this delta forming process, the accumulated sediment periodically slumps or flows down the face of the delta to form a poorly graded and laterally discontinuous lens of sediment. Fine-grained silt and clay sediment carried in suspended load is carried farther and deposited as thin layers on the delta face and on the lake floor beyond the delta foreset beds. Occasional floods deposit fine sediment on the marshy area at what was once near lake level. The process of alternating deposition of finer and coarser sedimentation continued as the delta accumulated material over time. As the sediment built up a topographic mound around the mouth of May Creek, the stream would periodically jump its bank and shift laterally to a new position (a process called avulsion). Deposition of coarse-grained sedimentation then resumed elsewhere on the delta and the former location of sandy deposition was blanketed with silt and clay and organic-rich wetland deposits. Periodic large earthquakes also created significant disturbance of the sediments. Since much of the sediment that composes the delta foresets was rapidly deposited in the quiet water of the lake, the soils are weak and the delta is at the margin of its presumed stability under static conditions. During an earthquake, large portions of the outer surface of the delta slumped into deeper water, disrupting strata and re-depositing sediment. The result of normal delta avulsive processes and periodic earthquake-induced landslides is a deposit with abruptly changing lithologies and potentially limited vertical and lateral continuity of beds, when considering the entire delta. Deeper Alluvium The deeper alluvium is generally coarser, consisting of medium dense to dense sand and gravels. This unit occurs below a depth of 30 to 50 feet, with a shallower occurrence of about 25 feet at the southeast comer of the Site (BH-17B). The sand and gravel most likely represents an earlier phase of delta growth when the sediment supply to the area was coarser, likely following de-glaciation of the lowland during the late Pleistocene and early Holocene. Borings SWB-3 and SWB-4B were completed to depths of 121 and 151 feet, respectively (Anchor and Aspect, 2007a). In these borings, a fine to medium sand was encountered at approximately 90 feet, followed by a silty clay deposit at approximately 120 -135 feet. Lacustrine Deposits As inferred from geophysical explorations (Woodward Clyde, 1988) and deep borings completed at the Site, the base of the alluvium is estimated to be in the range of90 to 135 feet below ground surface (bgs). Below this a silt/clay was interpreted to be a lacustrine deposit consisting of a very soft to medium stiff silty clay. A third deep boring (SWB-8) was completed to a depth of 121.5 feet near the lakeshore and did not reach this fine grain sequence. A fourth deep environmental boring (BH-20-C) was recently completed near the shoreline with a fine to medium sand encountered at approximately 80 feet, followed by a silty clay deposit at approximately 135 feet. PROJECT NO. 020027-010-04 • NOVEMBER 11, 2009 ASPECT CONSULTING 2.3 Seismic Setting The Site is located in a moderately active seismic zone. The subsurface soils beneath the Site exhibit susceptibility to liquefaction to a depth of about 80 feet. The Site is within an area of active tectonic forces associated with the interaction of the offshore Juan de Fuca plate, the Pacific plate, and the onshore North American plate. These tectonic forces result in earthquakes generated in three source areas: subduction zone; deep intra-slab or Benioff zone earthquakes; and shallow crustal earthquakes. Each of these three sources has characteristic magnitudes, rupture characteristics, length of shaking, and average recurrence intervals. Subduction zone earthquakes occur during rupture of the contact between the subducting oceanic plates and the over-riding continental plate. Rupture zones for these earthquakes can occur over several hundred miles oflength along the Cascadia Subduction Zone (CSZ) and extend from offshore to near the longitude of the Site. Ground shaking could last for up to several minutes with magnitude on the order of9 or higher. Strong aftershocks are common. The distance from the Site to the rupture surface would reduce the intensity of the shaking at the Site. The recurrence interval for a CSZ earthquake is believed to range from around 200 to 700 years, averaging about 500 years. The last great CSZ earthquake occurred about 300 years ago. Deep intra-slab, or Benioff Zone earthquakes occur due to tensional rupture within the subducting Juan de Fuca plate at depths of 45 to 60 kilometers (km). Earthquakes from this source have potential for magnitude 7.5 events. Due to the great depth of these earthquakes, very strong shaking is attenuated at the surface. These earthquakes occur every few decades and include the 2000 Nisqually earthquake. Strong aftershocks are not common and ground rupture is uncommon. Shallow crustal earthquakes potentially present the greatest concern to proposed Project features. These earthquakes occur when the shallow crust ruptures due to compressive forces associated with interaction of regional tectonic blocks within the larger North American plate. They generally occur within the upper 30 km of crust. Because the source is shallow, they have the potential for strong ground shaking, with magnitudes up to 7.5, which would produce intense shaking at the Site, and numerous aftershocks. Crustal faults exist in the region. The most significant to the Project is the Seattle fault, an east-west running compression fault zone that separates the Seattle Basin to the north from the Seattle Uplift to the south. The southern edge of the currently mapped fault zone crosses the Site and has a number of identified past rupture surfaces, some of which have been active during the Holocene epoch (the last 10,000 years). The Seattle fault is considered "active" which means it is anticipated to generate earthquakes in the future. Large shallow crustal earthquakes can conceivably produce ground rupture at the Site. Large Seattle fault earthquakes capable of causing regional uplift or subsidence are thought to occur on the order of every few thousand years, with smaller events capable of localized uplift or subsidence occurring about every thousand years. The most recent event was large, caused regional land level changes, numerous landslides (both subaerial and subaqueous) into Lake Washington, and occurred about 1,100 years ago. PROJECT NO. 020027-010-04 • NOVEMBER 11, 2009 9 ASPECT CONSUL TING Due to the distance to known past fault rupture surfaces and the large width of the fault zone, the potential for ground rupture at the Site is considered low during the life of the proposed development. Due to the lengthy recurrence intervals, the potential for strong ground shaking is low during the life of the proposed development, but must be considered for the structure design as required by the building code. The potential for moderate shaking from all identified sources is considered high during the life of the proposed development. 2.4 Field Exploration No new geotechnical field exploration was conducted for this stage of study; however, new environmental borings ( sonic core )/probe data have been incorporated into this study along with review of previous explorations and investigations as shown on Figure 1. 1.2. Descriptions of the sediments encountered in past explorations by others, as well as the depths where characteristics of the sediments changed, are indicated on the exploration logs presented in Appendix A of this report. Generalized subsurface conditions are interpreted from our review of existing subsurface data and associated environmental exploration program, with respect to overall site geology, and are shown on Figures 2.2.1 through 2.2.4. · 2.4.1 Review of Existing Subsurface Information 10 Various environmental borings have been performed on the Site in the past by Hart Crowser, CH2MHill, and Woodward-Clyde Consultants, and others. These data were compiled and categorized to support the on-going environmental investigation (Anchor and Aspect, 2007a). Some of the explorations by Shannon & Wilson collected geotechnical blow count data using hollow-stem auger (HSA) and mud rotary drilling methods. Four mud rotary borings by Shannon & Wilson were on or close to the Site. Aspect has added to the subsurface database with a series of probes and environmental borings, which are currently in draft form to be released under separate cover. Substantial weight was given to the mud rotary borings for evaluating soil engineering properties at the Site, since they represent the best standard-of-practice sampling for soft/loose soils relative to SPT blow count testing, and they were deep. A selection of other HSA boring data, which where shallow, were compared to the analysis results from the mud rotary and produced similar trends of potential liquefaction prediction. As expected, these borings did not indicate as severe a potential as the mud rotary data. Those HSA borings and other environmental borings and probes were used to extend our interpretation of the extent of strata across the Site, based on the qualitative field-based textual and strength descriptions of the different soil strata encountered in the explorations. This has allowed for reasonable extrapolation of the deep mud rotary boring data across the Site. PROJECT NO. 020027-010-04 • NOVEMBER 11, 2009 ASPECT CONSUL TING 2.5 Subsurface Conditions 2.5.1 Potential Modifications to the Subsurface Environmental investigations at the Site have identified the presence ofDNAPL within the Shallow Alluvium across much of the Site, and also under the BNRR property along the eastern property boundary. The DNAPL is the source of dissolved phase chemical constituents observed in groundwater beneath the Site which discharges to Lake Washington. The process for assessing environmental conditions, and evaluating and selecting a cleanup remedy is still on-going. This process includes a feasibility study of cleanup alternatives to evaluate the range of potential remedies to address environmental impacts. Remedial actions to address existing soil contamination will be a key component of the remedy. Although the remedy has not been selected, it is anticipated that alternatives will include actions that may modify the subsurface conditions at the Site and therefore need to be considered when evaluating geotechnical constraints for site redevelopment. Modifications to the subsurface may include (but is not limited to) one of the following actions, either as a stand-alone or in combination of other actions: soil capping, in-situ stabilization, and removal/replacement. Modification of subsurface conditions would likely occur in the upper 25 to 30 feet bgs. Some of the actions will alter the engineering properties discussed below. It will be important from a design and implementation cost standpoint, to integrate the proposed geotechnical solutions for Site redevelopment with site cleanup actions, to the maximum extent possible. Site development constraints, such as the need for pile supported foundations, need to be identified and considered as part of the remedial evaluation process. Summary of Geologic Unit Properties Surface and near-surface conditions are especially variable across the Site, in terms of presence, thickness, and composition of various fill units. Deep subsurface conditions should also be considered to be approximate, as available subsurface data below approximately 40 feet below ground are somewhat limited. In general, soils from O feet to approximately 25 feet deep (Fill and Shallow Alluvium) are relatively weak with variable compressibility and permeability characteristics. Soils from approximately 25 feet to 135 feet (Lower Alluvium Deposits) are moderately strong with low compressibility and high permeability. Below 120 feet, soils consist of Lacustrine deposits with moderate strength, low to moderate compressibility, and low permeability, which are presumed to overlie other glacial deposits and rock. General engineering properties of these subsurface units are summarized in Table 2.5.1. PROJECT NO. 020027-010-04 • NOVEMBER 11, 2009 11 ASPECT CONSULTING Table 2.5.1 -On-site Subsurface Geologic Units and Properties Minto Geologic Max uses Relative Compressibility Permeability Description Depth Classification Strength (ft bgs) Fill SP to SM, GP to GW, Low to Low to high Low to high 5 to 14 ML, various debris moderate 4 to 24 ML, OH, MH, PT Low High Low to Organic Silt/Peat Moderate Shallow Alluvium 5 to 50 SM, SP, SP-SN Moderate Low to Moderate Moderate to Deeper Alluvium 25 to 50 SP, SP-SM, GP, GW High Low Lacustrine 115 to ML,CL Moderate Low to Moderate Deposits 135 2.5.2 Groundwater Twenty-four groundwater monitoring wells are located on the project Site. Aspect is currently monitoring water levels in these wells as part of ongoing environmental investigations at the Site. Groundwater is typically encountered between approximately 2 and IO feet bgs, with groundwater flow generally east to west/northwest direction towards the lake. Vertical groundwater flow gradients in the Shallow and Deep Alluvial units at the Site exhibit downward gradients along the eastern portion of the Site becoming upward near the lake shoreline. The adjacent Lake Washington is influenced by the lake level management of the U.S Army Corps of Engineers Chittenden Locks in Seattle. Lake level varies two feet during seasonal changes, with the lowest level typically maintained from November to February. The groundwater levels in site monitoring wells show a varying degree ofresponse to lake fluctuations, which appears to correlate with distance to the lake. Water levels during the winter are typically higher on the eastern side of the Site, due to greater recharge from adjacent uplands, and lower on the western side of the Site, due to the controlled lake level, than during the summer. High High Low 12 PROJECT NO. 020027-010-04 • NOVEMBER 11, 2009 ASPECT CONSUL TING 3 Geotechnical and Environmental Considerations This section provides a discussion of the planning-level geotechnical and environmental considerations that should be considered for the development entitlement process. 3.1 Soft Ground This section discusses soft ground conditions under static (non-seismic) conditions. Soft ground considerations as they relate to seismic conditions are discussed in a later section of this report. Our characterization of subsurface conditions suggests the Site is underlain by a surface layer of Fill that is variable in composition and density, and is generally on the order of 8 to 10 feet thick. The Fill mantles a sequence of very.soft Shallow Alluvium ranging in thickness from about 20 to 35 feet and consisting primarily of fine-grained organic-rich and peaty soils with scattered loose sand layers. Deep Alluvium consists of generally more competent sands and gravels to a depth of 130 feet or more. Very soft, fine-grained Lacustrine deposits were encountered beneath the alluvium. Competent, glacially consolidated soil and/or bedrock were encountered beneath the alluvium on the adjacent shoreline properties (Football Northwest to the north), but were not encountered in explorations on the subject property. The near-surface soils (Fill and Shallow Alluvium) are considered to be compressible and weak. Soils of this nature cannot be expected to support the foundation loads anticipated for the planned buildings. Therefore, deep foundations (piles) will be required to support the buildings and any other heavily loaded and/or settlement-sensitive structures. Certain ground improvement technologies may be applicable to support structures, subject to further analysis. The implementation of pile foundations and/or ground improvement is subject to review and approval by EPA. The near-surface soils will also compress under the load of new fills that would be placed to grade the site. Settlement of new fills would be variable due to the variability of the Fill properties, combined with the variable thicknesses of the Fill and Shallow Alluvium. Static settlement occurs in two forms: primary compression from static loading of new structures and fills, and secondary compression, which stems from decomposition of organic materials. Building settlement is not considered since, as previously discussed, it is assumed that buildings will be supported on piles. However, settlement of the compressible sediments after pile installation can produce negative skin friction, or down-drag loads, on deep foundations, which must be considered in design. If the fill cap is placed and allowed to settle before building and utilities are constructed, subsequent total and differential settlements can be minimized. Primary settlement estimates for the placement ofa 5-foot cap, and additional amounts of new fill are summarized in Table 3. I. I. An estimate of secondary settlement is also provided. PROJECT NO. 020027-010-04 • NOVEMBER 11, 2009 13 ASPECT CONSULTING Table 3.1.1 -Estimates of Static Settlement Source Amount at Surface (inches) Primary Compression from New Fill (5-foot-thick) 18 Primary Compression from 1.5 inches per foot of fill Additional Fill Secondary Compression over 100-5 vear Desian Life The shallow groundwater across the Site would present construction challenges for trenching and excavating below the water table. Construction dewatering should be anticipated for these deep excavations. If deep excavations occur after parts of the Site are developed, construction dewatering plans will have to consider the potential of dewatering-induced settlement caused by draw-down of the water table. Any dewatering activities will need to consider health, safety and water treatment issues associated with potential exposure to and extraction of dissolved phase chemical constituents in groundwater. 3.2 Seismic Hazards Seismic hazards to consider for Site development include surface fault rupture due to the proximity of the Site to the Seattle Fault Zone, amplification of strong shaking as a result of the soft soil profile, and liquefaction of the relatively weak granular soils beneath the Site. Hazards associated with liquefaction include lateral spreading, where the low- sloping unsaturated, near-surface soils tend to translate shore-ward during soil liquefaction, surface settlement caused by the shaking-induced consolidation, temporary loss of strength (and bearing capacity), and sand boils caused by the expulsion of excess porewater pressures during liquefaction. The following sections described these hazards in greater detail. 3.2.1 Surface Fault Rupture Faults that could produce surface rupture in the project area are not well-defined and are thought to have recurrence intervals in the range of one to several thousand years. The current state of engineering practice in the Seattle area is such that surface fault rupture is only considered in extraordinary cases. In our opinion, the relative risk of fault rupture at the surface of the Site is very low, and it is unlikely that development plans in the near future will explicitly design for this risk. 3.2.2 Ground Response The soft ground conditions are expected to cause moderate amplification of seismic shaking, compared to the inertial seismic forces that would be expected at a similarly located site with a firm soil profile. Appropriate design of structures in accordance with 14 PROJECT NO. 020027-010-04 • NOVEMBER 11, 2009 ASPECT CONSUL TING the current International Building Code (!BC) will mitigate seismic hazards to acceptable risk levels. !BC requires design for a "Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE)" with a 2 percent probability of exceedance (PE) in 50 years (2,475-year return period). The United States Geological Survey (USGS, 2002) has completed probabilistic ground motion studies and maps for Washington. The USGS maps indicate that for recurrence intervals of 475 and 2,475 years, the peak bedrock acceleration in the Site vicinity would be 0.32g and 0.66g, and have magnitudes of 6.5 and 6. 7, respectively. Current !BC design methodologies express the effects of site-specific subsurface conditions on the ground motion response in terms of the "Site Class" for !BC. These factors represent the density and stiffness of the soil profile underlying the Site, and are used to account for the seismic response of the soil profile. Based on our characterization of the subsurface conditions, the soil profile at the Site would fall into !BC Site Class "F". With the limited set of data available at this time, a preliminary seismic analysis was performed for the Site. This analysis was based on the non-site specific seismic factors allowed by Chapter 18 of the 2006 version of the !BC using a Site Class "D". !BC Chapter 18 allows that in lieu of using a site-specific study, the peak ground acceleration used for design can be set as the 5% damped design spectral acceleration at short periods, Sos, divided by 2.5 (Sns/2.5) for the purposes of evaluating geotechnical site effects. Therefore, a peak ground acceleration (PGA) of0.39g (Sns/2.5) was used for evaluation of the ground motions at the Site. Given the amount ofliquefaction forecasted by our analysis and the type of proposed structures, a site-specific study will be required for the actual design of the structures. 3.2.3 Liquefaction Liquefaction occurs when loose, saturated and relatively cohesionless soil deposits temporarily lose strength as a result of earthquake shaking. Primary factors controlling the onset of liquefaction include intensity and duration of strong ground motion, characteristics of subsurface soil, in-situ stress conditions, and the depth to groundwater. Liquefaction evaluations were conducted with the aid ofLiquefyPro, a seismically induced liquefaction and settlement analyses software program developed by CivilTech Corporation (2009) and WS!iq, a liquefaction analysis software program that was created as part of an extended research project supported by the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) and authored by Kramer (2008) Based on our characterization of the Site, and the ground motions described in the previous section, our analyses indicate that moderate liquefaction hazards exist to a depth of about 80 feet, with the exception of fine-grained Shallow Alluvium layers, which are not considered to be liquefaction-prone. Seismic Settlement Liquefaction-induced settlements were estimated using the recommended methods presented by Kramer (2008) and CivilTech (2009), and our characterization of the Site subsurface conditions. Based on these studies, we estimate that seismic settlements PROJECT NO. 020027-010-04 • NOVEMBER 11, 2009 15 ASPECT CONSUL TING produced from a design-level earthquake could range from about 12 to 30 inches across the Site. A comparative analysis of the 1 in 74 year return period earthquake is predicted to cause 4 to 5 inches of settlement at the surface, indicating Site design concerns from a much more likely event. Due to the variability of the seismic settlement results, it should be assumed that fairly significant differential settlement on the order of several inches can occur after a design level earthquake. Lateral Spreading Lateral spreading is the movement toward the shoreline of the "crust" of soil above the liquefiable layer. Since liquefaction of the underlying soils appears likely during the design earthquake, there is also potential for seismically induced lateral spreading towards the shoreline. Because of the size of the Site, we evaluated lateral spreading magnitudes at varying distances from the shoreline, using the Site topography, and our characterization of subsurface conditions. Using the empirical methods presented by Kramer (2008) and Youd, et al. (2002), we estimate the lateral spreading could result in horizontal displacements from 8 to 13 feet near the shoreline, and 1 to 3 feet along the eastern edge of the Site. The empirical methods are not site-specific, and the regression formulas that form their basis could over-estimate predicted displacements. Given the unique, deltaic geologic environment of the Site, site-specific numerical analyses would be appropriate for predicting post-liquefaction ground displacements with a higher degree of confidence. Sand Boils Sand boils are liquefaction-related features that could potentially result from subsurface porewater pressure relief via the path ofleast resistance. They manifest themselves as small mounds on the surface of ejected soil slurry. They are typically several feet in diameter and cause a mound that can be several inches high. Up to several cubic yards of material can be ejected. If sand boil occur, their locations are typically random, and the prediction of their occurrence is not considered practical for design. 3.3 Environmental Considerations 16 A summary of existing Site conditions and environmental investigations completed to date are summarized in a report by Anchor and Aspect (2007a). The primary contaminants of concern are DNAPL in soil, and dissolved-phase chemicals in groundwater. Soil contamination is generally limited to the Fill and Shallow Alluvium. Environmental remedies currently under consideration will focus on protecting the aquifer that is present in the Deep Alluvium, and water quality in Lake Washington. The geo-structural solutions that could enable site development include pile foundations and/or ground improvement technologies, as discussed in Section 4. The final cleanup action at Site is anticipated to include leaving DNAPL contaminated soil in-place. Design of these solutions must consider protection of the deep aquifer (Deep Alluvium) when and if they penetrate the contaminated upper strata beneath the Site both during construction and in the long term. The design and installation of deep piles and ground improvement will require coordination and approval by EPA as part of the remedy PROJECT NO. 020027-010-04 • NOVEMBER 11, 2009 ASPECT CONSUL TING selection process. The following provides a starting point for consideration of pile installation techniques. Limited research has been performed on the issue of potential carry down of contamination and cross-contamination of aquifers stemming from installation and long- term presence of piling at contaminated sites. Since 2000, several investigations have been completed on the installation of driven piles in "Brownfield Sites", including those with DNAPL-related contamination. An EPA-funded, state-of-the-art paper by Boutwell, et al. (2005) summarizes the current body of knowledge, and provides recommendations for pile foundations at Brownfield Sites. In the past, environmental regulators have required expensive protection measures for pile installation, generally focusing on surface casing measures through the contaminated zone to prevent carry down. Boutwell (2005) identifies the potential mechanisms of aquifer cross-contamination resulting from the installation and presence of driven piling, and how these mechanisms can be overcome by appropriate design. With proper consideration to these mechanisms, standard driven displacement piles can be safely used without special near-surface protection measures. Regulators in some states have allowed driven piles under these circumstances and without special near-surface protection measures. The current state-of-practice is such that driven displacement piles can be used in the conditions at the Site, provided that proper pile materials and installation techniques are used. Impermeable pile materials are necessary, such as steel or concrete, in order to not provide a conduit of contaminants by "wicking". Piles should be installed using displacement methods, such that in-situ soil is displaced during their installation, resulting in densification of the soil immediately adjacent to the piles and sealing of the pile-soil interface. Pointed pile tips should be used during driving to avoid carry-down of a "plug" of contaminated soil during driving. Ground improvement technologies could also be considered for stabilizing the Site with respect to soft ground and seismic hazards. Ground improvement could potentially be used in concert with environmental remedies. Appropriate ground improvement technologies would involve in-situ strengthening of soil by densification, in-situ soil stabilization by a variety of grouting techniques, soil removal and replacement and internal drainage to dissipate excess porewater pressures that can cause liquefaction. Near-shore ground improvement utilizing internal drainage techniques could potentially be feasible due to the upward hydraulic gradient of the deep aquifer. These ground improvement technologies have the potential to be applied singularly or in combination with each other. The use of ground improvement technologies will be considered in consultation with EPA as pai1 of the evaluation of site remedial alternatives. PROJECT NO. 020027-010-04 • NOVEMBER 11, 2009 17 ASPECT CONSUL TING 4 Site-Wide Geotechnical Options Technically viable geotechnical options exist to develop the Site as planned. As noted previously, structures with vertical settlement sensitivity will need to be placed on piles or improved ground to maintain design functionality. Options are available to mitigate the post-earthquake lateral spreading problems. Geotechnical options must also consider the environmental site cleanup, and the need for EPA approval, given the soil and groundwater contamination that is known to be onsite. Sequencing of site work (major fill grading) will be an important consideration to minimize total and differential settlement of features that gain their support from shallow soil. The geotechnical site improvement options create an additional expense to the project when compared to a location with competent soil and no contamination. Different geotechnical mitigation strategies, combined with potential contamination remediation strategies, may produce combined cost effectiveness, when compared to a strategy of each mitigation effort being performed independently. 4.1 Mitigation of Lateral Spreading Given the calculated predication of large post-earthquake lateral spreading at the shoreline (8 tol3 feet) and the significant movement (1 to3 feet) at the eastern boundary, buildings must be designed to resist such movement/soil loading to maintain structural safety. Based on our review of the available data, using anchors or battered piles at the building foundations, or a designed ground improvement program, would provide the necessary lateral movement mitigation for the buildings. While augmented foundations would provide protection of individual buildings, a ground improvement program has the potential to protect larger areas of the Site and possibly provide Site-wide benefits. 4. 1. 1 Ground Improvement 4.1.2 18 Ground improvement strategies could be used to produce area-wide or site-wide protection from lateral spreading. Site-wide protection would have the benefit of increased seismic performance of proposed buildings, roads, open space and utilities during and after strong shaking. The extent and depth of improved ground, in combination with building foundations, must be such that life safety is protected in accordance with applicable building codes. This could be accomplished with deep foundations for buildings and ground improvement designed to limit seismic-induced ground displacements to tolerable limits. Further analysis and EPA approval would be required to develop preliminary design and cost analysis of such an appropriate ground improvement program. Lateral Resistant Piles/Anchors If the building foundations are to independently resist the lateral movement imposed by lateral spreading without ground improvement, then the following loads would need to be PROJECT NO. 020027-010-04 • NOVEMBER 11, 2009 ASPECT CONSULTING considered. The upper soil profile of unsaturated soil, which would be mobilized during lateral spreading, would exert passive pressure on buried structures and foundations. This loading could be taken by the lower foundation elements and transferred to the pile system or to anchors. The silty peat zones may not completely liquefy but would be too weak to prevent the movement and would load the pile trunks. These additional lateral loads could be resisted from battered piles incorporated into the structure base foundation system, or through very deep anchors fixed into the non-liquefied zone of the Deep Alluvium and stressed into the easterly walls/footings of the structures. Because of the significant length required of such anchors, it would be beneficial to design these as high capacity anchors to reduce the number of anchors. The lateral resistant pile/anchor system would provide restraint for the buildings only and would not offer protection for the general Site. 4.2 Building Support 4.2.1 Static and Seismic Settlement All building foundation designs must incorporate the potential settlement expected over the life of the building. The estimated settlements and sources have been discussed in Section 3. Due to the large settlement estimates, the likely foundation system for the planned buildings is a deep pile system. The long-term and seismic settlement of these soils can also produce negative skin friction, or down-drag loads, on deep foundations which should be factored into the capacities of the piles. 4.2.2 Displacement Piles In general, deep foundation options include driven piles and drilled piles. In the Seattle area, the common driven and drilled piles for buildings are steel pipe piles and auger-cast piles, respectively. Steel pipe piles can be filled with concrete after driving, or left empty. They can also be driven close-ended or open-ended. Another system which has been used in Seattle is the driven cast-in-place pile. This type of pile has the benefit over the auger cast pile in that no contaminated material is withdrawn from the ground, and has been documented to have similar capacities. The actual pile type would be subject to approval by EPA. Studies have shown (Boutwell, 2005) that smooth-walled displacement piles are effective at preventing vertical migration of the DNAPL types of contaminants found on-site. Driven steel pipe piles, which are commonly used in the Seattle area, would appear appropriate for these purposes. Other proprietary displacement piles have also been used for these purposes in other areas of the country and could be considered as options as well. Steel pipe piles are driven using a heavy impact hammer that is controlled by a lead, which in tum is supported by a crane. The principle advantages of driven steel pipe piles are their relatively high capacity, the speed in which they can be installed and strncturally loaded, their capacity can be readily determined, and they create no spoils. Steel pipe piles can be easily spliced and driven open-ended to penetrate or displace obstructions. The principle disadvantages of driven piles are noise and vibrations created during construction, and their relative cost when compared to driven cast-in-place piles. PROJECT NO. 020027-010-04 • NOVEMBER 11, 2009 19 ASPECT CONSUL TING 4.2.3 Structural Slabs Slabs-on-grade may be feasible for lightly loaded structures gaining support from shallow foundations. However, with the high likelihood for long-term, site-wide settlement, and the potential for embankment and seismic settlements discussed in Table 4.2.1, the use of standard slab-on-grade floors in combination with pile-supported structures is not recommended. As noted in Section 3, the post construction settlements (secondary and seismic) are estimated to be large and slabs-on-grade would settle differentially from the building foundations. Therefore, ground floors of pile-supported structures need to be structural slabs, tied into the building foundations, to maintain functionality. 4.3 Earthwork 4.3. 1 General Site Preparation Special considerations relating to general earthwork and grading at the Site include the shallow water table and the presence of compressible near-surface soil. In general, development plans should minimize excavation depths to avoid the need for construction dewatering and shoring ofloose saturated soils. Re-use of on-site fills should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Grading work will need to be coordinated with the approved environmental cleanup plan to maintain cost effectiveness. Removal of existing accumulations of woody debris associated with the former log yard operation prior to placement of any additional fill is recommended under planned building and roadway footprints to avoid long-term settlement resulting from decomposition of the wood fill. In non sensitive areas, such as open landscaping and surface parking, placement of additional fill over woody material may be acceptable with the understanding that grades will need to be restored in the future. 4.3.2 Shallow Groundwater and Dewatering Deep excavations should be avoided if possible due to the shallow groundwater table. Additionally, in areas where excavation would intersect the silt/peat zones, shoring will probably be needed given the low strength of the peat and the high groundwater table. In areas where relatively deep vaults, pump stations etc. penetrate below the planned fill cap, allowance should be made for dewatering of the excavations. If a deep excavation is required and it is determined that dewatering is necessary, the impact of dewatering settlement will need to be evaluated especially if the dewatering is near the property boundaries. Dewatering activities will also need to consider health and safety issues and treatment/disposal of impacted groundwater. 4.3.3 Preloading We understand an approximately 5-foot fill cap is planned for the majority of the Site. This cap should be placed with a grade surcharge to account for predicted settlement. It should also be placed at several months before any grade sensitive feature such as foundations, roads or utilities are installed. This timeframe can be shortened if the Site is preloaded to a higher fill grade and then the excess fill removed. More detailed analysis is necessary to evaluate the specifics of preloading. Planning should consider that further 20 PROJECT NO. 020027-010-04 • NOVEMBER 11, 2009 4.3.4 ASPECT CONSUL TING settlement would occur due to the high organic content of the lower sediments, even if a preload is utilized. Infrastructure Development Considerations Underground Utilities The practical depth to which underground utilities can be placed is limited by the relatively shallow groundwater depth. It is desirable to maintain these in the fill cap. Sags resulting from post seismic differential settlement pipe support will result in undesirable sags that can adversely affect the performance of conveyance pipes. Therefore, initial maximum gradients may be desirable where allowed by cover requirements. Flexible connections to buildings will be necessary to allow for the differential settlements from grade load changes and seismic settlements. Low impact stormwater management techniques that rely on infiltration, will also be limited due to the shallow groundwater depth in most areas, and contamination considerations. Pavements and Roadways The wood waste fill should be removed in areas where grade sensitive roadways and utilities are going to be constructed prior to cap fill. As noted previously in non-sensitive areas the wood waste could remain with future maintenance performed where required. The pavements in areas where relatively competent surface fills exist, can likely be designed with standard pavement sections. Soft areas encountered during construction should be overexcavated and replaced with clean, compact sand and gravel prior to placing the standard pavement section. PROJECT NO. 020027-010-04 • NOVEMBER 11, 2009 21 ASPECT CONSULTING 5 References 22 Anchor Environmental, LLC and Aspect Consulting, LLC, 2007a, Task 2-Summary of Existing Information and Data Quality Report. Remedial Investigation/Feasibility, Quendall Terminals Site. Report prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region I 0, on behalf of Altino Properties, Inc. and J.H. Baxter & Company, by Anchor Environmental, LLC and Aspect Consulting, LLC, August 2007. Anchor Environmental, LLC and Aspect Consulting, LLC, 2007b, Task 3 -Preliminary conceptual Site Model, Remedial Action Objectives, Remediation Goals, and Data Gaps. Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study, Quendall Terminals. Report prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region I 0, on behalf of Altino Properties, Inc. and J.H. Baxter & Company, by Anchor Environmental, LLC and Aspect Consulting, LLC, August 2007. Boutwell, 2005, Presentation titled-Installation of Driven Piles in Brownfields Sites, by Dr. Gordon P. Boutwell, PE, Pile Driving Contractors Association 2005 PDCA Winter Roundtable, Charleston, SC, February 19, 2005. CH2M-HILL, 1978, Memorandum to Tim King, Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Prot Quendall Development Renton Washington, By Jeff Layton CH2M-HILL, 20 December 1978. CivilTech Software, 2009, Liquefy Pro v5.5j Analysis program. Kramer, S., 2008, Evaluation of Liquefaction Hazards in Washington State, prepared for the Washington State Transportation Commission. Shannon & Wilson, 2006, Geotechnical Report Seahawks Headquarters and Practice Facility Renton, Washington. Prepared for Football Northwest, LLC. September 13, 2006. U.S. Geological Survey, 2002, United States National Seismic Hazard Maps: http://gldims.cr.usgs.gov/nshmp2008/viewer.htm. Youd, T.L., Hansen, C.M., and Bartlett, S.F., 2002, Revised Multilinear Regression Equations for Prediction of Lateral Spread Displacement, Journal ofGeotechnical Geoenvironmental Engineering, 128 ( 12), pp. I 007-1017. PROJECT NO. 020027-010-04 • NOVEMBER 11, 2009 ASPECT CONSUL TING Limitations and Additional Services Work for this project was performed, and this report prepared, in accordance with generally accepted professional practices for the nature and conditions of work completed in the same or similar localities, at the time the work was performed. It is intended for the exclusive use of Altino Properties, Inc. and J.H. Baxter & Company and their agents for specific application to the referenced property. This report does not represent a legal opinion. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. The conclusions and interpretations presented in this report should not be construed as a warranty of the subsurface conditions. This report is issued with the understanding that it is preliminary in nature and that additional geotechnical studies will be necessary to support future designs. Additionally pile type selection along with any ground improvement will need to be presented for approval to the EPA. This scope of our work did not include environmental assessments or evaluations regarding the presence or absence of wetlands or hazardous or toxic substances in the soil, surface water, or groundwater at this Site. The Site remediation studies are being conducted under a separate scope of work. PROJECT NO. 020027-010-04 • NOVEMBER 11, 2009 23 a lim~ed /iebi/itycompa~y Quendall Terminals Renton, Washington ~ ~ ~ § N 9 0 ~ 0 Nev 2009 020027 ~ 1·:·:::;;·.:!;~,,:.__-l-,;;;:uiier'm-l ~ ~ FIGURE NO. 11.1 ::.::::"' 1.1 .1 ~ Legend B-1 ~ 21.5 • QP-1 D ~ l :J Shoreline (2009) Shorelin e (1936) Shoreline (1920 ) Shoreline (1916) Soil Bori ng wi th Geotechnical Data Geoprobe Bor ing Historic structure E xist ing structure Estimated m aximum extent of DNAPL prior to Task 5 implementation ~ ---- / / BH-14/ { 18 A , / \ \ /{ 1 \ 7~ I \ --\ / / I 18.5 BH-/9 ~~ J I 54 I ~\ ~. ~ ( / BH-· ~ I ... ~ /~C:O / I \ /iv "' D me-1 BH-24 / 29 ~ I BH-23~ I 0 0 0 0 D --7 Former May Creek Channels /' // ~BH-15 18.5 / ,...,,. // --/ --~ -.,,....... ~BH-26B -::::. .__ ~ / ---"'---- -JI I D 1 0 120 2 40 ---~~c,:,n, .-..... -Feet _J ~ {) {) S ite Plan Quendall Term inals Re nton , Washington __ ., ............. ~ /) --------- 0, ~ "O N ..:. N 0 0 N ~ PROJECTNO. d, Nov 2009 0 0 -020027 ~ JJP "m -RGURENO. "O C PMB ., ::, _ ... 1.1.2 0 a I z SW QU AD LAKE WASHINGTON L ANDSCAPED COU RTYARD OVER P-2 • ~ N :" ~·~1 a.< d. i -+ . ~~ o jw ~<r ==: LANDSCAPED 1 < -< >'"' SE QUAD \ . ~ . COUR TYARD __,a.0 '3 "-' ~~ ---'J, V <-! < Cl .._~ • 0. ---,- ii6.oib~Pb~111~l ~~J~ m~) CAR~~~ t\~ ~ I 1!if ~! ~ i: l i ~~ : . ~~ ' (ov, v,t-'-5 ~l 1 • woo: ---,--+-........;...... w ct:'v;~ o er w :!C:cr -ui ~ o ---r----t---L-~8~Z ~3 ~1.11i.., ~ ~~~ ----t -- "'--'o:::, --''-' .. oc -'t uOo ± ---,- w u.-Oai 00~ y _g o _____j__ Z ---L- V'hf>N<O l"")~g ~ W~: -+ 0 --W r-,.' • Zlfl N ----r-0. __ Vl "1 N ---+-:, c::=:=1 c:::::=J ~ c:::::=::J b rl I / I 24· '"""''' ''*' I / l \ I;;;) .. i i i i • i .. I : -•:• '\ i i J z :::; ,.. ~ a. 0 ll: a. TOTA L SITE SUMMARY 8 0 0 TOTA L RES IDEN TI A L UN ITS 266 .300s f TO TA L O FFIC E 2 1.600 sf TOTAL RETAIL 9 ,000sf TOT AL RE S TAURANT P -1 & P-2 TOT A L AR EA = 816,085sf (PARKING FOR 2,095 CARS IN STRUCTURE) PARKING ON GRADE = 1 69 CARS TOT A L P AR KING = 2,264 CARS USEABLE SITE LE SS NEW 60' R.O.W. = 18.9 A CRES P ARK ING ASSUMPTIONS: RESIDENTI AL @ 1.6 STALL PER UNIT RE TAI L @ 4 ST ALL S PER 1,000s f RESTAU RANT A@ 1 STALL PER 100sf OFFICE @ 3 S TALLS PER 1,000s f RES IDENTI AL UNITS ARE 1,100sf AVERAGE NW QUAD 175 RESIDEN TI A L UNITS (2ao CARS) NE QUAD 101,DOOsf OFFICE (303 ) CARS) ------e EtHE~L-tN!:·-NEW-·40'-·Dflt'JE·------------------------------------------------------·-·-·---·-·-·---·---·---·-·----·-·-·-· OU E f\DALL TERM INA L CONC EPT UAL PLAN LANCE MLJE L LER CENTUR Y PAC FIC 7-27-09 & ASSOC I AT ES LLC * ALL ST A TIS TICS ARE BASED ON CONCEPTU AL PLAN Wf-,J CH ARE APPROXIMATE AND SuBJECT TO CHANGE (' PROPERTY LINE~- EXI STlt-.G 8NRR GRAPHIC SC ALE 50' ~-5.o' 1 00' '""-*-I SCA LE: 1· = 50' ~ a: V, V) .., u u < 3: .., ------~z -;----------- / _J <I z • a .., • _c: E ~ o ~ t-::i IJI 2 Q 1--1 ij _J ~: _J ~-)- <It-~ oi i z rr. l) IJI ::J (3 ~I "' "' "' .. ~ "' .. 0 .. . -.. .. . -.. .. " i, ~ u s ... . ., . . ... -0 :r ~ " a j 0 "' . -~~~-~ <.O co co 0 > <l'. z Q) Q) LL C C 0 A 90 60 30 OHWM/1867) OL WM (16.67') 0 ~ -30 > Q) w Legend - .; "' "' ,:: s <'. ~ c . C c:: .Q 1:;. "' Cl) - V) V) 0 0 C: ~ 0 " "' ~ -" F ILL: Sil t , Sand, Gravel , Wood and M ixed Debris Shallow Allu vi um : Stratifi ed Organic S i lt, Peat, Sand Deep Alluvium : Coarse Sand and Gravels Lacustrine Deposi ts: S ilt and Clay + '<t' '2 N--±~ -Boring ID and offset from cross section en n: 53 7 Water level at -sz u time o f drilli ng 5 300 ----Boring 19 Standard Pene tratio n Resistan ce 3 and depth . (") I a.. N a I a.. I 0 400 I ~ :, 0 U) 0 ..... .,, fl ·5' ,t en co ..-- ' I en I ,6 /3 " t , 5 2 b 6 8 38 34 500 0 0 .; "' "' .; ~ "' "' ~ <'. 0 <o .., 0 ~ C, 0 .,, Q) t .i5' n: "' r en '<t' '<t' a) N ' ~ I (/) en I 53 I 37 7 8 ~ 6 . -ii-------r· 5 2 19 3 600 0 2 2 2 15 10 7 2 4 37 42 67 H orizontal Scale 100 Feer Vertical Scale 30 FtJet I .; "' "' ,:: 0 s <'. I CJ 0 .., .,, R fl .; 0 "' U) ,t "' + V) ..... 8 I I en c:: .g I 0 "' ~ ~ -" ~!6 ; Fil/ ------..... ~ ---~ ~~ ~~~--- 27 -.. ----' 25 700 200 Shallow Alluvium 800 Lacustrine Deposits 900 .; ~ ~ :, 0 U) 0 "' .., "' 13 ·5' n: (") a) ~ (/) 23 1 ~------~--------~--; I 0 • I 1000 1100 1200 A' 90 60 30 o -30 -60 -90 -120 -150 1300 co co 0 > <l'. ~ Q) Q) LL ~ C .Q ro > Q) w 0) i ci 0 ~ ..... N 8 N ~ .-------------------------------------------------------.---------------1 9 \AsP~,~.~~~~ I Geologic Cross Section A-A' 60 Quendall Terminals Nov 2009 ::.ESIG/o/EO•" JLP PROJECT NO. 020027 "' 0 !;l 'iii .... -----+--------t"O I PMB FIGURE NO. C Q) Vertical Exaggeration 3.33X WNW aspcctconsu nng corn I a limited hability company ___ .. ___ ... _____ .. ___ .. 2.2.1 I~ Renton , Wr1<::hingtnn L-----------------------------------------------------------------------------..._ ______________ ._ _______________________________________ .._ _____ _,, _______ ....,u B 90 ,s E <: Cl 5 E E :S I CJ) <: <: :, Q ix <: ~ ~ 0 :S CJ) :, 0 .,, -0 C: 0 .,, "' -.2 CJ) Q) ~ .,, 'O Q) .,, 13 0 tl ~ " ·~ ·"' 13 ~ " (") " o' ·a-<) CJ) .,, ct l ct -~ "' ~ ct &. "' 0 -; "St' en 0 ..-..-co C: ct I co I I (.) N co CJ? g I ~ " r--- co 2 I u Q) I I en Cf) r i (.) I I 1 I I 60 30 ~ E ,s 0 :, CJ) 0 0 <: CJ) ..,. 0 0 .,, (") ..,. ~ .,, 'O Q) " ·"' 13 13 o' -~ " ct "i ct "St' ..-C') ..- I I (.) u u 2 2 2 I I I ---- 1 g .,, ~ l 0 ..- (.) 2 I co U') C';I I co CJ u .c: i "' :i <: g c'.:l ~ ~ ~ .,, "'.,, ~ ~ ~ -~ c3 .~ ~ 5 ct 0) g U') I 0) I ffi ~ ~ ~1 1 <: E <: ;.._ <o .,, f3 Q) 'o' ct 2 "St' CJ? co I -5 e· 90 60 OHWM /18.67') OLWM (16.6T) F . = ' I , ~--~~~~===+--ik i~b l =;~~~~~~~~~~~~++=~=f~~--1~ff----------------~1rh-~-~,---+ 25 -i// . 1 -co co 0 > <( z .__... Q) 0 if -30 C C .Q «i ai w -60 -90 -120 -150 O 100 200 28 48 35 44 14 24 27 25 65 62 36 50 300 400 Refer to Fig ure 2 .2 .1 for Legend 500 600 Horizontal Scale 0 100 Feet Vertical Scale 0 30 Feet Vertical Exaggeration 3 .33X Shallow Alluvium 11 1 1 Deep 7UluvTum 700 800 200 60 Aspectconautting earth+water 900 4 60 37 100 1000 1100 1200 0 -30 '1 -60 I -90 -120 -150 1300 -co co 0 > <( z ~ Q) <I) u... ,f;; C 0 ~ > <I) w I ci 0 < "i: ,.._ N g N ~ 0 Geologic Cross Section B-B' ""'Nov= PRoJEcrNo. § -, ••• ., I 020027 ~ JLP Quendall Terminals "'"""' PMs FIGURE N o . i •11=<0J<Jl,ai>l<ycom,,.ny I Re nton, W ashington -~w 2.2.2 g . d wwN as.pectconsi..1ting com C 90 ;;; ~ co "' I'--]l .,.... u I Q) 60 I .& co it 30 0 ~ co co 0 > <( z -m Q) -30 LL .£ C: .Q co > Q) w -60 -90 -120 -150 O Refer to Figure 2 .2.1 for Legend 100 i':a ;;; I m ~ C: c:, c:~ (') i~ "t:, 0) fJ ~"' I Q) to I .o' :s (J co it " t1'l c:, ~ ~~ -.:t u c.o -~ ' 0 co a: ;;; ~ "' I'--~ N ti 'Q) I "& co a: cC ~ ci: • C: ~ t:·9 '1 ~ ~~ co ti ~(/) ~-~ ~~ C' 90 ~ "' "' "t:, <':l f:; 60 I ·~ co a: ::___ _ I , , <n~it :Su =-V . I L f.o Fill ... . I I R.30 200 300 400 Horizontal Scale 500 Shallow Alluvium 600 ~---------. 10 7 6 6 7 700 Lacustrine Deposits 800 0 -30 -60 -90 -120 -150 900 co co 0 > <( z -m Q) LL C: C: .Q ro > Q) w 0) i ci 0 ~ ,.._ N 8 0 100 200 I 9 ~ . ~ Feer Aspedconsultln; Geologic Cross Section c -c· '"" Nov2009 PROJECTNO. § earth~wat er M"""'" 020027 ~ 1 • Feet I -www asoectconsulllng.com Q . • Jl.P "ro Vertical E xaggeration 3.33X . uendall Term inals --··PMs FIGURE No. ] a hmtted liablMy company R t · :, en on , W a shington -~"' . 2.2.3 9 d Vertical Scale 30 60 D 90 60 30 0 -co co 0 > <( z ~ Q) Q) -30 LL £ C: .Q ro > Q) w -60 -90 -120 -150 O i:a ' IQ t; -.;; "' ~ "' ;;; ;;, 5 s ,l'.l ~ <1) ~ c:·,a • • C ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ("") l,C') c:, ~Cl) 1::) "O ~ ~ ('\j V,11) ~ ~ -~ ~ di~ ~ ~ -~ ~ g :so -~ ·~ e ·e-·e-Q a.. Q a.. a.. a;> u ~ l{) <O CO ON ~ 0 ~ ~ ± I ::'.2 Cl) I co co I I co I -I y T~ 2 90 ' " Fill ----r ._. ..... --... --. 1 0 1 2 5 8 3 3 - 28 34 23 2 ------------------- Shallow Alluvium Lacustrine Depo sits 7 10 25 28 25 t; u'.l Lt) -'t:, "' t; "' f l{) I 0.. a I 100 200 300 400 500 600 t; u'.l c:, ""' 't:, t -~ ,t CJ) ";- I CD 17 15 'IJ 16 I --------------1. 18 ~o 700 800 ~ c:, "' -g t; l .,.... o._ a I --- 900 ~ ~ <.> ~ ::; 6 .§ t; ., ~ ., l; 1000 1100 D' 90 60 30 OHWM (18.6 7J OLWM (16 67) 0 -30 -60 -90 -120 -150 1200 -co co 0 > <( z ~ Q) Q) LL .£ C: g co > Q) w a, 3: "O ci 0 ~ l'- N 0 ?.l r-------------r--------------------------------------..... ------~; a, Re fer to Fig ure 2.2 .1 fo r Lege nd Horiz ontal Scale 0 100 200 ,s .:,ecuon u-u Nov= 8 ""-'~lio\,o~llllUIUng • ~=•w 020027 ~ earth +wa t er JLP ro Foe/ I -wwwaspectconsulnngccm Quenda ll Terminals ,~-,,PMB F IGURENO. ] Vertical Exaggeration 3.33X .,,m11adhabilitycumpanr Ren to n, Was h ing ton -~... 2.2.4 ~ 0 Feet Nov 2009 P ROJECT NO. Geologic Cros----.&.~--....... Vertical Scale 0 ~ 00 APPENDIX A Existing Site-Wide Geotechnical Data ASPECT CONSUL TING A.1 Existing Site-Wide Geotechnical Data The stratigraphic contacts shown on the individual summary logs represent the approximate boundaries between soil types; actual transiti ons may be more gradual. The s ubs urface conditions depicte d are only for the specific date and locations r epo11ed, and therefore, are not necessarily representative of other locations and times. A.1.1 Remediation Exploration Data from recent remediation studies (Ancho r and Aspect, 2007b) and data just generated by Aspect was also reviewed. Those selected probe and boring logs that wer e u sed in this report are included n t his append ix. A.1.2 Geotechnical Borings by Others Data was r eviewed from the previous data summary for the Site (Anchor and Aspect, 2007a) from studies by Woodward-Clyde Con sultants, Hart Crowser, Shannon & Wilson and Nei l Twelker. Additional repo11 s were provided by KPFF from Shannon & Wilson (2006) and CH2M-HILL (1978). Select ed b01ings were used to deve lop the geologic sections and allow for extrapolation of soil parameters where possib le. Those borings are included in th is appendix. PROJ ECT N O. 020027-010-04 • N OVEMBER 11, 2009 A-1 ATTACHMENT A-1 Geotechnical Borings by Others r- (_ r [ l r: r. (__ r L r L L C L L L J .. : ·• ·--.i ( ... I .. ~ ~ /. ~,! I ,,_ .. J . :.....,..1 ~\ -·· l MAST£R1.0 U7/S7 MATERJAL DESCRIPTION Surface Elevation: Approx. 27 Feet j\ Wood chfps; (Fill). i"'\ Dark gray SAND; moist; (Fill} SP. Wood chips; (Fill). -Lt. .t: -C. cg 0 r o .3 r 2.s ~ 3 .e 4 .0 Medium dense, gray, fine SAND; moist; ~ e.s (Fill) SP. ., ~---------..,.,..--=-~=---:---' -9 .0 Loose, gray, fine to medium SAND and COAL FRAGMENTS. lnterbedded, very loose and very soft, gray, fine to medium SAND and brown, sfight1y clayey, peaty, organic SILT; moist; ~cattered roots; SP/OH. Very soft, dark brown, slightly clayey, peaty, organic SILT; moist; scattered root hairs; untreated wood at 17 .8 feet; M occasional layers of loose, gray, fine to medium SAND; wet at 20 feet; \(Depression FillfngJ OH . J,.. 21 .0 ...._ __ ......., ____________ ...J 28.0 30.0 Stratified, medium dense, gray, slightly silty, fine to meaium SAND, trace gravel; ,Lw_e_t_; _s_P_-s_M---,-·_~...;;·· -----..,.-----'llllr 33.0 Medium stiff, brown, slightly clayey, peaty, organic SILT; wet; organics; . {Depression Filling) OH. loose, gray, slightly silty, fine t _o medium SANO; wet; (Depression Filli ng) SP-SM . Dense, silty, gravelly SAND; wet; (Coarse ~luvium) SM. Stratified, very loose to medium dense, slightly silty to silty, fine to medium SAND and SILT; wet; interbedded organic and wood layers at 37 feet; (Medium !Alluvium/Depression Filling) SP-SM. Medium dense to dense, gray, clean to I\ slightly silty, fine to medium SANO, trace / I \of gravel; wet; (Medium Alluvium) SP-SM . 42.0 55.0 lnterbedded, dense, light brown to gray, [\ sandy, fine, rounded GRAVEL; wet; r t1o.o I \{Coarse Alluvium) GP. ...._ _______________ _, CONTINUED NE:XT PAGE LEGEND 0 Ill CD .D :a E .E ~ . tll (/) ....,...... ... ~· ~ ,I ....,... 2I ·:·.· :iI ~ ft •I /.;-?j}. sI {~ ',/ . e][ 1 /-6. ,I ~ ~ •I // ~-•I · .. , ,oI : ' :r,~ 11I ~ I • ·1 i~l 12I ~.I! 13I :-. ,"I • .. 15I · .. .··.• .. 1eI ":·11 ,,I • I _. l . r ,,I ·; l ·. 11 ,.I ; I . r ; l 20I •• ·1 : I . r ; I I:.&. ~. :uI ~· •• e., 22I ... .·.· ; • Sample Not Recovered I 2" 0 .0 . Split Spoon Semple ][ 3" 0.0. Shelby Tube Sample ED:.l Surface Seel 12:E Annular Seelent G:8J Pie:zometer Screen ffl2I Grout ¥ Water Level 1. Tho wtratifieetion f,n..., repr 011en t the approximate boundaries betw een 10~ tl'P""-end the transition may bo gradu al. 2 . 1 he di•cuosion in th• text of thiti report is necMury for a proper uoderstandilll! of t he nature of 1ubourfoce rnoterialc .. 3. W.ier lev el. if indicated above. 11 for'the dirte ,p ecifiod end may vary. 4 . Raf or to KEY fol' e x plan.iion or "Symbols• •nd dofiniti <><:1•· S. USC lllt'ter •Ymbol bM&d on viaual clM1ifice-tion. i:, .... C cg :, -l5~ ~ a § 0 Cl C '§ C £ C. Cl Standard Penetration Resistance (140 lb . weight, 30• drop) .A. Blows per foot C 0 20 40 60 r; ! 1~!11Ii1l/~11 i 1 1iI 111 ! ! : 5 :::=::?: ::::::::: ::::::::: ~I :X, ., .. _: :: _; :: -.\ i. !_. i. ·:: (: i. _:.: ._! : : : : : : : : : .{;.:;.: : : : .. : : : : I .. ; ';:;:; : : : : : : : : : ; ; : ; ; : : : : 10 \• : : : : : : : : . . . . . . . . . : : : : :-·.1.i'\,''~ .·· • 1 t:: =: =: =: ( 111!11 ( 1 : = = = = = r~ : : : : : : : : : ; : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :Q1;1 I , : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : ; : : : : : 15 : : : : : : : : : . . . .. . . . . ........ ::::::::: ::::;:66.80j1 : : : : :e :: : : : : : 167.70 1 I : : : '. '. ; : : : '. '. '. '. ~~jl;3. I -I''-: ; ; ; '. '. ; ; 20 ....... . ~=::::::: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . · -.(} 11 1 1 1 1 f ( !~\ 1 ......... . . . . . . . . . ......... ......... ......... ... --. -.. .... -.... .. -..... . ......... 25 ........ •::::::: /lj ~ l]\\/1 ~1 ........ . 30~:: ijjij!, ... -..... ......... ......... ......... 35 : u;:·/1,-:: :::---+--'-• ·• \~)/ ! 1· (ii i! :,:::::::: • 0 1~\!i!!i 45 ;;;;;;\; ;;;.;;;;;; . . . . . . . . . . •'• .... . . . . . . . . . . .......... . :::::::::'K::::== 50 ii iii / i:~i 55 \!/ii /iii ii!iii t\ . ....... . ... ' .... . .. -..... . ....... · .. ......... . ....... . ......... ......... . . . . . . . . . . ....... . . . . . . . . . - 60 : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : ,: : : : : : : : : ::::::::: ~::::::: ......... ......... . . . . . . . . . . -...... -............ -.... -.. -....... --..... . 0 40 • % Water Content Plestic Limit J • I Liquid Lim it Natural Weter Content JAG Dev elopment Renton, Washington LOG OF BORING. SWB-3 60 December 1996 W-7443-03 FIG. A-5 Sh.eot '1 . of 2 -----------------··--·--·····----- r r ·. , .. · jf I ( /. '\. f r j j If ( ,. I J ' .. ., ' if I. 11 · ff· II" !I )i. f L. I( !L fl J ! -.. !-·. f . ~ J,. -- 1 . I •• ••• r• • ..:r. . . ---.... ··-' L -. .4 r , __ .. MASTIRLG 2T7/97 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Surface Elevation: Approx. 27 Feet Medium dense t o dense, brown, fine to mediu m SAND, trace of gravel, s cattered layers of rounded fine gravel; wet; !Medium Alluvium) SP. Dense, gray, silty fine SAND, trace o f fine gravel; wet; (Fi~~Alluvium) SM. ... u. .s: ~ C. Cl) 0 95.0 __________________ _, 121.0 · ~Very soft, gray, silty CLAY, trace sand; / 1 2 1 _5 moist; ML · '-=-=----c~-BOTTOM OF BORING COMPLETED 11 /6/96 LEGEND 0 M Cl) .a ii E ·E > . al en Cl) . .. 23 J_ .. • .·.· :·.· 2,I ... .. .. .. 2sI : : .. •, : : 2aI : : .. . . : . ·: 21I ... : .. : 21I : m 21I • Sample Not Recovered I 2• 0 .0. Split Spoon Sample Jr: 3• O.D. Shelby Tube Sample Surface Seal Annular Sealant Piezomater Screen Grout Wat er Level 1 . Tho stratification fine. ropreeent tho approximsto boundaries between- coil typea; and the trensrtion mey bo gradual . :· · 2. The cf,scusslon In tho text of th;. report ;. necesury for a p;oper understandin g of tho nature o f •ubsurfac e material•. 3. WIit.et level. if indicllted above, ia for tho data specified and may very. 4 . Rofer to KEY t« explanetlon of 'Symbolc " and dofinruorui. 5 . USC letter-symbol based on visual dassification . · "O ... C ,u :> ~ a~ ..: u. -E C. Cl) 0 70 75 80 8 5 90 9 5 100 105 Standard Penetrati on Resistance (140 lb. weight, 30• drop) A Blows per foot 0 2' -40 60 ::: :: :: IA~::::::: ;: :: : : : :: ..... -. . ..... . ....... . -...... . . . . . . . . . . . ....... . . ....... . . ........ .. . -... --.. . . . . . . . . . ..... -. -. . . . . . . . -. . ....... . . . . . . . . . . .......... ......... . ....... . ......... ...... -.. . . . . . . . . . ....... -. . . . . . . . . . .. -..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -.. ......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -...... . ......... . ....... . . ..... -.. . ....... . . . . . . . . . . -....... . . ... -... . --...... . . .. -.... . . ....... . ......... . . . . . . . . . . ....... . . ....... . . ....... . ......... . ....... . . ....... . . . . . . . . . . : : : : :,,..: ; : : : : : : : : : : lJ!/l l!! !!l!d!!l . ...... -................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .............. -......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........................... ........................... . .............. -.......... . . ' ... -.................... . . . . . . . . . . . . -.............. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......................... . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . '. •.• .................... . ';'i, : : : : : ).hlkf "! 11 5 ....... .. 120 ;_: 1_· 1_: \ !_ ! i. :. /:: (_ ;.: ~-;_:J.1. /_ i .. i. i. (_: j : 1] 1 \ j : \ :/:: . ~::::C$~.9 : ~: '. : '. ; : : ; :': : : ; : : '. I 7': : ; : : : : : ........................... ........................ -.. .......... ' ................ . .. . . . . . -................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 1--::-:-:-:-:-:-:-:~:~:-:~:-:-:-:-:-:~:-:-:-:-:~:~:~:~: ........................... ... ' ...................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • ......................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • • • • • 4 •••••••••••••••••••• 0 20 40 • % Water Content Plastio Limit I • I Liquid Lim it Natural Water Content JAG Devetopment Renton, Wash_i_nc,ton LOG OF BORING SWB'-3 60 December 1996 W-7443-03 SHANNON &. WILSON, INC. Goo~ and Ezw~om,ontol eo-,ltents FIG. A-5 S heet 2 of 2 Cl 2/7/17 MASTE!IL . MATERIAL DESCRIPTION it 0 = "' ... i Standard Penetration Reslstance ' ~ J Cu ~ (140 lb. weight, 30• drop) ' ii .s:. Q. ,. i • Blows per foot Surface Elevation: Approx. :l5 Feet c! Cl) Q IQ ,o .o1n j:;;(1 Gray, sandy GRAVEL; moist; (Fill) GW. i-; G ····1 . . . . ..... ' .. ' .............. . . . . ..... : : : . : : : : : : : : : : : : :.: . . . . . .... b,..t . . . . . . .. 2.& <:E ::.:::::~ . . . . ... . . Dense, gray, gravelly, fine to medium ........ ' ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . '. . ..... . . r 4 .0 ':-~ I IO O o I IO o I O • o O O o ...... . . . ~~AND; dry; slight sheen arid odor; (FIii) 6 . . ... ·-·· ....... . ... .... •• I 2I 10 . . . . . . . . ......... SP. : I . . . . ' ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... ' ... . t . . .. . .. . ~ ......... . . . . . .... . Loose, gray, slightly clayey, slightly silty sI ........ . . ' ..... ......... ~ .. i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . ' .... . . ' .... . . . ...... to sllty SAND; moist; scattered to 9 .5 •• ·1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ....... r 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ::::~~ • \~umerous wood fibers; slight odor; (FUii "I ~-······· .... 0 I IO 0 0 0 •II IO 0 . . . . . ' ... . ....... i . : : : : : : : : .... . . . . . . . . . . .. SP-SM. :::.:::: . ...... .......... 0 0 I O O O I 0 •I . . . . . . . . I• I• o o .. Soft and very loose, brown, slightly :•.::::::: ......... . ..... . . I O• Io Io O • ...... . . 1:1 15 0 0 o O •IO O 0 ............ I I IO•• clayey, sandy SILT, slightly clayey, peaty, •I ~ I••: : : : : : : : ... ..... -: : : : :1~o;a1 • r 1e.o 0 0 0 I . . . .. n organtc SILT, and gray, fine to medium ......... 1][ Q . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ........ IO I O I•• 0 0 . . . ... SAND; moist; numerous wood fibers; Cl • • 0 0 I • 0 0 0 0 0 IO O • 0 I . . . ..... •f .... IO •• . . . . . . . . . ........ . . . . . . . ........ 0 0 0 • 0 I O 0 (Depression Alling/Medium Alluvium) :, 20 .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. : : : ::~:1-~1 • SM/SP. I •I Q l•P.;::::::: : :•::::::: . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . f 22.0 . . . .... :::::::e: . . ..... ~:ery soft, brown, slightly clayey, peaty, I . . . . . . . . . . . .... •I ·~: : : : : : : : . . . ..... . . . . . . . . . . . ..... organic SILT; moist; numerous wood . . . . . . . . . ......... . . . ......... . . . . .... fibers; 1Depresslon Alling) OH, ,oI 25 ~· . . .. -.... . . . . . . .. 28.6 I•. : 0 0 0 o o IO I I ........ r . . . . . . . . . .. It O O O O 0 n Gray, lnterbedded, soft and very loose, . . .. .... ....... ,1I . . . . . . . . . . . .· ...... . . . . . . . . . . . ........ snty ClA Y and :SIity, fine SANO; wet; . . . . . . . . . . . ......... .::: . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 30 . . . . . . . . . . ..... scattered organics; (Lacustrlne Deposit) :::: uI ;;--....... . . ....... . . . . . . . . . . ..... . . . ..... ' CL/SM. ~ . . . . ' .... . . ...... . . . ' . ... 1~ 32,0 ........ ::e ::: . . . . . ....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... Medi.um dense, gray, gravelly, fine and ... 13I ......... . . . . . . . . . . . 33.5 · .. . . . .... . . . . . . . . . ........ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ fine to medium SAND, trace of silt; wet; 35 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... :::•~ uI . . . . . . . ....... . . (Coarse Alluvium! SW. • • • t ••• . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . ...... f.oose, gray, 11ne to medium SAND, trace 111I t I•• I IO• o . . . . . . . . . . ...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... • 0 I O O O I . . . . . . . . . ....... of snt; wet; (Medium Alluvium) SP. 39.0 . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . ......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... .... 40 Very loose, brownish-gray, fine sandy ... \ . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... .... . . . ' .... . . . . . . . . ....... . . ' ...... . . . . . . . . . . . ...... SILT with fine to medium SAND lenses , 42.0 ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. o IO• 0 I 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... .. . • • • ••I•• ... . . . . . . . . . .. trace of organic Slit and fine organics; . . . . . . . ... .. . ... '' .. . . . . . '•, . ' ...... . . . . . . ... . . . . ..... . . . . . . . . . 0 IO IO I .. . . . ..... 1wet; (Fine Alluvium! ML/SP. : 1sI 45 ···itN . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... . • ........ IO O IO O O • 0 . . ..... . Medium dense to dense, greenlsh-gray, .. . . . . . .. . ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... :·: ,1I ....... I IO I O o O O 0 .. I • o O o • • fine gravelly, fine to coarse SAND, local . . . ' .... . . . . . . . . . . . ...... . . . . . . . ' ~ .. . ....... ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... \trace of silt; (Coarse Alluvium! SP. ... 50 . .. ' ... '. . . . . . ... ·::.· ,.I . . . . . . . . ' ....... ? ...... .. . . . . . . . . '' ....... . ..... lnterbedded, medium dense to dense, ; .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... ::::::•: ::j).¥ . ....... ' greenish-gray, gravelly, fine to medium, ,,I ......... ... . ....... .. ' ...... ·.:• . . ....... . . . . . . . o • 0 • • 0 ••I fine to coarse SAND, trace of sUt; wet; ... . . . . . . . . . . . .. ......... 55 ......... 0 '•' • o O I I . ........ gravel lens at 47 to 48 feet; SP/SW. . ·: 20I .. • 0 0 I I : :, ""::::::::: . . ..... . . ... 0 0 0 I I .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... &7.0 i.,,..., . . ..... •······· ... ...... Medium dense, gray-brown, fine to .. '0 o •Io o ~· : : : : : : : ... . .. •::,· 21I . . . . . . ' .. . . . . ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. medium SAND,cM~Qf ~kt, ~~Uy fine :·: ......... IO O O 0 . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... .. LEGEND 0 20 40 60 • % Water Content • Sample Not Recovered [1I:] Surface Seal P[ast[o Limit I • I Liquid Limit I 2• 0.0. Split Spoon Sample IDll Annular Sealant Natural Weter Content :n: 3• O.D. Shelby Tube Sample GID P!ezometer Screen . ~ Grout i Weter Level ,• JAG Development -. Renton, Washington NOTES 1 . 'The wtratlficatlon Rnes to prHont the epproxlmate boundorin botween ao! typoo, end the tranaition ma y b1 gradual. LOG OF BORING SWB-4B 2 . Tho di1cu11lon In tho te><t of thi1 report la nocNsary for a proper undomond,ng of the nature of subsurface matorial1. December 1996 W-7443·03 . 3. Water level, lf indicated abov,, is for tho date specl!led and may vary. 4. Refer to KEY for explanation of "Symbols" and d efinitions . SHANNON & WILSON, INC. I FIG. A-6 5 . USC lmor 1ymbol baud on visual classlficstlon. Goo-6l>d En,roM\enlll eo,.....1ten111 Sheet 1 of 3 --' r- l f", ., .. ~.J J.:-· [ ..... ~·· [ .,·· L t· r r- t.. .. f . 1-- !• i ' ._, C ).- :..... r. ' -:--r --~ L ,_ ,. ,. ... , L ~ - i ... L ... r. -.. L ,,.,- '' i i...,, L trt'- "'·' L' [ L [" l: . ., [.·, ,., L . ,. MASTillLG 2/7/97 MATERIAL OESCRIPTION Surface Elevation: Approx. 25 Feet .sand; wet; (Medium Alluviuml SP • :1--=-=--::---:--......,..--,.------::-:--;;---i 73.0 Medium dense to dense, gray, gravelly, fine to coarse SAND and sandy GRAVEL, trace of $lit; wet tCoarse Alluvium) GP/SW. ... -:·-:. .. ··.· :;:.. -::.· ..... ,, ·· .. · .. :._. .. 1-,,...M,...e-,de--lu_m__,d-ens-e-,-g-ra-y-,-:::fl:-n-e"""t-o-m-e-d'='Ju-m----1 82'0 ft "\SAND, trace ofsllt; wet: SP. r 84.o ~ Very dense to medium dense, gray, fine to ::·· •• •. medium SAND, trace of slit; wet; slit tense • • . at 88 feet and ~attered trace of wood ·::: I"\ fragments; 1Me1'him Alluvlum) SP. . r eo.b ..;:.,. Medium dense to dense, Qfl!IY, sllghtly silty to slltY fine SAND, scattered organics a_nd s ilt lenses; wet; (Fine .Alluvium) SM. .--,,...,...~--,----,-......,...--------..-, 8 15.5 Medlum dense to dense, gray, trace to slightly silty, f ine SAND ; wet; scattered fine wood and organics; (Fine Alluvium) SP/SP·SM • -::: :•: •' .. . .;::. 3zI • .. ... -:·.·. . .. '• . ... I :·: 33 ·: ... -::-· ...... .• .· ·~ . •,. •,' .··: ,• .· ... I -::: • 35 '•, __ .......,.,. _________ .......,.,.-,-,----,,--1 113.0 •• •• Medium dense to dense, gray, slightly silty to sllty, f ine SAND; wet: scattered ffne organics and 1/4·lnch silt layers: (Fine A lluvl1;1m) SP·SM/SM. CONTWED NEXT PAGE LEGEND • Semph, Not Recovered :::C 2" 0.0. Sp lit Spoon Semple J[ 8 • 0.0, Shelby Tuba Sample NOTES Surfaca Seal Annular Sealant Plezomeler Screen Grout ;:. · Water Levo! 1. The ~alilicatlon llnew represent the approxl m~e bou ndulea b.iween wan types, l!nd the tr.ntltlon may bt gllldual. · .2. Tho dl11:~'ltlon In tlio text ofth!,.n,po°,tle ne~auary'for a prop&r' . · undatstandlng of the nature of aubrtlrface matoriel1. ' S'., Wat~r l~vel. It lndlcat4d ebov,; It for the date 1peciffed and may very. -i . Refer to ,KFN fer o)(J)lanllllon of 'Symbat,• end dof\nitlcn,. 6 . USC lottor •vmbol beeod on vl111ol cl0Hi~ocrtto 11 , · • ..... 80 Standard Penetration Resistance 1140 lb. weight, 30• drop) .A. Blows per foot ?n An- ............................ ........................... .................... . ' ............... . . . . . . .. . . ' ... \'.' .. 90 .. ' ........... '''' '. 0 0 0 0 0 I O • 0 0 0 0 0 o O o O o O O O O O O • W .......................... ........................... ............................ 0 0 0 0 Io O O o O O O O o I O O O O O O O O O 00 0 . . . . . . . . . ................ . . . . . . . . . . ................. . . . . . . . . . . ................ . 95 ........ ;,I •• , ••..•. : : : : : : : : : !Hiili/1 [&/i\1 11 1111 11 ,oo iii ii: iii i·-11-zni....,: :-i-i 1-1-: :-: 1-1-: :-1-1· ,os1-l-l-1l_1_1=-1 J-l +-l-!'""_~.,..ii-i-,1-l-t--ll-l "'."'l )-:./-l -:l!-· 110 " ... " .. . ... ' . ' . ' : : : : : : : : ·: 1:11::11: mm::: ItI 116 : : : : : : : : : I.A'.:: : : : : : : : : : :: : : : : : : ! : : ;,: : : t t I t t It;, .. ' ..... . ......... .. ' ..... . . . . . . . . . . . ....... . . . . .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' ..... . • • • • • • • • t ••••••••• . . . .... . . . . ..... . . . . . . . . . ' ... ' .. . ....... . ......... . . . . . . . . . ......... 0 40 60 • % Water Content Plastio Lim it I • I Liquid Limit Natural Watar Content JAG Development Rent on , Washington .,. 4,0G OF BORING SWB-4B December 1996 W·7443·03 SHANNON· & WILSON, INC. · 1 Gooc.ot,nlo~ ond £,,Y!rGnmootol C4nou~on• , .·... . ... . . FIG. A-6 She et 2 of 3 C . 1 r· . .... r. - [ _,, k" I [ r· r ~:· r , __ r L. [' ;.:- f..., [ J..-:- "-' r. L·- l _., L ' (<I L -· ·-· ...... ·L .. L .... ~ . L.. l.. ,l ··· ' i,_, L [" p r l , !- C . -~ ... [. L MASTERI.G 'J/7117 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Surface Elevatlon: Approx. 25 Feet ,, C 1.2:,.0 • Mediurn stiff to stiff, gray, silty LAY, ; .1 lamlnated, locally distorted and 12e.o : I\ slickenslded( fine sandy silt lenses lccalty; r I \wet; (lacusulne DeposltJ CL. Stiff to medium stiff, gray, silty CLAY; wat; {Lacustr1ne Deposit) CH. ._-------------,,---~ 141.0 ~ ·Dense to very del'\Se, gray, silty fine SAND, trace of organics and gravel and silty fine sandy GRAVEL (angular and partlally weathered); wet; ILandsllde or Mudflow Deposit) SM/GM. <, 'S ·, 1-----~--....,..,,,...,.....,.,,,.,,... ____ --1161.6' BOTTOM OF BORING COMPLETED 11/27/96 .,,.., . ·: .. ~ 3'I ,40I LEGEND • Sample Not Reoovarod I 2• 0.0. Split Spoon Semple JC 3" 0.0. Shelby T!Jba Sempre ... ·:.r4., Su,tiice·~e~( .. .Annular·Siielent Pi~ilmeier Sorann Gf~°l''.· .. Wai~r·i.eval 1. • -::,·., ..... . . ... 1, Tho .iratiflotton Unn roproco11t th" epproxlmnto boundorioo hotween sell tyr,K, and tho tron1ldon mey bo aroduiJ • 2. Tho dlscusslon in the hxt of 1h11 repc,rt la nooesa.ry for a proper undenitnnt!ln11 of tho nature of subturface materlels. • 3. Water level, tr !ndlcatod aliove, is for the date 1pecified and may vary. 4. Rtr ... to KEY for CXplanDtion aJ "Symbota• 1111d clolinltlona, 5, USC loner aymbol boud on vlsuel cla,isific!llion, .' i Standard Penetration Resistance .i! (140 lb. weight, 3o• dropJ i ..._ Blows per foot l'i O 2ll.. 40 · i/UIIT!!Si 1/!!lH ,2.s ::::::;..VH\L ::::::::: ··171·" .................... . . ' ....... : : : : :,: :! : ..•...... j: /: :.:. 1_ · .. :· ::. :::. ::.. ~-. f, :_, ;.· :_. ~. :.. :_. ~-~-~ f ~ ~ ~ f ~ ~ i .. ........ :::::'t4.9.2. 130 ·PK······ ................ _ · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · : : : : : ~Pi1: t uii;:1111111H111 iiniii ii 13si--:--:.~;..:,_;,~i...:..:....:....:....:...:...:..~..:.;_:....:....:...;_;.,_::...:..i :!::::/!! m+uli!! ::::::::: 140 . • .. . .. • . :"':\ : : : : : '.;)*. , U ! I 1 1 l 1 I I L ! I I Ii~ ! I 1 ! n it • • 0 •a•. a O O O O O a O o O O IO• 0 •• 0 O I 145 ...... ' ........... " .. ' .. ' .. . Uil!!Hi !/i!U /m+S ········· ......... 1~;~~~ 150 : : : : : : :•: ..... " .. '.'. ' ..... : : : ; : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : =~~- , a a O I a o. O • o < o O Io O • o O • o O O O O o · I O O O O O O O O o o O O O O O O O • 0 0 IO O • .6 • ................................ O O I t O I O O O oe O O O IO o o O O • O •.I o O O O O IO IO O O O O IO O O O O O O O O O O o I If 155~.-·:~:~:-:~:~::-:+-'--:~:~:~::~:~:~:-:~:-:-:-:~:~:~::~:-• o o o o •Io Of I I' Io •• o O • 0 0 o Oo o O O t I O IO IO t O O IO IO O O I O I 1 0 o O O O o o 0 I O O O o O O O O • o o o O O IO O I• 0 0 • 0 0 0 0 ....................... '.-... o o O o o I IO O o o o o O IO o o o o o o Io• o 0 : : : : : '; : : : ~ : : : ; : : : : : : : : : : : : : 1 so~:-:-:-: -: :-:-:-: ..... :-:-: -: :~:-:-: ""'": 1-:-:-: :-:-:-: -: :-• . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . .. . . . . . .. . ~ i i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i i ~ f ~ -~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ....... ' .................. . • o • • • t • •., • t •' • • o.,' •I•••• o o • 165~:...;..:..;..:.:....::c...::...;..:-:.:.....: ~:...;..:~::....:::~:...:...:.:....::;.+,;.:-:-::~:..;..:..;..:.:....::-• 04 0 0 p 4 ,o O • 0 0 0. 0 0 o o I O I O • 0 • 0 0 • .................................. o ,o • • 0 I 4 • • 0 0 0 4 0 o O o • • 4 0 4 o O O O • If f o o •IO• o •II o o o o • • 1 o o I o I o t ............................. . .......... ' .............. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 1701-:-:~:~:-: -: :~:-:-i-:-: -: .~· :-:-:-:-: ~:-:-:-:-: -: -: :-:1 o o o o o o • 0 0 0 • o o . 0., ••• 0 0 0 0 0 o I• 0 o I o o • t • • • ' o I • o t I • • + • I I I • t • • . . . . . . . . . . ....... ' . . ....... . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • + •••••••••••• . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . '• o t • t ,• • O 'O O t I I • t t o • o o •a t to ... , ....................... . 1751-;-;-;-; ;-;-;-;-; I,-;-;-; -; ;-;-;-; -i; i-;-;-; ;-;-;-; -; ; ... o o o a e •• 0. o O • • 0 .0 .f • 0 4. 0 I I •• o 0 0 O • • • • • O • 0 O • I o I o o O O o • o O t o • o :·:·::::::: • • • • .. • • • • .. ••• + ..... : : : : : ~ : : : : : ! : : : : ; : : : !:~ .: .. : : : : . .................. . . . . . . .. . . . ... . . .. . . . .. 0 20 40 '6( • % Water Content Pla1tlo Umlt J • I Uquld l imit . Nettmil Water Content JAG Development Renton, Washington LOG OF BORING SWB-4B December 1996 SHANNON &. WILSON, INC. I . -~..., £mh-c:o...ut1 .. i. .W-7443·03 AG.-A-6 Sheet 3 of 3 [ l. [ c: r r r L ( r r. r . L [ L. 1 . -. .. .., J:.·--· ,c-- M 1-· ·r ;..,.,. I __ r ;.- I• r r , .... - MASTE!ILC W/97 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Surface Elevation: Approx. 25 Feet Brown, slightly silty SAND; moist; SP·SM. 1---------------,,-,.---,----, 2 .0 Medium stiff, light gray, slightly sandy, gravelly, clayey SILT; moist; chalky odor; (Fill -Kiln Dust?) ML 1--------------,,-,--,---.,.,----, 9.0 Very lqose to loose, gray, slightly silty, fine to medium SAND; wet at 10 feet; lenses and pieces of slightly silty, clayey ~ silt; wood fiber at 12.5 feet; 1Fill7J SP-SM . _ Very soft, brown, slightly clayey, peaty, organic SILT, lenses of gray, fine to medium SAND and fine sandy slit; wet; (Depression Filling} OH. 15.0 1--------------="----~ 26.0 lnterbedded, soft to medium stiff, gray, clayey, and f ine sandy SILT and loose to very loose, gray, slightly silty, fine to medium SAND;.wet; (Depression Filling/Medium Xnuvium) ML/SM. 1-----.....,..---..,------,,--,--,-----l 35.0 Medium dense to dense, gray, slightly silty, sandy, fine to coarse GRAVEL; wet; creosote odor; cobbles at 39 feet; (Coarse Alluvium) GP-GM. .. -------------------l 42.0 Very loose, gray, clean to slightly silty, fine to medium SAND; wet; slightly gravelly at 45 feet; faint creosote odor; oxidized soll at 47.5 feet; {Medium Alluvium) SP-SM. 1------------------~ 51 .0 ~ ;Loose, slightly clayey, silty, fine SAND; f oxidized; no creosote odor; (Fine Alluvium) SP·SM. Loose to medium dense , gray, fine to "'\ medium SAND, trace silt; wet; (Medium [ Alluvium) SP. 52.0 58.0 ...._...._ _______________ ....,_~ 61.0 Loose to medium dense, gray, sandy, fine to co.~rse GRAVEl; wet; (Coarse Alluvium CONTINUED NEXT l'AGI: LEGEND. : l . I • .. .. .. .. ·. :. " • • m 1I 2I 3I 4I 6I •I ,I •I •I ,oI ,,I 12I 13I 14I \6I '"E 11 I "I aI 20I 2,I 22E 23I 24I • Sample Not Recovered :C 2• D.D. Spfi t Spoon S4mple .][ 3" D.D. Shelby Tub~ ~11mpl11 Surf•c:e Seal Annular .S4alant Pie~omeler S c:re c,n Grout · :~.; Water Level t:!QI§ · 1. Tho -atification Rn" represent the a pproximrte boundariec botwoon •oil typec. and the transition may be graduel. 2.. Tho di•~""sion in th11 t11xt of thie report ia necacsary for a propltl" uhderstancfing of tho nature of subsurface materials. 3. Wat.or level. If indicated above, la few th• date epeclfied 11nd may va ry. 4. Refer to KEY for oXplar,ation of "Symbol,· and dofiritlona. 5. USC letter symbol b•od on vi1u al clac1iflc1rtlon. ~ Cl & == 0 Cl C ·;; :, 0 ti. .i= ... a. D Standard Penetration Resistance (140 lb. weight, 30• drop) A Blows per foot C 0 20 An ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................. . .. -..... -........ . .................. .......... . . . . . . . . . :::::~~,. ......... ......... : : : : : : :1.1:i , ......... ......... ......... . . . . . . . . . ......... ......... ......... : : : : :is e;s:i~ '~: : : : : : : : : . : : : : : : : : : ll.-" ._._._._._._._.+-: _: _:_ ·. :_:_:_:_·-:-:-:-: :~~~11 • . ....... . 20~::: :: 1-\ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : : : : :··§2;~·4 ~ . . . . . . . . . ......... . . . . . . . . . 25 i:_ }·:_: ·.·· i_ )_: ::_· ~:.· _(_·. [:_ i 1 • :: ( 1 ( : : : : : : : : : :_. =. ·.: =.:~ ... <. :. : : : : : : : : : : : ~ ,: : : : : : 30 : .. :: : : : : •· ;_ ;_; __ ; ;_ ;_ ;_;_ :: : :: :: : : .. : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :• ::.::::: -....... . . . . . . . . . . ........ " :::::e ::: ......... . . . . . . . . . ......... . . . . . . . . . ......... : : : : :·:::: 45 f:J i Ii 50 !!X: f : 55 • •4'.lli -: ......... ......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... ......... . . . . . . . . . ......... ......... ' ....... . . . . . . . . . . . ....... . . ....... . ......... . ....... . ......... . ....... . 60 ::::::::: ::~::::: ::::::::: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... . . . . . . . . . .................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' ........ . 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 40 • % Water Content Pl as t ic:'Limit I. • I Liquid Limit Natural Wat11r Content JAG Development Renton, Washingtbn 60 LOG OF BORING SWB-8 · Decembe r 1996 W-744 3-03 SHANNON &. W ILSON, INC. I Geotachnlcel O<>d E,wwormentel Cenoultento AG. A-8 She1et 1 of 2 -·--··--·. -·· ···----···---··-..... -· .. --··-··---··------·--·-----· ·--··-.. I C •r I [ If · Ir I f I f. Ir I f I f_ t.. ' .. '· ·-- T --, !" J.-- '· :.-- r , :• f ,..._ [ r· L MAS11:RLG UJ/97 MATERIAL DESCR IPTION .i 0 41'1 ., Surface Eevation: Approx. 25 Feet .i= .c ~ E Q. > ID Cl) 0 a. .E ·m en : L ., :.Z5...L \GP. / Stratified, medium dense, gray and brown, trace of silt to silty, fine to medium SAND and silty, sandy GRAVEi..; wet; (Medium and Coarse Alluvium) SP-SM/GM. Stratified, very dense to dense, gray, gravelly, fine to medium SANO, trace of silt, and gray, sandy GRAVEL; wet; (Coarse Alluvium} SP/GP. . ::. ... 83.0 .I t : L I .I -· t : L ·1 .l t :l ., I t : l I .; u. ·- .. .. ·- .. .. -. . .... J-------,,-----.,.,.---=-:-:-:-=------1 101.0 ~ Dense, gray, fine to medium SAND; wet; (Medium Alluvium} SP. ·-. ·. : . .. ; .. .. ·-· 1-----=e=o=n=o-:-M~o=F-=Bc-:0:c:R:-:,IN=-==G----! 121 ·52 COMPLETED 11/15/96 LEGEND Sample Not Recovered I 2" 0.0. Split Spoon Sample J[ 3~ O.D. Shelby Tube Sample Surface Seel Annular Se11l11nt Piezometer Screen . Grout i Weter level 1. The stratlficsilon llnec reprecant the approxlmirto bounderrcs batween . 1oil typoc, and the tran1ition may ba gr,lldual. 2. The dlscuuion in the text of this report is nceecurv' f;,, a proper . · under.tending of tho nature of subsurface matcriat1. · 3.·Wate,-level,. if 0 indicat~ above,·;, for the data s~ifil!d and may vary. 4. Refer to KEY for explanation of "Symbols" and definitions. 5. USC letter ayinbol becod on vieual clacsificirtian. · "O .. C ., ::, ... c3;: ~ u.. .i= -C. Cl Cl 0 Standard Penetration Resistance (140 lb . weight, 30• drop) ..t.. Blows per foot 20 40 Fm 75 : : : : : : : : : ......... -...... -....... -. . . . . . . . . . . . . . -........... . so~:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:~:~:-:-+-:-:-:-:-:~:~:-:-:-:-:-:-:-: :-1 : 1~:::::: : : : : : : : : : ::~::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::~::: ......... ......... ......... ......... 85r.-.-.-.-.-.. -.-.+-.-.. -.-.-.-.-.. --1-:-.~.~--~-~---s~s""' : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : . :· .. ........................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -.. . . ......................... . 90 ; ; ; ; ~,;--; -; -; 1-;-;-;-;-;-;-;-;-;-+-;-;-;-:-;-;-;5,-·2~·," .................... -..... . 95 : : : : : : : : : j\j/j[/j\[l /1 :0 j jjf j[(j[li>()j)f =: =: =:::: v~ ~ ~::::. 1001-:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:+-:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:~:J+-:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:--I: ......... . . . . . . . . . ii!L\11! \!\/1!1 \!!!\l\1!! : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :: r-,.: : : : : : : : : 1051--.. -.-.-.-.-.. -.-+-.-.. -.-.-.-.-.. --t-'<\_~=-1·---.-.-t. : 1 l I I I i I 1 11111 I I I! i iNl l li l 110-:-:-:-: :-:-:-:-: •:::: :: : : . ....... . ......... ········•·£• 1151-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:+----~-+-,,-.--~1 ···•·:•••:•··!/••it• 1201---: :_:_:_:_:_: -: :-;· c...:_:_:_: _: ~..,.,: :~:-;+-: -: :_:_:_;_:_: -t: ........................... ........................... . . . . . . . . . . . -. -............ . ........................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125t--.. -.-.-.-.-.-.-.~.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.--~.---.-.-.-.-.-.-.• ............................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 20 40 • % Water Content Plastic Limit 1 e I liquid limit Natural Water Content JAG Development Renton, Washington LOG OF BORING SWB-8 60 December 1.996 W-7443-03 FIG. A-8 Sheet 2 of 2 40 26.4%-101 N •~ 29.0o/o- N =I 96 _i 164-5%-35 N =4 26.1 %-IO I N , 17 4 2.2 °/0 -72 N •S . 0 22.4%-105 N=19 9.4%-131 N=4 0 14;.5o/o-12 1 N=70 4 ,8 %-1 21 N=40 N=70 7.9%-1~4 N = I B ~\lcio-118 15Jo/o-l 14 N = 70 N• 40 N• eo 123%-120 -50 N = 60 24.6°/0 -104 N,=3 7 23 .0o/o 21.3 %-106 20.0"/o-108 -70 N ,100 BORING 64M L OCATION ' Sta . 35 + 38 ( 20' U .) ELEVATION' 31.7 DAT E DRILLED 1-1 I to 16-63 t.f';~· 1-:,..,;1 ~ 1Jf1 ~ f, 1, '!II f:Ji' f(i~i I~~ ~ ~ 1tr.-:1 w, ,.1·,!1 ·"·· ~ ~,1 t-',:":-1 r.~}l r -.<1 ... , ~ I· . ;i·~., r~-~ , .. -, h/1 f "··.', i\~.I (~-1 . ··1 t~:,_;_·., ~ ,,~;:1 ~ l 1f.1 ; ;,_·, lfi,ij •;;i -'.IJ. ! SROWN ANO GRAY SANO ANO SI LT WITH GRAVEL ANO ORGAN IC MATTER -FILL, SOF T TO MODERAT ELY FIRM MOTTL ED BR OWN-GRAY VERY FINE SANDY SILT WITH FIN !: SANO L E NSES -SOFT INTERBEDOED BROWN PEAT, P EA T Y SILT, SI LTY FINE SAN D AND GRA Y F INE-MED. SAND I N LAYERS-SOFT ANO LOOSE CAS I NG AT E L . 11, BOR ING AT EL 7, OVERN IG HT WATER LEVEL AT E L. 19.4 GRAY SILTY VERY FINE SANO GRAY SANO AND GRAVEL WITH SOME SILT GRAY FIN_E -ME D. SAND GRAY GRAVE L WITH COARSE SAIIO-CLEAN BROWN SANO ANO GRAVEL BROWN FINE -MED . SAND WITH SOM E SANDY GRAVEL L flYERS -DENSE . CON TAI NS TILL AND FIRM CLAY FRAGMENTS BROWN FINE-VERY FlNE SAND WITH SOME SI LT MID SANDY Sll.T LA~INA TIONS -OE NSE BROWN -GRAY FINE -ME D. SAND -OEN SE, CLEAN OVERNI GHT WATER LEVE L AT EL . l 6 . '· \: ... PORT QU ENDAL L Re n t o n , Wash i ngton ---. May 17, 1983 oate Dri lled B 4" Ho l low S,e;.1Auger Log of Boring N o . Bl-I-.:i Re m a rks ·,,pe of or,ng ·--------------- 1 · ~~rn~e~r~Vv:..:._;e~ig::_.:..:.h~t--F===;~=;=======================---===========================,:::::==~==========:...l .a ----~ ~ "' ... ., Q. . ~ E " Q • 1/) 0 ---- 1 - - -.... 2 -,.. s-3 .- 4 - -5 . -. ' : 10 - - ..;, -. 6 - 15- - - - -7 20 - - - L - ~oj , No. ~ ' .. ;; J Q a:l 0. 002 56 0.93 4.8 MATERIAL DESCR I PTION Sur face Elt>,a~ro n 23. 4 FILL ~oodchip s and Agg regate >-u C ..J C ::c .... ..J <.; <;. C A' ..J ..J i..... -3: _,.. <.., r' ... ':; <: 1-------------------------.i - SANDY SILT (H L ) ./".... Oliv e-g ra y, occ a s i onal gr a vel/len ses, distinct ive HC odor t hrough~t ( l ~ "· .... i-Beco~es less sa nd y T ,· . ,; ; . . '-~ " < ~ "·~ "' "--.. "· '. ' ' --- --- --- - - ..0 u > Q.. 0 .J:. u C - < "'"" -C 8 .. "" -- 0 .002 \.later l\~i t h so me organ (; deb /i'·s, -=-= _.52_ ------------------------1 - I N 14 0.001 27 25 0 .009 9 0029 A I -.... S I LTY SAN D (SM ) ·--... ' ... ... , Mediur-to i..i ne,-...2 ci;; ~dt, freq u ent pea t lenses ·,'·.~om;·,disti~ct ive odor \/,.--., --,Pe at le ns \__BOTT OM OF SORING "-19 .5 ' Woodward· Clyde Consultants / ---.. I;--:.'::- --- --- ---1-;_-.-- - --Vl --- --- - .- - - - - 0 .J:. u C 'I N Ap p end i x A-1 HC004701 project : ---:;ate Drilled Type of S or 1ng PORT QUENDALL Renton, ~ashington May 17, 1933 4" Hollow Stem Auger Log of Boring No. gu-2 R emarks . ------------------ -, H arnrn~m~e'..,'.r_W~er'.::9.:..:h..:_t --,· ==7==r=========::::::::::::::::===:......:==============r==;;:::=====J ~ -~ .. . I,. ... .. . 7. ,,,, .:: E Jt 0 0 E ~ Vl a) 0 -...- 52 - ,. - 2 33 - s~ 3 8 -.. 4 I 44 - -5 27 -- ! 10- - - - 6 10 -- 15 - - - -.... -7 34 20- - - - < MATER IAL DESCRIPTION Surface Ele v at ,on 20. 8 FILL Silt, Gravel and black organ ic debris >- 0 C ....J 0 J: ~ ....J 1------------------------~ -- 0 .002 0 .003 Water -5L < < 0.001 < S I LTY SAND (SM) ~ Olive-gray, damp, occas i ona l· ., 1 en ti cu 1 a r grave 1 s a nd pea.{./"'-.. "-, i n t e r bed s ',/ "-, "-.. l Peat "'-, '• ~ ,... v1 /) / ,! 1// .. ··. __ ' / .,. f "' _, " -...,, / "-.... (_ ' ·-. "' -. -.._ } (·~ ...... '---.. '>!...__ ------\ \ ............ ·~ \\\ /.,,.._ • .._I . , r .. ~. y / \ ( \ \ \i' ~ BOTTOH OF BORING@ 19.5 ' - -- - - - .. --- - - - - -~ --. - -... -. . .. ~ ~~--~::-: - - - - u > 0.. 0 ..c u C I N V, u ;::, 0.. Cl ..c u C I N - -< - r--. ~O-:j:-.• '-L,o-.L...l.-9-o_o....12_9_A--rl......J.. _____________________ _1_-4-_A_p_p.L.e-n_d_'1...l.x-L-A---2-j __ " Woodward,Clyde Consultants HC004702 ,....-...-----. C t · pro J e · PORT QUEH DA LL log of Boring Renton, \Jash i ng_ton No. 4 ----Ha y 18, 1983 Rem arks oate Dr illed jype of Bor ing ~" Hollow St e r., Aui;e r Hemmer We i ght --£ .. :: >-: .. .. l:) -" ~ ........ ~ i ii MATERIAL DESCRI PTION C ....J & E • 0. .. - -J .... < ~ 0 !: .. 0 .... ;.. .. en CD C ::t == ... C c . V :: C -Svrtact E l t vat,on .... C.'--' - l 26 < FILL 60 c ' ------S i 1 t with a gg regate b • <; ' - -~O 0-~ \, -A , -- 0 C)~ , ----J Ct C -_:,_(_ ~ -"-"-, s-SANDY SILT (HL) -.. - lenses V I 2 Oa r k brown, occasion~· J'"pea: _,,___ ~· ~----// -.":"""' -. -' --·~ - }Lo; / 1 • ~1;,' - ' --- '-.., --v '' --~-· , -t FI L L ,, I "~ '· ,--. ./ ., ,--.. .... --, -.. CLAYEY SILT ~1S~(:--:, -----3 2 0.056 -- 10-/ ' Black , mediu,--·9fi],v°'p·f'a stic , · --' , --noticeable HC~ o['and iridescent ~ -' --"" I ' -N 4 18 o.~4 ~ome peat '; --I , ·- . \ .. ,_.._ 0 ' --... -()(~- 0, ' ..=..::... ::J ---c.. -' -. , --~ 4 3.4 -.., - 5 --·--C: . - Ir es~nt t h rouchou t --0 ' ' -/ -~ ..... ~ --C: 15-< ti ---ID \ -\ -I ( -----... ' -, --\ ' -~ , ,_.._ - (CH) ' -- Brown, with occa sional peat lenses -' 6 -7 0.75 ' -I ' ---\ ' . 20-.. \ , ------I --\' -----' - 1_ -7 2 0 .041 rBOTTOH OF BORING @ 23' '1 -, ,· ~-I ~roj. No. 90029A I Woodward,Clyde Consultants Appe n dix .A-1' --· ---------------------- ---oa1 e D ril led PORT QUENOALL Renton, ~as hins t on Ma y 20 . 19 83 6 11 Hollow S terr. Auger Log of Boring No. 5 Remarks T~pe of Soring ~a,r,~m~e~r~VV:e~1~g~h~t~:;::::.~==,=====================:.....===========================;:===,:==========~ L.----" -~ >-t:; : I... .; f ~~! MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 0 ..J . & r. .. 0 ---- - - - - 0. E Cl 1/1 2 3 5-4 . .. -rt ' -5 .l -6 - 10- - - -.. -7 15- - - -.. 8 - 20- - -9 ---· al ~ u 10 0.73 10 1. 0 16 0.90 20 o.89 24 0.89 Surface E te\'a1 ,or.· FILL S i lty Sand (SH), brown, dry , some organic debris/rootle t s ;J (,.~~ TBecomes da mp, p itch~agm ents and"b.l ac k Water fibres , wit h not i ce i~ HC odor " - 0 :t I- --- ---.. - .:sL / ~ . S l L TY CLAY (CH-CL) / / /; _:_:_ 01 i ve-gray , mediun(to'b_)-9h -'plasticity, ~ occas i ona l b l ac k fil)lo.es S.:.b r ick fr a gm e nts ~ . ""· ---o. 006 ~-----------......;~-------1 -............. ? 29 26 0 .006 •.· r~..._ ; ---.. S l L TY SANO (St;)~ ---·- Gray, medium\t o.,.c 9Sr.5e.,._ltl is tinct ive HC odo r and i~~e~{~~nt s heen ~'., //-·' i · (<'../)I':::..::') "' ( ~"' \ ) ~ . ~- V-"/ < ~-' C<0cen t cat ed coo tam; na t; on ~ 1 -,-~ 1 ticeable HC od o r a n d i ri desc ent • ,A'heen; some rapid corpora tion of lig~ter fractions no ted ,. 9 ::}, '--Concentrated contaminat i on --,-_- -.. --- -· - - ---- -· -.-:-_-:- . .... ~ -~~..;;"ii 1-----------------------------1 .. 12 0.-7 1 CLAYEY SILT to SANDY SILT (MH-ML) Brown, some odor ,r--soTTOM OF BORING @ 23• --- 0 ~ t CJ .r::. u "' .:::, 0 .c u C: '"O QI .., ._ -....; < ... - 3: c 0 - "' - u - :> -c.. - - C - ..r:: -u - C: - I ~ - ~oj. No. 90029A I Woodward•Clyde Consultants Appendix A-5 TI p,oject : PORT QUENDALL log of Boring No. Renton, Washington 8 oate o, died May 19, 1963 Remarks 6" Ho l lo.-J Stem Auce r Type of Bo, ing Hamrne1 Weight -C .. ;: '? >- :: .. .. u a. ' ~ i i-MATERIAL OESCR I PTION 0 -' -. .. -' < ~ E • ..J 0 ~ .. -2 I.., I- r. 0 u :: V> ii> C '-.. e ;: ~ 0 ---Sud.ace E i f'<i1•on ~ --- 1 36 o.86 FILL ----(ML) , ~ Sand y silt dark brown, damp --------0.054 2 53 /> --.. - d' . d 1~~~ • 3 0 .013 SIL TY SAND (SM) --I -01 ive-gra y , -me I um g ra I ne ,~ , 1 1 rrc-l1 ve -- ~~ HC odor a nd iridescent she'eri · "' ... ,. ... ~ .. C: ' ·~ ... -.·· ... ~ 5-4 19 0.94 ' - CLAY ( CH) : Lig ht gray, ,l'J'i ghl y plastic .,. --~ ...__ u -.. SANO (SW): Bl ack, HC jdpf and .sheen ... > ~ ,' ~ ' 5 4 4 1. 2 ( CH) : ,. CLAY light gr&¥ ' -,. f ---C "I,.: ~ . CL AY ( CH) : Brow n "-"' 1----''~ ---6 '---L u 30 1 . 1 "' ; .. V SIL TY SAND (S~}·--'-.. ... C --.. ·- SL Gray, 30% s'i l~~eable HC odor an d . . .. I .. ..: Water d b ~ . d --·,<'.1 • • d . . ... 10-abun a n t r rr'\ ) -~~/ 1 r I escent --: .. :_: ·_;· .. sheen \ '·"/' ' .. . . ---. \ . ..-"\ \) -· '•,. -/ . ..-, i ,r .. • ... ~ '/ ,J..' ·, ---~ s4n~ x~tj-0,) ,__ ----= L·"'l_,ht ~wn,"highly pla st ic, s ome I---I 7 12 l. 8 ---org~~c ~bris (wood) --"t) -.... ~ Q) - / ]SAN'Xs eJ --15--.. .... -.. < ~~-0 - · ·nish gray, 3Q% sand .. --"' -- ~) ---· -.... '-' . . .. .. > --~ .. Q.. ---., ... ·. -....--- ~y --0 -------CLAY (CH -CL ) --- 8 Dar k brown, occasional sand lenses i-----.r:. - 19 1. 3 --u -~ ----·--~~ i-----I --..:r -- 20- 1~ 1 --·~ 1.-.,.. • t ~ .. --1;,. : =: .. T8ecomes gray ~ ~:·:· .. ·.: : - 22 --- I----...=. -~~ ~ 9 27 0.042 24 -~ BOTTOM OF' BORING € 24.5' .... Pro· No. 90029A I Woodward-Clyde Consultants App e ndix A-9 J. - ----· --·-·- .. ~ p r oject : PORT QUE NOA LL Log of Bo ri ng No . 9 Re nton , Was h ing t on -Or i tie d Ma y 16, 1983 Rema rk s o a te Ty pe o f Sori n g 4 " Hollow St e m Auge r Ha mmer Weigh,: ~ e ; .. i: !? > ., ; u 0 ;:-::t i ~ MATER I AL DES CR IPTION 0 ...J - .& E " < ...J ...J < ~ E Q. ~ -0 1.1.J lo- C, ... I: ~ lo,; ! u, al 0 J: C " !:: Surfac e Elevation : ...J ~ ~~ . - FI LL b-;ec ,,. . 1 0.00 5 '·, -Si 1 t, wi th s ome gra v e 1 s . e b-,, . .. i--,.....,,_- - -1. 7 TAR : Bl a ck, disti ncti ve HC od o;Q -,I,. --. 2 --with o cca si onal f ra gme s,. t-' 6:: . ~e me nt .· , I _4_::::-. -1 · •. I ,,. 3 2.2 :J.--. SAND: Bla ck s t a in w ith o do r//'~ -~ ,,. -( / "'-... ' '--\,load .. ' ... . ' ' •. . ' s-~/ -.. v "' ,._ I ;i : ' -.· -~-I/ ... . : ·-/ / . ' . ·. , ' I. <. ./ / .. 4 10 1. 3 ' .. ' -- CLA YE Y SILT (MH ) . ~ <.., --~ .,. ----\' 5 4 0.014 0 1 ive -g ra y , da mp, s o ft~finct i ve --U"I / , o do r /-. • ....._ · --C'I -•• -~' . '~~ --I / , 6 1.0 \ ........ ......., --0 \ 9 .... ,\/'J ~~~ ~ 10-:} Brown -0, ::i ,-. -< --c.. ~ ,· ---~ .... .,., /;' ) ... --·-.; \ ... C: .. ./'\ J.,,·--.,. --0 ., / / J ' ... { ,.... . ~-~.~ ",. --C: -•• ~ ,,. -, "( --.. Cl ' \ .. •. \. 7 25 0.03 . SI LT~ND,(SM) ·. --:-~· / -so r ted, .. ·-loo ~dium"{o!fi ne , poorly . . . 15-< ~;nct'f ~e ;.;descent shee n ·..:,_ ...;... ,, -·-/ I,, n odor ,n s a nd ,-.. . --· 1--( .. ., ,' .. :.. ..... ,._, -' .. .. •, \ - ' '• .. ···--,• -\/ --'C LA YEY SILT (MH ) --., 8 28 ( ~ ,, .. Olive-gray, s 1 i g ht odor -"·' c=__- 20-~ BOTTO M - OF SOR I NG @ 19 . 5 . . .. ~ . -...... ~oj. No ~ 9:0029A I Woodward-Clyde Consultants App e ndix A•11 .... ~ ...----. -t--------------,~--------------- pr OJ e C : POR T QUENOALL Log of Boring No. Renton, Washington ~ o, i II e d -~Ma=..XL--.:..1 7:.....,..., _1:...:9:...:8:...:3:....__. _____ _ fypeofBorong 4'' Hol low Ste r:i Auoer Remar ks t,l,mmer Wei gh t. ;: .. !! Q J: E 0 0 !, u, -- -. -, 29 -.. 2 . 20 - s-3 l - 53 ; 4 40 -• - - 10- - - -. 5 19 -~- 15- - - -. 6 4 - 20- - - 7 T 2 '- 0.004 < MATERIAL DESCRIPTIO N Su rf ace Elevat ion . >- 0 0 . _, 0 ~ _, f'ILL : S i lt, dark brown --1----------------------~ -~-~ FILL : Silt, with organics Sll~Y SAND (S M) // ( Gra y, mediu m to ·fine, oc~~~_c(n~ "'. gravel lenses, a nd orga ni c "'·""' ' / ~;.._ i--= .=: --------~ -_:j·;.: - -,•·t . •. t . 0.00 1 ...5J_ Water ;v?h V --,.;.-.· -~- <.. I "< ,, ,, -'~I <~~ \ '\../7/'-• .. ./ \\ ' ~ \ :..·~~) ~~/~~~\~··~~~~-~ I < ,; .r--... ..... / ,-.,.., "' SA!'t~ 's1t'I' / cb<Y EY SI L T (ML -MH ) Br o~~ ~mp,.soft, ab und ant organ,~r,s -· --- -·----::-- -.--· --- -.---.. --- 0 .003 .Q .001 <Q -_ _..:_ -'---.-_-, '-- 0.003 j < v SILTY SAN O (SM) Gray, 40% silt, abundant organ i c debr i s SILTY CLAY (CH-CL) Brown, damp , medium to h i ghly plastic ~ BOTTOM Of' BORING@ 23 ' .. ·.· .. -:: ..... .. ·. •. ~-·: _:_·::·-.·· .. .. . --·· 12 -' -< '-.... :: c -I'd Q.I 1/'1 ~ ... ·-~ . -" C It: -.D (..) > CL 0 - ~ u C ·-I = ~ I -0 -C: -l'C 1/'1 --~ -.., -·--:J --. --c -CIJ ... -... - 0 ---"' - (..) -> -(L -- C ---- J::. -u -C: ---I ~ - \ - -- I ~Oj • No. 90029A l Woodward·Clyde Consultants Ap p end ix. A-14 PORT QUENOALL Renton, Washington ~D,, I I ed . __ M_a..:.y_l _8.;.., _19;;..8...;3;;.._ ______ _ 0' · 4 " Hol l o w Stem Auoer Log of Boring No . 14 Rem arks .----------------- h'Pe of Baring -~e:_r ~W~e~i~g~h~t-r=;~=;:=====================--==============r==r======-l ~1rT"•'_'. L..----.§ :.. . z. 0 ! -- - . - : I.. • "' .;:,-~ ~ ~ .E g 1:1. t: - :, iD 8 0.022 2 43 0.007 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Surface Eieva 1,on : FILL Silt and Gravel Aggregate, slight odor, occasiona l pitch fragments and wood s-3 26 TPitch fragments 0 .OO? Water _sz__ - 4 28 - -5 20 . 10- - - - 6 7 -. lS-'- - - - 7 .. 20- - - - < 0.009 < / ; /', SILTY SAND (SH) ( ~// Dark gray , medium,~tcri-~<ed, occas i ona l thin grave'l -~ i n'terbeds ' ......... ~) t~r=·-~d ~~ /~) \, L<) )·~ ~~ ~fine sand TGrades V--I <K) . ~~~.,.. < PEAT With clav, brown, highly plasti, "-BOTTOM OF BORING€· 19.5' ~roj. No. 90029A I Woodward,Clyde Consultants ..J _b ~. •, 0, 0 • 0 ,--1;,~o_t , b •• 0 ., ---~Co O '1 b 00 DO .-- 0 0 0 0 l 4 --- " • '(J "' CC ' - --- - - - --· - -. •· - - -. . .::::~ ------- - - - I 0 er: ::::, -· ....: < u.. ~ :: c .,. J, - I • ' ... / ... v ._ , ; ; ' C. . , cu .., C , 0 • -..., ,- c: (-_! ·, . ··.--: ., , '" / \ \ ., - I I/'- ; :. I '~ Append i x A-16 project ·PORT QUENDALL Log of Boring No . 15 Renton, 'washing ton -Drilled . Ha y 1 7 , 198 3 Rema rks oate Type of Bor ing · 4" Hol !ow Ste-Auoer Hammer We i ght · ..--.c >-.. ~ !: ; .. 'i c.:;, ...J . 7. ;;-. ~ ii MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 0 ...J - &. E It c ...J c:i: i. 0 C. .. Q Lo; .... 0 u ~ w ! ll'l ii: C 0 ~ C u --Su rfact E 1tva11on ..; FILL: Si 1 t, dark. brown --, 58 0.004 -----~I\ .. .. SANO {S'w') .. --.. Hedi um to fine, occasional g ra\tt'·l .. .. - and c l a y lenses, s 1 i gh t / ttl HC odo ( tJ -/ ·. -"' ·. '. · ... CJ 0.008 .I " . . ... 2 32 F ,,_._. ~ ... -' ·- (ML ) v ' ", ·--~ C: .. SAN DY SILT ' ·. 0 "'· i"' --... s-Greeni_sh gray, some clay (co-20~) ---,..._ C: 22 ,.· ---r.> 3 0.002 occasional organ i cs/p.i.af fr a;ments --.r::: -./ / ---... ---..s: ( I •. -... ·4 . ; / / --44 < ' ' . --3 -. ·,./ ,r --SAN D (SP-SM ) "'-.... (~ -.:,{, . ~ SILTY .. I,) -.;,,: 30 % s i 1 t, medium to co~,.,,;;;-~_and, ttl -C: --0. -r:; 5 43 < -HC odorA~ throughout ""..., "ti -~ some ,• .. C: --< <-:::--~ .. -ttl -u "' -:::,, -0... .... ~~ ? .:; -10-\ \. f / •• , -... --0 \ V :', .. l - ' <----. -.. --\ "ti ..s: /r.:·--.. ' . ' ~ -u ' ' \: ... ... -C: --... .. · ., -·-? ' f 0 -I .' / : ,,---..__ · .. --N * ' , . · ... ·.· "' -{ "" / . /'-----........ , .. '. . ... ,. .. I..) -_ :._ ·.:...· :> -6 19 D.002 __ _!EAT~·~·<:}oY, ---c.. --brown, hi ghl y p l ast ic ----------... ..=.= 0 - / "" '·.' . ' -15-.. -< -·. - ~ANO (SP-SM ) _:.-~ ·. '. .. ..s: - I,) --t odc;,r -:~·-~ C: -·--:••· I -. ' . N -.· .. -"." ··.: :-.·. \ -.·-.. . . ·:.:: •. ~--~--::,:·; ~. - 7 0.001 '• · .. -9 .... -• -····· -····· . ··':··. - 20- \_BOTTOM - OF BORING € 19 .5 1 -- -- ----Proj. No. 90029A I Woodward•Clyde Consultants Appe ndix A-17 -1 DRILLING LOG LOCATION N196831 DRILLING AGENCY HOLE NO. NAME OF DRILLER TOT AL DEPTH Cf= HOLE Z' BENTO· NITE SLURRY ,. PROJECT PROJECT NUMBER c; QUENDALL TOTAL NUMBER SAMP\..ES 15 SOIL SAMPLING SERVICE DE?TH TO WATER BELOW GRD SURFACE BH·17B DATE HOLE STARTED , Terry Asberry DRILLING METHOD HOU.OW STEM AUGER 50' INSPECTOR WARREN PERKINS SAMP %. CLASSIFICATlON OF MATERIALS REMARKS NO. REC (DESCRIPTION) 000 40 015 10 40 045 60 80 90 090 80 4" · loose, topsoil, gray·brown, sand. gravelly SILT . {ML) 4 ' Medium dense, damp, brown , medium SAND, (10% sil t). (SW) ... wet and g rave lly SAND ... 11' Loose. saturated, gray, silty SAND {30-40% silt). (SM) 14.8:'-----~---~~----------J Very stiff, saturated, gray SILT. (ML) ... Bouncing on stones ... FILL ..sL 12/21 .sz 8.1 ft on 12/22 Woodward-Clyde Consultants e 11 II 11 II • II ! • ,a HOLE NO . BH-17 8 ORILL1NG LOG (Cont. Sheet) SHEET 2 BENTO· NITE SLURRY DPT S (Ff) T OF 4 SHEETS AM % CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIALS REMARKS NO. REC. (DESCRIPTION) 21 185 90 70 10 Very stiff, saturated, gray SILT with trace fine sand (10%). (ML) 26' Gray, d ense, saturated G RAVEL with trace sand. (GW) Woodward-Clyde Consul1ants II· • • -1 I DRILLING LOG (Cont. Sheet) HOLE NO . BH-178 DP S B/ AM % NO. REC. (FT) T ~ 335 10 15 43 5 7 48 49 SH EET 3 OF 4 SHEETS CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIALS (DESCRIPTION) Very dense , saturated, gray san dy GRAVELS. (GW) REMARKS Woodward-Clyde Consultants e II DRILLING LOG (Cont. Sheet) HOLE NO. BH-178 SHEET 4 60 OF 4 SHEETS M % CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIALS NO. REC. (DESCR IPTION) 485 10 Very dense, saturated, gray sandy GRAVELS . (GW) TOTAL DEPTH= 50 FT REMARKS Woodward-Clyde Consultants e 11 · DR ILLING LOG PROJ ECT OUEND AL L LOCATION N197707 TOTA L NU MBER SAMPLES 14 DRILLING AGENCY SOIL SAM PLING SERVICE DEPTH TO WA TI:R BELOW GRO SURF A CE BH-188 NAME OF DRILLER Terry Asberry CR ILUNG METHOD HOLLOW STEM AUGER TOTAl DEPTH OF HOLE S4' IN SPECTOR WARREN PERKINS SAMP Q/o CLASSIFICATION OF MATER IALS REMARKS NO . REC (DESCR IPTION) Firm, damp. gray SILT wi th gravels. F IL L 000 30 (ML ) .2 LOOSE RU BB LE NO SAMPLE S . . 3 . . . . . . . . 4 . . 5 04 0 0 6.0 ' 1 060 20 Very soft . satu rated, brown SILT with Nap thalene odor oi l sheen and so me organ ics . (M L) OVA> 100 ppm at sample 075 30 OVA 2-3 ppm at borehole 5 090 so 2 125 50 Woodward-Clyde Consultants e I , I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ' I DRILLING LOG (Cont. Sheet) HOLE NO. B H-1 8B SHEET 2 OF 4 SHEETS DP S Bl AM % CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIALS REMARKS (FT) T NO. REC. (DESCRIPTION) 8 175 40 6 225 70 16 275 50 1s.s·----------1 Loose to dense. saturated, gray, f111e to medium silty SAND (20-40% sill). (SM ) ... medium dense ... odor off samples OVA < 1 ppm Breathing Zone (B.Z.) Woodward-Clyde Consultants e 1 · , I • • • • • • ·,a DRILLING LOG (Cont. Sheet) HOLE NO . SH-188 10-20 SAND SCREEN 49 SHEET 3 OF 4 SHEETS 8/ AM % NO. REC. CLASSIFICATlON OF MATERIALS (DESCRIPTION) 38 325 75 Dense, saturated, gray fine SANO and silt with trace gravel (20 -40% silt). (SM) 34 375 40 24 425 40 ... Trace well-rounded grav el ... 475 25 Very dense, saturated gray, sandy GRAVEL. (GW) REMARKS Woodward-Clyde Consultants e DRILLING LOG (Cont. Sheet) BH-18B HOLE NO. SHEET 4 OP S (FT) T 56 57 60 O F 4 SHEETS AM o/o CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIALS NO. REC . (DESCRIPTION) 45 525 0 Very dense, saturated , gray , sardy GRAVEL. (GW} A fe w gravel bits in spoon TOTAL DEPTH= 54 FT REMARKS Woodward-Clyde Consultants e ' : DRILLING LOG 1LOCAT10N I DRILLING AGENCY HOLE NO. TOT AL DEPTH OF HOLE GREEN II 13 14 15 SHEET 1 PROJECT OUENOALL PROJ ECT NUM8ER 86004S OF SH EETS N19 639 E1662123 TOTAL NUMBER SAMPLES 8 SOIL SAMPLING SERVICE DEPTH TO WATER BELOW GRD SURFACE BH-19 Teny Asberry 19 ft Bl SAMP % NO. REC DA TE HOLE STARTED 12/10/ 8 COMPLETED 12119/88 DRILLING METHOD HOLLOW STEM AUGER INSPECTOR KELLY SUSEWIND CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIALS (DESCRIPTION) Medium dense , moist, brown, REMARKS FILL 17 000 75 gravelly, silty SANO. (SM) 15 015 100 6 030 75 8 050 75 16 065 75 11 080 100 18 130 100 2.0' Medium stiff, moist, gray SILT with some sand and trace of gravel. ( ML) 6 .0' Loose, saturated, gray, medium to coarse SAND. (SP) VOA = 0-3 ppm in breathing :zone (8 .Z .) OVA 0.5 ppm in B .Z. 500 ppm in auger FILL Coal like inclusions in silt .8 ppm on sample 0.5. ppm in B.Z. 100 ppm @ sampl > 1000 ppm i n auger W oodward-Clyde Consultants ~ HOLE NO. BH -19 i DRILLING LOG (Cont. Sheet) SHEET 2 OPT S (FT) T 6 19 20 21 27 29 3 31 OF 2 SHEETS AM % CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIALS REMARKS NO. REC . (DESCRIPTION) Loose. satu rated, gray, medium to coarse SAND. ( SP) 4.5 ppm in B.Z . Drager shows O ~~~~~~~~~B enzene 1 0 175 1 00 18' Stiff, wet. tan to brown SI LT with organics . (M L) TOT AL DEPTH = 19 FT Wo~dward -C lyde Consultants ~ • • Ill • DRILLING LOG LOCATION DRILLING AGENCY HOLE NO. NAME OF DAIUER TOT AL DEPTH OF HOLE ELEV. T.0. C.22.88 BENTO- NITE SLURRY PROJECT OUENDALL N197389 PROJ ECT NUMBER TOTAL NUMBER SAMPLES 14 SOIL SAMPLING SERVICE DEPlH TO WATER BELOW GAD SURFACE COMPLETED BH-208 DA TE HOLE STARTED 12/'19/88 Teny Asberry DRILLING METHOD HOLLOW STEM AUGER 54' INSPECTOR KELLY SUSEW IND · B/ SAM % CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIALS NO. REC (DESCRIPTION) Very loose. tan brown, fine sand 4 ooo 100 with trace of some silt and trace organics as wood. dry. (SP /SM) 5 015 100 36 030 100 12 050 70 8 065 60 6 080 100 .o· -------~---1 Very stiff gray/black, sandy SILT. (ML) Greervgray,wet, loose medium SAND . (SW) 5.5' -----------! Loose, wet, green. gray medlum SAND . (SW) 9.0 ' Medium stiff, wet, brown SILT with trace sand (ML) REMARKS FILL 12/20 0.5 ppm in Breathing 5 125 100 Zone (B .Z.) 13.5'---------1 Very loose, w et, gray, medium SAND with silt and trace organics. (SW) 1.5 ppm in auger Woodward-Clyde Consultants e • ' 11 DRILLING LOG (Cont. Sheet) HOLE NO. BH -20B BENTO- NITE SLURRY OP S (FT) T SHEET 2 OF 4 SHEETS AM % CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIALS REMARKS NO. REC . (DESC RIPTION) 7 175 100 Loose , wet, gray, medium SAND with peaty silt layers. (SM) ... Stitt, peaty SILT. .. 7 225 100 ... stiff . silty CLAY ... 10 275 100 3 ppm in auger B.G. in B.Z. Woodward-Clyde Consultants I) I I • • • • • .J • • • II • • • • • DRILLING LOG {Cont. Sheet) HOLE NO. BH-208 DPT S (FT) T AM NO. 0/o REC. 25 325 100 28 375 40 25 425 30 SHEET 3 OF 4 SHEETS CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIALS (DESCRIPTION) Medi.Jm dense.wet. gray , medium to fine SAND with sitt (SM) 35' ---------~ Medium dense.gray, wet,graveUy sut:rrounded, fine to medium SAND. (SW) . .. Increasing gravel size ... REMARKS Woodward-Clyde Consultants I 1 I IU I I I I I I I II II I I I • " I DRILLING LOG (Cont. Sheet) HOLE NO. BH-208 DP S (Fll T 56 59 SHE.ET 4 OF 4 SHEETS AM % CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIALS REMAR KS NO. REC. (DESCR IP TION) 62 525 0 Medium dense fo vefY dense , saturated, gray, gravally, fine to medium SAND. (SW) TOTAL DEPTH= 54 FT Wood_ward-Clyde Consultants e DRILLING LOG LOCA TION DRILLING AGENCY HOLE NO . NAME OF DRILLER PROJECT OUENDALL N197050. SOIL SAMPLING SERVICE BH-218 Terry Asberry PRO.J ECT NUMBER 04S TOTAL NUMBER SAMPLES 16 DEPTH TO WATER BELOW GAO SURFA CE DAlE HOLE STARTED 12/23188 COMPLETED DRIUING METHOD HOLLOW STEM AUGER TOT AL DEP'f1i OF HOLE 54.5 ft INSPECTOR WARREN PERKINS 22.28 BENTO-. NITE 4 PELLETS/ HOLE . PLLK3 8/ SAM % CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIALS NO. REC (DESCRIPTION) REMARKS 59 000 55 015 45 030 50 045 36 060 53 075 090 130 60 60 80 70 40 0 40 Loose-dense, wet . brown SILT and gravel with wood ch ips 2.S Very stiff , wet gray-white, sift y CLAY FILL 9.0' Very dense. saturated . gray, medium to fine SAND (10-20% silt) FILL RLL, Decomposed gypsum? s:z 5 sand and sift, gradat ional contact from creosote odor and sand abo ve to silt below sh ee n Woodward-Clyde Consultants e II -J G L HOLE NO. BH-218 • 1-,.::D_R_l_L_L_N __ o_G.......:....(C_o_n_t._S_h_e_et...:..) _ _.... _________ ~~=~----~ II BENTO- NITE SLURR SHEET 2 OF 4 SHEETS OP S 8/ AM % CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIALS (FT) T NO . REC. (DESCRIPTION) 12 180 5 Stiff, saturated, gray-brown sandy · SILT. 16 230 80 24' Very slilf , satu rated, gray-brown , peaty SILT. 26' 28 280 70 very stiff, saturated , gray sandy SILT to silty SAND ·(20-3 0% s ilt). REMARKS W.oodward-Clyde Consultants e DRILLING LOG (Cont. Sheet) HOLE NO. BH-21B SH EET 3 AQUAS SANO % REC. 60 OF 4 SHEETS CLASSIFICATION OF MA TE RIALS (DESCRIPTION) REMARKS trace of gravelly silt in sand trap s ilty gravel sluff at top Very stiff, saturated, gray sandy SILT of sample ~?----------- Med ium dense, saturated gray to 44 430 70 yellow-brown, silty SAND. 8 480 40 Woodward-Clyde Consultants e I If I= It • I I I - ' I I I I I I a ' I DRILLING LOG (Cont. Sheet) HOLE NO. BH·21B SHEET 4 OF 4 SHEETS DP S 8/ AM % CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIALS REMARKS (FD T 60 NO. REC. (DESCRIPTION) 17 530 45 Medium dense. saturated. gray to yellow-brown silty SAND . 54' sa GRAVEL TOTAL DEPTH"" 54 .5 FT Woodward-Clyde Consultants e DRILLING LOG ATION '!LUNG AGENCY NO. ~OF DRILLER AL DEPTH OF HOLE .LEV. T. O.C. 28.09' I;. 26.6' ' ~0- SWRRY I ' I • I PROJECT PROJ ECT NUMBER 86004S SHEET 1 OUENDALL OF 2 SHEET S N197560 TOTAL NUMBER SAMPLES 11 SOIL SAMPLING SERVICE DEPTH TO WATER BELOW GAD SURFACE BH-22 E STARTED COMPLETED DATE HOL 12106188 Terry Asberry DRILLINGMETHOO HOLLOW STEM AUGER 2s.s· ) INSPECTOR KELLY SUSEWIND SAMP % CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIALS REMARKS NO . REC (DESCRIPTION) Soft, brown, moist SIL Twith trace sand OVA at Background 000 100 and organics as roots in Breathing Zone (B-2,) and at borehole , .s· an/brown medium interbe<lded SANO 015 100 and SILT. 030 100 045 100 6.0' ~~~~~~~~~~ Very soft, saturated, gray, SILTwith 060 100 trace sand and organics . ..• 6" gray, medium sand lense ... 075 100 095 100 ... Medium stiff ... 130 100 ... 6" organic (wood chi ps) layer ... enerally interbedded ray silt and red sand OVA at Back Ground in Breathing Zone (8.Z.) and in borehole OVA=O ppm in auger. OVA= 0 ppm in auger. Woodward-Clyde Consultants 1· ---------------,----------------------. HOLE NO. BH -22 11--D_R_I_L_L_IN_G __ LO_G_..;_(C_o_n_t_. _s_h_e_e_t)_.._ __________ ..-=-,-==-::-----~ SHEET 2 OF 2 S HEETS I I I I ' ' I 1 I ' I ' I ' SAND SCREE/It CAVE IN OP S (Fl) T 27 31 AM % Ct.ASSlFICAllON OF MATERIALS NO. REC . (DESCRIPTION) 16.0' Medium dense , wet, gray medium SANO with trace silt. Small silt stringers at +1· al 19 ft. 1 1 180 1 00 ... 1 foot medium stiff, wet .. gray 14 230 100 ctayey SIL Tto silt wrth some ciay lense (washed material is clayey silt 25-30) 45 280 70 TOTAL DEPTH• 29.5 FT REMARKS OVA= 0 ppm in B.Z. OVA= O ppmin BL OVA= 0 ppm in 82. ~ 32 • .....__ _ _.___,__~--_.___---i-----"' Woodward -Clyde Consultants ~ I ._ ~L_o_cA_r_1o_N _____ _.....JN=-11..:9lD7.:..55,l,;;1i.::,_· __ :_' -----~-r_o_r_AL_N_UM-BE_R_s_A_t.lP_LE_s __ 9 _______ -J DRILLING AGENCY DE ?TH TO WATER BELOW GRD SURFACE SOIL SAMPLING SERVICE II HOLE NO. BH-23 DATE HOLE STARTED COMPLETED ~-------------------+-------___;1-=2/2=8/88=-.L.--..L..U.l,Ll,!;"----I Terry Asberry DRILLING MffiiOD HOLLOW STEM AUGER •L----------+--------1 TOTAL DEPTH OF HOLE 24.5' INSPECTOR WARREN PERKINS NAME OF DRll.LER ' i B..EV. T. O. C. 24.51 ' I .. GRN,O 23 O' ~ El.EV: . II II SAMP % CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIALS NO. REC (DESCRIPTION) o · loose . silt and wood chios 000 70 rock . gravel FILL 015 75 030 60 050 5 065 5 080 70 Sti ff to very stiff, gray Sll Twith gravel 4 .0' Very stiff. black to gray banded silt to siltstone wood debris Fill 8 .0 ' --------~ Medium dense. satJJrated, silty SANO with gravel 5 130 80 Firm, saturated, brown SILT REMARKS FILL wood debris and slough (no sample) stro ng odor. oil sheen OVA => 1000 ppm at bore_hcle oil sheen Woodward-Clyde Consultants e • ' I I I I I • • II II • • II II II • " • DRILLING LOG (Cont. Sheet) HOLE NO. BH-23 SHEET 2 OF 2 SHE!:TS DP T S 8/ (FT) T AM % CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIALS REMARKS 26 27 26 29 30 31 32 NO. REC . (DESCRIPTION) 10 180 100 7 230 100 Stiff. saturated, brown SILT with wood debris. Sand at tip of spoon Sand Lense? Firm, saturate9 gray SILT Oil sheen Oil sheen 23.S .,.._ --------1 Brown silty peat Oil sheen 24' St iff, saturated , ora SILT Oil Sheen much less TOTAL DEPTH = 24.5 FT Woodward-Clyde Consultants I I I IJ • II • II II II II • • • II II II • II DRILLING LOG LOCATION: DRILLING AGENCY: HOLE NO. NA~ OF DRILLER: TOTAL DEPTH OF HOLE: Envlroplug Senl0ni1e Chips 4"Sta.~ Steel .010" Slotled Semen C-Olorado 10-20 Wellpad( PROJECT: OUENDALL N 197,848 E 1 662.383 SOIL SAMPLING SERVICE BH-24 WAYNE GUY 29 FT OPT S SIFT SAMP % (FT} T NO. REC. 53 100 Nfl . 7 0 7 25 0 25 NR 3 0 4 25 PROJECT NO. 86004S TOTAL NO. SAMPLES: 8 SHEET 1 ct 2 DEPTH TO WATER 6ELOW GAD SURFACE; 3.SFT DATE STARTED: 7/31/90 DATE COMPLETED: 7/31/90 ORIWNG METHOD: HOLLOW STEM AUGER INSPECTOR: DAVE WALKER ClASSIFlCATION OF MATERIALS (DESCRIPTION) Brown silty gravely sand (SM}. Fibrous organics (probably woodwasta) Intermixed organic silt (Ol) and peat (PD sott, saturated. REMARKS OVA= 17ppm OVA" 120 ppm V 3.s· OVA = 1 OOO+ppm OVA= 120 ppm OVA= 300 ppm @Borehole = 0.5 in B.Z. Woodward-Clyde Consult~nts-~ I HOLE NO . SHEET , DRILLING LOG (CON'T) BH-24 2 of 2 s BlfT SAMP % CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIALS REMARKS I T NO. REC. (DESCRIPTION) Intermixed organic sHt (Ol) and peat (Pl) soft, saturated I 19 OVA> 1000ppm (in peat) I 17 Brown organic sltt (CL) trace wood fibers@ 17.0'. I 18 5 100 19 I Dari( brown peat (PT) with fibers @ 19.5'. OVA= 150ppm 20 I Ben1Dnil.G • Chips Brown organic silt (OL)@ 22.0' ~ becomes gray clayey s i lt (ML) @ 22.5'. 19 100 Gray fine sand {SP) medium dense, saturated with trace silt with s eam of • organic silt@ 23.0'. I I • 3 50 Gray fine sand (SP) and silty sand (SM) with silt layers. II 29 II II ~ • Woodward-Clyde Consultant~ • I • • • • • DRILLING LOG LOCATION: PROJECT: OUENDALL N 197,109 E 1662265 DRILLING AGENCY: SOIL SAMPUNG SERVICE HOLE NO. NAME OF ORIUEA: TOTAl. DEPTH OF HOLE; Envwoplug Bentonite Chips T.O.C • 28.83 - BH-256 WAYNE GUY OPT (FT) --1- s T 47.S FT ~·-x ,, -3----' 1--4-- -~-- -\ J -9-J 24 I -10-- '---11.- -12....:..- .....14-- $AMP NO. % REC. 50 100 75 100 100 PROJECT NO. 860045 TO TAL NO . SAMPLES : I 12 DEP'Tti TO WATER BELOW GAO SURFACE: SHEET 1 of 3 8FT DATE STARTED : 8/2/30 I DATE COMPLETED: 8/3/90 DAIWNG Mrn;oo: HOLLOW STEM AUGER INSPECTOR: DAVE WALKER CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIALS . (DESCRIPTION) Sltty sand , gravel with wood chips l u: l 70o/. wood chips Gray silty sand (SM) with seams of clean fine sand and sandy s ilt. trace organics. REMARKS OVA= 130 ppm OVA= 40 ppm Gray fine sand (S P), medium dense, wet. OVA= 10 ppm OVA= 10ppm @ sampler - - - - - - - - - - - in silt sample - Gray silt layer. soft. saturated, trace organics 8.5'-9.5'. Gray fine sand@ 9.5', saturated. Gray silty sand, saturated. with seams of sandy silt (-40% of sample). Fine sand (SP), dense, below 14.0'. OVA= 60 ppm OVA= 30 ppm - - - - - - - - - - - 1-- DRILLING LOG (CON'T) Ben1onit8 Pellets Slee4 ,010· Slolled Screen Colorado 10·20 Sand OPT (Fl1 s T SAMP "4 NO. REC . 4 100 11 100 , , ,oo HOLE NO. BH -258 CLASSIFICATION OF MAT ERIALS (DESCRIPTION) Gray fine sand (SP) Brown silt (ML), soft, saturated w it h organic material lnterlayered 2-s· seams of fine sand and s ilt Gray silt (ML} wit h seams of sandy silt, fine sand ar,d brown silt Gray sand {SP) @ 32.0'. SHEET 2 cf 3 REMARKS OVA• 170 ppm @lntertaca OVA,.. 10 0 ppm in borehole O V A= 1 ppm in B.Z. OVA '" 50 ppm OVA= 54 p pm Woodward-Clyde Consulta~ts ~ DRJLLING LOG (CON'n DPT S MT SAMP % (FT) T NO. REC. 10 100 ~-10 41 25 ~-20 HOLE NO. BH-258 CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIALS (DESCRIPTION) Brown gray silt (ML) 32.5' • 33 .S . Brown gray sandy silt with clay and gravel @ 33.S'. SHEET 3 of 3 REMARKS OVA"' 30 ppm Gray sandy gravel (GP} very dense with OVA .. 20 ppm pockets 01 silt Gravel to ~ • diameter. Woodward-Clyde Consulta~ts'~ DRILLING LOG LO CATION : PROJECT: QUENOALL N 196,847 E 1,662.032 DRILLING AGENCY: SOIL SAMPLING SERVICE HOLE NO. NAME OF ORlll.ER: TOTAL DEP"TI-1 OF HOLE: T .0 .C +1.0'. 4" blank s1ainless steel casing - BH-266 WAYNE GUY 48.S FT DPT (FT) '--1- s T 1--e-- '--7- H-- -10-- '--11- -12- 22 7 SAMP NO. 'Y. REC . 100 75 100 100 100 PROJECT NO . 86004$ TOTAL NO. SAMPLES: 11 I SHEET 1 of 3 DEPTH TO WATER BELOW GRO SURFACE: S FT 01\Tc STARTED: 8/6/90 I DATE COMPLETED: 8/6/90 DRJWNG METI-IOD: HOLLOW STI:M AUGER INSPECTOR: DAVE WALKER CLASSIFlCATION OF MATERIALS (DESCRIPTION) Brown sandy gravel (GP). Gray sandy silt (ML), wet. • , . REMARKS liQn. Slraligraphy from ~8 .5 ft_ borehole (abandonodl. - Well installed in 36 It bolehola ~ It west of _ ab.ndoried borehole. - - - - OVA= 4Sppm - -Gray silty fi ne sand (SM}. medium d ense. wet • seams of sa ndy s ilt @ 4 .0'-4 .5'. OVA• 9 ppm • saturated@ 5 .0'. • silt seam @ 6.S. Gray line to coarsa sand (SP), dense, sat urated. traca gravel. some wood chunks. Fine sand below 8.0'. Brown organic silt (OL) soft, saturated with wood l ibe!S . - - - - OVA= 9 p pm(8 .G.) - - - - - O V A = 12 ppm - - - - - OVA= 7 5 ppm - - - - - - • HOLE NO. SHE i:T • DRILLING LOG (CON'T) BH-268 2 of 3 OPT s &'FT SAMP "l'. CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIALS AEMAFl KS • (FT) T NO. REC . (DESCRIPTION) Brown organic s ilt (OL) • 16 .,/ el'(\ .,/ ~~~ • 17 ~-:~(\- ... / • 18 4 50 Gray fine sand (SP), loose , s aturated. OVA= 14ppm 111 HQli; OVA w;is out ct fuel at • completion of d riling- O V A readings could 20 be i n e<ro r . • 21 II 6enlDnM Pellets 22 ~ 53 50 Dense below 23.S . OVA"' 45 ppm II Silt s eam @ 23.5'. 4· Stainless -Steel .0 10• S lotled Screen a -• Colorado 10-20 Peat and s ilt s eams 2 8.0'·29.0'. Wellpadl 39 50 OVA., 45 pp m Gray fina sand below 29.0' I s ilt seam (1 ")'@ 29.5'. II -• Woodward-Clyde Consultants{# ~ HOLE NO . SH EET • DRILLING LOG (CON'T) BH-268 3 ol 3 II s SIFT SAMP "" CLASSIFlCATlON OF MATERIALS REMARKS T NO. REC . (DESCRIPTION) <:;"ray silt (ML) 33Z-33.7' with 2· brown 33 organic s l lt seam. 37 50 Wood 33.7' • 34.Z. Gray silty fine sand (SM) with traca gravel becomes fine sand (SP) with gravel@33.5'. Gray sandy gravel (GP), vary dense, saturated. grave l to 1~ • dlametar. O VA= 5 ppm (B .G.) II 37 = 38 52 so OVAeSppm 39 ; • II II 2 II 59 so OVA.Sppm a II II ,1 II ... 50/4· 0 • HR • j Woodward-Clyde Consulta~t s ·(# I , I I I I I I I , I I • II II II II II OR1LLING LOG LOCATION : PROJ ECT: OUENDALL N 197,376 E 1.662.640 OR IUJNG AGENCY: SOIL SAMPLING SERVICE HOLE NO. BH-27 NAME OF DRILLER: WAYNE GUY TOT AL DEPiH OF HOLE: 25FT T.O .C • 24.91 T.O.C +0.5' Ben1Dnits Pellets -OPT (FT) -1- s T H-x 10 - -10-~ 7 >--11-'-- >-12- -- $AMP NO. % REC. 100 75 100 100 PROJECT NO. 860045 TOTAL NO. SAMPl.£5: l 7 OEP"lli TO WATI:R BELOW GAO SURFACE: SHEET 1 of 2 a FT DATE STARTE D: 8/1/90 I OATI: COMPLETED: 8/1 /90 ORIUJNG METHOD: HOU.OW STEM AUGER INSPECTOR: DAVE WALKER CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIALS (DESCRIPTION) Dark brown cobbles {GP) with sand. Dari< brown silty sand 3.0'-3.S'. Black sandy gravel@ s.o·. (reserroles pieces of coal}. l ..J = LI.. Gravely silty sand (SM). medium dense, wet, trace organics. REMARKS OVA:: 17 ppm OVA: 60 ppm HC odor OVA• 180 ppm - - - - - - - - - - - - - - OVA= 30 p pm - Brown peat (PT), fibrous. some silt. - Gray clayey si~ (ML), soft, saturated. 2" Gray sand@ 11 .0·. Brown peat (PT). - - - OVA= 52 ppm - - - - - OVA= 125ppm - - - II II II • II II II II II ii II II II II II II DRILLING LOG (CON'T) DPT s (FT) T 15 17 18 19 SAMP BIFT NO . 6 7 R~C.I 100 100 HOLE NO. BH-27 CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIALS (DESCRIPTION) Brown peat (PT) Brown organic silt (OL) with wood fibers at 17.5' 4• peat layer@ 1 B.o·. lntenayerad dayey silt (ML), fine sand (SP), and sandy sil1 (ML } Gray clayey s i lt 18.S · 19.0'. Gray fine sand 19.0 '-19.S. Driller thinks sand 19.S-to 22.5' Gray sandy silt (Ml) soft. saturated, with seams of clayey silt and s il ty sand. trace organics below 22.S'. SH EET 2 of 2 REMARKS OVA .. 15 ppm O VA"' 3 0 pp m Woodward-Clyde Consulta-~ts e Boring Log HC-2 S 011 De s erio t i on s :e::~ Gr ou n d Surface Ele,at,on ,n F ee t: 23 .33 ; ;~e ! v er y de nse. dam o. gr ay -Dro wn. sil t y. ve r y sanay GRA VEL with c o Cble s. L oose, damp , d a r k b r own, si l t y , ver y gr av elly SA NO wi t h r otted woo d debr i s and c oa l-like parti cle s with sl i ght ~ c hemical-lik e odor. Loo se . mo,s t, t an -b r o wn, ver y sil ty , f in e SAN O with wood debris. Lo os e. o1e t. gray, coar se SA NO wi t h c oal -like bits and str on g chem,c al-li ke oaor . I Soft. w et, dar k b r o ·,m. sl ig hlly san dy "' S IL T with organic deb ris. L oose . ><e t . gr ay. me dium t o tine S ANO. sa t ur a t ed wi t h y el low ish v,scou s p r oduc t. Ver y so f t , wet, b r own , s andy SI L i ,,,t h wood debr is ano debri s. L oose. ,..,e t, gr a y, coars e SA NO . Sor t to ver y so f t, we t . b r own SIL T ~,th wood and or gan,c aec ris . l"s Very so f t. w et. g r ay Sl L T. Ver y loos e to loo se. we t . gr a y. sligh tl y silt y S AN O. Bottom of Boring at 2 4.0 F eet. Comp leted 6 /1 4 /95. 1. Re fer to F igur e A -I to r explar .a t ,on of desc r .:: =-~ and symbols. 2. Soil desc rip t ions a nd str a1u m lines a re ,n le rC'::'.·,= a nd a c tua l change s may b e gr a du al. -;-S -·a -~ --~ --~ J. Gr ou nd wa t er level , i f ,n d ,cated, ,s a t t ,m e ;:,( :· .r.g I ATO ) or for da te sp e c i f i ed. Leve l may var,· .. ,,r. :,me samo1e s -, S-2 5 -3 _!} J ro S -4 s-s S-5 S -7 S -6 S -9 ST AN OA R O P::NETR A TIO N RESI ST ANCE • Blow~ pe r F oot 10 20 50 ~ , I I T I i I .,.,.,., .,,.,., 7 I 1 ,, I I i l I. I ! I 1 I~ I,. I !_ I - ·1 ! I I I : I I J/t1l 1 ' I ! 11 i\ I ' I I / 11 ! i I I I . i I I I I I I I I I I I "' I I ! \.. ! '\. ' I ! : I ' I I I I : IOO i I ~ 194 I .I ' I I ~ I I I I! I I I I d I I ! I I I i I I ! I i I I I . i -,o .o ,o 100 • water Content ,n Pe r cent .. ... LAB ,ES TS & (PIO) ~ ~lf<JA I CA (<I) IA CA (1$1 1<11 LGs. !A I 111 1 [A CA (21 r 1<11 I I '-!A i l<I) HMrTCROWSER J-4042··04 Figure A-3 8/95 Boring LO(J HC-3 Soil Oesc ri p t1o ns Grounci Surtace Elevat ion 1n Feet: 22.f2 Oeo th •n Feet Medi um dense t o 1oose. :n o1st. ;;ray . ver y sil t y to sil t y SANO with some cnem icaH ike odor . So ft. we t. br own SILT . very soft to soft. wet. gray Sll T w,tn a sano s tnnger. Meoium oense to very loose, we t. gray. s,l ty t o siighlly sil ty S AN O with a chem1c aH1ke odor. Very so ft. we t. or~wn, sh ~htly sa nd y s ;L T wit h a sli gh t chem ical-lik e odor . Very 1oose ..... et. gray, slig htly sil :y S.:.NO with che mical -lik e o d or . Ve•y se t t to mediu m s t1H, wet. bro wn S I LT wi th organic deor,s and chemical-like odor. Soft. wet, gray Sl l T with chem ,c aHike o d or. Very loose. we t. gray, sligh tly silty, me dium t o fine SA ND with c hem1caHike odor. Very sof t. we:. b r own SIL T wi th orga nic deo r is. Very loose. wet . gray. s1:1;ht1y s1l '.y. tine SAN O. Bo tt om of B ori ng at 25 .0 Fee , Comple t ed 6 /14 /95. l. Refer t o F igur e A-i for ex plana t ion o f descr,p t10"S and sy mbols . r t 10 L I .l.1 5 ~ r L I ; J_,o I - I r i 1.5 r- ~ l -..ic 2. Soil d es c11ptior,s ar\d stra t um l ines are in terpre ti ve a nd actual chan!;es may be gradual. Grour d wa t er level. if ,ncic ated. 1s at t,me of dr illtn;i (ATD) er f or date soec ,fied. Le ve l may vary wi th t ,me S-1 5-2 S -3 S-4 s -s S -6 S-7 S -8 S-9 S TAN OARG PE ,\JETRAT :C F.E SI S TANC E • Slow s per i' oot I '0 20 50 ·oo L... I ' : ! 1,11;1 L... i 1111 t... I/ I I ; I I I j f ~ /'I/ I I 11: I I ~ / ' I ~ \ i l iiw 1 1 L... I\ ~J I i!!II j I ~ I I ! . I I 1J i I ~,t : I I I I ' ' I L I \; I 1./ I l•I f 1 ! ill: Ii 11 I t... I :L.j ~ I"-~k I i l ; I 11:1 I,'/ ·1 / I 1 11:1 I; I I ii :I ~ v . / I • . 11 1 ' \ /11 I: I ii I 11 I I ! ' I I i I I ~ I I I 'I I I I I IJ I I ! -I I I , I I I d, I I 11" j I I ' 11: ' I I I I . I I I 1 1 I ; l: ,! I I I i ' , 10 cc 5o ·oo • 1.-t a:er Conte n, .,, Perc~nt .. u Lt.B ~E3 -;'S & .::iro 1 I r!,!. c.:. I <i i I r-1<11 I L,~ , ·,<1, :...,:;5 I I <:l Le A I .<I ) · I I I I I L _ HLIRTCROWSER J-4042-04 Figure A-4 8/95 Boring Log HC-4 S011 Oe s c ript1ons Groun a Surface Ele vation ,n Feet: 24 57 Med,um dense, damp, gray, slightly sil ty, sligh tly gravelly SANO wi th chem ,caHike odor . Leese, we t , gray , silt y , fine Sti.NO w,Lh chemical-like odor . L J ose , we t. brown, silt y , fine SAND wi th staining and chemical odor. Loo se. o1e l, g r ay SAND satura t ed wit h or cduct. Very s o ft. wet . bro wn SILT ..-ith organic '---:d_e_b_r i_s _a_n_d_c_h_e_m_,c'-a_1-_1_ik.;.e_o'-d'-o_r .'--____ ,,,,- s oi t. wet. gr ay, sandy S IL T w,Lh chem ,caH ike odor . Lc o se. ·,jet. gray :o gray-Dr own. ,er y ;,1 t v to silly SAN O w,Lh chem ,caH,ke ocor . very soft. we t. bro wn SIL T w,th 0r g.=n,: oaors. Me di um dense to loose. we :. gr ay , s1:ty to sli ghtl y silt y SANO with slight c:iemicaHi ke odor . S o f t. we t. gray, very sandy Si l T wi th c hem ical-like odor. \1 er y loose. we t. gray . shgh;ly s,lty S.lNO with chem,caHike odor Sort . wet. gray SI L i. Bot tom o f Boring at 25.0 Feet. ::om p ie ted 6/14/95. I. Re t er to Fi gur e A -I for exp lana t io n ct aescr,:: :·: ana svmD ols. 2. Soil oe sc rip t ,ons a nd strat um 1,nes are ·nter c•,;· .;; a nd ac tual chan ges may De grad•Ja l. -J -··: 3. Grouria water lev el. it ,nd,ca t ec. 1s at 1,me o i :· ·: (:.TOI or for da te S:)ec ,f,ed. Leve• na y ·,a·\.,:-~-,, samo1 e 5 -1 S -2 5 -) S-4 S-5 s -~ S-' s -a S-9 S-!O S-11 s-1 2 I STANDARD PENE-RA T IOI\ RESISTANCE & Blows pe r Foo t I • 10 '0 S,) 100 1 1 · 11 1 ~!' [ ~ I- L I I I [_,Al ' ; 1!,,/ . j . I, I; I/ Ii I/ ; I ~~ 1:: ' . I :1! 1.J H,!!f l/ I . i I! j; i/l J I i t! I , 1 i !' i i .. I I i /1!! i iii II : :1 I '· : Iii r i ·iii~' f ! ; . ! I ! 1 I , ' ' 20 ,o 100 • wa ter Conte:1t ,n "e r c e~t .. .. J-4042-04 Figure ,, -5 LAB TE STS & {P[O l [l '21 i [141 !NA / L S I ' I 7J IJO J 120 ) 8/95 i l i Boring Log HC-5 S011 Oe sc r1pt1o ns G,ou ncl Surface Elev alion in Fe et: 26 .~7 Depth ,n Fee t I Me oium aen se to loose. damp , gra y -br o wn to dar k b r o wn. sl ign tly g rav elly to gra velly , ver y si lty to si l ty, f ine S ANO wiih or~an,c d e bris and c n e m,c al-like od or. Soft, mo,st to we t. gr ay SILT with s t r ong c hem ,c al-l ik e o ao , an d s t aini ng /sheen. Loo se. we t , bl ack S AN O s a tur ated wli h y ellow -b lac k v,scous product. wi t h a s:r,nge r of sof t. wei. b r own. sl i ghtly -sandy SIL i. Very soft. wet. bro wn SILT w,th o r gan,c d e oris. I Med ium de nse. wet. -;i r ay SA~O . Sof t. we t. b r own S I LT wi t h or g a nic ~ d e oris. ~ Loose. wet. gr ay S AND •,ii th wood de b r is a n d chem,c aHik e odor . Bottom of Bo ring at 19 .0 Feet. Comp le t ed 6 /15 /SS. ! ! ! - / ; I I }o t I -+.J i >-~ fi e i f- I -15 i ! "' I ! : ~20 I r- ~ ~ I :.. -2: ~ L l l.. ; r i : ~ 30 , Lio :. Re f e r to i=-,gure A-I for e,cianat ,on of descr,pt,ons an d symbols . 2. Soil descr,ptions and stra tu m lines a r e interor e1,ve and actual c hanges may o e gr actu a l. 3. Gro~nd water level. if ,n o ic ale d . ,s a t time o f or.i:,ng JATO} or for dat e spec,ried. Level ma ·; vary ,11t h t ,me Sampl e S -1 S-2 _!} HO S -3 s-.i 3 -5 -- S -7 ST ANO ARO PE NE TRATION cl E S !S TANC E • e1o ws oer Foot I 2 5 E ~ m ... t I I I : J I ~ :] ' t-r I d A I / I I I I ... r L I I I I L I I I I I I ' i , I, 5 10 tO so • water :ontent ,n Percent .. u I I ' I ii I, 100 i !' I 11 100 J-4042-04 Figure A-8 LAB -Es,s & (F!Ol D I 1201 I r 110 ) [,.1 1 1181 ~[A i l <~C ; 8/95 Boring Log HC-1 Sotl D escr1pt1ons Gr auno Su r1 ac e Etevat,an ,n Feet: 20 .83 Med ium dense. moist. gray, slightly silt y . slightly g r avell y SANO . Medium dense. we t. dark brown. ver y silty , gravelly SANO ... ,th wood deor ,s and ;:,reduc t sheen. Loose, wet , med :um to tine SANO saturat ed wi th black viscous pr oduc t. Very soft, we t. b rown S,L T wi t h organ,c debr i s. Bottom of Boring at :6 .5 F eet. Com p ie tec 6 /14 /95 . I I Jeoth .n Feet To t 10 15 l20 I 25 30 I. Ref er to F igure A-I for e;p1an at,on of aescr ,pt,cns and symt:ois . 2. So il descn ptions and strat um lines are 1nterpret,v e and actual cnanges may De gradual. 3. GrJ und wa ter level, if ,n a ,cate d , 1S at time o f d r ill 1no (A TC) or for date soec1 t ,e d. Le vel may vary witn t,m e Sc mo le s -1 _5) A.TO s-2 S -3 =-4 S -5 I ~ . I :,TANDA RO PUJETRA T!ON qE S [S T ANCE .. a1o ws oer Foo t , IC 10 C ~a 100 , i II I I r I ~ I I ~ ,I Ii A I ! I llV .1 I, I i! 1 1 I i fi r Ii f I r 11 ' .. I I I I I I l) i I I-I I I-; I I 11 I / I r I- ,... I I I i i I I i [ I I ! I I : I i I I I I I l I I II I I I I I I I ! I ! i I ! I-i I i I-I ! I I r I ! I I ! I I I 11 1. ~ I , I I I 1 1 1' ! , I 11 I . I ' ' ,O ~ 50 00 • wa1e, Se nter., ,n Pe,cen: .. u J-4042-·04 Figure A-8 L AB TE STS & l PIC J ! IA. CA t<l) [A (NA I [A GS l<ll f-!A , ,:A I INA ) I INA ) 8/95 ATTACHMENT A-2 Borings by Aspect Aspectcons utting earth + water Project Name Quendall Terminals Location Renton. WA Driller/M ethod NW Probe / Push-P robe Sampling Method Continuous Core Depth I Elevation (feet) Borehole Completion Sample Type/ID ~ t ~ c.:> "' w a, 0 0: 0. u ::; ...J ...J c§ z w :, 0 5 7/2212009 10 § Sampler Type : 0 § No Recovery 0: ~ a Continuous Core w S1 S2 S3 S4 Proi ect Number 020027 DRAF-T.: Sheen/NAPL C<lmnents Sheen Product Matena! Type NS Sorin Boring Number MC-1 Ground Surface Elev Depth to W ate r Start/Finish Date Desctiption Dry wood debris (FILL): tra ce gravel S h eet 1 o f 2 5.5' ATD 7/22/2009 Dry , gray to brown , silty , sandy GRAVEL (GM): M oist , dark gray, slightly gravelly SIL TY SAND (SM): trace wood becomes wet · .. Wet. brown SIL TY SAND (SM); NS metal ic M S blebs 80% HS MC-1-10.5-11 .5-S rainbow Oouret M S blebs 90% HS b lebs 75% HS blebs 75% H S ra inbow 30% MS oc OS oc Wet PEAT (PT); orga nic mat and le aves, Wet, blue gray SAND (SP): sand fine to medium, oil coated Wet, brown. sandy GRAVEL to gravelly SAND (S P-GP); oil coated to 11 ' oil stained from 11' to 12' oil coated from 12· to 17 .5' Wet, brown gray SAND (SP); sand fine to medium, 01 1 sta in ed Wet, brown PEAT (PT ); PI O -Photoionization Detector (Headspace Measurement) Logged by: RR H ~ Static Water Leve l Approved by: JJ P W ater Level (ATD) Depth (ft) 5 10 15 it. Fi ure No. A -2 w L-------------------------------------...;..;,;;i.;:.;.;;,.;_;.;,,;,,,_;...;...-=-------...I 8 0 "' "'. "' ~ ~ O> ~ " a'. (!) (/) w 0) 0 Cl'. a. u :::;; ..J ..J " 0 z w ::::, 0 ..J ..J " 0 z w ::::, 0 (!) 0 ..J 0 Cl'. > z w < a. w Project N ame Locat ion Drill e r/Method Quendall Term inals Rento n. WA NW Probe I Push-Probe Sampl ing Method Co ntinuous Core Depth I Elevahon (feet) 25 30 35 Sampler Type: § No Recovery [] Continuous Core Sample Typeno S5 S6 S7 S8 Project Number 02002 7 Sorin Boring Number MC-1 Ground Surface Elev Sheet 2 of 2 DRAFT -~ Depth to W ater Start/Finish Date 5.5' ATD 7/22 /2009 SheervNAPL Comments Sheen Product Material Type Description Wet. o live gray ORGANIC SILT (O L); tr ace wood. -=-= leaves and roots NS Wet. gray, slightly silty SAND (S P); metallic 90% M S 1" lense of gravelly sand, heavy oil staining .. 4% ss oil wetted from 25.5' to 27', estimated 90 wt. v iscosity blebs >90% HS MC-1 -26-27 -S ow blebs >90% HS === Wet, olive g ray ORGANIC SILT (OL); - NS Wet, brown PEAT (PT); Wet ORGANIC SILT O L): · ·. · Wet. gray, SIL TY SAND (SM); sand fine . silty · inter beds. heavy oi l s t aining to 30 .5' rainbow 75%. MS OS flor ets Wet . gray SILT (ML); blebs 100% HS Wood in a SAND (SP) matrix; oil wetted to 31 .5' ow NS Wet. gray SILT WITH S AND LAMIN EA (MUSM); sand metalic 4 0-50% MS fine OS · Wet. gray and blue SAND (SP); sand fine. oil sta ined =j:: Wet, olive gr ay ORGANIC SILT (OL); - NS ~--~-. Wet, pink clayey SILT (VOLCANIC ASH) -=== Wet. olive gr ay ORGAN IC SILT (OL); trace gravel Wet. gray SAND (SP); sand fine to medium NS NS Wet. olive gray . sandy S ILT (ML-SM); with organics Wet. gray SAN D (SP); trace gravel , g ravel fine to coar se and well r ounded to subrounded Bor ing term inated 40 ft BGS PI O -Photoionization Detector (Headspace Measurement) Logged by: RR H -'-Sta tic W ater Level Approved by : JJP 'Sl-W ater Level (A TD) Fi ure No . A -2 Depth (It) 25 30 35 • :::j i!i z w Aspect consulting earth • water Project Name Quendall T ermin a ls Location Re nton . WA Driller/Method NW Probe I Push-Probe Sampling Method Continuous Co re Depth/ Elevation (fe<>t ) Borehole Compleoon Sample Ty pellD S-1 0 5 S/1 1/2009 S-2 10 S-3 S-4 SheervNAPL Commen ts ProJect Number 020 027 Sorin Boring Number MC-3 Ground Surface Elev Sheet 1 of 3 DRAF-T -Depth to W ater Start/Finish Date 7' ATD 811112009 Sheen Product Matenal Type Descnption NS Dry . brown, sandy S ILT (FILL); w ith w ood Wood waste (FILL) Slightly moist, gray to dark gray, silty, gravelly SAND (SM ); sl ight creosote odor Wood waste (F ILL) Moist. olive gray, ORGANIC SILT (OL) Wet, gray. SAND (SP); sand fine to medium :::f=:: Moist, oli ve gray , ORGAN IC SI LT (OL) Wet. gray clayey SILT with silty SAND laminea (C L-ML) :·-.: · .. Wet. gray SAND (SP); sand fine to coarse , :.-._. · .. _·.: predominantly medium Depth (It) N S 1----+--------------------~10 _: .. · ·:. Wet, brown to gray, slightly silty SAN D (SP); wi th PEAT NS NS NS ·. · · laminae Wet, brown PEAT (PT) """°""""'~-~~~-~-~-~~~~~~~~-+-15 _.· .. : ·:. Wet. gray SA ND (SP): sand fin e to medium: trace · · wood -=-=-Wet, dark brown. sligh tly sa ndy ORGANIC SILT (OL); =-=-= with few SAND lam inae Wet, brown PEAT (PT) 5.1-.......L-_.IS,ti!:2=:l,_-----....l......l..--..l.------....l..--.l.,_-_.c:.==--------------------l..--l Logged by: RRH c, Sampler Type : 0 ~ § No Recovery er ~ a Con tinuous Core w PIO -Photoionization Detector (Headspace Measurement) ~ Static Water Level 5l.. Water Level (ATD) Approved by: JJ P if. Fi ure No . A -2 w i....------------------------------------~=;,,;;...;~_...;,.,;.__,;;;;.... ______ ....J g N Aspect co nsu lti ng earth+ water Project Na me Qu en dall Termina ls Location _:.R.:..:e:.:.n:;.to::.cn...:·...:W:..:..:..A:..._ ________ --1 Drille r/Method NW Probe / Push-Probe Sampl ing Method Co ntinuous Core Depth / Elevation (feet) 25 30 Borehole Completion Sample Type/I D S-5 S-6 S-7 Sheen/NA PL Commen ts ~ 35 .;; :, g' .,: a: I!) U) w a, 0 er: 0.. u :. ...J ...J 13 z w ::, 0 ...J ...J 13 z w S-8 Project Number 02 0027 Boring Number MC-3 G round Surface Elev Sheet 2 of 3 DRAFT_-~ Depth to Water Start/Fi nish Date 7' ATD Sheen ProdUC1 Mat erial Type NS 8111 12009 DescnptJon Wet, oli ve gray ORGANIC SILT (OL) PEAT layer Wet. dark brown PEAT (PT) -::=:: Wet, ol ive gray ORGANIC SI LT (OL) NS NS NS Pink, clayey SILT (VOLCANIC ASH) Wet . gray SANO to slightly silty SAND (SP); sand fine to medium, silt laminea Wet, gray. clayey SI LT with SAND laminea (CH) Wet. gray SAND with clayey SILT laminea (SP); sand fine to coarse. predomi nantly medium; Wet, olive gray, slightly sandy SILT (ML) Wet. gray SAND (SP): sand fine to coarse. predominantly medium to coarse Wet. gray, sandy GRAVE L (GP); moderate creosote odor Depth (fl) 25 30 35 5 +--L-__.ISl::ll:liHl:ll:lH.------...1......1... __ ..1.._ _____ -l __ ...1... _ __:1..52.....12....L.. ____________________ L_I Logged by: RRH § Sampler Type: 0 § No Recovery er: ~ [] Continuous Core w P ID -Photoionization Detector (Headspace Measurement) .Y. Static W ate r Level 'Sl. Water Level (AT D) Approved by: JJP ~ F i ure No. A -2 W'----------------------------------------~.::.:_::..;_;.:::.;___;;..;_-=-------....J § N <D N ~ :, O> ~ a: C!) (/) w al 0 Cl'. a. u :I; -' -' ti z w ::, 0 -' -' ti z UJ ::, 0 8 -' 0 Cl'. > z w < a. w Aspect consulting earth + 'Nater Project Name Location Quendall T e rm in al s Renton . WA Dri lle r/Method NW Probe I Push-Probe Sampling Method Continuous Core 0Epth I Elevation (feet) 45 50 55 8orahole Completion Sam pler Type: § N o Recovery (] Continuo us Core Sample Type/10 ProJect Number I 02002 7 --".___ DRAFT·~ I--- I--- Borinci Loo Boring Number M C-3 Ground Surface Elev Depth to Water I Sheet 3 o f 3 7' ATD , Start/Finish Date 8/11 /2009 Sheen/NAPL Comments Sheen Product Materi al Type Oescri pton Bo ri ng ter minated at 40 ft BGS PIO -Phot oion ization Detector (Headspace Measurement) .!. Static Water Level Sl Water Level (ATD) Logged by: RR H Approved by: JJP Fiaure N o. A -2 Depth (tt ) ... ... ... t-45 ... ... ... 50 ... 55 ... ... ... '. Aspect co~!,u!~~~ Project Name Quen dall Te rm in a ls Location Renton. WA D riller/Method NW Probe / Push-Probe Sampling Method Continuous Core Depth / Elevatlon (feet) Borehole Completlon Sample TypeJlD 5 10 8 N :sf 15 ~ 6, J a' <.? ui w (D 0 QC a. 0 :::; :::J c3 z w ::, 0 8/11/2009 8 Sampler Type: ~ § No Recovery QC ~ a Continuous Core w S-1 0 S-2 S-3 S-4 Sheen/NAPL Comments Proiect Number 020027 Sorin Boring Number M C-6 Ground Surface E lev Sheet 1 o f 3 DRAFT~-· Depth to W ater ,. __ ; . ..;,... --~i-.-·- 8'ATD Sheen Product Material Type NS Start/Finish Date 8/11 /2009 Description Dry, red brown, sandy SILT (ML-SM) w ith wood waste WOOD WASTE Moist, dark brown silty gravelly SAND Boulder Wet. gr ay SAND (SP); sand fine to medium Dark brown WOOD WAST E Depth (fl) 5 ~:,,:,,4--------------------~10 Wet. gray to brown, sli ght ly gravelly, silty SAND (SIN) .... NS NS Wet, gray, g ravelly, sandy, S ILT (ML -TI LL FILL); s light creosote odor P IO -Photoionization Detector (Headspace Measurement) Logged by: RRH ~ Static Water Level 'SI,. Water Level (ATD) Approved by: JJP cf. Fi ure No. A -2 W'--------------------------------------.;....<,.;....;..._-'-, __ _.::;, ______ __. -, Cl. ~ C/) w ID ~ Cl. u ::; _, _, (3 z w ::, 0 ..J ~ z w Proj ect Name Location Driller/Method Sampling Method Deplh / Elevation (feel) 25 30 ::, 0 +---'-- Aspedconsutting earth + water Quendall Termi nals Renton. WA NW Probe / Push-Probe Continuous Core Sample Type,10 S-5 S-6 S-7 S-8 0 Sampler Type : g R 0 t:::l No Recovery "' ~ [] Continuous Core w Sorin Proiect Number Bo ri ng Number Sheet 020027 M C-6 2 of 3 Ground Surface Elev DRAFT~= Depth to Water 8' ATD Sheen Product Matenal Sheen/NAPl Comments Type NS NS N S NS NS NS Start/Finish Date 8/11 /2009 Oescnption sand la minae from 2 1 to 22.5 gray SAND layer Wet, gray, sl ightly si lty SAND with silty SAND lamin ae (SM/SP) Wet. brown PEAT (PT) Wet, brown PEAT (PT) Wet. gray SAND (SP); sand fi ne to medium Wet. gray, gravelly SAND (SP); sand fine to coarse, predominantly medium Wet, gray. sandy, clayey S ILT (ML) Pink. clayey SILT (VOLCANIC A SH) Wet, gray SAND (SP); sand fine to medium Wet. gray, very gravelly SAND (SP) PIO -Photoionization Detector (Headspace Measurement) Logged by: RRH ~ Static Water Level Approved by: JJP Water Level (ATD) Deplh (n) 25 35 c!: Fi ure N o. A -2 W'----------------------------------------'"-'-.;.....;.__.;......::; _______ _, 8 ~ <O N ~ ::, "' ::, < ~ ('.) <I) w en 0 Cl'. Cl. u :::; ...J ...J < D z w ::, 0 ...J ...J < D z w ::, 0 ('.) 0 ...J 0 Cl'. 5 z w < Cl. w Project Name Location Driller/Method Aspect consu lting earth + water Quendall Termin a ls Renton . WA Proje ct Number 020027 BorinQ LoQ Boring Number M C-6 Ground Su rface Elev 1 Sheet 3 of 3 8'ATD NW Probe / Push-Probe -:-'-'-::-:...:..::.c:..c.-:::~.:....:....:.=----"-;;:::=======-======::;.,-.... ~ Sampl ing Method Contin uous Core De pth to W ater Start/Finish Date 8/11 /2009 Dep th I Elevation (feet) 45 5 0 55 Borehole Completion S ample r Type: § No Recovery I] C ontinuous Core Sample Type/ID Sheen/NAPL Comments Sheen Product Material Type Description Bo ring terminated 40 ft BGS P IO -Photoionizatio n Detector (Headspace Measurement) :!. Static Water Leve l '¥-Water Level (A TD) Logged by : RRH Approved by: JJ P F iaure No . A -2 De pth (ft) - -45 -so - -55 ~ <!) "' w <D 0 0:: 0.. u :ii: ....I ....I 2i z w :, 0 ....I ~ z w Aspectconsulting earth+ water Proj ect Name Quendall Term inals Location Renton . WA Dri ller/M ethod NW Probe / Push-Probe Sampling Method Continuo us Core Deplh / Borehole Compleoon Sample Elevation (feel) Type/I D S-1 8/1112009 5 S-2 10 S-3 S-4 Project Number 020027 DRAFT=~ Sheen Product M atenal Sheen/NAPl Comments Type .. sheen d iss ipates ss quickly .. OS multicolored MS metallic .. motor oil-like HS ow vis cosity oc brown blebs HS Borin Boring Number MC-8 Ground Surface Elev Depth to Water Start/Fi nish Da te Oescnption S heet 1 of 2 4' ATD 8/11/2009 Dry, red brown , sandy SILT (ML): with wood and roo tl ets Wet, dark brown PEAT (P T} Wet, dark brown to gray SAND (SP}; with trace w ood Becomes gray, fine to medium Becomes fine Wet. brown, slightly silty SAND (SP} Wet, brown PEAT (PT) NS -'. _. ·:. Wet, gray SAND (SP); fine to medium sand Deplh (ft) 5 10 15 5+----1--tsl:2=1:i--____ _J_.::.J.. __ ..1-_____ ......L.. __ J..._ _ _L.._;_,__JL--------------------1--1 Logged by: RRH c, Sampler Ty pe : PIO -Photoionization Detecto r (Headspace Measurement) 9 R 0 t::::l No Recovery 0:: ~ a Conti nuous Core w ~ Static Water Level Ap proved by : JJP Water Level (A TD} if. Fi ure No . A -2 w L.-------------------------------------_;..;.....:;;.;..;;..;..;.;;.;._.;...;._.;;~------...1 Project Name Location Dr iller/M ethod Sampling Method Quendall Terminals Renton. WA NW Probe / Push-Probe Contin uous Core Deplh I Elevation (feet) B0<ehole Complebon Sample Type/ID 25 30 ~ 35 .., CL {'.) (/} w ro 0 QC CL () ::, __, __, ti z w ::J 0 __, __, ti S-5 S-6 Projec t Number 020027 Sorin Boring Number MC-8 Ground Surface Elev Sheet 2 of 2 DRAF -T-Depth to W ate r Start/Fini sh Date 4 ' ATD Sheen/NAPL Commen ts Sheen Product Material Type 8/1 1/2009 Description Wet, brown PEAT (PD W et, gray SAND (SP); fi ne to medium sand Wet. olive-gray. organic SI LT (O L) SIity sand W et. gray, gravelly SAND (SW); fine to coarse sand Depth (ft) .... 1--~-+-------------------+-25 W et. gray SAND (SP); fine to medium sand Wet. gray SAND (SP); fine to m edium sand l--;...._-t--------------------+-30 Bottom of boring at 30' 35 z w ::J Ot--'----'----'--------'--'----'--------'---'---'----'---------------------L--1 Logged by: RRH 8 Sampler Type: --' R No Recovery ~ ~ ~ a Continuous Core w PIO -Photoionization Detector (Headspace Measurement) ~ Static Water Level '5l. Water Level (A T D) Approved by: JJP i Fi ure No . A -2 W'---------------------------------------.;...;.;,~;..;._:..:;,;.._.;...;......;;;._ ______ __, Aspect consulting earth• water Project Name Quendall Termi na ls Loca tion Renton . WA Drille r/Method NW Probe / Push-Probe Sampling Method Continuous Core Deptn / Elevanon (feetl Borehole CompletJ0/1 Sample Type~D 5 8110/2009 10 ~ 15 (!) Sampler Type : g Fl 0 t:::l No Recovery a: ~ [] Continuous Core w S-1 0 S-2 S-3 S-4 Sheen/NAPL Comments Proiect Number 020027 Sheen Product Matenal Type NS NS NS N S N S N S .... : . .·.·· .·.· .. Borin Bonng Number MC-10 Ground Surface Elev Depth to W ater St art/Finish D ate Descnpoon Sheet 1 of 2 8'ATD 8/10/2009 Dry. brown, gravelly, sil ty SAND (SM); abundant wood Wood debris da rk brown 2 .0' -2 .5' M oist. brown , SAND (SP); trace g ravel, predominantly fine s and. fine to medium sand Wood 4 .5 -4.7' Moist, g ray SA N O (SP); predominantly fi ne sand , coarse ns w ith depth, fine to medi um sand Moist, olive g ra y. organic SILT (OL); with rootlets Wet. gray SAND (SW) interlamin ated with si lty SAND (SM) Wet, dark brown PEAT (PT) Wet, gray, SAND (SP); fine to medium sand Wet, gr ay silty SAND (SM): fine sand N S ·. · · Wet, gray, SAND (SP); fine to medium sand NS Wood 16' Wet. brown PEAT (PT) PIO -Photoionization Detector (Headspace Measurement) Logged by: RRH Y. Static Water Level 'Sl Water Level (ATD) Approved by: JJ P Clel)tn (ft) 5 10 15 if. Fi ure No . A -2 WL---------------------------------------'-"-'-.;_..;_ __ ..;.._;._ ______ _, Project Name Location Ouendall Terminals Renton , WA Dr iller/Method NW Probe / Push-Probe Sampling Method Continuous Core g N Depth / Elevation (feet) 25 30 ~-35 Borehole Complebon g Sampler Type: ~ § N o Recovery tr ~ a Continu ous Core w Sam ple Type/ID S-5 S-6 S-7 Sheen/NAPL Comments Project Number 020027 Sheen Product Matertal Type N S N S N S Borin Ground Surfa ce Elev Depth to Water Start/Finish Date Descnpbon Sheet 2 of 2 8'ATD 8/10/2009 Wet, gray, sl ightly silty SAND (SP); predominantly fine sand Wet, brown P EAT (PT) Wet, brown PEAT (PT) Wet, gray SAND (SW); trace gravel, fine to coarse sand Depth (ft) ~·~·~·~·"1'1---------------------+-25 Wet, gray, si lty SAND (SM); tr ace g ravel, fine to coarse N S N S NS sand Wet, gray SAND (SP); medium to coar se sand Fine to coarse sand Wet, olive gray, orga nic SILT to PEAT (PT-OL) Wet, gray, si lty SAND (SM); trace wood , tr ace gravel, fine sand Wet, olive gr ay, organic silt (OL); with laminae of silty sand Wet, brown PEAT (PT) Wet, olive gr ay. organic silt (OL); w ith laminae of s ilty sand PIO -Photoionizati on Detector (Head space Measurement) Logged by: RRH ~ Static Water Le vel ':l. W ater Level (ATD) Approved by: JJ P 30 t Figure No. A -2 WL---------------------------------------,;,.,;,s:.;_,;._..;.;_ __ __;;,;._ ______ __. ., a. Cl (/) UJ m ~ a. u :::; .., .., ~ z w ::, 0 .., .., ~ z UJ Project Name Location Aspedconsulting earth + water Quendall T erminals Renton . WA Dri ller/Method NW Probe I Push -Probe Sampl ing Method Continuous Core Depth/ Elevation (feet) 5 10 15 Bore hole Completion 8110/2009 Sample Type/ID S-1 0 S -2 S-3 S-4 Sheen/NAPL Comments Project Number 020027 Sheen Product Material Type NS .. . . NS .. . . NS .. . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . NS NS Borin Boring N umber MC-14 Ground Su rface Elev Depth to Water Start/F in ish Date Description Sheet 1 of 2 5' ATD 8110/2009 Moist, gray SAND (SP); fine to medium sand Ol ive rav S ILT Ml) Moist. brown. silty SAN D (SM); abundant organi cs and wood We t, gray, gravelly SAND (SW); fine to coarse sand W et. gray SAND (SW ); trace gravel , tra ce wood, predomi nantly medium sand, fine to coa rs e sand Wet, da rk brown , fi berous PEAT (PT) Wet, brown SAND (SP); fine to medi um sand Wet, dark brown , sandy PE AT (PT) W et, dark brown PE AT (PT) Depth (tt) 5 10 15 5 ~__.JL...-...J.,~~~-------'LA--....l...------L---'----1,"""'~,L_--------------------'L---J g Sampler Type : .., R No Re covery ~ t::l ~ a Continuous Core w PIO -Photoionization Detector (Headspace Measurement) Y. Sta tic Water Level Logged by : RRH Approved by : JJP Water Level (ATD) t Fi ure N o. A -2 wL--------------------------------------.:........;......;;.;._.;.... ________ _. 8 N a: ~ (/) w al 0 °' a.. u :::; -' -' 2§ z w ::, 0 :J Project Name Location Quendall Te rm inals Renton , WA Driller/Me thod NW Probe / Push-Probe Sampling Method Continuous Core Depth/ Elevation (feet) 25 30 Borehole Completion Sample Typen o S-5 0 S-6 S-7 S-8 Sheen/NAPL Comments Moderate creosote-like odo ~ Sl ight cr eosote Project Number 020027 Shee n Product Matenal Type NS Bo ri n Boring Number M C-1 4 Ground Surface Elev Depth to Water Start/Finish Date Descnpbon Sheet 2 of 2 5' ATD 8/10/2009 Wet, brown PEAT (PT); few sand laminae Wet. brown to gray slightly silty SAND (SP); trace wood Depth (tt) NS h;.,, ....... ~---------------------+-25 Wet. o live gray organic SILT interlaminated with PEAT NS NS • NS (OUPT) Thin bed volcanic ash(?) Wet, gray, slightly silty, slightly gravelly SAND (SW); fine to coarse sand Wet, gray , silty SAND (SM); fine sand Peat Wet. ra . s ilt SAND SM · fine sand Wet, gray SAND (SP); fine to medium sand Wet, gray, slightly sandy SILT (ML); fine sand Wet, gray, slightly g ravelly SAND (SP); predominantly medium sand Wet. gray, si lty SAND (SM); fine sand Wet, gray, gravelly SAND (SP) 30 35 ~ odor N Bottom of boring , 40' BGS o +---'--'-''--'-''--'-':..,_-------'-~---'--------'-....U~-'---'--'----''-------=---------------'---1 RR H P IO -Photoionization Detector (Headspace Measurement) Logged by: ~ Static Water Level g Sampler Type: ~ § No Recovery °' ~ [] Continuous Core w Approved by: JJ P Water Level (ATD) t Figure N o. A -2 w .._ ____________________________________ .;.;..~;;..;..;.;.;_......;...;....;;;;, ______ __. "' 8 N ~ ~ :, 0, :, <( -, a. (!) (/J u z 0 (/J :;ii ... (/J :, (!) :, <( ...J ...J "" 0 z w :, 0 ...J ...J 1§ z w :, C? (!) 0 ...J 0 er > z w <( a. w Aspedconsutting earth + water Project Name Que ndall Term ina ls Lo c ation Renton, WA Drill er/Met hod Cascade I Rotary Soni c Sampl ing Method Continuous Cor e Depth I E!evalion (feel) 2 3 - 4 5 6 - 7 8 9 10 - 11 12 13 14 15- 16 17 18 19 Borehole completion Ir's IV Temporary 8" steel >-- cas ing 0-5T Temporary 6" steel casi ng 0-99' i'.\Za1312009 Ir, I'--' r. ] Sample Type/ID Sheen/NAPL Comme nts Creosote-like odo r BorinQ Log P roject Number Boring Number I Sheet 1 o f 8 (')')(')(')?7 BH-20-C DRAF.T~~· ..._ Ground Surface Elev Depth to Water 13' A TD Sheen NS NS . ·-·~ . --~- Product Matenal Type "x"xg )<)< )<,;x.,,. y\.\,,.> )<~~)< 1>"0..) ) ) ) ~ Start/Finish Date 8/3/2009-8/5/2009 Desaiption Dry, brown, silty, very sa ndy GRAVEL (F ILL); abundant asphalt and concrete debris, t race wood ._ 1 \")"x lf'~'e*'~--------------------+ 2 >.W Ory , brown slightly sil ty SAND (SM); trace gravel ,>'))'· )~~'x D<.~'>'; x'\'9 y;>~ ~3 ~x..-x )< ~.:.<-.4-------------------+-4 ~ Dry, Da rk gray gravelly SANO (SWJ; trace asphalt and ~ wood x..>9'-x ~>.,..~;:..;:".q...--------------------~ 5 Ory, brown SANO (S P); fine to medium t · . ~ .. -~ . ·. · . . \.·. l. ·\ ._ 6 No Recovery fro m 6' to 1 O' ._ 8 '-9 1---------------------+10 Slightly moist, brown , slightly silty, gr avelly SANO (SM); 11 ..Y---------------------+-12 · · Very moist, brown SAND (SP); tr ace s ilt f=-;,,,..,,=1-----------:-----------+-14 Wet, brown , slightly sandy ORGANIC SILT (OL) Very slight odor NS '-15 N S b.:.'r'rd-------------------+-16 Wet, brown PEAT (PT); moderately fiberous 17 18 1/8" sand laminea '-19 Sampler Type : § No Recovery PIO -Photoionization Detector (Headspace Measurement) .!. Static W ater Level Logged by: RRH Approved by: JJP [IJ Conti nuous Core ~ Water Level (ATD) Fiqu re No. A-2 Project Name Quendall Terminals Project Number 020027 I Borina Loa Boring Number BH-20-C Ground Surface Elev I Sheet 2 of 8 Location -'-R.:..:e'-n'-to::...n--'.--'W_A ________ --1 Driller/Method Cascade / Rotarv Sonic Sampling Method Continuous Core D RAF--r :__·= Depth to W ater Start/Finish Date 13' ATD 8/3/2009-8/5/2009 Depth / Elevation (feet) Borehole Completion Sample Ty pe/ID Sheen/NAPL Comme nts Sheen Product Material Type Description Depth (n) ~ :, O> :, 21 - 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 <( 35 ~ a. <.'.) en u z 36 0 en 8 ~ 37 <.'.) :, <( ..J ..J ;§ 38- z lU :, 0 __, 39 ;j_ Temporary s· steel casing0-57 T empo,ary 6" steel casing 0-99' Slight odor Yellow to yellow brown blebs Slight odor Slight odor Slight odor S light creosote odor NS NS NS HS N S NS NS NS NS NS oc I -21 becomes dark brown -22 Wet, brown, s lightly gravelly S IL TY SAND (SM); r-:c. :--. :,1:0~r.:,i·n.2.a!..!ni~ccos~il!..t !.!:la~m.!!.in:.:;e::..!aa!.-____________ J-23 W et, gray SAND (SP); ~.~.c,.....,.-+--------------------+-24 W et , gray , very gravell y SAND (S\/1/); sand fine to coarse predominately medium, gravels fine and sub rounded, decrease in gravel with depth W et , brown PEAT (PT) Wet. olive gray , slightly sandy ORGA NI C SILT (O L ); W et. o live gray. s lightl y s ilty SAND (SP); sand fine to medium, trace organics Wet, brown PEAT (PT); trace gravel Wet, gray SAND to SIL TY SAND (SM}; >-2 5 26 27 28 29 30 ............ -+-----------------------1-31 Wet, gray SAND (SP) Wet, gray SIL TY SAND (SM); sand fine -32 lense of volcanic ash W et. olive gray ORGANIC SILT (OL) i.:.:;.;:;.,;:;:;i.....-.;____...:::..__...;_ _____ __:__:_ ______ ~33 Wet, olive gray, sandy SI LT (ML}; trace gravel, trace organics f-35 l-'--'-L.U..'-1----------------------+-36 · · W et, gray, grave lly SA ND (S P); sand fine to medium -37 -38 -39 a z lU :, 0 "----'--'--'---'---'-------..1....&-'---'--------'----'----'----'--'-----------------------'--I Logged by : RRH 0 Sampler Ty pe : PIO -Photoionization Detector (Head space Measuremen t) g R 0 t:::'.I No Recovery -'-Static Water Level 0:: >2 [I] Continuous Core Sl w -W ater Level (ATD) ~ ISi F ioure No. A-2 WL-----------------------------------------"---------------' Approved by: JJP Proj ect Name Location Driller/Method Que ndall Terminals Renton . WA Cascade I Rotarv Sonic Sampling Method Continuous Core Deptn I Elevation (feet) 41 Borehole Compienon Sample Type,10 Shean/NAPL Comments Project Number 0200 27 I --- Sheen Product Matenal Type Borina Loa Boring Number BH-20-C Ground Surface Elev Depth to Water Start/Finish Date Oescnption becomes s lightly gravelly NS I Sheet 3 o f 8 13' ATD 8/3/2009-8/5/2009 Depth (fl) 41 ~---+-------------------~ Wet. gray SAND (SP); sand fine to medium 42 42 43 Temporary 8" Steel casuv;i 0-sr NS -'-,-+--------------------+-43 Wet. brown, slightly gravelly SAND (SP); 44 44 45 Temporary 6" steel casing 0-99' Slight odor NS ~ .:.,,--i--------------------1-45 Wet. gray SAND (SP); sand fine to medium 46 >-46 47 >-47 NS ~-,-+-------------------~ Wet, gr ay , slightly gr avelly to gravelly SAND (SP); 48 increasing gravel with depth -48 49 >-49 6 " lense of gray sandy G RAVEL. sand fi ne to medium, 50 Slight odor NS gradational contact -50 51 -51 52 NS 52 53 Very slight odor NS J.,-,"T"T",+------~------------4-53 Wet, gray , slightly silty to si lty , very gravelly SAND § : 54 "' "§ g, < 55 ii'. (SM) bentonite seal 52' -57 ~ l:'.l • O ': o Wet, gr ay, gravelly SAND (GW); sand fine to medium z 56 )QC: O o ,Oo Ul ?o':o' ~ )OC: ~ o.o. ~ 57 NS ?o?o g pOC: < ::1 -, 8·8·, c'.i 58 • 0. 0 z )OC w o·o· 5 . O':'O Wet. gray . s ilty. very sandy GRAVEL to very gravelly ::J 59 Temporary s-steel Slight odor NS ~o~o<:= SAND (GW); sand well graded fine to coar se c§ casing 0-99' ? o '; o < >-55 >-56 -57 -58 59 ~ ~ poc 5+-_.., _ _.__..__,_...._ _____ _._'-'_._ __ _,_ _____ _._ __ .L...._....i...o..:•....aoc..,•'-"---------------------'---1 Logged by: RR H Sampler Type : 8 ~ § No Recovery er Z> [IJ Conti nuous Core PIO -Photoionization Detecto r (Head space Measurement) .!. Sta tic Water Level Approved by: JJ P w Water Level (ATD ) ~ rsl Fioure No. A-2 WL...------------------------------------..:..;.z..;;.;,..;;..;..;.;;.;._..:..;~:.._------...1 O> 8 N .... "' 0 ::, OI ::, < ii'. 0 r/) u z 0 r/) ~ f-- r/) ::, 0 ::, < ..J ..J < 0 z w ::, 0 ::l < 0 z w ::, 0 0 0 ..J 0 a:: > z w < Q. w Project Name Location Driller/Method Sampling Method Quendall Terminals Renton , WA Casca de I Rotary Sonic Depth / Elevation (feel) 61· 62 - 63 - 64- 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 Continuous Core Borehole Completion Temporary 6" steel casing 0-99' Sampler Type : § No Recovery [I] Continuous Core [SJ Sample TypenD / Project N umber 020027 I DRAE.T - Sheen/NAPL Comments . ,. Sheen Product Material Type BorinQ LoQ Boring Number BH-20-C Gro und Surface Elev Depth t o W ater Start/Finish Date l Description Sheet 4 of 8 13' ATD 8 /3/2009-8/5/2009 Wet, brown, SAN D (SP); sand fine to medium NS De pth (ft) 1-51 i;..........,...,;+---------------------~ ... 62 -11 · · ,l W et. brown, SIL TY SAND (SM); sand fine water sample I H20C-63.5-64-Wi, taken with hydro p unch NS NS N S water sample NS H20C-72. 5-73-W b taken with hydro punch N S NS NS Wet, brown SAND (SP); sand fine to coarse predominately medium , trace gravel W et . brown. slightly s ilty to silty, gravelly SAND (SM); sand fine to coarse Wet, brown SAND (SP) sa nd fine to medium. trace fine -65 -66 +-67 -68 70 71 72 73 gravel ... 75 -76 ~~~--------------------~ Wet, brown SAND (SP); sand fine to medium -77 -78 PIO -Photoionization Detector (H eadspace Measurement) Logged by: RRH Approved by: JJP ~ Static Water Level Water Level (ATD) Fio ure No. A-2 "' 8 N r-. N '§ C> ~ <( ii' <::) "' u z 0 "' 8 I- "' ::, <::) ::, <( ...J ...., <( 0 z w ::, 0 ...J ...J <( 0 z w ::, 0 <::) 0 ...J 0 a: ~ w <( a.. w ~ Aspeclco::!,")~~ Project Name Quendall Terminals Locat ion Renton . WA Driller/Method Cascade / R otarv Sonic Sampl ing Method Continuous Cor e Deplh / Elevation (feet) 81 - 82 83 84 85 86 - 87 88 89 90 - 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 - B0<ehole Completion Temporary s-steel cas ing 0-99' Sample Typen D 1,--._ Iv Boring Log Project Number I Boring Number I Sheet 5 of 8 020027 BH-20-C / ~ Ground Surface Elev ................. ·DRAF.T :_ '- '-Depth to Water 13' ATD '" S heen/NAPL Sheen Comments Slight oaor water sample I H20C-80 .5-81-W; taken with hydro NS punch N S NS NS NS , Start/Finish Da te 8/3/2009-8/5/2009 Produ ct Matenal Description Deplh Type (fl) .. sand is predomin ately fine ~.:.-:- Wet, brown SAND (SP); sand fine to mediu m 81 predominately medium ~~ W et, brown SANO (SP); sand fine to medium 82 .. 83 84 Wet, gray SAND (SP); sand fi ne to medium '-85 L.86 ~·:-:~<+--------------------~ ... 87 Wet, gray, gravelly SANO (S\IV); gravel fine to coarse .... 88 ~~·~·--------------------~ · · Wet, gray, slightly gravelly SAND (SP); sand fine to medi um, gravels fine 89 .. Water sample collected '-90 .. grades to predominately medium sand , trace gravels, gravels fine to coarse, subang ula r to subrounded '-91 1 Increase in grave ls 92 -:·. ·> ~d\ 93 W et, gray, sl ightly gravelly to gravelly SAND (S\IV); sand fine to coar se predomin ately medium . gravels fine to coarse, s ubrounded to subangular '-94 .... 95 .... 95 Wet, gray SAND (SP); sand fi ne to medium 97 predominately fi ne .. silt laminea betwe en 98' and 98.5' '-98 Water sample coll ected 99 No soil sample collected between 99' and 100' Sample r Type : § No Recovery PIO -Pho toionizati on Detector (Headspace Measurement) .!. Static W ater Level Logged by : RRH Ap proved by : JJP [I] Contin uous Core [SJ 5l-Water Level (A TD) Fiqure No. A-2 Project Name Q uendal l T er minals Location _:._:R:::e.:..:nt:.:o:.:..:n.:..., W.:...:..:..A-'-----------1 Driller/Method Cascade I Rot arv Sonic Sampl ing Method Continuous Core Oeptn / Elevation (teen 101- 102- 10'.r 104- 105- 10& 107- 10& 109- Borehole Completion Sample Typeno Sheen/NAPL C omments Project Number 020027 Sheen Product Material Type I Borinci Loq Boring Number BH-20-C Ground Surface Elev Depth to Water Start/Finish Date Description I She et 6 of 8 13' AT D 8/3/2009 -8/5/2009 Wet, gr ay SAND (SP}; tra ce si lt laminae Hydro punch sample BH -20C-101.5-1 02-VV6 collected at 15:15 30' heave at 100' Oeptt, (ft) 10 1 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 11 0-f-,-'~,+--------------------+110 W et, gr ay SAND with very thin beds of SILT (SP /ML}; ~ :, g' 111- 112- 113- ~ 115- a. (.'J en ~ 11& 0 en gi 3 111- g <( _, ~ 1 1 & z w ::, 0 :J 119- 2i sand fine to med ium W et. gray SAND (SP); fine to medium sand 2-' heave Hydropunch sample BH -20C-117.5-11 8-VV9 collected at 16 :45 111 112 1 13 114 115 116 1 1 7 118 119 z w ::, O I---L--'-----'------__.._,_ __ _._ _____ ---'----'----'-'---"--------------------'----1 Logged by: R RH t'J S ample r Type: PIO -Photoionization Detector (Headspace Measurement) g 0 § No Recovery ?: Static Water Level a:: ~ [[] Continuous Core 'Sl-Water Level (ATD) if. lSJ Fiqure No. A-2 w i..;;;;;;.... ___________________________________ ..:...:.;..;:,;_~~-..;..;.-=. _______ ..J Approved by : JJP Project Name Location Driller/Method Aspedconsulting earth • waler Quendall T erminals Renton. WA Cascade I Rota Sonic Sampl ing Method Co ntin uou s Core Depth / Elevauon (fee t) 12 12 12 12 13 Borehole Comp:etion Sheen'NAPL Co mments Borin Proiect Number Bonng Number Sheet 7 of 8 020027 -. .:... BH-20-C Ground Surface Ele v Depth to W ater Sta rt/Finish Date 13' ATD 8/3/2009-8/5/2009 Sheen Product Matenal Type Descripoon Depth (ft) 121 1-:.,.,.,.,+-------------------4-122 Wet , gray , si lty SAND with clayey SILT and SILT laminae (SM /ML) 123 l-+l-'r'+--------------------4-'12 4 Wet , g ray , slig htly sil ty SAND (SP-SM); fine sa nd Clayey SILT (ML); in shape of sampler barrel · hea v e at 130' Wet, gray SAND (SP); tra ce gravel, fine to med i um sand 125 12 6 127 128 129 130 131 ~-------------------+1 32 Wet. gray , gravelly SAND (SW); grave l to 3" diameter Hydropunch sample BH-20C-132.5-133-W6 collected -......,~--------------------4-133 Wet, gray SA ND (SP); trace g ravel, trace si lt, fine to medium sand 1-'-,---+-------------------+1~ Wet, gray . grav ell y SAND (SP); trace silt, fine to med ium sand 135 136 138 139 9 Sampler Type : PIO -Photoionizati on Detector (Headspace Me asurement) 0 ~ No Recove ry :J. Static Water Level Lo gged by : RRH a: ~ [I] Conti nuous Co re 'Sl-water Level (ATD) ~ r5J Fi ure No . A-2 WL...;.;.-------------------------------------"---------------' Approved by: J JP Project Name Location Driller/Method Sampl ing Method _Q.:::..c..u...c.e _n ..;_d ..;_a __ ll _T.....;e;.;_r c.c.m--in;.;_a::c.lc.::.s __ ---4, Renton. WA Cascade I Rotarv Sonic Project Number 020027 I DRAF·T-'--"- -..,..,...._ ---i----. Continuou s Core \.. -' Borina Loa Boring Number BH-2 0-C Ground Surface Elev Depth to W ater Start/Finish Date Depth/ Elevation (feet) Borehole Comp lebon Sample Type/ID Sheen/NAPL Comments Sheen Product Matertal Type Descnption w ::, C, 141- 14c 143- 144- 145- 14& 147- 14& 149- 150- 151- 15c 1 5:} J 155- a'. <:) U) ~ 15& 0 U) 8 .... ~ 157- ~ <( ::::l ~ 15& z UJ ::, 0 ::::l 159- ~ Bottom of boring at 140' I Sheet 8 of 8 13'ATD 81312009-8/5/2009 Depth (ft) 141 142 143 144 145 ... 146 ~147 ... 148 >-150 15 1 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 z UJ ::, o +---'-....1..--....,_ _____ ---l.---l.---'---------'---.l--....1..---1'--------------------....1..--1 L ogged by: RRH g Sampler Type: PIO -Photoionization Detector (Headspace Measurement) 0 § N o Recovery .?. Static Water Level Q'. >2 [I] Conti nu ous Core 52 w -Water Level (A TD) f fSJ Fioure No . A-2 w ....... --------------------------------------'""'"-.;......;... __________ _, Approved by : JJP r · M ~ 3 -, -, 0.. l!) u; w a, 0 a: 0.. 0.. 0 ..., ~ z w :::) Aspedconsulting earth + water Proje ct Name Quendall T erminals Project Number 020027 Borin Bonng Number QP-1 Ground Surfa ce Elev Sheet 1 of 2 Location -"-R--'e_n"'"to'""n_._W_A ___________________ _ Drille r/Method NW Probe / Push -Probe Sampling Method Continuous Core 5 10 Sample Type~D Tests S"(/1 4.5 sheen test (no sheen , 20% fl orets , semi 'L.-J.-'----1 circle blebs) ST/16 sheen test (moder ate sheen . 35-40% flore ts . bl e bs) 16 .5-18 .5 heavy sheen , oi l wetted S4 QP-1-17-18.5 ST/19 sheen test (moderate sheen ) PID (ppm) Blows/ Matenal 6" Type Depth to Water Start/F inish Date Desa,ption " 6.5' ATD 7/21 /2009 Loose , dry, brown . slightl y san9y to sandy SILT (M L); sand fine . trace gravels, trace organics Wet, brown silty SAND (SM); sand fine to medium redominantl fine . abundant oroani cs Wet, gray SAND (SP); 1/2" peat lens and 14 .5 Depth (n) 10 bec omes gray to brown ba nded fine to medium sa nd 15 (SP) Sta ining from 14.5' to 16 .5 . -~-------------------~ Wet, gray to brown SAND (SP); fine to med ium, abundant orga nic fiberous organ ics , oil wetted from 16 .5' to 18.5' Soil sample collected from 17' to 18' BGS'. (Sample ID : QP-1-17-18-S Wet, brown. sa ndy ORGANIC SILT (O L); wet, brown. PEAT (P T); non fibero us O+-.......L--l:ll==11.....------L-L---'-------L--.l--....t::=='"--------------------L--I Logged by: RRH § Sampler T ype : ~ § No Recovery PIO -Ph otoionization Detecto r (Headspace Me asurement) ~ Stati c Water Level 'Si. Water Level (ATD) Ap proved by: JJP ~ a Co ntinuous Core > ~ Fi ure No. A -2 ,..._ ____________________________________ ..;,,,,;;=,,:;,.,;.~-.;._;_--=:..__------...1 "' 8 N ;;; >-~ ~ C.:> <ti w m 0 Q'. 0. 0. 0 ..J ~ Project Name Lo cation Quendall Term inals Renton. W A Driller/Method NW Probe / Push-Probe Sampling Method Continuous C ore Depth / ElevaLion (feet) 25 30 Borehole Completion Sample Type/ID S5 Te sts ST/21 sheen test (s light sheen , 3% ST/24 .5 sheen test (no sheen) Project N umber 020027 PIO Blows/ Material (ppm) 6" Type Sorin Boring Number QP-1 Ground Surfa ce Ele v Depth to W ate r Start/Finish Date W et, g ray SAND (SP); fine to med ium W et, brow n O R GANIC SILT (O L); Sheet 2 of 2 6 .5' ATD 7 /21 /2009 Depth (n) 1----1--------------------~30 Boring terminated at 30 ft SGS 35 z w ::, o t-----'---'----'--------'--'---'-------'----L----'----'----------------------'----1 Logged by: RRH § Sam pler Type : ~ § No Recovery PID -Photoionization D ete ct or (Headspace Me asurement) .!. Static W ater L evel '¥-W ater Level (A TD) Approved by : J J P ~ a Continu ou s Core > z Fi ure No. A -2 w,L....------------------------------------.:....:.,z.:::.:.:::...:.;~___:;,.;_...::, _______ .J ;;; >-~ ii <., VI w a, ~ Q. Q. 0 _, _, c:'i z l!5 Project Name Location Aspect consulting earth + water Quendall Term inals Renton . WA Dri lle r/Met hod NW Pro be / Push -Probe Sampling Me th od Continuous Core Oepl/1/ Elevaton (f eet) 5 10 Borehole Compleoon Sample Type/I D S1 Tests ST/13.5 sheen test (no sheen) slight odor ST/5.5 sheen test (no sheen) ST/16 sheen test (no sheen) S4 ST/17.5 sheen t est (no sheen) Proiect Number 020027 PIO (ppm) Blows/ Mate,,al 5-Type Sorin Boring Number QP-2 Ground Surface Elev Depth to Water Start/Fin ish Date Oesc:,pton ....... Sheet 1 of 2 7.5' ATD 7/21/20 09 Dry, light brown SI LT to sl ightly sandy SILT (ML): trace gr avel Depth (ft ) 5 r:,:,='i"M'l---~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+-1 0 Wet, brown . silty SAND (SM): sand fine, abundant organics, trace wood Wet, gray SAND (SP); fine to medium, wood 2" lense of wet . gray silty SAND (SM): Wet. gray, slightly silty SAND (SM); sand is fine 15 0+--_1 _ __i:s;t:11:2i;imtt._ _____ -.1..-.1.. __ ...1-_____ ....J.... __ L_ _ _LI.:..L.L.LJJ--------------------1.--1 Logged by : RRH 8 Sample r Type : _, \i! § No Recovery PID -Photoioniza tion Detector (Headspace Measurement) .!. Sta tic Water Level '¥-Water Level (ATD) Approved by : J J P ~ a Con tinuous Core > ~ Fi ure No. A -2 ,.._ ____________________________________ ..;..:a;!..;;;.;;...;.;.;;.;.._;,..;.......;;;;._ ______ _J >-~ Ci CJ (/) w (D 0 a:: a. a. 0 ...J ...J < 0 z w Project Name Quendall Te rminals Project Number 020027 Ground Surface Elev Sheet 2 of 2 Location -'-R.;..;e;.;.n;.;.to;;.;nc.:·...;Wc;.;..;A'---------------------- Driller/Method NW Probe I Push-Probe Sam pling Meth od Continuous Core Depth / Elevation (feet) 25 30 Borehole Completion Sample Type/ID S5 0 S6 Tests ST/21 sheen test (no sheen) ST /23 sheen test (no sheen) ST/25 sheen test (no sheen) ST/26 sheen test (no sheen) PI O (ppm) Blows/ Matenal 6" Type Depth to Water Start/Finish Date Oescnpbon A. 7 .5' ATD 7 /21/2009 Wet, brown to dark brown PEAT (PT); with gray to olive gray, organic silt Jaminea Boring terminated 30 ft . BGS Depth (ft) 25 35 ::, o +-_..___. __ _._ ______ _.___.__ __ ...._ _____ ---1. __ _,_ _ __,'-----'----------------------.,__-1 Logged by: RRH § Sampler Type: \? § No Recovery PIO -Photoionization Detector (Headspace Measurement) .?. Static Wate r Level 5l Water Level (ATD) Approved by: JJ P ~ a Continuous Co re > a5 Fi ure No. A -2 ''----------------------------------------'--'"~:.._c.:.;..._;...;.....;;.;..._ ______ --1 ~ ~ (!) en ~ ~ Q. Q. 0 ..J ..J ;!; z w ::, Proj ect Name Location Aspectconsutting e aih + water Quendall Te rm inals Renton . WA Dr ille r/Method NW Probe / Push-Probe Sampling Method Con tinuous Core Borehole C ompletlon 5 10 Sample Type/ID Tests ....._ __ _, ST/15 sheen test S4 (no shee n) ST/16 .5 sheen test (no sheen) ST/18 sheen test (no shee n) ST/20 she en te st ProJect Number 020027 PI O BlowSI Matenal (ppm) 6" Type Sorin Boring Number QP-3 Ground Surface Elev Depth to Water Start/F inish Da te DesCtlp lion Sheet 1 o f 2 14' ATO 7/21 /2009 Medium den se , dry , br own,.sil!)' to slightly si lty . gravelly SA ND (SM): trace organics Stiff, sligJ,tly moist, brown, sandy SILT (M L); tra ce gravels lense of moist brown peat at 9.5' Wet, brown , sandy ORGAN IC SILT (O L); W oo d from 14'-14.5' Wet, olive gray, slighty silty SAND (SM): sand fine P EAT (PT); with wood Wet. dark, gray SAND (SM); abund ant orga nics and peat, organic silt laminea Wet, brown, to dark brown PEAT (PT); fibe rous to non fiberous Depth (fl) 5 10 15 o _ __,__...,...=ll;!l;i-_____ _.._a..... _ __, ______ .J..._ _ __._ __ .==::::1....-------------------...L.-I 9 Sampler T ype : ~ § No Recovery ~ [] Continuous Co re > PIO -Photoionization Detector (Headspa ce Measurement) ~ Static Water Leve l Water Level (AT O) Logged by: RRH Approved by: JJP ai Fi ure No . A -2 ,.._ ____________________________________ _;_;,...;;,;..;;..;..;.;;,,;._..:....;..__;:;.._ ______ _. Project Name Location Quendall Terminals Renton. WA Driller/Method NW Probe / Push-Probe Sampling Method Continuous Core Depth / Elevation (feet) 25 Borehole C ompletion Sample Type/ID ss Tests ST/25 sheen test 1..-.J-----1 (no sheen, very slight odor) S6 Project Number 020027 PIO (ppm ) Blows/ Matena l 6" Type Sorin Boring Num ber QP-3 Ground Surface Elev Depth to W ater Start/Fin ish Date Descnpbon """ Wet. g ray SAND (SP); fine to medium Sheet 2 of 2 14'ATD 7 /21 /2009 Depth (It) 25 30 f-'-~-:+-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r 30 ;;; ;;,:, ~ -, 0.. (!) (/) w ID 0 a:: 0.. 0.. 0 -' -' c3 z w ::, Bor ing terminated 30 ft BGS 35 OJ.---'---'----'--------'--'---'---------'----'----1---'--------------------__J'---I Logged by: RRH § Sampler Type: ~ § N o Recovery PIO -Photoionization Detector (Headspa ce Measurement) .!. Static Water Level 'Sl-Water Level (ATD) Approved by : JJP g [) Continuous Core > ~ Fi ure No . A -2 1L---------------------------------------~.:.;..:..;_;.:.;.._;..;__;;;;..;_ ______ __, ;;; ,_ "5 -, -, D. ~ IJ) w a, 0 Ct: Q. Q. 0 _, _, i!i z w :) Project Name Location Aspectconsumn 9 earth • water Q uendall T e rm inals Renton . WA Dri ll er/M ethod NW Probe / Push-Probe Sampling Method Continuous Core Depth I Elevation (feet) 5 10 Borehole Corr4>1et,on $ample Typeno S1 0 Tests ST/2 sheen test (no sheen) 1,-,,1----i ST/5 sheen test (no sheen) S2 11.-~---1 ST/15 sheen test S4 (heavy sheen) ST/19 sheen test (heavy sheen ) Project Number 020 027 P IO (ppm) 19 Blows/ Malenal 6" Type Sori n Boring Number QP-5 Ground Surfa ce Elev Depth to Water Start/Finish Date Description A. Sheet 1 of 2 7.5' ATD 7/21/2009 Medium dense. sl ightly moist, b rown , sl ightly silty to silty SAND (SM); trace gravel ;few roots Oil coated wood ba rk in a fine to medium sand matrix 11'-12' Soil sample collected from 11 ' to 12' BGS'. (Sample ID: QP-5-11-12-S Wet, dark brown PEAT (P T); very th in silt laminea 15'-15.5' interbed of wet SAND (SP); fine to medium, oil stained Pea t becomes slightly fiberous Wet, alternating beds of grey , slightly silty SAND (SM); fine to medium; and brown SAND (SP); fine to medium, oil stained Depth (ft ) 5 10 15 o +---'--"'"""'"""'.,._ _____ __.___._ __ _._ _____ _.. __ ..__...1..u.:.,...w..L--------------------.....1.--1 Logged by : RRH § Sampler Type : ~ § No Recovery ~ [) Continuous Core ~ w Fi ure No. A -2 ,.__--------------------------------------'"-'-.;.._ ___________ _, PIO -Photoioniza tion Detector (Headspace Measurement) ~ Static Water Level 5l.-Water Level (ATD) Approved by: JJ P 8 N ;;; ;,:, ~ ..., a. (.'.) (/) w co 0 0:: a. a. 0 ...J ...J c§ z w ::, Project Name Location Quendall Terminals Renton . WA Driller/Method NW Probe / Push-Probe Sampling Method Continuous Core Depth / Borehole Completion Sample Elevation (feet) Typeno S5 Tests s een est (heavy sheen) ST/21 s hee n t est (no sheen, trace) ST/22 .5 sheen test (no sheen) 25 .....,,__ _ __, ST/25 .0 1 sheen test (no sheen) S6 30 Project Number 020027 PIO Blows/ Matelial (ppm) 6" Type Bori n Ground Surface Elev Depth to Water Start/Finish Date Sheet 2 o f 2 7.5' ATD 7/21/2009 Bori ng termina ted 30 ft SGS, 9' below DNAPL product Depth (ft) 35 o t----''----'----'------__.--'---~------'----'----'----''---------------------L--1 Logged by : RRH 8 Sampler Type: ...J \? § No Recovery P IO -Phot oionization Detector (Headspace Measuremen t) .?. Static Water Level 5l. Water Level (ATD) Approved by: J J P 2 [] Continuous Core > a5,.__ ____________________________________ .:.F.:.,i z.::u::.:r e::...:.;N~o.:... __:A:...:...-_2::..._ ______ __1 Aspectconsulting earth+wate r www.aspect consulting.com • ' Aspectconsutting • earth+water INTERIM STORMWATER MANAGEMENT CLOSURE REPORT Quend,all Terminals Prepared for: Quendall Terminals Group Project No. 020027-008 • July 6, 2009 ' Aspectconsulting ' earth+water INTERIM STORMWATER MANAGEMENT CLOSURE REPORT Quendall Terminals Prepared for: Quendall Terminals Group Project No. 020027-008 • July 6, 2 009 Aspect Consulting, LLC Owen G. Reese, PE Assocjate Water Resources Engineer oreese@aspectconsulting.com Eric Marhofer, PE Senior Staff Water Resources Engineer emarhofer@aspectconsul ting. com V:\020027 Quendall Temiinals\Stormwater\SWMCR\Final\SWMCR.doc 401 Second Avenue S, S uite 201 Seattle, WA 98104 Tel: (206) 328-7443 Fax: (206) 838-5853 www.aspectconsulting.com a limited liability company ASPECT CONSUL TING Contents 1 Introduction ................................................................................................. 1 2 Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements .......................... 2 3 Construction Activities ............................................................................... 3 3.1 Soil Stockpile and Germination Testing ....................................................... 3 3.1.1 Soil Stockpile Test .................................................................. : .............. 3 3.1.2 Germination Test ................................................................................... 4 3.2 BMP lmplementation .................................................................................... 4 3.3 Plan Modifications ........................................................................................ 4 4 Monitoring Results ...................................................................................... 5 4.1 Construction Monitoring ............................................................................... 5 4.2 Post-Construction Monitoring ....................................................................... 5 4 .3 Conclusions and Recommendations ........................................................... 6 5 Limitations ................................................................................................... 7 6 References ................................................................................................... 7 List of Figures 1 As-Built Site Features and Stormwater Drainage List of Appendices A Results of Soil Stockpile Sampling B Da ily Monitoring Reports PROJECT NO . 020027-008 • JULY 6, 2009 ASPECT CONSUL TING 1 Introduction The Quendall Terminals Superfund Site (site) is a 25-acre property located on the eastern sh or e of Lake Washington at 4503 L ake Washington Boulevard in Renton, Was hington. The property ha s been in industrial use since its fir st development in 1916 by Republic C reo soting. For over 50 years, the s ite was used as a tar refinery for manufacturing creosote and other coa l tar products. Following its sa le to Quendall Terminals in 197 1, the property was used intem1itt ently for fuel storage until 1983. More recently it has b een used as a log sorti ng yard; log yard activities ceased in ea rly 2008. The sit e is cunently inactive and equipment and materials associated with fo1mer activities ha ve been removed from the s ite. The s ite is relatively flat and borders Lake Washington with approximately 1,500 feet of shore lin e. Access to the si te is from Lake Washington Boulevard, located along the eastern boundary of the property. Immediately adjacent properties include Conn er Homes to the south (fom1er Barbee Mill property) and Po1i Quendall Company /Football Northwest to the north (former J.H. Baxter property). Figure I shows ex isting s ite features and adjacent propertie s. This report describes erosion contro l and stormwatcr management activities impl emented at the sit e in late October 2008 in accordance with the lnterim Stormwater Management Plan (Asp ect, 2008). The primary objectives of the plan included: • Controlling stom1water discharges from the site into Lake Washington. • R educing sto m1water inflow to Quendall Pond. • E ncouragi ng infiltration of s tormwatcr in the less contaminated areas of th e s ite. • Preventing erosion by sta biliz in g exposed areas of the si te . • Implementing erosion controls with a d esign life of 5 to 10 years to achieve th ese obj ectives. In addition, Comprehensive Environmental Response, Co mp ensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) s ite s are not r equired to obtain permits for th e s ite activities but are required to implement the s ub stanti ve conditions of p ermit programs a ppli cable t o site activities. This repo11 addresses the applicable or rel evant and appropriate r equi rem ents (ARARs) cons id ered a s part of the lnterim Stormwater Management Plan for the site. PROJECT NO. 020027-008 • JULY 6, 2009 ASPECT CONSUL TING 2 Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements 2 There are no requirements or g uidelines under CERCLA for surface water management at Superfund s ites. At the State leve l, the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) is a uthorized b y the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) to admini s te r th e Nat iona l Pollutant Discharge E limination Sys tem (NPDES) program. However, th e NPDES program does not provide specific r equirements for environmental r emedi ation s ites . Given these circumstances, the following state and local p ermits and g uidance docum ents were reviewed for app licabi li ty durin g th e d evelopment of the interim Stormwater Management Plan: • Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (Ecology 2005b)- A pplicablc. The Stormwatcr Management Manua l for Western Washington (SWMMWW) provides g uidance on the minimum t echnical requirements, r egulations , and best management practices (BMPs) to consider for appropriate st ormwatc r management. The S\VMMWW is the primary source of BMPs r e quired by e ither the Construction or Industrial Stormwater General Permits. The BMPs and monitoring program in the interim Stormwater Management Plan w e re se lected from the SWMMWW. • C ity of Renton Grading Permit -Appli cable . The City of R enton (RMC 4-09- 080) requires grad in g pennits for excavation or fill place ment exceedin g 50 cubic yards. Construction of the berms and swa lcs exceeded th is threshold. As th e grading was less than 500 cubic yards, the project would qualify as a minor activity (RMC 4 -09-080.E). Substantive requirements for minor activity include limitation of work hours, control of dust and mud, evalu ation of fill sources over 50 cubic yards, and erosion and sediment controls. These el ements were incorporated into the proj ec t. • Construction Stormwater General Permit (Ecology 2005a)-Not app licab le . A ccording to Special Condition S l .B. l .a, construction ac ti v ities that do not disturb one or more acres of land through cl earing, grading, excavating, or stockpi ling of fill material arc not required to ha ve a permit. Th e activities proposed fo r the site did not exceed the one-acre threshold. However, the monitoring program in th e Inte rim Stormwater Managem ent P lan was based on the Construction Stonnwater General Permit, even though it is not directly applicabl e . • Tndustri al Stormwater General Permit (Ecology 2008)-N ot applicable. Accordin g to Special Condition S l .A.6, permit coverage for inactive sites i s required w hen there are sign ificant m ateria ls r emaining on s ite or exposed to stormwater. No materi a ls meeting the permit definition for "significant materia ls" remain on s ite. PROJECT NO. 020027-008 • JULY 6, 2009 ASPECT CONSUL TING 3 Construction Activities Implementation of the In terim Storm water Management P lan at the site took place on October 30th and 3 1st , 2008. Hydroseedin g occurred o n November 4th, 2008. Constructi on was conducted in the following sequence to protect Lake W as hington and maximize p erformance of the hydroseed: Dates of Work Construction Activity October 9 , 2008 -October 28, 2008 Successfully conducted germ in ation testing to veri fy viability of future hydroseed and teste d stockpiled soils to verify s uitability for u se as perim eter b em1 material. October 30, 2008 Stabi li zed slopes nea r Lake Washington, constru c ted perime ter b e m1 s, b egan construction of shallow inter ceptor swale s. O c tober 3 1, 2 00 8 Completed construction of shallow interceptor swal es, s prea d mu lch and o r ga nic so il, and ripped compacted areas . Novemb er 4, 2008 Applied hydroseed. 3.1 Soil Stockpile and Germination Testing 3. 1.1 Soil Stockpile Test A site vis it was conducted on October 9th, 2008 to in vest igate a soi l stockpil e located on th e so uth west comer of the Quendal l T e rminal s property. Based on correspondence w ith the property owner, the soil was generated fro m a Mercer I sland reside ntial nei g hborhood during construction of a retaining wall , and pl aced on s ite by Nels on and Sons Constru ction Co ., In c . The contractor estimated the stockpile to contain approximately 750 cubic yards . On beha lf of th e Quendall Terminals property owner s, the stockpile v.ras eva lu ated for p o tenti al re-use on site. Based on the r esid ential setting of the so urce property, it was d e tem1ined that th e pi le should b e characteri zed for potential petroleum hydro carbon and PAH contamin atio n . According to the anal yti cal resu lts, th e soil wa s s uitable for r e -u se o n s ite. So il s tockpil e characteri za tion activities and re su lts are d escrib e d in Appendi x A al ong w ith the la boratory certificates of analys is. PROJECT NO . 020027 -008 • JULY 6, 2009 3 ASPECT CONSUL TING 3.1.2 Germination Test During the s it e v isit on October 9th, 2008 radish seeds were planted in two separate localions at the site. A follow up inspection of the locations during a pre-construction meeting with the contractor on October 28th , 2008 indicated that the seeds had germinated and th e soil would be amenable to hydroseeding. 3.2 BMP Implementation The BMPs were implemented and constructed according to the sp ecifications provided in the Int erim Stormwater Management Plan. The li st below provides a summary of the BMPs that were implemented at the s ite. • Operational Source Control BMPs; o Preserving natural vegetation; o Removing debris with potential for causing stormwater pollution; • Structural Source Control BMPs; o Constructing low berms along the waterfront; o Constru cting sha llow swales to direct stonnwater runoff away from Quendall Pond and toward lesser contaminated portions of the s ite; o Encouraging infiltration in suitable areas by surfac e roughening and/or nppmg; o Stabi li z ing exposed areas by s preading pile s of existing wood waste (mulching) and hydroseeding; and o Maintaining existing drainage ditches, silt fence, and rock check darns. 3.3 Plan Modifications 4 There was one modification to the original Erosion and Sediment Control Plan included in the Interim Stormwater Management Plan. The orig in al plan shows an 8-in ch culvert to be ins talled in th e northeast comer of the property under th e driveway approaching the property to the north (former J.1-I. Baxter property). The cu lvert was eliminated from the des ign b ec ause the area had b een s ubsequently re-graded as part of a new li ft station in s tallation by th e municipality. Instead, a perimeter berm was constructed along th e western edge of th e driveway which prevents storm water run-off from the site towards the ditch to the north, and directs stormwater run-on from o ff s ite towards th e ditch and away from the s ite. F igure 1 shows th e as -built BMPs and dra inage features at the site. PROJECT NO . 020027-008 • JULY 6, 2009 ASPECT CONSULTING 4 Monitoring Results Th e monitoring program described in the Interim Stormwater Management Plan was implemented to ensure the constructed project elements were functioning properly, lo detem1ine if additi onal actions were required , and to l imit the amount of stonnwater entering Quendall Pond and running onto the site from offsitc sources. The terms Operational and Structura l Source Control BMPs refer specifically to th e actions summarized in S ec tion 3.2 of thi s r eport. 4.1 Construction Monitoring S ite in spections were conducted during each day of construct ion and included: • • • • Visual m o nitoring of each constructed Operational Source Contro l BMP or Structural Source Control BMP. Visual monitoring of the amount of stom1water entering Quendall Pond . Visua l monitoring of stormwatcr run-on fr om off-site sources . V isual and turb idi ty monitoring of the following site di sc harge locations : l ) south property lin e ditch, 2) north property lin e d itch, and 3) overflow from Quendall Pond. In genera l, there was little to no precipitati o n during construction activities and no discharge was observed on the two days of soi l disturbing activity (October 30 and 3 1, 2008). Negligible discharge was noted at th e northwest corner of the site on the day of hydroseeding (November 4 , 2008). The discharge was noted to be cl ear and have very low flow. Daily fi eld reports summarizing activities and observations made during s ite visit s are provided in Appendix B along with photographs . 4.2 Post-Construction Monitoring Following constructio n , in spection frequency was reduced to once p er month as specified by the Interim Stormwatcr Management Plan. Post-construc tion site ins pec tions include th e same visua l monitoring components as constructi on monitoring. Pos t-Construction monitoring in sp ecti ons we re conducted monthly from November 2008 through May 2009. Daily field reports summarizin g activiti es and observations made during s ite v is its arc prov id ed in Appendix B along with photographs. The month ly inspections confirmed effective in stallation and continu ed function of th e BMPs . A ll BMPs wer e fou nd to be correctly ins talled, and undamaged durin g the monitoring period, with the exception of a m inor issue with incorrect insta llation of s ilt fence around a soi l stockpile id ent ifi e d in the November inspection. The contractor was notified and s ilt fence correctly in stal led prior to th e subsequent inspection. Growth of vegetative cover was s lowed throughout the winter months by limited s unli g ht and cool te mp eratures. As of May 2009, th e vegetative cover was observed to be established over the majority of th e site. PROJECT NO . 020027-008 • JULY 6, 2009 5 ASPECT CONSUL TING During monthly visual inspections, the BMPs implem ented at the s ite effectively limited stormwater run-on to the site from off-site sources and the amount of on-site stormwater runoff entering Quendall Pond. There were no instances where s ignificant stormwater inflows were observed coming from off-site or entering Quendall Pond. Stormwater discharges from the site were noted at both the north and south property line ditches during the February 2009 inspection . The discharges were clear and had low flow. A groundwater discharge w ith vis ible sheen was observed during the January ins p ection. T he discharge was tracked to the point of seepage and determined not to be related to stormwater management or erosion contro l BMPs. The observation of sheen in this area wi ll be added to Se ction 3.3.4.2 of the Data Collection Work Plan. No overflow from Quendall Pond was observed during the site inspections. 4.3 Conclusions and Recommendations 6 Based on the monitoring results , the Interim Stom1water Management Plan was constructed correctly and is performing as designed according to the primary objectives of the plan. Vegetative cover is considered established over the majority of the site and is expe cted to continue growth throughout the remaining months of spring. In accordance with th e Interim Stormwater Management Plan, furth er monthly v isual monitoring is no longer necessary. PROJE CT NO. 020027-008 •JULY 6 , 2009 ASPECT CONSULTING 5 Limitations Work for thi s p roj e ct was performed and thi s r e port prepared in accordan ce with genera ll y accepted profess ional practices for the natur e and condi tions of work compl eted in the s ame or similar localiti es, a t th e time th e work was p erfom1 ed. It is intende d for th e exclusive u se of Quendall Term ina ls Group for s pec ifi c application to th e refe renced property . This report does not represent a legal opini on. No other warranty, ex pressed or im plied, is made. 6 References A s pect Consulting, LLC, 2008, Interim Stormwater Management P lan , Seatt le, Was hington, Unpublished Work. Washing ton State D epartment of Eco logy, 2005a , Constru ction Storm water General Pe,mit, O lympi a, Washington, November 16, 2005. Washin g ton State D epartment of Ecology, 2005b, Stormwater Management Man ua l for Western Washington, Olympia, Washi ngton , August 2005. Washing to n S tate D e partment of Ecology, 200 8, Industria l S to 1111 wa ter General P ermit, Olympia, Washing to n , October 15 , 2008. PROJECT NO. 020027-008 • JULY 6, 2009 7 ..., Legend Current shoreline Existing structures ----Est imated extent of free product -----Propert y line Surface Water Features and Stormwater Control Structures -Trees ~ Vegetated area -A reas of soil roughening/ripping R'*,&<~ A reas of mulching ™ Areas of hydroseeding Locati on of peri meter berms C) Deten tion pond C!c::E:::l•C>> Stormwater drai nage ditch with silt fence and/or rock check dams (approx imate location ) )( w )t Sill fence and sedimenVdebri s trap (approximate location) -···-,..-Ditch flow direction .... Overl and flow direction Notes: Contour interva l is 1 foot, N AVO 88. Co ntour eleva tions adjusted from original survey in NGVD 29 by addi ng 3.6 feet. r 0 200 400 Feet J ute M es h Shor e li ne Ro ad Netwo rk Mainta ined a s Shown Conner Homes (Former Barbee M ill) ~ Port OttPntt C) ;;~ rSil.:;ny~ a5fll~g' ,?----..(_ C ~ \\ ;-. ... 'J 'l 01 3: "C! q ,.._ N 0 0 N ~ (.) ~ ~ Cl) "' 0 d, 0 0 ~ Cl) iii C .E ~ iii "O C Q) :, 0 I .. Aspeclc ons ulting As-Built Site F eatures and ···· .,._ PRrumRo. I ,N-DEPTNPEFISPECnVE Stormwater Drainage ,.w;;'~~JM 020021 ~ Quendall Te rm i na ls =-··"· rn, FIGURE No. ] Renton. Washington .,,,,,,, 1 9 . a YNN1.aspectconsulting.com APPENDIX A Results of Soil Stockpile Sampling ASPECT CONSUL TING This appendix documents characterization of the soil stockpile formerly located on the southwest comer of the Quendall Terminals property in Renton, Washington. The property is undergoing a remedial investigation under the guidance of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). A picture of the stockpile, taken on October 9, 2008, is provided in Attachment A. Based on correspondence with the property owner, the soil was generated from a Mercer Island residential neighborhood during construction of a retaining wall, and placed on site by Nelson and Sons Construction Co., Inc. The contractor estimated the stockpile to contain approximately 750 cubic yards. A geotechnical evaluation performed in January 2008 by Zipper-Zeman Associates, Inc. characterized the soils that were later removed as native colluvial and non-glacial sediment materials. The geotechnical report, including boring logs, is provided in Attachment B. On behalf of the Qucndall Terminals property owners, Aspect Consulting LLC (Aspect) evaluated the potential for re-use of the soil stockpile on site. Based on the residential setting of the source property, it was determined that the pile should be characterized for potential petroleum hydrocarbon and P AH contamination. The work was conducted on October 9, 2008, and included the following: • Inspection of the soil stockpile for petroleum odors, staining, or other visual evidence of contamination; and • Collection of five soil samples for analysis for diesel-and oil-range petroleum hydrocarbons, by Ecology Method NWTPH-Dx; and • Collection of three 5-point-composite soil samples for analysis for PAHs by EPA Method 8270D-SIM. The field program included inspection of the outside of the stockpile and hand-excavation in five areas into the stockpile for inspection and sample collection. Sample collection locations were staked and marked with the name of the sample. A minor amount of debris, including a few pieces of concrete and a section ofHPDE pipe (typical of what is used in residential sprinkler systems), was noted at the edge of the pile. No visual or olfactory evidence of contamination was detected. Samples were submitted to Analytical Resources, Inc., of Tukwila, Washington for analysis. Results are summarized in Table 1. Laboratory certificates of analysis and the data validation report are provided in Attachment C. PAH results were compared to the Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs) identified in the draft Task 3 Report (Anchor Environmental LLC and Aspect, November 2007) for the Qucndall Site. TPH concentrations were compared to Washington State Model Toxics Control Act Method A criteria for unrestricted land use because no PR Gs for petroleum have been developed for the site. A comparison of results with screening levels is provided in Table I. All results were below the screening criteria. Based on the results, the soil was determined to be usable for constructing soil berms installed under the Interim Stormwater Management Plan (Aspect, October 17, 2008). Attachments: Table I -Summary of Soil Analytical Results Attachment A -Photograph of the Stockpile Attachment B -Geotechnical Evaluation (Zipper Zeman Associates, Inc) Attachment C -Laboratory Certificates of Analysis -ARI, Inc. and Data Validation Report -LDC, Inc. V:\020027 Quendall Terminals\Stormwater\SWMCR\App A_Soil Stockpile characterization memo.doc 'ROJECT NO. 020027-008 • MAY 7, 2009 DRAFT A-1 Table 1 -Summary of Soil Analytical Results Sample Number SP-1 Sample Date 10/9/2008 Analusis TPH by NWTPH-Dx (Concentrations In mg/kg) Diesel Range TPH I 5.9 U Oil Range TPH 12 U PAHs by EPA Method 82700-SIM (Concentrations in ug/kg) Naphthalene 2-Methylnapthalene 1-Methylnapthalene Acenaphthylene Acenaphthene Fluorene Phenanthrene Anthracene Fluoranthene Pyrene Benz[a]anthracene Chrysene Benzo[b]fluoranthene Benzo[k)fluoranthene Benzo[a]pyrene lndeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene Dibenz[a,h]anthracene Benzo[g, h,i]perylene Dibenzofuran Notes: na Not available •• Not measured U Not detected at indicated detection limit 4.7 U 4.7 U 4.7 U 4.7 U 4.7 U 4.7 U 12 4.7 U 24 18 8.9 11 7.0 4.7 5.1 4.7 U 4.7 U 4.7 U 4.7 U SP-2 10/9/2008 6.0 U 13 - - - - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- SP-3 10/9/2008 6.0 U 12 U 4.7 U 4.7 U 4.7 U 4.7 U 4.7 U 4.7 U 4.7 U 4.7 U 10 7.9 4.7 U 5.6 4.7 4.7 U 4.7 U 4.7 U 4.7 U 4.7 U 4.7 U PRG for carcinogenic PAHs normalized to benzo[a]pyrene using TEFs from Collins et al. 1998 Aspect Consultlng 5/7/09 V:1020027 Quendall Termma/slStormwatartSWMCR\Stockpi/a sampling results SP-4 SP-5 Screening 101912008 1019/2008 Level 6.2 U 6.0 U 2,000 12 U 12 U 2,000 4.7 LI --99.4 4.7 U --3,240 4.7 U --na 4.7 U --682,000 4.7 U --370.000 4.7 U --122,000 4.7 --45,700 4.7 U --1,480,000 13 --122,000 12 --78,500 5.6 --150 12.0 -1500 11 0 --150 7.5 --150 7.0 --15 4.7 U --150 4.7 U --37.5 4.7 U --119.000 4.7 U --15,000 Table 1 Page 1 of 1 - Halsell Fetterman 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 4200 Seattle. Washington 98154,1154 Attention: Pauline V. Smetka Subject: Geotechnical Evaluation ~ ZZA-lrerracan Consulting Engineers & Scientists 18905 -33"' Avenue West, Suite 117 Lynnwood, Washington 98036 Phone: 425. 771.3304 Fax: 425.771.3549 www.terracon.com Landslide Stabilization: Joseph Petrucci Property 7720 SE 581h Street Mercer Island, Washington Dear Pauline: Zipper Zeman Associates, Inc. (ZZA-Terracon) is pleased to submit this report describing the results of our geotechnical evaluation for the above-referenced project site. These geotechnical services were authorized by Joseph Petruuci's acceptance of our Agreement for Services dated January 1 O, 2008, and subsequent coordination of these engineering services with you. The purpose of this report Is to present information, data and findings from our evaluation together with recommendations for stabilization of the area disturbed by the landslide. This report is an instrument of service that conforms to locally accepted geotechnical design practice, and it has been prepared for the exclusive use of Joseph Petrucci, Helsel! Fetterman, and their agents, for specific application to the stated project site and purpose. At the time of this report, additional topographic survey is recommended in order to finalize the limits of excavation and backfill on the property. · PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project site comprises a residential property, which is located in the city of Mercer Island, Washington. Our specific study area consists of a slope located in the western portion of the property where a landslide recently occurred. The property is visually delineated by a concrete paved private driveway owned by the neighborhood association (Septimus) and Groveland Beach Park to the north and west, and residential properties to the east and south. The property is irregular in shape but is generally rectangular and measures approximately 150 feet 1 Joseph Petrucci Property 7720 SE 58th Street Mercer Island, Washington ~ ZZA-lrerraccn by 100 feet overall and encompasses approximately one third of an acre. Our attached Site & Exploration Plan (Figure 1) illustrates the site boundaries and various adjacent features. The area affected by recent instability is generally located near the southwest comer of the site comprising portions of the Petrucci and Septlmus properties where a hill slopes down to the west from the Petrucci house to the private driveway. We understand that in December of 2008, a landslide occurred on-site in an area where several block walls were constructed on the Petrucci property following a period of heavy rainfall. The landslide flowed generally west down the slope and deposited on adjacent property ow'ned by Septimus corporation near the shoreline. Figure 1 indicates the approximate limits of the landslide swath. It should be noted that the many of the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are based on a topographic site map that was not the result of a professional survey and may not be accurate, thus portions of this report may require some modification once an accurate survey is completed by a licensed surveyor. SCOPE OF GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES The purpose of our geoteohnical evaluation was to characterize subsurface site conditions, and to derive repair recommendations for use by the site contractor and other project consultants. Our authorized scope of seivices generally conformed to our aforementioned proposal except where modifications were warranted by subsurface conditions, project schedules, access constraints, or client requests. We ultimately completed the following scope items: • A review of available topographic and geologic maps pertaining to the site, including the geotechnical report and boring logs prepared by Earth Consultants, Inc. for the subject propertY and adjacent property; • A visual surface reconnaissance of the site, plus several site meetings with the client: and homeowner; • Four exploratory borings (designated B-1 through B-4) advanced at strategic locations across the site, as summarized in Table 1 and illustrated on Figure 1: • Laboratory examination and testing of samples recovered from our explorations; • Geotechnical engineering analyses regarding the existing hillslope stability and appropriate landslide stabilization structures; • Observation and monitoring of emergency slope stabilization efforts by Elk Heights Excavating, Inc. on January 22 to 25, 2008; • Preparation of this written report. 2 - Joseph Petrucci Property 7720 SE 58 1h Street Mercer Island, Washington TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF SITE EXPLORATION DATA Surface Exploration Functional Elevation Location (feet) 8-1 Top of landslide 67.5 8-2 Top eastern portion of landslide 62 8-3 Top northern portion of landslide 61 8-4 Bottom of landslide debris zone 50 ~ ZZA-lrerraccn Termination Depth (feat) 24Yz I 14Yz 16Yz 16Yz Note: All exploration depths and elevations should be regarded only as approximate values. Elevation datum: City of Mercer Island GIS Map SITE CONDITIONS We evaluated regional site conditions by means of available maps and geological literature. In addition, llA representatives visited the project site on January 9, 1 o, 18, 21, 22, 24, and 25th 2008, to evaluate local surface and subsurface conditions. Our geotechnical observations, measurements, findings, and interpretations regarding regional and local site conditions are described in the following text sections. The enclosed Section A-A' (Figure 2) illustrates particular aspects of existing conditions. Regional Surface and Subsurface Conditions Regional topography in the site vicinity consists of an island with a broad, upland area extending north to south along its length and east to west across its width. The island then slopes from a gentle to moderate grade in all directions becoming steep as the ground surface approaches Lake Washington. Surface elevations range from about 400 to 500 feet across the upland area, to about 30 feet at the lakeshore. According to the 2006 Geologic Map of Mercer Island, Washington created by Kathy G. Troost and Aaron P. Wisher, subsurface soil conditions in the site vicinity are dominated by Quaternary-age glacial and non-glacial deposits. The uppermost mapped unit comprises Lawton Clay, which is described as a "Very stiff to hard ... Laminated to massive silt, clayey silt, and silty clay with scattered dropstones." Below the Lawton clay, Pre-Olympia nonglacia/ deposits have been mapped. This lower deposit is described as 'Very dense and hard ... Sand, gravel, silt, clay and organic deposits of inferred nonglacial origin. We understand that in 2001, a landslide occurred directly to the south and west of the project site comprising portions of the Taylor, Breese and Petrucci properties. The approximate limits of the 2001 landslide on the Petrucci property are illustrated on Figure 1. A geotechnical report was completed by Earth Consultants, Inc. (ECI) entitled, "Slope Stabilization Evaluation" dated April 3, 2002 (enclosed in Appendix C of this -report). In the report, ECI provided recommendations for the slope stabilization which included the construction of a retaining wall system. In October 2002 landslide repairs were completed and monitored by Robert M. Pride, 3 I Joseph Petrucci Property 7720 SE 581" Street Meroer Island. Washington ~ ZZA·1rerracan Inc. and the results presented in a report entitled 'Final Report on Landslide Repairs" dated November 10, 2002 (enclosed in Appendix C of this report). The landslide repair included the construction of a soldier pile wall with concrete panel facing and a concrete drainage swa!e at the top of the wall. The waJI has an exposed height between three and six feet and a length of approximately 90 linear feet. Behind the wall the slope was re-graded and backfilled at an approximately 2H: 1V slope angle with two subsurface 'interceptor drains" extending across the landslide area at different elevations. Local Surface Conditions The subject slte is located on the west side of Mercer Island directly above the lakeshore and currently contains a two-story residential house with a daylight basement generally located In the eastern portion of the property. Local surface grades slope moderately approaching the site from east to west and become steep near the central portion of the s~e at an angle nearing 1 H: 1V before becoming gentle at the lakeshore. A concrete paved private access roadway traverses around the northeast cornar of the site and down to the lakeshore below the west property lines in a north-south alignment. In the southwest corner of the site, a soldier pile wall exists extending from the south adjacent property. At the time of our initial site reconnaissance, we o.bserved that the subject landslide path extended from just above the top edge of the slope down to the private driveway. This path was identified by an area of bare and loose soil with several tension cracks indicating downward movement of the soil. This area generally measured 90 feet wide at the base and 40 feet at the top with a vertical height of about 40 feet, as shown on the enclosed Site Photos. Local inclinations ranged from near vertical at the base of the slope where it intersects the private driveway to about 4H: 1 V at the top. Remnants of several block landscaping walls with associated gravelly sand backfill covered the upper limits of the landslide area. At the time of our site exploration, native soil exposures were not readily visible. In the lower exposures, the soils comprised a relatively incoherent mixture of sands, gravels, silts, and organic matter which we interpret to be landslide debris. During subsequent site reconnaissance visits we were able to observe exposures of native soil in the slope near the western portion of the site as a result of Mr. Petrucci arranging for Elk Heights Excavating, Inc. to remove loose soil from the steep slope in an effort to reduce the potential for further landsliding. The observed soils generally consisted of silly sand with varying amounts of gravel to a height approximately 20 feet above the private driveway. This observation was generally consistent for a horizontal distance of approximately 45 feet north of the existing soldier pile wall. The result of the slope grading created a near vertical cut approximately five feel from the driveway and ranging in height between five and seven feet. The slope then transitions to a 2H: 1V angle to the top of the landslide area. These conditions may change as additional landslide material is removed. During our observations as colluvium was removed from the slope we observed several 4-inch diameter black corrugated and perforated drain pipes protruding from the slope near the southern and northern extents of the landslide area but the source of the pipes was not 4 Joseph Petrucci Property 7720 SE 58'" street Mercer Island, Washington ~ ZZA·lrerraccn determined. Some water was observed seeping slowly from some of these pipes. Before the slope was covered with plastic following the loose soil removal, Shamrock Landscaping, Inc. connected the observed pipes to "tight line' pipes which were directed to the bottom of the slope and to the drainage swale above the existing soldier pile wall. Our field notes from observations on site during slope excavation are contained in Appendix D of this report. Local Subsurface Conditions Our on-site subsurface exploration program consisted of two hand auger borings near the southwest comer of the existing house (HA-1 and HA-2), three borings near the upper extent of the landslide area (B-1, B-2 and B-3) and a fourth boring (8-4) at the base of the landslide area. In borings B 1, B-2 and B-3 one-inch diameter piezometers were installed for the purpose of monitoring groundwater levels. The exploratory borings revealed subsurface conditions that generally conform to the mapped stratigraphy as well as stratigraphy observed in borings performed by ECI on the Taylor property. The borings encountered about 2 to 6 feet of loose or disturbed soils overlying a layer of medium stiff to very stiff silt, with very dense sands with small amounts of silt and gravel present below depths of 8 to 10 feet. Boring B-1, which was advanced at the top of the landslide area near the northern extent, encountered about 3 feet of loose sandy gravel fill mantling about 3 feet of soft sandy silt. We infer this upper layer to be fill soil imported for the former modular block walls over colluvial soil. Underlying this, our boring encountered about 181/, feet of stiff to very stiff, sandy silt with clay layers and varying amounts of gravel underlain by dense silty sand with some gravel. These native soils extended to our boring's termination depth of 24Yi feet. Boring B-2 was advanced at the eastern extent of the landslide path near the top of the slope. It revealed about 3 feet of soft sandy silt which appears to be colluvial soil. Beneath the colluvial soil, we encountered about 3Yi feet of stiff to very stiff sandy silt underlain by about 6 feet of medium dense silty sand and very stiff clay, followed by very dense silty sand with gravel which extended to our termination depth of 15Y. feet. Boring B-3 was advanced near the northern extent of the landslide area on a gravel surfaced driveway below the patio. It revealed about 5Y, feet of medium stiff sandy silt with some gravel and organic matter which we infer to be fill soil. Beneath the fill soil we encountered about 6Y. feet of medium stiff to hard clay and silty sand with a trace of gravel and organic matter underlain by very dense sand with silt to silty sand to our termination depth of 16% feet. Boring B-4 was advanced along the east edge of the private driveway below the northern extent of the landslide area. It revealed about 2 feet of very soft to soft sandy silt which we infer to be colluvial soil and landslide debris. The underlying soil consisted of dense to very dense, sand with trace silt to our termination depth of 16Y. feet. 5 Joseph Petrucci Property 7720 SE 58'" Street Mercer Island, Washington ~ ZZA-1rerraccn At the time of our exploration {January 2008), we encountered groundwater within boring B-1 at a depth approximately 14 feet below the ground surface, but did not encounter groundwater in the remaining borings. Based on the samples obtained from 8-1 it is our interpretation that the observed groundwater is flowing along a more permeable sandy layer within the native soils but may not be laterally continuous and may explain why groundwater seepage was not observed in the slope below B-1. The soil samples collected from our borings appeared to be generally moist. Throughout the year, groundwater conditions will likely fluctuate due to seasonal precipitation patterns, on-site or off-site land use changes, irrigation schedules, and other factors. Table 2 summarizes the stratigraphic data obtained from our on-site exploratory borings, and Figure 2 shows the relative field locations of these borings. Figure 4 schematically illustrates the generalized subsurface stratigraphy along the line of our borings. Appendix A describes our field exploration procedures and presents our interpretive stratigraphic logs. Appendix B describes our laboratory testing procedures and presents our graphical results. TABLE2 SUMMARY OF STRATIGRAPHIC SITE DATA Thickness of Thickness of Depth to Elevation of Loose Fill or Medium Dense or Hard or Very Very Dense Exp !oration Colluvium Medium Stiff to Dense Native Soll (feet) Very Stiff Soil Native Soil (feet) (feet) (feet) HA-1 2 y. 2 %plus Unknown Unknown HA-2 5 1 % plus Unknown Unknown B-1 6 3% 10 48 8-2 3 9 12 48 B-3 5% 1% 7 53% B-4 2 0 2 47 Note: All stratigraphic measurements are based on interpretation of gradual or undulating soil contacts and should be regarded only as approximate or average values. Elevation datum: City of Mercer Island GIS Map. GEOTECHNICAL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the information obtained from our surface and subsurface exploration program, we conclude that the subject landslide represents a fairly shallow earthflow-type failure involving mostly surficial weathered nonglacial soils and colluvial soils. The total thickness of surficial soils involved appears to be on the order of 1 to 6 feet, over a width of about 90 feet. We infer that this sliding depth was limited by the relatively high density and high strength properties of the underlying native soils, which are relatively resistant to deep-seated failures. 6 Joseph Petrucci Property 7720 SE 581h Street Mercer Island, Washington ~ ZZA·lrerraccn For purposes of repairing the subject landslide and stabilizing the adjacent hillslope areas, we recommend constructing a continuous retaining system across the toe of 1he slope. Available retaining options include a cantilevered soldier pile wall, a reinforced-soil wall, cast-in-place concrete cantilever wall, or a crib-lock or gabion gravity waif. Table 3 summarizes the various advantages and disadvantages of each system. TABLE 3 SUMMARY OF SLOPE STAB/LIZA TION OPTIONS Option Advantages Disadvantages Cantilevered Fairly small hillslope excavation Large temporary excElvation required · Concrete required to accommodate wall. into slope above wall Wall Can be built with architectural finish Very sensitive to settlements. for additional cost. Relatively high construction cost Readily accommodates varying anticipated, especially if it is curved. heights. Soldier Pile Very little hillslope excavation required High construction cost anticipated, Wall to accommodate wall. especially if tiebacks are needed. No base overexcavatlon required. Not sensitive to settlements. Readily accommodates alignment curves and varying heights. Reinforced-Readily available with decorative face Very large hillslope excavation Sol/Waif finishes. required to accommodate soil Readily accommodates alignment reinforcements. curves and varying heights. Large quantity of imported backfill is needed. Crib Wafl or Fairly small hillslope excavation Large temporary excavation required Gabion Wall required to accommodate wall. into slope above wall. Not very sensitive to settlements. Allows for landscape plantings to create future "green wall." Readily accommodates alignment curves and varying heights. Although many of these systems would be adequate and cost effective, it is our opinion that the large excavations required into the hillslope behind ihe wall create a risk of instability during construction of most retaining wall types. Because temporary excavations behind the pile alignment are not required, a soldier pile wall minimizes disturbance to the slope during construction and minimizes the risk of further instability during the construction period. A soldier pile wall also maintains a consistent visual appearance by adopting the existing retaining system immediately south of the site. 7 Joseph Petrucci Property 7720 SE sa 1 • Street Mercer Island, Washington Site Preparation ~ZZA·lferracon Before wall construction can begin, we recommend that subgrade preparation be completed as . outlined below. Although a large quantity of disturbed soils have already been removed from the slope face, additional excavating, overexcavating, and backfilling will be required. Our specific comments and recommendations are presented in the following paragraphs, and the enclosed Restored Slope Profile (Figure 3) illustrates the typical configuration of the wall and reconstructed slope. Clearing and Stripping: We recommend that the entire construction area be cleared of all remaining trees, bushes, and other vegetation, and then be stripped of any root mat, topsoil, or other organic-rich soil. The limit.s of this clearing and stripping should encompass the full length of the new retaining wall and the full height of the new backslope surface. Stripping depths on the order of 1 to 2 feet should be anticipated. Bank Excavation: In order to accommodate the new retaining wall, it will be necessary to cut into the existing soil bank behind the wall as depicted In Figure 3. This excavation will need to extend at least 6 feet horizontally into the bank from the private driveway. depending on the final wall alignment. The excavated soils will likely consist of dense to very dense sands and silty sands with varying amounts of gravel and stiff to very stiff sandy silts, which in areas might pose moderately difficult digging conditions. We anticipate that a temporary cut-slope inclination on the order of 1H: 1V could be used at the toe of the slope for construction during dry site conditions, but the appropriate inclination will depend on actual soil conditions encountered during excavation. A flatter temporary slope may be required during wet weather conditions. Subqrade Overexcavation: Before backfilling of the slope begins, we recommend that any remaining loose colluvial soil or landslide debris be removed and that a series of horizontal benches be excavated into the medium dense to very dense or stiff to hard native sails. The benches or steps should extend a minimum of five feet horizontally with a maximum vertical rise of four feet. The actual dimensions will be dependent on actual conditions during the excavation and may need to be altered in the field. Based on the borings, it is anticipated that this benching will remove much of the remaining colluvium or loose soils; limited additional overexcavation to remove remaining colluvium should occur at this time. A Zl.A representative should be retained to observe the subgrade overexcavation to determine the appropriate bench dimensions based on actual soil conditions. Backslope Geometry: In our opinion, a backslope angle of 2H: 1V would be appropriate for the finished hillslope surface, as shown on Figure 3. This angle would provide adequate stability (contingent on the use of a suitable backfill material) while maintaining a reasonably low wall- height requirement. Although a flatter backs/ope angle would provide additional stability, it would require a considerably higher retaining wall. A steeper backs/ope angle can be provided, at a final slope angle of up to 1 Y:i H: 1V, by using angular quarry spa/ls as backfill. If this option is chosen, planting on the slope may require measures _be taken to provide for planting pockets within the rock fill. 8 - Joseph Petrucci Property 7720 SE 58 1 " Street Mercer Island, Wasl1ington ~ ZZA·lrerracon Slope Backfilling: When the retaining structure and aforementioned subgrade overexcavation and benching is completed, we recommend that it be backfilled with an imported free draining granular soil to achieve a slope of 2H: 1V. In our opinion, either Type-17 or Gravel Borrow would be well suited for this purpose. All backfill should be compacted to at least 90% of the soils maximum dry density obtained in general accordance with ASTM D1557-00 Modified Proctor. This slope should then be covered with a 10-inch thick layer of topsoil for the purposes of replanting the slope. Subsurface drains should be installed as indicated on Figure 3 of this report. The layout of the drains and design detalls should be completed during final design of the wall and slope. RETAINING WALL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS Wall Type and Alignment: We recommend that the face of the new retaining wall be aligned to achieve a minimum four foot offset from the edge of the concrete paved private driveway. This will minimize both the required quantity of bank excavation and the required height of the new retaining wall. As described previously in this report, we recommend that a soldier pile wall be used for the stabilization, in order to minimize impacts on the slope during excavation. Wall Drainage and Backfill: Effective drainage behind retaining walls is critical to prevent a buildup of hydrostatic pressure, and a high-strength backfill material is beneficial for reducing lateral earth pressure. Consequently, we recommend that the entire void between the wall and soil bank be backfilled with an imported, clean, drain rock similar to WSDOT 9-03.12(2) Gravel Backfill for Waifs to serve as a curtain drain. Also, a 6-inch-diameter perforated PVC pipe within a pea gravel envelope should be placed along the bottom of the curtain drain to serve as a heel drain per Figure 3. This drain should direct water to an approved drainage structure. Soldier Piles Based on our preliminary analyses, soldier piles can be used in a cantilevered configuration to support the reconstructed slope. We offer the following recommendations concerning design and installation of soldier piles. When a survey is completed, we recommend that the final wall heights and backslope configuration be designed, in conjunction with the owner's planned landscaping or terracing at the top of the wall. This final design is required to establish wall heights, structural requirements for the piles and lagging, and surcharge loads. Pile Embedment: All soldier piles should have sufficient embedment below the adjacent ground surface to provide adequate "kick-out" resistance to horizontal loads, as calculated by the design engineer. In all cases, we recommend providing a minimum embedment of 12 feet below the driveway level, or 2 times the exposed wall height above the driveway level, whichever is greatest. Drilling Conditions: Based on our exploratory boring, soils encountered within the anticipated depth of the soldier pile holes consist of dense to very dense sands with silt and gravel. These soils can likely be drilled using a conventional auger, but slow drilling rates should be expected. Although our exploration did not encounter any cobbles or boulders, it should be realized that 9 Joseph Petrucci Property 7720 SE 58'" Street Mercer Island, Washington ~ ZZA·lferracon such obstructions could exist at random locations within the subsurface deposits. Groundwater was not encountered in Boring B-4 at the planned wall alignment, but should be expected randomly within the drilled holes. Applied Loads: All soldier piles should be designed to resist the various lateral loads applied to them. For a permanent retaining wall at the subject site, we expect that these lateral loads will consist of active pressures, seismic surcharge pressures, and surcharge pressures. We do not expect that hydrostatic pressures will need to be considered, provided that drainage provisions are constructed behind the wall. Our preliminary recommended design pressures are discussed in the following paragraphs. Final design pressures will be dependent on final wall heights, and slope configuration (including top of slope surcharges) developed based on continued design efforts. • Active Pressures: For a cantilevered retaining wall supporting a 2H: 1V backslope, we recommend using an active earth pressure modeled as an equivalent fluid density of 55 pcf, which results in a triangular distribution. Such an earth pressure is assumed to act over the height of each soldier pile extending to 18 inches below the level of the adjacent concrete driveway. From the top of the pile downward to this level, this static pressure should be applied over the entire soldier pile spacing.; below this level. • Surcharge Pressures: Lateral earth pressures acting on the soldier piles should be increased to account for long-term loads on the slope, such as imposed by retaining walls or terraces constructed upslope from the wall. For preliminary planning, a lateral surcharge can be modeled as a uniform lateral pressure of 40 percent of any vertical surcharges between the top of wall and top of slope. • Seismic Surcharge Pressures: Lateral earth pressures acting on permanent soldier piles should be increased to account for seismic loadings, which are applied over the piles in the same manner as the static pressures. For a design acceleration coefficient of 0.30 and an exposed wall height of "H" feet (measured from top of adjacent pavement to top of pile), we recommend that this seismic loading be modeled as a uniform horizontal surcharge pressure of 1 OH psf. Resisting Forces: Lateral resistance can be computed by using an appropriate allowable passive earth pressure acting over the embedded portion of each soldier pile. This passive pressure should be applied over a lateral distance equal to the pile spacing or twice the pile diameter, whichever is less. We recommend designing for a passive earth pressure of 300 pounds pre cubic foot, neglecting the upper 18 inches below the driveway surface. Construction Monitoring: We recommend that a ZZA representative be retained to continuously monitor the installation of all soldier piles, in order to verify that suitable depths are reached and expected soil conditions are encountered. This monitoring program would include observation and documentation of installation procedures, construction materials, drilling conditions, soil conditions, and pile plumbness. 10 - - Joseph Petrucci Property 7720 SE 581h Street Mercer Island, Washington Lagging ~ ZZA·lferraccn We recommend that lagging be installed between all adjacent soldier piles to create a continuous wall along the edge of the parking lot. We recommend that lagging extend to approximately the depth of the adjacent concrete pavement grade. We also recommend that a Zl.A representative be present on site to assess the depth of soil disturbance at the time of construction and provide an evaluation of lagging depth based on soil disturbance. It may be necessary to extend lagging deeper based on this evaluation. We offer the following comments and recommendations concerning wall lagging. Lagging Materials: In our opinion, either conventional wooden timbers or precast concrete panels could be utilized as lagging at the site, but the former would likely be less expensive and easier to work with. For permanent retaining wall applications, we recommend that all wooden timber lagging be pressure-treated. Lateral Pressures: Due to soil arching effects, permanent lagging that spans 8 feet or less need be designed for only 50 percent of the lateral earth pressure previously recommended for soldier pile design. This assumes that adequate drainage is provided behind the lagging, as discussed below. Drainage Systems: We anticipate that only a minor quantity of seepage will occur behind the lagging, and will be contained by the recommended drainage system behind the wall. Nonetheless, we recommend that all lagging be designed to allow passage of seepage water. For wooden lagging, this is readily accomplished by providing a small (about Y. to Yz inch) gap between adjacent timbers. For concrete lagging, this can be accomplished by providing weepholes at regular intervals. ADDITIONAL SERVICES Because many of our conclusions and recommendations are based on our limited observations and assumptions regarding site topographic conditions, final design is recommended based on a more accurate survey and a clear plan for grading, terracing and/or wall construction in the yard area above the wall. It will also be important for us to assess actual conditions revealed at the time of construction. We specifically recommend that ZZA be retained to provide the following construction-phase geotechnical services. • Review the geotechnical aspects of all project plans and specifications to verify that our design recommendations have been properly integrated. • Monitor and log the installation of the soldier pile wall. 11 Joseph Petrucci Property 7720 SE 581h Street Mercer Island, Washington ~ ZZA·lrerraccn • Observe subgrade conditions as overexcavation and benching of the slope is completed to evaluate the soil conditions and provide recommendations as necessary. • Monitor and/or test slope and wall backfill placed at the site. • Observe the Installation of drainpipes and curtain drains. CLOSURE The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based, in part, on the subsurface explorations accomplished for the project. Our exploratioris reveal subsurface conditions only at discrete locations across the site; subsurface conditions in other areas could vary considerably, but the nature and extent of any such variations would likely not become evident until additional explorations are performed or construction activities have begun. If significant variations are observed at that time, we may need to modify our conclusions and recommendations to reflect the actual conditions. We appreciate the opportunity to have been of service on this project and would be pleased to discuss the contents of this report or other aspects of this project with you at your convenience. Please call if you have any questions or need additional Information. Respectfully Submitted, ZIPPER ZEMAN ASSOCIATES, INC. Scott M. Dobner, LG. Geologist John E. Zipper, P.E. President 12 - - Joseph Petrucci Property 7720 SE 58th Street Mercer Island, Washington Enclosures: Figure 1 -Site & Exploration Plan Figure 2 -Site Cross-Section A -A' Figure 3 -Restored Slope Profile Appendix A-Field Exploration Procedures and Logs Appendix B -Laboratory Testing Procedures and Results Appendix C -Previous Reports for Adjacent Property Appendix D -Daily Field Reports, Jan. 2008 Distribution: Addressee (1) Mr. Joseph Petrucci (1) 13 ~ ZZA·lferracon / I I / I / / I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I I I I I I I / / / I I I \ / / I \ J I I _, I I I I / / ! / P.ROPOSED.,,... / SOLOle.R/ /PILE~L I / APPRQ)UMATE // .ARFA' OF 2002 / --~---:-;"l)SLIOE~-·· I I I I I / l ' \ I . I ! ~I.M_TLJ!'f OESCF1tpr'°'4 I I I I ~ZZA·llerracon consuleing Engineers and Scientists lffil$3MIM!l'lle)'l!=l-ll7 l~IIIA!IIIOJo F'H.fl25)Vl.3l)I F"M. [U5lrtt-i.:,;9 I ' I I / -~ -I I I I I / -f-+--,-7"----J. I I / ,,, I / I I / I / / / / / / ~- --/ ' / / I r =.!.... I ,-~-; I / I I I I / --/ / / / / / / / / / / I I I I I I I / I / / • I LEGEND: S•·• eHA-1 A A' LJ SITE AND EXPLORATION PLAN Petrucci Slope Restoration Mercer Island, WA Prepared for. Joe Pel!Ucci N t ' '" • ~ j WUJIFEET BORING NUM8ER AND APPROXIMA'fE LOCA TJON HAND AUGER NUMBER AND APPROXIMATE LOCATION CROSS SECTION DESIGNATION />J'JD APPROXIAMTE LOCATION .. ~ '"""---""""" ~ ~ 1 « 1 • 4 ~ OJ if ·" C: 0 "' ~ ., w LEGEND: B-1 EXPLORATION NUMBER, APPROXIMATE LOCATION, AND OFFSET 19 TOP OF BORING STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE IN BLOWS PER FOOT A BOTTOM OF BORING A' 70- 60- 50- 40- 30- Pmr,d~ 0-.,-,&jl: C~llr. ....... ., I B-1 I ------... sandy SJL' -t 4 Soft ...._ 4-JEollU11ium) -...._ ...... f-9 ...... '- ' I-30 Medium dense to dense silty sand wltll stiff to very l 28 still sandy sill -(Native nongiac:ial ......._ --.._ sediments) eO-...... ............ _ -- EXISTING GROUND SURFACE 8-4 OFFSET 15') I ~ 70 >--60 1i, 8: ,!;; >--50 5 ------t DRIVEWAY i J:: 40 Dense to very d~nS9 silty sand .. SMD ..,.,,,. 81085101 Scr,lr. JD 1"=10' CtmwlUng engin&ers and Sci$r.tists .... Q SMD. OLOGYXSECT.DWG CW: ,nos l:i.Mmittl!Ht&,11• 111 ~~.WA~ SMD FEB., 2000 PH.(42~111,3,l(M PAX. (425} 171-354i ---- --. -. --.. ' iiJ 51 f-74 f-90112" f-57 ..1,84 1-40 L... 30 SECTION A-A' Petrucci Slope Restoration Mercer Island, WA Prepared for: Joe Petrucci . ~ 4 70 60 m 5o .,'!! ~ C: g i w 40 30 Backfill with imported sandy gravel such as type-17 Potential drain pipes ~~- Proposed 2H:1V backslope cover with 1 O inches of topsoil Approximate location of firm native subgrade 6-inch diameter drain pipe I I I I I I Proposed soldier pile wall Driveway Backfill face of wall front 70 60 50 ~ 1ii ~ C 0 "" "' > Q) iii 40 30 Notes: 1. Install &.Inch diameter perforated drain pipe surrounded by non..woven geotextile fabric surrounded by washed drain rock at the base of the wall. Drain should be connected to an approved storm drain outfall system. 2. Base of the excavation shall be benched as shown with benches a minimum of 4 feet in width. Base of excavation shouJd expose undlsb.rrbed, native sol!S. Excavated soils are not reuseable as structural fifl and should be exported from U,e site. 3. Subgrade preparation prior to backfill shall be approved by the geotechnlcal engineer prior ta placement of structurai fill. 4. Compacted structural fill ls to be covered with approxlmatley 10 incllas of topsoil, hydroseeded, and the• draped wllh CUrlex II (Per Detail 6, Sheet 2). 20--<-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-+--20 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Pfl)jlll;IMry: SMD """'"· 81085101 DrllWl!ly. S'-!il:: JD PETRUCCI SLOPE RESTORATION lehilhd~ SMD REPAIRXSECTDVJG """ 1'=20' I c'"'"'"'• e,,.,..,, '"' """'""'" ~pr,,'o'C<!By: .i11r. 11!1l53lrrl,\-WNl,Sill117 lj,ttt.ood,WA~ SMO FEB.,2008 PH.+4•~711 . ...., ""Y •~=n,_ ..... a RESTORED SLOPE PROFILE lm"'.I MERCER ISLAND 3 ..._ _______ ___., ___ ___...._ ___ .. , _-,·-···_-___ .. __ "~_ .. _-.... , Prepared for; Joe Petrucci I - LOG OF HAND AUGER NO. HA-1 F'age 1 of 1 CLIENT Joe Petrucci SITE PROJECT Mercer Island, WA F'etruccl Residence SAMPLES "TESTS (.!) ..J .e Cl'[ 0 I: g DESCRIPTION "' ~ ;, ~ J:° u ¢! :;; ¢! i.: ... El: ... :i: t " ~ ,dli z z"' [ UJ ~~ i i'.l "' w 8 Wf-::> om :;; ~ ~~ ~z > <>a: Approx. Surface Elev.: 71 ff w "' ::> II! s:8 0: 0 z,-(.!) Cl ::> z " "' ;;;J(I) lilJ.I with some sand, organic matter and I a trace of gravel, brown, soft, moist (fill) - - - - 1-_g.5 -----------------------68,~ -!lb! with some sand and a trace of gravel, light brown, stiff to very stiff, moist (native sediments) - -22/6" Blow counts -recorded using DCP ML S-1 RA 6 66 5 Hand auger hole completed at -5 feet on 119/08 m rl t z 8 ~ ~ i( ~ 8 J ~ w G ~ ~ 1 u The stralification lines represent the approximate boundal)I Jines u ~ between soil and rock types: ln-situ, the transiUon may be gtadual. ~ WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS, ft BORING STARTED 1-9-08 ~ 1 WL ¥, l!, • ZZA·lrerracon BORING COMPLETED 1-9-08 J WL )J'. l/. RIG GO. §! w ~ WL LOGGED Scott JOB# 81085101 g LOG OF HAND AUGER NO. HA-2 Page 1 011 CLIENT Joe Petrucci SITE PROJECT Mercer Island. WA Petrucci Residence SAMPLES Tl:STS "' i5 .Iii ~ @~ g DESCRIPTION a, ~ 11', ~ " ;I zI 0 " I:: -I-ffi LU ' u. <.!I r ~ ; 'T~ z "'z ~ Cl) a, I!' :::, ~r g ::! ~~ ih, Approx. Surface Elev.: 69 ft ~ ::, t C!) ::, z Q 0. I!!!:'·~ SILT with some sand, abundant organic (!·.'if mater and roots. dark brown, soft, moist ~·.:\\ (topsoil) - ·: .... ~;,-j __________________________ §Q ' -SILT w~h some sand, organic matter and a !race of gravel, brown to light brown, soft to medium stiff, moist (fill) - - -ML 13 Blow counts -recorded using DCP - -ML 16 -- § _________________________ 64 5-18 SILT with some sand and a trace or gravel ML andorganlc matter, brown lo light brown, -medium stiff to stiff, moist (native ML 21 sediments) ML S-1 RA 6-5 •2.• I Ii Hand auger hole completed al -6.5 feet on " 1/9/08 2 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g ffi 0 ~ ~ r The stratifrca~on fines represenl Iha approximate boundary IJnes ~ between soil and rock types: Jn-sllu, lhe tram~mon may be gradual. :;; WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS, ft BORING STARTED 1-9-08 • ~ WL 'SJ_ -1-• ZZA-lferracon BORING COMPLETED 1-9-08 '" ~ WL ~ l?-RIG CO. ~ ~ WL LOGGED Scott JOB# 81085101 0 m - LOG OF BORING NO. B-1 CLIENT Joe Petrucci SITE PROJECT · Mercer Island, WA WELL DESCRIPTION DETAIL § BOREHOLE DIA.: 1,1 W8-LD1A.: Cl if TOP OF PROTECTOR PIPE: r? TOP OF CASING: 61n 1 In ft 67ft GROUND SLRFACE ELEV, 67.5 ft IL~~~~~~~~-~~=--61,5 ?§ ·::.: SANDY SILTwi!h a !race of organic ;_ ·.= : ... matter, brown, soft, moist (corluvium} ·:_:-.1= ·:_:: .-.~.· . . -·· ::·:::~::·::· §__ _ ____ ..§tq:·:·~E:·:·: .§JU with some sand and a trace of -: : :~ -: : : gravel, light brown and gray mottled, stiff, i·.::: -:·. moist (native sediments) ·, ·.I= ·, .. . \ / SANDY SILT with a trace of gravel, light 59 ·.fi >'~ :i·: . . . . brown and gray mottled, very S1iff, moist / :t::c :;-. : . : . (native sediments) .'J:: .'-: .. :: ::::.~~ \_:. .. ··t: . ·.: ~ ::::~~ \; .· 12 ______________________ .£._ 55.5 '·-1:: ;, Qillwith some silt and s1:1nd, li~ht gray .: ·.i:: :: .. and brown mottled, very stiff, moist (native -:::E -::: sediments) :·.t: :·. f . 11.__ ~~a~i':"~l_!h_!n _:1~n~ .'.">'...e::' ~~·~r::e~-____ _li;i/.:. ··t-> " SANDY SILT gray to brown, hard, moisl ·,.:.::: · ... : lo·,·.; (native sediment.} ·. ·t:: .', •.... - I::;: ii~·::::- ~. :.:: \:~:\ £:. ~ ,' .· L-,• ~-.. - ] : : : fractured silt observed (if i:_:: -~. ::.: :::.:.~:::.:. @ ::: t: /19,S 48 .:.· ... E _:.·,: ~ Continued Next Page CJ The strafiilcation lines represent the approximate boundary llnes 9 between sou and rock types: in-situ, the lransitioo may be gradual. ...J 0 CD "' " iii :,: Ii: !3 w "' 0 ::, - - -- _ ML - - 5 _ ML - - ML - - - 10 ML -- - CL - - - 15- - - - - ML - - - 20- C'. w "' "' ::, z S-1 S-2 5.3 S-4 S-5 S-6 Petrucci Residence SAMPLES .s .. 62 " .. .- UJ ~ ,di > ~~ w ~ tU ... a. 5: g !,:Z ~ .:8 C'. "'a, ,P 6 4 SP 8 4 SP 16 9 SP 14 30 22 3P 12 28 26 iSPl 14 60 ~ WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS, fl BORING STARTED s:1--w~Lc-1="Sl._12 ___ +-.?.------1~ ZZA-lfi rracon BORING coMPLETED Page 1 of 2 TESTS ~ t: z ::, ~'tl 0 Q. Particle Size Analysis Performed at-10to -11.5feet Atterberg Limits Performed at-12.Sto -14 leet 1-10-06 :i WLWL ll-le =-=: E! RIG Acker CO. LOGGED Scott JOB # ' 1-10-08 Boretec 81085101 LOG OF BORING NO. B-1 Page 2 of 2 CLIENT Joe Petrucci SITE PROJECT Mercer Island, WA Petrucci Residence '" SAMPLES TES1S 8 .... i <!) '.:·. .. •· •: .. DESCRIPTION SIL TY SAND with some silt olasts and a trace of gravel, light brown and gray mottled, very dense, moist (native sediments) Boring co~leled at -24 feet on 1/10/0B <!I The strallficafion lines represent the approximate boundary lines WELL DETAIL, ¢i :t: I;: UJ Q - - - - - - ...J .5 i ~ ~ "' UJ w 15 ~ "' uJ ::;; Q. [;l ~ i! ~ "' ¢i ' " "' .~ 1;:g """ SM S-7 3P 16 40 S between sol and rock types: ln"8lltl, the transition may be gradual. ~ WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS, ft BORING STARTED 'if. "'ffi i'!'z ~8 8,1-w_L-bc¥~12:c.__ __ ---+~------I~ ZZA·,rerracon BORING COMPLETED i WL ~ l'. 'I RIG Acker CO. ~ I:; z :, ii'1; Q 0. ~ WL LOGGED Scott JOB# 1-10-08 1-10-08 Boretec 81085101 ~--- LOG OF BORING NO. B-2 CLIENT Joe Petrucci SITE PROJECT § Q ' ~ .. (!) Mercer Island, WA DESCRIPTION BOREHOLE DIA.: WELLOIA.: TOP OF PROTECTOR PIPE: TOP OF CASING: GROUND SURFACE ELEV.: SANDY SILT light brown, soft, moist (co!luvium) 61n 1 In ft 61.5ft 62 ft WELL DETAIL u 3 __________________ --------59 :·,§ .'·. SANDY SILT brown and orange mottled, :_: -.E ·: . very stiff, moist (native sediments) ·.:)= -:: .. ·,.I:::• . . ·1= .. ::::~~::::; occasional thin silty sand layers observed ;. }:::: :'· ·: ~.5 ------------------------55.5 .:';:~ ,:';: '> SILTY SAND light brown and gray . .-:·.·::: .-:·. ·.-,:· mottled, medium dense, moist (native : 'E ·: ·. ~-~ sediments) ·._::c:: · .. :: ·:: i occasional thin silt layers observed · · ... ~ ~ ~-~--------------------------53 CLAY with some silt and sand, grayish brown, very stiff, moist (native sediments) 12.5 ______________________ ~ 4!!. · :': ;' i' SILTY SAND with some gravel, grayish ;: q § I r . ;. :-. brown, very dense, molsl (native sediments) Boring completed al -15.5 feet on 1110/08 46.6 g " ~ ~ "' "' l) w II) 0 ::, - - - - _ ML - - 5 ML - - - SM - - - 10 CH - - - SM - - SM - 15- ffi "' ::;; ::, z S-1 S-2 S-3 S-4 S-5 S-6 Page 1 of1 Petrucci Residence SAMPLES TESTS .s alt ~ ii " ~1 ... w z 5 ~i uJ :, 0. [rl li:9 ~'6 ?:: ~8 0:: (/)0, a~ sp· 10 10 5P 14 18 SP 14 22 24 Particle Size Analysis Performed at-7.5 to 3P 16 24 40 -9 feel Atterberg Limits Performed at-10to -11.Sleet 3p· 2 62 sample hammered on cobble SP 5 64/10" or boulder l,1-...1.------------------"--..&.-...l. ....... ..&. ........... _ ..... _ ..... _.,1,., __ --I a The stretificatior, lines repreSt;1nl the approximate boundary ffnes ~ between sol and rock types: ift..~tu, the transition may be gradual. ~ WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS,~ BORING STARTED i.1-w_L k-ii ____ -1,,:t ___ __.~ ZZA·lrerracon BORING COMPLETED ffi WL 'l. l( RIG Acker CO. ~ WL LOGGED Scott JOB # HO-OB 1-10-08 Boretec 81085101 LOG OF BORING NO. B-3 Paae 1 of1 CLIENT Jo& Petrucci SITE PROJECT Mercer Island, WA P&truccl Resld&nce SAMPLES TESTS WELL DESCRIPTION DET AIL ~ 8 ,5 t' ~ ...I BOREHOLE DIA.: e in ::; ii' "' ffi~ '-' WELL DIA.: 1 in "' ,.. "' UJ -!:: :c :t' "' w > z"' z i TOP OF PROTECTOR PIPE: ft I;: ~ <D w 8 ';,: ::, TOP OF CASINC.: 60 ft ::; ~ i;:9 is f< 13 !!l "' i1 UJ (!) <3ROUNO SURFACE ELEV.: 69.5 ft ::, "' "'"' CJ C. SANDY SILT with some gravel and organic matter, light brown, soft to medium - stiff, moist (fill) - ,,; - :.·--·,_.·.:: •, '• ML S-1 SP 8 6 ·.··= '. -•' ::.··= •,• --: : ~ ... _~= ,, ,, .. - .§.5 ------------------------55 ).'.~ ),; 5 -ML S-2 SP 10 7 ~with some silt and sand and a trace :: . = :· -of organic matter, gray and brown and ,::,:= <:: orange moltled, medium stiff, moist (native :·.:::: :·. -sediments) :: ,:: :: .. ·:.:.~~ <.:.~ -ML S-3 ,,., 14 37 32 Atlerberg ··=.' Limtts 9 _________________________ ...§:1t5 :::.: ~ :::-:, -Performed ,•,• SIL TY SAND With a trace of gravel, : ·. = : ·. at-7.5 to grayish brown, hard, moist (native :: ·.:::: :: . --9 feet :::. ·~-. sediments) -::-.-':·. 10 SM s-4 SP' 14 56 ::·.§ ::·. -.. -·'. ~ - "~---------------_________ 4§.5 ::::.~2 ::::~ ~· \ :/ -Elelli IQ IIIE91!11il §.et!D with silt, light .. brown, very dense, moist (native SM S-5 ;,.o 16 52 13 Particle .-.· .. sediments) -Size .. ;· I:·,: -Analysis ) Performed r11 -at -12.5 ta 15 SM S-6 ~P" B 89/10" -14feet -.. 1 :,.ia.6 __________ ---------------44 - : Boring completed at •15.5 feet on 1110/08 l r 0 u ~ tt c ~ § The slralifica{ion lines ,epresent the approxima1e boundary Unes between sol and rock types: In-situ, the transition may be gradual. ::J ~ WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS, ft BORING STARTED 1-10-08 i WL 'fl-.!: ~ ZZA-1ferracon BORING COMPLETEO 1-10-08 WL :i l'. RIG Acker co. Boratec ~ WL LOGGED Scott JOB# 81085101 LOG OF BORING NO. B-4 Page 1 of 1 CLIENT Joe Petrucci SITE PROJECT Mercer Island, WA Petrucci Residence SAMPLES TESTS r!l ~ .s ~ @~ g DESCRIPTION "' ~ ;fl. l "' ~ ,: ,-: t: .: i!: ffi w ' ~~ ""(!) ::i § !~ z Zz I-"' "' w :, 8:l! 0. lJ ~ 0. ~1l. AMrox. Surface Elev.: 49 tt !!! "' ~ 0. ... ~8 !5 t;; <!) ::, z "' "'"' :·: ~· ;: SILTY SAND TO SANDY SILT with some -1 ' :·: .· gravel, ligl)t brown, soft to loose, moist to . ·'· wet (colluvium) - ,,\ \' -~ ·~· :-: 2 47 -.... · ~ --FINE TO MEDIUM SAND wlth silt, light ----- It brown, very dense, moist (native _ SP S-1 SP 10 51 sediments) _ SM .. ::•. ~.5 -----------------------44,6 ;_._., - r~:if FINE TO MEDIUM SAND with a trace of silt, light brown, very dense, moist (native 5 SP S-2 14 74 -~ ... sediments) - ii - -SP S-3 3P 12 90112" - - ·}::-~_::: 10 SP S-4 3P 12 57 - ~f - - --- I - - 15 SP S-5 SP 6 84 - -:/ .... ·.: 16.6 32.5 -I----- Boring completed al -16.5 feet on 1111/08 I , The stratification Bnes represent lha approximate boundary lines between soll and rock types: in-situ, the (fanslllon may be gra.d'ual. WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS, ft BORING STARTED 1-11-08 WL ¥ .l'. ~ ZZA-lrerracon BORING COMPLETED 1-11-08 WL ~ .l'. RIG Acker co. Boretec WL LOGGED Scott JOB# 81085101 - GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS Test Results Summary ASTM 0422 SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES U.S. ST AN DARO SIEVE SIZE HYDROMETER ,,. ,,. ,. ,. r u.i· ,w ,.,. • 10 "' .. "' 140 200 10 ! : i' ., ' .:1 I-:c e . ' 1 Ii £! I j: . I. ' w : I I ! • ii: 7 ; I ;.J ; i: J •. 1->-,,, '. ii Ill ffi 6 -1 j: ' ! :!:: 'i IL I : ' i I-I• i t -11, · i z ; i: I; w i i 0 . I , . !i:. ii,: ! Ill : l • · 1 ;1 11. ! Ii . ' :1 -11: 1 i: ,, ··1 : i' i !'' , , ' -, i. I I 'I i lil ·1 '• l I .:1 . ' 1: ; ; : i I I ' ' 1000.000 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS CoitrsG [ Floe Oc1uae I Medi11m I .-~ Sill I CIEIV 80',.K.~RS COB9~S GRAVG.I. SANO FINE aAAINED Comments: Exploration Sample Depth (feet) Moisture(%) Fines(%) Description B-1 S·4 10-11.5 22 56.5 s.andy SILT, trace- gravel JOB NO: 81065101 PROJECT NAME: • ZZA•1ferracon OATEOF 112112008 Petrucci Residence Geotechnrcar and EllVlranJtiltJI~ Consulting TESTING: GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS Test Results Summary SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES U.S. ST ANDARO SIEVE SIZE ,.. 12• 11• 3• 1 112• 3.14· .ys• 4 10 ao 40 eo 140 200 .. : 'I ! i-! I. • i I 'I , ' ' ' ' ; '.J j I t I '• I' '' I , , 'I !i r. ,i. I " : ; . : I i .\ I I :: I . I 11. ' ' i \J !/ l ' .. , I, i , I' . , ·\ ' .. , i i • I 1 11 . I .. i. :; 'I ' >" ' ,: ' ,, •. Ir I 1000.000 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS coor11r.i I Flm, C""'8 I Medium I ""' BOUU)ERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND Comments: Exploration Sample Depth (feet) Moisture(%) B-2 S-3 7.5,9 24 JOB ND; 81085101 Bi ZZA-lierracon DATE OF 1/21/2008 Gaotschnleal :.ir\d Envlronmen!sl consultln9 TESTING: ASTM D422 Silt HYDROMETER . ! '; ' 0.010 I FINE: GRAINED Clay Fines(%) Description 59.1 sandy SILT ~F\OJECT liAME; Petrucci Residence 0.001 GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS Test Results Summary SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES U.S. STANOARO SIEVE SIZE ,.. 1000.000 100.000 Coa,sa BOULDERS COSaL.ES CDmi11enls: ' ., ,, I ,1 i1 I - • l ! • i I ! : I '' 1 I I i' , I· ' 10.000 10 20 40 l!O ! I: ; I I! I. ' ' ir- ' ; : 'Ii: : i I I '' . ' . '' 'I i \ :I I; :I ' 1.000 140 200 I 0.100 I• I I i I I 1 I. '. PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS I Fm, coarse I _,.,,. I '"" GRA\,1£L SAND ASTM D422 • I .,. HYDROMETER 'I. • j. '' 0.010 I FTNE GRAU'iED 0.001 Cllly Exploration Sample Depth (feel) Moisture (%} Fines(%) Description 9.3 S-5 12.5-14 13 S7.1 slltySAND JOB NO: 81085101 PROJECT NAME, ~ ZZA·1rerracan DATE OF 1/21/2008 Petrucci Residence GaoteclviiC!tl and eilvironm1m1al C(a1eu1tin11 TESTING: - • Svmbol • ... • Remarks; 50 40 30 0 PLASTICITY CHART ASTMD4318 --=--L-, I .. ! I I : . . U-line ; ---.. --1 --···-·: .. ·--lno:tgaRl&day~of high pla!~c.!._tr_ · ( · . I j" - ___ --;·tow J?l~_!~:"olga~~c. __ l ·i~~~~~: ~t_--·· Medium J_ ptasliC --~ .. _. M:;~a~~-~d~IQmao&1t1ui nne ---s~ndy·am:l·s11W·SG1fs-; e~~flCl sJlts; ···-organic silts, i::Jays, anci· silty cia~· -Silty-cl¥)"'. c:ra9ey~rtt9 El{lQ~] .. 10 I : .... ' --·· ..... 20 30 '. inorganic_ clay:; 40 Ol so Liquid Limit % ·coH ··r. 1·: ·· j I , I -~rr-~H I 60 70 80 90 uses Received Liquid Plastic Plaslicily 100 Borins1 Sample Descrlotlon M.C. (%) Limit Limit Index Comments B-1 S-5 CL 26 28 18 9 tan lean CLAY, low plasUclty 8-2 S-4 CH 40 62 27 34 bro\Wl-gray tat CLAY, high plasticity B-3 S-3 CH 32 63 27 35 brown-gray fat Cl.AY, high plasticity PROJECT NAME: PROJECT NO: 81085101 ~ ZZA-llerracan DATE OF TESTING: 1123/2008 Petn.icef Resld8(1C8 Geotcchnlcal and Envlronmental Consulting Zipper Zeman Associates, Inc. Geotechnical Engineers and Environmental Consultants 18905-33'' Avenue West, Suite 117, Lynnwood, Washington 98036 (425) 771-3304 /FAX (425) 771-3549 DAILY FIELD REPORT: 1 PROJECT: Petrucci Landslide Repair CLIENT: Joseph Petrucci ZZA FIELD REP: S. Dobner ARR./ DEP. TIME: 8:00AM-8:30AM ... 12:30PM -3:45PM WEATHER: Sun,30's DATE: January 22, 2008 ZZA JOB NO.: 81085101 PAGE 1 OF] CONTRACTOR: Elk Heights Excavation Inc. LOCATION: Mercer Island, WA. PERMITNUMBER: N/A EQUIPMENT USED: Caterpillar 315 Excavator A 'ZZA representative completed a site visit to the Petrucci Landslide Repair project site located at 7702 SE "58 111 St. in Mercer Island, Washington at the request of the client. The purpose of our site visit was to, ob 0 serve the removal of loose soil and landslide material from the slope west of the existing house. Our presence on-site was solely intended to provide engineering recommendations if needed during the removal of loose slope material. We did not give direction to the contractor. At the time of our initial site visit, we met with Jason Moe of Elk Heights Excavation, Inc. (EHE) who informed us that they would begin the day by removing the existing stockpile of landslide material located near the lakeshore before removing existing slope material. We observed that the contractor was removing the plastic sheeting from the slope. We took some photos of the slope conditions with the plastic sheeting removed "cir reference and are attached to this report. At the time of our subsequent site visit, we observed that EHE had removed loose soil from the toe of the slope next to the pri vale driveway and was in the process of removing loose soil from the slope immediately above the driveway using a Caterpillar 315 excavator. The loose soil generally consisted of brown silty sand to sandy silt with varying amounts of gravel and organic matter in a moist to wet condition. Once the soil was removed from the slope, it was stockpiled on the driveway below the excavator where a rubber-tire backhoe removed one load at a time and delivered it to the awaiting barge parked off-shore. This process continued until the barge was full and left the site. The result of today's work created a near vertical cut beginning approximately five feet away from the driveway and extending from the end of the existing soldier pile wall ijpproxirnately 45 feet north along the driveway, measuring between 5 and 7 feet high. From the top of this cut a·_slope with an angle measuring approximately 45 degrees was created extending approximately an additionai 15 vertical feet. Along portions of this slope, firm native subgrade was exposed. The observed native subgrade generally consisted of silty sand near the toe of the slope mantled by silty sand with varying amounts of gravel overlain by sandy silt near the top of the exposure. No groundwater seepage was observed along the slope at the time of our site visits. We measured water levels in Borings B-1, B-2 and B-3 while we were on-site. No groundwater was observed in B-2 and groundwater was sounded at approximately 14-feet below existing grade. Mr. Moe informed us that they would return the following day and begin removing the stockpile of soil at the top of the slope. We will complete a site visit the following day to observe the continued earthwork activities. REYIEWEDBY: ~ ~ :1tis report pre.sents Qpinions fonned as a result of our observations of the contractors llCtivities relating to geotechnical engineering. We rely on I.he conURClor to comply with the plans 1111d spei:cificatioru 1hmughout lhe duration of !he project irrespecdve of the presence of the ZZA field representative. The presence of our field representative will be for the purpose of proYiding obscrvaclon an<l field testing services. Our work does not include supervision or direction of the actual work of the contractor, its employees, or agents. Neither the presence of U1e 'l2.A field representative nor the observation and testing by Z:Z.A shall excuse the contractor in Qny way for defects discovered in its work. l:l.A will not be responsfble for job or site safety on this project - - Zipper Zeman Associates, Inc. Geotecbnical Engineers and Environmental Consultants 18905-33'" Avenue West, Suite 117, Lynnwood, Washington 98036 (425) 771-3304 / FAX (425) 771-3549 DAILY FIELD REPORT: 2 PROJECT: Petrucci Landslide Repair CLIENT: Joseph Petrucci ZZA FIELD REP: S. Dobner ARR./ DEP. TIME: 7:45AM -10:00AM WEATHER; Sun,30's DATE; January 23, 2008 ZZA JOB NO.: 81085101 PAGE] OF] CONTRACTOR: Elk Heights Excavation lnc. LOCATION: Mercer Island, WA. PERMIT NUMBER: NIA EQUIPMENT USED: Caterpillar 315 Excavator A ZZA representative completed a site visit to the Petrucci Landslide Repair project site located at 7702 SE 58th St. in Mercer Island, Washington at the request of the client. The purpose of our site visit was to observe the removal of loose soil and landslide material from the slope west of the existing house. Our presence on-site was solely intended to provide engineering recommendations if needed during the removal of loose slope material. We did not give direction to the contractor. At the time of our initial site visit, we observed that the contractor was not on-site. We met with Jason Moe of Elk Heights Excavating, Inc. (EHE) who informed us that they arrived on-site the previous day late in the afternoon and worked until approximately 8:00PM removing the stockpile of soil at the top of the slope and placing it on the slope above the private driveway for removal the following day. It appeared that EHE had ';limbed the ivy covered slope near the northern limits of the landslide area to access the top of the slope and ..hen tracked down the landslide area to deliver the soil to the slope above the driveway. We also observed that EHE had exposed the sanitary sewer service pipe at the top of the slope which was located approximately 3-feet below existing grade. We used a V>-inch diameter steel rod to probe below the pipe in order to evaluate the subsurface conditions. During probing we encountered firm subgrade approximately an acjditional 1.5 feet below the pipe. EHE continued to remove the soil placed on the slope the previous day until the barge parked off-shore was full and then stopped work for the day. We recommended that they cover the exposed soil areas with plastic overnight in case of a rainfall event. EHE elected to leave the slope open stating that rain was not forecast until the following evening. No groundwater seepage was observed along the slope at the time of our site visits. Mr. Moe informed us that they would return the following day and continue removing loose soil from the landslide area to match the 2H:IV (Horizontal:Vertical) slope above the existing soldier pile wall to the south. We will complete a site visit the following day to observe the continued earthwork activities. < REVIEWEDBY:~ ~ this rr;port presenlS opinioru formed EIS a result of our observations of dt-c contractor.; activities relating lo geotechnical engineering. We rely on the contractor to compJy with the plans and specifications throughout the duration, of the projecl irrespeclive of the presence of lhe ZZA field representatiw. The presence-of our field rc~rescntativc will be for the puipose of providing observation and field testing services. Our work does not include supervision or direction of the 11Ctual work of the contractor, its employees, or agents. Neitha the presence oftl1eZZA field representative nor the observation and te.sting by ZZA shall excuse the conlractorin any way for' dCfects discovered in its work. ZZA will not be responsible for job -or 5ite sa(ety on this project. Zipper Zeman Associates, Inc. Geotechnical Engineers and Environmental Consultants 1890S-33'd Avenue West, Suite 117, Lynnwood, Washington 98036 (425) 771-3304 / FAX (425) 771-3549 DAILY FIELD REPORT: 3 PROJECT: Petrucci Landslide Repair CLIENT: Joseph Petrucci ZZA FIELD REP: S. D-Obner ARR. I DEP. TIME: 7:45AM-l0:00AM WEA THER: Sun, 30's DATE: January 25, 2008 ZZA JOB NO.: 81085101 PAGE!OFI CONTRACTOR, Elk Heights Excavation Inc, LOCATION: Mercer Island, WA. PERMIT NUMBER: NIA EQUIPMJUllT USED: Caterpillar 315 Excavator A ZZA representative completed a site visit at the request of the owner to observe the removal of loose soil and from the slope below the existing residence at 7702 SE 58th Street. The purpose of the soil removal was to temporarily stabilize the slope following a recent landslide. At the time of our site visit, we met with Jason Moe of Elk Heights Excavating, Inc. (EHE) and observed that they had arrived on-site earlier than 10:00am as previously informed. Since our previous site visit, EHE had climbed to the top of the slope and removed additional soil near borings B-1 and B-2 creating a generally consistent slope of approximately 1.5H: 1 V to 2H: 1 V (Horizontal: Vertical) slope angle. In the process EHE disturbed the well monuments by undermining the monuments and causing them to lean or fall over. We recommended to Mr. Moe that they not disturb the well monuments further so that they can be properly decommissioned at a later date. We observed that the additional soil removed from near the top of the slope was placed in the private driveway below the slope for removal. We recommended to Mr. Moe that they first load the soil in the driveway on the barge before removing additional soil from the slope to avoid excess soil stockpiles once the barge is full. We traversed the landslide area, using a Y:a-inch diameter steel rod to probe the ground surface in order to evaluate the slope conditions and observed generally finn subgrade conditions with some areas of soft soil beyond the extent of our probe near the top of the slope. However, based on the slope @gle and lack of groundwater seepage, the slope is temporarily in a generally stable condition provided no additional alterations are made to the landslide area and that the slope is properly covered with plastic sheeting. We observed two corrugated plastic storm drain pipes protruding from the slope approximately 1/3 of the way down slope near the south property line and that one of the pipes was seeping water. We were unable to determine the source of the pipes and recommended to EHE that they connect solid of ''tighline"pipes to any observed storm drain pipes in the landslide area and direct the pipes to an existing drainage structure such as the drainage swale on the top of the existing soldier pile wall to the southwest. Once the soil was loaded onto the barge, EHE left the site, the barge left and representatives of Shamrock Landscaping arrived to cover the slope with plastic sheeting and collllect tightline pipes to observed drainage pipes in the landslide area. REYIEWEDBY: ~ ~ This: report presents opinions formed as a result of our observations of the contractors activities relating to geoteehnical engineering. We rely on the contractor io cam ply with the plans and specifications throughoat Che duration of the project irrespective of the presence of the '1.2.A field representative. The preoonce of our field representative will be for the purpose of providing observation and field testing sCIVices. Our work does not include supervision or directio-n of the actual work of the c~m.trac:tor, lls empfoyee.s, or 11gents. Neither the presence of the ZZA field representative nor the observation and testing by ZZA .shall excuse the contractor tn any way for-defects discovered in its work. 'ZZA will nol be responsible for job or site safety on this project. - - • 9 Analytical""'°"""'• lnco,porated Analytical Chemists ancl Consultants · October 31, 2008 Jeremy Porter 401 Second Avenue, Suite 201 Seattle, WA98104 RE: Cllent Project: 20027-008-05, Qi.lendall Terminals · ARI Job No.: NT55 Dear Jeremy:_ Please find. enclosed the. original Chain-of-Custody {COG) record, sample receipt · documentation,. and the. final data package for samples from the project referenced above. Sample receipt and ~etails of these analyses. are discussed in the Case Narrative. An electronic copy of this package will remain. on file with ARI .. Should you have any questions or problems, please feel free to contact me at your convenfence. · Sincerely, ANAL YTlCAL RESOURCES, INC .. "·:~, Gheronne Oreiro ··, .. Project Manager -For- Susan Dunnihoo Director, Client Services. sue@arilabs.com 206-695-6207 Enclosures cc: efile. NT55. 4611_ South 134th Place, Suite _100 • Tukwila WA 98168 • 206-695-6200 • 206-695-6201 fax Chain of Custody Documentation prepared for · ASPECT CONSULTING Project: Quendall Terminals, 020027-008-05 ARI JOB NO: NT55 prepared . by Analytical Resources, In.c. -' ( { Chain of ;tody Record & Laboratory Analysis Request l~f ;!ffljl.i=ii~-,oi~i!lltlil :111: Turn-arouoo Requested: ~yd=~~ v;:~ ~~ Date: io/q/'08 ARI Client Company: Aspect Consulting LLC Phone: 206-838-5835 Page: I c,f Client Contact Jeremy Poiter ~Wb.~~~~:mf ~~~f ~l/f 1:~~M J~. Client Project Name: Quendall Terminals Client Project II: 020027--008:05 1! I Sa~~rs: ~ !&; I 11~f~OD-,~\~~up Sample ID Dale Time · Matrix I No. c""'"""" PAHs ITPH-Ox SP-1 !0/1fa8 I /0 ()O .5,,; I z ·I,, :,( SP-2 /0/0 J ){. SP-3 1015 1 ,J.' -/. SP-4 /0,ZO 1, ·-' . X. . . Ii I 111'?0 ·,Y 1, ·)( SP-5 CommentsJSpecial lnslruclions 4h Level IV Data Package Email Std Lab Rep! to J.Porter full data package to Joy Dunay \J0,.,lt'Y Anchor Environmental Date a 'rime: Da1e & Tlme: iO/ 'l/f2L __ J2,/c;' jp_L'f /oo Ll.15 I • Analysis Requested Re-bye {~igmlture) Pl'IltedName; Company; Date & Timo; Analytical Resources, Incorporated Analytical Chemists and Consultants 4611SOUH1134th Place, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98168 206-6115-ll2DO 206-ll95-ll201 (fax) Notes/Comments Received by. (S~re) Prillad Name: ' "°""""' I Dale& Time: Umits of Ual»1ity: ARJ will perlbrm all requested services in accordance with appropriate methodology following ARI Standard Operating ProcerJures and the ARI Qualify Assurance Program. This program meets standards for the industry. 7he total liability of ARI, its officers, agents, employees, or successors, tmSing out of or in connection With the requested serwces, shafl not exceed the Invoiced amount for said services. The acceptance by the Glient of a proposal for services by ARI release ARI from any liability in exces.s !heraof, not withslaflding any provision to tho contrmy in any contract, p"""1ase order or co-signed agreement between ARI and th• Client Sample Retention Policy: Unless specified by workorder or contract.. au water/soil samples submitted lo ARI will be discarded or returned, no $COner than 90 days after receipt or 60 clays after submission of · hard copy dala, whichever is longer. Sediment samples submitted under PSDDAIPSEP/SMS protocol will be stored frozen for up to one year and Ulen discarded, 4 A.-. _·• _ Amilyticat Resources; lnwrporated ....,.-· Anafyt~ca_t Chem~sts and -Con~_ultanls · C.ooler-Receipt Form . ARI Client A$ f?4"'ir;: coc No: ~~r'-----~-,-e----,,,-- . Assigned JlJU Jo.ti No:~>~---'-,-----'N-"--!-7.-=Sc..::::;;"'----.,--'- Project Name: () (!A2A .v{,../( ~¢ Oeliveredby:. P,·~.ii . . . l'.r.i<;J<ing No:~.--'----~------ . Pr~liminary ~aminatlon .Phase: . . . . wilre jntaci; property signed ;md date.d custody seal$1!i~llchlld to the outside of to cooler? W~re, custodypapi:ir5;.lnciuded with !he cooler? .....•••. ,,.::~ ........ ;', •..... : •...•..•........•. , ......• Were custody pap<1rs:prciperty filled 01.1t (ink, signll(l, etc.} ... ;.:.';, ... : .. ; ....... --· ................. . Record coofef\emperature (recommended2.0"6.0 'Cfor chemislry .•..••••.... ,.:, .. : .......•... YES~- (!@S NO ~ NO 7,o ·c . Cooler.l\ccepti!dbr ~:'I_...··,._L,J=· _______ ....,..... ___ .qateJO/'f /co' Time: / Z.15 Cc,mplete cuslody forms ah~ attiteft a(/ shipping documents . Was a temperature _bfankim;tuded in the coofer? ....••....•.• ,, .•.... , ..... : ......•....•.•..• , ..•....... YES Ciro) What.kind Qf p,ic~ing rnateriaf was u_sed? ...•.. : .. : .•........•.• , •........ , .. : ..........•..•.........•. : .. . Was sufficient icil used '(if l'lpproprlate)? .•..•.......... : .....• : ., .................................... : .... . Were aif botties .se'31£!d in individual pfaslic baQ$? .................•....•.••..... ., ........... , .... , .... . /llt'/'e. YES ~ YES Gm ·Did all bottle arrive in good ccindllion (unbroken)? ............ _ . ., .. : ..•............. , ............................. . Were all bottl~ labels. complete and legible? .............. , ..•••.....•..•...... · ............................. . -Did all bc;,ttle fafiels and lags agree with cu~tody pape_r:s? ........ ; ........... , ....................... . @ NO is NO NO Were all bottJes usiad correct for the requested afial¥ses? ,.; ............. : ................ : ...•.............• (§:s NO Do any of the. an·alyses (b\)Ules) require preseryation? (attach preservation chacklisl) ...... . Were al! VOC vials free of aidiubbles? ..•.•.•... ,., •....••.•...• .,,.'. .•.•.•.... ..•.......•.. ~ Was suffl~ient amount of sample sent in eaeh bottle? .••..... ,, ......................................... . YES. ~- YES NO C)s NO 7Z () Samplas.Logged by: ______ ~;.t...:,,~---~Oaie: . / o/;(J//Jf Time:-'----- ~·Notify Project Manager of tilis,irepancies or cou,;,ms .. · Explain. dis<;repancies or riegative responses: ·By: Date; 0016F Cooler Receipt Fonn Revision 008 - ( ( - Case Narrative prepared for ASPECT CONSULTING Project: Qµendall,Terminais, 020027-008-05 ARI JOB NO: NT55 prepared by .. 1,nalytical .Resources; Iii~. Case Narrative Client: Aspect Consulting, LLC Project: 020027-008-05, Quendall Terminals Matrix: Soil ARI Job No.: NTSS Sample receipt ANALYTICAL (ff RESOURCES INCORPORATED Five soil samples were received on October 9, 2008 under the ARI job number referenced above. The cooler temperature measured by IR thermometer following ARI SOP was 7.0°C and the samples were iced. Please review the Cooler Receipt Form for more details. SIM PNAs by SW8270 All samples and associated laboratory QC were extracted and analyzed within recommended holding times. The initial and continuing calibrations were within method requirements. Internal standard areas were within limits. The surrogate percent recoveries were within control limits. The method blank was clean at the reporting limit. The LCS percent recoveries were within control limits. The matrix spike duplicate percent recovery of Pyrene was outside the control limits for sample SP-3. The matrix spike percent recovery was within control limits. No further corrective action was required. There were no matrix spike and matrix spike duplicate percent recoveries for Benzyl Alcohol for sample 2B-OI-VC-9-I2. No further corrective action was required for matrix QC and the outlier is attributed to the characteristics of the compound, a known poor performer. NWTPH-Dx All samples and associated laboratory QC were extracted and analyzed within recommended holding times. The initial and continuing calibrations were within method requirements. Internal standard areas were within limits. The surrogate percent recoveries were within control limits. Case Narrative NT55 Page 1 of2 - ( ( ( - ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET ")TAL Dill:SllL RANGE HYDROCARBONS ANALYTICAL. RESOURCES~ INCORPORATEO ITPHO by Gc/FIO-Silica and Acid Cleaned Page 1 of l Matrix: soil QC Report No: NT55-Aspect Consulting Project, QUENDALL TERMINALS 020027-008-05 Data Release Authorized:~ Reported: 10/27/08 ARI ID Sainple ID NTSSA Sl'-1 08-27075 HC ID, HB-101008 Method Blank 08-27076 HC ID, NTSSB SP-2 08-27076 HC ID, MOTOR OIL NTSSC SP-3 08-27077 HC ID, NT55D SP-4 08-27079 HC ID, SSE SP-5 uti-27079 HC ID, :Reported in mg/kg (ppm) EFV-Effective Final Volume Extraction Analysis Date Date 10/10/08 10/11/08 FI03A 10/10/08 10/11/08 FI03A 10/10/08 10/11/08 FID3A 10/10/08 10/11/08 FID3A 10/10/08 10/ll/08 FID3A 10/10/08 10/11/08 FID3A in mL. DL-Dilution of extract prior to analysis. RL-Reporting limit. E!l'V DL Range 1.00 Diesel l. 0 Motor Oil o-Terphenyl l. 00 Diesel l. 0 Motor Oil o-Terphenyl 1.00 Diesel 1.0 Motor Oil o-Terphenyl 1. 00 Diesel l. 0 Motor Oil o-Terphenyl 1. 00 Diesel 1.0 Motor Oil o-Terphenyl 1.00 Diesel i. a Motor Oil o-Terphenyl Diesel quantitation on total peaks in the range from C12 to C24. Motor Oil quantitation on total peaks in the range from C24 to C38. RL 5.9 12 5.0 10 6:o 12 6.0 12 6.2 12 6,0 12 HC ID: DRO/RRO indicate results of organics or additional hydrocarbons in ranges are not identifiable. FORM I Resu1t < 5.9 U < 12 u 12 .a < 5.0 u < 10 u 88.2% < 6.0 u J.3 81.1\. < 6: 0 U < 12 U 80. 7% < 6.2 u < 12 u 75.6% < 6.0 lJ < -12 u 72. 2% ( . . NWTPHDx - { ( - ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET ~As by BW8270D-SIM GC/MS .:1ge 1 of l Sample ID: MB-101308 METHOD Bl:,ANK ANALYTICAL/&. RESOURCES9 INCORPORATED Lab Sample ID: MB-101308 LIMS ID: 08-27077 Matrix: Soil f"v,,,,., { Data Release Authorized:v\,~ Reported, 10/27/0B QC Report No: NT55-Aspect Consulting Project: QUENOALL TERMINALS Event: 020027-008-05 Date Sampled: NA Date Received: NA riate Extracted: 10/13/08 Date Analyzed: 10/14/08 11:12 Instrument/Analyst: NT2/PK GFC Cleanup: No Sample Amount: 10.0 g-dry-wt Final Extract Volu~e: 0.5 mL Dilution Factor: 1.00 Percent Moisture: NA Silica Gel Cleanup: Yes Alumina Cleanup: No CAS Number Analyte 91-20-3 Naphthalene 91-57-6 2-Methylnaphthalene 90-12-0 1-Methylnaphthalene 208-96-8 Acenaphthylene 83-32-9 Acenaphthene 86-73-7 Fluorene 85-01-8 Phenanthrene 120-12-7 Anthracene 206-44-0 Fluoranthene 129-00-0 Pyrene 56-55-3 Benzo(a}anthracene 218-01-9 Chryeene 205-99-2 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 207-08-9 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 50-32-8 Benzo{a}pyrene 193 -3 9-5 Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene 53-70-3 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 191-24-2 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene in-64-9 Dibenzofuran RL 5.0 s.o s.o s.o 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Reported in 119/kg (ppb) SIM Semivolatile surrogate Recovery dl0-2-Methylnaphthalene 80. 7% dl4-Dibenzo(a,h)anthracen 75. 0% FORM I Res·u1t < 5.0 u < 5.0 u < 5.0 u < 5.0 u < 5.0 u < 5.0 u < 5.0 u < 5.0 u < 5.0 u < 5.0 u < 5.0 u < 5.0 u < 5.0 u < 5.0 IJ < 5.0 u < s.o u < 5.0 u < 5.0 IJ < s.o u 4B BLANK NO. SEMIVOLATILE METHOD BLANK SUMMARY NT55MBS1 Lab Name: ANALYTICAL RESOURCES, INC ARI Job No: NT55 Client: ANCHOR ( -------· Lab File ID: 101401 Instrument ID: NT2 Matrix: SOLID Project: QUENDALL TERMINALS Date Extracted: 10/13/08 Date Analyzed: 10/14/08 Time Analyzed: 1112 THIS METHOD BLANK APPLIES TO THE FOLLOWING SAMPLES, MS and MSD: COMMENTS: page l_ of 1 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12· 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 .,. SAMPLE NO. =====~~========= NT55LCSS1 SP-1 SP-3 SP-3 MS SP-3 MSD SP-4 -·· L./U:I L./U:I DAu, SAMPLE ID FILE ID ANALYZED ============;:,,:: =====;-;:-;;,;:=:::.== ========l:::l== NT55LCSS1 101402 10/14/08 NT55A 10-1403 10/14/08 NT55C 101404 10/14/08 NTSSCMS 101405 10/14/08 NTSSCMSD 101406 10/14/08 NTSSD 101407 10/14/08 FORM IV SV ( ( - ~---- ORGAN.ICS ANALYSIS DATA Sl!EE'.r ·As by SW8270D-SIM GC/MS ~ge 1 of 1 Lab Sample ID: LCS-101308 LIMS ID: 08-27077 Matrix: Soil CT>.-.. { Data Release Authorized: ~,\'f\J't"I Reported: 10/27/08 Date Extracted: 10/13/08 Date Analyzed LCS: 10/14/08 11:36 Instrument/Analyst LCS: NT2/PK Analyte Naphthalene 2-Methylnaphthalene l-Methylnaphthalene Acenaphthylene Acenaphthene Fluorene Phenanthrene Anthracene Fluoranthene Pyrene Benzo(a)anthracene Chrysene Benzo(b)fluoranthene Benzo(k)fluoranthene ;zo(a)pyrene leno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene Dibenz(a,h)anthracene Benzo(g,h,i)perylene Dibenzofuran Sample ID, LCS-101308 ANALYTICAL~ RESOURCES\9' INCORPORATED LAB CONTl<Ol, SAMPLE QC Report No: NT55-Aspect Consulting Project: QUENDALL TERMINALS Event, 020027-008-05 Date Sampled: NA Date Received: NA Sample Amount LCS: 10. 0 g-dry-wt Final Extract Volume LCS: 0.50 mL Dilution Fact.or LCS: 1. 00 Spike LCS Added Recovery 111 150 74. 0% 118 l5D 78.7% 113 150 75.3% 118 150 78. 7% 114 150 76.0% 127 150 84.7% 120 150 80.0% 123 150 82.0% 138 150 92.0% 131 150 87.3% 141 150 94.0% -l25 150 83 .3% 126 150 84.0% 120 150 80.0% 142 150 94. n, 114 150 76.0% 124 150 82.7% 106 150 70.7% 119 150 79.3% Reported in µg/kg (ppb) SIM Semivolatile Surrogate Recovery dl0-2-Methylnaphthalene 79.3% dl4-_Dibenzo(a,h)anthracen 81.0% FORM III ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET PNAs by SN8270D-SIM GC/MS Page 1 of l Sl!IJI\PlB ID, SP-3 ANALYnCAL(& RESOURCES \8" INCORPORATED. r· MATRIX SPIKE DUPLICATE Lsb sample ID: NTSSC LIMS ID, 08-27077 Matrix: Soil f'l\r,.~.J Data Release Authorized:· \\~~'f' Reported: 10/27/08 QC Report No: NTSS-Aspect Consulting Project: QUENDALL TERMINALS Event, 020027-008-05 Date Sampled: 10/09/08 Date Received: 10/09/08 Date Extracted, 10/13/08 Date Analyzed, 10/14/08 13:11 Instrument/Analyst: NT2/PK GPC Cleanup: NO Sample Amount: 10.7 g-dry-wt Final Bxtract Volume: 0.5 mL Dilution Factor: 1.00 Percent Moisture: 17.9% Silica Gel Cleanup: Yes Alumina Cleanup: No CAS Number Analyte 91-20-3 Naphthalene 91-57-6 2-Methylnaphthalene 90-12-0 l"Methylnaphthalene 208-96-8 Acenaphthylene 83-32-9 Acenaphthene 86-73-7 Fluorene 85-01-8 Phenanthrene 120-12-7 Anthracene 206-44-0 Fluoranthene 129-00-0 Pyrene 56-55-3 Benzo(a}anthracene 218-01-9 Chrysene 205-99-2 Benzo{b)fluoranthene 207-08-9 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 50-32-8 Benzo(a)pyrene 193-39-5 Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene 53-70-3 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 191-24-2 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 132-64-9 Dibenzofuran Reported in µg/kg (ppb) RL 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 SIM Semivolatile Surrogate Recovery dl0-2-Methylnaphthalene 74.3t d14-Dibenzo(a,h)anthracen 76.7% FORM I Result ( - - ORGANrCS ANALYSTS DATA SHEET ·rAa by SW8270D-STM GC/MS .;ge l of l sample ID I SP-3 ~TRIX SPIKE ANALYTICAL f& RESOURCES~ INCORPORATED Lab sample ID: NT55C LIMS ID.: 08-27077 Matrix: Soil ...... -t Data Release Authorized: \l\NV Reported: 10/27/0B QC Report No: NT55-Aspect consulting Project: QUENDALL TERMINALS Event: 020027-008-05 Date Sampled: 10/09/08 Date Received: 10/09/08 Date Extracted: 10/13/08 Date Analyzed: 10/14/08 12:48 Instrument/Analyst: NT2/PK GPC Cleanup: No sample Amount: 11.0 g-dry-wt Final Extract Volume: 0.S mL Dilution Factor: 1.00 Percent Moisture: 17.9% Silica Gel Cleanup: Yes Alumina Cleanup: No CAS NUmber Analyte 91-20-3 Naphthalene 91-57-6 2-Methylnaphthalene 90-12-0 1-Methylnaphthalene 208-96-8 Acenaphthylene 83-32-9 Acenaphthene 86-73-7 Fluorene 85-01-8 Phenanthrene 120-12-7 Anthracene 206-44-0 Fluoranthene 129-00-0 Pyrene 56-55-3 Benzo(a}anthracene 218-01-9 Chrysene 205-99-2 Benzo{b)fluoranthene 207-08-9 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 50-32-8 Benzo(a)pyrene 193-39-5 Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene 53-70-3 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 191-24-2 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 132-64-9 Dibenzofuran Reported in µg/kg (ppb) RL 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4,6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 SlM Semivolatile Surrogate Recovery dl0-2-Methylnaphthalene 70.3% d14-Dibenzo(a,h)anthracen 71.7% FORM I Result ORGANJ:CS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET PNAB by SW8270D-SIM GC/MS Page 1 of l Lab Sample ID: NTSSC LIMS ID: 08-27077 Matrix: Soil ~~,/ Data Release Authorized: \\~'tJ Reported: 10/27/08 Date EXtracted MS/MSD: 10/13/08 Date Analyzed MS: 10/14/08 12:48 MSD: 10/14/08 13:ll Instrument/Analyst MS: NT2/PK MSD: NT2/PK Juialyte Sample Naphthalene < 4.7 u 2-Methylnaphthalene < 4.7 u 1-Methylnaphthalene < 4.7 u Acenaphthylene < 4.7 u Acenaphthene < 4.7 u Fluorene < 4.7 u Fhenanthrene < 4.7 u Anthracene < 4.7 u Fluoi-anthene 10.] J?yrene 7.9 Benzo{a)anthracene < 4.7 u Chrysene 5.6 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 4.7 Benzo(k)fluoranthene < 4.7 u Benzo(a]pyrene < 4.7 u Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene < 4.7 u Dibenz(a,h)anthracene < 4.7 u Benzo(g,h,i)perylene < 4.7 u Dibenzofuran < 4.7 u MS 90.9 95.5 91.4 91.8 88.2 97.7 107 97.3 135 126 118 117 135 95.5 119 103 103 94 .1 92.3 ANALYTICAL A RESOURCES \Wf INCORPORATED Sample ID: SP-3. M!lTRIX SPIKE QC Report No: NT55-Aapect Consulting Project: QUENDAJ,L TERMINALS Event: 020D27-008-05 Date Sampled: 10/09/08 Date Received: 10/09/08 Sample Final Extract Amount MS: MSD: Volume MS: MSD: Dilution Factor MS: MSD: Spike MS Added-MS Recove1:y MSD 136 66.0% 98.1 136 70.21" 106 136 67.H 99.5 136 67.5% 101 136 64. 9% 97 .2 136 71. 8% 106 136 78. 7-t 109 136 71. 5% 110 136 91. 7%-179 136 86.8% 201 136 86.8% 147 136 81. 9%-157 136 9-S. 8% 145 136 70.2% 120 136 87.5% 140 136 75.7% 109 136 75. 7t 112 136 69.2% 101 136 67.9% 102 11. 0 g-dry-wt 10.7 g-dry-wt 0.50 mL 0.50 mL 1. 00 l. 00 Spike MSD Added.-MSD Racovary 140 70 .1% 140 75.7% 140 71.1% 140 72.lt l40 69.4\ 140 75.7% 140 77.91r HO 18.6% 140 120, 140 138% 140 105\ 140 108% 140 100%- 140 85.71ft 140 100% 140 77.9% 140 80.0% 140 72.H 140 . 72 .9%. RPD 7.6% 10,H 8.5% 9.5% 9.7% 8.H 1.9% 12 .3% 28.0% 45.9% 21.9% 29 .2% 7.lt 22.71' 16.2%- 5.?t 8.4% 7.H 10.0% Reported in µg/kg (ppb) RPD calculated using sample concentrations per SW846. FORM III - ( ( ( SIM SW82'70 SURROGATE RECOVERY SUMMARY Matrix, Soil (MNP) (DBA) Cl.ient ID SP-1 MB-101308 LCS-10130B SP-3 SP-3 MS SP-3 MSD SP-4 = dl0-2-Methylnaphthalene dl4-Dibenzo{a,h)anthracene QC Report No, Project: MNP 66 .0% 80. 7l; 79.3% 72.0% 70. 3% 74. 3% 68·. 7% NT55-Aspect Consulting QUENDALL TERMINALS 020027-008-05 OBA TOT OUT · 63. 7% 0 75.0% 0 81.0% 0 69.0% 0 71. 7% 0 76.7% 0 69.0% a LCS/MB LIMITS (44-100) (46-121) QC LIMITS {37-106) {16-118) Prep Method, SW3546 Log Number Range, 08-27075 to 08-27078 FORM-II SIM SW8270 Page 1 for NT55 ANALYTICAL/& RESOURCES \9' INCORPORATED ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET PNAs by SW8270D-SIM GC/MS Page l of l Sample IDr SP-4 SAMPLB ANALYTICAL ta, RESOURCES~ INCORPORATED ( Lab Sample ID: NT55D LIMS ID: OB-27078 Matrix, Soil ~ • \ Data Release Authorized, ·\\\J'N Reported: 10/27/08 QC Report No: NT55-Aspect Consulting Project: QUENDALL TERMINALS Event: 020027·008-05 Date Sampled: 10/09/08 Date Received: 10/09/08 Date Extracted: 10/13/08 Date Analyzed: 10/14/08 13:35 Instrument/Analyst: NT2/PK GPC Cleanup; No Sample Amount: 10.7 g-dry-wt Final Extract Volume: 0.5 mL Dilution Factor: 1.00 Percent Moisture: 19.3% Silica Gel Cleanup: Yes Alumina Cleanup: No CAS Nwnber 91-20-3 91-57-6 90-12-0 208-96·8 83-32-9 86-73-7 85-01•8 120-12-7 206-44-0 l.29-00-0 56-55-3 21.8-0l.·9 205·99·2 207-08-9 50-32-B 193-39·5 53-70-3 191-24-2 132-64-9 Analyte Naphthalene 2-Methylnaphthalene 1-Methylnaphthalene Acenaphthylene Acenaphthene Fluorene Phenanthrene Anthracene F1uoranthene Pyrene Benzo(a)anthr"acene Cbrysene Benzo(b)fluoranthene Benzo{k)fluoranthene Benzo(a)pyrene Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene Dibenz{a,h)anthracene Benzo(g,h;i)perylene Dibenzofuran Reported in µg/kg (ppb) RL 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 SIM Semivolatile Surrogate Recovery dl0-2-Methylnaphthalene 68.7% dl4-Dibenzo(a,h)anthracen 6~.0% FORM I Result < 4.7 U < 4. 7 U < 4.7 U < 4.7 U < 4.7 U < 4.7 U 4.7 < 4.7 U l.3 12 5.6 12 11 7.5 7.0 < 4.7 U < 4.7 IT < 4.7 U < 4.7 U ( ( ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEE'l' ~As by SW8270D-SIM GC/MS .<ge 1 at l Sample ID, Sl?-3 SAMl?LB ANALYTICAL .. RESOURCES 18' INCORPORATED Lab Sample ID, NT55C LIMS ID: 08-27077 Matrix; Soil ..... """ ,.J Oat.a Release Authorized:\,, \'\J'f" Reported: 10/27/08 QC Report No; NT55-Aspect Consulting Project: QUENDALL TERMINALS Event: 020027-008-05 Date Sampled, 10/09/08 Date Received: 10/09/08 Date Extracted, 10/13/08 Date Analyzed: 10/14/08 12:24 Instrument/Analyst: NT2/PK GPC Cleanup: No Sample Amount, 10.7 g-dry-wt Final Extract Volume; 0.5 mL Dilution Factor; 1.00 Percent Moisture: 17.9% Silica Gel Cleanup: Yes Alumina Cleanup: No CAS N'u.mber Analyte 91-20-3 Naphthalene 91-57-6 2-Methylnaphthalene 90-12-0 1-Methylnaphthalene 208-96-8 Acenaphthylene 83-32-9 Acenaphthe·ne 86-73-7 Fluorene 85-01-8 Phenant.hrene 120-12-7 Ant.hracene 206-44-0 Fluora.nthene 129-00-0 Pyrene 56-55-3 Benzo(a)anthracene 218-01-9 Chrysene 205-99-2 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 207-08-9 Benzo(k}fluoranthene 50-32-8 Benzo(a)pyrene 193-39-5 Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene 53-70-3 Dibenz{a,h)anthracene 191-24-2 Benzo(g1h,i)perylene 132-64-9 Dibenzofuran RL 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4. 7 4.7 Reported in µg/kg (ppb) SIM Se,nivolatile Surrogate Recovery dl0-2-Methylnaphthalene 72.0% d14-Dibenzo{a,h}anthracen 69.0% FORM I Result < 4.7 < 4.7 < 4.7 < 4.7 < 4.7 < 4.7 < 4.7 < 4.7 10 7,9 < 4.7 5.6 4.7 < 4.7 < 4.7 < 4.7 < 4.7 < 4.7 < 4.7 u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u ORGANJ:CS ANALYSJ:S DATA SHEE:T PNJl.s by SW8270D-srM GC/MS Page 1 of 1 Sample ID, SP-1 SAMPLE ANALYTICAL ta RESOURCES \g' INCORPORATED ( Lab Sample ID, NT55A Matrix, Soil LIMS ID, 08-27075 ~ QC Report No: NTSS-Aspect Consulting Project: QUBNDALL TERMINALS Event: 020027-008-05 Data Release Authorized: Date Sampled: 10/09/08 Reported: 10/27/08 Date Received: 10/09/08 Date Extracted: 10/13/08 Date Analy~ed, 10/14/08 12,00 Instrument/Analyst: NT2/PK GPC Cleanup, No Sample Amount, 10.7 g-dry-wt Final Extract Volume: 0.5 mL Dilution Factor: 1.00 Percent Moisture: 20.6% Silica Gel Cleanup: Yes Alumina Cleanup: No CAS NWllber Analyte 91-20-3 Naphthalene 91-57-6 2-Methylnaphthalene 90-12-0 1-Methylnaphthalene 208-96-8 Acenaphthylene 83-32-9 Acenaphthene 86-73-7 Fluorene 85-01-8 Phenanthrene 120-12-7 Anthracene 206-44-0 P'luoranthene 129-00-0 Pyrene 56-55-3 Benzo(a)ahthracene 218-01-9 Chrysene 205-99-2 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 207-08-9 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 50-32-8 Benzo(a)pyrene 193-39-5 Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene 53-70-3 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene l9l-24-2 Benzo{g,h,i)perylene 132-64-9 Dibenzofuran RL 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4,7 4,7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4,7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 Reported in µg/kg (ppb) SIM Semi volatile Surrogate Recovery dl0-2-Methylnaphthalene 66. QI/; dl4-Dibenzo(a,h)anthracen 63.7% !!'ORM I Result < 4.7 < 4.7 < 4.7 < 4.7 < 4.7 < 4.7 12 < 4,7 24 18 8.9 11 7.0 4.7 5, J. < 4.7 < 4.7 < 4.7 < 4.7 u u u u u u u u u u u ( ( SIMPNA Data Summary Package prepared for ASPECT CONSULTING Project: Quendall Terminals, 020027-008-05 ARI·JOB NO: NT55 prepared . by Analytical Resources, Inc. · - ( ( .( M Estimated value· for an analyte detected and confirmed by an analyst but with low spectral match parameters. This flag is used only for GC-MS analyses M2 The sample contains PCB congeners that do not match any standard Aroclor pattern. The PCBs are identified and quantified as the Aroclor whose pattern most closely matches that of the sample. The reported value is an estimate. N The analysis indicates the presence of an analyte for which there is presumptive evidence to make a "tentative identification· Y The analyte is not detected at or above the reported concentration. The reporting limit is raised due to chromatographic interference. The Y flag is equivalent to the U flag with a raised reporting limit. C The analyte was positively identified on only one of two chromatographic columns. Chromatographic interference prevented a positive identification on the second column P The analyte was detected on both chromatographic columns but the quantified values differ by :2:40% RPD with no obvious ch,:omatographic interference Geotechnical Data A The total of all fines fractions. This flag is used to ,eport total fines when only sieve analysis is requested and balances total grain size with sample weight. F Samples were frozen prior to particle size determination SM Sample matrix was not appropriate for the requested analysis. This normally refers to samples contaminated with an organic product that interferes with the sieving process and/or moisture content, porosity and saturation calculations SS Sample did not contain the proportion of "fines" required to perform the pipette portion of the grain size analysis W Weight of sample in some pipette aliquots was below the level required for accurate weighting :,12-·. -::· •: Data Reporting Qualifiers Effective 12/28/04 Inorganic Data u • B N NA H Indicates that the target analyte was not detected at the reported concentration Duplicate RPO is not within established control limits Reported value is less than the CRDL but .! the Reporting Limit Matrix Spike recovery not within established control limits Not Applicable, analyte not spiked The natural concentration of the spiked element is so much greater than the concentration spiked that an accurate determination of spike recovery is not possible L Analyte concentration is :S:5 times the Reporting Limit and the replicate control limit defaults to ±1 RL instead of the normal 20% RPO Organic Data U Indicates that the target analyte was not detected at the reported concentration * B J D NR Flagged value is not within established control limits Analyte detected "in an associated Method Blank at a concentration greater than one-half of ARl's Reporting Limit or 5% of the regulatory limit or 5% of the analyte concentration in the sample. Estimated concentration when the value is less than· ARl's established reporting limits The spiked compound was not detected due to sample extract dilution Spiked· compound recovery is not reported due to chromatographic interference E Estimated concentration calculated for an analyte response above the valid s instrumef)t · calibration range. A dilution is required to obtain an accurate quantification of the arialyte. · Indicates an anafyte response that has saturated the detector. The calculated concentration is not valid; a dilution is required to obtain valid .quantification of the analyte NA The flagged analyte was not analyzed for NS The flagge_d analyte was not spiked into the sample ( ( - ;;- i. i" l /.-- k ' .. ' SURR SOLUTIONS 9/412008 LABEL SOLN ID TEST CONC. UG/ML SOLVENT EXP. A 1525-4 ABN 100/150 MEOH 03/13/09 B 1513-1 SIM PNA 15/75 MEOH 04/15/09 C* 1443-1 SIMABN 10/15 MEOH 04/03/09 D 1516-3 LOW PCB 0.2 ACETONE 05/09/09 E 1478-1 . HERB 62.5 MEOH 09/21/08 F 1520-3 PCP 12.5 ACETONE 04/18/09 G 1502-3 1,4DIOXANE 100 MEOH 02/20/09 H 1504-2 OP-PEST 25 MEOH 03/20/09 I* 1458-1 LOWS. PNA 03/15 MEOH 06/05/09 J 1493-2 TBT-PORE 0.25 MECL2 12/15/08 K 1490-3 MED PCB 20 ACETONE 01/14/09 L 1486-5 TBT 10 MECL2 12/15/08 M 1518-3 EPH 1500 MECL2 05/10/09 N 1518-4 PCB 2 ACETONE 05/29/09 0 1521-3 TPH 450 MECL2 12/29/08 p 1518-2 HCID 2250 MECL2 12/29/08 Q 1497-3 EDB 2 ACETONE 02/12/09. R 1521-4 RESIN ACID 250 ACETONE 06/11/09 s *RE-VER FIED SOLUT ON T u V w X y z . Page 1 LCS SOLUTIONS 9/4/2008 ( 32 1533-2 GUAIACOL 50-200 ACETONE 06/05/09 33 1522-1 RESIN ACID 250 ACETONE 06/11/09 34 1530-2 CONGENERS 250 ACETONE 07/23/09 50 1523-1 FULL RESIN 250 ACETONE 06/10/09 *=RE' ERIFIE[ SOLUTION . . ( ,. ' Page2 - LCS SOLUTIONS 9/412008' LABEISOLN IC TEST CONC. UG/MLSOLVENT EXP. 1· 1534-5. PCB 20 MEOH 08/26/09 2 1472-3 BCOC PEST 10 ACETONE 07/20/08 3 1517-1 PEST 02/04/20 ACETONE 05/15/09 4 1515-1 LOW PEST 0.2/0.4/2 ACETONE 01/24/09 5 1537-1 EPH 1500 MECL2 08/16/09 6* 1456-3 PCP 12.5 ACETONE 04/18/09 7 1537-3 ABN 100 ACETONE 08/01/09 8 1487-2 TBT 10 MECL2 12/15/08 9 1493-3 PORE TBT .25/.5 _ MECL2 12/15/08 10 1537-2 ABN ACID 100/200 MEOH 04/10/09 11 1526-1 TPHD 15000 ACETONE 06/25/09 12 1533-1 ABN BASE 200 ACETONE 07/01/09 13* 1427-3 LOW PCB 2 ACETONE 10/11/08 14 1480-2 LOWABN ACID 10/20 MEOH 10/09/08 15* · 1452:-1 • SIM PNA 15/75 MEOH 04/09/09 16 1502-2 · DIOXANE 100 MEOH 02/20/09 17 1516-2 1248 PCB· 20 ACETONE 05/07/09 18 1514-4 LOW SIM PNA 1.5/7.5 ACETONE 04/24/09 . 19 1517-3 AK103 7500 MECL2 12/29/08 20 1490-4 PNA 100 MEOH 01/10/09 21* 14144 SKY/BHT 100 MEOH 04/08/09 22 1539-1 HERB 12.5/12500 MEOH 08/31/09 23 1505-1 LOWABN BASE 20 MEOH 03/20/09 24 1504-4 LOWABN 10 · ACETONE 10/01/08 25 1481-1 DIPHENYL 100 MEOH 07/20/08 26 1522-2 .OP-PEST 30 MEOH 11/30/08 27 1495-1 STEROLS 200 MEOH 12/29/08 28 1494-1 . ADD. PEST 4 ACETONE 01/23/09 29 1496-3_ • DECANES 100 · MEOH. 02/12/09 30 1497-2 EDB/DBCP 2 ACETONE 02/12/09 31 1510~3 TERPINEOL 100 MEOH 03/21/09 Page 1 ANALYTICAL ~ RESOURCES INCORPORATED The method blanks were clean at the reporting limits. LCS and LCSD percent recoveries were within control limits. The matrix spike and matrix spike duplicate percent recoveries were within the advisory control limits. Case Narrative NT55 Page 2 of2 -, ( ( - Matrix, Soil (OTER) o-Terphenyl Page 1 for NTSS CLEl\NED TPHD SURROGATE RECOVERY SUMMARY Client :ID SP-1 MB-101008 LCS-101008 LCSD-101008 SP-2 SP-2 MS SP-2 MSD SP-3 SP-4 SP-5 QC Report No, Project: NT55-Aspect Consulting QUENDALL TERMINALS .020027-008-05 OTER 72 .2% 88.21 92.9% 92.H 81.1% 81.8\ 83. 3\ 80. 7t 75.61 72. 2%- LCS/MB LIMITS (62-118) TOT OUT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 QC LIMITS (49-125) Prep Method, SW3550B Log Number Range, 08-27075 to 08-27079 PORM-II TPHD ANAlYTICAL a RESOURCES \gl INCOAPORATE;O ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET ANALYTICAL a RESOURC!aS '9 IIIICORPORAT!aD NWTP!ID by GC/FID-Silica and Acid Cleaned Page 1 of 1 Sample ID; SP-2 MS/MSD Lab sample ID, NTSSB LIMS ID: 08-27076 Matrix: Soil ~~ 1 Data Release Authorized: \\\j'VJ Reported: 10/27/08 Date EXtracted MS/MSD: 10/10/08 Date Analyzed MS, 10/11/08 20,57 MSD: 10/11/08 21:12 Instrument/Analyst MS, FID/JGR MSD: FID/JGR Range Sample DieseJ. .:;:: 6.0 MS 120 QC Report No: NISS-Aspect Consulting Project: QUENDALL TERMINALS 020027-008-05 Date Sampled: 10/09/08 Date Received: 10/09/08 Sample Amount MS, 8.30 g-dry-wt MSD: 8.33 g-dry-wt Final Extract Volume MS: l.O mL MSD: l. 0 mL Dilution Factor MS: 1.0 MSD: 1.0 Percent Moisture: 11.st Sp,ke MS Spike MSD Added-MS Recovery MSO Added-MSD Recovery RPD 181 66.H 120 180 66.7% 0.0% TPHD Surrogate Recovery MS MSD o-Terphenyl 81.8\-83.3% Results reported in mg/kg RPD calculated using sample concentrations per SW846. FORM III - ( ( - ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET ·--rrPHD by GC/FID-Silica and Acid Cleaned ge 1 of 1 Sample ID; LCS-101008 LCS/LCSD Lab sample ID: LCS-101008 LIMS ID: 08-27076 Matrix: Soil r:'M1,,.a/ Data Release Authorized;'· I\ v1v Reported: 10/27/08 Date Extracted LCS/LCSD: 10/10/08 Date Analyzed LCS: 10/11/08 19:41 LCSD: 10/11/08 19:56 Instrument/Analyst LCS: FID/JGR LCSD: FID/JGR Spike QC Report No: NTSS-Aspect Consulting Project: QUENDALL TERMINALS 0200:.1-oos-os Date Sampled: 10/09/09 Date Received: 10/09/os Sample Amount LCS: 10.0 g LCSD: 10.0 g Final Extract Volume LCS: 1. 0 mL LCSD: 1.0 mL Dilution Factor LCS: 1.0 LCSD: 1.0 LCS Spike LCSD Range LCS Added-LCS Recovery LCSD Added-LCSD Recove;ry Diesel 124 150 82.?t 129 150 86.0% TPHD Surrogate Recovery LCS LCSD o-Terphenyl 92.9% 92.7% Results reported in mg/kg RPD calculated using sample concentrations per SW846. FO!ru III ANALYTICAL J&. RESOURCES~ INCORPORATED RPD 4.0% 4 BLANK NO. TPH METHOD BLANK SUMMARY Lab Name: ANALYTICAL RESOURCES, INC SDG No. : NT55 NT55MBS1 ( Client: ASPECT CONSULTING Date Extracted: 10/10/08 Date Analyzed 10/11/08 Time Analyzed 2011 Project No.: QUENDALL TERMINALS Matrix: SOLID Instrument ID FID3A THIS METHOD BLANK APPLIES TO THE FOLLOWING SAMPLES, MS, and MSD: 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 CLIENT SAMPLE NO. :::::============ NT55LCSS1 NTSSLCSDSl SP-1 SP-2 SP-2 MS SP-2 MSD SP-3 SP-4 SP-5 -- WU< DA"!'J:. SAMPLE ID ANALYZED ---------~-~~.-=====:=::::;;:;;;;::;:; NT55LCSS1 10/11/08 NTSSLCSDSl 10/11/08 NT55A 10/11/08 NT55B 10/11/08 NT55BMS 10/11/08 NT5BMSD 10/11/08 NTSSC 10/11/08 NTSSD 10/'1'1/08. NTSSE,. 10/11/08 : ~1: ·-· •.- ·i ~t: . ' ' -1.-.-· J_, FORM IV TPH ( - TOT AL SOLIDS Extractions Total solids-ext ts Worklist: 3258 Data By: Jim Hawk Analyst, NTC Created: 10/10/08 Comments: ARI ID Tare Wt Wet Wt Dry Wt ( CLIENT ID (g) (g) (g) % Solids pH 1. NT55A 1.17 12 .39 10.08 79.4 NR 08-27075 SP-1 2. NT55B 1.16 11. 00 9.28 82.5 NR 08-27076 SP-2 3. NTSSC 1.17 12.75 10.68 82-1 NR 08-27077 SP-3 4. NTSSD 1.18 11.45 9.47 80.7 NR 08-27078 SP-4 5. NT55E 1.17 14.73 12.32 82.2 NR 08-27079 SP-5 ( ( Worklist ID: 3258 Page: 1 - LABORATORY DATA CONSULTANTS, INC. ~QJLili] ................ ~ 7750 El Camino Real, Suite 2L Carlsbad, CA 92009 Phone: 7601634-0437 Fax: 760/634-0439 LDC: Anchor Environmental, LLC 1423 3'd Avenue, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98101-2226 ATTN: Ms. Joy Dunay SUBJECT: Quendall Terminal, Data Validation Dear Ms. Dunay, April 4, 2007 Enclosed are the final validation reports for the fractions listed below. This SDG was received on November 19, 2008. Attachment 1 is a summary of the samples that were reviewed for each analysis. LDC Project# 19819: Fraction SDG# NT55 Semivolatiles, Diesel Range Organics The data validation was performed under EPA Level Jll and Level IV guidelines. The analyses were validated using the following documents, as applicable to each method: • · USE PA, Contract Laboratory Program National Functional Guidelines for Organic Data Review, October 1999 • EPA SW 846, Third Edition, Test Methods for Evaluating Soli.d Waste, update 1, July 1992; update IIA, August 1993; update I!, September 1994; update 118, January 1995; update Ill, December 1996; update IIJA, April 1998; 1118, November 2004; Update IV, February 2007 Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions. Sincerely, J)-rl<.t_ Q.~ J:na S. Cuenca Project Manager/Senior Chemist V:\LOGIN\Anchoi\OuWldaB\l9Bl9GOV.wpd No QAPP/No EDD Attachment 1 ;4DC #19JJij~~¢hbf,Envirottl'iijrttal:;$~attle yjAJ ~u~~d~lrTentiinil) ,••'•" .. ·-· .· --.·:·'. 309 pages'EX iPri!Jett #NA . '··.:. ' .. ,":) (3) PAlfs ORO DATE DATE (82T0D (NWTPH "DC SDG# REC'D DUE .SIM) .IJx) Matrix: Water/Soil ·w s w s w s w s w s w s w s w $ w $ w $ w $ w s w s w s w s w s w s A NT55 11/19/08 12112108~ A NT55 11/19/08 12/12108 i,.otal TISC 0 3 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 Shaded cells indlcale Level IV validation (aH other cells are level Ill 'llaldatlon). These eample counts do not Include MS, MSD, or DUPs. t9Bt9ST.wpd 4 Quendall Terminal Data Validation Reports LDC# 19819 Semivolatiles "• .• • • ••-•• " ••-u• -~-'"""·•·----. , __ ,. •• ··••--~•"'·' , e, ,.,. " •-·••,•· ·• ·-•,.,~,-r.,, .~ •"• ,,,, u,• r .,,. -~,,">,---'",, ••,• ·.~r "."• •. ·~-p • ~ •,• -"• • ••• • • ,• '", ,O•--,',-."r•,• •. • "",•• ,"• •-~••••••"'" ,,d,-. •~-'-",'.C ,·:,;1.~.•,•,·~W]," Project/Site Name: Collection Date: LDC Report Date: Matrix: Parameters: Validation Level: Laboratory: LDC Report# 19819A2b Laboratory Data Consultants, Inc. Data Validation Report Quendall Terminal October 9, 2008 December 1, 2008 Soil Semivolatiles EPA Level Ill & IV Analytical Resources, Inc. Sample Delivery Group (SDG): NT55 Sample Identification SP-1 SP-3 sp-4•• SP-3MS SP-3MS0 •*Indicates sample underwent EPA Level IV review V:\LOGIN\ANCHOR\QUENDALL\19819A2B_A34.D0C 1 - c '·• • c•-• ···~·~.,.-·, .-,-,-. '"'>' •, .• ·;,••;, ·c.-C !,• ••• ,,;,~ :·v.-; •' • Introduction This data review covers 5 soil samples listed on the cover sheet including dilutions and reanalysis as applicable. The analyses were per a modification of EPA SW 846 Method 8270D using Selected Ion Monitoring (SIM} for Semivolatifes. This review follows a modified outline of the USEPA Contract Laboratory Program National Functional Guidelines for Organic Data Review (October 1999} as there are no current guidelines for the method stated above. A qualification summary table is provided at the end of this report if data has been qualified. Flags are classified as P (protocol) or A (advisory} to indicate whether the flag is due to a laboratory deviation from a specified protocol or is of technical advisory nature. Blank results are summarized in Section V. Field duplicates are summarized in Section XVI. Samples indicated by a double asterisk on the front cover underwent EPA Level IV review. EPA Level Ill review was performed on all of the other samples. Raw data were not evaluated for the samples reviewed by EPA level Ill criteria since this review is based on QC data. The following are definitions of the data qualifiers: U Indicates the compound or analyte was analyzed for but not detected at or above the stated limit. J Indicates an estimated value. R Quality control indicates the data is not usable. N Presumptive evidence of presence of the constituent. UJ Indicates the compound or analyte was analyzed for but not detected. The sample detection limit is an estimated value. A Indicates the finding is based upon technical validation criteria. P Indicates the finding is related to a protocol/contractual deviation. None Indicates the data was not significantly impacted by the finding, therefore qualification was not required. V:U..OGIN'v\NCHOR\QUENDALL\19819A2B_A34.00C 2 I. Technical Holding Times All technical holding time requirements were met. The chain-of-custodies were reviewed for documentation of cooler temperatures. Cooler temperatures for all samples were reported at 7°C upon receipt by the laboratory. The samples were received the same day they were collected and did not have sufficient time to cool down. No data was qualified based on the cooler temperature. II. GC/MS Instrument Perfonnance Check Instrument performance was checked at 12 hour intervals. All ion abundance requirements were met. Ill. Initial Calibration Initial calibration was performed using required standard concentrations. Percent relative standard deviations (%RS0) were less than or equal to 30.0% for all compounds. Average relative response factors (RRF) for all target compounds were within validation criteria. IV. Continuing Calibration Continuing calibration was performed at the required frequencies. All ofthe continuing calibration percent differences (%0) between the initial calibration RRF and the continuing calibration RRF were less than or equal to 25.0% . The percent difference (%0) of the second source calibration standard were less than or equal to 25.0% for all compounds. All of the continuing calibration RRF values were within validation criteria. V. Blanks Method blanks were reviewed for each matrix as applicable. No semivolatile contaminants were found in the method blanks. VI. Surrogate Spikes Surrogates were added to all samples and blanks as required by the method. All surrogate recoveries (%R) were within QC limits. V:IL0Cl1N'ANCHORIQUENDALL\19619A2B_.A34.DOC 3 - VII. Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicates Matrix spike (MS) and matrix spike duplicate (MSD) samples were reviewed for each matrix as applicable. Percent recoveries (%R) and relative percent differences (RPD) were within QC limits. VIII. Laboratory Control Samples (LCS) laboratory control samples were reviewed for each matrix as applicable. Percent recoveries (%R) were within QC limits. IX. Regional Quality Assurance and Quality Control Not applicable. X. Internal Standards All internal standard areas and retention times were within QC limits. XI. Target Compound Identifications All target compound identifications were within validation criteria for samples on which EPA Level IV review was performed. Raw data were not evaluated for the samples reviewed by EPA Level Ill criteria. XII. Compound Quantitation and CRQLs All compound quantitation and CRQLs were within validation criteria for samples on which EPA Level IV review was performed. Raw data were not evaluated for the samples reviewed by EPA Level Ill criteria. XIII. Tentatively Identified Compounds (TICs) Tentatively identified compounds were not reported by the laboratory. XIV. System Performance The system performance was acceptable for samples on which EPA Level IV review was performed. Raw data were not evaluated for the samples reviewed by EPA Level Ill criteria. XV. Overall Assessment The analysis was conducted within all specifications of the method. No results were rejected in this SDG. The quality control criteria reviewed were met and are considered acceptable. Based upon the Level Ill and Level IV data validation all results are considered valid and usable for all purposes. V:\LOGJN\ANCHOR\QUENDALL\188J9A2B~A34.D0C 4 XVI. Field Duplicates No field duplicates were identified in this SDG. XVII. Field Blanks No field blanks were identified in this SDG. V:\LOGlN\ANCHOR\QUENDALLl19a111AWfl4.D0C 5 - Quendall Terminal Semivolatlles • Data Qualificallon Summary· SDG NT55 No Sample Data Qualified in this SDG Quendall Terminal Semivolatiles • Laboratory Blank Data Qualification Summary • SDG NT55 No Sample Data Qualified in this SDG V:ILOGIN\ANCHOR\QUENDALLl19819A2B_A.'.l4.D0C 6 ... , ,., •.. ,., ... ,. ·-···-··,r..··-·-·•·• •v~i-.• ,,.-.,., .•... , ... -.-.- ·-···-~-----·-·--.···--------------··-····--· --· OROANJ:CS ANALYSIS DATA SHBBT PNAa by SW8270D•SIM GC/MS Page l of l S,m,ple :ID, SP•l SAMPLB ANALYTICAl. liJ.!!I. RESOURCES. INCORPORATED Lab Sample ID: NTSSA Matrix: Soil LIMS ID: 08-27075 ~ QC Report No: NT55-Aspect Consulting Project, QUENDALL TERMINALS Event: 020027-008-05 Data Release Authorized: Date Sampled, 10/09/0B Reported, 10/27/08 Date Received, 10/09/08 Date Extracted: 10/13/0B Date Analyzed: 10/14/09 12:00 Instrument/Analyst, NT2/PK GPC Cleanup: .tilo sample Amount: 10.7 g-dry-wt Final Extract Volume: 0.5 mL Dilution Factor: 1.00 Percent Moisture: 20.6t Silica Gel Cleanup, Yes Alumina Cleanup: No CAS Number Analyta 91-20-3 Naphthalene 91-57·6 2-Methylnaphthalene 90-12-0 l-Methylnaphthalene 206-96-B Acenaphthylene 83-32-9 Acenaphthene 86-73-7 Fluorene 85-0J.-8 Phenanthrene 120-12-7 Anthracene 206-44-0 Pluoranthene J.2'-00-0 Pyrene 56-SS·J Benzo{a)anthraceue 216-01-9 chrysene 205-99-2 Benzo(b)f1uorantbene 207-08-9 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 50-32-8 Banzo(a)pyrene 193-39-5 Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene 53-70-3 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 191-24-2 Benzo(g,h 1 i)perylene 132-64·9 Dibenzofuran Reported in p.g/k.g RL 4.7 4.7 4.7 4. 7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4,7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 (ppb) Sn! Semivolatile Surrogate Recovery dl0-2-MethylnAphthalene 66.0\ dl4-Diben~o{a,h)anthracen 63. 7t FORM I Reau1t < 4.7 < 4.7 c::: 4. 7 < 4.7 < 4.7 < 4.7 l.2 < 4.7 24 18 8.9 ].]. 7.0 4,7 5.]. < 4.7 < 4.7 < 4.7 < 4.7 u u u u u u u u u u u Xl14 - ORGANJ:CS ANALYSIS DATA SllitET PNAs by SW8270D-SIM GC/MS Page 1 of 1 Sam.pl.a ID, sp ... 3 SAMPLE . -................. ,~,,. ...... ,.~ ... , ....... _.~···h~ ANALYTICAL~ RESOURCES \9' INCORPOAATED Lab Sample ID: NTSSC LIM$ ID, 08-27077 Matrix; Soil ,..J'\.A.J Data Release Authorize:d; \.,,w Reported: 10/27/0B QC Report ~o: NT55-Aspect Consulting Project: QUENDALL TERMINALS Event, 020027-008-0S Pate Sampled: 10/09/08 Date Received: 10/09/08 Date Extracted: 10/13/08 Date Analyzed, 10/14/08 12:24 Instrument/Analyst, NT2/PK GPC Cleanup: No Sample Amount; 10.7 g-dry-wt Final Extract Volume: 0.5 mL Dilution Factor: 1.00 Percent Moisture: 17.9% Silica oel Cleanup: Yes Alumina cleanup! No CAS Number Analyte 91-20-3 Naphthalene 91-57-6 2-Methylnaphthalene 90-12-0 1-Methylnaphthalene 208-96-8 Acenaphthylene 83-32-9 Acenaphthene 86-73-7 Fluorene 85-01-8 Phenanthrene 120-12-7 Anthracene 206-44-0 Pl uoran t:.hene 129-00-0 Pyrana 56-55-3 Ben~o{a)anthracene 218-Dl-9 Cbrysene 205-99-2 Benzo(b)£luoran.thene 207-08-9 Benzo(k)fluoranthene so-32-8 Benzo(a)pyrene 193-39-5 Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene 53-70-3 Dibenz{a,h)anthracene 191-24-2 Benzo{g,h,i)perylene 132-64-9 Dibenzofuran Reported in pg/kg RL 4,7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4. 7 4. 7 4.7 4.7 4.7 (ppb} St:M Samivolatile Surrogate Recovery dl0-2-Methylnaphthalene 72.0t dl4-Dibenzo(.,h)anthracen 69.0t FOI!M I Result < 4.7 < 4.7 < 4. 7 < 4.7 < 4.7 < 4.7 < 4.7 < 4.7 10 7.9 <: 4.7 5.6 4.7 < 4.7 < 4.7 < 4.7 < 4.7 < 4. 7 < 4.7 u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u Q(l 1 5 ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA Slll!:l!'r PNAs by SW8270D-SIM GC/MS . Page 1 of 1 Sa,nple ID, SP-4 SAMPLE ANALYTICAL A RESOURC!!S\9' INCORPORATED Lab Sample ID: NTSSD LIMS ID, 08-27078 Matrix: Soil ~. I Data Release Authorized: \l\J'H Reported: 10/27/08 QC Report No: NT55-Aspect Consulting Project: QUENDALL TERMINALS Event, 020027-00B-05 Date Sampled: 10/09/0B Date Received, 10/09/08 Date Extracted: 10/13/08 Date Analyzed, 10/14/08 13:35 Instrument/Analyst, NT2/PK ClPC Cleanup: No Sample Amount, 10.7 g-dry-wt Final Extract Volume: O.S mL Dtlution Factor, 1.00 Percent Moisture: 19.31 Silica Gel Cleanup: Yes Alumina Cleanup: No CAS Nwober Analyte 91-20-3 Naphthalene 91-57-6 2-Methylnaphthalene 90-12-0 1-Methylnaphthalene 208-96-8 Acenaphthylene 83-32-9 Acenaphthene 86-73-7 Fluorene 85-01-B Phenanthrene 120-12-7 Anthracene 206-44-0 :Fluoranthe:ne 129-00-0 Pyrene 56-55-3 Benzo(a)anthracene 218-01-9 Chrysene 205-99-2 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 207-08-9 Benzo(k)fluorauthene 50-32-8 Benso(a)pyrene 193-39-5 Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene 53 -70-3 Dihenz(a,h)anthracene Hlc24-2 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 132-64-9 Dibenzofuran Reported in µ.g/kg RL 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4,7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4,7 4.7 4,7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 (ppb) SIM Bemivo1atile Surrogate Recovery dl0-2-Methylnaphthalene 68 .?t d14-Dibenzo{a,h)anthracen 69,0l PORM I !tl9S\ll t < 4.7 < 4.7 < 4.7 < 4.7 < 4.7 < 4.7 4.7 < 4.7 13 12 5.6 12 11 7,5 7.0 < 4.7 <: 4.7 < 4.7 < 4.7 u u u u u u u u u u u ' QiJ16 - LDC #: 19619A2b SDG#: NT55 VALIDATION COMPLETENESS WORKSHEET Level Ill/IV Laboratory: Analytical Resources. Inc. METHOD: GC/MS Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (EPA SW 846 Method B27gi2SIM} Date: J.;0 /p 3- Page:~ Reviewer: ~· 2nd Reviewer: J / l The samples listed below were reviewed for each of the following validation areas. Validation findings are noted in attached validation findings worksheets. -.. -·---. I. Technical holdina times ' '\,. Same limi dales: 1pla IJJ l? I ' II. GCJMS Instrument nerformance check •• Ill. I nillal calibration ..A- IV. Contlnulnr, calibrationflCV "' le¥= ;)$°/V / V. Blanks ~ ~ VI. Surrooste soil<es <: .... vtl. Matrix sr ike/Matrlx snike dunlicales . ~ VIII. LaboratoN control samr,fes -A. , -- IX R"""'ional Qualitv Assurance and Qualitv Control N X. Internal standards d\- XI. Ta ........ t comr,ound Identification , Not reviewed for Level Ill validation. XII. Comoound auantlla1ion/CR0Ls -0,:: ~ Nol reviewed for Level Ill validation. XIII. Tenlitalively identified compounds {TICs) I Not reviewed for Level Ill validation. XIV. System perfonnanco ,d Not reviewed for Level /II validation. xv. Overall assessment of data " ~ XVI. Field dupRc~tes f,_ I XVII. F,eld blanks ~ Note: A= Acceptable N = Not provided/applicable SW = See wor1<sheet ND = No compounds detected R = Rinsate D • Duplicate TB = Trip blank FB = Field blank EB = Equipment blank Validated Samples: "'* lndicales sample underwent Level IV validation 1 5p.1 < 11 .W5 -I tJ 1-3 ,-8 21 31 2 SP-3 12 22 32 3 gp-4--13 23 33 4 SP-3MS 14 24 34 5 SP·3MSD 15 25 36 6 16 26 36 7 17 27 37 8 18 28 38 9 19 29 39 10 20 30 40 BNA.SIM.wpd ~ -Q. 7~ -- ~ I. u • • 0 C, ·.•,,•• • <""•c·r';· • ,,•.·,,.. .. -•-.,_• • •.·.c,,.,,~_-+: ••~a,,>• .• ••• • ,e H< 0 • • •:, ,,, .... ", ... ;.,;,;: :,;.•; LDC#: qm 9-A-"-P VALIDATION FINDINGS CHECKLIST Page:_L of :a;.. SDG#: ~ Method: Semivolatiles EPA SW 846 Method 8270 Did the laborato Int calibration Were all per<::ent relative standard deviations (%RSD} and relative response factors RR within method criteria for all CCCs and SPCCs? Was a cwve fit used for evaluation? Old the inlflal calibration meet the curve fit acce tance criteria of> 0.990? Were all percent relative standard deviations (%RSD),:: 30% and relative response factors RRF > 0.05? Was a continuing callbratron standard analyzed at least once every 12 hours for each Instrument? Were all percent differences (%0) and relative response ractors (RRF) within method criteria for all CCCs and SPCCs? Were all percent differences (%D),:: 25% and relative response ractors (RRF) 2:: 0.05? Were a matrix spll<e (MS) and matrix spike duplicate (MSD) analyzed for each matrix in this SDG? ff no. indicate which matrix does not have an associated MS/MSD. SoH I Waler. Was a SVOA-SW_2.wpd version 2.0 t t Reviewer: 9::::: 2nd Reviewer: ~ / - - LDC#: tt.87ft_J, VALIDATION FINDINGS CHECKLIST SDG#: I ~ Validation Area Ion batch? Were the lCS percent recoveries {%R) and relative percent difference (RPO) within the Ii . ? Were the major ions (> 10 percent relative Intensity) in the reference spectrum evafualed in sample spectrum? Were relative Intensities of the major ions within ! 20% between the sample and the reference spectra? Did the raw dara indicate that the laboratory performed a library search for all required peaks in the chromatograms (samples and blanks)? SVOA-SW_2.wpd version 2.0 Yes NA Page:"4'.>f ~ Reviewer: ~ 2nd Reviewer: " YO Flndlo s/Comments VALIDATION FINDINGS WORKSHEET METHOD: GC/MS BNA (EPA SW 846 Method 8270) A. Phenoln P. B1s(2-ctlloroethoxy)methane EE. ·2,B-Olnltrotoluene TT. P&ntachlorophenot*• Ill. Benzo(a)pyrane** 8. Bis (2-chloroethyl) ether Q, 2,4'"Dlchloropha11ol..., FF. 3-Nltroanilin.e UU. Phenaothrane JJd. lndano(1,2,3·cc:Opyrene C. 2•ChlorophenoJ R. 1,2.4-Trlchtorobenzeno GG. Acena.phthone'*111 VV. Anthraceno KKK. Dlbenz{a,h)anthracene 0. 1,3-0lchlorob&nzone S. N.phth;a;lene HH. 2.4-Dlnltraphenol* WW. Carbazole LLL Benzo(gth,l}perylena E. 1,4-DfehlorobenzenaH T. 4-Cbloroanltine II. 4-Nltrophenof* XX. Di-r,-butylphlhalate MMM. Bls(2·Chloroleopropyl)elhor F. 1,:2-Dlchlorobenzene U. Ha:ic.achlorobutadlene** JJ. Olbanzofuran YY. Fluoranthenou NNN.Aniline G. 2-Methylphengl V. 4-Chloro-3-mothylphenolu KK.. 2,4-Dlnitrotaluena ZZ. Pyrene 000. N--Nllrosadlmathyleimlna H. 2,2.'·C>xybls(1 .. chlorapropane) W. 2-Mothylnaphthakme LL Dlethylphthalate AAA. Sutylbanzylphthalate PPP. Benzolc Acid I. 4-Methylphenol X. Hexaohlorocyclopantadiena* MM. 4--Chloropheny(.phenyl ether aee. 3,3'-Dlchlorobanzldlne QQQ. Benzyl .mcahol J. N--Nltrosa-dlo.n-propylamlne"' V. 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol .. NN. Fluorena CCC. Benzo(a)anthracena RRR. Pyridine K. Hoxachloroothane Z. 2,4.S .. Trlehlorophenol 00, 4-Nitroantllne ODD. ChrY3ene SSS. Benzldlne L Nltrobanzena AA. 2-Chloron.aphthalene PP, 4,6-0lnltro-2•methylphenal EEE. B1s(2-othylhoql)phlhalate TIT. M. lsophorona BB. 2-NnroanlUne aa. N-Nltrosodlphenylomlno (1 )*' fff. Dl·n--octylphthalate•* uuu. N. 2.·Nltrophenol .. cc. Dlmothylphtholate RR. 4-Bromophenyl-phanylathar GQG. Banzo(b)fluor•nthen8' vw. O. 2,4-Dimethylpheno[ DD. Acenaphthylene ss. Haxach1orobennn8 HHH. Benzo(k}fluaraFlthene www. COMPNDL2S ... I.Liv "''C/('V70-? SDG#:;JJ?G METHOD: GC/MS BNA (EPA SW 846 Method 8270) VALIDATION FINDINGS WORKSHEET Initial Calibration Calculation Vermcatlon Page:_,Lof,,:'.'._ Reviewer: q.;- 2nd Reviewer: :"( '-- The Relative Response Factor (RAF), average RRF, and percent relative standard deviation (%RSD) were recalculated for the compounds identified below using the following calculations: RRF -(A,.)(C.,)/(A,)(CJ A.,,. • Ares of compound, avaraga RRF = sum of the RRFs/numb• of standards %RSD = 100 • (S/X) c. = Concentration of compourid, A., • Ates. of associated internal ~andard C11 = Conc::Emtrm.lon of Internal standard X = Meon cf the RRF• S = Standard deviation of the RRFs, R-ortad I Reaaloul•t•d Refto,t&<l Calibration RRF RRF Average RRF # Stan.Cle.rd ID Date Compound (R.terence Internal Standard) ( I std) ( I atd) (lnhlal) l=Y. Pherd (1st internal standard) -~ ; -1 ~127/#11 , . Na,:,t,thaJene (2nd internal st~d!rd) /. ,, c;;,g /,PJ"Z / . .P~ Auorene (ard int~al standard) /, 3' ..>. 7 /, A..:?'"7 /.~9 Feiitad le,, :,A1G11el (4th lntern.t Btandard) p ti I /. 3 ,;,..,,,l.. /. -,/ ".~ 5? , ets(Ndijttm:yl)~@daiA(Sth Internal atantiard) 2..2. /. b :>2 J • .l;;;.;,.2.. /. 4· 1' L Saraota•--ene --internal standarl1 /./-{,? /.J--.P /. 17<-. d 2 Phenol (1 st internal staidard) . Naphthalw.e (2nd int"fnal standtlrd) Fluorene (3rd intwna standard) Pantachlor~enol (4th internal s&andard) B1•(2-0lhyi~)phlhalai,, (5,h lntomal standard) 0enz ... , .. , ..... ,..ene (Blh. lrtemai Btantlotd' 3 Phenol (1s! inlernal standard) Nept,~9118 (2nd lnt8'nal standard) Fluorffl'le (3rd Internal standard) ~tachloroP')8nol (41h intwi:ial standa'd) B1s(2-8lhylhexyl)phff,alate (Slh lnl«nal standard) Benzo(a)pyrene (Btl Internal standard) R•calcurated Raborted Recalcula!ad AYarageRRF %RSD %RSD (lnhlal) I. p,8-t::? 4= 4 . .-:2 /,~7 6,.?:, 6.£' ;.;~tt>* 3..-A = , /. I / ~-q &-· r , /, 8 -y ~"'"..,. , Comments: Refer to Initial Calibration findings worksheet for fist of guafifica!lons and associated samples when reported results do not agree within 10.0% of the recalculated results. INICLC.2S I METHOD: GC/MS BNA (EPA SW 846 Method 8270) VALIDATION FINDINGS WORKSHEET Continuing Callbratlon Results Verification Page:_Lof.j._ Reviewer:___c_ 2nd Revlewer:-4 The percent difference (%0) of the initial calibration average Relative Response Factors (RRFs) and the continuing calibration RRFs were recalculated for the compounds identified below using the following calculation: % Dffference • 1 oo • (ava. RRF -RRF)/ave. RRF RRF = (AJ(C,Y(A,.)(CJ Whero: ave. RAF = lnttlal collbr.Uon average RRF RAF :,;,: continuing collbrBtlon RRf A, ~ fvea of compound, A, ~ Area of essocloled lnlernol stand..-d C~ • Concentration of compound, C 11 = Concentrstlon of lntemol stendard Reoorted Recalculated CaHbratlon Compound (Reference Internal Average RRF RRF RRF # Stand•rd ID Date Stand•rd) (lnttl•Q (CC) (CC) 1 .,,-4',,...,. .,, -... ~ flj F , / PhEnol (1,t .. ...,., ""'1da,d) f , Naphlhllllone (2nd lntetnal standard) I.C>'°&V I. p,::-e, I. ,!)5 =a-, Auaena_ (3rd lnlernal starderd) I . ..:::, "'1' '-1' /.3• ~ /. 3'7"'h P. (41h Internal orandsrd) I . ..:;3 ,::, lf' /.;;, /.~- (5th internal .standard) ;.LLa,L /. [;'70' / .. Q ,,.. ""' -·'a'· ··-eni;i #Ith 1-..o.. ·--' Men~ 11?-> /. /,><:' ~ !-I?> '>" , 2 f'hend (1,t lnlemal standatd) Naphfl,alene (2nd Internal stmidard} F!OJOr .... ("'d lnternel -dard) PeolacHoroi,l,end (4th ntemal '"'1da<dl Bis(2-ethylt\axyl)phthalate (5th ln1*11d standard} ""--'"''a•---IA!h 1n•-... 1 stends.-A • Phenol (1 sl '""""81 slMdard) NeJtill'lslcine (2nd lnternd atend.-d) Auuene (3rd Internal stendard) Pentachlorophenol (4th Internal sbniwd) Bis(2....,ylhm(yl)phlhalate (5th lni.mal stsndl.'d) B«=(s)pyr ..... (6th lntomal standard) Re.-"" Recalculated %D %D ; «. L-.,;;>.£' 7.~-"7.~ /. 6" /.2:s' /.~ /·C- ::,,, ~ .,..._ :::,._ . ' · Comments: Refer to Continuing Calibration findings worksheet for list of qualfficafions and associatad samples when reported resulta do not agree within 10.0% of the racaJculated results. CONCLC.2S I ---- VALIDATION FINDINGS WORKSHEET Surrogate Results Verification METHOD: GC/MS Semivolatiles (EPA SW 846 Method 8270) ...... -.. ~,--,.-. ~-·. Page:__LofL Reviewer: _ __,,9=-=t=:=-- 2nd reviewar:_~,p,k::::'.=--- The percent recoveries (YoR) of surroge.tes were recalculated lor 1he compounds lderrtitiEd barow using the forJowing calculBticn: % Recovery: SF/SS • 100 Sample ID• . ' iil-c:/1P 2.f'k.lorobl'pht)hYI J I I .1, ,L To,phenyl-<)i' 4 Phenoklo/' 2-Fluo~heno-l 2,4,6-fribromophenol 2-C~crophanof-d4 1, I Sample JD· . Nitrobenzena-d5 2.fluorobiphenyl TerphonykH 4 PhanoladS 2.fluorophenol 2,416-TribromophehOI 2·Chlorophenol-d4 l ,2-0lctdorobenzene--d4 Sample ID· Nitroberu::ene-d5 2•FiUOtoblpheriyl Tarphenyl-d14 Pheno1-d5 2-Fluoropheool 2,4,&-Tribromophenof 2.Chloropherlol-d4 1,2-0ichlorobenzene-<14 SURACALC.2S Surrogate Spiked ~ p .I Surrogate Spiked Surrogate Spiked Where: SF = Surrogate Found SS = Surrogate Spiked Percent Surrogate Recovery Found Reparted o). ,:>1;.-9 93 Ls.7 ~-P7P63, 6''9' / Percent Surrogate Recovery Found Reported Percent Surrogate l=tecovery · Fouhd Reported Percent Recovery P~reent Recalculated Dtfference 68.? eJ' 6'9" !) I Percent Reco~ery Percent Recah:ulated Difference Percent Recovery Percent Recalculated Difference LOC#:~:j SDG#:~ VALIDATION FINDINGS WORKSHEET Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicates Results Verification METHOD: GC/MS BNA (EPA SW 846 Method 8270) Page:_Lot_L Revlewer: a-- 2nd Reviewer:----X-- The percent recoveries (%R) and Relative Percent Difference (RPO) of the matrix spike and matrix spike duplicate were recalculated for the compounds identified below using the following calculation: % Recovery = 100 • (SSC • SC)/SA RPO= I MSC -MSC 1 • 2/(MSC + MSDC) Where: SSC = Spiked sample concentration SA = Spike added MSC = Matrix spike concentration MS/MSD samples: -4j,._,/c.,"';; _______ _ Spike Spiked Sample d Concen on Compound ( hi { ~"1'.7'~''"".'.CC1 ' ' •• <· I ~~-" ~"'" " -N-Nltroso-dl..n-propylamlne 4-Chloro-3 n~ Ac:en hthene :88' > PentaehlO heool Py,ene SC = Sample concentation MSOC = Matrix spike duplicate concentration Percent Reeove Percent Rec RPD ,7 ,7 3 !'33 /3 -4,S.9 Comments: Refer to Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicates findings worksheet for list of qualifications and associated samples when reported results do not agree within 10.0% of the recalculated results. MSDCLC.2S 4 LDC#:~ SDG#:~ VALIDATION FINDINGS WORKSHEET Laboratory Control Sample/Laboratory Control Sample Duplicates Results Verification METHOD: GC/MS BNA (EPA SW 846 Method 8270) Page:_,L_ot.,L Reviewer. qt. 2nd Reviewer.~ The percent recoveries (%R) and Relative Percent Difference (RPO) of the laboratory control sample and laboratory control sample duplicate were racalculated for the compounds identified below using the following calculation: % Recovery= 100 • (SC/SA Where: SSC = Spike concentration SA = Spike added RPD = I LCSC-LCSDC 1 • 2/(LCSC + LCSDC) LCS/LCSD samples: LC:$-/,.p 1-3~ ,!!3 LCSC = Laboraotry control sample concentration LCSOC = Laboratory control sample duplicate concentration ' Spike Spike I ICS II I CSD: Ad'i?' ct:z!'if:: I II Compound ( h. ) Percent Recove!I Percent Recove!l ' . --I ~=n . --. ---. n ., -. Phenol N--Nitroso-<lkl-propylamlne 4-Chloro-a..mettwlDhenol Aeenaohthene I.EZJ ,J.4 114 NA'. 7/P "-'?£ • V Pe:ntaohlotoohenol Pyrene /sz;, AIJ.. 13 I .,vA-g73 87.3 ' ~ I CSll CStl I I RPD I ' Comments: Refer to Laboratory Control Sample/Laboratory Control Sample Duplicates findings worksheet for list of qualifications and associated samples when reported results do not agree within 10.0% .of the recalculated results, · LCSCLC.2S l LDC #: tJ'cflf 4.6 SDG #: AIT 2fa- VALIDATION FINDINGS WORKSHEET Samele Calculation Verification Page:__J_ot_/_ Reviewer; q 2nd reviewer:'--ll~--- ''-~:H:~: GC/:e~e:I ~:::: ~::1:8:::c:~::d and verffied for all leV<d IV samples? ~ Were all recalculated results for detected target compounds agree within 10.0% of the reported results? Concentro.tlon = !A.l-0,IIYJ 1DFlc2.01 Example: (AJ(RRF)(V J(VJ(%S) _; -:z_ :z.._ A, -Area. of the characteristic ion (EtCP) fer the Sampla I.D. : compouncfto ba rnaasured A,. = Area of the chare.cteristlc Ion {EICP) for the specific Internal standard I I. • Amount of Internal standard added in nmlogrwns Cono. -(481! /H c9. t, )( sz-<P !( ){ ) (ng) (,,,Wft~J" /. 4fb )( I )(/t'. 7 )( ) v. -Volume c;ir weight of SNTiple extract in miUilit&rs (ml) or grams (g). 3 -7-=6 v, = Volumct of extract injec:led ln microliters (ul) -I .:;., . v, = Volume af the concentrated exc.,act in mictollters {ul) Of = O!utlcn Faetor. %S = Percent sollds, applicable 1o soil and solid matrices cnry. 2.0 = Factor ct 2 to account for GPC cleMup Reported calcul•t•d Concentration Concentration II Sample ID Campound ( ) ( ) Qualillcadon ' RECALC.2S - Quendall Terminal Data Validation Reports LDC# 19819 . Diesel Range Organics j~~?~,. (~-' Project/Site Name: Collection Date: LDC Report Date: Matrix: Parameters: Validation Level: Laboratory: LDC Report# 19819A8 Laboratory Data Consultants, Inc. Data Validation Report Quendall Terminal October 9, 2008 December 1, 2008 Soil Diesel Range Organics EPA Level Ill & IV Analytical Resources, Inc. Sample Delivery Group (SDG): NT55 Sample Identification SP-1 SP-2 SP-3 SP-4** SP-5 SP-2MS SP-2MS0 **Indicates sample underwent EPA Level IV review V:\LOGIN\A.NCHOR\QUENDALL\19819A8_A34.D0C 1 - • Introduction This data review covers 7 soil samples listed on the cover sheet including dilutions and reanalysis as applicable. The analyses were per Method NWTPH-Dx for Diesel Range Organics. This review follows a modified outline of the US EPA Contract Laboratory Program National Functional Guidelines for Organic Data Review (October 1999) as there are no current guidelines for the method stated above. A qualification summary table is provided at the end of this report if data has been qualified. Flags are classified as P (protocol) or A (advisory) to indicate whether the flag is due to a laboratory deviation from a specified protocol or is of technical advisory nature. Blank results are summarized in Section Ill. Field duplicates are summarized in Section IX. Samples indicated by a double asterisk on the front cover underwent a EPA Level IV review. A EPA Level Ill review was performed on all of the other samples. Raw data were not evaluated for the samples reviewed by Level 111 criteria since this review is based on QC data. The following are definitions of the data qualffiers: U Indicates the compound or analyte was analyzed for but not detected at or above the stated limit. J Indicates an estimated value. R Quality control indicates the data is not usable. N Presumptive evidence of presence of the constituent. UJ Indicates the compound or analyte was analyzed for but not detected. The sample detection limit is an estimated value. A Indicates the finding is based upon technical validation criteria. P Indicates the finding is related to a protocol/contractual deviation. None Indicates the data was not significantly impacted by the finding, therefore qualification was not required. V:U..OGIN\ANCHOR\QUENDALL\19819AB_A34.D0C 2 I. Technical Holding Times Ali technical holding time requirements were met. The chain-of-custodies were reviewed for documentation of cooler temperatures. All cooler temperatures met validation criteria. · II. Calibration a. Initial Calibration Initial calibration of compounds was performed as required by the method. The percent relative standard deviations (%RSD) of calibration factors for all compounds were less than 20.0% . b. Calibration Verification Calibration verification was performed at required frequencies. The percent differences (%D) of amounts in continuing standard mixtures were within the 15.0% QC limits. The percent differences (%D) of the second source calibration standard were less than or equal to 15.0% for all compounds. Ill. Blanks Method blanks were reviewed for each matrix as applicable. No diesel range organic contaminants were found in the method blanks. IV. Accuracy and Precision Data a. Surrogate Recovery Surrogates were added to all samples and blanks as required by the method. All surrogate recoveries (%R) were within QC limits. b. Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicates Matrix spike (MS) and matrix spike duplicate (MSD) samples were reviewed for each matrix as applicable. Percent recoveries (%R) and relative percent differences (RPD) were within QC limits. c. Laboratory Control Samples Laboratory control samples were reviewed for each matrix as applicable. Percent recoveries (%R) and relative percent differences (RPO) were within QC limits. V:ILOGIN1ANCHORIQUENDALL\19619A8_A34.D0C 3 - • - V. Target Compound Identification All target compound identifications were within validation criteria for samples on which a EPA Level IV review was performed. Raw data were not evaluated for the samples reviewed by Level Ill criteria. VI. Compound Quantitation and CRQLs All compound quantitation and CRQLs were within validation criteria for samples on which a EPA Level IV review was performed. Raw data were not evaluated for the samples reviewed by Level HI criteria. VII. System Performance The system performance was acceptable for samples on which a EPA Level IV review was performed. Raw data were not evaluated for the samples reviewed by Level Ill criteria. VIII. Overall Assessment of Data The analysis was conducted within all specifications of the method. No results were rejected in this SDG. The quality control criteria reviewed were met and are considered acceptable. Based upon the Level Ill and lV data validation all results are considered valid and usable for all purposes. IX. Field Duplicates No field duplicates were identified in this SDG. X. Field Blanks No field blanks were identified in this SDG. V:1il..OGltM.NCHOR\QUEND.A.1...L\19a19A8_A34.00C 4 Quendall Terminal Diesel Range Organics -Data Qualification Summary -SDG NT55 No Sample Data Qualified in this SDG Quendall Terminal Dlesel Range Organics -Laboratory Blank Data Qualification Summary-SDG NT55 No Sample Data Qualified in this SDG V:\LOOINIANCHOR\QUENOALL\19819AS_A34.00C 5 - - • ORGA.l<ICS ANALYSIS DATA Sl!EBT TOTAL DIKSBL RJINGK HYDROCAJUIONS NWTPHD by GC/FID-Silica and Acid Cleaned QC ·Page 1 of 1 Matrix: Soil. DaCa Release Authorized:~ Reported: 10/27/08 Extraction Analysis ARI ID S""'ple ID Date Date NTSSA SP-1 10/10/08 10/11/08 08-27075 IIC ID: FID3A MB-101008 Method Blank 10/10/08 10/11/08 08-27076 HC ID, FID3A NTSSB SP-2 10/10/08 10/11/08 08-27076 HC ID: MOTOR 0:tL FID3A NTSSC SP-3 10/10/08 10/11/08 08-27077 IIC ID: FI03A NT55D SP-4 10/10/08 10/11/08 08-27078 HC ID: FlIJ3A NT55E SP-5 10/10/08 10/11/08 08-27079 HC ID, FID3A _Reported in mg/kg (ppm) ·EFV-Effective Final Volume in mL. DL-Dilution of extract prior to analysis. RL-Reporting limit. ANALYTICAL (I) RESOURCES INCORPORATl=D Report No, NTSS-Aspect Consulting Project, QUENDALL TERMINALS 02oon-005-os BFV Dt. Range RI, Rosul.t l. 00 Diesel 5.9 < 5.9 U l. 0 Motor Oil 12 < 12 U o-Terphenyl 72 .2~ 1.00 Diesel 5.0 < 5.0 u 1.0 Motor Oil 10 < 10 U o-Terphenyl sa.n 1. 00 Diesel 6.0 < 6.0 u 1.0 Motor Oil 12 13 o-Terphenyl 81.H - 1. 00 Diesel 6.0 < 6.0 u 1.0 Motor Oil 12 < 12 U o-Terphenyl ao.n 1. 00 Diesel 6.2 c:: 6 .. 2 tr 1.0 Motor Oil 12 c 12 U o-Terphenyl ?S.6t 1.00 Diesel 6.0 < 6.0 tr 1.0 Motor Oil 12 < 12 U o-Terphenyl 72.2% Diesel quantitation on total peaks in the range from Cl2 to C24. Motor Oil quantitation on total peaks in the range from C24 to C38. HC ID: DRO/RRO indicate results of organics or additional hydrocarbons in ranges are not identifiable. FORM I 00?5 LDC#: 19819A8 SDG #'. NT55 VALIDATION COMPLETENESS WORKSHEET Level Ill/IV Laboratory: Analytical Resources. Inc. METHOD: GC Diesel Range Organics (NWTPH-Dx) Date~~ ,,y Page: of Reviewer:. __ _ 2nd Reviewer: 1<,,. • The samples listed below were reviewed for each of the followlng validation areas. Validation findings are noted in attached validation findings worksheets. · I. Ila. llb. Ill. IVa. IVb. IVc. V. VI. VII. VIII. IX. X. Note: ·--- Technical holdina times -~ Samnllna dates: lp/-/pi. ' . Initial calibration ~ CalJilration veriflcation/lCV .--I.,.-;,_\/= I=-, 'i) 7 Blanks .... ~ Surroaate recova.ru . Matrix soike/Matrlx SDike dur"lffoates < - Laboraton.i control samD1es " -/as.I '1'::> Taraet comoound identification ' -I Not reviewed for Level Ill validation. Comoound Quantltstlon and CRQLs ' -Not reviewed for Level Ill validation. Svstem Performance ~ -Not reviewed for Level Ill validation. Overalr assessment of data < Field duolicates l Field blanks I. A ~ Acceptable ND : No compounds detected D = Duplicate N = Not provided/applicable SW = See worksheet R ., Rlnaate TB :: Trip blank FB = Field blank EB : Equipment blank Id Validated Samoles: *"' Indicates sam le undeiwent Level IV va I ation 1 SP-1 -< 11 1413-1 ,1 I t1"J) J 21 31 2 SP-2 12 22 32 3 SP-3 13 23 33 4 SP4'*"1 14 24 34 5 SP-o 15 25 35 6 SP-2MS 16 26 36 7 SP-2MSD 17 27 37 8 18 28 38 9 19 29 39 10 20 30 40 . Notes: ________________________________ _ DIESEL.wpd • LDC#: l"JJ'l~,r SDG#: AIT Method: GC Was a curve flt used for evaluation? VALIDATION FINDINGS CHECKLIST HPLC Did U,e initial calibration meet the curve fit acce tance criteria of > 0.990? Were a matrix spike (MS) and malrix spike duplicate {MSD) analyzed for each matrix In this SDG? If no, Indicate which matrix does not have an associated MSIMSD. Soil / Water. were·tha MS/MSD percent recoveries {%R) and the relative percent differences RPD within the QC linits? Were erformsnee evaluation PE Were the efformance evaluation PE sam les within the acce tance limits GC_HPLC·SW2.wpd version 1 O Page:..Lof .:;a,. . Reviewer:· 9=-- 2nd Reviewer: It, LOG #: / r/Jilt: !J SOG#: ~ GC_HPLC-SW2.wpd \'~t.sion 1.0 VALIDATION FINDINGS CHECKLIST Page: ~f ...:a.... Reviewer: 9:-:::= 2nd Reviewer: /J;.;; LDC#:12-?Aff SDG #: AfTS"?: METHOD:GC ~ HPLC'---~~~ VALIDATION FINDINGS WORKSHEET Initial Calibration Calculation Verification Page:_L,ifL Reviewer: l+-- 2nd Reviewer:~ The calibration Factor (CF), average CF, and percent relative standard deviation (%RS0) were recalculated for the compounds identified below using the following calculations: CF =A/C average CF= sum of the CF/number of standards %RSD = 100' (Sn<) CalibraUon # Standard ID Date _J_ ;etf-z_ ~~d .._. ,...L ,__ ....!.... - .....1.. I-- A = Area of compound, C • Concentration of compound, S • Standard deviation of the CF X = Mean Ot th8: CFs Comnound 1'-rC> , } . . -. CF ,/~F Average CF Average CF C/M'stdl finitlall 'initial' ',1,RSD %RSD / .d.L, 7 p n:L. L'7,t) 14..::.~3 ;2~ /L-_ 0 /~0 I Comments: Refer to Initial Calibration findings worksheetfor list of qualifications and associated samples when reported results do not agree within 10.0% of the recalculated results. · INICLC.1SB " 4 ;~ 'i .~. :G ;; :; :; -~ ,J i; :~ •:l' LDC#'.~f;# SDG#:J./~ METHOD:GC ~ HPLC.~~~- VAL1DATION FINDINGS WORKSHEET Continuing Calibration Results Verification · Page: /of/ · Reviewer~-- 2nd Reviewer: , \ The percent difference (%D) of the initial calibration average Calibration Factors (CF) and the continuing calibration CF were recal.culated for the compounds identified below using the following calculation: % Difference= 100 •(ave.CF -CFVave. CF CF=NC Calibration # standard ID Date 1 J,tJ'IAA~A 1r,1/t1<J 2 3 4 Where: ave., CF~ !nlUal calibration average CF CF= conUnulng calibration CF A :m Area of compound c = Concentration or compound Average CF(lcal}I Cnmnnund CCVConc. 11'>/'2" 0 ~ - CF/Cone. CF/Cone. %0 %D CCV CCV ..::,k: ~ ad.£' . .J... I. C-J' /. 7 / Comments: Refer to Continuing Calibration findings worksheet for list of qualifications and associated samples when reported results do not agree within 10.0% of the re cal cu lated results. CONCLC.1S '. . il .'l' ' 4 LDC#:~'lf SDG#: ">- METHOD: _ GC _ HPLC VALIDATION FINDINGS WORKSHEET Surrogate Results Verification The percent recoveries (%R) cf surrogates were recalculated for the compounds Identified below using the following calculation: % Recovery: SF/SS • 100 -.,Qllll,ll'tJ l&.ilo SUJ'toglla -r,pJ-1 --··· . . Surronate __ ,.,_,,,.. ·-· Surroaate SURRCALCNew.wpd Where: SF = Surrogate Found SS = Surrogate Spiked Surrogate ColurnnlDeteetor Solked ALL\' 4-c 7) Surrogate Column/Oetector Snlked Surrogat~ ColumnJDetector Solkod Surrogate Pereent Found Recoverv Renorted -3'4. p 7~:-6 Surrogate Percent Found Recovery Reoorted Surrogate Percent Found Rc!coverv Ret'\nrted • 4 Page:_L.ot,,2- Reviewer: ~--- 2nd reviewer: '\ Perc,nt Percent Raco"..., Difference [j Racalculatod" ·~ -?,,.....-6 ..;> ' l Percent Porcant Recove,v Difference Recalct1lated \ .,; Percent Percent Racoverv Difference ~ ., Recalculated ·1 ~~ ) ,, LDC #-/{3, %10 SDG #1 Aftz_;z::; METHOD: ..i.. GC _HPl.C VALIDATION FINDINGS WORKSHEET Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Dupllcates Results Verification Page:_Lof_L Reviewer:_c:fL--~- 2nd Reviewer:~ The percent recoveries (%R) and relative percent differences (RPD) of the matrix spike and matrix spike duplicate were recalculated for the compounds identified below using the following calculation: %Recovery= 100' (SSC• SC)/SA Where RPD =(({SSCMS -SSCMSDJ • 2) I (SSCMS + SSCMSD))'100 MS/MSD samples:.~~=_r-/_,_7 ________ _ Spike Compound 1JJf~1 i'.W . ·~-fllW ' 'f fil®f'ff '~' .pj)1=* &:~4{1.f ~ · · · '·v. :\%f [f~ ·1 ,,/ } };=. :.?-:·~·, . :>..}.:'!<' • '~~ Ms/ MSD Gasoline (8015) Diesel (8015) /''X7 /3/.) Benzene (8021B) Methane (RSK-175) 2,4-D (8151) Dinoseb (8151) Naphthalene (8310) Anthracene (8310) HMX (8330) 2,4,6-Trinitrotoluene (8330) SSC = Spiked sample concentroUon SA = Spike added MS = Matrix spike Sample Spike Sample Co"7-Concentt';l!! Ion I . I , ' MS MSD /1 / 7/) /~ 12-0 SC = Sample conoentratlon MSO = Matrix spike duptioab! Matrix si Ike Matrix Solke Dunllcate MS/MSD Percent Recovery Percent Recoverv RPO I Reported I Rec,,lc. II Reported I Recalc. II Reported I Recalc. I 6./.3 -hh?' lL .7 6?,/ ,P 4 IJ. ) ., I ., Comments: Refer to Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicates findings worksheet for list of qualifications and associated samples when reported results do not agree within ,/ 10.0% of the recalculated results. MSOCLCNaw.wpd • •'.\ I VALIDATION FINDINGS WORKSHEET LDC #:tlz!f.M8° SDG #d::t:::fii£._ Laboratory Control Sample/Laboratory Control Sample Duplicate Results Verification Page: /otl __ . Reviewer~ --- 2nd Reviewer:~ METHOD: ~C _HPLC The percent recoveries (%R) and RelaUve Percent difference (RPO) of the laboratory control sample and laboratory control sample duplicate were recalculated for the compounds Identified below using the following calculation: % Rerovery • 1 oo• (SSC,SC)/SA RPD • I SSCLCS • SSCLCSD I" 2/(SSCLCS + SSCLCSD) LCS/LCSD samples: ,:.4::S-/"" /~ I~=-= !;),:\,~, cl['·'(c 1-1 ,_-_.:·J?·"~~>:qr~V'\l/i ~~-~~.:""'"--"l,_,~,.d!_~.'. Com~und Gasoline (8015) Diesel (B015J Benzene (8021 B) Methane (RSK-175) 2,4-D (8151) Dinoseb (81s1J Naphthalene (831 O) Anthracene (831 O) HMX(8330) 2,4,6-Trinitrotoluene (8330)' LCS /~ Spike Addll!I LCSD '5"t) Where: SSC• Spiked sample concentration SA= Spike added LCS = Laboratory control sample percent recovery Spiked Sample Concen ,ti; LCS LCSD LC$ Percent Recove.!}'._ Reported Recalc. _7 SC ;;i Concentration LCSD = Laboratory control sample duplicate percent recovery LCSD LCS/LCSD Percent Recovery RPD Reporte\i R.ecalc. Reported I Recalc.. z]",6, v Z-6 () t,) Comments: Refer to Laboratory Control Sample/Laboratory Control Sample Duplicate findings worksheet for list of qualifications and associated samples when reported re_s_ults do not agree within 10.0% of the recalculated results. V:\Validation Work.!lheets\GC\LCSDCLC_GC.wpd ;\ ;, ' J ,, J ' ,·j 1: ,, f! ~ - LDC #:Ll2rf.fi3 SDG#~ METHOD: Loc_HPLC VALIDATION FINDINGS WORKSHEET Sample Calculation Verification Page: f(// Reviewer. _;:..,:;;__ 2nd Reviewer:~ ~NIA ~ Were all reported results recalculated and verified for all level IV samples? Were all recalculated results for detected target compounds agree within 10% of the reported results? Concentration= /A)/Fvl/Df) (RF)(Vs orWsX%S/100) A'!:!:. Area or height of U,e compound to be measured Fv= Final VOiume of extract OJ,a Ollullon Factor RF= Average response factor of the compound In the Initial calibratioo vs~ lnltial volume of the sample Ws= Initial weight of the sample %S= Percent Solid # SamplefD Example: Sample ID.~ Compound Name __ ~,J'-"-_l> __________ _ Concentration=---------------------------- Reported Recalculated Results Compound Conce11trations Concentrations Qua liflcatlons ( l ( l Comments:====----------------------------------------------------- SAMPCALew.wpd .,? ., fi 4 - APPENDIX B Daily Monitoring Reports - • ' Aspectconsutting ' ea rth +wa ter 1 79 Madronc Lane No rt h Bainbridge Island, Washi ngton 98 110 (206) 7 80-9370 DAILY REPORT 4 0 1 Second Avenue S, Suite 201 Seattl e, Was hing ton 98 104 (206) 328-7443 DATE: 10/30/08 I PROJECT NO. 020027 I WEATHER: OV ERCAST, 55-60 F PROJECT NAME: QUENDALL TERMINALS ESC CLIENT: EQUIPMENT USED: PROJECT LOCATION: THE FOLLOWING WAS NOTED: Arri ved ons ite at 1030 to inspect constru ction activi ti es an d conduct visua l monitoring /inspection of stormwate r discha rg e. Met Willie from C learcre ek construction and we walked site and discussed the BMPs he was i nstalling . Structural BMPs being installed include : • Perimeter Berms • Interceptor Swales The co ntractor is a lso spreading a nd ripp ing in mulch materia ls and topso il a lready o nsite. There were no stormwater discharges from the si te at the time of inspectio n. COPIES TO: Aspect Consulting PROJECT MANAGER: Owe n Reese Page 1 of 2 FIELD REP.: Eri c Marhofer - 'Aspectconsutting ' IN-DEPTH P ERSPECTI VE PROJECT NO_: 020027 PROJECT NAME: Quendall Terminals ESC DA TE: 10/30/08 Photo l_ Constructing perimeter berm along Lake Washington_ Photo 2. Spreading and ripping in mulch and topsoiL Page 2 of 2 FIELD REP.: Eric Marhofer • - ' Aspectconsulting ' earth+water 179 Madronc Lane North Bainbridge Island, Washington 981 10 (206) 78 0 -9370 DAILY REPORT 401 Second Avenue S, Suite 2 01 Seatt le, Washington 98 104 (206) 328-74 43 DATE: 10/31/08 I PROJECT NO. 020027 I WEATHER : LIGHT RAIN , 55-60 F PROJECT NAME: QUENDALL TERMINALS ESC CLIENT: EQUIPMENT USED: PROJECT LOCATION: THE FOLLOWING WAS NOTED: Arrived onsite at 11 00 to inspect construction activities and conduct visual monitori ng /inspection of stormwater discharge . Clearcreek still wor king on BMP in sta llation, they w ill be fini shed today with the exception of hyd roseedi ng . Stru ctural BMPs being installed include: • Perimeter Berms • Interceptor Swa les T he contracto r is also spreading and ripping in mulch materi als and to pso il already onsi te . There were no stormwater dis c harge s from the site at the time of inspection . COPIES TO: Aspect Consulting PROJECT MANAGER: Owen Reese Page 1 of 2 FIELD REP.: Er ic Marhofer - ' Aspectcansulting ' IN-DEPTH PERSPECTIVE PROJECT NO.: 020027 PROJECT NAME: Quendall Terminals ESC DATE: 10/3 1/08 Photo l . Perimeter berm constructed near si te e ntrance . Ph oto 2. Perimeter berm constru cted along Lake Washington. Page 2 of 2 FIELD REP.: Eric Marhofer - 'Aspectconsulting ' earth +wat e r 179 Madro ne La ne North Bain bridge Island, Washington 98 11 0 (206) 780-93 70 DAILY REPORT 40 I Second J\ venue S, S uit e 20 I Sean le, Washin gton 9 8 I 04 (206) 328-7443 DATE: 11 /4/08 I PROJECT NO. 020027 I WEATHER: PARTLY SUNNY, 60-65 F PROJECT NAME: QUENDALL TERMINALS ESC CLIENT: EQUIPMENT USED: PROJECT LOCATION: THE FOLLOWING WAS NOTED: Arrived onsite at 1300 to conduct visual monitoring/inspection of storm water discharge . The weather report from "wea ther underground " indicated that it had rained as much as 1 inch overnight. Forecast shows no rain until 11 /6/08. Clearcreek also onsite to hydroseed, completed hydroseedi ng by 1600. BMPs are in place and construction activities are comp lete. I inspected th e structural BMPs, including : • Perimeter Berms -In place, jute mesh w as placed along the La ke Washington sid e of the berm in the sou thern shoreline, no damage • Interceptor Swales -In place , no damage • Hydroseed -Placed during site visit Th ere was no inflow to Quendall Pond observed. There was no run-on from off-site sou rces observed. Storm water d isc harge was noted from the drainage ditch outfall i n the northwest corne r of the site into Lake Washington . The discharge was clear, very low flow . Th ere we re no other storm water discharges from the site noted at the time of i nspection . COPIES TO: Aspect Consulting PROJECT MANAGER: Owen Reese Page 1 of 2 FIELD REP.: Eric Marhofer ·- ' Aspectconsulting ' IN-DEPTH PERSPECTIVE PROJECT NO.: 020027 PROJECT NAME: Quendall Terminal s ESC DA TE : 1 1 /4/08 Photo 1. Hydroseed appli cation on p erimeter berm along Lake Washington. Ph oto 2. Hydroseed application to site. Page 2 of 2 FIELD REP.: Eric Marhofer - 'Aspectconsutting ' eart h +water 179 Madronc Lane North Bainbridge Is land, W ash ington 98 11 0 (2 06) 780-93 70 DAILY REPORT 40 I Seco nd A venue S, Suite 20 I Seatt le, Washi ngto n 98104 (20 6) 328-744 3 DATE : 11 /10/08 I PROJECT NO. 0 20027 I WEATHER: PA RTLY SUNNY, 60-65 F PROJECT NAME: QUENDALL TERMINALS ESC CLIENT: EQUIPMENT USED: PROJECT LOCATION: THE FOLLOWING WAS NOTED: A rri ved onsite at 1430 to cond uct visual monitoring /inspection of sto rm wate r discha rge. It had rained heavil y over the weeke nd . I am cons ide ring thi s my first monthly i nspe ct ion s in ce the comp leti on of constru ction activities. I in spected the structural BMPs , including : • Perim eter Berm s -In place , jute mesh along the Lake Washington side of the berm in the so uthern shoreline, no damag e • Interceptor Swales -In pl ace , no damage • Hydroseed -In place, show ing some s igns of stress from t he rain last weekend but also starti n g to sprout • Noted some silt fence that had been installed around a so il stockpi le in th e southwest corne r of the site was not installed co rrectl y. Notified Cl earcreek of the deficiency . Th ere was no infl ow to Quendall Pond observed. There was no run-on from off-site so urces observed . There were no stormwater discharges from the site at the tim e of inspecti o n. COPIES TO : Aspect Consulting PROJECT MANAGER: Owen Reese Page 1 of 1 FIELD REP.: Eric Marhofer ' Aspectconsulting ' earth+water 179 Madrone Lane North Bainb ridge [s tand , Washington 98 11 0 (206) 780-93 70 DAILY REPORT 40 I Second Avenue S, Suite 20 I Sea ttle, Washi ngto n 98 104 (206) 328-7443 DATE: 12/11 /08 I PROJECT NO. 020027 I WEATHER: OVERCAST, 40-50 F PROJECT NAME: QUENDALL TERMINALS ESC CLIENT: EQUIPMENT USED: PROJECT LOCATION: THE FOLLOWING WAS NOTED: Arrived onsite at 1500 to conduct monthly visual monitoring /inspection of stormwater discharge. New fence restricting vehicle access to the site has been installed, has a padlock . I w as able to gai n access on foot to inspect site. I inspected the structural BMPs, i nclu d ing: • Perimeter Berm s -In place, jute mesh along the Lake Washington side of the berm in the south ern s horeline , no damage • Interceptor Swales -In place, no damage • Hyd roseed -In place, showing some growth, still spa r se • Silt fence -In place, Clearcreek had re-installed co rrectly There was no inflow to Quendall Pond observed. There was no run -on from off-site sources observed . There were no stormwater discharges from the site at the time of inspection. I also wa lked the entire length of shoreline at the site to see if there were discharges anywhere else. No discharges were found but saw evidence of a discharge point along the shoreline in a low land area approximately 200 feet south of northwest property co rner. COPIES TO: Aspect Consulting PROJECT MANAGER: Owen Reese Page 1 of 2 FIELD REP.: Eric Marhofer - - ' Aspectconsulting ' IN-DEPTH PERSPECTIVE OJECT NO.: 0 200 2 7 PROJECT NAME: Quendall T erminals DATE: 12/11 /08 Photo I. Perimeter berm along Lake Washington. Page 2 of 2 FIELD REP .: Eri c Marhofer 'Aspectconsulting ' ea rth+w a t e r 179 Madronc Lane No rth Bainbrid ge Island, Washingto n 98 11 0 (206) 78 0 -9370 DAILY REPORT 40 1 Second Aven ue S, Suite 201 Seallle, Washingto n 98 104 (206) 328-7443 DATE: 01/19/09 I PROJECT NO. 020027 I WEATHER: PARTLY SUNNY, 40-50 F PROJECT NAME: QUENDALL TERMINALS ESC CLIENT: EQUIPMENT USED: PROJECT LOCATION : THE FOLLOWING WAS NOTED: Arrived onsite at 1400 to cond uct monthly v isual monitorin g/inspection of storm water discharge and ESC BMPs . Weather has been dry for the past week , since the last site visit there has been snow, heavy rain, and flooding in many parts of Western Washington . I inspected the structura l BMPs, including: • Perimeter Berms -In place, jute mesh along the Lake Washington side of the berm in the southern shoreline, no damage , grass starting to show • Interceptor Swales -In p lace, no damage • Hydroseed -In place, showing growth in some ar eas , sti ll sparse in others • Silt fence -In place, no damage There was no inflow to Quendall Pond observed . There was no run-on from off-site sources observed. There were no stormwater discha rg es from the site at the t ime of inspection. I also walked th e length of shoreline extending from the northwest corner of the site to the dock/wharf remnants to look for other discharges from the site. Noticed evidence of prior discharges approximately 100 feet south of northwest property corner. Also noted existing discharge from a lowland area approximately 200 feet south of northwest property corner. Discharge has a sheen and may be a groundwater seep as this is a particularly low laying area. I fo ll owed the stream of water back into the site it eventually disappear s. Noted this location during the previous site vis it but there was not d ischarge at that time. Took photos of the discharg e. COPIES TO: Aspect Consulting PROJECT MANAGER: Owen Reese Page 1 of 2 FIELD REP.: Eric Marhofer - ' Aspectconsutting ' IN-DEPTH PERSPECTIVE PROJECT NO.: 020027 PROJECT NAME: Quendall Terminal s ESC DATE: 01 /19/0 Photo I. Hydroseed growth near the northwest corner of the site. Photo 2. Discharge from lo w l and area in to Lake Washington. Page 2 of 2 FIELD REP .: Eric Marhofer • 'Aspectconsutting ' earth +water 179 Madron e Lan e North Bainbri dge Island, W as hi ngton 98 11 0 (206) 780-9370 DAILY REPORT 40 1 Second Avenue S, Sui te 201 Seattle, Washington 98 104 (2 06) 328-7443 DA TE : 02/27 /09 I PROJECT NO. 020027 I WEATHER: SUNNY, 40-45 F PROJECT NAME: QUENDALL TERMINALS ESC CLIENT: EQUIPMENT USED : PROJECT LOCATION : THE FO LLOWING WAS NOTED: Arrived onsite at 0850 to conduct monthly visual monitoring/in spection of stormwater discharge and ESC BMPs. Weather has been rain and snow for the past week. I in spected th e stru ctural BMPs , including: • Perimeter Berms -In pla ce, jute mesh along the Lake Washington side of the berm in the southern shoreline, no damage, grass starting to show • Intercepto r Swales -In place, no damage • Hydroseed -In place , showing growth in some areas , overall looks very spa rse • Silt fence -In place , no damage There was no inflow to Quendall Po nd observed . There was no run-on from off-site sou rces observed . Noted discharges from the north and sou th drainage ditches shown on the ESC plan. The discharge was clear and low fl ow. I also walked the length of s horeli ne extending from the northwest corner of the site to th e dock/wharf re mnants t o look for other discharges from the site. Noted discharge from the low land area approximately 200 feet south of northwest property corn er Uust north of the point). Disc harg e has a s heen farther upstrea m and may be a groundwater seep as th is is a particularly low layi ng area , see pictures I took . Noted this loca ti o n during previous two site visits, once with di sc harge, once without. COPIES TO : Aspect Consulting PROJECT MANAGER: Owe n Ree se Page 1 of 2 FIELD REP.: Eric Marhofer - • - ' AspectconsuLting ' IN-DEPTH PERSPECTIVE PROJECT NO.: 020027 PROJECT NAME: Quendall Terminals DATE: 02/2 7/09 -~:.: Photo 2. Discharge from low land area into Lake Washington. Page 2 of 2 FIELD REP.: Eric Marhofer • 'Aspectconsutting ' eart h +water 17 9 Mad ro ne Lane No rth Bainbridge Js la nd, Washin gton 9 8 110 (206) 780 -937 0 DAILY REPORT 4 0 1 Second Avenue S, Su ite 20 1 Seatt le, Washin gton 98 104 (206) 328-7443 DATE: 04 /06 /09 I PROJECT NO. 020027 I WEATHER: SUNNY, 60-65 F PROJECT NAME : QUENDALL TERMINALS ESC CLIENT: EQUIPMENT USED: PROJECT LOCATION: THE FOLLOWING WAS NOTED: Arrived onsite at 1100 to conduct monthly visual monitoring/i nspecti o n of stormwater discharge and ESC BMPs . Weather was warm and sunny over the weekend . I inspected the structural BMPs, including: • Perimeter Berm s -In place, jute mesh along the Lake Washington side of the berm in the southern shor eline, no damage, grass and vegetation showing through • Interceptor Swales -In place, no damage • Hydroseed -In pla ce , showing growth in some areas, sti ll sparse in others. The site seems to ha ve areas that are too saturated or that have too much bark/wood chips for grass to grow well. • Silt fence -In place, no damage There was no inflow to Quendall Pond obs erved . There was no run-on from off-site sources observed. I did not observe any discharges at the north and south drainage ditches shown on the ESC plan . I also tried to wa lk the length of shoreline exte nd in g from th e northwest co rner of the site to the dock/wharf remnants to look for other dis c harges from the site, but could not make if further than the lowland area approximately 200 feet south of the northwest property corner due to high water levels. Noted turbid discharge from the low land area, although the water level was high enough to partially submerge the outfall. Other than the cloudy water, there was no obvious sign of discharge to the lake . The wate r in the lowland area has a sheen farth er upstream /inland. Noted this location during previo us site vis its . COPIES TO : Aspect Consulting PROJECT MANAGER: Owe n Reese Page 1 of 4 FIELD REP.: Eric Marhofer - • - ' Aspectconsutting ' IN-DEPTH PERSPECTIVE PROJECT NAME: Qu e nd a ll Termin a ls DATE: 04/06/09 ... Pho to 2 . Vegetati on sh owing s ig n s of growth i n the m id dl e p o1t i on of th e s ite. Page 2 of 4 FIELD REP.: Eri c Marho fe r • - 'Aspectconsulting ' IN-DEPTH PERSPECTIVE PROJECT NO_: 020027 PROJECT NAME: Quendall Terminals DATE: 04/06/0 Photo 3 _ Vegetation sh owin g signs of growth in the south ern portion of the site. Photo 4. Vegetation showing signs of growth on perimeter berm along Lake Washington. Page 3 of 4 FIELD REP .: Eric Marhofer • ' Aspectconsulting ' IN-DEPTH PERSPECTIVE II PROJECT NO .: 020027 PROJECT NAME: Q ue ndall T e rmin a ls DATE: 04 /06/0 9 11 ---,-. • /J' ' Ph oto 5. Hi g h water levels at lowland di schar ge area. Ph o to 6 . C lou dy wat er ne ar m ou th of lowland d isch arg e area. Page 4 of 4 FIELD REP _: Eri c Marhofe r 'Aspectconsulting ' earth +water 179 Madrone Lane North Bainb ridge Is land, Washingto n 98 11 0 (206) 780-93 70 DAILY REPORT 40 1 Second Avenue S, S uite 20 1 Seattle, Washi ngton 98 104 (206) 328-7443 DA TE: 05/05 /09 I PROJECT NO. 020027 I WEATHER: SHOWERS, 55 F PROJECT NAME: QUENDALL TERMINALS ESC CLIENT: EQUIPMENT USED: PROJECT LOCATION: THE FOLLOWING WAS NOTED: Arrived onsite at 1100 to conduct monthly visual monitoring/inspection of stormwater discharge and ESC BMPs. Weather has been raining for the past day. I inspected the structural BMPs, including: • Perimeter Berms -In place , jute mesh along the Lake Washington side of the berm in the southern shoreline, no damage, grass and vegetation showing through • Interceptor Swales -In place, no damage • Hydroseed -In place, significant growth since last site visit • Silt fence -In place, no damage There was no inflow to Quendall Pond observed, good result considering the amount of rain in the past couple days . There was no run-on from off-si te sources observed . I did not observe any discharges at the north and south drainage ditches shown on the ESC plan. I also tried to walk the length of shoreline extending from the northwest corner of the site to the dock/wharf remnants to look for other discharges from the site, but could not make if further than the lowland area approximately 200 feet south of the northwest property corner due to high water levels (higher than the last site visit). The lowland area was submerged due to the high water level, no discharge could be observed. COPIES TO: Aspect Consulting PROJECT MANAGER: Owen Reese Page 1 of 4 FIELD REP.: Eric Marhofer - ' Aspectconsulting ' IN-DEPTH PERSPECTIVE OJECT NO.: 020027 PROJECT NAME: Quendal l Term ina ls DATE: 05 /05/0911 Photo 1. Vegetation established in northern portion of site_ Photo 2. Vegetation established in the middle portion of the site. Page 2 of 4 FIELD REP_: Eri c Marhofer ' Aspectconsutting ' IN-DEPTH PERSPECTIVE OJECT NO.: 02 0027 PROJECT NAME: Quendall Terminal s DATE: 0 5/05/0 9 P ho to 3. Vegetati on es tab li sh ed in th e so uthe rn porti on of th e site. Photo 4 . Perimeter b erm al ong Lake W ashington es tablishi ng vegetati ve c over. Page 3 of 4 FIELD REP.: Eric Marh ofe r ' Aspectcansulting ' IN-DEPTH PERSPECTIVE PROJECT NO_: 020027 PROJECT NAME: Quendall Terminals DATE: 05/05/09 Photo 5. Very high water level s at lo w land discharge area. Page 4 of 4 FIELD REP.: Eric Marhofer \ Aspectconsulting ' earth+water INTERIM STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN Quendall Terminals Prepared for: Quendall Terminals Group Project No. 020027-008 • October 8, 2008 Final ' Aspectconsutting ' earth+water INTERIM STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN Quendall Terminals Prepared for: Quendall Terminals Group Project No. 020027-008 • October 8, 2008 Final Aspect Consulting, LLC Owen G. Reese, PE Associate Water Resources Engineer oreese@aspectconsulting.com V;\020027 -Quendal! Terminals\Stormwater\Flnal SWMP 10-03-08.doc L//h- Eric Marhofer, PE Senior Staff Water Resources Engineer emarhofer@aspectcorumlting.com 401 Second Avenue S, Suite 201 Seattle, WA 98104 Tel: (206) 328-7443 Fax: (206) 838-5853 www.aspectconsulting.com a limited liability company - ASPECT CONSUL TING Contents Introduction and Plan Objectives ...................................................................... 1 Existing Conditions ............................................................................................ 2 Site Soils ................................................................................................................ 2 Topography and Site Drainage .............................................................................. 2 Recommended Best Management Practices .................................................... 4 Operational Source Control BMPs ........................................................................ .4 Preserving Natural Vegetation .............................................................................. 4 General Debris Removal ....................................................................................... 5 Structural Source Control BMPs ............................................................................ 5 Perimeter Berm ..................................................................................................... 5 Interceptor Swales ................................................................................................. 6 Mulching ............................................................................................................... 7 Topsoiling .............................................................................................................. 7 Surface Roughening/Ripping ................................................................................ 7 Hydroseeding ........................................................................................................ 8 Construction Sequence ...................................................................................... 9 Monitoring Program ............................................................................................ 9 Construction Monitoring ........................................................................................ 9 Post-Construction Monitoring .............................................................................. 10 Reporting ............................................................................................................. 10 Limitations ......................................................................................................... 11 List of Figures 1 Current Site Features and Stormwater Drainage 2 Erosion and Sediment Control Plan PROJECT NO. 020027-008 • OCTOBER 8, 2008 FINAL - ASPECT CONSULTING Introduction and Plan Objectives The Quendall Terminals Site (site) is a 25-acre property located on the eastern shore of Lake Washington at 4503 Lake Washington Boulevard in Renton, Washington. The property has been in industrial use since its first development in 1916 by Republic Creosoting. For over 50 years, the site was used as a tar refinery for manufacturing creosote and other coal tar products. Following its sale to Quendall Terminals in 1971, the property was used intermittently for fuel storage until 1983. More recently it has been used as a log sorting yard; log yard activities ceased in early 2008. The site is relatively flat and borders Lake Washington with approximately 1,500 feet of shoreline. Access to the site is from Lake Washington Boulevard, located along the eastern boundary of the property. Immediately adjacent properties include Conner Homes to the south (former Barbee Mill property) and Port Quendall Company/Football Northwest to the north (former J.H. Baxter property). Existing site features and surrounding features are illustrated on Figure 1. This report describes a stormwater management plan for the site. The primary objectives of this plan include: • Controlling stormwater discharges from the site into Lake Washington. • Reducing stormwater inflow to Quendall Pond. • Encouraging infiltration ofstorrnwater in the less contaminated areas of the site. • Preventing erosion by stabilizing exposed areas of the site. • Implementing best management practices (BMPs) with a design life of 5 to 10 years to achieve these objectives. PROJECT NO. 020027-008 • OCTOBER 8, 2008 FINAL ASPECT CONSULTING Existing Conditions 2 Site Soils Fill is found across the entire site. Fill thickness ranges from 1 to 2 feet along the southern and eastern boundaries up to 6 and IO feet in northern portions. Most commonly, the fill is a mix of silt, sand, and gravel with wood debris. Wood chips and bark from the log sorting operations are typical in the upper few feet. Where creosote and pitch-like material was encountered, it was generally at depths greater than 2 feet. The surface of the main log yard area is covered by either wood waste or a 3-to 12-inch layer of organic muck generated from site soils and wood waste mixed together by operation of equipment in wet areas. Topography and Site Drainage The site is located in the Puget Lowlands on the southeast side of Lake Washington. The site is relatively flat with hills rising to the east beyond Interstate 405. Much of the property was formed by the lowering of Lake Washington in 1916, which exposed the alluvial delta of May Creek. Based on review of aerial photographs, the creek had been diverted south by 1936, and no longer crossed the site. Site topography has been modified over the past 90 years by filling and grading activities. Site elevations are based on the North American Vertical Datum 1988 (NAVD 88) and range from approximately 35 feet on the east side of the property to about 20 feet at the lake shore. The exposed site soils are relatively fine-grained, which slows infiltration during rainy periods causing ponding in many areas. During the rainy season, most runoff flows into stormwater collection ponds on the west side of the site (Quendall Pond and South Detention Pond) or a drainage ditch along the southern property boundary (Figure I). Stormwater also accumulates in low-lying areas. Several drainage concerns have been identified from site inspections and conversations with representatives of adjacent property owners. Addressing these concerns is the focus of this Stormwater Management Plan. In the spring of 2007, representatives for the owner of the adjacent property (Football Northwest) indicated that stormwater was flowing onto their site along the construction access road. Inspection at this time suggested that runoff was coming from the truck washing area for the log yard, and that a leaky fire hydrant was contributing to the runoff. Subsequent construction activity on the adjacent property included grading near the property line. A ditch was created, and erosion control measures (triangular silt dikes, straw mulch and straw bales) were installed by the adjacent property owner. FINAL PROJECT NO. 020027-008 • OCTOBER 8, 2008 - - • ASPECT CONSULTING Other potential storrnwater discharges from the site that flow towards Lake Washington include: 1. Overflow from Quendall Pond during large storm events; 2. Discharge from the southern property line ditch; 3. Sheet flow from the barge loading area; and, 4. Flow through a breech in a low berm located south of Quendall Pond. The stormwater management plan includes actions to reduce the volume of water discharged to Lake Washington, and improve water quality by stabilizing site soils. Prior log yard and barge loading operations have left exposed soils on large portions of the site, including along the shoreline. Stabilization of these areas will include rcvegetation or mulch cover. Stabilizing exposed soils is a key step in reducing erosion and discharge of turbid water. Finally, subsurface contaminants present from prior site operations have the potential to be mobilized by storrnwater flows. Storrnwater is currently routed to two ponds located in contaminated areas of the site. The storrnwater management plan should attempt to reduce the volume of storrnwater entering these areas and should avoid encouraging infiltration in contaminated areas. PROJECT NO. 020027-008 • OCTOBER 8, 2008 FINAL 3 ASPECT CONSULTING Recommended Best Management Practices 4 Best Management Practices (BMPs) are defined as schedules of activities, prohibitions of practices, maintenance procedures, and structural and/or managerial practices, that when used individually or in combination, prevent or reduce the release of pollutants and other adverse impacts to waters of Washington State. The three types ofBMPs are source control, treatment, and flow control. The interim stormwater management plan for this site will rely upon source control BMPs to address the stormwater related concerns identified at this site. Source control BMPs prevent pollution, or other adverse effects of stormwater, from occurring. Source control BMPs are further classified as operational or structural. Examples of source control BMPs include using mulches or covers on disturbed soil, putting roofs over outside storage areas, and berming areas to prevent stormwater run-on and pollutant runoff. Recommended BMPs for this site are specified in the following sections and include: • Operational Source Control BMPs; • Preserving natural vegetation; • Removing debris with potential for causing stormwater pollution; • Structural Source Control BMPs; • Constructing and reinforcing low berms along the waterfront; • Constructing shallow swales to direct stormwater runoff away from Quendall Pond and toward lesser contaminated portions of the site; • Encouraging infiltration in suitable areas by surface roughening and/or ripping; • Stabilizing exposed areas by spreading piles of existing wood waste (mulching) and hydroseeding; and, • Maintaining existing drainage ditches, silt fence, and rock check dams. These recommended BMPs are from the Washington State Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington, dated February 2005. Operational Source Control BMPs Preserving Natural Vegetation Purpose The purpose of preserving natural vegetation is to reduce erosion wherever practicable. Limiting site disturbance is the single most effective method for reducing erosion. FINAL PROJECT NO. 020027-008 • OCTOBER 8. 2008 - - - ASPECT CONSUL TING Design and/or Installation Specifications Natural vegetation and trees shown on Figure 1 will be preserved wherever practicable, especially on slopes and near intermittent watercourses or swales. Natural vegetation can be preserved in natural clumps or as individual trees, shrubs and vines. Where necessary, fence or clearly mark off areas or trees that are to be saved. It is preferable to keep ground disturbance away from trees at least as far out as the dripline. Maintenance Standards Inspect flagged and/or fenced areas regularly to make sure flagging or fencing has not been removed or damaged. If the flagging or fencing has been damaged or visibility reduced, it shall be repaired or replaced immediately and visibility restored. General Debris Removal Purpose The purpose of removing debris from the site is to eliminate sources of potential stormwatcr pollution, such as piles of trash or old equipment containing oil or gasoline. Design and/or Installation Specifications Trash and other debris from the site will be disposed of properly, i.e. according to applicable regulations. Maintenance Standards Inspect areas susceptible to the accumulation of trash and other debris regularly and make sure these areas are periodically cleaned up and are not contributing the pollution of stormwater. Structural Source Control BMPs Perimeter Berm Purpose The purpose of the containment berm is to provide a ridge of compacted soil along the western edge of the site to prevent shectflow discharge ofstormwater to Lake Washington. Installation Specifications Berms will be constructed or reinforced along the shoreline as shown in Figure 2, following construction the berms will be hydroseeded. Berms shall meet the following criteria: • Top width: 2 feet minimum • Height: 1.5 feet minimum • Side Slope: 2: 1 or flatter • Compaction: Compact with tracked equipment PROJECT NO. 020027-008 • OCTOBER 8. 2008 FINAL 5 ASPECT CONSULTING 6 Maintenance Standards Inspect benns periodically and after heavy rainfall events. If signs of breaching and/or overtopping arc found, the bcnn shall be repaired and re-seeded as soon as possible. Interceptor Swales Purpose The goals of the shallow interceptor swales is to reduce the volume ofstonnwater runoff entering Quendall Pond by intercepting runoff from the central portion of the site and directing it to the northern and southern portions where contamination levels are lower. Installation Specifications Interceptor swales will be constructed with a roughly trapezoidal cross section. Benns will be constructed or reinforced along the shoreline as shown in Figure 2, following construction the benns will be hydroseeded. Berms shall meet the following criteria: • Depth: 0.5 to I-foot • Bottom Width: I-foot • Side Slopes: 2H: l V • Slope: 0 to l percent • Top width: 5 feet Swales shall be 0.5 feet deep at start and increase in depth gradually along their length, up to a maximum depth of I-foot. Swales may be deeper if necessary to maintain flow. Check dams will be installed every 100 feet in the swales to encourage infiltration and reduce runoff velocities. Only the portion of the interceptor swales located in areas indicated for hydroseeding (Figure 2) needs to be seeded. The check dams and shallow slope will prevent erosion in other areas. Swales shall terminate by widening to spread flow evenly in the desired area. Swales shall widen to a minimum 15-foot width. A level spreader shall be constructed of a notched, treated 2" x 1 O" board set level and perpendicular to the swale flow direction. The level spreader shall be surrounded by a quarry spall pad. Soil excavated to construct swales shall be placed on the western side of the swale to fonn a low berm. The berm shall be compacted by track walking, but does not need to meet the specifications for the perimeter berm listed above. Culverts shall be installed where the swale crosses a road that needs to be maintained. Maintenance Standards Inspect swales periodically and after heavy rainfall events. If sediment accumulation behind the check dams exceeds 6 inches, sediment shall be removed. If evidence of erosion is observed, eroded area shall be regraded and stabilized with quarry spalls or hydro seed. FINAL PROJECT NO. 020027-008 • OCTOBER 8, 2008 - - • Mulching Purpose ASPECT CONSUL TING The purpose of mulching soils is to provide immediate temporary protection from erosion. Mulch also enhances plant establishment by conserving moisture, holding fertilizer, seed, and topsoil in place, and moderating soil temperatures. Installation Specifications Existing piles of wood waste at the site have already been mostly spread across the site. Remaining wood waste will be used as mulch and will be spread evenly across areas shown in Figure 2. Thicknesses may be increased for disturbed areas in close proximity to sensitive areas or other areas susceptible to erosion. If the quantity of mulch available onsite is insufficient to cover all areas, priority will be given to areas closer to the Lake or northern property boundary. Mulching shall make use of only materials available on site. Importation of additional mulch material is not required or allowed. Topsoiling Purpose The purpose of topsoiling is to provide a suitable growth medium for hydroseed. Installation Specifications Organic rich surface soils are present in areas of the former log yard. These soils shall be spread on compacted gravel areas where hydroseeding is planned. Soils shall be spread in a 4-to 6-inch layer and shall be ripped into the subsoils according to the specifications of the surface roughening BMP. Topsoiling shall make use of only materials available on site. Only shallow soil from the top 6 to 12 inches above more compacted base soils will be utilized. Importation of topsoil from offsite is not required or allowed. Surface Roughening/Ripping Purpose Surface roughening or ripping aids in the establishment of vegetative cover, reduces runoff velocity, increases infiltration, and provides for sediment trapping through the provision of a rough soil surface. Installation Specifications Former log storage and vehicle traffic areas shown in Figure 2 will be roughened or ripped in order to loosen compacted soils, increase infiltration, and reduce runoff. After ripping, the surfaces will be mulched or hydroseeded as described below. The heavy duty roughening or ripping equipment will be equivalent to a rear-mounted, heavy duty, single or multiple tooth, ripping attachment mounted on a track type tractor having a power rating of at least 250 flywheel horsepower unless otherwise specified. PROJECT NO. 020027-008 • OCTOBER 8, 2008 FINAL 7 ASPECT CONSUL TING 8 The roughening equipment shall achieve a minimum penetration of approximately 6 inches into the surface being ripped. Maintenance Standards Areas that are graded in this manner will be seeded or mulched as quickly as possible. Regular inspections will be made of these areas. If rills appear, they should be re-graded and re-seeded immediately. Hydroseeding Purpose Seeding is intended to reduce erosion by stabilizing exposed soils. A well-established vegetative cover is one of the most effective methods of reducing erosion. Installation Specifications Fallowing completion of topsoiling and ripping, contractor shall perform a germination test by planting radish seeds in two locations of the area to be hydroseeded. If radish seeds germinate within 3 days, then soil should be amenable to hydrosecding. Seeding shall occur when soil temperature is consistently above 45° F. The seedbed shall be firm and rough. In areas where surface roughening/ripping is specified, soil shall be ripped then back bladed. In other areas, soil shall be back bladed only. Where compaction is required for engineering purposes, slopes must be track walked before seeding. Hydroseeding application shall include a minimum of 1,500 pounds per acre of mulch with 3 percent tackifier. Tackifier shall be plant-based, such as guar or alpha plantago, or chemical-based such as polyacrylarnide or polymers. Seed mix shall be designed for permanent erosion control with limited future maintenance, such as the following mix: Comnonent o/o Wehrht Dwarf Tall fescue 90-100 White dutch clover 0-10 Other mixes may be used for specific areas of the site, such as use of a water tolerant mix for hydroseeding the infiltration areas or including bonded fiber matrix for seeding disturbed slopes near Lake Washington. FINAL PROJECT NO. 020027-008 • OCTOBER 8, 2008 - - • • ASPECT CONSULTING Construction Sequence The following construction sequence is recommended to protect Lake Washington and maximize performance of the hydroseed: 1. Stabilize slopes near Lake Washington. 2. Construct perimeter berm. 3. Install culvert. 4. Spread mulch and organic soils. 5. Rip compacted areas. 6. Construct shallow interceptor swales. 7. Conduct germination test. 8. Hydroseed. Monitoring Program The following monitoring program is recommended to ensure BMPs are functioning properly, to determine if additional BMPs are required, and to limit the amount of stormwater entering Quendall Pond and running onto the site from offsite sources. Construction Monitoring During construction, conduct site inspection at least once per week and within 24 hours of a heavy rainfall event. Site inspections shall include: • Visual monitoring of each constructed BMP. • Visual monitoring of the amount of stormwater entering Quendall Pond. • Visual monitoring of storrnwater run-on from off-site sources. • Visual and turbidity monitoring of the following site discharge locations: 1) south property line ditch, 2) north property line ditch, 3) overflow from Quendall Pond. pH monitoring is not required as this project does not involve concrete work or engineered soils. If BMPs are not functioning, or are damaged by erosion, repair, replace, or add additional BMPs as necessary to stabilize the site. If a significant amount of stormwater continues to enter Quendall Pond, construct additional swalc(s) as necessary to direct water to lesser contaminated areas. PROJECT NO. 020027-008 • OCTOBER 8, 2008 FINAL 9 ASPECT CONSULTING 10 If substantial stormwater run-on is observed, consider options for reducing or redirecting discharge from neighboring sites. Stormwater run-on is unlikely to occur because of the north and south property line ditches, and railroad grade. If turbidity monitoring results exceed 25 NTU, review the ESC plan and implement all BMPs within 10 days. If turbidity monitoring results exceed 250 NTU, cease earthwork and stabilize disturbed soils until storm passes. Review ESC plan and implement BMPs as soon as possible and within 10 days. Maintain records of all site inspections. Post-Construction Monitoring Following construction, reduce inspection frequency to once per month. Continue conducting inspections until vegetative cover has been established in the hydroseeded areas. Site inspections should include the same components as construction monitoring. Reporting Following completion of post-construction monitoring, prepare a memorandum to EPA documenting completion of the ESC project, site inspection results, and compliance with the substantive requirements of the applicable regulations. FINAL PROJECT NO. 020027-008 • OCTOBER 8, 2008 - • --- • ASPECT CONSULTING Limitations Work for this project was performed and this report prepared in accordance with generally accepted professional practices for the nature and conditions of work completed in the same or similar localities, at the time the work was performed. It is intended for the exclusive use of Quendall Terminals Group for specific application to the referenced property. This report does not represent a legal opinion. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. PROJECT NO. 020027-008 • OCTOBER 8, 2008 FINAL 11 - Legend Current shoreline • Existing structures ----Estimated exten t of free product -----Property line Surface Water Features and Stormwater Control Structures -Trees -V egetated area ~i~.c:' Form er log storage area For mer loading and eq ui pment area 0 Dete ntion pond c::c:::c:, Stormwater drainage d itch wi th silt fence a nd/or rock c heck dams (approximate locatio n) lE lE lE Si lt fence and sedi ment/d ebris tra p (approxi mate loca tion) -···-•-Ditch flow directi o n ... Overl and fl ow directi o n No tes : Contour interval is 1 foot, NAVD 88. Contour e levati ons adjusted from original s urvey in NGVD 29 by adding 3.6 f eet. 1 0 200 Feet 400 Lake Washington , , / ,, , , / Quendall Pond T -Dock Remnant ~ South Detention Pond Conner Homes (Former Barbee Mill) \j \) \ 0 \_/ ,;; Company } (Former .J ~ ;1 II I ( '· /; -· J -~ ~ "C ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ M 0 ~ 0 ~ 1ii C .§ ~ 1ii "C C Ql ::, a r I ~ Current Site Features and ""',,Aarch:2000 PROJECT NO. ~ Stormwater Drainage ~-~R/EJM 020021 ~ Quendall T erminals --~ EJM FIGURE No. ~ 1 1 Renton , Washington ~-0 ~ • 1 9. a Aspect consulting W-DEPTH PERSPEC77VE www.aspectconsulting.com Legend Cur ren t sho reline -Existing st ructures ----Estimated exten t of free product -----Pro perty line Surface Water Features and Stormwater Control Structures -T rees -Vegetated area -A rea fo r soil roughen ing/rippin g R'-Q--0'(\?j A rea for mulchin g ~ Area for hydroseeding ~ 8 " HOP E Culv ert Location of p e rim eter berm 0 Detention pond :c:c:c:> IE )( )( -···-~- ~ Notes: Sto rm wa te r drai nage d itch wi th si lt fence and/or rock check d ams (approximate location) Si lt fe nce and sedimenUdebris trap (approximate locati o n) Ditch flow di rection Overl and fl ow direction Instal l Jute Mesh on D isturb ed Shorel ine Slopes (typ) Lake Wa shington , , / , , , / Quendall Pond , T-Dock Remnant South Detention Pond Con tou r interval is 1 foot, NAVO 88. Contour eleva ti ons adju sted from original survey in NGVD 29 by addi ng 3.6 f eet. Mai ntain Road Network a s Shown Conner Homes (Former Barbee Mill) t t 0 200 400 Feet \J \) I 0 \__/ ;; I company ) !! // t!)1 I I \ ii ~ / ~v,Jas'Oi~.....-~ _.,,e-7 ~ ::;,t:~\ ~ \\ " '/ If, I I ~ r-:. N ~ 1[ ~ ~ C") 9 co a a ~ ni C: -~ ~ ni "C C: Q) ::, a I .. Aspeclconsulting Erosion and Sediment Control Plan ····"·-PRO,mNO. ij IN-DEPTH PERSPEc;nvE -~•w 020027 2 OGR/EJM ro www.as pactconsulting.com Qu e ndall Term i nals Renton, Washington "C ... -.,,. FIGURE NO. ~ EJM 2 ::, a ""' a 'i/transpOGROUf:J Draft Transportation Impact Analysis QUENDALL TERMINALS City of Renton Planning Division NOV , 8 1119 November 2009 WHAT TRANSPORTATION CAN BE. Transportation Impact Analysis QUENDALL TERMINALS Prepared for: CenturyPacific, L.P. November 2009 Prepared by: 'i/transpOGROUP 11730 118th Avenue NE. Suite 600 Kirkland. WA 98034-7120 Phone: 425-821-3665 Fax: 425-825-8434 www.transpogroup.com 09041.00 © 2009 Transpo Group Transportation Impact Analysis Quendall Terminals November 2009 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................. 1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 3 Project Description ................................................................................................................. 3 Study Scope ........................................................................................................................... 3 EXISTING AND BASELINE CONDITIONS ..................................................................................... 6 Roadway Network .................................................................................................................. 6 T raffle Volumes ...................................................................................................................... 7 Peak Hour Traffic Operations ................................................................................................ 7 Traffic Safety ........................................................................................................................ 11 Non-Motorized Facilities ...................................................................................................... 11 Transit .................................................................................................................................. 11 PROJECT IMPACTS ..................................................................................................................... 12 Trip Generation .................................................................................................................... 12 Trip Distribution and Assignment ......................................................................................... 13 Traffic Volume Impact .......................................................................................................... 13 Traffic Operations Impact .................................................................................................... 13 Traffic Safety ........................................................................................................................ 17 Non-Motorized Facilities ...................................................................................................... 18 Transit .................................................................................................................................. 18 Parking ................................................................................................................................. 18 IDENTIFIED IMPROVEMENTS AND PROJECT MITIGATION MEASURES ............................... 20 Planned Transportation Improvements ............................................................................... 20 Travel Demand Reduction: Transportation Management Plan ........................................... 21 Transportation Mitigation Fees ............................................................................................ 22 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................................... 23 Figure 1. Figure 2. Figure 3. Figure 4. Figure 5. Figure 6. Figure 7. Table 1. Table 2. Table 3. Table 4. Table 5. Table 6. Table 7. Figures Site Vicinity .......................................................................................................... 4 Proposed Site Plan .............................................................................................. 5 2009 Existing Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ........................................................... 9 2015 Baseline Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ....................................................... 10 Project Traffic Distribution ................................................................................. 14 Project Trip Assignment .................................................................................... 15 2015 With-Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes .................................................. 16 Tables Intersection Peak Hour LOS -Existing and Future Baseline ............................. 8 Intersection Crash Summary -2002 to 2006 .................................................... 11 Project Trip Generation ..................................................................................... 12 2015 Traffic Volume Impacts at Study Intersections ......................................... 13 Intersection Peak Hour LOS-With Project.. .................................................... 17 Parking Code Requirements ............................................................................. 18 With Project Intersection LOS Summary ........................................................... 21 APPENDIX A: LOS Definitions APPENDIX B: LOS Worksheets APPENDIX C: Trip Generation Worksheets APPENDIX D: Parking Demand Worksheets APPENDIX E: WSDOT Interchange Improvements 'jfi:ranspOGROUP Transportation Impact Analysis Quendall Terminals Executive Summary November 2009 This section provides an executive summary of the Transportation Impact Study through a set of frequently asked questions (FAQs). Where is the project located? The project site is located just north of Lake Washington Boulevard and west of Ripley Lane, adjacent to Lake Washington, in Renton, Washington. What is the project land use and trip generation? The proposed project includes the development of 21,600 square feet of retail, 245,000 square feet of office, 800 apartments, and a 9,000 square foot restaurant. Off-site trip generation for the proposed project is approximately 8,570 daily trips, 905 PM peak hour trips, and 837 AM peak hour trips. What are the existing and future without-project conditions in the study area? With the exceptions of the 1-405 NB and SB ramp intersections with NE 44th Street during the AM peak hour; all study intersections would meet City LOS standards under existing conditions. In 2015, without the proposed project, the 1-405 NB and SB ramp intersections with NE 44th Street are forecast to operate at LOS E or F during both the weekday AM and PM peak hours. The 2015 without project analysis assumes the addition of traffic generated by the Hawks Landing and Barbee Mill/Conner Homes projects, and that no improvements have been made to the street system. How would the site access operate? Both site access driveways would operate at LOS B during both the AM and PM peak hours, without improvements. Would the parking supply be adequate? Based on the parking demand analysis conducted for the proposed project and a review of the City's parking code, the proposed supply of 2,194 parking stalls is sufficient to meet City code requirements and would exceed anticipated peak parking demand by approximately 40 percent. Would the project have any transportation impacts? The project would impact intersection operations at the 1-405 NB and SB ramp intersections with NE 44th Street and the Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Blvd intersection. No significant impacts to safety, transit, or non-motorized impacts are anticipated. 'iftranspOGROUP Transportation Impact Analysis Quendall Terminals November 2009 What transportation improvements and project mitigation measures are identified? Both the WSDOT identified improvements and additional project mitigation measures would be necessary for the study intersection to operate at acceptable levels of service. These include the following: • WSDOT has identified improvements to the NE 44th Street interchange as part of the planned WSDOT 1-405 Renton to Bellevue improvement project. The improvements include the relocation and signalization of both ramp intersections, and the construction of additional through lanes and tum lanes • In addition to the WSDOT improvements, a southbound left-turn lane, a dedicated westbound right-turn lane, and an eastbound left-turn lane would be needed at the Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Blvd intersection • A northbound left-turn lane would be needed at the Main Project Access/Barbee Mills/Conner Homes Access intersection with Lake Washington Blvd, and • A westbound left-turn lane would be needed at the Hawks Landing Access/Lake Washington Blvd intersection. A Transportation Management Program (TMP) could be implemented to reduce Single Occupant Vehicle (SOV) travel to/from the site. In addition, the developer could be required to pay a transportation development fee of $75 per daily vehicle trip, which is approximately $642,750 based on the project's estimated off- site daily trip generation. A fee credit may be available for the construction of the off-site improvements identified above. ··-------------- 'iftranspOGROUP 2 Transportation Impact Analysis Quendall Terminals November 2009 Introduction The purpose of this transportation impact analysis (TIA) is to identify potential traffic-related impacts associated with the proposed Quendall Terminals development. As necessary, mitigation measures are identified that would offset or reduce significant impacts of the project. This report follows the TIA guidelines provided by the City of Renton. Project Description The proposed Quendall Terminals project would construct a new mixed use project in the City of Renton. The project site is located to the west of Lake Washington Boulevard, in the vicinity of the NE 44th Street interchange with 1-405. Figure 1 illustrates the project site and the surrounding vicinity. The project is proposed to include approximately 800 apartments, 21,600 square feet of retail space, 245,000 square feet of office space, and 9,000 square feet for a restaurant. In addition, on-site parking for approximately 2,194 vehicles is proposed to be provided. The project is anticipated to be completed by 2015. The proposed site plan is illustrated in Figure 2. As shown, vehicular access is proposed to be provided via two driveways. The northern access is proposed to connect to Ripley Lane (Seahawks Way) to the north of NE 44th Street. The southern access would connect directly to Lake Washington Boulevard, at the location of the existing Barbee Mills/Conner Homes access. Study Scope The scope of the analysis was identified based on the analyses conducted for several recent development projects in the vicinity of the project site, including Barbee Mills, Hawks Landing, and the Seahawks Headquarters. A total of four off-site intersections were identified: • 1-405 NB Ramps/NE 44th Street • 1-405 SB Ramps/NE 44th Street • Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Blvd • N 36th StreeVLake Washington Blvd The study intersections are also shown on Figure 3. The study focuses on the weekday AM and PM peak hours. The peak hours were chosen for review and analysis to document traffic conditions during the hours of highest traffic volumes and congestion in the site vicinity. The analysis begins by describing conditions in the vicinity of the project site, including the roadway network, existing and future peak hour traffic volumes, traffic operations, traffic safety, non-motorized facilities, and transit service. Future with-project conditions are evaluated by adding site-generated traffic to future without- project volumes. The project is expected to be complete in the year 2015. Potential improvement needs and mitigation measures are identified, where necessary, to offset project impacts. 'j{transpOGROUP 3 Site Vicinity Quenda/1 Terminal Redevelopment M:\09\09041 Quendall Tenninal Redevelopment\Graphic:s\09041_graphic01 <Fig 1 > carolet 10/13/09 15:33 \ ,_,_ .•. ,;;c,,_,,, -7-'.'\'\ ,. t • N NOTTO SCALE j >-,,> '' SE 76:"'---l ST ;'. ;1· l;J. ~; ~1 ' I I I FIGURE 'j(transpOGROUP 1 .. I D··· "' r I •• I II ,._._._, 'J\ " ~ -~ .. UJ 0:: ::, (!) u. C CCI a.. Q) -·-(I) "C Q) en 0 a. 0 .... a.. (l_ a a: ('} g_ (/) C ~ I~ I M ~ m "' "' ~ ~ i ~ /l V ~ ~ ~ I !: ~ ,, <I) ~ E ~ f \g C ~ [ 0 i ,; ~ u 0:: &! iii I .£; ~ ~ a;; ~ ,! m ~ ~ 0 I c:: <I) ::, ~ 0 " Transportation Impact Analysis Quendall Tem,inals November 2009 Existing and Baseline Conditions This section describes both existing conditions and future baseline conditions within the identified study area. Study area characteristics are provided for the roadway network, planned improvements, existing and forecasted baseline volumes, traffic operations, traffic safety, and transit and non- motorized facilities. Roadway Network The existing roadway network is discussed along with planned improvements that would likely be installed before the proposed project horizon year, if any. In general, the roadway descriptions given apply to the roadways within the study area of the proposed project. Existing Inventory The following roadways comprise the primary roadway system in the project site vicinity. Furthermore, these roadways would accommodate a majority of the project-generated traffic and, in doing so, would experience the greatest project impacts. The following paragraphs describe the general characteristics of these roadways. 1-405 is a north-south interstate freeway facility providing regional access to the area. In the project vicinity, 1-405 has a total of six lanes (two general purpose lanes and one HOV lane in each direction). The northbound and southbound on-ramps from NE 44th Street have general purpose lanes with ramp-metering and HOV bypass lanes. Lake Washington Boulevard is classified as a collector arterial within the study area. Lake Washington Boulevard extends south to its terminus at Park Drive. To the Lake Washington Blvd becomes NE 44th Street as the roadway crosses over 1-405. At the intersection of the 1-405 NB Ramps, Lake Washington Boulevard continues north as a minor arterial into the City of Newcastle. The roadway has one travel lane in each direction, with a two-way center left-turn lane at several locations, and has signed bike facilities along both sides. The posted speed limit on Lake Washington Boulevard is 25 mph. NE 44th Street is a collector arterial connecting Lake Washington Boulevard on the west with Lincoln Avenue NE to the east, with a full interchange provided at 1-405. To the west of 1-405, NE 44th Street has a three lane section with left-turn lanes provided at the intersections with Ripley Lane and the NB and SB ramp intersections. To the east of 1-405, NE 44th Street has a five-lane section with a two- way center left-turn lane. Sidewalks are provided along both sides of NE 44th Street to the east of 1- 405.The posted speed limit on NE 44th Street is 25 mph. Ripley Lane is a two-lane local access road beginning just west of the BNSF railroad tracks, crossing the tracks, and connecting to Hazelwood Lane, which in turn connects to Lake Washington Blvd west of the 1-405 interchange at NE 44th Street. South of that connection, a second short segment of Ripley lane extends from Lake Washington Boulevard eastward. Planned Improvements The City of Renton 2010-2015 Transportation Improvement Program was reviewed to identify improvement projects within the study area which would add capacity to the street system. Based on this review, no roadway or intersection improvement projects were assumed for baseline conditions. Planned roadway improvements outside the study area are not anticipated to shift traffic within the study area significantly so no adjustments were made for these improvements. 'iftranspOGROUP 6 Transportation lmpact Analysis Quendall Terminals November 2009 WSDOT has identified improvements to 1-405 and the NE 44th Street interchange as part of the WSDOT Renton to Bellevue Project (SR 169 to 1-90). In the Renton area two additional general purpose lanes in each direction are planned to be added to the mainline. The 1-405/NE 44th Street interchange will be completely rebuilt into a tight-diamond configuration. Both the NB and SB ramp intersections are proposed to be relocated, additional through and turn-lanes provided, and signals installed at both intersections. In addition, the Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Blvd intersection would also be signalized and additional lanes constructed. A figure showing the proposed improvements is included in Appendix E. The improvements are not expected to be constructed until 2015 at the earliest, so have not been included in the primary analysis presented in this report. An analysis including the identified improvements has been included in a subsequent section. Traffic Volumes The existing roadway volumes are presented along with volume forecasts for the study horizon years. Existing AM and PM Peak hour volumes are based on recent traffic counts conducted during 2009. Existing traffic volumes are shown in Figure 3. Traffic volumes for 2015 baseline conditions are comprised of existing traffic, background traffic grow1h, and traffic generated from planned "pipeline" developments within the study area. A grow1h rate of 2.0 percent per year is applied to the existing peak-hour volumes to reflect general background traffic grow1h, over and above the specific traffic associated with the identified development projects. Traffic associated with the following pipeline projects was included: • Hawks Landing (173 room hotel) • Barbee Mill/Conner Homes (112 residential units) This list of potential developments represents projects that have an approved project, but may not be constructed within the time frame being evaluated in this analysis. Although construction of the Barbee Mill project has been started, the majority of the homes have not yet been constructed or occupied. Therefore, to provide a conservative analysis, the entire project was assumed as a pipeline project. The resulting 2015 baseline traffic volumes are shown in Figure 4. Peak Hour Traffic Operations A level of service (LOS) analysis was conducted at study intersections for the weekday AM and PM peak hours. The intersections were analyzed using Synchro 7.0. This software program is based on methodologies presented in the Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board, 2000 Edition). LOS values range from LOS A, indicating good operating conditions with little or no delay, to LOS F, indicating extreme congestion and long vehicle delays. LOS is determined from the average delay per vehicle and is reported for the intersection as a whole for all-way stop-controlled and signalized intersections. For two-way stop-controlled, it is reported in terms of average delay for the worst movement. A more detailed explanation of LOS criteria is provided in Appendix A. Table 1 summarizes the existing and baseline LOS for the study intersections. The LOS worksheets are included in Appendix B. As shown in Table 1, all study intersections currently operate at LOS C or better during the PM peak hour. During the AM peak hour, two of the intersections operate below the City's LOS D standard - the 1-405 NB and SB ramp intersections with Lake Washington Blvd, which currently operate at LOS E and F respectively. These intersections also operate below State LOS standards for highways of statewide significance in urban areas (LOS D). The poor operations at these intersections can be attributed to the combination of high volumes of traffic turning left onto the ramps during the AM peak hour and the use of two-way stop-control at the ramp intersections. 'j(transpoGROUP 7 Transportation Impact Analysis Quendall Terminals November 2009 By 2015, with the addition of traffic generated by the identified pipeline projects, and growth in background traffic volumes, the NB ramp intersection would degrade from LOS E to F during the AM peak hour, and from LOS C to F during the PM peak hour. The SB ramp intersection would continue to operate at LOS F during the AM peak hour, but would degrade from LOS C to E during the PM peak hour. The remaining study intersections would continue to operate at LOS C or better. Table 1. Intersection Peak Hour LOS -Existing and Future Baseline 2009 Existing 2015 Baseline Intersection LOS1 Delay' WM' LOS Delay WM AM Peak Hour 1-405 NB Ramps/NE 44th Street E 48.2 -• F 82.7 -• 1-405 SB Ramps/NE 44th Street F ;:,200 SB F ;:.200 SB Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Blvd C 16.1 SB C 17.7 SB Hawks Landing Access/Lake Washington Blvd N/A5 C 15.3 WB Barbee Mills Access/Lake Washington Blvd N/A!J B 14.6 EB N 36th Street/Lake Washington Blvd C 20.4 -• C 22.1 -• PM Peak Hour 1-405 NB Ramps/NE 44th Street C 20.5 _, F 52.8 -• 1-405 SB Ramps/NE 44th Street C 22.4 SB E 46.2 SB Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Blvd B 12.9 SB C 15.3 SB Hawks Landing Access/Lake Washington Blvd N/A5 A 9.8 WB Barbee Mills Access/Lake Washington Blvd N/A5 B 12.8 EB N 36th Street/Lake Washington Blvd B 11.5 -• B 14.0 • - 1. Level of service, based on 2000 Highway Capacity Manual methodology. 2. Average delay in seconds per vehicle. 3. Worst movement reported for two•way stop-controlled intersections. 4. Not reported for all.way stop-controlled intersections. 5. Intersection does not currently exist, or the development served by the access is only partially constructed. 'iftranspOGROUP 8 ,=--·--------------------~ I '1' 1-405 NB RAMPS r.:;'\ 1-405 SB RAMPS r;;\ RIPLEY LN 1 ~ lAKE WASHINGTON BLVD \:..) LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD \V LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD (25) (5) 25 5 (345)33() 150130) (115)2501130(55) _, '-_, '- (280)55 } \.. 65 (140) (110) 165 --150 (165) (350) 6-0 ") ( 751165) -, tr-110) 15 145 (90) • N NOTTO SCALE 23() 195) 1665) 150- (5)25") -275 (135) (215 (390) (5) 15 _, (15)5} 1635)125- (0)5) 45 (30) '- \..35(65) -485(195) (5(0) r-s 2009 Existing Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 1 1 ' r,i'\ LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD 11..::_J N 36TH ST ' (25) 120 (185) '°' I '° 1,1 _, '- (435)80 J I.._ s 1s1 15)5--5(5) 15)5) (5(5) l~1 35 1170) SE 76TH ST LEGEND X e PM PEAK HOUR (X) • AM PEAK HOUR Quenda/1 Terminal Redevelopment M:\09\09041 Quendall Terminal Redevelopment\Graphics\09041_graphic01 <Fig 3> carolet 10/15109 09:31 'iftranspOGROUP FIGURE 3 CD 1-405 NB RAMPS LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD (30) 30 (395) 385 j 55 (35) _, '- (335) 65 J \. 75 (160) (130)200--175(190) (420) 65 I ( 65 (165) -, t ,-(40)45 165(100) • N NOTTO SCALE 260 (105) [0 1-405 SB RAMPS LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD (5) 5 (150) 320 I "5 (60) _, '- (605)205--365(190) (25) 55 I (240 (440) ,/ ,, //. I I / ~ :'J36THST I r,;-, LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD \.V HAWKS LANDING ACCESS (230) 575 I ~(55) \.40(30) (5(5) I ri~ 155 r401 (';;\ LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD \.:!.) BARBEE MILLS ACCESS (280) 620 (51J j (35)15} (5)5") 1~! 190 (770) 0RIPLEYLN LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD (10)20 _, (20) 10} (765) 195- 1015 1 .i 50 (35) '- \. 40 (75) -630 (2BO) (5(0) ,- 10 (5) w z ;JJ > c( (fJ Ll.l z 0 .. /J 2015 Baseline Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 0 LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD N 36TH ST (30) 135 (215) 465 , 25 (0) _, '- (495) 100} \. 5 (5) (5)5--5(5) (5)51 (5(5) !~1 40 (190) \ LEGEND X • PM PEAK HOUR (X) • AM PEAK HOUR ' l FIGURE 'j(transpOGROUP 4 Quenda/1 Terminal Redavalopmant M:\09\09041 Quendall Tenninal Redevelopment\Graphics\09041_graphic01 <Fig 4> carolet 10115/09 09:32 Transportation Impact Analysis Quendall Terminals November 2009 Traffic Safety The study intersections were reviewed for potential traffic safety inadequacies. The most recent complete five-year accident history was provided by the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) and is summarized in the Table 2. Table 2. Intersection Crash Summary -2002 to 2006 Number of Crashes Annual Rate per Intersection Total MEV1 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Rate 1-405 NB Ramps/NE 44th Street 4 3 4 0 12 2.4 0.36 1-405 SB Ramps/NE 44th Street 2 0 3 2 8 1.6 0.32 Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Blvd 2 3 3 10 2.0 0.58 N 36th Street/Lake Washington Blvd 0 0 0 2 3 0.6 0.19 1. Accident rate per Million Entering Vehicles. To account for varying levels of traffic volumes between intersections, the rate of accidents per million entering vehicles (MEV) is calculated to allow a collision rates to be compared. Generally, an accident rate greater than 1.0 to 1.5 accidents per MEV is considered higher than normal. Based on this threshold, all of the study intersections have a lower than normal collision rates. Therefore, none of the study intersections have been identified for further safety review. Non-Motorized Facilities A mixed-use trail, the Lake Washington Trail, runs adjacent to the project site. This trail begins in Bellevue to the north, travels along Lake Washington Boulevard and terminates in Renton to the south. In the vicinity of the project site the "trail" uses a combination of surface street and road shoulders. In addition to the trail, bike lanes exist along both sides of Lake Washington Boulevard in the project vicinity. Within the study area, sidewalks are only provided along NE 44th Street to the east of 1-405. However, shoulders are provided along most streets. Transit The project site is not currently served by transit. The closest transit stops are located approximately one mile from the project site at the 116th Avenue SE/SE 76th Street intersection in Newcastle. Service at this intersection is provided by King County Metro Route 219, which provides local service weekday service in the Newcastle and Factoria, and provides connections to regional transit service via the Newport Hills Park and Ride, located at the 112th Avenue SE/1-405 interchange approximately two miles to the north. --------------------------- 1i/transpOGROUP 11 Transportation Impact Analysis Quendall Terminals November 2009 Project Impacts This section of the analysis documents project-generated impacts on the surrounding roadway network and at the identified study intersections. First, peak hour and daily traffic project traffic volumes are estimated, distributed, and assigned to adjacent roadways and intersection within the study area. Next, 2015 volumes are projected and potential impacts to traffic volumes, traffic operations, safety, non-motorized facilities, and transit are identified. Trip Generation Trip generation for the proposed development is summarized in Table 3. Estimates of project- generated vehicle trips were calculated using trip rates for daily and peak hour trips for the proposed land uses, as published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (!TE) Trip Generation (81 " Edition, 2008). Adjustments to the trip generation were made to account for pass-by trips associated with the shopping center and restaurant uses, and to account for trips which would connect between the different uses internally to the site. As shown in Table 3, the proposed project is anticipated to generate 905 PM peak hour trips (446 inbound trips and 381 outbound trips), 837 AM peak hour trips (410 inbound trips and 495 outbound trips) and approximately 8,570 daily trips. During the AM peak hour, the majority of project trips are in the inbound direction due to the proposed office uses. During the PM peak hour, the majority of project trips are in the outbound direction, again due to the proposed office uses. The detailed trip generation calculations are included in Appendix C. Table 3. Project Trip Generation Land Use Size 1 AM Peak Hour Apartments (#220) Shopping Center (#820) General Office Building (#710) Restaurant (#932) Total PM Peak Hour Apartments (#220) Shopping Center (#820) General Office Building (#710) Restaurant (#932) Total Daily Apartments (#220) Shopping Center (#820) General Office Building (#710) Restaurant (#932) Total 1. DU -Dwelling Units, sf = square feet 'j{i:ranspOGROUP 800 DU 21,600 sf 245,000 sf 9.000 sf 800DU 21.600 sf 245.000 sf 9.000 sf 800 DU 21.600 sf 245.000 sf 9.000 sf Off-Site Project Trips In Out Total 80 318 398 7 4 11 332 45 377 27 24 51 446 391 837 307 165 472 18 18 36 61 295 356 24 17 41 410 495 905 2.538 2.538 5,076 206 206 412 1.311 1.311 2.622 230 230 460 4,285 4,285 8,570 12 Transportation Impact Analysis Quendall Terminals November 2009 Trip Distribution and Assignment The trip distribution for the proposed project is consistent with previous projects in the vicinity of the project site, and was originally developed from the 1-405/NE 44th Street Interchange Project Access Point Decision Report, February 2001. The Decision Report distributions were based on !he Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) planning model. The trip distribution is shown in Figure 5. The project trip distributions are as follows: • 30% of the project trips would access the site from 1-405 to/from the north; • 3% of the project trips would access the site from Lake Washington Boulevard to/from the north, on the east side of 1-405; • 4% of the project trips would access the site from Lincoln Avenue NE to/from the south, on the east side of 1-405; • 48% of the project trips would access the site from 1-405 to/from the south; and • 15% of the project trips would access the site from Lake Washington Boulevard to/from the south, west of 1-405. The resulting project trip assignments for the AM peak hour and PM peak hours are illustrated in Figure 6. Traffic Volume Impact Project traffic was added to future baseline AM peak hour and PM peak hour traffic volumes at the intersections of interest. The resulting 2015 with-project traffic volumes are illustrated in Figure 7. Table 4 summarizes the project impact of volumes at study intersections during the AM and PM peak hour. Table 4. 2015 Traffic Volume Impacts at Study Intersections AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour 2015 With Project 2015 With Project Intersection Project Traffic % Impact Project Traffic % Impact 1405 NB Ramps/NE 44th Street 2,515 390 15.5% 2,034 409 20.1% 1-405 SB Ramps/NE 44th Street 2,387 712 29.8% 2,095 770 36.8% Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Blvd 1,922 712 37.0% 1,735 770 44.4% Hawks Landing Access/Lake Washington Blvd 1,191 126 10.6% 965 135 14.0% Barbee Mills Access/Lake Washington Blvd 1,313 213 16.2% 1,095 230 21.0% N 36th Street/Lake Washington Blvd 1,078 118 10.9% 922 127 13.8% Ripley Lane/Project Access 808 668 82.7% 854 724 84.8% Barbee Mills Access/Project Access 306 256 83.7% 339 279 82.3% In 2015, ii is estimated that between approximately 11 % and 37% of total entering vehicles at off-site study intersection are attributable to project traffic during the AM peak hour. During the PM Peak hour between roughly 14 % and 45% of total entering vehicles at off-site study intersections can be attributed to project traffic. At the two site accesses, between 83% and 85% of total entering vehicles are attributable to project traffic, during both the AM and PM peak hours. ~----·-·-····-···-········-··--------·-·-····-····-···-·--·--· --- c;{transpoGROUP 13 N 36rH ST • Project Traffic Distribution Quenda/1 Terminal Redevelopment 4 • 11..; z. '.Ll > < '.fj ,u z CJ , \405) f. l l ·I ' 1 1 I j M:\09\09041 Quendal Tem,inal Redevelopment\Graphk:s\09041_graphic01 <F'tg 5> carol&! 10/15109 08:52 ' / \ '· ·-.,. ) • SE/6fHS! l wl 'J) '.Ll ;; I f-,o ~, I l ~ .. N NOTTO SCALE 0 a PERCENTTRIPDISTIIBUTION FIGURE 'iftranspOGROUP 5 ----------------------· f7'\ 1-405 NB RAMPS f:;'\ 1-405 SB RAMPS r,;\ RIPLEY LN \...!J LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD \::.) LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD \.::.) LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD (13) 12 _., (134) 123 _., 380 (302) '- f;\ LAKE WASHINGTON Bl VD ~N36THST (16) 19 (12)15} 1.. 344 (366) (39)3 j (45)41} (16)20--16(18) (117) 149) -, (214) 197 .. N NOTTOSCAI.E 9y1 / ® LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD HAWKS LANDING ACCESS (59) 73 I I 62 (67) (145)184- (188) 238) 1\J 36TH ST -225(245} © LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD BARBEE MILLS ACCESS (-32) -37 (4515 I (42) 64} (91)110) (78)~ t -12 (-11) Project Trip Assignment Quenda/1 Terminal Redevelopment (31)42--4(13) j I j .d ' 0RIPLEYLN QUENOALL ACCESS (3021380 1 -, (366) 344 M:\09\09041 Quendall Terminal Redevelopment\Graphics\09041__graphic01 <Fig 6> carolet 10/15/09 09:30 \ ; j J I ! \ I ; i \ \ t 17 (18) LEGEND X • PM PEAK HOUR (X) • AM PEAK HOUR ® PROJECT ACCESS BARBEE MILLS ACCESS 164(133) '-I._ 115(123) 'j(transpoGROUP FIGURE 6 CD 1-405 NB RAMPS LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD {30) 30 -' '- {408) ,,, I 55 {35) {347) 60} I._ 75 {160) {146)220--191 {208) {537) 234 I ( 85 {185) -..Ir {254) 242 165 {100) • N NOTTO SCALE 260 {105) ' / j 0 LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD HAWKS LANDING ACCESS {289) 648 I ;!155) I._ 40 (30) (5(5) I ri~ 217 {607) • 0 1-405 SB RAMPS LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD {5) 5 {284) 4431145 {60) -' '- {950)389--560{435) {213)283 I ( 240{440) N 36TH ST © LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD BARBEE MILLS ACCESS {248) 583 1so15 j (77)69} {96)115) {83)~ t 178 (759) G)RIPLEYLN LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD 0 LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD N 36TH ST {46) 154 {10)20 430 {337) {254) 515125 {0) -' '--' '- {20) 10} I._ 384 {441) {540)141 J \..5{51 {816)237--634(293) (5)5--5(5) {0)5) (5{0) {5)5) (5{5) r I (i;I 10{5) 57 {208) < 'I /j/'_ ·~ w 1 z w > <( Cf) w z 0 -, LEGEND X • PM PEAK HOUR L {X) • AM PEAK HOUR 0RIPLEYLN QUENDALL ACCESS © PROJECT ACCESS BARBEE MILLS ACCESS {40) (5) 75 5 1~1 (5)5} I (!4 (133) I._ 115 {123) (302)360 I (366)~ t (35(5) t (.(35) 45 5 (90) (5) 2015 With-Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Quenda/1 Terminal Redevelopment M:\09\09041 Quendall Terminal Redevelopment\Graphics\09041_graphic01 <Fig 7> carolet 10/15/09 09:33 'iftranspOGROUP FIGURE 7 Transportation Impact Analysis Quendall Terminals November 2009 Traffic Operations Impact Traffic operations were evaluated with the addition of project traffic. Table 5 summarizes the LOS results for with project conditions in 2015. For comparison purposes, 2015 baseline operations are also included. Table 5. Intersection Peak Hour LOS -With Project 2015 Baseline 2015 With Project Intersection LOS 1 Delay' WM' LOS Delay WM AM Peak Hour 1-405 NB Ramps/NE 44th Street F 82.7 -' F 181.3 -' 1-405 SB Ramps/NE 44th Street F >200 SB F >200 SB Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Blvd C 17.7 SB F >200 SB Hawks Landing Access/Lake Washington Blvd C 15.3 WB C 16.5 WB Barbee Mills Access/Lake Washington Blvd B 14.6 EB C 18.0 EB N 36th Street/Lake Washington Blvd C 22.1 -' D 34.6 -' Ripley Lane/Project Access N/A5 B 10.7 EB Barbee Mills Access/Project Access N/A5 B 10.4 SB PM Peak Hour 1-405 NB Ramps/NE 44th Street F 52.8 _, F 158.7 _, 1-405 SB Ramps/NE 44th Street E 46.2 SB F >200 SB Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Blvd C 15.3 SB F >200 SB Hawks Landing Access/Lake Washington Blvd A 9.8 WB B 10.2 WB Barbee Mills Access/Lake Washington Blvd B 12.8 EB C 17.7 EB N 36th Street/Lake Washington Blvd B 14.0 _, C 18.9 _, Ripley Lane/Project Access N/A5 B 11.5 EB Barbee Mills Access/Project Access N/A5 B 10.9 SB 1. level of service, based on 2000 Highway Capacity Manual methodology. 2. Average delay in seconds per vehicle. 3. Worst movement reported for two-way stop-controlled intersections. 4. Not reported for all-way stop-controlled intersections. 5. Sile access intersection: does not exist without the proposed project. As shown in Table 5, the addition of project traffic would increase delays at each of the identified study intersections. The NE 44th StreeUl-405 NB ramp intersection would continue to operate at LOS F during both the AM and PM peak hours. The NE 44th StreeUl-405 SB ramp intersection would continue to operate at LOS F during the AM peak hour, but would degrade from LOS E to F during the PM peak hour. In addition, during the AM peak hour, the Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Blvd intersection would degrade from LOS C to F. The remaining study intersections would continue to operate at LOS D or better. Traffic Safety Traffic generated by the proposed project would likely result in a proportionate increase in the probability of traffic accidents at off-site study intersections. The increases in traffic volumes as a result of the proposed project, and the poor operations anticipated at the 1-405 ramps intersections with NE 44th Street and the Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Blvd intersections could create a safety hazard or significantly increase the number of reported accidents at these locations. The WSDOT improvements described above would improve intersection operations, and would likely improve safety at these intersections. 1//transpOGROUP 17 Transportation Impact Analysis Quendall Terminals November 2009 Non-Motorized Facilities Existing non-motorized facilities within the study area are anticipated to be able to accommodate the increase in pedestrian and bicycle activity attributable to the proposed project. Transit The proposed project is not anticipated to have impacts to transit Parking The proposed project would supply approximately 2,194 on-site parking stalls. The following presents an evaluation of the proposed supply relative to City of Renton code requirements, and anticipated peak parking demand. Code Requirements Table 6 summarizes the parking demand requirements for the proposed project based on the proposed mix of land uses and City of Renton Municipal Code parking requirements. Consistent with the code, the parking requirement for the office use was based on the net square-footage (trip generation was based on the gross square-footage of 245,000 sf) Table 6. Parking Code Requirements Land Use Size 1 Code Rate Required Parking Residential 800 DU 1.75 stalls/DU 1,400 Retail 21,600 sf 4.0 stalls/1,000 sf 87 Office 210,000 sf 3.0 stalls/1,000 sf 630 Restaurant 9 ooo sf 4.Q §:tsills/1 000 sf 36 Total 2,153 DU = Dwelling Units, sf = square feet 1. 2. Parking code requirements are based on net square-footage, not gross square-footage as used for trip generation calculations As shown in Table 6, the parking code requirement for the overall project is 2,153 parking stalls. Therefore, the proposed parking supply of 2, 194 stalls is sufficient to meet parking code requirements. Demand Analysis Parking demand for the proposed project was estimated based on the rates from ITE's Parking Generation, :1" Edition (2004). The same ITE land uses that were used to calculate trip generation were also used for the parking demand analysis (#220 -Apartment, #820 -Shopping Center, #710 - General Office Building, and #932 -High-Turnover Sit-Down Restaurant). The 85'" percentile rates were used tin the parking demand calculations. Parking demand for each of the proposed land uses peaks at different times throughout the day. For example, the peak parking demand occurs during the overnight hours, while the peak parking demand for the other uses occurs during the daytime. Hourly parking distribution rates, published in Shared Parking (Urban Land Institute [ULI]. 1983), were used to determine the peak demand period for the site as a whole, taking into account each individual land use's parking demand. The detailed calculations are included in Appendix D. The peak parking demand on site will be approximately 1/{transpoGROUP 18 Transportation Impact Analysis Quendall Terminals November 2009 1,564 vehicles, occurring tletween 8:00 am and 9:00 am. The proposed parking supply, based on the City code requirement, would exceed the estimated peak parking demand by approximately 40 percent. 'iftranspOGROUP 19 Transportation Impact Analysis Quendall Terminals November 2009 Identified Improvements and Project Mitigation Measures The following section presents an analysis of with project operations with the improvements identified as part of the WSDOT Renton to Bellevue project, and identifies potential mitigation measures which could offset the project impacts identified above. Planned Transportation Improvements The WSDOT Renton to Bellevue Project (SR 169 to 1-90) has identified significant improvements for 1-405, as well as the surface streets along NE 44th Avenue. In the Renton area two additional general purpcse lanes in each direction are planned. The 1-405/NE 44th Street interchange will be completely rebuilt into a tight-diamond configuration. Both the NB and SB ramp intersections are proposed to be relocated, additional through and turn-lanes provided, and signals installed at both intersections. In addition, the Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Blvd intersection would also be signalized and additional lanes constructed. A figure showing the proposed improvements is included in Appendix E. The improvements are not expected to be constructed until 2015 at the earliest, so were not included in the analysis of baseline and with project conditions presented above. As documented above, a number of study intersections will require improvements to mitigate project impacts. The improvements identified as part of the WSDOT Renton to Bellevue project were introduced to the analysis since they have already been identified as part of WSDOT's formal plan for the 1-405 corridor. Based on the results of this analysis, additional mitigation measures were then identified as required from either a LOS or queuing perspective. The additional improvements identified beyond the WSDOT improvements include: • A southbound left-tum lane, a dedicated westbound right-turn lane, and an eastbound left- turn lane at Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Boulevard, • A northbound left-turn lane at the Main Project Access/Barbee Mills Access/Lake Washington Boulevard intersection, and • A westbound left-turn lane at the Hawks Landing Access/Lake Washington Boulevard intersection. Table 7 below shows the LOS with these improvements, and compares it to the 2015 With Project scenario without improvements. 1/{transpoGPOUP 20 Transportation Impact Analysis Quendall Terminals November 2009 Table 7. With Project Intersection LOS Summary 2015 With Project 2015 With Mitigation V/C4 or Intersection LOS1 Delay' WM' LOS Delay WM AM Peak Hour B 15.9 0.59 1-405 NB Ramps/NE 44th Street F 181.3 -• 1-405 SB Ramps/NE 44th Street F >200 SB B 19.0 0.52 Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Blvd F >200 SB C 28.9 0.69 Hawks Landing Access/Lake Washington Blvd C 16.5 WB C 18.8 WBR Barbee Mills Access/Lake Washington Blvd C 18.0 EB C 17.6 EB N 36th Street/Lake Washington Blvd D 34.6 -· D 34.6 -' Ripley Lane/Project Access B 10.7 EB B 10.1 EB Barbee Mills Access/Project Access B 10.4 SB B 10.3 SB PM Peak Hour C 20.7 0.41 1-405 NB Ramps/NE 44th Street F 158.7 -• 1-405 SB Ramps/NE 44th Street F >200 SB C 22.2 0.48 Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Blvd F >200 SB C 20.4 0.55 Hawks Landing Access/Lake Washington Blvd B 10.2 WB B 10.4 WBL Barbee Mills Access/Lake Washington Blvd C 17.7 EB B 11.7 EB C 18.9 -' N 36th StreeVLake Washington Blvd C 18.9 -· Ripley Lane/Project Access B 11.5 EB B 11.5 EB Barbee Mills Access/Project Access B 10.9 SB B 10.9 SB 1. Level of service, based on 2000 Highway Capacity Manual methodology. 2. Average delay in seconds per vehicle. 3. Worst movement reported for wro-way stop-controlled intersections. 4. Volume-to-capacity ratio reported for signalized intersections. 5. Nol reported for all-way stop-controlled intersections. As shown in Table 7, with the inclusion of the WSDOT interchange improvements, and the additional mitigation measures identified above, all study intersection would operate at LOS D or better, meeting the City's LOS standard. Travel Demand Reduction: Transportation Management Plan Property management or project occupants of the site would develop a transportation management plan (TMP) for the site. The objective of the TMP would be to reduce Single Occupant Vehicle (SOV) travel to/from the site. The plan would encourage employees and residents to reduce SOV travel by using public transit, carpools, telecommuting, using alternate travel modes etc. Standard components of the plan could include the following: • Coordinating with local and regional transit agencies to provide transit service to serve the project site • Making transit route information and schedules available to encourage travel by transit • Preferred parking arrangements could be provided to those who carpool • Bicycle parking, storage and shower and locker facilities could be provided on site to encourage bicycle commuting • Offer telecommuting programs for employees • Allow flexible working hours, etc. 'j{transpoGROUP 21 Transportation Impact Analysis Quendall Terminals November 2009 Transportation Mitigation Fees In addition, and in accordance with the City of Renton's Development Fees schedule, the developer would be required to pay a transportation fee of $75 per daily vehicle trip based on the City's Resolution #3100. Per this criterion, the development would pay a transportation fee of approximately $642,750. The exact amount of the transportation mitigation fee will be determined in coordination with City staff. A fee credit may be available for the construction of the off-site improvements identified above. r;(transpOGROUP 22 Transportation Impact Analysis Quendall Terminals November 2009 Findings and Recommendations This transportation impact study summarizes the project traffic impacts of the proposed Quendall Terminals mixed-use development. The following summarizes the general findings of the study: , The proposed development would generate approximately 8,570 daily, 905 PM peak hour, and 837 AM peak hour off-site trips. , Project traffic would represent between approximately 11 and 39 percent of 2015 AM peak hour traffic volumes at off-site study intersections and between approximately 14 and 46 percent of 2015 PM peak hour traffic volumes at off-site study intersections. , Increases in traffic would likely result in a proportionate increase in the probability of collisions. , Without improvements, the NB and SB ramp intersections are forecast to operate below the City's LOS D standard without or with the proposed project , Without improvements, the Ripley Lane intersection would degrade to LOS F during both the AM and PM peak hours with the addition of project traffic , The interchange improvements identified by WSDOT, and the additional improvement at the Ripley Lane and the site access intersections identified above would mitigate project impacts at study intersections , The implementation of a TMP could reduce SOV travel to/from the project site, and could reduce project impacts at study intersections , Based on the daily trip generation, the project would be required to pay a transportation fee of approximately $642,750. A fee credit may be available for the construction of the off-site improvements identified above. • The proposed parking supply would meet City code requirements and would exceed estimated peak parking demand by approximately 40 percent 'j{transpOGROUP 23 Highway Capacity Manual, 2000 Signalized intersection level of service (LOS) is defined in terms of the average total vehicle delay of all movements through an intersection. Vehicle delay is a method of quantifying several intangible factors, including driver discomfort, frustration, and lost travel time. Specifically, LOS criteria are stated in terms of average delay per vehicle during a specified time period (for example, the PM peak hour). Vehicle delay is a complex measure based on many variables, including signal phasing (i.e., progression of movements through the intersection), signal cycle length, and traffic volumes with respect to intersection capacity. Table 1 shows LOS criteria for signalized intersections, as described in the Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board, Special Report 209, 2000). Table 1. Level of Service A B C D E F Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections Average Control Delay (sec/veh} S:10 >10 -20 >20 -35 >35 -55 >55 -80 >80 General Description (Signalized Intersections) Free Flow Stable Flow (slight delays) Stable flow (acceptable delays) Approaching unstable flow (tolerable delay, occasionally wait through more than one signal cycle before proceeding) Unstable flow (intolerable delay) Forced flow Uammed) Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, Special Report 209, 2000. Unsignalized intersection LOS criteria can be further reduced into two intersection types: all-way stop-controlled and two-way stop-controlled. All-way, stop-controlled intersection LOS is expressed in terms of the average vehicle delay of all of the movements, much like that of a signalized intersection. Two-way, stop-controlled intersection LOS is defined in terms of the average vehicle delay of an individual movement(s). This is because the performance of a two-way, stop-<:ontrolled intersection is more closely reflected in terms of its individual movements, rather than its performance overall. For this reason, LOS for a two-way, stop- controlled intersection is defined in terms of its individual movements. With this in mind, total average vehicle delay (i.e., average delay of all movements) for a two-way, stop-controlled intersection should be viewed with discretion. Table 2 shows LOS criteria for unsignalized intersections (both all-way and two-way, stop-controlled). Table 2. Level of Service Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections Level of Service Average Control Delay (sec/veh) A 0 -10 B >10-15 C >15-25 D >25 -35 E >35 -50 F >50 Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, Special Report 209, 2000. HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: NE 44th St & Lake WA Blvd SE ..> -+ -. f +-' "\ t ~i17i2if.l~~~:,a,;~,,. .... _ ~" ·-•+"!111 -•· .·· ·•-~,:w· Lane Configurations ~ I, , t Sign Control Stop Stop Volume (vph) 21,, 110 350 165 165 Peak tb.lr Facior 0.88 088 0.88 0.88 0.88 Hourly flow rate (vph) 318 125 398 "' "' ?If 5 ~l'iirfi>$Wit'?iiita" UJ.;i:;;. fl2 '. 141i: · lllr ·93 Volume Total (vph) 318 523 188 188 159 Volume left (vph) 318 0 188 0 0 Volume Right 1vph) 0 398 0 0 159 Hadj {SJ 0.53 -0.50 0.53 0.03 -0.67 Departure Headway (s) 8.8 7.7 9.1 8.6 3.2 Degree utilization, X 0.78 1.12 0.48 0.45 0.14 Capacity (vehlh) 403 470 373 392 1121 ControlDalay(s) 34.9 103.3 19.0 17.3 5.5 Approach Delay (s) 77.4 14.4 Approac.h LOS F B r .;. Stop 140 10 95 0.88 0.88 0.88 159 11 108 't@J...:,§811,,-• 22"2 455 11 34 102 392 -0.10 -0.47 8.4 7.2 0.52 0.91 404 485 20.1 47.8 20.1 47.8 C E 1016/2009 r '-. i ,I ,: •...•. :1111,·--• .;. Stop go ,0 25 345 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 !02 34 " "' 'ti! <1'··~' ,"-'..,_,.' n nn ·· s , -e:M~' ~-;f<(·.,::· >ri-~·1 '"¢:ii:i,?"""il;--ri'"i' '·""'i r-.~-· ''.t;. ·-·EL,.::.....__ Deley HCM l.e<lel of Service lnlersection Cepacity Utilization Analysis Penod (min) 48.2 E 80.6% 15 ICU Lewi of Service auendall Site Access 5:00 pm 10/112009 2009 Ex1sbng AM Pk Hr %user_name% D Synchro 7 • Report Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: NE 44th St & 405 SB Qff.rame 1018/2009 ..> -+ -. f +-'-"\ t r '-. i ,I Ml ll"i~;-ia·· .. :c.·~f11'": '"lf&t~:ar•-at~-.....-;'111\"!illl·'·;111··%·/ar~--!rl·-a. Ill· I!!! Lane Configurations I, ~ t Volume (veh/hJ 0 665 5 390 136 0 0 0 Sign Colltrol ,, .. ,-Step Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 085 0.95 0.85 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 782 6 459 159 0 0 0 Pedestrians lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (flls) Percent Blockage Righi turn fiare (veh) Median type ""'' -Median storage veh) Upstream signal (fl) pX, platoon unblocked VC, conftlciilg w:ilume 159 788 1932 1862 vC1, stage 1 c:onf vol VC2, stage 2 cart vol vCu, unblocked vol 159 788 1932 1862 IC, srngla (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 tc, 2 stage (s) tf (s) 2.2 22 3.6 4.0 pO queue free % 100 45 100 100 cM capacity (vehlh) 1427 831 21 33 &11 · a ii 1a~-,.\~~:11:;i4itv>ill!lt@ffii·Ma ~-·•a rtr!'•1rlllit!!!l~' '~"Q,· · Volirne Total 788 459 159 200 Volume Left 0 459 0 65 Voll.l'M Right 6 0 0 135 eSH 1700 631 1700 89 Volu:ne to capaoty 0.4' 0.55 OD9 2.32 Queue Length 95th (fl) 0 86 0 469 Control Dekly (sJ 0.0 14.5 0.0 705.5 Lane LOS B F Approach Delay (s) 0.0 10.8 705.5 Approach LOS F ~ I 11 l'lll!t 11\~"-(h>,i.i ·\.;,'~,.J"':a·•" t.:J·'.t.!iiill/..:-£t'i-l-t~"1.~'-~~i:;.r,c,.i'i'·~·r•·; Average Delay 94.3 Intersection capacity Utilization 70.2% ICU level of Se/Vice Analysis Period (min) 15 Quendall Site Access 5:00 pm 101112009 2009 Existing AM Pk Hr %user_name% 0 0.05 0 7BS 785 6.2 3.3 100 396 C 4 r 55 5 115 Stop 0% 0.85 0.85 085 65 6 135 1B62 "" 159 1862 1865 159 7.1 6.5 6.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 0 B2 BS 31 32 684 Synchro 7 • Report Page 2 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Lk WA Blvd & Ri~ Ln ..J -. f -...._ ..., 10/812009 t ~ '-. + ..; '~':,(;l~..-Mii>..•,~,. ' " ..,,,...;, ..-..,'?JiA~•~-•'~c,.;~,11:-Li,o~ ... ,~~-rJ;~. ~,'lii..:.JJ.~-"'-'-' Lane Configuratons ~ t, t, .;. .;. Volume (ve"1fh) 15 635 0 0 195 65 0 0 0 30 0 Sign Control '"' ,~ sap Stop Grade 0% 0% .. 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.83 0.83 0.83 o.e3 o.e3 0.83 0.83 0.83 083 0.83 0.83 0.83 Hou~y ffow rate (vph) 18 766 0 0 235 78 0 0 0 " 0 6 PedestMans Lane Width (fl) Walking Speed (fl/s) Percent Blockage Right tum ~are (veh) Median type TWLTL """' Median storage wh) Upslnlam slgr.al {fl) pX, platoon unblocked vC, connictlng volume 313 765 1061 1114 765 1075 1075 274 vC1. stage 1 conf vol 601 601 274 274 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 280 313 601 601 vCu, unblocked vol 313 765 10e1 1114 765 1075 1075 274 IC, single (s) 4.1 41 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.2 6.6 6.3 lC, 2 stage (s) 6.1 5.5 6.2 56 lF (s) 22 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.6 4.1 3.4 pO queue free % 99 100 100 100 100 B9 100 99 cM capacity (vehlhJ 1247 653 351 364 "' 339 354 744 ,· ,;"Lli.L.CLM~-,\00~~+ ,.,,·,,,-...., :t.-.'J',·"'"'~~w,, ... ~•~\ff.. ~~ Volume Total 16 765 313 0 42 Volume Left 16 0 0 0 36 Volume Right 0 0 76 0 6 cSH 1247 1700 1700 1700 367 VOiume 1o capacity 0.01 0.45 0.18 0.00 0.11 Queue length !15th (ft) 1 0 0 0 10 Contro,' Delay (s) 7.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.1 Lane LOS A A C Approach Delay (s) 0.2 0.0 0.0 16.1 Approach LOS A C " ~-":~~x" ~'=•·' :?.J:= ,.,,,;,, • .,_,.~.rh;;J;;t1«1'--il.<-~~""M~~~·· " Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min] 0.7 43.4% 15 ICU levt1I rJ Se!Vice Quendall S11e Access 5:00 pm 10/1/2009 2009 Ellistirig AM Pk Hr %user name% A Synchro 7 -Report Page 3 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Lk WA Blvd & N 36th St ..> -• f -...._ Lane Configurations ,t, .;. Sign Control ... ""' Volume (vph) 435 5 5 5 5 5 Peak Hour Factor 0.63 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 Hourly flow rate (vph) 524 6 6 6 6 6 Volume Total (vph) 530 18 211 253 Volume LBfl (vph) 524 6 0 0 Volume Right (vph) 6 6 6 223 Hadj (s) 0.22 .0.13 .0.02 ,-0,49 Departure Headway (s) 5.5 6.1 6.0 5.4 Degree U~llzation, x 0.82 0.03 0.35 0.38 Capacrty (veh/h) 536 507 547 605 Control Delay (s) 28.1 9.3 12.1 11.8 Approach Delay (s) 28.1 9.3 12.1 11.8 Approach LOS D A B B Dolay 20.4 HCM Level of Service C lnt8!'S8dion Capacity Ulilizalion 50.7% ICU Leve! r:J Servict Analysis Period (min) 15 Quendall Site Access 5"00 pm 10/112009 2009 Ex1s~ng AM Pk Hr %user_name% ..., t ~ .;. S•p 0 170 5 0.83 0.83 0.63 0 205 6 A 10/8J2009 '-. i ..; .;. '"" 0 25 185 0.63 0.83 0.83 0 30 223 Synchro 7. Report Page4 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: NE 44th St & Lake WA Blvd SE ,) --+ " f <-' ..._ l'li'li-t~~-...1111.-iil111fl1' .;JII·-'""111.··;-,:.at~ BIi'·, t& ·,. Lane Configuratons ~ I, ~ t ~ SignControl ""' ... Volume (vph) 55 165 60 75 150 65 15 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.116 0.116 0.96 Hoor!y flow rate (vph) 57 172 62 78 156 68 16 r ·-;; n•ttr tn::s1~n&&;-;_..g.a1::1¥1t:'hllh -111 --. P1:1:-~.-.•1.. Volume Total (vph) 57 234 78 156 68 406 422 Volume Left (vph) 57 0 78 0 0 16 52 Volume Right (vph) 0 63 0 0 68 151 344 ~-g 4R ~ ~ ---Departure Headway (s) 8.4 7.7 8.6 8.0 3.2 6.5 6.3 OegreeUti~zation.x 0.13 0.50 0.19 0.35 0.06 0.74 0.74 Capae1ty (\leMi) 391 424 363 392 1121 528 544 Contrd Delay(s) 11.5 16.9 12.3 14.1 52 25.8 24.9 Approach Delay (s) 15.8 11.6 25.8 24.9 A4Jproach LOS C B D C r rn rtrnrihtt&e..,,·x--9,,·~-•?,!l·ry,:z-·1 -~,. ~.; Delay 20.5 HCM Level of Service C Intersection capacity Utilization 71.5% ICU Level of Service Analysis Period (min) 15 Quendall TIA 5:00 pm 101112009 2009 Existing PM Pk Hr %user name% •i." 10/212009 t ,,. '-. + ./ IE iillli·· 111.'·Jl!··r• ,I, ... 230 0.96 240 ,I, Stop 145 50 25 330 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 151 52 26 344 -·i:i· -.-..~ ..>';:;., .,: .. ,:.,.,, : .. ' ~_) ·4.';-:-;'n-t'. "!l:!.i C Synchro 7 -Report Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: NE 44th St & 405 SB Off-rame ,) --+ " f <-' ..._ t ,,. ... & ·> i,f''.irl:ii~li;iii·ilea·~DL.i:j·<-,·Ei-111-:( Ill ·,fl!I!< ·· tll!, Lane Configurations I, , t Volume (veh/h) 0 150 25 215 275 0 0 0 Sign Contrd ,_ ,_ Stop Grado 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 097 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Hou~y now rate (vph) 0 155 26 222 284 0 0 0 Pedesllians Lane Width (fl) Walking Speed (fVs) Perce11t Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Nooe Noo, Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked VC, conflicting volume 284 180 1026 894 vC1, s1age 1 con! vol VC:2. stage 2 conf vol vCu. unblocked vol 284 1ao 1026 894 IC, Bingle (s) ,.1 ,.1 7.1 65 1C, 2 stage (s) IF (s) 2.2 ,., 3.5 ,.o pO queue free % 100 84 100 100 cM capacity (Veh/h) 1200 1401 123 238 a111 r 11 1aai':;j••WM:ll>i·•11&:IU:""~iU!ir~-{~i-~-. Volume Total 180 222 284 397 Volume Lett 0 222 0 134 Volume Right 26 0 0 258 cSH 1700 1401 1700 661 Volume to capacity 0.11 0.16 0.17 0.60 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 14 0 100 Contn:M Delay (s) 0.0 8.1 0.0 "·' Lane LOS A C Approach Delay (S) 0.0 35 "·' Approach LOS C b ••••• -~i\;·,~·-:,.;.li".; ... ,. itiillt~~;~,}:--~jliiij~;Ulll;--i>:;-1!',.":_ Average Delay ,., lnters&ctlon Capacity Ublllalion "·"' Analysis Period (min) 15 Quendall TIA 5:00 pm 10/112009 2009 Existing PM Pk Hr %user_name% ICU Level of Service 0 0.97 0 168 168 62 3.3 100 882 A 10/2/2009 '-. + ./ ,& &! §!!! ,! ' 1,0 5 250 Srop 0% 0.97 0.97 0.97 134 5 258 894 007 ,.. 894 907 284 7.1 65 62 3.5 4.0 3.3 42 98 66 '" 234 760 Synchro 7 -Report Page 2 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Lk WA Blvd & Ri~ Ln ..J ---+ • f +-'-.._ 10/212009 t ~ \,. + ~ ~.:.1~,N~~~::...... r,.:..., , .,,'-,._~-, _;_0 ,1.;, ~;.;,!•--",;,~Ji\,;,!!,, u~..t:..:~ :c1~-...... ,~ali.' .. Lane Con~gurations Volume (IIEIWh) Sign Conlrol Grade Peak Hour Factor Hou~y now rate (vph) Pedeslrians Lane Width (fl) Walk,ng Speed {fl/s) Percent Blockage Right turn fiare (veh) Median type Median storage veh] Upstream signal (fl) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume VC 1, s1age 1 con! vol vC2, stage 2 e.onf vol vCu, unblocked vol IC, single (s) 1C, 2 stage (s) IF(s) pO queue !me% cM capacity (ve'1/h) ~ !, 5 125 , .. 0% 0.97 0.97 5 129 TWl.TL 536 536 4.1 22 100 1042 f, 485 , .. 0% 0.97 0.97 0.97 5 5 500 Noo, 134 104 4.1 2.2 ma 1444 35 0 0.97 097 36 0 688 142 544 686 7.3 6.3 3.7 100 456 4, 0 Srop 0% 0.97 0.97 0 5 688 131 142 548 688 131 8.7 8.4 5.7 4.2 3.5 100 99 464 "' 4, 45 0 15 Stop 0% 0.97 0.97 0.97 46 0 15 813 813 518 528 528 144 144 673 673 518 7.1 6.5 6.2 6.1 55 3.5 4.0 3.3 91 100 97 "" 4'1 5'6 •'·.21!!..,.~==.,-;;.i~~ '"~'"' ·~ t;~,,,;;= ,,~·-,1~,,-i--c~...«.-..._.\ . ..;;:,,...,,..~.,...,.,-M;,,. Volume Total 5 134 541 5 62 Volume Left 5 0 5 0 46 Volume Rigt,t 0 5 36 5 15 cSH 1042 1700 1444 879 516 Volume 10 capacity 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.01 0.12 Queue Len9lh 95th (11) 0 0 0 a 10 Control Delay (s) 8.5 0.0 0.1 9.1 12.9 Lane LOS A A A B Approach Delay (s) 0.3 0.1 9.1 12.9 Aoproad1 LOS A B ~~:'lJ.:'..:.:illJ.J~.!..~j).~. T~a ,,& ... ,,.,,,~.,.-,.~,;.Wf'M7'~,,l ;;f '*'1,:-r~J!~1:r'Ol!fU~\'~4f""4-i~ Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utlllzetiai Analysis Period (rnon) 13 46.4% 15 Quendall TIA 5:00 pm 10/112009 2009 Ex1s~ng PM Pk Hr %L"ser narne% ICU Level of Service A Synchro 7. Report Page3 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Lk WA Blvd & N 36th St 10/2/2009 ..J ---+ • f +-'-.._ t ~ \,. + ~ :J.:r~-'-~ ~.!#f,.:C.._1, JX\1>(..._ .,•,.:s,;.~, -r,;,.1. ,. I, l -'---,, ' Lane Cooliguratioris 4, 4, 4, 4, Sign Control Soop Stop .. , Stop Volume (vph) 80 5 5 5 5 5 0 35 5 2l) 120 405 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.96 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Hou~y flow rate (vph) 82 5 5 5 5 5 0 36 5 2l) 122 413 ~~--~1' ~.i~~~'m: t1~.1.1J~:llke%c .:t~":H,i.~~1;>~.:.,~~ ... ._-~'~ " -.,__ " ~: Volume Total (vph) 92 15 41 Volume lefl (vph) 82 5 0 Volume Right (vph) 5 5 5 Hadj(l) 0.16 -0.13 -0.08 Departure Headway (s) 5.3 5.1 4.7 D11gree Utilization, x 0.14 0.02 0.05 Capacity (ve'11h) 609 612 728 Contro1Delay(s) 9.2 8.3 7.9 Approach Delay (s) 92 8.3 7.9 Approach LOS A A A D"" 11.5 HCM Level of Service B lnteraection Capacity UtllizaOOfl 57.2% Analysis Period (min) 15 Quendall TIA 5:00 pm 101112009 2009 Existing PM Pk Hr %user,name% 556 2l) 413 ~.40 3.8 0.59 914 12.3 12.3 B ICU level of Service • Synchro 7 -Report Page 4 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: NE 44th St & Lake WA Blvd SE 10/14/2009 y -+ .. f -' ..,. t ,,. '-. + .I ill;·~1-,1~ai;~--~,a[iFllllh1,:B':· idll··r·ll'lll s,-~-•i.ii.•1 ·--·~111-, .• Lane Configurations ' 1, ' t r ""' ""'"' Stop Stop Volume (vph] 335 130 420 185 "" 160 40 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hour1y fiow rate (vph) 364 141 457 201 207 174 43 IUlflhillllii&i'~I; ,:.,, .. ~·:, •. l:,!fU ·"'·!flli · DI "'i•·i, ,, 111-· Volume Total (vph) 364 596 201 voune Left {vphJ 364 0 201 Volume Right (vph) 0 457 0 Hadj (s} 0.53 -0.60 0.53 Departure Headway (s) 9.0 8.0 9.5 [)egr98 Ulilizalion, X 0.91 1.33 0.53 Capacity (vell/h) 394 456 366 Cootrol Delay (s) 65.6 186.1 21.8 Approach Delay (s) 136.7 16.2 Approach LOS F C ;r · rrew ¥tittHfF'±r'aa~~i;,if~ .. -' 82.1 ""'' HCM level of Service Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min] F 84.7% 15 Quendell TIA 5:00 pm 10/112009 2015 Baseline AM Pk Hr %user_name% 207 174 266 500 0 0 43 38 0 174 109 429 0.03 -0.67 -0.04 -0.47 90 3.1 88 1.6 0.52 0.15 0.65 1.06 365 1121 396 466 20.0 5.8 26.6 656 26.8 85.6 D F 'fr.!'.,:·,' s?:fi('t{·"•,' '"'· • '{ ,, ICU Level ol 5eNica 4, 4, S/Dp Stop 105 100 35 30 395 0.92 0.92 0.92 092 0.92 114 109 38 33 429 -·., ":' ,_ .. __ ·:.°: ''f,",,:-:,--:,,( E Synchro 7 -Report Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: NE 44th St & 405 SB Off~rame y -+ .. f -' ..,. t ,,. Mm..1111ntiii.,r~·:.·ct·-;;b'-ziA·iit-·IIJr'I' fBi:.~&1i~·111·1~l::IIB·· :Jlll.;.·:i.lE ,-t1B Lane Configurations f, ' t Volume (vetvh) 0 805 25 4<0 100 0 0 S1gn Con1rol Free ''" Grado 0% "" Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rata (YPhl 0 875 Z7 478 207 0 0 P&des1rians Lane Width (fl) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right tum flare (veh) Median type --Median storage veh) Upslraam signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 207 002 2136 vC1, stage 1 conf \IOI vC2, stage 2 oonf VOi vCu, unblod:.ed vol 207 002 2136 tC, single {s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 22 3.5 pO queue 1ree % 100 37 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 1371 753 12 l'llL•~lloi.-tl!ll, -ii,i·· _.,,_(.t.:,g;&-~"-; :111116..-itE~ f-j.,tt~~;·:,.; ·;·· ~~; Volume Total 902 478 207 234 Volume Left 0 476 a 65 Volume Righi 27 0 0 163 cSH 1700 753 1700 64 Volume to Capacity 0.53 0.63 0.12 3.67 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 115 0 E, Control Delay (s) 0.0 17.7 0.0 Err Lane LOS C F Approach Delay (e) o.a 12.4 •• Approach LOS F llalt·SUlmlafll-· -.,._.,,.!, "-"-'"~i;i"''~~"'ri-f:l:""':"~,,..,~:ii._-._.c, .. Average Delay 1288.1 lntefsection Capacity Util!za1ion 81.8% Ar1alys1s Period (min) 15 Quendell TIA 5:00 pm 10/112009 2015 Baseline AM Pk Hr %user _name% ICU LMI of Ser'o'ice 0 0 Sbp 0% 0.92 0.92 0 0 2052 "' 2052 "' 6.5 6.2 4.0 3.3 100 100 21 345 D ,0/1412009 '-. ~ ~ !!Ill. m §!! 4 r 60 5 150 Stop 0% 0.92 0.92 0.92 65 5 163 2052 2065 207 2052 2065 207 7.1 65 6.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 0 73 BO 20 20 631 synchro 7 -Repor1 Page 2 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Lk WA Blvd & Ri~ Ln _, -.. (' -' 10/14/2009 "'\ t ~ \. * ~ ';' _i;~;B-,i! 'll., '·•, , ,~ ~ ~s.l ,' < , I ~~i:,,~ ~. '~_,_,i,h,". )..f; ~c, ,•,./i'_,, __ ,~,'.,~~ ~:it; ;,; - Lane Con~gura~ons ~ • f, f 4- Volume (vahlh) 20 785 0 0 2 .. 75 0 0 5 35 0 10 Sign Control ,~, ,, .. Stop Stop Grado 0% '"' '"' 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 D.92 0.92 0 92 0.92 0 92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourfyflow rate (vpt,) 22 853 0 0 304 92 0 0 5 ,. 0 11 Pedestrians lane W'rdth (ft) Walking Speed (Ills) Percen1 Blockage Right tum flare 1veh) Median type lWlll ""'' Median storage veh) 2 Upstream signal (fl) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 366 "' 1253 1283 "' 1247 1242 345 vC 1, stage 1 i:;o;,f vol 097 897 345 "' VC2, stage 2 con! vol "' 3'8 902 897 vCu, unblocked vol 386 853 1253 1283 853 1247 1242 345 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 72 6.6 6.3 tC. 2 s1age (s) 6.1 5.5 6.2 5.6 IF (s) 2.2 22 3.5 4.0 33 3.6 4.1 3.4 pO queue he% " 100 100 100 98 67 100 98 cM capacity (veMl) 1173 790 '" 324 362 200 315 676 '~~..s,t .. ~•#il5i'INit.J:.~k<I{" J ::, "", " • .,Y.•~ ~..... -··'"'• c.-~ ~~~tt~f;l""i1<A¥..f.Q.W..& Volume Total 22 653 366 5 " Volume left 22 0 0 0 30 Vol\Jme Right 0 0 92 5 11 oSH 1173 1700 1700 362 "' Vol\Jme to Gapacity 0.02 0.50 023 0.02 0.15 Queue Length 95th (fl) 1 0 0 1 13 Control Delay (s) 6.1 0.0 0.0 15.1 17.7 Lane LOS A C C Approach Delay (s) 0.2 0.0 15.1 17.7 Approach LOS C C ~;£.:..!.J~~mflll,s,1,;i;,.,':.t,.:,;i,,,.L~,,,,;~.""'"" .... y ... 'i ... ~,.;,y~' ~(~.-,I~~t,.,b,~4!Wii'.f ~ " Average Delay ln18f'S8ction capacity UHlizatiOn Analysis Period (min) 0.9 58.0% 15 Quendell TIA 5:00 pm 10/112009 2015 Baseline AM Pk Hr %user_narne% ICU Leval of Service B Synctiro 7 -Report Page 3 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Lk WA Blvd & N 36th St _, -" lane Conflgura1ions 4- Sign Conlro! "'' Volume (vph) 495 5 5 Peak Hour Fact« 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 530 5 5 11111111 Volume Total (vph} 549 16 212 Volume Left (Yph) 530 5 0 Volume Righi (vph) 5 5 5 HadJ(,) 0.22 -0.13 -0.02 Departure Headway (s) 5.5 6.2 6.0 Degree Ulilization, x 0.64 0.03 0.36 Capacity (veh/h) 549 503 567 C.ontrol Delay (s) 31.0 ,., 12.3 Approach Delay (s) 31.0 9.4 12 3 Approach LOS D A B ""'' 22.1 HCM Level of Service C lntersaciion Capacity Ulnization 56.2% Ana,Ys1s Period [min) 15 OtJendell TIA 5:00 pm 101112009 2015 Baseline AM Pk Hr %user_ name% (' -' 4- Stop 5 5 5 0.92 0.92 0.92 5 5 5 266 0 ,,, -0.49 5.5 0.41 609 12.2 12.2 B ICU Level Of Serviee "'\ t ~ 4- Stop 0 190 5 0.92 0.92 0.92 0 207 5 6 10114/2009 \. * .,' 4- Slop 0 30 215 0.92 0.92 0.92 0 33 '" Synchro 7 -Report Page4 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: Lk WA Blvd & f ' t t" '-. ! Mtrth:0c:W-fnhhhfflz".··Mi ·E NQJh, &·'···dlJ' Lane Configura~ons V lo "tj t Voli.me (Yeh/ti) 5 30 740 5 55 230 Sign C.Ontrol S1op Grade 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 Hour1yflowrate(vph) 5 Pedestnans Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (1\/s) Percent Blockage Right tum flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal {fl) pX, platoon unblocked 'JC, oonilicting volume vC 1, stage 1 oonf vol vC2. stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked voi IC, single (s) 1C, 2 stage (sJ IF [sJ pO queue free % "'"""'(""'hi 1177 B07 370 1177 6.4 54 3.5 99 394 '"' 0% 0.92 0.92 0.92 33 S04 5 - 807 ,07 6.2 3.3 92 385 Free 0% 0.92 0.92 60 250 810 810 4.\ 21 93 820 TWLTL 2 10/14/2009 ·1. ~,· ·•: ... , "i:'' w tr .. , r-:f11tit®?~wme:f£AP\:8l"'~i:' ,., 't-r:w·,,:>"'-'# ,c, .,,:,.,, •f'><-.)C' 1,;t Volume Total 38 610 60 250 Volume Lef1 5 0 60 0 Volume Riglt 33 5 0 O cSH 386 1700 820 1700 VOlumetoCapacity 0.10 0.46 0.07 0.15 Queue Length 95th (fl) 8 0 6 0 Control Delay (S) 15.3 0.0 9.7 0.0 Lane LOS C A Approad'\Delay(s) 15.3 o.o 1.9 Appri,ach LOS C btiStt 'ff:&'®J/k;,,:r"'"·"-.-, ::r-~:,.,; . ..,.,, ... · •· ·{"'¥'';. !(·1 -'Y~ ·£~ ..... ~ .. ,,~ ·'V'"·\t·· -, ti·'!· i Average Delay 1.0 lnt8fS8clioo Capacity Utilization 55.7% ICU Lewi QI Service B Analy~s Period (min) 15 Quendell TIA 5:00 pm 1011/2009 2{]15 Baseline AM PK Hr %user_name% Synchro 7 -Report Page 5 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: BMills Access & Lk WA Blvd .,J • 4\ t ! ~ It rt rt¥";"'· ~n,-ri?lRt, ·B·4111ti¥ftlfctiJEn#Wrz:i+« Lane Configurations V 4 lo V<llume (veh/h) 35 5 5 770 280 S19n Contrci Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor Hoony !'low rate (vph) Pedestnans Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (Ws) Percent Blockage Right turn fiare (V8h) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, ccnftieting volume vC1, stage 1 oonfvol vC2, stage 2 con! vol vCu, unblocked vol IC, single {s) !C, 2 stage (s) IF (s) pO Queue free% cM capacity (YeMl) 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 38 5 5837304 5 1155 307 848 1155 6.4 5.4 3.5 90 393 307 310 307 310 6.2 4.1 3.3 2.2 99 100 738 1251 TWLTL TWLTL 2 ~· II 7 t-mt ;~-.:;, 'J1k':#:MM a·1 Volume Total 43 842 !Ct £it-AAAA:¥iti&r:fiiih'W~@y;;;;:,,z:v · 310 Volume Left 38 5 0 Volume Right 5 0 5 cSH 417 1251 1100 Volume to Capacity 0.10 0.00 0.18 Queue Length 95th (fl) 9 0 0 Contrumelay(s) 14.6 0.1 0.0 Lane LOS B A Approach Delay (s) 14.8 0.1 0.0 Approach LOS B ~ 1 5 lfflCI' ,.i*, ,:,:5:f'Mtfo::te:: iiF:11"'-hHtr:i:iHtir&Ni~"'-':Wfw,., Average De~y 0.6 Intersection Capacity Ullhzation 54.5% Analysis PericxJ (min) 15 Quendell TIA 5:00 pm 10/112009 2015 Baseline AM Pk Hr %user _name% ICU Level of Service ,,.,.,_,, A 10/1412009 Synchro 7 -Report Page 6 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: NE 44th St & Lake WA Blvd SE ..> -+ • .-+-' 10/14/2009 .__ t !' .... j. ~ ';"~~;I,._•'•' ,I: -,vj. •,,,,,' .. ',~'",-'J\'<:~J~,,~,.,~,.--,:"<,'::-•~i.-• Lane Configurations ' • Sign Control Stop vorume (vph) 65 200 Peak Hour Factor 096 0.96 Hourly flow ra!e lvph) 60 208 ,tr+ Stop Stop 85 85 175 75 45 260 165 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 89 89 182 7B 47 271 172 ,I, Stop 55 30 385 0.96 0.96 0.96 57 31 401 ~!..;ll.L~-./11';4' ,:,-f,~ ,,,,,_ ;.J1,,,H_ -• :~ ., .~.~?, ... ~--... ~.:..,~ .... Volume Total (vph) " '" 89 Volume left (vph) " 0 .. VolurrJe R1gh1 (YOh) 0 89 0 Hedi (s) D.52 -0.19 0.53 Departure Headway (s) 93 " 97 Degree U!ilize1ion, x 0.17 0.71 0.24 Capacity (veh/h) 361 410 364 Control Delay (s) 13.0 28.6 14.4 Approach Delay (s) 25.7 14.6 Approach LOS 0 • 1!!1111 Dela~ 52.6 HCM Level of Service F lnteraection Capacity Utilization 70.2% Analysis Period (min) 15 Quendall TIA 5:00 pm t0/112009 2015 Baseline PM Pk Hr %user_ 'lame% 162 7B 490 0 0 47 0 7B 172 0.03 -0.61 -0.17 '' 31 7.6 0.46 0.07 1.116 377 1121 470 1B.B 5.2 .... B5.4 F ICU Level of Service 490 57 401 -0.45 7.3 100 490 57.7 67 7 F C Synchro 7 -Report Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: N~_44_th St & 405 SB Off-ram.e, ..> -+ • .-+-' 10114/2009 .__ t !' .... j. ~ ~-~-,1..:~ "'-'-~~-.J~it,:~~ .... .t~ .~ •• !~.1>~.1,-.....1. ,>t! ~ .,:;.,. ,,;:~ 11$\ --~ Larre Configurations f, Volume (vehlh) 0 205 55 Sign Control '"' Grad, 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 Hour1yflow rate (wph) 0 211 57 Pedestnans lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft.ls) Pero&m Blockage Righi tum flare (veh) Median type """' Median storage wh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked YG, conflicting volume "" vC1, stage 1 ronfvol YG2, stage 2 confvol l'Cu, unblocked vol 366 tC, single (s) 4.1 tc, 2 stage (s) tF(s) 2.2 pO queue free% 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 1204 -Afik!'-fa, Volume Total 266 247 366 Volume Left 0 247 0 Volume Right 57 0 0 cSH 1700 1301 1700 Volume 10 Capacity 0.16 0.19 022 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 16 0 Control Deley (s) 0.0 6.4 0.0 Lane LOS A -°"'Yl•I 0.0 3.4 Approach LOS .c.:.t ___ ,,f::,:l.J..l;..~l\'Jli..1:~~..«.' Average Delay 17.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 45.7% Analysis Period Jmin) 15 Queridall TIA 5:00 pm 10/1/2009 2015 Baseline PM Pk Hr %user_name% ' t 240 365 0 0 0 '"' Stop 0% 0% 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 247 366 0 0 0 - 268 1288 1101 268 126B 1101 4.1 7.1 6.5 22 3.5 4.0 81 100 100 1301 " 173 465 149 330 512 0.95 297 46.2 E 46.2 E ICU level of Service 0 0.97 0 240 240 62 3.3 100 604 A 4 ' 145 5 320 Stop 0% 0.97 0.97 0.97 "' 5 330 1101 1129 "" 1101 1129 366 7.1 6.5 6.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 6 97 52 163 167 664 Synchro 7 -Report Page 2 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Lk WA Blvd & Ri~ Ln / -. f <- tt nww· · t t:11\Mr:iki'--.IIJenPl:::it>•"@'III Lane Configurations 'I lo lt Volume (veMl) 10 195 5 5 630 Sign Con1rol °"" Peak Hour Factor Hoortyflow rate {vph) Pedestrians Lane Width {fl) Walking Speed (flls} ,. __ Right rum flara (vah) Median type Madian storage veh) Up$tream agnal (fl) pX, platoon unblocked YC, oooflicting volume .C1, stage 1 con! vol vC2, staga 2 cont vol vCu, unblocked vol IC, singla (s) IC, 2 stage (s) IF (s) po queue free o/o "'"""''""""' Free 0% 0.97 0.97 0.97 10 201 5 TWLTL 2 891 691 4.1 21 99 913 ''" 0% 0.97 0.97 5 649 Nooe 206 206 4.1 2.2 100 1359 5 5 7htfittr t Kfflf,-dlt:f,·-lltl'-·Nft,-,1§1.l• Volume Total 10 206 696 10 n Volume Left 10 O 5 O 52 Volume Right O 5 41 10 21 cSH 913 1700 1359 800 421 Volume to capacity 0.01 0.12 o.oo o.o1 0.17 Queue Lenglh 95th (II) 1 D D 1 15 Control Delay (s) 9.0 D.O 0.1 9.6 15.3 Lane LOS A A. A C Approad1Delay(s) 0.4 0.1 9.6 15.3 Approach LOS A C 17 7 t , ·;.''/1'>" ··;,;-1.~,-~ ,., ·¢·'.", ·/3~-·ky ~--' Average Delay 1.4 '-"'\ t ·WIits-&·· ,.mr 40 0 0 Srop 0% 0.97 0.97 0.97 41 0 0 925 925 224 224 701 701 925 925 7.3 6.7 6.3 5.7 3.7 4.2 100 100 357 "' r Jill· ' 10 0.97 10 204 204 6.4 3.5 99 800 10/1412009 '. j. .; lli't:i·lll.i.··· ,I, 50 0 20 Stop 0% 0.97 0.97 0.97 52 o 21 912 "" 670 680 "' 232 221 912 907 670 7.1 6.5 6.2 61 5.5 3.5 4.0 3.3 87 100 95 409 418 455 .· 11;.,;\,--1·· , .. ,,.,..,,.ir~"'"t::..-~<·,r~ """''.-",-..,._", '~;<:'.: Intersection Capacity U~!ization Analysis Period (min) 50.3% ICU Level of Seivice A 15 Quendall TIA 5:00 pm 10/112009 2015 Baseline PM Pk Hr %user_name% Synchro 7. Report Page 3 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Lk WA Blvd & N 36th St / -. f <-'-"'\ 10114/2009 t r '. j. .; lt!fflTlft'im;t.;.i•'J'i~iiWEll·l-"'R;; ff: fflXf:ITit ·)W·:~ '•~··!II am-• !III §!!! Lane Configurations 4,, Sign Control S1op Volume (~ph) 100 5 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 Hourly flow rate (vph) 102 5 ,I, Slop 5 5 5 5 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 5 5 5 5 0 0.98 0 ,I, Sro, 40 5 0.98 0.98 41 5 Pf ;;· "".'·} ~;: -.-;'&;'\a,'El:t·~.ei WSte319ikihl '21t:b&f::W:'Pt·.,·•·,'.I\: · :f''.·,~- Volume Total (vph) 112 15 46 638 Volumeleft(vph) 102 5 O 26 VolumeRigh1 (vph) 5 5 5 474 HadJ (s) 0.19 -0.1J -0.07 -0.40 Departure HeadWay (s) 5.5 5.4 4.8 3.9 Degree U\ili:z.ahon, x 0.17 0.02 0.06 0.69 Capacity (veh/h) 503 583 696 897 Control Delay (s) 9.7 8.5 82 15.3 Approach Delay (s) 9.7 8.5 8.2 15.3 Approad'I LOS A A A C Mt1M'& 'k,1-~ •!tt,_,.,, . .._.£t:·i·?1fi•n'£tff:1t:it..rft!ft'H4'.WfwiVf:1t\.:::'f; ""'' HCM Lei/el of Service lnttneciion capacity Utiliuticm Analysis Period (min] 14.0 B 63.2% 15 Ouondail TIA 5:00 pm 1011/2009 2015 Baseline PM Pk Hr %user_name% ICU Level of Service B ,I, Stop 25 135 465 0.98 0.98 0.98 26 138 474 Synchro 7 -Report Page4 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: Lk WA Blvd & " '-t ~ '-! 10/1412009 '," ~~J..~'»..:.l_,_....;.n,' ,cL;_~ c.,,.:.>t>J., -;:;'kl;,' J:::'{'.' i;J;.' .. ~ .. -»0t-¥»f~"i,,..'f"!k..::#;,:~.rr> Lane Configuralions Volume (vehi'h) Sign Control Grado Peak Hour Factor Hourty flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (It) Walking Speed (fl.ls) Percam Blockage Righi lum fiall:! (veli} MIJdiantype Median storage veh) Upslf8sm signal (ft) pX, piatoon unblocked 'IC, confticting l'Olume vC1, stage t conf vol ...C2, stage 2 conf Yd vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (5) IF (s) pO queue free% cM taJ)acily (veh/h) V 5 .. Slop 0% 0.97 0.97 5 " 858 162 162 696 858 162 ,_, 6.2 5.4 3.5 3.3 99 95 459 688 f, 155 F= 0% 0.97 0.97 160 5 Nooo ' -l 50 575 Free 0% 0.97 0.97 52 593 1WLTL 2 165 165 4.1 2.2 96 1407 ~JC~:.:;,:11~~~ .. '~-i~'1':> 1sr .. u_.'l"M"i..?t%:'~"",.,'""'{~~""l,il,\,\.i~m"'~~~:'tii~, Volume Total 46 165 52 Volume Left 5 0 52 Volume Right 41 5 0 ,SH 604 1700 1407 Volume to Ca~city 0.06 0.10 0.04 Queue Length 95th (ft) 5 0 3 Control Delay (s) 9.6 0.0 7.7 Lane LOS A ' Approach Delay (s) 9.6 0.0 0.6 Approach LOS A .!!!i!!!!!I!!!! Average Delay 1.0 ln!eraection Capa~ty Uliliz.a~on 40.3% Analysis Period (min) 15 Quendall TIA 5:00 pm 101112009 2015 Baseline PM Pt<. Hr %user _name% 663 0 0 1700 0.35 0 0.0 ICU Level o1 Se!Vice A Synchro 7 -Report Page 5 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis !LJ:3Mills Access & Lk WA Blvd .,> ~ 4\ t ! 10/14/2009 .,, =~~~--~~QL.~J..~:~-~~•.:.!~~~~~,"..."1.i:,_ ""'" ~ ""'- Lane Comigurations V 4 f, Vo!ume [vehi'h) 15 5 5 190 620 30 Sign Control Srop ,,~ ,,~ Grado 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Hou~y flow rate (YJJh) 15 5 5 196 639 31 Pedestrians Lane Width (It) Walki119 Speed (f!Js) Percent BIOCblge Right turn fiare (veh) Median type TM.TL TWLTL Median storage veh) 2 2 Upstrsam signal {ft) pX, platoon unblocked 1.-C, conflicting volume 661 665 670 VC1, stage 1 COfl1 vol 655 lo-Cl, stage 2 conf vol 206 vCu. unblocked vol 861 655 670 IC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 1C, 2 stage (s) 5.4 IF(!) 3.5 3.3 21 pO Queue free % 97 99 99 cM capacity (velvh) . ., 470 930 •. -"...'.;.i'.ki..~~ j:1P.l;t;,.:.t~ ~~~ifQg;,~\~51;;';,<>~-t'< , ,,,..,~e,;--"~-~ ~""~ Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right eSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (fl) Control Delay(!) Lane LOS Approach Delay {s) Approach LOS Average Delay Intersection Capacity Ublization Analysis Penod (min) 21 15 5 4B5 0.04 3 12.8 B 12.8 B 201 5 0 930 O.o1 0 0.3 A 0.3 670 0 31 1700 0.39 0 0.0 0.0 04 44.4% 15 Quendall TIA 5'00 pm 10/112009 2015 Baseline PM Pk Hr %user_name% ICU Level of Serviee A Synchro 7 -Report Page 6 HCM Unsigna!ized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: NE 44th St & Lake WA Blvd SE .,> --+ -. f <-' .._ Ill lEEHiiallSli:liitli:ti,;>~;1 iii. ·,i"JI[ "'" ill "l!lll,",E •··· Lane Configurations ' r. ' t ' Sign Control Slop Stop Volume (vph) 347 146 537 185 208 160 254 Peak Ho!Jr Factor 0"92 0.92 0"92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hour1yflow rate (vph) 377 159 584 201 226 174 276 II I Hllll.\'tJt:ti-~,:.~f'.,<·11:t/~·m.-•2 ·•all° fslt, ·MlJ'····'IIJ-- Volume Total (vph) 377 742 201 226 174 499 514 Vol11T1& Left (\lph) 377 0 201 0 0 276 38 Volume Right (vph) 0 584 0 0 174 109 443 Hadj {SJ 053 -0"52 """ 0.03 -0.67 0.15 -0.47 Departure Headway (s) 9.8 8.7 10.2 '"' 32 92 8.6 Degree Uti~zation, X 1.03 tao 0.57 0.61 0.15 128 1.23 Capacity (vehlh) m 417 344 362 1121 397 424 Contrd De8y {8) 847 390.7 24.7 25.S 5.6 170.8 149.4 Approach Delay (s) 287.6 19.5 170.8 149.4 Approach LOS F C F F n, ,·1111111111· ·11·.~-""~:ll; ~{-~~-,..-..· , . .., ·,\.·~ ",-•;·t>','• o .. , 181.3 HCM Level of Service F lnteraection Capacity Utilizallon 118.7% ICU Level of SeNice Analysis Peliod {min) 15 Ouendell TIA 5:00 pm 1011/2009 2015 With PrOject AM Pk Hr %user_name% 10/1412009 t r" \. + .,' llliii1 ·11B ,.,& ··-ffT··eSIR .;. Slop 105 100 M2 0.92 114 109 . ·•Q;i. H 35 0.92 38 .;. Stop 30 408 0.92 0.92 33 443 -" Synchro 7 -Re~rt Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: NE 44th St & 405 SB Off-rame, ,J --+ -. f <-' .._ t ...,._v~ .. ' · ··,e-<4,., "ill @SW ''.:,Pfitff:r--flk, ·W Lane Configurations t:,. Volttne (veh/h) O 950 Sign Control Grad, Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vphJ Pedestrians lane Width {ft) Walking Speed (fl.ls) Percent Blockage Right tum flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX. platoon unblocked ',{;, conflicting vojume VC:1, stage 1 conf vol ..C2, stage 2 cont vol vCu, unblocked vol IC, single (s) IC, 2 stage (s) 0.92 0 473 473 '"' Free 0% 0.92 1033 Nooe ' t 213 440 435 0.92 232 '"" 478 1264 1264 4.1 F"' 0% 0.92 473 Nooe 0.92 0 0.92 0 2735 2735 7"1 0 Stop 0% 0.92 0 2578 2578 ,, IF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 pO queue free % 100 13 0 100 cM capacity (vehlh) 1094 55D O 3 C' Ii ·_,.,, • ..,tflfiiirffMWM:!J/ft!rtee&'ttcV6?WH::s'\M':t\•~1iiL-' Volume Total 1264 478 473 379 Volume Left O 478 0 65 Volume Right 232 a a 309 cSH 1700 550 1700 22 Volume to Capacity 0.74 0.87 D.28 17.22 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 241 0 Err ConmDel.ay(s) 0.0 40.7 0.0 Err Lane LOS E F Approach Delay (s) 0.0 20.S Err Approach LOS F """'9Pmt M ,.,7""¥ ''?liif:·yf~·h''-"Rfd'iBUiit, ',~.:,·-,:w~,, 'fil&·t!~?:3S:4~ h Average Delay 1469.5 Intersection capacity Util~n 100.9% ICU Level ol Servial Ana1¥sis Period (min) 15 Quendell TIA 5:00 pm 1011/2009 2015 With Project AM Pk Hr %user_name% r" Ill! 0.92 0 114a 1148 62 3.3 100 244 G 10/1412009 \. + .,' !II& §!! HI! ,t r 611 5 284 Stop 0% 092 0.92 0 92 65 5 309 2578 2693 473 2578 2693 473 '"' 65 6"2 3.5 4.0 3"3 0 0 4B 4 3 569 Synchro 7 -Report Page 2 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Lk WA Blvd & RiE.!.2z:. Ln ..> --. f +-'-..., 10/1412009 t r" \. i .; MlkZS,P · fJ! orA_.'4ffi{:fM£ Q # lQfi#%&¥ ·{ ,, § ¢@@ Lane Configurations ~ • • r ,I, Volume (vehlh) 20 816 0 0 293 441 0 0 5 337 0 10 Sign Control ,., '"' S1op S1op Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly ffow rate (vph) 22 S87 0 0 318 479 0 0 5 366 0 11 Pedestrians laneW!dlh {fl) Walking Speed (Ills) Pertertt Blockage Right tum ~are (~eh) Mediar1 type 7WLTI. '"'' Median storage ~eh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 798 881 1499 1728 881 1494 1489 558 vC 1. stage 1 con! vol 930 930 "' "' vC2, stage 2 con! VOi 569 798 "' 930 ..Cu, unblocked vol 798 887 1499 1728 887 1494 1489 "' IC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 8.5 6.2 1.2 8.6 6.3 IC, 2 stage (SI 6.1 5.5 6.2 5.6 IF (s) 21 22 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.6 4.1 3.4 pO queue free% 97 100 100 100 98 0 100 " cM capacity (wh/h) 824 "' 271 261 348 259 264 512 '"••,J,'1.i'-~'5''°"'--1'=~ •-' '~{., <C ,'( :<:'•+,j_\,'~.-1..:.,,!'\.~~~,;,;#;\:<a{~~ Volume Total 22 887 798 5 377 Volume Left 22 0 0 0 366 Volume Right 0 0 479 5 11 cSH 824 1700 1700 346 263 Volume to capacity 0.03 0.52 0.47 0.02 1.43 Queue length 951n (ft) 2 0 D 1 525 Con!rot Delay (s) 9.5 0.0 0.0 15.6 252.1 La'!& LOS A C F Approach Delay (a) 0.2 0.0 15.6 252.1 Approach LOS C F ~~ ,<iz1t~1,rs, ~J~;t1~{:J·1tfcb,,k~.&:~~~,!:.~t-~:t~ Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Penod {min) 45.6 75.6% 15 Quendell TIA 5·00 pm 10/1/2009 2015 With Project AM Pk Hr %user_name% ICU Lewi of Service 0 Synchro 7 • Report Page 3 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Lk WA Blvd & N 36th St 1011412009 ..> --. f +-'-..., t r" \. i .; Jili-i~&..._,_~)91.,;.,.:H~.~ .. '..;.,}of,, ,,.,.,'C'.___,_,J,.n:.,, -Lane Configurations ,I, Sigri C,ontro! Srop Volume (vph) 540 5 5 5 Peak Hour Fector 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hour1y fiow rate (vph} 587 5 5 5 Volume Totel [vph) 598 16 232 326 Volumel&ft(vph) 587 5 0 0 Volume Right (vph) 5 5 5 276 Hadj(s) 0.22 .0.13 .0.01 .0.47 Departure HeadWay (s) 5.9 6.9 6.5 5.9 Degree Utiaution, X 0.97 0.03 0.42 0.53 Capadty (vehni) 603 460 545 602 ~-1•1 53.B 10.1 14.1 15.4 Approach Delay (s) 53.8 10.1 14.1 15.4 Appmech LOS F B B C D"" 34.8 HCM Level of Service D Intersection capacity UtilizaOOl"I 61.9% Analysis Period (min) 15 OtJendell TIA 5:00 pm 10/112009 2015 With ProJect AM Pk Hr %user_name% ,I, ,I, S"P Srop 5 5 0 20B 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 5 5 0 226 ICU Level of SeM:e 5 0.92 5 B ,I, Srop 0 46 254 0.92 0.92 0.92 0 50 276 Synchro 7 • Report Page 4 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: Lk WA Blvd & f ' t ~ '-. + IIIUi~lJ.:i!t'.alr~miilll.PCllll·-~1E-~,i:tB-,,-&~-,;III·· Lana Coofiguraboos V 1' ~ t vo~me (veh/h) ' 30 807 ' 55 289 Sign Control ~op '"' '" Grad, 0% ... ... Peak Hour Factor 0.92 092 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) ' 33 877 ' .. 314 Pedestnans Lane Width (ft) Walking Sp&ad (ftls) Percenl Blocbge R'{lht 1um flare (veh) Median t,pe """' lWLTL Median storage veh) 2 Upstream signal (fl) pX, platoon unblocmd vC, conn~~ volume 1314 "' 883 vC1, stage 1 con! vol 880 vC2, stage 2 cent vol 434 vCu, unblocked vol 1314 ,., 883 tC,si~le {s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) 5.4 IF(&) 3.5 3.3 2.2 pO queue free % " 91 92 cM_.lyl-1 359 349 m ?ff;· Onrt:t@M:OYH-#h<IBL'-JIJ-·ts:r-:·. ·· ·ti-· s·,.e Volume Total 36 883 60 314 Volume Left 5 0 60 O Volume Right 33 5 0 D cSH 351 1700 771 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.11 0.52 0.08 O. 18 Queue Length 95th (ft) 9 0 6 0 ControtDetay(s) 16.5 0.0 10.1 0.0 Lane LOS C B Apiroach Delay (s) 16.5 D.O 1.6 Approach LOS C h• I. 7 tM&hift:11~-:-·;,;z'-'1-:&: ·' A~erage Delay lntersecllon capacity Ublizabon Analysis Perio::! (mm) ~ 10 55.7% 15 Queridell TIA 5:00 pm 10/112009 2015 With Project AM Pk Hr %user_name% '.t::,.::,,1r ICU leYel of Service ,.-.,, ~·'" ·-'-if' .... 8 1011412009 ~c•, .....:1.'' synchro 7 -Report Pages HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Lk WA Access & Lk WA Blvd ,; -. "' t + .; ....__a;· -"' -1· '~-,~--~lllb:;z&,......J&r·~;-)i·-C.";:',) Lane Con~gurabons V " !, Volume (vehlh) n 96 83 759 "' 5') Sign Conlrol Stop '"' '"' Grad, 0% 0% "' Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly How rate (vph) 84 104 00 '" 270 54 Pedestnans Lane Width (fl) Walking Speed (Ws) Peroant Blockage Right tum 1\are (veh) M&dian type T'NL.Tl TWLTL Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked ve, conflicting volume 1302 297 324 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 297 ...C:2, stage 2 c:onf YOl 1005 vCu, unbJocked vol 1302 297 324 tC, SJngle (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) 5.4 tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 pO queue free % 73 " 93 cMc,paotyl""""I 314 747 "" Rt ii W, :,, .. •M'4' ,ia@J·t1ftteffl1i¥1:lr•:¥r-W''Xtti,<",Lti:,:'',·.,.:i-'C' Voli.me Total 1tl8 915 324 Volume Left 84 90 0 Volurra Righi 104 O 54 cSH 463 1236 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.41 0.07 0.19 Queue Length 95th (fl) 49 6 0 Control Delay (s) 18.D 1.8 0.0 Lane LOS C A Approach Delay (s) 18.0 1.8 o.n Approach LOS C *Rt Ntl F ,w~'·;>,"i :,. c'"'.fs$' tr tf:ifH::t-ric"''-1'-.,.·:·,,;(.,:•,s,~ kt/ Average Delay lnterseellon capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 3.6 80.8% 15 Quendell TIA 5:00 pm 10/112009 2015 With ProJect /lM Pk Hr %user_name% ICU Level of Service D 1011412009 Synchro 7 -Report Page 6 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: Quendell Access & Ri~ Ln _; -. .., t + 10/1412009 ~ ~.:.7 'i ~"'-~ ~~c~"" a:A·~'?',-iL,!,,N,~.~i.<.7:,;;r,;, 0:;!;.•5~"'::~su.~-~..,:,.;';;.~;.·:;.1r., Larie Con~gurations V <! • Volume (veh't,) 5 302 366 90 40 S1gn Con1rol Stop F= , .. Grad, 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 5 328 398 98 43 5 Pedestrians LaneWldtl(ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Pert:8nl Blockage Right tum flare (Yeh) Median type """ -Median storage veh) U~tream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vc, oonllicting volume 940 40 49 vC 1, stage 1 conf vol VC:2, stage 2 cont vol vCu, unblocked vol 940 46 49 IC, single (9) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) IF {s) 3.5 3.3 ,., pO queue free% 96 66 74 ct.1 capacity ('IE!hlti) 216 1023 "" ,,.;.::..... ... \'J! • ..1~..&.i J"·':., •..,~,,,,__11,;-~" ~"',.;"', ,·•v ~~ r'u~"'·'.i,1,.,-ti,~~~f.(,~~ Volume Total 334 496 49 Volume Left 5 396 0 Volume Right 328 0 5 cSH 965 1566 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.35 0.28 0.03 Queue Length 95th (fl) " " 0 COnlrol Delay (s) 10.7 6.9 0.0 Lane LOS 8 A Approaeh Delay (s) 10.7 6.9 0.0 Approach LOS 8 ~ ., ·.a'.iL~ ""~ •. ;~ ~,.L ... hnn~~•'•.-~'>/..~",h;..,v.c-Y;.,;S.~·=·/l:c::;,.t~.._;.._r.:.,c~f Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utillzation Analysis Period (min) 60 57.3% 15 Quendell TIA 5·00 pm 10,11/2009 2015 With Project AM Pk Hr %user_name% ICU Level of SeNice 8 Synchro 7 -Re~r1 Page 7 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 8: Lk WA Access & f '-t ,,.. '-. Lane Configurations V • Volume (veh't1) 5 123 5 35 133 Sign Con1rol Fae Sop """' 0% 0% Peak Hour Fac1or 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (','Jtl) 5 134 5 36 145 Pedes1riarrs Lane Width (ft} Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right tum flare (veh) Median type "'"' Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX. pletOOT1 unblocked vC, confficling YONme 0 145 0 116 ...C 1, stage 1 con! v~ vC2, stage 2 oonf vol vCu, unblocked vol 0 145 0 116 iC, single (sl 4.1 6.5 62 7.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF {sJ 2.2 4.0 33 3.5 pOqueuefree % 100 99 96 62 tM capacity {vehlh) 1623 744 1085 621 Volume Tota 139 43 150 Volume Left 5 0 145 Volume Right 134 36 0 cSH 1623 1026 820 Volume to CepacHy 0.00 0.04 0.18 Queue Length 95th 1ft) 0 3 17 "°""" Dei,y(•I 03 8.7 10.4 lane LOS A A 8 Approach Deley (s) 0.3 8.7 10.4 Approach LOS A 8 1!11111 Average Delay 5.9 + " 5 Stop 0% 0.92 5 16 16 6.5 4.0 99 810 Intersection Capacity Utilization 28.9% ICU Level of Service Analysrs Period (m1n) 15 auendell TIA 5:00 pm 10/112009 2015 With Project AM P~ Hr %user _name% A 1011412009 Synchro 7 -Report Page e HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: NE 44th St & Lake WA Blvd SE 10/1412009 / -• f +-'-"\ t ,,. '. + .; II I -~-i.l:llta11::1&~111'1~ia;;.;.1a ... ,z !Ill ··~&-.-111li·;;lll!"ri··•:'i ·:IB;1;'-'118 Lane Coofiguratons ' f. ' t r ,I, Sign Control Slo, Stop Stop Volume (v'Pfl) BO 220 234 85 191 75 242 260 165 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 096 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Hourly flow rate (vph) " 229 244 89 199 78 252 271 172 7 -I 'lfflftitfitG\:lff-:t'.111,zi\lY's:c&l""' WIJ-· IIJe: -NU ··SI!,,.,· Volume Total (vph) " 473 89 199 Volume Left (Vph) " 0 89 0 Volume Right (vph) 0 244 0 0 Haq(,) 0.52 ~.34 0.53 0.03 Departure HeadWay (s) 9.4 ,., 10.2 97 Degee Utilization, X 0.22 1.12 025 0.53 Capacity (~eNh) 378 434 350 362 Control Delay (s) 13.8 109.4 15.3 22.0 Approach Delay (s) 95.1 16.8 Approach LOS F C II' -. ii I zM ~".iiil;:£"<;,,;-~._:'. ,Ci,;; Det,y 158.7 HCM Level of Se/Vice F Intersection Capacity Utiizatioo 1102% Analysis Penod (min) 15 Quendall TIA 5:00 pm 10/1/2009 2015 With Project PM Pk Hr %user_name% 7B 695 502 0 252 57 78 172 414 -0.67 ~.06 -0.45 32 B5 81 0.o7 1.64 1.13 1121 428 448 5.2 318.9 110.6 318.9 110.6 F F -· •. ~,,/ ICU Lewi Of Service H ,I, Stop 55 30 397 0.96 0.96 0.96 57 31 414 Synchro 7 . Report Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: NE 44th St & 405 SB Off-ram~ / -• f +-'-"\ t ,,. 1 z:t'·:.& ··~t~·--.. ;i{~• :,;.,--MJ.:iiatrM·!,._.,, .• ·lllr·-·-,Mlr-,·:!ll Lane Configurations f. ' t Volume (veh/h) 0 389 293 ,.. ... 0 0 0 0 Sign C.Ont~ ,., , .. Stop Grado 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Fac«x 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 097 097 0.97 0.97 Hourtyflow rate (vph) 0 40! 302 247 598 0 0 0 0 Pedestnans lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ftfs) Percen1 Blocll.age Right 1um flare (veh) Medianly!)& ""'' -Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, confticling volume 598 703 1876 1645 552 vC1. stage 1 oonf ~01 VC:2, stage 2 conf vot vCu, unblocked vol 598 703 1876 1645 552 tc, single (s) 4.1 41 7.1 6.5 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.2 35 4.0 3.3 pO queue free% 100 72 100 100 !00 cM capacity (veh/h) 989 "' 4 73 537 n r 1·etr::.:tr'""'ii«"'.P:l'l ltsttrWfrffltft'NEf¥'ifrliil%ifuli¥f®:tt··~··-·. V01Jme Total 703 247 598 611 Volume Left VOiume Righi ''" Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (ft) Control Oejay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS r re IMrJroe - A..-erage Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 0 247 0 149 302 0 0 457 1700 899 1700 200 0.41 028 0.35 3.06 028 OErr 0.0 10.5 0.0 Err 8 F 0.0 3.1 Err ·«2w•1htr-,;:_h¥-r&tff-t'' >w .~;.,_, 2831.5 70.0% ICU Le\161 of Service 15 Quendall TIA 5:00 pm 10/112009 2015 With Project PM Pk Hr %user_name% C 10114/2009 '. + .; • l!!I SIii< 4 r 145 5 443 Slop 0% 0.97 0.97 0 97 149 5 457 1645 1796 598 1645 1796 598 7.1 6.5 6.2 35 4.0 33 0 91 10 63 59 506 Synchro 7 -Report Page2 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Lk WA Blvd & Ri~ Ln ~ --+ "'t • -' 10/1412009 4\ t ~ '. + .,, ) t::;J...,,--.~~C:.-•;,:,... --~ ""Q.:,...,,;,.;i.,;:,.,_-,,, jJ,:;",. ~.l"''"''-;,,~,, :\f¥'":l:.o. .e;l',\{~.~»t;J.-~,tj,~,~· Larre Gon~gurat10!ls Volume (veh/h) Sign Con1rol G""' Peak Hour Faclor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrial'ls Lane Wld!h (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn Mare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, pla1oon unblocked vC, con~ict1ng volume vC1, stage 1 confvol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu. unblocked vol IC, single (s) IC, 2 stage (s) IF(s) pO quetl8 free% cM capacity (veMl} ~ J. 10 237 ,., 0% 0.97 0.97 0.97 10 244 5 TWLTL 2 1049 1049 4.1 22 " 671 J. 5 634 384 '"' "" 097 097 0.97 5 6S4 396 - 249 249 4.1 22 100 1310 0 Stop 0% 0.97 0.97 0 0 1150 1327 268 268 882 1080 1150 1327 7.3 8.7 6.3 57 37 ,., 100 100 m 259 f 10 0.97 10 247 247 8.4 3.5 " "' .. 430 0 20 Stop 0% 0.97 0.97 0.97 443 0 21 1137 1132 852 862 862 275 270 1137 1132 852 7.1 8.5 8.2 6.1 5.5 3.5 4.0 " 0 100 94 "' 346 "' '.,..i..,,>,_~:1\!_~i ,,:: , "'' ,.., :·~ ,,. . ,. ~,.,.,•.•..:::.:, 'g~::';,..f!;•;i/ii';,.",,.":,s;:'~~~ Volume Total 10 249 1055 10 Volume Left 10 0 5 0 V~ume Righi 0 5 396 10 cSH 671 1700 1310 756 Volume to Gapacity 0.02 0.15 0.00 0.01 Queue Length 95th (fl) 1 0 0 1 Control Da1ay (s) 10.4 0.0 0.1 9.8 Lane LOS B A A Apprnach Delay (s) 0.4 0.1 9.8 Approach LOS A Average Delay 61.3 Intersection Capaci1y UHlization 92.7% Analysis Peliod 1m,n) 15 Quendall TIA 5·00 pm 10/112009 2015 With Projecl PM Pk Hr %user_name% 464 443 21 327 1.42 606 235.7 F 235.7 F ICU Level of Service Synchro 7 -Report Page 3 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Lk WA Blvd & N 36th S1 ~ --+ "'t • -' 4\ =...~ _.fkfu..., Jf"':!,, -~,zt.. Lane Configura1ions .. Sign Control Slop Volume (\1¢1) 141 5 5 5 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.98 0.98 0.98 Hou~y flow ra1e (vph) 144 5 5 5 ,,~!-.' J[~,,'t~ 1it'~.i.J \.!~klii~"J. <I Volume To1al (vph) 154 15 63 705 Volume Left (vph) 144 s ' 26 Volume Right (vph) 5 5 5 526 Hadj(s) 0,20 -0.13 -0.05 ~" Departure Headway (s) 5.0 5.0 5.1 4.1 Degree Utllzalion, x 0.25 0.02 0.09 0.81 Capacity (vehlh} 573 566 655 708 Control Delay (s) 10.7 8.9 8.7 ,,. Approach Delay (s] 10.7 8.9 8.7 21.8 Ai>""""Los B A A C '·-,t J -,,;;,.-.. "'·~, .. c\ ',,,#.'> ;;:-·,'+· Delay 18.9 HCM Level of Service C lnleraectioo Capacity utilization 69.6% Analysis Period (min) 15 Quendall TIA 5:00 pm 10/112009 2015 With ProJect PM Pk Hr %user name% .. Slop 5 5 0 0.9' 0.96 0.98 5 5 0 ICU levf.11 of Servioo t I' "" , ,I, ""' 57 5 0.96 0.9' 58 5 C 10114/2009 '. + .,, . .. Stop 25 154 515 0.9' 0.98 0.98 26 157 526 Synchl1) 7 -Report Page 4 HCM Unsignatized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: Lk WA Blvd & • '-t ~ '-.. J. 11111111 f\ii" ·~~itf:i,'.!·, •. ,,-,)-~-~,111~ .... , ·,: & BL·,· Lane Configurabons V I, ' t Volume (vah/h) 5 40 217 5 50 648 Sign Control Stop ''" '"' Grad, "' "' "' Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 """'""'""'(,ph) 5 41 224 5 52 '" Pedestrians la'le WidU, (fl) Walking Spe&d (/tis) Percent Blockage Right tum Hare (veh) Median type """ TWLTL Median storage veh) 2 Upstream signal (fl) pX, platoon unblocked ve. conflicting 'IOlurne 997 226 229 vC1, stage 1 con! YOI 226 vC2, stage 2 cont vol 771 vCu, unblocked vol 997 226 229 IC, sWlgle (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 IC, 2 stage (s) 54 If {S) 3.5 3.3 22 p0 Queue free% 99 95 96 cM capacity (vehlh) "' 818 1333 z··r:r ftrWffit,$7-?$Wle!l'.ts4fflthMN·i:t:·"'·,..:~r~•;en·,· Volume Total 46 229 52 668 Volume Left 5 0 52 0 Volume Righi 41 5 O O cSH 740 1700 1333 1700 Volime to capacity 0.06 0.13 0.04 0.39 Queue Length 95th (ftJ 5 o 3 o Control Delay (s) 102 0.0 7.6 0.0 Lane LOS B A 1'ppro,adi Delay (s) 10.2 0.0 0.8 Approach LOS B :ma! JIPPfMer1"'. ·".,i.j-.. ,; .,,. ;.., ,• ,~ ·,.,,·:r ··: .', ,~,j Average Delay 0.9 Intersection Capacity Ublization 44.1% ICU Level of Service Analysis Pe nod Jmin) 15 Quendall TIA 5:00 pm 10/112009 2015 With Project PM Pk Hr %user name% 10/1412009 " ~ .::i __ ..... •.,:iz.:.;i,•····j .;,·'"':t-i'7tf:i~'· -kl '·i:;ti•·:.'-i A Synchro 7 • Report Page 5 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Lk WA Access & Lk WA Blvd / . .._ t J. ~ ,,,,.,, i:i f.:.;· ,, ... _, ... :h;;,IL'!, -~t!!fc'<-"tlffz;('Pff'~ •. , .. 6~°).\_'·~. ,,;,:,.;.., Lane Configurations V ,t I, Volume (vehlh) 69 115 79 178 583 71 Sign Control Grad, Free Free "' "' Peak Hour Factof Hourly flow rate (vph) Stop 0% 0.97 71 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 119 81 184 601 73 Pedestnans Lane Width (ft) Walking Spe&d (ft/s) Percent Bklliage Right 1urn flare (veh) Median type TVvlTL TWLTL Median storage veh) Upstream signal (fl) pX, ~atoon unblocked vC, conflicting 'IOlurne vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 cont vol vCu, unblocked vol IC, S10gle (s) tC, 2 stage (s) IF(s) pO queue free% "'-1-1 964 638 346 964 6.4 54 3.5 64 459 2 2 638 674 638 674 62 4.1 3.3 2.2 75 91 480 '" Pf 7 'f Flit"'· ···1""' "::>·:Ji11:'·:JlltJefflftbi'!fWS:#afi§Wi:ttfi, ~·ti,,:•.<' V<l!urne Total 190 265 674 Volume Left 71 81 0 Volume Right 119 O 73 cSH 472 926 1700 Volume to capacity 0,40 0.09 0.40 Queue Length 95th (ftl 48 l 0 Contro1Delay(s) 17.7 3.5 0.0 Lane LOS C A AppmadiDelay(s) 17.7 3.5 0.0 Approacn LOS C ti 5 :lnrY-i~,.· · .... ·'"S'·'~,e-r ±+-'·1:i:U:liint'lztt:@ft:f:lf'..-·t··:>-., Average Delay 3.8 Intersection Cap;wty UtlizatK>n 69.6% Analysis Penod (min) 15 Q1.1endall TIA 5:00 pm 10/112009 2015 With Pro1ect PM PK Hr %user name% ICU Lawil of Service C 10114/2009 Synchro 7 -Re~ Page 6 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: Ouendall Access & Ri.e!!!i: Ln .> • ..., t i 10/14/2009 ..,, ,-~~~~ ""''-", 'J -,;)_-..,, _ ~:..'f!;. "".;;" ...<)h kl<tf\'t*.iii,."t.:...-1.:r,1',,,~~~¥.--:si#~'t!.> Lane Configurations V 4 r. Volume (vet-Jh) 5 380 344 45 75 5 Sign Control Stop '"' '"' Grado 0% "" "" Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Hourtyflow rate (vph) 5 392 355 .. n 5 Pedestnans Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (Ills) Percent Blockage Right tum Hare [veh) Median type """ "'"" Median storage veh) Upstream s;gnal (fl} pX. platoon unblocked vC, conllicting volume '" 80 82 vC 1, stage 1 oon1 vol vC2, stage 2 conf YOI vCu, unblocked vol 036 BO 82 tC, single (s} 6A 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (sJ 3.5 3.3 2.2 pOqueuefree % 9B 60 77 cM capacity (YeN°h) 261 986 1528 • "' ~t.'.i..l~~--:.. \" -.. ' " "~ .i::_· -.el''> i'+'t, ',_,;;:.,,1""-~'-·~~:::$,·~~"'-* Volume Total 397 401 82 Volume Left 5 355 0 VOiume Right 392 0 5 cSH 952 1528 1700 Volume to capacity 0.42 0.23 0.05 Queue Ler,gth 95th (It) 52 23 0 Control Deley (s) 11.5 7.4 0.0 Lane LOS B A Approach Delay (s) 11.5 7.4 0.0 Approach LOS B I!! 11.·~h-ai Average Delay B.5 Jrrtersection Capacity Utilization 58.6% Analysis Period (min) 15 Ouendall TIA 5:00 pm 101112009 2015 With Project PM Pk Hr %user name% ICU Level of Service B Synchro 7 -Report Page 7 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 8: Lk WA Access & • '-t ,.. ',. i->;+MH Lane Configurations V " Volume (veh/h) 35 115 5 15 164 Sign Control '" Stop Grado "" 0% Peak Hour Factor a.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Hourtyflow rale (vph) 36 119 5 15 169 Pedestrians Lane WKl!h (ft) Walking Speed (ftls) Percent Blockage Right tum flare Jveh) Medan type None Median storage veh) Upstream s;gnal (fl) pX, platoo, unblod.ed vC, conflicting volume 0 191 0 149 vC 1, stage 1 con/ vol VC2, stage 2 coril vol vCu, unblocked vol 0 191 a 149 IC, singht (s) 4.1 6.5 B.2 7.1 tC, 2 stage (s) lF (s) 2.2 4.0 3.3 3.5 pO queue free% 98 99 99 79 cM capacity {veh/h) 1623 699 1065 798 Volume Total 155 21 174 Volume Left 36 0 169 Volume Right 119 15 0 cSH 1623 946 787 Volume to capacity 0.02 0.02 022 Queue Length 95th (ft) 2 2 21 eontroj Delay (s) 1.B ,., 10.9 Lare LOS A A B Approach Delay (s) 1.B B.9 10.9 Approach LOS A s 10/1412009 i ,l 5 ""' 0% a.97 5 131 131 6.5 4.0 99 742 L.,c,_d.L ... (-i.!..u.;1~~~ ~~VJiU~~l;"·;~~·iwt.Jr "'';y,__ ""', ~-1" Average Delay lrrtersaelion capacity Utrnzefion Analysis Period (min) 6.8 31.7% 15 Ouendall TIA 5:00 pm 1011/2009 2015 With Project PM Pk Hr %user _name% ICU Level of Service A Synchro 7 -Report Pages Queues 1: NE 44th St & 405 NB Rame, ..> ... ..... '\ t ~ t·ntt 'f e·"-,,M;",!Af:it111t1:i::1Pt··+Wli)i"'·Mc ··-)IIT}rr• Lane Group Flow (vph) 584 536 904 276 112 111 ·-~ ~ ffl ffl u u Conlrol Delay 4.3 1.3 20.8 42.0 0 7 0.7 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 TotalDelay 4.3 1.3 22.4 42.0 07 0.7 ClOJeue Length 50th (fl) 9 3 80 144 O D Q>Jeue length 95th (ft) 88 m43 123 205 0 0 Internal Link Dist (11) 554 167 838 Tum Bay Length (fl) Bas& Cspacity (vph) 1335 2399 1264 529 677 677 StarvationGapRoouctn O O 198 0 0 0 Spilba(;k cap Reductn o o o o a o Storage Cap Reductn O O O 0 0 0 Reduced vie Ratio 0.44 0.22 0.85 0.52 0.17 0.16 I tr 71 1 ·'r";;tflhliift::';:<10:,j:"'-', -~~,,.-'f'··"'t"" .:--:-· m Volume for 96th pert:Efltile queue is metered by upstream signal. Q1J8ndall TIA 5:00 pm 10/512009 2015 With Project AM Pk -Mi1g Transpo Group (TRKM) '•h'•;·_·>-"·- 10/14/2009 ,_,.,'<_,·:.,, <~y -~- •.-•::-, ---~-,,-._-::r··, .. i('.-' Synchro 7 -Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: NE 44th St & 405 NB Rame 10114/2009 ..> ... ~ • ..... '-'\ t ~ '. + .I u.--,i .. "~.~ ·~~·· .~:·v ;•,~·-··111·0 ·ia1~afi··1-Jw ~'-'·&~-.. aN·~JB -:·& BI §!!!l Lane Configuraticms '' tt ttf. ' " Volume ("Ph) 537 493 0 0 616 21S 254 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1 .. Total l.os1time (a) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane UtJI. Factor 097 0.95 0.91 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 too 0.96 100 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1 00 Said. Flow (prot) 3433 3539 4888 1641 1395 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1 00 0.95 100 Said. Flow Je!!rml 3433 3539 4888 1641 1395 Peak-hour factor, PHF 092 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (VJ)h) 584 S36 0 0 670 234 276 0 RTOR Roouc1100 (vph) 0 0 0 0 70 0 0 86 LMe Groop Flow jvph) 584 S36 0 0 834 0 276 26 Hea:!r Vehicles!%] 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 10% 10% Tum Type Prol Split Protecled Phases 7 4 6 2 2 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 35.0 61.0 22.0 21.0 21.0 Effective Gr8efl, g (s) 35.0 61.0 22.0 21.0 21.0 Actuated g/C Ra1io 0.39 0.68 0.24 0.23 0.23 Clearance Time {s) 4.0 4.0 ,.o <.O 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 30 30 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1335 2399 1195 '" 326 vis Ratio Prot c0.17 015 c0.17 c[].17 0.02 vi$ Rath Perm vie Ra110 0.44 022 0.70 0.72 0.08 Unifoon De~y. d1 20.3 5.5 31.0 31.8 27.0 Progression Factor 0.16 0 19 0.64 1.00 100 lnCl\lmental Delay, d2 0.7 0.1 2.1 65 01 Delay Is) 4.0 12 22.8 38.3 27 1 Lewi ol Service A A C D C Approach Delay [sJ 2.7 22.6 33.3 -LOS A C C I !llalll l!1111i11 " ~H. ··~t-'i'~~riiu~ms;1:&1:·ai~1aif-~·°'i'' 1:~· -.. .• '· HCM Average Corrtrol Delay 15.9 HCM Volume to Capacity rabo 0.59 Actuated Cyde Length (s) 90.0 Intersection Capaci1y Ubl1zabon 561% Analysis Period (min) 15 c Cri~cal Lane Group Quendall TIA 5:00 pm 10/512009 2015 Wilh Project AM Pk· Mitg Transpo Group (TRKM) HCM Level or Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service ~ 205 1900 4.0 0.95 0.85 1 00 139S 1.00 1395 0.92 223 8S 26 10% ''"" 2 21.0 21.0 0.23 4.0 3.0 326 0.02 0 08 26.9 100 0.1 27 1 C • 12.0 B 0 0 0 1900 1900 1900 0.92 092 0.92 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2% 2% 2% 0.0 A Synchro 7. Report Page2 Queues 2: NE 44th St & 405 SB Off-rame 10/14/2009 --+ f +-'-. ! .I ~~--'.f.4';,,:•i. °t: 0 L ; ,. ~'";... -----•~f,,.~;;z. ... ~'<;:1;!,".."«"<'1!-.:!.c.1.....'-iJ."'1,A'&'~.Z.M::,; Lane Group Flow (vph) 1265 478 473 35 V/C RatlO 0.77 0.54 0.28 0.07 Control Delay 17 8 24.9 4.0 21.1 Queue Delay 7.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 25.4 24.9 4.0 21.1 Queue Lengtl'l 50th (ft) 89 57 9 14 Queue Length 95th (ft) 126 #201 115 33 Internal Link Dist (ft) 112 554 Turn Bay Length (ft) 500 Base Cepacily (vph) 1649 887 1819 629 Starvation Cap Reductn 349 0 0 0 Spill back Cep Reductn 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 Reduced vie Ratio 0.97 0.54 020 '·"' # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown 1s maximum after two cycles. Quendall TIA 5·00 pm 1015/2009 2015 With Project AM Pk -M1tg Transoo Group (TRKM) 35 0.07 21.1 00 211 14 33 678 635 0 0 0 ODIi 309 0.46 4.9 0.0 4.9 0 51 500 , .. 0 0 0 0.39 Synchro 7 -Report Page 3 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: NE 44th St & 405 SB Off-ram.e, _, --+ -. f +-'- 1011412009 "\ t ,,. '-. j. .I c.'.Lc~1.. ... '1~~-'-'1:.~U.ifiit!L: ... S:i;;;1L.,.~,i.,11:t¥;\:.u~,>lf=:L...~'::.~,.;.1.W."~ ., .L. ,.• .-,ii:.'::" ... ., Lane Configurations Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor '" Fil Protected Sald. FIOW (pro!) Fil Permitted Said. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (,ph) RTOR Redl.!Ction (vph) Lane Group Flow {vph) Heavy Vehicles(%) Tum Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance nme (s) Vehicle Extension ill Lane GIJ) Cep (vph) vis Ratio Pll)t vis Ra1io Perm vie Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay !s) Level ol SeMca Approach Dfllay (sJ Approach LOS HCM Awrage Con1ml Delay HCM Volume to Capae1ty ra~o Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group tti. 950 213 1900 1900 1900 4.0 0.91 0.97 1.00 4994 1.00 4994 0.92 0.92 0.92 0 1033 232 0 42 0 0 1223 0 1% 1% 1% 25.B 25.8 0.29 4.0 3.0 1432 c0.24 0.B5 30.3 0.59 4.3. 22.2 C 22.2 C 19.0 0.52 90.0 49.0% 15 ,, 440 1900 4.0 0.97 1.00 0.95 3433 0.95 3433 0.92 478 0 478 tt 435 1900 4.0 095 1.00 1.00 3539 100 3539 0.92 473 0 473. 2% 2% ~ 3 23.3 43.1 23.3 43.1 0.26 0.4B 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 889 1B95 c0.14 013 0.54 0.2B 28.7 14.1 0.72 0.28 1.8 0.3 22.5 4.2 C A 13.4 • 1900 1900 1900 O 92 0.92 0.92 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2% 0% 0% 0.0 A , " r 60 5 264 1900 1900 1900 1900 4.0 4.0 4.0 0 95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.95 0.96 1.00 1665 1680 1568 0.95 0.96 1.00 1665 1680 1568 0.92 0 92 0 92 0.92 0 65 5309 0 0 0 210 0353599 0% 3% 3% 3% Split Pro! 6 28.9 28.9 0.32 ,.o 3.0 535 0.02 O.D7 21.2 100 0.1 21.2 C 28.9 28.9 28.9 28.9 0.32 0.32 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 539 504 0.02 c0.06 0.06 0.20 21.2 22.1 1.00 1.00 0.1 0.2 21.2 22.3 C C 22.1 C HCM Le\181 of Service B Sum oflosUme (s) 12.0 ICU Level of Servi re A Quendall TIA 5:00 pm 1015/2009 2015 With Project AM Pk -Mitg Trans po Group (TRKM) Synchro 7 -Report Page4 Queues 3: Lk WA Blvd & Ri le Ln / -+ -' t '. + 1••Fa1~a:{&"i1n.11 ~·~Ef~•··i•···trlt '--•· -,m~ Lane Groop Fk:iw (vph) 22 881 318 479 vie Ratio 0.19 0.78 0.17 0.45 Control Delay 43.6 33.3 6.5 22 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.2 Total Delay 43.6 33.J 69 2.5 Queue Length 50tt1 (ft) 12 237 18 0 Queue Length 951h (H) 36 311 42 42 lntemal link Dist (ft) 166 112 Tum Bay Length (HJ 50 Base capacity ('+'Ph) 118 1140 1837 1055 Starvallon Gap R&ductn 0 0 1045 143 Spillback Qlp Reductn 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reducin 0 0 0 0 Reduced vfc Ratio 0.19 0.78 0.40 0.83 I J?ttTMtmW::Fee~,..-.:,·.-:;·..,. .. ,,. ti-95th percenUle ¥Olume exoeeds capacity, queue may be longer. Que,e shown is maximum after two cydes. Quendall TIA 5:00 pm 10/512fl09 2015 With Project AM Pk-M1tg Transpo Group (TRKMJ 5 366 11 0.01 0.84 0.01 0.0 48.8 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 50.0 0.0 0 191 0 0 #328 0 13 322 336 4,0 '" 0 0 0 0 " 0 0 0 0 0.01 0.81 0.01 10/14/2009 ".;j··· ·x .:-. ·nc Synchro 7 • Report Page 5 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Lk WA Blvd & Riele~ Ln / -+ ~ • -' .._ t I" Iba ll~~i:/0 i· -~··-,·,c;i:flia':~--i:ii:iil':3·-~-~-~-~---~ :tm·· ·!I!! lane Configurations ' tr. H t Volume (vph) 20 816 0 0 293 441 0 Ideal Flow (~phpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost Ume (s) 40 4.0 40 4.0 Lane UUL Fac1or 1.00 0.95 0.95 1 00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Prote<:ted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Said. FIOW (pro!) 1770 3539 3574 1599 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1 00 100 Said. Flow !t!!!nn! 1770 3539 3574 1599 Peak-hour factor. PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 22 887 0 0 318 479 0 RTOR Reduction (vph] 0 0 0 0 0 250 0 Lane Group Flew (vph) 22 887 0 0 318 229 0 Heavy Vehicles 1%) 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 0% Tum Type Prol -Split Protected Phases 7 4 8 1 Permitted Pttases 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 60 258 43. t 43.1 Effective Green, g (s) 6.0 25.8 43.1 43.1 Actuated g!C Ra110 0.07 0.29 0.48 0 48 Clearance Time {s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (sl 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp cap (vph) 118 1015 1712 766 vis Ralio Prot c0.01 c0.25 0.09 Y/s Ratio Perm c0.14 ~le Ratio 0.19 0.67 0.19 0.30 Uniform Delay, d1 39.7 30.0 13.4 10 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.40 0.52 lncrem8f1tal Delay, d2 0.8 10.4 0.2 1.0 Delay (SJ 40.5 40.9 6.7 a.4 Level of Service D D A A Approach Delay (s) 40.9 7.8 Approach LOS D A hi II 111111m ,.,_.-. .,., ,·:···i~~;.~:f:i,lriii:i~"·'~j-·~'&.:io)i';,;fz; ..:.i£~:, .Ar,· HCM Average Control Delay 28.9 HCM Volume lo Capacity ratio 0.69 -"" c"'° '""" 1,1 Ol.O lntersec~on Capacity U111iza11on 54.6% Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Quendall TIA 5:00 pm 10/512009 2015 With Pro1ect AM Pk-Mltg Transpo Group (TRKM) HCM Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service .. 0 5 1900 1900 4.0 1.00 0.86 1.00 1644 1.00 1644 0.92 0 92 0 5 5 0 0 0 0% 0% 0.6 0.0 0.01 4.0 J.O 15 c0.00 0.00 44.2 1.00 0.1 44.3 D 44.3 D C 20.0 A 10/14/2009 '. + .,, .. m !l!! ' I, 337 0 10 1900 1900 1000 4.0 40 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 1626 1455 0.95 1.00 1679 1455 0.92 0.92 0 92 366 0 11 0 8 0 366 3 0 11% 11% 11% -···- Split 2 24.1 24.1 24.1 24.1 0.27 0.27 4.0 4.0 J.O 30 435 390 c0.23 0.00 0.04 O.D1 31.1 24.2 1.00 100 13.7 0.0 44.8 24.2 D C 44 2 D Synchro 7 -Repon Page 6 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Lk WA B!vd & N 36th St ..> -+. f' +-'- 10114/2009 ..._ t ,.. ~ J. .; :U.-~~ .. ~--"'~... " ' a,i~ J ' ..,_,• i,. '""-'' ,,.,..,cl't.c.:. :::../,_. d .. Lane Coofigurations .. .. .. .. Sign Control Sm, ... s•, Sm, Volume (vph) 540 5 5 5 5 5 0 20B 5 0 46 254 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.82 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly fiow rate (vph) 587 5 5 5 5 5 0 226 5 0 50 276 •"..S:.1~~-\f'.._t,A•;-,1•,s; ~'f;.J ~.,..~,,,~i':...,(,/_) ,J..,'ly,~,f::,>-J.\_-rj,."~S' .. f$~\1,I. Volume Total (vph) 590 16 232 326 Volume Left (vph) 5B7 5 0 0 Volume R,ght (vph) 5 5 5 276 Hadj (s) 0.22 .0.13 .0.01 .0.47 Departure Headway (s) 5.S ,., 6.5 59 Degrge Utilization, x 0.97 0.03 0.42 0.53 Capacity (veh/h) 603 460 545 602 Control Delay (1) 53.8 10.1 14.1 15.4 Approach Delay (s) 53.8 10.1 14.1 15.4 Approach LOS F ' ' C J ....... ~!L;:d:.....r )-t~~' "- °'"' 34.6 HCM Level of Service D lnterseclioo Capacity Utilization 61.9% Analysis Penod (min) 15 Quendall TIA 5:00 pm 10/512009 2015 W~h Project AM Pk -Mitg Tra~spo Group (TRKMI ICU Level of S&MC& ' Synchro 7 -Report '"' 7 HCM Unsignatized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: HL Main Access & Lk WA Blvd f '-t ,.. ~ 10/14/2009 J. .'u.JL..! ~u~ll~-~J,aj:,..._;i::,~,~~"'\':._"':~\; _,_,~'~~.,,_~::,-":l'>!~"""'R):-.. r<-•," ; ~-H!,, Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor H01Jrtyflow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (flls) Percent Blockage Right tum Hare (veh) Medlen type Median storage 11eh) Upstream signal (fl) pX. platooo unblocked vC, c:onfiicting Ymlme ..C 1, stage 1 con! vol \'Cl, stage 2 (;(In! vot vCu, unblocked vol tc, sijngle (s) tC, 2 stage (s) IF (s) pO queue free% cM capacity (vehlh) ,ri, ,tt 5 30WJ7 5 55289 Stop Free Free 0% 0% 0% 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 5 33 877 5 60 314 "°"' lWl.n 2 355 1.00 1157 880 883 880 277 1149 880 883 ,., '' 4.1 58 3.5 3.3 2.2 98 89 92 "' 294 788 •~ ~c.......J.l'_1:Ua.~.U:1~"1. .• i~JJ:i \.:hi,,, l~--..i~. iEirlLs.ir,t..:.~':t:.f,-._,.'fs:~,, .~., ,_ ~ • ~ ~ Volume Total 5 33 "' 60 157 157 Volume Left 5 0 0 60 0 0 Volume Right 0 33 5 0 0 0 cSH 3'5 294 1700 768 1700 1700 Volume to capacity 0.02 0.11 0.52 o.oe 0.09 0.09 Queue Length 95th (H) 1 9 0 6 0 0 Control Delay (s) 15.6 18.8 0.0 10.1 00 0.0 Lane LOS C C ' Appm,ch Dalayi'J fB.3 0.0 1.6 Approach LOS C '~""""'"~~.t.LZ..i.w.L;A~~~~~~liM-l:"-?J,,;.,%:tl..--,~~ ·"',,~.:.~,,. ,,.._, Average Delay ln1erwetion Gap.icily utilization Analysis Period (min) 1.0 55.7% 15 Quendall TIA 5:00 pm 10/512009 2015 With Project AM Pk· Mitg Transpo Group (TRKM) ICU leYel of Service ' Synchro 7 -Report Paga 8 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Lk WA Access & Lk WA BllJd ..> • "" t j. 10/1412009 .; M#littiirtiril,;,i~Mh:-·"8 ·-«: :aar.x,.,·JIF:,,M.··~'"-' -.,.-~., -· --, .• ~-£ -·.--...... ,•,:,,·.,,, >"·,~-,. Lane Configura~ons V "I + tli- Volume (veh/h) 77 96 83 759 24ll 50 Sign Colllrol Slop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourlyfbwrate(vph) 84 104 90 825 270 54 Pedestrians I.Wl1 Width (ft) Walking Spe&d (ftlsJ Percent BIOCkege Right tum Hare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (fl) pX, platoon unblocked ve. oontldlr,a YOlJme vC1, stage 1 confvci VC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, un~ocked vol IC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) IF (s) pO queue free % cM-1-1 0.96 "" 297 1005 1223 6.6 5.6 3.5 71 265 TWI.Tl TWLTL 2 2 236 0.96 0.96 162 324 29 198 6.9 4.1 3.3 2.2 90 93 999 1310 ITU 'll'll1·~.~1: ..... :1ia:•-:·•&~'"ii1l-* 111" ·1· ,:r., .,,..,,i Volumelolal 166 90 Volume Lett 04 90 Volume Right 104 0 oSH 472 1310 Volume to (;apacity 0.40 0.07 Queue Length 95th (ft) 47 6 Control Delay (s) 17.6 6.0 Lene LOS C A Approach Delay (s) 17.6 0.6 Approach LOS C tttt ppp.tr..1'~t' .. f"~"''.:~r~-"'-·- Average DeJay lntersec\Jon Capacity UlillZaOOII Anal~is Period (min) '" 180 144 D D D 0 D 54 1700 1700 1700 0.49 0.11 0.06 D D D a.a a.a a.a a.a ··~_.;;.,-.. ,,·,1· -~.;. -.· 4,_,·· ,.,,, •.•. ·Hfn'· ~'+ 2.6 56.8% ICU Level al Service 15 Quendall TIA 5:00 pm 10/5/2009 2015 With Project AM Pk -M1tg Transpo Group (TRKM) ••. ,. e - B ,1.:-'1 >, , • .c:~ .,J~:'"'~ Synchro l -Report Page 9 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: Project Access & Ripley Ln ..> • "" t j. .; 'f Pc·~:cw·riff·t::#k:'i*"8:t1··e"r-:rn'tr tFrt:::Mtfr:v~~,,~-c, Lane Configurations V 4 ~ Volume (vehlh) O 302 366 90 40 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hoorlyflowrate(vph) 0 328 398 98 43 0 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Spe&d lftls) PerC8fl1 Blockage R~ht 1um flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream Sijjnal (fl) pX, platoon unblocked vC, cooflk::tirig volume \IC 1, stage 1 oonf vol vC2, stage 2 IXtlf VOi vCu, unblocked vol IC, SiJlj!tl {s) tC. 2 stage (s) IF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (vehih) 937 937 6.4 3.5 100 222 -"'"' "" 43 43 43 43 6.2 4.1 3.3 22 66 75 1033 1578 11raa11nn.m1;·;, i'':ii::--,;,~;;;8~ ·ii•'!t.t~~; i<:> ~~.d~'e~"i.ii~-·.:.·.:l!'~'·'·-~~'"1_, ·· Volume Total 328 496 43 Volume left D 396 D Volume Righi 328 0 D cSH 1033 1578 1700 Volume to capac11y 0.32 025 0.03 Queue Length 95th (fl) 34 25 D Control Delay (s) 10.1 6.9 a.a Lane LOS B A Approach Delay (B) 10.1 6.9 a.a Approach LOS B •tewrt,. -:st=;;;:·<&;::t,·'f-;{'w,;,\,:tffiz.iifl-''i&'."1t'~:.:,fs,•4lim:"?~-·»···t·< -- Average Delay 7.8 Intersection Capacity Ullhzation 57.0% Analysis Period (mm) 15 Quendall TIA 5:00 pm 101512009 2015 With Project AM Pk -Mitg Trans po Group (TRKM) ICU Level al Serva! B 10/14/2009 Synchro l · Report Page 10 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 8: Lk WA Access & BMills Access ~ ' t ~ \. i 10/14/2009 ',"' ~ "f'ii,l.;.-<-<-04,. ;,;1;,,.',~o..~.;,;:;,!.i~~'h,.-'~L~\?~,._'l:.#i,$.~,'.::'~"£ ' • Lane Coniigura~ons Volume (veM1) S1gn Con1rol Grade Peak Hour Faclor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right tum flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Ul)SlrBam signal (fl} pX, platoon u~blocked ..C, com'iicting volume vC 1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu. unblocked vol tc, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) pO queue free % cM capacity (velvh) V t, 5123 035 Free Slop 0% 0% 0 92 0.92 0.92 0.92 5134 038 Noo, 145 0 0 145 0 4.1 6.5 62 21 ,., 3.3 100 100 96 1623 744 1085 4 133 0 Stop 0% 0.92 0.92 148 0 116 78 116 78 7.1 ,., 35 ,., 83 100 829 810 ~~-~-i;:t.!.._.l:W.~. _.,,.~...,, ls: , }, '> .. '~ '!--,•'~\ ·r;,N",~ ~ Jt-""'loJJ~,)::~,.S:(IJl'.''<"..-.r~ Volume Total 139 " 145 Volume Left 5 0 145 Volume Right 134 " 0 cSH 1623 10B5 829 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.04 0.17 Queue Lerigth 95th (ft) 0 J 16 Cootml Deley (s) 0.3 8.4 10.3 lane LOS A A B Approach Delay {s) 0.3 8.4 10.3 Approach LOS A B ..::X.:~L~~~ .... ,;,:.,~.4.'r,";;< Average Delay 5.7 Intersection Capacity Utiliza1ion 28.6% Analysis Period (min) 15 Quendail TIA 5:00 pm 10151200'3 2015 With ProJect AM Pk -M1tg Transoo Group (TRKM) ICU level~ Service A Synchro 7 -Report Page 11 Queues 1: NE 44th St & 405 NB on-rame .,> -+ --'\ t ,,.. ......... ti~·~~il(,,·-----i·i>-'t&f; ,·flif' •··-; c en' Lane GfOIJp Flow (vph) 244 312 732 252 222 vie Ratio 0.18 0.13 0.59 0.64 0.30 Control Delay 9.0 3 1 22.0 38.3 1.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 9.0 3.1 22.7 38.3 1.1 Queue Length 50th (fl) 13 5 78 131 0 Que1.1e Length 95th (fl) 76 77 108 183 0 Internal link Dist (fl) 477 1.67 "' Tum Bay Length (fl) Base Cap.Icily (~-'*1) 1391 2467 1244 675 894 Starvation Cap Reductn D 0 228 0 0 Spi11bac1: cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cep Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vie Ratio 0.18 0.13 0.72 0.37 0.25 I I 7 rt· 5¥:rtti:+t:i>t·· r1 r·"·"""~ ¥£i:trt"t:5/ r--- Quendall TIA 5:00 pm 7121/2009 2015 With ProJect PM Pk. M1tg %user_name% 221 0.30 1.0 0.0 1 D 0 0 894 0 0 0 0.25 .. h ;.,.-·.-,.,. ,~~-'\ , ... - 10/1412009 ·r'zt' 3:'+~s &::3'"• ·.' Synchro 7 • Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: NE 44th St & 405 NB on-rame .,> -+ " f --'-'\ t ,,.. Mil 1111\r'taf,,-~-:dii.-;·a-·-:a.-i•-~~-~1&8 ,-a· ,,-m., -B . Lane Configurations '' tt tt, ' Volume (vph) 234 300 D 0 588 115 242 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost lime (S) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Ulil. Facto< 097 0 95 0 91 1.00 '" 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 Fil Pro1ecte<J 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Sa1d. FIOW (pro\) 3467 3574 4960 1787 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (E!!!!!l 3467 3574 4960 17B7 Peak~our factor, PHF D.96 0.96 0.96 D.96 ,., D.96 0 96 Adj. FkM' (vph) 244 312 0 0 612 120 252 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 D 0 0 32 0 0 lane Group Flow (vph) 244 312 0 0 700 0 252 Hea~ Vehicles(%) 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 2% 1% Tum Type ,~, Split Protected Phases 7 4 ' 2 Permitta(I Phases Aclualed Green, G (s) 36.1 62.1 220 19.9 Effective Green, g (s) 36.1 62.1 22.D 19.9 Actualed g/C Ratio DAO 0.69 0.24 0.22 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension !s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 JO Lane Grp cap (vph) 1391 2488 1212 395 vis Ratio Prat c0.07 0.09 c0.14 c0.14 vis Ratio Penn vie Ratio 0.18 0.13 0.58 0.64 Unrform Delay, d1 17.4 4.7 29.9 31.8 Progression Factor 0.46 0 54 0.71 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 0.1 1.8 3.4 Delay(s) 8.2 2.7 23.0 35.2 Level of Service A A C D Approach Deay (s) 51 23.0 A.pproachlOS A C ii I ~ iain~·,. };-·· ;;t"·,~ .: ~ ::,,;;;:~(~~<'"'-;1i\'"j-!J;.:Ji-l-kvit~'t/Y'.i/ HCM Average Control Delay 20.7 HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.41 Actual;e(j Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Intersection capacity Ut11izat1on 44.0% Analysis Period (min) 15 c Cnucal Lane Group 01.iendall TIA 5:00 pm 712112009 2015 With Project PM Pk-M1tg %user_name% HCM level of Serva! sum of lost I.me (s) ICU Level of Service • r 0 425 1900 1900 4.0 4.0 0.95 0.95 O.B5 0.85 1.00 1.00 1519 1519 1.00 1.00 1519 1519 0.96 0.96 0 443 173 172 49 49 1% 1% '""' 2 2 19.9 19.9 19.9 19.9 0 22 012 4.0 4.0 J.O 30 336 JJ6 003 0.03 0.15 0. 15 29.2 29 2 1.00 1.00 0.2 02 28 4 28.4 C C 30.9 C C 12.0 A 10/14/2009 ',. + .,, & !i!! Ii!!!! 1900 1900 1000 0 96 096 0.96 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0% 0% __ 0% 00 A Syncnro 7. Report Page2 Queues 2: NE 44th St & 405 SB Off-ram,e. 10/14/2009 --+ f .-'-! ~ ~~-J..:.,·~ .,• -~ I"~ i~'l>:::i:\;,.s• ·'-.i,\.;' ~•s-i.-;;•~; ~-'"'•'~ Lane Group Flow (vph) 703 247 598 77 'lie RatKI 0.49 016 0.35 0.14 Control Delay 24.6 20 3 52 190 Queue Delay 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 To1a1 Delay 25.1 20.3 5.2 190 Queue Length 50th (fl) 87 7:7 3 32 Queue Length 95th (fl) 110 77 183 49 Internal link Dist (ft) 190 477 Tum Bay Leng1h (fl) Base Gapacily (vph) 1446 942 1707 819 Starvation Cap Reductn 347 0 0 0 Spi1b.eck Gap Reductn 0 0 12 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 Reduced >lie Ratio 0.64 0.26 035 0.09 Quendall TIA 5:00 pm 712112009 2015 With Project PM Pk -Mi1g %user_name% 77 0.14 19.0 0.0 19.0 32 49 722 824 0 0 0 0.09 457 0.66 15.7 0.0 15.7 ,.. 156 89' 0 0 0 0.51 Synchro 7 -Repor1 Page 3 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: NE 44th St & 405 SB Off-rame .,, --+ " f Lane Comigura!ions ffj. '' Volume {Yllh) 0 389 293 240 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.97 Frt o ... 1.00 Flt Pro1ected 1.00 0.95 Said. Fb.Y (pmt) 4853 3467 Flt Permitted 100 0.95 Saki. Fb.¥ (perm) 4853 3467 Peak-hourtactor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vpl,) 0 401 302 247 RTOR Reducl1on (vph) 0 158 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vp!,) 0 545 0 247 Heavy Vehicles(%) 0% 0% 0% 1% Tum Type p"' Protected Phases 3 Permitted Phases Acl1.Jated Green, G IS) 20.8 24.4 Effedi...-e Green, g (s) 208 24.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0 23 0.27 Clearance Time {s) 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp cap(~) 1122 940 Y/S Ratio Prot c0.11 c0.07 vis Ratio Perm vie Ratio 0.49 0.26 Uniform Delay, d1 30.0 25.7 Progression Factor 1.22 0.69 Incremental Delay, d2 1.3 0.8 Delay(s) 37.6 18.J Level of Service D 8 Approach Delay (s) 37.8 Approach LOS D 144& HCM Average Control Delay 22.2 HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.48 Actuated Cyde Length (s) 90.D Intersection Capacity Utilization 50.1% Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Quendall TIA 5·00 pm 712112009 2015 Wilh Project PM Pk-Mitg %user_name% +-' tt 580 0 1900 1900 4.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 3574 1.00 3574 0.97 0.97 598 0 0 0 598 0 1% 1% 8 39.7 39.7 0.44 4.0 3.0 1577 c0.17 0.38 16.9 0.29 0.6 54 A 9.2 A HCM Level of Service sum of lost tme (s) ICU Level of Service ._, t !" 0 0 0 1900 1900 1900 0.97 0.97 0.97 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0% 0% 0.0 A C 16.0 A 10114/2009 '-+ ~ ' • r 145 5 445 1900 1900 1900 4.0 4.0 4.0 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.95 0.96 1.00 1715 1724 1615 0.95 0.96 1.00 1715 1724 1615 097 097 0.97 149 5 457 0 0 150 n 77 307 0% 0% 0% ... """ 6 6 6 32.8 32.8 32.8 32.8 32.B 32.8 0.36 0.36 0.36 40 4.0 40 3.0 3.0 3.0 825 828 589 0.04 0.04 c0.19 0.12 0 12 0.52 19.0 19.0 22.4 100 1.00 1.00 0.1 0.1 0.8 19.1 19.1 23.3 B B C 22.2 C Synchro 7. Report Page 4 Queues 3: Lk WA Blvd & Ri le Ln / -+ +-'-t '-. + 11111 1ii'llili&bi-1~f,,.._.,ii1f"Mh'lltllll'i.:JWIR.~.;-{'ii&i:t alf"l •,:c~ Lane Group Flow (vph) 10 249 659 396 .,,_ 009 0.26 0.41 0.41 Control Delay 42.4 26.7 11.9 2.3 ""'"8 ""'' 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 Total Delay 42.4 26.7 12.2 2.6 Que!Je Lenglh 50th (ft) 6 58 72 10 Queue Length 95ih (ft) 22 90 112 21 Internal Link Dist (fl) 156 190 Turn Ba~ Lengtti (ft) 50 Base l;apacity (vph) 109 961 1595 956 Starvaton ~P Reductn 0 0 414 157 Spillbaclc cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 S1orage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 Reduced vie Ratio 0.09 0.2' 0.58 0.50 Hr·" tAiY;.!;.h. t-''i: ·/,.; ., .. ; n:f' Quendall TIA 5:00 pm 7121/2009 2015 With Pr0jec1 PM Pk-M1tg %user_name% 10 443 21 0.02 0.81 0.03 0.1 405 01 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 40.5 01 0 229 0 0 308 0 73 322 414 681 804 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.02 0.65 0.03 -1~' .;.~;y,,_·,.,-;·," 5,, ':,-iii' 10114/2009 •· 1(1· ·0.:1. 'vs -·.,';,•·., Synchro 7 -Report Paga 5 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Lk WA Blvd & RiEle~ Ln 10/14/2009 / -+ • ~ +-'-"" t ~ '-. + ..,, ....__ __ rti-~;1!..iil.li·,~·iij~l'·11111"''ta1t•r ttlfr,..•t <Ill,,··• III a!! Lane Configurations , tr. tt r Volume(vph) 10 237 5 5 6>0 384 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 HOO 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1 00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Said. Flow (prot) 1605 35'S 3504 1568 FH Permined 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Said, Fla.v !l!!!!!ll 1805 3599 3>01 1588 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 10 244 5 5 654 396 0 RTOR Reduction (.-ph) 0 2 0 0 0 221 0 Lane Group Flow (vpt,) 10 247 0 0 659 175 0 Hea~ Vehides (%) 0% 0% 0% 3% 3% 3% 17% Tum Type Pmt Porn -Spjit Protected Phases 7 4 8 1 Permitted Phases 8 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 5.5 20.B 39.7 39 7 Efleclive Green, g (s) 5.5 20.8 39.7 39.7 A<.:lualed glC Ratio 0.06 0.23 0.44 0.44 Clearance nme {s) 40 4.0 4.0 4.0 Veh1d0 Extension Isl 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 lane G,p Cap (vphJ 110 832 1474 692 \/IS Ratio Prot c0.01 0.07 vis Ratio Perm c0.20 0.11 vie Ratio 0.09 0.30 0.45 0.25 Uniform Delay, d1 39.9 28.6 17.6 16.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 064 0.46 lnaerrental Delay, d2 0.4 0.9 0.9 0.8 Delay Is) 40.2 29.5 12.2 8.1 Level of Ser.1ice D C B A Approach Delay (s) 29.9 10.7 Ap.-Los C B I • ii;t·;i.;·~~ ,. ,;;;~:·Q!il(,~~~1iit'lff1i'\,".aij1~~i'&:"i:i°:il~f''.'.',;, HCM Average Control Delay 20.4 HCM Volume 1o Capacity ratio 0.55 Actuated Cycie length {s) 90.0 lntersec~on Capacity Ut1l1zation 562% Analys~ Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Quendall TIA 5:00 pm 7121/2009 2015 With Project PM Pk -Mitg %user _name% HCM Llvel of Service Sum of los11ime (s) ICU Level of Service .. 0 10 1900 1900 4.0 1 00 0.86 1.00 1405 1 00 1405 0 97 0.97 0 10 10 0 0 0 1r, 17% 1 08 0.8 0.01 4.0 3.0 12 c0.00 0.01 44.2 1.00 0.2 44.5 D 44.5 0 ,,;..,_. iii ...... , C 16.0 B , 1, 430 0 20 1900 1900 1900 4.0 4.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 095 1 00 1752 1568 0 95 100 1752 1588 097 0 97 0 97 443 0 21 0 14 0 443 7 0 3% 3% 3% Spl~ 2 280 280 28.0 28.0 0.31 0.31 4.0 4.0 30 3.0 545 488 c0.25 0.00 0.81 0.01 26.6 21.4 1.00 100 9.0 0.0 37.6 215 0 C 36.9 0 Synchro 7 • Report Page 6 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Lk WA Blvd & N 36th Street 10/14/2009 ..J ---+ " f +-'" "' t r '-.. i ..., ,, --~ ... : ··~ ,. ' ' ' "--;. l-... ,:, ., ' ';:_~, ,'1 . La~e Configurations .;. .;. .;. .;. Sign Control Slop Slop Slop Slop Volume (vph) 141 5 5 5 5 5 0 57 5 25 151 515 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0,98 0.98 0,98 Hourly~ow rate (vph) 144 5 5 5 5 5 0 " 5 26 157 526 !..Ll~•:"L'-'~--''1~;. ~> :;,.c '"-~-.ff"-,;;,,~,,.._~ A,..~.,.,,->c..re,'$,';f:"~·;1'&.,,~;-,.~~W~ Volume Total (vph) 151 15 " 708 Volume Leff (yph) 1'4 ' 0 26 Volume Right (vph) 5 5 5 526 Hadj (B) 0.2ll .0.13 .0.05 ~'" Departure Headway (s] 5.8 56 5.1 4.1 Degree UUlizalion, x 0.25 0.02 0.09 0.81 Capa~1ty (veh/h) 573 566 655 708 Control Delay fs) 10.7 ,., B.7 21.8 Approach Delay (s) 10.7 8.9 B.7 21.8 Approach LOS • A A C Jll!llillll D•ay 18.9 HCM Level of Service C lnlef59ction Capacity Utilization 69.6% Analysis Period (min) 15 Quendall TIA 5·00 pm 712112009 2015 With Project PM Pk-Mitg %user_name% ICU leYl!II of Service C Synchro 7 -Report Page 7 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: HL Main Access & Lk WA Blvd f ' t r '. + 1011412009 a!!....h ~~..i.J:-S~ ..... ,'.~.':K:l~ il;,;:;;Z, i'!if 1~,< .. ''1(-.'",::"~~~.'o, •,Ji' ~" <" Lane Configurations \lolume (veh/h) Sign Con1rol Grado Peak H01Jr Factor Hourtyflow rate (vifl) Pedestrians LaneWldtli(fl) Walking Speed (ft/s) Pereent Blockage Rrght tum Hare [veh) Median 1ype Median storage veh) Upstrum sigmi/ (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, cooftlctlng volume VC:1, stage 1 confvol vC2, stage 2 CCnf vol vCu, unblocked vol IC, sirgle {s) tC, 2 S1age (S) IF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity fveMi) ~ r " 5 40 217 Stop Free 0% "" 0.97 0.97 0.97 5 41 224 - a.89 BB3 226 226 437 379 226 6.8 6.9 5.8 3.5 3.3 99 95 675 783 ~ tt 5 50 648 , .. 0% 0.97 0.97 0.97 5 52 668 1Wlll 2 355 229 229 4.2 ,., " 1329 J__.,_!_8~~,J,~ .. J"Ji$M. j\~,,.:!l,-,-:...~:a 11!;,.~-*"nC'Tu::-"'"'0 ~·~ ,. ~, , • Volume Total 5 41 229 52 334 334 Volume Left 5 0 0 52 0 0 Voli.me Righi 0 41 ' 0 0 0 cSH 675 783 1700 1329 1700 1700 Voh.rne to capacity 0.01 0.05 0.13 004 0,2!) 0.2ll Queue Length 95th (fl) 1 4 0 3 0 0 Control Delay (s) 10.4 9,9 0.0 7.B 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS 8 A A Approach Oelay (s) 9.9 0,0 O,B Approach LOS A ~ .,_~ ..... t.!.litt.i~ t:/i~~r~~;J•,~""...;>;...i;(.;::,~.t-~_,~"<. •• --.,0 .. ,,.-•••• Average Delay lntarsection capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 0.9 28.4% 15 Ouendall TIA 5·00 pm 7121/2009 2015 With Pmject PM Pk-M1tg %user_name% ICU Level ol Se1Vioe A Synchro 7 -Report Page 8 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: lk WA Access & lk WA Blvd ,> -. .._ t j. .I II Ill' -'O*liiiai~~rilla ,:'. Ill'· ·&~-<11l · aI· ·li!lll·'i' lane Configuratoos V ~ t tf. Volume (veh/11) 69 115 79 178 "" 71 Sign Con1rol Stop ''" ''" Grado 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Hourly flow rate (v~) 71 119 81 184 001 " Pedestrians Lane Wi<Wl tftl Walking Speed (lt/s) Percent Blockage Right tum nare (Yeh) Medjan type TWLTL TWLTL Me(jian storage veh) 2 2 UJ)Slream signal (ft) 236 pX, platoon unblocked 0.87 0.87 0.87 ve, conl!icting vourne 984 337 674 VC:1, stage 1 cont v~ 638 vC2, stage 2 oonf 'ICM "' vCu, unblocked vol 691 0 336 IC,singla (s) 6.8 6.9 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) 5.8 IF (8) 3.5 3.3 2.2 pO queue free% B6 88 92 cM capacity (vehlh) 518 952 1078 I ,1...,..,. ,111t·· ~-lt"J&_t:w,:!111,..,.JB! •-,-111-' ·,,,,, .. ~---' t··' Volume Total 11Nl 81 184 401 274 Volume Left 71 B1 0 0 D Volume Right 119 0 0 0 73 cSH 725 1078 1700 1700 1700 Volume lo Capacity 0.2' 0.08 0.11 0.24 0.18 Queue length 95th (ft) 26 6 0 0 0 Control Delay (s) 11.7 8.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS ' A Approach Delay (s) 11.7 2.6 0.0 Approach LOS ' I l 11mW!n:1f'tf· ··-·.~ ~,-.::::...•.!'.'l:::..:C;:_,,_. A~erage Delay 2.6 rntersaction Capacity Utihzatioo Analysis Penod (min) 43.6% ICU lave! of Service 15 auendall TIA 5:00 pm 712112009 2015 With Prlljec1 PM Pk· M1tg %user_name% 1[)/14/2009 . ~ 'J'.?:" ,'' ·;:,.~. ·':"'~-.-.,'< . ,,,:,.J,:_,'P.,.'_-V ,r.:.~. ~-,., "~'y A Synchro 7 -Repor1 Page 9 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: Project Access & Ripley Ln ~ ~ .._ t j. .I He1re11t/m:s;-,,;;,:. ·-.·'•,\·W.,~•M1:-1etMi:i::1:tl!:ie-·IBt'rMR~z •,~ '-"· Lane Configurations ¥ 4 'Ji, Volume (veMl) 5 380 344 45 75 5 S1gn Con1rol Stop Frf!fl Frf!fl Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Fac1or Hourly flow rate(~) Pedes1rians 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0-97 0.97 5 392 355 46 17 5 Lane w,ctth (fl) Walking $peed (fl/s) Percent Blockaga R~ht turn fiare (Yeh) Median l)ll& Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, pla1oon unblocked we, conflicting volume vC 1, stage 1 conhol vC2, stage 2 conf vol ...Cu, unblocked YOI !C, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) 636 636 6.4 60 60 6.2 62 62 4.1 tf (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 pO queue free% 98 60 77 cM capacity (vehlh) 261 968 1528 "'" "'"' 4-02 Ir I lftf:oc-j.""4·-;y~a,Mll#-t-•t•tiw/$-jw"~~-.,;;,-...-~--',--:,!>-• Volume Toial 397 401 82 Volume Left 5 355 0 Volume Right 392 0 5 cSH 952 1526 1700 Volume lo capacity 0.42 0.23 0.05 Queue Lengtl195th (ft) 52 23 0 ControWelay(s) 11.5 7.4 0.0 Lane LOS B A Approach Delay {SJ 11.5 7.4 Approach LOS B tr 1 ,ere, Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 0.0 't'"R :.;. ·~,.~t"k' tft ,; . ..c:'" .:;;.:'~ · 8.5 58.6% ICU l.e'o'el o1 Service 15 Quendall TIA 5:00 pm 712112009 2015 Wdh Project PM Pk-Mitg %user_name% B 10/1412009 Synchro 7 -Repor1 Page 10 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis B: Lk WA Access & 10/14/2009 (' '-t ~ '-. i -,,;,~--}. Lane Configurations V t, ,t Volume (veh/h) 35 115 5 15 164 5 Sign Control '"' S1op Stop Grade '"' 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 097 097 097 0.97 Hoortyflow rate (vph) " 119 5 15 169 5 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (Ais) Percent Blockage Right tum flare (veh) M&diantype "'"' Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, confticting volume 0 191 0 149 131 vCi, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked YOI 0 191 0 149 131 tC, single (s) 4.1 ,., ,., 7.1 ,., !C, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 22 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 pO queue free% " 99 99 79 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 1623 689 1085 768 742 ~,;<Q'.1.:i..~ai._..;T-.;,;,,_ " .}~''>< ,-,, •'"'-~'•~•1;:,1 '",, , ..,(".__.°;," :'il>:,\Jr-,.t:f•,1_(~r,!, ir:~~~ Volume Total Volume LeH Volume Rig!'JI cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th 1ft) Contrd Delay ts) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS 155 36 119 1623 0.02 2 ,. A 1.8 21 174 0 169 15 0 948 787 0.02 022 2 21 8.9 10.9 A B 8.9 10.9 A B -•• _.i);..'.:.:.WLI~~~l{:t-J .¥,,'',-t $ '.\!'.~,""'f..!..>l...;Jm.',,,ns,.::;r~~-~~Ji~~~i.~~~~, Average Delay lnmraection Capacity UUlization Analysis Period (min) '' 31.7% 15 Quendall TIA 5:00 pm 7121/2009 2015 With Projeci PM Pk -Mitg %user _name% ICU Level of Service A Syrichro 7 -Report Page 11 Quendall Detailed Trip Generation Calculations Weekday Daily Tri.e_ Generation R~duct1on for Internal Capture' loE Trip Total Unadjusted Subtotal Subtotal Reduct,an for LU Size Units --~ate' Veh. Trips :no 300 OUs _ :ate' Veh. Tri s IN OUT IN%' OUT%' IN OUT Subtutal Pas.s-b R<1le" P~~~-by 665 5.l/Cl -151 9J i;o'! t,ry,,; 2509 2567 5016 0 C 8)0 21.6'.)0 1 o,x g~f ' ~1(\ 245 o:o 1 _00~ gsr :-,noppn'.J:..;er-:,c,r H!U L1.6JO 10,xg~f 42.'.!4 930 -14.C:. -'(i3 so·, 50··, 321 302 623 I 34 -"!17 Genc-,r,ilO'f1ceB.11i-Jm'.,1 ~10 2450:0 1.00~gsr 110' 2/C,0 3-.4,, 50' 50',. 1319 1303 ~•37J I o 932 9 000 1 OIJG gsr 17 / 1~ 1 140 -155 ·i 1!, 1140 .Vis .1;,s so, 5o--415 :iy:1 ii'I, I 4:i· ~14s Tu!a/ rn c,9,;, ,/ 55.; ~ 56•1 9 ;23 -56u Weekday AM Peak Hour Trip Generation Reduction for Internal Capture' ITE Trip Total Unadjusted Subtotal Subtotal Reduction fur Proeosed Land Use LU Size Units Rate' Veh. Tries Ar,artmen1s 220 s:o OUs ():i; 4:-8 IN OUT IN% OUT% IN OUT -8 -2 20'/ 8C,'lc 74 '.,/.0. Subtotal Pass-by Rate Pass~ :!('~ 1:-0•• 0 Shopp ng :::en:er 820 21 6::JO 1 (JU[:, ()Sf 1 oc 22 -3 61''-. 39'i, rn fi 16 3,1 -S Ge11er~I O'f1ce R.J1l81ng 710 /45 ()()() 1.00C qsf 1.55 3HlJ -2 88'/ 1;,'0 { 332 4·1 377 0 Res'.iJurar-: 0!3/ Y 000 1 OOC gsf 11.52 11"14 -5 -1·'.l :,~ 43·=: 49 .c:.~ B9 43'' -'.JH New Daily Trip~ Total ~ 1_)7(, " 2 672 ·15~ d ",/,8 lo ;1 !;'.\~ 2.)3 1 'I 1 )3() ..; 2~~. o"' :':',.ii, ?II'· 1::11 2.::: "' New AM Peak Hour Trip~' Tot~I 393 -, '.:1 lo s: ~-.\:) OLJt ;13 4 4~ '4 rot~! ,-~,-, 4~6 -,;4 SR:') -4? 83." /IG -~---~ Weekday PM Peak Hour Tri.e_ Generation Reduction for Internal Capture' ITE Trip Total Unadjusted Subtotal Subtotal LU Size Units Proeoscd Land Use Rate' Veh T.a-~ Apdr'.-ren:s 220 8[]() D!Js 0.62 ---11~ OUT IN%·' OUT%' IN OUT -~=,;:c,f,=----"_-c_,,-----9 05•/. ::If·,-·/. 307 165 sr.o~p,ng Cer,ter 820 21,6CO 1.008 ysf 3 73 s, Gcnc-,ral 0:'!1ce 8.J1i~H1<J 710 245.0CO 1.00G g~r 1 4') 365 Res:aurar1 932 9 000 1 OOC gsf 11 I~ 100 Tot~/ l'-042 ! 1,p Fia:e .i Eq~at,ons f1Qm !TE T,,p Genera/;on Mam.a/ 8//i Ea','/.'Gn (LOGR) /,>'.t:n1a1 Capture t.asea on !,foed Use Spredl/s/Jee1 fro•n 1iE !r.p Gene•a1,on Hcl'iCJ/JouA 2n:1 Cd,t,on :?004! 3 inlc:u! perccll!age; f,om iTE Trip Ge,1ermmn Mal':,a: eth Ed,!,'on /2008} Pass·hY rates from !TC Tnµ Gener,1,';01i /-/andcoci< 2nd Ed,i,on 12'.JO..!.} M 1QSi'10804 1 ;·~uc-,nrJall ~ ermirnl RedeH11op1·1cnlVwalys1s\~ r;p (.OenerG: on\T np Gerera11~·n.xl~ -'3 -14 49·,,: SB:. 27 21 -2 17% 83 ·.-, 60 2!el3 -'4 _,, 59'{ 41 ·:, 45 '7 4J9 515 Reduction for Subtotal I Pass"by Rate4 Pass-by ,,, I o, 54 34', -18 35;:, 0:-- ;·:1 4:,·--3' 954 --i9 New PM Pea_~ __ l_1~ur ~r~ Total .J?: ]i, 3','i ,.- :i~,s I,; Jll? rn ~, ~ I(' 'ill~P./~(J::" c, "J1 ;.M o"' '° n:, " ..1.,1· Weekday Parking Demand Estimate 85th Percentile Rate Residential.A partmcnt, Suburban ,l Restaurant.High-Turnover (Sit- La·;d Use ow/Mid-Rise Retail.Shopping Center,(Non-Dec) Office Building,Suburban Down),Suburban,No Bar/Lounge F1rcµosed La'ld u~t' s,ze s:,c 0 21 :, 245.0 9 I Pack;og I Pmpwd I ra,kir,~ Un t~ !dwellmg ~mis /h'GF,\ /ksf GFA /ksf GFA Su,-~lus/ Rate 1 4(, :> :JS 344 16.10 2194 ' 0 ~ 0 oj ~ 0 ~~ * = -.,,-" " a -el~ ;;; '.'< '" ;.; ~ rn <ii I'] rn C f '{) C a_ C ~o C rn • i ~-C -C Q C-C --= ti '. .f ~ i': ~ ~~ -~ ~~ ~~ 2-;; ~ ;· o-o-o-o-uo QO QO uo uo ~ ~ > C .c"." ~ ; ~ ~~ >c t~ t~ '.:c C ~ E ::, '"" ~ ~ ~ ~ 2 ii 0 0 0 • 0 • 0 • 0 • 0 • C C L 0 co co C 0 co '2 0:1-t. O:J1\M 10C% 1168 1,168 219t. ·:2r-, ~ OOAM S5"!, 1121 -1,121 ----112;_ 6COAM ~IS% 11 '·0 6% 51 24% 35 1,195 21 g.:: 7 00 ,C..M 14% 864 5% 4 56% 472 42% 61 1,401 z19Z 7S3 80:J Mvl fj4".{, 748 13% 13 86% 725 54% 78 1,564 2194 bJO U 00 AM 3C% 27 97% 818 73% 106 951 2191 1 2,:J 10 o:, !,M SJ% 38 100% 843 81% 117 999 2194 1 FJ'.• 11 OOAM 86% 62 98% 826 100% 145 1,033 219~ 112, 12 OC PM 10Q% 72 87% 733 100% 145 950 219.::: 1 '.)4<-J 1 OU l-'M S8% 71 75% 632 100% 145 648 2194 1 346 2 00 PM C,JC,\, 66 84% 708 51% 74 848 2194 1 :14\-o 3 00 PM 86% 62 87% 733 40% 58 853 2194 1 341 4 00 PM .0.4',\, ':14 81 "/, 59 75% 632 40% 5'J 1,263 2194 '.J:i' 50:J PM 59'Yv f::8~; 57~4 41 43% 362 79% 114 1,207 2194 987 6 00 PM f:i'j% BOG 6'.l% 50 18% 152 81% 117 1,125 2194 1:H· /·OU PM 66% 82% 59 62% 90 920 2194 ' 274 8 :JO PM 7:,o;. 876 7(:% 51 63% 91 1,018 219.C:. 17!, ;:,oo PM 77% 88<; ·12% 30 60% 87 1.017 2194 ' 177 1G 00 PM S2% • 075 '0% 7 46% 67 1148 2194 1 ,:4c- 11 UO PM 9.C:.% 1os,e 42% 61 1,159 219~ 1 035 Maximum 1 1Gil 72 643 145 1,564 I I 630 --- N::i'.es M·\09\09041 Quendall Terminal RedevelopmentlAnalysis\Parking\Ouendall Pkg Gen.xis The Transpo Group. 10/2812009 II I ,,, I II I Ill 11 ', ' 11, .,, ,,, '" I 11 II I ,,, II I I II II I II I 111 ,,, Cl) :::, > ~ cii CD I I I Form WA-5 (6/76) Commitment Face Page File No.: NCS-380710-WAl COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE Issued by FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY City of Renton Pianninq Divis1rm NOV ; 8 iD09 First American Title Insurance Company, herein called the Company, for valuable consideration, hereby commits to issue its policy or policies of title insurance, as identified in Schedule A, in favor of the proposed Insured named in Schedule A, as owner or mortgagor of the estate or interest covered hereby in the land described or referred to in Schedule A, upon payment of the premiums and charges therefor; all subject to the provisions of Schedules A and B and to the Conditions and Stipulations hereof. This Commitment shall be effective only when the identity of the proposed Insured and the amount of the policy or policies committed for have been inserted in Schedule A hereof by the Company, either at the time of the issuance of the Commitment or by subsequent endorsement. This Commitment if preliminary to the issuance of such policy or policies of title insurance and all liability and obligations hereunder shall cease and terminate six (6) months after the effective date hereof or when the policy or policies committed for shall issue, whichever first occurs, provided that the failure to issue such policy or policies is not the fault of the Company. This Commitment shall not be valid or binding until countersigned by an authorized officer or agent. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this commitment to be signed and sealed, to become valid when countersigned by an authorized officer or agent of the Company, all in accordance with its By-Laws. This Commitment is effective as of the date shown in Schedule A as "Effective Date." First American Title Insurance Company (_"-. / ,5(/71~---By: President Attest: IJJ ~ /_ ~ Secretary By: ~/" ~ Countersigned First American Title Insurance Company Form WA-5 (6/76) Commitment File No.: NCS-380710-WAl Page No. 1 To: First American Title Insurance Company National Commercial Services 818 Stewart Street, Suite 800, Seattle, WA 98101 (206)728-0400 -(800)526-7544 FAX (206)448-6348 Donna F. Koerber (206)615-3021 dkoerber@firstam.com CenturyPacific LP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 1680 Seattle, WA 98101-3029 Attn: campbell Mathewson SECOND REPORT SCHEDULE A Ce Nedra Van Why (206)615-3131 cvanwhy@firstam.com File No.: NCS-380710-WAl Your Ref No.: Quendall Terminals 1. Commitment Date: May 28, 2009 at 7:30 A.M. 2. Policy or Policies to be issued: Standard Owner's Coverage Proposed Insured: To Follow $ AMOUNT PREMIUM TAX To Follow $ To Follow $ To Follow 3. The estate or interest in the land described on Page 2 herein is Fee Simple, and title thereto is at the effective date hereof vested in: Quendall Terminals, a Washington joint venture comprised of Puget Timber, Inc., a Washington corporation and Altino Properties, Inc., a Washington corporation 4. The land referred to in this Commitment is described as follows: The land referred to in this report is described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. First American T1tle Insurance Company Form WA-5 (6/76) Commitment EXHIBIT'A' LEGAL DESCRIPTION: File No.: NCS-380710-WAl Page No. 2 THAT PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 5 IN SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 24 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M., AND SHORELAND ADJOINING LYING WESTERLY OF THE NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD RIGHT OF WAY AND SOUTHERLY OF A LINE, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE QUARTER CORNER ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 29; THENCE NORTH 89°58'36" WEST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 5, 1,113.01 FEET TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD RIGHT OF WAY; THENCE NORTH 29°44'54" EAST 849.62 FEET ALONG SAID RIGHT OF WAY LINE TO A POINT HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS POINT A; THENCE CONTINUING NORTH 29°44'54" EAST 200.01 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE LINE HEREIN DESCRIBED; THENCE SOUTH 56°28'50" WEST 222.32 FEET TO A POINT WHICH BEARS NORTH 59°24'56" WEST 100.01 FEET FROM SAID POINT A; THENCE NORTH 59°24'56" WEST TO THE INNER HARBOR LINE AND THE END OF SAID LINE DESCRIPTION; ALSO THAT PORTION OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 5 LYING SOUTHEASTERLY OF LAKE WASHINGTON BOULEVARD, WESTERLY OF SECONDARY STATE HIGHWAY NUMBER 2A AND NORTHWESTERLY OF THE RIGHT OF WAY OF PUBLIC STATE HIGHWAY NUMBER 1 AS ESTABLISHED BY DEED RECORDED JANUARY 15, 1964 UNDER RECORDING NO. 5687408; AND EXCEPT THAT PORTION THEREOF CONVEYED TO CITY OF RENTON, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION BY DEED RECORDED JUNE 19, 2008 UNDER RECORDING NO. 20080619001179. Rrst American Tltle Insurance Company Form WA-5 (6/76) Commibnent SCHEDULE B -SECTION 1 REQUIREMENTS The following are the Requirements to be complied with: File No.: NCS-380710-WAl Page No. 3 Item (A) Payment to or for the account of the Grantors or Mortgagors of the full consideration for the estate or interest to be insured. Item (B) Proper instrument(s) creating the estate or interest to be insured must be executed and duly filed for record. Item (C) Pay us the premiums, fees and charges for the policy. Item (D) You must tell us in writing the name of anyone not referred to in this Commitment who will get an interest in the land or who will make a loan on the land. We may then make additional requirements or exceptions SCHEDULE B -SECTION 2 GENERAL EXCEPTIONS The Policy or Policies to be issued will contain Exceptions to the following unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of the Company. A. Taxes or assessments which are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the public records. B. Any facts, rights, interest, or claims which are not shown by the public records but which could be ascertained by an inspection of said land or by making inquiry of person in possession thereof. C. Easements, claims of easement or encumbrances which are not shown by the public records. D. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, or any other facts which a correct survey would disclose, and which are not shown by public records. E. (1) Unpatented mining claims; (2) reservations or exceptions in patents or in acts authorizing the issuance thereof; (3) Water rights, claims or title to water; whether or not the matters excepted under (1), (2) or (3) are shown by the public records; (4) Indian Tribal Codes or Regulations, Indian Treaty or Aboriginal Rights, including easements or equitable servitudes. F. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor, materials or medical assistance theretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the public records. G. Any service, installation, connection, maintenance, construction, tap or reimbursement charges/costs for sewer, water, garbage or electricity. H. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, first appearing in the public records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof but prior to the date the proposed insured acquires of record for value the estate or interest or mortgages thereon covered by this Commitment. First American Tilie Insurance Company Form WA-5 (6/76) Commitment File No.: NCS-380710-WA! Page No. 4 SCHEDULE B -SECTION 2 ( continued) SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS 1. Lien of the Real Estate Excise Sales Tax and Surcharge upon any sale of said premises, if unpaid. As of the date herein, the excise tax rate for unincorporated area of King County is at 1.78%. Levy/Area Code: 2151 For all transactions recorded on or after July 1, 2005: • A fee of $10.00 will be charged on all exempt transactions; • A fee of $5.00 will be charged on all taxable transactions in addition to the excise tax due. 2. Facility Charges, if any, including but not limited to hook-up, or connection charges and latecomer charges for water or sewer facilities of King County Water District No. 107 as disclosed by instrument recorded April 1, 1981 under Recording No. 8104010618. 3. Relinquishment of all existing and future rights to light, view and air, together with the rights of access to and from the State Highway constructed on lands conveyed by document in favor of the State of Washington: 4. 5. 6. 7. Recorded: Recording No.: October 16, 1951 4178247 Easement, including terms and provisions contained therein: Recording Information: March 20, 1963 under Recording No. 5562896 In Favor of: Puget Sound Power and Light Company, a corporation, its For: Affects: successors and assigns Power line The Northwesterly portion of the property herein described Westerly of Railroad right of way Easement, including terms and provisions contained therein: Recording Information: November 20, 1964 under Recording No. 5814320 In Favor of: Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, its successors and assigns For: Utility easement Affects: The Northeasterly portion of the property herein described Westerly of Railroad right of way A lease dated July 1, 1974, executed by Quendall Terminals, a Joint Venture of Puget nmber Company and Altino Properties, Inc., as lessor and Turbo Energy Leasing, Inc., a corporation as lessee, for a term of a month-to-month tenancy commencing with the date of this lease recorded November 8, 1974 as Recording No. 7411080549 of Official Records. Covenants, conditions, restrictions and/or easements: Recorded: July 16, 1975 Recording No.: 7507160536 First American Title Insurance Company Form WA-5 (6/76) Commitment File No.: NCS-380710-WA! Page No. 5 8. 9. 10. Easement, including terms and provisions contained therein: Recording Information: July 7, 1980 under Recording No. 8007070459 In Favor of: City of Renton, a municipal corporation For: Public utilities (including water and sewer) Affects: Portion of the property herein described Westerly and adjacent to Railroad right of way Subject to the terms of the Joint Venture Agreement between Puget Timber Company and Altino Properties Inc., dated June 15, 1971, amendment thereto dated September 12, 1980, both appearing under Recording No. 8102190531, recorded February 19, 1981. According to rectical on easement under Recording No. 9602150689, recorded February 15, 1996; J.H. Baxter & Co., a California limited partnership appears to have succeeded Puget Timber Company, a joint venturer. All amendments to said Joint Venture Agreement must be submitted prior to closing to determine the current signatories. Easement, including terms and provisions contained therein: Recording Information: February 15, 1996 under Recording No. 9602150689 In Favor of: Barbee Mill Co., Inc., a Washington corporation, and J.H. Baxter & Co., a California limited partnership For: Roadway and utilities Affects: The East 60 feet adjacent to West margin of Railroad right of way 11. The terms and provisions contained in the document entitled "Land Corner Record" recorded May 29, 1997 as Recording No. 9705290636 of Official Records. 12. Conditions, notes, easements, provisions contained and/or delineated on the face of the Survey recorded February 9, 2000 under Recording No. 20000209900005, recorded in Volume 135 of surveys, at Page(s) 176, in King County, Washington. 13. Easement, including terms and provisions contained therein: Recording Information: September 2, 2008 under Recording No. 20080902001178 In Favor of: City of Renton, a municipal corporation, its successors and For: Affects: assigns Sanitary sewer utilities and utility pipelines as described therein 14. Private access to said premises is across a railroad right of way. This company will require that the "Private Roadway and Crossing Agreement", and any assignments or modifications thereof which were issued by the Railroad Company, be submitted for examination. The coverage then afforded under any policy(ies) issued, relative to access to said premises, will be limited by the restrictions, conditions and provisions as contained therein. If no "agreement" exists, the forthcoming policy(ies) will contain the following exception: The lack of right of access to and from the land across a railroad right of way. 15. Any question as to the true location of the lateral boundaries of the said 2nd Class Shorelands. 16. Right of the State of Washington in and to that portion, if any, of the property herein described which lies below the line of ordinary high water of Lake Washington. First American Title Insurance Company Form WA-5 (6/76) Commitment File No.: NCS-380710-WAl Page No. 6 17. Rights of the general public to the unrestricted use of all the waters of a navigable body of water not only for the primary purpose of navigation, but also for corollary purposes; including (but not limited to) fishing, boating, bathing, swimming, water skiing and other related recreational purposes, as those waters may affect the tidelands, shorelands or adjoining uplands and whether the level of the water has been raised naturally or artificially to a maintained or fiuctuating level, all as further defined by the decisional law of this state. (Affects all of the premises subject to such submergence) 18. Terms, conditions, provisions and stipulations of the Joint Venture Agreement of Quendall Terminals, a Washington joint venture. A copy of the current agreement and any amendments must be submitted prior to closing. Any conveyance or encumbrance of the Joint Venture property must be executed by all of the Joint Venturer. 19. Title to vest in an incoming owner whose name is not disclosed. Such name must be furnished to us so that a name search may be made. 20. Unrecorded leaseholds, if any, rights of vendors and security agreement on personal property and rights of tenants, and secured parties to remove trade fixtures at the expiration of the term. Arst American Tltle Insurance Company Form WA-5 (6/76) Commitment INFORMATIONAL NOTES A. General taxes for the year 2009 which have been paid. Tax Account No. 292405-9002-03 Amount: $25.20 Assessed Land Value: $1,000.00 Assessed Improvement Value: $0.00 File No.: NCS-380710-WA! Page No. 7 B. Effective January 1, 1997, and pursuant to amendment of Washington State Statutes relating to standardization of recorded documents, the following format and content requirements must be met. Failure to comply may result in rejection of the document by the recorder. C. Any sketch attached hereto is done so as a courtesy only and is not part of any title commitment or policy. It is furnished solely for the purpose of assisting in locating the premises and First American expressly disclaims any liability which may result from reliance made upon it. D. If this preliminary report/commitment was prepared based upon an application for a policy of title insurance that identified land by street address or assessor's parcel number only, it is the responsibility of the applicant to determine whether the land referred to herein is in fact the land that is to be described in the policy or policies to be issued. E. The description can be abbreviated as suggested below if necessary to meet standardization requirements. The full text of the description must appear in the document(s) to be insured. Ptn Govt. Lot 5, Sec 29 Twp 24N Rge SE APN: 292405-9002-03 F. A fee will be charged upon the cancellation of this Commitment pursuant to the Washington State Insurance Code and the filed Rate Schedule of the Company. END OF SCHEDULE B First American Title Insurance Company Form WA-5 (6/76) Commitment First American Title Insurance Company National Commercial Services COMMITMENT Conditions and Stipulations File No.: NCS-380710-WAl Page No. 8 1. The term "mortgage" when used herein shall include deed of trust, trust deed, or other security instrument. 2. If the proposed Insured has or acquires actual knowledge of a defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim or other matter affecting the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment, other than those shown in Schedule B hereof, and shall fail to disclose such knowledge to the Company in writing, the Company shall be relieved from liability for any loss or damage resulting from any act or reliance hereon to the extent the Company is prejudiced by failure to so disclose such knowledge. If the proposed Insured shall disclosure such knowledge to the Company, or if the Company otherwise acquires actual knowledge of any such defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim or other matter, the Company at its option, may amend Schedule B of this Commitment accordingly, but such amendment shall not relieve the Company from liability previously incurred pursuant to paragraph 3 of these Conditions and Stipulations. 3. Liability of the Company under this Commitment shall be only to the named proposed Insured and such parties included under the definition of Insured in the form of Policy or Policies committed for, and only for actual loss incurred in reliance hereon in undertaking in good faith (a) to comply with the requirements hereof, or (b) to eliminate exceptions shown in Schedule B, or (c) to acquire or create the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. In no event shall such liability exceed the amount stated in Schedule A for the Policy or Policies committed for and such liability is subject to the Insuring provisions, exclusion from coverage, and the Conditions and Stipulations of the form of Policy or Policies committed for in favor of the proposed Insured which are hereby incorporated by references, and are made a part of this Commitment except as expressly modified herein. 4. Any claim of loss or damage, whether or not based on negligence, and which arises out of the status of the title to the estate or interest or the lien of the Insured mortgage covered hereby or any action asserting such claim, shall be restricted to the provisions and Conditions and Stipulations of this Commitment. Rrst American 77tle Insurance Company Form WA-5 (6/76) commitment The First American Corporation First American Title Insurance Company National Commercial Services PRIVACY POLICY We Are Committed to safeguarding Customer Infonnation File No.: NCS-380710-WA! Page No. 9 In order to better serve your needs now and in the future, we may ask you to provide us with certain information. We understand that you may be concerned about what we will do with such information particularly any personal or financial information. We agree that you have a right to know how we will utilize the personal information you provide to us. Therefore, together with our parent company, The First American Corporation, we have adopted this Privacy Policy to govern the use and handling of your personal information. Applicability This Privacy Policy governs our use of the information which you provide to us. It does not govern the manner in which we may use information we have obtained from any other source, such as information obtained from a public record or from another person or entity. First American has also adopted broader guidelines that govern our use of personal information regardless of its source. First American calls these guidelines it5 Fair Information Values, a copy of which can be found on our website at www.firstam.com. Types of Information Depending upon which of our services you are utilizing, the types of nonpublic personal information that we may collect include: • Information we receive from you on applications, forms and in other communications to us, whether in writing, in person, by telephone or any other means; • Information about your transactions with us, our affiliated companies, or others; and· • Infonnation we receive from a consumer reporting agency. Use of Information We request information from you for our own legitimate business purposes and not for the benefit of any nonaffiliated party. Therefore, we will not release your information to nonaffiliated parties except: (1) as necessary for us to provide the product or service you have requested of us; or (2) as permitted by law. We may, however, store such information indefinitely, including the period after which any customer relationship has ceased. Such information may be used for any internal purpose, such as quality control efforts or customer analysis. We may also provide all of the types of nonpublic personal information listed above to one or more of our affiliated companies. Such affiliated companies include financial service providers, such as title insurers, property and casualty insurers, and trust and investment advisory companies, or companies involved in real estate services, such as appraisal companies, home warranty companies, and escrow companies. Furthermore, we may also provide all the information we collect, as described above, to companies that perform marketing services on our behalf, on behalf of our affiliated companies, or to other financial institutions with whom we or our affiliated companies have joint marketing agreements. Former Customers Even if you are no longer our customer, our Privacy F>olicy will continue to apply to you. Confidentiality and Security We will use our best efforts to ensure that no unauthorized parties have access to any of your information. We restrict access to nonpublic personal information about you to those individuals and entities who need to know that information to provide products or services to you. We will use our best efforts to train and oversee our employees and agents to ensure that your information will be handled responsibly and in accordance with this Privacy Policy and First American's Fair Information Values. We currently maintain physical, electronic, and procedural safeguards that comply with federal regulations to guard your nonpublic personal infonnation. c 2001 The Rrst American Corporation w All Rights Reserved First American Tltle Insurance Company WARRANTY DEED In t/11 1/latler of l'IIJlWlI Sl4te mohwa~ No. 1, RmrOM TO JJlilllmWl KNOW ALL l.fliN BY THESE PRESENTS, l'hal th« Grantor !U!IU.i T.lll a. CHl!l!ICAL OORPCru.TIOH, lormrl;r BSw.'lLIC OUOOO?INO ocwmj ii{ 1licliaDa c011POrot.1on, for and in cmuidCTation o/ the ,um o/ ---········-1'1:11 Alm N0/00..-------·-··········Dollars, 511d. other T&l.uablo oon:idtlr.:i.+.J..on hereby convey and warrant attd in Ung lo the Stale of Washington, !he following dc,cri~cd real rs!atc ,i!u- County, in thd State of Wtuhfngfon: .&.U tllr.t po."tion or the toU""1n.~ dcacribad !'areal •.1.• ~ oovthoastcrly of tJ10 roU<llll.ng da""ribad Uno, Beginning at a point cppooite Rlpq 11.,ginoor•• Station 6+00 (464+06.9) IJld 125 .tNt l!ortlnnlotorl,y, ,men -1.l"ed ,.t rJ.tl;lt qlao v,J/or radial.Jo' !rom tlle cont.or lino ct Pr.l:aan-st,.to ~ No. 1., Ront.an to ltelll\Ydalo, thonoo Southwotorl,y in a lltrcught lino to • point c,ppoej.te ~ llnginoor•o St.atJ.on 461+S0 ""'1 27S root l!o:.-tl1>101Jt<>rl,· thoratr<m1 thoMo No~otorl,y 1n a irt.J.~t lino at richt angloo to the l/o.Jltorly right ct 11,q Una o.t Lalce ~t;on Boulo'h.rd to a point o.t in- t.oroootion with oaid right-<>l: ,my. liMJ thonco .'l,,uU=.ol,orl,y alOD8 oa.id l!utorly ri&ht ot ~ line ot 1"bo llaohingt,on lloul.anrd t.o a po1nt or :l.nt.oroootion with tllo Horthorl,y right ot vo;y line ot llovthoaot 8oth Stroot and tho and ot thio llio don- cript.1.on. Parool 'J.', Tb<lt port.ion ot ~nt Lot S, Soction 29, Town..hip 24 Norlll, Range S ll&at 11,11., qiJlg oaotor~ at tile 0:1otorl,y rii;ht or ""¥ lino or tho North ern l'acitio llllil.ul;yJ ~opt Oomrt;)' l!o&da; .And llxcept tllooo portion, comeyod to the St.ate ot ~ .tor h1gh,no;;r J'Ull>O••• b;r d.oad recordod undor J.uditor' o l':l.l.e Hoo. 3229177 oud. 1,178247 and 50!i96o2, recorwi ot King Count.,.1 eitW1t.o in Uie eouni;y or 11ng, stat.o or~--. ( :k(' l ·~~~·1-.. (., ~ ...... d ... f("',. , ._ ti ~·d .. 1,111.> ..,, ..... Tho l.ande horain COlml'l'ed .cor,Wtt -an aro"i"ii!jj~lficziio ''.i,,:iro or. looo . . . the ipeeific dClaU.JCOnctrnil\g au OJ-wliicfi·af@to li~ found wHhinJrhat cerhmL mo~ of d~/itllft• lr•<'tilum 11010 oj record and on file in 1hc of}icc of the Director o/ lfighway.1 ot OlumP.io and bt•urin_.rJ dall• of OJI· PT<)t·a.l June 4. 1963. and tho cent.or Uno o.t llhicli 1B ..iso &J.ovn cit record in Volume ), at H1.ghvay Plata, p""' SI, record4 ot ""1J •=t;r• .IJJ>o, tho sn,ntor horoin oo~ an4 warrant to the st&to or ll~on ..U ri,:hto ot il"':'.;.l'eu nnd OgNao (inolnding "11 e.x:l.at.ing, .tutUN or ~otAmt:1..d oaaomr:mta of accooe, lig)it, viw ond air) t<>, £l'O!l and batvoon Prilllary stat.o Highvo,y !lo. 1, . SalL,c,n Craok t<, lfoodl.And And the romaiJlder at oaid Parcel •A•. The undarai,;nod a.greeo to .ftn"OI)jer pos:so::us1on of the proa;i$GZI c:onTirJ1Mf h.oroin on or bo!ore Ff:8flUUf fo_ ff 64. It i.1 1mclcr:uood and agreed that th(!' delh:cry of thi.t deed is lit>rl.'b!J t~rtd(.•rcd qnd tlrnt tl1c> r,•nn,'\" and oblig 1 · 1uru hrreof .sltall not l,ecorne btnding upon 1hc Stale of Wo.shing:on tmlr!!! aud until m•ct.•prcd and approt1td hereon in writing for th~ Sraie of Wn.,-hington, D~parlment of !lighu·ays. h?, !111" Cltirf Rtght oJ Wa!J Agcnr. Dated this ..I() !f .... day of .';t).~ ! 'ti.:,, -~·--~~--:--~~~~::~.;~,:~.:::::;:;::~~~:~~;·~~ .=-:~~:~-~--: ~·:::·~:=:::'.~·,:::::::.~:;~:~~:·:.:~-~~:.,:~ ... s:::;:~;:::~:!.-.:~~4-JJmh::iftt~V,~ ·vot4:t93 llla48.l (lntlh1dut,l 1ckn<rwltdsm1Ctt torrQ) ::::::.-.~~=:: ______ -. } ... IQ !, ch• undcr,lflncd, a 110141'1/ public I~ and for lh• Stale of Waihlngton, locr,bu certify that on thb ....,. ..... Aa11 oJ ......... ~ .. ~ .,, __ ,,,., ..... _., .. _.,_,,,, ____ ... -... .peno~lly op~urell btfurt!' mt' ~ in 10 Ill~ knr,,i,n lo be the lndluld11nl.. ... d.,crlbtd In nnd tu!to e;w,uted rlo< /or<oolng Instrument, a,ul "''· l'<nowledged 11ta1 _______ ,lg11ed and acal<d the same <U .............. __ .fr« and ooluntnry act and deed, for the uu., nnd pi;rposc, therciu muncione1l, Given under mlJ hand cmd official i.:eal tile day and yet.1.r tas.t t1bclt)f? written. Rt1{dl11.rt11 .. INDIANA (Curpor1tlt1t1 "-Cknowledlfl\U\t turml ::::::~ __ _} ... On 1hi,. /I){;_/,,, day of. ~.~.,.... I __ './ • .. ::i btfore me pt.'rlomrlly (1ppt_"1m·cf .... -. .1'.• __ E 1 .. ~o.,.).l.r _____ ,. ·--·-. __ .. ,. ..... _ ... mid. , ., • to me kno1.un to bt the. ;.,. /' :,, 11 S· = .. il 11 cJ ~. :z; i ? 0 w I § s I 4 ~ ~: z .. ~ '-,') i i §i < a ii= ~ ... ' I&, !!i' 0 ;. .... tal -jl ~ ~:; t §i ' ' • I ' '. .. . and .. I:( Qc' '" \ ', I RECCRCrn ' VOL ........................... rAGt:. .. . :-.~::·J!5T OF' 1%4 J~~ 15 Ml 11 36 ltCi.i~ .. , · , . , . ·~·l..LW;! Kih ... • :.:L '• Y 1:,1SH • 0 I (! ~ ~ ' < ] ~~-C :l ; l; a i> 1 i;J ... .,,, !(' :>I:.:.- • ... ,g :,, § .-a :i: ~ • ~ c::; f! " ti f. i 1i ·1 .-.l~PUH ~ ~ 1 ; ;_re o! " ~ I q, I i I I I I 20080619001179.:: Return A.ddress: City Clerk's Office City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 DEED OF DEDICATION Project File #:LUA-02-040 1111111111111111 20080619001179 CITY OF RENTON D 48 ·00 PAGE001 OF 007 05/19/2008 14:23 KING COUl'ITY, UA E2351140 06/19/2008 \4:23 Kf~~ COUNTY, WA $l0 .00 SALE s9 .e 9 Property Tax Parcel Number: Street Intersection: N 42n,;l place and PAGE001 OF 001 2924059002 N 43ro St. Reference Number(s) of Documents assigned or released: Additional reference: numbers are on page __ . Grantor(s): Grantee(s): I. QuendalI Terminals. a Washington joint I. City of Renton. a Municipal Corporation venture LEGAL DESCRIPTION: That portion of Government Lot 5, Section 29, Township 24 North, Range 5 East, W .M., as described on attached Exhibit A. The Grantor. for and in consideration of mutual benefits conveys, quit claims, dedicates and donates to the Grantee(s) as named above, for public road right of way purposes, the above described real estate situated. in the County of King. State of Washington. This Dedication is located within a Federal Superfund Site regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Grantee shall indemnify. defend and hold hannless Grantor, its successors and assigns, from any damage. liability, claim, lien, or loss, including attorney's fees and costs, arising out of use of the Dedication by Grantee, its agen1s, contractors. successors in title, assigns, authorized persons, and/or aH others acting on its behalf. except to the extent such damage, liability. claim, lien, or loss. i~ due to the negligence or intentional misconduct of the Grantor or an agent, contractor, successor in title, authorized person, assign of Grantor. Grantee shall be solely responsible for the management and disposal of any waste generated as a result of operation or maintenance within the dedicated area by Grantee or lts authorized representative and Grantee shall be the generator of any waste resulting from those activities. Grantee shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless Grantor, its successors and assigns, from any damage, liability, claim, lien. or loss or any costs of expenses, including attorney's fees and costs, associated with Lhe generation. management, disposal of hazardous substances by Grantee or contact with or exposure to hazardous substances resulting from subsurface activities authorized or permitted by Grantee within the Dedication after the Dedication. Grantor hereby reserves the temporary right to use the dedicated area to complete any environmental testing, remediation or other activities required by the US Environmental Protection Agency, the Washington State Department of Ecology, or any other agency with authority pursuant to state or federal environmentaJ laws ("Environmental Agencies"), without the requirement for a street use permit or other approval from the City and without payment of any fee to the City. Grantor reserves a right of access over the dedication area for Environmental Agencies and their authorized concracrors in conne.ction with its regulation of the Federal Superfund Site. Any work by the City or other person in the dedication area shal[ be done in compliance with requirement,; of the Environmental Agencies and only after 30-day notice to the appropriate Environmental Agency, and Grantee shall indemnify and hold Grantor harmless from any cost, liability or obligation relating to construction in or use of the dedicated area by Grantee or anyone authorized by Grantee, including but not limited to compliance with the requirements of any of the Environmental Agencies. ' [signatures on following page] J IN WITNESS WHEREOF, said Grantor has caused this instrument to be executed this la__ctay of:;« Approved and Accepted By: Grantor(s): QUENDALL TERMINALS, a Washington joint venture By Altino Properties, Inc., a Washington corporation, joint venturer By J. H. Baxter & Co., a California limited partnership. joint venrurer By J. H. Baxter & Co., a California Corporation, general Rartner By,~2t_~ G~ter. President and CEO Grantee(s): City of Renton By------'-"""~~~~~~ Denis Law, Mayor 2008061900117!1 ... • 2008. Attest:~ Michele Neumann, Deputy City Clerk Exhibit A Legal Desc,ciption STATE OF WASHINGTON ss. COUNTY OF KING On this A day of Ftbru fJ/~, 2008, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the state of Washington, duly cormnissioned an sworn. personally appeared ROBERT CUGINI to me known to be the Vice President of ALTINO PROPERTIES, INC, a Washington corporation, which is a joint venturer of QUENDALL TERMINALS, a Washington joint venture, that executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation and joint venture, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that s/he is authorized to execute the said instrument. IN WITNESS ~~r,, I have hereunto set my hand and official seal the day and year first above written. .;::,'''~. HA y: 111,11 ~ k,C;, '"""~"'" ii,-?. ,,, /'_) .L, ~ !? f {<' j'ffe,oM Ex.04-_;:,,,i ,~ ~<if .l"C-, u~ :3 3II ,l""' "'% · NOTARYPUBLICinanfodheStateof ;;: W ~ $ -• • g i5 Washington, residing at 1 ~JJ..lf ~ 0 \ "u&"~ ~ f l--My appointment expires ~=.._5.,_/1-1~'9+/~0u~"--~----~ <J>,..'',,,,,, 5-1 '3:?,,,-~ j" Print Name Of/ 0:('J k t-(tt,,.i IU cur& t1 '1r. h11\\\\,,,, s'<' J \ t: OF Ii< I'-·" I 11 l IJ~ '' ",,.,, DWT 2237339, 1 OOJ2695-000U04 Page 2 Exhibit A Legal Description NORl'H 4zND PLACE LEGAL DESCRIPTION Project; WOff PID GRA'lTOR: Street: "lbar potriou of Government Lot 5, Section 29, Township 24 North, R:.1.ngc 5 E~t, WM., Oty of Renton, King Count~. Washington, dcscril>OO .as follows: Beginning at the iritet:Se<;:tion of the SQUth line of said Goverofll!tlt Lot 5 IU'l.d t.be westerly ttw.tgin of the 100 foot wide Bw:liugtun Nol'thcrn Ra.iltoad Co. tlght--0f-way; Then.cc N.30''54'57"E. along the wei.i:e;tl; margin of said raihoa.<I right-of-way, 150.00 feet", Thence leaving ~a1d righr-of-wa.y maTgin, N.59,,05'03"W., (,().{JO fett; Then~ S.30°54'5/"W. par.iild w said right-of-way mar.gin l 84.25 feet to the sollili line of said Govc:rnmcut Lot 5; Thence S88°48'22"E, 69J)9 feet to the Point ofBegir.ning. Conwru.nr; an :1..1:~!'l of 10,027 squ!lle feet, more or less. 1 of2 DWT 2237339vl 0032695-000004 Page 3 200806190011 ?fl_-•--•- 20080619001179.:: Map Exhibit A I ,-._--~ SCALE ~1------------------------i I IN FEE: § Barbee Mill ~ ~c., 2007 ACCESS ROADWAY S, KLQ RENTON, WASHINGTON " "'"" RLS 30788 h,jj;a Mo. CD di~tl)' °"'" EXHIBIT 'A' S788Y1§3 ~ =.:i':'.e:,.t:'"' N. 42ND PLACE ,,..._ 2 OF' 2 ,. II:" t:J ::.:I# RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION """"' "1.,;;;=------------------------' DWT 2237339v I ll032695-ll00004 Page 4 2008061900117!l CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT Be::@{'~~~¢~~. State of California Countyof~n } who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(tp) whose name(•) is/1~ subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that 1),/she/ta,y executed the same in ail/her/llleir authorized capacity(p), and that by .iier/111wir signature(@) on the instrument the person(ir), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(i.) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. Place No1ary Seal Above -----------OPTIONAL ~__::"":::'"_:::,..,~?,._;;~...,,....----------- Though the information below is not required by law, it may prove valuable e document and could prevent fraudulent removal and reaJtachment of this form to another document. Description of Attached Document Title or Type of Docume~ , \ )09J.., o±t . , \Jd,'C<>l L' 17 "1 Document Date: I -~ I • 0'6 Number of Pages:-~>.,-__ Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer(s) Signer's Name: _____________ _ I] Individual p.,. ,...,,•d p,., tJJ-Corporate Officer-Hle(s): _,C_,~=-"0'----- 0 Partner -IJ Limited LJ General AIGHTlHUMBPRINT OF SIGNER lop of thumb here 1~ Attorney in Fact LJ Trustee n Guardian or Conservator ,, AiJ~.i-~---:: t/li,<' .,~..,_»:.,,,.::, ' ' D Other: L~ ~~ill*/~·:~ . ------------"'/·~wJ:1>~-~\tj:;;: Signer Is Representing: __ ~?f.fi:%f;?·::f0? '.~~/ Signer's Name: ______________ _ D Individual n Corporate Officer -Hle(s): ________ _ D Partner -D Limited D General LJ Attorney in Fact D Trustee D Guardian or Conservator LJ Other: ____ _ Signer Is Representing: ____ _ ~~= ~g;:g:c:g;;g;:;&t bJQ:g;g;c:g;gz.~ ©2007 National Notaf)· Associa.lion • 9350 De Soto Ave., P.O. Box 2402 •Chatswcrth. CA 91313-2402• www.NationalNo1ary.org tlem ,5007 Reorder:Call Toll-Free 1-800-876-6827 200806·i 900·i i 7;; ---_-- Ja"nrpcra.1 e!! 1~;~ ~x ,· .. ,. I., r. ,,, }.t.'tl i...rUNl<l v~,Wl,<.,u \1'!11:1,; fh<·r~-: 1::~l aa 11-16 f'!..\ 11n) r.;.:1-~~ ln:en,~t 'l(wl'i.lJlftk.l;rM 2008061900117~ ... · PORTION OF GOVT. LOT 1, SECTION 32, 1.:24t,J., R.5 E., W.M. CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON 60'RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION SITE . UNPLATTED T.L. 9002 SW. 29-24-05 BARBFE MIL 22" W 1085.58' ·-----.. J6.oo· Js.oo;.----;Js.oo' Js.oo~----1 Je.oo' @: @; : 0: _s.F. ;.'~J4 S.F. J,a2e;s,F. J,822 S.F J,816 :ss. 3,783 S.f. . " 6 g 5 ' z ' z ' ' .J L..). ____ _ ' '36 00' 75 74 '--, ,....J ... ,.....1 w z 73 ·w 72 "· ~-N "' "' g • /'i 2 . g o·- z :._,__ ___ ~ 71 " "' "' b 0 z ""!'L-<'>cc~"\L--&='{)'...-<\,_,>hl'IL..oz 80.23' TRACT "TV OPEN SPACE · 6,298 S.F. , , I ~/ I I I I ' QUIT CLAIN DEED THE GRANTOR,. REIU.Y TAR AXD CIIEXICAL ·co~RATION. an Indiana eorpor~tion. for and in CQnsideration of 'TEN DOLLARS {$10,00) and other valuable ecns-~deration conveys and quit claims to QUEHDALL 'ff'~.!UNALS. a Joint Venture· eozprise,d: of Puget. Timber, Inc., a Washington C'Or?Oration and Altino.Properties, Inc., a Washin9ton corp0ration, the following described real estate, situate in the Co1n'!ty of King, ·state of Wasnington: That portion of Government Lot 5 in Section 29, Township 24 North. Range 5 £ast, W.M. and shoreland adjoining lying Westerly of the Northern Pacific Railroad Right of Way and Souther!:,.: of a li:-i<: described as follows: Beginni:":g at the suarter corner on the South line of said S~ction 29; thence :forth 89"58 • 36" West along the south line of said Lot 5, 1,113.01 feet to the Westerly line of said Ncrthern Pacific Railroad Right of Way; ·.:hence Nort.h 29~44•54• East. 849.62 feet along said Right of Way line to~ point hereinafter referred to as Point A; thence continuing ~orth 29°44'54" East 200.0l feet to the true Point of beginning of the lino herein described; thence South 56°2E'so• West 222.32 feet to a point which bears North S9°24'56• West 100.01 feet from said Point A; thence North 59°24'56• West to th~ inner harbor line and the end o: said line description: Also that portion of said Government Lot 5 lying Southeasterly of Lake W<.1shington BoulevarJ, Westerly of Secondary State Highwar Nwnber 2A and Northwesterly of the Ri.ght of Way of Public State Highway NUltlber l as established by ceed recorded under Auditor's File No. 5687408, containing 31.1 acres more or less (accuracy to one acre) of which 12.8 acres are under~ater shorelands. TOGETHER with the following: The Harbor Area Lease dated the 30th day of ~tovember, 194 3, between the Port of Seattle and Peter C. Reilly for that area between the inner and outer harbor lines lying adjacent to the area described above in Lake Washington. All rights and interest ~n and ta that certain lease between Foss Tug i Barge for booming and rafting of logs on Lake "''ashington dated the 1st day of December, 1962, Wt.ween Reilly Tar, Chemical and Foss Tug, Barge. All rights and permits, if any, from the Army Corps of Engineers for placing and locating structui:·es, wharves, dolphins, piers and other devices that ~re in interference with navigation and require permits from the Army Corps of fngineers located in that area described in the Harbor Area Lease referred to abOve~ THE GRANTOR, REILLY TAR AND CHEMICAL CORPORATION, warrants that it has not ereated any encumbrances on the subject property since the date of closing of the Real Estate contract bet~n Grantor and Grantee herein dated June 1,. 1971, but expressly disclailltS any and all other warr~nties, express or iaplied. This deed is given in fulfillrbent of that certain Real Estate Contract between the parties hereto, dated June 15, 1971, and conditioned for the conveyance of the above described property, and the covenants of warranty herein contained shall D'lt-apply to any title, interest or encumbrance arising by, through or under the purchaser in said contract, and s~all not apply to any taxes, assess'!lents or other charges levied, assessed or becoming due subsequent to the date of said contract. Real £state Sales Tax was paid on tills Sdle under Rec. No. 148560. Bi WITNESS WHEREOF, said coq;oration has caused U1is instrumt.:nt to be executed by its P~o;er£'f~:cers a~ 1ts corporat~ seal to be .L2_ 'Ja:; of ;u J-u...-" , 19 ~5. REitf'.Y T~Mlcni;J,.,~ORPORATION By / '1. j~tA,V'- \n(iU f)/resi¥t "' ,&:E~tir«~ STATE OF r:,;orA.!~A Secretary C0Uflt.;' Of:!')1'--!t..1:•/ / 0:-i this b day of ·}u.,.,..--, 197~. personall; appeared =~==-'=c'" " v,,,/ akd I' E-/,' < 4£1.A,n J • to me imown ':o be tiwJ'resident and Secretary oTfu:rLLY TAR AND CHEMICAL (;QRPORATION, the •torpurat1on that executed the within and foregoing QUIT CL.Arr DEED, and actnowledged Sdid instrument to be the freE and voluntary act and deed of said corporation, for the uses and purposes t~erein mentioned, and on oath stdted that they wer12 authorized to execute said instrument and that the seal affixed is the corporate seal of s~id corr-oration. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written. . 1 ,. :978 . )." .... ,., <.,, 4,, u -,.f,1_,; 0 0 q "' ... ... 0, .. 0 • .., ~ • ... :if FILElµ_or Recor .;ECOIIOH, ••• _.OF ...... .. _ ••• .llfOUEST o• 915 .U 115 I'll I 37 C:RECTCR RECORDS & El.ECTIOHS KING CCUNTY, WASH. • I I ro [>]:\~~ ('(;:;~-r,y i;'-'.'l'ER er:::;TRICJ· t:G. 10'7 KING CGUNTY, i~ASHINGTUN ,.•:'."' I:. - NOTlCi:: Ul~ l\DOIT10NAL TAP OR C~:-.IM[CTION CHi\RGY Notice is hl.}r,._,,,..,ith givl.'11 that !::iny county Wattr Dist::-ic-t No. 107, King County, Wci;hinqton, has, on Harch 2S, 1981, unde:r Res:___:,lution No. I , detc-rmincd .. h:i.t a tap or con11cct1on ~ char:1e, to be determined :-:,riot to construction of ne\.' watc~ facilities, ,.-.ill be assessed. against the real estate <iescribed OB Exhibit "A" hereto attached. DATED this __ day of March, 1981. S~ATE OF WASHINGTON) :ss COUNTY OF KING 10ARD VF COMMISSIQNERS KING COUl'frY WATER.· DISTRICT NO. 107 • 0 '1i + . : By: Henil' A~c-~i lo;~·h, President On this day personally appearP-d before me, a duly commissioned Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, HENRY F -McCULLOUGH I ':.O me know:1 to be the President of the Board of commissioners of King County Water District No. 107 and, being duly authorized, acknowledged to me thai: he signed the foregoing document as hi3 free and voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. GIVEN under my hand and seal this ),,( l!. day of »14Y~Jl._; 1981. 1 I ol Washington, residing at Seati:le. ~ --· .' 9,1;;dy .~:;,; -1- I t I I I I \ i l .. <l) cl.) KP~G LOiJtHY 1,./-"l.Tfl< flTSTRICT ~10.107 1.rr::\t. DESCRirTIO!-t 4'0 c,R401ErH_$ER1ICE_ AREA_ __ _ fl(1RT!ClNS r-1 srry1orr_:; g_ 1(,, 17, :?O. ?l, ?7, '-'~. 29, 3?. J.3 AND 34, A.LL lN TOWNSHIP 24 NOR7H, PI\.NGE 5 EI\ST, W.M. !IND ?ORTIONS OF SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 23 I.ORTH, RANCE 5 EAST. ',.M. A,L IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE CENTERLIN, Of PRIMARY STATE HIGHWAY NC.1 ANO THE CENTERLINE OF SECONDARY STATE HIGHll,Y N0.1A IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 24 NORTH, RANU 5 EAST, W .f' .. ; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE CENTERllllE Of SECONDARY STATE HIGHWAY N0.1A TO THE INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 16, TOWNSHIP 15 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M.; THENCE EAST ALONG SAID NORTH LINE TO THE EAST LINE OF SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER; THENCE SOUTH ALONG SAID EAST LINE ANO ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 16 TO THE INTERSECTION WITH THE CENTERLINE OF COAL CREEK PARKWAY; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CENTERLINE TO THE CENTERLINE INTERSECTION WITH S.E-NEWPORT WAY; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF S.[_ NEWPORT WAY TO STATION P.T 79+66.85 ON THE NEWPORT- lSSAQUAH ROAD N0.941; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY TO THE WESTERLY MARGIN OF SAiO S.E. NEWPORT WAY; THENCE NORTH[RLY ALONG SAIO MARGIN TO A POINT WHICH UES SOUTH 22°29'23" WEST 544.58 FEET FROM THE NORTH LINE Of THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF T''E NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 16; THENCE NORTH 81°57' WEST 115.59 FEET; THENCE NORTH 21°29'13" EAST, PARALLEL WITH THE WESTERLY MARGIN Of SAID S.E. NEWPORT WAY TO THE NORTH LINE Of THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER Of SAID SECTION 16; THENCE EAST ALONG SAID NORTH llNE TO THE EAST LINE Of SAIO SECTION 16; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SP.JO EAST LINE ANO ALONG THE EAST LIN[ Of SLCT!ONS 21 ANO 28 IN TOWNSHIP 14 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M. TO THE CENTERLINE OF COAL CREEK PAnKIIAY S.E.; THENCE NORTHWESTER~Y ALONG SAID CENTERLINE TO THE CENTERLINE INTERSECTION WITH S_E. 60TH STREET; -1- I l l ___ ,...., ; . · King 1...iuntJ '..Jater Ois"'..r-ict No.107 ~egal De~cription 440 Gradient Service Ar€a Paqe, Two THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE CENTERLINE Of S.E. 50TH STREET TO THE CfNTERLINE OF THE PUGET SOUNo POWER AND LIGHT CCMPANY TRANS~ISSION LlliE (BEVERLY-RENTON) EASEMENT; THENCE NORTHEASERL" ALONG SAID CENTERLINE TO THE EASTERLY CORNER OF LOT 7, BLOCK 2 OF NEWPORT HILLS N0.9 AS RECORDED IN VOLUME 59 OF PLATS. PAGE 17, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, WASH£NGTON; TfilNCE NORTHERL\. ALONG THE EAST '.!NE OF SAID BLOCK 2. TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER THEREOF; THENCE WEST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID BLOCK 2 TO THE EAST LINE OF NEWPORT HILLS NO.SAS RECORDED IN VOLUME 66 or PLATS, PAGE 90, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE NOKTHERLY ALONG SAID EAST LINE TD THE NORTHEAST CORNER THEREOF; THENCE WEST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID NEWPORT HILLS N0.5 TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF BLOCK 4, NEWPCF-T HILLS N0.13 AS RECOROEO IN VOLUME 73 OF PLATS, PAGES 53 AND 54, RECORDS O, SAID COUNTY; THENCE NORTH ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAIO BLOCK 4 TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER THEREOF; THENCE WEST ALONC THE NORT'' LINE OF SAID BLOCK 4, ANO ALONG THE WESTERLY EXTENSION THEREOF TO THE SURVEY LIN[ OF THE MERCER ISLAND PIPE LINE RIGHT-OF-WAY (118TH AVENUE S.E.); THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SA!O SURVEY LINE TO THE CENTERLINE OF 127TH PLACE S.E.; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CENTERLINE TO THE EASTERLY EXTENSION OF THE SOUTH LlNE OF LDT 13, BLOCK 3 OF SAID NEWPORT HILLS N0.13; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 28 IN SAID BLOCK 3; THENCE NORTl!.ESTERLY ALONG THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 28 AND ALONG THE NORTHWESTERLY EXTENSION THEREOF TO THE CENTERLINE OF 126TH AVENU[ S.E.; THENCE NURTHERLY ALONG SAID CENTERLINE TO THE EASTERLY EXTENSION OF THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF LOT 5, BLOCK l, OF SAID NEWPORT HILLS N0.13; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID EASTERLY EiTENSION AND ALONG THE SOUTH LINE THEREOF TO THE SOUTHWEST ., . ' i A ' • l a) '-.i.."' 0 8 -er 0 J) ~in'] ·omty Watei-Distric~ ~'o.107 teq<'!l '":scription 440 Grddient Ser~ile Area P,H/f' Three CORNER OF SAiD LOT 5; THENCE SO'JTHWESTE~LY AND WESTERLY ALONG TH, sou,HEAST,RlY AND SOUTHERLY LINES OF LCTS 21, 2J, 24 IN SAID gLOCK 1, AND WESTERLY ALONG rnE WESTERLY EXTENSION OF THE SOUTH LINE OF SAltl LOT 24 TO THE CENTERLINE OF 125TH AVENUES.,.; THENCE SOUTH ALONG SAID CENTERLINE TO THE EASTERLY EXTENSION or THE SOUTH LINE or LOT 14 or NEWPORT HILLS N0.19 AS RECORDED IN VOLUME 77 OF PLATS, PAGE 68, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID EASTERLY EXTENSION AND ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 14 TO THE WEST LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER DF SEC110N 21, TOWt:S,lP 14 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST. W.M.; THENCE SOUTH ALONG SAID WEST LINE AND ALONG THE EAST L1NE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 11 TO A ,OINT ON A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND 150 FEET NORTH OF (MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES TO) THE CENTERLINE OF S.E. 60TH STREET; THENCE WEST ON SAID PARALLEL LINE TO THE NORTHERLY EXTENSION O, THE CENTERL[NE OF 123RD AVENUE S.E.; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID NORTHERLY EXTENSION ANO ALONG SAID CENTERLINE TO THE EASTERLY EXTENSION OF THE~ 1TH LINE OF BLOCK 4 OF NEWPORT HILLS N0.10 AS RECORDED IN VOLUME 70 OF PLATS, PAGE•, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE WEST ALONG SAID EASTERLY EXTENSION AND ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID BLOCK/ TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER THEREOF; THENCE SOUTH ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID BLOCK 4 TO THE NORTH LINE OF BLOCK 1, NEWPORT HILLS N0.15 AS RECORDED IN VOLUME 72 oF PLATS, PAGE 94, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID NORTH LINE TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID BLOCK I; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE WEST LINE OF BLOCK 1 AND SCUTHERLY ALONG T~E WEST LINE OF BLOCK 2 OF NEWPORT HILLS H0.17, AS RECORDED IN vo•.UME 77 Of PlATS, PAGE 66, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, AND ALONG TliE SOUTHERLY EXTENSION THEREOF TO THE CENTERLlNE OF S.E. 60111 STREET; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID CENTERLINE TD THE F'ST LINE :·' ,,., -3- -·-----·"'<-·,..,• --n **"'. ~1-. . f~il'g Cour.,y Water 01s.tric.t No.107 Leqai Description 446 Gradient Service Ared Page Four WEST 742 .. J FE(! DF THE SWTHWfST DUARTE>< OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 24 NORTI', RANGE 5 EAST, W.M. (ALSO KNMI Al THE EAST LINE aF TAX LOT 46 OF SAIO SUBO!VlllON); THENCE SOUTH ALONG SAID EAST LINE TO THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH 504.01 FEET Of SAID SUBDIVISION; THENCE WEST ALONG SAID NORTH LINE TO THE EAST LINE JF THE WEST 300 FEET OF SAID SECTION 18; THEIKE SOUTH ALONG SAID EA;T LINE TO THE SOUTH L!NE OF SAIO SECTION ?B; THENcE EAST ALONG SAIC SOUTH LINE TO THE NORTHERLY [!TENSION OF THE WEST LINE OF LOT l, BLOtK 5 OF C.O. HILLMAN'S LAKE ~ASH!NGTON GARDEN OF EDEN AOO!TfON TO SEATTLE, DfVIS!ON N0.8 AS RECOROEO IN VOLUME 16 Of PL~TS, PAGE 67, RECOROS Of SA!O COUNTY; THENCE SOUTH ALONG SATO NORTHERLY EXTENSION ANO ALONG THE WEST LINE or SAID LOT 1, AND ALONG THE liEST LINE Of LOT 4 Of SA!O SLOCK 5 TO THE NORTflWEST CORNER OF LOTS 5 OF SAID BLOCK 5; THENCE EAST sLOHG THE NORTH llNE OF SAID LOT 5, ANO ALONG THE EA. ,RlY EXTEllSION THEREOF TO THE CENTERLfNE OF 120TH AVENUE S.E.; THENCE SOUTH ALOHG SAID CENTERLINE TO THE CENTERLINE OF S.E. 84TH STREET; TllENCE EAST ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF S.E. 84TH STREET TD THE NORTHERLY EXTENSION Of THE WEST LINE Of LOT l, BLOCK 9 OF SAID C.Q. HILLMAN'S PLAT; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID NORTHE!!-Y EHENSION ANO ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAJO LOT l A;,o ALOHG THE WEST LINES OF LOTS 4. 5 AND 8 fN SAID BLOCK 9 TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER Of SAID LOT 8; THENCE EAST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE Of SAID LOT 8, ANO ALONG THE EASTERLY EXTENSION OF SAlD SO~TH LIN[ TO THE CENTERELINE Of 122ND AVENUE S.E.; THENC' NORTH ALONG SAIO CENTERLINE TO THE CENTERLINE OF S.E. 84TH STR,ET; THENCE EAST ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF S.E. 84TH STREET TO A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND 300 FEET EAST OF (MEASURED AT R[GHT ANGLES TO) THE CENTERLJNE Of 122:iO AVENUE S .E.; THENCF SOUTH ALOHG SAID PARALLEL LINE TO THE SOUTH LINE OF LOT 2, -4- ------~:_·-.. -~-- - a_• -.:; 0 ~ ~ C .1.) ' t-. ·q County Water Oi:;trict No. l07 Leqal Uescr\ption 440 Gradi.;nt Service Area Page FivP BLOCK l O OF SA IO C. 0. HI LL~J\N' S PL/IT; THENCE EAST ALONG THE SOUTH L'NE OF SAID LOT 1 AND ALONG THE NOR"'.H LINE OF LOT 6, BLuCK 12 or SAID C.D. HILL~N', PLOT TO A POINT ON A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND 300 FEE' NORTHEASTERLY OF (MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES TO) THE CENTERLINE OF S.E. 69TH PLACE; T"ENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE TO THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 33, TOWNSHIP 24 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M.; THENCE SOUTH ALONG SAID CiNTERL!NE TO THE WESTERL l EXTENSION OF THE NORTH LINE OF PCL J lN SHO!lT PLAT N0.877107 AS RECORDED UNDER KING COUNTY AUDITOR'S FlLE N0.7809110889; THENCE EAST ALONG \AIU WESTERLY EXTENSION ANO ,,;ONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID PCL 3 TO THE NORTHEAST C"RNER THEREOF; THENCE SOUTHEASTfRLY ALONG THE NORTHEASTERLY LINES OF PCL 3 AND PCL 2 OF SAID SHORT PLAT TO THE NOR~HWEST CORNER OF PCL IN SAID SHORT PLAT; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALOI , THE NORTHERLY LINE OF S/'10 PCL 1 AND ALONG THE NORTHERLY EXTENSION THEREOF TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF THE RJGHT-Of-WAY OF THE ABANOONEG PACIFIC COAST RAILROAD IN THL SOU~HEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 33; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY TO THE CENTERLINE OF S.E-89TH PLACE; THEt::E NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CENTERLINE TO THE CENTERLINE OF THE MERCER ISLAND PIPE LINE RIGHT-OF-WAY ]N SAID SECTION 33; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID PIPE LINE RIGHT-Of-WAY TO THE WEST LINE OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 2~ NORTH, RANGES EAST, W.M.; THENCE SOUTH ALONG SA'-c;T LINE 10 THE NORTH UNE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTfMST QUARTER OF SAJD SECTION 34; THENCE EAST AlONG TH( NORTH LINE OF SAID SUBOIVJS!ON TO THE WEST LINE OF THE EAST 416 FEET OF SAID SUBDlVISION; THEliCE SOUTH ALONG SAID WEST LIN[ TO THE SOUTII LINE OF TH£ NORTH 208 FEET OF Si '.O \UBO!VISIIJN; THENCE EAST ALONG -5· -~L - i ' .._ __ !, ~- ,.j) 0 0 ~ 0 f..ing Cow1ty Water Dic;trict No.107 Legill Oescriptiun 440 Gradient Service Area Page Six SAID SOOTH Lit;[ TO TH[ WEST LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTFR OF SAID SECTION 34; THENCE NORTH ALONG SAID WEST LINE TO A POINT ON A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND JDC FEET NORTHEASTERLY OF (MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES TO) THE CENTERLINE OF S.E. HAY VAllEY ROAD; THEN'.E SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID PARALlEL LINE TO THE EAST l!NE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER QF SAID SECTION 34; THENCE SOUTH ALONG SAID EAST LINE TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 34; THENCE WEST ALONG SAID SOIJTH LINE TO THE EAST LINE OF SHORT PLAT N0.677007 AS RECORDED UNDER KING COUNTY AUDITOR'S FILE N0.7712090795; THENCE NORTH, WEST ~NO SOUTH ALONG THAT PORTION OF LOT 1 IN SAlO SHORT PLAT LYING WITHIN THE soi-:,wEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SAlO SfCTlON 34 TO THf SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 34; THENCE WEST ALONG SAIO SOUTH LINE TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTHWEST QfJAHTER or SECTION 3, TCl,,/NSHIP 23 tlORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W .M.; THENCE SOUTH ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 3 TO THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH 530 FEET OF SAID SUBDIVISION; THENCE WEST ALONG SAlO SOUTH LINE TO THE CENTERLINE OF 136TH AVENUE S.E.; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CENTERLINE TO THE CENTERLINE Of CO/.L CREEK PARKWAY 5.E.; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THf CfNTERl!NE Of COAL CREEK PARKWAY S.E. TO THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 3; THENCE WEST ALONG SAID NORTH LINE AND ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M. TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF TIIE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAIO SECTION 4; THENCE SOUTH ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 4 TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER PARADISE ESTATES N0.2 AS RECORDED IN VOLUME 102 Of PLATS, PAGE 31, RECORDS Of SAID COUNTY; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE SOUTH LINE Q< SAID PLAT AND ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF PARA01SE ESTATES AS RECORDED IN VOLUME 95 OF PLATS, PAGE 93, RECORDS Of SAID COUNT! TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER Of SAID PARADISE ESTATES; THENCE NORTH All1"G THE WEs, UNE OF -6· (l) -.[) 0 0 ~ C) King County Water Uistrict No.107 Lega 1 Description 440 ~radient Service Area Page Sever\ SAID PLAT AND ALO~G THE NORTHERLY EXTENSlnN T .. EREOF TO THE NORTHERLY MARGIN OF S.E. 95TH WAY; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG SAIO NORTHERLY MARGIN TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF THE WESTERLY 122 FEET OF TRACT 387 OF C.D. HILLMAN'$ LAKE WASHINGTON GARDEN OF EDEN DIVISION N0.6 AS RECORDED IN VOLUME 11 OF PLATS, PAGE 84, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE NORTH ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE AND ALONG THE NORTHEASTERLY EXTENSION THEREOF TO THE CENTERLINE OF GENSJNG AVENUE; THENCE EASTERLY ALOflG SAID CENTERLINE TO TH, EAST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 31, TOWN SH! P 24 NORTH, RAHG·. 5 EAST, W .M. ; THENCE NORTH ALONG SA ID EAST LINE TO TH[ NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST QUL'ER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 33; THENCE WEST ALONG SAID NORTH LINE TO THE WEST LINE OF SHORT PLAT N0.978054 AS RECORDED UNDER KING COUNTY AUDITOR'S FILE N0.8004280744; THENCE SOUTH AlONG SAID WEST LINE TO THE NORTH LINE OF THE RlGHT- OF-WAY OF !P> ABANOONEQ PACIFIC COAST RA!lROAO; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY TO THE WEST LINE Of SAID SECTION 33; THENCE NORTH ALONG SAID WEST LINE TO THE NORTH MARGIN OF S.E. 91ST STREET, BEING THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE BOLIN !Y OF WATER OISTR!CT N0.107 ACCORDING TO RESOLUTION N0.332; Tl1ENCE FOLLOWING THE BOUNDARY OF WATER DISTRICT NO. !07 IN A GENERAL NORTH:lESTERLY DIRECTION THROUGH SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 24 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M. TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SA10 SECTION 32; THENCE WEST ON THE SOUTH LINE or SAID SUBDIVISION TO THE WEST LINE OF THE EAST 180 FEET Of SATO SUBOIVISIOH; Tl1ENCE NORTH ALONG SAID WEST LINE TO THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 32; THENCE WEST ALONG SAID NORTH LINE TO THE !NNER HARBOR LIN~ ON -7- -----.---·-~~-~ ------·------.. - 1 ' OJ ,.JJ 0 0 3 '° King County wa~et 0\strict No.107 legal Jescription 440 Grc1dient Serv'ce .'ired Page Eight THc EA'.T SHORELINE OF LAKE WASHINGTON; T~ENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID INNER HARBOR LINE TO TI1E CENTERLINE OF PRIMARY STAT£ HIGHWAY N0.2; THENCE EAST ALONG SAID C[NTERLlNE TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. ·B· ___ ..,...,.....,._-__ "-'·". -. ,._ ..... _ .':JKl'U•. ·•tf,: ·' .. ;:~----· :., ... t .. • "' ~:*-1.111:_,o-;,:;,'J.i,;._i,l-{S\-'!,,(P). .. \[ ",i ,:t,:_:,iit.,..~-~2:} ,r.:,:, ~"--!-'.t°tl"'"', ·:,t ::-i tr..:.:-llitin·~ f:.·,Jt'"'.-;\ .,...... ;-1 ·r· .•. '·:-"!-1"'< "' :t'~r·J~.,; -,f -;,,-,,'.~---°'·J n<"" '.-~1 '--ii.,:, "' ::•\ t,;_:; ,"'·, ·)'.". F ;;s,j i(l'"'"<iJ'-i!_ i'.D i!tf. .. ':;CC.f.'. ; • f)tl,1~?~; !'"', ~~--.i·rt~_"'i'>-C"..:(rl",.._:~-·t~ -. ~ -'·, ,.-·{, .'-".•,1· ,-('"''.,g·i: \'i'a. j, ·iC<i SLt ':,;-.µ• r· 1. ~.1"> ,·~; u~JJ, : ~ ~- -Wapci.·ti\:a·t th"' Jdit."l"l'}i ,,_, :t-11,f" ti's'>:oi '.-, h~obv-t"'1',{l.fl.t<'~J. (ttl-;; -~~t t.i,.-t-•·TnM -~-~ ~ ~ t}w .S~a~ 1if WrJ41;J ifl'b:: ·un.U't.tond ,mt~l. .-.~.r-r~ ·· ·iel·l~jlil:'""':""' ~ ot:,11......_.~.,,.; <i'<lhUIOjio, i>Ji .U>£.Jitgh, _., -·~ •· l'e::: .... :s:~·::..:,-, :.::··0;; ,,,,r::,··,_, ·'.:.<1· fu .. ~·~,;.i~,-··, .... ?-.,. !. ·~'li:!<er:;. ·,u• ; 1. ',.) -·0e-ctic;::.;._-"' '.'J. •. ' .~-..:;e ~: ·s'ia,: J . ;_;~~,;: ,;-~'i:.->~ r, 1·.",;;.e:-. Ca:~::...,~·.· i.;i!;. -;;"-J~ c~ r, i ·"!'Ox.i..-,:~·,'.n,-~,Y J .. :J. · ,.'.,.-;,:,-, 1!. ;, ; • ·:: i1JP ~ .:.cr:;.;::-li:IJ.'q. t,..... ;.i~,: ;~ort.;: .'...~ '-·~ :,J..:i.c ..,.i .'.-~Ve";':~·;;a1·~ :~'.;-t. ; ;.;0 .:.n.t h.~:. _ ..... ~!n.:: ··' .4''~·:::~:,;;~;;';'!:,·~·t:~~~·.·~.~~~~~~ "lf/J ~~ ~li;r,1,.\~s-5 <.J.L ~s GC.'--l.'eS,~, ~¥ .. ,: "I .. ~ atr. 't~,, ... ~n-ifhfc..,Y, -H .. ea~u ___ ·,,~.;d~~;~~~~_'-~/-~:~!·/~_'i~t ;-·~~i,;;-:·~ ., ·iv·---~~ art<'. 1c~ >,S ~ii'< ·-,~:-m~~ ~.:,~ ~~,cli.)~lJ::,sJ -~'"L. 001tii_'_'."::--·:_18 :.1)£ ..... - C·,1i;d.y qf °" il1'i. ····~ "1 ~ ~ fo ta: !.I'..f! .. -;nd --~~--, .. 1,j' iJi.e _C_Of'pot«_°tl~_j:_rti7-~ '.··:-_;:-,~~(~~:· ;)~ ... -fnn;:,,;if....z..sy .. i~inml.s?r.t; ,rn.~4 (l.{.'m.(),.i,1!.Hgffl ~ l~-ro-_~-~ jPn' tnld l:(.dU:tita.fl} Cd f!;HJi •.iu:d aj -Sa~d. Cf!"r(,an1.ti.an, fn'r ;j/~ ;i,te~ (Jr,.,j ?Urpo.ae, ~M ...... ({,. ~(;at"/t . .n.at1..>d :t:h.at.. . . . ._.m.,,thMizcd t(! ~ .,i:rfd-~~~.# · .;: at)ix•ds,•-~ ,eat of,fl!O<l ~ · .. . ... ·· · · .,,., . .,.;,, .. ;~k ~ . ..+:...,,i.,,,;,;;._ . .,_. ___ .. ,;.ii/'~'~11 ,. ,. '· . ,. -. . . -_-. ' :.-: .· . _,;.·.:,,,;<--,:-':~.'1\--.~;,_ \. '"'...,,....., ...... ~.....,_,:. ,11;, .• , "1'~ril!J6rr;;,'! ~ ·-'-. <-- ~J:!w,;,...~ . C"""'¥ qj. '. . :.t>,t~,'. '."'~"'···' .. Ml<! ... : ....... _-,.-to-~ k t/k.. --· --. . --.,., .... ---. ···--" , • -~"·""'·' '..' .,.•'.~ ·,~-_.., t.. --· \: --' ~,,,-, •.. ~-zr.:z ' Offlii 'l!W~#tfo.a that ~~ ~ ~ If' i11t:Mt,:~4 ''" , '· ., tr .. ad ,~ act a"4 -..t of .. ld <Olpe. lib,,, f1;r illo -llil!l~' Cl, . on OIJd, .-. t/14L .. c. . .. '"""· ...... . -·•., ' . -'':te1t:Lw!i:¢~ -i\~!~l':f ... ,,- Y ···--11'1 .a PCIID Lm !b1i pant.oi-, .. 1117 Tar I a..!eal Gorpofttion, 1 COI"pON- tion, tor and in ..,.,.ideNUon ot the ... ,t Ono Dollar ($1.00) and otMr 1004 Ind nluable oooa14eret.1.cH111, in band peld, re~lpt wereot 11 berebt ack:noltla4114JI' 4o hereQ' grant, Nll •nd convey to Pu.pt Sow::id Power a: L1gbt COllpan,, 1 corpo,.tion, it1 eucees ... son and. •••1gna, 1 P1l'MD1nt ea .... nt tor a pti,.er line over e:nd •croaa thi tolloll_lng dlacr1ba4 Nil pf'OP9rt7 aituat.ld 1n King Count1, Waabingt~n. to-•1t: That portloo or Oo¥11"1a11Dt LOt 5, section 29, Townahip 24 N Range 5 I, w .JIii •• and ad.JI.cent· shore land• ot tbe second claea in tront theraot l;ring W:17 ot the lorthel'll Pacitic Ra11 .. y Caap&n,'1 1 l"l!IJlct-ot-wa1, 411aeribld •• tollo11rs: Beginning at tht q~rter. corner ot the S llne ot Nlcl Section 29; thence N 89•58 1 361t w along the s Une or uid Lot 5, a distance or J.113,0l I to tbe 1111' Um ot Mid Northern Pac1tlc Rall•y Coapeny'e riibt-ot-•1; thence X 29•U 1 5'4" ! along uld right.- or-.. , llne, 9'9 .63 teat to an il"Ofl pipe -..nich point ls the true po1ot of beginning; ~nee s 29•44 1 S4" • along the Wly line or the lonbarn l'aclt1e Rll11 .. y Cclllplr11 1 a rlght-ot•wey l(~).01 1 ;. tblnce I 59•2••36" W 100.01 1 ; thence Ji 56•28 1 50" E.' lU.16' to 1 ·point trca which tbll true point of beginning bHre S 59•2!1 1 36 11 Ea dhtance ot :,0'; thence s 59•211 1 36'' F 50' to th• true point of beginn!ng; subject to the folto.ing te~ and condlttona: 'lbat eelti POiier l1ne6 shall be conatructed and oJ,erated It IIYCh a helgtit A:s to no'.. ln- terteN With the inst.elletion Ind operation or a 1pur reilroad trt;ck over and aeroaa the above property and/or the operation of mt••• crant:a in connection thtlreMith, provided that aald po~er 11ne• 1hall not be riequir1d to be con~trueted IIOrt' tnan ~event1- r1ve (75) reet above ground level; that g.rentee •greu to cor,. 1truct no peraenent atructur19 on the above Qeacrlbed real ~rop- erty but in the event that power pol.ea are required lo be co~- atruct.ed1 then teld JX>ltl• ahall be conatructed along the e&sterl1 Mrgln or the attov• deacrlbeel proprarty. DA~D th!• 1111 day or ------ ld!fM REILLY TAR • CHEMICAL Ca!l'CAATICN ~-a,<,,./£ f/J:, k«..-P rn 1 a., n t J -HIS /JI ~-- """' -----.~, /':, 1111 tW.• _a_ • et -=---==----~· 11963, wt-•, • ..,,. 1 t lncflnl ....... , pnwa111lly appeared to ot the oorpontton. thlt. .••• _.., ~ -~_....lac lalt,,_nt, and ·-w.e -M14 -QI .. -·-.... YOluntal'J' act and dNd. or Mid corpot'llUoa, tor t.bl _.. am pwopoM• therein •ntloaecl, •ml ~ oatll. ..... ~ *' 1lftl autbor1N4 to· execute tha •14 1natr,a1S and tha\ the .. 1 atttad 11 ~ corporate ... 1 ot MW eo,jidia'1• • . vnwss IIY RA., HD tft'fflll, -L MNt.o ertlud tt,e deY and ,-ar tint abo'II! Wl"ltten. '*~ • --~~,:. :,I'~ •~r tl!.11. •• .... o( ~ Th C....,.., • tOl,tlf A. MOM!~ c.-,,.... 2 ==================------....:.. ... -:·:·===== . ----. . . ' 0 ?!. .,. ,... 7) .') ----..... -------5811320 'l"he underaic;ned Grantor, itl beir1, succeseor• and alB.gne, (herein.after toget1'er .ceferred ~ ...11 '"Grant.or"). for «Pd in. con- Eiderat1Qn. of the 1um of XII t, JIO/lQlJ ~U•RB tflO.QO.) and other valuctble cona1d•ration, the r•cetpt of ich it h•~•by ~cknowledged, hereby cor.veya and gri!lntl to th• illlWICIPALITr OP N!~ROPOLITNI SEA'i"'l'LE, ite aueceasors and ~•signs. (herein.after toq"ether ~eferred to 1s ''MUNIC:JPALIT"~ •), a pemanent ea1amant over, acc-o•s, along, in, ~?On and under the following je1cribf!d property1 A p0rtiun of Gvvernt!te~t Lot 5, S?~tion 29, Towrlship 24 North, Rat~ge 5 East, W . .M., King ~ounty, W.t.•hington, said po:-tion being a strip of land 10 feet in ,,.-'.Loth lyini:-5 feet on each side!! of the follo~in~ described center line: Beginning at a point on the south line of Gover~nt Lot 5 dt the intersection of said south lir.e with the west line of the !light of Way of ~~e Northern P~cific Rail~ay Coarip.1ny; ~hence North 29 44'54" East 854.62 feet algn<J said west line to the True Point of Beginnii g; thence North ,39 24'36" west to point of ·!'erminufl on a line which bears South Sf, 28'50n Keat from a point on said west line of the Right of Way of the Northern Pacific Railwa:, COl'lpany distant 195.01 feet l'\.:irtherly along said west line from the True Point of Beginni~g. Said easement bein~ for the purpose of installing, constructing, oper-1tin9, maintaining, rernnving, repairing, replacing and using a sewer line with all conf,f,<"":tiona. manhole• and appurten.-rices thereto, together with the right of ingress to and ~greaa from said descrfbed property for the f~reqoing purposes. By accepting and recordin9 this easement, MUNICIP~.LITY covenants a5 followst 1. MUNICIPALITY shall upon completion of any construction of any facilities de~cribed herein, rernoV4! all debris and restore the surface of the above-descril)ed property as nearly aa possible to the condition in whicr. it existed at th~ date of this agreement. }. MUNICIPALITY agrees ~o indemnify and save harmless Granter from and a9ainet any and all damaqe to the above-described property or any building located thereon at the date of this agreement, ar1~ing out of the construction, oi;::eration, maintenance, repair and r::!placement of t;.he hci Utiel described above. 3. All right, t.tt.le and interest wtlich ma.y be used and enjoyed without interferi:19 vith the easement right1:1 nerein. conveyed are reserved to the Granter. the construction, inatall~tion or main- tenance, after the date of this ag"reemen~. of structu.:-es ot a per- manent nature within the ahove-de.,crU,.d eaaem,.nt sha.11 be deemed an interference With said easement rights and as to such atructures the provisions of Para9rapha 1 and 2 hereof shall not apply. 4, MUIICIPALITY agrees to provide extra-atrength pipe acroas the Grantor's property to protect the pipe ahould a railroad •pur be routed through this area. Gr~ntor shall have the ri9ht to u•• th• above-de•cri'.oed prop,!.rty for roadway p,urpoae» and to ~prove the •urface thereof by paving :iny time after JUly l, l96S. In the event that repair or replacement of the abova-de•~~tbed ~acillt!ea by MUNICIPALITY -1- -C damage& the roadway surface, NUlflCIPA1.I'l'Y agrees, tollowin~ ccmpletfon of auc:h repair or replaceaent, to re•tore ea.id ~urface as n,acly as prActicabl• to L~e condition in which it e~iated prior to said ~pair or replacement. ALSO, Grantor h•reby cor·,eya and grants to MUNICIPAL1·,"Y a tem?Jrary con•tru~tion ••$t!'!llent aero••~ along, in, ('Ver, upon and under t~e followin9 de1~ribed property~ A strip of land 40 feet in Width lying 20 feet on each side of the center line de1cri.bed in th.? permMent ea.;ement above, EXCE~r any p0rtior. thereof lying within said permanent ~ase~nt. ALSO, a strip r-f lar,d 15 feet in wir'th, the no,:th line of said sLrip being described aD follO'IIS1 Beginning at a poitit on the west L ne of the right of way of tb.e Nortr'ern PaciL.c Railw!'Jy Company distar,t 849.62 ft:et northeriy alo;;g said westerly line frOJ'!I tr.e in~eraect1on of said ~~~r;~o~!~;6~i;~s~h~O~~~~f!!;et~fJ;~";~~~~i~to~f:e!:~~~~~ng of the north line of said 15-foot-wids strip of land being herein descr !bed; thence continu!n•J Horth 59 24' l.6" West 480 feet to tent'linus, Sai··; ease-uent being io:r the purpose of using the above-descdbed area during construction •nd inst~llation of a sewer line with all connections, manholes and appurtenances thereto on the adjoin- ing or adjacent property hereinbefore described in the p!rn.anent easement, together with the right of ing ~Q~ to and egress from said deacrik,(',d property for the foregoins _ poses. BY accP.pting and recording this ea~ement, MUNICIPALITY covenants as follows: ~· MUNICIPALITY sh~ll upon completion ~f ~onstruction of any faci~ities desc~ibed herein, and upon the completion of any repairs to any :such fa~ilities following conatruct1on, remove all debris anct restore the surface of the above-described prorerty as nearly as fOS~ible to the condition in which it existed at the date of this agreem~nt. 2. MmtlCIPALI'l'Y agrees to jl'\demnify a._J save l\ar.mless Gran.or from and against ,my and all J.amage to the abr.,e-described 1-1-operty or any building located thereon at the date ~f this aqreeMcnt, arising '"'Ut of the construction, operation, ma.1.ntenance,repair ,1n.; repl2cement of the facilities descril)ed al;love. J.. This temporary crmstruction easement shall commenc1:: ai,d be in e.::fect on the date of this instrument and shaJ.J. terminate on He d~te actual ~se of said easement area sh&ll terminate o~ upnn July l 196~, whichever date shall first occur. 4. Payment for said tanporary const.ruct1".)n easement shall be made at the rate of FJVE & N0/100 ?OLLA.RS 1$5 1 00) per calendar .reek, ot fraction thereof, that said temporary conetructlon ea1ement area iD in actual use by MUNICIPALITY. P•yrGent ahall be made on or before th~ la~t day of th~ calendar month ••~ceedinq th~ calendar month wh~n said ternporary construction raaeMnt area ia in actual use. S. Actual use as used in this c.:emporary construction eaarment sh~ll be construed to inciude only the period frQffl the atart of conetruetJon of said sewer line in th~ above-de•cribed tamporary construction ease- ment area until coro.plet1on thereof i~cludlng reconstruction of fencing ,nd curOing and resurfacing of in'proved are••· _,_ ' \ ~i "' :MMW~·, d!ilt OIi -·~= ...... ===-----,, . , .. , JStI.LY ?'AR NII> C:Bl~UCAL CORl'OP.ATlOB (/.j~ I ''·-..,~. STATI or lNDlMTA COUNTY OP ••• On this ~ day of Kow.btr , l 964, Jefore me the undeniqned, a Notary PUblic 1n and fo:r the state .:if Indiana, d..,,\y ccanie&!oned and eworn, peraonally appeared P,, c, RlillY and R, J 1 W.oh.11..lr -------' to me known to be the Pnaidnl.t and SeeNt.11,: respectively, of. the REILLY Tll AllO-C'BBH.IC.U. CORPORATION~ the cotporation that executed t±e foregoin9 inatruatnt and acknowledged the aaid ~natr\Ull9nt to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said corporatbn for the ueee and purposes therein lllll!llntionad and on oath &tated that they were authorized to execvt,e the 9Qid in•tru- rnent and ~hat the aeal affixed ta the corporate seal of said eorpora- ti.on, ans the day ... f,INI kw b,orcl IJ, 1' ;, V,IPf 11-r; ,t, -)~· • .,._ qi M.l•o 101111 A. liAOlllS. C...,..,. lwlllt... ii . -, ,; I l \ l ., -, THTS LEASE, made anci entered into this 1st diJy of Jnl.y, 1974, by and between QOENDALL TER.1'!.!NALS, a Joint V0ntur0 of PUGET Tn!DER COMPANY ;:md ALT!NO PROPF.RTIBS, INC., hcrcin<\ftt;r referred tn ao Lessor, and •rURBO ENERGY LEASING, INC., .:i c::orporadon, herein"":fler r~ferrcd to us LOS~cc. 1-l I T N J·; S S E . .'!'~: For ~nd in conqideration of the mutual covenants herinaftcr set forth, the parties hereto do hereby aqree as follows: i. LEAS~D PREMISES: ThG Lessor does hereby lease and demise \lntil the Loss<:Jc those certain premises situ~tcd in King County, Washjngton, described as follows: See <,.ltachod Exhibit "A" incorporated herein by reference. The Lessor has already entered into various leases concernin9 portions of the above-described premises. Copies of thcs« leases are attached to and incorporated herein by refcLence, This Lease is subject to and subordinale to Lhose pr iOr l eoses and all at.her encuntbrLlnces on property. Lessor hereby assigns to the L~ssee th~ Le3SOr 1 s rights under said leases, and Lessee hereby assumes all obligations of Lessor under said leases and agrees to indemnify and hold Lessor harmless for any liability arising out of those subleases. In the event of termination of this Lease for -1- J, f ,--.. ;..., ,- ii I ,I ' ' I I I I I I I .1 · 1 • " a ii ,, i; " f • i l • I ,_ l :1 it: J ii ·1r ii' ii IL j l r· I ,. I I I, I: ' : I ~J,, ·I 1-: • a, '~ i..{) .J m :) any reason whatsoever, the ~ssignmcnt -of the subleases sha11 becom0. immediately null and void and Lessee thereafter shall have no interest whatsoever in Aaid subleaAes. In addition, all new subleases shall be assigned immediately by Lessee to Lessor. 2. · 'J'ERM: The tenancy created heroir, is a month- to-month tenancy commencing with the date of this Lease, The tenan,:;:y may be terminated at: any time by either party upon thirty (30) days' written notice sent to the other party by certified mail at the respective addresses desi~ .. ated herein. The Lease may be terminated for any reason whatsoever or for no reason and there shall be no requirement whatsoever of good cause or good faith as justification for any terminatiOn of this I,ease. 3. !{ENT~ The Lessee agrees to pay Lessor as rental herein, fifty (50%) per cent of all rentals received by Lessee under any subleases, including but not limited to the subleasc5 attached hereto and assigned herein, and any future subleases of any portion of the leased premises whatsoever. Rental shall be paid to Lessor by Lessee immediately upon 1·eceipt. The Lessee agrees to use its best efforts at all time to maintain the premises fully subleased at the best rate of return the Lessee is able to negotiate. All future subleas~s of the premise~ shall be subject to the prior written approval of the Lessor, which approval t:hall not be unrQ.asonably withheld. Lessor shall have th~ right to inspect Lessee's books of account rPlating to this Le, _,_ ' I ; -·-------------+' l._.. ii-.· .. - .. ...._.-...=:.=,•· "'""""'""---·"----~ ~,. ·--------· -.. ---··=·-- :i i' , I Ii I' I' i' _!I f. . I I ' :.W'·, at ,~ny time. In addition to the rental .stated above, the Lessee shall pay as additional r.ental one~half {1/2) of all taxes (Ul .~'4.,, nl::,)1g_? .,,,1 ({.--,,/..., premisesAand experlSes in maintaining the premises·~ On th€' "' (;1; The Lessee heroin covena:nts and agrees that it. will cor11ply ) q) with ail the ap~licable terms, ordinances, rules, laws and ,::, requlutions governing tht" use of property herein demised as provided by the State of Washington, the uni. tea States Government, ~nd appropriate municipal agencies, including without limitation of the generality thereof all laws and ordinances and regulations enacted under the Shoreline Management Act and the W-shington State Envlronrnental Pro- tection Act. 5. LIABILITY f'OR DA.MAGE: The Lessee assumes all risk of damage to persons or properties incurred by reason of this Lease and it agrees it shall promptly pay all costs inCurred in connection with any damage to any a~d all persons or property that it is legally I'esponsible for, and Lessee further agrees that it shall indemnify and save Lessor harmless from any and all claims for damage arising from the exercise by Lessee of the privileges lawfully granted by this Lease. The Lessee further agrees that it shall secure and retain in force liability insuranc8 policies in the minimum amount of $3,000,000.00 1 together with adequate fire insurance naming Lessor and Lessee as co-insureds uccording to their respective interests. The Lessee shall provide the -3- .·, t I ( ,: ' p.,, ii :1 ' I I, I I • ,1 :I I ·I I I ! I 11 . I \ _,I I I I u l) ·1 I 11 :j .· Lessor with c~rtificates evidencing such insurance coverage. All insurance policies ·shall be subject to the prior written approval of Lessor. 6, ASSH?NMEN'I'.: The Leo see shal 1 not assign any of its rights under this Lease, nor sublet any !;)ortion of the leased premises without first obtaining chc wr.itten consent of the Lessor I but such conBent .9hall ·not be un- reasonably withheld. 7. ~NDEMNIFIC~TION ~D INSURANCE: L<:ssee agrees that Lessor or its agents shall not be held 1 iablc for any damage to the Lessor's or Lessee's property, or any personal injury to any person caused by defects now in the premises, or hereafter occurring on the premises or operations of Lessor or Les~ee. Lessee agrees to indemnify and hold Lessor, Lessor's employees and/or agents, wholly harmless from any damages, claims, demands or suits by any person or persons including Lessee arising out of any acts or omissions by Lessee, its agents, servants or employees arising as a result of any activity done. In addition 1 t/1e Lessor has in connection with the issuance of crossing pennits with Bur- 1 ington Northern Railroad, agreed, among other things, as follows: "9. Permittee shall and hereby does release and discharg~ Railroad of and from any and .all liability for damage lo or destruction of said roadway, or any property of Permittee thereon; and shall and her~by does ass1Jme any and all liability for injury to or death of persons, or loss of or damage to property in any manner ariain9 from or during the use, maintenance, repair or removal of said roadway, however such injury, death, loss, damage or dest1·1Ji.:tion -4- r ' I I I I I I ! i • ,. " I :1 ' I aforesaid may occur or be caused: and Rhall and he:i:-eby does indcmn:i.fy and save harfl'less Railroad of and from any and all claims, demands, suits, actions,-dv.mages, recoveries, judgments, costs or expenses arising or growing out of or in connection with ~ny such injury, death, loss, damage or destr•.1ction aforesaid. Permittee further agrees to appear and defend in the nam~ of Railroad any suits or actions at law brought against it on account of any such personal injuries, death or damage to property, and to pay and sati:,;fy any final judgment that may b0 rendered against the Railroad in any sue/I suit or action. Tl1e liability assumed by Perroittee herein shall not be affected ur diminished by the fact, if it be a fact, that any such suit or action hrouqht agai.nst Railroad may arise out of negligence of Railroad, its officers, agents, servants or employees, or be contributed to by such negligence, 10. In the event Railroad shall require the use of its premises occupied by the said roadway or any part thereof for any purpose whatsoever, or if Permittee shall fail to keep and perform any of the terms and conditions of this agreement herein agreed by PermitteG to be kept and performed, Railroad shall have the right to terminate this agreement at any time upon giving to Permittee thirty {30) days' written notice of ib intention so to do and shall, upo·1 expiration of said thirty {30) days, have the rlght to remove suid crossin~ and barri- cade said roadway at the cost and expense of Petmittee. Said natic~ shall be good if served personally upon Permittee or posted upon the premises or deposited post-paid in a United States Post Office, addressed to Pcrmittee at Permittec's Post Office address above stated. No portion of any payments made hereunder will be refunded upon termim1.tinn of this agre.e·ment, 11, Permittee sh~11 not assign this agreement or permit any other person or persons to USt' or occupy any portion of the prc~ises of Railroad occupied by the said roadway without first having obtafoed the written consent of Railroad. -s- ------····-_____ --·· .• ·.-•. '4 .• ,.h_;..,~c>,.··_..,._i;.,..~··<>-·,;.-,.... f ! ' t r :i I I I I I I I 'I i I ' ' ! J ! I ! i • I. • I « ll :1 I ,, ij " ii H Ii /l I I i ' ' I I l ; j ' ! u I ~ "" ,-_ 12, This agreement shall inure to the Uenefit of and be bindina·upon the parties hereto and their respective executor.ii, administrators, successors, and <1ssiqns." •rhe Lessee specifically agrees that any use of said railroad crossing or future crossing shall be subject to the prior ~onsent of Duclington Northern, and furth~r agrees to indemnify the Lessor for any liability tu Burlim,· ··ton undl;'r the aOOve paragraph as a result of any activities of Lessee, its agent~, assigns, visitors, or anyone else corning onto the premises in filrtheranc.:c of Lessee's busine~s or at their direct.ion or with their permission. 8. !~YOLUNTARY ASSIGNMENT: This Lease shall not b~ subject to Ll\!oluntary assigntnent, tran5fer or sale, or to assignment, transfer or sale by operation of law in any manner whatsoever by the Lessee, and any such attempted involuntary assignment, transfer or sale shall be void and o;'. no effect. The Lessor shall have the right to assiqn its interests under this Lease without the prior consent of the Lessee and upon such assignment the assignee will become solely responsible for any duties to the Lessee hereunder. 9. ~T OF BANKRUPTCY: Without limiting the gener~lity of the provisions of the preceding sections, if a proceeding is under the Bankruptcy Act or· afly amendment _,!'."eto shall be commenced by or against the Lessee, and, if against the Lessee, such proceedings shall not be dismissed before either an adjudication in bankruptcy or the confor- mation of a composition, arrangement, or plan of reorgani- zation, or 1n the event the Lesser• is adjudged insolvent or -6- I I ' I " ' I l I ~ • I : • i ' ' ! I ' ·l ! '' F I ·-u: ': • a makes an assignment for tl1e benefit of its credit0:rs, or if a receiver 1.s appointed in any procecdin9 or action to which th<} Lessee 1s a party, with authority to take posS€ssior. or control of th~ demised premises, and such recc-iver is not, discharged within .1 period of thirty (30) days after his appointment, any such event or involuntary assignment pro- hibited by the provisions of this Seution sha 11 Le deemed to constitute a b:-each of th.is Le<1se by the I,essee: and shall, cit the election of r,esso:r 1 terminate this Lcc1se and all rights of any and all persons claiminry under the Lease. 10. WAIVER OP BREACH: It is agreed that no waiver by cithex Lessor or I,e!i~ee of the breach by either of any covenant, agr8ement, $tipulation ac condition of this J~e,1sc shall be construed to be '-' wuivcr of any succeeding breact1 of the same covenant, a(Jreement, stipulation or condition or a breach of uny other covenant, agreement, stipulation or condition; also that all the covenants, stipulations, conditions and agreements herein cont~ined shall extend to and be binding on the heirs, executors, administrators, guccessors and assigns of the parties hereto. 11. IMPROVEMENTS: The Lessee shall not make any alc::erations, additions or improvements in the premises or equipment or facilities thereon, without the consent of the Lessor in writing first had and obtained, and all alterations, additions and improvements shall become the property of the Lessor, and shall remain in and be surrendered with the premises as u part th8reof at the t~rmination of this Leas~. -7- ) f ,, ' ,. ' .,, ...... 1 ~ I i I ' I .I ' ! I I I i·. I I!· I ,i • • I • • ! I I 'I ,, ,, ' - -··,ts;, ., .... \,:ithout disturban-:;e 1 molestation or in~ury 1 and fr~e of .~11 m.:!'chanics'. liens <:ind P.ncumbra11ces of any nature whatsoever. 'l'hc cost of all ,1lterations, repairs a,nd improvement~ shall be ,-,pl it NJual Iy b0twerm Lessor and Lessee, the 1,(issee 's use of the premi:;es as currently understood 1 thal ~s, fo"." industriilJ tank storage purposes, shall be restrained or enjoin~d by judicial .process, te.rJ""inated by municipt1l, Coast Guard or other government authority, ter- minated by la·,, or terminated by the right of eminent domain, the Lessor may terminate this Agreement on tcr1, {10) days' written notice to the Lessee and shall not be liable fo-r any damage wh~tsoever resulting from said termination. partirs shall be bound by all exis':.ing ec.1sernents, agreements and cncumbra~ces either of record, or specified herein, or any others to which the parties have actual notlce. 14. Q.§~: In the event of any breach of this LeaSC! by the Lessee, the Lessor shall give written notice to the Lessee of the specific default and shall provide in that written notice that the Lessee has ten {10) days in which Lo cure the default or vacate the premises as provided herein. RC!delivery of the premises to the Lessor shall in no wa:, relieve the Lessee of any of its obligations to pciy rent or other obligations or liability for brer.1ch undl':'r this Lease. If the premises are relet by the L0ssor, the amounts re- ceived from the new Lessee shall be applied, first, to the payment of any expenses of such relctting and of an 1!ter~- -8- ~ I -:! I i ;, if ., ,I ,; l, 1 "' I I • • I. I ' 1i :j I, i I i\' I ' Ir. I 1.r 1 1 ' i. ! I I t ; ' . . ! '~ -I \ u~:~ •• ';I ,, I tions or repair nccessi tated by the default of the Ll:"!ssee and subsequent reletting; second, to the payment of rent due and unp,;dd hereunder, and the residue, j f any, shall bE' held by th~ L!"ssor and applied in payment'. of future rent as the same may b~comc due and payable hereunder. No such re~entry or taking possession of the prcmislis by the Lessor shall be celnstrucd as an ld ect ion on the part of Les~o~· ta t12rminatc this I,e..isCc> unless a •,,1ritten notice of such intention is qj vC?n t:o the I,cssc"'', or unless the termination is decreed by a courl of competent jurisdiction. Notwithstanding any such reletting without termination, the Le~sor may at any time thereafter elect to terminate this r .. ease for such previous breach. In the event of breach, the Lessor sh,111 have all rights provided by law. Specifically, Lessor may recover from Lessee any and all ddmages incurr~d or suffered by reason of such breach. 15. This Leaso shall be construed according to the laws of the State of Washington. In the event of any litigatlon involving this Lease brought by Lessor in which Les~or prevails, the LcsseG ilgrees to pay on demand all costs incurred by the Lessor, including but not limited to all attorney's fees and costs of title search. 16. All notices under this !,ease shc1ll be sent to the parties at th~ addrPsses indicated below unless other- 17, This aqr~emeht contains the entire undf.!r- standinq of the parti,.s and cannot be modified exr:ept in writing, signed by all parties her0.to. ·-9- 11 -L ! l -I I I " I ., I I I .1 ·t I I ~ t I ' ; I i: • g t ·1 ; J ' I ,, ' 11 ,. (, I' - 11 ! I: Ir i I ·- I· I i= , I :, u,-ii 'II I. -" .,. .-,;... ,. -, ' STATE or WASHINGTON) ) ss: COUNTY OF KING) Qurwo~~,L "TERMI~ALS ay /Jr,)J!i. }01_1,_ - rSt~ald 0, 'NZiI'man, Manager P, O. Box 477 Rent~n, Washington 98055 'I'URBO ENERGY LP.A/HNG, INC. ~~ By • C·. ~ pibF,Jj ny f/;_, /(//£;_~~ ;;,_-..)--,.,c,r·< '/,; If Plaza 600 Building Seattle, Washin9ton On this /1 day of /r/ "V·""-·· -6--1 , 1974, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, duly coilDTiissioned and sworn, personally appeared 1'.X>NALD o. NORMAN, to me known to be the Manager of QUENDALL TERMINALS, the Joint Venture that executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said Joint Venture for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and c, oath stated that he is authorized to execute the said instrument on behalf of said Joint Venture. WITNESS my hand and official seal hereto affixed lhc day and year first above -10- I ,, ii ,, ., ,. ' II II' .. --~ STA1E OF WASHINGTON) l SS: COUNTY OF KING ) On this I Z. day of ~ , 1974, before me I the undersigned, a No ryublic in and f·or the State of Washington, ~U__!j commissioned and sworn, .pr.rsonally appeared e"'"'"H,l> C, If.., wi«H111tTand J"".AMWS A YQLMhJ to me known to be the President and Secretary, respectively, of TURBO eNERGY LEASING, INC., the corporation that executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said in·stru- ment to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation, for the US!c'S and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that they are authorized to execute the said instrument and that the seal affixed is the corporate seal of said corporation. WITNESS ;oy hand <rnd official seal hereto affixed year first above written. Notary Public in and Washington, residing -11- for the State of at .[.~" Y4 ! • f I ,, I :I 11 I I I I I ' :1 r I I - - ,r J L • ' ] '! "' 'I ,. ,, f! 11 I I I I ,_ ,• ! I i ~I 'I l -- .... :, /-\ ( . . .. n.. ' . • ·1;, __ wJ::-t ,,., o· r;r''-'!!Ew1·2nl L'.Jt i.11 s,.•ct.i.0;1 :'.!9, 'i'(\ ··...:ht;1 , :iJ:·1'.:I, Ran;;0 ') l·'.-1:;/:, H.li. ;,r,,1 '.';l(li"<' J.i"'-: c1,Jj 1) :1in·,, lyi.n;; \Ic.•3!::Cl'"l 'j ui rill' North ,1·;1 1'1• i'. /'.1llc,i:,d !)i_'.,,;1t of 1,/;1v ~Jnc! So·.Jl:~1::c·_·I:: ti[ :1 Ii.-· .b.:i·rilwd ;e:: fo!Lo;.,-;· ik ',Lnni.L.\ .iL Lhr.c (j'lTct:cr r.01·r.t2r on !"h,:, ;-;:;ui:11 ! i.r't' o[ :;:1L·1 f;c:ctirn '.HJ, ch,!ncc J:orti: 3rJ1153' ]ii" \1(::.r· nJ.,u_:~ L:l~.:.o Suuth ll.1H! u~ s:ii.d Lor :1 1,11'3.01 f(~r,/' 1·0 ci,·_, 1.h:;tr•r!y lino of ~s.-ii.(1• ::c,rrh('ri, r',1tifi.c 1~:ii.l.r.-n:1.' P,ight o!: \·!.iy; n10ncc~ i\ort:h L9°1,t,' .').';'' f,1.:: W,'-J.f,7. i·,.,_._,._ ,l~_o;i:•, ~,Hi.d !-'.i.y,ti~ of \·lay lin,, 10 ;1 ·!1'llt1 '•,:ri:i'l:1~:t,.,~-r,~[t'rrc•d to :t'.', Pni111-_ /i.; !"\1.11c(• ::o:,· ·~r.g ~;i)rt:h 2'J 0 11lf''.il." E;,,;l ?Ofl.01 i.·c I:') t: ··:'~ pq'11 1: of h~·.:innLn;; of lb,, L.i.11-:· 1·:,-i·,,i•1 dr·';,_ril•:11 chr~nc' ~'J~;r:h 'J,:;0 ;~''jf\" i-!0st /'.!-~.·;'' r,,- ro :1 i,,:,·. , . .-',Jch bf':1(.; t>1r1·1, ',')')!.','';,','' '.·'.···';l 1(1·:J.•Ji 1 •· :·,·n;~ _;:1.1.d L'oln(. /,, 1:iH•,1r'c• ;'.,-Ji·tli J'/:!'1' 'i,\" 1.-.',,.s; t,J r 1·· ·ir:,··· L--2,·~;0·: Li.0" e.:1,J rli·· c-nd vr :,,i_,i ·1 ;, dv;.:~!;1:_i(i,, /ilso li1·,1· p(lr"\" :0:: o;" J·1-i,_l Cov,•1-r":1,,n1 Loi ·, I ·i:1" ;;,1"1.f1 ··:_;,_.:•rly or· l.:i':r, ;:Jt?'._::1i11'·tcn1 1;n:1lr_'v ,J·d, •:;ll,._·l·, of ,<;r,r·o"·Lll-'/ St·:r,.,! H:.".h'.·n·; ;!·1:,',,. '.1.!, ,1~J ;-::lrtLu,::tct·/y uf ·1·h· Hi;:111" ri" 1/·i·,1 ,,· f'u',li,· :~tdt(· lli:-;h·m.1· 1:unhec 1 :1'.; o:;t_:ribii_'.:):,:J !:i-; c!c-:,d r, •.:,1:·olvt'. n·1,1.z_,,· i\l\di.u.11·' i; 1-"i.l(o ::o. 51.:,8/1,:J__:. r [: I ' ' t II, • ' ., ,, ·' ,, i ! I 11 I ' I .! · 1 11 ,, I l 11. I i i ,- i, 11 ii • 'r ' i u I ·"-· Ii ' ...,, ····.,·-· -~~-------- "' :, "' u 0) 0 .-< rl :, .... "' N 0 0 . __ ., '. ~---... -· -11£COIIOl0 .. ::::~m?:1rr,·i 1?7.\ l«l'i 8 I'll 12 40 01nEcTOR RE.CORDS 6. eu;oTtONS Kl(:-.:, ccm1n, WASH. ' ' . --·----------~ f I .. r- ,\ :: I :f '! " t QUIT CLAIN DEED TIIE GRAlft'OR., REil.LY TAR. AltlD CIIENICAL CO~RATION, an Indiana corporationt for and in consideration of TEN OOU.ARS ($10.00) and other valuable ecns~deration conveys and quit claims to QUENI)ALL Tf'"-~_MINALS, a .Joint Venture· C02pris&d of Puqet Timber, Inc., a Washington corporation and Altino_Proper~ies, Inc., a Washington co~poration, the following described real estate, situate in the Connty of King, State of Wasnington; That portion of Goverrunent Lot 5 in Section 29, Township 24 North, Range 5 tast, ~.M. and shoreland adjoining lying Westerly o~ the Northern Pacific Railroad Right of Way and sout:lerl:· of a li:w described as follows: 8(!g1nni:'!3 at thi;; quatter corner on the Soutl. line of said Section 29; thence :~orth 89~58'36" West along the South l1ne of said Lot 5, 1,113.01 feet to the Westerly line of said Ncrthern Paciffr_ Railroad Right of Way; ~hence North 29°44'$4" East 849.62 feet along said Right of Way line to a point hereinafter referred to as Point A; thence continuing ~orth 29°44'54" East 200.01 feet to the true point of beginning of the line herein d~scribed: thence South 56°28'50" West 222.32 fee:t to a point which bears North 39°24'56~ West 100.01 feet from s~id Point A; thence North 59°24'56" West to th~ inner harbor line and the end o: said line description; Also that portion of said Government Lot :i lying Southeasterly of Lake 1-.'<Jshington BoulevarJ, Westerly of Secondary State Htghwal· Nwnber 2A and Northwesterly of the Right of Way of Public State Highwa1· N'Wllber 1 as established by teed recorded und~r Auditor's file No. 5687408, containing Jl.7 acres more or less {accuracy to one acre) of ~hich 12.B acres are unden.rater shorelands. TOGETHER with the following: The Harbor Area Lease dated the 30th day of !lovernber, 1943, between the Port of Seattle and Peter C. Reilly for that area between the inner and outer harbor lines lying adjacent to the area described above in Lake Washington. All rights and interest in and to that certain lease between Foss Tug o Barge for booming and rafting of logs on Lake W<1shington dated the 1st day of Decembt:r, 1962, U4:c'tweer. ReillJ Tar & Chemical and Foss Tug & Barge. All rights and permits, if any, from the Army Corps of Engineers for placing and locating structures, wharves, dolphins, piers and other devices that ~re in interference with navigation and require permits from the Army Corps of £ngineers located in that area described in the Harbor Area Lease referred to above. THE GRANTOR, REILLY TAR AND CHEMICAL CORPORATION, warrants that it has not created any encumbrances on the subject property since the date of closing of the Real Es~ate Contract between Grantor and Grantee herein dated June 1;. 1971, but expressly disclaims any and all other warr~nties, express or implied. This de-ed is given in fulfillment of that eeitain RealEstat@ Contract between the parties hereto. dated June 15, 1971. and conditioned for the conveyance of the above described property. and the covenants of warranty herein contained shall ft">t·apply to any title, interest or encumbra.~ce arising by, through or under the purchaser in said contract. and s~all not apply to a~y taxes, assess11tents or other charges levied, assessed or becoming due subsequent to the date of said contract. Real Estate Sales Tax was paid on this sale under Rec. No. 14856Q. I~ WITNESS WHE.REOF, said corporation has caused this instrwnt-:nt tn be execut.eC bJ its STATE OF I~DIA!.:A ss: cc.ur.t:,: otrl;'-i\/:,1 1 On this b day of ,}u,._,...-, 1975, personally appeared =~==-'-c---/, t,,t,./ ait<l £. E-);H ,4(',,'41.; , tO me known to be th~Jresid~nt and Secretary of REILLY TAR AHD CHEMICAL CORPORATION, the'Corporat1on that executed the within and foregoing QUIT CLAI~ DEED, and actnowledg~d said instrument to be the fre€ and voluntary act and deed of sald corporation, for the uses and purposes t~erein mentioned, and or~ O<ith stated that they wt!'re authorized to execute said instrument and that the slc'al affixed is the corporate seal of s"'id corr,orat ion. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and yfrar first above written. ~ ,,f#;f~~(;,. , A, 'f;.. "•.V i O l ·-~·-\:C:. ~./. 7. ·o. • • .~ ... 0 . ..... ' . ' ' ; ' ' - ' ' ····· -. 0 ' q -.... .. '•,, .. ~ = ... I .., n If\ ' 0 .., ~ 0 "' r-... ... .;£COl!OEr, .. 0 ___ OF-••••••• -•••• RfQIJ(Sl o• • ... I? " 915,n 16 I'll I 37 ... - if ::_WJj~~ R:_:o;,%,:t uest of C..:HECTC.~ RECORDS & El.ECTIOHS J<fNC; CCUNrY, WASH. .......... ; /",( '/),' I F? /JI ;, ':,c7 · Ii 1· ''jf/r/ r I --• - -~~"-· _.._ ~ -·=-·= -Of"' , • -----···---- , ---' ; -, ' . .) ,- 1 -·.1 ~ UTILITlfS #I ~1~.S!! E_!l TH~R~~~e athi.s __ day_ of _______________ l 9j_Q_; by and be.tween· joint YeDhrre carprised of . ..t: ALTJNO PBl:FERJES, ~-, a ·washing-too caqo:iation, and PUGET TDmER, rue., a Wnsb.iaiton ~rporatioo :.::.::..==='-----------' -----------------------..mt--------------------_-_-:.::::-::_-_-_____________ __J_,ari,ra•r::=================-- hueinafter called-"Grantor(s)", and the CITY Of RENTON, a Municipal Corpor.:.tion of King County, Washington, hcr~i nafte,-cal led "Grantee". WI fN.ESSETH: That -said Grantor(s}, for and in c011sideration of the sum of $Coe Ik>llar ($1.00)------------paid by Grantee, -and other valuable consideration, do by· these presents, grant, bargain, sell, convey, cin_d warrant unto the said Grantee, Its success-On and assi·gns, an easement for public util-ities {inch.1din9 water and sewer) with necessary appurtenance-s over, through, acro-ss arid upon the fo 1 lowing desc·ii bed property in King Courit.Y, Washington, 1TOre partlculatly described as fol lows: 'lhat p:::irtion of Covernnent Lot s, Sect.ion 29, 'rownshi.p 24._North. Range s East, W.M., King County, Washington, lying hesterly of the Northern· Pacific Pai-lway right-of- way (now Burlingti)n ,Northern) togeti"IE:"r with second class shorelimd abutting thereon described ::is follCMS: o:;riinencinJ at the intersection of ~ South line of said Government u,t 5 with the 'Westerly lire of said railway right--Of--wa:'; ~ North 30°55 1 53n East-al.op)' ScUd right-of-way line 435,00 feet to the true p:,i_~t of begi,ming; thence N6rth 68°44'15" West 350;00 feet; thence South 21°15'45"' West 150.00 feet; thence North 68°44'15" \lest 15.00 feet; thence::North 2P'l5'45'" ·East 265 foot:' ·thence South 68°44'15~ East 15.:00 feet; thence_ SOOth 21 °15 '45" ·West '100 feet; thence SOuth 68°4.4 '15" East 352."56 feet to the Westerly line of said railroad right-of-way; the.nee South 30°551 53" West aloo.g ~d Westerly line 15.22 feet to the true point of heginning. 'i:'HIS·: EASEMENT SHAtI. iONTINUE SO tbNG AS THE WATER LINE IS 'MAINTAINED ON THE LOCJ\TION STATED HEREIN. SHOULD SAID WATER LINE BE REl!OVED -OR RELOCATED. THIS EASEMENT WILL .TERM'.cNATE IMMEDIATELY AND SHALL REVERT TO THE ,GRANTOR AND/OR HIS SUCCESSORS IN INTERES_T, Gran'tor reserves the right to relocate or remove' said water lines at its sole discretion~ UEII-I -. : • _ -,.;, /OT REQUIRED hl1•g Co. Recrnis iJivisiOn ,., . 9 --, td"ff' , Deputy P~f:-:~f)p ';°'U!'-' ~.t_ -- RECCif-'L ~, -:. ,.~_:C i"i(V;S f.1.\c ~-_' · . .. • ,- J I -i ' - .~ ' ": ' •· ..•. , ·~ ', Said hereto~ore irentione-d grantee, its -;uc;.essors ~r assigns,. shall · have the rig'lt,. without prior· notice or proceeding a.t liw, at such tiines as may be necessary to P~t.er upon said above clescr1bed-proper\y for .the ·pul"1)ose of· constructing, maii, ... a1ning, repairing, altering or reconstructing said utility, _or making any connecti_ons therewith, without incurring any legal -obligations-or liability therefore, provided, ·that such construction, main- taining, repajr-ing, alteri.ng or reconstruction o~ such utility shall be •cco~lished in such a manner that the private · ·urovements existing in the r1\11t right(s)-of-way shall not be disturbed . or d•m,,;ed, or 1n the event they are disturbed or d•m•ged, they will be replaced in as good a condition as they were inm,diately before the property was entel'ed upon by the Grantee. The Gran tor shall fully use an,r enjoy the afore described ·premises, including the right to retain the right to use the surface of said rightsof-way · if such use does not interfere with installation and maintenance of the util1ty line. However, the· granter shall not e-rect buildings or structures over. under or across the right-of-way durin~ the existence of Such utility. This easement, shall be a covenant running with the land and shall be bind- ing on the GrantOr 1 his 'successors I hei ni and assigns. Gran tors covenant that -they are the 1 awful o,mers of the above properties and that they have • good and )awful right to execute this agreement. Sl ATE OF WASHINGTON COL!tTY OF KING ss and 1 9 the ·undersigned, a notary public. in and ,for the State of Washington. hereby certify. that on this 21._day of -J11'!J . . 19 . .l!Q_ persanally appeared before ne , · and R4 ,r O fp P "~ m ,., ''1" "' c 1, Q ,,. ..J, (ff,-.., { and ... .. and ; -, and -_ ; to ~ known to be -fodh1dua-~ described in' and who executed the forego!' instrument, 'and acknowledged· that ~' ' ' ' si lj'te~ ·aild sealed the s-ame ·as j(--;l free and voluntary act an..: deed r the _uses and pur,,oses therein nentioned. · r i LED for Rezor d al ii&.lu~'"f \}· -~1··. =. >'.: ... . ~ . ' ~ : ,' ·1 j ' - -~ ~-----n ....... s ... -•·•t-2111•--.. ~:. \ .., ' ASSIGNMENT OF LEASES ANb CASH COLLATERAL THIS ASSIGNMENT OF LEASES AND CA$H COLLATERAL (herein~fter referred to as the 11 Assigrunenti') is made by and between DOUGI,AS E. McKEEN and OLIVE S. McKEEN, husband and wife (hereinafter jointly and severally ~eferred t0 as the 11 Assignor 11 ); and O'DONNELL, BRIGHAM & PARTNERS • NORTHWEST PROPERTIES, a general partnership . ; RfCORDFD i: " ... . ·_ . /. .. ' g· 0 Tl!E O' .'.Sl ,, -(_1;: REcOROS .\. U f,. 'ff; :: :· ;;fl Jil FOR VALUE R~CEIVED, Asrignor does hereby ABSOLUTELY AND IMMEDIATELY SELL, ASSIGN, TRANSFER, CONVEY, SET OVER and DELIVER unto As~ignee any and all existing and future leases (including sub leases thereof), whether w.,:itten or oral, and all future agreements for use and occupancy, and any and all extensions, renewals and replacements thereof, upon al 1 or relating to any part of the real property described as follows: Lot !J, Block ~, Southcenter Corporate Park, as per Plat recorded in the records of King county, Washington, under Record- ing'No. 8003140871. TOGETHER WITH all buildings and improvements thereon (which real property, buildings an) improvements are referred to herein aG the "Premises 11 ), but excluding any trade fixtures, inventory, equipment or other property owned or IP-a Red by the tenant under any lease assigned hereby. The identified Leases, if any, are either presently existing 01: future leases, and are as shown in the Schedule of Leases attached 1 i. <·;, ··;,:· '", r,·,r y; r.r·:1l'i'''='•'I' T:;,\. ":t, \f. :f,l'.l~:1\ '1'PTLE 11'_-·1J;::,\ r ,·n;ii'-\"C\' !'\lli\ !'L'.1 1; ,:1;:. ;,;,_(,_ ·.•.,.:;; fl.()O!t l' :, ~". ;, '", ):\ ')'j].)\ -------"-~--- ... ,..., ... ""'""- --~~--- c-•• ~,: \ \ ' .' \'. f:·., --~ --t,·· ~C' -,...,...--• ..-T .-:... •.• ~',JI.·,- hereto and made a part hereof as 11 Exhibit A.11 All such leases, subleas~s, tenancies, agreements, extensions, re- new;ils and replacements are hereinafter jointly and c:ol- lectively rf:ferred to as the 11 Leases; 11 provided, t.hat any and all leases set fo1·th in the Schedule of Leases may be sometin1es referred to herein as the 11 Jdentified Leases.11 TOGETHE:11 with any and all guaranties of tenants' perfomance under any aJd all of the Leases. TOGETHER with the immediate and continuing right to collect and receive all of the rents, income, receipts 1 revenues, issues, prolits and other income of any nature now d~te or which may become due or to which Assignor may now or sh~ll hereafter becc .:e ehti tle<i to o,._· may make demand or claim for, { including any income of any nature coming due during any redemption period) arising or issuing from or out of the Leases or from or out of the Premj ses or any part thereof, including but not limited to, minir,dfl"I rent!'i, addi- tional rents, percentage rents, parking or common qrea maj ntenance contributions, tax and insuiance contributions, deficiency rents and liquidated damages following default in any Lease, and all ptoceeds payable under any policy of insurance covering loss of rents resulting from untenant- ability caused by destruction or damay-e to the Premises, togetlier with any and all rights and claims of any kind which Assignor may have ag~inst any tenant under the Leases or any subtenants or occupants of the Pr~mises ( all such monies, rights and claims described in this paragraph being hereinafter jointly and severally referred to as the 11 Cash Collateral 11 ), EXCEPTING THEREFROM, any sums which by the 2 ! ! I I ' f l i I t I ! I - ' ·-----~---. --~-~===-,-•,-•.n .. --... -~.WWW.W WW-----a..-, (') ,n 0 '_XJ N C) OJ express provisions of any of the Leases are payable directly to nny governmental a11thori t or tu any other pc~·son, firm or corporation other than the landlord U!lder the Leases. TO HAVE fl.ND TO HOLD t.he same unto the Assignee, its successors dnd assigns forever, or for such shortP.r per~ od as hereinafter may be indicated. SUBJECT, however, to a 1 icense hereby granted by Assignee to Assignor, h:..tt limited as her ... _nafter provided, to collect and receive all of the Cash Collaterai. THIS ASSIGNMENT IS GIVEN FOR THE: PURPOSE OF SECUR- ING the payment of the indebtedness evidenced by a certain Deed of Trust Note or Promissory Note (hereinafter referred to as the "Note 11 ) of even date herewith, made by Assignor, payable to the order of Assignee in the amount of SIX HUN- DRED THIRTY THOUSAND AND N0/100 DOLLARS ($ol0,000.00), and presently hel<l by Assignee, including any extensions, modi- fications and renewals thereof and any supplemental note or notes increasing such indebtedness, as v:ell as the payment, observance, performance ahd dischar:qe of all other obliga- tions, covenants, conditions and warranties contained in an All-Inclusive Deed of Trust of even date herewith (herein- after called 11 Mortgage 11 ) made by Assignor, recorded or to be recorded in the real property records of King County, Wash- ington, and in any extensions, modifications, supplements and consolidations thereof, covering the Premises and secur- ing the Note and supplemental notes, if any. TO PROTECT THE SECURITY OF THIS ASSIGNMENT IT 15 COVENANTED AND AGREED AS FOLLOWS: 1. Assignor's warrant_?~:.s Concern!.!!9-_ Leases and cash CollateraJ_. That Assignor repr·esents and warrants: 3 -- l --- (') ,n Cl n N ·::: ro A _.:,.\ (a) Thilt it has good right, title and interest in and to the I.eases and Cac.h Collateral hereby assigned and gom! right to assign the same, and that no other person, par-tnership entity or corporation has any right, title or interest therein. (b) That Assig'lor has duly and punctually per- formed all and singular the t~rms, covenants, conditions and warranties of the Leases on Assignor I s part to be kept, observed and performed. {cl That the Identified Leases, if any, and all other existing Leases are valid and unmodified exc~pt as indicated herein and are iii. foll force and effect. (d) That Assignor has not previOlrnly sold, assigned, transferred, mortgaged, pledged or granted q security interest in the Identified Leases or Cash Colla- teral from the l!remises, whether now due or hereafter to bt:!come due. (e) That none of the Cash Collateral due and issuin'J -.com the Premfaes or from tlny part ther-eof has been collected for any period in exr:ess of two ( 2) months from the date hereof, and thc1t payment of any of same has not otherwise been anticipated, waived, released, discounted, set off, or otherwise discharged or compromised. (f) ~hat Assignor has not received any funds or deposits from any tenant for which credit has not already been made on account of accrued Cash Collateral. (g) That the ten·ants tfil.der the Identified Leases, if Qny, are not in default 0f any of the terms or provisions thereof. 2. Assignor's Covenants of Performance. The Assignor covenants and agrees: 4 fl.,.)..-.......-_ ·------~ (a) To observe, perform and discharge, duly and punctually, all and singular, the obligations, terms, cove- nants, conditions and war.tanties of the Note and M0rtgage, of the Identified Leases, if any, and of all future Leases affecting the Premises on the part of Assignor to be kept, observed and performed; and to give prompt notice to Assignee of any fai1•1re on the part of Assignor to observe, perform and discharge same. {b) ·ro notify and direct in writing each and every present or future tenant or occupant of the PremiE:es er of ~ny part thereof that any security depos~t or othei deposits heretofore delivered to Assignor have been retained by Assignor or assigned and delivered to Assignee as the case may be. (c) To enforce or secure in the name of Assjgnee (upon notice to Assignee) the performance of each and e\1ery obligation, term, covenant, condition arid agreement in the r~eases by any tenant to be performed, and to notify Assignee of the occurrence of any default under the Leases. (d) To appear in and defend any acb .... : or pro- ceeding arising under, occurring out of, or in any manner connected with th':' Leases or the obl igat.ions, duties or l iabj lities of Assfgnor-or any tenant t.1ereunder, and upon request bi _r.ssignee, Assignor will do so in the name and on behalf of Assignee, hut at the expense of Assignor. ( e) To pay all costs and expenses of Assignee, including attorneys 1 fees in a reasonable sum, in any action or proceeding in which Assignee may appear in connectioh herewith. (f) To neither create nor permit any lien, charge 5 - - i L. .. .J • 'I \ ('l u, 0 :0 N 0 CJJ or P-ncumbranc'-::! upon its interest a!o lessor of the :. ,ases except the lien of "i..:he Mortgage or as ,,rnvided in the Mort- gage. Assignor further covenants and agrees that this Assign- ment creates and constitutes an equitable and specific lien upon the Cash Collateral, and that this Assigrunent does not create or constitute a pledge of or conditional security interest in such Cash Collateral. 3. Prior _Approval For Actions Affecting Leases. That Assignor, without the prior written consent of the Assignee, further covenants and agrees: (a) Not to receive or collect any Cash Collateral from any present or future tenant of the Premises or any part thereof for a period of more than two {2) months in advance (whether in cash or by promissory note), nor ph!dge, transfer, mortgage, grant a security interest ir., or other- wise encumber or assign fu-. ... urn payments of Cash Collateral. {b) Not to waive forgive, excuse, condone, dis- count, set off, comprom~ se or in any manner re lease or Hscharge any tenant •mder any Leases of the Premises of ar.d from any obligation, covenant, condition and agreement by tenant to be kept, observed and performed, including the obligation to pay the Cash Collateral thereunder in the manner and at the place and time specified therein. (c) Not to cancel, terminate or consent to any surrender of any of the Leases, nor commence any action of ejectment or any summary proceedings for dispossession of the tenant under any of the Leases, nor exercise any right of recapture of the Premises provided in any Leases, nor modify or in any way alter the terms thereof. - (') u) 0 ':0 (\J 0 OJ _rr ___ __J£ z.ue (ct, Not to lease any part of t.he Premises, nor renew 01 extend the Lenn of any Leases of the Premises unless an opt.ion therefor was originally so reserved by tenants in the Leases for a fbed and dc>finite rental. ( e) Not Lo relocate any tenant wi thi1. the Premises, nor consent to any modification of the express purposes for which the Premises or any pa.-·t thereof is to be used, or to any assigllment of the Leases by any tenant thereunder or to any a::;signmenl or further subletting of any sublease. (fl Not to assign, oledge, encumber or place any security agreement against Lhe Leases or Cash Co) lateral. 4.. g_~~_!)on of Leases. That Assig~or further cove- nants and agrees as follows: (a) That in the event any tenant under the Leases should become the subject of any proceeding under the Federal Bankruptcy Act or any other federal, state 01 local statute which provides for the possible termination or rejP.ction of the Leases assigned hereby, Assignor covenants and agrees that in the event any of the Leases are so re-iected, no damages settlement shall be made without the prior written con$ent of the Assignee. (h) 'that any check in payment of damages for rejection or termination of any such Lease will be made payable both to the Assignor and Assignee. ( c) Assignor hereby assigns any snch payment to Assignee and further covenants and agrees that upon request of Assignee, it will duly endorse to the order of Assignee any such check, the proceeds of which will be applied to any portion of the indebtedness secured by this Assignment in ~uch manner as Assighee may elect. 7 ---~· ·- ._ -=--= .. -7-- s. Q__f:_Iault Deemed Default TTnder Deec.l of Trust. The Assignor hereby covenants and agrees that in the event any represf:!ntation ur warranty herein ')f Assignor shall be found to be untrue or Assignor shall default in the observance or ('") perfcrmance of any obligation, term, covenant, condition or v, ~ warranty herein, then in each such instance, the same shall C\.! constitute and be deemed to be a default undet· the Note and 0 aJ Mortgagt , thereby entitling Assiqt1ee to declare all sums secured thereby and hereby immediately due and payable and to exercise any and all of the rights and remedies provided thereunder and herein, as well as those provided by law or in equity. 6. License to Collect Cash Collateral. The paJ:"ties agree that as long as there shaLi. exist no default by Assignor in the payment of any indebtedness secured hereby or in the observance and performance of any other obligation, term, covenant, condition or warrahty herein or in the Note and/or Mortgage or contained in the Leases, Assigtt"t shall have the right under a license granted hereby (but limited as provided in the following section) to collect, but not prior to accrual, all of the Cash Collateral arising from or out of said Leases, or any renewals, extensicm, and replacements thereof, or from or out of the Premises or any part thereof; and Assignor shall receive such Cash Collateral and hold the Cash Collateral, together with the right and license herein granted, as a trust fund to be applied, and Assignor hereby covenants to so apply them, as required by Assignee, £i.-..Est to the payment of taxes and assessments upon said Premises before penalty or interest "is due thereon; second to the costs of insurance, maintenance and repairs required by the 8 • j I. C') 10 0 'l) N Cl terms of said Mortgage; thi!:_g to the satisfaction of all obligulions under the Lr;,se~; and Iourth to the payment of intetest, principal and any other sums becoming due under the Note and Mortgage, before using any part of the same for any other purposes. 7. Performance and Termination of License. (a) The parties agree that upon the conveyance by LO Assignor and 1 ts successors and ass..1_gns of the fee title of the :Premises, all right, title, interest and powers granted under the 1 icense described abuve shall automatically pass to and may be exercised by each subsequent owner; and that upon or at any time after default .in the payment of any indebtedness secured hereby or in the observance or perfor- mance of any obligation, term, covenant, condition or warranty contained herein, in the Note, Nurtgage or in the Leases, the Assignee, at its option and without notice, shall have the complete right, power and authority hereunder to exercise and ehforce any or all of the following rights and remedies at any time. ( l) Tc terminate the license granted to Assignor to collect the Cai:;h CoJ lateral wi tbout. taking possession of the Premises or the Leases, and to demahd, collect, receive 1 sue for, attach and levy against the Cash Col1aternl in Assignee•s name; to give proper receipts, releases and acquit tam::ei:; therefor; and after deducting all necessary and proper costs and expenses of operation and coliection llS determined by Assignee, including reasonable attorneys I fees, to app1 y the net procAeds thereof, together with any funds of Assignor deposited with Assignee, upon any indebtedness secllred hereby and in such order as Assignee may determine. 9 -- -... _ - •• . I (') tn 0 '.l'.) N C) (JJ -= ~2) To decla~e all sums secured hereby imrne- d:iately due and payable and, at i',~s option, exercise all or any of the rights and remedies contained in the Note and/or Mortgage or other instrnment given to secure thf" inde:.ited- ness secured hereby. (3) Without regard to the adequacy of the security or the solvency of Assignor, with or without any action or proceeding through any person, agent, trustee or receiver under the Mortgage, or by a receiver to be appointed by court, :md without regard to Assignor's possession, to enter upon, take possession of, manage and operate thP Premises or any part thereof; make, modify, enforce, cancel or accept surrf!nder of any Leases now or hereafter in effect on said Premises or any part thereof; remove and evict :my tenant; increase or decrease rents; decorate, clean, repair a11d other:wise do any act or incur any costs or expenses as Assignee shall deem proper to protect the .5ecuri ty hereof, as fully and to the same extent as Assignee could do if in possession; and in such event, to apply the Cash Collateral so collected in such order as Assginee sha11 deem proper to the permanent operation and managemenL fees and costs, brokerage and attorneys' fees; payment of the indebtedness under the Note and Mortgage and payment to a reserve fund -for replacements and capital improvements, which fund shall nol bear irit"' ..:-est. (-!) Require Assignor to transfer all s~curi ty deposits to Assignee, together with all records evidencjng such deposits. lb) Assignor further agrees and covenants that for the purposes hereinabove enumerated in this section, JO - .. c M en 0 '° l Assignee shall have constructive possession, whether. of not. it is in actual possession, in order to effectuate such purposes, and in no event shali Assigne,;: ai:;;crue any liabil ty by reason of such constructive possession. Assignee shall not be required to give not:ce, or make demand, to Assignor or any tenants under then existing Leases of its actions to (\J ,::) effectuatP. such purposes; provided, however, that the U) acceptance by Assignee of this Assignment, with all of the rights, powers, privileges and authority created hereunder shall not, prior to entry upon ;rnd taking possession of the Premises by Assignee, be deemed or construed to constitute the Assignee a 11 Mortgagee in Possession, 11 nor thereafter or at any time or in any event obligate Assignee t:o appeal in or defend any action or proceeding relating to the Leases or the Premises, or to take any action hereunder or thereunder, or to expend any money or incur any expenses or perform or discharge any abliqation, duty or liability under the Leases, or to assume any obligation or responsibility for any secur- ity deposits or other deposits delivered to Assignor by any tenant thereunder and not assigned and del i"ered to Assignee; nor shall Assignee be liable in any way for injury or damage to person or property sustained by any person or persons, partnership, firm or corporation in or about the Premises. ( c) That the collection of the Cash Collateral and application thereof as aforesaid and/or the entry upon and taking possession of the Premises shall neither cure or ~~~ve any default nor waive, modify or affect any notice of default required under the Note and/or Mortqage nor invali- date any act done pursuant to such notice. The enforcement of any right or remedy by Assignee, once exercised, shall 11 '_!...>o,k ' I i I I I I .. • - 11 -· ---, ----......... ___...-----... _,....-.--~ C') ln 0 ::0 continue until Assignee shall have collected and applied such Cash Cc_ .ateral as may be necessary to cure the then existing default and for so long thereafter as Assignee may, in its sole discretion, deem necessary t0 secure the in- debtedness. Al though the original default be cured and the exercise of any such right or remedy be discontinued, the t5 same or <my other right or remedy hereunder shall not be Q1 exhausted and may be reasserted at an·-t:ime and from time to time following any subsequent default. (d} 'l'he rights and powers confer.ced upon Assignee hereunder are cumulative of and not in lieu of any other rights and powers otherwise granted by Assignee. 8. ~~ointment of Attorney. The Assignor hereby constitutes and appoints Assignee its true and lawful attor- ney-in-fact, coupled with an interest; and in the name, plaL~ and stead of Assignor, to subordinate at any time and from time to time, any Leases affecting the Premises or any part thereof to the lien of the Mortgage or any other mort- gage or deed of trust, security interest, lien or encum- brance of any kind encurnbering the Premises, or to any ground lease of the Premises; and to request or require such subordination where such option or authority was r-eserved to Assignor under any such Leases, or in any case where Assignor otherwise would have the right, power or privilege so lo do. This appointment shall be ii:-tevocable and continuing and these rights, powers and privilegefi shall be excltlsive in Assignee, its su::cessors and assigns as long as any :Jart of the indebtedne$s secured hereby shall r~main unpaid. As- signor hereby warrants that it has not, at any time prior to the date hereof, exercised any right to subordinate any such 12 --~--- • ~ \• I ~ • ~ •~ t, ·- M ;[) 0 'JC 0 Q) Leases to the Mortgage or to any other mortgage, deed of trust, interest, lien or encumbrance of any kind, or g1,)UOd lease (except the ground lease or leases creating the Prere- ises, if any) and further covenants not to exercise any such right. 9. _Indemnification. 'fhe Assignor shal! indem. .1 and hold Assignee harmless from and shall defend Assignee against, any and all liability, loss, claIJage or expense which Assignee may incur under or by :-:-eason of lhis As:sigmnent, or for any action taken by Assignee hereunder, or by reason or in defense of any and all claims and demands whatsoever which may be asserted against Assignee arising out of the Leases, including but nol limited to, any claims by any tenants of credit for renL _ _._ for any period under any Leases for more than two ( 2) months in advance of the due date thereof and security deposiLs paid to anrt received by Assignor, but not delivered tu Assignee. Should AssignE•3 incur any such liability, loss, damage or expense, the -1ount thereof (including reasonable attorneys 1 fees) with interest thereon at the maximum r2t.e permitted by law shall be payable by Assignor immediately withnut demand, and shall be secured as a lien hereby and by said Mortgage. 10, Rec9rd~, Until the indebtedness secured hereby shall have been paid in full, Assignor shall deliver to Assignee executed copies of the Leases and any and all renewals of existing Leases and future Leases upon all or any part of the Premises, and will transfer and assign such Leases upon the same terms and conditions as herein con- tained. Assignor hereby covenants and agrees to make, execute and deliver unto Assignee, upon demand and at any time, any 13 ( and al 1 assig· ment~ and otller records and instruments, including but not limited to, i:-ent rolls, tenant linancial statements and books of account sufficient for the purpose that Assignee may deem to be advisable for carrying out the purposes and intent of this Assigrunent. 11. !'10 Waiver. The failure of Assignee to avail itself of any of the terms, covenants and conditions of this Assignment fo,-any period of time or at any tirne shall not be, nor anything done or omitted to be done by Assignee pursuant hereto sha]l be deemed, a waiver by Assignee of any of its rights and remedies under the Note and/or Mortgas--:: or of the benefit of the laws of the State in which the said Premises are situated. The rights of Assignee to collect the said indebtedness, to enforce any security therefor, or to enforce any other right or remedy hereunder may be exer- cised by Assignee, either prior to, simultaneously with, or >Ubsequent to, any such othE:r action hereinbefore described, and shall not be deemed an election of remedies. 12. Primary Security. This Assignment is absolute, uncondit.-ional and primary in nature to the obligation evi- denced and secured by the Note, Mortgage and any other document given to secure and collateralize the indebtedness secured hereby. Assignor agrees that Assignee may enforce this Assignment without first resorting to or exhausting any other security o~ collateral; provided however, thal nothing her·ein contained shall prevent Assignee from suing on the Note, foreclosing the Mortgage judicially as a mortgage or non-judicially as a deed of trust, or exercising any other right or remedy under any other document r:!Videncing or collateralizing the indebtedness secured hereby. 14 j .. ·~··f . ' ~-~----.,---. --; . . --- 13. Merger. 'rhe fact that ( i) the Lease-. or the leasehold estate created thereby may be held direct! y or indirectly by or for the account of any person or entity which shall have an interest in the fee estate of the Prem- ises, .:ii) the oper3.tior, "If law, or (iii) any other event shal 1 not merge any Leases or the leasehold estates created thereby with the fee estate in the Premises so long as ~ny of the indebtedness secl.ired hereby and by the Note and Mortgage shall rem~in unpaid, unless Assignee shall consent in writing to such merger. 14. Termination of Assignment. Upon payrn~nt in full of all of the indebtedness evidenced by th': Note and secured by the Mortgage and payment of all sums payable hereunder, this Assignment shall be void and of no further effect and no judgTilent or decree entered as to said indebtedness shall operate to abrogate or lessen the effect of this Assignment until such indebtedness has actually been paid; provided, that the affidavit, certificate, letter or sla~ement of any officer of Assignee showing that any portion of said in- debtedness or sums remains unpaid shall be, and shall con- stitute, conclusive evidence of the validity, effectiveness and cbntinuing force of this Assignment. Any person, firm or corporation may, and is hereby authorized by Assignor to, rely on such affidavit, certificate, letter or statemenL. A clemand hy Assignee of any tenant for payment of Cash Col- lateral by reason ~f any default claimed by AsSignee shall be sufficient direction to said tenant to make future pay- ments of Cash Collateral to Assignee without the necessity for further consent by or notice to Assignor. 15. Notice. All notices, demands, requests or docu- 15 :.~~-•------· ............... ,.--, .1) D '.l) t5 c:J ments of any kind which Assiguee may be required or may desire to serve upon Assignor hereunder shall be suffi- ciently delivered by delivering same to Assignor personally o:r: by leaving a copy of same addressed to Assignor at AEsignOr's adaress herein set forth. or by Assignee deposit- inq a copy of same ~ n a regularly maintained receptacle of the United states mails, pnsL .. ge prepaid, certified or registered mail, addressed to Assignor at said address. Notices, <lemands, requests and documents given in such manner shall be deemed sufficiently delivered, served or given for al 1 purposes here..inder at the time such notict:-, demand, request or document shall have been delivered to or mailed as hereinbefore provided to the addressee. Any party hereto may, by delivery to the other party of notice, .desig- nate a different address. 16. Assiqrunent Binds Successo~ The terms, covenants, conditions and warranties contained herein, and the powers granted hereby, shall run with the land and shall inure to the benefit of, and bind all parties hereto and their respec- tive heir.s, executors, administrators, marital communities (if any)1 successo~s and assigns and all tenarts and their subtenants and assiqns and all subsequent owner.... f the Premises and subsequent holder of the Note and/ox Mortgage. 17. Additional Right_§_ and Remedies. In addition to, but not in lieu of, any other rights hereunder, As~ignee shall have the right to institute suit ancl obtain a protec- tive or mandatory injunction to prev-ent a breach or default of 1 or to enforce the observation by such Assignor of, the agreements, covenants, terms and conditions contained herein, and shall have the right to attorneys' fees, costs, expenses, ~ • ...!.-. ;,1, j -.~ - • - and ordinary and punative jamnges Jccasioned by any such b.reach or default by Assignor. Assignor expressly agrees that this Assignment is performable at the county in which the Premises is located and waives the right to be sued elsewhere. The Assjgnor agrees and consents to the 2i jurisdiction of any court of competent jurisdiction located lO 1n the COt'T\ty in which the Premises is located 19, Severability. If any provision of this Assignment or the appl lCation thereof to any entity, person or circum- stance shall be invalid or unenforceable to any extent, the remainder of this Assignment and th<:! ~pplication of such provisions to other entities, persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby, and shall not be affected thereby, and shall be enforced t.o the greatest extent permitted by law. 20. !!_q__'.I'hird Pa:tty Assignee~. It is expressly agreed by A!:signor that this Assignment shall not be construed or deemed made for the benefit of any third party or parties. 21. Entire Agree[!I_E;ll.!:· This Assignment conta_ ._s the entire agreement concerning the Assigrunent of Leases and Cash Collateral between the parties hereto. No variations, modifications or changes herein or hereof shall be binding up011 any party hereto unless set forth in a document duly executed by or ·:m behalf of such party. 22. Construction. Whenever used herein, whenever the context·. so requires, the singular number sh.all include the plural, the plural the singular, and the t1se of any gender shall include all genders. 'T'he word, nMortgage, n as used herein shall mean Mortgage, Deed of Trust, Trust Deed, 17 - • .. ..---... ~------- (') LI) 0 '.l) N 0 Security Deed or Deed tu Secure Debt. All obligations of each Assi~or hereunder shall be joint and several. 23. Multiple Counterparts. This instrument may be exec:uted in multiple counterparts, all of .,...hich shall be deemed originals and with the same effect as if all parties hereto had signed the same document. All of such counter- parts shall be construed together and ~hall constitute onP. instrument, but in making proof, it shall only be necessary to produce one such counterpart. 24. Governing Law. The parties agree that the law of th!": State in which the Premises is located shall govern the performance and enforcement of this Assignment. IN WITNESS WHEREOF', the parties hereto have executed this Assigrunent on this _ii_ day of -......?/~---' -iW... Address: Address: ·'"·"-"·-'"' ·. .. I · ··7,',>f' · ( ·, ~,/····' _,.., )-) /j(,l,, .,,. OLIVE S. McKEEN Husband and Wife 6203 South 194th Street Kent, Washington ASSIGNEE O'DONNELL, BRIGHAM & PARTNER~ - NORTHWF;ST PROPERT ES, 1 P t er ·p Dove Street Suite 760 Newport Beach, CA 92660 18 ,-:--; .. - (") L() 0 X) N ::J <JJ STATE OF C.../1/i../~(,.veA,),_,,,, COUNTY OF uMAJGtr ss. On this /0~ day of £6..($~,fLV 1 198l, before me, the undersigned, a Notary PUb1c rli. and· for the State 0f CAJ.i&JltJ.Jid:. duly conunissioned and sworn, person- ally '.1Ppeared .TQttl,) 4. O ~/'!,?NAlff',~, to me known to be the Manag1no Partner of 0 1DONNELL, BRIGHAM & PARTNERS -NORTH- WEST PRO~ERTIES, a General Partnership, the partnership that executed the foregoiny instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said partnership, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated thal he was authorized to execute the said instrument. WITNESS my hand and official sea.l hereto affixed the day and year first above written. '. -.~ -~OFFICIAL SEAL~.., / / ,,-·. MARSHA l. AUSTIN '' ,\ 1,·. "' • NOlflllY PU8LIC -CAUFOllNl;j i ORANGE COIJ~TY 1 • My «.mm. t~_'.!: J~;'..2.;82 ';::12,?~ K@,at-,o . Notary Public 1n and for the state of UHi!IJMi.4, residing at -···----- STA1'E OF ,./: COUN'I'Y OF .J·'. · 55. ') OnthiS /~;1'·dayof , __ ... )~_(:,;/(,i<,: , l9c<'/, before me, t.J1e under. ~_gned, a Notary Publlcfa and for the State of :.,,._.·~L-.....lt , r".-i.-1,, personally appearg··DOUGLAS E. McKEt:N and OLIVE s. / cKEEN, to mu known to be the persor.J. named in the foregoing document, and ackno,.;,ledged to me -1-hat they executed the same freely and voluntarily for.the uses and purposes therein mentioned. Witness my hand and official seal the day ~d',year; in this certificate first aboye WJ:"i tten. . .' ./}\--;,;;···. ·1· .. ,·, : 6' ' .' '/, i ;;,..:,; ' ' WDS/31B . .--(}::'· ··i l / { j L4l_~,-i;_{.:it.l<\J/~1ur.., ,. Not?p~ Pub l.: .. 1n an~ ;~or ~h. :\~~:~ef;' of .-1_ . , .1., , res1p1ng a.t[}'f;i)_~··· 19 - tfft ' ' . 1, ·1 \~ - (') •.n 0 co N 0 a) EXhIBIT A Lot 5, Block 5, Southcenter Corporate Park, as per Plat recorded in Volume 114 of Plats, pages 36-42 inclusive, records of King County, Washington. _.111111L.... • M· ,·aN r so· · :NS W11 · . f;. t!iiiitfi .;. • ...1 • .,, -I ••• \ ------------------ . . ,., ·.~ .. . ~ "' . . " . . '\! . . • . . : ,,: .\.•. - -.-... ---, ASSIGNMENT OF LEASES AND CASH COLLATERAL THIS ASSIGNMENT OF LEASES AND CA.'.>11 CULLA'l'ERAf_. {hereinafter referred to as thB 11 Assignment 11 ) is made by and between DOUGLAS E. MCKEEN and OLIVE S. MCKEEN, husband and wife (hereinafter jointly and severally referred tri as the 11 Assignoru); and O'DONNELL, BRIGHAM & PARTNERS • NORTHWEST PROPERTIES, a general partnership. ; RECO~OF~ " " fui IE 1li9 ~t\'8: 3·."THS D': $1 liEcOROS&Uf,.• · cl'f; C :, · . :;fl .CfJ FOR VALUE Rr:::CEIVED, Asrignor does hereby ABSOLUTELY AND IMMEDIATELY SELL, ASSIGN, TRANSFER, CONVEY, SET OVER and DELIVER unto Assignee any and all existing and future leases {including subleases thereof), whether w,.:itten or oral, and all future agreements for use and occupancy, and any and all extensions, renewals and replacements thereof. upon all or relating to any part of the real propert1• described as follows: Lot 5, Block. ~, Southcenter Corporate Park, as per Plat recorded in the records of King county, Washington, under Record- ing ·No. S003140871. TOGETHER WITH all buildings and improvements thereon (which real property, buildings au] improvements are referred to herein as the 11 Premises 11 ), but excluding any trade fixtures, inventory, equipment or other property owned or lea~ed by the tenant under any lease assigned hereby. The identified Leases, if any, are either presently existing or future leases, and are as shown in the Schedule of Leases attached , i,:· ;, ~.,~ '", ,,·,r ,-: nr,),'i •,r "l-' 'r:·'..:.'-t-;,".t··Ll'.l~:,\ "J°lTJ.i-: '~-~1;c: -, i-,·•J; ii'\:\ y 1°·,it;: l·f.-'J': 1'.1::: · · •;_ .,.,_:;; flllf)H ··:1,·.1· ... flh :,•.·1::\l"-· _yr '·; i • ~.,: -,. ·11.: ·• ,., 'J'J!.li ---~--"-~--- ---~~-- l "' :n 0 X) C\J 0 a) hereto and made a part hereof as 11 Ek:hibit A. 11 All such leases, subleases, tenancies I agreement~, extensions, re- newills and replacements are hereinafter jointly and col- lectively rE.[erred to as the 11 Lea5es; 11 provided, that any and all leases set forth in the Schedule of Leases may be sometimes referred to herein as the 11 Jdentified teases. 11 TOGETHE:P. with any and all guaranties of tenants' perfo:tmance under any a"1d all of the Leases. TOGET1iER with the immediate and continuing right to collect and receive all of the rents, income, receipts, revenues, i::;sues, profits and other income of any nature now d:1e or which may become due or to which Assignor may now or shall hereafter becc .:e entitled to o.,: may make demand or claim for, { including any income of any nature coming due during any redemption period) arising or issuing from or out of the Leases or from or out of the Premises or any part thereof, includinq but not limited to, minir,._l.JT! rents, addi- tional rents, percentage rents, parking or common area maintenance contributions, tax and insurance contributions, deficiency rents and liquidated damages following default in any Lease, and all proceeds payable under any policy of insurance covering loss of rents resulting from untenant- ability caused by destruction or dama':Je to the Premises, toqet~er with any and all rights and claims of any kind which Assignor may have against any tenant under the Leases ur any subtenants or occupants of the Premises ( all such monies, rights and claims described in this paragraph being hereir1after jointly and severally referred to as the 11 Cash Collateral II), EXCEPTING THE~EFROM, any sums which by the 2 ' I ! t [ i I t ! I I L. - ' n "' 0 "O ---------·-,w__, __ _,AA l OU WWW WW. ----0.~i"" express provisions of any of the Leases are payable direclly to Nny governmental authori t or to any other pc:·son, fj rm or corporation other than the landlord U!1der the Leases, TO HAVE AND TO HOLD lhe same unto the Assignee, .its successors and assigns forever, or for such shorter period as hereinafter may be indjcated. SUBJECT, however, to a 1 icense hcrr.by granted by Assignee to Assignor, hut lim.i ted as her,._ _nafter provided, to collect and receive al.I of the Cash Collaterai. THIS ASSIGNMENT lS GIVEN FOR THt PURPOSE Of SECUR- ING the payment of the indebtedness evidenced by a certain Deed of Trust Note or Promissory Note (hereinafter referred to as the ''Note 11 ) of even date herewith, made by Assignor, payable to the order of Assignee in the amount of SIX HUN- DRED THIRTY THOUS/IND AND N0/100 DOLLARS ($630,000.00). and presently held by Assignee, including any extensions, modi- fications and renewals thereof and any supplemental note or notes increasing such indebtedness, as ~:ell as the payment, observance, performance ahd discharge of all other obliga- tions, covenants, conditions and warranties contained in an All-Inclusive Deed of 'l'rust of even date llerewith (herein- after called uMortgage 11 ) made by Assignor, recorded or to be recorded in the real property records of King County, Wash- ington, and in any extensions, modifiCatiom;, supplements and consolidations thereof, covering the Premises and secur- ing the Note and supplemental notes, if any. TO PROTECT 'fHE SECURITY OF THIS ASSJGNMENT IT IS COVENANTED AND AGREED AS FOLLO'/lS: 1. Assignor's Warranti~-~ Concerning Leases and Cash CollateE_<=!.!-.· That Assignor repi·esents and warrants: 3 ----------" ---;__;_--. M en 0 Xl N C) (a) Thut it has good right. title and interest in and to the Leases and Ca!':h Coll aterul hereby assi9ned and goof'! right to assign the same, a.11d that no other person, partnership ent.ity ot corporation Ila$ any right, title or interest therein. (b) That Assignor has duly and punctually pet- formed all and singular the tE::rms, covenants, conditions and warranties of the Leases on Assignor's part to be kept, observed and per formed. (c) That the Identified Leases, if any, and all other existing Leases are valid and unmodified eXc<:!pt as indicated herein and are ia full force and effect. (d) That Assignor has not previously sold, assigned, transferred, mortgaged, pledged or granted a security interest in the Identified Leases or Cash Colla- teral from the Premises, whether now due or hereafter to become due. (e) That none of the Cash Collateral due and issuin~ ~£om the Premises or from dny part thereof has been collected for any pcri.od in excess of two (2) months from the date hereof, and that payment of any of same has not othcrwisP. been anticipated, waived, releaGed, discounted, set off, or otherwise discharged or com~romised. (f} ~hat Assignor has not received any funds or deposits from any tenant for which credit has not already been made on account of accrued Cash Collateral. (g) That the temr11tS u·nder the rdelltified Leases, if any, are not in default 0f any of the terms or provisions thereof. 2. Assignor's Covenants o_f Perfo~. 'I"he Assignor covenants and agrees: 4 . ___ .::_ - -= --------- (a) To observe, perform and discharge, duly and punctually, all and singular, the obligations, terms, cove- nants, conditions and war.ranties of the Note and Mortgage, of the Ident.i f.ied Leases, if any, and of all future Leases Cl affecting the Premises on the part of Assignor to be kept, .n 0 '.1J observed and performed; and to give prompt notice to Assignee ~ of any fail ·ire on the part of Assignor to observe, perform UJ and discharge same. (b} 'fo notify and direct in writing each and every present or future tenant or occupant of the Premfres or of any part thereof that any secur:i ty depos.L t or other deposits heretofore delivered to Assignor have been retained by Assignor or as~igned and delivered to Assignee as the case may be. {c) To enforce or secure in the name of Assignee (upon notice to Assignee) the performance of each and every obligation, term, covenant, condition arid agreement in the r~eases by any tenant to be perfonned, and to notify Assignee of the occurrence of any default under the Leases. (d) To appear in and defend any acti,..,, or pro- ceeding a1 ising under, occurring out of, or in any manner connected with the Leases or the obligations, dut.ies or liabilities of Assi_gno.r or any tenant l.1ereunder, and upon request b/ _r.ssignee, Assignor will do so in the name and on behalf of Assignee, hut at the expense of Assignor. (e) To pay all costs and ext,enses of Assignee, including attorneys• fees in a reasonable sum, in any action or proceeding in which Assignee may appear in connection herewith. (f) To neither create nor permit any lien, charge 5 - - L., • r') u) ::::, ':O N 0 aJ or Pncumbranc~ upon its interest as lessor of the :. ,ases except the lien of t:he Mortgage or us ,_,rovided in the Mort- gage. Assignor further covenants and agrees that this Assign- ment creates and constitutes an equitable and ::;pecific lien upon the Cash Collateral, and that this Assigrunent does not create or CC1nstitute a pledge of or conditional security interest in such Cash Collateral. 3. ~i_or _?,pproval For Ac"t~ons Affecting Leases. That Assignor, without the prior written consent of the Assignee, further covenants and agrees: (a) Not to receive or collect any Cash Collateral from any present or future tenant of the Premises or any part thereof for a period of more than two { 2) months in advance (whether in cash or by promissory note), nor pledge, transfer, mortgage, grant a security interest in, or other- wise encumber or assign fu" ... ure payments of Cash Collateral. {bJ Not to waive forgive, excuse, condone, dis- count, set off, comprom~ se or in any manner release or :lischarge any tenant ,mder any Leases of the Premises of ar.d from any obligation, covenant, condition and agreement by tenant to be kept, observed and performed, including the obligation to pay the Cash Collateral thereunder in the manner and at the place and time specified therein. ( c) Not to cancel, terminate or consent to any surrender of any of the Leases, nor coimnence any action of ejectment or any sununary proceedings for dispossession of the tenant under any of the Leases, nor exercise any right of recapture of the Premises provided in any Leases, nor modify or in any way alter the terms thereof. - -----------~~--·:..~----=-=---------- M u) 0 ·X, N 0 <JJ ·--~ ;_·,b-:.. Id, Not to lease any part of t.he Premises, nor renew 01 extend the term of any Leases of the Premises unless an option therefor was origina] l y sn reserved by tenants in the Leases for a fi::ed and d~.Finite rental. (e) Not to relocate any tenant withit the Premises, nor consent to any modification of the express purposes for which the Premises or any part thereof :is to be used, or to any assignment of the Leases by any tenant thereundei-or to any assignment or furtheL· subletting of any sublease. ( f) Not to assign, oledge, encumber or place any set:l.Ir i ty agreement against the Leases or Cash Collateral. 4. 13:_~jec!_-t_on of Leases. That Assig:1or further cove- nants and agree~ as follows: (a) That in the event any tenant under the Leases should become the subject of any proceeding undP.r the Federal Bankrnptcy Act or any other federal, state o• local statute which provides for the possible terminatlon or rejection of the Leases assigned hereby, Assignor covenants and agrees that in the event any of the Leases are so re·:ected, no damages settlement shall be made wi ttlout the prior written consent of the Assignee. (b) That any chC!ck in payment of damages for :rejection or termination of any such Lease will be made payable both to the Assignor and Assignee. ( c) Assignor hereby assigns any Sllch payment to Assignee ~nd further covenants and agrees that upon request of Ai=:signee, it will duly endorse to the order of Assignee any such check, the proceeds of which will be applied to any portion of the indebtedness secured by this Assignment in such manner as Assignee may elect. 7 ___ _.....:..,_ __ , ~---- ... L~-- ;.,,:,;,. -4.!.-;, - 5. Default Deemed.Default llnder Deed of Trust. The Assignor hereby covenants and aqrees that in the event any representation vr ~arranty herein Jf Assignor shall be found to be untrue or Assignor shull default in the obQervance or ("') perfc:rmance of any obligation, term, covenant, condition or li"l ~ warranty herein, then in each such instance, the same shall C\J constitute and be deemed to be a default under the Note and 0 co Mortgagi , thereby entitling Assignee to declare all sums secured thereby and bereby immediately due and payable and to exercise any and all of the rights and remedies provided thereunder and herein, as well as those provided by law or in equity. 6. License to Co]lect Cash Collateral. The parties agree that as long as there shali exist no default by Assignor in the payment of any indebtedness secured hereby or in the observance and performance of any other obligation, term, covenant, condition or warranty herein or in the Note and/or Mortgage or contained in the Leases, Assign"r shall have the right under a license granted hereby (but limited as provided in the following section) ta collect, but not prior to accrual, all of the Cash Collateral arising from or out of said Leases, or any renewals, extension, and replacements thereof, or. from or out c,f the Prcmi ses or any part thereof; and Assignor shall receive such Cash Collateral and hold the Cash Collateral, together with the right and license herein granted, as a trust fund to be applied, and Assignor hereby covenants to so apply them, as required by As5ignee, !j.rst to the payment of taxes and assessments upon said Premises before penalty or interest 'is due thereon; second to the costs of insurance, maintenance and repairs required by the 8 ~' I \· lenns of said Mortgage; third lo the satisfa.ction of all obligc.1l1ons under the Li:-:ises; and four_tl!. to the payment of interest, principal and any other sums becoming due under the Note and Mortga,Je, before using any part of the same for any other purposes. 7. Performance and Termination of License. (a) The parties agree that upon the conveyance by I.I.) Assignor and 1ts successors and ass..1.gns of the fee title of the Fremises, all right, title, interest and powers granted under the license described abuve shall automatically pass to a12d may be exercised by each subsequent owner; and that upon or at any time after default in the payment of any indebtedness secured hereby or in the observance ot perfor- mance of <my obligation, term, covenant, condition or warranty contained herein, in the Note, Nvrtgage or in the Leases, the Assignee, at its option and without notice, shall have the complete right, power and a11t.hority hereunder to exercise and enforce any or all of the following rights and remedies at any time. {l) Tc terminate the license granted to Assignor to collect the Cash Collateral without taking possession of the Premises or the Leases, c\nd to demand, collect, receive, sue for, attach and levy against the Cash Collateral in Assignee's name; to give proper receipts, releases and acquittances therefor; and after deducting all necessary and proper c!'.lsts ~nd expenses of operation and coliection as determined by Assignee, including reasonable attorneys 1 fees, to apply the net proceeds thereof, together with any funds of Assignor deposited with Assignee, upon any indebtedness secured hereby and in such order as Assignee may determine. g 7 -.... - . I . \ --lff = q) 'fo declare all sums secured hereby inuue- d.i ately due and payable and, at its option, exercise all or any of the rights and remedies contained in the Note and/or Mortgage or other :instrumFmt given to securP. thr ind'-:?0ted- ness secured hereby. ( 3) Wi ttlout regard to the adequacy of the security or the solvency of Assignor, with or without any action or proceeding through any person, agent, trustee or rec-eiver under the Mortgage, or by a receiver to be appointed by court, r1nd wj thout regard to Assignor 1 s possession, to enter upon, takP. possession of, mat1u.ge and operate the Premises or any part thereof; make, modify, enforce, cancel or accept surr~nder of any Leases now or hereafter in effect on said Premises or any part thereof; remove and evict 3ny tenant; increase or decrease rents; decorate, clean, repair and olherw ise do any act or incur any costs or expenses. as Assignee shall deem proper to protect the Jecurity hereof, as fully and to the sume extent as Assi!Jllee could do if i11 possession; and in such event, to apply the Cash Collateral so collected in such order as Assginee shall deem proper to the permanent operation and managemenL fees and costs, brokerage and attorneys' fees; payment of the indebtedness under the Note and Mortgage and payment to a reserve fund for replacements and capital improvements, which fund shall not bear i11r.-"-·est. (-!) Require Assignor to transfer all security deposits to Assignee, together with all records evidencing such deposits. lb) Assignor further agrees and covenants that for the purposes hereinabove enmnerated in this section, 10 -.~-~r . . • • ' ' • -. • IL ._ - ("') ,o 0 '.]) 1 Assignee shall have constructive possession, whether or not it is in actual possession, in order to effectuate such purposes, and in no event shall Assigne~ accrue any liabilty by reason of such constructive possession. Assignee shall not be required to give nol~ce, or make demand, to Assignor or any tenants under then existing LE'i\Ses of its actions to N C) effectuate such purposes; provided, however, that the UJ acceptance by Assignee of this Assignment, with all of the rights, powers, privileges and authority created hereunder shall not., prior to entry upon and taking possession of the Premises by Assignee, be deemed or construed to constitute the Assignee a 11 Mortgagee in Possession, 11 nor thereafter or:" at any time or in any event obligate Assignee co appear in or defend any action or pro~eeding relating to the Leases or the Premises, or to take any action hereunder or thereunder, or lo expend any money or incur any expenses or perform or discharge any obligation, duty or liability under the Leases, or to assume any obligation or responsibility for any secur- ity deposits or other deposits delivered to Assignor by any tenant thereunder and not assigned and del i."ered to Assignee; nor shall Assignee be liable in any way for injury or damage to person or property sustained by any person or persons, partnership, firm or corporation in or about the Premises. ( c) 'rhat the collection of the Cash Collateral and application thereof as aforesaid and/or the entry upon and taking possession of the Premises shall nei.thet cure o.r w-;:~ve any default rior waive, modify or affect any notice of default required under the Note and/or Mortgage nor invali- date any act done pursuant to such notice. The enforcemenl of any right or remedy by Assiqnee, once exercised, shall 11 ' I i I I .. • - 1t (') ;n 0 '.1) ' ' --, continue until Assignee shall have collected and applied such Cash Cc_ ._ateral as may be necessary to cure the then existing default and for so long thereafter as Assignee may, in its sole discretion, deem necessary te> secure the in- debtedness. Al though the original default be cured and the exercise of any such right or remedy be discontinued, the ~ same or any other right or remedy hereunder shall not be Q1 exhausted and may be reasserted at an-· t:ime and from time to time following any subsequent default. (d} The rights and powers conferred upon Assignee hereunder are cumulative of and not in lieu of any other rights an<l powers otherwise granted by Assignee. B. ~ointment of Attorney. The, Assignor hereby constitutes and appoints Assignee its true and lawful attor- ney-in-fact, coupled with an interest; and in the name, plae,<:! and stead of Assignor, to subordinate at any time and from time to time, any Leases affecting the Premises or any part thereof to the lien of the Mortgage or-any other mort- gage or deed of trust, security interest, lien or encum- brance of any kind encumbering the Premises, or to any ground lease of the Premises; and to request or require such subordination where such option or authority was reserved to Assignor under any such teases, or in any case where Assignor otherwise would have the right, power or privilege so to do. 'rhis appointment shall be irrevocable and continuing and these rights, powers and privileges shall be exclusive in Assignee, its su:::cessors and assigns as long as any :Jart of the indebtedness secured hereby shall r~main unpaid. As- signor hereby warrants that it has not 1 at any time prior to the date hereof, exercised any right to subordinate any such 12 "--~--· . ..;.___. .......... a Leases to the Mortgage or to any other mortgage, deed of trust, interest, lien or encumbrance of any kind, or g1ounct lease ( except the ground lease or leases creating the Prerr.- ises, if any) and further covenants not to exercise any such right.. 9. .Indemnification. The Assignor shall indem. .1 and hold Assignee harmless from and shall defend Assignee against, any and all liability, loss, daraage or expense which Assignee may incur under or by ~eason of Lhis Assignment, or for any action laken by Assignee hereunder, or by reason or in defense of any and all claims and demands whatsoever which may be asserted against Assignee arising out of the Leases, including but nol limited to, any claims by any tenants of credit for rent"'.... for any period under any Leases for more than two (2) months in advance of the doe date thereof and secm·ity deposits paid to an<l received by Assignor, but not delivered tu Assignee. Should Assign€·~ incur any such liability, loss, damage or expense, the 1ount thereof (including reasonable attorneys' fees) with interest thereon at the maximum rc--t.e permitted by law shall be payable by Assignor immediately without demand, and shall be secured as a lien hereby and by said Mortgage. 10. Record~. Until the indebtedness secured hereby shall have been paid in full, Assignor shall deliver to Assignee executed copies of the Leases and any and all renewals of existing Leases and future Leases upon all or any part of the Premises, and will transfer and assign such Leases upon the same terms and conditions as herein con- tained. Assignor hereby covenants and agrees to make, execute and deliver unto Assignee, upon demand and at any time, any 13 -~···~ I and all assig· menth and other records and instruments, including but not limited to, rent rolls, tenant financial statements and books of account sufficient for the purpose that Assignee may deem to be advisable for carrying out the purposes and intent of this Assigrunent. 11. ~o Waiver. The failure of Assignee to avail itself of any of the terms, covenants and conditions of this Assignment fo·· any period of time or at any tirr,e shall not be, nor anything done or omitted to be done by Assignee pursuant hereto shall he deemed, u waiver by Assignee of any of its rights and remedies under the Note and/or Mortgar~ or of the benefit of the laws of the State in which the said Premises are situated. The rights of Assignee to collect the said indebtedness I to enforce any security therefor I or to enforce any other right or remedy hereunder may be exer- cised by Assignee, either prior to, simultaneously with, or 1ubsequent to, any such oth1::r acti'on hereinbefore described, and shall not be deemed an election of remedies. 12. Primary Security. This Assignment is absolute, unconditional and prirn<try in nature to the obligation evi- denced and secured by the Note, Mortgage and any other document given to secure and collateralize the indebtedness secured hereby. Assignor agrees that Assignee may enforce this Assignment. without first resorting to or exhausti.ng any other security o~ collateral; provided however, that nothing herein contained shall prevent Assignee from suing on the Note, foreclosing the Mortgage judicially as a mortgage or non-judicially as a deed of trust, or exercising any other right or remedy under any othP.r document ~videncing or collateralizing the indebtedness secured hereby. 14 - ·- 13. Merger. The fact that { i) the Lease-, or the leasehold estate created thereby may be held direct! y or indirectly by or for the account of any person or entity which shall have an interest in the fee estate of the Prem- ises, '.ii) the opers1tior, '"'f law, or (iii) any other event shall not merge any Leases or the leasehold estates created thereby with the fee estate :in the Premises so long as :•ny of the indebtedness secured hereby and by the Note and Mortgage shall remain unpaid, unless Assignee shall consent in writing to such merger, 14. Termination of Assigrnnent. Upon payment in full of all of the indebtedness evidenced by f:.hc Note and secured by the Mortgage and payment of all sums payable hereunder, this Assignment shall be void and of no furthe:t effect and no jrtdgli1ent or decree entered as to said indebtedness shall operate to abrogate or lessen the effect of this Assignment until such indebtedness has actually been paid; provided, that the affidavit, certificate, letter or statement of any officer of Assignee showing that any portion of said in- debtedness or sums remains unpaid shall be, and shall con- stitute, conclusive evidence of the validity, effectiveness and continuing force of this Assigrunent, Any person, firm or corporation may, and is hereby quthorized by Assignor to, rely on such affidavit, certificate, letlet or statement.. A demand by Assignee of any tenant for payment of Cash Col- lateral by reason ~f any default claimed by Assignee shall be sufficient direction to said tenant to make future pay- ments of Cash Collateral to Assignee without the necessity for further consent by or notice to Assignor. 15. ~otice. All notice5, demands, requests or docu- 15 . ~ ~ ti... ... . . ... -~ . . . . . . • ,) ments of any kind which Assignee may be required or may desire to serve upon Assignor hereunder shall be suffi- ciently delivered by delivering same to Assignor personally or by leaving a copy of same addressed to Assignor at A£sign6r's address herein set forth, or by Assignee deposit- ing a copy of same ~ n a regularly maintained receptacle of the United States mails, pnst.,,-;Je prepaid, certified or registered mail, addressed to Assignor at said address. Notices, rlemands, requests and documents given in such manner shall be deemed sufficiently delivered, served or given for all purposes here,..mder at the time such noticf;, demand, request or document shall have been delivered to or mailed as hereinbefore provided to the addressee. Any party hereto may, by delivery to the other party of notice, desig- nate a different address. 16. Assignment Binds successo~ The terms, covenants, conditions and warranties contained herein, and the powers qranted hereby, shall run with the land and shall inure to the benefit of, and bind all parties hereto and their respec- tive heirs, executors, administrators, marital communities (if any), successors and assigns and all tenarh~ and their subtenants and assiqns and all subsequent owner.., f the Premises and subseguent holder of the Note and/or Mortgage. 17. Additional .Rights and Remedies. In addition to, but not in lieu of, any other rights hereunder, As.-,ignee shall have the right to institute suit aud obtain a protec- tive or mandatory injunction to prev-ent a breach or default of, or to enforce the observation by such Assignor of, the agreements, covenants, terms and conditions contained herein, and shall have the right to attorneys' fees, costs, expenses, 16 _-,r .... : .&~~-, ••• ;. ,;'-••• 1 - • -.11 and ordinary aJtd punati Ve ::lamz:ges )Ccasioned by any such breach or defa.ult by Assignor. Assignor expressly agrees that this Assignment is performable at the county in which the Fremises is located and waives the right to be sued elsewhere. The Assj gnor agrees and consents to the ~ jurisdiction of any court of competent jurisdiction located ro in the COP"lty in which the Premises is located 19. §everability. If any provision of this Assignment or the application thereof to any entity, person 0r circum- stance shall be invalid or unenforceable to any extent, the remainder of this Assigmnent and the application of such provisions to other entities, persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby, and shall not be affected thereby, and shal 1 be enforced to the greatcs t extent permitted by law. 20. ~o Third Par~ -~·~§.~~-s. It is expressly agreed by A~signor that this Assignment shall not be construed or deemed made fo:r the benefit of any third party or parties. 21. Entire Agreement. This Assignment con ta ___ ;; the entire agreement concerning the Assignment of Leases and Cash Collateral between the parties hereto. No variations, modifications or changes herein or hereof shall be binding upon any party hereto unless set forth in a document duly executed by or 'lil behalf of such party. 22. construction. Wh~never used herein, whenever the context'. so requires, the singular number shall include the plural, the plural the singular, <rnd the use of any gender shall include all genders. 'l:'he word, 11 Mortgage," as used herein shall mean Mortgage, Deed of Trust, Trust Deed, 17 ·- • I .. ·-·~:.. ' . .. --..---.......--·----.-~-·~--~- (".) Ll) 0 'J;J N 0 Security Deed or Deed tu Secure Debt. All obligations of each Assj '.':'"'.'!.Or hereunde?.· shall be joint and several. 23. Multiple Counterparts. This instrument may be exesuted in multiple counterparts, all of which shall be deemed originals and with the same effect as if all parties hereto had signed the same document. All of such counter- parts shall be construed together and ~hall constitute onP. j nstrument, but in making proof, it shall only be necessary to produce one such counterpart. 24. Governing Law. The parties agree that the law of the State in which the Premises is located shall govern the performance and enforcement of this Assignment. IN WITNESS WHEREOr' I this Assignment on this Address: Address: the parties hereto have executed ~ --t J ' .1'1/il. ,' 7 day of '-7...u<; l-%Oc ot'rVE s . McKEEN Husband and Wife 6203 South 194th Street Kent, Washington ASSIGNEE 0 1 DONNELL, BRIGHAM & PARTtraRS - NORTHWEST PROPERT l p Dove Street Suite 760 Newport Beach, CA 92660 18 - STATE OF C.//t./,f-'<#f!,u/,t COUNTY Of o,tlAA)~~ 55. On this /()-(:,; day of EeLlff",...ev , 1981, before me, the 1mders19ned, a Notar"y PUblc i'h and for the State r)f CA~. duly commissioned and sworn, person- ally appeared ,TOttP p. <2 ~/l(}NUl{L~, to me known to be the Managino Partner of O'DONNELL, BRIGHAM & PARTNERS -NORTH- WEST PROt'ERTIES, a General Partnership, the partnership that executed the foregoiny instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said partnership, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated thal he was authorized to execute the said instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal hereto affixed the day and year first above written. ~X::::ak~· Notary Public in and for €estate of ~Pd"'-'t&, residing at _____ _ STA'l'E OF' i ,,..,1 .. ss' COUNTY OF '.J ' On this /::. ' 1 • day of --),.(, "' J 1"' , 19f/, before me, l/ie unde~t:rned, a Notary Pub he, and for the State of ., .1-~l,, r .l).,, personally appea:re DOUGLAS E. Mc:KEC:N and-OLIVE s. cKEEN, to me known to be the persor.3 named in the foregoing document, and ackno•.'1ledged to me ":"hat they executed the !;;ame freely and voluntarily for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. in this WDS/31& Witness my hand and official seal the day ~a:_ry:e:ar; certificutc first aboye written. .. / ... ··.;,-\\·;·· ;··. "<·; ! I ·1 , '/, / ~· .,;,.,; , '1, , ~-.l{ ·i I I j_ L1.,.--n,:.C::...,·f{..::;tJ._".>'/~1 tJr..,, Not,7y Pub 1~ 1.n an~ ,~or ~he~;ft~\e¢.: · of --·'~--·-,~··-··-· -:res1.p1ng a.t(:·?~-w .. 19 .~,.-...... -· -~.,., ... , ........ -.... __ _ - - (') en 0 '.X) N 0 a} . lt4 *' . . . .. -, --k+--.· . mZZT • a EXhIBIT A Lot 5, Block 5, South~enter Corporate Park, as per Plat recorded in Volume 114 of Plats, pages 36-42 inclusive, records of King County, Wash inqton. rm tr ·"'-'· .,. - - --,. ' -~ 1 -- • • ... ,.,..,.,,.rr ..., COffallT A<,reement made, effective as of t£,, /3 , 1996, between Qi..>end.aU Terminals. a joint ~t:UTI! cc:,q,ri:sed of Altino Propert.ies, !nc., a washingtort corporation, alld J. H. Batter i. Co., a california litllited. partnership (bereinah~r "'Gra.1tors•) , and Barbee Kill Co. 4 Inc_ , a wa.shington coxporatiO[i., .and J . H. Ban.er & CO., a California limited partnersilip lberei.Dafter •Grantees•}. WBERF.AS, Grantors .ire the owners of ~ain real property whose location is ccaaaaly known as 4503 Lake llaahiDgtoiD Blvd. •-, Renton, Washington. tbe leg.ai de.9cription of which is a~tached hereto as EXHIBIT A anC by t.hia refe1·ence incorporated herein • WHEREAS, Grant~ (Barbee Mill Co., Inc.) is the owner of certain real property eociaonly knolm. as 4101 T..ake lla.ah.i.ngton Blvd. N., Renton, Washington, the legal description of which. is attached hereto as EXHIBIT B and by this ~f@renee incozporated lfHEREAS, Grantee (J. H-Baxter ir. Co.) is the owner of certain real property ccmrionly known as S01~ Lake Maebingtan Blvd. B., Renton, 1'a8hiogton, the legal ~ian of which ia a.ttacbed hereto as EXHIBIT c and. by this reference il:!corporated herein (Parcel •c•) . (....al/'»U/Ul,il/CU,/lT)N).l) ~· • • ~- - - -.-· • • • WHEREAS, Grant.ees desire to acquire certain rights in Parcel A. WHEREAS. tb.e parties hereto vie:l to establish a legal descri:ption as to the location of an easeae:nt for access ~ right of 'Way, the terms and conditions for t~ aaintenanee of the roadway, and future relocatioo of t.he roadlray. FOR TEN ($10.00) DOLIARS AND IN OJNSIDERATIOK c! the mutual promises and covenants contained lrerein, the sufficieucy of which is unconditionally acknowledged by Granters and Gran~ee.a. the parties hereby .agree as follows: I. man' QI' IPWHmm~.r Grantors hereby agree to grant and convey io per:petuity from the eff@ctive date of this conveyance t.:> Grantees an eaBet1ent for road\.ray uses and utilities over, across and under Parcel A. The easement granted in this instrument is appurtenant to Parcel B and Parcel C. JI. PS 1 ruwas Tbe easement shall be for the purpose of provicliDg access for ingress and egress and for underground utilities between Parcel A and Pari::el B, between Parcel A and Parcel C, and between Parcel B and Parcel C. The roadway eball providl! access sufficient and adequate for the purposes of Granteee • U9e8 to t.be higbest. uae pe.rm.i. tted by the then current zaniDg. inc:lbdi.ng tw0 acceaa poiDt.a to the public highway froa Parcel A. The ee .. a•oeae,,•!:~ say be Wied by , I· • ----..... "' - - -.-,. , ' I ' I ----------~----- • • the owners of Parcel Band Parcel C. as well as thei~ officers, employees, agents, t.ena.1L1:t ,,..u.J. l .. ~;..-:!_~.;:.;:,:_ Ill . DS.IIIIDIT LOCA2'IOII The ea5ement granted in this instrument is located on the east 60 '"eet of that portion of Parcel A lyb.g iinaN::diately ~st of railroad right-of-way. 7he Grantors or Granters' successors or assigns may relocate the easement acros~ Parcel A at their sole discretion and expenge. provided passage between Parcel B and Parcel C r9aine uninterrupted, and at least two access pointe re~~in ~rom Parcel A to the public b.igbway. Grantor or Grantor • e. successors or &.ssigns further agree to 1 e: cord a restated legal description for this easement upon relCY-:ation. They sh.all also dedicate the easement to the City as a public right-of-way, if such dedication is required by the City as a condition for approval for any plat:ti::; processes involving eit.her Parcel B or Parcel C. V. IIRN!P.TIOII The easement granted herein shall exist in perpetuity, and shall run with the land and th~ title to such praperty, aDC. &ball inure to the benefit of tb.e parties to tbia Ag~i~eoeoEnnt, their respective heirs, successors or assigns. I Grantees, their respective successors, beira and a.asigna, covenant with Granters, their respective IIUCCesaora, heira and a1Jeigns that Grantees, fro. tiae to ti.lie, and at all tiae• after 3 ·, ,·, ·, Cwt , I· • ~-... , rt .-1%"' -..• .. ·,. __ _ - - ' I I -- • • • the effective date of this instrument, at ~rantees' own cost and expense, wi~l repair anci i:i:ia.incain, in a pL~£, . . . ... tfUUZll.4lll. .I.OJ., GI.UU , ~rkerlike manner, the above-described roadway. As between the Grantees, tbe costs of repair and maintenance shall be equitably apportioned based uoon each party• s use of the easement. VI:I. CGWilMUUiG RIGIB'l'S OP ~ Grantors and their successors, heirs and assigns :aay continue tc -ase the easement for iteir "lwn purposes so long as their t:se is not inconsistent with th~ purpose of this grant. Each party hereto will be responsible for claims or dama.g:ee resulting from or arising out of the use of tbe easement by such party and sha:.l indemnify and hold all other parties hereto harmless from any claims or damages arisir.,:; t:.'":erefr0111.. U:. llr.rlll IUIINIM'l: This Agreement shall constitute the entire agreement between the patties and any prior u:iderstanding or representation of any kind preceding the date of this Agreement shall not. be binding upon either party except to the extent incorporated in this )greenM!nt. :Z: • ..,XPJ:CU'ICII a, MP .. aimia"' Any modification of this Agreeaent or additional obligation ~ by either party j.n connection with thie Agreement shall be binding oJlly if evidenced in writing by eaob party or an authorized representat~ve of each party. I· • - - i ------------~-~--- • • • D. UIWl"SPm In t.ne event o:t -any cont:rov"@rsy, claia. or ciispuc:e reidt..i!!Y L!J t.his ir.st.ruae.nt er its brea-:::h, ~he prevailing: party shall be entitled to re-cover reasonable exp-.....naes. attorney's fees and costs. Tb:..s Agreement sl:.a.11 bind and inure to t.he benefit of the :-e-spective heirs, personal representatives, successors, and assigns of t!';:e parties. mi. wtWWW i.ur It is agreed t:hat this Agi: e nt sbdl be governed by, construed. and enfor~ in accordance wit.h the laws of the s'tate of 1'.uhingtcm. and .-enue shall be in l.1Dg County_ nv. mncss Any not1ee provided for or concerning this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed sufficiently given when sent by c~rtified or registered niail if sent to the respective address of each party as .set forth at: the beginning of this Agreement. ff. HPMWIPBlll:IDIW n-..e titles to the paragraphs of this Agreeaent are solely for t.he convenience of the parties .and shall not be used to explain, modify, simplify, or aid in the intexpre:tatian of the provisions of this Agreement.. to Ill 1II1'JIESS -..aa>F Uff/ party to tl:ia Ag1 ! nt bas caused i 't be execut.ed at,s;, ~ . Nuhiagtoa.. oa. the date indicated below. 5 h • I· • - '- -i I I -- • • • Illl..'"ED this ~day of fli-:;t aawmlRS , 199G. STATE OF IMS&IIIGT(II 88. QiJ51IDALL 1"ERIOllAl.S, a joiet venture coapriaE:d of Al'ti.Do Properties, :::nc., a ~on corporation. and J. a. Baxeer ii: Co •• a ca!.ifom.ia limited pa.nnerahi.p AL.TINO PROPERTIES, I!iC. By, lts()k#jr ~ :f~ BADEE MILL CO., INC., a waah:ngton corporation " .J~1'··~ J. a. BUTl!R ~ co .. 1· . 1 certify tb&t I lcnoll' or 1awe ~iafact"....ory erideace t.Bat the pe:rw appearing before ae ad lak1Dg thia adalowl Jg f an: the peraooa wboee true •1.~ures appear cm. tllia de, I • ' • • - - I -- • • • On this ~ day of Feb • 199&. before M personally appeared G\te:i (•>l.«nt Jc. , _to ae~k:no.D ~o be the fr f:':>crfen.t OI: A.Lcino· nopen . .1.es, J.~-, 1,...ut corporation that executed the withi:l and foregoing instruaent. and acknowledged the said instrument. t.c be t!le .free and voluntary act and deed of said corp01.ation. !or tbe uses il:.d purpoees therein mentioned, and on oat.b stated t.hat they were authorized to eze-c-.J.t~ ~aid i:Q<;truaent and that tbe seal affixed, 1£ any. is the corporat~ seal of said corporation. WI'!'NESS my hand and official seal .hereto afh.xed the day and year first above written. ··-COUNTY OF IING I certify that I know or have satisfact.ory evidene@ that the persons appearing before me and m3king this ack:nowledgment are the pe:r-sons whose t.rue signatures appear on this ~t.. On this _J_£ day of J;. .L!'P: , 19.96, before me ~rsonally appeared 1« 6 erl & ;;.,l ~ , to me knovn to be the ;?~~• 6 d o J. H. aarter • Co. • the corpora.ti& t i e.xec-.Jted the "Within an:i foregoing inat~t. and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and \"'Olllllt.a.ry act and deed of said corporation, for the uses and pur'po&es tbe:relll. mentioned, and on oath sta.::.e:i that the-y ~re authorized to e:z:~te said instnment imd tbat the seal affixed, if any, is the co:rporote s@al of said corporation. WITNESS ;q band and offictal seal hereto affixed the day and year first above written. [Type or Prut llota<y 7 I I I • • • """""'----. .... ------. - - I ' • • • • STATE OJ:' ltASHINGTOH 89. COUNTY OF ,tlNG I certify that I know or ba.ve eatiafactory evidence that the perSOll8 ap;;,earing before 11ne and aaking this ackoowledgaent are the persons whose tru~ signatures appear on this docuaent. 0n this -1.si...._ day ot E eb . 1,9,. before ae personnlly appearedf te¥: C •?,%in~ • to me known to be tne Y:te:5,d PCL f Mill eo., 1nc .• t~ corporation. that executed the within an<i foregoing instrument, and acbi.;::,w-ledged tbe said instrueent to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation, tor the uses and pu-poeea therein mentioned, and on oatb st~ted that they -.ere aut.horized to execute Baid in.etn.uai,nt aDd tha.t the .seal affixed, if any, is the corporate seal of said corporation. NITRBSS sy hand and official seal hereto affixed tbe day and year first above witt.l!!D.. :am.lT.IM5/GK1/cm/1Uto3.ll 8 .._ - • I I· . ,i,.._· - - • -- • • • fflat. port:ion. of Ge>vernaent Lot 5 in section 29, Township 24 North, R.aage S East, W.M. and shoreland adjoining lying ~terly of the llort.bern Pacific Railroad right of way and southerly of a liile desc.Tibed as follows: Begimling ilt t.be quarter corner on the south lin~ of said ~tion 2j; thence north 89'"S9' 36· vest along the south line of said L,ot 5, 1,113.01 feet to the vest.erly line of said Northern Pacific 11:ail.rcad right. of way; thence DOrth 29e44• 54• east 849.62 feet along a.aid right of llfa.Y line to a point hereinafter refened to as point A; thence continuing No1*h 29°44•54• east 200.01 feet to t:he true p:iint of beginning of tbe line herein describeG; thence south 56~2s·s~· west 222.32 feet to a point which bears uorth 59"24'56· ~t 100.01 feet from said Point A; thence north 5j""24'S6• treat to th@ inner ha.rbar line and the end of said line description. > l I I I. . - - • • • All that ponion Qf Gov,enaect I..ot. 1, Section 12. Tomlahip 24 Jiorth, ~ 5 ~, W. M_. ic. U.ng Co.mt). and of Secood Class Sh0:-e Limds adjoi.ni.ng. lying ~:ileSt.erly of arortbern Pacific RailrQad rigbt-of-¥iilly; EX3PT that ponion, if any, of said Shore Lands lyi.:lg north of t.be weat.e-rly product.ion of the north line of said Govenai=at l.ot.- l I I· . -·- --- • • • • &IIC611' C That portion of Govercaent. lot. 5. section 2!, tC*DSbip 24 r-..ort:h, r~ S east, W.M., and ac!jacen~ s=.o:-e l.ar.ds oft.he &ecoOd. c!ass in f::-oot thereof lying westerly of t:~ liorthe.ai Pacific Railway Comp,a..-iy• s right of way and lying nort.hE-llterly of t.he !ollowi:.ig described line, Beginning .at the qua.rtu co~ oa the .souL.b line of said sect.ion 29; thence :.orth 99•59• 3P we.at. a.long t.he south line of said lot 5, a distilI!ce of 1113.01 fe-et to tlke westerly line of said Bort:beru Pacific Railway c:o.p:my' s rig:b::: of way; thence north 29°H'St· £-ast, along said right of way line, 94!L63 feet to an iron pipe vhi.ch pol.!lt is tbe true poi:lt of beginniug of the ,,;.ine described herein_: thence nont. s,•24• 11>• vest 5254 00 feet. to an .l.r-on pipe; thence cont.inui.:ig nort.l:: .S.!1•24• 31:-9 llleSt 488. 23 feet., lllOre or less. t.n the Icner Harbor Li1?.e of Lake liashingt.ac, &XC£Pr portion thereof described as follOIIIB: iiegil::ming at the t.rue point Df ~inning of the line described herein; 't.bmlce Dii.lrth S:9•24• 3Q• vest 50 feet; thence nonhe&sterly to a point oo said 'lleSt:erly li.n-e of said Mort.bern Pacific bihray ~· s right of vay dia;t.ant. North 29"-H • S4" eilt. 100 feet fro111 said true point of ~i.r.ning; thence sout.h 29"H'S4~ -.est. to said t.n .. >e point of beginning. and EXCEPT that p:,,rti:>r1. of ea.id s.borelani::!s lying nort.b@rly of t.hl!! northerly li~ of said lot S produced weeteriy; situate in tbe County of King, .State of washi.ngton. Tl.at portion of governmer.t lot -4, ~etior. 29, tovnshlp 24 north, range 5 ea.st, 'W.M., 1.<Xiil'HHR with shore lands of tbe second clasB fronting there=in lying West of the Horchern Pacific bilway right of way and south of the follc::,v"ing d.!sc::-i.bed line,: ilegi.nning at tbe northeast -::orner of said govermneni:_ lot 4, which point is m.arit:f'-'l by a.r. iron pipe and is 5120 feet, more o~ less. north of !:~ eout:::.~ast coi.--ner of said gOYerruDll!'!tlt lot; t.her!ee sout.b along the east line thereof, 156 feet; thence east 62 feet to t.be testerly line of said right of va.y; then~ sou.tbwrst~rly along said riget of way line 15£ feet to the begirming" poi!lit of t:he line to be described; t.ben,:e north S8"20 • west 460 feet; thence north ,1•40• vest 210 feet to the iLLer ~r line of Lake ~...oo as DOif established~ and the te:::ainua of the line; SOB.JECT '!'O right of way ~ to Pug@t Sound Power and Light Calpany by imJtnaeDt dated April 7. 1939, between Julius B. Falk, a bachelor. aad Puget Sound Pc:lilifer and Light. Ccmpany; situat@' in the County of ting, State of W&ehington. That poniOP. of Gc;Jn:rm.ent Lot 5, SectiaD 29, Tuwnab.ip 24. 11. Range s E, N.M., and adjacent. .more lands cf tbe :aec::cad class in fro.:1t thereof lying illy of the llort~ Pacific &a.illlliaf COlllpmly'a right- of-way, des<:ribod as follows, BegilmiDJ ~ tho quarter cozner of the s line of said Scctiao. 29; tbeDce • a9•5a•3,• • along the s line of said Lot. 5, a di.st.m of 1113.01' to t.he Wly lioe of said Hortbern Pacific Railway o:.pauy• s ~-of-w.yi tb&!Dc:e • 29•44 •54• E al<>Dg said right-of -""Y line, ,., . 63 • to "" ;...., pipe .,.ct, poim is t~ true point of beginning; ~ S 29•ff•S4• If, alQDCJ said 1 I I I . .. • .. ~~~·;.; ;;--..,.•-·<1,rr'.f""'"'"'"ei,·ot,1!..,,·...,, .. ,,. .... ..,,.,6...,_._. _..__..,,:.,..a,. ... I 1 - - I i -- • • • right-of•way line, 2.00.01·; tbeDee • S.9•2.f'J6• a 1.019.1''. axe or leas, to the lm.er Bazbor Line of i.ke Neehj ngt.an.; thence a 44°20•00• E along said Inner BartJor Ll.ne 102.~~ to• p,l.llt: i:rma vhich the true point of beg.inning bears S 59•34 • JP B; thlmce S 59°24'36• E 1013.23', .:>re or leas, to the true point. of beginning. EXCBPT portion thereof described as foll0118= Begiluung at tbe true t"Oint of beginning o:! the above deacri.bed prq,erty; t..Qenee s 29,,;,44 • 54 • W along tbe Mly line of the IIOrtbern Pacific Railway ':ompany' ~ right-c,(-vay 100.01 •; thence • s~•24•3,• • 100.or;; thence N 56 ° 28' SC• E l i.;. . 16 • to a. point from which the true point: of beginning bears S 59°24'36" 8 a distance of so•; tbenee s S9°24'36" E so· to tbe true point of begiani.ag, ~ BZCEPT that portion of said. shore lands lying northerly of the northerly line of said Government Lot s produced. westerly; sit:~.te Ul the county of King, State of Washington. • I· . • • • LAND CORNER RECORD GAANTOR:" 1AND suavnoa: 1rus, c;orper n:cord ~ ~ worlr: paformcd by me or under my~ iii c;on(O(Jllll:lce wi:th the Survey Reoordill& Act. Alll>tlISS: BUXTON K.. HAJUUSON, P.C. La•d Sol"l"eyia& ,-4 MappillC: Jen 11Mtii A.yt. S.E.. s.He 560 Elellt"Tae WHlll•&fo.. 98(1(11 \ GRANTE[: PUBLIC l..E<iAL; TWPZ.C N, COll:NE~ COO£· V-6-7 !Scc~on-koIU:RJ ADDmONAL JOENTIRFR (~ t. 81.M <kfilflEIOII fDll!lt comu. ,nm intmcruon. ph11-.mc. block. loLct(;,I MeandeorCorucr, South Uft Sectioa. 29 COCl?'<TY: Kiat;Co. WASHlN(ITON PLANECOORDINI\TES: fl': 196,769.44 ZONE . .North D"TIJM!Bf.,UINGS NA.[)83 (19'1) WRNER lNFORMA.TION: l_;J,t-11,e ~ l,,;i'"" Lu "'~i<k-.;;·f,;,ilowiil& i~;~-.;;;: .................. --~--... -= fl/ trpJi!ffl lp!'!f! llm"'"· (21 hidd(o f,;tllW Ill tit CO£!Cf-and f3J fprpg Ft!J!Crplift Jp(l/pyliga f'lc:.sc lillc ,ir,,:I P~mbi:r ~',.- piUU of yo.s dis.:1.1>11ic,o ~dmpy. i(:lddili~ <p.i« i, !ICC<kd. vs,, IJIC l,a,;L Po, lim l, dillfllffl Ult teferen=. AlsO. ptOvidc lhe .:ro<$- rt!c~n.x I<} a IT"i!I nfm:"'d. ,f l!'Plicli'le. lhe m,,~o,·, rtt1~ t,o..,1,.: oo I l'aJC'""' &00 tM W of~ \ko, 12>< \,lock oflhh folTn for lh( rtq1.tin:m<"lt~l>f ltll' S~r.,y Rcc.-.r~ini .0.'1 l (l) Pen:in,;:nt Corner ffij,lor..-: 19-04 LAKE WASH//1,"GTON GARDEN OF EDEN fV i I. Pg. SI) l'l2 I La~e \!l<1Slti1t~ton Shore Land. (F\~. 2'il-J-0] \114\ KCAStrav1:n.c1:~cfflc~ \9S4 Section 2'1 bmil..down b} ~tarry P. foncs {'Z! t,·idc;n« found lit tllc: Corner: None: t3) Cor11er h'rpeluarioq Jn[orplji!fio;p: fh.e ncsratihshtil pt,5ilroll along thr $01,1lh Jme of r~~ SW i :4 ,if Section 29, wast,~ upan hokliag the monumffif foon<l marking.1hl!' Soudi l.'4 <'omcr rhmvr . .JnJ luming lhe i111·med an~Je of the 19~ I Snort' Lands map~. fr Om 1h1: 1T1ur1urncrlf fo1.u1J :ti;trlcing the NE M"Crion coma of S,:c1ioo 29. Th,: Meander Comer "'i·as tlu:m ,at,ulatcd by hul,Jin~ tht: im-c™"d di!olam:e fnirn !h~ {9:: ! Shure Lamh maps a!oni tne cl,lTl\pu~cd souUI iin, <if ID~ SW \.-1 S.:.t 5"x. S" c<Jncrc\t: mom.imcn\ wi]" biu~,;ap m c;u.,::. ;ts. a Wit11n1 Coru.u (N: \9b, 'l'6,3.38, £: 1.J()l.&31.41}, 2S'J _qg fee, easier\:, or 1he ,(lff\p\)\td posi\i('r!\ of ltic Mc;mikr Comer. M13numcm lll"d ro 'S,\l) -a:, ( 19\J\) 111:1.wur\. JO. I Q01)~-l'\\:;o. refer 1u C 1ty -0f1k\levuc Station Dm Cards. ~o. Ol 'St am! 0<\32. \ I I l ; I I • -, __.., ·dt =~- • • • \ M.\11'1111: CQPIII 9CA1J9N RIP'! .\ND ffl.L !Pi TBIC0&'9 mpg !J..MK QN ffllqrgp BPI; Forrm¥6c iDlne:carm.oftwolme:s,. thew~ is tbt ,lpbe itcoonf.-lbat~to the. appn,pria amecdoa of limes. For C(lnMfS tbll m anly on me &Jc, 1he a:rne::r eodc ii dit: lme bgmtiaD md. the relllod line scpea1; i.e., a cumcr OD liDle S bm,cm "'8" ml "C"' is dcsipmd BC-S. Fw ~ 1a CC; 'oaweal '-. b: t:oma i;d is bolb lliie :segmmb.;. i.r::., a ccmcr in dllC SE \/4 ~-SE lf4 of Scctioa 13 is lksipad MN 4-.S. . 1r~•J11•••na0N••"•••~aa•• • • • . ' ++ ' : . -i-i-+' ++-!,;..-++~.-... +i • C +,~--+~+ ~,~-+~-f'-~.-f--+!-f· C 1 H,-"1-t· t--:-t-~t--:--r Tt-t· -t·t--: ·t--tT 0 . ' , •• ! '. ! '++ -+++ , • ..:..1+ ~·-!-..!-;.:.. ....... ~---!-..Ii~ f.,.!..---~ • • -i--++• -+-!-+-+: . ..:,. •+ > 0 I O • ' • o jf I 1 I I t, IO o O t , , I( -+++-•+•! < ! I ! : , I ~ O +--.. \ . ._t • .j.. I( t +i.!-.!..17'-!--i-16-i '"""i-iJ..;--!-'14--~ ~~-t. • : : ; +++-+.-tr+++-: ; : +t-t • • • o ~+--+-:-t---t..!--i--+J-i--t--4--t-.Lt-o ,,, -~-It-!-~:-i.. +ii-:-+flit.:.. ~C,.!--~-e'+,.:.. ,. • -+-:...;.. -+-:.+ . .+-~-+-~+-!-{--+-~-+--+++-0 1 I I l I I IO , 1 I I , I I I I • • I -+-~+-.+.:.-+--}-.!.+-.+..:..+-: ' ' -+-~-s r ~-.-:-+e:'+ -ff!l"T--f~t-H-ai&+ +,;.:-r II ·t--:-t--t·:·t---+·~t· ·r.·t· ·t--:·t· -t·i-t· ti' V V • -+-~-+--.J--!.J,._ --~-!-+. -+-!-+--..J..-!.J,.-~+++-• Jf -:-ii.!-.!..3ie,.L .!_;.:_ -!-~--~:.. f--;....,.~-:r T -++t -+++--+·i·+ +++-+++-~+++· ,-z I ,z,,••1••~11ngH#N"··-~=»M• RCW SB.09.060 (2) ""l'lires lhc folklWblg informaliol'I on thi$ form: 111. ~ ~on ;;lllO kution. iP refemxc to the coma posjti1>11. of all IQOJ1111J1e:Dlli and IC(:e:uorie:s (a.) found at the CQfflC:f .ind (b.} placed or replattd at dlf: comer, (c.) basis ofbtarin~ IISed to-descn"bc or locate 5llCh rnonumcnts or~; and (d.) corollary lllfomultion that may br: ~1¢ul to relocate or identify the: comer ;mition. \ l l ! I I. • I / l ·1 i 1,1 I "' _, ii , m ~ "" ·,. " ,u 6 w z ::, ,r 0 ro ~ ef r ~ ,., ,- 3 ~ lXf'MS 1/27/Qt.. -LlSSSUdl?l=d) L' .:· o'· /_·,..: :CJ ? I en ~--t ?; l, I y ,r_ __J c 2.oq9 r···oC:() .~; l,35 l 7.f.1.:.- DO:"'.~ ( loo 'Y POINT "A"-___ _c,O,o ",. /.:V ~ i,". /II ,f'!L ... -~-;,'; ,~~;'if" . /_,,::/-N'.:i':J"UJ 44" 0""~ ·") o:,· i/} J ""' w I i/-1 ,Si' ,!' ,' "' ,,-,rncc _.,/:·os_ I "n~;'ce. " I / /0 .F PROJ.' t--' ),C, I . ;;;>9'.' 1 .ul ~! / I ,' , , ', •. ,oo oo ·o,., / / ;-7 r.:..r19·. / .. ,ta SU:_ SH!-TT ? F()U,',[l FIN ll"T-1 CM ··,:.1 OY1 C:R :;;7.," UJ LINL -fOIINfl Pit-V,1:H Cl,; "Kl CY..FR 55:;_4·· () \' ,, u '.l ~ fOUNI! 4"' f'.0,\1\. HWY MOfl o:-;_;· ,, (il_)(j" ,v COs?WR NOT :';[T ' '. •'20tC' I I .~rt-:;v1 j' / T " 29.51"" ~~ ,,•·"' , I , >< OW ,// ' "' / .,:$ ! ;•· ""'"' "' "'.· R .:_ _ 2 nsw· -----/,,;; I / i -'"·';'.' 1 _ _i ·<{_c -___ Qfl-::~ 1 -Y,t·.lt'....jc_ww:::1.1Nl" 'X Lll-..tF" ! P= -•. ' ! W! . .. " ,, ' ' -. .. . . o "w"' , ! 1., " ' "'1 ! ,-, -,,,, ', • ·-_.--.; .,,,· ·'( / J',J/0,, / §': ---'--_, GOV~-~~~~ ~~~~E[;,g'toFf '.' .,/{);';/ .· ' ,. l,• ;;,f I/ 1)/-,'N'~m,T OF _u1, '.'.'':' 1 cr-: fl'; !-'f", ,,.,.• , R>'' " _-", '"" . ,,,,,, "'" .• -·Nss·,a·s 6 ,:;, / IS:•/'/ . .:\>·'/'''(:.' 1 _;,D ·,i· _:,; :" oHm, :,:"" "',_,;,/,,.,.:/• ·"'"'"". '"" • • _,c1· ,,.,,-,I"J· . "' •, \ ; r .: C:11 'f I• i : , : : ', , '" '" ·" '" ·11.J_. '·'I 0 z ~ . "' ,o l:lllJG E SID[~. ON PROP _IN~ "' ~ "' "' l "' -~'? ... -:g . " "' V 7 m ill/ "'C, <'," ,, -_.u .'i,I' S c' ,I,"'""' ' /C ' : ' " " R>G>r¥l\\l''~AC">1'°,R / / //./.·.' '°'"' ,,;l,-.c·_--C. ·+~ ;,-,,S<f48,.#_75022',~\,t / ltJ ,,4, .:"/i<;fi,1 -". " · t.c-:../1/=, ~----=-·-· -.~ ~--~ ;..:~~. · \;;H "d':~2 -,rn,,-f~- '.::K8"47 on· )f,13./" . ~C..JNll ;.. .\/'J" l.lRONZ: -.UG A\lcl PU•,~:r·I 11, (;(Jt,C. "V~ I ·:\. <JS IN ·~--·ll r·t':;c I\.CC OF Gov·r LO I 1 &: POIN I or l::JlGINMNC OF i'ARC[L ''A .. S!-.C 0'-GCV I LOT 5 "'/-1 :5~ J IJJ"1 " Nm L .-tllJG (:Of' 1•.; R-1-W or -,Ror> L ,1r HI .JC C:01--! 1~: fl')' W OF f'RO" LI'![ ,i'i',g~e,'i,-'·2' , . _ /''' 1 1, ... ·)/ _.:::•: · i~:i'i~'"'~ ~~i-;; S3~Jlt'',----.. -<1,\ . ,' ~:l :; .{:. / -! ·: · ,if ft~\\U a,, I;.· ?·'" -:·· .. •.J~ ... l.L-81.02' 'b , ; -_., _ .• -. jWG cor, "' ,. , .c_ I 11cc rn, •. ,. -' //; I N.SO,':iB'.-. 4 "E .. ,11 P1ic1' L·'-1 . .-si _w-:. 0_r.PRor· - 0 : ;~ 0 :} /' I . ?i&,;' :': GICG ,.-.:'_ JIDG '"\··.·,t·t~·~:/:Jgf>:····:. __ -" ;;'. G , , , ·.-or 1 ,.-.,·,f:"_.· ·':: G w---..,_ ·• ·'!,',· 4-~,1-,-rn,·af· 2 9 ::,~" " " • I ,, .. ,.,.,.,, . • . ,--·.• c;:_; cl / / I 630---,, •.. I -.,PIJ''AL CHOR . /;r; I I L >3 7 °~ .. c ,': ·,. ___ .so-,;,•43"c:" <>:: POINT Or 8CCINNING OI PARCEL "El" I• ;' 1 • :''·'' :o, , ... , ·>e-"·'«-¥·.-:, .,__._.. .109-7-''- / / ,---·". c,····'-'' •· . -. -' -, .. , ' ' ' ' "" ' ""' ' ,,,,.-=·'· :i:/ ~-~,. n STAKING _NOTES_, 0 ~,6 C.~1-'f--'t"-i 1cs:cr,1 u I ::; .o c: \fl C[. C, " ,' '" ., ti 803 M ·'Jb6b3 9· F130G:,G:J u_:\i -' V :,\-J ·.~8 .','_~ ... \., IOJNC J l:lf·IA'.;;; ·,1''.<' 'NI l'IIN''.H :/lN: 1'(1'.T cN · :rs 'M•r.. ,r.,, 1, l_'UNS"l<UC-LD Ci u-'.,r fJJTH ST. & 11r;~-1 xvr ~: o::· 1io .0 p ' , . "' -, ' ,, "'" "'"" '"' ... 7 ._,· .,. ·, co l'RW • 01 ·'a·,. ,_,., ;, rn .-1K ·,:,n _nc '.,Hfi';, ~ -.. ~ -(~H"4 .9'!:>~9" . ·.I 4 I // . l '?;, m it'' ' CHU 4eb42<1-.-ACCJC,',L .. ~ ,060.00' /_Y; , »an , Cf 1'S , . ·" , 'm . T -1,5£,-,4-j',. <_)J:f. XO~-· COfl IS O.'i' [ .lc;!Z _,,,,. c;' a _,,,, ,, , ,.,o I '" ' . '.~ ,) . 'l? :',.1." _f'l'-l .V/:;-1>.--' - If! ~ -< 0 "' -.-'"" -. ',.,~, ' ~ o, «} Ir, . • : .. { ,,;_ .. -· ·-·10· -_: ,"{ll/'11./IN.CS . Rcrrn:_19 CITY.i)F RFNrDH HORILUNlAL l)AlUM NALi p.j/91 PIN W 1[.~bE.) lriON . ·•· _ _ "-1--. -,,:,:21·:. 4.f/ ·.·. 1~ ,.tNon;~ RAP L'S# .. ·J.'255.1 . -, "" ' ' " • ,c . J :· / "!>'· / /,K . I S' ' " .... w/<• ' j; /-!:' ··. /.4'.,. NCSl)V' I r,:~ "rn' ,,,0" 7,,-" /" ,;-"• 0/ "" .,,-. , ' -" " ---. ,; O.OC co, ' . 36 / T'(/J,, -pt,' I .,,~, w--' . ".,,, ,,-' / n/ .r· " -,-' .. " BLcc~, / -.._! ,;-. . .-,-1~1 CF r:p\',R I'.':• 5 fl' N ,.; ,J:t,J:\i(R{::P,.. ' I _ /; ,.r '"' ,• · ''l ,· _,u.-,,n_ . -· :r:: ::r· _~ : .. ' succ c\ c·. I ·,'!'QQ'c ' ,, ,.-I~ ,.UMBl'F ,.-· 'CTOC/ to , Jb Y' II ' ._,.ell) ,. ' c"-"'"''"':-_· :<'VJ ' '-/1(~10!.;' ,\,i-1,.:..... 0999932_.99. ··.-. "<~~: .. 1-z~ I .+ -~-, "' .v ,.':; v, RF~ Fl--1 HJ RI: CO/\D Of" SUR\'[ Y IN EOUK 4C m SlJkV• Y Al P/\C!-1.\6, KINC C:Ol,NTY, W,\S·"11NG-Of\i Rff[R FJ ';HORT 0 ,._Al f.-11.E NO. LUA 93-C-~7-s:-ff'_ SHORT 1~1 ,'IT 80CUM:"N~ NO. I NrJ-70-0F, 1 RET~ TO J~ i;rcN p=~ w s .. ) o.-: R/W MA.'.J R[N-m~ TO KEk'-lYOAI I'. Sl-E:::--:-6 Cr 6; DATU; /\f'f~ll_ 1/, ·9~:', l~JS 'l./lH,11 f!T· i· c'--"' ,., ' 1·-· 0,) . . -· I ';;:f> GRAPHIC S6AtE I . C 2QO ___J ?.-.-, oc j r 'i ,~ I ( IN FEET ) 1 ~,.,~ = 200 fl THIS SURVEY W.4S ~E_Rc:W~l/f-·J WITI· /, VIILD TC:lOC(liJ (THWF SECOND) [LLCTROHIC THFODFI ITE. SER AL t,·::; Af]J_US-;-MU.n f/E l'--100 USED: J.3'.11!JV ;Jsco.·.p, L[Ac:;r '~C-"A'II '.; AC:c::IST~ENT f/[TfiOD FOR 1\.__ :-r(L).-TRAVF"RSF DA IA A~J[] ,.l,JJus-;-c::D T -I![ WASH M'.~ ON s-,.:.,tf PL!,Nf-, _C.()OHH.N)>_·::E SYSTE.'v1 NO~ T, I /rn·L, (NAJ 8J/J1 ): 'JS'I-NG Cl).Y:·tk Rf. \/TOr~ r1fl:fl_l/ON I Al l)f, ,jlj .)c I\ T;; t/1 f<._i,), ./l-f831-·&· #189,) (GOV. (GOV. LOT 5) A LOT 1) PORTION A PORTION OF THE SE 1/4, OF THE NE 1/4. THE SEC. SW 1/4 OF NW 1/4 OF THE SEC 29, 32, TWP. TWP. 24 N., RGE. 5 E.; W.M. & 24 N., RGE. 5 J:., WiM. AUDITOR OR RECORDER'S CERTIFICATE .-::.-cU lur· 11~c:01·u 1frs<fnt (l,Jy ,_,; ~ ~~-'t~l:it.A .\if ir· Rc,ok 12,S cf Su· V'co'J'c; (': IJC'ccl' I'll.I ot lhe reque:,t cf 8,.JSH, RQED & 111 ! '.:HI\G'.-:, INC C2'UN:"Y ALJ[)I-\IP OR [}VIS Or~ :JF RFCDRL,S & F.:L::CT-ON':.; --Cou1ty Audi:or "' Willtil.."IJ" l.~itllt'Ot<J Sur,c-r ·1tenden: of Records SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE 1.s lrl<l::J CO"rcdly r,,:;pr·cscnh :J :ourv,,·y rr1uc:c :JV ·,1c or u.1der Cirr2 ,\1c;·1 er :-::c-1fr:N·1crcc ,"Iii' l· r; rc:JIJl'UTwr·ts cf he ""<;cc_.urdir1c .LI.cl n' lh~ r,-•que~_;l of Vu1..c= >-! w' I f.!c\i' t("I '-=;\::_ (.\. L\.L,--, ._,.~ f1cc-·e \o 7...1,-:i,-;~ ~ ffl;{J ..,,.,.--,,--,-...,-,------ BU SH, ROED & HITCHINGS, INC. CIV1L EI\GINEER:; & . AN:J SURVtYORS /008 ~llNOR J\VE. E.\ST (206) 37:1-4144 St A I Ill, WASHINGTON . -80C-9.35-0~0/-l 9H'.D7-."'i5n r.1, <# (20(,) :12::..-;1 y-, L Mt,11. INI O~>\f·IINC::OM Rf ~I TON, RFc':c':lRD of--'3URv2Y JAG,OEVELOP.MENT ·-.-. -··KING C{~UN IY .-·---V.'1\SHINCTOf~ OR!-\VvN JY DAR o/ ·rF':· .. \1 ::·ts-99 ,JOO 96145.00-:··' Cl--<[CKE..D l:lY S1\I 1 SC/\Ll": 1 " -200'.._ ·i·'.J.f-:l[S.'f ()~ _:"{3 200002099 00005 13.5 ! 7(,, A. PORTION .OF THE SW 1 /4 SEC. 29, TWP. 24 N., RGE 5 E., W.M . . r:-;;i1n ~JOis I c, I . _,·a,i'" '~ic; ;;o{,{ ,,--t --'-.. ,FCD.N([C,';fN _ 1\N~'J .' Ill re::['; ";£AL> ACff1Lf .; COMBINrn GRI[' r • / Ff\, (f-<' dRAPiii{. scAt.E ·v;;;-J --"L ~ ~- STAKING t--JOE:S ( IN HH) inc·, = 200 fl ··oc,·sr3" '~) '.l'J'.l9'JL..j[_l J.%91<!28/ _ ~/ .. //// / / . · .. ' /~ ...... /( /.<' /•' /~··· /;}:~ /,00-.:· /1''" /;,._ 0'<' . /"-'".) /C") 0 SET ·:.!>.~f't.D RO\ F'IN W/CAP ,~~//_/_/.// -" ---.. "-. C:) -~....._u· c) .:,~·---· 0"' ~~ . / /'' ~<v v u~ ,,_0 ,., -~---·· . :; .. / -··'fl TACK', lfAIJ/-· -·,~ f"CCK L:·N L:N[ ·.·.,, 4' N FP.OY wc,:ll ·rn,:;i-.-'·lrst· / fOLND CA_., 1l l~'C.\J I f-'l'i "OYI F'I" ' · l. / -GLCG CANO.~: IS 4.'o • -I N Of PRO'"' !"II'{-- /; u· WOOU 1-1 t,Ct LI~~)::. _·. , ·--~=\:iu1 ~ 1--r;~?;·1~:~ 1'.c~:~// ,/// 1.2' S Of -'·<Of' LINf ,/' BLDG C/1.NOP" IS . : ·,,:-: 0 e ,J-:- 'J Of PRO-, UNI I I I /j I I /_ '.'J /_-·-· O;.· ~_/\ __ "'1· Q-v:' / zi 'Y ·'-'/<-o. :;.· (') ,-,., -; &-'--,':<! / (,:, ;7[ '"f I;..._ ::i jj;tfj/ l::f/ }t,,1 // ____:,_:· ·~sw15· )')",~, ccv·r ,or 4 I ·"t, I(_':?,.__~-:...( I -~ // ./i'S / V / r._'f: -· 1;--0 · lf,Q_."",1' .. (Y I /f"[NC:: L.'sl IS:< 7' '. rn-f-'ROP COR /_0'?'- /,<J / ,;) / - 'v'?- #. ,' 0 , 0 ,, ·t~-1 ·45· ,15".E -. :_..100.co· -·/----, Oo ··-.._ ·Oo; ·s'3f'45;4t;.''.w·· ,_.'j' 1 :muc· -, '\~ ~riL :~x~::, )_lf-i~~~ . -~'J;;/''~icf C:CN'.(- '-,-_S,:5;:,_; i -g_J~: . ;:1 --4.~;.,,, .-.-~,f I ·/- (.(}r< CO? 4.7'N ~ or PRCP / ( " l'f .,,\\ f!' /·>' c.-/.;ci,."' AUDITOR OR RECORDER'S CERTIFICATE F;led fJ rccvr. lh1s joy of 1 ~· \1 t tv' n ~ook uf S.Jr ,;ey:; ot ;~oriro :,\ \"'IC rtOCJC'.>; vi 81JSI I, IXlLLl N. H TCHINGS, 1f·;C COUt\l ·y ?ULrClF' cc::: fJ!"VIS·CiN :)f rffco:~y; & C.L .. CTl(J[\J'- 5EE PA"'!:!' Stt Sf-J·:-:T 1 SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE ·-'J· ''lJ-t_, POIN I -·,\,~--- 1111'_ ncp :·;1rr;,,Jly rpr:rcser·\s ::i 3-.<'W"y' ''Jl(J(:e '-:,y rr,e o~ u· dRr· ~-·1y c!1rnr;t;o' 1n cu1•crrno ·cc; wit!--lh.' rcquir8rnf"1tc; ct lf;Ec :-:1J'';ev Rcc.or.J·,,::i .:.ct cit t'~ request of q1 \/ULU><u f.!W I i,lo'l- r. \ I \ ' -, '-----~ - • ~ -~-"i------.r ·-7_;\\; ~;)Jl~.I,:c •,,{1"': '------~t. j Mmwvan · · .. \Jv ,\.~.J-' ·,..._ ,'-/:,\.C):·.· ' -r JICf COR 1c, 1 ,;0"~1 ";,\:.· / ._,-,·-c;-.f-'fWf· (>'.R -· I :: - _ll~f I'; i.u· C- ,::,1 l'rlOP •~OI( • f _iti1NIJ PIN WI TH:\;I\P "~J CYl.r < ::i::.2.'-" .. bN I.INl ·.· .. -·· --··."_ fDU'lD l'N".'Vl'11H.(AP ._·.j 'f<J ()Y' ~~ ::,~.,:.~·., :: .\' h -: • ;;sNt· 4·-.{iJ'sC '·V.f MU~, . [, < ~,' :-; • O.i1G' W - l.'.OR~!ll( tJOT e;: T RcNTCf( BUSH, ROED & HITCHINGS, INC. CIVIL E:MGINEERS & _ANC Sllf~VEYORS IJHAWN F:!Y 2009 MINOR A1/E. LAST (206) 32,"'.:-4144 'if AHLE, W..i.'.;1-11t..JGTON 1 800, 9_3.':i-0508 ' I ' I I I I c" -i.-~ '"OI_IN') I>. J/1:J' nP.r.tUF .0."11, '.JNCII IN , )\i D.il' It-. M(it, 1t-<1. s~ nw; c,: & 11hi-; ·' I'~ C,L fi-1 H.'..~ N_ "9'?3'!:_'°;.~-- . .',()~4'.J4 .. F'.C:7 '-'J--1 ','-; I"· " "' r; I:~ C/ ;,r R[Gtlt-W 0~ SUR'!c''r : .,-:: --=---·- W,\SI IH~-~~:1({::_._,. JA.~~Pfo~~!~OPM ENT DAB bA1.~--11-_=·os --99 JOB .,96145.0D 98102-J51.:', -,\X# {/06_1 .J?,',--TJ·J IJAll.: 1NFC~if.'lllr\C.Clr,1 CHl:.CK~IJ 1:-lY SAH ~\. c'v\,,,, \,., Ccrtirt\_,ut." ~..J-."!. 2'2-7,'"">_..., 3 -"'.J\...::. County /\u:.I toi ur S11ncrinten~p·1t rJf c;:1:c:.-rd·, SCALF: 1 "=2od-.. LSHE-£T 2 SOUTI ! PARCEL 1 1 ,-,A-_,;· F·p·--1-·F'l""l"l ""I'" II·'~) \~11\_,:-.r. ()\· :-i __ · -,,...!))L ,), \Jv .. /\II Tr.iiT t'O'nl0~._.:8~ G:J'\/1:_·-~NMl::.l':ll Lu··:, Sf''CTION 32, TOWNSIIII' 24 NOP,-m, r//lWX :J/r'"AST, -°.v.fl., II\ f<IN°G COL:~IY, W,\~illlNCTOt·< 1\Nl \:I ~ffONC CLA:)S_,-:5· lCR-::::lA.NDS Acx::1Nl/\,f,'" LYt~G . .WlS ll:-1_,. 01 l~ORTil[RN .-~PA.rnlC RAIL~.:)AO r,.:1{,fl-:--or·-wAY:' .- EXC~P r .H'{_( 1--'rnrFi~N. ir MY:··o..-·-s111c SHOREL;f.ms I y1c..1 c ~oRn, or T,JE . 'tt~STt.:~1. Y. PRDl1UCTl(]ti 01 Tl I[ }10RTI I LIN::\)f-::to.11; (;'.JSt-..r'-Nfv_l~ -~ I I 0·1 1. _,,·51-i"'.JAl:C-1 1\ _,-,;[ COUN:r,,ror-KN\;,_._~-IAlf-[)' :i·As111w:t01--J MID,JLJ i"•A-R(sFI (QUE~IDAI L lfRMl~_-!';I S) THAT PORTIO!\! OF GOVERN~-~---N"r·t_(/ ~ ;N SkcTION ;::_;;-.J.0}'/'48:ilP 24 . !\ORTH, RANGE 5 tAST W.'w., Al\·l) '.-jHOr/f-1 Ai.J({ ADJOH'IING c.Ylt-,._; WLS!~-R{Y OF Tl-I[ NmnHt.RN PACIFIC RAIL_RO/',,) RIGl-!T_:QF.:-WAY ii.ND S:)dT"l;Rt~; OF' A LINE J[SCRIOD I','; tOLLOWS· ·' BEGINNING Al '"Hi:. QlJAI~ 11.I~ UJRNr!s' ON 'HE SOUTH UN:: :1F S,~I[) SFJ:1ffiN 29; rnrnCF: N'.)RIH WJ"5~f.3o" WEST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF S',10 LU"] .:i;' '1,1',J.O'i FCTT TO THE Wl-SH-1-\1 YI iNf-_ m SAi) NORTHERN FACTIC .. RAILROAD RICI IT-·01-WA Y; TH[NCE NORTH 29'44'54" C::AST 849.1;;2 fTE:T ALO!',G SAD RIGhl-Of--W.t>.v LIN:: -:-a A POIN I H~RF_;NAFTER REFTrmrn TO 11:; r'CltJI A; Tll[NCL CVN IINUINC Norrn1 2.:1·44'54" FAST :?.OO.D1 rEET TC THE -puc POINT or G:GINNING or rHF I..INF "iF:REIN DESCRiBCD: TH!NC[ SDlJ;H ~6-JH'!JO" Wf-'.'il ///.-\) FU.I 10 ,\ l'OINl W~!ICH 'J'...A-6 NORTH S!J'2f~,6" Wf_.ST 100.01 FC[T rROM SAID POINl A; THENCE i~ORTll 59'2·f'..i6" \hit-Sr 10 f'-ff .ll':IN.[R flAWlCI/ I IN·_ ANI) !Hf F:\JD or S/11] LINE DF5CRII-' IION; Al SC Tl IA T POR i''CN Or SA ii) {;()\If .rh:-!MI NT LOT 5 L Yi"r~·G, sou 11 ll.A~;; I .I~! Y ()~ LAKE WASHINC 10N ROUI_EVARD, WCSTERLY OF SECONDAR'i=·$._lAI~ l-:IGHWAY ~:~/v1/~EfJ~~~T~w!) 1i:~1 ~I~?t~·Hi~H( ;~r,~-~t§~~~~o~~-) p~i~t~ ~~~-7;:i~miNG NO. 568/408 . . -.· . . .-.· . S'TlJATF 1r, TIIE COUNT'(_:·o'i KING, '.-il.1):I/ m WAs~}~J(;lON. N01rn I rARC[l (J II lll1XTE_IZ. & CCJ\,iPAl,Y) _ . - iHAT PORTIJN:br:.covu(N~lNl-·LD':'·;, SFCTION 291,·T~VYNS~;F-24 Ncr-;:rr:1. RA\JG[ 5 EA3T, w.lvi.=.-.iN K:r~c; COlJ'. ;y, WASHINGl:CN NJlf./,C,JIIUN\.•''- SHD~>--1 4ND~: or TIIF (;fu~~l1 Cl 1'8:; IN rnn~1;r::t11rw·qr· 1 YIN\, ~;'[; .. '--:,Ii-RI Y T'"1f fWR>-H:H~ PACIIIC": r(.l..l""WAY-.(QM.f:Ar:+¥·-s·RIGf-T-·c,r WAY AN_D.L'OJG NJRTHE1\SlEl~Lv OF THF. FOi i OIMNC.OFSCRBEC LINE. . RI-GINNING AT ~'"iF QlJARFR GORNff~ ON fill SOUTll°j_!N .. '.)I ~-/iliJ·S[CIION 29· I ·~ENC[ NORTH R'.PJR' :16" W[ST ,'\I_ONG HE SOUTH I l·'H.:·. OF S/,IQ LOT :::,. A DIST/\~JCE OF 1,':1301 FEET TO lH~: WESTE~LY LIN' ot-··.s.~.1r, \JCRl'-!H">!N PACiFiC RAILWAY COMPANY'S RIGHT·-OF·-WAY; ··::, .. ,, Tf-lf.-NCl 'WF'lH 29',;~'54" EAST Al ONG SAID /~IGIIT-01-WAY L 'ff, 949.63 IT[l ~r; AN !RO!\· ''II'[ INH!CH f"'OINT IS THE ff'lff p;;, I-OF 13ECINN1NG OF ''"1r Ll;[ :JESCRJEED .-iCRDN; Til[NCf 'WR IH ~~·7.1'j5" iV[ST 52'.l.:JO r~u -o AN IIW/>J I' f'[; IHF:NC:: ·20\JTINUIM::; hCJRIH '.l'Y?4'J(j" 'NEST ·1-88.23 r"[c_r, fiORF :1~ LESS, TO rH!-I\JNH< HARFlOR I IN!' or L/\Kf w.~:,1!1NGJON; ~XCFF'T roR.,-ION ;HE.RH)~ Df-'.~C-?IHf-1) A':, --OLLOWS: OfGINN N(; A-;-.-,,E TRUC:: !'JIN I rn-'1H;1~mlNG Of-TH[ WJL DL:::;Cl~IUlD l'[~[lk I Hr ~JC:' NOR-I I 59·2<'6" WL'.l l '.10 ffFT: IHl·NC: NIJR"H[ASTCRLY TO A PCI\Jf DN SAi() Wt.ST[l<LY LlfJ[ 01 SA!~ NOf'lfl-;l",'{\J PACIFlr: RAIi WAY COMf-'AtU';_; f~IGilT-OF-WAv [)l:;·1ANi NOl\111 29'44''..14" [,\ST 100 FEET FROM ~;All) ll~Ul POINT OF 91::GIN~Jlt,G; THENC":" SOIJT<~ ?9'44'5-1" W[ST TO SAID TRUE POIN I JI [llGINNING A.t<D EX:CE:~,-THA-:-rorrncJN UF SAID SHORC:LANDS LW~G N'.)R]Hl-RI.Y m TII~ NORTf-,FRI \' '.l~L 01 SAID LCI ~ l'IUlDlJ(TD Wl.·Slll(_Y: ALSC THAT r'ORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 4, S[CTION 29. TO'NNSfllP 2.1. MiH II-; C';AN(;0 :"i : A:;·1. W.M., IN KIN(; COUNTY, WASfl ~JGTON; TOG>::TH::R W1Tli SHORFl.ANDS OF THF SF(;OND CL .\SS rRONTINC Ti 1rnr:::o!\J LY.NG Wl·.SI (!I-"Hl:. NOR.lHERN PACl~I::; RAIi.WAY RIGHl-m--WA,v AND SOU'H Or JH:,,· ~OL.I OWING DFS'.:~l!:ED Lll-..•E: RFC NNiNC AT THF NORTHF AST (:ORN!.~ or SAIi; covrnNt,ff~J 1 I OT 4, WHICH f'OINT IS MAr~K[D DY :\N IRON ~IP[ A\/D IS 920 FEET, MORE OR 1.rss, NORTH OF .,.·~E SOUTHU.ST CORNER OF SAID GOVERNM[NT LOT: THENCE SOUTH ALONG ffff I A:.,l LINf_ lllEREOF, 156 FEET; lHl-NCL.~ • .'\Sl 62 Ill" TJ TJIE 'IVl:.SllRl.Y l.lhF m SAID Rl::;!-IT-OF-WAY; -.~Tirt'"Nr.E s0l)-,,.f·f9'oj[STEi~L y Ai. ONG SAID r~1l;1 j I -01 WA y UN[ 156 l[[T TO Tl I[ ~l~g~~N; ~~()~~~-~~~;,) ~l'=~~lr46~0 ri~/F SCRl,'ff[); THO.Jct Nd'R-:-H 67'~\ .. WES1".-2iC.,FEET TO THE 1rmrn HARFlCJR NF o~- LAK['··WASl·IINGTON-.,~S NOW ESTA[U.ISll[D AND TII[ TERMINUS OF THE LINE; . ..,· :/ ALSQ.::;;.HAf p·6fT,ON m· GOi\'ER·fi°MENFLoT·5,=:$ECTION 2~. TOY/NSIIIP 24 N.GR"!H,.-:R·,..NGr .5 rAs1,.::W.M.·:·iN KttllG couN_l:'.r', WASHINGTON, ANll AD:1Ad:NT SHOR[LAI\IDS"-QF,. THE S(SQl,J_D ct=Ass IN FRON r THEREUr LYING WEST[R·n:· OF THE NORTf-JffiN 8ACJFIC .Ri\11::WAY COMPANY'S RICHl-01'-WA--', CESCl<lm·D A:i I OI.LDWS.!-_.· . RF('J'1N1r,,r, A-.Trfr QUARi:tq CORNF .. ~···oN I Hf sou r1-1 11N1 or SAID srn10N )~~>,;cE No.:ri"'f1 ao·sa':36" WEST .A'LoNG Tr-1E·SCuTH L.NE· ··oi:--.s1110 1 01 ,c;, . A DISTANct OF 1,H3.01 IEET.:1'6 1H[.·WEsn::.RLY LINE OF SAf6:NORTHERN rACIFIC.{~AILWAY .fbMPANY\>:'~IGHT.;....:OF·-wAY; .-•.. - -_.THF\JS:( NO~TH_.?9·44'54" .i;;'AST N:.ONG SAID ~f;<:.ICHT O!;'.-: WAY I INt; 9'4-(J43 FFFT JD /..N iRGr,t-:PIP[ WHICH POIN."f· IS THF TR;JF PO NT.:CF Gt(;iNNING: > :. .·. ._:· . -: ... : .: THDJC[ SOfff\.J._2Q'4{S4" WES:J'. ALONG .S},10 RIGHT OF WAY-LiNE 1s.o:.b1 IE[T; . . . . .. . . : TIil \JCL NOR Ill t:>9'24':36" WES."F 1,039.16.·F~r.'r·:··},,i()KJ_ UR I !-:;s, r;f IIIL INNrn f'.ARBOR LIN[ OF LAKE 'N°A.Sl·ll~JCTON; ···:.,. _,.:: .-= THl\JCt NORTH 14'20'00" l.As· .AtONG SAIJ INNER _i::LA.RBOR_!:ANE 102.9~=· IE~T TO /.. POINT FTWM WlllClt -H[ mui::. .['OINT .. .)f'"' BEGINNING B[/',Rs.-.- SOL'Tfl 59'2·1'JG" tAST; . , .. ,.. _._.· ... .- ll·IF\JCF SOUTH 59'24'36" EI\ST \013.23 FEET, M:JRE oR:.LESS, rn.·.THF TRUE P01NT OF 3EGINNING; . . . . [XCEPT PORTION TI1CREOF DESCRl3ED AS FOLLCWS: WGINNlr>,G .'\ T THE TRUE POIN.,. OF 8EGINr11NG OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED ,:>~Ol-'F'ilY: lf-t.:--JCL SOUTH 29·44'54" W[ST ALONG TIIE WESTERLY LINE OF TH[ "IORTfi[R~J P,\CiFIC RAILWAY COMPANy'S RIGHT··OF···WAY 100.c.:· FF.El; Tl-ENCE NORIH :-.,9·24'j(/' Wt.ST 1COJJ1 ri:.1:.1; IHNCf-NOR'.H bf)"L.8'50H E.AST 111 '6 FEET TO A POlH FROM 'v\lHICH THE TRUE POINT OF 8[CINNINC BEARS SOL TH 59·24'35" EAST /1, 01SJAWC:E,O}c..':/.(: ru ;: .:Prfrn:.::E SOUTH" s.:r2_,1'35" EAST 50 FEET TO rn:: TRU[ ~DINT o• ill (;INNING AM'1 [XC[f'.T TIIAT ;:JQRTION or SAID SHOR[LANDS :..YING NORTIIERIJ OF THE NOR-:-HERLY LIN~. m SAID GOVERN'vlENT LO: ~ PRUDUCEG wcs.,rnLY:·:.-_:·. ·:·: .-.--· .. 1\~b EXCEPT:J~Al ~':~rfllDN ('.(.)NVf-?~n .. 1.c FlJGf-] SO,JND POWLR ANO LIGHT .l':OM>'ANY :JY D[rn. m::"CORI")[]"; rJF:C:C-MR.f:R JS, 1964, tnmFR RFCORrllNG NO ··:·ssnrnz · · ..... · · · '·\s111)ML:-.1~. H::: cou',1 ':'-"=~~;. i<.1Nc_,.:"S\An:: oF ._w;~H1~~·~ciN-: AUDITOR OR RECORDER'S CERTIFICATE SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE ~ f"ilc'.J f,_, , ~cord :hie: rlny 0f Vi c:: M ·1 1,)(m~ (!f :;,_,rveys :Jl Yl~p> nl ~:1, ··r:q• .. e•,: ,:.,f uJ::· 1. ·wrn & r· TCHi,JCS, ;\C 1,:::}.a'.HY AUrHOR OR rlVISIQr~ r_,r RF:C>~;F:·l:'i !<.-I. re IV'-'_; SEE P"'E.f: I C::,Jnty l\1J,:il:ir v '~upe 111,enden l oi ·=i:ecc~ds f'I' "1:_1p currecl. y repr<o~erLS c s1..rve~· rno~e "l'y rre C" 1, :c•f' 'r1y r1rcc.ior ,r conls), .. n,:,ncc will-H·€ recuirerre--ts of 11-c ~urvcy ~ccorciin,:_: .1\c al lhe recues~ o' q~ 1.,.(.t,.;Ll J,,.l,W "-le,-...! -_\ --) ',..,. I I,' / (. I ·-...,~\ . ...\ °)_ l th l-1..~"1,1 ,_ c~r t1l1cG 1 e ~ ------------BUSH, RQED & HITCHINGS, INC. C Vll FNGi\/rrns & I. A.NC 5URvrvop:; 200'J MINOR AVE. EAST (206) 323 41.C.4 SEA I II.I, WASHNGTON 1-800-935-0508 98102 3513 FAX# (206) .3)j-/Ljc; t.-t~Ail: l~Jr U©lll./fl r,C.Cot,I 20C(JC2099 Ococs oG 1,-''L,- PCCVl?D rn-SUl?VlY 135 111.,, B ,E'FoN." .. Jl\~~P~o~~T~OPMENT WA.SI 11\i-::;HY' DR/'.l,WN ]Y DAG oi\-c--.':1 . ..cos-99 JOJ 96145 00 CH::::C<ED E3Y S/\f-SCA~[: 1"=2DO;·.·-t.s1.1(::.I?f 3 or-.:-: j ......... ,. 20080902001178.:: Return Address: City Clerk's Office City of Renton 11111111111111111 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 20080902001178 CITV OF RENTON EAS 4S.00 P~GE001 OF 007 09/02/2008 12:43 KING COUNTY, 1,111 SANITARYSEWERUTILITY EASEMENT Pronertv. Tax ParcetNumber: 2924059002 . Project File#: LUA-Ol-040 Street Inteiseclion or Project Name:Baxter Lift Siation !Reference Number(s) of Documents assigned or released: Additional reference numbers are on page __ . Grantor(s): Grantee(s): I. Quendall Terminals I. City of Renton, a Municipal Corporation The Grantor(s), as named above, for and in consideration of mutual benefits, do by these presents, grant, bargain. sell. convey, and warrant unto the above named Grantee, its successors and assigns, a non-exclusive ea,;ement for public sanitary i:ewer with necessary appurtenances over, under, through, across and upon the following described property (the right-of- way) in King County, Washington, more particularly described in Exhibit A: For the purpose of constructing, reconstructing, installing, repairing, replacing, enlarging, operating and maintaining sanitary sewer utilities and utility pipelines, together with the right of ingress and egress thereto without prior institution of any suit or proceedings of law and without incurring any legal obligation or liability therefor. Following the initial construction of its facilities, Grantee may from time to time construct such additional facilities as it may require. All facilities shall be underground. This easement is granted subject to the following terms and conditions: ' The Grantee shall, upon completion of any work within the property covered by the easement. restore the surface of the casement. and any private improvements disturbed or deslwyed during execution of the work, as nearly as practicable to the condition they were in immediately before commencement of the work or entry by the Grantee. Grantee shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless Grantor. its successors and. ass.igns. from any damage. liability. claim. lien, or loss, induding aaorney's fees and costs. arising out of use of the easement by Grantee. !rs agents. ~:ontr-a~tors, -;uccess-or!. in title, a!';Signs. authorized persons, and/or all others acting on its behaJf. except to th:e extent such damage, liability, claim, lien, or loss, is due to the negligence or intentional misconduct of the Grantor or an agent.· contractor,-successor in title, authorized person, assigri of Orantor. 2. AU construction and installation of improvements within the easement and the operation and maintenance thereof shall be performed (a) in accordance with applicable laws, regulations and permits, (b) in a lien-free, professional and safe manner. and (c) with due diligence at reasonable times and in a reasonable manner to minimize interferem.:-e with other uses on the property. Prior to entry onto the easement for repair or maintenance, Grantee shall provide reasonable notice to Granter, except to the extent of an emergency. 3. Gtantor shall retain the right to use the surface of the easement, and to grant utility casements to other u,tlity providers, as long as such use or additional easements do not interfere with the easement rights granted to 1hc Grantee. Grantee wiH cooperate with Granter for the location of additional utilities within the easement area. Grantor shall not, however, have the right to: a. Erect or maintain any buildings or structures within the easement; or b. Plant trees, shrubs or vegetation having deep root patterns which may cause damage to or interfere with the utilities to be placed within the easement by the Grantee; or c. Develop, landscape. or beautify the easement area in any way which would unreasonably increase the costs to the Grantee of restoring the easement area and any private improvements therein. 2008090200117P. .-.. · d. e. Dig, tunnel or perform other forms of construction activities on the property which would disturb the compaction or uneanh Grantee's facilities on the right-of-way, or endanger the lateral support facillcies. Blast within fifteen (15) feet of the right-of-way. 4. This easement is located within a Federal Superfund Site regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protect1on Agency. Any work by the Grantee or other person in the easement area shall be done in compliance with requirernems of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Washington State Department of Ecology, or any other agency with authority pursuant to state or federal environmental laws ("Environmental Agencies"}, and only after 30-day notice to th.e appropriate Environmental Agency, and Grantee and any other person using the easement shall indemnify and hold Grantor harmless from any cost, liability or obligation relating to construction in or use of the easement area by Grantee or any other person. including but not limited to compliance with requirements of any of the Environmental Agencies. Grantor reserves a right of access over the easement for Environmental Agencies and their authorized contractors in connection with its regulation of the Federal Superfund Site. Grantee shall be solely responsible for the management and disp0sal if any waste generated as a result of the installation, operation or maintenance of improvements within the easement and shall be the generator of any waste resulting from those activities. Grantee shall lnde_ntnify; defend;and hold hartruess Grantor;-its.:~u~~~9rs aru:1-assigns, from any damage., Hability~·clai~_li.en, or loss· or ao·y costs of ex.penses, including attorney's feei and Costs, associated with the generation. managemiri1, disposal of hazardous substances. by Grantee or contact with or exposure to hazardous substances. resulting from subsurface activities authorized or permitted by Grantee within the easement This easement shall run with the land described herein, and shall be binding upon the parties, their heirs, ,5uccessors in interest and assigns. Grantors covenant that they are the lawful owners of the above properties and that they have a good and lawful right to execute this agreement. By this conveyance, Grantor will warrant and defend the easement granted hereby to the Grantee against all and every person or persons, whomsoever, lawfully claiming or to claim the same. This conveyance is subject to all existing easements, reservations, restrictions. covenants, encumbrances, and all other matters of record. This conveyance shall bind the heirs, executors, administrators and assigns forever. IN WITNESS WHEREOF. said Grantor has caused this instrument to be executed this k_day of"!J~ 2008. Approved and Accepted By: Grantor(s): QUENDALL TERMINALS, a Washington joint venture By Altino Properties, Inc., a Washington corporatio;, jo~t v~rer By~_ , _: \IP Robert Cugini, Vic(D-esident By J, H. Baxter & Co., a California limited partnership, joint venturer By J, H. Baxter & Co., a California Corporation, general partner Bn(i:;J.~4' :0tcA Georgiaxter, President and CEO DWT 2236882v l 0032695-000004 Page 2 Grantet\ City of Rent~n /j . __,, By ~eALSo cY!J Denis Law, Mayor Attest: -•-.. ~.J. LJ~ Bonnie I. Walton, City·clerk ,. .. 5'-/Y-~l)of<: r' --J ·.,.. ·. •• ·~ ... "(" :~ :• ' : ., ····· e • . . FORM 03 0008/bh/ 2008090200117R "·, Exhibit A Legal Description STATE OF WASHINGTON ss. COUNTY OF KING On this~ day of &bma: , 2008, before me. the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the state of Washington, duly commissioned a sworn, personally appeared ROBERT CUGINI to me known to be the Vice President of AL TINO PROPERTIES, INC, a Washington corporation, which is a joint venturer of QUENDALL TERMINALS, a Washington joint venture, that executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and voluntary actand deed of said corporation andjollltye_nluj;e, for the uses and purpOses therein mentioned, and on oath stated th.its/he is author"i:ted to executf!.the Said -.-.: .. instrument. C'Offiq)'Y OF KING ss. Washington, residing at ~aA~l'l-~-,-------- My appointment expires _ __..:;l./-1-:;t../..lJ.J,..._ _ _,~--- On this ay of , 2008, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the stlte of Washington, duly co · sioned and sworn, personally appeared GEORGIA BAXTER to me known to be the President and CEO of J. H. · ER & CO., a California Corporation, which is general partner of J. H. BAXTER & CO., a California limited part ip, which is a joint venturer of QUEND/\LL TER.YIE\ALS, a Vii' ashington joint venture, that executed the forcg · o instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument to be L~e free and voluntary act and deed cf said corporation, ·1ed partnership and joint venture, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that s/he is au · ed to execute the said instrument. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, l have hereunto set my hand and o seal the day and year first above MitteIL NOT ARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington, residing at ___________ ::,..,~ My appointment expires ___________ _ Print Nam•~--------------~ DWT 2236882vl 0032695-000004 Page3 FORM 03 0008/bh/ . 20080902001178.:: STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss. COUNTY OF KING } On this l g"t':2. day of {l, ... 4, 2008, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the state of Washington, duly comm~swom, personally appeared DENIS LAW to me known to be the Mayor of the CITY OF RENTON, that executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said City, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that s/he is authorized to execute the said instrument. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto s my hand and official seal the day and year first above written.. \ /~/~:~-:~·,?:..:~:-~:~, --------( ' DWT 2236882v l 0032695,000004 Page 4 FORM 03 0008/bhl F.XttfBIT "A." MNJTARY SEWER. EASEME>IT LEGAL DESCRIPTION A sarutary s=·cr easement over the following de3cobcci property: Th..t portwri ofCuvcrn:mcnt T.rn: 5 m ,<;.,~,;..,\ 29, T<1um~hip 24 'N<>nh, Ran,1,1c .'5 F.nt, W.M and sbotc~ds Ml.Jc.ininB tyin.r,: ''"""'tuly of the No1,;:hcrn Pacific R:i.d.-oad Right of Wa.y :a.o.d southerly of a Linc dcsaib«i ~~ follc,w~: B~gl\t the Qu= Cotn<:r on the soudi.li.nc of,,.fd ~ccmn 29; lnc-.n<:c North fl.')0 58':l<i" W'l'5t "'ongthc S0u1h line of.,aid T,ot 5, a ,J;,t,;i,wcorl,111.01 r...,c""' ,h.e wcs~y lio<: of said Nor:thcm Pad:ic luilrolld Riglit of Way; thcnc,e Noxth 29°1-4'54'" Eut, B49.G2 fee, a Lons said Right ofW:,,y line oo"' pou1t hc.telllaftcr rdeued to u Poirtt A; th~r!.cc contm.wng-Nonh 29°44'$4" ~t, 200.01 fo.:e 10 the TRUE POIN'l" OF BEGlNNL'IG of the lioc hc=in d..,,njl)«I; ti,.,:i:,cc Soutb 56°28'S(l" We<<, 222.32 (eri u:> 1 p<>intwl--.ich b<::a.n 0 N~ J;i!:1•.24_'S6''_.W••ii, 100.Q1 fu:t _(«nn....J ~nt A; thet1ce Nurffl 5~'4'$6'" '(iq=< .-.., du: Inne.-H~Lm:..llldmeend-('f',.._\dWled<:""'""l'ti:Qi:11 · ·-"' Also thllr pottl<>Jl of said Government Lot 5 lying sou~hcutody of Lile Woshiri~on Boulc=rd. wes,ctly ot Scc,urldary >,u,tc l·ligf..,,,.y Numbc.t 2...\ and nonhwc:,in:dy or th.: Right of Way of"Pu01ic Sute £ l.ighwxy Ncwtbcc I a.< c=btilhcd by deed rccmdcd WK\er Autllwc'• file No S687408, conraini.og 31.7 "'C["'~ mote o~ lcu (a~c...ncy ,o one a""=) ofwhlch 12.8 =re~ uc und=tcr sborcLr.nds. Comm...,cing ,u ~ roust nutt.hc:o.sr...-ly <.:omc.i: of the ~bov<: <.l~d p.._,perty; th,;,;cc-c 1laag th,e -wucerly ma::gin of sllid. Railtt,ad nght-o{·Wl\f South 29o44•54n W<:St, 102. l 1 fut to-Ule 'JkU.1:. PUlN"f OF BEGINNING; tlti:o1cc 1"<>Ving su:l .rie;b.,.of:.w.11.y ~;\Ip Nonh (,L,)G1 S'O(>' We,,, 42.00 fuct; 1h=ce Sooth 2'>"44'5-4" Wc;t, 55.00, lhcncc S=th <50"15'06" Eut, 4:2.00 foct to :"'1.ld right-of-...-~y ~ tbcaci: :donJ!: ~nid right-.of-Wlly margin Nonh 29°44"54'" E,ur, SS.00 feet to the TRUE POWI' 01-" 0.EGINNrNG C<>nl='.ing :.n ar<:a nf 2 • .510 oqwcrc f<:<:t, more nc k:.,s. ; B-~si.>i of Be,uing ~d r=o,:,:,led Wldcr Auditor File No-, 7S07t60S.';,:;, R«~~ ufKing County. Wa.bJ.ngt0n. DWT 22J6882vl 003269S-000004 Page5 .!UUl:lU:IU.!UUl 1 / H ---- FORM: 03 0008/bh/ UNE TABLE UNE BEARING DISTANCE L1 S :,9·.44'54~ W 102.11 L2 l,j so·1s·o5-w 42.0::> " $_49•44·os4~ W 55.0::> L4 S 60"15'06" E 42.0::> L5 N ,9•44;54-E: 5~.00 I / ~Pof11tgi .,. / I Commencment ,! ') I WOB I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I _j Novembec 26 2007 Quendall Terminals Du~~d WCL ;fA:,.c 1~ REi\:TON WASH\NGTON •• RLS ' 30788 :::!>•<l<od By . C-o!• l="XHIBI-'A' p..,;.,,;\ /lo, :!._:;r.,~n, BAXTE~ LIFT STATION .. . ·-"'"~-=""'5 '" 7"8"8 "Y-"l 6'-7'--·I i:!"''i:/':11:::::: SANITARY SEWE:Rc~_El;fENr •''j,;rfi,.2 OF 2 Dvrf 2236882\1 l OD32b95-000004 Page6 20080902001178 fORM OJ 0008/bh/ 2008090200117R ···· CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT ~~~~@~;wm~.er~~....dffot~-£~.&.&&<:W@&<::"¢«.~M«««m«,c< r:··-·-······· @ LORI J. STUMPF -Comm&lon # IS 18054 J I Nolruy Public . Calilornla r ~ ~ Son Mateo c 0,,nry ( J.. MyComm, &pies Dec 24, 2008 C C C O C C C U U s c Pla~e Notary Saal Above who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(:,) whose nama('t) is/.,e subscribedto the within instrument and acknowledged-to ... me that lllt/she/ll;ilt{ executed the same in l,le-/her/f!l;w aulhorized capacily(i;,9j, and that by-lois/her/1!!,eir signature(fl) on the instrument the person~), or the entity upon behalf of which the person4") acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. W, ·~~~~~~~~~OPTIONA[:,-..,,,.~4c-.:::....,,-_.:::.;;a,-""2-:....::~~_:::.._ Though the informafion below is nor required by law. it may prove valuable the documen and could prevenr fraudulent removal and reattachment of this form to another document. Description of Attached Document Title or Type of Document Sc.-_01 \o. v j ~C..U~ Ll q..J' \ I j 6,~Q "'-r:: Document Date: I _-_3~1 _-~dir'.~-------Number of Pages: --~"------- Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: Capacity(iesJ Claiinecl'by Slgner(sJ Signer's Name: C.wv_.1_i0, ~ \.y__ 0 Individual \j ?~.,..,do.., 't- ~Corporate Officer -Title(s): ~C.=..e!=c=-''---- 0 Partner -D Limited r_--1 General 0 Attorney in Fact 0 Trustee 0 Guardian or Conservator 0 Other < ;t~;~a;H)!rn ;; :, -----------:·.:. ,,,'l'.~.iW4,1,:., ... clj, ·i l//1"",,,rtffe't.'!''•··"-} Signer Is Representing: _____ .; 1~ tt,f{7·1;t:,:iJ!I · -------.-~.-~-=--=----_-_-" (t:i:mttit~:m, .,,. Signer's Name: ______________ _ O Individual O Corporate Officer -Title(s): ______ _ 0 Partner -0 Limited O General o Attorney in Fact DTrustee D Guardian or Conservator D Other: Signer Is Representing: _______ _ Top o :humb J-:2~s ~J@,J.QC,_&S~GUQ,JQXQ =~~"'G{.-.g.e§.{;.~ ©2007 NaliOMl Nolaiy Association• 9350 l)(l SOio Ave., P.O. Box 2402 • Chatsworth, CA 91313-2402• www.Na1iorn1lNotary.org Item &15907 AL"Oldcr: ~1 lo::-Fre,e 1-800-876-6$27 r / § . ' ,.,,,---- II :/ ,J i I /__/ / l, ,, I \ ...... _.,,, I • :/ / / / / / ,// Q v / / / / / i ! Ii /! I I _J 8 t! ·, ' / , / I .-:... .. SW 29-24-05 """'~/;;,Q.' ---------_ a-· :.:_ __ I----~ C :. ·-' 1: ,~.,~ II '-=·~·:" . ii !I ii ii ' 'I I I:: j ' >:a f / .,, i;:. - ( I lllllt -... , . . ,,,., .. "" co "' .,. / // ! // ! I I • ! I / HILLMAN'S GAROEN OF ,.,, ... _ - LAKE EOEN .,: ... WlQ~ .. i" ' --~·-·-·-·-,1 ' \ .,,,_,., .. ~ ,re .. ---~ ... ,,_,,_,,., \ '""" -,~ ill)S) '·>:~~~ ,.,.,,.,.. .. ,, ~ IOfl . J, """'' ~,,I " .. 1~' .._...._ _ _.__ .... , ~ ~::; ~- "'"' .. I •• j . ' I ' •. • p""''; J.. r.:. ),·11 .• 1.,, ·,,, +· - I I l . , ' t ~ :-, i . ' i -.,. -~,,,-, - ....... I 'Ii,;· Ai;::. ... .._...;:.1:.i.iMi.:::.::;.i.....;;J.'!1-L..C:..:;,...,.,1,1r,i:::.-L....;.J..---l'~~:" !:f :' ; ~ _ t ~ ',··--.,,;;.:;;;;;.,..,.,....,,,.,,,,_...,.""'lr:--r-"'T"...., ..... .,......., + ·.:.'· ------~-.... -('·'\,-. -= ... ·· d f. 'j· . / '" .,,. .. 1 "' rn~ ......... J.J I" (, ···,.,;tc// 1,· I ~'""' .... ,.,,,. t•;- 1----,,s"-i 1 · •,:;::$ .... • ,-_,,: ". i i .''"i J/i .. //., ' ,I ( / i I ,I "1 ; II\ ,: l I I '1···"' __ __, I 1 \ I !~ : I \f .._____,-! J\ \\ ---I ' ,! ,,.,.,... ,.. .. ~· \I '1·;1---=----1 B9 j' f ! . I ' --=:----::.:.~ / / , -~ ---=--00----- - NW 32-24-05 •, N W+E s DetaH "N' First American Title Company Tax ID: 292405-9002-03 Short Legal:A Portion of County of King _/ Reference No.: 380710 County: King Map Not To Scale Plotted Easements Legend (:]PIQ o 03120,1963 # 5562896 (Powerlines) -·-·· 11/20/1964 # 5814320 (10' Wide -Utility) 11/20/1964 # 5814320 ( Utility) 07 /1980 # 8007070459 (Public Utilities) CJ 02,1511996 # 9602150689 (Roadway & Utilities) Face of Survey Bk135 Pg176 (Undisclosed Purpose -Not Plottable m 09,02,2008 # 20080902001178 (Sanitary Sewer) This map may or may not be a survey of the land depicted hereon. You should not rely upon it for any purpose other than orientation to the general location of the parcel or parcels depicted. First American Title expressly disclaims any liability for alleged loss or damage which may result from reliance upon this map. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ADDENDUM Quendall Terminals Renton, Washington October 2012 prepared by City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development Denis Law Muyur October 19, 2012 Dear Reader: Department of Community and Economic Development C.E."Chip"Vincent, Administrator Attached is a copy of the Environmental Impact Statement Addendum (EIS Addendum) for the Quendall Terminals mixed use development. The proposal is located adjacent to Lake Washington on 21.46 acres of Commercial/Office/Residential (COR) zoned property. The EIS Addendum evaluates potential impacts resulting from a new Preferred Alternative. Following the issuance of the Draft EIS (issued December 2010) a Preferred Alternative was voluntarily developed by the applicant based on additional agency and community input (particularly from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA), and continued input and coordination with the City. Similar to Alternatives 1 and 2 in the DEIS, the Preferred Alternative is intended to be a mixed-use development. The Preferred Alternative would contain 21,600 square feet of retail space, 9,000 square feet of restaurant and 692 residential units. In November 2009, Campbell Mathewson of Century Pacific, LP. submitted a Land Use Master Application (LUA09-151) for Environmental Review, Master Site Plan Review, Binding Site Plan, and Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. The City of Renton Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Significance (OS) on February 15, 2010. On April 27, 2010, a public scoping meeting was held to receive written and oral comments on the proposed scope of study for the EIS. On December 10, 2010 the DEIS was issued and a 30 day public comment period was held. This comment period was extended twice for 15 days to eventually end on February 9, 2011. Following the comment period the project was placed on hold, until the creation of the Preferred Alternative, after which the project was taken off hold on June 27, 2012. Many of the redevelopment assumptions included in the DEIS would remain the same under the Preferred Alternative; such as, Earth, Environmental Health, Land and Shoreline Use, and Energy-Greenhouse Gas Emissions. As a result of these similarities the environmental analysis associated with those assumptions would remain the same. However, for those assumptions that have been modified under the Preferred Alternative, the updated analysis is included in the provided EIS Addendum. These elements include, Critical Areas, Aesthetics/View, Parks and Recreation, Transportation, Cultural Resources and Relationship to Plans and Policies. Written public comment on the EIS Addendum will be accepted for a 30-day review period, starting on Friday, October 19, 2012, and ending at 5:00 p.m. November 19, 2012. Written comments should be addressed to: Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner; Planning Division, 5th floor Renton City Hall; 1055 South Grady Way; Renton, WA 98057. Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov Reader Page 2 of 2 October 19, 2012 Following the public comment period, the City will prepare and issue a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) that will include responses to the comments received during the public comment period and any additional analysis necessary to adequately evaluate the proposal. The City will then issue a Mitigation Document which will set forth the necessary conditions to diminish or eliminate environmental impacts as one portion of the approval of the Proposed Action. If you have any question or require clarification of the above, please contact Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner, at (425) 430-7314. The City of Renton appreciates your interest and participation. For the Environmental Review Committee, ~J\B:f:t : .. ' !'//./Jcid " '...'. . Gregg Zi~merman, P.E. Public Works Administrator PROJECT TITLE PROPONENT/APPLICANT LOCATION PROPOSED ACTION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW/ALTERNATIVES Quenda/1 Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 FACT SHEET Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project Century Pacific, L.P. The approximately 21.5-acre Quendall Terminals site is located in the northern portion of the City of Renton, within the Southwest Y. of Section 29, Township 24 North, Range 5 East, King County. The site includes an approximately 20.3-acre Main Property along Lake Washington, and an approximately 1.2-acre Isolated Property to the northeast. The Proposed Actions for the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project include: • Master Plan approval from the City; • Binding Site Plan approval from the City; • Shoreline Substantial Development Permit approval from the City; • Other local, state, and federal permit approvals for construction and redevelopment; and, • Construction and operation of the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project. The Quendall Terminals site has received a Superfund designation from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and will undergo cleanup/remediation under the oversight of the EPA prior to redevelopment. Potential impacts to the environment associated with cleanup/remediation activities will be addressed through the separate EPA process. The impact analyses in this EIS Addendum, which solely addresses impacts that may occur due to post-cleanup redevelopment of the Quendall Terminals site. assume an existing/baseline condition subsequent to cleanup/remediation. To date. one environmental review document under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) has been issued for public review and comment by the City of Renton on the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project: a Draft EIS issued in December 2010. That document is available for review at the King County library system, Renton public libraries. This document is an Addendum to the 201 O DEIS. According to the SEPA Rules (WAC 197-11-600 and 197- 11-706). an Addendum is an environmental document that is used to provide additional information or analysis that ; Fact Sheet Quenda/1 Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 does not substantially change the analysis of significant impacts and alternatives in an existing environmental document. Preparation of an Addendum is appropriate when a proposal has been modified and the changes are not expected to result in new significant adverse impacts. The Preferred Alternative analyzed in this EIS Addendum reflects updates to the EIS redevelopment alternatives analyzed in the Draft EIS, as summarized below. Draft EIS -December 2010 The 2010 DEIS addressed the probable significant adverse impacts that could occur as a result of the approval by the City of a Master Plan, Binding Site Plan, Shoreline Substantial Development Permit; other local, state and federal permits; and, potential future redevelopment activities through build-out in 2015. Two redevelopment alternatives and the No-Action Alternative were addressed in the DEIS. Preferred Alternative (Subiect of this EIS Addendum) Subsequent to the issuance of the DEIS, a Preferred Alternative was voluntarily developed by the applicant and the applicant's technical team based on additional agency/community input (particularly from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA), and continued input and coordination with the City of Renton. Similar to Alternatives 1 and 2 in the DEIS, the Preferred Alternative is intended to be a compact, urban rnixed-use development. The project is planned to ensure that future redevelopment is compatible with the environmental remediation effort at the site that is currently underway. It is also intended to meet the applicant's objectives (see DEIS page 2-8 for a list of these objectives). In many respects, redevelopment under the Preferred Alternative would be similar to that described in the DEIS for the redevelopment alternatives, particularly Alternative 2. For example, the following full build-out (for environmental review purposes, build-out is assumed to be 2015) redevelopment assumptions for the Preferred Alternative are similar to those described in the DEIS for Alternative 2: • • • Retail/Restaurant Uses (21,600 sq. ft. retail/9,000 sq. ft. restaurant) Office Uses (none) Residential Units (692 units) ii Fact Sheet • Maximum Building Heights (64 ft.) • Anticipated Site Population (1,108 residents) • Anticipated Site Employment (50 employees) • Access/Parking (1,337 parking spaces) • Landscape Design (shoreline restoration + native and ornamental plantings in the upland area) • Grading (53,000-133,000 CY of fill) • Utilities (sewer and water from City of Renton; stotmwater per the City of Renton Amendments to the 2009 KCSWDM) The redevelopment assumptions under the applicant's Preferred Alternative that have been modified from those described in the DEIS for Alternative 2 include: • Shoreline Setback (100-ft. min. increased setback) • Setbacks from Adjacent Properties (north: 38-95 ft.; south: 40-200 ft.) • View Corridors (Street "B" corridor enlarged) • Building Height Modulation (4-story buildings along S. properly line; 5-to 6-story buildings elsewhere) • Open Space and Related Areas (10.6 acres) • Building Design (more brick, stucco, masonry, and precast concrete, and less metal siding) • Emergency Access Road (in the western portion of the site) The Proposed Actions evaluated in this EIS Addendum are the same actions as those contemplated in the DEIS. Potential environmental impacts under the Preferred Alternative are addressed in this EIS Addendum and compared to DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2. This EIS Addendum, together with the DEIS, comprehensively analyze the environmental impacts of the Proposed Actions. LEAD AGENCY City of Renton SEPA RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL City of Renton, Environmental Review Committee Dept. of Community & Economic Development, Planning Division Quenda/1 Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 iii Fact Sheet EIS CONTACT PERSON PERMITS AND APPROVALS EIS ADDENDUM AUTHORS AND PRINCIPAL CONTRIBUTORS Quenda/1 Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner Dept. of Community & Economic Development, Planning Division 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Phone: (425) 430-7314 Preliminary investigation indicates that the following permits and/or approvals could be required or requested for the Proposed Actions. Additional permits/approvals may be identified during the review process associated with specific development projects. Agencies with Jurisdiction • Federal -CERCLA Remediation (for site cleanup/remediation prior to redevelopment) • State of Washington Dept. of Ecology, Construction Stormwater General Permit Dept. of Ecology, NPDES Stormwater Discharge Permit -Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, Hydraulic Project Approval • City of Renton -Master Site Plan Approval Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Construction Permits Building Permits Development Permits Binding Site Plan Site Plan Review Utility Approvals Property Permits & Licenses EIS Addendum Project Manager, Primary Author, Land Use, Aesthetics, Energy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Parks and Recreation EAIBlumen 720 Sixth Street S, Suite 100 Kirkland, WA 98033 iv Fact Sheet PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS LOCATION OF BACKGROUND INFORMATION DATE OF EIS ADDENDUM ISSUANCE DATE EIS ADDENDUM COMMENTS ARE DUE Quenda/1 Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 Critical Areas Raedeke Associates 9510 Stone Avenue N Seattle, WA 98103 Historic Resources Cultural Resource Consultants 710 Erickson Avenue NE, Suite 100 Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 Visual Analysis (Simulations) Portico Group 1500 41" Avenue, 3'° Floor Seattle, WA 98101 Transportation Transportation Engineering Northwest 816 Sixth Street S Kirkland, WA 98033 Per WAC 197-11-620, this EIS Addendum addends the Quenda/1 Terminals DEIS (December, 2010). This Addendum together with the DEIS comprehensively address the environmental impacts of the Proposed Actions. Background material and supporting documents are available at the office of: EAIBlumen 720 Sixth Street S, Suite 100 Kirkland, WA 98033 City of Renton Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner Department of Community & Economic Development, Planning Division 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 October 19, 2012 November 19, 2012, 5:00 PM V Fact Sheet AVAILABILITY OF THE EIS ADDENDUM Quenda/1 Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 Copies of the EIS Addendum have been distributed to agencies, organizations and individuals noted on the Distribution List contained in Appendix A to this document. The EIS Addendum is also available for review on the City of Renton website at http://www.rentonwa.gov/ and at the following King County Library system Renton public libraries: Renton Main Library 100 Mill Avenue S Renton, WA 98057 Renton Highlands Library 2902 NE 121" Street Renton, WA 98056 A limited number of printed copies may be purchased at the City of Renton's Finance Department (1" Floor of City Hall for $25 per hard copy or $10.00 per CD, plus any postage (if mailed). vi Fact Sheet TABLE OF CONTENTS FACT SHEET ........................................................................................................ i TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................. vii CHAPTER1 .................................................................................................... 1-1 SUMMARY CHAPTER 2 .................................................................................................... 2-1 DESCRIPTION OF PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE CHAPTER 3 .................................................................................................... 3-1 UPDATED INFORMATION AND ANALYSIS 3.1 Critical Areas .................................................................................................... 3-1 3.2 AestheticsNiews .............................................................................................. 3-3 3.3 Relationship to Plans and Policies ............................................................... 3-16 3.4 Transportation ................................................................................................ 3-18 3.5 Cultural Resources ........................................................................................ 3-32 CHAPTER 4 .................................................................................................... 4-1 COMPARISON OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 4.1 Earth Affected Environment ............................................................................... 4.1-1 Impacts ..................................................................................................... 4.1-1 Conclusions ............................................................................................... 4.1-2 Mitigation Measures .................................................................................. 4.1-2 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ................................................ 4.1-2 4.2 Critical Areas Affected Environment ............................................................................... 4.2-1 lmpacts ...................................................................................................... 4.2-1 Conclusions ............................................................................................... 4.2-3 Mitigation Measures .................................................................................. 4.2-3 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ................................................. 4.2-3 4.3 Environmental Health Affected Environment ............................................................................... 4.3-1 Impacts... . ................................................................ 4.3-1 Conclusions...... . ....................................................... 4.3-2 Mitigation Measures. . ................................................................... 4.3-2 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ................................................. 4.3-2 Quenda/1 Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 vii Fact Sheet 4.4 Energy -Greenhouse Gas Emissions Affected Environment.......................... . .. .. .. .. . .. . ... . ......................... 4.4-1 Impacts .................................................................................................... 4.4-1 Conclusions .............................................................................................. 4.4-2 Mitigation Measures............................. . ............................................ 4.4-3 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ............................................... 4.4-3 4.5 Land and Shoreline Use Affected Environment................. . ........... .... . ................................. 4.5-1 Impacts .................................................................................................... 4.5-1 Conclusions................................................ . ................................ 4.5-4 Mitigation Measures ................................................................................. 4.5-4 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts........ . .............................. 4.5-4 4.6 AestheticsNiews Affected Environment .............................................................................. 4.6-1 Impacts .................................................................................................... 4.6-1 Conclusions .............................................................................................. 4.6-3 Mitigation Measures ................................................................................. 4.6-4 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts .............................................. 4.6-4 4.7 Parks and Recreation Affected Environment .............................................................................. 4.7-1 Impacts............................... . ............................................................ 4.7-2 Conclusions ............................................................................................. 4. 7-3 Mitigation Measures ................................................................................ 4. 7-4 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ................................................ 4.7-4 4.8 Transportation Affected Environment............ .. ................................................ 4.8-1 Impacts.. ................................................... . ........................... 4.8-2 Conclusions............................................... . ............................. 4.8-4 Mitigation Measures ................................................................................. 4.8-4 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ............................................... 4.8-5 4.9 Cultural Resources Affected Environment .............................................................................. 4.9-1 Impacts .................................................................................................... 4.9-1 Mitigation Measures ................................................................................. 4. 9-2 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts.... .. ............................... 4.9-2 REFERENCES APPENDICES A. EIS Addendum Distribution Lisi & Parties of Record B. Letter from EPA C. Critical Areas Memo D. Greenhouse Gas Worksheets E. Updated Transportation Report F. Cultural Resources Report Quenda/1 Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 viii Fact Sheet 2-1 3.2-1 3.4-1 3.4-2 3.4-3 3.4-4 3.4-5 3.4-6 4.4-1 4.5-1 4.7-1 Figure 2-1 2-2 2-3 2-4 2-5 2-6 2-7 2-8 2-9 2-10 3.2-1 3.2-2 3.2-3 3.2-4 3.2-5 3.2-6 3.2-7 3.2-8 3.4-1 3.4-2 3.4-3 3.4-4 LIST OF TABLES Comparison of 2010 DEIS Alternatives and 2012 Preferred Alternative ..... 2-4 Viewpoint Locations .................................................................................... 3-3 Existing 200912010 Peak Hour Intersection LOS ...................................... 3-20 2015 Intersection LOS-With and Without DEIS Alternative 1 Without 1--405 Improvements .................................................................................. 3-22 2015 Intersection LOS -With and Without DEIS Alternative 1 With 1--405 Improvements .................................................................................. 3-25 2015 Queues -DEIS Alternative 1 ........................................................... 3-28 2015 Queues -DEIS Alternative 1 With 1--405 Improvements ................... 3-28 2015 Intersection LOS -DEIS Alternative 1 With Proposed Mitigation, Without 1--405 Improvements ...................................................................... 3-30 Estimated GHG Emissions -Preferred Alternative ................................... 4.4-2 Site Area Breakdown......... .. ............................................................ 4.5-3 On-Site Open Space and Related Areas Comparison .............................. 4.7-3 LIST OF FIGURES Regional Map ............................................................................................. 2-7 Vicinity Map......... . .................................................................... 2-8 Site Plan -Preferred Alternative ............................................................... 2-10 Ground Level Plan -Preferred Alternative ................................................ 2-11 Representative South Building Elevations -Preferred Alternative ........... 2-15 Representative West Building Elevations -Preferred Alternative ............. 2-16 North and West Building Elevations -Preferred Alternative ...................... 2-17 Conceptual East View from Lake Washington -Preferred Alternative ...... 2-18 Conceptual West View from Central Roundabout -Preferred Alternative. 2-19 "Green Wall" Fa~ade Section -Preferred Alternative ................................ 2-20 Viewpoint Location Map ............................................................................... 3-4 Illustration of Perspective in Simulations ...................................................... 3-6 Viewpoint Location 1 . .. ........................................................................ 3-8 Viewpoint Location 4. .. ........................................................ 3-9 Viewpoint Location 7. ... .. ......... ........ .. ......... ........... ......... .......... .. .... 3-11 Viewpoint Location 8. ............ ......... ........ .. .... 3-12 Viewpoint Location 9.. ......................................... .. ..... 3-14 Viewpoint Location 11 ........................................................ 3-15 Existing 2009/2010 Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ......................................... 3-19 2015 Baseline/No Action Peak Hour Traffic Volumes (Without 1-405 Improvements)... .. .................................... 3-23 2015 DEIS Alternative 1 Peak Hour Traffic Volumes (Without 1-405 Improvements) .................................................................... 3-24 2015 Baseline/No Action Peak Hour Traffic Volumes (With 1-405 Improvements).... . ....................................................... 3-26 Quenda/1 Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 ix Fact Sheet 3.4-5 2015 DEIS Alternative 1 Peak Hour Traffic Volumes (With 1-405 Improvements)................................ . ............................ 3-27 3.4-6 Lake Washington Boulevard Conceptual Channelization Improvements - Without 1-405 Improvements ............................ _____ ..................................... 3-31 Quenda/1 Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 X Fact Sheet ADA AOC BMP CERCLA COR CY DAHP DEIS DNAPL EB ECOLOGY EIS EPA FS GHG IBC ITE KCSWDM LEED LOS MTCA MTC02 e NB NPDES NPL OHWM PSE R-10 RI RMC ROD SB SEPA SMP TOM TESCP TIP WAC WB WSDOT ACRONYMS Americans with Disabilities Act Administrative Order of Consent Best Management Practice Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act Commercial, Office, Residential Zoning Designation Cubic Yards Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Draft Environmental Impact Statement Dense, Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid Eastbound Washington State Department of Ecology Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Protection Agency Feasibility Study Greenhouse Gas International Building Code Institute of Transportation Engineers King County Storm Water Drainage Manual Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Level of Service Model Toxics Control Act Metric Ton Carbon Dioxide Equivalent Northbound National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System National Priorities List Ordinary High Water Mark Puget Sound Energy Residential, 10 Units per Acre Zoning Designation Remedial Investigation Renton Municipal Code Record of Decision Southbound State Environmental Policy Act Shoreline Master Program Transportation Demand Management Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan Transportation Improvement Program Washington Administrative Code Westbound Washington State Department of Transportation Quenda/1 Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 xi Fact Sheet CHAPTER/ SUMMARY CHAPTER 1 SUMMARY 1.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter provides a summary of the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project EIS Addendum. It briefly describes the project history and the Preferred Alternative, and provides an overview of probable significant environmental impacts, mitigation measures, and significant unavoidable adverse impacts of the Preferred Alternative. See Chapter 2 of this EIS Addendum for a more detailed description of the Preferred Alternative; Chapter 3 for updated information and analysis; and, Chapter 4 for a comparison of potential environmental impacts, mitigation measures, and significant unavoidable adverse impacts under the Preferred Alternative to those under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2. This document is an Addendum to the Draft EIS (DEIS) that was prepared for the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project (December 2010). According to the SEPA Rules (WAC 197- 11-600 and 197-11-706), an Addendum is an environmental document that is used to provide additional information or analysis that does not substantially change the analysis of significant impacts and alternatives in an existing environmental document. Preparation of an Addendum is appropriate when a proposal has been modified and the changes are not expected to result in new significant adverse impacts. The DEIS evaluated two redevelopment alternatives and their environmental impacts and associated mitigation measures. Subsequent to the issuance of the DEIS, a Preferred Alternative was developed by the applicant based on additional agency/community input (particularly from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA), and input and continued coordination with the City of Renton. Many of the redevelopment assumptions under the Preferred Alternative would be similar to those described in the DEIS for the redevelopment alternatives, in particular Alternative 2. Similar to DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2, the Preferred Alternative is intended to be a compact urban mixed-use development with a mix of residential, retail, and restaurant uses, and would be planned to ensure that future redevelopment is compatible with the environmental remediation effort that is currently undeiway at the site. The Preferred Alternative is intended to meet the applicant's objectives (see DEIS page 2-8 for a list of these objectives). Despite these similarities, certain redevelopment assumptions under the Preferred Alternative have been modified from those described in the DEIS. Based on those redevelopment assumptions, the following environmental analyses in the DEIS largely would not change. • Earth • Land and Shoreline Use • Environmental Health • Energy -Greenhouse Gas Emissions As described above, many of the redevelopment assumptions would remain the same under the Preferred Alternative, and as a result, the environmental analysis associated with those assumptions would also remain the same. However, for those assumptions that have been modified under the Preferred Alternative, an updated analysis for the associated environmental elements is provided in this EIS Addendum, including the following: Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 1-1 Chapter 1 • Critical Areas • Transportation • AestheticsNiews • Cultural Resources • Parks and Recreation • Relationship to Plans and Policies 1.2 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE Based on information provided in the DEIS, as well as comments from EPA, and input and continued coordination with the City of Renton, the applicant has voluntarily developed a Preferred Alternative for analysis in this EIS Addendum. Many aspects of the Preferred Alternative would be similar to Alternative 2 in the DEIS, including the following areas: • Retail/Restaurant Uses (21,600 sq. ft. retai/19, 000 sq. ft. restaurant) • Office Uses (none) • Residential Units (692 units) • Maximum Building Heights (64 ft.) • Anticipated Site Population (1, 108 residents) • Anticipated Site Employment (50 employees) • Access/Parking (1,337 parking spaces) • Landscape Design (shoreline restoration + native and ornamental plantings in the upland area) • Grading (53,000-133,000 CY of fill) • Utilities (sewer and water from City of Renton; stormwater per City of Renton Amendments to the 2009 KCSWDM) The following redevelopment assumptions have been modified from those described in the DEIS under Alternatives 1 and 2, based on the comments from EPA, and input and continued coordination with the City of Renton: • Shoreline Setback (100-ft. min. increased setback) • Setbacks from Adjacent Properties (north: 38-95 ft.; south: 40-200 ft.) • View Corridors (Street "B'' corridor enlarged) • Building Height Modulation (4-sto,y buildings along south property line; 5-to 6-sto,y buildings elsewhere) • Open Space and Related Areas (10.6 acres) • Building Design (more brick, stucco, mason,y, and precast concrete, and less metal siding) • Emergency Access Road (in the western portion of the site) See Chapter 2 of this EIS Addendum for further details on the Preferred Alternative. 1.3 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS, MITIGATION MEASURES, AND SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS The following list summarizes the impacts, mitigation measures, and significant unavoidable adverse impacts that would potentially result from the Preferred Alternative analyzed in this EIS Quenda/1 Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 1-2 Chapter1 Addendum. "Proposed" mitigation measures are those actions which the applicant has proposed at this point in time (and could become part of the Mitigation Agreement with the City) and/or are required by code, laws or local, state and federal regulations. "Possible" mitigation measures are actions that could be undertaken, but are not necessary to mitigate significant impacts, and are above and beyond those proposed by the applicant. Earth Impacts Redevelopment under the Preferred Alternative would result in potential earth-related impacts that would be similar to those analyzed in the DEIS, including impacts associated with construction (i.e. erosion/sedimentation and ground settlement associated with site clearing and grading, installation of utilities and construction of building foundations), disturbance of geologic hazards, and interception of groundwater. No additional earth-related impacts would be anticipated. Mitigation Measures Proposed Mitigation Measures During Construction • A temporary erosion and sedimentation control plan (TESCP), including Best Management Practices (BMPs) for erosion and sedimentation control, would be implemented, per the City of Renton Amendments to the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM) adopted by the City of Renton. This plan would include the following measures: All temporary (and/or permanent) devices used to collect stormwater runoff would be directed into tightlined systems that would discharge to an approved stormwater facility. Soils to be reused at the site during construction would be stockpiled or stored in such a manner to minimize erosion from the stock pile. Protective measures could include covering with plastic sheeting and the use of silt fences around pile perimeters. During construction, silt fences or other methods, such as straw bales, would be placed along surface water runoff collection areas in proximity to Lake Washington and the adjacent wetlands to reduce the potential of sediment discharge into these waters. In addition, rock check dams would be established along roadways during construction. Temporary sedimentation traps or detention facilities would be installed to provide erosion and sediment transport control during construction. • A geotechnical engineer would review the grading and TESCP plans prior to final plan design to ensure that erosion and sediment transport hazards are addressed during and Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 1-3 Chapter 1 following construction. As necessary, additional erosion mitigation measures could be required in response to specific design plans. • Site preparation for roadways, utilities and structures, and the placement and compaction of structural fill would be based upon the recommendations of a geotechnical engineer. • Temporary excavation dewatering would be conducted if groundwater is encountered during excavation and construction activities. Such dewatering activities would be conducted in a manner that would minimize potential impacts due to settlement. • Structural fill would be placed to control the potential for settlement of adjacent areas; adjacent structures/areas would be monitored to verify that no significant settlement occurs. • Deep foundation systems (such as piles or aggregate piers) would be installed and/or ground improvements would be made to minimize potential damage from soil settlement, consolidation, spreading and liquefaction. • If deep foundation systems (such as piles or aggregate piers) are used to support structures, the following measures would be implemented: -Measures would be employed to ensure that the soil cap (should it be installed) would not be affected and that installation of the piles/piers would not mobilize contamination that would be contained by the cap. Such measures could include: installation of surface casing through the contaminated zone; installation of piles composed of impermeable materials (steel or cast-in-place concrete) using soil displacement methods; the use of pointed tip piles to prevent carry down of contamination; and, the use of ground improvement technologies, such as in-place densification or compaction grouting. -A pile vibration analysis and vibration monitoring would be conducted during pile installation in order to ensure that impacts due to vibration do not occur. -Suitable pile and pile hammer types would be matched to the subsurface conditions to achieve the required penetrations with minimal effort to reduce potential vibration. Potential pile types could include driven open-end steel pipe piles, driven closed-end steel pipe piles, or driven cast-in-place concrete piles. Potential hammer types could include percussion hammers or vibratory hammers. -Suitable hammer and pile cushion types would be used for the specific conditions to reduce potential noise. A typical hammer employs the use of a heavy impact hammer that is controlled by a lead, which is in turn supported by a crane. -Pile installation would occur during regulated construction hours. • Fill soils would be properly placed and cuts would be used to reduce the potential for landslide impacts during (and after) construction. Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 1-4 Chapter 1 I • The appropriate management of contaminated soils that could be disturbed and groundwater that could be encountered during redevelopment of the site would be addressed through the cleanup/remediation process and by institutional control requirements overseen by EPA (see Section 3.3, Environmental Health in the DEIS, for details). Following Construction • A permanent stormwater control system would be installed in accordance with the City of Renton Amendments to the 2009 KCSWDM adopted by City of Renton. • Offshore outfall locations for stormwater discharge from the permanent stormwater control system would be equipped with energy dissipation structures or other devices to prevent erosion of the lake bottom. • All buildings would be designed in accordance with the 2009 IBC (or the applicable design codes that are in effect at the time of construction) to address the potential for seismic impacts. • The majority of the site would be covered with impervious surfaces following redevelopment. Permanent landscaping would be provided to reduce the potential for erosion and sedimentation with redevelopment. Other Possible Mitigation Measures • Flexible utility connections could be employed to minimize the risk of damage to the lines due to differential settlement between structures and underground utilities. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts There would be a risk of ground motion impacts and landslides beneath Lake Washington adjacent to the site during a seismic event; however, such impacts would occur with or without the proposed redevelopment. There are no significant unavoidable earth-related impacts that cannot be mitigated. Critical Areas Impacts Redevelopment under the Preferred Alternative would have a slightly smaller development footprint, but similar features to DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2 (particularly DEIS Alternative 2). This alternative would maintain a 100-foot minimum setback from the Lake Washington shoreline, as compared to the 50-foot minimum setback under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2. As a result, The Preferred Alternative would be anticipated to have slightly less impacts on wetlands and wildlife habitat than DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2. As the restored habitat along the lakeshore develops over time, this area would provide slightly more potential screening of the wetland and lakeshore habitats from impacts from operation of the project, including lighting impacts, as compared to DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2. However, given the urban context of the area, impacts Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 1-5 Chapter 1 from noise, lighting, and other disturbance would not likely be substantially different than under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2. Mitigation Measures Proposed Mitigation Measures During Construction • A TESCP, including BMPs for erosion and sedimentation control, would be implemented during construction, per the City of Renton Amendments to the 2009 King County KCSWDM adopted by the City of Renton (see Section 3.1, Earth in the DEIS, and Appendix D to the DEIS for details). Implementation of this plan would prevent or limit impacts to the lake and shoreline wetlands from erosion and sedimentation. Following Construction • Proposed redevelopment would avoid direct impacts to the retained/re- established/expanded wetlands onsite. • Re-established/expanded wetlands would be retained in an open space tract that includes required buffers and a riparian habitat enhancement area. • Proposed buildings would be setback a minimum of 100 feet from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM), consistent with the City of Renton's 2011 Shoreline Master Program. The shoreline area would accommodate future wetlands, as well as buffers and setbacks. Final, detailed plans for the re-establishment of wetlands and their buffers onsite will be developed in coordination with EPA prior to redevelopment • A permanent stormwater control system would be installed consistent with the requirements of the City of Renton Amendments to the 2009 KCSWDM adopted by the City of Renton. The system would collect and convey stormwater runoff to Lake Washington via a tight-lined system. Water quality treatment would be provided for runoff from pollution-generating surfaces to prevent water quality impacts to the lake and shoreline wetlands. • Native plant species would be included within landscaping of the redeveloped upland area on the Main Property to the extent feasible, and could provide some limited habitat benefits to native wildlife species. • Introduction of noxious weeds or invasive species would be avoided to the extent practicable in areas re-vegetated as part of the proposed redevelopment. Together with the native species planted, this would help limit the unnecessary spread of invasive species that could adversely affect the suitability of open space habitats on site and in the vicinity for wildlife. • A publicly accessible, unpaved trail is proposed through the shoreline area that would include interpretive wetland viewpoints. Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 1-6 Chapter 1 • The proposed redevelopment would include design elements to minimize the potential adverse affects of artificial lighting on wetland and riparian habitats. These include directing lighting downward and away from these habitats or adjacent properties, and could include shielding of lights, use of low-pressure sodium lights, or minimizing the use of reflective glazing materials in building design, as feasible. Other Possible Mitigation Measures • Trenching for utilities and stormwater outfalls could be incorporated into site grading associated with remediation efforts to limit or prevent later disturbance of re-vegetated areas. • Upland areas on the Main Property could be temporarily re-vegetated following site remediation, depending on the timing of redevelopment. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts There are no significant unavoidable adverse impacts to critical areas that cannot be mitigated. Environmental Health Impacts Redevelopment under the Preferred Alternative would result in potential environmental health- related impacts that would be similar to those under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2, including potential impacts associated with exposure to contaminated soils during project construction, as well as exposure to potential vapors from volatile contaminants in the subsurface during project operation. No additional environmental health-related impacts would be expected. Mitigation Measures Proposed Mitigation Measures • Redevelopment of the site is being coordinated with the cleanup/remediation process, and would be conducted consistent with the requirements in the final cleanup remedy selected and overseen by EPA, and with any associated institutional controls. • The appropriate management of contaminated soils that could be disturbed and groundwater that could be encountered during redevelopment of the site would be addressed through the cleanup/remediation process and by institutional control requirements overseen by EPA. As necessary, lightweight fill materials, special capping requirements, vapor barriers and other measures would be implemented to ensure that unacceptable exposures to contaminated soils, groundwater, or vapors would not occur. • Institutional controls would be followed to prevent the alteration of the soil cap without EPA approval, and to prevent the use of on-site groundwater for any purpose. Quenda/1 Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 1-7 Chapter 1 • An Operations, Maintenance, and Monitoring Plan would be implemented to prevent the excavation of soils, installation of utilities, or other site disturbances without prior EPA approval. • As necessary, personal protection equipment for workers would be used and special handling and disposal measures followed during construction activities to prevent contact with hazardous materials and substances. • Living/working areas on the Main Property would be separated from soil/groundwater contaminants by under-building garages; institutional controls would also be implemented to prevent exposure to unacceptable vapors. Other Possible Mitigation Measures • Planned utilities (including the main utility corridors) could be installed as part of the planned remedial action so that disturbance of the soil cap and underlying contaminated soils/groundwater would not be necessary subsequent to capping of the Main Property. • Personal protection measures and special training should be provided for City of Renton staff that provides inspection during construction and maintenance following construction in areas of the site that could generate contaminated soils or groundwater. • Buried utilities and public roads serving the site development could be placed in clean fill material (with the utilities in a trench with sufficient width and depth of 3 to 4 feet below the invert of the utility), along with an acceptable barrier to prevent recontamination of the clean fill material, in order to protect the utility from contamination and to allow future maintenance of the road or utility lines. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts There are no significant unavoidable adverse environmental health-related impacts that cannot be mitigated. Energy -Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impacts Redevelopment under the Preferred Alternative would result in potential energy and greenhouse gas (GHG)-related impacts that would be similar to or less than those under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2. No further energy/GHG-related impacts would be anticipated. Mitigation Measures Other Possible Mitigation Measures • Development could incorporate low-impact/sustainable design features into the design of proposed buildings on the site to reduce the demand for energy and reduce the amount of GHG emissions. Such features have not been identified at this time, but could include architectural design features; sustainable building materials; use of energy efficient Quenda/1 Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 1-8 Chapter 1 products; natural drainage/green roof features; use of native plants in landscaping; and/or, other design features. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Development on the Quendall Terminals site would result in an increase in demand for energy and an increase in GHG emissions relative to existing conditions, similar to any major development. The proposed redevelopment would include features that would reduce GHG emissions and climate change impacts (i.e. the compact, mixed-use nature of the proposed development would reduce vehicular trips). Therefore, the direct and indirect impacts of GHG emissions and energy use under the Preferred Alternative would not be expected to be significant. Land and Shoreline Use Impacts Redevelopment under the Preferred Alternative would result in potential land and shoreline use- related impacts (i.e. height/bulk/scale and increased activity-level impacts on adjacent land uses) that would be similar to or less than those under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2 (in particular DEIS Alternative 2) Impacts on the shoreline would be less than under the DEIS redevelopment alternatives, as the shoreline setback would be increased. No further land or shoreline use impacts would be anticipated. Build-out of the project could occur in phases, in accordance with market demand. An extension of the 5-year time limit for non-phased projects could be requested by the applicant (i.e. via the Master Plan approval process [RMC 4-9-200J.2.a]). Mitigation Measures Proposed Mitigation Measures • New driveways, landscaping, surface parking areas and proposed building setback areas would provide a buffer between proposed buildings and adjacent land uses. • Proposed landscaping, particularly along the north and south boundaries of the Main Property, would provide a partial visual screen between proposed buildings and adjacent uses (see Figure 2-7, Preliminary Landscape Plan -Alternative 1 in the DEIS). • Architectural features (i.e. roof slope, fac;:ade modulation, building materials, etc.) would be incorporated into the design of each building and are intended to enhance the compatibility between the proposed development and surrounding land uses (see Figures 2-4 and 2-5 for representative architectural elevations of the Preferred Alternative, and Section 3.7, AestheticsNiews in the DEIS and Chapter 2 of this EIS Addendum, for further information on proposed building and site design). • Building heights would be modulated to reduce potential height/bulk/scale impacts on adjacent development (i.e. Barbee Mill). The buildings located adjacent to the southern property lines would be 4-stories high; those in the northern portion of the site would be 5 stories high; and, those in the western, eastern, and central portions of the site would be 5 to 6 stories high. Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 1-9 Chapter 1 • A fire mitigation/impact fee would be paid for the proposed development at the time of building permit issuance or as required by the Renton Municipal Code to help offset the impacts of the project on the City's emergency services. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Redevelopment under the Preferred Alternative would result in the conversion of the approximately 21.5-acre Quendall Terminals site from a vacant, partially vegetated area to a new mixed-use development with an associated increase in building density and activity levels. There are no significant unavoidable adverse land use-related impacts that cannot be mitigated. AestheticsNiews Impacts Under the Preferred Alternative, proposed redevelopment would alter the existing visual character of the site from a predominantly open, vegetated landscape to a more densely developed mixed-use development, similar to DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2. However, the proposed building modulation across the site would provide lower building heights on the north and south edges of the site (particularly adjacent to the Barbee Mill development) and would also provide enhanced view opportunities towards Lake Washington as compared tc the DEIS Alternatives. The larger view corridor (Street "B") would also provide for greater views of Lake Washington and Mercer Island. Therefore, potential aesthetic and view-related impacts would be anticipated to be similar to or less than those under the DEIS redevelopment alternatives, and no further aesthetics or view-related impacts would be anticipated. Mitigation Measures Proposed Mitigation Measures • Building design would include a variety of details and materials that are intended to create a human scale and provide a visually interesting streetscape and facade, such as horizontal plan modulation, projecting vertical elements, and alternating facade, materials and details. • Street-level, under-building parking areas would be concealed from sidewalks and streets by retail and offices uses along certain facades. Where this parking extends to the exterior of the building, elements, such as architectural facade componentB, trellises, berms and landscaping, would be used for screening. • Public view corridors toward Lake Washington are proposed along the main east/west roadway onsite (Street "B") and along the private driveways at the north and s,outh ends of the site. Public views of the lake would also be possible from the publically ;3ccessible trail in the shoreline restoration area in the western portion of the Main Property. Additional views of the lake would be provided for project residents from se,mi-private landscaped courtyard areas between the new buildings onsite. Quenda/1 Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 1-10 Chapter1 • New landscaping would be provided in the upland area of the Main Property that is intended to enhance the visual character of the site. Landscaping would include new trees, shrubs, and groundcovers of various sizes and species. • A landscaped edge along the north and south boundaries of the site would provide a buffer and partial visual screen between new development on the site and adjacent properties. • The natural vegetation in shoreline restoration areas on the Main Property and on the Isolated Property would be retained with proposed site development. • Exterior building lighting, parking lot lighting, and pedestrian lighting would be directed downward and away from surrounding buildings and properties to minimize the impacts to adjacent uses. • Building setbacks would be maximized adjacent to Lake Washington and along the south site boundaries, to enhance the aesthetic character of development and retain views of Lake Washington. • Building height modulation would be provided across the site to enhance the aesthetic character of development and retain some views of Lake Washington. • No surface parking would be located at the terminus of Street "B" in order to enhance the aesthetic character of the development, particularly from the shoreline trail. • During final building design, maximum building heights 100 feet from the Lake Washington ordinary high water mark (OHWM) would be reduced to one half of the maximum height allowed by the COR zone (125 feet allowed height x Y, = 62.5 feet), consistent with the City of Renton's 2011 Shoreline Management Program, which would help maintain views toward the lake. Other Possible Mitigation Measures • The amount of required parking could be reduced, relocated or redesigned (i.e. though implementation of transportation demand management measures or other means) so that additional areas of the street-level, under-building parking could be setback from the exterior of the building, particularly along Streets "A", "C" and the lake side of the development. This would allow other uses, including retail, restaurant, commercial and residential uses, and plaza areas to occupy these areas and potentially enhance the aesthetic character at the ground level. • Reflectivity of glazing materials, as well as the use of shading devices, could be considered as part of the fa,;:ade design in order to minimize the potential glare impacts to surrounding uses. • Design features such as: public art, special landscape treatment, additional open space/plazas, landmark building form, special paving/pedestrian scale lighting, or prominent architectural features could be provided as part of development to further enhance the gateway/landmark features on the site. Quenda/1 Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 1-11 Chapter 1 • Vertical and/or horizontal modulation should be provided along the west or lake side of the buildings to provide a human scale and breakup the larger structures which would be adjacent to the shoreline area and pedestrian environment. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Redevelopment under the Preferred Alternative would change the site from its existing open, partially vegetated condition to a new mixed-use development. The proposed building height and bulk would generally be similar to surrounding uses (Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility and proposed Hawk's Landing Hotel}, but greater than other uses in the area (Barbee Mill development). However, with proposed building setbacks, landscaping and building modulation across the site, no significant impacts would be anticipated. Certain views across the site towards Lake Washington and Mercer Island would be obstructed under the Preferred Alternative. However, the proposed larger view corridor and proposed building modulation would provide for some views across the site, and significant impacts would not be anticipated. Parks and Recreation Impacts Redevelopment under the Preferred Alternative would result in potential impacts to parks and recreation facilities that would be similar to or slightly greater than those under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2. The Preferred Alternative would provide approximately 10.6 acres of open space and related area (including natural public open space areas comprised of a shoreline trail and associated natural areas; and, other areas comprised of street level landscaping landscaped courtyards, sidewalks, paved plazas, and the natural areas in the Isolated Property; see Table 4.7-1 for details). The Preferred Alternative would provide approximately one acre less of open space and related areas than under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2; however, the Preferred Alternative would provide slightly more shoreline restoration areas than the DEIS redevelopment alternatives. No additional impacts to parks and recreation facilities would be anticipated. Mitigation Measures Proposed Mitigation Measures Public Open Space and Related Areas/Fees 1 • A parks mitigation/impact fee would be paid for each multifamily unit in the proposed development at the time of building permit issuance to help offset the impacts of the project on City parks and recreation facilities. Park mitigation/impact fees would be determined at the time of building permit issuance and in accordance with the City of Renton Municipal Code. 1 Hours of public access would need to meet park standards of sunrise to sunset to count toward public recreation. Quenda/1 Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 1-12 Chapter 1 • Approximately 10.6 acres of open space and related areas would be provided on the site that would be visually and physically accessible to the public, including the shoreline trail and natural open space areas along the shoreline. • Frontage improvements, including sidewalks, would be provided along the west side of Lake Washington Boulevard and Ripley Lane N along the site. These sidewalks could connect to sidewalks to the north and south, which connect to other pedestrian facilities in the area. • Public parking for the proposed shoreline trail would likely be provided in the same general area as the retail/restaurant parking; the applicant would specifically identify this parking prior to site plan approval. • Signage, detours, and safety measures would be put in place to detour bicyclist from using the Lake Washington Loop trail at the time of construction. • The connection between the proposed shoreline trail and Lake Washington Boulevard would be enhanced by providing wider sidewalks (i.e. 15-foot wide) that are part of public rights-of-way along the Street "B" corridor. Measures to Improve Semi-Private Recreation Access for Residents • Semi-private landscaped courtyards on top of the parking garages would be provided as shared open space for residents of the site. These areas would help to meet the demand for passive recreation facilities from project residents. • Street level landscaping, plazas and sidewalks would be provided. These areas would help meet the project's demand for passive recreation facilities. Other Possible Mitigation Measures Public Open Space and Related Areas' • The hours of use of the proposed shoreline trail could be extended to sunrise to sunset and public parking could be provided, consistent with other City of Renton parks, in order to meet the requirements for public access. • Additional open space could be provided onsite for active recreation (i.e. frisbee, softball, etc.). A portion of the proposed surface parking on site (i.e. adjacent to the shoreline) could be converted to facilities for active recreation. • A lighted crosswalk across Lake Washington Boulevard could be provided in order to connect to the May Creek Trail on the east side of the Boulevard. • The proposed shoreline trail and other recreation areas could be enhanced with site amenities, such as tables, litter receptacles, benches, interpretive signage, etc. 2 Ibid. Quenda/1 Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 1-13 Chapter 1 • The proposed shoreline trail could connect to the Barbee Mill residential development to the south. Measures to Improve Semi-Private Recreation Access for Residents • Shared roof gardens and indoor amenity space (ie. gyms, common rooms, etc.) could be provided as part of the project. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Residents of the proposed development would use nearby parks and recreation facilities, including Gene Coulon Memorial Park and Kennydale Beach Park, which are already at or exceeding capacity in the summer. Demand from project residents would contribute to the existing capacity issues at these parks. Transportation Impacts Redevelopment under the Preferred Alternative would generate new vehicle trips on and in the vicinity of the Quendall Terminals site, including a net total of approximately 5,656 daily, 435 AM peak hour, and 530 PM peak hour vehicular trips at full-build-out in 2015. The Preferred Alternative would result in approximately 128 fewer daily trips, 8 fewer AM peak hour trips, and 11 fewer PM peak hour trips than DEIS Alternative 2. As a result, transportation impacts associated with the Preferred Alternative would be anticipated to similar to, but less than those analyzed for DEIS Alternative 2. Mitigation Measures Based upon the results of the transportation analysis of future intersection operations, general key findings include: • There exists today and will be in the future a moderate to high level of background traffic that travels in the vicinity of the site area given approved and other planned pipeline projects. • The existing transportation network with and without 1-405 Improvements would adequately accommodate the Preferred Alternative at full build-out in 2015, with the additional required/proposed transportation improvements (listed below) Proposed Mitigation Measures Level of Service/ Queuing With I 405 Improvements Preferred Alternative The following improvements (in addition to the planned 1-405 Improvements) would be necessary under the Preferred Alternative to mitigate off-site impacts: Quenda/1 Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 1-14 Chapter1 • Lake Washington Boulevard between Barbee Mill Access (N 43•• Street) and Ripley Lane N. Extend the planned eastbound and westbound through lanes by WSDOT beyond and through the Barbee Mill access intersection. This would result in two through lanes in each direction on Lake Washington Boulevard from the 1-405 interchange past the Barbee Mill access (NE 43'• Street). Ultimately, the City of Renton will determine the best configuration given ongoing coordination with WSDOT on the adjacent interchange design, the Port of Seattle (owner of the vicinity rail right-of-way), and adjacent private development. • Intersection #3 -Ripley Lane N/Lake Washington Boulevard. Construct a southbound left-turn lane at this signalized intersection (signal assumed as an 1-405 Improvement). Without 1-405 Improvements -Preferred Alternative Without the planned 1-405 Improvements, the following improvements would be necessary under the Preferred Alternative to mitigate off-site impacts: • Install Traffic Signals. Install traffic signals at the intersections of the 1-405 NB and SB ramp intersections, as well as at the intersection of Ripley Lane N/Lake Washington Boulevard. • Intersection #1 -1-405 NB Ramps/NE 44'" Street. Widen the southbound and northbound approaches so that a separate left turn lane and shared thru-right turn lane is provided on both legs of the intersection. The final configuration of the intersection with the additional widening improvements would be coordinated with WSDOT. • Intersection #3 -Ripley Lane N/Lake Washington Boulevard. Widen the westbound approach to include a separate right turn-only lane. • Lake Washington Boulevard between Barbee Mill Access (N 43•• Street) and 1-405 SB Ramps. Construct additional channelization improvements between the Barbee Mill access and the 1-405 SB ramps. Alternatively, additional eastbound and westbound lanes could be constructed to provide additional queue storage created by the traffic signals required at the SB ramp and Ripley Lane along Lake Washington Boulevard. Ultimately, the City of Renton will determine the best configuration given ongoing coordination with WSDOT on the adjacent interchange design, the Port of Seattle (owner of the vicinity rail right-of-way), and adjacent private development. See Appendix H to the DEIS for detailed level of service worksheets for the mitigation measures outlined above to meet the City of Renton and WSDOT standards. Non-Motorized Transportation • Infrastructure improvements within the site would include full curbs, gutters, and sidewalks, as well as frontage improvements (curb, gutter, and sidewalk) along the west side of Lake Washington Boulevard and Ripley Lane N in front of the project site. Provisions for safe pedestrian circulation could encourage future transit usage when planned public transit becomes available. Quenda/1 Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 1-15 Chapter 1 • A pedestrian trail is proposed onsite along the shoreline that would be accessible to the public and would connect to Lake Washington Boulevard through the internal site sidewalk system. Lake Washington Boulevard Corridor Impacts • To mitigate traffic impacts to the Lake Washington Boulevard corridor south of the development, the applicant would install traffic calming treatments on Lake Washington Boulevard south of N 41" Street to encourage primary trips generated by the project to utilize the 1-405 corridor. Although the City of Renton has no adopted residential traffic management program, arterial calming measures could include treatments that create either horizontal or vertical deflection for drivers. Such treatments could include, but are not limited to chicanes, serpentine raised curb sections, raised median treatments, speed tables, and speed humps. City of Renton Mitigation/Impact Fees • In addition to the project-specific mitigation measures described above, a traffic mitigation/impact fee would be paid for the proposed development at the time of building permit issuance to help offset the impacts of the project on the City's roadways. Traffic mitigation/impact fees would be determined at the time of building permit issuance and in accordance with the City of Renton Municipal Code. Parking • The proposed parking supply under the Preferred Alternative would meet the minimum off-street parking requirements of the City of Renton. Fire Apparatus Access • A fire access road is proposed to be located in the western portion of the site. This road would be approximately 20 feet wide, and would be surfaced in crushed rock or grass- crete to support the weight of fire apparatus. Other Possible Mitigation Measures Level of Service/Queuing • Implementation of Transportation Demand Management (TOM) measures could reduce the number of vehicle trips and thus provide some benefit to improving LOS and queuing impacts at study intersections. Public Transportation • In order to promote a multi modal transportation network, redevelopment on the Quendall Terminals site could include site amenities (i.e. planting strip, street lighting, etc.) and access to future transit zones on Lake Washington Boulevard and at the 1-405/NE 44" Street interchange to encourage and accommodate public transportation access in the future (future potential public transportation in the vicinity could include Bus Rapid Quenda/1 Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 1-16 Chapter 1 Transit on 1-405 planned by Sound Transit and WSDOT with a flyer stop at the 1-405/NE 441" Street interchange). Non-Motorized Transportation • A paved bicycle lane could be provided along the east side of Ripley Lane to mitigate potential conflicts between bicycles and the Quendall Terminals site access point on Ripley Lane. Parking • Shared parking agreements between on-site uses and implementation of transportation demand management (TOM) measures for proposed residential uses could be implemented to potentially reduce parking demand during peak periods, thereby reducing the necessary parking supply. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts There are no significant unavoidable adverse transportation-related impacts that cannot be mitigated. Cultural Resources Impacts Under the Preferred Alternative, certain construction activities onsite (i.e. clearing and grading of the upland area, construction of deep building foundations, and excavation of utilities) could require excavation into the soil cap (should it be installed) and could result in an inadvertent discovery of cultural resources. While it is unlikely that cultural resources would be encountered as part of construction activities on the site, a monitoring plan and inadvertent discovery plan would be implemented for the Preferred Alternative in the event that any cultural resources are encountered (see the Mitigation Measures discussion for further details). As a result, no significant impacts to cultural resources would be anticipated with redevelopment under the Preferred Alternative. Mitigation Measures Proposed Mitigation Measures • Limited and focused cultural resource monitoring would be conducted during construction activities on the site (clearing and grading of the upland portion, construction of deep building foundations, excavation of utilities and establishmenUexpansion of wetland and riparian areas). A monitoring plan and inadvertent discovery plan would be developed as part of the Preferred Alternative (see Appendix F for a copy of the proposed monitoring plan and inadvertent discovery plan). • In the unlikely event that ground disturbing or other activities do result in the inadvertent discovery of archaeological deposits, construction activities would be halted in the immediate area and the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Quenda/1 Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 1-17 Chapter 1 Preservation (DAHP) would be contacted. Work would be halted until such time as further investigation and appropriate consultation is concluded. • In the unlikely event of the inadvertent discovery of human remains, construction would be halted in the area, the discovery would be covered and secured against further disturbance and contact would be made with law enforcement personnel, DAHP and authorized representatives of the concerned Indian tribes. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts There are no significant unavoidable adverse impacts on cultural resources that cannot be mitigated. Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 1-18 Chapter1 CHAPTER2 DESCRIPTION OF PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE CHAPTER2 DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE This chapter of the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project EIS Addendum provides: 1) a summary of the environmental review documents (Washington State Environmental Policy Act - SEPA documents) issued for the project to date; 2) a summary of the Proposed Actions analyzed in the December 2010 Draft EIS (DEIS); 3) a listing of the elements of the environment analyzed in the DEIS; 4) a summary of the process to define the applicant's Preferred Alternative; 5) a brief description of the Preferred Alternative and how the Preferred Alternative relates to the redevelopment alternatives in the DEIS; 6) discussion of the intent of an Addendum under the SEPA and why it is being prepared; 7) discussion of the environmental review and ongoing planning and decision-making process after this EIS Addendum; and, 8) a detailed discussion of the features of the Preferred Alternative. Key concepts related to this EIS Addendum are presented below in question and answer format. 2.1 Background Q1. What environmental review documents have been issued for the Quenda/1 Terminals Redevelopment Project to date? A1. To date, one environmental review document under SEPA has been issued for public review and comment by the City of Renton for the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project: a DEIS issued in December 2010. DEIS -A DEIS for the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project was issued by the City of Renton in 2010. The DEIS addressed the probable significant adverse impacts that could occur as a result of approval by the City of Renton of a Master Plan, Binding Site Plan, Shoreline Substantial Development Permit; approval of other local, state, and federal permits; and, potential future redevelopment activities through build-out in 2015. At the time the DEIS was prepared and issued, a preferred Master Plan for the site had not been determined. Accordingly, two redevelopment alternatives and the No-Action Alternative were addressed in the DEIS: Alternative 1 -mixed-use redevelopment, including 800 multifamily residential units, 245,000 sq. ft. of office space, 21,600 sq. ft. of retail space, and 9,000 sq. ft. of restaurant space; Alternative 2 -mixed-use development, including 708 multifamily residential units, 21,600 sq. ft. of retail space, and 9,000 sq. ft. of restaurant space (no office uses would be provided under this alternative); No Action Alternative -no new mixed-use development would occur on the site at this time, cleanup/remediation activities associated with the site's status as a Superfund site by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would still occur. Quenda/1 Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 2-1 Chapter 2 Q2. What are the Proposed Actions analyzed in the DEIS and in this EIS Addendum? A2. The applicant (Century Pacific, L.P.) and the City of Renton (City) identified the following Proposed Actions for the site in the DEIS that would be necessary to implement the redevelopment: • Master Plan approval from the City; • Binding Site Plan approval from the City; • Shoreline Substantial Development Permit approval from the City; • Other local, state, and federal permit approvals for construction and redevelopment; and, • Construction and operation of the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project. The Proposed Actions evaluated in this EIS Addendum are the same actions as those contemplated in the December 2010 DEIS. Q3. What elements of the environment were evaluated in the Draft EIS? A3. The Quenda/1 Terminals Redevelopment Project DEIS (December 2010) contained environmental analyses of the elements of the environment listed below; based on the public scoping process conducted February-April 2010. Technical reports were prepared for several of these elements and are appended to the DEIS. • Earth • Critical Areas • Environmental Health • Energy -Greenhouse Gas Emissions • Land and Shoreline Use • Relationship to Plans, Policies, and Regulations • AestheticsNiews • Parks and Recreation • TransportationfTraffic Q4. What was the process to define the Preferred Alternative described and analyzed in this EIS Addendum? A4. On December 10, 2010, the Quendall Terminals DEIS was issued. Following the comment period(s) on the DEIS, preparation of the FEIS commenced. On March 4, 2011, the City of Renton placed the Quendall Terminals EIS process "on hold", pending receipt of a letter from EPA clarifying their comments on the environmental baseline (post-clean up conditions) assumptions presented in the DEIS. On March 13, 2012, the City received a letter from EPA clarifying their comments on the environmental baseline assumptions (see Appendix B). In the letter, EPA indicated that they (EPA) can require more stringent environmental standards (i.e. mitigation ratios, and larger shoreline and wetland buffers and setbacks) if they are in place at the time the Record of Decision (ROD) is developed for the site cleanup/remediation. EPA said that the more stringent requirements do not need to be articulated in the Quendall Terminals EIS, because they are not specifically known at present Based on current regulations and standards (i.e. the City of Renton Shoreline Master Program, 2011), the wetland buffers and shoreline setback areas would be larger than assumed in the DEIS under the EIS alternatives. EPA suggested that the City identify a 100-foot area from the Lake Washington Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 2-2 Chapter 2 shoreline, extending along the entire site shoreline, which would be designated as an area for future wetlands, as well as buffers and setbacks. In response to the letter from EPA, comments from other agencies and the public, and input and coordination with the City, the applicant voluntarily created a new redevelopment alternative (their Preferred Alternative). This alternative would be similar to DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2, but would maintain a 100-foot minimum setback from the shoreline onsite (the ultimate plans for the shoreline restoration area will be developed in coordination with EPA). This alternative is also intended to address height/bulk/scale, view, and other design concerns identified by public comments received during the DEIS public comment period. Q5. What is the Preferred Alternative and how does it relate to the redevelopment alternatives in the 2010 Draft EIS? A5. As indicated above, based on information provided in the DEIS, as well as comments from agencies and the public, and input and coordination with the City, the applicant prepared a Preferred Alternative for analysis in this EIS Addendum. Similar to the redevelopment alternatives described in the DEIS, the Preferred Alternative is intended to be a compact, urban mixed-use development. The project is planned to ensure that future redevelopment is compatible with the environmental remediation effort at the site that is currently underway. The Preferred Alternative is intended to be consistent with the applicant's (Century Pacific's) objectives listed on DEIS page 2-8; see Question 2 in this Chapter for a list of the Proposed Actions. In many respects, redevelopment under the Preferred Alternative would be similar to the redevelopment alternatives in the DEIS (particularly DEIS Alternative 2), including the following areas: • Retail/Restaurant Uses • Office Uses (none) • Residential Units • Maximum Building Heights • Anticipated Site Population • Anticipated Site Employment • Access/Parking • Landscape Design • Grading • Utilities The following redevelopment assumptions for the Preferred Alternative have been modified from those described for Alternatives 1 and 2 in the DEIS: • Shoreline Setback • Setbacks from Adjacent Properties • View Corridors • Building Height Modulation • Open Space and Related Areas • Building Design • Emergency Access Road Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 2-3 Chapter2 Table 2-1 compares the characteristics of assumed redevelopment under the Preferred Alternative with redevelopment under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2. Table 2-1 COMPARISON OF 2010 DEIS ALTERNATIVES & 2012 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 2010 DEIS· Alternative 1 2010 DEIS -Alternative 2012 EIS Addendum- 2 Prefefflld Alternative Retail/Restaurant Uses 21,600 sq. ft. retail/9,000 21,600 sq. ft. retail/9,000 21,600 sq. ft. retail/9,000 sq. ft. restaurant sq. ft. restaurant sq. ft. restaurant Office Uses 245,000 sq. ft. 0 0 Residential Units 800 units' 708 units 692 units Open Space & Related 11.7 acres"' Areas2 11.8 acres' 10.6 acres' Parking Approx. 2,171 spaces' Approx. 1,364 spaces' Approx. 1,337 spaces' Shoreline Setback 50 ft. min. 50 ft. min. 100 ft min. Shoreline Restoration 3.4 acres 3.5 acres 3.7 acres Area Setbacks from Adjacent North: 40-310 ft." North: 144-192 ft.' North: 38-95 ft.' Properties South: 45-95 ft. 4 South: 40-380 ft.4 South: 40-200 ft.4 Maximum Building Height 77 ft. 67 ft. 64 ft. Site Population 1,300 residents 1, 132 residents 1,108 residents Site Employment 1,050 employees 50 employees 50 employees Grading 53,000-133,000 CY fill 53,000-133,000 CY fill 53,000-133,000 CY fill View Corridors View corridors along View corridors along Larger view corridors Street "B," and Street "B" and along Street "B"; view driveways/parking areas driveways/parking areas corridors along at N. and S. ends of site at N. and S. ends of site driveways/parking areas at N. and S. ends of site Utilities Sewer and water from Sewer and water from Sewer and water from City; stormwater mgmt. City; stormwater mgmt. City; stormwater mgmt. per 2009 KCSWDM per 2009 KCSWDM per 2009 KCSWDM Emergency Access Road No No Yes Source: Quendall Termmals Redevelopment Pro1ect DEIS, 2010 and Lance Mueller, 2012 Note: For environmental review purposes, full build-out of the project is assumed to occur by 2015. However, actual build-out will be subject to the timing of cleanup remediation of the site, and market conditions. 1 Residential data represents the total number of residential units on the site. 2 For purposes of this EIS Addendum, open space includes: paved plazas, sidewalks, natural areas. landscaped areas, and unpaved trails. These areas may or may not meet the City's standards, regulations, and procedures for open space. 3 Parking data represents the total number of parking spaces on the site.4 Setbacks are measured from the property line to the nearest proposed structure. Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 2-4 Chapter2 Q6. What is an EIS Addendum and why is it being prepared? A6. According to the SEPA Rules (WAC 197-11-600 and 197-11-706), an Addendum is an environmental document used to provide additional information or analysis that does not substantially change the analysis of significant impacts and alternatives in an existing environmental document. Preparation of an Addendum is appropriate when a proposal has been modified and the changes are not expected to result in any new significant adverse impacts. An Addendum may be used at any time in the SEPA process. WAC 197-11-625 identifies the procedures that shall be followed during the preparation of an EIS Addendum, including the following: • An Addendum shall clearly identify the proposal for which it is written and the environmental document it adds to or modifies. • An agency is not required to prepare a draft Addendum. • An Addendum for a DEIS shall be circulated to recipients of the initial DEIS under WAC 197-11-455. • Agencies are encouraged to circulate an Addendum to interested persons. Unless otherwise provided in these rules, however, agencies are not required to circulate an Addendum. An EIS Addendum is being prepared for the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project because the Preferred Alternative includes relatively minor modifications to the redevelopment alternatives described and analyzed in the DEIS. These minor modifications are not anticipated to result in any new significant unavoidable adverse impacts. Q7. What will occur after the issuance of this EIS Addendum? A7. Although not required, a 30-day public comment period will follow issuance of the EIS Addendum; written comments can be submitted during this 30-day period (see the Fact Sheet in this EIS Addendum for more information). Public and agency comments received on this EIS Addendum, as well as the comments received during the previous comment periods on the DEIS, will be included in a FEIS. Responses to all applicable comments will be provided in the FEIS. QB. What will occur after the issuance of the FEIS? AS. The DEIS, this EIS Addendum, and the FEIS will be used as tools by the City (along with other considerations, analyses, and public input) in their decision-making process on the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project. This process is summarized below. Subsequent to the issuance of the FEIS, City staff will review the proposed project and associated information/analysis, and issue recommendations related to the proposed Master Site Plan, Binding Site Plan, and Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. A public hearing before the City's Hearing Examiner will be held to consider the proposed plans and shoreline permit. Decisions will be rendered by the City of Renton on the project. The shoreline permit will be filed with the Washington State Department of Quenda/1 Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 2-5 Chapter2 Ecology. Pursuant to RMC 4-8-110(E)(4), appeals of an FEIS shall be made within 20 days of the publication of the final decision. 2.2 Site Description The approximately 21.5-acre Quendall Terminals site is located in the northern portion of the City of Renton. The junction of Interstate Highways 405 and 90 is located approximately 3.5 miles to the northeast of the site (see Figure 2-1). The site includes the approximately 20.3-acre Main Property, located adjacent to Lake Washington, and an approximately 1.2-acre Isolated Property, to the northeast of the Main Property, across Ripley Lane N (see Figure 2-2). The Main Property is located at 4350 Lake Washington Boulevard and is generally bounded by Lake Washington on the west; a Puget Sound Energy easement and the Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility on the north; railroad right-of-way, Lake Washington Boulevard and Ripley Lane N on the east; and, the Barbee Mill residential development on the south. The adjacent Isolated Property is generally bounded by Ripley Lane N on the north and west; and, the southbound Interstate 405 off-ramp on the south and east. The site is presently vacant. Background The Quendall Terminals site is the location of a former creosote manufacturing facility and has been contaminated with coal tar, pitch, creosote, and other hazardous chemicals (see the following sections in the DEIS for details: Chapter 2 -Site History, Section 3.3, Environmental Health, and Appendix D). As a result of this prior contamination, cleanup of the site is required under federal and state law. The Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) initially served as the lead regulatory agency for overseeing cleanup of the site. An earlier remedial investigation (RI) report and a draft risk assessment/focused feasibility study (FS) were completed for the site, under the oversight of Ecology in 1997 and 2004, respectively. In 2005, Ecology requested that EPA take the lead for overseeing further cleanup activities at the site. EPA subsequently assumed the role of lead agency, and in 2006, the site was added to EPA's Superfund 1 National Priorities List. In September 2006, the property owners entered into an Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) with EPA, which set forth the requirements for completion of an RI/FS and risk assessment. The RI/FS and risk assessment reports, which are currently being prepared by the property owners and EPA, characterize the nature and extent of contamination and potential risks associated with exposure to site contamination, and evaluate alternative remedies that could be implemented to mitigate contaminant exposures. After the updated RI/FS and risk assessment reports are developed, a Proposed Plan identifying the steps to be taken to ensure that the Quendall Terminals site will be protective of human health and the environment will be provided for public review. After EPA reviews all public comments, it will issue a Record of Decision (ROD) specifying the final cleanup and mitigation plan for the site. EPA currently anticipates that 1 Superfund is the name given to the federal environmental program established to address sites requiring cleanup under Federal law. It is also the name of the fund established by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, that can be used by EPA to perform site cleanup work. The Superfund program allows the EPA ta compel responsible parties ta perform cleanups or ta perform cleanups itself and then seek reimbursement from responsible parties for EPA's cleanup costs. Quenda/1 Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 2-6 Chapter2 t/1 :=:i;1kf'I ::-:n11 .. 1·nt·: ?.i ~ ,tv Ranier -~ -. Valley " '"""' ''' -nllv P.-11( Brig'1ton ~J(,tJth Rf"il(:,:-..n Hill tie-Tacoma imational u R.111' f't F-1-:-,1,.·:/' R<111' P.I ,,.,. :"I', Tukwila u -City of Renton Boundary Source: Google Maps, 2010 FIS I BLUMEN. Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum Mercer Island F.1,~tnr .':! ~~ .. -.,111-:-r::,P.~ Eastgate ,, We:,;,t Dr SE Newcastle Quendall Terminals Renton St .... .,, "" g "' < • cs "' East Hig (. Fai1°1;:).-::·l CJ:-11: .11-i..~ ~-:n1.··,t·'f· C .J!"1 ,aro~,. II I Figure 2-1 Regional Map h s~ 1 St ..J ;-:; , "~ "'sc B " w Jo' ,,r, ~ ~ ~ «' f a ~ \ LAKE WASHINGTON 0 City of Renton City Limits Source: EA1Blumen, Google Maps, 2010 lill I BLUMEN- Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum ' ' ' ' ' 1 -~ SE 88th SI ' ,_ - r:-.. ' Sl:Ut~ S1 E ~'J ~ :'l ,.__, ·I ~> S.' 1. ~ ,f ~-, '" '"' ·1al r·,e~'· "'-U C ,, • ,., i f ' '" m PB·oc: j J N, ·-~-" l!i Figure 2-2 Vicinity Map the ROD will be issued in 2014; EPA and the responsible parties will subsequently enter into an agreement for implementation of the remedy. The Quenda/1 Tenninals Redevelopment Project DEIS (2010) briefly summarized the history of the site and the site's current conditions; referred to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) process and its regulatory requirements; and, discussed protocols and institutional controls that will ultimately set out requirements and compliance methods for construction and long-term redevelopment. The DEIS impact analyses assumed an existing/baseline condition subsequent to cleanup/remediation (that is, the condition of the site after remediation has been accomplished). Therefore, only the probable significant environmental impacts and applicable mitigation measures related to redevelopment of the site under Alternatives 1 and 2 were addressed in the DEIS; potential impacts associated with cleanup/remediation activities will be addressed through the separate EPA process (see DEIS Section 3.3, Environmental Health, and Appendix D for details). Similar to the DEIS, the analyses in this EIS Addendum assumes an existing/baseline condition subsequent to cleanup/remediation. The probable significant environmental impacts and applicable mitigation measures related to redevelopment of the site with the applicant's Preferred Alternative are addressed in this document, and compared to the impacts/mitigation measures with the DEIS redevelopment alternatives. Based upon the March 13, 2012 letter from EPA (see Appendix B), EPA considers that the baseline assumptions from the DEIS are reasonable give the expected general outcome of the ROD, with the exception of those related to the shoreline setback and wetland buffers. The baseline assumptions used in the DEIS were based on the Renton Shoreline Management Plan (1983) in place at the time complete applications for the project were submitted to the City, and other relevant information described in Appendix E to the DEIS. In 2011, the City's Shoreline Management Plan was updated, and more stringent shoreline setbacks and wetland buffers established. EPA has indicated that final mitigation/restoration requirements will be based on the regulations in place at the time EPA issues their ROD for the cleanup. According to current regulations and standards, the wetland and shoreline restoration areas would be larger than those assumed in the DEIS. As suggested by EPA, a 100-foot minimum setback from the shoreline is assumed in this EIS Addendum under the Preferred Alternative; all other baseline assumptions are the same as those represented in the DEIS (see the following section on Shoreline Setbacks, and Chapter 3 -Critical Areas and Environmental Health for further details). 2.3 Preferred Alternative Subsequent to issuance of the DEIS, the applicant formulated their Preferred Alternative. The Preferred Alternative is based on information provided in the DEIS, comments from agencies and the public, input and continued coordination between the applicant and the City, and, additional analysis and master planning. The Preferred Alternative is based on relatively minor modifications to the DEIS redevelopment alternatives (see Figure 2-3 and 2-4 for an illustration of the proposed site plan and ground level plan under the Preferred Alternative). Under the Preferred Alternative, the majority of the development assumptions would be similar to those analyzed under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2 (particularly DEIS Alternative 2), including: • Retail/Restaurant Space (21,600 sq. ft. retai/19,000 sq. ft. restaurant) • Office Space (none) Quenda/1 Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 2-9 Chapter2 UI ~ E E -6 ... C: a, a, I-"tl = "tl ns <( -g (/) a, -::::,W a > a: <C :;; :;; ::, VJ I-z ::, ~ • . i • ~ • • • i I ~ ~ ~ ! • •• ": . ~ ~ i ! !§ • • • e n • • • ~ • ~ ~' • . 1J ~ c~ I I I I \ .... \ I '? ~ N~ Cl) C: ... Q) ::I -c,- ·-<( LL. "tl N ... 0 N ,; ,ll -~ ... 0 "' "' SI; .. ... " :::: " :, ::;; " " t: .. ... .; !:! :, 0 "' ~ .2! !!! c.. I C: .!!! c.. ~ U) z w :e :::, .... a:I I V Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum '"",·-.,~. "' "' •. <'ti •o--v • -V,;, ., ';, ~'"t-· "-.. ' . ' . \ ~ 1 iAKe W '.4s1,1,.,,...Grol\l \.:~ -~-L-_Y ",-<,{·-, ~,::_,. .. -... "''.,,_,,. _ _:',,. - ~ . ';!/""" y'• \ ~ \ •:(f_:____S-2:_ :L I t ·x· :.,, -. ·-, G:r••"= ",, '\~? : (~ •. ~_...< ~,:., ,,,,---~· .. ,,, -.. -·--· .. -::u )_ "'' \ !I,. - .r, b rt~~ ~1 \}?:.'S."f.:·;_. -~~{ ' •,\ \ ""''' "'~''" ~ \ \d 9c \ - ~ ) "l~'·,J ,(' ·-·1 ,1i ii 111:· 11 " € ' : ."\\ F"'o -.'.·~ :-~·\,., " ~:r-1~:- " ,,1! o".) ~~ ~ ~<"!-\ % "'.1z:. ~ i ~.t,. (II<}: ~(II ~~ " -~.~-......,_ ., ~F[J,! I • • 1-o ~ ' "'''"' '·"°'" ,.!,\ 1:!)--"---: 1-4:, u . ' : __ -11,.'..,i --::.Tr> ~-~~ ... J-~! ..... ) ·-· . l'·.' ."' ' ~ >I') -.,-;.-... _ ... ,. -.\\ -· -'_,"\, 111 .. '"·''" _: '. :: !J'· ' Ii 1 . i t'' It 1-! : '' 1, . . ... , ~ '.:-._ .._I ~?-·!,..i ]"·-"·-,_ _.J \..___ ---- ------~/(;-=~~~~ .-0 --·' ,. ,,,,. ,,, ----," ,--.' ·,_ ·, .,,. ~ -. -.-.. ..,.-.;'):-. - (_' .,, "' •, " •o- / - PARKING SUMMARY P-1 COVERED GARAGE PARKING, SW Ol,IADRAN'T • 3U P4RKING STA!..l.S -QU,U)f!ANT • 95 Pol,RIIING STALLS SE QUADRANT• 318 P._RK!NG STA.LLS NE QUADRANT• 206 PAA KING STALLS TOJAL P.1 PARKING• 968STALLS SURFACE PARKING; SW QUADRAHT • 151 SURf'ACE PARKINCl STALLS SE QU.r,Dl'IANT-•2 SURFACE PARKING STALLS -QU.,UJRANT • 38 SURFACE PARKING SlilLLS TOT.riL SURf~ Pil.RIIING • 231 ST ... LLS DECK PARKING SHOwtt ON SH££T PO.O SE QU.l,Dfl.wl" -U4 DECt< PARKING STALLS N[ QUADAAHT -54 OECl( Pol.RKING Slol.LLS TOl"AL OE~ PARl(!NG -198SJAL.LS IUSTAURANT (9,IICIO •I) REQUIRED ?ARKING -36 RETAIL (20.22&•11 REQUIRED PARKING -SJ. 692 RESIDENTIAL UNITS REQUIREO PARKING -1.211 TOTAL PARtllr.lG REQUIRED• 1.l28STAl.LS TOT"1. PARll.!NG SMOWN -1.395 STALLS LEGEND ~ _ DUMPS1£R / RECYCLE BIN IJTILITY ANO EL[CffilCAL SPACE "": EXITSJAIR f ... •J LOBBY AREA •,h•), ,,~;::, ~.~;' !,•.,, M, \ Source: Lance Mueller & Associates, 2012 FIS I BLUMEN' Figure 2-4 Ground Level Plan-Preferred Alternative • Residential Units (692 units) • Maximum Building Heights (64 ft.) • Anticipated Site Population (1, 108 residents) • Anticipated Site Employment (50 employees) • Parking/Access (1,337 parking spaces) • Landscape Design (shoreline restoration + native and ornamental planting in the upland area) • Grading (53,000-133,000 CYoffi/1) • Utilities (sewer and water from City of Renton; stormwater per City of Renton Amendments to the 2009 KCSWDM) The following redevelopment assumptions for the Preferred Alternative have been modified from those described for Alternatives 1 and 2 in the DEIS: • Shoreline Setback (100-ft. min. increased setback) • Setbacks from Adjacent Properties (north: 38-95 ft.; south 40-200 ft.) • View Corridors (Street "B" corridor enlarged) • Building Height Modulation (4-story buildings along south property line; 5-to 6-story buildings elsewhere) • Open Space and Related Areas (10.6 acres) • Building Design (more brick, stucco, masonry, and precast concrete, and less metal siding) • Emergency Access Road (in western portion of the site) Below are further descriptions of the modifications under the Preferred Alternative. Shoreline Setback In response to the May 2012 letter from EPA, comments from Ecology and the public, and input and continued coordination with the City, the applicant voluntarily created a new redevelopment alternative (their Preferred Alternative) that maintains a 100-foot minimum/150-foot maximum setback from the shoreline onsite (versus the 50-foot minimum/225-foot maximum shoreline setback under the DEIS alternatives). The minimum setback is consistent with EPA's recommendation and the City of Renton Shoreline Master Program (2011). The shoreline restoration area under the Preferred Alternative would total approximately 3.7 acres, versus the 3.4 to 3.5 acres under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2. This area would accommodate future wetlands, as well as buffers and setbacks, similar to under the DEIS alternatives (see DEIS figures 2-6 and 2-11 ). The ultimate, detailed plans for the shoreline restoration area under the Preferred Alternative will be developed in coordination with EPA. Setbacks from Adjacent Properties Building setbacks from adjacent properties under the Preferred Alternative would vary somewhat from those under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2. Setbacks from the northern property line under the Preferred Alternative would range from approximately 95 feet adjacent to the five- story building in the northwestern portion of the site to approximately 38 feet adjacent to the one-story parking structure in the northeastern portion of the site. The minimum setback along this property line would be similar to DEIS Alternative 1, but less than DEIS Alternative 2. The maximum setback would be less than DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2. Setbacks from the southern property line under the Preferred Alternative would range from approximately 40 feet adjacent to Quenda/1 Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 2-12 Chapter 2 the one-story parking garage in the southeastern portion of the site to approximately 200 feet adjacent to the four-story building in the southwestern portion of the site. The minimum setback along this property line would be similar to DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2; the maximum setback would be greater than DEIS Alternative 1, but less than DEIS Alternative 2 (see Table 2-1 and Figure 2-3). View Corridors Several comments on the DEIS related to impacts on views to and from Lake Washington and Mercer Island with redevelopment under Alternatives 1 and 2. With the applicant's Preferred Alternative, certain view corridors through the site (i.e. along Street "B") would be larger than under the DEIS redevelopment alternatives; others would be similar to under DEIS Alternative 2. The view corridor along Street "B", the main east/west street proposed through the site, would be approximately 74 feet wide under the Preferred Alternative (including the 44-foot wide street and two 15-foot wide sidewalks on either side of the street within an 80-foot dedicated public right-of-way; see Figure 2-3). This corridor would be 8 feet wider than the approximately 66-foot wide corridor under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2 (see DEIS Figures 2-4 and 2-9). Chapter 3 contains visual simulations from a new viewpoint on Lake Washington Boulevard through this corridor and Section 4.7, AestheticsNiews, provides additional analysis of potential impacts to views with the Preferred Alternative. The view corridors along the southern boundary of the site would be maximized under the Preferred Alternative, similar to under DEIS Alternative 2. Surface parking areas proposed in the southwestern portion of the site would help maintain existing views toward Lake Washington and Mercer Island from the Barbee Mill development to the south. As noted above, building setbacks from the southern property line under the Preferred Alternative would range from 40 to 200 feet along the southern property line. Under DEIS Alternative 1, building setbacks from the southern property line would range from 45 to 95 feet, and under DEIS Alternative 2 they would range from 95 to 380 feet. Chapter 3 contains visual simulations from viewpoints in the Barbee Mill development and Section 4.7, AestheticsNiews, provides additional analysis of potential impacts to views with the Preferred Alternative. Building Height Modulation Concerns about potential height, bulk and scale impacts of the Quendall Terminals project on adjacent uses (particularly on the Barbee Mill development to the south) were raised in the comments on the DEIS. To address these comments, building heights have been modulated across the site under the Preferred Alternative. The buildings in the southern portion of the site would be 4-stories high (3 stories over one story of parking). Buildings located in the northern portion of the site would be 5 stories high (4 stories over one story of parking); and, those in the western, eastern, and central portions of the site would be 5 to 6 stories high (4 to 5 stories over one story of parking). The maximum building height would be approximately 64 feet, slightly less than under DEIS Alternative 2. During final design, maximum building heights 100 feet from the Lake Washington ordinary high water mark (OHWM) would be reduced to one half of the maximum height allowed by the COR zone (125 feet allowed height x Y, = 62.5 feet), consistent with the City of Renton Shoreline Management Program (2011 ); maximum building height in this Quenda/1 Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 2-13 Chapter2 area under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2 would be 77 and 67 feet, respectively (see Figures 2-5, 2-6 and 2-7 for representative building elevations). Open Space and Related Areas Approximately 10.6 acres of open space and related areas would be provided under the Preferred Alternative, as compared to approximately 11. 7 to 11.8 acres under DEIS Alternatives 1 and Alternative 2, respectively. This reduction in open space and related areas under the Preferred Alternative is primarily due to the elimination of one of the semi-private courtyards located above the parking structures. The courtyard area was removed in order to accommodate additional building area proximate to Lake Washington (see Figure 2-4 and Section 4.8, Parks and Recreation, for details). Building Design The design of the buildings in the Quendall Terminals Mixed-Use Redevelopment Project has continued to evolve under the Preferred Alternative, based on input from the City and community, as well as changing market conditions. Ten buildings ranging in size from 46,200 to 88,000 square feet are proposed under the Preferred Alternative, versus 9 buildings ranging from 94,600 to 209,000 square feet under DEIS Alternative 1, and 9 buildings ranging from 77,000 to 112,800 square feet under DEIS Alternative 2. Similar to DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2, proposed redevelopment with the Preferred Alternative would represent a compact, urban form, with a consistent design concept throughout the site (see Figures 2-5 through 2-9 for conceptual elevations and renderings of the Preferred Alternative). The proposed design of the buildings is intended to be coordinated through a variety of details and materials, and provide a human scale with visually interesting streetscapes and facades (see DEIS pages 3-15 and 3-16 for details). Exterior building materials would resemble those under the DEIS redevelopment alternatives; however, more brick, stucco, masonry, and precast concretes, and less metal siding would likely be incorporated into the buildings under the Preferred Alternative (see Figures 2-5 through 2-9). The bases of the parking structure are also proposed to have grids to support vines to create "green walls" (see Figure 2-10 for a representative section including the proposed "green walls"). Emergency Access Road Based on comments from the City of Renton Fire Department on the DEIS, an emergency access road is proposed to be located in the western portion of the site under the Preferred Alternative that is intended to meet the City's requirements for fire access (see Figure 2-3). This road would be approximately 20 feet wide, and would be surfaced in crushed rock or grass- crete to support emergency vehicles. The road would also serve as a pedestrian facility that would be accessible to the public during reasonable hours (anticipated to be from 10 AM to dusk). Similar to under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2, interpretive wetland viewpoints would be included in the design of the emergency access road/pedestrian facility. The road/trail would also meet ADA guidelines, and would link to the site's upland internal circulation system (sidewalks), which would connect to Lake Washington Boulevard. Quenda/1 Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 2-14 Chapter2 BUILDING NW 1 Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum PARTIAL SOUTH ELEVATION . 2 l""I r--• • • • ••• •• • • • •. • •• •• ..... •• • • •• • • • •• • • • • • •• •• • •• • • • • ••-_ ---·SEE PARTIAL ELEVATION ,'<-- ' " , ROOF LEVEL 64.25' m' ' °s?. Sth FLOOR 53.5' a 4th FLOOR 43_5· a , 3rd FLOOR 33.5' ~ ·~ " ~--------;;:;:;;:;;: I I I I I I I I --~-------------------------------------------------------~ BUILDING NW 1 SOUTH ELEVATION Source: Lance Mueller & Associates, 2012 FIS I BLUMEN. ----~ BUILDING NE 1 GRAPHIC SCALE ,o· '°1-::: --:I SCALE· ,~ JO' 60' I GRAPHIC SCALE 1/ ~- SCALE: 1· ~ 12· , •. Figure 2-5 Representative South Building Elevations-Preferred Alternative ' BUILDING NW 2 -' , - ' Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum BUILDING NW 1 PARTIAL WEST ELEVATION FROM LAKE WASHINGTON _,S(E PARTW.. ELEVATION r----------------------------------------------··-------~~-, .. ~ :;RA"'HC SC,,._!_ 12" 0 · , :c 24" SCA_~ '. = 1/ I ' -~ HW' L/:V, Ml~ ~ I ~ -...~ FOOOt U.,H ~·•~ ..1-------; "'-'' '? ;.,,--.....-i ?)_L .~;;;.~t --------~ <too• W.'l. 64 ,; .... ..:z ............ C.: ..... -1 ~ Yo r,CIOA ~;~ :~ ·~~ J•d'L~'ORJJ~ ]ad r C'.>fi ,\~ ·,, ,.:x.,o, . J~ • P-, .r,u oo ~-------------------------------------------------------~ BUILDING NW 2 BUILDING NW 1 BUILDING SW 1 BUILDING SW 2 OVERALL WEST ELEVATION FROM LAKE WASHINGTON Source: Lance Mueller & Associates, 2012 FAIBLUMEN. 1~· ·~,;· u,, BUILDING SW 3 BUILDING SW 4 ,~;;,A:Of,.:_: :,:;.,_ - ,:)" ~c, W' ~(:A. f '" ~ ~()' Figure 2-6 Representative West Building Elevations-Preferred Alternative ---: Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum WEST ELE VA T ION ' ' uJ FfFffi O O rITf1 L__; . [I] ~H[ill 8 8 [1J -U.: lDJWJ BEl [l]-CD .w J H:l:l IH:l 8:l -w --------- . ,i---nm· ~ '. ' r ' ,fl:ffl:i'rrn-1 • . W ti · 11 " :.:.:±J • ' :..llil.JJ WJ.! J ITTTfl Lu [I] J DJ ' =m & . B illilll [lli J [I] D [I] w J lJ:l , lJB t j 11:flli u ::L1J u w [I]J[]l u[±B b j J!Im LI j]JD[I] . . . -. ,UJJ_ B:l 8 lfb E \ • • d . i__rn:H LI ±1:l [J (lJ L • ••:n1 rn11 .in 11mm11._~..,, "'",_ .. i[n;11. 111 n11m1 O!•• ...... W E ST ELE VA TI ON . ' ' ...u hn:; 8 8 R7R1 JJ un±; 88 [I]~Jl JJ'...[T; 00 ffil -Il l]~ [G 08 OIJ-Il JJ i-lfV: 80 ffil -]] 0:: J G] 0 D [I) DJ . · . 0 E: iil/:U a:J [ITTTT1 ac1r~ I,,..,_,.; t:IL [I] B B [I] Ul ~ ~. 8 E [II] L DJ •' '1111111111111111111i-..i1111 .......... , _: r p]:...[J as [Ill ITl rnWO] oE [I]~DJ , ............................. ;. '•------ W E S T ELE V ATI O N -..-.J ---,---i--i-1 -:1i;mnm :m,1Ji[JU[T[f 1...,,1 lHOO ffi lll lliJl'Jllfll "Jl1fl:-njl!UlJ:-;IJl-JUHlfflfl,.~~ -\, ~· NORTH ELE V ATI O N - .. :· ~mm~. ITT· nLJ 1B; +I I w J trni~ ~ · · 8 mmflli±i L tff w ~ LJmG ~ Jill +rTIJ [ 'mf rxn t ... J ffilil am OIJ. c ]]JJ [[[O I ] am OilIIl o ~ WillJ. llW " tt1JL1u!J ~ DJJiill IlJP ITIJ ~ TIIJ t:tn c . " J rnTI [D [ fIDD tillP .I rnTI . . ) g j I I Y:1:1:l C WJ I.lg CI!:fHlL iIHYil tH±P [llj ~ ±H:l ~ .. J (ml.J;:1F llil1J O.l.lP J Uill u . j i -1 ITQl [!JffiID~' ,m ' .... J _ J~~~ . . . -B • rn . . . ~L . . a I I ' . a ;:m ~ ' .. -----~m~~~-.! ,!.JMill· 4,1=iffl~Y--W~~~,:.. I N O RTH E LE VA TI O N ...... -·-=----· Source: Lance Muelfer & Associates, 2012 FA I BLUMEN .. Figure 2-7 North and West Building Elevations -Preferred Alternative Source: Lance Mueller & Associates, 2012 FIS I BLUMEN ~ Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum Figure 2-8 Conceptual East View from Lake Washington -Preferred Alternative Source: Lance Mueller & Associates, 2012 FISIBLUMEN. Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum Figure 2-9 Conceptual West View from Central Roundabout -Preferred Alternative Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum 3rd Floor • : : : - 6 Residential Above 1st Floor-Typical Parking at 1st Floor S idewalk 0 2' 4 ' 8' 12' Notes on Pedestrian Features: 1. Facades are sidewalk oriented in architecturally articula ted punched openings. a. Ground level facades are defined with facade materials from a limited palette of brick, stone, and stained concrete Vary the base fai;ade materials fo r visual interest. 2. Screen openings to parking with both architectural grillwork a nd hedge landscapi ng strips. Reduce size of opening with raised sill behind landscaping. Encourage vines to grow in grillwork. 3 . Provide steel trellis w ith landscaping as a pede stria n feature, final design TBD. 4. Include a coord inated tenant signing program as a pedestrian feature . final design TBD. 5 . Exterior lighting system to incl ud e scale appropriate sconce lig hting fi xtures at ground level facades. 6 . Provide fa cade modulation and material change to distinguish upper floors from the ground floor. 7 . Sidewalks are from articulated concrete and have a pedestrian friendly width w ith tree wells. a . Sidewalk benches and other furniture ar e part o f the pedestrian experience (not s hown here). Source: Lance Mueller and Associates, 2012 F41BLUMEN - Figure 2-10 "Green Wall" Fac;ade Section -Preferred Alternative CHAPTER3 UPDATED INFORMATION AND ANALYSIS CHAPTER 3 UPDATED AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND ANALYSIS INTRODUCTION This chapter of the EIS Addendum summarizes updated and additional information and analyses prepared since publication of the Draft EIS (DEIS) in the following areas: Critical Areas, AestheticsNiews, Relationship to Plans and Policies, Transportation, and Cultural Resources. 3.1 Critical Areas Comments were received from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) and the general public on the environmental (post-clean up) assumptions presented in the DEIS. On March 4, 2011, the City of Renton placed the Quendall Terminals EIS process "on hold", pending receipt of another letter from EPA clarifying their comments on the environmental baseline assumptions. On March 13, 2012, the City received a letter from EPA clarifying their comments on these assumptions (see Appendix B). In response to the letter from EPA, comments from Ecology and the public, and input and coordination with the City, the applicant voluntarily created a new redevelopment alternative (their Preferred Alternative) that would maintain a 100-foot minimum/150-foot maximum setback from the shoreline onsite (versus the 50-foot minimum/225-foot maximum shoreline setback under the DEIS alternatives). The minimum setback under the Preferred Alternative is consistent with EPA's recommendation and the City's 2011 Shoreline Master Program. The shoreline restoration area under the Preferred Alternative would total approximately 3.7 acres, versus the 3.4 to 3.5 acres under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2, respectively. This area would accommodate future wetlands, as well as buffers and setbacks, similar to under the DEIS alternatives (see DEIS figures 2-6 and 2-11). Final, detailed plans for the shoreline restoration area under the Preferred Alternative will be developed in coordination with EPA. Lighting Impacts In response to agency and public comments on the DEIS regarding potential lighting impacts on wetland and riparian habitat along Lake Washington, additional critical areas analysis was conducted for this EIS Addendum. Potential human-disturbance related impacts to wildlife associated with wetland and riparian habitats would include increased artificial lighting, particularly during morning and late afternoon/evening hours during the winter. Although the topic has received increased research attention in recent years, understanding the effects of artificial night lighting on ecological systems, such as wetlands and lakeshore habitats, is still limited. It is acknowledged that increases in ambient light can alter the behavioral ecology of a variety of organisms, from changes in orientation, as well as attraction or repulsion from the altered light environment. These in turn may affect foraging, reproduction, migration, and communication. Quenda/1 Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 3-1 Updatecl!Additional Information and Analysis Potential impacts from artificial lighting from the proposed redevelopment should be considered in the context of the urbanized setting along this portion of Lake Washington, as well as the longer term land use history of the Quendall Terminals site. Residential development currently extends south from the project site, including the relatively recent Barbee Mill development to the south of the site, as well as more established residences along the shore further to the south. The Seattle Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility is immediately north of the project, and additional residences line the shoreline further to north for a considerable distance. Therefore, the impacts of artificial lighting from the proposed redevelopment would represent an incremental addition to lighting along the shoreline in this area and would not be considered a significant impact. Moreover, cleanup and remediation work on the site would involve the removal of existing wetland and upland communities that are impaired by past contamination and capping of the site. Following remediation, wetland and riparian communities along the shoreline of the site would be newly established prior to redevelopment. Impacts to the developing wetland and riparian habitats would be minimized with implementation of appropriate mitigation. In addition, as the buffer areas develop, they would help screen the wetland and shoreline habitats from the development and associated lighting (see Appendix C for further information). Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures were identified in the DEIS to address potential impacts to critical areas; for the most part these measures would also apply to the Preferred Alternative. The following additional mitigation measure would be provided to minimize potential impacts of artificial lighting on wetland and riparian habitats. See Chapter 1 for the complete list of critical area- related mitigation measures. • The proposed redevelopment would include design elements to minimize the potential adverse affects of artificial lighting on wetland and riparian habitats. These include directing lighting downward and away from these habitats or adjacent properties, and may include shielding of lights, use of low-pressure sodium lights, or minimizing the use of reflective glazing materials in building design, as feasible. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts There are no significant adverse impacts on critical areas from artificial lighting that could not be mitigated. Quenda/1 Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 3-2 Updated/Additional Information and Analysis 3.2 AestheticsNiews Several comments on the DEIS questioned the methods used and visual simulations generated for the DEIS visual analysis. Other comments on the DEIS related to the specific impacts on views to and from Lake Washington and beyond with redeve lopment under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2 . In particular, views from the Barbee Mill residential development and Mercer Island to and through the site were of concern . This section provides further description of the methods used to prepare the visual simulation. The section also includes visual simulations of the Preferred Alternative from six key viewpoints, and analyses of the visual impacts of the project on views from these viewpoints . Visual Analysis Methods Viewpoints Six key viewpoints were selected for the visual analysis in this EIS Addendum . These viewpoints consist of public locations , including public streets , sidewalks , and a public park , and represent the views that were mentioned most frequently by commentators on the DEIS. Five of these viewpoints were also analyzed in the DEIS (Viewpoints 1, 4 , 7 , 8 , and 9); Viewpoint 11 is a new viewpoint from Lake Washington Boulevard N. The viewpoints are listed in Table 3.2-1 and shown in Figure 3.2-1. Viewpoint Viewpoint 1 Viewpoint 4 Viewpoint 7 Viewpoint 8 Viewpoint 9 Viewpoint 11 Source: EAIB/umen, 2012 Building Massing Table 3.2-1 VIEWPOINT LOCATION Description Clarke Beach Park , Mercer Island -Lookinq East Southbound 1-405 Off-Ramp -Lookinq West Lake Washinaton Boulevard -Lookinq Northwest Barbee Mill Residential Develooment -Lookina Northwest Barbee Mill Residential Develooment -Lookina North Lake Washinqton Boulevard -Lookinq West Based on the selected viewpoints , visual simulations of proposed site development under the Preferred Alternative were prepared using the same methods employed in the DEIS (see DEIS page 3.7-3 for details on these methods). For purposes of the visual analysis, preliminary building massing concepts are portrayed in the simulations , based on information provided by the applicant's architect. These simulations are expected to be representative of the building location, massing , and form that are proposed to occur on site. They do not represent the exact details of the proposed buildings (i.e . roof lines , far;ade modulation , building materials , fenestration , etc.) or proposed landscaping , as the specific design of the project has not been determined at this stage of the evaluation process . Quenda/1 Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 3-3 Updated/Additional Information and Analysis ~ .~ § E 't:J ... C: Cl) Cl) ... 't:J -'t:J 'cij <( 't:J en C: - Cl) w :I a Cl) ro u Cl) £ 0 z ~ a. I ro ~ ~ C: 0 :..:; ro (.) 0 ...J -C: ·a a. ~ Q) > I The visual simulation show dashed yellow lines , which represent the maximum development envelope which could be built on the site under the site 's current Commercial/Office/Residential (COR) zoning classification . These dashed lines represent the site 's maximum allowed building height (125 feet) and required bu ilding setbacks. Based on the current (2011 ) SMP and comments received from the EPA , a minimum shoreline setback of 100 feet is assumed . Several of the DEIS comments raised questions about the building heights assumed in the visual analysis. These building heights were based on building elevations provided by the applicant's architect. The elevations showed a maximum building height to the roof level of 77 feet for DEIS Alternative 1 and 67 feet for A lternative 2 , taking into account an approximately 31 .5-foot ground elevation. The same approach was used for building heights used in the visual analysis for this EIS Addendum ; a maximum building height of appro ximately 64 feet is assumed for the Preferred Alternative . Photographic and Simulation Methods The photographic and simulation methods used to prepare the visual simulations for this EIS Addendum are similar to those used for the DEIS . A rigorous process was followed to ensure the accuracy of the simulations of the Preferred Alternative , as briefly described below (see DEIS page 3 .7-3 for details). Photographs of existing views of the Quendall Terminals site were taken from the selected viewpoints . Digital files were set up in Adobe Photoshop to build the views from the selected viewpoints . The foreground of each photograph was then separated into different "layers" from the background . Based on the building massing concepts described above , simulations of the bu ildings under the Quendall Terminals Preferred Alternative were generated for each viewpo int using Autodesk 30 Studio Max software . Camera locations of each simulation were registered using a combination of field measurements, existing terrain and survey data , and GIS information . Lens types and field of view settings were matched within the software to the type used for each viewpoint. Proportions of building massing concepts were adjusted to the proportions of the photographs . The resulting simulations , which represent the proposed build ing massing , were then inserted into the prepared existing condition photograph between the foreground and background layers . As mentioned above , comments on the DEIS questioned the accuracy of the visual simulations , in particular indicating that the heights of the proposed buildings under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2 appeared to be too low relative to surrounding buildings (i.e . in Barbee Mill). To address these comments , the accuracy of the existing 3d model and camera 's alignments were reconfirmed . A perspective illustration was also created to demonstrate that the simulations accurately depict views from the selected viewpoints (see Figure 3.2-2). This illustration shows the view of the proposed development from Mercer Island (Viewpoint 1) and incorporates a 125-foot high scale , broken into 10-foot increments, that extends along the shorel ine , through the center of the site , and along the site's rear property line . As shown by the illustration , the massing of bui ldings in Barbee Mill (assumed to be 36 feet) coincides with floors 3 and 4 in the Preferred Alternative . Thus , while it may appear that the proposed buildings under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2, and the Preferred Alternative are out of scale, perspective-wise they are not. Quenda/1 Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 3-5 Updated/Additional Information and Analysis 120·, 110' \ Existing terrain and buildings beyond 100' / 4'---=:. ............ 90 \ ,.: a __ : i/ _ • _ ___. _ _..... 80' Seahawks Training Facility height: 115' Source: The Portico Group, 2012 FISIBLUMEN - Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum Quendall Terminals Max. zone envelope (dashed line) height: 125' Building massing (solid color with darker thin lines representing floors) height: 44 '3 -64 '3 above gound. Scale reference -each stripe is 10 ' in height, bisecting through the middle of the site Barbee Mills height: 36' ave. Figure 3.2-2 Illustration of Perspective in Simulations Visual Analysis Following is a description of the ex isting views to the site from the viewpoints sele cted for the visual analysis. Descriptions of the views from these viewpoints with redevelopment under the Preferred Alternative are also provided . View Point 1 As described on DE IS page 3.7-8 , from Viewpoint 1 -Clarke Beach Park , City of Mercer Island -Looking East, the existing view includes Lake Washington in the foreground and mid-ground , and the Quendall Terminals site, Seahawks Headquarters and Train ing Facil ity , and Barbee Mill residential development in the background . Additional views of residential development and forested areas in the Kennydale Neighborhood and the City of Newcastle are available in the background , on the hillside beyond the Quendall Terminals site (see Figure 3.2-3). W ith the Preferred Alternative , the developed view would include new 4-to 6-story mi xed use buildings on the Quendall Terminals site . Proposed development would be located in the central portion of the background view and would be lower in height, but greater in overall scale than the adjacent Seahawks Headquarters and Tra ining Facility , and greater in height and scale than the Barbee Mill Residential development. Views of the Kennydale Neighborhood and Ci ty of Newcastle would remain in the background . The visual character from this viewpoint would reflect a continuation of existing development along the shoreline area , and a more densely developed environment (see Figure 3.2-3). V iews toward the site with the Preferred Alternative would be sim ilar to DEIS A lternative 2 in term s of bu ilding density/view preservation . However, with the Preferred Alternative , the proposed building heights would be stepped across the site ; lower buildings would be lo cated adjacent to Barbee Mill (4 stories) and to the Seahawks Headquarters (5 stories), and higher buildings (5 to 6 stories) would be located elsewhere onsite . View Point 4 As described on DEIS page 3.7-13 , from Viewpoint 4 -Southbound 1-405 Off-Ramp -Looking West, the existing view includes Ripley Lane N, ex isting vegetation in the City of Renton right- of-way , railroad tracks , and existing trees and vegetation on the Quendall Terminals site. V iews of Mercer Island and partial views of Lake Wash ington are also available in the background from this location (see Figure 3 .2-4). With the Preferred Alternative , proposed 6-story mix ed-use buildings , associated roadways , landscaping , and landscaped courtyards on the Quendall Terminals site would alter the existing view. The character from this viewpoint would change from predominantly open , vegetated landscape to a more densely developed mixed-use development. A portion of the exi sting v iews of Mercer Island and Lake Washington would be blocked by proposed development; however, some views of the island would be possible over the buildings (see Figure 3 .2-4). Views toward the site with the Preferred Alternative would be similar to DEIS Alternative 2 in terms of building density. However, slightly more of Mercer Island would be visible due to the building height modulation under the Preferred Alternative . Quenda/1 Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 3-7 Updated/Additional Information and Analysis Existing Conditions Source: The Portico Group, 2012 FIS I BLUMEN " Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum Figure 3.2-3 Viewpoint Location #1 Existing Conditions Preferred Alternative Source: The Portico Group, 2012 F41BLUMEN . Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum Figure 3.2-4 Viewpoint Location #4 View Point 7 As described on DEIS page 3.7-16 , from Viewpoint 7 -Lake Washington Boulevard -Looking Northwest, the existing view contains vegetation in the City of Renton right-of-way adjacent to Lake Washington Boulevard , the existing railroad tracks, a residence located in the Barbee Mill residential development, and a street light pole in the foreground and mid-ground. Existing trees on the Quendall Terminals site are located in the background , beyond the Barbee Mill residential development (see Figure 3 .2-5). With the Preferred Alternative , proposed 4-story buildings on the Quendall Terminals site would be located prominently in the field of view, and would alter the visual character from a predominantly open site to a densely developed area. Proposed buildings would be located in proximity to the existing Barbee Mill residential development (ranging from approximately 40 to 200 feet from the property line, and would be substantially greater in density, and somewhat greater in height than the existing residential buildings -existing buildings at Barbee Mill are up to 3 stories high (see Figure 3.2-5). Views toward the site under the Preferred Alternative would be similar to DEIS Alternative 2 in terms of density of development and building setbacks . However, the Preferred Alternative would include lower buildings (4 stories) than DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2 (7-and 6-story buildings , respectively) adjacent to Barbee Mill . View Point 8 As described on DEIS page 3.7-19, from Viewpoint 8 -Barbee Mill Residential Development - Looking Northwest, the existing view includes a vacant lot associated with the Barbee Mill residential development, street light poles , and sidewalks in the foreground and mid-ground . Residences in the Barbee Mill development are located in the background ; existing trees on the Quendall Terminals site and partial views of Mercer Island are located further in the background , beyond the existing residences (see Figure 3 .2-6). With the Preferred Alternative . proposed 4-story development on the Quendall Terminals site would be visible in the mid-ground, and would frame the view with more dense development. Proposed buildings would be located adjacent to existing residential development on the Barbee Mill site . Development on the Quendall Terminals site would partially obstruct the view towards Mercer Island ; however, the majority of the view between the Quendall Terminals and Barbee Mill sites would remain (see Figure 3.2-6). Views toward Mercer Island would be better preserved under the Preferred Alternative than under DEIS Alternatives 1. This would largely be due to the currently proposed building height modulation , and building setbacks . However, views toward Mercer Island would be best preserved under DEIS Alternative 2 , as little alteration in existing views from this viewpoint would occur under this alternative . Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 3-10 Updated/Additional Information and Analysis Existing Conditions Source: The Portico Group, 2012 FIS I BLUMEN . Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum Figure 3.2-5 Viewpoint Location #7 Existing Conditions Preferred Alternative Source: The Portico Group, 2012 FIS I BLUMEN ~ Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum Figure 3.2-6 Viewpoint Location #8 View Point 9 As described on DEIS page 3.7-19 , from Viewpoint 9 -Barbee Mill Residential Development - Looking North , the current view is comprised of the Barbee Mill residential development access roadway, sidewalks , street light poles , and a currently vacant lot at Barbee Mill in the foreground and mid-ground . In the background is a fence/wall located on the ex isting property line and ex isting trees on the Quendall Terminals site ; partial views of Me rcer Island are available in the background between the existing trees (see Figure 3 .2-7). With the Preferred A lternative , proposed mixed-use development on the Quendall T erminals site would dom inate the field of view from this location . Proposed develo pment would change the character from this viewpoint and would reflect an increase in development density. Proposed buildings would be located in pro ximity to the Barbee Mill site . Partial views of Mercer Island w ould continue to be provided from this location (see Figure 3.2-7 ). Views to the site under the Preferred Alternative would be similar to under DEIS Alternative 2 in terms of building density, setbacks adjacent to Barbee Mill , and view blockage. However, building heights would be lower in this portion of the site with the Preferred Alternative. View Point 11 From Vi ewpoint 11 -Lake Washington Boulevard -Looking West, the ex isting view includes the guard rail , power pole , and e xisting vegetation in the foreground . The Quendall Terminals site is visible through the vegetation in the mid-ground . Filtered views of Lake Washington and Mercer Island are available in the background (see Figure 3.2-8). For this EIS Addendum , views with the Preferred Alternative are shown with and without the vegetation in the Lake Washington Boulevard right-of-way. Vegetation would likely be removed w ith planned improvements to this street (see DEIS pages 3.9-5 and 3 .9-6 and Appendi x H for deta ils on these improvements). With the Preferred Alternative, proposed 6-story mi xed-use buildings , associated roadways , landscaping , and landscaped courtyards on the Quendall Terminals site would alter the ex isting view. The character from this viewpoint would change from filtered views of Lake Washington and Mercer Island to a more densely developed mi xed - use development. Views along the proposed Street "B" c orridor would be preserved with proposed development (see Figure 3.2-8). V iews to the site under the Preferred Alternative would be similar to under DEIS Alternative 2 in terms of development density and building heights. However, under the Preferred Alternative , the proposed Street "B" corridor would be wider than under DEIS A lternatives 1 and 2 (approximately 74 feet wide versus 66 feet wide), which would provide greater opportunities for views of the lake and island. Quenda/1 Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 3-13 Updated/Additional Information and Analysis Preferred Alternative Source: The Portico Group, 2012 F41BLUMEN- Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum Figure 3.2-7 Viewpoint Location #9 Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum Existing Conditions Preferred Alternative (vegetation retained) Source: The Portico Group, 2012 M I BLUMEN ~ Figure 3.2-8 Viewpoint Location #11 3.3 Relationship to Plans and Policies Shoreline Master Program The 1983 City of Renton Shoreline Master Program (SMP) was in effect at the time that complete applications were submitted to the City of Renton for the Quendall Terminals project. DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2 would be consistent with the 1983 SMP. In November 2011 (subsequent to issuance of the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project DEIS), the Washington State Department of Ecology approved Renton 's updated SMP and the plan went into effect. The Lake Washington shoreline along the Quendall Terminals Main Property is designated as a Shoreline of Statewide Significance and is in the Shoreline High Intensity Overlay District in the 2011 SMP . The objective of this overlay district is to: .. .provide opportunities for large-scale office and commercial employment centers as well as multifamily residential use and public services. This district provides opportunities for water-dependent and water-oriented uses while protecting existing ecological functions and restoring ecological functions in areas that have been previously degraded. Development may also provide for public use and/or community use, especially access to and along the shoreline. The 2011 SMP also requires a minimum building setback of 100 feet adjacent to the shoreline in this overlay district. Discussion: Although the 1983 SMP was in effect at the time complete applications were submitted on Quendall Terminals, the proposed redevelopment would meet the objectives of the current Shoreline High Intensity Overlay District. The Preferred Alternative would consist of a large-scale, mixed use development including multifamily residential and commercial uses. Cleanup and restoration of the site, a Superfund site, would occur prior to redevelopment. It is the applicant's intention that the Preferred Alternative would adhere to the minimum shoreline setback requirement in the 2011 SMP. A 100-foot shoreline setback has been established along the entire shoreline onsite in which future wetlands, as well as buffers and setbacks , would be established (see Figure 2-3). A public trail is proposed in the shoreline area to provide opportunities for access along the shoreline . Final, detailed plans for the shoreline restoration area will be developed in coordination with EPA. Parks, Recreation, and Natural Areas Plan The City of Renton 's 2003 Park, Recreation and Open Space Implementation Plan and the 2009 Comprehensive Plan, Capital Facilities Element were in place at the time complete applications were submitted for the Quendall Terminals project. In November 2011 (subsequent to issuance of the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project DEIS), the City of Renton adopted the City of Renton Parks, Recreation, and Natural Areas Plan . This plan provides a 20- year vision for parks, recreation facilities and programming , and natural areas ; and, identifies policies , implementation strategies, and an investment program to enhance and sustain parks , recreation and natural areas as critical elements of a livable community . As part of the City of Renton Parks, Recreation and Natural Areas Plan, the City also completed a Community Needs Assessment (May 2011) that was intended to identify system-wide Quenda/1 Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 3-16 Updated/Additional Information and Analysis recommendations for improvements to parks , recreation facilities , and natural areas. As part of the assessment, LOS calculations were conducted based on the existing LOS standards at the time and existing park system inventory. According to these calculations , the City had a total park and open space deficit of approximately 555 acres and an existing LOS of 13.95 acres per 1 ,000 population . By 2030 , the City would have a deficit of approximately 1 ,093 acres. As a result, the City determined that there was a current and projected future deficit in park and open space areas based on the existing LOS standards . The 2011 Plan includes updated proposed park acreage standards for the city-wide park system. These standards represent overall levels of facilities that the City seeks to achieve on a city-wide basis and are not intended to be implemented on a project-specific bas is . The 2011 plan proposes a minimum total of 11 .21 acres of parks and natural areas per 1,000 population as the standard . This updated standard represent a reduction from the prior adopted standard in the 2003 Park, Recreation and Open Space Implementation Plan , which totaled 18 .58 acres per 1,000 population. The 2011 Plan recognizes that most of the largest natural area sites are already within public ownership and additional acquisitions within the city limits are likely to be smaller targeted purchases. In addition , the 2011 Plan includes recommendations for each community planning area. Fo l lowing are the recommendations for the Kennydale Community Planning Area , in which the Quendall Terminals site is located : • Expand access to the May Creek Greenway. • Enhance the existing park sites in the area , including Kennydale Beach Park and Kennydale Lions Park. • Provide two additional neighborhood parks in the area , including one on the west side of 1-405 and one on the east side of 1-405 and north of the May Creek Greenway. Discussion : Similar to DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2 , the Preferred Alternative would i nclude open space and related areas onsite to help meet the demand for passive recreation from project residents and employees , but not the demand for active recreation facilities . Approximately 10.6 acres of open space and related area would be provided. The open space and other areas may or may not meet the City's standards , regulations , and procedures for open space. A public trail is proposed in the shoreline area to provide opportunities for access along the shoreline . The applicant would also pay park and recreation impact fees , in accordance with the provisions of the 2011 Plan or as required by the City of Renton Municipal Code , to help offset the impacts of the project on park and recreation facilities , open space , and trails (see Section 4.8 , Parks and Recreation , for further information ). Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 3-17 Updated/Additional Information and Analysis 3.4 Transportation In response to transportation -related comments on the DEIS , an Updated Transportation Report was prepared for this EIS Addendum, including the following additional information and analysis: • New traffic counts at Study Intersection #3 (Ripley Lane/NE 44th Street), and revised traffic analysis at this location and adjacent study intersections based on the traffic counts that indicated increased demand on discrete intersection movements. • Updated level of service (LOS) analysis at Study Intersection #9 (Lake Washington Boulevard/Park Avenue N (Garden Avenue) that reflects planned improvements by the City of Renton . • A LOS summary table that illustrates the affects of the potential mitigation measures . • A figure which illustrates the conceptual channelization improvements that would be required along Lake Washington Boulevard as a result of the project, if the project is built prior to regional improvements within the 1-405 corridor. The potential transportation impacts under the Preferred Alternative are assumed to be similar to the impacts under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2 , as described in the Impacts section below (see Appendix E for details). Affected Environment The DEIS included a discussion of existing transportation conditions at the time that document was published (December 2010), including: existing traffic volumes , intersection LOS, public transportation services , non-motorized transportation facilities , and planned transportation improvements (see DEIS Section 3.9 , Transportation , and Appendix H for details). Following issuance of the DEIS , updated traffic counts were taken at Intersection #3 (Ripley Lane/NE 44th Street) in June 2012 to calibrate historical data . The updated existing peak hour traffic volumes for Study Intersection #3 (as well as the 2010 counts for the other study intersections) are illustrated in Figure 3 .4-1 . Based on the new traffic counts for Study Intersection #3 , the existing peak hour intersection LOS analysis was updated for affected intersections. As shown in Table 3.4-1 , the existing LOS levels would remain as described in the DEIS (see DEIS Table 3 .9-1); however, the average delay would change at certain intersections (i.e. a slight increase in delay at Study Intersections #2 and #3 , and a slight decrease in delay at Study Intersection #1). Quenda/1 Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 3-18 Updated/Additional Information and Analysis Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum I I ~ n '405 Ne R¥T•P! / Nl +4d> S1 (280) (15) (50) :~ l'IO (65) 345 25 30 i +-165 (l 501 Ji ~ " '.! ,;e-165 (7 5, /\E u:, SI c5S J 2e oJ D ~ t r (1 65) 110-+; 10 95 9 0 (60) 3SO~ ij (151 (230 )(145 (S ) 1s J ~ t r (190 ) 635 _. 0 0 0 0 ~ (0) (0 1 (0) • .;:,u ~ Ho., a.m _., !.M,i,'l, .l#~ N)r} -200 (435) llu no ;,tt A~ N I N lOdt ~ (SS ) (44) 25 18 t "' ~ 20 (13) +-II (28) ,r-20 (64) k Jll'!Sl 101 0 ..-" ; " i r' (l l ) lO .... I O 59 4 7 H J O ~ s (2) (33)(61 1 • h W~ 81\d / G~rdell A,t N I P,rt A,« N ~90 (1 32) (HOJ 151 (l lO); 1 I S 5 55 ; +-135 (2251 Ji t ~ ~ ,r-390 (2 ISi 44 c1so , 66S-+ (125 1 S ~ lot!><• MIi Ac<.,. f U W• 61\d t lUTUU.1 (O)OJ !~0 (0) «..-200 1<1 JS) L< ~ i,v,, (190)650 - t ll W, lhd I N ld dl S""' I lluo'"'U i',~l'l Legend XX A .M. Ptak Hour Volum t1 (XX) P .M . Peak Hour Volumes Source: Transportation Engineering NorthWest, 2012 Figure 3.4-1 Existing Peak Hour Traffic Volumes lr41BLUMEN .. Table 3 .4-1 EXISTING 2009/2010 PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION LOS AM Peak Hour Int.# Unsignalized Intersections LOS Delay V/C 1 Lake Wa Blvd (l-405 NB Ra m ps)/NE 44tn St E 4 8 - 2 l -4 05 SB Ramps/NE 44tn St SB-F >100 2.32 3 Ripley Lane/NE 44th St SB-D 26 0 .20 6 Lk Wa Blvd/N 36th St B 11 7 N 3otn Str eet/Burnett Ave N A 8 8 Lk Wa Blvd/Bu rnett Ave N B 13 Int.# Signalized Intersections LOS Delay V/C 9 La k e Wa Blvd-Garden Ave N/Par k Ave N B 17 o.66 PM Peak Hour Int.# Unsignalized Intersections LOS Delay V/C 1 La k e Wa Bl vd (l-405 NB Ramps)/NE 441h St C 18 - 2 l-405 SB Ra mps/NE 44 th St SB-C 22 0.61 3 Rip ley Lane/NE 44 tn St SB-C 18 0.32 6 Lk Wa Bl vd/N 361 " St A 10 - 7 N 301 " Street /Burnett Ave N A 8 - 8 Lk Wa Bl vd/Burnett Ave N A 10 - Int.# Signalized Intersections LOS Delay V/C 9 Lake Wa Bl v d (Ga r den Ave N )/Park Ave N C 26 0.81 Source : TENW, 2012. In addition , following issuance of the DEIS , further clarification was provided regarding the City of Renton 's planned transportation improvement project for a portion of Lake Washington Boulevard . The City of Renton 's 2010-2015 Tran sporta tion Improvement Program (TIP ) identifies the Lake Washington Boulevard/Park Avenue N (Garden Avenue N) intersection (Study Intersection #9 ) project in the vicinity of the site. This project includes m inor widening and reconfiguration to provide dual eastbound left turn lanes . The improvements to Study Intersection #9 are included in the updated analysis of transportation impacts under DEIS A lternatives 1, as described below. Impacts Following is an updated transportation impacts analysis with the Quendall Terminals DEIS Alternative 1. This section describes the LOS impacts , traffic queuing , and site access and circulation assumed at the 2015 build -out. The public transportation , non-motorized transportation and parking impacts for DEIS A lternative 1 are ex pected to be the same as described in the DEIS (see DEIS Section 3.9 , Transportation , and Appendi x H). As part of the updated analysis , all trips from the City's 2015 EMME Travel Model were removed from the roadway network ex cept for trips under the Without 1-405 Improvements scenario, which assumed a 15 percent background growth. Turning movements of trips from Barbee Mill , Hawks Landing and the Kennydale Apartment projects were added to the roadway network at each off- site intersection under both scenarios to determine the 2015 baseline forecasts as projected in original traffic studies prepared for these entitled developments. Quendal/ Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 3-20 Updated/Additional Information and Analysis As described on DEIS page 3.9-6 , DEIS Alternative 1 was used in the transportation analysis as a conservative "worst-case" scenario due to the fact that this alternative would include higher density development (more residential units and office space) and would generate more vehicular trips than DEIS Alternative 2. DEIS Alternative 1 is also used in the analysis for this EIS Addendum in order to provide a conservative "worst-case" scenario and consistency with the DEIS. The Preferred Alternative would result in approximately 128 fewer daily trips, 8 fewer AM peak hour trips , and 11 fewer PM . peak hour trips than DEIS Alternative 2. As such , the relative impacts to traffic operations within the study area from the Preferred Alternative would be very sim ilar, but slightly less than those under DEIS Alternative 2 (see Appendix E for details). Intersection LOS Impacts As a result of the new traffic counts that were taken for this EIS Addendum , as well as the associated updated calculations for existing LOS conditions and clarifications on the planned improvements to Study Intersection #9, updates to the LOS analysis for DEIS Alternative 1 were conducted . Table 3 .4 -2 summarizes the updated LOS in 2015 with and without the DEIS Alternative 1 , without 1-405 improvements. Figures 3.4-2 and 3.4-3 illustrate the traffic volumes in 2015 with and without DEIS Alternative 1, without 1-405 improvements . As shown in Table 3.4-2 , Study Intersection #1 and #2 (southbound) would continue to operate at LOS F under Alternative 1 in 2015 without 1-405 improvements. Operations at the following intersections would change relative to the analysis for the DEIS Alternatives (see DEIS Table 3.9-2 and 3.9-3 for further details on the DEIS Alternatives): • Study Intersections #3 and #5 delay would slightly decrease ; however, the LOS levels at both of these intersections would continue to remain the same as analyzed in the DEIS . • Study Intersection #9 would improve from LOS D (AM peak hour) and LOS F (PM peak hour) to LOS C (AM peak hour) and LOS D (PM peak hour). Table 3.4-3 summarizes the updated LOS impacts in 2015 with and without DEIS Alternative 1 , with improvements to 1-405 . Figures 3.4-4 and 3 .4-5 illustrate the peak hour traffic volumes in 2015 with and without DEIS Alternative 1 , with the 1-405 improvements. As shown in Table 3 .4-3, based on the updated analysis , Study Intersection #9 would improve from LOS F in the DEIS to LOS C (AM peak hour) and LOS D (PM peak hour); all study intersections would be anticipated to operate at LOS D or better in 2015 under the Preferred Alternative with improvements to 1-405 . Queuing Analysis An update to the queuing analysis along Lake Washington Boulevard was conducted for this EIS Addendum . As shown in Table 3.4-4 , queues would increase as compared to the DEIS analysis , and excessive southbound queues would continue to be expected at the stop- controlled Ripley Lane intersection without 1-405 Improvements in 2015. However, no queuing conflicts would be expected on Lake Washington Boulevard . Quenda/1 Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 3-21 Updated/Additional Information and Analysis Table 3.4-2 2015 INTERSECTION LOS -WITH AND WITHOUT DEIS ALTERNATIVE 1 WITHOUT 1-405 IMPROVEMENTS 2015 Without Project (Baseline/No Action) Int.# Intersection LOS Delay V/C AM Peak Hour U n signalized Intersections 1 Lake Wa Bl vd (l-405 NB Ram ps)/NE F 44th St 2 l-405 SB Ramps/NE 44 1h St SB-F 3 Rip ley Lane/NE 4 41h St SB-E 4 Lake W a Bl vd/Barbee M ill Access SB-C 5 Lake W a Bl vd/Hawks La nd i ng NB-C Access 6 Lk Wa Blvd/N 361" St B 7 N 301 " Str eet/Burnett Ave N A 8 Lk Wa Blvd/Burnett Ave N B Sig nalized Inter section 9 La k e Wa Blvd-Gar den Ave N/Park C AveN PM Pea k Ho ur Unsigna lized Intersection s 1 Lake Wa Blvd (l -405 N B Ra m ps)/NE 44th St 2 l -405 SB Ram ps/NE 441 h St 3 Ripley Lane/NE 441 " St 4 Lake Wa Blvd /Barbee M ill Access 5 La ke Wa Bl v d /Hawk s Landing Access 6 Lk Wa Blvd/N 36tn St 7 N 301 " Str ee t /Bu rnett Ave N 8 Lk Wa Bl v d/B urnett Ave N Sig n alized In ter section 9 Lake Wa Bl vd-Ga r den Ave N/Park Ave N Source: TENW, 2012. N otes : F SB-F SB-D SB-B N B-B B A B D >100 - >100 - 36 0 .42 20 0.0 4 16 0.10 12 - 8 - 11 - 27 o.68 65 - >100 - 27 0.50 15 0.01 10 0.06 11 8 12 4 9 0.95 2015 With DEIS Alt ernative 1 LOS Delay V/C F >100 - SB-F >100 - SB-F >100 - SB-D 28 0.59 N B-C 19 0.13 C 18 - A 8 - B 13 - C 29 o.68 F >100 - SM >100 - SM >100 - SB-C 25 0.57 NB-B 12 0.09 C 21 A 9 B 14 D 55 0.92 1. Analysis based on Synch ro results using HCM 2000 co ntrol del ays and LOS with optimized phasing/ timi ng systems for signalized inter sections. 2. La ke Was hingto n Bl vd and NE 44"' Street assumed to be east -west. Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 3-22 Updated/Additional Information and Analysis Project Site Lake Washin,ton -I }- Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum D 405 NB R.in1111 / Nt +4(11 Sc l l6S) (50) (50) !'11:.... 150 (6 5) 440 55 30 f +--185 (17 5 JI t ~ :: ,:-17S (80 ) ~E U/1Sr (1001 355 .JI ! " t ( (190) 120 -+; 40 130 100 (95) 435 ~~ (45 1(]101(1 55 IUplty unt I N 4'4 t/l St (35) (0) (1 15); '11:.... 70 (70) 10 0 65 .-2so 1520 JI t ~ r o co, fl"'I! SI (1 5)20 -1' '\ t r (2 2 5) 68 5 _. 0 0 s (O)O ._, (0) (01 (5) 4-210 (500) ,r ss t SO l '\ t 30 (40) _J Bur11 ett A ~ N I N 30th St (0 ) (55) (60) ~ l0 (25) 0 ZS 25 +--10 (30) ,J ~ ~ ,r 20 (70) NJ~~ fOI O .J( ;'\ t r (15) 10 -+ ~ 0 60 50 co10 ~ (0) (40) (60) U Wi 81\d / Gi rden A~@ N / Pu t A,t N ~60 (1 20 ) -4-785 (770) y-460(495) (330 ) 2eo .JI ~ " t r t (890) 445 -+ j 40 180 14 S (50) 25 ~ (20 )( I S5) (835) (J40J (10)(2l0) t 16 5 10 140 ; .-155 (265 ) JI t " ~ r s1s (Josi 1185) 730 -+ l l 5SJ 25 ~ hbtt ,.., """"" r Lt w, 81,,1 lf UTUII!) r---o (10) '(+260 154 5) coi o J (23SJ 69 5 -+ U W, ltod / N :16111 SITNI / • 8um11.1 II•~ N : U W, 111,d I Bu rnett A ve N (0) (9S 1 S 8() \l ~~ \ ...... ')o .1,() (J'IS 1,, ~ ~S) ~ Legend t xx A.M . P~ak Hour V olum~ (XX ) r .M. l'ea k Hour V o lum es Source: Transportation Engineering Northwest, 2012 Figure 3.4-2 2015 Baseline/No Action Peak Hou r Traffic Volumes (without 1-405 Improvements) FIS I BLUM EN ~ Project Site ufct Wasllrn,ron Quendall Terminal s EIS Addendum r '40S NB blf Pl I Nt: 4-4411 Sc (<I I OI (SO) (50) 1 ~150(65) 48 5 S5 30 ~-2](1 (220 ). J "' ~ r •1s 1eo1 f'<E 4@SI (ISO) 395..II ~ t t (2401 160,+ o:i 40 130 100 4325 1 625~ ~ (<1S l(JI O)(l 55 ~~ Lin~ I N 44th St (0 ) (420~ 0 320 t ~ (1s i zo J (250) 705 -+ (0)0 ~ ~ 335 [llS -270 [5'1()' ,:-O (S) " t r 0 0 s CO) [O) (SJ .. 35 5(680) ,-ss csoi r 30 (4()) llilrnett A~~ N / N JOIII St (0) 0 (S5)U60) 25 11 0 J ~ ~ (OJ O _,t (15 )10 -+ (OJ O ~ 'ti;;._ 120 (1 15) +-10 (30) ,r20 C70) H Ja!!Sl ~" t r 0 60 so (0) (40) (60) ~65 (125) -785 (770) ,r460 (49S) J?S) J2S _,t i " t f 890) 445-+.., "'° 200 14 5 (.50) 2 5 ~ j (20)( I S 5 ) (US) '40S Si !Umps I HE. ~41H1 (5'40)(101(2 30 1 ~245 (355) u.s 10 140 J t "' ~ ,-s 15 (305> CS 1 5) 1005 -+ 1155125 ~ ~25 (SO) -2ss rs2s1 (160) 11 sJt UcW,BW (2l0) 675.+ Legend t XX A .M. Peak Hour Voklme.s {XX) P.M . r,.iik HOUT Volumes Source: Transportat ion Engi neering NorthWest, 20 12 Figure 3.4-3 2015 DEIS Alternative 1 Peak Ho ur Traffic V olu mes (wi t hout 1-405 Improvements) F41BLUMEN M Table 3.4-3 2015 INTERSECTION LOS -WITH AND WITHOUT DEIS ALTERNATIVE 1 WITH 1-405 IMPROVEMENTS - 20 15 2015 Without Project With DEIS (Baseline/No Action) Alternative 1 Int.# Intersection LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C AM Peak Hour Unsignalized Intersection s 4 Lake Wa Bl vd/Barbee M i ll Ac cess SB-C 16 0.02 SB-0 32 0.53 5 Lake Wa Blvd/Hawks La nding NB-C 21 0.02 NB-0 25 0.03 Access 6 Lk Wa Blvd/N 36tn Street A 10 -B 11 - 7 N 3otn Street/Burnett Ave N Not Ana l yzed Under With l-4 05 Improvem en ts 8 Lk Wa Blvd/Burnett Ave N Sce nar io Sign alized Intersection 1 Lake Wa Blvd (l -4 05 NB A B 18 Ramps)/NE 44th St 10 0.42 0.59 2 l-405 SB Ramps/NE 441 " Street B 15 0.39 C 22 0.53 3 Rip ley Lane/NE 44th Street B 20 0.61 C 26 o.66 9 La k e Wa Bl vd-Garden Ave N/Park C 23 0.62 C 24 0.67 Ave N PM Peak Hour Un signalized Intersecti ons 4 La k e wa Bl vd/Ba rbee M ill Ac cess 5 La k e Wa Bl vd/Hawks Landing Acce ss 6 Lk Wa Blvd /N 361h Street 7 N 3otn St reet/Burnett Ave N 8 Lk Wa Blvd/Burnett Ave N Sign alized Intersection 1 La ke Wa Bl vd (l-405 NB Ramps)/NE 44th St 2 l-405 SB Ramps/N E 441 " Street 3 Rip l ey Lane/NE 44'h Street 9 Lake Wa Blvd-Garden Ave N/Park Ave N Source: TENW, 2012. Notes: SB-C 16 0.02 SB-D 25 0.46 NB-C 17 0.0 2 NB-C 21 0.02 A 10 -B 11 - Not A nalyzed Under With l -405 Improvements Scen ario B 13 0.20 B 17 0.40 B 13 0.19 C 24 0,47 B 17 0.5 1 C 26 0.76 D 39 o.86 D 39 0 .87 1. Ana lysis based on Sync hro resul ts using HCM 2000 co ntro l delays and LOS with opti mized phasi ng / timing systems for signalized intersections . 2. Lake Washington Blvd and NE 44 ., Street assumed to be east-west. Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 3-25 Updated/Additional Information and Analysis Project Site Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum ..05 NB lluA1111 / NI: +4dl Sc ~380 (195 ~560 ('190 (70) 400-.JI '\ t (275 1 410 .... "" iO O i (401 IOl (35) (0) (115)~ ~ 70 (70) 10 O 65 ._ 245 [465 ) ! ~ r o ~)411g, (15)20 _;/ C220) 67()-+- (S) 0 °"' "l t ( 0 0 S CO) (0) (SJ ~205 (440} r SS(SO) "l 5 (5) ( 30 (40) U W~ 81\d / G1rdffl A\t N / P,ri /w~N ~ 105 (1 85) +-ISO (7115) ,r-115 (445) 260) 250_.,, 1 " t r a9 S) 440.... 20 1}0 115 (25) 10~ J. (1 0 ) (90) (710) U BS ) 120-. (1 SOJ 2S ~ CO) o .JI (23S)680 -+- t lk Wi Blvd / aumeu Avt N Noc AlulYZed Under With 1·405 IITl)fO\'emenu Scl!llario Le-gend XX A.M. P~alc Hou r Volumes (XX) P.M . Peak Hour Volumes Source: Transportation Engineering Northwest, 2012 Figure 3.4-4 2015 Baseline/No Action Peak Hour Traffic Volumes (with 1-405 Improvements) FIS I BLUMEN - Project Site Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum _J <405 NB b11111 / NC 4'4dll 5c '-:_ l80 ( 195 -+-605 (535 (3001 590.Jf i "\ t t (325 1 4 5(),,,+; 175 0 2,0 ij (175 ) (0 ) (5SO Rip ~ unt I N '14th SI (15) 'lO ..Jf C270) 71 0 _. (5) 0 """ .__ 4-05 ( 400 ~290 (510' ..-0 (5) , !~#ti --. t ,, 0 0 5 (0) (0 ) (5) ~210 (515) ,r SS ISO ) t lO (40) lur11eu A,'t N / N JOdl 51 Not Analyied Under With 1·405 lmprt)\l ffllffl U S<tn ~o • U W~ Bl'l'd / Garde!\ IM N I P,rt A~t N ~1 15(195) +-8SO (785) ,r385 (445) 30S) 295 ..JI ~ "" t t 8 95) 440-i 20 140 115 (25) 10~ j (1 0 )(100) (7 1.0 ) 405 51 Ri11111S / NE '14th S< (465) 950-. 1305) ISO ~ ~25 0 (465 , t70l es -" (2 30) 660 _. t U WA IW I -L1 Aw N Not Anal)'lt'd Un~ Wi lli 1·405 in1)rovtmtnU Sce,urlo Legen d XX A .M. Pe ak Hou r Volumes (XX) P.M. Peak Hour Volu mes Source: Tran sportation Engineering NorthWest, 2012 Figure 3.4-5 20 15 DEIS Alternative 1 Peak Hou r T raffic Volumes (with 1-405 Improvements) FIS I BLUMEN ~ Table 3.4-4 2015 QUEUES -DEIS ALTERNATIVE 1 WITHOUT 1-405 IMPROVEMENTS 95th een:entile Queue (ft) Intersection Movement AM PM Ripley Lane / Lake Washington Bl vd. EB Left 25 25 SB Left/Ri_e:ht Boo 900 Barbee Mill Access (NE 43 'd St)/ Lake Washington Bl vd. EB Left 25 25 SB Thru 100 75 Ha wks Landing Access/ Lake Washington Blvd. WB Left 25 25 Source: TENW, 2012 As shown in Table 3.4-5, with 1-405 improvements, queues would generally decrease in 2015 , as compared to the DEIS analysis. However, southbound queues would still be expected at the Ripley Lane intersection, and queues on Lake Washington Boulevard at the Ripley Lane intersection are expected to extend beyond adjacent intersections. Table 3.4-5 2015 QUEUES -DEIS ALTERNATIVE 1 WITH 1-405 IMPROVEMENTS 95th eercentHe Queue (ft) Intersection Movement AM l-405 SB Ramps/ Lake Washington Blvd. EB Thru 125 Riple y Lane/ Lake Washington Blvd. EB Left 25 EB Th r u 250 WB Thru 125 WBRt 50 SB Left/Ri_g ht 350 Barbee Mill Access (NE 43rd St)/ Lake Washington Blvd. EB Left 25 SB Thru 50 Hawks Landing Access/ Lake Washingto n Blvd. W B Left Source: TENW, 2012 Site Access and Circulation 25 PM 125 25 225 400 25 450 25 50 25 No changes to the DEIS site access and circulation analysis for Study Intersection #4 would be anticipated . Updates to the site access and circulation analysis for Study Intersection #3 are summarized below. Quendal/ Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 3-28 Updated/Additional Information and Analysis 2015 Without 1-405 Improvements Operations/Queuing Intersection #3 -Ripley Lane N/Lake Washington Boulevard. Under DEIS Alternative 1 at site access Intersection #3 -Ripley Lane N at Lake Washington Boulevard , the 95th percentile queue for the southbound left/right movements are estimated to be approximately 800 to 900 feet during the AM and PM peak hours in 2015 (as compared to 700 to 800 feet in the DEIS). Queues on Lake Washington Boulevard for vehicles entering the site are not expected to conflict with adjacent intersections . The LOS for the stop-controlled southbound approach would be expected to be LOS F. 2015 With /-405 Improvements Operations/Queuing Intersection #3 -Ripley Lane N/Lake Washington Boulevard . Under DEIS Alternative 1 at site access Intersection #3 -Ripley Lane at Lake Washington Blvd , the 95th percentile queue for the westbound through movement is estimated at approximately 400 feet during the PM peak hour. This estimated queue on Lake Washington Blvd would likely extend through the adjacent intersection . In additio n, the southbound queue on Ripley Lane is estimated to be 350 feet during the AM peak hour and 450 feet during the PM peak hour in 2015, assuming 1-405 improvements . With the proposed mitigation of providing an additional southbound approach lane on Ripley Lane , this queue is estimated to be reduced to 200 feet or less during either the AM peak or PM peak hours . The LOS for the signalized intersection is expected to be LOS C/D . Preferred Alternative As described in Chapter 2 , the Preferred Alternative would be similar to DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2-particularly DEIS Alternative 2 -in terms of development assumptions. Based on the proposed land use breakdown , the Preferred Alternative is estimated to generate a net total of approximately 5,656 daily, 435 AM peak hour (1 04 entering , 331 exiting), and 530 PM peak hour (340 entering and 190 exiting) vehicular trips . This alternative would result in approximately 128 fewer daily trips , 8 fewer AM peak hour trips , and 11 fewer PM peak hour trips than DEIS Alternative 2 . As such , the relative impacts to traffic operations within the study areas under the Preferred Alternative would be expected to be similar to, but slightly less that under DEIS Alternative 2. Proposed mitigation to address traffic and parking impacts identified in the DEIS would also apply to the Preferred Alternative. Mitigation Measures The DEIS identified transportation mitigation measures tha t would be necessary to mitigate potential transportation impacts under Alternatives 1 and 2 with and without planned 1-405 improvements. Based on the updated analysis provided in this EIS Addendum , the mitigation measures identified in the DEIS would still apply , with the following add itional proposed mitigation measure and clarification to the mitigation measure for Study Intersection #1 , without 1-405 improvements (strike-through indicates those measures or portions of measures that have been el iminated ; underline indicates new or portions of new measures that are included as part of the Preferred Alternative . See Chapter 1 for the complete list of transportation-related mitigation measures): • To mitigate traffic impacts to the Lake Washington Boulevard corridor south of the development the applicant would install traffic calming treatments on Lake Washington Quenda/1 Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 3-29 Updated/Additional Information and Analysis Boulevard south of N 41 st Street to encourage primary trips generated by the project to utilize the 1-405 corridor. Although the City of Renton has no adopted residential traffic management program, arterial calming measures could include treatments that create either horizontal or vertical deflection for drivers . Such treatments could include but are not limited to chicanes, serpentine raised curb sections, raised median treatments. speed tables, and speed humps. • Intersection #1 -1-405 NB Ramps/NE 44th Street. Widen the southbound and northbound approaches so that a separate left turn lane and shared thru-right turn lane is provided on both legs of the intersection . The final configuration of the intersection with the additional widening improvements would be coordinated with WSDOT. (See Chapter 1 of this EIS Addendum for the complete list of transportation-related mitigation measures.) In addition , an analysis was conducted to illustrate the LOS differences under Alternative 1 in 2015 with and without the proposed mitigation described above, without 1-405 improvements. As shown in the Table 3.4-6, study intersections forecast to operate at LOS F would improve to LOS E or better with proposed mitigation outlined above. Table 3 .4-6 2015 INTERSECTION LOS -DEIS ALTERNATIVE 1 WITH PROPOSED MITIGATION, WITHOUT 1-405 IMPROVEMENTS 2015 2015 DEIS Alternative 1, DEIS Alternative 1, without Mitigation Int.# Intersection LOS A.M. Peak Hour 1 Lake Wa Blvd (l-405 NB Ramps)/NE 441h St F 2 l-405 SB Ramps/NE 441 h Street 58-F 3 Ripley La ne/NE 441h Street 58-F P.M. Peak Hour 1 La k eWa Blvd (l-4 05 N B Ramps)/NE 441h St F 2 l-405 SB Ramps/NE 441 h Street 3 Ripley Lane/NE 441 h Street Source: TENW, 2012. Notes : SB-F SB-F Delav V/C >100 - >100 - >100 - >100 - >100 - >100 - with Mititlation LOS Delay V/C C 28 1.03 E 78 1.03 B 12 0 .61 B 17 0.62 C 25 o.86 B 14 0.77 1. Analysis based on Synchro resu lts us ing HCM 2000 control delays and LOS with optimized phasing /timing systems for s ignalized intersections. 2. Lak e W ashington Bl vd and NE 44th Stree t assumed to be east-west. A conceptual channelization exhibit was also created to illustrate the improvements that would be required along Lake Washington Boulevard as a result of the project, if the project is built prior to regional improvements within the 1-405 corridor (see Figure 3 .4-6). Quenda/1 Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 3-30 Updated/Additional Information and Analysis ,ii ..:J --Proposed Chan nelization Existing Cha n nel iza tio n Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum Source: Transportation Engineering NorthWest, 2012 Figure 3.4-6 FIS I BLUMEN . Lake Washington Boulevard Conceptual Channelization Improvements (without 1-405 Improvements) 3.5 Cultural Resources Cultural resources was not included as an element of the environment analyzed in the DEIS , because during scoping of the EIS , construction and operation of the proposed Quendall Terminals redevelopment was not anticipated to result in significant impacts on such resources. Comments were received from the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) on the DEIS indicating that the Renton area has a history of archaeological finds during construction projects , and requesting that an analysis of cultural resources be included in the Quendall Terminals EIS . This section summarizes existing cultural resource conditions on and in the vicinity of the Quendall Terminals site , evaluates potential impacts to these resources under the Preferred Alternative, and identifies appropriate mitigation measures . The section is based on the Cultural Resources Assessment (June 2012) prepared by Cultural Resources Consultants, Inc. (see Appendix F). Affected Environment Site History The Quendall Terminals site is located along the shoreline of Lake Washington. The shoreline area has fluctuated over the past 7,000 years as a result of large earthquakes and associated landslides , including a large area , which includes the project site , which was uplifted approximately 1,000 years ago during an earthquake . Intact pre-earthquake cultural deposits , protected from erosion by the cap of landslide debris and silts , could lie inland of the modern shoreline . Historic maps show that the site area was either inundated or subject to periodic flooding and scouring prior to the construction of the Lake Washington Ship Canal, and also subject to the erosional effects of the meandering southward of the May Creek channel. The 1864-1920 May Creek meanders would have cut through the site City Water Line Easement; south of the Quendall Pond and immediately east and south of the South Detention Pond (see DEIS Figure 2-3). Historic newspaper accounts also describe archaeological remains exposed at the mouth of May Creek in 1917 following the post-Ship Canal drop in lake levels. In 1917, the May Creek channel would have cut through the south portion of the site and the creek delta would have been located approximately 35 meters east of the modern shoreline . Numerous named geographic features are located in the site area , including descriptive names for geographic features , resource procurement sites , villages , and names associated with mystical events. May Creek is recorded as sbal 't ("a place where things are dried"), which referred to a fish processing station. Until around 1855, the Subaltuabs, a coastal Salish group , inhabited this village , which consisted of two to three houses ; however, no houses are noted in this location on the 1865 survey maps. The area was later named "May Creek " for an early homesteader, and the project site was part of a homestead patented to Jeremiah Sullivan in 1874 . The May homestead was located on a parcel that was later part of Colman 's property immediately north of the Barbee Lumber Company, which may place the homestead within the site. Prior to1916 , a shingle mill occupied the upland area of the site . Quendall Station (named for Lake Washington Mill owner William Kendall) was established in 1916 as part of the Lake Washington beltline , and is shown on the Northern Pacific Railway roster in 1922 and 1947. Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 3-32 Updated/Additional Information and Analysis From 1917 to 1969 the site area was used by Republic Creosoting Company (later Reilly Tar and Chemical Corporation) to process creosote. Tar feedstock was typically transported to the facility onsite from Lake Union and unloaded from tankers or barges at a t-dock that extended out into Lake Washington . The feedstock was unloaded into two two-million gallon above- ground storage tanks . The remnants of this dock and wharf are located onsite within the Area of Potential Effect (APE) along the Lake Washington shoreline . In the early 1970s, the site was sold to Quendall Terminals and has been used intermittently to store diesel , crude and waste oils , as well as a log sorting and storage yard . A small brick building , a sewer pump station and a shack were located on the site . The brick building (the Quendall Station house) was reportedly used as an office building for the logging company . Much of the project site is presently covered with fill , which generally consists of a mixture of silt, sand , gravel , and wood debris with scattered foundry slag and brick and metal fragments (see DEIS Section 3 .1, Earth and Appendix D for details). Known fill events occurred west of the pre- 1916 shoreline following the lowering of Lake Wash ington ; between 19 20 and 1936 associated w ith the diversion of May Creek and backfilling of its former channel ; and , in 1983 when approximately three feet of sawdust was placed over the entire site . Cultural Resource Investigation Results Previous Investigations A landform subject to peri odic flood events and channel drift would not be assumed to contain intact, significant cultural deposits . However, intact, pre-earthquake cultural deposits , protected from erosion by the cap of landslide debris and silts, might lie inland of the modern shoreline. In 1997, a cultural resource survey was conducted on and in the vicinity of the Quendall Terminals site. Archaeologists dug 12 shovel test pits in the upland area , one of which was located within the current Quendall Terminals site boundaries . All of the shovel tests were negative for cultural depos its , although an item tentatively identified as fire-modified rock was recorded in a shovel test excavated to the east of the site on the Pan Abode Cedar Homes property. One of the shovel tests identified a small charcoal deposit at 90-100 centimeters below the surface . Soils in the eastern portion of the site were interpreted as remnant alluvial deposits from May Creek, while those in the western portion were described as beach deposits associated with the Lake Washington shoreline. Current Investigation Field investigations were conducted as part of the cultura l resources assessment for this EIS Addendum. A pedestrian survey was conducted based on maps of the site ; no subsurface testing was undertaken due to known soil contaminants . Ground ex posures , cut banks and cleared areas were inspected as available . All examined areas showed signs of disturbance . Upland areas are covered with a mixture of wood debris and gravels , while the shoreline had push piles of fill , wood chips , gravels and riprap , and large sections of armoring over fill. A series of low canals or ditches, ponds and cobble dikes radiate from the northeastern portion of the site to the western shoreline . In addition to the remnant log beds , log piles , ruins of a structure interpreted to be truck scales , monitoring wells, concrete pads , and plywood sheds , collections of waste barrels were observed. No evidence of the pre-contact deposits , homestead , shingle mill , or creosote storage tanks was identified. Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 3-33 Updated/Additional Information and Analysis Based on background information , the areas of the site with higher probability to contain intact archaeological deposits include the margins of the old channels of May Creek, the delta of the 1920 channel , the margins of the 1920 marsh , and areas adjacent to the 1864 shoreline . Cultural deposits in these locations may include items or features associated with the following: • Pre-contact fisheries (weirs , traps , smokehouses, and drying racks); • Pre-contact habitation (fire-modified rock , charcoal , post molds, depressions , lithic debitage -sharp-edged waste material left over from stone tool creation , and formal processing and hunting tools); • Historic industry (wharves, piers , docks, pilings , and machinery), historic habitation (house foundations and household refuse), and/or historic transportation (rail line , trestles, road bed and bridge foundations). Due to the type and intensity of site modification conducted in the historic era and the geologic history of the landform , intact pre-contact deposits would not be expected to be at or near the surface , but would be anticipated to be several meters below ground-level. Intact historic-era deposits related to early homesteading would not be expected to be visible on the surface within the site for the same reasons. However, background research indicates that late historic-era deposits related to creosote production, the lumber industry and railroads are likely to be present onsite As part of the current cultural resources assessment, three structures on the site were recorded , including two wooden dock/wharf features (presumed to be associated with the creosote plant, and the Quendall station house (a small, flat-roofed brick structure). None of these structures is considered to be architecturally remarkable or a significant cultural resource (see Appendix E for a copies of forms that have been submitted to DAHP). Impacts Site cleanup and remediation activities on the Quendall Terminals site is expected to include the placement of a sediment cap over the upland portion and shoreline of the Main Property . As part of redevelopment activities associated with the Preferred Alternative, the sediment cap could be disturbed by construction activity on the site, including : • Clearing and grading activities in the upland portion of the Main Property ; • Construction of deep building foundations (i.e . piles) and other ground improvements required for structural support; • Excavation activities for underground utilities ; and , The construction activities identified above would result in excavations below the sediment cap and could result in the inadvertent discovery of cultural resources . While it is unl ikely that cultural resources would be encountered as part of construction activities on the site , a monitoring plan and inadvertent discovery plan would be prepared for the Preferred Alternative in the event that any cultural resources are encountered (see to the Mitigation Measures section for details). In addition , required/proposed institutional controls would be enforced to prevent alteration of the sediment cap (beyond the items indicated above) during redevelopment of the site. These institutional controls would also limit the possibility for further inadvertent encounters with Quenda/1 Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 3-34 Updated/Additional Information and Analysis potential cultural resources. As a result, no significant impacts to cultural resources would be anticipated with redevelopment under the Preferred Alternative . Mitigation Measures The following proposed measures have been identified to mitigate any potential cultural resource impacts that could occur with construction and operation of the Quendall Terminals project. They are underlined , as they are new measures identified since issuance of the DEIS . Proposed Mitigation Measures • Limited and focused cultural resource monitoring would be conducted during construction activities on the site (clearing and grading of the upland portion, construction of deep building foundations, and excavation for utilities). A monitoring plan and inadvertent discovery plan would be developed and implemented for the Preferred Alternative (see Appendix F for the proposed monitoring plan and inadvertent discovery .P@.01 • In the unlikely event that ground disturbing or other activities result in the inadvertent discovery of archaeological deposits, construction activities would be halted in the immediate area, and (DAHP) would be contacted . Work would be halted until such time as further investigation and appropriate consultation is concluded. • In the unlikely event of the inadvertent discovery of human rema ins , construction would be halted in the area; the discovery would be covered and secured against further disturbance; and, contact would be made with law enforcement personnel, DAHP and authorized representatives of the concerned Indian tribes . Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts There are no significant unavoidable adverse cultural resource-related impacts that cannot be mitigated . Quenda/1 Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 3-35 Updated/Additional Information and Analysis CHAPTER4 COMPARISON OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS CHAPTER4 COMPARISON OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS This document is an Addendum to the Draft EIS (December 2010) that was prepared for the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project. The Draft EIS (DEIS) evaluated two development alternatives, their environmental impacts and associated mitigation measures. Information contained in that document is hereby incorporated by reference. According to the SEPA Rules 1 , an Addendum is an environmental document used to provide additional information or analysis that does not substantially change the analysis of significant impacts in the existing environmental document. The DEIS alternatives and Preferred Alternative need not be identical, but must have similar elements that provide a basis for comparing environmental consequences'. The overall level of development under the Preferred Alternative is no greater than that identified under the DEIS Alternatives and the potential for environmental impacts would be similar in level and type to those identified in the DEIS. Therefore, the Preferred Alternative does not substantially change the analysis of significant impacts in the DEIS and the DEIS provides the basis for comparing environmental conditions. Scope of the EIS Addendum As described in Chapter 2, many of the redevelopment assumptions under the Preferred Alternative would be similar to those described for the DEIS redevelopment alternatives (particularly DEIS Alternative 2). Similar to DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2, the Preferred Alternative is intended to be a compact, urban mixed-use development. The project is planned to ensure that future redevelopment is compatible with the environmental remediation effort at the site that is currently underway. The Preferred Alternative is intended to be consistent with the applicant's (Century Pacific's) objectives, as defined in the DEIS. However, despite these similarities, certain redevelopment assumptions under the Preferred Alternative have been modified from those described in the DEIS (see Chapter 2 for details). Based on those redevelopment assumptions that are similar and those assumptions that have been modified under the Preferred Alternative, the following environmental analyses in the DEIS largely would not change: • Earth • Environmental Health 1 WAC 197-11-706 2 RCW43.41C.034 Quenda/1 Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 • Energy/Greenhouse Gases • Land and Shoreline Use 4-1 Chapter4 This EIS Addendum provides an updated environmental analysis for those environmental impacts that have changed as a result of the Preferred Alternative redevelopment assumptions, as well as new analysis for cultural resources. The following environmental elements have been updated as part of this EIS Addendum (see Chapter 3 for the updated analysis of each environmental element): • Critical Areas • Parks and Recreation • Relationship to Plans and Policies • Transportation • AestheticsNiews • Cultural Resources Each element of the environment analyzed in this chapter contains information on the following: a description of existing conditions; a brief summary of environmental impacts identified in the DEIS; a comparison of environmental conditions under the Preferred Alternative with those identified under the DEIS redevelopment alternatives; a list of any additional/modified mitigation measures for the Preferred Alternative (compared to those identified in the DEIS); and, a comparison of significant unavoidable adverse impacts identified for the Preferred Alternative with those identified in the DEIS. Quenda/1 Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 4-2 Chapter4 4.1 EARTH This section of the EIS Addendum compares the probable significant earth-related impacts from the Preferred Alternative to those from DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2. As appropriate, new/modified mitigation measures are identified. 4.1.1 Affected Environment The topography of the Quendall Terminals site is relatively flat with a gentle slope from east to west of O to 5 percent; slopes increase along the shoreline area of the site, adjacent to Lake Washington. Fill soils range from one to ten feet thick across the site and are the thickest in the northwest corner of the site. Alluvium deposits are located below the fill layer. Lacustrine deposits underlie the Deep Alluvium. Three aquifer zones are located beneath the site: a Shallow Aquifer (two to ten feet below the ground surface), a Deep Aquifer (35 to 140 feet below the ground surface), and an Artesian Aquifer (180 feet below the ground surface). The site has been mapped as an area of high seismic hazard and moderate to high liquefaction hazard. Potential hazards at the site could include ground motion response, liquefaction, seismically induced landslides and lateral spreading. 4.1.2 Impacts 2010 Draft EIS Proposed redevelopment under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2 would require approximately 53,000 to 133,000 cubic yards of fill). Site disturbance during construction activities could result in increased potential for erosion and sedimentation of on-site wetlands and Lake Washington; however with implementation of a temporary erosion and sedimentation control plan per City of Renton requirements, no significant impacts would be anticipated. Redevelopment would require limited cut and fill for installation of underground utilities. This grading could impact the integrity of the soil caps that will likely be installed during site cleanup/remediation efforts. Institutional controls will be defined in the final remediation plans to ensure that the soil caps would remain intact during excavation for the redevelopment. Potential impacts to on-site structures could also occur during seismic events due to ground motion, liquefaction and lateral spreading. All structures would be constructed to the most current International Building Code (IBC) to address potential effects of seismic events and significant impacts would not be anticipated. Redevelopment under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2 would result in an increase in the amount of impervious surface area onsite, as well as an associated increase in stormwater runoff rates, which could result in erosion at proposed stormwater outfalls at the lake. Outfall locations would be equipped with energy dissipation structures or other devices to prevent erosion of the lake bottom. The increase in impervious surfaces on the site would also decrease the potential for Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 4.1-1 Earth infiltration of rainwater to underlying aquifers. However, the majority of the recharge for these aquifers is from off-site sources to the east and significant impacts would not be anticipated. 2012 EIS Addendum Construction activities for the Preferred Alternative would be similar to those described for DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2, and would require approximately 53,000 to 133,000 cubic yards of fill during site preparation activities. Grading activities and the installation of underground utilities could impact the integrity of the soil cap installed during site cleanup/remediation; however, institutional controls will be defined in the final remediation plans to ensure that the soil cap would remain intact during redevelopment. Site disturbance during construction could also result in increased potential for erosion and sedimentation of onsite wetlands and Lake Washington. A temporary erosion and sedimentation control plan (TESCP would be implemented during construction per City of Renton requirements, and no significant impacts would be anticipated. Potential impacts from geologic hazards would be similar to those described for DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2, including potential erosion hazards, landslide hazards, and seismic hazards. Mitigation measures such as the implementation of TESCP, design of buildings in accordance with the most current IBC, and the implementation of deep foundation systems would reduce potential impacts from geologic hazards. Similar to DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2, under the Preferred Alternative, the majority of the site would be covered with impervious surfaces and limited infiltration would occur on the site. As a result, recharge of the shallow aquifer would be reduced at the site; however, the majority of the recharge originates from off-site sources and no significant impacts to aquifer recharge would be anticipated. 4.1.3 Conclusion Redevelopment under the Preferred Alternative would result in earth-related impacts that would be similar to those analyzed in the DEIS, including impacts associated with construction (site clearing and grading, installation of utilities and construction of building foundations), geologic hazards and groundwater. No additional earth-related impacts would be anticipated. 4.1.4 Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures were identified in the DEIS to address potential earth-related impacts; these measures would also apply to the Preferred Alternative. Because no additional significant earth-related impacts were identified with the Preferred Alternative, no changes to the DEIS mitigation measures would be necessary. See Chapter 1 for the complete list of earth-related mitigation measures. 4.1.5 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts There would be a risk of ground motion impacts and landslides beneath Lake Washington adjacent to the site during a seismic event; however, such impacts would occur with or without Quenda/1 Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 4.1-2 Earth the proposed redevelopment. There are no significant unavoidable earth-related impacts that cannot be mitigated. Quenda/1 Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 4.1-3 Earth 4.2 CRITICAL AREAS This section of the EIS Addendum compares the probable significant impacts to critical areas from the Preferred Alternative to those from DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2. As appropriate, new/modified mitigation measures are identified. 4.2.1 Affected Environment Prior to remediation and cleanup, the Quendall Terminals site is generally comprised of existing vegetation (trees, shrubs, grasses, etc.), as well as wetlands and riparian habitat. Shrub and forested areas are primarily located along the western portions of the site. Riparian habitat is present along the shoreline of Lake Washington. Ten existing wetlands, totaling approximately 0.9 acres, have been identified and delineated on the site, including eight on the Main Property and two on the Isolated Property. Four of the wetlands on the Main Property are slope and/or lake-fringe wetlands associated with Lake Washington. The remaining four wetlands are depressional wetlands which are not associated with other surface waters and were originally constructed as wastewater and/or stormwater control facilities. Wetlands on the Isolated Property are depressional and slope wetlands that were created through grading and road construction and receive stormwater from adjacent impervious surfaces. Per the City of Renton, the existing wetlands on the site are classified as Category 1 (two wetlands), Category 2 (three wetlands), and Category 3 (five wetlands). As part of site cleanup/remediation, the entire Main Property would likely be capped with soil, which would result in the fill of all existing wetlands and elimination of riparian habitat on the site. The two wetlands on the Isolated Property would not be impacted by cleanup/remediation. Certain wetlands on the Main Property would be re-established/expanded and riparian habitat would be re-created/enhanced through the implementation of a Shoreline Restoration Plan. Three wetlands along the shoreline would be re-established, and two of those wetlands would also be expanded to mitigate for wetland fill on the remainder of the site. Wetland/riparian buffer areas would also be re-vegetated along the Lake Washington shoreline following remediation. 4.2.2 Impacts 2010 Draft EIS Proposed redevelopment under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2 would not result in any direct impacts to re-established/expanded wetlands on the site. A portion of buffer of Wetland D would be reduced to 25 feet; however, other portions of the buffer would be expanded to provide compensatory areas as allowed by the City of Renton. New buildings would be setback a minimum of 50 feet from the shoreline, as required by the City of Renton Shoreline Master Program (1983). With the proposed redevelopment, the Shoreline Restoration Area would largely remain intact. A publically accessible trail with interpretive viewpoints would be included within a portion of the shoreline area. The upland portion of the Main Property would be covered in buildings, paved areas and landscaping, providing habitat for certain wildlife species adapted to urban environments. Quenda/1 Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 4.2-1 Critical Areas Three stormwater outfalls would be constructed within the shoreline areas. These outfalls would be located to avoid direct impacts to wetlands and would be designed to prevent erosion/siltation during construction and operation. The stormwater system would be designed in accordance with the City of Renton amendments to the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual adopted by the City of Renton, and would contain and convey the 25-year peak flows from developed conditions for on-site tributary areas. No upstream tributary areas would drain to the project site or the proposed stormwater control system, and therefore no severe flooding or erosion would be expected from potential overflow from a 100-year storm event As a result, no significant impacts to the on-site wetlands from erosion or sedimentation deposition would be anticipated. Proposed construction and redevelopment could cause indirect impacts to on-site wetlands, riparian habitat, and lake habitat related to hydrologic conditions (in the case of the wetlands) and potential for erosion and sediment deposition (particularly during construction). Significant impacts, including to salmonid fish in the lake, would not be expected with implementation of a TESCP during construction activities and the installation of a permanent stormwater control system, as required by the City of Renton. 2012 EIS Addendum Similar to DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2, the Preferred Alternative would not result in any direct impacts to re-established/expanded wetlands on the site. The Preferred Alternative would maintain a 100-foot minimum setback from the shoreline onsite (versus the 50-foot minimum shoreline setback under the DEIS alternatives). The minimum setback would be consistent with the EPA's recommendations and the City's 2011 Shoreline Master Program. The Shoreline Restoration Area under the Preferred Alternative would total approximately 3.7 acres, as compared to the 3.4 to 3.5 acres under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2. This area would accommodate future wetlands, as well as buffers and setbacks. The final, detailed plans for the Shoreline Restoration Area will be developed in coordination with EPA. With the proposed redevelopment, the Shoreline Restoration Area would largely remain intact An emergency access road/public trail would be located in this area. Similar to DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2, stormwater outfalls would be constructed within the shoreline area. These outfalls would be located to avoid direct impacts to wetlands and would be designed to prevent erosion/siltation during construction and operation. Proposed construction and redevelopment could cause indirect impacts to on-site wetlands, riparian habitat, and lake habitat related to hydrologic conditions, and potential for erosion and sediment deposition. With installation of temporary and permanent stormwater control systems similar to under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2, no significant impacts to these critical areas would be expected. Redevelopment under the Preferred Alternative would have a slightly smaller development footprint and similar site features to the DEIS Alternatives (particularly DEIS Alternative 2) and would be anticipated to have slightly less impacts to wetland and wildlife habitat than DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2. As the restored habitat along the lakeshore develops over time, the added shoreline setback would provide slightly more potential screening of the wetland and lakeshore habitats from lighting impacts as compared to DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2. However, given the urban context of the area, impacts from noise, lighting, and other disturbance would not likely be significantly different from those under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2. Quenda/1 Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 4.2-2 Critical Areas 4.2.3 Conclusion Redevelopment under the Preferred Alternative would result in potential impacts to critical areas that would be similar to those analyzed in the DEIS, including impacts associated with construction (site grading) and operation (hydrologic conditions, noise, lighting, and other disturbance). No additional impacts to critical areas would be anticipated. 4.2.4 Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures were identified in the DEIS to address potential impacts to critical areas; for the most part these measures would also apply to the Preferred Alternative. Following are changes to the "Proposed" mitigation measures listed in the DEIS. Strike-through indicates those measures or portions of measures that have been eliminated; underline indicates new or portions of new measures that are included as part of the Preferred Alternative. See Chapter 1 for the complete list of critical area-related mitigation measures. • 'Netlam:t l:l1c1ffer areas wslJIEI FReet er exseea tl:le FRiAimllm City re1:1llirea l:llJffers fer 'J\JetlaAEIS A, D aAEI ~ (tl:le ~tlaAEI D l:llJffeF \l/91JIEI meet tl:le City's re1:1lJiFemeAI IAF91J€1A l:l1a1ffer avera€1iA€1). WetlaAEI I aAEI d ws1a1la alss l:le prs1,1iaea witl:l l:l1a1ffers IAal meet er exseea City re1:1lJiremeAls. • Proposed buildings would be setback a minimum of 100 feet from the OHWM consistent with the current City of Renton's Shoreline Master Program /2011 l. The shoreline area would accommodate future wetlands, as well as buffers and setbacks. Final, detailed plans for the re-establishment of wetlands and their buffers onsite will be developed in coordination with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency /EPA) prior to redevelopment • A publicly accessible, unpaved trail we1a1IEI l:le 13re•1iaea is proposed through the shoreline area that would include interpretive wetland viewpoints. • The proposed redevelopment would include design elements to minimize the potential adverse affects of artificial lighting on wetland and riparian habitats. These include directing lighting downward and away from these habitats or adjacent properties, and could include shielding of lights. use of low-pressure sodium lights. or minimizing the use of reflective glazing materials in building design, as feasible. 4.2.5 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts There are no significant unavoidable impacts to critical areas that cannot be mitigated. Quenda/1 Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 4.2-3 Critical Areas 4.3 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH This section of the EIS Addendum compares the probable significant environmental health- related impacts from the Preferred Alternative to those from DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2. As appropriate, new/modified mitigation measures are identified. 4.3.1 Affected Environment From 1916 to 2008, various industrial activities, including creosote manufacturing, petroleum product storage, and log sorting/storage, occurred on the Quendall Terminals site and have resulted in the release of various contaminants into the soil and groundwater. From the 1980s through 2005, the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) provided oversight for the remediation/cleanup of the site under the Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA). In 2005, Ecology requested that the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) assume the responsibility for directing and overseeing the remediation and the property was added to EPA's Superfund National Priorities List (NPL). In September 2006, the property owners (Altino Properties and JH Baxter and Company) entered into an Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) with EPA that required them to complete a remedial investigation (RI) and feasibility study (FS). The RI/FS is intended to comprehensively evaluate environmental conditions on the site and review various remediation options, from which EPA will choose a preferred cleanup remedy. According to the Draft RI, contamination on the site consists of chemicals of potential concern that are adhered to soil particles, dissolved into water, or concentrated as dense, non-aqueous phase liquid (DNAPL) in the subsurface. Large areas of soil contamination are located on the east side of the site. Groundwater contamination in the Shallow Aquifer beneath the site underlies a majority of the site, while contamination of the Deep Aquifer primarily occurs under the western portion of the site. 4.3.2 Impacts 2010 Draft EIS Prior to redevelopment under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2, the Quendall Terminals site will likely be capped with soil during site cleanup/remediation, which will limit the potential for exposure to underlying contaminants. Redevelopment of the site is being coordinated with the cleanup/remediation process and would be conducted consistent with the requirements in the final cleanup remedy that is selected and overseen by EPA, and with any associated institutional controls. Redevelopment on the site, including the installation of deep foundations (i.e. piles) and utilities, could generate contaminated soil and/or groundwater to which workers and City staff inspectors could be exposed. City staff that maintains utilities could also be exposed to contaminated soils/groundwater. Volatile contaminants in the subsurface could generate vapors that could intrude into utility trenches and above-grade structures. With separation of living/working areas from contaminants by the soil cap and under-building parking, as well as the implementation of Quenda/1 Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 4.3-1 Environmental Health institutional controls specified during site remediation, no significant impacts would be anticipated. 2012 EIS Addendum Construction activities under the Preferred Alternative are assumed to be similar to those described for DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2, and deep foundation supports (such as piles) would likely be required. The construction of deep foundations, as well as excavations for utilities, could generate contaminated soils or groundwater to which workers could be exposed. Personal protection equipment for workers would be utilized, as well as special handling and disposal measures following constructions activities to prevent contact with hazardous materials and substances. Personal protection measures and special training could also be provided to City of Renton staff that provides inspections and maintenance following construction activities. Similar to DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2, there would also be the potential for volatile contaminants in the subsurface to generate vapors that could intrude into utility trenches and above-grade structures. The separation of living/working areas from the contaminants by the soil cap and under-building garage, as well as the implementation of potential institutional control measures would ensure that future building inhabitants would not be exposed to unacceptable vapors, and no significant impacts would be anticipated. 4.3.3 Conclusion Redevelopment under the Preferred Alternative would result in potential environmental health- related impacts that would be similar to those under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2, including impacts associated with construction/excavation exposure to contaminated soils, as well as potential vapors from volatile contaminants in the subsurface. No additional environmental health-related impacts would be expected. 4.3.4 Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures were identified in the DEIS to address potential environmental health- related impacts; these measures would also apply to the Preferred Alternative. Because no additional significant environmental health-related impacts were identified for the Preferred Alternative, no changes to the DEIS mitigation measures would be necessary. See Chapter 1 for the complete list of environmental health-related mitigation measures. 4.3.5 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts There are no significant adverse environmental health-related impacts that cannot be mitigated. Quenda/1 Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 4.3-2 Environmental Health 4.4 ENERGY -GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS This section of the EIS Addendum compares the probable significant energy -greenhouse gas (GHG) emission impacts from the Preferred Alternative to those from DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2. As appropriate, new/modified mitigation measures are identified. 4.4.1 Affected Environment GHGs, such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, are emitted by both natural processes and human activities, and trap heat in the atmosphere. In tum, the accumulation of GHG in the atmosphere affects the earth's temperature. One source of GHG emissions is fossil fuels used to produce power used by consumers for electrical power and home heating needs. Puget Sound Energy (PSE) is one of three electrical service providers for the City of Renton and provides service to the Quendall Terminals site and vicinity. The majority of PSE's power comes from hydro-electric and natural gas sources. The Quendall Terminals site is currently vacant and does not contain any structures or facilities that would consume energy or emit GHG emissions. The Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) provides guidance for calculating and analyzing GHG emissions for projects. In June 2010, Ecology issued guidelines, including guidance regarding the types of GHG emissions that should be calculated; a description of how to determine if emissions surpass a threshold of "significance"; and a description of different types of mitigation measures. After closure of the public comment period on the guidelines, Ecology issued a statement indicating that significant changes would be required to the guidelines before they were issued. The revised guidelines were not available at the time of the issuance of the 201 O DEIS. 4.4.2 Impacts 2010 Draft EIS Proposed redevelopment under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2 would result in an increase in GHG emissions relative to the existing conditions due to the increase in building density and site population. Redevelopment under Alternative 1 would result in an estimated 1,297,536 MTC02 e in lifespan GHG emissions, and redevelopment under Alternative 2 would result in an estimated 860,434 MTC02e in lifespan GHG emissions. New development under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2 would utilize energy in the form of electricity for heating, cooling, lighting and other energy demands, and natural gas for heating and cooking. New development would result in an increase in energy usage when compared to existing conditions. However, Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) building techniques and other energy conservation methods could be incorporated into the design of the development which would lower the energy demands associated with the site. Quenda/1 Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 4.4-1 Energy-Greenhouse Gas Emissions 2012 EIS Addendum For the purposes of comparison, GHG emissions for the Preferred Alternative have been calculated using the King County GHG Emissions Spreadsheet Model that was utilized in the DEIS. Similar to DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2, redevelopment under the Preferred Alternative would result in an increase in GHG emissions when compared to the existing conditions. Table 4.4-1 provides a summary of the potential estimated GHG emissions that could result from the construction and operation with redevelopment under the Preferred Alternative. Table 4.4-1 ESTIMATED GHG EMISSIONS -PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE Source Square Embodied Energy Transportation Lifespan Footage Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions MTC02e MTCO.a MTCO.a MTCO.a Residential 692 22,836 247,044 530,072 799,952 Office 0 0 0 0 0 Retail 21,600 842.4 12.463.2 5,335.2 18,640.8 Restaurant 9,000 351 17,946 5,049 23,346 Estimated 24,029.4 ffl,453.2 640,466.2 841,938.8 TotalGHG Emissions Source: EAIB/umen, 2012 1 Indicates the total number of residential units The numbers in this table differ slightly from the GHG Emissions Worksheet (see Appendix DJ due to rounding. As shown in Table 4.4-1, GHG emissions under the Preferred Alternative would be lower than under the DEIS Alternatives (841,938 MTC02 e lifespan emissions under the Preferred Alternative versus 1,297.536 and 860,434 under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2, respectively). A majority of the emissions would be from residential development on the site. These calculations have not taken into account any potential effects to reduce the carbon footprint of the redevelopment, such as LEED building techniques, vehicle trip reductions through building a walkable community, or other energy conservation measures. Energy usage under the Preferred Alternative would be similar to under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2, and would primarily include electricity and natural gas. Electricity would be used for heating, cooling, lighting, and other energy demands; natural gas would be used primarily for heating and cooking. PSE would continue to provide electricity and natural gas service to the site. LEED building techniques and other energy conservation measures could be incorporated into the final development and would lower the energy demands associated with redevelopment 4.4.3 Conclusion Redevelopment under the Preferred Alternative would result in potential energy and GHG- related impacts that would be similar to or less than those under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2. No further energy/GHG-related impacts would be anticipated. Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 4.4-2 Energy-Greenhouse Gas Emissions 4.4.4 Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures were identified in the DEIS to address potential GHG em1ss1ons and energy usage; these measures would also apply to the Preferred Alternative. Because no additional significant GHG/energy-related impacts were identified with the Preferred Alternative, no changes to the DEIS mitigation measures would be necessary. See Chapter 1 for the complete list of GHG/energy-related mitigation measures. 4.4.5 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Development on the Quendall Terminals site would result in an increase in demand for energy and an increase in GHG emissions relative to existing conditions, similar to any major development. However, the direct and indirect impacts of GHG emissions and energy use under the Preferred Alternative would be similar to or less than those analyzed for the DEIS Alternatives (particularly Alternative 2) and would not be expected to be significant. The proposed redevelopment would include features that would reduce GHG emissions and climate change impacts (i.e. the compact, mixed-use nature of the proposed development would reduce vehicular trips). Quenda/1 Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 4.4-3 Energy-Greenhouse Gas Emissions 4.5 LAND AND SHORELINE USE/RELATIONSHIP TO PLANS AND POLICIES This section of the EIS Addendum compares the probable significant land and shoreline use impacts from the Preferred Alternative to those from DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2. As appropriate, new/modified mitigation measures are identified. 4.5.1 Affected Environment The Quendall Terminals Main Property is currently vacant and unused, and includes two small buildings, a sewer pump station, a wharf, and a dock. The site was historically used for industrial operations dating back to 1917, including creosote manufacturing, diesel fuel and oil storage operations, and log sorting and storage. As described in Section 4.3, Environmental Health, historic industrial operations on the site have resulted in a variety of contamination issues, and cleanup of the site is currently being overseen by the EPA. Land uses in the vicinity of the Main Property include the Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility and multifamily/single family residences to the north; Seahawks Way/Ripley Lane, the Isolated Property, 1-405 and the site of the Hawk's Landing potential hotel/retail/restaurant development to the east; the Barbee Mill residential development to the south; and, Lake Washington to the west. The Comprehensive Plan and zoning designation for the Main Property is Commercial/Office/Residential (COR), which is intended to provide opportunities for large-scale commercial, office, retail, and multifamily residential projects. The Lake Washington shoreline along the Main Property is classified as a Shoreline of Statewide Significance, and is in the Shoreline High Intensity Overlay District in the 2011 SMP. The objective of this overlay district, in part, is to provide opportunities for large-scale office and commercial employment centers as well as multifamily residential use and public services. The Quendall Terminals Isolated Property is vacant and generally comprised of existing vegetation and wetlands. Similar to the Main Property, the Comprehensive Plan and zoning designation for the Isolated Property is COR. The zoning of the properties surrounding the site is also COR, with the exception of the Barbee Mill property to the south, which has been rezoned to R-10 (residential, 10 dwelling units per acre). 4.5.2 Impacts 2010 Draft EIS Redevelopment under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2 would occur in nine buildings on the site with approximately 708 to 800 residential units, 21,600 square feet of retail uses, 9,000 square feet of restaurant uses, and 1,364 to 2,171 parking spaces; DEIS Alternative 1 would also include approximately 245,000 square feet of office uses (see Table 2-1 for a summary of redevelopment under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2). Quenda/1 Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 4.5-1 Land and Shoreline Use/ Relationship to Plans and Policies Site preparation and construction of buildings and infrastructure would result in temporary construction-related impacts to adjacent land uses over the build-out period, including air emissions, noise, and increased traffic from construction vehicles/equipment. Due to the temporary nature of construction and required compliance with City of Renton construction requirements, no significant impacts would be anticipated. Redevelopment under the DEIS Alternatives would convert the site from its current vacant, vegetated state to a new mixed-use development, and would restore a Superfund site to a productive new use. New development would result in increased on-site population and associated increases in activity levels onsite (i.e. noise and traffic). In general, these activity levels would be greater than the adjacent residential uses to the south (Barbee Mill), but similar to commercial uses to the north (Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility) and existing and planned commercial and hotel uses to the east (proposed Hawk's Landing hotel and commercial uses east of 1-405). Activity levels would generally be consistent with the existing urban character of the area and no significant impacts would be anticipated. The proposed buildings on the site would be up to approximately 67 feet (Alternative 2) or 80 feet (Alternative 1) in height and would range from approximately 77,000 to 112,800 square feet (Alternative 2) or 94,600 to 209,000 square feet (Alternative 1 ). The proposed height and bulk would be greater than adjacent development to the south; however, they would be generally similar to the surrounding commercial and planned hotel buildings to the north and east. Existing off-site features (i.e. roadways and PSE easement), as well as proposed on-site features (i.e. building setbacks, driveways, parking areas, and landscaping) would provide buffers between proposed buildings and adjacent land uses. Architectural features would be included that would be intended to enhance the compatibility with surrounding uses. The proposed development would also be consistent with the type and size of development contemplated in the COR land use/zoning classification and the current Shoreline High Intensity Overlay District. As a result, no significant land use compatibility impacts would be anticipated. 2012 EIS Addendum As described in Chapter 2 of this EIS Addendum, the majority of the redevelopment assumptions for the Preferred Alternative would be similar to those analyzed under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2 (in particular DEIS Alternative 2), including the types of land uses and general level of development on the site such as number of residential units, restaurant and retail space, parking, site population and maximum building heights. Certain redevelopment assumptions have been modified from those described for the DEIS Alternatives, including shoreline setback, setbacks from adjacent properties, view corridors, building height modulation, open space and related areas, building design, and emergency access road/pedestrian facility (see Table 2-1 for a summary and comparison of the Preferred Alternative and DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2). A 5-year time limit is typically required by the City for non-phased Master Plan projects. Build- out of the Quendall Terminals project could occur in phases, in accordance with market demand, and an extension of the 5-year time limit could be requested by the applicant via the Master Plan approval process (RMC 4-9-200J.2.a). The extension would require identification of clearly defined phases and specific time limits for each phase and a determination of eligibility for any extension of the time limits. Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 4.5-2 Land and Shoreline Use/ Relationship to Plans and Policies Construction Due to the similar levels of redevelopment, construction-related impacts under the Preferred Alternative would generally be similar to under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2. Redevelopment would result in temporary construction-related impacts to adjacent land uses over the build-out period and could include emissions from construction vehicles and equipment; increased dust associated with construction activities; vibration associated with construction; increased noise levels; and, increased traffic associated with construction vehicles and workers. No significant land use impacts would be anticipated due to the temporary nature of construction and the compliance with applicable City of Renton regulations. Operation Redevelopment under the Preferred Alternative would restore the Quendall Terminals site to a productive use subsequent to cleanup/remediation. The site would be converted from its current vacant, partially vegetated state to include a mixture of residential, retail, restaurant and open space uses, and associated infrastructure. The Preferred Alternative would include a similar level/mix of redevelopment to the DEIS Alternatives (particularly Alternative 2). Table 4.5-1 provides a summary and comparison of the site uses under the Preferred Alternative and DEIS Alternatives. Table 4.5-1 SITE AREA BREAK DOWN Site Uses DEIS Alternative DEIS Alternative Preferred Alternative 1 (acres) 2 (acres) Built Areas (Impervious Areas) Building footprints 5.0 4.1 Paved rights-of-way, roads, 4.2 3.9 oedestrian/bike oaths Surface oarkina areas 1.4 2.7 Paved olazas 0.2 0.1 Subtotal 10.8 10.8 Vegetated Areas (Pervious Areas) Natural areas' 4.4' 4.4' Landscaped areas 6.0 6.1 Unpaved trails 0.2 0.3 Subtotal 10.6 10.8 Total 21.5' 21.5' Source: Lance Mueller Architects, 2010, 2012 1 Includes the adjacent 1.2-acre Isolated Property to the northeast that is part of the site. 2 Totals differ from sums of subtotals due to rounding. 3 Includes approximately 1.3 acres of parking deck area (2-level parking structure). (acres) 4.3 4.0 3.3' 0 11.6 4.5' 4.9 0.5 9.9 21.5 Similar to DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2, redevelopment under the Preferred Alternative would result in an increase in activity levels (i.e. noise, traffic, etc. associated with increased site population) on the site. Overall activity levels would be generally consistent with the existing urban character of the site area, and no significant land use impacts would be anticipated. Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 4.5-3 Land and Shoreline Use/ Relationship to Plans and Policies Redevelopment under the Preferred Alternative would be similar in height and bulk to DEIS Alternative 2, since the maximum building height would be approximately 64 feet. However, modifications have been made to the Preferred Alternative to enhance the compatibility with adjacent uses. For example, building heights would be modulated to include 4-story buildings at the southern portion of the site, 5-story buildings at the northern portion, and 5-6-story buildings in the western, eastern and central portions of the site. Proposed building setbacks from adjacent properties have also been modified under the Preferred Alternative and would vary somewhat from DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2. Setbacks from the northern property line under the Preferred Alternative would range from approximately 95 feet adjacent to the five-story building in the northwestern portion of the site to approximately 38 feet adjacent to the one-story parking structure in the northeastern portion of the site. The minimum setback along this property line would be similar to DEIS Alternative 1, but less than DEIS Alternative 2. The maximum setback would be less than DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2. Setbacks from the southern property line under the Preferred Alternative would range from approximately 40 feet adjacent to the one-story parking garage in the southeastern portion of the site to approximately 200 feet adjacent to the four-story building in the southwestern portion of the site. The minimum setback along this property line would be similar to DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2; the maximum setback would be greater than DEIS Alternative 1, but less than DEIS Alternative 2 (see Table 2-1 and Figure 2-3). The proposed height, bulk, and setbacks of the Preferred Alternative would be consistent with the existing urban character of the area and applicable City of Renton requirements, and no significant land use impacts would be anticipated. Due to the similar level and mix of redevelopment on the site, it is anticipated that potential indirecVcumulative impacts would be similar to those described in the DEIS for Alternatives 1 and 2. These impacts would include a contribution to cumulative residential and employment growth, a cumulative increase in traffic in the site vicinity (see Section 4.9, Transportation, for further details), and an increased demand for retail goods and services. Overall, no significant indirect land use impacts would be anticipated. Proposed redevelopment under the Preferred Alternative would generally be consistent with applicable plans, policies and regulations, particularly with the increased building setbacks and building height modulation that have been incorporated into this alternative relative to DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2. As part of the permit review process, further evaluation would be performed by the City to determine whether the Preferred Alternative is fully consistent with all of the COR land use/zoning classification goals and requirements, including those regarding project design. 4.5.3 Conclusion Redevelopment under the Preferred Alternative would result in potential land and shoreline use- related impacts that would be similar to or less than those under the DEIS Alternatives (in particular DEIS Alternative 2). No further land or shoreline use impacts would be anticipated. 4.5.4 Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures were identified in the DEIS to address potential land use impacts; for the most part these measures would also apply to the Preferred Alternative. Following are changes Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 4.5-4 Land and Shoreline Use/ Relationship to Plans and Policies I to the "Proposed" mitigation measures listed in the DEIS. Strike-through indicates those measures or portions of measures that have been eliminated; underline indicates new or portions of new measures included as part of the Preferred Alternative. See Chapter 1 for the complete list of land use-related mitigation measures. • Building heights would be modulated to reduce potential height/bulk/scale impacts on adjacent development (i.e. Barbee Mill). The buildings located adjacent to the southern property lines would be 4-stories high; those in the northern portion of the site would be 5 stories high; and. those in the western. eastern. and central portions of the site would be 5 to 6 stories high. 4.5.5 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Redevelopment under the Preferred Alternative would result in the conversion of the approximately 21.5-acre Quendall Terminals site from a vacant, partially vegetated area to a new mixed-use development with an associated increase in building density and activity levels. There are no significant unavoidable adverse land use impacts that cannot be mitigated. Quenda/1 Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 4.5-5 Land and Shoreline Use/ Relationship to Plans and Policies 4.6 AESTHETICSNIEWS This section of the EIS Addendum compares the probable significant impacts on aesthetics and views from the Preferred Alternative to those from DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2. As appropriate, new/modified mitigation measures are identified. 4.6.1 Affected Environment The aesthetic character of the Quendall Terminals Main Property is open and partially vegetated. An existing, brick-clad structure, a shack, and a sewer pump station are located along the western edge of the site and a wooden wharf and dock are located along the western edge. The remainder of the site is comprised of existing natural vegetation, including trees, grasses, shrubs and herbs, as well as unpaved roadways. Subsequent to cleanup/remediation activities (which would occur with or without the project), the existing vegetation and structures would be removed, with the exception of the sewer pump station. A soil cap would be likely placed on the upland and shoreline areas and would raise the property approximately two-to three feet. The Isolated Property is generally comprised of existing trees, vegetation and wetlands, and would remain in this condition with site cleanup/remediation. The visual character of the area to the north of the Quendall Terminals site is primarily characterized by the Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility, which includes three football fields and an approximately 200,000-square foot training facility building. The area further to the north is primarily comprised of low-rise multifamily and single family residences. The area to the east is characterized by Ripley Lane, vegetated areas and 1-405; further to the east are commercial and multifamily residences, as well as the site of a proposed hotel. To the south of the site is the Barbee Mill residential development which includes two-to three-story single family residences; further to the south are additional single family residences. The area to the west of the site is characterized by Lake Washington. The site contains no existing sources of light and glare. Shadows on the site are primarily cast from mature trees located in the western and southern portions of the site. Lighting and glare conditions in the site vicinity are typical of an urban environment and generally include interior/exterior building lighting, parking lot lighting, street lighting and vehicular headlights. 4.6.2 Impacts 2010 Draft EIS Proposed redevelopment of the Quendall Terminals site would change the aesthetic character from an open, partially vegetated property to a new mixed-use development with nine buildings, roadways, parking areas, and open space/landscaping. Buildings would range from 94,600 to 209,000 square feet under Alternative 1 and from 77,000 to 112,800 square feet under Alternative 2. Building heights would be seven stories under Alternative 1 and six stories under Alternative 2. Redevelopment on the site is intended to be aesthetically pleasing and high quality, and would represent a compact, urban form with a consistent design concept throughout the site. Buildings on the site would be greater in height and bulk than the adjacent Barbee Mill Quenda/1 Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 4.6-1 AestheticsNiews development, but would be similar to the Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility and the planned Hawk's Landing development. View corridors and viewing areas are proposed onsite, consistent with the City of Renton's Comprehensive Plan policies. View corridors would be provided along the main easUwest public roadway (Street "B'') and along private driveways at the north and south ends of the site. Additional views towards Lake Washington would be provided for residents on the site in the semi-private courtyards. The proposed trail along the shoreline would also include viewing areas for residents and the community. Visual simulations were prepared as part of the DEIS. As shown by the simulations, redevelopment on the Quendall Terminals site would block or partially block views toward Lake Washington from certain viewpoints. View corridors would be provided along the east/west roadway and at the north and south end of the site. In general, visual impacts under Alternative 2 would be less than under Alternative 1. Proposed redevelopment would add new sources of light, glare, and shadows at the site. New light and glare sources would be similar to existing sources on adjacent uses (i.e. building lighting, street lighting, and vehicular lighting); however, the general light and glare levels would be higher. Proposed buildings on the site would also create shadows that would extend onto certain on-site outdoor areas; however, these shadows would not impact off-site uses. 2012 EIS Addendum As described in Chapter 2 of this EIS Addendum, the majority of the redevelopment assumptions for the Preferred Alternative would be similar to those analyzed under the DEIS redevelopment alternatives (in particular DEIS Alternative 2). Proposed mixed-use buildings, associated roadways, landscaping, and landscaped courtyards on the Quendall Terminals site would alter the existing visual character of the site similar to DEIS Alternative 2. However, certain redevelopment assumptions have been modified from those described for the DEIS Alternatives, including, view corridors, building height modulation, and building design (see Table 2-1 for a summary and comparison of the Preferred Alternative to DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2). These modified redevelopment assumptions would generally improve aesthetic and view conditions when compared to the DEIS Alternatives. Building heights under the Preferred Alternative have been modulated across the site, as compared to DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2. The buildings in the southern portion of the site would be 4-stories high (3 stories over one story of parking). Buildings located in the northern portion of the site would be 5 stories high (4 stories over one story of parking); and, those in the western, eastern, and central portions of the site would be 5 to 6 stories high (4 to 5 stories over one story of parking). The maximum building height would be approximately 64 feet, similar to under DEIS Alternative 2. The modulated buildings heights under the Preferred Alternative would place the shortest buildings adjacent to the south property line (and adjacent Barbee Mill development), while the tallest buildings would be placed centrally on the site to minimize any potential impacts to adjacent uses. During final design, maximum building heights 100 feet from the Lake Washington ordinary high water mark (OHWM) would be reduced to one half of the maximum height allowed by the COR zone (125 feet allowed height x Y, = 62.5 feet), consistent with the City of Renton Shoreline Management Program (2011 ); maximum building height in this area under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2 would be 77 and 67 feet, respectively. Quenda/1 Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 4.6-2 AestheticsNiews The proposed design of the buildings in the Quendall Terminals Mixed-Use Redevelopment Project has also continued to evolve under the Preferred Alternative, based on input from the City and community. Ten buildings ranging in size from 46,200 to 88,000 square feet are proposed under the Preferred Alternative, versus 9 buildings ranging from 94,600 to 209,000 square feet under DEIS Alternative 1, and 9 buildings ranging from 77,000 to 112,800 square feet under DEIS Alternative 2. Similar to the DEIS Alternatives, the Preferred Alternative would represent a compact, urban form, with a consistent design concept throughout the site. The proposed design of the buildings is intended to be coordinated through a variety of details and materials, and provide a human scale with visually interesting streetscapes and facades (see DEIS pages 3-15 and 3-16 for details). Exterior building materials would resemble those under the DEIS redevelopment alternatives; however, more brick, stucco, masonry, and precast concretes, and less metal siding would likely be incorporated into the buildings under the Preferred Alternative (see Figure 2-4). The bases of the parking structure are also proposed to have grids to support vines to create "green walls." New sources of light, glare, and shadows with the Preferred Alternative would be similar to with DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2. Visual Analysis Several comments on the DEIS related to impacts on views to and from Lake Washington and Mercer Island with redevelopment under Alternatives 1 and 2. With proposed redevelopment under the Preferred Alternative, certain view corridors through the site would be larger than under the DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2. The view corridor along Street "B", the main easVwest street proposed through the site, would be approximately 74 feet wide under the Preferred Alternative, 8 feet wider than under the DEIS Alternatives. View corridors along the southern boundary of the site would also be maximized under the Preferred Alternative, similar to under DEIS Alternative 2. These larger view corridors under the Preferred Alternative would allow for greater views through the site towards Lake Washington versus those included as part of the DEIS Alternatives. Building height modulation is also proposed under the Preferred Alternative that would increase view opportunities. Viewpoints Six key viewpoints were selected for the visual analysis of the Preferred Alternative in this EIS Addendum. These viewpoints consist of public locations, including public streets, sidewalks, and a public park, and represent the views that were mentioned most frequently by commentators on the DEIS. Five of these viewpoints were also analyzed in the DEIS (Viewpoints 1, 4, 7, 8, and 9); Viewpoint 11 is a new viewpoint from Lake Washington Boulevard N (see Table 3.2-1 and Figure 3.2-1 for further details on the viewpoint locations). In general, under the Preferred Alternative, proposed mixed-use buildings, associated roadways, landscaping, and landscaped courtyards on the Quendall Terminals site would alter views to and through the site, similar to DEIS Alternative 2. However, the larger view corridor at Street "B" and proposed building height modulation would allow for greater views of Lake Washington and Mercer Island from certain viewpoints (see Section 3.2, AestheticsNiews, for a further description of the visual analysis for each individual viewpoint). Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 4.6-3 AestheticsNiews 4.6.3 Conclusion Redevelopment under the Preferred Alternative would result in potential aesthetic and view- related impacts that would be similar to or less than those under the DEIS Alternatives (in particular DEIS Alternative 2), due in part to the larger proposed view corridor, building height modulation, and building design measures. No further aesthetics or view impacts would be anticipated. 4.6.4 Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures were identified in the DEIS to address potential aesthetic and view-related impacts; for the most part these measures would also apply to the Preferred Alternative. Following are changes to the "Proposed" and "Other Possible" mitigation measures listed in the DEIS. Strike-through indicates those measures or portions of measures that have been eliminated; underline indicates new or portions of new measures that are included as part of the Preferred Alternative. See Chapter 1 for the complete list of aesthetic and view-related mitigation measures. Proposed Mitigation Measures • Exterior building lighting, parking lot lighting, and pedestrian lighting would be directed downward and away from surrounding buildings and properties to minimize the impacts to adjacent uses. • Building setbacks would be maximized adjacent to Lake Washington and along the south site boundary, to enhance the aesthetic character of development and retain views of Lake Washington. • Building height modulation would be provided across the site to enhance the aesthetic character of development and retain some views of Lake Washington. • No surface parking would be located at the terminus of Street "B" in order to enhance the aesthetic character of the development, particularly from the shoreline trail. • During final building design, maximum building heights 100 feet from the Lake Washington ordinary high water mark {OHWM) would be reduced to one half of the maximum height allowed by the COR zone {125 feet allowed height x % = 62.5 feet), consistent with the City of Renton Shoreline Management Program (2011). which would help maintain views toward the lake. Other Possible Mitigation Measures • Vertical and/or horizontal modulation should be provided along the west or lake side of the buildings to provide a human scale and breakup the larger structures which would be adjacent to the shoreline area and pedestrian environment. • Q1::1il8iAg l=teigRts alGRfJ tRe sl=teFeliRe Ge1.119 Se r081..1se8 te FRaiAtaiA \dews ef bake \f.3/.asRiAgteA. Quenda/1 Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 4.6-4 AestheticsNiews 4.6.5 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Similar to the DEIS redevelopment alternatives (particularly DEIS Alternative 2), redevelopment under the Preferred Alternative would change the site from its existing open, partially vegetated condition to a new mixed-use development. The proposed building height and bulk would be generally similar to surrounding uses (Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility and proposed Hawk's Landing Hotel), but greater than other uses in the area (Barbee Mill development). However, with proposed building setbacks, and building height modulation across the site, no significant impacts would be anticipated. Certain views across the site towards Lake Washington and Mercer Island would be obstructed under the Preferred Alternative. However, the proposed provision of view corridors and building modulation would allow for some views through the site, and significant impacts would not be anticipated. Quenda/1 Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 4.6-5 AestheticsNiews I 4. 7 PARKS AND RECREATION This section of the EIS Addendum compares the probable significant parks and recreation impacts from the Preferred Alternative to those DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2. As appropriate, new/modified mitigation measures are identified. 4.7.1 Affected Environment The Quendall Terminals site is currently vacant and contains no park or recreation facilities, including shoreline access. The City of Renton is the primary provider of parks and recreation services within the City. For park planning purposes, the City of Renton is divided into ten planning areas and the Quendall Terminals site is located at the north end of the Kennydale Community Planning Area. Existing park and recreation areas that are provided in this area include: Kennydale Beach Park, Kennydale Lions Park, and May Creek Greenway. Two parks in the site vicinity (Gene Coulon Memorial Park and Kennydale Beach Park) are already at or exceeding visitor capacity in the summer time (City of Renton Parks Dept., 2010). At the time that complete applications for the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project were submitted, the City of Renton's Park, Recreation and Open Space Implementation Plan (2003) and the Comprehensive Plan, Capital Facilities Element (2009) were in effect. These plans described the existing park, recreation and open space areas in the city, and established level of service (LOS) standards for park and recreation facilities. According to the plans, the City had a park and open space deficit of 414.12 acres, as well as needs for all types of active recreation facilities, with the exception of swimming pools. The existing total park land LOS was 13. 77 acres per 1,000 population and the adopted park land LOS standard was 18.58 acres per 1,000 population. As such, there was a deficit of 4.81 acres per 1,000 population based on the adopted standards (see DEIS Table 3.8-2 for a summary of park and recreation LOS). There are several bicycle and pedestrian facilities within the vicinity of the Quendall Terminals site, including Lake Washington Boulevard, NE 44 1" Street, and Ripley Lane N. Ripley Lane N also provides a connection to the Lake Washington Loop Trail. Two new proposed trail and bicycle routes are also proposed in the Renton Trails and Bicycle Master Plan (2009) which would serve the Quendall Terminals site: a future rails-trails corridor on the Railroad right-of-way parallel to Lake Washington Boulevard, and a pedestrian-only trail that would connected to the May Creek Greenway. Provisions in the 1983 City of Renton Shoreline Master Program (SMP), in effect at the time complete applications on the project were submitted, related to public access along the shoreline and encouraged leaving space for trails, non-motorized bike paths and/or other means of public use. 2011 Parks. Recreation. and Natural Areas Plan Subsequent to the issuance of the DEIS, on November 7, 2011, the Parks, Recreation, and Natural Areas Plan was adopted by the City Council. This plan presents a 20-year vision for parks. recreation facilities, and programming and natural areas; and, identifies policies, implementation strategies, and an investment program to enhance and sustain parks, recreation and natural areas as critical elements of a livable community (see Section 3.3, Parks and Recreation, for further details on the 2011 Parks, Recreation, and Natural Areas Plan). Quenda/1 Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 4.7-1 Parks and Recreation 4.7.2 Impacts 2010 Draft EIS Redevelopment under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2 would generate increases in on-site population and employees, which would result in associated increases in demands on park and recreation facilities in the vicinity of the Quendall Terminals site. Parks and recreation facilities that would be most likely to receive the increased demand would include May Creek Greenway, Kennydale Lions Park, Kennydale Beach Park, and Gene Coulon Memorial Park. The latter two parks are currently at or exceeding their capacity during the summer and redevelopment under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2 would further contribute to these capacity issues. Additional parks and recreation facilities could be needed in the City of Renton based on the City's LOS standards and the increased population on the site. Under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2, open space and related areas would be provided on the site that would help meet the demand for passive recreation facilities from project residents and employees. However, the demand for active recreation facilities would not be satisfied onsite. Approximately 11. 7 to 11.8 acres of open space and related areas would be provided on the Quendall Terminals site under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2 respectively, including paved plazas, natural areas, landscape areas, unpaved trails and sidewalks. Approximately 3.4 acres of natural open space area would be visually and physically accessible to the general public at certain times of day, including the natural shoreline area and the proposed shoreline trail. These open space and related areas may or may not meet the City's standards, regulations and procedures for open space. The provision of a publically accessible trail within the natural open space along the shoreline would be consistent with the City's 1983 SMP regulations The project applicant would also be required to pay park and recreation mitigation/impact fees at the time of building permit issuance. These fees would help to offset the impacts of proposed new residential development on park and recreation facilities, open space, and trails. 2012 EIS Addendum Similar to DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2, the Preferred Alternative would result in increases in on- site population and employees, which would result in associated increases in demands on park and recreation facilities in the site vicinity, and would contribute to capacity issues at Kennydale Beach Park and Gene Coulon Memorial Park during the summer. Additional parks and recreation facilities could be needed in the City of Renton based on the City's LOS standards and the increased population on the site. The Preferred Alternative would include open space and related areas onsite to help meet the demand for passive recreation from project residents and employees, but not the demand for active recreation facilities. Approximately 10.6 acres of open space and related area would be provided, approximately one acre less than under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2. However, the Preferred Alternative would provide slightly more natural open space area than the DEIS redevelopment alternatives (see Table 4.7-1). These open space and related areas may or may not meet the City's standards, regulations, and procedures for open space. Similar to DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2, a publically accessible trail is proposed within the natural open space area Quenda/1 Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 4.7-2 Parks and Recreation along the shoreline. The applicant would also pay park and recreation impact fees to help offset the impacts of the project on park and recreation facilities, open space, and trails. Table 4.7-1 ON-SITE OPEN SPACE AND RELATED AREAS' COMPARISON DEIS DEIS Preferred Alternative Alternative Alternative 1 2 Natural Public Open Space Areas (Proposed Public Recreation Access) Natural Areas Along Shoreline Trail' 3.2 acres 3.2 acres 3.2 acres Shoreline Trail. 0.2 acres 0.3 acres 0.5 acres SUB-TOTAL 3.4 acres 3.5 acres 3.7 acres Other Areas Street-Level Landscaping -in proposed dedicated right-of-way 0.3 acres 0.3 acres 0.1 acres -not in proposed dedicated right-of-way 1.4 acres 1.8 acres 1.5 acres Landscaped Courtyards 4.3 acres 4.1 acres 2.7 acres Sidewalks -in proposed dedicated right-of-way 0.6 acres 0.6 acres 1.3 acres -not in proposed dedicated right-of-way 0.3 acres 0.2 acres 0.1 acres Paved Plazas -in proposed dedicated right-of-way 0.0 acres 0.0 acres 0.0 acres -not in proposed dedicated right-of-way 0.2 acres 0.1 acres 0.0 acres Other -Isolated Property 1.2 acres 1.2 acres 1.2 acres SUB-TOTAL 8.3 acres 8.3 acres 6.9 acres TOTAL 11.7 acres 11.8 acres 10.6 acres Source: Lance Mueller, 2012. 1 These open space and other areas may or may not meet the City's standards, regulations, and procedures for open space. 2Hours of public access would need to meet park standards of sunrise to sunset ta count toward public recreation. 4.7.3 Conclusion Redevelopment under the Preferred Alternative would result in potential impacts to parks and recreation facilities that would be similar to or slightly greater than those under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2 (approximately 10.6 acres of open space and related area would be provided, approximately one acre less than under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2; however, the Preferred Alternative would provide slightly more natural open space area than the DEIS redevelopment alternatives). No additional impacts to parks and recreation facilities would be anticipated. Quenda/1 Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 4.7-3 Parks and Recreation 4.7.4 Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures were identified in the DEIS to address potential impacts to parks and recreation facilities; for the most part these measures would also apply to the Preferred Alternative. Following are changes to the "Proposed" and "Other Possible" mitigation measures listed in the DEIS. Strike-through indicates those measures or portions of measures that have been eliminated; underline indicates new or portions of new measures that are included as part of the Preferred Alternative. See Chapter 1 for the complete list of park and recreation-related mitigation measures. Proposed Mitigation Measures • A parks mitigation/impact fee would be paid for each multifamily unit in the proposed development at the time of building permit issuance to help offset the impacts of the project on City parks and recreation facilities. Park mitigation/impact fees would be determined at the time of building permit issuance and in accordance with the City of Renton Municipal Code. • Approximately 10.6 acres of public open space and related areas would be provided on the site that would be visually and physically accessible to the public, including the shoreline trail and natural open space areas along the shoreline. • The connection between the proposed shoreline trail and Lake Washington Boulevard would be enhanced by providing wider sidewalks (i.e. 15-foot wide) that are part of the public right-of-way along the Street "B" corridor. Other Possible Mitigation Measures • The hours of use of the proposed shoreline trail could be extended to sunrise to sunset and public parking could be provided, consistent with other City of Renton parks, in order to meet the requirements for public access. • Additional open space could be provided onsite for active recreation (i.e. frisbee, softball, etc.). A portion of the proposed surface parking on site (i.e. adjacent to the shoreline) could be converted to facilities for active recreation. • A lighted crosswalk across Lake Washington Boulevard could be provided in order to connect to the May Creek Trail on the east side of the Boulevard. • The proposed shoreline trail and other recreation areas could be enhanced with site amenities such as tables. litter receptacles. benches. interpretive signaqe. etc. • The proposed shoreline trail could connect to the Barbee Mill residential development to the south. Quenda/1 Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 4.7-4 Parks and Recreation 4.7.5 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Residents of the proposed development would use nearby parks and recreation facilities, including Gene Coulon Memorial Park and Kennydale Beach Park, which are already at or exceeding capacity in the summer. Demand from project residents would contribute to the existing capacity issues at these parks. Quenda/1 Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 4.7-5 Parks and Recreation 4.8 TRANSPORTATION This section of the EIS Addendum compares the probable significant transportation impacts from the Preferred Alternative to those from DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2. As appropriate, new/modified mitigation measures are identified. 4.8.1 Affected Environment Roadways adjacent to the Quendall Terminals site include Lake Washington Boulevard, Ripley Lane N and NE 44'" Street. All of these streets would be used to access potential redevelopment on the site. As part of the transportation analysis, nine study intersections were analyzed (see Figure 3 in Appendix E for a map of the study intersections), including: 1. Lake Washington Boulevard (1-405 NB ramps)/ NE 44'" Street 2. 1-405 SB ramps / NE 44'" Street 3. Lake Washington Boulevard I Ripley Lane N 4. Lake Washington Boulevard / Barbee Mill Access (N 43'd Street) 5. Lake Washington Boulevard I Hawk's Landing Access (future intersection) 6. Lake Washington Boulevard / N 36'" Street I Burnett Avenue N 7. N 30'" Street/ Burnett Avenue N (without 1-405 Improvements Scenario only) 8. Lake Washington Boulevard I Burnett Avenue N (without 1-405 Improvements Scenario only) 9. Lake Washington Boulevard I Park Avenue N / Garden Avenue N The DEIS included a discussion of existing transportation conditions at the time the document was published (December 2010), including: existing traffic volumes, intersection LOS, public transportation services, non-motorized transportation facilities, and planned transportation improvements (see DEIS Section 3.9, Transportation, and Appendix H for details). Followin~ issuance of the DEIS, updated traffic counts were taken at Intersection #3 (Ripley Lane/NE 44 Street) in June 2012. Based on the new traffic counts for Study Intersection #3, the traffic analysis was updated for this location, as well as adjacent study intersections based on the traffic counts that indicated increased demands on discrete intersection movements. The existing peak hour intersection level of service (LOS) analysis was also updated for affected intersections. The existing LOS levels would remain as described in the DEIS (see DEIS Table 3.9-1 and Table 3.4-1 in this EIS Addendum); however, the average delay would change at certain intersections (i.e. a slight increase in delay at Study Intersections #2 and #3, and a slight decrease in delay at Study Intersection #1). No public transit service is currently provided in the site vicinity. The closest transit service is available via a dial-a-ride service area and fixed route service in the vicinity of the NE 30'" Street interchange and 1-405. Non-motorized transportation facilities in the area include striped bike lanes on Lake Washington Boulevard, as well as a 4-5 foot paved shoulder on the east and west side of the street. There are no non-motorized facilities on the site. The existing railroad corridor to the east Quenda/1 Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 4.8-1 Transportation of the site was recently purchased by the Port of Seattle and identified as a future "rails to trails" planned trail. A future trail is also planned along May Creek to the southeast of the site. The DEIS also identified future planned transportation improvements in the vicinity by the City of Renton and WSDOT. As described in Appendix E and Section 3.4 to this EIS Addendum, following issuance of the DEIS, further clarification was provided regarding the City of Renton's planned transportation improvement project for a portion of Lake Washington Boulevard. The City of Renton's 2010-2015 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) identifies the Lake Washington Boulevard/Park Avenue N (Garden Avenue N) intersection (Study Intersection #9) project in the vicinity of the site. This project includes minor widening and reconfiguration to provide dual eastbound left turn lanes. 4.8.2 Impacts 2010 Draft EIS The DEIS analyzed potential transportation impacts that could occur with redevelopment under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2, including intersection LOS impacts, queuing impacts, site access and circulation impacts, public transportation impacts, non-motorized transportation impacts, and parking impacts. Based on the updated affected environment discussion provided in Appendix E and Section 3.4, the analysis of the DEIS transportation impacts was also updated as part of this EIS Addendum, including an updated analysis of the LOS impacts, traffic queuing, and site access and circulation with Quendall Terminals DEIS Alternative 1. The public transportation, non-motorized transportation and parking impacts for DEIS Alternative 1 are expected to be the same as described in the DEIS (see DEIS Section 3.9, Transportation, and Appendix H). Intersection LOS Impacts Based on the new traffic counts that were taken for this EIS Addendum, as well as the associated updated calculations for existing LOS conditions and clarifications on the planned improvements to Study Intersection #9, updates to the LOS analysis for DEIS Alternative 1 were conducted. As described in Appendix E and Section 3.4, Study Intersections #1 and #2 (southbound) would continue to operate at LOS F under Alternative 1 in 2015 without 1-405 improvements. Operations at the following intersections would change relative to the analysis in the DEIS (see DEIS Table 3.9-2 and 3.9-3 for further details on the DEIS Alternatives): • Study Intersections #3 and #5 delay would slightly decrease; however, the LOS levels at these intersections would continue to remain the same as analyzed in the DEIS. • Study Intersection #9 would improve from LOS D (AM peak hour) and LOS F (PM peak hour) to LOS C (AM peak hour) and LOS D (PM peak hour). Under Alternative 1 in 2015 with 1-405 improvements, Study Intersection #9 would improve from LOS F in the DEIS to LOS C (AM peak hour) and LOS D (PM peak hour); all study intersections would be anticipated to operate at LOS D or better. Quenda/1 Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 4.8-2 Transportation Queuing Analysis An update to the queuing analysis along Lake Washington Boulevard was conducted for this EIS Addendum. Queues would increase as compared to the DEIS analysis, and excessive southbound queues would continue to be expected at the stop-controlled Ripley Lane intersection without 1-405 Improvements in 2015. However, no queuing conflicts would be expected on Lake Washington Boulevard. Under DEIS Alternative 1 in 2015 with 1-405 improvements, queues would generally decrease as compared to the DEIS analysis. However, southbound queues would still be expected at the Ripley Lane intersection, and queues on Lake Washington Boulevard at the Ripley Lane intersection are expected to extend beyond adjacent intersections (see Appendix E and Section 3.4 for details). Site Access and Circulation An analysis of site access and circulation was included as part of the DEIS. No changes to the DEIS site access and circulation analysis for Study Intersection #4 would be anticipated based on updated analysis in this EIS Addendum. Updates to the site access and circulation analysis for Study Intersection #3 are summarized below. 2015 Without 1-405 Improvements Operations/Queuing Intersection #3 -Ripley Lane N / Lake Washington Boulevard. Under DEIS Alternative 1 at site access Intersection #3 -Ripley Lane N at Lake Washington Boulevard, the 95'" percentile queue for the southbound left/right movements are estimated to be approximately 800 to 900 feet during the AM and PM peak hours in 2015 (compared to 700 to 800 feet in the DEIS). Queues on Lake Washington Boulevard for vehicles entering the site are not expected to conflict with adjacent intersections. The LOS for the stop-controlled southbound approach would be expected to be LOS F. 2015 With 1-405 Improvements Operations/Queuing Intersection #3 -Ripley Lane N / Lake Washington Boulevard. Under DEIS Alternative 1 at site access Intersection #3 -Ripley Lane at Lake Washington Blvd, the 95'" percentile queue for the westbound through movement is estimated at approximately 400 feet during the PM peak hour. This estimated queue on Lake Washington Blvd would likely extend through the adjacent intersection. In addition, the southbound queue on Ripley Lane is estimated to be 350 feet during the AM peak hour and 450 feet during the PM peak hour in 2015, assuming 1-405 improvements. With the proposed mitigation of providing an additional southbound approach lane on Ripley Lane, this queue is estimated to be reduced to 200 feet or less during either the AM peak or PM peak hours. The LOS for the signalized intersection is expected to be LOS CID. Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 4.8-3 Transportation 2012 EIS Addendum Subsequent to publication of the DEIS, the applicant developed a Preferred Alternative for Quendall Terminals. The Preferred Alternative described and analyzed in this EIS Addendum comprises nearly the same level and type of development as Alternative 2 -Lower Density Alternative originally evaluated in the transportation study for the Quenda/1 Terminals Redevelopment Project DEIS. The following paragraphs identify the program components of the Preferred Alternative, estimated trip generation, other site elements, and the conclusions of the relative impacts of this alternative as compared to DEIS Alternative 2. The Preferred Alternative would include construction of 692 multifamily units, 20,225 square feet of retail, 9,000 square feet of restaurant space and parking for 1,337 vehicles. Average trip rates for Apartments (ITE land use code 220), Shopping Center (ITE land use code 820), and High-Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant were used as the basis for estimating vehicular trips that would be generated by this alternative. A net total of approximately 5,656 daily, 435 AM peak hour (104 entering, 331 exiting), and 530 PM peak hour vehicular trips (340 entering and 190 exiting) would be generated at 2015 full buildout conditions under the Preferred Alternative. The Preferred Alternative would result in approximately 128 fewer daily trips, 8 fewer AM peak hour trips, and 11 fewer PM peak hour trips than DEIS Alternative 2. As such, the relative impacts to traffic operations within the study area would be very similar, but slightly less than under DEIS Alternative 2 (see Appendix E and Section 3.4 for details). 4.8.3 Conclusion Redevelopment under the Preferred Alternative would generate new vehicle trips on and in the vicinity of the Quendall Terminals site that would be similar to, but less that those analyzed in the DEIS for Alternative 2. As a result, transportation impacts associated with the Preferred Alternative would be anticipated to be less than those analyzed for DEIS Alternative 2. 4.8.4 Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures were identified in the DEIS to address potential transportation-related impacts; for the most part these measures would also apply to the Preferred Alternative. Following are changes to the "Proposed" mitigation measures listed in the DEIS. Strike-through indicates those measures or portions of measures that have been eliminated; underline indicates new or portions of new measures that are included as part of the Preferred Alternative. See Chapter 1 for a complete list of transportation-related mitigation measures. Without 1-405 Improvements -Preferred Alternative • Intersection #1 -1-405 NB Ramps/NE 44'" Street. Widen the southbound and northbound approaches so that a separate left turn lane and shared thru-right turn lane is provided on both legs of the intersection. The final configuration of the intersection with the additional widening improvements would be coordinated with WSDOT. Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 4.8-4 Transportation Fire Apparatus Access • Fire aGGess welllli l:Je J:lre'.'iEleEI J:ler ReAleA MllAiGif:lal Ceae, er City aJ:IJ:IFe'.'eEI altemative fire f:IFeleGtieA measllres 691JIEI l:Je J:1r9J:19SeEI l:Jy Uie af:lf:lliGaAt. • A fire access road is proposed to be located in the western portion of the site. This road would be approximately 20 feet wide, and would be surfaced in crushed rock or grass- crete to support the weight of fire apparatus. Lake Washington Boulevard Corridor Impacts • To mitigate traffic impacts to the Lake Washington Boulevard corridor south of the development, the applicant would install traffic calming treatments on Lake Washington Boulevard south of N 41 '1 Street to encourage primary trips generated by the project to utilize the 1-405 corridor. Although the City of Renton has no adopted residential traffic management program, arterial calming measures could include treatments that create either horizontal or vertical deflection for drivers. Such treatments could include, but are not limited to chicanes, serpentine raised curb sections, raised median treatments, speed tables, and speed humps. City of Renton Mitigation/Impact Fees • In addition to the project-specific mitigation measures described above, a traffic mitigation/impact fee would be paid for the proposed development at the time of building permit issuance to help offset the impacts of the project on the City's roadways. Traffic mitigation/impact fees would be determined at the time of building permit issuance and in accordance with the City of Renton Municipal Code. 4.8.5 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Under the Preferred Alternative, there are no significant unavoidable transportation-related impacts that cannot be mitigated. Quenda/1 Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 4.8-5 Transportation 4.9 CULTURAL RESOURCES Cultural resources was not included as an element of the environment analyzed in the DEIS, because during scoping of the EIS, construction and operation of the proposed Quendall Terminals redevelopment was not anticipated to result in significant impacts on such resources. Comments were received from the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) on the DEIS requesting that an analysis of cultural resources be included in the Quendall Terminals EIS. In response to these comments, a Cultural Resources Assessment (June 2012) was prepared by Cultural Resources Consultants, Inc. for this EIS Addendum (see Appendix F). 4.9.1 Affected Environment The Quendall Terminals site is located along the shoreline of Lake Washington. Numerous named geographic features are located near the project area and these include descriptive names for geographic features, resource procurement sites, villages, and names associated with mystical events. Until ca. 1855, the Subaltuabs, a coastal Salish group, inhabited this village, which consisted of two to three houses; however, no houses are noted in the location on the 1865 survey maps. From 1917 to present day, the area was used for a variety of industrial operations, including creosote processing; diesel, crude and waste oil storage; and, as a log sorting and storage yard. A small brick building, a sewer pump station, and a shack were located on the site. The brick building (the Quendall Station house) was reportedly used as an office building for the logging company. None of these structures is considered to be architecturally remarkable or a significant cultural resource. Based on background information, areas of the site and vicinity with a higher probability to contain intact archaeological deposits include the margins of the old channels of May Creek, the delta of the 1920 channel, the margins of the 1920 marsh, and areas adjacent to the 1864 shoreline. Due to the type and intensity of site modification conducted in the historic era and the geologic history of the landform, intact pre-contact deposits would not be expected to be at or near the surface, but would be anticipated to be several meters below ground-level. Intact historic-era deposits related to early homesteading would not be expected to be visible on the surface within the project area for the same reasons. However, background research indicates that late historic-era deposits related to creosote production, the lumber industry, and railroads are likely to be present on the site See Section 3.5 and Appendix F of this EIS Addendum for further details on existing cultural resource conditions. 4.9.2 Impacts Under the Preferred Alternative, certain construction activities onsite (ie. clearing and grading of the upland area, construction of deep building foundations, and excavation of utilities) may require excavations into the sediment cap and could result in an inadvertent discovery of cultural resources. While it is unlikely that cultural resources would be encountered as part of construction activities on the site, a monitoring plan and inadvertent discovery plan would be implemented for the Preferred Alternative in the event that any cultural resources are Quenda/1 Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 4.9-1 Cultural Resources encountered (see the Mitigation Measures discussion for further details). As a result, no significant impacts to cultural resources would be anticipated with redevelopment under the Preferred Alternative. See Section 3.5 and Appendix F for further details on cultural resource impacts. 4.9.3 Mitigation Measures The following measures have been identified to mitigate any potential cultural resource impacts that could occur with construction and operation of the Quendall Terminals project. They are underlined, as they are new measures identified since issuance of the DEIS. • Limited and focused cultural resource monitoring would be conducted during construction activities on the site (i.e. clearing and grading of the upland area. construction of deep building foundations. and excavation of utilities). A monitoring plan and inadvertent discovery plan would be implemented for the Preferred Alternative (see Appendix F for a copy of the proposed monitoring plan and inadvertent discovery plan). • In the unlikely event that ground disturbing or other activities result in the inadvertent discovery of archaeological deposits. construction activities would be halted in the immediate area and the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation {DAHP) would be contacted. Work would be halted until such time as further investigation and appropriate consultation is concluded. • In the unlikely event of the inadvertent discovery of human remains. construction would be halted in the area. the discovery would be covered and secured against further disturbance and contact would be made with law enforcement personnel. DAHP. and authorized representatives of the concerned Indian tribes. 4.9.4 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts There are no significant unavoidable adverse impacts on cultural resources that cannot be mitigated. Quenda/1 Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 4.9-2 Cultural Resources REFERENCES REFERENCES Anchor QEA, LLC. Wetland assessment, standard lake study, habitat data report, and conceptual restoration plan, Quendall Terminals. November 2009 report to Altino Properties, Inc., and J.H. Baxter Company. Aspect Consulting. Draft Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study, Quendall Terminals. March 2010 report, sections 1 through 3. City of Renton. 2003 Park, Recreation, and Open Space Implementation Plan. Adopted May 5, 2003. City of Renton. City of Renton Comprehensive Plan. November 2004. City of Renton. Parks, Recreation, and Natural Areas Plan. Adopted November 2011. City of Renton. Renton Municipal Code. http://www.codepublishing.com/wa/renton/. City of Renton. Renton Trails and Bicycle Master Plan. Adopted May 11, 2009. City of Renton. Shoreline Master Program. 2011. Climate Impacts Group. Climate Impacts in Brief. http://www.cses.washington.edu/cig/pnwc/ci.shtml. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Fourth Assessment Report. February 2, 2007. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Summary for Policymakers, April 30, 2007. King County. iMAP -Sensitive Areas (all themes) map for Parcel No. 2924059002. http://www.metrokc.gov/gis/mapportal/imap_main.htm#. Last accessed July 19, 2010. KPFF Consulting Engineers. Drainage report, Quendall Terminals, Renton, Washington. November 2009 preliminary report to Century Pacific, LP, Seattle, Washington. KPFF Consulting Engineers. Quendall Terminals: land use, shoreline and Master Plan permit application tree inventory plan. November 16, 2009 plan sheet. Manning, Jay. RE: Climate Change -SEPA Environmental Review of Proposals. April 30, 2008. Puget Sound Energy. Power Supply Fuel Mix. http://www.pse.com/energyEnvironmenVenergysupply/Pages/EnergySupply-Electricity- PowerSupplyProfile.aspx Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Priority habitats and species list. Olympia, Washington. 2008. 174 pp. Quenda/1 Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 R-1 References Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Priority Habitats and Species map in the vicinity of Township 24 North, Range 5 East, Section 29. August 28, 2009. Quenda/1 Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 R-2 References APPENDICES APPENDIX A EIS ADDENDUM DISTRIBUTION LIST & PARTIES OF RECORD DISTRIBUTION LIST Quendall Terminals -EIS Addendum Federal Agencies U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District Office, Attn: SEPA Reviewer Environmental Protection Agency, Attn: Linda Priddy, Project Manager National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife, Attn: Roger Tabor Tribes Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, Fisheries Department, Attn: Karen Walter or SEPA Reviewer Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program, Attn: Ms. Melissa Calvert Duwamish Tribal Office State Agencies Department of Ecology, Environmental Review Section Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), Attn: Larry Fisher Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Northwest Region, Attn: Ramin Pazooki Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Attn: Gretchen Kaehler Department of Natural Resources, Attn: Boyd Powers Regional Agencies Puget Sound Clean Air Agency, Attn: SEPA Coordinator Puget Sound Regional Council, Attn: Rick Olson, Director, Government Relations and Comm. Local Agencies King County Wastewater Treatment Division, Environmental Planning -OAP King County Department of Transportation, Attn: Harold S. Taniguchi, Director King County Development and Environmental Services, Attn: SEPA Section Metro Transit, Attn: Gary Kriedt, Senior Environmental Planner City of Newcastle, Attn: Steve Roberge, Director of Community Development City of Kent, Attn: Fred Satterstrom, Acting Community Development Director City ofTukwila, Attn: Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official City of Bellevue, Planning and Community Development, Attn: Janna Steedman City of Mercer Island, Attn: Tim Stewart, Development Services Director Puget Sound Energy, Attn: Cody Olson, Municipal Liaison Manager Seattle Public Utilities, Attn: SEPA Coordinator Newspapers Seattle Times -notice of application only Puget Sound Business Journal -notice of application only Renton Reporter -publication paper Winnie & Yuri Sihon 1211 N 42nd Place Renton, WA 98056 eml: wsihon@comcast.net (party of record) Carol O'Connell 1241 N 42nd Place Renton, WA 98056 tel: (425) 254-2796 (party of record) Ronald & Vanessa Brazg 1019 N 42nd Place Renton, WA 98056 tel: ( 425) 746-7768 (party of record) Janet L. & Gary R. Sanford 1102 N 42nd Place Renton, WA 98056 tel: (425) 276-5848 eml: garys@loziergroup.com (party of record) Jim Hanken 15543 62nd Avenue NE Kenmore, WA 98028 (party of record) Michael Christ President SECO Development, Inc. 1083 Lake Washington Blvd N ste: #50 Renton, WA 98056 tel: (425) 282-5833 (party of record) Updated: 10/10/12 PARTIES OF RECORD Quendall Terminals LUA09-151, SM, ECF, SA-M, BSP, EIS Bruce MacCaul 1246 N 42nd Place Renton, WA 98056 tel: {949) 489-8261 eml: bgmc2@cox.net (party of record) Yvonne & Gary C. Pipkin 1120 N 38th Street Renton, WA 98056 tel: (425) 271-2009 (party of record) Amy & Kevin Dedrickson 1012 N 42nd Place Renton, WA 98056 tel: (425) 970-3799 eml: aimerdoll@yahoo.com (party of record) Mark Hancock PO Box 88811 Seattle, WA 98138 (party of record) Cyrus M. McNeely 3810 Park Avenue N Renton, WA 98056 eml: cmikeathom@msn.com (party of record) Roger A. Pearce Foster Pepper LLC 1111 Third Avenue ste: #3400 Seattle, WA 98101 tel: (206) 447-4676 eml: pearr@foster.com (party of record) Larry & Linda Boregson 1013 N 42nd Place Renton, WA 98056 eml: borg41943@comcast.net (party of record) Len & Pat Reid 1217 N 42nd Place Renton, WA 98056 tel: (425) 572-0474 eml: lpreid@comcast.net (party of record) Larry Reymann 1313 N 38th Street Renton, WA 98056 tel: (425) 228-8511 eml: fulmen8@hotmail.com (party of record) Kelly Smith 6811 Ripley Lane N Renton, WA 98056 tel: (425) 917-3316 (party of record) Mike Cero 8300 Avalon Drive Mercer Island, WA 98040 tel: (206) 419-0657 eml: mscero@comcast.net (party of record) Robert & Sonya Tobeck 1003 N 41st Place Renton, WA 98056 (party of record) (Page 1 of 6) Lawrence E. Hard Attorney at Law 4316 NE 33rd Street Seattle, WA 98105 tel: (206) 669-8686 (party of record) Bruce Maccaul 1246 N 42nd Place Renton, WA 98056 tel: (949) 489-8261 eml: bmaccaul@gmail.com (party of record) Anne Woodley 7920 E Mercer Way Mercer Island, WA 98040 eml: a.woodley@comcast.net (party of record) Suzanne & Donald Orehek 4103 Wells Avenue N Renton, WA 98056 tel: (516) 944-8739 eml: suzywo@verison.net (party of record) Glen St. Amant Muckelshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division 39015 172nd Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092 tel: (253) 939-3311 PARTIES OF RECORD Quendall Terminals LUA09-151, SM, ECF, SA-M, BSP, EIS Charles & Rebecca Taylor 1252 N 42nd Place Renton, WA 98056 tel: (425) 430-4473 (party of record) Sally A Scott 1405 N 28th Street Renton, WA 98056 tel: ( 425) 255-1005 (party of record) Charles P Witmann 907 N 34th Street Renton, WA 98056 (party of record) Christine Chen 1128 N 41st Place Renton, WA 98056 tel: (206) 229-5880 eml: christineschen@yahoo.com (party of record) Ronald Corbell 4113 Williams Avenue N Renton, WA 98056 tel: ( 425) 572-6844 eml: rrcorbell@comcast.net (party of record) Ross & Ava Ohashi 1018 N 42nd Place Renton, WA 98056 tel: (425) 890-3045 eml: taryntani@gmail.com (party of record) Richard M Ferry 7414 E Mercer Way Mercer Island, WA 98040 tel: (206) 232-1872 (party of record) Sheng Wu 1222 N 42nd Place Renton, WA 98056 tel: (832) 971-9396 eml: swu@bechtel.com (party of record) Victor Chiu 1128 N 41st Place Renton, WA 98056 tel: (626) 627-1059 eml: vchiu74@hotmail.com (party of record) Susan Stow 1309 N 36th Street Renton, WA 98056 tel: ( 425) 793-5062 eml: stows@comcast.net (party of record) eml: glen@muckleshoot.nsn.us (party of record) Rajendra Agrawaal 1113 N 29th Street Renton, WA 98056 eml: agrawaalr@yahoo.com (party of record) Updated: 10/10/12 Tony Boydston 3920 NE 11th Place Renton, WA 98056 eml: bonethedawgs@yahoo.com (party of record) Chuck & Sylvia Holden 3609 Meadow Avenue N Renton, WA 98056 tel: ( 425) 226-9956 eml: sbholden@nwlink.com (party of record) (Page 2 of 6) PARTIES OF RECORD Quendall Terminals LUA09-151, SM, ECF, SA-M, BSP, EIS Mike & Sharon Glenn 8825 114th Avenue SE Newcastle, WA 98056 tel: ( 425) 255-8351 eml: altglennmal@comcast.net (party of record) Amy Lietz Roberts 1006 N 34th Street Renton, WA 98056 tel: (425) 444-1057 eml: amyroberts@seanet.com (party of record) Darius & Vicki Richards 3605 Lake Washington Blvd N Renton, WA 98056 tel: ( 425) 430-4469 (party of record) Connie Taylor 2425 NE 25th Street Renton, WA 98056 tel: (425) 228-5436 eml: conniemtaylor@comcast.net (party of record) Chelsea Ryberg 4100 Lake Washington Blvd N ste: #C201 Renton, WA 98056 tel: (206) 200-8156 eml: chelsearyberg@gmail.com (party of record) Jon & Marilyn Danielson 1308 N 34th Street Renton, WA 98056 tel: ( 425) 228-7933 eml: jonjdan@aol.com (party of record) Updated: 10/10/12 Pavy Thao 4100 Lake Washington Blvd N ste: #AlOl Renton, WA 98056 tel: (425) 591-7077 eml: pavyt@hotmail.com (party of record) Farrell Wi Ison & Jonell Bitney- Wilson 4063 Williams Avenue N Renton, WA 98056 tel: (425) 226-1748 eml: jobitney@comcast.net (party of record) Sue & Mac Jahnke 1717 Aberdeen Avenue NE Renton, WA 98056 tel: (425) 271-6489 eml: forsue2go@comcast.net (party of record) Leslye Bergan 3306 Lake Washington Blvd N ste: #2 Renton, WA 98056 tel: (206) 940-7461 eml: lesbergan@comcast.net (party of record) Trudy Neumann 922 N 28th Place Renton, WA 98056 tel: (425) 227-4205 (party of record) Mike Batin 3410 Park Avenue N Renton, WA 98056 tel: ( 425) 235-8818 eml: mbattin@yahoo.com (party of record) Tim Riley 3607 Lake Washington Blvd N Renton, WA 98056 tel: (206) 779-2021 eml: autowashsys.com (party of record) Kim Browne 1409 N 37th Street Renton, WA 98056 tel: ( 425) 226-7791 (party of record) Faye Janders 2717 Aberdeen Avenue NE Renton, WA 98056 tel: (425) 255-4227 eml: fayeandlorna@comcast.net (party of record) Marleen Mandt 1408 N 26th Street Renton, WA 98056 tel: (425) 271-1167 eml: mkmandt@comcast.net (party of record) Dima 1815 NE 27th Court Renton, WA 98056 eml: dyma20@yahoo.com (party of record) Sally Rochelle 3626 Lake Washington Blvd N Renton, WA 98056 tel: (425) 277-3159 eml: rochsjr@comcast.net (party of record) (Page 3 of 6) PARTIES OF RECORD Quendall Terminals LUA09-151, SM, ECF, SA-M, BSP, EIS Susan Miller 806 N 30th Street Renton, WA 98056 tel: ( 425) 228-1868 eml: susanagrenmiller@hotmail.com (party of record) Mimi MacCaul 1246 N 42nd Place Renton, WA 98056 tel: (425) 430-5409 eml: mimiafsc@mac.com (party of record) Altino Properties, Inc. & JH Baxter & Co. 800 S Third Street Renton, WA 98057 tel: (425) 226-3900 (owner) Lance Lopes Vice President General Counsel Seattle Seahawks I Seattle Sounders FC I First & Global Inc. 12 Seahawks Way Renton, WA 98056 tel: ( 425) 203-8010 eml: lancel@seahawssoundersfc.com (party of record) Spencer Alpert Alpert International, LLP 2442 NW Market Street ste: #722 Seattle, WA 98107 tel: (206) 915-7200 (party of record) Updated: 10/10/12 Bud Worley 4100 Lake Washington Blvd N ste: #B203 Renton, WA 98056 tel: ( 425) 235-0825 eml: bud@nwccc.net (party of record) Keith Preszler 3818 Lake Washington Blvd N Renton, WA 98056 tel: ( 425) 226-7987 eml: kpreszler@hotmail.com (party of record) Ryan Durkin 500 Galland Building 1221 Second Avenue Seattle, WA 98101 tel: (206) 623-1745 (party of record) Steve Van Til Vulcan 505 5th Avenue S ste: #900 Seattle, WA 98104 tel: (206) 342-2119 (party of record) Laurie Baker 3107 Mountain View Avenue N Renton, WA 98056 tel: (206)772-6284 eml: laurieb@mvseac.com (party of record) Tim Stewart Director Development Services Group City of Mercer Island 9611 SE 36th Street Mercer Island, WA 98040 tel: (206) 275-7600 (party of record) Campbell Mathewson Century Pacific, LP. 1201 Third Avenue ste: #1680 Seattle, WA 98101 tel: (206) 757-8893 eml: cmathewson@centurypacificlp.com ( contact) John Hansen 4005 Park Avenue N Renton, WA 98056 tel: ( 425) 430-1498 eml: johsamm@comcast.net (party of record) Dan Mitzel 111 Cleveland Avenue Mt Vernon, WA 98040 tel: (360) 404-2050 (party of record) Kevin Iden 5121 Ripley Lane N Renton, WA 98056 tel: ( 425) 444-4336 eml: idenkr@comcast.net (party of record) (Page 4 of 6) PARTIES OF RECORD Quendall Terminals LUA09-151, SM, ECF, SA-M, BSP, EIS Anne Simpson 3001 Mountain View Avenue N Renton, WA 98056 tel: (425) 572-6344 eml: annsimpson@comcast.net (party of record) Rich Wagner 2411 Garden Court N Renton, WA 98056 (party of record) Ronald & Sachi Nicol 1030 N 42nd Place Renton, WA 98056 tel: (425) 891-6169 eml: rfnucik@comcast.net & msnicol@gmail.com (party of record) Patty Witt 14107 SE 45th Street Bellevue, WA 98006 tel: ( 425) 890-1880 eml: pwitt55@aol.com (party of record) Laura & James Counsell 1122 N 41st Place Renton, WA 98056 tel: (425) 203-1281 eml: yyluan@yahoo.com & j.diddly@gmail.com (party of record) Tom Baker 1202 N 35th Street Renton, WA 98056 tel: (421) 221-0631 eml: tommbaker@hotmail.com (party of record) Updated: 10/10/12 Jim Hanken Wolfstone, Panchot & Bloch, P.S., Inc. 1111 Third Avenue ste: 1800 Seattle, WA 98101 tel: (206) 682-3840 (party of record) Paul & Susan Siegmund 1006 N 42nd Place Renton, WA 98056 tel: (425) 502-5195 eml: paulrsiegmund@gmail.com (party of record) John Murphy Director of Operations New Home Trends, Inc. 4314 148th Street SE Mill Creek, WA 98012 tel: (425) 953-4719 (party of record) Bob & Mary Becker 1007 N 42nd Place Renton, WA 98056 tel: (425) 970-3385 eml: mbfamily6@gmail.com & rgb@beckerarch.com (party of record) Ricardo & Maria Antezana 1025 N 42nd Place Renton, WA 98056 eml: ricardoadlc@msn.com (party of record) Linda Baker 1202 N 35th Street Renton, WA 98056 tel: (425) 271-1251 eml: lindabak@hotmail.com (party of record) Charlie Conner 846 108th Avenue NE Bellevue, WA 98004 tel: ( 425) 646-4433 (party of record) Jessica Winter 7600 Sand Point Way Seattle, WA 98115 tel: (206) 623-1745 (party of record) c/o Brad Nicholson SEGB 2302 NE 28th Street Renton, WA 98056 (party of record) Roy & Joann Francis 1000 N 42nd Place Renton, WA 98056 tel: (425) 227-7108 eml: royfrancis@msn.com (party of record) Nancy Denney 3818 Lake Washington Blvd N Renton, WA 98056 tel: (425) 226-7987 eml: nancydenney@comcast.net (party of record) Elisabeth Durr 1206 N 27th Place Renton, WA 98056 eml: elisabethdurr@gmail.com (party of record) (Page 5 of 6) PARTIES OF RECORD Quendall Terminals LUA09-151, SM, ECF, SA-M, BSP, EIS Aaron Belenky 1800 NE 40th Street ste: #H-4 Renton, WA 98056 tel: (206) 235-2651 eml: abelenky@alum.mit.edu (party of record) Chelsea Ryberg, Director Eastport Shores Townhomes Association 3100 Lake Washington Blvd N Renton, WA 98056 tel: (206) 200-8156 eml: chelsearyberg@gmail.com (party of record) Richard & Kathleen Bergquist 7244 E Mercer Way Mercer Island, WA 98040 eml: dickb@seanet.com (party of record) Barbara Nightingale, Regional Shoreline Planner Department of Ecology 3190 160th Avenue SE Bellevue, WA 98008 (party of record) Jenny Manning 1205 N 10th Place ste: #2440 Renton, WA 98057 tel: ( 425) 283-2880 eml: jenny.manning@patch.com (party of record) Updated: 10/10/12 Gretchen Kaehler Department of Archaeology & Historic Preservation PO Box 48343 Olympia, WA 98504-8343 tel: (360) 586-3088 eml: gretchen. kaehler@dahp. wa. gov (party of record) John & Diane Haines 1014 N 27th Place Renton, WA 98056 eml: headacl@comcast.net (party of record) Lynda Priddy Remedial Project Manager Environmental Protection Agency 1200 6th Avenue ste: #900 Seattle, WA 98101-3140 (party of record) Diane Espey Jackson 2419 Talbot Crest Drive S Renton, WA 98055 eml: dianej2419@msn.com (party of record) Michele Mullinaux PO Box 2825 Renton, WA 98056 tel: (253) 569-2134 eml: mullinaux@comcast.net (party of record) Gwendolyn High 155 Yakima Avenue NE Renton, WA 98059 tel: (206) 279-0349 eml: gwendolynhigh@hotmail.com (party of record) Kevin Poole 627 High Avenue S Renton, WA 98057 tel: (206) 245-8956 eml: kevinpoole@mac.com (party of record) Ramin Pazooki Local Agency & Development Services Manager WSDOT 15700 Dayton Avenue N PO Box 330310 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 (party of record) William Skilling 3814 E Lee Street Seattle, WA 98112 tel: (206) 622-2626 eml: bskilling@msn.com (party of record) (Page 6 of 6) APPEND/XS LETTER FROM EPA UNITED STATES ENVJRONMENT:li\L PROTECTION AGENCY Vanessa Dolbee Senior Planner REGION10 . 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900 Seattle, WA 98101-3140 March i3, 2012 Department of Community 8c Economic Developmt%1.t City of Renton Renton CityHall-6th.Floor .1055. South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430.7314 Subject: EIS "On Hold" Notice Quendal1Tenninals,LUA09-151, ECF, SA-M, SM, BSP . Dear Ms: Dolbee: · O~FICEOF ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP This letter responds to the City of Renton' s letter da1ed December 21, 2011, and supplements EPA's prior correspondence concerning the DEIS for Quendall Terminals. The City of Renton askedEl'A if the environmll!ltai baseline (post-clean-up conditions)1 included in the DEIS is reasPnable given the expect¢ general outcome of the ROD. As. indicated in our prior coqespondence, EPA will not selecta final remedy llliltil it issues the ROD, likely in 2014, an.d until the ROD.is issued, EPA cannot say with certainty what clean1,1p actions will be requited and what the.post-dean-up site conditions will be. Withthat in mind,EPA has reviewed the environmental baseline to identify assumptions that do not appear consistent with the expected general outcome ofthe ROD. The post-clean-up condipons assumed in this DEIS were developed using the 1983 Renton Shoreline Management Pl.an and other relevant infa>rmation as described in Appendix E of the DEIS. It is EP A's position, that the Agency can require more stringent environmental standards, such as grea~ mitigation ratios, iarger buffers and ,setbacks; if they are in place at the time the ROD is developed. This may result ln larger or higher quality wetlands and shoreline restoration. These !)lore stringent requirements do not need to be articulat¢ in this EIS because they are specifically unknown at present Final mitigation/restoration req1,1irements will be established based on the regulations in place at the time EPA issues its Record of Decision for the Quendall cleanup. Based on even current regulations and standards, the wetland and shoreline restoration areas would bi:, larger than depicted in DEIS Figures'2-6 and 2-11. 1 Post,clean·up conditions. specWcally means "posHemedlation/poS)-NRD restoration conditions". ~;--p••_,<,K Because the size and location of the vvetran!i'as weft as the ~etbacks and buffers wilLriot!Je finally determined. until the ROD is issued, EPA.suggests the City identify a 100 foot area, . extending from the .shoreline, 100 f~ lari.dvvard along the entire shoreline, that would be .·· designateld as fµtrire w1;:tlands as well 311 bm'fers and sed>aclcs. Note. that EI'A has dlrei:ted Quendall, in the Feasibility .Study,to al.so ilsSUille a 100 fOQt a,elt alqng the shoreline landward 118 · reserved for habitat for the ptitpi>ses. of evaluating and selecting a remedy for the. Quendall Site, If the enviroillnental baseline :ls roodified to refl:c:ct these asSUillptions, EPA believes the environmental baseline woµ)cJ be ttlllSQn@le given th1,:• i;~ted. general outcqm:e. of the R.OD and that the City should proqeed '\Vi.th the DEISprocess.fotQueiidall :x:edeyelopment. . · ·-, .. {2 ... ~·.~ yn .. Y R,eine<liaJ;Ptyje<:t•M.an11ger cc: Campbell M:athewson;CenturyPacific,.LP. . . . . .... · Altfuo Properties, Inc.,.a.mf1,H: .. aaxtet,& Co. I Owtlet(s}' · EPAParty(ies) of Record, . · · · · · EA IBliµp.en . Cata SteinetcRiley, EPA ORCo !SR. ,. I APPENDIXC CRITICAL AREAS MEMO Raedeke MEMORANDUM July 9, 2012 To: Ms. Gretchen Brunner, EA/Blumen Wet land Science Wildlife Ecology Landscape Architecture From: RE: Rick Lundquist, Raedeke Associates, Inc. Port Quendall -Addendum to Draft EIS: Response to Public Comments and Analysis of Preferred Alternative (R.A.I. No. 2010-014-004) Per your request, the purpose of this memorandum is (1) to respond to public comments on the Draft EIS for the Port Quendall re-development project relating to wetlands and plants and animals, and (2) provide an analysis of a new Preferred Alternative, compared with project alternatives discussed in the Draft EIS. In particular, the response to public comments will address the comment from the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division (dated January 25, 2011) and the City of Mercer Island (dated January 20, 2011) regarding lighting impacts from the proposed development on wetland and riparian habitat along Lake Washington, and recommended mitigation measures. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON LIGHTING IMPACTS Impacts Potential human-disturbance related impacts to wildlife associated with wetland and riparian habitats on site include those related to increased artificial light associated with urban development. These include some artificial lighting during morning and late afternoon or evening hours, particularly during the winter. At full build-out, ambient light (from exterior lighting of buildings, walkways, roads, and traffic) is expected to increase over post-remediation conditions, as well as the existing condition of the abandoned site. Although the topic has received increased research attention in recent years, understanding of the effects of artificial night lighting on behavioral community ecology of wildlife species and on ecological systems, such as wetlands and lakeshore habitats, is still limited. It is acknowledged that increases in ambient light can alter the behavioral ecology of a variety of organisms, including both invertebrates and vertebrates, from changes in orientation, as well as attraction or repulsion from the altered light environment. These in turn may affect foraging, reproduction, migration, and communication (Longcore and Rich 2004). 5711 N 6s•0 Street, Seattle, Washington 98115 206-525-8122 www.raedckc.com Ms. Gretchen Brunner July 9, 2012 Page 2 For example, many insects, such as moths, may be attracted to artificial lighting, and they may be subject to increased mortality. Some faster flying bat species may in turn congregate near lights to forage on the concentration of insects. Other, slower-flying bat species may avoid the lights, where increased food availability may be offset by increased risk of predation by owls. Similar relationships occur among other vertebrate groups, where some species may be adversely affected by artificial lighting and others may benefit. Artificial lighting may also alter the duration of light and dark, or photoperiod, experienced by plants. However, published information on the affects of artificial lighting on plants in natural settings is relatively limited. In aquatic systems, artificial lighting may affect foraging patterns of invertebrates and amphibians. Some fish species are attracted to artificial lighting, whereas others avoid foraging in lighted areas (Longcore and Rich 2001, 2004). Impacts of artificial lighting from the proposed redevelopment should be considered in the context of the urbanized setting along this portion of Lake Washington, as well as the longer term land use history of the project site. Residential development stretches south from the project site, including the relatively recent development adjacent to the site, as well as more established residences along the shore farther south. The Seahawks headquarters and training facility lies to the north of the project, and additional residences line the shoreline farther north for a considerable distance. Thus, the impacts of artificial lighting represent an incremental addition to lighting along the shoreline in this area and are not considered significant. Moreover, remediation work that would precede the proposed development involves removal of existing wetland and upland communities that are impaired by past contamination and capping the site. Following remediation, wetland and riparian communities al0ng the shore on the project site would be newly established, prior to redevelopment. Impacts to the developing habitats can be minimized with appropriate mitigation. In addition, as the buffer areas develop, they would help screen the wetland and shoreline habitats from the development and associated lighting. Mitigation The proposed development would include design elements to minimize the potential adverse affects of artificial lighting on wetland and riparian habitats. These include directing lights downward and away from these habitats or adjacent properties, and may include shielding of lights, use of low-pressure sodium lights, or minimizing the use of reflective glazing materials in building design, as feasible. ANALYSIS OF PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE The Preferred Alternative would entail a similar mixed-use development to that under Alternatives I and 2 (particularly Alternative 2) on the project site, but would maintain a Ms. Gretchen Brunner July 9, 2012 Page 3 larger setback from the on-site shoreline, consistent with the City's 2011 Shoreline Master Program. The shoreline habitat restoration area, encompassing the re- established/expanded wetlands and their buffers along the lake shore, would encompass a larger area (approximately 128,900 square feet), as this alternative would maintain a 100- foot minimum shoreline setback from the delineated Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM), as required by the City, compared with a 50-foot minimum setback for Alternatives I and 2. Thus, more native habitat would develop along the shoreline of Lake Washington following remediation. As under Alternatives I and 2, no direct wetland impacts would occur under the Preferred Alternative. The wetlands along the lake would be reestablished and expanded in a similar fashion as the other development alternatives within a somewhat larger shoreline restoration area. No development would occur within the isolated eastern part of the site east of Lake Washington Blvd., thus no impacts would occur to Wetlands I and J, as under Alternatives I and 2. The expanded riparian habitat restoration area along the shoreline would afford Wetlands A and D a minimum effective buffer that generally exceeds a minimum 50 feet. Buffer averaging would be proposed where necessary to compensate for buffer encroachments. This riparian area also includes an expanded trail that can also serve as an unpaved emergency fire lane. The ultimate plans for the shoreline restoration area under the Preferred Alternative will be developed in coordination with EPA. The Preferred Alternative is assumed to include similar temporary and permanent storm drainage systems and erosion control features as Alternatives I and 2. Thus, similar to these alternatives we would not expect substantial indirect impacts to on-site wetlands and the lake under the Preferred Alternative from storm water runoff during construction and operation of the project. With a slightly smaller development footprint and similar site features such as the public trail, the redevelopment under The Preferred Alternative is expected to result in slightly less impacts to wetland and wildlife habitat as under Alternatives I and 2. As the restored habitat along the lakeshore develops over time, the added shoreline setback would provide slightly more potential screening of the wetland and lakeshore habitats from lighting impacts, compared with Alternatives I and 2. Given the urban context, however, impacts from disturbance and noise would not likely be significantly different from those under Alternatives I and 2. Thank you for the opportunity to prepare this information. If you have any questions, comments, or need additional information, I am available at 206-525-8122 or via email at rwlundguist@raedeke.com. Ms. Gretchen Brunner July 9, 2012 Page 4 LITERATURE CITED Longcore, T., and C. Rich. 2001. A review of the ecological effects ofroad reconfiguration and expansion on coastal wetland ecosystems. The Urban Wildlands Group, Inc., Los Angeles, CA. November 14, 2001. Longcore, T., and C. Rich. 2004. Ecological light pollution. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 2(4): 191-198. APPEND/XO GREENHOUSE GAS WORKSHEETS Section I: Buildings Type (Residential) or Principal Activity (Commercial) Education. Warehouse and Stora e . other. Vacant. Section II: Pavement. ........................ . f Pavement.. Version 1. 7 12/26/07 Quendall Terminals ~ Preferred Alternative Emissions Per Unit or Pe" Thousand Sauare Feet MTC02e Lifespan Emissions Embodied Ene Transportation MTC02e 98 672 792 0 33 357 766 799741 54 681 766 0 41 475 709 0 39 ()46 361 0 39 1 541 282 0 9.0 J9 1.994 561 23344 0.0 39 1.938 582 0 0.0 39 737 571 0 0.0 39 777 117 0 21.6 39 577 247 18636 0.0 39 723 588 0 0.0 39 733 150 0 0.0 39 899 374 0 0.0 39 339 129 0 0.0 39 599 266 0 0.0 39 352 181 0 0.0 39 1 278 257 0 0.0 39 162 47 0 0.00 9 01 Total Project Emissions: 841720! King County Department of Development and Environmental Services SEPA GHG Emissions Worksheet Version 1. 7 12/26/07 Introduction The Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) requires environmental review of development proposals that may have a significant adverse impact on the environment. If a proposed development is subject to SEPA, the project proponent is required to complete the SEPA Checklist. The Checklist includes questions relating to the development's air emissions. The emissions that have traditionally been considered cover smoke, dust, and industrial and automobile emissions. With our understanding of the climate change impacts of GHG emissions, King County requires the applicant to also estimate these emissions. Emissions created by Development GHG emissions associated with development come from multiple sources: • The extraction, processing, transportation, construction and disposal of materials and landscape disturbance (Embodied Emissions) • Energy demands created by the development after it is completed (Energy Emissions) • Transportation demands created by the development after it is completed (Transportation Emissions) GHG Emissions Worksheet King County has developed a GHG Emissions Worksheet that can assist applicants in answering the SEPA Checklist question relating to GHG emissions. The SEPA GHG Emissions worksheet estimates all GHG emissions that will be created over the life span of a project. This includes emissions associated with obtaining construction materials, fuel used during construction, energy consumed during a buildings operation, and transportation by building occupants. Using the Worksheet 1. Descriptions of the different residential and commercial building types can be found on the second tabbed worksheet ("Definition of Building Types"). If a development proposal consists of multiple projects, e.g. both single family and multi-family residential structures or a commercial development that consists of more than on type of commercial activity, the appropriate information should be estimated for each type of building or activity. 2. For paving, estimate the total amount of paving (in thousands of square feet) of the project. 3. The Worksheet will calculate the amount of GHG emissions associated with the project and display the amount in the "Total Emissions" column on the worksheet. The applicant should use this infonnation when completing the SEPA checklist. 4. The last three worksheets in the Excel file provide the background information that is used to calculate the total GHG emissions. 5. The methodology of creating the estimates is transparent; if there is reason to believe that a better estimate can be obtained by changing specific values, this can and should be done. Changes to the values should be documented with an explanation of why and the sources relied upon. 6. Print out the "Total Emissions" worksheet and attach it to the SEPA checklist. If the applicant has made changes to the calculations or the values, the documentation supporting those changes should also be attached to the SEPA checklist. Definition of Buildina Tvnes Type (Residential) or Principal Activity (Commerciall Oescriotion Sinole-Familv Home .. Unless otherwise specified, this includes both attached and detached buildinns Multi-Fami1v Unit in Larae Buildina ........... Apartments in buildinas with more than 5 units Multi-Family Unit in Small Buildina .. . Apartments in build inn with 2-4 units Mobile Home .. Buildings used for academic or technical classroom instruction, such as elementary, middle, or high schools, and classroom buildings on college or university campuses. Buildings on education campuses for which the main use is not classroom are included in the category relating to their use. For example, administration buildings are part of "Office," dormitories are Education. "Lodaina," and libraries are "Public Assemblv." Food Sales. Buildings used for retail or wholesale of food. Buildings used for preparation and sale of food and beverages for Food Service. . ................................... consumption Health Care lnoatient. Buildinns used as diannostic and treatment facilities for inpatient care. Buildings used as diagnostic and treatment facilities for outpatient care Doctor's or dentist's office are included here if they use any type of diagnostic Health Care Outpatient . medical equipment (if thev do not, they are cateaorized as an office buildina). Buildings used to offer multiple accommodations for short-term or long-term Lodaina .. residents. includina skilled nursina and other residential care buildinns Retail (Other Than Mall) .. Buildinns used for the sale and display of aoods other than food. Buildings used for general office space, professional office. or administrative offices. Doctor's or dentist's office are included here if they do not use any type of diagnostic medical equipment (if they do. they are categorized as an Office. outpatient health care buildina). Buildings in which people gather for social or recreational activities, whether in Public Assemblv . ················· private or non-private meetina halls. Public Order and Safetv .. . ...... Buildinas used for the preservation of law and order or oublic safetv. Buildings in which people gather for religious activities, (such as chapels, Religious Worship . churches, mosques, svnagoques, and temples). Buildings in which some type of service is provided, other than food service or Service . retail sales of aoods Buildings used to store goods, manufactured products, merchandise, raw Warehouse and Starace . materials, or personal belonc inas (such as self-storaae). Buildings that are industrial or agricultural with some retail space; buildings having several different commercial activities that. together, comprise 50 percent or more of the floorspace. but whose largest single activity is agricultural, industrial/ manufacturing, or residential; and all other Other. miscellaneous buildinns that do not fit into any other cateAorv. Buildings in which more floorspace was vacant than was used for any single Vacant. commercial activity at the time of interview. Therefore, a vacant building may have some occuoied floorspace. Sources: Residential 2001 Residential Energy Consumption Survey Square footage measurements and comparisons http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/sqft-measure.html Commercial Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS), Description of CBECS Building Types http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cbecs/pba99/bldgtypes.html Average GVIIP (lbs C02elsq ft)· Vancouver. Low Rise Buildi"' Average Material~ in a 2 272-squ.ire foot smole familv home MTC02e ~ All data ,n black 1ext R,osK1ent1RI floorspace per u11,t F ,oo,sparn per bu1ld,ng Average GWP libs C02elsq fli Vancouver Low R,se Building Average Materials in a 2,272-square foot single lam1ly home Embod,ed Emissions Worksheel -·-··-.. " __ ,._,,, . Life span related # 1housand embodied GHG Type (Residential) or Principal Activity sq feel/ unij missions (MTC02el !Commercial or bu1ldim unij Sin~le-Familv Home ... ~ 5J " MuHi-Familv Un~ in Laroe Bu1ldino ... 0 05 " Multi-Family Un~ ,n Small Bwldmn I .)9 " Mobile Home I 06 " Education /.'i6 991 Food Sales C,G "' Food Service " '" Health Care Inpatient 241 4 ,,.. Health Care Outoatien1 '" '" Lod~lno }5 8 1,386 Retail rather Than Mall ' ' "' Offi~ '" 573 Public Assembl '" 550 Public Order and Safet 15 5 '" Reh ious Worshm '" 391 Service 's 252 Warehouse and Storaoe 16 9 '" Other m '" Vacant '" "' Section II: Pavement ............................. . !All Types of Pavement .................... ij@4:{f:J::¢tl$l8·@'.¥4'•fl f NI Intermediate Columns and Beams Floors falerior Walls S.3 " 19.1 0.0 2269.0 3206.0 00 ,.o 27.B King County, DNRP. Contact. Matt Kuhanc. matt kuhanc@k,ngeounty.gov 2001 Res1dent1al EnArgy Co·1s1.1rp11nn Sur·,ey 1hn11r:nal ,,sr1 n~e ;cc,, ·1 S~uare Footage meas,a-omenls and compar,so•1s hllp ,/ww"' e,a jor, gov.r:'"llewrecs. SQft-measure hlml Life span related embodied GHG missions (MTC02el thousand square feet) -See calcula1oos in table below 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 W1ndows S1' ,., EIA 2003 Corrmerc1al BJild1~gs Ener~y Co~sln,pt1cr Survey 1NJ:,onal Averaqe lOU}1 Tao·e C3 Cansumo11on J~d Gross Ener~y 1n1ens1t·1 for Su-n ,of Maror hJe s lor Non Mall Su1ld,ngs. lUU3 hll p //www em. :loe ~ov.'emeu'c~ecs'ct>ecs2003•del31l>,d _ ta IJl>,s _ 200J:2003se\9i2003excel:c3 xis Alhena EcoCalculator Alhena Assembly Evalua1,on Tool v2 3· Vancouver Low Rise Bu,lding Assembly Average GVIIP (kg) per square meter htlp 1/www athenasmi ca/lools1ecoCalculator/index html lbs per kg 2 20 Square feel per square meter 10 76 Buikhngs Energy Data Book: 7.3 Typical/Average Household Materials Used 1n the ConstructlQn of a 2,272·Square-Foot s,ngle·Fam1ty Home. 2000 http·//bu1ldingsdatabook.eren.doe.gov/?1d"v1ew_book_1able&Table1D=2036&t=xls See also: NAHB. 2004 Housing Fac1s. Figures and Trends. Feb 2004. p 7 Interior Walls Rools " 21.3 Total Total Embodied Embodied Em1ss1ons Em,ssmns (MTC02el 6050 0 3103 0 1MTC02e ihousand .,, feei 15.6 30.0 '8 0 30.7 f-'a•.•cns,,nt [,,,,~s,,:, 15 F,ic:c,·s ,'.1T~.c:,.,q1-:,,,~.,,,. ssqu.,-~ t~cl ,of Js~11.1lt ·or,r··ptc p.1\•c,-,0111 ~() (<,N• IJC·l~WI Embodied GHQ Emissions ........................ warkshHt Background lnformatlon Buildings Embodied GHG emissions are emissions that are created through 1he extraction, processing, transportation, construction and disposal of building materials as well ;;is emissions created through landscape disturb;;ince (by both soil disturbance and changes in above ground biomass) Estimating embodied GHG emissions is new field of analysis; the estimates are rapidly improving and becoming more inclusive of all elements of o::mstruction and development. The estimate induded in this worksheet is calculated using average values for the main construction materi;;ils that are used to create a typical family home. In 2004. the National Association of Home Builders calculated the ;;iverage materials that are used in a typical 2,272 square foot single-family household. The quantity of materials used is then multiplied by the average GHG emissions associaled with the life-cycie GHG emissions for each material This estimate is a rough and conservative est1ma1e: the actual embodied emissioos for a project are likely to be higher. For example, at this stage, due to a lack of comprehensive data, the estimate does not mciude important factors such as landscape disturbance or the em1ss1ons associated with the interior components of a building (such as furniture). King County realizes that the calculalions for embodied emissions in this worksheet are rough. For example. the emissions associated with building 1,000 square feet of a residential building Will not be the same as 1,000 squ;;ire feet of a commercial buildmg However, discussions with the construct,on community md1cate thal while there are significant differences between the different types of structures, this method of estimalion is reasonable; ii will be improved as more dala become available Additionally, if more specific information about the project is known, Kmg County recommends two online embodied emissions calculators that can be used to obtain a more tailored estfmale for embodied emissions www bu1ldc.arbonneutra1.org and www.athenasmi ca/1oolslecoCalculator/. Pavement Four recent life cyde assessments of lhe environmental impacts of roads form the basis for the per unit embodied emissions of pavement. Each study is constructed in slightly different ways; however, the aggregate results of the reports represent a reasonable estimate of the GHG emissions that are created from the manUfacture of paving materials, construction related emissions, and maintenance of the pavement over its expected life cycle. For specifics, see 1he worksheet Special Section: Estimating the Embodied Emissions for Pavement Four recent life cycle assessments of the environmental impacts of roads form the basis for the per unit embodied emissions of pavement. Each study is construcied in slightly different ways: however, the aggregate results of the reports represent a reasonable estimate of the GHG emissions that are created from the manufacture of paving materials, construction related emissions. and maintenance of the pavement over its expected life cycie. The results of the studies are presented in different units and measures: considerable effort was undertaken to be able to compare the results of the studies in a reasonable way. For more details about the below methodology, contact matt.kuharic@kingcounty.gov. The four studies, Meil (2001 ), Park (2003), Stripple (2001) and Treolar (2001) produced total GHG emissions of 4-34 MTC02e per thousand square feet of finished paving (for similar asphalt and concrete based pavements). This estimate does not induding downstream maintenance and repair of the highway. The average (for all concrete and asphalt pavements in the sludies, assuming each study gets one da1a poin1) is -17 MTC02e/thousand square feet Three of the studies attempted to thoroughly account for the emissions associated wiih long ten-n maintenance (40 years) of the roads. Stripple (2001), Park et al. (2003) and Treolar (2001) report 17. 81, and 68 MTC02e/thousand square feet, respectively, after accounting for maintenance of the roads. Based on the above discussion. King County makes the conservative estimate that 50 MTC02e/thousand square feet of pavement (over the development's life cycle) will be used as the embodied emission factor for pavement until better estimates can be obtained. This is roughly equivalent to 3,500 MTC02e per lane mile of road (assuming the lane is 13 feet wide). It is impor1ant to note that these studies estimate the embodied emissions for roads. Paving that does not need to stand up 1o the rigors of heavy use (such as parking lots or driveways) would likely use less maierials and hence have lower embodied emissions Sources: Meil, J. A Life Cycle Perspective on Concrete and Asphalt Roadways: Embodied Primary Energy and Global Wanning Potential. 2006. Available· http:/tw.w.r .cement.ca/cemenl.n sfleee9ec7bbd630 126852566c400521 07b/6ec79dc8ae03a 782852572b90D61 b9 141$FILEIATTKOWE31athena%20report%20Feb.%202%2020D7 pdf Park, K, Hwang, Y., Seo, S., M.ASCE, and Seo, H., "Quantitative Assessment of Environmental Impacts on Life Cycle of Highways," Journal of Construciion Engineering and Management . Vol 129, January/February 2003, pp 25-31, (DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2003)129:1 (25)). Stripple, H. life Cycle Assessment of Road. A Pilot Study for Inventory Analysis. Second Revised Edi1ion. IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute Ltd. 2001. Available· http·/twww.1vl setrapporterlpdl/B121 DE.pdf Treloar. G .. Love, P.E.D., and Crawford, R.H. Hybrid Life-Cycle Inventory for Road Construction and Use. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management. P. 43-49. January/February 2004. Fnerm, Fmissions Worksheet Type (Residential) or Principal Aciivity /Commercial) Sinale-Family Home ... Multi-Family Unit in Lar"" Building Mulli-Familv Unit in Small Buildino . Mobile Home .. Education. Food Sales. Food Service . Health Care lnoatient . Health Care Outoatient Lodaina .. Retail (Other Than Mall) ... Office. Public Assembly .. Public Order and Safetv . Reliaious Worshio .. Service. Warehouse and Storage . Other .. Vacant. Sources All data in black te)(f Energy consumption for residential buildings Energy consumption for commercial buildings aod Floorspace per building ,.'li"lKJ!l :_,oc;l'1c enl 'OI l}u1hJ1 g,. Residential floorspace per unit ... Energy Floorspace MTGE per consumption per Carbon per Building thousand MTC02e per building per year Coefficient for MTC02e per (thousand square feet per thousand square /million Btu Buildinos buildina oar vear souare feet vear feet oer vear 107 3 0 108 11.61 2.53 4.6 16.8 41.0 0 108 4.44 0.85 5.2 19.2 78.1 () 108 8.45 1.39 6.1 22.2 75.9 0 108 8.21 1.06 7.7 28.4 2.125.0 () 12L 264 2 25.6 10.3 37.8 1.110.0 U 1 ;";/. 138.0 5.6 24.6 90.4 1.436.0 0 1/L 178.5 56 31.9 116.9 60.152.0 U 12.: 7,479.1 241.4 31.0 113.6 985.0 (] 1.-•L 122.5 104 11.8 43.2 3.578.0 0 12-~ 444.9 35 8 12.4 45.6 720.D 0 l}L 89.5 97 9.2 33.8 1.376.0 Q I 2L 171 1 14.8 11.6 42.4 1_338.0 (I 1/L 166.4 14? 11.7 43.0 1.791.0 (J 1;;1. 222.7 15.5 14.4 52.7 440.0 0 1),: 54.7 10 1 5.4 19.9 501.0 u ,;;,: 62.3 6.5 9.6 35.1 764.0 <J i ?L 95.0 16 9 5.6 20.6 3.600.0 0 121. 447.6 21 9 20.4 74.9 294.0 0 i/L 36.6 141 2.6 9.5 Kmg County, DNRP. Contact: Matt Kuharic, matt.kuharic@kingcounty.gov 2007 Buildings Energy Data Book 6.1 Quad Defmit1ons and Comparisons (National Average. 2001) Table 6. 1.4: Average Annual Carbon Dioxide Emissions for Vanous Functions http /lbuildingsdatabook.eren doe 9011/ Data also at: http://www.e1a.doe.gov/emeu/recs/recs2001_celce1-4c_housingunits2001 .html EIA. 2003 Comrnerc1al Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (N>1t1onal Ave1age_ 2003) Table C3 Consumption and Gross Energy ln1ensity for Sum of MaJor Fuels for Non-Mall Buildings 2003 h1tp 1/www e1a doe gov.1emeu/cbecs/cbecs2003/de1a11ed_tables_2003/2003se1912003exceL'c3 xis Average Lifespan Energy Building Life Related MTC02e S"•o emissions oer unit 579 672 80.5 357 BO 5 681 57 9 475 62.5 16,526 62.5 8,632 625 11,168 62.5 467,794 62.5 7,660 62.5 27,826 62.5 5,599 62.5 10,701 62.5 10,405 62.5 13,928 62.5 3,422 62.5 3,896 62.5 5,942 62.5 27,997 62.5 2,286 Note Data rn plum color is found 1n both of the above sources (bu1ld1ngs energy data book and commercial buildings energy consumption survey) Uu1lcil"(:S I: 11e-··./1 1;,:~t-1 :_;,:"1~-,r,::=i1,:-:in3I :~v'°"rage, 2:J(J'J; ~a::,.::, , -','_,s ::c,::,:::i:1 C,0,1c:C' t:~11ss c,n ::::ocff1c·,::,n1, t,-:, 811,::1 nu';, 'v1f,"-::::=:-l'f ,11r, irlilw:· 8'.u, ril:p bu,1,-: ~,;,s,::,a1a1,ock, eere ene,gy .:iov '-'1G e,,,_boc, tables I a '-,c:·IL_1-,:-:,•- Note Ccir,-:ion cccff1~;1,:-,nt 1r1 t~,,:· C "C'fCJV Jatci t:,~1:::ik 1s n 1/,TC:C ,)c,r i'.u,Hi1,il1c,· --;1, To converi to MTCD2e per m1ll1on Btu 1h1s 1aclor was d1v1ded by 1000 and multiplied by 44112 2001 Residential Energy Consumption Survey {National Average, 2001) Square footage measurements and comparisons http://www.eia doe gov/emeu/recs/sqft-measure.html Lifespan Energy Related MTC02e emissions per thousand souare feet 266 422 489 448 646 1,541 1,994 1,938 737 777 577 723 733 899 339 599 352 1,278 162 average lief span of buildings. estimated by replacement time method Single Family Multi-Family Units All Residential Homes in Large and Buildings Small Buildinas New Housing Construction, 2001 1.273.000 329.000 1.602.000 Existing Housing Stock, 2001 73,700.000 26,500,000 100,200,000 Replacement (national time 57.9 80.5 62.5 average, 20011 Note: SinglEi-family homes calculation is used for mobile homes as a best estimate life span. Note: At this time, KC staff could find no reliable data for Iha average life span of commercial buildings. Therefore, the average life span of residential buildings is being used until a better approximation can be ascertained. Sources: New Hous111g Cm,struction 2001 Otiarterly Starts and Completions by Purpose ;md Desi1111 -llS and RPgions (Exceii h ltp :1iwww r:pn ~us .go,1!con st1q \1 arterl\;_ starts_ c.011mlet1011s _ cu st. x Is Existing Housing Stock, See also: http :!iwww .ce11 su s.go 1• •consl 1·Nwwi11r:wr1i~u•11 ~ti 11dex.html 2001 Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS) 2001 Tables HC1:Housing Unit Characteristics, Million U.S. Households 2001 Table HC1-4a. Housing Unit Characteristics by Type of Housing Unit, Million U.S. Households, 2001 Million U.S. Households, 2001 http://www.eia.doe. govlemeulrecs/recs20011hc_pdflhou sun its/he 1 -4a _ hous ingu nits 2001. pdf l , 1,::111::,,,u, 1c:1uur, c:1111::,:»u• ,::; vvur 11,::,r lt:'t::l Type (Residential) or Principal Activit} (Commercial Sinole-Family Home .. Multi-Family Unit in LarQe Buildina . Multi-Family Unit in Small Buildino .. Mobile Home .. Education Food Sales. Food Service . Health Care Inpatient .... Health Care Outpatient . Lodaina .. Retail (other Than Mall) Office Public Assemblv .. Public Order and Safetv .. Religious Worship .. Service. Warehouse and Staraae . Other Vacant. Sources All data in black text #people/unit Residential floorspace per unit # (:'"TIUVl'CSi[.-,u.1:-;cnn ·;qlkH<:? te21 vehicle related GHG em1ss1ons MTC02e/ # people or (metric tonnes year/ # thousand employees/ C02e per thousand # people/ unit or sq feeU unit thousand person per MTC02e/ square building or building square feet year year/ unit feet 2 8 7 53 11 4.9 13.7 5.4 1.9 0 85 23 4.9 9.5 11.2 1.9 1 39 1.4 4.9 9.5 6.8 2 5 1 06 23 4.9 12.2 11.5 30.0 25 6 1 2 4.9 147.8 5.8 5.1 56 0.9 4.9 25.2 4.5 10 2 56 1.8 49 50.2 9.0 455.5 241 4 1.9 4.9 2246.4 9.3 19.3 10 4 1.9 4.9 95.0 9.1 13.6 35 8 0.4 49 67.1 1.9 7.8 9 7 0 8 49 38.3 3.9 28.2 14 8 1.9 49 139.0 9.4 6.9 14 2 0.5 49 34.2 2.4 18 8 15 5 1.2 49 92.7 6.0 42 10 1 04 4.9 20.8 2.1 5.6 6.5 0.9 4.9 27.6 4.3 9.9 16 9 0.6 4.9 49.0 2.9 18.3 21 9 0.8 4.9 90.0 4.1 2 1 14 1 0.2 4.9 10.5 0.7 King County, DNRP. Contact Matt Kuharic, matt.kuharic@kingcounty.gov Estimating Household Size for Use in Population Estimates (WA state, 2000 average) Washington State Office of Financial Management Kimpel. T and Lowe. T Research Brief No. 47 August 2007 http./ /www _ ofm. wa. gov/research briefs/bnef04 7. pelf Average Building Life Span 57 9 80.5 80 5 57 9 62.5 62.5 62.5 62.5 62.5 62.5 62 5 62.5 62.5 62.5 62 5 62.5 62 5 62 5 62 5 Note: This analysis combines Multi Unit Structures 1n both large and small units into one category: the average 1s used ,n this case although there 1s likely a difference 2001 Residential Energy Consumption Survey (National Average 20011 Square footage measurements ;rnd comparisons http 1/www e1a doe gov.'emec1/recs1sqft-measure l1tml Life span transportation related GHG emissions (MTC02e/ per unit 792 766 766 709 9247 1579 3141 140506 5941 4194 2394 8696 2137 5796 1298 1729 3067 5630 657 Cc:-"·r·,-,e:,~;;:;: Bl.1!-::1·1as L.1c :1, ,·;,-,11:~, "11:-1.01· S,, ''"i u1m,rn-;1ci;,1 ,~,-'",-·]>·: r~ -11· 1-1i"!le h .. l(,tc.ilS 2-•c: \1er,i;_c1·1', ,11 I 1,, 1rspci1~e. NurT1cx_,, .:· •/,}(,:-k[,.-s 0:11,, 11·· , '~4tw--,~· r.,1,-,.-1,,0 11 ·, 11 :·,c·-, ,ii,,,-~,.-,,-'/"JI f',,.,lll 11,-:C-'C,:l lr\L' :Nvv, l: i"I c:oc ,1: " (:11 ll', I · ;i:I ·: , '.'.JCC;·.o:::'C-1 '· ,Jr; i,-11< <1 _; ,1 J ..20C""J F:Y'.c,·· 'i'-~ '(·'., N,~,1,=, Dc1t.1 f0· ·rt PmrilovPPS·l·1::.1,;:,c1 11"1 c;r;uarP fer.·· IS t pep,,·>:', i (;', C ?F::s -~-c ~JJll?,I t" ·ec;:-',~·'"PIO'/P.C" Ill Ill'> ,il1cll:fS12 prTq~ ,-,\W<'r, tt1, ,,1c;,~11,·: ·~'IL,-31-'C' Ts~!::·' :·u ,1t2· :,-". :-1' ,·,~11•·,_c, ,,-,,_,,-.,c-:1 -1·1c-Cll:_(·,t; 11.-,11··,•, -,·1.1 ·:n-1·.·,1;; Life span transportation related GHG emissions (MTC02e/ thousand sq feet 313 904 550 668 361 282 561 582 571 117 247 588 150 374 129 266 181 257 47 vehicle related GHG emissions Estimate calculated as follows (Washington state 2006) 56,531.930.000 2006 Annual WA State Vehicle Miles Traveled Data was daily VMT Annual VMT was 365~daily VMT http 11www wsdot.wa.gov/mapsdata/tdo/annualmileage him 6.395 798 2006 WA slate population http'llqu1ckfacts census goviqfdtstates/53000 l1tml 8839 vehicle miles per person per year O 0506 gallon gasolinelm1le This 1s the weighted national average fuel eff1C!ency for all cars and 2 axle. 4 wl1eel light trucks 1n 2005 This includes pickup trucks. vans and SUVs. The 0.051 gallons/mile used here is the inverse of the more commonly known term ·'miles/per gallon"' (wtiich is 19. 75 for these cars and light trucks) Transportation Energy Data Book 26th Ed1110n 2006 Chapter 4 Light Vehicles and Characteristics Calculations based on weighted average MPG efficiency of cars and light trucks http //eta ornl.gov/data/tedb26/Edition26_Chapter04 pd1 Note: This report states that 111 2005, 92 3% of all highway VMT were driven by the above descrrbed veh1cies http· 1 I eta om 1 _ gov1data1tedb261 Spreadsheets/Table 3 _ 04. x Is 24 3 lbs C02e/gallon gasolme 2205 4 93 lbs/metric tonne The CO2 emissions estimates for gasoline and diesel include the extraction transport and refinement of petroleum as well as their combustion Life-Cycle CO2 Emissions for Vanous New Vehicles RENew Northfield Available. http.llren€\Nnorthfield org/wpcontentluploads/2006104/C02%2Dem1ssions pdf Note This 1s a conservative estimate of emissions by fuel consumption because diesel fuel with a em1ss1ons factor of 26 55 lbs C02e/gallon was not estimated vehicle related GHG emissions (metric tonnes C02e per person per year; average lief span of buildings, estimated by replacement time method See Energy Emissions Worksheet for Calculations Commercial fioorspace per unit - EIA. 2003 Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (National Average. 20031 Table C3 Consumption and Gross Energy Intensity for Sum of MaJor Fuels for Non-Mall Buildings 2003 http /lwww e1a doe govlemeu/cbecslcbecs2003/detarled_tables_2003/2003set912003excel/c3 xis APPEND/XE UPDATED TRANSPORTATION REPORT Quenda/1 Terminals EIS Addendum Renton, WA Updated Transportation Impact Study October 1, 2012 Prepared for: EA1Blumen 720 Sixth Street South, Suite 100 Kirkland, WA 98033 Prepared by: ~ Transportation Engineering NorthWest, LLC Transportation Engineering/Operations • Impact Studies • Design Services • Transportation Planning/Forecasting Seattle Office, PO Box 65254 • Seattle, WA 98155 • Office/Fax (206) 361-7333 • Toll Free (888) 220-7333 Quenda/1 Terminals EIS Addendum Renton WA Table of Contents Updated Transportation Impact Study EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................. 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 3 Project Description ...................................................................................................................... 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS .................................................................................................................. 6 Roadway Conditions .................................................................................................................... 6 Intersection Traffic Control and Channelization ........................................................................... 6 Existing Traffic Volumes .............................................................................................................. 6 Intersection Level of Service ...................................................................................................... 10 Public Transportation Services .................................................................................................. 11 Nonmotorized Transportation Facilities ..................................................................................... 11 Planned Transportation lmprovements ...................................................................................... 12 TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS ...................................................................................................... 12 Baseline Transportation Network Assumptions ......................................................................... 12 Baseline Travel Demand Forecasts ........................................................................................... 13 Trip Generation of Development.. .............................................................................................. 17 Trip Distribution and Assignment.. ............................................................................................. 18 Site Access and Circulation ....................................................................................................... 31 Public Transportation Impacts ................................................................................................... 32 Non motorized Transportation Impacts ....................................................................................... 33 Parking lmpacts ......................................................................................................................... 33 MITIGATION MEASURES .............................................................................................................. 34 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ........................................................................................................ 37 Appendix A -Intersection Level of Service Summary Sheets Appendix B-Traffic Volume Forecasts Appendix C -Parking Demand Analysis Appendix D -Lake Washington Blvd./NE 44th Street Conceptual Channelization Exhibit ~ Transportation Engineering NorthWest, LLC Page i October I, 2012 Quenda/1 T erminafs EIS Addendum Renton WA Updated Transportation Impact Study List of Figures Figure 1: Project Site Vicinity ............................................................................... .. . ................. 4 Figure 2: DEIS Alternative 1 Conceptual Site Plan ................................................ .. . ................ 5 Figure 3: Study Intersection Locations ................................................................................................... 7 Figure 4: Existing Intersection Channelization and Traffic Control ......................................................... 8 Figure 5: 2009-2010 Existing Traffic Volumes ................................................................................... 9 Figure 6: Pipeline Development Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Without 1-405 Improvements .................. 14 Figure 7: Pipeline Development Peak Hour Traffic Volumes With 1-405 Improvements ....................... 15 Figure 8: Project Trip Distribution Without 1-405 Improvements ........................................................... 19 Figure 9: Project Trip Assignment Without 1-405 Improvements .......................................................... 19 Figure 10: Project Trip Distribution With 1-405 Improvements .............................................................. 22 Figure 11: Project Trip Assignment With 1-405 Improvements ............................................................. 23 Figure 12: 2015 Baseline/No Action Peak Hour Traffic Volumes (Without 1-405 Improvements) ......... 25 Figure 13: 2015 DEIS Alternative 1 Peak Hour Traffic Volumes (Without 1-405 Improvements ........... 26 Figure 14: 2015 Baseline/No Action Peak Hour Traffic Volumes (With 1-405 Improvements) .............. 28 Figure 15: 2015 DEIS Alternative 1 Peak Hour Traffic Volumes (With 1-405 Improvements ................ 29 ~ T ran,ponation Engineering North West, LLC Page ii October 1, 2012 Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum Renton, WA Updated Transportation Impact Study List of Tables Table 1: Level of Service Criteria for Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections ................................. 10 Table 2: Existing 2009-2010 Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service ................................................. 11 Table 3: 2015 DEIS Alternative 1 (The Original Application) Project Trip Generation .......................... 17 Table 4: 2015 DEIS Alternative 2 (Lower Density Alternative) Project Trip Generation ....................... 18 Table 5: 2015 Intersection Level of Service Impacts with DEIS Alternative 1 (Without 1-405 Improvements) ...................................................................................................... 24 Table 6: 2015 Intersection Level of Service Impacts With DEIS Alternative 1 With 1-405 Improvements ............................................................................................................. 27 Table 7: 2015 Queues Without 1-405 Improvements -DEIS Alternative 1 (The Original Application) 30 Table 8: 2015 Queues With 1-405 Improvements --DEIS Alternative 1 (The Original Application) ..... 30 Table 9: Parking Code Requirements .................................................................................................. 33 Table 10: 2015 Intersection Level of Service Impacts with DEIS Alternative 1 and Project Mitigation (Without 1-405 Improvements) ...................................................................................................... 35 Table 11: 2015 Preferred Alternative Project Trip Generation .............................................................. 37 ~ Transportation Engineering NorthWest, LLC Page iii October I, 2012 Q11endJf/ TerminJls EIS Addendum Renton, WA EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Updated Transportation Impact Study In response to transportation-related comments on the DEIS, the transportation report for the Quendall Te1?J1i11alr project has been updated for the EIS Addendum. In particular, the following arc included in the analysis. >-New traffic counts at Srudy Intersection #3 (Ripley Lane/NE 44'" Street), and revised traffic analysis at this location and adjacent study intersections based on the traffic counts that indicated increased demand on discrete intersection movements. >-Updated level of service (LOS) analysis at Srudy Intersection #9 (Lake Washington Boulevard/Park Avenue N (Garden Avenue) that reflects planned improvements by the City of Renton. >-A LOS summary table that illustrates the affects of potential mitigation measures. >-A figure which illustrates the conceptual channelization improvements that would be required along Lake Washington Boulevard as a result of the project if the project is built prior to regional improvements within the 1-405 corridor. The potential transportation impacts under the applicant's Preferred Alternative are also discussed in this updated report. This report documents an evaluation of transportation impacts associated with development of the Quendall Te1?J1inals site in Renton, WA The proposed development would consist of the following: >-2015 DEIS Alternative 1 (The Original Application) includes the construction of 800 multifamily units, 21,600 square feet of retail, 245,000 square feet of office, 9,000 square feet of restaurant space and parking for 2,171 vehicles. Vehicular access would be provided via a new access drive onto Ripley Lane and the extension of NE 43'<l Street (existing Barbee Mill access). In addition to the 2015 DEIS Alternative I above, the following alternatives were analyzed as part of this project: >-2015 DEIS Alternative 2 (Lower Density Alternative) includes the construction of 708 multifamily units, 21,600 square feet of retail, 9,000 square feet of restaurant space and parking for 1,362 vehicles. Vehicular access would be provided via a new access drive onto Ripley Lane and the extension of NE 43'<l Street (existing Barbee Mill access). Note: A Preferred Alternative was developed by the applicant far this EIS Addendum. A separate section at the end of this study addnsses the nlative impacts of the Pnjerred Alternative given its similarities to Alternative 2. >-2015 DEIS Alternative 3 (No Action Alternative, No Development). This is the Baseline Alternative with no development on-site. The development alternatives were tested under a future transportation network in 2015 with and without the planned I-405 improvements at the I-405/NE 44'h Street interchange. The 1- 405 Improvements assumed in this analysis included: >-Reconfiguring the NE 44'" Street interchange into a tight-diamond configuration. >-Relocating both NB and SB ramps with additional through and turn-lanes. >-Addition of traffic signals at both NB and SB ramp intersections. ~ Transportation Engineering North West, LLC Pagel October I, 2012 Quenda/J Terminals EIS Addendum Renton, WA Updated Transportation Impact Study ~ Addition of a traffic signal at the Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Boulevard intersection. Detailed trip generation estimates of development and transportation forecasts throughout the study area were prepared for future baseline conditions without the proposed development and with the proposed development in 2015 (the assumed year of buildout). Impacts were evaluated at 9 off-site study intersections under the without I-405 Improvements future scenario and 7 off-site study intersections under the with I-405 Improvements future scenario. Conclusions 'lbere exists today and will be in the future a moderate to high level of background traffic that travels in the vicinity of the site. With the existing transportation network and I-405 Improvements by 2015, the development alternatives could be accommodated; however, implementation of some additional site access transportation improvements would be necessary. Without I-405 Improvements by 2015, additional interchange ramp improvements would be needed to support the development alternatives as well as site access improvements. Additional baseline transportation improvements and project mitigation measures are identified in the Mitigation Measures section of this report. ~ Transportation Engineering NorthWest, LLC Page 2 October 1, 2012 I Quendalf Termimls EIS Addendum Renton WA INTRODUCTION Updated Transportation Impact Study This study summarizes transportation impacts associated with the proposed Quendal/ Terminals redevelopment project. The study documents transportation impacts associated with the EIS redevelopment alternatives of this site, including: ? Assessment of existing conditions through field reconnaissance and review of existing planning documents. ? Estimation of weekday vehicular a.m. and p.m. peak hour trips and daily trips generated by the EIS alternatives. ? Assignment of weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hour project trips onto the existing roadway network in the immediate vicinity. ;.. Evaluation of a.m. and p.m. peak level of service (LOS) impacts at 9 off-site study intersections. >"' Assessment of site access and circulation issues. ? Analysis of public transportation and nonmotorized transportation impacts. ? Identification of mitigation measures to maintain acceptable levels of mobility and safety Project Description The project site is generally bounded by Ripley Lane to the east, Lake Washington Boulevard to the southeast, and Lake Washington to the west. A project site vicinity map is shown in Figure 1. The proposed development would consist of the following (conceptual site plan for DEIS Alternative 1 is provided in Figure 2): ? 2015 DEIS Alternative 1 (The Original Application) includes the construction of 800 multifamily units, 21,600 square feet of retail, 245,000 square feet of office, 9,000 square feet of restaurant space and parking for 2,171 vehicles. Vehicular access would be provided via a new access drive onto Ripley Lane and the extension of NE 43'd Street (existing Barbee Mill access). In addition to the 2015 DEIS Alternative 1 described above, the following alternatives were analyzed as part of this project: ? 2015 DEIS Alternative 2 (Lower Density Alternative) includes the construction of 708 multifamily units, 21,600 square feet of retail, 9,000 square feet of restaurant space and parking for 1,362 vehicles. Vehicular access would be provided via a new access drive onto Ripley Lane and the existing Barbee Mill access on Lake Washington Boulevard, similar to Alternative 1. Note: A Prejirred Alternative was developed by the applicant far this EIS Addendum. A separate section al the end of this study addresses the relative impacts of the Prejirred Alternative given its similarities to Alternative 2 that was evaluated in the Quendal/ Terminals DRAF[ Environmental Impad Statement. ? 2015 (No Action Alternative, No Development). with no development assumed on-site at this time. ~ TranSPortation Engineering NorthWest, LLC This is the Baseline Alternative Page 3 October 1, 2012 Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum Renton, WA l..a/ce Wamtn,ton T ransportatlon Engineering NorthWest, LLC ( .l. -·-·----1 I -1--, --1 Figure 1 Project Site Vicinity ~ T ransportatlon Engineering North Wen, LLC Updated Transportation Impact Study y ' \ Quendall Tenninals EIS Addendum Renton, WA ' ''" Page 4 October 1, 2012 Quenda/J Terminals EIS Addendum Renton, WA Updated Transportation Impact Study T ransportatlon Engineering NorthWest, LLC Figure 2 DEIS Alternative 1 Site Plan ~ Tran<Portation Engineering NorthWest, LLC \ i~~ lji Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum Renton, WA 1 2012 Page 5 October 1, 2012 Quend.111 Termin.1ls EIS Addendum Renton WA Updated Transportation Impact Study EXISTING CONDITIONS This section describes existing transportation system conditions in the study area. It includes an inventory of existing roadway conditions, intersection traffic control, traffic volumes, intersection levels of service, public transportation services, nonmotorized transportation facilities, and planned roadway improvements. Roadway Conditions The following paragraphs describe existing arterial roadways that would be used as major routes for site access. Roadway characteristics are described in terms of facility type, number of lanes, posted speed limits and shoulder types and widths. Lake Washington Boulevard is classified as a collector arterial between N Park Drive and I- 405. Travel lanes are 11 feet in width with 5-foot bike lanes on both side of the street. A paved 4-foot shoulder exists on the west side of the street and is designated for pedestrians. No parking is allowed on either side of the street. The posted speed limit is 25 mph. NE 44•• Street between the NB and SB I-405 ramp intersections is classified as a collector arterial. Travel lanes are 13-14 feet in width. On the approaches to the I-405 overpass paved shoulders exists on both sides of the street. No parking is allowed on either side of the street. Ripley Lane is a local access street with two 11 foot travel lanes in each direction. A paved 5 foot shoulder exists on the west side of the street. No parking is allowed on either side of the street. The posted speed limit is 25 mph. Intersection Traffic Control and Channelization Based on estimated trip distribution under the 2015 year network scenarios (with and without I-405 Improvements), up to nine study intersections were analyzed, including: 1. Lake Washington Boulevard (I-405 NB ramps) / NE 44'• Street 2. I-405 SB ramps / NE 44'• Street 3. Lake Washington Boulevard / Ripley Lane 4. Lake Washington Boulevard/ Barbee Mill Access (N 43'' Street) 5. Lake Washington Boulevard / Hawks Landing Access (future intersection) 6. Lake Washington Boulevard/ N 36'' Street / Burnett Avenue N 7. N 30'' Street/ Burnett Ave N (without I-405 Improvements Scenario only) 8. Lk Wa Blvd/ Burnett Ave N (without I-405 Improvements Scenario only) 9. Lk Wa Blvd/ Park Ave N / Garden Ave N Figure 3 identifies the locations of the 9 off-site study intersections. Existing intersection channelization and traffic control are illustrated in Figure 4 for all study intersections. Existing Traffic Volumes Peak hour traffic volumes represent the highest hourly volume of vehicles passing through an intersection during a typical 7-9 a.m. and 4-6 p.m. weekday peak periods. Peak period turning movement counts at study intersections were conducted in 2009, 2010 and 2012. Figure 5 summarizes the existing a.rn. and p.m. peak period turning movements at all study intersections. ~ Transportation Engineering NonhWest, LLC Page 6 October 1, 2012 Quenda/1 Terminals EIS Addendum Renton, WA Lake Was/Jqton T ransportatlon Engineering NorthWest, LLC 405 Updated Transportation Impact Study SE 76!11 Sr 1 --~t----- r , I I 1 ' l-- Scudy lntenectlons: Intersections 1-5 .:.nd 9 were ldendfled as key Intersections that serve as site access and .as maJor distribution points ror region.ti trips. Intersections 6-8 .tre Intersections that would al5,0 experience slgnlfkant use by the Quendall T ermlnals project ror access to 1·405 If re,lon.tl Improvements are not made to the 1·405 corridor. As such, two sets of trip dlstrlbudon patterns result under the with and wtthout 1-405 Improvement scenarios, requiring two different sets of swdy Intersections. _., \ I (_ ' ' ' i ! ···1-1-1 .. ! t== __ t-·-r--•. \ ' ,......__ \~ \ L '-', l-I i , __ ___,1 ! r . ___ 1, __ ~-+-__ r--)--.._,, 1 1 I :,/ \ I I /\ I I I . ' I \ j \-)--._ .,t [ill--r-. \l :, \ r/ ~----L+ ··--·••---i. 1 I I i ' I L_~ __j,, -- .L, -·-g·; ·. --: ' )-...• ..; I 1Nb1 to Scale) Figure 3 Study Intersection Locations Quendall Tenninals EIS Addendum Renton, WA 'lB9 Transportation Engineering NorthWest, LLC Page 7 October 1, 2012 Quenda/1 Terminals EIS Addendum Renton, WA Updated Transportation Impact Study T ransportatlon Engineering NorthWest, LLC 40S NB RmllK / NE 44dl S1 - y ... 8urMn Ave N / N 3Dlh SI Ir.Ill WJ Blvd I GJrdffl Avt NI P.t A~ N ! l: )~~ +-- FPl1fkA-.eN -" l ~r -""'t I Figure 4 Existing Channelization and Traffic Control ~ Transportation Engineering NorthWest, LLC B.llibff MIii Ai:ceu / Lk w, Bhid ;.. ... U WJ Blvd/ N 36111 Strttt: I • lan'lfflAot N : Lt; W, IIYd / lwnm Aw-N Legend ):( Traffic Slgn•I ..,. Stop Sign t!!I All·W•y Stop Quendall Tenninals EIS Addendum Renton, WA 12 2012 Page 8 October 1, 2012 Quend.1/f Termin.1/s EIS Addendum Renton, WA Updated Transportation Impact Study lake WolSlllnBtoo T ransportadon Engineering NorthWest, LLC 405 ···y--1 ·-\:-: i •. ! I r, -~-1 I ' -,r~-- ___ _Li__, ' 405 N8 R.mP" I NE 44th S1 (280} (25) {50) i~ 140 i65) 345 25 JO 1.-165(150 } t l..•;r'""" NE «tn S1 15 Si 280...,, 'I t ,, (165)110-.; 10 95 90 (60) 350~ ~ {15)(230)(145 Ripley LIM / N 44th 51 • (30) !0)(100)~ ~65 (40) 5 0 JO } ' I.. (5) 15 ...J/1 (180)635-. 0-,,. (21 (55) (44) 0 " 18 ,J ' I.. (0)0.J( (13) 10-. (1)0~ 'I t ,, 0 0 0 (0) (0) (0) .-200(4]5) ~20(13) .-11 (28) ,-20(64) N 3001 SI • 'I t ,, 0 S9 47 (2) (38) (61 6 U: w~ 11w1 , G~rdffl Att N , Pm: Aw N 292) (83) 190) 1 ~90(132) 204 15 98 l ..... 718(646) ,J ' 1.., ,-20i (2951 (29,t 279 JI 'I t ,, (758> 352 _. 12 88 55 126)8~ (9) (9S)(497) Figure 5 Existing Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ~ T raruportltion Engineering North West, LLC 40S SB Ft.nps / NE 441h St (2SO) (5) (130) f 115 5 55 ; ..... 115 (22S) ) f I.. ~ y-390 (215) (150) 665 _. (12S) 5 "'""!It., ..... 200(435) to1 o--" ( 190) 6SO-+, t LtW,Bl\,d/N361hSuH't/ Bdr!WUAw.N Legend XX A.M. Peak Hour Volumes (XX) P.M. Peak Hour Volumes Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum Renton, WA Page 9 October 1, 2012 QuendJI/ TerminJis EIS Addendum Renton, WA Updated Transportation Impact Study Existing traffic counts at study intersections 1-5 were obtained from the Quendal! Terminals Traffic Impad Ana!y,fr dated November 2009. Existing traffic counts at study intersections 6-9 were conducted in June 2010, and again at Intersection 3 in June 2012 by All Traffic Data (A'l'D) to calibrate historical data. Intersection Level of Service Level of service (LOS) serves as an indicator of the quality of traffic flow at an intersection or road segment. The LOS grading ranges from A to F, such that LOS A is assigned when minimal delays are present and low volumes are experienced. LOS F indicates long delays, heavy volumes, and increased traffic congestion. Table 1 summarizes the criteria for the delay range for each level of service at signalized and unsignalized intersections. The methods used to calculate the levels of service are described in the updated 2000 Highway Capadty Manual (Special Report 209, Transportation Research Board). The measure of effectiveness for signalized intersections is average control delay, defined as the total time vehicles are stopped at an intersection approach during a specified time period divided by the number of vehicles departing from the approach in the same time period. Level of service for signalized intersections is defined in terms of control delay, which is a measure of driver discomfort, frustration, and increased travel time. The delay experienced by a motorist is made of up a number of factors that relate to traffic control, geometries, traffic demand, and incidents. Total control delay is the difference between the travel time actually experienced and the reference travel tiJJte that would result during base conditions (i.e., the absence of traffic control, geometric delay, any incidents, or as a result other vehicles). LOS F at signalized intersections is often considered unacceptable to most drivers, but does not automatically imply that the intersection is over capacity. Jammed conditions could occur on one or all approaches, with periods of long delays and drivers waiting for multiple signal cycles to progress through the intersection. The City of Renton does not have a formally adopted level of service standard, but measures level of service on a travel time basis. For the purposes of the traffic impact analysis, LOS E was assumed as the threshold at signalized intersections. For unsignalized intersections, a level of service and estimate of average control delay is determined for each minor or controlled movement based upon a sequential analysis of gaps in the major traffic streams and conflicting traffic movements. In addition, given that unsignalized intersections create different driver expectations and congestion levels than signalized intersections, their delay criteria are lower. Control delay at unsignalized intersections include deceleration delay, queue move-up time, stopped delay in waiting for an adequate gap in flows through the intersection, and final acceleration delay. Table 1 · Level of Service Criteria for Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections . Signalized Intersection Unsignalized Intersection Level of SelVice Delay Range (sec) Delay Range (sec) A <10 <10 B > 10to<20 >10to<15 C > 20 to< 35 > 15 to< 25 D > 35 to< 55 > 25 to< 35 E > 55 to< 80 > 35 to< 50 F > 80 > 50 " " ' Source: fhµ;hway Capacity Manual , Special Report 209, 1 rnnsportat!fm Rc~c:;1rch Board, 2000, Update. ~ Transportation Engineering NorthWest, LLC Page 10 October 1, 2012 Quenda/1 Terminafs EIS Addendum Renton, WA Updated Transportation Impact Study Synchro 6, Traffic Signal Coordination Sojtware program was used to develop network scenarios in evaluating level of service analysis at the study intersections. Signal cycle lengths and splits were optimized to assume adjustments in optimum performance over time. Use of the Synchro 6 software program was consistent with the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual. Table 2 highlights existing 2009/2010 a.m. and p.m. peak hour levels of service at study area intersections. During the a.m. peak hour, Intersection #1 -Lk Wa Blvd (1-405 NB ramps) / NE 44'h Street operates at LOS E and the southbound movement at Intersection #2 -1-405 SB ramps / NE 44'' Street operates at LOS F. During the p.m. peak hour, all intersections operate at LOS C or better. Detailed level of service summary sheets arc provided in Appendix A. Table 2: Existing 2009-2010 Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service A.M. Peak Hour Int.# Unslgnalized Intersections LOS Delav V/C 1 Lake Wa Blvd (1-405 NB Ramps)/NE 44'" St ~ 2 1-405 SB Ramps/NE 44'" Street Ripley Lane/NE 44" Street 3 SB-D 26 0.20 6 Lk Wa Blvd/N 36'" Street B 7 N 30"' Street/Burnett Ave N A 8 Lk Wa Blvd/Burnett Ave N B Int.# Signalized Intersections LOS 9 Lake Wa Blvd-Garden Ave N/Park Ave N B P.M. Peak Hour Int.# Unslgnalized Intersections LOS 1 Lake Wa Blvd (1-405 NB Ramps)/NE 44'" St C 2 1-405 SB Ramps/NE 44"' Street SB-C 3 Ripley Lane/NE 44'" Street SB·C 6 Lk Wa Blvd/N 36"' Street A 7 N 30'" Street/Burnett Ave N A 8 Lk Wa Blvd/Burnett Ave N A Int.# Signalized Intersections LOS 9 Lake Wa Blvd (Garden Ave N)/Park Ave N C N1>tt:: ,\nalp1s basi::J on Synchrn results u~m,g ITC.:\[ 2()()(1 conlrnl Jdays anJ LOS. lnsignah;:ed mtt:r~ections sho\Y LOS and conrrol delays for the worst din:ct1onal movement. Public Transportation Services 11 . 8 . 13 . Delay V/C 17 0.66 Delay V/C 18 . 22 0.61 18 0.32 10 . 8 . 10 . Deiav V/C 26 0.81 No public transit service is currently provided in the project site vicinity. The closest transit senrice in the vicinity is provided via a dial-a-ride service area and fixed route service in the vicinity of the NE 30'h Street interchange and 1-405. Nonmotorized Transportation Facilities Nonmotorize<l transportation facilities in the area include striped bike lanes on Lake Washington Boulevard. Lake Washington Boulevard also includes a paved 4-5 foot shoulder on the west side of the street designated for pedestrians. There are no nonrnotorized transportation facilities on the project site. The existing railroad corridor to the east of the site was recently purchased by the Port of Seattle. The City's recently adopted Renton Trails and Biryc!e Alaster Plan, 2009 identifies th.is rail corridor near th.is site as a future "rails to trails" planned trail. ~ Transportation Engineering NorthWest, LLC Page 11 October 1, 2012 Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum Renton, WA Updated Transportation Impact Study Planned Transportation Improvements The section identifies planned transportation improvements for roadways and intersections that would be impacted by trips generated by the proposed development. They have been identified in planning documents for the City of Renton and WSDOT. While these improvements are identified as "planned", they have yet to receive full funding and therefore, timing of such improvements is unknown at this time. The City of Renton's 2010-2015 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) identified the follmving transportation improvement in the study area that affects study intersections: ~ Lake Washington Blvd. at Park Ave N/Garden Ave N. This project includes minor widening and reconfiguration to provide dual eastbound left turn lanes. WSDOT has identified improvements to the 1-405/NE 44'h interchange as part of the I405 Renton to Bellevue Project (SR 169 to I-90). The improvements to the 1-405/NE 44'h interchange include: ~ Reconfiguring the NE 44'h Street interchange into a tight-diamond configuration. ~ Relocating both NB and SB ramps with additional through and turn-lanes. ~ Addition of traffic signals at both NB and SB ramp intersections. ~ Addition of a traffic signal at Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Boulevard. Whtie widening of NE 44'' Street west of Ripley Lme i.r identified in the latest I405 IMPROVEMENTS drawing, this widening assumes it extends approximately 100 feet west of Ripley Lane and therefore, no channelization capadty was assumed to occur at this intermtion. TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS The following section describes transportation impacts of the 2015 buildout EIS alternatives of the Quena!I Terminal.r site on the surrounding arterial network. The discussion includes baseline transportation network assumptions, baseline travel demand forecasts, new trips generated by the alternatives, distribution and assignment of new project trips, review of intersection level of service impacts, an evaluation of site access and circulation issues, and an analysis of public transportation and nonmotorized transportation impacts. As a worst case scenario, the land use associated with Alternative 1 was used in the analysis as this alternative generates the highest number of vehicle trips. Baseline Transportation Network Assumptions The future baseline transportation networks were based upon consistency with planned infrastructure in the study area. Two future 2015 baseline transportation networks were included in the analysis. The two future baseline evaluation scenarios included with and without planned improvements at the 1-405/NE 44'h Street interchange. ~ Transportation Engineering NorthWest, LLC Page 12 October 1, 2012 Quendafl Terminals EIS Addendum Renton, WA Baseline Travel Demand Forecasts Updated Transportation Impact Study Baseline travel demand forecasts were prepared for 2015 using land use and travel demand forecasting information from the City of Renton. The follmving paragraphs outline, in further detail the transportation forecast and refinement process used for the Quendall Terminals DEIS. City of Renton 2015 EMME Model The most appropriate travel demand forecasting tool available at the time of the study was the City of Renton 2015 EMME Travel Model. The City's model was recently completed in May 2010 and calibrated to 2008 existing conditions. The model contained the most up to date information on land use forecasts for the study area, the City of Renton, and surrounding vicinity, and evaluated future networks with and without I-405 Improvements. Model Refinement and Manual Forecast Adjustments Two future year forecast scenarios were reviewed by TENW as generated by the City of Renton 2015 EMME Travel Model. The specific transportation analysis zone (fAZ) for .Qmnda!! Terminals within the City's EMME model accounted for a majority of trips assigned to the roadway network. This TAZ consisted of the following future development projects that are planned or in the pipeline: • Quendall Terminals, • Barbee Mill, • Hawks Landing, and • Other vicinity background traffic growth. Note: The background growth accounted for 15 percent of ail trips assigned to this TAZ (which assumes a 2 to 3 percent annual bmkground growth rate between 2009/ 2010 to 2015). Under both future scenarios (with and without the 1-405 Improvement projects), all trips from the City's EMME model were removed from the roadway network except for trips under the Without I-405 Improvements scenario, which assumed the 15 percent background growth. Turning movements of trips from Barbee Mill, Hawks Landing, and the Kennydale Apartment projects were added to the roadway network at each off-site study intersection under both future scenarios to determine 2015 baseline forecasts as projected in original traffic studies prepared for these entitled developments. Figures 6 and 7 illustrate the trip distribution assumptions associated with this new pipeline development ,vithout and with 1-405 Improvements. For Quendal! Terminals, existing turning movement counts conducted at all off-site study intersections during p.m. peak hours were used as "existing 2009 or 2010 conditions." Comparing the 2008 and 2015 assignments from the City's EMME model assuming two future network scenarios (Without and With Regional 1-405 Improvements), Fratar approximation factors were developed, applied, and calibrated into a Fratar spreadsheet model. The Fratar model was then used to adjust traffic forecasts associated ,vith the two future networks to estimate the redistribution of future background traffic level associated with intersection and arterial improvements. 2015 baseline forecasts under the With I-405 Improvements scenario determined that a negative or stabilized growth between existing conditions and baseline forecasts with a majority of traffic utilizing I-405 and traffic diminishing or stabilizing on side streets. ~ Transportation Engineering NorthWest, LLC Page 13 October 1, 2012 Quenda/1 Terminals EIS Addendum Renton, WA Late W.uhlnaton T ransport.nion Engineering NorthWest, LLC Updated Transportation Impact Study 405 ' 1- ·1 I r'' ,---7 ~ (33) (18) (2) ) 2 (2) 40 27 2 t .... 3{81 } ~ I. ' Nf ..... (14) 11.Jf ~ t (12)7 ..... ; 28 13 (18)27~, (27) (]4) Rlplty L.1nt / N +Ith 5t '"~ " I. (8) 3 JI 140) 36 ..... (21 I I. "-61]0) .... 52!54) " 7' 5 (5) .... 4(4) y-Sl (491 ~ 7' 4 29 !SJ il8J • t 405 SB bmps / NE. 44th St (38) (,OJ ! .... 36(461 22 ' } I. ~r" "" (34) 56 ..... (25) 19~ (IJO_A' '""'""' (44)30 ..... U: W~ Blvd / Burnttt Aw. N • j Legend t I 12) XX A.M. Peak Hour Volumes (XX) P.M. Peak Hour Volumes Figure 6 Pipeline Development Peak Hour Traffic Volumes (Without 1-405 lmprovments) Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum Renton, WA " ~ Transportation Engineering NorthWest, llC Page 14 October 1, 2012 Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum Renton, WA Updated Transportation Impact Study T ransportatlon Engineering NorthWest, LLC __ j I 405 1-' __ _____,_..-~-----+ I : ~,,~~ + i UL 1 405 NB RMftf)5 / NE 44d, S1 ~ 27 (18) 4-43(41) NE 44rn Sr ',.,,,...,, 'I r (46) 38 ...... ; 28 13 ~ \271 (34) (8) 3 ..,;I( (40) 36 ...... ........ {4) ,r5J{49) r 5 (51 'I r • 29 (S) (38) Bumdt Aw N / N JOlh St Not An.atyze<l Under With RTID ln,provemenu Scenario t 1 (2) Figure 7 40S SB lumps / NE 44th St (38) (30) 22 9 ) I.. {J4)S6-+ (2SJ 19~ 010...:,( (44) JO-+- i m 4-36(46) ij ,-]5 (22) UWallf,,d/Nl6111S.UN'1/ lll1llfflA~N GI u. w~ Blvd / Bumea Avt N t Not Anatvzed Under With RTID (mprovenents Scenario Legend XX A.M. Peak Hour Volumes (XX) P.M. Peak Hour Volumes Pipeline Development Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum (With 1-405 lmprovments) Renton, WA ~ Transportation Engineering North West, LLC Page 15 October I, 2012 Quendalf Terminals EIS Addendum Renton, WA Updated Transportation Impact Study Given the shift in background traffic levels forecasted to occur on Lake Washington Boulevard and other vicinity arterial streets with and without 1-405 Improvements, no adjustments to original traffic assignments for pipeline projects were made as regional shifts are forecast to be significant and account for any fluctuations in distribution from these minor pipeline projects. Intersection-Level Baseline Traffic Forecasts At the intersection level, a Fratar growth factoring process using successive approximations was used to forecast future interchange intersection turning movements 1. Pirst published in the 1954 J lighway Research Board Proceedings, by Thomas J. Fratar, this forecasting distribution method is recognized by the transportation planning/ engineering industry as an accepted practice and has been applied successfully on many transportation planning and engineering projects. Originally developed to distribute interzonal vehicular trips at a regional or subarea level, the process was later adapted for use in forecasting intersection turning movements. The objective of the successive approximation method is to determine the most logical distribution of vehicle trips expected through an intersection, given future conditions of regional development or redistribution of traffic related to infrastructure investment. The procedure is not concerned with the specific techniques and processes used in regional land use and travel demand estimation, which must be prepared regardless of the method used for estimating future trip distributions through an intersection. The procedure does require that arterial-level regional or local forecasts be available to factor the relative changes in traffic entering and leaving a particular intersection or interchange system in a future forecast year. Steps used to estimate the distribution of forecast trips include the following: 1. Identify relative growth factors between existing and future year conditions for all entering and exiting approaches of an intersection. 2. Distribute the total trips from each entering/ exiting approach among the various movements in proportion to the attractiveness of each movement as indicated by variations in growth factors of each intersection leg. 3. The first distribution step produces two tentative results for each intersection turning movement. These tentative pairs are averaged to obtain the first approximation. 4. For each intersection approach, the sum of the first approximation volume is divided into the total volume of each intersection leg to obtain a first approximation growth factor, which will be used in the computation of a second approximation process. 5. The original movements for each :intersection leg are then distributed into turning movements again in proportion to the turning movements and growth factors obtained in the first approximation process. These volumes are then averaged again, and the process is repeated until conformity or an :intersection balance is reached often around 3 or 4 successive distribution estimations are completed. However, to ensure uniformity, the spreadsheet model developed to forecast turning movements uses 10 successive distribution runs prior to generation of a final turning movement estimate. The resultant a.m. and p.m. peak hour turning movement forecasts at all study :intersections in 2015 are provided in Appendix B. Forecasting Distribution of lnterzonal Vehicular Trips by Successive Approximations, Highway Research Board Proceedings, Thomas J, Fratar. 1954, pages 376-384. ~ Transportation Engineering NorthWest, LLC Page 16 October 1, 2012 Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum Renton WA Trip Generation of Development Updated Transport.ation Impact Study Project trip generation was estimated for DEIS Alternative 1 and DEIS Alternative 2. Trip generation rates compiled by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (!TE) Trip Generation, 8'h Edition, 2008, were used to estimate daily, a.m. and p.m. peak hour vehicular trip generation with redevelopment of the site. In response to DEIS scoping comments, the City of Renton requested that trip rates generated by residential uses be factored by 10 percent to account for no existing public transit services or commercial businesses in the immediate site vicinity. As such, the trip generation assumptions presented below should be considered conservative. In addition, average pass-by rates for the proposed retail uses identified in the ITE Trip Generation Handbook 2'd F!dition, June 2004 were used. Reductions from the gross trip generation of the proposed uses were taken to account for internal captured trips within the site. Internal trips are made by people making multiple stops within a development without generating new trips onto the adjacent street system. 'lbe internal trip reductions were based on the methodology established in the !TE Trip Generation Handbook. Specific assumptions and methodologies for each redevelopment alternative are summarized below. 201 S DEIS Alternative 1 -The Original Application 2015 DEIS Alternative 1 (The Original Application) would include the construction of 800 multifamily units, 21,600 square feet of retail, 245,000 square feet of office, 9,000 square feet of restaurant space and parking for 2,171 vehicles. For trip generation estimation, the proposed multifamily residential units would likely include both rental apartments and condominiums. As the breakdown of these units is unknown at this time, the trip generation rate associated with Apartments was used as this represents a conservative trip generation rate. As such, average trip rates for Apartments (!TE land use code 220), Shopping Center (!TE land use code 820), General Office Building (!TE Land use code 710), and High-Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant were used as the basis for estimating vehicular trips. As shown in Table 3, a net total of approximately 9,000 daily, 865 a.rn. peak hour (445 entering, 420 exiting), and 950 p.m. peak hour vehicular trips (440 entering and 510 exiting) would be generated at 2015 full buildout conditions under DEIS Alternative 1. Table 3: 2015 DEIS Alternative 1 (The Original Application) Project Trip Generation ITE Land A.M.Peak P.M. Peak Daffy Trip Land Use Use Code' Size 2 Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Generation Aparunents 220 800 DU 82 326 408 322 174 496 5,320 10% Factor on Residential Uses B 32 40 32 16 48 536 Retail 820 21,600 square 13 9 22 40 41 81 928 feet GLA Office 710 245,000 square 334 46 380 62 303 365 2,697 feet GFA Restaurant 932 9,000 square 54 50 104 59 41 100 1,144 feet GFA 2015 Full Bulldout Gross Trip Generation 491 463 954 515 575 1,090 10,625 Less Internal Trips 1 -22 -22 -44 .45 .45 -90 -1,152 Less Pass·BY Trips 1 ·24 -20 -44 ·28 ·21 -49 -491 2015 Full Bulldout Net Trip Generation 445 421 866 442 509 951 8,982 ... 1. l np rate~ based on Il I: J np (,nim1tw11 Afan11r1/, 81h l~<l1t1on, 2008. 2. DU ls D\\"dlmg Um1, (;F,\ JS (;russ Floor Ari::a, anJ (;I.A is (;rms Lea~ahk ;\rra . . 1. lnto:mal anJ pass-by dcto:rminc:J basc:d upon documcntc:d aYc:ragc rates from lTE Tnp (;i.;no:rat1011 l iandbnok,Junc 2004. Gl,._Ci} Transportation Enonneering NorthWest, LLC Page 17 W •· October 1, 2012 Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum Renton WA Updated Transportation Impact Study 201 S DEIS Alternative 2 -Lower Density Alternative 2015 DEIS Alternative 2 (Lower Density Alternative) would include the construction of 708 multifamily units, 21,600 square feet of retail, 9,000 square feet of restaurant space and parking for 1,362 vehicles. Average trip rates for Apartments (ITE land use code 220), Shopping Center (ITE land use code 820), and High-Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant were used as the basis for estimating vehicular trips. As shown in Table 4, a net total of approximately 5,800 daily, 445 a.m. peak hour (105 entering, 340 exiting), and 540 p.m. peak hour vehicular trips (350 entering and 190 exiting) would be generated at 2015 full buildout conditions under DEIS Alternative 2. Table 4· 2015 DEIS Alternative 2 (Lower Density Alternative) Project Trip Generation ITE Land U1e A.M. Peak P.M. Peak Dally Trip Land u,e Code I Size' Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Generation Apartments 220 708 DU 72 289 361 285 154 439 4,708 I 0% Factor on Residential Uses 7 28 35 28 14 42 475 Retail 820 21,600 square 13 9 22 40 41 81 928 feet GLA Restaurant 932 9,000 square 54 50 104 59 41 100 1,144 feet GFA 2015 Partial Bulldout Gross Trip Generation 146 376 522 412 250 662 7,255 Less Internal Trips o -18 -18 -36 .35 .35 -70 -952 Less Pass-By Trips' -23 -20 .43 -29 -22 -51 -519 2015 Partial Bulldout Net Trip Generation 105 338 443 348 193 541 5,784 Tnp rares based on rn~ Tn"p (;emmtirm Af,.mual, 8'h Edition, 2008. 2. DU is Dwelling Unit, GFA is Gros~ Floor :\rca, and GLA ls Gross Leasablt: Area. 3 Internal and pass-by determined based upnn JocumrntcJ aYcra1,;e rate~ from ITE Tnp Gcnc:rat1on lfandbook,Junc 2004. 201 S DEIS Alternative 3 -No Action Alternative Trip Generation Alternative 3 (No Action) assumes no new development on the site would occur. No trip generation adjustments or assumptions were made for Alternative 3. Alternative 3 reflects the 2015 No Action Baseline Condition. Trip Distribution and Assignment For the 2015 DEIS Alternative 1 without I-405 Improvements, project trip distribution was based upon a review of a select zone assignment from the City of Renton EMME Model. Peak hour traffic volumes generated by DEIS Alternative 1 would be generally distributed as follows (distribution shown in Figure 8 and project-generated trip assignments shown in Figure 9): )" 20 percent to the south on I-405 via Lake Washington Blvd, Burnett Ave N, N 30'h Street. ? 45 percent to the north on I-405 via NE 44'h Street ? 15 percent to the south on Lake Washington Blvd (sourh of Burnett Ave N). ? 10 percent to the north on Lake Washington Blvd (north of NE 44'h Street) ? 10 percent to the east via Lincoln Ave NE. Given significant freeway /interchange congestion forecasted at the I-405/NE 44•h Street interchange without I-405 Improvements, traffic assignments to/from the south of the site are not forccasted to utilize the adjacent interchange, but instead access I-405 at NE 30'h Street and travel on other parallel corridors. ~ Tran1portation Engineering NorthWest, LLC Page 18 October 1, 2012 Quenda/1 Terminafs EIS Addendum Renton, WA Updated Transportation Impact Study I.ate Washqton T ransportatlon Engineering NorthWest, LLC Figure 8 Project Trip Distribution Without 1-405 Improvements ~ Transportation Engineering NorthWest, LLC \ , -I ·, \ ' ', \, \ \_, J I ' i I r -. \ .r \ '· ~<) \ __ ( ---+-- ' ' ' ,. I i ,._ '· \ 1----'\ l . L J,_ i ' I . '- Qf\ i (Nbc to Scale) i-~-t·-···-----·· Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum Renton, WA 12 2012 Page 19 October 1, 2012 Quendal/ Terminals EIS Addendum Renton, WA Lalre WJsh/nsfon T ransportatlon Engineering NorthWest, LLC Updated Transportation Impact Study ,-- -t-t ' ' 405 NI bnpi; I NE 44th 51 (45) 45 ; (50) 40-111 (50)40~; l2l0) 190"""" i NE 44Jt1St (305)~ ..._ 265 (265 255 .... 20(20) I.. NU (25)20 .... .+-145(180) Bumdt AW! N / N 30dl St {100) 85 I.. • "-90 (90) lt._ 5 JS) t 20 (20) Figure 9 t 405 SB bqts / NE 44lh St 1i~1 ! ..... 90(90) ; ~ (llOl 275 .... 160) 175 ....;JI (·5)-20 .... Lt WJ BMI / M l6dl SG'ffl I lulJlfflAl'l'N Legend XX A.M. Peak Hour Project Trip (XX) P.M. Peak Hour Pro)ect T~p Project Trip Assignment (Without 1-405 lmprovments} Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum Renton, WA .krJa 12 201 ~ Transportation Engineering North West, LlC Page 20 October 1, 2012 Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum Renton WA Updated Transportation Impact Study For 2015 DEIS Alternative I with IAOS Improvements, trip distribution was also based upon a review of a select zone assignment from the City of Renton EMM l·'. Travel Demand ,\fodel. \Vith 1-405 improvements, significant congestion relief is forecasted to occur on 1-405 and parallel routes, shifting site-generated traffic back onto the 1-405 corridor and the Nl•'. 44'" Street interchange. Previous diversions of site-generated traffic to both parallel north-south arterials and corridors east of the freeway are reduced to only those origin-destination pairs estimated to occur to the Coal Creek Parkway corridor, Newcastle, and east Renton. Tims, peak hour traffic volumes generated by DEIS Alternative 1 would be generally distributed as follows (distribution shown in Figure 10 and peak hour project-generated trip assignment shown in Figure 11): >-30 percent to the south on 1-405 via NE 44'h Street. }-45 percent to the north on 1-405 via NE 44'h Street. >-15 percent to the south on Lake Washington Blvd (south of project site). >-5 percent to the north on Lake Washington Blvd (north of NE 44'h Street). >-5 percent to the east via Lincoln Ave NE. As a result of the above-described trip distribution, Intersection #7 -N 30th Street/Burnett Avenue N and #8 -Lake Washington Boulevard/Burnett Avenue are analyzed for the "Without 1-405 Improvements" scenario. Intersection Level of Service Impacts This section summarizes level of service impacts under DEIS Alternative 1 (The Original Application) and the Baseline Condition (DEIS No Action ,\lternative). In addition, a sensitivity analysis was conducted under DEIS Alternative 2 (Lower Density Alternative) to determine if under reduced development different transportation improvements were needed. Given existing and future baseline transportation needs of the 1-405 /NE 44'h Street interchange and vicinity (i.e., limited infrastructure to support new development), baseline transportation improvements and mitigation needs of site development under either Alternative would be the same. Alternative 1 (The Original Application) LOS Impacts Table 5 summarizes level of service impacts under 2015 DEIS Alternative 1 without 1-405 improvements. Figures 12 and 13 summarize peak hour traffic volumes without (Baseline/No Action) and with the The Original Application (DEIS Alternative !) in 2015 without 1-405 improvements used in the LOS analysis. The following three intersections are expected to operate at LOSE/Funder 2015 conditions without 1-405 improvements: >-Intersection #1 -Lake Washington Blvd (1-405 NB Ramps) at NE 44'h Street (LOS F with or without the development during a.m. and p.m. peak hours). >-Intersection #2 -1-405 SB Ramps) at NE 44'h Street (southbound movement at LOS F with or without the development during a.m. and p.m. peak hours). >-Intersection #3 -Ripley Lane / Lake Washington Blvd (southbound movement: LOS E/F with or without the project during the a.m. peak hour, LOS F with the project only during the p.m. peak hour). Detailed level of service summary sheets are provided in Appendix A for all 2015 scenarios. ~ Transportation Engineering NonhWest, llC Page 21 October 1, 2012 Quendalf Terminals EIS Addendum Renton, WA Updated Transportation Impact Study W:e WasfllnJton Transportation Engineering NonhWest, LLC ---+---- Figure 10 Project Trip Distribution With 1-405 Improvements ~ T ramportatlon Engineering North West, LLC -.--- ' ! -y ---1 Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum Renton, WA ... , ' Page 22 October I, 2012 Quendafl Terminals EIS Addendum Renton WA Updated Transportation Impact Study ute W.uhmgton Transportation Engineering NorthWest, LLC I ' I ' ------j I 405 \ v· I r---+-- ' I 1 lJ ' ' i I I \ I I T-.j--+-L I [ , I : . I 40S NB R.imps / NE 44th St (50140-+ ! ~ <4-4S l45l NE .U!h S/ 'I "' ( 135! (380)! ,._ 335 (330 JIS ._45 (45) I.. (50) "° .... Hlwt! ~t-lt.m{ U Wl llvd ,.._65 (7S) (6S)65-+ • Burnett A~ NIN JOlh St Not Aruilr.zed Under Wllh 1-405 mprovemenu S<en.irio t 10 (10) Figure 11 Project Trip Assignment (With 1-405 lmprovments) ~ Transportation Engineering NorthWest, LLC t '405 SB bmps / NE 44th St (200) 200 ; (280) 230 .... (155) 125~ !4-180(1i'5) ~ IMbH MIi A.UHi I Li: W~ llvd ~---,iFUTU::;;R;::_E> __ -, (90) (55) 70 55 ; I.. (70) 85 JI (·5)-20 .... ~50(65) ,.._-S(-20) UWJIM:tlNUth~ffll • Bur-A.wN 00 ..... ,s> ~'\ \ "'(~ 'o ,,. ;f _ti;, 0 .,p ' cf' m U: Wl flhod I Burnett Aw N No, Ana'r,:: Under With l-40S mprovemenu S<en,rio Legend XX A.M. Pe.ak Hour Project Trip (XX) P.M. Pe.ak Hour Project Trip Quendall Tenninals EIS Addendum Renton, WA \2 201 Page 23 October I , 2012 Quendall Terminafs EIS Addendum Renton, WA Updated Transportation Impact Study Table 5: 2015 Intersection Level of Seivice Impacts with DEIS Alternative 1 (Without 1-405 Improvements) 2015 Without Prolect (Ba,ellne/No Adlon) Int.# lntersecdon LOS Dela V/C A.M. Peak Hour Unsignallzed Intersections Lake Wa Blvd (1-405 NB Ramps)/NE 44'" St 2 1-405 58 Ramps/NE 44u, Street 3 Rlpley Lane/NE 44'" Street 4 Lake Wa Blvd/Barbee MIii Access SB-C 20 0.04 5 Lake Wa Blvd/Hawks Landing Access NB-C 16 0.10 6 Lk Wa Blvd/N 361h Street B 12 7 N JQlh Street/Burnett Ave N A 8 8 Lk Wa Blvd/Burnett Ave N B 11 Signalized lntersecdon 9 lake Wa Blvd-Garden Ave N/Park C 27 0.6B Ave N P .M. Peak Hour Unsignalized lntersecdons 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Lake Wa Blvd {l-405 NB Ramps)/NE 44"' St 1-405 SB Ramps/NE 44'" Street Ripley Lane/NE 44"' Street Lake Wa Blvd/Barbee MIii Access Lake Wa Blvd/Hawks Landing Access Lk Wa Blvd/N 361h Street N 301h Street/Burnett Ave N Lk Wa Blvd/Burnett Ave N Signalized Intersection 9 Lake Wa Blvd-Garden Ave N/Park Ave N l\"otcs: I ---ElillElllilDI SB-B 15 0.01 NB-B JO 0.06 B 11 A B B 12 D 49 0.95 LOS VIC SB-D 28 0.59 NB-C 19 0.13 C 18 A 8 B 13 C 29 0.6B SB-C 25 0.57 NB-B 12 0.09 C 21 A 9 B 14 D 55 0.92 t. Analysts baseJ cm Synchro results using HCM 200() cuntrnl Jdap anJ I .OS with optimized phasing/ timing systems for signalized tntt:rsections. 2. Lake 1w'ashington R!YJ and NE 44,h Street a$SUmcJ lo be east-west ~ Transportation Engineering NonhWest, LLC Page 24 October 1, 2012 Quendalf Terminals EIS Addendum Renton WA T ransportatlon Engineering NorthWest, LLC Updated Transportation Impact Study --j___ ----. 0 t 405 NB R .. 11np1 / NE 44th S1 !365) (SOI iSO) JL 1 SO (65) -1-10 SS JO 1 .... 185 (175 ; t I.~ r"' cso, NE '4111Sr 'I t r 190) 120-+ CQ 40 130 100 (95) -135-,.,._; (45)(310)(155 ~UMIN 44th St (15120-" (225) 685-+ (0)0~ (195) 665+- \5) 5,., L1ot101 .... 250(520 ,rO~O) 'I t r 0 0 5 {0) (OJ (5) ... 210(500) ,r5s 1so1 'I ' (S) r JO '"'' tulllf'tt Avt N / N 30dl St (0) (55) (60) '-. JO (25) 0 25 25 ... IO (JO) ; t I. y-20(70) co1 o-" (15)10 .... (0) 0,., /,/JI)'/! Sf ,'\tr 0 60 50 (0) (..OJ (60) L-..11 U: W1 Bhd / Glrdtn A~, NI Pll'k Aw N 315)(125)(80); '-60(120) 235 35 85 : .... 785(770) ; t I.' r460(495J ~-~ ... , !330) 2ao-" :z • 'I t r 405 SR lumps / NE 4-ilh St {3401(10)1230) f 165 10 '"° :..,.1ss (265) ; t I. ; r" sc,os, (185) 730-+ (155) 25-,.,._ {O)OJ (235)695-+ • Legend t !890)445-+ j 150)25~ 40 180 145 (20)(155) (8J5J XX A.M. Peak Hour Volumes (XX) P.M. Peak Hour Volumes Figure 12 201 5 Baseline/No Action Peak Hour Traffic Volumes (Without 1-405 Improvements) Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum Renton, WA ' ' ~ Transportation Engineering NorthWest, LLC Page 25 October 1, 2012 Quenda/1 Terminals EIS Addendum Renton, WA Updated Transportation Impact Study Project Site T ransportatlon Engineering NonhWest, LLC 40S NB lumps/ NE i4th St (410) (SO) (SO) I"'-150 (65) 485 55 JO l:+-230(220 ). ' I.. , """"'°' /'If 44/F! s: (I SO) 395.JI '\ t (' (240> 160-i 40 130 100 (325) 625-:iit, ~ (i5}{310Hl55 Rlplry L.int / N +4th St (0) (420~ 0 ]20 ' I.. (15) 20_,, (250) 705 .... 101 o-._, ~ ]35 (]]5 .,._270(S40 .,,-ois, """' "i t ,, 0 0 s (0) (0) (S) ..... 1ss 1o&o) ,-ss (SO) "i ,, 5 30 (5) (40) 8umeU A~ N IN ]Cid, St (0) (55)(160) lit_ 120(115) 0 25 110 ..... 10(30) )_ ' I.. ,-20 (70) (Oto.JI \15110 .... (010-:iit, ""' ·"' t ,, 0 60 50 (0) (40) (60) +-785 (770) .,,-%0(495) "'' m-" l "i t f' 8901 +45-+ j 40 200 145 (50) 25~<! (20)(155)(8]5) Figure 13 2015 DEIS Alternative 1 Peak Hour Traffic Volumes (Without 1-405 Improvements) ~ Transportation Engineering NorthWen, LLC 405 SB !Yrnps / NE 44dl St (540)(10)12]0) i 365 10 140 ;-.-245 (]55) ). ! I., ~ ,-m (JOSJ (515) IOOS-+ (155) 25 ~ 25 (SO) +-2S5 (525) (160) 11s-A (230) 675-+ t U w,~ IN 16111 Strffll Bur"l'CI A."' N Legend XX A.M. Peak Hour Volumes (XX) P.M. Peak Hou.-Volumes Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum Renton, WA " Page 26 October I , 2012 Quendafl Terminals EIS Addendum Rencon, WA Updated Transportation Impact Study Table 6 summarizes level of service impacts under 2015 full buildout conditions with 1-405 Improvements. Figures 14 an<l 15 summarize peak hour traffic volumes used in the I .OS analysis without and with the proposed development in 2015 with 1-405 Improvements. All study intersections arc projected to operate at LOS D ot better with Alternative 1 an<l with 1-405 Improvements. Table 6: 2015 Intersection Level of Service Impacts With DEIS Alternative 1 With 1·405 Improvements 201S 2015 Wllhout Project With DEIS Altemattve 1 IBasellne/No Action\ /The Orlolnal •""llcationl Intl lntenecdon LOS n.l= VIC LOS Del>v VIC A.M. Peak Hour Unslgnalized Intersections 4 Lake Wa Blvd/Barbee MIii Access SB-C 16 0.02 SB-D 32 0.53 5 Lake Wa Blvd/Hawks Landing NB-C 21 0.02 NB-D 25 0.03 Access 6 Lk Wa Blvd/N 36111 Street A 10 B 11 7 N 30"' Street/Burnett Ave N 8 Lk Wa Blvd/Burnett Ave N Not Analyzed Under With 1-405 Improvements Scenario Signalized lntersecdon I Lake Wa Blvd (1-405 NB A ID 0.42 B 18 O.S9 Ramcs)/NE 44"' St 2 1-405 SB Ramps/NE 44"' Street B 15 0.39 C 22 0.53 3 Ripley Lane/NE 44"' Street B 20 0.61 C 26 0.66 9 Lake Wa Blvd-Garden Ave C 23 0.62 C 24 0.67 N/Park Ave N P .M. Peak Hour Unsignalized Intersections 4 Lake Wa Blvd/Barbee Mill Access SB-C 16 0.02 SB-D 25 0.46 s Lake Wa Blvd/Hawks Landing NB·C 17 0.02 NB·C 21 0.02 Access 6 Lk Wa Blvd/N 36111 Street A ID B 11 7 N 3011, Street/Burnett Ave N Not Analyzed Under With 1-405 IMPROVEMENTS 8 Lk Wa Blvd/Burnett Ave N Scenario Signalized Intersection I Lake Wa Blvd (1-405 NB B 13 0.20 B 17 0.40 Ramcs)/NE 441t1 St 2 1-405 SB Ramps/NE 44111 Street B 13 0.19 C 24 0.47 3 Ripley Lane/NE 44"' Street B 17 a.st C 26 0.76 9 Lake Wa Blvd-Garden Ave D 39 0.86 D 39 0.87 N/Park Ave N Notes· 1. .\naly,;ts bas1.:d on Synchro results using IICM 20(X) control ddap and LOS with opt1m1zi.::d rhasing/ timing systems for signali:t.cJ intcrsi.::ctions. 2. Lake Washington 13lvd and :'.\IE 44,h Streu assumed to be cast-west. ~ Transportation Engineering NorthWest, LLC Page 27 October 1, 2012 Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum Renton, WA Project Site Like Wamm,ton T ransportatlon Engineering NorthWest, LLC Updated Transportation Impact Study 405 , T I ti / I ]Tr-1 LI • 405 NB ~mp$ / NE 44ctl Sc ~J80(19S -+o-S60 (490 ''°' "'°..,, 'I t r (275) 410 ..... ; 40 O 270 ij (40) (0) (550 (JS) (0) ( 115)3 '\:_ 70 (70) 10 0 65 ) * " (15)20..Jt (2201670 .... (5) 0 lli, +-2451%5 roes> "'"' 'I t r 0 0 5 (Ot (OJ (5) +-205 (440) _,r-55(50) 'I r 5 30 15) 1401 Bumm Ave NIN JOm 5t Not ""'"""" Under With 1-405 Improvements """"" Ir.I Lt Wa Blwt / wrdtn Avt N / P .. Avt;N 2651 (95K125Ji! ~ 105 (185) 190 20 125 ~ ..-aso 1185) ) * " _,r-JB51445) -... 260) 2so-Jf' f 'I t r 405 SB RMnP5 / NE 44th St (290) (5) (160) I 135 S 65 :51+-170(270) ) * " ij ,-m ""' (185) 120 .... (150) 25 lli. tJ,1"N! MW A.<Cffl I Ll: W, 1M1 __ _clfUTU:::;R:;cEl __ --l lt_o c10) ,+,255 (4851 tOJ o..Jt (215)680 .... 1:1 Li wa lltvd t Bum$ Avt N t Not Arwmd Undff With 1-105 Improvements """"" Legend 895) 440-+-,,c "" '"->I. I 20 130 115 ( 10} (90) (710) XX A.M. Peak Hour Voh.Jmes (XX) P.M. Peak Hour Volumes Figure 14 201 5 Baseline/No Action Peak Hour Traffic Volumes (With 1-405 Improvements) Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum Renton, WA 28 2012 ~ Tran,portation Engineering NorthWest, LLC Page 28 October 1, 2012 Quendalf Terminals EIS Addendum Renton WA Updated Transportation Impact Study T ransportadon Engineering NorthWest, LLC i >-~c-+-1-t J .. 405 NB It.imps / NE 44th 51 lt_ 380 (195 .+-605 (535 ilOOI sro-Jf " 'I t r 13251 45 o-+-! 175 0 270 ij (175) (0) (550 Rls,ltv L~ I N 44111 Sc (15) 20 _Jlf' {270) 710~ 151 0-.,., 'Iii.. 405 (400 ~290(510 ro~i 'I t ,, 0 0 s (0) (0) (5) ... 270(5151 ,r-55 (SO) 'I (260) 715~ 5 r JO (<0) (5)5~ (5) 8urtlfflAw N / N ]Olh St N01 A~IYltd Under Wllh 1-405 lmprovemenu S<en,rio Lk W.a Btvd / G.ardM Aw. N / P.arll Aw N 'Iii.. 115 (195) ~850(785) ,-1as (445) JOSI 295.A ; 'I t r 8951 ~i 20 140 115 f25J 10~ ~ (10)(100) (710) Figure 15 2015 DEIS Alternative 1 Peak Hour Traffic Volumes (With 1-405 Improvements) ~ Transportation Engineering NorthWest, LLC 405 58 R.imsn I NE 44dl S1 14901 (s) 11601 I 335 5 65 i-+-350 (4451 ,l ~ I.. • ,-•251m1 (465) 950 ...... (305) 1 so-.,., n ~ MIi A.((11$1 / L1 w~ alYd !FUTURE) (90) (60): ["-50 (75) 70 65 ~ ... zso (465) ,l I..; 1101 as-" ~""""' {230) 660~ t L1 WI BIYd / N 31.id'I Slfff{ / 8urnffl Aw N Not """'1<d Und« With 1-405 IITll)roVfflltl'l:S S<,n,1rio Legend XX A.M. Peak Hour Volumes (XX) P.M. Peak Hou.-Volumes Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum Renton, WA 28. 201 Page 29 October 1, 2012 Quend.111 Termin.1ls EIS Addendum Renton WA Queuing Analysis Updated Transportation Impact Study A queuing analysis was completed along Lake Washington Boulevard between the I-405 SB ramps (Intersection #2) and the proposed Hawks Landing site access (Intersection #5). The queue analysis included 2015 conditions with DEIS Alternative 1 (The Original Application) for both with and without 1-405 Improvements. The reported queue lengths are 95'h percentile queues (queuing conditions that cover 95 percent of reported conditions) based on results from the Jjnchro 6 and HCS 2000 traffic software packages. The following summarize 2015 queues without and with I-405 Improvements. As shown in Table 7, excessive southbound queues (in the range of 800 to 900 feet that would block key site access intersections) are expected at the stop controlled Ripley Lane intersection under the without 1-405 Improvements scenario during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. However, no queuing conflicts are expected on Lake Washington Boulevard. Table 7: 2015 Queues Without 1-405 Improvements -DEIS Alternative 1 (The Original Application) 95th Percentile Queue (ft) Intersection Movement AM PM Ripley Lane / Lake Washington Blvd. EB Left 25 25 SB Left/Right 800 900 Barbee Mill Access (NE 43'' St) / Lake Washington Blvd. EB Left 25 25 SB Thru 100 75 Hawks Landing Access / Lake WashingtOn Blvd. WB Left 25 25 As shown in Table 8, with 1-405 Improvements southbound queues would still be expected at the Ripley Lane intersection (signalized) during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. In addition, queues on Lake Washington Blvd at the Ripley Lane intersection are expected to extend beyond adjacent intersections. Table 8: 2015 Queues With 1-405 lmprovemenu -DEIS Alternative 1 (The Original Application) 95th Percentile Queue (ft) Intersection Movement AM PM 1-405 SB Ramps / Lake WashingtOn Blvd. EB Thru 125 125 Ripley Lane / Lake Washington Blvd. EB Left 25 25 EB Thru 250 225 WB Thru 125 400 WB Rt 50 25 SB Left/Right 350 450 Barbee Mill Access (NE 43rd St) / Lake Washington Blvd. EB Left 25 25 SB Thru 50 50 Hawks Landing Access / Lake Washington Blvd. WB Left 25 25 ~ Transportation Engineering NorthWe,t, LLC Page 30 October 1, 2012 Quenda/1 T erminafs EIS Addendum Renton, WA Site Access and Circulation Updated Transportation Impact Study Vehicular access to the ,Qt1endall Terminals site would be provided via a new access drive onto Ripley Lane and the extension of NE 43'; Street (existing Barbee Mill access). ,\s part of the site access and circulation analysis, the two intersections on Lake \v'ashington Boulevard that would provide access to the site (Barbee Mill Access (N 43'<l Street) and Ripley Lane) were analyzed in terms of LOS and queumg. The analysis assumed two scenarios: without and with 1-405 Improvements. 201 S Without 1-405 Improvements Operations/Queuing The without 1-405 Improvements scenario assumed existing channelization at both the Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Blvd and the Barbee Mill access (NE 43'; Street)/Lake Washington Boulevard intersections. Intersection # 3 -Ripley Lane/ Lake Washington Blvd Cnder DEIS Alternative 1 (fhe Original Application), the site access intersection of #3 -Ripley Lane at Lake Washington Blvd, the 95'h percentile queue for the southbound left/right movements are estimated at approximately 800 to 900 feet during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Queues on Lake Washington Boulevard for vehicles entering the site are not expected to conflict with adjacent intersections. The LOS for the stop controlled southbound approach is expected to be LOS F. Intersection #4 -Barbee Mil/Access (N 43'" Street)/Lake Washington Blvd Cnder DEIS Alternative 1 (The Original Application), the site access intersection of #4 - Barbee Mill Access (NE 43'; Street) at Lake Washington Blvd, the 95'h percentile queue for the southbound through movement is estimated at approximately 75 to 100 feet during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The LOS for the stop controlled southbound movement is expected to be LOS C/D. This determination is predicated on the assumption that balance for left turn demand from the site would occur between this egress and the signalized intersection at Ripley Lane onto Lake Washington Boulevard. Restriction of left turns from this driveway may be necessary to force all demand to 1-405 leaving the site to exit vi.a the Ripley Lane signalized intersection with Lake Washington Boulevard. Queues on Lake Washington Boulevard for vehicles entering the site are not forecasted to conflict with adjacent intersections; however, given demand for northbound left turns from Lake Washington Boulevard into the Barbee Mill Access (NE 43'; Street), a separate left turn lane would be warranted for safety reasons. Given close proximity to the Hawks Landing access of roughly 125 feet south of the existing Barbee Mill Access (NE 43"1 Street), a continuous two- way left turn lane would be warranted that extends from the left turn lane at Ripley Lane south of the Hawks Landing access driveway. Alternatively, the construction of additional through lanes on Lake Washington Boulevard could be installed to resolve level of service issues along this roadway segment and mitigate this conflict potential. Ultimately, the City of Renton will determine the best configuration given ongoing coordination with WSDOT on the adjacent interchange design, the Port of Seattle (the owner of the vicinity rail right-of-way), and adjacent private development. ~ Transportation Engineering NorthWest, LLC Page 3 I October I, 2012 Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum Renton WA 201 S With 1-405 Improvements Operations/Queuing Updated Transponation Impact Study Under the with I-405 Improvements scenario, the Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Blvd intersection was assumed to be signalized and the Barbee Mill access (N 4 3'd Street) /Lake Washington Boulevard assumed existing channelization. Intersection # 3 -Ripley Lane/ Lake Washington Blvd Under DEIS Alternative I (The Original Application), the site access intersection of #3 -Ripley Lane at Lake Washington Blvd, the 95'h percentile queue for the westbound through movement is estimated at approximately 400 feet during p.m. peak hour. This estimated queue on Lake Washington Blvd would likely extend through the adjacent intersection. In addition, the southbound queue on Ripley Lane is estimated to be 350 feet during the a.m. peak hour and 450 feet during the p.m. peak hour assuming the I-405 Improvement scenario only. With project mitigation of providing an additional southbound approach lane on Ripley, this queue is estimated to be reduced to 200 feet or less during either the a.m. peak or p.m. peak hour. The LOS for the signalized intersection is expected to be LOS C/D. Intersection #4 -Barbee MillA,uss (NE 43'' Street)/ Lake Washington Blvd Under the DEIS Alternative I (Tbe Original Application), the site access intersection of #4 - Barbee Mill Access (NE 43'd Street) at Lake Washington Blvd, the 95'h percentile queue for the southbound through movement is estimated at approximately 50 feet during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The LOS for the stop controlled southbound movement is expected to be LOS D. This determination is predicated on the assumption that balance for left turn demand from the site would occur between this egress and the signalized intersection at Ripley Lane onto Lake Washington Boulevard. Restriction of left turns from this driveway may be necessary to force all demand to I-405 leaving the site to exit via the Ripley Lane unsignalized intersection with Lake Washington Boulevard. Queues on Lake Washington Boulevard for vehicles entering the site are not forecasted to conflict with adjacent intersections; however, given demand for left turns from Lake Washington Boulevard into the Barbee Mill Access (NE 43'd Street), a separate left turn lane would be warranted for safety reasons. Given close proximity to the Hawks Landing access of roughly 125 feet south of the existing Barbee Mill Access (NE 43'd Street), a continuous two-way left turn lane would be warranted that extends from the left turn lane at Ripley Lane south of the Hawks Landing access driveway. Alternatively, the construction of additional through lanes on Lake Washington Boulevard could be installed to resolve level of service issues along this roadway segment and mitigate this conflict potential. Ultimately, the City of Renton will determine the best configuration given ongoing coordination with WSDOT on the adjacent interchange design, the Port of Seattle (the owner of the vicinity rail right-of-way), and adjacent private development. Public Transportation Impacts It is assumed that the proposed development would be occupied by residents and employees who rely primarily on personal automobiles for their means of transportation, based on its location near the outer edge of the urbanized area. However, since the City of Renton is growing at a relatively rapid pace, and in order to promote a multimodal transportation network, the proponent could work with King County Metro Transit and Sound Transit to provide for ~ Transportadon Engineering NorthWest, LLC Page 32 October 1, 2012 Quendaf/ Terminals EIS Addendum Renton WA Updated Transportation Impact Study site amenities and access to future transit zones on Lake \Vashington Boulevard and at the 1- 405/NE 44'h Street Interchange to encourage and accommodate public transportation access. Future potential public transportation in the vicinity could include Bus Rapid Transit on I-405 planned by Sound Transit and WSDOT with a flyer stop at the I-405/NE 44'h Street Interchange. Nonmotorized Transportation Impacts Increases in population on the site would increase the use of nonmotorized facilities within the site and vicinity. Infrastructure improvements within the site would include full curbs, gutters, and sidewalks as well as frontage improvements along the west side of Lake Washington Boulevard and Ripley Lane in front of the development site. A pedestrian trail is also proposed along the shoreline that would be accessible to the public. Parking Impacts Table 9 sutnmarizes minimum off-street parking requirements based on City of Renton Municipal Code for the proposed mix of land uses. As shown, a total of 2,153 stalls and 1,362 stalls, respectively, under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2 would be required under City code. Given proposed construction of 2,171 and 1,362 stalls, respectively, proposed parking supply by the applicant would meet minimum City code. Table 9: Parking Code Requirements Required Off-Street Land Use Size Code Rate Parking (stalls) DEIS Alternative I Retail 21,600sf 4 stalls/ 1,000 sf 87 Multifamily Residential 800 units 1. 7 5 stalls/DU 1,400 Restaurant 9,000 sf 4 stalls/1,000 sf 36 Office' 210,000 3 stalls/ 1,000 sf (net) 630 Total 2,153 stalls Proposed 2, 1 71 stalls Surplus/(Deficit) + 18 stalls DEIS Alternative 2 Retail 21.600 sf 4 stalls/ 1.000 sf 87 Multifamily Residential 708 units 1. 7 5 stalls/DU 1,239 Restaurant 9,000 sf 4 stalls/1,000 sf 36 Total 1.362 stalls Proposed 1,362 stalls Surplus/(Deficit) 0 stalls DU -Dwdlmg umt. sf -SLJU;lfl'-fret. 1 -Parking code !C<..:jUJn;ments for office l~ ba~cd (Jn nel kasable area not gross square footage of()fficc use In addition to review of minimum City code requirements, a parking demand analysis was completed of DEIS Alternative 1 using ITE's Parkin,_~ Generation, 3"' Edition, (2004). As shown in Appendix C, peak demand for parking on-site is estimated at 2,107 stalls on a typical weekday and 1,251 stalls on a typical weekend assuming all uses have peak demands at the same time. Parking demand for each land use however, typically peaks at different times throughout the day. For example, peak demand for residential parking occurs during overnight hours when ~ Transportation Engineering North West, LLC Page 33 October 1, 2012 Quenda/1 Terminals EIS Addendum Renton, WA Updated Transportation Impact Study most residents are on-site, while other daytime uses can peak at various times throughout daylight hours (proposed commercial uses typically all peak around noon on a typical day). As such, shared parking could occur between residential and commercial uses resulting in parking demand between 350 stalls and 281 stalls less on a typical weekday and weekend day, respectively. This demand would range between 20 percent and 55 percent less than proposed supply on a weekday and weekend day, respectively. Similar parking relationships would occur under the Alternative 2 buildout scenario. MITIGATION MEASURES The analysis conducted for the EIS Addendum studied vehicular trip generation, impacts on levels of service at nine off-site study intersections, public transportation services, nonmotorized transportation facilities, and site access, safety, and circulation issues. The following measures have been identified in order to mitigate project traffic impacts to the vicinity arterial roadway network and provide adequate levels of circulation and mobility to the project site: Based upon the results of the comprehensive analysis of future intersection operations, general key findings include: » There exists today and will be in the future a moderate to high level of background traffic that travels in the vicinity of the site area given approved and other planned pipeline projects. » The existing transportation network with I-405 Improvements would adequately accommodate the 2015 full buildout development alternative; however additional transportation improvements (noted below) would be necessary. Under the without 1-405 Improvements scenario, the 2015 full buildout development alternative could also be accommodated with additional transportation improvements (noted below). Level of Service/Queuing With I-405 Improvements -2015 DEIS Alternative 1 (The Original Application) or 2015 DEIS Alternative 2 (Lower Density Alternative) The following improvements (in addition to the planned 1-405 Improvements) would be necessary under the 2015 DEIS Alternative 1 (The Original Application) or 2015 DEIS Alternative 2 (Lower Density Alternative) to mitigate off-site impacts: » Lake Washington Blvd (between Barbee Mill Access (NE 43•• Street) and Ripley Lane. Extend the planned eastbound and westbound through lanes by WSDOT beyond and through the Barbee Mill Access intersection. This would result in two through lanes in each direction on Lake Washington Blvd from the I-405 interchange past the Barbee Mill Access (NE 43'd Street). Ultimately however, the City of Renton will determine the best configuration given ongoing coordination with WSDOT on the adjacent interchange design, the Port of Seattle (the owner of the vicinity rail right-of- way), and adjacent private development. » Intersection #3 -Ripley Lane / Lake Washington Blvd. Construct a southbound left-turn lane at this signalized intersection (signal assumed as an 1-405 Improvement). ~ Transportation Engineering NorthWest, LLC Page 34 October I, 2012 Quendafl Terminals EIS Addendum Renton WA Updated Transportation Impact Study Without 1-405 Improvements -2015 DEIS Alternative 1 (The Original Application) or 2015 DEIS Alternative 2 (Lower Density Alternative) \Vithout the planned 1-405 Impro,·ements, the following unprovements would be necessary under the 2015 DEIS Alternative 1 (The Original Application) or 2015 DEIS Alternative 2 (Lower Density Alternative) to mitigate off-site impacts: Y Install Traffic Signals. Install traffic signals at the intersections of the I-405 NB and SB ramp intersections as well as at the intersection of Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Blvd. Y Intersection #1 -1-405 NB Ramps/NE 44"' Street. Widen the southbound and northbound approaches so that a separate left turn lane and shared thru-right turn lane is provided on both legs of the intersection. The final configuration of the intersection with the additional widening improvements would be coordinated with WSDOT Y Intersection #3 -Ripley Lane / Lake Washington Blvd. Widen the westbound approach to include a separate right turn-only lane (see Appendix D). Y Lake Washington Blvd (between Barbee Mill Access (NE 43"' Street) and 1-405 SB Ramps. Construct additional channelization improvements between the Barbee Mill Access and the 1-405 SB ramps. Alternatively, additional eastbound and westbound lanes could be constructed to provide additional queue storage created by the traffic signals required at the SB ramp and Ripley Lane along Lake Washington Boulevard. Ultimately, the City of Renton will determine the best configuration given ongoing coordination with WSDOT on the adjacent interchange design, the Port of Seattle (the owner of the vicinity rail right-of-way), and adjacent private development (see Appendix D). Appendix A contains detailed level of service worksheets of the mitigation clements outlined above to meet City of Renton and WSDOT standards. Table 10 summarizes level of service estimates with and without project mitigation identified above for this scenario in 2015 with DEIS Alternative 1. As shown, study intersections forecast to operate at LOS F without project would improve to LOS E or better with project mitigation outlined above. Table 10: 2015 Intersection Level of Seivice Impacts with DEIS Alternative 1 and Project Mitigation (Without 1·405 Improvements) Int.I 2 3 2 3 lntenecdon 2015 With Alternative 1 The llcadon LOS Dela VIC A. M. Peak Hour Lake Wa Blvd (1-405 NB R.lmps)/NE 44"' St 1·405 SB Ramps/NE 44"' Street Rlpley Lane/NE 44"' Street P.M. Peak Hour Like Wa Blvd (HOS NB Ramps)/NE 44"' St 1-405 SB Ramps/NE 44"' Street Ripley Lane/NE 44"' Street 2015 With Altem,dve 1 with ProJ«;t MhlPllon don V/C C 28 1.03 E 78 1.03 B 12 0.61 B 17 0.62 C 25 0.86 B 14 0.77 1. i\mJ.lpi~ hascJ rm Synchrn result~ using ITC:VI 200(1 control Jdays anJ LOS with nptimiz('J phasing-/ timing sptcms fur signali;,:o.:d tntcrscctions. 2 Lake W::ishington HlvJ anJ '.\IE 44,h Street assumcJ to be cast-west ~ Transportation Engineering NorthWest, LLC Page 35 October 1, 2012 Quend.alt Terminals EIS Addendum Renton WA Nonmotorized/Frontage Improvements Updated Transportation Impact Study Infrastructure improvements within the site would include full curbs, gutters, and sidewalks as well as frontage improvements along the west side of Lake Washington Boulevard and Ripley Lane in front of the development site. A pedestrian trial is also proposed along the shoreline that would be accessible to the public. Provision for safe pedestrian circulation could encourage future transit usage when planned pubic transit becomes available. Lake Washington Boulevard Corridor Impacts To mitigate traffic impacts to the Lake Washington Boulevard corridor south of the development, the applicant would install traffic calming treatments on Lake Washington Boulevard prior to North 41" Street to encourage primary trips generated by the project to utilize the I-405. Although the City has no adopted residential traffic management progtam, arterial calming measures could include such treatments that create either horizontal or vertical deflection for drivers. Such treatments include, but are not limited to, chicanes, serpentine raised curb sections, raised median treatments, speed tables, and speed humps. Public Transportation Since the City of Renton is growing at a relatively rapid pace, and in order to promote a multimodal transportation network, the proponent may wish to work with King County Metro Transit and Sound Transit to provide for site amenities and access to future transit zones on Lake Washington Boulevard and at the I-405/NE 44'h Street Interchange to encourage and accommodate public transportation access. Future potential public transportation in the vicinity could include Bus Rapid Transit on 1-405 planned by Sound Transit and WSDOT with a flyer stop at the I-405/NE 44"' Street Interchange. Parking Impacts Proposed parking supply would meet minimum off-street requirements per City code under either DEIS Alternative I or DEIS Alternative 2. Shared parking agreements between on-site uses and implementation of transportation demand management (fDl\.f) measures (for proposed office and residential uses) have the potential to reduce parking demand during peak periods, thereby reducing the necessary parking supply. City of Renton Impact Fees In addition, to project specific mitigation outlined above, the project proponent would pay Transportation Impact Fees (Per Renton Resolution No. 3100) at the time of building permit issuance to contribute its proportional share towards transportation system improvement needs in Renton. Traffic impact fees paid by development would be used to proportionally mitigate the project's traffic impacts at planned transportation improvements in the vicinity. Implementation of TDM measures could also reduce the number of vehicle trips, reduce project mitigation fees, and provide some additional benefit to improving LOS and queuing impacts at study intersections. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts There would be no significant unavoidable adverse transportation impacts with the proposed development evaluated on the Quendaii Terminair site. Transportation improvements identified ~ Transportation Engineering NorthWest, LLC Page 36 October 1, 2012 Quenda/1 T erminafs EfS Addendum Renton WA Updated Transportation Impact Study above are expected to mitigate project traffic impacts to the vicinity arterial roadway and intersection net\vork. PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE Subsequent to publication of the DEIS, the applicant developed a Preferred Alternative for Quendall Terminals. The Preferred Alternative described and analyzed in the EIS Addendum comprises nearly the same level and type of buildout as Alternative 2 -Lower Density Alternative originally evaluated in the transportation study for the Quenda!I Terminals DEIS. The following paragraphs identify the program components of the Preferred Alternative, estimated trip generation, other site elements of the Preferred Alternative, and the conclusions of the relative impacts of this alternative in the context of impacts evaluated and disclosed for DEIS Alterna rive 2. The 2015 Preferred Alternative would include the construction of 692 multifamily units, 20,225 square feet of retail, 9,000 square feet of restaurant space and parking for 1,337 vehicles. Average trip rates for Apartments (!TE land use code 220), Shopping Center (!TE land use code 820), and High-Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant were used as the basis for estimating vehicular trips that would be generated by this alternative. As shown in Table 11, a net total of approximately 5,656 daily, 435 a.m. peak hour (104 entering, 331 exiting), and 530 p.m. peak hour vehicular trips (340 entering and 190 exiting) would be generated at 2015 full buildout conditions under the Preferred Alternative. As shown, the Preferred Alternative would result in approximately 128 fewer daily trips, 8 fewer a.m. peak hour trips, and 11 fewer p.m. peak hour trips than DEIS Alternative 2. As such, the relative impact to traffic operations within the study area would be very similar, but slightly less than those disclosed and evaluated under DEIS Alternative 2. Furthermore, as the proposed program for the Preferred Alternative (including proposed land use mix, buildout levels, and parking supply) is similar to Alternative 2 -Lower Density Alternative, project mitigation to address traffic and parking impacts identified in this updated study for Alternative 2 would also apply to the Preferred Alternative. Table 11: 2015 Preferred Alternative Project Trip Generation ITE Land Use A.M. Peak P.M. Peak Dally Trip Land Use Code 1 Sile' Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Generation Apartments 220 692 DU 70 282 352 278 150 428 4,605 J 0% Factor on Residential Uses B 28 36 28 15 43 460 Retail 820 20,225 sf GLA 12 8 20 37 38 75 868 Restaurant 932 9,000 sf GFA 54 50 104 59 41 100 1,144 201 S Preferred Alternative Gross Trip Generation 144 368 S12 462 244 686 7,077 Less Internal Trips 1 -17 -17 -34 -33 -33 -66 -906 Less Pass-By Trips 1 -23 -20 -43 -29 -21 -50 -515 201 S Preferred Alternative Net Trip Generation 104 331 43S 340 190 530 S,656 20 I 5 Panial Buildout Net Trip Generation 105 338 443 348 193 541 5,784 Difference In Preferred Alternative Compared to -1 -7 -8 -8 -3 -11 -128 Alternative 2 -Parllal BuUdout [ rip ra11:s ba~e<l on I fl•. I np (,enerul11m M,.muu!, 8<h FJitum, 2008. DU is Dwdhng Unit, (.;J•A 1s (;ross l'loor Arca, and CLA ls C>ross Leasablc Area. 2 3 lntemal and rass-by det('rmined based upon documented a,,erage ratt·s from ITE Tnp Generation l landbook, June 2004 ~ Transportation Engineering NonhWen, LLC Page 37 October l, 2012 Appendix A Intersection Level of Service Summary Sheets ~ Transportation Engineering NorthWest, LLC Existing Conditions ~ Transportation Engineering NorthWest, LLC HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: NE 44th St & Lake WA Blvd SE .,> ~ • 'f +-'-~ ovement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NB[ Lane Configurations " ft " t 'f' Sign Control Stop Stop Volume (vph) 280 110 350 165 165 140 10 Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0 .88 0.88 Hourly flow rate (vph) 318 125 398 188 188 159 11 Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB2 WB1 WB2 WB3 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total (vph) 318 523 188 188 159 222 455 Volume Left (vph) 318 0 188 0 0 11 34 Volume Right (vph) 0 398 0 0 159 102 392 Hadj (s) 0 .53 -0.50 0.53 0.03 -0.67 -0.10 -0.47 Departure Headway (s) 8.8 7.7 9 .1 8 .6 3.2 8.4 7.2 Degree Utilization, x 0.78 1.12 0.4 8 0.45 0.14 0.52 0.91 Capacity (veh/h) 403 470 373 392 1121 404 485 Control Delay (s) 34.9 103.3 19.0 17.3 5.5 20.1 47.8 Approach Delay (s) 77.4 14.4 20.1 47.8 Approach LOS F B C E ntersection Summa Delay 48.2 HCM Level of Service E Intersection Capacity Utilization 80.6% ICU Level of Service Analysis Period (min) 15 Quendall Terminals -EIS 5 :00 pm 7/5/2010 2009-2010 Existing Transportation Engineering Northwest t ~ NBT NBR 4t Stop 95 90 0.88 0 .88 108 102 D 7/2/2012 '. ! ~ SBI SBT SBR 4t Stop 30 25 345 0.88 0 .88 0.88 34 28 392 I Synchro 6 Report Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: NE 44th St & 405 SB Off-rame ..> -+ • • +-'-"" ovement EB[ EBT EBR WB[ WBT WBR NB[ Lane Configurations 'ft ~ t Sign Control Free Free Grade 0 % 0 % Volume (veh/h) 0 665 5 390 135 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 0 .85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 782 6 459 159 0 0 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Wa lking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX , plato on unblocked vC, conflicting volume 159 788 1932 vC 1, stage 1 cont vol vC2 , stage 2 cont vol vCu , unblocked vol 159 788 1932 tC, single (s) 4 .1 4 .1 7 .1 tC , 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 po queue free % 100 45 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 1427 831 21 Direction, [ane # EB 1 WB1 WB2 SB 1 Volume Total 788 459 159 206 Volume Left 0 459 0 65 Volume Right 6 0 0 135 cSH 1700 831 1700 89 Volume to Capacity 0.46 0.55 0.09 2 .32 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 86 0 469 Control Delay (s) 0 .0 14 .5 0 .0 705.5 Lane LOS B F Approach Delay (s) 0.0 10.8 705.5 Approach LOS F 1lntersection Summary Average Dela y 94 .3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 70.2% ICU Level of Service Analysis Period (min) 15 Quendall Terminals -EIS 5:00 pm 7/5/2010 2009-2010 Existin g Transportation Engineering Northwest t ~ NBT NBR Stop 0% 0 0 0.85 0 .85 0 0 None 1862 785 1862 785 6 .5 6.2 4.0 3.3 100 100 33 396 C 7/2/2012 ~ + ~ SB[ SBT SBR 4 .,, Stop 0 % 55 5 115 0.85 0.85 0.85 65 6 135 9 None 1862 1865 159 1862 1865 159 7.1 6 .5 6 .2 3.5 4.0 3 .3 0 82 85 31 32 884 Synchro 6 Report Page2 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Lk WA Blvd & Riele~ Ln .,> -+ • f +-' ~ '3iovement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBl Lane Configurations " t. ft Sign Control Free Free Grade 0% 0 % Volume (veh/h) 15 635 0 0 195 65 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.83 0.83 0.83 0 .83 0.83 0.83 0.83 Hourly flow rate (vph) 18 765 0 0 235 78 0 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (ve h) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 313 765 1081 vC1 , stage 1 conf vol vC2 , stage 2 conf vol vC u, unblocked vol 313 765 1081 tC, single (s) 4 .1 4 .1 7 .1 tC , 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2 .2 2.2 3.5 pO queue free % 99 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 1247 853 193 ~irection, Lane# EB 1 EB2 WB1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 18 765 313 0 42 Volume Left 18 0 0 0 36 Volume Right 0 0 78 0 6 cSH 1247 1700 1700 1700 210 Volume to Capacity 0 .01 0.45 0 .18 0 .00 0 .20 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 0 0 18 Control Delay ( s) 7.9 0 .0 0 .0 0.0 26 .4 Lane LOS A A D Approach Delay (s) 0 .2 0 .0 0 .0 26 .4 Approach LOS A D Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 43 .4% ICU Level of Service Analysis Peri od (min) 15 Quendall Terminals -EIS 5 :00 pm 7/5/2010 2009-2010 Existing Transportation Engineering Northwest t I" NBT NBR 4+ Stop 0% 0 0 0 .83 0 .83 0 0 None 1114 765 1114 765 6.5 6.2 4 .0 3.3 100 100 207 406 A 7/2/2012 '. + ~ SB[ SBT SB~ 4+ Stop 0% 30 0 5 0.83 0.83 0 .83 36 0 6 None 1075 1075 274 1075 1075 274 7.2 6 .6 6 .3 3.6 4 .1 3 .4 81 100 99 187 208 744 Synchro 6 Report Page 3 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4 : Lk WA Blvd & BMills Access ~ -+ +-'-'.. .I Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations 4 'ft V Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0 % Volume (veh/h ) 0 650 200 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 0 .83 0.83 0.83 0 .83 0.83 0.83 Hourly flow rate (vph ) 0 783 241 0 0 0 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX , platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 241 1024 241 vC 1, stage 1 conf vo l vC2 , stage 2 conf vol vCu , unblocked vol 241 1024 241 tC , single (s) 4 .1 6.4 6.2 tC , 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 pO queue free % 100 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 1326 263 803 Direction, L.:ane # EB 1 81 SB 1 Volume Total 783 241 0 Volume Left 0 0 0 Volume Right 0 0 0 cS H 1326 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.14 0 .00 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0 .0 0.0 Lane LOS A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 Approach LOS A Jntersection Summa!i'. Average Delay 0.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 37.5% ICU Level of Service Analysis Period (min) 15 Quendall Terminals -EIS 5:00 pm 7/5/2010 2009-2010 Existing Transportation Eng i neering Northwest A 7/2/2012 Synchro 6 Report Page 4 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Lk Wa Blvd & N 36th St-Burnett -+ • 'f +- "" ,.. Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NB[ NBR Lane Configurations tt 4 V Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Volume (vp h) 345 2 17 89 6 106 Peak Hour Factor 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 Hourly flow rate (vph) 421 2 21 109 7 129 irection , Lane # EB 1 WB1 NB 1 Volume Total (vph) 423 129 137 Volume Left (vph) 0 21 7 Volume Right (vph) 2 0 129 Hadj (s) 0.05 0.10 -0.54 Departure Headway (s) 4.4 4 .8 4 .6 Degree Utilization, x 0.52 0.17 0.18 Capacity (veh/h) 784 709 693 Control Delay (s) 12.2 8 .8 8.6 Approach Delay (s) 12.2 8 .8 8.6 Approach LOS B A A ntersection Summa Delay 10.9 HCM Level of SeNice B Intersection Capacity Utilization 32 .7% ICU Level of Service Analysis Period (min) 15 Quendall Terminals -EIS 5:00 pm 7/5/2010 2009-2010 Existing Transportation Engineering Northwest A 7/2/2012 I Synchro 6 Report Page 5 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: 30th Street & Burnett Ave ~ -+ .. 'f +-' "" Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL Lane Configurations 4t 4t Sign Control Stop Stop Volume (vph) 0 10 0 20 11 20 0 Peak Hour Factor 0 .81 0 .81 0 .81 0.81 0 .81 0.81 0.81 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 12 0 25 14 25 0 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total (vph) 12 63 131 53 Volume Left (vph) 0 25 0 22 Volume R ight (vph) 0 25 58 0 Hadj (s) 0.00 -0 .12 -0.18 0.17 Departure Headway (s) 4.4 4.2 3.9 4.4 Degree Utilization , x 0 .01 0 .07 0.14 0.06 Capacity (veh/h) 784 821 886 804 Control Delay (s) 7.4 7.5 7.6 7 .7 Approach Delay (s ) 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7 Approach LOS A A A A , ntersection Summa~ Delay 7.6 HCM Leve l of Service A Intersection Capacity Utilization 25.2% ICU Level of Service Analysis Period (min ) 15 Quendal l Terminals-EIS 5:00 pm 7/5/2010 2009-2010 Existing Transportation Eng i neering Northwest t I" NBT NBR 4t Stop 59 47 0.81 0 .81 73 58 A 7/2/2012 \.. + ~ SBL SBT SBR 4+ Stop 18 25 0 0.81 0.81 0.81 22 31 0 Synchro 6 Report Page 6 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 8 : Burnett Ave & Lk Wa Blvd • '-t ~ '. + ~overnent WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations V t. 4 S ign Control Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph ) 54 1 334 98 2 87 Peak Hour Factor 0 .78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0 .78 Hourly flow rate (v ph) 69 1 428 126 3 1 12 irection , Lane # WB1 NB 1 SB 1 Vo lume Total (v ph) 71 554 114 Volume Left (vph) 69 0 3 Volume Right (vph ) 1 126 0 Hadj (s) 0 .25 -0.09 0.04 Departure Headway (s ) 5.6 4.2 4 .7 Degree Utilization, x 0 .11 0 .64 0.15 Capacity (veh /h ) 5 7 3 855 729 Control Delay (s) 9.3 14 .2 8.5 Approach Delay (s) 9.3 14.2 8.5 Approach LOS A B A Intersection Summa!1 Delay 12 .9 HCM Level of Service B Intersection Capacity Utilization 33.5% ICU Level of Service Analys is Period (min) 15 Quendall Terminals -EIS 5:00 pm 7/5/2010 2009-2010 Existing Transportation Engineering Northwest A 7/2/2012 Sy nchro 6 Report Page 7 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: N Park Drive & Lake Washin9ton Blvd .,> --+ .. ~ +-'-~ Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL Lane Configurations 'I tlt ltj'i tlt " Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4 .0 4 .0 4.0 4.0 4 .0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.97 0.91 0.91 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1687 3362 3400 3357 1427 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1687 3362 3400 3357 1427 Volume (vph) 279 352 8 208 718 90 12 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0 .92 0.92 0.92 0 .92 Adj . Flow (vph) 303 383 9 226 780 98 13 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 303 392 0 226 780 98 0 Heavy Vehicles(%) 7% 7% 7% 3 % 3% 3 % 6 % Turn Type Prat Prat Free Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 Permitted Phases Free 2 Actuated Green , G (s) 15.1 24 .3 6.8 16.0 51 .3 Effective Green, g (s) 15.1 24.3 6.8 16.0 51.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0 .29 0.47 0 .13 0.31 1.00 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4 .0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3 .0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 497 1593 451 1047 1427 v/s Ratio Prot c0 .18 0.12 0 .07 c0.23 vis Ratio Perm 0.07 v/c Ratio 0 .61 0.25 0 .50 0.74 0.07 Uniform Delay, d1 15.6 8 .0 20.7 15.8 0.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay , d2 2.1 0.1 0.9 2.9 0.1 Delay (s) 17.7 8.1 21 .6 18.7 0.1 Level of Service B A C B A Approach Delay (s) 12 .3 17.7 Approach LOS B B Intersection Summa!}'. HCM Average Control Delay 16.8 HCM Level of Service HCM Volume to Capacity rat io 0.66 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 51 .3 Sum of lost time (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization 59 .1% ICU Level of Service Analysis Period (min) 15 C Critical Lan e Group Quendall Terminals -EIS 5 :00 pm 7/5/2010 2009-2010 Existing Transportation Engineering Northwest t I" NBT NBR 4 " 1900 1900 4.0 4.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.99 1.00 1782 1524 0 .95 1.00 170 8 1524 88 55 0 .92 0.92 96 60 0 0 109 60 6 % 6 % Over 2 3 8 .2 6.8 8.2 6.8 0.16 0 .13 4.0 4 .0 3.0 3.0 273 202 0 .04 0 .06 0.40 0 .30 19.3 20.1 1.00 1 .00 1.0 0.8 20.3 20.9 C C 20 .5 C B 12 .0 B 7/2/2012 '. + ~ SBL: SBT SBB 4 " 1900 1900 1900 4.0 4 .0 1 .00 1.00 1 .00 0.85 0 .96 1.00 1803 1599 0.68 1.00 1277 1599 98 15 204 0.92 0.92 0.92 107 16 222 0 0 187 0 123 35 1% 1% 1% Perm Perm 6 6 6 8.2 8 .2 8.2 8 .2 0.16 0.16 4 .0 4 .0 3.0 3.0 204 256 c0.10 0.02 0.60 0.14 20.0 18.5 1.00 1.00 5.0 0 .2 25 .0 18 .8 C B 21.0 C Synchro 6 Report Page 8 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: NE 44th St & Lake WA Blvd SE ~ -+ ~ f +-' ~ Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL Lane Configurations ~ t. ~ + 7' Sign Control Stop Stop Volume (vph) 55 165 60 75 150 65 15 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0 .96 Hourly flow rate (vph ) 57 172 62 78 156 68 16 irection, lane f. EB 1 EB2 WB1 WB2 WB3 NB SB 1 Volume Total (vp h) 57 234 78 156 68 406 370 Volume Left (vph) 57 0 78 0 0 16 52 Volume Right (vph) 0 63 0 0 68 151 292 Hadj (s) 0.52 -0.17 0 .53 0.03 -0.67 -0.20 -0.43 Departure Headway (s) 8 .1 7.4 8.3 7.7 3.2 6 .3 6 .2 Degree Utilization, x 0.13 0.48 0 .18 0.34 0.06 0.71 0 .63 Capacity (veh/h) 405 439 377 406 1121 544 541 Control Delay (s) 11 .1 15.8 11.9 13.4 5 .2 23.3 19.3 Approach Delay (s) 14 .9 11.2 23 .3 19.3 Approach LOS B B C C ntersection Summa Delay 17.8 HCM Level of Service C Intersection Capacity Utilization 68.7% ICU Level of Service Analysis Period (mi n) 15 Quendall Terminals -EIS 5:00 pm 7/5/2010 2009-2010 Existing PM Peak Transportation Eng ineering Northwest t I" NBT NBR 4t Stop 230 145 0.96 0.96 240 151 C 7/2/2012 '. ! ~ SBL SBT SBR 4t Stop 50 25 280 0.96 0.96 0 .96 52 26 292 Synchro 6 Report Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2 : NE 44th St & 405 SB Off-rame ~ -+ .. • ~ ' "" Wovement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL Lane Configurations ft " t Sign Control Free Free Grade 0 % 0% Volume (veh/h) 0 150 125 215 225 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0 .97 0 .97 0.97 0.97 0 .97 0.97 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 155 129 222 232 0 0 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn f lare (ve h) Median type Med ian storage veh ) Upstream signal (ft) pX , platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 232 284 1026 vC 1, stage 1 cont vol vC2 , stage 2 cont vol vCu, unblocked vol 232 284 1026 tC , single (s) 4.1 4 .1 7.1 tC , 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2 .2 2 .2 3.5 pO queue free % 100 83 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 1348 1285 125 irection, Lane # EB 1 WB1 WB2 SB 1 Volume Total 284 222 232 397 Volume Left 0 222 0 134 Volume R ight 129 0 0 258 cSH 1700 1285 1700 651 Volume to Capacity 0 .1 7 0.17 0 .14 0.61 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 16 0 104 Control Delay (s) 0.0 8.4 0.0 22.4 Lane LOS A C Approach Delay (s) 0 .0 4 .1 22.4 Approach LOS C ;I ntersection Summa~ Average Delay 9 .5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 44.9% ICU Level of Service Analysis Pe r iod (m in ) 15 Quendall Termina ls -EIS 5:00 pm 7/5/2010 2009-2010 Existing PM Pea k Transportation Engineering Northwest t ~ NBT NBR Stop 0% 0 0 0.97 0.97 0 0 None 894 219 894 219 6.5 6 .2 4 .0 3.3 100 100 234 826 A 7/2/2012 \. ! ~ SBL SBT SBR 4 7' Stop 0 % 130 5 250 0.97 0 .97 0.97 134 5 258 9 None 894 959 232 894 959 232 7 .1 6 .5 6.2 3.5 4 .0 3.3 41 98 68 229 214 812 Synchro 6 Report Page 2 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Lk WA Blvd & Riele~ Ln .,> -+ • 'f +-'-~ , ovement EBL EBT EBR WB[ WBT WBR B Lane Configurations 'I ft ft Sign Control Free Free Grade 0% 0 % Volume (veh/h) 5 180 5 5 410 40 0 Peak Hour Factor 0 .97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 H ourly flow rate (vph) 5 186 5 5 423 41 0 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage v~h) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 464 191 683 vC1 , stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu , unblocked vol 464 191 683 tC, single (s) 4 .1 4 .1 7 .3 tC , 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2 .2 2 .2 3.7 pO queue free % 100 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 1108 1377 324 1rection , Lane # EB1 EB2 we NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 5 191 469 0 134 Volume Left 5 0 5 0 103 Volume Right 0 5 41 0 31 cSH 1108 1700 1377 1700 415 Volume to Capacity 0 .00 0.11 0.00 0.00 0 .32 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 34 Control Delay (s) 8.3 0 .0 0 .1 0 .0 17.7 Lane LOS A A A C Approach Delay (s) 0.2 0 .1 0 .0 17.7 Approach LOS A C ntersection Summa Average Delay 3.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 42 .1% ICU Level of Service Analysis Period (min) 15 Quendall Terminals -EIS 5:00 pm 7/5/2010 2009-2010 Existing PM Peak Transportation Engineering Northwest t ~ NBT NBR .;. Stop 0% 0 0 0.97 0 .97 0 0 None 673 188 673 188 6.7 6 .4 4 .2 3.5 100 100 355 817 A 7/2/2012 '-. i ~ SBL SBT SBR .;. Stop 0 % 100 0 30 0 .97 0.97 0.97 103 0 3, 1 None 649 655 443 649 655 443 7.1 6 .5 6 .2 3.5 4.0 3 .3 73 100 95 379 381 612 Synchro 6 Report Page 3 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Lk WA Blvd & BMills Access ~ -+ +-'-'.. .,' Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations 4 'ft V Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0 % 0 % 0 % Volume (veh/h) 0 135 500 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 0 .97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0 .97 0.97 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 139 515 0 0 0 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Wal king Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh ) Median type None Med ian storage veh ) Upstream signal (ft) pX , p latoon unblocked vC , conflicting volume 515 655 515 vC 1, stage 1 co nf vol vC2, stage 2 cont vol vCu , unblocked vol 515 655 515 tC , single (s) 4 .1 6.4 6.2 tC , 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2 .2 3.5 3.3 pO queue free % 100 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 1061 434 563 D1rect1on , [ane # EB 1 WB1 SB 1 Volume Total 139 515 0 Volume Left 0 0 0 Volume Right 0 0 0 cS H 1061 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.30 0.00 Queue Length 95th (ft ) 0 0 0 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0 .0 0 .0 Lane LOS A Approach Delay (s) 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 Approach LOS A 1 lntersection Summary Average Delay 0 .0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 29.6% ICU Level of Service Analy sis Period (min) 15 Quendall Terminals -EI S 5:00 pm 7/5/2010 2009-2010 Existing PM Peak Transportation Engineering Northw est A 7/2/2012 Synchro 6 Report Page 4 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Lk Wa Blvd & N 36th St-Burnett ~ ..... • +-' I" ~ovement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations 1t 'f' 4 V Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph) 107 7 83 280 4 25 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0 .95 0.95 0.95 0 .95 Hourly flow rate (vph) 113 7 87 295 4 26 irection, uine # EB 1 EB2 WB1 NB 1 Volume Tota l (vph) 115 5 382 31 Volume Left (vph) 0 0 87 4 Volume Right (vph ) 2 5 0 26 Hadj (s) -0.01 -0.70 0 .06 -0.49 Departure Headway (s) 4 .8 4 .1 4.3 4 .5 Degree Utilization , x 0.15 0 .01 0 .45 0.04 Capacity (veh/h) 733 847 827 716 Control Delay (s) 7 .5 5.9 10.8 7.7 Approach Delay (s) 7.4 10.8 7.7 Approach LOS A B A ne Delay 9.8 HCM Level of Service A Intersection Capacity Utilization 36.0% ICU Level of Service Analysis Period (min) 15 Quendall Termi nals -EIS 5 :00 pm 7/5/2010 2009-2010 Existing PM Peak Transportation Engineering Northwest A 7/2/2012 Synchro 6 Report Page 5 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7 : 30th Street & Burnett Ave ~ -+ ~ 'f +-'-~ ovement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL Lane Configurations 4t 4t Sign Control Stop Stop Volume (vph) 0 13 1 64 28 13 2 Peak Hour Factor 0 .93 0.93 0 .93 0.93 0 .93 0.93 0.93 Hourly flow rate (vph ) 0 14 1 69 30 14 2 l)lrection, Lane # EB 1 WB1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total (vph ) 15 113 109 109 Volume Left (vph) 0 69 2 47 Volume Rig ht (vph ) 1 14 66 2 Hadj (s) -0.04 0.05 -0.36 0.09 Departure Headway (s) 4 .5 4.4 4 .0 4.4 Degree Utilization , x 0 .02 0.14 0.12 0.13 Capacity (veh /h) 758 764 868 779 Control Delay (s) 7.6 8.2 7.5 8 .1 Approach Delay (s ) 7.6 8.2 7.5 8.1 Approach LOS A A A A , ntersect1on Summa~ Delay 7.9 HCM Level of Service A Intersection Capacity Utilization 31.3% ICU Level of Service Analys is Period (min) 15 Quendall Terminals -EIS 5 :00 pm 7/5/2010 2009-2010 Existing PM Peak Transportation Engineering Northwest t ~ NBT NBR 4t Stop 38 61 0 .93 0 .93 41 66 A 7/2/2012 '. + ~ SBL SBT SBR 4t Stop 44 55 2 0.93 0.93 0.93 47 59 2 Synchro 6 Report Page 6 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 8: Lk Wa Blvd & Burnett Ave .,> -+ +-' '.. .; ovement EBL EBT WBT WBR SB[ SBR Lane Configurations 4 tt ¥ Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph) 2 289 104 111 92 3 Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0 .91 0.91 0.91 Hourly flow rate (vph) 2 318 114 122 101 3 P1rection, ane J EB 1 WB1 SB 1 Volume Total (vph) 320 236 104 Volume Left (vph) 2 0 101 Volume Right (vph) 0 122 3 Hadj (s) 0.00 -0 .31 0 .17 Departure Headway (s) 4.4 4 .2 5.3 Degree Utilization, x 0.40 0.28 0 .15 Capacity (veh/h) 788 813 619 Control Delay (s) 10.3 8 .9 9.3 Approach Delay (s) 10.3 8 .9 9.3 Approach LOS B A A ntersect,on Summa Delay 9.6 HCM Level of Service A Intersection Capacity Utilization 28.7% ICU Level of Service A nalysis Period (min) 15 Quendall Terminals -EIS 5:00 pm 7/5/201O2009-2010 Existing PM Peak Transportation Engineering Northwest A 7/2/2012 Synchro 6 Report Page 7 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: N Park Drive & Lake Washin9ton Blvd .,> -+ • • ~ '-"" Movement EBL EBT EBR WB WBT WBR NBL Lane Configurations ~ +i. "\~ +i. 7' Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4 .0 4.0 4 .0 4 .0 4.0 Lane Util . Factor 1.00 0 .95 0.97 0 .91 0 .91 Frt 1.00 0 .99 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd . Flow (prot) 1770 3521 3433 3390 1441 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1 .00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3521 3433 3390 1441 Volume (vph) 297 758 26 295 646 132 9 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0 .97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0 .97 Adj. Flow (vph) 306 781 27 304 666 136 9 RTOR Reduction (v ph ) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 306 808 0 304 666 136 0 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2 % 2% 2% 2% 2 % 2% 1% Turn Type Prat Prat Free Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 Permitted Phases Free 2 Actuated Green , G (s) 25.2 18.7 25.4 18.9 69 .2 Effective Green, g (s) 25.2 18.7 25.4 18.9 69.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.36 0.27 0.37 0.27 1.00 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3 .0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 645 951 1260 926 1441 vi s Ratio Prot 0.17 c0 .23 0.09 0.20 vis Ratio Perm 0.09 v/c Ratio 0.47 0.85 0.24 0.72 0.09 Uniform Delay, d1 16.9 23.9 15.2 22.7 0 .0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0 .6 7.2 0 .1 2 .7 0 .1 Delay (s) 17.5 31 .1 15.3 25.5 0 .1 Level of Service B C B C A Approach Delay (s ) 27.4 19.5 Approach LOS C B )ntersection Summa!1 HCM Average Control Delay 25.5 HCM Level of Service HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0 .81 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 69.2 Sum of lost time (s) Intersection Capacity Utilizati on 71.9% ICU Level of Service Analysis Period (min) 15 C Critical Lane Group Quendall Termi nals -EIS 5:00 pm 7/5/2010 2009-2010 Existing PM Peak Transportation Engineering Northwest t I" NBT NBR 4 7' 1900 1900 4 .0 4 .0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1873 1599 0.97 1.00 1821 1599 85 497 0.97 0.97 88 512 0 0 97 512 1% 1% Over 2 3 13.1 25.4 13.1 25.4 0.19 0.37 4.0 4 .0 3.0 3.0 345 587 c0.32 0 .05 0 .28 0.87 24 .0 20.4 1 .00 1.00 0.4 13.4 24.5 33.8 C C 32 .3 C C 12.0 C 7/2/2012 \. ! ~ SBL SBT SBR 4 7' 1900 1900 1900 4.0 4 .0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.97 1.00 1834 1599 0.79 1.00 1478 1599 90 83 292 0.97 0 .97 0.97 93 86 301 0 0 244 0 179 57 1% 1% 1% Perm Perm 6 6 6 13.1 13.1 13.1 13.1 0.19 0 .19 4 .0 4 .0 3 .0 3.0 280 303 c0 .12 0 .04 0.64 0 .19 25.9 23.6 1.00 1 .00 4.7 0.3 30 .6 23.9 C C 26.4 C Synchro 6 Report Page 8 2015 Without Project (Without RTID Improvements) ~ T ransportation Engineering NorthWest, LLC HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: NE 44th St & Lake WA Blvd SE .,> -+ • • ~ '-~ t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT Lane Configurations " tt " t 'f' 4t Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph) 355 120 435 175 185 150 40 130 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0 .92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0 .92 Hourly flow rate (v ph) 386 130 473 190 201 163 43 141 Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB2 WB1 WB2 WB3 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total (vph) 386 603 190 201 163 293 571 Volume Left (vph) 386 0 190 0 0 43 33 Volume R ight (vph) 0 473 0 0 163 109 478 Hadj (s) 0 .53 -0 .51 0.53 0.03 -0.67 -0.02 -0.46 Departure Headway (s) 9 .1 8.1 9.6 9 .1 3.2 8.8 7.8 Degree Utilization , x 0 .98 1.36 0.51 0.51 0 .14 0.72 1.23 Capacity (veh /h) 386 452 359 377 1121 398 461 Control Delay (s) 70 .0 196.9 21.0 20.1 5.5 31 .1 145.4 Approach De la y (s) 147 .4 16.1 31 .1 145.4 Approach LOS F C D F Intersection Summa~ Delay 102.5 HCM Leve l of SeNice F Intersection Capacity Utilization 88.1% ICU Level of Service Analys is Period (m in ) 15 Quendall Terminals -EIS 5:00 pm 7/7/2010 2015 Baseline Without RTID AM Pea k Transportation Engineering Northwest ,., NBR 100 0.92 109 E 8/29/20 12 '. + .;' SBL SBT SBR 4t Stop 30 55 440 0.92 0 .92 0 .92 33 60 478 Synchro 6 Report Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: NE 44th St & 405 SB Off-rame ~ -+ ..... 'f +-' "" t 1 ovement EBL EBT EBR WBL: WBT WBR NBL NBT Lane Configurations 'ft 'I + Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0 % Volume (veh/h) 0 730 25 515 155 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0 .92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0 .92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 793 27 560 168 0 0 0 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 168 821 2190 2095 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2 , stage 2 conf vol vCu , unblocked vol 168 821 2190 2095 tC , single (s) 4 .1 4 .1 7 .1 6.5 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2 .2 2 .2 3 .5 4.0 pO queue free % 100 31 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 1415 808 6 16 EB 1 WB1 WB2 SB 1 821 560 168 342 0 560 0 152 27 0 0 179 1700 808 1700 34 Volume to Capacity 0.48 0.69 0.10 10.02 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 143 0 Err Control Delay (s) 0.0 18.8 0 .0 Err Lane LOS C F Approach Delay (s) 0.0 14.5 Err Approach LOS F ~ntersection Summa~ Average Delay 1815.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 86.7% ICU Level of Service Analysis Period (min ) 15 Quendall Terminals -EIS 5 :00 pm 7/7/2010 2015 Baseline Without RTID AM Peak Transportation Engineering Northwest ~ NBR 0 0.92 0 807 807 6.2 3.3 100 385 E 8/29/2012 '. + -" SB L: SBT SBR 4 .,, Stop 0% 140 10 165 0.92 0 .92 0.92 152 11 179 9 None 2095 2109 168 2095 2109 168 7.1 6 .5 6 .2 3.5 4 .0 3 .3 0 30 79 17 16 873 Synchro 6 Report Page 2 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Lk WA Blvd & Rielel'. Ln .,} -+ "t • +-'-"\ t ovement EB L EBT EBR WBL: WBT WBR NBL NBT Lane Configurations ~ ft ft 4t Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0 % 0 % 0% Volume (veh/h) 20 685 0 0 250 70 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 0 .92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 22 745 0 0 272 76 0 0 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage R ight turn flare (veh) Median type None Med ian storage veh ) Upstream signal (ft) pX , platoon unblocked vC , conflicting volume 348 745 1109 1136 vC 1, stage 1 conf vol vC2 , stage 2 conf vol vCu , unblocked vol 348 745 1109 1136 tC , single (s) 4 .1 4 .1 7 .1 6 .5 tC , 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2 .2 2 .2 3 .5 4 .0 pO queue free % 98 100 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 1211 868 183 200 Direction, Lane# EB 1 EB2 WB1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 22 745 348 5 82 Vol ume Left 22 0 0 0 71 Volume Right 0 0 76 5 11 cSH 1211 1700 1700 41 8 196 Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.44 0.20 0 .01 0.42 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 0 1 47 Control Delay (s) 8.0 0 .0 0.0 13.7 35.8 Lane LOS A B E Approach Delay (s) 0.2 0 .0 13.7 35.8 Approach LOS B E Intersection Summa!1 Average Delay 2 .6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 53.6% ICU Level of Service Analys is Period (min) 15 Quenda ll Terminals -EIS 5:00 pm 7/7/2010 2015 Baseline Without RTID AM Peak Transportation Eng i neering Northwest I'" NBR 5 0 .92 5 745 745 6.2 3.3 99 418 A 8/29/2012 '.. + ~ SBL SBT SBR 4t Stop 0 % 65 0 10 0.92 0.92 0 .92 71 0 11 None 1103 1098 310 1103 1098 310 7.2 6 .6 6 .3 3.6 4 .1 3.4 60 100 98 176 201 710 Synchro 6 Report Page 3 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Lk WA Blvd & BMills Access ~ -+ ,..._ '-'. ~ Movement EBL: EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations 4 1t V Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0 % 0 % 0 % Volume (veh/h) 0 695 260 0 10 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0 .92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 755 283 0 11 0 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None Median storage veh ) Upstream signal (ft) pX , platoon unblocked vC , conflicting volume 283 1038 283 vC 1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu , unblocked vol 283 1038 283 tC , single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC , 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3 .3 pO queue free % 100 96 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 1280 258 761 irection, Lane # EB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 755 283 11 Volume Left 0 0 11 Volume Right 0 0 0 cSH 1280 1700 258 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.17 0.04 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 3 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0 .0 19.6 Lane LOS C Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 19.6 Approach LOS C ntersection Summa Average Delay 0.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 46.6% ICU Level of Service Analysis Period (min ) 15 Quendall Terminals -EIS 5:00 pm 7/7/2010 2015 Baseline W ithout RTID AM Peak Transportation Engineering Northwest A 8/29/2012 Synchro 6 Report Page4 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: Lk Wa Blvd & Hawks Land in9 Access -+ ..... 'f +-~ I" Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lan e Configurati o ns ft 'I t V Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0 % 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 665 5 55 210 5 30 Peak Hour Factor 0 .92 0.92 0.92 0 .92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 723 5 60 228 5 33 Pedestrians La ne Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Pe rcent Blockage Rig ht turn flare (ve h ) Median type None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, pla too n unblocked vC , conflicting volume 728 1073 726 vC 1, stage 1 cont vol vC2 , stage 2 cont vol vCu , unblocked vol 728 1073 726 tC , single (s) 4.1 6.4 6 .2 tC , 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 pO queue free % 93 98 92 cM capacity (veh/h) 880 229 428 Di rection, Lane # EB 1 WB1 WB2 NB 1 Volume Total 728 60 228 38 Volume Left 0 60 0 5 Volume Right 5 0 0 33 cSH 1700 880 1700 381 Volume to Capacity 0 .43 0 .07 0.13 0.10 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 5 0 8 Control Delay (s) 0 .0 9 .4 0.0 15.5 Lane LOS A C Approach Delay (s) 0 .0 1.9 15.5 App roa ch LOS C intersection Summa!1 Average Delay 1 .1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 52 .0% ICU Level of Service Analysis Period (min ) 15 Quendall Terminals -EIS 5 :00 pm 7/7/2010 2015 Baseline Without RTID AM Peak Transportation Engineering Northwest A 8/29/2012 Synchro 6 Report Page 5 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Lk Wa Blvd & N 36th St-Burnett -+ • 'f +-~ I"' ovement EBT EBR [ WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations t. 4 V Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph ) 425 5 20 110 10 120 Peak Hour Factor 0 .92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 462 5 22 120 11 130 1rection, Lane # EB 1 WB1 NB 1 Volume Total (vph) 467 141 141 Volume Left (vph) 0 22 11 Volume Right (vp h) 5 0 130 Hadj (s) 0 .04 0.10 -0.52 Departure Headway (s) 4 .5 4 .9 4 .8 Degree Utilization , x 0.58 0.19 0.19 Capacity (veh /h) 779 697 669 Control Delay (s) 13.5 9.0 8.9 Approach Delay (s) 13 .5 9.0 8.9 Approach LOS B A A ntersection Summa Delay 11.8 HCM Level of Service B Intersection Capacity Utilization 37 .5% ICU Level of Service Analysis Period (min) 15 Quendall Terminals -EIS 5 :00 pm 7/7/2010 2015 Baseline Without RTID AM Peak Transportation Engineering Northwest A 8/29/20 12 Synchro 6 Report Page 6 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7 : 30th Street & Burnett Ave ,,. -+ "t f ~ "-"" t ~>vement EBt.: EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT Lane Configurations 4t 4t 4t Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Vol ume (vph ) 0 10 0 20 10 30 0 60 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0 .92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (v ph) 0 11 0 22 11 33 0 65 Qirection, Lane# EB 1 WB1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total (vph) 11 65 120 54 Volume Left (vph) 0 22 0 27 Volume Right (vph) 0 33 54 0 Hadj (s) 0.00 -0.20 -0.19 0 .18 Departure Headway (s) 4 .3 4 .1 3.9 4.4 Degree Utilization, x 0.01 0.07 0.13 0.07 Capacity (ve h/h) 789 842 887 803 Control Delay (s) 7.4 7.4 7.5 7 .7 Approach Delay (s) 7.4 7.4 7 .5 7 .7 Approach LOS A A A A Jntersection Summa Delay 7 .5 HCM Le vel of Serv ice A Intersection Capacity Utilization 26.2% ICU Level of Service Ana lysis Period (min) 15 Quendal l Terminals -E IS 5:00 pm 7/7/2010 2015 Baseli ne Without RTID AM Peak Transportation Engineering Northwest I" NBR 50 0.92 54 A 8/29/2012 ..... + ~ SBL SBT SBR 4t Stop 25 25 0 0.92 0 .92 0 .92 27 27 0 Synchro 6 Report Page 7 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 8: Burnett Ave & Lk Wa Blvd 'f '-t I" '. + ~ovemeni WB( R NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations ¥ ft 4 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph) 80 5 310 130 5 90 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0 .92 0 .92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 87 5 337 141 5 98 irection, Lane # WB1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total (vph) 92 478 103 Volume Left (vph) 87 0 5 Volume Right (vph) 5 141 0 Hadj (s) 0.22 -0.13 0.04 Departure Headway (s) 5.4 4.2 4 .7 Degree Utilization, x 0.14 0.55 0.13 Capacity (veh/h) 603 850 728 Control Delay (s) 9.3 12.2 8.4 Approach Delay (s) 9.3 12.2 8.4 Approach LOS A B A Intersection Summa Delay 11 .2 HCM Le vel of Service B Intersection Capacity Utilization 35.6% ICU Level of Service Analysis Period (min) 15 Quendall Terminals-EIS 5 :00 pm 7/7/2010 2015 Baseline Without RTID AM Peak Transportation Engineering Northwest A 8/29/2012 Synchro 6 Report Page 8 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: N Park Drive & Lake Washin~ton Blvd ,> -+ .. '( +-' ~ t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT Lan e Configu rations "i"i tt. "i"i tt. .,, 4t Ideal Flow (vphpl ) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Tota l Lost t i me (s) 4.0 4 .0 4 .0 4 .0 4 .0 4 .0 Lane Util. Factor 0 .97 0.95 0 .97 0.91 0.91 0 .95 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0 .95 1.00 1.00 0 .99 Satd . Flow (p rot) 3273 3347 3400 3357 1427 1688 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0 .95 1.00 1.00 0 .94 Satd . Flow (pe rm) 3273 3347 3400 3357 1427 1601 Volume (vph) 280 445 25 460 785 60 40 180 Peak-hour factor , PHF 0 .92 0.92 0.92 0 .92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0 .92 Adj . Flow (vph) 304 484 27 500 85 3 65 43 196 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 3 04 511 0 500 853 65 0 239 Heavy Ve hicles (%) 7 % 7 % 7% 3% 3% 3% 6% 6 % Turn Type Prat Prat Free Prat Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 Permitted Phases Free Actuated Green , G (s) 10.1 15 .6 14.0 19.5 66 .9 18.3 Effective Green, g (s) 10.1 15 .6 14.0 19.5 66.9 18.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.15 0.23 0.21 0.29 1.00 0.2 7 Clearance Time (s) 4 .0 4 .0 4.0 4.0 4 .0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 494 780 712 978 1427 438 vi s Ratio Prot 0.09 c0 .15 0.15 c0.25 v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 c0.15 v /c Ratio 0.62 0 .66 0.70 0.87 0.05 0.55 Uniform Delay, d1 26.6 23.2 24 .5 22 .5 0 .0 20.8 Progression Fa ctor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2 .3 2.0 3.1 8 .6 0.1 1.4 Delay (s) 28.9 25.2 27.7 31.2 0 .1 22 .1 Level of Service C C C C A C Approach Delay (s) 26 .6 28 .5 23.3 Approach LOS C C C ntersection Summa!1 HCM Average Control Delay 26.8 HCM Level of Service HCM Volume to Capa c ity ratio 0.69 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 66.9 Sum of lost time (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization 61 .6 % ICU Level of Service Analysis Period (min ) 15 C Critical Lane Group Quendall Terminals -EIS 5:00 pm 7/7/2010 2015 Baseline Without RTID AM Peak Transportation Engineering Northwest r NBR 7' 1900 4.0 0 .95 0 .85 1.00 1447 1.00 1447 145 0 .92 158 0 158 6% Over 3 14.0 14.0 0.21 4.0 3.0 303 0.11 0.52 23.5 1.00 1 .6 25 .1 C C 12 .0 B 8/29/2012 \. + ~ SBL.: SBT SBR .., 4 7' 1900 1900 1900 4.0 4 .0 4.0 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0 .85 0.95 0.98 1.00 1698 1749 1599 0.95 0.86 1.00 1698 1538 1599 85 35 235 0.92 0.92 0 .92 92 38 255 0 0 159 63 67 96 1% 1% 1% Prat Perm 1 6 6 3.0 25 .3 25.3 3.0 25.3 25.3 0.04 0.38 0.38 4 .0 4 .0 4 .0 3.0 3.0 3.0 76 591 605 c0 .04 0.01 0 .04 0.06 0.83 0.11 0 .16 31 .7 13.5 13.8 1.00 1 .00 1.00 49 .7 0.1 0.1 81.4 13.6 13.9 F B B 24.9 C Synchro 6 Report Page 9 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: NE 44th St & Lake WA Blvd SE .,> -+ • 'f +-'-~ t Movement EB[ EBT EBR WB[ WBT WBR NBL: NBT Lane Configurations 'I 'ft 'I t '(' 4t Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph) 100 190 95 80 175 65 45 310 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0 .96 0 .96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Hourly flow rate (vph) 104 198 99 83 182 68 47 323 1rection, ane EB EB2 WB1 WB2 3 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total (vph) 104 297 83 182 68 531 484 Volume Left (vph) 104 0 83 0 0 47 52 Volume Right (vph) 0 99 0 0 68 161 380 Hadj (s) 0.52 -0.22 0.53 0 .03 -0.67 -0.15 -0.43 Departure Headway (s) 9.3 8 .5 9.7 9.2 3.2 7.8 7 .4 Degree Utilization, x 0.27 0 .70 0 .22 0.47 0.06 1.15 0.99 Capacity (veh/h) 382 412 363 375 1121 464 484 Control Delay (s) 14.4 28.1 14.3 18.7 5.2 117.2 66.7 Approach Delay (s) 24.6 14 .9 117.2 66.7 Approach LOS C B F F ntersection Summa Delay 62.5 HCM Level of Service F Intersection Capacity Utilization 69.1% ICU Level of Service Analysis Period (min) 15 Quendall Terminals -EIS 5 :00 pm 7/7/2010 2015 Baseline Without RTID PM Peak Transportation Engineering Northwest ~ NBR 155 0.96 161 C 10/1/2012 '. i ~ SBL: SBT SBR 4t Stop 50 50 365 0.96 0 .96 0.96 52 52 380 Synchro 6 Report Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: NE 44th St & 405 SB Off-rame --" ~ "'), • ,._ ' ~ t ~ovement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT Lan e Configurations f+ ~ t Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 0 185 155 305 265 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 0 .97 0.97 0.97 0 .97 0.97 0.97 0.9 7 0.97 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 191 160 314 273 0 0 0 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage R ight turn flare (veh) Median type None Med ian storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC , conflicting volume 273 351 1353 1173 vC 1, stage 1 cont vol vC2 , stage 2 cont vol vC u , unblocked vol 2 73 351 1353 1173 tC , single (s) 4.1 4 .1 7 .1 6.5 tC , 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3 .5 4.0 pO queue free % 100 74 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 1302 1214 53 144 Direction, Lane# EB 1 WB1 WB2 SB 1 Volume Total 351 314 273 598 Volume Left 0 314 0 237 Volume Right 160 0 0 351 cSH 1700 1214 1700 282 Volume to Capacity 0.21 0 .26 0 .16 2.12 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 26 0 1114 Control Delay (s) 0 .0 9.0 0.0 545 .9 Lan e LOS A F Approach Delay (s) 0 .0 4 .8 545 .9 Approach LOS F frrtersection Summa!}'. Average Delay 214 .3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 59 .4% ICU Level of Service Analysis Period (m in ) 15 Quendall Terminals -EIS 5:00 pm 7/7 /2010 2015 Baseline Without RTID PM Peak Transportation Engineering Northwest I" NBR 0 0 .97 0 271 271 6.2 3.3 100 773 B 8/29/20 12 '. + ~ SBL SBT SBR 4 '{' Stop 0 % 230 10 340 0.97 0.97 0.97 237 10 351 9 None 1173 1253 273 1173 1253 273 7 .1 6 .5 6.2 3.5 4 .0 3.3 0 92 55 137 129 770 Synchro 6 Report Page 2 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Lk WA Blvd & Riele~ Ln ~ -+ • 'f ,._ '-~ t ovement EB[ EBT EBR WB[ T WBR NBL NBT Lane Configurations 'I f+ f+ 4t Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0 % 0% 0 % Volume (veh/h) 15 225 0 0 520 70 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.9 7 0 .97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0 .97 0.97 Hourly flow rate (vph) 15 232 0 0 536 72 0 0 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC , conflicting volume 608 232 871 871 vC 1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 cont vol vCu , unblocked vol 608 232 871 87 1 tC , single (s) 4 .1 4.1 7.3 6 .7 tC , 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.7 4.2 pO queue free % 98 100 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 980 1330 235 269 [Qifection, ne# EB 1 EB2 WB1 NB1 SB 1 Volume Total 15 232 608 5 155 Volume Left 15 0 0 0 119 Volume Right 0 0 72 5 36 cSH 980 1700 1700 771 312 Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.14 0.36 0 .01 0 .50 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 0 1 65 Control Delay (s) 8.7 0.0 0.0 9.7 27 .4 Lane LOS A A D Approach Delay ( s) 0.5 0.0 9.7 27 .4 Approach LOS A D ntersection Summa Average Delay 4.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 53.5% ICU Level of Service Analysis Period (min) 15 Quendall Terminals -EIS 5:00 pm 7/7/2010 2015 Baseline Without RTID PM Peak Transportation Engineering Northwest ~ NBR 5 0.97 5 232 232 6 .4 3 .5 99 771 A 8/29/2012 '. + ~ SBL SBT SBR 4t Stop 0% 115 0 35 0.97 0 .97 0.97 119 0 36 None 840 835 572 840 835 572 7.1 6.5 6 .2 3.5 4.0 3.3 57 100 93 278 298 518 i Synchro 6 Report Page 3 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Lk WA Blvd & BMills Access ..> -+ +-'-'-. ~ Moveme nt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations 4 ~ ¥ Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0 % 0 % 0 % Volume (veh/h) 0 185 560 10 5 0 Peak Hour Factor 0 .97 0 .97 0.97 0.9 7 0 .97 0.97 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 191 577 10 5 0 Pedestrians Lan e Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Righ t turn flare (veh ) Median type None Median storage veh ) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC , conflicti ng volume 588 773 582 v C 1, stage 1 conf vol vC2 , stage 2 conf vol vCu , unblocked v ol 588 773 582 tC , single (s) 4 .1 6.4 6.2 tC , 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 pO queue free % 100 99 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 997 370 516 Direction, Lane# EB 1 WB1 SB 1 Volume Total 191 588 5 Vol ume Left 0 0 5 Volume Right 0 10 0 cS H 997 1700 370 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.35 0.01 Queue Length 95 th (ft) 0 0 1 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0 .0 14.9 Lane LOS B Approach Delay (s) 0 .0 0 .0 14.9 Approach LOS B ,ntersection Summa!}'. Average Delay 0.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 40.1% ICU Level of Service Analysis Period (min ) 15 Quendal l Terminals -EIS 5:00 pm 7/7/2 010 2015 Baseline Without RTID PM Peak Transportation Engineering Northw est A 8/29/2012 Sy nchro 6 Report Page 4 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: Lk WA Blvd & Hawks Landin9 Access -+ ..... 'I" +-~ I" Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations ft ~ + V Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0 % 0% 0 % Volume (veh/h) 145 5 50 515 5 40 Peak Hour Fa ctor 0 .97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0 .97 0.97 Hourly flow rate (vph) 149 5 52 531 5 41 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC , conflicting volume 155 786 152 vC 1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vo l 155 786 152 tC , single (s) 4.1 6.4 6 .2 tC , 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 pO queue free % 96 99 95 cM capacity (veh/h) 1420 351 899 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB1 WB2 NB 1 Volume Total 155 52 531 46 Volume Left 0 52 0 5 Volume Right 5 0 0 41 cSH 1700 1420 1700 766 Volume to Capacity 0.09 0.04 0 .31 0 .06 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 3 0 5 Control Delay (s) 0 .0 7.6 0.0 10.0 Lane LOS A B Approach Delay (s) 0 .0 0 .7 10.0 Approach LOS B ntersection Summa Average Delay 1.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 37.1% ICU Level of Service Analysis Period (min) 15 Quendall Terminals -EIS 5:00 pm 7/7/2010 2015 Baseline Without RTID PM Peak Transportation Engineering Northwest A 8/29/2012 Syn chro 6 Report Page 5 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Lk Wa Blvd & N 36th St-Burnett ~ ~ f +-~ I" ovement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations ft 7' 4 V Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph) 140 10 90 340 5 35 Peak Hour Factor 0 .95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourl y flow rate (vp h ) 147 11 95 358 5 37 Pirection, Lane# EB 1 EB2 WB1 NB 1 Volume Total (vp h ) 151 7 453 42 Volume Left (vph) 0 0 95 5 Volume Right (vp h) 4 7 0 37 Hadj (s) -0 .02 -0.70 0.06 -0.50 Departure Headway (s) 4.9 4 .2 4 .3 4 .7 Degree Utilization, x 0 .21 0.01 0.55 0 .06 Capacity (ve h/h) 718 826 814 670 Control Delay (s) 8.0 6.1 12.4 8.0 Approach Delay (s) 7.9 12.4 8 .0 Approach LOS A B A Ji;tersection Summa~ Delay 11 .1 HCM Level of Service B Intersection Capacity Util ization 43.8% ICU Level of Service An alysis Period (m in ) 15 Quendall Terminals -EIS 5 :00 pm 7/7/20 10 2015 Baseline W ithout RTID PM Peak T ra nsportati on Engineerin g Northwest A 8/29/2012 Synchro 6 Report Page 6 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: 30th Street & Burnett Ave ~ -+ • 'f +-'-~ t EB[ EBT EBR WB[ WBT WBR NB[ NBT Lane Configurations 4t 4t 4t Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Vol ume (vph ) 0 15 0 70 30 25 0 40 Peak Hour Factor 0 .93 0 .93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 16 0 75 32 27 0 43 irection , [ane # EB 1 WB1 NB 1 SB 1 Vo lume Total (vph) 16 134 108 124 Volume Left (vph) 0 75 0 65 Volume Right (vph) 0 27 65 0 Hadj (s) 0 .00 -0.01 -0.36 0.12 Departure Headway (s) 4 .6 4 .4 4 .0 4 .5 Degree Utilization, x 0 .02 0.17 0.12 0.15 Capacity (veh /h) 727 765 849 763 Control Delay (s) 7.7 8.3 7 .6 8 .3 Approach Delay (s) 7.7 8.3 7 .6 8 .3 Approach LOS A A A A ntersection Summa Delay 8.1 HCM Level of Service A Intersection Capacity Utilization 33.2% ICU Level of Service Analysis Period (min) 15 Quendall Termina ls -EIS 5:00 pm 7/7/2010 2015 Baseline Without RTID PM Peak Transportation Engineering Northwest ~ NBR 60 0.93 65 A 8/29/2012 '.. + ~ SBl SBT SB 4t Stop 60 55 0 0.93 0 .93 0.93 65 59 0 Synchro 6 Report Page 7 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 8: Lk Wa Blvd & Burnett Ave .,> -+ +-'-'. ~ ~ovement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations 4 t. V Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Vol ume (vph) 0 380 185 145 95 0 Peak Hour Factor 0 .92 0 .92 0.92 0 .92 0 .92 0 .92 Hourly flow rate (vph ) 0 413 201 158 103 0 irection, [ane # EB 1 WB1 SB 1 Volume Total (v ph) 4 13 3 59 103 Volume Left (vph) 0 0 103 Volume Right (vph) 0 158 0 Hadj (s) 0 .00 -0.26 0.20 Departure Headway (s ) 4.6 4.4 5.8 Degree Uti l ization , x 0 .53 0 .44 0.17 Capacity (veh /h) 752 784 545 Control Delay (s) 12.7 10.9 10.0 Approach Delay (s) 12.7 10.9 10.0 Approach LOS 8 8 A ,Intersection Summa!}'. Delay 11 .6 HCM Le vel of Service B Intersection Capacity Utilization 31 .9% ICU Level of Service Analysis Period (min) 15 Quendall Terminals -EIS 5:00 pm 7/7/2010 2015 Baseline Without RTID PM Peak Transportation Engineering Northwest A 8/29/2012 Synchro 6 Report Page 8 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: N Park Drive & Lake Washin9ton Blvd ~ ~ • 'f +-'-~ t ~ovement EB[ EBT EBR [ WBT WBR NB[ NBT Lane Configurations "i'I +tt "i'I +tt ,, 4 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s ) 4 .0 4.0 4 .0 4 .0 4 .0 4 .0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0 .95 0.97 0 .91 0 .91 1.00 Frt 1.00 0 .99 1.00 1.00 0 .85 1.00 Flt Protected 0 .95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.99 Satd . Flow (prot) 3433 3511 3433 3390 1441 1870 Flt Permitted 0 .95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.99 Satd . Flow (perm) 3433 3511 343 3 3390 1441 1870 Volume (vph) 330 890 50 495 770 120 20 155 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0 .97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0 .97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 340 918 52 510 794 124 21 160 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 340 970 0 510 794 124 0 181 Heav~ Vehi c les(%) 2 % 2 % 2% 2 % 2 % 2 % 1% 1% Turn Type Prat Prat Free Split Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 2 Permitted Phases Free Actuated Green , G (s) 15.3 24 .0 16.0 24 .7 89.0 21 .0 Effective G reen, g (s) 15.3 24.0 16.0 24.7 89.0 21 .0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.27 0 .18 0.28 1.00 0 .24 Clearance Time (s) 4 .0 4.0 4 .0 4 .0 4 .0 Veh icle Extension (s) 3.0 3 .0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 590 947 617 941 1441 441 vis Ratio Prat 0.10 c0.28 0 .15 0.23 0 .10 vis Ratio Perm 0 .09 v/c Ratio 0.58 1.02 0.83 0.84 0.09 0.41 Uniform Delay , d1 33 .9 32.5 35.2 30.3 0 .0 28.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1 .00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.4 35.6 8 .9 7.0 0 .1 0.6 Delay (s) 35 .2 68.1 44.1 37 .3 0 .1 29 .4 Level of Service D E D D A C Approach Delay (s ) 59.5 36 .5 62 .0 Approach LOS E D E nteiiection Summa HCM Average Control Delay 49.6 HCM Level of Service HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.95 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 89.0 Sum of lost time (s) Intersection Capacity Util ization 94 .5% ICU Level of Service Analysis Period (min) 15 C Critical Lane Group Quendall Terminals -EIS 5:00 pm 7/7/2010 2015 Baseline Without RTID PM Peak Transportation Engineering Northw est ~ NBR 7' 1900 4 .0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1599 1.00 1599 835 0.97 861 176 685 1% pt+ov 23 37.0 37.0 0 .42 665 c0.43 1.03 26.0 1.00 42 .9 68.9 E D 16 .0 F 8/29/2012 '. + .; SBL SB SBR, ~ 4 7' 1900 1900 1900 4.0 4.0 4.0 0 .95 0 .95 1.00 1 .00 1.00 0.85 0 .95 1.00 1.00 1698 1787 1599 0 .95 1.00 1.00 1698 1787 1599 80 125 315 0 .97 0 .97 0.97 82 129 325 0 0 281 82 129 44 1% 1% 1% Split Perm 6 6 6 12.0 12.0 12.0 12 .0 12 .0 12 .0 0.13 0.13 0.13 4.0 4 .0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 229 241 216 0.05 c0.07 0 .03 0.36 0.54 0.20 35 .0 35 .9 34.2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.0 2 .3 0 .5 36 .0 38 .2 34 .7 D D C 35.7 D Synchro 6 Report Page 9 201 5 With Alternative 1 (Without RTID Improvements) ~ Transportation Engineering NorthWest, LLC HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: NE 44th St & Lake WA Blvd SE .,> _. ~ 'f ~ ' ~ t I" overnent EB[ EB EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR Lane Configurations 'I 'ft ~ t '(' .;. Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph) 395 160 625 175 230 150 40 130 100 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0 .92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph ) 429 174 679 190 250 163 43 141 109 Direction, ne# EB 1 EB2 WB1 WB2 WB3 NB 1 SB Volume Total (vph) 429 853 190 250 163 293 620 Volume Left (vph) 429 0 190 0 0 43 33 Volume Right (vph) 0 679 0 0 163 109 527 Hadj (s) 0.53 -0.52 0 .53 0.03 -0.67 -0.02 -0.47 Departure Headway (s) 9.3 8.2 9.7 9.2 3.2 9.0 8 .0 Degree Utilization , x 1.11 1.95 0 .51 0 .64 0.14 0.74 1.38 Capacity (veh/h) 398 443 358 380 1121 390 455 Control Delay (s) 108.0 455.9 21 .3 25.9 5.5 33.4 205.3 Approach Delay (s) 339.5 18 .9 33.4 205.3 Approach LOS F C D F ntersection Summa Delay 208.6 HCM Level of Service F Intersection Capacity Utilization 104.6% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (m in ) 15 Quendall Terminals -EIS 5:00 pm 7/14/2010 2015 With Altern ative 1 Without RTID AM Peak Transportation Eng i neering Northwest 8/2 9/2012 '.. l ~ SB[ SBT SB~ 4 Stop 30 55 485 0.92 0.92 0.92 33 60 527 Synchro 6 Report Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersecti on Capacity Analysis 2 : NE 44th St & 405 SB Off-rame .,,. -+ "t 'f +-' ""' t ~ ~ovement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR Lane Configu ra tions i. 'I t Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0 % 0% 0% Volume (veh/h ) 0 1005 25 515 245 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 0 .92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0 .92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 1092 27 560 266 0 0 0 0 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh ) Median type None Median storage veh ) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unbloc ked vC, conflicting volume 266 1120 2696 2492 1106 v C1 , stage 1 conf vol vC2 , stage 2 conf vol vCu , unblocked vol 266 1120 2696 2492 1106 tC, single (s) 4 .1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6 .2 tC , 2 stage (s ) tF (s) 2 .2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 pO queue free % 100 10 0 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 1303 624 0 3 258 irection, Lane # EB 1 WB1 WB2 SB 1 Volume Total 11 20 560 266 560 Volu me Left 0 560 0 152 Volume Right 27 0 0 397 c SH 1700 624 1700 15 Volume to Capacity 0 .66 0 .90 0.16 38.55 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 276 0 Err Control Delay (s) 0 .0 41 .2 0.0 Err Lane LOS E F Approach Delay (s) 0 .0 27.9 Err Approach LOS F ,In tersection Summa!i'. Average Delay 2243.2 In tersection Capacity Utilization 101 .2% ICU Le vel of Service G Analysi s Period (min ) 15 Quendall Terminals -E IS 5:00 pm 7/14/2010 2015 With Alternative 1 Without RTID AM Peak Transportation Engineering Northwest 8/29/2012 \. + ~ SBL SBT SBR, +t .,, Stop 0 % 140 10 365 0 .92 0.92 0.92 152 11 397 9 None 2492 2505 266 2492 2505 266 7 .1 6.5 6 .2 3.5 4 .0 3.3 0 0 48 4 3 770 Syn c hro 6 Re port Page 2 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Lk WA Blvd & Riele~ Ln .,> -+ • f +-'-~ t I"' ~vemenf EB[ EBT EBR L WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR Lane Configurations 'I tt f. 4t Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0 % 0 % 0 % Volume (veh/h) 20 705 0 0 270 335 0 0 5 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0 .92 0 .92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0 .92 0 .92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 22 766 0 0 293 364 0 0 5 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None Med ian storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX , platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 658 766 1296 1467 766 vC 1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu , unblocked vol 658 766 1296 1467 766 tC , single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6 .5 6 .2 tC , 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2 .2 3.5 4 .0 3.3 pO queue free % 98 100 100 100 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 930 852 135 126 406 ,Direction , l:ine EB 1 EB2 WB1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 22 766 658 5 359 Volume Left 22 0 0 0 348 Volume Right 0 0 364 5 11 cSH 930 1700 1700 406 133 Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.45 0.39 0.01 2 .69 Queue Length 95th (ft) 2 0 0 1 809 Control Delay (s) 9.0 0 .0 0.0 14.0 834.6 Lane LOS A B F Approach Delay (s) 0.2 0 .0 14.0 834.6 Approach LOS B F nteriection Summa Average Delay 165.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 68 .8% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 Quendall Terminals -EIS 5:00 pm 7/14/2010 2015 With Alternative 1 Without RTID AM Peak Transportation Engineering Northwest 8/29/2 012 '. + ~ SB[ SBT SBR 4t Stop 0% 320 0 10 0.92 0.92 0 .92 348 0 11 None 1291 1285 476 1291 1285 476 7.2 6 .6 6.3 3 .6 4.1 3.4 0 100 98 130 154 571 Synchro 6 Report Page 3 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4 : Lk WA Blvd & BMills Access ~ ~ +-"-'. ~ ~ovement EBL EBT WBT WBR SB[ SBR Lane C o nfigurations 4 'ft V Sign Control Free Free Stop G rade 0 % 0% 0 % Volume (veh/h) 175 675 255 25 45 150 Peak Hour Fa c tor 0 .92 0.92 0.92 0 .92 0 .92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 190 734 277 27 49 163 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s ) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh ) Median type None Median storage veh ) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unbloc ked vC, conflicting volume 304 1405 291 v C 1, stage 1 cont vol vC2 , stage 2 conf vol v Cu , unblocked vol 304 1405 291 tC, single (s) 4 .1 6.4 6 .2 tC , 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2 .2 3.5 3 .3 pO queue free % 85 63 78 cM capacity (veh/h) 1256 132 753 Direction, Lane# EB 1 WB1 SB 1 Volume Total 924 304 212 Volume Left 190 0 4 9 Volume Right 0 27 163 cSH 1256 1700 361 Volume to Capacity 0.15 0.18 0.59 Queue Length 95th (ft) 13 0 90 Control Delay (s) 3.5 0.0 28.3 Lane LOS A D Approach Delay (s) 3.5 0.0 28.3 Approac h LOS D Intersection Summa~ Average Delay 6.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 81 .9% ICU Level of Service D Analy sis Period (min) 15 Quendall Terminals -EIS 5:00 pm 7/14/2010 2015 With Alternative 1 W ith o ut RTID A M Pea k Transportation Eng i neering Northwest 8 /2 9/2012 Synchro 6 Report P ag e 4 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: Lk Wa Blvd & Hawks Landin~ Access -+ • 'f +-~ I" ovement EBT EBR WB[ WBT NB[ NBR Lane Configurations t. 'I t ¥ Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0 % 0 % 0% Volume (veh/h) 820 5 55 355 5 30 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0 .92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 891 5 60 386 5 33 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX , platoon unblocked vC , conflicting volume 897 1399 894 vC 1 , stage 1 conf vol vC2 , stage 2 cont vol vCu, unblocked vo l 897 1399 894 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6 .2 tC , 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 pO queue free % 92 96 90 cM capacity (veh/h) 761 144 343 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 2 NB 1 Volume Total 897 60 386 38 Volume Left 0 60 0 5 Volume Right 5 0 0 33 cSH 1700 761 1700 286 Volume to Capacity 0 .53 0.08 0.23 0.13 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 6 0 11 Control Delay (s) 0.0 10 .1 0.0 19.5 Lane LOS B C Approach Delay ( s) 0.0 1.4 19.5 Approach LOS C ntersection Summa Average Delay 1.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 55 .7% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 Quendall Terminals -EIS 5:00 pm 7/14/2010 2015 With Alternative 1 Without RTID AM Peak Transportation Eng ineering Northwest 8/29/2012 Synchro 6 Report Page 5 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Lk Wa Blvd & N 36th St-Burnett -+ ~ '( +-~ !' Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations 'ft 4 V Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph) 490 5 105 175 10 210 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 H ourly flow rate (vph) 533 5 114 190 11 228 Direction, [ane # EB 1 WB1 NB 1 Volume Total (vph ) 538 304 239 Volume Left (vph) 0 114 11 Volume Right (vph ) 5 0 228 Hadj (s) 0 .04 0 .14 -0.55 Departure Headway (s) 5 .1 5.5 5.5 Degree Utilization , x 0 .76 0.47 0.36 Capacity (veh/h) 538 623 592 Control Delay (s) 22.6 13.2 11.6 Approach Delay (s ) 22.6 13 .2 11.6 Approach LOS C B B ntersection Summa~ Delay 17.5 HCM Level of Service C Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.7% ICU Leve l of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 Quendall Terminals -EIS 5:00 pm 7/14/2010 2015 With Alternative 1 Without RTID AM Peak Transportation Engineering Northwest 8/29/2012 Synchro 6 Report Page6 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: 30th Street & Burnett Ave ~ -+ • 'f .... '-~ t ~ ~ovement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR Lane Configurations 4t 4t 4t Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph) 0 10 0 20 10 120 0 60 50 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0 .92 0 .92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 11 0 22 11 130 0 65 54 irection, Lane # EB 1 WB1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total (vph) 11 163 120 147 Volume Left (vph) 0 22 0 120 Volume Right (vph) 0 130 54 0 Hadj (s) 0.00 -0.42 -0.19 0.25 Departure Headway (s) 4 .7 4.1 4.3 4 .7 Degree Utilization , x 0 .01 0 .19 0.14 0.19 Capacity (veh/h) 701 817 800 733 Control Delay (s) 7.8 8.1 8.0 8 .8 Approach Delay (s ) 7 .8 8.1 8.0 8.8 Approach LOS A A A A , ntersection Summa!1 Delay 8.3 HCM Level of Service A Intersection Capacity Utilization 36 .4% ICU Level of Service A Ana lysis Period (min ) 15 Quendall Terminals -EIS 5:00 pm 7/14/2010 2015 With Alternative 1 Without RTID AM Peak Transportation Engineering Northwest 8/29/2012 '. ! "" SBL SB SB~ 4t Stop 110 25 0 0.92 0 .92 0.92 120 27 0 Synchro 6 Report Page 7 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 8: Burnett Ave & Lk Wa Blvd " '-t ~ '. + Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT La ne Configurations ¥ ft 4' Sign Control Stop Stop Stop V o lume (vph ) 80 5 3 75 130 5 155 Peak Hour Factor 0 .92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0 .92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph ) 87 5 408 141 5 168 Direction, Lane# WB1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total (v ph ) 92 549 174 Volume Left (vph ) 87 0 5 Volume R ight (vph ) 5 141 0 Hadj (s) 0 .22 -0.10 0.04 Departure Head w ay (s) 5 .7 4.3 4 .8 Degree Utilization , x 0 .15 0.65 0.23 Capacity (veh /h) 561 827 715 Control Delay (s) 9.7 15.0 9.2 Approach Delay (s ) 9 .7 15.0 9.2 Approach LOS A B A ntersection Summa~ Delay 13.2 HCM Level of Serv ice B Intersection Capacity Utilization 39.0% ICU Level of Service A Ana lysis Period (min ) 15 Quendall Terminals -EIS 5:00 pm 7/14/2 010 2015 W ith A lternat ive 1 Without RTID A M Peak Transportation Eng i neering Northwest 8/29/201 2 Synchro 6 Report Page 8 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9 : N Park Drive & Lake Washin9ton Blvd .,,. -+ .. ~ +-'-~ t I" ~ovement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT R NB[ NB BR Lane Configurations 'i'i tt. 'i'i t t. ,, 4t ,, Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s ) 4 .0 4.0 4.0 4 .0 4 .0 4 .0 4 .0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0 .95 0.97 0.91 0.91 0.95 0.95 Frt 1.00 0 .99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1 .00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3273 3347 3400 33 57 1427 1689 1447 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 Satd . Flow (perm) 32 73 3347 3400 3 35 7 1427 1689 1447 Volume (vph) 325 445 25 460 785 65 40 200 145 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0 .92 0 .92 0.92 0.92 0.9 2 0 .92 0 .92 0.92 Adj . Flow (vph) 353 484 27 500 853 71 43 217 158 RTOR Reduction (vph } 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane G roup Flow (vph) 353 511 0 500 853 71 0 260 158 Heavy Vehicles (%) 7% 7% 7 % 3% 3 % 3% 6 % 6 % 6 % Tum Type Prot Prot F ree Split pt+ov Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 2 23 Permitted Phases Free Actuated Green , G (s) 10 .7 18.0 14 .4 2 1.7 72 .2 14.7 29.1 Effective Green , g (s) 10.7 18.0 14 .4 21.7 72 .2 14.7 29.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.15 0 .2 5 0.20 0.30 1.00 0 .20 0.40 Clearance Time (s) 4 .0 4 .0 4.0 4 .0 4 .0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 485 834 678 1009 1427 344 583 v/s Ratio Prot 0.11 c0 .15 0.15 c0.2 5 c0 .15 0.11 vis Ratio Perm 0 .05 vi e Ratio 0.7 3 0 .61 0.74 0.85 0.05 0 .76 0.27 Uniform Delay , d1 29.4 24.0 27 .1 23.7 0 .0 27.1 14 .4 Progression Factor 1 .00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 5.4 1.3 4 .2 6 .6 0.1 9.1 0.3 Delay (s) 34 .8 2 5.4 31 .3 30 .3 0 .1 36 .2 14.7 Level of Service C C C C A D B Approach Delay (s) 2 9.2 29 .2 2 8.1 Approach LOS C C C ntersection Summa!} HCM Average Control Delay 29 .0 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.6 8 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 72 .2 Sum of lost time (s) 12 .0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.1% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 C Critical Lane Group Quendall Terminals -EIS 5:00 pm 7/14/2 010 20 15 With A lternative 1 Without RTID AM Peak Transportation Engineering Northwest 8/29/2012 '. + ~ SBL SBT SBR 'I 4 ,, 1900 1900 1900 4 .0 4 .0 4.0 0.95 0 .95 1.00 1.00 1.0 0 0 .8 5 0.95 0 .98 1 .00 16 98 1760 1599 0.95 0 .98 1.00 1698 1760 1599 90 50 275 0.92 0.92 0 .92 98 54 299 0 0 261 74 78 38 1% 1% 1% Split Perm 6 6 6 9 .1 9.1 9 .1 9 .1 9 .1 9 .1 0.13 0.13 0.13 4 .0 4 .0 4 .0 3.0 3.0 3.0 214 222 202 0.04 c0.04 0 .02 0.35 0.35 0.19 28 .8 28.9 28.2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 .0 1 .0 0.4 29 .8 29.8 28.7 C C C 29.1 C Synch ro 6 Report Page 9 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: NE 44th St & Lake WA Blvd SE .,.> -+ "'), 'f +-'-"\ t 11' fJlovement EB[ EBT EBR WB[ WBT WBR NB[ NBT NBR Lane Configurations 'I 'ft 'I + .,, 4t Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph ) 150 240 325 80 220 65 45 310 155 Peak Hour Factor 0 .96 0 .96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0 .96 0.96 0.96 0 .96 Hourly flow rate (vp h) 156 250 339 83 229 68 47 323 161 irect1on, Lane # EB 1 EB2 WB1 WB2 WB3 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total (vph ) 156 589 83 229 68 531 531 Volume Left (vph) 156 0 83 0 0 47 52 Volume Right (vph) 0 339 0 0 68 161 427 Hadj (s) 0 .52 -0.39 0.53 0.03 -0.67 -0.15 -0.45 Departure Headway (s) 9 .5 8.6 10.2 9.7 3.2 8.5 8.2 Degree Utilization, x 0.41 1.41 0 .24 0.62 0.06 1 .26 1.22 Capacity (veh/h) 375 428 350 364 1121 429 443 Control Delay (s) 17.8 220.6 15.1 25 .7 5.2 160.6 142.7 Approach Delay (s) 178 .1 19.7 160.6 142.7 Approach LOS F C F F )ntersection Summa!i'. Delay 137.7 HCM Level of Service F Intersection Capacity Utilization 88 .5% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 Quendall Terminals -EIS 5:00 pm 7/14/2010 2015 With Alte rn ative 1 Without RTID PM Peak Transportation Engineering Northwest 8/29/2012 '. + ~ SB[ SBT SBR 4t Stop 50 50 410 0 .96 0.96 0.96 52 52 427 Synchro 6 Report Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: NE 44th St & 405 SB Off-rame .,> -+ ..... '( +-' ' t ,,. Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NB[ NBT NBR Lane Configurations t. ~ t Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0 % 0% Volume (veh/h) 0 515 155 305 355 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0 .97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0 .97 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 531 160 314 366 0 0 0 0 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (ve h) Median type None Median storage veh ) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 366 691 1889 1606 611 vC1 , stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu , unblocked vol 366 691 1889 1606 611 tC, single (s) 4 .1 4 .1 7 .1 6.5 6 .2 tC , 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2 .2 2 .2 3 .5 4.0 3.3 pO queue free % 100 65 100 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 1204 909 6 70 498 irection, Lane # EB 1 W81 W82 SB 1 Volume Total 691 314 366 804 Volume Left 0 314 0 237 Volume Right 160 0 0 557 cSH 1700 909 1700 172 Volume to Capacity 0.41 0 .35 0.22 4 .68 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 39 0 Err Control Delay (s) 0.0 11 .0 0.0 Err Lane LOS B F Approach Delay (s) 0.0 5.1 Err Approach LOS F ntersection Summa Average Delay 3697.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 76.7% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 Quendall Terminals -EIS 5 :00 pm 7/14/2010 2015 With Alternative 1 Without RTID PM Peak Transportation Engineering Northwest 8/29/2012 '. l ~ SB SBT SBRi 4 .,, Stop 0% 230 10 540 0.97 0.97 0.97 237 10 557 9 None 1606 1686 366 1606 1686 366 7.1 6 .5 6.2 3.5 4.0 3 .3 0 83 19 63 62 684 Synchro 6 Report Page 2 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Lk WA Blvd & Riele~ Ln ,> -+ • • +-' ~ t I" Movement EBL: EBT EBR WBL: WB WBR NB[ NBT NBR Lane Configurations 'I ~ ~ 4t Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0 % 0% Volume (veh/h) 15 250 0 5 540 335 0 0 5 Peak Hour Factor 0 .97 0.97 0.97 0 .97 0 .97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Hourly flow rate (vph) 15 258 0 5 557 345 0 0 5 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX , platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 902 258 1049 1201 258 vC 1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu , unblocked vol 902 258 1049 1201 258 tC , single (s) 4.1 4.1 7 .3 6.7 6.4 tC , 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3 .7 4 .2 3.5 pO queue free % 98 100 100 100 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 762 1301 180 169 746 irection, Lane # EB 1 EB2 WB1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 15 258 907 5 454 Volume Left 15 0 5 0 433 Volume Right 0 0 345 5 21 cS H 762 1700 1301 746 209 Volume to Capacity 0.02 0 .15 0 .00 0.01 2.17 Queue Length 95th (ft) 2 0 0 1 884 Control Delay (s) 9 .8 0.0 0.1 9.9 578.1 Lane LOS A A A F Approach Delay (s) 0.6 0.1 9.9 578.1 Approach LOS A F I ntersection Summa~ Average Delay 160.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 90.9% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 Quenda ll Terminals -EIS 5:00 pm 7/14/2010 2015 With Alternative 1 Without RTID PM Peak Transportation Engineering Northwest 8/29/2012 '. + ~ SBL SBT SB~ 4t Stop 0 % 420 0 20 0.97 0.97 0 .97 433 0 21 None 1034 1028 729 1034 1028 729 7.1 6.5 6 .2 3.5 4.0 3 .3 0 100 95 204 227 421 J Synchro 6 Report Page 3 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Lk WA Blvd & BMills Access ,,. -+ +-'-'. ~ Movement EB[ EBT T WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations 4 t. ¥ Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0 % 0% 0 % Volume (veh/h) 160 230 525 50 35 195 Peak Hour Factor 0 .97 0 .97 0 .97 0 .97 0 .97 0 .97 Hourly flow rate (vph) 165 237 541 52 36 201 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh ) Median type None Median storage veh ) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unbloc ked vC, conflicting volume 593 1134 567 vC1 , stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu , unblocked vol 593 1134 567 tC , single (s) 4 .1 6.4 6 .2 tC , 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2 .2 3.5 3 .3 po queue free % 83 81 62 cM capacity (veh/h} 993 189 527 EB 1 VVB 1 SB 1 402 593 237 Vol ume Left 165 0 36 Volume Right 0 52 201 cSH 993 1700 414 Volume to Capacity 0 .17 0 .35 0 .57 Queue Length 95th (ft) 15 0 87 Control Delay (s) 4.9 0.0 24.7 Lane LOS A C Approach Delay (s) 4 .9 0 .0 24.7 Approach LOS C nteiiection Summa Average Delay 6 .4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 75.6% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 Quendall Terminals -EIS 5 :00 pm 7/14/2010 2015 With Alternative 1 Without RTID PM Peak Transportation Engineering Northwest 8/29/2012 Synchro 6 Report Page 4 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: Lk WA Blvd & Hawks Landin9 Access ..... • • ~ ' I" Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations 'ft ~ t ¥ Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0 % 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 350 5 50 680 5 40 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0 .97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Hourly flow rate (vph) 361 5 52 701 5 41 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s ) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh ) Median type None Median storage veh ) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC , conflicting volume 366 1168 363 vC 1, stage 1 cont vol vC2 , stage 2 conf vol vCu , unblocked vol 366 1168 363 tC , single (s) 4.1 6.4 6 .2 tC , 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 pO queue free % 96 98 94 cM capacity (veh/h) 1187 207 686 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB1 WB2 NB 1 Volume Total 366 52 701 46 Volume Left 0 52 0 5 Volume Right 5 0 0 41 cSH 1700 1187 1700 545 Volume to Capacity 0.22 0.04 0.41 0.09 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 3 0 7 Control Delay (s) 0 .0 8.2 0.0 12.2 Lan e LOS A 8 Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.6 12.2 Approach LOS 8 Jiitersection Summa Average Delay 0.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 45 .8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Q uendall Terminals -EIS 5:00 pm 7/14/2010 2015 With Alternati ve 1 Without RTID PM Peak Transportation Engineering Northwest 8/29/2012 Synchro 6 Report Page 5 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Lk Wa Blvd & N 36th St-Burnett -+ ~ 'f +-~ I" Movement EBT EBR we BR Lane Configurations ft 7' Sign Control Stop Volume (v ph) 205 10 190 125 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly flow rate (vph) 216 11 200 132 Direction, ne# EB 1 EB2 WB1 NB 1 Volume Total (vph) 219 7 637 137 Volume Left (vph) 0 0 200 5 Volume Right (vph) 4 7 0 132 Hadj (s) -0.01 -0.70 0.08 -0 .57 Departure Headway (s) 5.5 4.8 4.8 5 .4 Degree Utilization, x 0.33 0.01 0 .84 0 .20 Capacity (veh/h) 627 717 743 621 Control Delay (s) 9.9 6.6 28.0 9.7 Approach Delay (s) 9.8 28.0 9 .7 Approach LOS A D A ntersection Summa Delay 21.4 HCM Level of Service C Intersection Capacity Utilization 61 .4% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 Quendall Terminals -EIS 5:00 pm 7/14/2010 2015 With Alternative 1 Without RTID PM Peak Transportation Engineering Northwest 8/29/2012 Synchro 6 Report Page 6 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: 30th Street & Burnett Ave ,;. -+ • 'f +-' ~ t I" Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NB[ NBT NBR Lane Config urations 4t 4t 4t Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Volume (v ph) 0 15 0 70 30 115 0 40 60 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0 .93 0.93 0.93 0 .93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Hourly flow rate (vph ) 0 16 0 75 32 124 0 43 65 Direction , Lane # EB 1 WB1 NB 1 SB 1 Vo lu me Total (vph ) 16 231 108 231 Volume Left (vph) 0 75 0 172 Vo lume Right (vph) 0 124 65 0 Hadj (s) 0.00 -0.26 -0 .36 0 .17 Departure Headway (s) 5.0 4 .5 4.4 4.8 Degree Uti lization, x 0.02 0.29 0.13 0 .31 Capacity (veh/h) 644 750 757 712 Control Delay (s) 8.1 9.3 8.1 9 .9 App roach Delay (s) 8.1 9.3 8.1 9 .9 Approach LOS A A A A Intersection Summary Delay 9.3 HCM Level of Service A Intersection Capacity Utilization 44.3% ICU Le vel of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Quendall Terminals -EIS 5:00 pm 7/14/2010 2015 With Alternative 1 Without RTID PM Peak Transportation Engineering Northwest 8/29/20 12 '. • ~ SB[ SBT SBR 4t Stop 160 55 0 0 .93 0 .93 0.93 172 59 0 Synchro 6 Report Page 7 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 8: Lk Wa Blvd & Burnett Ave .,> -+ +-' '. .I emen EBL EBT WBT R SBL SBR Lane Configurations 4 ft ¥ Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Volume (vp h) 0 455 250 145 95 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0 .92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vp h ) 0 495 272 158 103 0 irection, lane # EB 1 WB1 SB 1 Volume Total (vph) 495 429 103 Volume Left (vph) 0 0 103 Volume Right (vph) 0 158 0 Hadj (s) 0.00 -0.22 0.20 Departure Headway (s) 4.7 4 .6 6 .2 Degree Utilization , x 0.65 0.55 0 .18 Capacity (veh/h) 737 759 509 Control Delay (s) 16.2 13.1 10.5 Approach Delay (s) 16.2 13.1 10.5 Approach LOS C B B nteriiictioo Summa Delay 14.3 HCM Level of Service B Intersection Capacity Utilization 35.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Quendall Terminals -EIS 5:00 pm 7/14/2010 2015 With Alternative 1 Without RTID PM Peak Transportation Engineering Northwest 8/29/2 012 Synchro 6 Report Page 8 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9 : N Park Drive & Lake Washin~ton Blvd .-> -+ • • +-'-~ t I" Movemen t EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NB L: NBT NBR La ne Co nfi g urations .,~ t1* .,~ t1* .,, 4 .,, Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 T otal Lost ti me (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4 .0 4 .0 4.0 4 .0 Lane Util. Factor 0 .97 0.95 0 .97 0.91 0.91 0.95 0.95 Frt 1 .0 0 0.99 1.0 0 1.00 0.85 0 .91 0.85 Flt Protected 0 .95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1 .00 1.00 Satd . Flow (p ro t) 3433 35 11 34 3 3 33 90 1441 1622 15 19 Flt Permitted 0 .95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd . Fl ow (perm) 3433 3511 3433 3390 1441 1622 151 9 Volume (vph) 375 890 50 495 770 125 20 155 835 Peak-h o ur fa cto r , PHF 0.9 7 0 .9 7 0 .97 0.9 7 0.9 7 0 .97 0.97 0.97 0 .97 Adj . Flow (vph) 387 918 52 510 794 129 21 160 861 RTOR Redu cti o n (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 387 970 0 510 794 129 0 454 588 Heavy V ehicles (%) 2 % 2 % 2 % 2 % 2% 2 % 1% 1% 1% Turn Type Prot Prot Free Split pt+ov Protected Pha ses 7 4 3 8 2 2 23 Permitted Phases Free Actuated G reen , G (s) 18.5 31 .1 17.0 2 9.6 11 1 .4 32.9 4 9.9 Effective Green , g (s) 18.5 31.1 17.0 29 .6 111 .4 32 .9 49 .9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.28 0 .15 0.27 1.00 0 .30 0.4 5 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4 .0 4 .0 4 .0 4 .0 Vehicle Extensio n (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 570 980 524 901 1441 479 680 vi s Rat io Prot 0 .11 c0.28 c0 .15 0.23 c0 .28 0 .39 v/s Ratio Perm 0.09 v/c Ratio 0 .68 0.99 0 .9 7 0.88 0.09 0.9 5 0 .86 Uniform Delay , d1 43.7 40.0 47.0 39.2 0.0 38.4 27.7 Prog ression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 .00 Incremental Delay, d2 3.2 25.9 32 .3 10.1 0.1 28.1 11 .1 Delay (s) 46 .9 65 .9 79 .3 49.3 0.1 66 .5 38 .8 Level of Service D E E D A E D A pproach Delay (s) 60 .5 55.5 50 .9 Approach LOS E E D ntersection Summa!1 HCM Average Control Delay 54 .7 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capa city rati o 0 .92 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 111 .4 Sum of lost t i me (s) 16.0 Intersect io n Ca pacity Utilization 87.6% ICU Le ve l o f Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 C Critical Lane Group Quendall Term inals -EIS 5 :00 pm 7/14/2010 2 015 With A lternative 1 W it ho ut RTID PM Peak T ransportatio n Eng ineering No rthwest 8/29/2012 '. i ~ SB [ SBT SBR ~ 4 .,, 1900 1900 1900 4 .0 4 .0 4.0 0.95 0 .95 1.00 1.00 1.0 0 0 .85 0.95 1.00 1.00 1698 1787 1599 0.95 1.00 1 .00 1698 1787 159 9 85 145 365 0 .97 0.97 0.97 88 149 376 0 0 327 88 149 49 1% 1% 1% Split Perm 6 6 6 14.4 14.4 14 .4 14.4 14.4 14.4 0.13 0.13 0.13 4 .0 4 .0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3 .0 219 231 207 0.05 c0 .0 8 0 .03 0.40 0.6 5 0.24 44 .5 46.1 43 .6 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.2 6.1 0 .6 45 .8 52 .1 44 .2 D D D 46.3 D Synchro 6 Repo rt Pa ge 9 201 5 With Alternative 1 with Mitigation (Without RTID Improvements) ~ Transportation Engineering NorthWest , LLC HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: NE 44th St & Lake WA Blvd SE 1011 /2012 ,> -+ .. f +-~ ~ t I" '. i ~ Movement EBL: EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SB[ SBT SBR Lane Configurations ~ f+ ~ t 'I' ~ f+ ~ f+ Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4 .0 4 .0 4 .0 4 .0 4 .0 4 .0 4.0 4 .0 4 .0 Lane Util . Factor 1.00 1.00 1 .00 1.00 1.00 1 .00 1 .00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.88 1 .00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.93 1.0 0 0.87 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1 .00 0.95 1.00 Satd . Flow (prot) 1770 1640 1770 1863 1583 1641 1614 1770 1612 Flt Permitted 0.59 1.00 0 .13 1.00 1.00 0.19 1.00 0.51 1.00 Satd . F low (perm) 1105 1640 251 1863 1583 331 1614 958 1612 Volume (vph) 395 160 625 175 230 150 40 130 100 30 55 485 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0 .92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0 .92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0 .92 0 .92 0.92 0.92 Adj . Flow (vph) 429 174 679 190 250 163 43 141 109 33 60 527 RTOR Reduction (v ph ) 0 260 0 0 0 72 0 39 0 0 358 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 429 593 0 190 250 91 43 211 0 33 229 0 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2 % 2 % 2 % 2% 2 % 10% 10% 10% 2 % 2% 2 % Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 8 2 6 Actuated Green , G (s) 36 .1 36 .1 36.1 36 .1 36.1 20.9 20.9 20.9 20.9 Effective Green , g (s) 36.1 36.1 36.1 36 .1 36.1 20.9 20.9 20.9 20.9 Actuated gl C Ratio 0.56 0 .56 0.56 0.56 0 .56 0 .32 0.32 0.32 0 .32 Clearance Time (s) 4 .0 4 .0 4.0 4 .0 4.0 4.0 4 .0 4.0 4 .0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3 .0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3 .0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 614 911 139 1035 879 106 519 308 518 vis Ratio Prot 0 .36 0.13 0.13 c0 .14 vis Ratio Perm 0.39 c0.76 0 .06 0.13 0.03 vl c Ratio 0.70 0 .65 1.37 0.24 0.10 0.41 0.41 0.1 1 0.44 Uniform Delay, d1 10.5 10.1 14.4 7.4 6.8 17.2 17.2 15.5 17.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1 .00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 .00 Incremental Delay, d2 3 .5 1.7 204.1 0 .1 0 .1 11 .1 2.4 0 .7 2 .7 Delay (s) 14 .0 11 . 7 218.6 7.5 6 .9 28.3 19.6 16 .2 20.2 Level of Service B B F A A C B B C Approach Delay (s) 12.5 73.9 20.9 20 .0 Approach LOS B E C B ntersection Summa HCM Average Control Delay 28.2 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1 .0 3 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 65.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 99.9% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 C Critical Lane Group Quendall Termi nals -EIS 5 :00 pm 10125/2010 2015 W ith Alternative 1 Without RTID AM Peak wi8ymih9a'abR.eport Transportation Eng ineering Northwest Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: NE 44th St & 405 SB Off-rame 8/29/2012 .,> -+ ...... ~ +-' '\ t ~ '. ! ~ ovemen EBL EBT EBR WB[ WBT R NBL NBT NBR SB[ SBT SBR Lane Configurations t .,, ~ t 4 .,, Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4 .0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4 .0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0 .95 1.00 0.96 1.00 Satd . Flow (prot) 1881 1599 1770 1863 1762 1568 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0 .05 1.00 0.96 1.00 Satd . Flow (perm) 1881 1599 87 1863 1762 1568 Volume (vph) 0 1005 25 515 245 0 0 0 0 140 10 365 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0 .92 0 .92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0 .92 Adj . Flow (vph) 0 1092 27 560 266 0 0 0 0 152 11 397 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 354 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 1092 21 560 266 0 0 0 0 0 163 43 Heavy Vehicles(%) 1% 1% 1% 2% 2 % 2% 0 % 0% 0% 3% 3% 3 % Turn Type Perm pm+pt Perm Perm Protected Phases 4 3 8 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 6 6 Actuated Green , G (s) 81 .7 81.7 125.7 125 .7 16.3 16.3 Effective Green, g (s) 81 .7 81 .7 125.7 125 .7 16 .3 16 .3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.54 0.54 0.84 0 .84 0 .11 0.11 Clearance Time (s) 4 .0 4 .0 4 .0 4 .0 4 .0 4 .0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1025 871 522 1561 191 170 vis Ratio Prot 0.58 c0 .29 0 .14 vis Ratio Perm 0.01 c0.61 0.09 0.03 v/c Ratio 1.07 0.02 1.07 0.17 0.85 0.25 Uniform Delay, d1 34 .1 15.8 51 .7 2.3 65.7 61.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 47 .2 0.0 60.3 0.1 35 .6 3.6 Delay (s) 81 .4 15.8 112.0 2 .3 101.3 64.8 Level of Service F B F A F E Approach Delay (s) 79.8 76 .7 0.0 75 .5 Approach LOS E E A E lnte HCM Average Control Delay 77.8 HCM Level of Service E HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.03 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 150.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8 .0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 99 .7% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 C Critical Lane Group Quendall Terminals -EIS 5:00 pm 10/25/2010 2015 With Alternative 1 Without RTID AM Peak wi8yrmh9a'm:>R.eport Transportation Engineering Northwest Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Lk WA Blvd & Riele~ Ln 8/29/2012 .,> -+ • • ~ '-~ t I"' '. i ~ Movement EB[ EBT EBR WB[ WBT WBR NB[ NBT NBR SB[ SBT SBR: Lane Configurations .., tt+ t 'f' 4t .., 'f+ Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4 .0 4.0 4 .0 4.0 4 .0 4 .0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0 .95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 .00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.86 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd . Flow (prot) 1770 3539 1881 1599 1644 1626 1455 Flt Permitted 0.53 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 1 .00 Satd. Flow (perm) 989 3539 1881 1599 1644 1291 1455 Volume (vph) 20 705 0 0 270 335 0 0 5 320 0 10 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0 .92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0 .92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 22 766 0 0 293 364 0 0 5 348 0 11 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 24 1 0 3 0 0 6 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 22 766 0 0 293 123 0 2 0 348 5 0 Heavy Vehicles(%) 2% 2 % 2% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0 % 11% 11 % 11 % Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green , G (s) 13.5 13 .5 13.5 13.5 18 .5 18.5 18.5 Effective Green, g (s) 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 Actuated g /C Ratio 0.34 0.34 0 .34 0.34 0.46 0.46 0.46 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4 .0 4.0 4 .0 4.0 4 .0 4.0 Veh icle Extension (s) 3.0 3 .0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 334 1194 635 540 760 597 673 v/s Ratio Prot c0 .22 0 .16 0.00 0.00 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.08 c0.27 v/c Ratio 0.07 0.64 0.46 0.23 0 .00 0.58 0.01 Uniform Delay , d1 9.0 11 .2 10.4 9 .5 5.8 7.9 5.8 Progression Fa ctor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 1.2 0.5 0 .2 0 .0 4 .1 0 .0 Delay (s) 9.1 12.4 10.9 9.7 5.8 12.0 5.8 Level of Service A B B A A B A Approach Delay (s) 12 .3 10.3 5 .8 11 .8 Approach LOS B B A B · ntersection Summa!1 HCM Average Control Delay 11 .5 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0 .61 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 40.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 50.5 % ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 C Critical Lane Group Quendall Terminals -EIS 5:00 pm 10/25/2010 2015 With Alternative 1 Without RTID AM Peak wiSymi~ibR.eport Transportation Eng i neering Northwest Page 3 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: NE 44th St & Lake WA Blvd SE 8/29/2012 ,> -+ • • .,._ ' ~ t ,,. '. + ~ , ovemenf EB[ EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NB[ NBT NBR SB[ SBT SB I Lane Configurations 'I f+ 'I t '{' 'I f+ 'I f+ Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4 .0 4 .0 4.0 4 .0 4 .0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 0 .85 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.87 Flt Protected 0 .95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1787 1719 1770 1863 1583 1787 1787 1787 1630 Flt Permitted 0.57 1.00 0 .18 1.00 1.00 0.36 1.00 0.36 1.00 Satd . Flow (perm) 1070 1719 337 1863 1583 677 1787 669 1630 Volume (vph) 150 240 325 80 220 65 45 310 155 50 50 410 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0 .96 0 .96 0.96 0.96 0 .96 0 .96 0.96 0.96 Adj. Flow (vph) 156 250 339 83 229 68 47 323 161 52 52 427 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 84 0 0 0 41 0 22 0 0 219 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 156 505 0 83 229 27 47 462 0 52 260 0 Heavy Vehicles(%) 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 8 2 6 Actuated Green , G (s) 27 .9 27 .9 27 .9 27.9 27.9 34 .1 34 .1 34 .1 34.1 Effective Green, g (s) 27 .9 27.9 27.9 27.9 27.9 34.1 34.1 34.1 34 .1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4 .0 4 .0 4.0 4 .0 4 .0 4.0 4 .0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3 .0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 426 685 134 743 631 330 871 326 794 v/s Ratio Prat c0 .29 0.12 c0 .26 0.16 vis Ratio Perm 0 .15 0 .25 0 .02 0 .07 0 .08 vie Ratio 0.37 0 .74 0.62 0.31 0.04 0.14 0 .53 0.16 0.33 Uniform Delay, d1 14.8 17.9 16.8 14.4 12 .9 9 .9 12.4 10.0 11 .0 Progression Factor 1.12 1.09 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0 .4 3 .4 8.3 0 .2 0 .0 0.9 2 .3 1.0 1.1 Delay (s) 17 .1 23.0 25.1 14 .7 12 .9 10 .8 14 .7 11.0 12 .1 Level of Service B C C B B B B B B Approach Delay (s) 21 .8 16 .6 14.4 12 .0 Approach LOS C B B B ntersection Summa HCM Average Control Delay 16.7 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.62 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 70.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8 .0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 81.6% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 C Critical Lane Group Quendall Terminals -EIS 5 :00 pm 10/25/2010 2015 With Alternative 1 Without RTID PM Peak wifb,l'ir'titi9ati:>~eport Transportation Engineering Northwest Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: NE 44th St & 405 SB Off-rame 8/29/2012 .,,. -+ • • +-'-~ t I" '. i .,, r.,iovement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL BT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations f. 'I t 4 '(' Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4 .0 4 .0 4 .0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0 .95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1841 1787 1881 1813 1615 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.27 1.00 0 .95 1.00 Satd . Flow (perm) 1841 502 1881 1813 1615 Volume (vph) 0 515 155 305 355 0 0 0 0 230 10 540 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0 .97 0.97 0.97 0 .97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0 .97 0 .97 Adj . Flow (vph) 0 531 160 314 366 0 0 0 0 237 10 557 RTOR Reduction (vph ) 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 376 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 673 0 314 366 0 0 0 0 0 247 181 Heavy Vehicles(%) 0 % 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0 % 0 % 0% 0% 0 % Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 4 8 6 Permitted Phases 8 6 6 Actuated Green , G (s ) 41 .3 41.3 41 .3 20.7 20.7 Effective Green , g (s) 41 .3 41 .3 41 .3 20.7 20.7 Ac tuated g/C Ratio 0.59 0 .59 0.59 0.30 0 .30 Clearance Time (s) 4 .0 4 .0 4 .0 4 .0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s ) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3 .0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1086 296 1110 536 478 vi s Ratio Prot 0.37 0.19 v/s Ratio Perm c0.63 0.14 0.11 v/c Ratio 0.62 1.06 0.33 0.46 0 .3 8 Uniform Delay, d1 9.3 14.4 7.3 20.1 19.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.06 1.02 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay , d2 1.1 67.5 0.2 2 .8 2.3 Delay (s) 10 .3 82 .7 7.6 22 .9 21 .8 Level of Service B F A C C Approach Delay (s ) 10.3 42 .3 0.0 22 .2 Approach LOS B D A C 1 1ntersection Summa!1 HCM Average Control Delay 24 .7 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0 .86 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 70.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 76.7 % ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 C Critical Lane Group Quendall Terminals -EIS 5:00 pm 10/25/2010 2015 With Alternative 1 Without RTID PM Peak wiS¥fWti':!10¥ibReport Transportation Engineering Northwest Page 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Lk WA Blvd & Riele~ Ln 8/29/2012 ,> -+ ..... f +-' "" t I" '. ! ~ Movement EBL EB EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SB SBT SB~ Lane Configurations 'I +tt + .,, 4* 'I 'ft Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4 .0 4 .0 4.0 4 .0 4 .0 4 .0 Lane Util . Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0 .86 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd . Flow (prot) 1805 3610 1844 1568 1405 1752 1568 Flt Permitted 0.27 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 Satd . Flow (perm) 507 3610 1839 1568 1405 1385 1568 Volume (vph) 15 250 0 5 540 335 0 0 10 420 0 20 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0 .97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0 .97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0 .97 Adj. Flow (vph) 15 258 0 5 557 345 0 0 10 433 0 21 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 216 0 6 0 0 12 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 15 258 0 0 562 129 0 4 0 433 9 0 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0 % 0% 0 % 3% 3 % 3% 17 % 17% 17% 3% 3% 3% Tum Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 8 2 6 Actuated Green , G (s) 15 .0 15.0 15 .0 15 .0 17 .0 17 .0 17 .0 Effective Green, g (s) 15.0 15.0 15 .0 15.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.38 0 .38 0.38 0.38 0 .42 0.42 0.42 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4 .0 4 .0 4 .0 4 .0 4 .0 4 .0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3 .0 3 .0 3.0 3 .0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 190 1354 690 588 597 589 666 vis Ratio Prot 0.07 0.00 0.01 vis Ratio Perm 0.03 c0.31 0 .08 c0 .31 v/c Ratio 0 .08 0.19 0.81 0 .22 0.01 0.74 0 .01 Uniform Delay, d1 8.1 8.4 11 .2 8.5 6.6 9 .6 6 .7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 0.1 7.3 0.2 0.0 8.0 0.0 Delay (s) 8.2 8.5 18.6 8.7 6.7 17.6 6.7 Level of Service A A B A A B A Approach Delay (s) 8.5 14.8 6 .7 17.1 Approach LOS A B A B nteriection Summa HCM Average Control Delay 14 .3 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.77 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 40.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8 .0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 69.0% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 C Critical Lane Group Quendall Terminals -EIS 5:00 pm 10/25 /2010 2015 With Alternative 1 Without RTID PM Peak wiS.,,MitiyatibReport Transportation Engineering Northwest Page 3 2015 Without Project (With RTID Improvements) ~ T ran sportation E ngineerin g North West, LLC HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: NE 44th St & 405 NB Rame .,,;. -+ ,. 'f ,.._ '-"" t overnent EBI EBT EBR WBL WB BL NBT Lane Configurations "f'i ++ ttft 'I 'ft Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4 .0 4 .0 4 .0 4 .0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 0.91 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0 .95 1.00 Satd . Flow (prot) 3433 3539 4775 1641 1395 Flt Permitted 0 .95 1.00 1.00 0 .95 1.00 Satd . Flow (perm) 3433 3539 4775 1641 1395 Volume (vph) 400 410 0 0 560 385 40 0 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0 .92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0 .92 0 .92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 435 446 0 0 609 418 43 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 166 0 0 124 Lane Group Flow (vph) 435 446 0 0 861 0 43 22 Heavy Vehicles(%) 2% 2% 2 % 2% 2% 2% 10% 10 % Turn Type Prot Split Protected Phases 7 4 8 2 2 Permitted Phases Actuated Green , G (s) 14 .0 42 .8 24.8 9 .2 9.2 Effective Green, g (s) 14 .0 42 .8 24 .8 9 .2 9.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.23 0 .71 0.41 0.15 0.15 Clearance Time (s) 4 .0 4 .0 4 .0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3 .0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 801 2524 1974 252 214 v/s Ratio Prat c0 .13 0.13 c0 .18 c0 .03 0 .02 v/s Ratio Perm vie Ratio 0 .54 0.18 0.44 0.17 0.10 Uniform Delay, d1 20 .2 2 .8 12.6 22 .1 21.9 Progression Factor 0.53 0.09 0 .62 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay , d2 2.6 0 .1 0.6 0.3 0 .2 Delay (s) 13.3 0.4 8.4 22.4 22 .1 Level of Service B A A C C Approach De lay (s) 6.8 8.4 22 .1 Approach LOS A A C nteriictioo Summary HCM Average Control Delay 9.8 HCM Level of Service HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.42 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 60.0 Sum of lost time (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization 46.4 % ICU Level of Service Analysis Period (min) 15 C Critical Lane Group Quendall Terminals -EIS 5:00 pm 7/16/2010 2015 Baseline -With RTID AM Peak T ransportation Engineering Northwest I" NBR .,, 1900 4 .0 0.95 0.85 1.00 1395 1.00 1395 270 0.92 293 124 23 10% Perm 2 9.2 9.2 0 .15 4 .0 3.0 214 0.02 0.1 1 21.9 1.00 0.2 22 .1 C A 12 .0 A 8/2 9/2012 '. ! ~ SB[ SBT SBR 1900 1900 1900 0 0 0 0 .92 0.92 0.92 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2% 2% 2% 0.0 A Synchro 6 Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: NE 44th St & 405 SB Off-rame ...> -+ ~ 'f +-'-"" t Movement EB[ EBT EBR WB[ WBT WBR NB[ NBT Lane Configurations ++tt "" ++ Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost t ime (s) 4 .0 4 .0 4.0 Lane Util . Factor 0.91 0 .97 0 .95 Frt 0 .99 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd . Flow (prot) 5110 3433 3539 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd . Flow (perm) 5110 3433 3539 Volume (vph) 0 720 25 425 170 0 0 0 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.9 2 0.92 0 .92 0.92 0.92 Adj . Flow (vph) 0 783 27 462 185 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 804 0 462 185 0 0 0 Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 1% 1% 2 % 2 % 2 % 0 % 0% Turn Type Prot Protected Phases 4 3 8 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 28.3 9.0 31 .7 Effective Green , g (s) 28.3 9.0 31 .7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.47 0.15 0.53 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4 .0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2410 515 1870 vis Ratio Prot c0 .16 c0.13 0.05 vis Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.33 0.90 0.10 Uniform Delay , d1 9.9 25.0 7 .0 Progression Fa ctor 0 .37 0.67 0.27 Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 19 .4 0 .1 Dela y (s) 4.0 36.1 2 .0 Level of Service A D A Approach Delay (s) 4.0 26 .4 0.0 Approach LOS A C A ntersection Summa HCM Average Control Delay 14 .8 HCM Level of Service HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0 .39 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 60 .0 Sum of lost time (s) Intersection Capa ci ty Utilization 39.9% ICU Level of Service Analysis Period (min) 15 C Critical Lane Group Quendall Terminals -EIS 5:00 pm 7/16/2010 2015 Baseline -With RTID AM Peak Transportation Eng i neering Northwest I" NBR 1900 0 0.92 0 0 0 0% B 12 .0 A 8/29/2012 \. + .,' SB[ SBT SBR " 4 .,, 1900 1900 1900 4.0 4 .0 4 .0 0 .95 0.95 1.00 1 .00 1.00 0.85 0 .95 0.96 1.00 1665 1679 1568 0.95 0 .96 1.00 1665 1679 1568 65 5 135 0.92 0 .92 0.92 71 5 147 0 0 121 37 39 26 3% 3% 3% Split Prot 6 6 6 10 .7 10 .7 10.7 10.7 10.7 10.7 0.18 0 .1 8 0.18 4 .0 4 .0 4.0 3.0 3 .0 3.0 297 299 280 0.02 c0.02 0.02 0.12 0.13 0.09 20.7 20.7 20.6 1.00 1.00 1 .00 0.2 0 .2 0.1 20 .9 20.9 20.7 C C C 20.8 C Synchro 6 Report Page 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Lk WA Blvd & Rielel Ln .,,,. -+ • .. +--\.. ' t ovemen B[ EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NB[ NBT Lane Configurations "I f. t .,, 4t Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4 .0 4.0 4 .0 4 .0 4 .0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1 .00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0 .86 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1863 1881 1599 1644 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1863 1881 1599 1644 Volume (vph) 20 670 0 0 245 70 0 0 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0 .92 0.92 Adj . Flow (vph) 22 728 0 0 266 76 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 76 0 5 Lane Group Flow (vph) 22 728 0 0 266 0 0 0 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2 % 2% 1% 1% 1% 0 % 0 % Turn Type Prot NA Split Protected Phases 7 4 8 1 1 Permitted Phases Actuated Green , G (s) 5.6 28.3 31 .7 0.0 0.8 Effective Green, g (s) 5.6 28.3 31 .7 0.0 0 .8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0 .09 0.47 0 .53 0 .00 0.01 Clearance Time (s) 4 .0 4 .0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 165 879 994 0 22 vis Ratio Prat 0 .01 c0.39 c0 .14 c0.00 vis Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.13 0.8 3 0 .27 0 .00 0.00 Uniform Delay, d1 25 .0 13.7 7.8 30.0 29 .2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0 .72 1.00 1.00 Incrementa l Delay, d2 0.4 8 .9 0.6 0.0 0 .1 Delay (s) 25.3 22 .6 6 .3 30.0 29 .3 Level of Service C C A C C Approach Delay (s) 22.7 11 .5 29.3 Approach LOS C B C ntersection Summa HCM Average Control Delay 19 .8 HCM Level of Service HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0 .61 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 60 .0 Sum of lost time (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization 52 .8 % ICU Level of Service Analysis Period (min) 15 C Critical Lane Group Quendall Terminals -EIS 5:00 pm 7 /16/2010 2015 Baseline -With RTID AM Peak Transportation Engineering Northwest I" NBR 1900 5 0.92 5 0 0 0% B 12 .0 A 8/29/2012 '. ! ~ SB[ SBT SB 4t 1900 1900 1900 4 .0 1.00 0.98 0 .96 1611 0 .96 1611 65 0 10 0.92 0.92 0 .92 71 0 11 0 9 0 0 73 0 11 % 11 % 11 % Split 2 2 5.9 5.9 0 .10 4.0 3.0 158 c0 .05 0.46 25 .6 1.00 2 .1 27.7 C 27.7 C Synchro 6 Report Page 3 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Lk WA Blvd & BMill Access .,> -+ +-' '-. ..; Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SB[ SBR Lane Configurations 4 ~ ¥ Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0 % 0% Volume (veh/h) 0 680 255 0 10 0 Pea k Hour Factor 0.9 2 0 .92 0 .92 0.92 0.92 0 .92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 739 277 0 11 0 Pedestrian s Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn f lare (veh ) Median type None Med ian sto rage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 236 pX , platoon unblocked 0.93 0.93 0.93 vC , conflicting volume 277 1016 277 vC 1, stage 1 cont vol vC2 , stage 2 conf vol vCu , unblocked vol 22 1 1018 221 tC , single (s) 4.1 6.4 6 .2 tC , 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2 .2 3.5 3 .3 p O queue free % 100 96 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 1251 246 764 J)lrection, Lane# EB 1 WB1 SB 1 Volume Total 739 277 11 Volume Left 0 0 11 Volume Right 0 0 0 cSH 1251 1700 246 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.16 0 .04 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 3 Control Delay ( s) 0 .0 0 .0 20.3 Lane LOS C Approach Delay (s) 0 .0 0 .0 20.3 Approach LOS C ~n tersection Summa!}'. Average Dela y 0.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 45 .8% ICU Level of Service Analysis Period (min) 15 Quendall Terminals -EIS 5:00 pm 7/16/2010 2015 Basel ine -With RTID AM Peak Transportation Engineering Northwest A 8/29/20 12 Synchro 6 Report Page4 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: Lk WA Blvd & HL Main Access -+ • 'f +-~ ,,. ovement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations 'ft 'I + 'I ., Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0 % 0% Volume (veh/h) 650 5 55 205 5 30 Peak Hour Factor 0 .92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0 .92 0 .92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 707 5 60 223 5 33 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 355 pX , platoon unblocked 0.98 vC, conflicting volume 712 1052 709 vC1 , stage 1 cont vol vC2 , stage 2 cont vol vCu , unblocked vol 7 12 1053 709 tC, single (s) 4.1 6 .4 6 .2 tC , 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 pO queue free % 93 98 93 cM capacity (veh/h) 892 231 437 Direction, Lane 81 WB1 WB2 NB 1 NB2 Volume Total 712 60 223 5 33 Volume Left 0 60 0 5 0 Volume Right 5 0 0 0 33 cSH 1700 892 1700 231 437 Volume to Capacity 0 .42 0.07 0 .1 3 0.02 0 .07 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 5 0 2 6 Control Delay (s) 0.0 9.3 0.0 21 .0 13.9 Lane LOS A C B Approach Delay ( s) 0.0 2 .0 14.9 Approach LOS B nteiiection Summa Average Delay 1.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 51 .2% ICU Level of Service Analysis Period (min) 15 Quendall Termi nals -EIS 5:00 pm 7/16/2010 2015 Baseline -With RTID AM Peak Transportation Eng i neering Northwest A 8/29/2012 Synchro 6 Report Page 5 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6 : Lk WA Blvd & N 36th St-Burnett -+ ~ 'f ~ ~ I" ovement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations 'ft 4 ¥ Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph ) 350 0 15 95 5 105 Peak Hour Factor 0 .92 0 .92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0 .92 Hourly flow rate (v ph) 380 0 16 103 5 114 Diredion, Lane# EB 1 WB1 NB 1 Volu me T otal (vph ) 380 120 120 Volume Left (vph) 0 16 5 Vo lu me Right (v ph) 0 0 114 Hadj (s) 0.00 0 .04 -0.56 Departure Headway (s) 4.3 4.6 4 .5 Degree Utilization, x 0.46 0.15 0.15 Capacity (v eh /h ) 814 737 733 Control Delay (s) 10.9 8 .5 8 .2 Approach Delay (s) 10.9 8 .5 8 .2 Approach LOS B A A Intersection Summa Delay 9 .9 HCM Le vel of Service A Intersection Capacity Utilization 31 .9% ICU Level of Service A na lysis Period (m in) 15 Quendall Terminals-EIS 5:00 pm 7/16/2010 2015 Baseline -With RTID AM Pea k Transportation Engineering Northwest A 8/29/2012 Synchro 6 Report Page 6 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: 30th Street & Burnett Ave .,> -+ .. 'f ,.._ '-~ t ovemen BL EBT EBR WBL.: WBT WBR BL NBT Lane Configurations 4+ 4+ 4+ Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph) 0 10 0 20 10 20 0 60 Peak Hour Factor 0 .92 0 .92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0 .92 0 .92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 11 0 22 11 22 0 65 irection, ne# EB 1 WB1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total (vph) 11 54 114 49 Volume Left (vph) 0 22 0 22 Volume Right (vph) 0 22 49 0 Hadj (s) 0.00 -0.16 -0.26 0.11 Departure Headway (s) 4 .3 4.1 3.8 4.3 Degree Utilization, x 0.01 0.06 0.12 0 .06 Capacity (veh /h) 799 843 912 826 Control Delay (s) 7.4 7.4 7.4 7.5 Approach Delay (s) 7.4 7.4 7.4 7 .5 Approach LOS A A A A ntersection Summary Delay 7.4 HCM Level of Service A Intersection Capacity Utilization 25.3% ICU Level of Service Analysis Period (min) 15 Quendall Terminals -EIS 5:00 pm 7/16/2010 2015 Baseline -With RTID AM Peak Transportation Engineering Northwest I" NBR 45 0.92 49 A 8/29/2012 \. ! ~ SBL.: SBT SB~ 4+ Stop 20 25 0 0 .92 0 .92 0.92 22 27 0 Synchro 6 Report Page 7 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 8: Lk Wa Blvd & Burnett Ave .,> -+ +-' '. ~ Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations 4 tt V Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Vo lume (vph) 0 5 5 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0 .92 0 .92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hou rly f low rate (vph) 0 5 5 0 0 0 Pirection, Lane# EB 1 WB1 SB 1 Volume Total (v ph) 5 5 0 Volume Left (vph) 0 0 0 Volume Right (vph ) 0 0 0 Hadj (s) 0.00 0.00 0.00 Departure Headway (s) 3.9 3.9 3.9 Degree Utilization, x 0.01 0.01 0 .00 Capacity (ve h/h) 915 916 911 Control Delay (s) 6 .9 6 .9 6 .9 Approach Delay (s) 6.9 6 .9 0 .0 Approach LOS A A A ntersection Summa~ Delay 6 .9 HCM Level of Service A Intersection Capacity Utilization 6.7% ICU Level of Service Analysis Period (min ) 15 Quendall Terminals -EIS 5:00 pm 7/16/2010 2015 Baseline -With RTID AM Pea k Transportation Engineering Northwest A 8/29/2 012 Synchro 6 Report Page 8 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9 : N Park Drive & Lake Washin~ton Blvd ,> ~ .. " +-' ' t ovement EB[ EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NB[ NBT Lane Configurations "i"I tt. "l"i tft r' ~ Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4 .0 4 .0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 0.97 0.91 0.91 0 .95 Frt 1.00 1 .00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0 .99 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 3527 3433 3390 1441 1775 Flt Permitted 0 .95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.99 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 3527 3433 3390 1441 1775 Volume (vph) 250 440 10 385 850 105 20 130 Peak-hour factor , PHF 0 .92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0 .92 0.92 Adj . Flow (vph) 272 478 11 418 924 114 22 141 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 272 489 0 418 924 114 0 163 Heavy Vehicles(%) 2 % 2 % 2 % 2 % 2 % 2 % 1% 1% Turn Type Prot Prot Free Split Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 5 Permitted Phases Free Actuated Green , G (s) 9.6 18.0 12 .7 2 1.1 63.3 8.1 Effective Green, g (s) 9.6 18.0 12 .7 21 .1 63.3 8.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.15 0.28 0.20 0 .33 1.00 0.13 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4 .0 4 .0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 521 1003 689 1130 1441 227 vis Ratio Prot 0.08 c0.14 0 .12 c0.27 c0 .09 vis Ratio Perm 0.08 v/c Ratio 0.52 0.49 0 .61 0.82 0.08 0 .72 Uniform Delay, d1 24.7 18.8 23.0 19.3 0 .0 26.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.9 0.4 1.5 4 .7 0 .1 10.3 Delay (s) 25.7 19.2 24.5 24 .0 0 .1 36 .8 Level of Service C B C C A D Approa c h Delay (s) 21 .5 22 .3 27.7 Approach LOS C C C ntersection Summa HCM Average Control Delay 23.0 HCM Level of Service HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.62 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 63.3 Sum of lost time (s) Intersection Capacity Util ization 59 .3% ICU Level of Service Analysis Period (min) 15 C Critical Lane Group Quendall Terminals -EIS 5:00 pm 7/16/2010 2015 Baseline -With RTID AM Peak Transportation Engineering Northwest ~ NBR .,, 1900 4 .0 0.95 0.85 1.00 1519 1.00 1519 115 0.92 125 0 125 1% pt+ov 53 20.8 20.8 0 .3 3 499 0 .08 0 .25 15.5 1.00 0.3 15.8 B C 12 .0 B 8/29/2012 '. ! .,' SB SBT SBR ., 4 .,, 1900 1900 1900 4.0 4 .0 4 .0 0.95 0.95 1 .00 1.00 1.00 0 .85 0.95 0.96 1.00 1698 1724 1599 0.95 0 .96 1.00 1698 1724 1599 125 20 190 0.92 0.92 0 .92 136 22 207 0 0 179 77 81 28 1% 1% 1% Split Perm 6 6 6 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 0 .13 0 .13 0.13 4 .0 4 .0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 228 232 215 0.05 c0.05 0.02 0.34 0.35 0.13 24 .8 24 .9 24.1 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.9 0 .9 0 .3 25.7 25 .8 24.4 C C C 25 .0 C Synchro 6 Report Page 9 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: NE 44th St & 405 NB Rame .,} -+ ~ f +-'-~ t ~ovement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT Lane Configurations .,~ tt ttlt ~ lt Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Tota l Lost time (s) 4 .0 4 .0 4 .0 4 .0 4 .0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 0.91 1 .00 0 .95 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 0 .85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd . Flow (prot) 3467 3574 4879 1787 1519 Fl t Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1 .00 Satd . Flow (perm ) 3467 3574 4879 1787 1519 Volume (vph) 70 245 0 0 470 175 40 0 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0 .96 0.96 0.96 0 .96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Adj. Flow (vph) 73 255 0 0 490 182 42 0 RTOR Redu ction (vph ) 0 0 0 0 87 0 0 227 Lane Group Flow (vph) 73 255 0 0 585 0 42 41 Heavy Vehicles(%) 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 2 % 1% 1% Tum Type Prot Split Protected Phases 7 4 8 2 2 Permitted Phases Actuated Green , G (s) 13.0 42 .8 25 .8 9.2 9 .2 Effective Green, g (s) 13.0 42.8 25.8 9 .2 9 .2 Actuated g/C Rati o 0.22 0.71 0.43 0.15 0.15 Clearance Time (s) 4 .0 4.0 4 .0 4 .0 4 .0 Vehicle Ex tension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 751 2549 2098 274 233 vis Ratio Prot 0 .02 c0.07 c0 .12 0.02 c0.03 vis Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0 .10 0.10 0.28 0.15 0.18 Uniform Delay , d1 18.8 2 .7 11.1 22 .0 22.1 Progression Factor 1.16 0.66 0.63 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 0.1 0.3 0 .3 0 .4 Delay (s) 22.1 1.8 7.2 22 .3 22 .5 Leve l of Service C A A C C Approach Delay (s) 6 .3 7.2 22 .5 Approach LOS A A C ntersection Summa HCM Average Control Delay 12 .6 HCM Level of Service HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.20 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 60.0 Sum of lost time (s) Intersection Capacity Util ization 37.0% ICU Level of SeNice Analysis Period (min) 15 C Critica l Lane Group Quendall Term in als-EIS 5:00 pm 7/16/2010 2015 Basel in e -With RTID PM Peak T ransportation En g ineering Northwest ~ NBR 7' 1900 4 .0 0.95 0 .85 1.00 1519 1.00 1519 515 0.96 536 227 41 1% Perm 2 9.2 9.2 0 .15 4.0 3.0 233 0.03 0 .18 22.1 1 .00 0.4 22 .5 C B 8.0 A 8/29/2012 '. ! ~ SBL SBT SBR 1900 1900 1900 0 0 0 0.96 0.96 0 .96 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0 % 0% 0.0 A Synchro 6 Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: NE 44th St & 405 SB Off-rame .,} -+ ..... 'f +-' ' t ovement EB[ EBT EBR L WBT WBR NBL NBT Lane Configurations ++-i. 'i'i ++ Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4 .0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util . Factor 0.91 0.97 0.95 Frt 0.93 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd . Flow (prot) 4838 3467 3574 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd . Flow (perm) 4838 3467 3574 Volume (vph) 0 185 150 215 270 0 0 0 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0 .97 0 .97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0 .97 0 .97 Adj . Flow (vph) 0 191 155 222 278 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 122 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 224 0 222 278 0 0 0 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0 % 0% 1% 1% 1% 0 % 0% Turn Type Prot Protected Phases 4 3 8 Permitted Phases Actuated Green , G (s) 12.8 20.8 27.6 Effective Green, g (s) 12 .8 20.8 27.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.21 0.35 0.46 Clearance Time (s) 4 .0 4 .0 4 .0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1032 1202 1644 vi s Ratio Prot c0.05 c0.06 0.08 vis Ratio Perm vie Ratio 0.22 0 .18 0.17 Uniform Delay , d1 19.5 13.7 9.5 Progression Factor 0.59 0.41 1.04 Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 0.3 0 .2 Delay (s) 12 .0 6.0 10.1 Level of Service B A B Approach Delay (s) 12.0 8.3 0 .0 Approach LOS B A A n Summa HCM Average Control Delay 12 .7 HCM Level of Service HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.19 Actuated Cycle Length ( s) 60.0 Sum of lost time (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization 32 .1% ICU Le ve l of Service Analysis Period (min) 15 C Critical Lane Group Quendall Terminals -EIS 5:00 pm 7/16/2010 2015 Basel ine -With RTID PM Peak Transportation Engineering Northwest ~ NBR 1900 0 0.97 0 0 0 0 % B 12 .0 A 8/29/2012 \. ! ~ SB[ SB SB~ 'I 4 'f' 1900 1900 1900 4 .0 4 .0 4.0 0.95 0 .95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.95 0 .96 1.00 1715 1725 1615 0.95 0 .96 1.00 1715 1725 1615 130 5 290 0.97 0.97 0 .97 134 5 299 0 0 227 68 71 72 0% 0% 0 % Split Prot 6 6 6 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 0 .24 0 .24 0.24 4 .0 4 .0 4 .0 3.0 3.0 3.0 412 414 388 0 .04 0.04 c0.04 0.17 0.17 0.18 18.0 18.1 18.1 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.2 0 .2 0.2 18.2 18.3 18.4 B B B 18 .3 B Synchro 6 Report Page 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3 : Lk WA Blvd & Riele~ Ln .,> -+ ~ 'f +-' "" t J,i1ovement EB[ EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT Lane Configurations 1i t. t .,, 4t Ideal Flow (vphp l) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4 .0 4.0 4 .0 4.0 4 .0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1 .00 1.00 0.85 0.86 Flt Protected 0.95 1 .00 1.00 1 .00 1.00 Satd . Flow (prot) 1805 1900 1845 1568 1405 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd . Flow (perm) 1805 1900 1845 1568 1405 Volume (vph) 15 225 0 0 520 70 0 0 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.9 7 0.97 0 .9 7 0 .97 0.97 0 .97 0 .97 Adj . Flow (vph) 15 232 0 0 536 72 0 0 RTOR Redu ction (vph ) 0 0 0 0 0 39 0 5 Lane Group Flow (vph) 15 232 0 0 536 33 0 0 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0 % 0 % 0 % 3% 3% 3 % 17% 17% Tum Type Prat Perm Split Protected Phases 7 4 8 1 1 Permitted Phases 8 Actuated Green , G (s) 6 .0 12.8 27 .6 27.6 0.8 Effective Green , g (s) 6 .0 12.8 27.6 27.6 0 .8 A ctuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0 .2 1 0.46 0 .46 0.0 1 Clearance Time (s) 4 .0 4.0 4 .0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3 .0 3.0 3.0 3 .0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 181 405 849 721 19 vi s Ratio Prat c0.01 0.12 c0.29 c0.00 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 vie Ratio 0.08 0.57 0.63 0.05 0 .00 Uniform De lay , d1 24 .5 21 .1 12.3 8 .9 29.2 P rog ression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.66 0.46 1 .00 Incremental Delay , d2 0.2 5 .8 3.4 0 .1 0.1 Delay (s) 24.7 26 .9 1 1.6 4 .2 29.3 Level of Service C C B A C Approach Delay (s) 26 .8 10.7 29.3 Approach LOS C B C ntersection Summa~ HCM Average Control Delay 16.8 HCM Level of Service HCM V olume to Capacity ratio 0.51 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 60.0 Sum of lost time (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization 49 .2 % ICU Level of Servi ce Analysis Period (min) 15 C Critical Lane Gro up Quendall Terminals -EIS 5:00 pm 7116/2010 2015 Baseline -With RTID PM Peak Transportation Eng ineerin g Northwest I" NBR 1900 5 0 .97 5 0 0 17% B 16 .0 A 8/2 9/2012 '.. + ~ SBL SBT SBR 4t 1900 1900 1900 4.0 1.00 0 .97 0 .96 1721 0 .96 1721 115 0 35 0.97 0.97 0 .9 7 119 0 36 0 21 0 0 134 0 3% 3 % 3% Split 2 2 9.6 9.6 0 .16 4.0 3 .0 275 c0 .0 8 0.49 23.0 1.00 1.4 24 .3 C 24.3 C Synchro 6 Report Page 3 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4 : Lk WA Blvd & BMill Access .,> -+ +-'-'. 4' ovement EB[ EBT WBT WBR SB[ SBR Lane Configurations 4 'ft ¥ Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0 % 0 % 0 % Volume (veh/h) 0 235 485 10 5 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 242 500 10 5 0 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh ) Median type None Med ian storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 236 pX, platoon unblocked 0 .7 8 0.78 0 .78 vC, conflicting volume 510 747 505 vC 1, stage 1 conf v ol vC2 , stage 2 conf vol vCu , unblocked vol 3 76 678 369 tC, single (s) 4 .1 6.4 6 .2 tC , 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2 .2 3.5 3.3 pO queue free % 100 98 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 936 330 534 irection, uine EB 1 WB1 SB 1 Volume Total 242 510 5 Volume Left 0 0 5 Volume Right 0 10 0 cSH 936 1700 330 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.30 0.02 Queue Length 95th (ft ) 0 0 1 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 16.1 Lane LOS C Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 16.1 Approach LOS C ntersedion Summa A verage Delay 0.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 36.1% ICU Level of Service Anal ysis Pe riod (min ) 15 Quendall Terminals -EIS 5:00 pm 7/16/2010 2015 Basel ine -With RTID PM Peak Transportation Eng i neering Northwest A 8/29/2012 Sy nchro 6 Report Page 4 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: Lk WA Blvd & HL Main Access -+ ~ f +-4\ ,,. Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations lt l'j t l'j .,, Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0 % 0% 0 % Volume (veh/h) 195 5 50 440 5 40 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0 .97 0.97 0.9 7 0.97 Hourly flow rate (vph) 201 5 52 454 5 41 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 355 pX, platoon unblocked 0.81 vC, conflicting volume 206 760 204 vC1 , stage 1 conf vol vC2 , stage 2 conf vol vCu , unblocked vol 206 706 204 tC , single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC , 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 pO queue free % 96 98 95 cM capacity (veh/h) 1359 318 842 irect1on, [ane # EB 1 WB1 WB2 NB NB2 Volume Total 206 52 454 5 41 Volume Left 0 52 0 5 0 Volume Right 5 0 0 0 41 cSH 1700 1359 1700 318 842 Volume to Capacity 0.12 0 .04 0.27 0.02 0.05 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 3 0 1 4 Control Delay (s) 0 .0 7 .8 0.0 16.5 9.5 Lane LOS A C A Approach Delay (s) 0 .0 0.8 10.3 Ap proach LOS B ntersect,on Summa~ Average Delay 1.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 33 .2% ICU Level of Service Analysis Period (min) 15 Quendall Terminals -EIS 5:00 pm 7/16/2010 2015 Baseline -With RTID PM Peak Transportation Engineering Northw est A 8/29/2012 Synchro 6 Report Page 5 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6 : Lk WA Blvd & N 36th St-Burnett -+ • 'f +-4\ ,,. Movemen BR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations 4 V Sign Control Stop Stop Volume (vph) 5 85 285 5 30 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0 .95 0.95 0 .95 Hourly flow rate (vp h ) 5 89 300 5 32 irection, Lane # EB 1 WB1 NB 1 Volume Total (vph) 126 389 37 Volume Left (vph) 0 89 5 Volume Right (vph) 5 0 32 Hadj (s) 0 .01 0.08 -0.49 Departure Headway (s) 4.4 4.2 4 .5 Degree Utilization, x 0 .15 0.45 0.05 Capacity (veh/h) 799 838 712 Control Delay (s) 8.2 10.7 7 .8 Approach Delay (s) 8.2 10.7 7.8 Approach LOS A B A ntersection Summa Delay 9 .9 HCM Level of Service A Intersection Capacity Utilization 36.4% ICU Level of Service Analysis Period (min) 15 Quendall Terminals -EIS 5:00 pm 7 /16/2 010 2015 Baseline -With RTID PM Peak Transportation Engineering Northwest A 8/29/2012 Synchro 6 Report Page 6 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: 30th Street & Burnett Ave .,> -+ "t ~ +-' "" t "'1ovement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT Lane Configurations 4t 4t 4t Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Volume (v ph ) 0 15 0 65 30 20 0 40 Peak Hour Factor 0 .93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 16 0 70 32 22 0 43 irection , Lane# EB 1 WB1 B1 SB 1 Volume Total (vph) 16 124 108 108 Volume Left (vph) 0 70 0 48 Volume Right (vph ) 0 22 65 0 Hadj (s) 0 .03 0 .04 -0.33 0.12 Departure Headw ay (s) 4 .6 4.4 4.0 4 .5 Degree Utilization , x 0 .02 0 .15 0.12 0.13 Capacity (veh/h) 743 765 853 767 Control Delay (s) 7 .7 8.2 7.6 8 .2 Approach Delay (s) 7 .7 8.2 7.6 8.2 Approach LOS A A A A Intersection Summa!}'. Delay 8.0 HCM Level of Service A Intersection Capacity Utilization 31 .8% ICU Level of Service Analysis Period (min ) 15 Quenda ll Terminals -EIS 5:00 pm 7/16/2010 2015 Baseline -With RTID PM Peak Transportation Engin ee ring Northwest I" NBR 60 0.93 65 A 8/29/2012 '. ! ~ SSL SBT SBR 4* Stop 45 55 0 0.93 0.93 0 .93 48 59 0 Synchro 6 Report Page 7 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 8: Lk Wa Blvd & Burnett Ave ~ -+ .... '-'.. ~ ;Movement EB[ EBT WBT WBR SB[ SBR Lane Configurations 4 'ft V Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph) 0 295 115 110 90 5 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0 .92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph ) 0 321 125 120 98 5 irection, line # EB 1 WB1 SB Volume Total (vph) 321 245 103 Volume Left (vph) 0 0 98 Volume Right (vph) 0 120 5 Hadj (s) 0.03 -0.26 0 .19 Departure Headway (s) 4.5 4 .3 5.3 Degree Utilization , x 0 .40 0.29 0 .15 Capacity (veh/h) 780 803 613 Control Delay (s) 10.5 9.0 9.3 Approach Delay (s) 10.5 9 .0 9.3 Approach LOS B A A ntersection Summary Delay 9.8 HCM Leve l of Service A Intersection Capacity Utilization 27 .5% ICU Level of Service Analysis Period (min) 15 Quendall Terminals -EIS 5:00 pm 7/16/2 010 2015 Baseline -With RTID PM Peak Transportation Engineering Northwest A 8/2 9/2012 Synchro 6 Report Page 8 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: N Park Drive & Lake Washin~ton Blvd .,> --+ ..... 'f +-'-"" t Movement EB[ EBT EBR WB [ WBT WBR NBt.: NBT Lane Configurations "'i'i tft "'i'i tft 7' 4t Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Los t time (s) 4 .0 4 .0 4 .0 4.0 4.0 4 .0 Lane Util. Factor 0 .97 0.95 0.97 0.91 0 .91 0.95 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0 .85 0.90 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1 .00 1.00 1.00 Satd . F low (prot) 3433 3525 3433 3390 1441 1585 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.0 0 1.00 1.00 Satd . Fl ow (perm ) 3433 3525 3433 3390 1441 1585 Volume (vph) 260 895 25 445 785 185 10 90 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0 .97 0 .97 0.97 0.97 0 .97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 268 923 26 459 809 191 10 93 RTOR Reduction (vph ) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 268 949 0 459 809 191 0 329 Turn Type Prot Prot Free Sp lit Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 2 Permitted Phases Free Actuated Green, G (s) 15.0 25.1 15.3 25.4 87 .9 20.1 Effective Green , g (s) 15.0 25.1 15.3 25.4 87 .9 20 .1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0 .29 0.17 0.29 1.00 0.23 Clearance Time (s ) 4 .0 4 .0 4.0 4 .0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3 .0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 586 1007 598 980 1441 362 vis Ratio Prot 0.08 c0.27 0.13 c0.24 c0.21 vi s Ra tio Perm 0.13 v/c Ratio 0.46 0 .94 0.77 0.83 0.13 0.91 Uniform Delay, d1 32 .8 30 .7 34.6 29 .2 0 .0 33 .0 Progression Factor 1.00 1 .00 1.00 1.00 1 .00 1.00 In crementa l Delay , d2 0 .6 16.3 5.9 5.8 0 .2 25 .6 Delay (s) 33 .4 46.9 40.5 34.9 0 .2 58.6 Level of Service C D D C A E Approach Delay (s) 44.0 32.1 43.3 Approach LOS D C D ~ntersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 38.5 HCM Level of Serv ice HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0 .86 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 87 .9 Sum of lost time (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization 77.4% ICU Level of Service Analysis Peri od (min ) 15 C Critical Lane Group Quendall Terminals -EIS 5:00 pm 7/16/2010 2015 Baseline -With RTID PM Peak Transportation Eng i neering Northwest ~ NBR 7' 1900 4 .0 0 .95 0.85 1.00 1504 1.00 1504 710 0.97 732 0 506 pt+ov 23 35.4 35.4 0.40 606 0.34 0.83 23.6 1.00 9.7 33.3 C D 16.0 D 8/29/2012 \. + ~ SBL SBT SBR 'I 4 7' 1900 1900 1900 4 .0 4.0 4 .0 0.95 0.95 1 .00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0 .95 0.99 1 .00 1681 1756 1583 0.95 0.99 1.00 1681 1756 1583 125 95 265 0.97 0.97 0.97 129 98 273 0 0 238 111 116 35 Split Perm 6 6 6 11.4 11.4 11.4 11.4 11.4 11.4 0.13 0 .13 0.13 4 .0 4.0 4 .0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2 18 228 205 0.07 c0 .07 0.02 0.51 0.51 0.17 35 .6 35 .6 34 .1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 .9 1.8 0.4 37.5 37.4 34.5 D D C 35.8 D Synchro 6 Report Page 9 2015 With Alternative 1 (With RTID Improvements) ~ Transportation Engineering NorthWest, LLC HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: NE 44th St & 405 NB Rame .,> -+ .. 'f +-"-"" t ~ Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NB[ NBT NBR Lane Configurations "i"i t t t t t. "I t. 7' Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s ) 4 .0 4.0 4 .0 4 .0 4 .0 4 .0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0 .95 0.91 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frt 1.00 1.0 0 0.94 1.00 0.85 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1 .00 1.00 0 .95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 3539 4791 1641 13 95 1395 Flt Permitted 0.95 1 .00 1.00 0 .95 1.00 1.00 Satd . Flow (perm) 3433 3539 4791 1641 13 95 1395 Volume (vph) 590 450 0 0 605 380 175 0 270 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0 .92 0 .92 0.92 0.92 0 .92 0 .92 0.92 Adj . Flow (vph) 641 489 0 0 658 413 190 0 293 RTOR Reduction (vph ) 0 0 0 0 121 0 0 120 12 1 Lane Group Flow (vph) 641 489 0 0 950 0 190 26 26 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2 % 2% 2 % 2 % 2 % 2 % 10% 10% 10 % Turn Type Prat Split Perm Protected Phases 7 4 8 2 2 Permitted Phases 2 Actuated Green , G (s) 24.0 57 .7 29 .7 14 .3 14.3 14 .3 Effective Green, g (s) 24 .0 57 .7 29.7 14.3 14.3 14.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0 .30 0.72 0 .37 0.18 0.18 0 .18 Clearance Ti~e (s) 4 .0 4 .0 4 .0 4 .0 4.0 4 .0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1030 2553 1779 293 249 249 v/s Ratio Prot c0 .19 0.14 c0 .20 c0.12 0.0 2 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 v /c Ratio 0 .62 0.19 0 .53 0.65 0.10 0 .11 Uniform Delay , d1 24.1 3.6 19.7 30 .5 27.5 27.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.60 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.8 0 .2 1.0 4 .9 0 .2 0.2 Delay (s) 26 .9 3.8 12.8 35.4 27 .7 27 .7 Level of Service C A 8 D C C Approach Delay (s) 16.9 12.8 30 .7 Approach LOS B B C ,ntersection Summa~ HCM Average Control Delay 17 .8 HCM Level of Service B HCM V o lume to Capacity ratio 0.59 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80 .0 Sum of lost time (s) 12 .0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 56 .7 % IC U Le v el of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 C Critical Lane Group Quendall Termina ls -EIS 5:00 pm 7/16/2010 2015 With Alternative 1 -With RTID AM Pea k Transportation Engineering Northw est 8/29/2012 \. ! ~ SBL SBT SBR 1900 1900 1900 0 0 0 0.92 0 .92 0.92 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2% 2% 2 % 0.0 A Sy nchro 6 Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: NE 44th St & 405 SB Off-rame .,> -+ ~ f +-' "" t I" ovement EBL EBT EBR [ T WBR NBL NBT NBR Lane Configurations ++tt "'"' ++ Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4 .0 4.0 4 .0 Lane Util. Factor 0 .91 0.97 0.95 Frt 0 .98 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd . Flow (prot) 5031 3433 3539 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd . Flow (perm) 5031 3433 3539 Volume (vph) 0 950 150 425 350 0 0 0 0 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0 .92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0 .92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj . Flow (vph) 0 1033 163 462 380 0 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 1170 0 462 380 0 0 0 0 Heavy Vehicles(%) 1% 1% 1% 2 % 2 % 2 % 0% 0% 0% Turn Type Prot Protected Phases 4 3 8 Permitted Phases Actuated Green , G (s) 25 .5 11 .0 32.5 Effective Green, g (s) 25.5 11 .0 32 .5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.34 0 .15 0.43 Clearance Time (s) 4 .0 4 .0 4 .0 Veh icle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1711 504 1534 v/s Ratio Prot c0 .23 c0.13 0.11 vis Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0 .68 0.92 0.25 Uniform Delay , d1 21 .3 31 .5 13.5 Progression Factor 0.49 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.6 24 .0 0.4 Delay (s) 12.1 55 .5 13 .9 Level of Service B E B Approach Delay (s) 12.1 36 .7 0.0 Approach LOS B D A ntiiieclion Summa HCM Average Control Delay 21.4 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.53 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 75.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Util ization 47 .2 % ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 C Critical Lane Group Quendall Terminals -EIS 5:00 pm 7/16/2 010 2015 With Alternative 1 -With RTID AM Peak Transportation Engineering Northwest 8/29/2012 '. ! ~ SB[ SBT SB "' 4 7' 1900 1900 1900 4 .0 4 .0 4.0 0 .95 0 .95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0 .95 0.96 1.00 1665 1679 1568 0 .95 0.96 1.00 1665 1679 1568 65 5 335 0 .92 0.92 0.92 71 5 364 0 0 235 37 39 129 3 % 3% 3% Split Prot 6 6 6 26.5 26.5 26 .5 26.5 26.5 26.5 0.35 0.35 0.35 4 .0 4 .0 4 .0 3.0 3.0 3.0 588 593 554 0.02 0.02 c0 .08 0.06 0.07 0 .23 16.0 16.1 17.1 1.00 1.00 1.00 0 .0 0.0 0.2 16.1 16.1 17.3 B B B 17.1 B Synchro 6 Report Page 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Lk WA Blvd & Riele;t Ln ~ -+ • 'f +-'-~ t ~ Movement EB[ EBT EBR WB[ WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR Lane Configurations 'i +tt + 7' 4t Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 T otal L ost time (s) 4 .0 4 .0 4 .0 4.0 4 .0 La ne Util. Factor 1.00 0 .95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.0 0 1.00 1.00 0 .85 0.86 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd . Flow (prot) 1770 3539 1881 1599 1644 F lt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1 .00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 1881 1599 1644 Volume (vph) 2 0 710 0 0 290 405 0 0 5 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0 .92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0 .92 0.92 0.92 Adj . Flow (vph) 22 772 0 0 315 440 0 0 5 RTOR Reduction (vph ) 0 0 0 0 0 249 0 5 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 22 772 0 0 315 191 0 0 0 Heavy Vehicles(%) 2 % 2 % 2 % 1% 1% 1% 0 % 0 % 0 % Turn Type Prat Perm Split Protected Phases 7 4 8 1 1 Permitted Phases 8 Actuated Green , G (s) 4 .0 25.5 32 .5 32 .5 0.8 Effective Green, g (s) 4 .0 25.5 32 .5 32 .5 0.8 Actuated g /C Ratio 0.05 0.34 0.43 0.43 0 .01 Clearance Time (s) 4 .0 4 .0 4 .0 4 .0 4 .0 Vehicle Extensi o n (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3 .0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 94 1203 815 693 18 vi s Ratio Prat co 01 c0 .22 c0 .17 c0 .00 v/s Ratio Perm 0 .12 v/c Ratio 0.23 0 .64 0.39 0.28 0 .00 Uniform Delay , d1 34 .0 20.9 14 .5 13.7 36.7 Progression Factor 1.0 0 1 .00 0.61 0.45 1.00 Incremental Delay , d2 1.3 2.6 1 .3 0 .9 0.1 Delay (s) 35 .3 23.5 10 .1 7 .1 36 .8 Level of Service D C 8 A D Approach Delay (s) 23.9 8.4 36.8 Approach LOS C A D n rsection Summa HCM Average Control Delay 22 .5 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0 .66 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 75.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capa c ity Uti li zation 54 .6 % ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 C Critical Lane Group Quendall Terminals -EIS 5:00 pm 7/16/2010 2015 With Alternative 1 -With RTID AM Peak Transportation Engineering Northwest 8/29/2012 '.. ! -" SBL SBT SBR 4t 1900 1900 1900 4 .0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1627 0.95 1627 380 0 10 0.92 0 .92 0.92 413 0 11 0 1 0 0 423 0 11 % 11 % 1 1% Split 2 2 21 .7 21 .7 0.29 4.0 3.0 471 c0 .26 0 .90 25.6 1 .00 19.4 45.0 D 45.0 D Synchro 6 Report Page 3 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Lk WA Blvd & BMill Access ~ -+ +-'-'. .; Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SB[ SBR Lane Configurations 4 'ft ¥ Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0 % 0% 0 % Volume (veh/h) 85 660 250 50 65 70 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0 .92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 92 717 272 54 71 76 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh ) Median type None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 236 pX , platoon unblocked 0.88 0.88 0.88 vC, conflicting volume 326 1201 299 vC1 , stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu , unblocked vol 238 1227 208 tC , single (s) 4 .1 6 .4 6 .2 tC , 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2 .2 3.5 3 .3 pO queue free % 92 56 90 cM capacity (veh/h) 1176 162 741 irection, l::ine # EB , SB 1 Volume Total 810 326 147 Volume Left 92 0 71 Volume Right 0 54 76 cSH 1176 1700 272 Volume to Capacity 0.08 0.19 0.54 Queue Length 95th (ft) 6 0 74 Control Delay ( s) 2.0 0.0 32 .6 Lane LOS A D Approach Delay ( s) 2.0 0.0 32 .6 Approach LOS D ntarsection Summa Average Delay 5.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 73.5% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min ) 15 Quendall Terminals -EIS 5:00 pm 7/16/2 010 2015 With Alternative 1 -With RTID AM Peak Transportation Engineering Northwest 8/2 9/2012 Synchro 6 Report Page4 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: Lk WA Blvd & HL Main Access -+ .. " ~ "" I" Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations t. 'I t 'I 1' Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0 % 0 % 0% Volume (ve h/h) 715 5 55 270 5 30 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 777 5 60 293 5 33 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Wa lking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (v eh ) Median type None Median storage veh ) Upstream signal (ft) 355 pX, platoon unblocked 0.94 vC, conflicting volume 783 1193 780 vC1 , stage 1 cont vo l vC2 , stage 2 cont vol vCu , unblocked vol 783 1205 780 tC , single (s) 4 .1 6.4 6.2 tC , 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2 .2 3.5 3.3 po queue free % 93 97 92 cM capacity (veh/h) 840 179 399 Direction, [ane # EB 1 WB1 WB2 NB 1 NB2 Volume Total 783 60 293 5 33 Vol ume Left 0 60 0 5 0 Volume Right 5 0 0 0 33 cS H 1700 840 1700 17 9 399 Volume to Capacity 0 .46 0.07 0.17 0 .03 0.08 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 6 0 2 7 C ontrol Delay (s) 0.0 9 .6 0.0 25.7 14.8 Lane LOS A D B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 1.6 16.4 Approach LOS C ntersection Summa!} Average Delay 1.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Peri od (min) 15 Quenda ll Terminals -EI S 5:00 pm 7/16/2010 2015 With A lternative 1 -W ith RTID AM Peak Transportation Engineering Northwest 8/29/2 012 I Synchro 6 Report Page 5 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6 : Lk WA Blvd & N 36th St-Burnett -+ .. 'f +-~ I" ovement EBT EBR WB[ WBT NB[ NBR Lane Configurations ft 4 V Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Volume (v ph ) 410 0 20 155 5 115 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0 .92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph ) 446 0 22 168 5 125 ~irect1on, lane # , NB Volume Total (vph ) 446 190 130 Volume Left (vph) 0 22 5 Volume Right (vph ) 0 0 125 Hadj (s) 0.00 0.04 -0.57 Departure Headway (s) 4 .5 4 .8 4 .8 Degree Utilization, x 0.55 0.25 0.17 Capacity (veh /h) 7 81 718 664 Control Delay (s) 12.8 9.4 8.8 Approach Delay (s) 12.8 9.4 8.8 Approach LOS B A A ntersection Summa Delay 11.3 HCM Lev el o f Service B Intersection Capacity Utilization 39 .0% ICU Level of Service A Analys is Period (min ) 15 Quendall Terminals -EIS 5 :00 pm 7/16/2 010 2 015 With Alternative 1 -With RTID AM Pea k Transportation Eng i neering Northwest 8/29/201 2 Sy nchro 6 Report Page 6 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: 30th Street & Burnett Ave ~ -+ • 'f ~ '-~ t ~ ovemen t EB[ EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR Lane Configurations * * * Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph ) 0 10 0 20 10 25 0 60 45 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0 .92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 11 0 22 11 27 0 65 49 Direction, Lane# EB 1 WB1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total (vph) 1 1 60 114 54 Volume Left (vph) 0 22 0 27 Volume Right (vph) 0 27 49 0 Hadj (s) 0.00 -0.20 -0 .26 0.12 Departure Headway (s ) 4 .3 4 .1 3.8 4 .3 Degree Utilization, x 0.01 0.07 0 .12 0.06 Capacity (veh /h) 795 847 907 821 Control Delay (s) 7.4 7.4 7.4 7.6 Approach Delay (s) 7 .4 7 .4 7.4 7.6 Approach LOS A A A A Intersection Summa!1 Delay 7 .4 HCM Level of SeNice A Intersection Capacity Utilization 25.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (m in ) 15 Quendall Terminals -EIS 5:00 pm 7/16/2010 20 15 With Alternative 1 -With RTID AM Peak Transportation Engineering Northwest 8/29/2012 '. ! .I SBL SBT SBR * Stop 25 25 0 0.92 0.92 0.92 27 27 0 Synchro 6 Report Page 7 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 8: Lk Wa Blvd & Burnett Ave ~ -+ ._ ' '. .,' ement EB[ EBT WBT WBR SBl SBR Lane Configurations 4 tt ¥ Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0 .92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 traction, Lane # EB 1 WB1 SB 1 Volume Total (vph) 0 0 0 Volume Left (vph) 0 0 0 Volume Right (vph) 0 0 0 Hadj (s) 0.00 0.00 0.00 Departure Headway (s) 3.9 3.9 3.9 Degree Utilization, x 0.00 0.00 0 .00 Capacity (veh/h) 917 917 917 Control Delay (s) 6 .9 6 .9 6.9 Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0 .0 0 .0 Approach LOS A A A ntersection Summa!1 Delay 0.0 HCM Level of Service A Intersection Capacity Utilization 0.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Quendall Terminals -EIS 5:00 pm 7/16/2 010 2015 W ith Alternative 1 -With RTID AM Peak Transportation Engineering Northwest 8/29/2012 Synchro 6 Report Page 8 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: N Park Drive & Lake Washin~ton Blvd ~ -+ "t 'f +-' ~ t ~ ovement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR Lane Configurations "i"i tt. "i'i +tt .,, 4t .,, Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4 .0 4.0 4 .0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 0 .97 0.91 0.91 0 .95 0.95 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1 .00 0.85 Flt Protected 0 .95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0 .99 1.00 Satd . Flow (prot) 3433 3527 3433 3390 1441 1776 1519 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 Satd. F low (perm) 3433 3527 3433 3390 1441 1776 1519 Volume (vph) 295 440 10 385 850 115 20 140 115 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0 .92 0 .92 0 .92 0.92 0.92 0 .92 0.92 0.92 0 .92 Adj. Flow (vph) 321 478 11 418 924 125 22 152 125 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 321 489 0 418 924 125 0 174 125 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2 % 2 % 2 % 2% 2 % 1% 1% 1% Turn Type Prot Prot Free Split pt+ov Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 2 23 Permitted Phases Free Actuated Green , G (s) 10 .2 19.8 13.0 22 .6 67.4 9.5 22 .5 Effective Green, g (s) 10.2 19.8 13.0 22 .6 67.4 9.5 22 .5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.15 0.29 0 .19 0.34 1.00 0.14 0.33 Clearance Time (s) 4 .0 4 .0 4 .0 4 .0 4 .0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3 .0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 520 1036 662 1137 1441 250 507 v/s Ratio Prot c0.09 0.1 4 0 .12 c0.27 c0 .1 O 0.08 v/s Ratio Perm 0.09 v/c Ratio 0.62 0.47 0 .63 0.81 0.09 0 .70 0.25 Uniform Delay, d1 26.8 19.5 25.0 20.5 0.0 27.6 16.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1 .00 1.00 1.00 1 .00 1.00 Incremental Delay , d2 2 .2 0 .3 2.0 4.5 0.1 8.2 0.3 Delay (s) 29.0 19.9 27.0 25.0 0.1 35 .7 16.6 Level of Service C B C C A D B Approach Delay (s) 23.5 23.4 27.7 Approach LOS C C C Intersection Summa!1 HCM Average Control Delay 24.3 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.67 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 67.4 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Util ization 61 .6 % ICU Lev e l of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 C Critica l Lane Group Quendall Terminals -EIS 5:00 pm 7/16/2010 2015 W ith A ltern ative 1 -With RTID AM Peak Transportation Engineering Northwest 8/29/20 12 '. i ~ SBL SBT SBR 'i 4 .,, 1900 1900 1900 4 .0 4 .0 4.0 0.95 0 .95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0 .85 0.95 0.95 1.00 1698 1698 1599 0.95 0.95 1.00 1698 1698 1599 135 0 260 0 .92 0.92 0.92 147 0 283 0 0 245 74 73 38 1% 1% 1% Split Perm 6 6 6 9.1 9.1 9.1 9.1 9.1 9.1 0.14 0 .14 0.14 4 .0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 229 229 216 c0 .04 0.04 0 .02 0.32 0.32 0.18 26.4 26.3 25.8 1.00 1.00 1 .00 0.8 0 .8 0.4 27.2 27 .2 26.2 C C C 26.5 C Synchro 6 Report Page 9 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: NE 44th St & 405 NB Rame .,> -+ ~ ~ +-' ~ t I" Movement EB[ EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NB NBT NBR Lane Configurations lfft tt ttft ~ ft .,, Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s ) 4 .0 4 .0 4.0 4 .0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 0.91 1.00 0 .95 0.95 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.96 1 .00 0 .85 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1 .00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd . Flow (prot) 3467 3574 4882 1787 1519 1519 Flt Permitted 0.95 1 .00 1.00 0 .95 1.00 1.00 Satd . Flow (perm) 3467 3574 4882 1787 1519 1519 Volume (vph) 300 325 0 0 535 195 175 0 550 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0 .96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Adj . Flow (vph) 312 339 0 0 557 203 182 0 573 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 94 0 0 228 229 Lane Group Flow (vph) 312 339 0 0 666 0 182 58 58 Heavy Vehicles(%) 1% 1% 1% 2 % 2 % 2 % 1% 1% 1% Turn Type Prat Split Perm Protected Phases 7 4 8 2 2 Permitted Phases 2 Actuated Green , G (s) 24.8 47.8 19.0 14.2 14 .2 14.2 Effective Green, g (s) 24.8 47.8 19.0 14 .2 14 .2 14.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.35 0.68 0.27 0.20 0.20 0 .20 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4 .0 4 .0 4 .0 4.0 4 .0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1228 2441 1325 363 308 308 vis Ratio Prat c0.09 0.09 c0.14 c0 .10 0 .04 v/s Ratio Perm 0 .04 v/c Ratio 0.25 0 .14 0.50 0 .50 0 .19 0.19 Uniform Delay , d1 16.0 3.9 21 .5 24.8 23.1 23 .1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.72 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 0.1 1.2 1.1 0.3 0 .3 Delay (s) 16.5 4 .0 16 .6 25.9 23.4 23.4 Level of Service B A B C C C Approach Delay (s) 10.0 16.6 24 .0 Approach LOS B B C ntei'ieetion Summa HCM Average Control Delay 17.2 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.40 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 70.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 44.6 % ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 C Critical Lane Group Quendall Terminals -EIS 5:00 pm 7/16/2010 2015 With Alternative 1 -With RTID PM Peak Transportation Engineering Northwest 8/29/2012 '. ! ~ SBL SBT SBR 1900 1900 1900 0 0 0 0 .96 0 .96 0 .96 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 0 % 0 % 0.0 A Synchro 6 Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: NE 44th St & 405 SB Off-rame ~ -+ • • +-'-~ t ~ "'1ovement EBL: EBT EBR WBL: WBT WBR NB L: NBT NBR Lane Configurations ttf+ .,.., tt Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4 .0 4.0 4.0 Lan e Util. Factor 0.91 0 .97 0.95 Frt 0.94 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 1.00 0 .95 1.00 Satd . Flo w (prot) 4879 3467 3574 Flt Permitted 1.00 0 .95 1.00 Satd . Flow (perm ) 4879 3467 3574 Volume (vph) 0 465 305 235 445 0 0 0 0 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0 .97 0.97 0.97 0 .97 0 .97 0.97 0.97 0 .97 0 .97 Adj . Flow (vph) 0 479 314 242 459 0 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 157 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 636 0 242 459 0 0 0 0 Heavy Vehicle s(%) 0 % 0 % 0% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0 % Turn Type Prot Protected Phas es 4 3 8 Permitted Phases Actuated Green , G (s) 19.8 13 .7 28 .6 Effective Green , g (s) 19 .8 13 .7 28.6 Actua ted g/C Ratio 0.25 0.17 0 .36 Clearance Time (s) 4 .0 4.0 4 .0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 La ne Grp Cap (vph ) 1208 594 1278 vis Ratio Prot c0.13 c0.07 0 .13 vis Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.5 3 0.41 0.36 Uniform Delay , d1 26.0 29.5 18.9 Progression Factor 1.10 1 .00 1 .00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.1 2.1 0.8 Delay (s) 29 .8 31 .6 19.7 Level of Service C C B Approach Delay (s) 29 .8 23.8 0.0 Approach LOS C C A 1 lntersection Summa~ HCM Average Control Delay 23.5 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity rat io 0.47 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80 .0 Sum of lost time (s) 12 .0 Intersection Capacity Utiliza tion 49.3% ICU Leve l of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 C Critica l Lane Group Quendall Terminal s -EIS 5 :00 pm 7/16 /2010 2015 With Al ternative 1 -With RTID PM Peak Transportation Engineering Northwest 8/29/2012 '. + ~ SBL: SBT SBR: ., 4 .,, 1900 1900 1900 4 .0 4 .0 4 .0 0.95 0 .95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0 .85 0.95 0.95 1.00 1715 1724 1615 0.95 0.95 1.00 1715 1724 1615 160 5 490 0.97 0.97 0 .97 165 5 505 0 0 184 83 87 321 0 % 0 % 0% Split Prot 6 6 6 34 .5 34 .5 34 .5 34 .5 34 .5 34 .5 0.43 0.43 0.43 4.0 4.0 4 .0 3.0 3.0 3.0 740 743 696 0 .05 0.05 c0.20 0.11 0.12 0.46 13.6 13 .6 16 .1 1 .00 1.00 1.00 0.1 0.1 0 .5 13.7 13.7 16 .6 B B B 15.9 B Synchro 6 Report Page 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3 : Lk WA Blvd & Riele~ Ln .,> -+ ~ 'f +-' ~ t ~ ovement EBL EBT EBR WB[ WBT WBR NBL BT NBR Lane Configurations ~ tt t 'f .i. Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s ) 4 .0 4 .0 4 .0 4 .0 4 .0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.86 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1805 1895 1844 1568 1405 Flt Permitted 0 .95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1805 1895 1840 1568 1405 Volume (vph) 15 270 5 5 510 400 0 0 5 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0 .97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.9 7 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj . Flow (vph) 15 278 5 5 526 412 0 0 5 RTOR Reduction (vph ) 0 1 0 0 0 265 0 5 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 15 282 0 0 531 147 0 0 0 Heavy Vehicles(%) 0 % 0 % 0 % 3 % 3% 3 % 17% 17% 17% Turn Type Prot Perm Perm Split Protected Phases 7 4 8 1 1 Permitted Phases 8 8 Actuated Green , G (s) 4.9 19.8 28.6 28.6 0.8 Effective Green, g (s) 4 .9 19 .8 28 .6 28 .6 0 .8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.06 0.25 0 .36 0 .36 0.01 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4 .0 4.0 4 .0 4 .0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 111 469 658 561 14 v /s Ratio Prot c0.01 0.15 c0.00 vis Ratio Perm c0.29 0.09 v/c Ratio 0.14 0.60 0 .81 0.26 0.00 Uniform Delay, d1 35.5 26.6 23 .2 18 .2 39 .2 Progression Factor 1.00 1 .00 0 .77 0.63 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0 .6 5.6 9.3 1.0 0.1 Delay (s) 36 .1 32.2 27 .2 12.4 39 .3 Level of Service D C C B D Approach Delay (s) 32.4 20 .8 39 .3 Approach LOS C C D !nteiiiction Summa HCM Average Control Delay 26 .2 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capa c ity ratio 0.76 Actuated Cycle Length ( s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 73.7% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 C Critical Lane Group Quendall Terminals -EIS 5 :00 pm 7/16/2010 2015 With Alternative 1 -With RTID PM Peak Transportation Engineering Northwest 8/29/2012 '. + ~ SBL SBT SB 4t 1900 1900 1900 4 .0 1.00 0 .99 0 .96 1747 0.96 1747 495 0 35 0.97 0 .97 0.97 510 0 36 0 3 0 0 543 0 3% 3% 3 % Split 2 2 29.7 29.7 0 .37 4 .0 3.0 649 c0 .31 0 .84 22.9 1.00 9.2 32.1 C 32 .1 C Sy nchro 6 Report Page 3 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Lk WA Blvd & BMill Access ~ -+ +-'-'. ~ Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations 4 t. V Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0 % 0% Volume (veh/h) 70 230 465 75 60 90 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0 .97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Hourly flow rate (vph) 72 237 479 77 62 93 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Rig ht turn flare (veh) Median type None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 236 pX , platoon unblocked 0 .73 0 .73 0.73 vC, conflicting volume 557 899 518 vC 1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 397 863 344 tC , single (s) 4 .1 6.4 6.2 tC , 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 pO queue free % 92 72 82 cM capacity (veh/h} 862 221 517 EB WB1 SB 1 309 557 155 Volume Left 72 0 62 Volume Right 0 77 93 cSH 862 1700 336 Volume to Capacity 0.08 0.33 0.46 Queue Length 95th (ft) 7 0 58 Control Delay (s) 2.9 0.0 24.5 Lane LOS A C Approach Delay ( s) 2.9 0.0 24.5 Approach LOS C 1 ntersection Summa~ Average Delay 4 .6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 63.9% ICU Level of Service B Ana lysis Period (min) 15 Quendall Terminals -EIS 5:00 pm 7/16/2010 2015 W ith Alternative 1 -With RTID PM Peak Transportation Engineering Northwest 8/29/2012 Synchro 6 Report Page4 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: Lk WA Blvd & HL Main Access -+ .. '( +-' ~ ovement EBT EBR [ WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations f. .., t .., 'f Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0 % 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 260 5 50 515 5 40 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0 .97 0 .97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Hourly flow rate (vph) 268 5 52 531 5 41 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 355 pX, platoon unblocked 0 .77 vC, conflicting volume 273 905 271 vC1 , stage 1 conf vol vC2 , stage 2 cont vol vCu , unblocked vol 273 876 271 tC , single (s) 4.1 6 .4 6 .2 tC , 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3 .3 pO queue free % 96 98 95 cM capacity (veh/h) 1284 238 773 irection, Larie # EB WB1 2 NB 1 NB2 Volume Total 273 52 531 5 41 Volume Left 0 52 0 5 0 Volume Right 5 0 0 0 41 cSH 1700 1284 1700 238 773 Volume to Capacity 0.16 0.04 0.31 0 .02 0 .05 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 3 0 2 4 Control Delay (s) 0.0 7 .9 0.0 20.5 9.9 Lane LOS A C A Approach Delay ( s) 0.0 0 .7 11.1 Approach LOS B ntersection Summa Average Delay 1.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 37.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (mi n) 15 Quendall Terminals -EIS 5:00 pm 7/16/2010 2015 With Alternative 1 -With RTID PM Peak Transportation Engineering Northwest 8/29/2012 Synchro 6 Report Page 5 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6 : Lk WA Blvd & N 36th St-Burnett -+ ""'t " ,._ ~ ,,. overnent EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations 'ft 4 V Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph ) 175 5 90 355 5 40 Peak Hour Factor 0 .95 0.95 0.95 0 .95 0 .95 0.95 Ho urly flow rate (vph ) 184 5 95 374 5 42 ;Qirection , Lane # EB 1 WB1 NB 1 Volume Total (vph) 189 468 47 Volume Left (vph) 0 95 5 Volume R ight (vph ) 5 0 42 Hadj (s) 0 .02 0 .07 -0.51 Departure Headw ay (s) 4 .5 4 .3 4 .8 Degree Utilization , x 0.24 0 .56 0.06 Capa c ity (veh/h ) 773 820 656 Control Delay (s) 8 .9 12.6 8.2 Approach Delay (s ) 8 .9 12.6 8.2 Approach LOS A B A ntersection Summa Delay 11 .3 HCM Level of SeNice B Intersection Capacity Uti lization 46 .5% ICU Level of Service A Analys is Period (min ) 15 Quendall Terminals -EIS 5:00 pm 7/16 /2010 2015 With Alternative 1 -With RTID PM Peak Transportation Eng ineering Northwest 8/29/2012 Synchro 6 Report Page 6 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: 30th Street & Burnett Ave ~ -+ ..... • .... ' ""' t ~ ovement EB[ EB EBR WBL WBT WBR NB[ BT NBR Lane Configurations 4t 4t 4t Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph ) 0 15 0 65 30 25 0 40 60 Peak Hour Factor 0 .93 0 .93 0 .93 0.93 0.93 0 .93 0 .93 0.93 0.93 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 16 0 70 32 27 0 43 65 irectlon, uine EB 1 WB1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total (vph ) 16 129 108 113 Volume Left (vph) 0 70 0 54 Volume Right (vph) 0 27 65 0 Hadj (s) 0.03 0.02 -0.33 0.13 Departure Headway (s) 4 .6 4.4 4 .0 4 .5 Degree Utilization, x 0.02 0.16 0.12 0 .14 Capacity (veh/h) 739 766 848 764 Control Delay (s) 7.7 8 .3 7 .6 8.2 Approach Delay (s) 7.7 8.3 7 .6 8 .2 Approach LOS A A A A nteiiiction Summa Delay 8.0 HCM Level of Service A Intersection Capacity Utilization 32 .4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min ) 15 Quendall Terminals -EIS 5:00 pm 7/16/2010 2015 With Alternative 1 -With RTID PM Peak Transportation Engineering Northwest 8/29/2012 '. ! .I SBL SBT SB 4t Stop 50 55 0 0 .93 0 .93 0.93 54 59 0 Synchro 6 Report Page 7 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 8: Lk Wa Blvd & Burnett Ave ~ -+ +-'-'. ~ Movement EB[ EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations 4 'ft V Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Vo lume (vph) 0 365 175 110 90 5 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0 .92 Hourly flow rate (v ph ) 0 397 190 120 98 5 irection, Lane # EB 1 WB1 SB 1 Volume Total (vph) 397 310 103 Volume Left (vph) 0 0 98 Volume Right (vph) 0 120 5 Hadj (s) 0.03 -0.20 0.19 Departure Headway (s) 4.6 4 .5 5 .7 Degree Utilization, x 0.51 0.38 0.16 Capacity (veh/h) 756 775 560 Control Delay (s) 12.2 10.2 9.8 Approach Delay (s) 12.2 10.2 9.8 Approach LOS B B A )ntersection Summa~ Delay 11 .1 HCM Level of Service B Intersection Capacity Utilization 31.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (m in ) 15 Quendall Terminals -EIS 5:00 pm 7 /16/2010 2015 With Alternative 1 -With RTID PM Peak Transportation Engineering Northwest 8/29/2012 Synchro 6 Report Page 8 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: N Park Drive & Lake Washin~ton Blvd .,> -+ • ~ ~ '-~ t I" ovement EB BT EBR WBL WBT R NBL B NBR Lane Configurations ,11 tlt ,11 tlt (' 4t (' Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4 .0 4.0 4.0 4 .0 4 .0 4 .0 4 .0 Lane Util. Factor 0 .97 0 .95 0.97 0.91 0 .91 0.95 0.95 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0 .85 0.90 0.85 Flt Protected 0 .95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 3525 3433 3390 1441 1592 1504 Flt Permitted 0 .95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 3525 3433 3390 1441 1592 1504 Volume (vph) 305 895 25 445 785 195 10 100 710 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0 .97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj . Flow (vph) 314 923 26 459 809 201 10 103 732 RTOR Reduction (vph ) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (veh~ 314 949 0 459 809 201 0 333 512 Turn Type Prat Prat Free Split pt+ov Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 2 23 Permitted Phases Free Actuated Green, G (s) 15 .0 25.1 15.4 25.5 88.6 20.1 35.5 Effective Green , g (s) 15.0 25.1 15.4 25.5 88 .6 20.1 35.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0 .17 0 .28 0 .17 0 .29 1.00 0 .23 0.40 Clearance T i me (s) 4.0 4 .0 4.0 4 .0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3 .0 3 .0 3 .0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 581 999 597 976 1441 361 603 vis Ratio Prot 0 .09 c0.27 0.13 c0.24 c0.21 0 .34 vis Ratio Perm 0 .14 v/c Ratio 0 .54 0 .95 0 .77 0 .83 0 .14 0 .92 0 .85 Uniform Delay , d1 33.6 31 .1 34 .9 29.5 0.0 33.5 24 .1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 .00 Incremental Delay , d2 1.0 17.4 5.9 5.9 0.2 28 .5 10.8 Delay (s) 34 .7 48.6 40.8 35.4 0 .2 62.0 34.9 Level of Service C D D D A E C Approach Delay ( s) 45.1 32 .3 45.6 Approach LOS D C D n Summa HCM Average Control Delay 39.4 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.87 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 88 .6 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 78.4% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 C Critical Lane Group Quendall Termina ls -EIS 5:00 pm 7/16/2010 2015 With Alternative 1 -W ith RTID PM Peak Transportation Engineering Northwest 8/29/2012 '. ! ~ SB[ SBT SBR 11 4 (' 1900 1900 1900 4 .0 4 .0 4.0 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0 .85 0 .95 0 .99 1.00 1681 1756 1583 0.95 0 .99 1.00 1681 1756 1583 135 105 315 0 .97 0 .97 0.97 139 108 325 0 0 281 120 127 44 Split Perm 6 6 6 12 .0 12 .0 12 .0 12.0 12.0 12.0 0 .14 0 .14 0 .14 4 .0 4 .0 4 .0 3.0 3.0 3.0 228 238 214 0 .07 c0.07 0 .03 0 .53 0 .53 0 .21 35 .7 35.7 34.1 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.2 2.3 0.5 37.8 38.0 34 .5 D D C 36.0 D Synchro 6 Report Page 9 Appendix B Traffic Volume Forecasts ~ Trans porution Engineering NorthWest, LLC Quendall Terminals 2015 AM Peak Hour Traffic Volume Forecasts Without RTID 1-405 Improvements Ente r Exi t Total Que nd all Proj ect Vo ls 445 4 2 1 866 Alternative 1 (incudes 1 0 % increase in apartme nt trips) Q uendall Passby Vols 24 20 44 Intersectio n: 1-40~ N H Ra~s / Lake Washir1yto11 Blvtl lntenection Code: 1 Scenario: Mast er Use Plan Analyst: JG l Analysis Year: 20 15 Checked by: MJR Time Period· PM Peak Date o f Completion: 8/28/2012 No tes Sout hbound West bound Northbou nd --------- Ent&r Exit fotal Enter Exit Enter Exit 2008 Calibration Year 625 485 1,1 10 11 4 126 24 0 420 161 201 5 Baseline Forecast Year 375 327 702 114 145 259 271 277 Fratar Approximation Fader 1.15 1.07 North Approach East Approach South Approach Left Ttv-,J Ri<t,t In O ut Total Left Tt.-u R1ohl In Out Total Left Tt.-u 2009 Ex1stinn Condit1~ 30 25 3 4 5 400 515 915 165 165 140 470 230 700 10 95 201 5 Baseline Year 30 30 400 460 590 1.050 175 180 1!>0 505 24 5 750 10 11 5 Barbee Mil~ 3 1 0 Kennydale Apartments 2 27 35 2 13 Hawks Landing 2 2 28 0 3 2 5 9 14 28 13 175 181 150 51 0 250 7IO 40 130 K K K 0 0 0 10'5 1ft ,. .. 41 • •• • m , .. ,. Ill --.ill 110 Intersection: 1-405 SB Ramps/ La ke W ashington Blvd lnterseclion Code: 2 Scenario: Master u~ Plan Analyst: JG T AnatyM, Yeu: 201 ~ Chocked by : MJR Tim e Period· PM Pe ak O.at e or Completion · 8/28/2012 Note s ISouthhour<J Westl>ou r,tl Northbound --- Enter Exit Total (nter (xit Enter Ex it 2008 Ca li bi at ion Yea, I 502 0 502 695 308 1,003 0 607 2015 Baseline Forncasl Year 863 0 863 300 290 590 0 555 rrat ar Appr ox1rnat1on Factor 1.62 1 . 15 North Approach East Approach South Approach Left Thru Ritht In Out Total Left Tt.-u Right In Out Total Left TITu 2009 Ex,stina Condit iom 55 5 1 1 5 175 0 1 75 3 90 135 0 525 720 1 ,245 0 0 20 15 Baseline Year 130 10 145 285 0 285 480 120 0 600 805 1 ,405 0 0 Barbee Mills 4 4 Kennydale Apartments 9 35 Hawks Landing 18 32 9 0 22 3 1 0 31 35 36 0 71 65 1 36 0 0 140 10 1&5 315 0 3 1 5 5 15 1 55 0 870 870 1,540 0 0 K K K K K K T on Eng onhwe Count Sot#c:e: TI A 2015 to 200 9 Factor: 08571 Ea~t bound ----- 1-nter fxil 581 308 695 548 290 300 1.1 5 West Approach Rinht In Out Tota l Left Thru 90 195 540 735 280 110 100 225 6 15 840 325 115 21 5 9 1 2 0 41 5 4 95 31 7 100 270 865 935 355 120 K K K 0 0 0 .. .. .... 11n. 1ft 0 IN I N 40 40 I N l70 .. 1,1• .. ,. Count Source: TIA 201 5 to 2009 Factor: 0 .857 1 Eastbound --Enter E•1t 607 293 575 555 283 600 1.1 5 West Approach R1oht In Out Total Left Tt.-u 0 0 400 400 0 665 0 0 495 4 95 0 675 4 2 14 0 0 54 54 0 56 0 0 550 550 0 730 K K K 1.003 590 1.1 5 Rirrlt In 350 410 16 11 27 4 3 5 4K 190 Ill 868 883 1 .01 Ri<tit I n 5 5 1 18 19 ZS • O ut Total 740 520 1.260 1,805 8 50 590 1.440 2,040 46 4 6 65 71 136 1 80 810 865 1,575 2,215 K K K 0 0 0 0 0 ... .. .... 1 l70 N -360 ,.,. 111 ,.-2,575 Out Total 670 250 920 1 ,3 70 680 265 945 1,565 5 1 82 75 58 133 177 755 szo 1,075 1,740 K K K 0 0 0 0 0 -·-----u.. 1 1M , ... --565 .,. ---2,305 Dale Pr ir,leU: B/29 /20 1 2 ge 1 Quendall Terminals 2015 AM Peak Hour Traffic Volume Forecasts Without RTID 1-405 Improvements Intersect ion : Rip ley Lane / La ~c W3sh1ng1on Blvd Scenario : Master Use Plan A nalysis Year: ?01 ~ Tim e Period: PM !leak Note~ Soulhhmmrl Entff Exit Total 2008 Cahbrat1on Year 1 1 2 2015 Baseline forecast Year 1 1 2 Fratar Aooroximatlon Factor 1.00 North Approach Left Thru Riyht In 2009 Ex1st1ng Condit ions 30 0 5 201 5 Baseline Year 30 0 5 Bar bee Mills 34 3 Hawks Landing 3 Pipeline ProjecU-Sublotal 34 0 6 2015A_od ___ 115 0 10 PHSby D•trlbuUon Pasbl l r111lc Volu..-.s 35 35 40 75 0% 0 .... Trip ....... ~ °" ... -Thlllc--265 0 211 ., ... ,.. ..... ao 0 ,o no Out BO BO 9 90 0% 0 ... zu 115 lntcr ~ct io n : Lake W ashington Blvd / Bar Det! M ills Acee\) Sce nario: Master Use Plan Analysis Ve ar : ?01 5 Time Period: PM l1P.11k --· Nole~ Southbound Enter E1C it Total 2008 Cal1bfation Year 1 1 2 2015 Baseline Forecast Year 1 1 2 Fratar Approximation Factor 1 .00 North Approach left T hru Ri<tlt In Out 2009 Ex1stina Condit ions 0 0 0 0 0 201 5 Baseline Year 0 0 0 0 0 Bar bee Mills 9 1 Hawks Landing Pipellne Proiects·Subtotal 9 0 1 10 2 2015 A"""'ocl a...iiiw with......._ 10 0 0 10 0 Pas,by D•trlbution 75% 25% 100% 100'11, PassbY Traffic Volumes 15 5 20 25 Prqjlct Trip Dlllrllullon S'll, 36'll, 4"" 41* ...._. Trllllc .,__ 211 145 ,., 171 IOII ... Ftll..._ 41 0 110 , .. zoo Tran~port<1t 1,1n fn9111P.~1mg N nrthwmt, l IC Westbound Enter Exit 575 293 868 600 283 883 FLAG 1 .0 1 East Approach Total Left Thru Rictn In 115 0 195 65 115 0 200 65 2 6 50 4 9 0 52 6 165 0 250 70 0% 0 , .. '"' 80'IC, 110 20 216 Ill 0 l70 311 W estbound Enter Ex• 574 287 861 601 283 884 FLAG 1 .02 East Approach Total l eft Thru Rioht In 0 0 200 0 0 0 205 0 3 2 53 12 0 56 2 10 0 260 0 200% 25% 45 .5 5 ... S'JI. 340 20 IN 0 211 21 l ntenec;:tio n Code : :I Analyst : J(';l Checked by: MJR Date of Compl etio n: 8/28/20 12 Nortl1buuru.i £ntcr 1 1 Exit South Approach 260 265 58 320 0% 0 1111, HI IOI Out Toul Left 665 925 680 9 45 75 133 755 1 ,0 75 0% 0% 0 0 .... , .. ZJI HO ,,o:ao ,.a, Int ersection Cod e : 4 Anal yst : J liT Checked by: M Jf-.1 Thru 0 0 0 0 0 Date o f Completion: A/?8/?01? Northbound Enter Exit 1 1 South Approach Out Total Left Thru 200 650 850 0 205 665 870 0 58 39 97 0 260 705 965 0 25'11, 75% 100,C, 0 .5 .5 5'll, '" 11* 20 20 40 ZIO 720 1.000 0 1 2 1 2 1.00 Ri!f,t In Out 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 5 5 0 5 5 0% 0 °" 0 0 I 5 1 2 1 2 1 .00 RiQht In Out 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 0 C)'ll, 0 0 0 0 Count Source: TIA 201 5 to 2009 Factor : U 8~ 71 E.rnbound Enter Exit 287 574 283 601 FLAG West App,oach Total Left Thru 0 0 1 5 635 0 0 1 5 650 1 9 2 27 0 5 3 36 0 5 20 685 0% 0% 0% 0 0 0 0 °" °" 0% 5'11, 0 0 0 20 0 I 20 70I Count Source: I IA 2015 to 2009 fac;:I Qr: 0 A'i71 E.asttJound Enter Exit 287 574 283 601 FLAG West A.pp, oach Toul Left Ttru 0 0 0 650 0 0 0 665 0 1 29 0 0 0 30 0 0 0 695 °" O'JI. 75% 0 0 20 20 °" °" 3 5'11, 0 0 155 0 0 175 875 861 884 1 .0 2 Ri<t>t In 0 650 0 665 0 39 0 705 O'JI. 0 '" 20 0 721 861 884 1 .02 RiQht In 0 650 0 665 0 30 0 695 75% 0 ,S'll, 111 0 850 Out 200 205 58 260 0% 0 '" 20 210 Out 200 205 57 260 25% 0 H 'll, 141 405 Total 850 870 97 965 0% 0 '°" 40 ,.oos Tot al 850 8 70 87 955 100% 0 70,C -1,211 9 45 965 55 87 142 1 ,10 5 0 0 1 5 60 1 ,6 65 851 870 16 82 98 965 2 20 3 40 1,325 Date Pr inled 8/29/2012 Pag.-2 Quendall Terminals 2015 AM Peak Hour Traffic Volume Forecasts Without RTID 1-405 Improvements Intersection: La ke Washi ngton Blvd / Hawb I anc:t iny A ccess Seen.ar t<>: Master Use Plan An.alyUs Year: ?015 Time Period: µM Pe.ik N otes So,11hbound Enter Cxit Total 2008 Calibration Year 1 1 2 2015 Baseline FOfecast Year 1 1 2 Fratar Approximation Factor 1.02 North Approach Left Tt-ru R1gh1 In 2009 Er.i:sting Condit.Jons 0 0 0 2015 Baseline Year 0 0 0 Barbee Mills Hawks Landing P~line Projects-Subtotal 0 0 0 zo,s----~ 0 0 0 Pas,byDistribution Pas,by Trlllk: Volunws . •... .; ..... -__ ,·;:.r. "~""'-~-,_ .. . ". 1:-,: ··:-·-:"~, \ ... ·- T .' .. --... -· 0 0 0 lntenection: N 30th St / l ake W<1ihington Blvd SceNrio: Mailer U'.le Plan Analysis Year; 2015 Tim e Period: PM Peak N otes S0u1hbot11K1 Enter Ex it Total 2008 Cahbr at ion Year 1 1 2 2015 Baseline Forecast Year 1 1 2 Fratar l\.pproxunation FJ:1ctor 1.00 Nor th Approach Left Thru R1oht In 2010 Exist inq Conditions 0 0 0 201 S Baseli ne Year 0 0 0 Barbee Mills Hawk$ Landing Pipelme Projects-Subtotal 0 0 0 2015._ ......... ._ __ 0 0 5 Pm,y Distri>ulion Pa.dwTraffic:Volumos ~ :'II-• .. , ... :· -:...:...;,-. ._ ·.-. . -• 0 I o n t-ng1 orthwe ·----- Out Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 °"' °"' °"' 0 0 0 .. .. .. • • a ,o 0 a ~------- FLAG Out Total 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 5 5 10 °"' °"' °"' 0 0 0 ... °" .. 0 0 m • I 10 Westbuuritl Ent er Exo 574 287 861 601 783 884 1.02 East Approach Left Tt-ru R1qht In 0 200 0 0 205 0 4 53 53 4 0 55 210 0 .. 36" 146 .. Ill 0 Westbound Enter Ex,t 324 217 54 1 432 216 648 1 .17 East Apµroach Left Thru Rimt In 17 89 0 20 105 0 0 4 1 3 1 7 0 20 110 0 205 16" IS • 1N. ,,. 0 lnl•n ect ion Code: 5 Analyst: JGT Checked by: MJR Date of Completion: 8/78/7012 Nort hbound Ente, 1 1 Exo South Approach 1 1 Out Total Left Tt-ru 200 205 57 285 °"' 0 3ft, 1a 410 650 850 665 870 30 87 895 HO °"' °"' 0 0 .. 70II 111 -IIO , ... lnte n ection Code: 6 Analyst : JGT C hecked by: MW 0 0 4 4 5 I Date of Completion: 8/28/7.012 N oMhhounrl Enter Exit 7 1 67 SOuth Approach Out Total L•ft Thru 106 4 51 557 6 1 25 540 665 10 8 7 15 0 130 545 875 10 °"' °"' °"' 0 0 0 ... .. 709' 1IO 111 -.. 700 -10 0 0 0 0 0 250 169 0 a 0 0 0 2 ? 1.00 Right In 0 0 0 0 29 29 33 30 35 °"' 0 °" 0 IO • - 321 736 1 .15 Ri¢,t In 106 11 2 120 130 a 1 1 1 120 130 °"' 0 211% ... 80 IO 110 •• Out Count Source: T!A 2015 t o 2009 Factor: 0.8571 Eastbound Enter Exit 287 574 283 601 FLAG West Approach Total Left Thru 0 0 0 650 0 0 0 665 1 59 92 0 1 60 95 0 885 °"' °"' 0 0 °" OK 35'11, 0 0 155 ID N 0 no 861 884 1.02 Right In 0 650 0 665 6 6 7 5 870 °"' 0 .. 111 I Ill Count Source: ATOS · 6/8/2010 Count 201 5 to 2010 Fa ctor: 0 7143 (a~tbound Enter Exit 223 317 540 241 439 680 1.22 West Approach Out Total Left Thru Rictlt In 19 1 31 0 3 45 2 347 25 155 0 420 5 425 1 5 1 2 0 6 0 6 25 155 5 425 5 435 °"' 0'11, °"' 0 0 0 ... .... 16" "" N 171 85 .. 110 no I 4IO I IOO - O ut 200 205 B 215 0'11, 0 ·" 141 .. --- Out 95 1 1 5 7 125 °"' 0 "" N 1IO Total 850 870 15 885 °"' 0 70II -1,111 Total 442 5 40 13 580 °"' 0 IOII , ... - 851 870 5 92 97 970 0 0 1 300 1,270 565 680 5 10 15 700 0 0 1 305 1 ,005 Date ~rimed: B/29 /701? ge 3 Quendall Terminals 2015 AM Peak Hour Traffic Volume Forecasts Without RTID 1-405 Improvements lnten e ction : N 30th St / Burnell Ave Scerurio : Master Use P!an Analysis Year : 201 5 Time Period: PM Peak Notes Southbound Enter E,ot Total 2008 Calibration Year 2 16 1 14 3 30 2015 Baseline f orecast Year 95 7 6 17 1 Fratar Approxima tion Faclo r 1 .15 North Approach Lelt Thru Ri Qht 20 10 Ex istinQ Co nditions 18 2 5 0 20 15 Base line Yea , 25 25 0 Barbee Mills Hawks landing 1 Ptpellne Projects Subtot al 1 0 0 2 0 15 A-..i a..lnl wtn,-25 25 0 Pauby Oislribution Paintw T raffk VokJrNs ,__-ri. oi.tmllan 2°" , . ,._ Tllfflo"""-85 an1.-aN1-110 II 0 In 43 5 0 1 so °" 0 ... u 131 lnten ectio n: Lake W<1shi11yto11 Blvd / Bu, 11ell A~ Scenario : Master Use Plan A nalysis Yur: 201 5 Time Period : PM Pea k Notes Sou1hbound Emer Exit Total 2 008 Ca librat lOfl Year 8 1 52 133 201 5 Baseline Forecast Yea , 67 67 1 34 Fratar Approximation Fa ctor 1.01 N orth A pproach left Thru R1oh t In 201 o b:i.uina Conditions 2 8 7 0 89 2015 Baseline Year 5 85 0 90 Barbee Mills 4 Hawks Lanchng 3 P1oehne Proiecu Subtotal 0 7 0 7 2015 ............. -wt ............ 5 90 0 95 P1$!by D~tributoon °" P-dw Tr effic Vo lum n 0 Prqjlct Trfp Dlllrtlullan 16" 111' -T..icV....,_ 65 .. a119111Ftlll ..... I 1U 0 180 Transportation Engineering Northwest. LLC Westbound fnter Exit 14 8 226 374 77 101 178 1 .15 East Approach O ut Total Lert Thru RiQht In 7 9 122 20 11 20 90 1 40 20 10 30 1 1 2 0 0 1 90 140 20 10 30 o" 0" 0 0 ... 40II 2°" ID 171 IIO 1IO 111 20 10 120 Westbound Enter Exit 28 3 323 606 421 521 9 4 2 1 .48 East Approach O ut T otal Lef t Tt-<u R1aht In 335 4 2 4 5 4 0 1 310 400 BO 0 5 6 13 0 0 0 315 410 80 0 5 °" °" 0 0 111' '°" .. 1IO -l40 IO 0 I lntenection Code : 7 An.11 lyst : JGT Checked by : MJR Date o f Completion : 8/LB/20 12 N orthbound Enter 52 67 Ex it 8 1 67 South A pproach 51 60 1 60 °" 0 ... ID 1IO O ut Total Left 75 12 6 85 1 4 5 1 2 85 145 °" °" 0 0 ... 4°" II 171 170 uo Inte rsectio n Code : A Analyst : JGT Checke d by: MJR 0 0 0 0 0 Date o r Comple tio n: 8/28/201 2 No1tt1buund Enter 1 1 T hru 59 60 0 60 IO Exit 1 1 Sout h Approach O ut Total Lef t Tt-<u 55 100 155 0 334 85 135 220 0 30~ 1 5 0 0 0 0 6 85 13 5 220 0 31 0 °" °" o" 0 0 0 °" °" °" 1!i" 0 0 0 65 II 111 220 0 371 133 134 1 .01 RIQht In 4 7 106 50 110 0 0 50 110 O" 0 °" 0 IO 110 2 7 1 .00 Ri1.1ht In 98 432 130 435 0 6 130 440 °" 0 111' II 130 IOI O ut O ut Count So urce : A TDS 6/A/ 20 1 0 C.o\1nt 2 0 1 5 to 2010 Fact or : 0 71 4 3 Eastbou nd Emcr Exit 1 1 2 1 1 2 1.00 West Approach Total left Thru R19h t I n 4 5 15 1 0 10 0 4 5 155 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 45 155 0 10 0 °" o" 0 0 °" °" 0 0 41 111 0 10 0 Count Source: .ATO S G/H/;w10 Coum 201 5 l o 20 1 0 Factor: 0 / 1 43 [a~l brn md Enter hit 322 28 3 605 4 77 339 8 16 FLAG 1 .30 Wesr Approach Total left Thru Riqh1 In 1 41 5 73 0 0 0 1 65 600 0 0 0 7 1 3 0 0 0 170 610 0 0 0 °" °" 0 0 111' ... II 130 HI 740 0 0 0 10 10 0 10 °" 0 °" 0 10 0 0 0 0 °" 0 °" 0 0 O ut 1 1 10 0 10 °" 0 °" 0 10 Out 0 0 0 0 °" 0 °" 0 0 FLAG Total 2 1 20 0 20 °" 0 °" a 2G Total 0 0 0 0 °" 0 °" 0 0 210 230 0 2 2 230 0 0 0 175 405 576 6 10 5 8 13 620 0 0 0 130 750 Date Prinled 8/29/2012 ra9H 4 Quendall T erminals 2015 AM Peak Hour Traffic Volume Forecasts Without RTID 1-405 Improvements Intersectio n: Lake Washmgton Blvd / Garden Ave N / Park Ave N Scenario: Ma ster Use Plan An.alyMs VH r: 2015 Time Period: PM Peak Notes 1Southbouml 2008 Calibration Year 2015 Basel,ne Forecast Year fralar ~rox1mation Factor Enter 710 9 45 Exo Total 683 1 ,393 601 1,546 1 .09 .._ _______________ -iNonh Approach Left Tt-ru RiQht In Out Total 2010 Existing Conditions ·on Eny1 2015 Baseline Year Barbee Mills Hawks lsnding .:>rthwe 98 15 204 85 35 230 15 31 235 317 4 57 774 350 515 865 6 355 520 0% 0% Westbound Enter Exit 1 ,291 1 . 726 3,017 1 ,615 2 ,41 2 4 ,027 1 .29 East Approach Left TIY u R111ht 208 718 90 460 785 60 0 0 1 480 715 ID In Interse ctio n Cod e: 9 A n alysl : JGT Che<ked by : MJR Oat.e o f Compl etion: 8/28/2012 Northbound Enter Exit 379 805 South Approach 209 576 Out Total Left Tt-ru 1.016 505 1 ,52 1 12 88 1,305 675 1 ,980 40 180 1 2 3 0 1 1,3011 1711 1,IIO 40 110 0% 0% 0% .. JD ... - 538 1.381 2 .34 Rit!t 55 145 0 145 H I In 155 365 365 0% 0 -IO - Count So urce: ATOS 6/8/2010 Coun1 2015 to 2010 Fact or : o 71 43 hstbounri Enter Exit 1.562 1.274 2 ,836 1.862 1.540 3,402 ,. 17 West Approach Out fotal Left Thru Ri_llt In 231 386 279 352 8 639 520 8851 27~ 445 25 74 5 3 520 0% 0 4 ~, ZID 0 445 0 4 750 0% 0 ZS -10. '°" ,. ~ .J! Ill Ill ... • .,.. Out Total 934 1 ,573 1,055 1 ,800 3 1,DIO 1,1~ 0% 2,127 2,7 65 5 8 13 2,775 0 0 0 1 30 2,905 Date Printed· 9/29 /2012 ge 5 Quendall Terminals 2015 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume Forecasts Without RTID 1-405 Improvements Quendall Project Vols Quendall Passby Vols Enter 4 42 28 Exit 509 2 1 Total 951 49 Interse ctio n: 1.40; N A f(an1p') / lt1k~ Wa.,,l 11n91on Bl11cl Sc::enario: Master U'}e Pla11 ... ·:·· .. Analysis Vear: 201 5 Time Period : PM Pea k No1e~ Southbound Enter Exit fotal 2008 Calibration Year 625 485 1,110 2015 Baseline Forecasl Yea, 375 327 702 Fr ala, Approximation Factor 1.15 North Approach Left T hru R 1Qht In 2009 Ex ist1nq Conditiom. 50 25 280 355 2015 Baseline Year 50 30 330 410 Barbee Mills 9 Kennydale Apartments 2 18 22 Hawks Landmg 2 Pipeline Projects-Subtotal 2 18 33 53 2015 ____ 50 50 385 485 Pmby Distribution °" Pe,by T ralfic Volumes 0 "• ..,..,,. ...... '°" 10W. -, .. --. 45 .. .. , ... ,.._ IO IO 410 110 Intersec tion: I 405 SB Aarnp s / La ke W4Y11nglOJ1 Blvd Scenario: M astPr Use Plan Analyst, Yeu: 2015 Time Period: PM Peak Notes Southbound £mer Exit Total ?008 Ca libration Year 502 0 502 2015 Baseline Forecast Vear 863 0 863 Frat ar Approximation Factor 1.31 North Approach left Thru R1oht In 2009 bi.stina Conditions 130 5 250 385 2015 Ba-;eline Year 200 10 300 510 Barbee Mills 22 Kennydalc Apartments 30 Hawks Landing 16 Pipeline Prolec.u.-Subtotal 30 0 38 68 2015 ............ ____ 230 10 340 580 Pa,,by Dotrlbu"on °" Pas,by Tr affic Volumes 0 ~Trtp........, "'" 41 .. -Tnlllc-200 IOO 2011 ............... 230 10 l40 7111 T ran::>JK .. 11tat1u11 Eng111eR11ng N 1;1lhwe,t. llC: A lternative 1 (1ncudes 10% increase 111 apartment trips ) Westbound Entet" b it 114 126 2~0 114 145 259 1.07 £ast Approach Out Total Left Thru Riqht In 350 705 75 150 65 4 05 815 8 0 165 65 6 2 2 70 123 0 8 2 475 940 80 175 65 °" 0'11. 0 0 1ft .. '°" IO .. 45 IH 1,UI ID zzo .. Westbound Enter b:tt 695 308 1,003 300 290 590 1.15 East Approoch Out Total Lclt Thru R1aht In 0 385 2 15 225 0 0 510 285 220 0 16 22 30 0 68 22 46 0 0 580 305 285 0 °" °" 0 0 -4B 2°" 0 zoo 90 0 7111 IOI Ill 0 lntenection Code: 1 A n alyst : JCT C hecked by: MJR D ate o f Completion: U/28/2012 North hound Enter- 420 271 Exit 161 277 Sout h Approach 290 310 10 320 °" 0 tK 41 MS Out To tal Lert 360 650 385 695 14 24 3115 715 °" °" 0 0 , .. .. IO .. 441 810 Inte rsec tio n Code: Analyst : JGT Checke d by: MJR Thru 15 230 20 275 1 3 4 26 27 34 45 310 41 110 Date of Completio n: 8/28/2012 Nortt1tXHJnd Enter Exit 0 607 0 555 South Approach Out Total Left Thru 4 4 0 280 720 0 0 505 350 855 0 0 68 64 132 0 0 570 415 985 0 0 °" °" °" 0 0 0 .. .. " ..... IO no 420 -741 1.-0 0 581 5 48 1.15 R;qh, In 1 45 390 1 55 450 0 61 155 510 °" 0 .. 0 111 110 607 555 1 .15 Riehl In 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 °" 0 -0 0 0 Out Count Source: TIA 2 01 5 to 2009 Fact or : C) 85 71 Eastbound Enter Exit 308 695 290 300 West Approach Total Left Thru 160 550 55 165 185 635 65 180 3 10 30 1 2 36 9/ 34 1 2 225 735 100 190 °" °" 0 0 ...,. "" ,°" ,°" Out uo 230 50 50 411 181 1IO 240 Count Source : I IA 2015 lo 2009 Factor: 0 8S71 (asttxxmd Enter Exit 293 575 283 600 West App,oach Total Left Thru 345 345 0 150 425 425 0 150 16 18 47 47 0 34 470 470 0 185 °" °" 0 0 °" °" 65'11. 0 0 330 470 470 0 111 1.003 590 1.1 5 Rlci,t In 60 280 75 320 3 15 18 64 95 385 °" 0 45'11. "" 230 no 121 711 868 883 1 .01 Ri•ht In 125 275 130 280 2 23 25 59 155 340 °" 0 u .. HO 111 170 Out Total 4 4 5 725 5 1 5 835 68 132 585 970 °" 0 '11. 0 0 .. "" IO 42111 171 1,SIMI Out Total 4 75 750 520 800 84 143 805 945 0'11. °" 0 0 ., .. 1 ... 290 IIZO 891 1,511 1,315 1,490 32 48 188 1,680 0 0 1 420 2,100 1 ,100 1 ,295 56 87 195 1 ,490 0 0 1 620 2 ,110 Date Pr 1ntl"d· 8/29/201 ? p,.~ 1 Quenda ll T ermi nals 2 015 PM Pe ak Hour Traffic V o lume For ecasts W ithout RTID 1-4 05 Improv em ents lnterse(tion: Ripley Lane / La ke Washington Blvd lntersectton Code : J Sc enario: Master Use Pla n Analyst: MJ R A naly sis Year: ?015 Checked by: MJ R Time Pe riod: PM Peak Date of Completio n · 6/1 ?/?012 Notes Southbound Westbound Northbo11nd ·-~-~- Enter Ex it Total Enter Exit Entef Exit 2008 Calibfatton Year 1 1 2 575 293 868 1 2015 Baseline Forecast Year 1 1 7 600 283 883 1 Fratar Approximation Factor 1.00 FLAG 1.01 North Approach f ast Approach Soulh Approach left Thru Right In Out Tot>I Left Thru Rict,t In Out To tal Left Thlu 2012 bistinu Conditions 101 0 28 129 45 174 0 4 09 38 447 282 729 0 2015 l3a,ehne Year 100 0 30 130 4 5 175 0 4 65 40 505 285 790 0 Barbee Mills 14 3 8 30 Hawks Landing 3 46 14 0 6 20 38 58 0 54 30 8 4 59 143 0 1 15 0 35 1IO 85 2 35 0 5 20 70 51IO 345 935 0 01' 01' 01' 01' 01' 01' • lntene ction: La ke Wam1ngt on Blvd / Barbee M ills Access Intersection Code : 4 Scenario: Mas1er U!>e Plan A nalyst : JGT A nalysis Year : 201 5 Checked by: MJR Time Pe riod · PM Peak Date of Completion· 8/28/201 2 Not es J S0uthbou11d Westbound N orthbound ------Enter Exit Total (ntQf Exit Entef Ex it 2008 C.hbratio n Yca::I 1 1 2 574 287 861 1 2015 Basehnc Forecast Year 1 1 7 601 283 884 1 Frata,-Anrvo)(imation Factor 1.00 FLAG 1 .02 N orth A pp, oach fast Approach South Approach Left Thru R1oht In Out Total Len T hru Ri<rt In Out To 1al l eft Tt-.u 2009 Existino Conditions 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 3 7 0 4 37 1 88 625 0 2015 Bmellne Year a 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 95 0 4 95 190 685 0 Ba rbee M ills 4 1 3 8 Hawks Landing 49 4 0 1 5 9 14 0 52 8 60 48 108 0 5 0 0 5 10 15 0 545 10 555 240 7 95 0 15'11, 100W. 100W. 2 00W. 75% 75'11, 25'11, 100W. -20 20 0 0 0 ·on Eng" or thwe Count Sowce: I IA 2015 t o 201 2 Fac tor: 0 4 286 (aslbound -. ----Enter Exit 1 2 287 574 861 1 2 783 601 884 1.00 FLAG 1 .02 West Approach Right In Out Total Left Thru Ri[l'lt 0 1 1 1 2 7 180 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 185 0 6 4 5 2 36 0 5 5 0 5 8 40 0 0 5 5 0 5 1 5 221 0 01' 01' 01' ... 26 • I I • II 11 -0 Count Sol.Kee: T 1A 2 0 1 5 to 2009 Facto r: 0 8571 Ea~t llouml ------ Ent er Exit 1 2 2 87 574 861 1 2 783 601 884 1.00 FLAG 1 .02 West Approach Rioht In Out Total Left Thru Ri<#ll 0 0 0 0 0 0 188 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 190 0 1 6 38 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 235 0 01' 01' 0 % 25'11, 0 0 0 5 .5 .. .. .. 35% • 0 0 156 -·-~-·~---·--I __ 100 .... 0 In 188 190 4 8 240 01' 0 --.. In 188 190 4 5 235 25'11, 0 ... 111 IJO Out To tal 4 37 625 765 495 685 825 65 92 60 108 157 555 795 985 01' 01' 0 0 0 0 ... 1• 1 ... .fl 615 n, -1,600 O ut Total 437 625 626 495 685 6 8 5 23 87 53 98 11 0 545 790 7 95 71'11, 100W. 2 -5 -5 2 0 ... 70I 1 ~-_,; 380 no 1,1141 1,195 Date Printed 8/29/2012 ge 2 Quendall Terminals 2015 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume Forecasts Wi t hout RTID 1-405 Improvements Intersectio n : I ake WashirxJtOO Blvd / Hawks Landing Access Scenario: Ma-.1er U..e Plan i.. ... ' ,, '.--p An.alylis Year : 2015 Time Period: rM Pi:!<1k Notes Southbour,d (nter Exit Total 2008 Cahbrauon Year 1 1 2 701 5 AMaline Forecast Year 1 1 2 Fratar Annroximation Factor 1.02 North Approach Left Thr u Ri!l,I In 2009 Ex1stinQ Condit ions 0 0 0 201 5 Baseline Year 0 0 0 Barbee Milb Hawk'5 Landing Pipeline Projects-Subtotal 0 0 0 2015Ad""'od_,__--. 0 0 0 Passby o.strlbutlon Pas,by Traffic Volumes •• <•4 l!IW"*llllallllllllll :, .~ -,--.....:_ ,; ___ ,._ • • • lntenectio n: N 36tt1 St / Lake WaWunqton Blvd Scenario: Master UM! Pl.an An.alys.i, Year: ?015 Tim• Period: PM Peak ... Notes Southbound Enter hit Total 2 008 Calibration Year 1 1 2 2015 Baseline forecast Year 1 1 2 Frat ar Approximat ion Factor 1.00 Noith Approach Left TIYU Rioht In 2010 Existina Conditions 0 0 0 201 5 Baseline Year 0 0 0 Barbe1:1 Mill$ Hawks Landing Pipeline Proiects· Subtotal 0 0 0 Z015 Adluded -no --0 0 0 Passby o.strlbutlon PM dw Traff".c: Volumes Plqjlct '"' Dlllrt.llllll ......... , ...... - 201, ... , ....... 0 0 0 TrampOftallon [ngineefmg NorthW\!~t. LLC Out 0 0 0 0 °" 0 -0 • Out 0 0 0 0 °" 0 °" 0 0 Westbound Enter Exit 574 287 861 601 283 884 1.02 East Approach Total Left T hru Rid1t In 0 0 0 4 37 0 0 0 0 495 0 4 4 9 0 0 4 9 4 0 0 0 50 500 0 0 '11. °" 0 0 °" ... ... 0 D 180 • • IO -0 Westbound En ter Exit 324 ?17 5 41 4 32 2 16 6 4 8 FLAG 1 .17 East Approach To tal Left Thru Rl<lht In 0 0 83 280 0 0 0 90 335 0 1 3 1 4 0 0 2 7 0 0 0 110 340 0 °" °" 0 0 °" °" 20'II, 15'11, 0 0 100 75 0 0 1110 411 0 Intersection Code: A nalyst : JGT Checked by: MJ R Date of Completion: 8/28/2012 N orthbound Enter 1 1 Exit South Approach 4 37 4 95 53 550 °" 0 ... ''° no Out Total Left 188 625 190 685 4 5 98 235 785 °" °" 0 0 ... 70tl 111 :a:tl :tlO ,.,- Interse ction Code: G Analyst : JGT Checked by : Mm Thru 0 0 5 5 5 • Da te of Comple ti on: 8/28/?012 Northhound Ente, Exit 7 1 6 7 South Approach Out Total Left Ttwu 363 132 495 4 425 160 585 5 9 12 21 0 430 175 605 5 °" °" °" 0 0 0 "" :tl'II, .,. 171 111 uo IOI 130 135 s 1 2 1 2 1.00 Right In 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 0 38 43 0 40 45 °" 0 °" 0 0 40 ... 250 3 21 169 236 1.1 5 R;qht In 0 25 29 0 30 35 2 1 0 3 3 0 35 40 °" 0 20'JI, 201' 90 IO 0 125 130 Out Count Source: TIA 201 5 to 2009 fac t or : 0 8~ / 1 Ea\thound Enter Exit 287 574 283 601 FLAG West Approach Total Lef t Thru 0 0 0 188 0 0 0 190 7 5 4 97 0 7 55 100 0 195 °" °" 0 0 861 884 1 .02 Rloht In 0 188 0 190 5 5 1 2 5 zoo °" 0 °" °" 35'11, '"' Out 0 0 155 H 100 0 110 I Counl Source: A J IJS 6/8/2010 Count 2015 t o 2010 Factor: 0 71 4 ] [astbound Ent er £x1t 223 317 540 24 1 439 680 1.22 West Approach lotal Lett Thru R1ohl In 90 119 0 107 7 100 135 0 130 10 5 4 2 5 0 9 0 100 140 0 140 10 0 '11, °" 0 0 201' "°" 15'11. 100 180 65 200 3:10 0 205 10 111 Ill 114 1 40 9 150 °" 0 15" II 215 Out 437 495 9 505 °" 0 :tK 1IO Ill Out 284 340 7 345 °" 0 ""' 75 420 Total 625 685 21 705 °" 0 .,. HI ,.- Total 398 480 16 4115 °" 0 -1M 135 626 685 11 97 108 795 0 0 1 335 1 ,130 506 600 11 10 21 620 0 0 330 950 Date Printed 8/29/2012 Page 3 Quendall Termi nal s 2 01 5 PM Peak H our T ra ffic V olume Forecasts W ithout RTI O 1-405 Improvements lnteuection: N 30th St / Burnett Aw, l nteneclion Code: 7 Scenario: Mast er U~ Plan A nalyst: JG T Analysis Year: 2015 Checked by : MJR Time Period: PM Peak Date of Completion: 8/28/2012 Not es ,Southbound West bound N orthbound Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Enter Exit 2008 Cahbrat,on Year I 2 16 114 330 148 226 374 52 2015Basehnc f orecast Year 95 76 171 77 101 178 67 Fratar Approximation Factor 1 .1 5 1 .15 I N orth Approach East App, oach South Approach Left Th'u Rioht In Out Tota l left Th'u Right In Out Total Leh Thru 2010 Existina Conditions 44 55 2 101 51 152 64 28 1 3 105 118 223 2 2015 Ba:sehne Year 60 55 0 115 60 175 70 30 20 120 135 255 0 Barbee Mi lls 1 2 Hawks Landing 1 1 2 0 0 2 3 5 0 0 3 3 2 5 0 IO 55 0 115 85 11 0 70 30 Z5 1 2 5 135 ZIO 0 °" °" °" °" °" °" Intersection: Lake Wa~hington Blvd / Burnett Ave l ntenection Code: 8 Sc enario : Maste, Use Plan An,lyst: JGT An1 lysi1 Vear : 2015 Checked by: MJR Time Period: PM Peak Date of Complet ion · 8/28/2012 Noies !Southbound Wesibound Northbound -~-Enter Ek 1t Total Enter Exit Fnter Exi1 2008 Calibration Year I 81 52 1 33 283 323 606 1 2015 Baseline Forecast Year 67 67 134 421 521 9 4 2 1 frata, Approximat ion Factor 1.01 1 .48 North l\pp<oach East App, oach South Approach Left Thru Rillht In Out Total Left Thru R1oht In Out Total Lefl Thru 201 O Exist1no Conditions 92 0 3 95 113 208 0 104 111 2 1 5 381 596 0 2015 Bas81ine Year 95 0 0 95 145 240 0 17~ 145 320 4 70 790 0 Barbee Mills 5 Hawks Landing • 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 9 7 16 0 95 0 0 15 145 240 0 111 1 45 3 30 475 IOS 0 °" °" °" °" °" °" 0 0 0 ···--•• T on Eng orthwc• Count Sour ce: ATOS -6/8/2010 Counl 201 5 to 2010 f'.1.ctor: 0 7143 Ea st bound ------Enter Ex it 81 133 1 1 2 67 134 1 1 2 1 .01 1.00 West Approach ma11t In Out Total left Thru Rioht In 38 61 101 120 221 0 13 1 14 40 60 100 125 225 0 15 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 IO 100 1 2 5 225 0 15 0 15 °" °" °" °" Count Source: ATOS 6/8/2010 Count 2015 to 201 0 f'act or: 0 . /1 43 Eastbound - Enter E.11.1t 1 2 322 283 605 1 2 477 339 8 16 1 .00 FLAG 1.30 West Approach Rtnht In Out Total left Thru Ri<t,t In 0 0 0 0 0 2 289 0 291 0 0 0 0 0 0 375 0 375 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 310 0 3IO °" °" °" °" 0 0 0 0 °" -°" 1W , ... 0 • 0 71> ,. 0 0 0 0 Ill • .... 0 .. FLAG Out Total 32 46 3 21 30 45 350 3 2 0 0 5 3 0 45 355 °" °" 0 0 0 1 90 5 4 5 Out Total 107 398 601 175 550 790 8 8 9 16 16 111 HS 805 °" °" 0 0 0 0 '"' .. 0 .. , .. 140 -,. 9 4 5 Oa1e Printed· 8/29/2012 ye 4 Quendall T e rminals 2015 PM Pea k Hour Traffic Volume Forec asts Without RTID 1-405 Improvements Intersection: l a ke Washi ngt on Blvd / Gard.-m /'we N / Park /\ve N Scenario : Mnsl er lJV'! Plan Analysis Year : 201 S Time Pe riod : PM Plc'ak. Note~ Soutt,Uuuntl Ent er [x1t Total 2008 Calibration Year 710 683 1 ,393 2015 Baseline F'oreca5t Year 9 45 601 1 ,546 Fratar Approxirnation Factor 1.09 North App,oach Left Thfu Ri!t>t I n Out Total 201 0 EKtstino Cond1t 1ons 90 83 292 465 5 1 4 979 201 5 Baseline Year 80 125 310 515 580 1 ,095 Barbee Milts 1 1 1 Hawk5 landing 1 1 2 Pipeline ProJCct5-Subtotal 2 2 3 7 9 16 2015 ---Plpollno 8 0 125 315 520 515 1 ,105 Passby OtstribuUon °" °" °" Pamv Tralfoc Volume, 0 0 0 ......... "" lllmhllao, 11' 4,r, 101' ,.,. 11" 301' .......,,Tnllic"""-5 20 60 71 70 141 ....... ,.. ...... II 141 HI Ill Ill 1,110 Transpor tat ion [ngineeflng No rthwest. LL C Westl>uur,tl Enter (xit 1,291 1.726 3 ,017 1 ,6 1 5 2.412 4 ,027 1 .29 East Approach Left Thru Right In 295 646 132 4 95 770 120 1 1 0 0 2 4115 770 120 ,.,. 5 411 no 121 Intersection Code : Y Analy1t : /Gl C he<ked by: MJR Date o f Completion : 8/28 /?012 Nor t h!x,und Enter 329 805 Exit 209 576 South Approach Oul Total Left Thru 1.073 1 .345 2.41 8 9 85 1,385 1,805 3,190 20 1 35 1 1 2 2 4 0 2 1,385 1,805 3 ,190 20 135 0 '11, °" 0 '11, 0 0 0 1" 1" 2" 4'11, I I 10 20 ,,no 1,110 1 ,200 20 111 538 1,381 1.67 Right In Out 497 591 835 990 0 ? 835 9110 °" 0 4" 20 811 1,0 10 Count Source: A TDS 6i8/2 010 Courit 201 5 to 201 0 Factor: O 7143 East bound Enter Exit 1 ,56 2 1.274 2 .836 1 .862 1 .540 3.402 1.17 West. Approach Total Left Thfu Rirr,t In 4 0 4 995 297 758 26 1,081 670 1.660 325 890 50 1.265 3 2 2 4 5 0 0 5 670 1,660 330 890 50 1,270 0 '11, 0 '11, °" 0 0 0 4" '" 10% 1C1'11, 20 40 4S 41 uo 1,700 171 no IO 1,111 Out 94/ 1.100 3 1,105 °" 0 101' IO 1,111 Total 2 ,028 2 .365 8 2 ,375 °" 0 201' 91 Z.470 3,2 10 4,1 55 8 8 1 6 4 ,165 0 0 0 145 4,3 10 Date 1-lrinted. 8/29/2012 Page !J Quendall Terminals 20 15 AM Peak Hour Traffic Volume Forecasts With RTID 1-405 Improvements Enter Exit Total Quendall Project Vols 445 421 866 Alterna tive 1 (incudes 1 0% increase in apartment trips) Quendall Pa ssby Vols 2 4 20 44 Intersection: 1-4 05 NB Ramp-s / La ke Washingt on Blvd Intersection Code: 1 Scenario: Master Use Pla n A na lyst : JGT Analysis Year: 201 !., Checked by: MJR Time Period· PM Peak Date of Completion· R/?fl/701;i Notes i ~out hbo und Westbound NorthOOund ~--- Enter h1l Total Enter £x1t Enter Exit 2008 Cali braOon v • .,, 625 4 85 1 .11 O 114 1 26 2 40 4 20 1 61 7015 BaS1:1line-Fo1ecast Year 550 587 1 ,137 1 37 253 390 683 1 34 Fratar Approxir_~tion factor 1.02 1 .54 N orth Approach East Approach South Approach Left Thru Rio11t In Out Tot al Left Thru RIQht In Out Total Left Thru 2009 Existlno Conditions 30 25 345 400 5 15 915 165 165 140 4 70 230 700 10 95 2015 Baseline Vea, 0 0 0 0 130 730 0 515 355 870 625 1.495 10 0 Barbee Mi lls 0 4 0 Kennydalc Apartments 35 27 Hawks Landing 0 4 28 0 0 0 0 54 54 0 4 3 27 70 5 1 121 28 0 0 0 0 0 780 780 0 HO 380 840 1111D 1,&ZO 40 0 °" °" °" °" °" lntenection : I 4 05 SB Ramps / Lake Wa!.h tngton Hlvd Intersect ion Code: 2 Scenirio : Master Use Plan Analyst: JGl A nalysis Year: 7015 Checked by: MJR Time Period · PM P~ak Date of Completion· 8/28/2012 Notes 1so111hbound Westbound No,thbound Ente, Exit Total Ente r Exit Enter Exit 2008 Calibration Yea,, 502 0 502 695 308 1 .003 0 607 2015 Baseline Forecast Ye ar 279 0 279 558 160 7 18 0 538 rratar Approximation Factor 1.00 FLAG 1 .00 FLAG Nonh Approach f ast Approach South Approach Left Thru R1oht In Out Total Left Thru Rimt In O ut Total Left TITu 2009 bistinu Co nditions 55 5 115 175 0 175 390 135 0 525 720 1.24 5 0 0 2015 Basehne Year 55 5 1 15 175 0 175 390 135 0 525 720 1,245 0 0 Barbee M ills 4 4 Kennydale Apartments 9 3 5 Ha~s Landing 18 32 9 0 22 31 0 3 1 35 36 0 71 65 136 0 0 65 5 135 205 0 205 425 170 0 595 785 1,380 0 0 °" °" °" °" °" °" T on Eng1 _rthwe~ Count Source : TIA 2015 to 2009 Factor: 0.8571 Eastbound -~- Ent er Exit 581 308 695 1.003 81 7 160 558 7 1 8 1.35 1.00 West Approach Rioht In O ut Tot.al Lett TIYu R,Qht 90 195 5 40 735 280 11 0 350 255 265 0 765 375 370 0 16 26 0 13 9 11 3 0 13 41 0 41 27 38 0 270 31 0 0 310 400 410 0 °" °" °" 0 0 0 -°" .. 4ft 11N °" • , . 180 40 0 0 ... --0 Count Source: TIA 2015 to 2009 Factor: 0.85 71 (astbound -----Enter Exit 60 7 293 575 868 538 30 169 199 1.00 FLAG 1.00 We,t Approach R1oht In Out Total Lelt TIYu Rioht 0 0 400 400 0 665 5 0 0 400 400 0 665 5 42 1 14 18 0 0 54 54 0 5 6 19 0 0 455 455 0 720 2 5 °" °" °" IA-·-no 125 ... --. ffll FLAG In Out Total 740 520 1.2sol 1,805 74 5 525 1.270 1,880 I 46 46 65 71 1 36 176 810 600 1,410 2,060 °" °" °" 0 0 0 0 0 ... 4"' .. 1 --41• 410 , ... ,.. .. __ 2,470 FLAG In Out Total 670 250 92ol 1 ,370 670 250 920 1,370 I 51 82 75 58 1 33 177 745 305 1,0IIO 1 ,545 °" °" °" 0 0 0 0 0 -... -... ,,.. 2 -· ,., . .. -735 --.... ,. 2,280 Date P, mted: 8/29/2012 ge 1 Quendall Terminals 2015 AM Peak Hour Trame Volume Forecasts With RTID 1-405 Improvements Intersect ion : Ripley l ane / Lake Wash1n!,fton Blvd Sce nario: M asler Use Plan Analysi, Year: 201 5 Time Period: PM Peak No1cs Southbound Enter Exil Total 2008 Cahbradon Year 1 1 2 2015 Baseline forecast Year 1 1 2 f ratar Approximat ion Factor 1.00 North Approach Le ft Thru RKlht In 2009 histing Conditions 30 0 5 35 2015 Baseline Year 30 0 5 35 Barbee M ills 34 3 Hawks Landing 3 Pipeline Projects-Subtotal 34 0 6 40 2015 Adjusted --Ptpellno 85 0 10 75 Pmby Distr ibution 0% _T,amcVoUTIM 0 .... "" ....... 16" ,.,. -Tnllc-315 111 ....... JIO 0 10 IN Out Intersect ion: I ,i ke Wa-shington Blvd/ Barbee Milts At:ce-s'S Scenario: M asler Use Plan A nalysis Year : 201 5 Time Period: PM Pe ak Notes Southbound Enter Eiut Tota l 2008 Cahbratt<)n Year 1 1 2 2015 Baseline forecast Yea, 1 1 2 Fratar Apprnxirnation Factor 1 .00 North Approach Left TIYu Rl<lhl In Out 2009 Elti!.tlnQ Conditions 0 0 0 0 2015 Baseline Year 0 0 0 0 Barbee Mills 9 1 Hawk> Landing Pipeline Pro1ecu Subtotal 9 0 1 10 2015 ___ Pt_ 10 0 0 10 80 80 9 90 0% 0 "" SIi 4H 0 0 2 0 Pa'5by D~tribullon 75% 25% 100% 100% Paubv Traffic V ountS 15 5 20 25 ........ Trip Dlldullaol 10% 151' za °" ,._Tl'llllc V,..-40 15 1oa 110 -2011 ............. .. 0 70 111 111 T,amportauon EngmMn ng Northwe st, LLC W en bound Enler Exit 575 293 868 169 30 199 FLAG 1.00 EHi Approoch Total Left Thru R;qt,t In 11 5 0 195 65 11 5 0 195 65 2 6 50 49 0 52 6 165 0 245 10 0% 0 111ft 1115 751' NO 45 335 111 0 no 40I Westbound Enter Exit 574 287 861 169 30 199 FLAG 1 .00 East Approach To tal Left TIYu RiQht In 0 0 200 0 0 0 200 0 3 2 53 1 2 0 56 2 10 0 255 0 200% 25% 45 .5 5 '°" 1()'11, 211 4 5 270 0 250 IO Intersect ion Code: :3 Analyst : JG I Checked by: MIR D.ate of Compl et ion: R/?R/?0 17 260 260 58 315 0% 0 NS JIO - Nmlhbou nd Ente, Exit 1 1 FLAG South Approach Out Total Left 665 925 665 925 75 133 740 1 ,055 0% 0% 0 0 "" 110II. Ill 1:n 1,DN ,.no Inte rsection Code: '1 Analyst: JGT Checked by: MJR Thru 0 0 0 0 0 Date of Completion : 8/28 /;?01 l N orthbou nd Enter Exit 1 1 FLAG South Approach Out lotal Left TIYu 200 650 850 0 200 650 850 0 58 39 97 0 255 690 1145 0 25'11, 75'11, 100% 0 -5 -5 1K 10S 20K 41 40 .. -721 1.021 0 1 2 1 2 1 .00 Right In Out 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 5 5 0 5 5 0 '11, 0 °" 0 0 5 I 1 2 1 2 ,.oo Rictn In Out 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0 °" 0 0 0 0 Count Source: TIJ\ 2015 t o 2009 Factor: 0 85/1 l:.a )l bound Enter Exit 287 574 30 169 FLAG West Approach Total Left Thrn 0 0 15 635 0 0 15 6 35 1 9 2 27 0 5 3 36 0 5 20 870 0% 0% 0% 0 0 0 0 °" 0% 0% 10!I, 0 0 0 40 0 I 20 710 Count Source: 1 IA 201 5 to 2009 Factor: 0 8571 Ca~tbound Ent er Ex it 287 57 4 30 169 FLAG West Approach Tot.al Left TIYu 0 0 0 650 0 0 0 650 0 1 29 0 0 0 30 0 0 0 680 0% 0% 75% 0 0 20 -20 0% °" 15'11, 0 0 85 0 0 81 MO 861 199 1.00 Right 0 0 0 0 0 861 199 1 .00 R1Qht 0 0 0 0 0 I n 650 650 39 6110 0% 0 10% 40 730 In 650 650 30 680 75'11, 0 ,S'll, .. 741 Out 200 200 58 255 O'll, 0 1K 41 - Out 200 200 57 255 25'11, 0 111' .. 320 FLAG Total 850 850 97 1145 0% 0 ZOii .. 1.030 FLAG Total 850 850 87 935 1 00% 0 30% 1"" 1.oes 945 945 55 87 142 1 ,085 0 0 2 735 1 ,820 851 850 16 82 98 945 2 20 1 215 1 ,180 Dale Print ed Al?9/?01 ? Page 2 Quendall Terminals 2015 AM Peak Hour Traffic Volume Forecasts With RTID 1-405 Improvements Intersection: lake Washington Blvd / H awks Landing l\cccu lnter,ection Code: 5 Scenario: Master Use Pl.ln An•lyst: JGT Analysis Year: ?015 Checked by : MJR Time Period· PM Pea k Date of Completion · 8/78/?01? Note$ Soutl1bound W est bound NonhOOund --~--r---- Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Ente, Exit 2008 Calibratio n Year 1 1 2 574 287 861 1 2015 Baseline Forecast Year 1 1 2 169 30 199 1 Fratar Approximation Factor 1 .00 FLAG 1.00 FLAG NOJth Approach East Approach South Approach Left Tl>'u Rioht I n Out Total left Ttyu Rioht In Out T otal Left Thr u 2009 E,ost,no Cond1t ,om 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 200 0 200 650 850 0 2015 Basehne Year 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 200 650 850 0 Barbee Mill$ 4 Hawks La nding 53 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 53 4 0 57 30 87 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 Z05 0 zao 880 140 5 ------ Intersectio n: N 36th St / Lake WaYl 1ngton Blvd lnte riec:tion Code: 6 Scenario: M aster Use Plan A nalyst : JGT Analysis Year: 7015 C hecked by: MJR Time Period: PM Peak 0.1te or Completion : 8 /28/2012 No tes So uthbound Westbound NorthOOund --·-· Enter Exit Total Ent er Exit Fnter Ex it 2008 Calibrat 10n Year 1 1 2 324 217 5 41 71 201 5 Baseline Forecast Yea r 1 1 2 130 16 146 13 Fratar Appro1umation Factor 1 .00 FLAG 1.00 FLAG North Approach Cast Approach South Approach Left Thru Riaht In O ut Total Left Thru Riaht In O ut Total Left nm 2010 Ex 1st 1na Conchtions 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 7 89 0 106 451 557 6 201 5 Bl~ine Year 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 90 0 105 ~50 555 5 Barbee Mills 0 4 Hawks Landing 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 7 0 8 7 15 0 0 0 5 5 5 10 15 95 0 110 455 565 5 ------ Tr ·on Erigi rthwes 1 2 1 2 1.00 Rinht In 0 0 0 0 29 0 29 0 30 250 321 39 52 1.00 Rinht In 0 106 0 105 0 1 0 1 0 105 a 10 111 Co unt Source: Tl/\ 2015 to 2009 Facto r : 0 .8b71 Easlboun<.I ------ Enter Exit 287 574 861 30 169 199 FLAG 1.00 FLAG West Approach Out Total Left Thru Riaht In Out Total 0 0 0 0 650 0 650 200 850 851 0 0 0 0 650 0 650 200 850 850 1 5 6 92 33 59 92 0 1 6 7 8 15 97 35 so 85 0 1110 5 655 Z10 865 950 -----" 0 0 0 0 0 1a "" . .... JOI! 0 • N .. ..... 130 0 n• • no ua -1,080 Count Source: ATOS . 6/8/2010 Count 2015 to 2010 Factor: O 7143 Eaubound ------- Ent er Exit 223 317 23 103 FLAG West Approach Out Total Left Thru 11 2 19 131 0 3 4 5 1 10 15 125 0 3 4 5 1 !, 1 1 7 0 6 110 15 1Z5 5 350 ---0 0 0 -,. -1ft 10 • 11 IO 1• . ID 140 I 410 5 40 126 1.00 Rirtit In 2 3 47 0 3 4 5 0 6 0 355 -0 14K IO 0 4tl FLAG Ou! Total 95 442 565 9 5 4 40 560 5 10 7 13 15 105 460 580 --0 0 ~ 0 , .. 1111 0 IO .... 135 1N -715 Date Printed· 8/29 /701? ge 3 Quendall Terminals 2015 AM Peak Hour Traffic Volume Forecasts With RTID 1-405 Improvements Intersect ion : N JOit, St I Burnett Ave Sce nario: Ma ster Use Plan Analysis Year: 201 ~ Time Period : PM Peak Notes Southbound l:.nt er E•it Tota l 2008 Calibration Year 216 1 14 330 2015 Baseline Forecast Year 90 76 166 f ratar ApproximatlOfl Factor 1.00 North Approach U:1ft TIYu Right 201 0 Ellisting Condit io~ 18 25 0 2015 Baseline Year 20 25 0 Barbee Mills Hawks Landing 1 Pipeline Pro1ecu-Sub1 otal 1 0 0 Z015 Adhnr.d --PtDOIIM 20 25 0 Passby Distribution Passby T raffle Volumes ,._ T,. IMtlllllclll 1Wi -Tnllll:-5 .. ,, .. ,.._ II ZI 0 In 4 3 4 5 1 45 01(, 0 ,,. I IO lntenectio n : I nke. W w,htrKJl or1 Hlvd / Rurr~lt Avf:> Sc::enario: Ma-sle1 US':! Plan Analysis Year: 201 5 T im e Pe riod: PM Peak Noles SouU100und Enter Exll Total 2008 Cahbratton Year 81 52 133 201 5 Basel ine Forecast Year 73 5 8 131 Frater Approximat ion Factor 1 .00 North Approach Left TIYu R1qht In 2010 Exlstlnq Conditions 2 8 7 0 89 2015 Basehne Year 0 85 0 85 Barbee Milb 4 Hawks Landing 3 Pipeline ProJe cu-Subtotal 0 7 0 7 Z015 Adlllltod --Ptpollne 0 90 0 90 Pa,sby Dbtribution 01(, Passby Traffic Volumes 0 Pn;oct Trip °'*llllllan 14" 14W, """""'TnffltV...... eo IO ·-.. , ............ 0 1IO 0 1IO T1amportal1on (nq1nee11f1Q Northwest. LLC Wes.l hotmd Enter Exit 148 226 374 146 144 290 FLAG 1.00 Fast Approach Out Total Left T hru Right In 79 122 20 11 20 80 125 20 10 20 I 1 2 0 0 1 80 1Z5 20 10 20 01(, 01(, 0 0 11' z,r, 11' I ,. 5 .. 111 20 10 ZI Westbound Enter Ex1t ?83 323 606 77 75 152 FLAG 1 .00 East Approach Out Total Left TIYu RiQht In 335 4 24 54 a 1 335 4 20 55 0 0 6 13 0 0 0 340 430 55 0 0 01(, 01(, 0 0 14W, 2"' IO 120 .... IIO II 0 0 Inte rsectio n Code: / Analyst : JC.I Checked by: M JR Dat e of Comple t io n: 8/28/2012 N urthbourid Enter Ult 52 SB FLAG Sollth Approach 81 73 Out Total Left Tt-ru 5 1 so 1 50 01(, 0 ,., I 15 75 1 26 75 1 25 1 2 75 125 0 % 01(, 0 0 1Wi Z'A I 10 IO 131 Intersect io n Code : 8 A nalyst : JG T Checked by: MJR 0 0 0 0 0 0 .1t e of Completion : 8/28/:l01 ~ N onhbouncl Enter Eitit 1 1 FLAG South Approac h 59 60 0 60 IO 1 1 Out Total Left rtvu 55 100 1 55 0 334 55 100 1 55 0 335 1 5 0 0 0 0 6 55 100 155 0 340 01(, 01(, 01(, 0 0 0 °" °" °" 14'11, 0 0 0 60 II 100 111 0 400 133 131 1.00 Right In 47 106 4 5 105 0 0 45 105 0 % 0 °" 0 41 10I 2 2 1 .00 RiQht In 98 432 100 435 0 6 100 440 O'IC. 0 14W, IO 100 IOO O ut O ut Co unt Source : Al l)S 6/A//010 Count 2015 t o 2010 Fact or:() 71 4 3 E~sllJou,,d Ent er Exit 1 1 2 1 1 2 FLAG 1.00 West Approach Total Left Thru Right In 45 151 0 10 0 4 5 150 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 45 150 0 10 0 01(, 01(, 0 0 °" °" 0 0 45 150 0 10 0 Co unt Source: A TDS 6/8/20 l O Couril 201 5 t o 2010 F.actor: 0 7 l d 3 (astbound Enter Exit 322 283 605 76 77 153 FLAG 1 .00 West Approach Total Left TIYu R1~ht In 141 573 a 0 a 1 40 575 0 0 0 7 1 3 0 0 0 145 585 0 0 0 01(, 01(, 0 0 14" 2"' IO 120 ZOI 708 0 0 0 10 10 0 10 01(, 0 °" 0 10 0 0 0 0 01(, 0 °" 0 0 Out 1 1 10 0 10 0 % 0 °" 0 10 Out 0 0 0 0 O'IC. 0 °" 0 0 FLAG Tota l 21 20 0 20 01(, 0 °" 0 zo FLAG Tota l 0 0 0 0 01(, 0 °" 0 0 210 210 0 2 2 210 0 0 0 10 220 576 5 75 5 8 13 585 0 0 0 120 705 Dale Pr mled 8/?~/701? Page 4 Quendall Te r minals 2015 AM Peak Hour Traffic Vol ume Forecasts W ith RTID 1-405 Improvem ents Inte r section: Lake Wammgton Blvd / Carden Ave N / Park Ave N Scenario: Mas1er Use Plan Analysis Year: 2015 T ime Pe riod: 11M Peak I N otes j S0uU100und (nter E,ut Total 2008 Cahbratton Yearl /10 683 1 ,393 2015 Baseline Forecast Year 882 567 1 ,449 Fratar Approximation ~actor 1 .03 1-----------------IN orth Approach Left Ttvu R1Qht In Out Total 2010 Exi~inQ ConditJOns 98 1 5 204 3 1 7 457 774 2015 Baseline Year 125 20 185 330 480 810 Barbee Mills 2 1 T on Eng1 •rthwes Westbound En ter hit 1.291 1.726 3.017 1.520 2.616 4.136 1.32 East Approach l ert Thru Ri t 208 718 90 385 850 105 1 1 105 2" 10 111 In Inters ec t io n Code: 9 Analyst: JGT Checked by: MJij Date ot Completio n: A/?8/2012 Out Total 1 ,0 16 505 1.521 1 .340 680 2,020 1 2 3 1,340 IIO 2,020 °" °" °" 0 0 *" ... I! 10 , ... ... Northbound Enler Exil 329 209 704 291 South Approach Thru Left 538 995 1.73 R~1t 1 2 88 55 20 130 11 5 0 0 20 130 115 111 In Out 155 265 1 215 °" 0 a 10 171 Count So urce: ATOS 6/8/2010 Count 201 5 to 2010 Factor: 0 71 4 ] Eastbound Enter Exit 1 ,56 2 1 ,274 2,836 1,744 1,375 3 ,119 1 .09 West. App, oad1 Total Left Ttru R'l!ht In 231 386 1 279 352 a 41 5 680 24 5 440 10 2 3 4 0 0 415 680 250 440 10 °" °" 0 0 639 695 4 700 °" 0 a -1°" 1°" 10 IO 45 41 .. 700 .. 440 10 741 Out 934 1 ,055 3 1,060 °" 1,100 Total 1,573 1,7501 71 1 ,7601 K l 2 ,1 27 2,630 5 8 13 2 ,640 0 0 0 125 2. 765 Date P11nti.KI· 8/29 /2012 ge 5 Quendall Terminals 2015 PM Peak Hour Trarfic Volume Forecasts With RTID 1-405 Im provements Enter Q uendall Proj ect Vols 44 2 Quendall Passby Vols 28 Exit Total 509 95 1 2 1 4 9 lntenect1o n: I 40~ NB Ramps / lalcc Washington Blvd Scenario: M aster Use Plan An.al y M1 Yeu: ?015 Time Period: PM Pe.ik N o te\ Soutl,IX>1 ind En te, Exit Total 2008 Calibrat ion Year 625 485 1.110 20 15 Baseline Forecast Year 550 587 1,137 F ratar Aoorox1mat1on Factor 1.02 N orth Approac:h Left Thrn Right In 2009 Existing Conditions 50 25 280 355 201 S Basehnc Year 0 0 0 0 Barbee M ills 0 K ennydale Apartments H awks Landing 0 Pipeline ProJecls·Subt ota l 0 0 0 0 2 015 Adlmtod ---.. 0 0 0 0 Paslby Dbtributlon °"' ~ Traffte VokJr'Ms 0 Jlqjlcl T .. Dl9lllllllllt .,,. --rn111c-0 0 201, ....... -0 0 0 0 I ntersection: I 4 0~ SB Ramps / Lake Wa~hington Blvd Scenario: Mast er U\8 Plan Analysi1 Year: 201 ~ T ime Period: PM Pe11k Note\ Southbound Cnt er Ex it Total 2008 Calibrauon Year 502 0 502 2015 Baseline Forec ast Year 279 0 279 Fratar Aporm:irnation F&et,or 1.00 North Approach Left Thru Ri<t,t In 2009 Ex1st1nQ Conc:hdons 130 5 250 385 2015 Baseline Year 130 5 250 385 Barbee Mills 22 Kennydale Apartments 30 Hawks Landing 16 P1pchnc Projects Subtotal 30 0 38 68 2015 ____ 160 5 290 455 P,s,t,y D istribution 0% Pa,,t,y Trame Volume, 0 l'lqlli:t T• Dllabdml 45" . .,. ......, Tnfflc YmlllW 200 IOO I011alllM .... 111 I 4IO ... I nmsprirlnlirm f nqmee nnq Northwesl 11 C Alter nat rve 1 (incudes 10% ,nc rcasc ,n apartment trips) We\tb1)11m 1 Enter Exit 1 14 1 26 240 1 37 253 390 1.5 4 Ec1s1 Approach Out Total Lef t Thru Rioht In 350 705 75 1 50 65 225 225 0 4 50 1 75 15 22 18 4 36 36 0 41 18 215 265 0 4IIO 195 °"' °"' 0 0 ... 4K 1115 no uo 45 ... ... 0 HI ,.. West hounrl Enter Ex it 695 308 1 .003 558 160 7 18 FLAG 1 .00 East Approach O ut Total Left Thru Rinht In 0 385 2 1 5 225 0 0 385 215 225 0 16 22 30 0 68 22 46 0 0 455 235 270 0 o ,i, 0 % 0 0 -411' 40% 0 zoo 175 0 ISi HS ••• 0 lnte rseetion Code: 1 Analyst : JGT Ched1ed by: MJf.< Date o r Completion: 8//8/ !D1 l 290 625 59 1185 °"' 0 ,. •• 710 Northbound En t8f Exit 4 20 683 South ApproiXh Out Total Left 360 650 745 1.370 80 139 825 1,510 °"' °"' 0 0 ,. 209' IO 95 171 1,IOS Intersect ion Code: 2 An.tilyn: JGT C h ecked by: MJR Thru 15 15 1 26 27 40 ~ 13S 175 Dat e of CompfotJo n : 8/28/;?01 2 N orthbound Enter Exit 0 0 FLAG South Approach Out lotal Left Thru 440 280 720 0 4 40 280 720 0 68 64 132 0 505 345 850 0 0% 0% o ,i, 0 0 0 4"" -151' 171 no 451 IIO IH ,.:IOI 0 161 5 81 134 817 1 .35 Right In 230 14 5 390 0 515 530 3 4 0 3 4 61 0 550 590 °"' 0 3°" 1:11 0 SIO 721 607 607 538 538 1 .00 RIQllt In 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0 -0 0 0 0 Out O ut Count Source: TIJ\ 201 5 to 2009 Factor: 0 A~ 7' Eastbound Enter Exit 308 695 160 558 West Approach Total Left Thru 160 550 55 165 0 530 5 0 230 3 13 30 15 3 0 61 18 46 0 590 10 275 °"' °"' 0 0 -3°" 4S% 10% 0 1 H 230 50 0 721 300 HI Count Source: TIA 2015 to 2009 Factor : 0 FIS71 (dstbOUfld E:ntor [xit 293 575 30 169 FLAG We:.t Approach Total Left Thru 3 4 5 34 5 0 150 3 4 5 34 5 0 150 16 18 4 7 47 0 3 4 390 390 0 115 O'IC. 0 % 0 0 30% 301' 55% , .. 111 280 ... 145 0 415 1 ,003 7 18 1 .00 Right In 60 280 0 280 0 0 0 64 0 345 °"' 0 0% 511' 0 ZIO 0 IH 868 199 1.00 Ri<t,t In 1 25 275 1 25 275 2 23 25 59 150 335 o ,i, 0 30% 851' 15 5 435 305 770 Out 445 4 65 68 530 °"' 0 4"" 1IO 710 Our 4 75 4 75 8 4 560 0 % 0 "" 1711 135 FLAG Total 7 25 745 132 175 °"' 0 851' 4IO 1,HS FLAG Touil 750 750 143 895 0% 0 170% 110 1,705 1 ,315 1 ,435 32 48 184 1 ,620 0 0 460 2,080 1 ,100 1 ,100 56 87 195 1,295 0 0 2 810 2,105 Oale Prmted 8/79/201 ~ Page 1 Quendall Terminals 2015 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume Forecasts With RTID 1-405 Imp rovements Intersection: R,p lay lane / lake Washington Blvd lntenection Code: 3 Scenario: Master U!ie Plan A nalyst : MJR Analysis Year: 201 S Checked by : M.IR Tim e Period: PM Peak Date o r Completion· 8/28/ l 2 N oles i Southbound Westbound Nort hbound -----~ En ter Exit Total Ent er Exit Enter Exit 2008 C•hbratoon Yea,I 1 1 2 575 293 868 1 201 5 Baseline Forecest Yea, 1 1 2 169 30 199 1 Fratar Approx,rmt,on Factor 1.00 FLAG 1.00 FLAG N0<th Approach East Approach South Approach Lert Tt-.u Right In Out Total Left Tt-.u Rioht In Out Total Left Thru 2012 Ex isUna Cond1tiorn 101 0 28 129 45 174 0 409 38 447 282 729 0 2015 Baseline Year 100 0 30 130 4 5 175 0 410 40 450 280 730 0 Bad,ee Milb 14 3 8 30 Hawks Landing 3 46 54 30 84 5 9 143 0 465 70 535 340 875 0 o,c, o,c, o,c, ... ·161l ..... ':' ~ - •. MIi ... --.,. .,,. .1.-• Intersec tion: Lake Wasi"ungton Blvd / Barbee Mills Access Intersection Code: 4 Scenario: Master u~ Plan Anal:,st: JGT An.alysb Year: 2015 Checked by: M JR Tim e Period: PM Peak D,ue o f Completion · 8/?B/701 2 N otes I Southbound Westbound Northbouncl Enter Exit Total Ent er Ex it Enter Ex it 2008 Calibratoon Yea:I 1 1 2 574 287 861 1 201 5 Baseline FOJecasl Yea, 1 1 2 169 30 199 1 Fralar Approximation Factor 1 .00 FLAG 1 .00 FLAG North Approach East Approach South Approach l8fl Ttw"u Ri"ll In Out Total Left TIYu R1aht In Out I ota/ Left Thru 2009 Ex1st if1Q Condit ions 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 437 0 4 37 188 625 0 2015 Baseline Year 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 435 0 4 35 190 625 0 Barbee Mills 4 1 3 8 Hawk, Landng 49 5 2 8 60 48 108 0 485 10 495 Z40 735 0 75% 75" 25" 100% -20 20 0 0 0 filil_,,: ,. -11111 46 41 ID .. ,.__ __ tt -~----_,.._ -_.11!11 -· T on (ng1 nh\.ves Count Source: rlA 2015 tr, 2009 hcto r: 0 4 28 6 (ast bound -------- Enter Exit 1 2 287 574 1 2 30 169 1.00 FLAG West Approach Ri!f,t In Out Tota l Left Tt-.u 0 1 1 1 2 7 180 0 0 0 0 0 5 180 6 4 5 2 36 0 5 5 0 5 8 40 0 5 5 0 5 15 zzo o,c, o,c, o,c, 0 0 0 ---" -°" '°" • D 0 0 IO • • • • I 11 ne Count So urce: -I IA 2015 to 2009 F .. tor, 0 8571 Eastbound ~ Enter Ex it 1 2 28 7 574 1 2 30 169 1.00 FLAG West Approach Ri cti t In Out Total Left TIYu 0 0 0 0 0 0 188 0 0 0 0 0 0 190 1 6 38 0 0 0 0 0 1 44 0 0 0 0 0 0 235 o,c, o,c, o,c, 25% 0 0 0 5 .5 ... ·• °" 1"' 0 0 I 16 0 _O __ O ___ t_ -G .,. no 861 199 1 .00 RiQht In 1 188 0 185 0 48 0 Z35 o,c, 0 ---D - 861 199 1.00 Rooht In 0 188 0 190 0 45 0 Z35 ZS" 0 1• II 0 IIIO FLAG Out Total 437 625 765 440 625 765 65 92 60 108 157 500 735 925 o,c, O'N 0 0 0 0 .... .. 2 ... -805 ... --1 ,730 FLAG Out Total 437 625 626 435 6 25 625 23 87 53 98 110 485 72 0 735 75" 100% 2 .5 .5 20 1• ... 1 71 ,-235 ... -990 Date Printed 8/29/2012 ge 2 Quendall Terminals 2015 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume Forecasts With RTID 1-405 Im provements lnteneclion: l akP. Wa'>hmgtnn Rlvd / H<1wk s Lam:hng Anf!'>~ Sc i,nu io: M<1'J.l1;>r Uw Pl<111 .• - A nalyt.i s Year: 201 S Time Period: PM Pea k Note ~ Southbound Enter Exit Total 2008 Calibration Year 1 1 2 2015 Baseline Forec&t Yeas 1 1 2 Fratar Approximation Factor 1 .00 North A pproach Left Thru Right In 2009 ExistinQ Conditions 0 0 0 2015 Baseline Year 0 0 0 Barbee MIi is Hawks landing Pipeline Projects-Subtotal 0 0 0 20 15 ____ 0 0 0 PIS!by Datribution PM.dw Treff'te VoturTes ~n.-~- ·-..y.-.,"""-.... ,. ..... 0 0 0 Intersec tion: N 36th St / lake Wam1ng ton Blvd Scenario: M a~hH lJ'>f! Plan ANly Sl s Yeu : 201 5 Time Period: PM Peak Notes Southbound Enter [x1t Tola l 2008 Calibration Year 1 1 2 2015 Ba$e line forecast Year 1 1 2 Fratar Approxirnal10fl Factor 1.00 North Approach left TIYu R19ht In 2010 Existlnq Conditiom 0 0 0 2015 Ba~hne Year 0 0 0 Barbee Mil b Hawks Landing Pipeline Pro 1ects-Subtotal 0 0 0 2015 ............ ___ 0 0 0 Passby D1s11ibuh0n Paubv T raffle Volumes ....... T .. ~ . --,11111c-., .... ,.. ..... 0 0 0 Tra ns portat 100 [ng,neem ,g N or thW1Jst. LLC Out 0 0 0 0 0% 0 °" 0 0 Out 0 0 0 0 0% 0 °" • 0 FLAG Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0% 0 0 °" °" 0 0 • 0 FLAG Tota l 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0% 0 0 °" °" 0 0 0 0 Westbound Enter Ex it 574 287 8 6 1 169 30 199 1.00 East Approach Left TIYu Right In 0 437 0 0 4 35 0 4 49 49 4 0 50 440 0 151' 76 IO 111 0 We\t bo1.1nd Enter Exit 324 217 541 130 16 146 1 .00 East Approach left Thru Ri<tit In 83 280 0 8 5 280 0 1 3 1 4 2 7 0 85 285 0 1% 14% 5 70 IO Ml 0 lntenection Code: I:", Analyst : JGT Checked by: MJR Date o r Completion: 8/28/2012 437 4 35 53 490 0% 0 111' .,. .. N o1thbound Enter Exit 1 1 FLAG Sooth Approach Out Total left 188 625 190 6 25 45 98 235 725 0% 0% 0 0 111' -II 140 MO .. Inters ect ion Code: 6 A na ly1.t : JGT Checked by : M JR Thru 0 0 5 5 5 I O•l • of Comple tion: 8/28/201? Nm lhbound Enter Exit 71 13 FLAG South Approach Out Total l eft Thiu 363 132 495 4 365 130 495 5 9 12 21 0 370 145 515 5 0 % o,c, 0% 0 0 0 15" 18K 111' 71 70 141 441 111 NO 5 1 2 1 2 1 .00 Ri<tit In Out 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 0 3 8 4 3 0 40 45 0% 0 °" 0 0 40 41 250 321 39 52 1.00 Riaht In Out 0 25 29 0 25 30 2 1 0 3 3 0 30 35 0% 0 21' 2" 10 10 0 40 41 Count Source: Tl.A 2 0 1 5 to 2009 Fact ur: 085 7 1 Ea1tboond Enter Exit 287 574 30 169 FLAG West Approach Tota l left Thru 0 0 0 188 0 0 0 190 7 5 4 97 0 7 55 100 0 195 0% 0% 0 0 °" °" 151' 0 0 6 5 II 100 0 ZIG 861 199 1.00 Right In 0 188 0 190 5 5 12 5 200 0% 0 111' .. I HI Count Source: Al OS 6/8/20 10 l.01.1111 20 15 t o 2010 F~ctor: 0 /1'13 Eastbound Enter Ex tt 223 317 5 40 23 103 126 FLAG 1 .00 Weu. Approach Total Left IIYu R1Qht In 90 119 0 107 7 114 90 120 0 105 5 110 5 4 2 5 0 9 0 9 90 125 0 115 5 120 0% 0% 0% 0 0 0 11' 11' 14% 141' I 11 eo IO II 140 0 171 5 1IO Out 437 4 35 9 445 0% 0 111' 71 uo Out 284 285 7 290 0% 0 141' 70 HO FLAG Total 625 625 2 1 645 0% 0 -1.ul 781 FLAG Total 398 395 16 410 0% 0 28" 13CI 540 626 625 11 97 108 735 0 0 0 1 4 0 875 5 06 505 11 10 2 1 5 2 5 0 0 0 145 6 70 Date Pri nted 8/:.!Y/lU l l Page J Quendall Terminals 2015 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume Forecasts With RTID 1-405 Improvements Int ersection : N 30th St / Bur nett Ave Intersection Code: 7 Scenario: Master Use Plan Analyst : JGT An,lysi, Year: 201 !'l Checked by: MJR Tim e Period· PM Peak Date of Compl e tion: 8/28/2012 Notes I Southbound W estbound Nort hbound ------, En te, Exit Total Ent er Exit Enter Exit 2008 Calibration Yea:I 216 114 330 148 226 374 52 2015 Baseline Forecast Year 90 76 166 146 144 290 58 Frat ar Approx1mat1on Factor 1 .00 FLAG 1.00 FLAG Nort h Approach East Approach South Approach Left Thru Ri!1Jt In Out Tot.a l Left Thrv Riaht In Out Total Left Ttvu 2010 Exi~inQ Conditions 44 5 5 2 101 5 1 152 6 4 28 13 105 118 223 2 2015 Baseline Year 45 55 0 100 55 155 65 30 15 110 1 20 230 0 Barbee Mills 1 2 Hawks Landing 1 1 3 3 2 5 0 20 115 120 23& 0 °" °" °" 0 0 0 1" 11,_ -... -• I .. , 111 •· , .. . ,. -0 Intersect ion: lake Washington Blvd / Burnett A ve lntenection Code: 8 Scena rto: Master u~ Plan Anal:,ist : JCT Analysis Year: 7015 Checked by : MJR Time Period: PM Pe ak Oat• o r Completion· 8/28/2012 N otes Southbound W estbound NorthbourKI Ent8f Exit Total Enter Exit Enter Exit 2008 Cal ib, at ion Year 81 5 2 133 283 323 606 1 201 5 Baseline Forecast Year 73 ~8 131 77 75 152 1 fralar Approxumuon Factor 1 .00 FLAG 1.00 FLAG North Approach East Approach South Apprnach Lert nru Riaht In Out Total Left ltv-u R,qht In Out Total Left Ttvu 7010 Exist ino CO('Kj1t K>m 92 0 3 95 113 708 0 104 111 215 381 596 0 201 5 Baseline Year 90 0 5 95 110 205 0 105 110 215 380 59S 0 Barbee Mills 5 Hawks Lancing 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 9 7 16 0 IO 0 s 15 1 10 205 0 115 110 225 315 110 0 °" °" °" °" °" °" ' T on Eng1 )rlhwe\ Count Source: AT OS· 6/8/2010 Coum 201 5 to 201 0 Facto r: 0 7143 Ea!.tbound -Enter Exit 81 1 33 1 1 2 73 1 31 1 1 2 1.00 FLAG 1.00 West Approach R1aht In Out Total Left Thru Ri!f,t In 38 61 101 1 20 221 0 13 1 14 40 60 100 1 20 220 0 1 5 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 &O 100 120 zzo 0 15 0 15 °" °" °" °" 0 0 0 0 -.. ... -0 0 I • • •• tOD 120 -• " • " Count Source: ATOS · 6/8/2010 Count 2015 t o 2010 Factor: 0 71 4 3 Eastbound ------ Enter Exit 1 2 3 22 283 605 1 2 76 77 15 3 1.00 FLAG 1.00 West Approach Riaht In Out Total Left T hru Ricr1t In 0 0 0 0 0 2 289 0 291 0 0 0 0 0 0 290 0 290 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 295 0 295 °" °" °" °" 0 0 0 0 -°" .. ,.,. , ... 0 • 0 70 ,. • • • • a • .. 0 .. FLAG Out Total 32 46 3 21 30 45 3 25 3 2 0 0 5 30 4 & 330 °" Ml 0 0 0 0 ... .. 0 0 • 10 IO 41 340 FLAG Ou1 Total 107 398 601 11 0 400 600 8 8 9 16 1 6 120 415 6 15 °" Cl'IC 0 0 ~ 0 '"" ... 0 • , .. 1 30 , .. ... 745 03tc Printed. 8/29/2017 ge 4 Quendall Terminals 2015 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume Forecast s With RTID 1-405 Improvements Inte rsect ion: Lake Wuhington l::llvd / C arden Ave N / Park Ave N Scenario: Master lhe Plan Ana lysis Yeu: ?Olf:, Time Pe riod: PM Pea k Not~ SouthbournJ Enter (xit Total 2008 Calibration Year 710 683 1 ,393 2015 Baseline f orecast Year 882 567 1 ,449 F ra lar Approximation Factor 1 .03 North Approach Lert fuu Riaht In Ou1 Total 2010 bisting Conditions 90 83 292 4 65 51 4 979 2015 Basehne Year 1 25 95 260 480 530 1 .010 Barbee Mills 1 1 1 Hawks Landing 1 1 2 Pipeline Pro iec.ts-Subtoiat 2 2 3 7 9 16 2015 ........... .__ ........... 125 95 265 485 535 1.020 Pas,by Dis1robul l0f1 °" °" °" Pas1hv Trafftc Vokmws 0 0 0 Pn.,:t T.-, llldMm 2" 2" 10% 14" 14" .... .....__Tnlllc V""-10 10 50 70 .. 111 201,-,.. ...... 111 109 111 ... -1 ,111 I r ,imp rn talion [ngineermg N o rthwest, LLC We~tbound Enter £xit 1,291 1,726 3 ,017 1,520 ?,616 4.136 1.3 2 E85l App,oach Left Thru Rl<lht In 295 646 132 445 785 185 1 1 0 0 2 445 785 185 2% 10 441 711 111 lnten e ction Cod e: 9 A nalyst: JG! C hecked by: M JQ Date o f Completion: ll#i#IJ.il~ No1thOO ur Kf Enter Exit 329 704 South Approach 209 291 Out Total Left T hru 1,073 1,34 5 2.418 9 85 1.41 5 1.730 3.145 10 90 1 1 2 2 4 0 2 1,415 1 ,730 3 ,145 10 90 °" °" 0% 0 0 0 z" 2" . ... 2" 10 10 zo 10 1,421 1,740 1,111 10 100 538 995 1 .3 6 Rimt In 497 591 7 10 810 0 2 710 810 °" 0 a" 10 710 azo Count Source: Al"US fi/8/2010 Cou11l 201 5 t o 201 0 Factor: 0 7 143 EastOOm1<.l Enter Exit 1.562 1 ,274 2,836 1.74 4 1,3 7 5 3.1 19 1.09 West Approach Out Total Left Thru Right In 404 995 297 758 26 1 ,081 565 1.375 255 895 75 1 ,175 3 2 2 4 5 0 0 5 56 5 1,37 5 280 895 2 5 1,1 80 °" °" °" 0 0 0 2" .... 10% 10% 10 zo 45 41 171 1,311 I05 ... 21 1 ,ZZ I Ou1 947 1.055 3 1 .060 0 % 0 1ft IO 1,110 Total 2.028 2.230 8 2 ,240 0% 0 2°" II Z.HI 3,210 3 ,880 8 8 16 3 ,890 0 0 0 13 5 4 ,025 Dal e Pr inted 8/29/2012 Page 5 Appendix C Parking Demand Analysis ~ Transportation Engineering NorthWest, LLC Parking Demand Forecasts -Quendall Terminals Alternative 1 Weekday Peak Pa rking Demand (ITE Rates) Forecast Weekday Peak Parking Demand (ITE Rates) LU O ffi ce Restaurant (Hig h-Turn Over Sit-Down) M id -Ri se A pt Ret ail Proposed S upply S urplu s or (Defic it) Size 2 10,000 9 ,000 800 2 1 ,6 00 ITE Pa rking R at e 1 3 .44 16 .1 1.46 3 .35 Dema nd 722 145 1,168 72 2 ,107 2 ,171 64 Sh are d Analysis -Available space from residentia l units is 350 assumed at 30% of peak evening dema nd p er UL/, Sh ared Parking , 2nd Edition , 2005. Surplu s o r (D eficit) with S ha red Parkin g Con sideration 414 1 -Park i ng Generation , 3r d Edition , ITE, 2004. Weekend Peak Parking Demand (ITE Rates) Forecast Weekend Peak Parking Demand (ITE Rates) LU Office2 Restaurant (High -Turn Over Sit-Down ) Mid-Rise A pt Ret ai l Size 210,0 00 9 ,000 800 2 1 ,600 IT E P a rki ng R at e 1 0.25 2 0.6 1 .17 3.56 D e ma nd 53 1 85 936 77 1 ,251 2 ,17 1 920 281 1,201 2 -For Office uses on a w eekend, no surveys were reported by ITE. However , some level of pa rking demand occu rs at office u ses on weekend periods, albeit on a signfic1 antly reduced level. As such , a n ominal demand for p arking was assumed for these uses on a weekend p eriod that would coi ncide with other peak commercial and residenti al uses. Appendix D Lake Washington Blvd./NE 44th Street Conceptual Channelization Exhibit ~ Transportation Engineering NorthWest, LLC s&~h. ~*,f-;::-.. 1&/0' ..Oro · s&~&ct -<1 "c& A cc~ Conceptual Channelization ~ ..ji .JP~ if' Improvements on Lake Washington Blvd/NE 44th Street Approach to 1-405 Interchange Quendall Terminals Project APPENDIXF CULTURAL RESOURCES REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: RE: Cultural Resource Consultants, Inc. June 28, 2012 Gretchen Brunner ENB!umen Glenn D. Hartmann, Principal Investigator TECHNICAL MEMO 12041-2 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project, Renton, King County, WA The attached short report form constitutes our final report for the above referenced project. A small brick building, identified as the Quendall station house, and two dock/wharf remnants were recorded. Please contact our office should you have any questions about our findings and/or recommendations. 435 ERICKSEN AVENUE NE, sum 103 PO Box 10668, BAINBRIDGE ISLAND, WA 98110 PHONE 206 855-9020 info@crcwa.com CULTURAL RESOURCES REPORT COVER SHEET Author: Title of Report: Date of Report: Katherine M. Kelly Cultural Resources Assessment for the Ouendall Terminals Redevelopment Project. Renton, King County, WA June 28. 2012 County (ies): King Sections: 29, 32 Township: 24 North Range: 05 EasJ Quad: Mercer Island Acres: 21.5 acres CD Submitted? [xJ Yes D No PDF of Report? [xJ Does this replace a draft? D Yes [xJ No Archaeological Sites/Isolates Found or Amended? [xJ Yes D No TCP(s) found? D Yes [xJ No Does this report fulfill a DAHP permit requirement? D Yes # [xl No DAHP Archaeological Site #: • REPORT CHECK LIST Report should contain the following items: Clear objectives and methods A summary of the results of the survey A report of where the survey records and data are stored A research design that: • Details survey objectives Details specific methods Details expected results Details area surveyed including map(s) and legal locational information Details how results will be incorporated into the planning process Please submit reports unbound. Please be sure that any electronic version of a report submitted to DAHP has all of its figures, graphics. appendices. attachments. correspondence, cover sheet, etc .. compiled into one single PDf file. Please check that all digital files display correctly when opened. Management Summary Cultural Resource Consultants, Inc. was contracted by ENB!urnen to conduct a review of pertinent environmental, archaeological, ethnographic, and historical information; and relevant correspondence between the project proponent, stakeholders and DAHP for the purposes of developing a monitoring plan for the proposed Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project in Renton, King County, Washington. Archaeologists conducted a briefreconnaissance of the project area. Survey resulted in the identification of a previously unrecorded brick railroad station house and two remnant dock/wharf structures, which are not considered historically significant. Recommendations include focused and limited archaeological monitoring for the project; attached is a proposed monitoring plan and an inadvertent discovery protocol. 1. Administrative Data Report Title: Cultural Resources Assessment for the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project, Renton, King County, WA Author: Katherine M. Kelly Report Date: June 28, 2012 Location: The project is located at 4350 Lake Washington Blvd in Renton, King County, Washington (Figure 1). Legal Description: The project is located in Sections 29 and 32, Township 23 North, Range 05 East, Willamette Meridian. USGS 7.5' Topographic Map (s): Mercer Island, WA (1994) Total Area Involved: 21.5 acres Objective (Research Design): This assessment was developed with the goal of ensuring that no cultural resources are disturbed during construction of the proposed project and to determine the potential for any, as yet, unrecorded cultural resources within the project area. CRC's work was intended, in part, to assist in addressing state regulations pertaining to the identification and protection of cultural resources (e.g., RCW 27.44, RCW 27.53), and compliance with Section 106 ofNHPA. The Archaeological Sites and Resources Act (RCW 27.53) prohibits knowingly disturbing archaeological sites without a permit from the Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP), and the Indian Graves and Records Act (RCW 27.44) prohibits knowingly disturbing Native American or historic graves. Under Section I 06, agencies involved in a federal undertaking must take into account the undertaking's potential effects to historic properties (36 CFR 800.16(1)(1 )). This assessment utilized a research design that considered previous studies, the magnitude and nature of the undertaking, the nature and extent of potential effects on historic properties, and the CRC Technical Memorandum #12041-2 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project, Renton, King County, WA Page2 likely nature and location of historic properties within the area of potential effects (APE), as well as other applicable laws, standards, and guidelines (per 36CFR800.4 (b)(l)). Assessment methods included a of review of the 1997 cultural resources survey report for the project (Bowden et al. 1997), project plans, related reports, and other information, in order to estimate the potential for as yet unidentified cultural resources. Project Background: The developer is proposing to construct a mixed-use development located at 4350 Lake Washington Blvd (Figure 2). The 21.5 acre project, located within the Shoreline High Intensity Overlay District, is zoned Commercial/Office/Residential. The applicants preferred alternative divides the project into seven lots, four of which would contain four-to six- story mixed-use buildings with residential units, retail, and restaurant space. For purposes of this assessment, the APE for this project is understood to be that of the mixed-use development project described above. The Quendall Terminals site has received a Superfund designation from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and will undergo cleanup/remediation prior to redevelopment, under the oversight of the EPA. Potential impacts associated with cleanup/remediation activities will be addressed through the separate EPA process. Previously Unrecorded Cultural Resources Identified and Recorded: Yes [ x] No [ ] A previously unrecorded brick railroad station house and two remnant dock/wharf structures are within the project boundary. 2. Background Research Background research conducted in June 2012. Archival Sources Checked: DAHP WISAARD Web Soil Survey Library Historical Society There are no previously recorded archaeological sites in the project area. The DAHP files check was conducted in June 2012. Soils mapped in the APE consist of Bellingham silt loam with O to 2 percent slopes and Norma sandy loam with O to 2 percent slopes. Bellingham silt loam is derived of alluvium and is located in depressions and drainage ways. Norma sandy loam is derived of alluvium and is located on floodplains (NRCS 2012). [x] Various historical, archaeological, and ethnographic references, multiple historical records (e.g., GLO maps), and in CRC's library. [ x] Northern Pacific Railway Historical Association Research Collection Contextual Overview: As noted in Bowden et al. ( 1997), in the Statewide Archaeological Predictive Model, and in a letter from DAHP staff (Appendix) the proposed project is in an area with a high likelihood to contain intact archaeological deposits; however, the project area could not be adequately tested due to the presence of fill, impervious surfaces, and contaminated sediments. CRC Technical Memorandum #12041-2 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project, Renton, King County, WA Page 3 The following summary is derived from Bowden et al. (1997) and the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS 2010). Information provided in the following section is from these two sources, unless otherwise indicated. This summary is intended to provide a framework for CRC's archaeological expectations for this project and a context for the proposed monitoring plan. A. The geomorphology of the landform. The fill soils range from one to ten feet thick across the entire site and are thinnest along the southern and eastern boundaries of the Main Property and thickest in the northwest corner of the Main Property. Shallow alluvium (interbedded sand, clay, and peat) associated with the May Creek delta lies under this fill, to depths of25 to 40 feet; the thinner portion of this is at the southeastern portion of the project. Deeper alluvium associated with an older May Creek channel occurs from depths of30 and 40 feet to 127 and 135 feet; this deposit is underlain by lacustrine sediments associated with Lake Washington. The Lake Washington shoreline has fluctuated over the past 7,000 years (Karlin and Abella 1992, 1993; Major 2008) as a result of large earthquakes and associated landslides. A large area, which includes the project, was uplifted approximately 1,000 years ago during an earthquake. Bowden et al. (1997) posited that intact, pre-earthquake cultural deposits, protected from erosion by the cap of landslide debris and silts, might lie inland of the modern shoreline. Historic maps show that the project area was either inundated or subject to periodic flooding and scouring prior to the construction of the Lake Washington Ship Canal and also subject to the erosional effects of the meandering southward of the May Creek channel (GLO 1865; Metsker 1927, 1936; Kroll 1958; USGS 1973) (Figure 3). The 1864 -1920 May Creek meanders would have cut through the project's City Water Line Easement; south of the Quendall Pond; and just east and south of the South Detention Pond, west of a marsh indicated on the 1920 maps ( see Figure 3). Historic newspaper accounts describe archaeological remains exposed at the mouth of May Creek in 1917 folJowing the post-Ship Canal drop in lake levels (Carter 1917). In 1917, the May Creek channel would have cut through the southern portion of the project; the creek delta would have been located south of the South Detention Pond, approximately 3 5 meters east of the modern shoreline. B. The cultural context of the Iandform. T.T. Waterman (2001) recorded numerous named geographic features near the project area; these include descriptive names for geographic features, resource procurement sites, village (or habitation sites), and names associated with mystical events. May Creek is recorded as sbal '/ ("a place where things are dried") which referred to a fish processing station. Until ca. 1855, the Subaltuabs, a Coast Salish group, inhabited this village, which consisted of two to three houses; however, no houses are noted in the location on the 1865 survey maps (Paige 1856; Waterman 1922; Duwamish et al. 1933; Lane 1975; Ruby and Brown 1992). CRC contacted local tribes for additional information about the project area (see Attachments), which did not result in any new data. The area was later named "May Creek" for an early homesteader (Meany 1923 ). The project site was part of a homestead patented to Jeremiah Sullivan in 1874, later deeded to James Colman in CRC Technical Memorandum #12041-2 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project. Renton, King County, WA Page4 1876 (A TSDR 2006). The May homestead was located on a parcel later part of Colman's property just north of the Barbee Lumber Company (EHC 2012), which may place the homestead within the project area. Prior to 1916, a shingle mill occupied the upland area of the site; the property was deeded to Peter Reilly in 1916 (ATSDR 2006). Quendall Station (named for Lake Washington Mill owner William Kendall) was established in 1916, as a part of the Lake Washington beltline, and shows on the Northern Pacific Railway roster in 1922 and 1947 (NPRHA 2012). The area was used by the Republic Creosoting Company (later Reilly Tar and Chemical Corporation) to process creosote from 1917 -1969. Tar feedstock was typically transported to the facility onsite from Lake Union and unloaded from tankers or barges at at-dock that extended out into Lake Washington or at a shorter, near-shore pier. The feedstock was unloaded into two two-million gallon, above-ground storage tanks. (Remnants of this dock and a wharf are located within the APE along the Lake Washington shoreline). A notation in Washington: A Guide to the Evergreen State describes "a huddle of black sheds and creosote tanks between the lake and the tracks of the Northern Pacific Railway" (WPA 1941). In the early 1970s, the site was sold to Quendall Terminals. It has been used intermittently to store diesel, crude and waste oils and as a log sorting and storage yard. Bowden et al. (1997) reported a small brick building, a sewer pump station and a shack on the eastern edge of the Main Property. The brick building (the Quendall Station house) was reportedly used as an office building for the logging company (William Parent, personal communication, June 14, 2012). Much of the landform is presently covered with fill, which generally consists of a mixture of silt, sand, gravel and wood debris with scattered foundry slag and brick and metal fragments. Known fill events occurred west of the pre-1916 shoreline following the lowering of Lake Washington; between 1920 and 1936 associated with the diversion of May Creek and backfilling of its former channel; and in 1983, when approximately three feet of sawdust was placed over the entire site. C. The results of the 1997 archaeological survey. A landform subject to periodic flood events and channel drift would not be assumed to contain intact, significant cultural deposits. However, Bowden et al. ( 1997) posited that intact, pre-earthquake cultural deposits, protected from erosion by the cap of landslide debris and silts, might lie inland of the modem shoreline. In 1997, archaeologists excavated 12 shovel tests in the upland area, one of which was located within the current project's boundaries (Bowden et al. 1997:16). All shovel tests were negative for cultural deposits; however, an item tentatively identified as fire-modified rock was found in a shovel test excavated to the east of the project on the Pan Abode Cedar Homes Property. The single shovel test excavated in 1997, which is within the 2012 project area, identified a small charcoal deposit at 90 -100 centimeters below the surface. Soils in the eastern portion of the project were interpreted as remnant alluvial deposits from May Creek; while those in the western portion were described as beach deposits associated with the Lake Washington shoreline. D. The nature of the undertaking. Site remediation anticipates the placement of a cap over the upland portion of the Main Property and along the shoreline. This cap could be disturbed by: a) clearing and grading in the upland portion of the Main Property; b) construction of a deep CRC Technical Memorandum #12041-2 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project, Renton, King County, WA Pages building foundation (i.e. piles) and other ground improvements required for structural support, c) excavation for utilities; and d) establishment and/or expansion of wetland and riparian areas (shoreline and/or upland). Institutional controls will be required to prevent alteration of the cap during redevelopment. With the exception of these four instances, the undertaking is unlikely to cause effects to intact, significant cultural deposits, should any exist within the project. Archaeological Expectations. Based on the background information, areas with a higher probability to contain intact archaeological deposits include the margins of the old channels of May Creek, the delta of the 1920 channel; the margins of the 1920 marsh; and areas adjacent to the 1864 shoreline. Cultural deposits in this location may include items or features associated with a) precontact fisheries (weirs, traps, smokehouses, drying racks); b) precontact habitation (fire-modified rock, charcoal, post molds, depressions, lithic debitage, and formal processing and hunting tools); c) historic industry (wharves, piers, docks, pilings, machinery; foundations, trash); historic habitation (house foundations, household refuse) or historic transportation (rail line; trestles; road beds, bridge foundations). Because of the type and intensity of landscape modification conducted in the historic era and the geologic history of the landform, intact precontact deposits would not be expected to be at or near the surface, but rather would be anticipated to be one to several meters below ground-level (Bowden et al. 1997). This position is supported by the 1997 fieldwork (Bowden et al. 1997) and the results of other archaeological studies conducted in the vicinity (e.g. Greengo 1966; Chatters 1981, 1988; Larson 1988; Lewarch et al. 1994, 1995; Forsman and Larson 1995; Lorenz 1976; Robinson 1982a, 1982b ). Intact historic-era deposits related to early homesteading would not be expected to be visible on the surface within the project area for the same reasons; however, background research indicates that late historic-era deposits related to creosote production; the lumber industry and railroad are likely to be present on the landscape. 3. Fieldwork Field investigations were conducted by Katherine M. Kelly and Sonja Kassa; notes and photographs are on file at CRC. The project was not staked or flagged. The survey method consisted of a pedestrian survey using maps provided by the client. No subsurface testing was conducted due to known soil contaminates; ground exposures, cut banks and cleared areas were inspected as available. The landscape was much as described in the reference documents, all examined areas showed signs of disturbance. Upland areas are covered with a mixture of wood debris and gravels, while the shoreline had push piles of fill, wood chips, gravels and riprap and large sections of armoring (riprap and logs or manufactured fiber netting) over fill (Figures 4 -8). Gravel roads and gravel- covered clearings were found throughout. A series of low canals or ditches, ponds and cobble dikes radiated from the northeastern portion of the site to the western shoreline (Figure 9). Remnant asphalt surfaces are also present in this section. In addition to the remnant log beds, archaeologists also observed log piles, the ruins of a structure interpreted to be truck scales, monitoring wells and/or utility connections, concrete pads, plywood sheds. concrete '"eco- CRC Technical Memorandum #12041-2 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project, Renton. King County, WA Page 6 blocks," collections of waste barrels, and trash scatters (Figures 10 -13). No evidence of the precontact deposits, homestead, shingle mill, or creosote storage tanks were identified. Total Area Examined: 21.5 acres. Areas not examined: None. Date of Survey: June 14, 2012 Weather and Surface Visibility: Weather conditions were clear and mild. 4. Results Cultural Resources Identified: Three structures were recorded: two wooden dock/wharf features (presumed to be associated with the creosote plant); and the Quendall station house, a small, flat-roofed brick structure (Figures 14 -16). The dock/wharf features, which are likely associated with the former creosote facility, are in ruin. Per prevailing DAHP guidelines, these have been recorded as historic-era archaeological sites on Washington State archeological inventory forms. The Quendall station house, although associated with the Northern Pacific Railway, is not architecturally remarkable. It has been recorded on a Washington State historic property inventory form. None of these sites is considered to be a significant cultural resource; all forms have been submitted to DAHP. Project Conclusions, Findings and Recommendations: Much of the proposed undertaking is unlikely to cause effects to intact, significant cultural deposits, should any exist within the project. There are four instances that may require excavation below the assumed cap installed during remediation. These are: • • Clearing and grading in the upland portion of the Main Property . Construction of a deep building foundation (i.e. piles) and other ground improvements required for structural support. It is CRC's recommendation that limited and focused cultural resource monitoring be conducted during these activities. A proposed monitoring plan and an inadvertent discovery plan are attached. In the unlikely event that ground disturbing or other activities do result in the inadvertent discovery of archaeological deposits, work should be halted in the immediate area and contact made with the DAHP in Olympia. Work should be halted until such time as further investigation and appropriate consultation is concluded. In the unlikely event of the inadvertent discovery of human remains, work should be immediately halted in the area, the discovery covered and secured against further disturbance, and contact effected with law enforcement personnel, DAHP and authorized representatives of the concerned Indian tribes. CRC Technical Memorandum #12041-2 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project, Renton, King County, WA Page 7 No historic properties affected [ ] Historic properties affected [ x] No adverse effect to historic properties [ x] Adverse effect to historic properties f ] Attachments: Figures Photographs Other [x] [x] [x] Copy ofletter from DAHP to CED, Associate Planner [x] Copies ofletters sent by CRC to cultural resources staff at the Duwamish Tribe, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, and Puyallup Tribe ofindians. [ x] Proposed Monitoring Plan [ x] Proposed Inadvertent Discovery Protocol [ x] Historic Inventory Report, Quendall Station [ x] Archaeological Site Inventory Form, Historic Wharf Structures 5. Limitations of this Assessment No cultural resources study can wholly eliminate uncertainty regarding the potential for prehistoric sites, historic properties or traditional cultural properties to be associated with a project. The information presented in this report is based on professional opinions derived from our analysis and interpretation of available documents, records, literature, and information identified in this report, and on our field investigation and observations as described herein. Conclusions and recommendations presented apply to project conditions existing at the time of our study and those reasonably foreseeable. The data, conclusions, and interpretations in this report should not be construed as a warranty of subsurface conditions described in this report. They cannot necessarily apply to site changes of which CRC is not aware and has not had the opportunity to evaluate. 6. References Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) 2006 Initial Release Public Health Assessment for Quendall Terminals Renton, King County, Washington. EPA Facility ID: WAD980639215 September 20, 2006. Electronic resource, accessed June 2012, available at www.epa.gov. Bowden, B., L.A. Forsman, L. L. Larson, and D. E. Lewarch 1997 Cultural Resource Assessment JAG Development, King County, Washington. Larson Anthropological/ Archaeological Services Technical Report #97-7 submitted to CAN Architecture. On file at DAHP, Olympia. Carter, M. J. 1917 Lake Washington's New Beach Line Town Crier 14 April 1917. CRC Technical Memorandum #12041-2 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project, Renton, King County, WA Page 8 City of Renton (DEIS) 20 IO Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Quendall Terminals mixed use development. Prepared by Department of Community and Economic Development, City of Renton. Chatters, J. C. 1981 Archaeology of the Sbabadtd Site 45Kl51, King County, Washington. Office of Public Archaeology, Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Washington, Seattle. 1988 Tua/dad A/tu (45KI59), a 4th Century Village on the Black River, King County, Washington First City Equities, Seattle. Duwamish et al. Tribes oflndians V The United States of America 1933 Testimony before the Court of Claims of the United States Proceedings of the Indian Court of Claims, No F-275. Eastside Heritage Center 2012 Colman Diaries. In "Historic Houses", Eastside Heritage Newsletter November 2005, Vol. V, Issue IV. Electronic resource, accessed June 2012, www.eastsideheritagecenter.org. Forsman, L. and L. Larson 1995 Regional Wastewater Services Plan Cultural Resource Management Overview Draft Technical Memorandum. LAAS Technical Report 95-12 Submitted to CH2M Hill. On file at DAHP, Olympia. General Land Office (GLO) 1865 Survey Plat of Township 24 North, Range 5 East. East Willamette Meridian. Electronic resource, accessed June 2012, http://www.blm.gov/or/landrecords/survey/ySrvyl .php. Greengo, R. E. 1966 Archaeological Excavations at the Marymoor Site (45Kl9) A Report to the National Park Service Region 4. Order Invoice Voucher 34-703 Sammamish Flood Control Project Department of Anthropology, University of Washington, Seattle. Juell, K. E. 2001 Cultural Resources Inventory of the Proposed Light Lanes Project. (NADB 1339887). Karlin, R. E and S. B Abella 1992 Paleoearthquakes in the Puget Sound Region Recorded in Sediments of Lake Washington, USA Science 258 1617-1620. Kroll Map Company (Kroll) 1958 Kroll 's Atlas of King County. Seattle, Washington. CRC Technical Memorandum #12041-2 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project, Renton, King County, WA Page 9 Lane,B. 1975 Identity and Treaty Status of the Duwamish Tribe of Indians Report. Submitted to US Department of the Interior and the Duwamish Tribe. On file at Special Collections, Allen Library, University of Washington, Seattle. Larson, L. L. 1988 Cultural Resource Investigation of a Proposed Warehouse In Renton, King County, Washington. Submitted to Public Storage, Incorporated. On file at DAHP, Olympia. Lewarch, D. E. 1994 Cultural Resources Field Assessment of the Fred Meyer Corporation Building Project Area, Renton, King County, Washington. Submitted to Fred Meyer Corporation. On file at DAHP, Olympia. Lewarch, D. E., L. L. Larson, and L. A Forsman 1995 Introduction In The Archaeology of West Point, Seattle, Washington, 4,000 Years of Hunter-Fisher-Gatherer Land Use in Southern Puget Sound, 2 Vols, pp 1-1-1-39. Edited by Lynn L. Larson and Dennis E. Lewarch Larson Anthropological/ Archaeological Services, Submitted to the King County Department of Metropolitan Services, Seattle. Lorenz, T. H. 1976 Archaeological Assessment, Army Corps of Engineers, Permit Number 071-0YB-I- 002916, Phase 1-May Creek Interceptor, METRO/King County Water District Number 107 Letter report submitted to Moore, Wallace and Kennedy, Incorporated, Seattle. Kanaby, K. M., L. N. Getz, D. F. Tingwall, and T. C. Rust 2009 Archaeological Assessment, City of Renton Hawk's Landing Project, Renton. On file at the DAHP, Olympia. Major, M. 2008 State of Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form: 45KI814. On file at the DAHP, Olympia. Meany, E. S. 1923 Origin of Washington Geographic Names. University of Washington Press, Seattle. Metsker, C. F. 1927 Metsker 's Atlas of King County. Metsker Map Company. Seattle. 1936 Metsker 's Atlas a/King County. Metsker Map Company. Seattle. Murphy, L. R. 2003 Letter to Jay Brueggeman Regarding Final Ripley Lane Pipeline Excavation Project (CIP #200799) Archaeological Resources Monitoring. (NADB 1341932) Northern Pacific Railway Historical Association (NPRHA) 2012 Quendall Station. Electronic resource, accessed June 2012, available at nprha.org. CRC Technical Memorandum #12041-2 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project, Renton, King County, WA Page 10 Paige, G. 1856 Report to Isaac I Stevens, Superintendent of Indian Affairs, Washington Territory December 29 and 31, 1856, Fort Kitsap, Washington Territory On microfilm, US National Archives, Records of the Washington Superintendency oflndian Affairs, Letters received from Puget Sound, Microcopy 5, Roll I 0 Robinson, J. 1982a SR 405 Factoria to Northup Way-HOV Prepared for Washington State Department of Transportation. On file at DAHP, Olympia. 1982b SR 90 Bellevue Access Study. Prepared for Washington State Department of Transportation. On file at DAHP, Olympia. Ruby, R.H. and J. A. Brown 1992 A Guide to the Indian Tribes of the Pacific Northwest. University of Oklahoma Press. Norman. United States Department of Agriculture -Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 2012 Washington Soil Survey Reports. Electronic resource, accessed June 2012, www. websoilsurvey .nrcs. usda.gov. United States Geological Survey (USGS) 1973 Mercer Island Quadrangle, Wash. 7.5-Minute Series Topographic Map (photo revised from 1968 and 1950). Manuscript on file at the Map Collection Division, University of Washington Libraries. Seattle, Washington. 1983 Bellevue South Quadrangle, Wash. 15-Minute Series Topographic Map. Manuscript on file at the Map Collection Division, University of Washington Libraries. Seattle. Waterman, T. T. 2001 Puget Sound Geography. Vi Hilbert, Jay Miller, and Zalmai Zahir, eds. Lushootseed Press. Federal Way. Writers' Program of the Work Projects Administration in the State of Washington (WPA) 1941 Washington: A Guide to the Evergreen State. Compiled by workers of the Writers' Program of the Work Projects Administration in the State of Washington and sponsored by the Washington State Historical Society. Binfords & Mort, Portland. Electronic resource, accessed June 2012, www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=990486l2. CRC Technical Memorandum #12041-2 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project, Renton, King County, WA Page 11 7. Figures NAllONAl. GEOGRAPHIC 11111111 All& I I CI O f~&.» 6 ,U •• I.H •• •• 1;!9 ..._ 1•1u 1111·,t~MAw 1l1wj •1v111ilJ1i,11l.w ·~~tu ~' •• 0 1 0 1 •> o • •• o, 1r Ol lff l Figure I. Locatio n o f th e project shown o n portio n o fth e USGS M ercer Is land, W A 7.5 ' USGS quadrangl e . CRC Technical Memorandum #12041-2 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project , Renton , King County , WA Page 12 LEGEND 0MW"1 !,<J Wl1LA\L>tslJJ-r Ut 100 OIIWI\ BUHCR WCTL.A~O [OC,£ '%. ~-\. ., l-4-tr w.<1.r,,,l\lc"'"' ~ \ 9: \ <o ,~.,. ? Ge \'l:..,. ~ .,, 'Z .. ~ ~ ~,. " -:; .. ~<) ,"' / 'Z .. ~ ~ .,<>;. UNIT SUMMARY S>Jw A£S•0£""'1"l TOTA~ ., ..... S • :>~~ '>lW~C.5400.-.A.l fOT.'ll U"rT5, • l.r SC A[S10['fl1l.l TOT,\l ~"lt1S • 1"4 ?OU,l 1.,,1f5• 4192 OlC ... l'AIOO~ ",l QJ.t.U,..A-.1 • a.,1Ull", l'A"ltu-.t, "!A ll"' \{ ()UA~'\NT • $4 OH .I\ Pi\AK ,<, STAU~ f OT.t.l OlC~ PJ.r,11 'fC. • l'oK'tlA.l<, LEG END OUMPST(R A[CYCLE 81,_ U tu rr· Af-0 l UCf ptCAL SPA([ ~ 0 11 S1A.IR ·-. LOOOY ~LA Cf) ...J <( z ~ a: UJ 1- ...J ...J <( 0 z UJ ::, O' QUENDALL TERMINALS -PREFERRED ALTERNATE RENTON, WASH IN GTON CENTURY PACIFIC , LP Figure 2. Propo se d project ap plicants preferred alternative. PO .O CRC Tec hnical Memorandum #12041-2 Cultural Res ources Assessment for the Q uendall Terminals Redevelopment Project , Renton, King Coun ty , WA Page 13 Figure 3 . Map illu strating histori c geomorphology of the project vici ni ty (fro m Bowden et a l. 1997:5). Bowden 's map id entifie s hi stor ic shorel in es ( 1864 , 1920): May Creek c hannel s ( I 864, 1920 , 1997); and the 1920 locati on of a CRC Technical Memora ndum #12041 -2 Cu ltura l Resources Assessment for the Q uendall Terminals Re development Project , Renton , Kin g County , WA Page 14 m ar sh . N o te also the T -Dock on the s ho re line in the a p prox im ate middle o f th e proj ect. The white po lygons indi cate the proj ect area. Fi g ure 4. Ground cover ed w ith la rge wood c hip s. Figure 5. G ro und c overed w it h g rave l (form er road). CRC Technical Memorandum #12041 -2 C ultural Resources Assessment for the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project , Renton , King County , WA Page 15 Figure 6. Milled lumbe r in two -track road . Figure 7. Pu s h pil es or stoc kpil ed mat eri a l, two -track ro ad at shorelin e. C RC Technical Memorandum #12041 -2 C ultural Resources Assessment for the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Proje ct , Renton , King County , WA Page 16 Figure 8. Shor el ine stabilization structures. Note chained l arge woody debris, riprap and grave l. Figure 9. Exampl e of the se ries of ca nal s and r eta ining pond s found in t he northern and western part of the project. CRC Techn ica l Memorandum #12041 -2 C ultural Resources Assessment for the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project , Renton, King County , WA Page 17 Figure I 0. Appr ox imatel y three-foot tal I st ee l "l og bed s". There are at least t hree se ts of th ese on th e proper ty. Figure 11. St ructure interprete d as industri al (logg ing) sc ales , located at eas t ern edge of prop erty. CRC Techn ica l Memorandum #1 2041-2 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Que ndall Terminals Redevelopment Project , Renton , King County , WA Page 18 Figure 12. Small structure (perhap s a pump ho use) located at the easte rn edge of the property near the sca l es (see Figure 8). Figure 13 . Pl ywood structure, with intact door and sliding w indow. Appears to have se rved as an office. Located at the southern edge of the prop erty. CRC Technical Memorandum #12041-2 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project , Renton , King County , WA Page 19 Figure 14. Wooden waterfron t structure interpre ted to b e the re mnants ofa wharf, located approximate ly 0.3 miles n o rth of the M ay C ree k o utlet. Figure IS . Woo den waterfront s tru cture interpreted to b e th e remnants ofa w harf, locat ed a pprox im ate ly 0 .3 mil es n orth of th e May Creek o utl et. CRC Techn ical Memorandum #12041-2 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Quendall Termina ls Redevelopment Project , Renton, King County , WA Page 20 Figure 16. The Quendall stat io n , also u sed as a n office by the lo gging company. Table I. C ultural resource sites reco rd e d within o ne mil es of the APE Site Number Site Name DAHP Site Type NRHP/WHR Potential Status Project Impacts KI00814 F loatin g Dry Docks YFD 48 Histori c Maritime Properties, Potentially None. Docks a nd 51 Submerged Other ( 1948) E li g ible rem oved in 2008 Northern Pacific Ra ilroad Transportation -Rail-Re lated Not eligible Non e T restle (Burling Northern and (1904) Santa Fe Railroa d Trestle) T bl 2 C I a e u tura d resource s urveys con ucte ·1 w it m one mi es o f h APE t e Report Citation Author Date C ultura l Resource Ass essm e nt Jag Development. (NADB 1339768 ) Bowden, 8. 1997 C ultural Resources Inventory of the Proposed Light Lanes Project. (NADB Juell , K. E . 2001 1339887) L e tte r to Jay Brueggeman Regarding Final Ripley Lane Pipeline Excavation Project Murphy, L . R. 2 003 (CIP #200799) Archaeological R esources Monitoring. (NADB 134 19 32) Archaeological Inventory Survey R e port Lake Washington F loating Dry Docks . Major, M. 200 8 (NADB 135 1684) Archaeological As ses s ment, C ity of Rento n Hawk's La nding Project, R e nto n Kanaby, K. M. 2009 {NADB 1353785) CRC Technical Memorandum #12041-2 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project, Renton , King County , WA Page 21 8. Attachments STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORIC PRESERVATION 1063 S. Capitol Way, Suite 106 • Olympia, Washington 98501 Malling address: PO Box 48343 • Olympia, Washington 985()4..8343 (360) 586-3065 • Fax Number (360) 586-3067 • Website: www.dahp.wa.gov February 9, 2011 Ms. Vanessa Dolbee Associate Planner CED 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 In future correspondence please refer to: Log: 020911-10-KI Property: Qucndall Terminals LUA09-151, EIS, ECF. BSP, SA, Draft EIS Qrundell Terminals Re: Archaeology-Draft EIS Comments Dear Ms. Dolbee: Thank you for contacting the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP). The above referenced project has been reviewed on behalf of the State Historic Preservation Officer. The Renton area has a history of archaeological finds during construction project. The Draft EIS does not address cultural resources. Cultural resources should be addressed as part of the Affected Environments section. There is ethnographic evidence that a precontact Duwamish village was present in the project area and an Indian trail leading to the project area and vicinity is shown on historic maps. In addition. the project area is depicted in the Statewide Archaeological Predictive Model as having the highest probability for containing precontacl archaeological resources. A cultural resources survey of the project arc and vicinity conducted in 1997 by Larson AnthropologicaVArchaeological Services. was unable to adequately survey the project area because of the presence of fill and impervious surfaces. Please be aware that archaeological sites are protected from knowing disturbance on both public and private lands in Washington States. Both RCW 27.44 and RCW 27.53.060 require that a person obtain a permit from our Department before excavating, removing, or altering Native American human remains or archaeological resources in Washington. Failure to obtain a permit is punishable hy civil fines and other penalties under RCW 27.53.095, and by criminal prosecution under RCW 27.53.090. Chapter 27 .53.095 RCW allows the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation to issue civil penalties for the violation of this statute in an amount up to five thousand dollars, in addition to site restoration costs and investigative costs. Also, these remedies do not prevent concerned tribes from undertaking civil action in state or federal court, or law enforcement agencies from undertaking criminal investigation or prosecution. Chapter 27.44.050 RCW allows the affected Indian Tribe to undertake civil action apart from any criminal prosecution if burials are disturbed. We request that cultural resources be addressed, by a professional archaeologist or environmental or cultural resources firm that has professional archaeologists on staff, as part of the final EIS. Mitigation PARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORIC PRESERVATION CRC Technical Memorandum #12041-2 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project, Renton, King County, WA Page 22 measure may consist of professional archaeological monitoring under a monitoring and inadvertent discovery plan approved by DAHP and the Tribes. and/or further survey using heavy machinery that can penetrate fill soils and impervious surfaces. If further survey is the chosen mitigation, DAHP will need to see the original survey report in addition to the summarized version of the survey that will become part of the EIS. All survey should be completed prior to construction activities. Archaeological survey in tandem with construction work has not proven to be an effective means of protecting cultural resources and has led to violations of RCW 27.53 on other projects. Complete cultural resources survey reports must be sent to DAHP and the affected Tribes prior to the final EIS, and prior to any ground disturbing activities commencing, on any part of the project. Archaeological site inventory forms, if applicable, must be submitted to DAHP in advance of the final report, and Smithsonian trinomials (site numbers) must be incorporated into the final report text. Thank you for the opportunity to review and conunent. Sincerely, Gretchen Kaehler Assistant State Archaeologist (360) 586-3088 e.retchen. kachler@dahp. wa. !ellV cc. Laura Murphy, Archaeologist, Muckleshoot Tribe Cecile Hansen. Chairwoman, Duwamish Tribe Phil LeTourneau, King County Historic Preservation Program Dennis Lewarch, Archaeologist, Suquamish Tribe PAIITMENT Of ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORIC PIESERVATION 2 CRC Technical Memorandum #12041-2 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project, Renton, King County, WA Page 23 Cultural Resource Consultants, Inc. June 11. 2012 Duwamish Tribe Cecile Hansen, Chairwoman 4705 W Marginal Way SW Seattle, WA 98106-1514 Re: Cultural Resources Assessment for the Quendall Terminals Rede,•elopment Project, Renton, King County, WA Dear Ms. Hansen: I am writing to infonn you of a cultural resources assessment for the above referenced project. Cultural Resource Consultants. Inc. (CRC) is conducting this assessment at the request of EA/Blumen. The project is located in Section 29, Township 24 North, Range 5 East Willamette Meridian in Renton, King County, Washington. EA/Bluman is requesting a cultural resources assessment for the Quendall Termainals Redevelopment Project located in the northern portion ot the City of Renton, King County_ The site includes an approximately 20.3-acre Main Property along Lake Washington, and an approximately 1.2-acrc Isolated Property to the northeast. The Main Property is generally bordered by a Puget Sound Energy easement and the Seattle Seahawks Training Facility to the north, the Railroad right-of.way, Lake Washington Boulevard and Ripley Lane N to the east. the Barbee Mill residential development to the south and lake Washington to the west. The Isolated Property is generally bounded by Ripley Lane N to the west. and the southbound 1-405 off-ramp to the east and south. CRC is in the process of reviewing available information. Background research will include a site files search at the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP), review of previously recorded cultural resource reports, and review of pertinent published literature and cthnographies. Results of our investigations will be presented in a technical memo. We are aware that not all information is contained within published sources. Should the Tri he have additional information to support our assessment, we would very much like to include it in our study. Please contact me should you wish to provide any comments. I appreciate your assistance in this matter and look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely. Glenn D. Hartmann President/Principal Investigator PO Box 10668, BAINBRIIICE ISLAND, WA 98110 PHONf 206.855.9020 -1nfofllcr<::w.i..com CRC Technical Memorandum #12041-2 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project, Renton, King County, WA Page 24 Cultural Resource Consultants, Inc. June 11,2012 Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Laura Murphy, Archaeologist/Cultural Resources 39015 172nd Ave SE Auburn, WA 98092 Re: Cultural Resources Assessment for the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project. Renton, King County, WA Dear Ms. Murphy: I am writing to inform you of a cultural resources assessment for the above referenced project. Cultural Resource Consultants, Inc. (CRC) is conducting this assessment at the request of EA./Blumen. The project is located in Section 29, Township 24 North, Range 5 East Willamette Meridian in Renton, King County, Washington. l:A/Bluman is requesting a cultural resources assessment for the Quendall Termainals Redevelopment Project located in the northern portion of the City of Renton, King County. The site includes an approximately 20.3-acre Main Property along Lake Washington, and an approximately 1.2-acre Isolated Property to the northeast. The Main Property is generally bordered by a Puget Sound Energy easement and the Seattle Seahawks Training Facility to the north, the Railroad right-of-way, Lake Washington Boulevard and Ripley Lane N to the east, the Barbee Mill residential development to the south and Lake Washington to the west. The Isolated Property is generally bounded by Ripley Lane N to the west, and the southbound 1-405 off-ramp to the east and south. CRC is in the process of reviewing available information. Background research will include a site files search at the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP), review of previously recorded cultural resource reports, and review of pertinent published literature and ethnographies. Results of our investigations will be presented in a technical memo. We are aware that not all information is contained within published sources. Should the Tribe have additional information to support our assessment, we would very much like to include it in our study. Please contact me should you wish to provide any comments. I appreciate your assistance in this matter and look fonvard to hearing from you. Sincerely. Glenn D. Hartmann President/Principal Investigator PO Box 10(;68, BAl.',IBRIOCE l~L.\NI), WA 98110 PllON~ 206.855.9020 info@crcwa.com CRC Technical Memorandum #12041-2 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project, Renton, King County, WA Page 25 Cultural Resource Consultants, Inc. June J 1,2012 Puyallup Tribe of Indians Brandon Rcynon, Cultural Resources 3009 East Portland Ave Tacoma, WA 98404 Re: Cullum] Resources Assessment for the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project, Renton, King County, WA Dear Mr. Reynun: I am writing to inform you of a cultural resources assessment for the above referenced project. Cultural Resource Consultants. Inc. (CRC) is conducting this assessment at the request of EA/Blumen. The project is located in Section 29, Township 24 North. Range 5 East Willamette Meridian in Renton. King County. Washington. EA/Bluman is requesting a cultural resources assessment for the QuendaJI Termainals Redevelopment Project located in the northern portion of the City of Renton, King County. The site includes an approximately 203-acrc Main Property along Lake Washington, and an approximately 1.2-acre Isolated Property to the northeast. The Main Property is generally bordered by a Puget Sound Energy casement and the Seattle Seahawks Training Facility to the north. the Railroad right-of-way, Lake Washington Boulevard and Ripley Lane N to the east, the Barbee Mill residential development to the south and Lake Washington to the west. The Isolated Property is generally bounded by Ripley Lane N to the west. and the southbound 1-405 off-ramp to the east and south. CRC is in the process of reviewing available information. Background research will include a site files search at the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP). review of previously recorded cultural resource reports, and review of pertinent published literature and ethnographies. Results of our investigations will be presented in a technical memo. We are aware that not all information is contained within published sources. Should the Tribe have additional information to support our assessment. we would very much like to include it in our study. Please contact me should you wish to provide any comments. I appreciate your assistance in this matter and look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, Glenn D. Hartmann President/Principal Investigator PO BrlX 106f,ll, B,\l.'IHRIIJ(;t-l~IANll, WA Wll 10 Pl IONt-206.855.9020 info@crcwa.com CRC Technical Memorandum #12041-2 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project, Renton, King County, WA Page 26 PROPOSED MONITORING PLAN FOR THE QUENDALL TERMINALS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT, RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHING TON The Project Proponent is proposing to construct a mixed-use development located at 4350 Lake Washington Blvd in Renton. The 21.5 acre project, located within the Shoreline High Intensity Overlay District, is zoned Commercial/Office/Residential. The applicants preferred alternative divides the project into seven lots, four of which would contain four-to six-story mixed-use buildings with residential units, retail, and restaurant space. The Quendall Terminals site has received a Superfund designation from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and will undergo cleanup/remediation prior to redevelopment, under the oversight of the EPA. On-Site Monitoring Archaeological monitoring would entail having an archaeologist present during construction excavation below-fill to observe subsurface conditions and identify any buried archaeological materials that may be encountered. Monitoring will be performed either by a "professional archaeologist" (RCW 27.53.030 (8)) or under the supervision of a professional archaeologist. Prior to any ground-disturbing project activities, construction personnel will meet with the archaeological monitor for a brief cultural resources orientation. The monitoring archaeologist would stand in close proximity to construction equipment in order to view subsurface deposits as they are exposed, and would be in close communication with equipment operators to ensure adequate opportunity for observation and documentation. Archaeological monitoring will seek to identify potential buried surfaces, anthropogenic sediments, and archaeological features such as shell middens, hearths, or artifact-bearing strata. The monitoring archaeologist will inspect project excavations and the recovered sediments for indications of such archaeological resources. The archaeologist will be provided the opportunity to screen excavated sediments and matrix samples when this is judged useful to the identification process. It is not expected that modem fill (e.g., imported culturally-sterile construction fill) or glacial till sediments would be included in screening procedures. Excavated spoils may be examined in the course of monitoring. If cultural materials are observed in spoils piles, it is expected that these would be removed for examination and that the opportunity to screen spoil sediments would be available. Archaeological monitoring of construction excavation will proceed until it can be determined with a greater level of confidence that human remains or other cultural resources are not likely to be impacted by construction excavation of the project. The archaeologist will conduct monitoring until native and fill deposits can be confidently isolated and identified based on observed sedimentary exposures. Upon completion of the monitoring, the archaeologist will prepare a report on the methods and results of the work, and recommendations for any necessary additional archaeological investigations, illustrated with maps, drawings, and photographs as appropriate. CRC Technical Memorandum #12041-2 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project, Renton, King County, WA Page 27 Contingency Plan In accordance with RCW 27.44 Indian Graves and Records Act, RCW 27.53 Archaeological Sites and Resources, RCW 68.50 Human Remains, and RCW 68.60, Abandoned and historic cemeteries and historic graves, the following protocols will be followed in the event that archaeological materials and/or human remains are discovered: Procedures Upon Discovery of Potential or Actual Cultural Resources 1. Upon discovery of a potential or actual archaeological site, or cultural resources as defined by RCW 27.44 Indian Graves and Records Act, and RCW 27.53 Archaeological Sites and Resources, the Project Proponent, their employees, contractors and sub-contractors shall: (a) Immediately cease or halt ground disturbing, construction, or other activities around the area of the discovery and secure the area with a perimeter of not less than thirty (30) feet until all procedures are completed and the parties agree that activities can resume. If such a perimeter would materially impact agency functions mandated by law, related to health, safety or environmental concerns, then the secured area shall be of a size and extent practicable to provide maximum protection to the resource under the circumstances. Project activities that are not ground disturbing may continue outside the secured perimeter around the findings. No one shall excavate any findings and all findings will be left in place, undisturbed and without analysis, until consultation with DAHP and the Tribe regarding a final disposition of the findings has been completed. In accordance with RCW 27.53.060, no one shall knowingly remove or collect any archaeological objects without obtaining a permit. (b) Notify the Local Government Archaeologist at DAHP and the Tribes of the discovery as soon as possible, but in any event, no later than (24) hours of the discovery. If human remains are found, the Project Proponent shall follow notification procedures specified below (see "Human Remains and Associated Funerary Objects"). ( c) Arrange for the parties to conduct a joint viewing of the discovery within ( 48) forty- eight hours of the notification, or at the earliest possible time thereafter, the Project Proponent or their authorized representative shall arrange for the archaeologist to attend the joint viewing. After the joint viewing, taking into account any recommendations of the Tribe(s), DAHP, and the archaeologist, the parties shall discuss the potential significance, if any, of the discovery. ( d) Consult with the Tribes and DAHP on the transfer and final disposition of artifacts. Until the Tribe has a repository that meets the standards of curation established 36 CFR Part 79, artifacts shall be curated using an institution or organization that meets curation standards, selected through consultation with the Tribe. CRC Technical Memorandum #12041-2 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project, Renton, King County, WA Page 28 Inadvertent Discovery of Human Skeletal Remains on Non-Federal and Non-Tribal Land in the State of Washington (RCWs 68.50.645, 27.44.055, and 68.60.055) 2. If ground-disturbing activities encounter human skeletal remains during the course of construction, then all activity must cease that may cause further disturbance to those remains and the area of the find must be secured and protected from further disturbance. In addition, the finding of human skeletal remains must be reported to the King County Coroner's Office and King County Sheriff's Office in the most expeditious manner possible. The remains should not be touched, moved, or further disturbed. 3. The King County Coroner's Office will assume jurisdiction over the human skeletal remains and make a determination of whether those remains are forensic or non-forensic. If the county coroner determines the remains are non-forensic, then they will report that finding to the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) who will then take jurisdiction over the remains and report them to the appropriate cemeteries and affected tribes. The State Physical Anthropologist will make a determination of whether the remains are Indian or Non- Indian and report that finding to any appropriate cemeteries and the affected tribes. The DAHP will then handle all consultation with the affected parties as to the future preservation, excavation, and disposition of the remains. 4. DAHP will handle all consultation with the affected parties as to the future preservation, excavation, and disposition of the remains if there is no federal agency involved. Confidentiality of Information 5. The Project Proponent or its authorized representative recognizes that archaeological properties are of a sensitive nature and sites where cultural resources are discovered can become targets of vandalism and illegal removal activities. The Project Proponent or its authorized representative shall keep and maintain as confidential all information regarding any discovered cultural resources, particularly the location of known or suspected archaeological property, and exempt all such information from public disclosure consistent with RCW 42.17 .300. 6. The Project Proponent or its authorized representative shall make its best efforts to ensure that all records indicating the location of known or suspected archaeological properties are permanently secured and confidential. 7. The Project Proponent or its authorized representative shall ensure that its personnel, contractors, and permittees keep the discovery of any found or suspected human remains, other cultural items, and potential historic properties confidential, including but not limited to, refraining such persons from contacting the media or any third party or otherwise sharing information regarding the discovery with any member of the public. The Project Proponent or its authorized representative shall require its personnel, contractors and permittees to immediately notify the Lead Representative of the Project Proponent or its authorized representative of any inquiry from the media or public. The Project Proponent or its authorized representative shall immediately notify DAHP of any inquiries it receives. Prior to any public information release, The Project Proponent or its authorized representative, DAHP, and the Tribe(s) shall concur on CRC Technical Memorandum #12041-2 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project, Renton, King County, WA Page 29 the amount of information, if any, to be released to the public, any third party, and the media and the procedures for such a release, to the extent permitted by law. Lead Representative and Primary Contact 8. The lead representatives and primary contacts of each party under this plan are as identified below. The parties may identify other specific personnel before the commencement of any particular project element as the contacts. EA/Blumen 720 Sixth Street S, Suite 100 Kirkland, WA 90833 Primary Contact: Gretchen Brunner, 425-284-5401 Duwamish Tribe 4705 W Marginal Way SW Seattle, WA 98106-1514 Lead Representative: Cecile Hansen, Chairwoman, 206-431-1582 Muckleshoot Indian Tribe 39015 172nd Ave SE Auburn, WA 98092 Lead Representative: Laura Murphy, 253-939-3311 Puyallup Tribe of Indians 3009 East Portland Avenue Tacoma, WA 98404 Lead Representative: Herman Dillon Sr., Tribal Council Chairman, 253-573-7828 Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation PO Box 48343 Olympia, WA 98504-8343 Lead Representative: Allyson Brooks, State Historic Preservation Officer, 360-586-3066 Primary Contact: Gretchen Kaehler, Local Government Archaeologist, 360-586-3088 Primary Contact for Human Remains: Guy Tasa, State Physical Anthropologist, 360-586-3534 King County Medical Examiner's Office 325 -9th Avenue, Box 359792 Seattle, WA 98104 Lead Representative: Richard Harruff, MD, PhD, Chief Medical Examiner, 206-731-3232 King County SberifPs Office 516 Third Ave Room, W-116 Seattle, WA 98104 Lead Representative: Steven D. Strachan, Sheriff, 206-296-4155 CRC Technical Memorandum #12041-2 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project, Renton, King County, WA Page 30 PROPOSED INADVERTANT DISCOVERY PROTOCOL FOR THE QUENDALL TERMINALS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT, RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON In accordance with RCW 27.44 Indian Graves and Records Act, RCW 27.53 Archaeological Sites and Resources, RCW 68.50 Human Remains, and RCW 68.60, Abandoned and historic cemeteries and historic graves, the following protocols will be followed in the event that archaeological materials and/or human remains are discovered: 1. If any the Project Proponent and/or employees, contractors or subcontractors suspects the inadvertent discovery of a cultural resource, all ground disturbing, construction or other activities around the immediate area of the discovery shall cease. A cultural resource may include an archaeological or historical resource. An archaeological resource is defined in RCW 27.53.040 as: All sites, objects, structures, artifacts, implements, and locations of prehistorical or archaeological interest, whether previously recorded or still umecognized, including, but not limited to, those pertaining to prehistoric and historic American Indian or aboriginal burials, campsites, dwellings, and habitation sites, including rock shelters and caves, their artifacts and implements of culture such as projectile points, arrowheads, skeletal remains, grave goods, basketry, pestles, mauls and grinding stones, knives, scrapers, rock carvings and paintings, and other implements and artifacts of any material that are located in, on, or under the surface of any lands or waters owned by or under the possession, custody, or control of the state of Washington or any county, city, or political subdivision of the state are hereby declared to be archaeological resources. A historical resource is defined in RCW 27.53.030 (11): ... mean[ing] those properties which are listed in or eligible for listing in the Washington State Register of Historic Places (Washington Heritage Register [WHR]) (RCW 27.34.220) or the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) as defined in the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (Title I, Sec. IOI, Public Law 89-665; 80 Stat. 915; 16 U.S.C. Sec. 470) as now or hereafter amended. Cultural resources may qualify for the WHR and/or the NRHP listing if they are intact, aged at least 50 years old, and at least one of the following: A. Are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or B. Are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or C. Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or D. Have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. 2. Upon discovery of a cultural resource, the Project Proponent shall secure the area with a perimeter of not less than thirty (30) feet until all procedures are completed and the parties agree CRC Technical Memorandum #12041-2 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project, Renton, King County, WA Page 31 that activities can resume. If such a perimeter would materially impact agency functions mandated by law, related to health, safety or environmental concerns, then the secured area shall be of a size and extent practicable to provide maximum protection to the resource under the circumstances. Work in the immediate area will not resume until all procedures are completed and the parties agree that activities can resume. 3. A qualified archaeologist, in coordination with the DAHP, will evaluate all inadvertently discovered cultural resources that may be considered eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and recommend whether the cultural resource is eligible for listing in the NRHP. If the discovery is considered eligible, the DAHP and the concerned Indian Tribe(s) will consult to determine appropriate treatment, including but not limited to, photography, mapping, sampling, etc. 4. The Project Proponent shall ensure that its appropriate personnel, contractors and permittees follow procedures stipulated in this protocol and treat all human remains, cultural items and potential historic properties with respect. Human Remains and Associated Funerary Objects 5. In accordance with "Inadvertent Discovery of Human Skeletal Remains on Non-Federal and Non-Tribal Land in the State of Washington" (RCWs 68.50.645, 27.44.055, and 68.60.055), if ground-disturbing activities encounter human skeletal remains during the course of construction, then all activity must cease that may cause further disturbance to those remains and the area of the find must be secured and protected from further disturbance. In addition, the finding of human skeletal remains must be reported to the King County Coroner's Office and King County Sheriffs Office in the most expeditious manner possible. The remains should not be touched, moved, or further disturbed. 6. The King County Coroner's Office will assume jurisdiction over the human skeletal remains and make a determination of whether those remains are forensic or non-forensic. If the county coroner determines the remains are non-forensic, then they will report that finding to the DAHP who will then take jurisdiction over the remains and report them to the appropriate cemeteries and affected tribes. The State Physical Anthropologist will make a determination of whether the remains are Indian or Non-Indian and report that finding to any appropriate cemeteries and the affected tribes. The DAHP will then handle all consultation with the affected parties as to the future preservation, excavation, and disposition of the remains. 7. DAHP will handle all consultation with the affected parties as to the future preservation, excavation, and disposition of the remains if there is no federal agency involved. Confidentiality of Information 8. All involved parties shall make its best efforts to ensure that its appropriate personnel, contractors, and permittees keep the discovery of all inadvertent discoveries confidential, including but not limited to, refraining from contacting the media or any third party or otherwise sharing information regarding the discovery with any member of the public. Prior to any release, CRC Technical Memorandum #12041-2 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project, Renton, King County, WA Page 32 the Project Proponent concerned Tribe(s), and the DAHP, shall concur on the amount of information, if any, to be released to the public, any third party, and the media and the procedures for such a release, to the extent permitted by law. Lead Representative and Primary Contact EA/Blumen 720 Sixth Street S, Suite 100 Kirkland, WA 90833 Primary Contact: Gretchen Brunner, 425-284-5401 Duwamish Tribe 4705 W Marginal Way SW Seattle, WA 98106-1514 Lead Representative: Cecile Hansen, Chairwoman, 206-431-1582 Muckleshoot Indian Tribe 39015172ndAve SE Auburn, WA 98092 Lead Representative: Laura Murphy, 253-939-3311 Puyallup Tribe of Indians 3009 East Portland Avenue Tacoma, WA 98404 Lead Representative: Herman Dillon Sr., Tribal Council Chairman, 253-573-7828 Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation PO Box 48343 Olympia, WA 98504-8343 Lead Representative: Allyson Brooks, State Historic Preservation Officer, 360-586-3066 Primary Contact: Gretchen Kaehler, Local Government Archaeologist, 360-586-3088 Primary Contact for Human Remains: Guy Tasa, State Physical Anthropologist, 360-586-3534 King County Medical Examiner's Office 325 -9th Avenue, Box 359792 Seattle, WA 98104 Lead Representative: Richard Harruff, MD, PhD, Chief Medical Examiner, 206-731-3232 King County Sheriff's Office 516 Third Ave, Room W-116 Seattle, WA 98104 Lead Representative: Steven D. Strachan, Sheriff, 206-296-4155 CRC Technical Memorandum #12041-2 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project, Renton, King County, WA Page 33 Quendall Terminals Renton, Washington Sewer Report November 2009 I Preliminary Report ,·_, i, 1 ,J tt n -,r·, , c CenturyPaclflc, LP Quendall Terminals Sewer Report November 2009 Prepared for: CenturyPacific, LP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 1680 Seattle, WA 98101 Prepared by: Tom Jones Kris Koski, Ell KPFF Consulting Engineers 1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1600 Seattle, WA 98101 (206) 622-5822 KPFF Job No. 109118.10 Property Owners: Altino Properties, Inc., and J.H. Baxter & Company ' . ' . ' . I' ~ ,-~ ii" CenturyPaciflc, LP Quendall Terminals Table of Contents 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. lntroductlon ....................................................................................................... 1 Predeveloped Site Conditions ........................................................................... ! Developed Site Conditions ................................................................................ 2 Basis of Design ................................................................................................. 2 Design Criteria ................................................................................................... 3 Points of Connection ........................................................................................... 3 Existing Baxter Lift Station .................................................................................. 4 List of Tables Table 1-1: Proposed Development .................................................................................. 1 Table 5-1: Design Criteria ................................................................................................. 3 Table 5-2: Building Area Summary and Sanitary Sewer Flows ...................................... 3 Table 5-3: Lift Station Design Assumptions for Quendall Terminals ............................. 4 Appendix Figure 1: Project Location Figure 2: Existing Site Conditions Figure 3: Site Plan Figure 4: Proposed Sewer Plan Figure 5: Calculations Figure 5: Baxter Lift Station Sewer Report • 'J l"'P.!Fn • . ~~ '" II CenturyPaclflc, LP Quendall Terminals am :. 1. Introduction Quendall Terminals is a proposed mixed-use development in Renton, Washington. The development includes five stories of residential or office space above two levels of above-grade parking or retail and restaurant space. The development project anticipates entitlement of the following: Table 1-1: Proposed Development Use Quantity/Area ' Residential 800 Units Office 245,000 Square Feet Retail 21,600 Square Feet Restaurant 9,000 Square Feet Parking 2,215 Spaces Note: All areas shown are gross building areas (GBA). The project site is located west of Interstate 405 near the northern city limits of Renton. The site is bounded by the Seahawks Training Facility to the north, BNSF railroad tracks to the east, and the Barbee Mill residential community to the south. Ripley Lane is located east of the BNSF railroad tracks and Lake Washington Boulevard is located southeast of the project site. See Figure 1 in the Appendix for the site location. This report is intended to support City of Renton entitlement processing for Master Site Plan Approval. The scope of this report is to address the sanitary sewer system for the proposed development. Design criteria will be outlined and a sewerage approach will be evaluated. 2. Predeveloped Site Conditions The existing site is vacant and is the former location of a log sorting and storage yard. The main site is approximately 20.30 acres in size, and the parcel east of the main project site across Ripley Lane North is approximately 1.15 acres in size. An existing 12-inch sanitary sewer main runs from south to north along the east side of the site within a 60-foot roadway and utility easement. The invert elevation of the existing sewer pipe is generally 10 to 13 feet below the existing ground surface. The existing Baxter Lift Station serves Quendall Terminals as well as the Seahawks Training Facility to the north and Barbee Mill to the South. There are no other sewers located on the project site. An 84-inch Metro sewer main is located approximately 100 feet east of the site's east property line. See Figure 2 in the Appendix for existing site conditions. 1 • I CenturyPacific, LP Quendall Terminals II f'IP.!Fff • ' ap :;.&&a ' " 3. Developed Site Conditions The proposed site improvements include a mixed-use development consisting of residential, office, retail, and restaurant uses, as well as new public and private streets and parking. Sewer mains will be constructed within the proposed public streets. Sewage from the buildings will discharge to the new sewer mains via side sewers. The new sewer mains will discharge to the existing 12-inch sewer main at the east side of the project site at a new manhole constructed over the existing main. No improvements are planned for the 1.15-acre parcel east of Ripley Lane. See Figures 3 and 4 in the Appendix for proposed site plan and proposed sewer plan, respectively. 4. Basis of Design An on-site sanitary sewer system will collect and convey flows from Quendall Terminals. Adjacent sites are already developed and served by separate sanitary sewer systems. This report has utilized programmed project areas and Department of Ecology (DOE) criteria to establish projected sewer flows without provisions for future growth or connections. See Figures 3 and 4 in the Appendix for proposed site plan and proposed sewer plan, respectively. Gross building areas have been used for this report. An allowance of 1,100 gallons/acre/day (gpad) has been made for infiltration and inflow since the proposed sanitary sewer system is expected to be below seasonal high groundwater elevations. The 1.15-acre parcel east of Ripley Lane has not been included in the infiltration calculation. A peaking factor of 4.0 was included in the design flows. This factor should account for the daily and seasonal fluctuations in waste generation. This factor should also mitigate the impact of the varying flow generations for the different uses proposed with this project. The sanitary sewer system was designed to convey the estimated peak flows by gravity to the project discharge location at a new manhole installed on an existing City of Renton sanitary sewer pipe. The sewer capacities were established using Manning's Equation, with an "n" factor of 0.013. Sewer lines have been designed using the minimum slope requirements of the Washington State DOE. The pipe slopes used in the final design and future construction documents may be greater than the minimum slope to accommodate potential settlement, depending on the recommendation of the geotechnical engineer. 2 CenturyPaciflc, LP Quendall Terminals l!l'!lll ' ,. 5. Design Criteria Table 5-1: Design Criteria Use Unit I Flow -Gallons per Day (gpd) Peak Factor Residential Per Unit 175 4 Office Per Square Foot 0.2 4 Retail Per Square Foot 0.3 4 Restaurant Per Seat 50 4 1/1 Per Acre 1,100 1 Table 5-2: Building Area Summary and Sanitary Sewer Flows ' Total Flow -Gallons Use Unit I Size I per Minute (gpm) Residential Unit 800 389 Office Square Feet 245,000 136 Retail Square Feet 21,600 18 Restaurant* Seat 396 55 1/1 Acre 20.3 16 Total 614 'Assumes 1 seat per 22.7 square feet See Figure 5 in the Appendix for calculations. POINTS OF CONNECTION Points of connection are available along an existing City of Renton 12-inch concrete sanitary sewer line that flows south to north within a 60-foot roadway and utility easement along the east side of the project site to the existing Baxter Lift Station. The point of connection for the proposed development will be a new manhole constructed over the existing sanitary sewer pipe. 3 CenturyPaclflc, LP Quendall Terminals • IA l"fP.!Fff • ! ap .:.&&Jr • .. EXISTING BAXTER LIFT STATION The Baxter Lift Station is an existing sewer lift station located at the northeast corner of the project site within a sanitary sewer easement. The lift station was designed in 2006 and was constructed in 2009. The lift station was designed for an overall peak flow of 594 gpm for the Sea hawks Training Facility, Barbee Mill community, and the Quendall Terminals site. The lift station was designed and constructed with the following assumptions for future development of the Quendall Terminals site: Table 5-3: Lift Station Design Assumptions for Quendall Terminals (per Figure 6) Developable Acres 5 Tributary Area 5.0 Acres Flow Rate 2,800 gpad Number of Units 75 Tributary Area 3.0 Acres Persons/Unit 2.4 Flow Rate 100 gpad Average Sewerage Flow 22.2 gpm Design 1/1 Rate 1,500 gpad Peaking Factor 4 Design Sewage Flow 88.9 gpm Design 1/1 Flow 8.3 gpm Total Design Flow 97.2 gpm Total Design Flow Q peak hourly The sewer lift station was designed for a flow of 97.2 gpm from the Quendall project site. The anticipated flow from the Quendall project site is 614 gpm. The sewer lift station capacity will need to be increased by approximately 517 gpm to 1,111 gpm to accommodate development of the Quendall Terminals site. Per discussion with the City of Renton Public Works, the existing lift station has the ability to be modified to increase capacity by changing pump impellers and increasing the wet well capacity. See Figure 6 in the Appendix for Baxter Lift Station design details and Figure 7 for a record of discussion with the City. 4 CenturyPaclflc, LP Quendall Terminals Appendix Figures Figure 1: Project Location Figure 2: Existing Site Conditions Figure 3: Site Plan Figure 4: Proposed Sewer Plan Figure 5: Calculations Figure 6: Baxter Lift Station Sewer Report Figure 7: Telephone Record (Lift Station Flows) Appendix KPFF Consulting Engineers November, 2009 VICINITY MAP NTS Quendall Terminals Sewer Report Figure 1: Project Location ! J ' l l 1 I I I l ~ ~ I i ~ 1 ~ ! ti ~ ~ ~ .• IIATilfLINE -SEE lHIS SHEET ,· ~;. :·, \. ' . "), ,..... -t _, LAKE WASHINGTON -'~~~~/.~-:'::' " .t~ "i,~·-· AF ·.· ·ff' \;: ·. ~·--.· ,· \_::"'. ! ~~-·., ' _.~ /' ·'<-. /- 884,823 SQ FT 20.3 AC •. -"'~-- '{ ·,1 EX 12" ss\ '{ .-., . •I \._" ;_,,. ,.,.._r. 'i;:..,:·.· _s~r~\\,-~-' ,-~-· ;'L• -or-.:· __ r::.:c.._ -" ~ ::· . ~":-,:,· •·· .. I -··:,;·· {,;,--::-·-·· ., I ;; '', I ,''i ;j~ ,, ...... ~ r-~ . .,, ,_~_:;;,ti , . Jy4$1f~ ~ ~-: . , ' . . ~ -. . ,,,-: _N __ e~vo-..,..___ ~ { --. ,~ r . :·:~~ 25 100 "' li'lch=SClft. ORA~ BY DESIGNED BY r SMB KPK CAil !WO BUIIN[IS CHECKED BY APPRO;ED BY DAYS BEFOR[ YOU DIG WTJ MAV ••II DAT£ HIJO-l24-S555 , IJJ Consulting Engineecs NOVEMBER, 2009 1601 Fiffh Avenue, Suite 1600 S C A L E: Seattle, Washington 98101-3665 --·· -··-·----------., JOB No.:109118 {206)622-5822 Fax(206)622-8130 BY CHO. I APPR. REVISION NU. DAT£ LAKE WA$HINGTQN . , . . -:...- ~:-··---- MA TCHUNE -SEE lHIS SHEET EX BAXTER SEWER LIFT STATION :;. ··I~---~-" > ---------------- 50,052 SQ FT 1.15 AC\ OUENDALL TERMINALS 4350 LAKE WASHINGTON BOULEVARD, RENTON, WASHINGTON EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS SHEET FIG 2 ~ 0: ~ " ; t i;~ ~~ ,// --. ---~'Z_ if.''' ; '--'--- " i-; f; ~i // // ·, I, ------ ------ L/.h. E \l-1 '· c H 111 1 '-.T,-, [\ .. J I 1/ /-\ _' ', \_7 ,_I ------ ru·AL SIii:_ SUf,:11v1At?Y ---- ZC,"·J[: COF CC:L,PAi·JCY ''l"E: B & ~l & P-2 SITE PARLll·JI_: BA\El"• O\J 300 TOTAi R[:',,:i[NTIA" LNITS @ 1, 1 U;·g,1/Ul·JI I = 81:10.Cf)CCJS' 210,".)CCnsf T:)TAL ~i[T orr1c[ 1.2,1:.,o,JC£:5' ~ROSS) i:ii'W~1a;:r ; ~'6k1L(_;2°t~o6t~t~k~1~J~:~1~:, f-' I & " 2 -Olil.L. PARi<lf,,-:; (PAFKlfJG 'C'< 7,C·:01'. CM's'~ ll·J ',lf./c!Cll_lRC.'1 P/\Rf,.ING 0'1 STRIJCTLRF -'-l ~8 CAF'':o . PARl\l~J,:; 0'1 f-"A.'al I.Jfi~JAfiDlnD = 1 / CARS TC-:-AL PAR!<' 'IG S1l0'M1 = 2.215 U,PS TC~AL PAPI< ··1G -l-_, F.F FFl.,JCFO '':'; FO'I Ai•A r<'lQI_Jlc;'lL'. f-'A~Kl~JG •, ·TCTAI AIJJL''ff-_r; -'Ak-XJ1; ',/'/ ~., 2% JEl•uc~..:)t,, FOR ADI>. RE:JUIRED 1"1AF, .. NG PAPl<lf,G A55' . .IMPTI0:~5 Rrs1DfTITIAI @ 1 :c; STAI L ,, PER l)fJIT = 1 y_-,.~. 1-:lC•Jlf.:U) f-'ARl•,;N(: SPA,-:Es SHOPr'1~1G CEtsTER. 5 -44 '<[-(,IL i'£. R[T,\JRAfH @ 4 S~,l,11 ·~ D[:;, 1,:JiJ~'~ot = ~22 RE.'Jl,'IRELl f-'Af.:K N(; 'c."''IClS OFFICE @ 3 STAI L':o PFR l ,C:l:1·, ,sf ----i:.Y: ..'l()VRlD pt,c;>Kf~,,-':PACES T:JT,\L R:OUIR[C = 2, 52 PA.RKI~.,::: ·c:,p;;-:F:) --- ' RESIDU,-AL l~NITS ARE 1/1,IOOgsf GR:JSS rL01JR /\FFA ;\•/CJ!(,.Cc: US[A[JL[ SITE A'?FA F.JR '<:'"Sl.l['~Tlll,~ DEN'',ITv ::. 1 7' TCTAL SIT = 88·1.822gs· (2:J.3 ACF:E"S: + :itlAC--lfl) PARC:fL ~.,),O:l:'.c1sf STRrr 'A'. ·'.60" PJW:, =. 52,IJ.)2,]~f (I 1q ACF.E:.c,: 1 5 ACF.ES'. 93"'.874~~( 1.21 46 ;.,::;RE STREF:-;-·c, /y STREET ·c = 'll/.11 !'-ISi ,.2.c.c ACRES', PRl'/AH; L:·RIVE:. Ll' & PR;\IATE DRb'C: '[" ----IL.8 ,sf (:J.34 A:::.RES; ~~~·~tEsr~~~'fs ·,1,· -&. 1 ·'~·· 3 f'\(r, {~·-t~1Cffccs6~1·/ES ·o· & r & r· · 84,}87g~• (4 . .!."~ ,c.,_~RFSJ I i:'4,28790/ 750,587gs' : 17.23 1,cRc:s;, 81>1 ~ :::,!:: ~~ ___ ,// ....__ ___ /_:__,.., _ _'.-'l':'.,rl -~_:'~~·:.__';>_.'.'_S:'p[~I.:".'::_ __ /,,..~ ~ -~) TCIAL '_l',;lA~LE:. SI ... E:. AP[A -934,c',7"-g~' - .h.LLOW[C :,cs;c,c,,rn.~.l ,H..JITS (Q 50/A'.'RE 8U0 H,_'::,ID!:.Nf1AL <_lfJITS ';fiCV,''1 \ 0C2··:c';;}~r \ /~, \,·P;:i,.i,.'"-\ ( \ /,/,',,','/' \<.\ ·~ ,/ \ \ \ ,c SW OUAJ \\\ 4~() PE~IDEWIA~ UNIT~. (788 C'AflS ii! 1 75 ~LQL.H~~\-.\,;;, RE51DENTl,;L 81J1LDIN~S ~ '-95,JCOgs_f +I-\"\;.o PARKlt,G ,;;ARAG[ ~-I & r----2 ----.3n~_41,)1s' \~.'1 CCURTYAR'.': -t,4,;0~JS' \\'~ \ \ ;<'. _0.5C(gsf ':·ll~>PFIN:; u:wu< ;J, l-'-1 l.~.l CARS R~XIIRED) ~-, <.( 3JOq~f ~ETAIL & 4 SQ·Jqsf PESTA~RA,'H) _ \Iii~ 0 C C ·n,JCCgsf r,Ff1CE l~.571ns') ,r,; "'-.! (L~ CM'~ RLSklR~~) \t \t E57 !,'IN l,'Jl,' ~0-Ai RFOUIRFO ''\, \ ~~:~>· ' .:·, __ /~ EI I TCTAL s,..,owN ON P I -'.: P ~ W/ 2% T•J J[ Dl::··IJCl[l) f,~i, ;,[)A '<l0L'IPCl.1EWS {46 I\ S[ & IJ[ CUAD) SE OU,\C . 7S P::SIDEfHI/\L Jtms (30G CARS @ 1 7S/1J'1IT REQu,prn: RESIDENflAL BU LC·INGS -192,SCC·y~f ,/ PARC.If,(; •~A'<AS[ P----1 & P----2 ~ 2Cl0.!~4~st CCllRllAR: ----7".4J::'.Js' - 97,SCr.g,f OFTICE (i'13,",72~sfJ '.251 :AflS w:JUIF"<E.D) 4,'.",0Jsf '<ETAIL @ P I (re :ARS p;:-~"-ll'sFQ:, I O:JCCg~( DFTICE :a.~7~ ,,/1 ,';; P ? (75 CARS REOv'IRC:=:) COi Lill·J f.'IJ~I !Qlf,L. R[QIJIPED .. ' \\:~,(/' \\ TCTAI 'ii-HJWN OfJ f'----1 & D----2 II'/ n; I[• Gl [)\:.LJLJCIUJ HJ-< /\Ut, RlQ~l,P~'JIEldS ~nRA A.BCvE ~·1Nl',IJM RtOU,RFD;, a "" i:, i:' t ~ i 2 -~· ~ -~~ :.J~t,i_ ~ y ;;' zt0 sc5 .• ~ , !ii6:z"-5 "' ~ .-f ... 12~>;;:-:at:i' ! ~ o::g;:,:g~6 . ffi ~"ft~ ~. /!ff;{" '•\1?1}·{l¥V }J 0 ~ 0 lie ~~: ~::i::s,-. EQ-,.'i: O:;,c -JE,.g ~;~iii : Cl::NTERur,E :02 '~ 1~m,F~:.~j ' " .,.. I I 1,)T CC'J\IE?AGE ~ .,Y s· -o-A.L PUBL,: STREETS 'A' <-R" + r. ARFA ~ 57,:l.o?1sf + l(i',Tl70st -1~g.·4,igst ~ Ti'1TAI_ PAR~IO.,'] STRIJ(TLIRE G~1)Ut·,D I 'JV[f>A,~[ 471,,i,Jlgsl --~~-.... --e T(YCAL LCT Cr;'JEflAGE ----YJ4.~/4~sl -l':,9.149gsf ~ 775,725~0" • ~R•,E 24· DF'':VE • • 0 0 " 0 0 2 ' i i .. .. ) "- ~ ' " " li1 ,: C " C ~ TOTAL LGT c,~·!ERAGE / T•JTAL (;P,JSS SIT A'<(A ~ -111.':,L)fg,t / :1:.n::n,r ~ 6(•.5:'; 11-/PE~\IIOUS AREA INCUC[S PRlv',~T= DR1vc·; ::iu-DC:FC: \l,:T l(J(;_ul.mJ,; ':,IRUCIUfi:.S & Fl_•3uc ',NAY -:,5,844~' ~'A;<IMIJ~' BU ~Dlk; HC_lr;Hl ALLOW':.D I',; 10 STORIES C,R 125 FEET BUIL]lt,G HEIGi-iT s1,owr, = 7 ST:JRIES OR SC 'TE-;-+/- NW OL,,\D 1 ;; RE.Sl[)E.NIIAL IJ~ITS L306 CARS@ 1.75/UNT RCC"Ji',FDJ f.'E.S1CU11IAL BUILD f1GS ~ · 92.500gsf < / PAP~ltJG SARA<~F P----1 ,V f'----2 ----14",l ltoUJS" CO~R-YARD = 7-3~Cgsl 10.500gsf SHOf'PriG crnrrn@ R----1 ,:,11 C,\f.'~ f-'E.OL'IR:C.'.::) 1.6,J~og~r RF:T~ I_ & 4,5Cl•,;sf RES-Al.''<MHj 10.COOgsf OFFIC (8 571norl !J ~-~ (LC, CARS RECU R!cC: 37·1 M IJIIJU~ TCTAL R!c:•'JIR[D TOTAL SH,:•WN Gt1 P----1 & F-: '//,' 2'<; TO 8~ D!c'.::UCEC· FOR AJA '<EOU REMEN~·s fJE. OU\D) I\IE O'.J/1C ~;)h~·:i~,1~,~::2l:: )~;,sz2csf) cc,•_;PrYARD ----9.0G8gcf (2'.:-CARS RC:QUIRED) ~ 157.~80gs• 4,il~r.~sf RET~L l1I f'-1 119 CARS rc::JIJI'<[(>, 20.0COgsf OFFICC {' 7. I 43cor;, @ P----2 'C,J CA;S RFCUl~FO) .l2J f,11iw,~,· ·o;~L RE.C,IJ,REO J80 l'.Jl~L SH·~WN m1 P 1 & P ~ W 1 ?% TO RF r,rnu:-.F· FOR A·,~ "fff)llf'EMEN~: (" rn" '"°'" Ln__ ~)- MINlf.!IJO, P~~·IJl'<ED; n 'I\''''' I <..-,.;'..jl ,Jl/1'-\ ___ _ SITE F'L4•~ TER lvl \i/'",LS '· 11 ,, E '-1 \ I _!' '•._, VIUELLEF' . """'''"""'~ " R ""'~' '. . I "ji'·~· il"·f>' " ~.. C --__ ·_ _ __ __ >tF ~,;=w 48 5T-flFFT 'A PROPE.RT'i li'IE AFl"ER STREET z..:.~)., • ..,.ii,;.;...&.,,...;.,;--._i;;f J, -----.:-:~ .. -~"'-.. _/ ___ _ , I I <'.'.";c.,, "· 'J ] . .. c, .. ,cc.·., . '"rn,c eeceem "'" " / ....... ~: 1 ·-.. -I & I -"',. "· LEG["D c, ~ CUMPS-EP / RECrC.E !:11,1 Ac~ C n, ,-.. I b. -F '.:_- ,, ~1 _: \~• 1_.,, ~) CEI\JTURY F) ,• ,·· 1=-11· f-', \_, J IP 11-10-09 '"'A.LI. <_~ 1\11:-;ric~~ A.RE BASED c,r,~ CO\C:TTUA.L P_A~~ "NHICH J'.J?[ AF'F'F:',JX::t,JA-E A.[··~C SUB.JlC I I~) CHAN CF Ll\,t.; / ('1 r,,, ._,' \1 !"3/ c- E!IST flC BNRC/ ,· " C C < ~---/-+, ; +-------- ~---~---- ::;RAPHIC SCALE Eo· o 6D' 12•)' ~ 1 S[AIF I' ~ ~CJ / / ·/· ~ _,nuw •~~ Clll -~IC.'AL se•~E ~ E;<IT$TAIR ~ L~8B', ~SU, '°RC:nPr,-I IJE ·--Pfi:opt.<?,-;. ;)iVt s:::, c-;,5)sf ·----PROPfP~Y L,J[ ' I~ I, 1;;:: 1\l' 1\i J" i I I 11 ., ' ' ., g i !1 i; ~ o 'Jl[60 c'-" " L I .JC ' ,, 1}2.0,:,, v~ if :,:~~li ,,~, 11f~~} f- d) _J[ <( z E z (L I) .J CM:§ Q w II_ 1--l u <l) <I <I (L 3 _J[ L >- _JI) ~ <[ l-I z / O 111 rn [II u z w ::::} e ' ' C C C . w <o ~ " ii: 0 • 0 . 00 < . . ' ,( 0--".= . ' C S " 0 w • ' zo 0 <t:~l-s __J :::i: l'. s W O < (L O ' Z o C < C 0- ~1;·i~ 3 <l) ! i ' I f I I J l ~ ~ f i i 1 ! ~ ' ~ "' j '.\ \ \ \ .~ . ·· . · · LAKE WASHTNGTON . •. . ... '1· .. ::,~•Dy -----• --.. .;,-.. t ' ,,----14~.' _/ '· ______ .,,--,--"'-~--1 ' / ,. r .. /~ ' /'-,-,, w ,,__ w • ' ' w-•w '' ---w --w---------'w ' / -i • •1••••••..i ••• J •• L •• 1·······1········ , , 1 L I I l.W.~-1 ~,.,_\ ' SW TRll3UTARY REA 1 SSWH f3S-1 RIM=:c30.99 a· IE=20.77 (S)11N a· lE.:=io_,_sJ 1~1C!Jl_ ....... SE TRIBUTARY AREA -~-~~;¥ -~:,- EX 12' SS I I I I L _____ T __ : 11 SW : 1-ff TRIBUTARY AREA 2 FH I I I I I I I I ,--J I I I L---, I I I I I I I I I I I L-- ____ :~: 'lo+~ '.:: ..... '' p --'-7 ,i;41? ---.-- ' ' : I' ;.J l-,' : 1 .f j DRA°M'.I BY DESIGNED BY L ·,:,,,c,,· r: A:!"' SMB KPK CAil !WO BIJSIH[SS T CHE{l(EO BY APPRO\Ul BY DAYS IIIJOR[ YOU ~ WTJ MAV •all DA TE 1-800-414-5555 IJI Coo,uWng Eng;neers NOVEMBER, 2009 1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1600 S C A L E: Seattle, WashH'lgton 98101-J665 --.. --------.~.-JOB No.:109118 (206)622-5822 Fax{206}622-81JO REVISION No. DATE BY CHD. I APPR. -'~:~, 3: .. '·'1 I I SSMH fJW I RIM=28.-49 I -~+'='Jl.lHEl. OOl ! I : N~ TR!BUTARY •I AREA 2 I __ J SSIAH f1 RIM=32.34 12" IE=1B.49 (W) IN EX 12" IE=18.39 (S) IN EX 12" IE=18.39 (N) OU so~~_, 'Ex ,;" SS ·l.J'-., ... r- '"•,._.,, __ _ NE ----~ --·-··-·· - LAKE WASHINGTON \_ . ,,,,-ORDiNARY HIGH WA ITR MARK "--\ } NW TRIBUTARY AREA 1 SSIAH jJN RIM=J0.84 a' IE=20.92 (S) <JJT -··~· =· ===-''"'=··,' ;-· -· f,_'i' \ ..,._ \ • & • ,, · 1·' • C I I = I . . I = 1 i ~? , I I r , w .I II ~ ,,: 11 ' "''. I I I QUENDALL TERMINALS c;; __ -4 I,_ ,~-1_<_. r 4350 LAKE WASHINGTON BOULEVARD, RENTON, WASHINGTON PROPOSED SEWER PLAN LEGEND: • • • • • • TRIBUTARY AREA/BOUNDARY / 25 50 100 1nchz5Qft. SHEET FIG 4 KPFF Consulting Engineers BUILDING USE AND DISCHARGE POINT PER TRIBUTARY AREA Trib. Area ID Resid. Office Retail Rest. Dischar[e _!~ [UNITS] [SF] [SF] [SF] NE Trib. Area 0 117500 4800 0 Reach 3 SE Trib. Area 175 107500 4500 0 Reach 2 SW Trib Area 1 360 0 0 0 Reach 2 -- SW Trib. Area 2 90 10000 6300 4500 Reach 4 NW Trib. Area 1 100 0 0 0 Reach 3 NW Trib. Area 2 75 10000 6000 4500 Reach 4 - Total 800 245000 21600 9000 Reach 1 BUILDING USE PER REACH Reach ID Resid. Office Retail Rest. Rest. -> [UNITS] [SF] [SF] [SF] [SEATS3] Reach 1 800 245000 21600 9000 396 Reach 2 535 107500 4500 0 0 Reach 3 100 117500 4800 0 0 - Reach 4 165 20000 12300 9000 396 INFILTRATION/INFLOW Site Size [AC] I Flow [GPO/AC] Flow [GPM] 20.3 I 1100 16 PIPE CALCULATIONS Reach ID Upstrm. MH Downstrm. MH Length Inner Dia Upstrm. !E [FT] [IN] [FT] REACH 1 SSMH #2 SSMH #1 335 12 19.23 - REACH 2 SSMH #3S-2 SSMH #3S-1 278 8 21.88 SSMH #3S-1 SSMH #2 278 8 20.67 REACH 3 SSMH #3N SSMH #2 340 8 20.92 - REACH 4 SSMH #3W SSMH #2 271 8 20.64 Quendall Terminals Downstrm. IE [FT] 1849 20.77 19.56 19.56 19.56 UNIT FLOW AND PEAK FACTOR PER BUILDING USE Use Unit Flow. [GPO] Residential 175 [per unit2J Dffice 0.2 [per sq ft] Retail 0.3 [per sq ft] Restaurant 3 50 [per seat] 1/14 1100 [per acre] NOTES 1, Unit flows include normal infiltration Assumes 1.75 residents per unit Peak Factor 4 4 - 4 4 1 Restaurant conversion: 1 seat= 22.7 square feet of restaurant Infiltration due to high groundwater FLOW PER REACH Reach ID Resid. Office Retail Rest. Ill [GPMJ [GPM] (GPM] [GPM] [GPM] Reach 1 389 136 18 55 16 Reach 2 260 60 4 0 4 Reach 3 49 65 4 0 4 Reach 4 80 11 10 55 4 Slope C Oru11 -Oru11 Ode•,gn % Cap [FTIFn [CFS] [GPM) [GPM] - 0.0022 0.013 1.68 754 614 81% 0.0040 0.013 0.77 344 328 95% 00040 0 013 0.77 344 328 95% 0.0040 0.013 0.77 344 122 35% ----- 0.0040 0.013 0.76 343 161 47% Sewer Report November, 2009 Total [GPM] 614 328 122 161 Vru11 Origin of Flow [FPS] REACH 2, REACH 3, REACH 4 2.14 SE Trib. Area, SW Trib. Area 1 2.19 2.19 NE Trib. Area, NW Tnb. Area 1 2.20 SW Trib. Area 2, NW Trib. Area 2 2.19 Figure 5: Calculations KPFF Consulting Engineers 11/2009 RH2 ENGINt:ER1NG. INC ht1p:IJwww.1tt2.com maill.l!Mt~rt12.com 1.W0.720.80~2 WES'TERN .WASHINGTON 12100 NE 195"' SI .. Suite 1 DO B01hell. WA 9BD11 (tel) 425.951.5400 (fax) 425.398.2774 454 Wes1 Horton Rom! Be!lngham, WA 98226 (tcQ 360.676.0836 (fax) 360.676.0837 Ont Pacific Building 621 Pacific. Aolelille, Suite 104 Tacom11, WA 98~02 (!el) 253.272.3059 EASTERN WASHINGTON 300 Simon Street SF., Sui1e S East Wem1tct1ee, WA 98BOZ (tel) 509.806.2000 (fa~) 509.886.?313 KITSAP PENINSULA 600 Kitsap Street, Suile 101 Port Orchard. WA !18366 (1e1J 360.876.7!!60 (fax) l6D.876. 798S. Quendall Terminals August 30, 2006 Mr. Gordon W8.b,>"Ster OmegR Contractors P.O. Box 430 Duvall, WA 98019-0430 Sent Via: f.-A1ai/ and US Mat! Subject: Baxter Lift Station Replacement Project Sewage Flows for Proposed Lift Station Dear Gordy: We have complete~\ out flow calcuhtions for the proposed lift station that would replace the City-owrted Baxter Lift Station, and serve the proposed Connor Homes Development, the future Seahawk Facility and the 8 acres of mixed density property that fits between the tw"o facilities. RH2 Engince.:r.ing has followed the rccoinmendt:d Renton design standards and tl1e Department of Ecology guidelines for lift station sizing to calculate the expected peak hour flow at the station when all properties an:-cmnpletely built out. The .results of the calculations ar.c a~ follows. • When the Sea.Im.wk football team is not using their proposed facility the peak hour flow will be 307 gptn. • When the Seahawk football team is using their proposed practice facilit)' the peak hour flow will be 594 gpm. \Vith such a high variability is expected peak hour flow to the lift station we are recommending that you con.;ider using a ttipl.ex pumping sy,,;tem that could match the projected 594 gpm flowrate ~vi.th two pumps operating at the same time. A single pump in operation would be expected to pump the projected 307 gpm. A copy of the calcu1ations has been attached for your review. Sewer Report Figure 6: Baxter Lift J:\datti-OCl\206·081\0S2S06.ltr•\'WStation Sewer Report KPFF Consulting Engineers 11/2009 i\-ft. Cordon \Xlagstcr l\ugu,t .oil, 2006 Page 2 If you have any questions or we can be of further assistilnce please do not hesitate to contact. us. \'<le appreciate the opportunity to assist you with this project and we lonk forwarcl to working with you on the design and constrnction of the facility. Sincerely, RH2 ENGINEERING, INC. Mark Miller, PE Project f\fanager MM/sp/cc Enclosure: Flo,v Calculations cc: Mr. Dave Christensen, City of Renton Quendall Terminals Sewer Report Figure 6: Baxter Lift ):'.Jata\0Cl\.201i,-O~l\(!R2506-lt,-{Station Sewer Report KPFF Consulting Engineers RH2 ENGINEERING, INC. BAXTER LIFT STATION -FLOW CALCULATIONS Project: Job No.: Designer: Date: Version: Baxter Lift Station OCI 206-081 Mark Miller, P.E, August 30, 2006 Final !DESIGN FLOW CALCULATIONS joavelopment Calculations~ Barbee MIii (Connor Homes} Number of Units 140 Persons/Unit 2.7 per Renton guldellnes (gal/person/day) Flow Rate Average sewage Flow: Peaking Factor: Design Sewage Flow: 100 26.3 gpm 4 (based on basin size) 105.0 gpm Tributary Area: Design Ill Rate: Design 1/l Flow: 19.3 Acres 1500 gal/acre/day 20.1 gpm Total Design Flow:j 125.1 jgpm T olal Oesign Flow: Q peak hourly (max. rate Of wastewater flow) Notes: 1 • 21 of the 161 dwelings in the development will flow to Lake wa. No. 2. 2 lsaahawk Faclllty Number of Employees 75 Tributary Area: Flow Rate 15 (gal/person/day) Design 111 Raie: Average Sewage Flow: 2.3 gpm Peaking Factor: 4.0 Design Sewage Flow w/o Team present: 12.5 "Design Sewage Flow: 300.0 gpm Design 1/1 Flow: 3.0 1500 3.1 Acres gal/acre/day gpm Total Design Flow:j 303.1 jgpm Total Design Flow: Q peak hourly {max. rate of wastewater flow) Notes: 1 •oesign sewage flow was given by Mechanical Engineer with Flak and Kurtz 2 Average Sewage Flow is calculated based on an a hr per day now duration loevelopment Calculations-Mixed Denstty between Barbee MIii Site and Seahawk Faclllty Developable Acres 5 Tributary Area: 5.0 Flow Rate 2800 (gals/acre/day (gpad)) Number of Units 75 TrlbutafY Area: 3.0 Persons/Unit 2.4 per Renton guidelines Flow Ra1e 100 {gal/person/day) Average Sewage 22.2 gpm Design Ill Rate: 1500 Flow: Peaking Factor: 4 (based on basin size) Design Sewage Flow: 88.9 gpm Design 1/1 Flow: 8.3 Acres Acres galr'acre/daof gpm Total Design Flow:! 97.2 )gpm Total nesign Flow: Q peak heurly (max. rate of wastewater How) Notes: 1 8 acres between Barbee Mill and Seahawk Facility is expected to be mixed use density 2 !contrlbuUon Flow from Misty Cove Lift Station Average Sewage Flow: 18.0 gpm From telemetry data average:s from 2003 -Present Peaking Factor: 4 (based on basjn size) 11/2009 8/30/2006,11:36 AM Quendall Terminals 1 of 2 Sewer Report Figure 6: Baxter Lift Station Sewer Report KPFF Consulting Engineers Notes: RH2 ENGINEERING, INC. BAXTER LIFT STATION -FLOW CALCULATIONS Design Sewage Flow: 72.0 gpm Total Design Flow:j 72.0 fgpm 1 Existing lift sta1ion pump capacity is 200 gpm, 2 Total Design Flow: Q peak hourly (max. rale of wastewater flow) I Contribution Flow from Existing Baxter Lift Station Average Sewage Flow: 0.0 gpm Peaking Facior: 4 (based on basin size) Design Sewage Flow: 0.0 gpm Total Design Frow:j 0.0 1gpm Notes: Currenlly no services exisl on the Baxter LS. 2 The Misty Cove LS pumps to Baxter at approximately 200 gpm Currently no services exist on the Baxter LS with the exception of Misty Cove. Total Design Flow: Q peak hourly (max. rate of wastewater flow) !Total Flows from all $Ourc:es I u.:='-'--'="-';A::'v':'e,::ac:g':ce'as::C.,.,,':'::'ag::ec-F"1"0w=: --;:6-;:8-;;_9:--g:cp:-:m::-----------,B",::c,be=e:-+:-M=is"ty,--C"o=ve-=--+c-:cM;;clx=ed=oensity + Seahawk offseason Total t/1 Flow: 31.6 gpm Barbee+ Seahawk + Mixed Density Peaking Factor: 4 (based on popt1lation) Design Sewage Flow: 275 Seahawk Peak Flow· 300.0 gpm gpm Total Oeslgn FlowQ. 307 Expected design flow with Seahawks in the offseason. IDtal Design Flo w/Seahawk: 594 Expected design flow w~h Seahawks practice at the facility. 11/2009 8/30/2006, 11 :36 AM Quendall Terminals 2 of2 Sewer Report Figure 6: Baxter Lift Station Sewer Report Consul/1ng Engineers Notes By: Tom Jones Telephone Record Date: 6116/09 Time Begin: Time End: With: Dave Christensen Company: City of Renton Public Works Address: Phone: Fax: Regarding: Quendall Sewer Capacity, Anticipated Sewer Flows KPFF Project#: 109118 CC: Campbell Mathewson, Mark Veldee Conversation: I called Dave to discuss the existing Baxter Sewer Pump Station capacity and its ability to handle the anticipated flows from the Quendall Terminals development currently being planned. Existing Baxter Pump Station: • The existing sewer pump station was designed to include conservative flows from the Quendall site (hotel & office only 100gpm). The conservative approach was based on the information at the time related to traffic constraints that would limit development for the site. • The current location of the Baxter Pump Station is within the center of the access drive between the Seahawks and Quendall, which will require street access between the two sites to "meander" around the PS. Dave indicated when the PS was planned the access between these two sites did not exist. Proposed Quendall Flows: • KPFF has run estimated peak flows based on the 5/7/09 and 6/16/09 Lance Mueller layouts in the range of 500gpm based on a peaking factor of 4.0. The City uses a peaking factor of 2.0 for individual site masterplans where specific site density is being planned and the change in peak flow (change is use/density) is not anticipated to be a major divergence in the future over the original masterplan. A 2.0 peaking factor would provide an estimated sewer demand of 250gpm less the 100gpm available results in a 150gpm capacity deficit. • Dave indicated the existing pump station has the ability to be modified to increase the existing pump station capacity by 300+-gpm. This would include changing pump impellers and adding addfonal wet well capacity, relatively minor modifications (less than $100k) that would be a Quendall developer cost. 1601 F1fihAvenue. Swte 1600 Seattle. WA 98101 (206) 622-5822 Fax (206) 622-8130 Seattle Tacoma PortJand Everett San Francisco Oakland Sacramento Los Angeles /,vine San Diego Phoenix St Louis Figure 7 • Other available options are installing larger pumps but Dave did not believe that would be necessary as the existing pumps were specifically chosen to allow impeller modifications as they anticipated the need for additional capacity in the future. Fees: • Quendall has recently been assessed a capacity charge of $166k for their "fair share" of the Baxter Pump Station. This assessment was based on 111gpm of capacity. I asked Dave if future assessments would be required if the flows exceeded the 111 gpm. Dave indicated there would be NO additional capacity charge assessments for the Quendall site only mechanical pump station upgrades to increase the pump station capacity to meet our proposed s~e demand. l<P.r:F C:JilStiiti11~j E1 .'(_11/ .'t:'81::, Toleplmne Recnnl Nr:v8n1/Jer 1 !. :2001.J Figure 7